CCMIN052582 - Laserfiche WebLink

389 Ms. Wanda Aldrich, 381 Rose Avenue, presented a sketch of the beauty shop and stated the code allows for a 10% expansion without additional parking, noting that the expansion only exceeded 10% by a Small amount. She stated that the interior had been redecorated and one wall moved out but that the building itself had not been expanded and that there was plenty of room for parking in the rear. She re- iterated her opposition to the condition that would require her to participate in a parking assessment district. Ms. Alice Wasserman, commercial property owner and downtown merchant, stated her property is adjacent to the property in question. She stated all merchants should realize there is a parking problem in the downtown area and should be will- ing to participate in a parking assessment district in order to provide for their customers and for the encouragement of their business. She stated that several other merchants in the immediate area have committed to a parking assessment, and any business that expands should be committed to a parking assessment no matter what the cost. Ms. Norma Grey, owner of the beauty salon, reviewed the interior redesign that had been accomplished, the reasons for the decor, and the costs to herself for these improvements. She stated she had increased the square footage of the interior but not the business. She advised that there were the same number of stalls in the beauty shop as before, therefore the parking requirements were the same. She stated that to put the beauty shop back to its original configuration would be costly and unattractive. She requested Council to grant the appeal as it would be a hardship on her to make any alterations at this time. Mrs. Charlotte Severin, 4513 Mirador Drive, spoke on behalf of Norma Grey. She quoted staff recommendations in a report dated August 13, 1981, stating findings could be made to grant a variance subject to conditions. She stated that Ms. Grey would be the one hurt the worst if this appeal is not approved. Mrs. Severin stated that Ms. Grey provides a service to her customers, has not increased the congestion of traffic or public parking, and has made improvements that enhance the downtown area, therefore, in the spirit of the law she felt the appeal should be granted. Ms. Pat Hull, 1441 Greenwood Road, client of Ms. Grey, stated she concurred with Mrs. Severin. She stated it would benefit no one to deny this appeal and would be a hardship to Ms. Grey. She urged continuance for support and encouragement of the downtown merchants. Mr. Robert Myers, 717 East Angela, spoke in favor of Norma Grey, but not in support of allowing Ms. Aldrich not to commit' to a parking assessment district. He stated there is need for a parking district in the downtown and that owners of pro- perty should feel a responsibility to such a commitment as they have been benefitted from this locale. Mr. Myers stated he felt it would be wrong to require Ms. Grey to debeautify the beauty shop into which she has invested a lot of money. He stated it is unfortunate the property owner is not willing to join an assessment district. Ms. Aldrich stated that if 501 of surrounding property owners committed to a parking assessment district then it will go forward. Councilmember Mohr asked Ms. Aldrich if she would be willing to participate in a parking district if a time limit were set on it so that if it did not go forward in that length of time that the condition could be dropped. Ms. Aldrich stated she would have to consult with family members before answering that question. Councilmember Brandes asked if a parking district were formed and over 50% of the property owners committed to the project, would the remaining property owners be forced into the assessment district. The City Attorney advised that creation of an assessment district is determined by assessed valuation, requiring the affirm- 3. 5/25/82