HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Packet 07-25-1994 Special 1CITY OF PLYMOUTH
AGENDA
SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING
JULY 25, 1994
1. CALL TO ORDER AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 7:00 P.M.
2. ROLL CALL
3. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Public Improvement Hearing on 26`x' Avenue Improvements
from Kilmer Lane to Medicine Ridge Road, Project No. 601
1. Consider Public Improvement Hearing
2. Consider membership of Subcommittee to review and provide
recommendation on City Attorney proposals
4. ADJOURNMENT
Agenda Number:
DATE: July 21, 1994 for the City Council Meeting of July 25, 1994
TO: Dwight D. Johnson, City Manager
FROM: Fred G. Moore, Director of Public Works
SUBJECT: PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT HEARING
26TH AVENUE IMPROVEMENT
KILMER LANE TO MEDICINE RIDGE ROAD
CITY PROJECT NO. 601
ACTION REQUESTED: Make a motion to adopt the attached resolution which would order
the construction of the 26th Avenue Public Improvement Project. The resolution provides for
the following:
1. The street would be 32 feet wide with concrete curb and gutter and
centered on the street right of way.
2. A trail/sidewalk eight feet wide would be constructed adjacent to the curb
along the south boulevard.
3. A standard 90 degree intersection would be used for the intersection at
Medicine Ridge Road.
4. Special assessments for the project would be in accordance with the City
Street Reconstruction Policy. Properties that receive driveway access to
26th Avenue would have an estimated assessment at a rate of $45.64 per
foot of frontage along the street. Properties that do not use the street for
access would have an estimated assessment for concrete curb and gutter of
7.76 per front foot.
5. As part of the project, landscape screening is to be installed along the south
edge of the trail for the property immediately adjacent to Medicine Ridge
Road to mitigate the tree removal for the trail construction.
In accordance with Minnesota Statutes which govern special assessments to benefiting
properties, it will require six affirmative votes of the City Council to order the improvement
project for construction.
SUBJECT: PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT HEARING
26TH AVENUE IMPROVEMENT
July 21, 1994
Page Two
BACKGROUND: As part of the 1994 Capital Improvements Program the City Council has
included the proposed project to improve 26th Avenue from Kilmer Lane to Medicine Ridge
Road. Since there are proposed special assessments against the benefiting property, before a
decision can be made by the City Council on whether to proceed with the project, a public
improvement hearing is required. The public hearing was established for July 25.
This project was originally proposed for construction in 1993. A public improvement hearing
was held in June 1993 with two additional information meetings with the property owners held
after the public hearing. I am attaching all of the background information which the City
Council received associated with those previous meetings. The City Council did not take any
action in 1993 to approve or disapprove the project.
As a result of the last public hearing and the additional information meetings, the project was
modified as follows and the hearing established for these improvements. The stakes placed
along the road and the presentation at the July 19 information meeting was based on the
following:
1. The street width would be 32 foot wide with concrete curb and gutter. The center of
the street was moved 4 feet north.
2. A trail/sidewalk eight foot wide would be constructed adjacent to the curb along the
south boulevard.
3. A standard 90 degree intersection would be used for the intersection of Medicine Ridge
Road.
4. Special assessments for the project would be in accordance with the City's street
reconstruction policy. Properties that receive driveway access to 26th Avenue would
have an estimated assessment at a rate of $45.64 per foot of frontage along the street.
Properties that do not use the street for access would have an estimated assessment for
concrete curb and gutter of $7.76 per front foot.
DISCUSSION: On July 19 the staff held an information meeting with the property owners;
also in attendance was Councilmember Lymangood. There were six property owners in
attendance that live along the north side of the street and two living along the south side.
I believe all property owners are in agreement that because of the existing condition of the
roadway, it requires reconstruction. All property owners are concerned with the impact that
the improvement will have on the existing trees along the roadway. There are a substantial
number of trees all within the public right of way along the entire project.
The project as proposed prior to the July 19 meeting would require the removal of three trees
along the south side of the roadway, one of which would be considered a high quality tree.
The other two trees are Elm or Cottonwood. Also, the power poles which are along the north
W
SUBJECT: PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT HEARING
26TH AVENUE IMPROVEMENT
July 21, 1994
Page Three
side of the roadway would be moved three to four feet northerly to provide clearance to the
new curb line. With the power poles at their existing location, the utility company has
trimmed the trees on several occasions to provide the necessary safety clearance between the
wires and the trees. It would require special construction of the power line in order that there
would not be further impact on the trees.
The property owners also do not see the need for a trail along this segment of roadway. It is
my opinion that their concern is from the standpoint that the trail adds additional width to the
hard surface, therefore causing more impact to the boulevards.
This street is not a local residential street, but serves as the collector roadway for the
residential area east of Medicine Lake and southerly of 36th Avenue. 1991 traffic volumes on
the road were 4,200 vehicles per day. It is estimated that over the next 20 year period traffic
will increase to approximately 8,000 vehicles per day. This increase is resulting from the
normal 3 % increase in traffic on roadways that is being experienced in the entire Metropolitan
area. The increase is not from any specific additional construction or traffic using this route to
by-pass congestion on Highway 169.
The project as proposed last year was for a 36 foot wide street. This would allow one lane of
traffic in each direction and parking on one side of the street. Also, this standard leaves a
clear zone adjacent to the curbs for additional traffic safety. The project, as proposed for this
public hearing, is 32 feet wide. This would still only allow for one lane of traffic in each
direction with parking on one side, but reduced clear zones along the curbing. It is my
recommendation that because of the substantial traffic on the street, the minimum width that
should be constructed to provide adequate safety for both the motorists and pedestrians is a 32
foot wide street.
It would be possible to construct the street 26 feet wide and still use State Aid Fund if all
parking was prohibited on the roadway. I believe if a street is constructed of this width, it is
ignoring hazards which will exist from vehicles either stopped or parked along the roadway for
various reasons. The 26 foot width does not leave adequate room for two vehicles to pass
safely if there is a vehicle stopped on the road. Also there is not ample space for two vehicles
to pass and safely clear pedestrian/bicyclists in the roadway. In my opinion, this is
unacceptable with over 4,000 vehicles per day using the street.
The City has had a Trail/Sidewalk System Plan for over 20 years. The original plan provided
either on street or off street walkways to connect recreational areas which were mainly city
parks. Because of the low volume of traffic on residential streets with the design of our
overall street system, Plymouth does not require sidewalks adjacent to streets to provide a
pedestrian walkway. It is considered safe for the pedestrian to walk along the edge of the
traveled road on low volume streets.
SUBJECT: PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT HEARING
26TH AVENUE IMPROVEMENT
July 21, 1994
Page Four
On the higher volume roadways such as collector and arterial streets, it is not considered safe
for the pedestrian to share the road with the motorists; therefore, off-street trails or trails
marked on the road are indicated in the plan. From the mid 1980's to early in 1991 the City
Council received numerous requests, city-wide, from citizens stating that additional trails were
required along higher traffic roadways to provide for safe movement of pedestrians. I recall
that 26th Avenue was discussed at one of the Town Meetings. The recreational needs of the
community have changed and people were not only using the trails to get access to the park
system, but are using them as a means of recreation for walking and jogging.
As a result of citizen input, the City Council had a consulting engineer update our
Sidewalk/Trail System Plan which was completed in 1992. The updated plan added many
additional trail segments along major roadways. One of the trail segments added was the off-
street trail along this portion of 26th Avenue. There is also a plan for a trail by the Regional
Park District along the east side of Medicine Lake. The 26th Avenue trail would provide a
safe walking path for pedestrians to access the Regional Trail and also additional opportunities
for walking/jogging within the city.
The Plymouth trail/sidewalks are for both pedestrians and bicyclists. No motorized vehicles
are permitted. In order to meet safety standards for this varied use of the trail system, an eight
foot width is recommended along the south side of the proposed 32 foot street. This
combination would meet safety standards for both motorists and vehicles.
ALTERNATIVES: The improvement as proposed provides for reconstruction of the existing
deteriorated street to a safety standard for both pedestrians and motorists. The total width of
the improvement, including the street and trail, is 41 feet. In order to balance the impact on
both the north and south side of the street, the center of this improvement was proposed to be
four feet north of the center of the existing 66 foot public right of way. A 12-1/2 foot public
boulevard would remain on either side of the improvement. Attached is a graphic indicating
the location and project as proposed.
After hearing the concerns of the residents at the information meeting it is my
recommendation that we move the center of the proposed improvement four feet
southerly to place the center of the proposed 32 foot road in the center of the right of
way. By doing this the existing power poles along the north side of the roadway would not
need to be removed. This would require the removal of one additional tree on the south side
of the road adjacent to the property at Medicine Ridge Road. This is the same property where
the proposed location of the roadway would require the removal of two trees. To mitigate the
SUBJECT: PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT HEARING
26TH AVENUE IMPROVEMENT
July 21, 1994
Page Five
impact on this one property, I would recommend that as part of the project, additional trees for
landscaping/buffering be provided adjacent to the trail. I have spoken with this property
owner and he is agreeable to this concept. We would work with the property owner to design
the plan to provide screening from the walkway to their house.
Also by moving the roadway four feet southerly, it would require a minor increase in the
height of two retaining walls along the southerly side of the road, but this is not a major
change. With the movement of the roadway, the proposed curb would fall within the existing
gravel shoulder along the north side of the road. Except for the necessary driveway and
resodding to blend the new curb with the adjacent boulevard there would be no impact on the
properties along the north edge of the north side of the road. Since the power poles would not
be moved, there is no additional impact on the trees from the existing overhead power line.
There are three other alternatives which I could recommend as providing the necessary safety,
but they are a lesser preference then previously recommended. These three alternatives have
the center of the street on the center of the right-of-way as in my recommendation. They are
in order of preference:
A. Construct a 32 foot wide street with a five foot walkway in the south
boulevard. Parking would be permitted on one side of the street.
B. Construct a 32 foot wide street with a five foot sidewalk on the south
boulevard, but prohibit parking on the street. On the street would be
marked a five foot lane along each edge for use of bicycles. This lane
would be marked with the standard traffic marking of a "white" painted
line.
C. Construct only a 32 foot wide street with no walkway and prohibit parking
on the street. The street would be marked with the five foot lane on either
side which would be used by both bicycles and pedestrians. Grade and
construct the boulevard areas to allow for construction of the trail at a
future time.
Option C does permit a walkway to be constructed at a future undetermined time if a City
Council should determine the need for the walkway. It would be more costly to construct the
walkway in the future since some of the area that would be disturbed to make the road
improvement would again have to be reconstructed.
RECOM MNDATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS: Both the City and the property owners
recognize the need for the reconstruction of the street. In accordance with City-wide policies,
the adjacent property owners benefit from improvements to roadways adjacent to their
property. The assessments as proposed for the project are in accordance with these policies
SUBJECT: PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT HEARING
26TH AVENUE IMPROVEMENT
July 21, 1994
Page Six
which are used throughout the City. On this project, not only is the street being reconstructed,
but the existing rural type ditches are being replaced by a storm sewer system. Also, curbing
is installed to confine vehicles to the roadway. The estimated cost for the assessments are
included in the attached handout for the public improvement hearing. They are $45.64 per
front foot for properties with driveway access to the street and $7.76 per foot for those
properties with no driveway access.
The total estimated cost of this improvement project is $416,631. Of this amount, the
estimated assessments are $96,204 with the remaining $320,427 to be financed by the City
from Municipal State Aid Funds.
In order to provide the necessary safety on this collector street I would recommend that the
City Council order the project for improvement with a 32 foot wide street and an eight foot
trail as proposed, but moving the center of the improvement four feet southerly to eliminate
impact on the properties along the north side of the street. To mitigate the impact on the
property on the south side, landscaping would be provided with the project.
Fred G. Moore, P.E.
