CC_Minutes_2014_0609 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting Monday,June 9, 2014 Page 35 Mr. Paschke advised that this could be done, either criteria or conditions, which would be his recommendation. Mr. Bilotta stated that the problem with conditions for a permitted use is that it pushed the decision to staff to determine their adequacy; and may not have con- sensus. Also, Mr. Bilotta noted that if the City Council did not agree with staff's recommendation and due to the timing issue if these two conditions were not ap- plicable, it could be left as a permitted use and in August or September the final conditions could be applied before final approval. Regarding permitted use versus CU, Councilmember Willmus advised that he was seeking the most protection in LDR-1 or LDR-2 zones; and would not have an is- sue looking at this as a permitted use in the CB zone, with some of the standards previously laid out by staff and looking at incorporating the parking standard. If that were the case, Councilmember Willmus advised that he would support mov- ing forward on that basis. At the request of Mayor Roe, Mr. Paschke provided staffs perspective on the parking condition of 7 or 7.5 proposed by Councilmember Etten; but without fur- ther research offered no comment, since the code built into it shared parking agreements off-site and he would need to review general language in order not to bind the City to something. Mr. Paschke suggested it may be more appropriate to provide flexibility for staff to negotiate and find a useful solution and solid agreements, once that information is available; with Council support of the project if the applicant met or assigned spots in other buildings to support the condition, which would not be much different than negotiating with other developments. Mr. Paschke clarified that code already supported shared parking. Since Northwestern already operated under two PUD's, Councilmember McGe- hee questioned why the PUD wasn't simply amended to address this expansion and put conditions on that expansion. Mayor Roe advised that such a process would take another two months or more. Related to the PUD, Mr. Paschke was not sure if that was an option, and deferred to the City Attorney. Specific to conditions, Mr. Paschke sought clarification on those intended to be crafted this evening to include in approval. While the 7.5 fit this situation, Councilmember Laliberte questioned if it fit other situations going forward; and expressed her preference for language allowing specificity for each project. To that point, Mayor Roe noted that as far as design standards and adequate park- ing, it was a permit requirement anyway, to which Mr. Paschke concurred.