Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPH/SP September 22, 1987 ~.."',> (CA) CITY of ANDOVER 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD NW. . ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304· (612) 755-5100 '~~¢J<,~..j:':;' PUBLIC HEARING/SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING SEPTEMBER 22, 1987 - MINUTES Pursuant to notIce publIshed thereof, the PublIc HearIng for the ~treet constructIon and rIght of way acquisition of Hanson Boulevard, IP 86-5, was called to order by Mayor Jerry Windschltl on September 22, 1987, 7:30 p.m., at the Andover CIty Hall, 1685 Crosstown Boulevard NW, Andover, MInnesota. Councilmen present: Apel, EllIng, Orttel CouncIlman absent: Kn I gh t Also present: CIty AdminIstrator/Engineer, James Schrantz; and others PUBLIC HEARING/IP 86-5/HANSON BOULEVARD Mr. Schrantz revIewed a map of the proposed project and the proposed assessments for each of the benefItted parcels. The total project costs, includIng engineerIng, adminsltratlve, and assessing costs amount to $181,103. The project has been divided Into two parts -- the state aId portion from County Road 20 to 177th Avenue and along Ward Lake DrIve from 177th to 181st. Mr. Schrantz also explained the assessment for the southern area Is on an area basIs of $181.02/acre because of the large parcels involved. The northern portIon Is proposed to be assessed on a front-footage basis of $10.61/FF. Mrs. Orr - asked If she had to pay the $19,098 proposed for her assessment, questIonIng why she should have to pay that much, which Is more than anyone else. She stated she offered to donate her land, statIng she wasn't told the CIty was goIng to assess her. She also felt that assessment Is more than what her place is worth. Mr. Schrantz explaIned the polIcy to assess 100 percent of the easement acquIsItIon costs on Improvement projects. He also noted the larger undeveloped parcels would be elIgIble to have the assessment deferred for up to 15 years or until It Is developed. If It Is not developed wIthIn 15 years, the assessment would then be cancelled. Those ownIng large parcels can make a request for deferrment of the assessment at the October 13 assessment hearing. DIscussion with Mrs. Orr and others was on the policy established In assessIng total costs, on how the proposed assessments were arrived at, and on the deferrment pOlicy. Mrs. Orr - stated she put her land In Ag Preserve and was told that would help her wIth road assessments, etc, She stated her property Is farmland and she doesn't Intend to develop It. Mayor Wlndschitl .-_ _0- Public Hearing/Special Meeting September 22, 1987 - Minutes Page 2 <Pub]lc Hearlng/86-5/Haneon Boulevard, Continued) explained the Ag Preserve zoning is designed for the urban service area and does protect against sewer and water assessments, but ]t does not affect the road assessments. As long as ]t remaIns farmland and no access is made onto Hanson Boulevard, the assessment would not be paid. Council also explained that any access to Hanson Bou]evard would trigger the assessment on the entire parcel. Wallv Arntzen - asked why the northern portion Is paying on the front-footage basIs and the southern portIon Is cost per acre. He felt they are paying more on the front-footage basis. Mayor Wlndschltl stated the costs assocIated for easement acquisition In each of the areas Is apportioned back to those areas. DiscussIon was also on the State Aid designation of that portIon of Hanson Boulevard. Counc II explaIned the portion from County Road 20 to 177th Is State Aid, but the portIon north of there along Ward Lake Drive ]s not. Several residents stated they had been told that the area along Ward Lake DrIve would also be State Aid. The Counc 1 ] and Mr. Schrantz explaIned the regulations on making state aid designatIons and why that northern one-half mile of Ward Lake DrIve does not qualIfy. Mr. Arntzen - stated the City acquIred the rIght of way, the county Is doIng the road, and It Is desIgnated a city street. He felt the road is beIng put in for the use of the entire community and Is a maIn thoroughfare for the entire county, asking why Isn't a portion of the costs coming out of the general fund. Counc i I man Ape I expla]ned his situation when the southern portIon of Hanson Boulevard was done, noting the D]strict Court ruled that "benefIt" to the adjoInIng propertIes Is a valId argument. A resIdent asked about the constructIon of Ward Lake Drive, askIng If It wi II go west along 177th to Round Lake and wi I] It be a State Aid road. Mr. Schrantz explained that is the desIgnation at thIs time, but it Is not known when or If that wi]] ever be built. Counc 1 I also reviewed several other possibi]lties dIscussed with the county regardIng state aId desIgnations north along Hanson Bou]evard Into Oak Grove and St. FrancIs. Harold Hintze. 