05-20-97 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

be ample area for overflow parking on the site to the north. That looks like the logical area for overflow parking rather than putting it in the Old Highway 8 boulevard. Schiferl asked if there was a possibility for overflow parking on Campus Drive or is it posted for no parking. Mattila responded Campus Drive is not posted for no parking. Bannigan said the primary concern of his client is to keep the business viable. Bannigan pointed out the features of the proposal on the site plan. Bannigan said Pletscher’s was presenting its future plans in light of the possible condemnation hearing. Holiday parking is very intensive. Pletscher’s has 34 parking spaces now and we would only have 28. The applicant wants the curbing to stop at the power pole because 18 wheelers have to come in that area. Bannigan described the uses on the site in detail. Bannigan said if the City requires 18 feet long parking stalls, parking would be forced onto Campus Drive. Bannigan stated that the parcel of land with the home on the property is a legally separate entity because that parcel of land secures the mortgage on that home. The dwelling is needed, although the site is zoned Light Industrial, because an owner/watchman is required because the greenhouses heating must be monitored all year. Bannigan asked if the Planning Commission had any questions for him. Zisla asked if Bannigan preferred Option A for the dwelling. Bannigan responded affirmatively. Zisla asked where the property line was before the condemnation. Bannigan responded that property lines never change. Bannigan said the line Zisla was referring to is a side yard line and now it is a street line. Zisla asked if Pletscher’s is proposing to put a building addition at that location or do they just want to know if such an addition would be approved if they ask. Bannigan answered that the Pletschers had a plan that showed the addition as one of their options for development of their site. The Pletschers want to resolve the issue about whether or not that meets the performance standards of this community. Bannigan said a Commissioners asked, if we do not receive approval this evening, will we come back on a hardship. If Pletscher’s meets the hardship qualifications, they may do that. What we are saying here is that Pletscher’s has the right to make that application. As result of the taking, Pletscher’s may not have that right. Zisla asked what the taking was on the south property line. Bannigan responded the taking comes as result of the configuration and pointed out the area on the plan. Livingston asked about the addition’s use. Bannigan responded it would be used for more sales area inside. Livingston asked about the others. Bannigan responded they would also be used as sales areas. Bannigan pointed out which additions would be first. Livingston asked if the Pletschers would consider putting the driveway on Campus Drive and eliminating the one on Old Highway 8. Bannigan said neither the County nor the City has any objection to the driveway plan. O’Brien asked if the only intent of this variance request is Option A or is the applicant really looking at any possible development down the line? Are you envisioning any other possible developments? Bannigan said the Pletschers were interested in increasing their retail space. Livingston asked if the plan shows display storage area or future display storage area. Johnson replied it varies from season to season as to use of that area. Seasonal products are also stored there. The area is currently used for plants. Livingston said he had been shopping at Pletscher’s for 25 years and has never seen anything back there. Johnson replied the Pletschers will plant tulips and put a hoop over them in spring when they come up. Livingston said it was really a growing area, not a display area. Johnson answered affirmatively. I:\COMMISSIONS\PLANNING\MINUTES\1997\05-20-97.WPD 5