Loading...
CC Minutes 8-28-06 City Council Meeting - August 28, 2006 1. The applicant shall evaluate the potential for wing walls between the patios on the three- plexes. 2. The single family, two-plexes and three-plexes shall be built as shown on the elevations and floor plans dated received August 18,2006. 3. The applicant shall submit two additional colors for the Hardie Board siding. 4. The applicant shall add a pitched element above each entryway to further add to the articulation of the roof line. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to O. Councilman Lundquist: Did we do the site plan too? Mayor Furlong: Did he get the site plan in there? I thought he did. You got all of them didn't you? Councilwoman Tjomhom: Yes. Mayor Furlong: That's what I thought. Very good. REQUEST FOR INTERIM USE PERMIT FOR OFF-SITE GRADING FOR THE DISPOSAL OF DIRT FROM THE HIGHWAY 312 CORRIDOR ON PROPERTY LOCA TED AT 1560 BLUFF CREEK DRIVE AND 1425 BLUFF CREEK DRIVE AND SOUTH OF THE HENNEPIN COUNTY REGIONAL RAIL CORRIDOR AND BLUFF CREEK DRIVE. APPLICANT ZUMBRO RIVER CONSTRUCTORS. Paul Oehme: Mayor, City Council members. Zumbro River Constructors is, are the contractor for the 212 improvements and they're looking at additional site disposal for excess material for this project. They have discussed several opportunities with existing property owners out here for disposal of excess material and they have requested that the City Council consider Interim Use Permits for this grading. Staff has reviewed these applications. We are in favor of one site. And the other two, we're requesting that the council consider denial. The sites are all located on Bluff Creek Drive. One off of Hesse Farms Road and two off of Bluff Creek Drive as shown here. The new 212 alignment is shown. The first I'd like to just go through each of these sites real briefly. The first site is the site off of Hesse Farms Road. Mayor Furlong: Is this Site # 1 in the staff report? You're going to take them in order? Thank you. Paul Oehme: Yes, I'll try to do them in order. Mayor Furlong: Okay. 31 City Council Meeting - August 28, 2006 Paul Oehme: The actual site is just off of Bluff Creek Drive, like I said, by Hesse Farm Road, right at the comer here. Approximately 35,000 cubic yards of material are requested to be brought to this site. Graded and approximately 22 feet of material will be placed in this location. Currently the site is kind of a low lying area. There's existing I think water and fence line up here. If this application is approved, several trees would have to be removed and either topsoil taken off and stock piled and re-graded out here. The site would be restored, seeded I believe and restored in that fashion. Two issues that the staff has concerns with. One is traffic along Bluff Creek Drive. The other is still drainage. In the background we put together, the main issue that was raised there was the access. The truck traffic on Bluff Creek Drive. If this application was to move forward, we'd request that the items 1 through 9 be considered for approval as well. With 35,000 cubic yards of material, we're estimating about 3,500 trips per truck. 3,500 truck trips out here to deliver the material, which is fairly significant on Bluff Creek Drive. Bluff Creek is a collector roadway. It does have the structural capacity to handle those type of trips. However there would be some degradation associated with those trips. We would request that access, if approved, be brought off on Hesse Farm Road and not off of Bluff Creek Drive since that is an urban section, curb and gutter which potentially damage the street. The other issue is drainage. Again this is kind of a low lying site. Most of the existing site does drain to kind of the west, southwest area and more or less sits here. I don't believe there's a culvert underneath West Farm Road to drain this area right now. The applicant has shown preliminary drainage patterns in this area that do show the water running more or less existing location but they also do show drainage off to the east into West Farm Road. The West Farm Road is a private drive. However there is no culvert at this location, basically at Bluff Creek Drive and West Farm Road to handle some of the drainage that the applicant is proposing to drainage way. Naturally this is one of the higher points of the whole area as well. Another issue that we feel would negatively, could potentially negatively affect the property owner to the west. This is low lying area. I mentioned water does sit here from time to time. However this area is being built up. All the drainage now is being forced on the adjacent property with no outlet, which does raise some concerns for staff. I do not know if the property owner has discussed that with the adjacent property owner but it's an issue that has been raised and staff continues to feel it is an important issue that has not been addressed at this time. The second area, or interim use permit area is #2 in your background. It is off of Bluff Creek Drive. This area is