Jefferson/PP-CS 941004 MEMORANDUM
Date: October 4, 1994
To: G~g Jones, Building Official
Fr~-~iax'y L. Sieb, Director
Subj0cf: J.P.I. Proposal--Jefferson at Riverchase Development Plan
This morning you, Craig Curry (representing the above referenced development), and myself
met to discuss the intent of ultimate construction of this complex. Although we have had some
problems with this proposal in the past (screening walls, setbacks, dumpster locations, parking
requirements, etc.), the Board of Adjustment granted several variances, and throughout the entire
variance procedure the applicant has been consistent in presenting a proposal that has always
referred to a secured community with entry gates controlled by an Opticom system as well as
key pad and manual overrides.
We had determined that this developer would have to make one more trip to the Board of
Adjustment to procure permission to locate covered parking and fencing in front of the proposed
apartment buildings. That heating is scheduled to be held on Thursday, October 6, 1994. In
this morning's meeting, Mr. Curry suggested that JPI was interested in dropping the variance
request and wanted assurance that by dropping the variance, the walls which supported the entry
gates would conform to code. Technically, you had a problem with that assumption because
you were not sure the intent of the developer had been made clear to all the legislative bodies
which had held public meetings regarding the development.
As, perhaps, the only staff person who attended all Planning Commission and City Council
meetings, as well as numerous sessions with various members of City staff to discuss this
planned complex, I will assure you that the one major theme which has driven all the meetings
I have attended is the subject of screening and entry gates. In fact, every plan I have presented
to any public body has clearly shown the location of the supporting gated columns, and because
these columns are well behind the minimum front yard setback of 30 feet, it is my opinion that
no Board action would be required to allow JPI to construct the columns where shown.
I would, therefore, urge you to permit the columns to be constructed where generally shown on
the development plans we have reviewed-without further Board action-for several reasons.
Among them:
they have been consistently shown on plans submitted to Council and Commission
public testimony has repeatedly referred to these gates
their placement far exceeds our minimum setback of 30 feet--they show 60 feet
or more
all our reviews have been based upon the columns being built where shown
there is some technical question regarding the intent of the ordinance setbacks
If you have questions or feel I am misrepresenting the spirit behind this project, or if my
suggestion that the columns be allowed with no further Board Action runs counter to your
judgement, please contact me at your convenience.
cc: Jim Witt ~