1986-02-11 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

I I I Council Meeting Minutes February 11, 1986 Martinson stated there is a lot to do to grant the variance, and of significance would be the church property. His purpose in getting involved was because the residents didn't feel they had a forum to get to the council and to the developer, but doesn't believe that has worked because there has not been enough time and they did not have enough resources -- he can't draw the building and make the economical analysis required. Martinson felt there could be a better building and felt council should not grant the variance. Believes there is a reasonable interpretation of the zoning ordinance as he proposed (not saying it is necessarily the correct one or that it ought to be adopted or that it's the only interpretation) which suggests that you could require more parking than is being proposed on the site. If the hardship question were tested in court, there is a 50-50 chance which asks if the community will be zoned with this council and incorporate the community and the developer, or will it be brought to the courts; Martinson suggested the people can do a better job than the courts. Martinson stated he views the proposed request as an economic hardship because he believes a different and reasonable building, perhaps not quite as nice and perhaps without as much capital return, can be built giving the site a reasonable use. Martinson stated he felt site-lines should incorporate the pond and the golf course, making the pond an amenity. If the hardship is an economic one, the statute pre- cludes the granting of a variance. Martinson stated further than when the property was rezoned from an R-l to B-1 when the Comprehensive Plan was adopted, there was a lot of discussion about making the area R-2, centering around the fact that the goal would be a buffering zone. Martinson felt a "limited business" would be more appropriate on the site, and that that was what those designing the Comprehensive Plan had in mind; doesn't believe there is no other reasonable use and felt that that would be judgement for the non-granting of the variance. Martinson asked if the variance were to be granted, would that conform with the Comprehensive Plan, noting the Planning Commis- sion minutes recommended R-2 for the property in the Comprehensive Plan but that the Council Meeting minutes reflect, with no expla- nation, that the Council adopted a B-1 zone. To conform with B-1 requirements, Martinson felt the Plan meant that a business must have a viable market demand and that it must be a business of a scale consistent with the adjacent uses, especially residential, and that there be effective buffers from the higher intensity commercial uses; noting there would be no buffers, other than trees, between the office building and residences. Page Twelve