CC_Minutes_2007_1008 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting Monday, October 08, 2007 Page 29 and substantive connnent and discussion had occurred. Councilmember Pust re- viewed her perception of her role as an elected official, to implement existing or- dinance, and to serve the public good by making balanced judgments between the interests at stake. Councilmember Pust opined that, in the PUD context, she needed to make sure she'd addressed everything that needed to be addressed and see that as many spe- cific conditions as possible be contained in the PUD Agreement to serve the pub- lic; expecting staff to be responsible to adhere to the Agreement. Councilmember Pust reviewed those substantive issues raised, specifically traffic flow and com- mitments by the college to mitigate through administrative changes for employees and student class Times, pointing out that this had been incorporated in Section 10.9.h of the agreement; increases to impervious surface as an environmental concept, addressed in Section 10.8 of the agreement; and light pollution reduction, addressed in Section 10.2.c. of the document. Councilmember Pust specifically addressed Mr. Cooke's concerns regarding the PA system and encouraged him to pick up the phone and complain to the City, based on the City's existing noise or- dinance; and his responsibilities as a citizen to address those concerns. Council- member Pust addressed concerns raised by Mr. Bartz regarding comments from Mr. Cousins and code enforcement issues regarding the number of students living in a residence, opining that this was a critical issue, and admitted that the City Council needed to a better job aC enforcing the on-street overnight parking con- cerns, with she and Councilmember Ihlan preparing ordinance amendments to ad- dress this issue. Cowrcihnember Pust also noted that HRA's proposed rental li- censing registratiar program was designed to monitor single-family housing units used as rental properties to address those issues. Councilmember Pust spoke in support of the motion. Councilmember Kough wished the College well with their project and expansion plans; however, opined his desire for them to wait until everything was settled, including pending litigation; and spoke in opposition to the motion. Councilmember Roe spoke in support of the motion, noting that when he first at- tended the Planning Commission when the case was first heard, he had reserva- tions and negative reactions to the project; and was in agreement that the college was attempting to sdueeze too much on the property. Councilmember Roe noted that this had remained in the back of his mind throughout the review process; however, after further consideration and review, he had come to the conclusion that this was not true. Councilmember Roe recognized that some may disagree, and he respected their opinion, he opined that his judgment was informed by ordi- nance and statutes, their appropriateness, and how they would be enforced. Councihnember Roe acknowledged that all items explicitly noted by Council- member Ihlan were not addressed, opined that there were sufficient provisions in- cluded to specifcally address public concerns; and further opined that this was an appropriate way to go forward.