10-24-07 Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES CITY COUNCIL OCTOBER 24, 2007 City Planner stated at the Planning Commission meeting that he could give the reasons for the Variance and that he did it all the time. Gores noted that this evening the developer has submitted ahand-written letter outlining his reasons for requesting a Variance. Gores noted that the stub road to the east stops at the edge of a ridge. He also noted that the City's ordinance prohibits dead-end streets. Gores reported that he has discussed the Richie Place Preliminary Plat with former Mayor Hanson and indicated that Hanson noted that when Minnesota Street was first developed, it was a dead end street that ended at a ravine. A car had driven off the end of the street and one of the people in the vehicle was killed. Gores felt that the stub road proposed in the Richie Plat was setting up a highly dangerous situation. Gores reported that at the Planning Commission meeting, there was no explanation given for the Variance, and the Planning Commission was told to apply the wrong standard in their consideration of the Variance. Gores noted that the Code requires that an extreme hardship be present to wan•ant granting a Variance. He outlined the standards that must be met as outlined in the Zoning Code. Gores felt there were no special or highly unique circumstances affecting this property that would warrant the Variance. He also felt that this particular property was no different that the neighboring properties. Gores felt that the only unique circumstance is that the Richie property is close to former Mayor Fahey's property and that Fahey wants to develop his property. Gores indicated that this is not a hardship or a special or unique circumstance to the land. Gores also felt that the fact that the developer must plan for future development is not a hardship. Gores indicated that the developer only has to provide an opportunity for future development of adjacent properties, and does not have to bring a road to the property edge. It is up to the adjacent land owners as to how to developer their land. Gores felt that holding Lauren Development to the 500 foot cul-de-sac maximum does not prevent the developer fiom the reasonable use of his land. Gores noted that a previous concept submittal by the developer showed a 500 foot cul-de-sac. The neighborhood was in support of that concept. Gores noted that in reviewing that concept the City Planner indicated that a future road connection to the west could be provided adjacent to Lot 10. The Planning Commission pointed out that a future road connection to the east could be provided with the loss of one lot. Gores pointed out that there are alternatives that would allow the development of the Richie property, providing development potential to the east and west, while maintaining a 500 foot limit on the cul-de-sac. Gores indicated that Lauren Development has not shown that he cannot make reasonable and minimum use of the land without the Variance. 10