Memo - Street Improvement Assessment - Regency Development Properties
Public Warks Department
Memorandum
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
Copy:
Rick Getschow, City Manager
0f57
From:
Steven J. Stadler, Public Works Director
Date:
March 3, 2005
Subject:
2005 Street Improvement Assessment-Regency Development properties
At the January 18, 2005 public hearing, City Council ordered this project and final
design work is proceeding. Staff expects to request final design approval at the March
15 City Council Meeting.
At the January 18 public hearing, staff explained the proposed application of the city's
assessment policy. Specifically, staff pointed out that they were not applying the
policy's assessment cap in determining the per unit assessment amount for the
Regency Development properties. The assessment cap is defined in Legislative Policy
#88, Roadway Improvements, paragraph 11.04 - see attached. The policy limits
application of the assessment cap to single family residential properties (single unit or
duplex unit). Staff interpreted this to mean that the cap would not apply to PUD
redevelopment areas where there are not standard single family residential lots and
street frontages. Several residents from the Regency development objected to this
staff-interpretation and City Council agreed to consider the matter at the March 8, 2005
City Council Worksession. Notices of the worksession meeting were mailed to each
Regency resident shortly after the public hearing.
Another concern that came up at the worksession was that several new Regency
residents stated that they were not aware of an upcoming assessment when they
purchased their new home. Staff mentioned that a statement of expected upcoming
street assessments was included in the property purchaser declaration documents.
The excerpt from the Master Declaration document is attached. Staff did receive
confirmation from Ryland Homes that the road improvement paragraph was included in
each purchaser's Master Declaration.
What follows is a description of how staff applied the assessment policy to properties
affected by the 2005 street improvement project, including the Regency Development,
as presented at the public hearing.
Assessments
. Without applying assessment cap to Regency properties:
The proposed assessments are divided into four areas: 1) Madison Avenue/Madison
Circle/Monroe Ave; 2) Jackson Avenue/Sunnyside Lane; 3) Van Buren
Avenue/Shadyside Circle; and 4) Regency development properties. The assessment
cap for this project is proposed at $55.83/front foot. The cap applies only to single-
family residential properties (single unit or duplex). This rate is based on three ~revious
similar street reconstruction projects including the reconstruction of 14th and 16t
Avenues in 2002. The assessment rates for those avenues were $49.32/ff and
$43. 37/ff, respectively. The actual assessment rates based on the 70% assessment
policy (without applying the cap) for the areas are:
Madison/Monroe Avenue area: $112.22/ff
Jackson Avenue/Sunnyside Lane: $59.56/ff
Van Buren Ave/Shadyside Circle: $63.24/ff
The total assessable street cost associated with Regency development frontage is
$90,668.75. The Regency development assessment is proposed to be per front foot for
units directly fronting the avenues and per unit for interior units. There are 14 units that
front directly on Jackson Avenue or Van Buren Avenue. These units have 36' of
frontage and would be assessed at the rates shown above, i.e., $59.56fff or $2,144.16
per unit fronting Jackson Avenue, $63.24/ff or $2,276.64 per unit fronting Van Buren
Avenue. The interior units rate is based on the remaining frontage & cost after
subtracting the direct frontage units above. This equates to an assessment of
$1,968.69 for each of the 30 interior units.
The estimated total project assessed amount = $532,785.14
. Applying the assessment cap:
Applying the $55.83/ff rate to the Regency Development properties equates to
$2,009.88/unit for the 14 units directly fronting Jackson Avenue and Van Buren Avenue
and $1 ,465.44/unit for the 30 interior units.
This would lower the estimated total project assessed amount from $532,785.14 to
$514,217.96.
REGENCY RESIDENT LETTER TO COUNCIL MEMBER BRAUSEN
A letter from a Regency Development resident is attached - in it the resident requests
that City Council apply the assessment cap to the Regency properties.
OPTIONS:
1) Approve assessments to the Regency properties based on not applying the
assessment cap.
2) Apply the assessment cap to the Regency development properties.
2ND
--~'=f"" P-___
L-~--- I C".
C. ~
~_/ :.& PAVING Pj,AN
(;
~~"':Ol[S_DENOTDlBYODN"""'"
m.........><t"<i.."o:oNoorn:ClJR8>>tQQ,lT1ER..ro"""TiNG,
l.\1UI2a:tlClll:T[CtJl!8""".....Trol.
