Laserfiche WebLink
Planning&ZoningBoard <br />September13,2006 <br />Page 3 <br />APP ROVED MINUTES <br />Mr.Rafferty madeamotiontoclose theP ublic H earing at7:09p.m .andwas supported <br />by Mr.Pogalz.Motion carried 5 -0. <br />Mr.Laden statedthathe is infavorofaneighborhoodbusinesszonetotheproperty.Mr. <br />Ladenquestion ed whya cateringbusinesswouldfitin to aneighborhood zone ,asmost <br />cateringbusinessistakenoffsite,andopposedachangetocatering butagreed with the <br />other proposed c hanges. <br />Mr.Pogalzasked whatthepropertywaszonedwhenthisprojectwasoriginallyproposed. <br />Mr.Smyser repliedthatthesitewasoriginallydividedintoR -1and R -3 districts ,butthe <br />sitewasguidedforcommercial.The C ouncil later approved arezo neto LB for th e <br />corner.Mr.SmyserstatedthatwhenpropertywasrezonedtoLB,therewasagreat <br />amountofdiscussionbetweentheLBandNBzonesatthattime.Themostr ecent <br />applicationincluded the drive -thru,andC ity C ouncilstatedtheywouldden y the <br />proposal. <br />Mr.Pogalzquestioned Council’s intentfordenial.Mr.SmyserstatedthattheCity <br />Councilre -examinedzoningofthesite,andnolongeragreedwiththeoriginaldecision. <br />Mr.Smyserexplainedthatstaffgeneratedtheadditionalrevisi onstotheordinance <br />accordingly.Mr.Pogalzquestionedthefairnessofthedecision. <br />Mr.Smyserpointedoutthat the applicantwithdrewtheapplication,thereforeanintent <br />wasamootpoint. <br />Mr.Ladenaskedifabuildingwasproposedw iththe origina l approval .Mr.Laden <br />believestheproposeduseseemedappropriateforthesite.Mr.Ladenaddressedthatthe <br />originalproposaldidnotincludeadrive -through.Mr.Smyser repliedthat aproposed <br />buildingwas reviewed andconsidered with theoriginalap proval. <br />Mr.Ladenasked staff if a C onditionalUsePermit isgrantedforacoffeeshop,atalater <br />time couldthatuseturnintoafastfoodrestaurantorwouldtheapplicanthavetoreapply. <br />M r .Smyser responded thatconditionswereproposedforth is site torestrictthattheuse <br />w ouldbe limitedto acoffeeshopaspartof C ity C ouncildiscussion. <br />M r.Smyser explainedthatap e rmitteduseisausebyright,however acity canlegally <br />addstipulationstoa ConditionalUsePermit.Hes tated thata C on ditionalUsePermit <br />givesthecityexcessregulatoryability ,add ingthatthisisani mportantdifference <br />betweenthetwo. <br />Uponfurtherdiscussion,boardmembersandstaffagreedthatthefactistheapplicant <br />withdrewtheapplication,thereforetheyneed edtoaddresstheproposalspresentedbefore <br />themtonight. <br />Mr.Smyser reiteratedthatthec ityhastherighttorezoneproperty.Headdedthat often <br />decisionsaremadeandlaterdeterminedthatadifferentdecisionmayhavebeenbetter. <br />Mr.Hydencommen tedthathe understandsthatth ecityhastheabilitytomakechanges <br />andcan,but statedthat thedeveloperthoughttheyknewwhattheruleswere,andnowthe