HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC March 6, 1990
DATE: March 6, 1990
.J
ITEMS GIVEN TO THE CITY COUNCIL
Regular City Council Meeting Minutes - February 20, 1990
TKDA Minutes
1989 Annual Review - Mediation Services
Letter from William G. Hawkins (February 22, 1990)
Petition for Mediation Services (February 28,1990)
Special Executive Session City Council Minutes (2/8/90)
Letter from City of Coon Rapids (February 21, 1990)
Memo from David Almgren - February 1990 Monthly Bldg. Dept. Report
Planning And zoning Meeting Minutes (February 13, 1990)
Park and Recreation Meeting Minutes (February 15,1990)
7n...lmc lit {Me
7rL.~ tftC II", ~}'\
il?Ztt.r1 .)1 61'h
,'~tb/l ~ 6fn
c .JJ il
i7L1tb1 .j1C'WI
;i1 il
- tQ/ Im'l1
d~o fJf~e M; v:"D1r- .~4 AIr..).:;tJ) ,
Xl) !Mtf-0.r1t: r.2d.At.u~uf (11"1<-~~ I \IG11<4
I. hL1.L.1c...- ;.(oO~. .
LIv);jb'/l/L"", jk{0'kL-'I'-J (?,/"Jqo)
(!,,/TilL~ ofc'lL 0~.vt 13/)10)
7rUI(/p 7J1Cl-<-,7fe.,-zf !d:L!;z.;L/Jo)
(",/r.,jq D ')
.
PLEASE ADDRESS THESE ITEMS AT THIS MEETING OR PUT THEM ON THE NEXT
AGENDA.
,
.~ THANK YOU.
~
~
Mediation Services
For Anoka County
1323 Coon Rapids Blvd.
Coon Rapids, Minnesota 55433
(612) 755-5300
TO: city Managers & Clerks
FROM: Ann Wallerstedt, Executive Director
DATE: February 20, 1990
RE: 1989 Annual Review
-to:
ce-
o '
?jtICJO
Rr~E~-~111~rr
CITY OF ANDOVER
On behalf of MEDIATION SERVICES, I am pleased to enclose for
your review a copy of the 1989 Annual Review.
The support from your community provided mediation, concilia-
tion, information and referral, educational and training ser-
vices.
We showed steady growth in 1989 providing a place for the people
to resolve disputes, problems and concerns. We experienced an
increased demand and use of our services. Communityfunding
helped provide a stable basis for program activities, while we
moved toward greater self-sufficiency. We hope to continue pro-
viding consistent, high quality services in the coming years.
We have attempted in these first years to build a solid founda-
tion while at the same time allowing some flexibility to promote
growth.
Again, we appreciated your support of the concept and the
funding.
If there are any questions or comments, please do not hesitate
to contact me.
enc.
"
"~
Mediation Services
For Anoka County
1323 Coon Rapids Blvd.
Coon Rapids, Minnesota 55433
(612) 755-.5300
1989 ANNUAL REVIEW
The goal of MEDIATION SERVICES FOR ANOKA COUNTY is.to provide
a forum for the resolution of disputes, problems and concerns
using mediation techniques. The following'information reflects
our progress toward this goal.
1. SERVICES
There are five basic services provided to the community.,
Mediation. When the conflicting parties agree to participate,
they meet with two mediators in a neutral setting. Mediators
assist parties to develop and refine options resulting in a
written agreement resolving the dispute. Mediators.do not find
fault nor do they provide a decision for parties. Mediation
provides the possibility for conflicting parties to reach a
mutually agreeable resolution of their problems.
Conciliation. When disputing parties are unwilling to participate
in a face-to-face mediation, but do wish to resolve the matter, or,
if the problem is amenable to solution through telephone discussion
or exchange of correspondence, staff serves to convey proposals and
reach a resolution to t~e.dispute.
Information and Referral. If a problem cannot be resolved through
the service of MEDIATION SERVICES, or if the parties in conflict
would be better served by a more appropriate agency, the parties
are advised about other resources available to them.
