Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Dolan said they could always apply for a variance; however, the findings are rigorous and difficult to <br /> make. He suggested that building in an exception process based on more of a common sense <br /> threshold might be a more suitable alternative. <br /> Councilmember McGovern made the following substitute motion: slope — Option 1, prohibiting the use <br /> of WIS; contour intervals — Option 1, deleting any mention of WIS; ridges and ridgelines — Option 2; <br /> streets and roadways — Option 2; manmade slopes—Option 2. <br /> Councilmember Sullivan said he largely agreed with staff's conservative approach, which generally <br /> meets his understanding of the intent of PP. He said he could support the substitute motion with several <br /> changes. While he initially supported Option 2 for streets and roads, he could see the benefit of <br /> allowing some roads under certain conditions. He felt the Council should defer to the initiative authors <br /> with Option 3 and the additional language they requested. He said he could support Option 2 for <br /> manmade slopes, with the provision of an exception process. <br /> MOTION: It was m/s by McGovern/Sullivan to approve the following recommendation: slope — Option 1, <br /> prohibiting the use of WIS; contour intervals — Option 1, deleting any mention of WIS; ridges and <br /> ridgelines — Option 2; streets and roadways — Option 2; manmade slopes— Option 2. <br /> Mayor Hosterman questioned and Councilmember Sullivan clarified that his intent was to grandfather <br /> streets and roadways addressed in PUDs and Specific Plans implemented prior to 2008. <br /> Councilmember Cook-Kallio asked whether staff would prefer to build in an exception or allow for the <br /> public process with regard to manmade slopes. <br /> Mr. Fialho said the better option from staff's perspective would be to retain the ability to evaluate each <br /> proposal as it comes forward through a public process. <br /> Councilmember Cook-Kallio said she heard Ms. Brown say this evening that a road is a structure but <br /> referred again to the minutes of June 6, 2008, which reflect the opposite. While more restrictive than <br /> what was reflected in the minutes, she said she preferred staff's recommended Option 3 over Option 2. <br /> Councilmember McGovern disagreed. She said Option 3 sets the tone for automatic approval and <br /> essentially makes the public process a useless exercise. <br /> Mr. Fialho clarified that Option 3 is simply an acknowledgement that certain PUDs and Specific Plans <br /> exist. It still provides the Council with the flexibility to determine whether the road is even of value to the <br /> community and to adjust its placement, but does rely on these existing documents for guidance. <br /> Councilmember McGovern stressed her concern over vesting rights within a Specific Plan. She and <br /> staff discussed several amendments and she ultimately suggested the following: "Determine that <br /> streets and/or roads and their attendant infrastructure are a structure in that they are a physical <br /> improvement on the property intended to accommodate development of residential and commercial <br /> structures and, therefore, are covered by Measure PP unless the street or road <br /> access to a public park, trail, or similar facility and/or is covered by a Specific Plan or PUD <br /> Development Plan approved prior to November 2008." <br /> Mayor Hosterman withdrew her motion in favor of the substitute motion. <br /> MOTION: It was m/s by McGovern/Sullivan to approve the following recommendation: Calculation of <br /> 25% slope — Option 1, with language acknowledging that the WIS formula will not be used in the <br /> calculation of slope; Methodology for defining contour intervals — Option 1, provided any reference to <br /> 6 <br />