Loading...
4 App Feasibility Study CITY OF CHANHASSEN CiJy CtnIlT Drivt, PO Box 147 . I4nh4JSOf, Mi1lTll10ta 55317 Phon,612.937.1900 'Jmmz1 Fax 612.937.5739 'ginrrring Fax 612.937.9152 ¡/if Safrty Fax 612.934.2524 íb www.ci..hanh4JSm.mn.us t.. . - MEMORANDUM TO: Scott Botcher, City Manager Anita Benson, City Engineer ~ January 18, 2000 FROM: DATE: SUBJ: Approve Feasibility Study; Authorize Preparation of Plans and Specifications for Grandview Road Area Utility hnprovement Project No. 97-11 A feasibility study for the Grandview Road Area Utility hnprovement Project was prepared by Willìam Engelhardt & Associates in 1997 in response to a petition received by the City for utility improvements in the area. The utility improvement project. did not proceed at that time as the property owner of8155 Grandview Road elected to dig a new well rather than support the utility project. Since that time, the property at 8155 Grandview Road has been sold and it was discovered the current septic system is nonconforming and needs to be replaced. The previous property owner mad~ an effort to install anew system, however, soil test borings failed to identifY a suitable site for the new system. The current property owners of 8155 Grandview Road have petitioned for the improvement project and indicated a preference for Option 1 as outlined in the feasibility report prepared in 1997 by William Engelhardt & Associates. The summary and conclusions reached in the 1997 feasibility report remain accurate today with the exception of the increase in estimated costs for construction and the change in ownership of the property at 8155 Grandview Road. An updated feasibility report was prepared by the Engineering Department to reflect cost increases along with a preliminary assessment roll for the project. The establishment of a uniform assessment roll which takes into account the long- term development potential of the properties affected is necessary with any public improvement project. The Grandview Road neighborhood consists of five properties approximately one acre in size. The aCCess to the properties is via Grandview Road which is currently a gravel, rural road section. From a lot size standpoint, all five parcels have the potential for future subdivision if public sewer and water is made available and if Grandview Road is upgraded as required by City Code. Therefore, the preliminary assessment roll has been prepared based upon two residential equivalent units (REV) per parcel taking into account parcels which currently have city sewer service to the existing home and alternate sanitary sewer and water availability should the parcels subdivide in the future. Ãey of Chanl1ms,". A PJOwin~ ,ommunit¡ with cleanlakrs, qualit¡ schools, a charmin! downtown, thrivin! busi",ssrs, and brautiM parks. A [/"tat place to liV(, work, and pla~ Scott Botcher January 18, 2000 Page 2 -. In addition to the proposed assessments for the installation of the lateral sanitary sewer and lateral watermain, there are additional trunk hookup charges for both sanitary sewer and water which are required to be paid at the time of hookup. The 2000 trunk hookup rates are $1,300 per REU for trunk sanitary sewer and $1,695 per REU for trunk watermain. Additionally, the 2000 Metropolitan Council sewer accessibility charge (SAC) is $1,100 per REU which must be paid upon issuance of the building permit for hooking up to sanitary sewer. According to City Code, a property owner is required to hookup to sanitary sewer when it becomes available to the property, however, property owners are not required to hookup to city watermain until such time as their existing private well fails. tì:··- -...:.:- If following the public testimony there is a majority of support to proceed with officially ordering this improvement project, a decision on Option No. 1 or Option No.2 for the watermain portion of this improvement project néeds to be made. The feasibility report outlines thé pros and cons associated with Option 1 and Option 2 watermain systems. I believe that looping the watermain system is a better fi'om an overall systems operations standpoint, however, I would support either option chosen. . If at the close of the ptiblic hearing there are no further relevant questions or concerns which require further study, it is my recommendation that the City Council approve the feasibility study for the Grandview Road Utility Area hnprovements dated January 4,2000 and authorize preparation of plans and specifications for ProjeCt No. 97-11. Jrns Attachment: 1. FeasibÎlity study dated January 4,2000. 2. City Council Minutes dated July 28, 1997. c: Dave Hempel, Assistant City Engineer Charles Folch, Director of Public Works Jerry Boucher, Utility Superintendent Willìam Engelhardt, Willìam: Engelhardt &Associates Grandview Road Property Owners (w/attachment no. 2) \\cfsl\voI2IenglpublicI97-1Ilapprove feas study.doc " ~.>,..~. _.~:. City Council Meeting - July 28, 1997 Mayor Mancino: Second? Councilman Mason: Second. ,. Councilman Senn moved, 0'" · . ~ weoøded.to approve the following Items for the Arboretum B>- I .. Park. --. --'Dew=Jø~nt: 1) F1naI Plat ApproV1ll, at-ded, (preDmm..ry Lot 1. Block 1, Gateway Addition); City Code Amendment P . I t!Ie l'._t).from A2 to PUD. Second Reading. 2) Approve Development Ctmtrac:t, -amnded; !lnd Plans & Specifications for Utlllty Improvements In Phase L All voted In favor and the motion carried. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: None. PUBLIC HEARING: RECEIVE FEASIBILITY REPORT FOR GRANDVIEW ROAD UTILITY S' AUTHORIZE PREPARATlON-oF PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS PROJECT 97-11. Public Present: Name _ Address Mary Bernier Mr. & Mrs. Al Sinnen Linda Anderson Mary Larsen S155 Grandview Road 8150 Grandview Road 8210 Grandview Road 8151 Grandview Road Charles Folch: Thank you Mayor, ~rs oftheCouncil'. I think we'll start off with just a brief background on the current status of_ projec:UThe Grandview Road neighborhood consists basically of five properties approximately one acre in size. They're accessed by Grandview Road which is currently a gravel rural section. Two of the properties, ODe located at 815 I, the other one at 820 I Grandview Road have previously obtained utility services. 