Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSP April 25, 1989 ~ "" CITY of ANDOVER .,;, < Special city Council Meeting - April 25, 1989 7:30 P.M. 1. Call to Orde r 2. Creek ridge Estates Storm Sewer 3. Award Bid/88-35A/Test Well 4 . Joint Powers Agreement/Signal 135th & RLB 5. Execute Option/Laptuta Property 6. Quote for Furnace Conversion 7. Adjourn * Items "Crosstown Boulevard Storm Sewer" & "Disaster Plan Approval" have been removed from the agenda. ** PLEASE BRING APRIL 4TH AND 18TH PACKETS. ~ i~ CITY of ANDOVER 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD NW. . ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304· (612) 755-5100 .. SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING - APRIL 25. 1989 M mUTES A SpeciaJ Meeting of the Andover City Council was called to order by Acting Mayor Mike Knight on April 25, 1989, 7:30 p.m., at the Andover City Hall. 1685 Crosstown Boulevard NW. Andover, Minnesota. CounclJmen present: Jacobson, Orttel, Perry Councilman absent: Elling A]so present: City Administrator/Engineer. James Schrantz: and others CREEKRIDGE ESTATES STORM SEWER John ROdeberg, TKDA, reviewed his letter of April 25, 1989, regarding three options to resolving the storm drainage Issue In Creekrldge Estates. the costs of each option and assessments per lot If the entire drainage area were assessed. In surveying the area, It was determined the approximately 1450 cubic yards of fll I would be needed to raise and level out the drainage pond area between Jonquil and Kerry Street on Block 2. Op t I on 1, to bring In Just enough borrow to fil I In to drain properly is the ]east costly at $142 for a full lot. Option 2 Is about $3,000, more to bring In borrow and a]so construct a 4-foot wide concrete swale to contain the water through the area. It would be about $227 per fu II Jot. Option 3 would be to complete the pipe from the north to the side and cover it. It Is the most expensive, about $723 per full lot. and may Increase the danger of flooding since the pond was designed to hold a 100-year flood; therefore, he recommended against that option. Whichever option is chosen. Mr. Rodeberg stated It Is Important that the easements and yards be seeded or sOdded to prevent further erosion. Many residents In the audience were upset that they had not been notified of the meeting and that they do not have a drainage problem and were not willing to pay for a proJect which benefits only a few people on Block 2. They wanted to know Just what the problem is and whose fault It Is that there Is a problem there now, with several of them giving their opinion as to what happened. Those residents feJt since It Is not their problem and it was caused by either the developer, the bulJder or the City, they should not have to pay for those mistakes. Mr. Rodeberg expJalned the basic grade Is close to what the original grading pJan called for. One gentleman on Block 2 stated he brought In over $2.000 worth of fill in his back yard. Another said when he moved in 2 1/2 years ago, he filled his own yard and has aJready paid: If others want an area filled, they shou1d have to pay for It. Special CI ty Council Meetl ng April 25. 1989 - MInutes Page 2 (Creekrldge Estates Storm Sewer, Continued) The Counc II explained the purpose of tonight's meeting Is to meet with those having the problem on Block 2, the building contractors Involved and the developer In an effort to solve the problem. Only those residents on Block 2 were notIfied of the meeting in writIng; the other residents were not because they are not yet involved. Should It ever get to the point where a proJect would be done and assessed, all affected residents would receive written notification of a public hearing. The Counc I ] cannot legally do the proJect and assess without an official public hearing. The Counc II also explained that the developer Is not liable because he met the required grading plans; however, there Is the question of the buildIng contractors' responsibility because of their agreement with the developer to grade the lots to the grading plan once the houses were built. This meeting Is to unravel who Is responsible and how the problem can be corrected to the satisfaction of the residents and the City. Three building contractors and the developer's engineer, Ken Gust, were present. One contractor stated he built 10 or 12 houses In that development and was one of the first builders In that area. He never saw any builder steal dl rt out of the pondlng area to build up the house pad or yard. The proJect was a mess from the beginning, stating there Just was not enough dirt to begin wi tho He stated he wanted to add more dirt to some of his lots; but the City Building Official, Dave Almgren, told him no because he would be encroaching on the easement. So he left it alone. A resident stated there Is 45 feet of easement on each lot, asking why the City needs 90 feet of easement across their back yards. Mr. Rodeberg explained the intent Is to hold the water In a 100-year storm within the easement. One gentleman stated two years ago they had the worst storm In 50 years, with the water being hip deep In some places: but It never came near the 90-foot mark. He estimated It never got more than 30 feet either way. Another resident questioned the City's procedure for signing off on the grading plan of developers, stating he had heard the City never even Inspected the site before the grading plan was approved and the escrow released. Mr. Schrantz stated the developer's registered engineer verified the grading met the plans; the City did not survey the work again. The plan was graded within the tolerances expected. Mr. Rodeberg stated the area Is basically flat, but the area Is close to the original grade. The pipe had to be raised 8 to 10 Inches when It was Instal led In order to get the grade between the two pipes. Special CI ty Council Meeting April 25, 1989 - Minutes Page 3 (Creekridge Estates Storm Sewer. Continued) A resident understood the Jots on the east side of the drainage were supposed to be deep 11-course basements but could not be because the sewer