2.1 Feasibility Study/Grandview
CITY OF
CHANHASSEN
o City Center Drivt, PO Box 147
::hanhassen, Minnesola 55317
Phone 612.937.1900
General FiIX 612.937.5739
:ngineering FiIX 612.937.9152
"blic Saftty Fax 612.934.2524
wth www.ci.chanhtmen.mn.us
:;2 .¡
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Scott Botcher, City Manager
~
FROM:
Anita Benson, City Engineer
DATE:
February 23, 2000
SUB}:
Approve Feasibility Study; Authorize Preparation of Plans and
Specifications for Grandview Road Area Utility Improvement
Project No. 97-11
A feasibility study for the Grandview Road Area Utility Improvement Project was
prepared by William 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 of 8155 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 made an effort to install a new 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 ofthe increase in estimated c-osts 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 (RED) 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.
, City of Chanhnssm. A ¡rowinr community with clean lakes, qualitv schools. a charminr downli1Wn, Ihrivinr businesses. and beaulifùl parks. A mal Place 10 livt. work. and p/ov.
Scott Botcher
February 23,2000
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.
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 needs to be made.
The feasibility report outlines the pros and cons associated with Option 1 and
Option 2 watermain systems. I believe that looping the watermain system is a
better ¡¡-om an overall systems operations standpoint, however, I would support
either option chosen.
If at the close of the public 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
Improvements dated January 4,2000 and authorize preparation of plans and
specifications for Project No. 97-11.
jms
Attachment: 1. Feasibility study dated January 4,2000.
2. City Council Minutes dated July 28, 1997.
3. Assessment Financing Options.
4. Utility Status.
5. Email ¡¡-om Linda & Richard Anderson dated January 24, 2000.
6. Letter ¡¡-om Greg & Mary Larson dated February 21,2000.
c: Dave Hempel, Assistant City Engineer
William Engelhardt, William Engelhardt & Associates
Grandview Road Property Owners (w/attachment nos. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6)
\\cfsl \voI2\eng\public\97·II\approve feas study.doc
®
City Council Meeting - July 28, 1997
Mayor Mancino: Second?
Councilman Mason: Second.
Councilman Senn moved. Councilman Mason seconded to approve the (oUowing Items (or the
Arboretum Business Park, Steiner Development:
1) Final Plat Approval, as amended, (PreUminary Lot 1, Block 1, Gateway Addition); City
Code Amendment Rezoning the Property (rom A2 to PUD, Second Readmg.
2) Approve Development Contract, as amended. and Plans & Speclflcatlons (or UtlUty
Improvements In Phase L
Ail voted in (avor and the motion carried.
VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: None.
PUBLIC HEARING: RECEIVE FEASIBILITY REPORT FOR GRANDVIEW ROAD UTILITY
~- - S: AIJTHORIZE PREPARATION OF PLAL'IS AND SPECIFICATIONS
~OJECT 97-1~.
Public Present:
:'oIame
Address
Mary Bernier
Mr. & Mrs. Al Sinnen
Linda Anderson
Mary Larsen
8155 Grandview Road
8150 Grandview Road
8210 Grandview Road
8151 Grandview Road
Charles Folch: Thank you Mayor, members of the Council. I think we'll stan off with just a brief
background on the current starus of the project. The 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 propenies, one located at 8151, the other one at 8201 Grandview Road
have previously obtained utility services. 8151 obtained both sewer and water service to the existing
propeny back in '88 while 820 I Grandview Road previously obtained a sewer connection to the existing
home back in 1988. Both from 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 stubs at the common propeny line shared by 8210 and 8150. 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. I should also mention that
Villages on the Ponds development also provided an individual residential stub to the propeny at 8210, at
their southwest common propeny down there. Based on a recent petition received by staff back in May,
the City Council held a public hearing to discuss initiating a feasibility study for both the road and the
utility improvement project for Grandview Road neighborhood. During the public discussion the issue
came up as to whether or not the residents themselves could construct the improvements under a private
contract at their own cost, and at a cost more affordable than what the City could do it. And accordingly
the City Council tabled action to allow the neighborhood to investigate this opponunity. Staff has again
recently been contacted by some of the residents and it doesn't appear that there's been much progress
7
City Council Meeting - July 28, 1997
made on that avenue of constructing the improvements under a private contract. Also staff became aware
back at the 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 ftom one of the
neighbors. But Ms. Bernier 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 jfthe City extends public sewer
and water on a project basis. Staff believes it would be a shame if Ms. Bernier 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 siruation that came up, staff went to the City Council back on July 7110 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 of the project. And as such we've
contracted with the firm of Engelhardt and Associates. They prepared by the feasibility study which 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 1'11 turn it over to Bill Engelhard to give you a presentation on the primary elements
of the project.
