07-26-1989 Council Agenda - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES Planning Commission July 13, 1989 Advocate Real Estate Variance (cont.) rationale' because it is possible to develop the property with the same size building in conformance with the Ordinance. Ms. Drabik stated that possibly some of the parking spaces in the back of the building could be eliminated and the building could then be moved back in conformance with the Ordinance. Mr. Grittman indicated that only 24 spaces are needed; however, there are 39 proposed. Mr. Costa asked if the building would be used exclusively for the attorneys. Mr. Appert indicated that there would be some rental units in the building. Mr. Costa indicated that the Commission was not against the design of the building, but asked how many floors there were going to be. Mr. Appert stated that there would be basically two floors. Ms. Schweizer stated that the site location Advocate Real Estate has chosen on the lot would probably be more favorable to them; however, the Commission would have to grant them a variance in that case and would then be setting a precedent which they would have to follow. The representatives from Advocate indicated that if the variance was approved, their building would probably still be set further back than future buildings on that road due to the angle of the street. They also indicated that the lot abuts Highway 36 on the east side so there would not be any further development on that side. Mr. Grittman indicated that the land to the east is owned by the Highway Department, but the Highway will never expand into that area. It is really a large wetland. Mr. DeLonais moved that the Commission recommend denial of the variance because there is no hardship shown; however, the Commission does recommend approval of the site plan the Planner had recommended. motion seconded by Ms. Drabik. Motion carried 6 - 1. Page 2