Loading...
07/29/1997 - City Council Public Works Committee4- AGENDA PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE JULY 29, 1997 3:10 P.M. CITY HALL CONFERENCE ROOM (Second Floor) 3:10 I. ROLL CALL & ADOPTION OF AGENDA 3:15 II. BOULEVARD TREE MANAGEMENT 0 3:30 III. VILLAUME INDUSTRIES —STORM WATER CONNECTION CHARGE 4:00 IV. BETTY ALLEN (I.G.HTts.)/PINES EDGE ADDN �—' - Private Access Drive V. OTHER BUSINESS 4:30 VI. ADJOURNMENT TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: MEMO city of eagan PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE CITY ADMINISTRATOR HEDGES JULY 25,1997 PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE MEETING/MONDAY, JULY 28 A Public Works Committee meeting has been scheduled for Monday, July 28, 1997, at 3:10 p.m. in the second floor conference room at the Eagan Municipal Center. The purpose of the meeting is to provide recommendation to the Council as a whole regarding Boulevard Tree Management, an objection from Villaume Industries regarding storm water utilities connection charges, and a request from Betty Allan and Tom King regarding the restoration of her private driveway. BOULEVARD TREE MANAGEMENT Several recent factors, including safety concerns of a resident regarding driveway sight line obstructions caused by a neighbor's spruce tree in the boulevard area, have encouraged staff to examine the management of trees and other plant material growing within street right-of-way areas. A recent boulevard tree inventory has indicated that there are and could be a number of problem areas where trees in the boulevards obstruct sight lines. Consultation with the City Attorney's office has indicated that a section of the City Code re uirin the homeowner to perform tree pruning/removal is invalid and should be removed. Staff is seeking direction from the Council as to whether the City should develop a standard by which the City would be responsible to see that maintenance is performed. This would be done by first asking the property owner to do the work. If the property owner does not, staff recommends that the City would then perform the maintenance, using staff or a contractor, and the costs would then be assessed to the property owner. The City Code would be revised to reflect this standard. Enclosed on pages :_ through z is a copy of a detailed memo from the Director of Parks and Recreation regarding this issue. Action to be Considered: To provide a recommendation to the City Council as a whole for direction to staff regarding the City Code pertaining to boulevard trees and the responsibility for their care/removal. VILLAUME INDUSTRIES - STORM WATER CONNECTION CHARGE The City has received a letter from an attorney representing Villaume Industries, Inc., objecting to storm water utility connection fees identified as due from them as a condition of a building permit issuance. They have requested a determination by the City Council of the appropriateness of the charge and staff has suggested a preliminary review by the Public Works Committee. It is the contention of the attorney that the assessment paid in 1970 was a total satisfaction for the property. Staff's customary review of the building permit application determined that storm sewer trunk area charges had been assessed to 8.5 acres of the 16 acre total in 1970 and that connection charges for the remaining 7.5 acres were presently due with the new building permit application. Enclosed on pages _6 through _ 2 is a copy of a memo describing the background and issues regarding this item. Enclosed on pages throughis a copy of the letter from the attorney representing Villaume Industries. Enclosed hpa—ges ZQ_ through. // is a copy of the City Code authorizing storm drainage connection charges. Representatives of Villaume will be present at the meeting. Action to be Considered: To provide a recommendation to the City Council as a whole regarding whether Villaume Industries should be required to pay the identified storm sewer drainage connection charge or whether some or all of the identified charge should be deferred or waived. BETTY ALLEN I.G.HTS /PINES EDGE ADDITION/PRIVATE ACCESS DRIVE Betty Allen, who is a resident of Inver Grove Heights, has expressed a concern regarding the current condition of her private access road from Weston Hills Drive to the east. She contends that the developer of the Pines Edge Addition (Shamrock Development) disturbed her pre-existing private access drive and has not properly restored it to an acceptable. fashion. She is requesting the City of Eagan to take the necessary steps to repair and/or restore her private drive to an acceptable condition. Prior to the Pines Edge Addition development, the private access drive existed from Trunk Highway 3 into Inver Grove Heights. Along with Betty Allen, Tom King and other neighbors will be present at the meeting. Enclosed on pages 1A to / 3� is a copy of a staff report regarding this item. Action to be Considered: To provide a recommendation to the City Council as a whole as to whether the City of Eagan should reconstruct the private access drive or whether the City should recommend that the property owners resolve the proper restoration (if any) issue. City Administrator M.