Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003.07.01_City Council Minutes OW ASSO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING Tuesday, July 1, 2003 The Owasso City Council met in regular session on Tuesday, July 1, 2003 in the Council Chambers at the Owasso Community Center per the Notice of Public Meeting and Agenda posted on the City Hall bulletin board at 4:00 p.m. on Friday, June 27, 2003. ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER Mayor Cochran called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. ITEM 2. INVOCATION The invocation was offered by Rickey Hayes, Director of Economic Development. ITEM 3. FLAG SALUTE City Manager Rodney Ray led the flag salute. ITEM 4. ROLL CALL PRESENT Gary Cochran, Mayor Susan Kimball, Vice Mayor Michael Helm, Councilor Craig Thoendel, Councilor ABSENT Steve Cataudella, Councilor STAFF Rodney J. Ray, City Manager Stephen Gray, City Attorney A quorum was declared present. ITEM 5. ODYSSEY OF THE MIND PROCLAMATION. Odyssey of the Mind team was represented by 7 students and 2 leaders. The Proclamation was read by Mayor Cochran who also extended congratulations to students and parents. ITEM 6. EARL CLARK PROCLAMATION The Mayor introduced Earl Clark and read a proclamation declaring July 14,2003 as Earl Clark Day in the City of Owasso. The proclamation further announced a summer series of "Clark in the Park" concerts on July 14, July 28, August 11, and August 25,2003. Mr. Clark accepted the proclamation. Owasso City Council July 1, 2003 ITEM 7. RECOGNITION OF EMPLOYEE OF THE MONTH. Mr. Ray introduced JeffBain as Employee of the Month. ITEM 8. PRESENTATION OF DRAINAGE REPORT. Councilor Helm asked to be recused from discussion and voting on this issue because of his membership and official position with First Baptist Church. Robert Carr presented this item. A memorandum was included which stated Staff s recommendations. Mr. McMartin submitted a letter dated 6/27/03 to Council to be included in minutes. Mr. McMartin then addressed the council to voice his disapproval of recommendations. Mr. Stan Hall, property owner and resident of the Windsor Lake subdivision, also addressed council. Mr. Thoende1 moved, seconded by Mr. Cochran, to approve Staffs recommendations: 1. That the City Manager be directed to proceed, without delay, to take action to ensure remedial action by First Baptist Church to reconstruct the detention facility located on their property so as to comply with the plans submitted and approved by the City on June 29,2001. 2. That the City Manager be directed to prepare such plans and specifications necessary to extend the City drainage pipe that is located on the south lot line of Mr. McMartin's lot and present the cost of that project to the City Council for inclusion as an appropriation in FY 2004 - 2005 budget. Such Budget to be effective July 1, 2004. Provided, however, that the initiation of such project is solely dependent upon compliance with the requirements of point #3. 3. That the City Manager be directed to take action necessary to require the removal of the "fill" placed on lots #6 & #7 in the Windsor Lake Subdivision so as to restore the path of the natural drainage that existed prior to that fill be placed on those two lots. 4. That the City Manager be directed to secure voluntary donations of additional easement and initiate the improvement of the detention and flow of stonnwater at the "inlet" located immediately east of Lot 10 of Windsor Lake Subdivision. 5. That the City Manager be directed to monitor the progress of these actions and provide written reports on a regular basis until such time as all items are complete. 2 Owasso Ci~y Council July 1, 2003 6. That the City Manager be directed to develop and present to the City Council a policy requiring the confirmation by an independent survey that all future detention facilities are constructed according to approved plans prior to the acceptance of such by the City of Owasso. AYE: Kimball, Thoendel, Cochran NAY: None Motion carried 3-0. ITEM 9. CONSIDERATION AND APPROPRIATE ACTION RELATING TO A REQUEST FOR APPRO V AL OF THE CONSENT AGENDA. Ms. Kimball requested to be recused from this item. A. Approval of Minutes of the June 17,2003 regular meeting. B. Approval of Claims. C. Action relating to Ordinance No. 760 - OZ-03-08, request to rezone property located North of East 116th St. North and East of Mingo Road from AG to RS-3. D. Action relating to Ordinance No. 761 - OZ-03-09, request to rezone property located Southwest of the Intersection of East 106th St. North and Mingo Road from AG to RS-3. Mr. Helm moved, seconded by Mr. Thoendel, to approve the consent agenda with claims in the amount of$107,817.04 and payroll claims in the amount of$239,077.98. AYE: Helm, Thoendel, Cochran NAY: None Motion carried 3-0. ITEM 10. REPORT FROM CITY MANAGER. Mr. Ray announced the City's receipt of a $9,495.40 grant for the purchase of 'protective' vests for the Police Department. ITEM 11. REPORT FROM CITY ATTORNEY. No report. ITEM 12. REPORT FROM CITY COUNCILORS. No report ITEM 13. NEW BUSINESS. None 3 Owasso City Council July 1, 2003 ITEM 14. ADJOURNMENT Ms. Kimball moved, seconded by Mr. Thoende1 to adjourn. AYE: Kimball, Helm, Thoende1, Cochran NAY: None Motion carried 4-0 and the meeting was adjourned at 7:55 p.m. ,:;r:J . if a"'Z~ /~/l'~~1 Pat Fry, Minute Clerk / 4 June 27,2003 9215 N. 134th East Ave Owasso, OK 74055 City Council City of Owasso 111 N. Main Owasso, OK 74055 RE: Response to June 25, 2003 memorandum from Mr. Carr & Ms. Stagg addressing Storm Water and Sanitary Sewer Drainage Issues - Clayton McMartin Propeliy - 9215 N. 134th East Ave, Windsor Lake II Honorable Mayor Cochran and City Councilors: I am writing in response to the June 25, 2003 memorandum from Mr. Carr and Ms. Stagg to Honorable