HomeMy WebLinkAbout9B - Fish Point Park Pond Outlet Channel
MEETING DATE:
AGENDA #:
PREPARED BY:
AGENDA ITEM:
DISCUSSION:
4646 Dakota Street S.E.
Prior Lake, MN 55372-1714
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
JUNE 18, 2007
9B
ROSS BINTNER, WATER RESOURCES ENGINEER
CONSIDER APPROVAL OF A REPORT REGARDING THE STATUS OF
IMPLEMENTATION OF A PREVIOUS RESOLUTION FOR THE
IMPROVEMENT OF THE FISH POINT PARK POND OUTLET CHANNEL.
Introduction
The purpose of this agenda item is for the City Council to review the progress
of Staff on a previous resolution for the improvement of an open channel and
provide direction for moving forward.
Historv
The Fish Point Pond outlet channel was scheduled for repair in the 2007
Capital Improvement Program (C.I.P) after it was proposed to the City Council
last year by John Titus, a nearby resident.
As directed by the City Council, the Staff has investigated the feasibility of
deviating from its plans to repair the Fish Point Park Pond Outlet Channel as
part of the 2007 C.I.P. Set forth below are a series of letters, reports and
council actions. Each of the documents is listed in chronological order and
attached to this agenda report. A summary of each follows the list.
Chronological List of Attachments:
1. March 14 Feasibility Report.
2. March 19 Agenda Report and Council Resolution.
3. April 12 meeting summary letter including resident revisions.
4. May 22 letter to residents.
5. May 26 response letter from John Titus.
6. May 30 email response from Sandra Feldhake.
The March 19 Agenda Report summarized a February 7 meeting with
residents, the March 14 Feasibility Report and included a justification for the
recommendation in the Feasibility Report.
The City Council approved a Resolution at its March 19 meeting approving the
open channel option and directed Staff to attempt to work with the residents to
obtain easement for the planned improvements.
In an effort to give the residents a clear idea of what the approved option might
look like, and to gain feedback from the residents on the open channel option,
Staff and residents met on April 11. During the course of the meeting, Staff
attempted to give examples and options for improvement of the open channel,
detailing the design, construction timeline and methods, easement
www.cityofpriorlake.com
Phone 952.447.9800 / Fax 952.447.4245
requirements, status and future maintenance of the ravine, future maintenance
of the retaining walls, among others. During the April 11 meeting staff also laid
out a hypothetical process going forward for the preparation of easement
documents in the event that the homeowners were to agree in concept to the
project. A potential side project and future coordination meeting with the
Watershed District was discussed and its relationship to this project. Mr. Titus
mentioned that the Watershed District administrator suggested that the
retaining wall near the road may be a safety hazard and that he agreed and
wanted that issue looked into.
During the same April 11 meeting residents expressed their displeasure and
disagreement with the City Council decision and the process leading up to it
and presented additional technical information claiming it supported their
preferred alternative for a pipe or partial pipe and undermined the
recommended open channel solution. At the meeting, the residents indicated
they were against going forward in concept. In the April 12 summary letter
Staff urged them to reconsider and asked the residents to review the summary
and respond in writing if they saw anything that was inconsistent with their
understanding at the meeting. After hearing back from the residents, there
was general agreement on the text of the summary, with minor changes.
During the period between March 19 City Council decision and the letter sent
out May 22, staff fielded many questions on this issue as a result of the
residents contacts with individual members of the Council, the DNR, and
Watershed District. During this period the residents continued to press for
their preferred solution, fluidly changing the justification to fit the goal of a pipe
or partial pipe. Each new justification was considered by staff and additional
time was spent responding to and clarifying misinformation. Questions from
individual councilors were addressed as new information was presented
through multiple channels.
Since the May 22 letter went out to the two neighboring residents, staff has
received responses from both. They are attached for reference.
Current Circumstances
The residents have rejected the previous City Council resolution that proposed
the City would take over maintenance of the open channel in perpetuity under
the condition that easements be granting allowing the City to maintain the
open channel.
Through the continued pressure to change the original City Council resolution
and at the urging of Councilors to readdress this issue, the issue is again
before the City Council. This agenda report gives additional information about
the process and addresses new information and arguments presented by the
residents; however, the recommendation of the City Engineer has not
changed.
The "Issues" portion of the agenda report will summarize new information
presented by residents for supporting a pipe solution, new arguments for
creating a pipe solution, and new questions posed about the channel. This
new information, arguments and questions will be followed by a response from
Staff.
ISSUES:
Additional considerations supportina pipe and opposina an open channel
The residents previously stated their preference for a pipe system, and Staff
included their rationale in the prior agenda report. They are set forth here
also:
. It meets the goal of reducing the risks of property damage.
. It provides the owners more usable land along their shared property
line.
. The additional land could be used to relocate an association
maintained lake access easement.
. It lowers their costs for maintaining aging retaining walls.
. It is perceived to reduce a mosquito problem.
After the City Council meeting residents asked that additional information be
considered.
1. Sand pump theory I sediment transport makes an open channel difficult
to maintain.
2. Lack of oversight I alleged wrongdoing on behalf of City resulting in
increased flows is a justification for providing private benefit with public
dollars.
3. City channel causes maintenance needs of private retaining walls.
4. How can City's use of private property be legal without easements?
5. Other underground systems show a precedence that is not being
followed here.
