Loading...
7. SR 07-25-1994 . MS~ CONSlL Tl\G ENGINEEIIS CIVil ENGINEERING. fNVIRONN,fNTAl MUNICIPAl PlANNING STRUCTURAl . SURVEYING TRAFFIC TRANSPORTATION 1326 Energy Park Drive SI. Paul, MN 55108 612.644.4389 Fax: 612.644-9446 . 9800 Shelard Parkway Minneapalis, MN 55441 612.546.0432 Fax: 612.544-6398 ITEM 7. July 20,1994 File: 230-223-10 Honorable Mayor and City Council City of Elk River 13065 Orono Parkway P.O. Box 490 Elk River, MN 55330 RE: WESTERN AREA 2ND PHASE IMPROVEMENTS . PUBLIC HEARING Dear Council Members: As you are aware, the public hearing for the Western Area Phase 2 Improvements is scheduled for your July 25, 1994, City Council meeting. There are basically two major issues involved in this project. The first is the extension of the trunk sanitary sewer and water facilities westerly to the County Administration Building property. The second is the Sandpiper Estates area. Since the extension of the trunk sanitary sewer and water plus the looping of the water system will disrupt more than half of the Sandpiper Estates area, this entire area has been considered for lateral utilities, storm sewer, and new urban streets. There was an informational meeting held with the residents of Sandpiper Estates approximately 30 days ago, and a subsequent neighborhood meeting held at the residence of Steve Stewart approximately 10 days ago. At the public hearing, I will be prepared to make a presentation dealing with the proposed improvements and also attempting to discuss the issues relative to Sandpiper Estates that have been brought forward through these two meetings. It is important for the City Council to remember that Monday night's meeting is the public hearing and not the assessment hearing. Although the assessments and the cost of the improvements will likely dominate the conversation, there is no need for the City Council to make a firm decision on the assessment issue at Monday night's meeting. As discussion gets to the issues of assessments and costs particular to the Sandpiper Estates property, it is important to remember that there needs to be consistency and uniformity in the assessments of the various properties. Sandpiper Estates has 44 lots within the two phases, approximately 24 are built on and approximately 20 are vacant. Some of the main issues that have been discussed previously with the Sandpiper Estates residents that the City Council may hear on Monday evening concern the trunk sanitary sewer and water assessment of $3,800 per acre. There has been much discussion with the residents about the condition of their on-site systems which are zero to four years old. Many residents have indicated they feel the loss of the systems by hooking up to City sewer and 223.20 13,;ul . Honorable Mayor and City Council July 20,1994 Page Two water should be offset by a reduction in assessments. Council member Dietz has briefly discussed the potential of waiving the trunk sewer and water assessments to offset the loss of investment in the on-site systems. The difficulty with this issue is how to potentially waive this assessment for the developed lots but not necessarily waive it for the undeveloped lots which have not made an investment in on-site sewer and water systems. The other issue that has been heavly discussed is the street assessment, which raises the corner lot total cost quite substantially. The typical lot in Sandpiper Estates is approximately 300 feet deep, so when the equation of the short side plus one-third the long side or the long side, whichever is greater, is applied to these properties, the long side typically becomes the total length that is assessed for street purposes. The offsetting issue is that if the lots are subdivided, the corner lots with streets on two sides are the easiest ones for property owners to split. . The third issue that was discussed briefly at the neighborhood meeting was the thought of not allowing any further subdivision of the lots within Sandpiper Estates and, in turn, leaving the streets in a rural design with no storm sewer. The lack of storm sewer would reduce the assessments by $8.00 per front foot. By changing the streets from an urban section to a rural section would not typically reduce the assessment rate. Currently the City's assessment policy is $22.00 per front foot for the reconstruction of any residential street. We have made an estimate of the cost of rural roads and find that $22.00 per front foot would pay approximately 90% of the total cost of reconstruction in this nature versus 40-50% of the cost of an urban street section. The bigger issue with this proposal is how does the City prevent the future subdivision of lots. In a brief discussion with City Attorney Peter Beck, he felt that the only way to accomplish this would be to create a new zoning district and rezoning the area to one acre urban lots. This likely would be objected to by Mr. Bill Gagne, who is the owner of most of the undeveloped lots. It is likely that some of the existing