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

Home

these have now been satisfied in that the developer has acquired ten acres adjacent to the property based upon the direction that he was given. The developer has spent more than $150,000 based upon what they were told and advised, and was led to believe this would satisfy the requirement. So the suggestion he heard that they can just move this along is something the Council needs to pay attention to. The developer has complied with everything the Council has asked them to do. There is a second access and there is not an extensive cul-de-sac, so they are at a point where they need to know they can proceed. There is a procedure in place for an existing ordinance granting the exception due to the hardship he believes the Council all recognizes exists. Granting the exception will allow the developer to proceed promptly under the old ordinance. Mr. Mahone stated his job was to try to explain things to the Council as clearly as he could from someone that had not participated in the process and had reviewed the 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 can 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 Mr. Trudgeon 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 developers City Council / September 26, 2006 Page 13 of 39