The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About7.a. Carrollton IV Drainage Discussion t CITY OF ROSEMOUNT T EXECUTIVE SUMMARY FOR ACTION CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: December 21, 1993 AGENDA ITEM: Carroliton 4th Drainage Discussion AGENDA SECTION: New Business PREPARED BY: Bud Osmundson AGENDA NO. City Engineer/Assistant Public Works Director � ATTACHMENTS: Dan Hanscom Letter, Correspondence AP OVED Y: for Carrollton 4th Addition This item is on the agenda at the request of Mr. Dan Hanscom who lives at 14866 Colorado Avenue in the Carrollton 4th Addition. Mr. Hanscom and neighborhood r��idents have been before the Utility Commission to inquire as to the grading and storm drain construction of that subdivision. Attached are all of the correspondence to and from residents from that subdivision and Mr. Hanscom's letter. Staff recommends that Mr. Hanscom be allowed to present his case to the City Council and we will gladly answer any questions which may arise. RECOMMENDED ACTION: COUNCIL ACTION: 9 , t November 18, 1993 To: Rosemount City Council PO Box 510 Rosemount, MN 55068 ' Attention: Susan Walsh City Assistant Administrator Copy: Carrollton IV Neighbors My r_ame is Dan Hanscom and I live at 14866 Colorado Avenue in Rosemount. Attached to this letter you will find a copy of six concerns that were discussed at a public meeting with the Utilities Commission on September 13, 1993. I am requesting that we be put on the next City Council meeting agenda, December 7, 1993, to discuss the issues related to these concerns. I was promised a written response to these issues by the Utilities Commission at the above mentioned meeting as well as numerous times since the meeting. I have made many calls to the city offices attempting to follow up with this commitment but have not received a response to date. I have received one phone call, from the city engineering office on Tuesday, November 16. This was after I left a message that I would be out of town until Thursday of the same week and after I verbally requested to get on the next City Council meeting agenda ! The designed back yard ponding water drainage system along the east side of Colorado Avenue is deficient. This design will not handle the volume of water that results from a above average rainfall and it is a major concem that its performance during spring thaw will cause problems. It is the only drain alcng these homes and has no emergency back up. Many of us have been trying to work this issue since moving into our homes, which began in June of this year. 'There has been plenty of time to work a solution if people would:have listened to our concerns. It appears that the City of Rosemount is not responsive to ttie people whom they serve! Now time is a critical issue ! . I would like to request that representatives from the Engineering affice and the Utilities Commission be present. We would like a public review of their findings so we can generate some interest in finding a solution. We believe that there is sufficient evidence and information to present at this review that substantiates the position that the swale and drain if left in its current configuration will result in damages to homes along Colorado Avenue. �� ; �G, � �' �'..L� � Y ' fi�,c c�� 'k.��ws �s n«�lrkc� �r ct'cs�s vt.cr ��+ ` �/ �fi �� . /��c.� �.��`° � � r� November 18, 1993 � � � � ��,�i��y ,�U � rd'' ` 1� � ' � To: Rosemount City Council �� . � PO Box 510 ` �� L��" � �S Rosemount, MN 55068 ��'�, �vt �,�` �- � l� Attention: �2, . ` Susan Walsh �� -'� � �r- City Assistant Adm' 'strator /�ati��-� � Copy: Carrollton IV Neighbors My name is Dan Hanscom and I live at 14866 Colorado Avenue in Rosemount. Attached to this letter you will find a copy of six concerns that were discussed at a public meeting with the Utilities Cammission on September 13, 1993. I am requesting that we be put on the next City Council meeting agenda, December 7, 1993, to discuss the issues related to these concerns. I was promised a written response to these issues by the Utilities Commission at the above mentioned meeting as well as numerous times since the meeting. I have made many calls to the city offices attempting to follow up with this commitment but have not received a response to date. I have received one phone call, from the city engineering office on Tuesday, November 16. This was after I left a message that I would be out of town until Thursday of the same week and after I verbally requested to get on the next City Council meeting agenda ! The designed back yard ponding water drainage system along the east side of Colorado Avenue is deficient. This design will not handle the volume of water that results from a above average rainfall and it is a major concern that its performance during spring thaw will cause problems. It is the only drain along these homes and has no emergency back up. Many of us have been trying to work this issue since moving into our homes, which began in June of this year. There has been plenty of time to work a solutian if people would have listened to our concerns. It appears that the City of Rosemount is not responsive to the people whom they serve! Now time is a critical issue ! . I would like to request that representatives from the Engineering office and the Utilities Commission be present. We would like a public review af their findings so we can generate some interest in finding a solution. We believe that there is sufficient evidence and information to present at this review that substantiates the position that the swale and drain if left in its current configuration will result in damages to homes along Colorado Avenue. r � c � �� _ ��. � � � �:� � �� _ � � � � , September 13 , 1993 �� Opening statement from the Homeowners of lots 5-16 , block 3 , Carrollton 4 addition, Colorado Avenue, Rosemount , MN . to the Rosemount Utilities Comrnission. By design the homes along the East side of Colorado Avenue, in the Carrollton 4 addition, lots 5-16 of block 3 , have a back yard drainage system referred to as utilizing "linear backyard ponds" or ponding to facilitate drainage or water runoff . The measured elevation from lot 12 (and probably lot 13 and part of 14) to the drain has a grade of 1 . 5 feet . One faot of the 1 . 5 feet resides in lot 8 , adjacent to the drain, which leaves 6 to 8 inches for lots 9 through 13 . Stated differently , it results in 6 to 8 inches of grade in a minimum of 375 feet across lots 9 through l3 , which is a . 13o grade. The design calls for a . 6 to . 7% grade. (Reference to Ietter from City Engineering dated August 31 , 1993 . ) This should have resulted in a 2 . 25 to 2 . 63 foot grade across the same distance. The issues as we see them are: 1 . The slope of the swale is not adequate ta drain the yards . Yards have standing water in them for too long a period of time, days in some cases . 2 . Zn the 3 inch rainfall af August 18 , 1993 water almost entered 2 or more homes . As a result we believe that the "back yard ponding" capacity is insufficient �or storms of any magnitude . 3 . As a result of the experience of #2 , we also believe that - the one drain that is available has a bottle neck effect on drainage. It cannot handle the flow of water . 4 . There is no emergency back up or reiief for the one available drain. The elevation to the next drain is too high to prevent homes from being flooded. 5 . The current condition of the back yards does not meet the original design requirements , which may in themselves be questionable . 6 . The issue of easements is a concern to all of us . a. They are excessive . b. They were not disclosed to us as buyers prior to purchasing the property . c . We have nat seen any explanation of the restrictions of the easement . ie. . can we build decks , porches, do landscaping etc. . within the easement area. We are asking the Commission to help us solve this drainage problem before any damage results to personal property . We are also asking the Commission to help us work the easement issue. Y t i�� o osemoun� PHONE (612)4234at1 2875-T45th Street West,Rosemount,Minnesota MAYOR FAX (612)4235203 Mailing Address: Etlward B.MCMenomy P.O.Box 510,Rosemount,Minnesota 55068-0510 COUNCILMEtdBERS Sheila Klassen James(Red)Staats August 31 , 1993 "a�ry w�"�X Dennis Wippermann ADMtNISTRATOR Stephan Jiik Carroliton 4th Addition Residents Re: Carroilton 4th Addition City Project #227 City of Rosemount, Minnesota Dear Resident: We are writing this letter in response to a letter from Mr. Dan Hanscom of Lot 12, Block 3, Carrolfton 4th Addition. Mr. Hanscom raises various issues regarding the constru�tion and responsibitity for the referenced subdivision. The Carrollton 4th Addition is the third phase of a Planned Unit Development project which was initiated in 1986. This project was a private project, meaning that the developer was totally responsible for hiring �a planner and an engineer to design and layout the development and the hiring of a contractor to construct the utilities within the subdivisions. A major trunk sanitary sewer line flows through the 4th Addition between Lots 5 and 6 of Block 2 and Lots 7 and 8 of Block 3 and then proceeds southerly in the rear yard areas of Lots 8 through 18 of Block 3 to County Road 42. ( A copy of the plat is attached for your reference.) This major trunk sanitary sewer line was installed in 1973 to serve the western part of Rosemount. Also within that same easement area between Lots 5 and 6, Block 2 and Lots 7 and 8, Block 3 is a storm sewer line which flows from east to west to Shannon Parkway. In addition, between Lots 7 and 8 of Block 3 is a watermain which connects the watermain within Colorado Avenue to a watermain in Cimarron Avenue. Easements necessary for the utilities are shown as on the attached plat. The sanitary sewer easement frorn Lats 7 and 8 to the south is 40' wide. In addition, it is 35' wide between �ots 7 and 8 and Lorts 5 and 6. The storm sewer and drainage design required an additional 5' for a total of a 45' easement for Lots 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 of Bfock 3; and a 30' easement was required to the :�orth. The easements were dedicated for City utilities with the plat of the subdivision. The storm sewer and pondi�g system works much like other ponding systems within the City. The only dif#erence is that these are linear backyard ponds which rise with a large rainfall event and then slowly drain away through the starm sewer system. 