- city of eagan TO: TOM HEDGES, CITY ADMINISTRATOR HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL FROM: KEN VRAA, DIRECTOR OF PARKS AND RECREATION DATE: DULY 23, 1997 RE: BOULEVARD TREE MANAGEMENT MEMO ISSUE: Staff is seeking specific direction as it relates to the City code pertaining to boulevard trees and their care/removal. Several recent factors have encouraged staff to examine the management of trees and other plant material growing within street right-of-way areas. These factors include a request from a resident who is concerned about driveway sight line obstructions caused by a neighbor's spruce tree. More generally, a recent boulevard tree inventory performed by staff has revealed very interesting statistics about the amount and type of vegetation now located within the "utility easement" area adjacent to the public street right-of-way. An actual case in point is being presented to help understand why this review is necessary at this point in time: REQUEST FROM RESIDENT: Staff received a customer request from Mrs. Jill Stenzel, 1666 Mallard Drive, on May 31, 1996. Jill was concerned about the obstruction of sight lines that was created by the presence of three spruce trees planted within the ROW area by her neighbor to the west; 1670 Mallard Drive. The trees are all white spruce trees approximately 15 feet in height, currently about six feet in width, and are located within ten feet of the curb. The Tree Inspector, Mark Rehder, responded to this request on June 5, 1996, by inspecting the site and requesting that Mr. Jim Vaughn, 1670 Mallard Drive, trim the spruce trees to improve sight lines. Mrs. Stenzel has also taken the direct approach with the neighbor who, she states, is not willing to comply with her request to significantly trim or remove the tree. During the summer a small amount of trimming was done on these trees by both Mr. Vaughn and staff. A follow-up request was received from Mrs. Stenzel on December 10, 1996, stating that the problem was not sufficiently corrected and that she still was not satisfied. Supervisor of Forestry Gregg Hove called her on December 13, and then personally visited with her at her residence on December 16. Because of the significant amount of snow around the base of the tree at that time, it was hard to determine how much pruning had taken place. It appeared, however, that the trees in question still presented a visual obstruction. Mrs. Stenzel was informed that staff would research further solutions to this problem. 3 STAFF RESEARCH The City Code The Eagan City code addresses the issue of trees in the boulevard in Section 7.08, "Regulation of Grass, Weeds, Trees", and "Landscaping". Pertinent subdivisions are: Subd.1.D.3. "trees ... must be at least 10 feet from the back of the curb in an urban section ..." Subd.I .D.4. "Trees ... shall not be planted or maintained on public or private property in such a manner as to obscure or impede the visual sight lines... " Subd.4. "Every owner of property abutting City street rights-of-way shall ... maintain ... all living trees..." Subd.5. "City may order work done" Subd.6. "Assessment" Appropriate City staff from Parks and Recreation and Public Works have met with the City Attorney's office to review the issue of removal of tress and who has the authority and the responsibility for remedial action in instances such as this. Should it be the homeowner or the City? The City Attorney's office has determined that the boulevard/right-of-way area is private property, owned by the lot owner, but that the City has the right to utilize this area (sometimes up to 23 feet from curb to end of easement) as needed to ensure public safety and welfare. However, the City Code, which requires the homeowner to be responsible for tree trimming or removal is invalid. The City can ask the homeowner but it cannot require them to maintain the boulevard trees even though they may have planted them without authorization or knowledge of the City. The City does have the authority to do pruning or tree removal. Staffs inventory of boulevard trees reveals the following: • There are 15,600 trees currently located within 15 feet of curb. • 24% (3,700) of all boulevard trees are spruce trees and there are 1,234 spruce trees within 10 feet of the curb, where their growth is likely to impact visual sight lines. Again, if the City removes or prunes the trees, the costs associated with that removal/pruning can be assessed against the property Past Boulevard Tree Trimming Activities City tree trimming activities