Laserfiche WebLink
Planned Unit Development, and is not granted solely to confer a special benefit <br />upon any person." Since this isn't for the benefit of the whole development, only <br />this one particular site, it is a variance for one person. Again, to address Mr. <br />Tillquist's concern: "Variances should not be used as a way to avoid the normal <br />processes of amending zoning resolutions." <br />Tillquist: So I take it as Citation 2(a)'s case? <br />Campbell: Yes. Would you like me to cite that? "The power to grant a variance <br />in the application of established zoning regulation should be exercised sparingly. <br />The obvious reason is that unless great caution is used and variations are granted <br />only in proper cases, the whole fabric of zoning will be worn through in spots, <br />raveled at the edges, until it's purpose in protecting property values and in securing <br />an orderly development of the community is completely warped". That's Colorado <br />case law. <br />Tillquist: There are two cases that you cited. Do you believe that this particular <br />application falls within that, those two cases? And for what reason? <br />Campbell: He stated that there is no building at this time. It is a vacant piece of <br />ground. This will be the second variance for this piece of ground and there isn't <br />even a building on it yet. <br />Sears: I believe it was a PUD modification, was it not? As opposed to being a <br />variance? <br />Tillquist: I think it was an amendment to the PUD. <br />Campbell: I agree with that. There was a modification of the original zoning <br />ordinance. This is the second modification of the original zoning ordinance. It <br />existed prior to the PUD. <br />Tillquist: Mr. Campbell, would you characterize the first amendment as falling <br />within those two cases, the first amendment to the PUD? <br />Campbell: I would characterize it that way, and I agree with Mr. Sears' statement <br />at a previous meeting where he brought up the fact that the PUD really is a <br />variance to the original development plan. I felt the first amendment to the PUD <br />was proper. <br />Tillquist: The first amendment was a setback which could be characterized as only <br />relating to a lot or two lots. Is this any different? <br />Campbell: Was the first one a setback variance? Is this a setback variance? <br />5 <br />