Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout9F - Linden Circle Street Improvements STAFF AGENDA REPORT DATE: AGENDA #: PREPARED BY: MAY 4,1998 9F GREG ILKKA, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS/CITY ENGINEER CONSIDER APPROVAL OF REQUEST BY LINDEN CIRCLE RESIDENTS FOR CITY PARTICIPATION IN COST OF STREET IMPROVEMENTS AGENDA ITEM: DISCUSSION: HISTORY During the construction of Northwood Road, the residents along Linden Circle adjacent to Northwood Road approached the city requesting that they be allowed to pave Linden Circle at their own expense. It was not a request for a public improvement project as they want to keep the costs down. Their desire was to blacktop the road without the benefit of engineering. Linden Circle is one of a number of locations in the city where dedicated streets/cui de sacs were not improved at the time of platting. To complicate matters further there is a piece of Linden Circle where the platted right-of-way is only 20 feet in width and a piece where the currently traveled surface does not align with the platted right-of-way. The area was platted in the 1930's and over time the roadway has shifted. In the process of looking at this issue staff presented a concept to the City Council on August 4, 1997 that proposed an agreement for Private Use of a Public Right-of-Way (see enclosed agenda report). That concept which was approved was presented to the residents of Linden Circle. CURRENT CIRCUMSTANCES The residents of Linden Circle take issue with a number of the requirements of the proposed agreement, most specifically the requirement to form a Homeowner's Association and to indemnify the City with respect to a public 162<9I!:JD~ Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER right-of-way. They simply want a paved street as soon as possible and want the City to participate in the cost. The reason the residents feel the City should participate in the cost of the project is because of its previous hands-off policy of not providing any maintenance for public rights-of- way that did not meet City standards. They feel years of this policy should now be rectified by City participation in the cost to improve their street. Upon completion of street improvements the City would forever maintain the street in accordance with current and future policies. ISSUES The issues from a staff perspective are: 1) Does the City need a written agreement such as a Private Use of a Public Right-of-Way agreement to allow the City and the residents to proceed on a cooperative basis with street improvements? From an engineering perspective it is not necessary. From a legal perspective this may be the preferred approach. But since the street is a public right-of- way, it seems reasonable to treat the residents as if it were any other public right-of-way. 2) To what standard should the road be constructed. Realizing nothing can be accomplished through the Public Improvement (Minnesota Statutes Chap 429) process this year, the residents wish to move forward with their own financing of the project subject to some minimum engineering, less than City standard, required by the City. Staff feels we can come up with some minimal standards, like twenty feet of driving surface, that will be acceptable to the City. Other requirements to be resolved would include securing easements where the traveled surface does not align with the platted right-of-way, grading, base thickness, bituminous thickness, snow storage, and of course, drainage. 3) To what extent, if any, should the City participate in the cost? The cost is driven by the standard. The estimate to pave the street to City standards is approximately $50,000 which does not include engineering, right-of-way, administration or financing. To improve to a lessor standard should cost less. LINDEN.DOC .., In order to be consistent with City policy staff would recommend that the City Council authorize City engineering staff time on the project as the City's contribution. We estimate that staff time associated with this project would be approximately 100 -150 hours. We would need to negotiate the minimally acceptable standards with the residents and then oversee the construction of the project. The City would then be perpetually responsible for the street's year around maintenance. Future overlay or reconstruction would be consistent with then existing City policy. CONCLUSIONS Staff would recommend the Council authorize construction of Linden Circle to minimally acceptable standards as approved by the City Engineer with City participation taking. the form of engineering staff time. Some of the benefits to the City by proceeding In this manner include: · Saves time and money because no City financing is involved with special assessments. · No need to prove special benefit to properties. · Eliminates right-of-way acquisition and associated costs. · Provides an all season road surface for public use. · Potential to resolve gravel surface erosion problems, and reduce maintenance costs. ALTERNATIVES: There are three alternatives for the City Council to consider: 1. Authorize construction of Linden Circle to minimally acceptable standards as approved by the City Engineer with City participation taking the form of engineering staff time. 2. Deny this item for a specific reason and provide staff with direction. 