05-20-97 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Livingston asked if the Commission must make a decision on all the items. Mattila said the applicant had requested consideration of the three items. The applicant is looking for the City to document what the Planning Commission would be willing to approve or not approve. Baker suggested that, if the applicant feels more parking is needed, we should table the request until the applicant can address the parking with the proposed addition. If the applicant feels he will need that much sales space in the future, they must address the parking. The applicant cannot just show the proposed buildings and let the parking resolve itself. Baker said he could not approve a building addition without considering the parking. Mattila asked if Baker was suggesting the applicant commit to something other than what they are proposing. Baker responded the proposal is unacceptable because it does not address the parking. Motion by Schmitz to CONTINUE THE CONSIDERATION OF THE REQUEST UNTIL A LATER DATE WHEN PC. MORE INFORMATION IS PROVIDED TO THE LANNING OMMISSION The motion died due to a lack of a second. Zisla said he saw no reason to continue the item and that the Commission should move denial. The parking could be continued because we should come to a solution that enables Pletschers to have a workable site. It may make sense to deny the variance on the grounds the applicant did not provide adequate information, if the ordinance so allows. Zisla asked Mattila what information is missing that would support denial. Mattila responded we are missing the building elevations, which are typically looked at during site plan review. O’Brien said we were asking the applicant to change the access to their parking lot. They are proposing to make the modifications to their parking lot within the constraints of the existing parking lot. The Commission could approve this to allow them to get their parking lot in order and hold approval of anything else and possibly require revision of the parking lot at the time they propose an addition on the property. Zisla asked if that were consistent with denying the variance on the grounds of a lack of information. Baker responded the Commission does not have a proposal for a parking lot to consider. Baker said the proposal was for a building addition and altering the parking lot. Mattila stated the request is for site plan review, nonconforming use permit and a setback variance to alter the parking lot and construct an addition onto an existing greenhouse facility. Schiferl said he could see giving Pletscher’s approval to make this parking lot change with the understanding that, when they come in with a proposal for an addition to the building, that they might be required to show those parking lot changes on the site plan. Mattila said Pletscher’s could alter the parking lot and make the curb cut movement without Planning Commission approval. It is only when the building additions are proposed that formal review of LP-324 and VN-312 would be required. Bannigan said that at the time the building permit is pursued, they would have to comply with whatever existing code requirements. I:\COMMISSIONS\PLANNING\MINUTES\1997\05-20-97.WPD 7