10-11-07 Planning Comm. Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES PLANNING COMM OCTOBER 11, 2007 aspect of the ridge that runs through the Richie property to the Gores property. Knudsen noted that hydrology issues are being reviewed by both the Watershed and the City Engineer. It was also noted that the Council will consider any actions relative to archeological issues. John and Jolene Gores, 2870 Arcade Sheet, appeared before the Commission. John Gores reported that he has reviewed the file relative to the application for a Variance and found it to be incomplete. Gores noted that the file is missing the required number of submittal copies as well as the developer's narrative explaining why a Variance is necessary. Gores began an in-depth review of Howard Boston's report dated October 10, 2007. Gores noted that the City Attorney has commented that a Variance for cul-de-sac length is not necessary, and Gores expressed concern that the City is now running a Variance through the process to pretend that it did what was necessary. Gores clarified for the Planning Commission that they cannot grant a Variance, but can only make a recommendation. Gores noted that a Variance approval must be based on findings, and he indicated that findings are absent from the City Planner's report. He stated that it must be determined that an undue hardship exists under the Subdivision Ordinance which is where the cul-de-sac standard is in the Code. Gores further commented that he has heard the City Planner refer to both permanent and temporary cul-de-sac standards, and noted that there is one cul-de-sac standard in the City's Code and that standard is for a 500 foot maximum. Gores then proceeded with a review of sections of the City Code, beginning with Chapter 1006.030 (b) which states "Cul-de-sacs shall not be longer than five hundred (500) feet....". Gores indicated that provision for a temporary cul-de-sac does not say that a different standard applied. He indicated that the City's Code makes no distinction between temporary and permanent cul-de-sac. Gores pointed out that while the City Planner's position is that there is a distinction in the Code, in points of conflict the courts will apply the most restrictive minimum, as pointed out in Howard Boston's October 10, 2007 memorandum. Gores moved on to the issue of hardship to support granting a Variance. Gores felt that no one has shown that a hardship exists, and he reviewed the hardship standards as outlined in the City's Subdivision ordinance. He noted that 1010.010 (a) talks about the special and highly unique circumstances or conditions affecting said property. Gores position is that this property is no different from any other in the general area and there was nothing unique to support a Variance. He also noted the ordinance provision that without a Variance the applicant would be deprived of the -7-