3A Public Hearing 2008 0219 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Board of Zoning Adjustments Regular Meeting December 6, 2007 Minute No. 2007-23 Page 14 of 16 Chair Goldt agreed with the other Board Members. On a case-by-case basis, this property was appropriate for the church use. It would give great relief to the neighbors if the church could relocate. She agreed that there seemed to be no good way to resolve this dilemma, as "we're playing with words." She was not sure that this difficult decision could be made at this time. Member Gilcrest commented that, if the Planning Commission and the City Council had believed this was an appropriate area for assembly use, he would have voted in favor since the church's impact on the residents at this location would have been much less than the impacts in Washington Manor. He hoped that the church would find another appropriate site within the city, and he suggested that their current site not be allowed for future assembly uses, so the Manor would finally get some relief. The way in which this application was brought forward would be very destructive to the city's Zoning Code. To accept their assertion that a Building Code that was designed to enhance structural integrity could serve in lieu of definitions in the Zoning Code and to interpret any business that had 50 employees was an assembly use would gut the effectiveness of the entire Zoning Code. The Zoning Code looked at the primary purpose of a business in a particular location and it was evaluated on that basis. They had not presented a valid case for how the prohibition against assembly use in the IP District could be decided in their favor. He would concur with the recommendation for denial. Member Daly stated the primary issue was the Conditional Use Permit and in order to approve it, the Board would have to find that this use would not be an Assembly Use but an Entertainment Use. However, everything heard tonight pointed to an Assembly use. He was not comfortable with ignoring the Zoning Code. He believed this Board was not the appropriate body to make this decision, which would have been the City Council and the Planning Commission. Member Sidari was sorry, but the Boards' hands were tied. How would a continuance to allow time for an environmental impact study help? Interim Planning Manager Livermore replied that the environmental impact would not add information to this Assembly Use, which was the fundamental issue. She was unaware of any basis by which this application could be approved. Member Sidari asked if the City was involved in court on this issue, anyway. If the court turned the previous decisions around, what would happen? Interim Planning Manager Livermore answered that the court case was ongoing concerning the decisions made by the Planning Commission and City Council. City Attorney Stuart stated that the City had to wait for the litigation to take its course, since it was unknown what would be decided. Member Shields did not understand why this application was before the BZA when the church was involved in litigation. City Attorney Stuart reiterated that the church had the right to complete the CUP application and to have it brought before the Board. Other issues, outside of CUP issues