1986 09 081
1
CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
SEPTEMBER 8, 1986
Mayor Hamilton called the meeting to order. The meeting was opened with the
Pledge to the Flag.
Members Present
Councilman Horn, Councilman Geving, Councilwoman Watson
Members Absent
Councilwoman Swenson
Staff Present
Don Ashworth, Barbara Dacy, and Bill Monk
APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Councilwoman Watson moved, Mayor Hamilton seconded to
approve the Agenda as presented with Councilman Horn's addition of a brief
discussion with the City Manager of the changes recommended for the Police
Contract. All voted in favor and motion carried.
CONSENT AGENDA: Councilman Geving moved, Councilman Horn seconded to approve
the Consent Agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's recommendations. All
voted in favor and motion carried.
2. a. Approval of Consultant Agreement, Comprehensive Plan.
b. Approval of Amendment to Joint Powers Agreement, Southwest Area
Transit Commission.
c. Approval of Site Plan Amendment, Larry Zamor.
d. Preliminary and Final Plat Approval, Stevens Addition.
e. Preliminary and Final Plat Approval, Wirtz Addition.
f. Final Reading of Zoning Ordinance Amendment to P -1, Planned
Residential Development District:
g-
1. South Lotus Lake Addition
2. Chanhassen Vista
Approve Final Plat and Development Contract for Fox Hollow Fourth
Addition.
h. Resolution #86 -67: Accept Utility Construction in Chestnut Ridge 7th
and 8th Additions and Trappers Pass 2nd Addition.
i. Dow -Sat Cable TV, Reduce Construction Performance Bond.
•
Approval of Paving Work at Fire Station No. 1.
1
2 2 0
City Council Meeting - September 8, 1986
VISITOR PRESENTATION:
Conrad Fiskness, Chanhassen Estates, 3300 Cheyenne: As President of the Riley
Purgatory Watershed District, he wanted to thank Bill Monk for the services to
the City of Chanhassen and the relationship to the Watershed District. They
have been very pleased with the relationship with Bill Monk and expressed his
word of thanks. Secondly, he attended the public information meeting of SWAT,
Southwest Area Transit. He stated as far as he understood originally and the
information from the meeting, the premise was to reduce taxes and reduce the
burden on the taxpayer that was placed by the MX. That seems to have been
eliminated by the Legislature so that now the same amount is going to be
levied and it we don't use it all, the balance goes back to them. Therefore,
the premise becomes one of increase service for the same amount of money. He
stated he had some reservations. Route 54 has reinforced those reservations.
He didn't think it had materialized if, in fact it maybe hasn't ceased. Since
taxes can't be reduced with that money going to the MTC, he picked up the
statement at the meeting that we will have to sell the idea of increased
services. He felt uncomfortable with the idea that a public agency would be
taxing the taxpayers and then turning around and using them. A significant
portion of that money to sell the idea back to the people in the area where it
is located. He seriously doubted and the idea of inbound service to various
areas here in the Chanhassen /Eden Prairie area sounds good but when you have
a situation where there is free parking at destination, you aren't going to
get an overwhelming support use of that service. People who live out in the
suburbs move there, live there, recognizing the fact that you are going to have
to have wheels of your own to get somewhere so the reliance on public
transportation to get around within your surburban setting seems to be, in his
opinion, minimal. As he thought about it, he finds himself in the position of
urging the Council to consider that the Legislature will cut you off at the
pass and maybe it is time to go onto another challenge.
PUBLIC HEARING:
VACATION OF DOGWOOD AVENUE RIGHT -OF -WAY, TRIPLE CROWN ESTATES.
Barbara Dacy: Very briefly, the City Attorney has asked us to bring this to
the Council's attention. There is a 20 foot right -of -way platted along the
Carver Beach Plat and the Triple Crown Estates Plat, 20 feet of what is known
on the Carver Beach Plat as Dogwood Avenue. To make a long legal story short,
this action tonight would be to vacate that right -of -way and to insure that it
is properly vacated by the City so that the land underneath can be contained
legally inside the Triple Crown Estates property as approved by the Council
last year. What we are recommending as a condition of approval is a retention
of a 10 foot utility easement along the rear of the lots in the Triple Crown
Estates plat, Lots 1 through 10 of Block 1. If you would like me to elaborate
that is fine but in the interest of time.
Councilwoman Watson: It says in here that the County never really knew that
we had it, is that right? So we are vacating what really isn't there?
Barbara Dacy: Yes, at first we thought it was dedicated and it was vacated.
Then we found out it was not vacated and the Carver County Examiner of Titles
came back and said we don't feel this property is dedicated, so we presented
2
1
1
1
City Council Meeting - September 8, 1986
this to Mr. Knutson and he said go ahead with the vacation anyway.
Councilwoman Watson: Just in case at some point it was sort of dedicated.
Councilman Geving moved, Councilwoman Watson seconded to close the Public
Hearing. All voted in favor and motion carried.
Resolution #86 -68: Councilman Geving moved, Councilwoman Watson seconded to
adopt the resolution for vacating Dogwood Avenue with the one condition that
the City retain the 10 foot utility easement on the final plat. All voted in
favor and motion carried.
ASSESSMENT HEARING FOR CREEKWOOD DRIVE STREET IMPROVEMENTS AND APPROVAL OF
ASSESSMENT ROLL.
Bill Monk: It is an assessment hearing. Last year the City Council
authorized construction of a street improvement on Creekwood Drive from TH 101
to the west terminous of the public portion of the street as shown on this
map basically bounded on the north by Halla Nursery. The road does service
numerous single family residences as well as the Bluff Creek Golf Course.
Improvements were completed last year. Final payment was made, I believe in
November. This is the section of street that was actually improved. Again,
from TH 101 following the existing gravel alignment, grading took place by
City crews and then pavement was placed. To keep the cost down, most of the
work was done in -house except for the paving itself. The final costs are
listed in the report, $14,839.95. Those total costs were broken up as per the
feasibility study to on -line and off -line assessments. On -line units being
Mr. Anderson, Mr. Sabinske and the Halla Nursey property. Between them the
Halla property was assessed four on -line units whereas Anderson and Sabinske
properties were assessed one residential unit. The property on the corner is
so low over here and the soils are so bad, the decision was made as part of
the feasibility study that no assessment would be proposed in this corner of
the site. Off -line assessments were given to the six residences on Mandan,
the five single family units on Bluff Creek on the private section as well as
the golf course. Project costs broke down to $269.82 per off -line unit and
$539.62 per on -line unit with the golf course being assessed a number of off -
line units for a total assessment of $8,634.24. Again, Halla Nursery got four
on -line units or $2,158.48. It is proposed that the project be 100% assessed
to the total cost of almost $15,000.00. Further, that the assessment be
spread over a 5 year term at a 9% interest rate. The 9% interest rate is
based on the results of the bond sale that the City recently carried out to
fund a number of projects in town. This being one. With that I guess I will
answer questions that the public or Council may have. This is a public
hearing.
Mayor Hamilton stated it looked like a good project. Councilman Geving asked
if the City had any written appeals from any of the people to be assessed.
Bill Monk stated that the only written thing is a roller did go over Mr.
Sabinski's driveway and caused some damage and the City Engineer was
processing the claim right now. As far as the assessments go, there had been
no written comments.
3
222
City Council Meeting - September 8, 1986
Councilman Horn moved, Councilwoman Watson seconded to close public hearing.
All voted in favor and motion carried.
Resolution #86 -69: Councilwoman Watson moved, Mayor Hamilton seconded to
approve the recommended Creekwood Drive project costs with the assessments as
noted on the Assessment Roll. All voted in favor and motion carried.
ACCEPT FEASIBILITY STUDY AND APPROVE WATERMAIN TRUNK EXTENSION TO CHANHASSEN
HILLS.
Bill Monk: There are a number of consultants present tonight that have quite
a bit to do with a lot of the items on the agenda. I'm going to run through
and I will introduce them as I go through. Keith Anderson and Mike Hoff are
both here from Donohue Associates who basically prepared the report. I will
go through the basics of it. The Council has seen this project before so
unless there are questions, I won't spend a tremendous amount of time with it.
The project entails, based on a petition from the Meritor Development over in
this area by the intersection of Lyman Blvd. and Great Plains Blvd., to extend
water service down to this area. Sewer service already exists in this corner
of the property and can be easily extended. A water main exists to the north
just south of the railroad tracks right across from the City's Park Shelter
Wellhouse adjacent to Lake Susan. The plan is to extend an 18 inch trunk line
down to a point which is on the northern tip of Hillside Oaks Development, cut
across a low wetland area, get to the corner of the subdivision and then run a
12 inch line through the subdivision. The 18 inch and the 12 inch lines do
conform with the City's overall water plan that call for trunk lines in both
locations. It is being proposed at this point, I noted to extend the 12 inch
line across and through the subdivision so it can be used for lateral benefit
along both sides as you come through but also to serve as the trunk instead of
repeating in the future, an extension further to the south because all of the
property down in this vicinity is outside the MUSA line and this will simplify
the extensions quite a bit. It is proposed that this project also be 100%
assessed. This is a map that marks the boundaries of the assessment. It does
not delineate the Meritor subdivision but this area will be assessed. These
are basically the non - petitioning property owners who will be assessed trunk
benefit only because they will have ready use of the 18 inch line that does
pump to the south. We've done a trunk benefit analysis listing the properties
and the proposed costs. The properties owned by Lake Susan Hills and James
Curry have sold his interests in the properties to Lake Susan Hills so those
two entities represent all of the properties to be assessed. There are nine
properties in total to be assessed. Each one listed. The first eight as
listed in the report will be assessed for trunk benefit only at a rate the
City has used on two other projects of 1.85 units per acre times the City's
trunk charge of $650.00 per acre and that is how numbers associated with
properties 1 through 8 are derived. Additionally, Chanhassen Hills, Meritor
Development will get trunk assessments based on their proposed subdivision
which I believe is 1.87 or 1.86 units per acre and then a lateral assessment
equivalent to a 6 inch line cutting through the subdivision. As you can see,
the total of the costs are listed here. Proposed assessments are just over
$576,000.00 and the total project costs are $416,600.00 so the project will be
somewhat overassessed. As it goes through, trunk units collected over and
above what we need for the project would be put into the City's trunk fund to
4
1
1
1
City Council Meeting - September 8, 1986
help pay for the other trunk lines and water tower that have already been
approved so that there is no question that there is ready and good use to be
made of these trunk lines. That is the project in a nutshell. Council has
seen this before. Again, all property owners have been notified and this is a
public hearing.
Councilman Geving moved, Councilman Horn seconded to close the public hearing.
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Councilman Geving: What is the total amount of the dollars that we have
invested this year in public improvement projects? I note this is a public
improvement project.
