CC Minutes 8-23-04
City Council Meeting -_gust 23, 2004
e
o'-f <=- "2-J,O
23. 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."
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to O.
CONSENT AGENDA ITEM l(H). FRONTIER SECOND ADDITION;
SUBDIVISION OF 2.61 ACRES INTO 5 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS LOCATED AT
THE NORTHEAST INTERSECTION OF FRONTIER TRAIL AND WEST 77TH
STREET. CHARLES R. STINSON.
Mayor Furlong: At this time we'll move to item number l(h) which was asked to be
removed from the consent agenda for separate discussion. At this point, is it Mr.
Hitchcock? Would you like to, I'm sorry.
Andrew Hiscox: Frontier 2 is, well you guys know, it's a development that's an
extension of an existing Frontier 1 I guess you call it. I got notified of this last Friday
because I guess the mailings go out to 500 feet within the you know, the distance from
the property and it turns out that I'm probably 510 feet away. I live next door to the
Frontier Trail association which is adjacent to this property as well. In '94 there was a
surface water management program adopted by the city. In '96 Frontier 1 was approved.
Recommended approved and what was interesting was that they, according to Bonestroo,
is that the name of the consultant? The City approved the development and let them
develop the property where the holding ponds for those SWMP would have been, which
is kind of interesting. It's like, how could that have happened, but it did. In fact there's a
report from the consultant's Bonestroo to Lori Haak, and I'll read it to you real quick.
During examination it became apparent that the development of Frontier was constructed
after the preparation of the SWMP and the location of the two cells that were to be
located the furthest upstream. The conflicts posed by these homes and associated utilities
will not allow construction of the two upstream cells as proposed in the SWMP. So we
missed an opportunity there but you know it's happened. It's history and that's the way it
goes. What's interesting is after that, well I guess the first question is why would that
have happened and do we want to dwell on that or not. I guess probably not. When they
did approve the Frontier 1, they said the only water treatment that was necessary, or
storm water improvements was a driveway culvert. So they let them build houses where
the ponds are supposed to be for water treatment. They then said you only need a culvert
to treat the water, and that in the very near future, by the way the developer was Ted
Delancey. He did contribute money to the SWMP budget in lieu of putting ponds in,
which was recommended by staff. Then they stated that in the very near future the city
will be proposing a storm water quantity/quality pond downstream from this
development. That was 8 years ago. Still hasn't been done. Since Frontier 1 went in, I
live next door to the property. I've lived there 15 years. The amount of runoff has
probably quadrupled. Mainly in my opinion from the type of houses they built and the
way they built them. They're flat roofed. There's a lot of flat surfaces. The water then
bounces into the creek and literally in a storm, like the storm that happened Memorial
Day this year, we had 3 foot, 3 foot by 16 feet of water running to the creek into the lake.
23
City Council Meeting -_gust 23, 2004
e
In my humble opinion this is doing a lot of detriment to Lotus Lake water quality. And
when I saw the Frontier 2 was up for approval, I thought you know maybe it's time for
the city to step back and take a look and say look, as part of this maybe we have an
opportunity to fix some of this and I do understand that there is a ponding scheme in the
development. The problem I have is that the developer was part of the development on
Frontier I. The city was supposed to take care of this. They said they'd do it in the near
future and if 8 years is the near future, I guess I'd hate to see what happens with the green
space as we go forward. My point being is that I'd like to have the city staff take another
look at this and say, how do we solve this water quality problem, because it is significant.
I've lived on the lake for a long time. The clarity has dropped dramatically and I've got
an idea that says that if we just work with Frontier 1, Frontier 2 and the Frontier Trail
Association, there's a way to come up with a plan that would solve the problem. Again
in June Bonestroo has come back and done some I guess I would call them renderings of
different plans that are possible, but I guess I'd like to see that implemented before you
approve the subdivision just on an adjunct basis.
Mayor Furlong: Excuse me, just for clarification. That last point there, what was
recommended and by whom and when?
