The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCC March 5, 1991 ) ~CA"""""""""" !,f" .t~i.. -ii?' 7~ j ~_i -,~\ J~! "' ~i1" \ " -,~, --~ -~j':'IJiI"~~_",,,~~~"f!1ril' CITY OF ANDOVER REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION AGENDA SECTION NO. DATE ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT March 5, 1991 APPROVED FOR AGENDA Engineering ~ ITEMDNR permi t Request NO. Slyzuk BY: Todd J. Haas BY: This is a informational item for the city council regarding Ken Slyzuk request for a DNR protected Waters Permit Application to pump water from an open ditch to Coon Creek. For background purposes, on June 19, 1990 the City Council discussed the issue of pumping of water from a ditch on the Slyzuk property into Coon Creek. The Neighborhood Preservation Association was concerned about the pumping may have had an adverse effect on Round Lake. '-' The minutes indicate the City Council would hold a public hearing once a permit application has been made. On December 31, 1990, the DNR sent the City a seepage investigation report and concluded the following: 1. that Round Lake acted similar to the other lakes in the Anoka sandplain. 2. that these lakes responded due to the drought. 3. the timing of the pumping does not match the rapid decline in lake levels. 4. and that the most likely cause of the sharp water level decline is evaporation and the overall decline of water levels in the aquifer. Note: A copy of the report was in the City Council packet of January 2, 1991. COUNCIL ACTION ) MOTION BY TO SECOND BY ~I ~ J , ) , ~ ) options: 1. Hold a Public Hearing and notify those individuals that signed the petition from the Neighborhood preservation Association. The hearing would be held on March 19, 1991. 2. Send a copy of the December 31 DNR letter to those individuals that signed the petition and not schedule the public hearing. .) PHONE NO. , . / ,~ -I![ jJ!/I'.J)(' ~ __ [)) iu{ //.c. :.. /!- P,il-' ~J / / ! I ' r'- ' 'oA..-.;) . STATE OF ! Q [N]rn~cQ)u& DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES METRO REGION WATE...U - 1200 WARNER ROAD, ST. PAUL, MN 55106 ALENa. 296-7523 DNR PROTECTED WATERS PERMIT APPLICATION NUMBER q 1- 6NL.." DATI:' 2 /2- S/ ;QUESTFOR REVIE1l AllD coMMENTS U (; E flit D" : TO' 'c.;~/Fc;(Il,ujtr<<~o::r;;"':5?Iw-.;.:/? 11 'I MAR 4 1991] , I J(j{t7/~ &. 5 we () - P~.+ VZv-J 0 (;4 CITY OF ANDOVER I C,,~ Creel {lJSD - flV'rl..-/4-/lr . FROM: TOM HOVEY, AREA HYDROLOGIST WATERS AFFECTED: :5 (A. r~ c.e.. t.-J c:>".+ e,l'"' ; Y\ Pr~V'aJe d :+c ke..? a-V\. j PROJECT SPONSOR: 'K e v\ Y\. e.. -\- ~ Sl3 2 u..~ NATURE OF WORK: Pv...-'''^"P W'Gt.-+e.r f~ aA'l crf~ J /fG~ ""+ ~ r--o.;+~ o--f? 2 ~~oo j plM.. P"'-.......f ~5 C!>f-e-r-~+eJ b ..... {,'......-er ~ ~ {fLoat- ~"""'~{.c.k.. D~~e... fe~lI\.+ I:s Lao-Y\ Cree~ PV<--i"f t) ~e.. ~ 5> +0 c. t I + . O-Y\ 10 '-'-'" C\.. e.. f" 1 e. Ve /.5 ; V\ ~j r~c,^,~ .hL,a..l {};JJ./ COMMENTS DUE BY: "3 b J~ 5> ~ Pfev -re.c..e-t'p1-. JOOO AN FmJAL Q;:>POPTUNITY <:MPLOYE=< ,J Te C ('.' ~2j11 'u"- ~ ~", Ll,,' - 'N ]r[!:. "-- ./ 'i'W rlrL..-t: ( STATE OF -If[: riot.. 1r-_ (NJ(NJ[g~cQ)u~ ~A/6i;';'C:.E}ZJl/& Ch--7CC, I~ DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES ~ METRO REGION WATERS - 1200 WARNER ROAD, ST. PAUL, MN 55106 PHONEN0772-7910 FILENO. -fCt ~ December 31, 1990 iJECflVED nrJAN 21991 I ..- CITY OF ANDOVER Mr. Jim Schrantz City of Andover 1685 Crosstown Blvd. NW Andover, MN 55304 RE: SEEPAGE INVESTIGATION, ROUND LAKE (2-89P), CITY OF ANDOVER, ANOKA COUNTY Dear Mr. Schrantz: ,) Due to the questions arising from the water levels in Round Lake and Mr. Slyzuk's pumping from his ditch system, I requested that our Central Office groundwater crew further study the groundwater conditions and pumping near Round Lake. Also, we anticipated needing more information for decision making when Mr. Slyzuk applies for a new permit for pumping water from his fields. The results of this second seepage investigation are enclosed in the memo from Justin Blum, formerly of our groundwater crew, to myself. Please circulate this seepage investigation memo to anyone at the city that you think would be interested or should have the information. The seepage investigation included: 1) water level analysis for several lakes in Anoka County that were geologically similar to Round Lake, 2) comparison of precipitation, and temperature records for the area, 3) analyzing pumping records, groundwater modelling, and a comparison of groundwater flow to evaporation. The study concluded that Round Lake acted similar to the other lakes in the Anoka sandplain, that these lakes responded due to the drought, the timing of the pumping does not match the rapid decline in lake levels, and that the most likely cause of the sharp water level decline is evaporation and the overall decline of water levels in the aquifer. If you have any further questions regarding this investigation, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, ?!:eY~ Area Hydrologist ~ ) Tl47:kap cc: Glen Yakel, St. Paul Waters Peter Rauen AN EaUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER G , ) Regula~ City Council Meeting Minutes - June 19, 1990 Page 2 (Resident Fo~um, Continued) membe~ship is sac~ed. He also cannot find ~efe~ence to gag o~de~s p~ohibiting pa~ticipation at a membe~ship meeting, stating he is not subo~dinate to anyone at a delibe~ative assembly and cannot be held insubo~dinate. He felt he had a ~ight to insist that the meetings be conducted by Robe~ts Rules of O~de~. M~. Dillon ~ead seve~al sections of Robe~ts Rules of Orde~ noting all committee ~epo~ts must be voted UP o~ down by the membe~ship. He believed they cannot autho~ize someone to dete~mine the official position of the o~ganization othe~ than by the vote of the membe~ship. He felt that has happened. Othe~ ~efe~ences made to Robe~ts Rules of O~de~ we~e on the chai~man's ~esponsibility to obey the commands of the assembly and that the ~ules a~e to se~ve the will of the assembly. He asked that the City Atto~ney ~eview the info~mation and see what is based on the minutes and what is on innuendo, illusion, opinion o~ pe~sonal agenda. M~. Dillon also stated he suppo~ted and still suppo~ts Chief Smith but felt it is unfo~tunate so few people in the community unde~stand Robe~ts Rules of O~de~. Atto~ney Hawkins stated he did not have all of the suppo~ting mate~ial \ to ~eview the issue prio~ to the meeting. Afte~ some discussion, ) Council ag~eed to have the atto~ney submit a w~itten opinion on the matte~. MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Jacobson, that the item ~ega~ding the By-Laws and the ope~ation of the Fi~e Depa~tment subcommittees be ~efe~~ed to the City Attorney fo~ his opinion. Motion ca~~ied on a 4-Yes, 1-Absent (Elling) vote. AGENDA APPROVAL Councii ag~eed to add Item 16a, Coon Rapids P & Z Meeting. MOTION by O~ttel, Seconded by Jacobson, move the Agenda as amended. Motion ca~ried on a 4-Yes, 1-Absent (Elling) vote. NEIGHBORHOOD PRESERVATION ASSOCIATION PETITION Steve Wood. 3723 145th Avenue NW - add~essed the Council of conce~ns the Andover Neighbo~hood P~ese~vation Association has with a th~ee-yea~ pe~mit issued by the DNR to Ken Slyzuk, 14214 C~osstown Bouleva~d, in 1988 to pump wate~ f~om a ditch on his land into Coon C~eek. He summa~ized the provisions of the pe~mit noting some of the violations that have occu~red with regard to ~epo~tS. Also, the pump was installed befo~e the pe~mit was issued. They asked the Council to seek the cessation of pumping f~om the ditch into Coon C~eek, feeling the~e is enough evidence to suppo~t that the pumping may have an adve~se effect on the lake. The ~esidents wouid also like the ~emoval ~ ,,"''''\..,i'l ~1-' ~~'1> -\'~ s" , \ I ' '~J ( ) Regula~ City Council Meeting Minutes - June 19, 1990 Page 3 <Neighbo~hood P~ese~vatlon Association Petition, Continued) and pe~manent closu~e of the la~ge culve~t which dl~ectly connects M~. Slyzuk's p~lvate ditch to Coon C~eek. They also called fo~ a mo~e tho~ough ~evlew of all of the dItching system in Andove~ which might ~easonablY be expected to Influence the wate~ level In Round Lake. In the long te~m they would like consIde~ation given to the InstallatIon of ae~atlon equipment or ~eve~sal of the sedimentation p~ocess which Is ~apldly filling In the lake. Pete B~own, ~esldent, stated the legal gove~nlng body has the autho~ity to call a publiC hea~ing to review the pe~mlt; howeve~, the City dId not hold one for thIs permit. M~. Schrantz stated the CIty Staff ~esponded to the DNR; no publiC hea~lng was held. ( Tom HoveY. DNR a~ea hYd~oloaIst fo~ Anoka County - stated they know the land a~ound Round Lake was developed p~io~ to 1938 with the basic ditch system now in place, guessing the landowne~ has the ~Ight to use his land as It has been used. He has asked the Coon C~eek Wate~shed to find the original elevatIons of the ditch. M~. Hovey stated the pump in question did not ~un between last June and May 31, 1990. Between Ap~II 25, 1990, and tonight, Round Lake ~ose almost one foot. In talking to Mr. Slyzuk, the fi~st week the pump was only ~un between mIdnight and 4 a.m., and between 11 p.m. and 4:00 in the afternoon since that time. \ ) Mr. Hovey explaIned Round Lake is monito~ed, and they believe the low lake level is basically due to the weathe~, noting the lake is ~esponding basically the same as othe~ lakes that a~e monlto~ed. He also ~eviewed the DNR seepage study, noting it appea~s the lake has outward seepage in the southeastern di~ectlon and Inwa~d seepage f~om the south/northwest/no~theast dI~ection. He showed g~aphs of the wate~ levels and sediment. M~. Hovey then explained the pe~mit to M~. Slyzuk was after-the-fact, as the pump was installed p~io~ to the issuance of the pe~mlt. ' Because M~. Slyzuk has been cooperative whenever they request InfoLmatlon and because theLe was no pumping between last June and three weeks ago, he was not concerned about Mr. Slyzuk's failuLe to submit the ~eports noted In the permIt. M~. Hovey recommended against ~emov I ng the pump wi thou t fur,ther p~oof of its affect on Round Lake, as he didn't think the~e was/enough evidence to show that the pump Is affecting the lake. The pe~mlt expI~es this November, suggesting that if the~e is an application to ~enew it, the City and ~esidents can make their input at that time. , \ Lj Discussion with M~. Slyzuk noted a portion of Round Lake was in the Coon Creek Wate~shed but was ~emoved when sanlta~y sewe~ and wate~ was put in In that area. M~. Hovey thought that technically pa~t of the lake should be within the Coon C~eek Wate~shed Dist~ict. Regula~ City Council Meeting Minutes - June 19, 1990 Page 4 '\ J (Nelghbo~hood P~ese~vatlon Association Petition, Continued) Jack McKelvey - asked seve~al questions about the ~elatlonship of Round Lake to Coon C~eek. M~. Hovey stated they have no ~eadlngs on Coon C~eek, not knowing what effect the lowe~ing of Coon C~eek will have on the Lake. It is possible an Environmental Impact Study will have to be done to make that dete~minatlon befo~e any work Is done on Coon Creek. Another ~esident asked If he was aware of any wells around the lake that might Influence It. Mr. Hovey stated no. guessing any wells would be drilled deep enough to not affect the lake. Peter Brown _ stated It appea~s the DNR Issued the pe~mit without really studying the situation, and since then there are many questions on Its Impact on the lake. He asked what the criteria was to Justify this permit, noting the lowering of the water level 1.5 feet Impacts the su~~oundlng residents a lot. M~. Hovey stated some was subjective and some was objective. Calculations we~e made on the maximum ac~e-feet to be pumped out of the ditch. The permit review seeks to keep things the way they a~e, not liking to see a lot of changes in the wate~ level of basins themselves. '\ ) Afte~ further discussion with Mr. Hovey cla~ifylng his position on what Is happening In Round Lake and the effect of the pe~mitted pumping In question. the Council ag~eed when the pe~mlt Is to be renewed, the City will hold a public hearing for resident Input. HopefullY between now and then further Info~matlon can be gathered by monito~ing the lake and the c~eek. M~. Hovey also suggested the residents try to work out a solution with Mr. Slyzuk, suggesting seve~al options that might be conslde~ed. MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Perry. that if and when this permit expi~es and a new one is requested by M~. Slyzuk, that when that notice comes to the City that the Staff notify the Council and the Council hold a publiC hearing at the Council level on the permit. DISCUSSION: M~. Hovey stated he will contact the Coon Creek Watershed regarding the Installation of the culvert between Mr. Slyzuk/s ditch and the creek. Mr. Schrantz also noted the Staff did not have the petition and therefore did not comment; however. they do have a lot of Information that may be useful for this Issue. Nor have the residents contacted the Lower River Water Management Organization. suggesting that be done. Motion carried on a 4-Yes, 1-Absent (Elling) vote. AMENDED SPECIAL USE PERMIT/CONSTANCE FREE CHURCH \ '- -/. - MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Orttel, the Resolution as prepa~ed, approving the amended Special Use Permit request of Constance Evangelical F~ee Church to allow the const~uctlon of a new identification sign on their prope~ty at 16060 NW C~osstown Bouleva~d. (See Resolution R076-90) Motion ca~~led on a 4-Yes, 1-Absent (Elling) vote. J ~ ' I ANOKA ~CL Office of o. ';019/ COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT KENNETH G. WILKINSON - SHERIFF OR/Cj rri:-1!t7 'I Courthouse _ 325 East Main Street - Anoka, Minnesota 55303 612-421-4760 CITY OF ANDOVER [ ~~.'''''''' E f~ F i U t' u.',. ' ~l tJ, ~ '0, ~ b . ---'~-l t " \ ' ' t ~ ' ~ t!: :, ,1, I c. -: . REPOR ~ tl ~'!J!;\R 4 L91 I .. ,.... MONTHLY CONTRACT PRODUCTIVITY Month: January , 1991 CITY OF Al'lDOVER This report reflects the productivity of the Andover contract cars, 3l25, 3135, 3145 and 3l55. It does not include activity by Sheriff's Department cars within the City during non-contract hours, nor, acti vi ty by other Sheriff's Department cars wi thin the City during contract hours. Other Agencies 27 Radio Calls 372 1 Complaints 261 0 Medicals 5 0 P. I. Accidents 3 20 P.O. Accidents 17 12 Domestics 5 0 House Checks 153 14 Business Checks 394 23 30 10,120 Arrests: Traffic DWI Arrests: Felony G.M. Misdemeanor Arrests: Warrant Papers Served warnings Aids: Public TOTAL MILES PATROLLED: Captain' Len Christ Anoka County Sheriff's Department Patrol Division '-~ Affirmative Action I Equal Opportunity Employer ;I -vq / :~ CITY of ANDOVER Oil-Hi- ?Pk-t:'~7 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. . ANDOVER. MINNESOTA 55304 . (612) 755-5100 MEMORANDUM TO: COPIES TO: FROM: DATE: Mayor & City Council Department Heads David Almgren March 4, 1991 REFERENCE: FEBRUARY 1991 Month1v Buildinq I hereby submit the following report of the the Month of February 1991: BUILDING PERMITS 13 Residential (9 Sewer/4 Septic) 1 Addition 3 Garages 1 Remodeling/Finishing 1 Commercial Building 3 Chimney/Stove/Fireplace 22 PERMITS 22 Building Permits 1 Footing Permit 2 Renewal Permits 12 Heating Permits 4 Heating Repair 10 Hook Up (Sewer) 8 Plumbing Permits 2 Plumbing Repair 16 pumping Permits 1 septic Permit 10 Water Meter Permits 14 Certificates of Occupancy 19 Contractor's License 10 Sewer Admin. Fee 10 SAC Retainage Fee Report Building Department for APPROXIMATE VALUATION $ 1,188,000.00 5,000.00 22,800.00 2,000.00 269,875.00 4,000.00 $ 1,491,675.00 FEES COLLECTED 8,908.06 10.00 361.38 240.00 45.00 250.00 448.00 25.00 40.00 25.00 500.00 56.00 475.00 150.00 65.00 $11,598.44 11,598.44 17,260.69 571,390.00 2,063,065.00 February 1991 YTD 1991 Total Building Department Income Total Building Department Income Total Valuation--February 1991 Total Valuation--YTD 1991 Total of Houses YTD (1991) - 20 Total of Houses YTD (1990) - 39 Total of Houses 1990 - 269 , , Total of Houses 1989 - 341 ~ ) DA/jp _ .~__._ ~___. .________ ...__ _... .. _ __.n .____________ :)M ~ EIJJJCcJr))':h::'7...:-fr!c.. {~"f,I//lI-"tnC 'J;D.=>:/ Kc;j #9; -(0 cC. 1{;/;;/ ilj,'>i I~'I.J..;, 1f!J.