HomeMy WebLinkAbout0417 Stonegate CUP verbatim 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
City Council Meeting Minutes
Verbatim Transcript
April 17, 2000
Agenda Item 9B
Consider Approval of Resolution O0-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.
Mader: The next item is Item 9B which is to consider approval of a resolution that relates to a multi-
family dwelling at the intersection of Tower and Toronto Streets.
Boyles: Mayor, Member of the Council, you will recall that the City sold a 1.7 acre property at the
intersection of Tower and Toronto. This is a conditional use permit request as required under your.
zoning ordinance which would allow for the development of a 43 unit market rate multi-family dwelling
unit. I'm going to ask Jenni Tovar, our planner, to review the conditional use permit criteria at least in
kind of a summary fashion and provide you with the staff's input. I would direct your attention however,
to page 11 of the staff report and that page indicates certainly as a conditional use permit there are
reasonable conditions that the City Council may place upon any conditional use, and you'll see on that
page some five that have already been proposed. There are a number of others that you may wish to
consider. No parking, for example along Toronto Avenue, completion of storm sewer improvements in.
conjunction with post office project, a limitation of access to the garage via Tower Street or some other
combination as you see most safe, and then finally tree replacement location, and that is a Planning
Commission proposal. With that, Jenni?
Tovar: Thank you Frank. Just to highlight the previous events on this applications. On March 27th the
Planning Commission on a 4-0 vote recommended that the City Council approve this conditional use
permit with conditions. The hearing focused on traffic, drainage related to runoff and the lack of storm
sewer, parking, and tree preservation. And, if Sue can put up the site plan, I'm just going to go through
each one of these issues that the Planning Commission discussion specifically. With regards to tree
preservation, there are 13 trees or 42.25 caliper inches which were proposed to be planted on City
property. When a developer removes trees, they can remove up to 25% without replacement. Anything
about and beyond that has to be replaced at one-half to one. The Developer had proposed to put 42 of
the required 59 inches off-site. The Planning Commission originally recommended that all those
replacement trees be planted on the site with the majority to be planted along 170th Street, which is
shown on the left side there. However, not all of the replacement inches can be planted along that
bufferyard along 170th Street and survive due to limited space. You can only fit so many trees in a 30
foot area, so the Planning Commission therefore recommended the developer meet with staff to
accomplish increased screening and buffing objections and accomplish tree replacement on-site. And if
I could have Sue put up the larger 11x17. I did meet with the developer today as to how that can be
accomplished. The revised plan on the right-hand side is 170th Street and they suggested planting 14
coniferous trees that will fit there and survive, and moving some of the other deciduous trees amongst
the site. The other issue that the Planning Commission discussed was parking. They discussed the
need for "No Parking" signage in the area. It was suggested that Tower Street and Toronto be post
with signs. And currently there.are signs posted on Tower Street, but not on Toronto Avenue. If the City
Council desired, a condition requiring the developer to post "No Parking" signs on Toronto Avenue
between Tower and 170th Street can be added. Another item of discussion at the public hearing was
traffic. And just to go over some projected counts. According to the Institute of Traffic Engineers, the
trip generation on this project will be 278 trips per day. The peak am hour will be 24 trips, and the peak
pm hour will be 26 trips, averaging the rest throughout the day. Toronto Avenue is a two-lane urban
Verbatim Transcript
April 17, 2000 City Council Meeting
Item 9B
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3O
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
4O
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
street which is capable of carrying 8000 - 9000 cars per day. In 1999, the count on Toronto Avenue
was 2300. And as I said, according to the estimates for this proposed use, 278 trips per day will be the
increase. The other thing was runoff. The existing runoff on the site is 4.05 cubic feet per second.