to date have primarily consisted of removing "hazardous" or obstruction trees. For example, in the Cedar Grove Addition, a number of large trees have branches hanging over the street which may interfere with snow plowing trucks that have their boxes up for sanding. In the fall of 1991 staff identified 760 boulevard trees that needed to be trimmed. Seventy letters were sent to property owners requesting that this maintenance be performed. There was 50% compliance. During November of 1992, 700 notices were sent to property owners requesting that maintenance be performed. There was 59% compliance. During December of 1992, a survey was done of 12 area cities regarding boulevard tree maintenance. All 12 said they dosome type of tree pruning and 9 perform boulevard tree trimming, either by parks, forestry, or street personnel. None of the cities assessed the work to property owners. Funding for maintenance was provided through the general fund from either streets or parks. Some cities stated that they now don't allow boulevard tree planting. Some used to require property owners to perform maintenance but now do it as a City function. FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION • Mr. Dougherty suggested that Subd.4, which requires the homeowner to do tree pruning/removal, be removed from the City ordinances. A proposed solution was that the City should be responsible to see that maintenance is performed. First by asking the property owner to do the work, but If there is no compliance, the City should then perform the maintenance using staff or a contractor. The cost would then be assessed to the property owner. The point is that the City would have the responsibility to see that the problem is resolved, not the property owner. • It was also suggested that Subd.5 and 6 be clarified to make the City's position clear regarding assessments. COUNCIL REVIEW OF HOMEOWNER'S COMPLAINT: Relative to the complaint from the homeowner whose vision is obstructed as she backs out of her driveway, if the Council adopts the position that the City will take action to resolve this, and other similar problems, it would be appropriate to develop a uniform standard that staff can use. It would also be appropriate to develop a systematic approach of notification to the affected property owner, i.e.: 1. Adopt "standards" that pertain to visual sight lines and physical clearances required. 2. City staff should apply standards to solve situations as they arise (Street Dept:). 3. Develop a form letter to be sent as notification of action needed to the affected property owner (Forestry staff make recommendation as to type of action needed, i.e., trim, raise crown, transplant, remove). 4. If no action taken by property owner, send second letter. S. If no action is taken on second notice, the City would contract the work to be done and assess the property owner. (Set fee; time/material/equipment/contract work) 6. What would be the appeal process? 7. Allocate funds for seasonal work program in operating budgets. ALTERNATIVE FOR CONSIDERATION • The Council could take the approach that unless the tree is a public obstruction to the normal flow of traffic on public streets, as opposed to private driveways, that the problem is between neighbors, and should not involve the City. • Respond on a complaint basis only. PUBLIC EDUCATION PROGRAM Critical to the solution of this boulevard tree situation is the education of the public on what dilemmas can and do arise when trees are located in inappropriate areas. This education can occur in many forms; personal and telephone conversations, newsletter or newspaper articles, presentations through Parks and Recreation classes, brochures and pamphlets, or by providing actual examples of appropriate landscaping methods. To reduce the occurrence of future problems, or even to correct present problems, the practice of continued public education should probably be expanded. s MEMO city of eagan TO: PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE FROM: CITY ADMINISTRATOR HEDGES DATE: July 18, 1997 SUBJECT: VILLAUME INDUSTRIES CONNECTION CHARGE OBJECTION Officials of Villaume Industries, including their attorney, are objecting to certain connection charges identified as due from them as a condition of a building permit issuance. They have requested a determination by the City Council of the appropriateness of the charge and staff has suggested a preliminary review by the Public Works Committee. Background Facts ♦ The City staff, through the consulting services of Jerry Wobschall, review all development applications and all commercial/industrial building permit applications to ensure that all property has paid its proportionate share of all area charges and lateral benefit charges. ♦ From time to time, these charges are referred to as assessments which they are not; they are connection charges and lateral benefit charges provided for in the City Code for water, sanitary sewer and storm drainage utilities. ♦ The connection charge obligation is unique to each parcel of property depending upon previous assessments, previous agreements, development activity, etc. ♦ Villaume Industries applied for a building permit to construct what appears to be the ninth building on what is essentially two parcels totaling approximately 16 acres. 