Mayor and Owasso City Council re: Stonn water and sanitary sewer drainage issues. I have reviewed the document and would like to provide you with my comments for your further consideration. I would like to first express my appreciation to the Mr. Ray, Mr. Carr, and Ms. Stagg for their recent effOlis in investigating the issues that have been brought to the attention of the City Council. Within the scope of their investigation, the work has been very through and will prove to be useful as we work towards implementing the overall solution. In my observation, the report does conclusively identify one of the inadequacies in the drainage system affecting my property; namely the improperly constructed retention pond at the First Baptist Church propeliy. It is my desire to see a solution to this issue implemented as soon as possible. There are four items that I would like to address with my comments. One requests additional clarification, two are issues not addressed in the memorandum, and the forth is a development which has occUlTed over the past few weeks that may further compound the problem. Item #1 Request for additional information The repOli presents photographs of a drainage channel, dated 4/22/95 (Attachment F1), which is allegedly in the same area of the subject property. Unfortunately, the photos have no sign of orientation, direction, or indication of boundaries. Searching for milestones, there does appear to exist a sanitary sewer manhole in the lower photograph, which could possibly be located South of the subject propeliy by at least two lots. Unfortunately, I have no way to confirm this possibility, and the profile of the current manhole does appear to be different. I have also compared the photos to the existing Response to 6/25/03 Report Page 1 6/30/03 trees and other landmarks, and have been unable to find a match in or around my property. The photos are indeed interesting, and if of the same area, would certainly serve to prove that a natural drainage channel once existed near the subject property. The photos also show the magnitude ofthe development that has occurred in the Windsor Lake II and Nottingham subdivisions, the initial events that have lead up to the current inadequate drainage system that we are faced with today. Modifications to the pre-development topology, including the installation of an area inlet routed through an enclosed drainage system to the Nottingham pond, have significantly impacted the original "natural drainage" course. These, and any other photos, may assist in better understanding the pre-development state of the Windsor Lake II and Nottingham subdivisions. Also shown in exhibit E is a topographic map of the immediate area showing both 1994 and 2003 contour lines. It should be noted that according to the 1994 contour lines, the drainage course at that time exited by propeliy along the East boundary and traveled across lots 7 and 8 of Nottingham. It should also be noted that the 1994 drainage course would intersect with a swimming pool that is now located on lot 8 of Nottingham. Further, based on topographical maps as late as 1985, a pond existed in the drainage channel in the area of lot 9 and/or 10 of the Nottingham subdivision. This would be consistent with the general infonnation provided. Attachment E does not however provide sufficient detail or coverage to identify this feature. A map encompassing lots 9 and 10 along with 2003 and 1994 contour lines for the entire affected area would be beneficial. The photos and topographical map would appear to be further proofthat the developers of Nottingham and Windsor Lake II altered the drainage course during the period that the subdivisions were being developed. Again, leading to the inadequate drainage system that we are faced to address today. Please provide me with additional explanation, and/or clarification, peliaining to the photos shown in Attachment F1 and topographical survey shown in Attachment E, or any other photos from the 1995 time frame that the city may be in possession of. Item #2 A key component in the system was not considered The area inlet located South of the subject property is a key component to the entire drainage system, yet was not addressed in the report. Based on recent flooding it appears to be inadequately designed, to receive and discharge stonn water nmoff. During many occasions, two occurring this past spring on May 20,2003 and June 1,2003, the area inlet has been overwhelmed by resulting runoff. The volume and rate of flow frequently builds to the point that excess runoff is forced to take an altemative course outside of any drainage easement or existing drainage channel. Response to 6/25/03 Report Page 2 6/30/03 One contributing factor to the problem would seem to be the fact that trash and debris accumulates around the grating, effectively reducing the area available to receive water. This raises the question as to whether or not the design is adequate for the service. At the time of this writing, the grating is approximately 50% blocked by debris and trash. Although blockage is undoubtedly a factor, it should be noted that the grating was thoroughly cleaned by City employees on May 20th, only to have the drainage system fail again on June 1,2003. City officials have acknowledged that it is the responsibility of the City to keep the area inlet clean and free of debris. After surveying residents in the area, it appears that the City has cleaned the area inlet only once, May 20t\ during the past 3 or 4 years. Stemming from safety concems for propeliy and person, residents have been perfonning this duty since the inadequate system was originally installed. It should also be noted that the report points to the existing fences as a partial contributor to the overall drainage problem. Contrary to that statement, the fences