HomeMy WebLinkAboutSP May 1, 1980
~ 01 ANDOVER
SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING - MAY 1, 1980
ì1INUTES
A Special Meeting of the Andover City Council was called to order by Mayor Jerry
Windschitl on May 1, 1980, 7:30 p.m., at the Andover City Hall, 1685 Crosstown
Boulevard NW, Anoka, Minnesota, for the purpose of conducting a Public Hearing for
the proposed street and drainage improvements on 138th, Xavis, and Eidelweiss, and
for the purpose of discussing the City financing and assessment policies.
Councilmen present: Jacobson, Lachinski, Ortte1, Peach
Councilmen absent: None
Also present: City Engineer, Mark Schumacher; City Clerk, P. K. Lindquist;
and others
PUBLIC HEARING FOR STREET AND STORM WATER IMPROVEMENT FOR 138TH AVENUE, XAVIS STREET,
AND EIDELWEISS STREET
Engineer Schumacher reviewed TKDA's feasibility report, dated April 15, 1980,
regarding the proposed improvement relative to the improvements, initiation,
abutting parcels, special conditions, right of way, easements, drainage, feasibility,
completion, and estimated project costs and assessment rates. It is estimated that
a 32-foot street with concrete curb and gutter for 138th and Xavis would cost $74,700,
estimating $24.19 per front foot. Eide1weiss Street is proposed to have a 28-foot
bituminous mat with grass shoulders, estimated project cost to be $21,900, equalling
an estimated front-foot cost of $20,79.
I. Scha1whe, 13727 Eidelweiss - asked if there was a different rate for uninhabited
property versus that which have residents living on the lot. He also asked why
Eidelweiss was not getting concrete curb and gutters. (Mr. Schumacher stated that
the assessment policy is the same for property whether or not there is a resident
living on it. Consideration is given for property that is considered unbui1dab1e.
He also explained that the City recently revised the street standards in an attempt
to reduce the cost of road improvement to residents, providing curb and gutter on
those streets with a higher density than R-4 development, such as on 138th and Xavis.
The 28-foot street with grass shoulders is a less expensive street and reduces the
storm drainage costs as well.)
Mr. Scha1whe - asked why Eidelweiss was never considered for road improvement until
now. (Mayor Windschitl explained that it has been the City's policy not to
initiate projects but to act on petitions from residents. With the petition received
from the area to the south of Eide1weiss, the southern portion of the City would be
finished with the exception of the three streets being considered this evening.
Because of having to bring road maintenance equipment to this portion of the City to
service only three roads, the Council felt it would be in the City's best interest to
consider improving these streets as well and finish the southern portion of the City.)
Mr. Scha1whe - is very much in favor of the road improvement, stating that it is like
liv1ng 1n a dust bowl out there, noting some of the problems with the dust. He fe 1t
the cost is an investment in the property and that each year the improvement would be
more costly. As of 1981, the population on that street will have increased 100 percent.
Now there are four homes, averaging three cars per home, which generates a lot of
traffic. He felt this year is a good time to do it.
Pastor Norman Va1entine,13817 Eide1weiss - appreciated what the Council may be thinking
and felt lt would b e very nice not to have the dust. He is presently paying $550 a
year assessments for sanitary sewer plus $800 a year with only one working in the family.
Three-fourths of the neighbors petitioned against the improvements feeling they can
live without it and that it is not necessary at this time. His problem is simply a
fixed income, with 18 percent inflation this year cutting into paychecks; and adding
Special City Council Meeting
May 1, 1980 - Minutes
Page 2
another $800-$900 a year is going to be nearly prohibitive for him. Part of the dust
problem is because they are reconstructing the playground at the school. He didn't
think that road maintenance equipment was brought in more than three to four times a
year for grading; in fact, it was never put back like it was supposed to be after
the sewers were put in. As much as he wou 1d 1 i ke to see it, it is a do 11 ar and cents
thing with him, and he felt that was the position of three of the other four.
Jerry Green, 2733 Bunker Lake Boulevard - owns the lot on the west side of Eide1weiss.
