Laserfiche WebLink
<br />, <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Minutes of Regular Council Meeting <br />July II, 1983 <br />Page Three <br /> <br />Miller noted that options have been looked at, resulting in about <br />the same aaount of variancei alternative would be to redesign <br />the house. Miller ssid the proposed house size is considered <br />co.parable to others in the neighborhoodi noted thst the appli- <br />cants have angled the garage in an effort to reduce the variance <br />neededi reported thst the Bo.xd of Appeals and Planning Co..i.- <br />.ion have reco..ended ~pproval. <br /> <br />McAlli.ter .oved, seconded by Hicks, that the Council approve the <br />sideyard setback variance of 5 feet (35' setback from Karth Lake <br />Diive) as reque.ted with Case No. 83-16, based on the following: <br /> <br />1. Sideyard setback requirement of 40' was established <br />sfter lot was approved, snd significantly reduces <br />.ize of building envelope. <br /> <br />2. Unusual configuretion of the lot. <br /> <br />Motion carried unanimously. (5-0) <br /> <br />Case No. 83-14, Minor Subdivision and Site Plan Review, <br />First Phase of Office Development - woodbridge Properties. Inc. <br /> <br />Miller explained that two actions are requested: <br /> <br />1. Minor Subdivision approval, and <br /> <br />2. Site P~an approval of the First Phase of <br />Develop.ent. <br /> <br />Miller referred Council to a transparency of the overall site <br />plan of the total project, showing how Phase 1 will work ~nto the <br />total developmenti reported that the Planning Commission reco..ends <br />approv.l of the .inor .ubdivision and the Pha.e 1 site plan, with <br />the contingencie. listed in Minutes of the July 6th .eeting. <br />Miller noted that the site plan on which the Planning Coa.iasion <br />ba.ed it. recom.endation was the .odified plan presented on 7-6-83. <br /> <br />David Weir reported that he has not received a report from the <br />City Engineer aa yet; noted that Christofferaen haa received <br />calculations and plans, apparently he has no real proble.. with <br />the., aa far aa we know. <br /> <br />Severel slidea were ahown of the exiating develop.ent surrounding <br />the Woodbridge site. Weir described the various site constrainta <br />encountered in developing the plan for the propoaed office develop- <br />.enti wants develop.ent to have no identifiable front and rear. <br />Weir said that because of the .any site restrainta and lack of <br />a star. water manage.ent syste. in the area, they aust construct <br />a watar retention pond about 2/3 acre in size. Weir explained <br />that the proposal is slightly under the ordinance .axi.u. cover- <br />ate require.ent of 75%i could reduce the building foot printa by <br />increasing bUilding heights, but prefers to keep the buildings <br />along County Road E at I-story level, co.patible with the bank, <br />KSI .ervice office, Sitz.ark and the shopping center. <br /> <br />Weir noted that the western portion of the shopping center currently <br />drains onto the .itei waa apparently reconstructed to alleviate <br />an on-aite Arden Plaza water problem. Weir displayed a colored <br />rendering of the office park proposal, as enviaiouned fro. County <br />Road Ei noted that the office park is anticipated to be a major <br />business center and a focal point of the Arden Hill. busineas <br />district. <br /> <br />Weir said the amended site plan presented to the Planning Commiasion <br />on 7-6-83, i. the reault of changes and auggestions by Planner <br />Miller and the City Traffic Engineeri ao.e made just before the <br />Planning Coa.i.sion .eeting. Weir described the proposed recention <br />pond as the focal point of the sitei noted that the landscape plan <br />exceeds all standard. impo.ed along County Rosd E. <br /> <br />-3- <br />