Loading...
CC Minutes 6-11-07City Council Meeting - June 11, 2007 06 until June 25, 2007. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. LOTUS WOODS SUBDIVISION; LOCATED SOUTH OF FOX HILL DRIVE, EAST OF CARVER BEACH ROAD, NORTH OF BIG WOODS DRIVE, AND WEST OF LOTUS LAKE; APPLICANT, PAUL EIDSNESS: REQUEST TO SUBDIVIDE 7.6 ACRES INTO 11 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS AND 1 OUTLOT WITH A VARIANCE TO ALLOW A 50 FOOT WIDE STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY. Public Present: Name Address Karen Lokkesmoe 581 Fox Hill Drive Bob Amick 581 Fox Hill Drive Mary Borns 7199 Frontier Trail Steve Donen 7341 Frontier Trail David Igel 501 Big Woods Boulevard Paul Otto, Otto Associates 9 West Division Street, Buffalo Kate Aanenson: Thank you Mayor and members of the City Council. This application before you is to subdivide 7.6 acres into 11 single family lots and one outlot and it includes a variance for a 50 foot wide street. The subject site itself is located on Lotus Lake, adjacent to Carver th Beach Road. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on this item on May 15 and did recommend 6 to 1 to approve the development. The property itself includes 4 underlying parcels and it's staff, working with the property owners, it's always best and trying to do a lot, work together with the property owners. This property at one time was one parcel. That was split off last year so a portion of that parcel, into 3 property owners. So the applicant, the function that they have is…is that they're neighbors and the layout of the property itself works out better as far as…any extractions and just a better layout. In looking at the overall acreage, the density of 1.4 to 1.6 is in the density range, they're on the lower end that is allowed on residential single family. Typically in a residential single family it's closer to 2 units for most. The plat itself as I mentioned includes 11 lots. The larger lots are the existing homes which will remain adjacent to the lake, and then the additional 8 lots adjacent to Carver Beach Road. The applicant's requesting a variance to the 50 foot right-of-way. When we did the Big Woods subdivision, at that time staff anticipated as we tried to…did provide a stub street. In working with the property owners at that time and considering that they did keep their homesteads…to the west and coming off of Carver Beach Road. So keeping with existing prevailing development patterns, street widths, including Big Woods, the staff did recommend the variance for the 50 foot wide right-of- way. All lots do meet the minimum lot area and depth. I'm not going to spend a lot of time on the plat. The lot width itself, it does have the 60 foot box triangle which was an issue and I'll go back, circle back to some of those comments. There is a wetland on the site. Outlot A. It's heavily wooded around that wetland itself. There is no impact proposed for the wetland and I'll talk a little bit more about the preservation of that itself. When this plat was platted it showed additional foot and a half as you recall we recently changed our wetland buffer so the wetland it will be reduced just a foot and a half to be consistent with the new wetland regulations. And that 9 City Council Meeting - June 11, 2007 would affect just for a little bit of the buffer on Outlot A. 8, excuse me. The lake itself, all the lakeshore lots are in compliance with the lakeshore but there is one existing accessory structure that's on the property that's in non-conformance but it's a legal non-conforming. Grading and drainage. There was a lot of issues brought up on this at the Planning Commission regarding where the drainage is flowing. I'll go through this briefly and if there's some more technical questions, I'll ask it for the engineer. This is the existing property area and where it's draining to right now. So a lot of the drainage right now is going into the lake. So with the proposed development there will be a storm water pond that's taking up all of this. This is going into the lake and this is going into the wetland, so actually improving the pre-treatment of the water in this area by creating a storm water pond which is located on Lot 7… And the question that was raised by the neighbors was the concern of the overall area, the pre-existing, it doesn't have a storm water pond. This project itself is not increasing that portion of it. We're looking at a larger pond in this area to treat that water and that's in the works right now but that's separate from this project itself. There is a retaining wall, actually 3 retaining walls along the storm water pond. Two on the north, one for the pond, and one on the south side of the pond. And there will be easements around that… Councilman Peterson: Kate, how close is that house going to be to that pond? Kate Aanenson: That's the box itself. If you look at the plan of the house, that's a 60 by 60. They showed house plans for all that. The storm water pond, it would be about 30 feet. If you reduced it, if you went the entire length of that. The house coming out…this is the entire buildable area. This is the 60 by 60 box… Councilman Peterson: Okay. Councilman Litsey: Kate, is that pond going in at the time of the development? Kate Aanenson: Correct. Councilman Litsey: And water eventually will hook into, not to jump ahead of you, but that will eventually hook into the improvements the city's going to be making down the road to the drainage? Kate Aanenson: You want to answer that? Paul Oehme: Sure. We're designing that pond to facilitate future connection to the regional pond in this area, if and when we can oversize the existing pond to handle the capacity for this development. Councilman Litsey: That's the pond across Carver Beach Road. Paul Oehme: Right. Councilman Litsey: Existing now and behind Big Horn Drive, in that area? 10 City Council Meeting - June 11, 2007 Kate Aanenson: Right. Did you want? Does that answer your question? There is an issue regarding, there was, there is a berm along here. There was some additional runoff… This is picking up their own water so it's not going to affect that part of it. There are utilities for the site. Sewer and water, I'm not going to spend a lot of time going through that. I did talk about the street variance. Again that would be a Fox Hill Drive and Carver Beach Road and Big Woods and why we recommended the 50 feet, because that's the prevailing right-of-way that was developed in that area. And the parks and trails, the park commission looked at this regarding, there's not a lot of sidewalks and trails in that area. They didn't look at…additional sidewalks at this time. They also felt that there was adequate parks in Carver Beach providing for that, but park commission, as well as the park director felt strongly about preserving this Outlot A. So when this plat originally came in there was a lot on there so through negotiation and meeting with the park commission who visited the site and worked with the property owners, is acquiring Outlot A and the calculation for the acquisition was…through the wetland itself. It's just the upland and that's where the significant amount of trees were, but it's intended to be a preservation area. So as part of the extraction, as far as taking land…buy that property. Excuse me, instead of taking cash, they'll buy the property with that. Mayor Furlong: And it's going to be that Outlot A will be dedicated to the city as a part of the subdivision. Kate Aanenson: Correct. It will be the property of the city. And at one time they were looking at some improvements in the stormwater pond. In order to do that you'd actually omit some of the trees so it's kind of a self defeating thing so in the end we decided just to accept the property. On page 14 of the staff report, it's the compliance table of all the lots. Also you see the