November 10, 2014 Council Meeting

 

 

 

CITY OF SPRING PARK

CITY COUNCIL MINUTES

NOVEMBER 10, 2014 – 7:30 PM

SPRING PARK CITY HALL

Attendance – Jerry and Catherine Palen, Richard and Kay McCollum, Tim Luehmann, Marilyn Ronnkvist and John Samuelson, Laura and Tom Geib, Catherine and Joel Shoop, Jereld Sicard, CJ Lunning, Joanna Widmer, Mike Mason, Pam Horton, David and Sandy Hoogenakker

 

  1. CALL TO ORDER – Mayor Reinhardt called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
  2. ROLL CALL – Sippel, Williamson, Bren, Hughes, Reinhardt.
  3. INTRODUCTIONS – Reinhardt introduced the council and staff to the public. Administrator Tolsma, Clerk Lewin, Engineer Pearson, Utility Superintendent Goman.
  4. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
  5. ADOPT AGENDA – Williamson makes a motion and Hughes seconds to adopt the agenda. All votes ayes, motion carries.
  6. ADOPT CONSENT AGENDA – Sippel makes a motion and Bren seconds to adopt the consent agenda. All votes ayes, motion carries.
    1. City Council Regular Meeting Minutes From October 20, 2014
    2. City Council Work Session Minutes From October 27, 2014
  7. PUBLIC FORUM – No one.
  8. PRESENTATIONS & GUEST SPEAKERS – None.
  9. PETITIONS, REQUESTS & APPLICATIONS – None.
  10. ORDINANCES & RESOLUTIONS -
    1. Resolution 14-23: Canvass Election Results –

Tolsma said there is an abstract of the vote results.  He said 639 voters voted including absentee .  Tolsma went through the voting totals for the local races.  Sippel moves to approve the resolution, Bren seconds.  Reinhardt said she would like to congratulate Williamson as the new mayor as well as Pamela Horton who will be filling a council seat.  All votes ayes, motion carries. 

 

  1. REPORTS OF OFFICERS & COMMITTEES -
    1. Mayor and Council –

  • Reinhardt has nothing.

  • Sippel asked about the upcoming vacancy to the council due to Williamson moving to Mayor. He wondered if this is a process that will be started immediately or will it wait until after January first. Reinhardt said the city attorney has been consulted about the process and information and applications can be started now.

    1. City Administrator – Nothing.
    2. City Engineer

      1. West Arm East Public Hearing –

        Reinhardt explained the public hearing is for West Arm Road East and Engineer Pearson will be giving a brief overview of the project. Reinhardt said Pearson will give the report, council will ask questions and the public hearing will be opened for public comment.

        Pearson said in the packet there was a report dated November 7th and he will be reviewing this document. He said the scope, preliminary costs and a project schedule will be reviewed.

         

        Pearson describes the location of the project and said there is a drainage improvement project currently being performed this fall. Pearson describes existing conditions and said televising of the sewer lines is scheduled. He described proposed improvements. Pearson said they met with Landscaper George Norling to discuss potential plantings that would grow well on the north facing slope. Rip rap rock for retention was discussed and interlocking rock was explained as an alternative and a boulder wall. Other various planting was described. Material costs were stated. Pearson said fencing would be required with some of the choices. He said there is modular block wall or large block wall that come in various colors.

         

        Pearson said the road would be sloped creating good, positive drainage towards the south curb line to a ditch system. He said the proposed improvements to the sanitary sewer would be a candidate for a cured in pipe installation which is a felt liner blown into the sanitary sewer after everything has been cleaned. Pearson said resin is then injected and it hardens the felt. He said the cost savings are substantial.

         

        Pearson said the city’s assessment policy is included in the packet. He said the total estimated costs are shown on the overhead. The timeline for the street improvement project is reviewed. Hughes said he drove the street after looking at the photos provided in the packet and he wonders if some of the road would tolerate a 45 degree angle. Pearson said he hasn’t noted that but it would be verified. Hughes wonders about current footpaths to get to the trail and if they should be preserved. Pearson points out one of the paths on the overhead illustration and says it would be their intent to keep that available and perhaps insert a couple of steps. Hughes wonders about keeping trees and thinks there might be benefit to taking out trees if they’re deemed to be nuisance trees. Hughes also likes the idea of a 2.5 foot buffer zone for backing up cars and depositing snow accumulation. Pearson said even with a 5 foot boulevard, snow would have to be blown out of there.

