03/25/2002 Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

COUNCIL MINUTES MARCH 25, 2002 there are a number of housing developments that were approved without an EAW being required. Additionally, there are a number of development projects upcoming in the near future. However, she • has not heard any specific criteria for requiring an EAW, therefore, she believed the City will be in a situation where they will be considering this type of requirement more often than has been required in the past. She did not feel this was a negative situation, however, she felt the City needed to be consistent. Councilmember Carlson noted during the recent City Council work session she had requested information regarding the last EAW required by the City for a residential development. City Planner Smyser indicated no City staff members could recall the City requiring an EAW on a residential project in the past. Councilmember Reinert acknowledged that it was not typical for the City to require an EAW, however, he indicated in this case it was being recommended b regarding the proposed development. He felt the proposed devel examine the environmental impacts so that when the island deve environmentally correct for the area. He felt if this does set requested, this would not be a bad situation. se there were strong opinions t it would be prudent to done so in a manner that is ce and more EAW's are Mayor Bergeson felt it was positive that the City Coup. proposed Pheasant Hills Preserve 12th Addition an fewer opinions. For these reasons, he supported Motion carried unanimously. heard so many comments regarding the hopetbthe EAW would provide more facts and sed resolution. Resolution No. 02-21 can be found in t = erk's office. Consideration of Resolution 02-2 3rd Addition, Mike Grochala - Co measuring 10 feet by 300 fe Clearwater Creek Drive to La a minor subdivision, Outlot F, Clearwater Creek Development Director Grochala advised Outlot F, platted as a pedestrian trail easement, connecting ve, ut not providing connections to any other system of trails. The reason for the trail was top ovide pedestrian access across the subdivision, since a block of excessive length (1,700 feet) w `created when a block in the 3rd Addition was added to an existing block in the 2nd Addition. Community Development Director Grochala noted the trail had not been constructed in August 2000, when it came to the attention of the City Council Work Session meeting of August 23, 2000, via Mr. Petronick of 6601 LaCasse Drive. Mr. Petronick expressed a number of reservations about the placement of a trail next to his home, plans for which he was unaware of when he purchased his property. It was reported that "neighbors are also opposed to the trail." Community Development Director Grochala indicated after consideration, "council directed staff to proceed with vacating the trail easement," according to the minutes of the September 6, 2000 City Council work Session. 16