The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2.a. Biscayne Avenue/Minnesota Pipe0 CITY OF ROSEMOUNT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY FOR ACTION City Council Worksession Date: November 10, 2004 AGENDA ITEM: Review Request for Public Infrastructure Improvements Biscayne Avenue between AGENDA SECTION: 160 Street and Business Park Discussion PREPARED BY: Andrew Brotzler, City Engineer AGEN 4, ! 2 ATTACHMENTS: Letter from Property Owner, October 5, 2004 Council Executive Summary APPROVED BY: RECOMMENDED ACTION: Discussion and direction to staff for request. ACTION: ISSUE: At the October 5, 2004 Regular City Council Meeting, staff presented to Council the attached item which included a petition from a property owner, Minnesota Pipe & Equipment, for improvements to Biscayne Avenue between 160 Street and the Business Park. As the petition did not include the required minimum percentage of signatures from adjacent property owners, the petition was declared invalid by Council. Staff was directed by Council to bring this request to a work session for additional discussion and consideration of options to possibly proceed with a project. Following are options for Council discussion and consideration: 1. Do Nothing Development of site would require an individual sewer treatment system. As Biscayne Avenue is a gravel road with a weight limit of 7 tons and a spring weight limit restriction of 5 tons. • City water is available to the site. 2. No City Public Improvement Project • Similar to the "Do Nothing" scenario, the City would not consider a public improvement project to extend sanitary sewer service to the site and construct Biscayne Avenue to a 9 -ton urban section. • Minnesota Pipe and Equipment, as noted in the attached letter, has indicated a willingness to consider payment of costs associated with constructing Biscayne Avenue, from 160 Street to their site, to a 9 -ton section as an interim measure until all of Biscayne Avenue is upgraded. • The development of the site would require an individual sewer treatment system. • Biscayne Avenue would consist of a paved section, gravel section, and paved section. 0 3. Authorize Feasibility Report and Consider Public Improvement Project • Feasibility report would review the extension of sanitary sewer service to the site and construction of Biscayne Avenue as a 9 -ton urban section from 160 Street to the southern edge of the Business Park. • Feasibility report would review associated storm sewer improvements and regional stormwater pond development in accordance with the City's Comprehensive Stormwater Management Plan. • Estimated project costs determined. • Proposed project funding scenarios developed to include special assessments to adjacent properties. Council consideration could be given to options for levying special assessments. • Minnesota Pipe and Equipment has indicated a willingness to consider upfronting the cost associated with the preparation of a feasibility report, with the understanding that all costs incurred would be credited against future special assessments. SUMMARY: Staff will be available to answer questions that Council may have regarding this item and requests Council direction on how to proceed. 2 MINNESOTA PIPE & EQUIPMENT 5145 211 th Street West • P.O. Box 249 FARMINGTON, MN 55024 651- 463 -6090 651 - 463 -4554 Fax 800 - 325 -5636 oo� October 27, 2004 Ms. Kim Lindquist, Community Development Director Mr. Andrew J. Brotzler, P.E., City Engineer City of Rosemount 2875 145`' Street West Rosemount, MN 55068 -4997 Dear Ms. Lindquist and Mr. Brotzler: G Thank you for once again meeting with our representative, Jack Matasosky, regarding the site we own on Biscayne Avenue. I appreciate that the City Council's consideration of our petition to upgrade Biscayne Avenue to a 9 -ton road will be addressed at a work session on November l Ocn I sincerely hope the City will come to the conclusion that upgrading Biscayne Avenue to a viable road feeding the industrial park is the best solution for all stakeholders. However, I do understand that sources for the necessary funds to accomplish this improvement are challenging to identify at this point. As a follow up to our discussion with staff, I offer the following potential cooperative alternatives: • We are willing to fund the feasibility study including soils and road engineering recommendations at this time — if we can be promised credit for these expenditures when full improvements (and assessments) are made • Consider placing interim road improvements that will facilitate access from our site to 160"' Street (blacktop, base, etc.) • Water is available along Biscayne Avenue for fire protection and domestic use requirements • We can address the lack of sanitary sewer with a septic or holding tank system - due to our low intensity and occupant usage Please convey my appreciation for any consideration the City Council may give to our proposed project. We look forward to building our new facility and relocating our company to this location in Rosemount. N City of Rosemount October 27, 2004 Page Two I respectfully request an expedient review /response to this request as we have completely outgrown our existing