1986-02-11 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

I I I Council Meeting Minutes February 11, 1986 As there were no more questions or comments, Benke stated the question is whether or not council should permit the developer to build a building 36-feet high with three stories rather than two stories. Early in the discussion the staff made the point that when we consider hardship, we also have to consider the im- pact on the surrounding community. Benke disagreed to an extent that the property-owners have not been listened to and have not won anything because there has been an extended discussion; the original proposal has been modified, reduced by six feet in height; other changes have been made to accommodate the concerns of the neighborhood, the latest being the additional 15 feet of separation; hears from the developer that they have stretched and bent and modified to the extent they feel is possible. The council is now looking at the question of whether or not the mitigation of impacts is reasonable and if the proposed variance is reasonable. Council has heard from staff that the legal defi- nitions are satisfied, the technical studies are correct and council now has to make that judgement. In his opinion, Benke felt the impact on the community between a two-story and three-story building is negligible, and that the other conditions and reasoning and rationale can support the granting of a variance and feels it is justified and moved, seconded by Schmidt, to WAIVE THE READING AND ADOPT THE RESOLU- TION MAKING THE FINDINGS OF FACT AND APPROVING VARIANCE VN-244 AMENDING THE RESOLUTION TO INCLUDE THE SPECIFICATION THAT THE EVERGREEN TREES OF SUBSTANTIAL SIZE, THE PRECLUSION OF THE AIR- CONDITIONING AND MECHANICAL UNITS ON THE EAST OR WEST SIDES, AND THE REQUIREMENT FOR THE 65-FOOT SETBACK ON THE WEST SIDE. Williams asked that the motion be amended to include that THE APPROVAL BE CONDITIONED ON THE CHANGE FROM METAL TO GRANITE EX- TERIOR WITH GRAY GLASS, AND THE REDUCTION OF WINDOW SPACE BY 30% ON THE WESTERN SIDE OF THE BUILDING. Benke so agreed. In response to Brandt's question, LeFevere stated that in order to grant the variance, it is necessary to find both a hardship and that there will not be an unduly adverse impact on the neigh- bors; to deny the variance, council must find either of the two conditions. Schmidt noted that Item 2 of the resolution moved makes a finding that there is the existence of the pond and it does create a hardship, and Item 3 relates to the setbacks, buffering, and building quality would insure that adjacent properties will not be negatively impacted; believed discussion that 40% of the prop- erty is, in fact, under water and consists of a pond is basis for finding Item 2 and the other discussion, indicating that the 36- foot building that is allowable does not create the negative intrusion or imoact. Page Sixteen