08/27/1973 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Councilman McDonald wondered who had the resonsibi~ity for deciding what type of buildings would be put on the property should the rezoning be approved. Mayor Anderson e answered that development of the property would then be subject to planned unit develop- ment procedures. Councilwoman Campbell commented on the effect of the Fasano decision in this instance - she can't vote in spite of the fact that she is very well informed on the issue, having attended both hearings, but her colleague (Councilman McDonald) can vote without having attended either one. Councilman McDonald noted that he was in the hospital at the time of the Council hearing. Councilman Williams presented for Council consideration should the hearing be reopened a letter he received from Mrs. lone Pierron, 1360 Ferry Street, relating to this issue. He said it was unsolicited and he had no intention of including that information in his decision. Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Hershner to rezone the Valley River Center property to C-2 subject to the following conditions being met: (1) That development be subject to planned unit development procedures and that final reading of the ordinance effecting the zoning be withheld pending final approval of the planned unit development; (2) That a minimum area of 50 feet back from the top of the riverbank be dedicated for public access and scenic preservation to the extent . possible along the entire Valley River Center property fronting on the River; (3) That the area to be dedicated be established by City field survey; and (4) That dedication of the area designated for public use be completed prior to preliminary approval of the planned unit development. I In making the motion with respect to (2), Mr. Williams recognized the. proximity of the Valley River Inn to the riverbank and problem of obtaining a 50-foot dedication along that portion of the frontage. City Attorney advised that a determination of findings of fact must be made, as speci- fied by the Fasano ruling. He added, however, that should the motion be adopted it would in effect refer the issue to a joint meeting of the Council and Planning Com- mission and findings of fact could be done at that stage. Councilman Williams said the intent of his motion was for preliminary reading of the rezoning ordinance, but perhaps a motion simply to refer to the Planning Commission was in order. City Attorney said the procedure designated by ordinance is that when actio~ contrary to that of the Planning Commission recommendation is taken, then an issue is automatically sent back to joint consideration by the Council and Commission. Vote was taken on the motion as stated. Motion carried, Councilmen e Williams, McDonald, Hershner, and Keller voting aye; Councilmen Beal, Murray, and Wood voting no; Councilwoman Campbell abstaining. ~ Councilman Murray expressed his personal displeasure with the removal of Councilwoman ~ Campbell's vote from the decision. He said it seemed unfortunate with the amount of time she had spent informing herself on the issue to be informed after the fact that she CQuld no longer participate. He felt the Council might have done well to study in detail possible effects of the Fasano decision before voting on this issue. Mr. Murray quoted the portion of the Fasano decision relating to burden of proof on the applicant to show public need for zone change and that it would best be met by the proposal under consideration. He suggested that not much of the testimony pre- sented had to. do with the public need; rather that the term public interest was sub- stituted. He felt that substitution was fallacious in light of the Fasano decision's being a landmark case and therefore the Court's words .very carefully and selectively chosen. He felt the public need as used in the ruling has to do with urgency and borders on necessity, and that the applicant had fallen far short of proving public need. He said that there can be no denying a department store located in Valley River would prosper, but felt that was no way for this Council to measure the public need. Mr. Murray continued by referring to the 1990 General Plan and its most adequate and complete description of land use pblici~s which among other things indicates an ex- e cess of commercial properties to fulfill the needs of the community beyond 1990. Rezoning this property, he said, would not be consistent with the terms of the Plan with regard to its expressed goal of strengthening the downtown area a~ the heart of - the community. With regard to the portion of the Fasano decision requiring proof that a public need is best met by the proposal vnder consideratiop, Mr. Murray com- mented on vacancies occurring in the downtown ~all since 1967 and some sites vacant at this time. He failed to see any consistency in the rezoning of additional property to commercial use as long as the Plan looks upon the downtown area as the heart of the 2c, 8/27/73 - 5