The URL can be used to link to this page

1988 11 28CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 28, 1988 Mayor Hamilton called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.. The meeting was opened with the Pledge to the Flag. COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT: Councilman Boyt, Councilman Horn, Councilman Geving and Councilman Johnson STAFF PRESENT: Don Ashworth, Roger Knutson, Gary warren, Larry Brown, and Jo Ann Olsen APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Councilman Geving moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to approve the agenda with the addition of discussing the Carrico property on Lake Lucy Road under Council Presentations by Councilman Boyt. All voted in favor and the motion carried. CONSENT AGENDA: Councilman Johnson moved, Councilman Horn seconded to approve the following Consent Agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's recommendations: a. Approve Amendment to Article 16, Kurvers Point Development Contract. b. Resolution #88-125: Accept Streets in Hidden Valley Phase II. d. Resolution #88-126: Accept Streets in: 1. Chanhassen vista 2nd Addition 2. Chanhassen vista 3rd Addition 3. Chanhassen vista 4th Addition : e. Resolution #88-127: Accept Streets in Crimson Bay Addition. f. Zoning Ordinance Amendment to amend Section 20-421(11) of the Wetland Ordinance to clarify that the City has control over Dredging Wetlands in Public Waters Located in Lakes Wholly within the City of Chanhassen, Final Reading. j. Accounts Payable. k. City Council Minutes dated November 14, 1988 Park and Recreation Commission Minutes dated November 1, 1988 All voted in favor and the motion carried. (C) ACCEPT STREETS IN RED CEDAR COVE. Councilman Boyt: It's simply to change a word in our Consent Agenda from accept streets to accept watermain. We're really just saying the streets are built to our standards but we're not accepting any responsibility for those since it's a private street. C~_ty Council Meeting - November 28, 1988 Mayor Hamilton: Did you get that Don? Don Ashworth: That' s fine. Resolution %88-128: Councilman Boyt moved, Mayor Hamilton seconded to approve item l(c) with the change to read, Accept Watermain in Red Cedar Cove. All voted in favor and the motion carried. (I) APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT, DAVE STOCKDALE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT. Councilman Boyt: My comments on this, I think the Findings of Fact that I see here are just a flat out statement of what happened and they're certainly not a statement of endorsement. Since Roger's here, my understanding is what we're looking for in the Findings of Facts is how firm is the ground we're standing on? As I recall this, I didn't think we were stand].ng on very firm ground from my perspective and when I read the Findings of Fact, I didn't see anything that made it look stronger than I initially thought so I would like to hear Roger talk a little bit about the princibility of this particular findings. Roger Knutson: The Findings reflect what the Council's decision was. The Council decided that the applicant, through no fault of his own, was unable to complete the activity once his conditional use was issued. Under extenuating circumstances, the Council should reconfirm those Findings. Reconfirm the Conditional Use Permit and that's exactly what I provided here. As far as the defensibility, if a similar situation occurs, someone could complain that we don't treat them similarly. That's equal protection. That's what precedence is all about. Councilman Boyt: I think the loophole there is what we would define as similar. Rather than beating a dead horse here. The other point I want to correct is that it indicates in here that we all voted in favor of this. I don't remember that being the way the vote was. Somewhere we have here that the vote was una n imous. Councilman Geving: It wasn't a unanimous vote. Councilman Boyt: The last page, page lg9, all voted in favor of the motion period and I would like that corrected. I clearly opposed it and would like it so noted. There was an issue that came up that night and it was rather late and lengthy about whether the City Council had followed it's own procedure. I'd like to hear from Roger if he thinks we followed the appropriate procedure for granting this conditional use permit. Was there in fact a variance required and did we follow the proper procedure to do that? Roger Knutson: A variance requires a public hearing. There was no separate public hearing on what you did. What the Council did is reconfirm his prior... Councilman Horn: ...which was the unique feature on this variance and why we granted it. Roger Knutson: Basically you granted him an extension less what you had already City Council Meeting - November 28~ 1988 done back in March of '85[ Councilman Horn: Item 6 is what differentiates on the Findings of Fact. Councilman Boyt: I understand that we're making the case that we had granted, or that this had been granted March 15, 1985. It's my understanding that the conditional use permit expire and I gather Roger what you're telling me is that what the City Council did in fact was extend what would have otherwise expired or what did expire and we went back and extended it? Roger Knutson: That's my understanding of what was done. If the Council found that the Conditional Use Permit expired, then that would lead to a...then your question is, should a hearing have been held on the variance request? Yes. But the Council felt, a majority of the Council decided, in fact as I understood the discussion, that the conditional use permit did not expire and that you simply were confirming that it had not expired and keeping with prior actions. If it has expired, then the proper procedure was not followed. Councilman Boyt: Well, that makes it clear to me. We either thought it had expired or we thought that this particular one for the item, for reason number 6, there may be other reasons, had not expired. So the vote turned on whether or not it had expired. Is that an accurate reflection of the other council members? Mayor Hamilton: I'm not so sure that that was the pivotable point as I recall it. I don't know that we even talked about whether it had expired or not. You might think that it was more that there were conditions that were beyond the applicant's control that caused him not to be able to move ahead. Consequently, as I recall, we felt that he should have another chance and be given the conditional use permit. Councilman Horn: As a matter of fact, when we were looking on this type of case, we were looking for something to be unique to this case that would differentiate it from any other one coming in. And as for similiar requests and in fact the unique part of this case was that it had previously been granted. Had he continued it he would not even be in question at this point. So in fact he met the original intent that he was given... Councilman Boyt: My main reason for pulling it was not really to rehash the ground. We've done that. It was simply to straighten out that I voted against it and will continue to do so. Thanks for the time. Councilman Johnson: I believe I voted against it too if I remember correctly. I think it was a 3 to 2 on that one. I'm not sure but if they can double check the notes. Jo Ann usually keeps pretty good notes on those. Councilman Geving: I would only suggest, if those were the way the notes read, they should be corrected. I think it was 3 to 2. Councilman Horn: We should reconsider then the approval of the City Council Minutes of October 24th. Councilman Geving moved, Councilman Horn seconded to approve the Findings of Council Meeting - November 28~ 1988 Fact for Dave Stockdale Conditional Use Permit. Ail voted in favor except Councilman Boyt and Councilman Johnson ~no opposed and the motion carried with a vote of 3 to 2. VISITORS PRESENTATION: There were no Visitors Presentations. AWARD OF BIDS: UPGRADE OF AUDIO EQUIPMENT, CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS. Mayor Hamilton: It seems like we've done this 2 or 3 times. I would like to know what type of equipment. I guess something was missing here for me. I've never felt that these little microphones work very well or the ones that you clip on. Many council chambers and the State Capitol and the Metropolitan Council, they all have the microphones similar to what's on the desk there. You can turn them on and off easily. You can speak into them. They pick up your voice very well and I guess I'm curious as to what kind of equJ. pment is being proposed this time. Don Ashworth: The only thing I'm sure on the microphones, Todd has met with the individual people. Both of them had recon~nended changing the speakers and going into 4 speakers that would be 2 each on either side facing back out. And that the microphones themselves would be upgraded. The newer ones have the ability, they're voice activated so rustling of papers and other things will not activate the microphone, voice will. The other part of the quote would be to bring the wiring back to where Nann is and in that process she would be able to bring up or down an individual person. If ~e had a Planning Commission member who was softer or sitting back, she would be able to bring that individual up. Similarly if you had a City Council meeting and somebody was stronger, she could be bringing that one down. Basically I believe the microphone is similar to what we have in front of us. I do not believe that J~t is the tripod type that you're referring to. The microphones that they would put in are very similar to the new ones that they put into the Chaska City Hall and as far as I know, they' re finding those to work very well for them down there. Councilman Johnson: I talked to Todd on this myself since electronics is a hobby and it's a part of my field. One of the main differences is the directionality of the microphones. These are basically almost 36g degree microphones. The microphones we'll be getting will be more directional. There's quite a bit of improvement. It's not going to look exactly like this. He didn't really explain what they're going to look like. I would have liked to have seen some pictures or something out of the catalog would have helped me a little bit but it looks like it's going to be some good quotes. Don Ashworth: Would you like to table for 2 weeks? I can get pictures. Councilman Geving: I think it wouldn't be necessary to act on this. Mayor Hamilton: I just haven't any idea what you're talking about. Equipment. Councilman Geving: We've done this several times now and it's kind of nice to know if there's any resale value on what we're already got. I suspect there's not. It's kind of like used computers. City Council Meeting - November 28~ 1988 Mayor Hamilton: It probably wouldn't hurt to have someone here from Southwest Audio Visual if they're the low bidder. They can tell us a little bit about the equipment. Councilman Horn: I'd like to get more information on what you're calling a voice activated microphone. I think that's a misnomer. Typically it's a noise activated microphone and noise will set it off. I'd like to know what's unique about this that it only responds to a voice. Don Ashworth: I don't know but paper, unless the paper is directly over and you're intentionally trying to do it, but otherwise just background papers will not trigger the microphone. I don't understand the electronics either. I will have somebody in. Councilman Boyt: I think that whatever the solution is, the problem is that people can't hear and I haven't been convinced that this will help people hear. It may help us be picked up by the videotape but I'm not sure it's going to help people who are sitting back by the walls here to clearly understand what's going on. Mayor Hamilton: It's part of what ~ want to ask I think. to change the volume in the back of the room. Is how it's going Councilman Horn: The assumptions this gives is that you add more speakers and...this will actually put four speakers up there. My assumption is that for the audience to hear but I don't know what else they'd be used for. They didn't spell it out in here. Councilman Geving: Let's table this to December 12th and have the representative from Southwest Audio come here and show us what he's going to do for us. We'll get some pictures and we can act on this. There's no hurry. It's a budgeted it~. Mayor Hamilton: Is that a motion? Councilman Geving: Yes, it's a motion to table this. Councilman Horn: Second. Councilman Geving moved, Councilman Horn seconded to table action on the upgrading of the audio equipment for the City Council Chambers until the December 12, 1988 meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. ROSEMOUNT INC, LOT 1, BLOCK 1, CHANHASSEN LAKES BUSINESS PARK 2ND ADDITION: A. NEGATIVE DECLARATION ON EAW. B. WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT. C. SITE PLAN REVIEW. D. APPROVAL OF GRADING PERMIT. E. APPROVAL OF DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT. Council Meeting - November 28, 1988 Mayor Hamilton: Jo Ann, beginning with the Negative Declaration on the EAW~ would you care to give us a presentation. Jo Ann Olsen: The applicant, because of the size of the proposed site, they are required to go through the EAW. They have submitted the EAW. It was sent out to several referral agencies who sukmitted their comments and then the City Council is responsible for recon~nending a negative declaration of the EAW or else requiring that it receive an EIS. The major comments that we did, first the FAW does have a 3g day period and what was submitted, since then the site plan has changed considerably. The applicant is here and ready to point out the different changes the EAW did not reflect. We did get comments from the DNR, MnDot, the Met Council, PCA and that was really all we received comments from. Essentially the comments were referring to what they w~uld like to see done to the site during construction as far as back sloping and add a sedimentation basin. What they would like to see done to the wetlands so we did not find anything that was really more to the positive declaration so staff is recommending a negative declaration with the 8 conditions on page 12 of the report. The applicant is here and would like to respond to some of the points that were brought up by Councilman Johnson and again to review what changes had been made to the site plan since the EAW has been submitted for review. Bob Wort_hington: Mayor, members of the Council, I'm Bob Worthington, Executive Director of...of the Opus Corporation. I am here this evening to respond to the specific issue of the EAW as well as later on the site plan which reflects many of the changes that were made to the original EAW document which was submitted to the City... Before I do that, since this will probably be a joint kind of presentation, I would like to introduce some of the members of our team so that if you have specific questions you can associate the name with a face... First of all, from Rosemount Inc. we have Mr. Steve Quest, Vice President and General Manager for Rosemount. Jeff Schmidt, Vice President in Services and Human Resources for Rosemount. Mike Escalli who is Construction Project Manager for Rosemount. For our company, aside from myself I'm accompanied by Mr. John McKenzie who is Vice President of the Construction Division. John Miller is the Project Architect for the Rosemount facility. Dave Vangasser, Project Manager for the Rosemount facility. Up until we received comments from Councilman Johnson, we were going merrily along receiving very few comments on the original EAW that was submitted to the State for review and comment. The primary concern seemed to be with the EAW that we previously submitted with two areas of interest. The first dealt with wetlands and how we intended to handle the wetlands. If you recall in our original submittal, the EAW had as it's concept that we were going to be dredging out both the existing wetlands on the site and we're going to be bringing into those wetlands all of the storm water runoff from the facility which reached a certain level within the...to storm sewer which will be beneath Lake Drive East when it's extended and ultimately into a secondary pond which was proposed by the City somewhere in the vicinity of Lake Susan Park and then ultimately into Lake Susan where it w~uld be contained. That concept ran into a bit of concern by the Metropolitan Council who felt that that system would create a stripping action in terms of the chain of lakes that all of you are familiar with. It links Lake Susan, Lake Riley and the other two lakes which make up the chain of lakes which Lake Susan is a part which by definition then would create a churning which would create a phospherous level which would degregate that chain of lakes. As such, we have to come up with a means of mitigating that effect. What was not known to Metropolitan Council as we presented the original EAW, was the fact that they were working on two things City Council Meeting - November 28~ 1988 simultaneously as measures to mitigate that effect. The first was not tO have all of the waste water drain into the wetlands but to talk about an internal and external system of drainage which would have us preserving the one wetland, dredging out the Type B wetland to the west so they contain all the water runoff in the two systems as well as the parking lot areas. We then have that overflow into the storm sewer and ultimately into the pond...which would lessen the impact on the amount of water discharged into those areas as well as the quality of the water. Also, there was some question as to whether or not we were going to be taking water from the...processes that would be conducted within the building itself and discharging them into the same pond. At that time we were not sure how we were going to be handling that system, especially as it related to the cooling water. There were a number of options that were being considered and of course since the EAW was early in the process, we wanted to keep all of our options open. Well, we are now here to tell you that there will be no industrial waste water being used for cooling purposes. That will be discharged into the pond or into the offsite ponding areas. The other water is going to be recycled 100%...with of course evaporation by and large is going to be kept on site. In the processed water that's going to be used from the industrial processes, that will be conducted within the plant...and discharged into the sanitary sewer. That discharge will be monitored and testing will be done... control condition by PCA standards. Those two changes were sufficient, in our opinion, to be enough mitigation to the concerns raised by the Metropolitan Council .... from engineering might speak to that question of the water quality and the effect that we just talked about would have on the stripping actions especially as it relates to phospherous if you had further technical questions on this subject. So that was one of the major changes that was made to the EAW that in our opinion would make the acceptability of that now much more certain than it would have been had it been made in it's original form. We also did not have at the time the EAW was submitted, a clear statement as it related to artifacts and historical or archeological that would be found on site. The EAW had indicated that there was some suspicion on the part of the Historical Society that there may be some historical artifacts that may be on the site but they weren't sure. They wanted us to do a search and we surveyed. We hired an archeological consultant, Ms. Harrison who in a month period of time did do a dig on the site and came back with findings, which in effect said that there were no significant archeological or historical artifacts on the site outside of one area. That one area is on the sloped area which is along Lake Susan which is a portion of the site that we will show you in a moment which we don't intend to do any development on. It is something that should be a concern to the City should it find that it wants to extend it's trail system along Lake Susan. If it does that, it should be so in a very careful manner so as not to interfere with those two sites which they identified as Opus 1 and Opus 2 on the report. So we feel that we've gotten a pretty clean bill of health... Also, when we were submitting the original EAW, the question of the alignment of Market Blvd. as well as Lake Drive East were not sure. We knew that the Council was going to be considering a couple of alternatives which you subsequently made...an alternative which Mr. Ringrose from BRW, later on the agenda will be discussing and was discussed a couple weeks ago and that alternative which has Market Blvd. now tying Great Plains and TH 101 to south of the site is something that we have incorporated into our site plan too so that the access that was in question now is no longer a question. Traffic data that we sut~nitted early on, as I understand from Jo Ann, for review by MnDot and review by the County. There were only some slight variations that both MnDot and the County are recommending to be made to our data that we submitted in terms of direction of traffic. The City Council Meetin9 - November 28~ 1988 size of the street system has to be designed to accomodate that traffic Or the traffic control that the engineer sections will affect this site. That was already known and made. Outside of those issues that we had received up until Councilman Johnson's memorandum, we found... Last week we received in a memorandum from Councilman Johnson several questions that were of concern to him which were not made clear in the EAW which I gave a response to last Friday. think all of you should have received a copy of my response as well as the nature of his memorandum which I'm sure he's better able than I am to talk about. As of I would say about 12:00 today there was still a conversation on many of the issues and it was our opinion that we kind of resolved some of the substanative questions, if not some of the technical issues that we felt had to be addressed in order for him to sign off on the EAW. I would let him tell you what the technical issues are and then probably in terms of the use of our time, thought it would be better to respond...technical issues so you know what our position is. Outside of those issues, the EAW in our opinion is in a position to be adopted. A resolution of negative declaration is in a position to be adopted by the City Council this evening subject to changes being made. The comments that I just referred to and the comments that Councilman Johnson will refer to in his presentation being made to that document that becomes a permanent part of the... So with those comments, I'd just like to step back and take a deep breath, pause and ask if you have any questions before we get into other parts of our presentation. Mayor Hamilton: I'd like to ask you Jay if you have comments you wish to make specific to your memo and the responses to it. Councilman Johnson: Actually I've spent a lot of time this last week. I'm sorry I didn't get a hold of this EAW earlier in the process but I was out of town when the Planning Con~nission went through it and didn't review it at that time or it would have been a lot longer lead time on these type of comments. In general I did not find it a very good EAW but then I realized in the time crunch, it's one of the first things that has to be done before there's a lot of design on the project. One of the purpose of an EAW is to bring out the environmental problems that may occur and design them out of the system early in the process. Unfortunately the design started after the EAW got submitted. It's good that the 119,000 gallons of cooling water which was for some reason or another not called cooling water. There's a lot of little things, wording choices taken in here that to a suspicious person like me, seem deceptive to a point. Several things went right by Barr Engineering I must say and by Dick Osgood in their evaluation of this. After I talked to them, they said geez, we didn't realize that. Neither group admitted to realizing that the 119,000 gallons in the EAW was supposed to go to Lake Susan because it was going to the storm sewer. Where does the storm sewer go? The storm sewer goes to Lake Susan. The EAW asked a question, was where does the water go? The answer should have been to Lake Susan through the storm sewer. The answer was to the storm sewer. That very subtle little, not quite answering the question has caused a few probl~ in the EAW and made it very weak. Mayor Hamilton: I suspect that the reason for your memo is because of what you're telling us but if you have specific questions or comments to make about a specific item, I would appreciate if you w~uld do that. Councilman Johnson: Okay. We still have not addressed hazardous materials. There's a lot of updating to be done on this EAW. If we do do a conditional City Council Meeting - November 28~ 1988 1.7 approval tonight, there's a lot of things to be changed here yet and it will have to come back before us I would assume. Mayor Hamilton: That's what I'm asking you. Specifically what it is that you would like to see changed or discussed. Just saying a lot of things does not accomplish anything. If you want to see some changes, you have questions, please get to the issues so we can at least talk about them. Councilman Johnson: What's the mitigation of the loss of wetlands? Never addressed. We are losing wetlands in this city right and left. We don't want to continue losing wetlands. You're totally destroying a wetland and replacing it with basically a storage tank for water. The Class B wetland is going to end up being a tank of water in the ground. It's not really a tank of water but it does not serve any functional purpose as a wetland other than sedimentation r~moval. How are you going to mitigate this loss? Are we adding more wetland someplace? Bob Worthington: The issue of the mitigation of wetlands, so everybody knows what we're talking about. The two wetland areas in question are shown here. One is a larger wetland. The other is a a~all wetland. The EAW, this is called a Class A wetland. This is called a Class B wetland. As stated earlier the original intent was to convert both of these wetlands to holding ponds. Aesthetic as well as... After...the wetlands in terms of their quality and their character, we decided that the Class A wetland had value for one of habitat as well as for it's natural drainage characteristics for the area that surrounded it and therefore should be preserved pretty much in it's