CC MINUTES 12041979 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

-5- Mr. Newman and Mr. William Luther, representing the Johnsons, dis- agreed in their interpretation of the court ' s decision with Mr. Newnan contending the court had not ruled on the question of whether the florists had to comply with the City ordinances and applicable restrictions when it had handed down its judgment that the Johnson' s had the right to expand their property. On the other hand, Senator Luther said it is his client' s position that the specific building permit application made by the Johnsons in 1978 met all the City requirements at that time and they had been ruled on and approved by the court in its decision. The lighting for the four additional greenhouse structures were a part of that application. The attorney also corrected Mr. Newman' s assumption that the judge in that case had not personally prepared the findings. Johnson' s counsel had indicated to him the florists ' willingness to meet reasonable com- mercial restrictions for their proposed expansion and were also willing to negotiate others , Mr. Newman said. Mr. Luther cautioned, however, that any change in technology would be unacceptable. The City' s attorney then suggested negotiations be undertaken before a decision regarding an appeal be made and that action be taken only if the court attempted to prevent the City from using its codes and ordinances "as they are traditionally applied to commercial usage" . He then raised the question of whether the proposed lighting is specifically restricted in the City ordinance and whether this is something over which the City has any control. When the Johnsons ' attorney agreed to sit down with City staff to go over their differ- ences, Mr. Fornell said he hoped such negotiations might result in lighting which is less offensive to the neighbors with perhaps more effective screening for the residents to the east of the Johnson property provided by plantings of pine and poplar trees in addition to the proposed fence. The Council agreed to defer a decision until further negotiations to work out a more acceptable development are completed. Copies of the November 28 letter from Richard J. Williams, new owner of the Northgate Motel and Restaurant, in which Mr. Williams agreed to pay the $1, 188 bill for past sewage and water which had not been billed to the motel, had been included in the agenda and the Manager ' s November 30 recommendations regarding this proposal as well as future billing had been distributed to the Council. Motion by Councilman Sauer and seconded by Mayor Haik to accept the repayment agreement specified in Mr. Williams ' November 28 letter. -Motion carried unanimously. Councilman Ranallo left the meeting at 9 : 05 p.m. Motion by Councilman Sundland and seconded by Mayor Haik to direct staff to include a provision for motel sewer billing in the revised sewer ordinance. • Motion carried unanimously.