Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a regular meeting was duly held at the Woodbury City Hall, 8301 Valley Creek Road, on the 9th day of April, 2003.
CALL TO ORDER
Mayor William Hargis called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Audience, staff, and Council pledged allegiance to the flag of the United States of America.
ROLL CALL
Upon roll call the following were present: William Hargis, Michael Madigan, Peter Rekow, Cheryl Hurst, and Michael Charron. Others Present: Barry Johnson, City Administrator, Jim Lammers, City Attorney; Dwight Picha, Community Development Director, David Jessup, Public Works Director, Tom Syfko, Consulting Engineer, and Barry Peters, Consulting Engineer.
Mayor Hargis welcomed those watching at home to join the Council meetings and call City Hall if they need information. He also referred to the manila brochures located on the chairs entitled "Welcome to the Woodbury City Council Meeting" and noted there are Public Input Sign-Up Sheets, and invited audience members to sign them and give them to a staff member if they wished to comment during the meeting. He also noted that the times listed on the Agenda are only estimates and that items may be addressed by the Council earlier or later than those times listed.
SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS
No items scheduled.
OPEN FORUM
There were no speakers.
CONSENT AGENDA
Mayor Hargis explained that Consent Agenda items are considered routine and are adopted by one motion in an affirmative vote of the Members. He said there is no separate discussion of these items unless a Council Member or citizen so requests, in which event the item(s) will be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered during the Discussion portion of the agenda.
Moved by Mayor Hargis, seconded by Member Madigan, to approve the Consent Agenda, Items 6A through 6G.
Item A To approve Change Order #2 for a total reduction of $3,500, and authorize the final payment for the $58,901.30 for the Lookout Ridge Play Structure to Minnesota/Wisconsin Playground.
Item B To adopt the following resolution: RESOL. NO. 03-108
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF WOODBURY, WASHINGTON COUNTY, MINNESOTA, AWARDING THE CONTRACT FOR THE WYNDHAM PONDS/NEW LIFE CHURCH ADDITION UTILITY AND STREET IMPROVEMENTS TO THREE RIVERS CONSTRUCTION, INC. WITH A NET BID OF $279,631.35 AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY ADMINISTRATOR TO SIGN SAID CONTRACT
Item C To adopt a motion authorizing a contract with United Rentals of St. Paul, MN to supply the City with one, Clipper Pro, pavement and concrete saw for a cost of $5,185.49, including sales tax.
Item D To adopt the following resolution: RESOL. NO. 03-109
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF WOODBURY, WASHINGTON COUNTY, MINNESOTA, ADDING CERTAIN MUNICIPAL STATE AID STREETS
RESOL. NO. 03-110
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF WOODBURY, WASHINGTON COUNTY, MINNESOTA, REVOKING CERTAIN MUNICIPAL STATE AID STREETS
Item E To adopt a motion accepting the project and authorizing final payment in the amount of $86,182.18 for the 2001A Street Improvements
Item F To issue a tobacco license to Woodbury Tobacco Inc. dba Woodbury Tobacco to sell tobacco, tobacco products and tobacco-related devices at 1580 Woodlane Drive #4 for the period of April 10, 2003 to December 31, 2003.
Item G To approve the Abstract of Bills for April 4, 2003, in the amount of $607,719.21.
Voting via voice:
Cheryl Hurst - aye
Michael Charron - aye
Michael Madigan - aye
Peter Rekow - aye
William Hargis - aye
PUBLIC HEARINGS
David Jessup, Public Works Director, outlined Council Letter No. 03-182. The proposed improvements will be on Cottage Grove Drive, beginning at Valley Creek Road on the north and extending one-half mile south. Last summer, the City reconstructed another piece of Cottage Grove Drive beginning at the end of this project for approximately one-half mile further south. This will be construction of a new roadway to residential street standards. It will be 28 feet in width with curb and gutter and also includes the extension of sanitary sewer to serve properties which are adjacent to this roadway and are not already served or do not have other alternatives. It will provide a trunk water main along Cottage Grove Drive, which will provide service to the adjacent properties and will help complete the trunk water main system. Water and sewer stubs will be provided to those properties that will be served by these utilities. There will also be the need for some temporary easements along the corridor to blend this new construction into the existing topography.
Mr. Jessup stated that there has been considerable public involvement in the development of this project. There have been three neighborhood meetings, as well as numerous individual discussions with various property owners along the corridor.
Mr. Jessup indicated that the total estimated cost for this project is about $1.2 million. Lateral sanitary sewer costs are about $182,000, lateral water main improvements are about $144,000, services for water and sewer are about $41,000, street and storm sewer improvements are about $680,000. The trunk water main has an estimated cost of about $149,000. The project will be funded through assessments in the amount of approximately $1,045,000 and City area charge funds in the amount of $149,000. Because many of these properties are being provided sanitary sewer and water service for the first time, the City will be collecting area charges from a number of properties in the approximate amount of $223,000.
Mr. Jessup displayed a chart showing the benefited properties. He noted that in some cases the area charges are being collected as part of current development projects. He said that the water, sanitary sewer and streets are paid 100% by the benefiting properties and the cost is allocated based upon one-third of the frontage of the parcel and two-thirds of the cost is being allocated based on acreages of the parcels. The City's policy indicates that the assessments will occur when the lateral improvements are being provided, and it is anticipated that there will be a 10 year assessment period. The City Council has adopted a policy allowing a delay option for a portion of those assessments.
Mr. Jessup said that the City has a policy for area charges, which applies to the trunk water and trunk sanitary sewer area charges. A definition of a net acre, rather than gross acreage, is used for parcels. The policy indicates that the area charges will be assessed when either the trunk that serves the area is constructed or the laterals are being provided. In this case, the sewer is a lateral sewer and triggers the area charges. There will be a 10 year assessment term for these items. Staff has identified the trunk storm water area charges, however, they are not proposed to be assessed as part of this project. The Council has tried to delay the assessments of trunk storm water area charges until the development of the property actually occurs. The items that could trigger the storm water area charges are when existing parcels would connect to the water and sanitary sewer, The policy indicates that the City would collect a portion of those area charges on those parcels based upon a residential equivalent unit. This is defined as up to two acres on an exception parcel and treating it as if it was a 10,000 square foot lot and assessing it on a basis of 10,000 square feet, even though it might be up to two acres in size.
