PL PACKET 04171984 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

-7- 1 Mr. Drusch said he could, commend the restaurant owner for his efforts 2 to expand his business and for removing some of the bushes on his 3property which had interfered with visibility from the alley . However, 4 he said he anticipates, with the return of the warm weather, it would 5 quickly become evident that the handling of the cafe 's garbage was 6 still inadequate, especially since, "every. time the cans are serviced 7. they seem to end up closer to the adjoining neighbors" . 8 9 Mr. Drusch said he had noted that neither the plantings or fence, ' 10 recommended at the last hearing, to screen the cafe activities from . " 11 the residential neighborhood, had been ddpicted in the new drawings 12 and the resident indicated he would strongly oppose the rezoning of 13 any more property near Pahl for commercial use because he perceives 14 the residents would lose the only cushion they had between their homes 15 and what is an ever-expanding commercial development in that area. - 16 He asked that the City reject the rezoning request. 17 18 Mrs . Blackfeldner reported the trucks, which service the cafe , often 19 block the alley and said she is unable to remain outdoors when fish 20 is being prepared in the restaurant. Neither she nor Mr. Drusch had 21 attended the February 19th meeting at the cafe and neither had an 22 explanation for the absence of other neighbors from the meeting that 23 evening, although, Mr. Drusch said conversations he had with two of 24 them, had led him to believe that, in spite of the notice sent by the 25 Manager, they were confused as to just exactly when the request would 26 be acted upon. 27 28 The Manager had, -in his March 30th memorandum to the Commission, 29 indicated that because the request to rezone the residential_portion 30 to commercial to permit the expansion would not be in keeping with 31 the Comprehensive Plan, which recognized the conflict of land use in 32 that area and recommended mid-density residential , the staff had 33 recommended the rezoning be denied which would, in effect, prevent 34 expansion. 35 36 There was no proponent present, although the Manager reported telling 37 Mr. Kwong about the meeting. 38 - 39- The consensus of the Commissioners was that the opposition they had 4O demonstrated July 19th to the first proposal would still be valid 41 since none of the concerns raised during that meeting appeared to have 42 been addressed in a satisfactory manner with the new proposal. 43 44 Motion by Commissioner Bjorklund and seconded by Commissioner Hansen 45 to recommend Council denial of the request from Kin Lun Kwong for a 46 conditional use permit, the necessary parking space variance , and the 47 rezoning of Lot 2 , Block 6 , Murray Heights Addition (2700 Coolidge 48 Street N.E. ) which would .permit the expansion of the Good Luck Cafe 49 from a .765 square foot structure to a 2 ,440 square foot sit-down rest- 50 aurant, as proposed, finding that the conditions which typically must 51 be satisfied for a conditional .use permit, a variance to the Zoning 52 Ordinance, or for rezoning- the property, had not been met in the 53 Proposal, and for the following additional reasons : 54 55