Laserfiche WebLink
Council Attorney Cekanski - Farrand stated that that was to avoid any hint that the decision was <br />arbitrary and capricious; that there is sound reasoning going into the decision based on sound <br />legal and planning principles. <br />Councilmember Dr. David Varner stated, Over the years, I've observed that when the written <br />plan supports a project that someone proposes, everybody seems to be in favor it. When there's a <br />question, we find ourselves in this dilemma. I recall when someone didn't think that a downtown <br />Osco was important, and I think that decision was regretted. It wasn't a part of the plan at the <br />time, as I recall. I have pretty much adopted the notion that a plan is an interesting academic <br />exercise, that it involves a lot of people, it gets people involved —but in the future, there's always <br />other questions that arises, that maybe it doesn't fit a plan. As a matter of fact, and maybe I don't <br />have my facts right, the allowance of ninety -five (95) feet —if that's the correct number for the <br />Cascade project —is in the East Bank area, but yet it exceeds the sixty (60) feet that seemed to be <br />an absolute number that you used, Larry. I believe it's in the East Bank area, is it? <br />Ms. Smith responded, It is. <br />Councilmember Dr. Varner stated, Okay. Time sometimes morphs plans. Whether that happens <br />tonight or not, I don't know, but I hear the absolutes; I know that everybody wants what they <br />want at the moment that we adopt a plan, but I also think that as time passes sometimes there's <br />things... I think, as another example, no one expected sixty -eight (68) townhouses out in Eddy <br />Street Commons. It was supposed to be a garage and some other things, but it showed itself to be <br />a viable outcome. He then confirmed with Area Plan that the Eddy Street project was a PUD. <br />Councilmember Dr. Varner continued, So, they had the option of morphing the thing as they <br />needed. I just wanted to make clear the point, as I look at it, that a plan is a plan and that's a great <br />idea, and it's most accurate the moment it's adopted —after that, there may be some questions <br />that we're all faced with, and tonight's case would be one of them. So, take that into <br />consideration. <br />Ms. Smith stated, If you look back at the Cascade project, we were not in favor of that project. <br />We had used the Comprehensive Plan the way our departments were required to in response to <br />any of the height requests along that way. But when we looked at the recommendation for this <br />project, we looked at what the Area Board of Zoning Appeals had set precedence for, and the <br />Cascade project and the Sycamore project, and what this Council had made precedence for in the <br />Niles and Jefferson project, and that's where we came up with our recommendation. We <br />considered it a morphed recommendation already from what the plan is. So, if we would look <br />strictly at the plan, our recommendation would be that you have sixty (60) feet, because that's <br />what it says. We took into consideration some of the development that had happened since then. <br />Councilmember Dr. Varner responded, So you don't see ninety -five (95) feet for this project as a <br />possible solution? <br />Ms. Smith responded, No, that's what I put in the recommendation. My recommendation was <br />actually to be consistent with the Department of Community Investment's policy that they <br />adopted a couple of days ago. We kind of saw that as a morphing of the plan, which is exactly <br />what you're talking about. <br />7 <br />