maximum coverages so all the lots are in compliance. Modifications reflect the 60 by 60 square. On the plans before did show house pads. I don't want to split hairs but there's a technicality in the interpretation of whether it's a box or plan or a square but the builder did show plans. One of the issues that was also brought up at the Planning Commission was architecture review on a single family home. We don't do architectural review unless it's a planned unit development and they have specific architectural control. We did do that on Big Woods and typically what we know is value of the lot that's going to affect the home price so…half million, $750,000. So what we included also in your packet under the findings for the subdivision and then also the Findings of Fact for the variance. Then I did want to go back to the beginning of the staff report. There were some other issues that were raised by the homeowners. I'm not going to go through all them. They were detailed in the staff report. I'll just highlight a few, and if you do want me to go back to the other ones, I'd be happy to do that. We did talk about concern about additional runoff into Lotus Lake and the impacts to Lotus Lake itself. There was concern with discharge. I believe that…specific questions on that again have been addressed through the engineer. There were some questions on rain gardens and 90% of storm water, and they can't make those numbers work, but certainly the fact that we did acquire, use the park extraction to acquire the Outlot A says a lot about trying to preserve some of that. Then there's an issue on lot sizes. Again it's on the lower end of the density, 1.4 to 4 units an acre. It's 1.2 to 4 is what we require…1.6 acre which again is pretty large lots. And again there's one that's just slightly over 15…in excess of the minimum. The proposed road is directed toward an existing house. There was a neighbor that did provide, if you're coming up this street where the car lights shine. If I can have you zoom in on this, just this portion of it. Again so if you're coming…the car lights 11 City Council Meeting - June 11, 2007 shine in. And they would like to see the road realigned. We asked the engineers to do that. We think that can be accommodated. One of the recommendations here…there is some significant trees in this area. This lot is oversized. We think we can make that work without getting, this would be the area…Outlot A and not have to make that lot bigger…then it's taking away from the what we're trying to preserve. So I think we can have that accommodated. Again for the record, between preliminary plat and final plat changes are made based on what you recommend tonight so if it came back for final plat, this may be one of the changes and we would note that in the minutes so it would change if that's your recommendation but we believe that can be accommodated. Another question too about lighting. Additional street lights…engineering can maybe make a couple comments on that. It is the policy to have street lights and we did put that in that report and we did want to put the street lights in per policy. Paul Oehme: Sure. Real quickly there are, staff has recommended that we install 2 street lights, one at, the two street lights would be at the intersection of Fox Hill Road…and the Carver Beach Road. At the intersection there. We typically we just put street lights in as needed basis at intersections. This is like the intersections that we'd be using, you know traffic, public trying to see where the streets are, those type of things. There are street lights at the corner of Big Woods currently and Carver Beach and then also at the intersection of Big Woods. Kate Aanenson: Right through here. Then the other question was regarding traffic, in the area. Additional traffic in the area. Based on the size of homes, that may generate some other services, that there'd be more trips. th Paul Oehme: Currently we did on June 4 we did take an active count out on Carver Beach Road. There's about 300 trips per day on Carver Beach Road, between Fox Hill and the next road…because they're both narrow, and 8 additional lots is…minimal impact. Additional trips in this area so approximately 80 additional trips for… Kate Aanenson: And then finally, the last comment I was going to address was the 60 by 60 pad. We did show those on there. What was on the other one, as I said before, was approximately location of the house. Again a house is generally not built in a square. But what the yellow shows is additional buildable area. For example on Lot 8, I mentioned there was a wetland buffer here so that's a…buildable area. For example there's an easement over the storm water pond but there is additional…outside the 60 by 60 for a patio, those sort of things. So they do meet all the requirements of the zoning district. So with that, the Planning Commission and staff is recommending approval with the conditions in the staff report and I'd be happy to answer any questions. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Any questions for staff at this time? Councilman Litsey: Kate, my concern has to do with the storm water pond. And it's capacity and I'm just wondering if we're not putting this project, cart before the horse so to speak in terms of, until that storm water pond is in place and what Kate you're saying is this is going to go into the existing pond across the street. Across Carver Beach. Kate Aanenson: No, it's not going to. No. This is the pond up here. 12 City Council Meeting - June 11, 2007 Councilman Litsey: Right. Kate Aanenson: So that's where this water is going so actually if you compare it to where it was going before, a lot of it was just sheet flowing into the lake and into the wetlands. There is a berm here…reduce the amount of sheet flowing into the lake… Councilman Litsey: But it makes, this is the plan though, to take some of that water out of that storm water pond into that more natural pond across the street, then it would flow into there...and then come down the ravine. Kate Aanenson: It can in the future but this also can function independently of the two projects. Councilman Litsey: So there's no chance that it's going to flow out and channel down the road…? Kate Aanenson: Do you want to address that? Councilman Litsey: My concern is Lotus Lake's already got water quality issues and if that were to occur, that's going to be pretty unfiltered water when you have an opportunity here to have that water going to an existing pond first to be filtered. Kate Aanenson: That's how it is right now. But we're sending it to a storm water pond. Right now it's sheet flowing across untreated. So with this subdivision, what you're getting, the benefit that you're getting is a storm water pond. That's what you. Councilman Litsey: Now it's natural…you know this is going to be channeling, we'll changing the whole make-up of it and what I'm concerned about is this development going in, and I'm not against the development per se. I just think it's premature to approve this until that storm water pond can connect with the existing pond across the street. If that were to take place, then I don't think I'd have a problem with this, but I think that in my opinion we should hold off. Kate Aanenson: Right, well, I'll let Paul. Paul Oehme: To answer it real quick. The pond's been designed for this development. It's designed like any other NURP pond that we put in in the community. It's designed for rate and water quality control so by itself this pond will treat the development as it's proposed here tonight. Again the outlet to the pond will be directed into, currently it's designed to direct into a ditch along Carver Beach Road and then into the drainageway to Lotus Lake. And that area we feel has the necessary capacity to handle the flows from this development. The issue, the over sizing the