Education. Through case development and in mediation, disputants
learn to constructively deal with conflict and to understand their
integral role in the problem-solving process. Skills learned in
communication, for example, may have a positive impact on their
success in SOlving future disputes.
Traininq. Community members may learn about conflict management
through workshops and seminars facilitated by MEDIATION SERVICES
staff and volunteers.
, '.
"
'-J
. \
~~
Individuals see~ng to use the services simply contact the office,
either on their own or on a referral from another agency/source,
discuss the conflict with a member of the intake/case development
staff, and determine whether or not they wish to proceed with the
program's services. If, in fact, it is determined that mediation
is appropriate, the staff will move forward with case development.
If it is determined that the situation is not appropriate for
mediation or conciliation, a party is referred to other resources.
The following criteria for case intake generally apply:
A. Parties share an ongoing relationship which can be
preserved and enhanced by mediation and one in which violence
has not been involved.
B. Traditional dispute resolution processes may not provide
the most effective avenue for resolving the dispute.
C. At least one of the parties resides or does business in
Anoka County.
MEDIATION SERVICES provided mediation, conciliation and referral
services to more than 800 people during 1989. Since 1987 over
1,500 people rec~ived services. MEDIATION SERVICES assisted
participants to resolve neighborhood and community disputes;
conflicts within families, problems between landlords and tenants;
disputes between business and consumer; disputes involving charges
of discrimination in the work place; and to parties opting for
mediation rather than conciliation court. Additionally, MEDIATION
SERVICES reached more than 1,500 through public education and training
opportunities.
2. OUTREACH
A program was designed to reach and communicate to the Anoka County
public that mediation services were 1) available, 2) a worthy
alternative in problem-solving, 3) a good value for the energy and
time invested, and 4) easily accessible, as well as the specific
how to's in using the services.
Communicating information and persuading the pUblic to use mediation
required a systematic approach. Two ~road categories of outreach
were identified. One consisted of providing written materials to
a sample group of community leaders on a consistent basis. There
was an attempt to create and enhance the reader's awareness and
understanding of the services while at the same time pointing out
the relevancy of these services to their needs and the communities'.
The second category of outreach consisted of public presentations
of information and materials. Besides education, these provide
an opportunity to establish and develop relationships with others
which lead to referrals to MEDIATION SERVICES.
~
Perhaps the most effective presentation was to all law enforcement
officers in Anoka County. This was made available through the
-2-
~,)
County Attorney's Office and accomplished in six seminars. Officers
'.
were very responsive to the information and expressed interest in
using the business card concept in distributing information about
our services to potential parties. In addition, approximately 4,000
went out to the public in 1989.
The first direct mail solicitation went out to 350 people in the
fall of 1989. It blended an opportunity to provide information
with an appeal for donations. There are plans to expand this in 1990.
3. Resources
MEDIATION SERVICES follows MN State Guidelines for its operations
and for volunteer training. In 1989, all current mediators met
their required minimum of eight hours inservice, thereby maintaining
active status. Most completed more than the required eight hours.
In May 1989, eleven new mediators completed a twenty-six hour
training program followed by an apprenticeship with an experienced
mediators.
MEDIATION SERVICES hosted a Volunteer Recognition Dinner in 1989
honoring its mediators, case developers, office-staff, board members
and committee members. All totaled, there were 2,200 hours of
service recorded by these volunteers in 1989.
The organization increased the total amount of funds raised in 1989
by 20%. This was a result of contributions from community organizations
businesses, individuals and grants from the Interest On Lawyer's Trust
Account Foundation and the MN State Bar Foundation. The City of Coon
Rapids again provided office space on an in-kind basis.
During 1987 and 1988, the only paid staff person was a part-time
Executive Director. A quarter-time bookkeeper/case developer was
hired in March 1989 and a third year law student was contracted
under a Federal Work Study grant for approximately five hours a week.
The vast majority of services were provided by volunteers as in
past years.
4. Conclusion
MEDIATION SERVICES shows steady success in pursuing its goal of
providing a forum for the resolution of disputes, problems and
concerns using mediation techniques. It has consistently provided
high-quality service with easy access and cost-efficiently.
