CC Min 2000-10-23 Reg - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

The motion passed by a majority roll call vote (required 6 affirmative votes) with Council Member Jordan voting no. Recess: 9:10 -9:20 p.m. Council Member Ira left the meeting B. PUBLIC HEARING - Appeal of Decision by Zoning Administrator to Deny an Architectural Permit to Construct a House at 3718 Laurel Way; (604) Principal Planner Passanisi gave his report and showed slides illustrating certain points. He explained that Laurel Way has three separate points of improvements. The first segment up to Highland is up to engineering specifications with curbs, gutters and sidewalks. The middle segment where the property fronts just has some pavement and the western end of Laurel Way is all gravel. In 1988, staff did analysis and recommended an Environmental Impact Report be prepared for the entire project area, that there be street improvement plans and that staff should develop policies to guide development on individual piecemeal basis and consider parcels relative to various zoning requirements and establish guidelines. Recognition that for some parcels that are particularly narrow, special entitlements or variances would be required. The reason for recommending an EIR was because some of the slopes and instability on Laurel Way would make development difficult. There are also issues with vegetation, trees, access, and toward the lower part of Laurel Way there is gravel and poor drainage. Council questions concerned the vegetation and slope issues relative to the parcel and reasons an EIR is required in certain situations. Lynda Flores Brouchoud, appellant, explained the property location and distributed a packet to the Council that included a map and photographs. She gave a background on the area and stated she had spoken to Council Members in office in 1988 and was told it was never their intention to include lot 21 in the informal moratorium. She further stated lot 21 does not share the same concerns as other lots in the area and has the storm drain, sewer line and all utilities with the full width of the street on their side. She stated she agreed with Alternative b), but disagreed with Alternative c) because it requires double charges for improvements. Ms. Brouchoud concluded stating her hope for petition approval of development on lot 21 on Laurel Way, subject to Alternatives a) and b), but excluding Alternative c). Roger Flores, representing appellant, stated he would be commenting on the planning issues of the property. He stated the lot is 51 feet wide and that there is no dispute on the Planning Department recommendations for the lots at the end of the road. He stated his conversations with Council Members from 1988 understood the quasi - moratorium was addressing existing homes and that the land beyond 3726 Laurel Way cut -off point would not affect lot 21, an in -fill lot. He stated his concern is with Alternative c), REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OCTOBER 23, 2000 PAGE 9 MINUTES Book No. 58 Page NO. 238