Loading...
1978 09 11 I I I CONTINUATION OF THE SEPTEMBER 5, 1978, COUNCIL MEETING HELD SEPTEMBER 11, 1978 Mayor Hobbs called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. with the following members present: Councilmen Pearson and Waritz. Councilmen Neveaux and Geving were absent. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Councilman Pearson moved to approve the agenda as presented. Motion seconded by Councilman Waritz. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hobbs, Councilmen Pearson and Waritz. No negative votes. Motion carried. ADOPT SPECIAL ASSESSMENT - CHARLES ANDERSON, PARCEL l22DOj2: This assessment was mistakenly deleted from the North Service Area assessment roll. The parcel abuts Glendale Drive south of Pleasant Acres. Councilman Pearson moved to put the Charles Anderson, Parcel 122DOj2 on the North Area assessment roll in the amount of $3,669.00 plus capitalized construction interest. Motion seconded by Councilman Waritz. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hobbs, Councilmen Pearson and Waritz. No negative votes. Motion carried. , . COMMISSIONER APPOINTMENT - HRA: Mayor Hobbs nominated Clifford L. Whitehill to fill the vacancy on the HRA. RESOLUTION #78-51: Councilman Pearson moved the adoption of a resolution approving the nomination of Clifford L. Whitehill to the HRA. Resolution seconded by Councilman Waritz. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hobbs, Councilmen Pearson and Waritz. No negative votes. Motion carried. BIKE TRAIL GRANT APPROVAL: The city has been notified that the bike trail grant application cannot be totally funded. The change in approval deletes construction of an off road bike path from Powers Blvd. to Great Plains Blvd. but will fund the widening and grade changes from Powers Blvd. to Lake Ann Park. RESOLUTION #78-52: Councilman Waritz moved the adoption of a resolution approving the bike trail program from Powers Blvd. "(County Road 17) to Lake Ann Park and requesting the City Manager draft a letter to State Representatives and MnDOT making them aware of the city's disappointment with the late determination of deletion of a portion of the project. Resolution seconded by Councilman Pearson. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hobbs, Councilmen Pearson and Waritz. No negative votes. Motion carried. SEWER, WATER, AND STREET IMPROVEMENTS - EAST LOTUS LAKE, ECKLUND AND SWEDLUND: Don Penne, Riley Purgatory Creek Watershed District, Len and Mark Swedlund were present. Don Ashworth - Since the City Council. is c.onsidering the award of bids I felt-as though thª-t it wa's very crucial to determine if there was a problem with the concept plan itself. I guess that's the basic question is whether or not the concept plan is really changed or not and whether or not that would create additional problems for the city as well as the watershed district. I did take the incentive to ask Mr. Penne to come here and realizing the financial portion that would involve the city to try to determine whether or not we are in a position to award these bids or not. Council Meeting September ll, 1978 -2- Mayor Hobbs - Evidently we were going under possibly a misconception that this plan had basically been approved. Bill Brezinsky- Our correspondence from the watershed district I I thought referred just to Sketch Plan E and the comments that were made by the district regarding Sketch Plan E was given conceptaþprov~lwith certain conditions. One of the conditions was that the lots instead of being platted to the centerline of the creek be platted some point short of the creek. This was accomplished with the latest plan in that the lots stop 50 feet short of the centerline of the creek. The difference bet~aèn thi~'sketch" plan and the one that the Council most recently approved was that the Council required the conservation easement or outlot. This was not a part of the original concept plan and I guess we view that as a definite plus in the overall development. The other change was a cul-de-sac. This street iscu1-de-sacedinstead of continuing through into the second phase. The cul-de- sac being at the high point. There is no real change in the drainage as I can see it. The plan did propose to have lots platte4 in the second phase to the centerline of the low area. There was a proposed ponding area. This would be in the second phase and the Council has not approved it. We would have to review it quite closely particularly since this has been designated as a wetlands area by the DNR. It may preclude developing building in this entire I area. I know this is something we are going to have to look at in the future. This is a concept plan. It isn't a preliminary plat that's been approved by the city. Right now the preliminary plat for the part of this development that's been approved by the city is just this first phase. Our feeling is that in this first phase we have adhered to all the watershed district directives or requirements and we feel this should be