Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout5.c. Baptist Church Property / Hawkins Pond ProjectThe last meeting which was held, at the time of this writing was on Thursday, July 21, 1988, with four of the church's deacons, Pastor Ed Johnson, Mayor Hoke, Dean Johnson, Rich Hefti and myself. The purpose of the meeting was to clarify the city's position on all of the matters surrounding the various projects. A follow up letter to Pastor Ed, summarizing the city's position is attached for your reference. An attempt was made to clarify the benefit to the church of the city's overall package proposal to all of the issues. On Sunday evening the Deacons voted to "opt out" of the project, build their own holding pond and request the designation of 50,000 yards of material from the Hawkins Project. We have requested another meeting with the church to advise them that city staff will recommend that the city continue with the project, as proposed and that the fill material, from the project simply be designated to be removed from the project site. The bidding contractors will determine what method of di.sposnl will cause the least cost to the project to determine the lowest bid. s ;i r 4o,(J spy"' 4 f TO: Mayor Hoke Councilmembers: Nnppex Oxborough Walsh Wippermann I; i FROM: Stephan Jilk, Administrator/Clerk` DATE: July 29, 1988 RE: Baptist Church;Property/Hawkins Pond Project Over the last 18-24 months city staff has met several times with representatives of the Rosemount Baptist Church to discuss: A. Sanitary sewer and water easements for utilities going through their property. B. Methods of collecting hookup fees to those utilities. C. Purchase of storm sewer (Hawkins Pond) ponding easements. D. The option for the church to "opt out" of the Hawkins Pond Project and construct their own pond for their property runoff. E. The availability of fill material from the project (Hawkins Pond) to place on the church's property for fill. The last meeting which was held, at the time of this writing was on Thursday, July 21, 1988, with four of the church's deacons, Pastor Ed Johnson, Mayor Hoke, Dean Johnson, Rich Hefti and myself. The purpose of the meeting was to clarify the city's position on all of the matters surrounding the various projects. A follow up letter to Pastor Ed, summarizing the city's position is attached for your reference. An attempt was made to clarify the benefit to the church of the city's overall package proposal to all of the issues. On Sunday evening the Deacons voted to "opt out" of the project, build their own holding pond and request the designation of 50,000 yards of material from the Hawkins Project. We have requested another meeting with the church to advise them that city staff will recommend that the city continue with the project, as proposed and that the fill material, from the project simply be designated to be removed from the project site. The bidding contractors will determine what method of di.sposnl will cause the least cost to the project to determine the lowest bid. If the Baptist Church decides it is in their best interest to pursue the construction of their own pond and legal action to reduce or delete their assessments for Hawkins Pond and legal action to receive the fill material that is their decision. I believe we must proceed with the project as planned. Staff feels strongly that the proposal, as outlined in the letter to Pastor Johnson, is as reasonable as can be offered by the city without the action becoming detrimental to the rest of the community. Further information may be available at the time of the council meeting Tuesday. lj � R� � • ,lit krT f1!lSE-M()tIII i t.11fitIf r 11 OWt ose 'n,01111. July 22, 1988 Dr. Edwin Johnson, Senior Pastor First Baptist Church 14400 Diamond Path West Rosemount, MN 55068 Dear Pastor Johnson: I would like to thank you and the church's Deacons for taking the time to meet with Mayor Hoke, Rich Hefti, Dean Johnson and myself on Thursday this week. I feel the meeting gave us all a valuable opportunity to share our thoughts and concerns about the many projects involving your church's property here in Rosemount. Over the last two years the many meetings and discussions held on costs for the project have been, I am sure, for you and your membership a source of concern and worry,~. I hope this meeting was an opportunity to lay some of that worry and concern to rest for you. I would like to take this time to outline, for you, a summation of the items of easement payments and assessments as we discussed them. I hope this information will be understandable and clear enough for your review and final decision. It is my hope that this issue can be resolved with a satisfaction that we (the city and the church) have worked together to resolve to the best end for us both. Easement Payments To The Church: Sanitary Sewer: 1.57 acres - Permanent Sanitary Sewer .90 acres - Temporary Sanitary Sewer 1.57 @ $7200. = $11,304 (Temporary calculated at 10% .90 @ 720. = 648 of Permanent) Interest for 20 mo. @ 8% - 1 593 13, Total Sanitary Sewer is $13,545 0 • Dr. Edwin Johnson, Senior Pastor July 22, 1988 Page 2 Storm Sewer Pond Easements: 1.50 Acres Original Ponding Easement 1.50 x 7200 = $10,800 Interest for 20 mo. @ 8% = 1 440 .55 Acres Additional: to Eliminate Landlocked Parcel South of Original Ponding Easement .55 x 7200 = 3 960 Total Ponding is $16,200. Future Watermain Easements: 15 Feet Permanent Easement Adjacent To Sewer Easement .46 acres @ $8000/acre - $ 3600 10 Feet Construction Easement .31 acres @ 10% of $8000/acre = 248 3 -9 -4 -9 - Total 4 Total Easement Acouisitions: Sanitary Sewer $13,545 Storm Sewer Pond 16,200 Future Watermain 31848 Total $33,593 Assessment Costs To The Church: Hawkins Pond: Based upon the square foot cost for property within the drainage