Laserfiche WebLink
379 <br /> <br />added that it is the position of the applicant that before the <br />final plans were submitted for a building design, City staff who <br />no-longer work for the City agreed to a conceptual change. The <br />applicant then applied for a building permit based on the final <br />building plan which was reviewed by staff and found to be <br />conceptually in compliance with the plan. The developer has since <br />relied on that building permit. <br /> <br /> Mr. Mercer asked staff how the neighbors perceived the change <br />in the building's height from 21 feet to over 27 feet. <br /> <br /> Mr. Swift explained that the exhibit attached to the <br />Initiative contained only parts of the site plans and rear <br />elevations of one of the wing sections of the building, which was <br />set at 21.5 feet. The exhibit did not show the entire length of <br />the rear elevation of the building and did not indicate a height <br />limitation for the front of the building. The center, which is the <br />main section, was clearly drawn to be taller than the wing portions <br />of the building. He stated that if the height of those plans were <br />scaled, the maximum height would be about 26 feet. This height was <br />increased to 29 feet 10 inches as the construction plan was being <br />designed, and the corresponding rear portions increased from 21.5 <br />feet to 25 feet. <br /> <br /> Mr. Mercer mentioned that at the last meeting, the applicant <br />brought a picture which showed the height of the building. The <br />applicant had indicated that it was at that point of the <br />construction that he had received a letter from the City indicating <br />that if he proceeded beyond that point, he would be doing so at his <br />own risk. Mr. Mercer asked the Mr. Roush what legal implication <br />this incident's being on record had, if any. <br /> <br /> Mr. Roush replied that the issue is to what extent the <br />developer has relied on the building permit previously issued by <br />the City. He stated that the applicant had indicated that in <br />addition to the actual construction shown in the picture, a number <br />of materials had been purchased based on what the building permit <br />provided. The applicant further mentioned that reducing the rear <br />elevation to 21.5 feet would mean a corresponding reduction in the <br />front. This, according to the developer, would cause redssign <br />problems as well as substantial delays and costs. <br /> <br /> Mr. Butler inquired if the letter sent to the applicant put a <br />hold on the building permit. <br /> <br /> 7-23-90 <br /> <br /> - 3 - <br /> <br /> <br />