06/12/1996 P&Z Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

Between Principal Buildings: Not less than 1/2 the sum of the building heights of the two buildings. The new office area is proposed to be located 27.7' from Phelps Road which is a residential street and 7.7' from the west property line. The realigned Otter Lake Road will abut the east side of this property and become the focal point, or front, of the property. Presently, Phelps Road is the front of the property and a 50' setback is required. We would recommend approval of a 20' variance that would allow the building to be setback 30' from Phelps Road. When, and if, the new zoning ordinance is approved, a 30' setback from a residential street is recommended and would, therefore, be maintained. For P & Z information, the bor-mor building located to the north of this site is set back 40' from Phelps Road. This 30' setback requirement would mean that the property owner must reduce the size of the proposed office, or warehouse/shop area by approximately 3 feet. The property owner is also requesting a variance on the east property line of 2.3'. The existing block building is located 8.1' from the property line at a slight angle. The new building will be 7.7' from the property line, therefore another variance is necessary. We would suggest that Arnt Construction purchase an additional 2.3' from the property to the west to eliminate the need for this variance. Staff has been advised that Arnt currently has a purchase option on that parcel of property. FINDINGS OF FACT: A. That the property in questions cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls. The property owner could reduce the size of his building and meet the setback requirements, however, the ordinance is proposed to be changed to a 30' setback. B. That the plight of the landowners is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the land owner. The pending realignment of Otter Lake Road was not created by the property owner, therefore, a unique circumstance does exist. C. That the hardship is not due to economic considerations alone and when a reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the ordinance. There is no economic consideration in this case. D. That granting the variance requested will not confer on the applicant any special privilege that would be denied by this ordinance to other lands, structures, or buildings in the same district. Under similar circumstances the opportunity to apply for a variance would be given to other lands, structures, or buildings. E. That the proposed actions will not unreasonably diminish or impair established property values within the neighborhood. Property values should, in fact, be increased with this proposed construction. F. That the proposed actions will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance. The spirit and intent of the ordinance is to provide for light industrial development and eliminate pole barn