Bill 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 the
project location is Grandview Road. It's right off of the Hidden Valley subdivision. It consists of five
propenies, the Larsen, Sinnen, Bernier, Kokesh and Anderson. The Village on the Ponds to the west,
staning 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 ftom the Hidden Valley project in this location, just to the south ponion of the
property. The nonherly ponion is not readily accessible to these individual services. Bernier and Sinnen
do not have service. The Kokesh property has service hook-up ftom Dakota Lane and the Anderson
propeny, 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 nonh, recognizing that this would serve the Sinnen property ifit 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 from the south or and
another water service up ftom 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 propenies... 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 there 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 nonh. You get better
circulation. You can give better water quality and it's an overall better system. I think as your staff
repon 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 this
mean for the various property owners? Individual property owners are listed by Pro 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. Bernier, $15,144.98. Kokesh, $3,632.72. The Larsen propeny, which is already
8
City Council Meeting - July 28, 1997
served under Option No.1 would be zero. Option No.2, the costs go up. The Sinnen's would be
521.013.00. Anderson's 516,295.00. Bernier 521,000.00. Kokesh, 55,789.00 and the Larsen propeny
would be assessed for water service which would be 55,789.37. Those costs were arrived at by looking
at equivalent residential units. In the case of Option No. I, the Sinnen propeny would be two lateral
sewer, two lateral water with the cost per unit, or the cost for lateral sewer and the cost for lateral
watermain 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 propeny. Again, the
Larsen propeny in Option No. I was zero. Kokesh was one water unit. Bernier, 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 watennain... In addition to these
costs there would be the standard trunk sewer and water cost for the propenies 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 52,700.00. $2740 per home.
Charles Fo1ch: 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 of for 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 propeny 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
nonhern pan?
9
City Council Meeting - July 28, 1997
Bill Engelhardt: That's correct.
Mayor Mancino: So they'll have an additional charge if they subdivide for the southern pan of their
land?
Charles Folch: The existing home that has the sewer service stubbed to it &om the south, when they
actually come in to make, 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: Thank you. And Don, could you tell us a little bit about the financial pan of the
bonding for this?
Don Ashwonh: Sure. Typically most of the assessments the past several years have gone into a shoner
time trame. 6 years, 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 propeny owners
involved, doing it as an even principal, 8 year basis, you could be for an average S 12,000.00-S 14,000.00
assessment, and I know they go all over the place, but you could be up into almost a S3,000.00
assessment.
Mayor Mancino: Per year.
Don Ashwonh: 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 get the cost, interest costs maybe closer to 5500.00 so you'd have roughly $1,500.00
assessrnent 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 stand 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 jfwe go to 12, 14, 15.
Mayor Mancino: Any other questions? Councilmembers?
Councilman Senn: Not 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 answer them.
Mary Bernier: Mary Bernier. I'm the one with the failed well.
Mayor Mancino: Mary, 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 shon term, 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
watcC or sewer?
Charles Folch: No. Coming fi'om Sinnen Circle, what would cenainly make my job a lot easier with this
thing but unfonunately the two pairs of homes that you have to navigate through with the water service
itself just to serve the Bernier propeny, 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 &om these residents to be able to construct it. I still would
be very concerned because you'd be constructing you know 7 \>2 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 ftom 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 strucrures already
there so right now it's after the fact. It's preny 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 srubs 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 srubs are so it's
unfonunately ftom 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 stan 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...
II
City Council Meeting - July 28, 1997
Don Asl¡wonh: Minnesota Starutes do recognize, and I don't know your age, but do allow for a
defennent 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.