Andrew Hiscox: Bonestroo's got a memo to Lori Haak dated June 7th or renderings of
what they say can be done. The problem you get into is that they're going, they have an
easement and they're trying to get Frontier Trail Association to put up all the land for the
ponds. They don't want to do that, so there's a negotiation that needs to happen. I think
it's only fair that if you look at Frontier 1, 2 and Frontier Trail together, there's a way to
come up with a plan that would make some sense and it would be workable for all the
people. I don't think that's happened yet.
Mayor Furlong: Okay.
Andrew Hiscox: That's it.
Mayor Furlong: Good. Any questions? If not, staff, some comments? Thoughts.
Remarks.
Kate Aanenson: I just want to go through what's required of Frontier 1 because that's the
item that's before you tonight and if there is a tie in. Excuse me, Frontier 2. Thank you.
And if there's a tie in then I'll let you draw that conclusion. Frontier Trail 2 is two large
lots located on Frontier Trail. The lots in blue. It's approximately, so 5 lots on a field of
2 Yz acres. This little lot right here, the city owns and there is an existing storm water
wear structure that's pretty old. Probably put in in the sixties that's not functioning. So
in looking at this entire project. .. This is Frontier Trail again. These are the 5 lots. And
this is the lot that the city owns that we're recommending providing additional storm
water capacity. Again that right now is really kind of just a dip and so this project is very
steep falling off. We're recommending.. .to reduce the velocity on that, so this project is
picking up more than just this. If I can back out here, I know it's going to be a little hard
to see. See if I can get Justin. As identified in the storm water management plan, this
24
City Council Meeting -_gust 23,2004
e
entire area outlined in yellow is Lotus Lake area, and I'll pinpoint where we are. The
storm drainage area is actually 133 acres. It's subdivided into different, 3 different
districts so the area that this pond on Frontier 2 is actually taking up 12 acres, so it's
providing more storm water than is required on this, and most of that actually goes back
up towards Erie, and there was other subdivisions. There have been other subdivisions
on the lake that are adding to this. It's not just Mr. Stinson's development. Other
subdivisions, including this applicant here is also, or gentleman here is also, there's been
other splits up there that are impacting that. It's a very highly desirable lake and we've
seen a lot of development on Frontier in the last 2 years. So this is an older area that
we've identified in the storm water management plan to put ponding in. Just north of our
lift station on Frontier Trail, when that subdivision went in, we put a two cell pond there.
Going back to the original Frontier Trail, haven't spent a lot of time, the Water Resource
Coordinator did dig up the commission approval and gave them to Mr. Hiscox to kind of
review those, but at that time the storm water management plan was pretty new. It was
the recommendation that that's where the ponds would go. That's where most of the
creek philosophy and I know it's hard to see this with the arrow but most of the runoff is
actually coming through that creek towards the beachlot. That's the best place to get it.
Everything else is maximized. To put it on this lot with the heavily sloped area is not
going to solve the problem where this is a smaller drainage area than that whole 133
acres. Maybe I can just share with you what the recommendation was. The reason this
is, probably was found out is Mr. Hiscox's neighbor was at the meeting that Lori had and
we've been working on the designs to solve this problem over the summer months.
There was a meeting of 4 residents of the association beachlot where they're looking at
the pond. Four different designs were offered up. One being as you can see here, this is
the beachlot itself. This is what seemed to have the most legs as far as moving forward.
That would be along Frontier Trail. Increasing the capacity there. And then as you move
towards the beachlot. Yes, we have to negotiate where's the beachlot association to
advance this project, but that's the situation as we are trying to solve that bigger problem.
Again this is solving some of that 133 acres but there's also land up Santa Fe, all that also
that we will continue to look at where we see opportunities. When Paul's doing the
reconstruction project or whatever, that we can see where we can partner and provide
those opportunities to capture additional water. So if you have any questions on 1 or 2 or
where is this going, I'd be happy to answer that.
Mayor Furlong: While you described it well, I'm guessing there's some questions so.
Councilman Ayotte.
Councilman Ayotte: Going back to the situation of 8 years ago. We were supposed to do
something to provide some measure of relief and something did not happen as yet.
Kate Aanenson: Correct.
Councilman Ayotte: So to look at that separately from number 2, what should or could
be done with respect to number 1 and why wasn't it done?
