The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2006 04-10 CC MINUTESCITY OF GEM LAKE MINUTES OF PUBLIC HEARING NO. C20.06-01 10 April 2006 Genf Lake Public Hearing No, C2006-01 was convened at 7:04. PM on Monday, 10 April 2006 in the First floor meeting room of Tousley Ford. Mayor Emeott, Councilors Watson, Bosak, Schilling and Rasmussen, Clerk Magnuson and Pro ec1 Engineer Mitchell were present. Also present were the following residents: Molly McPhillips 3619 Big Fax Road Ben McPhillips 3619 Big Fax Road Carol Schacht: 1201 Little Fox. Lane Mary.Jansscn 1161 Little Fox Lane Cheryl. Kirchoff 3744 Big Fox Road Ken Kirchoff 3744 Big Fox Road Jim Kohler 3673 I3ig Fox Road Rollie. Birkebak 3775 Big Fox Road Tim f leil 3800 BiLi Fox Road Shcrrcn. l-Icil 3800 Big Fox Road Kimberly Anderson-Urpen 3646 Big Fox Road Robert Uxpen 3646 Big Fax Road Kelly Jonas 3647 Big Fox Road Duane.l3erkas 3674 Big Fox Road Diane Sweet 3756J3ig Fax Road Mark. Sweet 3756,13ig Fox Road Dawn Segermark 3635:Big Fox Road Craig :Ral erty 3750 Big FOX Road Motion by Bosak, Second. by Watson to approve the agenda for the public hearing was unanimously approved.. Clerk Magnuson reported that the public hearing was properly noticed with Public Notice No. :2006-09a.published in the White Bear Press. on 29 March 2006 and Public Notice No. 2006.0.9d mailed on 28 March 2006 to all feetitle owners ofreal property on Big Fox Road and Little Fox Lane based upon records of Ramsey County Property Records and Revenue. Mayor Emeott made opening remarks, stating that the process of securing a feasability study for the reconstruction of city streets began 2003, was ordered in April, 2005,.upgraded in July 2005 to includecity water and: sewer, and reviewed in March, 2006. The final ieasabilitystudy forthe work isto be presented: here this evening. Emeott noted the inclusion of city waterand sewer in he feasability study was consistent with best management practices and thetime line established in the Gem Lake Comprehensive Municipal Plan of 1997.. Emeott indicated that the. City is also haying a feasability study completedfor development: of. a City Water Plan which at some time in the near future could put city water in proximity to the Big Fox/Little Fox neighborhood. The primary purpose .of this hearing is to receive the Project Engineer's Feasability Study and receive public commentfrom those affected bythe proposed improvements, Engineer Mitchell then presented the Feasability Study and the Summary, copies of which are attached hereto. Following Mitchell's presentation, Motion by Schilling, Second by Bosak to accept the Feasability Report for Public. Improvement Project No. 2006-0.1 was unanimously approved, Clerk Magnuson then read into the record written comments received from. Don Hewitt of 3614 Big Fax Road and Thomas 1-lansen of 1231 Little Fox Lane, copies of which are attached hereto. Mayor Emeott then opened the floor forpublic comment as follows: CAROL SCHACHT Why 3 ''l/ :asphalt? Mitchell responds to provide for 1 '/" overlay in future -. additional .S80m for.2". Discussion of financing. Magnuson ;-,5% to 6% interest and up to 20. years. Opposed to installation of speed bumps. MANE SWEET Would waterbe installed toproperty lines? Magnuson -Yes. MARK SWEET Do costs shown.include drain tiles and replacement at subsurface soils as needed or planned. Mitchell respondsper plans. Are there estimates of'pipe installation costs for the. future? Mitchell -No. They have terrible well water and spend a substantial amount to treat same. 1 10 April 2006 Public Hearing No. C2006-01 KIMBERLY ANDERSON UZPEN Her property is clay on north half and sand on south half. Is degradationof road more likely with sand or clay and do you do different things for each soil type? Mitchell - clay contributes more to degradationassandfilters water away and remains stable. Mitchell -plans detail handling sand vs. clay. Will run offbe directed to the pond on her property? Mitchell -No. Requested a straw poll on water and sewer. SHERREN HEIL Is therean estimate of when mandated sewer and water might be implemented by a bodyother than Gem Lake? Erneott-No. KEN KIRCHOFF Is extremely fond. of Gem Lake's rural character and believes that installation of sewer and water might provide a platform forfuture owners to intensify land use damaging character of Gem Lake and therefore opposes sewer and water installation at this time. Can we install speed bumps? Magnuson -yes, although they raise problems with snow plowing.. RC)LLIE BIRK)BAK Can we legislate no sewer and water in this area? Magnuson -probably not. Discussion of regrinding and recycling roadway materials with Mitchell. ROBERT UZPEN Their water is excellent and sees no benefit to them, especially considering the additional costs of piping sewer and water across their large lot adding substantially to the overall costs. TIM HEIL 13o we invite mandates to complete if we lay pipes now? No answer. CRAIG RAFFERTY Favors minimum work now until all plans are complete. Comments by the City Council were as follows: HUTCH SCHILLING Following discussion on mandated sewer and water by the Metropolitan Council, Mr. Schilling noted he was aware of'a western suburb near Lake Minnetonka whose mandatedcosts were l4 times what they might have been with a plan.. CI -MCI( WATSON "Timing and inconvenience to residents? Mitchell-3/4 weeks. How dowecontrol costs orwe find more:subsurfaee:problems-adequately provided for in feasibility study. TOM RASMUSSEN Pleased to hear residents supporting rural atmosphere in our community. PAUL EMEOTT Postponing pipe installation could damage mature plantings in the neighborhood although directional boring could be employed al additional costs. Mayor Emeott then conducted a straw poll of the 13 properties represented: 1) Those in favor of city sewer proposal 00 Ave, 13 Nay, 00 Abstain 2) Those. in Favor of city water proposal 01 Aye, 12 Nay, 00 Abstain 3) Those in favor of patch and overlay proposal 11 Aye, 01 Nay, 01 Abstain 4) Those in favor of complete reconstruction proposal 01 Aye, 1 t Nay, 01 Abstain Clerk Magnuson then indicated that since Big Fox and Little Pox were only a portion of the proposed project with the portion devoted to I-iaven Lane and Tessier Road to be discussed Wednesday, 12 April 2006, it would be appropriate for the City Counci1 to delay action to it'sregular meetingonMonday, 17. April 2006. Mayor Emeott agreed and ordered the matter held over for action to Monday, 17 April 2006. 10 April 2006 Public Hearing No. C2006-01 Mayor Emeottthen thanked all for coming and participating and declared the Public Hearing adjourned at 8:45 PM. AUTHORED: APPROVED: ATTEST: Roderic C. Mag City Clerk. 11 April 2006 17 -April 2006 ATTEST: Paul R. Emeott - - Mayor cfiIc: Mitack \ikiiriuws120061Comicil1'iibFirg2{10ti-01. s d Summary Sheet City of Gem Lake 2006 Street Improvement Project April 10, 2006. Big Fox. Road CC4 Little Fox Lane Gem Lake City Council authorized the preparation of a Feasibility Report to review existing conditions and possible improvements in the residential areas adjacent to Big Fox Road, Little Fox Lane, Haven Lane, and Tessier Road. The summary below isspecific to Big Fox Road and Little Fox Lane. Details of this information can be found in the Feasibility Report prepared for the City. Existing Conditions • No publicsanitary sewer or water services • No reports of failing wells or septic systems • 24' wide bituminous streets that are severely deteriorated in areas with large block cracking in much of the other areas Estimated Costs. • Sanitary Sewer - $159,200 • Water Main - $227,400 • Street o Fall Reconstruction - $344.,5.00 o Patch.and overlay - $106,000 ■ Not recommended if utilities are installed Improvements Considered Sanitary Sewer Main. • Water Main • Street Improvements o Complete Reconstruction with no curb and gutter, or, o Selective Patching with 2" overlay Estimated Assessments • Sanitary Sewer $8,400 pe r home • Water Main $ 12,000 per home + Street o Full Reconstruction - $18,100 per home o Patch and overlay - $5,580 per home - Assessments based on 1.00% of project costs being assessed to property owners Conclusions The City should. evaluate the tirneframe of future sanitary.sewer and water service to this area prior.to finalizing. a plan to reconstruct the street .• If utilities are expected in the immediate future, less than 5-7 years, installing utilities with.a full reconstruction of the street is feasible. • If Utilities are expected in less than 15 years, apatch and overlay: project appears:to be the most feasible option with a total reconstruct of the streets at the :time. that utilities are installed, • If utilities are not expected for at ]east 20-3.0 years, icornpletereebnstruetion of the streets at this time. with do utilities is the most feasible. 200G. Street Improvements A-GEMLKO5O3,00 Gem Lake. Minnesota Page I