Laserfiche WebLink
COUNCIL MINUTES JANUARY 14, 2002 <br />ordinances. He reiterated if the plats meet those ordinance requirements, then the City would be in <br />the position of approving those developments. He did not feel the plats should be allowed to move <br />forward if it was likely they would not be approved. <br />Councilmember Carlson questioned whether it would be possible to allow the three applications <br />currently before the City to move forward providing they meet the new ordinances. Community <br />Development Director Grochala noted the City does not at this point know what the new ordinance <br />requirements will be. He believed the developers were asking to proceed with the current ordinance <br />requirements and staff would not at this time be able to review the plats based on the new <br />Comprehensive Plan. He felt there could be a verbal agreement from the developers to comply with <br />the new ordinance regulations but he was not certain the City could ask for this type of agreement <br />when the new regulations are unknown. <br />Mayor Bergeson believed the Vaughn development would not <br />already been reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Board and wi <br />effective date of the moratorium. However, he noted one issue <br />with the Vaughn development was the number of lots propo <br />made to the development, how the City would determine at <br />application would have to be made and how to apply eit <br />requirements. <br />to these concerns since it has <br />Community Development Director Grochala beli <br />Vaughn development prior to the effective date <br />were to fail at that time and a new applicatio <br />City Attorney Hawkins stated if the Co <br />submitted a new plat that was subst <br />application. He believed if the dev <br />may be possible to reconsider the <br />substantial. <br />efore the Council prior to the <br />ing and Zoning Board had <br />estioned, if changes were <br />int in the process a new <br />ordinance requirements or the old <br />City has an opportunity to act on the <br />ratorium. However, if the development <br />s submitted, it would be subject to the moratorium. <br />ed the Vaughn development and Mr. Vaughn then <br />erent than the original, he would have to file a new <br />enied due to a slight dislike of the configuration it <br />ent under the existing application if the changes were not <br />Councilmember Carlson asked ow the moratorium would affect the Vaughn application if the <br />application were tabled by the C cil. City Attorney Hawkins stated if the proposed action this <br />evening was to allow plats that have been filed to move forward until they are denied, then the <br />Vaughn development would still be an open application even if tabled. <br />Councilmember Reinert requested clarification if the plats received to date were allowed to move <br />forward could they be considered beyond the effective date of the moratorium. City Attorney <br />Hawkins clarified that any preliminary plats falling under this exemption could then go forward in the <br />process until they were either approved or denied. <br />Councilmember Carlson expressed concern whether the Council could hold the recently received <br />plats to the new ordinances if they were exempted from the moratorium. City Attorney Hawkins <br />stated those plats would have the right to be judged under the existing ordinances. <br />16 <br />