district for the Hawkins Pond Project of $.0157/sq. ft. times the church's property, the estimated assessment would be $24,922. The city is willing to reduce the total acreage used in calculating the assessment by the acreage acquired for city easements, which is 4.08 acres thus reducing the assessment by $2,790 leaving a Ponding Assessment of $22,132. Dr. Edwin July 22, Page 3 i Johnson, Senior Pastor 1988 i Sewer Line: Watermain: Because the city understands that the timing of the sanitary sewer and future watermain are somewhat out of control of the church, the city has proposed an acre type assessment for the future benefit of the church/school development on the site. This assessment method would cause the payments of assessments for the sewer line benefits only for that portion of the church's property being developed. The sewer assessment paid would be based on an 1987 cost of $23/foot and adding in, an inflation factor to the year that the development and benefit occurred. This method of using an acre type assessment versus a straight lateral foot method was outlined in a letter to the city council from Dean Johnson, of November 13, 1987. Please allow me to reference that here (also attached) rather than reiterate it to you in writing. As we've stated in our verbal discussions, this is a radical change in our policy; but we feel it is appropriate for the type of development proposed for this property. This same method of assessing the church would be carried through for the construction of the future watermain. This policy was approved on November 17, 1987 by our city council. Other Benefit: Excavation of material from the construction of Hawkins Pond will create many yards of quality fill material. We have discussed the fact that the church wishes to have a portion of that fill material so as to raise their property which lies near the parking area of the existing church. The city would be willing to designate, in our contract specifications for the Hawkins Pond Project, that 50,000 yards or more, if available, of that excavated material be hauled to the church's property, leveled and seeded. The leveling would not be such that it would be acceptable for, say soccer playing or baseball fields, but of a general rough grade so as to be acceptable to the church for future maintenance in mowing. Placing a dollar value on this benefit has been a difficult one at best as you sensed in our meeting; but receipt of that much fill alone, from one'source?at one time would, we estimate be of at least a value of $25,000 -$50,000 to the church. If the church does not wish to accept the fill, there are other abutting property owners that have requested the material. Our • Dr. Edwin Johnson, Senior Pastor July 22, 198$ Page 4 cousulting engineer could prepare a plan that illustrates the filling of your existing low area. We could not, however direct our contractor,to construct a pond with this material, as we discussed. Pond Opt Out: On Thursday we specifically discussed the church's consideration to "Opt Out" of the Hawkins Project and construct a permanent holding pond on their own property to alleviate a major portion of the proposed assessments for Hawkins Pond. We reviewed the information from Barr Engineering regarding the size, depth and required pond liner needed to accomplish this. I won't reiterate the content of that report as Len Reinhart has a copy of that information for your further review. Because of the acreage and excavation required to accomplish that,, the city feels the church would benefit, in the long run, to maintain the contribution to Hawkins Pond and retain the acreage for your own future development of the envisioned "Campus". It is felt that the cost, both in acreage and excavation costs, will not be offset by the drop in your Hawkins Pond proposed assessment. That final determination is yours to make, of course. Future Street Extension: A valid concern was raised on Thursday as to whether the city would extend the now dead end street in Country Hills south through the church property to 145th Street. This would, or could, cause a major disruption in your proposed development plans and would be a large potential assessment to be borne by the church. We advised you then, and I will again, that city staff, and this city council cannot hold future city councils from never extending that street. What I can do is suggest that, for the record, our city engineer, city planner and administration sees no reason, now or in the future, as need to extend that street other than at the request of the church for its own development. We appreciate the vision you have for the development of the "Campus" here in Rosemount. We feel very strongly that development has occurred to its potential around your property; and along with an adequate street system already in place, we see no future demand or need to extend the street through unless it would, at your request, serve your development. Dr. Edwin Johnson, Senior Pastor July 22, 1988 Page 5 Summary: Easement Payments $33,583 Ponding Assessments $22,132 Excavation Material $25,000 - $50,000 Ponding Opt Out Loss of Acreage, Cost of Excavation Future Road Construction City position is that it is not needed other than for church development We also discussed the position the city is taking on this. It is that this is a "package" deal so to speak. A major exception in our assessment policy has been made to suggest the acre development use approach. We are offering the excavation material, hauled, graded and seeded; and of course, the easement payments which are due you through the taking of that property. We feel we have come as far as we can and still be able to defend this position to other taxpayers in the community. We feel the "package" is a good one, and one that is good for the church. We hope you have the opportunity to review this and respond to us no later than Thursday the 28th of July, 1988. 