CC_Minutes_2009_0511 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting Monday, May 11, 2009 Page 14 City Council needed to act on behalf of the entire community. Councilmember Johnson noted that many of those speaking were living in high-density facilities, and recognized that they were concerned with their views being impeded; how- ever, he questioned. if the project would not be of great benefit to the City as a whole. Councilmember Johnson advised that he was inclined not to support the land use at this point, based on his lack of support for the project itself. Council- member Johnson opined that he believed that ahigh-density project could work in that area and maybe good for the entire community; but advised that at this point, he could not support this project or the proposed land use. Discussion among Councilmembers, staff and City Attorney Squires included the 60-day land use review period and timing for action on this project; how this area's designation was not considered in the recent comprehensive plan updates; planning versus reacting; process in basic planning and decision-making based on projects coming forward; maximum versus minimum standards on which to base those decisions; and how the property should be designated: medium or high den- sity. Mr. Paschke clarified that, at the last Planning Commission meeting, the actual vote of the Commission was 4/3 supporting comprehensive plan amendment; with a 1 /6 failed vote on the concept plan, based on building footprint and aesthetics. City Attorney Squires reviewed the three proposed action items, with the first two (i.e., comprehensive plan amendment and rezoning) being legislative in nature; and the additional action for approval of the concept a separate issue that shouldn't be linked to the other decisions. Further discussion was related to the next available meeting of the City Planning Commission for the opportunity of another Public Hearing; practicalities of pro- viding mailed and published notice of such a Hearing; and the City Council's charge to the Commission in further review of this request. Councilmember Pust advised that her remaining concerns were related to the mass of the building on that site; but that her concerns related to traffic seemed to have been alleviated. Councilmember Ihlan advised that she had ongoing and major concerns with the concept plan; and the need for policy discussions for changing the comprehensive plan designation when other changes were made to the updated comprehensive plan. Councilmember Ihlan spoke in opposition to any and all of the requests cur- rentlybefore the Council related to this project. Additional discussion included rationale for having further review at the Planning Commission level; recognizing the lengthy meeting and previous review by the Commission and potential value of their re-examining their rationale; remaining