Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPH June 9, 1980 ~ 01 ANDOVER PUBLIC HEARING - SANITARY SEWER, STREET, AND/OR WATER IMPROVEMENTS FOR SOUTHWEST AREA 1. Call to Order - 7:30 P.M. 2. Engineering Comments 3. Council Comments 4. Public Testimony 5. Close or Continue Public Input Portion of Hearing 6. Council Discussion 7. Terminate or Order Improvements & Direct City Engineer to Prepare Final Plans 8. Close or Continue Public Hearing SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING 1. Call to Order 2. Agenda Approval 3. Accept Grade Plans for CSAH No. 9 a. TKDA is to review these plans and have a report ready for the City Council. The Resolution presented to the Council on June 3 is to be adopted. 4. Order Improvement of Eide1weiss Street from 135th Avenue North to Termination b. There was some discussion on the total length of this street at the June 3 Meeting. Dave Pi11atzke and Ray Sowada have checked for the total number of feet having been maintained by the City. TKDA wi 11 have the corrected figures for the meeting. You have copies of the prepared resolution. 5. 6. Adjournment -... ~-... ~ 01 ANDOVER SOUTHWEST AREA UTILITIES IMPROVEMENTS PUBLIC HEARING - JUNE 9, 1980 ~lINUTES Pursuant to notice published thereof, a Public Hearing on the proposed construction of utilities to serve the southwest area of the City of Andover was called to order by Mayor Jerry Windschit1 On June 9, 1930, 7:30 p.m., at the Andover City Hall, 1685 Crosstown Boulevard NW. Councilmen present: Lachinski, Ortte1, Peach Councilman absent: Jacobson Also present: TKDA City Engineers, John Davidson, Larry Bohrer, and Mark Schumacher; City Engineer, Larry Winner; City Clerk, P. K. Lindquist; and interested residents Mayor Windschit1 explained that the Council is acting on petitions received from the various areas relative to utility improvements in the southwest area of the City, and he reviewed the boundaries of the project. Council discussion was on the areas included in the feasibility study north of where the sanitary sewer trunk line would end; that no petitions have been received from that area; and that at a prior meeting Council generally agreed not to assess for sanitary sewer benefit for properties ahead of the trunk line. Mr. Davidson reported that everyone in the potential area of service was notified of the meeting, as the Council can legally choose to reduce the area for assessment purposes but cannot increase the assessed area. MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Orttel, that we delete from any further consideration for the Southwest Area Improvements project that area north of South Coon Creek Drive and including any properties abutting South Coon Creek Drive. ~lotion carried unanimous ly. The intent is not to assess those property owners abutting South Coon Creek Drive and northward, but the property known as the Hu1egaard properties will remain in the project area. Mr. Davidson reviewed the Feasibility Report on Southwest Area Improvements for City of Andover, MN, Commission No. 7375A, dated May 20, 1980, as it relates to the initiation of the project, abutting parcels, and the assessment period. He also ex- plained the assessment procedure as it relates to direct lateral benefit for sanitary sewer and the area unit trunk charge for the sanitary sewer, noting that installation of watermains, sanitary sewer lines, and oversizing for storm water drainage across County Road 9 is being done in conjunction with the County's improvement of the road- way this construction season. Mr. Davidson then reviewed the proposed trunk and lateral sanitary sewer system project through the area, noting that all laterals will be an 3-inch line with the exception of the north area of Auditor's Subdivision 82, which wi 11 be sized to 10 inches to servi ce the basement leve 1 s of those homes. David Stanton, 3648 143rd Avenue NW - asked how corner lots are assessed and who decides whether a lot is big enough to subdivide. (Mr. Davidson explained the lot is normally assessed on the short frontage, and a side-yard credit is allowed based on the average lot depth of lots within the subdivision. The City ordinance generally relates to whether or not the lot is subdividable. If there is a problem with the present location of the house, that must be taken care of by a separate appeal to the Council.) Phil Volk, 3527 142nd Lane - stated he will be charged once for frontage, plus the per- acre assessment, plus again if he develops his property. There is no street into his land. He stated he would be paying for the sanitary sewer but not receiving it, and he doesn't want it. He didn't think it was right to pay for the area assessment but still have to pay later to run the line in. (Mr. Davidson stated that the costs to extend the trunk up there, plus the line in front of the house, plus providing the stub to provide service to the house all relate to the actual costs to provide the service. - --- - . . Southwest Area Utilities Improvements Public Hearing June 9, 1980 - Minutes Page 2 There is no intent to run lateral sewer into the dedicated right of way across Mr. Vo1k's property, so there would be no direct benefit for anything except the parcel facing Round Lake Boulevard. The assessment is felt to be a fair one with those receiving the benefit paying for it in an equitable manner. Mayor Windschitl also explained that at this time, on the open areas where no laterals are being installed, the only assessment is the area assessment for the trunk line on a per-acre basis. Those in existing developments will pay that per-acre trunk line assessment as well as the direct lateral benefit. He also explained how the gross-acre assessment is determined so that everyone is treated equally.) Mike Alexander, 14311 Round Lake Boulevard - stated that the number of lots in the pro- posed Good Value Homes development 1S more than those in Auditor's Sub. 82. When determining the per-acre assessment, it means that the per-lot basis that Good Value will be selling is reduced in cost to them. He asked what happens to the cost of those areas that would be receiving the improvement if other areas of the project were deleted. Would it increase the cost to them? (Mr. Davidson stated that there would be some cost adjustment. Because the trunk cost is determined on an area basis rather than a connection charge as has been done on previous projects, the Council can choose whether to delay the assessment to those areas