|
This is the second
attempt by Cindy Goodman to get that property rezoned. It was turned
down by the planning commission and subsequently by the city council
one year ago. By law the property owners had to wait a year to
re-petition the request. (http://archives.lincolndailynews.com/
2002/Aug/28/News_new/today_a.shtml)
The property sits in
an area that was hotly disputed when Casey's requested rezoning from
R-2 to C-2 just across the street. Many arguments were presented at
that time. Concerns were raised that the modern-looking businesses
would detract from the newly labeled historical district.
Neighbors did not
want the residential lots approved for commercial use. They wanted
the area to be kept more as a residential neighborhood. Business
traffic would increase and thereby diminish the transportation
safety and the appearance of the neighborhood.
Casey's fought long
and hard and finally won.
When the Goodmans
made their rezoning request the same arguments were made about
keeping it more residential, and concerns about water drainage were
added.
The planning
commission summarized with their approval on Oct 16 that when
Goodman made her pitch last year the property was owned by her
husband's family. This year Goodman is the sole owner of the
property. They felt that Goodman was more prepared this time to
address them with her plans and what will be done with the property.
The commission also
stated that some time has lapsed since Casey's opened and there has
been opportunity to see that that business has been a benefit to the
neighborhood.
At the Monday, Oct.
20, voting session the Lincoln City Council was given the option to
hear testimony and vote on the rezoning request. The council opened
the floor to those who had come to speak both for and against the
rezoning. It was decided after the guests spoke to put off
discussing the matter.
Several council
members had not received notice of the planning commission's public
hearing and had not been in attendance at it. Correspondingly, they
were unaware that there was information from that hearing left in
the council chambers for them to review.
Since it was
obviously a matter of great importance to so many, the council felt
that all members should have the time to review information, hear
from others and think it over. So, discussion was deferred to the
next work session, on Tuesday, Oct. 28.
Not only did some
council members feel unprepared to discuss the rezoning, but there
was also one member, David Armbrust, absent. A vote taken on a
recommendation from the planning commission requires a full
two-thirds approval, seven votes, to pass. An absence is an
automatic vote against it. In fairness to all interests, the council
deferred the vote until all members could be present. The council is
currently scheduled to vote on Monday, Nov. 3.
The subject resumed
at this past Tuesday's work session. First the property owner and
community members were given opportunity to update their statements
with new information. Then the council discussed it.
The property owner,
Cindy Goodman, has the same plan as she had for the property one
year ago. She would like to build a building that will house her
florist business. She and her husband are willing to take measures
to protect neighboring residences from the sights and sounds of a
business by using fencing. The Goodmans are also willing to work
with the city to control drainage caused by the elevation of the
property.
[to top of second column in this
article] |
 Grant Eaton said that
he has been looking at options to tap into the sewer at that
location. He also will work with the city and property owners to
develop curbs and gutters to help direct and regulate water flow.
Neighbors are
contesting the rezoning for several reasons. Suella Tucker, whose
home sits adjacent to the property, spoke for the neighbors. She
said that homeowners in the area do not want another business in the
area. The original zoning plan intended that area to be for
residences.
The homeowners are
together on this issue. The zoning for the area was done in the
1960s when Route 66 went through there. The commercial zoning
stopped at Jefferson Street.
"The only reason
there is commercial across from that property now [Casey's] is
because you changed it, again, against our wishes," Tucker said.
"It seems to me that
majority should rule. Listen to what we want and what we don't want.
We don't want the property zoned commercial. The water and trees and
the sidewalks -- all that stuff is extraneous. Simple matter is we
don't want commercial, the R-2 changed to C-2," Tucker said. "Listen
to us. We don't want this!"
Tucker cited the
constitution, specifying that our country was founded on rebellion
against taxation without representation. She entreated the council
to consider the wishes of 18 tax-paying homeowners, saying, "[The
country was founded] that people like me, people like you at all
levels -- state, local -- can have representation."
Tucker continued,
"Listen to what it's about; it's about zoning. I have nothing
against Cindy Goodman. I wish her well in her business. We just
don't want any business right there."
Tucker concluded,
"Listen to your constituents. We're in the majority."
Before the council
began their discussion, City Attorney Bill Bates made a legal
response to Tucker's last statement, "I don't know how 18 people are
a majority in a city of 16,000." To the council he said, "You have a
responsibility to represent Mrs. Tucker and all the other people.
That's your charge."
So, with zoning as
the focus, the council began their discussion. They looked at what
is there now, what could possibly happen at that location and
determined that it is highly unlikely that it will ever be developed
for residential use.
Council members Steve
Fuhrer, Verl Prather, Derrick Crane, Marty Neitzel and Jonie Tibbs
all said that they have received quite a bit of response to the
issue in the form of letters and calls. Each said that the responses
that they are receiving are nearly all in favor of rezoning.
Fuhrer said, "When
you [Tucker] say ‘represent,' I know the wards vote us in, but we
also represent the people of the whole city of Lincoln. I will say
that out of all the calls and correspondence I've gotten on this
issue since last year, and now again this year, it is overwhelmingly
in favor of rezoning this to let this flower shop go in."
Prather said that he
and other aldermen received quite a bit of criticism when they voted
it down last year.
In general, it was
concluded by the aldermen that a commercial development would likely
be an improvement to the area and a benefit to the community.
"I can't see any
reason why not. It [the proposed florist shop] would be a beautiful
addition to the city," Tibbs said.
The rezoning is on the agenda to vote on
at the next city business meeting, Monday, Nov. 3.
[Jan
Youngquist] |
