Laserfiche WebLink
BqARD Ok' ZONI;NG APPFAI,S ,APRZL 6, 1988 PAGE 4 <br />wording, you cannot find these uses within this district, they are not per- <br />mitted. He further stated that the section pertaining to access within a <br />Retail District is so specific that one can only stretch to allow this to <br />happen; it stated that all driveways, roadways, and sidewalks used or intended <br />for use as access to buildings or uses in a Retail Business District, it does <br />not say access for the benefit of tenants, does not exclude government access, <br />and throughout the three meeting Planning Commission heard this, this road was <br />called a fire access drive. Mr. Pattison stated that if it is the intention <br />to add wording to the ordinance, he would rather have it done by Council <br />action; otherwise, he believes the interpretations upon conflict as stated in <br />Section 1113,05 should be the most restrictive; and unlike what Mr. Dubelko <br />stated, in'terms of conflict the City should side with the developer. Mr. <br />Dubelko refuted this stating if a question came up with a'resident, the same <br />rule would apnlv, and again stating that the City cannot restrict that use <br />unless they clearly do so and reiterating that Mr. Pattison is not using the <br />term "use" proDerlv, Mr. Pattison stated that a use would include a Fire <br />Devartment truck running over that drive, even occa.sionally, there is no <br />stipulation that it has to be a business use, specific to the business or the <br />tenants, or snecific to the benefit of the develoner. He advised that accord- <br />ing to Section 172.1.01, the city has the right to obligate the develoner of <br />any property to provide a 20 foot access drive, and pointed out that fire <br />access drives are not required in Single Family Residential Districts. <br />Mr. Dubelko again stated that the Law Denartment had unheld the Building <br />Commissioner's opinion on the basis that it was legally defensible in court, <br />and that any appeal to that decision shoulcl have been taken to this Board <br />within the time allowed. Mr. Pattison pointed out that his basic concern is <br />that these decisions have not gone through nroper channels, if they had_he <br />probably would have supported them, pointing out that these developers have <br />been working with the residents, and that the fire access drive barely en- <br />croaches on the residentiallv zoned property. He is mainly concerned about <br />the next development that comes.into the City, and stated that there is one. <br />that will be developed behind the Historical District. Chairman Remmel <br />observed that the drive is not a service drive and there will be from 50 to <br />100 f_eet behind it. Building Commissioner Conway stated that the Building <br />Department endeavors to make sure that ever_y development it reviews comnlies <br />with the Zoning Code, and if he has any feeling that it does not comply, he. <br />does bring it to this Board. Regarding.the .10 day.period, Mr..Grace stated <br />that this was a matter of exnedience. Mr. Pattison stated that it should be <br />clarified as to when this 10 day period starts. Regarding the motion, Mr. <br />Dubelko advised the Board that each issue should be handled senarately. <br />C. Remmel moved that the Board reject the request for a ruling on the use of <br />residentially zoned land to provide the required 50 foot rear yard required <br />for Retail Business, seconded by B. Grace, and urtanimously approvede C. Remmel <br />moved to reject the request for a ruling on residentially zoned land to <br />provide access drive as it is stated here, seconded by J. Helon, and unanimouslv <br />approved. C. Remmel moved to reject the request for a ruling for the use of <br />residentiallv zoned land to provide for the required storm water retention <br />area in violation of Section 1135.01, seconded by R. Gomersall, and unanimously <br />approved. Mr. Remmel stated that he hopes it is understood that the last two <br />requests-are moot and that this Board has no authority on the water retention <br />which always goes through the Engineering Department. Mr. Pattison stated <br />that the Board has .3ust established.the law, these issues have now become ioart <br />of the ordinances and will not have to be addressed in the future. He further <br />advised that they had to exhaust.all remedies at the local level before they could take these issues to court: