City Council - 03/14/1974 - Other r*
111NUTES
SCENIC HEIGHTS AREA PUBLIC HEARING
Thursday , Barth 14 , 1S74 7 :30 Pii EDEN PRAIRIE HIGH SCHOOL
Council 1,embers : ;iayor Javid W. Osterholt, Joan 14eyers, Sidney Pauly ,
John :►cCulloch , Holfgang Penzel .
Council Staff : City ,tanager Robert P Frei nrich
City Engineer Carl J. Jullie
Invocation was offered by Nayor Osterholt followed by the pledge of
allegiance .
Aayor Osterholt welcomed the approximately 75 citizens to the public
hearing at which sanitary sewer, watermain , street and storm sever
improvements for the Scenic Heights Addition and adjoining areas would
be considered .
Fir . Heinrich stated that official notice of the hearing had been
published and notices mailed to each affected property owner. Intro-
duced were +r . Carl Jullie , City Engineer, and tlessrs . George Farns-
worth and Dave Udstrand, representatives from Brauer Associates .
a
air. Jullie explained that the preparation of a feasibility report was
ordered by the Council on September 25 , 1973 , after having received
petition signed by eighteen Scenic Heights residents . Petitions since
received were read . On February 25 , 1974, the completed feasibility
report ( availaSle in the Engineer ' s office for review) was explained
to and discussed by the Council after which it was received and a
public hearing ordered for parch 14 , 1974.
Residents were provided with information sheets (Attachment I ) describ-
ing each project--SAN 73-1-27 (Sub-trunk) , SAN 73-1-27 ( laterals) ,
WTR 73-8-27 (Trunk Hain) , WTR 73-2-27 A, B , C ( laterals) and
STR 73-3-27 (Street Improvements and Storm Sewer) . Also included was
a location map and a list of procedures for the project.
Illustrated by I-r. Jullie was the service area of 150-260 acres . Each
project was outlined and appropriate cost estimate given . Presented
were the two assessment methods proposed by the City (Attachment II ) .
Wembers of the Council had an opportunity to ask questions. iir.
Jullie explained to fir. Penzel :
1 . that the Richard Duvick and Clark Fifield properties had higher
assessments because the two homes were built on three platted lots
and it seemed reasonable that they should pay somewhat more than
the other units .
2 . that the eighteen signatures petitioning for the improvement
represented 3C% of the Scenic Heights subdivision plus Zachman ' s
Vi l 1 age '!oods .
3 . that in considering the alternative of not installing streets and
gutter and restoring the streets to their existing condition , it
was determined that the road would turn into a quagmire because the
present condition is that of a minimum design of oil sealeoat .
Scenic 111eights Area Public Hearing -2- March 14, 1974
After utilities are installed , there will be upheaval of subsoils
and the existing roadr-jay will be wiped out . An approximate sav-
ings of $300 per lot mould be realized if the street improvement
t-!as not included in the project.
to I,.rs . iieyers :
1 . that the storm sevier cost was spread over the entire drainage area
and not just the lots benefited by streets .
2 . that when the assessment role was prepared the City was not aware
that one of the dwellings on Scenic heights was a multiple unit .
The assessment roles would be revised to reflect that situation .
to Mayor Osterholt :
1 . that the burden of cost mould shift to the undeveloped area ( Vil -
lage Woods) if Alternate 3 assessment method w-re adopted . Upon
comparing the alternatives , assessments excluding streets and
storm se!4ers for the scenic Heights subdivision would drop from
$3436 to $$3106 while for the Village bloods subdivison assessments
would increase from $3219 to $3559.
k
2 . that in reference to the subtrunk charge , this method has been
used in two other areas--:Mitchell Heights and St . John ' s Moods .
3 . that the total estimated cost for Project SAN 73-1 -27 as listed in
It Attachment I should be $133 ,750 rather than $149,100 which includ-
ed the lift stations .
4 . that generally the developer puts in all his improvements but in
this case it was necessary to route the server and water lines
through the Zachman development in order to serve the Scenic
Heights area .
