Laserfiche WebLink
12/20/93 Page -12- <br /> than even a 3 story proposal that was being <br /> viewed. <br /> Speaking again to the plan he emphasised they <br /> tried to combine both concepts of the cen- <br /> tralized patio courtyard, play area proposal <br /> while keeping the structures as far away <br /> from the townhouse idea as possible to pro- <br /> vide privacy. <br /> Director Rupp Stated that the site was zoned R-M, consisted <br /> of ampammliatsly 2+ acres and the original plan <br /> showed 3-4 buildings. It was staff's sug- <br /> gestion that they review the possibility of <br /> 2 buildings to provide more flexibility on <br /> site, landscaping, etc. Another aspect that <br /> two wo buildings did as opposed to a 4 <br /> building plan which would have been well <br /> under the 35' , is that the site would have <br /> shown a considerable amount of parking because <br /> of the areas that the building would have <br /> taken up. The 2 buildings from that sense <br /> provide a much more appropriate site in <br /> order to relieve demand of this type of <br /> condominium project. It was also discussed <br /> about the parking requirement be reduced <br /> from the 2 spaces per unit because of one- <br /> bedroom units that will not require this, <br /> and landscape the area where parking was <br /> provided but not needed, with the understand- <br /> ing that at a future date if some reason <br /> there 'was a tremendous parking demand that <br /> they would have to go back and remove the <br /> landscaping and put in the parking to meet <br /> the parking requirement. <br /> Height Speaking to the height requirement, Rupp <br /> stated that without looking at the terrain <br /> it was his first impression that anything <br /> over 35' would not be acceptable. In the <br /> meantime he spoke with Mr. Dusmm and Mr. <br /> Ferris about the pitch of the roof, etc. <br /> In more discussion with the building being <br /> proposed and if the pitch of the roof were <br /> reduced from 4-12 to a 3-12 it would tend <br /> to flatten the roof considerably, which <br /> may detract from the appearance of the build- <br /> ing. This is what he would like discussed <br /> this evening. Whether it would be best to <br /> meet the requirement of 35' or go with the <br /> 38' that would be from the rear of the build- <br /> ing as opposed to what would be viewed from <br /> Centennial Drive. He was aware that the <br /> City code allowed for that flexibility. <br /> Suggested because of some criticism, the <br /> Code should be changed to state 35' and not <br />