Laserfiche WebLink
Commissioner Roberts stated that you can't reduce the height of the building without changing its style. <br />She stated that in her view the proposed building will not impact the views of apartment residents since <br />they are rear windows and that the apartments will be eliminated in the future. She noted the <br />attractiveness of the building, noted that the site is zoned office, and expressed concurrence with staff <br />determining this project as a PUD, since the uses would be restricted She noted she would only <br />postpone the project due to a Specific Plan for this area coming through. <br /> <br />Commissioner Cooper noted that the apartments are going to be removed and inquired whether the <br />applicant would consider relocating sewer on the site. <br /> <br />Discussion ensued relating to relocating the sewer line. <br /> <br />PUBLIC HEARING WAS REOPENED <br /> <br />George Marmem, the applicant, provided background information as to the purchase of the property. He <br />noted that a Master Plan was developed on the property and noted the changes made to the Master Plan. <br />He noted that his heirs could not be bound to conditions for the property and that the project will not be <br />economical if the size of the building is reduced. In response to an inquiry by the Commission relating <br />to the sewer line, the applicant stated that relocating the sewer line to the east side of the site would not <br />be a feasible option. <br /> <br />PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED <br /> <br />Chairperson Kumaran noted the attractiveness of design for the location. He expressed concem with the <br />mass of the building but stated his reluctance in denying application, since them are not many options <br />for this property. <br /> <br />Discussion ensued relating to the comparable height of adjacent building. <br /> <br />A motion was made by Commissioner Cooper, seconded by Commissioner Roberts, to find that <br />the project has a De Minimis environmental impact and that a resolution be adopted approving <br />the attached draft Negative Declaration. <br /> <br />ROLLCALLVOTE <br /> <br />AYES: <br />NOES: <br />ABSENT: <br />ABSTA1N: <br /> <br />Commissioners Cooper and Roberts and Chairperson Kumaran <br />Commissioners Kameny and Maas <br />Commissioner Sullivan <br />None <br /> <br />Resolution No. PC-99-19 was entered and adopted as motioned. <br /> <br />Commissioner Maas noted that she is in opposition to the motion due to the visual elements not being <br />conducive to the neighborhood, impacts on existing uses, aesthetic impacts, and that the building site on <br /> <br />PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 10 February 24, 1999 <br /> <br /> <br />