##VIDEO ID:xrbYzpmhGk4## e for e good evening it's now 6:30 and I call the regular meeting of the Victoria city council to order please join us in the Pledge of Allegiance I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands one nation under God indivisible with liy and justice for all the first item on our agenda this evening is announcements everyone is invited to join us for our next donor and Victoria event on October 16th at 9:00 a.m. where our city engineer will provide an update on our plan Transportation projects in Victoria Donuts in Victoria will be held at the Victoria rec center and you can learn more about this event on the city's website our next Council Workshop will be held on Tuesday November 12th at 5:00 pm for a budget discussion in preparation for the 2025 final budget and tax levy please note this is a Tuesday that's a date change due to Veterans Day falling on a Monday this year our annual truth and Taxation budget hearing has been scheduled for 6:30 pm. on Monday December 9th during this meeting you'll be able we'll be taking formal public input on our 2025 proposed budget and Levy however we welcome and encourage your comments now as we are busy preparing our 2025 budget you can email your comments directly to council or city manager or submit them through our comments portal on our website in other announcements we invite everyone to come out for our annual Halloween event which will be held on Saturday October 26th this family-friendly event is organized by the Victoria Lions and the Victoria Business Association and will take place in downtown Victoria at participating businesses from 1: to 2: p.m. there will also be familyfriendly games at Bay font Park from 1:30 to 3:30 and we hope to see you all there that concludes our announcements for this evening our next order of business is to adopt the final agenda Council can I get a motion motion to adopt the final agenda we have a motion can I get a second second we have a motion and a second all in favor signify by saying I I any opposed motion carries we'll move on to our next item which is the open Forum this is the opportunity for anyone to address the Council on an item that is not on the agenda and not an application form that will be coming to the council at a future date is there anyone in the audience who would like to address the Council on an item that is not on the agenda this evening EXC Lane it is yes yes it is so we'll we'll get to you when we get to that part of the agenda no problem yes seeing none we will be moving on to our consent agenda items on the consent agenda are routine administrative and do not require deliberation or are housekeeping items required by law they're approved with one vote unless someone requests an item to be considered separately Miss Hardy does staff wish to pull any consent agenda items for separate discussion and vote none from staff Madame mayor thank you council is there anyone any items you'd like to see pulled for a separate discussion and vote I I would like to pull 5.7 5.7 council member Roberts any others is there anyone from the audience who would like to pull consent agenda item for separate discussion and vote clerk let the record reflect that item 5.7 has been pulled for fut further discussion so we will take care of that one first um oh wait a second we're going to ask for a motion for the balance of the consent agenda first motion for a balance of the consent agenda second we have a motion in a second all in favor signifi by saying I I I any opposed motion carries now on to 5.7 which was removed from the consent agenda for a separate discussion and vote uh council member Roberts please yeah I just wanted to pull this just for some transparency I know there's been some chatter out there that uh some of the park amenities weren't up to Snuff and um you know the neighborhoods weren't involved but um you know being that this is the second phase uh I just wanted to point out that City staff and our Parks and Rec group have done a great job on this and um you know this was kind of the plan all along right get the tot Lots done first first and then um you know they had a meeting with the neighborhood at a popup in the park which had good turnout um to get their feedback on uh this and it looks like uh a lot of uh climbing uh stuff was built in this neighborhood so um I just want to point out that um you know there was a lot of community involvement uh on this particular Park and uh staff in parks and rec did a great job on it very good thank you council member Roberts Council any additional comments questions on this item seeing none I will entertain a motion uh motion to authorize the second phase of the deer run one playground replacement project in the amount not to exceed $40,000 thank you we have a motion can I get a second second uh second with council member re and all in favor signify by saying I I any opposed motion carries now moving on to our regular agenda of first item this evening item 6.1 one is a variance request for 6920 FL Fox Glove Circle kicking us off on that item this evening is our associate planner Travis brle Mr briarly welcome thank you good evening mayor and councel um tonight we're looking at the variance for a septic system at 6920 Fox Glove Circle uh this variance is a variance to the city's code chapter 26 section 26 168 which is an adoption of this of the County's ordinances uh specifically what we're looking at tonight in the County's ordinance is the requirement for a three-foot separation of periodically saturated soil um it does feel kind of weird that we're going to be talking a little bit about the County ordinance um but we have worked with County staff on putting this all together um and what they need from the city to go ahead with their approvals on their end um the request that is tonight specifically is to reduce that three-foot separation by half to 18 in um we did have comments received before the public hearing which were more questions of what the variance was for and what a variance is and staff was able to answer those questions prior to the Planning Commission we did hold a public hearing uh during the Planning Commission meeting on September 17th and we did not have any comments received by the public and it was recommended for approval or to come to the council for approval a background on this as I said is to work with Carver County um when we're looking at this the saturated soil is the drain field for septic system it's where the affluent gets treated other and then excuse me I'm stabing myself uh the once if the city council approves a variance what'll happen is that a permit can be applied for for a septic system at this property and then the County Environmental Services will handle all the details such as Environmental impacts and controls as well as the placement regulation and those type of things when we talk about septic systems as a city we primarily have houses that have Municipal Services we don't use septic systems we have sanitary system so just a quickly touch on it basically what it is is on the left side of the screen is your septic tank which separates out the the solids and the liquids in the treatment and then that gets pushed out of the septic tank and goes into What's called the drain field and the soil that's there is what we're talking about tonight as far as the variance goes uh that soil is is regulated by the npca and is reviewed by the county to make sure it's the correct soil for treatment so we do protect the environment eventually that will become groundwater again tonight what we're looking at is looking at a different type of system it's a type four system which is on the left side it's an aerobic treatment system compared to your typical mountain system that you'd see for your septic tank um with that there's a pre-treatment as well as using air to agitate um so that the treatment can happen faster so you don't need as much ground and Earth to treat uh any of the affluent that comes out when we do look at this uh we want to look at the Practical difficulties and the first thing we look at is is this reasonable and there is no Municipal services available for this property um we Al have to look at that this was not caused by the property owner the biggest thing is the natural Topography of the site makes using a traditional Mound system in Practical and talking with the county doing it would take up a significant portion of the property and cause more damage to the property than if we went with a different type of system uh we look at the essential character the septic systems not going to be visible from adjacent properties and as well as the adjacent properties on the street have their own septics systems uh the future steps if the city council approves the various night um we would take no further action besides confirming that the variance is recorded with the county um with that being done an application can be provided to the county for the installation of the system and then as again the county will take care of regulating all the requirements as part is the application the installation any reviews any follow-ups anything else that needs to be done with the septic system uh tonight I would ask that a motion is made by the city council to approve the variance uh and language has been presented on the screen in front and I stand for any questions thank you Mr brle Council questions on this request just one is there currently a septic system that's on the property that's failing council member correct there is a current septic system that needs to be replaced um and when that system was put in compared to or the regulations at that point compared to the regulations they have changed requiring a creative solution that'll still work so do we know if the depth of the current system is at this requested variance depth today or the current or do we do we know council member the current system that's on the side is a traditional Mound system and the system being put in is going to is being requested to be an aerobic system which has different regulations as far as pre-treatment as well as final treatment into the soil so at the time the the original system was put in place it it met all the requirements and now those requirements have changed causing them to need this type of a system is that correct correct mayor very good worst case scenario what are we talking about if it fails and spews waste Beyond 18 inches if the council member if there's issues with the system that's all going to be regulated by the Count's Environmental Services which is the expert in this matter as well as uh the Minnesota Pollution Control agency also has regulations set forth in their rules process to how these systems get put in as well as if there is an issue of reporting correction and that type of stuff normally any septic system installation would not come to the city or the city council for approval that's something that would be done through a permit process directly through the County's Environmental Services all right any other questions seeing none Council I will entertain a motion I'll make a motion to adopt the resolution approving the issuance of a variance of Victoria city code chapter 26 section 26- 168 for 6920 Fox GL glove Circle for a reduction of the minimum separation of the periodically saturated soil to be no less than 18 inches thank you can I get a second second we have a motion and a second all in favor signify by saying I I I any opposed motion carries next item is item 6.2 which is a final assessment hearing for the 2023 Street and drainage improvements presenting that item this evening is our city engineer Cara Garen Miss Garen the floor is yours switch all right thank you mayor members of the city council um tonight you have two final assessment hearings in front of you they are two separate projects with two separate sets of hearings and two um separate presentations specific to the project um and so there's folks here from both projects I think um but what I'm going to do here first is for the presentation for the first item relating to the 2023 Street Improvement project I'm going to provide some background and history for the city council on the city's um special assessment policy and process um since I I am not aware that this current Council has been through this at least not recently that I can recall um so the city's Street Improvement program dates back to um 2003 actually there there was plenty of work prior to 2003 um where the city was trying to figure out how the city was going to tackle um reconstructing the old streets throughout the community um but in 200 the city adopted the current assessment policy which calls for a 50/50 split of the cost for Street and storm sewer improvements for residential streets so what that means is the policy dictates that um 50% of the project costs for residential streets would be paid by the property owner through a special assessment that same policy calls for up to 100% of the street and storm sewer costs um for streets that are adjacent to commercial property to be assessed to the adjacent property owner and then the policy notes that 100% of the cost for maintenance would be paid by the city so that would be things like seal coats um crack ceiling Mill and overlay projects under the current policy those are paid 100% by the city after that policy was adopted the city um in 2003 technically um completed the downtown phase one Improvement project in the core of downtown under this policy and then in 2004 began um reconstructing neighborhood streets in 2005 the city developed a 5-year CIP that was updated annually and here we are in 2024 and nearly all of the streets so all of the streets you see um on this graphic shown in green um all of those streets have been through um a street reclaim project or a street reconstruction project with the adjacent um Property Owners assessed for the improvements or else the roads were constructed with development um with our new city standard that came into play in the late um 90s so the city's special assessment policy I just have a a couple of slides um highlighting information about the policy I'm going to read some of them um the purpose of this assessment policy this language is right out of it is to establish a fair and Equitable manner of recovering and distributing the cost of public improvements the procedures used by the city of Victoria for leving special assessments are those specified by Minnesota statute chapter 429 which provides that all or part of the cost of improvements may be assessed against benefiting properties special assessments must meet the criteria noted here um the land must receive benefit from the Improvement the amount of the assessment must not exceed the benefit and then the assessment must be uniform in relation to the same class of property within an assessment area um so you know specifically when we start to talk about the what the benefit is of a project periodically the city has conducted special benefit analysis on the city's assessment policy um to check that we are conforming with State Statute um so historically 50% as I noted of Street and storm sewer costs have been assessed for residential property to the adjacent property owners for the downtown projects specifically the phase one improvements in 2003 and the phase 2 improvements in 2009 um those City councils decided to deviate from the 100% assessment that I noted in the policy and they went with a 75% assessment of the project costs for the street and storm sewer to the adjacent Property Owners um when new sanitary sewer and water so um in neighborhoods where sewer and water was not previously available the policy calls for 100% of those costs to be assessed which has been