1n addition, the developer designed the system so that walkout lots could be built on C�ve►-��1ing s �omtng `(/C�i C�ospmoun}�� s � Carrollton 4th Addition Letter each side of Colorado Avenue which required that a slope be graded north and south to the low point catch basin which is within the easement between Lot 7 and 8 and 5 and 6. Please note that even Lot 21 along County Road 42 has a 50' wide drainage easement in its rear yard area to accornmodate the run-off. The design for the storm sewer was reviewed by the City Staff and modified slightly utilizing a beehive type structure for the outlet between Lot 7 and 8 instead of the flared end type arrangement used between Lots 5 and 6 and found throughout the rest of the subdivision. This did require a modified slope but was very slight. The design grade or slope was 0.6°/o to 0.7% which is very flat. This modification was reviewed by the design engineer and confirmed that the design would work. The modification was made to lessen the maintenance of the outlet and to improve the aesthetics of the area. This storm sewer system worked very well in the 3" rain we had in %2 hour on August 18, 1993. The water did pond for a period of time but did drain out quite quickly even with construction debris and long weeds obstructing the outlet. In ac�dition, much of the property was unsodded as of that date. When the area is totalljr sodded the system should be enhanced. The grading of this rear yard swale area has been a big concern to many people. It was a major concern to the City and the City Engineering Department that the construction of the swale was not done according to the approved plan. The City Engineering Staff spent many hours fielding questions from residents and asking the developer to complete the grading so that homeowners could sod their yards. Grading for this subdivision was initiated in May of 1992. By June of 1993 we had spent many hours trying to get the Contractor to complete the grading in this swale area. On June 24, 1993 we sent a letter to all of the homeowners in the subdivision explaining that the grading of the swale was very important and that the contractor would be mobilized very shortly to finish the grading in that swale. On July 29, 1993 we sent out a memo to the homeowners stating that the contractor had finally completed that grading. At no time did we take the responsibility for establishing the slope of the swale. This was always the responsibility of the developer and contractor. This grading is not unlike most subdivisions except that this swale area, if not c.onstructed properly, could dramaticaUy affect the storm sewer system. It was our intent to have the contractor complete it in a timely and acceptable manner so that homeowners could sod their lots as soon as possible, 2 x < Carroliton 4th Addition Letter The City Staff was never instructed to back-off of this project. We simply had spent an extraordinary number of hours on this particular issue and felt that the developer may respond better if the homeowners ca{led him directly and requested that the grading be taken care of. The grading on the west side of Colorado Avenue was completed per the grading plan in a more timely manner. This may be attributed to the fact that the homes were completed sooner in that area and didn't have spail piles from basement excavation in their rear yards. As far as disclosure by the City of the easements and design of the subdivision, we did talk to many potentiat buyers of lots within Carrollton 4th Addition and gave them all the information we had. We are not involved, nor do we ever become involved in the sales of subdivision lots. However, we are always open and do provide much information to prospective buyers of lots within the City of Rosemount. In closing, this storm drain design in this subdivision is somewhat different from many subdivisions because it utilizes rear yards for storm water ponding. All drainage ponds rise and fall with intense run-off and slowly outlet the ponded water. This design was designed by a registered engineer and is working. The drainage easement and swale in the rear yards is relatively flat but it does drain. We apologize for the confusion created by these grading issues and timing of the construetion of the swale. We are trying and have been trying to address concerns of the residents in tMe subdivision in a proactive manner. Please call me at 322-2022 if you have any further questions or would like to set up an appointment so we can sit down and discuss the issues as they relate to your particular lot. Sincerely, �� 'L�t� ' ld-1 z�c��_ Bud Osmundson, P.E. City Engineer/Assistant Public Works Director cc: Mayor & City Councif Steve Jilk, City Administrator � Ron Wasmund, Public Works Director Lisa Freese, Planning Director 3 . t .�-� �C��.C� T�� - TN A�C� , 1T��' ._ ;:., . ,.�`. .. ,.� . . . . ;,.,�'"-' r� �;� +�\i . �L• ` . '�:.� .1' J .-^ " i j.i .� � h•-��j 1 r� ,~f_1{i��'`1 �+��'� �1 f� � �i." ' ,.,_�� . �;� � i �� 1 � � - �_I�� r�� '��`' �� -. � �, ' ` ��-:"� ''1:�i �..�-.; 'i �:�•� � !� �� h ' �i�it � _ -� %' � :� ,^t •�� I' � `�'�/� � • -.": •�::' � ''"�'�'`� �, � �r � ; �--,5� ,.� r-.r,�.,�•` � � . ,-r,;,;;:;.; ��r„ � �, - � �•�Y i. •i _.-�' _ ---S r°p9'35"W i5r3.92--- , �� . -. C � w7600 r�ob �a.00 7300 76.00� 73.N R9,�2 : °p000 6.00 Y • o ,�� e l"_ .- 3 _ 9_.00n .o�.Q�� QDQ_ �'��.Q�_ �6.Q�_. ��QS�t _ r. f"';-t r----'i t'----rr---� r---� � � „ ` _ C�A1..+ _ !.�.Q?_ -0 ' ��.si �. � � 1 � � 1 1 1'---� r-- ` - - - - I 1 � � ----�-' w � j h.� �`��, � � �N 3 � � 4 � i 5 � 6 i 7 �:..��_�'•� �_''Q--� � J 0 �i � J 1� r '_t I" _-� r- -��-- '7 r- 'k7 r--- - -r�J � a , �w� �'u� � io �o � <<� � ��. �' � try � �N 1 �, 1 � )2 � : 1 3 i 1 14 �� 15 � �N 16 5�.� � 77 �.a%.� e� I8 � �•_' � 'av� I°o� "�I �=' I I� �in �� ` i �e t� �I � I� �� O ��F � 4 �� ma C.�� ,� � P° �i p � o:b \ ��' /. N � o- n n ' I 1 i � � � 11 � Id � � I I� i 1,� Aos'�� /:` �yS/'/ CD_ 2 t;:�j „�I I � ( ��" t 1_ � ��+ (_ r( �n � tn I � . � rr � r� � 1_ � - I r' �� j:ry, ��bS \ \ � �N � ♦ I�� ..;J�L73s�� 7y.�JL».OPJ � 71GPJ1�89_.�2� 9QQ0 � 13.00 �_75.00� 13A0 � � 73001 � �73.00 � �_ �� II Zlli;�+ a/�o�y�Rd \ �/ i a'`. �' • � �- --� � __-' t___--� '-_-_ �__._.. . ;Feo�� >aoo� ��r._cc J E•_ � hi�,hb'oS �� . t9 ao i ,,i�Fti�J ,� n... :,1 -•.' Si09S5'x ;y -- -- - �;� � �� " �J .-tt� .� � c � ,�n a7 .o.n v 60�..:,.,-- , _ , _ na.oa •--• •- ^' p= �\ �g2`':o•' .,'� � !2��3V w ' ' �/ ,� 'a. ' ''�+ • � ' rs � F/V A , ^`_ F�pr �i��d' g.\� � �a f97�7f _ -�� `� , ,._ , ' '�. , L-O O YE UE , „ '--� ��s�o�,� ; s� � ��1.� 0 �.� a �1 ti r_.�__,..,�r'_...._ i_ +t. ( ' `- 1�_ • - - f—: (i_�..._,-. � ]' �6 �° � �' �Ral�io�� .) � -.r . ^' �.. � 293� � L7.00 �� QLOP �� T.CA�� W.00. �i'e"s.�� e�.OQ� r-PZ.Ao� 1 N�.CO�� Dt.CV1' 82A0� t�.W .�4 � 'd•� 1 iS5?� p E ...:'..•j /�► /y ^�� 1 .. �: � 2 i i � � r i � 1 82.00 i EDX .� a 29 2�f a2�°lQ`L .... �nl �O 1�O O �� 1� 7 16 I I � 1� I� 1 . � � `1� I � 53 � iti6,..o o , b ! 0 2 0 3 lio_ � �I1g-' S � ° � ° � � jP '�� ` � �• .�u�' L----- ' i r 1 n I r N o G 1 i o � � u J 1 ti �Ib !2 �0 13 t� 14 --� c � ��+8.f6 � 6•:5 2dc?' o � �nt I 1 j 7 � 1 8 1 ``'v 9 0 1 O I d 1 ` i r' � � � 4, � i �^'-:,, � � r: ,�N 'z � � �� r • t,:6 6'� .. � e I 1' I�a �. M w � t�� rv � I N I ci �" ��w r� "� a 1 vi � tS O�� r (o O:�o I c� � . ; a :� � �- � i�- �� N -� �� .,� • $ �z'ra 2J�: ,_c�sr. -�� - °G 1 �; � �l_ �rl..5l_ J �_ -►",;+;-- 1 �--- -�1_�_J � ii i� � it� �� =� e H je i - � �, T_N ,� ', �.ia� /� � 07.00�J � 8�.00 97.00 g0.00% . O:.Op R2.U0 A2.00«� I...e2_�_J L_8L00 J l_82.O�.J�_ l2.�? 1_R=�J L_4R!9 J �o�D^ 1�fNZ�0Y�E1 `� � .��,�^,C/�� p3{O.oa �OL. \.� / '• . zi)c r �� i Z4 S�. � • �• \,r � � `.. . . . � _._�I �O 165.00 � ��. �•�. o' L' / �,i '�j n�j3 0 � � a =) �o ��.00�:� tp� p'� g _._�1 f 09 35 E ra c_ �0 3 i�� ..