1888-1989 Archive Minutes
Minutes 1975 - 1989
12/24/2013 8:09:32 AM
12/23/2013 11:53:07 AM
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
All rights reserved.
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View plain text
5/18/87 <br />being that with respect to the leafy trees, the entire building will be below <br />those in varying levels. The completed building as shown on the sectional is <br />roughly 30 feet lower than the existing buildings of Highland Villa and <br />Interlachen Court. Mr. Bjornnes said they next considered what could be done to <br />add additional screening during the winter months along the west side and talked <br />to Mr. Jonason and Mrs. Smith who are closest to the development. He said they <br />have also talked to NSP who has an easement of 50 feet for their high voltage line <br />along the project's west border. NSP has said that Namron could use their land <br />for potential additional screening by adding berming with coniferbus trees on top. <br />This would be subject to NSP's review and would have to be within certain limits <br />so as to not interfere with the high voltage lines. Mr. Bjornnes showed revised <br />sectionals of the project to give everyone more perspective on the sight lines. <br />He pointed out that the proposed additional screening should effectively block out <br />any view of the proposed building from the adjacent neighbors. <br />to be as private as possible fob the benefit of the neighbors as well as tbe <br />people who will live in the building. Mr. Bjornnes concluded that they have met <br />the seven conditions of the ordinance as originally approved and that they are <br />willing as good neighbors to do some mope, to take care of the trees and to work <br />with the signalization agreement. He noted that.Nick Palaia, chief design <br />architect, and Alan Hipps, landscape architect, were present to also respond to <br />questions. <br />sent to the Council from residents who believe in the project and Namron's ability <br />to prepare a project that will be a source of pride to the City. <br />then asked for public comment. Bill Mahoney. 5309 Ayrshire Boulevard. read a <br />I He said they want <br />Mr. Bjornnes added that a fair number of letters of support have been <br />Mayor Courtney <br />prepared statemkt on behalf of more than 350 signer: from the Highlands <br />neighborhood of a petition proposing that the density of the project be reduced to <br />12 units per acre which is within the guidelines for this zoning request. <br />could be accomplished by removing the third story of the present proposal and <br />would leave everything else that Namron has included for siting and saving of <br />green space. <br />guidelines set forth but would also allow the residents' concerns to be heard and <br />acted upon by the Council who should be guided by overall judgement to these <br />subjective concerns as well as the hard line specifications to be met by a <br />developer. <br />Connor Schmid, 4711Meadow Road, stated he was appearing on behalf of Mr. and Mrs. <br />L. J. Jonason, 5300 Glenbrae Circle, and Wilma Smith, 5304 Glenbrae Circle. <br />He stated that the developer has presented a number of changes, graphics, <br />illustrations and representations with regard to elevations, tree height, etc. He <br />urged the Council to examine that detail and to give the residents and his clients <br />an opportunity to look into that to see what it really means. He presented the <br />points set out in his letter to the Council of May 12, 1987 as follows: 1) that <br />the Planning Commission gave little indication of an intent to re-examine any of <br />the factors which bear upon the question of degree of intensity, 2) that he <br />questioned whether his clients had received notice of the preliminary hearing in <br />August, 1987, 3) that the drawings submitted by the proponent did not meet the <br />specific requirement of the Zoning Ordinance that the developer show the property <br />within 100 feet of the border of the property to be rezoned, 4) that the elevation <br />diagram does not identify the sections through which it was drawn, 5) that at the <br />preliminary hearing other apartment and commercial development for the Grandview <br />area which are significant contributors to both traffic and density problems in - the general proximity of the proposed rezoning were not fully considered, 6) the <br />impact of the site's irregular shape has not been considered, 7) that no <br />consideration appears to have been given to the principle of buffering by stepping <br />down densities in areas which approach single family residential areas, and 8) <br />that little original mature tree cover will be left and that he questioned the <br />developer's statement that there will be $1 million worth of landscaping and the <br />storm water drainage "benefits" to the area. In conclusion Mr. Schmid said his <br />clients were willing to accept the minimum high density of 12 units per acre for <br />the proposed development. <br />reconsideration and review the concern of the Highlands residents and other single <br />family residents who will be impacted by this decision. <br />these questions: 1) whether the Jonasons and Wilma Smith had been sent notice at <br />the time of the preliminary hearing, 2) clarification of the definitions in the <br />Comprehensive Plan of medium density and high density and why the subject property <br />was identified for high density, and 3) if conditions, i.e. Sandscaping, can be <br />imposed with approval of the project. Mr. Larsen replied that according to the <br />Planning Department records both the Jonasons and Wilma Smith appear on all <br />mailing lists for the Namron project and that neither mailed notice was returned <br />as undeliverable. <br />they were applied to the subject property, Mr. Larsen said the factors considered <br />were the history of the site, the density of surrounding similar type of <br />developments, the proximity to a minor arterial street and its proximity to the <br />Grandview commercial area. During review it was felt that the subject property <br />fit within the category forihigh density primarily because of those factors. <br />Attorney Erickson advised that the Zoning Ordinance reads that we can condition <br />final approval and those conditions must be met to the satisfaction of the Planner <br />before final approval becomes effective. <br />landscaping plans are given to the city for its review and approval and those <br />plans are then guaranteed with a bond in the amount of 150% of the estimated cost <br />This <br />It would not deny Namron the opportunity to build within the <br />Mr. Mahoney concluded that the Council then be guided accordingly. <br />. <br />He asked that the Council give this matter careful <br />Member Smith raised <br />-. <br />Regarding the definitions in the Comprehensive Plan and how <br />There is an ordinance process by which <br />7 <br />I
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.