HomeMy WebLinkAbout210-212 W. MAGNOLIA ST., URBAN LIVING LOFTS - MOD #2 - 24-05/B - CORRESPONDENCE - MODIFICATION REQUESTAnne Aspen - Modification Requests Page 1
From:
Anne Aspen
To:
alan@savanthomesinc.com
Date:
09/06/2005 2:08:28 PM
Subject:
Modification Requests
corey_seitz@excelfg.com; jcl-architecture@gwest.net
Hi Justin,
Peter Barnes and I have reviewed your revised requests. We have the following comments for you. Once
you have addressed these comments and provided the other required information from your staff review,
we can schedule hearings for the 2 modifications and the PDP.
Modification #1:
In this modification, you are actually asking for modifications for 2 separate code standards: one for 3.2.2
(D)(2) on unobstructed parking (the lifts) and one for 3.2.2 (K)(1)(a) for the required number of parking
spaces. As discussed in meetings with you, the argument you have presented in 3.2.2 (D)(2) is adequate.
However, the same rationale (equal to or better than) does not make sense for 3.2.2 (K)(1)(a). For this
part of the modification, the rationale that makes the most sense is "nominal or inconsequential" Please
see Section 2.8.2 (H) for more information.
Modification #2:
As I have stated in 2 meetings and 1 staff review with you, the LOS argument you have presented WILL
NOT make sense to the hearing officer since LOS refers to something else entirely in the context of the
City's development review. The Transportation planner also agreed during the staff review that this would
not be a wise argument to use. I have offered you this feedback for your benefit. If you choose not to
heed it, I will not address these issues during the hearing and any confusion that it creates for the decision
maker will be up to you to address.
The parking table on page #2 should convey accurate information to the decision maker. Specifically, the
"provided" column for the two-sided loading width needs to state 18 feet 8 inches or whatever it is on the
proposed plans. The code currently requires 24' for a two-sided loading. It's true that a code change will
be proposed this fall to bring the standard in line with LCUASS, but until that code change is approved, the
materials you provide need to correctly reflect the standards.
Neither Peter nor I see problems with the concepts behind these modifications and I will recoomend
approval in my staff reports with the changes indicated above. Please let me know if you have questions.
Anne