-~ Minnesota Pollution Control Agency \ ./ 520 Lafayette Road, Saint Paul, Minnesota 55155-3898 O:>"/J/Jik't;: Telephone (612) 296-6300 ~~ ~tI:SNESOTA 1990 February 22, 1991 Mr. Richard Marchek UNYSIS Corporation P.O. Box 64525 St. Paul, MN 55164-0525 Ms. Margaret Coughlin Dickinson, wright, Moon, Van Dusen and Freeman 800 First National Bldg. Detroit, MI Mr. William Keppel Dorsey & Whitney 2200 First Bank Place W. Minneapolis, MN 55402 Mr. Dick Nowlin Doherty, Rumble & Butler 2200 First Bank Place W. Minneapolis, MN 55402 Re: Water Disposal Engineering (WOE) Superfund Site Dear Counsel: The purpose of this letter is to inform you of the intentions of the State of Minnesota with regard to the negotiation and settlement of the Waste Disposal Engineering (WDE) Superfund matter. First, the State wishes to inform you about a change in the status of the MPCA regarding its participation in a three-party (State-EPA-RPS) Consent Decree. In early January, the State received for internal review the latest draft of the proposed Consent Decree by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), and the Department of Justice (DOJ). This draft included new language affecting the authority of the Minnesota pollution Control Agency (MPCA) under State law to review the adequacy of remedial action implemented under the Decree. This language was not acceptable to the State. Intensive efforts to resolve the differences between the State and the federal government failed to reach a resolution on this issue. As a result, the USEPA and MPCA have broken off efforts to draft a single Consent Decree to which both the State and the federal government would be parties. ' It is the intention of the State to continue to engage in good faith negotiation of a settlement in this matter with the participating RPs. However, given the events described above, the State is preparing a draft two party Consent Order (State- RPs) which will be forwarded to the RP negotiating group within the' next two weeks. In drafting this Consent Order, it is the State's intention to retain those provisions that were agreed upon in previous three party negotiations, while deleting those '- ) Regional Offices: Duluth' Brainerd' Detroit Lakes' Marshall' Rochester Eaual OooortuMV Emolover . Printed an Recvcled Paoer portions that are not relevant or appropriate to a State Consent Order. The RPs will have 60 days to negotiate a final Consent Order with the State. We expect to request the MPCA Board to approve a final agreed upon Consent Order at the May 28, 1991, Board meeting. In the event that settlement cannot be completed in a reasonable time, the MPCA staff will proceed to amend the existing Request For Response Action (RFRA) issued in October, 1989, to include an appropriately updated version of the RAP and an implementation schedule for the Response Actions requested therein. Please be advised the MPCA will be moving ahead to address the environmental contamination problems at the WOE Site. The MPCA staff has set a goal of beginning construction on the WOE remedial action at the earliest possible date. The MPCA will do its best to coordinate remediation of the WOE Site with USEPA requirements in order to avoid overlapping oversight responsibilities and conflicts or duplication in the work required by the RPs. The MPCA staff hope that the State and the negotiating RPs will be able to work together on this Site so that together we may achieve a successful conclusion to settlement negotiations and successful implementation of cleanup. The State also wishes to respond at this time to your letter dated January 30, 1991, addressed to U.S. EPA Regional Counsel Stuart Hersh, U.S. Department of Justice attorney Gerald Brost, and Minnesota Special Assistant Attorney General Alan Williams. The State flatly rejects your contention that the U.S. EPA or MPCA have reneged on or altered in any way the principles on which the negotiations in this matter have been based, and neither the MPCA nor USEPA has ever "advised" you that this is our "present intention" as you stated in your January 30 letter. Short of breaking off negotiations, we see no purpose to be served in your making the kind of claims set forth in the January 30 letter. If it is your intention to break off negotiations for this reason, it would save us all a great deal of time and effort if you would so advise us as soon as possible. I The State has repeatedly explained to you what we have always believed was the original understanding concerning the inclusion of past and oversight costs as well as the cost of clay for the landfill cap in a final settlement. Our understanding of the "agreement in principle" has always been that none of these items was permanently excluded from any final settlement. On the contrary, when the original understanding was reached, seven nonparticipating PRPs (the so-called "core non-settlors") were identified as the primary parties to whom the governments would -2- , \ " ) look to pay past and oversight costs and clay costs. There were fairly detailed discussions in which your group participated concerning how the final settlement would be affected if parties that had previously been considered non-settlors decided to participate in the settlement. It has always been our understanding that, if a core non- settlor were to join the settlement, that party's contribution would be allocated to past, oversight and clay costs (with the PRPs free to seek reimbursement of a share of their RI/FS costs as well). If all seven core non-settlors joined the settlement, then one hundred percent of the past, oversight and clay costs were to be paid as part of the overall settleme~t agreement. In fact, allocations for the seven core non-settlors were calculated by your group such that the past, oversight and clay costs could be covered even if less than all of the non-settlors became part of the final agreement. Both the governments and the negotiating RPs, therefore, have shared a common purpose to encourage those who did not participate in the original offer of settlement to join your group and to add their contribution to the overall settlement amount. The State has vigorously encouraged such participation and has resisted proposals by some non-settlors for separate settlement agreements with us. We concluded early in 1990 that there was a reasonable likelihood that all seven core non- settlors would participate in the final agreement. Thus, it is erroneous to characterize the original understanding of the parties as having excluded the recovery of past, oversight or clay costs from a final settlement agreement. Based on our view of the original understanding and the events that have taken place since that understanding was reached, the State believes it is reasonable to expect that the final settlement of this matter will include full payment of the State's remaining unreimbursed past costs, future oversight costs (to be paid as they are incurred) and the cost of the clay for the cap. This was the State's position during negotiation sessions in April and May of 1990. It is not a new position, and it is consistent with past' understandings of what the final settlement might include. The final draft of the proposed Consent Order will be consistent with this approach. To reiterate, if it is your intention to cease negotiations because you believe that there has been a departure from our earlier understanding as to treatment of these costs in a final agreement, we would appreciate your earliest possible notice of this intention. Otherwise, it is our plan to continue to seek a resolution of this matter with the expectation of a full and , .... , ) .. --~ -3- . complete settlement of all elements including past and oversight costs and costs of clay for the cap. If we can be of any further assistance or if you have any questions, please contact me at 612/296-7746. /,_.__s.~x;.:_~~!~-=-:>_..- : /~1~ '---o~~ J. Trippl~r Project Manager -4- DATE: March 5, 1991 \ ,j ITEMS GIVEN TO THE CITY COUNCIL Regular City Council Minutes - February 19, 1991 Letter from Gregory Elden, Midwest Gas - February 26, 1991 Special Closed City Council Minutes - February 19, 1991 Ordinance No. 66C Ordinance No. 42A What's Happening ,/ \ ~ Housing and Redevelopment Authority Minutes - February 19, 1991 Coon Creek Watershed Minutes - February 25, 1991 planning and Zoning Minutes - February 12, 1991 Assessment Manual Final Water Management plan - February 1991 PLEASE ADDRESS THESE ITEMS AT THIS MEETING OR PUT THEM ON THE NEXT AGENDA. .~ THANK YOU. '0:;;) .'~'~ MIDWEST J~~ ~~~rvice People " ) 1930 Coon Rapids Blvd. Coon Rapids, MN 55433 (612) 754-4200 727 CC 3>/::-/1/ ~rEr~1~- - i a,':---.' 'X E,n"" ' f i iE;;;:;S:llU . ~ I' CfTY OF' A 'JD ,- I' OVER .' Febrnary 26, 1991 James E. Schrantz, City Administrator CITY OF ANDOVER 1685 N. w: Crosstown Blvd. Andover, MN 55304 ,J Dear Mr. Schrantz: Enclosed please find a copy of a news release from Midwest Gas. This news release announces a new program that will allow Midwest Gas customers to contribute to a heating assistance ftmd called I-CARE. Please review the news release for the details on this program. Sincerely, MIDWEST GAS Gregory B. Elden Minnesota Division Manager GBE/jam " ) A Utility of Midwest Energy Company .- " ,) MIDWEST GAS The Service People P. O. Box 778 Sioux City, IA 51102 News Release: Immediately Contact: Greg Elden (612) 754-4130 ,J '\ '-~ MIDWEST GAS TO LAUNCH PROGRAM TO HELP CUSTOMERS PAY UTILITY BILLS COON RAPIDS, MN -- Midwest Gas customers will have an opportunity to contribute to a fund to help needy people pay their winter heating bills beginning this month. The Company will initiate a voluntary contribution program that will allow Midwest Gas customers to contribute to a heating assistance fund called I CARE, according to Greg Elden, manager of Midwest Gas in Coon Rapids, Minnesota. "Customers can contribute to I CARE by pledging an amount which will automatically be added to their monthly Midwest Gas payment or they may make a one time contribution," Elden said. "These tax deductible donations will be turned over to the local Community Action Agencies to help provide heating assistance in areas served by Midwest Gas." An individual does not have to be a Midwest Gas heating customer to qualify for I CARE heating assistance. However, the individual must live in a community served by Midwest Gas and / meet established income guidelines. (more) '\ / \ '-J Midwest Gas will contribute an additional 50 cents to the I CARE heating assistance fund for every dollar donated by our customers, Elden said. "We recognize that the winter season may be particularly difficult for the elderly, low-income, and unemployed," he said. "We hope that the generosity of our customers and our matching funds will make a difference this winter." -30- February 21, 1991' ) ,) \ ) " ) ***************************************** *********************::::::***************************************~~ *",*********** ~~ "'", ~~ "'", ~~ "'", ~~ "'", ~~ "'", ~~ ~; _WHAT'S__,_HAPPENING 'J-l~ ~~ "'", ~~ "'", *~ "'", ** "'lC ~~ "'", ** "'", ~~ :: March 5, 1991 :: "'lC ~~ "'", *~ "'", ** :: - LRRWMO - Enclosed in this packet is a copy of :: "'", the final Water Management Plan. *~ "'", ~~ "'lC *~ :: Note: Any of the Councilmembers who feel, if :: "'", after reading the plan, that they don't ~~ :: have a need for the plan, return it to :: :: me. We only have 12 available for each :: "'", city. *~ "'", *~ "'lC ~~ "'", The LRRWMO is planning a joint meeting with the *~ :: 4 city Councils :: "'", *~ "'", ~~ "'", Note: Rumor has it that the city that has the *~ :: fewest members attend the meeting has to :: "'", buy cookies. *~ "'", ~~ "'lC *~ "'", Note: The meeting will be held in Anoka's ~* :: Committee Room that overlooks the Rum :: :: River to motivate us. :: "'lC ~'" :: - The Legislature is working real hard along with :: "'", Governer Carlson on bills on "No Net Loss" of *~ :: wetlands. :: "'", *~ "'", *'" "'", - I, as member of the LRRWMO, am a member of the ",'" :: BSWR Advisory Committee writing rules for future :: "'", "509" plans. It is a large group with many very ~'" "'lC "'~ ; "'", expensive ideas on how BSWR can monitor the *~ :: WMO's enforcement and financial affairs. :: "'", ~ :: - The sonsteby vs. Anoka/Andover Lawsuit has been :: "'lC continued until April 4th at 9:00 a.m. *~ "'lC "'~ "'", ; *~ :: - We sent Jerry Windlchi tl a copy of the letter we :: "'", received from MPCA' concerning the WDE site. ...~ :: Jerry has taken issue with the buffers wi th MPCA :: "'", in the past. ...... "'", *~ "'", ~~ :: The City Council should address this issue. We :: "'", always have said it is a private matter. ...'" "'", ",'" "'", ",'" ::***************************~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~: ".".".".".".".".".".".".".".".".".".".".".".".".".".".".".~~ ,~ AGENDA COON CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT BOARD OF MANAGERS February 25, 1991 7:30 PM 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. Approval of Agenda 3. Open Mike POLICY ITEMS :,J 4. Approval of Minutes , "- ,,) PERMIT ITEMS 5. Table Knoll Ditch Construction (PAN 91-04) 6. Table Pioneer Village Apartments (PAN 91-05) DISCUSSION ITEMS 7. Draft Policy 4.1: Permit Procedures 8. Introduce Policy 2.4: Purchasing Procedures 10 (L. "3/19/ -;-'-,'1.', E'~- F ~ ~{;t"n.' , .. , ~ - ] ',Ii Of- , .~ - ~,,';' ,." tj e- ,t-3 '~won, 'l l I \ ~ E 3 2 2 1991 " , I- ,,_ QITV OF ANDOVER 9. Introduce Project 91-02: Replace Water Control Structure on Ditch 58-7-2 INFORMATIONAL ITEMS 10. Discuss Wetland Definitions: (Policy 4.3) 11. LegiSlative update NEW BUSINESS ADJOURN DRAFT COON CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT BOARD OF MANAGERS' MEETING February II, 1990 The Board of Managers of the Coon Creek Watershed District held their regular meeting on February II, 1991 at the Bunker Hills Activities Center. ) ~ Present: Bob Boyum, Reggie Hemmes, Eldon Hentges, LuEllen Richmond, Paul Williams. Staff: 1. The meeting was called to order at 7:30 PM Tim Kelly, Ed Mathiesen, Michelle Ulrich 2. Approval of the Agenda: Moved by Williams, seconded by Richmond. Motion carried with four yeas (Hemmes, Hentges, Richmond, and Williams) and no nays. J Policy Items 3. Open Mike: No one was present for open mike. 4. Approval of the January 28, 1991 Minutes: Moved by Williams, seconded by Richmond. Motion carried with four yeas (Hemmes, Hentges, Richmond, and Williams) and no nays. 5. Receive Monthly Financial Statements Moved by Williams, seconded by Richmond. Motion carried with four yeas (Hemmes, Hentges, Richmond, and Williams) and no nays. Boyum arrived. 6. Approve Bills Moved by Richmond, seconded by Williams. Motion carried with five yeas (Boyum, Hemmes, Hentges, Richmond, and Williams) and no nays. The bills to be paid are as follows: Check. 3275 3276 3271 3278 3279 3280 3281 3282 3283 3284 3286 3287 3288 '\ \...../ To Anoka County H. Sheff JMM ABC Shopper COP US West Tim Kelly Minnesota Auditor Anoka Co: Oak Crest Blaine Office/Partners Assoc of Metropolitan Watershed Dist. Postmaster Univ of Minnesota Amount 5,876.35 3,398.00 1,456.75 146.55 136.86 61.72 52.34 42.00 2.50 496.12 100.00 100.00 150.00 $12,019.19 Page: 2. Coon Creek Watershed District - February 11,1991 ) DRAFT Permit Items 7. Woodham North PUD (PAN 91-01): Mathiesen and Kelly presented revised permit information and recommended approval. Moved by Williams, seconded by Hentges. Motion carried with five yeas (Boyum, Hemmes, Hentges, Richmond, and Williams) and no nays. 8. Nordeen Mining Permit Renewal (PAN 91-03): Mathiesen presented permit information citing that the request was for renewal of permit # 409. The Williams requested information on the outlet structure to the pond that was being created. Richmond moved renewal of permit 409 for one year contingent on the applicant corporate in developing an operating plan for the outlet structure. Seconded by Williams. Motion carried with five yeas (Boyum, Hemmes, Hentges, Richmond, and williams) and no nays. Informational Items ',J 9. Receive Staff Report: Kelly reviewed the information in the staff report. Discussion centered on moving the office to space on the second floor of the bank building where the District is currently located. The Board asked for a complete proposal. Kelly requested vacation leave from March 19 through April 2. Requested approved with five yeas (Boyum, Hemmes, Hentges, Richmond, and wi 1.1 i ams) and no nays. The meeting adjourned at 8:56 PM on a motion by Hentges, seconded by williams. Motion carried with five yeas (Boyum, Hemmes, Hentges, Richmond, and Williams) and no nays. Reggie Hemmes, Chairman '\ ,.J :_) CA 7:30 P.M. '\ ,) CITY of ANDOVER Regular City Council Meeting-March 5, 1991 Call to Order Resident Forum Agenda Approval Approval of Minutes Discussion Items 1. Variance/J. Kunza 2. Assessment policy HRA Meeting 3. Public Hearing/1991 CDBG Budget staff, Committee, Commissions 4. Assessment Abatement/82-7 5. Classification of Forfeit Land, Cant. 6. Appoint Election Judges/General Election 7. Approve purchase/Printer for Gopher State 8. Schedule Meeting w/Lower Rum River watershed Non-Discussion Items 9. Order Feasibility Report/91-1/Crosstown Drive Mayor Council Input Approval of Claims Adjournment , "';'\~"">:"'."~"" CITY OF ANDOVER REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE March 5, 1991 '- AGENDA SECTION 1 ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT APPROV~R NO. Approva of Minutes AGENDA Admin. C ITEM ~\< NO, Approval of Minutes BY:(} BY: V. Volk \ , The City Council is requested to approve the following minutes: February 19, 1991 Regular Meeting (Perry absent) February 19, 1991 Special Closed Meeting ( pe rry absent) February 19, 1991 HRA Meeting (perrry absent) COUNCIL ACTION MOTION BY SECOND BY TO ",',';,' '''''~"''''i''!or. 'CA"" "'" ',,~;'" '~1:J, ,I ~ ii"" !i1 ~1 ') ;, ~; < '\\,~,., ,"",,#i ~'~"';""'''''''II"l,,,,,,,,. CITY OF ANDOVER REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION March 5, 1991 ITEM NO, /. ce 2814 134th Ave. NW DATE ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT PlanninglJ David L. carlberg, ~ city planner BY: AGENDA Ds.ECTION . NQ 1SCUSS10n Items REQUEST The Andover city Council is asked to review the variance request of John Kunza to allow for the construction of a 20' x 24' addition (family room) to the principle structure encroaching into the required rear yard setback a distance of 15' 8". BACKGROUND Mr. Kunza has applied for the variance due to the position of the house on the lot. Mr. Kunza's house has frontage on 134th Avenue NW. However, the lot dimensions indicate Mr. Kunza should have had frontage on Crooked Lake Boulevard. By Ordinance No.8, the definition for a front lot line, is "that boundary of a lot which abutts an existing or dedicated public street and, in the case of a corner lot, it shall be the shortest dimension on a public street". The reason for the frontage on 134th Avenue NW and not Crooked Lake Boulevard was to limit the number of driveways onto Crooked Lake Boulevard. Mr. Kunza was granted a variance in 1987 for the construction of a deck encroaching into the required rear yard setback. The encroachment is the same as Mr. Kunza's present request of 15' a". please note the attached report presented to the Planning and zoning Commission on February 12, 1991 indicating the applicable ordinances and the minutes reflecting the Commission's discussion. PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW The Planning and zoning Commission, recommended approval of the variance request by Mr. Kunza. In doing so, the Commission requested additional information to be available to the City Council when rendering a judgment on the request. The information requested is as follows: COUNCIL ACTION MOTION BY TO SECOND BY ~I Page Two Kunza Variance , ) March 5, 1991 1. The Commission questioned several accessory buildings possibly encroaching into the required side yard setback of Crooked Lake Boulevard. 2. The Commission requested a more complete sketch plan from Mr. Kunza. 