proposed to place 90,000 cubic yards of material into a relatively flat area. The area does slope generally to the south, southwest. Bluff Creek Drive is the higher elevation area. Approximately 27 feet of fill would be brought to the site. Kind of a cross sectional area. What potentially that will look like looking from north to south, actually from, this is the south location and this is the north so the area will be brought up significantly from it's current condition right now. It's a com field but there is an existing property just to the south of here, Bed and Breakfast that potentially could receive some negative impacts because of the fill in this area. It's being proposed to be placed. If council does think this application should move forward there are 9 items in the background that staff would recommend you'd include in the application if it were to move forward. Again drainage is an issue out here too. They are showing a tow ditch on their property, on the south side of the, south side to handle drainage currently here, I'm showing the Bed and Breakfast right here. There is no other structures that are out here. Another issue that was raised, a matter by our water resource department is the Seminary Fen is potentially is a recharge area so those issues should really be addressed before any material would be brought to the site. The third and final site is the very north site, along Bluff Creek Drive. This site is proposed to be, this has 32 City Council Meeting - August 28,2006 30,000 cubic yards of material brought in. Currently the topography does drain to the west towards Bluff Creek Drive. With the 30,000 yards of material to be brought in, about 27 feet in some areas. The grading would cross section would look similar to this. Again this being the existing contours and the proposed grading is shown here so. Staff has looked at the drainage in this area and traffic. There's a lot, for construction purposes, material be brought in. ZRC is proposing to bring in this material, off Bluff Creek Boulevard so we will not have any other.. . our collector roadway out here. Drainage wise we have looked at that again and we don't see any potential negative effects because.. .so we are in support of approving this site 3. At this time, if council has any questions, I stand to try to answer them. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Questions for staff. Councilman Lundquist: Paul, in looking, if I did the math, you've got 150,000 cubic yards you're looking to put somewhere, right? Paul Oehme: Correct. Councilman Lundquist: And staff is supporting one site at 30,000. Paul Oehme: That's correct. Councilman Lundquist: So where's the other 120 going to go? Find another place to haul it to? Paul Oehme: Find another place to haul it. The applicant can address that but they are hauling a large volume of material off site. They are looking at other sites throughout the corridor to deposit this material so any of these type of grading. . . by ZRC, they would have to go through the same process as they're talking here tonight, unless they are wanting a corridor. Councilman Lundquist: You call it an interim use permit but they don't ever intend to take that material back out of there do they? Paul Oehme: That's correct, no. Councilman Peterson: Good point. Councilman Lundquist: And is this typical as we do road projects to be doing this as you go along or is this driven by some other change that came up with a design build project and these are the details you hit when you get that far along? Paul Oehme: These are the details that they have with this size of a project. I believe when we started a project, there was approximately 2 million cubic yards of excess material that had to be hauled off site, so it's in the best interest of both MnDot and the contractor to find sites close to or at one of the corridors to deposit this material. They are building noise berms, or berms, sight berms along the corridor currently right now to deposit some of this extra material too, so they are looking for sites specifically along the 212 corridor and now we're getting into other areas off 33 City Council Meeting - August 28, 2006 the corridor in residential or private areas, or potentially that will benefit both the contractor and the project. Councilman Lundquist: Then the owners out there by the Hesse Farms, have you spoken, or have you gotten feedback from them at all? We've got some from the bed and breakfast, gotten feedback but the other site. Have you gotten any feedback from them at all? Paul Oehme: Just in your background. I've not received any other feedback from the property owners on Hesse Farms in the last week. If we would have received any additional comments, we would have put them in your packet earlier or included them at this time. Councilman Lundquist: Okay. Todd Gerhardt: Mayor, council members. The two sites, the 90,000 cubic yard site next to the fen, our biggest concern there is the impact on the fen itself and it is a very sensitive area and the amount of