The URL can be used to link to this page

2 Gradview Rd Utility Improv CITY OF CHANHASSEN 90 City Center Drive, PO Box 147 Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 Phone 612.937.1900 General Fax 612.937.5739 Engineering Fax 612.937.9152 Pub/ic Safety Fax 612.934.2524 Web www.â.chonhassen.mn.uJ ~ MEMORANDUM TO: Scott Botcher, City Manager FROM: Teresa Burgess, Public Works Director/City Engin~ September II, 2000 DATE: SUBJ: Discussion of Grandview Road Area Utility Improvement Project No. 97-11; Direction to Staff On February 28th, 2000 the City Council tabled action on the Grandview Road Area Utility Improvement Project pending additional information. Since that time it has been confirmed that the existing septic system at 8155 Grandview Road is failing and must be replaced. A copy of the letter fÌom Steve' Torel1 to the property owners is attached. Also attached is a copy of the staffreport from the February 28th meeting and the feasibility study update prepared by the Engineering Department for that meeting. Directional drilling is a possibility for the property; however, directional dril1ing will only provide service to this property and does not address future needs of the neighborhood. General1y speaking, the City constructs trunk and lateral utilities with the property owner responsible for constructing the private service. Since this line would function as a private service, it is recommended that if directional dril1ing is to be pursued it be done by the property owners and not as a public improvement. Staff is requesting direction fÌom the Council on which if any of the fol1owing options to pursue: I. Adoption and implementation of the feasibility study. 2. Directional drilling as a public improvement. 3. Directional drilling by the property owners. Attachments: 1. June 5, 2000 letter fÌom to Dean Skal1man. 2. February 23,2000 staff report. 3. Feasibility study dated January 4,2000. 4. City Council Minutes dated February 28, 2000. c: Dave Hempel, Assistant City Engineer Grandview Road Property Owners (w/ Attachment No.4) \\cfs 1 \voI2\eng\pubJic\97 -11 \approve feas study.doc 'he City of Chanhasslll. AfTowinuommunity with dean lakes, Quality schook, a charminr downtoum, thrivi"'T businesses, and beauti/ùl parks. A mat place to live. work. and pia, CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 City Cmttr Driw, PO Box 147 Chanhassm. MinntsOtJl5531 7 PhondI2.937.1900 Gmtrtd Fox 612.937.5739 EngiritlTÌng Fox 611937.9152 Public Salay Fox 612.9342524 Wíb www.c1chanhllJIt/J.mn.us June 5, 2000 Mr. Dean SkaUman 8155 GrandviewRoad Chanhassen, MN 55317 CERTIFIED Re: Failing sewage treatment system at: 8155 Grandview Road Chanhassen, MN Dear Mr. Skallman: City records indicate you own the above-referenced property. I received a notice ofnon- compliance for the individual sewage treatment system (ISTS) located on your property, which states you have a failing system. The system is failing because there is less than two feet of vertical separation between the system bottom and saturated soil. The tank was again determined to be a cesspool or leaching pit. You were previously notified about the requirements to replace the tank in my letter dated December?, 1999. Chanhassen City Code Section 19-75 requires that the owner' of a failing system: 1. Replace the septic system within three (3) years ITom fue date this letter is received. ,", ." 2. Respond to'the building department within five (5) working days of the receipt of this notification #> discu'ss the repair or replacement 'l'r the septic system.: ... , ,"'.; , ." You can disregard item # 2, as we have already discussed replacement systems on your property. In earlier conversations, we determined that it may not be possible to install a standard system, due to possible fill soils on your lot. Please refer to my letter of May 2, 200D (enclosed), that explains these concerns ànd the requi1:elJ)ents for "other" systems.· "'-,. , . ;: ',--.'." This letter constitl1.!.esth~ required notification by the ~ity to. the owner of a failing sY$'!enfi: You will be sent another ¡¡otice as the deadline for repairing your system approaches;·1\. pefinit is required forreplacerileI!!of!he sep;tic systeqj' 51;:.. .. .' ',-' '''·,.'·e.' , '. ;:\:':.:;". I have enclosed a copy of tbeordinance sections. goveh1ing faiiii1g septic systems.' P(e~~cal! me at 937-1900, ex~ i 15, if you have any questions or W01l1dlik~ to discuss this further,.. . . . pc: ., SÍ!!s~~elý, ' . " ~/ . '. ~//f /c.~IZ:-W ~'s.'.'. Steven Torel! :. ::. ',;:,; Building Official·' . ..;.,>: '-.' . Randy Debnet; Mechaiiical Inspector' . Bob Reid, Building Inspec!or ;. Teresa Burgess, City Engineer/PublicWorks Building file: 8155 Grandview Rpa~ ,; :,. . .:,:': .,.-,',':J'. .'._v.' :: ~:- ~'~" ;': .. Encl: CCC 19-71 & 19-75 Letter dated May 2, 2000 ~ ,- g:/safcty/stllSTS/81SSGrandvicwroad3 . . " ,·r..'._..L I _......,......~ 1:.._ .......L _ ,.. , . CITY OF CBANIlASSEN ;90 City Cmter Dri"" PO Box 147 Chanhasstn. Minntsota 55317 Phont 612.937.1900 General Fax 612.937.5739 Enginttring Fax 612.937.9152 Public Saftty Fax 612.934.2524 Web www.ci.chanhllJIt/J.mn.us ~.1 MEMORANDUM TO: Scott Botcher, City Manager ~ FROM: Anita Benson, City Engineer DATE: February 23,2000 SUBJ: 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 I 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 rol1 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 (REU) 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. ~.. r;,., ",frt."."f,."..__ ¡ _~...:.._ ""..........:.... ...:./. ,f, <__ I I /' I I 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 REV for trunk sanitary sewer and $1,695 per REU for trunk watermain. Additionally, the 2000 Metropolitan Council sewer accessibility charge (SAC) is $1, I 00 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. I 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 I and Option 2 watermain systems. I believe that looping the watermain systern is a better ITom 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 rny recorrunendation 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 ITom 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 (eas study.doc "'·0 City Council Meeting - July 28, 1997 Mayor Mancino: Second? Councilman Mason: Second. Councilman Senn moved, Councilman Mason seconded to approve the following Items for the Arboretum Business Park, Steiner Development: 1) Final Plat Approval, as amended, (preliminary Lot I, Block I, Gateway Addition); City Code Amendment Rezoning the Property from A2 to PUD, Second Reading. 2) Approve Development Contract. as amended, and Plans & Specifications for Utility Improvements In Phase I. All voted in favor and the motion carried. