Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Motion by Councilmember Cook, seconded by Councilmember Elvig, to grant approval of the <br />proposed site plan with the use of painted block, contingent upon compliance with the City Staff <br />Review Letter dated August 31, 2006, revised September 22, 2006, receipt of a variance to the <br />rear yard setback requirement, and execution of the Development Permit. <br /> <br />Motion carried. Voting Yes: Mayor Gamec,~ Councilmembers Cook, Elvig, Jeffrey, Olson, <br />Pearson, and Strommen. Voting No: None. <br /> <br />Case #7: <br /> <br />Adopt Findings of Fact Related to Exception from Development <br />Moratorium; Case of Ron Tallman <br /> <br />Associate Planner Geisler reviewed that the Council considered Mr. Ron Tallman's request for <br />exception to the development moratorium in the Rural Developing District at the August 8, 2006 <br />meeting. Staff was directed to draft findings of fact to deny the request, based on the criteria <br />contained in the moratorium ordinance. Draft findings were. brought to the City Council on <br />August 22, 2006, but were tabled until the next meeting due to a number of absences. Mr. <br />Tallman requested that action be tabled at the September 11,2006 meeting so that his attorney <br />could be present for Council's action on the case. Ms. Geisler indicated the Council has been <br />provided with revised findings of fact and a revised resolution. <br /> <br />Councilmember Cook stated he tabled this at the last meeting because he felt with only five <br />members present there may have been enough votes to go one direction or another, but it could <br />have put the developer in a difficult situation of not getting their plat approved. He still feels <br />strongly the developer has a case here, and he will continue to advocate that the Council approve <br />this and go forward with it. It is a good project. The developer is correct that they have a <br />hardship and have concerns. At the last meeting he asked Patrick to bring information forward <br />on what die Council had discussed in work session beforehand. He believes it was said the first <br />time the developer came to meet with the Council; the Council asked them to do something <br />about the length of the cul-de-sac. After that the Council said it is a difficult situation and they <br />would allow it to go forward with the cul-de-sac, and to continue planning. Then, at the last <br />meeting for the preliminary plat the Council denied it because of the length of the cul-de-sac. He <br />thinks it is unfair; this developer has worked with the City for almost two years, and has done <br />almost everything they have asked, and now the developer has purchased property to remove the <br />cul-de-sac. He thinks the developer has a hardship under this moratorium and they should let <br />this project go forward. <br /> <br />Motion by Councilmember Cook, seconded by Councilmember Pearson, to adopt resolution #06- <br />09-XXX adopting findings of fact in support of Ron Tallman's request for an exception to the <br />development moratorium in the R-I Residential: Rural Developing District. <br /> <br />Community Development Director Trudgeon explained the direction staff was given was to draft <br />findings for denial; the findings included in the Council's packet are drafted to support denial of <br />the exception request. ' <br /> <br />The motion on the floor was withdrawn. <br /> <br />City Council / September 26, 2006 <br />Page 10 of 38 <br /> <br />P30 <br />