10/23/1973 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

I to the pizza parlor at the proposed location. Their objections were based on problems anticipated because of increased traffic, noise, proximity of other similar type establishments, incompatibility with the residential area. Mr. Berg thought plans e- to light the adjacent pond would detract from the residential character of the neigh- borhood. And Mr. Little felt it would present an attractive nuisance for children. Mr. Arnold said that those contacting neighbors about the proposed facility did not fully explain the intended installation and that there were more than eight opposed to the location. Manager noted that the number objecting was reported by the aLCC. With regard to lighting on the pond, he said staff was approached with that possibility as well as development of the bank of the pond for the applicant's use as well as opening it to the public. However, nothing was worked out and unless something was presented fQr Council approval there is no concern at this time with that proposal. Manager com- mented on the difficulty of deve~oping the area because of its being a commercial zone abutting a residential zone without some sort of buffer. He added there seems little can be done unless the Planning Commission would consider down-zoning it. Mrs. Beal moved seconded by Mr. Williams that the Council transmit to the aLCC its feeling that the proposed establishment is inappropriate in that neighborhood. Councilman Hershner asked whether the applicants had been notified of this public hearing. There was no indication they had been notified, whereupon Mrs. Beal with;# e consent of the second withdrew the motion. Councilman Williams felt the issue and hearing were well enough known in the neigh- borhood that the applicants were probably also aware of it. He wondered if any good purpose would be served by holding the application for notification to the applicants in view of the aLCC's normal policy of refusing licenses in areas where neighbors are in opposition. Manager reviewed the procedure followed in applying for liquor licenses and said that when the application is filed the date of public hearing is assigned. In this instance the aLCC investigation was more extensive, going beyond the assigned date of August 27. Mr. Williams moved seconded by Mr. Murray to transmit to aLCC the belief that neighborhood opposition to the proposed pizza parlor indicates granting a liquor 'license at this time'would appear inappropriate. Councilman Hershner said he would vote against the ~otion, not on its merits, but be- cause it appeared there was not adequate information to show that the applicants were notified of this hearing. He felt there was some injustice without having assurance I of their being aware of this hearing. Councilman Wood shared that concern. Councilman Murray felt a typical process was followed without the applicant's having taken the initiative for further input. Manager noted that this hearing to the extent that it . resulted only because of indicated opposition in the neighborhood was not normal pro- cedure. Councilmen Murray and Beal felt in that instance the applicant should have the opportuni ty to'~be heard. Councilman Williams with consent of the second withdrew the motion. Mrs. Beal moved seconded by Mr. Williams to withhold action until the applicant has been notified of public hearing. Councilman McDonald thought aLCC might go ahead with approval of the application if Council recommendation was held for another two weeks. He said he would vote favorably on the motion only with the understanding the aLCC would not take action before the Council recommendation is received. Mayor Anderson noted that the aLCC does not take action on applications without response from local governmental agencies. Vote was taken on the motion as stated. Motion carried unanimously. Mayor Anderson for clarification said there would not be another public hearing, only that applicant would be given opportunity to be heard. Mrs. Beal suggested that the applicant be asked to respond in writing, his letter to be circulated to Council members and to those opposed to granting of the license. . D. Staff Appeal, Sign Code Board of Appeals Decision - September 17, 1973 1. Boon's Red Carpet Motel - Nonconforming off-premise directional sign at 310 Jefferson Street. Staff recommended denial. Board of Appeals permitted sign to remain. 2. Pape' Bros., Inc. - Nonconforming pole-mounted sign at 2300 Henderson Avenue. Staff recommended denial. Board of Appeals permitted sign to remain. 3" 10/23/73 - 2