CC_Minutes_2012_0716 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting AND Board of Adjustments and Appeals Monday,July 16, 2012 Page 44 By consensus, there was no objection to including it in the record, and it was attached hereto and made a part hereof Chair Roe noted the handout by Mr. Rancone, apparently from the 2004 Stakeholder Panel, dated June 10, 2004, and providing a listing of potential opportunities in the Twin Lakes Rede- velopment Area. Member Pust opined that she had no problem making it part of the record, as long as it re- mained clear that it was a submission by Mr. Rancone and not presented as meeting minutes of the Stakeholder panel itself. From the audience, Mr. Rancone clarified that it was actually information provided to the Stakeholder Panel from their final meeting. By consensus, there was no objection to including this document in the record, and it was at- tached hereto and made a part hereof Chair Roe, recognizing two (2) separate appeals, questioned the Board on their preference to rule on them individually or in combination. Chair Roe noted that, after his most recent dis- cussion with City Attorney Gaughan during tonight's meeting recess, any ultimate motion would need to direct findings in support for or in denial of the appeals. Chair Roe clarified that this would be a choice for the Board majority to uphold the appeals or to uphold staff's deter- mination. Chair Roe noted that a motion either way should be followed by specific findings, and address whether or not the use is permitted, whether there is a conflict in the Zoning Code and Twin Lakes Business Park Master Plan, or whether there is a conflict between the Zoning Code and 2030 Comprehensive Plan. Member Johnson expressed his preference to rule on the entire matter all at once. Member McGehee stated that she had no objection, but was of the belief that staff didn't firm up with the existing Zoning Code, and her objection is with the non-compliance of the current Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan; therefore wanted to take them up independently of each other. Member Willmus suggested it might be a cleaner process if the appeals were considered sepa- rately. Member Johnson stated that he would be amenable to that. Chair Roe questioned, with additional discussion impending, was it Member Willmus' inten- tion that each of those independent discussions be limited to that specific appeal? Member Willmus responded negatively,just to have separate motions for each appeal.