CC_Minutes_2012_0521 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting Monday,May 21,2012 Page 39 other Councilmembers, Councilmember Johnson spoke in support of moving forward with the Preliminary Plat only tonight, since it was consistent with State Statute and City Ordinance. However, Councilmember Johnson expressed his hesitation and lack of comfort going outside that realm at this point. However, in the interest of time and the 60-day review period, Councilmember Johnson questioned how much more time was available in the review period. Coun- cilmember Johnson also recognized the lateness of the hour in having additional discussion on this, or in any other making any other significant decisions to- night. Regarding the Preliminary Plat, Mayor Roe expressed concern about whether a determination would be available related to whether use should be considered at the time of Plat approval. While recognizing that the Preliminary Plat was far along the road toward a Final Plat, without application of unrealistic conditions, Mayor Roe opined that the City Council was not currently in a position to ap- prove a Final Plat tonight. Councilmember McGehee advised that she had personally researched those is- sues raised by Councilmember Pust tonight with three other independent attor- neys, including one with the LMC, who concurred with Councilmember Pust's interpretation. Councilmember McGehee noted that this was her rationale in addressing some of those issues in her memorandums as previously referenced as bench handouts. Councilmember McGehee stated that she specifically tied the use to the Plat, based on her conversations with the LMC and the City's Zoning Code, addressing those topics raised by the public tonight. Coun- cilmember McGehee spoke in support of waiting to take action. Councilmem- ber McGehee also stated that her understanding of preliminary and final plat was quite a bit more than "just drawling lines." The preliminary plat, she said, is where all the points are made. City Attorney Gaughan noted that the City Council could schedule a special meeting to address the land use 60-day review period that only had fourteen (14) days remaining. Mr. Trudgeon noted that the applicant could choose to extend the review period, pP p however the City could not as it had already done so, as well as the develop- ment clock stopping during the RGU review of the citizens' petition. Councilmember Pust asked for a response from the applicant's representative regarding their preference to extend the review period or table action beyond the original sixty(60) days unless a special meeting was scheduled. Sue Steinwall,Legal Counsel for Wal-Mart Ms. Steinwall advised that she could not respond without first consulting her client.