AgdaPkt 2014-01-13 Interview, Closed and Regular

Browse Search

7.2.B. - Page 4 *The maximum floor area includes livable space plus garage. Subsequently on November 4, 2013, staff submitted a resolution articulating the basis for the City Council's decision. Both appellants submitted objections to the resolution. The parties submitted these objections on November 4, the day the matter was to be voted upon. In order to provide staff time to analyze these new documents, the City Manager removed the item from the calendar. Laurel Way Joint Venture objected that the resolution was not consistent with the action of the City Council on September 23, 2013, without amplification of the inconsistencies. In addition, Laurel Way Joint Venture objected that the evidence in the record showed that the project as approved is not financially feasible because the houses are too small to support the cost of the infrastructure and further argued that the development limitation is arbitrary. It asked for reconsideration of the City Council's action. Carrie Simon, associated with the Save Laurel Way, also submitted an objection arguing that the proposed resolution contained new findings and information, requested that the matter be removed from the calendar and a public hearing scheduled. The purpose of the vote on January 13, 2014, is for the City Council to affirm that the resolution correctly reflects its vote and its reasons therefore. The resolution confirms the City Council's direction and makes one minor clarification to the vote by acknowledging that the City Council modified Condition No. 19 thus limiting the home sizes and further reducing potential environmental impacts, and to that extent granted SLW's appeal in part. Staff reviewed the proposed resolution, the video -tape of the hearing, and related documentation and determined that the proposed findings are appropriately supported by evidence in the record as presented to the City Council. In the intervening time, staff made other revisions and additions to the resolution, and has determined that these revisions and additions are consistent with the evidence in the record as presented to the City Council and with the City Council's direction. There are no substantive changes to the City Council's September 23, 2013 decision, and therefore there is no basis for additional hearing. ALTERNATIVES 1. Provide staff with different direction regarding the basis of the City Council's vote on September 23, 2013. FISCAL IMPACT Review of the proposed project is subject to the City's Cost Recovery requirements; therefore, the applicant is required to cover the costs associated with the review of this project. Should the project move forward, the applicant is required to Page 4 of 5