Without on-site ponding, the runoff will be 6.04 cubic feet per second. The applicant is proposing to
provide ponding within the parking lot which will result in a runoff of 4.17 cubic feet per second and the
increased runoff is therefore 0.12 cubic feet per second. There currently is no storm sewer serving the
area. The water from the area collects at the intersection of Tower and Toronto Street. Staff does
anticipate a storm sewer system to be constructed with the future construction of the ring road and this
project is currently scheduled for 2001 in the 2001-2005 ClP which is going to be reviewed by the City
Council on May 1st. The developer is also providing for a future connection, or a connection to future
City storm sewer systems, to be constructed as part of that ring road. The plans indicate construction
of storm sewer pipe to the right-of-way to be connected to the future system. I just also want to
mention you do have a petition. The City did receive a petition signed by 75 people protesting this
project, and that's in your packet. And as Frank said, there are additional reasonable conditions which
the Council can make a condition of the conditional use permit, such as the "no parking" signs on
Toronto Avenue, completion of the storm sewer improvement in conjunction with the post office project,
limitation of access to the garage via Tower Street, and tree replacement location as proposed by the
Planning Commission. Staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit with the following.
conditions: four additional shrubs are required to be planted in the buffer yard along 170th Street, and
irrigation plan is to be submitted. There is a memo in your packet from the Engineering staff dated
March 1st which has three issues in it which have yet to be addressed. Hydrant locations need to be
indicated and a 300 foot hydrant radius needs to be provided and a letter of credit needs to be
submitted. And the Planning Commission did recommend adding a sixth condition requiring all tree
replacement occur on-site with an emphasis bn the buffer yard on the east side which is 170th Street
to be approved by staff, and that is in the attached resolution. And I will stand for any questions.
Mader: One question Jenni. What is our time frame on this for acting?
Tovar: The applicant has signed a 120 day waiver due to the continuances that were up front at the
Planning Commission.
Mader: When does that 120 days ...... ?
Tovar: They waived it due to their continuance at the Planning Commission.
Mader: Any questions of Councilmembers of staff at thiS point?
Ericson: Yes, I have several. On page 1, right about where it says "current circumstances", it says the
property has been zoned for multi-family residential uses since 1975. Has it always been R-4, or has it
been R-3 in the past, and if so, when did that change occur?
Tovar: Well, on the original zoning ordinance from 1975, it was zoned R-3, which there was no R-4 at
that time. R-3 at that time was defined as multi-family residential. That was changed when the City
adopted a new zoning ordinance, May 1, 1999, I believe, when we readjusted the multi-family zoning
districts and added an R-3 and then consequently added an R-4.
Ericson: Ok, and when it was an R-3, what was the density for that area for an R-37
I:\COUNCIL\MINUTES~2000\STONGATE.DOC 2
Verbatim Transcript
April 17, 2000 City Council Meeting
Item 9B
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3O
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
4O
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
Tovar: I don't have that information.
Rye: Councilmember, the old ordinance, the maximum density for conventional development was 14
units per acre, and they could go up to 18.8, I think through a PUD.
Ericson: Page 2, it talks about proposed access from Tower and Toronto. Neither of these roads is
designed as an arterial or collector road, and it's my understanding that access to a high-density
residential must be on a collector or arterial roadway.
[End of Tape.]
Tovar: ........ under "Uses Permitted With A Conditional Use Permit" under multiple family dwellings,
"access shall be to a roadway identified in the Comprehensive Plan as a collector or arterial, or shall be
otherwise located so that access can be provided without generating significant traffic on local
residential streets".
Ericson: In talking about trip generation and roads and how they are designed, you say that a road
such as Toronto and Tower can carry 8,000 to 9,000 cars per day. That's the way they are designed..
Correct?
Tovar: According to the Comprehensive Plan that's a two-lane urban street which is designed to carry
8 to 9 thousand cars per day.
Ericson: And what are the design criteria for carrying 8 to 9 thousand cars per day. is it like the width
of the road, how thick the tar is and things like that. Is that some of the primary concerns on how they
are constructed.
Rye: Typically, it'll have to do with number of lanes, width of the lanes, capacity of the street.