6. The Industrial Rark City Council agenda items shows precedence of
negotiation and payment for easement rights that is not being followed
here.
7. Safety of retaining wall near road near flow path.
Response to additional information/araumenUauestions
1. Staff understands that varying water levels and persistent ice and wave
forces move shorelines over the course of decades and that sediment
transport along the shore will require frequent observation in the early
years to get familiar with the maintenance needs. Inspection of the
open channel will occur biannually until the needs are learned. Given
our experience with other outlets in the City, Staff expects that
maintenance of the open channel will occur every third year, not
including unexpected high flow erosive events.
2. Residents continue to claim that development upstream has caused
increased flows that have caused a hardship to their properties and
that this issue was the result of faulty City oversight or wrongdoing.
The bulk of development upstream of this area occurred during the late
seventies and early eighties, a time when there were no standards for
rate or volume control. Since the bulk of development has occurred the
City has created two rate control ponds in the City Park to cut the peak
rates coming though this drainage path.
3. The issue of continued retaining wall maintenance was covered during
the resident meeting. Residents will continue to be responsible for
maintenance of their retaining wall. These walls are made of wood and
are reaching their expected design life and will begin to fail due to rot.
This problem is not due to any direct flow or erosion issue from the
stream, rather this wet condition existed when the walls were built,
because the stream predates the homes in the area.
4. Section 706 of the City Code, "Excavation and Filling" is intended to
preserve watercourses and wetlands consistent with the provision of
the "Prior Lake Overall Stormwater Management Plan." Section
706.500 defers to the judgment of the City Engineer the ability to
establish a prerequisite that fill near watercourse is be set back at least
50' from the 1 OO-year storm water elevation prior to approving a
grading permit. To make this judgment the City Engineer uses his/her
technical expertise and applies policies approved by the City Council.
The policy set out in the current Water Management Plan states:
"Promote the use of overland versus pipe conveyance so that the
benefits of natural channels can be realized. These benefits include
filtration, flow attenuation, infiltration, and other water quantity and
quality benefits. The City encourages the use of natural vegetation
within overland conveyance systems." The Water Management Plan
further describes the maintenance of open channels thus: "The use of
bioengineering and natural stream technology, which mimics the
characteristics of natural streams to promote channel stability, can
reduce the potential for erosion." . / 7 to l" A 6. (C{
5. There are many pipes in the City that drain roads $~ ponds directly to
the lake without the use of natural channels. Th6se examples do not
form precedence; rather, they show a previous,!of development that
today is rejected by Engineers and is recommended against in all of
our policies, rules and ordinances. A similar open channel was
described as an example by City Staff at the resident meeting. Cates
channel flows through many areas of development that range from new
to old. New plats contain easements for the flow path while old plats or
registered land surveys and metes and bounds lots often do not have
easements. This channel is not unique in its lack of an easement for a
public flow path.
6. Because the flow path is legal and protected through current regulation,
the status quo is an acceptable solution to this issue. Resident can
keep the property in private maintenance and not grant the City access
or easements to maintain the flow path. The previous resolution
offered to take away the residents responsibility and liability for
maintenance in this area by proposing the improvement of the channel
and perpetual maintenance. In each case, the method of installing,
operating or maintaining infrastructure is approved by the Council and
designed by the City Engineer.
7. There is a 2' drop near the roadway next to the culvert that transmits
water under the road from the pond to the existing open channel. The
Engineering Department has reviewed this issue and would consider
fixing it as part of this drainage project. While the issue is minor, the
mobilization of equipment for the channel project would provide a cost
effective way to improve safety on the road. The additional easements
provided for the channel would allow this issue to be solved through
grading out 3: 1 slopes eliminating the need for retaining wall. If the
project does not go through, it would be appropriate to categorize this
issue with other road safety improvement projects and prioritize it
based on that funding source.
Staff recommendation
The policy to take over maintenance of this flow path is a responsible and
prudent undertaking for the City; however, willing participation is needed from
residents so that easement access can be granted. The residents in this case
demand that pipe or partial pipe be installed as a condition of easements being
granted. Staff does not see public benefit in extending pipe for this purpose
and is recommending that the Council let the previous resolution stand.
Other alternatives for the Council to consider include the approval of a
resolution modifying the previous resolution, this time recommending either a
pipe or partial pipe. Under any of the alternatives quick action is needed to be
able to prepare easement documents and for resident review, and prepare
plans for Council approval.
FINANCIAL
IMPACT:
The previous resolution approved moving forward with Option 1, an improved
open channel at an estimated cost of $9,380.00. As a point of reference,
Option 2, an extended outlet pipe and emergency overflow was estimated to
cost $31,980.00. The no-build alternative carried no immediate financial
impact to the City; however, the risk of private property owners risking damage
to their properties would remain. A detailed estimate of costs was included in
the feasibility report.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Take no action, allowing the previous resolution to stand.
2. Deny this item for a specific reason and provide staff with direction.
3. Table this item until some date in the future.
RECOMMENDED
MOTION:
Staff recommends Alternative #1
Reviewed b
PRELIMINARY REPORT
FOR THE CITY OF PRIOR LAKE
FISH POINT PARK POND OUTLET
MARCH 2007
I hereby certify that this Feasibility Report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision
and that I am a duly licensed Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota.
