Laserfiche WebLink
negotiate wit, h. property owners realizing that each situation may be different. With that <br />information they have moved forward with the procedures to allow that to happen. <br /> <br />Councilmember Kurak stated that there are certain properties in the Mississippi subdrainage <br />district where ;the City installed a pipe to allow for future development, which the City is <br />requiring the property owners to pay for. The problem is that know the City is saying the <br />property owners are not able to develop their property. <br /> <br />Councihnember Zimmerman noted that there are some properties in the Mississippi subdrainage <br />district that are using that pipe. <br /> <br />Assistant DireCtor of Public Works Olson noted that the current moratorium does restrict <br />development, but the proposed ordinance does not prohibit development. <br /> <br />Councihnember Strommen stated that her understanding of the H-1 ordinance was that it was to <br />be a bridge betweeh the end of the moratorium and the implementation of the official mapping <br />process. She inquired if what the Mayor was proposing was different than that. <br /> <br />Mayor Gamec replied that he felt that the City may be getting a lot of pressure to develop the <br />area within the ;Mississippi subdrainage district in the near future. He stated that the City could <br />keep the moratorium in place and then consider lifting a moratorium on a specific parcel if <br />certain criteria are put in place. <br /> <br />Councilmember Pearson stated that if the City restricts development to less than 35 percent of <br />the surface area: the~ they are taking property owner's rights away. <br /> <br />Councilmember Kurak replied that that is exactly her concern because the pipe that was installed <br />within the MisSissippi subdrainage district was to allow for development. <br /> <br />Mr. Ruehle replied,that those properties within the Mississippi subdrainage district are unique <br />situations and may rieed to be handled differently. <br /> <br />Councihnember Zimmerman stated that the Council is getting to "bogged down" with the loss of <br />value, lie felt ~at the Council needed to look at bigger issues such as the Town Center, because <br />if they do not:have a good traffic situation near the Town Center it will hinder development. The <br />City needs to work with MnDOT to get some of the improvements to Highway #10 moving <br />forward. <br /> <br />Councilmember Kurak replied that she did not feel that the Council was pulling back, she felt <br />that they were trying to discuss the issues. She agreed that improvements need to be made to the <br />Highway #10 corridor and that it was very important that the City continue working with <br />MnDOT. That being said they also have to consider the rights of property owners. <br /> <br />Mi'. Tinklenberg stated that the City will have to have some standards in place that allows for <br />development to, occur, but within certain guidelines. Going much beyond that would be difficult <br />because each property owner will have different situations. <br /> <br />City Council Work Session/January 6, 2004 <br /> Page 4 of 13 <br /> <br /> <br />