CC MINUTES 01221980 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

object to .any deferment since -there had been -insufficient time to notify the --residents of such a.deferment.. It,-was .his opinion the • matter had been given- a Iull_..hearing on. Januaryr:.11=,and --the Council should _proceed to- consider the Commi:ssion's recommendations. Brad Bjorklund., Chairman- of -the .Planning. Commission, pointed out that the.-Johnson'.s: attorney_,had responded -to- the opposition to the vari- ances during :the hearing -as was " recorded .in the :minutes of the .hearing. There being no -motion_,to -table, -the -,matter was, pursued with the Manager telling _the..Council_that .the .C ty':s :special- counsel had opined -that .the .City could possibly-have .a- problem-denying the frontyard setback .variances for- the expansion ..in .light of the pre- cedents. set forgranting such variances, and that ,he "was more com- fortable with -.not allowing the �rearyard setbacks. Mr. Jones agreed there are homes in the City which are built closer to the street than permitted .in the City Ordinance -and pointed out the allowance of thirty-foot .frontyard setbacks in the 1961 City Ordinance,.when-the -.gr-anting. of -the non-conforming- use was -issued - to the Johnsons. Councilman Ranallo'- said that -.that permission was for a ,greenhouse which was a non-conforming usage, but- he did not believe .the permit .should .be valid any- longer since the usage 'Rias changed to that. of :a. wholesale rose growing .and sales business. The Councilman could. .not .understand the court'-s ruling which he perceived as- "taking away the- City's right to consider variances to :its ordinances.. "- • Although hesaw the steel- -building on the Johnson ;site, rwhich is built- close _to Edwards_, ..as .possihl-y _setting the .building line for .the frontyard,: Mr_. Jones: did not .believes the other, variances had been grandfath:er.ed _in -for.-.this .,expansion... The .Manager'.said the existing .and -proposed, lighting -is not_•consistent with the lighting requirements-.of. 1961. He also .told the Council .the Johnsons werze reluctant to address the matter of the variances,.for fear they might compromise' their legal -position., _but had also _indicated Cto him they did .not_want to: return to the judge for a further judgment on the matter. The -three -residents who'-were present-Indicated they had no further _input than they 'had offered at .the ,Public Hearing: ti Motion by Councilman :Ranallo. And seconded. by :Councilman .Sundland to follow-.the -recommendations--of -the Planning `Commission ,that a building permit -be-dasued:-for. the .proposed, expansion, of - the Johnson Wholesale Florists; Inc.. greenhouse -facil-ity-_at :3.33.3 .Edwalas Street N.E_ on. a R-1,, -Sing:le::.Family. .Residence, .zoned .site with nonconfor- ming .usage_ allowed, ._but_that--the .following._variances'.proposed" In the :site plan. dated January .3, 1-978,, be denied:, :l) an .eleven-foot variance -to the :frontyard _setback -'requi:r.emerits...of :the City ordinance.; • 2) ' a _four-foot.variance 'to .the rearyard/.residential area setback ordinance requirements; 1