current state. So what we're doing with the first wetlands is we're not making any change at all. With the second wetland, the decision was made to convert that to a holding pond, if I can use that term, to handle the majority of the runoff from the site so that runoff would remain at the predevelopment rate. That conversion is going to take place, the dredging material will come from this wetland and the material will be deposited on site and become a part of the earth berms and used to landscape various areas. We'll probably be dredging this to a depth which will pretty much take most of the water runoff from the site and hold it on the site before it's discharged into the storm sewer and ultimately into the ponding area here and into Lake Susan. What we're trying to do in terms of mitigating a loss of actual wetland vegetation, not necessarily the wetland habitat but vegetation is we're going to be reintroducing around the edges and even into the perimeter of this wetland, vegetation that will be comparable to what you're finding in this meadow type of wetland which would be in the form of cattails and grasses...in the area consistent with your aquatic vegetaion that you find in this area in addition to other types of vegetation which would compensate for the loss of some of that wetland. However, we are not going to be able to...on this site any additional creation of wetlands to compensate more than I'm saying in this scenario which is introducing more grasses and things of that sort. I might add that on this site which is to the north which the Planning Conmission at least felt was developed on the site, which may be challenged later on but at this time, is another wetland area which is remaining pretty much undisturbed. When you look at the net effect, we're talking about reducing the entire wetland basin from about 6.5 acres to about 5.7 acres. While that's significant, we still think that the measures that we're taking here with preservation, restoration...we're coming pretty close to keeping the balance that is found in the second phase of what is proposed. City Council Meeting - November 28, 1988 Councilman Johnson: You didn't list any alternatives. The last thing, the last section 23 whatever it is, is to list your problems and what your alternatives were that you went through. You never listed any alternatives. One alternative is to build yourself a pond over next to the parking lot or sameplace that does the same function of what you're trying to do in this wetland. Just leave the wetland alone. The no touch alternative. Why is that alternative not feasible? That should be in your EA. You say you want to do it but you don't say why you can't do anything else. You could build a wetland elsewhere. Or I mean a holding tank for your water. Not a holding tank, a holding pond for your water el sewhere. Bob Worthington: That' s true. If we' re talking about mechanical systems replacing natural systems, you're talking about something that's not of course going to be as cost effective nor are you going to have something that's going to be reliable in terms of what you're attempting to do as the wetlands we're talking about. We could look at the alternative if that is something that the City Council, Planning Commission felt you ought to do but in this instance we think that the solution that we came up with is the most cost effective and the most environmentally sound of all the alternatives we could have for the property. Councilman Johnson: You're saying totally digging out this wetland and making it 4 or 5 feet deeper would be different than artifically digging a hole someplace else and doing it? I don't see what the reasoning. Either dig a hole where this wetland is or you dig a hole where some other cornfield happens to be and leave the wetlands alone. I'm not convinced yet that that alternative is not feasible. My main issue goes beyond just the long list of minor nit picks and discrepencies that I gave you is the wetland at this point. I do not feel that the alternatives have been reviewed completely. Bob Worthington: Councilman Johnson, John McKenzie would like to add to the con~ents being made. John McKenzie: A couple conxnents we might add to what Bob has pointed out. As a part of our overall design effort upon this site has been to address future Rosemount needs as well as the plans that you see before you tonight. Obviously using any of the remaining acreage for the purpose of storm water retention would lessen the flexibility that Rosemount would have to look at expansions down the road. Obviously part of the overall site size determination was made consistent with providing for that future expansion capability. So as Bob had mentioned, to do that, to retain the flexibility, the decision was made to utilize the existing lowland "unbuildable" areas for the purpose that they're most naturally suited for. Councilman Johnson: Okay, you've brought up another interesting point. You talk about future expansion of the site. The State Shoreland Ordinance and the City Shoreland Ordinance, which is just basically adopting the State's Shoreland Ordinance, states 3g% impervious surface on the site. You're now at 29% on this site. That allows you 1% expansion. I hope everybody is aware that expansion at this site could be very difficult. It's not a guarantee. I'm hoping nobody has told everybody that it's a guaranteed thing that you will get expansion at this site 5 years down the road but I'd like to make sure it's said right out in the public that it's going to be need proper variances from both the State and the City to do it. Your big expansion here could really be tough to do without 10 City Council Meeting - November 28, 1988 adding more acreage to the site. What's going to prevent this small wetland, that's just a statement there that you gave me a good opening for. The small wetland is going to be several feet lower for it's normal water elevation than the upper wetland. As such, will the upper wetland waters be drained away into the lower wetlands such as a well pulls water down to it's neighboring area when it is relieved? I should ask first, what is the ground water level at that location and are you going to be changing our ground water elevation down to 933 which is your normal water elevation in that pond? From what I detect out there, the normal ground water elevation is probably scmething higher than 933. Bob Worthington: We'll be able to respond as soon as we get the grading plan. John McKenzie: We will be changing those elevations. I think the point to be made is that through our drainage structure design and our storm water typing design, we can'very closely control the amount of water that goes into each wetland. The intent is to preserve the Class A wetland by controlling the amount of water that goes into it. As we spoke earlier, we'll be using roof drainage water to feed water to the Class Awetland. Again, it's something that's going to be very much controlled as well as the bottom of the Class B wetland and retention pond. Again, with the clay material that's in that area, we're confident that our design will deliver the intended purpose. Councilman Johnson: Are you saying water won't leak from the upper wetland to the lower wetland and dry out the upper wetland? John McKenzie: What we're saying is that we can control the amount of water in the Class A wetland. If that is a concern on the current design, the amount of water, we can increase that amount. Again, there is a large amount of clay material between the two areas that I think will minimize that migration of moisture from one to the other but if it's determined through working with the staff or whoever, that we want to introduce a higher quantity of water in the larger wetland, is very easily accomplished with the design that we're proposing. Councilman Johnson: Is there any variability capabilities so that during, after it's in, is there anyway to vary the amount of water going in there? John McKenzie: I think that we could do that Mr. Johnson through the drainage structure that we'll be building in that area. They are different elevations of where the pipes are intended to leave that structure passing through the two wetlands and if a probl~ developed there, I think it's something that sure could be rectified. Councilman Johnson: Because the way I see it is on a small storm, you've got a 5 inch pipe going down to the small wetland a couple feet I guess it was up into the 18 inch pipe that goes into the larger wetland. So on a small storm that doesn't raise up there, the upper wetland gets no water at all. It all goes down to the lower wetland. John McKenzie: Again, the difference in the distance between the two pipes could be made smaller to speak to that concern. Councilman Johnson: I don't know what the answer is. I don't know if anybody really knows what the answer is. 11 Council Meeting November 28~ 1988 John McKenzie: I think we have confidence in our civil engineer's design. I think we have confidence in w~rking with the city staff to get to a design criteria that we all feel comfortable with. And like I said, I'm confident that our design will deliver the solution to satisfy the criteria. And again, if over time with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight we see that we've not delivered enough water to that wetland, without a major reconstruction effort, I think that level could be adjusted. Councilman Johnson: To put a stand pipe or whatever in there. There's a few options there. Bob Worthington: If you would like to have a stipulation which would be incorporated as a part of the approval, either with the site plan or the EAW which would indicate that the objective that you wanted to achieve which is that there not be any dryness to the wetland, if I can use that term, but that it not be made totally dry and the engineering system that you put in for drainage in that area assures the City of that and we will comply with that recommendation. Also, in response to your other question about the Shoreland Ordinance and the fact that we are close to the 30% coverage requirement. Representatives from Rosemount are very well aware of the fact that if they go into a second phase, that it requires coming back and perhaps requesting a variance from that. They are also aware of the fact that they would need to amend the current EAW to reflect again the syst~ra of site drainage and development concerns. It may be that also we would talk about a size that's going to be comparable to the second phase or larger than we're talking about for the first phase, that might require an EIS having to be prepared on the second phase before that can be approved. So there seems to be a whole lot of checks anti balances that are available to the City to make sure that all the things that you're talking about or are concerned about have been addressed .... have been measured and the most appropriate alternatives selected for the environment concerned once that second phase is ready for development. I might add that that second phase as it now stands will not be ready for development for 3 to 5 years from now depending upon the growth program being injected by Rosemount for this facility... Councilman Johnson: The second phase does not stand real good with me as an excuse for dredging out this wetland and not building a secondary wetland someplace else. That you need to reserve the space elsewhere. I think at that time is when you should cross that hurdle. Right now we can solve our problem by doing just that. Digging your hole elsewhere in the middle of the cornfield and putting in a ponding area that would be nice and clean. You'll have grass all the way around it. Your employees could come out and have picnic tables next to it and sit next to it and have their lunch during the summer. You don't want to do that this time of year but I think it would be aesthetically pleasing, could be made into a pleasing, aesthetical attribute to the facility if properly designed and placed in here. Right now the Class B wetland is designed for the 100 year flood, the 100 year rain event. To maintain it which is fairly standard design. To do that you have almost very steep sides. There is very little ability for emergent grasses that are similar to what's there to be planted. Cattails will be a couple inches in and then the water's too deep for it. I've been talking with the Fish and Wildlife Service personnel. They're the people who really want to maintain that B wetland as a wildlife habitat. One way to do that is to minimize the disturbance of the wetland. I was speaking with them and I think there's some rocrn to negotiate on how these 12 City Council Meeting - Nov~ber 28~ 1988 wetlands are designed. One thing was to design the Class B wetland for around a 25 year flood event with anything beyond the 25 year flood event filling over into the Class A wetland. The larger of the wetlands. The affect on it would be very less often. It won't happen very often. The affect on the Class B wetland would be a lot less. You would be able to design some of the Fish and Wildlife's 6 steps into your design at that point. You'd be able to put some areas of irregular shoreline. You'd be able to put some 1:10 shoreline depth so you could have some of that vegetation within the water. This is something that it was about 4:00 this afternoon I finally got a hold of the Fish and Wildlife Service to discuss it with th~m and I think I may have discussed it with your hydrologist too. That seems to be a viable alternative here. So we don't disturb that Class B wetland as much and don't change it as badly. Then what that does is put some affect onto the Class A wetland but the affect is not very often. Is not nearly as extreme as what the affects are on a B. So that needs to be taken into consideration. Seeing if that can be engineered into this. If that could be, I think it solves a lot of problems. Tome the ideal is to dig your hole someplace else and leave the wetlands alone so we continue to have our 6 1/2 acres of wetlands here. Mayor Hamilton: Any other councilmembers have any questions about the wetland issue? Councilman Boyt: On this particular part, on the Environmental Assessment Worksheet, I have no questions. I have others on (b) through (e) but none on this. Councilman Horn: I just had one. I was a little confused as to what type of habitat that they felt would be leaving this Class B wetland. I didn't see anything in here except they said something about birds and small animals. I believe that was in Jo Ann's report. I didn't catch that in any of the other reports. The other thing that confused me was they said that these would not migrate to the Class A wetland. I don't understand what it indicates. It seems to me that that would be the logical thing to do. Why couldn't these things that are being displaced here, whatever these small animals are, why wouldn't theY move over to the Class A wetlands? Jo Ann Olsen: Those comments were from the DNR that they did not feel that they would be exposed to the Class A wetland. Councilman Horn: That's what they said but I didn't understand why they felt that way. It seems to be an opinion but they gave us no facts to substantiate. What seems to be a big issue is preserving the Class B seems fairly weak. Councilman Johnson: Clark, I did discuss that slightly with them also. Councilman Horn: One other one related to the phospherous count. It was stated in here that the studies have shown that the lake quality on Lake Riley is decreasing. I remember that we get comments every year on the lake quality on all of our lakes and it seemed tome that some aspects of Lake Riley were actually improving. I don't recall the details of what those were but is that true that the phospherous content is actually going up as a result of this increased flow? I understand the theory behind it but is it really following through in fact? 13 City Council Meeting - November 28~ 1988 Jo Ann Olsen: I believe so. At least that's what Dick Osgood from Met Council has stated. Councilman Horn: Based on what? Gary Warren: I believe that is one of the priority lakes that they do moniter every year. I believe that is based on a phospherous sample that is done every year since 1982. Councilman Horn: Even though the...is getting better, the phospherous content is getting higher? Gary Warren: The sedudose reading is I think pretty tempramental. It's a con, non criteria that's been used for a long time but the time of the year is really important on some of those readings. Councilman Horn: I guess I don't feel that that's an issue that it gives us any reading because we're already set the precedent of allowing development and you know that... That was the only question I had on the EAW. Councilman Geving: 5he comments I have are linked primarily to the concerns that I personally have and the concerns that I've received from homeowners living in the area. Some of the things we want to make sure are absolutely part of the negative declaration are the view to the south for the people that live on Lake Susan currently are not impacted by this facility from a visual standpoint. That is an impact. That there should be no direct runoff into Lake Susan. I think we can say that this is true and that this is not going to happen. It was a concern that was expressed at the last meeting and I think that the runoff as being proposed will not be directed directly to the lake. Another concern is the impact on the north slope of Lake Susan. A previous developer that was proposing a lodge facility on that site had suggested that there be steps be leading down to the lake and maybe even a docking facility so their employees could go down to the lake. We want to make sure that that doesn't happen. That nothing will be disturbed on the north slope of Lake Susan. And if in fact the offer is made as a part of your proposal that this be an extension of our trailways plan along the north side of the lake, I'm sure that the Park and Rec Con~nission would be glad to accept that because we already have a good share of that area now. I don't know if we've got the entire length of the 80 foot width that we got from Mr. Curry but maybe you can answer that question for me Jo Ann. Jo Ann Olsen: We do have... Councilman Geving: We do have the entire extent of the north slope? Ail the more reason why that should not be disturbed. Jo Ann Olsen: We don't have the entire extent of the slope. We do have a trail. Councilman Geving: We have a trail and is it approximately 80 feet, the 80 feet that we got from Mr. Curry? Jo Ann Olsen: It's shown on the plan. It is comparable. 14 City Council Meeting 2 November 28~ 1988 CoUncilman Geivng: So then the statement that I made I want to make sure is part of the plan and that there will be no attempt to make a stairway or walkway or to use that slope in anyway that might erode the slope eventually over time. That we have proper erosion control measures in place and I was looking for a plan. ~ae plan is being suggested in the ccxn~ents to us but I did not see that plan. Is the plan available to us now? Gary Warren: It' s in the packet. Councilman Johnson: It's in the site plan. Councilman Geving: ~ne impact on the wetlands A and B, anyone who was familiar with those two and I walked them many times, can fully understand that in dry years those meadows will dry out to some extent, especially the Type B but the main thing here is that we want to make sure that we can preserve to the extent practical the wetlands that exists there now. I think Carrol Henderson's book on Landscaping for Wildlife can be done. It is a good DNR pamphlet. I've read it myself and can be part of the plan so I think you can mitigate the loss of approximately one-eighth by using Mr. Henderson's plan. I think we need to ask our question, does this EAW really assess the values of the project? Does the project itself have any significant impact on the land as it exists now? I'm quite confident from the discussions that we've had and the conments that are in our packet with the 8 conditions, that I think those impacts are mitigated. I'm confident that the DNR, the Fish and Wildlife Service, Corps of Engineers who did not conment, have looked at this and are satisfied that the 8 conditions will satisfy this. ~nen furthermore, I would like to make sure that the con~nents by the Met Council on the 17th of November have been fully covered in this packet and that their concerns for Lake Riley specifically are being handled. Could you say for the record Jo Ann, the Met Council's conments and concerns in their November 17th review are being handled? Jo Ann Olsen: Yes they are. Councilman Geving: Okay, and then I'm satisfied. I'm very satisfied on the part of Rosemount that they're acting in good faith. They've come before us trying to make sure that all of the questions and concerns of the City are being covered and I'm quite satisfied that you've done that Mr. Worthington, thank you. Mayor Hamilton: Just two comments. One on Dale's comment on the visual impact to the neighbors on the south side of the lake. If I remsmber correctly, they were here several years ago and were very vocal about this property as being commercial/industrial rather than residential so I would think that it would be rather difficult to have a building of this size not have some visual impact on the surrounding area. However, this is the type of develol~ment that they chose to have rather than residential so I don't see that as a problem. The issue of the wetlands, I have not heard nor have I seen anything here this evening that would make me believe that what is being done is the least bit detrimental to the area or to the wetlands. Consequently I feel that what you're attempting to do is good. I think the Type B wetland, I see no reason why vegetation once put in there will not support wildlife as it is currently. I suppose I should listen to the experts when they say that they don't think the wildlife from the B wetland will go to the A but it seems rather unusual to me that they wouldn't do that. I would think it's more a function of the area being more heavily 15 City Council Meeting - November 28, 1988 developed that's going to drive them out rather than something being done to the wetland. So I like your plan. I like what you've done. I think your responses are good and I hope we can continue to work on, I think we've come a long way already and I think we're ready to approve this. Did you have anything else Mr. Worthington that you wanted to say? Bob Worthington: Just to the statements that Councilman Horn and Councilman Geving have made and we have no objections to any of the conditions that you would like to see reflected in the final EAW report be incorporated as a part of that. We think that even though we've been on a very fast track process since we undertook the project, that Rosemount has given us the guidance in their discussions to be responsible. To be careful in terms of the environment. We think we've done that .... has evolved into something which in our opinion given the nature of the...to the City and the Chan Lakes Business Park. I should just comment on the aesthetic issue even though it's not shown on our site plan, as most of you know who walked the site, there's vegetation on this side and there's vegetation also on this side up the hill which is primarily preserved. The vegetation in our opinion, in it's maintenance over tJme...will screen the neighbors to the south as well as include a very nice visual enchancement and natural environmental asset to...the visitors to the plant itself .... we have gone a long way in making sure that the visual impacts... Councilman Geving: Can I ask the councilmembers if they have any other conditions they would like to add to page 12 where there are 8 listed conditions? If there are, let's add them now and let's get on with it. ~Mayor Hamilton: Why don't you make a motion. Councilman Geving: I will make the motion at this time. The City of Chanhassen as the responsible government unit wishes to establish a negative declaration for the Rosemount facility EAW subject to the following 8 conditions and those 8 conditions are spelled out in the November 18, 1988 Council packet number 4A as presented to us by Mrs. Jo Ann Olsen, Assistant Planner. Councilman Horn: I'll second that. I do have one question. In condition number 4, is the term, altered shall be landscaped for wildlife. That seems like a rather vague term to me. Is that specific enough to work with? Councilman Geving: That's a title of a publication that Mr. Carroll Henderson wrote and it's a DNR publication. Councilman Horn: I understand that but this if you'll notice, is a non-capitalized statement. Is that what you're referring to is that they will follow all the guidelines outlined in that booklet? Councilman Geving: Right. Councilman Boyt: When we get to the Wetland Alteration Permit, those standard 6 steps that the Fish and Wildlife requires are indicated in that plan so the bottom and contours and all that are... Councilman Geving: I think to answer your question, we should spell out, and I thought it was spelled out earlier. Maybe it didn't include it here. We should put that in there that Landscaping for Wetlands by Mr. Carroll Henderson of the 16 City Council Meeting - November 28, 1988 State DNR shall be the title that we might want to put in in COndition 4~ Councilman Horn: It seems rather vague the way it's worded right now. Councilman Boyt: So let's add the standard conditions of the Fish and Wildlife for the development of a wetland. Mayor Hamilton: But I think that Dale has said that Landscape for Wildlife by Carroll Henderson, is that the name? Councilman Geving: Yes, he's the individual. Mayor Hamilton: That just be added. You capitalize Landscape and Wildlife, by Carroll Henderson. Councilman Geving: For wetlands. Landscaping for Wetlands. Mayor Hamilton: Landscaping for Wetlands, okay. Councilman Horn: As referenced in the DNR approval. Does anybody have an idea? Do you know what that means in terms of impact to you? Jo Ann Olsen: That's just suggestions on types of vegetation that should be used. Councilman Horn: There's nothing terribly exotic in there? Councilman Boyt: I have a comment. First, I guess I take exception to the idea that this development is going in without impact. I certainly wouldn't want to communicate that to anyone. There is going to be an increased flow of water through Rice Marsh Lake which will put more phospherous into Lake Riley and that's without question going to happen. So I think what we're deciding is, is the development worth that. We're also tying it in and the Met Council tied it into the Clean