three facilities and must make provisions to construct our new facility in very early 2005. Sincerely, Thomas Stordahl President cc: Jack D. Matasosky, APPRO Development, Inc. CITY OF ROSEMOUNT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY FOR ACTION CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: October 5, 2004 AGENDA ITEM: Receive Petition for Local Improvements AGENDA SECTION: New Business PREPARED BY: Andrew J. Brotzler, P.E., City Engineer ral A ATTACHMENTS: Petition, Exhibit and Resolution APPROVED Y: RECOMMENDED ACTION: MOTION TO ADOPT A RESOLUTION RECEIVING A PETITION AND DECLARING THE PETITION INVALID ACCORDING TO MINNESOTA STATUTES SECTION 429.035. ACTION: ISSUE: Consider receipt of petition for public improvements. BACKGROUND: Attached for Council consideration is a petition for public improvements on Biscayne Avenue that has been submitted by the property owners of the parcel of land noted on the attached exhibit. The property owners are petitioning for sanitary sewer and street improvements. Water service is already available to the property. The extension of sanitary sewer service to this property would require an extension of sanitary sewer along Biscayne Avenue from Boulder Trail, south 2,700 feet to the subject property. Also, Biscayne Avenue between Boulder Trail and 160 Street is currently a gravel road. Staff is recommending that any proposed improvement to Biscayne Avenue for this property include the upgrade of the entire length of Biscayne Avenue between Boulder Trial and 160 Street to an urban street section. Costs associated with the extension of sanitary sewer and an upgrade to this section of Biscayne Avenue would be assessed to the adjacent property owners which are noted on the attached exhibit. In the case of the University property along the east side of Biscayne Avenue, the cost would need to be negotiated with the University and paid through an Agreement between the City and the University. SUMMARY: The petition as submitted has not been signed by 35% or more of the properties that '1992US H1 09 � Ol q`dl�jl 2i3c NMJ-� 3nN3AV 3N),VOS19 NOS i2JOd92J Ail 91SV3A V ONN3CRJO NOiimoS3�J `d idOCIV Ol NOUOW Aew IlounoO `}aaa }S 43 09 ( pue IleJl aapino8 ueannlaq anuany auAeos18 6uole sIuawanoidwi jo Allllglseaj agj ajeOlIsanui 01 tie SSaoau pue aleladoidde jl weep IlounoO pinogS •:podai Allllglseaj e jo uoljejedaid eq} azuoq}ne pue joefoid Iuawanoadwi olignd e alelllul of uoijeaaplsuoo IlounoO aoj pegoelle ueaq seq uollnlosai puooes y 'SEMZt uolIoaS saInjejS elosauulw q }Inn aouepJ000e ul pllen IOU uoijged eq} ajeloep pue uollllad eqj bulnleoai uoijnlosaa e Idope of uoljoe a� ej IlounoO }eqj papuawwooai sl jI `wnwluiw e ld - paalnbai aq pinom aIon IlounoO sgl4!;/anol e ` }oafojd pa}e!l!u! IlounoO Al!O e se jegj pajou aq pinogs 11 - anuany ouAeosi8 epejbdn pue kpadoid slgl of jannas fuellues puajxa of joafoid Iuawanoidwi ue a}elllul uol}ajosip sll le `Aew IlounoO Al!O eql 'uoljljad piles e IOU sl aJojaaagj pue Aliedoid slq} of camas tie}lues puajxa of joefoid ;uawanoidwi ue Aq paloage eq pinonn PROPERTY ID NUMBER: 34- 03210- 022 -85 FEE OWNER: PAYABLE 2004 TAXES NET TAX: SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS: TOTAL TAX & SA: PAYABLE 2005 ASMNT USAGE:AG )TE: Dimensions rounded to nearest foot )pyright 2004, Dakota County - SITE MAP 2004 ESTIMATED MARKET VALUES (PAYABLE 2005) LAND: LOT SIZE BUILDING: TOTAL: 667,309 TOTAL SQ FT 15.32 TOTAL ACRES SCHOOL DISTRICT: 196 22,181 ROAD R/W SO FT LOCATION: SE1 14 SE1 14 SECTION 32- 115 -19 PAYABLE 2005 HOMESTEAD STATUS: NON HOMESTEAD WATERSHED DISTRICT: VERMILLION RIVER LAST QUALIFIED SALE: DATE: AMOUNT: its drawing is neither a legally recorded map nor a survey and is not intended to be used as one. is drawing is a compilation of records, information and data located in various city, county, and ile offices and other sources, affecting the area shown, and is to be used for reference purposes ly. Dakota County is not responsible for any inaccuracies herein contained. If discrepancies are md, please contact Dakota County Survey and Land Information Department. 2004 BUILDING INFORMATION (PAYABLE 2005): NO DATA AVAILABLE .:fX.ZST.ZW6l - A4MA ey Sq weR, UAIV�ANZ 1112WAIg 5o AW;V; p illeL IY fT�,e ,118 ?UC. PLAT NAME: SECTION 32 TW N 115 RANGE 19 TAX DESCRIPTION: S 1/2 OF SE 114 EX W 1645.05 FT & EX S 656.14 FT THEREOF SUBJ TO PARCEL 4A DAKOTA CO R/W MAP 257 32 115 19 ip Date: September 27, 2004 Parcels Updated: 9/17/2004 Aerial Photography: 1990 2003 CITY OF ROSEMOUNT DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 2004 - A RESOLUTION ORDERING A FEASIBILITY REPORT FOR BISCAYNE AVENUE FROM BOULDER AVENUE TO 160" STREET WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Rosemount deems it necessary to investigate the feasibility of the improvements along Biscayne Avenue from Boulder Avenue to 160 Street. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, the Staff is directed to have the necessary feasibility report prepared for Biscayne Avenue from Boulder Avenue to 160 Street. ADOPTED this 5 th day of October, 2004. William H. Droste, Mayor ATTEST: Linda Jentink, City Clerk Motion by: Voted in favor: Second by: Voted against: