CC_Minutes_2010_0524 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting Monday, May 24, 2010 Page 15 ide by any conditions indicated; with the same results in either case. Council- member Pust questioned if the community had gotten to the point that they had to think the church would willingly violate any agreement made in writing. Coun- cilmember Pust suggested that either process would achieve the same results; and the need was to find workable solutions and concentrate on legitimate problems. Councilmember Pust questioned the timing issue if a CUP application was done; and provisions for restroom facilities or leaving the church open. Mr. Trudgeon advised that if it was determined by the City Council to reverse staff s decision and require a CUP process, it would take approximately forty-five (45) days; however, he noted that based on City Attorney advise, this application process was being treated as also under a 60 day review period from the date the petition of appeal was received on April 27, 2010, and expiring 60 days after re- ceipt. Ms. Spear advised that there was church staff on site with a security bell who could allow someone use of the indoor facilities; however, she noted that the church was not open or staffed 24/7 and gardeners would need to make other ac- commodations by going back home or to the neighborhood SuperAmerica. Ms. Spear advised that the church had thought of attempting to have a porta-potty on site was not necessary; and assured residents that volunteer gardeners would not be "peeing in the bushes." At the request of Councilmember Ihlan, Ms. Spear advised that early plants were not longer viable this late in the season; and later growing plants would now be considered, specifically for food shelf donations. Ms. Spear advised that the church originally intended to have sod cutting and tilling completed in early May; however, that was prior to her understanding and receipt of the appeal letter speci- fying that no action be taken, at which time those plans had been cancelled. Klausing moved, Roe seconded, affirmed Planning Division staff s interpretation of regulations and intent of the City's Zoning Code pertaining to community gar- dens in an R-1 District; and APPROVAL of a community garden as an allowed use in an R-1 District, based on staff findings detailed in the Request for Council Action (RCA) and attachments dated May 24, 2010; and DENIED the filed ap- peal to that determination. Councilmember Ihlan expressed her full support of the garden; but noted her dif- ficulty in supporting the motion, when she preferred a CUP process to more for- mally condition this use, rather than relying on a good faith or voluntary set of conditions and intents. Mayor Klausing, in response to Councilmember Ihlan, expressed discomfort in trying to place conditions on any potential CUP application not addressed in code; and expressed his confidence that NCPC would continue to work with the neigh-