or to assess the entire charge to the reduced area. Those decisions would be made at the Assessment Hearing. The price being estimated this evening is the cost of the facility to serve this area. As those areas are adjusted, the cost is going to remain the same. Mayor Windschit1 then reviewed the latest petition counts for sanitary sewer for the various subdivisions: Chapman's Additions, 29 yes, 12 no; Bunker Lake Boulevard through Quickstrom, 84 percent yes; Quickstrom, 23 yes, 9 no; west side of Round Lake, 15 yes, 9 no; 142nd Avenue to 145th Avenue on Round Lake Boulevard, 5 yes, 8 no; and Auditor's Subdivision 82, 50 yes, 36 no.) Martin Castle, 14339 Vintage, Auditor's Sub. 82 - wanted to change his vote to a yes on the san1tary sewer. Ra Freeman, 3448 South Coon Creek Drive - understood at this time he is deleted from t 1S proJect ent1re y. Mr. reeman was told that the Council moved to delete his area from the project and at this point does not need to be concerned about the project or any assessment for it. However, the facility has been sized to take care of that area in the future.) Bill LeFebvre, 14278 Underc1ift - felt that a lot of the confusion was that the second pet1t1on from Auditor's Sub. 82 also drifted to County Road 9 and to South Coon Creek Drive. - if the system is not going to service that area, can it be down- slzed, therefore reducing the cost. (Mayor Windschitl stated that the Council is looking at keeping the same sized area except deferring the assessment into that area until such time as a petition comes in or development on the property. It is his understanding that those areas remaining in the project would not be paying any more money because that area was deleted.) Robert , representing George Ado1fson - understood that the reasoning behind el1m1nat1ng the area on South Coon Creek Drive was essentially because the area was not going to be directly serviced. (Mayor Windschit1 stated the original intent is that if property is ahead of the sewer pipe, the City would not levy the area assessment; and that is what is being done with the South Coon Creek area. If areas are equal to the pipe and can be served with no further construction of the trunk line, then the intent is to serve the area assessment.) fAdo1fson representative) - didn't think that was the case with the Adolfson property. t seemed to him that that property falls in the same category as the South Coon Creek Drive area. He understood there will only be a trunk sanitary sewer assessment for the Adolf sOn property at this time (correct) and nO laterals will be adjacent to or Southwest Area Utilities Improvements Public Hearing June 9, 1980 - Minutes Page 3 serving any part of his land. He suggested, therefore, that he is in the same category as the South Coon Creek Drive area; and not having any plans for development for the foreseeable future, he also respectfully asked the Council to be petitioned out of the project in the same fashion. (Mayor Windschit1 explained that the Ado1fson property is clearly below or equal to the trunk line pipe; and Mr. Ado1fson is being provided outlets of the trunk line. A large portion of the Ado1fson property can be serviced out of that trunk line without any future construction outside of internal laterals. No assessment is being proposed for laterals on the Ado1fson property at this time; strictly the area assessment.) Councilman Lachinski noted for the record that Mr. Carlson, developer of the proposed Woodland Terrace plat, is unable to be here this evening. Mr. Carlson called Council- man Lachinski and indicated that he would have the same cOncern -- he would not like to be assessed at all. Councilman Lachinski indicated to him that with the change in the assessment policy, that in all likelihood Mr. Carlson would receive an area assessment for the trunk sanitary sewer line. - asked if this was assessed on a front-footage basis in the explained that it was assessed on a unit charge at a rate of $1,000 a house on the first sewer projects, which at this time is proving to be too high. Those people in the original assessment areas will get a reduction on their assessment roll. The idea was to work it on so many connection charges a year. In that way, when going past undeveloped land, if that land is not developed, it ends up with the general taxpayers starting to pay for the sewer project, which is not proper. The sewer should be paid for on a just basis by the people using it. That is the reason for the area assessment. It treats everyone exactly equal on a per-acre basis.) (Ado1fson representative) - but it almost does force someone to develop his property even 1f he had no intent10n of developing it. Mr. Ado1fson will be having to pay almost $70,000 worth of assessments. (Mayor Windschitl stated that by in large, the original request to get this project started was a result of some property that was sold off the Ado1fson property. The Council is reacting to the petition it received. Mr. Davidson also explained the difference between the area assessment and the cOnnection charge, noting that an area assessment is probably the more equal method of assessment and that it also gives an immediate return to the City to be paying off the bond issues.) Phil Spindler, 3436 142nd - by deleting the South Coon Creek Drive area, if they pet1t1on to have it extended, with the widening of County Road 9, would they have to tear it up and would it cost everyone more money for the sanitary sewer at that time? (Mr. Davidson stated at the time it is extended, it would be extended as a lateral sewer and would be extended off the traveled roadway. That area would pay for that cost in total. When crossing the road, it would be done through a jackpipe rather than an open cut.) Don Cann, 13828 Round Lake Boulevard - asked about the depth of the pipe. (Mr. Davidson expla1ned that at the beg1nn1ng of the project the trunk is 30 feet deep. At the upper end when crossing Round Lake Boulevard, it is approximately 18 feet deep. The depth at 139th across Round Lake Boulevard is approximately 12 to 14 feet -- that will be taken care of through the County highway construction project.) Mr. Bohrer reviewed the feasibility study relating to the proposed water system improve- ment, which consists of a 750-ga110n-per-minute well with 5,000 gallon pressure tank, sized to serve the 80 acres of Good Value Homes and Rademacher commercial area and also the 80 acres west of Round Lake Boulevard, providing domestic