Agenda - Council - 03/11/1997 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I could be in certain areas in the City but you cannot enact it in bad faith. You have to have a genuine planning issue you want to protect. Case law that discusses when cities have enacted a moratorium shows you have to have done it in good faith. The most recent case is Woodbury Place Partnership. against the City of Woodbury wherein the plaintiff challenged a two-year moratorium enacted by the City of Woodbury. In this case, the plaintiff applied for preliminary plat approval to develop its property. Prior to the preliminary plat approval, the City enacted an interim ordinance which prohibited acceptance of or consideration of subdivision approval, etc. on areas adjacent to 1-494. The plaintiff brought suit against the City claiming that the moratorium was a compensable "Taking" under the Fifth Amendment, because it denied the owner of all economically viable use of its property for the two-year moratorium tenn. The Minnesota Court of Appeals held that, when measured against the full value of the property, a two-year delay does not deny the plaintiff of "all economically viable use" of its property and, therefore, not a Fifth Amendment "categorical" or automatic total taking. He continued that the Woodbury Court went on to hold that even though a total taking had not occurred, a compensable temporary taking is possible. There is no set formula for determining when a compensable temporary taking occurs and each case must be examined on a case by case basis, using the above factors. The Woodbury case was remanded to the District Court for consideration of compensable damages. The parties then settled the case and no new Court action was undertaken. He explained that a shorter moratorium is better and the more extensive, deeper planning you have, the better. Councilmember Haas Steffen felt that the settling out of court meant that the City paid. Motion by Councilmember Haas Steffen and seconded by Mayor Gamec to direct staff to draft an ordinance placing a moratorium on development for six months and during that time, apply to the Met Council before May 30, to receive discretionary funds for creative planning. This would allow the City to use the moratorium to put an environmental section in the plan and look at density with consideration of setbacks, community septic systems, and planning cluster homes and take a proactive approach to land that may have been sold that is currently used as farm land. The moratorium should not include development of commercial or industrial, Alpine Park Addition and the Apple Ridge subdivision. Staff should also look at planners who have done creative development in other cities. During revision of the comprehensive plan, public hearings for input should be held. Further discussion: Zoning Administrator Frolik stated that the City has received an additional request for rezoning and a sketch plan for a 20-acre parcel on the north side of 153rd from Good Value Homes. Councilmember Haas Steffen did not believe that would be a problem. Ms. Frolik noted the 60-day time frame. Mr. Goodrich stated that if the moratorium is effective, this development would be pending the moratorium lifted. Councilmember Beyer stated that, in excluding a couple developments, there was the question of having green space between trees and subdivisions. Wouldn't that be part of the moratorium - why exclude a plat? Mayor Gamec stated that we have a chance to work with some. Councilmember Haas Steffen stated that Alpine was sold in good faith. The ability to address screening, etc. already exists. She stated that she is not willing to include Apple Ridge because of where she thought we are legally, plus, she saw headway being made. Councilmember Beyer stated that Councilmember Haas Steffen's motion was for six months, so she felt Apple Ridge should not be included. Councilmember Haas Steffen cautioned there are a lot of legal questions. Councilmember Beyer stated that if the legal questions do take six months and we are over one half the time into our comprehensive review so that will disallow them from doing things in this subdivision to look at creative financing. Councilmember Haas Steffen stated she felt it will not stop them from doing creative things. This developer is talking about saving trees and making bigger lots. She felt he should continue working with these people. He took care of a lot of concerns. She stated she is interested in staying out of legal problems and dealing fairly with people. Councilmember Zimmerman felt that a six-month moratorium is not long enough. City Council/February 25, 1997 Page 23 of 28