Ross T. Bintner, P.E.
Reg. No. 44570
Date
-<
6'r'"
:it
;:.'f"
v \.
~~,.. ~
G:\Water Resources\Drainage Issues\07-02 Fish Point Park Outlet\Fish Point Park Feasibility Report.doc
Page 1 of 6
INTRODUCTION
The City of Prior Lake is responsible for the operation and maintenance of the storm water
drainage system within its boundary. This report evaluates the feasibility of providing a safe and
stable flow path from the pond at Fish Point Park to Lower Prior Lake. Three options are
discussed in this report, they include improvement and repair of the open channel, construction
of a pipe network, and a no-build option.
BACKGROUND
The proposed project area is shown on Exhibit 1. The existing channel location is southwest of
Fish Point Road and South of Frost Point Circle. Currently the drainage system includes a pond
outlet structure, 45' of 30" culvert, and 220' of unimproved channel. The outlet structure,
culvert and channel drain the pond in Fish Point Park.
During the design phase of the 2006 Fish Point neighborhood reconstruction project, the
Engineering department considered putting in a pipe or drainage channel, but was unable reach
agreements with property owners for drainage and utility easements for the project. During the
street reconstruction project in this area two flood events occurred that caused damage to the
outlet system and private property. Both storms overtopped Fish Point Road causing washout at
both the road and near the outlet to the lake. These two overtopping events caused nearby
residents to reconsider withholding their approval of easements for this drainage path.
After a nearby resident approached the City Council asking that this problem be solved, the
Council allocated funds for the improvement and maintenance of this channel. Improvement of
this drainage path is included in the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) for 2007, but for work to
proceed, a right of entry agreement and easement will be needed from both adjoining property
owners.
HYDROLOGY
The Fish Point Park outlet channel drains 87 acres of single family residential area. Two ponds
in the park function to dampen peak rates draining from the subwatershed. The outlet pipe from
the downstream pond drains under Fish Point Road and has capacity to carry the 25-year storm
(Runoff from a 4.8" rainfall in normal conditions, over 24 hours). The outlet channel from the
pipe outlet to Lower Prior Lake is a natural channel with miscellaneous vegetation ranging from
grasses, to shrubs, to trees. A flow constriction exists at the mouth of the channel where it meets
the Lake, this feature is primarily made up of sandy soil and is well vegetated with tall shrubs. It
is this flow constriction that is responsible for much of the risk to private property. In the two
runoff events in 2005, this restriction in the channel remained in place due its vegetation. Taking
the path of least resistance, the floodwater washed out the nearby sand beach because it did not
have an extensive root system to hold the soils together. A photo showing the constriction and
resulting damage from water flowing around is presented in Exhibit 2.
DISCUSSION OF ALTERNATIVES
Each option is discussed below. A summary of the options is presented followed by a discussion
of engineering feasibility, regulatory requirements, and benefits and downsides of the
alternati ves.
Option 1: Regrade and Stabilize Open Channel
Summary: Consisting of side slope and channel re-grading and stabilization, this option
proposes to provide a stabilized, bioengineered ditch section to transmit regular and emergency
flows to the Lake.
Engineering feasibility: Option I consists of modification of the existing open channel. There is
a significant sediment deposit at the mouth of the channel where it meets Lower Prior Lake. This
deposit has been built up by wave and ice forces on the lake and has created a dike over the
mouth of the outlet channel with a small flow path cut through it. It was this flow restriction that
caused flows to divert and wash out the beach at 5331 Frost Point Circle S.E. during flood events
in late 2005. This alternative proposes to remove the dike restricting large flow events by re-
grading the end of the channel. In restoring and stabilizing the channel, a mixture of natural
stone, soil reinforcement and native plantings will be used.
Regulatory requirements: This alternative is required to meet DNR requirements, and State and
Federal wetland rules. A DNR permit will be required for the work proposed under this
alternative and it is likely to be approved. A wetland determination will need to be done to
determine if wetland exists in this area, the area of impact is small enough that the project may
fall under the de minims exemption. A permit will be required under Federal wetland rules
administered by the Army Corp.
Pros/Cons:
Pros: This alternative would meet the objectives of providing a safe flow path and minimize risks
to health, safety and property of nearby residents. This alternative is least costly and is
considered a prudent utilization of funds. Details on costs of each option are presented in the
"cost estimate" section below. This option is limited enough in scope that the City has the option
to use City equipment and personnel to complete the project. If City personnel were utilized,
additional savings could be gained if maintenance activity takes place on the nearby Fish Point
Park pond when equipment is mobilized. This alternative is preferred by State and Federal
officials and permits are likely to be granted.
Cons: This is not the preferred alternative of the neighboring residents. Residents may withhold
permission to access property and may not grant permanent easement for the City to maintain this
flow path.
Option 2: Construct Pipe to Prior Lake
Summary: This option consists of a stormwater system consIstmg of concrete pipe and a
stabilized overflow channel. This system would be designed to convey most storms. Large
storms would flow both through the pipe system and overland in a stabilized channel.