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: None. PUBLIC HEARING: RECEIVE FEASIBILITY REPORT FOR GRANDVIEW ROAD UTILITY r!M~ S: AUTHORlZE PREPARUION OF PLA,,"1S A.l"ID SPECIFICATIONS ~OJECT 9;-1:. Public Present: ~ame Address Mary Bernier ~lr. & ~lrs. Al Sinnen Linda Anderson /vIary Larsen 8L55 Grandview Road 8150 Grandview Road 8210 Grandview Road 8151 Grandview Road Charles Folch: Thank you Mayor, members of the Council. I think we'll start off with just a brief background on the current status 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 gr~vel rural section. Two of the properties, 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 property back in '88 while 820 I Grandview Road previously obtained a sewer connection to the existing home back in 1988. Both fi'om the Hidden Valley subdivision to the east. Utility irnprovements 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 property 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 property at 8210, at their southwest common property 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 irnproveme:u project for Grandview Road neighborhood. During the public discussion the issue came up as to whether or aot 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 opportunity. 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 from 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 if the 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 situation that came up, staff Went to the City Council back on July 7111 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 I'll 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 properties, the Larsen, Sinnen, Bernier, Kokesh and Anderson. The Village on the Ponds to the west, starting at the...Highway 5. All these parcels are a little over an acre. Fairly large pieces of property. The tirsr thing we did is look at existing services. Some of the properties already had service. The Larsen property is served from 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 Kokesh property has service hook-up from 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 this 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 from the south or and another water service up from 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 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 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 545,127.87. Again with the looping of the watermain, the cost increases to 569,971.00. What does this 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 515,144.98. Anderson, 511,205.19. Bernier, 515,144.98. Kokesh, 53,632.72. 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 521,013.00. 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 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 property. Again, the Larsen property 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 sarne 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 equivalentresidential units. In the case of the watermain 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 Fo1ch: 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. 52740 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 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 Folch: 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 northern part? 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 part of their land? Charles Folch: The existing home that has the sewer service stubbed to it from the south, when they actualIy come in to make, pull a permit to make the connection to the sanitary sewer service, they wilI 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 wilI be directly with the billing permit. Mayor Mancino: Thank you. And Don, could you telI 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 frame. 6 years, 8. r do recalI a 10. r think that that's really what Charles had anticipated, but in light of the fact that this probably will be a very financialIy strapping project for the property owners involved. doing it as an even principal, 8 year basis, you could be for an average 512,000.00-514,000.00 assessment, and I know they go all over the place, but you could be up into almost a 53,000.00 assessment. Mayor Mancino: Per year. Don Ashworth: Per year. That actually would be decreasing. rfyou used the standard practice, which again is an even principal amount. but r think again recognizing fmancial situations, we could look to taking that same 512,000.00 to 514,000.00 assessment. Running it over 12 to 14 years which would put a principal payment at roughly 51,000.00 per month and then the change, year. I'm sorry. The 51,000.00 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 51,500.00 assessment versus 53,000.00. 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. r mean typically MacGillvrary 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 if we go to 12, 14, 15. Mayor Mancino: Any other questions? CounciImembers? 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 , ~ i- 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 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 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 ITom these residents to be able to construct it. I still would be very concerned because you'd be constructing you know 7 ~ 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 wirh 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 exrensions, ir 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 ¡he 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 56,000.00... 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 ¡òr 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¡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. Mary 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 norma! working trade with these types of costs but we compared these lateral assessments to two criteria. One is what we hear as the public irnprovement 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 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 Ashworth: 65 under statute. Mayor Mancino: Oh, okay. Thank you. Anyone else wishing to address the City Council. Thank you. AI Sinnen: Hi. I'm Al Sinnen, 8 ISO 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 5 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 Folch: As I mentioned earlier, let's say for example the Sinnen property would just take a service directly from 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 permit for the existing home that he's servicing, he could pay 53,500.00 for the lateral sewer connection charge, 53,500.00 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 k'- t' ~, 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. Al Sinnen: Well then a question on this restoration. I don't know, like you're going from Plan 1 to Plan B, you went up 51,000.00 worth of sod and the whole thing is on a road. Bill Engelhardt: If you're on the road you can... Al 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. Ifwe 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 Departrnent. 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' 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 Fo1ch: 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. AI 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 property but again understand that ifand 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 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 1 and decide to do a project, then the Larsen's wouldn't be involved f.