CC_Minutes_2007_1008 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting Monday, October 08, 2007 Page 26 City Council before building permits are issues. The review and approval process shall include opportunity for public input on the specific project proposed and up- dated or additional environmental review if the City Counci] determines it is needed.]" Councilmember Pust asked Councilmember Ihlan if she intended to vote for ap- proval of the Amended PUD and PUD Agreement if that language was added. Councilmember Ihlan responded that she was not sure, as she had numerous other issues yet to address. Councilmember Pust opined that during her tenure on the City Council, this dis- cussion was continually brought forward regarding the City Council's apparent lack of control with PUD approvals and process; and further opined that once ap- proved by the City Council, it was part of the process that the applicant meet all City ordinances, and that she trusted City staff to do their job and enforce City or- dinance. Councilmember Ihlan reiterated her concerns and opined that past PUD approvals involved a concept plan for Council approval, followed by the developer returning for approval of a final detailed plan, including a site layout with building design, size and then followed by a PUD Agreement for the final plan. Councilmember Roe spoke against the motion; opining that apparent frustrations in PUD discussions were created by their conceptual nature; however, noted that the PUD Agreement was designed to address the City's concerns, along with es- tablished City Code and trusted City staff for enforce ordinances. Councilmem- ber Roe expressed concern that suggestions were made that City staff wasn't to be trusted and each aspect of the project needed to return to the City Council for re- view. Councilmember Ihlan specifically addressed Councilmembers speaking in opposi- tion to the motion; clarifying that it was not about trusting staff, but was about al- lowing the City Council to do their job and allow for sufficient public comment, similar to the process followed by the City of Arden Hills, with each phase of the development coming for approval to deal to hold the City Council accountable and allow for a democratic process. Councilmember Roe opined that he was not abdicating his responsibilities by not supporting Councilmember Ihlan's proposed language; noting that each phase was laid out in documentation, with fairly general terms as to timing; and he was willing to expect that the college would follow through on their proposed layout; and that this project was not inconsistent with the City's PUD process to-date.