Minutes - Council - 06/26/2001 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Councilmember Hendriksen replied that that is what is required by City Code and the City has made three exceptions to that requirement which the City has had many problems with. Councilmember Anderson stated that she thought developing the site with a PUD was the correct way to develop the site. Councilmember Hendriksen stated that ultimately it might be developed under a PUD, but, as presented, he does not support the development. Mayor Gamec stated that the Council had a work session with the developer and comments were made that it was a good development and now the comments are being reversed. Councilmember Hendriksen stated that one of the reasons he wrestled with the development is because there are positive aspects, but there are also aspects that he does not like and he trusts that the development will improve by going through an extra cycle. The proposed density exceeds the March 2001 Comprehensive Plan and it obviously exceeds any plan he would have approved. He has never been in favor of private streets and does not believe the 20 percent of common area meets the intent of the ordinance. He also stated that there are a number of comments in the Findings of Fact that he feels are dishonest. City Attorney Goodrich reviewed the EAW process. Mr. Black stated that he is not against the EAW being done, but felt that they should wait for the EQB to make their comments. His concern with the EAW is that he is hearing very fundamental issues that would require them to redevelop the plan. If an EAW is completed it would be done off a plan that they would not be approved by the Council. He expressed disappointment over the comments he heard from the Council because he did have approval from the Planning Commission and has worked closely with the staff. To require an EAW is a step in the wrong direction. He requested that he be allowed to come back with a revised plan for Council consideration. Councilmember Kurak stated that the developer should be given an opportunity to revise the plan instead of stopping the process and then at that time they can consider an EAW if it is still a concern. Mr. Black stated that a total development with 5 units per acre is not a dense development. He stated that he has spent a considerable amount of time with the Parks Department and was prepared to present a park plan, which included tree preservation. They have been trying to take the appropriate steps and have invested an enormous amount of time trying to put together a plan and is disappointed that he is hearing such fundamental changes. He inquired if a PUD was the appropriate process to be taking. Mayor Gamec replied that he felt it was the right process. Councilmember Kurak stated that she agreed with the PUD. Councilmember Zimmerman stated that there has been some discussions on not continuing Iodine Street to the existing neighborhood and questioned if that would be a possibility. Mr. Black inquired if the City would want only one access into the site. Councilmember Zimmerman replied no. City Engineer Olson stated that the connection to Iodine Street provides two accesses to the neighborhoods as well as limiting access onto C.R. #5. If they were to eliminate the connection, they would have two accesses onto C.R. #5. Councilmember Hendriksen 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 inquired as to what would happen if the Council orders an EAW and the plan is changed. City Attorney Goodrich replied that the action would "die" because, if the plan changes, then the EAW would have to address those changes. Mr. Black stated that the EAW is an environmental worksheet to determine if an EIS is needed. He does not think that there has ever been a residential development that has needed an EIS. The EQB will already be commenting on the 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, City Council/June 26, 2001 Page 17 of 28