2012_0723_as amended - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regarding what happens if the City Council approves the Preliminary Plat now and the Planning 167 Commission subsequently recommends that this is not a permitted use, and the Board of 168 Adjustments and Appeals concurred, City Attorney Gaughan noted that their Offices’ 169 recommended conditions for Preliminary Plat approval would sufficiently address any 170 outstanding issues and/or pending litigation as applicable. City Attorney Gaughan noted that, 171 even if not specifically addressed in conditions, as noted in previous discussions, a Preliminary 172 Plat was simply redrawing lines, and whether those lines are drawn or not, the permitted or non- 173 permitted use is not addressed. 174 City Attorney Gaughan, in addressing Councilmember Pust’s remaining concerns regarding the 175 timing, noted that if the proposed Wal-Mart was determined to not be a permitted use, it would 176 not impact the Preliminary Plat, or lines to be drawn, since those are distinctions. In allowing a 177 determination by the City Council on approval or denial of the Preliminary Plat tonight, City 178 Attorney Gaughan opined that this would keep the process moving, specific to the Preliminary 179 Plat request currently before the City Council tonight. City Attorney Gaughan encouraged 180 Councilmembers to keep the two issues distinct, the platting issue and the use issue. 181 Mayor Roe asked that City Attorney Gaughan address the Comprehensive Plan and approval of 182 the Preliminary Plat, and the process if the applicant was amenable to granting the City an 183 additional week for a determination on the Preliminary Plat. 184 City Attorney Gaughan advised that, if the Preliminary Plat was approved tonight, and it was 185 later determined that there was a conflict between the Comprehensive Plan and the City Zoning 186 Code regarding the proposed use, with subsequent action taken to correct any discrepancy as a 187 result of the Planning Commission hearing and a decision of the Board of Adjustments and 188 Appeals, it would not impact the Preliminary Plat. 189 Mayor Roe opined that, if the attempt to solve the problem was through a subsequent 190 determination that a Comprehensive Plan revision was needed, Wal-Mart would still be exempt 191 from such a use determination for one (1) year. 192 Councilmember Pust clarified that for that reason, action on the Preliminary Plat at tonight’s 193 meeting was bad either way. Councilmember Pust advised that it was her intent that the process 194 be as clean and transparent as possible; and allow time for the Comprehensive Plan to be revised 195 if determined necessary, and to avoid any other litigation. Councilmember Pust noted that the 196 City Council could deny the Preliminary Plat tonight, and the applicant could reapply again, 197 starting the review and approval process clock over again. 198 At the request of Mayor Roe, City Attorney Gaughan opined that there would be no quick 199 turnaround with such an action, since the applicant would need to start again at Step 1. 200 Councilmember Willmus noted the need for a super majority vote if the appeal before the 201 Planning Commission resulted in a finding by them and the Board of Adjustments and Appeals 202 that an error is evident and a Comprehensive Plan amended required. Councilmember Willmus 203 expressed his hope, if that was the actual result, that the applicant would return. Councilmember 204 Willmus questioned whether acting on the Preliminary Plat tonight would have any ill effect as 205 suggested by Councilmember Pust. 206 Councilmember McGehee opined that, if the City Council denied the Preliminary Plat tonight, 207 and the applicant reapplied tomorrow, there would be sufficient time for the Planning 208 Commission to hear the Appeals and make a recommendation at their meeting this Wednesday 209