My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
08-11-2016 Planning Commission Packet
>
Agenda Packets
>
2010-2019
>
2016
>
08-11-2016 Planning Commission Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/23/2019 9:24:13 AM
Creation date
9/8/2016 6:00:35 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
56
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
4 <br /> <br />Staff Comment: The applicant suggests that the jogged lot line, due to the <br />configuration of the added property, will interfere with the planned internal operation <br />of the facility, which relies on a continuous crane assembly from the existing building <br />into the addition. To accommodate this operation, the additional building will <br />encroach into the required setback. Without the variance, the applicant would not be <br />able to make use of the property. <br /> <br />(2) Special conditions and circumstances may not be primarily economic in nature. <br /> <br />Staff Comment: The variance request is in order to expand mechanical equipment <br />that is used to move large amounts of metal. Without the variance, the applicant <br />notes that expansion will not be feasible. <br /> <br />b. Literal interpretation of the provisions of this Ordinance would deprive the applicant of <br />rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district under the terms of this <br />Ordinance. <br /> <br />Staff Comment: Industrial building expansion is common in an industrial park, and <br />supported by the economic development objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. The <br />variance request allows the applicant to expand their business as others have done <br />in the past. <br /> <br />c. The special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. <br /> <br />Staff Comment: The existing building on the site was constructed in 1975. The <br />current owner purchased the adjoining property “as-is” in 2005. The conditions of the <br />property (jogged rear lot line) are not a result of the owner. <br /> <br />d. Granting the variance requested will not confer on the applicant any special privilege that <br />is denied by this Ordinance to other lands, structures, or buildings in the same district. <br /> <br />Staff Comment: The applicant seeks to expand a manufacturing business in an <br />industrial zone. Variance consideration is on a case-by-case basis. The Planning <br />Commission has, in the past, accommodated limited industrial expansion by granting <br />setback variances where the conditions did not negatively impact adjoining property. <br /> <br />e. Practical difficulties exist in complying with the literal terms of this Ordinance. <br /> <br />Staff Comment: As noted above, addition of the new parcel results in the parcel <br />taking on an irregular shape. Practical difficulties arise in making use of the property <br />due to the need to align equipment between the existing building and proposed <br />expansion. It does not appear that the applicant is seeking more encroachment than <br />that necessary to accommodate the expansion. <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.