Agenda - Council - 07/12/2005 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

and to line up the access with the Lord of Life church accesses that are proposed.. Sept 1996. Staff' declines to make an "Administrative Subdivision" of the 2 lots into'one parcel fbr the development I was proposing. Part of the reasoning was My position on the P and Z. Jan 1997. A city wide Urban development moratorium. I am informed by staff'that they cannot accept any development proposal for my property. At this time I have the needed urban services at the property, that were installed in 1994 because of my petition. I believe that at this time, I was allowed to use the total property area, including that in use by CSAH 5 (Nowthen Blvd). Some facts as I see them. That the property tax paid is formulated using ALL of the property description, and stated as 1 acre on the tax statement. That Fee title is retained on the land under Nowthen Blvd right of way. That this property and the one adjacent on the north boundary m-e the .only properties in the city with city sewer services in and paid for, and no development agreement in place, which is also a unique situation. That the urban, and rural formula changes came out of adjustments made during and after the moratorium, and after my leaving the P and Z commission. It Was common in the past to include CSA road area in figuring gross unit density, a practice put in place in my first years on the P and Z to compensate land owners for the additional ROW we would require them to give up at the time of development. The ROW's were being expanded, and/or reserved for future road easements from the minimum 33 ft that was common. And setback of structures were also sufficient to allow the added ROW to be obtained if needed. That the shape of the property does not allow figuring these density numbers with normal len~h times width calculations. This rural/urban formula causes a hardship in the case of this property, and might be considered discriminatory against the property. The delays caused by the 1997 Moratorium also are resulting in a substantial hardship, in that the cost to construct the building has nearly.doubled during the moratorium period, while the rents for the proposed 8 units has only increased less than 10 percent since 1997. This creates a hardship in that 6 units now allowed by the formula would not sustain the financing and maintenance for the construction of only 6 or even 7 units on the property. That the rental unks being proposed will be an asset to the city where there is only one other standard rental building at the current time. I also state that the traffic to and from the property will not be increased substantially, because the business use as allowed will generate 20 to 40 vehicle trips a day in the future, and 8 units with 4 vehicle trips each daily would be in the same range. It should also be noted that the original UMB-2 zoning allowed up to I4 units per acre at the location, so even with the current rural/urban formula, the property at one time could support up to 12 units or more. Granted it would be difficult to get that much structure onto this property. -241-