3A Public Hearing 2008 0219 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Board of Zoning Adjustments Regular Meeting December 6, 2007 Minute No. 2007-23 Page 13 of 16 Member Marr asked how the Board could make a thoughtful decision without the environmental impact analysis. Interim Planning Manager Livermore replied that staff could find no justification for this application to be approved. There were no findings that could be made, since this was clearly an Assembly Use in the Industrial Park District. The applicant's funds would have been misused to order traffic and noise and other studies. It would have been disingenuous for staff to move in that direction when staff had been clear to the applicant that denial would be recommended. If the Board had a different opinion, then it would be expected to direct staff to obtain a deposit from the applicant to perform the studies that were required for a complete analysis of all environmental studies. Member Marr suggested that it might have been more "respectful" (for lack of a better word), to spend more of the church's money to ensure that everything had been done. Member Sidari stated that if staff could find ways to permit the church to relocate to this site, traffic would still be a problem. However, he recalled that some projects had been approved that, initially, had not fit the General Plan. This was a good area for the church and it would be good to get it out of the Manor area. He believed the code should be changed. Interim Planning Manager Livermore added that the Planning Commission and the City Council had approved appropriate sites for the Assembly Overlay and this site had not been included. Other areas were within the Assembly Overlay District that the church could have considered. It was up to the Planning Commission and City Council to make zoning determinations. Staff did not make zoning determinations for rezoning. Member Sidari asked if that was the case, then why did this application come before the BZA tonight. City Attorney Stuart replied that the applicant had every right to submit a CUP application. Staff could discuss an application with the applicant concerning how it might fit within the Zoning Code requirements and the General Plan, but staff could not tell someone they could not submit a CUP application. After completing a CUP application, the next step was a hearing before the BZA. Member Pearson felt that the church had made a wonderful contribution to the community. He did not agree with the attorney's (Mr. MacDonald) argument of discrimination and he would love to see this church stay in the community. However, he could not see how their application could be approved, since the BZA was not able to change the zoning laws. Member Shields saw the Board's role as "getting them out of limbo," but he could not justify approving the application under "Entertainment." He had seen the church members and their traffic every Sunday and understood their growing pains. He wished he could do something to "get them out of there," but the Board "was between a rock and a hard place and we can't move either one." He was sorry about the dilemma in which the City and church had found themselves.