8151 obtained both sewer and water service to the existing property back in '88 while 820 I Gtandview Road previously obtained a sewer connection to the existing home back in 1988. Both 1Ì'om the Hidden Valley subdivision to the east. Utility improvements recently constructed with the Villages on the Ponds development on the west border of the neighborhood has provided sewer.and water snmunhe commoll;propertylineshared by 8210 and 8150. From a lot size standpoint, all five pareds havethetJOWitial _future subdivision if public sewer and water is made available, and ifGrandviewRoad is.:up¡radeda$.requiœdbj' city code. I should also mention that Villages on the~ .h..~~aIso.providai m.mdividual residential stub to the property at 8210, at their southwest w.......... ptlp!:tty1lawJ1J:here.. Based onU1:cent petition received by staff back in May, the City Councù belli apabtil: -.w,g tDdiscuäinitiatiDg~feasibility study for both the road and the utility improvementprojectrorCir.nldviewRoad·ne¡~d. During the public discussion the issue came up as to whether or not the r"åtù-¡¡ts themselves could construct the improvements under a private contract at their own cost, and at a cost more affordab1ethan what the City could do it. And accordingly the City Council tabled action to allow the neighborhood to investigate this opportunity. Staff has again recently been contacted by some ofthe~dents and it doesn't appear that there's been much progress 1 City Council Meeting - July 28, 1997 made on that avenue of constructing the improvements under a privale contract. Also staff became aware back at tbe end of June that one of the property owners, Ms. Bernier at 8155 Grandview Road had her water well fail and as such is currently receiving a temporary water supply via overland ITom one of the neighbors. But Ms. Bemier needs to make a decision in the very near future whether or not to sink a new well for her property or whether or not it's feasible for the neighborhood if the City extends public sewer and water on a project basis. Staff believes it would be a shame if Ms. Bemier did have to drill a new well because it's likely that sometime in the next few years, it could be up to 5 years, utilities will likely be extended into the neighborhood and therefore you'd have that additional cost and probably wouldn't generate the long term life benefit out of establishing a new well. At any rate, based on that additional emergency situation that came up, staff went to the City Council back on July 7ib and asked for authorization to basically conduct a feasibility study. This time just to address the utility issues with the project and leave the road and storm sewer aspects of the project out oftbe project. And as such we've contracted with the firm of Engelhardt and Associates. They prepared by the feasibility study whicb is in your packets tonight and a copy of which has been sent to all of the five property owners on Grandview Road and with that I'll turn it over to Bill Engelhard to give you a presentation on tbe primary elements of the project. Bi11 Engelhardt: Good evening. As Charles said, my name is Bill Engelhardt, Engelhardt and Associates out ofChaska. This is JeffWyandt with my office. He's been working on the project. We'll do a real quick presentation of the project and then address questions afterwards. As Charles mentioned tbe project location is Grandview Road. It's right off of the Hidden Valley subdivision. It consists of five properties, the Larsen, Sinnen, Bernier, Kokesh and Anderson. The Village on tbe Ponds to the west, starting at the...Highway 5. All these parcels are a little over an acre. Fairly large pieces of property. The first thing we did is look at existing services. Some of the properties already had service. The Larsen property is served ITom the Hidden Valley project in this location,just to the south portion of the property. The northerly portion is not readily accessible to these individual services. Bernier and Sinnen do not have service. The Kokesb property bas service book-up ITom Dakota Lane and the Anderson property. in other words the service left by Villages of the Ponds for sanitary sewer only. The first option we looked at was simply connecting into the existing stubs at Villages of the Ponds extending to the east about 150-200 feet to the north, recognizing that tbis would serve the Sinnen property if it was divided both halves. The same with Bernier. We would drop another additional water service off of the Kokesh in this location. In the future the Kokesh would bring another service up ITom the south or and another water service up ITom the south for the bottom lot. This piece of property drops off significantly to the south in about this location. Both the Anderson's and Kokesh properties... The Anderson property would receive an additional sewer service in this location and a water service and another water service to be extended to the southerly piece of the property. A very simple, about.. .or Option No.2 in the feasibility study. The sanitary sewer would remain the same. The only difference would be that we would loop the watermain all the way up to the northern end of Villages on the Ponds where tbere is an existing 8 inch,stub that would come in and we would drop the water service for the northerly Larsen property off of that loop. As we discussed in the feasibility study, there's disadvantages and advantages for looping. The disadvantage is obviously number one is cost. The advantage would have to do with... If you have a watermain break, we have two feeds. One to the south and one to the north. You get better circulation. You can give better water quality and it's an overall better system. I think as your staff report indicated, you could probably live with either option. This option does give you better water service and better fire protection. Cost for Option No. I for sanitary sewer and watermain restoration is $45,127.87. Again with the looping of the watermain, the cost increases to $69,971.00. What does tbis mean for the various property owners? Individual property owners are listed by PID number, property name and the amount of their total assessment. In the case of the Sinnen property it'd be $15,144.98. Anderson, $11,205.19. Bemier, $15,144.98. Kokesh, $3,632.72. The Larsen property, which