Loading...
091007 CC WS MinCITY OF SHOREWOOD CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION SEPTEMBER 10, 2007 MINUTES 1. CONVENE CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION Mayor Lizee called the meeting to order at 6:01 P.M 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD COUNCIL CHAMBERS 6:00 P.M. A. Roll Call Present. Mayor Lizee; Councilmembers Callies, Turgeon, Wellens, and Woodruff; Administrator Dawson; Finance Director Burton; Director of Public Works Brown; and Engineer Landini Absent: None B. Review Agenda Without objection from Council, Mayor Lizee proceeded with the Agenda for the meeting. 2. AMLEE ROAD, MANITOU LANE, GLEN ROAD STREET RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT Mayor Lizee stated at the City Council regular meeting following this work session Council will decide whether or not it wanted to approve the Feasibility Report for the Amlee Road / Manitou Lane/ Glen Road Road Reclamation Project and set the date for a public hearing for the proposed special assessments. Administrator Dawson stated at its August 13, 2007, meeting Council directed Staff to have WSB and Associates revise the Feasibility Report to reflect the changes it recommended regarding the width of the driving lanes, and it requested an easement acquisition report. Mayor Lizee stated Steve Gurney, with WSB and Associates, was present this evening. Engineer Landini highlighted the tabulation of the survey results from the property owners in the project area: 47 percent of the respondents wanted watermain installed; 66 percent of the respondents wanted edge control installed; 66 percent of the respondents had drainage issues; 71 percent of the respondents did not want parking restrictions; and 87 percent of the respondents thought the current street widths, which varied from 14 - 24 feet, were adequate. Landini then reviewed the easement acquisition report that had been provided to Council that identified which affected property owners had verbally agreed to the easements, those that were unsure, those that were opposed, those who had been left a message, and those that had not been asked. The easement map that had been distributed identified the all proposed permanent and temporary construction easement locations, as well as hydrant and storm sewer easements. If watermain did not get installed there would not be a need for the hydrant easements. In response to a question from Councilmember Turgeon, Engineer Landini stated if the fire hydrant was placed on the other side of her property the City did not need a hydrant easement from the Okeys. Landini commented hydrants were normally placed on a property line so a ten-foot by ten-foot hydrant easement would be equally placed on two properties. He explained the easement was necessary should CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION MEETING September 10, 2007 Page 2 of 5 the City need to repair the hydrant. He commented there may be some flexibility with the final location of the hydrants. Engineer Landini stated there was not much flexibility with the location of the storm sewer easements. Their location was determined by where the storm sewer pipes could be located. It would be necessary to have a storm sewer easement between two of the properties so the storm sewer pipe could traverse to the proposed water detention pond on the north side of the Hennepin County Regional Rail Authority (HCRRA) trail. He commented the City had not been denied any requests for storm sewer easements; but the City had not heard from all affected property owners. He explained that when the project area was platted the City did not require storm sewer and utility easements as standard between each property. In response to a question from Councilmember Callies, Engineer Landini stated no funds had been budgeted for easement costs. He then stated the City would not want to pay for easements as that could set precedent. Councilmember Turgeon commented that some easements could actually increase a property's value because it would be an improvement. Administrator Dawson stated if a storm sewer or utility easement was located on the property line between two properties it could be considered to be of benefit to the properties. Engineer Landini stated there were 85 - 90 trees that would have to be removed as a result of the proposed narrower driving lanes; that number was down from approximately 110 trees for the 24-foot- wide driving lanes. Councilmember Wellens stated the reduction in the number of trees to be removed may not warrant narrower driving lanes. Landini then stated an additional 108 trees would have to be removed for the construction of the proposed water detention pond. Mr. Gurney clarified that any tree greater than four inches in diameter was identified for removal; that was a MnDOT standard. Gurney also clarified sumac were marked for removal; they were in addition to the previously stated figures. Mayor Lizee stated some of the trees targeted for removal appeared not to be healthy. Engineer Landini commented that four power poles would have to be relocated to the edge of the right- of-way. Mayor Lizee questioned if the utility Lines could be placed underground, and the anticipated impact to each property. Director Brown stated the Public Utilities Commission placed a maximum limit on the surcharge amount that could be charged to the rate payers per month. Brown then stated rate payers were already paying a surcharge for other projects, thereby limiting the number of additional projects that could be completed. With regard to impact to individual properties, Brown explained utility lines were buried 32 - 36 inches deep. The larger impact to a property owner would be that the home service would have to be placed underground, and that would require the property owner to upgrade the electrical box inside their house, at their cost. Councilmember Wellens commented he recollected that costs for upgrade would be $1,000 - $2,000 per household. In response to a question from Councilmember Turgeon, Director Brown explained the City's standard for the width of a cul-de-sac was a 45.5 foot radius to the back of the curb based on the requirements for fire rescue vehicles and City plows. Brown explained the current cul-de-sac was somewhat oblong in shape, and that would become wider in areas after construction. He stated different design options could possibly be considered. He commented that similar discussions had occurred regarding cul-de-sac widths for the Mallard Lane /Teal Circle / Wedgewood Drive project; follow-up comments from properly owners indicated they were generally satisfied with the cul-de-sacs that were the City's standard in width. Councilmember Woodruff stated he had sent Staff an email asking them to review existing drainage issues and what would be done to resolve them. Mr. Gurney stated the properly at 24735 Glen Road had been identified as a problem area in the 2005 Drainage Problem Area Report. Storm sewer improvements CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION MEETING September 10, 2007 Page 3 of 5 are proposed that should reduce the possibility of flooding at backyard of the property 25735 Glen Road, and the backyards of the properties between the Hennepin County Regional Rail Authority (HCRRA) trail and Amlee Road. He stated there were many homes that were located lower than the road; the installation of edge control and the storm sewer improvements would reduce the amount of water flow off the road onto the properties. There was a pond located near the Shorewood Place Apartments that had a 12-inch PVC outlet pipe that was located next to County Road 19 and eventually emptied next to the trail ditch; some of that that road runoff would be rerouted. Drain the would be installed throughout the project area. Director Brown stated the City had a standard that would allow homeowners to empty their sump pump water to the drain tiled areas. Gurney stated the drainage concern near the property at 5565 Harding Lane would. probably not be resolved as part of this project, but it would not be made worse as a result of the project. In response to a question from Councilmember Woodruff, Mr. Gurney stated the flags around the wetland area marked the existing wetland boundaries and that wetland area would be expanded. Woodruff questioned if the proposed detention pond would result in new drainage issues for property owners on the north side of the HCRRA trail. Gurney stated it would be contained within the City-owned property, and there would be a buffer of trees on the north and west sides of the pond. Director Brown stated the new detention pond would filter the water and it would detain the water for a controlled rate of runoff. He commented when water was detained it could extend the timeframe that water would trickle down the outlet after a heavy rain storm. Councilmember Wellens suggested Council discuss the possible installation of watermain. Councilmember Callies stated from her vantage point many trees would be removed, but there would be many trees that remained. She commented that only Amlee Road and Manitou Lane were considered as part of the original project that was proposed. She stated she would prefer the drainage issues be resolved where possible; but she would not be supportive of doing so if watermain was not installed as part of the project. She stated the City must consider the needs of future property owners and well as current property owners at this time. She stated this road reclamation project should address drainage issues and watermain installation. If the City could not afford to do the project such that it addressed future needs, then the project should not be done. In response to a comment by Councilmember Turgeon, Administrator Dawson explained the installation of watermain could be deleted from the scope of the project at a later date but it could not be added to the scope. Council should give direction as to the maximum scope of the project. Councilmember Woodruff stated there was an option to remove West Glen Road from the project scope (although he was not stating he advocated that), and if that were done he questioned how many fewer trees would need to be removed. Mr. Gurney stated approximately 40 - 50 percent of the 85 - 90 trees designated for removal were located on West Glen Road. Turgeon stated there were more property owners on West Glen Road that wanted watermain installed than there were on East Glen Road; most of the property owners on Manitou Lane wanted watermain installed. Mayor Lizee stated there had been drainage issues in the project area for 40 years. She thought the project should address road improvements, drainage issues, and watermain installation (if feasible) as major improvements to Glen Road would not be considered for maybe another 20 years. Although no one wanted to remove trees, that would have to be done and those trees could be replaced. Engineer Landini commented the City had a tree preservation policy that would have to be brought before Council for action; the policy allowed the Council to exclude City-owned property. Councilmember Turgeon stated she would prefer to keep the scope of the project as broad as possible. The installation of watermain would not impact the number of trees that would have to be removed for CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION MEETING September 10, 2007 Page 4 of 5 other project reasons. Mr. Gurney stated there were approximately 12 trees that would have to be removed solely because of watermain installation. Councilmember Callies stated it was a loss to remove trees, but they could be replaced. If the infrastructure was not installed as part of this project it would probably never be done; the City should not miss the opportunity. She also anticipated that some of the existing houses would be replaced in the future. In response to a question from Councilmember