11/25/2003 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

to move forward, so to get out of this commission he has to satisfy Planning Commission completely. Mr. Yager questioned what they were present for then. He has received a site plan, which does not show dimensions or anything that could be turned over to someone for a good authoritative review. He questioned how far the buildings were from the property lines. Mr. Bepryhill suggested that the buildings had not moved and this is a study of sidewalks and pedestrian traffic only. Mr. Yager the plans they just received were no more than an esthetic graphic of revisions, which have, been done since the first submittal. Therefore, what ever dimensions, were or were not on those documents still exist. Mr. Berryhill voiced that they took what Planning Commission and Architectural Review Board were saying and incorporated into a graphic presentation to see if the development is moving in the right direction. This is an exercise of going forward, instead of being mired into repetitively resubmitting plans. This is the exercise of going to the Board of Zoning Appeals saying yes, the esthetics does de-emphasize the big-box look. By using, different architectural styles it brakes up the massing. He reiterated that without the Board of Zoning Appeals approval the project is dead. Mrs. Hoff-Smith questioned if in fact building "B" would be 3-story as indicated at the Architectural Review Board meeting. 1VIr. Berryhill suggested it is being thought about, but not officially decided as of yet. Mr. Spalding commented that if in fact building "B" is 3-story it would affect parking and other amenities as well. Mr. Berryhill suggested that the total units would remain 100 those on building "B" would just be larger. Mr. Yager remarked that it had been a month since the applicant was before them and he is still not clear as to what the applicant is asking for. The applicants are looking for the Planning Commission to allow them to go for 1) a variance for underground setback. 2) Is the big- box program to allow the applicants to receive authority from the Board of Zoning Appeals to build something of that size what ever the architectural character may or may not be. 3) Is a height variance for what was the towers but might now or may be additional floors no one is sure yet. Mr. Berayhill suggested that there are already additional floors as buildings "C" &" D" are 3-story. Mr. Yager 4) Is building massing being exceeded. The applicant is saying if they are allowed to proceed and receive their variances, they will return with some of the charters out of the lifestyle book that the board members received. Mr. Berryhill remarked that once they receive the variances they would then know that this is a go project because they will be in compliance to zoning due to the series of variances granted. "We will then return with complete full-scale drawings addressing every single jot and tiddle that Planning Commission would normally see". Mr. Yager questioned if the applicant's architect was present. 10'Ir. Berryhill answered "no". Law Department comments: Mr. O'Malley advised the board members that they are to address building massing only not big- box stores or superstore restrictions. The code under chapter 1149 limits any one building massing to 10% of the development area so there are two variances relating to building massing 1) is for the Target building and 2) is for underground parking facilities. At one time, an applicant was allowed to go directly to the Board of Zoning Appeals for their variances before presenting development plans before Planning Commission. Some of the commissioners may recall applicants explaining they already acquired their variances, therefore any considerations of Planning Commission's could have become muted by the Board of Zoning Appeals determination. The Board of Zoning Appeals is to look at practical difficulty in applying the zoning code as written. They look at legal standards and then make a quasi judicial decision. On the other hand the Planning Commission is making an administrative determination on the planning side and in conjunction with that the Planning Commission is merrily making a recommendation to the Board of Zoning Appeals. There are a number of considerations that have been reviewed and obviously the sooner the better, both for the applicant and the city to address the substantial issues. However, when it comes to the issues before the Planning Commission as Mr. Yager is trying to clarify it is the recommendation on those variances. As been seen in many instances a plan can come before Planning Commission for a once 3