         

        Sippel asked about the drainage swale and having discussion with Lord Fletchers apartments. Tolsma said he has conversed with owner Puzak about options. He said he thinks they’re getting close to some agreements but they haven’t been able to meet due to conflicting schedules. Sippel asked if Puzak has a preference about the ditch. Tolsma said Puzak was in favor of leaving it as is and minimal maintenance but, if the city picks up costs, he might be willing to hear more about enclosing it. Sippel said as everyone already knows, he is in favor of an easement in order for the city to be able to maintain it.

         

        Reinhardt opens the public hearing at 8:46 p.m. Reinhardt goes through the rules of conduct. Reinhardt adds to the public record a letter received from Fred Puzak of Lord Fletchers apartments. She read that Puzak wants the city to consider a design without a retaining wall and he is not in favor of widening the road. Williamson also makes note of a letter that is also part of the hearing record from resident Al Luehmann (4300 West Arm Rd). Williamson said Luehmann has some concerns about the turnaround area at the dead end of the street.

         

        Tim Luehmann is here on behalf of his parents, Al and Mary Luehmann. Luehmann said he knows a letter of concern was submitted. Luehmann’s concern is whether the turnaround would go closer to his property. He notes illustrations show no vegetation so privacy issues are a concern. Luehmann said his parents don’t want to lose any property and they don’t want to encourage more traffic on the road. Luehmann believes his father and mother believe the present road is adequate as it is.

         

        Richard McCullum (4372 West Arm Rd), resident next to the drainage ditch. He said this is a large project and his personal preference is for the simplest. He said it addresses the current road which tends to drain in heavy rains into driveways rather than to the drainage ditch.

         

        Kay McCullum, 4372 West Arm Rd asked about the walkway that goes to the trail. She wonders about road construction and blocking of the road. She thinks the paths to the trail and alternative parking needs to be maintained. She likes the rock look versus the retaining wall.

         

        Catherine Palen, 4352 West Arm Road thanks the council and staff for their efforts. She asked about the roadway improvement regarding the bituminous and aggregate. Palen said the road is now higher than her property. She said if the depth of the road isn’t adjusted for the lay of the land and, if they follow what is there currently, they’ll still have a problem. She refers to the retaining wall and wonders about reinforcement. She asked about the present retaining wall and said it’s only lasted ten years. Palen said she leans more towards the granite rock. She wonders about the fencing and how that is decided. She asked about pedestrian steps to the trail as they are used a lot. She said if there are going to be trees removed, she would like to see replacement trees put in place. Palen would like more explanation about the area between LF apartments and 4372 West Arm Road and how that is going to work. She said this isn’t temporary so it should be built correctly and to last.

         

        Joel Shoop, 4336 West Arm Rd. He wonders about the allocation to the property owners. He wondered if there is consideration perhaps being given to the fact that because the road is residents on one side of the street versus shared among residents on both sides of the streets.

         

        CJ Lunning, 4564 West Arm Rd. She asked about the rock limestone or the granite. She understands the angle but wonders how deep the rock would be placed.

         

        Reinhardt said they will attempt to answer the questions.

         

  • Reinhardt said there is concern at the east end of the road where the turnaround is proposed and the depth and width and would the road widen toward the home or toward the trail. Pearson explained where the pavement limit line is and the road widening is from the edge of the pavement and distance is about eight - twelve feet of additional width. Pearson said there’s plenty of coverage for fire response vehicles. Tolsma said he spoke with the fire chief and there was a feeling that the road could be tapered as it’s not a through street. There is also access from the east from West Arm Drive. Williamson asked about the breakaway bollards and if the surface is built up and whether that’s current. Goman said it was built to the standards of the day.

