|
RECESS
<br />
<br />At 9:18 p.m. a five minute recess was
<br />declared. The meeting was reconvened
<br />at 9:30 p.m. with all Councilmen
<br />present.
<br />
<br />RES. 64-1~5 RESOLUTION 64-1~5 OV~iR~LING THE
<br />FA~JLARO DECISION OF '£~ PLANNING CO$$~SION
<br /> AND GRANTING A VARIANCE ON APPLICATION
<br /> NO. 1998 FIT.~ BY A. H. FAMULAR0 AND
<br />s,n.W~A FAMULARO SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS was before Council for consideration.
<br />
<br />Mayor Hall and Councilman Schlueter were disqualified from discussion and action
<br />in this matter because of a conflict of interest and left the Council table;
<br />Vice Mayor Hubbard, ass,,mtng chairmanship of the meeting. Noel G. Conway, 1521
<br />E. Catalina, requested those present in opposition to stand, and about 50 arose.
<br />M=. Conway stated that the variance is illegal because the owner or certified
<br />agent of the owner did not sign the application; that the Council did not, in
<br />his opinion, have a quorum voting. He objected to the expense of a court action,
<br />when the hearing was illegal, and requested a delay so certified evidence of
<br />ownership could be submitted. Mr. Miller objected to any further hearing unless
<br />a complete hearing was held.
<br />
<br />Mrs. Sally Rosan, 1534 E. 21st, asked that the hearing be reopened, since Council
<br />had not been aware of the illegality of the application. Councilman Gilmore
<br />asked the City Attorney what conditions would be required to reopen the hearing,
<br />and was told that the same notice would have to be given as before. Mrs. Roean
<br />stated that of the ten people notified of the hearing, only seven lived in the
<br />district; but that about 60 persons were present to protest. Upon question fr~a
<br />Council, the attorney advised that if the Council were to accept evidence
<br />satisfactory to them that the applicant was not the owner of the property, Council
<br />could then refer the matter back to the Planning Corem1 ssion or could terminate
<br />the proceedings.
<br />
<br />It was moved by Councilman Narvey, seconded by Counc~lm-n Gilmore and carried,
<br />that Council reopen the hearing on December 7, 196~ at 7:30 p.m. in the Council
<br />Chamber; notices to be sent under the usual procedures and action on the resolution
<br />be postponed to that time. Mayor Hall and Councilman Schlueter resumed their
<br />places at the Council table.
<br />
<br />~F~ARING - Mayor Nall opened the hearing on Appeal
<br />APPEAL 14~7, V.A. 2031 147 filed~ by Bo W. and Patricia G.
<br /> Robinson from the Zoning Administrator' s
<br /> approval of Variance Application 2031
<br />filed by Rehlco Developers, Inc. to construct a 20 ~nit apartment complex in the
<br />C 1 amd R 1 districts at 1601 N. King. The Clerk reported that notices of the
<br />hearing were mailed to adjacent property owners on October 26, 196~. The following
<br />ccmm~mications in opposition were ordered filed on motion of Councilman Hubbard,
<br />seconded by Councilman Schlueter and carried: petitiou containing approximately
<br />20 signatures and representing approximately 13 properties; letter frmm Mr. and
<br />Mrs. john NcFarlane, 2015 W. 15th.
<br />
<br />William Robinson, 1515 N. King, requested those supporting his appeal to stund,
<br />and about 25 persons stood. He then reviewed previous Council actions in the
<br />area, and stated that since the new owner of the property was aware of the cir-
<br />cumstances when he bought it, there was no case of hardship; and that the Master
<br />Plan made no provision for R 3 in the area. Walter Brooks, 2002 W. 15th, showed
<br />pictures of the area to Council, stating that about 600 cars would be added, and
<br />that because of limited access, congestion already exists; stating also that about
<br />250 more petitioners could be obtained; and requested a continuance in order to
<br />obtain additional support. Don Robertson, 18262 Leafwood Lane, represeuting Rehlco
<br />Developers, Inc., stated that plans had been submitted prior to expiration of
<br />the original variance, but they had not gone through to planning Department. The
<br />Planning Director reviewed the past actions, stating that present pl-~s were
<br />apparently same as the original application approved by Council in ~a~,,a~y,
<br />196~, but in amy event a condition of approval would require they he identical.
<br />Cl~ CO%~NCIL - 88 - November 2, 196~
<br />
<br />
<br />
|