CC_Minutes_2008_0414 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting Monday, Apri114, 2008 Page 19 City Attorney Anderson advised that, if the City Council wanted the ability to trigger further discussion or instituting a change, they should specify a deadline in the PUD Agreement, rather than leaving it open-ended. Further discussion focused on Section 6.1 (page 3, lines 117-122) of the PUD Agreement and proposed language. Mr. Farrel reiterated the applicant's commitment for two street front facilities; and spoke in support of a timeframe being identified, as long as it was reasonable; suggesting that 24 months should accommodate work on the remaining calcula- tions and budget goals, allowing the applicant to react immediately in finding a co-tenant for that space. Ms. Bloom advised that staffls analysis was in process, with ratio and cost benefit discussions also underway this week; followed by negotiating an agreement with the property owner. Klausing moved, Roe seconded, approval of the Final Development Plan - Planned Unit Development and Agreement for 1201-1211, and 1215 Larpenteur Avenue; with amendment to Section 6.1 of the PUD Agreement (Page 3, lines 117-122) revised to read as follows: "The DEVELOPER shall commence and undertake site and structure develop- ment activities in accordance with the attached plans and maps as ident~ed in Section 4 of this AGREEMENT and the terms and conditions identified in Sec- tions 8 and 9 of this AGREEMENT. Failure to commence an anticipated activity [within twenty-four (24) months after the City makes a decision regarding a stonnwater management project related to the property] shall flat constitute a breach eF (and] be deemed a violation of this AGREEMENT. ~e-Re~-fldy's tll--Mi~le1-~ Councilmember Ihlan advised that she'd like to introduce future policy level dis- cussions on parking lot design. Councilmember Ihlan opined that, while she appreciated the developer's attempts at revisions to address City Council concerns, there still remained a "sea of as- phalt;" on the site; and while the fault may be in current City policy, a better de- sign could be provided. Councilmember Ihlan, based on her desire for a better streetscape and green space; spoke in opposition to the project; advising that she would be voting a "symbolic nay." Councilmember Roe spoke in support of the project; noting that it represented a typical commercial development, and did exceed City standards for green space and a step in the right direction.