Mr. Jessup reviewed the project schedule and indicated that this was a project where bids are received and the assessment hearing is held before awarding a contract. It is anticipated to receive bids and hold the assessment hearing in June. Construction is anticipated to start in July and the street should be in place and usable by the middle of October. The project would be completed next year with the final paving and restoration.
Mr. Jessup noted there have been a number of issues raises as part of the process for this project. It has been the City's long range plan for Valley Creek Road is that the road should be reconstructed. The road needs to be lowered in the area of existing Cottage Grove Drive. At that time, it was anticipated that Cottage Grove Drive would be cul-de-saced and would not connect to Valley Creek Road. A question was raised as to why the City was reconstructing Cottage Grove Drive right to Valley Creek Road, and perhaps the City could save some money by not constructing it to a full residential street standard. Staff is in the process of investigating this matter, but it seems that the last northerly 150 feet of that roadway could be milled and overlay rather than constructing it as a residential street. It won't have the same life expectancy as the permanent roadway construction and there is not currently a schedule for the reconstruction of Valley Creek Road. A mill and overlay will last long enough for a decision to be made about Valley Creek Road. This would save about $20,000 in the project costs.
Mr. Jessup said there have also been questions about how sanitary sewer service is being provided to some of the parcels at the very north end of the project. Staff is looking at a design alternative that rather than bringing the sewer along Cottage Grove Drive that it would be brought in straight in from the west. This will require some additional easements. If the additional easement needed for the sewer were dedicated to the City at no cost, this could save about $30,000-$40,000 in project costs.
Mr. Jessup noted that the City received a letter prior to this hearing, which was received on March 11, 2003 from Mr. and Mrs. Plautz, in which they are objecting to proposed assessments.
Bobbie Plautz, 2045 Cottage Grove Drive, addressed the Council. She believes that the Cottage Grove Drive preliminary report does not meet legal requirements. Statute 420-31 states that assessments need to be fair and equal to all properties. The proposal does not give the same and equal credits to all parties. The ponding credit is not fair and equal when one party gets $24,000 and another party gets $87,000. She doesn't believe this would hold up in court. It is not fair and equal to charge the single family residences lateral sanitary sewer and tell them they must have a lift station for the back half of their property. The City allows the developer to hook up from behind and not pay their share of lateral sanitary sewer. She asked if the residences have to have lift stations, why shouldn't the developers. The pipe is going in front of their property and they would benefit as much as the residents. It is not fair to exempt them and pass their cost onto the residents. If the City residents pay one-third of the cost of new pavement and curb and gutter, as she read in the Woodbury Bulletin, why is it fair and equal to assess the 100%. She is pleased that the City engineers are looking at stopping the road before the new cul-de-sac and that they have suggested other cost-cutting ideas. She is against a document that causes further financial burden on the residents for legal fees to fix something that should be fair and equal and accurate before it is passed.
DuWayne Plautz, 2045 Cottage Grove Drive, addressed the Council. He said he is disappointed with the City's assessment procedures. When they purchased their property in 1985, they asked City engineers what would happen when sewer and water go into their neighborhood. The response was that they would only be assessed as much as the benefit is to your property. They were led to believe this was only the benefit to their home being hooked up to City sewer and water, and were never told benefits meant paying assessments on all potential lots that would fit on a five acres. His assessment, if he doesn't divide his property, is $79,000. If they choose to sell any portion of their property, the assessment goes up to $157,000. This puts a large financial burden on his family. He said he likes living in Woodbury and he likes his home, and he does not want to move. They have tried to work with the City engineers, but it appears to them that the City favors the developers and tries to force the residents out. He said this proposal has several areas of concern that he would like corrected before the project is started.
Greg Mitsch, 2095 Cottage Grove Drive, addressed the Council. He thanked the City's engineering department for meeting with him on numerous occasions. He said he is concerned with the money that was allocated or proposed to be allocated to a mill and overlay of Cottage Grove Drive last year and it had to do with Valley Creek Road somewhat east of St. Johns Drive, up the hill, and then south. He understood that Newland Communities had offered to fund this mill and overlay. He sat in meetings where there was discussion about whether the money should be spent for the mill and overlay or for the road reconstruction. He recently learned that the money was never really able to be allocated to a total reconstruction, but only for a mill and overlay project. The amount was about $170,000 and it was part of a developer's agreement. He asked if that money was on the table for $170,000 and the road has been severely deteriorated over the last eight months or so based on the road restrictions being lifted and the construction traffic, and now the money isn't there, why wasn't the mill and overlay done. If it had been done back then, maybe a total reconstruction wouldn't be necessary today. He also said that most of the developers are indicating that they are not going to hook up to sanitary sewer in the street, but they are going to hook up in their own developments.
Moved by Member Charron, seconded by Member Madigan, to close the public hearing.
Voting in favor: Charron, Hurst, Madigan, Rekow, Hargis
Voting against: None
Absent: None
Mr. Jessup addressed the pond credit question and said the City's storm water area charge policy provides a credit or a reduction in the rates if properties provide ponding necessary to meet the City's storm water plan. This is part of the formula that goes into the net acreage analysis, and is also part of the formula that goes into the actual rate per acre. The rate per acre is not different, but what is different is the number of acres that it is applied to. The comparison that is being made here is a parcel that is five acres in size compared to a parcel that is much larger. On a per acre basis, there is no difference. However, you can't compare two parcels of different size in terms of the credits being given. A parcel of 100 acres would be getting a much larger credit, but on a per acre basis, it would not be getting any additional credit.