1550 181st Avenue NW - felt the benefIt is for everyone, statIng It does not benefIt hIm anythIng. H]s frontage Is not on Hanson Boulevard. CouncIlman Apel stated the word benefit Is a statuatory term and from a legal standpoInt It does benefIt the adjoinIng propertIes. Counc 11 felt in thIs Instance the lot needs to be vIewed and a recommendation made by the engIneers as to whether It is assessable sInce there ]s no access onto Hanson Boulevard, Councl I asked Mr. Schrantz to have a recommendatIon at the tIme of the assessment hearing. Public Hearing/SpecIal MeetIng September 22, 1987 - MInutes Page 3 <PublIc Hearlng/86-5/Hanson Boulevard, ContInued) A resIdent saId the CouncIl had saId the assessment cannot exceed the Increase In value to the property. He wanted to find out Just how much the increase is goIng to be, as he was told the Increase In value would be very minImal. Mayor Wlndschitl explained the increase has nothing to do with the assessed valuatIon used for taxation purposes. It Is a real estate test of value and use prior to and after the constructIon. The settlement courts have used that type of test as Its basis for determIning whether the assesments equal the value of the property or not. ResIdents agaIn asked about the deferrment policy, with the Council explaIning the assessment would be deferred until some Improvement lIke a drIveway is made to use Hanson Boulevard. That would trIgger the assessment. Otherwise, the deferrment would run 15 years and would be cancelled. The 16-year period is used because that Is the economIc lIfe of the road. A resIdent asked what the City has done for an improvement, as the county is buIldIng and maIntaIning the road. Mayor Wlndschltl explained It Is a combined Improvement. The test is what dId It look lIke before the improvement and what Is the value afterwards. Mr. Arntzen - argued the project dId different thIngs to different people. He dIsagreed that thIs project Is an Improvement to hIs property. Council noted the damages of the project were addressed In the payment for each of the parcels. The assessment relates to the Increased value of the property because of the paved road In front of it. Another resident stated they dId not want the road to begin with. They were wIllIng to pay for a tarred road as a resIdentIal street and didn't want a highway in front of their house. He felt It Is an Injustice that he is being assessed almost the same for a tarred road but It Is a major hIghway. He also accused the CIty is mishandling the project, allegIng the county agrees with hIm on that point. Mr. Hintze - stated he disputes the assessment. He also stated he didn't get a notIfication of this meetIng. Mayor Wlndschltl explained the notIces must be sent to the fee owner, which is provided by the county. Mrs. Orr - stated her son Ken Orr did not receive a notIce of this hearing either. He Is not at thIs meetIng because of that, feelIng he could not be assessed if he was not notifIed. Mayor Wlndschitl asked how many others did not receive notice. Besides the two mentIoned, there was no one else. PublIc HearIng/SpecIal MeetIng September 22, 1987 - Minutes Page 4 (Public Hearing/86-5/Hanson Boulevard, Continued) JIm Stelzlq - stated he receIved a notIce of the meetIng but Is not shown as receIving an assessment. Mr. Schrantz explaIned Mr. Stelzig's property cannot be assessed untIl the 8-foot easement between his property and Hanson Boulevard Is dIsposed of. Mr. Stelzlq - asked if the easement wIll be assessed. Mr. Schrantz stated no. HIs property would be assessed at the tIme there Is access gIven to Hanson Boulevard. DIscussIon was then on the Walker property. Mr. Schrantz ~tated the proposal Is to assess the entIre 9.04 acres on which is house is located. Council noted there may be a questIon of benefit to the Walker property because of how close the road Is comIng to hIs house. It was also noted the house accesses onto 177th. It was agreed the equivalent of 2 1/2 acres where the house is located should be cancel]ed. The remainder of the parcel would have the assessment levIed at $181.02 per acre, but Mr. Walker could ask to have the assessments deferred as long as it remaIns undeveloped. MOTION by EllIng, Seconded by Ortte], that person on No. 14, the Walker property, 9.04 acres be reduced by 2 1/2 acres to 6.54 acres and assessed at the rate of $181.02 per acre; the proposed assessment should be $1183.871 thIs relates to the 2 1/2 acres wIth the house on It. DISCUSSION: Mrs. Orr - stated Ken Orr is actually on one acre. Also, she put her house on the corner at the tIme one-acre lots were allowed, though she never lega]ly separated the parcel. CouncIl noted Mr. Orr wIll have an opportunIty