11-09-1998 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

365-373 Westlake Street Combination October 22, 1998 Page 2 an accessory stricture with no plumbing. Technically, the legal combination could not be approved by staff unless one of four options occurs: 1 .The Langert house is removed; or 2.Council grants approval for leaving the Langert house as-is with plumbing intc t for some limited time period (this would likely require a variance); or 3. 4. Council grants a Guest House or Plumbing in Accessory' Building CUP (the combined property does not meet standards established for either of these CUPs); or Council allows Langert house to remain as an accessory storage building without plumbing, with existing substandard setbacks and nearer the street than the principal residence structure, presumably lor a short period of time until the new house is built. Option 4 seems most viable to staff and the applicants, and the Fiedlers are willing to remove the plumbing. Since m new construction is proposed at this time, staff does not see this as a variance application, but as a proposal that does ultimately require Council action. It would be reasonable to allow the Langert house to remain in place without plumbing until the new home is built, as long as it is kept in good repair. Assessment Refund The Langert residence was assessed for sewer as part of the Stubbs Bay project and was connected in 1993. The Langert’s paid the annual assessments with their taxes each year from 1993 through 1998, then the remaining balance of $5,304.02 was paid to the Ci y on June 16, 1998 as part of the Fiedlers purchase. Mr. Fiedler has indicated he will provide a copy of the purchase agreement confirming that he, as the purcha‘’'^r paid this and not the seller. Note that the assessment for the Fiedlers' home was fully paid off -..len they purchased it in 1993. The Fiedler's are requesting a refund of the amount they paid off for the Langert assessments, apparently on the basis that the sewer connection will no longer be used. This refund was brought up by Mr. Fiedler when we first dis>'ussed the combination issues in September, and I suggested he add this to his proposal for consideration. His request is posed in terms of ‘transferring the payment' to j65 Westlake Street, although this is confusing because his assessment for 365 \\'estlake was paid oft in 1993, and neither the City nor Hennepin County have a mechanism for crediting this amount toward future taxes, if that is the intent. Therefore, any waiver of already-paid special assessment amounts approved tor this p . operty would now be in the form of a refund check to the Fiedler's.