25
City Council Meeting -_gust 23, 2004
e
Kate Aanenson: I can't answer that for sure. The original recommendation that the
engineering department had, and I believe that the tie in was that we just recently adopted
the storm water management plan. It identified this area, and again it's the same
consultant, Bonestroo, who had recommended based on, again this is Lori's and my
assumption that based on that's where most the water is coming down through that creek
area, that that would be the best place to put the pond. Again based on drainage patterns
and where the water's coming, not just from this area but from the larger 133 acre basin
that we're trying to provide to capture.
Councilman Ayotte: So for number 1 you gave me an I don't know, which is an
acceptable.
Kate Aanenson: No, I didn't say that. I said there's 133 acres. Mr. Stinson's portion is
just a small piece of that. We were trying to combine his.
Councilman Ayotte: That's number 2.
Kate Aanenson: Number 1. We were to combine his piece with the larger to capture
more of the treatment. The quantity and the quality of a larger area. So while we take
that all the time when we do storm water, sometimes the first person in gives us money.
The second person builds the pond. Sometimes it's vice versa. That's why we have a
storm water management plan. We decide where the appropriate place. Not every
property puts a pond in. We'd have ponds all over...
Councilman Ayotte: Well I understand that.
Kate Aanenson: Right, so the decision was made to make this a larger pond in this area.
Not just for Mr. Stinson's piece, but he's contributing to a larger pond.
Councilman Ayotte: To make a larger pond to satisfy the concern that was...
Kate Aanenson: For this whole 100 acre.
Councilman Ayotte: With number 1.
Kate Aanenson: Correct.
Councilman Ayotte: Okay.
Kate Aanenson: Correct. And Lori's been working on that over the summer and I think
that's how this meeting got communicated with the neighbors. That meeting was held
this week with the neighbors to advance a plan to see if we can get some consensus to
continue to work on that.
Councilman Ayotte: Can I ask another question?
26
City Council Meeting -_gust 23, 2004
e
Mayor Furlong: Certainly.
Councilman Ayotte: Bonestroo. Did we have another issue with runoff involving
Bonestroo a couple of months ago? Would you refresh my memory?
Kate Aanenson: I don't know anything about that. And I don't know if that was a
strictly engineering recommendation that worked in conjunction with them modeling it.
We'd have to go back and Lori just communicated the ultimate recommendation of
approval, as far as I've heard dialogue. We'd have to go back and rephrase that.
Todd Gerhardt: It's not unusual for a development to pay their SWMP fees in lieu of
building a pond. What we're trying to get away from more and more is to have these
small little ponds throughout the community. We're trying to regionalize the ponds. Less
maintenance. It also slows the velocity of that water down. So you know if they, if the
comments were correct, if they did make their payment, that was in lieu of dedicating the
land for a storm water pond. That follows in line with everything else we did with the
Medical Arts building right at the corner of Highway 5 and Powers. They did not have to
build a pond on site. They expanded the pond down in Lake Susan. That acts as a
regional treatment area for approximately 160 acres of that drainage area. So right now
we're trying to fit, I think we had a series of 4 ponds on the beachlot. That has been
redesigned down to 2 larger ones. 2 or 3 depending on how you consider the layout. I
think Kate did show the current layout. You know we need to meet with the homeowners
association more on this. There is some dramatic tree loss associated with this pond on
the beachlot, and I don't know how we get around that. I think we need to sit down and
bring Bonestroo and Paul's group in and talk about capacity ofthese ponds. Can he go
smaller? Is that going to affect the quality of that water. We need to do some additional
research on that but from this subdivision process there's no capabilities that I'm aware
of on this land to put additional ponding. As a matter of fact, we're improving it by
having them take the old pond and fixing that up to handle the additional 12 acres
upstream for on this development. So we are improving the water quality in that area.
But we definitely need more time to meet with the neighborhood and I'll get involved
with Lori and bring Paul and Kate in and those and figure out a solution.
Councilman Ayotte: I think too, saw the graphics we have to understand all that's going
on plus make decisions, fall short. Just to really, not only in terms of getting with the
community and coming up with a better way of doing business for the runoff. That's true
and then also giving us the tools to see the impact of what's been recommended. I mean
it's hard to follow.