reviewed on its own. I appreciate getting on the watershed district's agenda this last time because we were so late in the year getting these plans out and I guess the only reason we are here to night and talking about this is because it is so late in the year and it puts us, the city and Mr. Swedlund, in a difficult position where any delay pushes it out into the bad months and we don't know what's going to happen. A delay right now pushes this construction of this project out into the area where it's questionable where we could meet the watershed district criteria for restoration which is October 15. We "feel we can meet it now. If we have an extended delay then it 's going to make that difficult. We want to know what alternatives do we have, the city wants this project to go ahead because I we have assessed this entire area. I feel that the city has given this plan due consideration through the Planning Commission and the Council. Mayor Hobbs - Maybe we could ask Mr. Penne to relate to us what the purpose was at your meeting for tabling action. Don Penne - We have a policy in the watershed district that we like to I I I Council Meeting September 11, 1978 -3- look at an entire area as.' far as water interaction is concerned. The first that this board saw this plan was in 1974 when the developer came in and proposed lagoons in the area and a bunch of things that just wouldn't fly. We worked with them. That was plans a through e at that time. Starting in 1974 we had almost monthly on the agenda various plans that the developer brought in and the concept plan that we approved was the 6th of November 1974 and in that concept plan and the letter that we directed to the City of Chanhassen, we said the following, "Mr. Rick Sathre from McCombs-Knutson representing Ecklund and Swedlund, with a residential development on Lotus Lake was present to review the revised plans and specifications for an 84 acre site." We approved that in conceptual form with the following reservations. l. That the lots in the development riparian to Purgatory Creek be platted to the natural high water mark of the creek rather than the centerline of Purgatory Creek. Easements or dedications of land lying to the north of the creek be given to the City of Chanhassen to insure a green belt strip along Purgatory Creek on the development side of the creek. 2. That there be some paper work, a proposed sketch. 3. That all appropriate grading and utility plans and specifications including those for the proposed future holding pond be delineated on the concept sketch be submitted to the district for review and approval prior to commencement of any construction activity on the site. We have been consistent for four years through maµy many varieties of plans. That the whole program be submitted to us so they don 't submit a plan for the easy to build area and leave off the more difficult to build area. As late as March 1977 when the last p1an"came in which was Plan G, we have been consistent all the way through and the developer has presented to us an integral plan, not just one area but the full plan, so when the plan was presented to us this last time, last Wednesday, for just a piece of this this hit us as quite a shock because this was very inconsistent with the policy that we have clearly laid out and all the documentation through four years that we have submitted to Chanhassen. The developer has not gone back to the DNR to discuss any of the development or any of the constraints that he would have to have to work in public waters which is the pond area in one of the phases of the development. We would not encourage any developer and would not like to see you approve of a piece of it.where there is going to be interrelation between that piece and that piece and that piece. You are dealing with three areas of water. You are dealing with Lotus Lake. You are dealing with the creek and you are dealing with a marsh which is public water according to the DNR. You have not addressed yourself to these three areas with a permit application and that's why we turned the plan down. I have a list of things that we have asked for. I"¡~askedön,Òtlr'·~l.e:tter of 3-77 that you do not have an encroachment into Purgatory Creek. Your plan went along with that and·that part is okay. We asked that you not have encroachment into Lotus Lake.' You went along with that. That part of the plan is okay. We asked that you have a Council Meeting September 1l, 1978 -4- setback from the creek. You went along with that and that part is okay. We asked that you design and plan your creek crossing. You did this and that part is okay. I We asked that you obtain necessary permits. That you advise the DNR before you work in public water. You have not done this. The DNR has received no request for permits from you. We ask that you do this. Mayor Hobbs - If we approve the bids would that be part of that Bill or should we have made application? Bill Brezinsky - In this particular project we would not be