-om 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 City Council Meeting. July 23, 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 question that was not picked up by the microphone. Don Ashworth: I'm guessing you're probably atound 6 ~% to 7%. Now if! would have thought about it in advance of the meeting I could have checked what the current rates are and r think you'll be looking at again right at 6 Y:%. 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. r have a couple of questions for you. We keep hearing about subdividing the lots. What my question is, are we allowed to subdivide our properties 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 start 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, r 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 Ihe cheapest way out. Charles Folch: Probably let's say. Mayor Mancino: It will come back to haunt us. Councilman Semr. lust give a range. Charles Folch: r would' say you probably could expect each property, again assuming two potential residential units per property, you're looking at probably the neighborhood of55,000.00 to 5i,500.00 I would guess per residential lot. Councilman Engel: So if you own two, after you subdivide, 510,000.00 to $15,000.00... 14 City Council Mecting-July28, 1997 ": f,' , I Charles Folch: Y cab., so if you've got five lOts, you're probably looking at somewhere around a $50,000.00 to $65,000.00 project, depending on how wide you make it. .'c. Councilman 5enn: And that'snotroadon1y_.That'salso~. Storm sewer, right? Linda Anderson: ·So that's in3ddition to wmttwe'te looking at 11=. Councilman Engel: 1n addition 10 sanitaty sewer and watI:r. Linda Anderson: So 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 iustance 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 berween 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 bur 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 1= 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 divirl;"2 it by less lots, it's really immaterial. 50 I mean ultimately it's not boosting the cost effectively of what is being sug~sted 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 line as part of the concession of building the church and school so close to our properties. That it was, that was our little bone you know that well yes, this is going to be very close to your properties but they are providing this line. But now I'm hearing that they're providing it but we're paying for it. I though! that the line was 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 cbar~s and we would also have to pay our contractors to acrually connect to our houses but I don't utIdcrstand why the lateral charge is being assessed because the line is there. The line is then: serving the school, and that was something that they were paying for and that was our little benefit for having the school in our tÌ'Ont 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 aU going 10 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 tbat have been nice. But that was always kind of the understanding. I think that was the un~.nding 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 orãmance's intent is to make sure, is to create or at least to provide an opportunity to introduce uniformity in terms OfCOSl 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 certainly 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 between private homeowners. Or private owners. Councilman Engel: Can we reduce that amount for a special circurnstance? As a City. What we would require say Brad Johnson to pay. No? If we asked him to do... Charles Folch: Again I think we're, I mean certainly. 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 property because you're a ways 1Ì'om where the stub, the line's been stubbed. I mean you have to have some uniformity there. I mean why should OtIe property have to burden a lpt more because they end up being a little farther in the neighborhood trom 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 wellmd then if it becomes just us, the Sinnens and our property on that parricuIar side just tllpping 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 circurnstance 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 ~ - July 28, 1997 Charles Folch: But even if a new well is sunk tomorrow, someday that well will fail and then someday when they try to tcst bore for another, maybe we'll run out of well sites and someday that property will need to be 5CrViced by city sewer and water, whether it's because they'%!: on, whether the well points, there's no other good location. wœthcr 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 baYe to think long rem and not be short sightcd that someday that lot will have to be on citywatcr 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 havc 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 rvIancino: 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 Grandvicw 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, iffor some reason, not that we do want to subdivide, because obviously it sounds like the road would havc to be redone to subdivide, but our northerly corner of our propenydocs not, it just barely touchesthc gravc! where the new cul-de-sac is going in. Would we be able to subdividc that northern end without the road improvement, since we won't really be using the access of the road for that property? Charles Folch: Ibe1ieve the way the ncw access has been set up fÌ'om ViUages, your property, or the potential lot. the lot split to the north would havc"direct access ITom the new location that's been stubbed for the Villages. I know the origina! alignmem, it's actually kind of away ITom 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 cheek 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. 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. Mary Larsen: Even if the property... 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: r 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 r 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'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: AIly further comments fÌ'om neighbors? How do we make it cheaper? Councilman Senn. Councilman Senn: Well, frorn 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 51,500.00 a month, or a month. There I did it. I'm talking attorney language, right? 51.500.00 a year versus the 53,000.00 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? AIld 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 be en 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 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 Folch: Sewer, within one year. Mayor Mancino: AIld 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 Folch: 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 from the audience that was not picked up by the microphone. 