Mary Bernier: That still leaves my neighbors... when they can hook up just on a shon 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 repon. 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 propenies that we run into ¡¡-om time to time that have never
been assessed for a previous lateral assessment for whatever reason, and these assessments are probably
5800.00-5900.00. 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 amount 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 Ashwonh: 65 under starute.
Mayor Mancino: Oh, okay. Thank you. Anyone else wishing to address the City Council. Thank you.
AI Sinnen: Hi. I'm Al Sinnen, 8150 Grandview. Right now we have the sewer and water srubbed in at
my southwest corner of the lot and fire hydrant there. This plan you've got it coming to the other corner
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 515,000.00. I don't know how that can be justified.
Charles Folch: I think I can just respond to that.
Mayor Mancino: Please.
Charles Folch: As I mentioned earlier, let's say for example the Sinnen propeny would just take a
service directly from the srub 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 srub there. He would still have, when he makes a
connection. when he comes in for a building permit for the existing home that he's servicing, he could
pay 53,500.00 for the lateral sewer connection charge, $3,500.00 for the lateral water connection charge,
and then the 52,600.00 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 Fo1ch: 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 fTom Plan I to Plan
B, you went up $1,000.00 wonh of sod and the whole thing is on a road.
Bill Engelhardt: If you're on the road you can...
Al S innen: Not on this stretch
Bill Engelhardt: Well, there's a cenain amount of restoration and when the project is undenaken 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 Depanment. But when you stan piling the dirt, when you're digging
a trench, you stan piling dirt on existing sod and then when you pull that back off, a lot oftimes you've
disrurbed 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 propenies
fTom what they feel is the best standpoint. So cenainly 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: Cenainly 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 acrually another hydrant
just to the nonh too that was srubbed with Villages on the Pond so they're probably equal distance, either
one. But understand that if and when the Larsen property 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 from 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 nonh. Nonhwest from Villages on the Ponds. So they're going to have their
lateral connection charges and trunk hook-up charges accordingly so.
13
City Council Meeting - July 28, 1997
Mayor Mancino: And Kokesh will too when they get water.
Charles Folch: Absolutely. They're going to pay their fair share. It's just whether they pay it now or
pay it at some future time.
Mayor Mancino: Okay.
Mary Bernier asked a quesliOD that was not picked up by the microphone.
Don Ashworth: I'm guessing you're probably around 6 ~% to 7%. Now if I would have thought about it
in advance of the meeting Icou1d have checked what the current rates are and I think you'll be looking at
again right at 6 ~%. Pretty good.
Mary Bernier: Alright, thank you.
Linda Anderson: I'm Linda Anderson, 8210 Grandview Road. We're directly adjacent to the school, 5t.
Huben's school. i have a couple of questions for you. We keep hearing about subdividing the lots.
What my question is, are we allowed to subdivide our propenies with our road as it is right now? We've
heard something that we're grandfathered in and we do not need 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 580,000.00 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 stan subdividing in here
you will need to do a new road. Curb, gutter, storm sewer, etc.
Linda Anderson: Which is real pricey. We think this is pricey, that's really pricey.
Mayor Mancino: Well, how pricey, I mean I hate to ask you off the top of your head, and ifyou'd rather
not, that'd be fine but.
Charles Folch: My guess is that the neighborhood's probably going to want a road section narrower than
our standard width and that's probably something that the Council'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 Folch: Probably let's say.
Mayor Mancino: It will come back to haunt us.
Councilman Senn: Just give a range.
Charles Folch: 1 wouùhay you probably could expect each propeny, again assuming two potential
residential units per propeny, you're looking at probably the neighborhood of55,000.00 to 57,500.00 1
would guess per resideIttialloL
Councilman Engel: So if you own two, after you subdivide, $10,000.00 to $15,000.00...
14
City Council Meeting - July 28, 1997
Charles Folch: Yeah. so if you've got five lots, you're probably looking at somewhere around a
550,000.00 to 565,000.00 project, depending on bow wide you maIœ it.
Councilman Sem: And that's oot road only..Tbat'saiso.sewer. Storm sewer, right?
