Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> Bradford Whitaker <br /> Zoning Administrator <br /> Page 8 <br /> size (capacity), and extent of those facilities, nor does it address area-wide <br /> requirements for stormwater drainage. <br /> 42. Appellant's proposal to adjust the setback of the Project to conform to <br /> Zon. Qrd. Section 4.9a., does not obviate the necessity for the other variances <br /> requested, nor does it address the overriding need for an EIR. <br /> 43. The granting of entitlements for development of the lots designated <br /> 3733 and 3737 does not vitiate the necessity for preparation of an EIR for any <br /> further development on Laurel Way, the determination thereof being within the <br /> discretion of this Council. <br /> 44. The estimated cost of an EIR addressing the foregoing concerns <br /> suggests that sharing thereof among owners of undeveloped lots on Laurel Way <br /> should be investigated and pursued, and that, to the extent public benefit may be <br /> derived therefrom, some City contribution may be appropriate. <br /> CONCLUSIONS <br /> 1. The application for variances should be, and hereby is, denied, and the <br /> decision of the Zoning Administrator is hereby affirmed. <br /> 2. The requirement that an EIR be prepared for any future development <br /> on Laurel Way should be, and is hereby, reaffirmed. <br /> 3. Appellant and owners of undeveloped lots on Laurel Way should <br /> investigate and pursue methods of jointly financing such an EIR, and are hereby <br /> encouraged to do so. To the extent municipal benefit may be derived from such <br /> an EIR, and subject to approval of this Council, some City contribution to the <br /> preparation thereof may be made. <br /> 4. The provisions of paragraphs 1 and 2 of these conclusions are final <br /> and are not contingent upon the provisions of paragraph 3. <br /> Dated: f)d~ ~ ~ ,1996 <br /> <br /> By <br /> ~ <br /> ~~~ <br /> (SEAL) <br />