Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAH November 10, 1976 CITY 01 ANDOVER ASSEssrc1E.NT HEARING - NOVEMBER 10, 1976 The Assessment hearing was called to order by Hayor Richard LT. Schneider on November 10, 1976,7:30 p.m. at the Andover City Hall, 1685 Crosstrnin Boulevard N. Ir., Anoka, Hi!Ulesota. Improvements Covered: Sanitary Sewer - Northwoods, Green Acres, Red Oaks; Storm Sewer - Green Acres, East of Crooked Lake Blvd.; Streets - Green Acres, East of Crooked Lake Blvd., Portion 0 f Northwoods. Councilpersons:present: Holasek, Ri ther, VanderLaan, Windschitl Councilpersons:absent: None Also present: ' City Attorney, William G. Hmvkins; City Engineer, D. R. Kasma; City Clerk, P. K. Lindquist; and interested residents (Answers to residents questions in parenthesis) , Procedure explained by /layor Schneider and meeting t)l1"lled over to Engineer Kasrna. i Engineer Kasma went through each of the projects hriefly as far as costs are concerned and shmved maps of areas covered. i Attorney Hawkins explained hrnv the assessment roll is certified to the County Auditor the interest rate is 7.5% over a period of 20 years and that this can he paid in full Ivithin 30 days 'after certification without any interest. After this is certified to the County Auditor it becomes part 0+ your property tares. This also can be paid up during any year, (entire balance) but this payment must be made before November 15 or the interest will have to be paid +or the entire next year. Engineer Kasma leXPlained the Assessment Poliey which has been adooted hy the City of Andover and hoW it pertains to odd shaped and corner lots. I Herb Lorent;, 3030 142nd Lane N.W. - Pointed out his lot on the man. On storm sewer dramage, has lot that IS very low and his water does not drain into the system. Would like a little relief from the storm sewer assessment. (This lot could be filled and then would drain. ¡¡is is still i~tide the drainage area.) Should be able to benefit from it would assum you are asses according to benefit. (Attorney Hmvkins explained benefit to the þeighborhood and direct and indirect benefit to the residents in the area, also increased market value.) A""da will ho rll~d. ~d all ,~ita". '~or i,"~, qœ"i~ will b, ,_ first: John Noard, 14216 Heather, Parcel 6360 - When they came through they put two stubs on hIS property. At thIs time zoning doesn't warrant that lot to be divided, it would take a va iance on lot size because of the frontage. Requesting that there be deferrment or s mething on that stub charge until time lot could be subdivided. (The lot appear to be large enough and Ivhen in doubt they al1vays put a stub in rather than taking the chance that it will be needed later and the street Ivould have to he torn up to put tin. If that lot cannot he subdivided we should drop the stub charge and pick it up ren the lot is actually divided.) Attorney Hawkin stated if it can't be subdivided there is no benefit and at the time a variance is r corded or it is divided some way then the charge should be made. Record should be kept on this type of thing so this charge can be made at the time the lot is subdivided. I Assessment Hearing November 10, 1976 - ~1inutes Page 2 Peter K. Vonvett, 2890 l41st - Parcel 2510 - pointed out lot on map. Assessment for 200 feet, and also has two stubs. Short side of his lot is 68 feet which makes a minimum lot of 100 feet. Engineer assumed he has ú~o buildable lots so is assessed for úvo. Wants to be assessed for one lot the way it stands and one stub charge. (The lot assessment has, to remain the same but the stub charge could be dropped until such time as the lot Ivould be considered buildable.) Feels that more of the lot is unbuildable than was determined by the engineer and would like them to come back to take more borings. (We will come back to do this and check it out further.) Bob Grimley, 3621 142nd Lane - Parcel 6225 - What is the unit cotmection assessment, what are we paymg for. (Ihe amount is $1050 and this is the method of equalizing assessment for the trunk line that must be hrought into each area.) Presently paying $1100 and has 25 feet of front and 130 feet back and will have to pay three times as much as others to hook up the house to the sewer and would like some relief. I'm not getting any more benefit from sanitary sewer and am not getting very much benefit from storm sewer as must of my property runoff goes into the creek. (You are paving 100 foot frontage which is the minimum so you aren't paying any more than others in the area in similar situations.) I Harvin Thompson, 2309 140th - I'm in Red Oaks and that is not COffiT letc as far as sanItary sewer IS concerned, when will this be completed and can he have some relief because the way it is going now it will be December 15 before we can hook UP and we are wondering l~at the chances are of the assessment begitming December 15th instead of November 15th. (Pipe will be completed