CC_Minutes_2016_0411 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting Monday, April ll, 2016 Page 22 d. All wor�k associated with limited pr�oduction and process be contained i�- cloo�s Councilmember Willmus stated this allowed for a significant transition between the residential and commercial properties while screening residential properties from lights and tied this fence to the building where the chain link fence was on the western edge, but not extending to the eastern property edge by stopping at the eastern edge of the existing chain link fence. City Attorney Gaughan suggested that the makers of the inotion include Diagram D.1 as part of their motion serving as an illustrious diagram. Councilmember Etten expressed his frustration, opining this was the wrong an- swer to how the city wanted to take care of its neighbors, and apologized for that. However, Councilmeinber Etten also expressed his belief that the city had a legal responsibility to adhere to its own CU and noted that code stipulated screening the parking area, and this is the best way to address that under current code provi- sions, and thus the reason for his decision. Councilmember Laliberte stated she had heard language read froin city staff to the residential neighbors, stating IU provisions would prevail, causing a contribution to the interpretation by Councilmember Etten. Councilmember Willmus clarified that it was his understanding in the context of that staff statement as offered, that this was prior to the rezoning of this property; and now a completely different application and process was in place, as addressed by City Attorney Gaughan when asked by Councilmember Etten earlier tonight specific to whether or not the IU carried forward and should be considered as part of this application process. Councilmember McGehee expressed her disagreement with that interpretation, re- iterating what she felt was the city's obligation to its residents, and not attempting to revise those promises made ahnost two years ago, reinforced by a public hear- ing process, resulting in leaving those neighbors much worse than before. Coun- cilmember McGehee opined that it was the city's obligation to maintain the con- dition of the IU as part of the conditions of the CU, which could be legally ac- complished based on the city's right to ensure any significant negative impacts to surrounding properties were properly addressed. Councilmember McGehee fur- ther opined that these negative impacts were a result of previous city action; and stated the need for the city to enforce that obligation and set a precedence by af- firming and reaffirming that the city would not abandon them two years later. In speaking to the proposed CU motion, Mayor Roe recognized that it essentially responded to code requirements for buffering and screening. Mayor Roe also ex- pressed his understanding of the past history, IU approval and actions since then.