CCMIN090396 - Laserfiche WebLink

Ms. Dennis supported this application because there was not enough expressed in the concerns to cause her to reject it. She has confidence in the hazardous materials consultant and believes the plans for the facility are adequate. She has received calls from people who had second thoughts about opposing the project once they were fully informed. Her concerns about parking have been addressed well and she does not see any reason to reject the application. Retail would have far more impact and problems. Ms. Michelotti asked for the staffs views on the request for early commencement of grading. She indicated that would be covered in a separate motion. Ms. Acosta indicated the Planning Commission asked Council to do what it could to move the project forward. Mr. Tarver objected to making changes to an approved PUD and did not think residents should have to come back to Council to express their views on a new project because the previous project was never built. He wants what is approved to be built. He believed Thoratec was serious and wants to proceed with its building. Mr. Pico made some good points about encouraging PUD developers to work with the neighborhoods in advance to describe their projects. Mr. Tarver felt there would be fewer of these long meetings with the applicant making long presentations to make sure everyone is informed. Mr. Tarver did not like the siting of the building with Stoneridge Drive being on the back of the building. He would like to see the beautiful front of the building on Stoneridge instead of Johnson Drive because more people will see it. In the final analysis, this application is not that bad, although he would like it to have been in another location and that the developer had worked more with the neighbors. As conditioned, he can support the project. The roll call vote was as follows: AYES: Councilmembers - Dennis, Michelotti, Mohr, and Mayor Tarver NOES: Councilmember Pico ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Ms. Michelotti asked if Council supported allowing the grading to start early? Mr. Tarver indicated that because of the City's prior dealings with Mr. Thomas, he wanted to make sure someone is on site at every step of construction to make sure it is built according to the design. Ms. Acosta indicated there was a request to allow grading to proceed at the applicant's risk with cash as security based on the applicant's engineer's estimate of $45,000 and with full indemnification for the City. Staff has suggested the City engineers review this and, if necessary, raise the security amount. Staff would reluctan~y agree to this if the applicant and future tenant agree to sign the document and both be responsible for the security. This is because the City has not had a good experience with Mr. Thomas. 09/03/96 -21-