Water Project so when we consider later on we're going to stick to our guns on the requirements of that clean water project, we'd better remember that if we don't do s~mething, Lake Riley is going to go down the tubes. The Rosemount development and what they're proposing tonight fits right hand in glove with the Clean Water project with money the City's already spent and with commitments we've made but as that comes up for future vote, I hope we and the future council remember you can't have one of these without the other as far as Rosemount without the Clean Water project. Councilman Horn: I was going to comment on that later too but since Bill brought it up. It says in our Barr Engineering report that the City is holding that project up. I was not aware of that and it seems to me that we shouldn't be holding that up. It says the City is delaying the project because it hasn't resolved the Lake Lucy and Lake Susan access. Jo Ann Olsen: We had established a resolution that the City Council adopted giving a time line that we would be pursuing those boat access. What's happening is that the PCA has been holding it on their table and is coming back now and getting pressure to let's spend the money elsewhere. It's kind of laying it back on the City's lap saying we're holding it up. So we're still working with th~r~ and we'll follow up and get an update on that but we are 17 City Council Meeting - November 28, 1988 getting at least to the workplan and then we might have to try to get the rest of the money. They might take it back and put it elsewhere but it's not the City's fault. We've done all we can do. Mayor Hamilton: I think that's a topic for another discussion. Councilman Boyt: On point 6 of the 8 items, it talks about the City and MnDot and TH 5. It says TH 5 must be in place, improvements must be in place prior to the development of this site. As we will look at later on tonight, I might as well point out to you right now that isn't going to happen. TH 5 will not have it's improvements in place when Rosemount opens it's doors. Councilman Geving: I agree with Bill. I would like to make sure that we don't put a condition on Rosemount that really is impractical and I think that all indications are from the DNR planners, even in a fast pace, they're going to have a difficult time making 1990. To place this condition, number 6 in here, if we stick with it, would mean that you could not proceed with this project until that TH 5 improvement was in place and I don't believe that's going to happen. I believe some of it will be made but I wouldn't want to make the condition to hold Rosemount's feet to the fire. I believe Bill you're absolutely right. I think that's a dangerous condition to leave in this the way it's worded. I would like to amend my motion deleting item number 6. Councilman Horn: I'll second that. Councilman Boyt: I think you're right in deleting that. I just think that it doesn't delete the problem but we had best address those left turn lanes or we're going to have problems. Mayor Hamilton: Jay, you had a condition you wanted to add? Councilman Johnson: Well, not actually a condition but at the time we passed off, I finished my discussion of the pond issue and you asked the other council members to comment on the pond issue. I'd like to continue on the other issues that haven't been addressed yet. Mayor Hamilton: Well, we have a motion on the floor. Councilman Johnson: Okay, then we'll just start adding conditions then. The EA must be modified to reflect the source, volumes and quality of industrial waste water as required by the Environmental Quality Board. That would be condition 9. Also, describe the type and amount of solid and hazardous waste and the disposal method or location. That would be number 10 and would be describe their waste. These should all cc~ne back as a modification to the... Councilman Geving: Is there a number under which those... Councilman Johnson: Yes, under Section 20A would be the industrial waste water should be updated to include the proper data as required. Section 24 should be updated to describe the hazardous waste being produced at the plant. We want a complete document here that we can stand on years later. Section 4 should be mod i f led to show... Councilman Geving: This would be number 117 18 City Council Meeting - November 28~ 1988 Councilman Johnson: Yes, it would be number 11 then. Proper topographic maps. Councilman Geving: What is that called, Section 4? What do you want to do with Section 4? Councilman Johnson: Provide the proper topographic map as required. You're required a 7 1/2 minute topographic map. They've provided a 15 minute. It's just a nit pick here. Section 11 should be updated to show the MWCC and Carver County as requiring permits for industrial waste water discharge per MWCC. Councilman Geving: Now wait a minute. Are you on number 12 or are you talking about number 137 Mayor Hamilton: Number 9. You've got waste water on number 9. Councilman Geving: You've got to be very specific here because you're giving direction to these people to go back and make something happen. Are we talking about number 12 or number 137 I have Section 11, to update. Councilman Johnson: This would be number 13 then and it would be to update Section 11 to show all the permits that are going to be required. The MWCC Industrial Discharge Permit. Councilman Geving: Wait a minute. That was number 12. Number 12 is Section 11, Jay. Mayor Hamilton: Upgrading of permits. Required permits. Councilman Boyt: We have 20, 24, 4 and 11. Councilman Geving: Anymore Jay? Councilman Johnson: Okay, number 9 was Section 20A. Number 10 was Section 24. 11 was 4. 12 was there. Okay. Also in there would be the Carver County. Is there going to be hazardous waste storage under the MPCA storage permit? That would be part of number 12. Mayor Hamilton: Is that going to be part of number 10 or Section 24 or is that separate? Councilman Johnson: That's part of Section 11 listing what permits are required. Mayor Hamilton: Okay, that will cover everything. Councilman Johnson: We could just say, if a hazardous waste storage permit is going to be required, it should be listed here. I don't know if it is or isn't. Councilman Horn: Excuse me, aren't these things listed under separate development contracts? Why are theybeing part of the negative declaration? This is standard procedure that we require of all... 19 City Council Meeting - November 28, 1988 CounciLman Johnson: These are items that are supposed to be listed in the EAW which were omitted from the EAW. We're making a negative declaration on an incomplete document so I'm trying to get the document as complete as possible so that our negative declaration is based on something. Councilman Horn: But your thing that you're talking about with Carver County comes up later in the development contract. Councilman Johnson: Also. It comes up several different places. Councilman Horn: Is it necessary to spell out every detail here? Can't we just say meets the standards of an EAW standard? CounciLman Johnson: Do you think this document that they gave us is complete? Mayor Hamilton: Clark's question to you was, can't we put a condition in there that the EAW must meet all the required requirements of an EAW statement? CounciLman Johnson: But how do you judge that? Who's going to become the judge? CounciLman Horn: The fellow sitting right there. CounciLman Geving: And this board who is going to declare as a negative impact. Councilman Boyt: How many more conditions do you have? Councilman Johnson: Almost none really. The other I'd like to see, and this would be 14 then would be I'd like to see a discussion of the alternatives for the wetland issue since it is now probably the single most important issue and there has been no discussion of what the alternatives were other than this is the one way we want to do it and this is the way it's going to be. I'd like to see the EA to be a document that in the future when somebody tries to get us on it, be complete so condition 14 would be to provide a discussion of the alternatives for the wetland issues. I'm still going to try to hopefully get them to do something to provide better wildlife habitat there. Those would be my suggested modifications. Mayor Hamilton: Based on what you've heard on the additional conditions, do you have any specific con~nents at this time on any one in particular? I suspect what's going to happen is, should we pass this, you're going to need to review this and if you have specific con~nents about any of the conditions, I feel that you should have the opportunity to bring those back to us. Either to be deleted or corrected or changed or whatever the case may be. Bob Worthington: Mr. Mayor, I don't think any of the con~nents that have been received outside of the last one which is the wetland comment is a concern. As you know Rosemount currently has a couple facilities within this region and the chemical issue, the hazardous waste, disposal of it's waste are being addressed on the basis by these facilities so what we're going to be doing is taking the now current practice and projecting this current practice for the operating procedure for this facility as well. We're not totally sure yet that we can discuss the alternatives of the wetland or if that means that we have to come to a conclusion that Councilman Johnson's recommendation is the only one we can 20 City Council Meeting - November 28, 1988 accept as being Council's direction on that issue, then we've got to know this evening. We think we have explored the alternatives. You may not enjoy the conclusion we came to which he obviously does. We think this is being responsive. We think it is a good alternative and it is the one that we're proposing. If Council does not agree with that position, than they should accept Councilman Johnson's position or recon~nend an alternative. Councilman Geving: I would like to amend my motion to include a new number 9 which has to do with the reflection of waste water, Section 20A. A new number 10, describe the hazardous waste in Section 24. A new number 11, describing in Section 4 the proper topographic map that should be included with the EAW. And a number 12, to include a Section 11, update to show the MWCC and all the permits required for the EAW. That's the conclusion of my amended motion. Councilman Horn: I'll second that amendment. Councilman Geving moved, Councilman Horn seconded that the City of Chanhassen as the responsible government unit (RGU) establishes a negative declaration for the Rosemount facility subject to the following conditions: 1. The developer use terracing and backsloping during construction of the site to divert all runoff away from Lake Susan. 2. The developer use temporary sedimentation basins to control runoff during construction of the site instead of using the Class B ponding area proposed in the EAW. 3. The storm sewer inlets or outfalls shall not be used without adequate filters until all construction and development, including the establishment of turf is complete. 4. The Class A wetland be maintained in its natural state and maintain a 75 foot buffer and the Class B wetland which is being altered shall be, Landscaping for Wetlands by Carroll Henderson, after grading is complete. 5. An addendum should be provided to clarify whether intersections at Hwy 5 and Market Boulevard and Hwy 5 and Hwy 101 will be operating at level of service D before or after Hwy 5 is reconstructed. 7. ~The drainage plan for the site should be coordinated with MnDot District 5 ~Hydrolics Engineer to ensure that the rate of runoff not increase to the Lake Susan outlet under TH 101 as it will be unable to handle any increase. 8. An industrial waste water discharge permit must be obtained from the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission for the discharge of industrial chemical waste water to the sanitary sewer and if an Army Corps of Engineers 44 permit is required for the project, a 401 certification by the MPCA is also required. 9. Update Section 20A to include the proper data. 10. Update Section 24 to describe waste water being produced at the plant. 21 City Council Meeting - November 28~ 1988 11. Section 4 shall be modified to include correct topographic maps[ 12. Update Section 11 to show ~CC and all other permits required. All voted in favor except Councilman Johnson who opposed and the motion carried. (B) WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT. Jo Ann Olsen: The Planning Commission discussed the EAW but again, what they do was proposing to preserve the Class A wetland and to maintain a level of water in the Class A wetland for the roof drainage. They are proposing to alter the Class B wetland to contain the majority of the runoff fr~m the site. Staff is recommending approval of the Wetland Alteration Permit. The Planning Commission also recommends approval. The new plan that Rosemount has suhnitted contain a lot more detail that explain exactly what will be occurring to both the Class A and Class B wetland and they answer a lot of the questions that staff and Planning Commission had. Again, we are recommending approval of the conditions on page 5C and 5D of the wetland alteration permit and site plan. Those include using the Landscaping for Wildlife booklet as a referral for landscaping the northeast and westerly edge of the wetland. Maintaining it in a natural state rather than just sod and seed. Also that w~ would have plans submitted confirming that the 75 foot setback from the Class B wetland is being maintained by the parking lot. Bob Worthington: Mr. Mayor, we've reviewed the staff report on this item. We concur with it's conclusions and it's recommendations and I recommend that you approve it as suggested. I'd be happy to answer questions. Mayor Hamilton: Bill, you said you had a question on this particular item. Councilman Boyt: I do. On page 5B of the report it talks about the wetland, the B Class wetland. Normal water level 933. High water level 939. That's a 6 foot, what I call bounce. I guess I'm interested in finding out about how wildlife survives a 6 foot bounce. Mayor Hamilton: Who would like to answer that? Is there someone in your group Mr. Worthington. Councilman Boyt: Maybe I can put it a little bit differently. We're trying to maintain some sort of wildlife habitat. You've indicated a commitment to doing that and yet we're showing to retain the water volume that you need to retain, that you're going to fluctuate this level by 6 feet. It seems to me that that's a pretty drastic water height fluctuation and I'm just wondering how does the wildlife handle that and how can you landscape and plan for that kind of a change in water level? Mayor Hamilton: Would it be fair to presume that the 6 foot increase would be during the major rain storm? That increase, normally you'd be at the 933 level or somewhere's near that? Bob Worthington: That is correct Mr. Mayor. The high water bounce that we're talking about is not going to be a common occurence. It's going to be that year rainfall condition wherein you're going to have increase in that pond level 22 City Council Meeting - November 28, 1988 and as such have a differential at the top and the bottom in terms of distilled water and high water condition. Our assumption is that the low water level or somewhere close to that would probably be average depth of that pond would be maintained in those conditions and with the help of the...that you were talking about and some other expertize from other sources such as Barr Engineering, design something that will keep the wildlife flourishing. Councilman Boyt: I appreciate that answer. I think it basically says that you can't do it because as I read it, 100 year affairs happen all the time around here. Certainly if you look at the last 3 years, you'd have to say they happen every year and wildlife can't handle being drown. What you're talking about doing here, I guess it gets back to Jay's point earlier and I think Jay did, as long as it took to go through it, I was relieved to have the thoroughness of your examination and piece the paperwork end of it which was much faster to read than sitting through the discussion. But what we're really talking about here is you're building a well. Something that fluctuates, expands to fluctuates 6 feet, we don't have a lake in this city that fluctuates 6 feet and we're going to create one so I'm just concerned that we're taking what's now considered to be sort of a s~mi-dry wetland and we're turning it into a pond. So I think it's real important when we say in the conditions that on page 5D that you will conform as best possible to the 6 conditions of the Fish and Wildlife Service, that in fact we change that to read that you shall conform to the 6 conditions of the Fish and Wildlife. I don't know why you couldn't conform to those conditions. Other developments have. I think it's fair to ask you to do the same. Mayor Hamilton: I'd like to just follow up on that. Supposing there's a 100 year rain, which we had one of I guess a year ago and the only one I can remember. Councilman Boyt: How about Lotus Lake? Mayor Hamilton: And when you go up to the 939 level, how long will it take that wetland then to decrease to the 933 or 34 level which is where you want to keep the level at? Maybe if I can follow up on that even further Mr. Worthington. I think you have a couple of retention ponds in Opus Park already and I know that the level in those fluctuates at least 6 feet. They're down considerably now and you have bafflers in those to take care of the overflow when they're at the peak which they were 4 or 5 years ago. Is this going to be sc~ething similar to that where you can handle the overflow if it gets to 39 or higher? Bob Worthington: You have to remember they are outletting water from these ponds into the storm water system which is going to be designed as a part of the Lake Drive East improvement project. We're assuming that the sizing of the pipes as well as the structures that are going to be designed to run off when that occurs, is going to be such that that 939 level, once it's reached, is not going to be maintained there for a long period of time. Now we don't have a stopwatch. When you talk about what happens in the Opus development, all of those ponds outlet into the storm water piping systems and then ultimately into Nine Mile Creek. We have had in the past 5 years, not only 100 but 200 year events and have never had any flooding in our Opus 2 Park. I would say that from my experience of the readings that have obviously are taken, none of our ponds, once they exceed the high water level, stayed at that level after the rainfall stopped more than a half day. They typically crest at that point of 23 232 City C~uncil Meet~nq - Noveanber 28~ 1988 course depending upon what kind of volume is being received in the creek. They then start falling, some are within 6 hours after they exceed that high water mark down to a low water mark...all means within a 24 hour period they usually are down within a higher than flood stage...in terms of their water amounts. I assume the same thing is going to be happening here. We are not designing this to be a perch pond. To just receive water and whatever flows onto that water, the natural evaporation takes it away. True, there's going to be a high creek elevation from the low water to the high water mark and there is going to be the potential of having some damage of wildlife and habitat. I think however that that experience is going to be rare as it will gradually increased and as such, wildlife will have an opportunity to go elsewhere. To higher ground or... You have to remember again, one of the reasons that we're talking about mitigating impacts and one of the reasons that we're focusing on the small ponds is to preserve the larger ponds in it's natural, unaltered state. That in itself should have a value regardless except for the Fish and Wildlife's conclusion or the DNR's conclusion that there will be a migration at times of catastrophic events to this other wetland or areas surrounding it or not, it's our opinion that there will be sufficient time when there's going to be destruction of wildlife. This bounce that we're talking about... CounciLman Boyt: Let's not lose sight of where our main intent here is to protect Lake Susan and further down the chain of lakes and so I just want to point out that I think a 6 foot bounce is a big change in the water level and it will impact on the ability of that ground to support wildlife, in my opinion. But the need is there for some means of retaining water so that it doesn't run quickly. I guess for my part I'm not particularly interested in having the thing drain out in a day after a big storm because the idea is to slow flow into Lake Susan. I do have another concern about, you mentioned how we' re trying to protect the Class A wetland. I agree with you but your own statement says that the water flow into the Class A is going to be reduced from what it is now. You're currently planning, as I recall, to run the water that falls on your roof into the Class A and that results in a smaller area feeding that wetland. What are we doing to retain the level of water in the Class A? Bob Worthington: Mr. McKenzie, I believe when this question was asked previously made the coherent that we can design the system if we wanted to have as a stipulation of approval...maintaining certain water levels within this area which is going to be a higher elevation than the small pond. We can do that if that is a standard criteria for protecting the natural habitat. .. Councilman Boyt: Well it would be. I think for me, I think the Class A should have a volume of waterflow equal to what it has now. John McKenzie: If I could just comment here. That's our intent and that's clearly what the design is intended to do as presented now. If we confuse you with our comments, we're sorry but the intent is to replace the predevelopment flow of water to the Class A wetland with flow of water through the storm drainage structures. Gary Warren: When staff had n~et earlier, our concern also was the fact that, I think it helps maybe if you center talk of watersheds and not storms because in dry periods we've seen them almost too big and dry and that's the natural cycle. What we've focused on is trying to maintain a watershed that was contributing to the Class A wetland and that is why the plan shows a certain amount of the roof 24 City Council Meeting - November 28~ 1988 drainage and only a portion of the roof drainage being actually piped to that wetland. While they are going through parking lot improvements and catch basins and everything, piping it away to the Class B wetland, we still did reserve a portion of that to compensate for the amount of area that will be taken out of that wetland' s marsh. Councilman Boyt: So you're convinced that the A is getting the same waterflow as it was getting before? Gary Warren: It's getting what it w~uld get. Councilman Boyt: One last comment. I noticed that your parking lot had a little jag in it from where it probably started out being. Does that mean that you've now been able to maintain the 75 foot setback frc~ the Class B wetland? John McKenzie: From the Class A wetland. Councilman Boyt: Class B wetland. John McKenzie: The Class B, I think we're probably less than 75 feet but again, to the extent possible, we're trying to respect the setback. Councilman Boyt: Well, tell me why it's not possible to respect the setback? Excuse me, but I don't understand why it's not possible. John McKenzie: Again, if we were to preserve the setback, we would have a lesser volume of water retained so obviously it's a trade-off. Councilman Boyt: Why wouldn't you just make the parking lot a different configuration? Why can't you put some of those people in the parking lot that appears to be on the west side of the property? John McKenzie: The point is that it is no longer a wetland. It's a ponding area. We've altered the wetland into a ponding area. Councilman Boyt: I won't accept that because what we're doing is we're establishing this and we're doing everything we can to maintain some wetland and now what you're telling me is that no, we're not. We're going to destroy the wetland all together and it is in fact a pond. Even if it was a pond, we would still have a setback requirement, would we not? Jo Ann Olsen: I believe we've always considered, even when wetlands have been altered, that they are still wetlands and that the ordinary high water mark is the edge of the wetland where the 75 foot setback has to be. John McKenzie: From that point it is. From the point of the alteration it's not. Jo Ann Olsen: Right. We would take it from the ordinary high water mark. Councilman Boyt: So we're in? The 75 foot setback is covered? Thank you. I'm done. 25 City Council Meeting - November 28, 1988 Councilman Johnson: As your current design, how many of the 6 conditions fr°m the DNR will you comply with? Councilman Boyt: Fish and Wildlife? Councilman Johnson: Fish and Wildlife, I'm sorry. Of the 6 conditions. Councilman Boyt: It's on page 5D. Councilman Johnson: Should I read them to you? John McKenzie: From a quick review here, I think conditions (b) and (c) will be the most difficult to comply with. Condition (a), we are attempting to create a free form as you see in the plan. Condition (d) we will comply with. (e) we'll comply with and (f) we'll comply with so I'd say it's conditions (b) and (c) that we'll be deviating to the greatest extent. Councilman Johnson: Now condition (d), if you don't do condition (c), condition (d) doesn't make a whole lot of difference. To put muck back in the bottom of a pond that's too deep to have any vegetation come out of doesn't. The other thing I'd like to know about is a statement in a letter to me which also refers to this I believe because we're talking about the water going into the Class A wetlands from the roof. You state that you feel that it will be free of pollutants and nutrients. I think I discussed this a little bit with you today. The design of the air exhaust syst~ from industrial plant will impact what happens to the roof. I want to be adding a condition here is that the roof exhaust, any industrial exhaust be designed to minimize deposition of any pollutant onto the roof. What happens in a lot of cases, if you get a HBAC designer who's used to just working with hot and cold air and not necessarily polluted air, they design an exhaust stack that points toward the roof. The polluted exhaust, which if it's properly dispersed up into the air, does not cause a problem and impacts on the roof, leaving the pollutant on the roof to be washed off. This has been seen at several