CC MIN 1973 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

446 was to deny the request by a vote of five to two , and the matter now before Council was on appeal of the applicants . He indicated that the Planning Com- mission considered the application initially in light of the Downtown Development Plan and found that rezoning would not be consistent with the Plan , There had been a public hearing on the possibility of amending the Downtown Plan , but such proposals were rejected . Planning Director responded to a number of questions by Council , relating to permitted uses under the two zoning designations , indicating that one objective in the CA designation was to keep it as compact as possible , and to tie it in with the Government Center on the fringe of the retail business core , and that offered a wide range of office uses . The zoning as it exists it /was established after the Downtown Plan was completed in about 1964 or 1965 , In answer to question by Councilman Henderson , he indicated that it is possible to allow a hotel with bars and restaurants in the Central Business District , but not in the CA zoned District , He added , however , that the Zoning Ordinance does have flexibility through the Combining Districts provisions . In further discussion , Planning Director noted that he believed that the majority of the Commission felt if it were in fact part of the continuity of the CB District , then what was being proposed would be appropriate . However the area is completely surrounded by non-restaurant or bar uses , and this would therefore be a non- conforming use . Councilman Williams questioned whether the applicant ' s request could be facilitated in some way without complete rezoning , and whether this had been considered by the Planning Commission . Planning Director indicated the matter was discussed as a change in the Zoning Ordinance , rather than as a Use Permit . Councilman Norris commented on the Planning report which indicated the appli - cant had been unable to find a nearby vacant building , and only by approval of the rezoning could they continue in business . Planning Director advised that this statement was contested by some of the Commissioners who mentioned some vacancies available , but the applicant indicated these were not satisfactory for their business , Mr . Charles Rigg , of Ropers , Majeski , Bentley & Wagner , 655 Marshall Court , advised he represented the Trustee of the property , Mr . Ward . He noted that the applicant , Mrs . McQueen , was present . Mrs . McQueen , in response to question by Council , stated she had been in business at the present location for ten years , and also advised of previous locations and duration of those operations . Mr . Riggs stated that it was their opinion that the location was adjacent to CB District and therefore the request would not cause a problem , and would allow the appli - cant to stay within walking distance of the Court House , 6/25/73 Reg . Mtg .