13- e041 Lo41 ♦ The customary review determined that storm sewer trunk area charges had been assessed to 8.5 acres in 1970. The balance of 7.5 acres was noticed as subject to a connection charge of $39,530.70 (7.5 acres X 43,560 sq ft/acre X $.121 sq ft'�. This* connection charge obligation was placed as a condition on the issuance of the building permit. ♦ To allow construction to begin, the building permit was issued with the understanding that the issue needed to be resolved before a certificate of occupancy would be issued. The anticipated completion date, as estimated by City staff, is mid to late September. ♦ The City is usually agreeable to collecting the connection charges over a period of time. This is accomplished by the execution of a waiver of hearing which allows the City to assess the property. ♦ The City's process is not designed to find or correct errors; it is in place to ensure that all properties pay their proportionate share of the area charges and lateral benefit charges. As previously noted, errors, although not present in the case of Villaume Industries, may or may not be a part of the unique circumstances associated with particular property. ♦ The City uses ponding credits when appropriate in the storm sewer system of area charges. All area is otherwise included in the area charges regardless if runoff flows to natural ponds or drainage systems. In other words, the system is based on total acreage across the entire City. Issue Should Villaume Industries be required to pay the identified storm sewer drainage connection charge or should some or all of the identified charge be deferred or waived. Attachments: ♦ Letter from James M. Njus, Attorney representing Villaume. ♦ Copy of the City Code authorizing storm drainage connection charges. City Administrator Attachments TLH/vmd Alan R Nettles* Daniel B. Johnson* Earle T. Anderson, Jr.*t James M. Njus*ja Neil M. Meyer* Michael B. Braman* *Admitted in Minnesota 1Admitted in Florida "Admitted in Michigan Tom Hedges City Administrator CITY OF EAGAN 3830 Pilot Knob Road Eagan, Minnesota 55122 MEYER & NJUS, P.A. 5000 NORWEST CENTER 90 SOUTH SEVENTH STREET MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55402.4121 (612)341-2181 Fax (612) 337-5894 Offices also located in Chicago, Illinois and Southfield, Michigan June 3, 1997 RE: Storm Sewer Trunk Assessment - Lot 5, Block 1, Eagandale Centre Industrial Park No. 2 Dear Mr. Hedges: Carrie L. Selton-Hess*- Paul E. Bohnsack II* Steven A. Linder*• J. Scott Winston$• Paige A. Wildenbergle Andrew W. Martin*o *Admitted in Wisconsin jAdmitted in Illinois oAdmitted in Iowa This office represents Villaume Industries, Inc., the fee owner of Lot 5, Block 1, Eagandale Centre Industrial Park No. 2. Villaume Industries has owned this tract of land continuously since November 9, 1967. Please note that Villaume Industries took title as Villaume Box & Lumber Co., but subsequently changed its name to Villaume Industries, Inc. It is our understanding that the Town of Eagan assessed Lot 5, Block 1 in the amount of $7,405.00 as and for storm sewer trunk on April 13, 1970. I believe it is also undisputed that that assessment has been paid in full. Additionally, there were also special assessments for street improvement and drainage, and sewer and water laterals made on September 15, 1969, and September 24, 1968 respectively. The amounts of these assessments, $3,527.34 and $8,698.50, respectively, have also been paid in full. It is my further understanding that the City of Eagan is now claiming that when it made its storm sewer trunk assessment in 1970 that it made an error in that it only assessed 8.5 acres of the 16 acre tract. To support that interpretation, the City of Eagan has produced handwritten notes indicating that the area assessed in Lot 5 was 8.5 acres. My client questions the interpretation that assessment in 1970 was, in any way, in error. Robert M. Linsmayer, President of Villaume Industries in 1970 and now the Chairman of the Board, recalls a discussion with the City of Eagan regarding the natural drainage of Lot 5. It is an established fact that the front 8.5 acres of Lot 5 drains into the sewer system. However, the remaining 7.5 acres drains naturally towards the rear of the ONIVA io Tom Hedges City of Eagan June 3, 1997 Page Two property and the run-off water flows along the railroad right-of-way to the highway and then into ponds north and west of Lot 5. My client