Laserfiche WebLink
53 7771 <br /> February 9,1983 <br /> I President pope stated he had received letters and pictures from <br /> Dennis Baron <br /> and rWagner,o Po to this proposed <br /> rezone, <br /> and x raised the question of fairnessofdoctrineissue. <br /> said he d abrochure.. A majority o <br /> the other Counoil- <br /> men eaiL they also had received the brochure but had looked it over. <br /> malt <br /> Sellers,ofAttorney's A rney's Office,then explained circumstances <br /> and background whereas the Superior Court reversed the April 7,1982 <br /> decision of the City Council and directed that it be reprocessed. <br /> st direct trezone e granted, <br /> but had hthe <br /> hcourt th <br /> found Examiner erred was a <br /> and C adopted thiss <br /> finding. The resolution <br /> derezone, i <br /> denying erezone a didn s <br /> o have considered othermatters. <br /> . <br /> He pointed out the Haring Examiner has now held another hearing <br /> considered allaspects <br /> and <br /> is nor;recommending appoval of the rezone <br /> subjectL al <br /> Mr.Sellers said if either of the attorneys for the proponent and <br /> opponent cfd <br /> any objections to consideration ration o materia <br /> hwould like to hear from them,andMr.Hopkins replied received <br /> he had <br /> n <br /> objection. „ <br /> g'�:i <br /> Douglas Ferguson,attorney for the proponent,said he had no problem k� <br /> with cedure o communications v in the£ of an argument, <br /> but if evidence he would 116 an opportunity After review them. <br /> briefly looking over the brochure received by Council,said he had <br /> o problems with the fairness <br /> doctrine,but requested the brochure <br /> end pictures be marked as an exhibitin this proceeding. 31 <br /> Gerry Ervine,of the Planning Department,then reviewed background <br /> on he rezone <br /> application,stating the applicant had requested a <br /> rezone from R-2,single-Family High Density Residential,t B-2, <br /> Neighborhood e Lire a s for three 70 x150 foot on Fleming behind <br /> e tore o contract <br /> 5530 Evergreen Way. A onti would limit the <br /> twestern <br /> uses on portion of o f thelotsto single family uses. <br /> with thebalanceto be used for Lire storage. <br /> council..Overstreet asked about <br /> additional,information regarding <br /> erevious approvals and denials 'r <br /> for aon a along Fleming as the J4: <br /> rt had de s reference to Council having allowed several ,_{ <br /> • vioualy,suchoas the Lund property. <br /> Councilman Langur said he felt each application should be judged 13{9p <br /> on its <br /> 11 <br /> Councilman Stephenson said he couldthe cone of the t fy <br /> neighbors and hat Nie could bean enforcementproblem withthe k� <br /> asked Hr.Ervine if there been e o <br /> where• aatrez ewes v a business closed or find for non- <br /> compliance, <br /> on compliance,and he said he did not know of any. <br /> Councilman Overstreet <br /> M <br /> about noise levels and r.Sellers 9�t <br /> aid that thee in Examiner had looked into this and made <br /> findings so it woubl not benecessary to introduce this at this <br /> Gerry Ervine comment.on theLrezone in 1971 which was r <br /> to the adoption r.£Ne Halprinnd <br /> Plan an therefore,noa goodri <br /> example in this case.He did admit theLund property use was non-conforming. ,1D <br /> Sellers remarked that the tce Cuncn lmending t ba"' <br /> i <br /> 1 putt . }1. <br /> Y9g <br />