03/28/05 Regular - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Regular Meeting March 28, 2005 professional zoning administrator, who has a law degree. It has been looked over very carefully and in great detail by four attorneys, two paid by the City, one paid . . one contracted by the neighbors, and a fourth representing the applicant. All the measurements that are quoted here are certified by either a registered engineer or by a registered surveyor. TAPE ENDS HERE. …” Mr. Ollendorff: “ … question by others than the City. We think the Council needs to move ahead on this Bill and since it does meet all of our Ordinance requirements, there’s no further reason that I can see, to delay this. The applicant has been extremely patient throughout this process; as recently as three weeks ago sent us a letter to agree to meet two of the requests of the neighbors, above and beyond anything our Ordinance requires, specifically that he will fix any damage to the street and second, that he will pay a portion of the cost of doing further [coughing] over and above what the Ordinances require. It would not be appropriate to tell this applicant that he has to wait longer. He’s gone out of his way to, belatedly perhaps, but he has gone out of his way to meet the practical requests of the neighbors and he’s gone out of his way for over eight months now, meeting the legal requirements, so I would recommend that Council does approve this Ordinance.” Mr. Wagner: “ The City Manager is right, we have been down a very long and winding and drawn out road concerning this application. In all my years on this Council, the application before us has been the most contentious and the most unnatural and the most scrutinized application I remember, being on this Council. Not only was the lot assembled into a strange shape by acquiring a narrow strip of adjoining property to meet the bare minimum lot widths which are not at all compatible with the remaining lots on Greensfelder Lane, there remains a number of administrative procedures that are still questionable, some of which are enumerated by Mr. Harig tonight. I believe, this is my personal opinion, that either our ordinances are flawed to permit such a misshapen lot, totally incompatible with the existing neighborhood, or there has been extraordinary administrative effort to find cracks in the process to allow this to go through, or possibly both of these. Our ordinances [coughing] and there is language in there, I won’t go through all that, but there to minimize the adverse impact of development on adjoining other nearby properties. That’s in our ordinance and I think it’s been completely ignored. I believe this application fails to meet the intent written in our ordinance and some of the administrative procedures are still quite in question. I, for one, cannot in good conscience move or vote to approve this application, for these reasons, I move to deny the application. “ Mayor Adams: “Okay, I have a question of you, Mr. Wagner and Ms. Brot. The original Bill sometime ago was rejected by this Council, then subsequent to that, you, Mr. Wagner and Ms. Brot, requested of me, to call a special meeting of this City Council which met on February 22, 2005 at 5:30 P.M. to re-introduce this Bill. You two asked for this legislation to be reintroduced. You reintroduced it and now you are asking to reject legislation that was rejected, that you subsequently asked to be brought back, Page 19