CC_Minutes_2012_0716 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting AND Board of Adjustments and Appeals Monday,July 16,2012 Page 47 In reviewing the Comprehensive Plan, Member Pust stated that this caused her to agree with the City Attorney's advice given in December of 2011, suggesting that this ambiguity should have been cleaned up, but hadn't been done. Member Pust stated that this created a problem in her reliance with staff's analysis only because these particular findings were not sustainable in her opinion. Under those circumstances, Member Pust opined that the same conclusions may be drawn as in staff's analysis, but not using the same justification or rationale as detailed to support their findings. Member Pust opined that statements could be sustained that the CMU District does not limit, restrict or prohibit use size or that it differentiates between large- and moderate-scoped stores. Based on these concerns, Member Pust advised that she couldn't go along with how this is set up as long as the lines remain blurred for her between the Compre- hensive Plan and Zoning Code. Member Willmus asked City Attorney Gaughan if a list of findings was needed tonight, or if their office would draft those findings for review, consideration and action at the next meeting. City Attorney Gaughan advised that there was no mandate to leave tonight's meeting with those findings; however, if staff's administrative determination was upheld or overturned, spe- cific findings would be needed, based on fine tuning of the Board's analysis, and could be pre- sented at a future meeting. Member Willmus suggested that the Board act on the two (2) appeals, and direct staff to return with those findings next week. Chair Roe noted that, even though not fine tuned, the Board would need to provide guidance to the City Attorney and staff to draft those findings. City Attorney Gaughan concurred, noting that staff had laid out their analysis that could be fol- lowed for the findings at the Board's direction; however, the Board may wish to point to sever- al specific areas that specifically contoured that analysis adopted by the Board; or of the appel- lants findings as well. Member McGehee noted that, in past similar situations, the City Attorney prepared findings for both points of view for the City Council and/or Board to consider. Member McGehee advised that she had asked for such a document from the City Attorney for either course of action to provide a thorough look.at the issues brought forward by the appellants and staff. Member McGehee sought consensus to pursue this as a reasonable request by the Board of the City At- torney's office. City Attorney Gaughan expressed hesitation in their office creating any appearance that they or staff are keying up findings for the Board; and opined that it would be a difficult task for their office or staff to draft specific findings and await a line item veto one way or the other by the Board. City Attorney Gaughan advised that the Board identify findings they wish to adopt, and his office can fine tune the exact language and return for formal action after the Board's review and concurrence. City Attorney Gaughan reiterated that he was reticent to come to the Board