Laserfiche WebLink
177 <br /> <br /> There being no further testimony, Mr. Mercer declared the <br /> public hearing closed. <br /> <br /> Mr. Tarver believed that the appeal, General Plan Amendment, <br />PUD rezoning and the development plan should be denied as <br />recommended by the Planning Commission and staff. Mr. Tarver felt <br />that since the developer would not be starting the project for a <br />year, the project should come back at that time for Growth <br />Management. This would enable staff, Design Review Board and the <br />Planning Commission to complete an EIR evaluation and go through <br />the process in a correct manner. <br /> <br /> Ms. Mohr asked staff if the adequacy of the EIR was an issue. <br /> <br /> Mr. Swift replied that staff would review the new plan with <br />the information that was in the EIR and supplement the description <br />of the project so that it would relate to the newly proposed <br />project. He explained that the EIR did reflect a 22-1ot <br />alternative and that Council could find that the EIR does disclose <br />the significant impacts. The findings would have to be addressed <br />with respect to the proposed 37-1ot plan. <br /> <br /> Mr. Butler was not concerned with the EIR because it covered <br />a broad range of plans. He did not agree with denying the whole <br />application and starting over. He felt that there was a lot of <br />work put into this project and the existing problems could be <br />resolved. <br /> <br /> Mr. Tarver agreed withMr. Butler's comments but felt that the <br />issues should not be separated. <br /> <br /> Ms. Mohr stated that there was not a PUD to approve. She <br />agreed that there had been a lot of confusion on the project, but <br />it should not be denied. She believed that the project should <br />return to Council for reconsideration after all meetings with the <br />neighbors. If this project was changed to low density it would <br />raise a number of other issues. <br /> <br /> Ms. Acosta clarified that the 52-1ot plan was what was being <br />denied and the developer could come back with a final plan for 37 <br />lots. <br /> <br /> Ms. Scribner agreed that there was not a project to approve <br />that evening. She felt that because there had been so many changes <br />to the current plan, it was not clear what should be approved. She <br />supported the denial of the project. <br /> <br /> Mayor Mercer did not object to changing the General Plan to <br />low density so that General/Limited/Industrial would be eliminated. <br />He felt that it was only an assumption that the developer would get <br />growth management for 1993. He believed that the motion made by <br />Mr. Tarver applied to the 52-unit project. <br /> <br />4/7/92 9 <br /> <br /> <br />