sites so I don't think this will be hard to do. It should be considered in your design. Now unfortunately I want to inform the councilmembers and staff that doing this will mean that you will be able to see the stacks. A lot of times the low stacks are done so they-are not visible but to me, as an air pollution engineer and industrial, when I see a stack I know somebody is doing something right. It may not visually look good but I know that they designed it right to where the pollutants aren't going back down the building into the grass and surrounding areas. So that I'm very concerned about. Of having good clean water going into that Class A wetland. Since we haven't been told what type of industrial processes are going to be in this building yet, which I'm sure you're going to tell you tonight yet at the site plan review, I would assume we got vapor degreasers and used cholorinade solvents. Probably wave solder machines that have leads, tins, resins. Probably a cafeteria that has grease exhaust coming out. If that's not properly designed, we'll be getting grease con~nents. Those are my concerns there. Hopefully we can word a condition on here. Mayor Hamilton: Anything else Jay? Councilman Johnson: I still hope that they can work with the Fish and Wildlife to compromise on this lgg year. I think there's still some room to get rid of the bounce by going the 25 year and above storm, and there would be less 26 City Council M~e~ing - November 28, 1988 construction for you too because you won't have to dig it as deep, to put some of the very large storm events into the Class A wetland. While that doesn't achieve no touch, it gives us two better wetlands and not nearly as much bounce. Bounce actually is the proper the DNR and everybody uses. Councilman Geving: I just had a comment. Mr. Worthington, on item 3(b). What part of that condition by the Fish and Wildlife Service will you have difficulty meeting? Is it the slopes or the 30%? Bob Worthington: It's the slopes. If we are required to give shallow slopes, then in effect we have to enlarge the area which means that we have to take more land that' s available. Councilman Geving: How much more land? Could you get back to that 9/10ths of an acre, 8/10ths of an acre that we lost before if you had to do it that way? Bob Worthington: Mr. Dave Vangasser from our staff. Dave? Councilman Geving: How much would you add to the acreage if you did conform to that slope requirement, 10:1 to 20:17 If you chose, let's say 15:1 as an average. Dave Vangasser: We did try and accomodate that to the best extent possible and as I recall from discussions at the Planning Con~ission meeting, the Planning Con~ission recon~nendation of approval actually read to the extent possible to be used as a pond. I don't see that referenced to a pond any longer in the reco~endations but we did try and design our ponds to maximize the shoreline and we do have areas where we tried... Councilman Geving: I don't believe you're answering my question. Dave Vangasser: Which is? I can't answer that. Councilman Geving: How much acreage would you have to put back in the Class B wetland to meet the slope requirements of the Fish and Wildlife Service? Dave Vangasser: My guess is that we would have to increase the ponding area by maybe 30 feet all around it. Councilman Geving: What's wrong with that? Dave Vangasser: You can't increase that in these two directions or in that direction so we would have to go in that direction whereby decreasing the amount of parking area. Councilman Geving: So you're saying how many feet? 30 feet? Dave Vangasser: I was going to guess 30 feet in each direction but again, 3 of the 4 directions we're complying by... Councilman Geving: I would say that that requirement would be unreasonable. Let me ask again, why you feel that that would be a difficult condition to meet? Is it economic? Is it that you do not have the space in that particular area? 27 City Council Meeting - November 28~ 1988 Dave Vangasser: I think it relates to the intent here that roughly half of the employees are going to enter through this east entrance and therefore we designed our parking to accon~nodate half the employees as well as, that will be the visitors entrance so it's going to be our visitors parking too. We've got a criteria that the east parking lot to accon~nodate a certain number of vehicles in order to work around the existing trees in this area so we save as many of those as possible, we felt that we didn't have enough room in that area to park the cars. Councilman Geving: Have you spoken with the Fish and Wildlife Service specialist in this area, Paul Burke I believe his name is? Dave Vangasser: I have not personally. Councilman Geving: Is there room for negotiation on this point with the Fish and Wildlife Service Jo Ann? Jo Ann Olsen: The Fish and Wildlife... Councilman Geving: These are just guidelines. Jo Ann Olsen: Right. These are guidelines that the Fish and Wildlife prefer for forming a pond. We always just use them as guidelines but what they're proposing, there' s no... Councilman Geving: Another question that has to do with the pond itself. Now I've indicated somewhere in my reading that you were going to pump the 939, if it reached 939 you were going to bring the water back in the Class A. Is that correct? I don't understand that. I read that somewhere in my notes but I don't know exactly where. Dave Vangasser: The two wetlands are connected with a pipe and if the 100 year flood occurred and the water wanted to back up above the 939 level, it would in fact back up into the Class A wetland as Councilmember Johnson has suggested. Councilman Geving: Okay, thank you. I have no other comments. Councilman Horn: Just a quick question. Would it be feasible to alter the Lake Drive East and extend the pond to the north rather than taking the parking lot? Dave Vangasser: You're saying use that as part of our retention requirement? Councilman Horn: Rather than destroying the parking lot here. Gary Warren: Another consideration had been talked on early in the process here but since it hasn't been talked of further, was all this water is being piped down to our storm water retention pond which you've seen in our feasibility study we'll be talking about. There is the opportunity to relax the on-site retention requirement for Rosemount and have it stored downstream in our pond and enlarge that pond and make Rosemount for any increased piping costs and ponding to accon~nodate that water. It does allow you to make these ponds or wetlands to a smaller size and we can handle flow in our own basin downstream. 28 City Council Meeting - November 28, 1988 Councilman Horn: Does that mean then that (d) could be met? We could downsize this pond enough to meet these slopes? Gary Warren: Theoretically we could let them take it all off site and not make them modify the Class B wetland at all and we could accommodate it down in our pond with the hydraulics we've got approved for that, I think we would. If we did that similarly, if we only had a request for that with the Charlie James property. He did not want to have to pond and he was agreeable to pay us for accommodating that in our proposed pond on the west side of Powers Blvd. on the Eckankar property. Bob Worthington: Mr. Mayor if I could just repond to the one aspect. All of these conditions we knew when we were designing the drainage system but we could comply with each of the conditions. That's why introduced the language as much as possible and to the extent possible which kind of indicated a willingness on our part that we did need to look at alternatives... Councilman Horn: It seems to me like we're dealing with a lot of issues that aren't really under this development's control here or trade-offs that would affect it so I think we have to be a little bit flexible in how we word these things. Mayor Hamilton: Jo Ann, I think Mr. Worthington mentioned that the Planning Co~ission language that was passed did state to the extent possible. Is that correct? Don Ashworth: Yes. Mayor Hamilton: And if that's correct, why is that not reflected in the conditions as stated to the City Council? Councilman Johnson: It is. Councilman Boyt: Staff is proposing to take it out. Councilman Geving: As best possible. Mayor Hamilton: Okay, there it is. It would seem more appropriate in there specific for (b) and (c). Councilman Johnson: There is another solution to the slope problem to give them extra room. If he needs 30 feet, we can vary the setback. Give them a 45 foot setback and give them the extra 30 feet to make the pond a little bigger. In this case to retain the more wildlife nature of the pond and stuff, it maybe worth that trade-off, that compormise may be worthwhile seeking. I still believe that we could redo, like Gary was saying, but I think we could also redo the pond elevation a little bit to where we use the bigger pond a litle more in the heavier rain events. Right now if a rain event above a 100 years, you use the upper pond. In talking to the Fish and Wildlife people, the big bounce will probably kill most of your vegetation around the pond so with a larger area you won't have nearly as big of a bounce on the larger situations. Once a year bounce of a foot on the big wetlands would not cause hardly a problem at all. 4 foot bounce on a cattail will kill it for the year. If you have a 4 foot bounce in the spring from runoff, or after the cattails start growing you have a 4 foot 29 City Council Meeting - Novc~er 28; 1988 bounce, you won't see your cattails until next year. That causes a lot of problem from dead vegetation but there are still two possibilities to give them the 10:1 slopes on 30% of the shoreline. Mayor H~nilton: I think as Clark pointed out, we need to be flexible on this issue as the developer is trying to do the best they can conform to all the conditions, We need to show some flexibility and you have one suggestion and there are others so I would suspect that the staff will work within those parameters to see that the job is done as it should be. Bill, did you have another comment? Councilman Boyt: To follow up on what you just said Tom. What we want to establish though is that we would really like to see these 6 conditions applied to that Class B wetland. I know it says as best possible but as Jay has indicated, we may prefer to flex another standard in order to get these. Is that the sense of the Council? Mayor Hamilton: That's a part of the best possible. I see it as a part of that effort. As long as the staff understands that. Councilman Boyt: I'm comfortable with that being in there, written the way it is now. Gary, I have a concern that we not encourage this runoff into what is going to be the City's sort of second stream filter in the park if we build that pond down there. I would like to think that that's sort of just that. It takes whatever runoff comes to it but that we not encourage that to become another Gary Warren: The other...is that a larger pond normally works better than a small pond. There is some economy of scale in consolidating these larger ponds. Our maintenance staff and also the mechanics who service the sedimentation. Councilman Boyt: Isn't that pond though in our park? Gary Warren: It would be on the southwest corner of the park area. Councilman Boyt: So the bigger we make it, the more parkland it takes? Gary Warren: Yes, to an extent that's true. We also in the feasibility talked about possibly addressing the sediment loading that we've been taking on Lake Susan by enlarging that pond and routing Riley Creek into it also which I think might address that. I think at this point, from the parkland's that I've seen today, that corner of the property, you wouldn't be violating any plans as far as recreational areas are concerned. Councilman Boyt: Are you suggesting, to follow up on your earlier con~nent, that maybe the thing to do with this Class B is establish it to the 6 guidelines, take any flow that it would no longer handle and run that over to what we're proposing to build in the City park? Gary Warren: Yes, I guess I'm proposing there are some alternatives and if the Council chooses to stand firm on the 6 alternatives, to give Rosemount that direction, than then in order to make that work, one alternative is that...on the north property end, north of Lake Riley. There are ways of accommodating that water. City Council Meeting - November 28~ 1988 Councilman Boyt: Is it possible for us to pass a situation then Tom where we are agreeing in concept that the wetland is going to be altered and that we're saying that maybe we change as best possible to adhere to and then let them work it out with staff what the best way to do that is? Mayor Hamilton: I think that's the direction I'd certainly like to see us go. As long as Gary and the staff members understand that we're not, you said that the Council is firm on these 6 issues. We're saying we want to see the 6 issues incorporated into their plan to the best extent possible. That means that you need to be flexible in looking at alternatives and working with the developer to try and figure out the best way to do it. If that means, as has been mentioned, that the 75 foot setback can be reduced to 45 or whatever level is required to accomplish some of these things, I think you need to consider that. We need to consider everything. Is that clear to what we intend? I think that's what the council is saying. I'm asking Gary a question. I'd like to get some response. Gary Warren: It makes it very difficult to enforce. If you want us to apply our judgment, I guess we can do that but in my opinion, Jo Ann's, Larry's, your's are all going to be a little different on to what we think is acceptable. Councilman Boyt: Maybe that part should come back. Councilman Geving: The point that I wanted to make was that the Fish and Wildlife Service set these up as guidelines. They didn't set them up as conditions to be placed on a wetland alteration permit. I don't think the Fish and Wildlife Service ever intended that. I work with the Fish and Wildlife Service and I'd like to change the wording of this item 3 from conditions to the 6 guidelines of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and use the just as that. They're guidelines for our staff and for the developer to work with, not conditions but that they are guidelines and that you will meet those as best possible. Councilman Boyt: On the one hand we're saying that we want city staff to w~rk with th~m but on the other hand we're not holding up any, call them guidelines or conditions, as firm absolutes. I think if the City is willing to yeild part of it's ponding, it's an advantage to everyone it sounds like and we're willing even to consider a variance into the 75 foot setback, which we normally don't consider. In order to buy that, we're saying that we want these 6 conditions held to. If we're not going to hold it to them, then for my part, I'll vote against it because I don't think we've got anything. If we pass this with these simply as the best possible and we say the City is going to do everything it can, we've given no one any guidelines. Mayor Hamilton: But if a motion is made to pass this, it's with the following conditions. One of the conditions is number 3 which will have 6 guidelines to follow that have been established by the Fish and Wildlife Service. It is a condition and one of the conditions has some guidelines that we expect the staff to follow using some judgment. Councilman Boyt: Let's take as best possible out of there and it's fine. Mayor Hamilton: Okay. That's fine. That's fine because it's redundant anyway. 31 City Council Meeting - November 28, 1988 Councilman Geving: I have no problem with that. Councilman Boyt: So conditions become guidelines and as best possible drops out. Councilman Geving: The alteration of the Class B wetland shall conform to the 6 guidelines of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as follows. That's the way it should read in number 3. Councilman Boyt: I would propose to make a motion that we approve the Wetland Alteration Permit with the 5 conditions as stated and as amended. Strike "as best possible" and include "guidelines" in place of "conditions" for item 3. Councilman Geving: I'll second the motion. Bob Worthington: One point of discussion. If this is accepted here as a motion, we interpret it as giving us the flexibility to be able to look at a number of alternatives that seem to be consistent with these guidelines and come up with a solution that's acceptable to the staff? Mayor Hamilton: Yes. That's the Council's desire as I understand what everybody is saying. Councilman Horn: It seems to me it goes all the way to the extreme. If you carry Gary's suggestion to the extreme, it says leaving the Class B wetland alone and ponding entirely off site which mitigates all of these. Councilman Boyt: We could improve that Class B though. Councilman Johnson: On Bill's last comment, I had a long discussion with Paul Burke tcday on improvement of the Class B wetland. His basic assumption on the improvement of the Class B wetland would be that a very small portion in the center of the wetland could be made wet which would give you a dffferent fauna within there which would give you different nutrient stripping but it would be such a minor change it would be no good for any kind of water storage. If it's big enough of an alteration to make a water storage, it's not an improvement to a Class B wetland per se. It has changed, it is no longer a Class B wetland. Now it's a water storage facility and it's a sediment control. Than you've got to get these 6 conditions. I think that we should give within this also, the guidance to staff of how far they can go. How far are we going to allow them to go on the 75 foot setback? I would say we could change that to 45 feet. I would also like to stipulate that the other two suggestions, that would actually be on the change to number 4 where they say the 75 foot strip of land. We'd have to add that in order to achieve the guidelines in Section 3 above, this could be altered up to 45 feet. Something of that wording within item 4. I guess the other two alternatives that were discussed as far as utilizing the property across the street, is that Rosemount property? Councilman Boyt: Yes. Councilman Johnson: No, that's Opus' property and if Opus says it's buildable, they want to put in a McDonalds there. No, it was White Castle, I'm sorry. 32 City Council Meeting - November 28~ 1988 Mayor Hamilton: Maybe you could stick with the issues so we could get it resolved in time tonight. Councilman Johnson: That was Clark's suggestion is that we go under there to that point. Mayor Hamilton: That's right. I don't think you need to include that. That's something that the staff needs to consider. I think they've noted that. Councilman Johnson: I'd also like to add my item 6 to your motion that roof exhaust should be designed to minimize roof impact of any pollutant. Councilman Geving: What is this now? Mayor Hamilton: He wants to basically say that the exhaust will not be, the rooftop exhaust will not be directed at the rooftop. Councilman Geving: What does that have to do with the wetland alteration permit? Councilman Johnson: The rooftop drains into the wetland. If you're draining lead and solvents into the wetland, it's not too good for the wetland. Mayor Hamilton: He's making some assumptions that there will be solvents and oil and all kinds of things... Councilman Geving: I don't have any problem with the condition. Councilman Boyt: Okay, it's done. Councilman Geving: But I would like to enhance the wording on the 75 feet in terms of guidance and make that, allow the staff a 50% variance from the requirements of our ordinance. Councilman Boyt: I'll accept that. Councilman Boyt moved, Councilman Geving seconded to approve Wetland Alteration Permit #88-15 with the following conditions: 1. A 75 foot strip around the Class A wetland shall be preserved in its natural state. 2. The north, east and west edge of the Class B wetland shall be allowed to be sod and seeded but will also be landscaped with vegetation suitable for natural habitat and will not be mowed and instead allowed to revert back to a natural state. The applicant shall suhnit a revised landscaping plan with the wildlife landscaping as recon~nended by the State Document titled, "Landscaping for Wildlife". 3. The alteration of the Class B wetland shall conform to the six guidelines of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as follows: 33 City Council Meeting - November 28j 1988 a. The basin will have free form (no even sided) shape t° increase shoreline length and provide isolated areas for feeding and resting birds. b. The basin will have shallow embankments with slopes of 10:1 - 20:1 for at least 30% of the shoreline to encourage growth of emergent vegetation as refuge and food for wildlife. c. The basin will have uneven, rolling bottom contour for variable water depth to (a) provide foraging areas for species of wildlife feeding in shallow water (0.5 - 3.0 feet) and (b) encourage growth of emergent vegetation in areas of shallow water and thereby increase interspersion of open water with emergent vegetation. d. The basin will have a layer of topsoil (muck frc~n an existing wetland being filled) on bottom of basin to provide a suitable substrate for aquatic vegetation. e. The basin will have water level control (culverts, riser pipe, etc.) to minimize disturbances of wildlife using the wetland. f. The basin will have fringe of shrubs on upland surrounding the basin to minimize disturbances of wildlife using the wetland. 4. A 75 foot strip around the Class B wetland shall be maintained from the 933 elevation. Staff is recorrmending that the applicant provide a revised plan showing that the parking lot south of the Class B wetland is not located closer than 75 feet from the ordinary high water mark of the Class B wetland once it has been reconstructed. Staff is allowed to have up to a 50% variance from the requirements of the ordinance. 5. The wetland alteration permit shall conform to any and all conditions of the Site Plan Approval #88-12. 6. The roof exhaust should be designed to minimize roof impact of any pollutant. Ail voted in favor and the motion carried. (C) SITE PLAN REVIEW. Jo Ann Olsen: Again, the applicant provided an amended site plan to what the staff and the Planning Commission's concerns. The Planning Commission did recon~nend approval. Two of the Planning Con~nissioners did not recommend approval because they wanted the Council to understand that they had only reviewed it in concept. The applicant has met a lot of the concerns. We still have 18 conditions of approval. We are recommending approval. That includes meeting conditions of the EAW and conditions of the Wetland Alteration Permit. Bob Worthington: First of all, we would like to give a brief presentation of the site plan. There were many changes that were stipulated as conditions of approval by the Planning Commission that related to the condition of the site plan that they reviewed. Those conditions have been now reflected into the site 34 CJ. ty Council Meeting - November 28, 1988 plan which we' 11 show you this evening. I think from that you can see the changes from the Planning Conmnission Minutes reflected in what we are now presenting. So for that purpose, for the purpose of presenting the site plan I'd like to introduce John Miller who is the project architect from Opus who will describe the site. John Miller: Thank you. It's a pleasure to be here. It's been a real pleasure working with Rosemount on this project because I know that they are intent on having a top notch facility so as an architect it's good to have that as a working backdrop. They want a top notch facility. Speaking internally, as the plant functions, this is going to be a state of the art facility with a lot of employee amenities built into the project so the employees will feel very comfortable working here so that it will not be felt to be a manufacturing type of environment but rather more of an office feeling type of environment that people in manufacturing can ~ork in. At the same time, Rosemount is intent on this being an attractive building. You might assume, having a 330,000 square foot building on one story, it would look like a 330,000 square foot one story building. This is not going to be acceptable to them and I think we've met the challenge to make such a large and low rise building an attractive one. We'll be getting into some image things a little later here but we're really excited about what we're come up with so far with Rosemount. To get into this now, I'll start with the site plan. I'll try the colored one here. You're probably fairly familiar with a lot of the issues since this has been up in front of you quite a while here. As far as the building functions, maybe I'll just go through some of the bigger issues. We have the building here with two entry points. One on the east side of the building which is 50% of the employees as well as visitors coming in at this point. We have a west entrance which is actually on the northwest corner of the building that would be another 50% of the employees. We have parking areas at each end of the building to provide for both entries. Previously we had shown this west parking area more towards the south, directly off the end of the building. At the Planning Conmnission review it was felt that this might be an objectionable location in that it is closer to Lake Susan and possibly a distraction for people across the lake so what we've done since then is rotated this parking around more to the north so it would be further from Lake Susan. In addition we're providing some berming on the south side of that parking area to screen the parking and lighting of the cars from the area to the south. We have on the north side of the building here some loading dock areas that are screened by some berms and some landscape plantings that you can see shown here. While we are screening this dock area, we're not really considering that to be a backdoor part of the building. We really want to make that architecturally something attractive so that even though we are screening it for the most part from traffic on TH 5 and Lake Drive, it's still going to be an attractive part of the building. 