regional pond in this area, you know would, you can get, it's nice, from a city standpoint, a maintenance standpoint, it's nicer to put storm water into regional ponds for maintenance purposes and for water quality purposes, but this pond and the drainage into the proposed pond for the development meets all of our requirements for storm water quality and rate control so. I don't know if that answers your question or not. 13 City Council Meeting - June 11, 2007 Councilman Litsey: Well it answers it but it just seems to make a lot more sense if we're looking at protecting the water quality in Lotus Lake, which is already…why don't we everything possible to try to filter the water as much as we can. We're got a regional pond right across the street. The City's making improvements to it next year. Wouldn't it make a lot more sense…put it in there and then go forward at that time. I mean have Jill and Lori looked at this for environmental and water quality…what their recommendation, I don't know. You tell me I guess. Kate Aanenson: Well I think Paul just answered the question. How we have to look at it, what our rules say is does it meet the requirements of the storm water, and it does. In a perfect world and if we don't have that pond sized because that's a pre-existing condition that it's not being pre- treated, so we have to go back and solve the bigger problem with a lot more study to find out what size we need that. What if we get it to such a size it can't handle additional water on the other side. We're hoping it can but those are all part of the study, so to tell this person to wait until they may or may not be able to put their water in when they are managing their water. It meets the requirement of the law, that's what we're saying, that if it meets the intent of the law, that we would recommend approval because they are managing their storm water within the regulations of the city. Councilman Litsey: …disagree but I think there's a better solution and maybe you have to look at the greater good there. I think for development, if they waited, that pond could handle it. The regional pond, I think that would be… Mayor Furlong: Let's continue with questions for staff at this point. If there are any others. If not, is the applicant here this evening? Is there anything you'd like to address the council on? If you'd like to introduce yourself…questions, either one. Paul Otto: Good evening. I'm Paul Otto with Otto Associates and I'm representing the applicants in this case. They are here as well if you want to talk to them. And I can clarify a little bit on the pond, if you would like and somewhat on the design… We did work pretty hard with the staff back and forth on where should the pond outlet. Those type of issues. We first wanted to do this, what you're saying there, is incorporate it into the other pond. However, at this time the pond does not have the capacity for our site so we looked at okay, well we're going to have to do it internally. Obviously it takes away some of our area so that wasn't something that we were real positive on doing but working with staff we came to the conclusion that a storm water pond…to outlet across to the other storm water, and then across Carver Beach Road into the ditch…that pond can handle the subdivision. I think it's in the city's best interest one, to have this storm water pond there to begin with. It reduces some of the strain on that. It can be piped into that other pond very easily, either through piping and/or re-grading so it was looked at pretty in depth here. Staff about how to deal with this. I think you're getting to probably the best scenario that we could for your storm water. I mean in a perfect world it might be a little better to put it in the other one but we are treating it so, I don't know if you have any other questions but I can answer those if there are any. 14 City Council Meeting - June 11, 2007 Councilman Litsey: Well I don't agree with the statement in a perfect world because I think we have the opportunity…delay the project a little bit but it's in the best interest of the city to preserve the… Councilman Peterson: Just to clarify, you said that if it's determined that we can't fit it into that other pond…now or? Paul Oehme: Yeah, we preliminary looked at it from a staff perspective and there's wetland issues out there. There's treed lots that would have to take place. There's a bunch of grading that would have to take place. We haven't completely modeled the upstream watershed either so we don't have a good feeling for exactly how much, how much we need to oversize that pond at this time so there's quite a lot of if's out there in my perspective. Councilman Peterson: So if we ultimately decide that it can fit in there…pump it in there? Paul Oehme: No, you should be able to pipe it in there. Paul Otto: Our storm water's coming across and we have a… I don't know all the particulars of that pond so I can't say for sure who exactly you're getting into it, but just looking at some of the elevations, it looks like it should be relatively, just piped, not pumped. Paul Oehme: That does have piping proposed in it's development and we concur with that. The outlet, the storm water pipes that are being proposed, they can easily be used in the future if we want to direct movement, storm water into the existing pond. Mayor Furlong: In terms of the, Ms. Aanenson talked about the possible realignment of the road. Is that something that you think is doable without going back into Outlot A? Paul Otto: Yeah, we have looked at that and we can, we've got something submitted on there. I don't know if we can move it exactly as far as the resident proposed but we moved it as far as we can...and stay within the 15,000 square feet. Mayor Furlong: Okay, good. Any other questions for the applicant at this point? If not, okay. Thank you very much Mr. Otto. There was a public hearing held at the Planning Commission. We received copies of the notes. We have the verbatim comments made by interested parties at the Planning Commission so I don't want to re-hash the public hearing but I don't know if there have been changes to the plan here that, there's a desire for public comment by anyone. If there is, I'd invite them to come forward at this time. Mary Borns: I'm Mary Borns at 7199 Frontier Trail and I am a member of the Citizens Advisory Council for the Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District, as well as a board member of the Lotus Lake Clean Water Organization. And in looking at this plan, I'm questioning if I was subdividing it and wanted that pond to be most efficient, I would put it at the lowest…and have it grab water from all of the lots, similar to what they did at Big Woods. Big Woods runs through here and their pond, which has a fountain, is located approximately here so all the water is…to the one pond. And it looks to me, and I think Kate, what Kate is saying is that all of this water 15 City Council Meeting - June 11, 2007 goes into the lake, as it has for years. So they're not improving and if they have a chance to make improvements and they're not doing it, then these other lots runs through this way which my memory, I'm not sure that this is the low gravity point for this number of lots. …higher than down here and if there isn't a back-up plan available in the future for this, and it overflows, then does it flood the houses adjacent to it or, I mean I assume that that would flow into the lake from that pond one way or another if it's not vacant but if I was planning this, I would put the pond, even though this is private property, I would put it in the lowest point so it… And let's see, my second thing on here is, Bob Obermeyer from the Barr Engineering which has done some reports for the district and for the city and he had commented that the district needs to approve if there's over 1 acre of