Loading...
CC Minutes 1998 09 28CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING SEPTEMBER 28, 1998 Mayor Mancino called the meeting to order at 6:40 p.m. The meeting was opened with the Pledge to the Flag. COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Mancino, Councilman Senn, Councilman Engel and Councilman Berquist COUNCILMEMBERS ABSENT: Councilman Mason STAFF PRESENT: Don Ashworth, Roger Knutson, Kate Aanenson, Phillip Elkin, Anita Benson, Sharmin A1-Jaff, Steve Kirchman and Dave Hempel APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Berquist seconded to approve the agenda amended to include discussion on Highway 212 response under Council Presentations. All voted in favor and the motion carried. PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS: Mayor Mancino: The public announcements that I would like to give is tonight we have on the table where you, kind of like where you enter a City Council meeting guide and this is a new pamphlet that we put out and will continually have on the table where you pick up your agenda that kind of goes through a City Council meeting and what happens in a City Council meeting. So if you're new here tonight, you'll know kind of the format for our meeting and what happens. So please pick one up. Read through it. Take it home. Give it to your neighbors so that you'll have a working knowledge of what we'll be doing tonight. CONSENT AGENDA: Councilman Berquist moved, Councilman Engel seconded to approve the following Consent Agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's recommendations: Resolution #98-85: Adopt Resolution Revoking and Designating MSA Streets 82nd Street, Century Boulevard and Coulter Boulevard. Resolution #98-86: Set Assessment Hearing Date for Capital Improvement Project Nos. 97-1A (98- 1), 97-1B-2 and 97-1D. Resolution #98-87: Approve Southwest Regional Light Rail Transit Trail Corridor Snowmobiling Permit. h. Approve 1999 Police Contract. i. Approval of Bills. City Council Minutes dated September 14, 1998 Park & Recreation Commission Minutes dated August 25, 1998 Public Safety Commission Minutes dated September 10, 1998 City Council Meeting - September 28, 1998 Resolution #98-88: Resolution Appointing Election Judges for the November 3rd Election and Establishing their Rate of Pay. All voted in favor, except Councilman Senn who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 3 to 1. The following Consent Agenda items were tabled. Table Approving the Cooperative Agreement No. 101-97-01 with Carver County Regarding the Jurisdictional Turnback of TH 101, PW356A. Tabled until Spring, 1999 to Authorize Advertising for Bids, Minnewashta Shores Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP) Project. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: PRESENTATION OF MINNETONKA SCHOOL DISTRICT 276 STRATEGIC PLAN~ TOM BERGE. Tom Berge: Thank you Mayor Mancino, members of the Council. Other members here this evening. My name is Tom Berge and I am Director of Finance and Operations for Minnetonka Schools and have been serving on the District's Strategic Leadership Planning Committee for approximately the past two years. The purpose of this process for Minnetonka Schools is to chart the course of the direction of the school district for the 21st century. As you all know we are operating in an ever changing society and as a result the District is making an effort to plan it's future rather than to let it's future happen by accident. Strategic planning in our district is as much a process as it is development of a specific plan. It is an effort to create an effective culture for change and to involve people in the process. As I indicated, the process began approximately two years ago in the fall of 1996 when the School Board and the executive staff began discussing the concept. In January of 1997 a committee of 25 people was formed to begin development of a vision mission and belief statement for the district. Draft copies of these documents were presented to the public in round table discussions which took place in the spring of 1997. Following input from the public, the statements were revised and then presented to the Board of Education for their action about a year ago in October of 1997. The vision statement that was approved by the Board of Education, and I've left flyers at each of your desks so that you might follow along. The Vision Statement of the Minnetonka Public Schools reads. The Minnetonka Public School District envisions a learning community that inspires and supports all people to excel, to wonder, discover and create. To contribute responsibly for the civil society and to enjoy learning throughout their lives. Our mission and belief statements support the vision statement. In the belief statements we indicate that we believe all people can learn. That people learn at different ways and at different rates and in different places. In addition to the vision, mission and belief statements, we have identified three strategic issues that form the core of the planning process. Number one, to build trusting relationships. Number two, to meet individual learning needs. And number three, to create a culture for continuous improvement. These are the values through which we will filter all of our future planning. Currently underway at eleven sites throughout our district are committees meeting to form blueprints for action. In other words, they're taking what we have with the vision, mission and strategic issues and at the building level formulating how that is going to impact the educational environment in their specific building. We have prepared a video to help provide a perspective of the importance of this process to the district. In the video you will hear from Superintendent Dan Jett and our Board Chair, Bruce Taher and a variety of district employees. They will share their perspectives about the process which has brought us to this point and offer some thoughts for the future. City Council Meeting - September 28, 1998 A video from Minnetonka School District 276 was shown at this point in the meeting. Tom Berge: That video gives you a little synopsis of what has been going on in our district and as I think about it personally, having been in the district since 1985, I see this process that the district is going through right now as having an opportunity to make some real significant changes in how we approach education and the educational programs that are provided our students. And as you can see by looking at it, the strategic planning process is a process that will impact the way of life in our district and in our community. In doing this we look for your feedback and for your ideas in terms of ways that we can improve. I've left a survey form that if you are interested and have the opportunity and would like to complete. I've also left an envelope with Nann Opheim and anybody who's interested in completing that, if you'd just leave the evaluation or the survey form with Nann, she'll mail it back to us. At this point I'm open to any questions in regards to the process that were generated by my presentation or by the video. Mayor Mancino: Thank you. Thank you very much. First, before we ask, I know that we have some residents here who are in the Minnetonka School District and it really doesn't matter if you're in that school district or the Chaska School District. Is there anyone here tonight attending this meeting that has any questions for Mr. Berge? What you saw, any comments? Okay. Comments from councilmembers. Councilman Berquist: I was curious. First of all, I like the video. I was really looking forward to seeing those teachers that I had when I went to Minnetonka and there weren't any. Mayor Mancino: They're older. They've retired by now. They live in Florida now. Councilman Berquist: You say this began two years ago. We've been working on our strategic planning as well and I was really struck by when you said there were 25 people that started the process. Did you keep those 25 people involved? I know you brought others into it as well. Keep those 25 core people involved continuously through the process. Tom Berge: To a certain extent that's true. Some of the people stayed involved. The Board of Education was directly involved at the beginning. All 7 of our board members participated in that first committee of 25 people. And as the process developed up through the development of the vision, mission and belief statements, when it came time for developing the specific plans, the board members then began moving into the background and then it moved to the site level. The strategic planning process, as we see it is a series of concentric circles involving ever more and more people. Initially it started out with a core group and now it's at a building level involving hundreds of people. So it's at that level now where it can really have true meaning and impact. Councilman Berquist: And the round table discussions that you evolved into in four to five months, do you find that the round table discussions ended up pointing you in significantly different directions or did they... Tom Berge: No, I think the round table discussion helped refine some of the ideas that the initial committee had developed. It really didn't take us in different directions but it helped refine the statements. The vision, mission and belief statements that had been developed. And I think they value in terms of having community input at that point really helped moved that process along because it moved from just a group of 25 people having these ideas to checking out these ideas with a larger group of people. Councilman Berquist: ...those people to go out and try and articulate as well as... City Council Meeting - September 28, 1998 Tom Berge: That was not necessarily the direction to that group of people. It was implied but basically invitations and advertising was made for the round table discussions. We had three of those at various times. A couple on the evenings and then one on a Saturday just inviting the people who were interested to come to those. I think amongst the three meetings we probably had a couple hundred people participate. Councilman Berquist: And the last quick question. Had the district done what you would consider to be strategic planning, strategic outlooking prior to this? Tom Berge: Not really, no. We had an annual process where we would develop goals and objectives but it would be a very short term process. One day of having a lot of staff in. Developing some issues and then developing goals to address those issues but nothing any deeper than this. This really is getting to the core values of the district. Mayor Mancino: Thank you so much for coming tonight. Tom Berge: Well thank you very much for the opportunity. I sincerely appreciate your taking time from your busy agenda. Having been on the other side with school board meetings, I know how meetings go and I really value what you provided us. Mayor Mancino: Tom will next year, your strategic initiatives. Your three core strategic initiative, is that for one year or would you be going back and looking over those and maybe next year developing? Tom Berge: I think those will be pretty much core values as we carry this process through. At some point down the road they may be refined but right now those are really core values as we take a look at how we do what we do. Mayor Mancino: Well thank you. Very much appreciate it. Tom Berge: Thank you. Mayor Mancino: Is there anyone else tonight that would like to come up for visitor presentations? Like to address the Council on any issue. Make any comments. Have any questions. CONSIDER AMENDMENT TO STIPULATION AGREEMENT FOR HALLA NURSERY~ 10000 GREAT PLAINS BOULEVARD. Kate Aanenson: This item was presented to the City Council on September 14th and was tabled to allow the staff to inspect the site to make sure it's in compliance with the stipulation agreement. There had been some dumping previously on the site but we did not find that taking place right now so that's good. The only issue that we had was, there is a sign in the greenhouse that we're concerned about that continues to proliferate. No additional signs should be on the property and it should be limited to what is in the stipulation agreement so other than that sign issue, we found the site to be in compliance. Mayor Mancino: Okay. So everything's in compliance except for this sign? Okay. Thank you. And do you have a layout? Is that? City Council Meeting - September 28, 1998 Kate Aanenson: I don't have it with me at this time. It was on the north side and they want to move it, excuse me. It was on the west side. They want to move it to the north side of the property. Close to Daylily Place. Mayor Mancino: Okay. Is the applicant here and would you like to say anything before we bring it back to Council? Mark. Mark Halla: Mark Halla. I reside at 777 Creekwood in Chanhassen. I think the only thing to clarify what she said. What we're talking about now is creating a bigger building but we want to move it to the southeast of where it is currently. Opposite of