Laserfiche WebLink
back thc six mil/io:~ dollars has bee~ discussed in the feasibility study ia part of the equation. He <br />suggested this could go towards the cost of the AUAR. <br /> <br />C, ounciln~cmbcr l<urak commented ti~e developer would get that six million dollars back <br />eventually. She questioned how they x~.ould address future developers paying for the AUAR. <br /> <br />Assislant (,'ommtmity Devclopmeni Director Tmdgeon explained the thought process is if they <br />complete an AUA ?, it covers a lar:~e ~rea and everyone will benefit if they develop. That will <br />need to he a¢ldross~,d later. <br /> <br />C, otmci hncmbc~' K re'ak stated she a~,,rces with Councilmember Strommen 150% that there should <br />bo some type o1' communication wiih the people in this area. Secondly, this case before them is <br />overkill and she would like to dwindle it down to what is necessaW for tonight. The Council did <br />commit to a study, but not to doing a project. She does not want it said that she is agreeing to a <br />project of any kind by going ahead v:ith the planning. <br /> <br />City Attorney Goodrich suggested Com~cihnember Strommen may want to make a motion to <br />direct stal'l' to establish at ptdoli(- comment period/process to solicit public comment on <br />community wtlues, interests, and preferences related to growth plans for the area. The cornment <br />period shall precede authorization fi~r tl~e comprehensive plan amendment component. <br /> <br />Councilmembcr Kin'ak commented there is a plan for the northeast pipe of this project, and a <br />group of citi×ens xx, ill be having a n~eeting regarding that. She noted this may dovetail with what <br />Cotmcilmcmhcr Strommen is sttgge ;ti <br /> <br />Motion by Cotmcilmember Strom~nen, seconded by Councilmember Kurak, to direct staff to <br />establish a public comment period/process to solicit public comment on community values, <br />interests, and prefc~'cnces related to growth plans for the area. The comment period shall precede <br />attthorization l'or thc comprehensive plan amendment component. <br /> <br />Further discussion: Councilmcmbc,: Zimmerman stated the direction from the Council planning <br />session was to co~nmencc with planning, not engineering work. City Administrator Norman <br />stated stal'f had elc:ar direction to l>ring this £orward, and this has been discussed for over six <br />months. C!otmciln,cmher Cook stai, ed regarding Councilmember Kurak's statement that this is <br />catlsing a l'i ['t i~l tl~t~ City (2otu~cil, tl~is is democracy working. The Council will vote on this and <br />they do not always agree. ~l*his mellon should come forward as it is, and if it is voted down, it is <br />voted down. [towcver, il' there are enough people on the Council that are interested in moving <br />this the way it sits it shou]d move ibrward. They will not always have seven people voting on <br />something, and it does not mcan they have a split Council. Councilmember Strommen stated she <br />is t'ully in Favor' of tho planning, a~<t she did not think asking for public input would cause the <br />discussion it h~ts. Councilmembe~ E]vig stated he is not against receiving public input. He <br />reported thc (bm ('lub has been closed, soil borings are underway to test for lead, and there is a <br />largo escrow lo do that clean up. Cotmcihnember Pearson stated a lot of the pieces of these <br />projects arc already in place and tht~y.just need to tweak things around. The Council needs to be <br />working closely witl~ Planning & Zoni~g so they know what we are doing and thinking. He likes <br /> <br />(it3' Council/May 11, 2004 <br />Page 32 of 36 <br /> <br /> <br />