Something we should probably keep in mind - that 8 to 9 thousand is really a maximum figure. That's
assuming, basically that the road is running pretty much at capacity 24-hours a day. If you were going
to build a street to accommodate a volume of 8 or 9 thousand a day, it would be probably a higher
standard.
Ericson: OK. And, I guess I'm not concerned that we're going to get 8 or 9 thousand cars per day
down there. I certainly hope not. I don't want it to be a Minneapolis. My concern about the traffic flow
has nothing to do with volumes of cars, ok. One of the concerns I have is especially with the proposed
layout the way it is, cars going across traffic when you have other cars going to other areas, specifically
in the evenings when there is a lot of ball field activity and things like that. And I think that is significant
to point out that it is not a volume issue that I have any concern about. I think we really need to take a
look at how those accesses are going into and out of that property. A couple of other questions. Jenni,
when you take a look at the height or the elevations of the property, how do you go about that? Do you
use a computer system to determine how high the building is going to be, or do you use, which, I
thought I saw you using a ruler and a pencil trying to measure out the elevations compared to the
drawings that were submitted one day when I came to your office?
Tovar: How we measure the height, and I'll just read you the definition: A distance measured from the
mean curb level along the front lot line or from the finished grade level for all that portion of the
structure having frontage on a public right-of-way, whichever is higher, to the mean distance of the
I:\COUNCIL\MINUTES~2000\STONGATE.DOC 3
Verbatim Transcript
April 17, 2000 City Council Meeting
Item 9B
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
highest gable on a pitched or hip roof. So we start by getting the mean curb level along the front line, or
the finished grade level. In this case, it is from the finished grade level for all that portion of the
structure having frontage on a public right-of-way. So the survey indicates the high and the Iow points
at each corner. That's indicated on the survey, and I don't know if you can see it. If Sue puts up that
first site plan they are on there. And the mean is just the average, highest plus the lowest divided by
two. That gives you the mean curb elevation. Then when you look at the elevation sheets. This sheet.
In the building, it gives you the mean curb elevation down here measured to the mean peak roof which
is right here to get the height. And that's in accordance with the ordinance. Why I probably scaled it out
that day is because we didn't have this originally. On the original plan, we didn't have this mean roof
elevation.
Ericson: OK. Several more questions. Going to page 4 in our staff report, it talks about setbacks, and
it's the third line. It says, "for the purposes of determining setbacks, a bonus is given for underground
parking." Can you explain to me what the bonus is and rationale and things of that nature?
Tovar: The bonus, I believe, maybe I should grab the ordinance, but it takes out nine feet off of the
height of the building for setbacks. Setback in this case is determined by half the height of the building.
For the purposes of setbacks, that nine feet is taken off of the height because the garage is.
underground. That's the bonus for having parking underground, underneath the building. The setbacks
is not ...... The developer is not penalized because now their height may be higher because they have
underground parking, which consequently would increase their setback if there setback is equal to the
height of the building. So therefore, the height of the underground parking is not counted for the
setback.
Ericson: OK. You'll have to bare with me. I have quite a few questions here. Talking about parking,
page 5, 87 stalls are required and it says the plan indicates that 86 stalls and 1 stall in front of the
mechanical room. Is a stall in front of a mechanical room an acceptable parking spot? I mean, I know,
for example, in a building you have to be so far from an electrical box, like 36 inches or something, so
there is no obstruction to a mechanical room. Are there any types of requirements for ~ccess into a
mechanical room? Is anyone aware of that?
Tovar: I would presume that .... Our Building Official has looked at this in great detail. He's not here by
speak, but if there were some building code related item to that, it would have been made a point. I
would presume at this point.
Ericson: Now I'm going to page 6, and Existing / Proposed Runoff of Storm Water. Currently there is
4.05 feet. The addition of this property will bring it up to 6.04. I understand that the developer is
proposing to do some ponding in the parking lot. Is that correct?
Tovar: That's correct.
