1987-08-25 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

III I III Council Meeting Minutes August 25, 1987 3 Ayes - 1 Naye (Williams) - 1 Abstention (Brandt), Motion Failed (4/5 vote required for a special use permit). Mattila stated, because SP-142 was not approved, no action could be taken on LP-214. McCalla stated she is not responsible for Windsor Green1s property and should not be penalized. Benke explained that is not a controlling issue, but rather a personal one; McCalla has met the code requirements for parking, setbacks, and density; but the spe- cial use justification in terms of public interest and impact have not been met; and believed another design may be satisfactory. McCalla asked if sawtooth plan was acceptable; Williams responded "marginally." Benke stated' the matter could be reconsidered; would like to see the tree stay if possible. Williams would like to see the development tied together more co-. herently, rather than what currently appears to be three different developments. In response to Benkels question, Mattila stated the site is com- plicated and explained why a variance would be needed for a two- family home (in addition to the existing building), and why the property would need to be split and have a different owner to ac- commodate a single family home. Following the advise of LeFevere, Benke moved, seconded by Gunder- man, to CONTINUE THE REQUEST FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT, VARIANCE, AND SITE PLAN APPROVAL TO THE SEPTEMBER 8, 1987, MEETING TO GIVE APPLICANT TIME TO AMEND THE PROPOSED PLAN. 4 Ayes - 0 Nayes - 1 Abstention (Brandt) - Motion Carried Berger reviewed staff report for the comparable worth study and implementation method. Understanding the positions that came in under-valued would receive an increase, Benke asked what would be done about those that were over-valued; Berger stated staff is not, at this point, making any recommendation with regard to the positions over 110%. Brandt asked about new people being hired; Berger stated some jur- isdictions are proposing two-tier systems, and explained staff is not recommending such a system at this time because other juris- dictions have found the more complicated the analysis gets, the more difficulties are encountered with unions, appeals, and com- plaints. Brandt felt some type of system should be considered as a matter of policy; Berger reported some jurisdictions are giving a lesser percentage increase to those above the 110% line than those within or under the corridor. Page 7 Comparable Worth Report 87-221