Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPH September 27, 1978 , - . ~ 01 ANDOVER ~!EADOWCREEK PUBLIC HEARING - SEPTEMBER 27, 1978 MINUTES Pursuant to notice published thereof, a Public Assessment Hearing on the 1978 Street and Storm Sewer Project in the area known as Meadowcreek Estates was called to order by Mayor Windschitl on September 27, 1978, 7:30 p.m., at· the Andover City Hall, 1685 Crosstown Blvd. N.W. Councilpersons present: Lachinski, McClure, Orttel, VanderLaan Councilpersons absent: None Also present: City Engineers John Davidson and David Pillatzke; City Clerk P.K. Lindquist, and interested residents Mr. Davidson stated he hoped the project would be complete within the next two to three weeks. The project initially was estimated to cost $26.70 per front foot at the time of the assessment hearing, $17.85 per front foot for streets and $8.85 per front foot for storm sewer. Following the bid opening and adding in the bond interest, engineering, legal, administrative fees and using the actual contract figures, the cost increased to $27.19, a difference of 491 per front foot. A typical 100 ft. lot would then be assessed $2,719.00. Mr. Davidson went on to explain how the assessments could be paid off. Mr. Pillatzke then explained with the use of a drawing how he computed the assessments based on the City's assessment pOlicy of a minimum of 100 ft. The odd shaped lots are adjusted on the average depth frontage, or the equivalent to the frontage if it was a rectangular lot of the same area and depth. On a cul-de-sac lot, the adjusted front footage would be computed by taking the area of the lot and dividing that by the average depth to come up with the adjusted front footage. On a rectangular lot, where the rear lot and front lot dimensions are within 5 ft. of each other, the adjusted front footage is computed by averaging the length of the front and back lots. There are other provisions such as where the back lot and front lot footage deviate more than 5 ft. The adjusted front footage would be determined by computing the area and then dividing by the area depth again. On a corner lot, the front of the lot would be the short side, which would be the assessable footage. If the lot is deeper than 200 ft. on a side street, anything over 200 ft. would be added onto the adjusted front footage. Air. Davidson stated they went through and recomputed the areas and the average depths. They were not assigned to Andover at the time the sanitary sewer went through and were not aware that the frontages had already been computed. In those cases where computations differed from the original, they reverted back to the original computations so there would be no deviations from the uniform policy that has been established. As far as boulevards are concerned, it is left up to the property owners to revegetate the area to keep the cost down. On the subject of driveways, if the property owner had an existing concrete or bituminous driveway and they had to cut it back, they replaced the amount that was removed with like material. From the curb to the property line, all aprons were estimated on using bituminous. In the case of an existing concrete driveway and the property owner desired a concrete apron, a letter was sent explaining who they could contact. Testimony was then open to the public. Meadowcreek ?ubli .eariIlt September 27, 1978 - Minutes - Page 2 Ron Wolfe - 13601 Heather St. N.W. - questioned the engineer's statement that they are not putting concrete back in the aprons. In the letter from the engineer dated 9-15-78, the second page states the cost of driveway construction in addition to the bit1Jlllinous apron or concrete apron is the direct responsibility of the property owner. He had an attornëÿ look at the letter and this attorney stated he believed the letter could be considered a legal document and possibly a class action suit could be started. Mr. Davidson said he could not answer aIJy legal questions but the letter's main intent was to inform the property owners with existing sand or gravel driveways who they could go to if they wanted a bituminious or concrete driveway put in at the same time as the street construction. Mr. Wolfe stated the contractors listed to not want to put in the private driveways so they have raised their prices to avoid this. Mr. Davidson again stated the assessment was based on a bituminous apron to the property line. If the property owner wanted concrete instead of blacktop, that cost would be his responsibility. Likewise, if the property owner wanted their entire driveway improved with either blacktop or concrete at the time of street construction, the cost would be their responsibility as this would not be a part of the project. Mr. Wolfe then mentioned his lot receives absolutely no benefit from the storm sewer, however, he was not complaining about the policy change of figuring the storm sewer assessment previously based on a square footage to a front footage figure. He is arguing the point that those property owners desiring a concrete apron are paying for something they are not getting in that they have to pay for the concrete apron and are also paying for a bituminous apron in their assessments. Before the first pUblic hearing, a letter was sent out stating the þUrpose of it was to find out what you, the people want. He was \IDder the impression if you had an existing concrete driveway, the apron would also be concrete and that was discussed at the first hearing. He went on to say that Mr. Kasma stated at this hearing an adjustment would be made for those property owners desiring concrete driveways. In the discussion that followed, Mayor Windschitl stated he has sat thro\1gh other hearings of this type and he could not recall where when the person had concrete to his property line that they didn't finish it off in concrete. C01JIlcilperson VanderLaan asked the City Clerk to obtain the minutes of the first public hearing to get some of these points