08/09/1999 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

One matter not in dispute is the fact that the developer of the Oak Brook Peninsula subdivision did not grade the easement area on Lot 2 according to the proposed grading plan. To make matters worse, other alterations were apparently made to the grading in this area which contradicts the grading plan. These alterations include the construction of swales; excavation of pond areas not in conformance with the plan; and some filling of the easement area to support the hockey rink construction. When considering the vacation of the easement we did not focus on recent changes made to the drainage patterns. Instead, we focused on the original grading plan, the original purpose of the easement, and whether it is in the City's best interest to vacate a portion of the easement. As the Rice Creek Watershed District (RCWD) and the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MnDNR)both had review authority over the proposed grading plan for this subdivision, we have solicited their comments on the easement vacation. A copy of the correspondence received from these agencies is attached. Both of the agencies recommend that the compensatory flood storage shown on the original grading plan be constructed. If not within the existing easement, then in another location abutting the lake. If the storage is not constructed per the original plan, a new permit application will be required. The applicant has retained a consultant who has visited the site and reviewed various documents. A copy of the consultants letter is attached. The analysis in the letter addresses only the amount of new fill placed in the easement by the property owner. What it does not address is the compensatory storage already missing on this site because it was not graded per the original grading plan. It also does not address the developer's inability to construct the compensatory storage if the rink remains. Staff recognizes there have been many other issues raised with regard to this hockey rink. The specific request to be considered by the City Council at this time is the vacation of a portion of the City's easement. Other issues such as the rink lighting, shoreland setbacks, etc., can be considered after the City Council makes a decision on the issue currently presented. The entire context of how these issues are considered is determined by the City's decision on the easement vacation. In conclusion, I do not recommend vacation of the easement as requested as I do not believe it is in the City's best interest. Our ability to enforce the terms of the development agreement, including the proper grading, are severely hindered if the hockey rink remains on the easement. Even without the development agreement, we cannot contract directly to construct the proper compensatory storage without the full easement. Construction of the compensatory storage per the original grading plan is also consistent with the comments from the RCWD and the MnDNR. If the City Council decides to approve the easement vacation, I would recommend it be conditioned upon the owner's formal submittal of a Site Plan to be processed through the normal review process. This review would determine the zoning/ordinance impacts • of the rink, the need for variances, etc. I would also recommend, if approved, that compensatory storage be constructed and the Site Plan approvals be received prior to the City's formal vacation of the easement.