Laserfiche WebLink
Tom Wallrich, Fafinski, Wallrich & Roos, representing TSM Development, stated they have <br />three concerns. He explained that, based on the purchase price from Mr. Johnson, it cannot be <br />economically developed at three units per acre so they would object to a rezoning from industrial <br />to the proposed urban rural transitional zoning. Secondly, they received no notice of the change <br />of designation. He stated they did submit a site plan requesting approval and this is their first <br />request for a moratorium. Mr. Wallrich stated the City has the authority to adopt a moratorium <br />but to adopt it and then extend it in six month increments is not authorized by statute. He stated <br />this is an economic problem. Mr. Wallrich stated they purchased the property prior to 1998, it is <br />a small parcel, and the surrounding uses are neither commercial, industrial, nor urban rural <br />transition. Rather, the uses are residential. He stated they are proposing a compatible use and a <br />nice product on this site. Mr. Wallrich stated the proposed zoning in the Comprehensive Plan <br />leaves them with no economic use and they request approval of the requested exception. <br /> <br />Mayor Gamec commented on the great difference between three units and 14.5 units per acre as <br />being requested. <br /> <br />Mr. Wallrich stated the existing zoning is industrial which is out of character for this location. <br />He stated they request higher density and believe the three units per acre is not reasonable. <br /> <br />Councilmember Colmolly commented on the impact of additional traffic to Highway #116 which <br />is already heavy. <br /> <br />City Attorney Goodrich stated the action tonight is concerning only the moratorium exception, <br />not the zoning or amending the Comprehensive Plan considerations. <br /> <br />Mayor Gamec stated there are problems in looking at removing the moratorium in other areas <br />and he believes it will take some time to look at this property. He stated the general consensus <br />for this site was the lower density. <br /> <br />Councilmember Zimmerman stated he has a copy of the draft November 9, 1998 Plan, which <br />shows urban residential transition for this parcel and that is what was identified on the Plan <br />submitted to the Metropolitan Council for their review. <br /> <br />Councilmember Hendriksen stated the crux of the issue is whether the Council will allow them to <br />proceed. He stated that given the uncertainty around the Plan, he cannot see how the Council <br />could consider exempting this parcel. <br /> <br />Councihnember Connolly concurred. <br /> <br />City Attorney Goodrich recommended the adoption of findings of fact and to direct Staff to <br />prepare findings of fact in the negative for consideration at a subsequent meeting. <br /> <br />City Council/April 11, 2000 <br /> Page 19 of 27 <br /> <br /> <br />