CC MIN 1970 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

192 He requested a full reading of Mr. Delucchi's letter by the Clerk, indicating Mr. Frank had taken portions out of context to give the wrong implication to his position in the matter. He detailed the matter of the vote of the Marsh Manor Merchants Association, who, he indicated, were opposed to the rezoning. He did not feel, further- more, that opinions of only residents within 300 feet of the shopping center should be considered, but that other nearby residents were affected, also, and should not be excluded from the hearing. He agreed that Mr. Delucchi, the owner of the shopping center, was selective about his tenants, and that accounted for the present quality of services there. With regard to petition, it appeared to him that some signers may well have approved of the rezoning, without having knowledge of the intention of the applicant in — making the request. He concluded that it should be considered whether the building would be built, or whether it would be built only if a liquor license is secured. If the zoning change is to be considered a deal, then the terms of the deal should be qualified, and felt the ordinance rezoning should be operative when and if the building is constructed. In the discussion by Council, nature of the vacancies mentioned wa.s clarified, and it was questioned whether a need was indicated for professional offices. Mr. Costello noted proximity of the S.P. railroad, and cited instances in other cities of use of this type of location for professional offices. He was also questioned as to apparent discrepancies as to the position of the Marsh Manor Merchants Association, and detailed his understanding as to the actual sequence of events, with the conclusion that the Association, with the exception of one member, opposed the rezoning. (Suzy Schnurr, student in the Government Affairs Program, felt that Mr. Costello's recommendation to require applicant to expend funds for a feasibility study before being permitted to proceed was unfair. She also thought a building such as depicted in the sketch would enhance the area.) Mr. Emiel Tillman, 1076 17th Avenue, disputed the assertion earlier that the applicant had purchased the property as long ago as one to two years, and that actually it had been purchased through the Bankruptcy Referee no more than two months ago. He contended also that the liquor license application before ABC was for "on-site" sale, and expressed concern as to what the site would be used for. He noted similarity of design to that of the Marble Lodge, in which Mr. McMahon has, or did have, an interest. Attorney Frank responded by stating actual date of purchase was December 5, 1969. He assured Council that, assuming property becomes zoned "CN" the building would be constructed as shown. He also denied that his client has any interest in the Marble Lodge. He was asked by Councilman Petersen to respond to allegation that the appli- cation was for "on -sale". Mr. Frank stated application was for "off -sale" package liquor. Mr. Sam Rector, 12 St. Mary's Place, stated his address was in a cul-de-sac directly opposite the site, and opposed rezoning to accomodate an additional liquor store. After additional rebuttal by the two attorneys, Councilman Petersen moved to close the public hearing, seconded by Councilman Arnett.