CC_Minutes_2012_0709 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting AND Board of Adjustments and Appeals Monday,July 09,2012 Page 15 sider delaying making this decision for one (1) more week, following recom- mends of the Planning Commission and subsequent action by the Board of Ad- justments and Appeals. Councilmember Pust reviewed her remaining concerns, beyond those conditions recommended by the City Attorney in their July 9, 2012 correspondence. While recognizing that disapproval of a permitted use was not a consideration for Pre- liminary Plat approval or denial, based on case law, Councilmember Pust opined that in this instance, the argument had been made by some members that the proposed Wal-Mart was not a permitted use. In that context, Councilmem- ber Pust opined that an analysis of permitted versus non-permitted use became an appropriate part of preliminary plat consideration. Councilmember Pust asked what would result, if the City Council took action tonight on the Preliminary Plat, and the Planning Commission found that it was not a permitted use, and it was obvious that this could be a possibility, since it was being sent elsewhere for a recommendation. Councilmember Pust ques- tioned, if it was found to be a non-permitted use,but the Preliminary Plat had al- ready been approved, there would then not be a Final Plat. Based on that sce- nario, and if the issue was found for a conflict between the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan, Councilmember Pust noted that the Comprehensive Plan would then need revised either way, whether a permitted use or not. Therefore, if the Preliminary Plat had already been granted, and then the Comprehensive Plan revised, Councilmember Pust noted that there would be no changes applied to that Preliminary Plat for one (1) year. Taking the City out of the legal situa- tion and changing its position based on the timing of this decision, Coun- cilmember Pust opined that it was then a waste of time for the Planning Com- mission to make a recommendation. If a Final Plat was approved, Coun- cilmember Pust noted that it would take two (2) years to affect this application. Based on the potential that the City Council may be wrong in their analysis to- date, Councilmember Pust opined that she didn't want the City to come out on the wrong side of that analysis with this particular application; and reiterated her preference that the City Council hold off one (1) week on this Preliminary Plat decision, allowing the Planning Commission to hold their discussion and pro- vide a recommendation. At the request of Mayor Roe to provide a response to Councilmember Pust, City Attorney Gaughan noted that the only reason the decision on the Preliminary Plat was back before the City Council tonight was due to the applicant voluntar- ily extending the 120-day review period until tonight's meeting. Otherwise, based on the expiration of the review period, the Preliminary Plat would be ap- proved by default,based on State Statute (Chapter 462.3454).