working in public waters. Don Penne - If you break up the overall development area into three separate areas and treat each one separately as though they were unrelated to each other that would be true but we are asking that you don't do this. We are asking that you look at it as an integrated package like you have in the past. Russell Larson - There was a plan which had received concept approval by the city under our planned unit development district zoning. The portion that was approved for construction is that which has been delineated as Phase 1 and is the plat that you reviewed the other evening as I understand it. The balance of the lands would be platted as an outlot awaiting for the demand for housing and the availability of financing for that construction. It's a staged development which will encompass that entire tract of land along that concept. I am not saying that there might be minor shifts I or changes in that concept but they would all be submitted to-your agency and DNR before implementation of any development in the so called outlot area. We are just staging the development. Don Penne - The plan that we approved involved a park acquisition that was to be acquired either by purchase of by dedication. Russell Larson - I question whether you have the authority to tell us where we should site our parks. Don Penne - I doubt that we do have. I think anything that we say to you is recommendation and I think you are free to accent what we say or you are free to fly in the face of what we advise you. Russell Larson - We have established a park right adjacent to this property. It will ultimately be 20 plus acres. The developer has agreed to contribute to our park fund in lieu of a dedication of a park. Don Penne - What I am saying is that what you have now is about half of the park dedication or purchase that we agreed to back in 1974 and what you are asking us to do is to have a plan that's completely different than we approved. Russell Larson - Forgive me for saying so but I fail to see how a park is in any way related to a watershed. I understand that your function of your board is to deal with the watershed district. You are not a park district. I The demarcation of park lands in this city rests solely with that board. Don Penne - One of the aspects that the watershed district has tried to do is to preserve a part of the area around lakes and around creeks. Has tried to see that the area that normally, for example would be in the high~Mater area an area that might be in a flood plain, could be preserved I I I Council Meeting September 11, 1978 -5- so that flooding of the creek, so that overflow of the lake could be preserved in an area that's not built upon and this park naturally falls in park lands so the two of them.... Russell Larson - That "s a commendable approach but I think we have done that with this particular plan. The outlot B up there is to be entirely reserved for conservation purposes except a small trail that the city mayor may not put through there. Mayor Hobbs - If you are talking about permits for working in public waters, I guess the question I would have, in view of the city or the developer made application for a permit at this point in time to work in here, it may not be worked in for ten years. I don't know what the purpose would be of applying or trying to get this if nothing is going to happen. Don Penne - Is working in public waters in that area of the pond involve any relationship for putting the roads through or the sewer involve any relationship to the high area? Is there no relationship between the two? Mayor Hobbs - At this particular point in time I think not. Bill Brezinsky - There would be no construc.tion in that area at all in any public waters. Don Penne - Topographically there is no interrelationship between those three parcels of land. They are to be treated as individual separate pieces of land? Bill Brezinsky - There is drainage from this first phase that will go into the low area. Mayor Hobbs - I think from a concept approach on all of the plans that we have looked at the concept is that this will stay a natural ponding are,a. It mayor may not be, depending upon what the DNR wants to do in the future, whether the developer would even be allowed to build at all in here. None of the plans have shown that this potentially would be filled. I suppose that could happen. It would have to go back to the DNR and the watershed and the Planning Commission and the City Council before something like that could take place but I think the intent of this area is to keep this as a natural marsh land. How much of it will be kept that way I think is probably incumbent upon future legislation. We don't know. None of us in this room know. It may be that all of it will. It might be that we would require a setback from the ponding area. To really put detailed time and effort over into here I think we could do that and what we came up with might be fliped 180 degrees out of phase three years down