Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPH April 8, 1982 ~ 01 ANDOVER PUBLIC HEARING - 1981 STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 1 APRIL 8, 1981 - MINUTES Pursuant to notice published thereof, a Public Hearing on the proposed Street Improvement of 172nd Avenue NW between Round Lake Boulevard and White Oaks Country Estates and all streets in White Oaks Country Estates was called to order by 11ayor Jerry Windsch i t 1 on April 8, 1981, 7: 30 p.m., at the Andover City Hall, 1685 Crosstown Boulevard NW, Anoka, Minnesota. Councilmen present: Jacobson, Lachinski, Ortte1, Peach Counci lmen absent: None Also present: City Engineer, Larry Winner; City Clerk, P. K. Lindquist; and interested residents. Mr. Winner reviewed the February 25, 1981,Feasibi1ity report on the 1981 Street Improvement No.1 noting the location, initiation, abutting parcels, right of way, proposed improvement drainage, estimated cost, assessment, and project schedule. The project cost is estimated at $127,900, excluding any additional driveway culverts that would need to be installed, which would be done so at the expense of the benefitted property owner. The unit assessment cost is calculated to be $3,456 per lot, based on 37 affected lots. It was noted that the previous evening the Council moved to assess on a unit basis for this improvement but that Parcel 2455 west and east would be assessed as one unit. The meeting was then opened to resident testimony. Paul C. Jensen, 17225 Round Lake Boulevard - asked why the existing roads are not 32 feet wlde, and whose fault lt lS that they are not -- the city or the developer? (Mr. Winner stated that the roads were to be constructed to 32 feet in width, and the plans show that they were done so. He stated that all of the streets are between 28 and 30 feet wide, and he didn't know why they were not 32 feet at this time.) Mr. Jensen - didn't feel that l~ inches of blacktop surfacing is sufficient, especially on 172nd Avenue N. With all the trucks, buses, etc., traveling the roadway, he felt the surface would become potholes very rapidly, feeling that the surface should be at least three inches thick. He also asked if the City would guarantee the l~ inches of surfacing. (Mayor Windschit1 explained that the l~-inch blacktop surface is a Department of Transportation specification on 7-ton roads; that the 4-inch subbase is the real secret to a well-built road; that this road standard has been built successfully in many cities as well as in Andover with little trouble; and that the City has the obligation to maintain the road without any further assessment through the bonding period, in this case 10 years.) Mr. Jensen - felt that the cost of the project is totally unrealistic and felt that in the end the cost will be closer to $5,000 per lot. (Mayor Windschi1t explained the 429 procedure for street improvement projects, pointing out that the Council can, and has in the past, reject the bids if they are too high.) Mr. Jensen - alleged that the Council cannot guarantee that the price will not exceed that presented this evening. He also related the lower costs of a similar project done past his property in Hawaii. (Council discussion was that hopefully the final cost will not vary by more than 10 percent of the estimated cost and that in this project there are very few variaoles that would cause surprise increases in the costs since the roads are basically built already. It was also noted that assessments vary by cities depending on how much general funds are used, and Andover's policy is to 100- percent assess improvement projects.) PUBLIC HEARING - 1981 Street Improvement Project No. 1 April 8, 1981 - Minutes Page 2 Mr. Jensen - also complained about the speed on the road in its present condition, especlally that of school buses. He asked what happens to the newly constructed road when sanitary sewer and water are put in the area in the next three to five years. He understood the people in this particular area are on larger lots and probably would not require those facilities, but those developments across the street are on smaller lots, and such utilities may be forced upon them should problems occur across Round lake Boulevard. (Mayor Windschit1 explained that there is no capacity in the Coon Rapids Interceptor or the CAB Interceptor to service this area; and if problems would occur, the City would probably be forced to put in some type of localized lagoon system.) Ed Fiori, 3045 172nd Avenue NW - felt the single largest concern is the control of speed on the road. At the present time the school buses, trucks, and often times cars, do not observe the speed limit. He asked what the residents can expect in the way of law enforcement, speed zones, etc., to control speed. (Mayor Windschit1 stated there has been some success with a saturation of radar in a particular area. In another area where this problem has