Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Memo to the Board of Adjustm<.__.sN 99-5 <br />April 27, 1999 <br />Page 4 <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />present does not conform to city regulations regarding parking setbacks, <br />curb and gutter, paving etc. <br /> <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 /> <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 /> <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 /> <br />. <br /> <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 /> <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 /> <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 /> <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 /> <br />. <br /> <br />\\elkriver\sys\shrdoc\planning\stevewen\pcmmo\v99-5.doc <br />