the road. vJe, being all of us involved. . Don Penne - I guess my point is, in 1974 that was done. A detailed plan was made of this area. You looked' at this plan and we looked at this-plan and you didn't like it. Another plan was made you didn't like it; A whole series of plans have been made that involve the whole parcel of land. I would ask you why was the whole area considered in total up to this point and all of a sudden now you are taking a piece of it. Mayor Hobbs - We have done that on quite a number of developments. sure right now the reason we are taking a piece of it strictly financial both from the city's point of view the developers. Don Penne - I am sorry I expressed my question poorly. We have large areas for example that have seven phases, eight phases but what we I am is and Council Meeting September II, 1978 -6- see first is the overall plan. This doesn!t mean the developer is going to in the immediate future build anything other than the first phase but by looking at all I the phases everyone concerned has an idea that these phases are going to work together. By only looking at one phase here, by only approving one phase and not looking at phase two, not looking at phase three from a planning standpoint don't you run the risk really of pinning them to something that is built wrong. Mayor Hobbs - Sure, maybe we are not that far off. I think that the Planning Commission and the City Council are looking from here to here the way this particular plan is presented as a concept. I think if it were radically changed, which it could be, it would take a lot of serious study. Don Ashworth - This concept plan, what was approved by the city, our purpose in the first phase is simply from a requirement of platting to insure that all of the work is completed. In a development we will only allow that portion of a concept plan which is going to be completed, where all . improvements are guaranteed to be completed, to go ahead and of course that's the reason that we are requiring first phase and a guarantee of all public improvements in that 'first phase with the rest of it being an outlot. We did approve that concept plan for the entire tract. I don't think in that other area that the city has changed anything in that, or the developer, in that section from the original I concept plan. Mayor Hobbs - I think we are in agréement. We wouldn't allow a developer to come in and just plat phase one and leave the rest of the map blank. Don Penne - Are you saying then that you will ask him to show you the general planning for the rest before you allow him to start building in phase one. Mayor Hobbs - I think that's what this is. It depends upon your interpretation of general planning. Don Penne - What plan did you approve? Was it Plan E? Was it Plan E revision 1? 1,vas it Plan F or was it Plan G? Bill Brezinsky - Plan F. Don Penne - All the way through we have been with the overall concept. Russell Larson -This is what we have been working with all the way through. Don Penne - In order to work with the overall concept and approve it that the DNR has to approve. You have to have the approval of the DNR to work in this area. Russell Larson - Let me explain to you why we are doing it in the way we have outlined. It's been our city policy that in our phasing developments rather than to plat an area like this, the whole preliminary plat, we will require the developer to. create this as an outlot then at I some future date when he comes back in to get a final plat so he can go in and do his work and subdivide then we will call back into play this initially approved èoncept plan and insist that he adhere to it and get the necessary permits. It is quite possible that this pond here may change, the use of the pond may change, the DNR or you people I I I Council Meeting September 11, 1978 -7- may direct at the time that it comes to you, that no, we want you to set thes.e lot lines back, that there is to be no conservation easement, this is to be an outlot and retained and maintained by the city. This is your prerogative. You may require as a part of your surface drainage that there may have to be some realignment of one or mOre of the streets here. We don't question you there at all. This pond is not a part of phase one. This pond remains as a part of the outlot. Don Penne - If you develop it here you are drastically changing the characteristics of the pond by the run off maybe. Don't you want to determine what that's going to be before it affects the pond? Russell Larson - I don't think that that is particularly significant. Don Penne - You may destroy the pond. Bill Brezinsky - It's a swamp. Don Penne ~ The DNR has declared this as public water. Does the DNR , permit you to use their pond to drain this material? Bill Brezinsky - If you would like I could read our last conversàtian, with the DNR regarding this. The last meeting was in 1974 and the meeting was with Len Swedlund, Jack Swedlund, Dick Knutson, Carl Dale, Jbhtf Chell of the DNR, Ron Harnack, Al Gebhart, Lloyd Schnelle, Don Berg, and Bill Schoe11. n!:fôhn E:he11 reported that the DNR report had been completed and would be sent out from the St. Paul office on 11-6 but Ron Harnack wo~ld give a verbal report. The DNR is concerned about the use of _ the flood plain, the effects of excavatiOn&fÙd.g.poil~ disposition on the flood plain: they assume a ~' rise in Lotus Lake. level, and ì:.::hd..8'..'