01/14/2002 Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

COUNCIL MINUTES JANUARY 14, 2002 Mr. Coyle felt this was a proposal that would meet the City part way. He stated this request was fundamentally premised on the idea that Mr. Uhde has invested hundreds of thousands of dollars in readying this property for development. The land areas already developed are contiguous with the property proposed to be exempted and the property is already guided for single-family, low-density development. The property is most likely, under any scenario that would be presented to the City over the next couple of years, to develop in substantially the same manner as proposed in the application submitted last Wednesday. Councilmember Reinert requested confirmation that if the second reading of the ordinance is approved this evening the moratorium would not take effect for 30 days. City Attorney Hawkins stated this was correct. Councilmember Reinert asked if the requests for exemption from the moratorium could be addressed by the City Council within that 30 days even after taking action" Hawkins stated if the Council wished to exempt certain propertie the ordinance would have to be amended to include those exempts against picking out individual parcels and including those i Council had specific reasons why those parcels should be tr property within the City. the moratorium. City Attorney n Section 3, Subparagraph E of e cautioned the Council n of the ordinance, unless the fferently than any other residential Councilmember Reinert requested the City Attorne evening by the two developers' representatives. issue being raised was whether or not the City, created a discriminatory situation. He noted it can differentiate the Village property, w designed to put the City in a better deve not agree with Mr. Coyle's position r opirn ` regarding the comments made this rney Hawkins believed the primary legal ing property it owns for development, has taff report delineated the reasons why the City feels t were legitimate reasons and not ones that were osition than any other developer. He stated he did legality of the proposed moratorium. Councilmember Reinert ex . ressed co moratorium for fear of pote 1 for e City Council not taking action on the proposed He stated he supported the City Attorney's opinion. Mr. Coyle noted the proposedoratorium ordinance identified the exemption of properties with approved preliminary plats and velopment requests of residential subdivisions that result in up to four lots. He felt the City was improperly singling out two categories of residential development. Mr. Coyle noted there have been 10 years of development within the Behm's development and indicated the future development will be consistent with that which has occurred over the last 10 years. He asked that Mr. Uhde be allowed to continue with a scaled-down version of his development plans. City Attorney Hawkins advised State law requires that moratoriums not apply to plats that have received preliminary approval. Additionally, per the staff report, small developments of four lots or less will not create the kind of inconsistencies with the Comprehensive Plan that are likely to occur with larger developments. 11