Ericson: I don't know .... I'm sure that the developer probably would want to come up and talk. I have to
be honest with you, I know I have been to a number of your meetings and you're saying that you're
going to have market rate apartments for $1300 - $1400 per month and I just cannot see that someone
paying that much is going to want to walk into a foot of water in the parking lot when they are paying
that much. I also .... I'm really not concerned about water as much as I am the freezing of the water in
the winter time. I don't think that the proposed drainage issue as it is currently being proposed is
acceptable at all. First of all, I have personally been in two accidents on that corner with what the runoff
is right now. I think that adding the additional runoff to the area without a concrete, in-place solution for
I:\COUNCIL\MINUTES~000\STONGATE.DOC 4
Verbatim Transcript
April 17, 2000 City Council Meeting
Item 9B
1
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
4O
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
that drainage, as a condition of this being ..... going forward is absolutely necessary. There is a bus stop
there, and I know bus stops can change, however, I don't think that is going to move too far because
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.
That's a big concern of mine. And we go down a little bit further and it says .... I'm on page 7 .... and
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
page 7. We haven't approved anything for that yet. I don't know if we funding for that. We are talking
about where we are going to get funding for a lot of things. I think it is convenient to say that we are
going to put it in there just because the ring road is going in there, but we haven't even approved the
.... how we are going to go about the ring road. And my concern is that even if the developer does put
whatever portion he says that he's going to put in there, that we could be talking potentially another
year and a half before that gets hooked up. And so in the meantime, we're adding additional water to.
that corner which is a problem and I'm sure everyone is aware of it. And so basically, we have an ice
skating rink on that corner without it being taken care of right away. I do see that it says that there
should be an option, an option would be to require the development agreement to construct some sort
of agreement with the post office. I would suggest that unless something like that or storm water going
north of there, if either the ponding could be addressed with the post office, or going north that that
would; either one of those would have to be a conditional prior to anything happening on this property.
Ok, page 10 of our packet, item number 5 says "the use will not have undue adverse impacts on the.
use and enjoyment of properties in close proximity to the conditional use" and below that it says "this
use is adjacent to three public streets and a townhome development to the east". It further goes on to
say that "this use will not have impact on enjoyment of the properties in close proximity~'. I think it is
important to note that there is one element of property that happens to be missing out of that and that
is an R-1 district to the south. And I would suggest that this proposed property would have an adverse
impact on those properties which, in fact, are in close proximity. I am concerned about the additional
shrubs and trees. To me it seems that we put our plans together and require tree replacement and
things of that nature because we want a certain set volume or number of trees to be put in there. You
stated that they cannot figure out a way to get all of those trees in there and that suggests to me that
they are trying to put too much into a particular area because if they could put that in there and our tree
preservation program is supposed to work the way it is, I would think that they should be able to put all
of the trees back on there.
Tovar: Councilman Ericson, can I clarify something. What the replacement we are talking about
planting all those replacement trees along 170th Street. There is not enough room to plant it between
the building and 170th Street.
Ericson: But they can put them all on the property?
Tovar: Yes, and that was the revised plan that I had put up on the overhead which had indicated that.
Ericson: Ok, I just have a few more things here. On page 27 of our Comprehensive Plan, way back
there, item number (w) as conditions, I think it's under section 2. Actually what I'm looking at is right
above objective 3, it says "development shall be constructed in a manner sensitive to the impact of the
natural features, environmental constraints, including but not limited to surface water..." an issue that I
have been talking about for quite some time, and it hasn't been until recently that anyone has really
addressed the concerns that I have about the surface water with the runoff.
Pace: Jim, excuse me. Can you cite the page that your referring to?
I:\COUNCIL\MINUTES~000\STONGATE.DOC 5
Verbatim Transcript
April 17, 2000 City Council Meeting
Item 9B
1
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
Ericson: Page 27, item (w). So, what this suggests to me is, in fact, that that surface water, that runoff,
has to be taken care of. It says it in our policies. We have put these in place for those specific reasons.
