Laserfiche WebLink
<br />City Council Regular Meeting - 09/13/04 <br />Minutes - Page 17 <br /> <br />law; and when the need arose to make them consistent, it was <br />appropriate to amend the Comprehensive Plan. <br /> <br />City Attorney Anderson reviewed various and applicable <br />sections of the City Zoning Code and reviewed definitions of <br />Shopping Center District and shopping centers. <br /> <br />Councilmember Ihlan reiterated her concerns, as a policy maker, <br />to maintain reasonable controls for public interest, in defining <br />City Code, specifically as it relates to the superstore <br />phenomenon; and to treat large retailers as shopping centers, <br />even if the zoning code definition needed revision. <br />Councilmember Ihlan reiterated her lack of support for amending <br />the City's Comprehensive Plan. <br /> <br />Councilmember Maschka opined that he was troubled with the <br />change in the nature of the site and how little input the City had <br />under current code and the impacts to consider. Councilmember <br />Maschka expressed further concern regarding the City's lack of <br />control over the architectural exterior of the building, traffic, <br />streets; and noted the immense changes to the nature of the site. <br /> <br />Councilmember Schroeder expressed concern regarding the <br />public street functions and design between Perkin's Restaurant <br />and the proposed Target parking lot; its maintenance, traffic <br />patterns, and connections and other public safety concerns. <br /> <br />Mr. Paschke advised that numerous site-specific issues had been <br />discussed, and would continue to be a "work in progress," <br />through the design committee working with the <br />applicant/developer; prior to adoption of the final site plan. <br /> <br />Further discussion ensued regarding the nature of the City <br />Council as a policy-making body and staff in enforcing <br />ordinances; revisions available during the review process; <br />activities of the development review committee; standards met to <br />meet application consistent with public health, safety and <br />welfare; building screening; aesthetic characteristics; and why <br />the application was not for a Planned Unit Development (PUD); <br />and closing of the frontage road and ramifications to businesses. <br />