04-27-1999 BA MIN - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Board of Adjustments Minutes April27, 1999 Page 2 • parking area and the loading docks, which does provide some separation between the parking and truck loading area. Terry Maurer noted that the property owner will be required to hook up to city sewer and water as soon as it becomes available. Vice Chair Mesich opened the public hearing. John Weicht, 13330 Island View Drive, representing the applicant, explained that the fire chief has indicated he would accept the narrower drive aisle around the building, since the landscaped area adjacent to the drive aisle could be driven on, in the event of an emergency. Mr. Weicht indicated that vehicle traffic at the warehouse is very minimal. He felt the difference in grade between the loading docks and parking area created a physical separation. Mr. Weicht noted that extensive landscaping is planned for the site. There being no comments from the public, Vice Chair Mesich closed the public hearing. Commissioner Kuester indicated that she felt the parking issue could be worked out but she was concerned about the fire lane drive aisle. Commissioner Morris asked if the variance would still be needed if the size of the building were reduced. Mr. Weicht indicated that a variance would still be needed for the conflicting truck/auto movements. 1111 Discussion followed regarding the parking adjacent to the loading doors. It was the consensus of the Commissioners that the variance for the parking was not necessary, since the retaining wall and railing provided separation between the truck and vehicle traffic. COMMISSIONER KUESTER MOVED TO DISMISS THE PORTION OF THE PORTION OF THE REQUEST BY JOHN WEICHT AND ASSOCIATES FOR A VARIANCE FROM THE OFF- STREET LOADING AND OVERHEAD DOOR ACCESS REQUIREMENTS, BASED ON NEW INFORMATION RECEIVED DURING THE PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW, AND,TO DENY THE REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE FROM THE DRIVE AISLE PROPERTY SETBACK, PUBLIC HEARING CASE NO. V 99-5, PART A, BASED ON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS: 1. STAFF BELIEVES THAT THE LITERAL ENFORCEMENT WILL NOT CAUSE UNDO (UNNECESSARY, UNAVOIDABLE, EXTREME) HARDSHIP. THE APPLICANT AT PRESENT HAS A REASONABLE USE OF THE SAID PROPERTY AND IS ABLE TO ADD ON, ALTHOUGH NOT TO THE EXTENT BEING PROPOSED. 2. STAFF BELIEVES THAT THE HARDSHIP IS NOT CAUSED BY SPECIAL CONDITIONS AND CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH ARE PECULIAR TO THE PROPERTY OR STRUCTURE INVOLVED BECAUSE WITH A SMALLER BUILDING A VARIANCE WOULD NOT BE REQUIRED. 3. STAFF BELIEVES THAT THERE ARE NO SPECIAL CONDITIONS AND CIRCUMSTANCES AND THAT THE NEED FOR A VARIANCE IS A CONSEQUENCE OF THE PETITIONER'S OWN ACTION OR INACTION BECAUSE A SMALLER ADDITION, ALTHOUGH NOT •