3. The Commission questioned whether the rear yard is a 30 foot yard as required by Ordinance, or a 27 foot rear yard as indicated on the diagram for the deck variance in 1987. The additional information requested above will be presented to the Council at the meeting on March 5, 1991 RECOMMENDATION The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends to the City Council approval of the variance requested by Mr. John Kunza to allow for the construction of a 20' x 24' addition to the principle structure encroaching 15' 8" into the required rear yard setback on the property described as Lot 1, Block 4, Lundgren Oakridge Addition (2814 134th Avenue ~~).. Attached is a resolution for council review and approval. \ / ~) CITY OF ANDOVER COUNTY OF ANOKA STATE OF MINNESOTA RES. NO. R -91 A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE VARIANCE REQUEST OF JOHN KUNZA FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 20' X 24' ADDITION TO THE PRINCIPLE STRUCTURE ENCROACHING FIFTEEN (15) FEET EIGHT (8) INCHES INTO THE REAR YARD SETBACK ON THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2814 - 134TH AVENUE NW (LOT 1, BLOCK 4, LUNDGREN OAKRIDGE ADDITION). WHEREAS, John Kunza has requested a variance to allow for the construction of a 20' x 24' addition to the principle structure encroaching into the rear yard setback a distance of 15' 8"; and WHEREAS, the Planning & zoning Commission has reviewed the request and has determined that said request meets the criteria of Ordinance No.8, Section 5.04 in that a hardship does exist due to the unique shape and topography of the property which would preclude the property owner reasonable use of his property; and WHEREAS, the Planning & zoning Commission recommends to the City Council approval of the variance request as it meets the criteria of Ordinance No.8, Section 5.04; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Andover hereby agrees with the recommendation of the Planning & Zoning Commission and hereby approves the request of John Kunza to construct a 20' x 24' addition to the principle structure encroaching fifteen (15) feet eight (8) inches into the rear yard setback on the property located at 2814 - 134th Avenue NW (Lot 1, Block 4, Lundgren Oakridge Addition). Adopted by the City Council of the City of Andover this 5th day of March, 1991. CITY OF ANDOVER Kenneth D. Orttel, Mayor ATTEST: Victoria Volk, Clty Clerk , , ~/ CITY of ANDOVER 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. . ANDOVER. MINNESOTA 55304 · (612) 755-5100 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING - FEBRUARY 12, 1991 MINUTES The Regulae BI-Monthly Meeting of the Andovee Planning and Zoning Commission was called to o~de~ by Acting Chai~pe~son Rebecca Pease on Febeua~y 12, 1991,7:30 p.m., at the Andove~ City Hall, 1685 C~osstown Bouleva~d NW, Andove~, Minnesota. Commissionees absent: Also p~esent: Bonnie Dehn, Steve Jonak, Bev Jovanovich, Randall Peek, Ma~c McMullen Ron Fe~~is City Planne~, David Ca~lbe~g; Assistant City Enginee~, Todd Haas; and othe~s Commissioners present: NEW COMMISSIONERS Acting Chairperson Pease welcomed the newly appointed members to the Planning Commission: Bonnie Dehn and Ma~c McMullen. APPROVAL OF MINUTES January 22, 1991 - Correct as written. MOTION by Jovanovich, Seconded by Jonak, to approve. Motion car~ied on a 4-Yes, 2-Present (Dehn, McMullen). 1-Absent (Fer~is) vote. SPECIAL USE PERMIT - GUN SHOP AND REPAIR GARAGE. 13650 Hanson Boulevard NW. Robert Bendtsen M~. Carlberg reported Mr. Bendtsen has withdrawn his request from this Agenda because his pu~chase agreement has fallen through. M~. Bendtsen wil I be coming back on February 26 for the permit on another si te. No Commission action was taken. I / VARIANCE _ REARYARD SETBACK/ENCROACHMENT. 2814 134th Avenue NW. John Kunza o Mr. Carlberg reviewed the ~equest of John Kunza to allow fo~ the construction of a 20 x 24-foot addition to the p~incipal structure encroaching 15 feet 8 inches into the required rearyard setback. He pointed out a variance was also granted on May 5, 1987, to allow construction of a deck to encroach that same amount because of the po~ition of the principal structu~e on the lot. The lot fronts on 134th Avenue: however, the ordinance definition of lot front is onto Crooked Lake Boulevara. Because the positioning of the house on the lot p~esents a problem, the Staff is ~ecommending app~oval of the ~equest. --- ~~ Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - February 12, 1991 Page 2 <Variance - Rearyard setback, John Kunza, Continued) Mr. Kunza was not present for the discussion. During the discussion, the Commission brought up several poInts: 1) There are several accessory storage buildIngs on the side yard fronting Crooked Lake Boulevard, and there was concern that they do not meet the setback requirements. Mr. Carlberg stated he would vIew the parcel and give that information to the Council. 2) The sketch plan presented with this request dId not show the entire parcel. Mr. Carlberg stated he would ask Mr. Kunza for a more complete sketch plan. 3) Mr. Carlberg noted the sketch plan presented with the variance request in 1987 shows a 27-foot rearyard setback. He thought that was an error, that it should be 30 feet, which was required when the house was built. He will measure it and present the correct measurements when the Council considers the item. ( ~ 4) The CommIssion questioned the reaction of the neighbors to the encroachment. Mr. Carlberg reported Mr. Kunza has verbally asked his neighbors and says they have no objection. The Commission suggested It would be prudent for Mr. Kunza to present something in wrIting to that effect. 5) The question was raised as to why the addItion could not be pushed northward along side the house to avoid the encroachment. Mr. Carlberg explained that because of the design of the house, the proposed placement of the addition works the best. He also personallY felt that the proposal Is the best locatIon for the addition. Mr. Carlberg also pointed out that the BuildIng Official has looked at the proposal and did not have a problem with it. 6) There was a lengthy discussion on the "front" of the lot, questioning whether the ordinance definition or the front of the prIncipal structure determines the lot frontage. Mr. Carlberg surmised the house faced 134th to get the access off Crooked Lake Boulevard, which was a count,y road at the time the house was built. It was also determined that if the lot front remains toward Crooked Lake Boulevard per ordinance defInItion, then a varIance Is not needed because the setback would be within the requirements of the "side yard". There was some discussion as to the ramifications of always determining lot frontage per the ordinance and not the way the house faces, though no specifiC conclusion was reached. , \ ,~ MOTION by McMullen, Seconded by Dehn, that we approve Option A, approval of the variance requested by John Kunza to allow for the construction of a 20 x 24-foot addition to the principle structure encroaching 15 feet 8 inches into the rearyard setback on the property described as Lot 1, Block 4, Lundgren Oakridge Addition, 2814 134th Avenue NW. (', :.J Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting MInutes - Febeuaey 12, 1991 Page 3 <Vaeiance - Reaeyaed setback, John Kunza, Continued) <Motion continued) The Planning Commission finds that the peoposal meets the minimum ceiteeia established in Oedlnance 8, Section 5.04 including: the steict inteepeetation of the oedinance causes the haedship, the haedship stems feom the unique shape, topogeapny oe physical featuees of the land, the vaeiance wil I not be deteimental to the public welfaee and the vaeiance is necessaey foe the eeasonable use of the peopeety. Add a sunset caluse, that If consteuctlon isn/t staeted within one yeae, that the vaeiance Is null and void. VOTE ON MOTION: YES-Dehn, Jonak, McMullen, Pease, Peek; NO-Jovanovich, ABSENT-Feeeis. Motion caeeied. Commissionee Jovanovich didn/t feel comfoetable with it, not totally undeestanding the situation. The item will be on the Maech 5 Council Agenda. ( The Commission asked that Staff look at the issue of deteemining the feont of the lot. Councilmembee Peek stated typicallY the feontages ace deteemined by exteenal foeces and not by what is developed on the paecel. The geneeal feelIng was a deteemlnatlon should be made and applied in all cases as to whethee feontage Is pee oedlnance definition oe the dieection the house faces. SKETCH PLAN - INDIAN MEADOWS M~. Haas eeviewed the peoposed sketch plan of Indian Meadows 4th AddItion as peoposed by New Geneeation Homes, noting some of the comments of the Andovee Review Committee. It Is a 2 1/2-acee development of appeoximately 26 eesidential lots, and an ag~eement was e~ached with the Pa~k Boaed and the Council eegaedlng dedication foe a pa~king lot fo~ Kelsey Pack and the ~emaining pa~k dedication. Me. Haas also noted the conce~n about the continuity of steeets eelatlve to an a~ea west of the plat which is being sold off and about the numbee of cuI de sacs being/peoposed. Me. Ca~lbeeg stated the Fiee Maesha 1 dl d not comment on /the numbee of cu 1 de sacs in the p I at. He undeestood that as long as theee is an adequate tuena~ound, the Fiee Depa~tment does not have a peoblem with them. M~. Haas noted the two lots off 157th would face Xenia, not the county eoad. ActIng Chaiepeeson Pease questIoned how that fits in with the oedinance definition of feontage. Wayne Bachman, New Geneeation ) Homes, stated the dlffeeence is these lots ace about 300 feet deep and '-/ 390 feet wide. .- _.." ...- ...-- ..~..._....~....''''-' ':J CITY OF ANDOVER REQUEST FOR PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION February 12, 1991 DATE AGENDA ITEM 4. Variance, Kunza 2814 - 134th Ave. NW Rearyard Setback ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT n Planning "k-- David L. Carlberg BY: Ci ty Planner APPROVED FOR AGENDA BY: REQUEST The Andover Planning and zoning Commission is asked to review the request of John Kunza to allow for the construction of a 20' x 24' addition to the principle structure encroaching 15' 8" into the required rearyard setback. BACKGROUND The applicant was granted a variance on May 5, 1987 for the construction of a deck encroaching 15' 8" into the rearyard setback. The reason for the request was the position of the principle structure on the lot. Mr. Kunza's lot fronts upon 134th Avenue NW. By Ordinance, the lot should have had frontage on Crooked Lake Boulevard. What is Mr. Kunza's front yard, in all actuality should have been his sideyard. APPLICABLE ORDINANCES Ordinance 8, Section 6.02, establishes setback requirements. The required rearyard setback in an R-4, Single Family Urban District, is,30 feet. Mr. Kunza would have a 14' 4" rearyard. Ordinance i8, Section 5.04 establishes the variance process and procedure. Section 5.04 allows the City to grant a variance to the requirements of the zoning Ordinance if the strict interpretation of the Ordinance will cause undue hardship to the property owner. The Planning and Zoning Commission should review the request using the following criteria: 1. Does the strict interpretation of the Ordinance cause practical difficulties and/or unnecessary hardships to the property owners? The strict interpretation of the Ordinance does not cause practical difficulties and/or unnecessary hardships. 2. Is the hardship caused by the unique physical features of the land, including shape or condition of the parcel? The parcel having frontage on 134th Avenue NW creates a \ hardship to the owner. According to the lot dimensions, the ~ frontage should have been located on Crooked Lake Boulevard (see attached diagrams). What normally would be the sideyard on a corner lot is Mr. Kunza's rearyard. Page Two Kunza Variance February 12, 1991 u 3. Will the variance be detrimental to the public welfare? The proposed expansion should not pose a threat to the public welfare. Mr. Kunza has discussed with his neighbors his intent to expand and has not received a complaint to his request. 4. Is the variance necessary to allow the property owner the reasonable use of the property? Due to the shape or position of the principle structure on the lot, reasonable use of the property may be denied. COMMISSION OPTIONS A. The Andover Planning and Zoning Commission may recommend approval of the variance requested by John Kunza to allow for the construction of a 20' x 24' addition to the principle structure encroaching 15 feet, 8 inches into the rearyard setback on the property described as: Lot 1, Block 4, Lundgren Oakridge Addition (2814 - 134th Avenue NW). The Planning Commission finds that the proposal meets the minimum criteria established in Ordinance 8, Section 5.04 including: the strict interpretation of the ordinance causes the hardship, the hardship stems from the unique shape, topography or physical features of the land, the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare and the variance is necessary for the reasonable use of the property. B. The Andover Planning and Zoning Commission may recommend denial of the variance requested by John Kunza to allow for the construction of a 20' x 24' addition to the principle structure encroaching 15 feet, 8 inches into the rearyard setback on the property described as: Lot 1, Block 4, Lundgren Oak ridge Addition (2814 - 134th Avenue NW). The Commission finds that the proposal does not meet the requirements set forth in the City's Zoning Ordinance ~8, Section 5.04. The Commission finds that no hardship due to the unique shape or topography of the parcel exists and that the land owner would not be precluded reasonable use of the property. C. The Andover Planning and Zoning Commission may table the item. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends option ~A \ ~ (II) II NO. 102 ,. I" ~ , r ;.-,...A: "'.~ , 12 :J: ..j~u ./ ~ v............" .rUA.:.w., / ., , IJ:, . -,1",.._, ~z ,s. '.. ,... ,,,. '. (JJ) '~J/ ~ ~ ~ / /. .. J (J~) E: . (JDJ ~ L (i1) ~ ;- (,/I) < "" ,,""- . .. / ,'~'- . / / 3 .; ~ ,,/ 1LI.. -"/ (I) I-~ // ~"'" /,.~." ..:..(1').. ' ---.'..; 4 1 SUB ~.~,.: ~ (1) ~ ~ {J) . ~ ,'N ~_.J,., i 5 5 ~~f/h 1 'JF AS rj ;::. 8'80 OK ~ ' \ ,~~~) ,~ !::J ~ (~~ /,~ (J:) ~ (7,) f J,;..lJ'~~.;.';' ":., ,~t (34TH:! LANE'"'u- NW ."'; "'C:'('::J"'7.,-' i~:: . . ."i;, .. -. .,\ 'i p# ' .'.6.J .. ~. \' .r~ ~ ~ (441 I, . ~ ' ~ ~ ... - ~" (~1) :3 'ml'i1 "':,0. ;'.,. , ~~.~ '~CEr'~ 4.,. ... ':"i ,~ j~ t ~# :1" I "u~ ..- JF'.' /~t" I /.?~6 "':,'- .. ,.. . ,.. I - .,. ~ ~/.::!./,.. I' I ~ ,NJOI"IY : . M .In'_~ ,/. /' 1f~ ~ ':"""'1"""" (,l f.I/ A_"". ~. 9 i).6-;.....:n E' A'~v/_'" , ,,-;. ~;y' I~ ' ,<r, r ,~ //4) ~ .f..~~t , &/IlI,_,/i -..-*,,, N.W. :i "d ,. (,~) (,.) .~ '" .....-.,.; ~ .7.-"~ ~. , """ ENS (17) ~ ~,-.;./ ~ ~ If' t>_"A - ,.. " ~ .-,,/u 'f' (IT) . (-94) ~ ~ " (41) , ,;" ~ (N) (oN) -f'r-V.4: ,;' ,'/ ",.~ .' .-,4'.}1' ';.,,10 A\/E /tI~''-. .. :' "".1 ,. f____... "",.... ~"" .'//N#,J I . ~ f , , ~ , ~ (#oj "- ~ I Nt., .... .., /, .- ...-.> 133RD. LANE N.W. (ll) .:i oj< (4-3) (41} II j '$I .'(::; - ".,~ (.'6) ~,~ M,'''~''r' '" "''::/..<1'11'" (;:~ J (;;~ 1 ~.Irtlf~ ;1#'.. ~ ,E....,., At', ~ ,I.,,~fJ"" 7'fJ"!"" i .!/;'"",,, L" 'l1'J '4 I It' ' . .... ," ..~.~ " /'J'': ~.! ~ "t,'./." I~ --, I ~ = 1111", I S'I/4 CORNER SEC. 33 _'.sH .-.- /:5'.". ~/ ,(e':."'J.'_r ....... @ @ 'Of! "_~...... - -;' '\ ,-,j '._.'._~'..'_. ~~;.-:~~. (..':~,~'.~~:,~~-:;"~..- ,-;,r'~~.---"/'~-~;'-~~T~_:::I;.l~\)~t:~~~iZ~~~r,~~~,if;:;;~.iJ.,~;;1z;i.:;;t~;~..-~:, :;:v" :~.~ ~'fo.~:'-,i~~'-':{~l~..:/~~..l:".~p.-:~j:;~;;~~~A.'~'r:;-:;J.-:'~"~.'.~~ .Q.o~r;rft~~.~I~N~~a-~~'t i~t~~..~"~tif{,;.~,:>!st.:~~Z$j1'~~!~0~,S~~~;~,,,~~'JJ~~~~t~~r.~'~~,!;1:~:'" -;.... -- _....'.0 .-.~...~ .....'...-("...:"'~ ~,--.t"..... - ~-.~'-'''':_,-..:.", ~(J~,i.~'J,,'t;i.. !-,\....._I.... :"fJ'f'''''~ .. '~:i:!:l"',~" ..: IllC ~~;Y~1~ft~~J~~i~rf110~ i~~~ ~Bf~~!t\~;';~'~1~J~t~)ttlt ~~!~rt 1;~"'ln-:;r ." '..,v,:';'.:',.:'.':' '33' ":;,,'::,1 ~'~>,;:,AJulOi~s .- ... ,,-....:,...,.J:.\~.'{-.-."'-~ :..; ~_....:-.~~",.4~,;.;C./. ;:>~. :.<;":..~~! -':'~,:~~;~ -;~~{~.1....... 0"" ';:',",',-,','"-,, .. - .'n r-,. ~ ~ .-. . ~4.l ~ _.....- ,......v,' '" ,',":. -,,i<_ ..-,,~-: --::--,~....~ ,_.;:-:...:;.\}l,.;.~..:_. ;.:~'-::t."..".; -'~1'~ '1;tf4',~.',' .?~. .' .'t..- . ,. ,. ".,. ,.. .., "'~' ..... ..'.~,....''I'B!: '~U,. t-, 1110.00 .. SOO;) ~. :7~"':}THIm_,. .:\;';,.;LUl\;')GRlN ~g)Im AVl:Nt :"(:'~PAG!: '30. ,~':_: TO !3': lOr ....:' .,. - I I.H H T T~. ,- IOO~' 11I\J,0,J' ~ ,1,....-.- ,- '-:':::::'7:~-~:-:':;-=---::::-:-':-2-o-:-~a-I'~:- :::-:~-:-~~.:.,f:P A\/'f:~~:N.W. u~. ,- - ....' .' u ',-' , ~ a cr - / l ~ 1 " W , '--J "C', I c "B 1-0 ""' zO .... "'0 ;:;k~.5-~> ~ ~ ;~o.o/';'" ::1 ,. ,<~%*:;i?i~~'~~~~NO'K~;?J~;l ;'"~i!+f~~'i~~Ii~~ , ) ,.,<.,~~""'. ,..~.,..,'" ~',h '\''' --<' .-- "~7"" h"''' ,c-- :;!1~~t:~;fr:~f'~K;:~~,;t,' ':~::,f:~::,-;~:)%:,~~I.'~f(~ -~" - y :-..t o ~. . I I' OG ~ I .; " 5 4 :3 ~I :.2 IOCWl)' 100.00' I' , .,) : ". ---'--- "-:" ~-~. -:. ,-~:-' ..-... :-. -~"-' :..-:-134'"fH --..'- -'~',.-'------,-'--'-'- - .-.': 60' 0.00 b q 8 , ~~"~ '=;,~"./. . ;.- ',. "-'.":- ~':_'''''.: i ,7 ,.. .,,1 t-: C/l .r:'l~!~~~~!r "C/l C/l 1LI ~ :.J uJ () W .~~~.',::]:tI~~;~~j'~~'.;:'SK~~:~;2;J ; ,~. ,., 8 ~"~:':':":"'~ , ;,', "',.':..,' :,' -,0 f -~_:.~~~: ?~.~~:~~~~~~;;;:_~:. ~~~:~~-il r-...k!-.:....------:- .-',...... . I --':"~_.. -_:....---~ ~~..\ - ~.:-~.~..~.. ' . 'rao. . ,.., ;,v. , ~~~~ij~Jl~~~i~~ s =-. ,. "'....'''i_r.' ".,,-, -,.- ...,8 o :.~~:t!~;~~;~\.:/4- .::;:.~~...:;.~-;.:;$;;~~~,..: - '-.,,_'=_..,.......-._,\r.. ,_,.,. _..... ~ ~.~~-~4~~~~~j~~.~~;;~: 60' . !059 ~9"_' .'074 74'... . _SOUTH LINt lDT r..f"IOTU '5~ _ r'r"'tC::Jnr'\MATr- . ...,.... ,...,,_., I , } I "g o o , . ,. III 'II ..,u.~ur~~;r or -COO! R THIS ~ '7',:,,} 0 E~~-:_~,~~-W ':;~",~f50 -X:' 4, ,_,':;. ;~j;,:t5 ~~tfj.,..::: ---,~T .,;'. "1''''='- -. ..~ r_ ~ 2."~---::.....- ....:..1,; '''.. ., ..- -. ..- ... -~ :- - . ..... ~ ~. . -<oy -- .... " . .". "<'~ . :. ::.... ,,' ~" ~--i:;::~;,~~:...~~:h. .........;...;.~... '. -.'"- ' "'"; ~: .... n- ~~~;~ ~.~~., i ::$:~'" ....,..i. ,-' ,~:-.{"!M'A'rlLO' ~ -~~.~~f~:;~~\>:~: ~;::~ S "~ . '~Cr~COUHTT . or . ~{IJ~~~1'1~'~:: j~P7.'.A.PPIARED J. \~SJ:XJ:CUnD '1'r .~~~''':' . . ....~ #:..:- -.., .... ;i[i~~:<~?{~~,?~i : ::::~:S'l'A~,.~r}~I . ...;,;.:--:-:.. r __.;..:. ;~-.....'" 1 '-':.: ;;:~;~qOBT!. OJ' " R ~f4;~~~JIy ,;,.',.."''''''~.,.~,,~O'' lIOn,. ~.~~...'~'''"''t .II __...~ <WPEAJmD .8... 'ftrA:RJ:~~Aa: -::t-.'CoRPORAT ION '- '...TION; ADD 'r: :5AIDA W,Vi :i~~~ ,~~f ."'~~.' !.,"~ STRUCTURAL WOOD CORPORATION .~~ 1 : :17.5iEASITHI?HW~Y~'~rST:P~U~..MINNES~:r~~5109_,~P~~NE(612)4~:-O~~z.e} _; __;____ 1,' LJ !.' . -f-J--L I __1.. ,I ILl "1----1! --H~n1 ffi1,--=tZJ .l4--,-,--,~__-L-J __1_ ! ! I : :! i i r I ~ i -t, II, I ; I I . , ' : ' : 'I " ",.' I 1 I ' 'I I I . I ' I tTT+--i I :: 1-4-! +_[li H--I !.. [Fr~.