04-25-1988 - Agenda Packet City Council - regular meeting

Home Browse Search

r � City of OR.ONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. b) In review of the factual findings noted above, the City finds that the property in question can indeed be put to reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by official controls. The City has already approved substantial increases of hardcover to allow the applicant to improve the property and applicant can continue to reasonably enjoy that property. c) In review of the Lactual findings noted above, the plight of the applicant would appear to have been created by the applicant and not by circumstances unique to his property. Applicant has not provided additional information that would suggest the circumstances have been altered from the first review. d) In review of the factual findings noted above, the City would find that the granting of the proposed variances would appear to serve as a convenience to the applicant and that the applicant has not provided a demonstrable hardship or difficulty that the City can accept. e) In review of the f actual findings noted above, the City finds that to establish a precedent that would allow a property owne, to make improvements to a property conditioned on that property owner complying with special directives and then asking the City to reconsider their original decision after those improvements have been installed to be completely unreasonable and in complete conflict with the established environmental standards for lakeshore development within the City and to be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare. The City also looks to the broader environmental principals and goals set forth in their Community Management Plan and the intent of the specific zoning district when, dealing with matters related to the public health, safety and welfare. Issues involving the public health, safety and welfare are not only resolved in securing the obvious traffic and drainage concerns surrounding but the City also feels obligated to provide itL citizens with a designates and approved optimum level of density, open space and quality of life. 13. Denial of the required variances does not constitute the taking of property or loss of substantial value because the property has always been used and enjoyed as esidential building site, all of which has served as required yard and open space for the existing residence. 14. The applicant has not introdi any evidence contrary to any of the above findings of fact. The applicant has claimed only that the property would be of greater value and use to him if he were allowed to maintain the current level of hardcover. Page 5 of 6