CC MINUTES 01221980 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

L ,r -4- The Council concurs with the Planning Commission that the project is in conformance with the proposed Comprehensive Plan; that it appears to provide an enhancement for the community; and the granting of the variances meets the conditions set forth in the City Ordinance for granting such variances as follows: 1. Because of the unique physical characteristics of the property, the variances will relieve an undue hardship, as distinguished from a mere inconvenience, should the applicable ordinance be strictly enforced. 2. The purposes of the variances are not based exclu- sively upon a desire to. increase the value or income potential of the parcel of land, but would correct extraordinary circumstances applicable to this property, but not applicable to other property in the vicinity or zoning district because of the aforementioned reasons and due to the fact that the applicants for the variances and the project represent a non-profit organization. , 3. The alleged difficulty or hardship is caused by City Ordinance and has not- .been created by any persons pre- sently having an interest in the parcel of land, noting that City Ordinance addresses a R-4 district as multi- family, which section does not consider the innate char- acteristics of an elderly housing project in matters • such as reduced unit square footage and reduced average per unit occupancy. Motion carried unanimously. The Planning Commission representative next addressed the controversial expansion plans for the Johnson Wholesale Florists, Inc. property at 3333 Edwards Street N.E. which has involved the City and the Johnsons in a litigation which has lasted for over a year and a half. Mr. Jones said the Planning Commission was in agreement with the City's position that..althouth the expansion Plans: had been approved by the -court, . the ruling in Johnson's favor---did not address. the- -speeific variances to the City Ordinance which'---would. for- the expansion plans, as suLmitted for that.-property, for- whibh- a non-conforming usage in a R-1 zoning district has already been grandfathered in. The Commis- sion was especially concerned that variances had failed to meet the conditions set by City Ordinance for granting such variances and fol- lowing a lengthy hearing on the matter and agreeing with the points of opposition expressed by the neighbors, recommended Council denial of those variances. Mr. Fornell said the Johnsons had indicated only that afternoon their inability to attend the meeting and had requested the question be deferred until the next Councilomeeting. The special counsel repre- senting the City in the litigation had also informed him he would be • able to attend, but with some difficulty. Noting the three residents who were present for the consideration of the Johnson expansion and reminding the Council members the same persons had remained late in the evening to discuss the question with the Planning Commission the night of the public hearing, Councilman Ranallo said he would