what she was saying. Mayor Mancino: Not north? Kate Aanenson: Correct. Mayor Mancino: Okay, thank you. Mark Halla: The only other issue is they brought up the signs within the greenhouse and it was our understanding, Don had a conversations with Elliott that it was our understanding that none of these signs that were within the buildings were covered by the stipulation. As you see by the stipulation there is not even one sign within a building that's addressed there and we do have other signs within the building so it wasn't our intention to do anything against the stipulation. If indeed that's a problem, we certainly would like to apply for a sign permit for that sign. We don't see it as a big issue. Mayor Mancino: Okay, thank you. Kate Aanenson: ... have to amend the stipulation agreement so you couldn't come in and get a sign permit. It would have to be amended. Mayor Mancino: It would have to be amended to this stipulation, okay. Kate Aanenson: That is correct, isn't it Roger? Roger Knutson: The language says all signs are prohibited except as specifically allowed by paragraph so and so under the stipulation or pursuant to a sign permit issued by the city. Kate Aanenson: Okay. We don't issue sign permits for the window sign. They can only be a certain percentage but our interpretation of that is that it would be an amendment to the stipulation agreement. So it'd be different from the sign ordinance. Mayor Mancino: So Mark would need to come back in on that window sign to amend it to the stipulation. Kate Aanenson: That's my interpretation. Mayor Mancino: Okay. Thank you. Comments from councilmembers. Councilman Berquist. Councilman Berquist: I haven't gone out to the site but I've played golf at the golf course adjacent to it. I know that...that you're talking about. You plan on taking those down and putting a 20 x 50 foot barn... City Council Meeting - September 28, 1998 Mayor Mancino: No... They want to build a. Councilman Berquist: ... move it to the south side which puts it closer to the neighborhood, and I know those birds, beautiful as they are can make a lot of racket. I'm a little bit concerned about the neighbors. How much closer to the neighborhood is it? It's further away from your house Mark. Mark Halla: In fact it's closer to my house. Councilman Berquist: It's closer to your house? Mark Halla: ... and they fly around and... I hadn't mentioned it but we're talking less than 200 yards. And I don't even think it's that. It might be closer to 100 yards but we will be building in addition to that, the entrance to the building... Councilman Berquist: I'm trying to remember. Does the grade begin to rise in that area too? Don Halla: It's about 5 feet higher. Councilman Berquist: And the land doesn't rise towards Creekside Drive? Mark Halla: Actually that... Don Halla: The biggest problem right now is the golf course runoff. Chemicals... Councilman Berquist: Are there any complaints Kate... Have we received any feedback from that letter... Kate Aanenson: No, I did not receive feedback on the letters. If there had been noise complaints, I didn't check on that. Public Safety. I just sent out the letters and gave people an opportunity to comment and I did not receive any. Councilman Berquist: You're not planning on increasing the population? You have all kinds of fowl out there. Don Halla: They increase and decrease on their own cycles. Mark Halla: ...talk about the restriction of... Councilman Berquist: Your dad's saying that they run wild. So nature takes it's course? Mark Halla: Absolutely. Councilman Engel: Nature and the golfers who have a hooking 3 iron. Not that I've ever done that. Mark Halla: ... we have.., nets out in the nursery. There's one that... Don Halla: They can't survive the winter... City Council Meeting - September 28, 1998 Mayor Mancino: Not indigenous to Minnesota. Councilman Engel. Councilman Engel: Yeah, I'm okay with it. Moving it to the side as long as the limitations and size stipulated, I think it's fine. Mayor Mancino: Councilman Senn. Councilman Senn: I have the same issues and concerns with the movement to the south. One other question. Are you going to, or Don are you guys going to be removing then the two other buildings? Mark Halla: ... Councilman Senn: So that would be part of the amendment basically that those would be removed as a condition of this? Mark Halla: Absolutely. Councilman Senn: And then in the existing stipulations, the uses of the building are pretty specific in nature then and so, this one would be stipulated as what? Don Halla: The same as the present buildings are. Mayor Mancino: What is that? So this building would house peacocks over night. A dormitory for peacocks and what else? Mark Halla: ... stipulated as a peacock barn and game barn. Kate Aanenson: So peacock and game barn is what we'd call it. Mayor Mancino: And wasn't there something about storage? Kate Aanenson: Yeah, he had indicated to me that there'd be about 3,000 square feet of storage. Is that correct? Mark Halla: Yes. The actual amount of storage is really tough...to assess right now.., absolute truth, we haven't planned the building based on a response from Council... Mayor Mancino: And storage of what? What would that? Mark Halla: ... water and feeders.., used out there. Councilman Senn: So Roger, if we do all that, do we have to amend all that in the stipulation then or what? Mayor Mancino: Yes. Roger Knutson: To accomplish what they want to accomplish, yeah you have to amend the stipulation. Councilman Senn: ... on the use and everything too then? City Council Meeting - September 28, 1998 Roger Knutson: Yeah, ...what it's going to be used for, sure. Unless you want it to the... Mayor Mancino: Councilman Senn, do you have any other questions, comments? Councilman Senn: No. Not at this time. Mayor Mancino: I'll give my comments. Number one, that the greenhouse sign must be in compliance. Mark can come back to amend the stipulation. Number two. That we restrict to 75 peacocks. I'm okay with the new building, 54 x tee. I do have concerns with moving it because it will be closer to the neighbors and there has been, in the past, considerable as I said at the last meeting, considerable concern from the neighbors on the noise that the peacocks give out. Whatever that is. So I would like to see the building stay against the golf course but I have no problem with it increasing from the 20 x 50 to the 54 x tee. And that this be designated a peacock and game barn with storage for animal supplies and equipment. And I think that that's something that you and Mark can work out with what will go in there, being very specific. Councilman Senn: Do you want a not to exceed number then? Mayor Mancino: Not to exceed as far as what, peacocks? Councilman Senn: No. You already did that with the 75. But with the storage. Mayor Mancino: Oh, 2,000 to 3,000 square feet is fine. And again I think that's something that Mark and staff can work out. Councilman Berquist: ... Mayor Mancino: As proposed.., closer to the neighborhood. Councilman Engel: South. Mayor Mancino: I'm sorry, south side. Councilman Berquist: But as I said, it's been a while since I've been out there...topography and what not. I'm wondering whether or not relocating that shed will help to... building it on the proposed site would help to alleviate some of the noise. Yeah, they travel all over so maybe it's a moot point...The area and the land slopes up there and it certainly does not, where the existing structures are.., land may be something to buffer the noise from the neighbors. Mayor Mancino: I didn't feel it was that much of a slope to do it in... I'm assuming, is that where you're going to feed them also Mark? In the. Mark Halla: ... currently they have an enclosure that goes all the way over to the area we're talking about.., so where we want to move it I think is definitely... Mayor Mancino: I don't feel comfortable because I know that trees do not act as... sound buffer. City Council Meeting - September 28, 1998 Councilman Senn: But then something we could deal with in our stipulation. I mean one of the reasons we did what we did in the stipulation was to protect that south line. And the proximity to the neighbors. And you know again, the netting wasn't how would you say, covered by the stipulation but buildings certainly. Councilman Berquist: If you're going to make a motion contingent on rebuilding in the same spot, I would acquiesce to go along with it but the, I'm still not.., but I would, if I were king, I would make the motion that we allow it to be built on the southern... Mayor Mancino: ... Councilman Engel: See I'm with Steve on that. I'd prefer to let them build it where they want and the only condition I'd throw on that is, let's get the neighbors weigh in. Councilman Senn: The only way to do that is to table it and let the neighbors come in and weigh in or have staff contact them between now and the next meeting and find out. Councilman Berquist: We don't need a building permit, right? So we're not worried about winter construction. Kate Aanenson: Well he still needs to amend the stipulation but yeah, it's agricultural. Yeah. Mayor Mancino: Well I feel comfortable about.., from neighbors and contacting neighbors. That'd be fine with me. Councilman Engel: After they weigh in, then can we... Mark Halla: ... but the neighbors have been contacted... Mayor Mancino: But there have been so many years of, and I can tell you from just campaigning two years ago and going down that street Mark, very honestly how many neighbors complained about that. About the noise and the peacocks. And not going there asking about it Mark. Just very openly, obviously not trying to, I never knew there was a concern so it was new news to me and I'm just really being very honest and forthright to you. Councilman Senn: How many neighbors are there down there? I mean if someone. Councilman Engel: Only a dozen isn't it? Mayor Mancino: Yeah, it's got to be what, 157 Kate Aanenson: I think that's how many we sent out. Mark Halla: Along the bordering road... Mayor Mancino: But anyway you just said you'd feel comfortable tabling it until we did contact neighbors so if you feel comfortable with that, we'll do that. Mark Halla: ... I'd like to get moving on it and not have to worry about... City Council Meeting - September 28, 1998 Councilman Berquist: Well two more weeks won't hurt you will they? Move to table. Councilman Engel: I'll second that. Councilman Senn: That was with the stipulation to contact the neighbors. Councilman Berquist moved, Councilman Engel seconded to table an amendment to the Stipulation Agreement for Halla Nursery so that staff can contact the neighbors for comment. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Mayor Mancino: At the same time why don't we do the sign. Thank you. Moving forward under new business. Councilman Senn: Can we just ask or can we add that in the amended stipulations at this? Kate Aanenson: The sign? Roger Knutson: They've already left but as I understand it, I wasn't clear. Are you saying take the window sign out if you want the stipulation? Kate Aanenson: No. Roger Knutson: Or what are you saying? Councilman Senn: Well Nancy said it and I was going to say it if she didn't was, why don't we throw the sign issue in. I mean if they want to amend it for the sign, let's throw that into consideration and do it all at once rather than have to mm around and revisit the issue again right afterwards. Roger Knutson: To decide that one when you decide the rest of it. Councilman Senn: Right. Kate Aanenson: We spoke about that. They're going to do that. Councilman Senn: Okay. REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO ALLOW A FALLING SEPTIC SYSTEM TO REMAIN UNTIL IMPENDING SANITARY SEWER INSTALLATION, 8955 QUINN ROAD, ANDREW POEPOE. Steve Kirchman: The request is for a three year variance from the 60 day failing system repair replacement requirement. Section 19-83 states that the owner of a failed septic system shall have 60 days to repair the failing system. Section 19-71 states that in any case where upon written application by an applicant or a licensee, it appears by reason of exceptional circumstances, strict enforcement of any provisions of this article should cause undue hardship, or that strict conformity with this article would be unreasonable, impractical or not feasible under the circumstances, and in order to promote the effective and reasonable application and enforcement of the provisions of this article, the city council may grant a variance from the 10 City Council Meeting - September 28, 1998 provisions of this article upon such conditions as it may prescribe for individual sewage treatment system management consistent with the general purpose and intent of this article, provided that the condition causing the hardship is unique to that property and the granting of the variance will not be contrary to the public interest or be damaging to the rights or property of others. Staff met with the applicant on 9-1-98 at his request. Mr. Poepoe had received a notification of a failing septic system as a