Laserfiche WebLink
<br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />Council Meeting Minutes <br />April 26, 1988 <br /> <br />Williams did not believe the Planning Commission was aware of all <br />of the issues. <br /> <br />5 Ayes - 0 Nayes, Motion Carried <br /> <br />Mattila reviewed staff report for site plan review and a Special <br />Use Permit to construct an apartment building for the elderly in a <br />B-4, Downtown Business, district. Mattila indicated the Planning <br />Commission recoIT,mended denial of the site plan and special use <br />permit with the conditions as listed in the report. <br /> <br />Benke asked if there were resident comments for <br />project at the Planning Commission's public <br />responded there were one. <br /> <br />or against the <br />hearing; Mattila <br /> <br />Regarding the Planning Commission action, Benke understands it was <br />centered primarily on the seven-unit building and asked whether or <br />not council would be reviewing some of the options at this meet- <br />ing. <br /> <br />Locke indicated the architects have prepared a series of d)'awings <br />showing how the 85-unit could be situated on the site with and <br />without the seven-unit building. Locke indicated it is important <br />that action be taken with regard to that building because of the <br />stage of the development (it is on the verge of getting bonds <br />sold, the grant in place, and closi~g en the acquisitions), and <br />construction is scheduled to start as early as Juns. <br /> <br />Locke further explained council cculd direct staff to work with <br />the developer to have it removed in the lowest cost-effective way; <br />and staff feels there must be an effective way to evaluate the <br />choices. <br /> <br />Skip Sorenson, architect, showed renderings with and without the <br />seven-unit building, taking the vegetation on Tenth Street, the <br />pond, and the required fire lanes into account. <br /> <br />Sorenson <br />exterior <br />etc.) to <br />existing <br /> <br />explained, if the <br />will be restored <br />conform with the new <br />grade will be used. <br /> <br />building remains on the site, the <br />(new roof, gables, windows, siding, <br />project and it is anticipated the <br /> <br />Hefner, architect, in response to a Planning Commission request, <br />reviewed drawings of the site, including fire lanes, and the pro- <br />ject's relationship to City Hall and Veterans Park. <br /> <br />From an <br />not to <br />firmed. <br /> <br />architect's perspective, Benke assumed it would be better <br />have the seven-unit building on the site; Sorenson con- <br /> <br />Mattila indicated the Planning Commission's main objection was the <br />seven units being surrounded by parking area and the 85 units <br />encroaching on the park; Benke indicated that could be resolved by <br />removing the seven-unit structure and then building the 85 units <br />closer to Tenth Street N.W. <br /> <br />Page 9 <br /> <br />LP-224/SP-147 <br />Gray Star <br />Corporation/ <br />Golden Pond <br />Report 88-126 <br />