CC_Minutes_2014_0609 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting Monday,June 9,2014 Page 34 Discussion ensued regarding back-up parking options if needed; potential signage at Eagle Crest to avoid student parking in those lots; and the specific request at the Planning Commission level to retain parking standards for elementary and middle school uses as well. Mr. Paschke requested asked City Attorney Bartholdi for an opinion on whether the City Council could condition ADA compliance and/or sprinkler systems as a land use condition, since this was covered in the building code area as part of the project review process; and whether such conditioning would be problematic when the building code spoke to them much differently and whether it would cre- ate a conflict. Community Development Director Paul Bilotta made several suggestions rather than attempting to write conditions at the table. Given a number of other potential uses, Mr. Bilotta suggested language for a conditional use process such as "the applicant has demonstrated that parking is adequate for its intended use." Mr. Bilotta noted that this allowed Northwestern the opportunity to provide other strategies, and if overflow is not a problem it could be addressed, but in general the same parameters and standards would apply in different situations (e.g. mili- tary school). Mr. Bilotta suggested similar language on the building site, such as "the applicant has demonstrated that the site and existing structure are ade- quate for its intended use." Councilmember Etten spoke in support of that suggested language. Mayor Roe expressed concern about requiring the CU process for this particular application due to timing issues; and questioned how that would work. Mr. Paschke noted that the staff report alluded to or analyzed this use related to the existing use as a hotel, which was similar but one had more traffic with people staying in units; with student housing less impactful than a multi-family residen- tial, with this use falling in the middle of lodging and multi-family uses. With student housing, in this area mostly in business zoning, Mr. Paschke opined that it would not be impactful to residential uses typical of using a CU process; and from a planning/zoning side, he was not sure if was appropriate or not to so condition it, even though that would be at the City Council's discretion. If the City Council chose to approve an ordinance creating a CU process for this project, Mr. Paschke estimated that it could be a two month process before it re- turned to the City Council for approval, depending on the processing for Planning Commission review and recommendation, but a minimum of sixty days from to- day. Councilmember Laliberte questioned why not to go "permitted use" in CB with Mr. Bilotta's suggested standards in place of conditions.