Laserfiche WebLink
178 <br /> <br /> Ms. Slaughter noted that'Council had not voted to change <br />the Comprehensive Plan for the property in question after <br />asking the Planning Commission to reconsider changing the <br />designation. <br /> <br /> Responding to a question from Mr. Vandever about recent <br />transformation in the neighborhood, Mr. Huja stated that <br />there had been no significant change in the land use in the <br />overall area, and that the owner/renter ratio in the 500 block <br />of Grove Ave. had changed from 9 owners and 2 renters in 1987 <br />to 8 owners and 3 renters currently., <br /> <br /> Mr. Vandever noted that Council had recently adjusted the <br />zoning in the neighborhood to R-lA to strengthen single family <br />residences. <br /> <br /> Mr. Toscano requested that the City Attorney clarify the <br />relationship between the Comprehensive Plan, Land Use Plan <br />and zoning. <br /> <br /> Mr. Gouldman replied that the Comprehensive Plan is <br />required by law to include the long-range plan for land use, <br />though the City's Comprehensive Plan includes aspects other <br />than land use, and is to be used as a planning tool and <br />guidepost for subsequent zoning requests. Mr. Gouldman stated <br />that the zoning ordinance is a legal document that must be <br />followed when developing or using land. <br /> <br /> Responding to a question from Mr. Toscano, Mr. Gouldman <br />stated that following the Comprehensive Plan when considering <br />zoning requests is one touchstone of reasonableness. <br /> <br /> Rev. Edwards requested that the City Attorney discuss the <br />issue of exposure if the Land Use Plan~is not followed. Mr. <br />Gouldman replied that if Council makes a decision contrary to <br />the Land Use Plan then the burden of proof shifts to the City <br />and the presumption of a correct decision is removed. <br /> <br /> Mr. Vandever asked the City Attorney to explain why there <br />are two mechanisms, the Land Use Plan and zoning, noting that <br />the Land Use Plan seems to dictate Council's judgment. Mr. <br />Gouldman stated that it is felt that the Council will make <br />better zoning decisions if it has a land use plan, and noted <br />that the plans are to be general but clear. Mr. Gouldman <br />advised Council that if it chooses not to follow the plan then <br />there must be reasons for not having done so. <br /> <br /> Mr. Vandever stated that he felt the Land Use Plan should <br />be used as a general outline and that Council should consider <br />conditions as they currently are, which he felt meant <br />maintaining the residential designation as the best use for <br />the parcel. <br /> <br /> Ms. Slaughter stated that she felt the Land Use Plan <br />should be used as a map for zoning and if Council does not <br />agree with the plan then the plan should be changed. Ms. <br />Slaughter stated that she had supported maintaining the <br />residential designation for the area in the Land Use Plan, but <br />Council did not change the plan. Ms. SlaUghter stated that <br />she felt the remainder of the block should remain residential. <br /> <br /> Mr. Vandever stated that at this particular time, with <br />the transitory nature of the block, he would not support <br />changing the zoning. Mr. Vandever stated that he felt Council <br />appears to be giving up its ability to maintain flexibility. <br /> <br /> Rev. Edwards stated that he supported having a plan and <br />having the zoning follow the plan. <br /> <br /> Ms. Daugherty also noted that the Land Use designation <br />had been reviewed by Council and there had been no support for <br />changing the boundary. Ms. Daugherty stated that she would <br />support modifying the plan to maintain the' residential <br /> <br /> <br />