CC Min 1997-06-02 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

the property, are just that. They are not binding on the municipality.... If an owner devotes his or her property to a particular use, the use is going to be governed by the zone in which it is located. So the property having been zoned, R-2, in any event, the quasi-public use of a church is a conditionally permitted use in that zone. Under the zoning regulations the expectation doesn't change." Councilman Ruskin said, "The quasi-public use remains the same as an option for both parcels, whether one was purchased subsequent to the construction of the church." City Attorney Schricker said, "That is correct." 2. Open public hearing; Mayor Hartnett opened the public hearing at 9:25 p.m. 3. Hear public comments; David Saisi, appellant, 649 Iris Street, said that less than 21 months ago he had gone through this exact same process appealing the exact same proposal. He said the make- up of the Council represented the only change in this situation. Mr. Saisi said, "During the first go around I had more of an understanding of the Kingdom Hall's desire for a parking lot, rnore of an understanding of the process that we went through, and a true appreciation that the right decision was made and the system really works. This time, however, I feel quite different. My perception of the situation is this: the parking lot is a bad idea for a lot of reasons. Those reasons were documented, discussed and ultimately voted on by City Council in October, 1995. By a strong 5-2 vote the appeal was upheld and the neighborhood was preserved. However, I think everyone knew that we had not heard the end of this. In fact, as a direct result of the situation and its potential for long term reoccurrence one of my favorite neighbors sold his home and left the neighborhood. This is when my feelings about the situation began to change. I have a hard time understanding how the Planning Division could approve a plan that in the words of the Kingdom Hall representatives is the exact same plan as presented in October, 1995. I cannot understand how after reviewing the file from October and evaluating the situation the Planning Division could not see the overwhelming community backlash as well as City Council's strong support of the appeal. Had this taken place think of the time and energy that could have been saved. Not to mention the $100 it costs every time to appeal this. I guess you could say that I am now disappointed with the process. "I am also disappointed that the Kingdom Hall feels like they can just ram this parking lot down the throats of the neighbors. They will argue that they are trying to improve a bad situation. They will argue that they are trying to be neighborly. I think that a true neighbor would respect the wishes of the majority of its fellow neighbors, and back off on this proposal. Weren't the events of 1995 not enough to send a clear message? Some of you may remember or have read about the 1995 compromise proposal that was refused by the Kingdom Hall. This is further evidence of the lack of respect of the REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTE BOOK NO. 55 JUNE2,1997 MINUTES Paqe No. 370 PAGE 14