1986-03-25 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

I I Council Meeting Minutes March 25, 1986 Council Business, continued feels the impact on the neighboring property is the primary concern; has seen the two-story layout and the landscaping for that; has seen the commitment to put in as many trees as make sense on the three-story building; can't rationalize the language of the variance code to suggest that the definition of that impact has to be that every possible concern has to be addressed every time, there has got to be room for discretionary judgement and that is why council is elected, to make those judgements; felt the impact would not be excessive with the additional setback of the three-story building and the heavy landscaping that is going to be required. Motion by Benke, seconded by Williams, to WAIVE THE READING AND ADOPT A RESOLUTION MAKING FINDINGS OF FACT AND APPROVING VN-244. Schmidt stated that a great deal of time and sensitivity has been conveyed by all those that have tried to address the balancing of the development with the residences that will be impacted; regarding the issue and the legality of the variance, because a substantial part of this property is under water and the impact that has on the ability of the property owner to develop the site, he had little difficulty reaching the conclusion that the city can find there is cause to grant the variance. Schmidt expressed little doubt that the three-story, as it's proposed, would have less of an impact than the two-story proposal; recognizing the changes the council can require because of the variance. Gunderman had hoped there would be an agreement and thought an agreement had been reached; when weighing a two-story against a three-story, stated he had the same feelings as Schmidt; and it seems appropriate in view of the Planning Commission recommenda- tion and the professional staff recommendation received tonight to vote in favor of the proposal. Motion by Schmidt, seconded by Williams, to AMEND THE MOTION BY CHANGING PARAGRAPH 5 TO READ "TO THE EXTENT THE CITY DESIRES TO HAVE THE APPLICANT~S LANDSCAPE PLANS REVIEWED BY AN OUTSIDE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT, THE APPLICANT SHALL REIMBURSE THE CITY FOR ANY COST INCURRED FOR SUCH REVIEW." 4 Ayes - 0 Nayes (Brandt abstained), Amendment Carried 4 Ayes - 0 Nayes (Brandt abstained), Motion Carried as Amended I Motion by Benke, seconded by Schmidt, to APPROVE LP-192 SUBJECT TO APPROVAL OF VN-244. 5 Ayes - 0 Nayes, Motion Carried Page Sixteen