04-01-2014 CCM - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES APRIL 1, 2014 Page 3 of 5 Council Member Smith asked what the amount was for the recent road assessment. Mr. Klatt said that the engineer said it was $2,900. Funds would go into the road fund. Ms. Smith asked how property taxes have been assessed as a buildable lot but the City does not consider it buildable. Mr. Klatt explained that the county’s tax determination is different than the City zoning determination of what is buildable. It was explained that the assessment fee is to be paid at time of building permit. Council Member Reeves asked about whether the grading should be required to “be improved” instead of “not exacerbate.” Mr. Klatt stated that any reviewed building will in fact be an improvement. Ms. Smith noted that the footprint of the tennis court looks larger than many of the surrounding homes. Christine Cirilli, attorney for applicant, spoke on behalf of Suzanne Horning. She reiterated that when the owner purchased the lot, it was buildable, but that she recently learned in 2012 that the variance had expired. Applicant has thought that it was a buildable lot the entire time. Ms. Smith asked if there was a plan to sell or build within the year. Ms. Cirilli stated that the owner would like her estate to have flexibility in time to build or sell. Mayor Pearson asked that the record reflect that it is not the Cities responsibility to track the variance. Council Member Nelson asked if the conditions could terminate the variance if the property is transferred. Mr. Klatt reiterated that the applicant may want to sell the lot to another party who wants to build. Mr. Reeves asked what happens when it expires. Mr. Klatt stated that the applicant can re-apply at that time for an extension or another variance. Mayor Pearson noted that some of the conditions seem superfluous and redundant. It was agreed that several conditions would have to be met anyhow. Mayor Pearson asked about the driveway. Mr. Klatt stated that it is to keep the access on the road with less traffic. It was explained that that the property would have only been assessed on the road section that the driveway would have been on despite it being a corner lot. MOTION: Council Member Smith moved TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2014-22, APPROVING A VARIANCE FROM THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE REQUIREMENTS IN A RS DISTRICT AND THE MAXIMUM TIME FOR WHICH A VARIANCE IS VALID. Council Member Reeves seconded the motion. Council Member Nelson thinks it appropriate that the road fee be paid back to the other residents. Additionally, the fee should be paid up front, not at the time of building permit. Finance Director Bendel stated that if the fee is assessed, it can be assessed to the property taxes. Also, the refunds could be credited to the other properties as an assessment payment. Council Member Reeves asked about if permit expires, how would the assessment be addressed? Mr. Reeves is concerned about assessing now if something changes. The possibility of status changes to assessed properties was discussed. MOTION: Council Member Nelson moved TO AMEND THE MOTION THAT IF FOUND TO BE PERMISSIBLE, THE ROAD ASSESSMENT FEE BE RETURNED TO OTHER RESIDENTS OTHERWISE TO THE CITY, AND THE FEE IS ASSESSED IMMEDIATELY. Council Member Smith seconded the motion. When the fee should be assessed was further discussed. MOTION PASSED 3-1-1 (Reeves – Nay, Bloyer abstaining). ORIGINAL MOTION PASSED 4-0-1 (Bloyer abstaining). ITEM 7: LAUNCH PROPERTIES CUP CONCEPT PLAN AND ZONING MAP AMENDMENT; RES. NO. 2014-23, ORD. 08-106