HomeMy WebLinkAbout8A - Deferred
. ~
MEETING DATE:
AGENDA #:
PREPARED BY:
REVIEWED BY:
AGENDA ITEM:
DISCUSSION:
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
})~y<-f
MAY 15, 2000
8A
JENNI TOVAR, PLANNER
DON RYE, PLANNING DIRECTOR
CONSIDER APPROVAL OF STORM WATER
ALTERNATIVES FOR PROPOSED CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT FOR A MUL TI-FAMIL Y DWELLING FOR
AFFORDABLE HOUSING SOLUTIONS INC. ON PROPERTY
LOCATED IN THE SOUTHEAST INTERSECTION OF
TOWER STREET AND TORONTO AVENUE
History: On April 17, 2000 the City Council heard a request for a
Conditional Use Permit to allow the construction of a 43 unit multi-
family dwelling. The Council specifically raised four issues to be
addressed. They are storm water run-off alternatives, provide a
sidewalk along Tower Street, provide a fence at the top of retaining
walls, and reduce left turns in and out by providing an exit only drive
on Toronto Avenue and an entrance/exit driveway on Tower Street.
Current Circumstances: Attached is a letter from the applicant stating
how they intend to address the issues raised. They will provide a
sidewalk, a fence as needed, and redesign the parking lot and drives as
recommended by the City Council. The remaining item is to address
storm water run-off.
The Issues: The options for minimizing storm water run-off on site
include the proposed ponding within the parking lot, or providing an
underground storm water holding tank, or providing an above ground
holding pond. These alternatives are not conducive to solving the
problem of storm water run-off within the intersection of Tower Street
and Toronto Avenues.
It is the direction of the City Council for staff to provide alternatives
for reducing the existing storm water run-off within the intersection of
Tower Street and Toronto Avenue with the construction of the
proposed building. Staff has discussed alternatives and met with the
applicant and the applicant's legal counsel. The applicant is willing to
1620&~~f~O~r~ROJl?J~\~,-g1.0~ii<}CLake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax~~2) 447-4245
x...; EQl',-',L OPPOETl':';[TY E"IPLOYEE
consider the proposed alternatives. Attached is a memo from City
Engineer Bud Osmundson detailing the options.
A. Divert stormwater under the intersection to the proposed Post
Office site. Ponding is a part of the Post Office's overall site plan.
An easement for use of the property for ponding and drainage
would be required to be obtained by the developer.
B. Construct a storm sewer line running west along Tower Street to
the City's pond located south of the street.
Both of these options create a cost to the City. Option A would cost an
estimated $44,000. The City's share would be $35,200 and the
developer's share would be $8,800. Option B would cost an estimated
$100,000 with the City's share being $80,000 and the developers share
$20,000. The Council may factor these costs into its decision on
whether to approve or deny of the CUP.
In either case, options for financing are flexible. The developer could
pay the entire costs up front, enter into a developers agreement, and be
reimbursed by the City for improvements affecting other property
owners. Another option would allow the developer and other affected
property owner's to petition for public improvements. The developer
has expressed the first alternative as the most viable for resolving the
situation at this time, as it is likely an easement can be obtained from
the Post Office property owners. If an easement cannot be obtained,
the alternative would be to wait until the Post Office site is developed
or to proceed with the second alternative. Resolution of the storm
water issue would be required prior to the issuance of a certificate of
occupancy.
Conclusion: Staff recommends proceeding with Alternative A. The
developer has stated this could be an acceptable resolution (dependent
on final costs and agreements, etc.). Alternative A would require
preparation of a Developer's Agreement for cost sharing the storm
water improvements, an easement being provided to Affordable
Housing Solutions, Inc. for the ponding at the Post Office site, and
preparation of a pondinglgrading plan at the Post Office site.
At this time, staff is seeking direction to proceed. Once direction has
been given, and an alternative solution to storm water improvements
recommended, the site plan would be amended as previously
recommended by staff, the Planning Commission and the City Council
and a resolution approving the CUP will be prepared. Site Plan
changes include:
1. Four additional shrubs are required to be planted in the bufferyard
along I 70th Street. (Staff recommendation).
l:\OOfiles\OOcup\OO-O 1 0\00-0 1 OcO.doc
Page 2
FISCAL IMPACT:
ALTERNATIVES:
2. Irrigation Plan to be submitted. (Staff recommendation).
3. The following issues in engineering memo dated March 1, 2000
must be addressed. (Staff recommendation).
a) Provide a detailed traffic control plan, including parking for
workers, to be implemented during construction and
particularly prior to clearing and utility construction.
b) Show the location of the rock construction entrance on the
plan.
c) Install catch basins in the driveway entrance at Tower Street.
Extend pipe to the comer of Toronto Avenue and Tower Street
for future connection of storm sewer by City.
4. Hydrant locations indicated and 300' foot hydrant radius to be
provided. (Staff recommendation).
5. Revised Landscaping Plan to include all tree replacement occurring
on site with emphasis on screening along 170th yard (Planning
Commission recommendation).
6. Altering ingress/egress drive to Tower Street and one way exit to
Toronto Avenue. (City Council recommendation).
7. Providing a fence along top of retaining walls along adjacent
private property. (City Council recommendation).
8. Provide a sidewalk along Tower Street. (City Council
recommendation).
9. A letter of credit must be submitted. The LOC will be for 125% of
landscaping costs, tree preservation requirements, Estimates or
bids must be submitted for the required landscaping (Staff
recommendation).
Budget Impact: The construction of the building will add tax base to
the City. Utilizing Alternative A, the construction of storm water
improvements will cost the City an estimated $35,200. Affordable
Housing Solutions, Inc., as a part of the CUP and Developers
Agreement, will pay approximately $8,800. The City's portion of the
improvement could come from the Storm Drain Utility and/or Trunk
Funds.