Mayor Hargis asked if this is where the City charges $23,000 per acre for properties not providing on-site ponding and $14,000 for properties that provide on-site ponding. Mr. Jessup said he was not exactly sure about the numbers, but this is how it is calculated. Mayor Hargis said this was a difference of $9,000 per acre. Mr. Jessup said this $9,000 is on each net acre. Member Rekow stated that the policy is that if someone provides on-site ponding on a parcel, regardless of size, there is a certain rate. He said that these two parcels are contributing the same if they are both contributing a half acre. There are some challenges to have a consistent policy and be uniform and fair.
Mr. Jessup said that an alternative, and he is not recommending this, is that the City would buy all ponding areas and charge everybody a much higher rate and don't allow anyone to dedicate anything. He doesn't believe that this in the individual property owner's best interest because of the impact that would have on rates. He doesn't believe it would be in the City's best interest because of what it would mean in terms of the level of assessments it would have to collect.
Mr. Jessup stated that ever since the City has started to collect area charges, about 1981, there has always been this component of the charge which is related to the dedication or no dedication of ponding areas that are necessary.
Ms. Plautz commented that she doesn't understand how the City can say that it is fair that the City would pay them $24,000 for a half acre of their property and $87,000 to another resident and the developer even more. She said the half acre from everyone should be the same amount. Mayor Hargis said that this policy has been in place for 21 years and it's really not paying anyone, it is the rate that is applied to the overall acreage.
Mr. Jessup noted that at this point, staff is not proposing to assign storm water area charges. There are things that could trigger that on any given parcel, but this information has been provided as part of the project development process, but it is not part of what the City is proposing to assess at this point in time.
Mr. Jessup referred to the on-site private lift station and the extra costs associated with them. He said that there are several parcels in this project area that have some significant topography. There are portions on a number of those parcels that because of the topography, won't be served at least through this project with gravity sanitary sewer. If portions of several of these parcels want to develop, there will have to be small on-site sanitary sewer grinders and lift stations to serve them. The property in question has an easterly side that is much lower than the westerly portion near Cottage Grove Drive. In order to build a house towards the easterly side of the property, there would have to be a lift station. This is true if the sewer goes in and the property owners wish to subdivide and develop their property in the short term. The other design solution for this is that the sanitary sewer by gravity can be provided through a future phase of Dancing Waters and can be served from the east. If a lift station is required for the easterly part of that property, it depends at what point on the calendar the property wishes to be further developed. There are several properties near the south end which have very low areas on their east side, which can't be developed and/or are in the same situation. Member Hurst commented that this could be a benefit argument.
Member Rekow asked if the properties on the north end could be served either from the west or the east side, why would the City put the infrastructure in up there. He said that it is his understanding that no one on the north end has been interested in developing. Mr. Jessup said it would be more costly to serve it from the east. Mr. Rekow said he would have be concerned about this with those small parcels. Mr. Jessup noted that the City Council has already addressed that issue by using a residential equivalent unit. The City would be assessing 10,000 square feet of those parcels, even though they are an acre or more in size.
Mr. Jessup referred to the money proposed for the mill and overlay and said that when the City Council was reviewing the Stonemill Farms addition, the issue of the condition of Cottage Grove Drive and Valley Creek Road was identified as an issue, given that development would start occurring in that area. A condition of the preliminary plat approval was that if Valley Creek Road and/or Cottage Grove Drive is milled and overlayed, that Stonemill Farms would make a major contribution toward that cost. About a year ago, staff proceeded with plans and specifications for Stonemill Farms and at the same time, there were discussions with Dancing Waters on the north side of Valley Creek Road with a similar arrangement. Fairway Meadows development was also coming into the picture at this time, which has frontage on Cottage Grove Drive and Valley Creek Road. The question came up as to whether it makes sense to invest $170,000 in an area that the City knows is going to undergo further development in 2003, and where the development is going to want that roadway to look like a residential street and not in an interim condition. The decision was made last fall not to proceed with that project because it made no sense to invest that kind of money last year and be talking about this kind of project this year. The mill and overlay wouldn't have provided sanitary sewer service to the various parcels discussed here or the water main service. It would have had a short life span and wouldn't have that finished look. By doing this project two, five or six years from now, there will be many more people that would be disrupted by having the streets tore up a second time to do a major project. If the City chose not to go ahead with this project and a mill and overlay project goes forward instead, then the condition would still be in place. Stonemill Farms is one of the parties being assessed for the improvements, but the mill and overlay commitment no longer exists under this project. He said that Pulte Homes is paying about $225,000 towards this project also.
Mayor Hargis commented that he thought the City was going to get the money for the mill and overlay and they would still be assessed when the City did the road in its final form within three to five years. The City felt it was better and cheaper at the end of the day, to do the project all at once and they didn't have to have an issue of disclosing potential future assessments to their homeowners.
Mr. Jessup noted that there was not a similar commitment on the piece that was reconstructed last summer, because the reconstruction project was in the planning at the time of the plat's approval, so there wasn't a similar condition. Member Rekow said there was discussion about should some money be put forward to do just a mill and overlay on the Eagle Crest 6th or 7th. There was a certain amount of money in that developer's agreement that was going to go to Cottage Grove Drive, but the question was whether it would be for mill and overlay or for reconstruction. Member Rekow said that the people interested in development should petition and do these projects based on that. The City is initiating this project and there are people who are interested in having this done, but he thinks people should step up and petition to have these types of projects done.
Mr. Jessup replied that a petition from one or more property owners could change the legal status of the project in terms of whether it is City initiated or developer initiated. It wouldn't change the assessment policy or the allocation of costs.
