Laserfiche WebLink
<br />i <br />,. <br /> <br />TUESDAY <br /> <br />AUGUST 26, 1975 <br /> <br />Following consideration of the evidence before the Commission at that time, the <br />Commission voted to recommend to Council that this petition be granted and that <br />the property in question be re-zoned from R-9 Residential to an M-3 Industrial <br />Classification. <br /> <br />It was the feeling of the Commission, that while there were objections to the <br />re-zoning expressed, that the property was not conducive to residential use <br />because of its proximity to the railroad an 1 to other industrial use and that <br />it was in the best interest of all the citizens of the city that the property <br />be re-zoned as requested. <br /> <br />The Planning Commission respectfully submits the above recommendations for <br />Council's further consideration. <br /> <br />,- <br /> <br />Mr. Mayor, before we get into discussion of this matter I would like to make a <br />short statement. I am a stockholder in Nationwide Homes as are other members <br />of the Greene an':l Globman families. When it became evident that this zoning <br />issue involving Nationwide Homes would be brought before Council, I called <br />City Attorney Dave Worthy and asked Mr. Worthy if I had a conflict of interest. <br />Mr. Worthy advised me that since the total amount of shares owned by me does <br />not exceed 5% of either the total amount of shares outstanding or the total <br />amount of shares issued, I do not have a conflict of interest. In addition, <br />I would like to add that the total amount of shares owned by me added to all <br />the shares owned by members of the Globman and Greene families does not exceed <br />the 5% limit. I would like to make this a matter of record. <br /> <br />Representing petitioner were Mr. Douglas K. Frith, Attorney at Law, and Mr. James W. <br /> <br />Severt, President of Nationwide Homes, Inc.; and representing area citizens opposing <br /> <br />the proposed rezoning was Mr. Jackson L. Kiser, Attorney at Law. Counsel for and <br /> <br />representative of petitioner presented to each member of Council a brochure (being <br /> <br />,......-... <br /> <br />the same as previously filed with the Planning Commission) which set forth petitioner's <br /> <br />plans for developing the property as well as other pertinent data. Presented, also, <br /> <br />by petitioner was a map of the tract on which petitioner proposes to construct a <br /> <br />building (80' X 150') to house the proposed distributorship, for which adequate <br /> <br />off-street vehicular parking will be provided, with appropriate fencing, with customer <br /> <br />access off Drewry Road, and with petitioner's truck access from Morrison Road via a <br /> <br />twenty-foot alley parallel to the rear lot line of said property. Petitioner pointed <br /> <br />out, further, if the rezoning request is granted, the real estate and improvements <br /> <br />thereon would generate some $20,000.00 in local taxes per year and provide employment <br />