Engineering feasibility: This option consists of partial filling of the existing channel and
placement of one of more pipes from the current outlet location to Lower Prior Lake. Because
the Fish Point Park pond is at nearly the same level as the lake, pipes would be designed to flow
under pressure. The difficulties in this alternative are maintaining a safe and effective
emergency overflow path, and providing capacity in a pipe that will be underwater during high
lake levels. A grassed swale would remain in place along side the pipe alignment, designed to
transmit flood flow overland to the lake. Significant fill material will be required to cover the
pipe and partially fill the existing channel. Riprap rock, or articulated concrete block would be
placed at the end of pipe to provide a stable outlet into the lake that is able to withstand ice
forces.
Regulatory requirements: This alternative is required to meet DNR requirements, and State and
Federal wetland rules. Due to fill being placed under 904.00, this alternative results in a
reduction of flood storage for Lower Prior Lake and results in a marginal increased risk of flood
events around the lake. Due to the potential for wetland fill and reduction of flood volume
permitting may be more difficult.
Pros/Cons:
Pros: This alternative would meet the objectives of providing a safe flow path and minimize
risks to health, safety and property of nearby residents. This is the preferred alternative of
neighboring residents. This alternative uses high quality materials and would provide more
useable land to nearby homeowners.
Cons: The cost of this option is more than three times the cost of the alternate solution, is not
considered a prudent use of funds, and is not recommended by the City Engineer. This
alternative marginally decreases flood storage in the lake. This alternative will be more difficult
to permit with the DNR and Army Corp of Engineers. This alternative does not utilize natural
features.
Option 3: No build
Summary: The no-build alternative considers the feasibility of making no improvements to the
existing system.
Engineering feasibility: This option is not engineered.
Regulatory requirements: No permits are required.
Pros/Cons:
Pros: There are no immediate costs.
Cons: The risk of private property damage remains due to the constnction in the eXistmg
channel. The City's access rights remain limited to access and maintain this channel because the
City currently does not have easement rights for access.
ESTIMA TED COST
The estimated costs of these three options are explored below.
O' lOCh
JptlOn : 'pen anne
ITEM UNIT UNIT COST QUANTITY COST
Design Survey Hour $110 4 $440
Design (staff time) Hour $50 16 $800
Construction Survey Hour $110 7 $770
Riprap CY $100 20 $2000
Channel Excavation CY $10 135 $1350
Stabilization and seeding SY $7 360 $2520
Erosion Control LS $1500 1 $1500
ESTIMA TE $9,380
O' 2 P'
Jphon : me
ITEM UNIT UNIT COST QUANTITY COST
Design Survey Hour $110 4 $440
Design (staff time) Hour $50 16 $800
Construction Survey Hour $110 7 $770
42" Concrete Pipe Foot $70 220 $15400
66" Manhole Each $2800 2 $5600
Fill material CY $9 550 $4950
Stabilization and seeding SY $7 360 $2520
Erosion Control LS $1500 1 $1500
ESTIMA TE $31,980
Option 3: No Build
The cost of the no build alternative has zero up front cost, instead the cost of doing nothing is a
comparison of expected future maintenance cost. This drainage channel was repaired during the
2005 street reconstruction project far the cost of approximately $3,250.
PROJECT SCHEDULE
Upon approval of this Feasibility Report and a recommendation of which alternative to pursue,
the Engineering Department will move forward with survey and design of the chosen alternative
in effort to maintain the following schedule:
Wark item
Obtain Easements
Survey
Design
Advertise Bid
Bid
Award Contract
Construction
Start Date
April
May
May
June
July
July
July - October
If work were done using City equipment and personnel, this project schedule would not include
bid or contract work and construction would take place based on staff availability.
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE
The engineering department recommends alternative I, a stabilized open channel, as the
preferred alternative. This option represents a prudent expenditure to minimize risk of potential
future property damage. The open channel alternative is also recommended for being the least
impact to property and environment and the possibility to complete the project using city
equipment and personnel. The open channel solution addresses the problem directly by
removing the flow restriction that is causing risk to private property.
If this alternative is approved by the City Council the property owners may still decide to
withhold access and not grant easements. This would result in the no-build alternative.
While both open channel and pipe alternative are technically feasible from an engineering
perspective, considering costs, the open channel solution also represents a prudent use of funds.
MEETING DATE:
AGENDA #:
PREPARED BY:
AGENDA ITEM:
DISCUSSION:
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Provided for Reference
~-{
~~
~~'V
MARCH 19, 2007 (PROVIDED FOR REFERENCE)
10A
ROSS BINTNER, WATER RESOURCES ENGINEER
CONSIDER APPROVAL OF A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING A FEASIBILITY
REPORT FOR IMPROVEMENT OF THE FISH POINT PARK POND OUTLET.
Introduction
The purpose of this agenda item is for the City Council to approve a Feasibility
Report for the improvement of the Fish Point Park pond outlet.
Historv
The Fish Point Pond outlet channel was scheduled for repair in the 2007
Capital Improvement Program after it was proposed to the City Council last
year by a nearby resident. The Fish Point Park outlet channel drains 87 acres
of single family residential area. Two ponds in Fish Point Park serve to
dampen peak rates from the stormwater runoff from this area. A pipe conveys
the water under Fish Point Road to the channel under consideration.
Current Circumstances
The outlet section under consideration is downstream of a City owned
drainage system and has historically been under private ownership. This
project proposes to acquire drainage and utility easements from the private
owners that border the existing channel, and to improve and stabilize the flow
path through one of two options. The options for improvement are described
in detail in the attached Feasibility Report, but in summary they are:
1. Improved Open Channel: Consisting of side slope and channel re-
grading and stabilization, this option proposes to provide a stabilized,
bioengineered ditch section to transmit regular and emergency flows to
the Lake.