The City Council has three alternatives:
I. Defer consideration ofthis item giving staff specific direction to
proceed regarding storm water alternatives to be incorporated into
the requested CUP and direct preparation of a resolution approving
the CUP with conditions.
2. Direct preparation of a resolution of denial of the Conditional Use
Permit for specific reasons.
3. Continue the request and direct staff to provide additional specific
information.
l:\OOfiles\OOcup\OO-O 1 0\00-0 1 OcO.doc
Page 3
RECOMMENDED
MOTION:
REVIEWED BY:
'.
,
Staff recommends Alternative #1.
A motion and second providing staffwith specific direction to proceed
regarding storm water im rovements and the requested CUP and
preparation of a resolu' approving the CUP with conditions.
l:\OOfiles\OOcup\OO-O 1 0\00-0 1 OcO.doc
Page 4
C~arles Radloff
116129415240
IJiJ 511/00
Q>3:38 PM
C1212
Charles J. Radloff · Architect
May 1, 2000
Jenni Tovar
Planner
City of Prior Lake
16200 Eagle Creek Ave S.E.
Prior Lake, MN 55372-1714
RE: Stonegate Apartments (Project #34-00)
Dear Jenni,
The following items will be resolved in accordance with the requests of
the city council.
Item #1. A sidewalk will be provided at the property line on Tower street.
Item #2 A fence will be installed at the top of the retaining walls where
height requirements would cause a hazard to the use of the property to the
east.
Item # 3 We will redesign the site plan parking lot and entrance location
to the underground garage to provide a in out driveway on Tower Street
and a exit only driveway on Toronto, this will reverse the one-way traffic
flow in front of the building and eliminate the driveway to the building at
the south west end of the building.
Hoping for a quick resolution to the storm water runoff, so that this fine
project may proceed.
Sincerely,
Charles J. Radloff
Reg. Architect
9979 VALLEY VIEW ROAD - SUITE 256 -EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA 55344 - 612-941-1667
Memorandum
DATE:
May 4, 2000
FROM:
Bud Osmundson, City Engineer/Director of
Public Works
~<l
TO:
Jenni Tovar, Planner
RE: Storm Water Drainage at the TowerlToronto
intersection and the proposed Stonegate
Apartment Complex
cc: Frank Boyles, City Manager;
Sue McDermott, Assistant City Engineer
At the April 17, 2000, City Council Meeting, staff was directed to investigate the
necessary storm drain facilities to accommodate the stormwater runoff at the
intersection of Tower and Toronto Streets plus the stormwater runoff from the proposed
Stonegate Apartment building. Engineering staff has completed a preliminary design
and cost estimate for storm drainage facilities at this intersection including facilities to
the right-of-way for the proposed apartments.
There are two alternative plans for providing the storm drain facilities. Plan A is the
least cost alternative with an estimated construction cost of approximately $44,000.
This plan consists of installing the necessary facilities at the TowerlToronto intersection
and directing the water northwesterly to the southeast corner of the proposed post office
site. The Post Office project team has tentatively committed to constructing a water
quality pond in this corner which will accommodate the flow from this intersection and
the entire 8.5 acre drainage area. However, the post office construction may not begin
until Spring 2001 and at this time the city does not have the appropriate drainage
easements from the existing property owner which would allow any added stormwater
runoff to this property.
Plan B is much more expensive with an estimated construction cost of $100,000. This
plan includes the same storm drain facilities at the intersection of Tower and Toronto,
but directs the runoff westerly through piping on Tower Street to the low point near
Duluth Avenue. At this point it would connect to an existing storm drain system. The
cost is significantly higher due to an additional 550 feet of pipe plus the restoration of the
roadway. This project could be done immediately or in conjunction with the Stonegate
Apartment building construction, as no additional easements are needed.
A cost sharing alternative commonly used throughout the industry is to share the costs
on a percentage basis based on the drainage area. The total drainage area is 8.5 acres
and the proposed Stonegate Apartment is 1.7 acres or 20% of the drainage area. Using
this cost split, the City portion of Plan A would be $35,200 and Stonegate would pay
$8,800. For Plan B the City's portion would be $80,000 and Stonegate, $20,000. The
City's portion could come from the Storm Drain Utility and/or Trunk Funds.
At the meeting held with the developer on Tuesday, the developer was informed of
these cost estimates and the issues with each alternative. The developer, Mr. Jeff
Gustafson, stated that he was confident that he could acquire the necessary easements
that were needed for Plan A. If the post office project does not go forward, the city
would have to construct the ponding area on the post office site and the additional cost
of that would be shared the same as previously mentioned.
Either Plan A or Plan B will accommodate the storm water runoff for the area and
improve the drainage at the Tower/Toronto intersection. Staff recommends moving
forward with Plan A if Council wants to go ahead with the Stonegate Apartment complex
at this time. A written agreement will be drafted which will outline the responsibilities of
each party and would be returned to the City Council for their approval with the
Stonegate Apartment final CUP
2
.,
~ . ~
~
TJj
~ ...c:::
~ ~ ~
~ ~ 0
~ ~ % ~ ['-.
~ ~ ~ ~ ';P ~
-cl~ % ~ ~
V' ~ ~
~ Q)
I <I TORONTO AVE.