Bill Monk: Yes, it is. The City sold a bond issue several months ago for 4.6
Million Dollars. That bond issue covered projects over a two year period
because we had no bond issue the year before. Basically, as noted in the
Manager's comments, if you look at the project, none of those were purely
residential developments. They all had trunks or common lines in them so
basically they had to be assessed but it was an appreciable amount of the 4.6
Million.
Councilman Geving: Do we feel that this might be about the last public
improvement request that we are going to take this year?
Don Ashworth: First of all, work that is really being looked at would be for
1987. We wanted to alert the City Council to the fact that we have approved
several projects like Lake Drive East, consideration of this project, West
65th Street, that might be bonded in 1987. We see that our bonding limits the
guidelines that we had talked about 2 -3 years ago which would insure when we
stay below our current debt level, we are very close to that and we would not
recommend any additional projects unless they were at a very high priority.
Councilman Geving: One other question, when we do public improvement
projects, can we be assured that there are no public monies ever spent in the
administration of that project?
Don Ashworth: We try to offset the future costs through the administrative
trust fund which establishes a 3% charge against the construction costs
themselves. Those monies are escrowed to insure the City has monies to
administer a project by a particular...
Councilman Geving: The reason I asked that question Don is that we carry
these projects on our books for well over 10 years many times and I know there
is a lot of accounting that takes place and we are tracking this project every
year in our budget process and there is a lot of paperwork connected with
approving a public improvement project and I just want to make sure that we
are always covered with sufficient funds so when we expend monies for whatever
reason, that it is always against the project holder, whoever it happens to be
and not the City and we can be assured of that.
Mayor Hamilton: I think the project costs include the engineering,
administration, legal and fiscal for $74,600.00 and that is part of the
5
City Council Meeting - September 8, 1986
proposal that has been submitted.
Bill Monk: The administrative trust is for that purpose as Don stated, 3% or
same percent is put aside just for that very thing.
Councilman Geving: I guess the real point that I want to make is that even
though we are trying to promote some types of activities like, in this case it
will be a housing project, and we have plenty of homes being built in
Chanhassen, so somebody might say why are you promoting and going along with
the developer and providing improvement projects for housing. Why couldn't we
use the same money for industrial or commercial and put our emphasis there? I
guess that is my thinking. I would rather see us first of all, place a high
penalty on public improvements for things that we really aren't interested in
in terms of more housing at the expense of possibly using those public
improvement funds for commercial development or industrial development and
hopefully when they come to us as a City and ask for public improvement funds,
that they are coming to us as a last resort. They have already gone to their
bank, they've already gone to some other places and the project can only
proceed with our assistance.
Don Ashworth: That is really what you have in this case. We did ask the
developer to put in all streets, sanitary sewer. The only problem he had was
with the water where the water would have to cross a multitude of properties
and he was not in a position to do that himself so that is the reason we have
the water petition.
Councilman Geving: I'm satisified.
Resolution #86 -70: Councilwoman Watson moved, Councilman Horn seconded to
accept the Feasibility Study and approve Watermain Trunk Extension to
Chanhassen Hills. All voted in favor and motion carried.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Horn seconded to approve the Minutes of the
City Council meeting dated August 4, 1986 with the corrections noted by
Councilman Horn and Councilman Geving. All voted in favor and motion carried.
Councilman Geving moved, Mayor Hamilton seconded to approve the Minutes of the
City Council meeting dated August 18, 1986 with the corrections noted by
Councilman Horn. All voted in favor except Councilwoman Watson who abstained
and motion carried.
Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilwoman Watson seconded approve the Minutes of the
Planning Commission meeting dated August 13, 1986. All voted in favor and
motion carried.
Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Geving seconded to approve the Minutes of the
Park and Recreation Commission dated August 5, 1986. All voted in favor and
motion carried. Councilman Geving stated that he felt a breakdown of commun-
ications had occurred between the City Council and Commission and that he
would be attending their next meeting to try and clarify some misunderstandings.
6
1
1
1
1
1
1
City Council Meeting - September 8, 1986
PRELIMINARY PLAT REQUEST TO CREATE 3 LOTS, 108 PIONEER TRAIL, DAVID HANSEN.
Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Geving seconded to table this item until the
next regularly scheduled Council meeting on September 22, 1986 pursuant to
David Hansen's request. All voted in favor and motion carried.
SITE PLAN REVIEW FORA 64,391 SQUARE FOOT MINI - WAREHOUSE FACILITY, LOTS 1 AND
2, BLOCK 2, CHANHASSEN LAKES BUSINESS PARK, LSR PROPERTIES.
Barbara Dacy: The site is located in the southwest corner of TH 5 and Park
Drive. As you recall, about a year ago the most interior lot was considered
by the Council for a site plan review for an industrial building. However,
since then the plans have fallen through and the applicants are proposing the
mini - warehouse storage facility. The proposal contains 64,000 square feet.
What is being proposed is the buildings and the storage units are forming a
perimeter around the site and containing additional storage in the site. A
24 hour security room is also proposed in the corner and there will be a
security gate at the entrance off of Park Court. The proposed hours range
between 6:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. As you all may surmise, because of the
visibility of this particular lot, the City is very concerned about the
appearance from the major entrance into our community. The applicant has
proposed landscaping along the perimeter of the lot, especially along the north
side adjacent to TH 5. Staff is recommending and the Planning Commission also
approved installation of additional landscaping. Also, what is being done on
the north side is that the rear of those units or the wall, what will be seen
is approximately a 4 foot wall with cut -outs along the way. You can see those
on the plans that you have in your packets to break up the expanse a little as
well as the landscaping will aid to that effect. Since the Planning
Commission meeting, the Manager and the applicant met to discuss this whole
visibility issue. We are satisified that you will not be able to see the
center of the site from TH 5. An extensive stand of mature vegetation in the
northwest corner of the site will also aid in screening of the proposed
development. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the site plan
subject to the four conditions in the Staff Report. All bituminous surfaces
must be lined with concrete curb, installation of additional landscaping,
compliance with the Watershed District's requirements, installation of proper
erosion control measures and the Commission added a fifth condition which
requires that no outside storage be permitted which would protrude from the
site so that you would be able to see it from adjacent streets and properties.
Their intent being that if storage is to occur on site, fine but it should not
be visible from adjacent streets and properties. With that, I know that
the applicants are here.
Councilwoman Watson said her big concern was the apperance from TH 5 and that
seemed to be addressed with the landscaping. The only other question was what
material was to be used in the wall. Mark Senn stated that it would be either
rock base brick or red brick.
Councilwoman Watson also stated the fact that someone had brought up the fact
that Chanhassen means Sugar Maple in Indian and did the applicant plan on
using any Sugar Maple Trees in their landscaping. Nick Ruehl, Architect
representing LSR Properties, stated they were looking into doing research on
City Council Meeting - September 8, 1986
the hardiness of the Sugar Maple Tree in being so close to a major road to see
where an appropriate place to put the Sugar Maple Trees and it would be no
problem to accomodate the planting of Sugar Maple Trees.
Councilwoman Watson stated that she did not want any outside storage. Mark
Senn stated that there would be no outside storage, that the plan is not
designed for outside storage and they do not intend to have any. Barbara Dacy
stated that outside storage is a permitted accessory use in an Industrial
District and that is where that particular use of the land is allowed.
Councilman Geving asked if the Staff had done any calculations on the density
of the green space. Barbara Dacy stated that the site was below the 70% so
that was not an issue.
Councilman Geving stated that he wanted to see the landscaping requirements
for plantings every 80 feet be reduced to every 25 feet to be in conformance
with the east side and the south side. The applicants stated they had no
problem with that. Councilman Geving stated he was interested in the City
Engineer's comments and that everything seemed to be in order as far as
utilities, drainage, streets. The only concern the City Engineer brought to
the attention of the City Council was potential for widening of TH 5 and what
that might do to, not the project because the buiding will be in place, but
when it happens the frontage of TH 5 will move close to the building and the
rest of the road could be shoved further to the north. Otherwise, he liked
the plan and thought Chanhassen needed it and was all for it.
Mayor Hamilton stated that he was surprised when he saw a storage facility
like this being proposed for the industrial park. In his mind it didn't seem
to fit there and he was not real pleased in seeing it there. He understands
it is one of the permitted uses but at the same time it is not one of the uses
he was looking for in an industrial park. Mayor Hamilton also stated that he
absolutely did not want any outside storage.
Mayor Hamilton stated that in such a facility there is the possibility of
hazardous materials being brought in and stored in these garages. Mayor
Hamilton was thinking particularly of the incident that happened about a year
ago when a car blew up from explosives that were stored in the car. He asked
what is to prevent the same type of individual from storing explosives in a
garage facility similar to this and having an accident where someone could be
injured again. Mark Senn stated that they can and do control that for
insurance and other purposes. They will not allow the storage of hazardous
materials in this facility. There will be a 24 hour a day caretaker at the
facility. When something goes into these storage units, the caretaker will be
there. Mayor Hamilton asked if he inspected everything that goes into
storage. Mark Senn stated that was the purpose for security purposes and part
of security, as far as they are concerned, is what is going into storage.
They do not want anything hazardous going into there. That is not to say that
someone might not put a fishing boat in and there might be a little gas left
in the motor or something like that. There will be a statement in their
rental materials and brochures which puts a requirement on the applicant to
drain that stuff to any kind of minimal level before storage. The other thing
is that the buildings are constructed totally of non - combustible materials.
8
1
1
1
1
1
1
City Council Meeting - September 8, 1986
It is a brick building, precast ceiling, steel wall and metal door. There
isn't anything to burn other than the contents confined to that specific unit.
Mayor Hamilton stated that if there was an explosion, it wouldn't be confined
to one unit. Mark Senn stated that it would have to be quite an explosion.
Roman Roos stated that because of the insurance rates that they will have to
be paying, they will be watching very closely for toxic materials that might
be stored. He stated that it would be very hard to check every single box
that comes in but they would be monitoring the contents as closely as possible
because of the insurance demands it. Mayor Hamilton stated that was his
comment. Unless it is in their lease that every time they bring something in
that it is going to be looked at. Roman Roos stated there would be a
disclaimer that they would have to sign. Mayor Hamilton stated that a
disclaimer would save LSR from harm but not individuals who might get hurt.
Roman Roos stated that with the landscaping and the wall being built around
the perimeter of the facility, no one would be able to see garage doors or
anything from TH 5. Mayor Hamilton stated that there was a big difference
between Victory Envelope or any other large industrial buildings and it is not
just the visual. When you drive by and see Victory Envelope you know there
are hundreds of people working in there. When you drive by and see your
facility, there is one employee. Mayor Hamilton said we are talking about an
industrial site, prime land, right in the heart of the best locations of the
whole industrial park and you have one person working there. Roman Roos
stated the project provided a good tax base.
