allowing the additional story for the building would not increase the density of the site as the developer proposes keeping the apartment building within the allowed density of the Helo station PUD

Luke does the Pud Define or quantify stories so I'm a bit surprised that we are in the Pud we're saying four stories instead of putting a maximum um height on the overall building because I guess you know stories could be could change you know 12T ceilings versus 20 foot ceilings you know it seems like the Pud is saying regardless of how tall those stories are four is the max well has a big impact on sight lines and all that so is there something in the Pud that Caps or quantifies or limits stories by height

what's hard for the co you know what's hard for all of us to know when that decision is initially made is the economic reality of what what a developer is going to need to do to make any project economically feasible

with four stories that's about 40t and then you add some trust space and um the roof line it ends up being about 45 46 feet or um plus or minus for a four-story flat roof building

We have serious concerns about the apartment complex being set back uh only set back a minimum of 40 ft as stated in condition number one by our calculations the northermost apartment building would be only 135 ft from the southernmost twin Home Building in our culdesac as our Twin Homes are only one story in height with a low pitch roof line a rectangular four-story uh apartment complex will dwarf our properties

there's been some current sales in that uh little cues act area that establishes value prior to and in one case right in the beginning of uh the work projects that's gone out there what happens after this project is done is it will be easily established what the value is before because there's been sales and after if there is a difference there between before value if it goes down you will be subject to compensating that loss

I don't believe um any commercial buildings off the top of my head that have been built um without a fire suppression system in them since we um since city council adopted 1306 which is the fire sprinkler requirements that um we did 15 years ago

the application that you acted on uh not sure it was the last meeting of the one before but for the site plan that building was below 2,000 square ft and did therefore did not require sprinkling system the sprinkling system is part of the building code uh and state law preempts these when regulation building code you can't change those regulations

a public safety mechanism that's all that that is all that is at um at stake here is it a design a design plan was changed for the sole purpose of avoiding a safety mechanism that's it so I as you know I question whether this city should still provide the same flexibility with that in mind

people smarter than you determine that a 2,000 sare ft that's what he I'm just reiterating what you said here you know that that 2,000 square feet is it doesn't need it and so if this client if this uh business owner wants to design something that is just under that you know I I would have to side with council member wenber and and saying hey you know I would make that same decision too if there was a financial impact there