Mr. Jessup explained how the City allocates the percentage of cost of a project. One of the City's assessment policies deals with new construction. This project is being defined as new construction because Cottage Grove Drive has never been constructed to a City street standard. It has been a rural road that has evolved over time. Staff defined the first half mile of Cottage Grove Drive as a new construction project and this one is being defined as a new construction project. Under the City's policy, new construction projects are funded 100% by the benefited properties. This differs with Park Hills because Park Hills met the City's standards at the time it was built, and it is now worn out, and it the City's policy on street major maintenance, which is the category of a project that Park Hills fell in, that the City will fund two-thirds of the project cost and will assess one-third. The streets in Park Hills were built as part of the development. They were part of the development costs and passed through to the homeowners as part of the lot costs.
Member Madigan noted that the City has a philosophy of having developments paved, and said that if the City didn't assess 100%, but only assess one-third and then have the rest of the City pay two-thirds from existing taxpayers, this would result in a lower assessment to the developers adjoining those roads. Mr. Jessup said that it would result in a lower assessment against all properties. Member Madigan asked Mr. Lammers if the City has the ability to differentiate among property owners. For instance, the City couldn't assess the developer at a different rate. Mr. Lammers indicated that this was correct.
Mayor Hargis said that the City has to show a certain amount of benefit to assessed properties. Mr. Lammers stated that the City has to show the market value of the subject property has increased by more than the amount of the assessment.
Mayor Hargis asked if the City at this time want to initiate a benefit appraisal for this project because it is an issue of concern. He said that the assessment hearing was going to be done at the time of the contract award, but sometimes the City does the assessment hearing at the end of the project. Member Hurst said that typically the City has to order the project and have it go out for bids so that the true cost is known, and then the assessments can be accurately relayed. Member Madigan commented that Mayor Hargis is trying to help the homeowners, so that they know before the assessment hearing, which is the hearing by which they have to appeal, what the City's assessments should be. Mayor Hargis said that this has been done in other situations, where the assessment hearing is at the completion of the contract. There have been other situations where the City has done the assessment hearing up front so you know where the money is coming from. Member Rekow commented that you don't necessarily need to know the cost to know what the benefit is. He said there was a project adjoining this one which can give the City a pretty good idea of what the costs would be.
Member Charron asked if there is a possibility that someone's potential assessment could actually go higher or lower. Mr. Lammers said that if there was one that was out of whack, it would affect all of them as far as the formula goes. Member Hurst asked if there was some kind of time restriction on all of these items. Mr. Jessup said that staff has not contacted an appraiser yet to do the benefit analysis. There is approximately two months before a contract is proposed to be awarded. Member Rekow asked if the assessment hearing could be done at the end of the project, or would this be a problem. Mr. Johnson asked Mr. Jessup if the appraisal were not available at the time of the scheduled hearing and the hearing had to be continued, what is the implication for the project schedule. Mr. Jessup said the schedule is tight, but he doesn't think that two weeks would be a problem. The project is scheduled to be done in mid-October, which is the end of the construction season. Mayor Hargis asked what would happen if there are some parcels that you can't show benefit based on the formula and the City comes up short on assessment money, would the contract be awarded or not. Mr. Jessup said that the City would have to investigate what its alternative funding sources are.
Mayor Hargis commented that anyone who wants to object to their assessment must put it in writing at or before the end of the public hearing on the assessments. The homeowner then has 30 days to appeal to district court. Usually this is the time that the City orders a benefit appraisal. He said if there was an assessment hearing in June, there wouldn't be an assessment hearing at the end of the project. Sometimes the City does an assessment hearing at the end of the project when all the costs are known, whereas if the assessment is done before the project is completed, it is charged off of projections and cost estimates. When the assessment hearing is done at the front end so the City knows who is going to appeal their assessments and what the financial stake will be for the City. If people make appeals and the benefit appraisal isn't done, then the Council has to make a decision on the award of the contract as to how much is at risk. He said the City will drop the assessment down to what the benefit appraisal shows. If a homeowner perfects their appeal, the burden is on the City to show the benefit.
Mayor Hargis thinks the project should be ordered at this time, and the assessment issues should be dealt with at another time. He is asking if the Council wants to be proactive to get a benefit appraisal so the City can show that the project, when it is completed, does improve the value 100% of the assessment amount.
Member Rekow noted that the items that still need to be dealt with are the cul-de-sac and the access to laterals. These items don't need to be determined at this time.
Member Madigan asked who the properties belonged to that would require easements for the laterals to come from the west. Mr. Jessup replied that it is an individual that owns the property and it is on the southwest corner of Valley Creek Road and Cottage Grove Drive. The project would have to pass through the center of that parcel and the property owners indicated some willingness to work with the City, but they are also concerned that their property not be damaged as a result of having a sewer placed through it prior to them wishing to develop.
Ray Lee, 2005 Cottage Grove Drive, addressed the Council. He said he is concerned about the traffic on this roadway. He said that he was on the section that was done and at times when he wanted to go north he had to south. He is concerned about the traffic that will go through Eagle Valley. Mr. Jessup said there is access to the south on Cottage Grove Drive to Bailey Road, and he believes that most construction traffic would come in from the south on Bailey Road to Cottage Grove Drive, as opposed to trying to come through the construction zone. This zone will be marginal for passage much of the time. There will be access to the individual property owners, but it will be marginal for through traffic. He said some people will go through Eagle Valley, but there is already some construction traffic going through there because part of Eagle Valley is still under development. He said this is a City project, versus a development project, so there isn't a developer per se to tell the construction trucks which route to use.
Dick Lund asked about the timing of the benefits assessments. He asked when would a person who has had his property assessed find out what the assessment value is. This is on the south part and has already been assessed. Mr. Jessup said that the south part has not yet been assessed, as the Council proceeded with that project prior to the assessment hearing. Mayor Hargis said that the assessment hearing will be at the end of that project. Mr. Jessup thought this would probably be held in September or October.
Member Hurst noted that this was a separate project. Mayor Hargis said that Mr. Lund will get a notice when that assessment hearing will be and will include what the proposed assessment is. Mr. Lammers said that the notice of public hearing has to be published and mailed to the property owners and will state the amount of the assessment. This has to be sent out at least 10 days before the hearing.
