CC PACKET 07081997 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

City Council Regular Meeting Minutes June 24, 1997 Page 4 • 1 1. Strict enforcement would cause a hardship due to the configuration of the structure and 2 existing traffic lanes; 3 2. The hardship was not created by the landowner but is unique to the individual and this 4 lot as this is a remodeUredevelopment; and, 5 3. This variance is within the spirit of the redevelopment of St. Anthony and economic 6 considerations are not the sole criteria. 7 Marks questioned landscaping on the site. 8 Commissioner Gondorchin stated this is included in condition #1 of the conditional use 9 permit. 10 Wagner noted this was a condition of the original conditional use permit and was never 11 completed. 12 Commissioner Gondorchin agreed with this statement. He explained Mr. Rosar felt he had 13 been lied to in regard to the development of Apache Plaza and did not feel it was 14 economically feasible to improve the site prior to CUB Foods locating at Apache Plaza. 15 Mayor Ranallo questioned the rationale for approval of the requests and noted that CUB 16 Foods has been in the process of locating at Apache Plaza for eighteen months. • 17 Commissioner Gondorchin stated the basis for approval is that the addition will result in 75% 18 new construction and will be an aesthetic improvement. If the requests are not granted, the 19 business can continue to operate in its current state under the conditions of the original 20 conditional use permit. He noted another factor was that Mr. Rosar could renovate the 21 building without granting of the variance or the conditional use permit. 22 Faust noted condition #2 for granting a variance which states, "The purpose of the proposed 23 variance is not based exclusively on the desire to increase the value or income potential of the 24 parcel of land but would correct extraordinary circumstances applicable to this property but 25 not applicable to other property in the City or zoning district". He then questioned how the 26 Planning Commission answered this condition. 27 Commissioner Gondorchin acknowledged that Mr. Rosar was performing the addition for 28 economic reasons. The Planning Commission considered this as a redevelopment and keeping 29 in the spirit of redevelopment of the entire area. Also aesthetically, the addition will be much 30 better than what is currently located on the site. 31 Marks noted granting of a variance requires that the physical shape of the property causes a 32 hardship. He questioned what physical conditions were taken into account for this variance. 33 Commissioner Gondorchin indicated the position of the lot to the road and the area around the • 34 building including the portion in the back of the building which is an easement belonging to