Agenda - Council - 11/12/2002 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

-148- Councilmember Kurak inquired if the City starts making demands On the businesses along Highway #10 to upgrade their property and than place the property in a moratorium what legal issues is the City facing. City Attorney Goodrich reviewed State ordinance relating to moratoriums explaining that a moratorium can be put in place initially for a period of one year and can be extended for an additional ! 8 months in six month intervals. The City cam-~ot stop development that has received preliminary approval prior to the effective date of the moratorium. Mr. Goodrich stated that the Council needs to decide what prohibitions they want to include. Typically the City-has restricted rezoning and subdividing of property during a moratorium, but in this instance that may not be extensive enough. He stated that the Council needs to focus on the issuance of building permits and the question is would that be on new buildings, remodeling, or site improvements: Councilmember Kurak stated that it has been brought to her attention that her husband has an interest on a property that will be discussed. She requested direction as to whether or not she should abstain from further discussion on the matter. City Attorney Goodrich replied that if Councilmember Kurak felt that she was not able to represent the best interest of the City on the matter than it would be a conflict of interest for her to continue on with the discussion of the issue. Councilmember Kurak stated that she was not in favor of the moratorium, but was going to abstain from voting on the issue. Ron ?, owner of three properties along Highway #10 (Discount Liquor and Fleetwood Collision Center) stated that if they place a moratorium on his property they still have to pay taxes on their property even thought they are unable to do anything with the property. He explained that they are currently working w/th the City to upgrade his properties, and now the City is going to be forcing them to spend money to upgrade his property that he can do nothing with.. He also noted that he has a development agreement with the City for a phase III project, which he will be unable to do under the moratorium. He inquired as to what he will be allowed to with his property. His understanding is that outside storage is not permitted and if that is the case that limits what the property owners can do with their property. The property owners need to have some relief from the City if they can't do anything with the property. He felt that it was premature to have a moratorium when almost certainly the project will be 10 years or more away. He stated that property owners can't be asked to sit on their property for 10 years and then sell it to the City. Mayor Gamec agreed, which is why he felt the City needed to make a quick decision. He stated that the Council needs to make a fm2 decision for the property owners so that they know where they stand. He emphasized that it could be ten years before Highway # 10 is upgraded, but if the funding is made available it could be done in five years, He understands that it is a very difficult situation for the property owners. Mayor Garnet stated that he personally did not have a problem City Council/October 22, 2002 Page 8 of 38 I I i I I I I I I I I I I I I I I