09-13-2004 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MEMORANDUM ‘T-/0' V To;Ron Moorsc, City Administrator Mayor and Council From: Date: Mike Gaffron, Planning D*rector^y' |^^ a September 9,2004 Subject:SUPPLEMENTARY MEMO - Building Height Issue, 1335 Tonkawa Road My memo to Council of September 2 was prepared prior to the actual appeal letter submitted on September 8 by Mr. Render’s attorney, Allen Barnard. This memo is to respond to a number Mr. Barnard’s points, paragraph by paragraph. 2) 5) It is important to clarify that Mr. Render did two re-plattinas. The first, in 1998, re-platted parts of Lots 13-14-15, Lydiard Park into Lots 1-2-3, Tonkawa Shores. A conceptual grading plan was submitted and approved with that plat. The second re-plat, in 2000, rcplatted Lots 1 -2-3 Tonkawa Shores and part of Lot 16, Lydiard Park, into Lots 1-2-3, Tonkawa Shores Second Addition. No supplemental grading plan was submitted nor approved with this second replat, wluch significantly changed the shape and size of the two westerly lots, and functionally rendered the original grading plan obsolete. City staff do not recall, and are unaware of, any fonnal or infomial agieement to allow the fill within Lot 2 to be left lower than the originally approved grading plan. We agree with the logic, that liaving tv. o cpisotlcs of fill hauling will be more disruptive to the neighborhood. Wc don’t ha\c any basis to state that there was an agreement with regard to this. No comments. Wc disagree that the City policies on hciglit detennination “contravene” the City ordinance. Wc believe that they intemret and clarify a very gray area within the ordinance; spccifically, they help to define what is the highest gable. Re; Line Item 1. Wc don’t dispute that issuance of a building pcmiit is a ministerial act. City staff arc hired by the City to administer the ordinances of the City. When the ordinances are unclear, or can be intcq)reted in more than one way, it is the stafTs responsibility to interpret them, subject to confirmation by the City Council when necessary, in detennining whctlier the ordinances have been complied with. We believe that interpretation and administration of our ordinances in a consistent manner, as wc believe wc have done here, is clearly ministerial and does not comprise a discretionary action. i