Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-26-95 CCMAGENDA LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 26, 1995 7:00 P.M. MEETING CONVENES 1. AGENDA 2. DISCUSSION ON ASSESSMENT POLICY 3. SET ASSESSMENT ROLLS FOR 1995 OVERLAY PROJECTS 4. SOUTH WASHINGTON COUNTY WATERSHED DISTRICT 5. OTHER 6. ADJOURN To: Mayor and City Council From: Mary Kueffner Re: Assessments on "Recreational Lots" I spoke with the City Attorney this afternoon regarding assessments. He stated there are two important factors the City must consider when assessing property for improvements. 1. Uniformity -- Treating all similar lots in the same manner. 2. Assessing no more than economic benefit. He also suggested that we define "Recreational Lot." I have some suggested wording in the proposed Assessment Policy. The following is an amended version of that language. Recreational Lot: A lot in the Shoreland District that is identified by its own parcel identification number which is unbuildable for Single Family Residential purposes, but can be used to support accessory buildings or structures as permitted in the City's Shoreland District. He felt that the assessment should be less than a total assessment, and felt the City would be in a better position to defend its action if the assessment did not exceed 50% of the unit assessment. Whatever the Council decides tonight, there is time to include the owners of the "Recreational Lots" in the assessment hearing scheduled for October 17. I believe the action the council should take tonight is: 1. Define Recreational Lot 2. Determine the benefit of a Recreational Lot 3. Adopt a resolution calling for the public hearing, and direct the preparation of the assessment role. LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 26, 1995 Mayor John called the workshop to order at 7:12 p.m. in the council chambers. PRESENT: Hunt, Conlin, John, Johnston, DeLapp, City Engineer Bohrer 1. AGENDA Add:Maps MPCA sent over regarding SW-1. M/S/P DeLapp/Hunt - to approve agenda as amended. (Motion passed 5-0). 2. Assessment Policy The Council received a memo from Administrator Kueffner regarding definition and benefit of a recreational lot. The council discussed if unbuildable lots are used for recreational purposes should they be assessed. Mayor John stated he has two parcels with separate parcel numbers and the assessor told him there is no benefit to combine. Jeanne Huot didn't see any benefit from the road because they have to walk to their lot. Mike Moen suggested a property owner pay 25% of the unit assessment for unbuildable lots. Joe Kiesling added you can always submit an application to the council if you know the right people. The following is the definition of a Recreational Lot: An existing non -conforming lot in the Shoreland District that is identified by its own parcel identification number; which is unbuildable for single family residential purposes, or may provide private access to a lake or can be used to support water oriented accessory structures as permitted in the City's Shoreland District. Councilor Conlin felt access to the lake is valuable and people should share in the costs. M/No Second/ Conlin/No Second - to assess a recreational lot 25% of the unit assessment. M/No Second Hunt/No Second - to assess a recreational lot 35% of the unit assessment. M/S/P DeLapp/John - to assess a recreational lot 50% of the unit assessment. (Motion passed 4-1:Conlin) M/S/P DeLapp/Hunt - to authorize Mayor John to discus the concerns on assessments of recreational lot with the City Administrator. (Motion passed 5-0). 3. Assessment rolls for 1995 Overlay Projects City Engineer Bohrer asked the Council if they wanted to assess duplexes as one unit or as two living units on the Jane Road Project. Past practice has been the city counts the number of rental units. The Council decided to assess the following: each duplex as two units, Hedges as 2 lots, Shrier-unbuildable lot. In Miers Park, assess Wes McQune as one unit, but his sister would not be a assessed. M/S/P John/Johnston - to direct the City Engineer to prepare 1995 assessment role and resolution. (Motion passed 5-0). Larry Bohrer reported that T.F. Schifsky is behind schedule and according to their contract the city can request liquidated damages. M/S/P Hunt/DeLapp - to place on the next council agenda discussion of upholding the contract with T.F. Schifsky and requesting $8,400 in liquidated damages.. (Motion passed 5-0). 4. South Washington County Draft Management Plan. Larry Bohrer provided a draft of the Watershed Plan, dated August 24, 1995. The Council expressed concerns for the impact to Lake Elmo of two main projects and their associated funding formula. The two major projects affecting Lake Elmo property owners would be the creation of a poncing area north of 1-94 and the construction of an outlet for the northern portion of the watershed near the Woodbury -Cottage Grove border. Bohrer will write a letter with his comments on the scope of project and fairness of funding and a copy of Bohrer's letter will be sent to the affected property owners. 5. MPCA provided maps on restricted area in the SW-1 Elmer Richert is considering selling ten acres to the city for a proposed maintenance facility. The City Council decided to acquire the site for future expandability, request the property owner give the city the right of first refusal, and city should go ahead and negotiate deal. If we can get site in a timely manner, what are we going to do, have to discuss options. M/S/P Conlin/DeLapp - adjourn workshop at 10:05. .