2. Pipe System: This option consists of a stormwater system made up of
concrete pipe and a stabilized overflow channel. This system would be
designed to convey most storms. Large storms would flow both
through the pipe system and overland in a stabilized channel.
Prior to consideration by the City Council, the Engineering Department met
with the affected property owners to share its preliminary recommendations
contained in the Feasibility Report. The purpose of the meeting was to gain a
better understanding of the concerns of the property owners prior to finalizing
the report, and to try to gain buy-in for Option 1, an improved open channel.
While the meeting was cordial and informative for both sides the residents still
prefer Option 2, a pipe network solution.
ISSUES:
FINANCIAL
IMPACT:
For this drainage issue to be solved the City will need permanent easements
for the purpose of repair and maintenance of the channel. During the
reconstruction project meeting, the property owners were reluctan't to give
easements because the City viewed them as a prerequisite for proposing a
design. Because of this uncertainty of what the solution would look like the
parties could not come to an agreement at the time. Through the CIP process,
the resident meeting and this Feasibility Report the property owners have been
given more information prior to this decision.
In the Feasibility Report, the Engineering Department recommends Option 1,
an improved open channel. This option was deemed prudent and feasible for
the following reasons:
. It meets the goal of reducing the risks of property damage.
. It is a prudent use of funds.
. It addresses the problem at its source, a restriction in the channel.
. It uses natural materials to convey even large storm events.
The property owners have expressed their preference for Option 2, a pipe
system. The property owners stated their reasons for wanting this option
include:
. It meets the goal of reducing the risks of property damage.
· It provides the owners more usable land along their shared property
line.
. The additional land could be used to relocate an association
maintained lake access easement.
. It lowers their costs for maintaining aging retaining walls.
. It is perceived to reduce a mosquito problem.
The Engineering Department did not recommend Option 2 for the following
reasons:
. A pipe cannot feasibly be designed to convey large storm events.
. An overflow channel would have to remain for large storm events.
. The costs to construct a pipe system are not justified by the public
benefit.
If permanent easements are granted, the City will take responsibility for the
drainage path in the future. The financial impact will vary dependent on the
option chosen. Option 1, an improved open channel is estimated to cost
$9,380.00, while Option 2, an extended outlet pipe and emergency overflow is
estimated to cost $31,980.00. The no-build alternative has no immediate
financial impact to the City; however, the risk of private property damage will
remain. A detailed estimate of costs is included in the attached feasibility
report.
Option 1 has the ability to be completed as normal maintenance with City
maintenance crews. If maintenance crews are used plans and specifications
will not be produced and the project will not be bid.
ALTERNATIVES:
RECOMMENDED
MOTION:
Reviewed by:
1. Approve a resolution accepting the Feasibility Report and ordering the
preparation of plans and specifications for the Option 1, the open channel
solution, contingent on gaining easement for construction.
2. Approve a resolution accepting the Feasibility Report and ordering the
preparation of plans and specifications for the Option 2, the pipe solution.
3. Approve a resolution accepting the Feasibility Report and ordering plans
and specifications for Option 2, the pipe solution, contingent on cost
sharing (equal to the difference in cost of options 1 and 2) from the two
benefiting adjacent property owners.
4. Deny this item for a specific reason and provide staff with direction.
5. Table this item until some date in the future.
Staff recommends Alternative #1.
Frank Boyles, City Manager
Steve Albrecht, Public Works Director/City Eng.
Staff discussed the balance of rocked areas and vegetated areas and said there is some leeway in
doing more or less of one dependent on resident preference. The rock would be fist size to hand
sized (4" - 8") with smaller rocks used to fill the gaps between the larger ones. Staff asked if
limestone or natural quarry rock would be preferred and the residents indicated that natural quarry
would be preferred and staff agreed and preferred the same.
Staff discussed the natural and/or synthetic turf reinforcements saying that it would be used
outside of the main channel on the banks to stabilize any areas there had erosion potential. These
methods would be both semi-permanent and temporary while plants or grasses established a good
root structure to hold soil in place.
Staff discussed plants and grasses saying a wide variety of options exist from the willow plants
that exist out there today to natural grasses. The residents indicated that they would not like the
existing willows in a potential new design and staff agrees because they are so prolific they can
cause problems. Staff indicated that as part of construction the existing reed willows would be
killed and removed and replaced with grasses. The group also discussed the height of proposed
grasses. Staff indicated that the grasses should be allowed to grow naturally along the banks of
the drainage way to promote a deep root system. Residents raised the issue of nuisance geese and
agreed that a tall grass area may help to keep geese away. Staff indicated mowing would be okay
in areas disturbed by construction that were not part of the banks of the flow path.
. Construction timeline and method
Staff indicated that City crew would be utilized to complete the improvements and that crew
availability, design process, and easement process would put possible construction sometime in
July-September. John indicated that his daughter is to be married in their back yard on July 21
and staff agreed that given that constraint any construction would only begin after that date.
Staff indicated that access would take place near the shared property line of residents and that one
retaining wall would have to be removed and the land re-graded to enter through the channel. This
area would be stabilized as part of the project. Staff indicated that after easements were granted,
design would move forward and City Council would have to approve plans.
