Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAH October 2, 1986 CITY of ANDOVER ASSESSMENT HEARING - OCTOBER 2, 1986 AGENDA 7:30 P.M. Ca 11 to Order 1. IP85-16/Round Lake Boulevard 2. IP86-9/Wood1and Terrace 4th & 5th, Lily Street; Round Lake Boulevard; 133rd Lane; 134th Ave. 3. IP86-12/154th Lane & Nightingale Estates 3rd Addition 4. IP86-7/164th Lane N.W. 8:30 P.M. 5. IP86-1/Creekridge Estates 6. IP86-2/Smith's Green Acres 7. IP86-4/Hidden Creek 8. IP86-6/Hidden Creek 2nd Addition 9. IP86-10/Hidden Creek 3rd Addition 10. Budget Meeting, cont. 11. Adjournment CITY of ANDOVER ASSESSMENT HEARINGS - OCTOBER 2, 1986 MINUTES Pursuant to notice published thereof, Public Hearings were called to order by Mayor Jerry Windschitl on October 2, 1986, 7:30 p.m., at the Andover City Hall, 1685 Crosstown Boulevard NW, Andover, Minnesota. Councilmen present: Elling, Knight, Orttel Councilman absent: Lachinski Also present: TKDA Engineer, John Rodeberg; BRA Engineer, Glen Cooke; City Administrator/Engineer, James E. Schrantz; and others IP85-16/ROUND LAKE BOULEVARD MOTION by Elling, Seconded by Knight, a Resolution adopting the Assessment Roll for the improvement of watermain and sanitary sewer for Round Lake Boulevard from 14462 to 14516 Round Lake Boulevard (IP85-16) for certification. (See Resolution R156-86) Motion carried unanimously. IP86-9/WOODLAND TERRACE 4TH & 5TH; LILY STREET; ROUND LAKE BOULEVARD: 133RD LANE; 134TH AVENUE Byron Westlund, Woodland Development - questioned the assessment to the City of Anoka, as he thought that was settled in February with the entire assessment paid for on the first three additions of Woodland Terrace. Mr. Rodeberg stated a majority of the assessment was paid previously, but a small amount remained, which is being assessed at this time. The total amount negotiated between Mr. Carlson and the City of Anoka has not changed. MOTION by Elling, Seconded by Orttel, a Resolution adopting the assessment roll for the improvement of watermain, sanitary sewer, streets, storm drain for Woodland Terrace 4th and 5th Additions, Lily Street, Round Lake Boulevard, 133rd Lane and 134th Avenue (IP86-9) for certification. (See Resolution R157-86) Motion carried unanimously. IP86-12/154TH LANE & NIGHTINGALE ESTATES 3RD ADDITION Mary VanderLaan, 2120 154th Lane NW - asked if the rate per foot is the same on the new Nightingale Estates 3rd Addition as it. is on Nightingale Estates 1. Her concern is that the costs from the new addition have been charged backito the existing lots. Mr. Cooke stated the rate is now $14.77 per front foot. He felt the new addition has helped the old addition because Mrs. Olson, the developer, is willing to pick up the little lot on the corner of 154th and Nightingale. Mr. Cooke reviewed the total project costs for both additions. A problem with assessing on a front footage basis is one lot on the north side of 154th will receive a very high assessment. He doubted whether it is subdividable because of the low area. Lot 2 has been shown as being subdivided and is being assessed as two lots, with Lot 1 being assigned a single unit assessment. The corner lot on the south is not being assessed. The lots in the 3rd Addition are being assessed one unit each. Assessment Hearings October ,.., 1986 - Minutes ~, Page 2 <IP86-12, Continued) Ms. V..ênder-Laan - thought it was fair. She also questioned the split of the lots on the north si de o·f 154th. In the Resolution of Apr-i 1 15, 1986, she thought the entire parcel was split into three relatively equal parts rather than the first lot into two parcels and the other lot rem.è:\ining. It doesn't affect the project, but she understood that i5 what was to happen. Esther Olson - stated she did go through the process of a lot split to get three lots on that strip, but it wa.sn't recor-ded unt i 1 this year. She ~Ji 11 get the assessment for that entir·e side, stating it is three lots. The one lot is already 501d but, she has agreed to pay the assessments for it. Ms .----':!~~I!.g.erLaan - 5tated the 1 ega1 description in the F<eso1ution first indicates there was less than 2.5 acres in the one piece and did not meet the minimum frontage. Mrs. Olson hlas also to return to the Council with new legals, so she thought those lines had been shifted, again realizing it is not relevant to the total amounts for the projf~ct . M()TIO~ by Elling, Seconded by f<night, a Resolution adopting the assessment roll for the improvement of streets for 154th Lane and Nightingale Estates 3rd Addition (IP86-12) for certification. (See Resolution F<158-86) Motion car-r-ied unanimoLlsly. Lr~86-7 /164 TH LANE.