Laserfiche WebLink
SAN-14 0 <br />i <br />Some of these considerations are contradictory and would lead <br />to opposite conclusions rega~ding the request in this case. They <br />will obvious Ty have to bc~ gi en a relative weight by the Council. <br />in order to. produce a decision. <br />Plannin Commission Considerations . ~• •, <br />June I7, 1975 ~ ~ ~`'~~~ <br />The planning Commission continued its discussion of the variance`'~.~\ <br />and landscape and plot .plan. <br />Boh~.ing stated that the hardship issue has not been adequately <br />dealt with and stated furth r that while providing a wider buffer <br />strip stay be a hardship to ou, it is not a hardship of the parcel. <br />Partyka stated that mor adequate screening would go a long. <br />wa toward making the varia~ce acceptable. <br />Y <br />hlin stated that he v~ould want to know if the soil could <br />Bo g <br />support a heavier evergreen screen. <br />Mr. Jacobson replied that the soil is a-sandy loam and'wll <br />support evergreens. <br />Chairman Parham suggested. that the Planning Commission defer <br />action and request the the applicant. to come back with a revised <br />plan showing~a 50' driveway setback and an evergreen screen <br />rather than a lilac. <br />Bohling asked if the applicant would consider having a profes- <br />sional landscaper look a~t the plan and perhaps provide a solid <br />wall of evergreens along the north and half of the east side. <br />July 15, 1975 <br />The Building and Planning Coordinator reviewed the planning <br />considerations related to the application. <br />Mr. Bi11 Jacobson, architect for the applicant, explained that <br />the note on the landscape plan was in error. in his opinion and <br />that salt would not be a problem as relates to the plantings in <br />the buffer strip. He also noted that plantings have been added <br />