-:'~-:-=-'il-: __1 _':_-,,,,_i1<~,.t{<L"hi,___._.i-_~.__~_l_~n ~__,__"';'_ .~--~-.,--" ' , '.n_, -.... , i' i ,'. . I I ' : i : I' i i " _I .--+--. -, .,..-- -1)- - ~_n ,. -- 15, 11, ,-" : --L+----+-+-i--~..-.~-.:...-L- , ! ,~~-R-.>- '-D~I~ ;::. 1;' n,?~.'IS IA'~._ .~.--~-.-r-~--____;;. &ik 1~-2Y.<11l e/Ia-~Af.' -tf/'-d/#I .:3!r'i./e..:::. . /, .:!:'~.c41 U' ew.:>D~ fo M 6 ~t;:J nf7P "._ - _ _ u ,..- ~ t -\'.' - , .~-~ -=:;; ;;;;;; ._~._on"J' ..,,,..,,,-'---. , - I: ' : . , --,.: _.if Ji en ~i~ . _.._u_ , ( --"'7f"i .. -.. -'. -,,-----. t. ,'t/~~ " __..____-- ~_ ~ ~J _._.. ! ___4___ ~ ------.----------.-- '-_.~.-._- , , ", I -----------r--'-~ i I .:. . ' i ".-t--.7'" . 1 ,- --- ~ : _ ~~:~--7 .;----~-= -~-~ _ I .'___ ..____ _._. __... + h. ~ ,- - ~ .--- ':'____: ::..: L . , Jg' i I ---t I __-L..:.__.________ ,-__., I~_- , ~--T-~ ...L-.;. I , '~--;--l--~----' j ~ . i , ' . ! , ._-_._-----~-~-~ ,. / '\ \.,/ CITY of ANDOVER 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. . ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 . (612) 755-5100 Property Address VARIANCE REQUEST FORM d...P1 '(.... /3 Lf '11 /hr~ ItJ vJ MdotJf'// .111tJ / Legal Description of Property: (Fill in whichever is apporpriate): Lot t Block r Addition LuIJj!rrh-J ()'}.f 1(/2. {&f f. Plat Parcel PIN (If metes and bounds, attach the complete legal) ********************************************************************* Description of Request +: (C! P U('-( 2l(Y~~ ~"'rI0- ~ , 7 R6{J1"h. un~ Specific Hardship tf{ /kl/re /9;J Section of Ordinance (h ~Q,<"',K.... - W 'tI; ( L~ l- s: () 'f ~J<,.,.,.r -- 'Pc,,;~;, ..J 0.;/ Current Zoning J?'-t ********************************************************************* Name of Applicant ~O InJ T Address d-..P'/C(- 11'-1 H, Hc/f' ~ IJ 2-/1-- N0 J?y,J .I tJ t/~.,... . I Vh~ H~me Phone ~- 7~r~BUSiness Phone Slgnature _'_~__ Date j-/C- 9/ . ********************************************************************* Property Owner (Fee Owner) (If different from above) Address Home Phone :,J Business Phone Signature Date ********************************************************************* :" ) -- '. , , \ I ,-,--,/ VARIANCE PAGE 2 The following information shall be submitted prior to review by the City of Andover: 1. A scaled drawing of the property and structures affected showing: scale and north arrow; dimensions of the property and structures; front, side and rear yard building setbacks; adjacent streets; and location and use of existing structures within 100 feet. 2. Application Fee: Single Family - $50.00 Other Requests - $75.00 Date Paid VI tq/&j \ . Receipt # 1~ (~4- CRITERIA FOR GRANTING A VARIANCE In granting a variance, the City Council shall consider the advice and recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and: 1. If the City Council finds that the request if it will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of this Ordinance. 2. If it finds that strict enforcement of this Ordinance will cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the individual property under consideration. 3. If it finds that denying the request does not deny reasonable use of the property. 4. Economic considerations shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use of the property exists under the terms of the Ordinance. , ..~....,...~";.",,, ,{'c4 "'\\ ~\n) ?';~.'!!rO,.~.." 'r!;~."'~;'!i'","!'#0:~ti/;r CITY OF ANDOVER REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION AGENDA SECTION NO, DATE ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT March 5, 1991 Discussion Items Engineering ITEM NO. 2. Assessment Policy BY: James E. Schrantz The city Council is requested to for MSA streets. review the policy (/ of assessments I have enclosed the entire proposed manual. It has been updated to include the proposed changes that the Council discussed last year. The last time we worked on this manual it was so confusing because we had worked on it at 3 or 4 meetings without making any corrections. please call if there are items that need corrections or if there is something that we have missed. I don't know the current status of the Assessment Policy because we've agreed on the new wording but we haven't approved the new manual. Attached is the old or existing policy. COUNCIL ACTION MOTION BY TO SECOND BY ~r CITY OF ANDOVER COUNTY OF ANOKA STATE OF MINNESOTA NO. R002-83 ~ A RESOLUTION RESCINDING RESOLUTION NO. 106-82, ADOPTED THE 2ND DAY OF DECEMBER, 1982, ENTITLED A RESOLUTION REVISING THE POLICY FOR ASSESSING COUNTY HIGHWAYS AND STATE AID STREET IMPROVEMENTS IN THE CITY OF ANDOVER; AND ADOPTING A NEW REVISED POLICY FOR THE ASSESSING OF COUNTY HIGHWAYS AND STATE AID STREET IMPROVEMENTS IN THE CITY OF ANDOVER. \VHEREAS, the City of Andover has established the policies for the assessment of public improvements within the City of Andover including assessments for improvements to county highways and municipal state aid streets; and WHEREAS, the City Council at a Special Meeting on the 27th day of April, 1982, amended Section 5 of such policYi and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Andover has determined that revisions and clarifications of the amendment to such policy is necessary. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City council of the City of Andover to hereby rescind Resolution No. 106-82, adopted the 2nd day of December, 1982. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the City council of the City of Andover to hereby adopt the following policy statement relating to the assessments for county highways and municipal state aid streets: THAT SECTION 5 OF THE GENERAL ASSESSMENT POLICIES OF THE CITY BE AMENDED AS FOLLOWS: 5. State Aid Streets. Rural and Urban. a. Land acquisition costs - 100% of all land acquisition costs will be assessed with the commercial and industrial area rate being twice that of residential. b. Only 50% of the unit costs incurred by city for construction and expenses shall be assessed to commercial and industrial areas. ' c. A creditrnot to exceed the total assessment, shall be given against such total assessment for a pro-rata portion of right-of-way acquisition costs and for the appraised or negotiated value of any property which is/has been donated as necessary for the prcject cCLstructicn. \ ,~ d. Assessment upon unimproved property may be deferred until a designated future year or until the subdivision of the property or the construction of improvements thereon which shall have access to the county highway or state aid roadway. .~ 5. State Aid Streets. Rural and urban roadways. (continued) d. (continued). Construction of improvements shall be defined as activity upon the property which requires the need for a permit from any city, county, state or federal governmental agency. In the event that such construction of improvements is only upon a portion of the property for which the assessment, is deferred, such deferral shall be terminated against that portion of the property where the improvement ,is located in an area equal to the minimum lot size established for the zoning district within which it is located. Such deferral can be on such terms and conditions and based upon such standards and criteria as provided by Council resolution. .. Such assessments can be deferred for up to 15 years without interest and if the property has not been subdivided for improvements constructed thereon within that period of time, the assessment shall be cancelled. All property with deferred assessments that are subsequently subdivided or have improvements constructed thereon which have access to the State Aid improvement shall require the payment of such assessments in five equal annual installments with interest thereon at the maximum rate allowed by Minnesota Law in effect at that time on unpaid special assessments. In no case shall the total amount of assessments exceed the total project costs and no individual assessment shall exceed the benefit to the property. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Andover this 18th day of January , 1983. CITY OF ANDOVER .:~ ~ . , . I' " / ..... \, i!..~,(.vl/ /,/t,. .i2-~z:/ Jerry tjhdschitl - Mayor ~;J , "''''''''''''!or, ~ (CA) ~""!'\':.~~ "",.,,-.,,.,,",,,,,-~,;~,w"'" CITY OF ANDOVER REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE March 5, 1991 BY: AP~'PtRO~D. FOR AG D~ '1 BY: I J j ITEM NO'3. 1991 CDBG project & Budget REQUEST ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT \) Planning ~ David L. Carlberg City planner AGENDA SECTION . . NQ H~ Meetlng - Publlc Hearing The Andover City Council, at the February 5, 1991 meeting, gave verbal approval to the 1991 CDBG projects and Budget including: 1. The completion of the Comprehensive plan update - the project is to be completed by the end of September, 1991. 2. Grants to Public Service Agencies - the process would be similar to the 1991 process. 3. Continuation of Neighborhood Revitalization Projects. 1991 BUDGET The City, on February 14, 1991, received a letter from JoAnn Wright, Community Development Manager of the Anoka County Community Development Block Grant indicating the City will receive $78,947.00 to conduct the 1991 projects listed above. The City is requesting the following amounts to be allocated towards the 1991 projects. Comprehensive Plan update Public Service Pool Contingency $13,500 $15,000 $50,447 Total $78,947 Attached for your review is the report presented to the Council on February 5, 1991 and the minutes from said meeting. MOTION BY TO COUNCIL ACTION SECOND BY ~I :) CITY OF ANDOVER COUNTY OF ANOKA STATE OF MINNESOTA RES. NO. R -91 A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE 1991 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT BUDGET TO BE USED TO CONDUCT PROJECTS WITHIN THE CITY OF ANDOVER FOR THE BETTERMENT OF ANDOVER RESIDENTS WHEREAS, the city Council recognizes the need to use Community Development Block Grant funds for the betterment of Andover residents; and WHEREAS, the County of Anoka makes said funds available to the City through the Department of Housing and Urban Development following guidelines established for the use of Community Development Block Grant funds; and WHEREAS, the City will receive $78,947.00 to conduct projects for the residents of the City for the 1991 fiscal year; and WHEREAS, a public hearing notice was published in the Anoka union indicating a translation service would be provided as deemed necessary; and WHEREAS, a public hearing was held and there was no opposition to the proposed 1991 projects and Budget; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Andover hereby approves the 1991 Community Development Block Grant projects and Budget. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Andover on this 5th day of March, 1991. CITY OF ANDOVER Kenneth D. Orttel, Mayor ATTEST Victoria Volk, City Clerk , ) @ CITY OF ANDOVER REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION o DATE February 5, 1991 ITEM 1991 CDBG Budget NO. B p' t & rOJec s ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT .f) Planning L:C.- David L. Carlberg city planner APPROVED FOR AGENDA AGENDA SECTION . . NO. D1.scuss1.on 1. tems BY: BY: REQUEST The Andover City Council is requested to review and discuss the 1991 CDBG projects and Budget including: 1. The completion of the Comprehensive Plan update - The project is to be completed by the end of September, 1991. 2. Grants to Public Service Agencies - The process would be similar to the 1991 process. 3. Continuation of Neighborhood Revitalization projects. 1991 BUDGET The 1991 budget, although no figures have been obtained from Anoka County, 1.S expected to be near the 1990 budget figure of $34,155. The 1990 budget was as follows: Comprehensive Plan Update Public Service Pool Contingency $10,855 $14,401 $8,899 Total $34,155 The following is a breakdown of the 1991 projects. Comprehensive Plan Update The Andover Comprehensive plan is scheduled to be completed by the end of September, 1991. In addition to the $10,855 received for the update in 1990, the City reallocated $14,745 from 1989 CDBG monies. As of January 1, 1991, the City has used the funds from the 1990 Budget and is expected to use the monies from 1989 by June 30, 1991. The City will need to request additional funding to complete the update through September 1991. The City should request funding similar to the amount allocated for 1990. MOTION BY '\ TO 'j COUNCIL ACTION SECOND BY Page Two 1991 CDBG projects & Budget February 5, 1991 , \ ) Grants to Public Service Agencies The use of the Public Service Pool fund in 1990 was very successful. The city has received additional requests for funding in 1991. The city will use the same procedure as in 1990 to allocate the funds. The city should request similar funding as was received in 1990. Neighborhood Revitalization projects The use of funds for neighborhood revitalization is an ongoing project in the city of Andover. The city will continue to purchase properties that are determined to be blighted under CDBG guidelines. The City will be receiving $40,000 from the city of Blaine for the 1991 fiscal year. The city loaned Blaine the money through a joint powers agreement for the construction of a senior housing project. The city will use this money for neighborhood revitalization. Contingency Fund The City should request a similar amount of contingency funds as was received in 1990. The contingency can be utilized for a number of types of projects. The City will reallocate the contingency fund as deemed necessary with the proper approval from the County. A public hearing for the 1991 CDBG Budget will be scheduled in February, 1991. \ ) , ) Regular City Council Meeting Minutes - February 5, 1991 Page 9 ATTORNEY'S UPDATE Attorney Hawkins updated the Council on two litigation matters: 1) An agreement has been reached with David Heidelberger to move out of the mobile home located near the Commercial Park area and to remove the mobile home by July 4. 2) The litigation brought by Roseila SonstebY alleging the City drained water onto her property from the Downtown Shopping Center will go on trial this month. ~ 1991 CDBG PROJECTS Mr. Carlberg reviewed the proposed 1991 budget for the CDBG Funds to continue the update of the Comprehensive Plan, to provide funding for various public service organizations, and to retain almost $9,000 as a contingency. The neighborhood revitalization projects will continue with those funds that will be repaid by the City of Blaine. The Council gave verbal approval of the proposed budget. asked that the Council make recommendations to him as to use in determining the amount of funding to be allocated various pUblic service agencies requesting funds. Mr. Carlberg the method to to the SPECIAL USE PERMIT/CITY OF ANDOVER MOTION by Jacobson, Seconded by Perry, the Resolution as presented. <See Resolution R015-91 granting a Special Use Permit to the City of Andover for a 2,500-gallon diesel storage tank and a 1 ,OOO-gai Ion unleaded gasoline storage tank at 1785 Crosstown Boulevard NW) Motion carried unanimously. STORAGE TANK CONSULTANT -Mr. Haas reviewed the proposals received from consultants to do the remedial investigation for the underground storage tanks at the Public Works facility, noting the alternate used will depend on whether or not the groundwater has been impacted. The Staff is recommending the bid be awarded to GME Consultants, Inc., the low bidder given the worst situation. MOTION by Smith, Seconded by McKelvey, to award the contract to GME Consultants, Inc., and authorize the Mayor to sign the contract. Motion carried unanimously. } PAINT BALL AND WAR GAMES / The Council discussed the request for a permit to operate a Palntball Field in Andover and the notation from Staff that a War Games ~J :J CITY of ANDOVER 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. . ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 . (612) 755-5100 CITY OF ANDOVER COUNTY OF ANOKA STATE OF MINNESOTA NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING The City Council of the City of Andover will hold a public hearing at 7:30 p.m., or as soon thereafter as can be heard, on Tuesday, March 5, 1991 at the Andover City Hall, 1685 Crosstown Blvd. NW, Andover, MN to approve the 1991 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Budget. All written and verbal comments will be received at that time and location. According to CDBG guidelines the City must supply a foreign/sign language interpretor if requested. If an interpretor is needed please contact David carlberg at Ph~ 755-5100 by Friday, March 1, 1991. I~ ~./k Victorla Vo , Clty Clerk publication dates: February 28, 1991 March 1, 1991 ,..",...'-.....~'..c;':"'"""~. :J (fA) "'.,~.':!.c,....~"""['"""(..;!F,'!I'''' CITY OF ANDOVER REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION AGENDA SE~TION . NO. Sta~f, Comm1ttee, Comm DATE ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT Admin. March 5, 1991 ITEM NO. Assessment Abatement/ 82-7 BY: \\, V. Volk ,,' BY: In 1982 Mary Russell paid off the special assessments on two lots in the Russell-Stack addition, project 82-7. The assessment clerk incorrectly marked PIN 13 32 25 12 0001 as being paid instead of PIN 13 32 25 21 0023. The property (PIN 13 32 25 21 0023) was in the Green Acres program since before the assessment roll was certified and was restored when the deed was recorded in 1990. For this reason, the assessment did not appear on the property owner's tax statement until 1990. A motion is required to abate this assessment. It then requires County Board approval to have it removed from the tax rolls. Attached is a copy of the half section showing the lots referred to above. The property outlined in green is the one that was incorrectly marked as being paid; the parcel marked in pink is the one that should have been paid. when the house was built on the parcel marked in green a special assessment search was done which showed no assessments on the property. If we are going to assess that parcel we will have to do a separate assessment roll beginning with 1992 and explain to the property owners what happened. The parcel marked in pink is vacant. The property owner has a house on the parcel marked 2540 which has assessments on it. COUNCIL ACTION F MOTION BY \ '-- TO SECOND BY t li~'-f637RD, ._ Y .'.7.. --".. I I ,,/" . ,". I ~ I I (t.) I II (2540) . tftA" 6~,,. r ""J/""/U~ . I tJd4nJr~tU'''' /~1f ,.,:"e I I' ...1 . N 1/2 .J JI"j.