Laserfiche WebLink
<br />characterized as spot rezoning (Vault Company) and obsolete housing as "an <br />appropriate transitional use" between commercial and residential uses east of the site. <br /> <br />On October 20, 1997 a letter was faxed to Steve Sarkozy from Tim Nelson <br />urging a change to business uses for redevelopment, citing support from the 1986 files <br />and comments of Howard Dahlgren, Nelson stated he believed that the parcels should <br />have been redesignated 10 to 11 years ago (1986) and this is supported by "sound <br />planning principles" - I assume this meant Dahlgren's comments in 1986. <br />Nelson/Everest encouraged staff to study and recommend a business designation as <br />part of the year end comprehensive plan review process. (This annual review process <br />does not create new issues for the plan but updates statistics and maps, and affirms <br />those changes made during the year after hearings and approvals.) It was not the intent <br />of these year end meetings to quietly add new designations to the map at this time. <br />Everest then noted that they do no want to present the project to the Council at this <br />time but rather after broader redevelopment issues are taken care of, i.e., the staff <br />should, on its own, propose an amendment for the business designation, after which <br />Everest would submit their project proposal. <br /> <br />November 7, 1997. An incomplete application for the Everest site was submitted by( <br />delivered by messenger) Tim Nelson to Kim Lee, City Planner. <br /> <br />November 13,1997. I asked Steve S. and Steve North for an opportunity to gain staff <br />direction on the Everest project because it involved at least $700,000 and possibly $1.5 <br />million in city redevelopment funds and significant land use changes. It was the number <br />6 of 7 items I was seeking direction on. (The Council operating policy was to have staff <br />bring projects to a work session for direction/discussion before going to land use <br />hearing, especially if the success of the project depended upon city financial <br />involvement. The Everest project fit that policy.) <br /> <br />November 14, 1997. Staff received a copy of the final agenda and the staff report. By <br />our set procedure, in order to get the agenda in the hands of the proponent as quickly <br />as possible, we fax a copy of the agenda and the staff report to each project proponent <br />as a courtesy for staff meetings. A mailed copy is also sent. In this case, everything was <br />completed normally, all faxing being done during Friday, November 14,1998. Everest <br /> <br />4 <br />