Director of Public Works
attachments: Cross Section of Proposed Improvement
Resolution
July 13, 1994 Letter from Residents
Public Hearing Information
1993 Information
ROW
SOUTH)
33'
TRAtL
i us
2%
41
ROW
1r T4,11 "Li w aM,• to Cit,'
Ce c:1 w+eve.d St at to
C
NORTH)
16' 16' 5'
TO FACE OF URB ` TO FACE OF CURB
8'
CROWN
3% 3%0 a 2%
SEE DETAIL
B618 CONCRETE /
CURB & GUTTER
MODULAR BLOCK
RETAINING WALL
41 BITUMINOUS WEARING COURSE
31 BITUMINOUS BINDER COURSE
31TUMINOUS BASE COURSE
V MwwlNL-%w" BASE CLASS 5 (100X CRUSHED)
ROW
I
I
i
TYPICAL SECTION eonestroo
Rosen&
CITY OF PLYMOUTH FIGURE 5
Anderr?ik a
Associates
26TH AVENUE
70289RO1.OWG JULY 15, 1994 COMM, 70289
Z0'd OSSti B OOHIS9N09 STET 929 ET9 TT:ST b66T-9T-L0
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
RESOLUTION 94 -
ORDERING IMPROVEMENT AND PREPARATION OF
PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS
26TH AVENUE
STREET IMPROVEMENT
CITY PROJECT NO. 601
WHEREAS, on the 20th day of June, 1994 the City Council adopted a resolution which fixed
a date for a public hearing with respect to the improvements to 26th Avenue from State
Highway 169 to Medicine Ridge Road; and
WHEREAS; the proposed project included the installation of 32 foot wide, 9 -ton roadway with
concrete curb and gutter, storm sewer, and an 8 foot wide bituminous trail along the south
boulevard and all necessary appurtenances; and
WHEREAS, ten days published notice of hearing through two week publications of the
required notice was given and the hearing was held thereon the 25th day of July, 1994, at
which time all persons desiring to be heard were given an opportunity to be heard thereon;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA:
1. Such improvement is hereby ordered as proposed in the Council resolution
adopted June 20, 1994, with the following provisions:
1. The trail shall be 8 feet wide along the south boulevard
2. The street shall be 32 feet wide face to face of curb with the centerline
on the centerline of the right-of-way.
3. Option 3 shall be used for the intersection of Medicine Ridge Road (900
intersection).
4. That pending assessments be established $45.64/ft. for properties with
driveway access and $7.76/ft. for properties with no driveway access.
5. That landscaping be provided along the south edge of the trail for the
property adjacent to Medicine Ridge Road as mitigation for tree removal
within the street right of way.
2. Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik and Associates, Inc. is designated as engineer for
the improvement. They shall prepare plans and specifications for the making of
such improvement.
Adopted by the City Council on July 25, 1994
July 13, 1994
To: Joy Tierney, City Mayor
David Anderson, City Council Member
Nicholas Granath, City Council Member
John Edson, City Council Member
Carole Helliwell, City Council Member
Chuck Lymangood, City Council Member
Fred Moore, Public Works Director
Dan Faulkner, City Engineer
From: Residents on 26th Ave North, Plymouth
RE: Planned Street Improvements
Tko, s k, a.s re cc;vcd
b.t.-t +t% TO II
0.r }6 :q s'4;
J
r< <...,.,t., a.i: or.
There has been many meetings on this topic and no final decision
has been made as to what the city will do for road improvements.
Before this issue does go before the City Council, We would like
our concerns heard.
Currently is proposed a 32' road face to face of concrete curb
and an 8' bike trail on the south side of the road. Our road is
currently at
221. This proposal would almost double the width of
the current street.
We would recommend a 26' wide road (minimum allowed by MSA per
Fred Moore's letter dated 8-16-93) with a 5' concrete sidewalk on
the south side for the following reasons:
1. Our street is on a rather steep grade on both sides for the
block of Kilmer to Nathan. Making the overall road/trail 40+'
would cause some residents to have a retaining wall in our front
or side yards.
2. A 40+' road/trail would cause many residents to lose trees
and/or bushes. We value every tree or bush we can get living in
the city. To cut down trees for a wider road doesn't make sense.
Also, if the road itself doesn't take the trees, the power
company could be forced to remove trees when they have to move
the power poles.
3. At one time, there was talk of dropping the grade of the road
from it's current level, this too would cause more need for
retaining walls and loss of trees. We would recommend the road
stay at it's current level.
4. There was a traffic count done a while ago saying that
existing traffic counts are approximately 4,200 vehicles per day
and the 20 year traffic projections indicate approximately 8,000
vehicles per day." (from Fred Moore's letter dated 8-16-93) We,
the residents of an almost completely developed neighborhood, are
wondering where all the extra 3,800 vehicles are going to come
from in the next 20 years. We admit that we live "on a
collector" street that serves the residential area along the
east side of Medicine Lake." (From Fred Moore's letter dated 8-
16-93). We did not move onto this street thinking it would be
used by people north of County Road 9 to get to work every day
just to avoid Highway 169. There is already County Road 9 and
36th Ave North that are wider and can handle the extra traffic
volume.
5. There has been a push for a 32' road as this is "typical" for
the city of Plymouth. We do not feel this is a "normal" road
because it is an older, existing neighborhood and there is not
enough room for a wider road without disrupting the landscape and
loosing many trees. A 32' road does not allow for parking so
there is nothing lost by going with a 26' road on this issue.
Allowing room on the road for a periodic stalled car (which 32'
would have room for) is hardly worth the lose of trees and damage
to the landscape.
6. The issue of a bike trail has been a long one. As is
currently stands, the bike trail would go for 3 blocks. There
are no plans to expand the bike trail that we know of. The
Kilmer end of the trail would end at the bridge over Hwy 169
which has only a sidewalk and on the Medicine Ridge end it would
connect with nothing --not even to the lake. What people are .
looking for is someplace to walk with little kids and strollers
or little kids on bikes --this is where a sidewalk is the best
answer. Adult bikers tend to avoid bike trails and bike on roads
because they can go faster and they don't have to worry about
running into walkers and young bikers. There is no "trail
system" on the east side of Medicine Lake, there is a small
amount of trail in the East Medicine Lake Park but otherwise it
is all roads people walk and bike on.
7. The issue of speed on the road is always a concern of the
residents living on the street. We would like to keep the road
narrower in hopes of keeping t•he speed on the road to 30 mph.
There are much higher speeds currently driven on the road and if
this continues we would then request action by the city to
control it.
8. The assessments we have all received still seem on the high
end. We would like to see what the assessments have been on
similar road reconstruction projects in the city of Plymouth in
the last year and what those residents were assessed. We would
like to know the assessments for both those residents facing the
road and those with only the side yard and therefore the curb and
gutter portion of the assessment. Those residents with driveways
facing 26th Ave North are seeing assessments from $2500 to $9000.
This is a high assessment for a road that will add no value to
our homes. We want to be certain this is what the City of
Plymouth always charges.
Regards,
Jim and LeeAnn Horn 9800 26th Ave North
Rachel Asp 9820 26th Ave North
William Kloster 9925 26th Ave North
Richard and Carol Fynn 9930 26th Ave North
Rececca Reid 9940 26th Ave North
Scott Linnell 9960 26th Ave North
Ila Linnell 9950 26th Ave North
Karen Zwart 9970 26th Ave North
Stan and Ruth Lueck 9710 26th Ave North
Tom and Roxy Zaun 9700 26th Ave North
Craig and Sandy Peterson 9730 26th Ave North
Jerry and Ruth Fries 9900 26th Ave North
Al Baumgart 9920 26th Ave North
Dave and Sue Lewicki 9830 26th Ave North
R. W. Bill Prodahl 10020 26th Ave North
AGENDA FOR PUBLIC HEARING
26TH AVENUE
CITY PROJECT NO. 601
July 25, 1994 - 7:00 P.M.
1. Call to Order - Mayor Tierney presiding, 7:00 p.m. at the City Council Chambers.
2. Introduce Councilmembers, Staff and Consultant - Mayor Tierney.
3. Purpose of meeting - Joy Tierney, Mayor.
a. The Council and staff, after careful consideration, have decided to consider the
installation of improvements to the area listed above.
b. Our citizens will have an opportunity to question these proposed improvements and
express their views.
4. The meeting was carefully and thoroughly announced in three ways:
a. Notices were published in the Plymouth Sailor as required by law.
b. Written notice was mailed to each property owner in the improvement area as shown by
the records of the Hennepin County Auditor's tax statement mailing list.
C. Announcements and discussions at Council meetings.
5. The procedure for the hearing will be as follows:
a. Write name and address on blue card.
b. Pass card to person collecting them or give it to the Mayor.
C. When your name is called, come up to the microphone.
d. Please speak clearly into the microphone so that all may benefit from your remarks.
e. No one may speak twice until all others who wish to have done so. Please give ,your
name and address each time you speak.
6. Description of project:
a. Assessment policies and procedures and project description - Fred G. Moore, Director
of Public Works
7. Open Public Hearing.
8. Close or Adjourn Public Hearing
9. City Council Discussion and Decision
PUBLIC HEARING INFORMATION SHEET
26TH AVENUE
STREET AND TRAIL IMPROVEMENTS
CITY PROJECT NO. 601
July 25, 1994 - 7:00 P.M.
I. GENERAL:
The public hearing will discuss the aspects of the proposed project together with the
estimated costs thereof. This handout will help explain the costs related to the proposed
construction.
II. SCOPE:
The proposed project involves construction of a 32 foot wide 9 ton bituminous street with concrete
curb and gutter, storm sewer, and an 8 foot wide bituminous trail on 26th Avenue from State
Highway 169 to Medicine Ridge Road.
A. Street, Curb, and Gutter
The proposed street improvements consist of constructing 26th Avenue as a 32 foot wide, 9
ton design bituminous section roadway with surmountable concrete curb and gutter from
State Highway 169 to Medicine Ridge Road. This section provides for a two lane and
undivided roadway with parking possible on one side. Improvements are planned for the
intersection of 26th Avenue and Medicine Ridge Road providing a four-way stop.
B. Storm Sewer
The proposed storm sewer improvements consist of installation of storm sewer piping as
required with an urban street section and the replacement of a culvert at the intersection of
26th Avenue and Lancaster Lane.
C. Trail
An 8 foot wide bituminous trail is proposed to be constructed from the bridge over
Highway 169 to Medicine Ridge Road behind the curb along the south side of 26th Avenue.
Retaining walls, where necessary, would be constructed to protect trees and maintain
desirable slopes.
III. COST ESTIMATE AND PROPOSED ASSESSMENTS:
Estimated Project Costs
Street, Curb and Gutter, and Storm Sewer $397,347
Trail 19.284
TOTAL $416,631
BASIS FOR ESTIMATED ASSESSMENT
32' WIDE STREET WITH
CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER
Street Reconstruction
Rate per Single Family
Unit
Curb and Gutter
Storm Sewer
Street Widening
32' WIDE 26' WIDE
7.81 /Ft. $ 7.81 /Ft.
7.76/Ft. $ 7.76/Ft.
14.69/Ft. $ 13.61 /Ft.
15.38/Ft. $ 6.15/Ft.
45.64/Ft. $ 35.33/Ft.
ESTIMATED PROJECT COST
Assessed $96,204
City M.S.A. 3200427
TOTAL $416,631
1 _
1
ltz 6°11
N
CI
1
CID
L
11N --1 mAr'.91.9s [L
1 ,. At YC •• •l`
au eC - w•rti.r!.Cn .•
A [I fol i0 IMrd
iR
n - Q -
D - -
1T'6bZ TIE)— E)—
I
v
N -------- rIj
001
I'ILI
011
rnI
9I I F.F '
Ha,,, 09
0' L61
O'L61
rn
R
t61 r 1
1.001 001 a 001 -- —
T
v
q
In n u 9_961 •
in
OA
Y O v
o 0"
P 8
O v
Z
al'
tia
he
wer
p
oN
1
N
o•all 3 'R
r6Q.4 ! tor -
o
r-831Sd
41'
ROW ROW
I (SOUTH)
I (NORTH)
33' 33'
8.5' 16' 16' 5'
TRAIL TO FACE OF URB ' TO FACE OF CURB
CROWN
2% I 3% 3% ¢ 2%
SEE DETAIL
8618 CONCRETE
CURB & GUTTER
MODULAR BLOCK
RETAINING WALL
41 BITUMINOUS WEARING COURSE
31 BITUMINOUS BINDER COURSE
31TUMINOUS BASE COURSE
TE BASE CLASS 5 (1 OOX CRUSHED)
TYPICAL SECTION
Ronestroa
Rosens
CITY OF PLYMOUTH FIGURE 5
Anderlik b
Associates
26TH AVENUE
70289RD1,DWG JULY 15, 1994 COMM. 70289
30•d 'OSSV T OOHIS3N09 TT£T 9£9 ZT9 TT:ST b66T-9T-LO
Z
POLICY FOR SPECIAL ASSESSMENT DEFERMENT FOR
HOMESTEAD PROPERTY OWNED BY SENIOR CITIZENS
AND DISABLED PEOPLE
Resolution No. 93-669
October 18, 1993 (Replaces Res. 85-875, October 21, 1985; 80-862, November 17, 1980;
Res. 81-521, August 17, 1981; Res. 82-567, October 18, 1982; Res. 83-
675, December 5, 1983; Res. 89-735, November 6, 1989; Res. 90-620,
September 24, 1990; Res. 91-815, December 16, 1991; Res. 92-608,
October 5, 1992)
The City of Plymouth will consider deferring special assessments on homestead property
which would place a financial hardship on the owner if the owner is at least 62 years old or
retired due to a total and permanent disability. This policy is in accordance with Minnesota
Statute 435.193-195.