Linda Anderson: ·50 that's in addition to wbuwe're 100king at here.
Councilman Enge1: Tn addition 10 sanitaIy sewer and waIa'.
Linda Anderson: 50 I guess I would say that you know we're all basing this on we're all subdividing our
lots and I don't any ofus 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 ponion 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 that'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 ifI'm wrong but the
subdivision factor at least as it relates to the sewer and water is basically kind of a no effect type of deal,
right? Because I mean the overall cost of the project isn't going to change one way or another and if
you're just going to be dividiDg it by less lots, it's really immaterial. So I mean ultimately it's not
boosting the cost effectively of what 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 propeny, the eastern edge of Villages on the Pond,
that would serve the Sinnen's and our propeny. 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 line as part of the concession of building the church and school so close
to our propenies. That it was, that was our little bone you know that well yes, this is going to be very
close to your propenies but they are providing this line. But now I'm hearing that they're providing it
but we're paying for it. I thought that the 1ineWJIS there and,it's nice because it's close and we can use it
and we of course would have to pay our hook-up charges and we would also have to pay our contractors
to acrually connect to our houses but I don't understand why the Ia=l charge is being assessed because
the line is there. The line is there serving the school, and that was something that they were paying for
and that was our little benefit for having the school in our ñnnt yard.
Mayor Mancino: And who told you this?
15
City Couru:il 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 ID be developed but the benefit ID 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 untl...m"nding for the rest of the neighborhood too.
Charles Folch: ...and so there can be tbase situations where things may not seem fair so I think the
onfmance's intent is to make sure, is to create or at least to provide an opponunity 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 berween 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
cerrainly 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 of who's
paying it as long as we're getting it for that permit that's being.
Mayor Mancino: That would be berween 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 cerrainly.
Councilman Engel: I'm trying to 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 propeny because you're a ways 1i"om where the srub, the line's been srubbed. I mean you have to
have some uniformity there. I mean why should one propeny have to burden a l,ot more because they end
up being a little fanher in the neighborhood 1i"om where the srub 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 md then if it becomes just us, the Sinnens and our
propeny on that particular side just tapping into tile 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. Huben'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 ofa unique circumstance in general
16
City Council Meeting - July 28, 1997
Charles Folch: Bur even if a new well is sunk tomorrow, 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, wbether it's because they'I\C on, whether the well points,
there's no other good location. Whether there's a ground water ccmtami"ation problem at that particular
level of the well.point and then you need to be on a city sew~ or city water where we have deeper well
points, what have you, but someday we baYe to think long tetm: and not be shon 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: Doo..
Don Ashwonh: I think there's a bit of confusion. Villages onthc 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 Ashwonh: 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 Ashwonh: 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 srub 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. [fyou 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, iffar 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 nonhern 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 ¡¡-om Villages, your property, orthe
potential lot, the lot split to the north would have-direct access &om the new location that's been stubbed
for the Villages. I know the original alignmcnt, it's actually kind of away from the property but with
what's been srubbed now and the new entrance in, it gives direct access, yeah.
17
City Council Meeting - July 28, 1997
Mal)' 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 terms of improving the road, that's another
issue.
Ma¡y 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 propeny...used by that road.
Mayor Mancino: But not if. ..by Grandview.
Mary Larsen: We'd have direct access to the cul-de-sac.
Charles Folch: I don't have a drawing showing me the latest.
Mary Mancino: Mal)', 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 propeny. 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 propeny?
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.
Mary Larsen: Tear it up again.
Charles Folch: We'[ verify that for you but that's.
Ma¡y 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?
Mal)' Larsen: 937-9149.
Mayor Mancino: Thank you.
18
City Council Meeting - July 28, 1997
MaryLarsen: Okay, thanks.
Mayor Mancino: Any funher comments fÌ'om 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 financing. So if we spread it out through the fmancing, 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,
righr? $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 shonly 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 propeny values but to increase
your propeny 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
of timing 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 propeny 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 Folch: 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 ¡¡-om the audience that was not picked up by the microphone.
19
City Council Mæting - July 28, 1997
Mayor Mancino: Charles.
