Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Associate Planner Geisler advised the major changes to the findings of fact are included in <br />finding no. 9, with the following additional sentence added: Inadequate performance standards <br />include but are not limited to density transitioning requirements, lot sizes, open space <br />requirements, and requirements related to community septic systems. Ms. Geisler explained this <br />sentence was added to elaborate on the performance standards being referred to in this finding. <br />Ms. Geisler advised the resolution to deny the exception request includes the addition of item no. <br />1 which states: That the City Council finds that no undue hardship resulting from strict <br />compliance with City Ordinance #06-07. <br /> <br />City Attorney Goodrich advised item no. 1 of the resolution referred to by Ms. Geisler should be <br />corrected as follows: That the City Council finds thaf no undue hardship resulting from strict <br />compliance with City Ordinance #06-07. Mr. Goodrich advised section 5 of the moratorium <br />ordinance requires that before an exception can be granted there must be an undue hardship; to <br />do that a finding needs to be made of all the factors within the ordinance. <br /> <br />Councilmember Cook stated he believes by law the developer was at a point where they <br />deserved to do go forward with the case whether there was a moratorium in place or not. <br /> <br />Councilmember StrQmmen stated the moratorium was put in place after the Council denied the <br />plat because it did not meet certain requirements. <br /> <br />Councilmember Cook stated the Council cancelled the preliminary plat because that same night <br />they turned down another property with an extended cul-de-sac. The Council had all agreed on <br />this cul-de-sac. A review of the meetings shows first they did not agree with the cul-de-sac and <br />then they did. It is wrong to give that type of information and then change their minds on the <br />eleventh hour because they were going into a moratorium. <br />~ <br /> <br />Community Development Director Trudgeon advised it should be understood that there was <br />process to the point where the Council decided on the preliminary plat. The vote was to deny the <br />preliminary plat, so that issue was over and done with; right or wrong the decision made by the <br />Council was to deny the preliminary plat. Subsequent to that, a moratorium was adopted, which <br />took 30 days to take effect. He believes the applicant had ample time to demonstrate the ability <br />to make this development 'occur given the parameters the Council had discussed. There was a <br />wide variety of opinion on whether the cul-de-sac should or should not be included, and all along <br />in that process there was a lot of discussion with the recognition that there was a difficulty. He <br />does not recall any specific vote by the Council about the cul-de-sac. The second point is that <br />this exception to the moratorium if it is granted tonight does not allow the applicant to develop <br />this property; he would have to start the process over during the next several months and receive <br />approval for the plat using the old standards. The developer will be in the planning process for <br />the next six months at least to get through the process, and it is difficult to say how that will turn <br />out. He wants to be sure everyone understands if this exception is approved it does not approve <br />a development. <br /> <br />Councilmember Elvig stated if they are not going back to the original plat he has a hard time <br />saying there is a hardship in looking at that original plat. The new plat has to be somewhat <br />different than the old plat because it has property added to it. This is the only reason the <br /> <br />City Council / September 26, 2006 <br />Page 11 of 38 <br /> <br />P31 <br />