Laserfiche WebLink
VN-161 <br />rage 2 - Sept. 17, 1976 <br />In regards to the warrants for a variance it appears questionable <br />whether this is a unique circumstance. It could be said that the <br />unique circumstance (insufficient land area) is a result of a <br />business expansion rather than change or circumstance related to <br />the property. <br />Relative to the floor-area-ratio limit it would appear that the <br />intent is to discourage overcrowding and overuse of property, <br />prohibit over-use of available utilities and protect the health, <br />safety and welfare of surrounding property. These concerns may be <br />somewhat off-set in this particular case as the variance is <br />relatively small in terms of the overall development and the <br />expansion will be to the rear of the property which would mean <br />that it essentially will not be seen by the general public. <br />The Planning Commission may wish to review, however, a previous <br />variance request, VN-147, which also was for a variance from <br />the floor-area-ratio. That request for expansion of a home on <br />9th Aven NW, was heard by the Planning Commission in August, 1975 <br />and was not approved by the City Council. <br />