Charles Folch: t don't know that we bave my ordinance resttictiDg selling a propeny with septic system
as long as it, I mow they have to baw: an inspection. There!s a 1UUtine inspection system that's been
implemented now that I'd !lave totaIk to1be Building Official. 11hiDk 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 asIoug as those cooditions are met, I don't think there's any other criteria
we bave. '. ,
Councilman Senn: Yeah, I think actuany 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 Eanh is flat too so.
Councilman Senn: I don't know, what do you think? The ball's in your guy's coun. 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 from 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 læxt 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 Ashwonh: Typica11y we staIt worl,<: 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 middJe 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 EXL 114. Okay? Thank you. Then let's have a, any other questions from 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 will I
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, Councilman Engel seconded to table action on the Feasibility Report for
Grandvlew Road Utility Improvements (or one week until the City Council'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 counyard. 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 POST At SERVICE ANNEX.
Don Ashwonh: We're still obtaining bids for the landscaping. Ending date on that is July 30" so I
anticipate by our next regular meeting to have a repon 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.
WETLAL'ID SETBACK VARIANCE REOfÆST 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 propeny. This item went before
the Board of Adjustments on July 22"" and the board voted 2 to 1 to recommend in favor of granting a
variance. However, a unanimous decision is required from 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. Pan of the original subdivision of this propeny 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 from 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
)
NmCDCCLO('t')NO>CO,....WO
CJ')U')NMLOr---o)U')N~~~
~"'¡'~""':<Da.ri-.:i-¢-¢CJ')O>CX)
M,...mlOmMM,....mMMM
CO...... MtO V VOO......MW mN
ai,....- Ñ-.:itri <òai ~ N-..q- ~ u)
,....NN,....,....,....,....NN
~
mf'-.U')I.{)VMmt--LOoomooo>
<OCDCOmNI.OCDCCW......VCO""'Vcq
~m~~re~mm~Ó~NO~N
Il)M,....N<omLOM,....~~r;;;.~'3,r;;;.
,,- a)~~ Ñ M"': 0;,....- f'o..-......- as "":"':CÖ
NNMNNNNNM
ñi
Õ
I-
00
I'-
cx:i
a
"'-
~
N
a
ai
...
...
'"
I'-
'"
ai
CO
co
Ñ
'"
'"
cx:i
on
a
Ñ
I'-
'"
ai
co
co
Ñ
'"
on
'"
on
"!
~
N
I'-
~
on
ai
~
"!
~
~
on
ai
~
"'.
~
~
N
I'-
'"
<0
~
co
C>.
N
00
'"
N
00
...
00
on
I'-
r--:
co
00-
N
a
'"
ai
a
N
Ñ
00
'"
<0
8-
N
'"
~
M
~
on_
~
on
I'-
r--:
co
00
Ñ
N
...
on
I'-
I'-
N
...
on
I'-
I'-
...00
'" 00
,....:cwj
cOO
"'I:t_N_
NN
0000
"'...
~r--:
~ ~
CO_<Q.
~~
"'00
'" 00
,....:("')
coo
"'N
c,,r N-
Non
'" on
I'-on
I'-~
on on
I'-
"'ID
coco
-¢...;
;g~
ÑÑ
I'-
N N
00 on
NLO
"'ID
"'0
MM
NN
00 on
NLO
"'co
"'0
riM-
NO
"''''
oocx:i
NN
"'00
NO
N'"
cxjoo
NN
"'00
co
on I'-
1'-0
cieri
on...
ID'"
ÑN
on...
...00
..0"';
"'N
'" I'-
on I'-
1'-0
oeD
on...
co'"
ÑÑ
oo~
000
000
N'"
IDon
ID
00
~ '"
""':M
00 co
CON
MM
N '"
ono
ci~
...~
00 on
NN-
00
~ '"
r'M
00 co
CON
MM
I'- 00
'" '"
g:;:¡
'" 00
1'-00
'" '"
<ON
'" 00
'" 00
~ ~
on
~ID
~ on
aOM
on '"
"'ex>.
MN
on
N
cx:i
OJ
"'-
N
ONm,....(OU')vvf'-.