~ '~/.(I, ~~ '. (;7) ;1~~ , / ..~ " i ::~;~ ~$' , ' , " .'-Ji.w (;8)$ , Jt 'E. ./ ~ i .~.~ , ;: vJ~ , ,", .;~I '?~ l~ ~" .~,' '.~1\.,' ';~I ,) 9: ~ I ~f 4) ( 2500) I:'. ..~ .. ~:...;;: t~" .. ~~~ ~ 15) ( 2520) ,,_,1'/ E I ,tfJ''y ,r A'~;""Jhd , " , ~ ... ~t1 ' Iv:;6t) ,,- ,/ If<' .-' (~iJO) flo?;40 , I \ pEC. /3, hlTY CITY ~! /.:. , , I I ~:. " ::s .~ Z 1.'... :t '~ F en 11"-' -": ;~ 'z o C) ~o: ~<( ,I ' !/ " . ...~~ (/(,) ( 2780) ~ "l/.~ (11.) ( 2720) ,.//78 (II) (2700 ) ;,'7, I , i I I (i) ," "I (2640)/ <:1 (7) ( 2650) J/? - - --------,-- -'. - 7:32 OF OF RAMSEY ANDOVER -.-- va} ( 2660) @ 4'178 '--'-t M I ~: ~ ... ( 2740) ,& I ! " "//7.8 ~. Z ~~ (4-) ~: ( 2730) 'i I I , ' tt= . ,111 -U)' , ! , ~ (2) ~I (2510) " .J.. 1 " ....~ z . ::J." , N J (r,J' , ." ~~ (2790)/ " Jt I ;/7. ~ ! ,21)' (Il) (2750 ) " ~ (14) (2760) .?/?,4' tI~} (2770l ."t/'?"t1 (1) (2630) ~i \ "', I~ ... //71/ . . 'L~~.tC " ~l"tt., I :. I ::.. ~ " 'IJ""" (J) (2560) I I , I .J 10: " ~tWM' "p.i 44, /1/ H-," C/I//"'H 4-",$ &. ,. ,. ". . '.jl.tJ t~ -'..'~~9~"C'~ .... ..-.- ,.'----- "i""'~~""""""':",",_... ~ (tA) o';~"~*_,_~..,,~;!@;~1;l" CITY OF ANDOVER REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION AGENDA SECTiON . NO, Staff, Comml ttee, Commissions DATE ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT March 5, 1991 (, Administration APP~V~~' FOR AGEN~A "'~U BY: / ./ ITEM NO. 5. Classification of Forfeit Land, Cont. BY: James E. Schrantz The City Council is requested to review the classification and sale of forfeit land for the parcel just west of l55th Avenue and Larch Street. The Council, at the February 19, 1991 meeting, asked the staff to research whether there is an access to Parcel 4 (see February 19, 1991 agenda); see attached location. The street right-of-way nor the constructed street provide access to this parcel. The City, at various times, has taken lots in the Nordeen Addition so a park could be built but to date, we haven't constructed a park in the immediate area. The land is mostly fairly high and dry. The staff doesn't have any ideas on a public use for the land, except possibly at some time it could be connected to the other piece of landlocked land that the City received from the County just to the northwest of this parcel. COUNCIL ACTION " " MOTION BY TO SECOND BY "'--- / II -~.-- ~/;/; _~ ~_~_~ iLJ _u_u__u~u_~uu: ~_u~~u0;jp~~t-. --i=~~:::--_ 1 " ,,:,~D' tJrLI. F{JI - - I LJ~' ,I . . r I' , -->~-- $;::~~~......- I' r~~~= -1 'F'(' :;, -.....~"'" I ,',E 'I '.c.'r,~ U ' / ,/ ,~, . I . \. I ' I ',', = ~ ~/ I ~ "',,-'-, ,',', r-P: : I "# I I L W/ l""", " I // ',', ......" II u ,_ - "'" II '>,~~ ~rI- ,]1 ~ - rl"'-~r1'<> l I-~ I II l'~~ ~ I - - ~ I "'- f-- , J'~< \ - 1 I ": - 'd~; - J -:~T~();- ) .LJ' , r - - I~, "-... II I If--- 'f- ............. , "'--.. I":t7' :- ~ ............. I -- "",.P (;i~,~/- ---4 ; ~ I _ \~~ ----I I ;.=~ I '~ - ~ v:::~; =~ T' -P', I , I....... I :/ ,-"", \. t . ~~; '-,.... :----_+-___~, __,-__ 1_ - '---, +. ~?'? PN~[: 'It" lw I --- . - -- - IJ~ ~: ~~~, I ' I ~/~/C' t~~..~I~;,T ~ I I I I ~,. I I' ---; I /O~KS' I ~ I ~ I ~ ~I I - ;, - - ,L - _: I" i . ~ ! /: i" -_ i/"'~ I: .\ : t/i i ~: I ~'"~ M .. : _~ ____~~~ ' !_____ __! ! .::" ,i" ::"1:;1" .';; , ~ ./' ~~1' : ---'J~: 11_ I ~ : : ' ;. .. .: ~ ' ....... ~.r. ,,~ .~ =, - ~. '., '- 'n I ", <:: ~ <.",,;:"tf ""~ ''-..., -<..., -$-- ',riA"" ",r: '/'//' ' "'~ \ .l>'r~- :~:rt" 'l'I"4~Ak<2;;! I~'. .'l:!r::'L~,I'.: .:~- : I' ,~~ ..., '.y .\\ F ~{ , ! :., J . ,~_II ~.!.:, J ;~ ~ I.' f-- : i ; .'b" .. "~:T"~ ': --L- BARNE'> 'r-'TII.Ld:'ING ";-1::\ I : i -; "I ~ I' \',.", ,.,' " ' i I ~ If. I I U ~ci ---- I .," ~ ---: :,":':':.::':...i....'li~- ",. '---. f ~~1~:~'~,<4po. : _.\- ~I'---- -=- ~ ~ ! "~II-;J,.~~L~~I II: '"j..-;' .);?' ,1.-....:: -,J" J: --...;c :! . '. <"'.:"!'1f,f.?! i I' // . . , . , " i , _. = f;-; i CTli, ' I .,. I' ~ : BARNES ROLLING ---- , a':i j;:. !: 'IOAKS : ;;.;;.. : -;- i::; ,....L ! I" ' 1 ., , J I ~"I~ T I . /, '" . I ' I ' I . - 'i I '9.';. "",-" I '/ i l ~ \l?~ 4 I !I ~ ~I ,.. I i Iii : ~i,' II, "1'1,1, 1 -Sl.~ ~~J______ ~ ~ i' - I ~ " I : I I ~\", , __I i i II -"" -' ,/ 6' N :: ./,! I J I ... I~ ~ I ! ~ I ... I I ~ I I I I I I I I : I I : I , [ I .':.. .... , ----If-, I I I \h '~__ ,~co~ " I -r .~ ,,' r~\CD i ~j I --.J v..... J"!(J, If:" , ! 1 I ~ -. , f . - 'f' ~ , ~UN ~; _\ I I i_ i ';VERG. 'EN i-:l. . . eSTA ...~ . I . ('I -...:. .r"1' Irf I L'J I II iTi: r ~"jllll I ' "'_ , ' A----- ~~ ~ " ,I " " I I \ l ~t - - ,. --. -~ : I ' ,,~=;~-.)~ I 1 ,[ i I I' I 2 31 I i I AUDI~D~ :' II i- I I i I SUBDIVISi, , '\ 'J """'~'''''-'''';'''''';:T~ ';/CA' C". ~i ~ ~ ~ \._) CITY OF ANDOVER REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION AGENDA SECJlON . NO. Staff, Commlttee, Comm DATE M~r~b 5. ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT *~~* /\ ~TJ.~. Appoint Election Judge Admin. V. VOlk~\' :~~"..E~ FOR JJ)"': BY: The city Council is requested to adopt the attached resolution appointing judges for the Special General Election on March 12 1991. ' V:Attach. MOTION BY '-) TO COUNCIL ACTION SECOND BY ~",,-,~"~,.".. ~~~. 'CA'''''' ,;i"~"\, ,.? '.':).. ~ ~ .\ '.,' .~ ~ ff '\ .i.i \ "T\ ljlf" ~.'lo,,~;~,~-,;j,~-!>f4t'~ CITY OF ANDOVER REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION AGENDA SECJLON . NO, Staff, Commlttee, Commissions DATE ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT March 5, 1991 ITEM NO. 7. Approve purchase/ Printer for Goper stat Public Works Frank stone ~ BY: Superintendent (dY We have been using the printer and modem from our IBM computer in the Public Works office for receiving locate calls. At the time we started with Gopher state this was fine but now with the state Aid package, the Fleet Maintenance Package, the Automatic Meter Reading Software and other software packages on this computer we have problems with Gopher state wanting to send locates at the same time we are on the computer. This means we have to sign off so they can send emergency locates through. The city of Blaine uses a printer with a modem by itself. It is not hooked to any computer and it's working out very well for them. This printer and modem is purchased through Gopher State at a cost of $750.00 per unit plus $50.00 for delivery for a total of $800.00. This $800.00 would be paid back in no time by personnel having the time to get their work done on the IBM computer. I would recommend that the money to purchase this equipment come from the Water Administration Budget, 49440, Item 570. COUNCIL ACTION SECOND BY / ..lCA/ ''''"-''''~'''\, , ",'l (f .t~ ','J ;,...",g ~ n <, ... , """",,",,,,~_,,,,,,fl' CITY OF ANDOVER REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE March 5, 1991 AGENDA SECTLON . NO. Staff, Comml ttee, Commission o. u.l.e f'Iee~lng ITEM w/Lower Rum River NQ Watershed :~e~t;OR BY:l U / The City Council is requested to set possible meeting dates where you can meet jointly with the LRRWMO and the other 3 cities in the WMO to discuss the plan, the plan improvement, how the WMO is going to organize various committees, etc. ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT Administration BY: James E. Schrantz Also included in this packet is a copy of the LRRWMO Water Management Plan. MOTION BY \ , ) TO COUNCIL ACTION SECOND BY FEB 28 '91 10:56 CITY OF ANOKA 612 422 2092 P.l :~ .. LOWER RUM RIVER WATER MANAGEMENT ORGANIZATION ANDOVER ANOKA COON RAPIDS RAMSEY 2015 1st Ave. Anoka MN 55303 j MEMORANDUM TO: February 27, 1991 Lower Rum River Watershed Management Organization Member City Councils/City Managers/Administrators D~TE: SUBJECT: Lower Rum River Watershed Management Organization Jim Schrantz, <;hairrnan tj...J 6J Joint meeting to discuss approved Water Management Plan FROM: Since the creation of the Lower Rum River Watershed Manage- ment Organization in August 1985, our initial goal has been to create and have approved a Water Management Plan. As of January 23, 1991, that goal has finally been achieved. We now feel it imperative that all member cities become familiar with the LRRWMO plan, operating guidelines, and procedures. Therefore, we feel it would be most productive to meet jointly, as has been suggested by several member cities, to enSure that everyone has a firm understanding of our operations. We, therefore, ask that you provide our organization with two or three available meeting dates for the first part of Apri17 with special consideration given to the week of April 8, 1991, if at all possible. The City of Anoka has graciously volunteered to host our meeting. During discussions at the LRRWMO February 27, 1991, meeting, it was determined an evening meeting, rather than a breakfast meeting, would work better for most. :- ) ~. Please complete and return the attached form to the address above, indicating two or three possible dates your representatives could attend this joint meeting; specifically who will be attending, including the individual's name and title. We would appreciate receiving your response no later than March 19, 1991, prior to the next LRRWMO meeting, in order to properly prepare for the joint meeting. A firm meeting date and agenda will be provided immediately thereafter. ~.J r u, <::<:l ":i1 -11::1: ~( ell Y Ur 'HNUKH b1<:: '4<::<::<::1::1"<:: r";C: LRRWMO Joint Meeting February 28, 1991 Page 2 Thank you for with everyone "game plan". mm Enclosure your cooperation. We look forward to meeting to ensure we are all working from the same cc: Curtis Pearson, LRRWMO Legal Advisor Dean Skallman, Consulting Engineer \, / :~) (TO ~""""""'''~'''''~''""1.r. ~) CITY OF ANDOVER REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION March 5, 1991 DATE AGENDA SECTION NO. ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT Non-Discussion Items Engineering ITEM NO. 9. Order Feasibility Report/91-l James E. Schrantz BY: The City Council is requested to approve the resolution ord~ing the feasibility report for Project 91-1, Crosstown Drive. The City Council ordered the feasibility report at the February 19, 1991 meeting. The feasibility report will be ready for the March 19, 1991 meeting. MOTION BY COUNCIL ACTION SECOND BY CITY OF ANDOVER COUNTY'OF ANOKA STATE OF MINNESOTA " ,~j RES. NO. MOTION by Councilman to adopt the following: A RESOLUTION ORDERING PREPARATION OF A FEASIBILITY REPORT FOR THE IMPROVEMENTS OF STREET CONSTRUCTION , PROJECT NO. 91-1 , IN THE CROSSTOWN DRIVE AREA. WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Andover is cognizant of the need for improvements, specifically Street Construction in the following described area: Crosstown Drive ; and WHEREAS, the City Council proposes to assess the benefitting property for all or a portion of the costs of the improvement, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 429. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Andover that: 1. The City Council is cognizant of the need for improvements. 2. The proposed improvement is hereby referred to BRA and they are instructed to provide the City Council with a feasibility report. MOTION seconded by Councilman City Council at a meeting thi s and adopted by the day of , 19 , with Councilmen voting in favor of the resolution, and Councilmen voting against, whereupon said resolution was declared passed. CITY OF ANDOVER ATTEST: Kenneth D. Orttel - Mayor Victoria Volk - City Clerk :J Assessment policy I removed a section of the existing (1982) policy, Page 14, that the council questioned but there wasn't a vote on - it can be added back into the policy if council wishes as follows: *only 50% of the unit cost incurred by the city for construction and expenses shall be assessed to commercial and industrial area. This means that 50% of the construction cost and expenses will be assessed and not just the right-of-way costs at twice the residential cost. I believe all the changes have been included that were discussed October 5, 1989; February 20, 1990; March 5, 1990; March 15, 1990; and June 13, 1990. ASSESSMENT MAN'UAL POL I erE 5 and, PRO CEO U R E GUIDE THE LA W: M.5.A. 429.051 / / The cost of any improvement, 'or any part thereof may be assessed upon property benefitted by the improvement, based upon the benefits received. LMM - LOCAL IMPROVEMENTS GUIDE (5l5al.3) "NEITHER THE CONSTITUTION NOR THE STATUTE SPECIFIES ANY METHOD OR FORMULA TO BE USED IN MAKING THE ASSESSMENT, ALTHOUGH UNDER THE CONSTITUTION (ART. IX, SEC. 1) SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS "SHALL BE AS NEARLY EQUAL AS MAY BE ......." "ANY FORMULA USED MUST OPERATE SO THAT THE ASSESSMENTS ON ALL PARCELS ARE ROUGHLY IN THE SAME PROPORTION TO ACTUAL BENEFITS. ANY FORMULA MUST BE ONLY AN ATTEMPT TO GET AT THE REAL MEASURE OF BENEFITS: THE INCREASE IN THE MARKET VALUE OF THE LAND AS A RESULT OF THE IMPROVEMENTS......" "THE COUNCIL HAS A BROAD DISCRETION IN DETERMINING BENEFITS AND ITS FINDINGS WILL NOT BE UPSET BY THE COURTS EXCEPT WHERE THEY RESULT IN CLEAR DISCRIMINATION OR INEQUITy......" USES SINGLE FAMILY DUPLEX MULTIPLE NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL SHOPPING CENTER WET INDUSTRY DRY INDUSTRY TYPE OLD NEIGHBORHOOD PROJECT NEW ARTERIAL STREET NEW SUBDIVISION REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT FEDERALLY SUBSIDIZED METROPOLITAN SIGNIFICANCE WHO STARTED IT - ? IMPROVEMENTS BY PETITION IMPROVEMENTS BY AGREEMENT IMPROVEMENTS BY ORDER OF THE COUNCIL / CITY OF ANDOVER COUNTY OF ANOKA STATE OF MINNESOTA RES. NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING ASSESSMENT MANUAL POLICY AND PROCEDURE GUIDE WHEREAS, the City Council is cognizant of the need for a written policy and procedure guide for special assessments; and WHEREAS, the City Council believes that a manual on assessments will provide for a uniformity and consistency in assessments to the various properties over the years. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Andover City Council hereby approve the assessment manual entitled, "Assessment Manual Policy and procedure Guide." BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the assessment manual shall be dated with the date of this resolution and this resolution shall be part of the manual. passed by the Andover City council this , 19 day of CITY OF ANDOVER James E. Elling - Mayor ATTEST: Victoria Volk - City Clerk / / , PAGE 2 INDEX PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT - SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS policies Relating to Special Assessments Procedures Relating to Special Assessments 4 7 7 8 General purpose General Policy 11 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FINANCING BY BONDING 16 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FINANCING 16 FACTORS AFFECTING PROJECT COST AND ASSESSMENT RATES 20 PROJECT TIME SCHEDULE 21 SPECIAL ASSESSMENT HEARING PROCEDURE 22 OPTIONS AVAILABLE FOR PAYING SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS 23 PREPAYMENT AGREEMENT 25 DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT 28 EXHIBITS 1. Resolution No. R78-6 Authorizing Deferrals of Special Assessment for Certain Senior Citizens / / 2. Water Rate & Sewer Rate Schedule PAGE 3 PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS I. GENERAL Minnesota State Law, Chapter 429 provides that a Municipality has the power to make public improvements such as; sanitary sewer, storm drainage, water source, storage and distribution facilities, street improvements including grading, curb and gutter, and surfacing, sidewalks, street lighting, recreational facilities, etc... THE THEORY OF SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS Special assessments are an indirect form of taxation. They are a compulsory charge on selected properties for a particular improvement or service which presumably benefit the owners of the selected property and are also undertaken in the interest of the public. Special assessments have three distinct characteristics: 1. They are a compulsory levy used to finance a particular public improvement program. 2. The levy is charged only against those particular parcels of property deemed to receive some special benefit from the program. 3. The amount of the charge does not exceed the value of the benefits received. Special assessments are imposed only on real estate. They are never levied against personal or movable property. In theory, special / assessments are frequently regarded as more equitable than property / taxes because those who pay them obtain some direct benefits from the improvements undertaken. PAGE 4 SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS USES Special assessments have three important applications. 1. The first and most popular use is for financing new improvements, particularly when new tracts of land are being converted to urban use. In this application they are frequently used to pay for sanitary sewer, storm drainage, water source, storage and distribution facilities, street improvements including grading, curb and gutter, and surfacing, sidewalks, street lighting, recreational facilities, etc... 2. Special assessments may also be used to underwrite the cost of major maintenance programs. Large-scale repairs and maintenance operations on streets, sidewalks, water- main, sanitary sewers, storm drainage and similar facilities can and often should be financed with special assessments. 3. A significant new use of special assessments is in the redevelopment of existing neighborhoods. When residential areas are confronted with progressive deterioration, or even when presently sound neighborhoods can be made more desirable through the development of parks, playgrounds, tree planting, and new street patterns, the city can utilize special assessments to good advantage. THE BENEFIT PRINCIPLE Special assessments may be levied only upon property receiving a special benefit from the improvement. In Minnesota, the Constitution and courts apply this general rule by placing the following limitations upon the power to levy special assessments: (1) the rate must be uniform and equal upon all property receiving special benefit; (2) the assessment must be confined to property specially benefited; and (3) the amount of the assessment must not exceed the special benefit. ! SUMMARY OF STEPS IN SPECIAL ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS .I 1. Initiation of proceedings. This may be done either by the councilor by petition of affected property owners. If a petition is used, it must be signed by the owners of the least 35% in frontage of the property bordering on the proposed improvements. Even if the council acts originally on its own initiative, an extraordinary majority is not needed to initiate the proceedings. In initiating pro- ceedings, or in accepting a petition requesting such pro- ceedings, the council should simultaneously order a feas- ibility report on the proposed improvement. PAGE 5 2. preparation of a report. The law requires that a report on the feasibility of the proposal be prepared by the City Engineer or by some other competent person selected by the council. It must cover such factors as the need for the project, an estimate of cost, and any other information thought pertinent and necessary for complete council consideration. 