Laserfiche WebLink
Memo to the Board of Adjustments/V 99-5 <br /> April 27, 1999 <br /> Page 4 <br /> present does not conform to city regulations regarding parking setbacks, <br /> curb and gutter, paving etc. <br /> 4. Staff believes that there are no special conditions and circumstances and <br /> that the need for a variance is a consequence of the petitioner's own action <br /> or inaction because a smaller addition, although not fully meeting the <br /> applicants immediate needs, can be built and comply with city ordinances. <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 because the <br /> portion of the fire lane that is proposed for the setback area will be made <br /> of gravel with grass over it. The area cannot contain trees, however it <br /> would not be plowed and would be green. <br /> B) Staff recommends denial of the request for a variance from the off-street <br /> loading and overhead door access requirements because 4 of the 5 criteria for <br /> granting variance cannot be met. The reasons are as follows: <br /> 1. Staff believes that literal enforcement of the ordinance will not cause <br /> undue hardship because the 7 parking stalls could be located near Ulysses <br /> or the city could require that the future parking be installed, requiring <br /> • hook up to sewer and water. <br /> 2. Staff believes that the hardship might be caused by special conditions and <br /> circumstances which are peculiar to the property and the structure <br /> involved and which are not characteristic of, or applicable to, other lands <br /> or structure in the same area due to the shape of the lot and the need for <br /> additional loading docks associated with the expansion and the need for <br /> parking. <br /> 3. The literal application of the provisions of this ordinance would not <br /> deprive the petitioner of rights enjoyed by other properties in the same <br /> district under the terms of this ordinance. Although other properties do <br /> have overhead doors facing the street, there appears to be no other <br /> businesses nearby with loading docks and parking in conflict like the <br /> applicant's proposal. <br /> 4. Staff believes that there are no special conditions and circumstances and <br /> that the need for a variance is a consequence of the petitioner's own action <br /> or inaction because a smaller addition, although not fully meeting the <br /> applicants immediate needs, can be built and comply with city ordinances, <br /> or the parking stalls might be located elsewhere. <br /> 41 <br /> \\elkriver\sys\shrdoc\planning\stevewen\pcmmo\v99-5.doc <br />