disturbed or altered land and so has this been approved by the watershed district? Kate Aanenson: …they won't approve it until we get official…it is a condition of approval. Mary Borns: Okay. Mayor Furlong: So that's something that occurs between preliminary and final. Kate Aanenson: Generally they will not approve it until… Mary Borns: Okay. Kate Aanenson: All properties, subdivision, that is a recommendation… Mary Borns: So there's a copy at the watershed district? Kate Aanenson: That's correct. Mary Borns: Okay. Kate Aanenson: …copy of distribution for all agencies… Mary Borns: I know that the district is trying to make a positive effort with all the, with the cities of Eden Prairie and Chanhassen which there are 12 lakes in the district are, between the two cities and so I'm sure they'd be, it may have made more sense to look this over with them before all the plans were drawn up but at any point it's good they'll be reviewing it so that was one of my questions. And so does this meet the standard where Bob Obermeyer had said that the rates of runoff need to be kept to the existing rates and…urban runoff standards for 2 inches of rain. Kate Aanenson: Yes it does… If you look at all the rates, all the…that's where they're draining into the lake. So what we've done is reduce what's draining into the lake right now…so everything in here is being treated. On these 8 lots and then what… Mary Borns: Is it possible to put in a pond in one of these pre-existing homes? Kate Aanenson: We haven't done…if someone wanted to do it… 16 City Council Meeting - June 11, 2007 Mary Borns: And is this by gravity, is this lower than the elevation is, this pond? Kate Aanenson: All the water's going into this pond… Mary Borns: And you've mentioned that they haven't done a SWM report. They haven't done any modeling on the water, the amount of water and the direction that it will flow. Paul Oehme: Well they've modeled the development itself. We have not completed our models or the upstream model of the existing pond. Mary Borns: Is it the SWM model or SWMP model? Paul Oehme: Well we use the…CAD. There's several different models you can use for it. Mary Borns: You use what? Paul Oehme: Hydro CAD. Mary Borns: Hydro CAD. Okay, because it seems like the SWM model is the most advance software possible where they can. Paul Oehme: Yeah, XP SWM is one model and the Hydro CAD's another model. They're both approved. Mary Borns: And so our concern is just that they do this up to these national standards because we do, we are making major efforts to get Lotus Lake off the 303D list where we have a D rating and so the Lotus Lake Clean Water Organization, we've been to numerous meetings and are working with the watershed and have proposed a 10 year plan to try to clear up the lake and we're just trying to make sure at the same time that we're not moving in the opposite direction with other efforts throughout the city. And that's it. Thank you for your time. Paul Oehme: One note of clarification too. We did, staff did look at putting a pond in the lower lots, Lots 1 through 3. There's limited area to put a pond. The grades are somewhat significant in this area and also the back yards of these lots are encumbered by sanitary sewer with a utility easement through there so typically we try to avoid putting a pond over those type of utilities. Kate Aanenson: Is that pretty…lots along the lakeshore there. Do you have that… Mayor Furlong: Okay. Steve Donen: Steve Donen, 7341 Frontier Trail. Just a general comment about kind of a mass balance, and maybe you can guys can help me with mass balances here. Just if you, for my simple mass balance and I'll start out from the studies that have gone on, impervious surface is when you go, do and develop land around lakes or watersheds the, before development occurred there's a general rule about 90% of the water gets infiltrated into the ground and about 10% of it 17 City Council Meeting - June 11, 2007 goes into the watershed or into the lake. Okay, that's what generally happens if there were no homes, no development, no cities around any sites. Okay. So with that said, they also have done the study that showed once you do do development and you develop the watershed and you put all the impervious surfaces in, that about 50% of the water now flows into these watersheds, without being infiltrated into the ground. Okay. So even though you guys say there's less water going into Lotus Lake, the only thing you've done is, you've created more area with less pervious. You have done that. So more water has to go somewhere, okay. It doesn't get infiltrated. It just has to, it's a fact. Okay. And it all does go into… It just goes a different route. Okay. Paul Oehme: Correct. Steve Donen: Okay. The other thing is is that if you look at what's happened over the years to like Riley Creek, Bluff Creek, the watershed district is going to spend millions of dollars to fix those creeks up because as cities are developed, and you guys in Chanhassen's one of those cities that affects that. Now the water that flows into those creeks now has gone up and it's gone up a lot in the modeling, from the SWM models has shown it's even going to go up even more. Okay. So my issue here is, I mean you guys are right. You've followed all the rules and the staff's done a great job on this whole analysis. They really have. It's a lot of requirements on the developer and I'm hoping that the developer follows them all and we do a nice job of inspecting to make sure he does, but in the end this is either going to go into another creek or it's going to go into this ditch I heard you say. That's the ditch right? Okay. Well that ditch is now going to take some more water. Okay. It's going to take a lot more water. Okay. Going into that ditch. So I…stand here fooling ourselves thinking there's no more water going into Lotus Lake. There is more water going into Lotus Lake. It has to go there. There's only one place it can go to because it can't go into the ground. Yes, it's going a different direction but it's going in, okay. So I'm glad that we have this storm water pond out there. That's good and I'm glad to see it. I'm glad to see we left our undeveloped area with the trees and stuff, that's really good too. And the water that is going into the lake, directly into the lake now is less so that's good. But it is all the same amount of water that's going in. Actually more. I'm sorry, more is going in. You can do a simple mass balance on it. If I have 100 pounds of water fall in this area, before it was developed 10 pounds of it was going into Lotus Lake. The other part was going to get infiltrated into the ground. Now I'm generalizing. I know we have clay soils and all that kind of stuff so it's a little different okay, but 50 pounds are now going to go in. As far as extra water's going to go into the lake in the developed area. Impervious ground, okay. So that's just a study. Just general…okay. But it is more, okay. And we need to be aware of that when we start looking at these things. The pond should help with the phosphorous levels but we need to do models to make sure we get the flows right. The flows are bad. Lotus Lake went up 17 inches in one day. One day 2 years ago. …5 1/2 inch storm event okay. So the water in Lotus Lake is getting there faster and the speed is just as important in that ditch, right, as the… Now I understand the pond will have an outlet on it that's probably limited size so it doesn't do the ditch too much damage, okay, so I'm sure that's right. But I challenge the City Council to think of other methods in the future because right now we don't have regulations and I've got the staff report response, the findings and I can't argue with those, but I strongly recommend that you start with your staff. Ask your staff to start working on recommendations around rain gardens, okay, because that's the solution that helps. Okay. Not putting curbs in. Putting in rain gardens now. Like you do 18 City Council Meeting - June 11, 2007 the excavating now to get the slopes right and in the future. Now we can't right now because we don't have regulations or the proper design, recommendations in place so I challenge you all, ask your staff to please start to look at setting up regulations and guidelines for the proper use and management of rain gardens in future development opportunities, okay. Otherwise… So that's all I have to say. Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. David Igel: Good evening. My name is David Igel. I live on 501 Big Woods Boulevard and I just wanted to say up front that I'm not opposed to good development at all. As a matter of fact we had developed with the help of Mr. Otto's firm, Big Woods on Lotus Lake on the south side. I live on the very last lot. I'm not sure if there's a large enough scale that shows that or not, and that's okay if there's not but, okay. I live right there. The creek as it comes through, or drainage ditch, depending on who you kind of ask, comes right through my yard and in the storm event that we had that was just referred to, it came through my yard and through my house and did several tens of thousands of dollars in damage and I think we had done that right, that had actually been before you folks just as a resident on a previous division that was up just north of Highway 7. What I would just implore the City Council to look at, and I talked to the staff about it before, is the timing of reviewing this pond that we're talking about as a possibility as a NURP pond, for a couple reasons. The first is, in this area here there's a great grove of trees and you know trees, I did notice in the previous version of the staff report, and I think as it went before Planning Commission and perhaps this is the same one I just didn't catch it but, but it was noted by the city staff that if there was some movement in that plan upward that that water could be dealt with different, it would save a substantial amount of trees which are pretty important in that corner. If that can't be done, I think, I'm sure that it meets the guidelines but you've got a real storm water issue and I don't mean just when you get the 12 inches of rain in the 2 hours or whatever it was that we were hit with. The ponding around there, the water just flowing completely unfettered through the streets. There's no storm sewer there. No ditches there. No rain gardens, which I think would be an excellent example. I don't, I'm not implying that this project should be held up. What I would love to see the City taking the more rapid approach to that because there continues to be property damage. I just had a conversation with a gentleman at the end of Big Horn who had substantial property damage. It's erosion on a daily basis and it's not good for the lake, the people and sometimes people's hands are tied who can do things with private property, hands are tied in terms of what they can do. So if there's anything that could be done to move that up. Take a closer look at it. Again I don't want to say that this project should be delayed for it but if there was a better solution that could be found, you could preserve a much better look in the trees. This is a high point. I'm sure it's been looked at and modeled but by the looks of what I've seen in the sketches, my concern would be living in these houses here too. If it overflows beyond what's accessible through the ends or the emergency overflows, it's going right into those guy's house. The other thing that the gentleman just before me had said, it's treated water. Certainly having gone from the hard surface and being treated in this pond, then into a ditch and then into a creek or a drainageway, which I know the city has done some work there replacing some of the shores that had been eroded but I think you've got to take a fast look at check dams. At multiple ponding throughout. I'm certainly no expert on that but living right there, watching the creek all day, every day. Well, I try to get something more productive done than watch the creek I guess but living there and seeing the creek where it used to be after rain 19 City Council Meeting - June 11, 2007 events things would kind of slowly taper down. That rain, that water comes just blasting through there and I think less and less is preventing it and more and more gets washed out so I would just ask the council for not just my home and property and lakeshore but for Lotus Lake, and I'm sure there are several other lakes that are facing you know similar impact and that would be the one thing I'd really, really ask you to take a serious look at and you know if there's anything that I can do as an impacted resident that would help would certainly be happy from that perspective. Thank you. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Mr. Gerhardt, Mr. Oehme, any comments on the timing of that, look at that more regional scoping study? Todd Gerhardt: As Paul mentioned this is not an easy project. We haven't completed the modeling. We need to look upstream for potentially additional capacity. It's our number one priority coming into 2008. We'd love to get an engineer on board to start completing the modeling. Get some plans and specs together here hopefully by December-January to get good bids and get it started this coming spring. It's our number one priority. Mayor Furlong: So in 2008 you're referring to actual work being done. The construction. The planning would occur this year? Todd Gerhardt: Well I don't want, I don't want to speak for my staff. Depending on what the findings are. You know that would be our number one goal. But depending on the findings you know, it depends. But it's definitely something that is a concern. Mr. Igel has a problem and on those large rain events, it goes right up to his house and we do have a sewer line that goes through that area also so we have to make sure that that, we did correct that area. But it's our number one priority from a storm water standpoint for going in 2008. Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Anyone else in terms of just public comment on this project? Steve Donen made a comment from the audience that was not heard on the tape. Kate Aanenson: I just want to add one thing as Steve mentioned. …and Paul talked about Dogwood…is working through design issues and who's going to get the bigger impact of it and that's… That's where it takes a lot more time so we certainly understand… Mayor Furlong: The engineers can't just do whatever they want to? Paul Oehme: Not in this town. Mayor Furlong: Not in this town. And in which town can they? Haven't found it yet? Todd Gerhardt: Kate brings up a good point. I mean we just got done with the Dogwood hearing here and it's going to take a community effort on this and if we need an easement or expand the boundaries of our storm water ponds, we have to work with the residents in that area to make sure it's accomplished and you know, we've got a great staff. Lori and Paul and Kate are great with working with neighborhoods. You heard it from the Dogwood people and that's what 20 City Council Meeting - June 11, 2007 we'll do on this project also. But the first thing to do is to model it and determine what the flows are and where they're coming from and where you need to put the ponds. And then get a contractor in there and start working on it. Mayor Furlong: Alright, thank you. Any other public comment? Okay, thank you. Appreciate that. Any follow up questions for staff? We've talked a lot about storm water and quality and quantity. The rate of flow or the quantity of flow and then the quality of the water, and I think getting back to Councilman Litsey's issue, as I understand it, and if I'm misunderstanding just let me know but rather than treating the water here in the pond, bringing it into the more regional when that's upgraded and approved. Is the design of the pond going to be any, going to create any difference in terms of the quantity or the quality of the water coming out if we do this as is being proposed here or if we, if we can size it to handle the capacity, do that down the road. And are the standards the same for what we're modeling against? Paul Oehme: Well it's always nicer to put drainage into larger regional ponding. We've heard that you know, Steve Donen mentioned that larger, that the phosphorous removal in larger ponds is more efficient than smaller ponds, but does the proposed pond for the development meet our standards and from the engineer's perspective they do. Mayor Furlong: And those are national standards. Paul Oehme: Those are national standards and standards that we've adopted. Mayor Furlong: And those are the standards we're going to be working with on the other projects? Paul Oehme: Absolutely. