CC Min 2003-12-08 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

development occur without water patterns studies and an EIR. She expressed her concern with the natural habitat that exists and the issue of stability in the area. Tom Tornquist, a resident of Emerald Lake and realtor, asked that Council consider that the goal of getting 23 people on any given street to agree to a planned unit development is unrealistic. He stated that no owner of an existing legal lot in the Emerald Lake area has ever had to do an EIR. He stated that those issues addressed in and EIR are addressed when an applicant applies for a building permit. Kevin Bruce stated that he owns two adjacent lots that have 20,000 square feet. He stated his problem with the EIR requirement lumps everyone together and asked why the building regulations in place cannot be used on an individual basis. He asked that the City assist the owners in improving the area and his belief that the owners would agree on the fact that something needs to be done in the area. He further stated that an EIR is not necessary. Jim Del Favero, a four year resident of Laurel Way, stated his concern is that he could not determine what the intent of the build is and his interest around the EIR pertains to that point. He stated that the specific interests differ between the owner developing a residence to live in himself and building the largest house for the biggest profit. He stated that he thinks it is appropriate that if one owns a lot that it can be developed and going forward, knowing whether a developer or owner will live there, equal laws be applied to protect the right of current and future residents. Scott Sweeney, owner of a vacant Laurel Way lot for ten years, stated that several years ago he attempted to obtain agreement from several owners for an EIR. He named various EIR consultants he approached that told him that single family lot in an improved subdivision is statutorily exempt. Joseph Hanson, Laurel Way, the traffic situation is a consideration, gutters and sidewalk exist to an extent with a substandard street, the water flow is towards his house and he described the cause of the deterioration of the road. He stated that he would encourage the Council to go back to the original position of allowing no development on Laurel Way without an EIR. At the minimum, he asked that Council support their decision of 2000 to establish the EIR line and continue to enforce it until the situation changes so that an EIR is not necessary. M/S Hartnett/Ruskin to close the public hearing. The motion passed by a unanimous voice vote. Recess: 9:40 — 9:50 p.m. Council questions of staff and comments ensued. JOINT CITY COUNCIL AND BOARD OF EQUALIZATION DECEMBER 8, 2003 MEETING MINUTES PAGE 7 MINUTES Book No. 60 Page No. 117