Minutes - Council - 11/27/2001 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

personally felt that the facts n~ed to be stated as they are. If they feel that the use will not be operated and maintained so as to be harmonious and appropriate and that it will change the essential character of the area then aren't they saying that the use is inappropriate according to today's ordinances. City Attorney Goodrich replied that if that is the case then the Council should not be granting the permit. Councilmember Kurak stated that she wants to avoid having Kenko spend a lot of money on the site to comply with current City Code only to have the City buy the property in the future. City Attorney Goodrich replied that if the Council were to grant the permit as proposed they would not be requiring them to expend a lot of money. Councilmember Kurak inquired as to whom would be responsible for acquiring the property if the City asks them to spend more money on the site. Councilmember Hendriksen stated all of the things Ms. Kurak brought up are justification for granting the permit and there may be enough justification to do so, but those facts need to be recorded. City Attorney Goodrich replied that they are not legally binding them to anything other than the permit. The City is not telling them that the City will pay for anything, but it will be putting Kenko on notice that in the future the land may be taken. Councilmember Kurak stated that she does not want to demand that they invest a lot of money into the property and then have to buy it back in three years. Councilmember Hendriksen stated that one of the things that constantly happens is that 6nce the City permits something everybody else wants the same things. The City has a long history of trying to clean up the businesses south of the property so there has to be some justification that sets this apart from everyone else. City Attorney Goodrich stated that finding #11 is a new fact that has not been evident in earlier cases. Councilmember Anderson inquired if the City were to deny the permit because they don't think the open storage is appropriate even though it is a temporary use, will it create any difficulties because Kenko does own the land. She also inquired if it would be possible to negotiate another area. Councilmember Hendriksen replied that a business will choose the least cost alternative. If the choice becomes building a facility that meets the requirements for a greater cost or do the minimal amount of things somewhere else they will choose the minimal cost. He questioned if the Council was willing to set the precedent or endure the rationale of the inconsistency and write it down to make legal sense. Councilmember Anderson inquired if they would be within their legal rights to deny the permit. City Attorney Goodrich replied yes, but inquired as to what the Council would do if Kenko requested to build a permanent structure on the site. If that were to happen, then the City would be in a dilemma because of findings #i 1. CoUncilmember Kurak noted that the property is in a moratorium so they would not be able to build on the site. City Attorney Goodrich replied that currently that is true, but the moratorium will not be there permanently. Councilmember Hendriksen suggested that they could wait through the moratorium and then officially map the right-of-way once more of the studies are comPleted. City Attorney Goodrich stated that if the Council is leading toward denial, then they will have to redraft the language in the findings of fact. Mayor Gamec suggested findings to approve the permit and density but that the permit be brought back to the next City Council meeting for consideration. Motion failed. Voting Yes: Councilmembers Kurak and Zimmerman. Voting No: Mayor Gamec, and Councilmembers Anderson, and Hendriksen. City Council/November 27, 2001 Page 11 of 22