Laserfiche WebLink
393 <br /> • <br /> October 16,1985 <br /> Mto a r.Ervine said the rezone enwould limit the a on 123 ongregatec facility far enior citizens with a 20 <br /> foot wide <br /> renbelt <br /> cen <br /> to te Plat of <br /> Dula include¢commercialaandt officeh development t. i . <br /> aaw20 foot Cewide <br /> greenbelt adjacent to Mobile Country Club mobil home park. The <br /> Biotech wound n develop as eprof the until a a eoefo ached <br /> both proposed 0u es es there would tbe[tot access to <br /> a eat d <br /> St. a be dead endear e n ccs he x 892nd <br /> • <br /> E.said state statute related to SBPA appeal¢re aired the city k <br /> give bstsnt ial w ighk to procedural determinations made by the <br /> edinance states <br /> ictal. The appeal p[oceduxee s ct ion from <br /> the city'e <br /> ordinance ata i in pelt •The land the ionbur en fled establishing <br /> S <br /> conarded Se prima facie correct and the Party.... <br /> a sael nguag tis <br /> are. with <br /> anon the appealing pa[Gabove. <br /> ThisT language his <br /> e <br /> consistent must <br /> the to statute mentioned issuin. heeDNSo on his <br /> Pinjllant must prove that the city erred in issuing the 0N5 on this <br /> The appellant has appealed thecity's determination of non <br /> signif000ee <br /> idance on three grounds, those being environmental health and <br /> noise indicating that increased activity in the area has impacted <br /> [ <br /> e liveability of the homes in the a and that traffic on the <br /> improved POD right of way will generate noise and pollution. After <br /> eking noise readings it was determined the daytime noise level a <br /> the appellant's property is project to be 48.5 deA, 8.5 dSA below <br /> the residential noise standard applied to this property. <br /> • <br /> Councilman Marro asked how the a level was determined when <br /> there 1s nothing w there at present at valuate and M[. Swine.said <br /> the n readings taken a the a akiom is n and then• noise <br /> [Lear o eget the reading¢of what could be k e <br /> a Peet point <br /> lod t o tthe ed 000jes pt0perky was 140 ft. Erom atM1e <br /> neo Lnkao£ proposed project. <br /> Councilman Pope <br /> answered was asked how was P.11.0. right-of-way from his <br /> property and .Sine s [ed it 240 ft.from his house <br /> . MCCttmicks second i appealed was buffering and aesthetics, <br /> saying that the five foot buffer between hie property and adjacent <br /> commercial development is insufficient.. The appellant's property <br /> is properly his approximately 140 ft. southwest of the proposed <br /> Project. his application does not involve any develoPnent ads <br /> jac t <br /> to the appellant's home. Development of the vacant property east <br /> of <br /> the appellant's house will be reviewed through a separate <br /> environmental review process. Therefore the proposed project ill <br /> not remove ma the existing vegetation(240 ft. in depth) eastof Mr .. <br /> • property. <br /> answerIn <br /> a question from Councilman Pope, Mr. Ervine Said the <br /> project includes a 20 ftgreenbelt behind the congregate care <br /> buildings. <br /> McCormick's last issue appealed w the negative impact of this <br /> project o his property value (S5000). The state Environmental <br /> Policy A Guidelnes do n themselves to the socioeconomic <br /> impacts of a not <br /> appellant c s his concerns <br /> regarding this project <br /> the project reviewPracesa with <br /> Planning Commission sand City Council. <br />