Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council - 09/12/1989 EDEN PRAIRIE CITY COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 12, 1339 7 : 30 PM CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 7600 Executive Drive COUNCIL MEMBERy : Mayor_ Gary Peterson, Richard Anderson, Jean Harris, Patricia Pidcock, and Douglas Tenpas CITY COUNCIL STAFF: City Manager Carl J . Jullie, Assistant to the City Manager Craig Dawson, Director of Public Works Eugene A . Dietz, City Engineer Alan Gray, and { Recording Secretary Deb Edlund PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE k x S ROLL CALL : Mayor Peterson absent . T . AR]F OR 7 L OF_. _AG �JI�A AN _OTHE I' _MSS t4 _N� MOTION' P idcock moved, seconded by Haxz is to approve the Agenda as published . Motion carried unanimously. City Manager Jullie explained to the audience the procedures to be followed for the assessments and the types of deferment: available . I T PtJBLICNrS A . Special Assessments , I .C . 52-102, Storm Sewer and Street Improvements in Hidden Glen 3rd Addition . Dietz presented the Council with a revised copy of the assessment roll and noted the changes made . The project consisted of sidewalk, bikeway, storm sewer , and street Improvements on Dell Road and in the Hidden Glen 3rd Addition . The project was 100% petition and, therefore, would be assessed over a 5-year period at 8 . 5% interest . The total final cost of the project was $233, 311 . 00, the City share was $10, 898 . 00, with the net assessment of $222, 413 . 00 . 117 lots were to be assessed at $1, 804 . 68 per family unit . A special provision for sanitary sewer along Chennault Way resulted in a special assessment of $296 . 46 for 38 lots . Tenpas asked what property was bring assessed $9, 624 . 76 . Dietz replied that 2/3 of the property belonged to the Toga Thumb Store and the other 1/3 belonged to the Especially for Children onmplex . a Wiry Couriell Minutes 2 ^epternr>er 12, 1`t09 There were no comment-o f rom the -cud ienc-e . MST I QN Pidcock moved, seconded by Harris to approve the ,assessoment roll fur Pxoject I . C . 52-102 as revisers and published . Motion carried unanimously. B . Special Assessments, I. C . 52-110, Street. Improvements on Golden Triangle Drive south of West 74th Street . Dietz reported that Project I . C . 52-110 consisted of watermain, storm sewer, and street improvements on Golden Triangle Drive from W . 74th Street to W . 76th Street . Hoyt Development had graded the site and the City had installed the street and storm server . This project did have a feasibility study done; however, Hoyt Development had requested that property be assessed on a per acre basis . The project costs were $84, 494. 00 to be totally assessed . The interest rate was 8 . 5% for 10 years . i There were no comments from the audience . MQT LQN Pidcock moved, seconded by Harris to approve the assessment roll as published for project I .C . 52-110 . Motion carrier} unanimously. C . Special Assessments, I ,C. 52-129, Watermain, Sanitary Sewer , Storm Sewer and Street Improvement in Wyndham Crest Addition . Dietz reported that the project consisted of utility and street improvements in the Wyndham Crest Addition. They total costs for the project were $2 52, 516 . 00. The project was 100% petition and would be assessed over 5 years at 8 . 5% interest . The project consisted of 24 lots to be assessed $10, 521 .50 per lot . Dietz presented the Council with a letter from Burl Corporation objecting to some of the costs for the project . Dietz referred to Item No . 2 in the letter , which stated that the developer was not aware of Change Order # 2 . Dietz explained that the work was done in 1988 and that the developers representative was on-site during that time . The work was necessary due to poor soil conditions, the work wa:a completed by the subcontractor, and Dietz believed that the costs were legitimate . Dietz referred to Item No . 3 of the letter, additional $71000 . Dietz ;.Mated that $3, 000 was for pavement repair of the wearing course due to the poor soil conditions . The project was not complete at this time and Staff City Council Minutes 3 ^Mptember 12, 1989 estimated an additiunal $4 , 000 in costs . Dietz noted that in order to be ready for this Special Assessment Hearing the costs needed to be gathered by August 1, 1989 and, therefore , the unfinished work was an estimated figure . Dietz noted that $7, 000 represented 3% of the total costs of the project and believed this estimate to be reasonable. Dietz referred to Item No . 4 of the letter, debris on the site . Dietz stated that discussions had taken place with the developer over the last 4 years regarding this item. The debris was probably left by a previous owners . Dietz noted that if the City were to refund the costs incurred by Burl Corporation, the City would be responoible for the costs . i Dietz recommended approval of the assessment roll as published . Harris asked Dietz to explain the discrepancy between the contract amount referenced in the letter and the costs being assessed . Dietz replied that the original bid excluded the change order and added that .a total feasibility study was not done for 100% petitioned �r projects . �e Anderson asked Dietz if this was the area just off the floodplain . Dietz replied this was the wooded knoll . Tenpas asked Dietz If the estimates for Item No . 