is already 8 City Council Meeting - July 28, 1997 served under Option No. I would be zero. Option No.2, the costs go up. The Sinnen's would be $21,013.00. Anderson's $16,295.00. Bernier $21,000.00. Kokesh, $5,789.00 and the Larsen property would be assessed for water service which would be $5,789.37. Those costs were arrived at by looking at equivalent residential units. In the case of Option No. I, the Sinnen property would be two lateral sewer, two lateral water with the cost per unit, or the cost for lateral sewer and the cost for lateral watennain and then we divided up the restoration among the property owners based on their percentage of the utility cost and.. . how we arrived at the various costs per the individual property. Again, the Larsen property in Option No. I was zero. Kokesh was one water unit. Bemier, two units based on future subdivision. Anderson was one sewer, two water. The Sinnen two water and two sewer. Option No.2, basically the same types of units. Two for the Sinnen's sewer and water. Anderson one sewer, two water. Bernier two sewer and water. Kokesh one water and Larsen one water. Again, the increase in cost between Option No. I and Option No.2 is the looping of the watermain... In addition to these costs there would be the standard trunk sewer and water cost for the properties when they hooked up and... In the case of trunk sanitary sewer...per equivalent residential units. In the case of the watennain was 1550 and those unit trunk charges are due upon application... Mayor Mancino: So I'm assuming that if nobody there subdivides, they just keep their current home, they have to hook up. Once this is in place they have to hook up to water and sewer? Charles Folch: By ordinance, once sewer's available they have one year to connect to that by ordinance. For water, there's not the one year restriction. It's when the well fails then they are not allowed to drill a new well. They are required to connect. Mayor Mancino: And that connection is $2,700.00. $2740 per home. Charles Folch: Per home. For sewer and water. Trunk hook-up. Mayor Mancino: So that's over and above the 15. Charles Folch: That's above the lateral cost. Mayor Mancino: Okay, thank you. Charles Folch: The rates that Bill spoke offor the trunk hook-up were '97 rates and as you know those get adjusted each year based on construction cost. Mayor Mancino: Do they go cheaper? Charles Fo1ch: The trend hasn't been that direction but, so if a property owner makes a connection 4 years down the road, it would be at the rate 4 years down the road. Mayor Mancino: The prevailing rate. Charles Folch: The prevailing rate, right. Mayor Mancino: Okay. Bill, I just have one question. I want to make sure I understand this. The Anderson's is, their lateral utility assessment is cheaper because they're only hooking up to one in the northem part? 9 City Council Meeting - July 28, 1997 Bill Engelhardt: "That's correct. Mayor Mancino: 50 they'll have an additional charge if they subdivide for the southern part of their land? Charles Folch: TIle existing home that has the sewer service stubbed to it from the south, when they actually come in to1llake, pull a permit to make the connection to the sanitary sewer service, they will pay the standard trunk hook-up fee which we just talked about. They will also pay the standard lateral charge which the CIty.has established for properties who haven't been previously assessed for laterals so they will pay a comparable lateral charge that won't be assessed through the project. It will be directly with the billing permit. Mayor Mancino: 'Ibank you. And Don, could you tell us a little bit about the financial part of the bonding for this? Don Ashworth: Sure. Typically most of the assessments the past several years have gone into a shorter time mme. 6 yeam, 8. I do recall a 10. I think that that's really what Charles had anticipated, but in light of the fact that this probably will be a very financially strapping project for the property owners involved, doing it _:an even principal, 8 year basis, you could be for an average $12,000.00-$14,000.00 assessment, and I kDøw they go all over the place, but you could be up into almost a $3,000.00 assessment. Mayor Mancino: Per year. Don Ashworth: Per year. That actually would be decreasing. If you used the standard practice, which again is an even principal amount, but I think again recognizing financial situations, we could look to taking that same $12.,000.00 to $14,000.00 assessment. Running it over 12 to 14 years which would put a principal payment at roughly $1,000.00 per month and then the change, year. I'm sorry. The $1,000.00 per year, and it would change the, if instead of using an even principal, you used an even payment, you could probably getthc cost, interest costs maybe closer to $500.00 so you'd have roughly $1,500.00 assessment versus $3..000.00. So those are some alternatives that are open to the people, and again given the relative size of this project, you know it doesn't really overly affect our bonding. I mean typically MacGiIlvrary will Slllnd in front of you and say, you should be trying to reduce your debt as much as possible but you know again with a very small project like this, we're not affecting our debt position at all if we go to 12, 14, IS. Mayor Mancino: Any other questions? Councilmembers? Councilman Senn:Nbt right now. Mayor Mancino: This is a public hearing. Anyone wishing to address the City Council, please come forward now and please let us know what your thoughts are. And if you have any questions, please ask. We will try and anSWl:!' them. Mæy Bernier: Mary Bernier. I'm the one with the failed well. Mayor Mancino: MaIy, could you give us your address. 