2007_0723_packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting D1�AFT 1.Viinutes of Monday, June 18, 2007 Page 35 1 term lease with the property reverting to a truck terminal. Mr. Hajack 2 opined �hat the applicants were good developers, and he supported the 3 overall design concept and the project as presented, even if it required 4 him to pursue litigation. 5 6 Additional discussion inciuded the traffic impacts for the right- 7 in/righi-out on C1eveland Avenue; S 9 City Engineer Bloom expressed concern thai the Ci�y Council may di- 10 r�ct staff to accept a minimal traffic study; when standard procedure 11 was io consistently require such a comprehensive study on all devel- 12 opment projects, including projected 2030 traffic impacts; impacts to 13 �he intersection and safety considerations. Ms. Bloom reviewed the 14 process of staff review, foilowed by the City's traffic consultant re- 15 view and #�ollow-up with the applican�, opining that the timeline was 16 very tight given the holidays and meeting schedules. 17 �8 Councilmember Roe suggested, since a11 terms hadn't been outlined 19 yet, that insfiead of attempting an agreement tonight, the item be tabled 20 until July 23, 2007; with staff and the applicant requested to work out 21 the details in order for staff to provide a definitive recommendation. 22 23 Councilmember Pust clarified that the applicant needed to provide 24 staff with the information as outlined if the City Council was going to 25 agree to table action until the July 23`d meeting; and personally put the 26 applicant on notice that, if all issues were not resolved to th� satisfac- 27 tion of staff and their requested scope by the July 23r`� meeting, it was 28 her intent not to support the project. 29 30 Mr. Stark �eiterated that sta�� had been seeking the same scope for the 31 project since r�ceipt of the application; and had simply reiterated that 32 scope in their last correspondence with the applican�; and maintained 33 staf�s intent to remain consistent in their request. Mr. Stark asked 34 that the applicant comply with the information request, so the same is- 35 sues were not simp�y rehashed in four weeks at the July 23rd meeting. 36 37 Councilmember Pust clarified that the scope remained tl�e same as re- 38 quested by staff and the same scope sought in land use issues of this 39 type.