The group discussed the removal of trees in the channel easement for access and construction.
Staff stated that if trees can be saved we will attempt to save them but some may have to be
removed. Sandra stated that there are many dead trees in the area. Residents stated that they had
no problems with tree removal within the channel and dead trees in the area.
Staff indicated that stable areas of the channel would not be disturbed unless used to access other
areas. The main area of excavation would be the restriction in the channel that is currently
covered with reed willow plants. There may be reshaping of some bank slopes and the project
would be designed to fit with any "add-on" projects that John may want to pursue with the
Watershed District. Staff indicated that some excavation would take place near the end of the pipe
to alleviate the standing water near the end of the pipe.
. Residents expectation
Staff asked what addition expectations residents had for a potential project. No specific examples
were given.
2. Easement Requirements
. Easement Requirements
Staff indicated that easement would be proposed to meet the criteria to enclose the flow path at a
variety of lake water levels. Staff indicated that in areas where the flow path was defined by a
retaining wall, addilional easement would be required behind the wall in case the homeowner
decided to remove the wall in the future, the future flow path would be in easement.
G:\Waler Resources\Drainage Issues\07-02 Fish Point Park Outlel\070420 Revision to summary.doc
2
John indicated that he wanted to minimize the easement granted to provide for more usable
property if he decides to split his lot for an additional house. Staff agreed that only what was
needed to enclose and maintain the flow path would be proposed as easement.
. Retaining walls
Staff explained that the eXisting retaining walls would still be owned and maintained by the
property owners. If at a future date they were to be repaired or replaced a permit would be
required for the work inside the easement. Staff indicated that at the time of repair or replacement
the City would not ask that the walls be moved out of the easement, saying they would be
grand fathered in allowing their replacement within the easement at their existing location but no
closer to the flow path centerline.
. Future maintenance
Staff explained that after being granted permanent easement the City would maintain the flow path
in perpetuity. The first few years after construction, the City would inspect the flow path for
maintenance issues more frequently to gain an understanding of the maintenance needs of the
channel. At this time staff expected that inspections would result in maintenance of the channel
every 2 - 5 years.
3. Process Moving Forward
. This summary letter
Ross explained the he would put together a summary letter of the meeting and that the residents
should respond by April 20 if they had any corrections.
. Decision date
Staff asked that the residents decide if they were interested in moving forward with the preparation
of easement documents by April 20. Sandra stated that she would like to pursue a pipe solution
and ask the City Council to change their resolution. Staff asked if she was saying "no" to moving
forward with easements under the current resolution and she said she was saying no.
. If yes/ if no
The process for moving forward under the council resolution was discussed by the group. Staff
indicated that the decision we were looking for by April 20 was only a decision to move forward
with preparing easements for the open channel project and that the residents would not be agreeing
to the easements or the construction at this time. At the time the easements were prepared the
residents would be given two weeks to review the easements and choose whether to grant them. If
they chose not to grant the easements the channel would remain under private ownership and
maintenance, if they chose to grant the easements the city would record the easements and begin
to prepare plans consistent with the feasibility report and this meeting.
4. Possible Watershed District Coordination / Grants
Ross asked if John still wanted to meet with the City and Watershed District (WD) to discuss a
potential rain garden or shoreline stabilization grant project. John said that when the WD
administrator came out to look at the site he noted problems that he didn't like in the city park
with upstream ponds. Ross said any discussion with the WD about upstream drainage path can
occur between the City and WD without the involvement of the residents and that the City would
respond to any concerns the WD brought to us. John said that the WD administrator was the
person who suggested the meeting.
John said that the WD administrator noted a potential safety problem of retaining wall near the
road at the culvert end in front of Sandra's property and John wanted that problem look into too.
Larry stated he would look into the problem.
Ross asked if John had any issues that the WD, City and Residents could meet on regarding the
segment of channel proposed to be improved. John said that he was interested in talking about
G:\Water Resources\Drainage Issues\07-02 Fish Point Park Outlel\070420 Revision to summary. doc
3
possible rain gardens or additional vegetation or shoreline management with the WD and City.
Staff indicated that we would be happy to meet with him and the WD.
Staff asked if Sandra was interested in a possible grant project add-on on her side of the channel.
The group discussed what a possible grant project might entail. Sandra indicated she was not
interested in meeting with the WD.
Ross asked John if he thought a grant project could take place on a parallel track to the channel
project the City Council approved. John said that he thought it could as long as staff keeps an
open mind to any changes that that grant project might have on the channel project. Staff stated
that as long as the goal of making a stable flow path is not compromised, coordination of a
possible WD project would be preferred and that staff could likely design the open channel as to
not limit the options a possible WD project was proposing.
Also covered in conversation was the process leading up to and including the City Council
meeting and additional technical information. This discussion took place throughout the meeting
and is summarized here:
5. Process
Sandra said that no one else is asked to take on City Drainage and that it doesn't seem fair that two
residents should be asked to maintain this drainage path. Sandra also asked for examples where
public drainage goes through private residential property without City held drainage easements.
Larry gave an example of Cates Channel that drains hundreds of acres of land and goes through
both old and new neighborhoods. In old neighborhoods easements were not given for that channel
but new plats on the channel would have easement dedicated to the City. Staff also stated if
permanent easements were given on her property the City would take over maintenance of this
drainage path in perpetuity.
