05-20-97 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Zisla said the point was that there is no argument here for granting the variance. It is obvious the request does not meet the legal criteria for hardship. It is also evident no effort has been made to demonstrate the hardship, except for the street location. Bannigan stated the only justification made for this is that the owner already had a plan for expansion and this frustrates the owner’s plan. Do not read any more into it than that. Schiferl said he would like to pursue this issue further with Lindall and Mattila. Two separate issues impact the variance criteria. First is the question on physical characteristics. Typically, that tends to be the actual topography. Is it possible to interpret the fact that the street location affected the physical characteristics of the site? Is a setback line a physical characteristic? Mattila responded, on a site where there is right-of-way on three sides and there is limited building area available, the Commission could deem that a hardship. Here, the total floor-area ratio is 17%. Schiferl asked if one could make an argument that physical characteristics could mean a change in setback line. Mattila answered it goes beyond that. It is not just a change in the setback line, but what the change in the setback line does to the property in terms of causing a hardship. In this case, there is ample building area on the site without having to encroach in the setback area. Schiferl said if we could make an argument that physical characteristics could be construed to be setback. If so, we are saying there is plenty of room and Option A could be moved to any number of places. At some point in the future, we have no idea what this particular business or a business that might come after it would do. It is conceivable that they could run out of space and, at that point, the only place to go would be this 15 to 40 feet. Schiferl said he felt, if that situation occurred, there might be a reasonable basis for a variance in the future. Baker stated this is a public hearing and asked if anyone in the audience wished to speak on this item. No one responded. Livingston stated the applicant could put a fence up without a variance. Mattila affirmed Livingston’s statement. Livingston asked John Johnson, the consulting civil engineer for Pletscher’s, if he brought along the plans from past proposals. Johnson said the original plan was to continue the hip roof and to add to the length of the building with that kind of building. The plan was altered because we perceive, based on the discussions here, that the City will not allow the original plan. It was planned to extend that building out to 15 feet from the property line. Livingston said, to obtain a variance, an applicant must submit documentation such as site plans and elevations. The Planning Commission needs all that information to make a decision. Mattila said we did not have floor plans or building elevations that would show us what the proposed additions would look like. However, this is a unique request. Zisla said he recognized Pletscher’s difficult position and the Planning Commission wants to look for ways to help maintain Pletscher’s as a viable business. A variance may be the key to so doing. There is, frankly, the sense of being manipulated and that is frustrating. Zisla said, without more information, that is not possible. Baker stated that, if the wholesale business needs to expand to the driveway from the south, putting the addition on the south end of the building would be hard to maintain truck access into it without using Campus Drive. It looks like we are both opposed to and advocating this proposal. I:\COMMISSIONS\PLANNING\MINUTES\1997\05-20-97.WPD 3