2/2/1988 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

rfEB 2 1938 BOOT( 70 cr c. 755 Attorney Steve Henderson came before the Board representing Leonard Hatala, owner of Parcels 6 and 7. He informed the Board that there was an error in the way the property was advertised for the P&Z meeting. He did not know if it was repeated for this meeting, but if is described as basically takes so, objections are made by the owner. Parcel 6 the easterly 300' of the parcel and that in only the lands adjacent to the railroad track. There is an existing industrial use on the north side of the parcel and a commercial/industrial use on the south, and he felt RM -6 zoning just will not work with existing commercial uses on either side, which would allow no transition whatever. Attorney Henderson noted that the remainder of Parcel 6 is not involved in this rezoning. The petition skips right over to Parcel 7, which is requested to be rezoned from RS -6 to RS -3, and for the reasons stated by staff and others, his client feels the reductions in density that have taken place in the past have been enough. It would seem that staff is doing its job pursuing rezoning in accordance with the Small Area Plan, but it would also seem the SAP has some flaws in it, and he urged the Board to deny the rezonings, and if necessary, to review or possibly repeal the Plan. Commissioner Bird asked what zoning Attorney Henderson's client wants on his Parcel 7. Attorney Henderson advised it RS -6 at this point in time. to go back to RM -6, but he will Commissioner Eggert wished that M . Hatala desires to keep There are good reasons it ought argue that at another time. to know why part of Parcel 6 was left out, and Planner Nearing explained that it was difficult to come up with a legal description for that portion because of its configuration. Attorney Henderson further explained that the zoning cuts across the parcel at an angle following the railroad track, and this would create a serious development problem. He continued 26