implemented in practice and then um the policy provides for many different methodologies for calculating assessments but it's been common for the city to use the unit method in um residential projects so specifically that what that means is that if you have a house adjacent to an improvement project you pay an assessment um some communities will use a front foot method so if you have a bigger lot you're paying more um the city made the decision that you know every house in a neighborhood benefits from the street the same so applied a uniform um practice of calculating the Assessments in um neighborhood areas for downtown those phase one and phase two Improvement projects that I spoke of the city did use a front foot method um because you had you know so many different sizes of lots within the existing downtown under the city's policy and based on the city's practice when we're dealing with the unit method with a corner lot um you know you might have one street that's constructed under one Improvement project and the other Street constructed under another Improvement project under the city's policy the side where your primary driveway whichever Road your primary driveway access is from is the project you're going to be assessed for um there's no perfect assessment policy it is important that assessments be implemented in a reasonable consistent and fair manner certainly there may be exceptions to the policy or unique circumstances or situations that may require special consideration and discretion by the city council so that you know the policy does provide um for the council to consider exceptions um we do highlight the reasonable consistent and fair elements of this policy um that was a conversation that we undertook with the council back when we started this endeavor in 2004 um you know we anticipated that at some point you will have reconstructed every street in the community and um treating all of the residents of the community consistently and fair um through the different projects and through the different councils has been a recommendation that that we've consistently had um this slide just shows the typical steps in the process should there be questions about process but um where we are for both of these projects are um we're at the point where we're holding the final assessment hearing um you have a or uh resolution in front of you tonight for consideration where you would approve the final assessments and then the assessments become due and are either paid or added to um the applicable property taxes so I did want to just um for the benefit of the council highlight some of the um historical assessments that have been paid um this slide is not in your packet I don't expect you to read from it um but I did want to highlight a couple of projects um relative to the hearings that you're holding tonight um so what you're seeing here is every um project that the city has completed since adoption of the policy in 2003 2004 um what the type of project the project was and then what the assessment amounts were paid by the citizens of Victoria um every item you he see here is on a unit basis unless it's otherwise noted I did want to just highlight a couple of projects relative to the projects in front of you tonight um specifically so the 2023 Street Improvement project and we'll talk about those Assessments in detail a little bit more um but projects that were um similar in nature in terms of um what the conditions were like so when we're talking about a full reconstruction project we're talking about a road that didn't have curb and gutter previously um it probably was built many many years ago and required a full reconstruction with a new sand section um drain tile new curb and gutter and a new pavement system these fully reconstructed roads are getting what we referred to as our 50-year design where we're putting in the full sand section and the intent is to not have to go through this full reconstruction process for 50 years um after 20 years the would get a Mill and overlay um hopefully in your 40 you could do another Mill and overlay before you'd be faced with doing a full reconstruction so um relative to the 2023 Street project um some projects that were similar so the 2008 street project um included the Victoria Circle neighborhood which is just down the hill from these folks um those assessments back in 2008 um for those stre streets based on the 50% assessment rate were just shy of $99,000 um another one I want to highlight is the 2009 Street project that was the Lions Park neighborhood so all of the streets um South of Highway 5 and um east of County Road 11 in the older part of the community um that have somewhat of a similar type of density um those assessments were $871 16 the Harwood neighborhood um was 9,899 and I won't go into too many more of them except for the 2010 street project um that actually included extension of new city water but the portion of the assessments for streets only was $11,400 so um those are just some examples compared to the um current project that that might be similar in nature um specifically to the stiger Lake Lane assessments tonight um some projects that were similar to those would have been um it's pretty interesting when you start to look at the downtown projects so back in 2003 um where we were assessing 75% of the Street and storm sewer costs we had um one property owner as an example had a $31,000 assessment that was a restaurant and then um we had another property that had improvements around all sides of it and that one had a $99,000 assessment that that business owner paid um in the 2009 downtown project those assessments ranged from about 20,000 to 83,000 per project property um a couple I would maybe highlight there is that um as an example the bank property their assessment was $50,000 and then the um Hartman building that includes the ice cream parlor their assessment um was 29,000 um back in 2009 those projects were completed um so that's just some background then I'm going to Pivot specifically to the 2023 Street and drainage Improvement proposed assessments so per the policy we're talking about assessing for the street and storm sewer costs um there was water improvements and sanitary sewer improvements included in the project we're not proposing to assess for those um because those facilities already existed so repairs that we completed to those facilities are funded using um sewer water bills that are paid by the community um so back at the time that the city had the um public Improvement hearing the city council when we were doing the feasibility study made the decision to reduce the amount that was being assessed to the property owners from 50% down to 30% um so this was you know back in 2022 now um so the proposed assessment for the residential side is $99,100 per unit based on a 30% um assessment amount if it had been 50% as the other projects that predated this one occurred those assessments would have been $5,185 $80 down to um 9,110 you'll recall there was a bullet about different class of properties being grouped together um the commercial properties located within this project area had their assessments calculated separately from the residential property their proposed assessments are $1,550 per unit um if we would have assessed 75% of the project costs as had been done in the other two downtown projects those assessments would have came out to about $29,000 per unit um so we are seeing a pretty significant reduction in what we're proposing there under the city's policy um these assessments would be levied over 15 years if added to the taxes and um the city does charge interest on that um and the interest rate for this proposed project is 5.7% um these are the properties that are included within the assessment area um the ones highlighted in this blue outline here are the commercial properties um the remaining properties are residential these two properties highlighted in green are not included Ed in the assessment because they have a primary driveway located on 81st Street um which we covered this distinction about the driveway location um previously um the city's policy and state statute does allow for um application for deferments for special assessments the information about that process were included in the notice that was provided to um the residents in the mail and published in the paper um as of the time of this meeting the city has received um one request from a deferment for a deferment um that if the resolution is approved tonight that individual would be working with the city clerk um for that deferment process so with that um the city the um this is a final assessment hearing so um I would recommend holding the final assessment hearing and um folks um in the audience would have an opportunity to speak to the council and then um certainly with that I'd happily take questions as well all right thank you Miss Garrett and so just to clarify this hearing is for the properties along Rose Street um what what are the names of the other Road sunflower Rose sunflower trillum Trail in 80th Street okay so that the first public hearing is for those the things along stiger Lake Lane we will hear in the second public hearing so with that I will open the public hearing so if you would like to address the Council on if if your property is on Rose sunflower 81st and Trillium please uh have the first person approach the podium please thank you so much welcome uh please state your name and address for the record please my name is David Lura and I live on or I have a lot on 8090 Trillium Trail question do all streets that get repaved do they get assessed um Miss garam please take that sure uh mayor uh members of the audience so um any Street under the city's current policy any street that is Recon constructed or has a significant Improvement to it um the city's policy would call for the city council to consider special assessments um alternatively like the mill and overlay project that was completed this summer to 81st Street which is adjacent to this project area that type of improvement is not assessed under the current city policy so what about other neighborhoods that just get you know there's no stormers sewer or Street and storm storm I think like um water Amer got a repavement yeah so that would be a mill in overlay and under the city's policy those projects are not assessed okay but so what was Trillium Trail what was done there so Trillium Trail did um receive an improvement as part of the um project area this trillum Trail is a little bit of a strange roadway because it's an alley that provides primary access to some individual homes a number of years ago the public works department had come in and just completed um some Paving to that roadway so with the proposed improvements we did improve the um Corridor to be consistent with the other streets we did not elect to put the sand section underneath that road in order to um it just is too narrow It's relatively narrow and if we would have came in and wanted to put that twoot sand section in that we put in under under other roads it would have been very impactful to the neighbors and so it differs from uh let's say the watermark house yes yeah um we did more extensive improvements than what we did there um and I can come back to it say that again Dana or I'm sorry um we did more to Trillium Trail than the basic Mill and overlay um but I will pull up the plans if the council has additional questions yes after you've gone through the hearing I I for sure do um I'm just curious the only thing I I just want fair and fair assessments right if if other areas are being assessed for similar jobs or not being assessed for similar jobs I think it should be considered the same across across everybody for instance you know if trillion was only repaid I I was taxed equally amount or not I was assessed equally amount compared to everybody else and they got additional work done and so I I find that a little bit just hard to swallow I guess understood um Miss Garen can you answer that yeah it'll take me a little about that detailed info so very good you can come back to me yeah can can we come back to that um why don't you go ahead and take a seat and if anybody else would like to address the council in this public hearing please approach the podium hello welcome please state your name and address for the record please Ron Larson 1800 81st Street we are on the corner lot of 81st and Rose Kim Larson okay very good and go ahead and make your comments um I had a question about your presentation era um when you about all those assessments prior were they all financed with a bond and if so was that bond interest rate passed on to those residents okay Karen miss Karen please um uh I'd have to check with the finance director to see um if all of them in fact were financed with bonds but historically typically the city has um used um bonds for completing the improvements and all of them I can look to see if I have a history of the um assess or interest rates but it does look like um yeah they yeah I could go through them one by one um many were over 6% um in the early years before the recession um then they the bond was and then you elected to do the extra 2% administration fee yeah the 2% over the bond rate is has been part of the city's policy since it was adopted and so the interest rates um that were applied on those assessments appear to have been above 6% for a number of years then we had a couple in the 5% range um and then in more recent years when overall interest rates were dropping um the lowest interest rate appears to have been back in 2016 for a project where those folks had a 3.8% interest rate um but yeah it does look like Bonds were issued for all of these okay based on the notes I have from the finance director thank you one other question because I printed this off from the city's website and it went through and listed all the addresses whether they were commercial or residential and then the rate um the assessment by unit and it's the final assessment goal that's what it says here and it lists Holiday Station Store as residential can you explain that on the map it's not circled and that's they have a a large curving along their I don't think that that's consistent consistent with the businesses right that are also in that area miss Karen can you address that please yeah so specifically the portion of land owned by holiday is only this parcel at 8057 which is a residential parcel um their main parcel is not included in the ass assessment because they aren't accessing any of the improvements their access comes from Highway 5 um they don't have access from Rose Street and they aren't connected to 80th Street but this residential property that they own um but it is a resident currently it's vacant but it would be considered residential isn't that considered a partial lot because the car wash is if you look at eement part of the easement would allow for that property to be considered residential there isn't clearance yeah that was the finding and the feasibility report okay we were here when that was put in and we knew the people that their house was taken from them for that so I don't agree with that they wouldn't have a car wash if they didn't have that right that's why that was done and was understanding yeah understanding what you we understand what you guys are proposing here so I just don't think it's fair for the other business understood yeah I think that needs to be relooked at thank you yeah any other comments oh yeah um well one of the things we're looking at as well and I know you've talked about different Bond rates is the city council has the option to not add that 2% which then brings that to that 3.7 if that's your bond rate and that significantly changes