11/22/1976 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Council Member Haws ordered the editorial mentioned entered as a part of the record. e At this point, Council Member Keller asked that Mr. Filer again state his implications of collusion. Mr. Filer replied that because of the deportment at the hearing between Mr. Poticha and members of the Zoning Board of Appeals, it seemed, and he would have been willing to enter the tape recording of the testimony as evidence, that this conduct between the members of the Board and Mr. poticha has such an air of friendliness that the judgment of the Appeals Board was colored by that air. Also, he said, there were occasions during the testimony when people speaking against the Board's decision were interrupted, and that questions were made by the panel to members of his group that were placed in a tone of arrogance and aggressiveness. He futher felt that some explanation of why the evidence was not available should be made. Mr. Filer further stated that they had assumed that the wall was five feet and this gave them more concern about visibility with this height. Council Member Keller questioned where a statement regarding traffic and visibility could be obtained. Mrs. Filer responded with her concern regarding the statement by Mr. Blain and Mr. Poticha that the curve poses no visibility problem. However, she did not have time to get a statement because of the short notice of the meeting. She further stated that after the Appeals Board meeting Mr. Johnduff of the building department e gave her information from the traffic engineer that the curve would require 150- to l75-foot clearance at a minimum. ~e further stated that when she was able to talk to the traffic engineer he related that this opinion was his, but that he does not want to take sides, his office does not like to get involved in this sort of thing, that his statement was on the plans, and it is up to the developer and the city to work out the discrepancy. She said the traffic engineer stated that he would present his statement if required by the Planning Commission or City Council. At this point, Mr. Haws asked if these plans had been viewed by the Zoning Board. Mrs. Filer responded that the traffic engineer's statement was not on the plans in time for the Board to see it. Public hearing was closed. Mr. Haws asked that staff respond to questions raised. Mr. Haxton replied regarding comments about the appeal request, stating that the original document did not include Tax Lot 900. He further stated that a vicinity map was not produced for the Zoning Board following regular staff procedure. Mr. Haxton responded to the statement regarding visibility being impaired by stating that because fences, wall, or landscaping were not outlined on the appeals documents, an investigation was not made in this regard. He stated that staff could evaluate vision clearance when a more definite plan is proposed prior to e Minutes 11/22/76 -19 575