11/16/1977 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. He reiterated the motion on the floor was to give approval and final e passage of the Council bill as amended. He also noted if any Councilor had missed the joint Planning Commission/Council meeting November 1, he should note for the record that he had either listened to the tapes or read the record. Mr. Lieual1en noted he had listened to the tapes. Mr. Lieua11en requested someone from the prevailing side of the amendment make a motion to remove the amendment because he felt there was no evidence in reading the Code or any of the charges made to Councilor case laws which say Councilors are responsible to protect the financial interest of property owners. He felt Councilors were responsible to the community and should be acting on the basis of the general public good, noting the various documents the Council itself had adopted, and the input from the public sector expressing public need. He did not see the Council's role as one of protecting the financial interest of property owners, but protecting the interest of the general public. He sai d Council should look at the list of public policies that it has established and adopted, noting its responsibility to protect the general public good. Mr. Delay agreed with Mr. Lieuallen's comments, noting he did not feel this rezoning was creating a financial bind on anyone. He cited Mr. Obie's comment lIexact use the owner wanted; is that exactly what the owner wanted to do wi th hi s property, II noti ng if Counci 1 were to respond to the owners exact choice of land use, then the City would have no need for zoning and planning. When trying to consider the general public good, he did not see any merit, nor did he see why Council had to ask these e kinds of questions which are basically corruptive. He had seen nothing in the record that represented findings of fact for that amendment. He also noted two Council members had changed their vote from the first reading to favor the amendment, and yet had not expressed why. He noted it was impossible to have every four quadrants of blocks with the same zoning without having the whole City being zoned in the same manner. He felt the public record had to have some more substantial findings of fact and reasoning, noting the in-depth study and planning that had been done on this issue. He felt it inappropriate for City Council to simply go ahead and exempt these two pieces of property. Mr. Obie felt the concern with property owners' financial standing was not the question of issue. He felt the issue was whether the City had found facts to justify the rezoning, and he had not found those facts making it necessary to rezone the Lawrence Street Market. Mr. Will i ams echoed Mr. Obie's remarks, saying it was not a negation of planning and zoning, but a question of zoning and not planning. He said once the government decided zoning should be changed, then it may have the legal right to do so. He raised the question of right of eminent domain and the implication of compensation for the property. He was very uncomfortable in saying the government could change a use that had been established and relied upon for a long period of time. He was not comfortable with Council saying what a property owner had relied upon now no longer counts. He felt it unfair. e 11/16/77 --9 8!IJ