11/22/1976 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

I I Sheila O'Malley spoke regarding the city's decision to place a moratorium on conditional use permits in the Skinner's Butte area because the area is special. She further stated that she e feels that the proposed development is not compatible with what is happening in the neighborhood. She stated that there is a regeneration going on in the neighborhood, with a sharing, helping feeling, and she feels the proposed development is inconsistent with the philosophy that was beginning to develop. She further stated that the point about traffic is important. Brian Simonitch, 208 East 2nd Avenue, stated that with his interpretation of the Code regarding granting of variances, it would appear that the Zoning Board of Appeals did err in that 1I...unnecessary physical hardship..." was not the case in this regard as Mr. Poticha had stated at the hearing that he could juggle these things around any way he wanted. He further stated that the applicant would not be deprived of privileges enjoyed by owners of other properties clasified in the same zoning district and that the granting of the variance would be IImaterially injurious" to the properties in the vicinity. He further stated that he feels this wall is incompatible with the neighborhood. David Filer spoke regarding Item No. 3 which states that the transcripts of the hearing will give evidence to possible collusion between and lack of deportment proper to a public hearing by Mr. poticha and members of the Zoning Board. Mr. Filer further stated that the transcript from the meeting is not a verbatim transcript and that the tape is not available. e At this point, Dee Unthank spoke on behalf of the owners of the property submitting the request, stating that there was a descrepancy of only one percent in lot coverage and that he felt that there was misunderstanding about the 2 1/2-foot wall, that the variance was being requested because they did, in fact, want the wall higher than the 2 1/2 feet. He further stated, in regard to Tax Lot 900 being left off the application, that all calculations had been made including Lot 900. He further stated that the project would conform with traffic department requirements. He added that he was not at the Appeal Board meeting but could not believe the inference about deportment or collusion. Grant Seder stated that when they had approached this project, they had attempted to design first and did come up with minor variations, these are items which were appealed. He stated that these items are not crucial to the project, but they do what is the best job on the site. At this point, Mr. Seder presented for introduction into the record an editorial in the Whiteaker Neighborhod News, Volume 3, No. 7, of November, 1976. Mr. Seder stated that all they ask is that a determination be made as to whether the Zoning Board took proper action. e Minunes 11/22/76 -18 51Lt