result of an inspection done on 8-26 by a private firm. Such inspections are routine when a home is sold. Staff informed Mr. Poepoe of city ordinance requirements for repair or replacement of his septic system as well as his other options. He applied for a variance on 9-4-98. Failing septic systems. The current definition of a failing system was incorporated into the ISTS standards in 1996. Septic systems are defined as failing for three reasons. Surface discharge of untreated waste. Discharge of waste to a cesspool when less than three feet of separation between the bottom of the system and saturated soil. The new definition clarified what was previously kind of a gray area saying that the lack of separation did indeed constitute a failing system. Situations 1 and 2 are considered to be more hazardous due to increased threat of public health or safety. Whereas situation number 3 is not considered to be an imminent health or safety threat. The inspection report states that Mr. Poepoe's system is failing due to a lack of separation. And this was confirmed by staff. Current city ordinance contains no provision for differing repair time lines based on the type of failure. It has generally been accepted throughout the state that failures due to lack of separation represent a low hazard and should be permitted a longer time period for repair replacement. Current Carver County ISTS ordinance adopted in February of '98 stipulates the system has failed but not a public health threat. In other words, failing because of lack of separation. Must be brought into compliance within three years. Staff is currently working on revising our city ordinance and we will propose a four year replacement provision. Other communities and counties have replacement provisions ranging from 2 to 10 years. City sewer is currently in place with, in a 100 to 150 feet of the south property line of the subject lot. Sewer elevation is such that this and other properties on Quinn Road can be served by simply extending the existing city sewer. It is likely that the Quinn property on the west side of Quinn Road will be subdivided within 2 to 3 years making city sewer more readily available to the subject property. Other properties on Quinn Road will likely seek city sewer service as additional failing systems are discovered. Mr. Poepoe's options were, or are, replace the failing, existing system. The new system that he would have to put in would be a mound system based on the borings. He can extend the city sewer system to his property. He can contract to have the sewer service extended to his north property line. The extension must meet all the requirements of city sewer specifications and the applicant would be reimbursed partial costs for this extension when other benefiting properties connect to the sewer that he had installed. His third option would be to have the city extend the sewer to his property. He can petition the city to do that. A feasibility study would be done. Specifications written. City Council approval would be sought before the project could be undertaken so it would just take a lot longer to achieve the same results. The applicant as well as other benefiting properties would be assessed in that particular case and his fourth option was to seek a variance. Findings. City Council shall not grant a variance unless they find the following facts. Condition causing the hardship is unique to that property. The applicant has demonstrated a hardship that would warrant the granting of this variance. The property has had the same septic system since the dwelling was constructed. The definition of a failing system is the only change that has occurred. City sewer is very likely to be extended in the near future at which time a new system would probably have to be abandoned. The granting of a variance, the second condition is the granting of a variance will not be contrary to the public interest or be damaging to the rights or property of others. The granting of the findings. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other improvements in the neighborhood. Staff recommends the city council adopt the following motion. The City Council grants a request for a three year variance from the 60 day repair or replacement requirement for a failing septic system. 11 City Council Meeting - September 28, 1998 Mayor Mancino: Thank you very much. Is Mr. Poepoe or Ms. Poepoe here? Would you like to come in front of the Council and. Would you like to state your name and address. Andrew Poepoe: Andrew Poepoe, 8955 Quinn Road. Mayor Mancino: Any comments or questions that you have? Andrew Poepoe: Basically what he just said. It's been a system that's been there for a long time. We know that the city's probably going to come in 3 to 4 years from now. I think it would just be a waste of landscape and money. I've got a couple estimates of close to $15,000.00. That's up there and it's just tying up, I did sell my home. It's just tying up, you know running out of time. I'm supposed to be out of here by October 30th and just, it's holding up the closing. Mayor Mancino: Thank you. Any questions for Mr. Poepoe at this time? Okay, thank you. Andrew Poepoe: Thank you. Mayor Mancino: May I have a motion? Councilman Senn: Move approval of the variance. Councilman Berquist: Second. Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Berquist seconded to grant the request for a three year variance from the 30 day repair or replacement requirements for a failing septic system. All voted in favor and the motion carried. REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT TO REPLAT OUTLOT A OF CHANHASSEN EAST BUSINESS CENTER 2N~ ADDITION INTO LOT 1, BLOCK 1, CHANHASSEN EAST BUSINESS CENTER 4TM ADDITION (3.36 ACRES); SITE PLAN REVIEW OF AN OFFICE WAREHOUSE BUILDING (31,144 SQ. FT.); LOCATED SOUTH OF HIGHWAY 5, NORTH OF LAKE DRIVE EAST, AND EAST OF ABRA, CSM CORPORATION, CHANHASSEN EAST BUSINESS CENTER PHASE iii. Sharmin A1-Jaff: There are two actions being requested. The first one is the replat and the second one is a site plan review for an office/warehouse building. The site is zoned industrial office park and has an area of 3.36 acres. The subdivision request is a relatively straight forward action consisting of replatting 3.3 acres of outlot into a lot, block to prepare it for development. The site plan is for the office warehouse building. It is well designed and it's using quality material. Rather than addressing the architecture of the building, the applicant will be discussing that in more detail. However we believe that the overall design and materials will blend in and compliment surrounding area. There will be berms surrounding the.., and parking spaces. The berms vary in height between 3 and 5 feet. Overall we believe this is a reasonable use of the land and we are recommending approval with conditions outlined in the staff report. Thank you. Mayor Mancino: Thank you very much. Any council member have a question for staff at this point? Then is the applicant here and would you like to come in front of the council please. 12 City Council Meeting - September 28, 1998 CSM Representative: ... with CSM Corporation in St. Paul and I will address the architectural aspects of this building. The top portion of the building is composed of two different colored rock face block of gray. The lower portion is a rich red along the lower portion and then above entrances, an arched design there. Below windows is a rock face block tying into the top there and then within the rich red brick there are an accent blocks in the piers and in-between windows and the aluminum is the black anodized aluminum and a smoke gray glass. Let's see what else? The sign edge will be the same signage criteria as our previous phases located in this upper band there. I don't know if you want me to lift up the material board. Mayor Mancino: If you can just show that for a minute to us, that'd be great. CSM Representative: And also along with me tonight is Marcy Westlock representing RLK... and any questions regarding the civil or the landscaping can be addressed to her. Any questions on this can be directed to me. Mayor Mancino: Okay. Any questions at this point? Very nice design. Thank you. CSM Representative: I also had one more thing that I wanted to address regarding a request that was made to us to provide the interior sidewalks. We would like to request, to have that request removed. Regarding the type of business that's going on here, we just don't see the high volume of traffic, of the pedestrian traffic moving in from the sidewalk into the project. Mayor Mancino: A question for you. There is, when I read the report, requirement is for 96 you know parking stalls and you have 121. How come you have such an overage of parking? CSM Representative: The reason that that was over parked, sometimes we run into problems where there's not enough parking if there's, the office is broken down 70%/30% warehouse and it just depends on what kind of usage we get in there and what tenants. And we just, I guess we just kind of over parked as much as we could to keep the same green space, hard space. Just to prevent that in the future. A problem that comes along a lot. Mayor Mancino: And tell me what was the Planning Commission's request? They had requested pedestrian sidewalk and what was their purpose in asking for that? CSM Representative: From what we gathered it was to make the connection to the sidewalk that was existing more feasible. Easier. But our view is there are berms all along Lake Drive to block off the front court of this building and also on either side of the drive and that people would most likely you know either take the drive to that sidewalk. Walk along that or cut through the berm. Mayor Mancino: Okay. And the sidewalk was for the employees that worked there, if they want to get out on the trail system at lunch. Was that the purpose? CSM Representative: Yes. Because there really isn't too much, as I said, flow from that sidewalk into the building. It would just be people leaving and for the most part people have a specific reason to come to that office facility. And like you said, it would be the employees most likely leaving the premises. Mayor Mancino: Okay. And just a very general question. Do you find that where we are putting office industrial and where there are office warehouse spaces, that the people, the employees that work there enjoy some of the amenities of a city with trails, etc? Do you get any feedback? 13 City Council Meeting - September 28, 1998 CSM Representative: management issue. Mayor Mancino: Thank you. Appreciate it. wishing to address the Council on this issue? Councilman Senn: This is lOP, right? Sharmin A1-Jaff: Yes. I don't get any feedback in my department. I guess that would be a property Any other questions at this time? Is there anyone here tonight Comments? Okay, councilmembers. Councilman Senn. Councilman Senn: Okay. So there is no designation effectively between office and warehouse. Or manufacturer or whatever. I mean it could be 100% office space, correct? Sharmin A1-Jaff: Correct. Councilman Senn: Okay. And the parking requirements mentioned at 96... That assumes 30% office and 70% warehouse and manufacturing? Sharmin A1-Jaff: Let me double check the figures as far as parking. Mayor Mancino: I've got my parking specs on page 2... Sharmin A1-Jaff: On the site plan, page 3 of 9, and I'm talking about the plans here. With 70% office which requires 87 parking spaces and the warehouse is 30% which amounts to 9 parking spaces. Councilman Senn: Okay, so it's 70/30 then. Sharmin A1-Jaff: Correct. Councilman Senn: And basically with the advent to the 121, you'd basically be covered at 100% office then, right? And when the Planning Commission talked about the sidewalks that were going out to the street, what were they talking about lining that with? The drive itself or something or? Sharmin A1-Jaff: They said to work it out with staff. They just wanted easier circulation and being able to get to the sidewalk on Lake Drive East. They didn't specify location. Councilman Senn: But if you did it anywhere other than the driveway access is effectively then you'd be impacting the berm, right? Mayor Mancino: Councilman Engel, any questions? Councilman Engel: Nothing. Nothing to add or extract from staff's recommendation. Mayor Mancino: Councilman Berquist. Councilman Berquist: I just want to know.., interior sidewalk. In looking at the plan, is that overhead still there? Sharmin, can you just indicate where they were talking about interior sidewalks. 