3 in the letter_ came in lower than expected would the City refund the difference to the developer . Dietz replied no . Dietz added that over $2, 000,000 had been assessed to the total project in this area and believed that the estimates would be within $1, 000 of the actual costs . Anderson stated that it was difficult to estimate the actual costs when poor soil conditions were present . Tenpas asked i'f an alternative would be to delay the assessment of this project until next year . Dietz replied. It would be assessed at an additional 8 . 5% interest If the project were not assessed this year . There were no comments from the audience . M=LQN: Harris mowed, seconded by Pidcock to approve the assessment roll as published for Project 52-129 . Motion carried unanimously. D . Special Assessments, I .C . 52-131, Storm Sewer and Street Improvements on Hamilton Road . C1 ty ('u M-111 1. M11-111teF, 4 Otfptember 12, 1989 (� Dietz reported that this project was for Storrn sewer and street improvements on Hamilton Road to serve the Claredon Industrial area . The project was designed to improve the drainage in the area and the road improvements were necessary due to the severe road deterioration . The total costs of the project were $ 340, 025 . 00 . The feasibility study had estimated the project at $353, 000 . The project was to be assessed over 20 years at 8 . 5% inte-rest . The method of assessment had been discussed at the time of the feasibility hearing and it was determined that front footage would riot be equitable because of the different shapes of the lots . Another alternative which had been considered was an assessment on a per-lot basis; however, this was questioned because of the varied lot sizes and uses . It was determined that an equitable .assessment method would be on a per-acre basis. The assessment was for 21 .71 acres at $15, 622 . 14 per acre . A letter was given to the Council from MacDermid Incorporated requesting that a front footage method of assessment be used . City Engineer Alan Cray pointed out the parcel as requested by Councilmember Harris . Pidcock stated that the City had received several. complaints about the Starkey Labs property and the drainage problem in this area . Gray replied that the City' s consultarit had contacted the property owners in the area after the flood and the owners had reported that there was no building damage , but the parking areas were flooded. Gray added that part of the improvements was to raise a portion of the Starkey Labs parking lot and to add a storm sewer going into the pond . Dietz stated that there was a provision for prepayment by November 15, 1989 . Rick Stumpf , General Manager of MacDermid Incorporated, believed that the assessment should be on a front footage basis . Stumpf had requested the Council 's consideration of this method as part of a letter to the City. Anderson asked Stumpf If he believed that the business had more or less benefits than the amount of the assessment because of the road Improvements . Stumpf replied that if the front footage of his business were larger, it would create more usable land and this was the basis on which he had concluded that front footage would be more equ I tables . Dietz replied that the test of the equitabil ity of an assessment was if the assessment was equal to the increased value of the property. Dietz added that the City did prefer a front footage basis whenever possible; however, in this instance the Starkey Labs property would be assessed for 1/3 to 1/2 of the entire project .and Dietz did not believe this to be equitable . f City Council Minutes 5 Se-ptenber 12, 1989 There were no further comments from, the audience- . tP.LJ-Q-R: Pldcock moved, seconded by Tenpas, to approve the assessment roll as published for Project r . C. 52 . 131 . Motion carried unanimously. E . Special Assessments, I . C . 52-132, Sanitary Sewer , Storm Sewer , Watermain Improvements on Franlo Road from Prairie Center Drive to (3rier Lane . Dietz reported that the properties on this project were rectangular in shape and , therefore, a front footage method of assessment had been used . This was the f Inal project for the utility and street improvements on Franlo Road between Grier Lane and Prairie Center Drive . This was a feasibility project with estimated costs of $330, 633 . The final costs for the project were $350, 152, which was ,approximately $20, 000 higher than anticipated . The City share would be $11, 079 with a net assessment of $339,073 . Dietz noted that there were several properties guided fox commercial development and that these properties would be assessed $117 . 33 per front footage for the streets and drainage . The project would be assessed over 20 years at 8 . 5% interest . Dietz explained the special assessment policies utilized on this project and how they affected the assessments . The total of the 1995 and 1990 columns on the assessment roll could not exceed $15, 000 and any assessment In excess of $15, 000 on a homesteaded property would be deferred with Interest until the time of development . Dietz noted there were 4 homesteaded properties which were affected by the newly adopted special assessment policy . Pldcock asked Dietz If the 515,000 figure was only to be used as a guideline . Dietz replied that the $15, 000 was part of the policy adopted by the Council and added that the City needed to be consistent with this figure because other projects would be coming up in the future. Harris asked Dietz what property was being assessed $50, 549 . 