He purchased 1t as an 1nvestment and has a potential purchaser for the lot. The
possibility of a special assessment puts the purchaser in a financial problem. Legal
counsel has told him that an assessment cannot be levied for more than the actual
improvement to the property. A $21 a front foot assessment for 235 feet is
approximately $5,000; and he didn't think a blacktop street would add $5,000 to the
value of that lot. He is opposed to that improvement. In the past he was told the
lot would not have sufficient depth on the north end to allow it to be split, even
though there are two sewer stubs there. (Discussion was on the feasibility of
splitting the lot. Council requested that the possibility of splitting it be
investigated further.)
Mr. Green - because of the design of the lot, he didn't feel it would be practical to
have two lots of the 1 1/3 acres. He has a proposed sale for the whole piece at the
present time; and the buyer is unhappy about the improvement because of the increased
cost. He seriously questioned that the lot is being improved commensurately with the
amount of assessment.
Pastor Valentine - has a stub on the far side of the property to the north where the
road w1ll deadend. He asked if there would be a problem in splitting his lot. (He
was advised that if he met the requirements of the ordinances, there should be no
problem with the lot split. That area is currently zoned R-1; however, the proposed
rezoning in the urban service area is recommending it be rezoned to R-4.)
Pastor Valentine - stated if he were allowed to split his parcel, it would have a
bear1ng on his decision on the proposed street improvement, as it would allow him to
sell a portion of his lot to help pay for the assessment.
Mr. Schalwhe - stated there are three people living on Eide1weiss Street, of which
he is 33 percent. The petition presented to the Council was solicited prior to
official notice. He has talked with his neighbor, Mr. Wilson, who has told him he
doesn't care. He has the least amount of frontage and is neither for nor against the
project. Mr. Scha1whe owns the second and third lots up from Bunker Lake Boulevard
on the east side of Eide1weiss.
Council questioned whether the lot at the end of the street, which is owned by the
school, should be assessed.
Vic vergren, 13731 Xavis - is being assessed for 175 feet. Asked why they have to
have cur and gutter. (Mayor Windschit1 explained that this is an unusual case as
most of the time the multiple zone and residential are not mixed together on one
street. He questioned whether they can be assessed for curb and gutter on the east
side of Xavis because the two lots there are residential. If they had the same lots
on Eide1weiss, there would be no assessment for curb and gutter.)
Mr. Verggren - stated there was no drainage on Xavis. The only place it collects
water is one corner on the man's yard. (Mr. Schumacher stated that coming down 138th
Avenue, they would have to have curb and gutter to where the storm sewer would be; it
could conceivably be cut off on Xavis Street on the east side and keep the curb on the
west side, which has multiples on it. The asthetics of such a street would have to
be addressed by the property owners.)
Special City Council Meet1ng
May 1, 1980 - Minutes
Page 3
Mr. Vert~ren - would like to see the road too but felt he couldn't afford it. He
d1dn't 1nk that things are going to get better financially for anyone and that this
is the wrong time. Their standard of living is dropping anyway, and this would only
add to that.
Mr. Schumacher reviewed the assessment for Bunker Lake Estates, using the sanitary
sewer assessment of 52 feet per lot, equalling a total of 312 assessable front feet.
Harold Shurson, 2514 138th Avenue NW - stated many people stop at his house asking
for Bunker Lake Estates because they cannot find the address. There is no sign as
to how to get back to it, and they are not actually located on 138th. (The Clerk
was directed to look into some distinquishing address to be used for Bunker Lake
Estates, such as 13Sth Lane or 138~ Avenue.)
Council discussion was on the 20-foot strip of easement off 138th going to the north
as shown on the map. After research by the Clerk, she reported that the City owned
no easements off 138th. Mr. Schumacher noted that the estimated cost of the project
does not include pond acquisition costs. Mayor Windschitl recommended the Engineer
research to see if this project would contribute a significant amount of contribution
that it should have to pay a portion of the ponding, as it was the understanding
when Red Oaks was done that anybody coming into the ponding system would have to pay
for their share and capacity.
On further discussion on Eide1weiss, Councilman Ortte1 expressed cOncern that if the
project is postponed and a buyer purchased Mr. Green's lot, there is still a potential
assessment against the property in a few years when the project is eventually done at
a higher rate. He felt the question of whether or not that lot can be split should
be resolved now. The Clerk and Mr. Schumacher indicated they had spoken with the
potential buyer, and the buyer did not express opposition to the improvement. Mayor
Windschit1 stated that if there is the potential for making two lots, it has to be
assessed for that; and it is up to the property owner whether or not to request a
lot split. General consensus was that the question of the ability to split Mr.
