Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Council for approval without much effort. In terms of the issue of the one access, the City's <br />traffic engineer has stated at this time given the number of homes in the area, that this <br />development is not a safety problem. In terms of density transitioning, there can be some <br />movement on that and redesign of the particular lots. These types of technical issues tend to get <br />worked out in the normal course of preliminary plats. Mr. Raudio stated if the Council was to <br />table this matter tonight they will run up against the moratorium, which is a dilemma for his <br />client, as they are facing a long holding time for this property with a lot of money invested, and <br />no guarantee as to when the moratorium will be removed. His client is faced with a real <br />dilemma of whether to hold onto this property or apply for a hardship exception and continue to <br />work with staff to try to work out these technical issues. His client can continue to work with <br />staff on these technical issues. Tonight his client is asking for approval with direction to staff to <br />work out what would appear to be technical but solvable issues in relation to trees. Mr. Raudio <br />stated his client is happy to meet with code. If the easement is not the best area for the <br />landscaping, a placement agreement may be needed for the possibility of the power company <br />taking the landscaping down for maintenance. In terms of access, the secondary access does not <br />have to be put in the right-of-way, and as the property develops that will be handled. There is a <br />solution here, and he would not want to see the Council rush to a conclusion and then be stymied <br />by that due to the moratorium. They are asking for consideration of this matter. If the Council <br />does not want to be rushed, this case could be tabled to allow for staff discussions, and to in <br />essence grant a hardship exemption from the moratorium. <br /> <br />Mayor Gamec stated this has been one of the most difficult cases for the Council as far as the <br />layout, design and location of it. Controversy is something the Council must deal with, whether <br />it is residents or developers, but the Council must try to look at the best way for the particular <br />project. To make all the changes suggested would be difficult to do at this Council meeting. He <br />inquired about the effects of tabling the case tonight. <br /> <br />City Attorney Goodrich replied the moratorium ordinance includes provision for hardships; <br />decisions for this would be made case by case. <br /> <br />Mr. Raudio stated courts generally grant great discretion to Councils to adopt moratoriums, but <br />will consider whether the moratorium was adopted with the specific purpose in mind to stop a <br />development. It must be addressed that this is the one project that was stopped while on the <br />verge of approval. Secondly, the findings must not only be specific, but must be supported by <br />facts in the record. This will likely be a problem when the findings are not supported by the <br />City's traffic study. <br /> <br />Councilmember Cook stated he believes he was the only Councilmember that supported the last <br />plan. He thinks the old plan has much more merit than the plan before him tonight. Because of <br />that he cannot approve this plan. This plan has more impact to the residents, and is less <br />beneficial than the 1,100 foot cul-de-sac they were looking at. This has been pushed around a lot <br />and he thinks the old plan did a better job in the community, but it still was not approved. <br /> <br />City Attorney Goodrich reviewed the findings of fact relating to a request for preliminary plat <br />approval of Shade Tree Creek. <br /> <br />City Council! May 9, 2006 <br />Page 8 of 30 <br />