CC_Minutes_2006_1204 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

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