CC Min 2009-10-26 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

set back ordinance was discussed and Mr. Chang was asked to explain the issue to the Council. In conclusion, he said there is no creek set back ordinance but a storm water drain ordinance. Vice Mayor Howard asked about the possibility of an assessment district and asked if staff could investigate. Her other recommendation was to have a long-term maintenance agreement and this to be a standard to be passed on to the buyers of the properties on the issue of the creek maintenance. Mr. McGowan agreed that something could be put into the CC&R's to make sure each property owner is responsible for the maintenance of the creek frontage in their property. Mr. Passanisi answered questions on how the project will meet the standards of the Planned Development Permit and added that some of the reduced setbacks and the reduced street width are benefits to the developer. He also covered what has been improved with the revised plans. One Council Member inquired about private vs. planned streets and Mr. Vorametsanti explained the issue of a private street. The conditions of approval were discussed and Mr. Chang answered particular questions regarding restrictions on the creek and the land facing the creek. Assistant City Attorney Aranda said there was a minor correction on page 8 of the staff report, section C1, and he added that there was a minor edit to the proposed set of findings as well. M/S Pierce/Bain to deny the Planned Development Permit. Council Member Pierce does not believe the developer heard the Council's concerns. She has an issue with private road versus public road and is uncomfortable with this approach. Council Member Pierce does not find it wise to build so close to the creek and she is underwhelmed with what was presented tonight as well as the revisions. Another Council Member explained that the requirements for the Planned Development Permit have been met and this is a change for the property but there were other changes that could have been materially adverse. He likes the one way street and that the owners are going to maintain it. He opined that the lot sizes are consistent with the zoning and that the public comment had been tremendous. One Council Member believes that the developer brought to light the issue of the creek and so she believes this project will add to the neighborhood and it will add market rate housing. Another Council Member will not vote for the motion instead he will approve the project with some reluctance mainly because of two concerns: 1) with respect to creek he believes the developer is conforming to the letter of the law but not the spirit of the law, and 2) in regards to the outreach he is not sure if the developer worked as closely with the community as they could have. Vice Mayor Howard referred to creating a pedestrian friendly environment and she feels that many of her concerns have been answered. She believes that Mr. McGowan has made a good faith effort. She likes the architectural design and knows that the ARC will be seeing this and so she is comfortable with the current revisions and the next steps. She would like a public easement created as a condition for approval. She conceded that she would have liked one less house but overall she is pleased. Mayor Foust said that she agreed with approving the project and while it is not perFect this took 4 '/2 years and that is a long time. She thanked all those involved but she was not pleased that a project takes JOINT CITY COUNCIUREDEVELOPMENT AGENCY BOARD OCTOBER 26, 2009 MEETING MINUTES PAGE 9 MINUTE BOOK NO. 62 Page No. 509