Todd Gerhardt: Well, and you want a functional system. Something that is going to
improve the water quality. You know putting several smaller ponds in with lower
capacity isn't going to take the nutrients and the debris out of there so why invest that
money into a system that isn't going to improve that water quality I think is where Lori's
going. But the neighborhood also has a concern on the tree loss. I mean you're talking
about a fully treed, mature treed beachlot here and to see some of those 100 year old
27
City Council Meeting -_gust 23,2004
e
maples go down is going to be difficult so we need to find a plan that works both with the
neighborhood and improving the quality of that water.
Mayor Furlong: Kate, with regard to this Frontier 2. And the improvement to the
existing, call it a pond. It's a city owned lot. That's not functioning right now, is that a
fair statement?
Kate Aanenson: That's correct.
Mayor Furlong: So by what's proposed for this subdivision or the developer will do,
we're at least going to improve water quality off the 12 acres.
Kate Aanenson: That's correct. Again this is a little over 2 Yz so he's treating a 12 acre
site so.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. And with the bigger ponds that are being proposed on the
association lot, if that's the direction we're going, is that covering the rest of the 133
acres?
Kate Aanenson: No. No.
Mayor Furlong: There's other storm water management throughout the other areas, so
we're not just treating 12 out of 133 acres.
Kate Aanenson: No. There are some other ones but again you have to break it down in
those sub districts. A lot of that's actually way up on Santa Fe and that area that's
draining all the way down. Coming back towards the lake.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. And okay. Those are my questions. I'll have some thoughts.
Any other questions for staff at this point? No? Okay, thank you. Comments or
discussions for staff.
Councilman Ayotte: I think it's safe to say that.
Mayor Furlong: Certainly. If you could state your name and address for the microphone.
Steve Gowen: Name is Steve Gowen. I'm at.
Mayor Furlong: Pull the microphone over.
Steve Gowen: I'm at 7341 Frontier Trail. I'm not part of the association that you're
working with. I'm a member of the lake association and I just want to point out to you
guys my major comment is I think is I'm glad to see the work that's going on. The
planning, the effort that's going into it. I guess my comment is I'd like to see more action
moving forward and actually happening before we start continuing development of land.
That's my major topic... In other words, 8 years is too long. Okay? And we get, you
28
City Council Meeting .gust 23,2004
e
know I'm afraid that we're going to get promised that we're going to fix this drainage
pond up and then they're going to build houses and then they're going to say no we
won't. And we'll get into a big court battle about it. I don't know what will happen but
I'd like to see the orders switch around where we fix the things, put in the holding ponds
then okay the development. Let me give you some history, a little bit of history about
Lotus Lake. Again I'm a homeowner on Lotus Lake and I've been plotting kind of lake
levels. This is lake levels for last kind of 10 years of Lotus Lake.
Mayor Furlong: If you want to put that down on the, so we can see it.
Steve Gowen: It's the lake levels of Lotus Lake and I'm sorry I don't have more copies
for you all but basically you see here is that red line is what's called ordinary high level.
And it is ordinary . We get the ordinary high levels about once a year. . . every year, the
last 13 years we've hit it maybe 11 out of 13. What I didn't put on here was the 100 year
flood plain level and we've crossed the 100 year flood plain level for Lotus Lake 4 times
in the last 11 years. So that means that over the next 400 years we should not hit this
level again. Okay. Isn't that what that means? That's kind of what 100 year flood levels
means every 100 years we're going to have them once every 100 years so. The last 10
years we've hit it 4 times so.. . all the drainage off the land we've affected with the
development the amount of water going into the lake. We have affected our water
coming off. The issue is the... water that goes into the lake now and is not treated on it's
way in, okay. Plus the fact that we've got a lot of homeowners putting their chemicals on
the lake. So it's really important that you care about the water quality of Lotus Lake, that
we need to see action on solving the water quality before we allow more development.
Or let development occur and not fix the problem. I'd rather see us fix the problem and
let development go. It's either.. . little different than what we normally would see.
Because we haven't had development. When we said we were going to fix it, we didn't.