3. Table this item until some date in the future. LINDEN.DOC RECOMMENDED MOTION: REVIEWED BY: LINDEN.DOC ---. --..._-_.~. , . A motion and second to authorize construction of Linden Circle to minimally acceptable standards as approved by the City Engineer with City participation taking the form of engineering staff time. STAFF AGENDA REPORT DATE: 9C GREG ILKKA, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS/CITY ENGINEER CONSIDER APPROVAL OF THE CONCEPT TO ALLOW AGREEMENTS FOR'PRIVATE USE OF A PUBLIC RIGHT-OF- WAY FOR STREET IMPROVEMENTS. AUGUST 4,1997 AGENDA #: PREPARED BY: SUBJECT: INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this agenda item is to consider approval of the concept to allow agreements for the private use of public rights-of- way for neighborhood street improvement projects on previously unimproved streets. If authorized, a policy would be prepared to adress this issue. BACKGROUND: The residents along Linden Circle adjacent to Northwood Road approached the city requesting that they be allowed to pave Linden Circle at their own expense. It was not a request for a public improvement project as they want to keep the costs down. Their desire was to blacktop the road without the benefit of engineering. There are a number of locations like this in the city where dedicated streets/cui de sacs were not improved at the time of platting. To complicate matters there are areas where the platted right-of-way is only 20 feet in width and the currently traveled surface does not align with the platted right-of-way. Linden Circle is one such street. DISCUSSION: The possibility of vacating these rights-of-way, thus making them private streets was discussed by staff but determined to be contrary to city policy as we currently only allow private streets in PUD's. If the City was petitioned to pave one of these streets the City would undertake the work as a public improvement project, which would be engineered and paved based on City standards as adpted by the City Council and set out in the City's Engineering Design Manual. Stated simply, if the City paved the road it would cost residents more than if they undertook the project themselves. Understandably the citizens in these situations are concerned about the difference in cost if the City constructs the public improvement. It was felt there must be another way to address these situations. During staff discussions about whether there was an alternative between vacating the right-of-way or constructing the 1620&'~Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNIlY EMPLOYER improvement (paving the street to City standards) the idea to allow the private use of a public right-of-way was brought up. Under this concept the homeowners would (1) sign an agreement with the City dealing with the private use of public property, (2) form a homeowners association to undertake an improvement project (subject to some minimal City standards/requirements) and (3) provide for the maintenance of the right-of-way. In signing the agreement, draft copy attached, the homeowners take on all responsibility for the permitted use, in this case paving and maintenance of the street. As part of the permit agreement they also indemn~ the city, provide insurance, and agree to abide by parking restrictions established in the permit. The concept of "permitting" the private use of public property allows these older established neighborhoods to improve their streets and neighborhoods without the destruction of existing amenities often associated with public improvement projects. Whether to agree in any particular instance to permit the private use of public property is a decision for the Council, but this approach would be an additional option to doing nothing or following the public improvement process outlined in Minnesota Statute, Chapter 429. Staff would develop, as part of a policy for Council approval, a set of criteria for the Council to use when determining whether to permit residents to pave City rights-of-way pursuant to agreement. ISSUES: Items of discussion may include: Which streets would be eligible for this option? Staff would recommend that any public right-of-way that has never been improved, i.e, paved surface, should be eligible for this option. What will this mean to 429 projects? Nothing, the 429 process is still an option. There may also be instances where the City may want to initiate the 429 process, require the 429 process, or where