Agenda - Council - 08/12/1997 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

o ment of contract and therefore unconstitutional as applied to specific development contracts the-City has entered into with developers prior to the effective date of the A~endment, assuming it does become law. The Amendment text is ambiguous and therefore perhaps unenforceable because the text requires the subject property (new plat) to conform in density to the density of existing residential lots where there is a common border. However, no provision is made in the case of a new plat which has more than one common border with existing residential lots of varying density. No direction in the text is given as to which density the new plat is to conform with. The following Amendment text interpretation problems exist: The Amendment text, read literally requires that the density of a new plat shall be the least density of (i) the existing property immediately adjoining the subject property, or (ii) one platted lot per acre. In the event the new plat is adjacent to existing residential lots which are larger than one acre in size, the lesser density requirement would dictate the largest lot size. It is believed the drafters of the Amendment did not intend this result, however, this is the Amendment text which was circulated by the five member committee. New plats that do not share common borders with existing residential property are presumably exempt from the Amendment, except if located within 1000 feet of an existing residential property, a graduated density plan must be provided to the city. No direction in the Amendment is given as to what the graduated density plan is to require. Periodically, the City approves minor~plats of two or three lots. The traffic generation analysis requirement of the Amendment applies to all real property platted within the MUSA. Therefore, these small plats will need to provide a traffic generation analysis which may be a financial hardship for a property owner simply dividing his single lot to create an additional lot. Zoning, by ~harter Amendment is a rare occurrence in Minnesota. This is true because such a zoning circumvents the governmental process for careful zoning consideration including the public hearing process and eliminates the property owner's opportunity to have the City's zoning decision reviewed by the Court system; and 2 I I I '1 I I I i I I I I I I I I I I I