Councilwoman Watson stated she didn't see anything about signage. Barbara
Dacy stated that from her understanding, the applicants will propose one sign
for the property. Mark Senn stated it would be located out by the TH 5 side.
They hadn't decided on which end of the building it would be located.
Councilwoman Watson stated she didn't want a big red and white sign stamped on
the side of the building. Barbara Dacy stated that the sign ordinance will
give them the right to install a wall sign or a pylon sign.
Councilman Horn stated that he was excited to hear there was going to be
another building in the industrial park and he shared Mayor Hamilton's
disappointment in this type of facility in that location. He understands that
it is an approved type of use and there isn't much that can be done to deny it
but he is not terribly excited about this type of facility at this location.
Back in the corner is a better location in his mind.
Councilman Geving wanted to clarify condition 5 which states that no outside
storage is permitted which would protrude above the wall. He thought what was
trying to be said was that they did not favor any outside storage at all.
Mayor Hamilton stated that, as Barbara Dacy stated, outside storage is a
permitted use so that would be a restriction if there were any outside
storage.
Councilwoman Watson moved, Councilman Geving seconded to approve the Site
Plan #85 -7 on the Site Plan stamped "Received July 23, 1986" for a 64,391
square foot Mini - Warehouse Facility on Lots 1 and 2, Block 2, Chanhassen Lakes
Business Park, subject to the following conditions:
9
City Council Meeting - September 8, 1986
1. All bituminous surfaces not bounded by structures shall be lined with
concrete curb.
2. The developer shall place, at minimum, three more pine trees along
the north lot line adjacent to TH 5.
3. Compliance with all of the Watershed District's regulations on new
construction.
4. Erosion control shall be installed along the east, south and west
construction limits and conform with City standards for Type 1 and 2
as noted on Exhibit A.
5. No outside storage is permitted which would protrude above the wall
and would be visible from adjacent streets.
All voted in favor except Mayor Hamilton who opposed. The motion carried.
Mayor Hamilton: I'm opposed because I think it is not a proper use of the
land.
CONSIDER FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR SANITARY SEWER SERVICE TO WEST 65TH
STREET /CRESTVIEW DRIVE.
Bill Monk: Several months ago the City Council approved preparation of a
feasibility study for sanitary sewer extension to 65th Street and Crestview
Drive based on information provided by Staff and residents in the area about
inoperable and failing septic systems and that approval was based on
submission of a petition. The petition was submitted by a number of residents
and in reviewing it, I made the determination that they represented
approximately 35% of the homeowners in the area so the feasibility study was
finally put together. I'm a little bit slow in getting it complete. Council
has the study before them at this point and a copy was sent to all of the
resident or effected property owners along the proposed route of the sewer who
would be proposed to be assessed. Although this is not a public hearing,
because of my involvement in this project, I did invite the residents in to
discuss this item with the Council if they so choose tonight so a full
discussion could take place before the public hearing. My intent is not to
gumble the process but again, with the circumstances of my being here only for
a few more days, I figured this was the best way to get a full discussion on
the item. What I would like to do is just run through the major portions of
the report and answer questions, go over potential costs.
General sites involved are West 65th Street and Crestview Drive, both west of
County Road 117. My initial thought with this project was to service these
areas which are outside of the existing Municipal Urban Service Area, that they
would not be servicable by gravity sewer and that a lift station would have to
be placed in the approximate location of the lowest service point in the area
which would be at the Crestview Drive /CR 117 intersection and then pump to the
north to an existing sanitary sewer further north on CR 117. In looking at
the proposal a little bit closer, had a site survey done, a very quick one but
10
1
1
1
1
1
1
City Council Meeting - September 8, 1986
it gave the data we were looking for, I knew there was a deep sanitary sewer
going in Pheasant Hill's 2nd Addition which is further to the east. I ran a
preliminary survey line from that point, along the lot line in Pheasant Hill,
down the center of Lake Lucy Road and then along the ditch lines north and
south and up both streets that the Council had reviewed previously. In
looking at it I did find that sanitary sewer service could be extended in
gravity form. There is a piece of extremely shallow pipe in this area. The
pipe would be of an existing cover, 3 or 4 feet but in looking at the work
that is presently planned for Lake Lucy Road, it was found that through a
combination of regrading and insulation through that area that we could pass
through that area and indeed get gravity sewer service out to these areas. I
believe the deepest digging that would be required here is between 12 and 14
feet which really is not that deep at all. A major portion of the project, as
it is proposed, also includes area restoration. This area is minor in nature
because again, of the improvements proposed for Lake Lucy Road, but as you
move up into 65th and Crestview itself, because of the placement of the water
main, sewer really has to go in the street itself so a major portion of the
street costs do deal with reconstruction of the existing streets. It is
proposed in the study that reconstruction take place to the width of section
that exists presently or that deeper sections on both streets be put in
because of problems that have been encountered on both streets, high water
table and these subsurface clays that do exist out there. The total cost of
the project is approximately just under $220,000.00 and includes the scope of
improvements that I have just outlined. What I did at that point was to look
at the service area involved and it falls into place pretty quickly. Really
we are talking about the 8 lots on 65th Street, all single family, and the 8
units on Crestview Drive. In extending the sanitary sewer from Pheasant Hill
2nd Addition along Lake Lucy Road however, we will make sanitary sewer service
available to the Outlot B of the Waldrips Addition so instead of having to
extend sanitary sewer from it's terminous further back in the 2nd Addition
across the lot with the 7 -plex on it and then across the back of the lot, it
becomes more economical to service the property from the south and handle that
as part of this project. Because Outlot B would not be involved in any of the
reconstruction costs, what I did was to break out the base sewer costs which
would be costs that would be common to all users for sanitary sewer and
restoration purposes. Those costs were divided up between the 5 units in
Outlot B that were approved on Final Development Plan for Waldrips 2nd
Addition along with the 16 units along Crestview Drive and West 65th Street.
The reconstruction costs were then equally divided among the 16 lots along
West 65th and Crestview to come up with, again I believe there is 17
properties involved, all of them being single family. The bottom parcel being
listed under the ownership of Paul Palmer, would represent 5 single family
units for Outlot B in Waldrips 2nd Addition. Standard costs for the sanitary
sewer extension and the street restoration comes to $10,975.00 per unit.
Listed in the project also is an alternate that I thought should be involved
to complete the project because the massive street reconstruction was included
as part of the project. That includes finishing the watermain extension to
the end of Crestview Drive. Presently water service is extended from CR 117
all the way up West 65th Street to the end of the cul -de -sac but only part way
up Crestview Drive. I did include an alternate that would extend watermain
from it's terminous up to the end of the cul -de -sac and there are three
properties that were not assessed as a part of that earlier project at the end
11
City Council Meeting - September 8, 1986
of the cul -de -sac. Again, it was included as an alternate. It was not
included in the petition but again in an attempt to be complete, I included
it. It would need, I think separate approval as part of the project by City
Council but those three lots would get additional, if the watermain were
approved, $4,788.00 in assessment to extend the water as a part of this
project. City trunks were also made a part of this improvement project
instead of waiting until connections are actually made. They were included in
the project as has been done in the few residential projects that the City has
been involved with. The standard $600.00 for sanitary sewer and a combination
of $1,254.00 sewer and water are shown in this proposal. Although assessments
are not always made a part of a feasibility study because they won't be
approved in final until the assessment hearing, the preliminary look by Staff
would indicate that an assessment term of 8 to 10 years would be proposed with
this project. To go through that briefly for some of the people from the
public who may not have been involved in projects in the past, the City would
bond for this work, would do the construction, would then look to an
assessment hearing potentially in September of next year for first year
certification in 1988. If Council were to pick 10 years, which is the
simpliest example, a 10 year term the total assessment would be spread out
over taxes over 10 years with interest being charged to the unpaid balance
each year. That is how assessments would be collected. The rate of the
assessment is anybody's guess because this has not been bonded and if the City
were to bond for this next year, normally the rate of assessment is 1 to 1 1/2
percent above what the City bonds for. Again, 8 to 10 years is not an attempt
to tie the City into any assessment term but instead to give people an example
of how this might be structured, how many years they might be given to pay
back. Again, this is not a public hearing. The report was sent to all
property owners to solicit comment. Council can take public comment and
proceed as they may see fit. Council can accept the report tonight or put
that off until a public hearing but at a minimum, if this project is to
proceed, I would recommend as I did in my memo, that a public hearing be
scheduled and the earliest date would be the first meeting in October 6, 1986.
Mayor Hamilton: I think we should field questions from the public first of
all if there is anyone here who has comments they would like to make.
Don Kelly, 2081 West 65th Street: My main concern about this, as Bill said,
the study went on a little bit longer then he expected. When I talked to you
before I said we only had problems in the spring and about 3 weeks later one
Saturday night we had a nice 4 inch rainfall and I enjoyed that a little bit
more than the rest of you did. I'm a little concerned about what we are going
to do next spring. I had hoped that we would be able to do some construction
this Fall so if it is at all possible to schedule a hearing and invite bids
simultaneous with scheduling the hearing and to make an effort to get some
activity this Fall that would certainly be in our best interests.
Mayor Hamilton: I think the last time you were here you said you were
speaking for a number of the residents or your neighbors. Are you again doing
that?
Don Kelly: We haven't really gone through and polled the neighbors since.
I'd say several of the neighbors are definitely in accord with me. There are
12
1
1
1
1
1
1
City Council Meeting - September 8, 1986
a couple of other people here tonight that may want to indicate a little bit
different opinion but nobody has fire bombed my house yet. Some of the
neighbors are definitely in favor of this because either they have problems
like we do or they are sympathetic with our problems. Others feel, as Bill
pointed out, that in a few years we are going to be doing this anyway and so
it makes sense to do it now rather than put $10,000.00 into each of our
private systems for a 6 year stop gap measure and then do this anyway. Moving
forward quickly is the main thing that I am concerned about. The other thing
is that one of the major costs in this is the street reconstruction. Our
streets are in rather sad shape. I think you may recall me saying that there
won't be much loss when we put the sewer in but obviously you can't just tear
them up, put the sewer in and leave them that way. As Bill pointed out, when
they do the reconstruction they are going to be putting in a deeper base, they
are going to be attempting to correct some problems that the streets have had
in the past. The same kind of problems that give us septic system problems
give us street problems. In the one area where they did work on the streets
last year and this spring, it has improved it quite a bit. One thing I would
like you to consider is that the problem that we have with the street and
these dedicated streets is a City problem and shouldn't necessarily be 100%
part of this project if it is possible to consider a portion of the street
reconstruction as a street project that is funded separately from the sewer
project. That, of course, would interest us. Another question, what is the
bond rate that the City has enjoyed recently?