I have personal knowledge of the area. I drive down the road all the time, but that has nothing to do
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
would just ask the rest of the Council to really take a good close look at this. I do have some legitimate
safety concerns. A couple other things. We go into' the ....where we are talking about crime in the area,
and I think we'll start with page 7. Apparently you got some different numbers than I did. I asked the
Police Chief for some numbers, and I asked for all non-traffic related police calls to that area, which
include Tower Street and then also the Brooksville Apartment, and I believe there are approximately
200 apartments in that area. Is that pretty close?
Tovar: Brooksville Apartments has 36. Tower Hills 68. Tower Hill West 51.
Ericson: But all combined within that 1 block area there is about what?
Tovar: 160.
Ericson: The information that I got from the Police Chief is from January 1, 1999 through December.
31, 1999. Them are a total of 217 non-traffic related calls to those addresses in those areas. And then I
know you go and compare it to some other areas. What I would suggest is 217 police calls is an awful
lot for that small of an area. You add another 43 which would be another 25% to that, so that I can
basically, or we can all expect that with the addition of this type of property in close proximity to the
other high-density residential uses in that area, we can expect at least another 50 police calls per year
to that one block. That brings it up to 250 in a year, if we am to use the same numbers that were from
last year. I don't know about you, but 250 police calls to one block seems to be an exorbitant amount.
We compare then on page 7, actually it's page 8, to a number of different areas .... I think it's page 8,
no, excuse me, it's still page 7 .... to like Willow Beach and Oakridge neighborhoods. I don't know what
those neighborhoods are. I'm still learning all the neighborhoods, but I would suggest to you is that the
Woodridge Estate area has, I believe about 125 house, or 120, does anyone know? Ok, let's just say
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
you have the same number of units, and you have maybe 5 police call a year compared to this other
area where you have 250. I find it totally unacceptable and it's not right. I am concerned about the
entry way in and out of the area. I am concerned about the water. I am concerned about the crime, and
also, while I have a chance to call up of the members of the audience as well and ask some specific
questions.
Mader: You certainly will, yes.
Ericson: Ok, then I just have one last thing.
Mader: That is if you yield before midnight.
Ericson: Let's go way in the back of our packets, and it says "Building Smarter with Apartments". Who,
in their infinite wisdom, decided to put this in our packets?
Tovar: I did.
I:\COUNCIL\MINUTES~000\STONGATE.DOC 6
Verbatim Transcript
April 17, 2000 City Council Meeting
Item 9B
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
Ericson: Ok. What I'm going to suggest is that this talks how great apartments are and things of that
nature, but you go way to the end and you see that it is sponsored by the National Apartment
Association. So, I would think that they would have an invested interest in how great apartments are
since that is there business, and I just want to suggest that this is actually really not acceptable in
terms of being a objective piece of literature. And I'll pass it on to someone else.
Mader: I would like to just comment on two of the items Jim mentioned. I think he was commenting that
safety in that particular area shouldn't be judged by the criteria of how many cars. We need to keep in
mind there is a grad school there on that intersection. We also need to keep in mind there is a steep
hill going up from that intersection up to the apartments at the top of Tower, and there is no school bus
service at the top of that hill so children who are coming for school bus come walking down the street..
There actually in the street, and then they get down to the intersection which in the winter time is
frozen over, and then they stand in the roadway waiting for the bus. So there are some unique issues
there and as a consequence of that, one of the things I had suggested to staff a couple of days ago, is
to take a serious look at the question of whether the traffic in and out of that facility could be managed
with the entrance on Tower being and entrance, and the one on Toronto being and exit. What that
would do, is keep any traffic from having to cross the lane, because traffic coming into the apartment
complex would all be in the right lane going up the hill and they would all make a right turn, and they.
