3. Staff Report-Log House Landing
Staff Report
Date of Meeting: July 1, 2015
To: City Council
From: Kristina Handt, City Administrator
Re: Log House Landing
Background:
In the fall of 2013, the Council approved applying for a State Park Road Account grant from the
DNR/DOT to cover 50% of the costs of improving Log House Landing (205th St). This project
had been added to the 2014-2019 CIP after previous discussions and meetings with the Car Mar
Watershed District in May and July of 2013.
In April 2014, we learned that the grant had been awarded. In July of that year some residents
attended a work session to express their displeasure with the proposal. In September, the
Council heard a presentation from the Friends of the Log House Landing. A committee of
citizens was formed and began meeting November 2014-January 2015. Washington County
Public Works staff began assisting with the meetings in December 2014.
On January 20, 2015 the Log House Landing Advisory Committee recommended a 13’ paved
road with two pullouts. For the most part, the Council approved this recommendation and
directed staff to begin working on a variance from the state since it did not meet the state road
requirements. In February staff informed the Council that it was unlikely a variance for a 13’
road would be approved. State officials expressed concern over having a one way road and
providing adequate public safety access to the landing. The Council directed staff to pursue
repurposing the funds for Quinnell Ave. The state would not allow the repurposing of the funds
unless a new grant application was submitted. Since this would have delayed the Quinnell Ave
project by a year, Council authorized moving forward with Quinnell Ave at their March work
session.
Christine Maefsy, former chair of the Log House Landing Advisory Committee, informed the
Council in May that she along with Pam Smith and Steve Kronmiller were continuing to look at
alternative road surfaces (other than asphalt). She asked to be the Council liaison to the citizen
group. The Council agreed to delay the decision on Log House Landing improvements until the
July 1 work session.
Issue:
What is the next step in the Log House Landing Improvement Project and grant funding?
Proposal Details:
Included in your packet are materials from Christine Maefksy. This includes a powerpoint
presentation, cost estimates, bound gravel specifications and bios for two engineers the group
consulted with.
Per the power point information, the group looked at the options of retaining the existing road
surface, using bound gravel or bound gravel with chloride, and asphalt. Additional suggestions
include 14 turnout areas that are to remain natural vegetation, two sedimentation ponds and
bringing back a rock ditch. The group appears to be recommending re-engineering the existing
road, bound gravel or a hybrid of these two options.
The City Engineer noted that the bound gravel specifications provided by the citizen group are
similar to the modified gravel we currently use that meet MNDOT specs. Note the far right
column compared to the second chart. Modified gravel has been used on graveling projects that
have a higher content of clay material and these roadways are generally flat with a crown in
the center graded at 4%. Very different circumstances than exist on 205th St N. Furthermore,
the citizen group offered no evidence of their proposal working under the same conditions that
exist within Log House Landing such as width, slope, underlying soils, and similar rain events to
compare results. Simply stating that a 75% reduction in erosion will occur is not evidence. For
example, information on precipitation from the DNR shows that Beltrami County (the example
offered by the group) got far less precip than Washington County last year. We should look to
roads in our area as examples.
The road maintenance costs supplied by the citizen group directly contradicts the information
provided by the County earlier in the process that showed little difference in gravel versus
asphalt over the long term.
Lastly, we would have some concerns about controlling erosion in the turnout areas, particularly
if vehicles are allowed to drive over them under moist conditions. This could create a channel for
drainage that eventually erodes.
Staff maintains their position that a 20’ paved road is the best option if the Council wants to
adequately address the erosion and access issues. A draft of the design as completed by the
county in January is included in your packet. As previously stated, the engineer would work to
design the layout of the road to minimize tree impact, staff believes it is consistent with the
Comp Plan (Planning Commission was never asked to vote on a 20’ road by the committee), the
road width would be reduced from the original grant application, curb and gutter would be on
one side, and parking spaces could be reduced to existing areas. Overall, this is a compromise
when compared to the initial proposal and meets the erosion and public safety requirements of
the road. It is not out of line to believe a variance would be approved for this plan since one of
similar size has already been approved by the state for a project in Franconia Township earlier
this year. Certainly, the upfront costs are higher with a paved surface but given the information
from the County, over the long term there is not much difference. Furthermore, paved surfaces
have been used in our area and we know they work.
Options:
1) Direct Staff to move ahead with recommendation from Christine Maefksy, Pam
Smith and Steve Kronmiller
2) Direct staff to move ahead with staff recommendation for 20’ paved road
3) Direct staff to inform DNR we are turning down the grant funds.
Recommendation:
Option 2 or 3