Councilman Geving: 9%.
Don Kelly: So we are looking at maybe 10 1/2% for our assessment?
Councilman Geving: No, the last project that we assessed this evening was 9%
but that varies.
Don Kelly: Okay, the bond rate was less than 9% then?
Councilman Geving: It was around 8 %.
Don Kelly: Okay, but you can't guarantee what it will be next Fall or
next year.
Councilman Geving: It has been favorable.
Councilman Geving asked the people present at the meeting, how many were in
agreement with the comments that Don Kelly made. Five people indicated their
agreement.
Councilman Geving: On the original proposal we had apparently 9 out of the 16
that were in favor of the project.
Jean Shivley: I'm the new resident of the McCullough property at the end of
Crestview Drive. We are at a disadvantage here in that we have only lived at
that residence for about 3 or 4 months so this is a disadvantage to a
certain extent as these proceedings date back a while. I can indicate one of
our concerns and that is we are one of the three landowners that also have the
13
City Council Meeting - September 8, 1986
water assessment on there. At least in our experience so far, we are more
than happy with our well water. While I recognize the necessity for digging
up the street to put in the sewer, I would hate to see the water portion of
this be considered at the same time or be considered mandatory. I haven't
spoken to the Bixlers or the Wolfs. They are the other two property owners
at the end of that cul-de -sac but I think you would agree that a $16,000.00
assessment is hefty. I sympathize with the neighbors having serious sewer
problems. I have experienced that indirectly in my work and I know that is a
problem. I don't feel nearly as strongly about the sewer as I do about the
water and I would ask that those of us involved in that have something to say
about connecting and about whether or not that expense is incurred. I would
also agree with an earlier comment that that road, the way it is right now is
nearly inpassable and I would hate to see this used as an opportunity to
resurface a road that needs it already.
Councilman Geving: Can I ask you a question just to reiterate? Are you in
favor of the project but not the water or are you disapproving of both of
them?
Jean Shivley: Like I said, we are at a disadvantage because we haven't been
in the background of all this. We're not having any sewer problems. We're not
having any problems with our drainfield. On the other hand, our house was
unoccupied for three years before we moved into it so who knows what will
happen given some consistent use so I'm not really against it. I'm not
jumping up and down but the water portion of it, we feel very seriously about.
Clarke Nicholson, 2051 Crestview Drive: As you noticed, the people that are
back here are strongly in favor of this. I think I wanted to point out that
the people who aren't here must also be in favor of it or they would be here
fighting.
Paul Palmer: I'm the owner of Outlot B, as most of you have met me before.
The last time I was in here I was told to go home and think of something new
for my land. It appears that what is being proposed is going to effect me
more than anyone in the room. $27,370.00 in assessments is going to hurt my
taxes and tax payments quite severly. I look at it and see a project that I
intend to go the sewer on eventually anyway so in many respects I like what I
see but some major questions come up with myself. Being the major funder of
this project, for instance, the trunk line charges that are included in this.
Are those the charges that normally are included in a building permit?
Bill Monk: If trunks are not made a part of the improvement project itself,
it falls back and are collected at the time of building permit or if
utilities are extended under municipal improvement project, the Council has at
least for the past 5 years always made them a part of the project as in
Pheasant Hills.
Paul Palmer: Waldrips 2nd Addition and Chan Hills?
Bill Monk: Yes, they were included in that.
Paul Palmer: Okay, that is a clarification to me. In calculating base sewer
14
1
1
1
1
1
1
City Council Meeting - September 8, 1986
costs, how was that figure arrived at? My number here is $24,000.00. Was it
5 times 24 then?
Bill Monk: You have a copy of the report? If you look to the appendix, and I
believe the report was sent to everybody, the first page of the appendix
breaks out the base sewer cost which basically included the 8 inch pipe
itself, the rock for the trench that is estimated to be used, manholes,
service lines, installation and restoration of seed and mulch. Those were
considered in the base cost of just putting the sewer in to all the property
owners and to be shared by the property owners. The street costs that were
exclusively to 65th Street and Crestview, where bituminous is removed,
classified base and then the bituminous base and the sods to restore the
individual properties. I basically used that breakdown to come up with the
total numbers which then generated back into the individual cost items.
Paul Palmer: Just so I'm clear on that there, the base sewer on my portion
would be calculated on the 5 lots time the $4,060 so that is just the sewer
out in the street and services extended to the property that we can then hook
up to eventually?
Bill Monk: Yes.
Paul Palmer: How far do they extend?
Bill Monk: To the property line.
Paul Palmer: Okay, the other question that I have is that I would like to
throw this to Bill because I would like to see what it would cost to put the
water in the same trench. These five lots will eventually need water service
also and the idea is do you dig another trench or do you just put it in the
same trench and extend it when you extend the sewer? Naturally, if that is
done that is my cost.
Bill Monk: Water and sewer services can be put in the same trench under a new
Health Department regulation but main line sewer and water lines would have to
be trenched separately because on the Lake Lucy Road section, Outlot B, since
it wasn't exactly sure how the property would develop and since there was more
then enough area in the boulevard to accomodate water, it was thought to wait
and it would be a separate installation. The only reason it is being proposed
at Crestview, even as an alternate is just because since the street is going
to be totally ripped up once, it doesn't make sense to do it again but I don't
believe that will be necessary until we see a layout for that property. So I
don't think it would save money necessarily viewing water as a part of this
project. I think it would be more economical to solicit bids privately if you
were to develop.
Paul Palmer: What is the minimum depth of water then?
Bill Monk: I know the depth on the water main, the standard depth is 7 1/2
feet. We don't like to have crossings like that occur but they do occur in
every City and they just have to be engineered properly to get approved by the
Health Department but they can be done.
15
City Council Meeting - September 8, 1986
Paul Palmer: You might run into that same problem then if say I extend off of
Galpin Lake Road in the southwest corner of my property. If I go up about 50
feet and extend the water up and where the watermain is out on Galpin, am I
going to have to cross under the sewer? Is that where the sewer line is
intended to go?
Bill Monk: The sewer line proposed at this point in time would be probably
right on the center line of Lake Lucy Road or right at the edge of Lyman. It
would depend on a lot of things. It is proposed that water would probably
follow this alignment in the future. Whether it is stubbed down and connected
or whether just stubbed down here and terminated, there is the possibility
that a crossing would not even take place.
Paul Palmer: The crossing that I'm talking about goes right here. The water
is out in this dark line here, isn't that where the water line is now or is it
going to have to cross?
Bill Monk: Yes, the water exists at present on the west side of the street
coming up Galpin. Protection would have to be made and run across at this
point. The sewer depth in this location is approximately 12 feet deep so the
water main would go right over the top of the sewer. It is only down here
that it gets shallow. Crossings up here are no problem. It is basically the
crossing there.
Paul Palmer: I don't think we have to worry about this because the philosphy
in here in the final service would be pointing in that direction. The other
concern then is the sewer would go along this side of Galpin or the other
side. I have sane nice Maple trees and we would hate to lose those right?
Bill Monk: That still needs to be done. I have shown it on the east side
only because the water is on the west side. After further review, the final
engineering may show it would be better to switch the lines as far as the side
of the street but it could be accommodated on the east side. We would have to
take a close look at restoration and disturbance of existing vegetation. That
is kind of why I eluded in the report that there are obstacles in the field
that we will have to take into account but whether it is placed on one side or
the other, the costs will be pretty much the same.
Mayor Hamilton: Most of that portion of Lake Lucy Road is proposed to be
abandoned eventually, is it not?
Bill Monk: The City would probably retain the right -of -way but whether it is
easement or right -of -way.
Paul Palmer: What is the proposal for Lake Lucy Road in that area?
Mayor Hamilton: It will be abandoned. The proposal is that will more than
likely be abandoned.
Paul Palmer: Put a cul-de -sac at the end of it or something?
Mayor Hamilton: There would be nothing there. Grass.
16
1
1
1
1
1
1
City Council Meeting - September 8, 1986
Paul Palmer: What are we going to do with access to these lots? I mean I
wanted to put access on the north and that wasn't acceptable.
Mayor Hamilton: I guess that is another issue that we will have to discuss
sometime but it is certainly one that crossed my mind tonight is to go
ahead with the abandonment of Lake Lucy Road and put the sewer in there and
how does that effect your property and your access to it because your last
proposal you were accessing onto Galpin. Is that correct?
Paul Palmer: The last proposal was for the townhomes that accessed opposite
165th here and came and formed a cul-de -sac up here but as you know I was
denied that.
Councilman Geving: We really haven't made that decision yet. We haven't made
a decision yet as to what we are going to do with Lake Lucy Road other than
the fact that we are going to bend the road south and abandon the present road
as you now know it.
Paul Palmer: So the road is intended to come off this way?
Councilman Geving: Correct and we will vacate that other portion of the road
back to you and probably upgrade Crestview to the east. That's what we
intend to do and that is as close as you are going to be able to get to that.
Paul Palmer: You mean to my land?
Councilman Geving: I don't know, you probably will have to go out the other
direction. You'll probably have to go out to the north and then pick up the
road on Galpin.
Mayor Hamilton: That's a different issue I guess and what we are trying to
decide here tonight is the issue of sewer and water. It's a different issue
but the same issue because it certainly effects your property. I think you
ought to come in and talk to Bill and be brought up to date with what has been
happening.
Don Kelly: If Lake Lucy Road is vacated then he would be able to use his
portion of that for access off of it.
Paul Palmer: If it is vacated then the property owner to the south of myself
also ends up owning the land.
Bill Monk: What could happen, half would go to each property owner. Two
possibilities for access, and this was discussed by the Council as part of the
Lake Lucy Road issue, was that it does have access off of Galpin even though
that proposal was denied. Other proposals with access off Galpin would be
entertained. The other thing is that a private drive access for extension of
some type of cul-de -sac could be put in here to accommodate usage if the 5
units coming down were still to be proposed. In looking at it as part of the
Lake Lucy Road project, the decision was made to basically run this portion of
Lake Lucy Road into this subdivision, not improve this portion of Lake Lucy
Roan knowing that this piece of land would have access from here with either
17
City Council Meeting - September 8, 1986
that type of plan or some type of a private drive access which could still
accommodate the individual properties but the overriding consideration of the
Council was that they did wish to eliminate this connection for safety reasons
and reroute Lake Lucy Road down to the south and provide access to this site
in some other fashion as it developed.
Mayor Hamilton: Bill, could you address the question that Jean Shivley
brought up about the water?
