Laserfiche WebLink
'-i <br /> -7- <br /> 1 Mr. Drusch said he could commend the restaurant owner for his efforts <br /> 2 to expand his business and for removing some of .the bushes on his <br /> 3property which had interfered with visibility from the alley . However, <br /> 4 he said he anticipates , with the return of the warm weather, it would <br /> 5 quickly become evident that the handling of the cafe 's garbage was <br />�. 6 still inadequate , especially since, "every time the cans are serviced <br /> 7they seem to end up closer to the adjoining neighbors" . <br /> 8 <br /> 9 Mr. Drusch said he had noted that neither the plantings or fence , <br />'• 10 recommended at the last hearing, to screen the cafe activities from <br /> lithe residential neighborhood, had been depicted in the new drawings <br /> 12 and the resident indicated he would strongly oppose the rezoning of <br /> 13 any more property near Pahl for commercial use because he perceives <br /> 14 the residents would lose the only cushion they had between their homes <br /> 15 and what is an ever-expanding commercial development in that area. <br /> 16 He asked that the City reject the rezoning request. <br /> 17 <br /> 18 Mrs . Blackfeldner reported the trucks, which service the cafe, often <br /> 19 block the alley and said she is unable to remain outdoors when fish <br /> 20 is being prepared in the restaurant. Neither she nor Mr. Drusch had <br /> 21 attended the February 19th meeting at the cafe and neither had an <br /> 22 explanation for the absence of other neighbors from the meeting that <br /> 23 evening, although, Mr. Drusch said conversations he had with two of <br /> 24 them, had led him to believe that, in spite of the notice sent by the <br /> 25 Manager, they were confused as to just exactly when the request would <br /> • 26 be acted upon. <br /> 27 <br /> . 28 The Manager had, -in his March 30th memorandum to the Commission, <br /> 29 indicated that because the request to rezone the residential portion <br /> 30 to commercial to permit the expansion would not be in keeping with <br /> 31 the Comprehensive Plan, which recognized the. conflict of land use in <br /> 32 that area and recommended mid-density residential , the staff had <br /> 33 recommended the rezoning be denied which would, in effect, prevent <br /> 34 expansion: <br /> 35 <br /> 36 There was no proponent present, although the Manager reported telling <br /> 37 Mr. Kwong about the meeting. <br /> 38 <br /> 39 The consensus of the Commissioners was that the opposition they had <br /> 40 demonstrated July 19th to the first proposal would still be valid <br /> 41 since none of the concerns raised during that meeting appeared to have <br /> 42 been addressed in a satisfactory manner with the new proposal. <br /> 43 <br /> 44 Motion by Commissioner Bjorklund and seconded by Commissioner Hansen <br /> 45 to recommend Council denial of the request from Fain Lun Kwong for a <br /> 4.6 conditional use permit, the necessary parking space variance, and the <br /> 47 rezoning of Lot 2, Block 6, Murray Heights Addition (2700 Coolidge <br /> 4.8 Street N:E. ) which would permit. the expansion of. the Good Luck Cafe <br /> 49 from a 765 square foot structure to a 2 ,440 square foot sit-down rest- <br /> 50 aurant, as proposed, finding that the conditions which typically must <br /> 51 be satisfied fora conditional use permit, a variance to. the Zoning <br /> 52 Ordinance, or for rezoning the property, had not . been met in the <br /> 53 Proposal, and for. the following additional reasons: <br /> 54 <br /> 55 <br />