is the impact of interest that we look at when we looked at this amateurz we are going to be paying just as a resident over $113,000 for this to the benefit of a collector Street sunflower is a street that accesses the highway where there is significant traffic going through there for neighborhoods west of us in a collector area um increasing correct traffic as well as speed and we have substantial speed and disregard completely of the stop sign at sunflower and 81st Street observed regularly um there's been conversation regarding with some of our neighbors about putting even a stop sign which is common through other areas in Victoria our cissus down in Deer Run where in the middle of a block there would be a stop sign where their stop signs would be put at Rose and 81st to slow traffic so when we look at this and we look at this assessment and it's 13 $1,8081 for a resident that is significant when you look at that interest amount that we'll be paying as well as what we now have to put away when we look at the increase of regular payments due of $9 almost $20 towards our escr so we look at our property tax and then we look at the property tax increase and one of the things that was directed to us as far as information was well you have property taxes we're going to add a special assessment and those extra 2% is for tracking and maintenance when it becomes part of our regular property bill which would become part of a regular administrative process where you don't need to collect that significant amount this interest if we were to say we agree to the 9110 as we look at our city we look at our community and we look at improvements but then we look at that and we say how can you continue to collect that much money from the residents and the resident area as well as the business owners when they have even a more significant commercial cost and you add that 2% and I'm looking at the interest rate nearly doubling in what I'm going to pay over the life of that term so as a council you have a decision if you could say we'll pay and we can pay and cover that Bond but you have a choice to remove that extra 2% so I would ask respectfully if you could consider that as your Council thank you okay Ved all right you other comments anything else thank you Mr and Mrs Larsson thank you this is an open this is a public hearing so if you have any other additional comments please step forward any additional comments on this project last call all right thank you very much with that Council I will entertain a motion to close the public car find the answer to the the first okay you know what let's uh let's can we go ahead and close the public hearing and then we'll have but he might said he might have questions based off of very good tell us what you've learned sure I did pull the actual construction plans to jog my brain and Trillium Trail was reclaimed um so that is considered a more significant Improvement than just a Mill and over relay so that's when we go up and we grind up the pavement that's there and then we put down a new Surface um which is similar to what we've completed to other um projects okay Mr Lauren do you have any other questions on that yeah can you step forward and so we can capture this in the microphone thank you and so that's different so when you resurface other areas does that is it how is that removed um so when we complete so projects like Watermark projects like 81st Street that was conducted this summer um all we do is remove the top layer of asphalt and put in a new layer of asphalt over the top of it so it's just a minor um resurfacing and then Trillium was completely dug up is interesting it was yeah it's a it's a process where we grind up the existing material and base to create a new roadway BAS and then pave a new um full set of asphalt over the top of it okay okay all right thank you all right all right that being said uh I will now take a motion to close the public hearing motion to close the public hearing thank council member R can I get a second second second by council member Gunderson all in favor signify by saying I I any opposed motion carries Council I will now open the floor for Council discussion comments questions May yes can I justy legal things kind of jumped out at me there that might be helpful to serve some conversation the first is the last point that you were just talking about which is this distinction between projects that are simply uh re reconstruct well full reconstruction I guess is one thing but what what's the term that you use use care for less than full reconstruction Mill and overlay Mill and overlay or something reclaim Reclamation project which is under the city's policy considered an improvement project versus a Mill and overlay project which under the city's policy is maintenance yeah so mayor and Council just to State maybe the obvious the reason the city and this city and I think most cities would not assess for uh Mill and overlay projects or the like is that those are really maintenance projects right you're not widening changing the grade of changing the alignment of adding facilities to storm sewer or whatever you're just returning the road to its prior condition and so that most cities would conclude adds very little or no benefit to the abing properties no increase in value because you've not changed the Improvement that's abing their property and so that's not assessible because remember again one of the two tests is in order to assess you have have to have given some special benefit to the abing properties you have to have added some improvement to um the abing property so just make that point about that distinction between projects that get assessed and projects that don't get assessed and then the other a point is that um you heard from Cara correctly that the other test the other prong in my view there's really two it's talked about as three but there's really two the other is that um assessments need to be uniform as to the same class of property to be clear again I think you know this but let's say it out loud to be clear you're talking about it has to be uniform within a given project it doesn't have to be legally uniform between projects between you know 2003's project the assessment policy of the city doesn't have to remain the same today in 2024 that's the not not the uniformity that's required and in fact you have as we learned tonight you have changed your policy you now assess less of the total project cost to your residents than you did originally you used to assess 75% now you're down to 50% that change is obviously it's not uniform between 2003 and today but that kind of uniformity is not required you were able to make that change and that's perfectly appropriate and when we opted to assess not the 50% according to our policy on this project but rather 30% that's at our discretion as well and we we made that we made that observation to go from 50 to 30% based on some information that we had had at that point in time so and that's and that is okay as well as long as you heard from one of your residents tonight sort of making the argument which is a policy argument that you ought to try to treat current projects as similar as you can to Prior projects that's a totally appropriate policy argument it's just not a legal argument there's no legal requirement that you do that as a matter of policy that's that's why you're here so it's an appropriate policy argument but it's not a legal argument understood thank you can I ask question member Roberts please um and I assume there's no right like we obviously have split up commercial versus residential but we as we've heard one of these is an empty lot as well since they're still getting a potential benefit to if they sell it someday like we don't is there a distinction there that we could make say I mean it's an empty lot um you know should that be a less of an assessment type thing yeah mayor and Council legally the the cap the the limit on what you can assess again is the special benefit to the property the increase in value to the property that is a frankly a a question that's a bit of Art and a bit of science right and so to the extent you find that compelling that it's not uh developed at this point and thus may not enjoy the same benefit that's something you can consider for sure so question on you know kind of following up on that holiday property is there any record recollection as to why that wasn't rezoned a commercial property once it was captured for that car wash that's mayor that's not something we've specifically researched so we would need direction if that's something the council wants more information on um we would go back to the records to see what we can find very good thank you um I think I think I would be curious about that because um I don't believe that to be a an appropriate residential lot even though that even though holiday owns it and it's zoned residential I I think we should change the zoning on that to be a commercial property if in fact that is what is going on there so just to clarify are you suggesting mayor that that property should be assessed based on the commercial assessment rate yes I am okay what do we just quick question do we know if the county is assessing that as a residential parcel or a commercial parcel you don't magically happen to know what it zon sitting we can see what we can figure out while you're talking do we do we know if there are actual improvements on the parcel or is it just a completely vacant parcel that's sitting there unapproved based on the aerial to the extent that's accurate which I typically advise us to not follow it does look like part of the car wash is on on that property um but that you know we would go back to the address file and pull the records for Holiday I I think that's worthy of a second look I'm going play The Devil's Advocate on this onec Gunderson please so let's say holiday decides that they're going to incorporated into their lot as a commercial that their commercial lots already not being assessed we would lose that assessment value from 8057 if they incorporated into 1793 which is what I would guess they would do from a business standpoint uh which would cause us to lose money and have to re the the remaining neighbors would have to reabsorb that money um because then they would say well if you're saying it's there is no access to the business from any of these roads except rxs is on five from a legal standpoint then then that becomes commercial and we lose out on the 8057 assessment value so I'm hesitant to to force holiday into doing something or having us look into something when they'll come back and say okay if you're calling it commercial we're commercial we have no access off five thus putting a bigger burden on residents that are already there uh based on the value of the project versus what we have to pay for so unfortunately the money's got to come from somewhere and to get something out of a commercial business that's currently there I think that's the argument that would be made and I think that's the argument that we would lose I think the Counterpoint to that council member govern is that the at present then in order for that to really match your argument then there would need to be legal paperwork filed with the county to incorporate that parcel to enjoin it and create a larger parcel that would then be commercial um we we have a an assessment based on the parcels as they exist today with the property ID numbers before us and I think that the question is that they are legally separate Parcels I think the question before us is how do we treat those legally separated Parcels is it a residential parcel is it a commercial parcel I think that there's certainly some question at this point and one thing you may want to consider is do we do we table this to date certain so that staff can research this item to come up with these answers before we make this final assessment it's an idea it's an idea output out for us to consider mayor we did pull up the um zoning and it is zoned residential it zoned our one today is it a buildable a lot it's an existing lot of record meaning that it could have a home constructed on it and does it can you tell from what you're seeing Does it include part of the part of the car wash but as Cara mentioned we can speculate based on aerial imagery usually those are off by a few feet because of elevation Contours but based on the image provided yes it does appear so so my other question kind of based off of what Greg and Derrick are saying is like can you ethically also say well we want to get more out of holiday can we now change this to Commercial and then assess it right like we're doing it kind of after we've already talked about what they're going to do right like it doesn't seem I'm not saying that that we shouldn't necessarily do it but I'm just wondering from a ethical and a legal standpoint like can we say now well it is residential but we're going to up it to commercial so now we can get more money out of you attorney BOS do you have any opinion about that well I I was uh um I don't have any concrete legal advice but it won't stop me from giving you my thoughts um you if uh if 8057 I I guess I I agree with council member Gunderson if 857 was zoned commercial and owned by holiday I think it would be part of holiday's property and if that were the case I think Cara would say but I'll let Cara say it if it's true it would not have been proposed to be assessed right it's not as if the the staff would have proposed assessing part of holiday's property uh if holiday had one large commercial property there that didn't take access off of the roads that are being improved so you know but I I guess I'll let Cara say that if that's true or not but that's that's my takeaway yeah it it it's always a little difficult to try to speculate how we would have developed the feasibility study with a different set of facts than the facts we had in front of us um I I the you know typically I would turn to the planning staff when there's a vacant lot and find out what it was zoned and what potential there was for improvement on it um Brian noting here and confirming it in our GIS data that it was um zoned residential would cause me to conclude that that's why I would have recommended it to be treated as a residential property I would concur with Bob had it been just part of holiday um under the policy without it having access to Rose Street I wouldn't have included it in the assessment if it was contiguous to the rest of the property and not splitable um you know sometimes if you have a lot that could potentially be split um under the current ordinance sometimes we'll look at whether that property should be assessed um under the policy but if it if it was connected and had a car wash on half of it um it probably would have been removed but you know that feasibility gets presented to the city council for review and approval and then we have a public Improvement hearing where they would have been notified of that at the time too is there a reason why it wouldn't have when this was built why that wouldn't have been changed to like I mean that might be a bigger issue for another time but like I'm just curious like what happened there that it didn't get that's the part we'd have to go to the address file in the council records to see what the history was there yeah and I so I think from for the purposes this evening um you know to me I think because it's zon that way that's where it is we we we assess them as a residential property and then consider if that really is truly a commercial property that we need to change that prop that parcel into in our zoning code that but that's not with for for zoning code maybe but does would it the owner of the parcel that