08/13/1990 Council Minutes (2) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

2 COUNCIL MEETING AUGUST 13, 1990 to do the same. He noted that he had started the platting process last November and he feels that an EIS is unwarranted and costly and is just an effort to get him to drop the project. Mayor Bisel asked the Staff to set up an informational meeting within the next two (2) weeks. The meeting will include Staff, representative of the residents and Council Members. Council Member Reinert moved to table this issue and to place the issue on the agenda following the informational meeting. Council Member Bohjanen seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. Council Member Kuether noted that issues discussed at the informational meeting will be strictly environmental issues. ENGINEER'S REPORT Resolution No. 50 - 90 Ordering Improvement and Preparation of Plans and Specifications, White Tail Ridge - Mr. Boxrud noted that the public hearing was held on July 11, 1990 and the sixty (60) day waiting period for ordering the improvement has now lapsed. An appraisal has been completed on Lot 31 and it indicates that there will be no benefit to the lot from the proposed improvement. A new assessment rate has been calculated for the remaining affected lots and petitions have been sent to the landowners asking that they sign the petitions which show the increased rate. Two of the three property owners have signed petitions. Mr. Boxrud noted that without the third petition the improvement could be jeopardized since the third party could file an appeal. Mr. Hawkins suggested that the Council could set an assessment hearing based on the Engineer's estimate - and then wait to see if there are any appeals. Dennis Cheesebrough, owner of one of the affected properties asked if all of the legal requirements have been me. He asked is there is any reason not to order the improvement. Mr. Cheesebrough also indicated that he disagreed with the appraisal. He noted that the improvement could be completed and the lot not assessed. Later the lot owner could sell the lot and the new owner could upgrade the lot and make it buildable. Mr. Hawkins explained that the lot could be assessed and the assessment deferred to such time as a building permit is issued to the lot. This would be accomplished by assessing more than 100% of the improvement costs since the improvement must be paid by the landowners currently paying assessments. Jim Katzung, owner of Lot 30 explained that he has no intention of ever building on the lot but would not want the lot tied up if he were ever to sell the property. Mr. PAGE 12 1