Green's lot needs to be resolved before making a decision on the project.
On further discussion on 138th and Xavis, Councilman Peach felt that multiples receive
twice the benefit of a residential lot; that both 138th and Xavis should receive curb
and gutter, but that those single-family residences would seem to have to pay an
inordinately unfair share of the cost of the road compared to the benefit they receive.
On those lots, one family is benefiting from the road; whereas those lots with multiples,
two fa~n1i1ies are benefiting. He suggested the possibility of assessing on a unit
of housing basis rather than on a front-footage basis -- the property that benefits the
most should pay the most.
After further discussion on the costs, Council felt that it would be most cost effective
to have this project included with and bid with the Gladio1a Street project, which would
cause a one- or two-week delay from the scheduled bidding of the G1adio1a Street
project to allow time to prepare final plans and specifications for 138th, Xavis, and
Eide1weiss.
The property owner to the south of Mr. Verggren indicated he would be in favor of
eliminating the curb and gutter on their side of the street.
Mr. Verggren - stated he is debating whether or not the curb should be taken off his
side of the street because of the parking along the street, and the curb would be a
protection in that case. (Councilman Peach stated that his argument is the people to
the west use the street going past his residence. And the reason curbs are required
in multiple areas is because of the higher volume of traffic and more problems. He
felt it would be better to keep the curb and gutter and go with a unit assessment.)
Special City Council Meeè,ng
May 1, 1980 - Minutes
Page 4
Mr. Verggren - also asked about the requirements for a lot split. He would have
75 feet on the road, 300 feet deep. (Mayor Windschit1 stated in an R-4 zone, 85 feet
is needed on the road with a depth of 135 feet. There is the ability to apply under a
variance, which would be looked at by the P & Z and Council.)
After research by the City Clerk, it was her opinion that it would be possible to split
the lot of Mr. Green's on Eide1weiss into two lots if he chose to do so; there may be
a question on the north side of the lot as to a waiver on the setback.
MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Jacobson, entering a Resolution ordering the
1mprovement of Bituminous Streets for 138th and Xavis in the south half of the northeast
quarter of Section 33 and Eide1weiss Street in the southeast quarter of the northwest
quarter of Section 33 ... Directing the City Engineer to prepare final plans and
specifications and to delay the bidding of the Gladio1a Street Improvement Project
until final plans and specifications for this project are completed. (See Resolution
R39-80) Discussion: Councilman Peach was in favor if curb was put on Xavis and
some consideration is given to a unit assessment on 138th and Xavis to be fair to those
on single-family lots. Mayor Windschitl felt the property owners should decide
whether or not they want curb and gutter, because it could be taken out; and if they
elected to remove the curb and their assessment is equal to Gladio1a, that is being as
fair as we can be. No overnight parking is allowed on the streets in the City. If
they are having trouble with parking on the streets at this time, residents can cOntact
the Sheriff's office. Councilman Lachinski stated there is a possibility that those
single-family lots could be split, and that should be considered as well.
Councilman Peach stated if they can assess the people on the east side the same as
those on G1adiola and Eide1weiss, put the curb in and assess it against the multiples,
which is the reason it is being put in, he would be in favor of the project under
those conditions. Others on the Council were agreeable to that if the Attorney would
agree with it. Motion carried unanimously.
Recess at 8:55; reconvene at 9:13 p.m.
Discussion on City of Andover Public Improvements Financing Policy
Mr. Schumacher explained the reason for the 35 percent security deposit was to protect
the City in the event of default by the developer, a percentage which TKDA and the
fiscal agent felt was a reasonable figure to have a developer put up in cash. Possibly
at today's interest rates, that may not be the case. In the proposed Southwest Area
Improvements project, the improvements are being done both for developers and for
established developments. where the City's risk is not as great.
