PL MINUTES 01151980 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

-7- .Orville Thompson, 3302. Belden Drive, for.es-aw.- the 2OO foot expansion as .increasing the annoyance to' the neighbors from the high intensity lighting now in 'use. on the .property. He questioned what criteria is set for granting variances to the City Ordinance; -and when Mr. Bj.orklund _read the conditions for granting variances to him, Mr. Thompson insisted none would be met with the variances requested for the expansion. Mr. Leba, who lives across Edwards Street from the Johnsons, recounted the history of his problems with the florist- operation over the years. He said the property is not properly screened now and viewed an addi- tional 200 feet of intense lighting as -an increased annoyance for him. Traffic has improved on Edwards, Mr. Leba said, but "tonight there are cars parking on both sides of the street" . He was adam- antly opposed to "increasing commercial production in a residential area" . Vince Ella, 3300 Belden Drive, said after the first hearing on the expansion he "never expected it to be allowed" . He saw the Johnsons - - as -"extremely -greedy, to say -the least, to expect -to be granted- all these privileges in a residential area" . He concluded by saying, "They were given a. permit to build and .now their attorney objects to conforming to the City Ordinance. " The only residents who did not express opposition to the variances for the expansion were Mr. and Mrs. Sonmord who, although they live only 75 feet from the Johnson'.s property line, .felt the variances "would not be ob- jectionable for us" . �- Mr. Jones mentioned the threat made previously by one resident, Vernon Anderson, 2714 34th Avenue N.E. , that .he would take legal action against the City if the variances- were permitted. Mr. Luther responded to the opposition by saying it is his opinion that the -court, after a very long litigation in which many of the traffic and lighting aspects were explored fully, had ruled the building permit for the expansion should be issued .by the City and it is the City' s responsibility to adhere to the court order and. not drag its feet. He said in the counter claim against- the City the Johnsons had alleged "there had been no evidence -that .their proposal had failed in any .respect to comply with the City ordinance" . The Public Hearing was closed at 11: 30 p.m. Mr. Sopcinski insisted it was the responsibility of the Commission to only judge whether the variances met the conditions set down in the .City Zoning Ordinance and not to judge .the legal positions of the controversy between the City and the Johnsons. Motion -by Mr. Bjorklund and seconded by Mr. 'Enrooth to recommend the Council hereby immediately grant a building permit for a pro- posed expansion of the Johnson Wholesale Florists, Inc. greenhouse facility at 3333 Edwards Street N.E. , on. a R-1, Single Family Resi- dential, zoned site with non-conforming usage allowed and, further, that the following proposed variances be denied: i1 .