flow plus fire-protection flow of 500 gallons per minute. Other areas that could eventually be included in the system include the Adolfson and Carlson properties; but to provide increased fire protection when the system is expanded, an additional 750-gal10n-per-minute well would be needed or a single overhead storage tank. Mr. Bohrer also reviewed the estimated Southwest Area Utilities Improvements Public Hearing June 9, 1980 - Minutes Page 4 costs of the proposed water system, noting that the watermain network will be paid for entirely by the property within the 80 acres. The water production and storage can be paid for either entirely by water usage charge, estimated to be 90 cents per 1,000 gallons, or by reducing the user charge to 60 cents per 1,000 gallons and the remainder paid off on an area assessment of approximately $875 per acre. Tim Woo1cott, 3448 142nd Avenue NW - asked if a well of that size will have an affect on those w1th pr1vate systems as far as lowering the water table. He felt the wells in his area are about 160 to 180 feet deep. (The Engineers didn't think it would have an affect on private systems, because it would be much deeper, approximately 200 to 300 feet. The well comes under the jurisdiction of the Board of Health, and they explained the procedure for drilling the well, noting that the entire upper aquifer is completely divorced from this well. It may also be that they have to drill down to the Hinkley formation to get the quality of water necessary. There is a possibility, however, that during the period of construction, the dewatering may have an affect on some shallow wells. If shallow wells are dried up during the dewatering, it would be temporary with water eventually coming back.) , property at 144th and Round Lake Boulevard - asked if this is being set up to become part of an overall water network in the City. (Mr. Bohrer stated that the system has been set up so that it could be expanded very easily; however, for tonight, they are not considering anything north of this area. Mayor Windschit1 explained that the City has taken the policy that on developed areas with deep wells already installed, city water would not be installed. The intent is not to put water into these areas at all. He noted that during the sanitary sewer project in the Red Oaks area, there were two or three shallow wells that went dry during the dewatering process. However, most of the houses built after 1971 were required to be deep wells.) Dick Martin, 3552 141st Lane - stated if his legal shallow wells goes dry during the project, it 1S just his tough luck. (Answer was "true".) Beverly Hagen, 1434 Round Lake Boulevard - has a 45-foot well which went dry when they put the san1tary sewer in on Bunker Lake Boulevard. (Discussion noted that in the past the contractor has provided drinking water on a temporary basis, which is provided for in the contract.) Wes Mand, Quickstrom - asked how long the disruption would be. (Engineers answered 1t would be a matter of days to a few weeks. It is intended that all underground work will be completed prior to the middle of December. The shallow wells will come back very quickly; however, it could be an extended period of time nearer the deep end on the south end of the project, perhaps as long as a month or two.) Wayne Anderson of Rademacher and Associates - is extremely in favor of the water and hoped that the engineers would communicate with his engineers relative to the layouts, etc. (Councilman Peach informed Mr. Anderson that the water protection for fire is less than what is recommended by the insurance companies. They recommend 2,500 gpm for commerci a 1.) Mr. Anderson stated he would look at that further. Frank Voth of Good Value Homes - had no comment on the project. Mr. Schumacher then reviewed the proposed storm sewer system in the areas, stating they were designed at the most cost-effective method of serving the drainage needs through the area. Auditor's Subdivision 82 already has a storm sewer improvement and was not given any further consideration for this project. He reviewed the drainage proposal in Chapman's Additions, the commercial and Good Value Homes areas, and Quickstrom Addition. If the Woodland Terrace plat is pulled out of the project, an easement would have to be acquired to the south of Chapman's for the storm sewer pipe plus that property assessed for the benefited share of the drainage improvement. Otherwise, the southern portion of Chapman's would have to be drained to the north. The easement going across Round Lake Boulevard west from Quickstrom Addition is being acquired by Anoka County. Southwest Area Utilities Improvements Public Hearing June 9, 1980 - Minutes Page 5 - was not aware that there is a water problem on the corner of 136th and Bunker Lake by the Church. (Mr. Schumacher stated the storm sewer is being constructed to serve the Chapman's area. There is a drainage problem at the inter- sections. Because the land is so flat, there is no place for the water to go. The church currently provides for its own drainage and was not included as a portion of the assessment.) Mr. Mand - where is the storm water for the east end of Quickstrom going? (Mr. Schumacher stated it would outlet down Quay Street, possibly with a drainage easement to be acquired to the east to let it drain to the wetlands in the east.) Stan Deden, 13836 Round Lake Boulevard - wondered about the cost for storm sewer for the 138th and Underclift area. (Mr. Schumacher explained there would be some cost for the area that would be draining southward to the storm sewer coming along Bunker Lake Boulevard to the west. In addition, there is some storm sewer being provided by the County along Round Lake Boulevard in which the City shares the costs, which will then be passed on to the benefited area. There would be an outlet from the streets to the County storm sewer.) Gerald Gerard, 3442 136th Lane - asked why the church isn't involved in this (Grace Lutheran). He asked 1f he put a ponding area on his lot, would he be assessed? (Mr. Schumacher stated the church has a large parcel with low area off their parking lot which is where their drainage now goes. If something should change that they would need drainage to the storm sewer system, they would have to share in that assessment.) Mr. Gerard - stated the church is getting storm sewer on the south side with the street, and gett1ng drainage with the county road on the north and west, and yet they won't be