(]JWS'''-LOONCIlETF;l>RrotD<lll>>ICEPOlClTYOfHOPKlNSsrANOAADS.
"'~IDl lIUlll: P[Jl>OTTEO.
rnRmJ!TO=.....X~
III RtroITOOE'.....X/txf'ORHAI<lIIC>J>SIa..
l!ll>lSTAU."!ifCo>"!OQiPl:Jl....UTalJoJ/l>QT'tCFHOPlONS.'....O""',.
"ATtl<IMroOOSTlN<lClJllB_ClIT!IJt.WOPCM,ll>>;;W
t
I
~
, .
. 1
\:<:1
1'1
I~
'-,: I
1"< I
ICl
i~j
Cl,
,j
,-
I
01
01
",,'
,;;;:;;
11
~
1l
~
I,
l:a
,
j
I
';J
~
',AU.O~_TOrACtOfaJl<lllJNU:SS"OlEOO~
..AU.0JR8>>1OCI1TmllSroOE8B12~IEOJRa/Oli)OJl1ER~NOTEDO_lr.
... ....~I$1l>I\~Vi:"OO>:_A"'CIIOSSSlCf"I'.:O!lIlOl<~llU.NAM:lOHCll\lOO<.<l.~
4. ..'" I'RQ'OSQ> H'-'UlWC lA'<W! WDI TO AIlQ<n>:cTW/.<l. AHO SlRlJcru_ PuJls.
s. i"tWlw..... <:In',y IiOPI<><S 1<W:s. ~[QJ",,'IIOI<S N<O SPE(:InCATlOI<!;",o< """","c I<PuSUC RIO<T_O/"_w..v.
6. HO~W.....IDl"""-Il[I.I.L.O'IQ'M1ER!:NE1f~..'otloIEI<T....=IKTO~~..IWtNT.
>. AU.~"""'''''ST..w;_ro...ftn"l'IIlEHY20rn;rl.<lOlO.
8.PR~roST_I)FCONSl1llJCIlOIol.Il<ECON~'G<lSARF;lOCllCjll)OU,n:.<u._"'1JjlHi1/lAS,u.a:1RIC,lD.EPtlOI<EAAO
c.<JllElUrolSlO<lCOW'........
:>;;; :;;::i
STREE'l1
"_J
.." ~~
~----"",
.~"',~~ \~''''
~
U;
I :<:
I
v, I ~
~ .....
~w1~
.-"~
,.
~':'."-i'"'
NORTH
Ul~
=~i;Ih'H'U
~~'" rTn - ~
1...l..Lr--~f-r~.
I
--~\
~
,
e'
(
I
:<:
.~
-,:
,._c:.~
-:>;
f.,
v
li....+1
""""
=""'vttNlRNfCE~
CO>IClIET!:WWCPOl ~
gu.....'f./~ ~
CONSllWCIlGtlUlOTS ---
PEDES_ ClJI>8 RA>IP Al\
~ ~
50 25
".....
SCALE
.....<X><""t1tC\JJOS
>>tnQJnEilPtllou.....
!!In.....''OUSP..\0,OO<I
(\JCtl!~OUT'r) P<Il
oc-r.....x;ex
IIlU11..OVSp..WOfT
Pl;ROI:T....XfOl.
"
.'5
r.w
1
~
:::,
.
~o
~.
~
'"
~
!
RoO.'"
AAARr\l1ATlONS
a......
:~~...
Col<J>""'"
""'=.,.
El....,,,,,,,
,"'1"'9
~""flooo-"'"
~:~:"''-<..:
~=~
'_w
"""""'''''....''''''
~:;l~~W~loP"..
-
'"'
u
"
.,
"
,J'I
l'j,
;IIi 3'1
1,11'1 "
J II I ~
~".. u
IIJim
z
w
'"
a.
9
w
iri z
c :s
~ a.
-< '"
F z
ffi :>
8 CE
fiJ ..
a: 0
6 ~
ii'i '"
'" 0
W w
a: '"
~ ~
i i
1-~81
[I
liU
ll,; ~
""~
~;3"
~ig~ 1)
~:!* !:
:":;~~ ....
"'11
~:1 ~ ~
illl! !
.
ii,.!
hi
~~~II
~l"t
i,hl
nllllllll
III
::5.