to discuss his assessment at the assessment hearIng. It was also noted the Orr's property Is assessed on the front-footage basIs. whl]e the Walker property Is a per-acre charge. Motion carried unanimously. Mr. Hintze - stated he has a written objection to the assessment. Mayor Windschltl felt It would be better to hold the written objection until the assessment hearIng so his rIghts are not JeopardIzed. The assessment hearIng Is when documents are formally fIled regardIng any assessments. This Is a hearIng for the Improvement and does not set the assessment roll. Also, Mr. HIntze's specifIc question will be addressed at the assessment hearing. Mr. Schrantz stated everyone wIll receive copIes explaInIng their rIghts wIth the notice of the assessment hearing. Mr. Arntzen - asked about the appeal process. Mayor Wlndschltl brIefly explaIned the process of submIttIng a wrItten objection to the City at the assessment hearing and suggested he ask his own lawyer about the procedure beyond that point. Public Hearing/Special Meeting September 22, 1987 - Minutes Page 5 (Public Hearing/86-5/Hanson Boulevard, Continued) MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Apel, ordering the improvement of right of way acquisition for Project 86-5 from County 20 to County Road 58. (See Resolution R193-87) Motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Apel, a Resolution declaring cost and directIng preparation of assessment roll for the Improvement of street construction and right-of-way acquisition for Project No. 86-5, Hanson Boulevard from CSAH 20 to C.R. 58 as prepared. (See ResolutIon R194-87) Motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Apel, Introducing a Resolution for hearing on proposed assessment for the improvement of street construction and right-of-way acquisition for Project No. 86-5 setting the date of that meeting for October 13 at 7:30 p.m., at the City Hall. (See Resolution R195-87) Motion carried unanimously. Mr. Arc - asked how the assessments are paid. Mr, Schrantz reviewed the procedure for paying assessments before they are certIfied to the county, with the tax statement, or paid off with Interest at any time during the 15-year perIod. CouncIl also noted anyone wishing to defer their assessment must request It at the assessment hearing. MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Apel, to close the public hearing. Motion carried unanimously. The Hearing was closed at 8:25 p.m. COMMERCIAL PARK. PHASE I AND VERDIN STREET GRADING John Rodeberg, TKDA, reviewed the bids for grading Phase I of the Commercial Park and Verdin Street, noting the low bid of $144,261.16 from Gammon Bros., Inc. He noted they have had some problems with this contractor In the past but understands they have been better lately. He recommended awarding the bid to Gammon Bros., Inc. MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Elling, to approve a resolution acceptIng bids for Andover Commercial Park, Phase I and Verdin Street grading and award the project to Gammon Brothers, Inc., for the amount of $144,261.16 and note that there is an alternate bid In the amount of $2,250.00 by the same contractor; return the deposits made by all but Gammon and the second low contractor, which was Forest Lake Contracting. DISCUSSION: Council was concerned that It wIll be next year before any lots could be sold and buildings constructed. Mr. Rodeberg noted the completion date In the contract Is November 15 for grading though he understood Gammon asked Mr. Davidson to begIn later In the year. Gammon Brothers is aware the completion date Is November 15. He thought utlliltles would follow right behind, but the streets will not be In this fall. . Public Hearing/Special Meeting September 22, 1987 - Minutes Page 6 (Comme~cial Pa~k, Phase I and Ve~dln St~eet G~adlng, Continued) In discussing the situation, Mr. Rodebe~g stated he would make the contracto~ aware the project must be completed by that date. Council suggested the enginee~s look at the possibility of p~ovlding an Incentive clause for completing projects ahead of schedule as a standa~d in the specifications. Councilman Orttel ADDED TO THE MOTION: subject to reasonable assurances that the work will be completed In a timely fashion and ~eceived by City staff and/or consultants, and timely fashion to mean the project will p~oceed wIthin two weeks and shall be completed by Novembe~ 15. Second Stands, (See Resolution R196-87) Motion ca~ried unanimously. SHADY KNOLL PROJECT/EXCESS EXCAVATION M~. Rodeberg explained the p~oblem the contracto~s ran Into when they started to dig out the peat. They found the~e was much mo~e peat than originally thought, which basically amounts to a change of condition on the project. The cont~act specifically calls fo~ the