Mr. Lund said that a benefit assessment was done on his property and he hasn't heard anything about it in four or five months. Mayor Hargis said the City usually doesn't do the benefit appraisals until after the assessment hearing when someone has make a formal objection.
Member Hurst introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOL. NO. 03-111
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF WOODBURY, WASHINGTON COUNTY, MINNESOTA, ORDERING THE PROJECT AND AUTHORIZING THE PREPARATION OF THE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE COTTAGE GROVE DRIVE IMPROVEMENTS FROM VALLEY CREEK ROAD TO ONE-HALF MILE SOUTH
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Member Charron and upon roll call being taken thereon, the following voted via voice:
Michael Charron - aye
Michael Madigan - aye
Peter Rekow - aye
Cheryl Hurst - aye
William Hargis - aye
Moved by Mayor Hargis, seconded by Member Charron, to direct staff to arrange for benefit appraisals for the properties included in the Cottage Grove Drive Improvements.
Voting in favor: Charron, Hurst, Madigan, Rekow, Hargis
Voting against: None
Absent: None
David Jessup, Public Works Director, outlined Council Letter No. 03-183. The segment in question begins on the north at Brookview Road and proceeds one mile south to Valley Creek Road. The construction of St. Johns Drive is proposed to be a residential street, but because of the nature of the area proposed to be a rural section without curb and gutter. There is one exception to this proposal, and that is a short distance near the southeast corner of Powers Lake, where there is a large number of large trees very close to the existing roadway, and by putting in a curb and gutter for an area of 500-600 feet, there can be a narrower roadway cross-section and have less impact on the trees. The roadway is proposed to have 12 foot wide lanes in each direction and 6 foot wide paved shoulders. There will be a number of storm sewer improvements and sanitary sewer extensions will be provided at the north end of the project to serve some smaller parcels. A water main will be extended to connect to other areas. Sewer stubs will also be provided to serve adjacent properties and individual lots. Some easements will be required as part of this project.
Mr. Jessup stated that there has been one neighborhood meeting on this project. There have numerous discussions with individual property owners.
Mr. Jessup reviewed the project costs, and said the lateral sanitary sewer improvements are estimated to be $78,000, lateral water main improvements of about $54,000, individual services of water and sewer of about $28,000, street and storm sewer of about $900,000, for a total of $1,060,000. The trunk water main will cost about $24,000. The funding for this project comes from assessments for the utility and street improvements of about $633,000, trunk water area charges in the amount of $267,000, street roadway major maintenance funds in the amount of $55,000, which will help pay for the frontages where the City owns the property, and the City has previously collected about $69,000 from developments that are on the west side of St. Johns Drive and they contributed these amounts as part of the assessments for their improvements, and there are trunk storm sewer area charges in the amount of $60,000. There is also a small area that has not previously paid water and sanitary sewer area charges, for an additional amount of $7,000.
Mr. Jessup referred to the assessed properties on the west side and said these are the developed areas that have previously paid assessments as part of the development. The sanitary sewer only benefits a small area that doesn't already have existing sanitary sewer service. The assessments will be 100% of the cost to benefited properties. The assessments are allocated on the basis of one-third frontage/two-thirds area. There will be a 10 year assessment term and there is a delay option for payment of those assessments. There is a minor amount to be collected for trunk, water, and sanitary sewer area charges. The assessments are based on a net acre definition. Staff has identified the storm water area charges, but these are not proposed to be applied at this time to the properties. This would be triggered by other activities.
Mr. Jessup stated that staff is proposing that the assessment hearing be held in June, with construction starting in July, with utilities and street base done by mid-October, and then complete the project next year with the final bituminous wear course and landscaping activities.
Mayor Hargis noted that the City received a letter from Julie Landreville and introduced it as an exhibit to the public hearing and indicated that it was properly entered. He said her questions referred mostly to benefit, rather than ordering the project.
Joe Carroll, 10404 Lancaster Lane, addressed the Council. He represents the Powers Lake Townhome Association which borders on St. Johns Drive and Valley Creek Road. He said there is concern about the right turn lane which will be added onto Valley Creek Road on the south end. The drainage ditch will be rebuilt which will impact a sprinkler system that is parallel to St. Johns Drive. They were at the site and measured off the area and it appears if the construction can back up 3-5 feet and make the drainage ditch just a little less wide, it would not impact the sewer lines. They could also keep their sprinkler system working. He said the 6 foot shoulder lane on Lancaster Lane may also impact the sprinkler system. Member Hurst asked if the sprinkler heads were on City easement property or are they on the easements that will be needed as a future easement. Mr. Carroll said it is on an outlot of the development and that outlot has been deeded to the City. There are about a dozen sprinkler heads that he indicates will be affected. He believed there will be no assessment against any of the homes in his development.
Moved by Member Rekow, seconded by Member Madigan, to close the public hearing.
Voting in favor: Charron, Hurst, Madigan, Rekow, Hargis
Voting against: None
Absent: None
Mr. Jessup referred to the 6 foot shoulder issue and stated that this shoulder is proposed to serve as a reaction distance for cars in terms of the edge of pavement, and also to provide an informal area for pedestrians. The design of St. Johns Drive does not include an off roadway pathway and therefore staff felt that the shoulder would help serve that function. He said it would take additional right-of-way or to put in curb and gutter in order to have adequate space to put in a trail along the roadway. Trails are proposed in the Kadrowski property, which the City bought, and these trails will be off roadway as part of the nature area.