actually serve to filter the debris from the water, and in fact serve to keep the system more functional than would otherwise occur. It is common to have residents remove 4 or 5 bags of limbs and leaves from fences after a stonn, which would have otherwise served to further block the area inlet. Until a pemlanent solution can be installed, I request that the City of Owasso remove trash and debris from the area inlet within 48 hours following any rain event that results in more than ~" of rainfall. Further, an engineer analysis of the entire system should be conducted, taking into consideration the obstruction caused by trash and debris that accumulates in an around the area inlet. Based on past observations, it would be reasonable to consider cases where the area is 50% blocked, 75% blocked, and 95% blocked. Hem #3 Seepage Continual seepage is the most significant problem There exist two seepage issues on the property, yet the report is somewhat confusing in this area. One is attributable to the storm water drainpipe that collects water from the street and discharges openly onto the property (identified as item #2 in the June 25, 2003 Memorandum from Carr, et. al. In this case the connections between the pipe sections, being unsealed, serve to collect ground water along the South boundary of my property, which is then discharged at grade near the Southeast comer of the property. This is the source that the City of Owasso was cited for by the Tulsa County Health Department on 6/05, 6/06, and on 6/19/01 (Shown as Exhibit A in written comments submitted to City Council on May 20,2003). The City of Owasso has yet to respond to this citation. The second seepage issue has stemmed from a concentration of gi"oundwater flow resulting from the loss of penneable surface area at the new Baptist church construction Response to 6/25/03 Report Page 3 6/30/03 site. The ground water has risen to the surface near the Northeast comer of the property. This seepage did not exist prior to the church construction and has become more pronounced with time, as additional surface area has been covered upstream. The report did not address this issue, which is the most problematic of all factors affecting the property. It is my understanding that there is a high likelihood that the construction activities lead to the disruption of subsurface drainage, but cannot be proven absolutely without the benefit of mapping subsurface drainage prior to the construction beginning. The City was notified of my concerns prior to any construction activity beginning on the church propeliy (see Exhibit D in written comments submitted to City Council on May 20, 2003, along with documented phone calls and discussions with prior City Manager LalTY Mitchell), yet did not take action to consider the complete impact of the new construction on downstream property owners. It should be noted that in the CUlTent year, rainfall amounts are lower than average, essentially eliminating the only other plausible reason for the surfacing of this ground water. Any of the 3 possible solutions, outlined in the June 25, 2003 Memorandum to the Mayor and City Council of Owasso under Item 3 Increased Runoff from the First Baptist Property, would serve to solve this problem. I request that the City of Owasso take into consideration the impact of the increased volume of stonn water resulting from the new construction upon the subsurface drainage, providing proof that it was not a contributing factor to the new source of seepage, if such proof does exist. I tern #4 Alternate course for excess storm water is now obstructed. Within the past few weeks, property owners South of the area inlet have erected wooden privacy fences. On future occasions, when storm water overloads the existing inadequate area inlet, these new fences will further obstruct the overflowing water. These property owners are taking action based on a perception that their property does not serve as a natural drainage channel. Arguably, there did once exist a drainage channel through these areas, but it was modified during the development of the subdivisions. These actions will further compound an already deficient and inadequate drainage channel. Please take this under considerations as you prepare an overall solution to the entire problem. Response to 6/25/03 Report Page 4 6/30/03 Conclusion In closing I would like to extend my appreciation to the City Council of Owasso for having the study conducted. I would also like to thank the City Staff for their professionalism in perfonning the analysis. Now that the study has been conducted, and the deficiencies identified, it is now time to implement a total solution to the inadequate drainage system. The solutions outlined by city staff in the report address the retaining pond, the street water drainage (refelTed to as Item #2 in the report), and the increased nmoff from the church property (refelTed to as Item #3 in the repOli). Implementation of these solutions will solve the entire problem and should begin immediately. I have attempted to work in good faith with the City of Owasso over the course of the last 3 years, to address this deficient system. I respectfully request that we now move from studying and evaluating the problem to the implementation of an overall solution. Left unresolved, this problem will continue to compound with the additional growth and development of the City. There will never be a time in the future when the costs required to fix this problem will be less than they are right now. Now is the time to COlTect this past wrong. Should you have any additional questions, or like to discuss any particular issue(s), please do not hesitate to contact me at your convenience. Respectfully, Clayton McMatiin II Property Owner 9215 N. 134th East Ave Response to 6/25/03 Report Page 5 6/30/03