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

Home

does not recall any specific vote by the Council about the cul-de-sac. The second point is that this exception to the moratorium if it is granted tonight does not allow the applicant to develop this property; he would have to start the process over during the next several months and receive approval for the plat using the old standards. The developer will be in the planning process for the next six months at least to get through the process, and it is difficult to say how that will turn out. He wants to be sure everyone understands if this exception is approved it does not approve a development. Councilmember Elvig stated if they are not going back to the original plat he has a hard time saying there is a hardship in looking at that original plat. The new plat has to be somewhat different than the old plat because it has property added to it. This is the only reason the 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 City Council / September 26, 2006 Page 12 of 39