CX>CO,....,....I.ONNaJO
u)mcóuiMcOa)NN
Mf"-..NLOMCOO(DCX)
Ulo_~v<XJv<X)«)L()
N N,.... C"fN-N-
on
on
'"
on
a
OJ
.r
OJ I'-
'" a
OJN'"
......'"
NcOcO
O"'ID
I'-OID
Mc.,fÑ
on
'"
on
a
OJ
.r
OJ I'-
"'A
a'"
on I'-
0)..0
"'co
"to
~ ~
U')OMIl)
CX)lt'>f"-..CO
uio)uiu)
MO>COM
C»N..0m
~ ~
~ ~
"'ID
"'...
MC"'-
~ ~
...co
"'...
MM
LO......VVO>Lt>IJ')......
OMVCOf'-..LOOM
,....<ÓOM('f')O"';<ri
,....,....MN,....M,....,....
,...... 0 <O_,....._N_~...... 0
MMNNN,....MM-
~;:Cõ~
ocxjLriLri
MCDO..-
~C:O"""CD
N
...
"'1'-
,,!ID
~on
co'"
~ ~
lÓ "IIj'-
on"'N
OJI'-'"
CÓcON
on 1'-'"
ID '" N
Mc"'fri
co
I'-
cx:i
~
OJ
Ñ
...
~~~
......u-)aj
co ",on
~ ~ ID
I,{)-""'-M-
ID '" '"
1'-"''''
g~g
~,....m
~ ~
ID '" '"
1'-"''''
g~g
M_T""" m
~ ~
COCONt---COOCX)CX)NCOf'-m
m......co...r:mmm,....w(J)MIl)
<ciaiN"",,""':"":CÓO>Nf'-.cOcO
com......,......qM(Omr---Nvv
m,....t---mMom"""I"--mt-<e
MMÑÑÑÑMMÑ
'"
vll)NmNNvll)NN
~mcomN""'~cnco~
r--aicriOaj,....!'-o)IDN
......vLt'>Lt)N............vll)CJ')
Il)vCONvmLt>vCOv
1.t'i..q:C"'iv-('f)-c,,fI.l'i'fl:t-c""-,....-
'"
...~
NO::>
MN
~,è!;_
N"'~
o~~
NMN
"'a...
..q_C'tO_
,.... '11""""""'''''''''''
N'"
~~
N ~
NOJ
N'"
~-M
'" on
~N
ai
'"
"'~
"'OJ
~~
OJ~
'" '"
M'N
on... on
co,....~
r--.:,.........
OJ '" OJ
"'I'-ID
N
'"
'"
M
I'-
OJ
or;
'" a
N'"
oq:~
oon
1'-0
-q:~
onN
N ~
LÔ-q:
NN
onID
~c"f
'" '" '"
"''''N
MM...t
NI'-O
~OJI'-
M I.Ó "1:1'-
a
...
..,:
on
a
...'
co 0 (J') IX) 0 (J)
NON NON
cCN<DcON<C
co I'm cot'--e»
It) N_O_~N_O_
'11"""""'" "11"""""'" '11"'"""'"
N
N
'"
('oj
N
~N
.r
~ ~
OJ~
..,:",
~ '"
"'a
N-M
('oj
OJ
...
N
Ñ
'#.CõT'""
a Q)
0>-
cx:i
t#.Cõ"'""
a Q)
0>-
cx:i
LOOC»LOO,....IJ')OmNO.....
COCX)C»......~<OCOCOC»f""';O),....
CO...r<ri~«>MCO...rCO""M"O
t--«)lt)CO,.......,.t--COL(),¢M..-
..qLOONIDNVLOOOCOt--
-q:MMriÑÑ~riM,....-
MNt-......,....Lt)C"')Nt--.qCDCO...,.
