Laserfiche WebLink
COUNCIL MINUTES NOVEMBER 12, 2002 <br />DRAFT <br />• 1.) That the property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed <br />• <br />• <br />by the official controls. <br />Associate Planner Gretz noted the property can be put to reasonable use while still abiding by the <br />Ordinance regulations applying to accessory structures. <br />2.) That the plight of the landowners is due to physical circumstances unique to his property and not <br />created by the landowner. <br />Associate Planner Gretz pointed out that there are no unique physical circumstances which are unique <br />to the property and come into play in this case. <br />3.) That the hardship is not due to economic considerations alone, and when a reasonable use for the <br />property exists under the terms of the ordinance. <br />Associate Planner Gretz stated, again, the Ordinance regulati+ <br />which are the focus of this Variance request, do not in any w <br />property in question. <br />plying to accessory structures, <br />preclude a reasonable use of the <br />4.) That granting the variance requested will not coufer on the applicant any special privilege that <br />would be denied by this ordinance to other lands, structures, or buildings in the same district. <br />Associate Planner Gretz stated that granting the Variance would be conferring upon the applicant a <br />privilege beyond what is required under theZ ,ni g Ordinance and which is not extended to other <br />residents. <br />5.) That the proposed actions will be in keeping ith the spirit and intent of the ordinance. <br />Associate Planner Gretz note tl t grartti the proposed Variance would not be in keeping with the <br />spirit and intent of the Ordinance, which states that metal accessory buildings in excess of 150 sq. ft. <br />are prohibited for a property of this size and zone. <br />Associate Planner Gretz explained that since the metal building that has been constructed is <br />prohibited under City Ordinance, and since the Variance request does not meet any of the five criteria <br />reviewed above, staff would recommend denial of this Variance application. <br />Councilmember Carlson moved to adopt Resolution No. 02-153, Resolution Denying a Variance for <br />the Construction of a Metal Accessory Building for Property located at 442 Main Street. <br />Councilmember Reinert seconded the motion. <br />Motion carried unanimously. <br />Resolution No. 02-153 can be found in the City Clerk's office. <br />4 <br />