CC_Minutes_2017_0925 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting Monday, September 25, 2017 Page 25 Willmus moved, McGehee seconded DENIAL of the request for concept PUD, an amendment to PUD Agreement 1177, as recommended by the Plan- ning Commission, modifying the permitted uses on the subject property to include college or post-secondary school, office-based, as deemed not appro- priate for the Centre Pointe Business Park; based on the following findings: ■ The proposed use does not meet the city's economic goals; ■ The proposed use does not conform with the language or intent of the cur- rent PUD; ■ The proposed use is not supported by past underlying zoning of B-4 permit- ted uses. Councilmember Laliberte questioned how development of a solid work force was in opposition to the city's economic development plan as laid outing the 2017 Priority Planning Plan(PPP). Councilmember Etten opined that it may be arguable as a finding against amend- ment to the PUD, but agreed that the first finding was the existing PUD surround- ing job creation. Councilmember Etten also noted that the intent was to encour- age job creation or expand business in that area; however, he saw this differently in reading the original intent when the PUD was created, thus his support for the motion to deny. City Attorney Gaughan sought further clarification by the maker of the motion as to the findings and further expansion of them, including: ■ The requested use does not conform to the city's economic goals for the broader geographic area; ■ The requested use does not conform to the original intent of the PUD agree- ment; ■ The requested use is not consistent with underlying zoning requirements. Based on his interpretation of tonight's discussion related to the first finding, City Attorney Gaughan asked if the maker of the motion agreed with amending the first finding that to state the current proposal does not conform to the original PUD's economic development goals for expected job creation and the use's in- consistency for quantity of jobs the city desired for that area. Councilmember Willmus, as the maker of the motion, agreed with City Attorney Gaughan's interpretation of his intent. As a result, City Attorney Gaughan clarified the findings as follows: ■ The requested PUD amendment does not conform to the City's economic development goals for the relevant geographic area because the expected job creation is not of a sufficient quantity desired by the City ■ The requested PUD amendment does not conform with the intent of the ex- isting PUD agreement regarding permitted use of this geographic area.