10 City Council Meeting - July 28, 1997 Mary Bernier: 8155 Grandview Road.. .however, this seems to be astronomical. It's a lot of money. I'm really not in a position to do that. I'm kind of caught between a rock and a hard place. I really don't know what to say. Is there any other alternative that would help? Mayor Mancino: Well the other alternative obviously is for you to put in a new well and not do this at all, and probably within the next few years, I don't know if it's going to be short tenn, in I to 5 years this may come up again because someone may want to subdivide and then we would be looking at this little higher cost. Charles, is there any other scenario that this can work? From Sinnen Circle, can we draw water or sewer? Charles Folch: No. Coming from Sinnen Circle, what would certainly make my job a lot easier with this thing but unfortunately the two pairs of homes that you have to navigate through with the water service itself just to serve the Bernier property, the one pair you just couldn't physically get the equipment between the houses and be able to dig a trench to put a water service in. The other one you could marginally. We would still need easements from these residents to be able to construct it. I still would be very concemed because you'd be constructing you know 7 Y.z foot depth trench between two homes that are probably less than 5 feet from the width of the trench and then you'd be coming back in there with compaction equipment and vibrating the ground and I'd be worried about the risk that we would put on foundations and footings and things like that of these two homes. I really think it's an impossibility to go between those homes now at this point in time from Sinnen Circle. I think it would really be a challenge. The time, when it was done back in '88 with the two other previous extensions, it was done during the time that construction was occurring so you didn't have to deal with the structures already there so right now it's after the fact. It's pretty much impossible without doing severe damage. Mayor Mancino: Some damage to their basement walls. No other place to get water from? Charles Folch: They don't have their again. Mayor Mancino: You can't, well it would cost just as much to go from Larsen's, they're the only other close neighbors that have, or the Larsen's aren't there anymore but that have water, correct? Charles Folch: Yeah. Yeah, the Larsen's are there and their existing home currently has sewer and water service. Sewer and water service, but the stubs that have been left by Village on the Ponds to the north, again it'd probably be about the same distance of run with lateral lines to try to get to the Bernier property. They're just right in the middle of everything. Equal distance from where the stubs are so it's unfortunately from that standpoint so. Mayor Mancino: So we're saying we haven't come up with an option, another option yet. Councilman Engel: What.does a well cost? Mary Bernier: About $6,000.00... They don't know until they start digging. Mayor Mancino: And where they find water depending on how deep they have to go. Mary Bernier: A shallow one.. .road up to my place. So sitting here you can see it. It's a lot of money for them to pay for me to get water. I live on a fixed income. My house is the only asset I really have... 11 City COlDlcil Meeting - July 28, 1997 Don Asl¡worth: Minnesota Statutes do recognize, and I don't know your age, but do allow for a deferment as a hardship for senior citizens. There would be a requirement for Ms. Bernier to share her financial resources with the City Council and the City Council would then make that decision but law also ensures that that would be held confidential to solely the City Council. MaIy Bernier: That still leaves my neighbors... when they can hook up just on a short little area. Mayor Mancino: Well no because we would still have, we would still run this route and they would still be assessed. Just regardless as they are here in the report. I mean they would still pay their unit cost according to, no matter how close they are, correct? Charles Folch: You're correct in your, in fact in comparing these numbers, and I understand they're probably a shock to people outside of the normal working trade with these types of costs but we compared these lateral assessments to two criteria. One is what we hear as the public improvement cost for let's say a private developer to come in and build homes. These numbers are probably slightly under for lateral sewer and water assessment. Under what a Lundgren or a Rottlund or something would figure on spending per home to service with sewer and water. Also we, the City has established lateral sewer and water connection charges for the few properties that we run into from time to time that have never been assessed for a previous lateral assessment for whatever reason, and these assessments are probably $800.00-$900.00. Based on our assessments, we anticipate them to come in under what our standard charges are so even though they are a tremendous number for you folks, I'm sure, it's probably a lot larger than you thought it was going to be but compared to the market and what it's costing for a typical lot in Chanhassen to have sewer and water, it's probably just slightly under what the normal average is. Mayor Mancino: So any time if they were to, your neighbors get the sewer and water, they would be paying this amóunt of money anyway. Okay. Okay, and if you want to come back up. I, being of gray hair and probably around Mary's age, what is the senior citizen Don? What age is a senior citizen now? Don Ashworth: 65 under statute. Mayor Mancino: Oh, okay. Thank you. Anyone else wishing to address the City Council. Thank you. Al Sinnen: Hi. I'm Al Sinnen, 8150 Grandview. Right now we have the sewer and water stubbed in at my southwest comer of the lot and fire hydrant there. This plan you've got it coming to the other comer and then up. You've got two more fire hydrants and it's about 100 feet closer to my septic tank than it is now and it's going to cost me $15,000.00. I don't know how that can be justified. Charles Folch: I think I can just respond to that. Mayor Mancino: Please. Charles Folcb: As I mentioned earlier, let's say for example the Sinnen property would just take a service directly ftom the stub there and no other pipe. No other, even a public project involved. Let's say he just wanted to make a direct connection to that stub there. He would still have, when he makes a connection, when he comes in for a building pennit for the existing home that he's servicing, he could pay $3,500.00 for the lateral sewer connection charge, $3,500.00 for the lateral water connection charge, and then the $2,600.00 plus or minus for the sewer and water trunk hook-up charges. Mayor Mancino: Per building site. 12 City Council