Bill Monk: The watermain extension was a little bit of an afterthought on my
part when I finally realized that water had only been extended up a portion
of the road. There is no question that alternates for the water extension
could be made in the boulevard area in the future probably without removing
the new street that we would be putting here but to just do a complete report
I thought I would have to at least put an alternate in here for extension of
the water. If the Council were to approve the project without the alternate,
basically what you would see on this assessment roll is that all the
properties, including the three listed at $16,400.00, would drop down to the
same $10,900.00 so I guess I would recommend that the Council not delete it at
this point but carry it on to the Public Hearing stage and give the three
homeowners a chance to look at it and may talk amongst themselves. If at
the hearing stage the sentiment is the same, that alternate could be dropped
and just sewer put in and the cost would easily accommodate just the sewer.
Again, it is listed as an alternate to make the report complete but it was not
an attempt to force water on the people in that area but instead to make it
available should they want it. As you look at the assessment roll it may look
like this is it or nothing but in essence, these numbers would just change
down $600.00 and this would change over to $10,972.00 but it is a decision
that can be made by the homeowners and by the City Council.
Councilman Horn: Just to reinforce Bill's statement, I think we should
remain at this stage. With the interest rates the way they are now, people
might decide this might be a good time to do the whole thing rather than wait
until a couple of years.
Councilman Geving: The concern I have is trying to get it all into this
calendar year. I don't know how we can move that quickly and I hope we can if
that is the decision of the group but I know with the hearing and the
construction bid process, I just don't know. Do you think we can make it this
year Bill by Christmas?
Bill Monk: This job would lend itself to wintertime construction and I
believe some of the work may be done. The problem that comes in, in this
case, is maintaining access and questions like that. It is very tough to say.
I guess it depends on whether you are a pessimist or an optimist depending
on the weather but I would say it is going to be extremely tight. Some work
may be done but I wouldn't expect it to be completed this year, no.
Councilman Geving: I just have another question of you Bill. Do you see any
potential for any easements that are needed for this project?
18
1
1
1
1
1
1
City Council Meeting - September 8, 1986
Bill Monk: 10 foot potentially for restoration and things like that but I
don't believe we will need any permanent easements.
Councilman Geving: I won't make any more comments. I think we ought to
proceed with this project and go through the hearing process.
Don Kelly: I have another comment about the water. There are three property
owners effected by the water and as Mrs. Shivley said, they definitely are not
in favor.
Jean Shivley: I don't know, I haven't talked to my neighbors. We are not in
favor.
Don Kelly: No, the Shivley's are not in favor. One of the homes is for sale
right now. I think it is very unlikely that the owners of that home are
excited about putting in water and I'm fairly certain that the Wolf's are not
excited about any commitments beyond what is absolutely necessary.
Mayor Hamilton: Those comments can come out at the public hearing.
Councilman Watson: I will just be interested in the public hearing to find
out if they expected it to cost this much but I think we should go to the
public hearing stage and find out as quickly as possible. I think it has to
be done soon. It is an interesting project. One where a resident comes at a
Visitor's Presentation and says, my sewer is draining out my backyard. Help
me and I think we should have the quickest, most efficient means of helping
someone who comes forward and says it's not working and I don't know how to do
it myself, I need the City's assistance.
Resolution #86 -71: Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Geving seconded for the
acceptance of the feasibility report and to move ahead and schedule the public
improvement hearing for the West 65th Street /Crestview Drive sanitary sewer
extension. All voted in favor and motion carried.
Councilman Horn: Bill, you said you didn't think there was a chance we would
have the complete project done this Fall. Could the sewer be done enough so
it wouldn't cause the problems next spring even though you didn't have all the
street work redone?
Bill Monk: There is no question that the emphasis will be put on getting
the pipe in, at least to the property owners so this spring they can hook up
and make connections before they put the street in and restoration would occur
after that. That is really the only hope for this project and the pipe could
be done in the wintertime. Again, it just depends on the weather and how much
you can get in before it actually freezes and a lot of other items along with
that but that is basically what we would shoot for.
Councilman Horn: I think I could live with the street being torn up all
winter if I had a pipe in there that would guarantee that my basement wouldn't
flood in the spring.
19
City Council Meeting - September 8, 1986
Don Kelly: Just a couple of things. One, some of my neighbors have problems
with their septic systems draining into their yards, mine drains into my
basement and it's not our usage that causes the problem. It is the runoff and
rain that flushes it into the basement. The other is that I think to
accelerate things, the one thing that would be significant is that if you
could include in your motion that the City go ahead and publish invitations
for bids on the work. If that can be done simultaneously with the public
hearing, it would speed things up.
Bill Monk: Council has to be very careful with any municipal project. You
have to careful of the County Attorney. The City has to be careful whether
any municipal improvement project in superseding. I am not sure of all
clauses for terms where a project is termed emergency and how fast the Council
can move but in a normal project the Council has to hold the hearing and at
that point authorize plans and specs, then approve them and then take bids.
Normally it is a 60 to 90 days process. I will review whether we can speed
that up. Giving it emergency status would be about the only thing.
Mayor Hamilton: Don said he would research that.
Bill Monk: Right now normally the hearing would have to be put for October
6th just so we could get notice out to everybody to come and we will set that
up and if we can speed up the process we will be back to the Council with what
steps we can take.
APPROVE FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR SANITARY SEWER TRUNK EXTENSION TO CR 16 /CR 17
INTERSECTION.
Bill Monk: Really all I wanted to do, and I know you want to review it,
Rodney Gordon from McCombs - Knutson is here this evening. He is the project
engineer and prepared the report. Basically what I did, this is another
example of a report that was prepared that was petitioned by the James Company
which has brought the Brose Estate. The Council is very familiar with the
project. We have redone the feasibility study so that trunk lines can be
extended to service the Eckenkar site, Burdick site, James site and a portion
of the Kerber Estate which has now been bought by Builder Development Finance.
We are proposing to use trunk dollars to do this just as we were with the
Chanhassen Hills except this is sewer instead of water. We have assumed a
little bit of a different strategy in using land use designation for the
different single family, commercial and high density portions of the site to
come up with trunk numbers for each property. Really, this was put in because
I wanted to get before the Council tonight so you could take a look at it,
feel comfortable with it, address questions with it. You do not need to
accept the report tonight but again, I am recommending that you schedule a
public hearing for October 20th and at that point in time all property owners
would be notified and so on. I just didn't want to leave too many things
undone. I wanted to make sure that the Council was somewhat familiar with it.
It is a little bit of a twist in a trunk extension because we are using some
land use but this does include quite a bit of commercial and high density.
The development rates used in the study are extremely low and the City will
see nothing except more than is in there and as the property develops, if it
does develop at a higher rate, any difference between the rates would be
20
1
1
1
1
1
1
City Council Meeting - September 8, 1986
collected as a part of building permits so this, I don't believe represents
the full trunk benefit being pledged toward this project but with the water
extensions that were approved not long ago to a lot of these properties, this
basically renders that entire portion of the City servicable sewer. It is a
sizable project, there is no question about that and again, I just wanted to
introduce the Council to the concepts. If you have questions, try and address
them and then as it goes to public hearing you will probably feel a little bit
more comfortable with it.
Mayor Hamilton asked if there was anyone from the public who wanted to comment
on this item. There were no comments.
Resolution #86 -72: Councilman Geving moved, Councilwoman Watson seconded to
accept the feasibility study for sanitary sewer trunk extension to CR 16 /CR 17
intersection and set the public hearing date for October 20, 1986. All voted
in favor and motion carried.
REVIEW BLUFF CREEK GREEN CONSTRUCTION PLANS AND DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT.
Bill Monk: This represents one more item that perhaps I am rushing to the
City Council but given the sequence of events, I thought it was important that
I be involved in reviewing the final construction plans for this improvement.
As this project goes to construction, with the preliminary plat having been
approved, items that remain to be done include the final plat, the development
contract and as part of the development contract, the construction plans and
specs. At this point in time, the development contract has been prepared and
development plans and construction documents have also been prepared. The
final plat is in the process and as I understand it, is a week or so away from
being submitted. Normally we wait to bring all three documents to the City
Council but because I have been extensively involved in the construction plan
preparation and in the preparation of the development contract, I thought it
would be better to try and schedule these two items to allow for a complete
review so when the plat comes through that these issues will basically be
resolved. As Council remembers, the project is a take -off of a street project
that was assessed earlier this evening. It goes from TH 101 to the edge of
Halla Nursery project to approximately in here. It takes off and improves an
existing gravel road up to the entrance into the golf course at this location
and it is proposed at this point that this roadway be within dedicated right -
of -way, installed privately or owner installed and then turned over to the
City as a municipal improvements to the entrance to the golf course. At that
point it would become a privately installed and privately maintained cul -de-
sac from that point to the end servicing 13 single family residences along
that private section of roadway. 5 existing homes are effected by the public
portion but again, they are proposed to be owner installed. I will go over
some of the major issues. I will flip through the construction plans on the
easel and take a look at some of the issues that have come up recently. The
development contract, I will go over that first, is a hybrid. The City has
never had a development contract quite like this that includes half private,
half public improvements all to be put in by the owner. Numerous
modifications have been done to cover that contingency. Additionally, all
standard development contract sections about letter of credit, guarantees,
erosion control and so on are a part of this contract. Additionally, there
21
City Council Meeting - September 8, 1986
are special conditions in 4.03 about dedication of the outlots as shown.
Dedication or resolution of how to handle outlots as shown on the final
development plan. Building requirements in terms of slopes and percolation
tests, roadway obstructions in regard to the private road and not being able
to block with chains or anything else, I guess those are just some of the
highlights. What we do in all cases is take the conditions, I believe there
are 14 conditions if you look at the minutes that are in the Council packet,
and translate those into sections of the development contract, sections of the
plans and /or sections of the plat. Whatever could be handled as part of the
plans of the development contract I believe is in both documents. There are
several issues which will still have to be resolved as a part of the plat
process but as you note, the recommendation is that any approval that be given
to these documents be conditioned upon filing of the final plat so all issues
can be resolved as this project would proceed. As far as the final plans go,
this is basically the end of the paved section that was just handled as part
of the Creekwood improvements. The gravel section is the dashed lines that
comes up around. This road will be realigned and fully reconstructed in
through this area and extend out to the end of the cul-de -sac. Mr. Lynch, Mr.