would have just come through an intersection which means that they are slowed down and that it's
controlled traffic in other words. And traffic coming out of the apartment complex I would assumed 99%
of it or more would turn and head in a westerly direction, or make a right turn, which means they would
be making a right turn into a right lane. So, I would, if somebody else doesn't add that as a conditional
use permit, I'm going to add that. There may be some...I would suggest also that engineering staff has
to look at that and see if that makes sense, but that would be one of my perceptions. The other has to
do with the ice situation. I know that has been a troublesome intersection with surface water, and
putting more traffic into that intersection where we have again the situation I mentioned earlier, children
collecting there for school bus, traffic coming down Tower Street which is already coming down a steep
hill, it is an intersection right now kind of designed to have accidents. I would certainly echo Jim's
comments that we need to address that issue so that that water is not surface water, that it's
underground some way so we don't have to deal with it on our streets. Those are the only comments I
have relative to this issue right now. Other questions of Jenni? Pete?
Schenck: Jenni, how close are we to the existing hook-up to the sewer system?
Tovar: I would refer that to the City Engineer. Storm sewer?
Schenck: Storm sewer system. Yes.
Osmundson: It is about, I'm really guessing here, 500 or 600 feet to the west on Tower Street.
Schenck: It is the City's obligations to resolve that drainage issue then, isn't it'?.
Osmundson: Well, at that intersection. If you remember, when I talked about the ring road here a
month ago, or whatever it was, I had said at the time that we were going to do some improvements to
that intersection. Right now, there is no catch basins from any direction. All the water flows through that
intersection and actually flows west on Tower down to that Iow point where the wetland is, and then it
goes into catch basins at that point. And part of the whole ring road discussion, I said we needed to
have some extra money in there to put storm sewer improvements at that intersection.
I:\COU N Cl L\MIN UTES~2000\STON GATE. DOC 7
Verbatim Transcript
April 17, 2000 City Council Meeting
Item 9B
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
Schenck: So we can't anticipate having an improvement to that intersection until the ring road is
approved and funds allocated?
Osmundson: Or with the post office project, or we could do it separately, whichever the Council would
desire.
Schenck: So, correct me, the only reason that we're holding off on this is a combination of post office
and ring road?
Osmundson: Yes, as far as I ......
Schenck: Because we have an issue we need to resolve. If, because the drainage issue is a serious
issue, once we resolve our obligation to that intersection, should there be a condition in the CUP
perhaps that requires a hook-up within a certain period of time?
Tovar: The way the plan is drawn, the applicant is proposing to put a pipe out to the right-of-way, so
when the City does come in and do a public improvement project, the infrastructure will already be in-
place.
Schenck: So in other words, they are going to be ahead of where we should be.
Tovar: Yes, that was one of the changes in the engineering memo that that be added.
Schenck: OK. And then explain to me the correlation between this project and the post office ponding.
Are we now proposing to divert the water over to the post office property for ponding, and would that
be a surface diversion, or storm sewer diversion?
Tovar: Staff and Planning Commission's recommendation is that you approve the conditional use
permit with the storm water runoff as proposed with 0.12 additional increase in runoff. That's the
Planning Commission's recommendation and that was staff's recommendation.
Schenck: No, I understand that, but What's the correlation with this proposal, this CUP that we are
considering, and the post office.
Tovar: I'll defer that to Bud. There has been some discussion last week.
Osmundson: Yes, we have had some discussions with the post office engineer and architect and they
would actually be proposing to put some ponding on that...it would be kitty-corner from this site...and
that would take the drainage from this intersection right into that pond and it eventually would go
through the wetlands that's about in the middle of the post office site, and then that would traverse
back across Tower to the wetland on the south side where the water does go now. The whole point
being that nerp basins, water quality improvements, slow the water down, that type of improvement is
what we are talking about.
Schenck: OK.
Mader: That would mean that we would be looking at putting the water underground?
h\COUNCIL\MINUTES~000\STONGATE.DOC 8
Verbatim Transcript
April 17, 2000 City Council Meeting
Item 9B
1
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
Osmundson: Correct.
