Mr. Saul.said the determination that the State office building <br />would not-be included was not based on any difference of assessed <br />value, but rather the fact that the grocery store is a prototype <br />of the development that would be possible in this mixed-use zone, <br />a store with an apartment above. The existing State Office Building <br />would be contrary to any residential character and there was no <br />residential quality to encourage, preserve, or enchance. With respect <br />to the traffic volume, the staff did not predicate its original <br />recommendation for this rezoning on traffic volumes, noting the <br />traffic volume did not constitute the basis for saying residential was <br />inappropriate. <br />Mr. Obie then wondered why the State Office Building differed from <br />Mr. Schmaedick's office. Mr. Saul replied, the State Office Building <br />occupied well over one-quarter of a block while Schmaedick was in <br />a much smaller area in an existing house that had been converted <br />to office space. <br />C.B. 1543--Rezoning properties located between 7th and 13th hvenues, <br />extending from Washington Street to Lincoln Street, from <br />I-B-1 C-2 and R-3 to MU Mixed Use was read by council bill number <br />and title only, there being no Council member present that <br />requested it be read in full. <br />Mr. Haws moved, seconded by Mr. Hamel, that findings supporting <br />the rezoning as set out in Planning Commission Staff Notes and <br />minutes of August 15, 1977, be adopted by reference thereto; <br />that the bill be read the second time by council bill number only, <br />with unanimous consent of the Council; and that enactment be <br />considered at this time. <br />Mr. Obie expressed concern regarding the inequality between equivalent <br />situations and inconsistent treatment between property owners under <br />this proposal. Mr. Delay said from reading the material and listening <br />to testimony, he felt the Planning Commission had dealt well with a <br />very difficult problem and the mixed-use zoning was a good plan for <br />the area. <br />Mr. Williams expressed concern with the process and would vote no <br />on the motion. He said he was concerned about that part of town <br />but was terrified of the process in which the staff has initiated <br />the request for a major zone change that may be valid, but felt <br />it spooky when city government initiates a plan against the wishes <br />of property owners. He expressed concern in supporting city govern- <br />ment when it decides to change the rules under which the people have <br />been operating for some time and rules which the people have had to, <br />fight the process. ' <br />In regard.to Mr. William's concern regarding the initiation of the <br />zone change, Mr. Saul said under the City Code the Planning Commission <br />or the City Council is empowered to initiate zone changes. He said <br />s <br />9/26/77--8 <br />-131 <br />