2006-08-21 CC PACKET - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Larkin Hofman ♦TTOR NEYS June 16, 2006 Mayor Paul Emeott Gem Lake City Council 1369 County Road E Gem Lake, Minnesota 55110 Re: Proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendments Dear Mayor Emeott and Councilmembers: Iarldn Hoffman Daly & Lindgren Ltd. 1500 Wells Fargo Plaza 7900 Xerxes Avenue South Minneapolis, Minnesota 55431-1194 GENERai, 952-835-3800 Fax: 952-896-3333 WLU: wwwlarldnhoffinan.com We write on behalf of the 1,850 — member Builders Association of the Twin Cities to comment on proposed amendments to the Gem Lake Zoning Ordinance ("Ordinance"). We understand that the City Council will vote on the proposed changes on June 19, 2006. We respect the City Council's discretion to amend its regulatory standards to protect the health, safety, and welfare of its citizens. However, we ask that the City Council explicitly grandfather all residential developments that have received final plat approval under the existing Zoning Ordinance, due to the substantial investments made by any applicant under its standards. Minnesota law provides protections for applicants who have received final plat approval under local regulations: "For one year following a preliminary approval and for two years following final approval, ... no amendment to a comprehensive plan of official control shall apply to or affect the use, development density, lot size, lot layout, or dedication or platting required to be permitted by the approved application. Thereafter, ... the municipality ... may require submission of a new application unless substantial physical activity has occurred in reasonable reliance on the approved application and the subdivider will suffer financial damage as a consequence of a requirement to submit a new application." Minn. Stat. § 462.358, subd. 3c. This statute provides protections against new municipal requirements that prevent a developer from completing a project as originally approved, especially if an applicant who has gained approval from the City Council has begun development under the terms of the final approval. The Hillary Farm Development is one specific example where the developer, McNulty Company ("McNulty"), has received final plat approval and begun or completed construction of three homes in the development under the existing standards. We believe that McNulty's reliance affords additional protections under the statute, beyond the two year period tied to final plat approval.