Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />Arden Frills Cou~cil <br /> <br />4 <br /> <br />Sept. ember 14 I 1992 <br /> <br />:o-,Inci ~me:Tlber Halone asked hO~",i the assessed val uatioI: of the <br />building is expected to be affected by the reffioval of the <br />existing walls. Constr-uction Mar!age~, Peter Hilger, stated <br />that the valuation ::f the bujlding is pr~mari:y 1eter~~,ned <br />by the ~ease agreement for the bai:dirrg, that the proposed <br />~hanges are expected to make the site more ~lsah!e, so the <br />assessed valuation is not expected to be negatively <br />aff;c)ctecf ?=:..ppli;ant Joe CaromsIsl comment.ed that. t.l-".'.e <br />expected end result is that the assessed valuatio~ ShCl11d <br />remain th~: same. <br /> <br />C.cU2.ci IDernbey M,al JnE: commented that J-l(':: ",.:'ct:.:d be (;omfo:rt.1'hl,;; <br />with a two-phase approval process only if everyone involved <br />understands that approval of phase one in nc way assures <br />approval of phase two. He added that ~~ is not irtende~ <br />~hat constructioIl be unreasonably delayed, but the applicant <br />r-;"tUst understa.nd the risk in~\J~olved. Pete:: Hilge:: c<:Jrnmented <br />that the applica~t is aware of the risk involved but ~as <br />requested the two-phase approv~l in O~dR;- to begj,n <br />demolition prior to the comirg of inc]em~nt weathFr. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Deputy Clel:k Iagn reported t11at to d~te the~~ has hep~ <br />i~put received f::om the Fjre Ch4ef. AttorIJ y FiJ,'a stated <br />that Fire Chief i.nput is necessary ~t t~j.s t~.me gi~ce the <br />f'~tl]l:e access to th2 htJi10~.Dg is being determi.ned. JIe added <br />th?t it. lil1)~:.t also be und.erst.ood. that t1-.i,e development. <br />:Tl(:J::ato:rium r,..;ould. be T,..;aivecl ;]nly ror phase one at t~]j~. t.:'_;ne. <br />Attorney Fi.l1a exp]ajnRd t~p p\lrprSe of the developme~t <br />.TIoratorium js to aSSll~-e that any pr jec:ts undertRken d\lrirlg <br />the time the zoning ordi.oancp is being ~evised w~'} be <br />consistent with proposed s~ning ordinance i"p,rlSJ,Ons. <br /> <br />EergJ.y st2.ted that the cnl,y aspect of the site plan which is <br />stil] al: issue is parking; the parking plan as submitted may <br />~lot nest the existing or the proposed zoning ordinance. He <br />added, however, that parking requirements are based upon the <br />squa~e footage and use of the building, and the applicant <br />has stated that a portion of the mezzanine of the building <br />will net be used by either tenant, whic~ wo~13 reduce t~e <br />sq'lare footage factor. Bergly roported that employee <br />parking is appropriately located on the southeast carner of <br />t}:e b~~ildiIlg. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />7:~e questio~ 3~ose whethe~ the ~eed for any 'iariances is <br />ar-:ti.cipa.ted. Eel'gly:::oE'il7lented th?t. he de;es not anticil)2te <br />the ~eed for any variances and, in fact, after the <br />~ecDnstructiorr, the site is expected to be mere conforming <br />than i:. j,s new. <br /> <br />':=:\.:.unci,lmember }~ahowa:d. cornment.ec. t.hat. he d.C{,,:.'~. not a:lticipate <br />problems with approval s~ phase two, but the City must <br />maj,~~ai2 control over the approva] p=ocess. He added that <br />