Now it's 8 years later and we have a worst problem. That's my comment is that there is a
lot more water going in that's affected the water quality of Lotus Lake
tremendously... and we haven't done much about it. And I think we should help by
saying no to development until we see more action and more plans. I'm not saying just
more plans but.. . actually doing it. Okay, that's my comments.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Comments? Any response from staff's standpoint?
Kate Aanenson: Sure. I just want to point out, yeah I understand their concern about
development on the lake but with each subdivision we put on the lake, whether it's Big
Woods, the one just north of the lift station or this one, they've all provided storm water
capacity well beyond their own development to solve the problem. Again this proposed
development is solving a 12 acre problem. So we're pecking away at that larger problem.
So it's, if this development doesn't advance, there's still a 12 acre problem that we, you
know is out there that's going to continue to go that same direction so.
Roger Knutson: Mayor, general comment. As far as just saying no to development, we
have an ordinance and the question before you is do they comply with the requirements
of our ordinance.
29
City Council Meeting -_gust 23,2004
e
Councilman Ayotte: We can't penalize this for the bigger problem but there is a bigger
problem and what I'm hearing residents say. See I'm not running again so what the hell.
But we have the same issue on another lake that I won't mention right now but the
residents have to push the issue of this and meet with staff to get resolution to the overall
plan. I'm not going to vote this down because I want, it isn't this guy's problem and to
Kate's point, it's helping a little bit but to take a holistic view of things when the
residents get together to take a holistic view and bring it to the city staff and council, not
with an event like this but with the intent of getting together to resolve the problem on a
larger issue. Go ahead Mayor, take it away.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. If I can have the floor. Any comments or thoughts?
Councilman Peterson, Councilman Lundquist.
Councilman Peterson: I don't have a choice. I mean I think that the presentation tonight
is valid because I think it reinforces that there's an ongoing and continuing issue that we
need to keep focused on. I think staff diligently has been doing that. What didn't happen
8 years ago, you know that's a little disturbing. I know we've got ordinances in there that
we've, that now we can penalize if they don't do their pond. There's hold back's and
other things that we have done and will do to make sure those things happen so we just
got to keep focused on it. It's not getting better by itself.
Councilman Lundquist: I would echo. I think there's really 2 issues going on. One is
the existing issue and the other one is this development and they're really not related
except in the fact that I think this development probably helps the overall issue because
you're actually are going to be doing some treatment and treatment of more than just the
10 acres that we're developing, so but again, I thank the two gentlemen for your
comments because it's, that's the things that we need to hear about as well and they need
to keep coming up because probably it's still falls that the squeaky wheel gets the grease
so as long as you keep bringing it up, it's a good thing but I think it's time to move ahead
with this item and get the development and get that storm water treatment on those 12 Y2
acres.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. And seconding the comments, storm water in this area, and
I've, not right now please.
Andrew Hiscox: I'm just waiting.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, I think we're going to be done before but the issue here is storm
water and water quality on Lotus Lake is something that I've heard time again from
residents on Lotus Lake and the surrounding area. Whether they're on the lake or not.
What I see here, and what.. . and so I think while there's an ordinance and we're certainly
going to follow that, I think this is part of the solution. It's not part of the problem. What
happened 8 years ago, and again the SWMP, our storm water management plan went in
in '94. That was 10 years ago. A lot of the development in this city occurred, especially
in this part of our city, prior to 10 years ago and so is there a catch up? Sure, but at least
30
City Council Meeting -4tgust 23,2004
e
we're catching up and we're making progress incrementally each and every time. As Ms.
