Laserfiche WebLink
382 <br /> <br /> Mr. Butler agreed that this was a no-win situation. He stated <br /> that the neighboring property owners had their expectation based on <br /> the Initiative and that the builder had his based on the building <br /> permit. He pointed out that the City has an obligation to try and <br /> resolve the problem and that he felt this obligation would not be <br /> met by the landscaping proposal. <br /> <br /> Mr. Mercer stated that the City should have some kind of <br /> mechanism to deal with important pieces of property which create <br /> concerns for the neighbors or the Council. He indicated that <br /> something should have been done when Mr. Thomas was first told that <br /> there were problems about the height of the building. He added <br /> that the neighbors are not at fault and that he would support them. <br /> <br /> It was moved by Mr. Brandes, and seconded by Ms. Mohr, to <br /> approve the three-foot height increase for a portion of the <br /> building located at 6700 Santa Rita Road at the corner of Pimlico <br /> Drive as filed under PUD-80-15-5D-2M, Pleasant Village Associates, <br /> subject to the conditions that the new landscaping plan submitted <br /> by the applicant be implemented and that the applicant provide <br /> additional landscaping to adjacent property owners who desire to <br /> have such landscaping. <br /> The roll call vote was as follows: <br /> AYES: Councilmember Brandes and Mohr <br /> NOES: Councilmembers Butler, Tarver and Mayor Mercer <br /> ABSENT: None <br /> ABSTAIN: None <br /> <br /> The motion failed. <br /> <br /> Mr. Mercer asked the City Attorney if Council should now <br /> require Mr. Thomas to lower the building. <br /> <br /> Mr. Roush replied that if the Council takes no action on the <br /> PUD modification, the stop work order would remain in effect. The <br /> Council would then have to direct staff either to lift the stop <br /> work order and allow the applicant to proceed, which would be <br /> inconsistent with the Council action just taken, or to start <br /> proceedings to reduce the rear height of the building to 21.5 feet. <br /> Another alternative would be to take no action and allow the <br /> applicant to proceed, and the matter could be technically litigated <br /> by the neighbors for non-compliance with the ordinance. This <br /> alternative would also be contrary to the previous vote. <br /> <br /> Mr. Butler inquired what rear elevation was required in the <br /> conceptual plan. <br /> <br /> 7-23-90 <br /> <br /> - 6 - <br /> <br /> <br />