A hardship will be deemed to exist under the following conditions:
I. Senior Citizen
A. The property is the homestead of the owner.
B. The owner is at least 62 years of age.
C. The owner had a gross income of less than $17,350 for a one person household
in the year before the assessment installments for local improvements are to be
certified to County.
If more than one person lives in the household, the income limit will be
increased as shown below:
2 persons 19,850
3 persons 22,300
4 persons 24,800
5 persons 26,800
6 persons 28,750
X.
11. Permanent and Total Disability
A. The property is the homestead of the owner.
B. The owner had a gross income which meets the limit detailed in I.C. above.
C. The owner is retired due to a permanent and total disability which must include
on of the following:
1. Certified as legally blind in both eyes.
2. Loss of both arms at the shoulder.
3. Loss of both legs so close to the hips that no effective artificial limbs can
be used.
2a
4. Complete and permanent paralysis.
5. Total and permanent loss of mental facilities.
6. Any other injury which prevents the owner from working and earning an
income that exceed the limit set forth in 1. C. above.
III. Administration of Deferment Program
A. The City Council will review the income limit for this program when it reviews the
income guidelines for the Housing and Redevelopment Home Improvement Grant
Program. This review usually occurs in early August.
B. Applications for this program are available from the City. Applications must be
submitted before November 30.
C. Applicants must supply the information required on the application and any
supplementary documentation necessary to establish and verify the following:
1. The legal description and property identification number.
2. The street address.
3. That it is homestead property of one acre or less. The only exception is for
those parcels that are five acres or less and which may not be subdivided
without additional public improvements.
4. The description of the improvement.
5. The name of the homestead owner -occupant.
6. That the owner -occupant is over 62 years old.
7. That the property owner retired because of permanent and total disability as
defined in this policy.
8. That paying the special assessment on the ordinary schedule constitutes a
hardship as defined in this policy.
D. Simple interest will accrue for the term of the assessment on any principal of the
special assessment which is deferred. After the term of the assessment expires, no
more interest will accrue.
E. The Finance Director will determine whether an applicant is eligible based upon this
policy and state law.
F. The Finance Director will maintain special assessment deferral records and will
annually update the City Council on deferments approved under this policy.
G. The City will establish a revolving fund to pay the deficiency in bond redemption
installments arising from special assessment deferments. Accrued deferred
installments of special assessments and interest at the time of termination of the
deferment will be paid into this fund.
OR
INFORMATION FROM
CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
DURING 1993
1) Minutes of Nov. 15, 1993 Study Session
2) Information for Nov. 15 Study Session
3) Information for Sept. 20 Council meeting
after August 16 Study meeting
4) Minutes from August 16 Study meeting
5) Information for August 16 Study meeting
6) Minutes of June 21 Public Hearing
7) Information for June 21 Public Hearing
MINUTES
STUDY SESSION
NOVEMBER 15, 1993
A special meeting study session of the Plymouth City Council was called to order by
Deputy Mayor Edson at 5:40 p.m. in the Council Conference Room of the City Center,
3400 Plymouth Blvd., on November 15, 1993.
PRESENT: Councilmembers Edson, Helliwell, and Tierney. Mayor Bergman
arrived at 6:40 p.m.
ABSENT: Councilmember Vasiliou
STAFF PRESENT: City Manager Johnson, Public Works Director Moore, and City
Clerk Rauenhorst
PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT PROJECT - 26TH AVENUE STREET AND TRAIL
IMPROVEMENTS, PROJECT 601
Manager Johnson explained that the purpose of this study session is to discuss the
proposed improvement project on 26th Avenue. He noted that approximately 13 residents
were present at the meeting.
Public Works Director Moore provided a copy of a letter sent to property owners in the
area which answers questions raised at the September 20 Council meeting. He stated that
some of the questions cannot be answered unless the Council authorizes proceeding with
the project so that detailed design can be done. He stated that it is staffs recommendation
that the project proceed in accordance with the reconstruction program.
Director Moore stated that a 32 foot wide street with concrete curb and gutter is
proposed. There would be no parking on either side of the street in order to meet state
aid standards. He stated that assessments would be in accordance with the City's Street
Reconstruction Program, and are estimated at $45.64 per front foot for properties with
access on 26th Avenue, and a curb and gutter assessment rate of $7.76 for properties with
no access on 26th Avenue. He stated an 8 foot sidewalk/trail is proposed along the south
side of the roadway. Director Moore reviewed the letter sent to property owners. He
stated that because of the traffic volumes on the street, the plan indicates the need for a
trail off the traveled roadway to provide the necessary safety for pedestrians along the
street. He noted that in surveys taken of citizens throughout the community over
numerous years, the need for additional sidewalk/trails has been one of the highest
priorities indicated in the survey. He stated that the City received some state aid funds for
Council Study Session °
November 15, 1993
Page 2
construction of the trail improvements if it's done at the same time as the street
improvements.
Director Moore explained the funding for the roadway, as well as the Municipal State Aid
funding. He stated that the recommended roadway with the 32 feet is the width of a
typical residential street throughout the City and provides for one lane of traffic in each
direction with room for a vehicle to be parked along the roadway under emergency
conditions. He stated that if the City Council authorizes proceeding with the project, soil
samples would be taken as part of the detailed design of the improvements. The proposed
improvement would provide curbing on the roadway to provide for the necessary drainage
and eliminate the ditches. In order for the roadway to match existing driveways and
properties, but add a curbing along the street, it would be lowered from its existing
elevation. For this reason much of the existing road base would need to be removed.
Director Moore stated there are no proposed four-way stops as part of the road
improvement project, and excessive speeding should be addressed, if needed, through a
selective enforcement program. He noted that residents had requested a sign indicating
no" or "limited access" to the lake should be posted at Kilmer and 26th Avenue. He
stated that 26th Avenue does intersect with Medicine Lake Boulevard along the lake, as
well as with numerous other residential streets in the area.
There are no signs along Highway 169 indicating there is access to any facilities on
Medicine Lake by using 26th Avenue. He believes that this type of sign would not serve a
useful purpose and would only clutter the street-scape. He noted that it is likely the bus
shelter would need to be moved southerly for the road improvement project. He stated
the interest rate and length of assessment is established by the City Council after a public
hearing on the assessments once the improvement is completed. He stated that in the past
on this type of improvement, the length of time has been over a 15 year period. For
projects constructed in 1993, the interest rate was established at 7 percent. He stated that
the project is proposed to be constructed to best fit within the existing conditions, taking
into account driveways, power poles, and trees on both the north and south side of the
roadway. Until the City Council authorizes proceeding with the project and detailed
design is underway, the City will not have answers to these types of questions.
Councilmember Helliwell questioned the need for the trail since it currently does not
connect to the trail system. She does not believe the trail is needed unless the City has
information as to when it may connect.
Director Moore stated that the trail currently connects to the New Hope sidewalk to the
east. He stated the trail would connect to the west at such time as the Regional Park
District builds the trail system. He noted that this trail is not currently a high priority for
them.
Council Study Session
November 15, 1993
Page 3
A resident in the audience expressed concern that all trees on the north side of 26th
Avenue would be lost due to the moving of the electrical poles.
A 26th Avenue resident stated that if Hennepin County ever extends the trail westerly, it
would be very difficult to do. The trail could come within a few feet of the homes on
some of the properties.
Councilmember Tierney asked if there was a distance between a street and trail. Director
Moore responded that the trail would immediately abut the street.
A resident stated that there currently is no trail to the bridge except a narrow sidewalk
over the bridge to New Hope. Since individuals are not allowed to ride bicycles on the
sidewalks in New Hope, this trail is of little value to residents.
Chuck Lymangood stated that it is unlikely that Plymouth pedestrians would walk over the
Highway 169 bridge to the east. He believes the key to the trail construction is the
eventual connection with the Medicine Lake Trail. He stated that it should be determined
how many trees would be lost with or without the trail improvement.
Manager Johnson stated that the roadway improvements are intended to have a 20 year
life. If the City does not leave space for a trail now, the possibility of doing so may be
foreclosed for at least the next 20 years.
A resident stated that if the trail went along Lancaster Lane, it would direct people into
the park.
Councilmember Helliwell questioned whether the trail could not be installed at a later
time. She noted that a trail was installed along Schmidt Lake Road subsequent to the
street construction and this did not cause a disruption in the neighborhoods.
The Council discussed the proposed assessment rates for the project. Director Moore
noted that the rates are in accordance with the City's Street Reconstruction Policy.
Manager Johnson stated the rates are irrespective of the classification of the street as a
major collector.
A resident stated that they would support a 26 foot street width. This would meet the
Municipal State Aid funding requirements, and would be wider than what currently exists.
It may result in fewer lost trees.
Director Moore stated the current street width varies between 22 and 24 feet. He stated
the traffic volumes will continue to increase in this area. He stated that 8 feet is the
minimum width for a pedestrian trail due to safety.
Council Study Session
November 15, 1993
Page 4
A resident noted that the road should meet the needs and look of the neighborhood. The
residents do not currently believe that the width is unsafe, and they would like the same
width reconstructed.
Councilmember Edson noted that the ditches would be filled in, making the 26 foot width
narrower than currently exists.
Director Moore stated that the Council has received many resident requests at previous
town meetings for the trail construction on 26th Avenue.
Manager Johnson stated that if the City proceeds with the project, the next step would be
to order the preliminary design work. The design would come before the Council for
approval, and specifications for the project would be ordered. If the Council approves the
specifications, bids would be requested. The Council would then make the decision of
whether to award the bid.
Mr. Lymangood stated that the public hearing for this project was held on June 21, and no
residents asked for a trail at that time. He would like to know the number of trees that
would be lost with or without the trail construction so that the Council can make an
informed decision.
A resident in the audience stated that they understand that the project can legally be
stopped by the City Council at various points in the approval process; however, he
questioned how often this actually occurs,
Manager Johnson noted as an example the City Center expansion project which the
Council deferred on the night at which bids were reviewed.
Discussion was held on speeding that occurs on 26th Avenue.
Mayor Bergman arrived at 6:40 p.m.
Residents explained that many individuals drive down 26th Avenue with boats looking for
lake access. They would like to see a sign indicating there is no public access posted.
Director Moore stated that there is no public access on the east side of Medicine Lake.
Hardy's boat rental provides private access.
Councilmember Edson suggested that a sign could be installed at Kilmer Lane and 26th
Avenue directing individuals to the east beach in the park.
Councilmember Edson stated that he believes the difference between constructing a 26
foot and a 32 foot wide roadway is not related to traffic volumes, but to safety.
Council Study Session /
November 15, 1993
Page 5
Manager Johnson stated that the impact of the various widths on trees and utility poles
can be evaluated to determine if a narrower width could suffice.
Councilmember Edson stated he would like to see the roadway staked with a trail and at
26 foot and 32 foot street widths. He would also like to consider the possibility of
burying the power lines.
Director Moore stated that the City would bear the significant cost of burying the power
lines if this was done.
Councilmember Edson stated that affected residents will be notified when this issue comes
before the City Council.
The residents thanked the City Council for including them in this process.
The meeting was adjourned at 6:50 p.m.
