|
REGULAR MEETING March 11, 2019
<br /> previous meeting was very impactful and insightful. I learned a lot on both sides. I was moved on
<br /> both sides. But, again, my decision tonight is really based on the zoning issue, again, and I just
<br /> feel that while I do agree with the need, as Councilmember White has talked about, we have to
<br /> live up to our values. If we are seeking solutions to different things like the opioid crisis, we have
<br /> an opportunity here to open up a facility to at least address it in some manner. I do agree with that.
<br /> I also understand the concerns from neighbors. We have to take that into consideration because
<br /> these are the people we are ultimately elected to represent. In this case, what I heard, there are a
<br /> lot of neighbors for and against this. Again, the decision must be based on zoning. I think one (1)
<br /> of the really significant things for me, and I'll wrap up because I don't need to platform this, is
<br /> that it seems as if the petitioners have sought other places and they could not find anything to meet
<br /> their needs. This is an appropriate use for this site and, therefore, I will be voting in favor of the
<br /> petitioner's request.
<br /> Councilmember Sharon L. McBride stated, As I stated before, looking at the five (5) criteria, it
<br /> meets my definition of a group residence permitted as a special exception. That is defined as a
<br /> residential facility providing any combination of food, shelter, personal care, social services,
<br /> counseling services or transportation to residents or residential facility providing common living
<br /> areas such as kitchen, living, dining room or recreational room. Group residence would include
<br /> halfway house, work-release houses, or other similar forms of residential facilities for individuals
<br /> which do not qualify as a family or any other form of residential facility expressly provided for, in
<br /> this ordinance. That is what I stand to support.
<br /> Councilmember Jo M. Broden stated, So, looking at the criteria with regard to a rezoning, and
<br /> specifically related to the comprehensive plan, there are a couple concepts here that I think are
<br /> important. One (1) is the concept in our existing code, and, relative to adjacent uses, we put in
<br /> goals of buffering and transitions relative to these uses. We also have some concepts with regard
<br /> to clustering uses. In this case, I think there is an existing cluster in this square block. It continues
<br /> down Jefferson and in this particular situation, the current rezoning is Office Buffer. I think the
<br /> maintenance and the integrity of that district within our Code, separate and distinct from Office,
<br /> high intense Office use, separate and distinct from Residential use, is a district worth maintaining.
<br /> It plays an important role in our line-up of uses. This is similar to arguments that I have made
<br /> before. That gets to the whole concept of compatibility with regard to uses. Also, within our
<br /> comprehensive plan are the thoughts, and this was actually in the petition and even in the
<br /> evaluation by the Area Plan Commission on this, having housing and residential options within
<br /> the district to meet the needs and services. I think there is also sufficient documentation in our
<br /> comprehensive plan that would suggest sufficient choices in availability. Specifically, a duty to
<br /> promote healthy and a diversified economy, both at the neighborhood level and the City level.
<br /> There are distinct benefits that come from that. It fosters competition,it provides opportunities for
<br /> employment and entrepreneurship, and it also gives us a broader area, a footprint if you would,
<br /> where existing businesses can be retained and new ones can be recruited. So, the fact that it is an
<br /> Office Buffer District, and I guess I want to move to the current conditions and character and use
<br /> in each district, in the application, the petitioners stressed that it is Multi-Family and Residential
<br /> adjacent uses. That is specifically within the petition.
<br /> Councilmember Jo M. Broden continued, Not indicated in this whole petition process is that the
<br /> property adjacent to this, to the west, is an Office Buffer property. In fact, I believe the petitioner
<br /> even implied that was a residential property. Nonetheless, the zoning is the zoning. What we are
<br /> being asked to consider is, basically, establishing a use when to the west and the east are Office
<br /> Buffer properties. I'm very concerned about spot zoning. I know you're asking us for this, but I
<br /> think the established use, well, there are actually a couple established uses. One (1) is that corner
<br /> of that block, the corner to the east in that block is Office Buffer, and then the corner adjacent to
<br /> the railroad track is Office Buffer. That is actually replicated in the next block as you go further
<br /> east. So, I think there are some established patterns here in terms of Office Buffer and I think they
<br /> are serving some important functions. It is essentially getting to those concepts in our
<br /> comprehensive plan in buffering adjacent uses.Then,I think,the reliability of a business that wants
<br /> to come in and make an investment,or has made an investment,to be able to make good and sound
<br /> business decisions, you want to be reliant on the property to your left and right at a bare minimum
<br /> and its current zoning. There are plenty of established uses as Office Buffer. There is also
<br /> established residential in a variety of residential uses that could fulfill the petitioner's needs in the
<br /> 19
<br />
|