occurred, the City is in the process of installing speed dips in the road.) Mr. Jensen - also noted that after school, the children ride their motorbikes, speeding up and down the road; and in the winter it is the snowmobiles on the road itself. (Discussion continued that paved streets eliminate some of the problems with minibikes; that people tend to drive slower through a paved residential area, possibly taking pride in the area; that the residents do have to police themselves if they are the ones doing the speeding; and that the bus numbers of those speeding can be reported to the bus company.) Harvey Kadlec, 16970 Crocus Street NW - has measured the street width on Crocus at 32 feet, but the grass has grown ln on the edges which makes it look narrower. He asked why the paved roadway can't be 20 feet in width rather than 24. With the vehicles getting smaller and in a residential area of many deadend streets, he felt 20 feet would be adequate. (Discussion was that the 24-foot width has been the road standard used in the past based on the Department of Transportation's standards. It was generally felt that for pedestrian and bike traffic, the cost difference was worth the safety of the extra four feet. Councilman Orttel stated he would prefer to see the shoulders narrowed, if anything, rather than narrowing the paved surface.) Tom Wherry, 3008 172nd Avenue NW - asked about the possibility of a road to connect 171st to Elde1weiss. (Council stated that issue will be discussed later.) Mr. Wherry - asked when the interest rate is set for the project and asked how the assessments can be paid off. (Discussion stated that the interest rate is set at the time the bonds are sold, probably in late Mayor early June if the project is ordered according to the projected timetable. Payment can be made annually in conjunction with the real estate taxes, paid off entirely without any interest within 30 days of certification of the assessment roll, or paid at any time subject to that year's interest.) Mr. Wherry - understood the contractor is not held to his bid and once the project is completed, then assessments are made. He stated he has no guarantee that the bid price will be the price of the project, and argued his total assessment in the end could be far more than being projected. (Discussion was that the bids come in with a lot of unit prices on items, and projects can end up more or less than originally bid if the quantities anticipated are different. The assessment is based not only on the contractor's bid, but on legal, engineering, and administrative costs as well. It was also stressed that this particular project is the simp1iest one done in the City because of the existing roadbed, and that it is unlikely there will be great differences from the estimated quantities. Council also felt that overall a more favorable bid from contractors is received if bid on a unit basis.) . PUBLIC HEARING - 1981 Street Improvement Project No. 1 April 8, 1981 - Minutes Page 3 Mr. Wherry - understood the City is responsible for maintaining the road during the 10- year bond issue. He asked if that includes sea1coating, and how is the 10 years arrived at when other projects are for 15 and 20 years. (Discussion was that the sea1coating is included as City maintenance. 15-and 20-year bond issues are used in urban sections wher~there is a finished street with curb and gutter. The 10-year bonding relates to a State law as to how municipalities operate for thesetypes'Üf projects.) Mr. Wherry - asked who pays the assessment on the park property, which is a swamp. (The assessment is divided among all those within the project.) Mr. wherrf - asked about the 8 percent engineering costs. With the City Engineer being a u11-time employee of the City and their tax money paying his salary, he asked why the additional 8 percent engineering costs would be charged against their project. He felt that would be paying for the Engineer's salary twice. (Discussion was that usually legal, engineering, and administrative costs are approximately 17 percent of a project; that the City's policy is to recover the costs of the Engineer's salary for the projects and services he does; that any portion of the Engineer's salary that can be recovered means that much less needs to be levied from general tax monies to pay for the City Engineer services, so they are not paying for the Engineer's salary twice; that the charge is not intended to make money; that the actual cost will be determined on the number of hours the Engineer spends on the project, and that the 8 percent also includes inspections by others, surveying, staking, etc.) Mr. Wherry - felt that $350 for a culvert is quite high. (Mr. Winner explained that the figure is based on the unit price that contractors have installed, including additional costs for inspection and administrative costs for preparing the assessment. He felt if someone needed a