City Clerk
Agenda Number:
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
CITY COUNCIL. AGENDA REPORT
DATE: November 9, 1993 For City Council Meeting of November 15, 1993
T0: Dwight Johnson, City Manager
FROM: Fred G. Moore, Director of Public Works
SUBJECT: PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
26TH AVENUE STREET AND TRAIL IMPROVEMENTS
CITY PROJECT NO. 601
The City Council has established a study meeting for November 15, 1993 at
5:30 p.m. to discuss the proposed improvement project on 26th Avenue. I am
attaching a copy of the memorandum and material which I submitted to the
City Council on September 20. Also at that meeting the City Council
received a letter from the property owners which is attached.
When the City Council established the study meeting, they also directed that
staff respond to the questions raised by the property owners in their
September 20 letter and also at the September 20 Council meeting. I am
attaching a copy of a November 4 letter to the property owners providing
answers to the questions which they raised.
After the City Council discusses this item at the study meeting, direction
should be provided to staff on proceeding with the project.
Fred G. Moore, P.E.
FGM:kh
attachment: Memorandum
Material Submitted to Council September 20, 1993
Letters
0
a A
CITY OF
November 4, 1993
PLYMOUTR
PN
Name
Address
SUBJECT: 26TH AVENUE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
HIGHWAY 169 TO MEDICINE RIDGE ROAD
Dear Property Owner:
The City Council will meet at a study meeting on November 15, 1993 at 5:30
p.m. to discuss the proposed improvement project on 26th Avenue. The
meeting will be at the City Center building, 3400 Plymouth Boulevard.
At the September 20 Council meeting I presented my recommendation to the
City Council on the project. You were sent a copy of this recommendation by
letter dated September 10. Also at that Council meeting a letter was
presented from the neighbors along 26th Avenue stating seven concerns or
questions. In this letter I will again state my recommendation to the City
Council and also summarize and answer the questions brought to the City
Council on September 20.
Questions raised and answers are as follows:
1. That there be no bike path or trail as suggested:
The City's adopted Sidewalk/Trail System Plan indicates the
need for a trail along 26th Avenue. This trail will provide
a connection to the existing sidewalks in New Hope and to
the future trail which will be constructed by the Hennepin
Regional Parks along Medicine Lake. Because of the traffic
volumes on the street, the plan indicates the need for a
trail off the traveled roadway to provide the necessary
safety for pedestrians along the street. It is proposed to
construct the trail with the road improvement project in
order that property owners would only have disruption from
construction at one time.
In surveys taken of citizens throughout the community over
numerous years, the need for additional sidewalk/trails has
been one of the highest priorities indicated in the survey.
The need for the trail is not only for the property
immediately along 26th Avenue, but for all of the
pedestrians using the City's trail system on the east side
of Medicine Lake.
We Listen • We Solve • We Care
3400 PLYMOUTH BOULEVARD • PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447 • TELEPHONE (612) 550-5000
2)_
Name
November 4, 1993
Page Two
2. Funding for the roadway and MSA Funding:
At the public improvement hearing in June it was recommended
that the properties with direct driveway access to the
street be assessed the typical cost for a residential
street. This cost was estimated at $98.16 per front foot.
Since this street is part of the City's overall
transportation network and carries traffic in addition to
that generated by the properties immediately in the vicinity
of the street, the street would be constructed to a higher
standard than the typical residential street. Originally,
approximately $201,000 was estimated to be assessed to the
adjacent properties and $238,000 would be paid from the
City's State Aid Fund to finance the additional street costs
for the higher standards.
The major roadways within the City are classified on a State
Aid Transportation System (MSA). With the roadways being on
the system, they must be constructed in accordance with
state aid standards and financing of certain portions of the
road construction are eligible for state aid reimbursement.
The City's Assessment Policy does not differentiate between
residential, industrial, or state aid streets. The policy
is based upon the benefit that the street provides to the
adjacent property. 26th Avenue provides a residential
street benefit since it is used by the adjacent properties
for their driveway access. The funds which the City
receives from state aid are used by the City to pay those
costs over and above the benefit to the property owners
adjacent to the roadway and also for projects on major
streets which the City is required to fund. Examples of
these projects include the installation of traffic signals
and the City's share of costs which must be paid on
improvements to county and state highways.
The City has a Reconstruction Program to rebuild streets to
keep them functioning at a high service level. This program
is funded through assessments to the adjacent properties and
also from general property taxes and funds available in the
City's Public Improvement Fund. We are now recommending
that the properties adjacent to the roadway be assessed in
accordance with the Street Reconstruction Program. Property
owners would pay the cost for the additional improvements
installed, concrete curb and gutter and storm sewer, and the
street reconstruction cost assessed to all residential
properties as part of the program. This cost is estimated
to be $45.64 per front foot, or less than one-half the
original estimated assessment.
Name
November 4, 1993
Page Three
3. Street width is proposed as exists currently with curbs and
improvements as suggested by the City:
When streets are constructed, they are built to a standard
to have a projected life of 20 years before reconstruction
is necessary. For this reason it is proposed that the
street be constructed to a standard which will accommodate
the expected traffic growth for the next 20 year period.
Since this is a state aid street, the state has also set a
minimum standard for the width of the roadway. The minimum
width allowed is 26 feet wide. The current roadway is only
22 feet wide. It cannot be constructed at the same width
and meet state standards.
It is recommended that the roadway be constructed to a width
of 32 feet. This street is the width of our typical
residential streets throughout the city and provides for one
lane of traffic in each direction with room for a vehicle to
be parked along the roadway under emergency conditions.
Vehicles and buses also stop along the roadway and this
allows for traffic to continue moving along the street. A 32
foot wide width will not permit parking on either side of
the street. If parking is to be permitted on one side, the
minimum street width, in accordance with state standards, is
36 feet wide.
4. A soil sample should be taken to determine the existing road
base. If the base is adequate, there should be no need to
lay a new base.
If the City Council authorizes proceeding with the project,
soil samples will be taken as part of the detailed design of
the improvements. The existing roadway was constructed to a
rural standard before residential development of this area.
This road was a former County road. A rural type roadway
has ditches along either side to provide drainage for the
road and the adjacent properties. The proposed improvement
will provide curbing on the roadway to provide for the
necessary drainage and eliminate the ditches. In order for
the roadway to match existing driveways and properties, but
add a curbing along the street, it will be lowered from its
existing elevation. For this reason, much of the existing
road base will need to be removed. If the road base is of
sufficient quality to meet current road building standards,
it will be incorporated in the new improvements.
0
Name
November 4, 1993
Page Four
5. The proposed four-way stop at Pilgrim should be moved to
Nathan.
There is no proposed four-way stops as part of the road
improvement project.
6. An effective method of speed control is needed.
Numerous traffic studies throughout the nation have
indicated that 85Z of the motorists will drive at a speed
which they perceive as reasonable and safe along a roadway.
By posting speed limits on a street at an unreasonable low
level it does not slow the motorists, but only makes them
violators of the traffic laws. On 26th Avenue where there
are numerous driveways and street intersections along with
pedestrians, it tends to lower the speed of traffic. If
there is excessive speeding on this roadway, a selective
enforcement program is the proper method to control
speeding.
7. A sign indicating no, or limited access to the lake should
be posted by Kilmer and 26th.
26th Avenue does intersect with Medicine Lake Boulevard
along the lake along with numerous other residential streets
within the area. There are no signs along Highway 169
indicating that there is access to any facilities on
Medicine Lake by using 26th Avenue. This type of sign would
not serve a useful purpose and would only clutter the street
scape.
8. Will the bus shelter have to be moved?
It is likely that the bus shelter would need to be moved
southerly for the road improvement project. There is still
ample land owned by the City within the public right-of-way
to locate the bus shelter behind the southerly curb and
adjacent to the proposed trail.
9. What is the interest rate on the assessments and the length
of time to pay the assessment?
The interest rate and time to pay the assessment is
established by the City Council at an additional public
hearing held after the improvement is completed. In the
past on this type of improvement the length of time has been
over a 15 year period. The interest rate varies with the
current interest rate borrowed to finance the construction
of the project. For projects constructed in 1993 the
interest rate was established at 7X.
Name
November 4, 1993
Page Five
10. What is the effect on individual driveways and will the
electric poles have to be moved?
The project is proposed to be constructed to best fit within
the existing conditions taking into account driveways, power
poles, and trees on both the north and south side of the
roadway. Until the City Council authorizes proceeding with
the project and detailed design is undertaken, we do not
have answers to these questions. The project will be
designed to provide a best fit for all of these conditions
if possible. After the detailed plans are prepared, they
will be available for review by the adjacent properties. As
part of the construction project, all areas would be
restored to their existing conditions. For example, the
removal of any existing bituminous driveway would be
replaced with a new bituminous driveway. If the driveway is
only gravel, it would be replaced with gravel. The
boulevard area would be sodded to match the undisturbed area
adjacent to the road.
I believe adjacent property owners are in concurrence that improvements are
necessary to 26th Avenue. I will be recommending to the City Council at the
meeting on November 15 that they authorize the project for construction
based upon the following recommendation:
o The street be constructed to a width of 32 feet wide face to
face of concrete curb.
o Concrete curb and gutter be installed on the roadway along
with drainage improvements for the street.
o The pedestrian trail/sidewalk be constructed immediately
adjacent to the curb on the southerly side of the roadway
and eight feet wide.
o That the estimated assessments for the adjacent properties
that receive driveway access to 26th Avenue be established
at $45.64 per foot of frontage along the street.
o Properties that do not use the street for access would have
an estimated assessment for the concrete curb and gutter of
7.76 per front foot.
Name
November 4, 1993
Page Six
The purpose of the November 15 study meeting is for the City Councilmembers
to discuss the concerns they have received from residents, the project costs
and recommendations, get answers to their questions, and determine whether
to proceed with the improvements on 26th Avenue.
If you have any questions previous to
the meeting to hear the City Council
contact me (550-5080).
Sincerely,
Fred G. Moore
Director of Public Works
FGM:kh
the meeting or are unable to attend
discussion, please do not hesitate to
2)
0
09/20/93
The Neighborhood Representation
26th Ave N.. Plymouth.
Plymouth City Council
Mr Mayor,
In a neighborhood meeting held 09/07/93 at the Lueck household
the following discussions were held to suggest resolution to the
improvement proposals made by the Plymouth City Council and
discussed at several meetings between the neighborhood and the
City Council.
1. That there be no bike path or trail as suggested. The
neighborhood has determined several reasons not to have a path
or trail as follows:
That there seems to be no source for a trail coming on to
this street and nowhere for it to go.
That the trail will have to cross 26th and Kilmer.
That the immediate businesses that exist on 26th are on the
south side.
That when the Boulevard was put. in the trail was meant. to
run along the lake front.
That there was concern of potential increased vandalism to
properties and subsequent increased insurance premiLums as a
r esu It .
2. A great deal of concern was expressed as to who pays For what
for this improvement. We were originally lead to believe that
we would only be assessed the non -funded portion of the
improvement.. Mr Moore indicated that we would be assessed the
full amount and MSA funding would pay for signs et.c.. This
needs to be clarified in writing.
3. Street width is proposed as exists currently with curbs and
improvements as suggested by the City of Plymouth.
4. A soil sample should be taken to determine the existing road
base. If the base is adequate there should be no need to lay a
new base.
5. The proposed 4 way stop at Pilgrim should be moved to Nathan.
6. An effective method of speed control is needed.
i. A sign indicating no or limited access to the lake should be
posted by Kilmer and 26th. An alternative route down Kilmer or
Lancaster might be indicated.
These are the representative needs of the neighborhood as
represented at the meeting below.
Mr and Ms D Sather Mr R Fynn Mr and Ms T Zaun
MC R Asp Ms C Hurley Mr D Lewicki
Mr and Ms M Olson Mr and Ms S. Reid Ms I Linnell
Mr and Ms J Fries Mr S Fries Mr and Ms J Horn
Mr and Ms Lueck Ms and Ms C Peterson Mr W Kloster
Mr A. Eaumgart Mr and Ms B Thompson
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Agenda Number:
I— A 9
DATE: September 14, 1993 For City Council Meeting of September 20, 1993
TO: Dwight Johnson, City Manager
FROM: Fred G. Moore, Director of Public Works
SUBJECT: PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT HEARING
26TH AVENUE STREET AND TRAIL IMPROVEMENTS
CITY PROJECT NO. 601
ACTION REQUESTED: Adopt the attached resolution ordering the improvement
project and the preparation of the plans and specifications. The resolution
provides the following:
1. The street width would be 32 feet wide.
2. The trail will be eight feet wide along the south boulevard.
3. Option 3 (standard
900
intersection) shall be used for the
intersection of Medicine Ridge Road and 26th Avenue.
