Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Memo to the Board of Adjustm""tsN 99-5 <br />April 27, 1999 <br />Page 5 <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />5. The variance may be injurious to or adversely affect the health, safety or <br />welfare of the residents of the City or the neighborhood because car <br />movements are in close proximity to the truck loading docks and trucks. <br /> <br />Recommendation <br /> <br />A) Staff recommends that the Board of Adjustments deny this request for a <br />variance from the drive aisle requirements because the applicant cannot <br />meet the following criteria: <br /> <br />1. STAFF BELIEVES THAT THE LITERAL ENFORCEMENT WILL NOT CAUSE <br />UNDO (UNNECESSARY, UNAVOIDABLE, EXTREME) HARDSHIP. THE <br />APPLICANT AT PRESENT HAS A REASONABLE USE OF THE SAID <br />PROPERTY AND IS ABLE TO ADD ON, ALTHOUGH NOT TO THE EXTENT <br />BEING PROPOSED. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />2. STAFF BELIEVES THAT THE HARDSHIP IS NOT CAUSED BY SPECIAL <br />CONDITIONS AND CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH ARE PECULIAR TO THE <br />PROPERTY OR STRUCTURE INVOLVED BECAUSE WITH A SMALLER <br />BUILDING A VARIANCE WOULD NOT BE REQUIRED. <br /> <br />4. STAFF BELIEVES THAT THERE ARE NO SPECIAL CONDITIONS AND <br />CIRCUMSTANCES AND THAT THE NEED FOR A VARIANCE IS A <br />CONSEQUENCE OF THE PETITIONER'S OWN ACTION OR INACTION <br />BECAUSE A SMALLER ADDITION, ALTHOUGH NOT FULLY MEETING THE <br />APPLICANTS IMMEDIATE NEEDS, CAN BE BUILT AND COMPLY WITH CITY <br />ORDINANCES. <br /> <br />B) Staff recommends that the Board of Adjustments deny this request for a <br />variance from the off-street loading and overhead door access requirements <br />because the applicant cannot meet the following criteria: <br /> <br />1. STAFF BELIEVES THAT LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE <br />WILL NOT CAUSE UNDUE HARDSHIP BECAUSE THE 7 PARKING STALLS <br />COULD BE LOCATED NEAR ULYSSES OR THE CITY COULD REQUIRE THAT <br />THE FUTURE PARKING BE INSTALLED, REQUIRING HOOK UP TO SEWER <br />AND WATER. <br /> <br />3. THE LITERAL APPLICATION OF THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ORDINANCE <br />WOULD NOT DEPRIVE THE PETITIONER OF RIGHTS ENJOYED BY OTHER <br />PROPERTIES IN THE SAME DISTRICT UNDER THE TERMS OF THIS <br />ORDINANCE. ALTHOUGH OTHER PROPERTIES DO HAVE OVERHEAD <br />DOORS FACING THE STREET, THERE APPEARS TO BE NO OTHER <br />BUSINESSES NEARBY WITH LOADING DOCKS AND PARKING IN CONFLICT <br />LIKE THE APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />4. STAFF BELIEVES THAT THERE ARE NO SPECIAL CONDITIONS AND <br />CIRCUMSTANCES AND THAT THE NEED FOR A VARIANCE IS A <br />CONSEQUENCE OF THE PETITIONER'S OWN ACTION OR INACTION <br /> <br />f:\shrdoc\planning\stevewen\pcmmo\v99-5.doc <br />