CC_Minutes_2012_0716 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting AND Board of Adjustments and Appeals Monday,July 16,2012 Page 48 with specific findings before they were heard from the Board, and a majority decision brought forward. Member Johnson confirmed that his findings were based on the staff analysis, and referenced them in the staff report without taking time at this meeting to reiterate them in detail. Chair Roe clarified, for the benefit of the public and Board that the infamous City Attorney let- ter of December 9, 2011 was entirely his fault. Chair Roe advised that his attempt was to get an understanding of the issues at that time and how the City Council may need to address them moving forward. Chair Roe noted that the theoretical basis for the opinion of that letter at that time was to get a handle on various zoning designations. Chair Roe advised that, from his un- derstanding of that letter, and his subsequent discussions with City Attorneys Bartholdi and Gaughan,provided his basis for the way he was using various documents and official controls. Chair Roe reviewed his analysis of the Zoning Code and the language in the Statement of Pur- pose for the CMU designation, and the three (3) other business designations that by and large capture the language of the Zoning Code. Chair Roe spoke specifically to Member Pust's comments, opining that his interpretation was that there was not a conflict or problem to ad- dress, and in his review of the Comprehensive Plan for more clarity on those distinctions and his analysis, he had found the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan to be complimentary of each other during his deliberations. Chair Roe noted that this was important as it related spe- cifically to land use types in the Comprehensive Plan, not individual goals and policies throughout the plan. Chair Roe noted in his review of the CMU designation and uses in a common site or redevel- opment area, those uses were not stacked. Chair Roe stated that this told him that the CMU is talking about Community Business. Then in looking to that designation, and reference to a shopping center or free-standing, moderate scale store, he had found that somewhat problemat- ic. However, Chair Roe advised that the Comprehensive Plan language helped him to clarify that, as he reviewed the Regional Business definition, noting the distinction between the Com- munity and Regional Business Districts and that informing him through the market area topic, noting a distinct definition in the Comprehensive Plan with the Community Business designa- tion serving the local market area, and Regional Business usually serving a regional market area. Chair Roe advised that this helped him understand where to look at this, and as heard from the applicant and clarified further by the Real Estate expert, perhaps his understanding of Regional Business from his role serving on the Comprehensive Plan Steering Committee need- ed updating, since he had previously considered this type of store (e.g. Wal-Mart, Target) as Regional Businesses. As he learned more and understood it better, Chair Roe opined that he thought it best to consider them Community Businesses; and therefore he supported the desig- nation of this proposal as a permitted use in the CMU Business District. Member Pust noted this was an example of how people could look at the same thing and form p P p g o two different opinions. While Chair Roe picked out the distinction between regional and local market areas, Member Pust stated that she looked at regional as large, free-standing retail