englnee~ to give dl~ectlon as to whe~e the unsuitable soil is to be placed within a one-mile radius of the P~oJect. Howeve~, the cont~actor has quoted a cost for that which is substantially higher than he expected. Mr. Rodeberg also explained the cont~actor Is able to sell that unsultabale soil and give the cost savings to the City; and in order to save money on this p~oJect, he asked if that would be acceptable to the Council. The Public Wo~ks Department has indicated they want 2,000 yards of it, but there will be 4,000 to 5,000 cubic ya~ds remaining. Council discussed the situation, generally being concerned about the best way to dispose of the unsuitable soil, about any inc~ease In cost to the ~esidents In this project, and about the drainage at the Intersection of South Coon Creek Drive and Uplander. The policy of using any excess soils from such p~oJects fo~ City pa~ks, etc., was b~ought out, also noting a Council motion to haul any excess soils from these p~ojects to the Red Oaks Park East. M~. Rodebe~g explained the soil In question cannot be used anywhe~e and is not topsoil. Council generally felt they could not make a decision on this matte~ until the figures a~e known comparing costs for hauling It to the Red Oaks Park East with any savings that may ~esult If the cont~actor would sell It. The Intent Is to do what Is best economically for the project. The engineers were asked to obtaIn those costs and Inform the Council as soon as possible, as they did not want to delay the project any fu~ther. Public Hea~lng/Special Meeting September 22. 1987 - Minutes Page 7 (Shady Knoll ProJect/Excess Excavation. Continued) The Council and the Enginee~s also reviewed the Intersection of South Coon Creek D~lve and Uplander. After the discussion. it was agreed the Enginee~s would look at the possibility of 10we~lng the Inte~sectlon at South Coon Creek Drive and Uplander. They are also to look at sloping the road. ~alslng a portion of the corne~ lot, or any othe~ options to prohibit flooding on the corner lot. Mr. Schrantz was also di~ected to speak to the prope~ty owne~ rega~dlng the problem at that Inte~section and how it affects his lot. EQB/GAS PIPELINE Councilman Elling stated the EQB granted a permit for the gas company on August 17 for the new pipeline which will ~un along the railroad t~acks in Andover. The gas company Is now going through the permit p~ocess on the federal level and will be coming to the Individual municipalities for any special permits needed. Councilman Elling had some conce~ns about the pipeline Itself, especially the proposal to have manually operated blocking valves. No Council action was taken at this time. CITY STREET LIGHTING IN DEVELOPMENTS Councilman Elling reported Anoka Electric Cooperative will agree to installing IS-foot fiberglas poles with the traditional flxtu~es in the developments. He questioned how the billing would be handled. Du~lng the discussion it was agreed In new plats. the develope~ would ag~ee to accept a quarte~ly cha~ge f~om the city for street lighting In that development. M~. Sch~antz suggested a certain pe~cent be added to that cost for adminlst~ative costs, and the st~eet lighting charge would be sent wIth the sewe~ and water billing quarterly. It was also generally ag~eed street lighting should be required In all new plats In the u~ban area. Seve~al also felt it should be requl~ed in the ~ural plats, especially at Intersections, though It was agreed to allow rural plats that option. Council also agreed to the standards as adopted and felt they should be applied uniformly throughout the City, Including all park lighting. The procedu~e fo~ placement of the lights, etc.. was discussed, and it was agreed the City would have final approval over all street lighting. Public Hearing/Special Meeting September 22, 1987 - Minutes Page 8 (City Street Lighting in Developments, Continued) MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Apel, that the Council from this day forward require street lIghting of approved type as set by city lightIng standards to be approved by city staff and installed In each new plat in the urban service area of the CIty. Motion carried unanImously. UNDERGROUND UTILITIES/WARD LAKE DRIVE Council discussed the request of residents along Ward Lake Drive to put the utIlItIes underground between 177th and 181st for an estimated cost of $6,000. It was generally felt it is a neIghborhood issue which does not Involve the City. However, if the resIdents want the City to do it, those costs would then be assessed back to the resIdents. No further action was taken. MOTION by Orttei, Seconded by Apel, to adjourn. MotIon carrIed unanlmousl y. MeetIng adjourned at 9:59 p.m. Respectfully submitted, '\)~OO.. (0¡.~ Mar Ila A. Peach RecordIng Secretary