Laserfiche WebLink
-5- <br /> The Council accepted the Commission's unanimous .recommendation- related to the con- <br /> struction of 29 units of townhouses on the Walbon property by Brighton Development <br /> • Corporation. <br /> Motion by Councilman Marks and seconded by Councilman Makowske to grant the following <br /> variances to the City Zoning Ordinance which would permit the development of the <br /> property at 3242 Old Highway 8 for the Old Highway 8 Redevelopment Project, as pro- <br /> posed by the Brighton Development Corporation during the March 19, 1985 Planning <br /> Commission hearing on the proposal : <br /> 1 . A 20 foot. setback from 33rd Avenue N.E. for one unit (_30 feet required); <br /> 2. A 24 foot setback from the west property line adjacent to 3612-33rd Avenue N.E. <br /> (30 feet required); <br /> 3. -A 25 foot --setback from the west property line for 8 units located adjacent to <br /> 3209, 3213, 3217, 3221 Croft Drive N.E. (_30 feet required); and <br /> 4. A 1.0 foot setback from Old Highway 8 to the east of two units (30 feet required) ; <br /> 5. A density variance .to allow 29 units, where 27.5 are allowed by Ordinance. <br /> The Council grants these variances, as recommended by the Planning Commission, on <br /> the condition that there be noise abatement construction, including 2 X 6 walls; <br /> triple glazed windows; and significant insultation for the two units facing Old <br /> Highway 8, where only 10 foot setbacks would be allowed. <br /> • In granting these variances, the Council finds, as did the Planning Commission, that: <br /> 1 . All three questions on the application form, which are required to be answered <br /> affirmatively, have been done so with this proposal ; <br /> 2. The physical attributes of this property make it unique in regard to shape and <br /> topography; <br /> 3. The project would eliminate a legal , non-conforming use of long duration; <br /> 4. Expression of opposition to the higher density necessary to make the project <br /> work was minimal during the various hearings held by the City on the project; and <br /> 5. No opposition to the variances requested for the project was expressed during <br /> the March 19th Commission hearing or the April 9th Council determination related <br /> to the proposal . <br /> Motion carried unanimously. <br /> The Council had also taken into consideration the Commission's recommendation related <br /> to the allocation of Year XI CDBG funds when they had designated the uses of those <br /> funds at their April 2nd meeting. <br /> The February Financial Report was ordered filed. <br /> • At 8:00 P.M. , the Mayor opened the public hearing on the proposal that the City issue <br /> a maximum aggregate principal amount of $950,000 in Industrial Development Revenue <br /> Bonds to finance the costs of acquisition, renovation and equipment of an approximately <br />