Z-.-J
< -----------
------- I
s:--s ---_..---
I------~
'-')
1.0
~ M
~
% -.:::t
I
N ~
~
~ ~ C")
Uo ~
.~ .~ ~
~ N
~
4 ~
0 ~
~~ I j
~ Q ~ Z t
0 ~ I
Z ~ -
5 "'" 0 I
.. o~
0 0 0.0 "0
- ~
0 z <( t:: ~
~ .~ rJ'J
=:( W ~ 0
--< rJj
.- ~
>< 0
3 ^ 'tt HJ.f) . ~ ~
ij) ~
~ Q
/r;O ~ Z
~ <
':]J.N:]:J ~ ~ ~
TJj
~ ~
UJ ~ ><
---I
N --l ~ ~ ~
S)(OO~e ~N
~ !z
8 'tf
~ ~ ~
en; lOlln " en
N
~
o
~
(j)
f/~
City Council Meeting Minutes
Verbatim Transcript
April 17, 2000
Agenda Item 98
Consider Approval of Resolution DO-XX Approving the
Conditional Use Permit for a Multi-Family Dwelling for Affordable
Housing Solutions, Inc. on Property Located in the Southeast
Intersection of Tower Street and Toronto Avenue.
1 Mader: The next item is Item 98 which is to consider approval of a resolution that relates to a multi-
2 family dwelling at the intersection of Tower and Toronto Streets.
3
4 Boyles: Mayor, Member of the Council, you will recall that the City sold a 1.7 acre property at the
5 intersection of Tower and Toronto. This is a conditional use permit request as required under your
6 zoning ordinance which would allow for the development of a 43 unit market rate multi-family dwelling
7 unit. I'm going to ask Jenni Tovar, our planner, to review the conditional use permit criteria at least in
8 kind of a summary fashion and provide you with the staffs input. I would direct your attention however,
9 to page 11 of the staff report and that page indicates certainly as a conditional use permit there are
10 reasonable conditions that the City Council may place upon any conditional use, and you'll see on that
11 page some five that have already been proposed. There are a number of others that you may wish to
12 consider. No parking, for example along Toronto Avenue, completion of storm sewer improvements in
13 conjunction with post office project, a limitation of access to the garage via Tower Street or some other
14 combination as you see most safe, and then finally tree replacement location, and that is a Planning
15 Commission proposal. With that, Jenni?
16
17 Tovar: Thank you Frank. Just to highlight the previous events on this applications. On March 27th the
18 Planning Commission on a 4-0 vote recommended that the City Council approve this conditional use
19 permit with conditions. The hearing focused on traffic, drainage related to runoff and the lack of storm
20 sewer, parking, and tree preservation. And, if Sue can put up the site plan, I'm just going to go through
21 each one of these issues that the Planning Commission discussion specifically. With regards to tree
22 preservation, there are 13 trees or 42.25 caliper inches which were proposed to be planted on City
23 property. When a developer removes trees, they can remove up to 25% without replacement. Anything
24 about and beyond that has to be replaced at one-half to one. The Developer had proposed to put 42 of
25 the required 59 inches off-site. The Planning Commission originally recommended that all those
26 replacement trees be planted on the site with the majority to be planted along 170th Street, which is
27 shown on the left side there. However, not all of the replacement inches can be planted along that
28 bufferyard along 170th Street and survive due to limited space. You can only fit so many trees in a 30
29 foot area, so the Planning Commission therefore recommended the developer meet with staff to
30 accomplish increased screening and buffing objections and accomplish tree replacement on-site. And if
31 I could have Sue put up the larger 11 x17. I did meet with the developer today as to how that can be
32 accomplished. The revised plan on the right-hand side is 170th Street and they suggested planting 14
33 coniferous trees that will fit there and survive, and moving some of the other deciduous trees amongst
34 the site. The other issue that the Planning Commission discussed was parking. They discussed the
35 need for "No Parking" signage in the area. It was suggested that Tower Street and Toronto be post
36 with signs. And currently there are signs posted on Tower Street, but not on Toronto Avenue. If the City
37 Council desired, a condition requiring the developer to post "No Parking" signs on Toronto Avenue
38 between Tower and 170th Street can be added. Another item of discussion at the public hearing was
39 traffic. And just to go over some projected counts. According to the Institute of Traffic Engineers, the
40 trip generation on this project will be 278 trips per day. The peak am hour will be 24 trips, and the peak
41 pm hour will be 26 trips, averaging the rest throughout the day. Toronto Avenue is a two-lane urban
42 street which is capable of carrying 8000 - 9000 cars per day. In 1999, the count on Toronto Avenue
43 was 2300. And as I said, according to the estimates for this proposed use, 278 trips per day will be the
44 increase. The other thing was runoff. The existing runoff on the site is 4.05 cubic feet per second.
Verbatim Transcript
April 17, 2000 City Council Meeting
Item 98
1 Without on-site ponding, the runoff will be 6.04 cubic feet per second. The applicant is proposing to
2 provide ponding within the parking lot which will result in a runoff of 4.17 cubic feet per second and the
3 increased runoff is therefore 0.12 cubic feet per second. There currently is no storm sewer serving the
4 area. The water from the area collects at the intersection of Tower and Toronto Street. Staff does
5 anticipate a storm sewer system to be constructed with the future construction of the ring road and this
6 project is currently scheduled for 2001 in the 2001-2005 CIP which is going to be reviewed by the City
7 Council on May 1 st. The developer is also providing for a future connection, or a connection to future
8 City storm sewer systems, to be constructed as part of that ring road. The plans indicate construction
9 of storm sewer pipe to the right-of-way to be connected to the future system. I just also want to
10 mention you do have a petition. The City did receive a petition signed by 75 people protesting this
11 project, and that's in your packet. And as Frank said, there are additional reasonable conditions which
12 the Council can make a condition of the conditional use permit, such as the "no parking" signs on
13 Toronto Avenue, completion of the storm sewer improvement in conjunction with the post office project,
14 limitation of access to the garage via Tower Street, and tree replacement location as proposed by the
15 Planning Commission. Staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit with the following
16 conditions: four additional shrubs are required to be planted in the buffer yard along 170th Street, and
17 irrigation plan is to be submitted. There is a memo in your packet from the Engineering staff dated
18 March 1 st which has three issues in it which have yet to be addressed. Hydrant locations need to be
19 indicated and a 300 foot hydrant radius needs to be provided and a letter of credit needs to be
20 submitted. And the Planning Commission did recommend adding a sixth condition requiring all tree
21 replacement occur on-site with an emphasis on the buffer yard on the east side which is 170th Street
22 to be approved by staff, and that is in the attached resolution. And I will stand for any questions.