fill going in there, you know not having an environmental study in front of us, that's a question of concern. Whatever you do, activity in that area, we see red flags going up so that's our number one concern there. As to the Hesse Farms site. We have not contacted the property owners to let them know that we are, staff, recommending denial of that site which is contrary to what the Planning Commission recommended. There is drainage concerns, that Paul mentioned there, and the possibility of pushing water onto a neighboring property. Until those issues can be resolved, staff is recommending denial of that site. And as to the site to the north, that one looks as if we can accommodate them on that location. Councilman Lundquist: So would it be staffs intention to look further at that other site on West Farm Road and look at that more? Or would you say that they'll find another... Todd Gerhardt: We'll work with ZRC like we have on all their projects. We've looked at a variety of different berms along the corridor but you know, I give credit to Paul for going out there today and checking this site out. Concerned where's this water going to go? It's flowing one direction. They're showing it back flowing in another. Can that culvert handle it? Pushing the water onto the neighbor. Better to address the issue now until the neighbor has a pond in his back yard that he's never had before. Councilman Lundquist: So better to address the issue by denial or address the issue by not making a decision on that one and looking at it more? Todd Gerhardt: You can deny it. Table that one and we'll work with ZRC on that site. There is a benefit to the land owner to give him a more usable piece of property with the fill in there versus the hole he has now. But we'll work with them. You know we're not trying to have then push the dirt someplace else but we want to make sure that we know where the water's going and that it can handle it. Mayor Furlong: Any questions? Mr. Oehme, you mentioned the number of truck trips, and I believe I wrote down accurate for the number 1 site is 3,500. So you're assuming about 10 cubic yards per trip. Okay. And it's staffs recommendation that if that one was approved. I know 34 City Council Meeting - August 28, 2006 you're recommending denial but if it was approved, that the access to the site be made off West Farm Road, is that correct? Paul Oehme: That's correct. Mayor Furlong: So you'd have trucks turning off. So the 3,500 is really 3,500 coming down Bluff Creek and turning onto West Farm. Another 3,500 coming off West Farm onto Bluff Creek. Paul Oehme: That's correct. Mayor Furlong: So in terms of traffic impact you've got, it's a round trip. There's 3,500 round trips as opposed to one ways. Paul Oehme: Correct. Mayor Furlong: Which would be 7,000. And I don't know if you mentioned it but in Site #2, am I right that that's about 90,000 so for, so that would be 9,000 trips coming in and another 9,000 coming back onto Bluff Creek? Okay. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions? For staff. Okay. Thank you. Appreciate it. Is the applicant here this evening? Applicant: Yeah. Mayor Furlong: Anything you'd like to address to the councilor comments? Applicant: No, I appreciate you listening to the issue and if we do want to move forward with the other site down there off of Farm Road, drainage issues until a later date. Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Any questions for the applicant from council? No? Okay, thank you. Appreciate you being here. Any questions or, we have a representative from the Planning Commission here. Anything you'd like to address the council in terms of sense from the Planning Commission what's different I think on one of the sites. Number 1... Debbie Larson: Well one of the things. Mayor Furlong: Why don't you come on up to the microphone so we can get you on. Thanks Debbie. Debbie Larson: I'm Debbie Larson, Planning Commissioner. One of the issues that was brought up, and I didn't hear it tonight was the timing of the trucks. The school bus. So I don't know if that is something that needs to be discussed further or not. That's really. Mayor Furlong: Yeah, and I think that issue, and thanks for raising that. The issue was the timing of this project would be, obviously with school starting next week, during the first part of the school year and a number of weeks through September, October, November. 