07. Dietz noted the triangular piece of property on the map and added that the frontage used for calculating the assessment for this property had been reduced by 50 feet for assessment purposes because only . 9 acres faced the road with an additional 1 . 6 acres which was behind the triangular piece of property . All public improvements were completed In this area . Staff believed that without the Improvements the entire parcel could riot be developed . TenpaB asked how the property was currently guided . Gray replied the triangular portion of the property was guided City Council. Minutes: 9 September 12, 1989 Low Density Residential and the portion behind the triangular section was guided Neighborhood Commercial . Tenpas then asked if the triangular portion could be changed to commercial use . Dietz replied that all of the properties to the west of Franlo Road were guided for commercial development . Lee Johnson, owner r)f the property being questioned, reminded the Council that this was not a 100%-petitioned project and added his objection to the street costs . He believed that even though there were mitigating circumstances for the high cost of the street, Johnson stated the cost was at least twice what it should have been . Johnson questioned the assessment method used and added that he could not afford to pay $5, 0OO a year plus interest on this parcel. Johnson stated that he could only utilize approximately 200 feet of the road. Johnson said there was a guard rail placed on a portion of the road and his property was actually 20 feet below the road . Johnson believed that he would have to construct a road parallel to Franlo Road In order to be able to use it . Johnson did riot believe that this parcel was being treated eclui tab ly. He would like to develop the parcel as high density residential to provide a buffer between the residential area to the south and the movie theater to the north . Pidcock asked Dietz if the cost of the road was twice what It should be . Dietz replied that the road costs were high; however, he did not believe they were twice what they should have been . Dietz added that the sanitary sewer estimated costs were $3O . 00 per foot and actual costs were lower . The water cost had been estimated at $27 .00 per foot and had come in at $19 . 49 . The street cosh had been estimated at $78. 00 per foot and the final costs were at $98 . 34 per foot, which was higher , The bid had accepted with more coats being proposed for the street than the sanitary sewer , which he noted was not always the case in the bidding process . Dietz noted that the Johnson property did not have the benefit of sanitary sewer . He added that with all of the rather parcels the costs had averaged out due to the higher street coats, but lower sewer and water costs . Dietz stated that the guard rail was necessary on the Johnson parcel . Anderson asked Dietz what benefit ,Johnson wc»ald derive from the guard rail or a retaining wall . Dietz replied that the City 's policy was, that the road was to function as a total unit and the guard rail was necessary for the road as a whole . The end result was that all of the properties would be assessed for a portion of the guard rail and retaining wall . Tenpas asked Dietz to explain the bid process . Dietz i City Council Minutes 7 September 12, 1989 replied that in most instances the sanitary sewer portion of a bid was lower and the street portion of a bits was higher . The bid accepted for the project was the best bid for the project , but it had pr. esPnted a higher sanitary sewer portion and a lower street portion of the bid . Dietz noted that the Johnson parcel was the only property which did not receive the full benefit of the bid as proposed . Tenpas believed that Johnson was being penalized because of the way the bid was proposed . Dietz replied that the street improvements were estimated at approximately $45, 000 for this property and the final costs exceeded this amount by approximately 10%. Tenpas asked if it would more equitable to defer a portion of the Johnson assessment until the time of development . Dietz replied that other properties similar to the Johnson property would then ask for the same consideration . Anderson believed that the Johnson property was a unique situation . Pidcock asked if there was a building on the property at this time . Johnson replied no. I Anderson asked if a portion of the assessment: could be deferred . Jullie replied that the sewer and water portion of the assessment could be deferred . Tenpas then asked i what the amount of that deferment would be. Dietz replied $8, 3f,1 . 