assumes, we believe correctly, that Eagan made the logical assumption when it assessed the property in 1970 that as the topography was such that only 8.5 acres drained into the storm sewer system, that it would be inequitable to base the assessment on more than that acreage amount. Obviously, property may not be assessed unless it is benefited, and the assessment must be proportionate to the benefit. If you research the title to Lot 5, you will find that Villaume Industries acquired the tract as a 16 -acre tract and has never done anything to separate the acreage in any way, shape, or form. To the extent that the City of Eagan chose to assess the tract as if the acreage were less than the total acreage, it can only be presumed that this was done for reasons of fairness rather than reasons of any mistake. Based upon the history of this assessment, the fact that it was made with full knowledge of the total acreage owned by my client, and that the assessment made has been paid, my client respectfully requests that you undertake to investigate this matter further and, if your investigation concludes that the facts represented in this letter are accurate, that the City waive any further assessment of Lot 5 for the storm sewer trunk. Very truly yours, MEYER & NJUS, P.A. 6w7t a � —R74, � � ames M. Njus JMN:baw CC: Villaume Industries, Inc. MUNICIPAL AND PUBLIC UTILITIES § 3.07 arrangements for payments have not been made, all such delinquent accounts shall be certified to the city clerk who shall prepare an assessment of the delinquent accounts against the property served or to be served. To each account, there shall be added a certification charge (preparation for certification of taxes of delinquent accounts) in the amount provided for by council resolution. This assessment roll shall be delivered to the council for adoption. Such action may be optional or subsequent to taking legal action to collect delinquent accounts. (Code 1983, § 3.06, eff. 1-1-83; Ord. No. 90, 2nd series, eff. 10-27-89; Ord. No. 194, 2nd series, eff. 1-12-95) Sec. 3.07. Stormwater drainage connection and availability charge. Sub& 1. Stormwater drainage utility. A stormwater drainage utility for the city is hereby established. The municipal storm sewer system shall be operated as a public utility pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 444.075, from which revenue will be derived subject to the provisions of this chapter and to Minnesota Statutes. The stormwater drainage utility will be a part of the public works department and under the administration of the director of public works. Sub& 2. Purpose of funds derived and allocation of revenue. The purpose of all funds derived is to pay for all or part of the construction, reconstruction, repair, enlargement, improvement or other obtainment and the maintenance, operation and use of the storm sewer utility as established by the city. All revenues derived from the fee shall be credited to the appropriate storm sewer fund. Sub& 3. Storm sewer utility fee. A. A storm sewer utility fee for connection and availability of the storm sewer facilities shall be determined by resolution of the council and shall be just and equitable. A charge for the connection and availability of storm sewer service may be imposed for all premises abutting on streets or other places where municipal storm sewers are located, whether or not connected to them. A charge for the availability and connection to the storm sewer service may, in the discretion of the council, be fixed by reference to the portion of the cost which has been paid by assessment of the premises. B. A storm sewer utility fee for use of the storm sewer facilities shall be determined by resolution of the council and shall be just and equitable. Charges made for the use of the facilities may be fixed on the basis of water consumed, or by reference to a reasonable classification of the types of premises to which the service is furnished, or by reference to the quantity, pollution qualities and difficulty of disposal of the water, or in any other equitable basis including, but without limitation, any combination of those referred to above. Subd. 4. Adjustments. The council may adopt, by resolution, policies and standards for the adjustment of the fee for parcels. Such adjustments shall not be made retroactively. Sub& 5. Exemptions. A. Public rights-of-way are exempt from the fees established in subdivision 3, above. CD3:7 /0 § 3.07 EAGAN CODE B. Vacant, unimproved land with ground cover and city -owned land are exempt from the fees established in subdivision 3, subparagraph B, above. Subd 6. Billings. Bills for charges for the fee shall be made by the finance department. All bills shall be payable at the office of the finance director. Subd. 7. Recalculation of fees. If a property owner or person responsible for paying the fee questions the correctness