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Paul Oehme: So the regional pond does help treat the water but the pond that we're looking at, the issue we have with that pond is the larger rain events. The 5 and the 6 inch rain events. Steve again mentioned that the 5 1/2 inch rain event. The issue that the lake bounced 17 1/2 feet was because that pond blew out, so we had a large inundation of water into that lake because that pond blew out. Now staff did repair that pond to it's best ability. We put some more rip rap in there and tried to stabilize those slopes but we tried to address it the best we can but the ultimate fix is to go in there, model it and make sure, and try to increase the capacity of that pond as best as we can. Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Obviously an important issue, especially around all our lakes is storm water so it's good to see we're spending the time on it. Any other questions for staff? If not, how about discussion on the proposal before us. Councilman Litsey: Well I'll start out. As a property owner that will be impacted by the regional pond, I mean I'm going to do my part for the better good. I mean so when I speak here it could have an adverse affect perhaps on my property but I understand the significance of it for 21 City Council Meeting - June 11, 2007 water quality too so. I think we have an opportunity here to get it right. I think this project is premature. I think that the city and staff and the developer have done a good job of working through a lot of issues. The variance makes sense. The layout overall is pretty good. I think the storm water pond is a good thing. I think we need that even if it was going to go into the regional pond to help. I just think it's too soon. I think that if we move ahead and we take a close look or make it a priority to do some things with the regional pond and the developer comes back at that time and I'd look favorably on it. I just can't right now. Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Other thoughts. Comments. Councilwoman Ernst, thoughts? No? Councilwoman Ernst: No. Mayor Furlong: Councilwoman Tjornhom? Councilwoman Tjornhom: For one thing that whoever did the staff report, I really appreciated the issues and questions raised section. That really I think helped a lot understanding. Kate Aanenson: Sharmeen. Councilwoman Tjornhom: Sharmeen. Thanks Sharmeen. I think it's a good project. I understand Councilman Litsey's concern but it does meet our standards right now and so for that reason I feel comfortable moving ahead and forward with it but…I think this development has raised and brought awareness to everybody on the issue of the lake and the storm water and it was a good discussion tonight you know talking about it and realizing for everybody in the room that it is a priority and it needs to be a priority and we need to keep that momentum going and make sure that we clean up Lotus Lake a little bit more so with that I will move approve it. Motion to approve it. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Councilman Peterson. Councilman Peterson: Really it goes back to the question I asked Paul earlier is, if the pond, if the pond we're talking about can, can move it's water into the regional pond, if we decide that that's the best, if we can do that later on, in a year or in 18 months or 2 years from now, then I don't see a reason why we wouldn't approve it because I'm at a loss, and you might help me. If we would build a pond exactly the same way this year or next year, and the question is whether we put a pipe in there, whether we can put a pipe in there, then what are we gaining by a delay? Maybe I'm missing something. Councilman Litsey: I think it's pretty clear from what's been said that the water quality would be enhanced if you could put it in the regional pond first. What's going to, I'm real familiar with the area because I walk through there a lot and what's going to happen is if that storm water pond overflows, even if it has high capacity, it's going to, it's not going to get filtered as well as it would if it went through the regional pond. And therefore affecting the lake quality more because if it goes into the regional pond first, it will get filtered. Then it goes through the 22 City Council Meeting - June 11, 2007 spillway and down. Through the culvert but that's my concern and if it's only, if you're looking at next year. Councilman Peterson: So are you saying then that if, that the model say that we shouldn't put that water in there, that you wouldn't approve the project? Kate Aanenson: That's the unknown question. We don't know if we can put this water…how much coverage will it take to make it work and so…if they can handle another pond, then we've covered ourselves… Councilman Litsey: And like a lot of things we take a look at, I want to know that first. I want to know if that's a possibility. If it isn't, yeah then we've looked at that. Councilman Peterson: Roger, do we have any basis to turn it down? If they meet our current ordinances. Roger Knutson: It's your judgment to make that judgment as to whether they meet code and ordinances. From what staff's saying, they've made a judgment that it does, but you'll have to make an independent judgment on that situation. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Any other thoughts? Councilman Peterson: No. Mayor Furlong: Okay. It's amazing we spent a lot of time on the pond because that was one of the challenges that I was having with this development but not as much for the reasons that we've talked about tonight in that to the extent that that pond is being designed to handle the water. To manage the runoff. The added runoff from this area and improve the quality of that water to standards and to improve quantity of water to our standards. Then to me the pond is functioning correctly and it can be engineered to do that, and we do this across our city everywhere else. All the water. I think Mr. Donen said, all the water eventually ends up in the lakes, right? And so it's a question of how it gets there and from an engineering standpoint, can they manage the rate at which it gets there and can they improve the quality of the water when it gets there. To the extent that this pond is meeting those standards, the same standards that will be applied at the regional pond and the uncertainty with regard to whether the regional pond will be able to handle this water without an intermediate pond or not, I'm struggling to say because of that pond itself, why we shouldn't approve it. It seems to meet our ordinances. It meets the requirements that we set out and the engineers have said that. You know my concern was more a part of the pond and how it takes up part of that lot but I think that's another issue and again from an ordinance standpoint, which is what we're