My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
5.5. SR 09-18-1995
ElkRiver
>
City Government
>
City Council
>
Council Agenda Packets
>
1993 - 1999
>
1995
>
09-18-1995
>
5.5. SR 09-18-1995
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/9/2010 9:06:58 AM
Creation date
4/9/2010 9:06:23 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Government
type
SR
date
9/18/1995
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
5
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
I~ <br />'~ <br />!September 12, 1995 <br />j File: 230-271-20 <br />('OISt~LTISC EtiG11EERS <br />1326 Energy Park Drive Honorable Mayor and City Council <br />St. Paul, MN 55108 City of Elk River <br />13065 Orono Parkway <br />612.644-4389 p.O. Box 490 <br />1.800.888-2923 'Elk. River, MN 55330 <br />Fax:bl2.644.9446 <br />RE: 1995 OVERLAY IMFROVEMENTS <br />BROWN AND SELIGA ASSESSMENTS. <br />Dear Council Members: <br />TTFM 5.5_ <br />As directed, we have investigated the Brown and Seliga properties relative to the proposed <br />assessments against them. The Seliga properties are two distinct parcels separated by 154th <br />Avenue. They were originally proposed to have one assessment for each. We can find no <br />reason to change this recommendation; therefore, we would recommend that the <br />uv;~ ENCINEERtNG: assessments stay "as is" with one $1,300 assessment against each parcel. <br />ENVIRONMENTAL <br />MuNiuPAt The confusion at the last hearing concerning the Brown property comes from the fact that <br />•R~NN!NG they own three parcels. We were recommending that two of these parcels, which are <br />sot! WASTE contiguous, be combined and only assessed one unit. Officially, they cannot be combined <br />sTRUCTuRAI by the County because one is platted and one iS metes and bounds. The third parcel, which <br />suRVmNG is separated from the others by a lot under different ownership, is still recommended to be <br />rRAEEic assessed one unit, $1,300. The confusion at the hearing was caused by the fact that <br />TRANSPOeranoN Mr. Seliga thought that they were combining two parcels not contiguous. <br />E~ErRICAuMECHANicAt In conclusion, we would recommend that the total Brown assessment be reduced from three <br />ENGINEERING: <br />units to two units, with the two. parcels considered combined for assessment purposes and <br />HvAc <br />RowER ~isTRiauTioN only allowed one buildable unit. <br />SCADA <br />SYSTEM CONTRO!.5 I have attached an exhibit which shows the. area in question and have. abeled the Brown <br />property and the Seliga property. I will be prepared at Monday evening's Council meeting <br />to explain this in further detail, if necessary. <br />Sincerely, <br />MSA, CONSULTING ENGINEERS <br /> ~~ ~~ ~ <br /> ~~ <br />OFFICES IN: <br /> Terry J. Maurer, P.E. <br />. MINNEAP0~1S <br />PRIOR LAKE TJM:tW <br />S7. PAUL Attachment <br />WASECA 271-1120.sep <br />An Equal Opportunity Employer <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.