19 " City Council Meeting -July 28, 1997 Mayor Mancino: Charles. Charles Folch: 1 don't know thai: we haveauyordimmce resttiC!:ÌIIg seHing a property with septic system as long as it, I mow they have to have an inspection. There~s a mutine inspection system that's been implemented now that I'd have to1aIk to1he 13uildingOfficial. 11bink it's every couple years they have to, every two years 12Iey have to turn in and show proof that the septic systelli has been inspected and it's operating correctly. I'm sure as long as those conditions are met, I doa't think there's any other criteria we have. -. Councilman Senn: Yeah, 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 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 rime and process and add some more questions. Charles Folch: The next step would be to prepare 12Ie 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: 1 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 wo~ sessíœs at 5:30. Would that he an inconvenience for any of you? We could do our work session and then break kin the mid~ but it'd be a little better if we could do it right off the bar. . Mavor Mancino: ADd in-between time if you do have questions, yuu 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 assurne 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 Grandview Road Utility Improvements for 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 courtyard. Okay. And again, if you have any questions during the week, contact Charles or any Council member. .. .Okay, thank you. Thanks for your conunents. UPDATE ON POSTAL SERVICE ANNEX. Don Ashworth: We're still obtaining bids for the landscaping. Ending date on that is July 30m 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. ¡hank you. APPEAL DECISION OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS FOR A 7 FT. WETLAND SETBACK VARL.\.c'iCE 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 1uly 22"" and the board voted 2 to 1 to reconunend 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. Part of the original subdivision of this property the City had noticed that there was a wetland located in this site and thaL.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 ~ ~(ij~ o Q 0)- 0; 2 o f- N(J')(CCClOMNm(C,...coo (J')IJ')NMlO,....,mIONC)NCC ":":":"":",";":":":aiaio; M,-Q)IJ')Q)MM,.-Q)("')('I')('I') CO'-MIOVVWT""('I')u)CÐN cnA ~ Ñ vA L{)- c.ô O)~ T""& (\1- "¢- V- I(f T""NN,...............,...NN '" '" ..... ....'" '" '" ....:"" CDO ....N N-Ñ ~ '" ai ~ "'- ~ '" ~ ~ CD O_ N "'''' N.... ~,....: ~ ~ ~CC_ ~ ~ "'.... ....'" tri~ ....N '" ..... ~ ~ '" ..... 0; o "- ~ "" ~ M ~ '" ~ ....'" "'''' ""':M CDO ....N ÑN- "'..... .....0 ceri "'.... CD"" ÑC\I- ~ '" ai ~ "'. ~ N o ai .... .... ~ f- (J')f'o-.lOlO'VMCDI'-lOOOmoom ~~~mNtt)<O<O<O""",¢,<D"""C:I"CO O)(J')Q)--icO,....:c)a)a)O~NO~N COCOVlONmCOCDVCOVN<OVN lOM"-NCOO>IOM""VmVVO)V ,...: CD- ,...- ,...- ('\1- C"f ,..: 0)- ,...- ,...: .......- a:i "oo..- ,...: trJ- NNMNNNNNM '" '" ..... NN '" '" Nu-;) ""CD ....0 ri C"f ..... '" ai CD CD Ñ '" ..... ....: CD "'- N ""CD CD CD ...r~ ....CD CD"" ÑÑ N"" "'0 0"'; ....~ '" '" NN "" '" '" '" O_ N o "" ai o N Ñ NN '" '" N'" ""CD ....0 M-rti 00 ~ "" r--:('tj "'CD CDN C"fC"f ..... '" ai CD CD_ N '" ..... ....: CD '" N' NO N'" ajcx;j NN "'''' .....'" "''''' <.ON "'''' "'''' IOCO""'OONmIOCO""OM ~MO"'¢'VMo)MOLO....... lO,...";C\ÌcOcOLri,...,...mLri OV<OOM<OOVCDo>(O com v r---o co co 0) "'¢' NO -.:i c...,- ri M M·C",fv· ri M ~,...- '" ~ ~ N ..... '" ~ ~ N ..... CD "'..... .....0 oeD "'.... co. M. NN '" ~ ~ CD o Ñ '" N N '" .... CD 00 ~"" ,....:cwj "'CD CDN ('fM- v/'.. lOM NCOV""'" IOCCaJ M ~CO<X)""M.......Q)COCOI'-"'¢'M ,...ar)COCÓNcx;j~"OO:)Lri-.:iO) comlO,......M,...(CCJ')U')O)MCO ,...,... to 0) N co '11"""""" co M. ,....0) I,{)- v· M- ri M- Ñ I.t'i -.:r- M- ,... or- N .... .,; ..... ..... N .... .,; ..... ..... '" N'" ""'" ,....:tri ..... ~ "'''' '" ~ 0'" oc:ci ~~ ..-w 10 ON m,... to 1.0 V V,.... ,...lONCO({),...,...ION~~~ LriMc:O..nmccitriMcOCONN I.OMCOM""C\lLOMCOacoco VCO"'¢'lOOCO."'¢'COVCO<DlO CffN-"fÑN-"" M·c,fÑ .... LOI'-"'¢''''¢'O>lOlO.......V,...,...(''') OM~CO,.....LOOMV,...CDM ~cciOMMO,.;ccicicriLriLri """"MN,...M,...,...('I')COO,... r-...DCO"""'NO)!'-Oc.cCOt--.co M('f')-ÑÑN-,... M-M-Ñ "" co CON""" tDO co CON a>,..... Q) O)-r-~~O>O>O>-r-WOJMU') COcrJN-r-~~COa)N,....:tOa:i IDO>"""-r-"CtMIDOJ"""N...,."Ct O>-r-,.....O>MOcn,-I'--O>,.....w C"i('ffN-ÑN~N~C"iM-N- N NOJ-r--r-MU')NQ),-U')"CtU') ~~COM-r-NQ)~~CO-r-~ N-r-"¢crJNcrJN<r"'"...,.""':-r--r- NCO-r-Q)COMNCO-r-a::>mco NMO>O'O;f-r-NMqm,.....w oq:C"iN "'-N Ñoq:"'-N U')OQ)U')O-r-It'>OO>NO..... a::>a::>Q).....~~a::>a::>m,.....o>..... to"Ctcc~CC"'a::>"CtCO~Mr.ri ,.....CCl.Oco....."'i:fl'-COI.O"'i:f"'-r- oq-I.OONCCN"'i:fI.OOOa::>,..... "'i:f~C"iC"friÑN~"fiC"'iM-~ ?f!.m..... o Q 0)- 0; '" .... "" NO N'" to cO NN "'''' .....'" "''''' g~ "'''' 1.00('1')1.0 a::>LO"""a::> trimtritri g¡ gJ- ~ g¡ ~~ CD"''''' ........."" g~~ ('I)_.....~CJ') ~~ "'i:fI,{)NO>NN"'i:fI,{)NNoq-.....N"'i:f-r- ~~~~~~~O)~qNC:OON~ ,.....OJCOOCO...........crJtONMNNMN -r-"CtI,{)I.ON"""-r-"CtI.OCJ')Ovo>O"'i:f LO"'i:fa::>N'O;fO'JU')"CtCO"'i:fNO"'i:fNO t.tf oq: C"i -v- ri ÑI.Õ oq: ('1')-.....- -r-- ~......~~......- N MMOI.ONOJMMOa::>OO>COOO'J CJ')N"'i:fN-r-'O;fO>N-vNONNON c..;"¢"¢tri..,j-MM..,j-..,j-tONCOa)N<Ò """OU')NNN,.....OLO CO,..... 0> a::>,..... m CO,.....OI.OCO,-CO,.....OLONOI,{)NO ari "'i:f~ oq: "'i:f- M M- I,{)~ -q: "'i:f~ ......~ ......- -r-- ......- .....~ ~ ""N.....~~"'''''N.........CDCD....CDCD O>I.O,...~q~~~""':t()f'..f'..t(),.....,..... crJa:iNCJ')Ol,{)o)CON..,j-Oa)~om NI,{)I.OO'JNf'..NL()LOC:O"'i:f"'i:fa::>"'i:f"'i:f NmNf'..CCNNO'JNIDM,-COM...... cD "Ct~ V- "'i:f- ("f M- CO- "Ct~ "'i:f~ .....~ or-: ,...- ~ ~ ......~ OOO-r--r- ~ OOOCOCOCO '" "'''' "''''''' "'''' '" ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ¡;¡ CJ')o>mccco ~ O'JO)O)coccco ¡;¡ ............... qqq """,.....,.....NNNNNN ~ C. tritritria)crJO'J triLÒt.ri~~~ , N C. a) a) a) .....-r-<r"'"a)a)a)c.Oc.Oc.O<Dc.O<O "' 'õ O)O'JO'J ('I') MM O'JO')O)-v'O;foq- "' ,3 ............ "I:;t'O;f'O;foq-"Ct"Ct...........<r"'"<r"'"............ C q O)~ O'J_ f'.._ ,....._ ,....._ 0)0)0>""""""""" C e'\tN_N_ <r"'",....,-NNNOOOOOa 0 c LO LO lO..... <r"'""- Ll'ilO~lO-riM-ri .Q c N N N r-:r-:r-:ÑN-ÑCO-CO-cDCO~tþ-CD- '00 '00 "" Cl. ,-,-..-..-.....<r"'"<r"'"<r"'"..... '" ë. Cl. NNN..........<r"'"NNN C. 0 0 ë - c Q ~ Q ~ E Q c c E Q c c c 0 '" .<::: c 0 '" .<::: "' ~ c "' .ê c "' ~ c ~ .ê c "' ~ "' "' "' Q 0 Q Q Q Q Q 0 Q Q Q Q c ¡;¡ "' c ¡;¡ "' "' 'C '" ~ "' 'C '" ~ "' c c '" 0 '" "' c c '" 0 '" <t: èñ <t: CJ) :.: ...J <t: èñ <t: CJ) :.: ...J , ., @ 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 Valley Valley Larsen Hidden Valley Hidden Valley Service available Service available from VillaCles from VillaCles g.lenglpublicl97 -, , Icompare.doc · Œ 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 l~ 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, i: ~'¡er, 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 uchi 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 t::'e sewer line on the cuI-de· sac of Dakota Lane, where the houses were already built and the road paved. It should be a fairly easy solution to get se'Ñer 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 G February 21,2000 Greg Larsen Mary Larsen 8151 Grandview Road Chanh,,~...n, MN 55317 Phone: 612-937-9149 CITY OF CHANHASSEN Rl!1CI!IJYm 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. 