Mader: Before the ring road, before there is storm sewer and that sort of thing?
Osmundson: We would put storm sewer improvements in that intersection to catch the water to bring
into the pipe, to bring it into this pond that I was just talking about.
Tovar: Mr. Mader, just for point of clarification. That's a comment or discussion that the developer of
this project has not been made aware of or privy to. I don't think that they are aware that this is an
alternative that the Council may be suggesting.
Mader: I understand that. Pete, any other questions?
Schenck: (Indicated no)
Mader: Any other questions of Jenni?
Boyles: Can I ask one?
Mader: Sure.
Boyles: This may be something we missed. I remember when we first started talking about this
project, we talked about a sidewalk going up Tower and I don't know if that was discussed and then
dropped, or ..... I don't see it here and I'm not sure if it was something that was an oversight that we may
have missed. I recall that the school superintendent called me and said "we're not sending the busses
up to the top of that hill, and it sure would be helpful to be able to have a sidewalk."
Tovar: There is no sidewalk shown on the plans. I don't know. That never came up in a DRC, I believe,
and that hasn't come up, did not come up at the Planning Commission. Certainly it is something we
can add.
Ericson: I think that situation came up about a year or two ago in some other discussions. I don't recall
it being a part of this. I think it would be a good idea since the remainder of that road already does
have a sidewalk to the west of that.
Mader: I think that is another item that needs to be looked at and included in the overall planning here
because I certainly don't think it's a good idea to have those kids walking down a roadway, particularly
where we are going to be putting more traffic on it. It is a bad situation right now and the situation gets
worse, so I think that is something that should also be considered as we finalize this plan. One of the
questions going through my mind here is, you know there have been a number of suggestions here
tonight, and I would think it would be kind of hard to finalize a resolution here at the desk tonight saying
"OK, here is the approval subject to these conditional use permits". I wonder if we wouldn't be better off
to specifically give the staff some direction on the issues we would like addressed, with the idea that
would come back then in a resolution for the Council to look at with specific language that would
address those issues. Would that make sense to the Council, rather than trying to finalize a resolution
tonight? I'm going to suggest then that ...Jim certainly has raised some issues. I think you have heard
some other comments. Particularly, from my standpoint, there would be three items I would ask for the
h\COUNCIL\MINUTES~000\STONGATE.DOC 9
Verbatim Transcript
April 17, 2000 City Council Meeting
Item 9B
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
staff to address. One has to do with the sidewalk, taking them in reverse order, making sure that we do
address that issue because if it's going to be addressed, now is the time to do it. Secondly, making
sure we have a plan that keeps that surface water off the road. And thirdly, that we address that in and
out traffic from the apartment complex to try to prevent any crossing of lanes and specifically, I'd
recommend the staff look at that issue of having the exit be onto Toronto, and the entrance being from
Tower. Those are the three that I would ask the Staff to look at to see if those can be formulated into
conditional use permits. And I do recognize also there will have to be some discussion with the
developer also as to how this might be accomplished.
Tovar: I would just like a point of clarification regarding the runoff. Do you want it to stay as it is, or do
you want it to be zero. Because right now, it is 4.15 ..........
Mader: I want it to go under the road instead of over the road. What we have right now just goes over
the road and the proposal is to keep doing the same way and we already recognize that that's a hazard
there.
Tovar: Ok, just so I understand when we work with the developer. So right now the runoff is 4.17 csf.
You want it to be zero because you want the runoff to go under the road and divert it to another piece
of property.
Mader: yeah.
Tovar: Ok.
Mader: I would certainly think, I'm not sure I understand what parking lot pooling of water is, but I
would certainly think that the developer would rather not have the water standing in the parking lot
either, and if we do it and take it underground that there is a pond on the post office side that will
handle that, it seems to me that that's a better solution.
Tovar: I think we should maybe discuss this with the City Attorney and the legality because the current
runoff as no development occurs is 4.17, and your asking the developer to now make that zero and
whether that is reasonable ....
