PL MINUTES 06171980 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

-4- property owners within 20.0. feet... None. of. the. residents present indicated failure to receive. the. notice nor. objected. to .its contents but Mr. Jones questioned why it was not sent to the- Mirror Lake homeowners .association as had been. suggested and agreed should be: the policy for future mailings..at -the Council 's May 13th meeting. The notice. had been sent to the Eberhardt Company; the. management company, for the association. :, Mr. Bjorklund. also questioned whether the notice should have included. ,in the description..of the lan_d'..the vacated portion of the roadway. Mr. Berg responded by stating the hearing may still be valid .and read from the City ordinance the. section. which states "An error in the notice does not negate the hearing" and "Failure to receive the notice does not nullify the hearing" . However,, in.,;checking the- tax rolls, it was determined each of the Mirror- Lake unit owners has an . 885 interest in the common area., some .of which-As within 200 feet of the Blanske parcel. and each .-owner perhaps should- have therefore. been notified individually. Several. of the Commission-Members were in agreement that the hearing should,.be continued ,to -the .July meeting to allow notification of these property- owners but Mr.. Bowerman and Mr. Enrooth felt continuing the. discussion of thevariances that evening would only result in duplicating their efforts the following month. The rest of the Commission members saw the..value of giving a preliminary consideration to the proposal for the benefit of the • residents present. Motion by Mr. Jones and seconded.. by Mr. Bjorklund to continue the hearing on the- Blanske variance request which will in turn be continued to. the July 15th Commission meeting so proper notification can be made of all property owners within 200 feet. of' the property in question. Voting on the motion: Aye: Jones, Bjorklund, Peterson and Sopcinski. Nay: Bowerman and Enrooth. Motion carried. The revised site plans were presented by .Mr.. Blanske: and Mr. Berg reiterated his memo assessments_ of. the .variances which will now be necessary for the mini-storage facility as proposed. The substantial changes made by Mr. Blanske to accommodate the townhouse owners to the south, especially building the structure into the hill where only two feet of building will exceed the ground level at the point visible to those residents, were pointed out by Mr. Hance who saw this as the most unobtrusive use possible under the existing. Light Industrial zoning. He then addressed what he saw as the only., remaining issue; the question of whether industrial or -residential is better for the • area, insisting Mr.. Blanske has the right. to retain. his property as