homeowners who have planned for future subdivision by building their home on one side of their lot might also object. Another issue which has been discussed briefly would be the assessment of the project such that the first payment would not be due until 1996. This can certainly be accomplished; however, the Council should be aware that as the assessment repayment period is pushed out, the amount of capitalized interest which must be included in the project goes up. Given the unit type of assessments, any additional cost added to this project would be borne by the City. This would be the type of overhead cost that the City would attempt to cover with the $3,800 per acre trunk sewer and water assessment. Therefore, if the City Council were to consider waiving the trunk sewer and water assessments for the developed lots within Sandpiper Estates and also postpone the first payment on the assessment until 1996, the ability of the $3800 per acre assessment rate to cover all costs may become questionable. . 223-2013.jut . Honorable Mayor and City Council July 20,1994 Page Three As the City Council discusses the various assessment issues at the public hearing, you should also bear in mind that it is likely the assessment hearing for this project would be held after construction has begun. Therefore, there will not be an opportunity to wait the 30-day appeal period to determine if there will be a large number of assessment appeals filed. Potentially, assessment appeals could be f1led after construction has begun. If the City were to lose any of these appeals, the cost would have to be covered by the City. In the same light, the Phase 1 Western Area improvements followed a similar schedule and there were no assessment appeals that were upheld. Once the public hearing is concluded, the action needed by the City Council if they desire to proceed with the project is to consider the attached resolution ~hich orders the improvement. Since this project was initiated by the City Council, this resolution requires a 4/5 vote of the City Council. If you have any questions regarding this project or issues you specifically want covered in the presentation at Monday evening's meeting, please call. Sincerely, . MSA, CONSULTING ENGINEERS ~~Jtt~ Terry 1. 'ifaurer, P.E. TJM:tw Attachment . 223.2013.jul . . . RESOLUTION 94 - A RESOLUTION FOR THE CITY OF ELK RIVER A RESOLUTION ORDERING THE IMPROVEMENT IN THE MATTER OF THE WESTERN AREA 2ND PHASE TRUNK SANITARY SEWER, WATER, STORM SEWER, AND STREET IMPROVEMENT OF 1994 WHEREAS a public hearing relating to the Western Area 2nd Phase Trunk Sanitary Sewer, Water, Storm Sewer, and Street improvement was held before the Elk River City Council after ten days mailed notice and two weeks published notice of the hearing was given; and WHEREAS the City Council has duly considered the Feasibility Report and those matters presented at the public hearing by those persons desiring to be heard on the matter; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Elk River, Minnesota: 1. The Western Area 2nd Phase Trunk Sanitary Sewer, Water, Storm Sewer, and Street improvement is hereby ordered as recommended in the Feasibility Report dated June 2, 1994. Passed and adopted this 25th day of July, 1994. Henry A. Duitsman, Mayor ATTEST: Sandra A. Thackeray, City Clerk 223-2013.jul .MS rnNSULTI\G ENGlNEEIIS CIVI! ENGINEERiNG- ENViRONMENTAl MUNICIPAl PlANNING STRUCTURAl .SURV'fYING TRAfFIC TRANSPORTATiON 1326 Energy Park Drive St. Paul, MN 55108 612.644-4389 Fax: 612.644-9446 . 9800 Sh.ard Parkway Minneapalis, MN 55441 612.546.0432 Fax: 612.544.6398 JilL 18 199' f-- MEMORANDUM TO: Mr. Pat Klaers, City Administrator, City of Elk River Terry Maurer ~ Sandpiper Estates Area FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: July 12, 1994 FILE: 230-223-10 The Sandpiper Estates Area held a neighborhood meeting on Sunday evening, July 10, 1994, at Steve Stewart's home in the Sandpiper Estates Addition. In attendance besides myself were County Commissioner Arnie Engstrom and Council members John Dietz and Roger Holmgren. There was not a formal structure to the meeting. It was more of a question and answer and general comment type format. The following is a summary of my notes from this meeting. . Commissioner Engstrom made the comment that the County system has failed, therefore they have petitioned the City to extend sewer and water to the County Administration Building. The question was asked of Commissioner Engstrom whether or not the Contractor working on the addition damaged the current septic system and that was the reason for the need for City utilities. Commissioner Engstrom answered no to that question. He also indicated that the system has failed to the point that currently the County is pumping the system on an ongoing basis. . Councilman Holmgren made some comments relative to the history of the utilities in the Western Area. He indicated that, back as early as 1986, County Board Chair Madsen at that time requested