Laserfiche WebLink
• If all properties are not ready to develop at the same time, paying for the <br />improvements needed to serve the Brausen property will have some type of impact on <br />the Acosta/Boog properties. That is to say if they are not ready to subdivide their <br />properties, but roads and utilities are installed, some cost allowance will need to be <br />provided for at the outset of the project to apportion improvement costs between the <br />three properties. One option would be to levy a special assessment if this is done as a <br />City improvement (that option should not be assumed). With costs that could be <br />close to $50,000 per lot, this could force them to sell their property to pay for <br />assessments even though they would prefer not to. A second option would be to defer <br />the assessments until the property actually develops. (Again, this assumes the City <br />has been involved in assessing costs.) The problem with this option is while <br />payments don't have to be made at the front end; interest does accrue on the <br />outstanding balance. A third option would be to have the Brausens pay for all the <br />improvement costs at the front end. However, this will still require some type of cost <br />recovery methodology or the Brausens would end up subsidizing the other two <br />property owners. <br />• Another issue is grading. A detailed review has not been conducted, but in the City <br />Engineer's cursory review, he feels the area will need fill to get pad sites set at the <br />proper elevation to make utility and street grades work in this area. He made a rough <br />estimate that it would take $20,000 of fill for the Brausen property alone. <br />• Drainage also needs to be considered. How is storm water ponding handled? Also, if <br />filling is needed, what impact does this have on the Acosta/Boog property if they are <br />not ready to be developed at this time? <br />Other Vacation Considerations: <br />Attachment #5 is the League of Minnesota Cities Information Memo dealing with the <br />Vacation of City Streets. This provides excellent background material for the vacation <br />process including procedures and considerations. Here are some of the key items for your <br />review: <br />➢ The City initiated the vacation. Therefore, it takes four affirmative votes to finalize <br />this process. <br />➢ The decision to vacate is legislative in nature (see Page 5 of the LMC Memo). To <br />grant a vacation, the Council needs to find that the vacation is "in the interest of the <br />public ". <br />➢ The City does not determine who gains the underlying fee interest in the easement if <br />the vacation is approved. That decision is made by Ramsey County. However, the <br />developer has done research into this matter and believes the benefit of the vacation <br />will accrue to 2966 Arcade (see Attachment #6). <br />➢ By vacating this easement, are peculiar damages being created? From an access <br />standpoint, no property is being completely denied access as they all have access to <br />LaBore Road. (It is important to note that the rear portion of the Brausen property is <br />not a separate parcel of land, but rather is contained within the parcel owned by Dan <br />Brausen at 3001 LaBore Road.) Furthermore, the City Attorney's office has reviewed <br />this matter in detail and opined that the City will not subject to damages (see <br />Attachment #7). <br />4 <br />