Agenda - Planning Commission - 02/05/2004

Home

P60 Mr. Touchette stated that he agrees that the highway has to go some place and as a community, people will be inconvenienced, but the language in the ordinance puts property owners along Highway #10 at a distinct disadvantage. If the City starts placing the restrictions on the businesses along the corridor they will not be able to rent or sell their properties. Councilmember Elvig replied that what Mr. Touchette is saying may very well be true. At this point he did not think that asking Mr. Touchette to abide to an ordinance that the Council had not reviewed themselves was fair. The City does have a moratorium on the property, which is only for six months, and they have really put pressure on MnDOT to officially map the property. He understands that the applicant is trying to do something to improve the property in order to lease it so he did not believe that the ordinance, as cu~ently written, would negatively impact him. At least for the next two months, while the moratorium is on, would Mr. Touchette be agreeable to not increasing the value of the property. Councilmember Strommen stated that this is one case where what is being proposed is minimal, but she wants to avoid everyone along the corridor trying to come forward with a request before an ordinance is put in place. Councilmember Cook stated that there was a list of guidelines that have to be met in order to request a variance to the moratorium and in this case they have'a situation where a property owner is trying to improve their property so that he can lease it. Motion by Councilmember Cook, seconded by C0uncilmember Kurak, to adopt Resolution #03- i2-322 to approve Mr. Touchette's request for an exception to the Highway #10 moratorium established in Ordinance #03-27. Further discussion: Councilmember Kurak stated that the points being made are all valid. It is a concern that the City might be flooded with requests to upgrade their property, but there is not a lot of time for that to happen. She did review the proposed ordinance and was comfortable with staff informing them that the plan meets the intent of the ordinance. She felt that the proposed improvements were minor enough to not greatly impact the value of the property, but will clean up the area, which is why she seconded the motion. Mayor Gamec inquired as to what percentage of new space was going to be added to the building. Mr. Touchette replied very minimal. Mayor Game stated that they could include language in the development agreement stating that the new space cannot exceed a certain amount of square footage. Personally in .this case he felt improving the property far outweighed what the increase may be. Councilmember Elvig stated that in order to protect the City would Mr. Touchette agree that the small area being added on be held to a certain value over the next couple of months to a par value with the rest of the building. He agreed that the improvements were very acceptable, but the increase in building size could create a large problem. Mayor Gamec replied that the problem is that the County would have to freeze his property value otherwise he will have to pay taxes on the improvements. City Administrator Norman noted that the City Council has added language to other development agreements that the property owner would not be able to re-coop the increased value of the new footage in the future. City Attorney Goodrich replied that the issue as he sees it in 10 years is that the appraiser is going to have to appraise the property and then deduct the values of the addition, which could be difficult to do. Councilmember Elvig replied · that it may not be possible 10 years down the road, but it does prevent the City receiving a City Council/December 9, 2003 Page 12 of 21