City water be extended to the County Courthouse. He also referred to the Sandpiper Estates developer, Bill Gagne, and his decisions to wait on the developing and selling of lots in the Sandpiper Estates from 1987 when the plat was approved to 1990 when the improvements were put in place. Councilman Holmgren indicated that this was a decision likely based on the current tax law at the time, which required the platted lots to pay higher taxes after three years. . In follow-up to Councilman Holmgren's comments, I also commented that in 1989, when the Western Area feasibility was approved discussing City sewer and water in the Western Area, the County asked for utilities to be extended to their facility at that time. The City Council indicated then that they were not willing to extend utilities that far through that many acres of undeveloped property, but rather wanted a more uniform development of the Western Area from east to west. The City Council now feels that this has taken place with the development of Heritage Landing, Mississippi Oaks, Country Crossing, and the proposed Business Park west of the fairgrounds. 230/223-1203.jul - I . . . . There were a number of comments from residents indicating that City staff had indicated to them that City sewer and water would not come to their area for three to five years. Some residents even indicated they were told seven to ten years. A question was asked as to whether or not the whole extension of sewer and water was strictly based on the County. I answered that the timing of this second phase was certainly relative to the County's petition, but that the City has always planned since the Growth Management Study was adopted to extend sewer and water to this area, so it is not a matter of whether or not sewer and water would be coming, it is a matter of when. Questions were asked about what the City knew about development pressures and when. Again, this is relative to information that residents may have received from City Hall, so the residents were curious as to what the City may have known about Country Crossing and the development of the Lakoduc property. · A question was asked as to whether or not the lines could be routed around the Sandpiper Estates area. I indjcated that the 1989 plan called for a central corridor approach to the trunk utilities. This was put in place in 1992 with the first phase of these improvements; therefore, at this time it would not be economically feasible to make a change in that. The City is committed at this point to extend sewer and water down the central corridor through Sandpiper Estates. . Steve Stewart asked why the County Administration Building was not receiving any street assessment. He asked this specifically of Commissioner Engstrom; however, I answered that the City is not proposing street assessments because there are no street improvements proposed on the County Administration Building. I went on to explain the original concept was to extend the Orono Parkway all the way to Waco which would have potentially brought commercial and industrial traffic through Sandpiper Estates. The Council changed the concept such that there will be no street continuation other than allowing Sandpiper Estates to eventually exit easterly to Joplin. In exchange for this, the City has asked the County for utility corridors across their property both north and south and east and west. They have also asked for consideration on the connection of a frontage road along Trunk Highway 10 to their access to Trunk Highway 10. . Councilman Dietz then indicated that he had called the builder of several of the homes in the Sandpiper Estates Addition that day. The builder in question had signed a number of the forms at City Hall indicating a knowledge of sewer and water coming and the potential ability to subdivide their lots. Councilman Dietz indicated that he had asked this builder without identifying himself what he knew about the Sandpiper Estates area relative to sewer and water. The builder indicated that he was aware that sewer and water were coming and that there was a potential to further subdivide lots, and that he had shared this information with all of the home buyers he dealt with. Many of the residents in attendance took exception to this and indicated they did not have a very good relationship with the builder relative to making repairs on their property, and he clearly, in their opinion, did not share that information with them. 230122J.l203.jul -2 . . . . A question was asked by one of the residents if it would be possible to put sewer and water into the development but leave the roads in the rural state that they are with roadside ditches and no storm sewer, the thought being that lots would not be further subdivided and that the rural drainage would still be appropriate with an appropriate reduction in the cost of the assessment. The lack of storm sewer would reduce the assessment by $8.00 per foot and reconstructing the rural street rather than