City Council Agenda and Packet 1997 03 18

Home Browse Search

pay their proportional share, based on the north/south traffic on both sides of the intersection; because that will be the traffic that drives any traffic_light need. Sisk stated that Neodata is adding a 33% increase in size to the neighborhood and standards needed to be imposed. He insisted on the limitation of employees. He wanted the construction hours specified and dust abatement resolved. He wanted the roof units screened. Lathrop suggested a notation on the PUD: "That staff and Neodata management develop a notation to be incorporated into the PUD that would require the City Administrator and property owner/ management to resolve off -site disturbance issues and should that fail, that a particular issue be brought to Council for such remedial action as may be necessary, including but not limited to restricting nighttime employee levels." He felt that would protect the neighbors and the City and put the emphasis on resolving the issue immediately among those involved. Davidson felt that Neodata was within their zoning. He felt PUDs are to regulate land use and for anything else, it would not be effective. He felt that five years from now a note to a PUD might not be remembered. Wood stated that the Municiple Code limited the hours of construction, prohibiting them between the hours of 8 p.m. and 7 a.m. on weekday and on weekends/holidays prohibits them to 8 p.m. to 8 a.m. Lathrop moved that Council approve Resolution No. 14, Series 1997, Final PUD Development Plan for Neodata Services, Lot 1, Neodata Subdivision, with the following conditions: Condition No. 1 be replaced by, staff and Neodata management develop a notation to be incorporated into the PUD that would require the City Administrator and the property owner /management to resolve off -site disturbance issues and should that fail that a particular issue be brought to Council for such remedial action as may be necessary including, but not limited to restricting nighttime employee levels. Conditions No. 2, 3, 4, and 5, inclusive as indicated in Council's packet, except on No. 3 to scratch the word "working seconded by Levihn. Mayer offered a friendly amendment that Neodata submit a sufficient dust mitigation plan to the City. Lathrop did not feel it was justified in such a small construction area. Mayer offered an amendment that, if a traffic light is required by the City, Neodata will be required to pay their proportional share based upon the traffic north/south traffic counts of that intersection out of each parking lot, seconded by Sisk. Roll call was taken on the amendment. Amendment failed by a 2 4 vote with Davidson, Lathrop, Keany, and Levihn voting against, and Howard being, absent. 6