Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES <br />PLANNING CO <br />MARCH 9, 2000 <br />The Planner noted that financial considerations are not a justification for <br />granting a variance. He pointed out that an option would be to redesign <br />the building, and there would be architectural fees associated with a <br />redesign. The Planner indicated that when the architect designed the <br />building he assumed 10 foot side yard setbacks. The requirement for this <br />zoning district is 15 feet. <br />Rossez pointed out that the width of the property at the front is <br />approximately 92 feet and the width at the back is approximately 58 feet. <br />There is also a curvature to the property that makes it difficult to work <br />with. <br />Knudsen asked Rossez his feeling for having the building redesigned. He <br />suggested that the architect for the project should have been more diligent <br />in investigating the setback requirements for this property. <br />Rossez pointed out that less than 5% of the building isnon-compliant. <br />Knudsen pointed out that the issue is the precedent that would be set in <br />granting a variance that is based on a financial hardship. Carson asked if <br />property could be purchased from the Water Works to add to this parcel <br />and alleviate the need for a variance. <br />Barraclough noted that it might be less expensive to redesign the building <br />than it would to buy property from the Water Works. <br />Knudsen stated that he would like to find a way to get the project done, <br />but pointed out that justification for granting the variance must be non- <br />financial in nature. Keis pointed out the unique shape of the property as <br />well as the fact that it backs up against the Water Works property. <br />Duray asked if parking requirements have been met. The City Planner <br />replied that it appears they have. Four parking spaces are proposed for the <br />office use on the lower level. Parking for the respite home use on the <br />upper level will have to be accommodated in the upper driveway area. <br />The Commission discussed justifications for approving the variance. <br />Mr. Montour recommended approval of the Conditional Use Permit to <br />allow a group home facility providing short-term respite care as requested <br />by Northeast Residence for property located at Little Canada Road and <br />McMenemy Road as well as a Variance from the side yard setback <br />requirements as requested subject to compliance with the <br />recommendations ofthe City Planner, City Engineer, and City staff, and <br />