reviewing, you know it meets our current ordinances. The overall it's a reasonable development. I think it's a good development in some aspects. Especially with regard to Outlot A and for my standpoint and so I asked Mr. Otto that question, if there is that realignment of that street, Ms. Aanenson, I think that should be accomplished as much as possible but I don't think we should intrude into Outlot A because that's on the wetland side and it's, but it looks like there's room to do that and so I think that's a fair accommodation to the neighbors to try to realign that road. We spent a lot of time on storm water. I think we've 23 City Council Meeting - June 11, 2007 covering that. With regard to street lights, I know that's been brought up. We talked about this, you know it comes with all the time but street lights are something that is our standard in the city and something that we want to put in when we can and so I think at those intersections, that should certainly be done. So overall I think it may not be perfect for everybody but it is, it's a development that meets our ordinances and that's a standard that we're asked to judge upon and if there are changes to those ordinances, then we should do that. Part of the challenge is, if we don't like the ordinances, would it be fair to this developer to come in who's developed a plan within the ordinance, to wait until we can change our ordinance so they have to redesign their plan and is that a fair and just process to follow so overall I think to the extent that I believe it does meet our ordinances, I think we should go ahead with the approval knowing that if the capacity of the regional pond allows this pond to flow into it first and back and we get some additional treatment for the area coming off this, you know that's certainly something we should consider to the extent it can and with that regional pond modeling, take a look at all the runoff in the area. There's a lot more runoff going through that regional pond than these 8 lots are going to be, and if this pond is managing 8 lots, then at least we know we're doing the best we can there and let's look at the regional ponds to do a lot bigger effect on water that's coming all the way up to Kerber Boulevard and down and a lot bigger area. So I think we should move forward this evening and understand the desire on everybody's part to do our best to improve water quality in Lotus Lake. I don't think that is for debate here this evening. The issue before us is does this development meet our ordinances. I believe it does and I think we should move forward. Any other comments or thoughts on this? If not, is there a motion? And I didn't catch what page it was on? Do you have a page number for the motion Ms. Aanenson? Kate Aanenson: It starts on page 16 of the staff report. Councilwoman Tjornhom: Mr. Mayor I'll make a motion that the City Council approve the preliminary plat for Planning Case 07-09 for Lotus Woods Subdivision for 11 lots and 1 outlot with a variance to allow 50 foot right-of-way as shown on the plans dated received May 4, 2007, prepared by Otto Associates, subject to the following conditions 1 through. Kate Aanenson: 36. Councilwoman Tjornhom: 36? Okay, thank you. Kate Aanenson: …look at the realignment of Lotus Woods Drive at Fox Hill…the realignment of the headlight issues. Mayor Furlong: To work with staff? Kate Aanenson: Yeah. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Kate Aanenson: That'd be condition number 37. Councilwoman Tjornhom: Condition number 37. 24 City Council Meeting - June 11, 2007 Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Is there a second? Roger Knutson: And that includes adopting the findings? Mayor Furlong: Adopting the Findings of Fact? Councilwoman Tjornhom: Adopting the Findings of Fact. Councilwoman Ernst: I'll second that. Mayor Furlong: Motion's been made and seconded. Any discussion? Councilwoman Tjornhom moved, Councilwoman Ernst seconded that the City Council approves the preliminary plat for Planning Case 07-09 for Lotus Woods Subdivision for 11 lots and 1 outlot with a variance to allow a 50-foot right-of-way as shown on the plans dated received May 4, 2007, prepared by Otto Associates, subject to the following conditions: 1.A wetland buffer 25 feet in width shall be maintained around all Manage 1 wetlands. All wetlands and wetland buffer areas shall be protected by silt fence during grading. Wetland buffer areas shall be preserved, surveyed and staked in accordance with the City’s wetland ordinance. The applicant shall install wetland buffer edge signs, under the direction of City staff, before construction begins and shall pay the City $20 per sign. Principal structures shall maintain a setback of at least 30 feet from the wetland buffer edge; accessory structures shall maintain a setback of at least 15 feet from the wetland buffer edge. The wetland buffer and wetland buffer setback shall be shown on the plans. 2.The SWPPP shall be revised to address all items that are unchecked in the Carver SWCD “Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan Checklist” attached to the April 11, 2007 letter to the City from the Carver SWCD. 3.Stable emergency overflows shall be provided for the proposed pond on site. The emergency overflows shall be clearly labeled on the plan and a detail shall be provided. 4.All riprap/fabric at the flared end section shall be installed within 24 hours of flared end section installation. 5.The ditch section west of Carver Beach Road that receives stormwater from the stormwater pond shall be stable prior to receiving discharge from the site. 6.Erosion control blanket shall be installed on all slopes greater than or equal to 3:1. All exposed soil areas shall have temporary erosion protection or permanent cover year round, according to the following table of slopes and time frames: 25 City Council Meeting - June 11, 2007 Type of Slope Time (Maximum time an area can Steeper than 3:1 7 days remain open when the area 10:1 to 3:1 14 days is not actively being worked.) Flatter than 10:1 21 days These areas include constructed storm water management pond side slopes, and any exposed soil areas with a positive slope to a storm water conveyance system, such as a curb and gutter system, storm sewer inlet, temporary or permanent drainage ditch or other natural or man made systems that discharge to a surface water. 7.Manholes with two-foot sumps shall be installed as the last road-accessible structures prior to discharge into the stormwater pond. 8.Chanhassen Type 2, Heavy Duty silt fence shall be installed around all wetlands, streams, creeks, bluffs and ravines; Chanhassen Type 1 silt fence shall be used around the remaining areas. 10.A temporary sediment basin shall be constructed prior to disturbing upslope areas. The areas of temporary sediment basins shall be labeled on the plan. A temporary outlet structure (e.g., a perforated riser and rock cone) shall be provided for the pond; a detail shall be provided. 11.Inlet controls are needed for all inlets throughout the project and shall be installed within 24 hours of inlet installation prior to casting. Filter fabric held down by steel plates with 12 inches of ¾-inch rock over each cover may be used. Once casting of inlets takes place, inlet controls shall be installed within 24 hours. Inlet protection shall be maintained on a regular basis. For all inlet protection devices, details shall be provided in the plan and in the SWPPP. 12.Street cleaning of soil tracked onto public streets shall include daily street scraping and street sweeping as needed. 13.At this time, the estimated total SWMP fee, due payable to the City at the time of final plat recording, is $31,996.00. 14.The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies (i.e., Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency) and comply with their conditions of approval. 