No preview available
 /
     
01/21/2014 - City Council Public Works CommitteeAGENDA PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE MEETING TUESDAY, JANUARY 21, 2014 4:00 P.M. CITY HALL CONFERENCE ROOMS 2A &B I. ADOPT AGENDA II. SPECIAL ASSESSMENT OBJECTION - PROJECT 1110 III. MNDOT NOISE WALL - DEERWOOD TOWNHOMES IV. INFLOW & INFILTRATION PROGRAM UPDATE V. ADJOURNMENT PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE January 21, 2014 II. SPECIAL ASSESSMENT OBJECTION — PROJECT 1110 DIRECTION TO BE CONSIDERED: Provide a recommendation to the City Council for formal action in response to the special assessment objection of Parcel 10- 84353 -03 -100. BACKGROUND: • Project 1110 provided street improvements on the residential streets of Wilderness Run 2 °a — 41h Additions in south central Eagan. The street overlay improvements were completed as part of Contract 13 -03. • On October 1, 2013, a public hearing was held to formally present the final costs associated with this public improvement to the affected benefitting properties. At the close of the hearing, the City Council approved the Final Assessment Roll for Project 1110 and authorized its certification to Dakota County for collection. • During the public hearing, David Hines, 4395 Nybro Circle, addressed the Council noting his objection with the $900.46 assessment of his property for the street improvements on Nybro Circle associated with Project 1110. • As a result of the street improvements, a slight street elevation change in front of the driveway at 4395 Nybro Circle was enough to cause the hitch on the property owner's vehicles and boat trailer to bottom out when entering and exiting the driveway. • The Council discussed Mr. Hines' objection. After further discussion, it was the consensus of the Council to defer Mr. Hines' concerns about the street improvements as related to his driveway to a future Public Works Committee meeting. OPTIONS: • Revise $900.46 special assessment. • Mill portion of cul -de -sac and reconstruct back to original elevation ($6,300 construction cost estimate). • Do nothing. ATTACHMENTS: • Sept. 23, 2013 Neighborhood Meeting Minutes, page 3 • Resident Letter, page 4 . • Existing Driveway & Cul -de -sac Details, page S • Cost Estimate, page ��. :01-1 Wilderness Run 2 "d & 4th Neighborhood Street Revitalization City Project No. 1110 Informational Meeting — 6:00 P.M. Monday, September 23, 2013 Conference Room JAB Attendance Aaron Nelson, Assistant City Engineer, 1 property owner of a single family ]ionic (see attached sign -in sheet). Presentation of Project Details Nelson welcomed the property owner and had an informal question/answer discussion since there was only one resident present. The resident had several questions and comments regarding the construction and assessments. Ouestions/ Comments 1. After the overlay was complete, the homeowner has had issues with bottoming out with his boat trailer when backing into the driveway. What can the city do regarding his issue? Because the street is milled at the curb line, the elevation of the pavement at the curb is the same as it was before the overlay. In the middle of the cul -de -sac, the pavement is approximately 1 -1/2" higher than it previously was. This is a minor change in elevation, so the problem likely isn't because the overlay made the crown of the street too steep, but instead the issue is probably related to the steepness of his driveway. Engineering will determine the slope of the street crown to see if it is within acceptable tolerances and consistent with industry standards. If it is acceptable, the city would not make any changes. If the problem relates to the steepness of the driveway, the owner could make modifications to the driveway to try to minimize the issue. Grades of both the street crown and driveway were determined the following day. The street crown is at 3 %, which is consistent with both Eagan and industry standards. The driveway grade is 15.3% (10% is the current allowed maximum). This confirmed the issue is not being caused by the street grade, but instead the steepness of the driveway. 2. Will the city reduce his assessment because he is having issues with backing his trailer in his driveway? The street overlay is not the cause of the issue, so staff does not propose to modify his assessment. 3. If he meets the criteria in the assessment deferment policy, will his assessment be reduced or eliminated? If he were approved for a deferment, this would not eliminate the assessment, but instead only delay payments on it. The assessment would continue to accrue interest until paid in full. 4. Why was damaged curb replaced? The curb and gutter is part of the overall drainage system, and if damaged curb were left in place it leaves another avenue for water to get into the street base, causing premature deterioration of the street. City practice is to repair curbs that have large cracks, large chunks missing in the gutter, or are heaved or sunken. Curb with tight cracks, and still operational, are typically left in place. 