� ---�D�q62 ,-, .; 1168.49--- , IZ �� o � ` , , ;�,.. � ;I , °5 , o ; �� ` \ np°��i'K 'ip�.� � � N�6 p� •:;-::;'"�'•" ; -- . . 5'' � io �� Zg�6 �p\ �� ,Z � S63 Io31"W . •_i�._,..' r �^��'�t ,� ' �9�� Q460` �-- -- � H � t j ) �,�.� �3t2Q� '✓� '� i �r 5 � � � � .r, ��u� 2 ��'�` od. � �,,.,�-- ' f �� _i,�'r' �� ' t55.00 • � �'�, `o �'� o� �'�' ' `- :-�-.�- _—I `�' NOe24��E' : !L° , , ' r•`�t ,, �'' p. V%pO� �\ •,�o i ,'� �'/:`�1 7T.iY i' ��?��• y- ��a.�tl; � �. `I, ; r,.' .� .�1.,.. . .. . . i � ,o , , :_..,�:. ��; o �;:,,. � �s tS� a � � o _ . v+ _ _ � \O t O C,/� ' ! . '"�t: . a �- ,,, -� o . > � ,� � � �� '` SiAiE CF Mj;�t(f;OTh ^� � L� 'ZDO(7%9 6� CG�:i�TY OF .t�K�71A 1 lie :or� ; : :�:•�,I \ �� ,�_- �26 �/ ��.c. .gving nstrvmcn: e•a> xcknoxl�doed be:er� a�: thts �i•' ` ° ,; �.��I��'��'_ �� 1952 Cy :h> J,Y -' [ t� ` :1'� 3nJ --------- r f� thc of said Yalley �i t;., Ilstional Dank, a naticna: bsnl:Tn 9 �ssociation, �, l.. . �`.;•:llr � t:.�r�i:� , tlatar� Put�)ic. Da{:o:a C�un�y. ;1inn.•:,.r, , . Thursday, September 2, 1993 Carrollton Neighbors, lots 5 through 16 (and any others interested}: My wife, June, delivered our neighborhood letter to the Utilities Commission today which was in turn copied to the Director of Utilities and the chief of City Engineering. I followed up with a phone call and they asked if I would like a special one-on-one discussion, a letter response or a public hearing. I said that I believed our neighborhood would like a public hearing with "eyeball contact" concerning the issues regarding our water drainage problem. This is our chance to file our complaint, face the city engineer(s), go public and make things formal regarding conective action. Please mark your calendars, we are on the agenda for "Carrollton 4" discussion MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 13 � CITY COUNCII. CHAMBERS ROSEMOUNT CITY HALL STARTING AT 6:30 I don't know who is all on the Utilities Commission and I have not done this before. The more of us that can make it will ensure that all of the issues will be voiced and discussed. To facilitate any written communication I put my full name, address and phone number on the letter submitted to the Commission. You will note on your copy of the letter that a few of us listed our specific concerns, it may be a good idea if we each write down our concerns as a discussion reference - remember we are on their turf, not ours, which gives them the edge. Not that this should be adversarial but you never know !!?? See you there. Any questions please call or stop by. And thanks for helping out ! So it begins !! ?, / �/T � + /�,� _�.--- t � .. . / August 3I , 1993 Utilities Commission Rosemount City Hall P.O. Box 510 Rosemount , MN 55068 Attention: Cindy Dorniden/Ron Wasmund To whom it may concern: We, the homeowners in the Carrollton 4 addition lots 5 through 16 block 3 , would like to file a formal complaint and request for corrective action concerning the water drainage situation prevailing in our back yards . The specific situation is that the current designed water drainage system is not sufficient to adequately drain water during storms of inedium strength and more critically has no emergency relief feature in the event of an obstruction to the only available drain. It is our position that this condition is an urgent one in that if it is not addressed before winter the following spring thaw may cause very expensive damage to many homes along Colorado Avenue. We are therefore requesting the assistance of the Utilities Commission in prescribing a course of action to be taken to resolve the situation, before it becomes too cold. We also request the Utilities Commissian to eommunicate with the City Council and not approve the development in its current proposed plan, the developer must be involved in this action. We also need the Commission to assist us in clarifying who is financially responsible for the inevitable damages in the event corrective action is not implemented in time . The City, developer and builders have all claimed innocence and we cannot seem to get any action. As background information we offer the following . Many of the homeowners have tried to contact the Rosemount City Engineers to get action and to express concern. This concern began in June of this year . On June 24 the City of Rosemount Engi.neering office sent out a letter to the homeowners stating that the builders were responsible for the final grade to the approved plan but that the city had "arranged with the developer to -have a contractor come in to grade the back yards one final time" . Some of the yards had a final grade and one was sodded. ( In a subsequent letter the Engineering office has stated that the designed drainage system was somewhat different than others in that it uses "linear backyard pands which rise with a large rainfail event and then slowly drain away through the storm sewer system" . Another reference in the same letter refers to the system as one that "utilizes rear yards for storm water ponding" . This is the design in question. ) On July 29 an inspector from Imperial Developers , an engineering representative from one of the builders and the homeowner of lot 12 met to take some elevation readings of lot 12 because the homeQwner felt the current system was going to fail . The inspector from Imperial Developers took readings from lot 12 through lot 8 to the drain. He verified that the � slope of the swale to the drain met the approved plan. The distance was approximately 390 feet to the drain and the slope from lot 12 was approximately 1 1/2 feet (a . 38� grade) . one foot of the grade was in lot 8 , leaving the remaining lots 9 through 12 very flat . He further verified the grade of lot 12 met the plot or building specification. After the inspector left the engineering representative for the builder stated that this was a "lousy situation with no emergency relief" . A design that was "waiting for an accident to happen" . Both observed that there was standinq water along the system. Since July 29 many of the homeowners have finished final grade according to plan and have begun sodding . On August 18 , 1993 , the Rosemount area experienced a 2 1/2 to 3 inch rainfall , most within 30 minutes . Although water ran quite rapidly through back yards it came within 12 inches of at least one doorway and within 1 inch of another . As of the date of this letter there is still standing water , some on sod and some on dirt . There are many walkout and daylight windowed homes along this drain system and these homes may be the ones to get damaged and are questianing the design of the current system. Additional supporting details are attached. We thank you in advance for the immediate attention this issue receives . �� L � � c `'{,�� %(� � = t <<�� '/ ��z��'�'�r' (`-�1�/� J � �... _ 4 . �J il w• V�CJ � C� c `� (,�./l.�C ' �J I � � �� l,t��J%�.� 5'� �'�'".c�-/`�� LL--- , / /"�'�e��. C��Cti�T � � -��'�� ' 1 1 • . . . / Specific homeowner comments/concerns : 14782 Colorado Ave. , lot 6 1 . On or about July 10 , 1993 the water level in my back yard was 1 inch from my back door, covering the cement pad outside the door . 2 . August 18 , 1993 a 3" rainfall brought water within 1 inch of my back door again covering the cement pad. A letter dated 8-31-93 from the City Engineering office stated that "this storm sewer worked very well" in this 3 inch rain. Mr . Osmundson obviously wasn' t in my yard! 3 . August 18 , 1993 the same 3 inch rainfall .flooded the street in front of our house and for about 200 feet to the south, in front of the next 3 houses . 4 . Any amount of rain produces larqe (l0 feet or larger) puddles in my back yard. 5 . My yard has not been totally dry since we moved in an May 28 , 1993 . 6 . The elevation of my lot is 952 , the elevation of the drain on the west side of Colorado Ave. between lots 5 and 6 is 954 .7 . Obviously my_ yard is the planned overfiow which is exactly what happens and this should be corrected. 7 . � I have lost a great deal of top soil because the back yard has not been in any condition to sod, ie. it is always very wet . 8 . My basement will flood with a heavy rain and I am positive it will flood in the next spring thaw, I would like to know who is qoing to pay for the damage? lot 8 l . Water came within 1 foot of the back door in the August 18 rainfall . lot 9 l . Water came within 2 foot of the back door in the August 18 rainfall . 14852 Colorado Ave . , lot 11 1 • Water pools after rain - takes several days to drain. 2 . Grass is a.lways soggy and muddy in a 8 to 10 foot area where "drainage" is supposed to occur. 3 . Our easterly slope (oid neighborhood) continues to wash away along with our sod. 4 . Had we been aware that such incompetence and poor quality of workmanship was considered acceptable we would have purchased a different lot . 5 . We have children and in the future we plan on having a daycare business . Because of the saggy muddy conditions, the backyard is virtually worthless ! 148b6 Colorado Ave. , lot 12 1 . The lot has not drained water properly since the beginning . 