Since this project was not petitioned by the adjacent property owners and in
accordance with the Minnesota law governing special assessments, it will require
a vote of four Councilmembers to proceed with the project.
BACKGROUND: On June 21 the City Council held a public improvement hearing to
consider the proposed improvement of 26th Avenue between State Highway 169 and
Medicine Ridge Road. Attached is a copy of the information which the City
Council received at that public improvement hearing and the minutes of the public
hearing. At the conclusion of the public hearing the City Council directed a
meeting be held with staff, the property owners, and the City Council to discuss
the concerns raised during the public hearing. Also attached is a copy of the
minutes from that meeting which was Yield on August 16.
The project as originally proposed was for a street 36 feet wide with a ten foot
pedestrian trail along the north side of the road. This width of street would
provide for parking on one side of the street. 26th Avenue is part of the City's
Municipal State Aid (M.S.A.) system and its width and construction standard must
meet requirements set by the Minnesota Department of Transportation. A majority
of the project cost is proposed to be funded with M.S.A. Funds. At the public
hearing the estimated assessments for the residential properties which have
direct driveway access to the street were estimated at $98.16 per front foot.
Those properties with no direct access had an estimated cost of $8 per front foot
for concrete curb and gutter. These estimated assessments were based upon the
costs for a residential street.
O
SUBJECT: PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT HEARING
26TH AVENUE STREET AND TRAIL IMPROVEMENTS
September 14, 1993
Page Two
Attached is a copy of a memorandum dated August 16 which I prepared on alternate
assessment methods. This memorandum compares the project costs against
assessments based on new residential streets and also assessments based on the
City's Street Reconstruction Policy. Costs are also compared for street widths
of 26 feet wide, 32 feet wide, and 36 feet wide. If a street 32 feet wide was
constructed and based upon assessments in accordance with the Street
Reconstruction Policy, the overall project funding would be as follows:
Project cost $416,631
Assessed 96,204
City M.S.A. 320,427
The estimated assessment rate for a residential street under the Street
Reconstruction Policy at a width of 32 feet with concrete curb and gutter and
storm sewer is $46.64 per front foot. A street width of 32 feet wide does not
provide for parking on either side of the street. If parking is to be provided
on one side, the street must have a minimum width of 36 feet. The estimated rate
for this width of street is $52.80. Also, properties with no direct access to
the street are still proposed to be assessed $7.76 per front foot for concrete
curb and gutter.
RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS: I believe adjacent property owners are in
concurrence that improvements are necessary to 26th Avenue. I would recommend
that the City Council order the project for construction by adopting the attached
resolution which contains the following conditions:.
o The street be constructed to a width of 32 feet wide face to face
of concrete curb.
o Concrete curb and gutter be installed on the roadway along with
drainage improvements for the street.
o The pedestrian trail/sidewalk be constructed, immediately adjacent
to the curb on the southerly side of the roadway and be eight
feet wide.
o That the estimated assessments for the adjacent properties that
receive driveway access to 26th Avenue be established at $45.64
per foot of frontage along the street.
o Properties that do not use the street for access would have an
estimated assessment for the concrete curb and gutter of $7.76
per front foot.
3)
SUBJECT: PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT HEARING
26TH AVENUE STREET AND TRAIL IMPROVEMENTS
September 14, 1993
Page Three
I have sent a letter to the adjacent property owners giving them my
recommendation to the City Council and informing them that this item will be
considered by the City Council at the September 20 Council meeting.
Fred G. Moore, P.E.
FGM:kh
attachments: Resolution
Council Information
Minutes
Memorandum
0
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
RESOLUTION NO. 93 -
ORDERING IMPROVEMENT AND PREPARATION OF
PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS
26TH AVENUE
STREET IMPROVEMENT
CITY PROJECT NO. 601
WHEREAS, On the 7th day of June, 1993 the City Council adopted a resolution which fixed
a date for a public hearing with respect to the improvements to 26th Avenue from State
Highway 169 to Medicine Ridge Road; and
WHEREAS, the proposed project included the installation of 36 foot wide 9 -ton roadway
with concrete curb and gutter, storm sewer, and a 10 foot wide bituminous trail and all
necessary appurtenances; and
WHEREAS, ten days published notice of the hearing through two week publications of the
required notice was given and the hearing was held thereon the 21st day of June, 1993,
at which time all persons desiring to be heard were given an opportunity to be heard
thereon;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PLYMOUTH,
MINNESOTA:
1. Such improvement is hereby ordered as proposed in the Council resolution adopted
June 7, 1993, with the following changes:
1. The trail shall be 8' wide along the south boulevard.
2. The street shall be 32' wide face to face of curb.
3. Option 3 shall be used for the intersection of Medicine Ridge Road.
4. That pending assessments be established at $45.64/ft. for properties with
driveway access and $7.76/ft. for properties with no driveway access.
2. Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik and Associates, Inc. is designated as engineer for
the improvement. They shall prepare plans and specifications for the making of
such improvement.
Adopted by the City Council on September 20, 1993.
O
MINUTES
STUDY SESSION
AUGUST 16, 1993
A special meeting study session of the Plymouth City Council was called to order by
Mayor Bergman at 5:00 p.m. on August 16, 1993. The meeting was held at the
intersection of 26th Avenue North and Nathan Lane, with residents of the area in
attendance.
PRESENT: Mayor Bergman, Councilmembers Edson, Helliwell, and Vasiliou
ABSENT: Councilmember Tierney
STAFF PRESENT: City Manager Johnson, Assistant City Manager Lueckert, Public
Works Director Moore, City Engineer Faulkner, Senior
Engineering Tech. Campbell, and representatives of the City's
engineering consultants Bonestroo-Rosene-Anderlik and Associates
26TH AVENUE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
The Council met at the intersection of 26th Avenue and Nathan Lane with residents of the
area to discuss the proposed 26th Avenue Improvement Project, from Highway 169 to
Medicine Ridge Road.
The Council viewed the staked location of the proposed 32' roadway and discussed the
construction alternatives. The Council felt the location of the staked roadway was
appropriate and that curb and gutter is needed, but several concerns about the trail
location were noted.
Mayor Bergman suggested that the trail either needs to be constructed on the south with
the road moved northerly, or a narrower trail.should be considered.
Councilmember Helliwell expressed concerns about the extensive retaining wall that
would be required if the trail were installed on the north side.
Staff was directed to report back on the issues relating to the street width, option for a
narrower and/or on -street trail, amounts of proposed assessments, and whether the post
office will allow mailboxes to be moved.
Council Study Session
August 16, 1993
Page 2
hof
Public Works Director Moore explained that no parking wouldAbe allowed with the 32'
wide street under the State Aid standards. Parking could be allowed on one side with a
36' width. He discussed the options forthe spThe heavy t affic on 26th Avenue
wouldosed
trail, and recommended that a trail s
needed to accommodate bikers and pedestrian
make an on -street trail difficult and possibly unsafe for pedestrians.
The meeting was adjourned at 6:00 p.m.
CitClerk
0
MEMO
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
3400 PLYMOUTH BOULEVARD, PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447
DATE: August 16, 1993
TO: Dwight Johnson, City Avenue
FROM: Fred G. Moore, Director of Public Works
SUBJECT: 26TH AVENUE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
CITY PROJECT NO. 601
On June 21, 1993, the City Council held a public improvement hearing to consider
improvements to 26th Avenue between Medicine Ridge Road and Highway 169. The
street was proposed to be improved to an urban collector street standard with a
ten foot wide bituminous trail along the north side of the street. At the
conclusion of the public hearing the City Council deferred any further action on
the project until meeting with property owners at the site and giving the project
further consideration.
The City staff and consultant were requested to investigate street widths other
than the proposed 36 foot wide street. A 36 foot wide street allows for one
traffic lane in each direction and parking on one side of the street. This street
is classified on our Municipal State Aid (MSA) system and therefore the street
must be constructed in accordance with State Aid standards. The minimum street
width that is permitted is 26 foot wide which is one traffic lane in each
direction. On a 26 foot wide street parking must be prohibited on both sides. A
32 foot wide street would still only permit one traffic lane in each direction,
but allows space for a vehicle to be stopped or stalled along the roadway and for
two vehicles to still pass each other in their traffic lane. On a 32 foot wide
road parking has to be prohibited on both sides.
At the public improvement hearing the City staff estimated the assessment amount
to the residential properties at $98.16 per front foot. This was based upon the
City's Assessment Policy for one half the cost to construct the roadway to a
residential street standard with concrete curb and gutter 36 feet wide. 26th
Avenue is classified as a "collector" street and serves the residential area along
the east side of Medicine Lake. Existing traffic counts are approximately 4,200
vehicles per day and the 20 year traffic projections indicate approximately 8,000
vehicles per day.
Attached is a project cost estimate based upon three street widths:
26 feet wide
32 feet wide
36 feet wide
The first heading on the attachment indicates total project cost for the various
width streets. The second heading are assessment rates per front foot if the
assessments were based upon new residential street standards for the cost to
construct the street.
0
SUBJECT: 26TH AVENUE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
August 16, 1993
Page Two
We have also prepared an alternate assessment method based upon the City's street
reconstruction policy. There are four components that go into the total estimated
assessment rate, they are:
o Reconstruction rate per single family unit
o Curb and gutter
o Storm sewer
o Street widening
Based upon this method the estimated assessment rate would be $45.64 per front
foot of property for a 32 foot wide street. There are also five properties which
would only be assessed for concrete curb and gutter ($7.76 per foot) which do not
have driveway access to the street.
If this reconstruction policy were used to determine assessments, a summary of the
cost for a 32 foot wide street is as follows:
Project cost $416,631
Assessed 96.204
City MSA 320,427
It is the City staff's recommendation that the minimum street width be 32 feet
wide. Although this does not permit parking on the street, it does allow space
for vehicles to maneuver if a vehicle is stalled or stopped along the roadway.
This recommendation is based upon existing and projected traffic volumes for this
collector street.
A pedestrian trail is also proposed for construction along the north side of the
street. This trail was recently added to the City's Adopted Trail System Plan.
The need for a trail off the roadway was recognized because of the existing and
projected traffic volumes on 26th Avenue and it is not safe for pedestrian traffic
to walk in the street. The City Council has heard comments from citizens at town
meetings on the need for a trail along 26th Avenue. Also, this trail would
connect with the existing walkway system in New Hope on the east side of Highway
169. In the future after the Park District constructs the regional trail along
East Medicine Lake Boulevard, the final connection would be made to that trail.
It is City staff recommendation that the street be constructed to a width of 32
foot with the trail on the north side. We further recommend that the assessments
be based on the street reconstruction policy.
FGM:kh
attachments
0 -
Assessments Based on Street Reconstruction Policv
1. $880/Single Family unit x 23 units = $20,240
20,240 + 2,592 frontage (LF) = $7.81/front foot
2. Curb & Gutter
7.76/front ft.
3. Storm Sewer
See previous per front foot cost for various widths.
4. Widening: Cost = $2.43/sq. ft.
Cost Per Assessment
Centerline
PROJECT COST
Street Storm Sewer Trail Total
26' wide 9 ton) No Parking) 296,615 59,655 19,280 375,550
32' wide 9 ton) No Parking) 337,796 59,655 19,280 416,631
36' wide 9 ton) One Side Parking) 360,565 59,655 19,280 439,505
Assessments Based on New Residential Street
Assessment Assessment
2,592') Per Per Front Total
Street Front Foot Storm Sewer Foot Assessment
26' wide 7 ton) 208,565 80.46/ft. 35,281 13.61/ft. 97.07/ft.
32' wide 7 ton) 223,786 86.33/ft. 38,079 14.69/ft. 101.02/ft.
36' wide 7 ton) 238,867 92.16/ft. 40,710 15.71/ft. 107.87/ft.
Assessments Based on Street Reconstruction Policv
1. $880/Single Family unit x 23 units = $20,240
20,240 + 2,592 frontage (LF) = $7.81/front foot
2. Curb & Gutter
7.76/front ft.
3. Storm Sewer
See previous per front foot cost for various widths.
4. Widening: Cost = $2.43/sq. ft.
Cost Per Assessment
Centerline 2,5921) Per
Widen Foot Front Foot
From 22' to 26' 9.73/ft. 6.15/ft.
