PL MINUTES 01151980 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

-6- oriented housing, and-because there is a large portion of floor- space .to be used for community purposes pro- posed for the building. • 3) To approve the density increase from , 54 to 134 units because the expected occupancy rate of 1. 3 per unit for the elderly would probably match that of a family oriented 54 unit building. 4) The reduction of parking stall size to 9 x 19 feet which would be in conformance with the anticipated changes in the City Ordinance. The Commission also finds. the shape of this site .necessitates the granting of these variances and the project -conforms to the Compre- hensive Plan as proposed and would appear to be an enhancement for the community as a whole. Motion carried unanimously. -The- meeting was - recessed at 10 :25 p.m.- and -reconvened at 10 :35 p.m. for the Public Hearing on the variances for the Johnson Wholesale Florists, Inc. expansion. The Chairman read the notice of the hearing which had gone out to all property owners within 250 feet of the site in question and no one present reported failure '-to receive the notice nor objected to its contents. R. L. Sonmora, 2708 34th Avenue N.E. , complained he had not received notice of any prior hearings on this matter, but the Manager told him such mailings are a matter of .record and he would have been included in -the first mailing because he lives within -1,00 feet of the site.—It was-noted he was on the mailing list. Mr. Fornell 's January 11 memorandum reiterated the history of this development and the litigation between the florists and the City regarding the expansion plans. He explained, and William Luther (the Johnson' s attorney) confirmed, that the attorney did not want to compromise .by speaking the -florists ' position regarding the variances :since they pelt the district court had ruled on ..the specific site plans for the expansion and ordered a .building permit for those .plans issued by the. City. The City' s position is that the court ruled to allow the- expansion, but did not approve the specific site plan -before the City, hence the City can rule on the variances for .the. expansion. Speaking in opposition to the granting of the variances was William Zawislak, 2500 3.4th Avenue .N.E. , who said he realized the court orders on the expansion should be obeyed but could not see how the City could -consider granting additional variances to intensify the commercial use ina residential area by "allowing the Johnsons to build right up to the curb" , a .privilege not granted to other resi- dents. He complained about night deliveries to the existing florist operation and parking on the street in :front of the site which he saw as "only being increased withthe expansion" .