23
24 Mader: One question Jenni. What is our time frame on this for acting?
25
26 Tovar: The applicant has signed a 120 day waiver due to the continuances that were up front at the
27 Planning Commission.
28
29 Mader: When does that 120 days......?
30
31 Tovar: They waived it due to their continuance at the Planning Commission.
32
33 Mader: Any questions of Councilmembers of staff at this point?
34
35 Ericson: Yes, I have several. On page 1, right about where it says "current circumstances", it says the
36 property has been zoned for multi-family residential uses since 1975. Has it always been R-4, or has it
37 been R-3 in the past, and if so, when did that change occur?
38
39 Tovar: Well, on the original zoning ordinance from 1975, it was zoned R-3, which there was no R-4 at
40 that time. R-3 at that time was defined as multi-family residential. That was changed when the City
41 adopted a new zoning ordinance, May 1, 1999, I believe, when we readjusted the multi-family zoning
42 districts and added an R-3 and then consequently added an R-4.
43
44 Ericson: Ok, and when it was an R-3, what was the density for that area for an R-3?
45
46 Tovar: I don't have that information.
47
48 Rye: Council member, the old ordinance, the maximum density for conventional development was 14
49 units per acre, and they could go up to 18.8, I think through a PUD.
50
R:\COUNCIL\MINUTES\STONGATE.DOC
2
Verbatim Transcript
April 17, 2000 City Council Meeting
Item 98
1 Ericson: Page 2, it talks about proposed access from Tower and Toronto. Neither of these roads is
2 designed as an arterial or collector road, and it's my understanding that access to a high-density
3 residential must be on a collector or arterial roadway.
4
5 [End of Tape.]
6
7 Tovar: ........under "Uses Permitted With A Conditional Use Permit" under multiple family dwellings,
8 "access shall be to a roadway identified in the Comprehensive Plan as a collector or arterial, or shall be
9 otherwise located so that access can be provided without generating significant traffic on local
10 residential streets".
11
12 Ericson: In talking about trip generation and roads and how they are designed, you say that a road
13 such as Toronto and Tower can carry 8,000 to 9,000 cars per day. That's the way they are designed.
14 Correct?
15
16 Tovar: According to the Comprehensive Plan that's a two-lane urban street which is designed to carry
17 8 to 9 thousand cars per day.
18
19 Ericson: And what are the design criteria for carrying 8 to 9 thousand cars per day. Is it like the width
20 of the road, how thick the tar is and things like that. Is that some of the primary concerns on how they
21 are constructed.
22
23 Rye: Typically, it'll have to do with number of lanes, width of the lanes, capacity of the street.
24 Something we should probably keep in mind - that 8 to 9 thousand is really a maximum figure. That's
25 assuming, basically that the road is running pretty much at capacity 24-hours a day. If you were going
26 to build a street to accommodate a volume of 8 or 9 thousand a day, it would be probably a higher
27 standard.
28
29 Ericson: OK. And, I guess I'm not concerned that we're going to get 8 or 9 thousand cars per day
30 down there. I certainly hope not. I don't want it to be a Minneapolis. My concern about the traffic flow
31 has nothing to do with volumes of cars, ok. One of the concerns I have is especially with the proposed
32 layout the way it is, cars going across traffic when you have other cars going to other areas, specifically
33 in the evenings when there is a lot of ball field activity and things like that. And I think that is significant
34 to point out that it is not a volume issue that I have any concern about. I think we really need to take a
35 look at how those accesses are going into and out of that property. A couple of other questions. Jenni,
36 when you take a look at the height or the elevations of the property, how do you go about that? Do you
37 use a computer system to determine how high the building is going to be, or do you use, which, I
38 thought I saw you using a ruler and a pencil trying to measure out the elevations compared to the
39 drawings that were submitted one day when I came to your office?
40
41 Tovar: How we measure the height, and I'll just read you the definition: A distance measured from the
42 mean curb level along the front lot line or from the finished grade level for all that portion of the
43 structure having frontage on a public right-of-way, whichever is higher, to the mean distance of the
44 highest gable on a pitched or hip roof. So we start by getting the mean curb level along the front line, or
45 the finished grade level. In this case, it is from the finished grade level for all that portion of the
46 structure having frontage on a public right-of-way. So the survey indicates the high and the low points
47 at each corner. That's indicated on the survey, and I don't know if you can see it. If Sue puts up that
48 first site plan they are on there. And the mean is just the average, highest plus the lowest divided by
49 two. That gives you the mean curb elevation. Then when you look at the elevation sheets. This sheet.
50 In the building, it gives you the mean curb elevation down here measured to the mean peak roof which
R:\COUNCIL\MINUTES\STONGA TE.DOC
3
Verbatim Transcript
April 17, 2000 City Council Meeting
Item 98
1 is right here to get the height. And that's in accordance with the ordinance. Why I probably scaled it out
2 that day is because we didn't have this originally. On the original plan, we didn't have this mean roof
3 elevation.
4
5 Ericson: OK. Several more questions. Going to page 4 in our staff report, it talks about setbacks, and
6 it's the third line. It says, "for the purposes of determining setbacks, a bonus is given for underground
7 parking." Can you explain to me what the bonus is and rationale and things of that nature?