21 . Charles Bles.ener, 8561 Franlo Road, stated that the homesteaded parcels were being assessed for a commercial road which was 4 inches thicker and 4 feet wider than a typical residential street. Dietz replied that Franlo Road was a collector roar] and had been constructed to collector standards . Tenpas believed that because this area was zoned residential , but in the future would be developed as commercial , it would be fair to defer as much as possible until development occurred . Anderson asked if this project had to be considered as a whole or if the project could be assessed on a parcel by parcel basis . Jullie replied that the assessments had to be consistent . Tenpas concurred with the City's position to build the road as commercial at this time, but believed that it was nut fz.1ir to assess the residents who still had homes in the area for a commercial road . Lee Johnson believed that the project should be assessed by the ..affected frontage with some type of a deferment allowed . He believed that the amount of his assessment City Cosat,cl t Mirlute- 8 September 12, 1989 would exceed the value which he would recieve . Blesener concurred with the City' s approach to develop the road as commercial , but did not believe that the current homeowners in the area should have to bear the burden . Blesener said thRit he would be pleased If more of the amount of the assessment could be deferred and encouraged the Council to reconsider the $15, O00 cap figure . Blesener said that the road destgn was proper; however , he did not need this type of a road at this time . a Chuck Pufahl , 8560 Franlo Road, staters that at the feasibility hearing all of the residents had stated their obJections to the road . He added that some of the people I affected were elderly and could not afford this type of an assessment . Jullie explained to Pufahl that a special deferment was available for senior citizens . Dietz stated that the range in the past for rebuilt roads was between $12 , 000 and $18, 000 . The City had determined the $15, 000 figure as a moderate figure based on past assessments. Anderson stated that many of the sane residents were at the feasibility hearing expressing their concerns and believed that hardships were present in some cases . Anderson asked what the alternatives would be . Jullie replied that there were deferments for senior citizens and the. sewer and water portion of the project could be deferred . Blesener believed that the hardships being placed on the young families just trying to survive were just as Important as those of the elderly. Dietz reexplained the present deferments being proposed . Harris stated that this was a difficult area and proposed to defer the water portion of the assessment for the Johnson parcel . There were no further comments from the audience . MC=N: Harris moved, seconded by Pidcock to defer the water portion of the assessment for the Johnson parcel: No . 14- 116-22-43-O010 in the amount of $8, 361 .21 . Tenpas asked how the other vacant parcel would be handled and If the City was going to penalize those with homestead parcels for a commercial road which was not necessarily needed at this time for their purposes . City Council Minutes S,:�ptember 12, 1989 Anderson stated that he did not believe a $500 per year assessment to be excessive for a residential parcel . Tenpas then asked about the other vacant lot . Pidcock replied that the other vacant lot had received the benefit of the costs equalling out between the sewer , water, and the street, and the Johnson property was unique because it had not received that same benefit. . . Jullie explained that there were State Statues which governed what could be deferred and what could not . He added that there was no legal mechanism available to defer the street assessment; however, because the Johnson parcel was unique the water assessment could be deferred . Motion carried unanimously. MO ION : Tenpas moved, seconded by Pidcock to defer the water and sewer portion for ;parcel No . 14-116-22-43-0003 in the amount of q8, 347. 95 with interest until development . Motion carried unanimously. MOTION • Pidcock moved, seconded by Harris to approve the remaining portion of the assessment roll as published, with the above exceptions noted. Tenpas stated that he would like to defer a portion of the 1990 column for the four homesteaded properties . Jullie explained that the Newer and water portions had already been deferred and to defer any other portion would require a policy change . Motion carried 3-1 . Tenpas voted "NO" . F. Special Assessments , I .C. 52-133, Storm Sewer , Watermain and Sanitary Sewer in Legion Park Plat . Dietz stated that this project was for the utilities in the Legion Park Plat and was 100% petitioned . The project costs of $155, 036. 00 were to be assessed over a 5-year period at 8 . 5% interest . MQTI ON: Harris moved, seconded by Pldcouk to approve the assessment roll as published . Motion carried 4-0 . G . Special Assessments, I .C. 52-147, Watermain Improvement along County Road 4 and County Road 1 east of Cedar Ridge i i1 Minutes 10 ;i.--pternber 12, 1989 Estates and west of Staring Lake I r . Dietz reported that this project was for watermain improvements along County Road 4 and County Road 1 east of Cedar Ridge Estates and west of Staring Lake I I . The project was to be completed prior to the beginning of school this year, which had been accomplistied . Dietz rioted that the City share of the project was significant at a cost of $276, F,19 _ The net assessment was $227, 353 to he assessed at $18 . 92 per front foot . Dietz stated that at the feasibility hearing the owner of the large pie-shaped parcel had requested and exception clue to the shape of the lot - Staff had averaged the lot dimension from front to back and reduced the asses snient from 170 feet to 119 feet and had determined a 1. 