(J)LO,....~OCX)O>Il),....lt),....t--1.O
mCON(7)otrio)cx:)N...rom...t
NIl)IJ")Q)Nt'--NLOlt)CO..q..qCO
NIDN......CONNO'>N<.DM......CO
<ô..q: -.:i.q: c..,- MCD- ""'¢'- -q:,....- ~ '('-- ~ T'""-,....-
COID
1'-1'-
om
~~
OOO..................OOO<OCD<.D
cnmmcocx>coCJ)O)CJ)COCOCO
triLritrimmmLriLriLri~~~
mmmMC"')('I')CJ)CJ)m...,....,....,.
mmmt--t--t--mmmt--t--t--
I.Ó Ll"i I.Ó"": ~.".: I.Ó LO- u) c..'- ri ri
,..........,....,....,....,....,....,.......... tA-
U")L()l.()mmcnLOLOLO,.........,....,....,.....,....
t--.....t--0C!~":":r-NNNNNN
o)o)CJ)""'''''''''''a>mmcOcócOccicócO
v'ct..q"Ct-q-vv..q..q,..........,....,....,....,....
NNN,....,....,....NNNOOOOOO
Ñ N- Ñ r--: ,....- ,,- N- N- Ñ «:,- cD «:,- cD w- cD
NNN""'''''''''''NNN
ñi
Q,
'ü
c:
.¡:
a.
ñi
Q,
'ü
c:
.¡:
a.
N
(/)
c:
o
""
Q,
o
~
(/)
c:
.2
ã.
o
'E
Q)
E
(/)
(/)
Q)
(/)
(/)
«
-
c:
Q)
E
(/)
(/)
Q)
(/)
~
~
Q)
c:
~
~
Q)
c:
~
c:
o
(/)
~
Q)
'0
c:
«
c:
o
f?
Q)
'0
c:
«
c:
'"
.5
ñi
-'"
en
c:
'"
.5
ñi
-'"
en
.J:::
(/)
Q)
-'"
o
~
.J:::
(/)
Q)
-'"
~
c:
Q)
c:
c:
U5
c:
Q)
(/)
~
'"
-'
c:
Q)
c:
c:
U5
c:
Q)
(/)
~
'"
-'
(i
UTILITY STATUS
PROPERTY CURRENT HOME FUTURE LOT SPLIT
WATER SEWER WATER SEWER
Sinnen With Project With Project With Project With Project
Anderson With Project Service With Project With Project
available from
Villaaes
Skallman With Proiect With Proiect With Proiect With Proiect
Kokesh Service Hidden Valley With Project Service available
'available from from Hidden
Hidden Vallev Vallev
Larsen Hidden Valley Hidden Valley Service available Service available
from Villaaes from Villaaes
g:lenglpublicI97,' 1lcompare.doc
®
Benson, Anita
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
GalAnd8210@aol.com
Monday, January 24, 2000 3:25 PM
abenson@ci.chanhassen.mn,us
Grandview Road utility hearing
Dear Ms. Benson, Mayor Mancino, and City Council Members:
We, Linda and Richard Anderson, who reside at 8210 Grandview Road, are
unable
to attend tonight's City Council meeting, at which the utility project
for
Grandview Road will be discussed. As we want to make our feelings known
on
this, we are writing this letter instead.
First of all, I'd like to say that we were surprised and dismayed that
this
issue has come up once again. I was under the impression that a majority
of
the property owners was needed to bring this petition up before the
council,
and I know that the majority of our five homeowners want no part of
this, Our
own home is currently served by a well and a septic system, but we are
planning to hook up to the sanitary sewer using the stub next to St.
Hubert's
School, hopefully this spring or summer. Our well is "-, years old and in
good
shape, and so we have no need or desire to hook up to city water,
certainly
not at the cost of either of these proposals. Perhaps most important of
all,
we have no plans to move anytime in the foreseeable future and no plans
whatsoever to subdivide our property, so the idea of paying for
additional
sewer and water stubs for a subdivision that will not happen for many
years,
if "'rer, is something we absolutely do not want to happen. Our little
neighborhood is unique, and most of us like it that way. Looking ahead
to the
future, our property at 8210 and the Sinnens' at 8150 are easily hooked
up to
sewer service via the line at St. Hubert's, directly adjacent to our two
lots, so that would take care of sewer service for four of the five
properties. And as for the new owners of 8155 Grandview, surely an
easier
way exists to solve their septic/sewer dilemma than to push a project on
the
other homeowners that none of the rest of us want. They are directly
uphi 11
from an existing neighborhood that has a sewer line, and the very same
situation existed for the Kokesh property at 8201 Grandview, when it was
sold
in 1988, I believe, at which time permission was granted to hook into
the
sewer line on the cul-de-sac of Dakota Lane, where the houses were
already
built and the road paved. It should be a fairly easy solution to get
sewer
service to 8155 the same way, especially since engineering techniques
have
1
improved in the intervening years. A gas service easement was granted
to
Mary Bernier from that cul-de-sac a couple of years ago.