S . that it would be to the Sheridan Lane residents '- advantage if only
they were serviced with sewer and water because of their elevation .
A $350 to $400 savings per lot could be realized . However , the
remaining properties would have to pay more--$150 per lot because
of the topography as they could not be served by the Sheridan line
at a future time .
An alternative would be to install life stations with a saving of
$250 per lot in Scenic Heights but the City would be faced with
maintenance of the two stations with life spans of ten years and
future replacement.
Comments and queries mere made by residents in regard to improvements
of Server and dater :
Mr . Joe Leonard , 2217 Hillside drive , presented a petition signed by
residents who were in support of the sever and water improvements but
in opposition to the storm sewer and street improvements .
Scenic Hei hts Area Public LIEE ring -3- V,a r-C h
C C c f n i e i c h s V 0 e,01 11 S U P 1)
M r f
5 4'w e r p-r u J E c t YP . J U p 1 y to a q v e S t i 0 n POSE d by V1 Y' - P (I
s t a tF:(I z f i u re s i'c-r z; ssEssn'tents on epzfrtrients would he av ;, ilzi6l
V1 i t 11 1,1 <j e ;1. the COL,r,-- i 1 gives direction on a lateral bel-ILT 'i t�,
pot i cy a Dar-&-ment Liu 'i 1 c; i ng s
Oak Drive t-hy I E; teral sen:er nes ran
t h e r the center of
t h r o ya rd s z -i the water thrOU�ih
e s F,t ed t h E-1 eve. differential Lli c t z.-ted -14.-he r
I I ne i z; cem.,ent with lz; r-rl say.-
S torn, -ewer
r s t:c�-e n e Martinson 42 3 3 7 F e d Rock Roacl , spoke in opposition to
this Project as draiviEy.e wa.ter be e.-irected to the pond at the
vear o-►" their lot causinc, the 1 . ss of half their property withill two
years . She was informed they + -uld he compensated for that loss .
r,ttiei� lie a.skitd if other cltcrrn: tives were investigated , the. Pri:uer
ves stated 4. 1 - 1.
r-i� e*n ta t i � :-,at tw- other areas exi;mined and costs
fov-,,d' to be high er . iirs .. *."-.-.rtinson also expres&ed concern about
I -01d I)C- e1i--1-1i1Cjed -F-IS E4 1'e`� Ult Of
thl. le.r -11n.,s and WhiCh CC,
stor;] t-:ork and th?1, of the sl;orri sewer outlet 'i ritD
t!
iirs . IR, Duvick , 3331 ReCj Rcck, Roz:.d , expressed concern ovcr the
lv ;5 o-F back yarei i is-.c- F.t.Driri sei,,er drained' into the pclnd .
C-F r i z e r 51-/ tfillsi (e Drive muted the It- nd around the
o i,- ;ul b-e submerged tinti I 'Ll, e ou"A et to the south of the pond was
.6 L
b u ioutlef,- is not irclVded in the ;;rrj -. ct proposed . P.e
ask,-,z� if trio project nacre orCered that the residents he consulted
the placement of the piles of dirt n bout the ditch Ii a. '- -I . I a d & e ign
nent. ii-i c.;rder to save the existing large trees .
6r . Jack Schaubert , 14909 Hills -!de Drive , expressed concern tbout the
na'Lvral amenities due to the - er,th of V - excavation iteeded to get
the proper slope for ihe storm sewer driArizae .
6r. Tim iioroney, 8308 Sheridan Lane , questioned the need for the en-
tire storm sewer project. He added if the top of Sheridan viere cut,
natural drainage would occur .
[I;* . Da.v icf Kashinark, 830P. Slfh n-
eridn Lane , remarked that there were only
fe -i problem places so why drain those areas and consequently flood
another area .
