Laserfiche WebLink
within whatever time period it takes to get through the process. He stated that if Council <br />removes the condition that requires the applicant to apply for a 1041 permit without firm <br />direction as to whether Council considers this particular interchange as 'proposed', the <br />issue would remain open. Staff would need to further analyze the definition of <br />'proposed', and whether either of the roads qualifies as an arterial, and whether the <br />project is an interchange project. The staff would then need to respond to the applicant as <br />to whether the applicant would need to process a 1041 permit. <br /> <br />Sisk explained to Schneider that it is not Council's intent to delay the project, however, <br />he stated that Council is attempting to provide some 'breathing room' for staff to move <br />forward with projects currently in line. He suggested that if it were found that the 1041 <br />process is required, would Schneider agree to comply with a 1041 permit, even after the <br />building permit had been issued. <br /> <br />Schneider replied that he was not certain that he could move forward with the <br />development knowing that it might be necessary to comply with a 1041 permit at some <br />time in the future. <br /> <br />Sisk explained that he could understand Schneider's dilemma, however, Council is also <br />faced with a dilemma. He expressed concern that Council could receive advice from the <br />City Attorney indicating that a 1041 permit is required for a project that has already been <br />approved. However, if Council makes the 1041 permit process a contingency of approval, <br />this would result in delaying the project. He apologized to the applicant for the ambiguity <br />of the issue. He explained that he is not a supporter of the tower as he feels that it will <br />create a visual impact and provide an advertisement for the building. He stated that he did <br />like the project, however, he agreed with the Planning Commission regarding their <br />resistance to the tower element. He expressed concern that the project is 185 parking <br />spaces short, and requested that the reciprocal parking agreements provide a minimum of <br />185 parking spaces to address this shortage. <br /> <br />Schneider replied that, based upon his known customer load, he did not believe that he <br />would reach the maximum parking spaces. He agreed that it would be to his benefit to <br />provide additional parking. He explained that for large, catered events, shuttles would be <br />provided for his patrons. <br /> <br />Sisk repeated his request that a minimum number of parking spaces be provided by cross <br />parking agreements, and suggested a minimum of 100 spaces. <br /> <br />Schneider agreed. <br /> <br />Lathrop asked for clarification that Carrabba's would be faced with the same 1041 permit <br />dilemma. <br /> <br />Sisk replied, yes. <br /> <br />21 <br /> <br /> <br />