Laserfiche WebLink
• <br />COUNCIL MINUTES <br />JANUARY 14, 2002 <br />Mr. Coyle felt this was a proposal that would meet the City part way. He stated this request was <br />fundamentally premised on the idea that Mr. Uhde has invested hundreds of thousands of dollars in <br />readying this property for development. The land areas already developed are contiguous with the <br />property proposed to be exempted and the property is already guided for single- family, low - density <br />development. The property is most likely, under any scenario that would be presented to the City <br />over the next couple of years, to develop in substantially the same manner as proposed in the <br />application submitted last Wednesday. <br />Councilmember Reinert requested confirmation that if the second reading of the ordinance is <br />approved this evening the moratorium would not take effect for 30 days. City Attorney Hawkins <br />stated this was correct. <br />Councilmember Reinert asked if the requests for exemption from the moratorium could be addressed <br />by the City Council within that 30 days even after taking action on the moratorium. City Attorney <br />Hawkins stated if the Council wished to exempt certain properties, then Section 3, Subparagraph E of <br />the ordinance would have to be amended to include those exemptions. He cautioned the Council <br />against picking out individual parcels and including those to that section of the ordinance, unless the <br />Council had specific reasons why those parcels should be treated differently than any other residential <br />property within the City. <br />Councilmember Reinert requested the City Attorney's opimo egarding the comments made this <br />evening by the two developers' representatives µCity °Attorney Hawkins believed the primary legal <br />issue being raised was whether or not the City, ly exempting property it owns for development, has <br />created a discriminatory situation. He noted the staff rp'ort delineated the reasons why the City feels <br />it can differentiate the Village property, which he felt'were legitimate reasons and not ones that were <br />designed to put the City in a better developmentRyposition than any other developer. He stated he did <br />not agree with Mr. Coyle's position regarding the `legality of the proposed moratorium. <br />� a <br />} <br />Councilmember Reinert expressed concern for the City Council not taking action on the proposed <br />moratorium for fear of potential legal action. He stated he supported the City Attorney's opinion. <br />Mr. Coyle noted the proposed moratorium ordinance identified the exemption of properties with <br />approved preliminary plats and development requests of residential subdivisions that result in up to <br />four lots. He felt the City was improperly singling out two categories of residential development. <br />Mr. Coyle noted there have been 10 years of development within the Behm's development and <br />indicated the future development will be consistent with that which has occurred over the last 10 <br />years. He asked that Mr. Uhde be allowed to continue with a scaled -down version of his development <br />plans. <br />City Attorney Hawkins advised State law requires that moratoriums not apply to plats that have <br />received preliminary approval. Additionally, per the staff report, small developments of four lots or <br />less will not create the kind of inconsistencies with the Comprehensive Plan that are likely to occur <br />with larger developments. <br />11 <br />