12/12/2001 P&Z Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

• • • Planning & Zoning Board December 12, 2001 Page 5 Mr. Rafferty asked if this did not go into effect, would staff be overloaded with work. Mr. Smyser replied this would definitely exacerbate the situation and staff would be overloaded. Peter Coyle, attorney from Larkin Hoffman law firm, 7900 Xerxes Avenue South, Bloomington, indicated he represented Mr. Uhde, developer, and expressed his concern regarding the moratorium and asked that the moratorium not be approved. He stated the lots available for development, may not be ready to be sold or developed. He stated based on the development patterns in the past few years, if new plat development was stopped, there would be no new supply of lots in the City, and the direct consequence would be that the supply of lots in the City would be severely diminished and people buying lots in the City would be unable to afford the lot or the home on it. He stated this would limit residents being able to buy into the City. He expressed concern about the 12- month limit on the moratorium. He indicated he did not believ m s possible to complete this in 12 months. He stated from his experience, such as this would be extended out beyond the 12 months. He indicat ers would be deprived of utilizing their investments if the moratoriu ty wa . • p � He stated the moratorium would create spot zoning, which was ill # 4, esota Statutes. In addition, the City had an investment in the Town it pro ` d the Town City project was exempt from the moratorium and, therefo e e rato m would be discriminatory and unfair. He stated the 147 -lot restriction b sed Comprehensive Plan was illegal and suggested the City contact th� regarding this. He asked the Board to g gg Y ice y g g reject the moratorium. Mr. Rafferty stated this was a w • he : >o have guidelines with respect to what the citizens wanted. He indicated eve any developer was hurting in this area He expressed concern reg " • he of the lots and homes being placed on them. He indicated he did not . e g taff asking for too much, and they were doing their job with respect to a + or oratorium. Mr. Coyle replied Mr. Uhde would be "cut off at the kne ' s mo torium was approved, when Mr. Uhde was under the assumption that develo - nt would continue. Mr. Lyden aske a se law did Mr. Coyle base his premise on that a moratorium was illegal. Mr. Coy stated that information would be provided when necessary. Mr. Zych asked if there was a moratorium in 1989; how long did that one last; and was it extended. Chair Schaps stated there was one 90 -day moratorium. Mr. Zych asked if it was common for moratoriums to be extended. Mr. Smyser replied it was not unusual for moratoriums to be extended, but that was not always the case. Mr. Rafferty indicated he did not see any problem if the moratorium was extended as long as this was what the citizens wanted and the end result was what was good for the City and the citizens. He stated not all developers would like this, but he believed staff had contacted the City Attorney regarding the decisions being made and were working within the law. Chair Schaps expressed his concern if the moratorium ended up being prolonged.