Laserfiche WebLink
Councihnember Elvig commented when he sat in the committee they looked through a lot of <br />scenarios. They looked through the map and figured out each of them are very different. To find <br />a policy that fits all of them is impossible, but what they agreed was they want one policy. If they <br />have to make adjustments they can look at them at a later date. They need to have something that <br />sticks, which is why he agreed with the policy that staff laid forth. <br /> <br />Assistant Public Works Director Olson explained in a case such as The Ponds it is fairly easy to <br />separate the townhouse association from the single family association. When the motion says <br />"Whenever possible townhomes should be aggregated into individual projects", that is where <br />they would use that instance. Where they find it difficult is in a case such as Sunfish Ponds. In <br />this case they would take an average lot size and divide it amongst the frontage that abuts the <br />roadways that would have the improvements done. The association would be billed for the <br />equivalent amount of frontaged average lots that would be charged as if they were a single family <br />home. Sunfish Ponds has an extreme amount of internal streets they need to maintain and the <br />Council will be hearing in the upcoming month a request from a townhouse association to have <br />the City take over the private road. If the City is able to give them a break on their assessments <br />based on the trip usage it is because they realize they have to take care of their own streets and <br />maintain those fi'om their association dues. He explained the committee was presented with six <br />different methods, as well as a seventh that was brought forward. The reason staff recommended <br />the assessment this way was if multiple family use is mixed with single family use the multiple <br />family would drive that policy. If method four were to be used Rum River Hills would pay <br />$7,400, which staff did not think was fair as they are not using the road for their business. <br /> <br />Councilmember Zimmerman stated he thinks the discussion about townhomes will go on for <br />quite some time. The recommendation of the Public Works Committee was to go with the <br />assessment policy that staff had drawn up. He does not agree with that, but will make that <br />motion. <br /> <br />Motion by Councilmember Zimmerman, seconded by Councilmember Elvig, to ratify the <br />recommendations of the Public Works Committee for Case 2. <br /> <br />Motion camed. Voting Yes: Mayor Gamec, Councilmembers Elvig, Cook, Kurak, Pearson, and <br />Strommen. Voting No: Councilmember Zimmerman. <br /> <br /> Case #3) <br />Item was tabled. <br /> <br />Consider Establishing Vision Clearance Triangle into the City <br />Code <br /> <br />Case #4) Sunwood Drive Conduits <br /> <br />Councilmember Zimmerman reported staff recommended that the City does not proceed with the <br />installation of conduit on both sides of Sunwood Drive in conjunction with the construction of <br />the State Aid Project due to the associated costs. <br /> <br />City Council/March 9, 2004 <br /> Page 18 of 22 <br /> <br /> <br />