8
9 Tovar: The bonus, I believe, maybe I should grab the ordinance, but it takes out nine feet off of the
10 height of the building for setbacks. Setback in this case is determined by half the height of the building.
11 For the purposes of setbacks, that nine feet is taken off of the height because the garage i$
12 underground. That's the bonus for having parking underground, underneath the building. The setbacks
13 is not......The developer is not penalized because now their height may be higher because they have
14 underground parking, which consequently would increase their setback if there setback is equal to the
15 height of the building. So therefore, the height of the underground parking is not counted for the
16 setback.
17 Ericson: OK. You'll have to bare with me. I have quite a few questions here. Talking about parking,
18 page 5, 87 stalls are required and it says the plan indicates that 86 stalls and 1 stall in front of the
19 mechanical room. Is a stall in front of a mechanical room an acceptable parking spot? I mean, I know;
20 for example, in a building you have to be so far from an electrical box, like 36 inches or something, so
21 there is no obstruction to a mechanical room. Are there any types of requirements for access into a
22 mechanical room? Is anyone aware of that?
23
24 Tovar: I would presume that....Our Building Official has looked at this in great detail. He's not here by
25 speak, but if there were some building code related item to that, it would have been made a point. I
26 would presume at this point.
27
28 Ericson: Now I'm going to page 6, and Existing I Proposed Runoff of Storm Water. Currently there is
29 4.05 feet. The addition of this property will bring it up to 6.04. I understand that the developer is
30 proposing to do some ponding in the parking lot. Is that correct?
31
32 Tovar: That's correct.
33
34 Ericson: I don't know....I'm sure that the developer probably would want to come up and talk. I have to
35 be honest with you, I know I have been to a number of your meetings and you're saying that you're
36 going to have market rate apartments for $1300 - $1400 per month and I just cannot see that someone
37 paying that much is going to want to walk into a foot of water in the parking lot when they are paying
38 that much. I also....I'm really not concerned about water as much as I am the freezing of the water in
39 the winter time. I don't think that the proposed drainage issue as it is currently being proposed is
40 acceptable at all. First of all, I have personally been in two accidents on that corner with what the runoff
41 is right now. I think that adding the additional runoff to the area without a concrete, in-place solution for
42 that drainage, as a condition of this being.....going forward is absolutely necessary. There is a bus stop
43 there, and I know bus stops can change, however, I don't think that is going to move too far because
44 there is a need in that area for the bus stop. It is a hazard right now and that has to be taken care of.
45 That's a big concern of mine. And we go down a little bit further and it says....l'm on page 7....and
46 you're saying that it's going to be in the 2001 -2005 CIP for the water runoff, and that's on the top of
47 page 7. We haven't approved anything for that yet. I don't know if we funding for that. We are talking
48 about where we are going to get funding for a lot of things. I think it is convenient to say that we are
49 going to put it in there just because the ring road is going in there, but we haven't even approved the
50 ....how we are going to go about the ring road. And my concern is that even if the developer does put
R:\COUNCIL \MI NUTES\STONGA TE.DOC
4
Verbatim Transcript
April 17, 2000 City Council Meeting
Item 98
1 whatever portion he says that he's going to put in there, that we could be talking potentially another
2 year and a half before that gets hooked up. And so in the meantime, we're adding additional water to
3 that corner which is a problem and I'm sure everyone is aware of it. And so basically, we have an ice
4 skating rink on that corner without it being taken care of right away. I do see that it says that there
5 should be an option, an option would be to require the development agreement to construct some sort
6 of agreement with the post office. I would suggest that unless something like that or storm water going
7 north of there, if either the ponding could be addressed with the post office, or going north that that
8 would; either one of those would have to be a conditional prior to anything happening on this property.
9 Ok, page 10 of our packet, item number 5 says "the use will not have undue adverse impacts on the
10 use and enjoyment of properties in close proximity to the conditional use" and below that it says "this
11 use is adjacent to three public streets and a townhome development to the east". It further goes on to
12 say that "this use will not have impact on enjoyment of the properties in close proximity'. I think it is
13 important to note that there is one element of property that happens to be missing out of that and that
14 is an R-1 district to the south. And I would suggest that this proposed property would have an adverse
15 impact on those properties which, in fact, are in close proximity. I am concerned about the additional
16 shrubs and trees. To me it seems that we put our plans together and require tree replacement and
17 things of that nature because we want a certain set volume or number of trees to be put in there. You
18 stated that they cannot figure out a way to get all of those trees in there and that suggests to me that
19 they are trying to put too much into a particular area because if they could put that in there and our tree
20 preservation program is supposed to work the way it is, I would think that they should be able to put all
21 of the trees back on there.
22
23 Tovar: Councilman Ericson, can I clarify something. What the replacement we are talking about
24 planting all those replacement trees along 170th Street. There is not enough room to plant it between
25 the building and 170th Street.
26
27 Ericson: But they can put them all on the property?
28
29 Tovar: Yes, and that was the revised plan that I had put up on the overhead which had indicated that.
30
31 Ericson: Ok, I just have a few more things here. On page 27 of our Comprehensive Plan, way back
32 there, item number (w) as conditions, I think it's under section 2. Actually what I'm looking at is right
33 above objective 3, it says "development shall be constructed in a manner sensitive to the impact of the
34 natural features, environmental constraints, including but not limited to surface water..." an issue that I
35 have been talking about for quite some time, and it hasn't been until recently that anyone has really
36 addressed the concerns that I have about the surface water with the runoff.
37
38 Pace: Jim, excuse me. Can you cite the page that your referring to?
39
40 Ericson: Page 27, item (w). So, what this suggests to me is, in fact, that that surface water, that runoff,
41 has to be taken care of. It says it in our policies. We have put these in place for those specific reasons.
