Laserfiche WebLink
Approved <br />configuration of the lot. Baker stated the subdivision of the lot is creating the smaller <br />parcel. Steinglien replied that the setback requirements are the issue for this lot; it creates <br />a smaller arca to build upon. Baker stated that the owner is creating a small lot, thus the <br />owner is creating the hardship. Schiferl asked if there are other uses that would not <br />demand such large parking needs. IIe then asked if shared parking could be arranged <br />with Brighton Village for employee parking. <br />Aldrich stated that there should be a fair solution; and ten to fifteen feet shouldn't hold <br />this application up. IIe added the property would pay $25,000 a year in property taxes <br />and believes that the Commission shouldn't worry about "a little bit of green space." Ile <br />stated the employees can park on the other side of The Garage. Schiferl replied that <br />Steinglicn argued that the parking was needed for employee parking. Aldrich replied that <br />there is an agreement that employees can park on the east side of The Garage and without <br />the variance approval they would only have five parking stalls. <br />Schiferl stated that the owner of the property knew that they had a small lot and are over <br />building on the site. Zisla stated that the commission can not decide if it's a great project <br />or great tenants, but must meet the zoning code guidelines. Phillips stated that he <br />reviewed the zoning of the site and reviewed the setbacks of the site and the hardship <br />only allows a twenty -foot buildable area. Ile stated that he reviewed the Norwest Bank <br />site, it was granted a seventeen -foot setback towards the residential area and it was able <br />to maintain the front yard setback. Ile is proposing that the Commission do a similar <br />. variance to allow this building to go forward, Zisla asked how to deal with the lot <br />division. Phillips stated the variance is not requested due to the length of the lot, but the <br />width of the lot is the issue. Ile believes that there is a precedent to allow the variance. <br />Danger asked the applicant how much space is there between the rear of the building and <br />the lot line. Murlowski replied that there is thirty feet between the back of the building <br />and the lot line. Danger asked Council Member Phillips if it is possible to push the <br />building north and then grant a variance for setback closer to the residential area. Phillips <br />replied that by pushing the building to a twenty-five foot setback in the rear of' the <br />building, it would gain a fifteen -foot setback in the front, which is consistent with the rest <br />of the area. Baker stated that two variances would then be needed, one for the parking lot <br />setback and another for the rear setback. <br />Howard stated that he is uncomfortable approving this application, since the landowner is <br />causing some of' the issues. I lowever, he is interested with the overlay approach and <br />supports the staff, recommendation. Schiferl stated that he is interested in the reasons <br />why the variance was approved for the bank. Phillips replied that there was not adequate <br />space for a canopy and drive aisles. <br />Baker asked staff how long an overlay district would take to complete.. Gundlach replied <br />she has already started discussing an overlay district with the City Attorney and is <br />confidant that she would be able bring something to the commissioner's at the next <br />Planning Commission meeting. FemLlius stated that both sides of Silver lake Road, <br />and how it would impact properties, could be reviewed for an overlay district for the next <br />