Laserfiche WebLink
Councilmember Cook-Kallio noted the best case scenario would be for the church and the <br />community to be able to come to consensus. She would like to see both parties work on <br />that and bring something back to the Council. She doesn't think that what the Council <br />approved was perfect, but in her mind it was her only choice. <br />Councilmember Sullivan noted the City tried to bring the church and the community <br />together to work collaboratively and it didn't happen. The City tried very hard to make that <br />happen. If they want to try again, he would be for that. <br />Mr. Roush noted, assuming the church decides to proceed with the Option 3; staff will look <br />to see if it substantially complies with what Council approved. As long as it substantially <br />complies, it will be processed at a staff level. <br />Pulled Item from Consent Calendar: <br />8. Waive second reading and adopt Ordinance No. 1948 approving the application of Peter <br />Shutts/Goble Properties for Planned Unit Development approval, as filed under <br />Case PUD-85-10-7M <br />Phil Blank addressed the City Council and noted the Planning Commission restriction of <br />the fryer/grill was not intended to be an undue burden on the applicant. He advised that <br />every coffee house that has been approved or proposed in the last 3 years has had this <br />restriction. This unanimous decision by the Planning Commission was made so that there <br />wouldn't be any future ambiguity as to what they could place on this property. He noted a <br />good zoning code does not necessarily make a good planning code, especially when <br />PUD's are involved. There does not appear to be a solid legal definition of a "fast food <br />restaurant" especially if there is no drive-through associated with it. He noted the Planning <br />Commission has used the CUP process to deal with this issue. He asked that the Council <br />reconsider reinstating the original conditions of approval. <br />Council discussion ensued regarding having flexibility as they relate to regulations with <br />fast food restaurants. Council suggested staff look into what the City of St. Helena uses in <br />terms of a definition. <br />Mayor Hosterman clarified, for this project, if anything develops other than a Pete's Coffee <br />on that site, the Council would like to know about that. <br />Motion: It was m/s by Thorne/McGovern, to approve the second reading and adoption of <br />Ordinance No. 1948. Motion passed by the following vote: <br />Ayes: Cook-Kallio, McGovern, Sullivan, Thorne, Mayor Hosterman <br />Noes: None <br />Absent: None <br />PUBLIC HEARINGS AND OTHER MATTERS <br />12. Continued to April 17, 2007 -Public Hearing: Status report regarding community needs for <br />medical marijuana, Alameda County's Identification Card Program, dispensaries within the <br />County, and effects of dispensaries operating in other jurisdictions, and consider <br />introduction of an Ordinance to add a new Chapter 6.18 to the Municipal Code to prohibit <br />the operation of medical marijuana dispensaries <br />City Council Minutes 4 April 3, 2007 <br />