10-01-2013 CCM - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

LAKE ELMO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OCTOBER 1, 2013 Page 7 of 10 Council Member Nelson asked about the number of façades. Mr. Sonstegard said about 5 floorplans and then multiple options for each. The proposed pricing was explained: base $325K-400K; 370K-430K with options. Mayor Pearson asked about taking it to Parks Commission. City Administrator Zuleger said staff would like to meet to discuss parks before submitting it to Parks Commission. Mayor Pearson asked if turning a section into a common area that the neighborhood maintains, similar to what was done in his neighborhood. Council Member Bloyer noted that Public Works has commented that maintenance is difficult with number of parks as it is. Mr. Sonstegard explained some options for secondary access to development and said Ryland is looking forward to discussing secondary access with staff. Mayor Pearson asked about the collector road buffer. Mr. Zuleger said that the road is not desired to be any farther south. Ms. Smith asked if there was another community that she could look that is similar to proposal. Mr. Sonstegard explained a community in Mahtomedi and Prior Lake. Council can also visit Ryland.com to see all current sites. NO FORMAL ACTION REQUESTED ITEM 15: OFFICIAL LIST OF STORM WATER APPEALS / ASSESSMENTS Finance Director Bendel gave overview and background of appeals. City Administrator Zuleger explained the policy in place. Council Member Nelson asked if the charge was based on square footage. Mr. Zuleger explained that it depends on what the zoning is. Base fee starts with equivalent run-off units of $50 per standard residential lot. There was an inquiry about the religious organizations proving hardship. Mr. Zuleger explained the process under the current policy that was used for the various properties. Mayor Pearson commended staff’s work on the issue. He then inquired about the situation where all the water is retained. Mr. Griffin explained that water quality is also a factor in addition to conveyance, so there would still be issues to consider. Over half the fees are to cover the permitting aspects. Mr. Griffin noted that the two options are to either have the fee collected through the tax levy or create the utility. The utility actually allows the agricultural properties to pay less than they would be based on tax value. Ms. Smith noted there are properties that do more than their fair share. Changing the policy going forward was discussed. Mr. Nelson asked about who would be responsible in future if there is a required remediation. Mr. Griffin explained that it would be the City, but the City can assign that responsibility to property owners. Gaylen Springborn asked about other cities’ practices. Mr. Zuleger said some cities have credits and some do not. George Dimmick 8465 Demontreville Trail: said he has asked for minutes from when the ordinance was passed. He has not received anything yet. The scope and of the request and the nature of his appeal were discussed. MOTION: Mayor Pearson moved TO CONTINUE TO RESPOND TO ALL STORM WATER APPEAL APPLICATIONS AS OUTLINED IN ORDINANCE 2012-057. Council Member Smith seconded the motion. Council Member Bloyer said on principal he cannot vote for this item because it is unfair. Council Member Nelson asked that the policy be revisited. Mr. Griffin cautioned that the more the Council seeks a perfect policy more time and money will be expended. Suggested that the City needs to be careful about too much detailed critique. Ms. Bendel explained statistics and that policy is working pretty well. Mr. Nelson stated he wants to know the hardship standard. MOTION PASSED 3-1 (BLOYER –NAY).