City Council Minutes 2017 08 15 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

City Council Meeting Minutes August 15, 2017 Page 8 of 13 Councilmember Maloney stated he sees two buildings in these drawings. How do we have clear definition on issues like this in the future'? Attorney Light stated in this application, Council is not determining if this is one or two premises if you use the staff recommendation to remove the utility information. Regarding changing the existing rules, staff could come back with a proposed ordinance, independent of this decision, to address this for later applications. There are other ways to handle this, but none of them are perfect for all applications, but Council can consider that at a later date. Mayor Pro Tem Lipton agreed this is frustrating for the applicant. The tap fee structure for these types of things are not very scalable and Council has asked staff to look into amending this in general However, he does understand this is a PUD process for this application, and the premise issue needs to be handled separately Council can look at the water tap issues as a whole later to make it more refined and scalable. Councilmember Keany stated he understands this is a PUD application, but was frustrated staff could not give the applicant a clear path to what would be considered a single premise Is there nothing in this site plan that could make it a single building? Councilmember Loo stated staff is doing this correctly. They can't determine the tap fee until they have final engineering drawings with full details Staff can't make a decision without that She stated Council should not be figuring out the tap fee; that is the job of staff when they have detailed information. Mayor Muckle stated he would like to allow this property owner to move forward He suggested approval of the PUD but include a note in the record that we appreciate the preservation of the front of the building; it is a good addition following the downtown design guidelines and good preservation, that should be recognized. Councilmember Loo asked if the building was landmarked. Director Zucarro stated it is not. Councilmember Loo stated we give incentives to buildings that are landmarked, but his building is not. She noted there is the possibility this could be a bigger commercial space at a later date. She agreed with Councilmember Maloney it looks like two buildings She does not support Mayor Muckle's note Councilmember Stolzmann stated the application meets the PUD criteria, is consistent with the zoning code, and she supports approval of the PUD She noted a legislative discussion about the premise determination issue should be added to a future agenda. This is not a straight forward issue. We need to think deliberately how a change to the code affects many situations and the entire water system. Changes should not be discussed as they relate to this particular application. It is not appropnate to discuss what we should do legislatively as it relates to this PUD application She supports the staff recommendation.