Gunderson, Johnsons, Vogels and the Boynton all live along this section. This
will be put in by the owner and then dedicated back to the City. As a portion
of this, a part of the plat that will be important is making sure that these
people derive full access and use to this new public road. As part of the
plans that are being approved tonight, it says it would be required to remove
the existing gravel road and to restore it with a combination of seed and
mulch and sod all the way out to the new roadway. Additionally, driveways
would be extended out as part of the project to facilitate access to the new
driveway. The road from that point is extended further to the west. It would
be dedicated as public to the end of this turn around and from that point on
would be an Outlot A built to full city standards all the way through here but
this would be private and stay private. At least that is the intent at this
point in time. Outlot A is 60 feet wide as would be a standard city right -of-
way. The road is being built to a little wider than normal section because of
the single access situation. There has been a tremendous amount of attention
paid to site drainage picking up existing tiles and ditches and running them
along side the road at extensive depths and then there are two lines. This
shows the end of the street and how the road would continue to its west
terminous with a short cul -de -sac coming off and going to the south about
midway down. This isn't a requirement of the City but the proposal also calls
for paving of the parking and the restriping to maximize use of the golf
course parking lot but it is not really a requirement of the City project but
these two are major. At the end of both cul -de -sacs, drainage will be run down
from the ditch sections up above and CMP pipe all the way down to the edge of
the creek and outletting and energy dissipating devices in the creek itself.
The Watershed District has fully reviewed this, has made a condition that
ditch blocks be put in, I believe every 50 feet as this work is taking place
until restoration is complete so there is a lot of thought in design work that
has gone into both of those storm water plans. Additionally, the existing
gully that you would pass going into the golf course, adjacent to the Lynch's
house, is to be restored in through here with a combination of ditch blocks
and pipe coming from the top to, not all the way to the bottom, but a
considerable distance and that area will also be restored as a part of this
improvement project. I'm sure there will be some questions from Council and
22
1
1
1
City Council Meeting - September 8, 1986
the public on this issue, but in going through the plans and the development
contract, I feel that all the conditions of the City Council have been fully
complied with. There are several concerning the outlet lots and the
dedication of some land that will again, be handled as a part of the final
plat but I am at this point recommending approval of the construction
documents and the development contract contingent upon filing of the final
plat. With that I will stop and answer individual questions and see where the
points of interest are.
Councilman Geving: How are we going to maintain those storm sewer systems?
The piping, and who is going to do that and how is that going to be policed so
we know that is done?
Bill Monk: As part of the final plat process, one of the things that will
have to be submitted in final form will be the Covenants and Restrictions to
cover maintenance of the private road and all drainage related items. That is
one of the reasons that approval of these documents has to be conditioned upon
that process.
Councilman Geving: How do we police that though? How do we know that is
going to be maintained or that somebody is going to go in there once in a
while and look at the storm sewer systems and make sure that they are flushed
out?
Bill Monk: When you think back, City Council has approved several private
storm sewer installations. Most of them on commercial and industrial
property. Another one that comes to mind is Red Cedar Cove with the townhomes
where they will be responsible through their Covenants and Restrictions to
maintain the pond that all that water is going through. I think as a part of
that process, the City also has a charge to make sure that those items are
taken care of and if they fail to be resolved as part of the final, we may
have to look at some type of a way to make sure that the City can cover that.
A tape break occured at this point in the tapes while Council members were
asking questions to the City Engineer.
Bill Monk: The proposal as it stands right now is basically to take off where
the connection would be made and this road would be realigned and fully
improved. The plan also calls for a right turn lane in as a part of the
improvements that would be constructed in this location back to approximately
the crest of the vertical curve to the north and basically would be
constructed with a ditch where it now is. That is part of the plan. The way
the access issue has been resolved is that the street section in here will be
30 feet wide instead of the 24 feet wide. That was basically the trade -off
that was made in through here. Additionally, the City would get an easement
to cross the bottom portion of the golf course so if you had to come off the
road, you could actually come around but the road at this point will actually
transition from 20 to 30 feet in width.
Gary: Will the Council be comfortable with that type of situation?
23
24 J
City Council Meeting - September 8, 1986
Councilman Geving: We created the situation so I think we had that in mind.
I think we're okay on that.
Mayor Hamilton: I thought we talked about the right -in off of TH 101 at one
point. It seemed to me that you had said there was enough room there to do a
right -in. Is there adequate room?
Bill Monk: What we did, originally the design called for filling in the ditch
then creating another ditch beyond it and cutting up into the Halia property
quite a ways. What has been done instead is that the right -in has been put
in. It will use where the ditch is and then the drainage will actually come
onto the right turn lane and be caught by the catch basin so we don't have to
disturb the Halla Nursery really at all as part of this proposal so it is cut
down extensively on the work that is required to be done. It will have a curb
on it to catch up the water and basically take it down through a culvert
system that will take it away but it had been designed to minimize the impact
but there will still be a right turn lane to Creekwood from TH 101 southbound.
Councilman Geving: Originally, I had concern when we start building the sewer
and service to this area that we might be coming in with some fairly heavy
equipment that might possibly be tearing up the new road which we just built
and assessed tonight. I wanted to make sure that that provision is covered.
I have a recollection that if that happens, the contractor will put the road
back in the shape that it was before the construction started. Is that
correct? That was the way I understood it and the way we talked on the night
that this was brought up. There is a great potential for this happening so we
want to make sure that that is in the record and a part of the Minutes that
any reconstruction of the road would be by the owner.
Councilman Horn: That's great as long as it shows up the first year.
Councilwoman Watson moved, Mayor Hamilton seconded to approve the construction
plans and specifications along with the Development Contract for Bluff Creek
Green conditioned upon approval of final plat. All voted in favor and motion
carried.
REVIEW AND APPROVE CONSULTING CONTRACT WITH ROGER MACHMEIER FOR REVIEWAL OF
SEPTIC SYSTEMS.
Barb Dacy: Since 1983, since the 2 1/2 acre minimum lot size had been
approved, there have been about 80 some lots that have been created in the
rural area. With that and, as you all know, we have to implement the 1 per 10
acre requirement required by the Facility Agreement but with or without that
requirement, Staff grows concerned regarding the number of septic systems
being installed in the rural area. For example, we are anticipating two major
applications to come to the Planning Commission this Fall and we felt that it
was necessary to hire a specialist to review the perc tests in the soil.
Additionally, although our current Ordinance No. 10A appears to meet current
standards, we feel there may be room for improvement. The City Manager has
added his comments and what Staff is wanting to discuss with the Council is
that we anticipate that Mr. Machmeier's services in reviewing the ordinance
standards and discussing the review with you could total to approximately
24
1
1
1
City Council Meeting - September 8, 1986
$2,000.00 and be paid through sewer availability. As to reviewing individual
subdivision proposals, one or two methods have been identified by the Manager.
Either establishing a separate charge along with the development application
or secondly, use the development contract to allow the City to seek
reimbursement from the developer. Our intent tonight is to seek approval from
the Council as to hiring Mr. Machmeier and his soil specialist Jim Anderson.
From there we will proceed to bring back the issues as to payment, etc. Mr.
Machmeier and the Soil Conservation Service are conducting a training session
tomorrow night beginning at 6:00 p.m. at the City Hall. Planning Staff, Jo
Ann, Todd and myself have gone out with these folks and they give an excellent
talk about soils and septic systems. Mr. Machmeier is a well known specialist
in this field and has been responsible for establishing a lot of the current
standards in the Metropolitan Area. In other words, I don't think that we can
get anyone better.
Mayor Hamilton commented about all the guarantees Mr. Machmeier offers but at
the end of the letter it states that they will not be responsible for any
consequential damages as a result of any failure of any sewage treatment
system which they have designed.
Councilwoman Watson asked about the $50.00 per hour fee for services and
travel time one way to the field investigation job site and if that is
included as part of the time expended and that Mr. Machmeier lives in
Lindstrom, Minnesota. How many hours would it take for him to get to the site?
Barbara Dacy stated his office is out of the St. Paul Campus. She was
anticipating that he would be charging mileage instead of by the hour.
Councilman Geving stated that was not stated in his letter. Councilwoman
Watson thought that issue of the charge for mileage should be clarified
because that could become a major expense.
Councilman Geving was concerned about who determines the scope of work, when
do we require the service and what are the deliverables? What is the product
that he is going to come up with for each of this individual things?
Barbara Dacy stated that on a preliminary basis of discussion with Mr.
Machmeier, what would happen, upon application the City would submit
the required percolation test to his office as well as a consulting engineer.
She has asked Mr. Machmeier that he evaluate the perc test for each lot
because the City in approving a plat is stating that there are two acceptable
septic sites available per lot. He also stated that he would be willing to go
out to the site to double check boring data to deterine where model soils are,
which is very critical in the whole process. He will deliver a written report
as well as be available for Planning Commission and Council meetings.
Councilman Geving stated that heretofore the City has always requested that
of the developer and the developer comes with the perc test. What has
changed? Why is the City taking the burden upon ourselves when we should put
it on the developer's hands?
Barbara Dacy stated two reasons. The sheer size of these proposals. We have
proposals coming that are twice the size of Pioneer Hills. 40 septic system
25
City Council Meeting - September 8, 1986
lots in an 100 acre area is a very intensive project. Two, the developer has
hired a septic system tester and that tester is a client of the developer, not
the City. The City needs an additional check.
Councilman Geving stated that in the 10 years he has been on the Council he
has never seen a perc test that didn't pass even though the perc test, in
effect failed. The builder always found another site where they could build
the house and build the septic system around it. What he would like to see
happen is that they take a look at the City's standards and jack them up a
little bit. He would like to see Mr. Machmeier make those perc tests, not
difficult, but at least reasonable.
Don Ashworth stated that was exactly what the City was looking at. The first
training session is the opportunity to hear what he is saying and that will
give everyone an opportunity to listen to him and consider his credentials.
We will not go through any more than one specific review before we measure and
determine if we are going to have to deal with any additional service. He is
hoping from this process that we will look at our standards and his work will
involve reviewing those standards more so than the individual perc tests.
Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Horn seconded to approve the consulting
agreement with Roger Machmeier for reviewal of septic systems with the
condition that the mileage issue will be resolved before the contract is
initiated. All voted in favor and motion carried.
CONSIDER REPORT ON DRAINAGE /UTILITY EASEMENT ACROSS PROPERTY TO THE EAST OF
SOUTH LOTUS LAKE.
