Laserfiche WebLink
VN-161 <br />Page 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 inay be <br />somewhat off-set in this'partcular ease as the variance is <br />relatively small in ,terms of the overall development and the <br />expansion will be to the rear of he property which would mean <br />that it essentially.-will-not be; seen by the general public. <br />The Planning Commiss-ion may wish ,to review, however, a previous <br />variance request, V1~-14.7, which. also `was. for a variance from <br />the floor-axes-.ratio. That request for expansion of a home on <br />9th Armen NW, was heard by the Planning Commission in August, 1975. <br />and was. not approved by 'the City Council. <br />