Member Rekow commented that this is not designed as part of the City's park and trail system to provide access from one neighborhood to another. Mr. Jessup said not in a north/south direction, but there will be east/west connections connecting the Powers Lake area and areas in Dancing Waters. Member Hurst wasn't sure if there was enough road for a pathway on this roadway. Mr. Jessup said there are north/south trails generally paralleling Woodbury Drive and a trail system around Powers Lake. This would give people an opportunity to east/west across St. Johns Drive. Mr. Picha said there is no trail system that goes north/south within Dancing Waters, and also said that along St. Johns Drive, there are several large wetlands and to build a trail along it would involve a lot of filling in those areas.
Member Madigan asked what options are available to avoid an impact on the sprinkler system in Powers Lake Townhome area. Mr. Jessup said that the area in question was an outlot which is parallel to an existing right-of-way. He said because Valley Creek Road is a major roadway, the proposal is that there should be three lanes at that location, so the existing roadway has to be widened to accommodate that. In order to line up with the south side of the intersection on St. Johns Drive, and to go south into Fairway Meadows, part of the roadway has to be shifted to the west. The roadway doesn't go into the outlot, but the construction limits will go into the outlot. There are private facilities that have been placed in the public rights-of-way and the City's policy has been that is at the owner's risk.
Member Hurst said there should be at least a 6 foot shoulder on one side. Member Rekow said there should be good access, but if it is not tied into the trail system, is it needed. Mayor Hargis said there wouldn't be as many pedestrians when paths are developed in the Kadrowski area. Member Rekow said if the rationale is that people use it today that way, it will change significantly in the future. Mr. Jessup said that there are streets that come out that aren't necessarily going to provide access directly to the east. There will be tendency to try to migrate north or south to get to one of the crossing points to go east.
Corey Lasker, son of Jean and Doug Lasker, who live on St. Johns Drive, addressed the Council. He said the developers of Dancing Waters have a lower financial responsibility for these improvements. He said that single family homeowners are being charged more than Dancing Waters is.
Member Hurst commented that the nature of Ms. Landreville's letter was about the benefit to her and being a homeowner in the home, but she wouldn't have the benefit because she sold her property. She was also concerned about the trees being removed. She said that the benefit is to how much the property increases in value by having the upgrade.
Mayor Hargis clarified that she is arguing that Dancing Waters should pay a higher benefit than the other homeowners. The City is obligated to have a system for a uniform division of the assessments. The City does not have the ability to do what she proposes to give Dancing Waters a higher per acre charge.
Mr. Lasker said that this wasn't the point. On Exhibit C there are three parcels comprising about 50 acre, where the cost per acre is about $4,500, yet the same price is assessed to his parents' home is four times that.
Mr. Jessup replied that the items outlined in this report are those things which are being assessed as part of this project. The developers are paying other fees and area charges as part of their development proposal and are not being collected as part of this project. When you compare total cost, this apparent discrepancy does not exist at all. In fact, the Laudreville property is paying far less on a per acre basis or per square foot or per lot basis than the developing properties are. There isn't a full picture of the assessments that are being applied, but on a picture of what is being applied as part of this project at this time.
Mayor Hargis asked if these small parcels qualify for the deferral. Mr. Jessup replied that they do.
Member Rekow said that the assessment policy for parcels like this allows for a delay in payment of the assessments, but also what is called the residential equivalent unit. Up to two acres, the area charges are charged out at the 10,000 foot rate and so to get at the difference in benefit, that is where this policy came from.
Mayor Hargis said once the project is ordered, there is a later assessment hearing when the charge is known for this project. The City needs to show that the value of the property increased by more than the proposed assessment.
Member Madigan asked if the 6 foot shoulder runs the entire length of the roadway. Mr. Jessup replied that this was the case and it would run on both sides. It would be paved and striped, except for one piece just north of Valley Creek Road Drive on the east side for about 600 feet. Member Madigan asked if it was possible to have a 6 foot shoulder on one side of the road and not on the other, and what would the advantages and disadvantages to that be. Mr. Jessup replied that pedestrians on roadways are to walk opposing traffic, or facing it, and that is why it is proposed on both sides. History has shown that walking with your back to traffic is a more unsafe condition. He could not think of another area in the City that has this, but said that most of the streets that have been brought up to a standard have been an urban standard, not a rural standard. Most of the rural roads are much narrower, and have no shoulders. Member Madigan asked if there are walking shoulders on a City street. Mr. Jessup replied that all of the City's residential streets in the older neighborhoods have that because there are no off roadway sidewalks, so most people have to walk on the street, and historically these streets were 32 feet wide with curb and gutter. Mr. Jessup said if this was an urban street, it is usually a 28 foot wide roadway with curb and gutter, with the expectation that there would be a sidewalk along it. He said this road is an urban residential street from the standpoint of its characteristics, but instead of having curb and gutter and storm sewer, it will have ditches.
Member Hurst asked if there were going to be driveways coming out onto St. Johns Drive. Mr. Jessup replied that there would be driveways and in the system of streets, this is a residential street, it is not a collector or arterial, so direct land access is allowable. Most of the development proposals for this area do not have direct land access, but rather have brought streets out to St. Johns Drive and have the land access on the internal streets. Member Hurst is concerned that by creating the wide street, there will be higher speeds.
Member Madigan asked what the projected traffic counts are for this road. Mr. Jessup said he did not have this information, but reiterated it was not meant to be one of the major streets in the City. He would guess it would be a couple of thousand cars, only because it makes it a convenient way to come out from the adjacent developments and either go north to Brookview Road or south to Valley Creek.
Member Madigan asked on a percentage basis for the next five years, how much will traffic increase. Mr. Jessup said that the increase could be several hundred if not a thousand percent increase in the next fives if the development goes ahead as planned.