--.b!!:i Mr. Cooke revi e ¡oJed the proposed project cost and per lot cost of $3,512 for- 12 lots. F<ay Koski, 164_~3 F<ound Lake Boulevard (Lot 17> - stated he no longer has access to 164th. His frontage is to Round Lake Boulevard, presenting a 1 et t er to the Council opposing the assessment against his par-eel. He has put up a fence to keep trespasser-s from caming through the back of their lot. Mayor l· i ndschi t 1 read the 1 et t er from Raymond and Mary Koski, "ho are objecting to being assessed for the street improvement on 164th Lane. He also read a letter into the record from Bill Sironen, Anoka County Hghway Department, addr~essed to Luella Greeninger advising that the construction of a driveway from their lot to Round Lake Boulevard is contrary to county policy and that the driveway for this lot should t'"'t;:>mai n onto 164th Lane. A~.5sessment Hearings October S' 1986 - Minutes -, Page "" .-' (IPB6-7, Continued) ~d ~Jestpha1 . 3060 164th Lane N~! - stated Mr. Voski had two driveways out to 164th, one of which t.'\!as paved. After the public hearing, Mr. ~<osk i ripped the pavement out of one of the driveways. Mr. l~estpha1 stated the pavement is still on top of the hill and all t·1r. Koski would have to do is take a rail out of the fence and he '~ou1d be able to Lise the driveway again. He continued that it is not fair to the other people on the street. Mr. Koski has had the driveways out to 164th ever since the road was built, implying that lot should be assessed for those reasons. t'1r. ¡'Jestpha1 also a$ked about the end of the street where a drive~Jay has been bulldozed there. Why isn't that person being assessed'"? Mayor l~i ndschi tl stated there is some question as to whether the City wi 11 allow that property to exit onto 164th. It appears that driveway may be used for commercial traffic, and the road is not being built for such use. That has not yet been researched sufficiently to make a decision. If the property does €?H i t onto 164th, it C:1ear1y should be asessed, and a supplemental hearing would be held. Mr. ~JestphaL - asked about the radius of the cuI de 5ac and when it ,·¡11 be completed. Mr. Cooke stated it is a 50-foot paved radius. The completion date of the project is the 31st of October. Mr, Westphal - asked if the road will be graded before it is paved, as it hasn't been graded in two months. Council asked that it be graded as soan as possible. Mr. Cooke stated the contractors are scheduled to start ne>,t Tuesday. tlr:..,-l1êstph_& - stated his figures did not come out to the same as t.·Jhat the engineers are shot.-JÎng, and the figures in the letter for the project cost were different than what is being said this evening. The 1 et t er stated $41,242 and the engineer is saying $42,144. It gives the appearance that they are being ripped off. The Engineers noted the first one was an estimate and the bid was more than the estimate. But it was felt that possibly an error had been made on the project cost in the written notice, though the per-lot cost is accurate. t·1,- . Westphal - asked if they are going to cut the brush. The Engineers noted it would be cut if needed. ~<osk( - 5tated he just b 1 ac ~':topped the drive~Jay last year, so it hasn't been there that long. It was a basketball court in the back, and he plans on leaving that portion. He does have another access to the back of his lot from the north so he doesn't need 164th at all. Assessment Hearing October C> 1986 - Minutes ~, Page 4 (IP86-7, Continued) Jim F'erra~ 3125 164th Lane NW - stated his property abuts Mr. Koski's property. He stated 1a5t year Mr. ~::osk i had the driveway prior to the petition being circulated. When the meeting was coming up, Mr. Kos k i ripped the driveway out. After the petition was turned down, the driveway was replaced. The other dri ve"Jay that is blocked off is easy to do when he has a bobcat. Mr. Perra also mentioned the many vehicles that are parked in the back of that prope,-ty, inc1l,ding construction vehicles, which he believed is against zoning or-dinances. He stated Mr. Koski has used the driveway off 164th for- recreational vehicles and for business, and at one time had two driveways there. He believed past usage of that road has to have some bearing in the Council's decision, as well as taking into consideration future "nd probable use of 164th by Mr. f<osk i . t1r. Koski - stated the Engineer told him if he opened the driveway up again, he would be reassessed for it. So why would it