14 City Council Meeting - September 28, 1998 Sharmin A1-Jaff: ...the loading docks. Probably stripe the crossing. Councilman Berquist: That would be it? Sharmin A1-Jaff: Well our other option. the look of the building when you have... landscaping surrounding the building. Councilman Berquist: I see the building. curb line. Sharmin A1-Jaff: That's landscape. Councilman Berquist: That's all landscape. along the front of it. There's none of that? Sharmin A1-Jaff: You only have a sidewalk, well those entrances into the building. Councilman Berquist: Can you give me an example? Mayor Mancino: ... in Arboretum Business Park. Don't we have sidewalks? Councilman Berquist: Lake Drive West and across from the Weather Service... Councilman Senn: Well in fact there's no sidewalks on that side of the street. Other than that they'd walk across the parking lot? Right now there is a 10 feet wide around the building. It softens you provide for a better circulation but at the same time... And I see the.., inch strip from the edge of the building to the They have no, like in my building I've got the sidewalks all Sharmin A1-Jaff: There is one on the north side of Lake Drive. There isn't one on the south side. Mayor Mancino: ... here. You know you'd think you'd almost put a sidewalk in-between two buildings... Councilman Berquist: Okay. Mayor Mancino: Any other questions? Councilman Berquist: Not me. Mayor Mancino: I really don't have any comments either. I guess I would have liked.., little more purposeful where they were going in their interior sidewalks. It would be a little more helpful and maybe that's something to go back and ask them. I'd like to have a motion for one, the site plan review. And the subdivision at this time. Let's do both of them if we could. Is that okay Sharmin? To do them both at one time. Sharmin A1-Jaff: Sure. Councilman Senn: Move approval of the site plan review and. Councilman Engel: She wants to add. 15 City Council Meeting - September 28, 1998 Mayor Mancino: You have to hold it for one second please. I'd like to have both of them. If you would like to delete the internal sidewalks, you must under site plan review delete condition 16 at the same time. Councilman Senn: I understand. Mayor Mancino: Okay, thanks. A motion please. Councilman Senn: Back to motion to approve the site plan review for construction of a 31,144 square foot office/warehouse building with deletion of item number 16 and two, approval of preliminary and final plat to replat Outlot A, Chanhassen East Business Center 2nd Addition into Lot 1, Block 1. Councilman Engel: Second. Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Engel seconded to move approval of Site Plan Review/t95-18 for CSM Phase IV, as shown on the site plan received July 31, 1998, subject to the following conditions: 1. Signage criteria: a. The building shall share one monument sign. Monument signage shall be subject to the monument standards in the sign ordinance. b. Wall signs are permitted on no more that 2 street frontages. The letters shall be located within a designated sign band. c. All signs require a separate permit. d. The signage will have consistency throughout the development and add an architectural accent to the building. e. Consistency in signage shall relate to color, size, materials, and heights. f. No illuminated signs within the development may be viewed from the residential section south and west of the site. g. Back-lit individual letter signs are permitted. h. Individual letters may not exceed 2 feet and logos may not exceed 30 inches in height. i. Only the name and logo of the business occupying the unit will be permitted on the sign. j. The applicant must obtain a sign permit prior to erecting the signs on site. A detailed sign plan incorporating the method of lighting, acceptable to staff should be provided prior to requesting a sign permit. k. One stop sign must be posted at the driveways at the exit points. 16 City Council Meeting - September 28, 1998 The applicant shall enter into a site plan agreement with the city and provide the necessary financial securities as required for landscaping. 3. Fire Marshal conditions: a) "No parking Fire Lane" signs and yellow curbing shall be provided. Contact Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exact location of signs and curbing to be painted. b) Post indicator valves will be required. Contact Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exact location. c) Comply with the Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention policy regarding premise identification. Pursuant to Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Policy #29-1992. Copy enclosed. d) Comply with the Chanhassen Fire Department/City of Chanhassen policy regarding water service installation for commercial and industrial buildings. Pursuant to Inspection Division Water Service Installation Policy #34-1993. Copy enclosed. e) Comply with the Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division Policy regarding maximum allowed size of domestic water service on a combination domestic fire supply line. Pursuant to Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division Policy #36-1994. Comply with the Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division policy regarding fire department witnessing flushing of underground mains which come into the building for fire suppression systems. Pursuant to Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division Policy #40-1995. g) Two additional fire hydrants will be required; one at the extreme southwest comer of the building, and the second at the extreme southeast comer. Contact the Fire Marshal for exact location and resubmit utility plans for review and approval. h) If PIV valve is subject to vehicle traffic and damage, protective bollards must be installed. Concurrent with the building permit, a detailed lighting plan meeting city standards shall be submitted. 4. All rooftop equipment must be screened in accordance with city ordinances. 5. Meet with the Building Official to discuss building plans. All areas disturbed as a result of construction activities shall be immediately restored with seed and disc-mulched or wood-fiber blanket or sod within two weeks of completion of each activity in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook. All catch basins shall be protected with silt fence or hay bales until the parking lot is paved. The applicant and/or contractor shall conduct an inspection of the existing utilities, sidewalk and curbs on the site prior to commencing. If any improvements are damaged they shall notify the City 17 City Council Meeting - September 28, 1998 Engineer of such in writing. The applicant will be responsible for all boulevard restoration or damage to existing City utilities or street improvements as a result of construction. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies, i.e. Watershed District, Metropolitan Council Waste Water Services, Minnesota Health Department, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and Minnesota Department of Transportation and comply with their conditions of approval. 9. No berming or landscaping will be allowed within street right-of-way. 10. The final construction plans and specifications for the site utility improvements shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates and/or State Plumbing Codes. 11. A cross-access and maintenance agreement shall be executed over the plat to permit utility extension from Chanhassen East Business Center 3rd Addition. 12. The developer shall enter into an encroachment agreement with the City for construction of the parking lot and landscape improvements within the City's drainage and utility easement. 13. The applicant shall work with staff in revising the drainage plans to utilize the existing pond in Chanhassen Plaza 2nd Addition and deleting the proposed dry pond. 14. The boulevard along Lake Drive East shall be sodded. 15. The applicant shall verify that the radiuses on the driveway access points on Lake Drive East are sufficient to accommodate truck turning movements. The drive aisle width at Lake Drive East access points shall be increased to 28 feet minimum." All voted in favor and the motion carried. Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Engel seconded to approve the preliminary and final plat for Subdivision #95-18 for Chanhassen East Business Center Fourth Addition as shown on the plat received July 31, 1998, with the following conditions: 1. Park and trail dedication fees to be collected per city ordinance. The applicant shall enter into a site plan agreement with the City and provide the necessary financial security in the form of a letter of credit to guarantee compliance with the permit and conditions of approval. The applicant shall provide the City Engineer with an engineering estimate for site improvements which involve the relocation or adjustment of public improvements, i.e. sanitary manhole, gate valve adjustment, curb and sidewalk removal and provide security in the form of a letter of credit or cash escrow to guarantee improvements. The installation of traffic signals at the intersection of Lake Drive East and Dell Road is expected in the future. The developer shall be responsible for a share of the local cost participation of this 18 City Council Meeting - September 28, 1998 signage on a percentage basis based upon traffic generation from full development of this site in relation to the total traffic volume on Dell Road. The developer and/or property owner shall waive any and all procedural and substantive objections to the special assessment, including but not limited to, hearing requirements or any claim that the assessment exceeds the benefit to the property. The developer shall pay the City Administration fees in accordance with city ordinance at time of signing the final plat (see Attachment #7). 6. The developer shall pay the city SWMP fees in accordance with city ordinance. All voted in favor and the motion carried. REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL TO SUBDIVIDE 5.54 ACRES INTO 8 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS; LOCATED EAST OF HIGHWAY 41, NORTH AND SOUTH OF LAKE LUCY ROAD, GESTACH AND PAULSON, BRENDEN POND 3m~ ADDITION. Public Present: Name Address Leland Paulson Keith & Erin Raden Stephen & Laurie Kerkvliet Larry Marty Connie Byrnes Kristen Thatcher Jane Quilling St. Boni 2237 Lake Lucy Road 2201 Lake Lucy Road 2117 Lake Lucy Road 6820 Briarwood Court 2219 Lake Lucy Road 6838 Manchester Drive Sharmin A1-Jaff: The applicant is proposing to subdivide 5.54 acres into 8 single family lots. The property is currently zoned residential single family. It is located east of Highway 41 and north and south of Lake Lucy Road. The average lot size is 26,870 square feet with a resulting gross density of 1.85 units per acre. Access to the subdivision is provided via Brenden Court and then extension of Lake Lucy Road. All the proposed lots meet the minimum area width, depth requirements of the zoning ordinance. In summary, staff believes that the proposal is well designed. There are some minor revisions required. We are recommending approval with conditions outlined in the staff report. And will be happy to answer any questions. Thank you. Mayor Mancino: Okay, thank you. Is the applicant here tonight? Dave Gestach: I'm Dave Gestach, Gestach-Paulson Construction from Chaska. And I agree with the staff, the way the report was presented to us. I guess I'll answer any questions that you may have. Mayor Mancino: I don't think any questions at this point. We don't at this point but we may a little later if you're going to stick around. Okay. Thank you .... we open this up. Sharmin, will you talk a little bit about, on page 3 under grading. First paragraph. There's going to be custom graded lots, correct? 19 City Council Meeting - September 28, 1998 Sharmin A1-Jaff: Partially custom graded. As part of the Lake Lucy grading, there will be a portion that will have to be graded to build the road. The half portion of Lot 2. I assume it's Lot 2 that you're referring to. Mayor Mancino: Yeah. The Block 2, Lot 1 and 2. Is that what it says? Sharmin A1-Jaff: Okay, yes. Mayor Mancino: Yeah. Can you speak a little bit about that in general please. Sharmin A1-Jaff: Okay. Anita Benson: Do you want me to take that? I can address the grading. With the Lake Lucy Road project, as you're aware we are constructing the road through and providing boulevard plantings. Along with that, since we came in ahead of the developer, we will be constructing the typical 10 foot boulevard and be planting trees along there. But there is a relatively steep slope there which with filling of that to maintain our 3:1 minimum slope off the 10 foot side area, we will be filling with our Lake Lucy Road project approximately I would say about 140 feet from the center line of the roadway in order to properly construct that slope. Mayor Mancino: Did you say filling would be going southward? Anita Benson: That's correct. Mayor Mancino: Okay. And there's already been a lot of fill already put there. Anita Benson: I believe so. Mayor Mancino: Okay. But there will be additional is what you're saying? Anita Benson: Correct. And our filling limits will be within the house pad area that's proposed. Mayor Mancino: So it won't go further down the slope and create more of an erosion problem? Anita Benson: No. Mayor Mancino: Okay. And will there still be on those two homes, where did I read it? Sites, is there still, is there enough upland area to have the 60 by 60 pad and back and everything? Sharmin A1-Jaff: Yes there will be. Mayor Mancino: Okay. So is that changed from the time the report was written? Wasn't there a concern that on those two lots there wasn't enough upland area to place a deck? Phillip Elkin: Yeah, that's changed since the... Mayor Mancino: That has changed? 