'rIr . Jul lie explained thzA store sourers were needed to cut down the
draining of water into the roes: which would overitually cause problems .
i;,r . B-i I i Sc1itiartz, 1505I Scenic N p hts Road , responded by saying
-hat tl.,-a City ' s first ciiogineer stated the same fact five Years ago
any Scenic Heights Road is still there .
Scenic Heights Area Public Hearing -4- flarch 14 , 1974
Storm Sewer ( Continued )
V . aions , 15109 Oak Drive , discussed the ecological aspects of
knocking down the trees and polluting the ponds with storm sewer
drainage. i1r. Jul l ie replied that ponds are becoming more common
since they reduce pipe size . Storm seater state-of-the-art is not
advanced and the watersh3d districts have not required any special
treatment procedures except skimming devices in commercial areas .
Street :
°r
a
ir . Joe Leonard , 8217 Hillside drive , stated that the feasibility re-
port have no consideration to the omission of storm sewer and street
improvements . He requested information regarding the cost assessed
if these two improvements were eliminated .
11r . Ed tiowak , 14901 Hillside Drive , questioned the discrepancy between
the City ' s figures for street and curb and those of Minnetonka . Blaine
and Fridley . fir. Ju11ie explained the difference was dependent on
many circumstances . although it appeared that the roads were put in k
at no cost when sewer and water lines were installed , that cost could
have been included with the sewer and water costs .
In answer to questions from Mr . Bill Gilk , 15212 Scenic Heights Road ,
1-•ir . Jul l ie stated that easement rights would have to be obtained for
lateral work and that there would be no road improvement until Scenic
Heights was up-graded . If City street to replace the access easement
were desired by those residents north of Scenic Heights Road , the
improvement would have to meet to City standards .
Ar . 41. Rions , 15109 Oak Drive , remarked that due to the energy short-
age it seemed to him they would be helping the government by getting
along without the improved streets .
Pirs . Hartinson , $317 Red Rock Road , said they were pleased with the
present road and didn ' t want the 32 ' road as it would primarily serve
Bloomberg ' s development.
That they were being assessed for a road which would serve a future
development said Wrs . Richard Duvick , 6331 Red Rock Road .
14r. Leonard react his petition in opposition to the storm sewer and
street improvements and an opportunity was given to residents to add
their names .
Stating that they had not received notice of the hearing were :
fir . tlil l iam Wokasch , 15214 Scenic Heights Road
14r. Harry Murphy , 15101 Scenic Heights Road
Hr . Dennis Hotzler , 8217 Sheridan Lane
Hr. Allen Hoyt , 15001 Hillside Drive
'-'r . Garry Fraiser, 14917 Hillside Drive
14r . Jullie explained that the County tax roles were used and sometimes
these are' not current ; also if contracts for deed were held , these
holders would have received the notices . He expressed a willingness
to explain the project to those residents not having received notice.
F
` Scenic Heights Area Public hearing -5- march 14 , 1974
tlayor Osterholt requested figures of total number of units in the
Village Moods project and any others included in the sub-trunk
assessnent . It was his feeling that the Scenic Heights residents
were bearing a greater sub-trunk charge burden than Village bloods .
Nor . Jullie explained that the Alternate B assessment method does t
provide for equal assessment while Mr . Zachman stated he felt the
sub-trunk was being assessed on a per unit basis even in Alternate A .
Suggested by fir . Penzel was the development of assessment alterna-
tives by the staff for the Council ' s consideration at least one month
prior to the assessment hearing so adequate time is allowed for re-
view.
Mr. McCulloch felt from the response demonstrated that the resdients
want sewer and water but do not desire the road and storm sewer
improvements .
A motion was made by Mrs . 13eyers seconded by fir. McCulloch to con-*
tinue the public hearing until Vednesday , Harch 27 , at 7 :30 at the
high school ; and to direct the engineer to develop figures for the
project excluding the street and storm sewer improvement but includ-
ing the restoration of the streets to their existing condition .
Rotion carried unanimously.
The meeting adjourned at 9:35 p.m.
Suzanne K. Lane , Deputy Clerk
i