  • Reinhardt said there is concern about vegetation loss. Pearson shows on the overhead where the street is 12 feet wide and they would need three feet more. It would require an easement depending on which way they widened it.

  • Reinhardt said there is concern about construction and access to homes and driveways. Pearson said with replacement of the street section and the water main, the corridor will be under construction. He said on occasion the road will have to be shut down. Access up and over the trail will have to be maintained. Emergency vehicles will have to have access at all times. Reinhardt remembers Channel Road wherein at the end of the work day there was some backfilling done in order to make it accessible.

  • Reinhardt said there is concern about the current condition and height of the road with the road being higher than the property. Pearson said the depth of the storm sewer dictates the elevation of the roadway because of the height of the structures. Pearson said as the designer he is attempting to hold the grades as low as possible.

  • Reinhardt asked about the current concrete retaining wall and whether there were tiebacks. Pearson said there is a footing and rebar but as far as tie back into the slope, there is none.

  • Reinhardt said there was a question about fencing and what the requirements are. Pearson said the city of Spring Park has not adopted the code but a typical standard used from the bottom to the top is if the separation is greater than 30 inches, it requires a fence be installed.

    Recess to change the tape at 9:26 p.m.

    Back in session at 9:34 p.m.

     

  • Reinhardt said there is concern about including with the established vegetation more mature trees. Pearson said that can be done either under this contract or with a contract with Norling or a joint project with Three Rivers and HCRRA.

  • Reinhardt said they'd like more explanation on the drainage ditch system, how it looks and how it’s maintained. Pearson said one system is an extension of the storm system through a pipe. The other alternative would be grading of a drainage swale constructed out to the lake. He said the swale would have a two foot wide bottom. Easements would not be necessary. Pearson said the drainage swale would require the most maintenance as that’s essentially what is there now. He said even if it were mowed, it will have wetland type vegetation in the bottom. The pipe system might need some sediment removal.

  • Reinhardt asked about the city cost share versus resident cost share and that the south side abuts HCRRA and why the assessment policy doesn’t allow assessing that agency. Tolsma said one reason for difficulty is the legal basis behind assessment is the benefit and property value. He said it would be difficult to prove the HCRRA received a benefit. Sippel said they understand the one-sided street so some costs were assigned to the city only.

  • Reinhardt said there was a question about how deep is the granite and limestone. Pearson said maximum size is 12 inches as one factor and the height of the curb is 13.5 inches and 7 inches in thickness. So their proposal is fabric be put on the ground and the rocks added to a depth of approximately plus or minus 12 inches.

     

    Reinhardt opens it up to further questions again. Tim Luehmann asked how high the rock goes up. Pearson said if they retain an easement and widen the road, the curb line stays where it is now. He also added if they don’t widen the road, the vegetation remains in place. Pearson said the exception is the water main replacement where a gate value and a trench box can be used to save the vegetation so there wouldn’t be a rock slope. Luehmann asked about the property line for HCRRA as he thinks it’s actually wider than the twelve feet. Pearson said on the final design analysis they’ll be reviewing this. He said permits will have to be obtained from HCRRA.

     

    Catherine Palen said regarding the retaining wall some of the area is not sloping, it’s vertical. She said for costs she thinks the granite or the trap rock works and then some concrete walls. She said she is looking for the most cost effective and safest. She thinks both options could be looked at. Palen said there are already day lilies and hosta in place and could be used. She said they’re existing and they’re free.

     

    Reinhardt asked for further resident questions before she closed the public hearing.

     

    Catherine Shoop, 4336 West Arm Road. She said she has concerns about maintaining the trees along where LF apartments are to give more privacy and a buffer. Pearson said because of the drainage swale and the storm pipe to the existing trees, when they are installed there will be damage done to the root system of the trees. He said the trees are then weakened and wind can blow them over towards the houses to the east. Pearson said some type of vegetation could be planted, although the city would prefer not having any plantings along the corridor. He said this would have to be discussed further.

     

    Reinhardt closes the public hearing at 9:56 p.m.

