CC_Minutes_2008_0428 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting Monday, Apri128, 2008 Page 11 Mayor Klausing noted that the formal public hearing had been held at the Plan- ning Commission level, and that a previous Council meeting had received public comment; however, advised that the Council would entertain additional public comment at this time. Public Comment Karen Schaffer, 2100 Fairview Avenue Ms. Schaffer expressed her immediate concern upon receiving the mailing from the applicant, and the circumstances of why and how her name and address had been provided to the applicant. Ms. Schaffer noted that she had not communi- cated about this subject with any individual Councilmembers; and addressed the misleading comments indicated in the letter from the applicant that they were re- sponding to citizen concerns expressed to city administrators. Ms. Schaffer addressed the five recommended conditions for CUP approval and questioned those that were typical for a City Council to hold an applicant ac- countable; and whether the condition (#3) related to the pawnshop not dealing in check cashing or payday loans, pornographic materials, and/or firearms, would continue to be denied for this or any subsequent individuals at this location for this use, if economics and/or dynamics were to change dramatically. City Attorney Scott Anderson advised that the conditions would remain in effect as long as the CUP remained in effect, including any subsequent owners, and that the permit could only be used as long as they adhered to the conditions of the CUP, unless they were to go through the public hearing process for an amended CUP in the future. Ms. Schaffer questioned if the City Council would have the authority to deny any amended CUP to expand activities at that location to exclude those prohibited. Mayor Klausing confirmed that any future City Council could deny or refuse to modify the CUP, based on the same criteria for general health, safety or welfare concerns of its citizens. City Attorney Anderson further expounded that, if at any time the applicant was not adhering to any or all of the conditions, the City Council had the authority, with proper notice and due process, to revoke the permit or petition the court to revoke the CUP. Ms. Schaffer further addressed the conditions recommended by staff in their re- port, and those that were specific to the applicant and those specific to staff s monitoring of the CUP, suggesting that some of the conditions were subjective depending on City staff; opining that Condition #3 related to the pawnshop busi- ness practices and prohibitions became the utmost, crucial condition requiring that a future City Council be fully empowered to adhere to that condition. Ms.