Member Rekow asked why the City wouldn't do the standard curb and gutter for this road. Member Hurst said it would have an impact on the wetlands. Member Madigan stated if was a curb and gutter, the runoff would be concentrated and asked how many ponds it would flow through before it got to Powers Lake. Mr. Jessup said it would vary, but probably two to three at a minimum and maybe four or five at the maximum. Member Madigan asked if you have a narrower road, there is a less impervious surface, less runoff, but you are concentrating it all to ensure that it gets into the storm water system and Powers Lake, and if you have swale, will there be more infiltration on a net basis. Mr. Jessup was not sure about this answer, but said that the difference in width of 6-8 feet, and he is not sure the tradeoff between the amount of water that might be trapped in the ditches and which will never reach the system, but having a wider roadway that generates that water, versus narrower roadways with a storm sewer system. He said there would be a significant storm sewer cost if it went to an urban design, as it is not included in the current costs.
Marie Killeen is representing her mother who lives in Woodbury and addressed the Council. She asked if the speed limit would be changed once this construction is done. She said now it is 45 posted and people actually go about 55. Mr. Jessup replied that as the area is developed and there are traditional residential lots along it, staff can evaluate it to see if it meets the residential criteria of state statutes. If so, the City will be able to establish a 30 mph speed limit on it. If it doesn't, the alternative is to request MnDOT to do a speed study. It is staff's hope that the speed limit would reduce in that area.
Member Charron introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOL. NO. 03-112
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF WOODBURY, WASHINGTON COUNTY, MINNESOTA, ORDERING THE PROJECT AND AUTHORIZING THE PREPARATION OF THE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE ST. JOHNS DRIVE FROM VALLEY CREEK ROAD TO BROOKVIEW ROAD UTILITY AND STREET IMPROVEMENTS
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Member Madigan and upon roll call being taken thereon, the following voted via voice:
Mayor Hargis asked Mr. Jessup if staff would be able to work with Mr. Carroll on the issues he raised. Mr. Jessup replied that they have been working with him and will continue to work with him.
Voting via voice:
Michael Madigan - aye
Peter Rekow - aye
Cheryl Hurst - aye
Michael Charron - aye
William Hargis - aye
DEPARTMENT REPORT
Neighborhood Meetings
Council Workshop Agenda for April 15, 2003
Planning Commission Scheduled for April 21, 2003
Public Hearings Scheduled for April 23, 2003 Council Meeting
Other Meetings
DISCUSSION
Barry Johnson, City Administrator, outlined Council Letter No. 03-184. This item results from staff being approached by developers requesting the ability to privately design utility and street improvements for their subdivisions. The City has done this in the past for the Wedgewood and Eagle Valley developments, but the City's general policy has been that improvements must be designed by one of the City's engineering consultants. The City Council recently approved the Bailey's Arbor development with a condition that would allow them to do private design. Staff is now recommending a change in the City's general policy that would allow developers meeting certain conditions to do private design. This represents part of an evolution in City practices with regard to how public improvements are done. He said that in the few cases that have been designed privately, there have been satisfactory results. But because of the greater control and certainty that City's consultants have given the City, staff has preferred to keep the present practice. Staff has reviewed this extensively and has surveyed what other cities do and found that there is absolutely no consistency among cities as to how they approach this issue. Staff is recommending that if improvements are designed privately, those private designs would be reviewed by the City engineering consultant and the construction would be inspected by the consultants.
Mr. Johnson noted that the purpose of this, in the developer's mind, is to give more control and to lower costs. Staff believes it is appropriate to link this with affordable housing so that some of the benefits of this process flow in that direction. Staff is recommending a policy that says that developers would be allowed to do private design of improvements if they meet the City's affordable housing goals. Staff is also proposing that the ability to do private design be limited to parcels of 40 acres or more. This is an attempt to limit the number of individual engineering firms and projects on which the City has to deal with. This would also provide a slightly greater likelihood that perhaps the engineering firms will be larger firms with greater capacity and will require less support from the City's engineering department.
Mr. Johnson said there are two individual developments are requesting approval to do private design. They are the Dancing Waters 4th Addition and Stonemill Farms 2nd Addition. Both of these developments have conditions on their approval of their development that require certain actions relating to affordable housing. Both of these developments would meet this policy.
Staff is recommending that the City Council adopt the policy allowing for private design of public improvements under certain conditions and then approve the requests for private design in the two developments.
Member Madigan stated that he thought this item was going to come before the City Council in a workshop. Mr. Johnson replied that this was his intent, but when he got the Council letters for last week's meeting, there were two requests from the developers. He was informed that they have already started the design of their improvements and so he is trying to accelerate this process.
Member Madigan said that he recalls that about half of the City is publicly designed and half is privately designed. He said he doesn't have a sense of whether or not there is any long term ramifications on the viability of the system. He assumes the design would include material specifications and the City Council will review it, but he is concerned about the long term impact. Mr. Johnson commented that if the engineering department had its way, staff would not recommend this, because they feel they have greater control by having the City's consultants do this work. He said there hasn't been any evidence that there is a problem with the private designs. He said if the City finds that the process isn't working, the policy can be changed. Mr. Jessup has indicated to Mr. Johnson that they can make this work. Member Madigan said that this policy has been in the works for a long time and he doesn't like to feel rushed into this decision. He asked what the ramifications would be if the Council waited on this item and discussed it further. Mr. Johnson said it would significantly affect these two developments.
Member Hurst said she feels comfortable with this as long as the City has had some previous experience with other developments in the City.
Member Charron stated that if the City believes that the design is inadequate in the early phases, the City has the right to change it.
Mr. Lammers noted that he has been working on some additional language which would go into the standard development agreements to give the City more control than the development agreement presently would give the City. They are addressing this issue in the developer's agreement also.
Member Madigan asked who pays for the review time of the City's engineering department to review the design. Mr. Johnson said that the developer pays for this. Mr. Johnson said there was a difference of opinion as to whether the developer can actually save money by doing these privately.
Mayor Hargis is concerned about the 40 acres and feels this is a little low. He had thought that this would only apply to the larger developments.