From 22' to 32' 24.30/ft. 15.38/ft.
From 22' to 36' 34.02/ft. 21.52/ft.
5. Assessment Summary of 1-4
26' wide
32' wide
36' wide
Reconstruction
7.81
7.81
7.81
c & G S.S. Widening
7.76 13.61 6.15
7.76 14.69 15.38
7.76 15.71 21.52
Total
35.33/front ft.
45.64/front ft.
52.80/front ft.
0
o _
iR----------
99-oz-9D9-Dz-9 Gill
1 -
LC VVC IC.— y W s
N
N u
z
I I LI __ W•
Oi. I ICI !! !.•_.
r ...
i
I
U
O -
a
9L ID
1001
r
a r .I ..
I
09 L -.P,vio
t Z • , 7N
A loot I 001- --
L61 '
A QQ
O p
N
Ln a
961 O 1
001
001N ^'
4 s53 - rn
I _
o rn
001 ;00 961
h .(0-
2D SAI
o
v
9 *S61
1
1
ool 1 OO AM-•
001 aouL 1 M Fei ` • //''''
p n Nom(
H.
44
c•Ic i
C)
ooz
ILO
Non"
Ile/
1
1SdZ'
g..
B Y O AR
z
1
j bait1$ l
f 1•
a r,
1`^
R
N ; v
1- - - -.,.,- •
I
tt^ t
P v
44k
61i
N2;N N
yr,
90.ON 'ADZ
Q
o Q
WWI
v
p
fl !Ol i0 1Mrd o ao 1 I
v
V
N
q.611 611
i
o _
iR----------
99-oz-9D9-Dz-9 Gill
1 -
LC VVC IC.— y W s
N
N u
z
I I LI __ W•
Oi. I ICI !! !.•_.
r ...
i
I
U
O -
a
9L ID
1001
r
a r .I ..
I
09 L -.P,vio
t Z • , 7N
A loot I 001- --
L61 '
A QQ
O p
N
Ln a
961 O 1
001
001N ^'
4 s53 - rn
I _
o rn
001 ;00 961
h .(0-
2D SAI
o
v
9 *S61
1
1
ool 1 OO AM-•
001 aouL 1 M Fei ` • //''''
p n Nom(
H.
44
c•Ic i
C)
ooz
ILO
Non"
Ile/
1
1SdZ'
O
Regular Council Meeting
June 21, 1993
Page 11
1 flp nk watermain adjacent to I-494, approximately 350 north ounty Road 6
and adja nt to Fernbrook Lane, from County Road 6 south he Luce Line trail.
The extensi of the watermain north of County Road 6 serve Outlot B of the
Wagner Spray h Addition located in the northeas uadrant of County Road 6
and Fernbrook Lane. o additional right -of --way quisition was necessary for this
project. The estimated tal project costis $ ,304, with $10,096.50 proposed
to be assessed.
Mayor Bergman opened the publi earing on Project No. 311, Fernbrook Lane
trunk watermain improvement t 7: p.m. No one appeared, and the hearing
was closed.
Motion was made Councilmember Vasiliou, conded by Councilmember
Edson, to adop SOLUTION NO.93-346 O R IMPROVEMENT AND
PREPA ON OF PLANS AND SPECIFICAT S, FERNBROOK
LANE,TRUNK WATERMAIN, CITY PROJECT NO -.411
ion carried on a roll call vote, five ayes.
ITEM 7-11-2 26TH AVENUE STREET IMPROVEMENTS, PROJECT 601
City Engineer Faulkner described the proposed 26th Avenue street and trail
improvements, Project No. 601. The proposed project involves construction of a
36 -foot wide nine -ton bituminous street with concrete curb and gutter, storm
sewer, and a 10 -foot wide bituminous trail on 26th Avenue from Highway 169 to
Medicine Ridge Road. The estimated total project cost is $439,500, with
201,506.80 proposed to be assessed.
Engineer Faulkner stated that East Medicine Lake Boulevard/26th Avenue, Project
No. 601, was originally designated as part of the 1986 Capital Improvement
Program. The project was proposed to improve East Medicine Lake Boulevard
from 36th Avenue to East Medicine Ridge Road and 26th Avenue from East
Medicine Ridge Road to Highway 169. The scope of the project in 1986 included
the need for a Hennepin Parks regional trail along the East Medicine Lake
Boulevard alignment, adjacent to the proposed improvement. Hennepin Parks has
yet to complete the acquisition of the properties necessary to construct the trail.
The Assessment Committee, in 1986, considered the preliminary engineering
report and recommended that this project be delayed until the properties for the
trail were purchased so that the street improvements and trail improvements could
be constructed at the same time. He stated the City staff feels that the 26th
Avenue portion of the project needs to be constructed now. Engineer Faulkner
showed slides of the area and noted the lack of curb and gutter, narrow shoulders,
and ditches that cannot adequately handle storm water. In addition, the City Trail
Plan shows the need for an off-street trail along 26th Avenue. Staff is also
Regular Council Meeting
June 21, 1993
Page 12
concerned that additional roadway maintenance will be required if the project is
not reconstructed.
Shawn D. Gustafson, and Dan Edgerton, with Bonestroo Rosene Anderlik &
Associates, the consulting engineers for the project, described the proposed
improvements. Mr. Gustafson stated that the current 22 -foot wide street would be
expanded to 36 feet. He described the proposed storm sewer, trail; and retaining
wall improvements. The trail is proposed for construction on the north side of the
road as the topography does not show an easy alternative for the trail. A modular
retaining wall is proposed abutting the trail to lessen the impact on adjacent
properties on the north side. If the trail were constructed on the south side of the
roadway, it would have a greater impact on the abutting properties and a fence
would likely be required. Mr. Gustafson stated that this is a state aid street and
certain construction requirements must be met in order to be eligible for MSA
reimbursement. He stated that two options for construction of the intersection of
26th Avenue and Medicine Ridge Road would likely meet the requirements for
MSA reimbursement. The first option is a modification of the existing alignment
with improved turning movements. The intersection would be controlled with
four-way stop signs and includes an unrestricted right turn movement for
wetbound to northbound traffic. The second option would not change the existing
alignment and the intersection would be controlled with four-way stop signs.
Mr. Gustafson stated that the 10 -foot wide bituminous trail constructed along the
north side of 26th Avenue would be located immediately behind the curb. The
existing power poles along the north side of 26th Avenue would be relocated to
two feet behind the curb within the bituminous trail pavement.
Councilmember Helliwell noted that in the past the Council has approved a
reconstruction width of 28 feet. She asked if that option was considered.
Public Works Director Moore stated this project is not part of the reconstruction
program. The Council has approved reduced widths on reconstructed residential
streets, however, this is a collector street. It also must be built to a minimum 36
foot width in order to meet the minimum standards for MSA reimbursement. He
stated the only way to reduce the width would be to prohibit parking on both sides
of the street in order to meet state aid standards.
Councilmember Helliwell asked how staff would propose to assess residents for
the wider street.
Director Moore stated that under city policy, residents would be assessed for a
standard residential street (7 -ton, 36 foot wide). This street would be a 9 -ton
street and the difference would be paid through state aid funds. The curb and
gutter costs would also be assessed. The City Council would determine the
Regular Council Meeting
June 21, 1993
Page 13
assessments at a future assessment hearing. He stated that about 50% of the
project cost is estimated to be assessed and the remainder would be paid through
state aid funds. These properties have never been assessed for street construction
as the street was originally constructed as a county road.
Councilmember Vasiliou asked what criteria is used to select streets for
reconstruction.
Director Moore stated this is not proposed as part of the street reconstruction
program. It is proposed as a separate project because the properties have never
been assessed for street improvements. Properties that have paid for roadway
improvements would be assessed under the street reconstruction program.
Councilmember Vasiliou stated that residents should not be informed by staff that
they will be assessed for one improvement only. She cited examples of other
improvement projects where properties have been assessed for more than one
street. She asked if the Council could assess this proposed project on a 70/30
formula, similar to a street reconstruction program project.
Director Moore stated the Council could make that decision at the assessment
hearing. At this hearing the City Council should determine whether to move
forward with the project.
Councilmember Helliwell stated she is uncomfortable moving ahead with the
project when the assessment formulas have not been determined.
Mayor Bergman stated the Council could table this issue in order to do further
research on the assessment options.
Councilmember Helliwell stated the option of building the street to city standards,
rather than state aid standards, could also be considered.
Director Moore stated that both standards require a similar depth. The width is
the criteria that would change.
Mayor Bergman opened a public improvement hearing on 26th Avenue street
improvements, Project 601, at 8:07 p.m.
Richard Finn, 9930 26th Avenue North, represented a neighborhood group
concerned about the proposed assessments for the project. He stated that in
addition to the assessment cost, residents are concerned with retention of trees on
the north side of the street and the proposed street widening. They are concerned
that the traffic volume and speed will increase if the street is widened. They do not
disagree that the street is in need of repair. The neighborhood also does not feel
Regular Council Meeting
June 21, 1993
Page 14
the trail is necessary, particularly since Hennepin County has not determined that it
will connect to the future Hennepin County trail. He asked if the grade of the road
will be dropped from east to west to improve drainage.
Director Moore stated that the drainage issues would be addressed in the detailed
design stage.
Engineer Gustafson explained the preliminary design grade proposed for the
project.
Mr. Finn invited the Councilmembers to visit the area. He stated the residents
would like the Council to consider the option of not changing the existing
alignment so as to have the least impact on the properties. They would like the
width of the roadway reduced further if possible. He stated the neighbors feel that
the street width need not be the same as Medicine Lake Extension on the other
side of Highway 169. He suggested the speed limit be reduced to 25 mph and that
a sign be erected to indicate there is no access to Medicine Lake.
Mr. Finn stated that the Council should protect the trees and that property values
should be maintained or increased as a result of the project. He stated that some
of the lot sizes indicated on the proposed assessments are not accurate, and
requested further time to study this issue.
Mayor Bergman stated there appear to be a number of issues that the Council must
address before ordering the project. He suggested that a meeting of Council, staff,
and the neighborhood be held at the site to discuss these issues.
Duane Sather, 9800 26th Avenue North, stated he is opposed to the cost of the
project and the impact on the residences. He noted the number of vehicles using
the roadway and stated that it would become an alternative commuting route to
Highway 169.
Ruth Lueck, .9710 26th Avenue North, expressed concern about the effect of the
project on property values. She requested that each resident be notified of the
meeting that will be held in the area with the Councilmembers.
Bill Thompson, 9640 26th Avenue North, stated that his assessment is proposed to
be $16,700. He questioned whether the City will have increased maintenance
costs if the project is not constructed at this time. He had spoken with the city
street supervisor who indicated that no major repair work has been done on this
road in the last five years.
Mayor Bergman closed the public hearing at 8:25 p.m.
RN
Regular Council Meeting
June 21, 1993
Page 15
MOTION was made by Mayor Bergman, seconded by Councilmember Helliwell,
to table the 26th Avenue street and trail improvements, Project No. 601, and to
direct staff to establish a meeting with the Council, staff, and neighborhood at the
site to discuss issues raised during the public hearing.
Motion carried on a roll call vote, five ayes.
308 0
City ineer Faulkner described the proposed improvements to Du rk Lane,
Project 308. The project consists of the reconstruction of Du rk Lane from
proposed Co ty Road 9 to Old Rockford Road to a 44-40 foot ide bituminous
street with conc to curb and gutter, storm sewer, sanitary sew e , and trunk
watermain, along ' an 8 -foot wide bituminous trail on the st side of the
proposed alignment. stated that the new County Road 9 roject No. 310,
consists of the construct' of future County Road 9 from 'ghway 55 to
Vicksburg Lane. The const ction will consist of a 52-fo t wide to a 74 -foot wide
section of street with concrete urb and gutter, concret medians wit4 turn lanes,
storm sewer, a stubbed portion o anitary sewer for ture connection, and trunk
watermain, along with an 8 -foot wi bituminous tr it along the south side of the
alignment. He stated that the estimat total cost f the projects is $3,192,070.
Mayor Bergman opened the public improv t hearing on Dunkirk Lane, Project
No. 308, and new County Road 9, Project A310, at 8:30 p.m.
Dave Sellergren and Bill Pritchard repre nted O 'n Thompson Homes. Mr.
