CC_Minutes_2008_0324 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting Monday, March 24, 2008 Page 20 Motion carried. Discussion ensued regarding specific requirements stipulated or not stipulated in the draft PUD Agreement, (i.e., Development Review Committee com- ments/conditions detailed in Section 6.0 of the staff report); and staff's rationale for those referenced and those implied as addressed in City Code. Councilmember Pust suggested that the PUD Agreement could be delayed until all items, as requested by the City Council, were included, and a determination of parking calculations had been completed; and whether there was additional room to increase landscaping and reduce overall parking. Staff noted the need to consider the other two uses for site parking, and the flexi- bilitybuilt into the PUD for such purposes based on specific code language, rather than addressed item by item in the PUD Agreement; and the need to discount some for storage. Mr. Farrel advised that the site plan allowed for 326 parking stalls, including eight handicapped stalls. Councilmember Pust spoke in support of pushing to the greatest extent away from "seas of asphalt" and whether calculations for parking were based on minimums or based on what the development needed or wanted. Councilmember Pust indi- cated that her track record with staff should represent one of trust; however, she sought clarification of the exact calculations used by staff in determining the amount of parking, and her desire to provide for as much environmentally helpful applications for green space as possible. Community Development Director Patrick Trudgeon advised that staff didn't typically do counts, just assured that the PUD met minimum standards, without availability or application of performance standards to dictate what parking was needed for specific uses. Councilmember Ihlan opined that, if all that had been done to-date by staff was to look at minimum parking places, it was apparently the City Council's job to take it seriously and say that they wanted less parking and more green space. Council- member Ihlan reiterated her frustration that more revisions hadn't been achieved from concept to final plan, and opined again her rationale that it therefore didn't make sense to approve the request tonight without further resolution of issues. Councilmember lhlan further opined that it was the Council's job to give policy guidance and leadership. Councilmember Roe sought to identify those items needing inclusion in the PUD Agreement and those addressed by general code application.