needs to have it actually applied for to be rezoned or be reclassified so was 857 re do they need to apply to make it a part of their ran is nodding his head yes so the applicant so we can't just do it we can't just do it it's an the applicant needs to do that so the argument was the argument is going to be we either if we table an allow them to go through this process we lose out on 8057 because that would then become part of 179 93 as a full commercial lot uh and whatever property they own up to the property line of 8099 is gone the benefit of 857 is gone has become part of the commercial lot so as of right now 857 is owned as a residential empty lot owned by holiday that is accessible so it's better to get something than nothing something than nothing right now at this point okay and I and it's and I can't speak to why again like anybody on here I don't know holiday's been there since I've been here so it's I can't tell you why it's been there why why they did what they did um when holiday came in to build you know with whatever that their adjacent partner was but right now if if we don't kick that if we kick that can down the road 8057 is going to get absorbed into every other residential property in that area to do the to cover the full cost of the construction so I mean where do we what what battles do we want to fight I think we have to keep it the way it is so we get the yeah I agree assessment I you know to car's point they you know when you do the feasibility study you do it based on the information you have at the time you've got it so that's that Council so I think we've solved that um other questions comments I I just have some qu more questions about Trillium right that's what 8090 is on correct so it sounds like it's kind of an in right so the other streets this happened a while ago so tell right they had full curban gutter right like we did full Rec uh uh not reconstruct yeah right reconstru so um so is there thought so again does that that doesn't factor in necessarily to what we determined it right like one is getting right a higher higher level of what you know we're giving them and versus this one because it's a narrow more of an alley we couldn't really do curban gutter right so we just did kind of the in between not just a Mill and overlay um like how does I guess that fact like that is that not a factor into figuring out what assessment should be so historically we've treated neighborhoods as neighborhoods and include all of the properties as a project together in instead of parsing them out street by street so um you know certainly if the council wanted us to apply a different methodology for um the lots that access trillum Trail you know they also get access to their homes from the public streets that tie into the location um you know it's a little odd for 42 56 72 and 98 um so the council would need to say who's split spting it you know if you wanted me to go through and separate out only the cost for Trillium Trail how how are these folks being assessed are they paying an assessment over here and then part of the assessment over here or are just these three properties sharing in the cost of Trillium Trail um you know those those types of things are some of the thinking we go through when we develop a feasibility study and look at how to split these costs off historically we've um tried to treat neighborhoods as neighborhoods together and they um get to experience the joys of going through the special assessment process together but certainly um the council could provide some different direction um understood yeah all right I I think um I think the methodology used seems to be the most fair and Equitable way to do a neighborhood as a neighborhood um Council other thoughts questions I'm just trying to remember back to the conversations we had um was it March when we talked about this uh the public Improvement hearing would have been actually December of 2022 okay yeah because at the same time I had a convers uh owner of 80 that 8,000 I'm blind sorry is that 8,000 yeah owners two Parcels at 8000 the two Parcels at 8,000 um having spoken with them they were I believe at that meeting to discuss the 50% Levy um and I think at that time when we had the conversations about it we did have reservations about 50% and we did drop it to 30% because we felt that putting 50% % on this particular neighborhood was at an adverse was adverse than any other neighborhoods that we left it at 50% because of the size and The Limited number of residents in this area um and having conversation and I know those I know those owners very well they live right next door to me um they seem to find out that that was reasonable um so I our 30% we arrived at 30 % not just picking a number at random we talked with owners and residents in this area in at at the December meeting um so I I just want to put it out there that we don't we do take into account size and number of residents and things when we're trying to make a policy um for an equable project that's going to serve not only the residents in the area but also the community at at large um I'm comfortable with where we're at because we have talked about this at length with owners um and it does serve the community will serve the property values well and I think and I understand that you're not going to see it immediately but I think you will see it in the future any other comments Ju Just A clarification from my standpoint so the change we made back in 22 50% to 30% residential 70 5 to 50% commercial 30 75 to 30% for the commercial or 75 to 30 and that was just on this project that wasn't we didn't change our policy we made an exception for this project this is yes yes all right anything else all right I do want to address the the uh 2% optional fee that you had mentioned um I I hear you I understand what you're saying there um that's that's been our policy we've applied that policy equally on all of our assessments yeah city manager thank you mayor members of the council I just want to note that our assistant city manager and finance director is watching us um this evening from home and she just wanted us to note that um we do play pay closing costs on the bonds um and then we keep our own record records and we certify the special assessments to the city so there's a cost that the County charges to the city for um for that every year and that 2% takes that administrative work into consideration very good thank you all right any other questions comments from Council seeing none I will entertain a motion motion to approve a resolution adopting the final assessment role for the 2023 Street and drainage improvements thank you council member Roberts can I get a second second we have a motion and a second all in favor signify by saying I I I any opposed motion carries next item item 6.3 which is the overview of the final assessment hearing for the stiger Lake Lane West phase one improvements presenting on that item again is our city engineer Cara Garen Miss Garen back to you thank you mayor members of the city council the next final assessment hearing you have before you tonight is for the stiger Lake Lane improvements um those are improvements that occurred to stiger Lake Lane within the area highlighted here on this map that is um not an aerial so just to orient you um the the improvements extended from um the end of the bridge so the bridge off of um Stager Lake Lane in downtown over to um towards Highway 5 um there's a portion of the improvements that were completed on just a temporary basis because of the Marco mlan project that we talked about as part of the highway 5 update um that roadway is going to continue to be improved as part of improvements for that project um but so the segment of road that was improved um now that project originally that Road was a two-lane um roadway without curban gutter so with the improvements we did reconstruct the roadway with the twoot sand section we added drain tile um storm sewer and curban gutter in addition the roadway includes parking along the north side of the road and then um streetcape features and sidewalk along the north side of the road um this project overall and I scribbled down this on a sheet of paper this is in the um project or in the um notice and in the council packet overall the project was about a $ 2.46 million project um so there certainly was a lot more work involved in the project than just the street and storm sewer improvements specifically we did a lot of um replacement of utilities so sanitary sewer and water um and then in addition included that streetcape package of parking um sidewalk along the north side of the road pavers lighting Landscaping um lot more involved in it um but that being said we still um needed to apply the city's assessment policy because the road was reconstructed so um similarly we also took a look at so under the city's policy you know these Street these properties adjacent to this Improvement are a little bit unique because you have two Residential Properties and then you have a commercial property on the south side of the road and then the north side of the road you have Park District property um so it isn't it isn't commercial it isn't residential it's a little bit of a combination of both um so certainly the 75% approach didn't seem appropriate um so what staff ended up doing was taking a look at the stiger Lake Lane East project that was completed in 2018 um so we reconstructed stiger Lake Lane from City Hall here out to about to Ani and at that time we really looked at that 75% um assessment for commercial we had the Kelly Green property next to us we had the building that is now the vet clinic both of those were commercial they're a little bit narrower they're a little bit unique from some of the other projects um so as part of that we actually did go through special benefit analysis where we worked with an outside consultant to help us determine what would be um appropriate assessments for the type of improvement that's being completed here um and the assessments that were adopted for that project um specifically I'll note um two of the parcels that are commercial in nature um one of them was 39,000 um under the old policy that assessment would have been 85,000 so you know the city council at that time concluded the 75% was an appropriate and they opted to assess um 39% 39,000 for one of the properties the current property that has the um New vet clinic on it they only paid half an assessment because the project stopped halfway through their property so theirs was limited to 16,000 um so when we took a look at the feasibility study for this project um we took a look at a couple of other precedent examples so this stiger Lake Lane project was one of the examples that we looked at and then we actually also looked at the 78th and coia project um those roads were reconstructed um you know they serve their collector roads they serve a greater um land area and um their assessments back when we did that project in I have to find my notes that I made very big so I could read them um the 78th and coia project was in 2016 and the residential assessments on that project were 10,560 so when we prepared the feasibility study we look we took a look at those representative examples and what you see here on the screen is what was in the um feasibility report what the um was shared at the public Improvement hearing and what we're recommending for assessments on this project um as the council's aware we've discussed it previously with the city council you'll see that the Three Rivers Park District Parcels are not being shown they are struck through um because we haven't been able to demonstrate that we can show benefit for the park land in this location um there is no program park space there's steep slopes um it's not accessible land that the park uses it's really Nature Nature Preserve type property um so you know typically on a project where we would have encountered that previously um the city would pick up the additional project costs for assessments for that type of land in this particular case the city is covering the balance of the project costs outside of the 60,000 that's proposed to be assess here so these assessments amount to um like 2% of the total project cost so we aren't even we aren't even operating in the realm of 50% or any of those factors we really did recommend capping these assessments based on um the work that was done on Stager Lake Lane and really to treat these folks more fair and equitably to the other properties within the city that are similar in nature that are have been assessed for improvements um so uh same as was discussed with the last project um these assessments would be levied over 15 years with an interest rate of 5.7% the council said that um when you approved the resolution authorizing the public hearing here tonight um deferment of special assessments also applies um the city council has not received any um letters requesting deferment on this one the city has received two um letters objecting to the assessment amounts and those have been shared with the city council um those were from two of the parcels that are proposed to be assessed for the project and again you need to hold a public hearing and happy to answer any questions very good thank you cara uh any questions for Cara before we open the public hearing seeing none um I will now open the public hearing if you would like to address the Council on this item please approach the podium and state your name and record or your name and address for the record please certainly my name is Rich Schmid I reside at 1865 stagger Lake Lane um I'm going to read off a piece of paper if you don't mind oh please because uh the uniqueness of this situation um we've lived there for 28 years I've worked in the excavation and utility business for 35 plus years I have little experience with Street reconstruct projects and I'm here tonight to public publicly explain why my wife and I object and have submitted such to the city why the proposed property assessments or stiger Lake Lane are not going to happen as far as I'm concerned this project does not provide our property or as far as I can determine our neighbors property with any special benefits as defined in the document that the city provided I did a quick review of the construction documents and how they relate to the present conditions of Stager Lake Lane and what if any benefits it brings to our property first there's a tax money that we paid for 17 trees that are no longer in the designed concrete area but are planted in the woods not a real good spending of taxpayer money as far as I'm concerned and certainly no benefit to us because we have plenty of trees we don't care second more on street parking we have plenty of parking at our place we can fit seven cars in there comfortably don't need it in past years I would argue that during car shows our yard supplied more parking spaces than does your new design third new Utility Services we don't benefit from those we have a well don't need any water we used to have a sanitary man Hall that the city had no idea about so we didn't need a sanitary sewer service either and we certainly didn't need the stubs brought into our property well off the RightWay easement fourth a new lawn what a joke when was the public meeting on this one you guys remember 2021 bid in 2022 June supposed to be substantially complete October of 2022 what year is it I sat for over a year with black dirt or weeds as a yard I was supposed to get sod I called car I said don't bother with sod that's stupid that's a waste of taxpayer money just put some Hydro Seating down I'll take care of it from there lo and behold I come home one day I got a erosion blanket on my side slope you ever try mowing a yard