5he major image that the visitors would encounter as they're coming into the building is from the east side, we're developing a nice landscaped promenade up to the front door with a turn around. We've got a well landscaped visitor parking area here on the south side of that promenade which would be directly adjacent to this major stand of oak trees ar~ other trees that are wooding this whole slope of the site down to the lake so we' re trying to take advantage of these woods as an amenity for the parking and the building itself. Conceptually n~naybe I should just describe how this building works. Maybe you can see that there's a basic rectangle here that's 400 feet by 720 feet. This is the manufacturing and office function of the plant. There would be an internal flexibility within that rectangle of office interreacting with manufacturing and the floorplan can kind of move back 35 City Council Meeting - November 28j 1988 and forth as the manufacturing process is modified. This would be a high bay type space with 18 foot clear dimension from the floor level to the bottom of the structure. We have some perimeter type areas around the building that are of a lower elevation that include, in this area we have a utility area which is loading docks and then there's building services that are originated at this point. We've got a major area here on the south side that is the cafeteria area, including some meeting rooms and kitchens and these kir~ of functions which incidentally is located here to take advantage of the wooded slope and the views down to Lake Susan. So I think we've really taken advantage of the amenities for that area. In addition, you can maybe see some smaller areas around the building which we're calling personal service areas that are areas that have conference rooms. %hat are hard wall type spaces that would not want to move in the future. There would be toilet rooms. There would be break areas. Vending machines and this kind of thing and they would have more windows that would be taking advantage of some of these views as well. That really kind of sun~narizes how our site plan works. We've got, I'll just briefly point out, we've got three major access points into the site trying to distribute some of this traffic flow out onto the perimeter of Lake Drive and Market Blvd. so you would have no major traffic problems. Other than that, I think covers the site plan issues unless you have some questions on that aspect of it. I will get into the exterior images now and some section work that we've done to the site if you don't have questions on this. Mayor Hamilton: Are there any questions on what's been covered? Councilman Johnson: Why don't we go through the whole presentation. John Miller: This is our proposal for building image which is the view of the building you would see from the east side of the building as you would be in the parking area. What you can see here, this is the 23 foot high manufacturing office box that I spoke about that is the flexible arrangement of office and manufacturing. That's the lighter colored straight line that you see behind here. I think you can also see that within that box we're providing a substantial amount of glass, far and above what you would ordinarily see in a manufacturing hype facility. This is the result of Rosemount's desire to bring a lot of light and vision into the manufacturing area for people that are actually at the workbench putting together the components. Then we have these lower areas that you'll see here and here on either side of the front door which include these personal service areas. The glass areas on the other side would be the break areas and conference room type spaces that we would want the vision out to the perimeter of the site. In the center here is the main entry which is a point where the lower level massings here go underneath the actual larger box creating a covered entryway and there would be inmediately inside the door, a small reception area that would be looking directly into the manufacturing facility. The concept here is that people would not walk into a reception of an office area but rather walk into a space where they could see what is going on in the factory itself. The lower security area. There would be some signage at that point. Materialwise, we are proposing a precast concrete material for the manufacturing box which is the high base space. Then on the lower areas we have a combination of glass and spandroglass. Spandroglass being glass that is not conditioned but rather more for a visual amenity appearance from the outside. Then we have in the opaque areas we have a masonry wall which is a combination of textured concrete block and face brick. So you can see here we have two different colors. The lighter color would be the textured concrete 36 .~ C].ty Council M~et]ng - November 28, 1988 245 block and the darker color is face brick. Now we haven't quite resolved how this blend works but basically at this point we are saying that on the east side of what is a major entry side and visitor entry side, there would be a higher proportion of face brick than there would be of the concrete block. On the other sides of the buildings there would be a higher proportion of concrete block and a lower level of face brick. So whatever that combination is, I think you can see that the blend of the textures and colors and massing would be a very attractive building that to me, at least, does not look like what you might expect from a building of this size and proportion. Are there any questions about this? Mayor Hamilton: If you have something else, continue. John Miller: These next two exhibits, I may be getting back to some of the concerns expressed earlier. These are sight line studies that address the screening of docks and views to the lake and this type of issue. This top section, here is one that is taken through TH 5, Lake Drive and the Class A wetland and the east loading dock and then on through the hill down to the lake. So we have a high elevation of TH 5 here overlooking Lake Drive. By the way, the vertical scale is exaggerated here so we're really not looking at this kind of slope. ~nen we come up to the dock area here. The building would be located here and then on the south side of the building slope down to the lake which is here. But this is showing that we're really substantially higher here on TH 5 overlooking the Lake Drive and that with the landscaping we've providing, we're screening the docks here for the most part. There will be rooftop equipment on the building which this is starting to indicate. Just what the exact configuration of that is, we can't really say at this point. We're studying the rooftop equipment location in conjunction with the daylighting that we're providing which is a combination of skylights and roof monitors. To some degree the roof monitors will be screening the rooftop equipment although we're approaching it from more of the standpoint that the rooftop equipment is maybe not that objectionable and if it's well placed, it will be an architecturally good solution to the rooftop equipment so we're not going to say that we're going to totally screen all of the rooftop equipment. This is the slope down the hill and you can see that these major trees here are going to be doing a lot of screening of the building, especially in the warmer months for the people on the other side of Lake Susan. The second section here is taken through the west loading dock which is at this point so we're sliding over here about 350 feet and then going that way. You again have TH 5 very high over Lake Drive. At this point we're providing the berm to screen the dock at that point and then likewise we're getting past the building and you have the hill down to the lake that is heavily wooded. This other board shows two more sections. On either side of the building itself, the top section is on the east side which would be going to this point. TH 5 is a little lower at this point in elevation. Still above Lake Drive. This is our Class B wetland at this point and then the building parking lot is somewhat lower than the building itself. Then we have a major stand of trees here on the south side which you see down there. And then sloping on down to the lake. The last section is one taken over here through the parking lot and then across this flat area that is now a cornfield and then down to the lake. This does not show TH 5 but Lake Drive here is at this point. We have a drainage swale here on the north side of the parking lot. Some screening at that point, a parking lot and then a large berm here which would occur at the south side of the parking lot here. That berm would be here and that would really effectively screen the cars and headlights at this point 'from 37 ~~y Council Meeting - November 28, 1988 people over on the other side of Lake Susan as well as taking advantage of the trees that are on the slope. So I think we've pretty well mitigated that problem. Mayor Hamilton: Does that cover your site plan? John Miller: I'm here for questions if you have any. Councilman Johnson: I'm going to first run through my nit picks, as I call them. Are you familiar with our site plan application section of our ordinance 20-107 that says what's supposed to be in a site plan? Were you given our ordinance? Do you have any idea what you were supposed to have submitted for a site plan? Do you have access to our ordinance? John Miller: Yes. Councilman Johnson: First thing as you go through the ordinance is that your site plan is supposed to be signed by a registered architect, civil engineer, landscape architect or other design professional to include and then it lists a whole bunch of things that are supposed to be on the site plan. Nobody signed any of the site plan drawings. A legal description is missing from the site plan drawings. What I consider an adequate vicinity map which shows easements and natural features in the surrounding area w-as not in the site plan drawings. The site plan was supposed to show the grading and drainage and the existing natural features. Topography, wetlands and vegetation. While it actually did show the vegetation, it was so difficult to see it on the plans that we were given, that I had to work very hard to find out that the road on your west site effectively removes about 3/4ths of some very nice established forest. It's going to be clearcutting basically. All that area is currently forest. There's an easy alternative on that particular site. If that vegetation had been shown a little more clearly on the site plan, I think staff would have jumped on that driveway a long time ago which I'm about to jump on in a minute. Then section B-12 of the site plan review requires a list of all proposed hazardous materials that are used in storage within the facility. That's a very important aspect of our site plan review. That too has not been submitted .... require signage but your signage is probably going to require a variance from our signage ordinance. I'm sure you're aware of that also. What I'd like to get back to then is that tree issue. The tree issue is my main issue on this one according to my sketch of the trees. I went out there and got my car stuck out there today and had Brown Standard come tow me out. They're very quick. John Miller: I believe by the way a lot of the material you were missing is on the other drawing of the site plan. Councilman Johnson: I went through them all. Hopefully they'll be upgraded. You've got to have it so it can be shown on these. There's a stand of trees which I colored in two shades of green. The dark green, which is shown here, are the trees that are undisturbed by the grading for this lot. This whole area was completely graded. This is a mature stand of trees. Maybe even, our forester hasn't looked at it but maybe even part of the original great forest type trees. This area which I have crosshatched in light blue lines, is a stand of very big trees that appears to have been pretty well wiped out. There are very few trees there at this time so an alternate drive going through that stand of trees and getting around this stand of mature trees would be far preferable 38 City Council Meeting - November 28~ 1988 24? to me. You can have this if you like~ John Miller: I think our intent was, when it came to actually locating that road, was to go out into the field and verify to minimize the amount of cutting that would be done. However, this option you've shown here I think is a viable one. It looks as though we wouldn't be destroying too many trees to do that but we would want to look at that. The reason we approached it that way is just the contingencies of getting the survey done and getting all the trees spotted and that kind of thing. Councilman Johnson: Yes, your grading plan shows the entire area graded with up to 2 foot of fill or soil removal which you put 2 foot of soil on top of the roots of a tree, it's dead. Or take it off where you're taking a lot of it's roots. I think that issue has to be looked into very closely. The other one which is very important to me and near and dear to my heart is hazardous waste and hazardous materials. Hopefully the Rosemount people have brought with them a listing of the types of hazardous materials that we should have seen with the site plan review. You're saying that the list of hazardous materials is on there and I just missed it someplace? Jeff Schmidt: If it's not, it can be provided. I have the information of the hazardous materials that we use and how we dispose of them. They are small quantities and I can address them now or just send this in. Councilman Johnson: I'd like to hear a sun~narybefore we... Mayor Hamilton: Sure, why don't you briefly give us what you have and what you do with them. Jeff Schmidt: I'll address the hazardous waste that we do have on our site. We are not a large generater of hazardous waste. We do have some materials that are classified as hazardous waste by the nature of some of the cleaning and degreasing that we do do. We do operate under an EPA Hazardous Waste permit which we do have and we'd also have one at this site. We store chemicals on our site only long enough to have them disposed of. We dispose through licensed firms that specialize in that and that dispose themselves by the nature allowed. It has to be every 90 days or sooner. Our internal guidelines are 60 days that we use. The types of materials that we have are trichlorethane, freeon. We have some flanxnable liquids that are the result of our soldering...process and we have some corrosive cleaning compounds... The quantities on those, for the trichlorethane and I went back over the last year and looked at average quantities for the facilities that we'll be moving here and those quantities of the trichlorethane are 3 barrels on the average per month. For the freeon, 4 barrels per month. For the flamnable liquid, 4 barrels per month and for the corrosive cleaning compounds, 1 barrel per month. We also do have some non-regulated waste that are not considered hazardous waste by the EPA and they are some water soluable oils that are, from what I understand, it's possible that those can be sewered. We do not do that. We barrel all of those and we send them out and that's another 4 barrels per month on the average. We do also, for some of our cleaning processes, when we rinse some of our metal products, we settle off from rinsing some of the grit that comes off from sandblasting. We barrel all of that and dispose of that the same way we do our hazardous waste. We also barrel our non-water soluable oil also. Those are all items for those three non regulated waste on the average of 4 barrels per month. 39 248 City Council Meeting - November 28, 1988 That's the extent of the waste that we have in our current operation which are exactly what we're going to be moving over here. Now, it could grow with the that as we grow, but those are the kinds of chemicals. Councilman Johnson: Is the chemlab, as it's referred to I believe over at your Eden Prairie plant, it was referred to in the FA as having a chemlab. I know, if I remember correctly, the Eden Prairie plant you referred to a metal cleaning or a metal plating operating as the chemlab. Jeff Schmidt: Yes, it's our cleaning operation. Councilman Johnson: With the nitrates and acids and stuff like that. Is that moving to this facility? Jeff Schmidt: It's actually sodium hydrocide that's being used... Councilman Johnson: Okay, you're no longer using. Well, is that moving to here? Jeff Schmidt: There would be a s~all. It's not very large but yes, it would because that's part of the process. Councilman Johnson: That one you'll be getting your ~CC permit for. Jeff Schmidt: Yes, we do have a MWCC permit also for that facility. We would either transfer that or get a new one. We do have waste streams that we can talk about and those kinds of things. Some of those things are hooked to our chemlab they've taken out as hazardous waste. Others in our rinse operation do go through the sewer. We monitor that flow. Actually they just changed our classification from having to do quarterly to having to do every other 6 months. Councilman Johnson: I just had one of mine go from every 6 months to every year. I'd like to see us change our ordinance to require a completeness review before any technical review of a site plan to where we don't get site plans that have things missing to them. And that staff can just hand it back to them as part of our ordinance. That's something that's on a side that I think we need to consider in the near future to aid staff in review of these things. Mayor Hamilton: Bill, do you have anything on the chemicals or anything on the site plan? Councilman Boyt: I have a couple of quick items. We talked earlier in the preliminary plan review about the possibility of installing some employee amenities like ballfields, walking paths, that sort of thing. Have you pursued that any further? Jeff Schmidt: Only that relative to, we did dedicate as a part of the park dedication part of the Park and Recreation recommendation for both trail fees and park dedication cash and land. Councilman Boyt: I'm familiar with that and it's going to help the boat access and the city appreciates that. I was just wondering as an aside since you do have some property there that might be level enough for a playing field or two. If you had pursued that and you've got some nice wetlands, you might possibly 40 City Council M~eting - November 28~ 1988 pursue putting a walking path around and that's something that is up t° Rosemount and Opus and those folks. Jeff Schmidt: I guess we have not encouraged that at this point. Councilman Boyt: I would suggest that we consider some additional conditions. I think that will handle the comments. There's one in regard to the proposed signing that you're asking. It would be my sense that we've sort of dealt with that issue here previously and that if need be, we should look at some sort of rewriting of our sign ordinance to reflect the needs of a large site. We talked about that earlier and I would encourage you to take that direction rather than to come in and ask for a variance on signage. Bob Worthington: My understanding of the intent of that condition, that we write a new ordinance. Come in and get the ordinance approved and then get a sign permit. Councilman Boyt: That sounds sort of lengthy but somehow or another staff would sit down with you. What I would suggest is that you work with staff to come up with the proper ordinance language rather than a variance. That's just my opinion of how you might want to pursue that. Bob Worthington: Could I just respond to that? On the elevation of the building, we're making space available for 2 building type signs. The assumption we're making is that those areas will have a certain sign area which will be accomodated. If we have to write a new ordinance in order to accomodate that, then the question we have is, how long would something like that. If it takes too long it may affect the building drawings that we have...in order to keep this project moving ahead. I'll just make that as a coherent... We still would like to have it, if that's the direction that Council would do that, we still would like to have the option of moving this along and come in and request a variance... Councilman Boyt: Tome that would certainlybe possible as long as it was going to be compatible with future language that we were in agreement to. That again, it's just my opinion. Mayor Hamilton: I think the staff has received direction from the Council to update the sign ordinance. I assume and would hope that that's already underway. Councilman Boyt: I would suggest that we add 3 Conditions to our list of 18. Part of our Ordinance 20-1179 deals with replacement of trees. Staff has mentioned to you previously that if you remove certain trees you maybe requested to replace them on a per caliper inch equivalent basis. I would like to see condition 19 added requiring the replacement of hardwoods on a per caliper inch basis in line with that part of our ordinance. I would suggest a condition number 20, when we look at passing all these. That you move your west parking access to minimize the removal of trees and that would be subject to staff approval so you wouldn't have to come back through us but as you indicated it's possible and I would like to put that down as a condition. Then as my last condition, I think because of the earliness of the fire inspector's review, he might have missed this point but I would suggest we add condition 21 that we comply with the hazardous materials identification requirements of our Public 41 City Council Meeting - November 28~ 1988 Safety Department. I'm sure you were planning to do that anyway but it's just sort of a common acceptance that you'll be doing it. That's all I have Tom. Councilman Horn: I think it looks like a good plan. I have no problem with it. I think as a general guideline for signage, we should go by the requirements that we approved for DataServ and that's what we' re trying to structure our ordinance after but I don't think that we should request that the Opus or Rosemount people create our ordinance. As a general guideline, if you stick with the requirements that they had which you can get from staff, that's what we're trying to do on our ordinance. Councilman Boyt: We changed the ordinance to do that. Jo Ann Olsen: Their signs are different. They were... Councilman Geving: I really don't have any major problem with the 18 conditions that were originally proposed. The problem that I just identified here is this tree removal. I'm as much of a tree nut as the rest of the people here in terms of trying to save as many trees as we can but I don't believe that we need to put any additional or new requirement on Rosemount that hasn't existed for any other developer. If in fact this is a new requirement, then I think it's unfair. Councilman Boyt: It's not new. Councilman Geving: If it's not new, then I need to know from Mr. Worthington whether or not this places a major hardship on the development of the proposal if you had to replace on a per caliper inch basis, all the trees that might be removed. Just the hardwoods. There aren't too many trees on this site. It's fairly level. It's actually a cornfield. It has been for a long time. It's been farmed but the only concern might be in the parking areas. Could you respond to that Mr. Worthington? Bob Worthington: I guess yes and no. No, the site is alarming and the landscaping that we have proposed for the site is pretty extensive even though we have a site plan in comparison with some other more compact site plans that you're used to reviewing may not reflect as much vegetation as is actually on this site. So we are already doing a substantial amount of landscaping. In terms of the condition of replacing hardwoods, I assume that means oak and maple. I'm not totally sure of what the vegetation mix is on the site. I do know that for this area, we have quite a few oak down along in this area. Over here I think we have a mixture of trees. Of course we move this road over to avoid the loss of trees, then I would assume that if we cut down some trees that are not hardwood trees, that we won't have to replace those trees. Councilman Geving: That's correct. Bob Worthington: I don't think, with the exception of this corner and perhaps what we're talking about in this location, that we are disturbing any other trees that might exist on this site so we certainly would like to see at it to see if it would create a hardship. I think it's...we, and Rosemount are very interested in trying to create as nice enhanced site as we can in terms of landscaping is concerned. We'd certainly like to explore it. 42 City Council Meeting - November 28, 1988 Councilman Geving: Do you have any other problems with any of the other 18 conditions? Are you familiar with the 18 conditions? Bob Worthington: The Planning Con~nission's recommendations? Councilman Geving: Yes. Bob Worthington: We have reviewed those. Councilman Geving: I don't have any more questions. Mayor Hamilton: I don't either and I'm going to move approval of the site plan %88-15 with the 18 conditions as stipulated and with the 3 additional. 19, the replacement of hardwoods on a per caliper inch basis. Parking access to be reviewed and changed. 21 being the hazardous materials requirements. Councilman Geving: I'll second the motion. Jo Ann Olsen: I just want to point out that typically with any site plan review that all rooftop equipment shall be screened. Councilman Geving: I think that's on there isn't it? Jo Ann Olsen: No, it's not. I didn't have it in there as a condition but that's always is a condition. Mayor Hamilton: Based on the comments made about how they're going to do the rooftop, and I understand fr~ what I heard, they have decided how they're going to do the rooftop equipment and exactly what's going to be there. As a part of their architectural process, that may be a natural screening within itself so I think that needs to be reviewed by yourself or by Gary and if you think it needs to be brought back to the Council, it should be. Councilman Boyt: Or just say as approved by staff. So condition 22, rooftop screening as approved by staff? Mayor Hamilton: Fine. Councilman Geving: Fine with my second. Councilman Johnson: I just wanted, we were talking per caliper inch basis. We've talked about it so much up here that we know exactly what we're talking about. I'm not sure if the definition comes out too well so I just wanted to expound upon that for just a second. What it generally means, if you take out a 20 inch oak tree, you can replace it with 20-1 inch oak trees or 5-4 inch oak trees. Mayor Hamilton: I would hope they understand that. Councilman Johnson: It's not always that clear. And this is above and beyond what the ordinance already requires of 1 tree every 40 feet and a parking area, etc.. Just in case that wasn't terribly clear on why we were replacing per caliper inch was. 43 Council Meeting - November 28, 1988 Bob Worthington: Again, our response is we certainly would like to explore it. We have not done a tree inventory on the site. We don't know what the implications of that might be. It might be that we have 50-40 inch caliper trees on the site that have to go as part of this site which means that we have more trees to replace than we think is either feasible or reasonable and we may want to come back and let the Council about that. Mayor Hamilton: That's fine. We hope you do that if there is a problem. Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Geving seconded to approve Site Plan #88-15 with the following conditions: 1. That the applicant provide details on how the trash receptacles will be screened. 2. The applicant will provide an amended plan showing the 75 foot setback is being maintained between the Class B wetland and the parking area to the south. 3. Additional landscaping must be provided along the westerly boundary of the northwesterly parking lot. The lanscaping shall include evergreens to screen the parking lot from the north and west. 4. Should the feasibility study not include landscaping along Lake Drive, the applicant shall submit a landscpaing plan providing perimeter landscaping along Lake Drive. 5. The north, east and west side boundary of the Class B wetland shall be allowed to be sod and seeded but will also be landscaped with vegetation suitable for natural habitat and will not be mowed and allowed to revert back to its natural state. The applicant shall submit a revised landscaping plan with the proposed landscaping as recommended by the State Document Titled, "Landscaping for Wildlife". 6. The applicant shall meet the conditions of the Fire Inspector as stated in his memo dated October 17, 1988. 7. The applicant shall submit the conditions of the Building Department as stated in his memo dated September 26, 1988. 8. The applicant shall preserve a 75 foot setback around the Class A wetland. 9. Meet any and all conditions of the EAW Negative Declaration. 10. Meet any and all conditions of the Wetland Alteration Permit #88-15. 11. A revised erosion control plan which reflects Type II erosion control (staked hay bales and snow fence) shall be submitted to the City Engineer for approval prior to the commencement of any grading. 12. Site grading along Lake Drive and Market Boulevard shall be in agreement with the finished roadway improvements for Lake Drive and Market Boulevard. 44 City Council Meeting - November 28, 1988 13. A 35 foot utility easement shall be dedicated along the westerly lot line of the site along the alignment of the sanitary sewer as established by the feasibility study. 14. The internal piping scheme for the building should address the need for documentation of recycled or cooling water discharge in order that proper sanitary sewer credits can be identified if appropriate. 15. The applicant shall be responsible for reimbursing the City for utilizing its ponding facilities to accommodate any storm water, less than the 100 year predeveloped runoff rate which is not being accon~nodated on site. 16. The on site ponding and storm drainage scheme needs to be coordinated with the feasibility study alignment of the Lake Drive storm sewer systems. 17. The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City to guarantee the proper execution of the final approved plans and specifications for the site and provide the City with the appropriate financial security. 18. The applicant has indicated that they will be recycling water. Details for the cooling tower, appropriate screening, and plans which address the connection to the City's existing storm sewer system, shall be provided to the City Engineer for approval prior to the corm~encement of any construction. 19. The applicant shall be required to replace on a per caliper inch basis any hardwood trees that are removed. 20. The applicant shall move the west parking lot access subject to city staff approval to minimize the removal of trees. 21. Comply with hazardous material requirements identified by the Public Safety Department. Ail voted in favor and the motion carried. (D) APPROVAL OF GRADING PERMIT. Gary Warren: Just a point. Obviously Rosemount would like to get on with grading. There are some things that have been brought up tonight, the least of which is the tree removal that are impacted by what their final grading plan is so I think that some of these issues are going to have to be resolved before the permit can be issued. Mayor Hamilton: I understand that. That you're going to want to review these things before you start anyway. Bob Worthington: I think we would move on most of the conditions that have been outlined on the site so I don't see that as... The employees are very anxious to... 45 City Council Meeting - November 28~ 1988 Councilman Johnson: What we can do to accommodate this is, what we're approving here is the Grading Plan Sheet C-2. We could say with the exception of the western side parking lot, the west parking lot area, yet to be discussed and the ponding area that there may be some changes so we can get onto the grading for the main building and the east parking lot and those areas that there isn't a question on and just modify paragraph 3 so Plan B, Grading Plan Sheet C-2 excludes the areas where we have questions. Then we can get on with it. Mayor Hamilton: It seems to me that adequate direction has been given to staff so we needn't modify anything. Mr. Worthington's company is going to look at the moving of the access to the parking lot. They also are going to work with the staff on how the Type B wetland is going to be configured and we've given them a lot of latitude to the staff on how this is going to be accomplished. I see no need for us to start making any amendments to this. It's in your lap and I think that's where it belongs. You know what the direction of the Council has been and you can work with Mr. Worthington and with Rosemount to accomplish that. Gary Warren: I guess I was going to say, I would rather have it that we clear up these things before the dozer starts going because the last thing I need is to have somebody saying I got 4 D-8 cats waiting and this road can't be changed. Mr. Worthington has said they're going to address these things, we should be able to get them wrapped up. Dave Vangasser: Could I just clarify? Our intent there, what we really want to proceed on immediately is the building pad itself and that west parking lot is not our intention, regardless of whether we got the permit right away or not. It's not intention to proceed with that until sun~nertime or spring. Councilman Johnson: The reason I bring that up is, just talk to our Attorney and say, what would you rather have? If they went ahead and did something, a direction from Council in the Council Minutes or it written down in the permit about thou shall not do this and just see what our Attorney would rather say on that. Roger Knutson: I think Clark's right, it's pretty obvious. The best thing to have is the permit. Councilman Boyt: I just want to ask a couple quick questions of Gary. We've got hay baling in here right? Gary Warren: Yes. Councilman Boyt: Number two. We are also requiring the terracing and backsloping that's going to protect Lake Susan? Terrific idea. Glad we're doing it. Then I'd like to highlight for Opus and Rosemount point number 6 under clean ups it says daily dirt clean up off the roads. Daily. We have had a history of some difficulty with that with other developers. That's all I have. It looks good to me. Let's get rolling. Councilman Geving: I would move that we approve the Rosemount grading permit as shown on the attached and presented to us tonight by the City Engineer that's dated November 23, 1988. 46 City Council Meeting - November 28, 1988 255 Councilman Horn: Second~ Councilman Johnson: I'd like to move to modify paragraph 3 to include a statement that reconfirms Council's direction that the permit can not be issued until the, the permit for anything other than the site pad can not be issued until the staff is convinced that the modifications to the west parking lot or the ponding has been completed. Councilman Geving: I'm not going to change my motion. I think that's already covered in item 3. I think the City Engineer, being a professional, knows our direction and intent. That was exactly what we're intending to do. Councilman Johnson: I didn't ask you to change your motion. I moved to change your motion. Councilman Boyt: I'll second your amendment. Councilman Johnson moved, Councilman Boyt seconded to make an amendment to the motion to modify paragraph 3 to include a statement that a permit for anything other than the site pad can not be issued until staff is convinced that the modifications to the west parking lot or the ponding has been completed. Councilman Boyt and Councilman Johnson voted in favor. Councilman Geving, Councilman Horn and Mayor Hamilton voted in opposition of the motion. The amendment failed with a vote of 2 to 3. Councilman Geving: Now I will change my motion again to restate my motion. We approve the Rosemount Grading Permit as depicted on the attached November 23rd grading permit presented to us tonight by the City Engineer. Councilman Horn: Second. Councilman Geving moved, Councilman Horn seconded to approve the Grading Permit presented on the memorand~n from the City Engineer dated November 23, 1988. All voted in favor and the motion carried. (E) APPROVAL OF DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT. Mayor Hamilton: Roger, did you write this or did you have you an opportunity to review this? Do you have any conments you wish to make about it? Roger Knutson: I did not write it. John Dean wrote it from the HRA. I have glanced through it. Mayor Hamilton: No comments? Okay. Councilman Johnson: This is different than our regular development contract. This is more of a tax increment contract. Roger Knutson: Yes, that' s what it is. 47 City Council Meeting - November 28~ 1988 Mayor Hamilton: Did you have any comments on the development contract? Bob Worthington: Only that there has been quite a lot of work between the Attorneys for the City as well as our Attorney... Mayor Hamilton: Do councilmembers have any questions about the development contract? Councilman Boyt: I have a comment. It indicates completion by 1990. I'd just like to use this opportunity to say that, one of the things that is going to happen here is that we're going to be selling you a good bit of water. This, I think is a chance to put in a plug for the fact that we probably need to be looking and building another well. We also need to look at the Lake Lucy Road trunk watermain. We're talking about roughly 1.4 million in total expenditure there and 1990 might be an awfully good target date. But that these folks represent a big, everyday use of water and we just went through an awfully, hopefully unusual summer but it pointed out that we just don't have a lot of water. I think the development contract is great. I'm all for it. Mayor Hamilton: I would hope that the staff has already realized that the major water useage is going to be a problam and they have already started their review. I'm going to move approval of the development contract for Rosemount Inc.. Councilman Horn: Second. Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Horn seconded to approve the Development Contradt for Rosemount Inc. as presented. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Bob Worthington: As a parting comment let me take, our greatest appreciation for the indulgence and patience. As you know this has not been the easiest project for any of us to put together and we muscled to this point. I think many of the cca~ents that were leveled at this project in terms of some of it's incompleteness, is legitimate. I think the only excuse that we could give is the fact that we were taking care of business and some of the details kind of fell through the cracks. So in that regard we don't want this meeting to adjourn, at least on this project, without you knowing the fullest and deep felt appreciation for the work. The work of the staff. Jo Ann is gone. I hope she hasn't gone for a reason. Gary. Others have just given a lot of t~me has gone into this and a lot of effort. City Manager, Don Ashworth and we just appreciate your support and help and think that you will be very pleased with the product...so thank you very much. Mayor Hamilton: Thank you and it's a pleasure to work with Opus. It always has been and it's certainly nice to have Rosemount coming into our community and we look forward to working with the Rosemount Corporation for years and years to come. We're very pleased that you have selected Chanhassen to be a place for you to locate one of your major companies. 48 City Council Meeting - November 28~ 1988 Councilman Johnson: And as the person that gave you probably the most trouble, I do appreciate the quick response I got from Bob and everybody else. I do apologize for not getting the EAW until last w~ek. If I'd had it in October, we would have been a lot better off today. It's my fault partially there, for not getting it earlier. ACCEPT LAKE DRIVE EAST/TH 101 FEASIBILITY STUDY (CR 17/TH 101). Gary Warren: We' ve got a few people, famil Jar faces here tonight to run through the highlights. Recognizing the time here, I guess we' 11 go at your discretion on how much you want to get into it but we're looking to get Council acceptance of the document. We've already scheduled the December 12th meeting for the public hearing. The notices are going out this week, if already so with that brief introduction, I'd like Don Ringrose to head it off here. Don Ringrose: I propose to be relatively brief as Gary said, in part because there are going to be, first an informal public meeting to which all the affected property owners will be attending on December 6th. Then secondly, the formal public hearing before the Council so there's going to be a lot of opportunity during those meetings... We were hopeful at the December 6th meeting is beneficial to the property owners because it's a real opportunity to sit down and go through proces and discuss the thing. But briefly, as you're all aware, this project, which is not being sort of condensed into one document is really the result of two projects which started... First the TH 101 realignment which was in a sense initiated by TH 5 and secondly the Rosemount project which you've just spent the last 3 hours reviewing. Each of them has their own kind of driving force with respect to the schedule but both projects are relatively... Rosemount wanting to be underway next year. TH 5 will be fully underway next year...and we have taken sc~e of the preliminary steps that are required. The study which has been provided to you is basically a statement 'of the conceptual design for all of the facilities and provides preliminary cost estimates and a preliminary proposal with respect to assessments and other funding sources. It's the first step in a sense of this 429 procedure, that is the feasibility study followed by the public hearing and then presumably the project can then proceed. The project, and I'll briefly go over this and I know Gary was here two weeks ago and you've seen a lot of this. It's essentially the same document but just for a refresher. The sanitary sewer basically, I will give a workup of the northeast corner essentially providing service connections to Ward's existing properties. In the Ward property, it's proposed a trunk and lateral sewer systsm covering the whole area based on alignments of the roadway which are generally agreed upon with the Ward property owners meeting with Fred Hoisington. And the Rosemount area, sewer ultimately will be complete all of the facility necessary underneath those... The watermain is again, going to be basically the same essential area. Underneath all...under Lake Drive and then again under the proposed TH 101...the city's water distribution system. Storm sewer up in the northeast corner is primarily to provide for the drainage that will be needed in the reconstruction of the intersection itself in this area. · ..will be discharging into the siltation pond to be developed in this area and the trunk south underneath TH 5, connecting to the existing storm sewer system and into the area south. Near the Rossmount water area, the storm sewer system which you've discussed at some length which comes from the ponds, generally west to the larger pond which Gary discussed. The other system on TH 101, going down and discharging into the creek but in this case before it discharged into the 49 City Council Meeting - November 28, 1988 creek, a proposed siltation pond is to collect the sedimentation and dirt. The intersection of the area existing TH 101, again the small pond for that purpose. Finally, the roadway improvements with respect to TH 101 relocation. It is the alternative 2A. Realignment at Dakota using upgraded TH 5 and then the Market Blvd. connection. With respect to Lake Drive, along the originally proposed alignment, the jog here where we're suggesting that it we would continue to go straight through, that jog is a relfection of the desires of the Wards since they're hoping to develop their property...Jim Benshoof in terms of...aspects. It is proposed as a part of this project to extend the street lighting system along the edge of this portion of Lake Drive. That's essentially the project. The costs, etc. are all sun~narized in the report. It's not a small undertaking. It's some 6 million dollars in total with the land acquisition. Major acquisition of course you can see here where we do have to take one apartment building. We realized that we could take one rather than 2 but a significant amount. We think that the cost estimates and the consumption design are as accurate as they can and need be at this point in the process. The point of this project is still not as well defined as we'd like it to be but because it's a needed project, it's the whole issue of how much do we assess and how much do we get from funding sources. We have suggested in the report an assessment proposal which is consistent with how you treated the properties in the downtown area and how you've treated other properties in terms of your assessment policy. It's not necessarily by any means the way to do it and I suspect as this project continues on over the next 2 to 3 weeks, months, there are going to be changes in that respect coming as a result from discussions with property owners and the Council and ourselves get out to the citizens who are affected. So don't transpond that assessment proposal like that's the way it has to be. There's room... As we've indicated, if a significant portion of the project is proposed to be assessed, that portion is unfunded by assessments and we suggested that at this point tax increment financing is a current alternative rather than general... I guess with that I'd entertain questions. Councilman Boyt: I had some questions when I got to the cost and that we were going to assess this. The question that we always get asked during assessments is, show me how this benefits me $80,000.00 worth of assessment. I assume that you're comfortable that you can demonstrate that. Don Ringrose: Over a demonstration is to... Otherwise what we've done here is suggest you levy the assessment, the proposed assessment consistent with past policy. The extent that, as I indicated earlier, that policy is offering an equitable situations... We have for example, as illustrated and stated in my report, reflected a $50,000.00 reduction on the assessment that would occur against the church property. In a...level, we felt that that was probably never going to fly. We've got to be realistic and there maybe other situations that we then kind of catch. The intent here in the process of what we've done is not to try and zero in on the assessment. That's really a question that occurs at the time the project is assessed. Once the decision has finally been made but I appreciate that every property owner who is affected by this...assessment, wants to have the most accurate estimate that they can have about what it's going to cost them. Again, I suspect in the next 2 or 3 weeks most of...in respect to that in response to what is meant. So I won't represent that everything on here at this point is accurate. I won't say that. Gary Warren: If I could add too Bill, we are adding or propose to add facilities, watermain, sanitary sewer, roadway improvements that are obvious 50 City Council Meeting - November 28~ 1988 improvements to the area by service consistent with a well and established policy on assessments so those are, they always stand the test that those are pretty straight forward assessments. Councilman Boyt: Two more quick questions. One of them in regard to, this all implies that this all works. They will have access that they need. We have traffic flow. You have studies and we've had several. The summary is that when this goes in, it all fits together? Don Ringrose: Functionally it should work. Councilman Boyt: My last point is, do you have a blow-up of sort of the TH 101 78th Street intersection? Don Ringrose: No I'm sorry, I don't. There is in the packet. Councilman Boyt: I've got it here but I was just wondering if for the people who are looking at that. What I would suggest that you consider, and I would be of the opinion that accepting feasibility study might be a little premature since we haven't had the public hearing. I don't know what this locks us into but I'd sure like to have the flexibility to do something as a result of the public hearing. Don Ringrose: This in a sense says we've performed the study. Councilman Boyt: I would suggest that one of the things we begin considering is, when TH 101 comes down from the north, it hits 78th Street, you've worked to make that as much of a right angle situation as you can but that works to the disadvantage of people who want to go into downtown. I would think if you could make a right turn lane that was more sweeping, it might even create some sort of little mini-island in there to... Mayor Hamilton: Like it is now. Councilman Boyt: To some extent. DOn Ringrose: You're suggesting a free right. Councilman Boyt: I'm suggesting a free right that's not so radical. That's not so much of a 90 degree. That it's more like the exit off of a freew-ay would be. So people could make that turn into downtown. Maybe even avoiding the stop light altogether. DOn Ringrose: We do need to be careful in terms of being too smooth and appearing too easy. What you then have is, a merging movement and when these vehicles come together, the person using this lane is not inclined or it's very difficult to look back. We need to be sure that we're treating it as an urban intersection as opposed to say a freeway merging. We've got to be careful with respect to that but a free right to an urban freeway, put it that way. That you normally see at an urban intersection. Councilman Boyt: I will predict that this won't work. It's just my view and I might as well get it on record early that when we build this, it's going to be amazing with in spite of all your engineering efforts, people are going to be 51 City Council Meeting - November 28, 1988 very upset that we've changed this corner. In spite of the mess that it is now and that we're going to hear plenty of times I can't make that turn. Those are my cc~ments. Councilman Johnson: I think it's very important to get this assessment roll out on the 6th so the people that are being invited to this. Have the letters gone out at this point? Gary Warren: They will be going out by December 1st. Don Ringrose: We do have, by the way, as I indicated before, I do have the mock or proposed assessment roll. Councilman Johnson: One thing, when you say this is not the final. The assessment doesn't go to the assessment hearing. We get to the assessment hearing and we say, well you were informed about this way back at the feasibility study stage. At the feasibility stage you say address it then and you're saying when you get to that stage, we already addressed it. It all doesn't quite add up right now. Don Ringrose: We have to have a place to start. We've got to have something to change if you want to put it that way. We've got something to change now. Councilman Johnson: That's been an excuse I've heard before on assessments and when we get to the final assessment roll, we say hey, we've already gone through all this. Then let's really go through it at the feasibility study stage and get some real agreement. Don Ringrose: See, if we're going to start making changes, we've got to get some input before we can do this. Councilman Johnson: I think the plan in general would be a vast improvement on TH 101 going south. The long term prediction to cut it through the old, I guess it's the old Klingelhutz farm there. I'm not sure who owns it right now but to cut it through that property and straighten TH 101 completely out on the south side would be an Jx~nense benefit to the City. I'm surprised we don't have more accidents along that section of TH 101 than we do. I'm not exactly sure what the amount of accidents are. I'm not going to be able to be here at the 6th meeting but hopefully be very forward with the people on what the assessments are and make sure everybody is very well informed on these assessments. Councilman Geving: I've read through this. It's a very complete package as far as a feasibility is concerned. I've always had a pet peeve that feasibilty studies are always feasible. It never fails. The project is always feasible and I've never seen one yet but I guess I'm most concerned about again, it's already been mentioned that the accessibility of all of this. We're assessing approximately a third of the project and I want to make sure that when the people are there on the 6th, that they know fairly closely what's being proposed even if we say that it's kind of fuzzy and kind of loose at this time and we don't know exactly what. We should know pretty well because I know some of these people and they're budgeting. They're budgeting several years from now and they w-ant to know pretty precisely what it's going to cost them. Particularly the church for example and some of the other people. 