City Council Minutes 1999 09 07 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mayer asked Light for clarification that it would fall upon Council to define these terms. He questioned whether Council could determine tonight whether the project doesn't really meet the criteria. Light replied that for Council to adopt a definition of any particular terms for general application would require amending the 1041 Ordinance. He explained that in drafting the 1041 regulations last fall, one of the objectives was to make the interchange criteria self-executing. This was to cause a permit process to automatically kick in without having the need for an affirmative act by Council whenever there was a 'proposed' interchange involving at least one arterial highway. He stated that Council could direct that the Highway 42 and US 36 interchange is not proposed for the purposes of this application, however, he felt that it would only affect this application for a short period of time. He stated that Council would need to decide at some point when the 1041 process would kick in for developments around that interchange, wherever it may eventually end up. Mayer agreed that Council needs to define some terms in order to provide a clear understanding of what they mean. He apologized to the applicant for getting caught up in this. He asked Light for clarification that everything is hinging on whether the connection is considered proposed as of yet. Light replied, yes. He explained that the one consideration that is mostly in Council's control is the definitions of interchange and arterial highway. Mayer questioned whether or not the interchange had been proposed. He stated that having the 1041 process concurrent with the PUD process would make more sense. Keany asked Light whether 96th Street is considered an arterial or whether Council was strictly discussing the connection where it meets with Highway 42, therefore, this project would fall within a mile of that connection. Light replied, that, for purposes of 1041 regulations, the City is interested in the point of the interchange and a one-mile radius around it. Keany explained that the Intergovernmental Agreement states that an interchange will be built, however, the location of the interchange has not been determined. He questioned how Council could apply that definition to this project under the circumstances. Light replied that the consequence will be that when the applicant pulls their building permits and begins to expend funds in reliance of those building permits, the City will not be able to come back with the 1041 process. He explained that if the applicant expands or amends the project, they might be required to apply for a 1041 permit. He stated that if the project is approved, once the applicant starts to pull building permits, they would have, under the common law, a right to proceed as approved, without any additional regulatory hurdle. 19