Meeting - July 28, 1997 Charles Folch: Per building site. So you're actually probably right at or slightly higher than what the numbers are showing here. Even if you can make a direct connection, but because by ordinance you're required to pay the lateral connection charge and the trunk hook-up charge if you haven't been assessed for either in the past. Mayor Mancino: So there's a flat rate for each one of those that the City assesses. Regardless of whether you're 50 feet away or 300 feet away. AI Sinnen: Well then a question on this restoration. I don't know, like you're going from Plan I to Plan B,you went up $1,000.00 worth of sod and the whole thing is on a road. Bill Engelhardt: If you're on the road you can... AI Sinnen: Not on this stretch Bill Engelhardt: Well, there's a certain amount of restoration and when the project is undertaken the, you will only pay for what is put down. We have to come up with a number to estimate what the cost... It doesn't do you any good for me to estimate that we'll put 5 yards of sod and then really need 50. If we use 5 yards, then that's what you're assessed for. Al Sinnen: Okay. Charles Folch: In fact what Bill is saying is very true. I mean in terms of the road width itself, probably the trench will stay somewhat within the gravel width of the roadway, keeping the sewer and water 10 feet apart as required by the Health Department. But when you start piling the dirt, when you're digging a trench, you start piling dirt on existing sod and then when you pull that back off, a lot of times you've disturbed the sod and you need to replace it. Mayor Mancino: And what about fire hydrants? Is that something that the State makes us, I mean? Charles Folch: Well what we'll do is send, we'll review the plans with the Fire Marshal and make sure that they're comfortable with the spacing and locations so that they can access each of the properties from what they feel is the best standpoint. So certainly the insurance companies are going to want to make sure that we've got fire hydrants in the area so that's a benefit to them. Al Sinnen: Okay, you're putting one hydrant on the first place there within I don't know how many feet of the Larsen house, and there's no charge. Is it going to benefit him as much as us? Charles Folch: Certainly that's a possibility that that northerly hydrant would be a benefit to the Larsen propeny but again understand that if and when, I believe well I believe there's actually another hydrant just to the north too that was stubbed with Villages on the Pond so they're probably equal distance, either one. But understand that if and when the Larsen propeny ever subdivides that potential area to the north, they're going to be paying their fair share of charges. It's just that the way we're trying to lay this out is the least cost overall to the project. But even though they're not associated, if the neighborhood and the Council go with Option I and decide to do a project, then the Larsen's wouldn't be involved ftom an assessment standpoint but at some point in time they're going to pay their fair share if they subdivide and make connection to the north. Northwest from Villages on the Ponds. So they're going to have their lateral connection charges and trunk hook-up charges accordingly so. 13 CityCounciU.' =...t-July28,1997 Mayor Mallcino; And Kokesh wID t40 when they &etwaeer. Charles F01dI:: ,¡Absolutely. 1bey'œ~ng.æ1'8y,.....tàir share. It's just whether they pay it now or pay it at somelilture time. Mayor lwf-·- ;._" .oby. Mary BernienlSkeda qœstioa.. was uot pictœdilpby the microphone. Don Ashworth: I'm gu~!l:"'JS ,.ou'~bably ~6~%to 7%. Now ifI would have thought about it in advance of the meeting I could bøe checked what tile current rates are and I think you'll be looking at again right at ó *%. Pretty good. Mary Bernier: Alright, thank you. Linda Anderson: I'm Linda Anderson, 8210 Grandview Road. We're directly adjacent to the school, St. Hubert's school. Ì have a couple of questions for you. We keep hearing about subdividing the lots. What my ~ is, are we alJewed £6 subdivide OlD' properties with our road as it is right now? We've heard something that we're gtandfathered in and 'WIC do not Deed to make road improvements in order to subdivide. Is that true, fIrst of all? Are we able to subdivide the lots as our road is right now or do we have to do an S80,OOO.OO road improvement project befOre we could ever do that? Mayor Mancino: Well right now you're at the, for a private drive you're at the limit without a variance on what the, what do I want to say, standard road would be and yes. When you start subdividing in here you will need to doJl new road. Curb, gutter, storm sewer, etc. Linda Anderson: Which is real pricey. We think this is pricey, that's really pricey. Mayor Mancino: Wcl.I.lww prieey, I mean I hate II! ask yoaoff the top of your head, and if you'd rather not, that'd be fmebut. Charles Folch: My guesgis tIIat the neighborhood's probably going to want a road section narrower than our standard width.and that's probably something that tht'G>uncil's going to seriously consider so not knowing whether it's a 24 or 26, 28, it'd be hard to guess but. Councilman Engel: Give us the cheapest way out Charles F olch: Probably 'let's say. Mayor Mancino: It will come tøclc 10 haunt us. Councilman.5euæ· JnstgiYAaTauj e. Charles Folch: I cwou1d say yoaprobably cÐu1dexpKt each property, again assuming two potential residential unilsper pro~..YQU.'re looking at prtibahly ihe Deighborhood of $5,000.00 to $7,500.00 I would guess per resWntial1ot. Councilman Engel: So if you O\lIIHwo, after you subdivide, $10,000.00 to $15,000.00... 