Laserfiche WebLink
MINU7'ES <br />CITY COUNCIL <br />J'ULY 13, 1994 <br />provisions of State Law a public hearing was not <br />required. <br />Morelan asked if a moratorium would affect building <br />permits for maintenance items such as reroofing. <br />The City Attorney replied that it would depending on <br />the way the proposed ordinance is worded. However, the <br />ordinance can be crafted to cover any situation. <br />Morelan felt that in enacting the moratorium it is the <br />Council's desire not to let a property owner make large <br />improvements, rather than to prevent required <br />maintenance. <br />LaValle suggested that a property owner wishing to do <br />building maintenance can make such a request of the <br />Council. <br />Hanson suggested that the Planning Commission be asked <br />to comment on the moratorium. Hanson stated that he <br />could see the safeguards of enacting a moratorium, but <br />pointed out the extra hoops that it would require. <br />The Council was asked if the TIF District is recorded <br />somewhere so that a potential buyer is aware of it. <br />The City Administrator reported that the TIF District <br />is not recorded but rather filed with the County and <br />the State. <br />Morelan pointed out that since some of the Rice Street <br />properties are for sale, now would be the time to enact <br />a moratorium. <br />Hanson pointed out that the Rice Street property owners <br />have not been advised of the City's intention to adopt <br />a moratorium. Hanson stated that he did not want to <br />unnecessarily hamper these property owners. <br />Morelan felt that even thouqh a moratorium may be in <br />place, the Council would use common sense in acting on <br />permits for maintenance-type items. Morelan asked if <br />there would be any r.eason not to enact the moratorium. <br />The City Attorney replied that the Council could vary <br />from the ordinance at any given moment. <br />7 <br />