CC Min 1985-01-14 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Item No. 2 (continued) Report of City Manager and Director of Planning 1/11/85 Planning Director Schroeter presented the subject report, noting that builders are encouraged to obtain professional design advice for their projects which may be from an architect or other designer, noting that the civil engineer who prepared the drawings for the appellant noted on them that there was no intent to provide other than structural design by his office. In response to question, Mr. Schroeter said that most applicants provide architectural drawings and that Mr. Vander Wal was so advised on several occasions. Mayor Britschgi declared the public hearing open at 7:45 p.m. Peter Vander Wal, 1865 Maddux Drive, the appellant, said that he had a new colored elevation of the subject property and a landscape plan to present. City Attorney Schricker noted that the subject appeal was made on the basis of the plan submitted to the Zoning Administrator, and if the appellant wishes to introduce new designs, they should be submitted to the Zoning Administrator for proper review. In response to question, Mr. Schricker said that there is no waiting period for submitting a new design for the property, if the denial is upheld on the present project. Discussion followed and Mr. Vander Wal replied to questions and commented concerning submittal requirements for architectural permits and the need for professional design work. Mayor Britschgi invited anyone else present who wished to speak to do so. No one wished to speak. M /S: Bury /Mosher to close the public hearing. Carried unanimously and public hearing closed at 7:58 p.m. M /S: Mosher /Chandler to uphold the decision of the Zoning Administrator and deny the application for architectural permit of Peter A. Vander Wal for property at 238 Poplar Street; and to request staff to work with Mr. Vander Wal to assist him in taking the proper action to arrive at an acceptable design for his project, the following findings having been made with regard to the appeal: 1. That the application as submitted presents insufficient variety of design and creates a visual presentation of monotony in the exterior appearance of the building; 2. That the proposed structure does not conform substantially with other structures in the vicinity; 3. That no provision has been made for the blending of natural features into the design; and Reg. Mtg. 1/14/85 Page 2 MINUTE BOOK NO. 45 Page No. 231