Minutes - Council - 09/26/2006 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Motion by Councilmember Cook, seconded by Councilmember Pearson, to adopt the resolution adopting findings of fact in support of Ron Tallman's request for an exception to the development moratorium in the R-l Residential: Rural Developing District. Community Development Director Trudgeon explained the direction staff was given was to draft findings for denial; the findings included in the Council's packet are drafted to support denial of the exception request. The motion on the floor was withdrawn. Associate Planner Geisler advised the major changes to the findings of fact are included in finding no. 9, with the following additional sentence: Inadequate performance standards include but are not limited to density transitioning requirements, lot sizes, open space requirements, and requirements related to community septic systems. Ms. Geisler explained this sentence was added to elaborate on the performance standards being referred to in this finding. Ms. Geisler advised the resolution to deny the exception request includes the addition of item no. 1 which states: That the City Council finds that no undue hardship resulting from strict compliance with City Ordinance #06-07. City Attorney Goodrich advised item no. 1 of the resolution referred to by Ms. Geisler should be corrected as follows: That the City Council finds thef no undue hardship resulting from strict compliance with City Ordinance #06-07. Mr. Goodrich advised section 5 of the moratorium ordinance requires that before an exception can be granted there must be an undue hardship; to do that, a finding needs to be made of all the factors within the ordinance. Councilmember Cook stated he believes by law the developer was at a point where they deserved to go forward with the case whether there was a moratorium in place or not. Councilmember Strommen stated the moratorium was put in place after the Council denied the plat because it did not meet certain requirements. Councilmember Cook stated the Council cancelled the preliminary plat because that same night they turned down another property with an extended cul-de-sac. The Council had all agreed on this cul-de-sac. A review of the meetings shows first they did not agree with the cul-de-sac and then they did. It is wrong to give that type of information and then change their minds on the eleventh hour because they were going into a moratorium. Community Development Director Trudgeon advised it should be understood that there was process to the point where the Council decided on the preliminary plat. The vote was to deny the preliminary plat, so that issue was over and done with; right or wrong the decision made by the Council was to deny the preliminary plat. Subsequent to that, a moratorium was adopted, which took 30 days to take effect. He believes the applicant had ample time to demonstrate the ability to make this development occur given the parameters the Council had discussed. There was a wide variety of opinion on whether the cul-de-sac should or should not be included, and all along in that process there was a lot of discussion with the recognition that there was a difficulty. He City Council / September 26, 2006 Page 11 of 39