2 . The lot has been wet almost constantly since spring. Moved in May 28, S builder could not do final grade until July 20 because it was too wet to get a Bobcat in. It prevented sodding until recently when we sodded it wet . 3 . We were informed by the city that sodding would help dry up or absorb some of the water, even after sadding the lot has not dried, this is obviously not the solution. 4 . During the 3 inch rainfall water was within 4 feet of our foundation. We have daylight windows with little external block along the back wall . Not much room in the event of drain blockage . - 5 . Contacted builder ' s engineer and his opinion is that the current systern is not going to work and some homes are at risk . Would be willing to testify in court . 6. Tried many times since June to get someone to work this problem. One City Engineer stated he was told to back off when requested to come out to the home to view the situation. If there was any cooperation with eity or developer issue cauld have been resolved before final grading and sod. 7 . As of this letter the lot is still wet , sod sinks in mud and it has been 3 to S days since any rain . 8 . Have numerous pictures as evidence of the lack of proper drainage . 9 . We fear water/rnoisture damage will result if sewer is backed up, glugged or if there is anything greater than a 3 inch rainfall . 10 . Eelieve that the current designed drainage is not ever going to work . 11 . From the available data I have the emergency cirain relief in the event of a heavy storm or i� the ONLY drain plugs is the back yards and evidently the basements of the homes along lots 5 to 14 . 12 . If the current design uses the back yards as ponding in the event of heavy rainfall one thing that strikes me as odd is that the grade is too flat on key lots , from the swale low point to the door there is not enough grade to act as a pond, z.ero capacity for water ! Bad design! ! ! NOTE : There would have been many more comments and observations had time permitted. We desire to get on the September 13 agenda so had to move quickly on the collaboration of this letter. � s CITY OF ROSEMOLJNT EXECIITIVE SUMMARY FOR ACTION UTILITY COMMISSION MEETING DATE: September 13, 1993 AGENDA ITEM: Carrollton 4th Addition AGENDA SECTIONr Complainants New Business pREPARED BY: Bud Osmundson AGENDA NO. City Engineer/Assistant Public Works Director 5a. ATTACffi�SENTS: Punch List Letter, Letter from AP O BY: Residents, Letters to Residents .�,�,�� Attached is a letter sent to homeowners in the Carrollton 4th Addition which was in response to a letter received from Mr. Dan Hanscom who lives at 14866 Colorado Avenue within the Carrollton 4th Addition. � That letter is attached along with memos dated June 24th and July 29th to homeowners within the subdivision, plus a letter dated July 19th to the developer of the subdivision. In addition, a copy of the plat was attached with a letter to the homeowners. Mr. Hanscom raised many issues regarding the grading, drainage and responsibility of the construction of the utilities within the 4th Addition. Of major concern was the grading of the swale and the storm drain engineering. Please read the materials and call me if you have any questions regarding this issue. Since sending the letter dated August 31,. 1993 , the City received the attached letter dated August 31, 1993 from numerous homeowners from the Carrollton 4th Addition. There will be a few of these neighbors attending the Utility Commission meeting and wishing to speak in reference. to their concerns . We are having a survey performed 1to verify elevations of swale and buildings . We are also conferring with the design engineer who is out of town until Monday afternoon. We will be reviewing this information with you Monday night. RECOIMIl�SENDED ACTTON: MOTION TO TABLE ANY ACTION UNTIL THE ENGINEERS HAVE CONCLUSIVELY REVIEWED THE CONDITIONS. COI�IISSION ACTION: 3 t �� z�� o os evnoun� PHONE (612)423-eclt zg75•t�StA Street West,Rosemount,Fdin�ewta MAYOR FAX (612)<235203 . Maiiin4 AdCrou: Edwud B.I�AcM�nomy P.O.Boz 510,Rosamwnt,MinnesoU 55068-0510 COUNCILMEi,t8ER5 Sd�ila Klas,s�n James(FisC�Staats June 24, 1993 � ►+Lry�,r�,x Ds�nis Wipp�rtnann . A�MINISTRATOR � Homeowners in Carrol(ton 4th Addition S��°t"r`'',� Re: Backyard Dra' and Swales to Storm Sewer Carroliton,�"��t n . City Projec�#227 � . � City of Rc(semoun innesota � Dear Homeowner: First af ali we wouid fike to welcome you to Rosemount. � The storm sewer system in your subdivision is designed in a manner so that each backyard drains .xo the north or south to the storm drain pipe as shown on the attached drawing. This storm drain system f(ows from the east to the west to Shannon Parkway where it is intercepted by a (arger pspe. These backyard drainage swales are very important in how the storm sewer system works. In instances of very heavy storms this drainage will back up from the storm sewer area and pond for a , pe�iod of time before draining away. 'Therefore it is very critical that each and every a backyard be graded according to the Grading Plan: It is the builders responsibi(ity to insure that this Grading Plan is completed according to the plan on.file at the City. As of today, Thursday, �June 24, 1993 after visual observation, it appears as though none of the backyards have been finai graded ar sodded. We have arranged with the developer to have a contractor come in and grade the backyards according to the plan one final time. However, if your builder has put his spoil pile from basement = excavations in the rear yard area it wili need to be removed. If you are a buiider we _ respectfully request that this be completed as soon as possible. We thank you for your cooperation on these matters. (t is af the utmost concem for your homes that these Grading Plans be followed by each and every builder and/or homeowner. 'Sincerefy, . -- � � , . . _ /i� � • Bud Osmundson, P.E. City Engineer/Assistant Pub(ic Works Director ' � ' _ cc: Lisa Freese, Planning Director Ron Wasmund, Public Works Director ' Tom O'Leary, Entry One Alan Schaefer, Imperial Developers � � Paul Heimkes, Buifding Inspector Mike Fricke, Buitding inspector Rich Lonnquist, Engineering Technician � 1 • � �C • (� /I. __�!. i r ♦ • • Z�� O OSeYYt01�LYt� . PHONE (612)<23-t411 2875•145th Strset West,Rosertwunt,Minnasou MAYOR F�U( (612)4235203 Msilinp Addrou: Edward B.McM�nomy P.O.Boz 510,Rosemount,Minn�sota 5506g.p510 COUNCII.ME►,dgERS ShsN�Klays4n Jamss(Rs�$yuu Ju(y 19, 1993 • H�rywa,o,x • Dennis VripP�rtnann AOMINISTiiA7pR St�P�+Jik Mr. Tom O'Leary, President • Rosemount Properties, lnc. . 2415 Annapolis Lane, Suite 109 Plymouth, MN 55441 Re: Punch List for Carroiiton 4th Addition - � � � City Project #227 ' � � City of Rosemount, Minnesota . � Dear Mr. 0'Leary: . .. . � . The following is a punch tist for the referenced project which must be completed prior to City acceptanc:e of streets and utifities in the subdivision. ' Per the Development Contract, the warranty for the street and utilities begins for a period of tuvo years after � this acceptance. Therefore it. is� in your contractor's best interest to proceed post haste wrth the completion of these punch list items. PUNCH LiST: '1. Grading - As we have discussed, the grading required within the City easement . in the rear yards of Bfock 3, Lots 1-18. We also have discussed the grading required to refieve the trapped wate� at the Utidenbogerd property in the northeast corner of the subdivision. Thirdly, the berm along Dodd Boufevard also requires final grading. Z• There are two or three�eight foot segments of RCP in the boulevard area of 14789 Colorado Avenue which your contractor should dispose of a.s.a.p. 3• The catch basin iocated between Lots 7 & 8 requires the placement of sod around it immediatefy plus silt fencing/erosion control. :� - � 4• The proposed bituminous trail which is to be.tocated between Lots 7 & 8 stifl _ re quires i n s t a l(a t i o n. As we have discussed, the Gity will have a bid from a contractor earEy this week for this installation. tt is imperative that we coordina#e the final grading and the instaltation of this bituminous trail. _ �ver't,�{{ztytqs �omts2o `(J(,� (�)\.osomntiv+ill Punch List � Carroiiton 4th Addition Page 2 5. The catch basin discussed above and the sanitary sewer manholes which are located in the backyard areas af B(ock 3 require location and placard sign installation prior to acceptance. .,, 6. Please have your Engineer send us copies of the Minnesota P.C.A. Sanitary Sewer Extension Permit and the Department of Health Watermain Extension Permits for our files. 7. Piease have your Engineer send us the as-built drawings of both the grading � and the utility installation a.s.a.p. 8. As we d3scussed previous(y� the City wiI( order street signs for the Colorado, � 147th Street and Upper 149th Street intersections. The City wili invoice Rosemount Properties #or the acquisition and the instaltation cost of these street signs. ' • 9. As we discussed in a meeting wrtf� the Planning Department, trees are to be instaUed on the berm adjacent to Dodd Boulevard per the� Development Contract. Please have those trees installed after the final grading of that berm is compfeted. Ptease cal( me at 322-2025 to arrange a meeting at the site with your contractor prior to any final grading work. . Thank you for your cooperation in completing this project in a timely matter: Sincerely, �Vr�w` � � . . ; . -�ud=0smundsontP E. .;� ' ,�...