culvert, the owner could install it themselves.) Mr. Jensen - again asked if the City is going with l~-inch blacktop surface. (Yes. It was also noted that all 7-ton streets in the City are built to that standard.) Jack Pixley, 2764 171st Avenue NW - has noticed a deterioration of the road during the past flve years they've llved there, which has progressively gotten worse. He asked if nothing is done now, what can be expected in the next five years. (Mr. Winner stated that the road would be losing more gravel, possibly getting down to the existing soft sand.) Mr. Pix1e~ - related an incident of a development in Anoka that five or six years ago complaine about their road, but the people generally were against improving the street because of the costs. After two or three years, the roads were resurfaced with Class 5, but now after two or three more years, it is in the same condition as before, noting that if the money had been spent initially, they would have been better off, especially in light of the high inflation. He asked if that is typical of most developments. (Mr. Winner explained that the longer it goes, the more extensive work that is needed when it is finally improved.) Tom Cebu11a, 16981 Crocus Street NW - received additional names since the petition was presented to the Clerk. He stated there are 27 houses on the lots involved, leaving 11 vacant lots. He tried to contact everyone, and did so except for one, that on the southeast corner of Round Lake Boulevard and 172nd. He also talked to five people who owned vacant lots, but was unable to contact the others, noting that even the City has been unable to contact four of the property owners involved. His count now shows 5 No, 10 Undecided, and 16 Yes. The percentage of those 37 lots is 43 percent yes, which is 59 percent of the built-up lots. All of the No's except one came from 172nd Avenue. The Undecideds gave a variety of reasons for their indecision, mostly because they were uncertain about a unit assessment versus a front-footage assessment, some being uncertain of the price, some wishing to see what the neighbors decided. Mr. Cebu11a went on to say he has lived in the area since June, and he feels the roads are awful, are hard on cars and people, and related several incidences of potholes, dust, etc. f ~ PUBLIC HEARING - 1981 Street Improvement Project No. 1 April 8, 1981 - Minutes Page 4 (Mr. Cebu11a, Continued) - He also felt that it would be economically advantageous to improve the streets now because of the continued deterioration of the streets, because of inflation, and because of the appreciation of the value of the property. He went on to state the advantages of a paved road in that it is asthetica11y pleasing, easier for bike riding, easier maintenance, lack of dust, etc. Mr. Wherry - felt that it was very unusual weather last weekend, and that there was a problem driving on any roads within the northern metropolitan area. But the road had pretty well dried by Sunday afternoon, and by Monday there was no problem in driving down it. The dust tonight was caused by someone in a red car going about 60 mph at 7:10 this evening. And he felt that driver wouldn't have been driving any slower if the roads were blacktopped. Eileen Fiori, 3045 172nd Avenue - disagrees with her husband about the road improvement proJect. They live in the second house in from the corner, and she lives with the dust more so than anyone in White Oaks has to because of the straightaway past their house. She is very concerned about the safety and doesn't think a blacktop road is going to improve the safety of 172nd Avenue unless slow-down dips are installed. And she offered her garage as a hiding place for the Sheriff's Department if they care to set up radar in the area! Also, a number of the residents bought property out there because they wanted to live in a semi-rural area and atmosphere, and they are not particularly interested in the "city" improvements. She likes the rural atmosphere and felt those living outside the White Oaks Development don't care to see the improvement. Discussion was then on the petition received dated 4/7/81. Betty Densmore - asked to change her "Undecided" vote to "No". Mike Johnson, 17021 Bittersweet - asked how the Undecided votes are considered by the Councll. (Mayor Windschitl stated that each of the Counci1members look at those votes differently in making his decision -- whether they are Yes, No, not counted, or split between Yes and No.) Mr. Johnson - asked to change his "Undecided" vote to "No". Steve Amsler, 17180 Bittersweet Street - asked to change his "Undecided" vote to "Yes". Mr. Wherry - asked what the procedure was for those not able to attend this evening. (Mayor Windschit1 explained that the public hearing is held to allow resident input and to get a feeling from the people. Everyone has been notified of the meeting as best as one can.) Council discussion was