pf_02042 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Centennial United Methodist Church, Case No. ZD42 Page Z 2. DEVELOPMENT ANAL 1'51:: Plann:ng Consideratiuns At the time that the above described work was pedol'med, the church property was a nonconforming use. The conditions on the sito:: F;xisL'd priur t,o the enactment of the Codp. provisicr.s that prohibit them. ;he City Code is quite cJee; 1:1 stating that: .. . . . any "'Ioncenforming use may bf> continued, but r.1ay not ':Je extende~, expanded, or L h.angeC: unless, '" conforming usc" (see Section 11.020). The com~lJnity is statino in essence that it would be '-Inreasanable to req;.:ire all ex.isting uses -to comply with the new st..ndar'is :mmediately. However, as major repairs, medificatians, <:!id changes occur, these nonconforming l'ses should come into compliance with the new standards. The Centenr,ial United ;oi1ethodist Church has recently undert..ke'~ modifications and hopefully extended the use of this prDpe:-ty. ~ecause the church was not aware of the City's requirements {and we do not doubt this), &n opportunity has been lost. Th~re is no ~:.Je5tion building and ground:; and the community. maintain and upgrade positive thing. that the work that has been completed on the is an improvement and benefits both the church Certainly the City encourages all owners to their property and the church's inv~stmcnt is a The work i:; done, they did r.ot know it required a permit, beUeve t!1at they have not \:Judgeterj for this additional expense. these statements are true, but do they constitute a hardship? an!! we All of Section 12.040 includes the City's standards for Variances for Hardshi~. This section is included below for your review and consider'ition: "Where there are practical difficulties or unusual hardstlips in the way of carrying uut the strict letter of the provisions lif this Code, the Council sIlall have the pow~r, in a specific case and after notice and public hearing, to vary any such provision in harmony with the general purpose and mtent thereof, and may impose such additional cooditions as it considers necessary 50 that the public health, safety and g~neral welfare may be secured and substantial justice dOIle." The first thing that is clear in reviewing this standa:-d and the facts invoived in this case is that thHe really i:> not a hard..hip ir. the typical sense. Usually hardships invoiv~ constraints imposed by the size and s~ape of a property, di Ificuit topography, or other problems related to t h'_ fH'opert y. Yuu ",.ili not!" tl1at the standard does reference "practicid difficulties" as cQn::;tituting " di'cumstance under which the Council can var>' from the strict pro\':s::Jn IIf thp Code. The circulllstancas surrounding this matter would c"itall1iy constitute practical Jifficuities. The other aspect of this standard tha~ bears noting is that it authorizes the City to "in,pose such adl1itional cO;ldilions as it cansiders necessary so that the public health, safety 3nd general welfare .nay he secured and suL3tantial justir.e done,"