wasn't deep enough. Mr. Rodeberg stated It was never Intended that the lots would be ll-course basements because it Is the end of the sewer line and the line Is sha I I ow. Mr. Gust stated the west side was supposed to be deep lots. The Counc II noted the area was designed to be a drainage pond In the event of a large storm, and its improvement will not benefit the people who do not live on the pond. Therefore, the Counc II genera II y agreed any maintenance of the pond would be a local Issue affectlng the 12 lots abutting the pond, and those who do not border the pond would not be charged. This satisfied those residents who did not live on Block 2, and most left the meeting at this time. Residents from Lots 6 and 12. Block 2, stated the water sits on their lots. Their concern Is that the water not Just sit there, because now It does not drain out. Residents from Block 2 stated the water Just stands from about Lot 10 to the south side of Lot 12 or 13. The drainage culvert is actually 8 inches higher than the rest of the area, so the water does not drain. AI I they are asking for Is that the water drain out, which Is not the case right now. Several said they have not finished their yards yet because they were told and have been waiting for this drainage problem to be corrected. They said they would seed or sod their yards as soon as the problem Is corrected so the water drains out. Mr. Rodeberg again stated the grade Is close to the original final grading plan, though there Is some erosion and two spots that are lower than the culvert. But the area Is flat and the water generally does run from the north to the south pipe. The gentleman from Lot 13 didn't agree, stating there is standIng water a long distance from the culvert. A person from Lot 12 stated It has been fairly dry this year, yet there was water standing In there for weeks. Mr. Rodeberg agreed the area could be graded to drain better toward the pipe. The residents agreed It Is not that serious of a problem to correct if someone would take the responsibility to do it, fill. and grade I t to make It drain. They agreed there may be standing water there during a superstorm and didn't have a problem with that; but they wanted the problem corrected of having a foot of standing water whenever there Is a half Inch of rain. Counc II agaIn noted the responsibility of the builders to finish the grade after construction to the original grading plan. One contractor noted the many frustrations and financiaJ losses of building homes in this plat, stating the plat was a mess from the very beginning, He Special CI ty Council Meeting April 25, 1989 - Minutes Page 4 (Creekrldge Estates Storm Sewer. Continued) cited a problem of having to redo footings because the buIlding Inspector told him after the fact that a four-level could not be built on the lot because the sewer was too shallow. He felt that should have been pointed out when the plans were approved, not after the footings are poured. In another Instance he was told after the fact that the house had to be turned around because of elevation. so he had to tear It out and do It again. He stated he Is not criticizing the ability of the buildIng official, who Is very thorough; but he felt he should have been told these things ahead of time. A resident from Creekridge who is not affected by the problem felt there Is a problem with the way the City accepts the final plats. In that someone representing the City should be Inspecting the sites and making a recommendation to the City, not Just take the word of the developer. Mr. Schrantz exp]alned It was not a City proJect; and when the grades were accepted, they did basically meet the plans. The prob]em occurred after the grading was accepted. Ken Gust - reviewed some of the problems that took place with the plat and the requirements of the DNR and the Corps of Engineers to have the drainage pond so the water would not drain directly Into the wetland. That Is one of the reasons for the pondlng. It was also a low area In the plat and the City wanted two streets on the proJect. It Is also the end of the City's sewer line, so the line Is shallow In some lots. And some lots on the end do not have municipal sewer. It was graded up high enough to get five-course basements along the east street. The rough grade was about one-half foot low with the Idea that It would be raised once the black dirt and sod were put In on the finished lots. Then the pipe was put in. Mr. Rodeberg explained the level of the pipe was controlled by the DNR to control the drainage to the wetland at the 100-year elevation. The area would baslcaJly meet grade If It were leveled out. But there Is marginally enough fill there, suggesting more be brought In to adequately correct the problem. Discussion continued with the residents and engineers on the elevation of the pipes, the grade through the drainage area, and solutIons to resolve the issue. Counc il was concerned about the finishing of the lots to stop any further erosion I f the City would bring In fill and grade the easement. One resident stated he plans to terrace his yard: others assured the Council they would finish off their back yards as soon as the problem Is corrected. Councilman Jacobson stated the Council has been told tonight that the grade out there now is basically according to the plan with the exception of some low areas. It seemed to him that maybe the City let the plat go through Just barely meeting the standards and that Is why there are problems at this time. Because of that, he suggested the Special CI ty Council Meeting April 25, 1989 - Minutes Page 5 <Creekrldge Estates Storm Sewer, Continued) City do some maintenance on the easement to correct the drainage using City funds, assuming the residents wi I I fix up their yards so the problem does not reoccur. A resident asked what he can and cannot do on the easement, as It comes within 10 feet of the back of his house. Counc II stated the property belongs to them; the CIty Just has the right to drain water over' It. Counc I I suggested the residents seed the easement, mow It and keep It maintained. But