then on trying to get a second exit into White Oaks from Eide1weiss Street in the proposed Oakwood Estates Preliminary Plat to 171st in White Oaks. Mr. Winner showed an overhead map indicating the Council's decision made last night. Should it be decided to construct that portion of the road along Mr. Loftus' property as a part of this project, notification would need to be given and another public hearing held. It was also noted that the payment for that portion of road has several options, including having the property owner pay for all of it, which he doesn't want to do, or the residents mandating the Council to put that road in and be willing to share some part of that cost. Gerry Ka1k, 16920 Crocus - asked if the proposed road would then be tarred. (Yes, including the roads that would be constructed in Oakwood Estates. It was noted that some of the impetus for the construction of this road comes from the fire protection and emergency vehicles desiring a second access to the area.) Mr. Wherry - suggested the Council request the developer to connect with 172nd, and also to participate in the improvement of these streets, since he apparently did not build the roads to specification. . PUBLIC HEARING - 1981 Street Improvement Project No. 1 April 8, 1981 - Minutes Page 5 Mr. Kadlec - was in favor of getting a road betwen Eide1we1ss and 171st and in favor of thlS proposed street improvement. He suggested that with another access from 171st there would be less traffic on 172nd. Mr. Pixley - lives closest to the proposed road. He wanted to move to a secluded area and felt safer thinking this was a deadend. He doesn't like the idea of having a road go through past his house, but he realizes there are other people there too. He fe 1t the fire safety is a good issue, but perhaps it is not necessary to have a big road to do that but just a trai 1 not requiring any improvement. He felt the total picture needs to be looked at. He also expressed concern over the dust people, feeling the Engineer's assessment of the future deterioration of the road should be an important part of the decision making. He again asked the Engineer for his assessment of costs over the next five to ten years regardless of what decision is made on the improvement. (Mr. Winner stated that construction costs are indexed by 10 percent per year, but with each additional year, additional gravel would need to be placed on the roads. With the increasing costs of oil, the blacktopping has increased dramatically.) Mr. Kadlec - is in the construction business and noted that a lot of the contractors are bidding at cost this year so they have something to keep their people busy and to pay the price of their equipment. They are bidding very low because there just is not enough work this year. Mr. Fiori - based on today's costs, over the next 10 years if we don't pave 172nd, what wl11 it cost us to maintain that gravel? (Mr. Winner estimated it would cost approximately $20,000 this year to regrave1 the road and approximately $25,000 to do it again in a couple years.) Council discussion was that the additional access to White Oaks is needed and that it probably could be done more cost effectively if done with the other project, though it was no~ed that if the Loftus' property is assessed for two parcels for the con- struction of that strip of road, the actual cost would be more because that strip would actually have to be constructed first. It was also suggested that the cost for that road be assessed as two units, and the additional cost for constructing the road be spread over the entire project area with the intent that the additional access benefits the entire area. Mr. Winner estimated that it would cost $10,000 to construct that portion of the road. MOTION by Peach, Seconded by Ortte1, that the City Engineer be directed to provide a feaslbi1ity study for the construction of a road from 171st Avenue NW in White Oaks to Eide1weiss Street in the proposed Oakwood Estates, and schedule a public hearing for the first meeting in May. (See Resolution R24-81) Motion carried unanimously. Recess at 8:55; reconvene at 9:12 p.m. Discussion noted that the petition now stands at 17 in favor, 7 opposed, and 7 undecided. Councilman Ortte1 stated it was related to him that if 171st is built, the people feel there is no reason to improve 172nd. Councilman Lachinski also noted there is the question of the extension of the streets in White Oaks to include a larger assessable area. Mr. Cebu11a - asked the Council's experience in simi1iar instances of receiving a petition, then havlng the project rejected. What is the final outcome? (Discussion was that in several cases, those in favor of an improvement keep bringing back petitions asking for that improvement; that the construction costs continually increase depending on the bidding conditions.) MOTION by Ortte1, Seconded by Jacobson, that we close the public input