assessed anything. He didn't think that was right. (Mr. Schumacher stated that with the grade being so flat in Chapman's, they have to design very shallow road grades to collect the water and remove it by storm sewer. Mayor Windschitl stated that the intent of the assessment policy is to treat everyone equally, and each of these parcels will have to be looked at to determine what benefit goes into that pipe. Mr. Davidson also explained that the church had built into their development plan a ponding facility which theoretically takes care of the 100-year storm. If it doesn't, they will either have to increase the size of their pond or participate in the City storm sewer system.) - asked why the storm sewer can't be hooked up to the sanitary sewer. (Mr. Davidson explained that it is a cost factor, as the City pays the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission by the gallon at the point of discharge of the sewer. That annual charge is related back to the residents' sewer bill, paying for every gallon of water going through the sanitary sewer. So we definitely want to separate the surface water from the waste that has to be treated.) - asked if a pond would be dug in the wetlands east of Quickstrom off 142nd to take care of storm water. (Mr. Schumacher stated that would simply be the overland flow drainage as it is draining now. Wherever the water is going to go, however, the City will acquire the necessary easement whether it is for ponding or flow.) Larry Wines, 3409 135th Lane NW, Chapman's - asked what is a ponding area. He has never seen standing water on the church property. (Mr. Schumacher explained that there is a low area off the parking lot where it drains to that point. It doesn't necessarily have to have standing water on it at any particular time. It is the low point that assimilates· their runoff.) It was agreed to hold further discussion on the assessment for storm water in the Chapman's Additions area until after Council action this evening; and if need be, schedule an Agenda item just for the storm water drainage discussion, the exact rates, assessments, etc. Southwest Area Utilities Improvements Public Hearing June 9, 1980 - Minutes Page 6 - asked if it is contemplated that the drainage of water to t e wet an east 0 U1C strom on the Ado1fson property will increase the swamp areas. (Mr. Schumacher stated that generally Quickstrom Addition does drain that way now, and they don't anticipate to have any appreciable affect on the wetland. On 1y the area that now drains to that wetland will still drain there. The west half of Quickstrom will be draining to the other side of Round Lake Boulevard.) Mr. Davidson then reviewed the proposed street imrpovement project for the various subdivisions, explaining the street standards for residential and multiple-density areas and explaining the reasons for the storm drainag e system. - has heard that at the same time that streets and sewer are put in that the power lines could be put in underground and they are assessed for that cost as well. (Mr. Davidson explained that the City doesn't control any of the private utilities. The City cannot put in a private utility and assess it to the residents.) Recess at 9:20; reconvene at 9:43 p.m. Mr. Davidson explained that the lateral costs for sanitary sewer are based on $21.55 a front foot and area charge at $870 per acre; that the water system is based on 90 cents for 1,000 gallons for supply facilities or 60 cents for 1,000 gallons user charge plus an area assessment of $875; and that the streets for 28-foot wide with two-foot grass shoulders figured at $14,18 per front foot with minimum storm drainage. The storm sewer costs vary in each subdivision. They are proposing that the payment for sanitary sewer and storm sewer be assessed on a 20-year basis and streets on a 10-year bond period. The Mayor also explained that if, within that 10-year period, the roads need to be dug up for any reason, it would have to be done at the City's expense; as the residents cannot be assessed again during the 10-year bond period. Mr. Davidson then reviewed the typical assessment for a 105-foot lot in Auditor's Subdivision 82 for $3,163 for sanitary sewer, $1,489 for street assessment, totalling $4,652 for the improvements. - asked if the $475 was for the hookup for the sanitary sewer. (Mr. Oav1dson explained that the $475 unit charge is the area assessment for the oversizing of the trunk line. The cost of $425 for the service stub would be at the property line. There is an additional cost of hooking up plumbing from the house to that stub, which varies depending on the setback from the roadway, the location of the existing on-site sewer, etc. The property owner can do that portion of the work if he chooses to do so. Mayor Windschit1 also noted there is another additional cost made by the Waste Control Commission, which is currently $425. Some of those properties within the SAC area may have already paid that SAC charge prior to obtaining a building permit for their homes, and the City has the records as to which properties have paid that SAC charge. ) Jef Rygva11, 14339 Woodbine - asked what the SAC charge is and if it is a cost separate from this or put on the assessment. (It is $425 which must be paid up front.) Mel Nisker, 3737 143rd - heard that Pigs Eye is having trouble taking care of existing flowage. (Mr. Dav1dson stated Pigs Eye has an agreement with PCA, Metro Waste Control Commission, and EPA that they would meet the water quality requirements presently being litigated by 1982. They are under a $300 million expansion project, and their biggest problem is the sludge removal. The City is accounted for unless or except they would extend new trunk facilities into presently unserviced areas, but that is not expected. Mayor Windschit1 went on to explain that the MWCC has complete control of all interceptor lines within the urban service boundary, intending to allocate so much capacity to each of the municipalities. Andover has been allocated the equivalent of 32,000 units with the Coon Rapids interceptor, and presently the City is considerably under that capacity.) Southwest Area Utilities Improvements Public Hearing June 9, 1980 - Minutes Page 7 Mr. Alexander - another charge not listed is the $6 a month charge user charge. (Mr. Davidson stated that that charge has not yet been set for this area. He explained that the user charge pays for the City's annual payment to the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission plus for the City's maintenance responsibilities of the lines. It is expected there will be some change in that user fee based on the additional amount of users. In addition, the ~letro Waste Control Commission requires that once the sanitary sewer becomes available, it must be connected within two years; however, the City requires that they connect within one year. Councilman Lachinski also noted that there is a $25 permit fee required by the City for connection of the sanitary sewer.) Ken Susa11a, 14288 Vintage - asked when the assessment would be put On their taxes. (Mayor Windsch1tl stated 1t would be payable in May, 1982.) Mr. Wines - if the project isn't finished, is the charge still made in 19821 (Mayor Windsch1t1 explained that that is the reason for the 1982 assessment. Normally it would be payable in 1981. It is anticipated that it won't be completed to be able to assess it in 1981.) Jim Swenson, 3605 143 Avenue - asked if the City is anticipating a one-year mandatory hookup. (D1Scuss1on was that there is some waiver availability to hooking up within the specified period of time for undue hardships; that the one-year hookup was tied to the old unit charge; noting that with the blanket assessment, there is no worry about funds coming in to pay the bond issue, suggesting the policy could probably be changed to comply with the two-year requirement of the MWCC.) Mr. Alexander - stated that due to the increase in property value by sanitary sewer and streets, that their own property taxes will increase as well, is that not true? (Yes) So they are paying twice in the value of the property as well as the assessments. There was a misconception by some of the people about what they were gaining in property value with the sanitary sewer coming in. The value of the sewer is the $3,000 with value of streets of $1,400. The misconception was that interest was added onto that value as well. (The interest does not increase the property value, but it is tax deductible.) Mr. Stanton - asked if they will be consulted individually on where the service stub for the sewer would be located. (Yes. ) Steve Wood, 3723 145 Avenue - asked to inform residents of Auditor's Sub. 82 that the property boundar1es and subdivisions are not in accord with the legal descriptions for all properties. He requested that this project contract a licensed surveyor to place block corners to monument the boundaries within the subdivision and, in effect, rep1at the subdivision as it is rather messed up at this time. He asked what this will add to the project cost. (Mr. Davidson explained that in the normal course of construction, they mark those corners presently in place and use it generally to center the facilities. To actually resubdivide wi 11 increase the cost of approximately $100 to $200 per lot for a legal boundary survey for each lot. Mayor Windschit1 suggested the City Attorney give an opinion as to whether this item could be included in the project, and discuss it again at a regular Council meeting. Council also suggested those in Auditor's Sub. 82 petition for this as well.) - stated a problem he had with the legal description being surveyed partly from one corner and partly from another corner. But for the three or four inches above his property that is questionable whether it belongs to him, it wasn't worth $200 for him. Mr. Wood - stated there is a 9-foot discrepancy with his legal description. Mrs. Hagen - she was told that the development as a whole can check with the County's Surveyor's office. At the time they were in court, the judge stated that if anybody in the project should start having problems, it could involve court action one after another in a chain reaction, and it could hold up the courts for ~O years. Southwest Area Utilities Improvements Public Hearing June 9, 1980 - Minutes Page 8 Mayor Windschitl reviewed the most recent petition totals as of the recess: Chapman's Additions (petition was for curbed streets): 33 yes; 11 no 138th and Underc1ift: 100 percent yes Round Lake Boulevard, 142nd to 145th: 5 yes; 9 no Quickstrom Addition; 23 yes; 9 no Auditor's Sub. 82: 53 yes: 34 no for s~nit~ry sewer 64 yes; 23 no for streets All other petitions are equal for streets and sanitary sewer. Mr. Alexander - stated there was a question brought up quite a few times in the signing of the pet1tion in Auditor's Sub. 82. The yes vote for sewer was being put down because they were afraid the City would come through later, tear the streets up for installing sewer and making them pay for it twice. (Mayor Windschit1 stated that the question is whether a Council would be willing to put in streets ahead of sanitary sewer, because that would mean that the City as a whole would have to pay for them if they were tore up for installation of the sanitary sewer.) Mr. LeFebvre - asked how the figures came out for the second petition. The first pet1tion was 43/26. The second petition drifted outside their area. (Mayor Windschit1 stated that area not subject to an assessment has been eliminated out of the numbers. These are within the boundaries of the project. The other question is the number of lots Ms. Sonsteby owns in Auditor's Sub. 82 plus her undeveloped property. It was determined that if the vacant lots of Ms. Sonsteby were removed from the count, the petition would be 46 yes; 34 no.) John Zi11hardt, 3453 145th - the no votes in Auditor's Sub. 82 are tied to a block. The Counc1l made an exception on South Coon Creek. Could that block of units be removed from sanitary sewer? Could that portion of the neighborhood get out of the project if they were on the fringe of the sewered project? (Mayor Windschit1 explained the reason for removing that portion around South Coon Creek Drive was there were no petitions asking for the improvement. All other areas included were from specific petitions. Removing a portion of the neighborhood from the project would be something the Council would have to vote on. Even if it was removed, there would still be the area assessment for the trunk line.) Mr. Alexander - asked if it is feasible to not follow Round Lake Boulevard with the trunk line but cutting across 142nd into Mrs. Sonsteby's property and coming up through the south section of Auditor's Sub. 82. Mrs. Sonsbety is in favor of the project. (M~ Davidson stated they haven't checked that as itcre1ates to costs specifically. It isn't out of the question if Mrs. Sonsteby would choose to dedicate the necessary