•-...�«. -.t G;.r::�...;�'�..,• . City Engineer/Assistant Pub{ic Works Director � - � cc: Ron Wasmund, Public Works Director ' - - Paul Heimkes, Bui(ding Inspector . Mike Fricke, Building Inspector = Rick Pearson, Assistant Pianner � • Pete Sentieri, Project Manager • � . � � �'/G� � 2 � � . MEMO � TO: HOMEOWNERS lN CARROLLTON 4TH ADDITfON FROM: 8UD OSMUNDSON, CITY ENGINEER DATE: - JULY 29, 1993 RE: BACKYARD DRAINAGE AND SWALES TO STORM SEWER CARROLLTON 4TH ADD(TION - CITY PROJECT #22� • - CITY OF ROSEMOUNT, MINNESOTA The final grading was completed in the rear yards of Block 3, Lots 1 through 1$ (east _ side of Colorado) on Wednesday, July 28, 1993 by the contractor for this project. in addition, the berm along Dodd Boulevard was also completed per the grading pian. The grading on Block 2 (west of Colorado) is OK except for finai grading on each lot which may be compieted by the builders. It is in everyonesbest interestto compfete the sodding of their yards at this time. Some of you may have agreements with your builders to soci your yards. Please provide your builder with this information. Thank you for your cooperation in these matters and your patience during this construction period. . . . . :�..`;:.�4-;'._ .,: 5 . �C/�3Q',.-= ' 4 /a:'�•CC,�.�.�{j X ��:.::�;;;;. ;;. .• . . - .::�:.. �_ ::�w.:�.� �N --., i..�- 'r�.ar:r'r: •:�.rr.... • �= •c•,..+: .:: •�,.,.. �.::_.. :i-;_ :.. �_, r `:• .;:�:f`+"• ' •. �.: �f:�,'i" . L�'� �• ::�.. �:: • ,e' + c..eY'. e� "Te:/'.�..� �'/'1 �s;�w. '��'�'�•�..:��i:•C�l�� f �;:�:. �ti - �.� �b«.��.. I.:��-..•i�.••x�:.:"...�„�.a.� August 4, I993 .,... : _ •� :.�::,_ :..:.,�' '•.. .� �: .: ,�� . .�. . r. A ._ -C�.�'�� t u..(��..�:sr�;��. :�;:-��::...�:.;;:�:�:.:.: _.,.: ...:_.._.. �:, . .. .: � �:�,,,_-�..��-: TO: Neighbors lots 8 9 10 _ � � � � ��-� �°:�-.,t'_-,�;=-:'y-.-•° on , , and 11 p.e�<jY�:-:,/�,, -��• .- _�:�,.. Colorado Ave Rosemount '�=�`' ` - �"r:�� '.'' `��`�`�`'�'�'= ., ... �..;::::= �=�.. ,�,�`_._; :-_.., -.;- -• `• / •1-.j . • �ti.•�i•:,;^_ ��k-Q �:!�'t.!',i�:.- '`:''� (�. ' �: .<_ : /r-• :_":lb_;is(al��'�(S1dti'�3:e�. ^': •• ,::. _.. .. . Copy: Rosemount City En� rin "" -��-`" '" ' "��'A�.'•-�'" ;�;: -�`=�. oinee g j�� c� +8�.��r��tf-�?•�:.�.:.:��_�:• -_ :;.-- .�....�_::.,: :� I/�>,;.�...:..•_.;..= :;-��- ..=;.•,-'�-- . �: _��•,, � ' �":=_.rw.. �. `w.J'l ir:: 17'�. -t . - :=� :,.;..� �:,!_,,:. :.:.:: . . .. _ My name is Dan Hanscom and I own the house on lot 12, 14866 Colorado Ave. I have had water in my back yard since I moved into the house. I originally thought that the final grade would take care of the flow from my yard north to the drain between lots 7 and 8. At about the time when I realized that this was not going to work, we all received a letter from the City of Rosemount stating that they would take responsibility for establishing the slope of the swale to the drain, I thought that wauld solve the situadon. After that failed, I started calIing the developer, my builder and the city to sea what's going on and who was going to help solve the problem. I have become aware of a good deal'of information and I would Iike to' share it with you, get it documented for future reference or discussion, and to save it, der�nding what the future holds we may need this information corporately. - The temporary solution for lats $-13 is that each af us must ensure that we have a gradual slope starting from our neighbors lot line (from the south side) toward the :�ext neighbors lot line (on the narth side). Water will v�ry slowly flow if we are carefuL If we are not c.areful . any one of us cauld have standin� water and an unpleasant sprina thaw.. Now for the real issue affecting us all. I had the inspector for Imperial Developers (the -company that established the swale slope which the city stated they would_ta�ce responsibility for) along with an engineering representative from my builder, to take some laser-transit � readings along the back yards leading to the drain. (a transit is an instrument used to measure the horizontal slope of land). Those re3dings indicated we had a slcpe of approximately 1.5 feet frorn the south side of my lot to the drain. The slope is not a smooth- one and any obstruction, dip or high spat could cause water to back up. This is something we need to be aware of and sensitive to. Some or the other detaiis I nave iearned are: - . .- Most of the slope is in the last lot: I believe this checked out�at about 1 foot. - The existing slope is 1.5 feet per 375 feet-or .4% - The City of Burnsville requires�a 3% slope, 3 ft pez 100 ft. Would be appro�:imately 11 foot slope in our application. . - City of Rosemount requires a 2�, 2 ft per 100 ft, on right of way areas. Back yard according to plan. ' - In most cases my builder would prefer a 9 ft slope to minimize water problems. - There is supposedly a 5 foot drop from the most southerly lot, 17 or 18. Lot 13 to the drain, in the attached plan, called for a 1.4 foot slope, by design. - I was informed by Ivir. Tom 0'Leary that each lot was supposed to have a 6" slope. (5 lots at 6 inches per would have been a 2.5 foot slope). The copy of the pIan does not agree with this statement. - The drain between lots 7 and 8 was supposed to be a flared unit which would have provided for an extra 3 foot drop. In 1988 a city engineer decided to change the type of dra.in which took away 3 feet and created the 1.5 foot condition. They chose not ' to change the elevation of the proposed Io�s. •They therefore intentionally or unintentionally designed and approved the current conditian. - According to the attached plan, the nearest relief drain is 2.1 feet k�igher than the drain between lots 7 and 8. That means that the back of our lots are 6 inches lower. In c.�se of excess water we�will get 6 inches before the next available drain assists. - There is a drain field but I have no infarmation regarding its elevation or when excess water will flow into it, or if it� any benefit to our lots. � In summary according to the engineer I consulted, this is "a lousy situation. Perhaps none of the houses should have been walkouts". According to the attached plan the nearest overflow catch.basin is. at an elevation of 954.7 (circled for your info), the top of our drain is at 952.6, meaning that the nearest relief in case of excess water is 2.1 feet Iugher. (I do not 'know what it actually measures, but most of the measurements taken for me match the plan, including the 1.4 foot slope). It would appear that the current desioned and approved condition would use our back yards and perhaps our houses as an emergency drain relief. When I requested the City of Rosemount come out to my yard to verify some of my cancerns and some of these issues, they were instructed to back off. Shortly�after that reques[ we received the letters stating that they were done. They also sent a l�tter to the neighbors on the west side of Colondo Ave. statina that they were not involved any longer. Why do you think they took tllis position? Is it perhaps because of my (and some your) � inquiry? Maybe they came to the realization of the potential of this problem. It is amazing that none of this is disclosed to us by either the developer or the city prior to us spending a great deal of money. As�far as I am concerned, I feel that disclosing this . information to the potential buyer prior to purchasing a home should be mandatory - perhaps this is a le gal issue. In any case it is my opinion that sinee the City approved the current plan, since they inspect and approve each home and lot, since they knowingly took away a 3 foot (actually 4.5 foot) margin from the original plan, and since tliey consented to accepting . � responsibilihy for the swale and �enabled the current condition�to exist, that they should be . � held responsible for our basements and houses as well. I have felt obligated to pass this information on to you as a neighbor and as a fellow home buyer that perhaps has not been adequately informed of our surrounding environment. I don't know what action we should take from here, nor do I know what can be done to . remedy the situation. Perhaps a call or a letter ta the City Council or Mayor would help. � But at least I have informed you and psepared you in case something happens in the future. If you have any questions please feel free ta stop by and we can talk about it. .. z�� o osemoun� PHON£ (612)423-4a11 2875•145th Street Wast,Rosemount,Minnssota MAYOR FAX (612)a235203 Mai�ing Addross: EOward 8.McMsnomy P.O. Box 570.Rosemount,Minnesota 5506&0570 COUNCIIMEMBERS Sheila Klassen James{RrcQ Staats August 31, 1993 Ha�ryw;,,�x ' Dennis VYippermann ADMINISTFATOR Steplfan Jilk Carroliton 4th Addition Residents • Re: Carrollton 4th Addition . � City Project #227 � �City of Rosemount, Minnesota Dear Resident: � We