the property owners themselves petition under 429. Won't everyone want to have less aggressive standards? Yes, but by limiting the eligibility to only those public streets that have never been improved and which meet certain other criteria staff will develop for council consideration we limit the number of potential candidates to probably less than a dozen. Some of the benefits to the City include: · Saves time and money because no City financing is involved with special assessments. · No need to prove special benefit to assessed properties. PUPROW.DOC AL TERNA liVES: RECOMMENDATION: ACTION REQUIRED: PUPROW.DOC . Eliminates right-of-way acquisition and associated costs. . Provides an all season road surface for public use. . Potential to resolve gravel surface erosion problems, and reduce maintenance costs. Linden Circle is a case in point. There are three alternatives for the City Council to consider: 1. Approve the concept to allow agreements for the Private Use of a Public Right-of-Way for Street Improvements and direct staff to prepare a policy and standard agreement for future Council consideration. 2. Deny this item for a specific reason and provide staff with direction. 3. Table this item until some date in the future. Alternative No.1. 1. A motion and seco1r to approve the concept of a Policy for the Private Use 0 Publi Right-of-Way for Street Improvements. ('j . /1A . v---' REVIEWED Y EXHIBIT C PERMIT AGREEMENT FOR PRIVATE USE OF PUBLIC PROPERTY TillS AGREEMENT is made and entered into this day of 1997, by and between the CITY OF PRIOR LAKE, Minnesota, a municipal corporation (hereinafter referred to as "City"), and , [husband and wife; a partnership; a corporation] (hereinafter referred to as "Owner"). RECITALS WHEREAS, Owner is the fee owner of a tract of land in Scott County , located at , and legally described as follows: [LEGAL] (hereinafter referred to as "Owner's Property"); and WHEREAS, the City is the owner of property, legally described as follows: [LEGAL] and; WHEREAS, a portion of the serving Owner's Property encroaches on a portion of the property abutting Owner's property, as described on Exhibit A attached hereto (the en.;roached portion of the property hereinafter referred to as the "Permit Property"); and -OR- WHEREAS, Owner wishes to use the Permit Property for ; and WHEREAS, Owners have requested the City to authorize continued use of the Permit Property for purposes; and WHEREAS, such continued use of the Permit Property is not inconsistent with current use of the property by the City and the public; and WHEREAS, the City may in the future desire to use the Permit Property for other purposes which are not consistent with Owners use of the Permit Property, and therefore the City intends to retain all of its right, title, and interest in the Permit Property; 46241 1 NOW, THEREFORE, the parties agree as follows: 1. Permit. Owners shall be permitted to use the Permit Property for purposes at Owner's sole expense and risk, and with full knowledge that the City may, upon notice as provided herein, require Owner's to be removed from the Permit Property at any future date,- at Owner's sole expense. The Permit Property must be kept open to public use at all times, and no fence or other obstruction may be placed on the Permit Property without the prior written approval of the City, which may be given or withheld in the sole discretion of the City. 2. Maintenance of Permit Prooertv: Modification. Owner shall maintain the Permit Property in good condition at all times, at their sole cost and expense. If Owner fails to do so, the City may cause the necessary repair or maintenance to be done at Owner's cost. If Owner fails to pay the City for such costs, the City may assess the costs against Owner's Property. Owner shall not make any modifications to the or otherwise modify the Permit Property without the prior written approval of the City, which may be given or withheld in the sole discretion of the City. 3. Termination. In the event the City desires to use the Permit Property for a purpose which is inconsistent with use by Owner, to be determined in the City's sole discretion, or in the event Owner fails to comply with any requirement of this Agreement within sixty (60) days after receiving a notice from the City requesting such compliance, the City through its City Manager may terminate this Permit Agreement by giving ninety (90) days written notice of termination to Owner by certified mail at the following address: Such notice may, at the City's option, require Owner to completely remove the from the Permit Property within said ninety (90) day notice period, including all debris. If this Permit Agreement is terminated by the City as provided herein, Owner will be solely responsible for all costs and expenses related to construction of a which is located on Owner's Property, in accordance with all City Ordinances. If Owner fails to remove the as required by a proper notice of termination, the City may cause the removal to be done and the costs of such work shall be paid by Owner. If Owner fails to pay the City for such costs, the City may assess the costs against the Owner's Property . 