Laserfiche WebLink
<br />costs for arterial street improvements including accesses and signalization where <br />necessary that were caused by new development. The fee structure was adopted; <br />however, there was not an ordinance in place that would allow such a fee. In November <br />1995, Council introduced an ordinance establishing an assessment fee on all new <br />subdivisions. At that time, City Attorney Goodrich presented a memo which stated that <br />the ordinance and resolution would be more thoroughly reviewed by the Road and Bridge <br />Committee. Prior to tonight's meeting, a letter was received from the Builders <br />Association of Minnesota. They requested adoption of the ordinance be tabled to allow <br />the opportunity for them to discuss the issue. <br /> <br />Motion by Councilmember Beahen and seconded by Councilmember Zimmerman to <br />table adoption of the ordinance to require impact fees for arterial streets until the Builders <br />Association of Minnesota has had a chance to meet with Council and staff to discuss this. <br /> <br />Motion carried. V oting Yes: Councilmembers Beahen and Zimmerman. Voting No: <br />None. <br /> <br />Case #5: <br /> <br />Land Acquisition for Sunwood Drive <br /> <br />City Engineer Jankowski stated that this case deals with the acquisition of Ben Deemer's <br />property . <br /> <br />City Administrator Schroeder handed out a letter from Mr. Deemer. Mr. Schroeder stated <br />that this is the last parcel between Sunfish Lake Boulevard and Krypton that needs to be <br />acquired. This will not be a simple acquisition because of some confusion about various <br />issues. There are several cross easements on the existing private drive. Mr. Deemer <br />would also like to sell the land on the west side of Sunfish Lake Boulevard and the City <br />does not really have a need for that land but maybe should entertain the acquisition of it <br />just to take care of the issue. He added there is an existing easement that also needs <br />clarification of title issues - this is not a significant issue. A more significant issue is the <br />parcel on the north of Sunwood Drive. There will be discussion about a severance of that <br />parcel. If we end up in a commissioner hearing on it, it would absolutely be an issue for <br />commissioners to review. It will have a lesser value later because it is severed from <br />itself. It could occur that we will compensate the owner for the severance. We need to <br />appraise that issue. An aside to that - we need access to drainage on that north parcel so <br />we need to acquire some rights to drain on that parcel. There are some trees the owner is <br />interested in assuring do not get damaged or lost. Mr. Schroeder stated there is also the <br />tertiary issue that Mr. Deemer is a Ramsey Planning Commissioner. We do not want to <br />be accused of favoritism or the opposite. Maybe we ought to go to eminent domain <br />proceedings so we are not accused of something. He stated that he and Mr. Deemer have <br />talked about that. He added he would like authorization to gain an appraisal on that <br />property. <br /> <br />Mr. Deemer stated he has a certificate of survey that was performed in March 1993. <br /> <br />Councilmember Zimmerman commented that this certificate would be obsolete. He <br />suggested maybe we should do something to help Mr. Deemer out. He wasn't sure that <br />saving the trees could be guaranteed. <br /> <br />Road and Bridge Committee/December 12, 1995 <br />Page 3 of3 <br />