3. Public Hearing. This step may be omitted when a petition requesting the improvement has been signed by 100% of the affected land owners. Notice of the hearing must be pub- lished twice in the official newspaper with each publication appearing at least a week apart. At least three days must elapse between the last publication date and the date set for the hearing. Furthermore, a notice must be mailed to each property owner in the area to be assessed stating the time and place of the hearing, the general nature of the improvement, the estimated cost, and the area proposed to be assessed. At the hearing, all interested persons should have a chance to be heard, whether or not they are liable to be assessed. 4. The 5. Performance of work under contract C1ty enters 1nto a contract W1t t bidder after advertising for bids, by day labor. 6. Pre aration of ro osed assessment roll. Assessment rolls are 1StS prepare or eac assessment project. They should contain a description of each parcel of property, and the amount of the assessment. 7. Public hearin on the t 1S secon ear1ng 1S to g1ve a opportunity to be heard on the matter of the actual assess- ments being levied. Notice must be published in the official newspaper and mailed to each property owner at least two weeks prior to the/hearing date. Finally, the total cost of the improvement project must be published in the city news- paper. This assessment hearing may also be held prior to awarding the contract. 8. Approval and certification of assessment roll. After the hearing, the roll must be officially adopted by a council resolution and then certified to the county auditor. PAGE 6 9. Issuance of obli ations to finance the im rovements. Most specla assessments may e pal over a perlo 0 several years. consequently, on most public improvement projects thus financed, necessary funds are obtained from bonds issued at the time the improvement is made. The bonds are then paid off as the funds become available through the collection of the assessments and any taxes levied especially for that purpose. II. PURPOSE The purpose of this assessment manual is to set forth a guide to be utilized by the Engineering Department and Clerk's Department when preparing assessment rolls for approval by the City Council so as to assure uniform and consistent treatment to the various properties from year to year. The Engineering Department will plan and organize improvement projects of large enough scope such that good bid prices will be obtained. To help insure proper planning, all petitions for local improvements should be submitted to the City by the 2nd meeting in October of the year prior to when construction of the improvement will be considered. Exceptions to this general rule may be considered if the benefiting property owners understand the project may not get completed and the interest cost due to not being able to assess the project that year will increase the total cost of the improvement. III. GENERAL POLICY It is the policy that all properties shall pay their fair share of the cost of local improvements as they benefit; it is not intended that any property shall rec~ive the benefits of improvements without paying for them. Local improvements will include water, sanitary sewer, streets, storm drainage, sidewalks, street lighting, recreational facilities, etc... PAGE 7 IV. POLICIES RELATING TO SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS ASSESSMENTS: The total of assessments cannot exceed the project cost and must be apportioned equally within properties having the same general land use (residential and institutional, multiple family and commercial, or industrial), based on benefit. Total assessment against any particular parcel shall not exceed benefit to that parcel. project cost may include part or all of the cost of previously installed projects not previously assessed. (Examples: sewer trunk and water trunk, source and storage, topographic and S.D.) Assessment Period Improvements installed as a part of a new residential subdivision and petitioned for by the Developer shall be assessed for a period of up to 10 years. New commercial and industrial subdivisions petitioned for by the Developer shall be assessed for a period of up to 10 years. Assessments for improvements not included as part of a development shall be assessed for up to a 10 year period. A Senior Citizen deferral is permitted. (See State Law). Interest Rate The rate of interest on assessments shall be 1% greater than the rate of interest the City paid on the bonds which were issued to finance the project, or in the event no bonds were issued, then 1% greater than the average rate of interest on all permanent bonds issued in the previous higher. calendar year or the current market rate, if / ; Indexes The construction cost index will be used to adjust connection, area and other costs not assessed with the improvement project. The construction cost index is a number computed by the "Engineering News PAGE 8 Record" derived from prices of construction materials, labor and equipment for the Minneapolis area base year of 1913 equals 100. Properties Not Assessed Special assessments will not be levied against the properties described as follows: 1. undeveloped lands having unbuildable soils and/or lying within the flood plain of major drainage channels. 2. Drainage ponds (defined by public easements) and major drainage ditch easements such as Cedar Creek and Coon Creek. (CCWD and LRRWMO) 3. Cemeteries. 4. Railroad right-of-way and major transportation right-of- way (i.e. rapid transit). 5. City park land. (New Development Only) Methods of Assessment The City Council has in the past, in preparing assessment rolls, used four (4) methods of assessments. Any combination may be used for a particular project. It should be emphasized that the special assessment method and policies summarized herein cannot be considered as all-inclusive and that unusual circumstances may at times justify special considerations. Also, any fixed cost data and rates presented herein will be adjusted from year to year by the ENR Construction Index. 1. Area: The area to/~e assessed is the total land area in acres of a property, including street and utility easements, but excluding those areas as described under "properties Not PAGE 9 Assessed". The types of improvements to be assessed on this basis are: (a) Sanitary Sewer Trunk (b) Water Trunk (c) storm Drainage 2. Unit (Lot): Unit is a parcel or lot in a residential area that cannot be further subdivided, i.e., in single family the minimum lot is 80' x 142.5'. The types of improvements to be assessed on this basis are: Trunk and lateral water, sanitary sewer, street and storm drainage improvements for subdivision of residential, industrial and commercial properties. 3. Front Footage: (short side) Trunk and lateral water, sanitary sewer, street and storm drainage improvements for subdivision of residential, industrial and commercial properties. 4. Variable Costs: Driveways and special services. Assessable Costs 1. Contract Costs: Amount paid to contractors for constructing the improvements. 2. Construction Interest: Cost of financing during time period of the improvement process starting when the first payment is made to the con{ractor until the assessment roll is approved by the City Council. The interest rate will be the bond rate. 3. Assessment Interest: Cost of financing during the time period of the assessment roll starting at date of adoption of the roll - the rate is the bond rate plus l%. PAGE 10 4. Expenses to be Assessed: Costs incurred by the City in addition to the contract costs, including advertising, financing charges, administration, and assessing. 5. project Cost (total cost of improvements): Total of contract costs, interest, and expense and work previously done but not assessed. V. PROCEDURES RELATING TO SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS Sanitary Sewer Trunk Sanitary sewer trunk costs are paid from the sanitary sewer trunk fund. Trunk is defined as 12" or larger pipe and at a depth in excess of what is needed for the development. the sewer trunk fund receives funds from sewer area and connection charges. sanitary sewer trunk costs are apportioned to the gross area that is benefited by the trunk facility constructed. The costs are then apportioned to each parcel by the rate/acre as determined by council resolution, then multiplying that cost/area by the gross area of the parcel. In a plat the gross area of the plat is multiplied by the cost/area and the amount divided by the number of lots or equivalent lots in the plat. Sanitary Sewer Lateral Sanitary sewer lateral costs are apportioned to the property benefiting from the lateral sanitary sewer constructed. Apportioning the costs of the lateral maY,be done by dividing the costs of the / lateral by the assessable f!ont footage of the benefitting properties I or by dividing the cost of the lateral constructed within a plat by the number of benefiting lots. Where lateral benefit is received from a trunk, the benefiting properties are assessed for lateral costs similar to the properties served by the lateral. The lateral benefit on trunk costs is then PAGF. 11 deducted from the trunk cost. Paid by the sanitary sewer trunk fund. sanitary Sewer Services/Stubs The service/stub is usually included with the lateral unless the services vary in size and/or number to each parcel or lot. If assessed separately the sewer/stub costs are apportioned as cost/each. Watermain Trunk, Source and Storage Watermain trunk and oversizing costs are paid for from the Water TSS Fund. Oversizing is defined as 10" or larger for Residential or 12" and larger for Commercial/Industrial. The Water TSS fund receives funds from the water area and connection charges. This charge is established to pay the cost of water trunk, source and storage. The connection charge is due when a water connection permit is taken out. The charge is often included with project assessments for a watermain improvement project. This has been at the option of the owner/developer or the city. The connection charge for Industrial-Commercial is determined by multiplying the current acreage charge by the gross area of property being developed, i.e., if only a part of the property is being developed only that portion is charged. The connection charge for residential is charged by the unit or acreage charge determined by multiplying the acreage charge of unit costs by the gross acreage or units. The charge is established by City Council Resolution (See Exhibit 2). Water Lateral Water lateral costs ! arelapportioned to the property benefiting from the lateral watermain constructed. Apportioning the cost of the lateral may be done by dividing the costs of the lateral by the assessable front footage of the benefiting properties or by dividing the costs of the lateral constructed within a plat by the number of benefiting lots. PAGE 12 Where lateral benefit is received from a trunk, the benefitting properties are assessed for the lateral cost similar to the properties served by a lateral. Water Service or Fire Line The water service is usually included with the lateral unless the services vary in size and/or number to each parcel or lot. If assessed separately, the service or fire line costs are apportioned as cost/each. storm Drainage Mainline storm drainage costs are apportioned to the properties benefitting from the storm drainage by the gross area that is benefited from the storm drainage facility constructed. The costs are then apportioned to each parcel by the rate/acre as determined by dividing the cost by the gross area of benefit, then multiplying that cost/acre by the gross area of the parcel. storm drainage improvements that are part of a county project, where the county road existed and the road is being rebuilt, the properties adjacent to the road that do not receive additional benefit will be assessed $100 per parcel based on an ENR index of 4796, Resolution R042-90, 4/3/90. storm Drainage Lateral storm drainage laterals are considered incidental to the street construction and are assessed as part of the street costs. Sidewalks ; Sidewalks are assessed t~ the benefitting properties by front footage or unit costs. PAGE 13 streets: City Local/Distributor/~ollector Street Costs are apportioned to the property benefiting from the street construction. Apportioning the cost of the street construction may be done by dividing the cost of the street improvements by the assessable front footage of the benefiting properties or by dividing the costs of the street improvements by the number of benefitting lots. Streets: M.S.A./County Roads 1. The City will assess the properties along M.S.A. streets and county roads the unreimbursable costs incurred by the City. Except as follows: a) Land acquisition costs - 100% of all land acquisition costs will be assessed with the commercial and industrial area rate being twice that of residential. b) A credit, not to exceed the total assessment, shall be given against such total assessment for a pro-rata portion of right-of-way acquisition costs and for the appraised or negotiated value of any property which is/has been donated as necessary for the project construction. c) Assessments upon unimproved property may be deferred until a designated future year or until the subdivision of the property or the construction of improvements thereon which shall have access to the county highway or municipal state aid roadway. (Field entrance is not an improvement in itself). Construction of improvements shall be defined as activity upon the property which requires the need for a permit from any city, county, state or federal governmental agency. In the event that such construction of improvements is only upon a portion of the property for which the assessment is deferred, such deferral shall be terminated against that portion of the property where the improvement is located in an area equal td the minimum lot size established for the zoning district within which it is located. Such deferral can be on such terms and conditions and based upon such standards and ~riteria as provided by Council resolution. Such assessments can be deferred for up to 15 years without interest and if the property has not been subdivided for improvements constructed thereon within that period of time, the assessment shall be cancelled. All property with deferred assessments that are subsequently subdivided or have improvements constructed thereon which have access to PAGE 14 the state Aid improvement shall require the payment of such assessments in five equal annual installments with interest thereon at the maximum rate allowed by Minnesota law in effect at that time on unpaid special assessments. 2. Sidewalk costs that exceed M.S.A. reimbursement will be assessed. Streets: Premature Improvements (rural) (Rural streets with a mixture of large agriculture type lots and smaller residential lots). In areas where the lot sizes are unreasonably different and the large rural lots are not planned to be subdivided in the next five years, the situation will be recognized as premature improvement for the large parcels. The assessment for the large parcels will be deferred for up to 20 years. If the large parcels are subdivided/developed, the subdivided lots will pay an amount equal to the original assessments adjusted by the ENR index, then reduced by 1/20 of 40% of the adjusted amount each year for the 20 years expected life of the street surfacing. The surfacing represents about 40% of the original improvement costs., Definitions for this Section: Large agriculture lot is any agriculture lot larger than 10 acres. Smaller residential lot is any smaller lot smaller than 1 acre. Surfacing represents about 40% of the improvement costs whose value depreciates due to weathering and wear. / / / PAGE 15 capital Improvement Financing by Bonding Permanent Bonds All projects will be financed using permanent bonding except for new developments where the developer may request that the City sell temporary bonds. Temporary Bonds Temporary bonds may be used to finance a project until the project is complete. Then permanent bonds will be sold. New Development Financing The City, upon the request of the developer, may sell temporary bonds to finance a new development project. The City can sell two temporary bond issues each for a period of three years after which time permanent bonds will be sold for the four years remaining on the ten year assessment if the developer hasn't paid off all of the assessments. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FINANCING A. Financing Alternatives 1. Current Revenue a. General Fund b. Park Development Fund c. Permanent Improvement Revolving Fund d. M.S.A. 2. Fund Balance 3. 