the urban street with curb and gutter could also possibly reduce their cost. I indicated that from an engineering standpoint this would be a possibility but that from a legal standpoint I wasn't sure how the City could accomplish the restriction of further subdividing the land. My thought would be that it may require rezoning with a new zoning district of one acre urban lots. A little later in the meeting, one of the current residents did indicate that he would not like to give up his opportunity to further subdivide his lot. He lives on a corner piece of property and said that he was not thinking about subdividing now but that sometime in the future may want to do that. · I then asked for a consensus of those in attendance whether or not there was a desire to further subdivide their lots. The vast majority of those in attendance said they had no such desire. I also asked if there was desire for leaving the rural approach and again the vast majority indicated they would like that. I assume that this is representative of a reduction in the assessments rather than necessarily the rural nature of the development. . I then asked for some specific thoughts on assessment reductions, what they thought would be a tolerable level for assessments. In response to this, Steve Stewart indicated that he thought a waiving of trunk assessments and the elimination of storm sewer would be a good approach. At $8.00 per front foot for storm sewer and $3,800 per acre, this would result in approximately $4,700 per lot reduction. · In response to this comment, one of the other residents indicated the same type of approach based on their existing on-site sewer and well system still having much useful life in them and they ought to be compensated for them somehow. He felt a prorated reimbursement of the value left in them plus possibly a reimbursement for the cost of abandoning the septic system. He did not directly tie this into the elimination of a trunk assessment rate, but it was implied that this would be an offsetting feature. . There were some questions on the assessment process and appeal process. I indicated that Chapter 429 of State Statute allowed for an appeal process and basically indicated that assessments need to be offset by an increase in the value of the property. I also indicated that generally the appeal process needs to be initiated by the homeowner, that simply by going through the process of levying the assessments, the City Council was taking the position that the assessments are valid and will increase the value of the property. Roger Holmgren made some comments about the Westwood Area Subdivision and their assessments. He indicated that the few sales that have taken place since that project have indicated that there was an increase in value equal to or greater than the assessment amount. 230/223-1203.jul -3 . We also talked in general terms about the total cost of the improvements. People had thrown out numbers of $30,000 to $40,000 for their personal cost. I indicated that generally the assessment range, depending on the lot, was $13,000 to almost $20,000. The SAC and WAC charges would add $2,300 to each lot. There would be a cost associated with connecting to the system along with abandoning the existing septic system. This could add potentially another $2,000 to $2,500 to the total cost, and then the fmal cost would be interest on the assessment if it were to run 10 to 15 years. Potentially, all these costs added together for one lot could get up in the $30,000 to $35,000 range. . The meeting started at about 6:30 p.m. and ran until approximately 8:30. It ended with no clear direction as to any responses that the City or City Council would provide to the residents. It was more of a forum for the residents to give their input to the two Council members and the County Board member in attendance. TJM:tw . . 2301223-1203.jul -4 . Typical Staff Conversation With Potential New Residents in Sandpiper Estates . Sandpiper Estates is in the sewer and water district. When those services are available, you will be required to have them. . Unless a project is pending, nobody can pinpoint the exact time when you will receive these services. It could be next year, it could be 10 years from now. . Sandpiper Estates came after the sewer and water district, unlike other large existing lots in this area, therefore, Sandpiper will be required to pay a trunk assessment and have laterals as soon as sewer and water are available. . If potential residents insisted on a guess as to when sewer and water would be to their neighborhood, staffs response was "Don't hold us to it, it's only our best guess, but probably within 3 to 5 years". . /~/?~ . spiper-bz . 