Laserfiche WebLink
Tillquist: You say that's not a problem there, but it is a problem here. Why would <br />you draw a distinction there? <br />Campbell: I appreciate you bringing that to my attention. The first amendment was <br />to a PUD, consequently, it went through the proper processes. "Variances should <br />not be used as a way to avoid the normal process of amending zoning resolutions", <br />and the first way that it was handled by the developer was to amend. <br />Tillquist: Setting aside that, there was a case there that you cited as saying we <br />should be careful about how we do this and we shouldn't do an amendment that is <br />specific to a lot or lots. I understood that your objection to this one is that we have <br />something that's specific to a particular lot, a change to a particular lot, which is <br />exactly what's happening here. <br />Pendergrast: Could you read the State statute, the first part, again? <br />Campbell: "Most substantial modification..." <br />Pendergrast: If we did grant this variance, we'd being going from 24% lot coverage <br />imposed by the PUD to a 26% lot coverage. Do you think that 2% difference is a <br />substantial modification? <br />Campbell: No, but let me read it again: "...is not granted solely to confer to the <br />special benefit upon any person..." That is the key phrase in that whole provision. <br />Von Eschen: Mr. Campbell, do you live in that area? <br />Campbell: I live in Louisville. I don't think that is relevant. <br />Robert Ross: I think it is. <br />Sears: Have you been by to see the site? <br />Campbell: No. <br />Robert Ross: Are you a concerned citizen? <br />Campbell: Yes. I would like to see that the zoning ordinances of the City aren't <br />just worn through and raveled at the edges by the granting of variances. <br />Robert Ross: Do you question this Board's integrity? <br />Campbell: I haven't said anything at all about integrity. <br />6 <br />