right of way. There would also have to be some revision to provide for additional availability at a later date to the northern area.) Wayne Ness, 14268 Round Lake Boulevard - in looking at the petitions, essentially every- one around Round Lake Boulevard does not want sewer. If the people in Auditor's Sub. 82, want it, why can't the people on Round Lake Boulevard be eliminated from it? (Discussion was that it would be the question of how to get the pipe to Auditor's Sub. 82. There would still be an assessment -- all properties have to be treated equally. Discussion with Mr. Ness was on the vote totals in their area and for Auditor's Sub. 82, that the trunk line has to go through their area to service Auditor's Sub. 82; and that since the trunk line also serves as a lateral along Round Lake Boulevard, those along that road would probably be assessed for both, so no money would be saved except for the up-front charges. Changing the City's policy to allow two years for connection would take care of the difference with an additional year's grace period.) Mr. Swenson - asked for the total vote for the entire project, adding everything together. (No percentages were available, but indications are that the yes vote would be substantially higher than the no votes.) Southwest Area Utilities Improvements Public Hearing June 9, 1980 - Minutes Page 9 Mr. Woo1cott - understood they were voting yes or nO for a feasibility study on the pet1t1ons. He didn't think that Quickstrom's was necessarily 100 percent in favor of the project. Mr. Alexander - stated that the first petitions were just for obtaining a feasibility; and the Council is taking the petitions as being an acceptance by those people, when in fact no petition has gone through those areas afterwards. (Discussion was that the Council can only act on what it is given. Everyone was told the costs and the hearing date. If they don't come forward and change their petition, the Council has nothing further to react to. The petition from Quickstrom Addition specifically states the request for the improvement, not for the feasibility study.) Mr. Spindler - with the additional up-front prices, a person could almost pump their present system once a year for quite a bit less money compared to the price for sanitary sewer overall. Mr. Davidson then reviewed the typical lot assessment for a 100x150-foot lot in Chapman's Additions of $3,010 for sanitary sewer, $1,410 for streets, and $1,830 for storm sewer, totalling $6,258 per typical lot. John Peterson, Grace Lutheran Church - wondered if their property would be a part of this area and didn't understand how their front footage would be assessed. (Their property would be a part of Chapman's Addition. It was suggested that Mr. Peterson meet with the engineers after the Hearing to work through their assessment. On the question of the service road, Mr. Davidson stated that they would not be assessed for two facilities. If the Council restricted access to the local street system and required a frontage road, they would pay for their side of the frontage. If the Council did not require the frontage road, they would pay half the assessment for the local street and would be given access to it. The item of the storm sewer will be held open relative to the Church's portion.) Dale Ge1ium, 3432 136th Lane - would the frontage road be paid for by Chapman's Add1t1ons? (No.) Mr. Gerard - asked what is being included for Chapman's; what about curbs; and what is the pr1ce differnce. (Streets, storm sewer, and sanitary sewer are included. Instead of turning the 6-inch birm section down, the birm could just be turned up instead. In that case, the amount of the bituminous material is comparable. The price difference would be from a 28-foot to 32-foot mat, which is approximately an additional 20 percent. Concrete curb and gutter would add another $6 a front foot. No additional storm sewer pipe would be needed for curbing. Mayor Windschit1 suggested that the curb and storm sewer questions be held to a regular Council agenda to deal with Chapman's and the church to get an answer before it is bid.) Cindy Gray, 13530 Poppy Street - how far up into their driveway will they come with the street? (Normally the dr1veway elevation will not be changed appreciably. If they have to cut back in, it will be replaced in kind. Bituminous surfacing will be put in 16 feet wide up to the property line.) Mrs. Hagen - if the driveway is wider, only 16 feet in width is replaced and you pay the rest? (Correct; however, anything that would be cut would be replaced in total.) MOTION by Peach, Seconded by Lachinski, ordering the project of sanitary sewer improvement, storm sewers, and bituminous streets in Chapman's Additions in Section 32 in the City of Andover, and direct the Engineer to prepare plans and specifications for that, and include that property owned by Grace Lutheran Church and Dr. Boehland, and Mr. Chapman between 136th and Bunker. Motion carried unanimously. Southwest Area Utilities Improvements Public Hearing June 9, 1980 - Minutes Page 10 MOTION by Peach, Seconded by Ortte1, ordering sanitary sewer improvement and storm sewer improvement in the proposed Woodland Terrace development and the Weiss Addition and a frontage road along the south side of Bunker Lake Boulevard in Woodland Terrace and across the Assembly of God Church and also Chapman's property and Dr. Boehland's property, and any other unplatted property in that southeast quarter of Section 32; and direct the Engineers to prepare plans and specs. Motion carried unanimously. Discussion was on the 13Bth and Underclift area relative to the estimated storm sewer assessment as shown On Page 9 of the feasibility report. It was generally felt that the $2,514 typical lot assessment for storm sewer may be an error and needs to be reviewed. Council discussed waiting until next week to take action on this portion of the project. Ann Raschka, 13827 Underc1ift - preferred a decision be made this evening so they wouldn't have to come back to another meeting, particularly in light of the unanimous vote in favor of the improvements. MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Ortte1, that we order public improvements for that area between Underc1ift Street and Round Lake Boulevard and Bunker Lake Boulevard and 139th Avenue for sanitary sewer, and streets, and storm sewer, and direct the City Engineers to prepare final plans and specifications, and also that the Engineer be directed to provide