Laserfiche WebLink
120 <br /> <br /> Ms. Scribner commented that most of the issues that have been <br /> brought up are neighborhood concerns. She proposed that the public <br /> hearing be continued to a future Council meeting to give the <br /> neighbors and the developer the opportunity to meet and resolve all <br /> issues regarding the project. <br /> <br /> Mr. Mercer stated that a neighborhood meeting would save time <br /> and that staff could prepare a report on the outcome of that <br /> meeting at the continued public hearing. <br /> <br /> Ms. Mohr indicated that continuing the public hearing would <br /> present a Growth Management issue. She stated that it would not be <br /> fair to the developer if, in trying to give the neighbors and the <br /> developer the opportunity to resolve their differences, the <br /> developer would have to wait another year for Growth Management <br /> approval. She inquired if it would also be at the Council's <br /> discretion to continue the project's eligibility for Growth <br /> Management. <br /> <br /> Mr. Roush replied that Council could amend the Growth <br /> Management ordinance, scheduled for second reading later on the <br /> Agenda, which indicates that the applicant must have the project <br /> approved by the end of the Council's first meeting in April. <br /> <br /> Mr. Tarvet indicated that he was not in favor of granting an <br /> exception, based on the discussion held on the matter at the last <br /> Council meeting. <br /> <br /> Mr. Butler stated that while he agrees with Mr. Tarver's <br /> statement regarding exceptions for Growth Management, he feels that <br /> it is more important in this case to allow the developer and the <br /> neighbors to meet and resolve their differences. <br /> <br /> Mr. Tarver suggested that the City notify the neighbors about <br /> the meeting and not rely on homeowner associations to spread the <br /> word. <br /> <br /> - 14 - <br /> 4-2-91 <br /> <br /> <br />