Laserfiche WebLink
his decision. He continued, stating that if so many bodies were going to change their minds at the <br />last minute and he, along with the Council, was expected to make a decision that would set a <br />precedent, then, he stated, Let's take all ninety (90) days' time, and we'll make sure that <br />everybody who was part of this process from day one is going to send us a letter of where they <br />stand on this issue and not just blame it on this Committee or this Council for making A or <br />making B. We will have a clear understanding of why A or B was made. <br />Councilmember Karen White asked for a clarification on the exact role of the Council in making <br />a determination on this project. <br />Council Attorney Cekanski - Farrand responded, Like any zoning request that comes before the <br />City Council, you have to be cognizant of both your State criteria, that Mr. Magliozzi laid out, <br />and also your load of regulations. The fact that the staff report is very clear, with regard to why <br />the staff recommended several areas of weakness if not noncompliance with the local ordinance, <br />and in light of the history of the ordinance being changed —I would agree with what the Area <br />Plan staff has said, that, indeed, this is going to be setting precedent. The fact that this one also <br />has several concerns that have been raised not only verbally at the Zoning and Annexation <br />meeting that was held in the Chambers, but also since then, as documented by the City Clerk's <br />Office, there are many issues that have been raised. In order for this Council or any Council that <br />would have a request that would have similar regulations that apply to a PUD —this Council has <br />to be very cognizant of all of that so that you are not making an arbitrary and capricious decision, <br />which would then open up the possibility for litigation. Your reasoning has to be sound. She <br />stated, at the end, that the planning and zoning decision must be sound. <br />Councilmember Karen White stated, I had some other comments —but it doesn't pertain to this — <br />in regards to, as we move forward, the opportunity to pull individuals together and to reach some <br />common ground. <br />Council Attorney Cekanski - Farrand responded, I believe in some of the information provided by <br />the Area Plan, there's an affirmative duty of Area Plan to meet with the developer. There was a <br />chart that Area Plan has made a part of the record, with regard to proposed changes or <br />modifications for this project, in order to bring the overall plan into compliance with what the <br />options would be under the ordinance and under the State law. Again, we didn't have any <br />summary of that, but perhaps, in light of your question, a brief summary of that would take <br />place. But it was on the chart that we've received at least twice. <br />Ms. Smith responded, You're talking about our recommendation chart? <br />Council Attorney Cekanski - Farrand responded, Yes. <br />Ms. Smith explained that they had prepared for Area Plan —and included in the Council <br />packet a comparison between the standards that are within the Central Business District and the <br />proposed PUD, and what their recommendations were. Those were what Area Plan thought <br />would bring the project into compliance with the Plan. <br />rAl <br />