Sellergren stated he is opposed to the toposed me pd of assessment for the
project and does not believe that the o projects sho Id be assessed together.
Public Works Director Moor/
ectt,,
ed there is currently no al proposal for the
assessment method for the pr:
BillRinggenberg, 1607 B ck Oaks Place, represented the chur'okproperty. He
stated that the church ' be donating .7 acres for the Dunkirk La roject and
1.8 acres for the Cou y Road 9 project. They believe this is a genet donation
and it should be co idered in the assessment formula. He stated that if a project
is assessed on a ont footage basis, rather than per lot, the church will be fa ed
with very high ssessments. He requested that the Council consider assessing e
project on er lot basis and that the donation of land be considered a credit in t
amount o 135,000.
Helliwell asked if the City policy for assessing corner lots would
in this case.
Ele
D
Z _
CITY OF PLYMOUTH
Agenda Number:
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
DATE: June 15, 1993 For City Council Meeting of June 21, 1993
T0: Dwight Johnson, City Manager Through Fred G. Moore, Director of
Public Works
FROM: Daniel L. Faulkner, City Engineer
SUBJECT: PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT HEARING
26TH AVENUE STREET AND TRAIL IMPROVEMENTS
CITY PROJECT NO. 601
ACTION REQUESTED: Adopt the attached resolution ordering the improvement
project and preparation of plans and specifications.
BACKGROUND: The City Council has established a public improvement hearing for
the above project on June 21, 1993. Attached is the informational handout
materials for the public hearing.
Since the Council accepted the Preliminary Engineering Report, the Park and
Recreation Department has requested that trail improvements along 26th Avenue be
considered as part of this street improvement project. The City's consulting
engineer has estimated the additional cost for a 10 foot wide bituminous trail
behind the curb along the north side of 26th Avenue from Kilmer Lane to Medicine
Ridge Road to cost $19,284. The cost for the 10 foot wide bituminous trail would
be funded through the Park Dedication Fund and is not part of the estimated
assessment rates received by the benefiting properties along 26th Avenue. Since
the notices were mailed out, we have received many calls in reference to the
project cost and/or objections to the trail improvements. Residents have cited
concerns about the lack of room for a wider road and trail improvements along 26th
Avenue. Many comments addressed the proposed widening and the potential for
creating steeper driveways along the north side of 26th Avenue. Along with the
heavy traffic and excessive speeds, residents feel access in and out will be very
difficult.
BUDGET IMPACT: The total cost of the improvement including the proposed trail is
estimated at $439,500. State Aid funding will cover the cost of the street
improvement not assessed and approximately 50Z of the trail improvement. At the
current estimated assessment rates for street improvements proposed assessments
amount to $201,507 or about one half of the costs.
RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS: I recommend that the City Council adopt the
attached resolution ordering the project and directing the consulting engineer to
proceed with plans and specifications for construction of the improvement.
Daniel L. Faulkner, P.E.
DLF:dkc:do
attachments: Resolution
Informational Handout Materials
Public Improvement-
Hear -in g
Zto Avc ImPr-ovemen+s
Cl*+,,/ Projetc+ No. 601
Ac3en8o, Idem 7.f3.2
5
AGENDA FOR PUBLIC HEARING
26TH AVENUE
CITY PROJECT NO. 601
JUNE 21, 1993 - 7:00 P.M.
1. Call to Order - Mayor Bergman presiding, 7:00 p.m. at the City Council Chambers.
2. Introduce Councilmembers, Staff and Consultant - Mayor Bergman.
3. Purpose of meeting - Kim M. Bergman, Mayor.
a. The Council and staff, after careful consideration, have decided to consider
the installation of improvements to the area listed above.
b. Our citizens will have an opportunity to question these proposed improvements
and express their views.
4. The meeting was carefully and thoroughly announced in three ways:
a. Notices were published in the Plymouth Sailor as required by law.
b. Written notice was mailed to each property owner in the improvement area as
shown by the records of the Hennepin County Auditor's tax statement mailing
list.
C. Announcements and discussions at Council meetings.
5. The procedure for the hearing will be as follows:
a. Write name and address on blue card.
b. Pass card to person collecting them or give them to the Mayor.
c. When your name is called, come up to the microphone.
d. Please speak clearly into the microphone so that all may benefit from your
remarks.
e. No one may speak twice until all others who wish to have done so. Please
give your name and address each time you speak.
6. Description of project:
a. Assessment policies and procedures - Fred G. Moore, Director of Public Works
b. Project description and cost - Daniel L. Faulkner, City Engineer
PUBLIC HEARING INFORMATION SHEET
26TH AVENUE
STREET AND TRAIL IMPROVEMENTS
CITY PROJECT NO. 601
JUNE 21. 1993 - - 7:00 p.m.
I. GENERAL
L
The public hearing will discuss the aspects of the proposed project together with
the estimated costs thereof. This handout will help explain the costs related to
the proposed construction.
II. SCOPE
The proposed project involves construction of a 36 foot wide 9 ton bituminous
street with concrete curb and gutter, storm sewer, and a 10 foot wide bituminous
trail on 26th Avenue from State Highway 169 to Medicine Ridge Road.
A. Street. Curb and Gutter
The proposed street improvements consist of constructing 26th Avenue as a 36
foot wide, 9 ton design bituminous section roadway with surmountable concrete
curb and gutter from State Highway 169 to Medicine Ridge Road. This section
provides for a two lane undivided roadway. Improvements are planned for the
intersection of 26th Avenue and Medicine Ridge Road providing a four-way
stop, but with a free turning movement from westbound 26th Avenue onto
northbound Medicine Ridge Road.
B. Storm Sewer
The proposed storm sewer improvements consist of installation of storm sewer
piping as required with an urban street section and the replacement of a
culvert at the intersection of 26th Avenue and Lancaster Lane.
C. Trail
A 10 foot wide bituminous trail is proposed to be constructed from Kilmer
Lane to Medicine Ridge Road behind the curb along the north side of 26th
Avenue. Retaining walls would be constructed to protect trees and maintain
desirable slopes.
III. COST ESTIMATE AND PROPOSED ASSESSMENTS
Estimated Project Costs:
Street, Curb and Gutter, and Storm Sewer $420,216
Trail 19.284
TOTAL $439,500
1)
Proposed Assessments
Street and Storm Sewer
Residential property, 1/2 of 36 Ft. wide 7 ton road = $ 98.16/F.F.
Concrete curb & gutter only = 8.00/F.F.
TOTAL ESTIMATED PROJECT COST TO 8E ASSESSED = $ 201,506.80
TOTAL ESTIMATED CITY COST = $ 237,993.20
GJ
POLICY FOR SPECIAL ASSESSMENT DEFERMENT
FOR HOMESTEAD PROPERTY OWNED BY SENIOR CITIZENS
AND DISABLED PEOPLE
Resolution No. 92-608
October 5, 1992
Replaces Res. 80-862, Nov. 17, 1980; Res. 81-521, Aug. 17,
1981; Res. 82-567, Oct. 18, 1982; Res. 83-675, Dec. 5, 1983; Res.
85-585, Oct. 21, 1985; Res. 89-735, Nov. 6, 1989; Res. 90-620,
Sept. 24, 1990; Res. 91-815, Dec. 16, 1991)
The City of Plymouth will consider deferring special assessments on homestead property
which would place a financial hardship on the owner if the owner is at least 62 years old or
retired due to a total and permanent disability. This policy is in accordance with
Minnesota Statute 435.193-195.
A hardship will be deemed to exist under the following conditions:
I. Senior Citizen
A. The property is the homestead of the owner.
B. The owner is at least 62 years old.
C. The owner had a gross income of less than $17,850 for a one
permit household in the year before the assessment installments for
local improvements are to be certified with the County.
If more than one person lives in the household, the income limit will
be increased as shown below:
2 persons 20,400
3 persons 22,950
4 persons 25,500
5 persons 27,550
6 persons 29,600
II. Permanent and Total Disability
A. The property is the homestead of the owner.
B. The owner had a gross income which meets the limit detailed in I.C.
above.
C. The owner is retired due to a permanent and total disability which
must include one of the following:
1. Certified as legally blind in both eyes.
2. Loss of both arms at the shoulders.
3, Loss of both legs so close to the hips that no effective
artificial limbs can be used.
4, Complete and permanent paralysis.
5. Total and permanent loss of mental facilities.
6. Any other injury which prevents the owner from working
and earning an income that exceeds the limit set forth in I.C.
above.
III. Administration of Deferment Program
A. The City Council will review the income limit for this program
when it reviews the income guidelines for the Housing and
Redevelopment Home Improvement Grant Program. This review
usually occurs in early August.
B. Applications for this program are available from the City.
Applications must be submitted before November 30.
C. Applicants must supply the information required on the application
and any supplementary documentation necessary to establish and
verify the following:
1. The legal description and property identification number.
2. The street address.
3. That it is homestead property of one acre or less. The only
exception is for those parcels that are five acres or less and
which may not be subdivided without additional public
improvements.
4. The description of the improvement.
5. The name of the homestead owner -occupant.
0
6. That the owner -occupant is over 62 years old.
7. That the property owner retired because of permanent and
total disability as defined in this policy.
8. That paying the special assessment on the ordinary schedule
constitutes a hardship as defined in this policy.
D. Simple interest will accrue for the term of the assessment on any
principal of the special assessment which is deferred. After the
term of the assessment expires, no more interest will accrue.
E. The Finance Director will determine whether an applicant is eligible
based upon this policy and state law.
F. The Finance Director will maintain special assessment deferral
records and will annually update the City Council deferments
approved under this policy.
G. The City will establish a revolving fund to pay the deficiency in
bond redemption installments arising from special assessment
deferments. Accrued deferred installments of special assessments
and interest at the time of termination of the deferment will be paid
into this fund.
Ro
AL N
o a '" N o• fr'
09' 1
e. .. e..
tN .
off
iV
n r n r e•r ...
u
09
Val
0
ac o H'IG
1--------------0 691
I ,
1;$
601 1
bgt .GZ•
L,
S9 I
NVQ
f k: Q Qk• L61
D
O
M
Z 'L611
fA
c O•
rn
1001001
X
N
O ,
cw_
Q 7i n u
252
v
9BI_
111n
I
1
t
1 i00
a a DN
9 set
CBI
n Al •cc' ,
N
001 00
001
Ro
AL N
o a '" N o• fr'
09' 1
e. .. e..
tN .
off
iV
n r n r e•r ...
u
09 L p
0
L
601 1 00N L,
S9 I
NVQ
f k: Q Qk• L61
P
4
r
O
M
Z 'L611
fAV
c O•
rn
1001001
v
001
L61
T
Q 7i n u 9_961 '
v
9BI_
111n
I
IJlI 1
1 i00 961
iD
9 set
CBId'
001 00
001 a Z LI
11
t It
00Z
o
v
007vo
co 001
Ro
AL N
o a '" N o• fr'
09' 1
e. .. e..
tN .
off
iV
n r n r e•r ...
u
09 L p
L
v
c
V
Li fn
P
4
r
O
M
1
fAu
L
31Sd
v
cVO
M j
fAV
c O•
v
r 3
L
t n
F
CSI i I
BUD'I JO
l
ISDDU01r-
14
i
I
F BUD'I JO
l
ISDDU01r-
i
1
I
I
I
I
I'
i '
I
I I
m
1• I U
w
I
lal
W I ,
I
1
I 1 Q
1
1
wi
I
I I
o'
1 1
I
11
N
I I
o I I ,
1
I
I
I iN
i '
I
I I i IM
1
1
I I
o' 2
I
i l
I
R
I I
I I '
I I 1
to -ti
TT----- I _----TT------ I I
O
vW
U)
Z
W
a U04IDN
1
I I1
wi
i
xA
Z
I
WZ I
1O
LL1
z
QI
I
2
W Z
r.^
0
A
Z NI
o
June 15, 1993
Honorable Mayor and City Council
City of Plymouth
3400 Plymouth Blvd.
Plymouth, MN 55447
Re: 26th Avenue Improvements
City Project No. 601
Our File No. 70289
Dear Mayor and Council:
Howard A. Sanford, PE. Otto G. Bonestroo, P.E.
Bonestroo obert W. Philip J. Pyne, PE. so eph C. Andelik. RE.