with erosion blanket on it anybody so now I can weed whip the whole thing on a side so no that doesn't do me any good either and then somebody should take a look at uh section 3292 under execution paragraph 7 of your manual over seating maintenance never seen a water truck no over seating congratulations well done number five new street lights we had lights we have electricity our house lights work fine as far as I know so didn't need those either even if I did guess what they don't work you forgot to put the power in when you were doing the job so remember that nice side slope with the erosion blanket on it they had to come in and do a directional abore across my street and wreck my erosion blanket congratulations so special benefits Mr City attorney Miss Carol there are none I'm going to get off the topic of special um improvements and I'm going to talk about detriments safety concerns let's talk about that for a moment anyone Drive in from the West End of town on the Sager Lake Lane did they notice that the drive lane went from 7 and a half to 9 ft with J barriers on one side let's put that into perspective it went from 11 1/2 to 9 ft that's like driving into a typical parking stall at the shopping center at 25 miles an hour good luck no signage warning of restricted Drive Lanes no signage on top of the J barriers both of which should be in applied and I know that some of the signage is in your plan set not there detriment number two perhaps you can go look at your signage when you're heading westbound tell me if you see a speed limit sign because I don't and nobody else does and it's rather apparent no striping I don't understand why it's taken three years to put in a job that's supposed to take four months and I know it should have Cara does too it's right in her project manual book four months to substantial completion there's no no parking signs so occasionally you'll have people Park in the new parallel spots and on the other side of the road which then restricts your drive line down to 11 1/2 ft both directions have to use that 11 and 1/2 ft go figure well we've talked enough about the traveling public how about The Walking public how about those using the sidewalk how about the little kids that walk down the sidewalk jump on top of the retaining wall That's greater than 4 feet without fall protection it's in your project manual open it up not even going to cover the Gregor's driveway 14% incline I dare any of you to jump in a wheelchair and go navigate that driveway at 14% sorry that you had to sit here and listen to somebody else gri but it's been 400 or 543 days since the start of this project to tonight and it's still not done Drive West out of here tonight two blocks away for you guys West I dare you take a look at the crap sitting around take a look at the traffic control the erosion logs the silt fence the construction equipment on an filtration Basin that's not even close to being done and then tell me that I'm going to pay an assessment are you nuts for what thank you thank you Mr Schmid is there anyone else who wants to speak please oh sure why not yeah I'm Sue shm Tony and I own the building at 1889 Stager Lake Lane and so sue can you bring your Sue would you bring your microphone down a little bit so we can hear thank you is that better yes thank you okay did you hear what I said yes we're good yeah go ahead so as rich said um the project lasted way way way too long we have tenants in our building we have all power sports they um they thrive on the public coming to them um Jim Hughes who owned um all power sports and now has died um told me they lost half their revenue the last summer not this summer the summer before due to this construction project and it was a terrible event one day the sign was com in this way one way it was the west side and nobody ever knew until you got there it was awful so that's one issue another issue is that um again I don't know that how this benefits our property we um our building doesn't look at that road um we have adequate parking in our parking lot when we built our building we abided by all the city rules to have adequate parking and we have that and what do we need parking up on that road for we were also told when this began that really it was not about us it was about the new kuss Anderson project that was going out by the Dairy Queen and that's why this road needed to be there to accommodate that so um I don't know where car Anderson is but obviously if Carl Anderson if we had to do this to help them then maybe they should be part of this billing process the last item is that um I'd like to cite the president that Marsh Lake Road was owned on one side by lak toown Township The Other Side by Victoria when that road was done because they could not charge um Lake Town Township Marsh Lake Road did not pay for assessments now I heard it from the attorney I heard it from Cara that an area of um of improvement should be treated equally well um again the park is sitting there with no assessment but yet we are so that's all I have to say thank you thank you Mr round anyone else would like to address the yeah um Bob can you move the microphone over so Mr Gregory can oh perfect all right please state your name and address for the record please yes good afternoon uh Tom Gregory 1885 stagger Lake Lane my neighbors did such a good job I hope I can but anyways um start off with a couple of numbers so if I want to build a a a wheelchair R in Victoria U by your ordinance and actually Nationwide ordinance I could not exceed 8% slope if I want to build a home in Victoria my driveway could not exceed 12% slope and my driveway now thanks to you folks has a 14% slope it used to have a 2% slope which was very convenient for the wheelchair it's all part of the whole plan when I built that house was to make it as wheelchair accessible as possible you folks kind of threw a wrench into that um so why do you think you have an ordinance against steep driveways I think everybody in Minnesota knows that a steep driveway is a bad thing they're bad for cars trucks trailers you back your car out your bumper bottom s out the trailer hitches tear up the road backing out a trailer is going to tear up the road that's why you have ordinance they're bad for emergency vehicles fire engines ambulances uh emergency Personnel creates problems for all of those folks that's why you have an ordinance against a steep driver I don't think there's any question that what you did to my property devalued the property and here we're talking about how you improved our property I don't think there's any question you devalued my property and let's talk about how we got here which was ages ago prior to any construction you hired Cara garen's engineering firm to work with the homeowners and inform them how this property how this project was going to impact their properties during that sitdown meeting with car's engineer Teresa asked very specific question is the new road going to be higher or lower than the existing Road he didn't hesitate he didn't say I'm not sure he said the new curb will be about even with your driveway will be about level with your existing driveway the top of the new curb which means the road itself will be about 4 to 6 in lower J could you get my water the the road itself will be about 4 to 6 in lower than um than it is now which was fine with us we thought that was perfectly acceptable now just little background the reason Teresa asked that question I knew she was going to ask it she told me she was going to ask that question and the reason she did was because a few years prior to our project Cara engineered a Street project cban gutter on the north side of Highway 7 and after the project was done it was argued by the Carlson that there was that Cara failed to put in adequate storm drain and catch basins and it ended up all of the water from the whole neighborhood ended up being funneled to the Carlson's project to their property and they ended up spending in ex C of $100,000 in landscaping to mitigate all of the runoff that was happening on their project so that's why tresa asked that question she did not want to repeat that nightmare scenario that the Carlson went through so I know she asked that question she told me and she did and of course car's engineer can't remember asking that question uh well so um the more we Le learn about it we discovered that you folks were working closely with Three Rivers Even though three rivers isn't being assessed on this project you work closely with them and they demanded that you gut our property they demanded that you lower the road and that's why you did it when I ask Cara what public benefit we got the whole city what public benefit did you get by gutting our property she talked about something about preserving trees on the park absolute nonsense there is no old growth trees opposite our our our property none whatsoever um everything west of that wall just about everything is nothing but brush and scrub trees so making an argument that you were trying to preserve trees total nonsense um truth of the matter is you wasted tens of thousands of of taxpayer money lowering that road for no reason whatsoever there's no public benefit to lower that road but you spent tens of thousands of dollars taking away thousands of cubic yards of dirt as opposed to just raising that retaining wall you raise that retaining wall one course one layer one block and you would have saved our property but you didn't do that you did you catered to everything the Three Rivers wanted and you gutted our property at our expense not Three Rivers um so you all seen the emails I wrote I wrote several to you all not a single one of you bothered to reply and explain your reasoning why you chose to do what you did um so we did we filed a lawsuit in Cara County against the city of Victoria we're asking that um the courts Force the city to do the right thing and that's restore safe and secure access to me I mean you you know I talked about a steep driveway um you throw winter conditions on a steep driveway becomes treacherous for anybody anybody to walk on cars can't get up bad weather conditions I can't get up my driveway what am I supposed to do people slip and fall on steep driveways end up in the emergency room with serious serious issues possibly life-threatening that's what you did to our driveway you turned it from a 2% slope to a 14% slope which even by your own standards it it it exceeds your own ordinance so yeah I have enough physical problems myself that I have to deal with each and every day challenges I certainly didn't need you all to unnecessarily go out of your way to create a personal hardship for me so thank you for your time thank you Mr Gregory any other comments any other people who would like to address the Council on this item final call thank you with that I will entertain a motion to close the public hearing please motion to close we have a motion can I get a second a a second by council member re all in favor by signify by saying I I I any opposed motion carries Council uh um discussion and feedback on this item I mean I guess I just would say saying that there's no benefit there I think is not right I mean it's not just about the people living there right now you have to think about if you sold that to a family they're more likely to buy it because there's sidewalks there now that they can actually use there's lighting that's there so kbon gutter is important so I I I don't see that there's no benefit there and I understand the frustration by the length of this prop that the project length has been unacceptable not just to all of you but to all of us as well um lots of odd things happened in this construction period and you know we can apologize about that it it it's not the way we wanted it to be for for certain and I know there's still outstanding items on that on that project Council other comments questions I would just say that I I don't think that the values in single family homes in that area I think the values and future development opportunity um and that's where as the mayor said this Pro the problem we've had with the project not acceptable I think we've all voiced that over time that the length of time it's taken for that project is not acceptable so we under we're on the same page on that but from the from a potential development value along that Corridor whether it's now 6 months 6 years 60 years the value there um is there and honestly in 60 years we're probably talking about another assessment based on major rework on the roads because they've been traveled so I believe that it's there um I think previous councils have believed that it's there um when it comes to using Marsh Lake Road as uh as an example if had I it happened before this Council had I sat on that Council I would have not allowed those homes to not be assessed I think that I think the home there I know personally one home sold on the north side of the road and the value they received from the project vastly increased the pro the value of their property more than the assessed value they receed more than the assessed value that the county that the county listed it at and so when they when you when you say that there was that we did that had I I can tell you following that project and getting the information on that project would have not voted in the affirmative to allow them to not be assessed before you move based on the value can we ask that's too because it's also a county road right is that not no part of the reason actually a city road well but it's going to become a County Road sorry it's going to become I me it's going to become and that's when they're going to get assessed there will be assessments when it becomes a county road yeah there was that was a a completely I mean it was a very different situation so the the family that received the value saw it in their sale of the home so it the value is there you just don't see it when we redid I did not want to do Foundation work on my 50-year-old Victoria home but I had to do foundation work cost us $50,000 did I want to spend that on something that I'm not going to see right away no but if we choose to sell it we'll see it so arguments are there I and I I think that it's not a residential uh right now the argument is is it in the best interest over the next 25 to 30 years in that area and is it residential or commercial and in this instance it's going to be commercial everyone not every I'm not going to say every single one of those properties but at least three um based on where the where the plan is going so that's where I'm at understood that doesn't help these folks today I understand so all right other questions comments then just for Council the I think that there's pretty widespread that that these projects do improve the properties that they were designed to serve and and there's uh longer range benefit to the value of those properties by being more desirable because the longer term view of how we're going to access downtown um drives up the value of those Parcels I mean I think that that's pretty clear the question one question question that we might want to consider and leave us for discussion is that the inordinate amount of time that was spent on this project it it has been frustrating we we have seen the emails we've read them we've directed Staff address those concerns that have been brought to council I think that uh in the fullness of time that the city will ensure that things that are yet to be completed will get completed the city's got a good track record of making good on their promises so um you know a potential idea and I'll put it to us is that would we want to reduce the assessment amounts by you know a number then we may need to consider that either tonight or