1986-02-11 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

I I I Council Meeting Minutes February 11, 1986 Martinson stated that there are compelling reasons, legal and otherwise, why the variance ought not to be granted and urged council to deny the variance request. Williams feels the legal arguments for denying the variance could very easily disappear if something happened to that 36-foot wall; has difficultly understanding what the bottom line is when a de- veloper adds 15 feet that he doesn't have to add, and will almost guarantee landscaping so that residents will not see the building; asked at what point in reconfiguring the building will the neigh- bors say that's far enough -- two steps of 50 feet each, no com- promise? Martinson restated another building could capture the concept. Brandt suggested council take time to read the residents' state- ments. Schmidt asked staff if council were being asked to take action, what action is required to approve the variance and and what sort of conditions, given the statement of the developer for the land- scaping and in terms of the intrusion on the setback, would have to be included. Winkels responded that the proposed resolution makes findings and would provide the basis for a variance, but would have to require the condition that the setback would be 65 feet on the west, mechanical equipment location would not be on the east or west boundary, and the issue of the church parking lot (it should be clear that the issue is not an easement that would be necessary but the actual acquisition of the property). LeFevere felt the requirements could be accomplished be removing the first two and one-half lines of paragraph six of the proposed resolution, which would then start with "That the applicant pur- chase ..." Winkels suggested that a provision for additional landscaping suitable to staff would be appropriate in the amended proposed resolution as well. Benke stated that, following a short break, council would need to decide whether to table the situation or take a vote on the vari- ance noting that council has heard from the neighbors that an existing proposal from the developer is objectionable in certain facts, and that the council has heard from the developer that the proposal as presented is the proposal on which they wish to have a decision made. Gunderman asked if the building could be moved further away from the residential area without denying the quality of the develop- ment; Winkels responded they could not move the building without redesigning the structure, and that it would take a variance set- back to encroach on Silver Lake Road. Page Fifteen