Bill Monk: On July 21st the City Council looked at this and what we are
looking at tonight is two separate issues with the property just to the
northeast of the South Lotus Lake development. It involves developing the
Melby, Segner, Arseth, Horr and Tesler property on Sunset View. One of the
problems involved is the runoff that comes under TH 101 from Eden Prairie and
along TH 101 ditch on it's way in an attempt to get to Lotus Lake. It always
gets there but the problem is the manner in which it gets there and the
damage it has been doing to property in through that area. In looking at the
issue last time, Council authorized this office to review several options and
potential remedies to that situation. The second problem regarding this site
is an area basically concentrated on the Melby site. Over the top of the
sanitary sewer line is roughly located on this map, an area that seems to have
settled is now holding water and is progressively getting worse. I did work
quite a bit with VanDoren, Hazard and Stallings on this project just because
of time constraints. To orientate yourselves to this plan, TH 101 running up
in this area, the edge of the parkland runs along here, you have Lotus Lake
over on the left. The one drainage problem exists basically from where it
comes from an existing 18 inch culvert, winds it way through some trees, down
across the Tesler property, then follows the interim path along Tesler, Horr
and Arseth's property and in some instances, I think it tracks Melby and
Segner's property as it tries to get down to the lake. Also, there is water
coming down the highway ditch along the Horr's driveway. It comes down and
comes into that same area and finds its way to the lake. The two corrected
measures that we have identified in the report. One is to riprap and direct
26
1
1
1
1
1
1
City Council Meeting - September 8, 1986
the drainage through this tree area minimizing disturbance to the major trees
and then either ditching from this point down to the existing ditch which is
well defined or piping from that point down to where riprap could be put in
and the existing ditch used. Both of those are outlined briefly in the report
from Bob Sellers with the costs associated with them. The ditching operation
and riprap would cost approximately $11,125.00. That is for construction
only and the piping alternative would be just under $14,000.00 and is being
recommended by Bob, that if we are going to look at this that we look at the
pipe. I guess I have got to agree with him. In looking at the grades, they
are more extensive then what I said. Portions of the ditch get to 8 1/2% and
I guess with the volume of water coming down there, I truly don't believe we
can stablize that percent grade and using riprap to dissipate the energy in
here and then directing that water into a large culvert and outletting it
further down here, would indeed be the best way to handle it. Bends could be
used on the pipe itself so as it outlets the grade would not be more than 5 -8%
grade just shooting out the end of a barrack. The other thing that was looked
at, on this plan is very difficult to see, but the edge of the...was to find,
as I said, is primarily across another property. A portion of it does go on
to Mr. Segner's property where it is right over the top of the sanitary sewer
line which is located in this area. I guess there is little question that as
sanitary sewer went through that area, given the nature of material that was
dug through in there, it goes without saying that the area was disturbed and
probably not put back exactly as it had been before. This has occurred over
some time and has been this way for a period of time. After looking at it for
quite a while with Bob, we both came to the opinion that even if you were to
fill this with black dirt, the grade is so slight, as you move across this
way less than half a percent, that to try to insure that this would continue
to drain in any fashion would be extremely difficult if not impossible. We
also noted that there is existing tile line that runs up into that area at
present and we are recommending that if anything is done in this area, that
they include not only filling with black dirt in here but the actual low line
of that tile line because otherwise I just don't believe that area can be kept
dry given the amount of water it has been forced to hold over the past couple
of years. I guess that is an identification of the problem and again, some
potential solutions. They are outlined in Mr. Seller's short note. I concur,
I guess with what he is recommending if these items are to be resolved, then
these look like reasonable means by which to do it. At the last Council
meeting I guess the Council looked at these issues, discussed them and
directed Staff to look at potential solutions to the problem and that has been
done. At this point, before I notify the residents and brought everybody back
in with a final proposal, I wanted to have a discussion with the Council
concerning the problems and the potential solutions and items that would have
to be covered from this point out. This isn't proposed to be handled the same
as a municipal improvement project because at this point in time there has
been no talk about assessments of drainage areas or anything like that and as
such the Council would not have hearings and feasibility studies but could
indeed proceed in any fashion they want. Monies for improvements like this
have, in the past, come from Fund 415 which is the State Aid Fund which has
been used to do miscellaneous drainage projects around town.
At this point another tape break occurred during the discussion between
Council members and the City Engineer.
27
City Council Meeting - September 8, 1986
Mayor Hamilton: The drainage ditch that runs down the Horr property from TH
101 on the east side of the property, that is going to remain as is? That is
going to continue to flow across that property and eventually into this pipe?
Bill Monk: The idea in that area would be to direct both the runoff coming
down the highway and the water coming under the culvert. To go in there and
clean out some of the scrub trees and brush and to riprap all of those
channels that would direct the water towards either a ditch or pipe inlet at
this location, so yes, it would be disturbed in that area but the intent is
there. There are a number of large trees and putting in any type of pipe or
anything in there would do, I think more damage then it would good so it is
not proposed to do anything but to basically to do some channelizing.
Mayor Hamilton: I'm not sure Mr. Horr would agree with you on that.
Bill Monk: I have met with him on numerous occasions and we both know, I
guess, that the large trees in there will have to come down. We could extend
the pipe up to any point in here but I don't think it would be wise given the
amount of overland drainage that comes in, to try to run that pipe up to
connect to this one and go way up in here but instead to let it come down and
actually collect it at a better point is the better way to handle it.
Mayor Hamilton: Where it comes underneath TH 101, the path that it takes
currently is that going to be riprapped also?
Bill Monk: I think that will be the best thing to take both existing paths
and define them more fully with more riprap coming down.
Mayor Hamilton: Why did you terminate the underground culvert at that point,
a little past the 900 and 899 line? I was just wondering why you didn't run
it down closer to the lake.
Bill Monk: There are two reasons. One, the ordinary high water level on the
lake is about 896 or there abouts or 897, so as you come down in here, what
happens is you lose the cover over the pipe. There is an existing ditch that
is quite well defined from the lake up to this point right here where it bends
around. The intent would be to riprap and define this area from here on down.
What happens is the pipe pops out of the ground and unless you were to come in
here and do extensive regrading and actually hump over the top of the pipe,
you can't keep it under so what we did was we daylighted it and you can't
play too many games in here before it comes out. We are already using an
eliptical pipe in an effort to be able to run it further because if we use
round it would just pop out of the ground that much sooner and you can't get
as far down or start as far up but using that pipe can get down. We riprap
and channelized this area and then allow it to go up the existing ditch. The
intent, I guess I originally hesitated to use any pipe because the intent was
to allow the water to flow and be purified and be cleansed as it goes down and
drop sediment on it's way to the lake. The problem is if you can use that
theory, what you do in here is you end up building such a ditch that in the
end a pipe section is simplified. One of the things with the riprap up here
is that it definitely will dissipate energy and allow some of the sediment to
drop out before it goes into the pipe. The same at the outlet and I guess I
28
1
1
1
1
1
1
City Council Meeting - September 8, 1986
see both as pretty good design features.
Councilman Geving stated he had no questions but that he just wanted to see
this project move along and solve everybody's problems.
Wes Arseth: I question on what with the fill, you are saying there isn't
going to be any fill in that area?
Bill Monk: What we are proposing would include the filling of this real low
wet area in here in an attempt to get to grade over it but tile would be
replaced in here because I'm not so sure that area is going to dry up by
itself and of it's own. In through this area it does drain slowly. What we
are looking at here is a combination of trying to get this area dry, close off
this outlet as a part of the South Lotus Lake project, get this drainage
handled, give this a chance to dry out and basically find it's way out.
Wes Arseth: The only problem is that, yesterday John Segner and I were in his
yard and he has a hole right in the middle of his yard where the water just
sits. It just doesn't go anyplace because that is so flat and unless you
have some kind of a drainage on that pure plane, it will sit there. You take
a look at this summer and how long it has been dry now for at least a few
weeks, and nothing moves. It has to evaporate otherwise it doesn't get out of
there. Unless you can make it run out of there, it just won't get out of
there.
Mayor Hamilton: Where that water is sitting, is that some ground that was
disturbed.
Wes Arseth: Yes, that is the old drainage ditch because I have a drop of
about that far from the edge of my garden where it goes down, slopes down to
where the sewer line and that is the same thing that Segner has but it is that
plateau that you have there and unless you have some kind of a rise so the
water will run, it just won't move and it has to evaporate so it can get out
of there. We were thinking if you could raise it high enough on Melby's
property to make this stuff run across, and you don't need much of a rise, but
the first 4 to 5 years that the sewer was in it was fine but as it settled, it
started settling down and it became like a table top.
Bill Monk: The problem that we see with the grading is that as I stated, an
attempt can be made to fill this area in and even to get some of this to drain
a little bit better then it is but the cross slope from here over to this
existing ditch that basically did solve in this area, made it drain around
here, the grading is so precise and I expect the settlement to slowly continue
that I just see this thing reoccurring over and over. If the project is to be
continued, to me it would almost be just as good to continue to lower this as
low as possible and to get easements to continue the tile line across, do what
cosmetic filling can be done in here to get the project to drain but if we
don't do a combination of both, I just see that it gets stiffled. Over so
many years it is basically going to settled down and the water is going to
sit. There is just no cross slope, it is just that flat in through that whole
area but the limits on the tile and the limits on the grading could be, if
easements were required, could be extended in an attempt to get that to drain
29
City Council Meeting - September 8, 1986
but the grades are very tight.
Wes Arseth: That area next to Horr's property and mine where my garden was,
the land is still wet there and there is a rise of about 3 feet where he added
in on his property there and even though there isn't water running across
there, you still get seepage because the water seeks the lowest level and
winds up right where my garden used to be and that is still an existing
problem and it still hasn't been resolved as far as I can see and unless we
can get some kind of fill in there to eliminate that problem, it hasn't done
anything for me.
Mayor Hamilton: Are you familiar with that Bill?
Bill Monk: Yes, there has been a lot of changes that have taken place in here
and I guess what I have tried to do is to address the issues that I think are
caused by the sewer line going in and the resulting problems. I don't know,
that may well not provide an outlet for every problem in here. The question
becomes one of if some fill is brought in across here and tile is brought
across, there may be some additional work that would be required as part of
that. It becomes a question of what is the City responsible for and how far
should we go? Should the entire area be tiled, should the entire area be
graded and then it becomes a question of money responsibility.
Mayor Hamilton: The way the culvert is laid out and put the riprap in, that
is going to eliminate water coming down where your garden used to be so I
would think that would solve your problem.
Wes Arseth: It takes care of some of it but you still have the water from
their driveway, from their land and it is so much higher that it just doesn't
end the problem. I have lost a garden now for two years and I used to have
one of the nicest gardens in the area. I don't know what the solution to this
is unless we can get that up high enough so it is a little bit higher than it
is right now I think we would be alright but if we can't bring that up, then
we are right back to square one.
