10-25-1995 SPECIAL AND CC - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

James J. Thomson, Jr., Esq. September 18, 1995 Page 3 Conditional Use Permit, which alterations were made for the benefit, and to the satisfaction, of the neighboring property owners. The alterations included the placement of signage throughout the facility identifying the City's sound ordinance, insulation of the vacuums to minimize noise, time shut-off of the vacuums at 10 p.m. and installation of trees along the residential neighborhood, all consistent with City specifications. Moreover, the operation of Suds & Shine, pursuant to the propose was to be subject to review by the City after 6 or 12 months, whichever the City preferred. The altered Application for Amendment of the Conditional Use Permit was the result of four meetings with the Planning Commission, two of which were open to the public. The altered Amendment was unanimously approved by the Planning Commission. The City Council also had a work session that was open to the public to consider the Application. Council Member Hankner stated that she was not in support of the Application, although she gave no input into how her concerns could be alleviated. Council Member Quick, who ultimately voted against the Amendment, made no comments at all. The Application for Amendment of the Conditional Use Permit was submitted formally for City Council consideration on September 11, 1995. At that hearing, two individuals from the neighborhood appeared to voice their concerns about the unlimited hours of operation. Mr. Harstad addressed those concerns to the satisfaction of those two neighboring property owners. Mr. Harstad also asked any council members to voice any concerns they would have so that Mr. Harstad could address those concerns as well. No questions were presented by the City Council to Mr. Harstad to allow him to respond. The City Council voted to approve the Application three to two. I am told that this means that the Application is denied, because approval requires a four-fifths vote. The issue, in my opinion, is whether the City is treating competing businesses fairly or whether the City's denial of Mr. Harstad's Application for an Amendment to the Conditional Use Permit was arbitrary in that Suds & Shine is the only car wash in the area with a limitation on the hours of operation. Messrs. Richardson and Harstad feel that the City's failure to approve the Application is arbitrary, capricious and illegal. Before commencing a lawsuit. I would like you to take a look at this matter and discuss the issues with Mr. Harrington and the other City representatives. After you have had an opportunity to do so, please give me a call with your thoughts. Perhaps we can avoid litigation. r __