Laserfiche WebLink
• <br />• <br />• <br />Planning & Zoning Board <br />December 12, 2001 <br />Page 5 <br />Mr. Rafferty asked if this did not go into effect, would staff be overloaded with work. <br />Mr. Smyser replied this would definitely exacerbate the situation and staff would be <br />overloaded. <br />Peter Coyle, attorney from Larkin Hoffman law firm, 7900 Xerxes Avenue South, <br />Bloomington, indicated he represented Mr. Uhde, developer, and expressed his concern <br />regarding the moratorium and asked that the moratorium not be approved. He stated the <br />lots available for development, may not be ready to be sold or developed. He stated <br />based on the development patterns in the past few years, if new plat development was <br />stopped, there would be no new supply of lots in the City, and the direct consequence <br />would be that the supply of lots in the City would be severely diminished and people <br />buying lots in the City would be unable to afford the lot or the home on it. He stated this <br />would limit residents being able to buy into the City. He expressed concern about the 12- <br />month limit on the moratorium. He indicated he did not believe this was possible to <br />complete this in 12 months. He stated from his experience, a moratorium such as this <br />would be extended out beyond the 12 months. He indicated the developers would be <br />deprived of utilizing their investments if the moratorium . s approved. He stated the <br />nder Minnesota Statutes. In <br />t, and the Town City project <br />would be discriminatory <br />sed omprehensive Plan was <br />moratorium would create spot zoning, which was illeg <br />addition, the City had an investment in the Town Ci <br />was exempt from the moratorium and, therefore <br />and unfair. He stated the 147 -lot restriction b <br />illegal and suggested the City contact their attorne <br />reject the moratorium. <br />Mr. Rafferty stated this was a way <br />citizens wanted. He indicated <br />He expressed concern regardin <br />He indicated he did not b <br />job with respect to aski <br />"cut off at the knees" if this <br />assumption that development <br />garding this. He asked the Board to <br />e Ci to have guidelines with respect to what the <br />e any developer was hurting in this area. <br />the lots and homes being placed on them. <br />asking for too much, and they were doing their <br />orium. Mr. Coyle replied Mr. Uhde would be <br />rium was approved, when Mr. Uhde was under the <br />uld continue. <br />Mr. Lyden asked what case law did Mr. Coyle base his premise on that a moratorium was <br />illegal. Mr. Coyle stated that information would be provided when necessary. <br />Mr. Zych asked if there was a moratorium in 1989; how long did that one last; and was it <br />extended. Chair Schaps stated there was one 90 -day moratorium. <br />Mr. Zych asked if it was common for moratoriums to be extended. Mr. Smyser replied it <br />was not unusual for moratoriums to be extended, but that was not always the case. <br />Mr. Rafferty indicated he did not see any problem if the moratorium was extended as <br />long as this was what the citizens wanted and the end result was what was good for the <br />City and the citizens. He stated not all developers would like this, but he believed staff <br />had contacted the City Attorney regarding the decisions being made and were working <br />within the law. <br />Chair Schaps expressed his concern if the moratorium ended up being prolonged. <br />