Laserfiche WebLink
Councihnember Cook stated that he did not think it was fair to have Mr. Touchette agree to an <br />ordinance that has not been adopted by the City Council. If staff is telling the Council that the <br />plan complies with the proposed ordinance then he was comfortable with that. <br /> <br />Mr. Touchette stated that he agrees that the highway has to go some place and as a community, <br />people will be inconvenienced, but the language in the ordinance puts property owners along <br />Highway #10 at a distinct disadvantage. If the City starts placing the restrictions on the <br />businesses along the corridor they will not be able to rent or sell their properties. <br /> <br />Councilmember Elvig replied that what Mr. Touchette is saying may very well be true. At this <br />point lie did not think that asking Mr. Touchette to abide to an ordinance that the Council had not <br />reviewed themselves was fair. The City does have a moratorium on the property, which is only <br />for six ~nonths, and they have really put pressure on MnDOT to officially map the property. He <br />understands that the applicant is trying to do something to improve the property in order to lease <br />it so he did not believe that the ordinance, as currently written, would negatively impact him. At <br />least for the next two months, while the moratorium is on, would Mr. Touchette be agreeable to <br />not increasing the value of the property. <br /> <br />Councilmember Strommen stated that this is one case where what is being proposed is minimal, <br />but she wants to avoid everyone along the corridor trying to come forward with a request before <br />all ordinance is put in place. <br /> <br />Cmmcihnember Cook stated that there was a list of guidelines that have to be met in order to <br />request a variance to the moratorium and in this case they have a situation where a property <br />owner is trying to improve their property so that he can lease it. <br /> <br />Motion by Councilmember Cook, seconded by Councilmember Kurak, to adopt Resolution #03- <br />12-322 to approve Mr. Touchette's request for an exception to the Highway #10 moratorium <br />established in Ordinance #03-27. <br /> <br />Further discussion: Councilmember Kurak stated that the points being made are all valid. It is a <br />concern that the City might be flooded with requests to upgrade their property, but there is not a <br />lot of time for that to happen. She did review the proposed ordinance and was comfortable with <br />staff' informing them that the plan meets the intent of the ordinance. She felt that the proposed <br />improvenmnts were minor enough to not greatly impact the value of the property, but will clean <br />up the area, which is why she seconded the motion. Mayor Gamec inquired as to what <br />percentage of new space was going to be added to the building. Mr. Touchette replied very <br />minimal. Mayor Game stated that they could include language in the development agreement <br />stating that the new space cannot exceed a certain amount of square footage. Personally in this <br />case lie felt itnproving the property far outweighed what the increase may be. Councilmember <br />Elvig stated that in order to protect the City would Mr. Touchette agree that the small area being <br />added on be held to a certain value over the next couple of months to a par value with the rest of <br />the building. He agreed that the improvements were very acceptable, but the increase in building <br />size could create a large problem. Mayor Gamec replied that the problem is that the County <br />would have to freeze his property value otherwise he will have to pay taxes on the improvements. <br /> <br />City Council/December 9, 2003 <br /> Page 13 of 23 <br /> <br /> <br />