be necessary to assess him for it now. He understands the assessment has to add value to his property for resale. This improvement has no resale value to him, and that is the basis for the assessment. His garage is on Round Lake Boulevard. Mr::..., F'er-r~ - is in real estate and fe1 t an access other than Round Lake Boulevard would raise the value of that property tremendously. Tqm Bonier" 3020 164th Lane (Lgt 10) - stated the road Mr. Koski is currently using is a f arm road in the back of the property. He apparently has permission to use it for his construction equipment. He took the pi ctl,res of the fence, noting the stakes can be easily taken down and the driveway used again. When he started taking the pictures, they used the back way; but when he appeared to have 1 eft, they started using the short way again off 164th. He doesn't know who owns the property behind Lot 17; but if that property ~Jere sold or Mr. f<oski no longer had permission to use it, ~Jhat would Mr. Koski do because he wouldn't have access to the back of his property? Councilman Elling thought the owner to the north of Lot 17 is intending to keep the property as a sod operation for now. Councilman Ortte1 asked if the back of M,- . Koski's lot was accessable from Round Lake Boulevar-d. Mr. Koski - stated not now. He uses the road in the b¿,ck that goes through the sod fi e1 d. Councilman Ortte1 then thought the ~n1y 1 ega1 ¿lcce55 to the bac I'. of Lot 17 is of f 164th. He t'Jas also concerned if Mr. f<oski ever- sold the property, the new owner could just remove ttle rai 1 and l\Se the access to 164th. That would be unfair- to the other residents who are paying for the improvement. Assessment Hear-ings October ? 1986 - Minutes -, Page 5 (IP86-7, Continued) Mr. Koski - didn't think there would be a problem coming in through the north, thinking ther-e was an easement for a road alongside his lot. He only uses the back of his lot for his trucks for three months in a year-, so it is not that important to him. Councilman Ortte1 didn't think that was an easement and would be allowed because the City does not allow double-frontage lots. MOTION by Ortte1, Seconded by Knight, a Resolution adopting the assessment roll for the impr-Dvement of streets for 164th Lane east of Round Lake Boulevard ( IP86-7) for certification. (See Resolution R159-86) VOTE ON MOTION: YES-Knight, Ortte1, Wi ndsch i tl ; t'¡O-E11 i ng; A8SENT- Lachinski . Motion carried. Council r-ecessed at 8: 10; I'"'Econvened at 8:26 p.m. IP86-4, IP86-6, IP86-10/HIDDEN CREEK 1ST, 2ND, AND 3RD ADD I TI ONS IJo,t1n Peter-son~ Good Value Homes - stated the amount of the contingencies is 5 percent, about $44,000, to cover- the portion of the projects that 8r-e not completed. He didn't think that much would be spent, asking if they could provide a Letter of Credit or some secul'"'ity for that contingency rather than put it in the assessment. He thought the specific amount of that contingency would be knO\'Jn ~Jithin 30 days. They would be willing to pay a lump sum f 0'- any amount over- the original contract price, stating this project is coming in just about at cost. Mr. Rodeberg stated there are some changes, but fe1 t the contingency could be lowered to 1 or 2 percent and have the security provided for the additional - or 4 percent. -' Mr. F'eterson - fe1 t the costs for the extra watermain to connect the southern most street in Hidden Creek to the Coon Rapids system should not be borne by them. Council agreed that is a trunk benefit for the overall benefit of the City and should not be charged against the Good Value development. Ijr. F'et.£-:?I'"' son - also stated his numbers did not work out the same as Mr. Rodeberg's for Hidden Creek 1st Addition. The Engineers agreed to di~~cuss this further. Council determined the construction cost is $981,420 for all three projects, which is 5 per-cent higher than actual contract cost. It It-J8S agreed to rerun the roll at 97 percent, or $951,977.64, with Good Value Homes providing security for the difference. ASI.::·essment Hearings October ? 