14 City CounciU2 .;..g C July 28.f99'7 Charles Folch: Yeah, so if you've got1ive lots, you're probably looking at somewhere around a $50,000.00 10565.ooo.00~, depending on how wide you make it. Councilman Sam: . And t!Jat'IJIOt road only. That's also sewer. Storm sewer, right? Linda Anderson: So that's inaddition to what we're looking at here. Councilman EDgeI: ·In addila... ~j sewer and water. Linda Anderson: So I guess l~d1!ll)'1hat you know we're all basing this on we're all subdividing our lots and I don't any of us are going to subdivide our lots with that kind of, I know the Kokesh's for instance have absolutely no intention of subdividing so the supposition that we, that they will pay in the end is not true because as long as they live there, they have no intention of subdividing the lot. They have no access. There would have to be, you know the potential road improvement that would have to end up I would assume taking out a large portion of the woods that now exist in order to create a cul-de- sac between our property and their property. I would assume that would be the only way to serve it but you know the reality is that it's not going to happen. People are not, we're not interested in subdividing. They're not interested in subdividing so in terms of the costs coming out fair in the end, they really aren't going to. So th.a1's just a little comment about that but the other question. Mayor Mancino: Well, and not that we want you to subdivide or put in a new road, I mean. Linda Anderson; Oh yeah. It's been lovely the way it is you know, and it's all changing but it's been very nice and it's still nice to have the nice big lots even though I'm the one who mows. Councilman Senn: Well Linda, from a standpoint, and Charles correct me if I'm wrong but the subdivision factor at least as it relates to 1he sewer and water is basically kind of a no effect type of deal, right? Because 1 mean the overall cost of the project isn't going to change one way or another and if you're just going tD be dividing it by less lots, it's really immaterial. So I mean ultimately it's not boosting the cost effectively ofWllat is being suggested that be provided to you now under sewer and water, okay. Understand? Linda Anderson: Okay, my other question is, in terms of, if the scenario happened that Mary Bernier digs a well and we only run water on the edge of the property, the eastern edge of Villages on the Pond, that would serve the Sinnen's and our property. Were you talking about the lateral assessment that basically is the same, I was under the impression, I think we were all under the impression that Villages on the Pond was providing that tine as"part of the concession of building the church and school so close to our properties. That it was, 1!Iat wasUOi' little bone you know that well yes, this is going to be very close to your properties but they.aœ proVíding this line. But now I'm hearing that they're providing it but we're paying for it. I thought that the line was there and it's nice because it's close and we can use it and we of course· would have topIIY DUI':bDok-up charges and we would also have to pay our contractors to actually conneet to OIB' housedm11 don't understand why the lateral charge is being assessed because the line is there. The line is"th~'S'erVÎng·the school, and that was something that they were paying for and that was our little benefit for.having the school in our ftont yard. Mayor Mancino: .And who told you this? 15 City Council Meeting - July 28, 1997 Linda Anderson: Lotus Realty basically. Brad Johnson pretty much said that yeah, this is going to be, this is all going to be developed but the benefit to you is that we provide this water and sewer utilities to you at our cost. You know basically. Councilman Engel: Have you got that in writing anywhere? Linda Anderson: No. Of course not. Wouldn't that have been nice. But that was always kind of the understanding. I think that was the understanding for the rest of the neighborhood too. Charles Folch: .. .and so there can be those situations where things may not seem fair so I think the ordinance's intent is to make sure, is to create or at least to provide an opportunity to introduce uniformity in terms of cost for someone wanting to be on city sewer and water. And that's the intent. Mayor Mancino: And it would be a private agreement I'm assuming between Villages on the Pond and the homeowners. If Villages on the Pond were to step up and pay for those. Charles Folch: If they wanted to hook-up and pay for those, the lateral connection costs, I guess that's cenainly between you and them to negotiate if you want. I don't know that we'd have a problem with that as long as we're meeting the ordinance as long as they're paid per lot that connects. Councilman Engel: Do we need to offer a variance or anything like that to something...? Charles Folch: I don't believe so because we're still getting the revenue. It's just not a matter ofwho's paying it as long as we're getting it for that permit that's being. Mayor Mancino: That would be between private homeowners. Or private owners. Councilman Engel: Can we reduce that amount for a special circumstance? As a City. What we would require say Brad Johnson to pay. No? Ifwe asked him to do... Charles Folch: Again I think we're, I mean certainly. Councilman Engel: I'm trying 10 create something because I don't see an option here. Charles Folch: I think the biggest challenge is going to be the question of uniformity. Treating everybody the same. Whether you just happen to be lucky to be close or you're at a disadvantage like the Bernier property because you're a ways ftom where the stub, the line's been stubbed. I mean you have to have some uniformity there. I mean why should one property have to burden a l,ot more because they end up being a little farther in the neighborhood ftom where the stub was. Linda Anderson: But what I was saying was, the scenario I was saying was that if Mary Bernier thinks that the $25,000.00 or whatever it, well what it ends up being with connection charges, if it's too much for her to pay and she ends up digging a new well and then if it becomes just us, the Sinnens and our property on that particular side just tapping into the line that's already there. I guess I don't understand why we would have to pay the entire lateral charge. I would have thought that some of that would have been paid already by the Villages on the Pond or by the St. Hubert's project. It's a special circumstance I know. I understand you have to have uniform standards but this whole issue, our little neighborhood is not, we're kind of a unique circumstance in general. 