42 I have personal knowledge of the area. I drive down the road all the time, but that has nothing to do
43 with it. What I'm talking about is this tells me that has to be taken care of. And I'm just about done. I
44 would just ask the rest of the Council to really take a good close look at this. I do have some legitimate
45 safety concerns. A couple other things. We go into the ....where we are talking about crime in the area,
46 and I think we'll start with page 7. Apparently you got some different numbers than I did. I asked the
47 Police Chief for some numbers, and I asked for all non-traffic related police calls to that area, which
48 include Tower Street and then also the Brooksville Apartment, and I believe there are approximately
49 200 apartments in that area. Is that pretty close?
50
R:\COUNCIL\MINUTES\STONGA TE.DOC
5
Verbatim Transcript
Apri/17, 2000 City Council Meeting
Item 98
1 Tovar: Brooksville Apartments has 36. Tower Hills 68. Tower Hill West 51.
2
3 Ericson: But all combined within that 1 block area there is about what?
4
5 Tovar: 160.
6
7 Ericson: The information that I got from the Police Chief is from January 1, 1999 through December
8 31, 1999. There are a total of 217 non-traffic related calls to those addresses in those areas. And then I
9 know you go and compare it to some other areas. What I would suggest is 217 police calls is an awful
10 lot for that small of an area. You add another 43 which would be another 25% to that, so that I can
11 basically, or we can all expect that with the addition of this type of property in close proximity to the
12 other high-density residential uses in that area, we can expect at least another 50 police calls per year
13 to that one block. That brings it up to 250 in a year, if we are to use the same numbers that were from
14 last year. I don't know about you, but 250 police calls to one block seems to be an exorbitant amount.
15 We compare then on page 7, actually it's page 8, to a number of different areas.... I think it's page 8,
16 no, excuse me, it's still page 7....to like Willow Beach and Oakridge neighborhoods. I don't know what
17 those neighborhoods are. I'm still learning all the neighborhoods, but I would suggest to you is that the
18 Wood ridge Estate area has, I believe about 125 house, or 120, does anyone know? Ok, let's just say
19 it's 125 house in there, and I would bet you, you don't have more than 5 police calls in a year there. So
20 you have the same number of units, and you have maybe 5 police call a year compared to this other
21 area where you have 250. I find it totally unacceptable and it's not right. I am concerned about the
22 entry way in and out of the area. I am concerned about the water. I am concerned about the crime, and
23 also, while I have a chance to call up of the members of the audience as well and ask some specific
24 questions.
25
26 Mader: You certainly will, yes.
27
28 Ericson: Ok, then I just have one last thing.
29
30 Mader: That is if you yield before midnight.
31
32 Ericson: Let's go way in the back of our packets, and it says "Building Smarter with Apartments". Who,
33 in their infinite wisdom, decided to put this in our packets?
34
35 Tovar: I did.
36
37 Ericson: Ok. What I'm going to suggest is that this talks how great apartments are and things of that
38 nature, but you go way to the end and you see that it is sponsored by the National Apartment
39 Association. So, I would think that they would have an invested interest in how great apartments are
40 since that is there business, and I just want to suggest that this is actually really not acceptable in
41 terms of being a objective piece of literature. And I'll pass it on to someone else.
42
43 Mader: I would like to just comment on two of the items Jim mentioned. I think he was commenting that
44 safety in that particular area shouldn't be judged by the criteria of how many cars. We need to keep in
45 mind there is a grad school there on that intersection. We also need to keep in mind there is a steep
46 hill going up from that intersection up to the apartments at the top of Tower, and there is no school bus
47 service at the top of that hill so children who are coming for school bus come walking down the street.
48 There actually in the street, and then they get down to the intersection which in the winter time is
49 frozen over, and then they stand in the roadway waiting for the bus. So there are some unique issues
50 there and as a consequence of that, one of the things I had suggested to staff a couple of days ago, is
R:\COUNCIL \MINUTES\STONGA TE.DOC
6
Verbatim Transcript
April 17, 2000 City Council Meeting
Item 98
1 to take a serious look at the question of whether the traffic in and out of that facility could be managed
2 with the entrance on Tower being and entrance, and the one on Toronto being and exit. What that
3 would do, is keep any traffic from having to cross the lane, because traffic coming into the apartment
4 complex would all be in the right lane going up the hill and they would all make a right turn, and they
5 would have just come through an intersection which means that they are slowed down and that it's
6 controlled traffic in other words. And traffic coming out of the apartment complex I would assumed 99%
7 of it or more would turn and head in a westerly direction, or make a right turn, which means they would
8 be making a right turn into a right lane. So, I would, if somebody else doesn't add that as a conditional
9 use permit, I'm going to add that. There may be some...1 would suggest also that engineering staff has
10 to look at that and see if that makes sense, but that would be one of my perceptions. The other has to
11 do with the ice situation. I know that has been a troublesome intersection with surface water, and
12 putting more traffic into that intersection where we have again the situation I mentioned earlier, children
13 collecting there for school bus, traffic coming down Tower Street which is already coming down a steep
14 hill, it is an intersection right now kind of designed to have accidents. I would certainly echo Jim's
15 comments that we need to address that issue so that that water is not surface water, that it's
16 underground some way so we don't have to deal with it on our streets. Those are the only comments I
17 have relative to this issue right now. Other questions of Jenni? Pete?