35 City Council Meeting - August 28, 2006 Debbie Larson: More like during the day you know. Like the trucks... before buses or during the day when the buses aren't running just because of the, you know and I don't know what age groups are in those neighborhoods and what. Mayor Furlong: Alright. Mr. Gerhardt, you have some information? Todd Gerhardt: Yeah. Mayor, council members. In the Findings of Fact there's a summary table that took into account the bus traffic, and the one that we're recommending was to have the trucks Monday through Friday from 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.. We thought that would be a 6 hour window that they could haul when the buses and everybody could get to work without the interruption. Debbie Larson: So there's no kindergarten traffic that would be going on... Todd Gerhardt: There may be in the afternoon. You know I guess we were assuming the middle school, high school kids coming home but usually there's a noon hour in there and when the first part of morning kindergarten... Debbie Larson: And I don't know what the dynamics for that neighborhood are. Maybe it's not even an issue but. Todd Gerhardt: I'm sure there's a bus stop there. I don't know how many kids are there but that's how we addressed it from a staff level was to give them a 6 hour window sort of the afternoon. Stopping. Debbie Larson: That's all I have. Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Since there's nobody else in the council chambers, I won't ask for public comment. But bring it to council for discussion or other questions or comments. Councilman Lundquist: Mr. Mayor, I would agree with staff on, the northern most site. Mayor Furlong: Site #3. Councilman Lundquist: It's close to the action so to speak, where things are going. The one at the bottom of the hill, I think that one, there's a lot of reasons, not just the fen but a lot of reasons, unfortunately happens to be the biggest one. So that will be a lot of dirt we'll have to find a spot for I guess. The second one, or the other one on West Farm, I would I guess like to see a table on that action and then let's look at it more if that's what we want to do for that. I am pretty concerned about the traffic on Bluff Creek. I know it's a collector road but it's only a 30 miles per hour road and in addition to the Hesse Farms on the east and west side, they've also got oh half a dozen or a dozen properties that access directly onto Bluff Creek as well, and that's a 30 miles per hour road. I know it's one that our deputies like to sit on as well and you know trucks running on there as well. I'm not sure it's the best use but if you wanted to look at that more. If we wanted.. . so I would be in favor of the northern and table the middle one and no to the south one. 36 City Council Meeting - August 28, 2006 Mayor Furlong: Okay. Councilwoman Tjomhom: Are you saying? Mayor Furlong: He'd be in favor of #3. Councilwoman Tjomhom: Okay. That's... Mayor Furlong: Opposed to #2. Site 2 in the staff report and open to other information on #1. Councilwoman Tjomhom: And I think I'd ditto. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Alright. Councilman Peterson. Any other comments Councilwoman Tjomhom? Councilwoman Tjomhom: No. I think he said it all. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Alright. Thank you. Councilman Peterson. Councilman Peterson: Isn't there a movie about that where you aren't supposed to say ditto? Councilwoman Tjomhom: I don't know. Councilman Peterson: I won't ditto that. I'm comfortable with 3. 1 and 2, you know it seems as though our roads would be used extensively and you know I don't know how much damage all that many trucks, that much weight has on the roads but I know it's not, it's better not to do it than just do it. I know that. That being said, the only people that are benefited by that are ZRC and I can respect their request, and the landowner potentially. And the City isn't getting anything out of the deal except roads that are deteriorating. So you know as far as 1, why? And we aren't responsible for getting rid of the dirt. You know. I like to be helpful when we can, but it's costing us. And it's going to cost the citizens something down the road. And I don't think we're getting anything for it. So 3, yes. 1,2, no. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Councilwoman Tjomhom: And this is. Mayor Furlong: Councilwoman Tjomhom. Councilwoman Tjomhom: This is worth discussing this. This dirt has to leave obviously. It has to go somewhere so what route will it take? Paul Oehme: Well not a city collector road or city street. Right now ZRC is required, their haul route off of MnDot, trunk highways or country roads. So there's no truck hauling on city streets. 37 City Council Meeting - August 28, 2006 Councilman Lundquist: A lot of that stuffs been going out Pioneer and then down Audubon out to Shakopee. Paul Oehme: Yeah, across the river. There's a dump right now. Councilman Peterson: So I'd be interested to hear you guys' thoughts as it relates to you know, what are we getting for it? Councilman Lundquist: Well I don't disagree with you. But you know in the spirit of trying to work with that, I mean I'm not a huge fan of having dump trucks driving up and down Bluff Creek either... That road is yeah, it's built for, as a collector road. It can probably support it and all that stuff but you know, I mean it's just not the road that I would envision having 7,000 trips by dump trucks driving up and down it. No, but what I heard tonight is you know, if we want to look at it more and see what the impacts on the drainage and some of the other stuff is, if the contractor