the Council with a detailed cost breakdown on the storm sewer costs by the next regularly scheduled City Council meeting. Motion carried unanimously. Discussion was on the proposed Rademacher commercial area and proposed Good Value Homes areas. MOTION by Ortte1, Seconded by Peach, that the Council order the improvement of san1tary sewer, storm sewer, public water, and streets according to the City standards for the west 1/2 of the northeast 1/4 of Section 32, and direct the City Engineer to prepare detailed plans and specifications for same. Motion carried unanimously. Discussion was on the proposed typical assessment for a 102x170-foot lot in Quickstrom Addition of sanitary sewer of $3,073, street for $1,445, and storm sewer for $1,159. Mr. Woo1cott ~ according to the petition, no mention was made of the SAC charge, or serV1ce to the house. According to the petition, sanitary sewer was supposed to come in at $20 to $25 a front foot. It has if the up-front costs are excluded. Streets were supposed to come in $15 to $20, and it is $14.18, which he felt would invalidate the ptition since those requirements weren't met. He didn't think most of the people signing the petition knew what they were obligating themselves to. Many felt there was further discussion to take place before actually being voted on by the Council. (Discussion noted that all residents were mailed these specific costs along with notification of this meeting. There has been no feedback from those notices.) Mr. Woo1cott - asked if the Council approves it this evening, would they have to circulate another petition to be removed from the project. He didn't see the necessity for the sanitary sewer. (Once the project is ordered, it becomes very expensive, not that it could not be dropped. Discussion with Mr. Woo1cott, Mr. Mand, and Mr. Alexander was on their concerns of those additional up-front sanitary sewer costs that they were not aware of when signing the petition plus storm sewer costs, speculating as to how others in Quickstroms felt about the project. Council noted that if Quickstrom was not ordered but Auditor's Sub. 82 was, those in Quickstrom would still be assessed the area unit-trunk charge. Also, Council felt it would not be acting responsibly to put streets in prior to the installation of the sanitary sewer.) - .. .. -... Southwest Area Utilities Improvements Public Hearing June 9, 1980 - Minutes Page 11 Dave Schu1ist, 14319 Underc1ift - there was an opportunity for another petition to go through their area, and the results have been the same. By in large, a majority of the people are looking for the future and want these services. After further discussion, Council generally felt that with notices being mailed directly to the residents for both the informational meeting and the public hearing showing costs, and that the informational meeting costs were higher than those being proposed at this time, that the project should be ordered. In the event the residents are vehemently opposed to it, then possibly a special meeting should be held to clarify matters. MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Peach, that public improvements of sanitary sewer and streets and storm sewer be ordered for the area known as Quickstrom Addition and that the Engineer be directed to prepare final plans and specifications. r10tion carried unanimously. Discussion returned to the Auditor's Sub. 82 area. Mr. Alexander - questioned if all lots will get service to the basement floor (referring to Auditor's Sub. 82). (yes. ) Discussion with Mr. Alexander was on the proposal of cutting across 142nd with the trunk line and going through Ms. Sonsteby's property to Auditor's Sub. 82, thereby excluding Round Lake Boulevard from the sanitary sewer. Council noted that those on Round Lake Boulevard would still not be excluded from sanitary sewer but would be charged for the area trunk charge. In some cases, the lateral benefit would be removed. MOTION by Peach, Seconded by Orttel, to order the improvement of sanitary sewer and b1tuminous streets in Auditor's Subdivision 82 and direct the Engineers to prepare plans and specs. DISCUSSION: Mr. Ness - asked if the vote of the people along Round Lake Boulevard mean anything. Why can't the trunk go across 142nd instead of up Round Lake Boulevard as was proposed. In affects a lot less landowners that way. (Mayor Windschit1 stated that the vote of the residents does matter, but what is being reflected is the large number of people above this area and along part of the road. The Council can ask the Engineers to look at the alternative route for the trunk line, but it has to be engineered in the most efficient manner. Discussion continued with Mr. Ness and Mr. Alexander relative to their desire never to have sanitary sewer facilities, with the Council explaining that they are within the urban service and would be so charged; that this is in the urban service area and natural progression dictates that in all likelihood they will have sanitary sewer some day; that bids for projects have been very reasonable this year, which makes the project the best price it will ever be; and that the petitions are surrounding this area and the pipe has to get up Round Lake Boulevard. The intent is also to carry the pipe further north.) Mr. Alexander - noted that of the 5 yes votes for their area between 142nd and 145th On Round Lake Boulevard, two are facing 143rd and the three sections above 143rd are Truman's property. He also noted that the County is in the process of acquiring some of the property where pipe will be going through. (Council discussed that it doesn't make good planning sense to eliminate the service to five or six houes in the middle of the project but had no difficulty looking at the proposal of running the trunk line through the Sonsteby property if it is not adding a substantial cost to the rest of the property owners. Mr. Davidson stated they will make that determination.) Motion carried unanimously. Council discussion was on the possibility of deferring the trunk charge assessment for five years and collecting the balance in 15 years on the larger lots to allow those property owners to have the ability to plan and subdivide their property. I~r. Davidson stated that other communities have established a five-year deferred payment or until the Southwest Area Utilities Improvements Public Hearing June 9, 1980 - Minutes Page 12 land is developed, whichever occurs first. So the only actual payment they