1986-01-28 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

I I I Council Meeting Minutes January 28, 1986 Schmidt's questions related to trying to compare what is an existing plan with might be available in terms of a two-story building, what the require~ents might ~e, if any variances would be required, and whether the city would have any control under those circumstances. Schmidt bel ieves a comparison of what would be possible as well as whdt is ~eing proposed would be in order, as the developer is willing to work with the residents. Benke stated the council is in receipt of letters supporting the proposed building from Mr. Johri Risdall and Mr. James Faust. Benke felt the proposed plan appears to be a high-quality proposal and could be a very valuable asset to the community; and noted the sensitivity of the developer to the concerns of the residents and expressed the need to blend the interest of a quality building with the interest of the neighbors. Benke commended the developer and tne residents for being will in9 to try to resolve the difference, which appears to be a question of proximity and not the quality of the building. In response to Williams's question, Benke noted that his expecta- ations, regarding the upcoming meeting between the developer and the residents, would be that they would have to respond to codes and the interpretations of codes and felt it would be in every- one's best interest to have Winkels attend the meeting. Briggs asked if he could rely on staff's interpretation of the code; 3enke stated the council historically has relied on staff for an accurate interpretation. Schmidt noted the council makes the policy, the staff is hired to administer it, and noted the City Attorney is also part of the staff and is consulted when any question arises. Following Brandt's request, Benke, with consent of council, asked that Winkels work with the City Attorney and review the code with regard to the interpretation of the gross square-foctage calcula- ation of the building for purposes of determining how many park- ing spaces are needed, and any other relevant sections of the code. Motion by Benke, seconded by Gunderman, to CONTINUE CONSIDERA- TION OF A REQUEST ~OR A VARIANCE AND SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR AN Or:FICE DEVELOpr1ENT TO THE :lOT COUiJCIL MEETH~G (~ebruary 11, 1986). 5 ~yes - 0 Nayes, Motion Carried Page Four