Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Height Limit topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council declines to act on request to reconsider 35-foot map notation for River Club area
Summary
A motion to reconsider a map notation described as a "35-foot maximum height" for the River Club SAP died for lack of a second. Nearby homeowners and the applicant offered opposing interpretations of how the 35 feet should be measured.
Garden City — The City Council did not take action Monday on a request to reconsider a map notation describing a "35-foot maximum height" in the River Club SAP area; a motion to move the matter to a later meeting died for lack of a second.
The request for reconsideration, presented on behalf of neighborhood homeowners, argued that the yellow notation on the SAP map should be interpreted from existing (on-site) grade visible from residents' back yards rather than from finished grade or average front-of-building grade referenced in city code. "It seems to defy common sense that those people would agree to a 35-foot height limit that allows unlimited fill to be brought in or unlimited grade elevation, and then put 35 feet on top of that," said John Bolf, who spoke for several homeowners.
City representatives and the project's proponents urged the council not to reopen the decision. John Wardle, speaking for parties aligned with the applicant, cited the development agreement and the city's adopted code definitions. Wardle noted the council's recorded findings and the development agreement, and said the measurement method was adopted when the SAP and findings were recorded.
Why it matters: Neighbors said the map notation originated from negotiated commitments during the SAP process and that, from their back windows, a 35-foot structure measured from an elevated finished grade could be substantially taller than the notation implied. The debate concerns how the city's development rules will be applied as the site develops and whether previously negotiated expectations will be honored.
What was discussed: Neighbors described proximity to the planned development — the transcript records that the Stoddards live about 20 feet away, the Pattersons about 85 feet away and another household at about 108 feet — and said the agreement represented a promise to limit what those neighbors would see from their yards. Wardle countered that the city code and the recorded findings define building height as "the vertical distance measured from the average elevation of the proposed finished grade at the front of the building to the highest point thereof," and that the development agreement and adopted findings require height be measured consistent with that code.
Council procedure and outcome: After questions about whether to move the reconsideration to the Aug. 25 meeting, a motion to set a date certain was made and failed for lack of a second, and the council left the item without a formal vote on reconsideration. As a result, without a motion to reconsider now, the transcript records that the council's procedural window would permit the request to be deemed denied after the statutory 60-day period if no further action is taken.
Next steps: No further council action was taken Monday on the request; the matter may be raised again under the city's reconsideration rules within the timeline specified in municipal procedure and state code.