John stated that all other drainage paths in the neighborhood are underground. Larry stated that
this was a different situation in that the drainage path predated the houses in the area and the
drainage area of those pipes was not comparable in size to the channel in question.
Sandra said that the Council was ill informed at the Council Meeting and that they did not get all
the information they needed. She stated she wants to discuss further the option of pipe instead of
open channel.
John stated that he talked with three out of five Councilors and that they felt uncomfortable with
the way the Council meeting went. John stated that he told Councilors that information critical to
the decision was not presented at the Council meeting. Staff asked what information was not
presented. John stated that three things need to be included in the record: The maintenance of
retaining walls, the movement of sand or "sand pump" theory, and the safety issue recently noted
by the WD administrator.
John stated that he approached the Council to add this to the c.I.P to get pipe in, and the budget
was for pipe therefore the City should put in pipe. Larry stated that the improvement of the
channel was what was included in the c.I.P and that it did not specify a method.
John proposed extending the existing pipe straight out, under the Feldhake driveway and ending
the pipe near the property line as a hybrid of pipe and open channel solutions. Staff explained that
now that the issue has been studied we have determined that there is no public benefit to the added
costs of installing pipe versus improving the open channel and we determined extending pipe to
meet the criteria of a stable flow path was not a prudent use of funds.
G:\Water Resources\Drainage Issues\07-02 Fish Point Park Outlet\070420 Revision to summary.doc
4
John stated that the mayor was creating an Orwellian government by not allowing him to present
his side additional information and issues at the Council Meeting. (Changed by request of John
Titus in email dated 4/19/07 and attached)
6. Technical
John presented additional technical information on the design of improvements in the area. John
stated that only twice in twenty years has water overflowed the road and both times were during
the 2005 road construction project. John stated that a previous City engineer Larry Anderson
worked with him to put in the two rate control ponds in the park. John stated that a log partially
blocking the 30" pipe was discovered to be a blessing because it cut the rates of flow from the
pond. John stated that after the log was removed erosion was an issue again and as a result the
engineering department put in the rate control structure that existed prior to the 2005 road project.
John stated that in the late 70's the City filled a large erosion issue that was occurring during a low
water condition on Prior Lake and many truckloads of rock, sand and fill were brought in to fill a
gully that had eroded that could have swallowed two cars. John said that that rock that was placed
in the late 70's still occasionally washes up on shore and was disturbed when the City repaired his
beach during the 2005 road project.
John stated the underwater outlet of the Fish Point Park Pond was changed from an 8" pipe to a
12" and that the City Inspector gave him incorrect information about the size of the pipe under the
road during the 2005 road construction project.
John stated that he watched the water service on the Feldhake property be installed only a few feet
under ground and near the retaining wall on the site and warned that it was susceptible to frost
given the depth.
I would like to thank you both for meeting with Larry and me yesterday. Although you have
already told us that you are not interested in moving ahead with the preparation of easement
documents for the open channel, I hope you will reconsider. I will forward this summary and
any additions you would like to make on the City Manager so he can keep the Council informed
on the progress of follow-through on their resolution, as well as to register your concerns about
the process.
Sincerely,
Ross Bintner, P.E.
Water Resources Engineer
CITY OF PRIOR LAKE, MN
Cc: Larry Poppler, P.E.
Steve Albrecht, P.E.
Frank Boyles
G:\Water Resources\Drainage tssues\07-02 Fish Point Park Outlet\070420 Revision to summary.doc
5
~<
~~
~~tP ~ ~
May 22, 2007
Mr. John Titus
5331 Frost Point Circle S.E.
Prior Lake, MN 55372
Ms. Sandra Feldhake
15084 Fish Point Road S.E.
Prior Lake, MN 55372
RE: Fish Point Park Pond Outlet Channel
Dear Mr. Titus and Ms. Feldhake,
On March 19, 2007 the Prior Lake City Council approved a resolution approving a Feasibility
Report detailing potential improvements to the drainage channel between your homes. The
report weighed the three options of improving the channel: installing pipe, improving the open
channel, and doing nothing. The report and resolution stated the City does not hold easement to
the Channel at this time and that property owners would have to agree to grant easement for the
project to go forward.
To give the residents a feel for the scope of the work proposed you met with City Staff on April
11. On April 12, 2007 I sent a letter to summarize our meeting which you both agreed was a fair
representation of what was presented, with minor changes. At the April 11 meeting, Staff asked
that you to make a decision by April 20 as to whether to move forward in the preparation of
easement documents. Although Sandra told us that she was not interested in moving forward at
that time, the summary letter urged reconsideration.
Staff continues to believe that the City's offer to take over perpetual maintenance of this channel
is a responsible policy and a fair offer to residents. After many phone calls and conversations it
is clear to me that you feel aggrieved by the process and decision by the City Council for an open
channel and your preference for a pipe or partial pipe is still strong. You have brought forward
new arguments and information to support your claim that a pipe or partial pipe would be
feasible and you have argued that open channel is not feasible.
