4. Staff Report-Log House Landing Cmte
Staff Report
Date of Meeting: December 3, 2014
To: City Council
From: Kristina Handt, City Administrator
Re: Log House Landing Committee Request
Background:
The City Council last heard an update from Chair Maefsky at the November work session. Since
that time the committee has met twice and held a site visit. Copies of the November 13 and 19
meetings are included in your packet. The consensus seemed to be for a one way road at the
November 13th meeting. At the November 19th meeting, the committee wanted additional figures
showing the existing conditions. The committee also requested life cycle costs for gravel and
paved roads.
Following the meeting, City Engineer Ryan Goodman emailed me asking for authorization to
complete these tasks. Cost estimates he provided were up to $1,000 for the additional figures
and $950 for the life cycle costs. Given the comments from the Council when the committee was
created to keep costs down, I denied the request.
Proposal Details:
Committee members were requesting figures showing the EXISTING trees, lot lines, and
roadway. All of these items were shown on the preliminary layout provided in this summer. The
cost for that preliminary work has already exceeded $14,000. Staff would offer the additional
GIS aerial if the committee needs it but would also question why a figure is needed to see what
exists when the committee just completed a site visit on November 16th. Furthermore, some of
the Friends of the Log House Landing were involved in a video showing the existing conditions
this summer. That video is available at the end of the article at
http://www.stcroix360.com/2014/11/seeking-a-solution-for-log-house-landing/
I would encourage you to watch the video and pause it at 25 seconds to see that in fact more than
12-14 feet of road width is currently being utilized.
Both the City Engineer and the County Engineer have made comments relating to the fact that a
paved road with such a significant slope will control erosion better than a gravel surface. Why
are life cycle costs needed if everyone agreed controlling erosion was a primary concern? A
paved road would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan as Chap. 3, Section 13 of the
Development Code provides for paved streets. The first point listed under the Purpose and Intent
of Chapter 3 is “To implement the Scandia Comprehensive Plan.” Rather than relying solely on
general statements in the Comp Plan, the committee should consider the specific codes related to
roads that the Planning Commission recommended and the Council adopted in 2011. This
Chapter also calls for curb and gutter on both sides when the road centerline grade exceeds 4%.
Lastly, as you know I’ve suggested the Chair update the Council on where the committee is at.
In addition to deciding on a one way road at the November 13th meeting, the committee has
added another meeting date of December 17th. This means the recommendation will not reach
the Council until January unless the Planning Commission and Council are willing to have a
special meeting the week of Christmas or New Year’s. This has effectively pushed back the
timeline previously discussed in October by two months. The Council should consider giving
the committee a deadline to report back so that the meetings do not go any further into 2015 and
jeopardize the City’s ability to obtain the best bid prices.
Options:
On Funding Requests:
1) Approve up to $2,000 for requested items
2) Do not approve funding for additional requests
On Timeline:
1) Set Deadline for Committee to report recommendation. Staff suggests recommendation
be made at December 17th meeting so it can go to the Planning Commission and Council
in January and then the watershed district in February.
2) Do not set any parameters for committee.
Staff Recommendations:
Do not approve additional funding and require a recommendation be made at December 17th
meeting.