52 City Council Meeting - November 28~ 1988 Don Ringrose: There's only 20 entries and I'm sure sc~e of those are duplicate owners so we're dealing with a number of property owners that's manageable in terms of time... Councilman Geving: What are we going to do with those 5 properties up on Grandview? The Wills and Berniers and those people. How are they going to get access under this plan? South of the Legion there. Right there. How are they going to get their access? Don Ringrose: I would suggest that the existing driveway which comes down here, at least initially would simply be extended up to this intersection. To my understanding in talking to Gary Ehret, that the concept plan for ultimate development of this which would incorporate access through public streets to this property. Councilman Geving: ~nat's a long way down the road. I really don't have a lot of questions. Like I said, I'm just more or less concernsd about the property owners and the assessment. Also, the rsmoval of the existing TH 101. The timing on some of these things. When would this removal take place or would we leave it there until we were completely done with the modified TH 1017 Don Ringrose: My inclination a third time so we could review this without having traffic. Councilman Geving: Would we vacate that street and move it all back? Don Ringrose: Vacate this. Councilman Geving: How would we phase this project? Don Ringrose: The biggest...has to do with the Wards and it proceeds later. Certainly with respect to Rosemount, this is necessary and it's necessary now because it's a major interest...at this intersection but I think our implied commitment to MnDot with respect to the TH 101/TH5 being done in conjunction with this, we've still cc~mitted that we're going to take care of this so we've got to get, I think, from here back to old TH 101. Whether we have to extend the temporary connection, we can make a temporary connection from here, the shortest distance as a cost...solution, if that seemed to make more sense in terms of trying to minimize expenditures. Councilman Geving: Could the timing of this meet, what we heard tonight with Ros~ount's timetable, by 19907 Don Ringrose: Certainly. Councilman Geving: No problem at all? Don Ringrose: We have no problem keeping Rosemount. You make the decisions and we think we can... Councilman Geving: That's sewer, water, streets? Don Ringrose: This is essentially a one construction season project. 53 City Council Meeting - November 28~ 1988 Councilman Boyt: ...no problem but TH 5 is still a problem. Don Ringrose: TH 5 is a separate issue. The construction and implementation of all this work would not necessarily go all at once, even if the Wards want it to happen. I think we'll be looking at this very closely in terms of TH 5. If TH 5 is delayed, this... In fact, the original concept was that the City was responsible for designing this...and construction of this over the highway contract. Councilman Geving: Excuse me, I had one more other question. There w-as a con~nent made in the feasibility study or somewhere about how you were going to build over that sedimentation area that you had 30 some feet of peat by the existing wetlands. How are you going to build that without digging the peat out? Don Ringrose: Because of the depth of the peat and the...involved there, we put a geofabric basically on the existing soil or vegetation and place fill over it. Put an extra 10 feet on there and we'll let it sit for a year. We put something in to monitor it. The time relationship and the settlement relationship of that organic material settles very rapidly...very, very slowly. You monitor that and at such time as it slows down to a point that's tolerable, you take the excess dirt off. It doesn't guarantee that you're not going to have some... CounciLman Geving: Would you build that into your contract with how you build that road? I can see that breaking up. Gary Warren: We did that to Park Road in Chan Lakes Business Park was built that way. In fact, it didn't settle too terribly fast. It hasn't settled as much as the soil...but we did put a surface on it and we haven't put the final wearcourse on it but it is a con, non technique. DOn Ringrose: When we get to that depth of peat, digging it out all the way is so expensive that... Councilman Geving: I understand. I just wanted to cover that because I heard that term and I hadn't heard it practiced in the future. What was that term? DOn Ringrose: Surcharge. CounciLman Horn: When we send out the proposed public hearing notices, did we identify the amount of the proposed assessments on each notice? Gary Warren: We haven't sent the specifics out yet. We will be sending a copy of the roll... Councilman Horn: And that will go before the public hearing? Gary Warren: That will be out this week. CounciLman Horn: Good. The other cc~ment I'd like to make is the response to the comment of this not working. I think there's a big difference between something not working and somebody complaining about a change. I don't think that, obviously Bill you can make your bet true every time that somebody's not going to like it. The real question is, does it work or not. I think the way 54 City Council Meeting - November 28~ 1988 you've got this solves an existing problem of people going at TH 101 speeds and coming around that sharp corner which has a poor sight distance and has no intersection. What you're creating now is a situation where you're going to at least give the people cc~ing out frc~ those side streets a chance to see a car coming before they pull out. My other con~nent relates to your project funding table and the cost tables. It would make it much simplier for me if you were consistent on those numbers. In one case you don't add the adminstrative costs and in the other case you do add it and come up with a figure of 6.359 million and that doesn't include any administrative costs. I don't understand why w~'re inconsistent. We put them in some places or not at all. Gary Warren: the 6.3 does include that 25%. Councilman Horn: Well, that's not added into any of these other numbers up above. If you look at your table 38 and 39, you don't get the results that you're talking about in Part A. They're all 25% higher. Does 6.3 include the 25% or not? Gary Warren: The 6.3 does include. Councilman Horn: Then where is that added in? Land acquisition or the administrative costs of 1.27 So that's all added in on C on table on 32? Gary Warren: C is correct. That would be the administrative. Councilman Horn: I think it would be a little more straight forward if the tables matched the line items. That's all I have. Mayor Hamilton: I thought this report was very complete and good. Like Dale says, I've never yet seen a feasibility study that says you can't do it. I guess just give it enough time and money you can accomplish anything right? I think we ought to move ahead with the public hearing and with sending out the notifications to all the affected property owners. Should probably somehow get something in the paper about the meeting so it's not just affected property owners but it'd be nice to have as many people here as may have an interest in it because I think we should explore every assessment process possible including a citywide or anything else that we've looked at in the past to try to determine what is the best way to do this and the most reasonable way to do it. Gary Warren: We are, or at least my intent is to use the same list, in addition to the 20 that we have for the 429 process, to use the list that we used as a part of the alternative selection process. We're getting notices out and we will be putting notices on the doors of the apartment complex. Mayor Hamilton: Okay. You probably should send notification to some of the homeowners association groups that w~uld be not directly affected but certainly a part of their access might be affected. I think the more comments we get the better the process is going to turn out overall. I guess that's all I have. I just hope as many people as possible are aware of this so we can get as much input from the residents as possible. Councilman Johnson: Do we have to get this published twice? 55 ~ ~i%y Council Meeting - November 28, 1988 Mayor Hamilton: No, the one is on duplication where we can put an ad in the paper and then the other one is a published public hearing. Councilman Boyt: I'd like to suggest that when we have the public hearing, we also maybe, that Fred bring along or we prepare copies of the criteria we used in making this selection. Maybe you bring copies of the 6 alternatives, the 6 or 7 alternatives we considered because I think one of the things that we're going to continue to need to do over the next couple of years is show people how this ended up being the best choice. Part of this acceptance of change I think is understanding what we went through to get to this result. Resolution #88-129: Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Horn seconded to accept the TH 101/Lake Drive Feasibility Study, File No. 88-22 and that the public hearing be set for December 12, 1988 and the general forum for the public be held on December 6, 1988. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Councilman Boyt moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to amend the agenda to move item 11 to this point in the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION OF CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, SUPERAMERICA STATION LOCATED AT TH 41 AND TH 7, MAYOR HAMILTON. Mayor Hamilton: I was not here that night when HSZ, I guess is the name of their corporation. I have talked to them and they asked that some of the conditions be reviewed. I said I think it's a good idea and I'm requesting that those conditions be reviewed again. I would like to have the opportunity to have some input on it. Councilman Johnson: For a little discussion sake, during that night we had quite a discussion. A lot of compromise. I think we ended up with some good compromises. SuperAmerica agreed. 1he residents agreed. We agreed. We finally got it off at 1:0~ in the morning or whatever and got it all compromised out. We provided a review process for the conditions. We provided conditions to SuperAmerica under which they should come back if those conditions are causing them a problem and provide us the evidence that is causing a problem. I think we did one heck of a good job that night. Mayor Hamilton: Whether a good job was done or not has nothing to do with it. I'm asking for the opportunity to make comment and to review the conditions that were made on it. Councilman Geving: I will second the reconsideration because I feel that the Mayor has to have the opportunity to at least be heard. We did spend a lot of time that night. We went well into the late hours but I do believe that we have to give him the consideration of reviewing the whole subject. If he has been approached by SuperAmerica. We did have several tie votes that night and I know that the tie votes wouldn't have been ties if the Mayor have been here so on that basis I will second the reconsideration. 56 City Council M~eting - November 28~ 1988 Councilman Boyt: I have a question. I assume that we're going to reconsider right then? That if ~ vote to approve this reconsideration, w~'re voting to do it now?. Mayor Hamilton: No. No, we can not do it now. That's why it's on. There will be nothing considered tonight. Under procedure you can not do that. Roger Knutson: Under your By-laws. Councilman Boyt: I don't think it's fair to these people to put on the agenda that we're considering changing the conditions of TH 41 and TH 7. Have th~n spend 3 or 4 hours here tonight only to cc~e back 2 weeks from now. Mayor Hamilton: Our procedures clearly state that if anything is to be reconsidered, there needs to be a request made which is all this is saying. This is a request for reconsideration. If the motion is denied, then there would be no reconsideration. I am requesting that these items be reconsidered. Should the motion pass, it would be on the 12th agenda and notice would be made to all affected parties. It's that simple. Councilman Geving: There's another thing. We can not proceed anyway. We have no information. We didn't get a packet on this. There's nothing we can do. Councilman Boyt: Well, there isn't going to be any new information Dale. Councilman Geving: There has to be. There has to be some new information provided to the Council for us to act on. Councilman Boyt: But there isn't. Mayor Hamilton: But you're going to have the information placed in front of you that you looked at last time. Do you have that now? Councilman Boyt: There's no question that I remember it. We didn't spend 2 hours discussing it and going back and forth with tie votes, getting SuperAmerica to agree that they accepted all those conditions and then forget what the issues were. Mayor Hamilton: You probably have a very good memory. Perhaps better than everybody elses but nevertheless, I think everybody else needs to have the information in front of them. You can not consider the item tonight anyway. By ordinance you're not allowed to do that. Councilman Johnson: Specifically which conditions would you like to review or do you want to open up the whole thing and start over? They're already under construction. It's kind of hard to start over. Mayor Hamilton: I would think the ones that were mentioned to me, do you remember which ones you and I talked about? Hours of operation they mentioned but they're not so concerned about. Delivery of fuels on Sunday. 3.2 beer license. I guess those are 3 that come to mind quickly. I don't have the list of th~ in front of me. I don't think that should make any difference what they are. All of them can be reconsidered. 57 City Council Meeting - November 28, 1988 Councilman Johnson: To vote for this, I would like to know exactly what we're voting to reconsider. Whether we're starting over from ground zero or if we're only looking at delivery of fuel and 3.2 beer. We gave them an out on delivery of fuel as far as provide us information. Are they going to provide that information? The 3.2 beer we didn't give them an out on. Mayor Hamilton: Since I'm doing this because I HSZ asked if I would and I said that I would be happy to, I would assume that they're going to supply the information that you may want to see. If they don't, then I'm probably not going to vote for it either. It's as simple as that. Councilman Horn: My only reservations in supporting this is we gave them an option. We said we'd have a full council in two weeks and we could vote on it then. Councilman Johnson: And they said they didn't want that option. Councilman Horn: I'm kind of curious why they want it now. Mayor Hamilton: Because this is one of the ways that they can have those items reviewed was to ask me, since I was not present at that meeting, if I would go to the Council and ask them to reconsider the conditions that were placed that night. I said I would be glad to do that. I would like to because I didn't have an opportunity to comment on this. Councilman Horn: That's why we suggested waiting until our next Council meeting when everybody would be there and we would have had it all resolved by now. Councilman Johnson: They said they didn't want to wait for you Tom. They wanted to do it now. Mayor Hamilton: Perhaps after they thought about it for a while, I mean I can't speak for them. I don't know what they want to do but I suspect that perhaps they had thought of other things. CounciLman Horn: That's my only reservation because we were all concerned that you weren't here that night. Mayor Hamilton: I was concerned I wasn't too. Counci~nan Boyt: If I might suggest. As a courtesy to you and following along the standard practice, I can't see voting against the reconsideration. We've given that right to everybody on the Council. If you're gone, you can have the item reconsidered. From my part, I can tell you that they haven't moved to the phase where they can generate any new information because it was all based on demonstrating a loss. They're not operating. They couldn't demonstrate a loss to me so I don't intend to change my vote. It occurs to me that it might very well be, right now, that there's two other people on the Council that feel the same way and if there is, maybe we can relieve the neighbors of the need to return here. But for my part, I can tell you T~m, I will vote for you to be able to reconsider it but I will vote against any changes in the consideration of conditions. Mayor Hamilton: Boy, that's having an open mind. 58 City Council Meeting - November 28~ 1988 267 Councilman Boyt: Well, it's not having an open mind~ Mayor Hamilton: You've got that right. You're consistent anyway. Councilman Johnson: I go right along with Bill on this and because of all the work we did and because they sat up there and agreed to these conditions, for them to come back and take a side door to come back in... Mayor Hamilton: I don't think they willingly agreed. When you've got a gun to a guy's head, he's probably going to agree to do most anything. They want to get under construction. I think if you go back and review the Minutes and see the things that were said, you'll find out that it wasn't willingly that they agreed to all these conditions. That want to get started. All they're asking for is to review th~m again. They may even have some more information they want to present to the Council. That's all they're asking for. Councilman Johnson: There is some aspects as to whether they're complying with the conditions in the first place as to whether the construction that they've started... Mayor Hamilton: That has nothing to do with what I'm asking for. I am asking the Council to reconsider the conditions and I'm moving and there's a second. Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Geving seconded to reconsider the conditions of approval for SuperAmerica located at TH 41 and TH 7 at the December 12, 1988 meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. APPROVE MNDOT CONCEPT PLAN LAYOUT, TH 5. Gary Warren: This is our layout lB. I've got it up on the wall here for anybody who didn't notice it. Submitted to MnDot. It's similar to the previous plan that we had which went from the County line to the east. This picks it up at the County line and takes us up basically to Lake Ann Park. This is layout approval for their layout. The next step then is this goes into their design process which Barton Aschmann is doing the design on. Evan Green and Carl Hoffsted are here from MnDot in case there are any cc~m~ents. I guess depending on the Council's preference here, Howard Preston is here. Howard did a lot of the review for us on the intersection. The mainline issues we have no problem with. I guess it's pretty straight forward as far as the two lanes, two lanes in each direction. We did take a look at, because of the background that we have from our feasibility study, at the intersection of Dakota Avenue with TH 5, Great Plains and then Market Blvd. because we're concerned that we had the proper movements provided for in MnDot's plan so Howard has spend quite a bit of time doing the look at the ultimate 2005 concept out there and those are the sections that were provided in your documents. We also noted, since anticipating 1990 construction, in order for MnDot to buy into the interchange confirguations, they're obviously going to be interested to see what the 1990 traffic forecasting so there is a justified need for some additional forecasting to solidify for MnDot's benefit, the actual drainage that will be a part of those intersections so we'll also address that in this report. If you'd like Howard to go in more details on this. 59 City Council Meeting - November 28~ 1988 Councilman Johnson: I'd like to ask one question just to start off. You're talking $5,000.00 or $6,000.00 for a 1990 forecast. Is that just the year 1990 or is that the time period between 1990 and 2005? Like 95, 98. The 1990's really is close on the future. Gary Warren: What we're trying to do is get, we know what the ultimate configuration is. What we don't know is, right now we think...so this would be 1990 or as best as we could get what the utilization of the system would be. Councilman Johnson: I would think that you wouldn't want to build it exactly for 1990 and in' 1992 that it would fail. Gary Warren: No, no. The approach would be to acquire the total right-of-way for the ultimate section. To put in an interim median or whatever, to take up the space that you don't need until whatever point in the future you modify the median to get the additional lanes in. Councilman Johnson: But are you saying that that wider median would be designed for the year 1990 or would it be designed for. Okay, I see s~ne shaking heads. Howard Preston: Part of the reason for doing this 1990 forecast is, we have a handle on what the traffic volumes will be for 2005. Mr. Benshoof and his firm did those numbers and we use those for our design. And we had recon~nended designs to accon~nodate the full build-up that's implied with those numbers. One of the questions that has come up is, the intersection of Great Plains Blvd. and TH 5 is signalized now and MnDot assumes it will be signalized in the future. Dakota and TH 5 is signalized now and assumes it will be in the future. TH 101, the north leg and West 78th Street is not signalized. TH 5 and Market is not signalized. TH 101, the south leg and Lake Drive intersections are not signalized. What we have to do is signal warrant analysis and we have to base that on the volumes that will be there when the roadway opens up so that's the 1990 timeframe. We have to do sc~e kind of analysis that says, what will realigning TH 1~1 do to the transportation system if you take away all additional development that is included in the year 2005 traffic volumes? We don't want to warrant signals, traffic signals at these intersections based on volumes that are going to occur in the year 2005. We have to look at the timeframe when the construction will be cc~pleted so that's part of the reason for the 1990 volumes. The other reason would be to determine whether or not there are some interim solutions that will work in the short term but allow us to build with the outside curb lines to accor~modate the future need so that's the rationale for that additional forecast. Councilman Johnson: Can any of that be economically extended up into looking at some of our West 78~ Street like Laredo intersection and what kind of traffic signals or whatever should be down here? This seems to be a problem intersection too. I don't know if you need a number generated would be useful, the trips per day running through downtown that go down there would be of any but I've heard a lot of complaints on Laredo for one as to whether it should be 4-way stopped or signalized. Gary Warren: I think with any intersection, the study could be expanded and for additional costs you can look at those. There may be some base information that would lay there as far as trip generations but I think at this point, if you 60 City Council Meeting - Nov~%ber 28 ~ 1988 want to look at that, that should be a separate issue. At this point we should address specifically this concept. Howard Preston: It...the process too because at Laredo you have... Councilman Johnson: I was just looking to save a few bucks on looking at this Laredo lane. Councilman Horn: But you wouldn't get an accurate account when you get TH 101. It's going to be meaningless at this point. Councilman Johnson: But we still have a problem. Mayor Hamilton: Are we concerned only about TH 5? I guess I'm a little confused why we've got Great Plains and Dakota intersections indicating TH 101 still being used on Great Plains when we've got other plans for TH 101. It doesn't make a heck of a lot of sense to me. Gary Warren: These layouts do reflect the ultimate 2A process. Councilman Horn: Then why does it say TH 101 realignment and show Great Plains Blvd.? That's exactly the question I had. If that's really the case, why do you need two left turn lanes off of Great Plains if that doesn't accomodate TH 1017 Gary Warren: Southbound? Councilman Horn: Northbound. Mayor Hamilton: This whole thing, the schematic for the TH 101 realignment leaves a lot to be desired based on what other things we're attempting to find. Especially when you start talking about putting those barriers in there. There's been many con~nents made by some of the property owners and I strongly agree with them. We attempt to attract business to our town and then we make it impossible to get to th~. I'd like to know the rationale for that. Gary Warren: The southbound TH 101, maybe I could address first. With the request to have a median cut at West 79th Street, which has been the interest of Amoco and the rest of the business co~unity down there, in order to provide enough room for stacking of vehicles, that's why we expanded the section at TH 5 was necessary. That's why all the lanes basically, you're almost building a mini parking lot so that you don't have stacking vehicles into that 'West 79th Street intersection which would prevent people from cutting through the median. Mayor Hamilton: This is proposed to be done by 19907 This intersection doesn't fail now I don't think. Gary Warren: If you recall MnDot's plan was to have a median going all the way north to the railroad tracks. Mayor Hamilton: That doesn ' t mean that they' re right either. Councilman Johnson: But unless we can do the study to prove them wrong and prove that this will work, than all they're going to get is a median running all 61 ~~ty Council Meeting - November 28, 1988 the way up. Mayor Hamilton: If it's not a State road, it doesn't make a damn bit of difference. Councilman Johnson: It still is a State road. Mayor Hamilton: I just said if it's not and TH 101 does not go down there, it doesn't make much difference what the State wants to do. We can do whatever we want. Gary Warren: I think our traffic generation on our intersection, we want to be reasonable and consistent on how we apply some of this forecasting also. I think the concept that's provided here does show that there is an alternative to provide a safe median cut there but you do have to add some language to do that. Mayor Hamilton: If this is supposed to be a preliminary, we're trying to approve a preliminary layout for approval of this intersection, there's no way I can go along with this. The intersection of TH 101 and Great Plains, there's no way I would ever approve that. I will not vote for it. Howard Preston: Service to the south side or the north side? Mayor Hamilton: Both sides. I don't think it's a good plan for either side. Councilman Geving: How did those barriers get in there? That's the first time I've seen this. The con~nent was made, well we'll just move the traffic fr~m the Legion around to the south side. That's not as easy as you think. You'd force a lot of U turns for one thing down there in front of that Hidden Valley. I don't know. I agree with Tom. There's 6 lanes there now. We only have 2 today. Howard Preston: This is predicated on 2005 figures. Councilman