G:\Water Resources\Drainage Issues\07-02 Fish Point Park Outlet\070522 Titus Feldhake letter. doc
I
As an engineer working for a municipality, I am asked for technical, financial and policy
recommendations. Even after reviewing additional information brought forth, it is my
professional opinion that from a technical stand point, an open channel is the still the preferred
solution. From the financial perspective the open channel represents a prudent use of
maintenance dollars, and from the policy perspective, the justifications for a pipe solution simply
does not have public benefit. I understand that a pipe solution would be a benefit to your
properties but I cannot recommend the expenditure of public dollars for a private benefit. I
firmly believe that the offer to take on future maintenance of this drainage path in exchange for
easement rights to access the channel for maintenance is fair.
I will be preparing a summary of status of the resolution pursuing the open channel for the June
18 City Council meeting. In this summary I will detail recommendations and options for moving
forward. If you reconsider granting easements and would like to go forward under the current
resolution or would like to propose other options for moving forward please respond in writing
by June ih, 2007.
Sincerely,
Ross Bintner, P.E.
Water Resources Engineer
CITY OF PRIOR LAKE, MN
Cc: Larry Poppler, P.E.
Steve Albrecht, P.E.
Frank Boyles
G:\Water Resources\Drainage Issues\07-02 Fish Point Park Outlet\070522 Titus Feldhake letter.doc
2
May 26,2007
John S. Titus
5331 Frost Point
Prior Lake, MN 55372-1906
440-5412 & 447-5184
~<
J.."-
c.
~~ ~
~ *~
To: Ross Bintner, P.E.
4646 Dakota Street S.E.
Prior Lake, MN 55372-1714
Subject: Fish Point Pond Outlet Storm Sewer
Dear Mr. Bintner,
In response to your letter of May 22,2007, I am disappointed that you are
recommending the abandonment of the extension of the Fish Point Road culvert pipe to
the lake, as was proposed by city staff prior to your employment. At the least, you
should consider an extension of this culvert away from the street, to eliminate the
dangerous pit that you have created less than two feet from the curb on an outside
curve. Through indecision, the city has created and is responsible for a serious safety
problem by creating this pit and then refusing to take ownership for it.
As far as my position on the storm sewer maintenance easement issue is concerned; I
will sign any reasonable easement that you can author, as long as it evenly divides the
land use between myself and my adjoining neighbor in the area where our properties
abut the storm sewer channel.
Sincerely,
John S. Titus
Cc: Larry Poppler, P.E.
Steve Albrecht, P.E.
Frank Boyles
Sandy Feldhake
Ross Bintner
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
SANDRA FELDHAKE [sfeldha1@msn.com]
Wednesday, May 30, 2007 9:51 PM
Ross Bintner; jtitus@integraonline.com
Larry Poppler; Steve Albrecht; Frank Boyles
RE: Fish Point Pond Outlet Storm Sewer
Follow Up Flag:
Flag Status:
Follow up
Purple
~<
"./
)-.",.. gr}O
Dear Mr. Binter,
I am responding to your letter dated May22, 2007. In your letter you said the City's
offer is responsible and fair which I disagree with totally. I decided to email all
my thoughts so there would not be any questions why I disagree with your plan. I own
100 feet on the lakeside and have 75 feet of useable property. The City uses 25 feet
of my property for storm water drainage. I receive nothing for the City's usage and
the City doesn't have an easement to use it. I do pay property taxes for the 25
feet. The channel was a natural drainage but with neighborhood development and storm
water improvements, the channel is draining more water then years ago. Many of the
large trees have died in the past 2 years which I think is due to the additional
water in the channel. Your plan does not have the City responsible for clearing
those trees and maintaining the timber wall. I don't see any advantage to accepting
your proposal. Basely the City has free use of my property with minimal
responsibility for improving or maintaining the channel. The City must have the
channel as I understand from you but is not negotiating fairly for the easement.
Last year when the street was being constructed, two men put in a "temporary timber
wall" by the street which is now a safety issue. I also was told by an employee of
the company reconstructing the streets that they were going to cut down the trees to
prepare the area for a buried culvert. I was then told again by employee that it was
too late in the year to complete. There was a lot of dirt removed from the street
construction that could have been used to fill the channel area.
I was shown a drawing of this neighborhood and noted that there are two other storm
water culverts to the lake. One culvert is on Frost Point and the other is on
Fairlawn Shores. I asked about those culverts and told that they are buried. My
question is why do those two property owners have buried culverts and useable
property and that it not being offered here. The City is using about 40 feet of
lakeshore property and what is that value? I am not suggesting that the City
purchase the property but I don't feel that $30,000 is not a lot to spend on this
project compared to the land value.
I listened to the Council meeting where a proposal for water and sewer is being
recommended for the Industrial Park area. I heard that the City is talking to the
owners about easements and purchasing property. It seems that a fair process is in
place at that area. It doesn't sound like the process that is occurring here.
I have asked if the City has a legal right to use our property without an easement
at our meeting or if I have a right to ask the City is find another place to drain
the storm water. I didn't get an answer and I suppose that is a question for an
attorney.
I have been very frustrated about this issue. I had really thought good about the
changes were going to occur and couldn't wait to see the mess cleaned up finally.
Sincerely,
Sandra Feldhake
Like the way Microsoft Office Outlook works? You'll love Windows Live Hotmail.
http://imagine-windowslive.com/hotmail/?locale=en-
us&ocid=TXT_TAGHM_migration_HM_mini_outlook_0507
1