5. What was the intent /objective of the overlay? The primary objectives of the overlay is to add additional strength to the street section, improve the aesthetics, rideability, and drainage, and cost effectively extend the life expectancy until the next pavement rehabilitation is performed in the future. 6. When will the streets be improved again in the future? The goal is to perform two to three edge mill and overlays, approximately 20 years apart. These streets now received their second overlay. As the next maintenance timeframe approaches, the condition of the pavement will be re- evaluated to determine the appropriate maintenance technique (edge mill & overlay, partial depth mill & overlay, full depth pavement removal and replacement, or reconstruction). 7. Other miscellaneous questions regarding street improvements, winter plowing, nearby trail improvement projects, winter on- street parking policy, etc. The meeting adjourned at 6:55 p.m. 3 1 1 1 0 RECEIVED �) OCT 012013 �y�t412.o ctr�.(e. eQ, im Cx,� -- `..�2. i-u- .a�e�- /Yue�/� ^VAX-+ •����"'`�`'� O'n Cosl y SPECIAL ASSESSMENT OBJECTION — PROJECT 1110 DAVID HINES, 4395 NYBRO CIRCLE DRIVEWAY DETAILS • Driveway (4395 Nybro Circle) is very steep — 15.33% • Driveway (43 87 Nybro Circle) adjacent to north is 9.9% • Driveway (4400 Nybro Circle) adjacent to south is 18.63% • Street elevation at curb is unchanged from original (pre- construction) due to edge milling as part of improvements. • The street elevation is about 1.5" higher than it previously was about 6' from the curb. • The street within 6' of driveway has a 3% grade sloped toward the driveway. Grade is within engineering standards ... new streets are designed with a 3% cross slope. Item Unit Quantity Price Cost Mill Bituminous Pavement SY 330.00 $6.00 $1,980.00 Tack Coat GAL 25.00 $5.00 $125.00 Bituminous Wear Course TON 28.00 $150.00 $4,200.00 Total = $6,305.00 0 PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE January 21, 2014 M. MNDOT NOISE WALL — INTERSTATE 35E DEERWOOD TOWNHOMES DIRECTION TO BE CONSIDERED: Provide a recommendation to the City Council for formal feedback to the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) regarding a noise wall proposal on the east side of Interstate 35E, north of Deerwood Drive. BACKGROUND: • On March 8, 2011, the City Council received a presentation of a MnDOT proposal to implement noise abatement through the construction of a noise wall. This noise wall proposal along a segment of Interstate 35E, north of Deerwood Drive, would be constructed along the east side of the freeway, adjacent to the Deerwood Townhomes Addition. • The MnDOT noise mitigation program requires the local agency to finance 10% of the construction cost for a standard noise wall design. Accordingly, the local agency needs to approve of any such noise wall proposals. • On June 4, 2013, the Council expressed interest in the noise mitigation proposal identified in the MnDOT noise study and incorporated the improvement into the City's current 5 -year Capital Improvement Program (2014- 2018). The Council directed that a public presentation be made at an open house. • On September 19, 2013, a public presentation of the noise wall proposal was provided at an open house meeting. Information regarding the design and location of the proposed noise wall and materials to be used were presented. Clarification of impacts to trees was requested and provided. Requests regarding the revision of the noise wall design were received. 24 persons attended representing 19 properties. • A second neighborhood meeting was held on November 7, 2013, to provide an update on a revised wall design which shortened the length of the wall, yet maintained noise reduction at comparable levels. The revised estimated total construction cost is $480,800, as compared to the original estimated cost of $732,500. • On December 10, City and MnDOT staff provided a presentation to the Council representing the new proposed noise wall location and design details. Deerwood Townhomes residents shared their perspectives on the proposed wall design. A concern for the impact to the view from some of the townhomes was expressed. An alternate design was suggested by one of the residents that would reduce the potential impact. The City Council directed City and MnDOT staff to analyze the suggested alternate wall design and present said findings to the neighborhood. An update of the alternate wall design details and the neighborhoods response was directed to be presented to the Public Works Committee. • The requested additional neighborhood meeting was held on January 13, 2014. City and MnDOT staff provided a presentation representing the revised noise wall design and details regarding noise mitigation for six various noise wall options. 