~d..11 have to be evaluated regarding its effect on other shore properties. Also dredging in the lake outlet area will damage the only area in the lake which is a good northern pike spawning area." That's the dredging area which has never been approved by the DNR or the city. "The existing public access is now chained off so is not considered by the DNR as a public access and the Divn. of Fisheries will not do any more stocking. The lake needs stocking to support the fishing pressure it gets. In excavating the area, an outlet control structure will be needed. Additional studies will be necessary to determine the effect on the downstream flow. The northern portion proposed for dredging is primarily cattails." Regarding the pond in a letter from Al Gebhard November 19, 1974, which says; "We .hàve determined that the proposed filling represents approximately 6.3 percent of the total flood plain volume contained in the development. If a-flood plain. encroachment of 6.3 percent were applied to the entire flood plain area around Lotus Lake, a' rise in the flood plain. elevation of approximately .19 feet would be expected. This is within the criteria of the watershed district and the flood plain filling shown on the plat is ther~fore acceptable." I guess this,is the whole reason that I don't see this as a serious problem on this. because we have this letter which says· you could_fill 6.3. percent of the flood plain· looking at the total development. This phase we aren't proposing the filling of any of it and maybe Council Meeting September II, 1978 -8- on the next one we won't propose the filling of any of it. The whole point is why propose doing anything with it as long as it was adequate with filling. It certainly going to be adequate without touching it. Don Penne - In 1974 this was not considered as public waters. Russell Larson - I am aware of the position that the DNR is taking with respect to these alleged "public waters". I take issue with that in the traditional sense we know what public waters are and so do you. Now they seems to becoming along and designating a certain privately owned marsh areas as public waters and restricting or taking away the rights of use by the property owner. If they want to do that then ultimately they are going to face the test of the Minnesota and United States Constitution taking of private property without due compensation. I would say to you and to this board that that issue is not yet resolved. I say to you and this board there has been no determination here that that pond is public waters. We recognize that it is a part of a watershed or drainage way. It's a collector for surface water drainage and we at the city level, I think, historically and will continue to do so, have honored that and we have respected that and we have done everything in our power to preserve that or enhance its value for that purpose. I think you are going to have to rely on our good intentions and our past history in that I regard as we do with you and as we do with the DNR. More importantly you have the controls that you can employ to insure that we do honor that in the future. Don Penne - I might say this is why Chanhassen is such a beautiful area and Bloomington is such a mess because you have adhered to it, they haven't. We are having a special meeting on September 20 and Fred said we would be happy to put that on the agenda if that would accommodate you. Don Ashworth -What action can we reasonably take? Don Penne - What we have told you since 1974. Go to the DNR and a permit to work in that area. Get the developer to you an overall plan from the standpoint of how he is to interconnect the water system, how he is going to interface-with these other areas. That would be our recommendation. Bill Brezinsky - I would like to say something about getting a DNR permit. I have been told by the DNR that unless we do work within the publiè waters then there is no need to apply for a permit and they better not see them because they are overloaded in the first place. We are talking about something here on this particular project where we are not going into public waters. It is true as in any other area in Chanhassen the run off from this area is going to get to public waters. I am just questioning going to the DNR when they are going to tell us you don't need a permit. Mayor Hobbs - If we feel that the concept of what we are trying to do is in accord with all of our thinking we don't want to necessarily cause ourselves as a city and the developer ultimately another $50,000, $60,000. That's where we I get give