97-11 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 improvements. 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 BerlÙer 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 potential subdivision possibility (which would cost homeowners even more assessment charges in the form of road improvernents, curbs, gutters, fire hydrants, etc. as stated in the July 1997 meeting minutes). We are curious to know why Mr. Dean Ska11rnan cannot obtain city water and sewer 1Ì'Om the cul-de- sac (Marsh Circle) directly below his property. Mary BerlÙer obtained gas service through an utility easement 1Ì'om this neighborhood and, therefore, should not water and sewer also be obtainable through this easement? Why does Mr. Skal1rnan 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 for 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 eventually 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 1àmily, and the other fiunilies along Grandview Road, we respectfully request that you deny Mr. SkaIlman the right to force city water and sewer assessments upon residents of Grandview Road. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sin~erelY, Á ' "., (J 0"'7 aru¡ d'O.J7.&l/vtJ Greg Larsen Mary Larsen cc: Mayor Mancino City Council Members FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR GRAND VIEW ROAD AREA UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS CITY OF CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA PROJECT NO. 97-11 ". . I hereby certify that this plan, specifications, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Registered Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of Z/k~ Anita 1. Benson Date: Januarv 4.2000 Registration No. 25521 PROJECT HISTORY A feasibility study for the Grandview Road Area Utility Improvement Project was prepared for the City of Chanhassen in 1997 in response to a petition received 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 non-conforming and needs to be replaced. The previous property owner made an effort to install a new septic 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 I as outlined in the feasibility report prepared in 1997 by William Engelhardt. SUMMARY 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 cost estimate is attached for both Option No. I and Option No.2 along with a preliminary assessment roll for the project. NOTE Each property is required to pay trunk hookup charges before connection to the sanitary sewer and water can be made. The 2000 trunk hookup rates are S 1 ,300 per REU for trunk sanitary sewer and S 1 ,695 per REU for trunk watermain. These rates are adjusted annually by the City based on construction cost indices. Additionally, the Metropolitan Council Sewer Accessibility Charge (SAC) of $1, 100/REU must be paid upon issuance of the building permit for hooking up to sanitary sewer. Attachments: 1. Cost Estimate for Option I dated January 4,2000. 2. Cost Estimate for Option 2 dated January 4,2000. 3. Preliminary Assessment Roll dated January 4,2000. 4. Letter ITom Steve Torell, Building Official, dated December 7, 1999. 5. Petition for Improvements dated November 29, 1999. 6. Feasibility Study for Grandview Road Utility Improvements dated July 22, 1997. \'d's I \voI2\eng\public\97.[ 1 \feasibility study.doc GRANDVIEW ROAD AREA UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT NO. 97-11 JANUARY 4. 2000 OPTION NO.1 - DEAD END WATERMAIN ESTIMATED COSTS SANITARY SEWER: 8" PVC, SDR 35 390 L.F. @ 518.00/L.F. = 57,020.00 48" Standard Manhole (0'·10' Depth) 2 Each @ 51,900.00 lEach = 53,800.00 8" x4" Wye 5 Each @ 5100.00 lEach = 5500.00 4" PVC. SVC Pipe 80 L.F. @ 511.00 IL.F. = 5880.00 Subtotai = 512,200.00 Add: 5% Mobilization = 5610.00 Total Estimated Sanitary Sewer Construction Cost = 512,810.00 Add: 30% for Engineering. Legal, Administration and Miscellaneous = 53.843.00 Total Estimated Sanitary Sewer Project Cost = 516,653.00 WATERMAIN: 6"PVC 385 L.F. @ 518.00/L.F. = 56,930.00 Connect to Existing Watermain Each @ 5250.00 lEach = 5250.00 6" Gate Valve 2 Each @ 5595.00 lEach = $1.190.00 Hydrant 2 Each @ $1,750.00 lEach = $3.500.00 Fittings 265 LBS. @ $2.00 ILB. = 5530.00 1" Copper Service Pipe, Type K 134 L.F. @ 59.50 IL.F. = 51,273.00 Service Group 7 Each @ 5110.00 lEach = 5770.00 Subtotal = $14,443.00 Add: 5% Mobilization = $722.15 Total Estimated Watermain Construction Cost = $15,165.15 Add: 30% for Engineering. Legal. Administration and Miscellaneous = 54.549.55 Total Estimated Watermain Project Cost = $19,714.70 g:lenglpublicI97-11\estimated costs , RESTORATION: Common Excavation (Approximately 195 C.Y.) Lump Sum = $1,500.00 Sod 542 S.Y. @ $2.50/S.Y. = $1,355.00 Temporary Trench Restoration 539 S.Y. @ $3.50 IS.Y. = $1.886.50 STREET RESTORATION: Subgrade Preparation 366 S.Y. @ $0.40 IS. Y. = $146.40 9" Class 5 Aggregate Base (100%) Crushed Quarry Stone) 187 Tons @ $8.00 lTon = $1.496.00 DRIVEWAY RESTORATION: Subgrade Preparation 173 S.Y. @ $0.40 IS.Y. = $69.20 6" Class 5 Aggregate Base (100% Crushed Quarry Stone) 59 Tons @ $8.00 lTon = $472.00 3" Bituminous Wearing Course (MnDOT 2331. Type 41B) 173 S.Y. @ $7.00/S.Y. = $1.211.00 Subtotal = $8.136.10 Add: 5% Mobilization = $406.81 Total Estimated Restoration Construction Cost = $8,542.91 Add: 30% for Engineering. Legal, Administration and Misceilaneous = $2.562.87 Total Estimated Restoration Project Cost = $11,105.78 TOTAL ESTIMATED PROJECT COST = $47,473.47 g:\englpublic\97-11Iestimated costs GRANDVIEW ROAD AREA UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT NO. 97·11 JANUARY 4, 2000 OPTION NO.2 - LOOPED WATERMAIN ESTIMATED COSTS SANITARY SEWER: 8" PVC. SDR 35 390 L.F. @ $18.00 IL.F. = $7.020.00 48" Standard Manhole (0'.10' Depth) 2 Each @ $1,900.00 lEach = $3,800.00 8" x 4" Wye 5 Each @ $100.00 lEach = $500.00 4" PVC, SVC Pipe 80 L.F. @ $11.00/L.F. = $880.00 Subtotal = $12.200.00 Add: 5% Mobilization = $610.00 Totai Estimated Sanitary Sewer Construction Cost = $12,810.00 Add: 30% for Engineering, Legai, Administration and Miscellaneous = $3.843.00 Total Estimated Sanitary Sewer Project Cost = $16,653.00 WATERMAIN: 6" DIP, CL. 52 862 L.F. @ $18.00/L.F. = $15,516.00 Connect to Existing Watermain 2 Each @ $250.00 lEach = $500.00 6" Gate Valve 3 Each @ $595.00 lEach = $1,785.00 Hydrant 2 Each @ $1.750.00 lEach = $3,500.00 Fittings 645 LBS. @ $2.00 ILB. = $1,290.00 1" Copper Service Pipe. Type K 144 L.F. @ $9.50 IL.F. = $1.368.00 Service Group 8 Each @ $110.00 lEach = $880.00 Subtotal = $24,839.00 Add, 5% Mobilization = $1.241.95 Totai Estimated Watermain Construction Cost = $26,080.95 Add: 30% for Engineering, Legal, Administration and Miscellaneous = $7.824.29 Total Estimated Watermain Project Cost = $33,905.24 g;\englpublicI97·11\estimated costs GRANDVIEW ROAD AREA UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT NO. 97-11 PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT ROLL January 4. 