OCR Text |
Show Will height variance OK go to planners? by Christopher Smart The city council in a split vote Oct. 11 decided to reconsider whether the power to grant height variances should be retained by the council or returned to the planning commission. commis-sion. On Aug. 23 the city council, in an amendment to the Land Management Manage-ment Code, took from the planning commission the reins of the provision ' allowing height variances. That amendment is a spin-off of an amendment proposed earlier this year that attached a formula to height variations. It was defeated. But through bargaining in council work sessions, Councilman Jim Doilney, who was in favor of the amendment, struck a compromise with Councilman Bob Wells that carried the new height regulation into the Land Management Code. Councilman Al Horrigan was the third member of the council to vote for the measure, with Councilmen Tom Shellenberger and Bill Coleman voting no. At that time the commission spoke out against the measure saying it showed a lack of confidence in the planning body. In submitting the petition that asked the council to give the power of granting height variances back to the planning commission, chairman Cal Cowher said that the Land Management Code works well. But the height variance provision cur- rently on the books puts developers at risk, he said. He explained that under the current code, a project could pass through the entire planning process only to be nixed at the last step. But Horrigan said that since the new height ordinance brings the city council into the planning process early, the ',' gotcha syndrome" . doesn't really exist. Doilney said the council should retain the power of granting height variances because height is "the most sensitive issue" in building new projects. Further, Doilney said that height variances, such as the 60-foot request for the proposed Snow Creek hotel, should be left to the council. A decision of that magnitude, he said, should be given to elected officials and not appointed ones. Councilman Bill Coleman did not agree with Doilney. "This action, (the height variance amendment now on the books) cripples the commission." commis-sion." Coleman was joined by W ells, who said, referring to the council, "this particular amendment puts the body that hasn' t seen the project for eight weeks in a bad position." , Wells and Coleman voted to send the amendment back through the public hearing process which will eventually bring the matter to an official vote. Doilney and Horrigan voted against sending it back. In Shellenberger's absence, Mayor Jack Green cast the tie-breaking vote to reconsider the height variance measure. "If we appoint a planning commission, then we should trust their judgment," he said. A public hearing on the matter will be scheduled in about four weeks. |