one week from Friday. These lines will have to be checked for broken places, etc. As soon as possible we will allow you to hook into it. rill Hawkins stated that we are required by Law to certify this assess- ment by October 10, and we have gone into November through the grace of the County Auditor. If we don't get it into the County Auditor in a very short time Ive Ivill not collect anything on these assessments unit 1 1978. Ire are still paying interest on the bond issue nOlv and this would be passed on to you.) What Ivould chances be, if you ore ",log" 'l off """ ~""~, <ba' w, bo ,11m"" " '"Y <hi, 30 <by, f~ completion date rather than 30 days from certification of assessment. (The State Statute says it has to be paid 30 days from the date of adoption of the Assessment Roll.) Arlene Walk, 13 09 Nightingale - Parcel 3350 - ~üght say my lot is pie shaped. No other lot that IS exactly like it, we have 97 feet across the front and 155 scross the back and her neVhbors all are being charged for 100 feet. Feels this is not fair and they should hav to pay for 125 feet. (I will be happy to calculate this out for you and show you how Ive arrived at the footage for your lot. If you were 97 in the front and 97 in the bàck you would be charged for 100 feet.) Bob Skoberg, 14621 Nightingale - Parcel 2850 - I'm on the curve of the road, with small part on t~e street IVlth more Ividth on the back. We're making up for the ones on the other si e. Rectangular lots getting charged regular amount. Can't go back 200 feet to mea1ure it. (We go back as far as Ive can and measure across.) Ones on outside of curv making up for ones on inside of curve. We are paying all the extra. Don't think thî is fair. (1re draw the line strai,ght across, add this with the front footage and di de by 2. We have adjusted front footage for the odd shaped lots.) Assessment Hearing November 10, 1976 - ~ünutes Page 3 Ed Oster, 13808 Nightingale - Parcel 4150 and 4200 - You assess on the shorte~t side on a corner lot, right? (Yes) I am on corner lot but I have this other lot next to me, the house is actually built on both parcels, and was told that variance could nevcr be allmved so another lot could be formed. Could something be allrnved to make this into one lot. (Engineer Kasma drelv map on board and explained the lots. He feels in this case an adjustment will have: to be made to 155 feet. Ire will go back and remeasure this just to be sure of the footage and will enter this in the record as nothing can be done 1Vith the second parcel and only one stub was put in.) Dan ~1cIntyrc, 2939 142nd Lane - You stated that on the Menkveld property stubs were put In at 110 feet. (Yes) Lets say variance goes through for 85 foot lots, Ivill you come through and tear up the streets and curbs to put in more stubs. (Not if I can help it, we can run a lateral and let them run two lines off of that. Explained by diagram on board.) Break - Strcct Improvement - East of Crooked Lake Boulevard No public input. ¡ Street Improvement - Northwoods Ron Gunderson, I Northlvoods Drive, Lot 7, Block 2 - Feels that the odd shaped lots are beIng assessed more than they should be and the corners are getting off easy. (The 1Vhole project is figured and each lot is assessed according to the Assessment Policy.) About three or four houses are paying for the people on the corner. I I Strect/Storm Sewer - (;reen Acres i Lloyd Reiman, 2813 142nd Avenuc - Went to the map and shmved the storm sewer project that the people¡ okayed. Showed what Ivas added. Statcd that the pipe in front of his house was replaced by another pipe and catch basin put in. Were told we 1Vould not have to pay for the rst of the project and then when the streets were put in it Ivas deter- mined that more storm se1Ver Ivou1d be needed and our assessment 1Vent up very high. (Engineer Kasrna explained the added portion of the storm sewer a~d how he has divided the project into three areas and labeled them a, b, & C. This was done so the Council could divide th+ assessments in this project area if that was determined the bcst. This all falls within the boundary that Ivas considered the project area from the very beginning.) I Discussion fOll~wed on Ivhether or not the people were notified of the additional storm s~ver and wheth r the saml1 section that was added last should be kept separate from the othcr two aras as far as assessments go. The whole area was covered by notices of the public h aring when this project first was anticipated. Dan 11cIntre, 29 9 142nd Lane - If I remember correctly, you had meeting about the storm sewer project and at thc one meeting the people from culdesac area Ivere not included in the meeting, :and feels it was decided that night to send out notices to these people to notify them that they were included in the storm selver project area. (Yes Ive did.) I Asse-sment Hearing November In, 1976 - mnutes Page 4 Ken Berglcy, 2824 142nd Lane N.W. - Parcel 6705 - Showed how some of his Imvn is below the curb: lIne so there is no possible way for his water to drain into the syster.1. Doesn I t fecI he is benefiting from the water runoff so should not have to pay full assessment. /lost of my lot drains to the back, only about 45 feet drains 1:) the front and into the system. (This construction in Green Acres Ivas extremely difficult. Some dirt Ivas removed and thcn replaced because it would have caused some of the driveways to have too much of a drop to the street. Won't argue with you that 10 feet of your property does not drain. After considering all the problems i t l~as determined that this was the best Ivay to complete this project.) Councilperson Windschitl feels the tapes of the public hearings should be reviC1~ed and pertinent sections recorded for us, to determine what was actually told to these people befOre a decision is made on this assessment. i I Engineer Kasma revielved the sequel of events leading up to this project. Allowance should be givp.n for the concrete pipe that was removed. Engineer Kasma explained bat the cost, around $500 can be taken from the project cost. Attorney Hmvkins explained that there are no legal problems with dividing the area into dif+erent assessment areas. , Tom 1rolters, 14208 I5'tvoOd - Was at one 0+ the last meetings where there was a big controversy beDveen Itum1nous and concrete curbing. We had taken up petitions against it in our area.' Certain individual right here was +or concrete. We didn't want it but they said the whole area should he the same, one area shouldn't he bituminous rod the rest of the: area concrete. Keep all the area together. I'm paying more for my concrete and n01v you are stuck with assessment for storm sewer and I feel it all comes out even. I ~OTION by VanderLaan, Seconded by Ho1asek, to close the public input porticn of the publIC hearing.! Carried unanimously. ~DTION by Rither, Seconded by VanderLaan, for Adoption of the Resolution Adopting the Assessment Roll for Improvement Project 1976 for the City of j\ndover. (Cony Attached). Changes, corrcctions or deferrments shall be added as amendments to the Roll in the form of a ~btion. Carried unanimouslv. ~DTION by SChnelder, Seconded by HOlasek, that Green Acres storm sewer proiect, ~ectlon A, be stparate and B & C be combined into one. Councilperson W ndschit1 feels Ive should determine what was actually said at the meeting before acting on this motion. Counci1person VlnderLaan asked that the fo1101~ing COMments be recorded in the Minutes: She would not sUpport splitting up 0+ the project area for the +ollowing reasons: , 1. Enginejr Kasma has provided sufficient revimv and eXDlanationtojustify the ad itional assessable area. 2. preliminafi plans did not al101v for curb and gutter and therefore did not requir~ ~ ffM1sewer. 3. There "as been sufficient testimony to substantiate nrOTIer notification of residents in that area. 4. Princip1cs regarding direct and indirect hencfit clearly apply to the project. 5. It is the City Council's int~on to be equitable. I i , Assessment Hearing November 10, 1976 - ~1inutes rage 5 6. The City Council has statutory authority to assess bene+ited area. 7. Inequity will be created. 8. Would like to caution the Council not to create the same type of problem that arose from the arbitrary action taken hy the Council at Auditor's Subdivision 82 Assessment Hearin~. 'UTIaN by Windschi tl, Seconded by Holasek that the previous Motion he tabled until the next Regular City Council meeting, November 16, 1976 so that the tapes can be researched. Vote: Yes; Schneider, HOlasek, Windschitl - No; VanderLaan, Rither. ~Iotion Carried. Attorney Hawkins stated that alterations can he handled at another time as long as everyone knrnvs Nhen we will act on the amendments. ~·UTIO;-'¡ by Holasek, Seconded by VanderLaan, to close the Public Hearing. Carried unanimous 1 y . Mayor Schneider called the Snecial ~Ieeting to Order. 'OTION by VanderLaan, Seconded by Rither, to hold a Supplemental Assessment Hearing on November 16,\ 1976 at 7:30 p.m., Andover City Hall. Carried unanimously. ~OTION by Rither. Seconded by VanderLaan, to appoint Dave Jack to act as City Liaison person to Ivork with the '·Ietro Council in formulating the systems statement. i Councilperson Rither su?gested Dave Jack hecause he has been involved Ivith P & z and is familiar I with the City of Andover over a long period 0+ time. Vote: Yes; VanderLaa.'1, Rither - No; Windschitl, Holasek, Schneider. 'btion defeated. 'OTION by sChneider, Seconded by VanderLaan, to anDoint Don .Tacobson as City Liaison person to work with the Metro Council in formulating the systems statement. Vote: Yes; Schneider, ¡Rither. ,VanderLaan, Windschitl - No; Holasek. 'lotion carried. 'OTION by !Iolasek to adjourn the meeting, Seconded by Schneider. '1eeting was adjJurned at 11:50 p.m. ,,?!~,rw~ , \,W \_/"J" 'ooo,dln, "'''1'"' ( '.. >' ,T ..."" \-,)i ,"lI) Oft , .