2000 Oction No.1 RESIDENTIAL LATERAL LATERAL PID# PROPERTY EQUIVALENT SANITARY WATERMAIN RESTORATION TOTAL UNITS SEWER SEWER WATER 25.0134100 SINNEN 2 2 $6.661.20 $5,632.77 $3,701.93 $15.995.90 25.0134200 ANDERSON 1 2 $3,330.60 $5,632.77 $2,776.44 $11.739.81 25.0134300 SKALLMAN 2 2 $6,661.20 $5,632.77 $3,701.93 $15,995.90 25.0134000 KOKESH 0 1 $0.00 $2.816.38 $925.48 $3.741.86 25.0134400 LARSEN 0 0 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Oction No.2 TOTAL $47.473.47 RESIDENTIAL LATERAL LATERAL PID# PROPERTY EQUIVALENT SANITARY WATERMAIN RESTORATION TOTAL UNITS SEWER SEWER WATER 25.0134100 SINN EN 2 2 $6,661.20 $8,476.31 $7.112.24 $22,249.75 25.0134200 ANDERSON 1 2 $3,330.60 $8,476.31 $5,334.18 $17,141.09 25.0134300 SKALLMAN 2 2 $6,661.20 $8,476.31 $7,112.24 $22,249.75 25.0134000 KOKESH 0 1 $0.00 $4,238.15 $1,778.06 $6,016.21 25.0134400 LARSEN 0 1 $0.00 $4,238.15 $1,778.06 $6.016.21 g:lenglpublicI97-11Ipreliminary assessment roll TOTAL $73.673.01 CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 aty Ctnttr Drivt. PO Box 147 Ch.nhllJIm, MinntsOtJl553/7 Phont612.937.1900 Gmtl'al Fax 612.937.5139 EngintlTÌng Fax 6/2.937.9152 Public Saftty Fax 6/2.934.2524 Wib www.ci.chanhllJIt/J.mn.us Decem ber 7, 1999 Mr. Dean Skallman 8155 Grandview Road Chanhassen, MN 553]7 CERTIFIED Re: Failing sewage treatment system at: 8155 Grandview Road Chanhassen, MN Dear Mr. Skallman: City records indicate you own the above-referenced property. I received a notice of non-compliance for the individual sewage treatment system (lSTS) located on your property, which states you have a failing system. The system is failing because the septic tank was determined to be a cesspool. Chanhassen City Code Section 19-75 requires that the owner of a failing system: I. Repair or replace the septic tank within three (3) years from the date this letter is received. 2. Respond to the building department within five (5) working days of the receipt of this notification to discuss the repair or replacement of the septic tank. This letter constitutes the required notification by the city to the owner of a failing system. You will be sent another notice as the deadline for repairing your system approaches. A permit is required for repair or replacement of the septic tank. I have enclosed a copy of the ordinance sections governing failing septic systems. Please respond as requested to 937-1900, ex!. 115. Pc: Randy Debner, Mechanical Inspector Bob Reid, Building Inspector Building file: 8155 Grandview Road Encl: CCC 19-71 & 19-75 g:/sntèty/srlISTS/8155Grandviewroad Tht Cirv ofCh,mhllJStn. A dTnw;,u,,.nmrmmitv /II;,h rIM» !,dm """I;,.., 0"·1.",,1, . ~L.._:..~ J~......". t·· I " ." <1'1-/1 Dean V Skallman Joyce L Bish 8155 Grandview Road Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 612-949-3064 November29,1999 Anita Benson City Engineer P.O. Box 147 City of Chanhassen Chanhassen Minnesota. 55317 Dear Ms. Benson: We are petitioning the City of Chanhassen for utility service to our home at 8155 Grandview Road. Information presented in this petition is based on discussions with our realtor. neighbors, and city staff, but is believed to be accurate. When we purchased the home in August, we were told that the current septic system is non- conforming and needs to be replaced. Before the completion of the sale of the home, the previous owner, Ms. Mary Bemier, made an effort to install a new septic system. Test bOlings failed to identify a suitable site for the new system so nothing was done. From the information given to us, we believe our only options are a mounded septic system or a connection to the city's system. We are aware that Ms. Bernier petitioned the city for sewer and water service in the past The city prepared a feasibility study for the project, Grandview Road Utility Improvements, City of Chanhassen Minnesota, C.P. 97-11. After preparation of this study Ms Bemier withdrew her petition. As part of the settlement on our property, $10,000 was placed in an escrow account to help pay for a replacement for the current septic system. At this point, we are not sure that a site for a mounded system can be identified on the property, or what the life expectancy of sud1 a system would be. As a long-term solution, we feel that connection with the city system is the preferable way to spend our money. If the city approves this project, as outlined in the feasibility report option 1, we intend to go forward with it Sincerely, .- \ ,'" ~k4~\,_( 7\ . ~ .:j,'-'l\-'v Joyce L Bish ~e~,,- - i />.- / /)/:' V _ '-;;; :~V""{;c:' t~.:'¡,·____ Dean V Skallman CITY Or: C:;,J,NH.~3S2N J::~',:~'::;~"~,~ NOIJ 0 1 1999 ENGINEERING DEPT. City Council Meeting - February 28, 2000 unneeded people coming into the calls. Response times. I didn't have comparative data here, but I'll try to get you some ifthere's some interest in that. For '99, for all calls, 5 minutes and 12 seconds which is from the time we get the alarm to thé time we arrive on scene. And for medical emergencies it's 4 minutes and 18 seconds which, I mean that's an important number for us to manage. Both the medical and the all call and we certainly will continue to monitor that. I just also took a little time to try to project for 2000. We're anticipating runs to be down 18%. 584 calls. Actually year to date we're significantly below that. Ifwe annualize the last 3 months, we're going to be at about 360 to 400 calls, but the numbers really do ebb and flow so it's, a statistician would have fun with this stuff. I'm not one so I'll just try to do my best. But the big driver on projecting the calls for next year in terms of the reduction is the anticipated, almost 40% reduction in medical calls. And then we just use the combination of 3 year averaging and recognizing some things that we feel we can predict with some certainty. Like for example the CO calls. We're not anticipating those to go back up to 60 just because there's better CO monitors in the homes today. And folks are more used to them so they're not nervous when they start beeping off for no good reason. So you take some of those factors into play. You look at the increased population. The increased infrastructure and the increased traffic flows and that's kind of where we get our numbers ITom. So in terms of how that impacts payroll, we're probably look at a payroll budget, potentially being $25,000 to the good. Because we didn't use these factors to budget this year's payroll so, just as an FYI. Mayor Mancino: Okay, great. Thank you John. How's the rescue truck? The new rescue truck working out. John Wolff: It's working out very, very well. We replaced a 1984 light rescue vehicle, which is used for our medical response and our car accidents response. And the vehicle was brought in service about 30 days ago and we've got the membership trained on how to use all the equipment. It's got some significant capabilities that we didn't have in terms of some of the extrication equipment for car accidents. It's