Laserfiche WebLink
Metadata
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015 Laserfiche. All rights reserved.
Casey and Finn did not support the Teleminder System and suggested looking into other <br /> options such as a radar truck. <br /> Council agreed to continue this item pending more information on the option of a radar <br /> truck. <br /> 5.3 Responsibility for tree maintenance - letter from Soren Johnson at Golden Hill Court <br /> and La Paloma Road <br /> This item was continued to the next Council Meeting. <br /> 5.4 Discussion of details in the 1998-99 Mid-Year Financial Summary <br /> This item was continued to the next Council Meeting. <br /> 5.5 Subcommittee recommendations for enchancements to the Site Development <br /> Review Process and for "Fast-Track" Review <br /> Council discussed the proposed enhancements to the site development review process and the <br /> Site Development Scope of Review. The suggested enhancements would require two <br /> findings to be made if the Site Development Authority(staff, Planning Commission or City <br /> Council)reduced the height, floor area or development area below the Code maximum or <br /> increased the setback above the minimum required by the Code. The two sub-findings <br /> were: a) creating highly visible structures on a ridgeline or hilltop site or b) substantially <br /> impairing scenic views from nearby property and/or from public or private roadways. The <br /> Site Development Scope of Review was intended to limit review of applications to the <br /> • items outlined.in the Site Development Code and not to design review considerations such <br /> as architectural style, chimneys, window treatments or skylights. <br /> Siegel stated that he supported the enhancements but believed it was too restrictive to limit the <br /> number of findings. He supported including a statement that the Site Development <br /> Authority would make findings rather than stating specific findings. Dauber stated that she <br /> would support the enhancements if the Town's ordinances were stronger. She specifically <br /> referred to the issue of the height of a single story home as an issue that needed to be <br /> addressed. In addition she did not think the privacy issue had been addressed and should be <br /> added to the findings. Finn did not agree with taking away a homeowner's property rights. <br /> Lowering the height of homes was not before Council for discussion. Both Casey and Finn <br /> supported leaving in the specific findings. <br /> MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED: Moved by Casey, seconded by Finn and passed <br /> unanimously to approve the following enhancements to the Site Development Review <br /> Process: "Upon any required reduction in height, floor area, or development area below the <br /> maximum allowed by the Town's Zoning Code, or upon any required increase in setbacks <br /> in excess of the minimum required by the Town's Zoning Code,the Site Development <br /> Authority must make both of the following findings: 1) That, because of exceptional or <br /> extraordinary circumstances applicable to the subject property, including size, shape, <br /> topography, location or surroundings,the proposed development would be injurious to <br /> adjacent property or to the general public; and 2) There is no other reasonable means, <br /> preferable to the applicant,to mitigate the expected impacts, such as: a) landscape <br /> mitigation,b)repositioning of the structure, and/or c) lowering the building profile through <br /> grading." <br /> March 18, 1999 <br /> Regular City Council Meeting <br /> 4 <br />