~I
ll:l~
11,04 Assessment Caps
1. Maximum per foot assessment. The maximum per foot assessment amount to single
family residential properties (single unit or duplex unit) may not exceed 120% of
the average per foot assessment on the previous three similar street reconstruction
projects. This cap applies only to total street reconstruction costs (public
improvements) and the associated assessments. It does not apply to partial
reconstruction, i.e. curb replacement and asphalt overlay or full-depth
milling/overlay or other assessable roadway improvements. The cost of special
neighborhood requests which are non-standard construction items are excluded
when comparing the current project assessment to the assessment cap amount, The
project feasibility report will include the per foot assessment cap amount.
2, Multiple Assessments. There shall be a maximum of two (2) concurrent special
assessments for street or alley improvement to any single family residential
properties (single unit or duplex unit) within any 10-year period. Volunteer
assessment, i,e, assessments petitioned by property owners, do not apply to the
maximum, Assessments created by road/alley construction or reconstruction
deemed as emergency work by the City Council do not apply to the maximum.
11.05 In certain unusual cases assessments may be determined by a "fair" comparison to other
assessed property. This will be determined by the Engineering Division of Public Works
and can be appealed to the City Council.
Established 11103/87
Revised 04/15/97
Revised 12/15/1998
Revised 04/20/2004
City of Hopkins
Legislative Policy Manual -- Chapter 8-B
10
February 16, 2005
Rick Brausen
Council Member - City of Hopkins
345 13th Avenue North
Hopkins, MN 55343
Dear Council Member Brausen:
On behalf of the members of the Ryland Homes Regency Development, I am respectfully requesting that
we be given an audience to voice our concerns during the March 8, 2005 City of Hopkins Worksession.
We have met independently and hope to have a strong representation at the March 8th meeting in order to
convey to you and the other Council Members that our neighborhood is greatly concerned about the
proposed assessment. Let me first state that we support the City's proposal to repair the neighborhood
roads, and do not object to contributing a fair amount to the project. We do, however, strongly object to
the perceived unequal burden being placed on our homes. We understand that the Regency Homes are
legally classified as a PUD, and as such are exempt from the cap applied to the adjoining homes. Per the
City's Assessment Policies (11.05), which states: In certain unusual cases assessments may be
determined by a "fair" comparison to other assessed property. This will be determined by the Engineering
Division of Public Works and can be appealed to the City Council; we are requesting that this assessment
be deemed an "unusual case", and that the standard cap be applied to our homes as well.
We base this request on the following arguments:
. Applying a cap to some homes and not to others seems arbitrary and unwarranted. Homes are
not assessed on the legally assessed value, but on a lineal foot basis, Since the determination is
not based on assessed value, why should our homes be assessed a greater amount than homes
mere feet away? The answer that we are a PUD does not satisfy our sense of fairness. Our
residents receive the same benefit from our roads as our neighbors - no more or less.
. The PUD was created in order to redevelop previously commercial land. Redeveloping this area
has provided the City of Hopkins with an increased tax base. This increase is much greater than
if the property had been converted to residential housing, allowing for far fewer homes to be built.
It seems counterintuitive to encourage high-density housing, reap the tax benefits, and then
penalize the residents by charging them more for City services by exempting them from a
standard cap applied to neighbors.
. As a PUD we retain some private roads that do not require City of Hopkins services (plowing).
Our high-density development uses fewer City resources than the adjoining homes relative to
the amount we generate in property taxes. Again, the City of Hopkins benefits from having our
PUD, but applies a penalty to us by exempting us from the cap.
We are optimistic that the City Council will be receptive to our argument, and respond with flexibility to an
exceptional situation. A large number of new Hopkins residents are counting on equitable administration
by our elected leaders.
~~
Janine Keller
203 Van Buren Avenue North
Hopkins, MN 55343
952.945.9988
".
789G628
OFfiCE OF eQUaTY m:::J;'~0[~
HHlHEP!N CDm~n. HUlr'iESuTi\
CERTIFIED FltED MiD OR
riECORDED G.: i
-1. . ~~~~" "'!\.~lj
~.co~ ~~ ~l'& ~:~~~;""^
~~lX~~'.C~P:_" S.~~v~r~~::;:..
2UG2 DEe 17 PH 3: 51
AS DOCUME" I 7890628
'Z4/lJ ...l.c~ ~rt4",...-,,,..0/ tfJ. HfC.
;.fV~~ \,fl'~~"~_
/It!
DEPUTY
R'"
..,
[lEe il 3 2002
Dupflcate
Filing
Certificate
REGENCY
MASTER DECLARATION
This Master Declaration is made thi?-~ay of~O"i{li1jbeV
GROUP, INC., a Maryland corporation (the "Declarant").
