11-30-1989 Public Hearing and Regular Meeting

Browse Search

® • • VARIANCE REQUEST V89-001 PAGE -3- 1. The triangular shape and shallowness of the I.W. II tract dictated the placement of the original structure on the tract. 2. Original building placement and development of the I.W. II master plan compiled with City Zoning regulations in effect at the time. 3. Original buildings were designed to accommodate the proposed expansion. Relocation of the proposed addition would render it useless for its intended purpose as well as interfering with required parking/maneuvering areas located at the front of the property. 4. The hardship which would result from literal enforcement of zoning ordinance requirements, would be due to changes in the City Zoning Ordinance which were • made subsequent to construction of the existing I.W. II buildings and development of the company's master plan. • The hardship is therefore not as a result of the applicants actions. CONCLUSION: f~ With the above factors in mind, there appears to be a legitimate hardship involved. This request is therefore eligible ~_~ to be considered for a variance. Before deciding whether or not to grant the requested relief however, the Board must also make the following determinations: 1. Granting the variance will not be contrary to the public interest. 2. Granting the variance will observe the spirit of the zoning ordinance. These determinations must be made based on testimony taken from the applicant and concerned citizens. OPTIONS: 1. Approve the requested valiance. 2. Deny the requested variance. ~~=~, 3. Table the request for further consideration at a future date.