Laserfiche WebLink
Community Development Director Gladhill agreed that if this is accepted as the public benefit, <br />he would feel that the next iteration would need to show the park dedication in addition to this <br />public benefit. <br />Mr. Roessler stated that they would not be contributing park land and would pay park dedication <br />in addition to the greenway and trail contribution. He explained that the density was determined <br />by reviewing the property values of the existing homes in the area and the values proposed by <br />Capstone. He explained that they would need to match the values of the surrounding area and <br />would not want to be a "unicorn" in terms of pricing in that area. He stated that if you were to <br />develop the property at the R-1 standards throughout the development, the prices would far <br />exceed the values of the neighboring developments and therefore they attempted to provide a <br />range of units that would fall around that range. <br />Councilmember Johns stated that if this is going to move on as a PUD she would like to see <br />additional public benefit provided above the greenway. She agreed that there are additional <br />details that need to be provided before this moves forward. <br />Mr. Roessler replied that the 45-foot buffer is without the berm and therefore the density <br />transitioning berm can be created and the difference in the lot depth would only fall five feet <br />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 <br />is sufficient information to make this decision. <br />Councilmember LeTourneau stated that there seems to be too much moving around in this <br />discussion. He stated that the attempt is to try to develop land in the community that will <br />increase the population and could result in additional benefits to the City, such as bringing in <br />additional service businesses. He stated that the input of the neighboring residents has been <br />provided and considered throughout this process. He stated that the addition of the greenway <br />was a little late in the game and is somewhat separate from the reason of this request. He stated <br />that he is willing to take a bit of a risk to conceptually approve the PUD today so that the Council <br />can learn more about it tomorrow. He stated that while he does not want to dismiss the concerns <br />brought forth tonight, he also wanted to remind the Council of their purpose tonight. He stated <br />that he would like the Council to accept that there is still a lot of work to do and this would be <br />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 <br />but stated that she did not have enough information. She stated that in order to approve a PUD <br />there has to be a public benefit provided and therefore she is attempting to determine if this <br />public benefit is commensurate for the flexibility requested. She stated that her starting place for <br />review is what is allowed today and then weighing that against what is being asked for and what <br />is being received in terms of public benefit in return. She stated that this site will develop <br />eventually. She appreciated that she and Councilmember LeTourneau are coming from different <br />points of view. <br />City Council / October 24, 2017 <br />Page 13 of 16 <br />