My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
VN-161
NewBrighton
>
Commissions
>
Commissions-OLD
>
PLANNING
>
Planning
>
Variance Files PLZ 02400
>
VN 101-200
>
VN-161
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/26/2007 4:58:29 PM
Creation date
2/23/2007 11:42:15 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
28
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Page ?_ <br />` VN-161 <br />and have denied the request. Harty stated that the floor-area- <br />ratio is perhaps the major tool the City has for controlling <br />development and density of land use. Harty stated that he felt <br />the applicants should reduce the size of the addition. <br />Wickland stated that he would like to see Spotts acquire <br />additional land. `Wickland noted that the same requirement has <br />been imposed on a l other developmentso <br />Bohling questioned whether the .3 limit was based on the <br />philosophy of a bedroom community.. Bohling stated that he <br />felt metropolitan communities would have to increase densities <br />in the future to conserve energy and that we can no longer afford <br />areas of open land. Bohling indicated that he felt it was <br />perhaps time to adopt a different philosophy regarding develop- <br />ment. <br />Fredrickson stated that she saw no, logic in restricting <br />industrial areas to;the same density .limits as'rssidential <br />areas.. <br />Wickland said that he felt the industrial districts should <br />be less 'dense than-the- residential districts. <br />Brown said-that they are requesting an addition that is <br />consistent with what is already there..: He stated-that he felt <br />`the building would look funny if they required to cut .the <br />building back by one-third.: Brown said that to require Spotts to <br />acquire.-additional land may be 'an undue hardship. <br />Motion "by Harty, seconded by Wickland, tai recommend denial <br />of VN-161 because while unique circumstances can be found, the <br />warrants of undue hardship are not present. <br />Mr. Roux-questioned-what the problem was and what ..was the <br />reason for a variance. <br />Wickland. said that the request would simply allow more <br />building than is permitted by ordinance.... Wick land stated that <br />there are some unique circumstances, those being that the <br />property is adjacent to Besswengers, adjacent to the entry of <br />what may be a park,. the railroad-tracks and the lake. Wickland: <br />noted-that-these unique circumstances may not destroy the feeling <br />of land use density. W ickland statedthathe felt this was the <br />best that could be. said fore the. request. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.