of such charge, that person may have the determination of the charge recomputed within six months of mailing, by submitting to the director of public works a written request for the recomputation. Subd 8. Collections. All fees are due on the due date specified by the city for the respective account and shall be delinquent 15 days thereafter. It is the duty of the city to endeavor to promptly collect delinquent accounts, and in all cases where satisfactory arrangements for payments have not been made, all such delinquent accounts shall be certified to the city clerk who shall prepare an assessment of the delinquent accounts against the property served or to be served. To each account there shall be added a certification charge (preparation for certification of taxes of delinquent accounts) in the amount provided for by council resolution. This assessment roll shall be delivered to the council for adoption. Such action may be optional or subsequent to taking legal action to collect delinquent accounts. (Ord. No. 101, 2nd series, eff. 5-25-90; Ord. No. 195, 2nd series, eff. 1-12-95) Sec. 3.08. Sanitary sewer connection and availability charge. Subd. 1. Purpose of funds derived and allocation of revenue. The purpose of all funds derived is to pay for all or part of the construction, reconstruction, repair, enlargement, improvement or other obtainment and the maintenance, operation and use of the sanitary sewer utility as established by the city. All revenues derived from the fee shall be credited to the appropriate sanitary sewer fund. Subd 2. Sanitary sewer utility fee. A sanitary sewer utility fee for connection and availability of the sanitary sewer facilities shall be determined by resolution of the council and shall be just and equitable. A charge for the connection and availability of sanitary sewer service may be imposed for all premises abutting on streets or other places where municipal sanitary sewers are located, whether or not connected to them. A charge for the availability and connection to the sanitary sewer service may, in the discretion of the council, be fixed by reference to the portion of the cost which has been paid by assessment of the premises. Subd 3. Adjustments. The council may adopt, by resolution, policies and standards for the adjustment of the fee for parcels. Such adjustments shall not be made retroactively. Subd 4. Exemptions. Public rights-of-way are exempt from the fee. Subd 5. Billings. Bills for charges for the fee shall be made by the finance department. All bills shall be payable at the office of the finance director. CD3:8 V. BETTY ALLAN (INVER GROVE HEIGHTS)/PINES EDGE ADDITION PRIVATE ACCESS DRIVE Betty Allan, who resides in Inver Grove Heights, has expressed a concern regarding the current condition of her private access road from Weston Hills Drive to the east. She contends that the developer of the Pines Edge Addition (Shamrock Development) disturbed her pre-existing private access drive and has not properly restored it to an acceptable fashion. She is requesting the City of Eagan to take the necessary steps to repair and/or restore her private drive to an acceptable condition. • Prior to the development of the Weston Hills, Pines Edge and Red Pine Elementary Additions, a private access drive existed from TH 3 into Inver Grove Heights serving property owned by Finch, Loomis, Frattalone, Neary, Allan, and others in Inver Grove Heights. This private access drive was often referred to as "Farm Road". • As a private cross easement, it is the City's understanding that each party agreed to certain provisions regarding construction, maintenance, obstruction, restoration and other aspects associated with common interests. • In 1994, the Neary's sold their property to Shamrock Development (Jim Stanton) and was subsequently subdivided and platted into the Pines Edge 1St Addition. The private access drive serving Betty Allan and others in Inver Grove Heights was incorporated along the northern edge of this subdivision. As the purchaser of the Neary property, the City Attorney determined that Shamrock development became the new partner in the private drive cross easement assuming all appropriate rights and responsibilities that previously accrued to the Neary's. The grading and development plan submitted with the Pines Edge 1St Addition provided for the southerly extension of Weston Hills Drive essentially severing the pre-existing private access road. However, it provided for the restoration of an access from the future public street to the existing undisturbed alignment to consist of 4" of Class V gravel base. Project and development inspectors have verified that the limit of disturbance was primarily contained within the public right-of-way. • Subsequent development of Lot 1, Block 1, by either the developer or the homebuilder may have further disturbed the private drive without