1 am enclosing a current copy of the proposed easements as we have discussed for your files. Again, thank you for your consideration and cooperation through all of this. Sincerely, Stephan Jilk Administrator/Clerk ij Enclosures • 1,1>7 i I g10(riliq QW111" my 7803 Glenroy Road Minneapolis. MN 55435 612/830-0555 June 24, 1988 Mr. Rich lie fti Director of Public Works City of Rosemount 2.875 - 145th Street West Rosemount, MN 55068 Re: Evaluation of the Potential for Retaining Stormwater.Runoff on the First Baptist Church of Rosemount and Lutheran Church of our Savior Properties Dear Mr. Hefti: 1A, This letter summarizes our evaluation of the potential for retaining stormwater runoff as proposed by the First Baptist Church of Rosemount and the Lutheran Church of Our Savior. DRAINAGE AND RETENTION ANALYSIS Both of these churches have proposed to retain stormwater runoff on their respective properties rather than discharging into the linwkins Pond drainage system. Addressing these proposals requires allnlyzing rainfall and snowmelt conditions over extended periods of time. In other areas of the metro where design of landlocked ponds are necessary, a common approach is to perform an average annual water balance evaluation. An average annual water balance evaluation determines 'the volume of water entering and leaving a study area on an average annual basis. in the case of landlocked ponds, the volume leaving the pond is determined by analyzing evaporation and infiltration characteristics. The difference between the volume entering and the volume leaving a proposed landlocked pond in the volume necessary for sustained retention. For both proposals, we conducted an annual average water balance computation which considered the following parameters: • The drainage area tributary to the potential pond • The amount of impervious drainage area • The average annual precipitation • The average annual runoff • The average annual pond evaporation • The estimated average annual infiltration through the pond bottom Mr. Rich Hefti ,June 24, 1988 Pape 2 The average annual precipitation, runoff and evaporation for the Rosemount area was obtained from the "Hydrology Guide for Minnesota" prepared by the U.S. Department of Agriculture -Soil Conservation Service, St. Paul, Minnesota. Infiltration through the pond bottom was estimated from soil permeability data obtained in a book entitled "Soil Mechanics" by Lambe and Wh i tman. Presently, the soils in both of the, proposed ponding areas are likely very sandy. Such soils are highly porous and allow substantial quantities of water to infiltrate through the ground. To design a permanent retention basin with such porous subsoils would not be recommended for two reasons. First, we have found that over extended periods of time, silts and organic matter such as leaves and grass clippings tend to retard the flow of water through the pond sediments. Second, the Hawkins Pond is also designed as a landlocked pond. To design retention basins upstream which will not affect the elevations of the Hawkins Pond requires significant ground infiltration retardants (especially in the case of the First Baptist Church of Rosemount because of its close proximity to the Hawkins Pond). If the retention basin is constructed with a sandy bottom, water would flow from the church pond through the ground at a rate fast enough to affect the level of Hawkins Pond. Thereforet for our analysis, we considered two soil types for a lining at the bottom of each of the two proposed church retention ponds. The two soil materials considered were a silt and a clay. Another consideration when designing retention basins is how much impervious drainage area would be constructed at ultimate development of the watershed. For land zoned fot church use, it is commonly considered that at ultimate development approximately 54 percent of the property would be impervious (area taken up by buildings, sidewalks, parking lots, and various playground facilities). In the case of Lutheran Church of our Savior, the 7.7 acre watershed is presently approaching ultimate development conditions. In the case of the First Baptist Church of Rosemount, the 27.5 acre watershed is still largely underdeveloped. This analysis considered pond designs only for ultimate development. Figures 1 and 2 are pond design charts for, the Lutheran Church of our Savior and the First Baptist Church of Rosemount retention ponds, respectively. Each chart contains curves for both silt bottom and clay bottom ponds. Each curve relates the required pond retention depth with the corresponding pond bottom areas. Conclusions and Comments It may be possible to construct retention basins for both church watersheds so that they do not significantly impact the Hawkins Pond. A silt or clay lined basin will be necessary to ensure this. There are however other important design issues which must be considered, such as groundwater effects. Constructing a retention pond will result in increased groundwater elevations at least in the vicinity of each pond. Therefore, the elevations of basements and low floors of existing and future facilities must be considered. Groundwater gradients must be C 0 a. 0 s� CL a� 0 7 6 5 4 3 `m • 0 2 Area of Retension Pond (Acres) Figure I LUTHERAL CHURCH OF OUR SAVIOR POND SIZING RETENSION 3 13 12 t 2 3 4 Area of Retension Pond (Acres) Figure 2 FIRST BAPTIST CHURCH OF ROSEMOUNT RETENSION POND SIZING Mr. Rich liefti June 24, 1988 Page 3 analyzed and compared with building elevations both upstream and downstream of a proposed pond. If you have any questions concerning the above information or analysis, please call me. Sin rely, —S -�S ven M. Klein SMK/tmk 811/320,0