Member Rekow asked why this isn't handled through the developer's agreement. He said he is a supporter of affordable housing, but the linkage between private design and affordable housing doesn't make sense. He doesn't see the linkage between private design and affordable housing. He asked if the private design in the past has been by a case by case basis through a developer's agreement. Mr. Johnson replied that in the two cases and Bailey's Arbor, it was on a case by case basis. He said that one of the criticisms that the City has had from the development community is that they don't what the City's requirements are when they come in. This policy would lay out what the rules are.
Member Madigan said if the pressure is these two development proposals and staff has looked at these and is comfortable going forward with this, could the City address this in some way other than hastily passing a policy and then looking at the policy. Mr. Johnson said that the City Council could act on these two requests without the policy and defer the policy at this time. However, Mr. Johnson would like the Council to address this policy fairly soon, just in case another developer comes in with a proposal to use private design.
Member Madigan asked if it would be possible to get feedback from the developers on the costs that they have incurred in designing this system privately, so that the Council would have this information available to discuss. Mr. Johnson said staff could try, and they have tried in the past. Getting apples to apples comparisons has been very difficult. Member Madigan asked if the reason they haven't gotten the information from lack of cooperation from the developer, or is it because each development is different. Mr. Johnson replied that each development is different, but also developers don't necessarily account for costs the same way cities do. The City would also have to rely on them for information about what their costs would be if they did it privately. He said staff came to the conclusion that, while he was interested to see if they could document that they had lower costs, ultimately if they believe they got benefit out of it, it was worth it to them to agree to the City's requirements.
Mayor Hargis said that the City shouldn't care what the costs are, but to look at whether the system works, and whether the people are getting as good or better of a product, so the City doesn't get a Park Hills type water main.
Member Charron said he was comfortable with this policy as written, except that he agrees that the 40 acres requirement seems low. He also likes the affordable housing requirements.
Mr. Johnson stated that the 40 acres is not a magic number in any sense. In general, what staff seems to find is that developments are typically well under that amount or well over that amount.
Mayor Hargis commented that the City had a very successful experience with Minnesota Mutual when it developed Wedgewood. The reason why there was a successful experience was because they had the deep pockets to do it right and if something wasn't right, they spent the money to fix it. He thinks this will happen on most larger projects.
Member Madigan suggested supporting the two proposals for the private design, but asked that the policy be brought back to a workshop to look at the issues, such as long term ramifications, acreage requirements, and whether it should be linked to affordable housing.
Member Rekow stated that he is a little uncomfortable about just jumping in and approving the policy. He agrees with accommodating the two proposals. He said that the objective is that the City facilitate getting good developments in the community that meet all of the City's different goals.
Mr. Jessup said that staff could make some minor modifications to the Whereas clauses so it changes the reference to the policy. Mr. Johnson said that if staff amended the wording so that it conditioned it on compliance with previous additions regarding the provision of affordable housing in their developments, that would get the same intent.
Moved by Mayor Hargis, seconded by Member Charron, to table the Private Design of Public Improvements policy.
Voting in Favor: Charron, Hurst, Madigan, Rekow, Hargis
Voting Against: None
Absent: None
Member Rekow introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOL. NO. 03-113
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF WOODBURY, WASHINGTON COUNTY, MINNESOTA, AUTHORIZING THE PREPARATION OF THE PRELIMINARY REPORT UPDATE AND AUTHORIZING PRIVATE DESIGN FOR THE DANCING WATERS 4TH ADDITION WATER, SEWER AND STREET IMPROVEMENTS WITH THE CHANGES DISCUSSED IN NO. 2
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Member Madigan and upon roll call being taken thereon, the following voted via voice:
Peter Rekow - aye
Cheryl Hurst - aye
Michael Charron - aye
Michael Madigan - aye
William Hargis - aye
Member Madigan introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOL. NO. 03-114
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF WOODBURY, WASHINGTON COUNTY, MINNESOTA, AUTHORIZING PRIVATE DESIGN FOR THE WATER, SEWER AND STREET IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE STONEMILL FARMS 2ND ADDITION WITH THE CHANGES DISCUSSED IN NO. 2
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Member Hurst and upon roll call being taken thereon, the following voted via voice:
Cheryl Hurst - aye
Michael Charron - aye
Michael Madigan - aye
Peter Rekow - aye
William Hargis - aye
OTHER ITEMS
Member Charron stated that the Woodbury Parks and Recreation Department is partnering with the Woodbury Fine Arts Council to present its sixth annual candlelight cabaret and it will be held this year as a talent contest for people of all ages from Woodbury and will be held at Central Park. It will be April 12 at 7:00 p.m.
Member Hurst said that there is an upcoming presentation at Woodbury Lutheran, the Community Land Trust will have speakers, Barry Johnson and Paul Rebholtz from the Housing Task Force and the Economic Development Chair, to be held on April 14 at 7:30 p.m.
Mayor Hargis stated that the City Council will be going into a closed session. Pursuant to the provisions of Minnesota Statutes 13D.01, and based upon the advice of the City Attorney, Mayor Hargis recommends at the end of the regular meeting of the City Council, the Council adjourn to a closed meeting. The purpose of this closed meeting will be to discuss the assessments levied against the Jacob Jordan property. The closed session is necessary for this matter because the discussion concerns pending and threatened litigation. A written record of the members of the Council and all other members present at the closed meeting will be made available to the public following the meeting. A tape recording will be made of the closed meeting and if any action is taken by the Council, a roll call will be taken at the meeting. At the next regular meeting of the Woodbury City Council, for the benefit of the public, the Council will summarize the discussion or action that took place at the closed meeting. Mayor Hargis is requesting a motion to hold a closed meeting for the purposes previously stated.
Moved by Member Charron, seconded by Member Hurst, to hold a closed meeting to discuss the assessments levied against the Jacob Jordan property which is pending litigation.
Voting in Favor: Charron, Hurst, Madigan, Rekow, Hargis
Voting Against: None
Absent: None
Mayor Hargis adjourned the Council meeting at 10:03 p.m.
Detailed information on agenda items is available on the April 9, 2003 City Council Agenda.