16 City Council Meeting - July 28, 1997 Charles Folch: But even if a new well is sunk tomolTow, someday that well will fail and then someday when they try to test bore for another, maybe we'll run out of well sites and someday that property will need to be serviced by city sewer and water, whether it's because they're on, whether the well points, there's no other good location. Whether there's a ground water contamination problem at that particular level of the well point and then you need to be on a city sewer or city water where we have deeper well points, what have you, but someday we have to think long term and not be short sighted that someday that lot will have to be on city water and we don't want to leave it as an island for the future. Mayor Mancino: Don. Don Ashworth: I think there's a bit of confusion. Villages on the Pond brought their service up to the building. We as a city demanded that they bring it over to the property line so that it could provide service. If they had not done that, the cost of this project would be much, much more because you would have had to include going back to where the true service is at the church. So I mean. Mayor Mancino: They are paying for the cost to put it to the property line. Villages on the Pond. Don Ashworth: Villages on the Pond and if they would not have done that, that would have been a cost that would have been included. Councilman Engel: They'd have to...that trunk. Don Ashworth: And these folks would have been even more disturbed at the total costs. Mayor Mancino: Okay. Linda Anderson: Okay, thank you. Mayor Mancino: Anyone else wishing to address the Council? Mary Larsen: Hi, I'm Mary Larsen. We're at 8151 Grandview Road and we had two questions. First, it doesn't seem like they're going to go with Plan B, I mean with the cost and stuff. But if they did and they were going to stub water to our northern portion of our property, would they also at that same time stub sewer? Since it's already dug up anyway. Charles Folch: At this time we would propose to do the water. If you wanted us to extend the sewer stub, that's something that we could incorporate into the plan if you wanted. Mary Larsen: Okay, since you're already. And second of all, if for some reason, not that we do want to subdivide, because obviously it sounds like the road would have to be redone to subdivide, but our northerly comer of our property does not, it just barely touches the gravel where the new cul-de-sac is going in. Would we be able to subdivide that northern end without the road improvement, since we won't really be using the access of the road for that property? Charles Folch: I believe the way the new access has been set up ftom Villages, your property, or the potential lot, the lot split to the north would have direct access ftom the new location that's been stubbed for the Villages. I know the original alignment, it's actually kind of away ftom the property but with what's been stubbed now and the new entrance in, it gives direct access, yeah. 17 City Council Meeting - July 28, 1997 Mary Larsen: And so then if we did decide to do that, it wouldn't affect the. other residents on the road as far as upgrading the road. Mayor Mancino: No, but let us do a double check on that. To make sure. Charles Folch: I mean you've got public access to it but in tenns of improving the road, that's another issue. Mary Larsen: Right, because we won't need to use that improvement part. Charles Folch: I think either way you're going to be tripping that ordinance requirement of upgrading the road. Mal)' Larsen: Even if the property...used by that road. Mayor Mancino: But not if...by Grandview. MaryLarsen: We'd have direct access to the cul-de-sac. Charles Folch: I don't have a drawing showing me the latest. Mary Mancino: Mary, let's do this. Bob, can you check that in the morning and check with our ordinances and get back to you and let you know. If that would trip it. Mary Larsen: Because then a concern of ours would be before they buried the water and sewer at that cul-de-sac end of it, we would maybe consider stubbing it over to that property. Is the cost greater once they're done with the project on Villages on the Pond to redig it up and move city water and sewer over to that property? Charles Folch: As I understand it, the lines have been stubbed to where the end of their paving work is going to be so that we wouldn't have to tear up pavement. Mal)' Larsen: Tear it up again. Charles Folch: We'll verify that for you but that's. Mary Larsen: Okay. That's some of the things we wanted to know. Charles Folch: Typical criteria, we don't want to have them put some pavement down that we've got to tear up in the future. Mary Larsen: Okay, that's what we were. Mayor Mancino: What's your phone number? Mary Larsen: 937-9149. Mayor Mancino: Thank you. 18 City Council Meeting - July 28, 1997 Mary Larsen: Okay, thanks. Mayor Mancino: Any further comments from neighbors? How do we make it cheaper? Councilman Senn. Councilman Senn: Well, fÌ'om what I'm hearing there's no way to make it cheaper other than to spread it out through the fmancing. So if we spread it out through the financing, the annual payments are cut in about half. It'd be about $1,500.00 a month, or a month. There I did it. I'm talking attorney language, right? $1,500.00 a year versus the $3,000.00 a year. It doesn't seem like there's any better way to do it. You know to me the real issue I guess becomes very simple at this point, and that is you know what happens. Do you want to put in the new well or do we bring in water and sewer? And I don't see anyway to gloss that over I guess. Because there's no middle ground. If you put in a well and nobody's going to subdivide, you know who knows how many years you can keep going the same way you are out there right now. But again with one failed well there could be more failed wells shortly to follow or whatever. I mean you don't know. I mean you're taking kind of a crap shoot anyway you look at it. You know eventually I think you have to get to a point to not only protect your property values but to increase your property values just to add the water and sewer. I guess the question becomes at what point in time do you want to do that. I think before when we've been talking about this it's kind of been more an issue oftirning but that issue's changed now and the reason it's changed now is becomes some lady doesn't have water, you know who living in a residence there so I mean to me that kind of changes the whole different, you know puts a whole