Rosene Marvin L SRE
Richard E. Turner. P.E.
Anderlik & Thomas E oyes,, RE.
Associates
Robert G. Schunicht, P.E.
Susan M. Eberlin, C.P.A.
David O. Loskota, P.E.
Senior Consultant
Engineers & Architects
Robert C. Russek, A.I.A.
June 15, 1993
Honorable Mayor and City Council
City of Plymouth
3400 Plymouth Blvd.
Plymouth, MN 55447
Re: 26th Avenue Improvements
City Project No. 601
Our File No. 70289
Dear Mayor and Council:
Howard A. Sanford, PE. Michael P. Rau. P.E. Mark D. Wallis, PE.
Keith A. Gordon, P.E. Philip J. Pyne, PE. Miles B. Jensen, P.E.
Robert R. Pfefferle, P.E. Agnes M. Ring, A.I.C.P. L. Phillip Gravel III, P.E.
Richard W Foster, P.E. Thomas W Peterson, P.E. Karen L. Wiemeri, PE.
David O. Loskota, P.E. Michael C. Lynch, P.E. Gary D. Kristofitz, P.E.
Robert C. Russek, A.I.A. James R. Maland, P.E. F. Todd Foster, P.E.
Jerry A. Bourdon, P.E. Jerry D. Per[zsch, P.E. Keith R. Yapp, P.E.
Mark A. Hanson, P.E. Kenneth P. Anderson, P.E. Douglas J. Benoit, P.E.
Michael T Rautmann. P.E. Mark R. Rolfs, P.E. Shawn D. Gustafson, P.E.
Ted K. Field. P.E. Mark A. Seip, P.E. Cecilio Olivier, PE.
Thomas R. Anderson, A.I.A. Gary W. Morien, P.E. Charles A. Erickson
Donald C. Burgardt, P.E. Daniel J. Edgerton, P.E. Leo M. Pawelsky
Thomas E. Angus, P.E. Allan Rick Schmidt, PE. Harlan M. Olson
Ismael Martinez, P.E. Philip J. Caswell, PE. James F Engelhardt
Transmitted herewith is our update to the preliminary engineering report for 26th Avenue
from State Highway No. 169 to Medicine Ridge Road. The original report was prepared
in August 1986 and is attached for your review.
BACKGROUND
East Medicine Lake Boulevard/26th Avenue, City Project No. 601, was originally designated
as part of the 1986 Capital Improvements Program. The project was proposed to improve
East Medicine Lake Boulevard from 36th Avenue to East Medicine Ridge Road and 26th
Avenue from East Medicine Ridge Road to State Highway No. 169. The scope of the
project in 1986 included the need for the Hennepin Parks Regional Trail along the East
Medicine Lake Boulevard alignment adjacent to our proposed improvement. Hennepin
Parks has yet to complete the acquisition of the properties necessary to construct the trail
corridor. The Assessment Committee, in 1986, considered the Preliminary Engineering
Report as proposed and recommended that this project be delayed until the properties for
the trail corridor were purchased so that the street improvements and trail improvements
could be constructed at the same time.
DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS
The traffic counts on 26th Avenue have increased from an average daily traffic (ADT) of
3,000 in 1985 to 4,200 in 1991. The 20 -year traffic projection has also increased from 5,969
to 8,000 vehicles per day. In addition to the increased traffic, the Minnesota Department
of Transportation revised their standard Equivalent Single Axle Load (ESAL) forecasting
data in 1991. The revised ESAL factors increase the pavement design requirements. To
meet the changes in traffic and pavement design requirements we have designed the
7120 Mact W1nh%Ai=v 7A a Ct Pnod URI III • Ai7_t,'A"Ann
0
following revised roadway cross-section for this project:
1-1/2 inches Type 41 Bituminous Wearing Course
2-1/2 inches Type 31 Bituminous Binder Course
3 inches Type 31 Bituminous Base Course
16 inches Class 5 100% Crushed Rock Aggregate Base
The intersection of 26th Avenue and Medicine Ridge Road will need to be realigned to
facilitate the projected traffic demands. Three figures depicting proposed alignments for
the intersection are attached for consideration.
OPTION 1
This alignment would enhance the collector function of the roadway by
providing better continuity of the route, would facilitate traffic flow by
eliminating a stop sign, and would emphasize the neighborhood function of
the 26th Avenue/Pilgrim Lane section.
However, the horizontal curve shown for 26th Avenue will only meet the
standards for a 20 mph safe speed. To build this section of roadway with
Municipal State Aid (MSA) funds would require that a variance be requested
from the Commissioner of Transportation. If the variance is not granted, the
roadway would need to be constructed entirely with local funds. This
alignment would also have a considerable impact on the adjacent properties.
OPTION 2
This alignment would most likely meet the requirements of MSA, with no
variance needed to construct the roadway with MSA funds. This option is a
modification of the existing alignment with improved turning movements.
The intersection would be controlled with four-way stop signs and includes an
unrestricted right -turn movement for northbound traffic.
OPTION 3
This alignment would most likely meet the requirements of MSA, with no
variance needed to construct the roadway with MSA funds. This option does
not change the existing alignment and would have little impact on the
adjacent properties. The intersection would be controlled with four-way stop
signs.
All three realignment options would require varying amounts of permanent easement
acquisition as shown on the figures. Also, temporary construction easements will be
required to complete the grading and restoration operations.
We have included construction costs for a 10 foot wide bituminous trail along the north side
0
of 26th Avenue. The trail would be located immediately behind the curb. A modular block
retaining wall is proposed along a portion of the north edge of the trail to minimize
disruption to adjacent properties. The wall height varies from one to five feet. The existing
power poles along the north side of 26th Avenue will need to be relocated. Due to the
limited space and large number of trees, we would recommend that the poles be located 2
feet behind the curb, within the bituminous trail pavement. The actual location will be
determined after discussions with City staff and the utility company involved.
We have also included pavement marking and traffic/"no parking" sign installation as part
of the report update.
COST ESTIMATES
The cost estimates have been updated to reflect construction prices for the 1993
construction season. They include contingencies, design, inspection, administration and
capitalized interest costs during construction. No costs have been included for right-of-way
or easement acquisition. The updated total estimated cost of the work presented is itemized
in the attached appendices and is summarized as follows:
26th Avenue - TH 169 to Medicine Ridge Road:
Street Improvements $ 360,565
Storm Sewer Improvements $ 59,655
Trail Improvements 19,280
Total Estimated Project Costs $ 439,500
The updated cost per running foot of street centerline has been calculated as $268 per foot
over the entire length of 1,640 feet.
We have estimated that 100 percent of the street, 80 percent of the storm sewer and 70
percent of the trail costs would be eligible for MSA reimbursement. The legal,
administrative, capitalized interest and bonding costs are not eligible for MSA
reimbursement. The total estimated project costs eligible for MSA reimbursement are
395,000, or roughly 90 percent.
We would be pleased to discuss this report update and the findings of our study with the
City Council and staff or other interested parties at any mutually convenient time.
Respectfully submitted,
BONESTROO, ROSENE, ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES, INC.
J 1) . Alx
Shawn D. Gustafson, P.E.
cc: Dan Edgerton, P.E.
auo adIRd
i
a pid aultalpaN
h
APPENDIX A
ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST FOR STREET IMPROVEMENTS
1. 26TH AVENUE - TH 169 TO MEDICINE RIDGE ROAD
COMMON EXCAVATION C.Y. 3.00 5,500 16,500
SUBGRADE EXCAVATION C.Y. 3.00 3,000 9,000
AGGR BASE, CL.5 100% CR ROCK 16" TON 9.00 8,000 72,000
TP 31 BIT. BASE COURSE, 3" THICK TON 16.00 1,100 17,600
TP 31 BIT. BINDER COURSE, 2.5" TON 16.00 1,080 17,280
TP 41 BIT. WEAR COURSE, 1.5" THICK TON 18.00 650 11,700
AC -1 BITUMINOUS MATERIAL FOR MIX TON 130.00 156 20,280
BITUMINOUS MATERIAL FOR TACK GALS. 2.00 700 1,400
B618 CONCRETE CURB & GUTTER L.F. 7.00 3,250 22,750
SURMOUNTABLE CONCRETE C & G L.F. 6.00 450 2,700
CURB REINFORCING L.F. 1.00 500 500
REMOVE BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT S.Y. 2.00 6,600 13,200
REMOVE CULVERTS EACH 150.00 15 2,250
ADJUST MANHOLE CASTINGS EACH 120.00 19 2,280
ADJUST GATE VALVE BOX CASTINGS EACH 120.00 11 1,320
ADJUST MANHOLE L.F. 200.00 7 1,400
HEAVY DUTY SILT FENCE L.F. 4.00 1,500 6,000
CLEAR & GRUB TREES EACH 150.00 20 3,000
REMOVE & REPLACE WOOD FENCE L.F. 10.00 75 750
REMOVE CONCRETE DRIVEWAY S.Y. 3.00 125 375
REMOVE CONCRETE CURB & GUTTER L.F. 5.00 450 2,250
RELOCATE BUS SHELTER L.S. 2500.00 1 2,500
RELOCATE EXISTING HYDRANT EACH 1000.00 5 5,000
6" DIP WATER MAIN, CL. 52 L.F. 25.00 25 625
SAW CUT EX CONCRETE L.F. 5.00 50 250
SAW CUT EX BITUMINOUS L.F. 1.00 300 300
SODDING WITH TOPSOIL S.Y. 3.00 6,000 18,000
SEEDING W/ TOPSOIL & MULCH ACRE 3000.00 1 3,000
TRAFFIC CONTROL L.S. 1000.00 1 1,000
CONCRETE DRIVEWAY S.Y. 27.00 125 3,375
BITUMINOUS PATCH FOR DRIVEWAYS TON 60.00 100 6,000
MODULAR BLOCK RETAINING WALL S.F. 12.00 1,100 13,200
PAVEMENT MARKING L.F. 0.20 8,000 1,600
FURNISH & INSTALL SIGN PANELS S.F. 25.00 200 5,000
0
APPENDIX A (CONTINUED)
ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST FOR STREET IMPROVEMENTS
ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST $284,385
5% CONTINGENCIES 14,219
298,604
15% DESIGN, INSPECT & ADMIN 44,791
343,395
5% CAPITALIZED INTEREST 17,170
APPENDIX B
ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST FOR STORM SEWER IMPROVEMENTS
1. 26TH AVENUE - TH 169 TO MEDICINE RIDGE ROAD
r>
O
12" RCP STORM SEWER L.F. 24.00 276 6,624
15" RCP STORM SEWER L.F. 26.00 275 7,150
42" RCP STORM SEWER L.F. 75.00 160 12,000
42" RCP APRON WITH TRASH GUARD EACH 2200.00 1 2,200
STANDARD CATCHBASIN EACH 800.00 6 4,800
STANDARD CATCHBASIN MANHOLE EACH 1000.00 3 3,000
CATCHBASIN MANHOLE W/SUMP, 6' EACH 2000.00 1 2,000
GROUTED RIPRAP WITH FILTER LINER C.Y. 50.00 16 800
ROCK STABILIZATION TON 8.00 200 1,600
MECHANICAL TRENCH COMPACTION L.F. 1.00 727 727
CUT INTO EXISTING MANHOLE EACH 1000.00 2 2,000
HEAVY DUTY SILT FENCE L.F. 4.00 200 800
GRADE & SHAPE CHANNEL L.F. 12.00 100 1,200
REMOVE EXISTING STORM SEWER L.F. 10.00 125 1,250
REMOVE EXISTING MANHOLE EACH 200.00 2 400
REINSTALL EX 42" RCP APRON EACH 500.00 1 500
ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST
5% CONTINGENCIES
47,051
2,353
15% DESIGN, INSPECT & ADMIN
49,404
7,411
5% CAPITALIZED INTEREST
5
56,814
2,841
Low
APPENDIX C
ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST FOR TRAIL IMPROVEMENTS
1. 26TH AVENUE - TH 169 TO MEDICINE RIDGE ROAD
I. 26TH AVENUE - TH 169 TO MEDICINE RIDGE ROAD
A. STREET IMPROVEMENTS $360,
B. STORM SEWER IMPROVEMENTS $59,655
j C. TRAIL IMPROVEMENTS $19,284
OTA.:.T IATC'.fQ.r'T::UTS $43,a4:.;: