Laserfiche WebLink
previous councils. He added that he did not want to live in the past and he would like to work with <br />this and come up with a good solution. <br /> <br />Mr. Hendriksen stated that his experience of almost 15 years on the Planning Commission is that <br />we have no mechanism to ask developers to plan at less than the maximum density. They have <br />never made a significant reduction to less than the maximum to fit in with adjacent properties. <br />Some people will have five new neighbors adjacent their property line according to the way this is <br />proposed. If this moves forward, the City will be in a position where they cannot enact a <br />moratorium. <br /> <br />Councilmember Haas Steffen stated that Mr. Hendriksen is suggesting that Council could adopt a <br />moratorium and stop the development in Apple Ridge. There has to be some legal review. There <br />are rights of people other than those who are living in the adjacent neighborhood. To come tonight <br />and ask Council to adopt a moratorium without conferring with the Planning Commission and <br />without legal advice is way out of line. <br /> <br />Mr. Hendriksen, to Attorney Goodrich, this is in your power - the purpose of a moratorium is to <br />study these issues mentioned. <br /> <br />Councilmember Haas Steffen stated that she knows Mr. Goodrich will have to review this. <br />There's a legal procedure that will be open to the developer and to the seller. <br /> <br />Attorney Goodrich stated that he has been asked to look into the process of a moratorium. He <br />quoted State Statutes 462.355 Subd. 4 interim ordinance which states "If a municipality is <br />conducting studies or has authorized a study to be conducted or has held or has scheduled a <br />hearing for the purpose of considering adoption or amendment of a comprehensive plan or official <br />controls as defined in section 462.352, subdivision 15, or if new territory for which plans or <br />controls have not been adopted is annexed to a municipality, the governing body of the <br />municipality may adopt an interim ordinance applicable to all or part of its jurisdiction for the <br />purpose of protecting the planning process and the health, safety and welfare of its citizens. The <br />interim ordinance may regulate, restrict or prohibit any use, development, or subdivision within the <br />jurisdiction or a portion thereof for a period not to exceed one year from the date it is effective, and <br />may be extended for such additional periods as the municipality may deem appropriate, not <br />exceeding a total additional period of 18 months. No interim ordinance may halt, delay, or impede <br />a subdivision which has been given preliminary approval prior to the effective date of the interim <br />ordinance." We have a four-tiered process - the subdivision application, the sketch plan, the <br />preliminary plat approval and the final plat approval. The key here is whether or not we have given <br />preliminary plat approval. We need to introduce an ordinance fn'st and three days later we could <br />bring it up for final adoption. Then it becomes the law of the City pending 30 days of review by <br />the Charter. The City has the authority to impose a moratorium but that authority is limited. It can <br />only be for the protection of the planning process. We have to be seriously considering amending <br />our comprehensive plan, etc. A moratorium cannot be placed to delay a single process - you may <br />not identify a project. The moratorium has to be enacted in good faith. If we adopt it - a developer <br />can sue the City saying we were arbitrarily capricious in that action. Mr. Goodrich also quoted <br />results fi'om the Woodbury Partners vs. the City of Woodbury. Depending on how it's done and <br />what our reasons are, we could expose ourselves to damages. <br /> <br />Mr. Hendriksen felt that the City has suffered through two years of playing out the Fox <br />Knoll/l-taubrich issue in the public. We do not want that again. Residents have rights and the <br />quality of life is important. This is not to stop a single project although this project is what's <br />crystalizing our view of this. <br /> <br />John Peterson, developer, felt that this is clearly directed toward Apple Ridge. We want to <br />develop this project and we feel it would be an asset. To say that a developer has not agreed to go <br /> <br />City Council/February 11, 1997 <br /> Page 12 of 14 <br /> <br /> <br />