CC_Minutes_2007_1008 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting Monday, October 08, 2007 Page 25 Mr. Cooke further noted that the college had yet to answer the question on use of an auxiliary access for traffic control. Mr. Lindgren responded that Section 10.9.h of the PUD Agreement included ne- gotiated requirements for the college to implement a travel demand management plan. Councilmember Ihlan reiterated her concern with the proposed location of the fieldhouse encroaching on the bluff and on the road and contradictions between the site plan and agreement. Mr. Lindgren responded that the language (words) of the PUD Agreement would prevail, as previously discussed. Additional discussion ensued with Councilmember Ihlan expressing her frustra- tion with the City's procedure for approving PUD's and past experience with the process; opining that the process followed by the City of Arden Hills was much more appropriate. Councilmember Ihlan further expressed frustration with the City Council not having approval rights for each portion of the proposed project, and allowing for additional public comment for those various components. Coun- cilmember Ihlan advised that she had proposed language to stipulate that the City Council and Planning Commission have approval rights for each phase of the proposed PUD and was prepared to present that language. Council discussion included the City's comprehensive process for staff approval for each phase of a project, consistent with other projects throughout the City; de- finitive distinctions between amendment to an existing PUD versus a new PUD application; periodic review of the existing PUD for Northwestern College, and the review process triggered by changes to that original plan; and the length of time for full build-out of the campus. At this time, Councilmember Ihlan expressed her concern that City Attorney Anderson, and representatives of Northwestern College, left the Council Cham- bers. Councilmember Ihlan specifically referenced Sections 3.1 and 4.1 of the agree- ment and her specific concerns with those sections, as previously outlined, and proposed amendment to those specific sections. Ihlan moved, Kough seconded, language amendment to Section 3.1 of the PUD Agreement (page 2, lines 4- 6) to strike the last sentence, "T''° ~:~.. °'-°°°~'~ °~ «~~nnti~r~a n ~n4n«4 ...:AL..~.,, ..i,...., :a,.r.: r.,.a :., ce,,.:,,„ n n wei,.....+~ and add language as follows: "[Each phase of the proposed Planned Unit Develop- ment shall be reviewed and approved by the Roseville Planning Commission and