a safer truck to drive on the road. The weight of the truck is built for the frame and we were a little, quite frankly overweight on the old truck so it rocked and it didn't really have quite the braking capabilities that you would want for a vehicle like that. It has air bags. It has anti-lock brakes so it's got the safety features that you're looking for in a vehicle that's going to get 350 plus runs a year. So the memberships quite pleased with it and it's working out fine. Mayor Mancino: Good, great. Thank you. Any other questions for John? Councilwoman Jansen: Thanks John. Mayor Mancino: Okay, thank you. Nice to get this report. Haven't gotten that before. That's great. PUBLIC HEARING: APPROVE FEASIBILITY STUDY: AUTHORIZE PREPARATION OF PLANS-A:NI>SPEC TIONS FOR GRANDVIEW ROAD AREA UTILITY IMPROVEMENT PR JECT NO. 97-11. or' Name Address Dean Skallman Joyce B ish Steve Kokesh 8155 Grandview Road 8155 Grandview Road 820 I Grandview Road 6 City Council Meeting - February 28, 2000 Linda Anderson 8210 Grandview Road Mayor Mancino: First public hearing is on Grandview Road and it says approve feasibility study, authorize preparation of plans and specifications for Grandview Road area utility improvement project No. 97-11. We'll have a staff report on this first and then take comments from the public and see if we have more questions as a council and if we want staff to investigate a few more things. One of the concerns that I have, and I wanted to make sure that those who are speaking up tonight on this is that, that a majority of the homeowners are here and can speak to this so that if we don't hear ITom everyone tonight, that we make sure that we have a meeting time when everyone can come because I know that there are 5 homeowners and I think it's important in this area to make sure that all 5 are together and we're talking about this. So anyway with that, let's go ahead and have a staff report please. Anita Benson: This is a public hearing. Mayor Mancino: Can everyone hear Anita? Anita Benson: This is a public hearing for the feasibility study for the Grandview Road area and utility improvement project. A feasibility study was prepared in 1987 by William Engelhardt and Associates in response to a petition received by a property owner from the area. The utility improvement didn't proceed at that time as the property owner elected to dig a new well and there wasn't a majority of support for the project. Since that time that particular property has been sold and through the sale of the property it was discovered that the septic system was failing. The current property owners have petitioned for the improvement project and indicated a preference for Option I which was outlined in the feasibility report in 1997. The summary and the conclusions reached in the 1997 report remain the same. What I have done, I've updated the numbers to reflect current costs and prepared an assessment roll that would reflect those current costs. Each of the five property owners affected by this project has a copy of the feasibility study and as this has been gone through in depth before, I won't go through it in detail unless there is specific questions on alignment. The Larson's I'm aware are unable to attend tonight. They did submit a letter which was included in your packet, and additionally they have submitted an e- . mail which I did hand out to you at your work session tonight. They are not in favor of the project. And if at the close of the public hearing there is a majority of support, or there are no further questions or comments and if the council does proceed with approving the feasibility study, please indicate that it is for Option I as was indicated previously. Thank you. Mayor Mancino: Okay, any questions for staff at this point? ... the neighborhood, if you'd like to come up and address the City Council at this time please. Make your remarks known as to whether you favor the proposal and why. Dean Skallman: I'm Dean Skallman. I'm the petitioner. I live at 8155 Grandview Road. I'd like to thank city staff for being helpful. They answered our questions before we purchased the home and they've been available and answered our questions as this issue has proceeded. I guess basically we need to get sewer. Exactly how it occurs, I guess I'm not real opinionated on how it should happen. But we need to get sewer and I believe that the existing septic system option is not going to work. What we have now fails and we weren't able to locate a site for another one so. I guess that's about all I've got. Mayor Mancino: Okay. Any questions? At this point. So Dean you did soil borings all over the one acres that you have? 7 City Council Meeting - February 28, 2000 Dean Skallman: The borings were performed prior to our purchasing the home and they were perfonned, I don't remember who the individual was that did it but they were done for the previous owner. Mayor Mancino: Okay. And do you have a copy of that report? Dean Skallman: I do not have one, no. Mayor Mancino: Okay. So there is no, so at this time you have nothing ITom an engineering firm to show that you can't have, there is not another site. Anita, thank you. Anita Benson: Mayor, the building inspections department does have a copy of the compliance report and the soil boring report. Mayor Mancino: The one that was done previously? Anita Benson: Correct. The previous property owner had to have those borings done in order to sell the property. Mayor Mancino: So previous report is with staff. And is that the report that also says that they would need to just, the drain field is fine but it's the septic tank that needs to be, they need a new tank. An actual tank itself? Anita Benson: I have not reviewed the report myself. However the building official did state, so I don't know if the report contains that. That replacing the current septic tank, replacing that is an option. Mayor Mancino: Okay. So you're aware that the building official for our city has said that the drain field is fine. It is the septic, the actual cement tank that is the problem and that you can go in and put in a new septic tank. Dean Skallman: That was not my understanding. The understanding I had is the drain field did not meet current code and the septic tank did not meet the current code. Mayor Mancino: Okay. We will have to get that figured out, thank you. Because I think there's a misunderstanding or two facts going on right now about that so. Dean Skallman: If it's just putting in a new tank, I would be more than happy to do that. It would solve everybody's problem. Councilwoman Jansen: Okay. Okay, thanks. Mayor Mancino: Good. That's good to know. Building inspector. Steve Kokesh: Hi, I'm Steve Kokesh. I live at 8201 Grandview Road and I would just like to say I would not like to see sewer, water and sewer run down this street, but I do believe it is important that they get their septic system fix, or I think if it is at all possible and would be cheaper, I think it would be better for them to be able to connect to a city system instead of having to