CC_Minutes_2006_1218 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

City Council Regular Meeting - 12/18/06 Minutes - Page 16 involved in planned unit developments, any replatting or recombination or changing of lot lines, or any other action which otherwise creates one or more new lots, within the boundaries of the City of Roseville." Discussion ensued regarding specific language of the proposed ordinance; existing case law; and zoning request implications and/or exemptions. Councilmember Ihlan opined that eliminating zoning language allowed a substantial loophole for potential developers; and further opined that rezoning language be included as an enumerated action in the ordinance. Additional discussion included exemption requests and potential hardships; City Attorney Anderson's determination that anything denser than R-l would not be covered by the proposed moratorium language as currently written; and legalities for adopting a moratorium and exempting certain parcels, with City Attorney Anderson opining that such action would not be legal, as the Council would be differentiating one property from a whole class or like- or similarly-situated properties, with potential legal challenges based on the arbitrary nature of the moratorium and/or equal protection rights. Further discussion included staffs projection for the amount of time necessary for a study, with staff preferring 90 days, rather than 60; commonalities experienced in other first-ring suburbs; and the possible need for the Planning Commission to schedule additional meetings to study the issue. Councilmember Maschka opined that the study may not change the end product. City Attorney sought staffs assistance in obtaining a copy of Minn. Stat. Sec. 462.355 for clarification of whether the moratorium could be extended or not; opining that retaining language allowing up to a one-year period, with the option to shorten that time if the study was completed, would be more prudent, with a minimum of 120 days.