Laserfiche WebLink
y <br />It is not necessary to reconsider. the prior action <br />of the Commission and the entire application,.but if, <br />iit-is reconsidered, Lhe Commission finds that: <br />a) a canopy is a structure within the meaning <br />of the ordinance and.must comply with the <br />30 foot setback requirements for structures. <br />The canopy should also be considered in de- <br />termining floor area ratios. <br />b) The amount ($14,000) that applicant has <br />spent on a custom made canopy is due to its <br />own error and that cannot be considered in <br />determining hardship or unique circumstance <br />within the meaning of the ordinance. In- <br />creasing the cost of operation in this manner <br />is not the same as increasing the cost toa <br />point that deprives applicant or the use of <br />his property. <br />The'Merrian Park case cited by applicant is distin- <br />guishable. In that case, the ?..:.:id could not be developed <br />for any purpose without the requested variances and the <br />intended use was compatible with the requirements of the <br />ordinances from which variances were sought. Here the <br />applicant is not deprived of the use of his land. He is <br />using it and the problems are related to cost trade offs <br />and competition. The proposed canopy will conflict with ` <br />the asthestics which are to be promoted by the set-back <br />requirements.