CCP 09-11-2006 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

2006 PMP 9/7/2006 Pagc 4 . One of the parcels owned by the Beach Club is predominantly a wetland area. A City owned and operated Lift Station (#4) is currently located within this area, and two sedimentation ponds have been constructed in this area in conjunction with the project. Once land has been delineated as a wetland area, restrictions arc imposed by the Wetland Conservation Act and uses of the arca bccome limited. With the construction of the sedimentation ponds and associated drainage easements, any potential buildable area has been significantly reduced. The second parcel owned by the Beach Club is the island. While this parcel has not been delineated as wetland, there is uncertainty whether the area is developable. Based on the City's shorcline setback requirement, it appears there would be approximately one acre on which to develop, however, the DNR or other governing agencies typically have stricter requirements. While the soils on thc island have not been evaluated, it is very likely that the soils are not snitable for construction, based on the island's proximity to the lake. Recommcndation: No change in thc assessment. 5) Oral comment: 3436 Siems Conrt, Jennie Michels Ms. Michels cxpressed a concern that evcn though the Beach Club area equates to only two lots, the area is quite large and not everyone in the neighborhood uscs the Beach Club, therefore, should not be paying for it. As mentioned before, the two parcels owned by the Bcach Club were not included in the assessment role based on the fact that these lots are not devclopable. ~ Ms. Michels also stated that it was her undcrstanding that the City would pay for the differcnce in cost between the estimate and the bid, yet the assessment rate has increased. The bid increased the costs for all parties involved, including the portion to be paid by the City. Recommendation: No change in the assessmcnt. 6) Oral comment: 3530 Siems Court, Tom Mulcahy Mr. Mulcahy requcsted an explanation as to why the construction costs came in significantly highcr than what had been previously discussed. During the planning process we do our best to estimate, based on past projects and inflation, what we believe a project should cost. Unfortunately, this is subject to market fluctuations. Construction costs have increased significantly in the past year due to risiug energy costs. Our August 2005 estimates did not account for this unanticipated 20-30% increase in cost. Rccommendation: No change in the assessment. ~