, 2002, by THE RYLAND
WHEREAS, Declarant is the owner of certain real property located in the City of
Hopkins, Hennepin County, Minnesota, legally described on Exhibit A attached hereto (the
"Development"), a portion of which Declarant intends to develop as a planned community (the
"Townhomes") and the remainder of which Declarant intends to develop as single familyhomeo
(the "Homeo"); and
WHEREAS, the crc io subject to the Minneoota Common Interest Ownerohip Act,
Minnesota Statutes Chapter 515B, as amended (the "Act"), but the Homes are not subject to the
Act by reason of the exclusion set forth in Section 515B,l-102(e)(2); and
WHEREAS, Declarant desires to establish an association for the Ownero of the Homes,
which association shall also act ao master association for the Owners of the Townhome Unito
purouant to Section 515B.2-121 of the Act, for the purpooe of providing for the adminiotration of
certain services for the Development, the enforcement of certain uniform covenanto, conditions
and restrictiono, the preservation of the value, amenitieo and original architectural and aeothetic
character of the Development as a reoidential community.
NOW, THEREFORE, Declarant hereby declareo that the Development ohall be owned,
sold, tranoferred and conveyed subject to the easemento, reotrictions, covenants and conditiono
contained herein, which are for the purpooe of protecting the value and desirability of the
Development and which ohall run with the Development, ohall be binding on all parties having
any right, title or interest in the Development or any part thereof, their heirs, successors and
assigns, and shall inure to the benefit of each Owner thereof.
Metro Legal Services Inc. CO p y
Box 491
17.3. Notices. Unless specifically provided otherwise in the Master Governing Documents, all
notices required to be given by or to the Master Association, the Master Board, the Master
Association officers or the Owners or Occupants sha1l be in writing and shall be effective upon
hand delivery, or mailing if properly addressed with postage prepaid and deposited in the United
States mail; except that registrations pursuant to Section 2.2 of the Master Bylaws shall be
effective upon receipt by the Master Association.
17.4~ Conflicts Among Documents. In the event of any conflict among the provisions of the
Master Declaration, the Master Bylaws or any Master Rules approved by the Master Association,
the documents shall control in the following order of priority: (i) the Master Declaration, (ii) the
Master Bylaws and (iii) the Master Rules. In the event of a conflict between the provisions of
the Master Declaration and the Townhome Declaration, other in the rules and regulations
contained therein, the provisions of the Master Declaration sha1l govern the Townhome Units
and the Owners and Occupants thereof. In the event of a conflict between the Master Rules or
contained in the Master Declaration, and the rules and regulations adopted by the Townhome
Association, the more restrictive shall apply to the Townhome Units, their Owners and
Occupants.
17.5. Litie:ation. No judicial or administrative proceeding sha1l be commenced or prosecuted
by the Master Association without first holding a special meeting of the Members and obtaining
the affirmative vote of the voting Members representing at least seventy-five percent (75%) of
the Units to the commencement and prosecution of the proposed action. This Section shall not
apply to (a) actions brought by the Master Association to enforce the provisions of the Master
Governing Documents (including without limitation, an action to recover assessments or to
foreclose a lien for unpaid assessments) or (b) counterclaims brought by the Master Association
in proceedings instituted against it.
17.6. Duration. The covenants and restrictions of this Master Declaration shall run with and
bind the land and be a burden and benefit to all Owners and Occupants and to any other Person
acquiring or owning an interest in the Development, their heirs, personal representatives,
successors and assigns, and shall be perpetuaL
~
17.7. Road Improvements. The public streets adjacent to the Development are included within
the proposed 2003-2007 Capital Improvement Program for the City and may need reconstruction
or other improvements within that time period (the "Potential Road Improvements"). If the
Potential Road Improvements are in fact constructed., any Owner may be subject to special
assessments in accordance with the City's assessment policy for such Road Construction. This
Section 17.7 shall serve as notice to any Owner regarding the possibility of future special
assessments for the Potential Road Improvements. As expressly set forth in the PUD
Agreement, nothing contained in this Section 17.7 shall constitute a waiver of any right of any
Owner to have notice of a public hearing regarding any special assessment or to appeal any
special assessments in accordance with Minn. Stat. Chapter 429.
17.8. Develoument Agreement. The Units are being developed pursuant to the terms, and
subject to the conditions, of that certain PUD/Development Agreement by and between Hopkins
28