Laserfiche WebLink
54 <br /> Febrile,9,1993 <br /> Stephenson thought t parametersshould be set o£those <br /> t had been approved ortdenied a a precedence could <br /> have nbeennse Mr.E d there have xnot mbeen that an <br /> this tadjacent ri n being that the <br /> i lot hdepth along that areaisnot sufficient for too much growth. <br /> • Ferguson pointedthe Hearing Examiner had held a full <br /> hearing s all pernent information would be available for Council's <br /> consi <br /> Afterdiscussionwhether or <br /> not to recess <br /> o <br /> until 1:30 t allow tito <br /> gather information submitted at the p hearing h by Councilme <br /> on <br /> April,1992,it was the consensusto proceed with the hearing. <br /> uglas F representing Bolser B terprises,addressed compliance <br /> ith the Comprehensiven <br /> nsive Plan and the court had said rezones <br /> t he <br /> guided by it. He said they h <br /> lwith the conditionss <br /> forth i ended bythe <br /> a <br /> H nand Planning <br /> Department. d he could n any legitima ebasis for <br /> denying the r and that t concerns of the neighbors could be <br /> resolved. The e applicant feels he should couldnot be singled out and <br /> treated differently than others have been in similar circumstances. <br />.�, Councilman Overstreet felt Council should first decide whether or not <br /> to grant the mesons before discussing any of the conditions. <br /> Sim Hopkins,attorney tfor he tWagner's,nb owns of p <br /> Bolsez's,pointed outentire rip along the teast Aside waszoned <br /> • When olser first applied for the re Wagner property <br /> was as brought into the xactionhby the City. <br /> nn have uopposedtthe rezone their property all along. He also <br /> took exception to Mr.Seller's comment about burden on Council if they <br /> were o deny the r many inconsistencies <br /> in eedewith ethe tc concept of locking a eachrezone <br /> its town pmerit,with findings t suprt the decision= a pointed out <br /> that the Comprehensive Plan w advisory plan but not binding,and <br /> also spoke of the 1972 Halprin Plan's reference to upgrading Evergreen <br /> trafficWay and the conflicts between commercial and <br /> d thisr <br /> residential areas. He a tion from commercial residential,nor to <br /> harmonious 8 <br /> accomplish thenpurpose of minimising visual"clutter¢' the-neighborhood. <br /> orhood. <br /> elusion,he askedthat until deny the recon. <br /> Councilman Stephenson asked how far R ening was to the south,and <br /> Mr.Swine replied to approximately south of 57th St. <br /> Dennis B ref,of 5414 Flemin spoke of the denial of the Lund property <br /> on Fleming between 55th and 57th. He inferred report submitted <br /> at a this o April 26,19773;mvhi�gave a5 reasons <br /> ial,,esuco a i g then E green ay on Fleming,adequatee. <br /> e-2zonednproperty Inthea existing <br /> Inventory <br /> fcharacer o area,and objectiveaoficonfining and <br /> limiting the business eons tothefront side of Ehrergreen Way. <br /> Mr.Bartiointed out that Bolser's have 11 outlets with available <br /> propertybetter suited to development than this. He also spoke of <br /> the increased traffic£low o f thisbusiness <br /> with f the driveway nt ®accesstheback of their building. <br /> ▪ soecommented there had been aa¢obstacle installed on the street <br /> to reducetrafficflow on Fleming so a problem there had been identified. <br />