CCP 03-31-2003 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Memo to Planning Commission Planning Case #02-05: Guidant Site Plan Review I Variance Request March 28, 2002 Page 8 of II e locality. Economic considerations alone, shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use of the property exists under the terms of the ordinance...... B. City Requirements Section VIII, D, 4, c and d, of the City's Zoning Ordinance states that: "Adherence to the provisions of this ordinance is required. except for special cases which arise because of the configuration of a particular parcel. The condition shall not have been created by the landowner. A variance or variances of a side of a lot, the shape of the lot or the unusnal terrain prohibit reasonable development equivalent to that which would be pennitted without variance on a similar size loflocated in the same district, but which lot has no unusual configuration. Economic conditions alone shall nof be grounds for a variance. In no case shall the granting of a variance impair the health, safety, comfort and general welfare of the public, nor will it he contrary to the intent and purpose of the Comprehensive Plan, the official map or this or any other ordinance of the City". Setback Variance Findings In order to grant a variance, the following criteria mnst be addressed as defined by the City and the State. Taking into consideration the statement submitted by the applicant, with regard to this variance application, staff can make the following comments: e J. Whether the circumstances for which the variance is requested are unique to the property. Given the fact that the variance may only be in effect for a short period of time, the circumstances associaled with the property could be considered unique. 2. Whether granting the variance would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the City's Zoning Code. The variance would be keeping with the spirit and intent of the zoning code. More specifically, granting the requested variance would "promote the character of and preserve and enhance the properties and areas within the city. . . ." 3. Whether the property in question can be put to a reasonable use without granting of a variance. At this time, the property is nsed for office and manufacturing purposes. It is anticipated that this use could continue irrespective of the variance. From a subjective perspective, it is necessary for the Planning Commission to evaluate whether the applicant would e~oy a reasonable use of their property in the absence of a variance. 4. Whether the hardship was created by the property owner. .