Laserfiche WebLink
j 9/ . NEW BUSINESS: (continued) : <br /> MOTION FAILED DUE TO LACK OF A SECOND: Moved by Siegel that the <br /> variance granted in 1958 for Lot #1 , Tract 2043 had expired due to <br /> lapse of time of over a thirty year period in which no activity had <br /> taken place on lot and to encourage the applicant and the Site <br /> Development Committee to work together on the best location for the <br /> house on the lot. <br /> MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED: Moved by Tryon, seconded by Casey and <br /> passed by the following roll call vote that the variance granted in <br /> 1958 for Lot #1, Tract #2043 was still valid and to recommend that the <br /> owner and developer of this lot work with the Site Development <br /> Committee and Planning Commission to carefully and sensitively design <br /> the project and to bring the project back to the Council if there were <br /> any problems. <br /> AYES: Mayor Johnson and Councilmembers Casey and Tryon <br /> NOES: Councilmember Siegel <br /> ABSENT: Councilmember van Tamelen <br /> Council discussed the issue of time limits on variances and <br /> conditional use permits as a result of the "Jacobson Rule" and stated <br /> the need for a clear policy statement on the time limits. <br /> 4MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED: Moved by Siegel, seconded by Tryon and <br /> passed unanimously by all members present to direct staff to prepare <br /> an ordinance setting time limits on variances and conditional use <br /> permits. <br /> 2. Lands of Carse, 27125 Taaffe Road, appeal of condition to construct <br /> a path on Taaffe Road for building site approval <br /> Council had before them the Director of Public Works' staff report <br /> dated 5/11/89. This report included the notation that one of the <br /> conditions of the site approval for this property was the dedication <br /> of a pathway easement along the northwesterly property line in the <br /> area of the conservation easement. The report also included the <br /> comment that staff believed if the Council chose not to require the <br /> immediate construction of the pathway, the applicants should be <br /> required to make a payment in lieu of construction in the amount of <br /> $500. <br /> Mrs. Carse, applicant, asked for clarification of the conservation <br /> easement, what could be done in a conservation easement and a fish and <br /> game preserve and the requirement to place a pathway in the area of <br /> t the conservation easement. <br /> V <br /> -5- 5/17/89 <br />