|
DRAFT Regular City Council Meeting
<br />Monday, April 2,8, 2008
<br />Page 11
<br />Attachment B
<br />Mayor Klausing noted that the formal public hearing had been held at the Plan-
<br />ning Commis,s,ion level, and that a previous, Council meeting had received public
<br />comment; however, advised that the Council would entertain additional public
<br />comment at this time.
<br />Public Comment
<br />Karen Schaffer, 2,100 Fairview Avenue
<br />Ms,. Schaffer expressed her immediate concern upon receiving the mailing from
<br />the applicant, and the circumstances, of why and how her name and addres,s, had
<br />been provided to the applicant. Ms,. Schaffer noted that she had not communi-
<br />cated about this subject with any individual Councilmembers; and addres,s,ed the
<br />misleading comments, indicated in the letter from the applicant that they were re-
<br />sponding; to citizen concerns, expressed to city administrators,.
<br />Ms,. Schaffer addressed the five recommended conditions, for CUP approval and
<br />questioned those that were typical for a City Council to hold an applicant ac-
<br />countable; and whether the condition (#3 related to the pawnshop not dealing in
<br />check cashing or payday loans,, pornographic materials,, and/or firearms, would
<br />continue to be denied for this or any subsequent individuals, at this location for
<br />this use, if economics, and/or dynamics, were to change dramatically.
<br />City Attorney Scott Anderson advised that the conditions, would remain in effect
<br />as long as the CUP remained in effect, including any subsequent owners,, and that
<br />the permit could only be used as long; as, they adhered to the conditions, of the
<br />4_�
<br />CUP, unles,s, they were to go through the public hearing proces,s, for an amended
<br />CUP in the future.
<br />Ms,. Schaffer questioned if the City Council would have the authority to deny any
<br />amended CUP to expand activities, at that location to exclude those prohibited.
<br />Mayor Klausing confirmed that any future City Council could deny or refuse to
<br />modify the CUP, based on the same criteria for general health, safety or welfare
<br />concerns, of its citizens,.
<br />City Attorney Anderson further expounded that, if at any time the applicant was,
<br />not adhering to any or all of the conditions,, the City Council had the authority,
<br />with proper notice and due process, to revoke the permit or petition the court to
<br />revoke the CUP.
<br />Ms,. Schaffer further addressed the conditions, recommended by staff in their re-
<br />port, and those that were specific to the applicant and those specific to staff's,
<br />monitoring of the CUP, suggesting that some of the conditions, were subjective
<br />depending on City staff; opining that Condition #3 related to the pawnshop bus,i-
<br />nes,s, practices, and prohibitions, became the utmost, crucial condition requiring that
<br />a future City Council be fully empowered to adhere to that condition. Ms,.
<br />
|