So we ask you, members of the city council, please do not force an
"improvement" on four homeowners to the benefit of only one, especially
since
another solution more than likely exists for them as well. We have all
had to
put up with more than our share of disruptive building projects in the
last
several years, none of which we had any control over because we did not
own
the properties involved, and that is how it should be. Property owners
should
make their own decisions. This is one that by rights, we should have a
say in
and control over. Grandview Road is a private road, not a public one,
with
no maintenance done by the city, and we homeowners would like to voice
our
majority opinion and not consider this project any further.
Thank you very much.
Linda and Richard Anderson
2
[,;.'
®
February 21,2000
Greg Larsen
Mary Larsen
8151 GrandviewRoad
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Phone: 612-937-9149
CIrV OF CHANHASSEN
MCI!IIVIE1D
FEB 2 3 2000
ENGINEERING DEPT.
Ms. Anita L. Benson, P.E.
690 City Center Drive
P.O. Box 147
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Re: Parcel No. 25.0134400 - Project No. 97-1 I
Grandview Road Utility ImprovementslFeasibility Study
Dear Ms. Benson:
Please be advised that the undersigns, Greg Larsen and Mary Larsen, are unable to attend the
scheduled hearing set for Monday, February 28, 2000 regarding the Grandview Road utility
improvements/feasibility study. We, therefore, ask that you accept and present this letter at the
scheduled February 28, 2000 meeting, as our written opposition to these improvernents. As we
understand, the majority of the other residents in the neighborhood also oppose these improvements.
We purchased the home located at 8151 Grandview Road in August 1995. In July 1997, Mary
Bernier had well problems and approached the city regarding the hookup to city water and sewer.
As a result, the five homes located along Grandview Road attended, discussed, and decided they were
opposed to the idea of obtaining city water and sewer for the neighborhood. Ms. Bernier instead
drilled a new well, and the subject of obtaining city sewer and water was dropped.
We are surprised that the subject has again risen. Our major concern regarding the improvements
slated for Grandview Road is the potentia] subdivision possibility (which would cost homeowners
even more assessment charges in the form of road improvements, curbs, gutters, fire hydrants, etc.
as stated in the July 1997 meeting núnutes).
We are curious to know why Mr. Dean SkaIIrnan cannot obtain city water and sewer ftom the cul-de-
sac (Marsh Circle) directly below his property. Mary Bernier obtained gas service through an utility
easement ¡¡-om this neighborhood and, therefore, should not water and sewer also be obtainable
through this easement? Why does Mr. SkaIlman propose to run water and sewer throughout the
neighborhood, thus forcing assessment charges upon residents who do not need, desire or feel the
necessity to have city water or sewer? Also, the stubbing of extra water and sewer to each property
·
along Grandview Road is ludicrous. None of the residents along Grandview Road have expressed
a desire to subdivide, therefore, why the need fur extra sewer and water stubs along each property?
The main reason we purchased this property was its isolation, uniqueness, and character. We were
drawn to the country-like setting. Since the purchase of the property, we have endured endless
changes, not all bad, but many directly affecting our unique setting. We have no desire to see any
more changes occur in our neighborhood, which we fear city water and sewer will eventua1ly bring.
We ask that members of the city council and Mayor Mancino sériously consider the negative effects
granting these improvements will have on the residents of Grand view Road. On behalf of our Iàmily,
and the other 1àmilies along Grandview Road, we respectfully request that you deny Mr. Skallman
the right to force city water and sewer assessments upon residents of Grandview Road.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Sin~relY
.Á . ,., /)
07-711Ju¡ ðCUZ&2/M.J
Greg Larsen
Mary Larsen
cc: Mayor Mancino
City Council Members