Aanenson said with regard to the recent developments that have gone in around Lotus
Lake, we've increased the storm water management or the quantity of water managed by
our ponds in our system each and every time to try to incrementally catch back up. So in
this particular case, not only do I think Councilman Peterson's point, we don't have any
choice. I think this is a good choice to have to go forward because we are going to
improve some. And incrementally is how we're going to get it done. Staff has been
aware of this problem I know, because these are issues that came up from my standpoint
a year and a half ago that they've been working on this and I think to their credit, they
don't always get us involved in things until it makes sense to get us involved, because
they're pretty smart people and they can get things done and working with the neighbors
and the people involved so from my standpoint, I think this is a good project to go
forward on. Storm water management is an issue throughout the city. It's something that
we dealt with in terms of pond sharing, this, what's the one we just approved? Century
Plaza. That's another parcel that's sharing a pond that was over sized before so that's
just part of the way it works and you pick up opportunities where you can. I see this as
an opportunity so from that standpoint I think this council should go forward here. I
encourage the staff to continue to work with the association. Continue to pursue the
storm water management plan in this area. That's how we're going to clean up the water
on Lotus Lake and just manage it throughout the process so from that standpoint sir I'd
like to keep the council moving on this if we can so.
Andrew Hiscox: I just have one quick comment. The infrastructure that we're talking
about has not been touched for 40 years. You wrote your own plan in '94. You violated
it in '96. 8 years later you've done nothing. Zero to solve this problem and you continue
development. This same developer developed a lot across the street. He tore down the
vegetation and I'm not trying to pick on him. I want more houses being built. Ijust think
you need to look at the infrastructure before you go forward and if this one gets passed,
that's the way it goes.
Mayor Furlong: Sir thank you but the points that were just made is that this is an
improvement. This is an improvement and other properties as they subdivide, either
contribute dollars to the storm water management plan for future pond development or
they build in excess capacity and so I think to your point, development will occur. What
we need to do is incrementally recapture from a storm water quality standpoint and
incrementally improve our storm water, especially in this area. Not letting these
developments go forward that give us an opportunity to improve the water quality I think
is a mistake. Does that mean that we stop working on the issue with the Frontier
Association? No, we keep working on those and we look for opportunities to do that so
we appreciate your comments and know that they're not, that we've heard them. That we
need to improve the water quality and storm water quality. I think this is one way that we
can get that done.
Councilman Lundquist: Mr. Mayor I would move that we approve item l(h)(I) and
l(h)(2), the motions as set forth in the council packet.
31
City Council Meeting .Ugust 23,2004
e
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Is there a second?
Councilman Ayotte: Second.
Mayor Furlong: Is there any discussion?
Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilman Ayotte seconded to approve Frontier
Second Addition; subdivision of 2.61 acres into 5 single family lots located at the
northeast intersection of Frontier Trail and West 77th Street, Charles R. Stinson:
1) Preliminary and Final Plat Approval.
2) Approval of Development and Construction Plans & Specifications.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to O.
Mayor Furlong: And thank you gentlemen, seriously. That completes our items of new
business this evening. We'll move forward to council presentations.
COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS:
Mayor Furlong: Just a quick comment. I was out at the kids triathlon sponsored by the
Miracles for Mitch Foundation yesterday and Lake Ann Park was just packed with young
children that were getting ready to swim, bike and run and all for the purpose of helping
out sick kids. Kids with cancer and it was great to see. They estimated they had about
300 participants there. I was told that Edina, which has a children triathlon, has been
running it for a number of years a couple weeks ago had 340 children participate and this
was 300 for the first time they did it so congratulations to the foundation and to all those
involved for the great job of marketing and getting people involved. It was a really fun
event to be a part of.
Todd Gerhardt: There was a nice article in the Tribune today about it.
Mayor Furlong: Good. Thank you. Any other presentations from council? Thank you.
ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS:
Todd Gerhardt: I met with Southwest Coalition Group on Highway 5 upgrade. This is
our coalition group, Chaska, Waconia, Victoria, Carver. Their efforts in the past have
been to push Highway 212. Now their main goal is to continue to see Highway 5
upgraded out to Waconia. As MnDot is moving ahead and upgrading their 10 year plans,
this is not included in those 10 year plans at this point. Paul and his staff will be working
hard with Carver County Engineer, Chaska Engineer, Waconia and Victoria to try to get
Highway 5 upgrade into that 10 year plan. There will be several meetings between now
and I think September 10th when the coalition meets again to put a case together for those
improvements. We're looking particular in seeing Highway 5 upgraded to 4 lanes to
Victoria and also a signal at Minnewashta Parkway. I think the coalition has agreed that
32