Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Minutes 06-10-2003 SpecialAdopted Minutes Special Council Meeting June 10, 2003 Mayor Johnson called a Special Meeting of the Plymouth City Council to order at 5:37 p.m. in the Public Safety Training Room, 3400 Plymouth Boulevard, on June 10, 2003. COUNCIL PRESENT: Mayor Johnson, Councilmembers Hewitt, Slavik, Bildsoe, Neset, Black, and Stein. ABSENT: None. STAFF PRESENT: City Manager Johnson, Assistant City Manager Ahrens, Public Works Director Faulkner, Assistant City Engineer Hagen, Civil Engineer Beckwith, and City Clerk Paulson. Ives/Jonquil Drainage Issue City Engineer Hagen provided the background on the Jonquil/Ives drainage swale located north of Schmidt Lake Road, south of the Canadian Pacific railroad tracks, between Jonquil and Ives Lane. Last summer the City completed a project to restore proper drainage through the swale. A few of the homeowners were concerned about the steepened side slopes of the swale after it was completed and requested that there be a discussion again on installing a pipe through the Swale. The Council conducted a special meeting on October 8, 2002, and at the conclusion of that meeting, the Council directed staff to further explore possible options for the swale. Upon further review, staff feels the existing Swale adequately transfers the drainage to the pond. However, new subdivisions and developments in the City are typically required to construct side slopes of 3:1 or flatter or plant an approved ground cover that doesn't need regular maintenance. Although discouraged, 2:1 side slopes have been constructed by other projects. The preconstruction condition of the Jonquil/Ives swale included areas where near vertical conditions existed (where the timber wall failed) and limited space to construct the new Swale at a 3:1 side slope. He stated currently, the City has spent $66,607 to construct the swale and has not offered to pay for additional work on the swale. Previously, the property owners have opposed paying for any work. He noted that potential compromises include the City building and paying the entire cost of any of the four options or choosing an option the property owners are willing to pay for. If the property owners desire a more expensive option, they could pay the cost difference between options to have a more expensive option constructed. Staff recommends before the City would proceed with any work, all homeowners would need to agree to the assessments and waive their right to an assessment public hearing. Civil Engineer Beckwith discussed the pipe option, retaining wall option, and the landscaping or fence option and all costs associated with the options. He explained the pipe option would involve obtaining additional drainage easements from two residents as it would impact an area outside of the current drainage system as well as removing 14 additional trees in order to install the pipe and construct the new swale. He stated the side slopes of the new swale would be 3:1. Adopted Council Minutes Special Meeting of June 10, 2003 Page 2 of 4 He stated the retaining wall option would involve removing the newly created side slopes steeper than 3:1 by installing retaining walls along the slopes. All 2:1 side slopes would be transformed into 3:1 slopes, and retaining walls varying from three to five feet in height would be constructed to make up the vertical difference. Any wall greater than four feet in height would require a split -rail fence to be installed at the top or constructed in two tiers, each with a height below four feet. Future maintenance of the walls would be the responsibility of the property owners. He stated the third option, which is landscaping or fencing, would address the safety issue of the slopes by installing a fence or planting shrubs along the top of the slope as a boundary between the backyards and the 2:1 slope to discourage people from going past the top of the slope. Public Works Director Faulkner stressed that the existing drainage system does adequately drain the water. He stated it would cost an additional $34,600 to construct a retaining wall with 3:1 slopes. He acknowledged that there are a few areas that need to be improved yet as well as filling some of the eroded areas. A resident asked why the retaining wall would need to be constructed at the hill. Civil Engineer Beckwith replied that would be necessary in order to obtain the 3:1 slope and the swale. Assistant City Engineer Hagen added that the footings of the wall would need to be designed even deeper if the wall would be brought closer to the swale. Mayor Johnson asked if the neighbors pursued the piping option, would they be able to get more of their backyards back. Civil Engineer Beckwith replied one would gain the 3:1 slope versus the 2:1 slope with the pipe option, but there would still need to be backyard drainage and the overflow swale. Councilmember Black stated 5115, 5125, and 5135 Ives Lane, are the properties that lost a good share of their backyards. She stated the only way to gain backyards is to construct the retaining wall that would go into the easement and backfill the area. City Engineer Hagen stated that in order to make sure the wall would stay, it would need to be constructed deeper due to erosion over time. A resident requested that there be a cage around the end of the current pipe in order to discourage children from playing in the area. He also suggested that other neighborhoods be assessed for these drainage improvements when their drainage is going through this area. A resident stated the pipe really isn't an option, as out of 10 families, there are only four families who would support that option. One resident agreed and stated that she supports the pipe option, but doesn't feel this is a problem for the whole neighborhood. Adopted Council Minutes Special Meeting of June 10, 2003 Page 3 of 4 Councilmember Black stated the City has already paid $66,607 to correct the drainage problem, but to approve another option at this point would be a direct benefit to the adjacent neighbors most affected, and those costs should be assessed. A resident who lost a considerable amount of backyard, asked why the retaining wall couldn't be moved out further so he could gain more backyard. Councilmember Neset asked if it would cost less to construct a retaining wall for only those three properties that are most affected. City Engineer Hagen replied there would be no measurable cost savings. Councilmember Slavik asked if a property owner could lower the elevation of his land with proper permits. Public Works Director Faulkner replied yes. The Council asked residents if they would be in support of being assessed for one of the options addressed this evening. Three property owners stated they would consider an assessment if they would gain more backyards with the retaining wall option. One of the property owners who lost some of his backyard offered to work on a design and approximate cost since he has experience in this area. Councilmember Hewitt stated she would only be willing to send this item back to staff for further review if the three property owners who were most affected are willing to do a cost share arrangement with the City. Councilmember Black stated there really is no "win win" situation. The pipe option wouldn't give the three property owners any more of their backyards, and it moves the swale. The only option that could assist in giving them back more of their backyards is the retaining wall option. However, this borders the City performing private property work. She stated she is real hesitant in having staff spend more time on this. Mayor Johnson stated she would support a cost sharing arrangement with the neighborhood, as this is water coming from other areas of the City. She supports reviewing safety issues and funding a portion of this. Councilmember Stein stated he is reluctant to support a cost-sharing plan, but he would be supportive of one of the property owners assisting in the design work and would consider the resulting plan. Councilmember Slavik agreed with Councilmember Stein and stressed that this is still a private issue as the drainage issue has been repaired. She sympathizes with property owners who lost property within the City's easements, but stated she is not willing to use City funds to fix a private problem. Adopted Council Minutes Special Meeting of June 10, 2003 Page 4 of 4 Motion was made by Councilmember Neset, and seconded by Councilmember Stein, to review other options that would be neighborhood initiated for staff's review. With all members voting in favor, the motion carried. Future Study Session Topics Motion was made by Councilmember Slavik, and seconded by Councilmember Neset, to add Roger Scherer, who represents the Plymouth area on the Metropolitan Council, to the June 24 Special Meeting agenda beginning at 5:30 p.m. With all members voting in favor, the motion carried. Adiournment Mayor Johnson adjourned the meeting at 6:57 p. 6ndra R. Paulson, City Clerk