Agenda - Planning Commission - 11/02/2006

Home

developer is able to pass the cul-de-sac issue, which was the reason for denial of the first plat. Second is the question of what will happen as they redevelop the language in this ordinance, and if this developer will start down the path of following the old language in the ordinance for the next three months, and then need to abide by the new language. Community Development Director Trudgeon replied the requirements to be adhered to would depend on where the developer is in the process and what codes apply. Once the moratorium expires this individual will have the right to develop; the right to develop is being taken away temporarily by the moratorium, not permanently. The applicant is asking for an exception to develop under the old codes. The Council needs to focus on whether the criteria of the ordinance are met to determine if this is an undue hardship. Councilmember Elvig stated his point is that whether the Council was right, wrong or indifferent, where this sits now is how the developer would get a plat through while the Council is changing the language of the ordinance. City Attorney Goodrich advised the City does not have an absolute right to delay or wait for an ordinance to be adopted unless there is a moratorium in place. If the developer were to complete the preliminary plat the City would need to act on it before the ordinance has been amended, and the preliminary plat would be regulated by the performance standards of the old ordinance. Councilmember Elvig stated his concern is that there are some things within the language of this ordinance that the Council cannot even give the developer direction on at this time, such as in relation to the communal septic system. It seems the timing on this is so close that it may be a common sense factor, and he is not sure what advantage the developer has in going through with this. The developer is trying to push a hardship, and he does not agree with it. . Mr. Michael Mahone, attorney representing the developer, stated his basic presentation to the Council tonight is that they are mistreating this developer. This developer has done everything he has been asked to do; he had moved along in the process to a point where he had a right based upon what he had done to be considered different than anyone that had not been through the process. The City has an absolute right to adopt a moratorium, but people in the process who have spent as much time and money and have followed the direction given by the Council have the right to be considered differently than someone who has done nothing. Mr. Mahone stated there were two issues presented; one was the cul-de-sac and the other was the access. Both of these have now been satisfied in that the developer has acquired ten acres adjacent to the property based upon the direction that he was given. The developer has spent more than $150,000 based upon what they were told and advised, and was led to believe this would satisfy the requirement. So the suggestion he heard that they can just move this along is something the Council needs to pay attention to. The developer has complied with everything the Council has asked them to do. There is a second access and there is not an extensive cul-de-sac, so they are at a point where they need to know they can proceed. There is a procedure in place for an existing ordinance granting the exception due to the hardship he believes the Council all recognizes exists. Granting the exception will allow the developer to proceed promptly under the old ordinance. Mr. Mahone stated his job was to try to explain things to the Council as clearly as he could from someone that had not participated in the process and had reviewed the City Council / September 26, 2006 Page 12 of 38 P32