18
19 Schenck: Jenni, how close are we to the existing hook-up to the sewer system?
20
21 Tovar: I would refer that to the City Engineer. Storm sewer?
22
23 Schenck: Storm sewer system. Yes.
24
25 Osmundson: It is about, I'm really guessing here, 500 or 600 feet to the west on Tower Street.
26
27 Schenck: It is the City's obligations to resolve that drainage issue then, isn't it?
28
29 Osmundson: Well, at that intersection. If you remember, when I talked about the ring road here a
30 month ago, or whatever it was, I had said at the time that we were going to do some improvements to
31 that intersection. Right now, there is no catch basins from any direction. All the water flows through that
32 intersection and actually flows west on Tower down to that low point where the wetland is, and then it
33 goes into catch basins at that point. And part of the whole ring road discussion, I said we needed to
34 have some extra money in there to put storm sewer improvements at that intersection.
35
36 Schenck: So we can't anticipate having an improvement to that intersection until the ring road is
37 approved and funds allocated?
38
39 Osmundson: Or with the post office project, or we could do it separately, whichever the Council would
40 desire.
41
42 Schenck: So, correct me, the only reason that we're holding off on this is a combination of post office
43 and ring road?
44
45 Osmundson: Yes, as far as I......
46
47 Schenck: Because we have an issue we need to resolve. If, because the drainage issue is a serious
48 issue, once we resolve our obligation to that intersection, should there be a condition in the CUP
49 perhaps that requires a hook-up within a certain period of time?
50
R:\COUNCIL \MINUTES\STONGA TE.DOC
7
Verbatim Transcript
April 17, 2000 City Council Meeting
Item 9a
1 Tovar: The way the plan is drawn, the applicant is proposing to put a pipe out to the right-of-way, so
2 when the City does come in and do a public improvement project, the infrastructure will already be in
3 place.
4
5 Schenck: So in other words, they are going to be ahead of where we should be.
6
7 Tovar: Yes, that was one of the changes in the engineering memo that that be added.
8
9 Schenck: OK. And then explain to me the correlation between this project and the post office ponding.
10 Are we now proposing to divert the water over to the post office property for ponding, and would that
11 be a surface diversion, or storm sewer diversion?
12
13 Tovar: Staff and Planning Commission's recommendation is that you approve the conditional use
14 permit with the storm water runoff as proposed with 0.12 additional increase in runoff. That's the
15 Planning Commission's recommendation and that was staff's recommendation.
16
17 Schenck: No, I understand that, but what's the correlation with this proposal, this CUP that we are
18 considering, and the post office.
19
20 Tovar: I'll defer that to Bud. There has been some discussion last week.
21
22 Osmundson: Yes, we have had some discussions with the post office engineer and architect and they
23 would actually be proposing to put some ponding on that...it would be kitty-corner from this site...and
24 that would take the drainage from this intersection right into that pond and it eventually would go
25 through the wetlands that's about in the middle of the post office site, and then that would traverse
26 back across Tower to the wetland on the south side where the water does go now. The whole point
27 being that nerp basins, water quality improvements, slow the water down, that type of improvement is
28 what we are talking about.
29
30 Schenck: OK.
31
32 Mader: That would mean that we would be looking at putting the water underground?
33
34 Osmundson: Correct.
35
36 Mader: Before the ring road, before there is storm sewer and that sort of thing?
37
38 Osmundson: We would put storm sewer improvements in that intersection to catch the water to bring
39 into the pipe, to bring it into this pond that I was just talking about.
40
41 Tovar: Mr. Mader, just for point of clarification. That's a comment or discussion that the developer of
42 this project has not been made aware of or privy to. I don't think that they are aware that this is an
43 alternative that the Council may be suggesting.
44
45 Mader: I understand that. Pete, any other questions?
46
47 Schenck: (Indicated no)
48
49 Mader: Any other questions of Jenni?
50
R:\COUNCIL \MI NUTES\STONGA TE.DOC
8
Verbatim Transcript
April 17, 2000 City Council Meeting
Item 98
1 Boyles: Can I ask one?
2
3 Mader: Sure.
4
5 Boyles: This may be something we missed. I remember when we first started talking about this
6 project, we talked about a sidewalk going up Tower and I don't know if that was discussed and then
7 dropped, or.....1 don't see it here and I'm not sure if it was something that was an oversight that we may
8 have missed. I recall that the school superintendent called me and said "we're not sending the busses
9 up to the top of that hill, and it sure would be helpful to be able to have a sidewalk."
10
11 Tovar: There is no sidewalk shown on the plans. I don't know. That never came up in a DRC, I believe,
12 and that hasn't come up, did not come up at the Planning Commission. Certainly it is something we
13 can add.
14
15 Ericson: I think that situation came up about a year or two ago in some other discussions. I don't recall
16 it being a part of this. I think it would be a good idea since the remainder of that road already does
17 have a sidewalk to the west of that.
18
19 Mader: I think that is another item that needs to be looked at and included in the overall planning here
20 because I certainly don't think it's a good idea to have those kids walking down a roadway, particularly
21 where we are going to be putting more traffic on it. It is a bad situation right now and the situation gets
22 worse, so I think that is something that should also be considered as we finalize this plan. One of the
23 questions going through my mind here is, you know there have been a number of suggestions here
24 tonight, and I would think it would be kind of hard to finalize a resolution here at the desk tonight saying
25 "OK, here is the approval subject to these conditional use permits". I wonder if we wouldn't be better off
26 to specifically give the staff some direction on the issues we would like addressed, with the idea that
27 would come back then in a resolution for the Council to look at with specific language that would
28 address those issues. Would that make sense to the Council, rather than trying to finalize a resolution
29 tonight? I'm going to suggest then that ...Jim certainly has raised some issues. I think you have heard
30 some other comments. Particularly, from my standpoint, there would be three items I would ask for the
31 staff to address. One has to do with the sidewalk, taking them in reverse order, making sure that we do
32 address that issue because if it's going to be addressed, now is the time to do it. Secondly, making
33 sure we have a plan that keeps that surface water off the road. And thirdly, that we address that in and
34 out traffic from the apartment complex to try to prevent any crossing of lanes and specifically, I'd
35 recommend the staff look at that issue of having the exit be onto Toronto, and the entrance being from
36 Tower. Those are the three that I would ask the staff to look at to see if those can be formulated into
37 conditional use permits. And I do recognize also there will have to be some discussion with the
38 developer also as to how this might be accomplished.