are writing this letter in response to a letter from Mr. Dan Hanscom of Lot 12, Block 3, Carrollton 4th Addition. Mr. Hanscom raises various issues regarding the - construction and responsibility for the referenced subdivision. The Carrollton.4th Addition is the third phase of a Planned Unit Development project which was initiated in -1986. This project was a private project, meaning that the developer was totally responsible for hiring a planner and an engineer to design and layout the development and the hiring of a contractor to construct the uti(ities within the subdivisions. A major trunk sanitary sewer line flows through the 4th Addition between Lots 5 and 6 of Block 2 and Lots 7 and 8 of Block 3 and then proceeds southerly in the rear yard areas af Lots 8 through 18 of Block 3 to Gounty Road 42. _ ( A copy of the piat is attached for your reference.) This major trunk sanitary sewer line was installed in 1973 to serve the western part of Rosemount. Also within that same easement area between Lots 5 and 6, Bfock 2 and Lots 7 and 8, Block 3 is a storm sewer fine which flows from east to west to Shannon Parkway. ln addition, between Lots 7 and 8 of Block 3 is a watermain which connects the watermain within Colorado Avenue to a watermain in Cimarron Avenue. Easements necessary for the utilities are shown as on the attached plat. The sanitary sewer easement from Lots 7 and 8 to the south is 40' wide. In addition, it is 35' wide between Lots 7 and 8 and Lots 5 and 6. The storm sewer and drainage design required an additional 5' for a tota! of a 45' easement for Lots 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 of Block 3; and a 30' easement was required to the north. The easements were dedicated for City utilities with the plat of the subdivision. � The storm sewer and ponding system works much like other ponding systems within the City. The onfy difference is that these are linear backyard ponds which rise with a large rainfall event and then slowly drain away through the starm sewer system. In addition, the developer designed the system so that walkout lots could be built on �ve�-��lltngs �omtszg �¢ ��osemoun�� . Carrollton 4th Addition Letter each side of Colorado Avenue which required that a slope be graded north and south to the low point catch basin which is within the easement between Lot 7 and 8 and 5 and 6. Piease note that even Lot 21 along County Road 42 has a 50' wide drainage easement in its rear yard area to accommodate the run-off. The design for the storm sewer was reviewed by the City Staff and modified slightty utilizing a � beehive �type structure for the outlet between Lot 7 and 8 instead of the flared end type arrangement used between Lots 5 and 6 and found througho�t the rest of the subdivision. This did require a modified slope but was very siight. The design grade or slope was 0.6% xo 0.7% which is very flat. This modification was reviewed by . the design engineer and confirmed that the design would work. The modification was made to lessen the maintenance of the outlet and to improve the aesthetics of the area. This storm sewer system worked very wetl in the 3" rain we had in '/2 hour on August 18, 1993. The water did pond for a period of time but did drain out quite quickly euen with construction debris and long weeds obstructing the .outlet. ln �" addition, much of the property was unsod�ded as of that date.� When the area is totally sodded the system should be enhanced. ' The grading of this rear yard swale area has been a big concern to many people. lt was a major concern to the City and the City Engineering Department that the construction of the swale was not done according to the approved plan. The City Engineering Staff spent many hours fielding questi�ns from residents and asking the developerto complete the grading so that homeowners could sod their yards. Grading � for this subdivision was initiated in May of 1992. By J�ne of 1993 we had spent many hours trying to get the Contractor to complete the grading in this swale area. On June 24, 1993 we sent a letter to all of the homeowners in the subdivision explaining that the grading of �the swale was very important and that the contractor would be mobil'ized very shortly to finish the grading in that swale. On July 29, 1993 we sent out a memo to the homeowners stating that the contractor had finat(y completed that grading. At no time did we take the responsibility for establishing the slope ofi the swale. This was always the responsibility of the developer and contractor. This grading is not untike most subdivisions except that this swale area, if not constructed properly, could dramatically affect the storm sewer system. It was our intent to have the contractor complete it in a timely and acceptab(e manner sa � that homeowners could sod their lots as soon as possible. 2 Carroliton 4th Addition Letter The City Staff was never instructed to back-off of this proJect.'�We simply had spent an extraordinary number of hours on this particular issue and feit that the developer may respond better if the homeowners called him directly and requested that the �r�ding be taken care of. The grading on the west side of Colorado Avenue was completed per the grading plan in a more tirnely manner. This may be attributed to the fact that the homes were completed sooner in that area and didn't have spoil piles from basement excavation in their rear yards. As far as disc(osure by the City of the easements and design of the subdivision, we� did t�lk to many potential buyers of lots within Carrollton 4th Addition and gave them all the information we had. We are not involved, nor do we ever become involved in - the safes of subdivision lots. However, we are always open and do provide much inf�rmation to prospective buyers of lots within the City of Rosemount. In closing, this storm drain design in this subdivision is somewhat different from many subdivisions because it utifizes rear yards fo�storm water ponding. All drainage ponds rise and fall with intense run-off and slowly outlet the ponded water. This design was designed by a registered engineer and is working. The drainage easement and swale in the rear yards is relatively fiat but it does drain. � We apologize for the confusion created by these grading issues and timing of the construction of the swale. We are trying and have been trying to address concerns of the residents in the subdivision in a proactive manner. Please call me at 322-2022 if you have any further questions or woufd like to set up an appointment so we can sit down and discuss the issues as they refate to your particular lot. Sincerely, , �� x . ' C�� Z.�� . Bud �smundson, P.E. City EngineerlAssistant Public Works Director cc: Mayor & City Councit Steve Jilk, City Administrator • Ron Wasmund, Public Works Director Lisa Freese, Planning Director 3 , . � . I . � .� ��L�� ' � 1 . � ��l�r��r . . . , . , . . : ,.., ; . . ,��;•;•,;•.�� , . . � . �.r� ��. , �: i '-,�.• - : r �� • ., Y 1 r%�` �'�;\� '" ... '.i�; '',`": � '' ..r►` A�i'•�� '\r,� � ` . i� !� . •�L,rl`y 1 � � . �f;j-�Y i ti� � � f��,`J�. n � � .. C 1 � . � . 1 �� .�`��il +li�� . ' ^ �.r.�� 'i ,��`'i r�1 �� 1�/1 � � . .-� ' � i. :� . /\i' �, ��V.�� r-c t'_:� � :•-�a-'.,' � f ��.i � ';S� . . � r'�,r1ir. � ` � � ' �. • ,-r.:`;:t'•� ;:�"�� . �. � y,. 1 1 �� J � .�� •� �..- ---S I'09'35"W (Gl3.92--- ' ' , ' • • . -. c � • �� ^rboo �Fob �aoo �soo �a.oco T3.N m,.�t � �s�Qo _ .zo_o9_ _r,�;oo �,p,00_ :p �' ' �_`�� r`_`.i 'i r�--� � . • -^ .• - � _T�.Qo_ �4Qo_ LG.QC _ _�.GA� _ !.`�, °_ ...o i �•+ _%_;- i.��.�, �,..�� r w • ♦ �.. _e_ _�� i j �. I 1. 2 1 � � 1 I � I �--^-� r-- �-' ` - -- ' W "• K 11� 11 4 � � 5 I 6 � T ��,„r-d•'-, r'-Q='ir==-=� 11 " "� � _`tf" _� r- -�:-- "1r- -xl ("-- - -b°j � -� - ---�-' b nq� �bp o �o �o � �� i 4. �� i i i (0 � 11 � , 12 � 13 i i 14 ,� 15 � � 16 �.. �l 17 � a` .� 18 I'r).-� ' • v� j.�n � �r ( I � � �o ;'. I �o �c � � �o �r ^r � r^' � '�' I IN 1 i� o �� tv^ i e,l•/.- \ �e�, A! I :- „ 1 ^ ., .. lid �,� J I ,. k° � iv � � � �; �i^ f 4 ,;��,"e°�'��``�� ^°�i n � Il� t 2 •; � I� � o 0 0 oi l 7 N x ' Io-� �If � 11 il � ;- � �'" �� I It� 1 �= ' r ' �� " � u-� 1��^ 1 � I � �� ,l�M1�t�/iaiS' \ \�1,�jj�� p �� ; �� .SJ L �i.�� y��QJ l r�.O��J >34AJ f..e9.:�sJ �Aff�00 IS.00 � 1G.0(1� ?DAO � � )300(� � I 1� � 1 � 1; �/ o sa \ v . �N I ti'` .r'` -' �___J •___-' t----- �---� �_�.og� .:Feo��.00� ��c_�`O�J E'�' a;'.•'ti:�^ t� ! 19 ., o� .e : � -- — _ ��, co ti _. .- �; . . ...i .�i, .� . c t '�!/ w •;t• • -" S�V933+1r � � - . �� t�i�•' �? � c r N .��►� ��;�- . _. _ � ��IOf.00 .... _ ._ ,^,i s �Yi o 1 �� '�3Crti1� � ' � �t . !�'i L•' :� • ��l�./`tit/(� � ' ~R•R��r `ti!,b ��.�� T.7r , t f J' • ^_ : a , AYE �E �� L.♦ �� "C e *`s �0 \ � » ( ��'` � o ' i'�+23�1� �700�'r�0'7SP��-��.C��^ '- ', r • ` � ,''� r--' t � - •--: .�� a=..._':. `'� �• \ �'� �aatqo�> :I w ,�G ... 3' �� j 000c. 'f'ei.��; i2.00 8a0a i e:co`�� ei.o3�'' a..vo�'r-i: f - ]-e 40'IO� „a,:t �~ I�i te? � � tAI� ..-�� . 1 ' �� 1 I 1 � � I 1 1Xl-. 1 Qi.DO � ��ep '�j, '?�., `SS'L02�E ��S.Ta ►�.69's ,t•+r w � �r 11 ' �� o � �� ,�� `� Ilrr'�� o� Ito Ilp � � ��o . �� It'� � ` � l � .x _.r. .j0. L--_�=.. � z o : 3 . 