CC_Minutes_2006_1120 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

City Council Study Session - 11/20/06 Minutes - Page 9 important for him in drafting language for the proposed moratorium; and more clearly defined the Council's need to place a moratorium on minor subdivisions/recombinations as set forth in existing ordinance. Councilmember Ihlan opined the need to make the moratorium broach enough to not allow potential developers to get around it to allow the study to proceed. Councilmember Pust opined that a study could be done without a moratorium in place for up to 12 months, given the number of issues identified by the City Council and the need for decision- making. Councilmember Maschka noted that a moratorium can be ended anytime by vote of the City Council. City Attorney Anderson noted that there were two pending land use cases for which the City had extended the 60-day review period; and suggested that the City Council send several of the identified possibilities to the Planning Commission as part of the study; and that the moratorium would allow time to do that, as well as public notice issues he would address later. Mayor Klausing opined that he was supportive of a study, since a moratorium seemed a draconian action, and the study could be finished in a broad sense; but noted that getting to a legislative proposal could take longer and require the moratorium. Councilmember Ihlan opined that the whole purpose of the moratorium statute was to allow cities to do rationale studies, insulate the study process from pressures, and allowing for public input. Councilmember Ihlan further opined that the City Council needed to respond to neighborhoods and policy issues that weren't being addressed to resident satisfaction. Mr. Stark noted the conflicting policies and those conflicting statements coming out of the community visioning process related to preserving large lots while increasing density; and compliance with Metropolitan Council housing requirements as well.