Agenda - Council - 02/10/2015 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

during the meeting, but e-mail addresses were gathered from the attending property owners and staff provided responses via e-mail the following week. Concrete sidewalks - Some property owners stated they would not use the sidewalk and questioned whether it should be constructed and whether they had to pay for it. Staff explained there would be no cost to them to construct the sidewalk as new sidewalks are not eligible assessment costs per the Special Assessments Policy. Staff also stressed that the purpose of the proposed sidewalk is to connect a gap in the existing pedestrian facilities that serve that area of the City, and that sidewalks and trail systems are intended to connect neighboring developments, not just to serve the adjacent properties. Tree replacement plan — Some property owners were concerned they could lose trees or landscaping during construction and asked what the City would due in such an instance. Staff informed the property owners that at this time it is unknown whose trees might be impacted as plans have not yet been prepared, but that this topic would be addressed with Council before the project is let for bids. Based on past practice, staff recommends preparing final plans and identifying all tree removal areas, then staff can work with each impacted property owner to determine the best course of action for mitigate impacts to their trees and/or landscaping. If trees are small enough staff would first pursue relocation of the trees. However, if trees must be removed staff would work with each property owner to identify reasonable improvements that will mitigate the removal to the satisfaction of the property owner. This could include replacing each mature tree with two or more smaller trees outside the right-of-way or in the boulevard, or it could include other improvements of similar value. Again, Council will be asked to approve the overall tree replacement plan prior to letting the project for bids. 16851 Garnet Street — Several property owners questioned why 16851 Garnet Street is not proposed to be assessed with this project. This property was originally platted with the Now & Then Estates development but was later platted as part of the Brookfield 1st Addition development. Staff did not include this property in the original assessment roll since it is located in the Brookfield 1st development and is a much smaller lot than the others. Questions were also raised about why concrete C&G and sidewalk weren't extended past this property. Staff at the meeting recalled that the developer of Brookfield 1st Addition had plans to purchase and subdivide all properties in Now & Then Estates so the permanent street improvements were stopped at the north end of Now & Then Estates, and a temporary bituminous pavement and curb section was extended to the end of the public utility installations. The developer's plans eventually fell through and a permanent street section was never constructed. Staff attempted to determine if payments were made by this property for street and utility improvements but could not find such information. At this time, staff does not recommend adding this property to the assessment roll due to a lack of information on prior assessments/payments for streets and utilities, because this would require the public process to be started over again resulting in project delays, and because it would have no impact on the proposed assessments for the other property owners since their proposed assessments are not based on a percentage of the project costs. Notification: All required Public Hearing Notices were mailed to the appropriate property owners and were published in the City's official newspaper, the Anoka County Union Herald. Observations/Alternatives: Observations: If property owners want to connect to City sewer and water with this project the 2015 rates and charges schedule includes trunk connection and lateral fees totaling $8,379 for connecting to City water, and $4,537 for connecting to City sewer. These fees do not include building permit fees, which cost roughly another $4,400. Staff recommends charging full rates for connecting to City sewer and water considering that one set of service stubs are proposed to be installed to each property line with this project, as well as the large expenditure the City is undertaking to construct the utilities ($441,000) today, for which only a small percentage will be recovered through fees in the future. If the properties subdivide in the future, the City will of course recover additional funds to help cover a portion of this expenditure. Staff does plan to review our sewer and water connection fees to address future street reconstruction projects that propose to install new utilities to prevent the sewer and water funds from being depleted by such projects. None of