1986 - Minutes -, Page 6 (IP86-4, 86-6, 86-10, Continued) MOTION by Ortte1, Seconded by Elling, a Resolution adopting the assessment roll for the improvement of water-main, sanitary sewer, streets, storm drain for Hidden Creek ( IP86-4) for certification as prepared with the following conditions: that the roll be assessed at 97 percent of the stated figures pr-oviding a Letter of Credit is received from the developer prior to the certification date for that 3 percent that is being deleted; and if it should not be received, that the full amount be certified. (See Resolution R160-86) Motion carried unanimously. t10TION by Ortte1, Seconded by Knight, a Resolution adopting the assessment roll for improvement of water-main, sanitary sewer, streets., storm drain for Hidden Creek 2nd Addition ( IP86-6) for certification as prepared with the fo110~ ing conditions: that the roll be asse~3sed at 97 percent of the stated figures providing a Letter of Credit is r-eceived from the developer prior to the certification date for that ~ .~ percent that is being deleted; and if it should not be received, that the full amount be certified. (See Resolution R161-86) Motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Ortte1, Seconded by Elling, a Resolution adopting the asessment roll for impr-ovement of water-main, sanitary sewer, streets and storm drain for Hidden Creek 3rd Addition ( IP86-10) for certification as prepared ~Ji tl1 the following conditions: that the roll be assessed at 97 percent of the stated figures providing a Letter of Credit is received from the developer prior to the certification date for that 3 percent that is being deleted; and if it should not be received, that the full amount be certified. (See F~esolut i on R162-86) Motion carried unanimously. IP86-1/CREEKRIDGE ESTATES ~£LllQ!{ by Ortte1, Seconded by Knight, a Resolution adopting the assessment roll for the improvement of water-main, sanitar-y sewer, streets and storm drain for Creekridge Estates (IP86-1 ) for certification as prepared. (See Resolution R163-86) DISCUSSION: ~1r . Schrantz stated in talking with people involved with the lots in Creekridge E5tates, it appears there have been no pr-oblems selling the lots ¿<long the creek. Mayor- L·)i ndsch it 1 asked that the Building Official make a written determination that the five north lots within the plat are buildable at this time. Motion carried unanimously. Assessment Hearings October -, 1986 - Minutes "', Pag'" 7 IP86-2/SMITH 'fi~REEN ACRE;S t10TJ..QU by Knight, Seconded by Ortte1, a Resolution adopting thE> assessment roll for the improvement of sanitary sewer, streets and storm dr-ain for Smith's Gr-een Acres ( IP86-2) for certification. (See Resolution R164-86) Motion carried unanimously. 1987 PROPOSED GENERAL FUND BUDGET Mr. Schrantz noted the changes made at the previous budget hearing plus several others, which amounts to an estimated mill 1 evy for 1987 of 14.43 mills. Mayor l'¡indschi tl stated the transfer of 1986 funds to 1987 for sealcoating should be done as an Intergovernmental Fund Tr-ansfer. Council agreed. Mayor Windschit1 also suggested budgeting for 10 mar-e street lights, "hich would allow this Council to finish the lighting program. In addition, he r-ec:ommended a slight incr-ease in the police protection budget for the possibility of a corporal rank being set up among the deputies. To reflect those pr-oposals, Council agr-eed to the following changes to the proposed budget: Page E18 - Police Protection 42100.310 Contract: Incr-ease by $2,000 to $225,342. Page E27 - Street Li ghti ng 43160.381 Electric Ser-vice: Increase to $9,200. Page E38 - Miscellaneous E:·:pendi tures 49290.430 Una110cated - Miscellaneous: Reduce from $17,000 to $14,000. Frank Stone, Public Works Super-visor, then r-eviewed the Public Works staffing and need for additional help, especially for park maintenance. Council acknowledged the need for additional help and agreed to add approximately $19,000 for such an emp 1 oyee ,~i th funding for that employee to come fr-om the foIl o~ i ng sources: $5,000 from the Park and Recreation's Capital Improvement budget, plus increases to the revenUE? of the Project Administration and Assessment Administration. The following specific line items to the proposed budget (..oJere changed: Assessment Hear-ings October ,.., 1986 - Minutes ~, P<o'ge 8 ( 1987 Pr-oposed Gener-al Fund Budget, Continued) REVENUES: Assessment Administration: Incr-ease from $15,000 to $19,000. Project Administration: Increase from $40,000 to $50,000. EXPENDITURES: Page E30 - Park ~{ Recreation 45200.510 Capital Outlay - Improvements: Decrease from $60,000 to :$55,000. Council continued to discuss the proposed mill levy, noting it i s no~..., at appro>: i mate1 y 14.45 mills. It was agreed to have those changes ag,-eed to this evening made for action at the October 7 regular mel~t i ng . MOTION by Ortte1, Seconded by Elling, to adjourn. Motion carried unanimously. 11eet i ng adjourned at 9:57 p. m. Respectfully submitted, '~~"t;~L Recordlng Secretary