4. a. General Fund b. Park Development Fund c. Permanent Improvement Revolving Fund d. M.S.A. ! General Obligation ~ond Issues by Referendum Revenue Bond Issues 5. Bond Issue Supported by M.S.A. Funds 6. Special Assessments Bonds Issued in Accordance with statute Sec. 429. PAGE 16 B. Applicability of Financing Alternatives to Types of Projects 1. streets a. Improvements 1) Current Revenue a) General Fund b) Permanent Improvement Revolving Fund c) M.S.A. 2) Fund Balance a) General Fund b) M.S.A. 3) General Obligation Bond Issues 4) Bond Issue Supported by M.S.A. Funds 5) Bond Issue Supported by Special Assessments b. Maintenance 1) Current Revenue a) General Fund 2) Special Assessments 2. Sanitary Sewer a. Improvements 1) Current Revenue a) Permanent Improvement Revolving Fund 2) Fund Balance a) Permanent Improvement Revolving Fund 3) Revenue Bond Issue 4) Special Assessments ! / b. Maintenance 1) Current Revenue 2) Sewer Trunk Fund PAGE 17 3. storm Drainage a. Improvements 1) Current Revenue a) General Fund 2) Fund Balance a) General Fund 3) General Obligation Bond Issue 4) Special Assessments b. Maintenance 1) Current Revenue 4. Watermains a. Improvements 1) Current Revenue a) Permanent Improvement Revolving Fund 2) Fund Balance a) permanant Improvement Revolving Fund 3) Revenue Bond Issue 4) Special Assessments b. Maintenance 1) Current Revenue a) Water Trunk Fund 5. Sidewalks a, Improvements 1) Current Revenue a) Genera/Fund 2) Fund Balance a) General Fund 3) General Obligation Bond Issue 4) Special Assessments PAGE 18 b. Maintenance 1 ) Current Revenue a) General Fund 6. Park Development a. Improvements 1) Current Revenue a) General Fund b) Park Fund 2 ) Fund Balance a) General Fund b) Park Fund 3 ) General Obligation Bond Issue 4 ) Other a) Grants b) Developer Contributions b. Maintenance 1 ) Current Revenue a) General Fund ! / PAGE 19 FACTORS AFFECTING PROJECT COST AND ASSESSMENT RATES 1. Efficient subdivision layout (vs. disorderly tracts) 2. Adequate right-of-way 3. Topography (Depth of Sewer caused by elevation of house relative to street elevation) 4. Geology (soil and water table conditions) 5. Restoration and/or Landscaping 6. Time Table of project (when the project starts affects the cost due to: (1) Carrying a project over the winter; and (2) Interest cost due to longer project period) PAr.F. 7.0 PROJECT TIME SCHEDULE PETITION: Council Declare Adequacy, Order report Receive Report Public Hearing Process plans and Specifications Bidding Process Award Bid 5 to 6 months Construction 3 months Total Time 8 to 9 months Assessment Process 2 months 10 to 11 months 2-3 weeks 5 weeks 3 weeks 4 weeks 5 weeks 2 weeks 22 weeks 12 weeks 34 weeks 8 weeks 42 weeks 2nd meeting in October is when petitions for improvement should be considered for the next year. / / PAGE 21 SPECIAL ASSESSMENT HEARING PROCEDURE 1. City Attorney Reviews Affidavits and Legal Notice to Ensure Proper Notice Given 2. Mayor Opens Hearing 3. City Engineer - Describes project Indicates Location in City - Reviews Project Cost and Assessment - Presents Assessment Roll - Discusses options for paying Assessment - Answers Questions 4. Opportunity for Public to Speak 5. City Council Votes on Resolution for Assessment PAGE 22 OPTIONS AVAILABLE FOR PAYING SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS I. Payment in full - First 30 days after adoption of assessment - no interest. II. Payment in full - 30 days after adoption and prior to October 15 - interest charged to date of payment only. III. Payment of special assessments with tax statement A. Allow each year's installment to go on tax statement B. Paying of remaining deferred principal in full prior to October 15, of any year with no further interest being charged. IV. Development Projects - The City may hold the assessment at the City and the developer pay the City Treasurer per a development contract. PAGE 23 "ANDOVER" SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS PROJECT: FEASIBILITY STUDY: Date Amount CONTRACT AWARD: Date Amount CONTRACT COST ENGINEERING COST $ AERIAL MAPPING (1% OF ST&SD) $ DRAINAGE PLAN (0.3%) $ CONDEMNATION COSTS $ ADMINISTRATION (3%) $ ASSESSING (1%) $ BONDING (0.5%) $ LEGAL $ ADVERTISING $ CONSTRUCTION INTEREST % $ (INTEREST PAID ON BOND~ FROM TO MOS. $ FUNDED INTEREST (INTEREST ASSESSED) FROM TO % $ MOS. TOTAL EXPENSES $ $ TOTAL COST TRUNK SOURCE AND STORAGE WORK PREVIOUSLY DONE CITY SHARE SUBTOTAL $ TOTAL TO BE ASSESSED $ / / PAGE 24 PREPAYMENT AGREEMENT This agreement made and entered into this day of 1988, by and between the City of Andover, a municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as "City", and hereinafter referred to as "Developer". WITNESSETH: Developers are the owners and developers of located in the City of Andover. No. Improvements are being constructed under City of Andover Project Most of the improvements have now been installed and it is anticipated that the project will be completed within a very short period of time. The assessment of the project to the benefiting properties will be accomplished by the City in the near future. Developer has indicated that he desires to sell lots before the assessments against the lots are levied. Developer has requested that the City estimate the amount of assessments to be placed against the lots within the above addition and that the City accept payment from Developer of the amount so estimated as full payment for assessments against said lots for Project No. Because the City feels that the amount of the assessments can be fairly and accurately estimated at this point, the City is willing to cooperate with Developer in estimating the amount due for pending assessments. / NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS AGREED BY AND BETWEEN THE PARTIES AS / FOLLOWS: 1. The City estimates that the assessments to be levied against the following lots for improvements for project No. follows: are as PAGE 25 All lots included in (name of development) $ each lot 2. IT IS SPECIFICALLY UNDERSTOOD AND AGREED BY DEVELOPERS THAT THIS AGREEMENT COVERS ASSESSMENTS FOR PROJECT NO. ONLY AND THAT THERE MAY BE OTHER EXISTING LEVIED ASSESSMENTS AGAINST THE LOTS. IF ANY LEVIED ASSESSMENTS ARE IN EXISTENCE, THEY ARE IN ADDITION TO THE PENDING ASSESSMENTS COVERED BY THE AGREEMENT. 3. Developer agrees to pay the City the sum of the pending assessments listed in Paragraph 1. Following determination of actual assessments relative to the projects described in paragraph 1 above, Developer agrees to pay the actual assessment for that project in lieu of the estimated assessment as to that project provided herein. 4. Upon receipt of the payment, the City will certify the payment in full of all pending assessments for project No. for the appropriate lot. 5. Upon determination of the actual assessments, the City will advise Developer of the exact amount of assessments against the lots contained in Addition as listed above. If the amount of the assessments exceeds the payments made by the Developer, the excess payable will be paid by Developer to the City within 30 days after notice of the amount payable. If the amount of the assessment is less than the amount paid by Developers, the excess I payable will be refunded to/Developer. 6. Developer further agrees that the security agreement previously furnished can be used as additional collateral for this agreement. PAGE 26 In witness whereof the parties hereto have executed this agreement as of the day and year first above written. CITY OF ANDOVER Approved as to form: William G. Hawkins-City Attorney By: James E. Schrantz - City Admin. (Development Company) By: Its: By: Its: I / PAr.F. 27 DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT THIS AGREEMENT made this day of 19 , is by and between the City of Andover, a municipal corpora- tion organized under the laws of the State of Minnesota, hereinafter referred to as the "City", and a partnership, hereinafter referred to as the "Developer". WHEREAS, the Developer has made application to the City Council for a plat of land within the corporate limits of the City proposed , hereinafter called "Subdivision"; and as WHEREAS, the Developer has requested the extension of certain City improvements to serve the proposed addition of ; and WHEREAS, said City Subdivision Ordinance and Minnesota Statute 462.358 authorized the City to enter into a performance contract secured by a bond, cash escrow or other security to guarantee completion and payment of such improvements following final approval and recording of final plat; and WHEREAS, Minnesota Statute 429 provides a method for assessing the cost of such improvements to the benefited property. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises of the parties made herein, IT IS AGREED BY AND BETWEEN THE PARTIES HERETO: 1. IMPROVEMENTS. In ~ccordance with the policies and ordin- / ances of the City, the following described improvements (hereinafter / collectively called the "Improvements"), as referenced in the plans and specifications adopted by the City Council shall be constructed PAGE 28 and installed by the city to serve the Subdivision on the terms and conditions herein set forth: a) Street grading, graveling and stabilizing, including construction of berms and boulevards (hereinafter called "street Improvements"). All rough grading on the plat shall be done by the Developer at his expense. b) Storm sewers, when determined to be necessary by the City Engineer, including all necessary catch basins, inlets and other appurtenances (hereinafter called "Storm Sewer Improvements") c) Sanitary sewer laterals or extensions, including all necessary building services and other appurtenances (hereinafter called "Sanitary Sewer Improvements") d) Water main laterals or extensions, including all necessary building services, hydrant, valves and other appurtenances (hereinafter called "Watermain Improvements") e) Permanent street surfacing, including concrete curb and gutter (Hereinafter called "Permanent Street Improvements") f) Standard street name signs at all newly opened intersections (hereinafter called "Traffic Signing Improvements"). Custom street signs may be used in place of standard street signs if requested by the Developer and subject to the approval of the City. 2. WARRANTY OF DEVELOPER. The Developer hereby warrants and represents to the City that as an inducement to the City's entering into this agreement, the Developer's interest in the Subdivision is as fee owners. 3. IMPROVEMENTS. (A) CONSTRUCTION PROCEDURES. All such improvements set out in Paragraph 1 above shall be instituted, constructed and financed as follows: The City shall commence proceedings pursuant to Minnesota Statute 429 providing thatlsuch improvements be made and assessed against the benefited properties. After preparation of preliminary plans and estimates by the City Engineer, an improvement hearing, if required by law, will be called by the City Council for the purpose of PAGE 29 ordering such improvements. After preparation of the final plans and specifications by the City Engineer, bids will be taken by the City and contract awarded for the installation of improvements under the City's complete supervision. (B) SECURITY, LEVY OF SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS AND REQUIRED PAYMENT THEREFOR. Prior to the preparation of final plans and specifications for the construction of said improvements, the Developer shall provide to the City a letter of credit equal to fifteen (15%) per cent of the total estimated cost of said improvements. That such estimated cost is and no/100 Dollars. City may draw upon said letter of credit, at its discretion, for any default under the terms of this contract including but not limited to the default by Developer in the payment of special assessments pursuant hereto, whether accelerated or otherwise. That said letter of credit shall remain intact until all of the outstanding assessments against the property are paid in full. The entire cost of the installation of such improvements, including any reasonable engineering, legal and administrative costs incurred by the City, shall be assessed against the benefited properties within the subdivision in ten (10) equal annual installments with interest on the unpaid installments at a rate not to exceed the maximum allowed by law. All special assessments levied hereto shall be payable to the City Clerk in semi-annual installments commencing on April 15, 19 / and each April 15th and se~tember 15th thereafter until September 15, 19 , when the entire balance plus accrued interest shall be due and payable in full unless paid earlier pursuant to Paragraph (C) herein. In the event any payment is not made at maturity as provided herein, the City may exercise its rights pursuant to Paragraph (D) hereof. PAGE 30 r DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT (City Installed Improvements) THIS AGREEMENT made this day of 19_, is by and between the City of Andover, whose address is 1685 Crosstown Boulevard N.W., Andover, MN 55304, a municipal corporation organized under the laws of the State of Minnesota, hereinafter referred to as ,the "City", and , whose address is . , , hereinafter-referred to as the "Developer". WHEREAS, the Developer has received approval from the City Council for a plat of land vithin the corporate limits of the City known as , hereinafter called "Subdivision"; and WHEREAS, the Developer has requested that the City construct and finance certain improvements to serve the plat; and WHEREAS, the Developer is to be responsible for the installation and financing of certain private improvements within the plat; and WHEREAS, said City Subdivision Ordinance and Minnesota Statute S462.358 authorized the City to enter into a performance contract secured by a bond, cash escrow or other security to I~' guarantee completion and paYment of such improvements following .II final approval and recording of final plat; and WHEREAS, Minnesota Statute S429 provides a method for assessing the cost of City installed improvements to the benefited property. -1- NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises of the parties made herein, IT IS AGREED BY AND BETWEEN THE PARTIES HERETO: 1. DESIGNATION OF IMPROVEMENTS. Improvements to be installed at the Developer'S expense by the Developer as hereinafter provided are hereinafter referred to as "Developer Improvements". Improvements to be installed by the City and financed through assessment procedures are hereinafter referred to as "City Improvements". 2. DEVELOPER'S IMPROVEMENTS. The Developer will construct and install at Developer's expense the following improvements according to the following terms and conditions: A. The Developer shall do all site grading including the front 100 feet of the lots, common greenway and open spaces, storm water storage ponds and surface drainage ways including sodding of boule- vards all in accordance with the approved grading, drainage and site plan. A grading plan with maximum two foot contours and cross sections as necessary shall be submitted and approved by the City prior to commencement of any site grading. B. The Developer shall control soil erosion insuring: 1. All development shall conform to the natural limitations presented by the Topography and soil of the subdivision in order to create the best potential for presenting soil erosion. The Developer shall submit an erosion control plan, detailing all erosion control measures to be implemented during construction, said plan shall be approved by the City/prior to the commencement of site grading/or construction. 2. Erosion and siltation control measures shall be coordinated with the different stages of development. Appropriate control measures as required by the City shall be installed prior to development when necessary to control erosion. -2- C. D. E. F. (' 3. Land shall be developed in increments of workable size such that adequate erosion and sil tation controls can be provided as con- struction progresses. The smallest practical area of land shall be exposed at anyone period of time. 4. Where the topsoil is removed, sufficient arable soil shall be set aside for respread- ing over the developed area. The topsoil shall be restored to a depth of at least four (4) inches and shall be of a quality at least equal to the soil quality prior to develop- ment. The Developer shall place iron monuments at all lot and block corners and at all other angle points on boundary lines. Iron monuments shall be placed after all street and lawn grading has been completed in order to preserve the lot markers for future property owners. The Developer shall make all necessary adjustments to the curb stops to bring them flush with the topsoil (after grading). The Developer shall remove all dead and diseased trees before building permits will be issued. G. The Developer shall be responsible for street maintenance, including curbs, boulevards, sod and street sweeping until the project is complete. All streets shall be maintained free of debris and soil until the subdivision is completed. Warning signs shall be placed when hazards develop in streets to prevent the public from traveling on same and directing attention to detours. If and when the street become impassible, such streets shall be barricaded and closed, In the event residences are occupied prior to completing streets, the developer shall maintain a smooth driving surface and adequate drainage on all temporary streets. The DeveloP~ shall furnish street lights in accordance with the City's Street Lighting Ordinance No. 86. The Developer shall conform to Ordinance No. 86 in all respects. The City shall order the street lights and Developer shall reimburse the City for such cost. -3- General Requirements: 1. Residential street lighting shall be owned, installed, operated and maintained by the electric utility company. City and electric utility company shall enter into a contrac- tual agreement on the rate and maintenance of the street lighting system. 2. It shall be the responsibility of the Developer to: a. Advise all lot purchasers of their responsibility for street lighting op~rating charges. b. Pay for street light charges for all lots owned by the Developer. H. The Developer shall dedicate and survey all storm water holding ponds as required by the City. The Developer shall be responsible for storm sewer cleaning and holding pond dredging, as required, by the City prior to completion of the develop- ment. I. The Developer shall be responsible for securing all necessary approvals and permits from all appropriate Federal, State, Regional and Local jurisdictions prior to the commencement of site grading or construction and prior to the Ci ty awarding construction contracts for public utilities. J. The Developer shall make provision that all gas, telephone and electric utilities shall be installed to serve the development. K. Cost of Developer's Improvements, description and completion dates are as follows: Description of Improvements ; , // Estimated Cost Date to be Completed 1. 2. 3. 4. -4- 5. 6. 7. 