2020.08.18 Planning Commission - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Variance Request – WilsonWolf (2100 Old Highway 8) Planning Commission Report; 8-18-20 Page 7 (cont.) property to the north, the City know a future roadway may be constructed which speaks to the need to maintain the required setback. Criteria not met. 3) Has the applicant established that practical difficulties exist on the site? Applicant’s Statement: The Wilson Wolf staff break room/kitchen door to the outside is at the East end of the North side of the building. It is the only door reasonably close to the kitche n to supply a sink and all the normal kitchen appliances to swerve that area and an outdoor patio. Because the building is approximately 14’ from the property line and there is a 15’ setback, there is no room to build a reasonably sized patio. a. Does the applicant propose to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the zoning ordinance? Applicant’s Statement: The North side of the building has no other useful purpose. Wilson Wolf have developed our leased area with high-end spaces, materials, furnishings, equipment to allow for the highest quality experience for our staff. Staff Analysis: The useful purpose of the north side of this building is providing a safe separation between the uses on each property. The City just this year approved a site plan amendment and SUP acknowledging a possible road directly north of the proposed patio (potentially within 10 to 20 feet of the patio). Staff does not believe such a request is reasonable. Criteria not met. b. Is the plight of the landowner due to circumstances unique to this property that were not created by the landowner? Applicant’s Statement: The property has no outdoor employee space as of now. The only safe side where no truck/car traffic is, is the North side. Because it aligns with our kitchen, it is logical to make use of that convenience. Staff Analysis: Prior to the SUP amendment to the north, it could have been argued that special circumstances did exist (i.e. the approved site plan to the north protected land north of the patio for conservation purposes). With no authorization of any active uses to the north, the applicants may have had a valid argument that their setback area could safely be used as an active space. However, with the SUP to the north now amended and a roadway now anticipated, unquie circumstances no longer exist. The applicant’s argument that this is a “safe side when no truck/car traffic is” is only correct if one ignores the planned road which could potentially be 10 feet from the patio.