new light on it. So does that property owner want to put in a well and avoid all this? Or do we go ahead and bring in sewer and water? I don't know how you all feel about that but I guess I'd like to know. Audience: How long do you have...? Mayor Mancino: You don't have to hook up to water. Councilman Senn: The water's indefinite. You don't have to. Charles Folch: By ordinance, until your existing well system fails. Then you're required to. Councilman Engel: But the sewer. Charles Fo1ch: Sewer, within one year. Mayor Mancino: And you can still, you can hook up to water and still keep your well. So you can have both things working too. You can hook up to the water, use it in your home and still keep your well for. Charles Fo1ch: Lawn sprinkling. Mayor Mancino: Lawn sprinkling or anything else that you want. Audience: How long? Councilman Senn: Until it fails. Once your well fails, then you're required under State law to cap it off and take care of it basically. A question was asked fÌ'om the audience that was not picked up by the microphone. 19 City Council Meeting - July 28, 1997 Mayor Mancino: Charles. Charles Folch: I don't know that we have any ordinance restricting selling a property with septic system as long as it, I know they have to have an inspection. There's a routine inspection system that's been implemented now that I'd have to talk to the Building Official. I think it's every couple years they have to, every two years they have to turn in and show proof that the septic system has been inspected and it's operating correctly. I'm sure as long as those conditions are met, I don't think there's any other criteria we have. Councilman Senn: Y cah, I think actually you have some people who contend septic systems are actually still more environmentally sound than treatment of sewage, right? Councilman Mason: Some people think the Earth is flat too so. Councilman Senn: I don't know, what do you think? The ball's in your guy's court. Well, no you don't have to. I mean we can say go away for a week and come back and tell us but you know if you think that's actually an easier or better way to do it. A comment was made fÌ'om the audience that was not picked up by the microphones. Councilman Senn: Well we don't meet again until. Mayor Mancino: Can we do it next Monday? Work session. In a week. Councilman Senn: We could do it in a week. Mayor Mancino: In a week. If you want to have some time and process and add some more questions. Charles Folch: The next step would be to prepare the plans and I'm guessing that would probably take you 15 to 30 days probably. Bill Engelhardt: Probably...probably would be 2 weeks for plan preparation... Mayor Mancino: But we need to decide Mary, you know in the next couple weeks so that we could get a supplier to do it and get, okay. Councilman Senn: I mean is that your preference that we put this off for a week. You guys make that decision and come back and let us know what you think. Mayor Mancino: Come to a meeting next Monday night? Okay. Don Ashworth: Typically we start work sessions at 5:30. Would that be an inconvenience for any of you? We could do our work session and then break it in the middle but it'd be a little better if we could do it right off the bat. Mayor Mancino: And in-between time if you do have questions, you can certainly call Charles Folch at 937-1900 Ext. 114. Okay? Thank you. Then let's have a, any other questions fÌ'om Council members? 20 City Council Meeting - July 28, 1997 Councilman Senn: Do we need to just table it then for a week? Mayor Mancino: Yes. Councilman Senn: Okay, I move to table this item for a week until our work session where we willi assume have a mini-special meeting I guess to act on this. Mayor Mancino: Then may I have a second to that motion please. Councilman Engel: I'll second that. Councilman Senn moved, Councllman Engel seconded to table action on the Feasibility Report for Grandvlew Road Utility Improvements for one week until the City Councll's work session. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Mayor Mancino: The motion carries to table it until next week. We will have a work session. We'll put it on as the first item at 5:30. We'll have it upstairs in the conference courtyard. Okay. And again, if you have any questions during the week, contact Charles or any Council member. .. .Okay, thank you. Thanks for your comments. UPDATE ON POSTAL SERVICE ANNEX. Don Ashworth: We're still obtaining bids for the landscaping. Ending date on that is July 301h so I anticipate by our next regular meeting to have a report to the City Council as to landscaping bids and also Todd Hoffman is going to be getting, see if one of our existing contracts can be extended for the trail and I'm hoping to have a quote on the fence as well. Mayor Mancino: Good, thank you. APPEAL DECISION OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS FOR A 7 FT. WETLAND SETBACK VARIANCE REOUEST TO CONSTRUCT A DECK. 2051 BOULDER ROAD. TOM GOULETTE. Bob Generous: Thank you Madam Mayor, Council members. The applicant is requesting a 7 foot variance to the 60 foot wetland setback to construct a deck in the rear property. This item went before the Board of Adjustments on July 2200 and the board voted 2 to I to recommend in favor of granting a variance. However, a unanimous decision is required ITom the Board and therefore comes automatically to City Council for a decision. In essence it's a recommendation. The applicant's request, all the material we have, one of the issues that the Board of Adjustments... was whether or not the wetland was in fact a wetland. Part of the original subdivision of this property the City had noticed that there was a wetland located in this site and that.. .but recommended that no lot be approved here. However, through compromise with the developer and through redesign of the plat they were able to get a lot at this site. At that time the City hired a wetland delineator to come in and verify if in fact it was a wetland. A wetland was also shown on the National Wetland.. .so ITom the City standpoint they don't believe there is really an issue or a question that this is in fact a wetland. Councilman Senn: Bob, just one clarification. This wetland was shown in our wetland. Bob Generous: It was done by...the National. 21