portion of the public hearing. Motion carried unanimously. . PUBLIC HEARING - 1981 Street Improvement Project No. 1 April 8, 1981 - Minutes Page 6 It was nGted that one of the Undecided owns two lots, so the petition can be interpreted as 17 in favor, 7 opposed, and 8 undecided. Discussion was on the property to the north and south of White Oaks Country Estates; questioning if those properties should be considered in this project; noting that those properties are eligible for a building permit now as the roads do touch those properties; and questioning whether the City can legally assess any significant amount to those parcels because it is a butt street with no frontage on the property. At the point when those parcels are developed, the developer will be required to run a full road through the property. It was felt that the City should have a policy addressing that particular issue. Councilman Jacobson stated that in dividing the Undecideds equally between Yes and No, he finds 21 in favor, 12 against. MOTION by Peach, Seconded by Lachinski, introducing a Reso1tuion ordering the improvement of bltuminous streets for 172nd Avenue NW between County State Aid Highway No. 9 and the plat known as White Oaks Country Estates and all those streets within the plat known as White Oaks Country Estates as present~g' and direct the Engineer to prepare bids and specifications for it. Also, change/ 'percent of the responding property owners. (See Resolution R25-81) Motion carried unanimously. There was some discussion with Mr. Wherry as he felt the Council had changed its rules when deciding on this improvement. It was his understanding that the Council used a 50 percent plus one vote in favor before proceeding with a project. Council indicated that there is no specific guidelines for deciding whether or not to approve a project, but that each Councilmember uses his own judgement and makes his own de- termination as to how to treat those "Undecided" or uncontacted owners. The Council cannot control whether or not property owners respond on a petition and has done the best it can to contact all property owners involved. In looking at the vote democratically, there were 17 in favor and 7 opposed to the project, which is clearly an affirmative vote. MOTION by Lachinski, Seconded by Jacobson, that we direct the City Attorney to give the Council an opinion as to the ability to include the abutting properties where we have street stubs. Motion carried unanimously. Discussion with the City Engineer was on the feasibility of extending 171st to Eide1weiss, asking the Engineer to investigate the possibility of allowing Mr. Loftus to create two lots in that area and to check into the requirements of constructing a road under the power line easements there. It was suggested that Mr. Loftus meet with the Road Improvement Commitee next week to answer any questions SOUTHWEST AREA PROJECT/SANITARY SEWER PROBLEMS IN AUDITOR'S SUB. 82 Discussion was on the potential storm sewer problem in Auditor's Sub. 82, as it appears to some of the residents that the street improvement is designed such that their houses will be flooded again because the ditches have been filled in to get the curbs in. It was generally felt that since TKDA engineered both the storm sewers and the SW area project, they should address the problem. Because the existing storm sewers are filled with sand, it was felt that those should be cleaned as soon as possible and that it is then the contractor's responsibility to keep them clean until construction of the road. MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Lachinski, that we authorize the City Engineer to clean the storm sewers in Auditor's Sub. No. 82 as quickly as possible at a cost not to exceed approximately $4,000. Motion carried unanimously. Discussion was then on the progress of the construction of the pumphouse. The Engineer was asked that TKDA determine when the project will be completed, noting that water availability will soon be needed by some of the new construction in the area. 1--- . PUBLIC HEARING - 1981 Street Improvement Project No. 1 April 8, 1981 - Minutes Page 7 APPROVAL OF CLAIMS MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Ortte1, that we approve Check Numbers 3923 through 3974 with Check No. 3942 being voided, in the amount of $76,425.59. Motion carried unanimous 1y. MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Peach, that we approve Claims: Check No. Supplier Amount 453 A 11en Company $ 450.00 454 Anoka County Surveyor 1.40 455 First National Bank 9,400.00 456 Smith, Juster, etc. 300.00 457 TKDA 14,417.37 458 Johnson Engineering 9,131.40 TOTAL $33,700.17 Motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Peach, Seconded by Ortte1, to adjourn. Motion carried unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 10:10 p.m. Respectfully submitted, \~~ cJ5~L Marcella A. Peach Recording Secretary . . . -