go through a septic system. I had talked to some other city managers in other cities and I was told that ifthere is an easement, that they can do the bore system now and they do not have to dig between the foundations like what previously stated in one of the other city implements that was sent out. And that is a safe way to do it. It does not 8 City Council Meeting - February 28, 2000 jack hammer. It does not affect the foundations of other buildings. Can be directed better and that's all I have to say. I'm against. I would like to see it done a different way instead of having to dig up the road, but yet if it is at all possible or as cheap as putting in a used septic system, it would probably be better to also be able to hook up to city sewer. Mayor Mancino: Okay. Steve Kokesh: That's all I have to say. Mayor Mancino: Thank you Steve. So we have two options right now from what I'm hearing from Mr. Kokesh is directional boring. And I'm assuming you're saying from Sinnen Circle? Or wherever that would, wherever they could take it from. Steve Kokesh: I don't know exactly where it runs through at. I know they can bore up to 1,000 feet. Mayor Mancino: Okay. Okay. And obviously just being able to replace a septic tank would be the best. That would solve a lot of things. Anyone else from the neighborhood? Linda Anderson: Hi. I'm Linda Anderson. I live at 8210 Grandview. Just wanted to add that I am also opposed to the project. I did send an e-mail earlier because we weren't able to attend the previous meeting but I am able to attend this one. We very much would like to see Dean and Joyce solve the septic problem. We understand that it is a difficult issue for them. We don't want to see an entire utility project put on all the rest of us to do that. I think there's got to be an easier way to do it. And as Steve said, to do a sewer line down to Sinnen Circle I guess it is or to replace the septic system would be much more preferable for all of us. And as for the rest of us, you know we have other options for getting sewer stubs from the Villages on the Pond side. It's just there are options for I think all of us to be able to get sewer and water service eventually if we need it without having to run a separate line through Grandview Road. So that's all I have to say, thank you very much. Mayor Mancino: Thank you and thank you for your e-mail. Anyone else wishing to address the council on this? Okay, we'll close the public hearing and bring it back to Council. Councilman Senn. Councilman Senn: Sounds like we should just move to table this on the basis that when we find out, or clarify the issue on the drain field because I also understood it, the drain field was fine. If that's the case, the tank can just be replaced. And if that is found not to be the case, or I should say, if that's found to be the case, then it sounds like the propertY owner already said that's the preferable option. Mayor Mancino: And ifit isn't? Councilman Senn: If that's found not to be the case, then I would look at an item 2 or a condition effectively to obtain a cost of boring a line from the residence down to Sinnen Circle and come back with that information to the council so we have effectively all the property information in front of us. That's a motion I guess. Mayor Mancino: That's a motion? Anybody else want to add their comments because I'm not sure we need to take any more time on this? Is there a second to the motion? Councilwoman Jansen: Second. 9 City Council Meeting - February 28, 2000 Councilman Senn moved, Councilwoman Jansen seconded that the City Council table action on the Grandview Road Area Utility Improvement Project No. 97-11. All voted in favor and tbe motion carried unanimously. Mayor Mancino: So let's find out those two things. Those two options and if you could work with city staff on that, to do that. Appreciate it. And then it will come back to the City Council and everyone will be notified about the meeting when it comes back and we can find out what the options are and if they work or not. So we'll all get back together and get to discuss this another time. And hopefully it will be so that everybody's in town and can make the meeting fÌ'om the neighborhood. Councilman Senn: Could I offer one correction to that? If they find out the tank can be replaced, then it won't come back? Mayor Mancino: Yeah, that's fine. I think everybody's in agreement on that. Councilman Senn: So we're fine then? Mayor Mancino: Yeah. So everybody heard that, Linda and Steve? That if they can replace the tank, it doesn't need to come back because the Skallman's will replace the tank. If that doesn't work though, then come back and we'll have also a cost on directional boring too. Okay, thank you. You know this may come back and keep coming back to us and we'll get it right you know. We just keep dealing with Grandview Road so, we'd kind of miss you if you didn't come back every couple years. PUBLIC HEARING: APPROVE LAYOUT AND PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR TH 41 AND TH 7 INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS. PW67D-4. Anita Benson: The City of Shorewood has entered into a cooperative agreement with Minnesota Department of Transportation to construct roadway improvelT:~nts in the area of Trunk Highway 7 and Trunk Highway 41 intersection. We have with us tonight Mr. Jeff Stewart with WSB and Associates. A new face at this time. Chuck couldn't make it this time and he's going to give a presentation on the project. Mayor Mancino: Great. For anyone who lives in the northern part ofChanhassen, this is Highway 7 and the 4 I intersection that goes into 41 Crossing. That area and Driskalls and etc. So I'm sure that we have some people that live off of Highway 7 that go this way all the time here in attendance so, just thought I'd prep everyone to that. Jeff Stewart: Right. The majority of the project here is actually on Trunk Highway 41. MnDot is planning on doing some improvements along Highway 7 at a different time. A different time than what this project is being involved with. Again my name is Jeff Stewart. I'm with WSB and Associates and we were retained by the City of Shorewood to design this project and I believe Chuck Richter has been here to present this project once before. There has been some modifications to the layout since it was probably presented this last time. I'm not sure exactly what the council has seen. The basic change from the layout that was presented before was to add protected left turn lane from northbound Trunk Highway 41 to westbound Trunk Highway 7. And we also added some protective left turn lanes going into the shopping center, the 7 and 41 Crossing. There's also a protected left turn lane at Chaska Road. In addition to that we also added a right turn lane from northbound 41 into the school entrance and there's a left hand, left turn lane added going southbound on Trunk Highway 41 also to that school. That's not a protected left turn lane. What I mean by that is a raised median to protect a car that is in that turn lane. 10