1 lo„ 4. a i � � r- 1 .� � l cg .� i � 5 � o G 1 1 0 , �E i i� �� c�' I 2 �0 13 � 14 � "r •'� tJ.�trc G v n ri �� 1ti�� • \ 'f 1 ti 7 � 1 Ib � ��5� w 8 1 a� 9 0 !O ' p�c^S tlf.6�� • �I H � i n � N .�� " ri' . �I�y ,2��fv �.N 1 1�„ �( r. �9 � o� � � s�: w lu ti lo �.s• � : � ( s �= �` . I 1= � r, 1 Lv �^ M i"�r� � . �2Z ' .is_J,�.�." Q . . . �,� t' � ( � '�' . .� f 1' 1 I � 1 I 1�L'� � _ I L� � �. "� n � �s 6`�.Zl��- 1 � '�� •� �l L��—'� w #TAT, ` B7.GpJ` a '�rp�._ J ��... J l.._....o � 82�0 �� E7_00 ,1 e � �� , ai � 1 � i.� 'o•�. 1� . � , �.�.�'/JOT'~ {e�� o��' .\�+v y/ 0.00 . 0:.00 1�2.C7(> 11:.00« --�L_ Jl__ .��.._�_ �_ �Jl_ J �o=i)c HOZ�Of�E � 7 �,.. Z. R�` f:l!4 4 �._._ � � p,ze';S�o', �. ,,. �• %'• . t ;� . . . � ' ,as.00� �' > �a�-t� N Q `� p�3 9`�3� _._TI(°09�35"E . 116f3.49--- I '�`' to � << v3 O°� �M .,� ��X•�•`O�A62 � �', n �^�, I �I � . . ^� � 'd �2) <<� \ ao� �sy9 P� � �Z o,r •:i'•S;�t•J,J�-••� i _�- . . �f�� i� � �'��s6 a� Cn � •� S63 lo3("1y " '�-'+--� � ��'►� 'I , 9"� qay'� �--- - - ' ' ��;�ti j � � :: '>120,65 . �_ . ._,�,,' � --, ,. • S0 � 60 � � .� `�� 2 .�� .��. � ��.-�+ . t '� �_;,;"�; `� .; I �, 155.00 '� ! . J� O � l t 'Oti. 1 / • , � �..� �` r_l e � u � . � .•� � , .—�=•�--r---,� � � ND 2 4 Q3 E : �p o � o\ o . , T. V i�a� n ,�o �..��'l:�Ir'rv�?,� �r� ��'•a.� /� r / �I ; � `�' � �� O� ) � . ♦i✓),In�l •��1r i i��...��I�'. ` � � � :�j y � l �� O � p . � O `.=�;� � ` ' N '1 � \� ! O C,�/ ' O � • 7t� . . . ,\ ��:'' 000�� 9 s�art oF nr:��rE�orn . . ;.:: - I � `Zo�(�/� ' P CG:':?l' QF QdK�iii il� :orcgclnq tnj:rumcn: k•:• � • � ��:t:. �� '�,c' �26 /f�\�'�. ,', . acknorl�antJ bc:erC a: thls d�y ; , � �,�� I �+^' . . 1�S2 b; '-� • r � �; .�� y.-',;r :hs - r ' ��.` th•�• zoJ '""'------. 1: thc of said Yoi]ey ti�, Iitlional Dank, t naticna: banl:fng a:soti�tion. . � � . � . Jr.. . , � ' �(:. Ilpt•�r�.PuGlft. Oa1:Erta C�unty. .yin�H•cnr. , � . RFC:/V�4 - �Fp 0 ClTY 0�kU , 219�� Augus t 31 , 19 9 3 SF�,jO��, Utilities Commission Ftosemount City Hall P.O. Box 510 Rosemount , MN 55068 Attention: Cindy Dorniden/Ron Wasmund • To whom it may concern: We, the homeowners in the Carrollton 4 addition lots 5 through i6 block 3, would like to file a farmal complaint and request for corrective action concerning the water drainage situation prevailing in our back yards . The specific situation is that the current designed water drainage system is not su�ficient to adequately drain water during storms of inedium strength and more critically has no emergency relief feature in the event of an obstruction to the only available drain. � It is our position that this condition is an urgent one in that if it is not addressed before winter the following spring thaw may cause very exgensive damage to many homes along Colorado Avenue. We are therefore requesting .the assistar�ce of the Utilities Commission in prescribing a course of action to be taken to resolve �the situation, before it becomes too cold. We also request the Utilities Commission to communicate with the City Council and not approve the development in its current proposed plan, the developer must be involved in this action. We also need the Commission to assist us in clarifying who is financially responsible for the inevitable damages in the event corrective action is not implemented in time . The City, developer and builders have all claimed innocence and we cannot seem to get any acticn. • As background information we offer the following. Many of the homeowners have tried to contact the Rosemount City Engineers to get action and to express concern. This concern began in June of this year. On June 24 the City of Rosemount Engineering office sent out a letter to the homeowners stating that the. builders were resgonsible for the final grade to the approved plan but that the .city had "arranged with the developer to have a aontractor come in to grade the back yards vne final time" . Some of the yards had a final grade and one was sodded. (In• a subsequent letter the Engineering office has stated that the designed drainage system was somewhat different than others in that it uses "linear backyard ponds which rise with a large rainfall event and then slowly drain away through the storm sewer system" . Another reference in the same letter refers to the system as ane that "utilizes rear yards for storm water ponding". This is the design in question. ) ' On 3uly 29 an inspector from Imperial Developers , an engineering representative from one of the builders and the homeowner of lot 12 met to take some elevation readings of lot 12 because the homeowner felt the current system was going to fail . The inspector from Imperial Developers took readings from lot 12 through lot 8 to the drain. He verified that the slope of �he swale to the drain met the approved pian. The distance was approximately 390 feet to the drain and the slope from lot 12 was ap��imately 1 1/2 feet (a . 38� grade) . One foot of the grade was in lot 8, leaving the remaining lots 9 through 12 very flat . He further verified the grade of lot 12 met the plot ar building specification. After the inspector left the engineering representative for the builder stated that this was a "lousy situation with no emergency relief" . A design that was °'waiting for an accident to happen" . Both observed that there was standing Water along the system. � Since July 29 many of the homeowners have finished final grade according to plan and have begun sodding. On August 18 , 1993 , the Rosemount area e��r�enced a 2 1/2 to 3 inch rainfall , most within 30 minutes . Although wa�er ran quite rapidly through back yards it came within 12 inches of at least one doorway and within 1 inch of another. As of the date of this letter there is still standing water, some on sod and some on dirt . There are many walkout and daylight windowed homes along this drain system and these homes may be the ones to get damaged and are questioning the design of the current system. Additional supporting details are attached. We thank you in advance for the immediate attention this issue receives . /"��,�' - �itY�� ' cP� �Q.GLs��.- � � l ��gd� �/r�� - C �C��'Z=Lc+Q 6E� �-�- �c�., ' �.*2.. 3 Zz-z�� 7 i� � �,��1 �3��7�� v'�� '��'� � - . . � 5��.'�`� . . . � � � � �� . ✓ ♦ h��r�- � Specific homeowner comments/concerns : 14782 Colorado Ave . , lot 6 1 . On or about July 10 , 1993 the water level in my back yard was 1 inch from my back door, covering the cement pad outside the door. 2 . August 18 , 1993 a 3" ?-ainfall brought water within 1 inch of my back door again covering the cement pad. A letter dated 8-31-93 from the City Engineering office stated that "this storm sewer worked very well" in this 3 inch rain. Mr. Osmundson obviously wasn' t in my yard'. 3 . August 18 , 1993 the same 3 inch rainfall flooded the street in front of our house and for about 200 feet to the south, in front of the next 3 houses . � 4. Any amount of rain produces large (10 feet or larger) puddles in my back yard. 5 . My yard has not been totally dry since we move3 in on May 28 , 1993 . 6. The elevation of my lot is 952, the elevation of the drain on the west side of Colorado Ave. between lats 5 and 6 is 954 .7 . Obviously my yard is the planned overflow which is exactly what happens and this should be corrected. 7 . I have lost a great deal of top soil because the back yard has not been iri any condition to sod, ie. it is always very wet . 8 . My basement will flood with a heavy rain and I am positive it _will flood in the next spring thaw. I would like to know who is going to_ pay � for. th� damage? . lot 8 1. Water came within 1 foot of the back door in the August 18 rainfall . lot 9 l . Water came within 2 foot of the back door in the August 18 rainfall . 14852 Colorado Ave. , lot 11 � � Water pools after rain - takes several days to -drain. 2 . Grass is always soggy and �muddy in a 8 to 10 foot area where "drainage" is supposed to occur. 3, Our easterly slope (old neighborhood) continues to wash away along with our sod. 4. Had we been aware that such incompetence and poor quality of workmanship was considered acceptable we would have purchased a different lot . 5. We have children and in the future we plan on having� a daycare business.. . Because of the soggy muddy conditians, the backyard is virtually worthless ! 14866 Colorado Ave. , lot 12 l. The lot has not drained water properly since the beginning. 2 . The lat has been wet almost constantly since spring . Maved in May 28, builder could not do final grade until July 20 because it was too wet to get a Bobcat in . It prevented sodding until recently when we sodded it wet . 3 . We were informed by the city that sodding would help dry up or abso�b some of the water, even after sodding the lot has not dried, this is obviously not the solution. 4 . During the 3 inch rainfall water was within 4 feet of our foundation. We have daylight windows with little external block along the back wall . Not much raom in the event of drain blockage. 5 . Contacted builder' s engineer and his opinion is tha't the current system is not going to work and some homes are at risk. Would be willing to testify in court . 