wants to look at it and staff wants to look at it, I'm willing to look at it. That doesn't mean that when it comes back up I wouldn't say no anyway but at least willing to look at it in the spirit of trying to find a place to put the dirt somewhere. Councilwoman Tjornhom: With this issue I don't think that was, was that brought up in our report. The wear and tear on the roads. Mayor Furlong: I think traffic. Paul Oehme: Traffic was the issue. Mayor Furlong: Number of trips. Councilwoman Tjornhom: Okay. Mayor Furlong: In fact I think there was a request for some escrow funds as well. For possible damage. And I guess my comments would be similar to, you know on number 2 and on number 3, I think we're all on agreement there. On number 3, that makes sense. It works. It takes, there is no traffic. Any requested off of city streets that really don't, it doesn't fit. There's no storm water drainage on neighboring property owners, so we're not creating some problems for someone else who would benefit. I think we're all comfortable on number 3. Number 2. Yes, the fen is in the proximity and when your, storm water drainage will be an issue there. I think there's going to be an issue there as well to the property to the south and east. To the bed and breakfast. If you look at those topography lines, they're going to build it up, and that's the way it's going to go. It's going to go south and it's going to go east, and that's a significant change in storm water drainage. And there, I mean 90,000 cubic yards. 9,000 trucks one way. 9,000 the other way, and the topography of that land right off of just to the south of Bluff Creek falls off pretty quickly so you're going to have trucks coming up the hill trying to get enough power to make that turn, both coming in. Coming out. I just think it's going to mess up traffic significantly, and that ultimately is my concern with number 1. The traffic counts. You know with these number of trucks on that road, even if you're turning onto West Farm Road, you're still going to have the trucks slowing down to a virtual stop or swinging out in front of the 38 City Council Meeting - August 28, 2006 oncoming traffic to get on there. Do the same thing coming back out because of the width of Bluff Creek. It's just, they're going to have to use the whole width. Councilman Lundquist: Well... Mayor Furlong: And you know, we don't have control over West Farm but I don't know how that road is going to handle it either, so. Really the drainage obviously is an issue. If they, if staff can get comfortable with the drainage, I don't if that's going to do anything about the number of trips, and I think that's a reasonable issue as a council to look at is where does the, I mean there's a cost effect on the wear and tear on the roads, which Councilman Peterson appropriately raised. There's also an indirect cost of just virtually shutting down that road with the staff report said every 2 to 3 minutes in some cases. It would be, the road, traffic would be stopped for the trucks to get in and out. I mean to do that for a number of weeks, I just think that's beyond a reasonable request given the volume that they're bringing in. Number 3 works because it isn't affecting traffic on any of our roads. Not creating any drainage problems to somebody else. So I think number 1, or excuse me, number 2 and 3, we're all in agreement on that. I get back to number 1 and again, Councilman Lundquist to your point. If they want to work on it, I think they're willing to do it and I always appreciate their willingness to do it, but I don't know if that's going to get us over the traffic count in the end so. If there's a desire to, and I guess I would not be opposed to tabling number 1 for the simple reason that Mr. Gerhardt said that they haven't informed the property owner that staff was recommending against the Planning Commission. I don't see anybody here. I'm surprised that they're not here but that to me would be the reason to do it, just for fairness to them. To make sure they're aware of what we're doing. But at the same time, and if they can work with some of the stormwater, and at least either confirm staffs fears or alleviate it, but that's only one half of the concerns that I think I've heard tonight and that's the truck traffic so. So I'd be comfortable tabling for the reason that we want to make sure that that property owner knows what's happening and not wake up and, on Thursday morning and read it in the paper. You know I think we can take action on numbers 2 and 3 tonight. If there's a desire to table, great but I don't think that's going to change. I don't know what information's going to change on number 1 but for just letting him know and making him aware. If that makes sense to. Todd Gerhardt: Mayor, I'd like the record to show that the Planning Commission did recommend sites 1 and 2. However they were not aware of the drainage concerns that Paul addressed when it came to them so. Mayor Furlong: Right. On site number 1. ...1 and 3, yeah. But I think you're right. There