Laserfiche WebLink
Metadata
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015 Laserfiche. All rights reserved.
<br />City Council Regular Meeting - 12/04/06 <br />Minutes - Page 20 <br /> <br />waiting and seeking additional public comment on development in <br />the Twin Lakes area. <br /> <br />Councilmember Kough noted the four parcels currently under <br />Eminent Domain proceedings; and pending environmental clean <br />up. <br /> <br />City Attorney Anderson opined that, with no development project <br />on the table, this provided an excellent opportunity for the City to <br />gather information to base future land use decisions on, in the <br />broadest context available; and clarified the Court of Appeals <br />decision as it related to EQB guidelines, and parameters of the <br />AUAR. <br /> <br />Councilmember Pust questioned if the AUAR Update process was <br />continued, if the City could require particular developers <br />specifically to conduct further environmental review. <br /> <br />City Attorney Anderson opined that it seemed allowable under <br />State Statute, based on EIS language, that the City could require <br />discretionary EA W's under almost any circumstance if it was <br />deemed that further information was necessary do to the nature <br />and location ofthe proposed project. <br /> <br />Councilmember Pust opined that, it appeared not to be just a <br />choice of one or the other paths, but a choice between what to do <br />at a certain point in time; and it seemed prudent that continuing on <br />the AUAR Update path, with the caveat that if a project is unique, <br />additional conditions for land use application approval would be <br />appropriate. Councilmember Pust noted the recommendation of <br />staff to continue environmental review of the Twin Lakes area at <br />this time. <br /> <br />Mr. Stark noted that the consultant (DSU) was also making that <br />recommendation, based on their experience in environmental <br />issues and AUAR Updates. <br /> <br />Further discussion included upfront costs to the City for AUAR <br />Updates, with future cost-sharing by developers; additional traffic <br />analysis requirements for each new development when deemed <br />necessary or when development exceeded the thresholds of the <br />