Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Memo to the City CouncilN 99-5 <br />May 17,1999 <br />Page 3 <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />1. Literal enforcement of the ordinance will cause undue hardship. <br /> <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 /> <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 /> <br />4. The special conditions and circumstances are not a consequence of the <br />petitioner's own action or inaction. <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 where the <br />property is located and will in keeping with spirit and intent of the <br />ordinance. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />The applicant believes the variance is 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 /> <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 /> <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 /> <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 /> <br />. <br /> <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 /> <br />f: \shrdoc\planning\stevewen \ccmmo \ v99- Scc. doc <br />