Laserfiche WebLink
The n~eeting was recessed at 8:55 p.m. and reopened at 9:05 p.m. <br /> <br />Case #9: Acquisition of 14140 Azurite St NW <br /> <br />City Attorney Goodrich explained staff has been directed.by the EDA to facilitate development <br />and redevelopment activity and to acquire properties in the City's Development District No. 1 as <br />willing sellers put their properties on the market. Staff has obtained an appraisal and an <br />environmental assessment of the property and has presented an offer of $169,900 for the property <br />contingent on City Council approval. The acquisition of this property would be funded through <br />TIF District No. 2 with the possibility of receiving additional funding fi'om the EDA. Staff feels <br />that the acquisition of this property is consistent with the development pro,am of Tiff District <br />No. 2 and will promote quality development on the site. Staff has advised the owner of possible <br />relocation qualification and benefits. <br /> <br />Councilmenaber Eh, ig questioned w, hy the relocation procedure 'is required in this ca~e~ as it is a <br />straight-out pm-chase. <br /> <br />City Attorney Goodrich explained relocation benefits relate to eminent domain, however, the law <br />states that any time a municipal govermnent acquires property there could be relocation benefits <br />available. Staff does not foresee this as an issue, however, by law the City is required to give the <br />information to the property owner and they can seek out whatever counsel they would like. <br /> <br />Councihnember Pearson asked who determines the amoum of the relocation benefits. <br /> <br />City Attorney Goodrich replied the specified amount is determined by federal la,v, with amounts <br />based on moving expenses and relocation. <br /> <br />Motion by Councilmember Kurak, seconded by Councilmember Pearson, to enter into the <br />purchase agreement [o purchase 14140 Azurite Street NW. <br /> <br />Motion cart/ed. Voting Yes: Mayor Gamec, Councilmernbers Kurak, Pearson, Cook, Elvig, <br />Strommen, and Zimmerman. Voting No: None. <br /> <br />Case#10: Request for Amendment to an Approved Site Plan; Case of Paddock <br /> Investments <br /> <br />Assistant Community Development Director Trudgeon reviewed that on September 23, 2003, <br />Paddock lnvestlnents received site plan approval for a 10,976 manufacturing facility on the <br />property located on Azurite Street south of Sunwood Drive. Paddock h~vestments is now ready <br />to install the landscaping on their site, and is seeking an amendment to the landscaping plan <br />approved by the City Council. Several con2:nercial and industrial site plans were approved by <br />the City Council in 2003, which were reviewed and approved under the then-new Con-unercial <br />and Industrial Zoning Requirements. It quickly became apparent that the sl'u-ub requirements in <br />the new code were excessive and would be difficult to apply in new developments. On several of <br />these site plans, staff received direction to negotiate a more reasonable sl~a-ub requirement with <br /> <br />City Council/July 27, 2004 <br />Page 21 of 35 <br /> <br />-133- <br /> <br /> <br />