PC 102401 - Laserfiche WebLink

that this matter had been put to rest at the time of the approval of the PUD. He advised that the ,-. staff report suggests that everything is copacetic with the neighbors, but he feels that is far from the truth. He stated that when the Planning Commission determines whether the modification should be accepted the standard it should use is whether there are any compelling reasons to increase the height. He further stated that he does not feel any compelling reasons were presented tonight. Mr. Swerdon commented that he feels the building is really going from 48 feet to 62 feet. He reported on discussions at the neighborhood meetings held last year. He stated that the proposal is not anything near what was shown to neighbors at that time. He stated that the proposal is, by all means, four stories. He advised that he has serious questions as to whether the PUD even permits something as large as the l4-foot mechanical structure on top of the building. Mr. Swerdon advised that with regard to the removal of the heritage trees, he feels that the purpose of receiving remuneration for the removal of heritage trees is to encourage developers to build within the confines of existing trees, not to make the existing trees co-exist with proposed buildings. He urged the Planning Commission not to approve the modification for the final development plan, noting that he does not believe the final development plan for the 62- foot structure is in compliance with the original PUD. In response to an inquiry from Chairperson Sullivan, Mr. Swift provided clarification on the requirements of the PUD as they pertain to building height. Mr. Swift advised that the PUD specifies the definition of height as being from the building pad to the height of the parapet, not the mechanical equipment screens. He further advised that there is no mention in the Master Development Plan and Design Guidelines with respect to minimum height of mechanical equipment screening. Discussion ensued regarding this topic. ~ Maureen Hart, 6513 Arlington Drive, advised that her house directly overlooks the site. She advised that until May of this year she was extremely involved in the development of the PUD guidelines. She noted that she was not in attendance at the September workshop because of the death of her husband, but she had a private meeting with Mr. Sage. She noted that Applied Biosystems had representatives at the meetings held by Kaiser with the neighbors, and Applied Biosystems was fully aware of the neighbors' concerns, one of which was the building height. She advised that the neighbors thought the 48-foot height was the top of the building and that the mechanical screening was the little "bumps" depicted in a sketch provided. She stated that she feels that the neighbors who are not here tonight believe that this is what is being proposed, not a 62-foot building. Ms. Hart noted that the PUD specifically excludes lakeside development, yet the applicant included a pavilion at the lake, even though they knew it was excluded. She stated that while she knows it has been removed, it should have never been shown in the first place. She requested that the Planning Commission deny the modification for the additional 2-1/2 feet and deny the building proposal, as it is not in keeping with what the neighborhood thought it was getting. She commented that this will damage her view. Ms. Hart advised that the neighborhood has suffered with the grading and dust from the Castlewood Heights development. She asked that the City and Planning think about the neighbors when they allow site grading, and that the project grading not be allowed until the final approval of the project. Charles Meier, 6597 Lansing Court, noted that the Planning Commission has received a copy of his letter regarding the project and his concerns. He noted that he has spoken to Mr. Sage and he has reviewed the staff report and environmental checklist form confirming the prior finding of PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES October 24,2001 Page 6