table and consider it at a future G um to be good neighbors to understand that these things are difficult and they take time um and you know we want citizens to be happy uh but zero is not the right number for this there is somewhere that perhaps we can use our our judgment and our um Equitable treatment on how to deal with these things and make a decision so um I'll put that idea out there if we don't want to consider that then that's something that is also in our purview yeah one of the things I would remind council is that we've already gone down from the 50% to the 30% and um we don't it's 2% of this project cost these assessments are 2% of the is that correct Cara right 2% of the project cost so it's nowhere near what our typical policy is so for the record I have been upset with the fact that three Park isn't paying an assessed value said it in meetings before this I have an issue with that but understand the reasoning behind it I'm just going to put that out there again right I I also concur with council member evansky on on the time side of it yeah I'm having heartburn over that um it was a the number of 543 days is what I heard so if my math is right uh there that's a long time yeah sure is um I mean I know this is a little bit I mean since we're talking about I mean how do we avoid this from happen right like I mean there's only so much you can obviously do but are are there things we can get back from the contractor I mean to like they didn't I did they meet their obligations I mean I I don't know like car is there is there a um clause in the contractor the contract that allows any kind of recapture so by way of recollection mayor members of city council the primary problems related to the overall project schedule were started by Excel Energy and then propagated by the other utility companies so we buried overhead power as part of this project which is a process in and of itself um they were delayed behind drug their Fe came and did some things left then we had challenges with the other utilities that needed to be relocated so um you know that and I'm simplifying there's much more detail to that but from a simplification basis that was a driver of the delays associated with the project and that isn't the contractor's fault in this particular case now we've had some conversations internally we have to pay a bill for bearing the overhead power lines at some point Excel will get around to billing us which tends to be delayed for quite some time but do we have any recourse um you know to not have to pay the full amount with the damages that extra costs we've incurred as a result of the delay so that you know that is a conversation for a different day with a different set of information in front of us um but yeah it it undoubtedly has been one of the most challenging and delayed projects the city has experienced in my time so I I Concur and appreciate the frustration yeah can can you speak to some of the things we heard some of them I think at least for me for the first time about like power lights not or the lights not having power to them and having to redig up like are those like is that stuff where we get you know obviously that's a mistake by the contractor that right well it ties back to excel again so where we were told we could serve the power the lights from didn't end up being the location we could serve them from um so we had to work with the utility the subcontractor to our contract to bore a new line under the road to make that connection um it's going to be bright once we power up those lights so there may be some benefit to not having them turned on yet because there's a lot of lights in that area um but we're getting close to getting that resolved um striping I think was happening today or tomorrow last I heard um and then the work on the West End what when we originally bid this project the second project was supposed to be under construction as this one came to an end and then the Marco mlan project got delayed by over a year so we have a temporary State on the east on the west end of the project that we need to reconcile with the next bid package that's sitting on the shelf waiting to bid um shortly if they close which I'm told is happening this month so my question goes to Bob legally talking from an Excel standpoint or in the Excel issue because if that's if if they're the ones that what is the likelihood we come out in the positive versus any kind legal fees we're going to incur going to war with them over trying to reclaim something yeah mayor and councel um I like aa's answered that that's sort of difficult to sort of put that calculus into your decisionmaking tonight but that said um you're a member the city's a member of the Suburban rate Authority which happens to be a a joint Powers group that my firm represents that deals with Excel and other big utilities on utility matters this is a hot button issue AC across all cities across the Metro I don't want to point out Excel specifically except that I sort of have to um uh Centerpoint uh is also not uh the quickest on the uptake sometimes but Excel has had um now a history I think in the last several years of being slow um in a lot of cases on projects similar to what Cara is describing and what you're very familiar with on this project so it is not at all a novel problem that uh cities are having with Excel cities have statutory authority to impose penalties on utilities for being delayed in these kind of projects to my knowledge no city has taken the steps necessary to do that but that's a discussion now that the Suburban rate Authority on your behalf uh is starting to have so um there may be avenues that are opening up for for getting at uh the concern at what point do we impose a statutory penalty for this based on previous work are they going to argue that we're doing it after the fact uh or are we can we do it and say we're doing it because of this project as an example and then impose it on this project and every project moving forward yeah mayor council I mean it's a you're making a smart Point by asking that question if we were to do something we collectively or you Victoria were to do something would Excel potentially say you're doing this it's too late you can't get us for that last project sure they may say that I I don't want to try and give you legal advice device about whether that's going to work or not but yeah you're raising an appropriate question um that we'll have to wrestle with all right Council yeah council member Roberts please so you know I know you brought up the point mayor you know that we've already reduced this from 50 to 30 right 30 um but to Greg's point you know if we do determine that you know because of the delays and stuff we want to reduce it or what does that look like does that mean staff would look at this a little bit closer and you'd bring this back to us at a different time or yeah city manager Hardy please thank you mayor members of the council council member Roberts um good question and um one of the things that we have to do once you adopt an assessment role is to provide um Property Owners 30 days to pay without interest so they can pay that upfront without interest um and so we we have to have enough time for people to make arrangements to make those payments the reason that's important is because of the time of the year that this is happening so we also have to certify as I noted earlier um our city uh finance department must certify any special assessments to the count to the county annually that's certification must be done by November 30th so backing that up what does that mean if you make a decision today we would be um we would have about mid November would provide people 30 days to pay and that gives our finance department enough time to do those calculations and make certification to the county before the November 30th deadline where if you were to table this uh let's say you wanted to consider a different amount and have staff bring back a recommendation for something different we could certainly do that October 28th our finance director has already communicated is too tight for her to turn that certification to do those calculations and turn that certification around um timely to the county and so if this is something that you'd like to entertain we would also request that the council identify a special meeting date to specifically um probably throwing throwing something out there next Monday evening um for you to revisit that item that would provide our finance department adequate time to certify the payments after the 30 days um that you would give people to make the payment um without interest and provide the finance department enough time to certify before the County's deadline all right so we're talking about $60,000 total one assessments here um what I would recommend um the the proposal that has come before us is already discounted and you know outside of our policy and that is what the staff is recommending so my question to council is do we want to um talk through what we might want the staff to take a look at or does council have a feeling amongst themselves about how they'd like to reconcile this this evening so to be clear we have essentially three choices choice number one adopt as is Choice number two is to give staff time but that would mean that we would probably have to have a special meeting so that they can meet their deadlines correct for Choice number three if we choose to do a reduction we would do that in conference tonight and make a decision on that course of action is that a fair yep and with option number two we have to have that special meeting prior to the 28th so it would be right so if we chose to go that route we're probably like meeting in you know are your calendars clear in a week from now to do that so all right two issues one that we have to follow up we have no recourse uh in in terms of immediacy with Excel and and the prior project keeping the current land owners in the loop on that particular process is probably something that would be would benefit us moving forward to understand what the city can do to help them because of the length and the unacceptable length of that project understanding that it's not stand it's not a standard time length in Victoria it's not a it's not something we regularly do to drag feet um and things like an Excel sometimes do stand in our way um the assessed value in looking at what this project is and taking this project on as it is I think we the value is there we've demonstrated the value is there we did have a conversation again as we did in the last a special assessment conversation way into the fact that there limited number number of property owners in this area and we did step outside our policy and reduce the amount so with that I think moving ahead on this while bioca the Excel issue out on the other project to to come to some um impacted resident policy would probably be a good move and I don't that's to be determined but I think that's the best thing that we can do so I would be let's move ahead um with what we've already talked about and discussed over the last two years for this special assessment in this area um for the 13 and a half acres which is the original reason for the special assessment I'm sorry council member Gunderson are you making a motion or no you you I thought we were looking for discussion are we looking for a motion well I I'm for discussion I'm I'm I'm not clear on where you're headed with your comment move ahead on the special assessment bate out or whatever uh We've to we have to separate the two we have to separate out the Excel issue from this because the Excel issue has nothing to do on this particular assessment so moving ahead on this particular assessment I think is what we are talking about what we need to do I understand thank you I mean so again if we decided to reduce it lower knowing that a lot of the delays were out of our control because it was Excel and what kind of precedent are we setting for I mean I guess you spoke earlier Bob they that in a specific project we should keep right have St right uh stay to uh similar right keep it the same but one from you know two years ago versus this now right we can change it so I mean are we setting you know if God forbid there's issues with another project in the future like setting precedent I suppose to keep reducing down when things go bad yeah mayor council I'm I'm always not a fan of thinking that things we do set precedents uh because there's always um competing facts um different facts um on different projects I mean I would candidly be concerned about um the city saying because this project which is very very much like many many other projects we've done and assessed for this one though doesn't provide any special benefit and we're not going to assess at all that to me is starting to raise a legal issue I mean you've said in the past three reactions for decades now that you believe that your projects provide benefit and I think that's that is sort of a precedent the city it seems to me a set as far as you know making a judgment about whether delays um are worth something in terms of reducing um the assessment I'd have to leave that to you I mean it's that's not a that doesn't raise any legal concern if you want to do that but um I I don't have much intelligent to say about that I don't think you can combine the two and say that because of this project we reduced this I think we take that other project on as a fight with Excel along with some of the other communities that have experienced the same thing and fight for the residents on on some other on that level and that is a separate issue but they're not going to get anything out of we don't that's if we create a is there a legal precedent or legal value that it says we could not I don't know compensate or help affected residents because of that project and the delays because it showed sign showed significant hardship should we if we should recoup some of those costs if the city if the city is compensated for the delay or the project whatever it may be for this significant delay can we return that to the impacted residents or a portion whatever it may be I'm it's broadly speaking not yeah May and Council um no is the answer you can't literally write a check to the residents should you recover from Excel could you reassess down the road and reduce the Assessments marginally in recognition of having gotten something from Excel yeah theoretically you could do that okay so there is recourse to make this current number smaller than what it currently yep but but we would be dealing with trying to refund yeah no mayor and Council I mean first of all let me just say practically speaking the administrative burden of doing that would far exceed the amount of Assessments the amount of properties assessed here that we're talking about but in a theoretical way you could do that you can reassess and reduce the assessments on a project uh it's difficult and you have to work with the county and Etc ET so practically speaking I think that's quite unlikely to happen but I'm being asked could it theoretically happen yeah sure it could theoretically happen so I think part of the issue we're just trying to go down the Excel route with this at this point is just an entanglement that it muddies the water it further complicates the isue well and then what does it go what does it go back to timing more time well which is this whole exactly I mean right I mean it's just what we're wrestling with here is providing some compensation to these residents for the delay delay and I mean this unprecedented delay in a way that we can through lowering their assessments um by lowering their assessments I'm my concern is we have provided value by lowering their