03/22/2004 Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

COUNCIL MINUTES MARCH 22, 2004 APPROVED 621 number 28. In regard to condition number 6, the motion included the time as 10:00 rather than 11:00, • 622 to which neither Staff nor applicant had objection. Councilmember Reinert seconded the motion. 623 624 Councilmember Carlson commented that a key concern for her was whether or not the proposed use 625 was compatible with the neighborhood and whether all of the public improvement conditions had 626 been met. She stated that if any conditions cannot be met, then she felt the Council should deny the 627 application. She felt there were some items without enough information to decide, and a couple that 628 could not be met. 629 630 Councilmember Carlson expressed concerns about the height of the church, and ongoing concerns 631 about traffic and the traffic study. She had visited the site and informally counted cars at a key 632 intersection. She felt the issue of screening also needed to be looked at further. She noted the 633 Environmental Board had recommended denial, and she felt this was significant. The potential 634 impact on the neighborhood was significant. She felt the development was premature before 635 adequate infrastructure was in place and this was not justified. 636 637 Mayor Bergeson stated he felt that the traffic issues had been adequately addressed. Other large 638 churches in the city had dealt with this issue, and he had visited the intersection at this location and 639 felt this situation posed no greater issue or long backups, and any problems would be manageable. 640 He did not feel the traffic posed a reason for denial. He stated that once improvements had been 641 made, the situation would improve. 642 643 Councilmember Reinert acknowledged this decision had not been easy. His concerns had been W644 addressed at various stages in the process, and he felt the traffic situation met the necessary 645 threshhold and was not unsafe. He felt the application was legally sufficient and did not see a valid 646 reason for denial. 647 648 Councilmember Stoltz stated the key issues in his mind were traffic, safety, being environmentally 649 responsible, whether this was a good development, and whether the City was within its legal rights in 650 any eventual decision. He said he concluded that the traffic would likely present an inconvenience in 651 the area, but this was different from being unsafe. Also, he noted traffic issues were sporadic, rather 652 than constant. He urged the church to be proactive to address concerns that should arise, and 653 indicated at this point, he would be voting for approval. 654 655 Councilmember Dahl stated she respected the opinions and the eventual votes of the other 656 Councilmembers. She stated she felt the use was intense for the site, and concurred that traffic was a 657 major concern for her. She was also concerned about the environmental impact, noting that 658 vibrations from traffic and development could disrupt the wildlife in the area. The fact that the 659 Environmental Board had recommended "no" on this item was a consideration. 660 661 Councilmember Dahl stated she was reluctant to vote for something which caused an impact on other 662 cities without sufficient input from them. She was also disappointed that there had not been a way to 663 minimize the impact on this area — she felt the impact was very large, and she would not be 664 supporting this application. 665 666 •667 668 14