20 City Council Meeting - September 28, 1998 Phillip Elkin: Yeah, the plans have been revised with the storm water pond placement so they're both facing the pond and then facing the long end of the lot so their setbacks from the wetland, or Lot 1 is to the west. Mayor Mancino: So Block 2, Lot 1 and 2 are going to be able to have the 60 x 60 pad on them. Sharmin A1-Jaff: Yes they will be. Mayor Mancino: Which includes a deck. Sharmin A1-Jaff: Correct. Mayor Mancino: So that those homeowners, once they build a house will not need to come in and ask for a variance from the wetland setback. Okay. Sharmin A1-Jaff: That is a correct statement. We also have a similar situation that we approved not too long ago with for instance Highover. You have a very similar situation where steep slopes backing up to wetlands and we have the 60 x 60, and the 60 x 60 is intended to accommodate a deck. So it's house pad plus deck. And they have demonstrated that they can build both a home as well as a deck on those sites. Mayor Mancino: Remember Creekside when that came up and you asked if we... Oh okay. Well anyway, so we've looked at that. We've been proactive and checked it out, etc. Sharmin A1-Jaff: We can't guarantee that there will never be a variance request. However, they do have ample area to build a home and deck on those lots. Councilman Berquist: ...trying to find the sentence that I underlined. It's actually contrary to that. Phillip Elkin: That would be under wetlands. That was, I wanted to make clear in my report that it's a natural wetland. I didn't believe at the time that they had enough space. I mean the alignment that I had seen was facing more tilted towards the buffer line right at the point where the buffer, especially on Lot 1, so that would have. But that condition has been met with the revised plan with the storm water pond included in there so it has been. Councilman Berquist: ... at this point. Phillip Elkin: If it reaches a steepness for a period of time, then it has a tendency or once the soil's disturbed to erode. Never grow vegetation back to hold it together so it keeps eroding and eroding. Councilman Berquist: Do you think we're going to have that situation? Sharmin A1-Jaff: No, you don't, you need a rise of 25 feet. You don't have that here. Councilman Engel: I was going to say they have a nifty link lift.., for a bluff. Mayor Mancino: But you have checked that out? That by the time Lake Lucy Road gets graded and that south side that we won't have a bluff coming down there. That's my question because it has certainly 21 City Council Meeting - September 28, 1998 changed from the natural vegetation, the slope there from a couple years ago. So with Lake Lucy Road graded and the new fill put in there for a house pad and everything, we won't have created a bluff? Anita Benson: No. Mayor Mancino: Okay. We know it will be a slope but not a bluff. Is that your question? Councilman Berquist: ... creating something... Mayor Mancino: Okay. Any other questions at this point? Is there anyone here tonight that would like to address the council on this issue? State your name and address. Erin Raden: Mayor Mancino, councilmen. My name is Erin Raden. I live at 2237 Lake Lucy Road and I represent a group of neighborhood residents so bear with me because I'm trying to make arguments for a whole group of people so my ability or inability to present this argument kind of has bearing for a lot of people here. I would just like to say that we've written a couple letters. We've been to the planning council meeting. We've obtained copies of numerous reports so in essence we've tried to do our homework on this issue and a lot of us have had to come up to speed pretty fast. We just purchased our home at the end of May so some of us are very new residents to this area. And so in the process we've discovered and when we purchased, none of us is opposed to development. As a matter of fact, that's why we're in this development. It was a new development. We are not opposed to the extension of Lake Lucy Road or the construction of the storm water pond. However, we are very concerned over the redelineation or the change in the boundary of the wetland area and in discovering how this process came about we learned that wetlands need three criteria and they used to only need two criteria. The vegetation, the soil and the hydrology or water aspects. And we understand that the developer appealed after the city rejected the redelineation of the wetland and therefore a technical evaluation panel was called. A group of experts to evaluate and take a look at where the wetland boundaries really and truly are and that the panel's finding was very divided. In other words they could not come to a consensus and it wasn't like there was a 2 to 4 vote or they voted. The issue that they were divided on was hydrology and that water segment of the definition of a wetland is kind of like trying to hit a moving target. As you know precipitation and ground water levels, they vary from year to year. We've seen a very dry year this year and if you look at the arguments, and I'll ask you if you wouldn't mind just bearing with me here. Going to page, I believe it's 4 of the staff report under wetlands. And this panel was allowed to you know permit this redelineation of the wetland based on the following arguments, and if you look at where the bullet points are, I would ask you to look at these are not compelling arguments so you look at a city well located on the site may be impacting wetland hydrology. Well to me that's not a definitive yes or a no. It is or it isn't. And then previous delineation reports do not detail the presence of wetland hydrology. That is not a very solid, factual argument. And if you go down the list of arguments here, and then the bottom one, the bottom argument is that the applicant provide a record showing normal precipitation records at the time of the second delineation. Well we were able to go back and ask of the city staff, who by the way has been very helpful in educating us on this process. They provided us with a copy of the technical evaluation panel report which is directly in contrast with this last reason given on why this redelineation should be permitted. The TEP panel found that precipitation levels were below normal and that's in direct contrast to one of the reasons given to allow this to go through. So our basic contention is that if there is a divided panel and it's gone through appeal process, we believe that you should find for the residents, for the area. Leave the wetland as is. Not because we're opposed to development but because as long term stake holders in this area, we feel we have an obligation to be custodians of the wetland and do the right thing. And even in the staff report their concerned about the impact to this wetland. They're concerned about their ability to 22 City Council Meeting - September 28, 1998 preserve the wetland and so some of the language in the staff report reads like, well we're very divided on this. We'll allow this with these conditions but if it's such an iffy argument, if the basis or foundation of the decision of this divided panel is hydrology, which is a moving target to begin with, we are really asking you to take a look at what the stake is in this for the residents who plan to be here for a long time. And I feel like we do speak for the future residents. These lots have not yet been built on so we're asking basically for three things. To leave the delineation of the wetland as it is. To leave the original storm water pond plan as it was originally designed. And to leave the plat, the original home sizes as they were originally designed because this will all have a negative and detrimental effect on the wetland. So I guess I should be quiet now and guess open it up for any questions that you might have or you can tell me to sit down so thank you. Mayor Mancino: Thank you. Why don't we see if we have any more comments or questions and then we'll ask you. Okay, thank you Erin. Anyone else wishing to address the Council at this time? Okay. Yes, why don't you sit down and as we go through and have comments, questions, we'll ask you. Okay, thank you. I'm just getting down your three points. Is there anybody else wishing to address the council on this? Okay. Lee Paulson: I'd like to say one about... Mayor Mancino: You're certainly welcome to. Lee Paulson: My name's Lee Paulson... She got her numbers mixed up on the rainfall. They were above, it was above normal rainfall. Not below rainfall at that time when those tests were taken. So we had more water than what is normally in that area at the time. And that's a fact. That's...what was normal and not normal at that time. And then we went back and reviewed that... Mayor Mancino: Thank you. Let's go back to some of these general questions before we bring it back to Council for just a minute and that is, can you tell us a little bit about the tech evaluation panel. Who makes itup? Etc. Phillip Elkin: Okay. When I first saw the plan, and I saw that they had proposed moving the wetland line I was a bit skeptical. Especially when I saw that the report they submitted was from June, 1997. June 20th of last year, which at that time had been a very dry year up until that point. I went out and met with the applicant and the delineator, late March, early April. It was raining at the time. Mayor Mancino: Of this year? Phillip Elkin: Of this year. Just to verify what the report said. They had, Svoboda and Associates are very technically based so they had a biologist come out with them. A wetland specialist. They were citing different species of plants that are only.., live upland. That means only grown upland so I was out of my league basically in the arguments they were presenting. I did, the big question I had, does this area have the hydrology and they dug holes at that time and at that time it did not have, did not meet the hydrology requirements for this area to be a wetland. But as you're saying, that is a moving target and that could change. So I did contact, one of the options as LGU's of the city, if there's a disagreement between the delineator and the LUG, is that a TEP panel, Technical Evaluation Panel can be brought in and these are made up of impartial third parties. Wetland specialists that come in and offer their opinions. Mayor Mancino: They don't work for the city. They don't work for the developer. 23 City Council Meeting - September 28, 1998 Phillip Elkin: They don't work for the city. Right. Right. I had called Carver County Soil and Water as one of the requirements. Also the Board of Soil and Water Resources and they sent two delineators out to the site. Okay. Mayor Mancino: The Board of Water and Soil Resources, what is that? Is that a state board? What is that? Phillip Elkin: Correct. That's a state agency that administers the wetland and conservation act. So they, the state enacted it and put them in charge of the Wetland Conservation Act. Mayor Mancino: Okay. So BWSR was part of the TEP panel? Phillip Elkin: BWSR was part of the TEP panel. Mayor Mancino: The County. Phillip Elkin: Correct. Mayor Mancino: And who else? Phillip Elkin: And myself. And Svoboda. So it wasn't, we can bring in a third party but I didn't feel it was necessary at that time. You know if these people were, you know BWSR and Carver County were making a decision so you know I would make our decision based on what they had to say. Similar conditions. We found wetland vegetation. We found wetland soils but no hydrology in the area of question. Now the point the developer, or Svoboda made at this point is at the time a prior delineation's by, as part of the Lake Lucy Road project, you only needed two indicators. You only needed soils and vegetation. You did not need hydrology to declare it a wetland. The argument that the developer had while, they saw the delineation taking place. Not a lot, they were digging no holes. They just went along the lines of reed canary grass and that's how they determined it. The area, we were all divided. I didn't get, what I wanted is them to tell me an answer that, so I can, you know so I wouldn't have to make a decision. I was hoping for it to be black and white, so it's over. They were both very skeptical. They were not skeptical but they were just unsure because there's several indicators they had. They didn't know if previous delineation's had taken hydrology into account and just did not note it in their delineation notes. So they threw the ball back to the developer. Put the burden of proof on the developer and said well show us that this is normal. I mean this area has been under normal hydrology, or normal rainfall conditions and that normal hydrology would exist. The developer then, or Svoboda and Associates came back with a report of the hydrology