City Planning staff emphasize that they are providing guidance and context, but it is up to the Council, legally and otherwise, to make decisions on consistency with the Comp Plan. Council is not obligated to defer to staff’s guidance.
There has been discussion about a development agreement related to the park, but it sounds like the applicant eventually would be reimbursed for most of any money they would contribute. Plus they would be allowed to use the future park space for their construction activity. In effect, the applicant would be getting a development contract to build the park.
Councilor Harrison, who represents the District, says a development agreement must be offered before it can be considered. Summarizes that the issue boils down to parks amenities versus neighbor concerns about building height and transitions.
Councilor Patton asks that applicant really take into consideration neighbors’ concerns. Councilor Jones reaffirms that.
Mayor moves that the committee report this out to full council and direct staff to engage with applicant on a development agreement that council can then consider. At that time City Attorney suggests Council continue the public hearing until May 2 for a status update at that time. They can continue to re-set hearings as needed, along with setting a public hearing on the development agreement. Mayor anticipates this could take as long as 3 months and communication will continue with neighbors during this time. Motion approved unanimously.