Wellens, Mr. Gurney stated the scope of the project could be reduced. Councilmember Woodruff stated he interpreted that to mean that keeping the proposed scope would not add to the cost of the project if the scope were later reduced. In response to a question Councilmember Turgeon related from a property owner, Mr. Gurney stated the radius of the cul-de-sac would be the City's standard and it was not impacted by the width of the roads. Councilmember Turgeon related another a property owner questioned if there was any benefit to reducing the proposed width of Amlee Road to 22 feet (which would be the same as proposed with for Manitou Lane). Director Brown stated that property owners on Noble Road complained that school buses had a problem navigating the road when construction vehicles were on the road; Noble Road was 20 - 22 feet wide. Mayor Lizee stated Council. would now accept questions from the public Wall~royan, 24845 Glen Road, stated the trees that would be removed on the south side of Glen Road were some of the oldest trees on the street; those trees would be replaced with small saplings that would take a very long time to reach maturity and he may never see that. He then stated he had signatures from 70 - 80 percent of the property owners on Glen Road that were in opposition to the project. He also stated based on previous discussion it was his understanding if there were any upgrades to the road which would include the installation of curb and gutter, then watermain would be installed. He stated from his vantage point the loss of trees would negatively impact the property values. He questioned why the project was being forced on the property owners on Glen Road. Kevin Conley, 24740 Amlee Road, suggested property owners be provided with additional information about the reforestation plan (e.g., what the tree replacement ratio would be). He stated that there were varieties of trees that mature much faster than others. Kip Knutson, 24820 Glen Road, stated at the public information meeting held recently there had been some comments indicating that some of the drainage issues on the north side of Amlee Road would not be corrected because of issues with Hennepin County. At this meeting he thought he understood that most of those issues would be addressed. He then stated even if the number of trees proposed for removal was reduced significantly, those that would be removed were some of the oldest trees. John Miller. 24925 Glen Road, stated there was a comment made at a public information meeting that other cities had been able to do roadway improvements, including the installation of curb and gutter, with minimal construction easements. He questioned if that had been researched, and could it be considered as a compromise. Rick Eng, 251.70 Glen Road, questioned if the City considered the safety issues of installing a new water detention pond near a park with athletic fields. No chain link fence was proposed around the pond. He stated the site proposed for the pond was a hardwood forest and it was not a wetland area. He proposed the City enter into a joint agreement with Tonka Bay and create a nature center on the site. There was an existing water detention pond located 3,000 feet away. CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION MEETING September 10, 2007 Page 5 of 5 Bob Gagne, 24850 Glen Road, stated the pond area Mr. Eng referenced was donated land. The athletic fields on land had originally been marsh and had been filled. Elizabeth Van 24170 Amlee Road, questioned how her existing drainage concerns would be resolved. She stated it was her understanding from discussion at a previous Council meeting that the City could not do anything to address damage that had been done to the wetland area as a result of stormwater being conveyed to it. She stated the proposed plan drawings did not clearly depict the location of the existing wetland area. Mayor Lizee stated the boundaries of the existing wetland area were currently marked by flags. Mr. Gurney stated wetlands had been delineated on both the north and south side of the HCRRA trail; the delineations had been approved by the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. The delineations were shown on the construction documents and would be on the permit applications. Mayor Lizee stated that recent water detention ponds had been built to National Urban Runoff Program (NURP) standards. Mr. Gurney explained that typically a pond that had been designed in accordance with NURP standards had a safety bench (a ten foot wide area that had aone-foot slope) around it. Emergent vegetation grew in that area; that made it difficult for people and natural predators to access the pond. There had been instances when NURP ponds had been fenced in, but that created a liability issue due to lack of access for rescue workers. The majority of municipalities install softscape buffers (e.g., an emergent vegetation bench, buffers). The proposed pond would be 3 - 4 deep, the same depth as the existing pond. Councilmember Turgeon stated the pond would be designed similar to Gideon Glen pond. Director Brown stated the pond constructed next to the Badger Football Field was a NURP pond; loose balls were stopped at the weed edge of the pond. Brown explained that NURP standards were designed to account for the silt from initial construction and approximately 25 years of sediment buildup before they must be restored. Councilmember Woodruff commented that wetlands did not have to have water on it to be considered a wetland. The area designated as a wetland on the north side of the HCRAA trail was clearly a wetland. 3. OTHER There was no other business for discussion. 4. ADJOURN Turgeon moved, Woodruff seconded, Adjourning the City Council Work Session Meeting of September 10, 2007, at 6:59 P.M. Motion passed 4/0. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Christine Freeman, Recorder Christine Lizee, Mayor ATTEST: Craig W. Dawson, City Administrator/Clerk A