Laserfiche WebLink
that might be approved, leaving Lehman stuck with the higher number. The other option <br />is to wait two weeks, see what transpires with the ordinance, and review this project <br />immediately after the ordinance is considered. <br /> <br />Lehman replied that his schedule does not allow him to be present for the next three <br />Council meetings. He questioned whether Council anticipates the number will be 2.5 or <br />less. <br /> <br />Levihn questioned why it couldn't read 2.5 parking spaces per 1,000 sf, or whatever is <br />approved by the Ordinance. <br /> <br />Light expressed concern that this ties the PUD to a future ordinance and Council has not <br />exercised their legislative power yet on that ordinance. Council may not exercise their <br />legislative power or they may choose to do so in some other form that is not anticipated <br />tonight. This raises the specter of some legal complications if something goes awry with <br />the ordinance. The condition that was just read does not have that type of linkage. There <br />is a linkage to other types of contingencies, like an improvement district or a special <br />assessment, but not to an ordinance not yet passed. <br /> <br />Davidson stated that it is highly likely that the number will be 2.5. He recommended <br />approving the PUD tonight with that number and if the number ends up being lower, <br />Lehman can come back before Council and ask for an amendment. <br /> <br />Lehman stated that he would really like to have the opportunity to work with the City to <br />come up with a solution that makes more sense than every owner having to pave a large <br />lot in our downtown. <br /> <br />Davidson agreed with Lehman. He stated that was Council's preference all along. It has <br />taken so long because the downtown business community has not been able to come <br />together on this issue. <br /> <br />Wood requested Council's direction on the alternate pedestrian access from Walnut <br />Street. It reduces the landscape area but also provides more pedestrian access. <br /> <br />Davidson asked for the Planning Department's recommendation. <br /> <br />Wood replied that he felt Council would probably not want an additional right-of-way <br />exacted out of the property, which would compromise the pedestrian plaza areas. He <br />suggested that Council add a condition in respect to right-of-way dedications. <br /> <br />Mayer stated that given this is going to be a large structure with a lot of people in it, <br />unobstructed pedestrian access is going to be important. He asked for clarification that, <br />by doing so, some of the landscaping will be lost. <br /> <br />Wood replied, yes. <br /> <br />27 <br /> <br /> <br />