05-20-97 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

PH. Motion by Baker, seconded by Zisla, 6 Ayes - 0 Nays. Motion Carried. TO CLOSE THE UBLIC EARING ’ Motion by Baker, seconded by Zisla, TO ACCEPT THE APPLICANTS LETTER OF WITHDRAWAL FOR PL-235PRD-58. 6 Ayes - 0 Nays. Motion Carried. AND LP-324/NC-107/VN-312 Pletscher’s Greenhouse Mattila reviewed the case report concerning a request for site plan review, a nonconforming use permit, and a setback variance to enlarge an existing greenhouse operation. O’Brien asked what the impact would be on the Eminent Domain proceedings if this variance were denied. Would it affect the settlement? Robert Lindall, City Attorney, stated he anticipated that the owner will claim that their damages are increased if the variance is denied. However, he did not feel all the possible answers have been covered. For example, we have not explored the possibility that the addition could be added to the east side of the existing sales office and north of the other addition. Three additions are proposed. If the one in the middle were just north of that and east of the sales office, it would not be subject to a variance and it would be adjacent to the existing sales office. Other possibilities may exist. Baker asked, if the Planning Commission approves the variance and the building is not constructed in the near future, would the variance still be in effect. Lindall responded there is a minimum period during which the building must be constructed or the variance expires. Mattila said the period is six months. Baker said, in that case, a five-year construction plan is irrelevant to tonight’s proceedings. If the Planning Commission approves a variance, it is only valid for six months. The variance would not be binding beyond that period. Mattila said he thought the City Council could, upon request, extend the variance six months at a time. Mattila said the City Council could put a time period on the variance as to when it would be effective. Mattila stated he would defer to Lindall on this question. Lindall stated that Section 8-250, Time Limits, states “A special use permit or a variance permit when not used shall expire after 180 days after date of issuance unless written application is for renewal or time extension is received and granted by the City Council prior to the expiration date.” Zisla asked the section states whether the variance takes effect after the Planning Commission’s public hearing. Lindall responded no mention is made of that. Zisla asked, if this is a bona fide variance application, are there legal criteria for granting it? Zisla said he did not see the applicant making an effort to make a case in favor of the request. Is there a hardship here? It looks like Mr. Bannigan, the attorney for Pletscher’s, has suggested his client ask for a variance he knows we cannot legally grant. Zisla stated he cannot see any legal grounds for granting the variance. Lindall commented Zisla made a good point. If there is a hearing and all of the documentation would be submitted into evidence, including materials they provided in support of the variance, it would be their burden to show entitlement for a variance. Therefore, Zisla’s point is well taken. Zisla asked if the Planning Commission could make a condition of denial that the burden is on the applicant to establish the need for a variance and that our finding is that they have not done so. Lindall answered that would be possible and he understood Zisla’s belief that the facts are consistent with that. Bannigan said he took issue with Zisla’s conclusion. I:\COMMISSIONS\PLANNING\MINUTES\1997\05-20-97.WPD