would have the first five years would be the actual lateral charge to their individual homes. Mr. Volk - stated he has approximately 130 to 150 feet on Round Lake Boulevard, but the lot his house is on does not front Round Lake Boulevard. (Council noted that Mr. Vo1k would not have a lateral charge at this time; only the area unit trunk assessment which is being contemplated as being deferred for the first five years. Interest would be accruing, however, so that at the end of 20 years, those charges would be equal to those whose area assessments were not deferred.) Lloyd Sheppard, owns the large lot at 14325 Round Lake Boulevard - has 360 feet of frontage. Asked that because it 1S beig enough to plat 1t off, that he has to because he can't afford the assessments. He bought that land because he wants to live on all of it and doesn't want to divide it. He'd be paying three times for the same service as those on 100-foot lots. (Council discussion was that it would be his choice to plat it off, but the assessments do have a tendency of forcing people to plat the larger parcels. Unfortunately, that is what happens when improvements are run through areas with large parcels or large areas of undeveloped land. Deferring assessments for the fi rst fi ve years allows those property owners to determi ne whether they want to se 11 the parcel, keep it, or plat it. It was calculated that assessments would be approxi- matè1y $8,000 for Mr. Sheppard's parcel for sanitary sewer, and he would not have any street assessments. There is also the potential of creating several lots from that parce 1.) Mr. Sheppard - stated that isn't the idea. The reason he didn't plat it off several years ago is because he doesn't want someone living near him, and he wants that size lot. He didn't think he should be assessed for 360 feet of it when he's not getting any more use out of it than anyone else. Mrs. Hagen - has a piece of land between her lot and County Road 9 which they don't own but which the County is in the process of acquiring. What happens when the project is ordered tonight. (Mayor Windschit1 stated that if the County owns it at the time of the assessment hearing, the Hagen's would not be assessed for it. There would still be a lateral assessment on the equivalent of the other lots, the theory being to try to get the same benefit for each person at the same cost.) MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Peach, to direct the City Clerk to prepare a Resolution 1dent1fying all the unplatted areas in Section 29 and 32 and order the public improvements for sanitary sewer, and direct the Engineer to prepare final plans and specifications. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Orttel, that we close the public input portion of the publ1C hearing for sanitary sewer, streets, and water improvements for the Southwest Study area. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Orttel, to close the public hearing for sanitary sewer, streets, and water improvements for the Southwest Study area. Motion carried unanimously. Hearing closed at 11:18 p.m. _ Respectfu lly submitted ~~- l '~~~L/ Marc 1a A. Peach Recording Secretary - ... , , ~ 01 ANDOVER SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING - JUNE 9, 1980 ¡,II NUTES A Special Meeting of the Andover City Council was called to order by Mayor Jerry Windschit1 on June 9, 1980, 11:18 p.m., at the Andover City Hall, 1685 Crosstown Boulevard NW, Anoka, Minnesota. Councilmen present: Lachinski, Ortte1, Peach Councilman absent: Jacobson Also present: City Engineers, John Davidson, Larry Bohrer, and Mark Schumacher; City Clerk, P. K. Lindquist; and others AGENDA APPROVAL MOTION by Peach, Seconded by Lachinski, that we approve the Agenda. r~ot i on carr i ed unanlffious1y. ACCEPT GRADE PLANS FOR CSAH NO. 9 Mr. Davidson reported they have reviewed the plans and specifications as provided to them by the County, and prepared a June 5 memorandum which related to the City of Andover costs for those several facilities. The utility improvement for sanitary sewer, storm sewer, and watermain crossings are estimated to cost $38,160 as the City's share, and storm sewer improvements for the commercial area on County Road 9 is $37,112. He also reviewed the City's participation in the signalization of County Road 9 and 116. The State Engineer has indicated that only 75 percent of the cost of installation of signals can be used from MSAH funds. However, Paul Ruud has assured him that they are not going to use any MSAH funds for the County's share, so the City could use the entire $30,000 from City MSAH funds. MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Lachinski, that we approve the Agreement SAP0250903 and authorize the Mayor and Clerk to sign the same. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Ortte1, Seconded by Lachinski, entering a Resolution whereas plans for proJect NO. SAP0260903 showing proposed alignment, profi 1e, 9rades and cross sections for the construction/reconstruction for improvement of County State Aid Highway No.9 within the limits of the City in the State of Minnesota ... (See Resolution R68-80) Motion carried unanimously. ORDER IMPROVEMENT OF EIDELWEISS STREET FROM 135TH AVENUE NORTH TO TERMINATION Mr. Schumacher indicated that the correct length is 330 feet, which will not materially change the assessment figures estimated in the feasibility report. The cost of this street will be added to the overall 1980-1 project and divided back out by all assessable frontage. Mr. Schumacher hasn't had a chance to meet with any of the owners relative to a turnaround at the end of the roadway; however he is satisfied that the equipment can turn around in the driveway of Lot 11 as is being done at this time. MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Ortte1, entering a Resolution ordering the improvement of b1tuminous streets of Eidelweiss Street between 135th Lane NW north to its termina- tion in Section 32, Township 32, Range 24 as presented by the City Clerk with the only change that the length of the street be 330 feet. (See Resolution R69-80) r~ot i on carried unanimously. APPROVAL OF CLAIM MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Ortte1, that we approve Check number 3187 for moving expenses per employee agreement in the amount of $2,000. r~otion carried unanimously. MOTION by l"hi "". S",,'" t":' to "j '"'". r10tion carried unanimously. ~g adjourned at 11: .m ~ C" 'ic0 a~ A. Peach, Recording Secretar .