Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES <br />CITY COUNCIL <br />JULY 27, 2011 <br />be set back 40 feet from the front yard property line. That is <br />consistent with the previously approved CUP for this property. <br />2. Granting of this variance is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan <br />and Zoning Ordinance. <br />3. Relocation of the trailer is not practical due to security or <br />maneuverability issues on the site due to the irregular shape and <br />shallowness of the lot which are unusual for an industrial lot. <br />4. This site has a limited rear yard due to its shallowness which makes <br />storage in this area impossible. <br />5. Granting of this variance will not alter the essential character of the <br />locality. <br />The foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Keis. <br />Ayes (5). <br />Nays (0). Resolution declared adopted. <br />TEXT Blesener opened the Public Hearing to consider a Text Amendment to the <br />AMENDMENT — Zoning Code, Section 922, relative to Variance standards. The City <br />VARIANCE Planner and the Planning Commission recommended approval of the Text <br />STANDARDS Amendment. <br />The City Planner reported that the Legislature adopted revised Variance <br />criteria that moves away from the hardship standard and now considers <br />whether or not the property owner is putting the property to any <br />reasonable use. The new law adopted the County planning language <br />related to "practical difficulties" rather than "hardship" and alters the level <br />of necessity by allowing cities to decide that the applicant's proposal <br />constitutes using the property in a reasonable manner, rather than finding <br />that the Variance is necessary to allow any reasonable use. This is a major <br />change in the City's authority since the City may decide that even though <br />a property owner has options that would meet zoning regulations, a <br />proposal that requires a Variance is still a reasonable way of using that <br />property, and may be approved if the City chooses to do so. <br />There was no one present from the general public wishing to comment on <br />this matter. <br />Upon motion by Keis, seconded by Montour, the public hearing was <br />closed. <br />McGraw introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: <br />RESOLUTION NO. 2011 -7 -140 — ADOPTING AN ORDINANCE <br />AMENDING CHAPTER 922 OF THE ZONING CODE RELATIVE <br />8 <br />