CC_Minutes_2010_0329 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting Monday, March 29, 2010 Page 12 Mr. Wong suggested that recommendations 8.2 and 8.3 of the RCA be done in pa- rallel, recognizing the need for a public process in amendment of the Comprehen- sive Plan. Mr. Wong opined that the City Council consider that churches are not an actual excluded use at this time on the existing zoning chart and that the re- vised zoning code could more clearly define uses. Mayor Klausing spoke in support of the T4C project; however, noted the need for consideration of establishing precedents and the Comprehensive Plan Amendment public process needing to be followed. Mr. Wong reviewed the limitations on the church in moving forward without the security of a Council determination on whether this use was permitted; opining that the City's current Comprehensive Plan would permit churches by virtue that it did not specifically exclude them. Councilmember Roe observed that the City's existing zoning code didn't comply with it's Comprehensive Plan at this stage, and questioned legal counsel on whether one additional minor revision would have any ramifications, once the zoning code is made consistent with the updated Comprehensive Plan. City Attorney Mark Gaughan questioned whether two wrongs made a right; and based on Section 5.2 of the RCA, opined that creating another inconsistency could provide further complication in the future. Councilmember Ihlan recognized practical issues with this application; however, she opined that State law dictated that the City's Comprehensive Plan governed, and the first step needed to be an amendment to that plan before proceeding fur- ther. Councilmember Ihlan cautioned fellow Councilmembers of similar issues related to the Twin Lakes Redevelopment Area and legal implications. Council- member Ihlan expressed her interest in a way for the applicant to proceed with their plans. Councilmember Johnson noted the advice of legal counsel; and questioned if any other options were indicated that would provide leeway for the City Council on this issue. City Attorney Gaughan suggested that the problem may not be of a legal nature at this time; but may become one in the future if the City Council chose to make a zoning text amendment before a comprehensive plan amendment. Councilmember Pust spoke in support of the need to amend the Comprehensive Plan first based on legal counsel and past experience, even while speaking in sup- port of this application proceeding,