Agenda - Planning Commission - 11/02/2006

Home

papers and notes. This developer has done everything the Council has asked him to do; it is not fair, reasonable or appropriate to not grant the developer an exception. The developer wants to do this development; the idea of continuing to study this simply means they cannot continue. The developer needs to know now that they have the exception that should be granted so they c,an continue. There is no question that the Council has looked at the development and finds all of the other aspects exceptional, and that it meets with all the criteria the Council would ever want to establish with this project. Mayor Gamec asked if the moratorium was done the same night as the street change. Community Development Director Trudgeon replied in regards to the accusations that the City did not consider the application before the moratorium; it was considered and denied because the fact was that the road and access were not present at the time. To come back afterwards and say now they have the road and the Council should grant approval is disingenuous because the City did give due process before the moratorium. Councilmember Cook stated the Council holds work session after work session with developers, and though they cannot vote at them, they take consensus and from that consensus they send developers out to continue on their planning. On more than one occasion the Council gave consensus that if this could not work any other way they would deal with the long cul-de-sac on this project. Looking at the minutes on the work session, they were directing these people to move forward on a project and put more money into it, but then the night this developer brought in the project the Council turned it down because they were going into a moratorium. Councilmember Strommen stated it came up several times in work sessions that the Council thought the second access and the long cul-de-sac were issues. The Council has been fairly consistent on the policy to not worsen their problems with long cul-de-sacs, especially in rural areas where there is no water access for fire protection. The Council has been consistent on that issue. As Patrick said, the Council took action on that plat that night; it was not in process anymore at that point. It was the developer's choice to go out and acquire that additional land after the moratorium was in place. Councilmember Elvig concurred. He stated he recalls discussing that if the developer can get that adjacent property it would make a wonderful project and would perhaps eliminate the cul- de-sac issue. The Council was told at that time that was not feasible and that the developer would have to run this in front of the Council and take the risk of being denied because that was not feasible at the time. Now they are being told they did not give due process and that the developer is owed a hardship case because they acquired the property. He also takes contest with the fact that the Council is not necessarily saying this is an exceptional project. Part of the language in the moratorium is that the Council is not sure what is an exceptional or an acceptable project, and they are trying to determine that with the criteria of the moratorium. This was not an exceptional project because it was denied. Now the developer has come forward with something that may enhance the project, which he looks forward to seeing, but the Council has not completed the work to determine if this project is exceptional. City Council / September 26, 2006 Page 13 of 38 P33