CC MINUTES 12131983 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

-3- recommended the request be denied. In August, the Council had • deferred a decision on the project with the hope that through nego- tiation the differences would be resolved, thereby avoiding a win/lose Council decision. In his December 9th memorandum, 'Mr. Childs had reported the two parties had failed to reach an understanding but, because on October 25th the church had submitted revised plans for the project which could be perceived to substantially soften the impact of the addition on the neighboring property, the Manager indicated he believed it -would be difficult to make a concrete rec- ommendation for denial since the proposal would now meet all applicable City codes and regulations . Attached to Mr. Childs ' memorandum were copies of the October 25th letter from Elmwood, the sketch of the new design for the building, and a copy of the neighbor' s September 12th letter indicating they still .found the 15 foot sanctuary addition "unacceptable" , although -the church' s new proposal to resite the educational building 57 feet further back from the neighbor's property would be less objectionable. Dick Jones , church trustee and chairman of the building committee , again gave the church' s position on the addition. He told the Council that, even though the addition size had.:been cut down from 75 to 15 feet, the revised plans would probably be much better for Elmwood because two more classrooms than originally proposed and seating space for another hundred people in. the sanctuary could still be provided. With the revised plan, the existing altar could be moved to the other side of the sanctuary , 'freeing up the space now occupied by two unused rooms behind the. altar. He later explained that the 15 .foot addition • represented the space between .two laminated beams . Erling Weiberg--, who had become the objecting neighbors ' spokesperson at the first hearing, read a prepared statement in which he had reported on the difficulty his group had experienced in trying to contact Mr. . Jones• and the misunderstandings which had developed between the church officials -and the neighbors through this lack of communication. Por. Weiberg insisted the position the neighbors had taken in their September 12th response to revised plans submitted by the church had only been intended to represent their "first position decision" which they had anticipated compromising after further negotiation. However, he conceded it had been a mistake not to have indicated suchwas the case in the letter. The - neighbors never knew anything at all about the church' s October 25th letter to 'Mr.- .. Childs , with revisions in the plans until Mr. Weiberg had happened to meet Mr. Childs in Apache shortly after Thanksgiving and was told of the letter's existence and they never saw the letter - until the Manager sent it to them early in December. when he told the neighbors the plans would be discussed at the Council ' s December. 13th meeting. When a -meeting of the neighbors was finally possible, December 11th, Mr. Weiberg said there was agree- ment that the siting of the classroom addition would be acceptable butthe group had serious misgivings about the sanctuary expansion because it still posed "a serious problem for the Esau and Antczak • families" .