05-26-2020 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

COUNCIL MINUTES DRAFT 4 reduction in run off rate is possible. She reviewed direct outlet verses plunge pool considerations. 122 Looking at the view of Pond 100, Ms. Hankee explained the new proposal includes a more significant 123 outlet dissipation system, dug in place so elevations would not change (a concern of the Vickers). That 124 is the staff recommendation. She also reviewed a plunge pool option (concerns are added maintenance 125 and the direct pipe option eliminates erosion concern). 126 Ms. Larsen noted conversation about a Great River Energy easement and the Vickers’ desire to 127 understand their approval. Staff has obtained an email confirmation from Great River. 128 - Josephine Lane and a utility extension was reviewed (Vickers concerned about street, sewer and 129 water extention to their property) due to tax valuation; staff has been informed by the assessor 130 that the development will increase valuation not street/utilities addition; also noted implications 131 of not doing improvements now; 132 - 6709 20th Avenue (Weber property) was reviewed as well as implications to their property; Ms. 133 Larsen noted that she spoke with Mr. Weber today and specifics related to the right turn lane 134 close to their property, driveway location, utility pole location and construction access (prefer 135 not just Red Oak). Mayor Rafferty asked about the road north of Red Oak and if the plans 136 indicate no change to the right side of the roadway. Ms. Larsen noted that there would be 137 expansion on bot h sides of the roadway (confirmed by WSB engineer). 138 - Findings of fact included in report; 139 - Advisory board actions (P&Z and Environmental Board approval); 140 - Actions requested of the council this evening. 141 Mayor Rafferty noted that he and other councilmembers have talked with the Vickers. He is thankful 142 that staff has facilitated some movements that are appropriate. 143 Councilmember Cavegn asked to hear from the Vickers. He believes there is a difference in 144 understanding of tax value (increased value). 145 Linda Broussard and Dave Vicker, Centerville, offered thanks for the time and consideration shown by 146 city officials and staff. She has received two plans from the City Engineer and they have a couple 147 questions. They have also received some easement language that they are reviewing. She believes 148 they are feeling much better about the drainage. Regarding valuation, on the north side of t heir 149 property, they had a situation with a Centerville development that included stubbing in a road. They 150 ended up with a tax valuation change. When stubbing happens they cannot be considered agricultural 151 land for tax purposes anymore and that’s a tax increase. The county assessor did reverse the increase 152 after some discussion. There is the matter of “development pressure” that the county assessor now 153 speaks of that driving up valuation. They would like to maintain their agricultural value consideration. 154 They also have continuing concern about people using their property (ATVs and snowmobiles) with a 155 road stubbed in. 156 Councilmember Lyden noted tree preservation. It is noted in the staff report that there are 750 157 significant trees that will be reduced to 252 trees, mitigated by 29 trees to be put in (not good odds for 158 the trees). Also he is still concerned that public water is being moved to a private ditch. The impact of 159 the development will be staged but he’d like to extend an easement to the City for volume of water 160 going into the ditch and future development that will be served by that ditch; it merits a discussion about 161 the ditch becoming a City ditch. Also he has questions about traffic. There is already a traffic issue at 162 County Road J and this development will increase traffic in that direction. The staff report says the 163 traffic generated is outside of the scope of the project, however, it will impact people. There are traffic 164