CC_Minutes_2010_0524 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting Monday, May 24, 2010 Page 14 low rather than moderate impact was based on the ten employees on site and whether volunteers or other people on the property could be classed as "em- ployees" or independent contractors under strict language interpretation. Councilmember Pust, from her analysis as an employment lawyer, opined that if the argument was that volunteers or gardeners were like employees .that criteria would fit under both the low and moderate impact categories. Councilmember Roe interpreted the table in the staff report to read that low im- pact uses required no more than ten employees, and more than that would be con- sidered moderate impact. Councilmember Roe, attempting to determine the ratio- nale for how this City Code was written, opined that the number of employees would indicate the continual number of employees on a daily basis, rather than this situation with periodic and random or intermittent availability on site. In his overall analysis in determining minor or moderate impact, Councilmember Roe opined that he tended toward low impact, with the City's nuisance code providing a recourse for any blight unsightliness or if the fence didn't meet code require- ments; and setback requirements for outdoor storage. Councilmember Roe noted that the first step in resolving issues was that the City notified the property owner of any violations to resolve issues. Councilmember Roe advised that he inter- preted the impact as low, and concurred with staff's opinion. Mayor Klausing advised that he viewed this as a low impact, quasi-public use; and reminded the City Council and public, that there were elements to be met for either low or moderate impact uses; and that he affirmed staff's determination. Mayor Klausing suggested that, if there were parking issues on Chatsworth, that they could be looked at separately by the City's Public Works Department; and if there were other safety or health issues (i.e., children playing in the street; weeds; non-maintained property) that they could also be addressed as separate issues. Mayor Klausing noted, from past experience as well, that when property owners didn't proactively engage their immediate and adjacent neighbors, they received this "push back" and people being upset. Mayor Klausing opined that even if this or another situation was a good proposal and issues could be worked through, un- less that communication existed early in the process, similar reactions were found. However, Mayor Klausing advised that, as he listened to the issues expressed, and in his review of the ordinance, as well as all materials included in the staff repot, he was not persuaded that staff's determination was not accurate. Councilmember Pust explored the distinctions in the current process in affirming staff's determination, and the other option to say the impact was moderate and was aquasi-public use, requiring a Conditional Use permit application. Council- member Pust noted that, if the CUP process was followed, the same presentation and concerns would be heard, with the church expressing their willingness to ab-