     

    Reinhardt said they don’t have to order the project but if they want to put it out to bid for December, they could order it or table it. Hughes thinks the talk has been about retaining walls and materials and the drainage swale. He thinks how the south area is treated should be studied. Reinhardt said the direction to go out for bid would be the retention option. Williamson asked about the swale and depending upon an easement and negotiation with LF apartment's owner. He said he wonders how anything can be ordered if we don’t know where we’re at with this. Tolsma said an easement of the six feet of the swale would be okay with Puzak. Tolsma said he’ll talk to the city attorney about what can be done if Puzak doesn’t respond. Pearson said an advantage of the swale is the natural treatment of the sediment; maintenance is the issue. Williamson wonders what happens if Puzak doesn’t agree to anything. Hughes has concern about an easement on the Luehmann property as he’s not in favor of giving up property for a turn around. Hughes said depending on the exact width, he can’t turn around. He had to back out. Hughes said he has a concern about taking property for an easement. Reinhardt said she’s pleased that the fire chief found some wiggle room in the 15 feet being adequate because of the alternative access from the east. Goman said there is an existing easement going through the Luehmann’s property. Reinhardt said of all the retaining wall options, the boulder wall is cost prohibitive and she leans towards the granite or the trap rock. She wonders about the bidding process and if the bidder can have some input on what is used. Pearson said they can determine the limits and they will set the parameters for construction and analyzing what needs to be done. Reinhardt confirmed that the construction direction is pre-set and they bid according to the specs. Williamson likes the look of the granite and the trap rock given the costs.

     

    Sippel makes a motion to two bid options for the drainage swale and the storm sewer pipe and a third bid option to rebid West Arm Central. Bren seconds. Hughes wonders about putting in something about the retaining wall. Sippel said he didn't clarify but he would be okay with the granite. Reinhardt clarifies there is a motion and a second to put out to bid for granite and trap rock and rebid along with West Arm Central. Goman wonders about the slope of 45 degree and whether granite will work. Pearson said he is looking for discretion.

     

    Sippel amends his motion to give discretion to staff for balancing costs, saving vegetation and screening and Bren agrees to the amendment.

     

    Reinhardt restates the motion and a second to put the West Arm Road East project out to bid including both the drainage options of the swale and the storm sewer, to use the retainage option of the granite or trap rock class two with some discretion for staff to add in retaining walls in certain sections where it may be required and also the option of rebidding West Arm Central as part of this project. All votes ayes, motion carries on unanimous roll call vote.

    1. City Attorney
    2. Utility Superintendent
  1. UPCOMING MEETINGS & TRAINING
    1. November 12 – Administration Committee – 1:00 PM – Reinhardt said this has been moved to 11 a.m.
    2. November 12 – LMCD – 7:00 PM – Reinhardt said there is a public hearing on the quiet waters petition.
    3. November 12 – Planning Commission – 7:00 PM – that meeting is cancelled.
    4. November 12 – LMCD Quiet Water Public Hearing – 7:00 PM
    5. November 17 – Regular City Council – 7:30 PM
    6. November 18 – LMCC – 5:00 PM – Williamson said this is on the 13th, the second Thursday of the month and it’s at 7 p.m.
    7. November 24 – City Council Work Session – 7:00 PM (Tree Lighting @ 6:30 PM)
  2. UNFINISHED BUSINESS -
  3. NEW BUSINESS & COMMUNICATION
    1. Bills & Payroll – Sippel makes a motion and Hughes seconds to pay the bills. All votes ayes, motion carries.
  4. MISCELLANEOUS (Information Only)
    1. Mound Fire Department Press Release
    2. Westonka Community & Commerce Tree Lighting Event
    3. Hennepin County Assessor’s Report – Hughes wonders if the assessor can come to a work session to review this as it's quite comprehensive.
  5. ADJOURNMENT – Williamson makes a motion and Hughes seconds to adjourn the meeting at 10:20 p.m. All votes ayes, motion carries.

 

 

                                                                                    _______________________________

                                                                                    Wendy Lewin, City Clerk

 

___________________________________

Dan Tolsma, Administrator