21 -foot frontage on the second pie-shaped lot . Dietz noted that the exclusion policy was also available on this project The large developable single family homesteaded lots were assessed at a maximum of 175 feet, with the balance to be r deferred until the time of further development. 8 Tenpas asked how the benefit was determined . Dietz replied that this was the F'airf field Subdivision with s contained approximately 300 acres . This project would connect to the watermain from County Road 4 . Tenpas then asked why the Wagner property was being assessed higher than other parcels with the same benefit . Dietz replied that the Wagner property was next to the watermain and would riot accumulate the high costs to get to the water connection as the other properties . Dietz noted that Mr . Wagner had written a letter of objection to the assessment. Pidcock asked if the Wagner property would be dissected with the proposed Scenic Heights Road alignment . Dietz replied that a portion of the Wagner property would be taken as right-of-way; however, the assessment would Immediately increase the value of the property and MnDot would be required to pay the increased price for the land . Stephen Wagner, 8430 Eden Prairie Road, stated the he had asked that the exit ramp from Highway 212 be ext'enrled as far as possible . He believed that his property would become fragmented by the proposed road . Wagner believed that it would be best to make the water connection from Endicott Drive . He dirt not believe that his parcel was being treated equitably and believed that the Gilk property would have the same benefit as his property. Wagner stated that he was very concerned about the disparity . He added that he wanted to pay hiss fair share, but tie wanted that share to be equitable . Robert Brown, 8701 Eden Prairie Road, believed that he was i City r7ouncil Minutes 11 September 12, 1989 being .assessed for more frontage than tie actually had . Dietz replied that the property was registered as being 141 feet. Brown staged that the frontage was 100 feet . Dietz asked Brown to come into the office for further investigation into the discrepancy and it would be adjusted If necessary. Jeff Wendt , 8691 Eden Prairie Road, stated that he was being assessed for 109 feet and his abstract stated 107 feet . Dietz asked that Mr . Wendt contact the City offices and an adjustment would also be made If necessary. Anderson asked Dietz exactly how this discrepancy would be handled . Dietz replied that these two parcels would be deferred until the final hearing on October 3, 1989 . Pidcock asked if the Wagner property could also be deferred for further study. Jullie replied that it could be deferred to the October 3, 1989 final rearing . Dietz concurred that the 3 parcPis should be deferred and Staff would come back to the Council with a recommendation on the Wagner property. Tenpas asked if any portion of the Wagner property was undevelopable . Wagner replied that the road alignment died not work well with the layout of the home. Wagner believed that the Tandem and Fairfield developments were the sole beneficiaries of this project . Anderson stated that all of these items would be taken Into consideration. There were no further comments from the audience . MQT1Orr Pidcock moved, seconded by Harris to exclude Parcels No . 20-116-22-11.--0003, No . 20-116-22-11-0004, and No . 17-116-- 22-44-0013 from the assessment roll at this time and to determine the assessment at the October 3, 1989 City Council meeting. Motion carried unanimously. MOT I ON Pidcock moved, seconded by Harris to approve the remainder of the assessment roll for Project r . C. 52-147 as published. Motion carried unanimously. Fi. Special Assessments, I .C . 52-149, Waterr.iain Improvements along County Road 1 west of Staring Like Parkway and east of Staring Lake it . Dietz stated that this project was for the installation of water.main on Pioneer Trail west of Staring Lake parkway to City Council Minutes 12 '^Fi>temher 12, 1989 LaRivier Court . The costs were slightly higher than the feasibility study projected . There were no comments from the audience . Mc?T I ON Harris moved, seconded by Pidcock to approve the f assessment roll as published for Project I .C . 52-149 . Motion carried unanimously. I . Special Assessments, Supplementals . Dietz noted that the supplemental roll could be approved with the exception of the too water assessments deferred on Project I . C. 52-132 . There were no comments from the audience. JJQ T!W: Pidcock moved, seconded by Tenpa5 to approve the Supplemental Roll as published with the exception of the two deferments noted on Project No . 52-132. Motion carried unarimously. Harris moved, seconded by Pidcock to adopt Resolution. No. 89-199 approving the special Assessment Roll with the exception of changes made to be incorporated into exhibit A . Motion carried unanimously. III . EW�BUS I NFSS I V . AMJ-Q1J$.gFN'T !!Q L W: Tenpas moved, seconded by Pidcock to adjourn to a closed session to discuss litigation related to the proposed expansion of the Flying cloud sanitary landfill at 1.0 : 15 PM. Marion carried unanimously. The closed session adjourned at 11 : 40 PM . a