Laserfiche WebLink
DRAFT Regular City Council Meeting <br />Monday, May 21,2007 <br />Page 25 <br />1 that it would be best to call it a public meeting: at which time public <br />� comment would be received. <br />� <br />� City Manager Malinen clarified and Council so directed by consensus <br />5 that on June 11, 2007, a public meeting would be held at which time <br />�� public comment would be received regarding the Single-Family Resi- <br />� dential Lot Split Study Fina1 Report and Committee recommenda- <br />� tions; that the information packet would include the citizen recom- <br />� mendation and signed petition referenced by Ms. McGeh��, and des- <br />1� ignated as such on the City's website and in the packet; and staff <br />11 would proceed with a normal public hearing notification process <br />1� would be followed, with the exception of no post card notice to prop- <br />1� erty owners within a certain area designation. <br />1 �E <br />�� Councilmember Roe clarified, and Council agreed b�y consensus, that <br />t� any information received between now and June 11 that was related <br />�� to the Lot Split Study would be included in the information packet. <br />I� <br />1� f. Contract — Consider a Revised Contract for Alternative Urban <br />�0 Area-wide Review (AUAR) <br />� 1 Community Development Director John Stark, and Economic Devel- <br />�� opment Associate Jamie Radel, reviewed the staff report dated May <br />�� 21, 2007, seeking City Council direction and authorization for a re- <br />�� vised scope of services to complete the Twin Lakes Business Park <br />�� AUAR Update; presenting two options as detailed on the report. <br />��� <br />�� Discussion included the scope of both options, and their advantages <br />��3 and limitations; reactionary impacts without an updated AUAR for <br />�� developer proposals; Environmental Quality Board (EQB) require- <br />�� ments; pricing and scope of both options more finely detailed; project <br />�� changes to-date and implications to the contract with DSU for com- <br />;�� pleting the AUAR under current contract terms; and contexts of vari- <br />3�3 ous scenarios. <br />3�1 <br />,3� Councilmember Ihlan expressed concern with additional development <br />3G scenarios and what was driving them, specifically the commercial <br />�'� component. Councilmember Ihlan expressed strong opposition to <br />�� commercial-heavy development scenarios; and opined that the AUAR <br />3� should not be completed until a public review of various development <br />