was no drainage, stormwater drainage issue really raised as far as that. But it's clearly an issue with all the dirt they're bringing in. It's going to change the flow of the water so. Debbie Larson: But number 2, the other thing that was... Mayor Furlong: Why don't you come on up. Just so people at home can hear you. Debbie Larson: The other one, the one by the Seminary Fen, the property owner adjacent to it was very concerned about the trees. I guess it's a very natural area around her and she felt that 39 City Council Meeting - August 28, 2006 all the trees that would be knocked down, which is currently on the land where all the dirt would go. She said it's somewhat of a nature area and it would basically destroy the view and a lot of her property values because it is part of the view that they have from her bed and breakfast. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Alright, thank you. Todd Gerhardt: And one of the other things staff talked about with this yesterday and today was, or today was that putting that much dirt in there, it's going to potentially change the hydrology of the fen area and not having an environmental review on that, you know that was another reason why we wanted to stay out of that area. Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Let's take these site by site so that we can deal with them, and let's just take them in reverse order. Is there a motion regarding number 3? Site number 3. Councilman Peterson: I make a motion to approve as submitted by staff. Mayor Furlong: Based on the findings of fact? Councilman Peterson: No. Mayor Furlong: I'm not even going to ask for a second then. Councilman Peterson: Yes, I'll. Mayor Furlong: Of course. Motion to approve. Councilman Lundquist: Second. Mayor Furlong: Made and seconded. Any discussion on site number 3? Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Lundquist seconded that the City Council approves Planning Case #06-28 for Interim Use Permits to grade and fill Site 3 (1560 Bluff Creek Drive) in conformance with the grading plans prepared by Zumbro River Constructors for the site, subject to the following conditions: 1. Overland hauling must utilize the existing creek crossing for the Bluff Creek Drive realignment. 2. No fill shall be placed within the Bluff Creek Drive right-of-way. 3. Hours of operations are 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. Monday through Friday and 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. on Saturdays, with no work allowed on holidays. 4. Each site shall be examined by a professional wetland delineator to determine whether jurisdictional wetlands exist on-site or within 150 feet of the proposed fill. Any wetlands that are identified shall be delineated, then reviewed by the City prior to any work commencing 40 City Council Meeting - August 28, 2006 on-site. If the delineation shows the proposed project to include wetland impact, the applicant shall obtain a wetland alteration permit from the City prior to wetland impacts occurring. 5. A wetland buffer 16.5 to 20 feet in width (with a minimum average of 16.5 feet) shall be maintained around any aglurban wetlands. 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. All structures shall maintain a setback of at least 40 feet from aglurban wetland buffer edges. 6. Wetland replacement, if necessary, shall occur in a manner consistent with the wetland alteration permit and the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act (MR 8420). 7. 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: Type of Slope Steeper than 3:1 10:1 to 3:1 Flatter than 10: 1 Time 7 days 14 days 21 days (Maximum time an area can remain open when the area is not actively being worked.) 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. 8. Silt fence shall be installed at the base of all proposed slopes in accordance with Chanhassen Standard Detail Plates 5300. A rock construction entrance meeting the specifications of Chanhassen Standard Detail Plate 5301 shall be installed where truck traffic will enter and exit Bluff Creek Drive. Street cleaning of soil tracked onto public streets shall include daily street scraping and street sweeping as-needed. Wimco-type inlet protection shall be installed in accordance with Chanhassen Standard Detail Plate 5302A in all catch basins within 200 feet of the proposed project sites and maintained as needed. The construction plans shall be revised to show the locations of the proposed silt fence, rock construction entrances and Wimco-type inlet protection and to include Chanhassen Standard Detail Plates 5300, 5301 and 5302A. 9. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies (e.g., Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (NPDES Phase II Construction Site Permit), Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Minnesota Department of Transportation) and comply with their conditions of approval. Zumbro River Constructors shall apply for and receive an amendment to their existing NPDES Phase II Construction Permit for the Trunk Highway 212 project from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency to incorporate a storm water pollution prevention plan for these sites. 