Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Minutes of the Regula~uncil Meeting, August 31, 19. <br />Page 4 .., <br /> <br />, <br /> <br />EDGEWATER (Cont'd) Councilmember Hansen suggested allocating the <br />assessments over seven parcels of land; the apartments <br />being one parcel and the townhomes divided into 6 parcels. <br />Hansen had no objections to the proposed allocation on the single family lots. <br /> <br />Engineer Peters advised he calculated Hansen's proposed allocation per lot to . <br />be $28,l73.72. <br /> <br />There was discussion relative to responsibility for payments for assessments on <br />the townhomes, length of payment period and when the first assessment was due. <br /> <br />Sather commented that he has no objections to the proposal by Zappia for <br />allocation of assessments, however, he would prefer the rearrangement be <br />granted, if Council desires, with the conditions that the owner personally <br />guarantee payment based on the equity frOm the apartment building and that the <br />owner waive rights to object and change the allocation. <br /> <br />,Planner Miller reviewed the development agreement as it related to payment of <br />assessments; he noted that the agreement is bound to all subsequent property <br />owners. <br /> <br />Engineer Peters suggested responsibility for payment could be covered in an <br />addendum to the development agreement. <br /> <br />Councilmember Peck commented that legal counsel was of the opinion the <br />allocation would be more appropriately distributed over seven parcels; he <br />preferred allocating the assessments in that manner. <br /> <br />There was discussion relative to development impact on the townhouse parcels if <br />the land were sold and assessed as Zappia proposed. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Attorney Zappia explained that the owner does not have a signed purchase <br />agreement for the townhouse parcel at this time; conversation with the <br />potential buyer made him aware that assessments would be forthcoming, however <br />Zappia nor McGuire have discussed the allocation proposal with the buyer. <br /> <br />After discussion with his client, Zappia advised Council that the owner was <br />agreeable to allocate the assessment on a Seven lot basis, at $28,l73.72 per <br />lot. <br /> <br />Plunkett explained that an allocation by lots would be considered a more <br />approximate distribution of assessments; he further noted that a new notice of <br />hearing would have to be served. <br /> <br />Clerk Administrator expressed concern that there would not be sufficient time <br />to meet the County deadline for submitting the assessments if a new hearing <br />were held; taking into consideration the 30 day appeal period. <br /> <br />Hansen moved, seconded by Peck, that Council approve <br />Resolution No. 87-4l, RESOLUTION ADOPTING AND CONFIRMING ASSESSMENTS FOR <br />EDGEWATER IMPROVEMENTS, SS-W-P-ST-85-2, based on the single family lots 1 thru <br />6 and lot 8 being assessed at $9,364.30 per lot and the sections of land <br />containing the townhomes and apartment complex be considered seven parcels, <br />identified as Lots 10, ll, 12, l3 and 14, Block l, and Lots 1 and 2, Block 2, <br />being assessed at $28,l73.72 per lot. Motion carried. (Hansen. Peck, Sather and <br />Woodburn voting in favor; Winiecki abstained) (4-0-1) <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />RES. #87-52; <br />NORTHWOODS IMPR <br /># SS-W-P-ST-86-l <br /> <br />Mayor Woodburn opened the Public Hearing at 9:45 p.m. <br />and asked the Clerk Administrator to verify publication <br />and mailing of Notice of Hearing. <br /> <br />Morrison verified publication in the New BriRhton Bulletin of the Notice of <br />Hearing on August 19, and mailing of the notice on August 13, 1987. <br /> <br />Engineer Peters described the improvement for Northwoods and explained the <br />total cost for the project was $339,l83.90, assessed on a per acre basis at <br />$24,384,8 per acre. <br /> <br />GeorRe ReilinR, 66l Heinel Drive, submitted a letter to Council objecting to <br />the proposed assessment. Reiling explained that the storm sewer was extended to <br />Red Fox Road for Opus Corporation's convenience, Reiling did not feel he should ~ <br />pay the storm sewer portion of the assessment; he reviewed conversations with a <br />representative from Opus who advised Reiling would not be responsible for the <br />storm sewer costs. <br /> <br />Engineer Christoffersen advised that the storm sewer was constructed according <br />to the drainage plan submitted by Opus for this project. <br />