7-18-94 Dear Mr. Pat Klaers, We are writing you this letter to address the proposed improvements to the Sandpiper Estates. We were told for corner lots for street improvement you take the short side plus 1/3 of the long side or the longer side,which ever is greater. The street of 183rd does not go to the end of our property line. I measured 30 feet from center of Ogden and started to measure back from that point to the end of 183rd as close as I could come was @200 feet. Since 1/3 rd of 200 feet is 66.67 feet I would add that to my front footage of 112\1'-1 feet added together which is ~LC(f'; I feet of which would . be the base for our street assessment. Thank you for your time on this matter. ~~~<.~~--- Steven & Joann Stewart 18290 Ogden St.N.W. Elk River, Mn. . . . . July 19, 1994 Dear Elk River City Council Members, The folowing petition was written by the residents of Sandpiper Estates concerning the extension of city sewer and water to our area. This petitioned, signed by all Sandpiper Estates homeowners, will be presented at the next public hearing on July 25th. Sincerely, The Residents of Sandpiper Estates. . . . SANDPIPER ESTATES PETITION Residents of the Sandpiper Estates feel strongly that we have been involved in a comedy of errors, through no fault of our own. Because of these errors, we are being asked to shoulder an unreasonable and unacceptable financial burden. We simply can not afford to shoulder these costs on our own. For some families the assessment and hook-up charges may simply force them to walk away from their homes. For others, it will mean postponing much needed home improvements indefinitely as well as lowering the quality of living because of the high cost of monthly assessment charges. We are a development made up primarily of families with young children. We chose this development because it offered economical housing in a rural setting. For many families, these are first homes. We desperately need the city's help in the form of a compromise in our proposed assessments. The following list was made up by the residents of our development. We feel that this compromise would allow the city to move forward with their plans for the future, but at the same time, not unduly burden the homeowners of our development. 1. The city would not be proposing to run the trunk line through our development at this time if it were not for the urgent need on the part of the Sherburne County Government Center for water and sewer utilities, we are asking that the residents of Sandpiper Estates not be charged the cost of this trunk line. 2. Since Sandpiper Estates soil has fast percolation rates, and all lots are one acre in size, the city should drop the idea of installing Storm Sewers in this development. 3. All sewer and wells in Sandpiper Estates are less than four years old. The city shall reimburse all homeowners on an individual basis for the cost of the unused portions of their systems based on a life expectancy of twenty years. 4. All sewer systems in this development shall have to be abandoned. The city shall pay for the cost of abandonment. 5. All lots in Sandpiper Estates are basically one acre, therefore all assessment amounts should be based on front footage only. JUL I ~ ",4 . Loren and Teresa Chicoine 18588 Naples Street NW Elk River, MN 55330 (612) 441-4045 July 12,1994 City of Elk River City Council P.O. Box 490 Elk River, MN 55330 Re: Notice of Improvement Hearing Dear Council Members: We received notice of the public hearing scheduled for Monday, July 25, 1994, regarding the Western Area Phase II public improvements. Unfortunately we will . be out of town on that date and will noi be able to attend the meeiing. In November 1993, we had a new well put in so we obviously have no interested in city water, and are most certainly concerned about any assessment costs. We would appreciate the Council's written responds to our following questions. 1. With so few residences in the effected area... A. Why does the City feel it is necessary to consider improvements at this time? B. How much, or what percentage of total costs will each landowner be assessed? C. Will the assessments be based on frontage or acreage? D. If assessments are determined by frontage, how will our corner lot be assessed? . 2. Our property is located on Naples Street NW, north of Highway 10. A. The map included with our notice indicates our road is a private road. As the City currently does not have any right of way, and has not mainiained the road (winter or summer), will this have any bearing on the consideration of improvements that would affect us directly? B. Exactly what improvements are being planned for Naples Street NW, and what kind of easements will the City be asking from the residents on Naples Street NW? C. Would road improvements include a culdesac for a school bus turn around? 3. If water and sewer are installed on Naples Street NW... A. Will hook up be mandatory? B. Will hook up costs be independent of assessments for improvements? In addition to a written response, we would appreciate a copy of the minutes from the July 25, 1994, meeting be sent to us. Thank you in advance for your prompt response to our requests. Sincerely, Sincerely, --;:;;~(/.Lc~~~ d~~a~ Loren R. Chicoine Teresa Chicoine