assessments I don't want to say that we haven't provided that value and but on the other hand I am very sympathetic to what these these neighbors have with this project is there's exigen circumstances with this yes and there there were a lot of things that that happened you know we all have the email traffic on it that just would not happen in other projects and the also when we we might consider the percentage of people that would be affected by that because there's so few Parcels here the right the the the disperate impact is greater on a prata basis so um and I I think that I I'll I'll put this out there that I would be comfortable with reducing the 60,000 overall by 10% and reassessing um the that it is representative share back to these Parcels okay so and that's where I would be comfortable okay I would sorry I would just also add right like to your point you made earlier right we've already reduced it right we have went from 75 to 50 to 30 but I would Counterpoint that we did the same reduction for the last hearing we just had and that stuff went really well right so we're already we gave them a reduction and they got things done I mean as far as we know per you know well this didn't so that's where I'm kind of like you know we maybe should reduce it to the to Greg's number I I don't know I mean I guess I would leave it up to staff to figure out what that better number you know um I I don't know does um okay we should probably back up here for a second um Greg do you want to make a motion that we reduce the assessed amount by 10% before we I would like to ask we can have Council I would like to ask uh Dana about like what about because I because I I would like our finance department to maybe weigh in before we decide to turn the number Miss Hardy please thank you mayor members of the council so playing on the example of council member evans's um recommendation if that were to be something that you were to entertain and agree to one of the options that you could have tonight that would save you from having to call a special meeting would be to agree on the amount if it's a 10% reduction if it's an amount specific whatever that might be we can make a modification to the resolution this evening on the Fly um and have you adopt that and then we would not need we would not have a need to call for a special meeting and still be able to meet all those deadlines are there concerns though like I mean I'm just asking right like like should this be something though that we discuss with finance department to determine if this is like what numbers we should be at actually please so council member Roberts mayor members of the council I think at this point it's completely at your discretion um and um completely at your discretion and um if it what would be helpful for us us is if you if you were to make deviate from the resolution this evening and wanted to do a reduction um that you be very specific with what that is instead of leaving that up to staff so we could um process that yeah I feel like staff has given us their recommendation and so so we should make a decision about that this evening that the reduction will come out of the parks and park the roads fund and that would kick into the general our general Levy right for what we our general budget so the question I think you're asking is if we reduce the assessment the the burden of the rest of that assessment goes back to the taxpayers versus that is a that is correct to the all the taxpayers versus just this group of taxpayers and and and and any assess reduction on any project that's what's going to happen correct Y correct correct regardless of what numbers if staff came back with a different number then we'd evaluate that different number and then we would now have decision of essentially one two or three do we stick with the original do we stick with what we were thinking this evening um or do we go to the staff number it's just we we do have a timing issue yeah so it's it's a question of whether or not we I think we do our best behind the die is to put a lot of thought into what the numbers are based on staff recommendations and they're the ones that work with the numbers every day things that we can't foresee are issues like we just saw that we can't we can't and and if they happen we're limited in our recourse for that area right now and I think the question that we're wrestling was is this did that put it Ono on this on did that put undo burden on this particular assessment and I don't I understand the length of time is a pain and some of the other things you go through in the moment is a pain but does it put it undue burden on a on the sale of a property in 15 years and that's what we're dealing with that's the question that we have this assessment if this property is sold in 15 years it been benefits from the project that's done that should have be far complete by then does do they benefit from this project and and then by the in like terms by the assessment we've said yes we've said yes we've we prior to this we talked about that the impact of 50% was too much on those homeowners or those Property Owners so we reduced it to 30 and now we're talking about do we reduce it more on the inconvenience of an organization that was outside of a control that had to complete work before the contractor could complete their work so over 15 years yeah I think or 10 even five probably depending on whenever these decide to come up for a commercial sale and it I think it meets our I think it meets that benefit I'll just council member right um on top of what council member Gunderson said I agree with those points the one part again I'm going back to is it's I look at it more further than an inconvenience for these folks with the time project that's where I kind of draw the line I think it's beyond the inconvenience side yeah which is why I think we're having these discussions now are we trying to prove damages I mean I'm not that's I'm asking no I don't think we're trying to prove damages this is something within our I think we're trying to be you know we were elected to these positions to review the facts review the circumstances and make informed judgments on how we're going to proceed with how we're going to treat projects with their residents so again so we I I'll reiterate we're in three positions we can defer to staff but then we'll have the consequences of another meeting that will need to be here for next Monday we can make a motion for a reduced amount or we can make a motion for the full amount so I mean I think towards that end I will make a motion for the approval of resolution adopting the final assessment R for steager Lake Lane West phase one improvements to be reduced by 10% of or $6,000 of the $60,000 total that's the motion that I'm going to put forward second thank you council member evansky we have a motion and a second by council member Roberts any further discussion all in favor signify by saying I I I any opposed motion carries thank you good conversation thanks everyone that was next item item Council MERS yeah item 6.4 a sketch plat for residential development on the ccam Meister property in our South growth area presenting that this evening is city planner Brian mccan Mr mccan the flooor is yours thank you mayor and council members tonight we have a application for a sketch plat review from the py group for the kuchenmeister residential property uh as you're well aware the sketch plot process is just to receive initial feedback from the plan commission the city council so there will be no approvals or actions taken this evening uh you are just here to provide guidance to assist the applicant with any subsequent applications that they may uh proceeded with inform the applicant now of any specific comments or concerns with the proposed development uh so that they can incorporate those within future submittals or decide if they will move forward with the request so looking at the location and area it's a single parcel about 82 and 1 12 acres in size it's north of County Road 10 inler Boulevard West of the proposed West Creek Village Residential development and south of the marsh Lake hunting club uh the py group is proposing 163 single family homes and 80 town homes with the sketch plat the parcel is generally flat vacant Farmland currently with some existing homes and structures there are also pockets of wetlands highlighted on the screen in the purple and yellow portions uh also some wooded areas and a portion of the West chasa Creek runs through the north area of property there are also some overhead power lines to the South and it's also worth noting that there is no direct access to this parcel uh they currently utilize a shared driveway from County Road 10 with the adjacent parcel to the South so I'll for the uh three types of uses that they're showing here two of them are single family products and then the town homes I mentioned so I'll just break it down in the three phases here uh the northernmost phase adjacent to the chasa creek are the 80ft wide Lots shown in red uh they're proposing 52 of those lots and then moving south they have 70 foot wide Lots they're proposing A1 of those lots and then further south adjacent to the overhead power lines uh are the 80 proposed single or 80 proposed town home Lots on a public Street for annexation and resoning it's within Lake toown Township which means an annexation is required when that happens you're well aware that an agricultural zoning is automatically established for the property uh the applicant is proposing a PUD rezoning with R1 for single family and a proposed standard R3 rezoning for the town home portions and then once again as you're aware re reasonings are discretionary meaning uh if you don't like the product before you you don't have to rezone a property we have the most discretion based on our zoning ordinance for rezonings so the deviations that they are proposing with this Development I've listed the standard R1 requirements on the top side of this table and their proposed deviations highlighted in green so they're requesting a reduction from 12,000 ft to 9100 Square ft for the minimum lot area a 10t lot WID reduction and then a 5- foot setback reduction for the front and rear and then as I mentioned they are seeking standard R3 Zoning for the town homes and they're meeting all the requirements of that District looking at our comprehensive plan it's guided for a blend of low density residential medium density residential and open space uh regarding the single family portions and the town home portions they are meeting are me minimum density requirements for those areas uh a comprehensive plan Amendment would be required though to align the colors on the map we've received guidance from met Council on the past regarding this so looking at their proposal overlaid with our comp plan lines we would need to align single family portions with the yellow and the medium density portions with the orange another portion of our comprehensive plan we have a growth area and phasing map to uh plan development in accordance with utility extensions so the West Creek Village property just to the east is within our 2021 to 2030 range but this parcel is just outside of that range it's in our 2031 to 2040 area uh what this means is that this would require an additional comprehensive plan amendment to bring this into this decade which affects our utility projections population households several aspects of our comprehensive plan uh which means additional work to analy or analyze these changes and Implement them into our comp plan Amendment for the Met Council additionally our comp plan shows uh the local neighborhood collector the future extension of Red Fox Drive cutting through the center of the site based on the plan that was provided by the applicant uh they are shifting that realignment to the Western properties uh what this does it results in some double Frontage lots and also has implications for our future Road Network and we also need some additional analyses to determine our future Road network not just for this road but all of our roads extending further west in that 2031 to 2040 range so I've highlighted the road here to the north you can see uh based on where it was previously through the site they've realigned it to the West which creates those double Frontage Lots with the internal local road in front and the collector road to the rear moving on to the architecture they did provide some renderings of the types of lots that they would have for the 70ft wide Lots which are shown on the screen here as well as the 80ft wide lots and the Town Home Products that they would be looking for those 80 Town Homes looking at parking uh we require two enclosed spaces per unit for single family and two spaces with one and a half enclosed per unit for the town homes they do not have any guest parking proposed with this sketch plat but as far as we can tell uh the products that they're showing with driveway space and internal garages would meet our minimum parking requirements looking at our landscaping and tree preservation they would be required to have Boulevard trees along local roads uh as well as minimum planting requirements of Three Trees per single family unit and one tree per th000 square ft of required open space for the town homes they would also need to provide Foundation plantings with the town homes and then 25t buffers would be required between R3 and R1 and R3 uses as well as uh for the double fronted lots that I mentioned earlier and I add another note in here that a buffer should be considered between the southern side of the town homes with the adjacent single family user right off of Highway 10 uh because they would have some impacts with the town homes directly behind them also there's a minimum open space requirement of 50% for the single family units and 25% for town homes and if they exceed 20% of removal of significant andh Heritage trees on the property they would need to provide additional trees for mitigation looking at our Shoreland overl District it affects approximately 15 Parcels within this area because they're within 300 ft of the chesca creek the town homes are outside of that area so we do not require a tier analysis for this development and then these single family homes that are within the area would have to comply with our minimum 25 or maximum 25% impervious our minimum percent of 50 for the open space and the minimum 75t lot width looking at Park dedication The Pedestrian Connections in total for this development they would need to dedicate uh 9.74 acres of land to satisfy our Parkland dedication requirements or a cash fee of $1 million 22,700 uh as shown on the plan they don't have any parks proposed they also did not identify any Trails or sidewalks as far as staff can tell with our initial review of the sketch plat we did not see any other neighborhood amenities and it's worth noting that the closest park is the marsh Hollow park approximately a half mile away from this development the Parks and Recreation committee reviewed this at their meeting on September 16th and they did recommend inclusion of trails and sidewalks uh but were also acceptable of a combination of Park land and cash fee and then I will we'll pass it over to Karen miss Karen welcome back I'm back do you want to just click to the next slide so I'm going to cover my normal topics of um that I typically cover for new development but specifically related to streets um what's notable is the extension of Creekside Lane through the site that would be a collector road so that is a neighborhood collector that we've started to construct in the hunterbrook neighborhood the marsh Hollow neighborhood that really is going to serve as a spine access for the houses through