Discussion noted that in today's economy, the policy could work against the City;
that it may be in the City's best interest to finance this over a longer period of
time because if there was a default, the annual payment for the City would be less and
the City would have the opportunity to dispose of the property; that financing over a
longer time would cause less chance of defaulting in the first place; and that
something greater than five years should be considered. It was also noted that the
present policy requires the assessment be paid off when the developer comes in for a
building permit on a lot; that it is three years on non-homestead property before it
can be sold for back taxes; but that to date the City has had a large pay-off rate
on projects.
Theoretically requiring 15 percent down from a developer on a 20-year basis, each 5
percent would be one year and the City would have enough up front to pay for the three-year
forfeiture period; plus, by charging the developer on a 15-year basis and paying over
a 20-year basis, the City is accumulating reserve too. By bonding over 20 years
but requiring the developer to repay over 15 years, the city also has three years for
foreclosure and two years to dispose of the property. The policy is based on the
.. .
Special City Council Meeting
May 1, 1980 - Minutes
Page 5
assumption that the City is doing a project and improvements would not be done by the
City until the final plat is filed. It was also noted that bond payments can be set
up for a balloon-type payment at the end of the 20-year period, making lower payments
in the beginning.
Council generally agreed to change the policy to reflect the 15 percent escrow with
the developer paying over 15 years and the City bonding over 20 years. Improvements
done by the City would be done after the final plat is filed.
Discussion was on the requirement of paying the assessment at the time the building
permit is taken out; that that is normally taken care of by the lending institutions;
that this ties up a lot of money for builders prior to building the home; that it is
a burden because more often than not the money is not available at the time the
building permit is taken out; that it is the only time that the City has control;
that in effect, it is treating new property owners different from established property
owners; and that Good Value's policy is to spread the assessment over 20 years and have
that passed onto the property owners. Mr. Schumacher was directed to research this
further to see if it is reasonable to allow the assessment to be passed on to the
property owners. Mayor Windschit1 had reservations about it because the ri sk of
default increases from year to year.
Page 4, Paragraph (d), unit connection charge: Mr. Schumacher was directed to draw up
a paragraph dealing with unit connection charges on previous projects and one that
deals with the per-acre charge on the new projects. Council generally felt that on a
per-acre assessment for sanitary sewer and water, that the area parallel to the trunk
would be assessed, but that land ahead of the pipe would not be assessed until it would
be serviced. Mr. Schumacher was also directed to look at the area north of the trunk
on Round Lake Boulevard as proposed for the Southwest Area Improvement project to see
if it should be extended to its end and include that area within this project as well.
Council discussion was on those lots which are larger than the R-4 zone, in some
cases as much as l-acre lots, but due to their configuration, are not able to be split.
Mr. Zi11hardt was present, who owns approximately 1~ acres with dimensions of 100 feet
on the road by 600 feet deep. Councilman Lachinski felt that both assessments should
be used -- a per-acre assessment of somewhat less than what the cost is, plus a unit
connection charge on top of that charged as the building permits are approved. Mayor
Windschit1 stated that in that case the City again ends up not being able to service
the bond indebtedness. The problem is the big residential lots platted in the past;
in the future everything would conform to normal platting. His intent would be to
try to equalize the per-acre assessment for those large lots that cannot be split so
everyone within established subdivisions that get sanitary sewer pays the same unit
charge or per-acre charge in the end.
After further discussion, Council agreed to amend the assessment for trunk line
extensions to charge undeveloped land on an area per-acre assessment; developed lots
would be charged on a per-unit basis; with laterals being charged on a front-footage
basis. The per-unit basis for developed lots would be determined by taking the gross
acreage of the development, determine the per-acre equivalent in dollars, and divide
by the number of developable units (lots). At the time of the project, the Engineers
make a determination as to how many stubs will be put in an area, thus determining
the number of developable lots in the development.
Page 5: change cash escrow to 15 percent.
Page 6: needs to be revised.
Special City Council Meet1ng
May 1, 1980 - Minutes
Page 6
John Zi11hardt, 3753 145th - felt that he understands the unit assessment being
proposed by the Council so that everybody would pay the same for the trunk extension
and woud pay the front footage charge for the laterals.
Page 6, (3): Discussion was on what public improvements the developer will be allowed
to do; the difficult position that the engineering firm representing the City is
placed in when they are, in effect, designing something for the developer; that the
City has more control if they are doing the project rather than just doing review
and inspections of a developer doing the work; that it is not the City's responsibility
to design a plat for the developer; but that as long as the City is protected, it
could leave as much leeway with the developer as possible; that if it requires a 429
procedure, it requires the City to design and review it; that the 429 is done only
on final plats; and that on any large projects, it would probably come in under 429
procedures.
