My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Minutes - Council - 10/22/2002
Ramsey
>
Public
>
Minutes
>
Council
>
2002
>
Minutes - Council - 10/22/2002
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/25/2025 12:10:26 PM
Creation date
5/7/2003 7:55:58 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Type
Council
Document Date
10/22/2002
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
38
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
involves construction of a new building is where they need to hold off for a short time. The <br />Council always has the authority to lift a moratorium on a piece of property if they so choose. <br /> <br />Ron Touchette stated that the concern he would have is that the property is an investment <br />property so they want to look at how they can have their investment grow and how can they do <br />that when there is a moratorium on the property. The City is actively pursuing all of the <br />properties to bring them up to City Code so the City is asking them to spend a lot of money to <br />comply with City ordinance only to do nothing with the property. He has no choice but to put <br />the blacktop in, but when he does that, he can't do anything with it. He stated that if the City <br />places a moratorium on the property then they should place a moratorium on requiring the <br />property owners to improve their properties. <br /> <br />Mayor Gamec replied that he agreed with that. <br /> <br />Ernest Miller, Deals on Wheels, stated that the letter he received in regards to the moratorium <br />indicated the back parcel would be included, but not the front parcel. He inquired if his front <br />parcel would be included as well. <br /> <br />Mayor Gamec replied yes. He explained that the moratorium would include all the property <br />north of Highway #10 and south of the railroad tracks within the City limits. <br /> <br />Mr. Miller stated that a two-year moratorium is too long. He suggested that they place a six- <br />month moratorium on the property. <br /> <br />Mayor Gamec stated that he does want to address the issue quickly so that the property owners <br />know what to do with their properties. <br /> <br />Mr. Miller stated that if has to sell his property while the moratorium is in affect, then the value <br />of the property is reduced. He inquired as to who would have to take that loss. <br /> <br />Mayor Gamec replied that a property owner can always request that the moratorium be lifted on <br />the property. <br /> <br />Mr. Miller inquired if there was any way to reduce the length of the moratorium. <br /> <br />Mayor Gamec replied that he would hope to have some answers by February or March. <br /> <br />Sarah Bisset, Realtor representing 7665 Highway #10, stated that they have been trying to get as <br />much information as to what is being planned for Highway #10 from MnDOT, but most of the <br />information is being withheld. She stated that in the few conversations she has had with <br />MnDOT, they have indicated that the project is 15 to 25 years away at a minimum. Currently <br />she has buyers for the property that would have no problem with their busineSs existing for 25 <br />years. She stated that she did not understand why the moratorium could not wait until the <br />Highway #10 plan was concrete. The moratorium is scaring away very possible buyers. <br /> <br />City Council/October 22, 2002 <br /> Page 9 of 37 <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.