4. Consent to Soecial Assessment. Owner hereby acknowledges and consents to the City's right to specially assess any costs incurred by the City for any repair or maintenance performed pursuant to Paragraph 2 of this Permit Agreement, or any costs incurred by the City to remove Owner's from the Permit Property pursuant to Paragraph 3 of this Permit Agreement. Owner waives any right to protest or appeal any special assessment levied pursuant to this Permit Agreement. 5. Future Develooment. Owner understands and acknowledges that the City may utilize the Permit Property at some future date and in the sole discretion of the City. In the 46241 2 event the City undertakes such development, and if this Permit Agreement is not terminated by the City as provided above, Owner agrees to cooperate with the City as necessary to facilitate City's use of the Permit Property, and the City agrees to use its best efforts to accommodate Owner's use of the Permit Property for the purposes stated herein. 6. Indemnity. Owner shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City and its employees, subcontractors, -anorneys, agents, and representatives from and against all claims, damages, losses, costs and expenses, including attorney's fees, which may be incurred by or asserted against the City or for which the City may be held liable, which arise out of or result from use of the Permit Property for purposes, including but not limited to the maintenance, repair or removal of Owner's , except liability caused solely by the negligence of the City. 7. Insurance. As long as this Permit Agreement is in existence, Owner shall maintain a general liability insurance policy which provides coverage for the Permit Property for any damage to property of others or injuries to persons. Said insurance policy shall provide coverage on an occurrence basis in an amount no less than One Million do lIars ($1,000,000), and shall include contractual liability coverage to provide coverage for the indemnification , provision in Paragraph 6 above. Said policy shall name the City as an additional insured, and shall contain a clause which provides that the insurer will not cancel, non-renew, or materially' change the policy without first giving the City thirty (30) days prior written notice. Owner shall provide the City with a Certificate of Insurance for said policy which specifically details the conditions of this Paragraph 6. 8. Waiver of Claims. Owner acknowledges City's ownership of the Permit Property and knowingly waives any and all claims against the City related to Owner's use of the Permit Property, including but not limited to claims of abandonment and contractual claims arising out of this Permit Agreement, except any claims which are the result of the sole negligence or willful misconduct of the City or its employees or agents. 9. Condition of ProDertv. Owner accepts the Permit Property "as is" and the City makes no warranties regarding the conditions of the Permit Property or the suitability of the Permit Property for Owner's purposes. 10. Bindin~ Effect. This Permit Agreement shall run with the land and shall be binding on and inure to the benefit of the parties hereto, their heirs, successors, or assigns. 11. Whole A~reement: Modification. This Permit Agreement contains all of the terms and conditions relating to the permit granted herein, and replaces any oral agreements or other negotiations between the parties relating to the permit. No modifications to this Permit Agreement shall be valid until they have been placed in writing and signed by all parties hereto. 12. Office of the Recordation. Owner shall cause this Permit Agreement to be recorded in the County Recorder at their cost and expense. 46241 3 ~. .. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Permit Agreement as of the date first above written. CITY OF PRIOR LAKE OWNER(S) By: . _/ 1L d. ia A~. Mr. ' or · 11 ~ -'" By:1Lt.l //(li...,y---~ Fi(Yl ':) jY Manager . / STATE OF MINNESOTA ) --/ )ss. COUNTY OF ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 19_, by Lydia Andren and Frank Boyles, the Mayor and City Manager respectively of the City of Prior Lake, on behalf of the City of Prior Lake through authority granted by its City Council. STATE OF MINNESOTA ) )ss. COUNTY OF ) Notary Public The foregoing instrument was , 19 by and on behalf of the [corporation/partnership]. acknowledged before me this and , respectively of day of the .' Notary Public This Instrument Drafted By: Campbell. Knutson, Scot[ & Fuchs, P.A. 317 Eagandale Office Center 1380 Corporation Center Curve Eagan. Minnesota 55121 (612) 452-5000 46241 4