Mr. Schumacher stated they have not dOne any type of design for the Carlson plat,
only review of the preliminary plat, other than what they have done for the feasibility
report On the Southwest Area Improvement project. They have met with both developers
regarding the improvement project to explain costs. The Clerk noted that money has
been escrowed by Mr. Carlson for Woodland Terrace Plat. She has also received escrow
from Rademacher and Good Value Homes for the feasibility study for the improvement
project.
General consensus was that anything under 429 proceedings would be designed and
managed by the City Engineers. For small projects, restricted to lateral extensions,
if the developer chooses to bid and install the project himself, the City Engineer
would review and inspect the project, subject to the 150 percent escrow provision.
Page 8: Mr. Schumacher was directed to make necessary changes to reflect 15 percent
cash escrow with 15-year payback; adding a column for sewer and water that is not
under the 429 procedure.
Discussion on General Assessment Policies
Page 4: Discussion was on equalizing the assessment of the trunk extension between
multiples and single-family residences. Mr. Schumacher stated they can calculate
what the additional flows are used to calculate the size of the trunk line, multiples
naturally having a greater percentage of the flow. Mayor Windschit1 sU9gested equating
a formula on a typical lot size over the per-acre assessment, determining the
number of city lots per acre to be used as a base, and ratio it upward so that multiples
would be paying exactly the same as the single-family residence. This would be a unit
charge over and above what a single-family residence would pay. In unplatted areas,
the per-acre assessment would be assessed, which would allow one single-family
residence per city lot when it is developed. If higher density is desired, an additional
unit charge would be assessed for each additional unit. The idea is to treat high
density the same as single-family residences. Assessing will be based on the density
shown On the final plat. Commercial will be assessed a unit charge.
Mr. Schumacher was directed to change the assessment policy to allow for an area
assessment.
Page 9, storm sewer assessment: Needs to be changed to reflect front-foot assessments.
Page 10, Section 5: Discussion was on the pros and cons of assessing for State Aid
Streets. It was agreed to leave the policy as written with no assessment for new
construction or replacement of streets for property fronting on State Aid Streets.
Special City Council Meeting
May 1, 1980 - Minutes
Page 7
Discussion On the September 11, 1978, memo from TKDA on Trunk Sanitary Sewer
Fmancing Plan
Discussion was on the Trunk Sanitary Sewer Financing Plan; that the assessment in
previous projects was on a per-lot basis, based on not knowing how far the sewer line
would ever extend to. If the trunk is built to the density of the 32,000 units, the
charge would be a very small amount. The intent is to refund" a portion of the unit
connection charge paid by previous projects trying to equalize the sewer per-acre
or unit charge to some known number so everyone using the sanitary sewer would be
charged the same for it. The 75-1 and 76-1 projects were overcharged if this Southwest
Area Improvements project is ordered.
To equate the assessments of the trunk line, Mayor Windschit1 suggested taking the
gross acreage of the old areas times the actual per-acre cost in the Southwest Area
Improvement project to relate the older projects to current figures, then divide that
figure by the number of lots to obtain a unit charge per lot. That new unit charge
should result in a reduction to the connection charge paid by residents of the
previous projects.
Discussion was whether charges for the trunk line for new projects should be the
same as those paid from past projects. Mr. Schumacher was asked to check with other
cities to see if it is common practice to have the net result of having everyone pay
the same connection charge when the project is finally completed or whether it is indexed.
Council also felt the first areas should not end up paying for any of the oversizing
or any of the carrying costs of the oversizing as it is coming out, including that
part of the interest. Mr. Schumacher was asked to work it out so that it is fair to
everyone and make an estimate of the cost of oversizing of the pipe for the past
projects.
The Clerk suggested the Council give some consideration to using a unit charge for
lateral costs for sewers and for streets as well, which would eliminate many of the
problems in projects.
MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Peach, to adjourn. Motion carried unanimously.
Meeting adjourned at 11:18 p.m.
\r[:::~~\,--
Mar 11a A. Peach
Recording Secretary