records from the University of Minnesota from Carver County that shows on the date of the, for that fall, for this fall, we were under a normal hydrology cycle. That the rainfall limits were within what is considered, within or above normal rainfall limits. Now that was, when I mentioned in the article the second delineation, that's what I consider the second delineation. Is when the TEP panel was out there. That's the second check of this delineation. It would not be true for the June 20, 1997 but it would be true for I believe it was, was it May 30th? That the TEP panel was out there. I can find that. Mayor Mancino: And that's 19987 Phillip Elkin: And that's 1998. This year. 24 City Council Meeting - September 28, 1998 Mayor Mancino: So a year after the. Phillip Elkin: Okay. So based on that report, again I called my two panelists and asked them for a decision. And the two decisions I got were from Carver County. They said well, we believe that this area can support hydrology for this area to be a wetland. The report from BWSR said the applicant has demonstrated that this has been, for this area under a normal hydrological cycle and that if the city is denying this because the lack of ground water, we should come up with evidence supporting our, or supporting that this area can support or has in the past and will in the future support ground water hydrology. So I spent the next three months calling Carver County and calling and getting pumping records. Getting any data I could. You know checking the city's ground water report and I could not come up with anything substantial that would sway it one way or the other. There's just not enough data out there. So responding to BWSR you know we were getting to the point where we had to make a decision and you know four months later on what to do. And BWSR's suggestions were based on what we have right now. Based on what the applicant has shown us. Although there is some questions about some of the areas we would side with the applicant and allow this current delineation. Now, then you know you've got one side or the other and the decision comes back to the TEP panel. If we, as the LGU, would have decided no we're not going to allow it. I don't care what you've shown us. We're not going to allow it. Then the applicant has the opportunity to appeal it to BWSR and that would be a hearing setting in which the city, they would bring their evidence supporting their findings and the city would bring their evidence supporting our belief or our findings and a third party would make the decision. Basically what they've told me at BWSR is I have no, I have nothing to support my belief or the belief that hydrology in this area exists or will exist. Then we're faced in the position of going, you know taking this to a hearing. Risking you know if the applicant wins, we're responsible for the cost of their preparing their argument and at that time I decided that due to lack of evidence, that with the TEP would agree with BWSR since they had ultimately told me how they would decide in the end to begin with and allow the delineation. You know several other factors went into effect. I mean we could have them monitor the site with piezimeters but I mean, there's really, what kind of a time period do we put on it. Do we put one year? Two years? Three years? We also, an issue of fairness here. Another key issue is the, if you look at the delineation that part 1, phases 1 and 2 were based on. This line right here. Mayor Mancino: Phase 1 and 2 of what, Brenden Pond? Or. Phillip Elkin: Brenden Pond, correct. Okay here is basically the pie shape that we're talking about. On the south side. Here's the wetland. You know that the delineation was performed by Westwood for Engelhardt and Associates. It goes up 2, 4, 6 contour lines. It goes uphill. And then comes back down... So that raised a flag. I mean this is the area we're talking about right here. Delineation that Gestach Paulson had submitted, yeah submitted, follows the contour line like this, which makes more sense. So another. Mayor Mancino: I'm sorry, would you say that one more time? Who did this delineation? Westwood did it for Engelhardt for the construction of Lake Lucy Road? Phillip Elkin: Right. Engelhardt and Associates were the engineers. They hired Westwood... Mayor Mancino: And this was quite a few years ago. Phillip Elkin: 1994. This delineation.., didn't take any notes as far as what the hydrology is. What plants were growing here. 25 City Council Meeting - September 28, 1998 Mayor Mancino: A wetland on a slope. Up on a slope. Phillip Elkin: Yeah, it's a line on a map as far as... The fact that there were records that does take a slope to move up. Were all factors in agreeing with the applicant's delineation so. Is that it? I think that's kind of. Mayor Mancino: Are there any questions? Councilman Berquist? Councilman Berquist: ... want you to give me that whole piece again... Phillip Elkin: Okay. Councilman Berquist: That Woodridge Heights. Phillip Elkin: When Lake Lucy Road was constructed, Engelhardt delineated both the Brenden Ponds, this wetland right here for construction. They submitted a map. It was reviewed at that time by Diane Desotelle. As part of the construction there were no impacts to the wetland or proposed other than steep slopes and to protect...with silt fence. So then this area did not, as far as the city's standpoint, did not go under scrutiny. It has been now... When I look at this. When I go back and look at what the first delineation or the first wetland delineation submitted that they wanted to alter, or they're contending... When I look at this, it goes, this contour right here is 976. Or right between 976 and 978. And then it goes up. Councilman Berquist: Right now that line that defines the edge of the wetland is 976? Phillip Elkin: No. This contour right here. It goes between. It goes from say 977 up to 980 in this one area, right here. The area... With the revised delineation or the actually, I mean the delineation specifically targeted this location right here. That it follows the natural contours of the ground. So it lobbed off this piece right here. And going back so at the time this delineation was taking, was done you only needed two indicators .... soils, vegetation for this area. So the whole entire area has hydric soils and I believe they may have just followed the vegetation. Mayor Mancino: Because this was done in '94, before the new wetlands, the new Act in '96. Phillip Elkin: Right. Mayor Mancino: Phillip, is there, this whole area which was the Brenden Farm before it was divided... Gestach-Paulson and the Ryan's buying the property, was draintiled. A lot of it was. A lot of it down there was farmed. I have old pictures. Could there still be there draintile in this area that would affect the hydrologic drillings that have been done? Because if there's still existing drain tile, wouldn't that be carrying the water away from certain areas and putting it into others if there's still existing drain tile and do we know, number one that. And number two, do we know if there's still drain tile in that area because it hasn't developed? A loaded question. Phillip Elkin: Yes. Mayor Mancino: Sorry. 26 City Council Meeting - September 28, 1998 Phillip Elkin: It's possible. I mean yeah. This whole area drains, and it's part of our, how many acres, 4 or 5 acre site so I mean it, and it outlets to the south. So there still could be drain tile in there that's working. I mean but yeah. I mean yeah. And that's, you know we don't know what impact even the Woodridge Heights development would have had on the hydrology since this was done. We don't know the impact that the city well would have done. Mayor Mancino: My water pressure is lower so. Do you have, are there little sensors that you can put above ground that sense for the drain tile? Phillip Elkin: Only if it's made of metal. I think most of it's plastic or clay or. Usually if you've walked a site and you see a pipe sticking out around and water running through it but. Mayor Mancino: Let's go to our legal counsel for a minute. Tell me at this point.., kind of have differing opinions going on and I mean you've heard the whole scenario .... ways to look at it. Roger Knutson: First I'll tell you one thing for sure. I'm not a wetland delineator. I wouldn't know hydric soils if I were sitting on them. But I do know what the statute says and I do know what the rules say. The way I look at it, I start my analysis something like this by saying, unless there is a wetland there is no wetland regulation. That sounds obvious. But that means that we don't regulate something unless we are satisfied that the criteria exists now. So going out there today, do those criteria exist? If they existed in 1994, they existed in 1894 and they don't exist today, it doesn't matter. It's what's there now. I mean if you look at the definition, and it isn't this, being.., or saturated by surface water or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support the.., vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. For example this doesn't say that if 20 years ago there were saturated soils and aren't saturated soils today, you don't meet this definition. It doesn't say you meet this definition if you would. If you would have it if something else didn't happen. For example it doesn't say, if there weren't drain tiles there, you would have them. Therefore you meet the definition. It says look at it. Are there saturated soils there? Normal. Considering normal precipitation. If you don't, you don't meet the definition. If you don't meet the definition, you don't regulate. Something else to consider though is, just so we're clear. Just because if you determine there is wetlands there, that doesn't mean necessarily that the plat can't go forward as presently envisioned. There is a replacement plan possibility. I mean you have to quality for replacement plan but it is possible to, for wetlands to theoretically if you meet the sequencing issues and other things, to take all these wetlands out, if they are wetlands, and replace them someplace else. A ratio of somewhere between usually 2:1 but up to as high as 5:1. There's also, and I don't know how many square feet of wetland we potentially, or I'll say debating potential wetland. 2,000 square feet? Phillip Elkin: A little over 2,000. Roger Knutson: So there's an exemption standard. You wouldn't be over that threshold so that wouldn't apply. So I guess my only advice is, when you're regulating someone else's property, it's sort of incumbent upon us to show that the regulations apply by showing that they meet the test for what is in this case a wetland. If we're not sure, if we don't know, we can't find out, if you're in that position, then you really can't regulate because you have to show that it's a, we have to be satisfied that it's a wetland. We can't say if in doubt call it a wetland because we're imposing a regulation on someone and that regulation only applies, if we make that... We can't say, if it's gray we'll call it a wetland. We have to say, in our own mind we're satisfied it's a wetland. We sort of have the burden on that. Initial burden. 