03-27-2013 Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES CITY COUNCIL MARCH 27, 2013 road easement into the area and discussed options with various property owners. Then the Gervais Woods development occurred, and the result was that an access into the 2966 LaBore Road property at Cherry Hill Lane was preferred. The Administrator reported that the City has proposed to put in the infrastructure improvements for Pinetree Pond as public improvements assessing these costs back to the property on a short time frame. The Administrator reported in addition to the mortgage being repaid by Masterpiece Homes, the Pinetree Pond development will result in an increased tax base for the City. Steve Brausen asked if Masterpiece Homes has made any land dedications to the City for parks. The Administrator reported that the Parks Commission has reviewed the plat and is recommending that the park charge be taken in cash rather than land, which amounts to $2,600 per lot. Steve Brausen noted the City initiated the vacation of the 33 -foot road easement, and pointed out that Masterpiece Homes cannot ask for the vacation. The City Administrator clarified that the City initiated the vacation, but noted that in designing the Pinetree Ponds plat, Masterpiece Homes is relying on the vacation. The City Attorney stated that the City has the statutory right to initiate a vacation, and the grounds for approving a vacation is that it is in the public interest to do so. The Attorney stated that means the public would benefit in some manner from the vacation. The Attorney also stated that the public includes persons other than those in the immediate vicinity of the road to be vacated. Brausen noted that the information from the League of MN Cities includes court citations relative to vacations impairing future property development. The City Attorney stated that the cases cited are unique to the specific circumstances of those particular cases. Brausen stated that while he is not completely opposed to the vacation, it seems that there is a conflict on the City's part in acting on the vacation. He also noted the Brausen's position is that the ghost plat does not work, and indicated that the future street access into the Brausen property should be moved over one lot further. Brausen stated there is only one reason for the vacation, and questioned that this reason was for the good of the public. Brausen also asked what "public" meant, asking if it was the greater good for the community. Brausen also stated that by doing the Brausen bulb plan, Pinetree Pond gains one lot. He stated that to not do the bulb plan shuts development down for the Brausen's. Montour pointed out that under either plan, development will require that the Acosta /Boog /Brausen property owners cooperate. Brausen noted that under the bulb plan, the Brausen's can develop now and Acosta /Boog later. Montour pointed out that cooperation of all three property owners will be needed to pay infrastructure costs. Brausen replied that improvement costs can be assessed, and the assessments for Acosta and Boog deferred until their property is subdivided. Dave Brausen pointed 16