39
40 Tovar: I would just like a point of clarification regarding the runoff. Do you want it to stay as it is, or do
41 you want it to be zero. Because right now, it is 4.15..........
42
43 Mader: I want it to go under the road instead of over the road. What we have right now just goes over
44 the road and the proposal is to keep doing the same way and we already recognize that that's a hazard
45 there.
46
47 Tovar: Ok, just so I understand when we work with the developer. So right now the runoff is 4.17 csf.
48 You want it to be zero because you want the runoff to go under the road and divert it to another piece
49 of property.
50
R:\CQUNCI L \MINUTES\STONGA TE.DOC
9
Verbatim Transcript
Apri/17, 2000 City Council Meeting
Item 98
1 Mader: Yeah.
2
3 Tovar: Ok.
4
5 Mader: I would certainly think, I'm not sure I understand what parking lot pooling of water is, but I
6 would certainly think that the developer would rather not have the water standing in the parking lot
7 either, and if we do it and take it underground that there is a pond on the post office side that will
8 handle that, it seems to me that that's a better solution.
9
10 Tovar: I think we should maybe discuss this with the City Attorney and the legality because the current
11 runoff as no development occurs is 4.17, and your asking the developer to now make that zero and
12 whether that is reasonable....
13
14 Mader: I'm not asking necessarily. I'm saying that the City may have some responsibility to the post
15 office, I'm just asking the City staff to go and solve the problem and then come back with the conditions
16 that should be in this application. If the City staff makes the decision and the Council agrees that, you
17 know, the City is going to pick up part of that responsibility, I have no problem with that.
18
19 Tovar: Ok, so there would be alternatives with a recommendation on how to incorporate those into
20 this. That's what you are looking for?
21
22 Mader: Yeah.
23
24 Pace: And I can work with them because we cannot divert water onto somebody else's property.
25
26 Mader: Right. It is going to take, I think, some interesting cooperation between the developer, the post
27 office, staff and so forth, to try to get to a solution, but my attitude is let's fix this corner rather than just
28 build more there and leave it as it is. We've had a significant amount of highway or blacktop breakup in
29 that area if I recall, and I wouldn't be surprised if that isn't also related to the amount of surface water
30 going over that area. I don't know if that's the case, but I know that I personally have been over there
31 when it's gotten pretty bad and I've talked to the City staff about going out and repairing and I suspect
32 that's also a water caused phenomenon.
33
34 Gundlach: Mayor, I'd like to add to that one more piece, and that's just if they can't get an agreement
35 on the ponding like with the post office and stuff, to come back and at least give us a direction for what
36 it would take to get a storm sewer down there. You know, that one way or another we have to solve
37 this issue with storm water management.
38
39 Mader: Yeah, I agree. Jim?
40
41 Ericson: I'd still like to ask about two or three questions to a member of the audience as well.
42
43 Mader: We'll get to you in a minute. Anything else Mike? Jim Petersen? Pete, anything for you? Ok
44 Jim.
45
46 Ericson: Can I call Andy Whiting up to the podium. [pause] Andy, we have ...
47
48 Mader: Excuse me, let's give us your name and address.
49 Whiting: Andy Whiting. I live at 17057 Toronto Avenue, Woodridge Estates 1 st Addition.
50
R:\COUNCI L \MI NUTES\STONGA TE.DOC
10
Verbatim Transcript
April 17, 2000 City Council Meeting
Item 9a
1 Ericson: And what I wanted to say was, Andy, we have new rules under our new bylaws so I'm
2 supposed to ask questions. It is not up here for you to just start saying how it should be, which has
3 been in front of the Planning Commission. I was there. Just a few brief questions just to make it
4 perfectly clear to everyone in the room who may have concern. Andy, did I know you at any time prior
5 to this project?
6
7 Whiting: No.
8
9 Ericson: And at some point in time did you come to my house with a petition.
10
11 Whiting: Yes.
12
13 Ericson: And did I or did I not sign that petition?
14
15 Whiting: You would not sign it.
16
17 Ericson: Right. And did I state publicly at any time whether I would support or not support this?
18
19 Whiting: You did not.
20
21 Ericson: Ok. I just wanted to make that perfectly clear, and that's all the questions I have.
22
23 Whiting: Can I add one thing?
24
25 Ericson: Sure.
26
27 Whiting: I have ....you've pretty much reiterated all of my concerns that were brought up this evening.
28 However, I do have a ...one of the concerns is on the east side of the proposed property is going to be
29 a very steep retaining wall. It's going to be about a 14 or 15 foot cut. With the amount of kids back
30 there in that area, I think that is a major safety hazard for the City if they do approve a conditional use
31 permit if someone trips and falls down that retaining wall also.
32
33 Mader: Ok, thank you. I'm going to move on this item that it be deferred subject to more input from the
34 staff on the concerns that have been raised by Council this evening.
35
36 Schenck: I'll second that.
37
38 Mader: Ok, the motion has been made and seconded. Any additional discussion? [pause] Those in
39 favor signify by saying aye. Aye
40
41 Gundlach: Aye.
42
43 Petersen: Aye
44
45 Schenck Aye
46
47 Mader: Those opposed?
48
49 Ericson: Nay.
50
R:\COUNCIL\MINUTES\STONGA TE.DOC
11