Laserfiche WebLink
Memo to the Board of Adjustments/V 99-5 <br /> April 27, 1999 <br /> Page 3 <br /> • 1. Literal enforcement of the ordinance will cause undue hardship. <br /> 2. The hardship is caused by special conditions and circumstances which are <br /> peculiar to the property and the structure involved and which are not <br /> characteristic of, or applicable to, other lands or structure in the same <br /> area. <br /> 3. The literal application of the provisions of this ordinance would deprive <br /> the petitioner of rights enjoyed by other properties in the same district <br /> under the terms of this ordinance. <br /> 4. The special conditions and circumstances are not a consequence of the <br /> petitioner's own action or inaction. <br /> 5. The variance will not be injurious to or adversely affect the health, safety <br /> or welfare of the residents of the City or the neighborhood where the <br /> property is located and will in keeping with spirit and intent of the <br /> ordinance. <br /> The applicant believes both variances are warranted because without it the <br /> warehouse cannot expand as proposed and this will have a negative impact <br /> on delivery to the customers. The lot shape is unusual and creates a <br /> hardship for development. In regards to the location of the loading docks, <br /> there is little vehicular movement on site during the day when deliveries by <br /> truck occur. The applicant proposes screening the loading docks from the <br /> street. The applicant sees no adverse effects to health, safety and welfare <br /> The trucks are stored off site over night. (See applicants attached letter) <br /> A) Staff recommends denial of the variance from drive aisle setback <br /> requirements, because 3 of the 5 criteria for granting a variance cannot be <br /> met. The reasons are as follows: <br /> 1. Staff believes that the literal enforcement will not cause undo <br /> (unnecessary, unavoidable, extreme) hardship. The applicant at present <br /> has a reasonable use of the said property and is able to expand, however <br /> not to the extent being proposed. <br /> 2. Staff believes that the hardship is not caused by special conditions and <br /> circumstances which are peculiar to the property or structure involved <br /> because with a smaller building a variance would not be required. <br /> 3. The literal application of the provisions of this ordinance would deprive <br /> the petitioner of rights enjoyed by other properties in the same district <br /> • under the terms of this ordinance because the adjacent property at <br /> \\elkriver\sys\shrdoc\planning\stevewen\pcmmo\v99-5.doc <br />