27 City Council Meeting - September 28, 1998 Mayor Mancino: Go ahead please. Councilman Berquist: A few years ago just prior to the last 100 year rain there were areas of Minnetonka where we could have built structures.., within the water line now. What you're saying is that at that point, that would now be... would have been buildable. Roger Knutson: You've got a lot of other things going on there besides wetlands. Councilman Berquist: But you understand what I'm. Roger Knutson: Sure. Councilman Berquist: The example that I'm trying to make. Roger Knutson: It's possible. I mean ignoring shorelands. Ignoring Corps of Engineer rules, and the fact that yes, it's possible. It's not uncommon to have situations where there were no wetlands. It works both ways. Where there were no wetlands 10 years ago. None. And then because of activity, human activity, there is now a wetland there today. Well, they're stuck with those rules even though, we don't care if there was no wetland there 10 years ago or 5 years ago or 2 years ago. If there's a wetland there today, that's the answer. There's a wetland and the rules apply. Conversely, if we go back on old photo maps, aerial maps and say look at this. In 1950 there was a wetland here. And you go out there today and it doesn't meet the criteria. I don't care if it was there in 1950. I mean I might care but the rules don't apply because it's not a wetland. What's there now? Councilman Berquist: The comment that I would like briefly is that.., from state perspective wetland definitions and how we can.., development occurs is becoming more and more strict, is it not? Roger Knutson: No. I'm just wondering. It's extremely strict. I don't know if you can become more strict but it's extremely strict, yes. I mean what's one of the things that people keep constantly talking about, not that it's germane to this but is the overlap of regulations on wetlands. I mean the DNR's involved in wetlands and ordinance above, below the ordinary high water mark. BWSR's involved with wetlands. Above the ordinary high water mark. I've got to think about this. And the Corps of Engineers is interested in wetlands if birds ever landed there. A little bit facetious but not much. They're interested in all of it. Councilman Berquist: Last legal question. Phillip indicated that if a local government unit says no to something like this and the applicant were to appeal and the applicant were to prove it's point.., applicant can be awarded.., in prosecuting the case or in seeking the judgment that they desire. Who pays if the local government unit is declared the, in your opinion, is decided to be correct? Roger Knutson: The way I read the rules, I don't see anything about fees and costs frankly. Councilman Berquist: Is that your understanding Phil? Phillip Elkin: No. Right before, when I was writing out these responses I had called Barb Oman, a contact at BWSR who was out for the TEP panel and just my understanding was, it does not go before, you know if they appealed the LGU's decision, it goes before a Board in a hearing setting and it's not someone reviews it and make a decision yes or no. It's a hearing where you know, much like a court 28 City Council Meeting - September 28, 1998 hearing. In talking to our, again it's my understanding from reading the rules, I can't tell you exactly where they came from but I believe that in talking to her also, to confirm this, that if we were to lose, or you know we just don't have the evidence to support our fact and they rule against us, we would, because the applicant is going to have to hire a wetland specialist to argue their point and they would have to be compensated for that. But Roger may. Roger Knutson: I don't see it... Phillip Elkin: Okay. Roger Knutson: I'd also point out, when you say it's a hearing like a trial. Not necessarily. Depending on the situation. It can be a transcript review. A record, a paper review by the board. It depends on the particular circumstance you're talking about. Phillip Elkin: That analogy was based on... Mayor Mancino: Again, this Lot 1, Block 1 was part of the previously preliminary and final plat so first I want to say that. Going back to wetland delineation. First, I just want to say to our staff, thank you for being so absolutely confident. So inquisitive. Curious. Getting a panel together. Taking the time that you have taken to research. To do everything that you possible can to take a position because I know it was hard.., and for seeing that discrepancy in the delineation and for taking action on it. First I just want to say that. For all the work that you've done because that's exactly what we as a council want to make sure that our staff is doing and that we're diligent and protective of our environment. And where there's no question about that, which brings me to what do we do at this point? I guess coming down to a final viewpoint, which is so very, very hard is that you don't feel, and BWSR doesn't feel that there's any concrete evidence on the hydrology issue. Certainly do on the vegetation and on the soils but on the hydrology issue, you're feeling uncomfortable. Even when you've done the research on precipitation and whether it's dry or wet. So I guess I go with your recommendation and knowing that you know...just don't feel comfortable that we have the concrete evidence to support that third part of what meets the definition of a wetland. I am in agreement with staff on that. Storm water.., etc. I understand the regional ponding and what we're trying to do as a city to establish more regional ponds. Use smaller ones and subdivisions. So I'm comfortable with that. I think that's about all my comments. Councilman Senn: Do you want a motion? Mayor Mancino: Motion. Councilman Senn: I'll move denial of preliminary plat to subdivide 5.54 acres into 8 single family lots and ask that it be redesigned to leave the existing platted property as is and redesign the balance. Mayor Mancino: Is there a second? Councilman Engel: I second that. Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Engel seconded to move denial of preliminary plat to subdivide 5.54 acres into 8 single family lots and ask that it be redesigned to leave the existing platted property as is and redesign the balance. All voted in favor except Mayor Mancino can the motion carries with a vote of 3 to 1. 29 City Council Meeting - September 28, 1998 Mayor Mancino: Motion carries and let it come back. Denied and redesigned. Okay, thank you. Any questions? Roger Knutson: Mayor, would you like me to, I think a follow up motion would be... next council meeting for... Mayor Mancino: Okay, may I have that motion? Councilman Senn: I would move that we direct the attorney to prepare Findings of Fact and bring them to our next meeting, unless of course the applicant is willing to work out redesigning with staff in the meantime and then it's unnecessary. Roger Knutson: Just so I'm clear on what you've done. Did you approve it subject to the condition of changing it or? Councilman Senn: No, we disapproved it. Roger Knutson: You denied it? Councilman Senn: We denied it. Roger Knutson: Once it's denied they have to start the process over again from scratch. Councilman Senn: I would stick in this motion then that we waive that. That they don't have to start over from scratch and that they simply work with staff to redesign it and then come back to council and that if that's not the case, then you're to prepare the. Roger Knutson: So what you're really doing is you're, you will approve it if they design it consistent with what you just said? Mayor Mancino: Yes. Why don't we... Councilman Senn: Okay, I'll withdraw my previous motion. And make a new motion that we approve the preliminary plat to subdivide 5.5 acres into, here's the tricky part. Councilman Engel: Consistent with the first two lots. Councilman Senn: Consistent with city requirements and consistent with leaving the existing platted property as was and that staff work with the developer to redesign on that basis. Roger Knutson: Mayor? So the record is nice and clean. Following Robert's, what you need to do is make a motion to reconsider your prior motion. You would then, with that motion on the table, someone would move to amend to do it. Councilman Senn just did and you would vote on that. Councilman Senn: Funny, we've never followed Robert's before. Mayor Mancino: First let's have a motion to reconsider. 30 City Council Meeting - September 28, 1998 Councilman Senn: Okay, motion to reconsider. Councilman Engel: Second. Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Engel seconded to make a motion to reconsider the motion of denial for preliminary plat for Gestach-Paulson. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The motion will be reconsidered. Roger Knutson: Now I'll lead you through this. Mayor Mancino: Thank you. Councilman Senn: Wish you would have done that in the first place. Roger Knutson: As people say, it's a city council meeting, not the city attorney's meeting. Councilman Senn: Until after the fact, right? Roger Knutson: To pick up the pieces. Now what's before you is the motion to deny. So a motion would be in order to amend to provide what Councilmember Senn just said, to approve subject to changing those two lots and whatever else is necessary to comply with the lot sizes that were previously approved in the existing plat. Councilman Senn: Rather than being repetitive, okay I'm going to say I move to amend the motion to deny to be the motion which has already been read into the record. Mayor Mancino: Okay. And there's a second to that. Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Engel seconded to approve an amendment to the preliminary plat for Subdivision #94-10 for Brenden Pond Third Addition consistent with city requirements and consistent with leaving the existing platted property as was and that staff work with the developer to redesign on that basis. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Roger Knutson: Now the amendment has passed. I'm sorry about this. The main motion has been amended to read what you just said. Now you vote on the main motion. Mayor Mancino: Okay, now let's vote on the main motion. Can we have that motion again? Roger Knutson: No, you don't have to say it. We just made a motion before you. Councilman Berquist: Now the motion, I'd like it restated because I'm getting confused. Councilman Senn: I'm going to do it, I will do it the best I can. How's that? But I would like it to stand as it is basically in the record but essentially it's, the motion is to amend the previous motion to reflect an approval of the preliminary plat to subdivide 5.54 acres into a number of lots conforming to or consistent with city ordinances and leaving the existing platted properties as they were platted. 31 City Council Meeting - September 28, 1998 Mayor Mancino: In Addition 1 and 2 of Brenden Pond. Councilman Senn: Correct. Mayor Mancino: Second please. Councilman Engel: Second. Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Engel seconded to approve the preliminary plat for Subdivision #94-10 for Brenden Pond Third Addition consistent with city requirements and consistent with leaving the existing platted property as was in Additions 1 and 2 and that staff work with the developer to redesign on that basis. Councilman Senn and Councilman Engel voted to approve. Mayor Mancino and Councilman Berquist voted to oppose the motion and the motion failed with a vote of 2 to 2. Roger Knutson: You have no approved motion. I would also tell you if you do not act on it. Mayor Mancino: We need to act on it. Roger Knutson: You need to act on it. Mayor Mancino: Okay. Discussion. Councilman Berquist. Councilman Berquist: Well I can't in good faith.., passively that's what I'm doing by agreeing to the motion. Mayor Mancino: Yes, that is true. Roger Knutson: What you can do, just to advise you procedurally. You can divide it into two issues. Councilman Senn: Now wait now, I want to, go back Roger before you do. Okay. Steve my, and correct me if I'm wrong but my answer to that question is no, we don't know that. The reason we don't know that is we need a redesign. And until you see what the redesign comes back with, you're really not approving anything. Mayor Mancino: So you will get another say...when that redesign comes. But I think it's only fair also too to let the developer know that you know you have a concern with the wetland delineation. So it will come back. Councilman Senn: See this is only preliminary plat and we are approving preliminary plat with the following direction but effectively that has to all be taken into consideration and brought back with final plat effectively. Councilman Berquist: Discussion... Roger Knutson: Then you could specifically say in your motion to keep that alive. That the final determination on the wetlands must be resolved before final plat approval. If you think it's still... 32 City Council Meeting - September 28, 1998 Mayor Mancino: Okay, may I have another motion please? Or the same motion. Councilman Senn: Okay, let's see. New motion so I don't need to worry about amendments or whatever, right? New motion is to approve the preliminary plat to subdivide 5.5 acres into 8 single family, or not. Sorry. Not I'm getting all confused. Preliminary plat to subdivide 5.5 acres into single family lots in keeping with and conforming to city ordinances and not changing the existing platted lots already in Brenden Ponds Addition 1 and 2, right? And that the redesign should keep in mind that there are some issues on council's part over the delineation of wetland. I think that's it. Mayor Mancino: Okay, is there a second? Councilman Engel: Second again. Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Engel seconded to approve the preliminary plat to subdivide 5.5 acres into single family lots in keeping with and conforming to city ordinances and not changing the existing platted lots already in Brenden Ponds Addition 1 and 2 with the redesign keeping in mind that there are some issues on council's part over the delineation of wetland, and subject to the following conditions: The proposed development will be responsible for a water quantity connection fee of $8,553 and a water quality fee of $3,456 assuming 4.32 acres of developable land. This fee is due payable to the City prior to the City filing the final plat. If there are any modifications to the acreage or easement acquisition, the fees will be modified prior to final plat approval. All lots must conform to the City's wetland ordinance. Lot 1, Block 2 needs to be removed/relocated to meet the City's buffer strip requirements. The developer may appeal this determination through the use of a Technical Evaluation Panel. The natural wetland buffer area shall be surveyed and staked in accordance with the City's wetland ordinance. The developer will install wetland buffer edge signs under the supervision of city staff before construction begins and pay the City $20 per wetland sign. The lowest floor elevation of all buildings adjacent to wetlands and storm ponds shall be a minimum of 2 feet above the 100-year water level. The developer shall report to the City Engineer the location of all drain tiles found during construction. Drain tile should be relocated or abandoned as directed by the City Engineer. The developer shall enter into a development contract for Brenden Pond 3rd Addition with the City and provide the necessary financial security to guarantee the installation of the public improvements in compliance with the conditions of approval. The developer shall revise the grading plan to include Type III erosion control adjacent to all wetlands and provide Type I silt fence along the north right-of-way line of Lake Lucy Road and Brenden Court. Erosion control blanket shall be utilized on all slopes exceeding 3:1 as soon as grading is completed. Lots 1 and 2, Block 2 shall be designated custom-graded lots. Individual grading, drainage, tree removal and erosion control plans shall be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to 33 City Council Meeting - September 28, 1998 issuance of a building permit on Lots 1 and 2, Block 2. The first floor elevation of the homes may be up to three feet below the curb height on Lake Lucy Road. 11. The developer shall revise the plans to include a drain tile, storm sewer and catch basin to convey storm water from the rear of Lots 1 through 5, Block 1. Detailed utility construction plans and specifications in accordance with the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates shall be submitted to the City three weeks prior to final plat consideration for staff review and City Council approval. 12. Detailed storm drainage calculations and area drainage map for a 10 and 100-year, 24-hour storm event shall be submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval prior to final plat. 13. The developer shall resolve with the City the responsibility for extending sanitary sewer and water service to Lot 1, Block 2. 14. On-street parking shall be prohibited along both sides of Lake Lucy Road. 15. All areas disturbed during site grading shall be immediately restored with seed and disc-mulched or wood fiber blanket within two weeks of completing site grading unless the City's (BMPH) planting dates dictate otherwise. All areas disturbed with slopes of 3:1 or greater shall be restored with sod or seed and wood fiber blanket. 16. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies, i.e. Watershed District, MCES, Health Department, PCA, DNR, Army Corps of Engineers and comply with their conditions of approval. 17. Access to the individual lots shall be limited to the interior streets and not from Lake Lucy Road with the exception of Lots 5 and 6, Block 1 and Lots 1 and 2, Block 2. 18. The developer shall dedicate on the final plat the necessary drainage, utility and street easements to encompass the proposed street, drainage and utility improvements as shown on the construction plans for Lake Lucy Road dated June 8, 1998 prepared by RCM. Lake Lucy Road right-of-way shall be 80 feet wide. 19. The developer agrees to waive any and all procedural objections to the special assessments resulting from Project No. 98-1 Lake Lucy Road Improvements including, but not limited to, hearing requirements and the assessments as outlined in the feasibility report dated March 1998 prepared by RCM. 20. The applicant shall submit a revised landscape plan showing 21 trees. Colorado blue spruce may be changed to a different variety or species of evergreen. 21. Tree protection fencing will be required along all wooded areas at the edge of grading limits. 22. Revised landscaping plans shall also show that all proposed plantings will be located outside of the street right-of-way. Evergreens shall be located at least 15 feet from the trail. 34 City Council Meeting - September 28, 1998 23. Full park and trail fees shall be collected per city ordinance in lieu of land acquisition and/or trail construction." 24. The staff will review the wetland mitigation area to the east of the property in question to insure that there is no wetlands or water impact from the current drainage being proposed. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Roger Knutson: Mayor, last item. Councilman Engel: Roger, you just got us in trouble last time. Roger Knutson: No. I'm not going to tell you to change. Mayor Mancino: I'm glad you're here. Roger Knutson: And the reason you want the larger lot size is based upon compatibility with the contiguous plat and prior representations to the existing property owners that this is what the lots would look like and just blend better into the neighborhood. Councilman Engel: For all those reasons. Councilman Senn: I couldn't have said it better... Mayor Mancino: The motion carries and thank you. Thank you for coming. And we will take a four minute break. COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS: Mayor Mancino: Under Council presentations, 212 response. Councilman Senn, you wanted. Councilman Senn: Oh. I just wanted to, I don't know create the opportunity or have us develop some sort of consensus to do it or whatever but I was informed by one of the members of the Southwest Coalition that the Southwest Coalition was passing on their resolution to the state without our signature and was not passing on our, or addressing or taking any issue with our proposed resolution. So on that basis I think it would be wise on our part to transmit our position as well as resolution, not only to the state but to all the other member cities and counties as well so they know in fact what our position was and what our suggested resolution was since Southwest is not sharing that with them. Mayor Mancino: Well that is not true because I was at a 212 meeting at MnDOT on Friday afternoon from 3:00 to 4:00 and the Southwest Coalition was there. There were two members there. There was Anita and Charles and I were there and the City of Eden Prairie. The City of Chaska was there. And many, many people from MnDOT who I don't even remember all the names and they certainly did say that we had not signed their memorandum and that they were. Councilman Senn: Well we haven't said anything different. I said that they had said we didn't sign the memorandum. 35 City Council Meeting - September 28, 1998 Mayor Mancino: They did say that. Councilman Senn: Right. I understand. Mayor Mancino: And they did say that they were going to be working with us as a city to get together with them, Southwest Coalition and with the county, etc and wanted to get our input. So yes, they did make it very clear to the State that we had not signed it. Now, did they have ours in hand? No. Councilman Senn: Did they transmit theirs? Mayor Mancino: No. Councilman Senn: Yes. Well that's what I was told that the Board authorized transmitting theirs without our signature on it. Now, maybe I'm getting the wrong information but. Mayor Mancino: No in fact what was there was, MnDOT had made some changes in theirs because MnDOT would not accept theirs in the way it read. Councilman Senn: It goes back to all the cities again? Mayor Mancino: Yes. So it has to go back to all the cities again. Councilman Senn: Well regardless then I think we should send a copy of ours as well as our position to the other cities and stuff so especially if they're reconsidering theirs, that they at least take the issues to light that we have put on the table. Mayor Mancino: I don't have any problems with that but I think at this time I think we should wait until they get their final document in order because they don't have it in order. It was a draft that MnDOT had made some revisions on. So I'm sure that that will come back to us and I don't have a problem with that. Do other council members? Councilman Berquist: I guess I don't know what would be... Mayor Mancino: That's what I said. Councilman Senn: I mean the only way our position's going to get out there is what I'm trying to say is if we put it out there. Mayor Mancino: And that's what I'm saying. I don't have a problem with that but I think we should do it at the time when their memorandum of understanding is in final form too. Councilman Berquist: They can, if they see value to any of the points on our... Mayor Mancino: I suppose so but the other cities I don't think 212 goes through their city limits. I think that was some of the, wasn't that some of the concern that we had? It goes through Eden Prairie. It goes through Chaska at this time. Councilman Senn: Eden Prairie, Chanhassen, Chaska. 36 City Council Meeting - September 28, 1998 Mayor Mancino: Because most of our concerns had to do with where it goes through Chanhassen. What will happen at 494? And also you're right. The one part that would be important would be having a regional, we talked about starting up a regional task force to look at the area regionally. Well that's what I'm saying, the other cities it won't go through so they don't. Councilman Senn: Well Eden Prairie needs to worry about it. Chaska needs to worry about it. I mean Chaska obviously hasn't thought about it in the past. Councilman Berquist: We've been, it's been suggested in the past that we have been non communicative on this issue, right? I don't see anything wrong with being up front with our.., in the form of a motion? Mayor Mancino: No. I don't think it needs to be in the form of a motion. In fact, I don't think that letter has gone to Southwest Coalition yet. I don't think that, in fact at that meeting it was interesting because I don't think that Bob... received a copy of it yet. So yeah. Councilman Senn: Well since we approved the letter of transmittal and the revised one I think you know we should get it going and get it off. To everybody. Mayor Mancino: Well I think we'll have to talk to Karen... who it goes to and you know from what city and what players. But I also think it will be interesting to see the final form that Southwest Coalition and MnDOT agree upon .... but it's not in final form yet, I can tell you that. ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS: REPORT ON THE ADVISORY COUNCIL ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT~ PLANNING DIRECTOR. Mayor Mancino: Under Administrative Presentations. Kate just said that there's some new information coming out and that she would.., there's any action from us... but I think it's a good discussion point. Councilman Berquist: ... write the position paper? Mayor Mancino: Well we can wait to see it or do you want to discuss it a little bit right now? Take a few minute. Councilman Senn: No I wanted, I mean basically the position paper you have right now is a position paper which is effectively being put forward by one group. I mean there are quite a number of other position papers on this. Mayor Mancino: And that is the one, I think that there, from what she just said to me, there are a couple others coming out that she was going to give to us but it really does start you thinking. Councilman Senn: There's even a private industry group that was put together I believe by the governor as a study group or whatever to look at this and there was a report issue I believe by that group. I think it would be nice to get that one because it's not governmental in base. The group was not governmental in base. Mayor Mancino: You know what would be great for you to do Councilman Senn is to, if you have a couple documents that you'd like to let Kate know, or write them down and put them in her box so she 37 City Council Meeting - September 28, 1998 knows which ones to get, that you're aware of, I think that that will be helpful. But there's no question, it was just interesting to see how the Metropolitan Council budget has changed from what 15 million to 300 million dollars now and not just doing visionary and long range planning. They're also going to be doing operations. I mean it really does change it's purview and what it goes through so. If you could give that to Kate, I think that would be helpful. Councilman Engel, any? Councilman Engel: I'd like to see the paper. ADMINISTRATIVE SECTION DISCUSSION. Mayor Mancino: Any questions? Any comments? Councilman Senn: The first letter, Dave Owen. What's, well I don't know. Todd's not here so probably can't address it. I'm just wondering why. Mayor Mancino: I don't know. I have no idea. Councilman Berquist: Playground equipment? Councilman Senn: I mean well, it says moving everything off but nowhere in it does it say why. I'm just curious why we were moving everything off. Councilman Berquist: We're not. The contractor hasn't performed... Councilman Senn: No, but that's what I'm saying is why isn't the contractor getting it done? I mean. Mayor Mancino: I think that's probably Todd's way of putting him on notice because he's copying us. Councilman Senn: It hasn't been the weather. Mayor Mancino: I have no idea. Councilman Senn: I was just curious. Mayor Mancino: Any other comments? Okay, meeting is closed. Mayor Mancino adjourned the City Council meeting. Submitted by Don Ashworth City Manager Prepared by Nann Opheim 38