PL MINUTES 06211977 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

• regarding the Board's action regarding the side yard variance sought by Berger for the same addition. The Administrative Assistant told the Board the variance request was for half of 9 feet 5 inches, which would be the average of the setbacks of structures on adjacent lots . William Dircks of Berger said his company had expected to be able to expand their existing building when it was constructed and the new zoning ordinance now restricts such action. He said three firms : Control Date, Burroughs and Zerox have contacted to lease the addition and the additional cubic footage is essential to accomodate the large containers those companies plan to store there. Mr. Dircks said if the request is not granted, his company will have to build the facility elsewhere and that will result in an economic hardship for them. The Berger manager said both the front yard and side yard variances will be necessary to build the required size addition. The Board considered the May 31, 1977 letter from Jack Fortman, Presi- dent of Galaxy Enterprises who operate the Auto Trac next door to Berger at 3009 37th Avenue N.E. , who said he feared the new addition to berger might cause loss of identification for Auto Trac and asked that if the new addition were allowed to protrude further than his building, Galaxy be granted a variance to the sign ordinance which will permit them to erect a sign perpendicular to the Auto Trac building to provide better business identification. Mr. Dircks said he would be willing to make a jog in the configuration • of the Berger addition if the City staff ascertained it might be necessary to avoid a traffic hazard for vehicles leaving Auto Trac and to prevent the loss of business identification for that company. Mr. Marks questioned the validity of the claim of hardship saying there is "no inherent right to improve to make it more economically valuable, especially in view of the high density of the buildings in the area with the addition" . Mr. Letourneau said he didn't know how Berger could contract for space they didn't have. Mr. Rymarchick disagreed with Mr. Mark 's interpretation of what con- stituted "hardship" and what was "an inherent right to enjoy your pro- perty and improve it" . He did not feel this land usage was adverse to the commercial nature of that particular location. Mr. Marks stated that "property has no inherent right to zoning" and that undeveloped land can be down-zoned. Motion by Mr. Bowerman and seconded by Mr. Cowan to recommend for ap- proval by the Council the variance for a front yard set back repre- senting the average of the set backs of the adjacent lots with variable - construction of the southwest corner of the Berger addition to provide visibility to be determined after an evaluation of the site by the staff. • Voting on the motion: (8)