Agenda Packets - 2020/07/06 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

undertaking all public improvements as part of project but assessments to 12 development properties versus 14 benefiting properties. 06-18 -2020 – Appeal Correspondence from Harstad with specific request. Developer Appeal: The Developer is appealing the Council’s direction, requesting that Holl and Doll be included in assessments. The Developer states that if not assessed, Holl and Doll’s benefit will be approximately $20,000 each. As-is, this cost will be borne by the 12 participating property owners (about $3,300 vs. $2,800 cost, if 14 owners assessed). The Developer states that development costs are near the threshold of the project not being feasible. Specific Requests by Develop: 1. Condemnation costs assessed to 14 benefiting properties. 2. City to construct all public infrastructure – street, utilities, and storm water (Council supports per June 8, 2020 discussion) and assess 14 benefiting properties. 3. City to assume wetland/storm water permitting process and costs and assess 14 benefit properties. Discussion/Relevant Information: Both the 2040 Draft Comprehensive Plan and Strategic Plan state/address need for residential lots. The resident survey conducted as part of the Comprehensive Plan included numerous statements to cease construction/development of multi-family properties and provide additional single family lots. There are four right-of-way parcels to be acquired, three are to be dedicated over as part of the development as they are owned by the participating owners. The remaining parcel; Doll, is unwilling to participate. As lots have been split, the city has endeavored to have the road right of way dedicated over and did obtain that on the Holl property when that was split. It is unknown why it was not obtained on the Doll property when it was subdivided (it’s also possible he purchased the two lots and it was subdivided before his time). Both the Holl and Doll parcels meet the definition of non-conforming lots as they do not abut a public street. While the city could, by resolution, allow a single family home to be constructed – and has done so once, Staff recommends against. Along with access issues, city sewer, water, and storm water would all be substantive concerns. K & G has opined that the construction of the road and other infrastructure will benefit the 14 properties and meet the definition in statute to allow assessment. It has been the policy of the City to assess benefiting properties. Finance Director Beer has estimated property tax assessed value at $6 million (full development) with city tax revenue of just over $21,000 annually. Harstad indicates in his correspondence that if the City had maintained the ditch and infiltration basin, there would not have been a wetland. In conversations with Rice Creek, their representatives would dispute that.