Laserfiche WebLink
Bob Lefkowitz, 28515 Matadero Creek Lane, did not agree with rescinding Resolution #1559. <br />*4W <br />The rules should be the same for the remaining two lots as they were for the other lots. <br />w Pong Ng, project architect for the owner of Lot 7, did not understand why this was an issue. He <br />knew about this resolution and they had received a letter of approval from the Architectural <br />Review Committee. Their completed application had been filed in July. <br />Mrs. Nagpal, 28555 Matadero Creek Court, did not object to Resolution #1559 but believed that <br />if it was applied to the remaining two lots the other eighteen lots should also be given the option <br />of an additional 2,000 square feet. <br />Mrs. Romer, owner of Lot 7, stated that they were willing to work with the Architectural Review <br />Committee and the Town as they did not want to delay their project. <br />Rick Ellinger, 28520 Matadero Creek Lane and member of the Architectural Review Committee, <br />did not understand why no one knew about Resolution #1559. However, the conditions, <br />covenants and restrictions (CC&Rs) of the Matadero Creek Subdivision were the defining <br />statement and did not include this resolution. The Matadero Creek Subdivision furthermore had <br />stricter regulations that elsewhere in Town to preserve its open space. He did not think it was <br />fair to the other eighteen owners in this subdivision to make the rules different for the owners of <br />Lots 5 and 7. <br />Dan Siegel, Assistant City Attorney, stated that Resolution #1559 was a validly adopted <br />resolution of the Town and as such it would take a public hearing to discuss rescinding it. <br />Casey supported keeping this resolution in place. It was a valid resolution and there was a <br />process in place which included project review by the Architectural Review Committee as well <br />as the Planning Commission. Dauber suggested sending Lot #7 back to the Architectural Review <br />Committee. Hubbard was also not in favor of rescinding this resolution but if the Architectural <br />Review Committee wanted it rescinded at a later date they could request it. He did not agree <br />with rescinding it with two remaining lots to develop. Johnson believed it was unfortunate that <br />there were two lots left to develop when this issue came up but he noted that they could not <br />legally rescind this resolution at this meeting. He believed the Architectural Review Committee <br />had the controls it always did to appropriately review and recommend proposed development in <br />the subdivision. <br />MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED: Moved by Hubbard, seconded by Casey and passed <br />unanimously to concur with the staff recommendation to continue to utilize the provisions of <br />Resolution #1559, subject to appropriate design review pursuant to the site development review <br />process. <br />6.2 Comment on League of California Cities Annual Conference Resolutions <br />Dauber commented that she was the only Councilmember planning to attend the League <br />Conference and she inquired if anyone had any comments on the conference resolutions. <br />PASSED BY CONSENSUS: Council agreed to not support the resolution relating to emergency <br />medical services and to leave the decision on the resolution relating to solid waste adjustment <br />methodology up to Councilmember Dauber. <br />September 30, 1997 <br />Regular City Council Meeting <br />