Agenda Packets - 1988/12/12 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

page 2 our original application form was filled out to discuss not only the variance to the PUD size, but to ::scuss the General Concept Plan for our PUD proposal. T.-e code (stbd. D Procedures) states that the purpose of the applicant to submit a plan to provide an opportunity for the the City showing his basic intent and the general nature of the entire development without incurring substant'al cost. This Concept plan serves as the basis for public hearing so that the proposal may be publicly considered at an early stage... Due to the variance request, the most important issue of whether. this PUD as designed is an acceptable solution for this land was not discussed. The question of demand is substantiated by an approved project within the city limits in 1986 which was never built. That proposal had cPrmittedduset(resolutionnNo. approved for self storage as a p. 155-86) The issue of whether an opportunity for 1$50,OG0 a year i,. additional tax revenues from both projects has not beenthe contemplated. The issue of a business which clearly meetsobjectives of both the B-2 and PUD overlay zoning has been not discussed. Utilizing the PUD process is ourguarantee to the phase City that this project will be a quality P ment,1 to be built in 1989. We believe that we have provided evidence that this PUD: p- will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property, or substantially Increase the congestion of the public streets, or increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety, or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood; B- wculd not be materially detrimental to the purpose of the Code, or to other property in the same zone. c- is requesting the minimum variance which would alleviate the hardship; to this D- does have exceptional circumstances which applyto the property that do not apply generally same zone or Vicinity and result from jot size or shape, over which the owners of the property have had no control. E- that the literal interpretation of the Code would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district under the terms of the Code; We also believe that a case has been made ti,at this Proposals request for variance does not result from our actions and that the this quest not confer ny special privilegesnnot fenjoyed eby others lwiLa h similar hardships.