CC_Minutes_2007_0716 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

City C®un~21 Stu y essl~ ®nclay, July 1, 2407 Page 18 Mr. Paschke noted that Public Hearings had been heard at the Plan- ning Commission level, and advised that standard practice didn't dic- tate that process. Mr. Lindgren advised that the applicant had requested an extension of the 60-day rule to allow for additional engineering and for more pub- lic input that had in turn prompted their completion of the voluntary EAW. Councilmember Ihlan repeatedly expressed her frustration with being unable to review the completeness of the EAW and receive public in- put prior to the August meeting. Mayor Klausing clarified, and Mr. Paschke confirmed, that the Plan- ning Commission considered the amendment based on the Master Plan that the College would like to have supported, from a student population, addition of additional structure(s), and proposed site im- provements, and that that the PUD Agreement was premised on that process and mitigations of the impacts created by that amended PUD. Mr. Paschke confirmed that the PUD Agreement would condition what could and could not be done based on their submitted materials and plans, and would serve as a contractual obligation between the College and City. Councilmember Ihlan reiterated her preference for review of the agreement prior to approval of the Amended PUD. Discussion included clarification that the PUD Agreement was only related to the campus proper, not extenuating properties owned by the college; perceived sufficiency of the EAW; definition of full-time equivalent student calculations and enrollment projections; and traffic impacts. The applicant agreed to provide detailed enrollment breakdowns for the next meeting as requested by Councilmember Ihlan (on and off- site enrollment; and full- and/or part-time enrollment).