12 people attended representing 10 of the 36 Deerwood Townhomes properties. All of the Deerwood Townhomes residents in attendance consented to the installation of the new revised wall design with a 6 feet high minimal wall (20 feet high maximum wall). • The wall is proposed to be constructed in the spring of 2015. Final design of Eagan's noise wall will be completed in 2014. The current CIP reflects this accelerated schedule. • The revised wall length would be 1202 feet. The cost estimate for the City's share is $48,080 (based on the standard 90/10 split of the total $480,080 cost) and is based upon the standard MnDOT noise wall design. I PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE January 21, 2014 ATTACIAMNTS: Q • Deerwood Noise Wall Project Plan View, page 1 • Deerwood Noise Wall Project Exhibit (Revised), page • Meeting Attendance Sheet and `Votes', pages __L and l I r�, u vi t� W ti N 00 r- ��•• t . b • O \ © • • CL CL • ■ V 0 W LO 8 G� 0 Q J N a O w CL J J W U) z W 2 O z O O W W b w 4-� 0 0 N 0 vi O '1" C � �o o C W r� O UWiW- O�o u �nn 3 t CL C 01 C O U d a 0 t s V T U. 9 C171 t "77 YY. o ° S 9.j J z x a a J a O LL V � � w cl 5 LU u �nn 3 t CL C 01 C O U d a 0 J U) a O w a J J Q W U) O z cn W m O z O H ❑ O W W cis w 0 0 E N O M O T E C � o � w r� Z O aww Uva JF-O J a � o LL —_� LL Z 7 f' ~ a 0 cy / N N J 1 J J a H U) Z_ a C7 a J a 0 LL U) L M _ In a .S 5 W a cz Z a r a 0 m d O Mp PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE January 21, 2014 IV. INFLOW & INFILTRATION PROGRAM UPDATE DIRECTION TO BE CONSIDERED: Provide direction to City staff regarding the disposition of properties not in compliance with City Code 3.40, Subdivision 10, Clear Water Discharge Prevention and Prohibition. BACKGROUND: • On September 1, 2009, the City Council adopted an amendment to City Ordinance 3.40 regarding the Rules and Regulations relating to Sanitary Sewer Service that requires compliance with a mandatory inspection program and any related corrective work orders. • On December 15, 2009, the City Council implemented the Inflow and Infiltration (I &I) Inspection Program/Policy to eliminate clearwater flow from the sanitary sewer system. • Part of the amendment, and accordingly the I &I Inspection Program, incorporated a fee schedule that provided for a surcharge to be placed against utility billing accounts for those properties that either didn't schedule an inspection or did not complete a resulting corrective work order within the prescribed time frame. • The Surcharge Fee is $150 per month for Single Family properties and $500 per month for all others. As of November 26, 2013, the City has levied approximately 1323 surcharges (222 of these being removed) totaling over $165,850. Several of these surcharges represent multiple months for the same property. • This mandatory Clearwater Discharge Prevention and Prohibition Inspection Program (as authorized under City Code Section E — Surcharges) requires property owners to contact the City within the required time frame to schedule an inspection. The inspection does not have to be completed within these time frames; it just has to be scheduled for some date in the future. Because we recognize that this inspection creates an inconvenience on the property owner (and /or their tenant), we make every effort to accommodate busy people's schedules. The following is the current status of the I &I Program. o Compliant Properties: 18,523 o Inspections Completed: 19,266 (accounts for repeat inspections at some locations) o Non - Compliant: 845 (4 %) o Properties Currently Being Surcharged: 49 o Properties Surcharged Due to No Scheduling of Inspection: 41 o Properties Surcharged Due to No Repair After Inspection: 8 o 11 Properties with Surcharges of 11 months or more o Smoke Test Parcel: 817 • Total Properties with inspection or smoke test to date: 19,381 • Total Parcels in the City: 19,659 We have been successful in scheduling inspections for all property owners (or their tenants) who have contacted us. All notices requesting the property owner to contact the City clearly identify the potential for continuing surcharges to be levied in the event that no inspection is scheduled. While the surcharging has achieved the goal of having property owners contact the City in most cases, there are still a few (some near 3 or more years) that are not even responding to the surcharges. As part of the City Code, if the property owner or occupant fails to permit or complete a compliance inspection, the city may apply to the district court for an appropriate administrative search warrant authorizing the city to enter the property to conduct the inspection. V:t)