Mader: I'm not asking necessarily. I'm saying that the City may have some responsibility to the post
office, I'm just asking the City staff to go and solve the problem and then come back with the conditions
that should be in this application. If the City staff makes the decision and the Council agrees that, you
know, the City is going to pick up part of that responsibility, I have no problem with that.
Tovar: Ok, so there would be alternatives with a recommendation on how to incorporate those into
this. That's what you are looking for?
Mader: Yeah.
Pace: And I can work with them because we cannot divert water onto somebody else's property.
Mader: Right. It is going to take, I think, some interesting cooperation between the developer, the post
office, staff and so forth, to try to get to a solution, but my attitude is let's fix this corner rather than just
build more there and leave it as it is. We've had a significant amount of highway or blacktop breakup in
h\COUNCIL\MINUTES~000\STONGATE.DOC 10
Verbatim Transcript
April 17, 2000 City Council Meeting
Item 9B
1
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3O
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
that area if I recall, and I wouldn't be surprised if that isn't also related to the amount of surface water
going over that area. I don't know if that'S the case, but I know that I personally have been over there
when it's gotten pretty bad and I've talked to the City staff about going out and repairing and I suspect
that's also a water caused phenomenon.
Gundlach: Mayor, I'd like to add to that one more' piece, and that's just if they can't get an agreement
on the ponding like with the post office and stuff, to come back and at least give us a direction for what
it would take to get a storm sewer down there. You know, that one way or another we have to solve
this issue with storm water management.
Mader: Yeah, I agree. Jim?
Ericson: I'd still like to ask about two or three questions to a member of the audience as well.
Mader: We'll get to you in a minute. Anything else Mike? Jim Petersen? Pete, anything for you? Ok
Jim.
Ericson: Can I call Andy Whiting up to the podium. [pause] Andy, we have ...
Mader: Excuse me, let's give us your name and address.
Whiting: Andy Whiting. I live at 17057 Toronto Avenue, Woodridge Estates 1st Addition.
Ericson: And what I wanted to say was, Andy, we have new rules under our new bylaws so I'm
supposed to ask questions. It is not up here for you to just start saying how it should be, which has
been in front of the Planning Commission. I was there. Just a few brief questions just to make it
perfectly clear to everyone in the room who may have concern. Andy, did I know you at any time prior
to this project?
Whiting: No.
Ericson: And at some point in time did you come to my house with a petition.
Whiting: Yes.
Ericson: And did I or did I not sign that petition?
Whiting: You would not sign it.
Ericson: Right. And did I state publicly at any time whether I would support or not support this?
Whiting: You did not.
Ericson: Ok. I just wanted to make that perfectly clear, and that's all the questions I have.
Whiting: Can I add one thing?
Ericson: Sure.
I:\COUNCIL\MINUTES~000\STONGATE.DOC 11
Verbatim Transcript
April 17, 2000 City Council Meeting
Item 9B
1 Whiting: I have ....you've pretty much reiterated all of my concerns that were brought up this evening.
2 However, I do have a ...one of the concerns is on the east side of the proposed property is going to be
3 a very steep retaining wall. It's going to be about a 14 or 15 foot cut. With the amount of kids back
4 there in that area, I think that is a major safety hazard for the City if they do approve a conditional use
5 permit if someone trips and falls down that retaining wall also.
6
7 Mader: Ok, thank you. I'm going to move on this item that it be deferred subject to more input from the
8 staff on the concerns that have been raised by Council this evening.
9
10 Schenck: I'll second that.
11
12 Mader: Ok, the motion has been made and seconded. Any additional discussion? [pause] Those in
13 favor signify by saying aye. Aye
14
15 Gundlach: Aye.
16
17 Petersen: Aye
18
19 Schenck Aye
20
21 Mader: Those opposed?
22
23 Ericson: Nay.
24
25 Mader: Motion carried.
I:\COUNCIL\MINUTES~2000\STONGATE.DOC 12