the knowledge of the City of Eagan. However, it is assumed that any such work done would have been done under the authority and/or obligations of the cross easements as subsequent heirs and assigns of the original property owners. . • The Public Works Department, Community Development Department, and City Attorney's Office have had numerous discussions with Betty Allan informing her of her proper recourse regarding any concerns associated with the disturbance and lack of proper restoration of her private drive by any one of many partners in the mutual cross easement consortium. • Recent inspections by the Public Works Department reveal that the current drive is in fairly good shape and in basically the same condition as the remainder of the drive into Inver Grove Heights. 1. The City of Eagan could regrade and reconstruct the private access drive from Weston Hills Drive to the back lot line of Lot 1, Block 1, Pines Edge 1St Addition to be financed out of the General Fund Operational Budget, Major Street Fund, benefiting property owner contributions, or any combination thereof. 2. The City of Eagan could reconstruct the access drive primarily within the east boulevard public right-of-way of Weston Hills Drive with financing from the General Fund Budget, Major Street Fund or combination thereof. 3. Do nothing and let property owners resolve the proper restoration (if any) and maintenance of the private access drive in accordance with the terms and conditions of the cross easement agreement. �! 171, '�" -r' cai-"t Director of Public Works TAC/J Cc: John Gorder, Development/Design Engineer 13 ma! -. °NTRV wAlnciV T,.. „ ,._ `�_-• - � r r�,;,`�,`� RLO Iwo- . �AMSLFR ',YkL)(OL, Jr 1.67 .. P, -:T ENTRY -LEVA 004 SIEWO-SPLIT ENTRY WALKOUT -,004- SIELEC T/ -ARNER SLO—SIDE LOOKOUT so 3ACKFILL k' TEFItA SWO- SlOrt WALKOUT L -U-- TUCK UNDER :3"PACTED STREETM ti AaL!: -AtERIAL — SUEIGRACE Z^,PPEC7:.-N DE751L TYPICAL LOT x x x 3-7 x X x= x 10:1 3.7 x 20 W X POND SECTION' xxxX I per, 4f 0 --H x —\ '-= x x vr-NOTE: li,4 TOBE J / �`\ /UTILI— x x x w av a a 0 a 0 'o 0 40 641*66 *0000""'vo,* 53.- r53.2 CN OWN) 3 2/1 A EXIST. OVERHE."C! M E �SE '10 0 RADE EXISTING I * - -- G 9 �>- NOTE: G E36.0 DRIVEWAY TO MATCH NEW STREET. RESTORE 5. _.__-_ _-- , j _ _ .. I� _ N 59.4 S T 0 /r04.5 DRIVE 0 WE L! 1 94.1 .8c S,30 ±i l GRAVEL (CONSTRUCTI N ENTRANCE 63l \, - I% . G" 9660. 0 1' R wo, 1 G' 9650 c\j LIJ C'J i- 01 UT MINUTES OF A PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE MEETING Eagan, Minnesota July 29, 1997 A Public Works Committee meeting was held on Tuesday, July 29, 1997 at 3:30 p.m. in Conference Rooms A and B of the Municipal Center building. Those present were City Councilmembers Blomquist and Wachter, who comprise the Public Works Committee, and Director of Public Works Colbert, Director of Finance VanOverbeke, Superintendent of Streets Erhart and City Administrator Hedges. VILLAUME INDUSTRIES/STORM WATER CONNECTION CHARGE Representatives of Villaume Industries, including Bob Linsmayer, Nick Linsmayer and Jim Luzum appeared to question a storm water utility connection fee the City is charging as a condition of a building permit issuance. Director of Finance VanOverbeke explained that all property in the City pays an assessment or connection fee for trunk area improvements. He further explained the difference between assessment and connection fees and the quarterly storm water utility fee, stating that assessment and connection fee amounts are used to pay for infrastructure, while the storm water utility fee is collected for ongoing maintenance. Bob Linsmayer, on behalf of Villaume, raised several questions, including why Villaume has taken out a number of building permits since 1970 and the issue of a storm water area trunk connection fee for the remaining property has never been questioned to date. Director of Finance VanOverbeke stated that in recent years City staff, at the direction of the City Council, does review commercial/industrial building permit applications to determine whether all trunk area charges have been paid to the City. He stated that in the case of Villaume, 8.5 acres were assessed in 1970; however, the remaining 7.5 acres, for whatever reasons have not been charged for the storm sewer trunk area improvements. Mr. Luzum and Mr. Linsmayer stated that it is the position of Villaume that their building, along with accessory buildings, have continually been used for the same purpose since 1970 and have been a good loyal commercial resident since that time. Mr. Linsmayer further stated that it is the opinion of Villaume that the bill paid in 1970 was for all storm water area trunk fees. He further stated that to come back 27 years later and request payment at today's rate is not acceptable and further that Villaume might not have built had they known this was a potential issue. After further