Agenda - Council - 08/14/2001 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

,'1 I I I I I Hendr/ksen replied that that is what is required by City Code and the City has exceptions to that requirement which the City has had many problems with. Anderson stated that she thought developing the site with a PUD was the correct- the site. Councilmember Hendriksen stated that ultimately it might be develop~ a PUD, but as presented he does not support the development. Mayor Gamec stated had a work session with the developer and comments were made that it was a now the comments are being reversed. Councilmember Hendriksen he wrestled with the development is because there are positive that he does not like and he trusts that the development will cycle. The proposed density exceeds the March 2001 exceeds any plan he would have approved. He has never be~ not believe the 20 percent of common area meets the ordinmace. He also stated there are a number of comments in the Findin that he Attorney Goodrich reviewed the EAW process, that being done, but felt that they should wait for the EQB to the EAW is that he is hearing very fundamental issues that wo' plan. If an EAW is completed it would be done off a plan that the Council. He expressed disappointment over the comments because he did have approval from Commission and To require an EAW is a He re~ staff. come back with a revised plan~ f%;( cons: developer should be given an oPpormni~to revise then at that time they can consider an a development with 5 units per acre is considerable amount of time with the which included,free'preservation. They invested an envious amotm~',of time trying hearing su~h;:,f~ndamental ch~ges. He' taking,¥M~i~'or Gamec replied)that he felt it that ~f/e agce,¢cl.. ,with the:PUD, discussions on': n0t. comiiniling would be a possi¢i,!itsr.- Mr. Black inquired i.f the City would want only 'one access into the site. ~:~?:71~i.'~'dUn'ci.lmember zimmerman replied no. City Engineer Olson stated that the connection to ~0'dine Sireet provides two; acce~i¢:,,to the neighborhoods as well as limiting access onto C.R. #5. If they-'~dre, to eliminate;7'~:.i~14~;'"connection they would have two access onto C.R. #5. Councilmembe~: Hendri.kS',en/stated that he watched the public hearing at the Planning Commission and;' would like to review the traffic generation analysis because he questions the results. He in~uired as to what would happen if the Council,:rd,ers an EAW and the plan is changed. City;:~orney Goodrich replied that the action would die because if the plan changes ~' ~ ,,then the EA,W' Would have to address those changes. Mr. Black stated that the EAW is an environmer~t~l' worksheet to determine if an EIS is needed. He does not think that there has ever been a,r~sidential development that has needed an EIS.. The EQB will already be commenting on th~' petition that has been presented by the residents. He requested an opportunity to reanalyze the, development and come back with another proposal and at that time if they feel and EAW is dishonest. City EAW concern with them to redevelop the not approved by the Council with the he be allowed to Kurak stated that the stopping the process and Black stated that a total He stated that he has spent a and Was prepared to present a park plan en trying to take the appropriate steps and have a plan and disappointed that he his PUD was the appropriate process to be right process. Councilmember Kurak stated Zimmerman stated that there has been some the .existing neighborhood and questioned if that City Council/June 26, 2001 Page 17 of 27 -71-