Laserfiche WebLink
Case #5: Review Proposed Development Moratorium <br /> <br />Chairperson Steffen felt that, because of the proposed Apple Ridge subdivision, the City Council <br />is faced with a request for a moratorium on approving subdivisions and that this moratorium <br />request was accompanied by a proposed Charter amendment and if the moratorium is not placed on <br />this development, he felt that action would be taken on the draft amendment. The proposed <br />amendment deals with placing higher density subdivisions next to a much lower density <br />subdivision. <br /> <br />Commissioner Anderson inquired if the City is authorized to establish a moratorium. <br /> <br />Chairperson Steffen replied that the City Council can indeed establish a moratorium, however, <br />there is a very serious legal question about whether or not a moratorium could be placed on this <br />(Apple Ridge) development. This is a planning issue and if they choose not to do it or do it, <br />should we allow development of the City to be deterred by an isolated Charter amendment. <br /> <br />Commissioner Anderson felt that it seems to be a legal issue with the MUSA line. <br /> <br />Chairperson Steffen stated that this is also a land sale issue. Can a Charter amendment be brought <br />again with a retroactive feature in which you displace an ordinance which previously existed and <br />one which people relied on. <br /> <br />City Administrator Schroeder reported that this piece of property, in November 1993, had a public <br />hearing to consider a comprehensive plan amendment that included bringing this property into the <br />Urban Services District. The City submitted the request to the Metropolitan Council and they <br />approved it. This land is in the MUSA and the owner sold it as such. The value seems to be about <br />$1 million because in the MUSA, you have a right to have a certain density. The City Attorney has <br />cautioned the City to be careful if we adopt this moratorium. If we are found to be arbitrary in our <br />action, there may be actions that can be taken by the seller and the developer. <br /> <br />Chairperson Steffen inquired if a moratorium would be actionable by this land owner or developer <br />as being arbitrary, would a passage of a Charter amendment also place the City with liability. <br /> <br />Mr. Schroeder replied that he raised that question. It seems to him we would have a worse <br />situation at that point. <br /> <br />Chairperson Steffen suggested the City Council should say "why don't we mediate this kind of <br />matter. Let City staff, City Council and the City Attorney work with you and try to resolve this on <br />common ground". There is no way to force that issue but it may force someone to say he (the draft <br />Charter amendment presenter) refused a legitimate attempt to resolve this issue. <br /> <br />Commissioner Kiefer asked if it's possible to put a moratorium on Charter amendments. <br /> <br />Chairperson Steffen stated that somehow you need to take on this kind of mischief of misusing <br />minority power to create these amendments. The voters see it as "can the government do this to <br />us"? Everyone is anti-government. The voters are not looking at these amendments as "are they <br />fair, are they good?" We have not found a successful way of dealing with this. <br /> <br />Commissioner Anderson asked if there are any subjects inappropriate for coverage in the Charter. <br /> <br />Chairperson Steffen responded that you cannot create a crime, you cannot make something illegal. <br />He did not know of any restrictions as long as it's in the legitimate power of the City. To say we <br />will not allow any new houses is probably a legitimate subject. <br /> <br />Charter Commission/February 20, 1997 <br /> Page 2 of 3 <br /> <br /> <br />