Agenda - Council - 10/22/1991 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

I I I I I I I I I I I I ! I I I I I DISCUSSION OF JUNIPER WOODS By: Steven J. Jankowski, 2ND ADDITION City Engineer CASE POND Background: The developers of Juniper Woods 2nd Addition entered into a Development Agreement on November 26, 1990. A portion of paragraph 11 of this document references the developer's responsibility to construct and maintain a pond as follows: The developer, its successors or assigns agree to complete all finish grading and swales, ditches and pond construction including a liner to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and to maintain said pond, grading, swales and ditches until Certificates of Occupancy are issued for all lots within the plat. During this period, the developer shall prevent erosion by wind and water to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Recently, the developer has taken steps to fulfill the pond construction requirements. He has retained an engineer, McCombs Frank Roos Associates, Inc. to develop specifications for the construction of the pond and has received bids and identified a con~'actor to perform the work. The contractor has indicated a willingness to begin construction on this pond beginning the week of October 21, 1991. Earlier this month, I was contacted by Mrs. Gail Fessler who had a number of concerns regarding the construction of this pond. Since construction is anticipated to begin very shortly, Councilmember Beyer requested that the concerns of the citizens be presented as a case before the Council so that resolution might be possible prior to the construction commencing. Based on a meeting held with the City Engineer, the project engineer, the contractor and Gail Fessler on Tuesday, October 15, 1991, the following specific concerns were identified. Below, I have attempted to summarize each of the specific concerns along with the positions of the developer, the City and the residents. Initially, the grading plan of October 1989 had identified a three foot water depth with the normal water level being at the bottom of the incoming drain pipes. The Homeowner's Position: The homeowners expressed concern that the pond appear as an open water surface and not have emerging vegetation. Initially, the homeowners felt the pond needed to be increased in depth considerably. Paul Pearson, project engineer, indicated that many communities tend to restrict the depth of ponds in order to avoid the drowning hazard associated with children falling through ice. The homeowners appeared to want to rethink their position on the depth following this consideration. The Developer's Position: The developer wishes to proceed with the development of the pond in a manner to minimize his cost. The developer's engineers indicated that a two foot water depth would be sufficient to prevent emerging vegetation. Since the pond was over- excavated when rough graded, it may be most economical simply to regrade the existing bottom to a constant elevation. This will leave a depth slightly greater than the three foot design depth. .The City's Position: The City feels that the homeowners have a valid concern in constructing the pond to a depth which will eliminate emergent vegetation. The City Engineer has expressed an opinion that a four foot water depth is what he is most familiar with to achieve that condition. Although the City would be open to documentation of a lesser water depth requirement, preliminary investigation has corroborated the four feet minimum water depth.