11/22/1976 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

\ Mr. Haws questioned Mr. Haxton as to whether there were two issues, one dealing with the fence and the other dealing with e building coverage. Mr. Haxton replied that there were three issues, those mentioned by Mr. Haws and the other the density provision, which is based on a room count formula and this particular proposal has a discrepancy of some three and a fraction square feet per room short. Council member Haws asked Mr. Haxton to explain the issue regarding building coverage. Mr. Haxton replied that in an RG Garden Apartment Zone building coverage can be 30 percent of the lot area and parking coverage also 30 percent with a maximum of 60 percent coverage of the lot area. He explained that the ordinance has some "and/or" wording that would permit a developer, under one interpretation, to put 60 percent of the lot for building and none under parking. He further explained that the building division interprets the Code to impose a maximum lot coverage of 30 percent for buildings and 30 percent for parking with a maximum of 60 percent. Mr. Haxton stated that the appeal proposes 31.44 percent for building and 26.59 percent for parking coverage for a combined maximum of 58.03 percent, and the building official has interpreted this not to be allowed since 31.44 percent exceeds the interpretation. Council Member Haws then asked for an explanation of the wall or fence issue. Mr. Haxton replied that the proposal has a courtyard arrangement along High Street wherein private court- yards would be enclosed by masonry walls located in required 12-foot front yard setbacks. He explained these walls would be e approximately five feet high and would be more than allowed by the Code. Public hearing was opened. Martha Filer, 235 East 3rd Avenue, chairperson for the East Skinner Butte Friends & Neighbors, replied, stating that there was misinformation or a false statement on the original request by Mr. Blain and Mr. poticha: (1) the tax lot number was incorrect; leaving Lot 900 out of the request; and (2) the statement that visibility was not impaired was false. Mrs. Filer stated that Al Williams, traffic department engineer, did not make a statement on the plans until after the Zoning Board of-Appeals made its decision and that he wrote on the plans that it would require at least 150- to l75-feet vision clearance for the curve and these plans would allow 120-feet maximum. Mrs. Filer stated that Mr. Williams said his policy was to give an opinion, put it on the plans, and ask that the developer and the city work it out. Mrs. Filer said she would like some kind of statement from the city regarding these two discrepancies. Mrs. Filer further stated that she felt a 2 l/2-foot wall was not safe for elderly people using the Campbell Center, and that the wall did not offer privacy. e Minutes 11/22/76 -17 513