Laserfiche WebLink
i. <br />~N-140 --3- July 22, 1975 <br />Some of these considerations are contradictory and would.-.lead <br />to opposite conclusions regarding the request in this case. They., <br />will. obviously have to be given ~ relative weight by the Council <br />in order to produce a decision. <br />Planningl Commission Consideration:. • ~ . ~. <br />June.17, 1975 <br />The Planning Commission continued its discusson.of the variance <br />and landscape and plot plan. <br />Bohling stated that the hardship issue has not been adequately <br />dealt with and stated further that. while providing a wider buffer <br />strip ~-ay be a hardship to you, it is not a hardship of the parcel. <br />Partyka stated that more adequate screening-would go a long <br />way toward making the variance acceptable. <br />Bohling stated that he would want to know if the soil could <br />support a heavier evergreen screen. <br />Mr. Jacobson replied that the soil is a sandy loam and will <br />support evergreens. <br />hairman Parham suggested that the Planning-Commission defer <br />ction and request the the applicant to come back with a revised <br />lan showing a 5Q' driveway setback and an evergreen screen <br />-then than <br />Bohling asked if the applicant would consider having a profes~ <br />signal landscaper look at the plan and perhaps provide a solid <br />wall of evergreens along the north and half of the east side. <br />July l5, 1975 <br />The Building and Planning Coordinator reviewed the planning <br />considerations related to the application. <br />Mr. Bill-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 />