41 City Council Meeting - August 28, 2006 10. The applicant should review proposed slopes and runoff velocities for the site and provide additional rock checks as an erosion control mechanism if needed. Rock checks proposed within the right-of-way for Bluff Creek Drive must be reviewed and approved by the City prior to installation. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to O. Mayor Furlong: Number 2. Councilman Lundquist: Motion to deny, or deny Site number 2 as staff has pointed out in the packet. And the Findings of Fact. Mayor Furlong: I hear whispers from my left. Motion's been made to deny the request for Site #2. Is there a second? Councilman Peterson: Second. Mayor Furlong: Made and seconded. Any discussion on that motion? Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilman Peterson seconded that the City Council denies Planning Case #06-28 for Interim Use Permits to grade and fill properties identified as Site #2 located southwest of Bluff Creek Drive, south of the Hennepin County Regional Trail Corridor, and north of the Bluff Creek Inn. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to O. Mayor Furlong: That motion prevails. So Site #1. The issue here is potential more information. Letting the resident know but again I guess there's a question, if there's a desire here to table for, to our next meeting, I guess I would ask a question of staff. Do we have time with regard to the permit to, are we either in the first 60 days or can we take another 60 days to table? Roger Knutson: You can take another 60 days. Automatically. Mayor Furlong: So our next meeting won't be until another 4 weeks, which is the end of September. Will they still be, I know that's less than 60 days, if memory serves, but we're not within that second 60 days yet. Roger Knutson: Yeah we will be in 2 days. So in the next 2 days we have to send them a letter. Mayor Furlong: Okay. So we'll take care of that if we proceed with the tabling. Staff will take care of that letter to ensure the other 60 days and then I would suspect, question for staff. Will they be able to bring it back by the end of September, in 4 weeks. And either have more information on that and talk to the property owner. Paul Oehme: We'll address both the drainage issues and the traffic issues... Mayor Furlong: Alright. Is there a motion to table Site #1 to our next meeting? 42 City Council Meeting - August 28, 2006 Councilman Lundquist: Motion to table #1. Mayor Furlong: Is there a second? Councilwoman Tjomhom: Second. Mayor Furlong: Any discussion? Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilwoman Tjornhom seconded that the City Council table action on Planning Case #06-28 for Interim Use Permits to grade and fill Site 1 (1425 Bluff Creek Drive). All voted in favor, except Councilman Peterson who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 3 to 1. Todd Gerhardt: We'll get the letter out tomorrow. Mayor Furlong: Very good, thank you. Thank you. APPROV AL/CERTIFICA TION OF MAXIMUM PROPOSED LEVY TO THE CARVER COUNTY AUDITOR. Todd Gerhardt: Mayor and City Council members. Staff is asking the City Council to adopt the 2007 preliminary tax levy of $9,575,778. This is a $220,000 levy increase from the 2006 budget. This increase will reflect a zero impact on those property owners who did not see a levy increase in 2007. The maximum levy between now and December 11th meeting, the City Council can look at reducing that levy down, and with that staff recommends approval of the attached resolution. Councilman Peterson: Chokes you up doesn't it? Todd Gerhardt: Yeah. I wasn't ready for this one. Mayor Furlong: Very good. This is an item that we've discussed at a few of our work sessions. Received some preliminary information from the staff with regard to the anticipated budget for next year and also information on how the City's performing financially during this year and I guess at this point, again we're required by law to establish a preliminary budget prior to September 15th. This will be our last meeting prior to that time so that's why we're taking it up now but I think we've made very good progress, even the last month or two in terms of the council understanding the staffs position and request and issues so at this point I will open it up for any questions to staff. If there are any points of clarification. Otherwise we'll proceed with our discussion. Thoughts and comments. Councilman Peterson: I'm just pleased that the citizens have enough confidence in us tonight that the chambers are empty and I think that to me does say a lot about the trust they have in staff and us to deliver in what we've been trying to do over the years and we've been successful and here's another year that we're going to have zero percent and I'm proud of that, as I assume you all are. You've done great work, we have and I'm looking forward to another good year. 43