going I I I I Council Meeting September 11, 1978 -9- are. I don't think we have gone helter ske1ter. It has been a well looked at plan. I think what we are looking at tonight gets down to the hard dollars and cents. I feel in my own mind, I cannot speak for the rest of the Council, that the integrity of this land is not going to be violated. Don Ashworth - Would it be then in agreement with what the watershed district has done if the Council would award the bids subject to DNR approval for that ponding area? Don Penne - I think there are two parts to it. I think you want to see where yourwatermains and where your sewers and where your streets are going to go conceptually in the two other phases to see it that thing flies together. Don Ashworth - I think we have done that. Don Penne - I don't think you have done that from the standpoint of sewer and water. Bill Brezinsky - The sewer and water are going to be in the streets and as far as the storm sewer and the ponding area, this may be five or ten years from now and the regulations that you have to follow have changed. We have seen that right now. If we gQ through and spend the money to design a storm sewer system and the ponding area and so forth and then it doe$n't go for five years and then that's all out, who is going to pay the money? 1 look at it, are we right now with this development damaging that ponding area or damaging the creek or the lake? I see that is the question. Mayor Hobbs - The trunk sewer is in. Len Swedlund - As far as I am concerned I don't see what the big basic problem is here. We know what the center of the project is. We know that the drainage all goes that direction. It always has and it always will. The drainage from both ends is going to have to be·taken care of through the middle of the project. That is no different than it has been since time began. Any time you go to buy a piece of property any developers first concern is drainage, where is the water going to' go. If you can't find some place for the water you better turn around and go someplace else. Every piece of property that we have developed over these period of years is always been· some place basically where we can dispose of the water. The next step that McCombs- Knutson was going to take was to get back to the DNR and again approach the lagoon area and see whether they w~re in favor, of that or whether we were going to be extending the lots right out to the lake. That was their prerogative; We are ready to, conform to anything they might require and '. the, same way with the other portions. Mayor Hobbs - What is the average lot size in here? Len Swedlund - 15,000 square feet. Mayor Hobbs - Let's say we develope the sewer, street, fairly extensive plan, storm sewer and drainage. This city has felt in the last year or two because of escalating land costs, we have taken a very serious look in'lowering, eppecially in a PUD, the city's minimum lot size because we are also charged with providing housing for people that want to live in an area that's affordable and we know·what's happening so we have in other areas that don't necessarily directly affect the watershed gone down to lot sizes 9,700 square feet, 9,400. For the sake of conversation, let's say that that Council Meeting September ll, 1978 -10- did take place. If property values keep going the way they are going gosh knows what!s going to happen. That would completely change every bit of your storm sewer I and drainage waters, possibly even change the·streets. We don!t know. I don't think the developer knows and I guess all of us sitting in public office right now are very very cognizântof the expenditure of anybodys money. I guess it really disturbs me a little bit, Len said drainage comes here and here, you have got the topography here, for him to go out and either be delayed or spend ~4, 000 or $5 ',000 and the watershed , city, the Planning Commission could say okay we are satisfied that you have handled it and then five years down the road this piece of property could take a completely different approach and what happens to that, you start allover again. You have to. . That's where I really have a problem in asking somebody to do that kind of really definitive planning. Don Penne - The watershed board is an advisory board. As I understand the legality of it you are free to use our advice or fly in the face of it. Mayor Hobbs - That's what we want to stay away from. Don Ashworth - After you have reviewed this file and even going through what the Council has considered, what do you see as being the action of the watershed district on the 20th? Don Penne - Is it back on the agenda for the 20th? We have a special meeting on the 20th to discuss budgets and election of officers and things like that. I Don Ashworth - I thought you had said it would be on the 20th. Let's assume that it was. Would there be further delays at that point? What additional would you want or do you feel as though you have got some additional imput? Don Penne - I can only speak for myself and I understand your dilemna. Don Ashworth - There is a large public cost associated with the sewer and water that we did talk about but in addition to that before the Council tonight is the public improvement portion and I am wondering, in your own mind do you feel as though that you are at a point where on the 20th that the watershed district could make a decision or are there factors that-you know of right now that would not allow them to make a decision? Don Penne - Two factors that would tend to mitigate against a decision are the reaction of the DNR and the possibility that future water and sewer in the other two phases might be adversely impact to present plan for sewer and water in the first phase. We would like to see a relationship. I suspect there would be no problem there at all but I think we would like to see that. Mayor Hobbs - Bill has indicated that we were talking about a permit to work in any public waters and the ponding area, if the DNR was contacted and they said that we did not need I to make application to develope phase one as it relates to that ponding area, would that suffice with the watershed district? Bill Brezinsky - I am certain that the DNR will say if we would submit these plans to them or if I would call them and ask them if we need to get a permit for this particular phase one, they would way no you are not working in I I I Council Meeting September 11, 1978 -ll- public waters you don't need to get a perrott. That's all there is to it. If we would go to them with this entire concept plan and ask for some kind of approval, well c~rtain1y they would review it. Don Penne - I guess by that logic too, we wouldn't look at any hay bales or any protection of the pond at all, we are only looking at phase one. Anything that ran down into the pond would not be affected. Bill Brezinsky - I believe that on Sketch Plan F we have a sanitary sewer and storm sewer system. Mayor Hobbs - We value the recommendations we get from the watershed and I think if you go back and look at how we have worked with you as a city you will find I don't think there are many of your recommendations that haven't been followed. Don Penne - It's been a good relationship. I certainly don't want us to deal or sit on legal technicalities. I think our point is to try and get a workable plan here that doesn't screw up three water courses and if there is anything we can do in the nine days between now and the 20th we certainly put it back on the agenda. Fred agreed to put it back on the agenda and maybe we can work with Bill and we can get something that will convince the other managers that the plan isn't going to end up with incompatibility if and when these other phases are built. RESOLUTION #78-53: Councilman Waritz moved the adoption of the following resolution:.. . . ' . .,' iNHEREAS the concept plaríhas been submi.tted to. the, watershed district. HHEREAS in' phase oriewe have 'set, backthe..lot1inesSO feet .from the centerline of ,the creek- bed.- tffiEREASin phase one we have asked.for and received a conservation easement along Lotus Lake. WHEREAS the Council was very much aware of the future ponding area and development, THEREFORE the Council accepts the low bid of Nodland and Associates of Alexandria in the amount of $258,576.00 for Lotus Lake Estate area for sewer, water and street improvements. Resolution seconded by Councilman Pearson. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hobbs, Councilmen Pearson and Waritz. No negative votes. Motion carried. ROOS PROFESSIONAL BUILDINGS: Mr. Roman Roos was present asking Council approval to rotate his proposed buildings to fit the land better. Mr. Roos will have to appear before the Council at a future time for the land sale and this item will be considered at that time. PUBLIC HEARING DISEASED TREE SPECIAL ASSESS~NTS - 1978 Mayor Hobbs called the hearing to order. Doug Mitchell was present. The purpose of this hearing is to assess property owners who have not paid for diseased trees that were removed from their property. The City Manager recommended that the Council adopt a resolution providing allowing the City to certify unpaid amounts that are unpaid as of October 2, 1978. RESOLUTION #78-54: Councilman Pearson moved the adoption of a resolution adopting diseased tree assessments. for 1978p.er:theCityMa:nagerJs - reporto£ Seþ·tembér·~,· ·1978-."..-At; ,an.ii:Ìterer,;-þ':ra·te'..óf' 8. percent. All Council Meeting September 11, 1978 -12- bills ùnpaid as ofi:October 2, 1978, will he charged 1iHJf;fuötét:-han $20.00 per year as a certification and administrative cost. Resolution seconded by Councilman Waritz. The following voted in favor: Mayor I Hobbs, Councilmen Pearson and Waritz. No negative votes. Motion carried. Councilman Pearson moved to adjoúrn. Motion seconded by Councilman Waritz. The following voted in favor: Mayor Hobbs, Councilmen Pearson and Waritz. No negative votes. Meeting adjoùrned at 9:15 p.m. Don Ashworth City Manager I I