CC_Minutes_2016_0725 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting Monday, July 25, 2016 Page 16 ties included. Councilmember McGehee noted once the increase in density was specified at 30% for the PUD, it would be binding and run with the property in perpetuity. Councilmember McGehee stated she saw that as an alternative route to the CU. Mayor Roe suggested making the PUD increase potential consistent with the CU potential, with the developer having the option to pursue either route for addition- al density preferences, based on other considerations as a trade-off. Mayor Roe further suggested, if just a density issue, the developer could follow the PUD pro- cess, but noted further discussion may occur on that specific issue during subse- quent discussion of the City Council when this item returns in the near future. Councilmember McGehee opined she saw that as a value-added path in the PUD process; but stated she wasn't sure if there was a 10% increase allowed in the con- text of current requirements; and suggested those discussions be held all- inclusively. Councilmember Laliberte stated her preference to talk about existing weaknesses in the PUD process, especially since that work was so recently completed; and may need a fresh look to determine if it was working as originally intended. Councilmember Laliberte agreed with tonight's discussion, and agreed with one last review before it went to the Planning Commission. Councilmember Laliberte clarified her rationale in voting against this originally, seeking that this closer at- tention to potential inadvertent weaknesses could be addressed. Councilmember Etten stated his approval in having this come back, both or either topic. Councilmember Etten noted if the PUD allowed up to a 50% increase and review of each specific case for other features, he was fine; but stated he wasn't interested in changing the bulk of current provisions. Mayor Roe clarified he was seeking discussion, not personally advocating; but wanted to further think about both avenues. Mayor Roe thanked staff for bringing this additional information forward and their thoughtful approach in doing so. b. Consideration of an INTERIM USE to Allow Temporary Concrete and As- phalt Crushing, Recycling, and Storage at the Former PIK Terminal, 2690 Prior Avenue (PF16-015) City Planner Thomas Paschke reviewed this request and staff's analysis (lines 32- 108) as detailed in the RCA and displayed maps. Mr. Paschke referenced the Planning Commission's review and noted action as detailed in lines 109-147. In response to feedback at the Planning Commission meeting, Mr. Paschke noted the applicant has subsequently relocated the stockpile