clarified. Dick Thedens - 13634 Heather St. N.W. - he has an odd shaped lot and wanted to know how his front footage was computed. He had a copy of the original preliminary plat and assumed it was correct. lœ. Pillatzke explained how he arrived at the figure of 139 ft. This was one of the parcels which was changed after learning that the street and storm sewer front footage would be the same as the sanitary sewer front footage. In this case, Mr. Thedens assessment is based on the original computation of 147 ft. Mr. Pillatzke stated each engineer has his own method of computing front footages. He feels this particular parcel should be reduced to 139 ft. as the previous 147 ft. is not consistent with the assessment policy on irregular shaped lots. Also noted was this area was never officially platted so the lot dimensions shown on Mr. Theden' s copy of the preliminary plat could very well have been changed over the years. CO\IDcilperson VanderLaan stated if there was an error on the original sanitary sewer assessment, maybe a ref1JIld is in order and asked the City Clerk to research this. Paul Redhead - 3160 Bunker Lake Blvd. N.W. - asked if the road was going to end at his driveway or be continued to the church property. He was told the paved road would end at his driveway. Nsyor Windschitl commented the special use permit granted to the church contains a requirement that a frontage road be built. Mr. Redhead stated he is being assessed for 120 ft. and wanted to know when the road would be finished as he is getting assessed for something that isn't there. A recommendation will be made to only assess Mr. Redhead for the footage from his property line to the end of his driveway. When the road is extended, he will then be assessed for the balance. -.~- .- -- Meadowcreek Pub Ii leari~ September 27, 1978 - Minutes - Page 3 Norman MYhre - 13528 Jonquil St. N.W. - stated he owns the corner lot adjacent to 135th Ave. For the record, since 135th Ave. is not going to be completed at this time, he wishes to be exempt for the first 200 ft. so that in 10 years he wouldn't get a double assessment. Mayor Windschit1 stated that was in the assessment pOlicy now. Mr. MYhre said he didn't want it changed next year. Dean Keller - 13547 Heather St. N.W. - stated he is being assessed on 105 ft. He asked if there were property line changes, shouldn't the front footage be corrected at this point? Mr. Pillatzke asked if a survey had been done recently and the answer was yes. His correct footage is 97 ft., the other 8 ft. belongs to another person. When the house next door was built, they later learned that part of it was built on his property so 8 ft. was purchased but never recorded with the County. He is in the process of getting this straightened out. Mr. Keller was advised an adjustment would be made after he brought in the proper documents showing the lot line has been changed and title recorded. Adrian Anderson - 13350 Jonquil St. N.W. - Mr. Anderson owns a large lot and is being assessed for 171 ft. At one point in time he was told he would never get assessed over 100 ft. He feels the City's assessment policy is unfair as the smaller lots with the lower assessments benefit equally from the project. 1Ær. Davidson stated 1Ær. Anderson's front footage was computed in accordance with the City's established assessment policy. He agrees that possibly the policy should be changed. One alternative would be to set a maximum of 150 ft. Another would be to take the cost of the entire project and divide the cost by the number of property owners. Councilperson Vanderlaan commented if that pOlicy was adopted, the smaller lots would end up paying more and the larger lots less. lœ. Davidson stated there is no such thing as an equal assessment, there are only uniform assessments. Councilperson VanderLaan noted that Mr. Anderson's front footage was changed from 158 ft. to 171 ft. and asked if the 171 ft. was correct. Mr. Pillatzke explained if you have three different engineers computing average depth, you can come up with three different answers. He went on to explain how he computed lœ. Anderson's lot. Both Mr. Davidson and Mr. Pi11atzke recommend that the figure of 158 ft. be used in this case. Kathy Phillippi - 3162 - 136th Ave. - stated they have a frontage of 60 ft. as they are on a cul-de-sac. When they first bought the property, they were told they would never be assessed over 100 ft. They are being assessed on 108 ft. and feels it should be reduced to 100 ft. Mr. Pillatzke explained how this lot was computed. This lot is somewhat larger than the rest on the cul-de-sac, therefore, the difference of 8 ft. He recommends that the 108 ft. figure be used. llrs. Phillippi again stated before they purchased the property, they called City Hall and were told they would never be assessed over 100 ft. Councilperson VanderLaan asked when they purchased the property and was told in 1973. The assessment policy was adopted in September, 1976, and revised in April, 1977. In 1973 there were no assessments and, therefore, no assessment policy. The answer of 100 ft. was probably City Hall's best attempt to compute what they could expect. In the discussion that followed, it was more or less agreed the assessment pOlicy needs to be revised to make it more equitable to cul-de-sac lots in the future. Councilperson Lachinski felt the new policy should work out so that no cul-de-sac lot be assessed over 100 ft. There seemed to be a discrepancy between the Phillippis' east lot line shown on the plat map and the footages calculated by the engineers. Mayor Windschi tl then asked the Council what they wished to do with this item. Councilperson Vanderlaan commented there are many errors on the plat. For the record, she stated lœ. Pillatzke has carefully indicated his calculations and feels the Council must retain the 108 ft. on the Phillippi lot to substantiate the assessments to the other property owners in that general area and again based on the concept that the larger