CC_Minutes_2017_1106 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting Monday, November 6, 2017 Page 8 City Attorney Gaughan agreed that they could say the agreement was null and void and not be willing to negotiate further. At the request of Councilmember Laliberte, City Attorney Gaughan clarified the two conditions of this agreement upon which the property owner shall waive its argument of lawful, pre-existing use: at the end of the five years or at sale of the property. Mr. Gaughan noted that it was the case for many corporate entities, that with resale, the existing property owner may desire to transfer ownership rights, but in this agreement waived that legal authority. Mayor Roe agreed, further clarifying that the only use that could continue was that defined in this agreement, as outlined, unless the property was sold for rede- velopment or use of the property for some other use not defined in the agreement, at which point the non-conforming use could not continue; with City Attorney Gaughan concurring with that statement. Councilmember McGehee asked if the enforcement of this agreement would prove as difficult as rejecting and attempting continued code enforcement by staff. Community Development Director Kari Collins responded that the emphasis was on the stay of enforcement, with the city currently having authorized a temporary restraining order for this site, with the current use continuing as is while the set- tlement agreement and terms were negotiated. If the city chooses the litigation route, Ms. Collins stated that the city would most likely be advised to continue the restraining order and therefore, unable to touch the property for any code en- forcement within the length of that litigation period versus the settlement agree- ment stipulations allowing the city to enforce building code and design standards. Discussion ensued regarding enforcement of the agreement through court action if not upheld by the property owner and the effects of the sunset provision. Councilmember McGehee stated her understanding of the neighbors' concerns; but reiterated that she felt this agreement was the surest way to resolve this blight in the shortest amount of time, given the specificity of the document. Coun- cilmember McGehee agreed with Mayor Roe that, while this process may not be perfect, it is what it is. She noted that the questions brought forth by council members during Closed Executive Session were similar to those voiced during public comment tonight; but opined she didn't see what could be gained by allow- ing the litigation to move forward. Councilmember McGehee stated that she was guardedly optimistic that, given the clear conditions of the agreement and sketch for location of the trailers, it was unlikely for Dorso to want to continue litigation over trailer placement since Dorso and parties had already signed this agreement.