15.Applicant shall submit a landscaping plan showing 72 trees as replacement plantings. All trees shall be native species. Plan shall specify size, species, and locations. 16.All areas outside of grading limits shall be protected by tree preservation fencing. Fencing shall be installed prior to grading and excavation for homes on each lot. Any trees shown as preserved on plans dated revised on 5/1/2007 must be replaced at a rate of 2:1 diameter inches if removed. 26 City Council Meeting - June 11, 2007 17.No grading shall be allowed on Outlot A. 18.A minimum of two overstory trees shall be planted in the front yards of Lots 1-8, Block 1 19.All structures within the proposed right-of-way or within the required setback of Block 2 must be removed. 20.Building Official Conditions: a.A final grading plan and soils report must be submitted to the Inspections Division before building permits will be issued. b.Demolition permits must be obtained prior to demolishing any structures on the site. c.Retaining walls more than four feet high must be designed by a professional engineer and a building permit must be obtained prior to construction. d.Separate sewer and water services must be provided to each lot. e.Any existing wells and on-site sewage treatment systems on the site must be abandoned in accordance with State Law and City Code. 21.Fire Marshal conditions: a.A 10-foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e., street lamps, trees, shrubs, bushes, Xcel Energy, Qwest, cable TV and transformer boxes. This is to ensure that fire hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated by firefighters. b.Fire apparatus access roads and water supply for fire protection is required to be installed. Such protection shall be installed and made serviceable prior to and during the time of construction except when approved alternate methods of protection are provided. c.No burning permits shall be issued for trees to be removed. Trees and shrubs must either be removed from site or chipped. d.Fire apparatus access roads shall be designed and maintained to support the imposed load of fire apparatus and shall be serviced so as to provide all-weather driving capabilities. Pursuant to Minnesota State Fire Code Section 503.2.3. e.Fire hydrant locations are acceptable. f.Proposed street name is acceptable. g.Temporary street signs shall be installed at street intersections once construction of the new roadway allows passage of vehicles. Pursuant to 2002 Minnesota Fire Code Section 501.4. 22.Outlot A shall be deeded to the City in lieu of payment of park dedication fees. 23.Revise Sheet 2 of 12 to show “House Type C” on Lots 5 and 6, Block 1. 24.The two accessory structures along Lotus Woods Drive must be removed before grading commences. A plan is needed to allow all the existing homeowners access to their properties until the completion of construction. The existing driveways west of Lotus Woods Drive will need to be removed upon completion of Lotus Woods Drive. 27 City Council Meeting - June 11, 2007 25.Rational method calculations and delineation are needed for the sizing of the storm sewer. Also, add the ordinary high water level of the wetland to the plans. 26.The outlet pipe to the on-site pond must be directionally drilled under Big Woods Boulevard and discharge into the ditch in Triple Crown Estates. 27.A revised grading plan will be needed to address the following issues: a.The lowest openings of houses must be three feet above the ordinary high water level or one foot above the emergency overflow. b.Lots 2 and 4, Block 1 elevations need to be revised if they are indeed walkouts. c.The slopes of the driveways on Lots 6 and 8, Block 1 appear to be more than the 10% maximum and need to be revised. d.Spot elevations must be shown at each proposed intersection to ensure the curb line has a .5% minimum slope. e.Ground (i.e. non-paved) surface grades shall not be less than 2%. All emergency overflows must be shown on the plan. More contour labels are needed. Also, please turn off the tree layer so it is easier to read the grading plan. 28.An easement is required from the appropriate property owner for any off-site grading. A temporary construction easement will be needed for the installation of the manhole on Lot 1 of Big Woods on Lotus Lake. If importing or exporting material for development of the site is necessary, the applicant will be required to supply the City with detailed haul routes. 29.The existing retaining wall in the southwest corner of the site must be removed before or during construction of the pond. A building permit is required for all retaining walls four feet tall or higher and must be designed by a Structural Engineer registered in the State of Minnesota. 30.The watermain extension from Fox Hill Drive must be wet tapped. Due to the alignment of the watermain in Fox Hill Drive, it appears that this connection cannot be done under traffic. The watermain connection on Big Woods Boulevard shall connect to the provided stub and take place under traffic. The sanitary sewer connection on Big Woods Boulevard connecting to an existing stub shall be completed under traffic. 31.Actual elevations of existing utilities must be verified for accuracy. Proposed service connections along with connection details must be added to the plans. 32.Each new lot is subject to the sanitary sewer and water hookup charges. The 2007 trunk hookup charge is $1,669 for sanitary sewer and $4,485 for watermain. Sanitary sewer and watermain hookup fees may be specially assessed against the parcel at the time of building permit issuance. All of these charges are based on the number of SAC units assigned by the Met Council and are due at the time of building permit issuance. 33.All of the utility improvements are required to be constructed in accordance with the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. The applicant is also required to 28 City Council Meeting - June 11, 2007 enter into a development contract with the City and supply the necessary financial security in the form of a letter of credit or cash escrow to guarantee installation of the improvements and the conditions of final plat approval. The applicant must be aware that all public utility improvements will require a preconstruction meeting before building permit issuance. Permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies will be required, including the MPCA, Dept. of Health, Carver County, and the Watershed District. 34.The sanitary sewer easement will need to be changed from 20 feet to 30 feet to ensure proper access for maintenance of this line. The actual location of the watermain and the easement must be shown to determine if the easement is sufficient. 35.The site distance for turning onto Fox Hill Drive must be verified. Upon project completion, the applicant shall submit a set of “as-built” plans signed by a professional civil engineer. 36.Sheets 2 through 12 shall be revised to reflect the adjusted property lines.” 37.The applicant shall work with staff to realign the street connection to Fox Hill. All voted in favor, except Councilman Litsey who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 4 to 1. Mayor Furlong: Thank you everyone. Appreciate all your efforts. COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS: None. ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS: None. CORRESPONDENCE DISCUSSION. None. Mayor Furlong: If there's nothing else to come before the council this evening, we will be continuing our last item on the work session in the Fountain Conference room immediately following our adjournment. Is there a motion to adjourn? Councilman Litsey moved, Councilwoman Ernst seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. The City Council meeting was adjourned at 8:30 p.m. Submitted by Todd Gerhardt City Manager Prepared by Nann Opheim 29