Bill Monk: I can see where we are right back to square one, I really believe
we are basically taking care of the bulk of the problem in picking this up
which does riprap across here right now. You are right in terms of what comes
from the house and off the property will continue to come down. I think if
the tile is extended around here and the line is run down that it would pick
up the water from those low places and again, it becomes a question of how
far should the City go with the project but I definitely believe that a
majority of the water problem would indeed be solved because 90% of the water
would be caught up and run through the pipe down toward the lake instead of
coming across all the properties. Again, the City is also going to be closing
off this 12 inch pipe that runs off of Hill Street, taking that drainage down
to South Lotus Lake project so all water from public facilities in the area
would be routed through other means to get down to the lake and what you would
have in here basically flowing down would be water that comes off of the
existing property. It is large property so it is appreciable amount of water
but the bulk of the water from streets and ditches and Eden Prairie and so on,
would be contained and I think it goes a long way towards addressing the water
30
1
1
1
1
1
1
City Council Meeting - September 8, 1986
problems in there. A question on that tile is if we get the permission to
lower this and reroute it, do you stop at this point or do you continue up and
around into this area and I guess that is up to the Council's discretion as
far as how far you want to go. At this point we are trying to get a general
handle on how the Council wishes to proceed then Staff can take direction in
getting together a final improvement package which would be brought back to
the City Council and then potentially taken to Eden Prairie, Watershed
District, MnDot for their look see and potential cost sharing. I don't expect
much but the attempt should be made and also to fine tune the improvement,
get easements and so on to do this work and area for ways to access the site
and things like that. Those are major issues in regards to just getting to
this property, is extremely difficult. We will have to come up with access
easements and so on. The cost and our work on this is always anticipated
granting of easements for access and for long term maintenance and I view that
as about the only way the City can proceed but those things still need to be
looked at. I'm just trying to get a handle on this issue so that it can be
carried from here to a point where something can be done if the Council wishes
to proceed.
Mayor Hamilton: I would like to see the tile extended to the northeast corner
where it is having a hard time draining now to make sure that that dries up.
If it goes further than that, if it follows along the line of the sewer and
water provided.
Bill Monk: Come along the back side and just follow the sewer line.
Councilman Geving: I think with the piping, I personally like the culvert
idea. It is a long, permanent solution.
Bill Monk: I would recommend that that be the way to go. I was afraid that
would double the cost and since it doesn't I think it is definitely the way
to go especially when I saw those 8 1/2% grades.
Councilman Geving: It is a considerable distance here. I don't know how many
feet but if we could bury that so it wouldn't be unsightly and you couldn't
see and it wouldn't be anything that would cause any problems.
Mayor Hamilton: I really like the way you laid that out. I really think that
is going to help that area and if we tile a little bit more than what is shown
on here now, I think that will help Wes' property.
Councilwoman Watson: Will overflow from this pipe follow the same path the
pipe is taking?
Bill Monk: What we would look to do would be grading a general swale over the
top because conditions are, every time I say it is designed for 100 year
storm, I've had enough trouble myself now in that area of town that I don't
want to perpetuate any problems, so yes, we would grade a general swale so if
the pipe wouldn't take it,it would follow the alignment. Next to or over the
top, one or the other.
Councilwoman Watson: The pipe is good for 20 years?
31
2
City Council Meeting - September 8, 1986
Bill Monk: A long time. I would say 20 years or more.
Wes Arseth: What you are saying then is that you don't want to put any more
fill in there? Is that what I'm hearing?
Bill Monk: I guess when it comes to taking the tile out, what we will do is
take a look at whether over land drainage can be accommodated by extending the
fill into this area instead of extending it out to this area and whether it
can be made to drain better but at this point in time I'm not sure whether
that would improve it putting 2 or 3 feet of fill but instead would just be
an attempt to get it over the top and follow the existing pattern which
would bring it out this way and out to the lake so we would be expanding
that I guess at the same time.
Wes Arseth: I guess what I'm hearing is that if you are going to do something
now is the time to do it to get it settled once and for all because it has
been going on for a long time. After it has been concluded, I don't think
there is going to much chance for improvement in there so that is why I'm
really concerned about this because we won't even be able to get fill in there
at that time.
Mayor Hamilton: I agree, now is the time to do whatever it takes to get it
accomplished.
Bill Monk: If the Council is really set on proceeding with this thing and
wants to proceed as quickly as possible, I suppose that since this is not a
municipal improvement project that Staff could be given authorization to put
together an improvement package that would include plans and specifications in
a shorten version and also to begin acquiring easements and so on. I think
the Council seems set on the project and that step could be taken at this
point.
Councilman Geving: I think the important thing for the homeowners to
understand is that we are putting a lot of money into the project and we are
expecting to get waivers and right of access from you people so we can
proceed.
Wes Arseth: No problem.
John Segner: Don't you have a permanent easement on this project?
Mayor Hamilton: Where the sewer goes.
Bill Monk: There is a 20 foot easement or something over the sewer line but
this would include quite a bit more. I'm sure we have an easement that
follows this line across but the work is going to include fill work out here
and stuff like that, we will have to get blanket easements to complete the
work and stuff like that. We will also need permanent easements in through
here to be able to put this in and maintain it and that kind of thing so
there are additional easements required at this time.
32
1
1
1
City Council Meeting - September 8, 1986
Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Geving seconded to direct Staff to prepare
improvement plans and specifications for drainage /utility easement across
property to the east of South Lotus Lake. All voted in favor and motion
carried.
FIRST READING OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO THE RURAL /URBAN SERVICE DISTRICT.
Don Ashworth: Right now the Codification Ordinance does not include the urban
service /rural taxation district. I think that City has made amendments in
this area and that should be continued. The old ordinance is really out of
date and should be brought back up to date. The parcels that exist in there
right now are ordinance form and resolution forms so they be updated year by
year. There are a number of parcels right now that are in the rural area that
really belong in the urban. For example, Tom Klingelhutz' property down there
is in the rural section... so we would recommend that the ordinance be
redrafted, be brought back to you and be done as soon as possible based
consistent with what has been and what the orignal intent of this ordinance
was.
Mayor Hamilton: I note in here that numerous parcels have been or should be
deleted. Are there any that should be added? I'm thinking of the property
on Lyman Blvd. and just a little bit west of CR 17.
Don Ashworth: Everything basically from TH 5 south was in the original rural
area and over the years some of the parcels have been taken out of there. For
example where Pat lives, that whole area, but some of those remain in there
and you are going to hear some comments for example, Hesse Farm is in.
Bill Monk: Hesse Farm is in, I think the 2nd Addition which is to the west
was not.
Don Ashworth: That's not uniform. They should either both be in or both be
out. We take the position that they don't meet the guidelines for a rural
area and they should really be in the urban service area.
Mayor Hamilton: My other question is, is the 75% on all the properties or
just on homestead or is it just on the part that is tilled or does it cover
everything?
Don Ashworth: 75% reduction, in what would be the City tax portion, so what
they do is they calculate the mil rate, take 75% of that so right now if you
have an agricultural classification, that is an extreme benefit to you. For
example Al Klingelhutz's old house falling under this is taxed at about
one -half or one - fourth what your house or my house would be taxed at. In
addition to that, you get 75% off of that so it is 75% of whatever graphic
you fall into so if you get into an Agrciulatural classification area or
whatever it is, you get 75 %. 50% of your income has to be derived from
your farm.
Councilman Geving: Is this a moral obligation or a legal obligation?
Don Ashworth: Moral obligation.
33
262
City Council Meeting - September 8, 1986
Councilwoman Watson: Is this list current?
Mayor Hamilton: No, this list is not current.
Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Horn seconded to approve the first reading of
an Ordinance No. 29 Amendment to the Rural /Urban Service District. All voted
in favor and motion carried.
CONSIDER STOP SIGN INSTALLATION AT NEZ PERCE AND PONDEROSA.
Bill Monk: Very briefly, there are two issues I think involved. One
regarding the stop sign. I have written my findings and I don't think they
have changed in five years. I am recommending against putting stop signs on
Nez Perce and Ponderosa intersection and the reasons are listed on there. I
don't believe the intersection meets any of the public criteria that I have
set in my own mind as being necessary for stop sign installation. Perhaps
more important and one of the reasons that I handled this memo the way I did
was that Council should be aware that I have received in the past year a very
quickly escalated number of requests for stop signs and speed limit signs. I
have seen enough times cities where they get caught up in the signs. They are
putting up slow children signs and everything else that you can imagine and
people just ignore routinely and putting up stop signs. I won't name any of
our neighbors but as I have said enough times, just driving around when you
have to stop every block or every other block. I do recommend that at some
point down the line that some criteria or policy be set so when these people
come in they can be shown a policy because it goes a long way toward showing
them the way the Council thinks on a certain issue where if we don't have a
policy you are just going to get these single installation requests. It could
get to the point, if development continues the way it is, you will have them
every meeting. So this is a two pronged issue as far as the request on
Ponderosa and Nez Perce. I see the point but I just don't think the City is
in a position where we can respond every time somebody complains of squealing
tires or whatever. I would hate to see somebody hit myself but I just don't
think that this installation is proper and I am recommending against that one.
The rest is just a suggestion.
Councilwoman Watson asked if there was a traffic problem there. Bill Monk
stated that when people know the road they tend to speed and in this case you
come down a hill and he thinks they probably aren't going faster than 25 to 30
mph but people think it is fast.
Councilman Geving stated that he would like to give this to Jim Castleberry
and have him set the criteria for this kind of thing. Have him draw up a list
of stop sign criteria.
Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Geving seconded to deny the Stop Sign
installation at the intersection of Nez Perce and Ponderosa. All voted in
favor of denial and motion carried.
34
1
1
1
City Council Meeting - September 8, 1986
APPOINTMENT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
Mayor Hamilton moved, Councilman Horn seconded to approve the appointment of
David R. Headla to the Planning Commission. All voted in favor and motion
carried.
CONFIRM ZONING ORDINANCE REVIEW DATES AND TIMES.
The Council set the dates September 29, 1986 until October 2, 1986 from 5:30
p.m. until 9:30 p.m. each day as the dates and times to review the Zoning
Ordinance. All members were is agreement.
ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS:
A. STATUS OF ENGINEERING PROJECTS, CITY ENGINEER.
B. LAKE RILEY /CHAIN OF LAKES PROJECT, CITY ENGINEER.
The City Engineer reviewed the status of all engineering projects currently in
process with the Council. Councilman Geving stated that they appreciated the
update.
COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS:
Councilman Horn questioned the article that appeared in the Carver County
Herald regarding police contracting. The City Manager stated that the
article was incorrect and that he would be preparing a letter summarizing
his presentation to the County Board.
The City Engineer noted that field limitations have forced the City to
schedule some soccor games (younger age groups) at the Kiowa Park.
Currently that street is posted as no parking and the City Engineer stated
he would be polling the residents on Kiowa to determine is they would be
adverse to removing the existing no parking signs. Interim relaxation of
parking restrictions will be required.
Councilman Horn moved, Mayor Hamilton seconded to adjourn the meeting. All
voted in favor and motion carried to adjour the meeting at 11:00 p.m..
Prepared by Nann Opheim
35