Laserfiche WebLink
of appeals denies the request the property owner would then have the opportunity to appeal to the <br />district court. <br /> <br />Councilmembe Kurak stated that she was very concerned about getting into a reverse <br />condemnation situation. <br /> <br />Ms. Ruehle replied that the City might want to negotiate with the property owners of vacant land. <br />The H-10rdinancel that was presented to the Council at the last meeting identified what would <br />be allowed to happen on property along the Highway #10 corridor. Once those guidelines are in <br />place that would be:tied to the official mapping document. <br /> <br />Mayor Gamec stated that at this point he personally wants to lift the moratorium. They have <br />people along Highway #10 who want to sell their property, but are not able to and yet they are <br />being required to pay assessments on a pipe that they are not even using. The City has to figure <br />out something With the assessments or let the property owners develop their land. Mayor Gamec <br />stated that he would like to allow for a short period of time between the expiration of the <br />moratorium and when the official map is adopted to allow property owners the opportunity to sell <br />their land and develop. Part of that process should include a contract or an agreement between <br />the City and the developer of the property that would indicate a maximum property value. The <br />City put in a pipe along some of these properties that was to be used for development and the <br />City is taxing the property owners for the pipe therefore the City should allow the property <br />owners to sell their property and allow development to occur. <br /> <br />Assistant Director of Public Works Olson replied that if the City does not have an ordinance <br />placing certain restrictions on development along Highway #10 the City does not have anything <br />to require that the developer freeze their value by a certain percentage. <br /> <br />Mayor Gamec stated that he does not understand why they would not allow a property owner to <br />develop their land at this time when ultimately the City is going to allow development in the <br />area. <br /> <br />Councilmelnber Cook stated that if he understood the information correctly if a landowner wants <br />to sell their land they would have to prove a hardship, but the City is able to negotiate for land <br />without the hardship requirement. <br /> <br />Mr. Tinklenberg explained that when the City creates the ordinance the City will define what the <br />options are for the City and what the provisions and standards are that would have to be met for <br />each of those options to occur. <br /> <br />Councilmember Cook stated that he thought the City would be better off completing the official <br />mapping process and then negotiate with those property owners who are interested in selling their <br />property rather than giving the property owners a six-week period to try and develop their land. <br /> <br />Mr. Tinklenberg replied that another option for the City would be to buy the property and then <br />allow the property to be leased back until the property is needed for highway improvements. He <br />stated that he has heard from the Council from the beginning that they want to be able to <br /> <br />City Council Work Session/January 6, 2004 <br /> Page 3 of 13 <br /> <br /> <br />