2007_0723_packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

City Council Study Session Monday, July 16, 2007 Page 23 1 Mr. Stark advised that s�taff had received a draft traffic study from the 2 appiicant earlier today, and staff would attempt to review the docu- 3 ment between now and the July 23, 2007 meeting. However, Mr. 4 Stark advised that the environmental review remained unresolved, and 5 Counczl directive tonight wouid dictate what would be prepared for 6 that meeting by staff. Mr. 5tark advised that staf�s preference would 7 be for the applicant to request an extension to allow time for comple- S tion o£ the updated AUAR, and referenced their detailed rational in 9 Sec�ions 2.6 (a}, (b), and (c) of the staff report dated July 16, 2007 and 10 staff s interpretation of City Code requirements related to this land use 11 application. 12 13 Mr. Stark noted that late Thursday afternoon following City Council 14 agenda packet preparation and distribution, July 12, 2007, staff had 1 S received a partially completed, unsigned and undated EAW from the 16 appiicant. The documeni was provided as a Bench Handou�, and is at- 17 tached hereto and made a part thereof. Mr. Stark looked io City At- 18 torney Anderson for his determination as to whether the document 19 met legal standards. City Attorney Anderson reviewed statute provi- 20 sions, subpart 3, for Council consideration. 2I 22 Councilmember Ihlan quesiioned why sta.f� was requiring an envi- 23 ronmental review of this project in a B-6 zone, when it was not re- 24 quired for the condominium proposal approved several meetings ago. 25 26 Mr. Stark reiterated staff's response to a similar question asked sev- 27 eral meetings ago and addressed in staff reports, and advised thai staff 28 had differentiated that parcel from the remainde:r of the Twin Lakes 29 redevelopment area. 30 31 Councilmember Ihlan opined that, with respect to the AUAR and 32 staff's recommendation, she would need to know which, if any, of the 33 scenarios in the current AUAR and new draft AUAR, would be appli- 34 cable to this proj ect. 35 36 Mr. Stark advised that both Scenarios B and C coniained thresholds 37 that would include the proposed development. Mr. Stark noted that 38 part o� staf� s concern was trying to ensure that if the area is to de- 39 velop in a"piecemeal" fashion, and be determined by "who's first in