discussion, City Councilmember Wachter, Chair of the Public Works Committee, asked representatives of Villaume what amount they felt would be a fair settlement. Mr. Nick Linsmayer, representing Villaume, stated that $1,500 seemed like a reasonable compromise so their company could assure an occupancy permit in September. Councilmember Wachter stated that it would be necessary to take any action back to the City Council. City Councilmember Blomquist stated that the whole policy of charging a connection fee for improvements that were made a number of years ago should be reevaluated. She further asked about the 1997 rates in effect for storm water trunk area charges. Director of Public Works Colbert stated that the single family rate is .079 per square foot or $3,362 per acre, the multi family rate is .099 per square foot or $4,213 per acre and the commercial/industrial rate is .121 per square foot or $5,150 per acre. After further discussion, the Public Works Committee directed staff to calculate what the charge would have been in 1970 for the entire 16 acres and also as a second scenario, use an inflation adjustment for 27 years to calculate that new amount. The Public Works Committee agreed to meet on Tuesday, August 5, at 4:00 p.m. with representatives of Villaume in an effort to resolve payment of the reconnection fee. BETTY ALLENIPINES EDGE ADDITION City Administrator Hedges stated that Betty Allen was a resident of Inver Grove Heights who has expressed a concern regarding the current condition of her private access road from Weston Hills Drive to the east. She contends that the developer of the Pines Edge Addition (Shamrock Development) disturbed her preexisting private access drive and has not properly restored it to an acceptable fashion. She is requesting the City of Eagan to take the necessary steps to repair and/or restore her private drive to an acceptable condition. He further stated that Ms. Allen is asking for permission to change her address to Weston Hills Drive instead of Trunk Highway 3. The City Administrator stated that staff is able to accommodate that request. Public Works Committee Chairperson Wachter welcomed Tom King and Inver Grove Heights' residents Betty Allen, Dwight "Shorty" Mullin and Betty Kogl to the meeting. Tom King, who resides at 4800 Weston Page 2/Eagan Public Works Committee Meeting July 29, 1997 Hills Drive, provided a summary of the problems that exist with his property adjoining Betty Allen's driveway, due to its present condition. He stated that it is hard to establish his own landscaping until the driveway is repaired with a proper grade. The Director of Public Works provided background relative to ownership of the private access drive which existed from Trunk Highway 3 to Inver Grove Heights serving various property owners, what happened as a result of development when Shamrock purchased property from the Neary's and the City's review and evaluation of the grading development plans. He further stated that the Public Works Department, Community Development Department and City Attorney's office have had numerous discussions with Betty Allen informing her of her proper recourse regarding any concerns associated with the disturbance and lack of proper restoration of her private drive by any one of many partners in the mutual cross easement consortium, which includes Shamrock Development. He further stated that recent inspections by the Public Works Department reveal that the current gravel drive is in fairly good shape and in basically the same or better condition as the remainder of the drives in Inver Grove Heights. City Councilmember Wachter stated it is clear that Betty Allen's private drive is not a responsibility of the City. Betty Allen, Shorty Mullin and Betty Kogl strongly objected to the City not assuming responsibility and Mr. Mullin threatened to restore and extend his driveway over the public- street, which was clearly denounced by the Public Works Committee as being unacceptable and not permissible. Members of the Public Works Committee determined that this issue is clearly a private matter between property owners who are included in the mutual cross easement consortium and that the City should not perform any improvements to Betty Allen's driveway. Chairperson Wachter stated that this recommendation would be presented to the City Council at their meeting on August 5. BOULEVARD TREE MANAGEMENT Chairperson Wachter stated that time does not permit to address the boulevard tree management issue and that this item would be continued to the next Public Works Committee meeting scheduled for 3:30 p.m. on Tuesday, August 5. Date OTHER BUSINESS There being no further business, the meeting was adjurned at 5:00 pm. City Clerk III:] _ . • . � S T� .S`� c4-+^.vt__ W axe_ /'VIP�.� � � .. • . LJ 4� _ - Q -moo- �,.` --`c� des.-*��1 �l)yo Sa .0 o - .. 4.5 ©-- P -- — — 1 lig \A&A -K