Laserfiche WebLink
� � r <br />the 6th time he has appeared to protest the rezoning of this <br />property, and he believed the Board members all remember what has <br />transpired before. He emphasized that the property always has <br />been residential, and it should remain residential. The first <br />request for rezoning here was in May of 1961, and other property <br />owners in 27 years have had a chance to develop the property <br />before it came to this point. Mr. Reams stressed that he agreed <br />with the County staff who are paid professionals and should be <br />unbiased, and he felt if the Board doesn't honor their <br />recommendation, then we don't need them. <br />Charles Engel, 645 16th Place, informed the Board that he <br />has a letter written by Charles Pfitzer who is unable to attend, <br />which speaks out against the proposed rezoning. He also had a <br />phone call from Paul Clinker advising that he had sent a <br />registered letter to the Commission asking that they deny the <br />zoning change. Mr. Engel noted that he has attended five <br />hearings to express his opposition, and he is very much against <br />the proposed change. <br />Ruth Chapman, resident of Rockridge, also agreed with <br />staff's recommendation. She wished to re-emphasize the consid- <br />erable traffic problems in this area and urged the Board to deny <br />the appeal. <br />Hortense Rogers, 6th"Avenue, also expressed her deep concern <br />about traffic, stressing that if 6th Avenue had to be widened, it <br />would make the houses there untenable. <br />Attorney Henderson stated that he could understand <br />everyone's concern about extending commercial nodes, but <br />emphasized that this Commission has plenty of discretion to <br />control the zoning that is applicable within any commercial node, <br />and at this point his client is simply asking for an office <br />designation; so, extension of the node doesn't mean it is going <br />to creep irrevocably on down 17th Street. He continued that his <br />client has concern for his neighbors, and if PRO is not going to <br />become available for this property, possibly the Board may decide <br />OCT 2 7 .V387 53 <br />mu 69 826 <br />