here um they are showing Creek Side Lane through the stri through the site um what's notable about how they're showing it is they are not showing any direct access to Creek Side Lane which is consistent with what um we want to see for a collector Road like Creekside specifically related to the alignment of red fox um so because red fox when you look at the map that Brian provided it's just showing like a blue dashed blob um through the area because red fox through this portion of land was outside of our 2030 area we haven't planned a specific alignment for Red Fox and that's something that if if the council's going to um entertain extending development into this area we're going to want to take a much closer look at what the alignment of red fox should be specifically relative to chasa Creek so we want to make sure that long term we know where we're going to cross red fox over chasa Creek in a way that's cost effective and not creating a connection that becomes a big problem down the road for the community um and then um the project is showing two potential Connection locations to County Road 10 um specifically there is a Cordo study that the council's aware of for Highway 10 all the way out past County Road 43 um that includes a realignment of County Road 10 through this area um so the developer is aware of that and is showing that potential realignment um but if development were to move forward in this area we would need to work with the county in terms of um access locations to Highway 10 uh the county provided comments um noting that uh a traffic impact analysis would be required as part of a project great and storm water this one's easy compared to the other elements of discussion um it's in Carver County W Mo and so um as part of our ordinance Wetlands including buffers shall be located on outlots deeded to the city and then um storm water facilities need access so that's fairly straightforward um but utilities so sanitary and Sewer sanitary sewer and water would be extended to this area from Creekside Lane but as Brian noted um Points West of the West Creek Village project are outside of um the 2030 boundary in our comprehensive plan so we would need to um account for that through a plan Amendment update um in addition well number six needs to be completed and permitted I'm happy report they were working on Startup this week so the completed part is very close I'm still working on the permitted part and then I do want to know that as I did for West Creek Village this is um in our search area for our next Water Treatment Plant so um figuring out the timing of that and location of that would be um part of the work that would go into a comp plan Amendment um that would need to be considered if a project were to proceed so just to highlight the summary of the deviations for the Pud that they're proposing it's a reduction in the R1 stand standards as I mentioned before uh also they do not have any sidewalks or Trails shown no 25- ft landscape buffers that are required uh no Parks private amenities or Community Gathering spaces and no guest parking for the town homes the planing commission did review this at their meeting on October 1st they expressed some concerns with the required comprehensive plan amendments and a lot of the discussion revolved around the acces to Highway 10 as well as the desire to avoid the double Frontage lots that I mentioned they also had questions regarding density with our current comp plan requirements in the Met council's 2050 imagine plan uh they also uh expressed a desire for Parks trails and sidewalks Incorporated with this development as well as the burms that I mentioned earlier uh they did request review of re a revised concept plann if the applicant does decide to move forward so with that as I mentioned at the beginning no action is required this evening I've provided a few points for discussion for the city council to consider staff are available for questions and there are representatives of the application the audience this evening very good thank you um so right off the bat a couple of concerns for me um I want to Echo the concerns that I saw from the Planning Commission but I know that County Road 10 is a big deal for us we are um currently in conversation with the county about access but they have kind of kicked that can down to maybe 2028 so like three years from now right and it does it does this project actually Leap Frog another plot that's not currently being developed mayor and council members that's correct the West Creek Village project that I mentioned uh as you can see a portion of it here to the east of this project that we're talking about they have uh gone through the sketch plat process but they have not applied for preliminary plat approvals they don't have any entitlements to the property uh so this would Leap Frog uh to the next site okay so that's that's a concern um then the the other thing um in regard to the product that's being proposed we have a lot of that product what we don't have a lot of is single uh like Rambler levels single level Town Homes um those kinds of products and I think that's what we're hearing from our residents that's the kind of product that they're looking for that will help them downsize out of their big twostory homes into something that's more manageable for them in their retirement years so um from my perspective I'd like to see um I'd like to see some one level living available to our residents um with that Council other comments questions for these folks I mean I guess I i' Echo what you're saying um we've done a lot of developments and you know I think we've done a tried to do a good job of getting different types of products um out there and we've also you know just getting more right we needed more Town Homes we needed more Apartments things like that I think we're at a point now though where we can be picky and we should be picky we need we need things that are unique we need like you said single level living that keeps you know that our seniors can live in um I I this Al be honest seems a little generic to me um I and then I I I don't like that again we're we're getting far out and no Gathering space no Parks no Trails no sidewalks that I this it doesn't feel like a neighborhood it doesn't feel like a community with out that stuff I I think it it just I I think if we're if we're going to do things like this if we're going to jump and it sounds like spend a decent amount of money to do something in this area when we were what 2040 to 2050 right was the or 2030 to 40 was it sorry yep 2030 40 um like we we need to get we need to get what like we that our residents want what we really want and and to me this isn't it yeah things that jump out I'm assuming the black line means Brian is a lot line is it um on this the picture you have up on the right and council members this black line is this the one that's the separation between the town home area and the single family and on the and on the side closer to 10 correct that's a lot line correct yes uh I have concerns what does this development do it what are you going to be able to do what is the the land owner going to be able to do in that lot right off 10 um other than maybe be compensated a little bit by the county for that road adjustment um maybe added in would this be a phase would there be something going there would that be different uh mayor and council member Gunderson this property is entirely separate from this development proposal why I can tell you is that it's guided for medium density so uh eventually it's anticipated to match the town homes that are proposed just to the north uh but no there's no plan Incorporated with the sketch plat to include that parcel so the way that the road comes in it's a pretty narrow opening between the properties um that's a one way in one way out or coming right off a County Road um I don't know I'd have to see how we would plot this out um to make that a cohesive development uh with the with the changes on the on the realignment for County 10 um I also I'm old enough and been here long enough to know when we changed our R1 we did a lot we took a lot into account into account and I know that the planner at the time Ben really worked at finding that sweet spot and uh every project that I've seen come through always looks at shortening them the the lot area and the setbacks and I'm not interested in something that looks the way that does with smaller lot lines and smaller uh Lots um we really worked hard to kind of find something that was going to work because we didn't want that smaller feel and I think this gives this is a much smaller feel um we we continued to say that 10 years ago and I'm going to say it now um you know getting to be the vice chair of the Planning Commission when we changed our to to our ones um it still holds true that it's important to me that we stay that way um I don't want to see any deviation anymore um unless they're going to bring a a lower uh cost product uh to address a low you know a a low income for a bad to use bad words that everybody freaks out on but a reduced income project um where there's affordable housing which we don't have I can tell you right now we don't have it and that's the project we need in this area um and until we get something that's there I think we hold strong to our to our um setbacks our lot sizes um and get the kind of neighborhoods that we wanted and that we designed our our our zoning districts for R1 to R3 and in our commercial thank you other questions I I think I I would Echo council member gerson's position that he's absolutely right we've both spent time in the Planning Commission we've uh have seen this continuous assult on those standards that we set uh for what we view Victoria to be this and and I love to use the term monotonous every time I can in our conversations but this is mon at its finest in terms of how this is laid out how things are snug the trying to pull the um comp plan that's out in the future forward and the necessary expenses and staff resource time to do that and I think that we have consternation about what those standards are as a city the way it is and our um reticence about others making decisions for us as to what we're going to guide Victoria into the future for uh and and then you know just the Litany of things that the Planning Commission reviewed and you you've heard my position on we are routinely asked to exchange cash for Parks um I think we need to hold firm and say no these These are the opportunities to add those amenities now and we're not going to sacrifice that for for money it just it's not it's not what Victoria has been in its history and it doesn't seem like that that's the future that we want to guide ourselves into and then we with with this particular layout there's a I think an overarching question as to what that property owner to the south of this between Highway 10 is I think that the there's a there's a lot of visioning around that this just doesn't feel like our visioning for what that is and then to just keep further pushing Red Fox as a collector Road out into Parcels where there's land owners that we have no idea when they're ready to put that in but we would have a concerted need for that immediately we have a need for it now which we don't we we need other development to push that direction so um and we all know the contentious issue that we had with realigning red fox drive through another subdivision in all the uh you know accommodations that had to get done to just push that through there I think we're all familiar with what we had to do with Timber Trail and having to take $500,000 of this City's resources and push it into that development to get that done uh and then this just further complicates that matter so I I just don't think this this uh the right time for this product right here at this in this in in the submitted form let member R any other comments uh agreement on a lot of this and just doesn't fit our vision in the timing um and uh I think we've all talked about one level I think one level continues to come back so if if somebody can come up with a strong one level Community uh for Victoria that's a great fit yes we have some we have some neighborhoods that we really um that are highly sought after with that one level living and and uh um green Crest is one of them Gard path Garden Path is another one of them so um you know the more the more that we can push that direction that's that that helps all right staff uh this is an item for discussion so anything else you need from Council here n from me mayor all right very good so moving on the final item on our regular agenda is item 6.5 which is a closed session this evening uh it's a closed session for Highway 5 and 11 the downtown Victoria West project property Acquisitions so pursuant to Minnesota statute 13d do5 subdivision 3C I'd like to make a motion to close the meeting to discuss for Highway 511 downtown Victoria West proog project property acquisitions regarding the following property P numbers do I do I need to list these I need to list these here they are 65. 5420 65.1 4210 65. 011 0800 65. 08220 65. 08210 65. 0142 5 65. 0141 010 and 65141 I'm going to start that one over again 65. 01411 0 do I have a second second was the second I second council member Roberts has a second all in favor signify by saying I I any opposed motion carries we we are in closed session um once we're done we'll return and reconvene the regular meeting of the council e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e I want to okay I make a motion to reconvene the regular meeting of the city council can I get a second second I have a motion in a second all in favor signify by saying I I I any opposed motion carries there are no more items on our regular agenda so we'll move on to reports and emerging issues uh Miss Hardy reports from staffone from staff M May uh Council any reports from Council none for me mayor oh yeah council member Gerson please not going to probably sorry it comes from one of our other conversations the attorney's gone but I wanted to get it out there that we we just put a monetary value on on things that ex that were outside of our our control and that's a basis for arguing against Excel and I wanted to talk to Bob about that but I would just bring that up to him that we just put a value by reducing the amount in our um uh assessment thank you on our special assessment uh that was that we all seem to be uh aligned with that it was a direct result of excel so when we argue that the 10% which was $60,000 is something that should be brought up if we're going to go back to excel 6,000 $6,000 I'm sorry yeah the the 10% of $60,000 so we put $6,000 on that so uh when we argue that on top of some of the other things that might have caused a delay that's where I would we because we we reduced it with the reasoning that the delay that was outside of our circumstance caused that so okay so to be to just to be clear so that I have an understanding of where you're coming from we've ascribed a number and you're making the comment that when we have the conversations with Excel about the delays of the project you feel that it's um essential to that conversation to let them know that we we took a monetary um hit pit for delays that they contributed to a project yep now and there's there's there are likely other right delays as well but I'm I'm tracking with the I'm just saying we use that as a majority something right to the resident and so it was a cost to the greater community council member Gunderson I canc okay no more items to come before the council this evening so I will entertain a motion to adjourn motion second have a motion and a second I'll in favor signify by saying I I any opposed motion carries we