6 . Tried many times since June to get someone to work this problem. One City Engineer stated he was told to back off when requested to come out to the home to view the situation. If there was any cooperation with city or developer issue could have been resolved before final grading and sod. 7 . As of this letter the lot is still _ wet, sod sinks in mud and it has been 3 to 5 days since any rain. 8 . Have numerous pictures as evidence of the lack of proper drainage. 9 . We fear water/moisture damage will result if sewer is backed up, plugged ar if there is anything greater than a 3 inch rainfall . 10 . Believe that the current designed drainage is not ever going to work, 11. From the available data I' have the emergency drain relief in the event of a heavy storm or if the ONLY drain plugs is the back yards and evidently the basements oi the homes along lots 5 to 14. 12 . If the cur:rent design uses the back yards as ponding in the event of heavy rainfall one thing that strikes me as odd is that the grade is too flat on key lots , from the swale low point to the door there is not enaugh grade to act as a �ond, zero capacity for water '. Bad design! ! : NOTE: There would have been many more comments and observations had time permitted. We desire to get on the September 13 agenda so had to move quickly on the collaboration of this letter. • . CITY OF ROSEMOUNT � EXECUTIVE SUMMARY FOR ACTION UTILITY COMMISSION MEETING DATE: November 8, 1993 . i. . . AGENDA 1TEM: Carroliton 4th Letter AGENDA SECTiON: Oid Business PREPARED BY: Bud Osmundson AGENDA NO. City Engineer/Assistant Public Works Director 5e. ATTACHMENTS: Letter to Residents, September 13th APPR VED BY: Statement from Homeowners Attached is the letter responding to the six (6) questions raised by the residents of the �arrollton 4th Addition at the September 13th meeting. This item is on the agenda for � your review and any discussion as necessary. The letter was mai�ed to all residents of the Carrollton 4th Addition on November 2, 1993. : . • r. _. 4 , RECOMMENDED ACTION: None j COMMISSION ACTION: � � � T . f � C ` � i�� o osevhoun� . ,- PHCNE�(612)423-e411 2875•1451h Straet Wes1.Rosemount,Minnesota MAYOR FNC (b12)4235203 Maiting Addrass: Edward B.McMenomy P.O.Box 510,Rosemount,Minnesota SSO6B-OS10 COUNCILMEMBERS Sheila Klassen James(Re�Staats October 25, 1993 Harry Willopx Dennis Wippermann AdMfNISTHATOR Stephan Jitk To: Residents of Carroilton 4th Addition Re: Response to September 13, 1993 Statement to Utility Commission , Dear Homeowner: This letter is in response to the issues raised in the September 'I3, 1993 statement � from the homeowners to the Utility Commission. We wil{ respond to the issues as numbered in that statement as submitted. 1 . Grade of Swale -The design and construction of the swale have been reviewed and are determined to be adequate to drain the backyard areas. It is a very gentle grade but many areas within the City of Rosemount have the same or flatter grades in backyard drainage areas. 2. Ponding Capacity - The ponding area within the backyard easements is designed to pond water for a 100 year, 24 hour rainfall event and the pipe draining out to the west from this backyard area is sized for this same event. In an effort to provide the homeowners a greater level of comfort with the situation, the City will take action to regulate the flow from the pond east of Ca�rollton 4th Addition in a temparary manner for a period of time. This will be accomplished by instatling a 4"-6" pipe and sandbagging the existing flared end opening in that pond to limit the outflow to this 4"-6" pipe. lf this temporary measure lessens the ponding in the Carrollton 4th rear yard easement without causing a problem with the eastern pond, �a more permanent solution wi(l be , . designed and constructed. .�, 3. Drain Caparity.-The design capacity of the grate which drains the water from the rear yard area is adequate in size ta accommodate the f(ow from this rear yard drainage area. „_, - _ _ �... _ _:_ - , _ ,- = � 4. Emergency Back-up or Overflaw Drain -This backyard ponding area is different `�' from most ponding areas in that the outlet pipe is designed to handle a 100 year, 24 hour rainf,alf event. Most ponds do not have a 21" pipe as an out[et. . In many areas such��as this, a 12"-15" outlet pipe which would Iimitthe out#low and therefore pondthe water up in the backyard areas would be installed. This �ver��ing's �oming `(1C�i ��osemounI�� . ° . ,Stataf rient Repiy-Carrollton 4th Drainage , . Rage 2 . , 21 " pipe that is inplace is designed to handie the outflow with minimal backyard ponding. 5. Backyard Grading Design Requirements - As stated in #1 , the backyard grading . construction does meet the tolerances for grading in a backyard area. 6. Easements - A. Excessive - The City does not feel that these easements as platted are excessive. The easements are designed to accommodate the � necessary ponding areas and to be large enough to accommodate future repairs to underground utilities. B. Disclosure - The City has had this plat of the Carrollton 4th on file since it was recorded at the County which was August 4, 1992. This was prior to any home construction beginning and has been available to anyone to investigate fior informational purposes. The disclosure by a real estate agent is not the responsibility of the City. C. Easement Restrictions - As stated at the September 13, 1993 meeting, the Building Department will not allow a deck or structure which is attached to the princip(e structure or house to be built within an easement area. However, fences or retaining walls which do not block the drainage of the area would be allowed to be constructed within the easements. Trees, shrubs or gardens also could be planted within the easement areas as long as the drainage is not obstructed. However the homeowner must acquire building permits for fences and retaining walls. Please check with the Building Department prior to construction of those types of structures. They are very helpful and can assist you in building a quality structure. It should be pointed ,out that the homeowners are responsible for the restoration of fences, retaining watls, trees and shrubs which are planted in an easement area if the City is required to perform maintenance or reconstruction of City owned utilities or drainage structures. � We hope this answers your questions and clarifies these issues. Please call the City Hall and ask for myself or Ron Wasmund if you have any further questions. Sincerety, � f��P� ��. � Bud Osmundson, P.E. City Engineer/Assistant �'ublic Works Director cc: Utility Commission Ron Wasmund, Public Works Director/Building Official Tom O'Leary, Carrolfton 4th Developer n y p � , !' - � , September 13, 1993 , � Opening statement rrom the Homeowners of lots 5-16 , block 3 , Carrollton 4 addition, Colorado Avenue , Rosemount , MN . to the Rosemount Utilities Commission. By design the homes along the East side �f Colorado Avenue, in the Carrollton 4 addition, lots 5-16 of block 3 , have a back yard drainage system referred to as utilizing "linear backyard ponds'' or ponding to faeilitate drainage or water runoff . The measured elevation fro� lot 12 (and probably lot 13 and part of 14) to the drain has a grade of 1. 5 feet . One foot of the 1. 5 feet resides in lot 8 , adjacent to the drain, which leaves 6 to 8 � inches for lots 9 through 13 . Stated differently , it results in 6 to 8 inches of grade in a minimum of 375 feet across lots 9 through 13 , which is a . 13� grade. The design calls f�r a . 6 to . 7o grade . (Reference to letter from City Engineering dated August 31 , 1993 . ) This should have resulted in a 2 . 25 to 2 .63 - foot grade across the same distance. ' The issues as we see them are: 1 . The slope of the swale is not adequate to drain the y�rds . Yards have standing water in � them for too long a period of time, days in some cases . � • 2 . In the 3 inch rainfall of August 18 , 1993 water almost entered 2 or more homes . As a result we believe that the "back yard ponding" capacity is insufficient for storms of any magnitude . 3 . As a result of the experience of �2 , we also �elieve that the one drain that is available has a bottle neck effect on drainage . It cannot handl_e the flow of water . 4 . There is no emergency back. up or relief for the �one available drain. . The elevation to the next drain is too high to prevent homes from being fl.00ded. 5 . The current condition of the back yards does nbt meet the original design requirements, which may in themselves- be questionable . --� ,L, - . S 50�-a��. 6 . The issue of easements is a concern to all of us . a. � They are excessive. b. They were not disclosed to us as buyers prior to �'= purchasing the property. . . c, We have not .seen any explanation of the restrictions of the .easement . ie. .can ws build decks, porches, do landsca+piag etc. , within the easement area. . We are asking the•Commission• to help us solve this drainage problem before any damage results to personal property. We are also asking the Commission to help us work the �easement issue.