Geving: But you've got businesses that you're impacting. Mayor Hamilton: That makes it even worse. Councilman Horn: Plus, how does that compare with Market which is really going to be TH 101 and an even busier intersection. It doesn't look like you've got as many lanes on that that you've got here. Howard Preston: Market did not have the constraints of trying to store vehicles for a specified distance. I don't know if Gary mentioned that but for example on the north side of Great Plains, in order to get the median opening for West 79th Street, the theory is or the concept is that all of the vehicles that will be stacked up from the signal would be stored, the end of the que of the vehicles would be south of West 79th Street so the idea is that anybody who would want to come north and turn left onto West 79th Street would not have to turn through 2 lanes of vehicles that are stopped for the signal at TH 5. That's a dangerous condition so we did calculations that based on the number of lanes and the number of vehicles and the signal timing that we would anticipate at TH 5, where the end of the que of the vehicles would be. In order to accon~nodate or provide this median opening for the left turn, I had said it was 62 City Council Meeting - Novamber 28~ 1988 a given that that end of the que had to be south of the West 79th stree% intersection so there would be no vehicles standing through that intersection to block that left turn. So given that assumption, it required 4 lanes southbound in order to store up all of those vehicles in that specified distance. Mayor Hamilton: Are you taking into consideration where West 79th Street is going to join into Market Blvd. and Market into TH 5? I don't think, my opinion is, people coming down and going west on TH 5 are not going to turn off on Great Plains. They can go down to 79th and then there if that's a full intersection. This intersection is not going to be as busy as I think you're indicating on here. It's going to be much easier to just keep going down to Market and turn in and go right onto 79th Street. Howard Preston: What we used is the design volumes that Mr. Benshoof generated. I was given those and we used those volumes as our design volumes when we designed these intersections for. Councilman Horn: That was with the 2 lanes. Howard Preston: Yes sir, that's correct. He had the system in his model that was the 2 way so it had all the intersections at those locations and all the connections that we're talking about. What it still indicated was because Great Plains Blvd. is the closest access to your downtown area and there is a lot of development expected or redevelopment of your downtown area, the traffic volumes at this intersection remain very high. All of the traffic did not go away because the TH 101 designation is moved. There was still a great deal of traffic being generated into the downtown area and this intersection was the primary focal point for that traffic. Mayor Hamilton: I'm sure there will always be a lot of traffic there but I still can't agree with putting up barriers to cut traffic off from trying to get to businesses. That doesn't work. Councilman Horn: What you've done north is an improv~ent over the original proposal which included the barrier in front of 79th so that's definitely an improv~m~ent. My concern is still south. What's going to happen is exactly what Dale said. They're going to come south, make a U turn around there and come back to the Legion. Is that taken into account in your plan? Is the theory that you're going to set a cop there all day and make sure they can't do that? Howard Preston: The concept on the south side was, the analysis, the analytical process we went through is similar to the one we went through on the north side and that is, we took the traffic volumes that came from the Benshoof forecasts. We put it through this queing analysis to find out where the end of these que of vehicles that go in the left turn lane to the through lanes would be. The fact of the matter is, it comes all the way down to the very south side of the Legion property. So it would not be possible to provide a left turn lane into the Legion property without having these vehicles having to turn through a line of standing vehicles. I consider that to be dangerous. We couldn't recommend that so therefore that's the reason the design has resulted as shown on the figure. It would be possible, in my opinion, if we buy into the traffic volumes and the traffic forecasts, to provide a left turn into the Legion property that would be safe because it would have to turn through a line of standing vehicles during peak periods of the day. 63 272 City Council b~eeting - November 28, 1988 Councilman Johnson: That's at 2005? Howard Preston: That's in 2005. That is correct. Gary Warren: That recognizes current land use also. He plugged in the Rosemount as a part of that site for example and recognizing a substantial development potential, residential that we have with the Chanhassen Hills has several additions to go. Lake Susan Hills West. Mayor Hamilton: Then they ought to redo it and plug in the new TH 101 configuration. Councilman Horn: It supposedly is. Howard Preston: That is in there. Councilman Geving: How about the Wards? Did you plug it in for the potential Ward's development in that corner? Councilman Horn: So all of Rosemount is going to come up to this intersection? Mayor Hamilton: Or they're going to go west. Councilman Johnson: Most of them will go to Market. Gary Warren: You will go to Lake Drive connecting in. Councilman Horn: But this goes nowhere. Ail you're going to get out of here is people in this housing development down here. That's my question. Where are the people going to come from from the south? Just from this housing development. Howard Preston: There is commercial property that's along Lake Drive that is not yet developed. There's the shopping center, the legion club. I didn't do the forecasting so I don't know how their zones worked out. I believe there's also some commercial property just west of Great Plains Blvd. and south of TH 5 so there's more that's undeveloped commercial property there so there is other commrecial property in the area that's feeding that intersection. Councilman Horn: It has to drop down from TH 5 east, pick this up and then come back in order to continue west. That's the only thing that would make this kind of volume. That looks like a real problem to me because people are just going to come down to make U turns on this. That's all they're going to accomplish. Howard Preston: Either that or I guess one option would be for them to get onto Lake Drive at Dakota and come from the east if that's where they're coming. If they're coming from the east, instead of making a left turn at Great Plains, make it at Dakota, come along Lake Drive and make the right turn to get up to the Legion instead of making the left turn and U turn. Councilman Horn: But if they're coming from the north or the west, they're not going to do that. 64 City Council Meeting - November 28~ 1988 Howard Preston: That's correct2 Councilman Geving: And the bulk of our population is to the north and to the west. Councilman Johnson: Coming down Great Plains Blvd. trying to get to the Legion. Councilman Geving: I bet if you did a study of all the Legion club members for example, you'd find that nearly all of them would be coming from the north. 80%. Howard Preston: There are a couple of problems with making this left turn off of southbound TH 101 into the Legion property. The first one is what I mentioned, the problem with the queing of the northbound lane and these vehicles having to turn through that line of vehicles. The second one would be, if you really wanted to accommodate that, it would not be safe to allow the left turn on the through lane. You'd have to make it out of the left turn lane which would then move the through lanes over to the west 12 feet. And if you do that south of TH 5, you also have to do that north of TH 5 in order to get those lanes to line up and we were running into right-of-way problems already with the width of the road north of TH 5. I can't tell you it wouldn't be possible to do. I'm suggesting that there are implications that may extend even north of the TH 5. Councilman Geving: Did you move that entrance to the Legion Club as far south on their property? Right on the property line? Howard Preston: Yes. I checked with Gary and we moved it to within what's shown here. I believe it's 10 feet of the property because that's typical for a setback. Councilman Geving: There's a little hill there now. Howard Preston: We've moved it as far south as possible. Councilman Horn: ...proposal where you cut those. As I understand it, south on Great Plains you're cutting both the Legion access and this next driveway off in the first proposal. Howard Preston: That was the State's suggestion. The right-in/right-outs. Councilman Horn: This is obviously better than that but still an inconvenience to the Legion however. Gary Warren: There is no median shown on the south side. It is on MnDot's plan and I guess maybe they could address from their study the actual need for that median. Carl Hoffsted and Evan Green from MnDot. Carl Hoffsted: I'm Carl Hoffsted with the Minnesota Department of Transportation, Mayor and the Council. I might be giving more of a little bit of a status report here in relation to TH 5 and than the Great Plains Blvd. intersection. The layout that you have seen on the wall is MnDot's layout and we developed that about, started it prior to having final alternative selected 65 City Council Meeting - November 28, 1988 for the TH 101 rerouting proposals. We did include flap A there. That is consistent with Alternative 2A to show a full intersection at Market Blvd.. We did not do anything with the Great Plains Blvd. intersection because there just wasn't time available to take a closer look at that. We have yet to have a chance to look at the proposals being presented by BRW in the memorandum and we would like to be able to work with the city staff and BRW in developing something that would be acceptable to the City Council in the long run. I may be jumping ahead here a little bit. I presume in your packets you do have the resolution and condition 1 as it reads in the resolution, MnDot would have some concern over that delay that we've presented right now. We would like to suggest something that rather than shall be, that the proposals here be submitted to MnDot for staff approval and incorporation into the TH 5/TH 101 layout plans. As far as the median opening on 79th Street, we've read a lot of comments about that at the open house and the public meeting as well. I recognize that as a concern and the fact that the rerouting of TH 101 is probably going to take place and be turned back to a local jurisdiction, we wouldn't have any problem with providing the opening at 79th Street. In relation to the south leg of Great Plains Blvd., south of TH 5, our layout again presumed that TH 101 was still routed as it is today when we developed that layout. Obviously some things are changing and that's perhaps the need for doing a traffic forecast to show where the local circulation and traffic is really going to take place in this area of the new intersection of Market Blvd. and Great Plains Blvd.. Therefore, if in fact the traffic does decrease on Great Plains Blvd., why then the access to the Legion and to the Superette there could be left open. Recognizing that the access to the Legion is relatively close to the intersection, given that the traffic volume were to decrease, the better distance that you can get from the intersection, the better the design will be. The better the traffic operation will be if there's going to be a median... Councilman Geving: Would you look at that double left hand turn on the south side there. That's the one that I think we're concerned about. Carl Hoffsted: ...had a chance to really look at this yet. We have two other concerns. Probably just a quick glance. Number one, the intersection starts to get faily wide. We have to look at it from a signing standpoint. We also have to look at it from a traffic signal mast arm placement standpoint and provide islands in the northwest quadrant and southeast quadrant for the traffic signals where we would be getting into additional right-of-way in both of those quadrants and probably will affect the businesses of both the Legion and Holiday on the northwest quadrant. So there are some other things there that have to be looked at as well. Councilman Geving: Carl, would it be in your area of expertise to discuss the potential for passenger/pedestrian overpass across TH 5 here at this point? Is that part of your analysis of what you would build into a traffic plan? We've requested that through the environmental worksheet. Carl Hoffsted: Right now we don't have any proposals for a pedestrian overpass. For a signalized intersection, it would be designed to accon~nodate pedestrians with the depressed curbs. Councilman Geving: Geez, that would be pretty tough. You're talking about a freeway here. 66 City Council Meeting - November 28~ 1988 Carl Hoffsted: ...signal indications as well. In looking at it, we'd have to determine whether the pedestrian bridge could be provided. 5he landings within the right-of-way without affecting the businesses in the area. The City of Eden Prairie has requested a pedestrian bridge at the TH 4 and TH 5. They are paying 100% of that pedestrian bridge and the right-of-way. Councilman Geving: Could you give me an idea of what that would cost? Evan Green: $300,000.00. Councilman Boyt: Is it the same cost if you go under the road? I think the Park and Rec people indicated that their information said there was higher use of these things if they went down instead of up. What's the cost look like to put it under the road? Carl Hoffsted: I guess at this point in time we really don't have an estimate of going under the road. We've always been discouraging going under as being kind of a safety problem in terms of people walking through there at night or unprotected. Councilman Geving: Thank you. I just wanted to air that because it's been of interest to me. Gary Warren: I think there is a possibility and I was talking with Evan earlier today, of looking at the railroad. There will be a new bridge built, two more lanes over the railroad track. Councilman Geving: Up by the church? Gary Warren: Yes. We could get a crossing there. Councilman Geving: Let's not lose sight of that because I think that's a good possibility and a necessity. Councilman Boyt: One of the questions raised by the Chan Estates neighborhood was how do we get to town. How do our kids get to town? Councilman Geving: How do they get to school? Councilman Boyt: In the report that we received, I think it was recommended that we have a couple of studies done for about $6,000.00 a crack. Do you feel that those studies are needed? Carl Hoffsted: Yes I do. I think for number one, to look at the signal justification warrant for Market Blvd. and TH 5. Number two, to address the Great Plains Blvd. and TH 5 area traffic. Councilman Boyt: I would just ask you, isn't it obvious that you're going to need a signal at Market Blvd.? It isn't obvious? Carl Hoffsted: We still have to justify it. Councilman Boyt: Nothing's obvious? 67 City Council Meeting - November 28, 1988 Carl Hoffsted: If it's obvious, you've still got to justify Councilman Horn: Just a comment, I agree. I think we need a little more study on this to look at the traffic volumes. It's hard to imagine we could get this kind of increase so I'm glad to hear that you'd like to correlate with the studies that have already been done. My sense is that in the past I've never seen a traffic study come J.n too low so I'd be very surprised if we got one that came in too low. Most of them I think undershoot especially when you look at population projections and things for this area. Maybe we do need this. It's hard to believe that some of these things are factored in when you look at this Great Plains intersection but boy, it's hard to believe that you have to chew up that much real estate for a road that's going to be downgraded as much as Great Plains will be when TH 101 moves. That's all I have. Councilman Geving: I'm looking at this memorandum of October 24th. It says there will be no left turns allowed to these entrances on West 79th. Now that's apparently taken care of? Carl Hoffsted: Right. Councilman Geving: Another question on the second page, or a statement. Then the Amoco station would have to be served with one entrance directly opposite of West 79th. You've taken care of that apparently also? Carl Hoffsted: BRW has. Councilman Geving: BRW has but these were questions that MnDot raised. I have no other questions. Councilman Johnson: The Planning Con~nission discussed that a lot on the site plan review last week with Amoco. What I'd like to do on the resolution is add a third Whereas to say, Whereas, the preliminary layouts do not recognize the realignment of TH 101. To put that into our resolution that we recognize that. Then as they're talking there, change number 1 in here to be, shall be considered as presented in the November 22nd memorandum to the firm BRW. Then I added at the end of this, and phase construction of these intersections to recognize that we may want to put the intersections in at this time under a 1990 forecast or 1992 or whatever forecast and then modify the~ in the future. So we're not building a 2005 road in 1990 and have it sitting empty all this time. Add a 5th item here in the resolution to say, pedestrian crossing of TH 5 shall be taken into consideration. What we're doing is saying, we're looking at MnDot's preliminary layout and saying, here's our criticisms of it. We're approving your preliminary layout but we want to make sure these things are pointed out. Also put in, not in here but in whatever motion comes up, the authorization to spend the $6,000.00 for the additional study to prove that these intersections will operate as BRW believes they will. It doesn't prove anything but it better estimate it. If it's allowed I can do that as a motion at this time. I don't think you've had a chance to talk on this yet. Mayor Hamilton: Right. I'm a little surprised that Clark didn't make his normal con~nent about traffic. Allowing it to move. I guess as I travel around the metropolitan area and other states and cities, I find that the traffic seems to be the worse in con~nunities where you continually build barriers and try to funnel traffic, force traffic into taking turns at specific spots. It moves the 68 City Council M~eting - November 28~ 1988 best in con~nunities when you allow free movsment of traffic just through the marking and striping of lanes. You put lanes in here where so many towns now have a lane where you turn left out of that lane in either direction. The lane is not a traffic lane, it's a turning lane and that's where, those core, unities have the best traffic movement. You can drive in there. You can get anyplace you want to go. You can turn easily. You don't see people running into each other and the traffic moves. When you start building these blocks of barriers, all you do is stop the traffic and then everybody is, you ruin business if you stop traffic and you make a mess. I'm very much opposed to what I've seen here and I don't think we have the best solution. I'm not the least bit in favor of it. That's my comments. Do you have a motion? Councilman Boyt: As I said earlier this evening, there are enough arrows, lanes and directions that people are going to go into shock when they come into that intersection. Councilman Geving: It's just a mess. Mayor Hamilton: The people in this town can't handle the little intersection we've got up here now and there's only 2 lanes. Councilman Geving: This is 6 lanes. How much land are we going to be taking with these 6 lanes Gary? Have you got any feel for that? Gary Warren: 100 feet. I'm saying total right-of-way. Councilman Geving: I kind of like what Jay had to say about adding those several more provisions onto the resolution. Councilman Johnson: I'll make the motion, one that we authorize the expenditure of $6,000.00 for the additional modeling, or up to $6,000.00. I guess the estimate is $5,000.00 or $6,000.00. Mayor Hamilton: Is that one motion or are you going to attach that to the others? Councilman Johnson: Yes, I'm making that as one motion. Item 1 of the motion is that. Item 2 of the motion is approval of the resolution approving layout lB for TH 5, Flap A, S.P. 1002-44 with the added Whereas tossed in here saying whereas the preliminary layouts do not recognize the realignment of TH 101. Modifying item 1 to read intersection configurations for Dakota Avenue, Great Plains Blvd. and Market Blvd. shall be conserved as presented in the November 22, 1988 m~morandum from the firm of BRW (attached) , and phase construction on these intersections also be considered. Adding an item 5 saying pedestrian crossings of TH 5 shall be taken into consideration. Councilman Horn: I'll second that. Mayor Hamilton: Are you seconding both motions? Councilman Horn: Yes. Mayor Hamilton: There are two motions here. 69 City Council Meeting - November 28~ 1988 Councilman Johnson moved, Councilman Horn seconded to authorize the expenditure of up to $6,000.00 for an additional forecast modeling to give the answer to when the expanded median section would be necessary. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Resolution #88-130: Councilman Johnson moved, Councilman Horn seconded to approve the resolution approving layout lB for TH 5, Flap A, S.P. 1002-44 with the addition of the following changes and additions. Whereas, the preliminary layouts do not recognize the realignment of TH 101. Modifying item 1 to read intersection configurations for Dakota Avenue, Great Plains Blvd. and Market Blvd. shall be conserved as presented in the November 22, 1988 memorandum from the firm of BRW (attached), and phase construction on these intersections also be considered. Adding an item 5 saying pedestrian crossings of TH 5 shall be taken into consideration. All voted in favor except Mayor Hamilton who opposed and the motion carried with a vote of 4 to 1. APPROVAL OF AFFIRMATIVE ACTION PROGRAM FOR THE CITY OF CHANHASSEN. Councilman Boyt: Couldn't ~e table this? I guess we can't. It has to be done by the lst? Don Ashworth: It's supposed to be done by December 1st. Todd had prepared this. I wish that he were present to go through this. The legislature passed this legislation. You really don't have a whole lot of choice about it. I'm personally not that happy. I think that we do a good job in trying to pick the best candidate for positions but you're forced to comply. Councilman Geving: We do that anyway. Do you have to forward your selections and things like that? How are they going to get the statistics? Councilman Boyt: They'll ccmne and ask you for them. Don Ashworth: They'll be asking. We'll be forced into maintaining the certificates. Councilman Geving: Well, it's just good business anyway. Councilman Boyt: I wish Todd was here too because I'm not real happy with this, having gone through a couple of audits. It might be a reasonable first start. I gather that the source of availability of numbers was Anoka? Don Ashworth: Actually I understand that most of it is supposed to be for Chanhassen. I know the one from Anoka is in there but this supposedly came from back from the State. Councilman Boyt: It's not the one from Anoka, it's the availability charts which are critical are from Anoka and I'm wondering, generally different job families take in different geographic availability numbers so a senior planner might take in a national availability number since we recruit nationally whereas a clerk, who's going to take in a local community availability number. That was one concern I had. 7~ City Council Meeting - November 28~ 1988 Don Ashworth: Could the Council act to approve this with the idea that I will put the item back on to December 12th to make any modifications and then send them a modified plan at that point in time. Mayor Hamilton: That's a good idea. Councilman Geving: You have to approve it anyways. Resolution ~88-131: Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Boyt seconded to approve the Affirmative Action Plan with the condition that it be brought back on December 12, 1988 for any changes. All voted in favor and the motion carried. COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS. Mayor Hamilton: Then Bill wanted to talk about the Carrico, which was taken off the agenda. Councilman Boyt: In the Park and Rec Commission notes that we received in the packet, they went through a fairly solid discussion on the possibilities of acquiring the parkland. As Dale may confirm, if you got out and walked through Pheasant Hills and that area Dale, a lot of the con~nents I got was, we'd like a park. I know they're not a long way from a park but they feel that they're out of walking distance from it and there's a lot of young families. I'd really like to encourage the Park and Rec people to pursue this rather activelybefore Carrico gets money stuck in an Attorney to get with Met Council and builds up what could be cost back to the City if we buy it. Councilman Geving: Where's the area you're talking about? Councilman Boyt: You know where they made the new cut in the road? Councilman Geving: Yes. Right in the corner there? Councilman Boyt: It's just up from there. I don't remember the lady's name but the older woman and her husband. Councilman Geving: Palmers? Councilman Boyt: Palmers, that's right. It's just behind them and a little bit to the west. 12 acres. Don Ashworth: Before the city can make an acquisition, an appraisal needs to occur. The appraisal of the property has been completed. I'm very encouraged by it. That will be taken back to the Park and Recreation Commission. I do not anticipate that they are encouraging significant costs and I guess staff is looking at that as a very potential purchase. We're looking at it very favorably. The appraisal came back very, I think very good. I believe it's $36,000.00. Councilman Geving: I can't believe it. For 12 acres? Don Ashworth: Yes. 71 28O City Council M~eting - November 28~ 1988 Councilman Geving: How about for the c~etary? I think that's a bargain. We ought to buy it t~morrow. Mayor Hamilton: If we can find the money. Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Geving seconded to adjourn the meeting. Ail voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 11:55 p.m.. Submitted by Don Ashworth City Manager Prepared by Nann Opheim 72