1970/01/14 Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

man r �o con nae. f Section 3.The City of E ere.Building Officia1 be'end hereby iseuthorized e of the herein described E erett City Council UNSAFE ElliLDING oPod rder(resolution)octed to a)rc fhthethwith give cu a ructure ton thereof named in the hereirmbvoe describ.NOI/CE OF �' described in said OervpggFE e AMENDMENT TO Moved by Councilman Moore,seconded by Councilman Callaghan to amend the resolution , RESOLUTION adding another section to he 444444 s44cio.4 stating the following, That e applied this case and George Ellsworth. pr..cured to the maximum oor ene Uniform Building Code of thee ty of f$300.00 vo v i jail.Everett Section Amendment rarriea.unmnimoy. Motion to adopt resolution carried unanimously. pp RESOLUTION s ze foEEw.,le[Onded by Councilman nicheieon to adoptthe WHEREAS,all relevent provisions of Section 15.8 of the City Charter regarding sale of city property o ocher municipal re tion.have heretofore been ,i NOW,THEREFORE,BE/T RESOLVED 01(TEE CITY COUNC/L OF THE CITV OF EVERETT THAT ., the Mayor of the City of Everett be hereby is authorized and directed to hie reference is a ccn execute a.deliver he attached Qui Claim o the Port of Everett,which -...eUnanimously carried APPEAL TO The follosang letter vat!received and read, PLANNING COMMISSION City until of City of e erect gen Wm.P.Brust,Rezone 42nd 5 Colby The petition of 4..P.Brust for a rezone from R4 to 02 of his land located south of 41st St.and east of Colby Ave.has been,as of the 18th day of Nov.,1969, denied,by the City of Everett Planning Comniesion. Brom that denial of Dr.Elyse's the as attorn.for him, ee- epursuant to ordinance 4-68 and 30(a) and request publicthat hearing notice of che time and place of said he egivento the nndersig000. This appeal ie based,among other things,on the foilowing grounds and for the following reaeons, 1. That said Planning Comm.hearing,lacked the appearance of fairness,. 2. That the applicant,Dr.BTU,was denied opportunity to be heard on the merits of the petition, 3. That.e Planning Comm.considered evidence outside the record arriving at its conclusions, 4. That the Planning Commission imposed an improper burden of proof as to[he public interest upon the petitioner; 5. That the procedure and Planning Commission policy for hearing rezone applications is contrary to law and denies to an applicant the right to have a eezone Petition determined on its merits: 6. That the finds of fact of the Planning Comm.do not Conform to and are not supported by tne evidence presented, 7. That the Planning Commission has made to conclusions c base upon its findings to merit or warrant 8. That the action of the Planning Comulasion is arbitrary andocapricious, 9. net cheverunal.to grants,rezone constitutes a taking of private property by the improper f the police power vested in the City of Everett. Signed/Lew