they cannot do anything that would Interfere with the drainage. Once It Is graded, the area should be dry almost al I the time. Another resident asked If he could put a fence up In the easement. Counc II stated normally there would be no problem as long as It does not Impede the free flow of the water. However, there Is the possibility It would have to be removed If the City has to maintain the easement. There was some discussion about the possibility of vacating a portion of the easement where It may not be needed because It Is wi thin 10 or 20 feet of some houses. Mr. Gust suggested keeping 10 feet on either side of the lot line with a 1/2 percent grade from the outlet to where It gets steeper closer to the north pipe. The reason for the 45-foot easement was to allow for the standing high water before It flowed out. But It wi I I never get that wide on the north end. After further discussion on the width of the easement, the Counc II decided to leave It as Is. Another resident asked the cost of rip rap Instead of concrete on a 10-foot strip along the easement to help contain the flow. Mr. Rodeberg stated It Is less maintenance for about the same expense. Mr. Schrantz explaIned this Is an Instance where the developer did the work and passed the responsibilities off to the builders. However, each builder was not able to finish off the back yard until the other Jots were completed. The result Is the lack of restoration In that area. He stated the City was not a party to the agreement between the builders and the developer. There are many drainage problems on existing lots in the CIty, and he didn't think the City should use taxpayers' money for problems beyond Its control. A resident then suggested the developer should be required to do a turf establishment program on the swale. Then If he passes the responsibility onto the builders, the topsoil and seed or sod would be In place. Councllmember Orttel suggested some turf establishment program be looked Into for future developments. To correct thIs problem, he too felt it would be a maIntenance program of that swale to make It function correctly. Special City Council Meeting April 25, 1989 - Minutes Page 6 (Creekrldge Estates Storm Sewer, Continued) MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Orttel, that the City Council request the Staff. by the next regular Council meeting, to advise where approxlmateJy $5,100 to maintain this easement can be taken from and at that time the the City CouncIl would act upon maintaining the easement. DISCUSSION: Councllmember Perry felt the City needs an agreement from each of the property owners to finish their back yards to prevent further erosion. She also suggested the City Staff be available to the residents to advIse on grades, sodding, etc., so It does not wash out. Motion carried unanimously. A gentleman from Lot 2 stated there is a manhole sticking out in his back yard which Is dangerous. Mr. Schrantz stated that will be taken care of during this proJect. \ Council recessed at 9:00; reconvened at 9:04 p.m. AWARD BID/88-35A/TEST WELL MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Jacobson, that we accept the low bid of $9,972 from E. H. Renner and Sons for a test well at the City Hall site. (See Resolution R075-89) Motion carried unanimously. JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT/SIGNAL 135TH AND ROUND LAKE BOULEVARD Mr. Schrantz stated there are no funds In the budget for these signals, thinking the funds may be taken out of the surplus. Council asked that they be given the funds that are available from the 1987 and 1988 surpluses. This Item Is to be discussed again at the May 2 meeting. EXECUTE OPTION/LAPTUTA PROPERTY MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Perry, that we delay any action and request that the CIty Staff, when they prepare the budget for the next fiscal year, to consIder funding the execution of the option and make that option for the Council to review. Motion carrIed unanimously. QUOTE FOR FURNACE CONVERSION Council was concerned about allocating any more money from the surplus until a balance Is known; however, they also did not want to hoid up the construction of the new offices because there Is not enough office space for the staff. Specia1 City Council Meeting April 25, 1989 - Minutes Page 7 <Quote For Furnace Conversion, Continued) MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Perry, that we award the bid to Pierce Refrigeration Heating and AI~ Conditioning of Anoka for the removal and reinstallation of three Carrier roof-top combination heating/coolIng units and one Carrier upflow 10,000 BTU furnace per their bid for a total amount of $14.880, funds from surplus. Motion carried on a 3-Yes, l-No (Perry), l-Absent <Elling) vote. SPECIAL MEETING/APRIL 27 Because both Mayo~ Elling and Councllmember Knight are not able to attend the April 27 meeting, the general consensus was that Councllmember Jacobson would chair that meeting. NEW PUBLIC WORKS EMPLOYEE Even though the negotiations on the union contract for the Public Works employees have not been completed, Councllmember Jacobson felt the Counc II should hire the additional person needed In Public Works. There would be enough In this year's budget to fund the salary for the remainder of 1989. He proposed hIring at the existing pay rate, with the salary looked at again once the contract Is completed. Discussion was on the general concept of reorganization and salaries fo~ Public Works employees that are being proposed by the City Administrator. No action was taken on the proposa I . MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Perry, that we authorize Staff to advertise and hire a Public Works II person as soon as possible, and the funds for the salary as determined previously by the Council and the sa I ary sha I ] be at existing salary schedule as entry level pertaining to that position. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Orttel. to adJourn. Motion carried unanimously. MeetIng adJourned at 9:32 p.m. " Respectfully :~~~~::_d'7l '~~~~~CV~--fC~ . Mar ella A. Peach "- Recording Secretary