CC Min 2000-10-23 Reg - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

requiring all lots to be fiscally responsible for the EIR improvement costs for the entire area. He stated development of lot 21 should not require an EIR or contribution to unknown assessment amounts that will provide no benefits to the property. Jane Hannigan, a resident on Laurel Way, explained many people have been denied approval to build in the area. She stated the last house built there at 3726 Laurel Way, was due to an exemption not requiring any studies it changed the storm drainage causing flooding and collapse of the road. She stated the study in 1988 was done carefully where members of the Council visited the site and voted that the area should be treated as one with a master plan to protect and road and other considerations. She further stated that her understanding was that the house built at 3726 would be the last that could connect to the sewer system. She expressed concern that if this development were approved, it would open the door for further development without an EIR. Joseph Hanson, a resident on Laurel Way, stated he agreed with the previous speaker and prefers development occur in an orderly fashion. He mentioned concerns with environmental concerns with the watershed, creek bed and wildlife. He stated the requirements for the moratorium have not been satisfied and the people in the neighborhood do not want more development. He stated further development would disrupt the area and cause further drainage problems. M/S Hartnett/Howard to close the public hearing. The motion passed by a unanimous voice vote by those present. Council Member Claire referred to the City's background during 1960 -78 and how increasing revenues for cities occurred through property taxes. He stated that when he voted on the issue, lot 21 was not included in his vote for the moratorium. Council Members asked various questions related to the vacant parcel between 3718 and 3726 Laurel Way and how it is similar or different from 3726 Laurel Way, whether sewer capacity is adequate and what runoff concerns exist. M/S Hartnett/Claire to retain jurisdiction of the appeal; request staff return with recommended findings relative to those parcels that are downward from 3726, establishing how those parcels are dissimilar to the subject parcel. On review and receipt of those findings, if in agreement with them, the Council would be in a position to uphold the appeal with staff recommended conditions at that time. The motion passed by a majority roll call vote with Council Member Ira absent. MINUTE ORDER 00 -321 City Attorney Schricker noted that this is not a decision on the merits but a direction by the Council to bring the matter back and retain jurisdiction. In that connection, the public hearing is closed, and as a courtesy may advise those who have attended and spoken at the hearing. REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OCTOBER 23, 2000 PAGE 10 MINUTES Book No.58 Page NO. 239