Laserfiche WebLink
values of the neighboring developments and therefore they attempted to provide a range of units that would fall around <br />that range. <br />Councilmember Johns stated that if this is going to move on as a PUD she would like to see additional public benefit <br />provided above the greenway. She agreed that there are additional details that need to be provided before this moves <br />forward. <br />Mr. Roessler replied that the 45-foot buffer is without the berm and therefore the density transitioning berm can be <br />created and the difference in the lot depth would only fall five feet short of the R-1 requirement. <br />Mayor Strommen stated that while that would help to know that, she still does not feel that there is sufficient <br />information to make this decision. <br />Councilmember LeTourneau stated that there seems to be too much moving around in this discussion. He stated that <br />the attempt is to try to develop land in the community that will increase the population and could result in additional <br />benefits to the City, such as bringing in additional service businesses. He stated that the input of the neighboring <br />residents has been provided and considered throughout this process. He stated that the addition of the greenway was <br />a little late in the game and is somewhat separate from the reason of this request. He stated that he is willing to take <br />a bit of a risk to conceptually approve the PUD today so that the Council can learn more about it tomorrow. He stated <br />that while he does not want to dismiss the concerns brought forth tonight, he also wanted to remind the Council of <br />their purpose tonight. He stated that he would like the Council to accept that there is still a lot of work to do and this <br />would be taking a step, in good faith, to continue to work on this development. <br />Mayor Strommen stated that she did not feel that she would not be able to support this request but stated that she did <br />not have enough information. She stated that in order to approve a PUD there has to be a public benefit provided and <br />therefore she is attempting to determine if this public benefit is commensurate for the flexibility requested. She stated <br />that her starting place for review is what is allowed today and then weighing that against what is being asked for and <br />what is being received in terms of public benefit in return. She stated that this site will develop eventually. She <br />appreciated that she and Councilmember LeTourneau are coming from different points of view. <br />Councilmember LeTourneau stated that he also appreciates the different points of view and noted that he also agrees <br />that there would be additional information required but felt that this would be the first step. <br />Community Development Director Gladhill asked for the input the Council would like to receive before this comes <br />back. <br />Councilmember Shryock stated that she would like to see a comparison of what would be provided through normal <br />development of this property and then a comparison of what would be provided through this proposal. <br />Councilmember Kuzma asked for input on the timeline of the developer. <br />Mr. Roessler provided input on the timeline for the potential project. He noted that there is flexibility but advised that <br />delaying action for one month could delay the construction from April to May. <br />Motion by Councilmember Kuala, seconded by Councilmember Johns, to direct this case to go back before the <br />appropriate Commissions/Boards for additional input for the Council to review. <br />Further discussion: Councilmember LeToumeau asked what would result from the Commissions/Boards reviewing <br />this request again. Community Development Director Gladhill summarized the discussion points that were made <br />tonight, noting that staff would attempt to develop a proforma that the Commissions/Boards could review to determine <br />what would be provided under normal development compared to this proposal. Mr. Roessler stated that he would have <br />concern spending funds on a survey if this is not going to move forward. Mayor Strommen noted that this would not <br />have be a formal survey and provided additional details noting that the City's corridor map could be used. <br />Motion carried. Voting Yes: Mayor Strommen, Councilmembers Kuzma, Johns, LeTourneau, and Shryock. Voting <br />No: Councilmember Riley. <br />City Council Minutes Excerpt <br />October 24, 2017 <br />