Laserfiche WebLink
8 <br /> Mr. Tolbert said notices were sent to everyone within 500 feet of the project and <br />the neighborhood association was notifies. He noted that the proposal is for 100 less <br />units than allowed by right on parcel C. <br /> <br /> Mr. Caravati said perhaps the whole things should be looked at. He asked if there <br />are any proble ms with separating a significant portion of the overall PUD. <br /> <br /> Mr. Brown said parcels B and C could not proceed without D because of the open <br />space requirement. He said the separated parcel could be considered as an amendment to <br />the PUD. <br /> <br /> Responding to a question from Mr. Cox, Mr. Tolbert said the entire project will <br />have 200 less units than what is allowed by right. <br /> <br />th <br />Mr. Cox said 5 Street is meant to convey a lot of traffic. He said he does not see <br />why C should not move forward. He said he supports deferring the Cherry Avenue <br />parcel. <br /> <br />Ms. Richards said she agrees with Mr. Cox and supports the amended ordinance. <br />She said this has been through an extensive public process and she would like to see it <br />move forward. Ms. Richards made a motion to approv e the ordinance as presented <br />tonight, without the Cherry Avenue parcel. <br /> <br />Mr. Schilling seconded the motion and said he believes it meets the needs of the <br />neighborhood. He said he feels the compromise addresses the concerns. <br /> <br />Mr. Lynch said he would like t o assure that the neighborhood surrounding the <br />Cherry Avenue parcel is notified of the new public hearing. <br /> <br />Responding to a question from Mr. Caravati about the Highland to Highland <br />connection, Mr. Tolbert said that is still open for discussion. <br /> <br />Mr. Carav ati said he want to make sure that is not prohibited. <br /> <br />Mr. Cox said we all have to bear a share of the traffic burden in order to see <br />development like this. He noted that the Planning Commission passed the issue of traffic <br />back to Council. <br /> <br />Mr. Caravati s aid it is an issue of fairness. <br /> <br />Ms. Richards said that the residents of Johnson Village adopted a positive attitude <br />regarding the development, and their central concern was about through traffic in the <br />neighborhood. She said she appreciates the Planning Commission's recognition of this. <br /> <br />The ordinance rezoning the Johnson Village property, without the Cherry Avenue <br />parcel, was carried over to the next meeting for consideration. <br /> <br />RESOLUTION <br />: AUTHORIZING HEALTH DEPARTMENT TO RETAIN FUNDS <br /> <br /> Ms. Richards sa id she would like the City to get accountability from the Health <br />Department. She said she respects the request and their need for more funds, but she <br />would like to hear how they serve the community. <br /> <br /> Mr. Caravati said he is not going to support the reque st and would prefer to <br />consider it during the budget process. <br /> <br /> Mr. Schilling concurred with Ms. Richards and Mr. Caravati that it should be <br />considered during the budget. He said it is not good public policy. He said he would like <br />to learn how they plan to deal with the budget shortfall. <br /> <br /> Mr. Lynch asked if the Health Department is subject to review by the City, and <br />Mr. O'Connell said yes. <br />