08/17/2000 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Commission findings and discussions and in the absence of mitigating measures regarding the particular size of the conservation easement over the drainage swale, there seemed to be no basis for the size of the conservation easement and it seemed reasonable to move it. Also, the Acting Planning Director pointed out that the intent of the applicants was to free up the front of the lot which was flat land and the conservation easement would remain over the drainage swale just reduced in size. The City Engineer stated there were two reasons why the conservation easement was originally requested: slope over 30% and areas over drainage swales."; and page 11, add the following to the end of the first motion: "Dauber pointed out that in case of fire, access would most likely be from the bottom of the hill and it might be possible to have a narrower driveway from the top if fire access was available from the bottom." 4.2 Approval of Warrants: $524,793.68 (7/1/00—8/10/00) Dauber inquired about the microfiche charge and asked if this information was also being retained on disks. The Public Works Manager responded that this microfilming was being done of the sewer records which was a different process than the other microfilming at Town Hall. Dauber also inquired about the business cards and was advised that blank card stock was ordered in bulk which reduced the cost when ordering individual cards. She also noted that staff had been requested to highlight the consulting costs for Wilsey and Ham and she asked if Council thought this was still necessary. Council did not. Casey asked what SMS Consulting stood for and was advised that it was Susan Stevenson's consulting firm who did planning consulting for the Town. PASSED BY CONSENSUS: To approve the warrants in the amount of$524,793.68. 4.7 Adoption of resolution adding a fee to the Town's fee schedule for an in-lieu payment when pathway construction is required—Reso # The Public Works Manager commented that the proposed $33.00 in lieu fee did not cover the actual costs that the Town incurred when putting in a path. The actual cost was $66.00 per lineal foot. Casey stated that she thought the impact fee and the in lieu fee should be the same. The Acting City Manager noted that this was a temporary measure and he would be bringing a complete report back to the Council at the second meeting in September or the first meeting in October. MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED: Moved by Casey, seconded by Cheng and passed unanimously to adopt Resolution #61-00 adding a fee to the Town's fee schedule for an in-lieu payment when pathway construction is required. 5. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 5.1 Request from Planning Commission for clarification of direction concerning the community survey August 17, 2000 Regular City Council Meeting 3