lots do have the larger assessments, he has especially stressed that already the benefit of a doubt was given to this particular lot. Councilperson Lachinski remarked that if there are some errors in -.". - Meadowcreek Publì .!eari~ September 27, 1978 - Minutes - Page 4 the plat, some further research should be done in order to correct them. The property owners could then bring in a lot survey certificate and adjustments could be made. Mr. Davidson stated the original surveyor of record is responsible to assure the public the plat is correct in every way. Mayor Windschitl said this hearing could be continued to next Tuesday, October 3, 1978, in order to give the engineers time to look at those lots there were questions on. Recess at 9:15; reconvene at 9:25 p.m. Mayor Windschitl advised that during the break they used an engineer's scale on the City plat map and at least the first two lots on the 136th cul-de-sac are not to sCale. LeJan Lanning - 13538 Jonquil St. N.W. - stated his front footage was figured on 113 ft. and his neighbor's was figured on 100 ft. Both lots are 100 ft. on the front, his neighbor's rear lot 'is 120 ft. and his rear lot is 125 ft. Mayor Windschitl questioned IÆr. Pillatzke as this was another case where the figures were changed. Mr. Pillatzke stated he had no explanation on why Parcel 5921 was computed at 100 ft. In his computations he arrived at 113 ft. Mr. Davidson reiterated they reverted back to the original computations in order to be uniform. Their computations in moEtareas ended up higher than those used during the sanitary sewer assessment so they felt in all cases the owners were given the benefit of a doubt. Councilperson McClure asked if those computations which were not lined out on the assessments sheets were the same as those originally computed. Mr. Davidson said yes. Re then posed the question that if those lots were computed a third or a fourth time by different engineers, would they each have different set of numbers? Mr. Davidson answered yes, if you used a different individual computing on the same criteria, using the same pOlicy, you would come up with different frontages. In most cases, they agree. The only difference appears to be with lots where you get into an adjusted front footage based on value judgment as to average depth and average width. Councilperson McClure thought the City's assessment policy was very vague in the method to be used in calculating front footages. 1~. Davidson stated he did not feel they could be more specific. In some cases it could be interpreted from the arc distance of 200 ft. for instance; or one might, because of the frontage, strike a chord and compute it from the chord distance; a third might just average the side dimensions and strike an average. He further stated he could refine it but was not sure if it was worth all the effort. Mayor Windscbltl thought there was no question about it, it had to be refined. Councilperson art tel asked if the person who originally computed the front footages was available to answer these questions. He was told this person is no longer with T.K.D.A. and is unavailable for comment. Mr. Lanning then asked when the project would be finished. He has a problem in that at present he has a 6" drop from the concrete to the street and he is ruining his tires. Mr. Pillatske stated this problem should be alleviated within the next few days. Ron Wolfe - 13601 Heather St. N.W. - The City Clerk read the following excerpt from the May 11, 1978 public hearing minutes: ''Mr. Wolfe then asked if they could get any credit if they put in a concrete driveway instead of blacktop. Mr. Kasma thought some consideration could be given to this but at this time he did not know what or how much." Councilperson Lachinski questioned are they saying the price of the blacktop is so low, they really cannot deduct it? Mr. Davidson said at the rate per ton, there would not be any large credit given to the owner. The end result in the ensuing conversation between Mr. Wolfe, the Council and the Engineers was that adjustments would be made for those property owners desiring concrete aprons, ie., the cost of a bituminous apron will be deducted from the assessment. Douglas Stockamp - 13617 Jonquil St. N.W. - asked if they were going to put in black dirt on the boulevards. Mr. Pillatzke said yes, 3" of topsoil. Councilperson McClure hoped they got better dirt than the 77-1 street project as the peat mixture they received turned out to be like concrete and they had to haul in black dirt in order to get anything to grow. --". - Meadowcreek Publ~ .-rearir~ September 27, 1978 - Minutes - Page 5 Mayor Windschitl asked what the Council wished to do about Mr. Lanning's problem of being assessed more for a smaller lot. ~Ær. Davidson stated it was their feeling that if it was contested in the courts and they used the same assessment footage used in 1976, they have less lik]bood of having to justify anything different. In most cases there was a reduction. Mayor Windschitl suggested the Council meet fairly soon to make some adjustments in the assessment policy in order to avoid the problems presented at this public hearing. Mr. Davidson advised the assessment figures presented are still estimates. If the actual cost comes in less, the property owners will be given a credit. If they come in higher, a supplemental hearing will be held, probably some time next Spring. Mayor Windschitl stated the interest rate was calculated at 7% which is 1% above the amount for which the bonds are anticipated to be sold. If the improvement bonds are sold at a rate lower than estimated, the rate used would be 1% over the actual. MOTION by Orttel, seconded by McClure to continue the assessment hearing for Meadowcreek Estates to 8:00 p.m., October 3, 1978, at the Andover City Hall, 1685 Crosstown Blvd. N.W. Motion carried unanimously. Meeting recessed 10:20 p.m. Respectfully submitted: Rae Ellen Bakke Recording Secretary ¡'l I:~ ( ,"VI l '" ~ .. ¿, ." Gi" --'.