Laserfiche WebLink
<br />it may be difficult to prove an equal degree of benefit. Method 3 proposes to assess each <br />townhouse unit a full share the same as a single-family unit. This method. is used in the City of <br />Prior Lake. Method 4 is similar to method 3 with the exception that all single family units are <br />charged equally and the golf course and the townhomes are assessed an equivalent number of <br />units based on the relation of their front footage to the average single family frontage (203 feet). <br />The resulting assessments for this method are very similar to those resulting from method 2. <br />Method 4A is a variation on method 4 in which only the townhouse units are assessed the <br />equivalent units based on front footage. This remedies the large assessment to the golf course, <br />which appears difficult to justify. Method 5 and Method 6 are both unit assessment methods, <br />which assign each townhouse unit 0.75 and 0.6 assessment units respectively. These values were <br />chosen because they a typical of what other communities are utilizing for multifamily units. It <br />would appear that method 4A would be an appropriate method of assessing IP 04-14 and other <br />mixed use projects in the future which involve multifamily units. Although this method is more <br />favorable to multifamily units than those employed by other cities surveyed, it does represent an <br />increase in the assessed cost proposed for these units in the current draft feasibility. study. <br /> <br />Staff made the following recommendations: <br /> <br />. Aggregate projects which contain townhouse units such that townhouses make up all <br />benefited properties, whenever possible. <br />. When mixed land use projects cannot be avoided, the assessment policy should be <br />amended to allow for the assessment on a number of units equal to the front footage of <br />the multifamily property divided by average frontage of single-family frontage within the <br />mixed-use project. <br />. Direct staff to amend the 2004 Street Maintenance Program Feasibility Study to <br />incorporate the above changes to IP 04-14. <br /> <br />Councilmember Zimmerman stated that Plymouth and Maplewood are just about built out so <br />their thought process may be different. He stated that he did not want to get into a situation <br />where the City is using a formula that no one understands. <br /> <br />Councilmember Cook stated that it made sense to him to charge the townhome association for <br />similar frontage as the single-family units. With the golf course he felt they should look at it as a <br />commercial entity and realize the benefit it brings to the City and only charge them for the three <br />outlots. <br /> <br />Councilmember Zimmerman stated that if they contain the costs for a townhome project solely <br />within that development then people can understand the assessment. If a situation is brought <br />forward that is more complicated than that the Council can address the issue at that time. He <br />stated that personally he would prefer to go with the Andover policy. <br /> <br />Councilmember Cook replied that he thought they had to be proactive because they already have <br />situations where the policy does not work. <br /> <br />Public Works Committee/February 17,2004 <br />Page 5 of9 <br />