8. Total Estimated Construction Cost For Developer's Improvements: $ Estimated Legal, Engineering and Administrative Fee (%) $ Total Estimated Cost of Developer Improvements $ Security Requirement (150%) $ L. Construction of Developer's Improvements: 1. Construction. The construction, installa- tion, materials and equipment shall be in accordance with the plans and specifications approved by the City. 2. Inspection. All of the work shall be under and subject to the inspection and approval of the City and, where appropriate, any other governmental agency having jurisdiction. 3. Easements. The Developer shall dedicate to the City, prior to approval of the final plat, at no cost to the City, all permanent or temporary easements necessary for the construction and installation of the Developer's Improvements as determined by the City. All such easements required by the City shall be in writing, in recordable form, containing such terms and conditions as the City shall determine. 4. Faithful Performance of Construction Contracts 'and Bond. The Developer will fully and faithfully comply with all terms and conditiorts of any and all contracts entered into by the Developer for the installation and construction of all Developer's Improve- ments and hereby guarantees the workmanship and materials for a period of one year following the City's final acceptance of the Developer's Improvements. Concurrently with the execution hereof by the Developer, the -5- / Developer will furnish to, and at all times thereafter maintain with the City, a cash deposit, certified check, Irrevocable Letter of Credi t, or a Performance Bond, based on one hundred fifty (150%) percent of the total estimated cost of Developer's Improvements as indicated in Paragraph K. An Irrevocable Letter of Credit or Performance Bond shall be for the exclusive use and benefit of the City of Andover and shall state thereon that the same is issued to guarantee and assure per- formance by the Developer of all the terms and conditions of this Development Contract and construction of all required improvements in accordance with the ordinances and speci- fications of the City. The City reserves the right to draw, in whole or in part, on any portion of the Irrevocable Letter of Credit or Performance Bond for the purpose of guar- anteeing the terms and conditions of this contract. The Irrevocable Letter of Credit or Performance Bond shall be renewed or replaced by not later than twenty (20) days prior to its expiration with a like letter or bond. 5. Reduction of Escrow Guarantee. The Developer may request reduction of the Letter of Credit, Performance Bond, or cash deposit based on prepayment or the value of the completed improvements at the time of the requested reduction. The amount of reduction will be determined by the City and such recommendation will be submitted to the City Council for action, 3. CITY'S IMPROVEMENTS. In accordance with the policies and ordinances of the City, the following described improvements (hereinafter collectively called the "Improve- ments"), as referenced in the plans and specifications adopted , , // by the City Council shall/te constructed and installed by the City to serve the Subdivision on the terms and conditions herein set forth: A. Street grading, graveling and stabilizing, including construction of berms and boulevards (hereinafter called "Street Improvements") -6- B. Storm sewers, when determined to be necessary by the City Engineer, including all necessary catch basins, inlets and other appurtenances (hereinafter called "Storm Sewer Improvements") C. "Sanitary sewer laterals or extensions, including all necessary building services and other appurtenances (hereinafter called "Sanitary Sewer Improvements") D. Water main laterals or extensions, including all necessary building services, hydrants, valves and other appurtenances (hereinafter called "Watermain Improvements") E. Permanent street surfacing, including concrete curb and gutter (hereinafter called "Permanent Street Improvements") F. Standard street name signs at all newly opened intersections (hereinafter called "Traffic Signing Improvements") G. 1. Construction Procedures. All such improve- ments set out in Paragraph 1 above shall be instituted, constructed and financed as follows: The City shall commence proceedings pursuant to Minnesota Statute S429 providing that such improvements be made and assessed against the benefited properties. After prep- aration of preliminary plans and estimates by the City Engineer, an improvement hearing, if required by law, will be called by the City Council for the purpose of ordering such improvements. After preparation of the final plans and specifications by the City Engineer, bids will be taken by the City and ccntract awarded for the installation of improvements under the City'S complete supervision. 2. Securitv, Levv of Special Assessments and Required Pavment Therefor. Prior to the preparation of final plans and specifications for the Ijconstruction of said improvements, the Developer shall provide to the City a cash escrow or letter of credit in an amount equal to fifteen (15%) percent of the total estimated cost of said improvements as established by the City Engineer. Said cash escrow, including accrued interest thereon, or letter of credit, may be used by the City -7- (' upon default by Developer in the payment of special assessments pursuant hereto, whether accelerated or otherwise. That such cash escrow or letter of credit shall remain in full force and effect throughout the term of the special assessments, except, the amount of such escrow or letter of credit may be reduced, upon the request of the Developer, at the City's option, but in no event shall be less than the total of the outstanding special assessments against all properties within the Subdivision. The entire cost of the installation of such improvements, including any reasonable engineering, legal and administrative costs incurred by the City, shall be assessed against the benefited properties within the Subdivision in ten (10) equal annual installments with interest on the unpaid installments at a rate not to exceed the maximum allowed by law. All special assessments levied hereto shall be payable to the City Clerk in semi-annual installments commencing on April 15 of the year after the levy of such assessment and on each September 15 and April 15 thereafter until the entire balance plus accrued interest is paid in full unless paid earlier pursuant to Paragraph (C) herein. In the event any payment is not made on the dates set out herein, the City may exercise its rights pursuant to Paragraph (D) hereof. The Developer waives any and all procedural and substantive objections to the installation of the public improvements and the special assessments, including but not limited to hearing requirements and any claim that the assessments exceed the benefit to the property. Developer waives any appeal rights otherwise available pursuant to M.S.A. S429.081. 3. Required Pavments of Special Assessments bv Developer,: Developer, its heirs, successors or assi'TIls hereby agrees that within thirty (30) days after the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for a residence on a lot located within the Subdivision which is assessed for the cost of such improvements, the Developer, its heirs, successors or assigns, agrees, at its own cost and expense, to pay the entire unpaid improvement costs assessed or to be assessed under this agreement against such property. _R_ r If a certificate of occupancy is issued before the special assessments have been levied, the Developer, its heirs, successors or assigns shall pay the City the sum of cash equal to the Engineer's estimate of the special assessments for such improvements that would be levied against the property. Upon such payment the City shall issue a certificate showing the assessments are paid in full. Notwithstanding the issuance of said certificate, the Developer shall be liable to the City for any deficiency and the City shall pay the Developer any surplus arising from the payment based upon such estimate. 4. Acceleration Upon Default. In the event the Developer violates any of the covenants, conditions or agreements herein contained to be performed by the Developer, violates any ordinance, rule or regulation of the City, County of Anoka, State of Minnesota or other governmental entity having jurisdiction over the plat, or fails to pay any installment of any special assessment levied pursuant hereto, or any interest thereon, when the same is to be paid pursuant hereto, the City, at its option, in addition to its rights and remedies hereunder, after ten (10) days' written notice to the Developer, may declare all of the unpaid special assessments which are then estimated or levied pursuant to this agreement due and payable in full, with interest. The City may seek recovery of such special assessments due and payable from the security provided in Paragraph (B) hereof. In the event that such security is insuffi- cient to pay the outstanding amount of such special assessments plus accrued interest the City may certify such outstanding special assessments in full to the County Auditor pursuant to M.S. 5429.061, Subd. 3 for collection the following year. The City, at its optiOn, may commence legal action against the Dev~loper to collect the entire unpaid balance of the special assessments then estimated or levied pursuant hereto, with interest, including reasonable attorney's fees, and Developer shall be liable for such special assessments and, if more than one, such liability shall be joint and several, -9- /' Also, if Developer violates any term or condition of this agreement, or if any payment is not made by Developer pursuant to this agreement the City, at its option, may refuse to issue building permits to any of the property wi thin the plat on which the assessments have not been paid. 4. RECORDING AND RELEASE. The Developer agrees that the terms of this Development Contract shall be a covenant on any and all property included in the Subdivision. The Developer agrees that the City shall have the right to record a copy of this Development Contract with the Anoka County Recorder to give notice to future purchasers and owners. This shall be recorded against the Subdivision described on Page 1 hereof. City shall provide to Developer upon payment of all the special assessments levied against a parcel a release of such parcel from the terms and conditions of this Development Contract subject to provi- sions contained in second paragraph of Section 3.G.3 on page 9. 5. REIMBURSEMENT OF COSTS. The Developer agrees to fully reimburse the City for all costs incurred by the City including, but not limited, to the actual costs of construction of said improvements, engineering fees, legal fees, inspection fees, interest costs, costs of acquisition of necessary ease- ments, if any, and any other costs incurred by the City relating to this Development Contract and the installation and financing , , / / of the aforementioned imp~olements. 6. OCCUPATION' OF PREMISES. The Developer further agrees that they will not cause to be occupied, any premises constructed upon the plat or any property within the plat until the completion of the gas, electric, telephone, water and sewer -10- / I improvements required by this Development Contract have been installed, unless the City has agreed in writing to waive this requirement as to a specific premises. 7. CLEANUP. Developer shall promptly clean dirt and debris from streets that has resulted from construction by the Developer, its agents or assigns. 8 . OWNERSHIP OF IMPROVEMENTS. Upon completion of the work and construction required by this contract and acceptance by the City, the improvements lying within the public easements shall become City property without further notice or action. 9. INSURANCE. Developer and/or all its sub- contractors shall take out and maintain until one (1) year after the City has accepted the private improvements, public liability and property damage insurance covering personal injury, includ- ing death, and claims for property damage which may arise out of the Developer'S work or the work of his subcontractors or by one directly or indirectly employed by any of them. Limits for bodily injury and death shall be not less than Five Hundred Thousand and no/100 ($500,000.00) Dollars for one person and One Million and no/100 ($1,000,000.00) Dollars for each occurrence; limits for property damage shall be not less than Two Hundred Thousand and no/100 ($200,000.00) Dollars for each occurrence; /i' or a combination single l~it policy of One Million and no/100 ($1,000,000.00) Dollars or more. The City shall be named as an additional insured on the policy, and the Developer or all its subcontractors shall file with the City a certificate evidencing -11- (' coverage prior to the City signing the plat. The certificate shall provide that the City must be given ten (10) days advance written notice of the cancellation of the insurance. The certificate may not contain any disclaimer for failure to give the required notice. 10. REIMBURSEMENT OF COSTS FOR DEFENSE. The Developer agrees to reimburse the City for all costs incurred by the City in defense of enforcement of this contract, or any portion thereof, including court costs and reasonable engineering and attorneys' fees. 11. VALIDITY. If any portion, section, subsection, sentence, clause, paragraph or phrase in this contract is for any reason held to be invalid by a court of competent jurisdic- tion, such decision shall not affect or void any of the other provisions of the Development Contract. 12. GENERAL. A. Bindina Effect. The terms and prov~s~ons hereof shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the heirs, representatives, successors and assigns of the parties hereto and shall be binding upon all future owners of all or any part of the Subdivision and shall be deemed covenants running with the land. B. Notices. Whenever in this agreement it shall be required or permitted that notice or demand be g~ven or served by either party to this agreement to or on the "-other party, such notice or demand shall be delivered personally or mailed by United States mail//to the addresses hereinbefore set forth on Page 1 by certified mail (return receipt requested). Such notice or demand shall be deemed timely given when delivered personally or when deposited in the mail in accordance with the above. The addresses of the parties hereto are as set forth on Page 1 until changed by notice given as above. -12- i , C. Final Plat Approved. The City agrees to give final approval to the plat of the Subdivision upon execution and delivery of this agreement and of all required petitions, bond and security. D. Incorooration bv Reference. All plans, special provisions, proposals, specifications and con- tracts for the improvements furnished and let pursuant to this agreement shall be and hereby are made a part of this agreement by reference as fully as if set out herein in full. 13. In the event that Developer violates any of the covenants and agreements contained in this Development Contract and to be performed by the Developer, the City, at its option, in addition to the rights and remedies as set out hereunder may refuse to issue building permits to any property within the plat until such time as such default has been corrected to the satisfaction of the City. DEVELOPER CITY OF ANDOVER By By Mayor By ATTEST: i>' ..II By Clerk -13- 76-78R CITY OF ANDOVER COUNTY OF ANOKA STATE OF MINNESOTA No. K78-6 e;'/... { A RESOLUTION PROVII?ING FOR THE DEFERMENT OF SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS FOR PERSONS 65 YEARS OF AGE OR OLDER FOR WHOM IT WOULD BE A HARDSHIP TO MAKE PAYMENTS. WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes authorize the City of Andover upon proper application, to deier the payment of special assessments against any homestead property owned by a person 65 years of age or older on January 1 of the payment year and for whom it would be a hardship to make the payments, and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the deferral of assessments should be granted to any person otherwise qualified who shall make proper application claiming that the annual principal and interest due on an assessment is in excess of 2..1 120/0 of his current annual income and, therefore, a hardship for him. The proper application form shall be provided by the City. Any homestead parcel with an Assessor's Market Value in excess of $65,000 shall not qualify. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Andover City Council that special assessments against any homestead property owned by a person 65 years of age or older for whom it would be a hardship to make the payment be deferred subject to the aforementioned income and property value conditions upon submission of the appropriate application signed by the qualified person. FURTHER BE IT RESOLVED that an interest rate of 6% be applied to the principal and interest of the as ses sment to be deferred and shall be payable in accordance with the terms and provisions of Minnesota Statutes. FURTHER BE IT RESOLVED that the right of deferment is automatically terminated as provided under Minnesota Statutes. FURTHER BE IT RESOLVED that applications for deferments for a particular year must be submitted by October 15 of the preceeding year. FURTHER BE IT RESOLVED that a copy of the current Minnesota Statutes relative to deferred assessments for senior citizens is made a part of this resolution by reference. / , Adopted by the Andover City Council this 7th day of October , 1976. CITY of ANDOVER MEMORANDUM TO: COPIES TO: FROM: DATE: City Staff James E. Schrantz, City Januar 1991 Ex ~ Works Director REFERENCE: 1991 Charqes for Sewer and Water SANITARY SEWER Trunk Sewer Area Charge Sewer Connection Fee (Commercial Connection Fee Rate = 1 Connection Fee for Each SAC Unit) Laterals Hookup Permit Fee (Sewer) Sewer Availability Charge (Metro) Plumbing WATER TSS (Trunk, Source and Storage) Water Area Charge Water Residential/REC Non-Residential Laterals Water Meter 5/8" Water Meter Fee Plumbing USER RATES Water Sewer $7.00 m~n~mum A - Area B - Area ENR December 10, 1990 $912/acre $244.43/unit $22/F.F. (Estimate) $40.50 $650 - January 1, 1991 ? (Homeowner contracts for) $972/acre $1055/unit $527.50/unit or $5275/acre - whichever is largest $22/F.F. (Estimate) $120 $50.50 ? (Homeowner contracts for) $5 + $.94/1000 gal $8.00 per month $12.00 per month 4799 1991 average of 4920 (Estimated) Mpls. - St. Paul Construction