'>
o,-J
There was an increase in the number of people served, in the number
of intakes, in the number of people learning abbut our' services and
in the number of cases handled. There has been a greater involvement
in the organization, not only by volunteers, but by the agencies
referring cases. There continues to be excitement in the concept and
a belief that the services are of significant value to the community.
Much has been accomplished, but even more remains to be done.
-1-
,.
~
. "
,~
LAW OFFICES OF
10 cC-,
Z/~';rD
- ,
Copy IN :Sf:. ~
e:v.Jlc>-u I rd
2./z.,/ '1 cJ
}Jutie Ilud Jlllwiius
JOHN M. BURKE
WILLIAM G. HAWKINS
SUITE 101
21111 COON RAPIOS BOULEVARO
COON RAPlOS. MINNESOTA !l!l433
PHONE (1512) 784-2998
COP~ FOR ~OUR
INfORMATION
"-'. E [ E ~ ~j t ~ '
HI 'f~26~U
February 22, 1990
CITY OF ANDOVER
Mr. Richard J. Sundberg
Attorney at Law
122-l23 West Parkda1e Plaza
1660 South Highway 100
Minneapolis, MN 55416
Re: State of Minnesota, City of Andover, et al. v. Milton J.
Lapanta, et al.
Dear Mr. Sundberg:
Enclosed herein and hereby served upon you by United States mail
please find Notice to Take Deposition and Notice to Produce with
regard to the above referenced matter. As shown on the Notice
the deposition of Mr. LaPanta will be held at my offices at 299
Coon Rapids Boulevard, Suite IOI, Coon Rapids, Minnesota on
March 8, 1990 at 9:00 a.m.
Sincerely,
William G. Hawkins
WGH :mk
cc: Ms. Ann E. Cohen
Mr. James E. Schrantz
"
- '\
o
STATE OF MINNESOTA
DISTRICT COURT
COUNTY OF ANOKA
TENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
---------------------------------
State of Minnesota, by its Attorney
General, Hubert H. Humphrey, III, and
its Pollution Control Agency, and the
City of Andover,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
NOTICE TO TAKE DEPOSITION
AND NOTICE TO PRODUCE
Milton J. LaPanta, Waste Recycling
Inc., and Tonson, Inc.,
File No. C6-88-9640
Defendants.
---------------------------------
TO: Milton J. LaPanta, 5 Knolls Lane, Burnsville, MN 55337.
Mil ton J. LaPanta, President of Waste Recycling Inc., 5
Knolls Lane, Burnsville, MN 55337.
Milton J. LaPanta, President of Tonson, Inc., 5 Knolls Lane,
Burnsville, MN 55337.
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the deposition of Milton J. LaPanta
by oral examination will be taken before a notary public or any
officer duly authorized to administer oaths at the law offices
of BURKE AND HAWKINS, 299 Coon Rapids Boulevard, Suite 101, Coon
Rapids, Minnesota 55433 on the 8th day of March, 1990, at 9:00
a.m., and thereafter until the same shall be completed.
PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that Milton J. LaPanta is
hereby required and directed to produce at the commencement of
said oral examination:
"
.J
Copies of Mil ton J. LaPanta' s personal state and federal
income tax returns for the years 1986, 1987, 1988 and 1989,
if prepared;
-1-
.,
':~
,~
Copies of any personal financial statements of Mil ton J.
Lapanta given in the last three (3) years;
Copies of state and federal income tax returns for Waste
Recycling Inc. for the years 1986, 1987, 1988 and 1989, if
prepared;
Copies of financial statements for Waste Recycling Inc. for
the years 1986, 1987, 1988 and 1989;
Copies of state and federal income tax returns for Tonson,
Inc., for the years 1986, 1987, 1988 and 1989, if prepared;
Copies of financial statements for Tonson, Inc. for the
years 1986, 1987, 1988 and 1989, if prepared;
Dated: February 22, 1990
BURKE & HAWKINS
Isl William G. Hawkins
._ William G. Hawkins
Attorney for Plaintiffs
299 Coon Rapids Blvd., # 101
Coon Rapids, MN 55433
(612) 784-2998
Attorney ID No. 42651
-2-
&1$
1~",~
V
STATE OF MINNESOTA
BUREAU OF MEDIATION SERVICES
205 AURORA AVENUE
ST. PAUL. MINNESOTA 55103
I~ c5....
Y'I'o
I~' I i]r{~Tlh~kflJ1DS'
.' ~1G.SEUORl-l'l
: I" 8 2 8 1990 f...
CITY OF A.f\JDOVER
ate ecelve
Case Number
History File
045 Day 060 Day:
Mediation Period Commences on
~ledjation
Period Ends on
/lame of Petitioning Organization: Teamsters Local Na. 320
Address: 300l Univend ty Avp S R City: Mp1'"
Name of Representative: Lawrence M. Bastian.
Address: Same as above City:
State: MN lip; ')')414
Phone: t514 331-3873
Bll!'linp!'l!'l Agpnt-
State:
Phone:
lip:
Name of Other Party: Ci tv of Andover
Address: 1685 Crosstown Blvd. N W.
Anilnv"'T State: MN
.
Phone: 6 12
Name of Representative: Mr. James Schrantz, City Ailmin;~t-rrlt-~;
Address: Same as above City; State:
Phone:
Name and Address of Additional Persons to be Notified of Meetings:
Cyrus Smythe Rav Sawada
7501 Golden Valley Rd. 14921 Butternut Street NW
Golden Valley, MN 55427 AQdover Mn 55304
Type of Governmental ~gency Involved: ~ounty ~unicipality ~chool 6ist. ~pBdComm. ~tate/U of M
Type of Mediation Requested: Contract !Xl Grievance 0
Type of Bargaining Unit Involved: (file a separate petition for each appropriate unit)
Check the ONE designation which is most applicable:
K-12 Teachers Registered Nurses/LPN
----- Police/Fire/Corrections ----- Clerical/Administrative
----- Supervisory ----- Social Services
== Confidential ::::x= Maintenance & Trades
----- PrinCipals/Asst. PrinCipals _____ Service & Support
City:
lip: ')')104
755-5100
lip:
,
Status of Employees Involved: 0 Essential (]I Other Than Essential
Number of Employees in Unit: ~ Number of Prior Meetings Held: ~
CO""" S<"~~t of <h, ''','' of Th" "",t, ,"d ~""'''d J"~" . ""':10:er re~re5enta:~. ::~ 1
I!ot milkp rln nrrPT C:n "'t"'t<>d d11rJ.n'} J1Qgotl.il.tl.on",. O~i 2/261-90 at Cit::~ IIa-!:!:
~n Andover.
Date Current Contract Expires: l2/31/89 Check if This is a First Contract 0 f.
Date of Petition: 2/27/90
Date Copy Sent to Other Parties Listed Above: 2/27/90
Technical
----- Higher Education Instructional
----- Wall to Wall
----- Other Professional
== Other
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY
Mediator Assigned:
Date of First Mediation Session:
Date Impasse Certified:
Date Arbitration [J Accepted
Date Referred to PERB:
Date Strike COmmenced:
Total Settlement Cost:
~dit ional Information:
New Contract Expiration Date:
DO NOT WRITE BELOW THIS LINE
Date ASSigned:
Number of Mediation Sessions Held:
Date Arbitration Requested;
o Rejected: Date Final Positions Due:
Date Arbitration Award Received:
Date Strike Ended: Work Days Lost:
Wage Cost: Fringe Cost:
Date Case Closed Out:
BMS Form ME-00022-01
(Rev. 3/84)
x
Mediator
"
,P.2/3
--ro rEc i/l /'To
Ct!, , 3/6/1 v
fEB 28 '90 10:37 CITY OF C~ON RAPIDS
.'
Rough
Draft
February 21, 1990
..
Dear Crooked Lake Area Residents:
The Crooked Lake Area Association, the City.of Coon Rapids,. and.
the city of Andover invite you to a meeting March 28, 1990 at
7:00 p.m. at the Crooked Lake Elementary School to discuss issues
relating to Crooked Lake. The agenda for the meeting is attached
hereto. I hope you will be able to attend the meeting.' '
Sincerely,
CROOKED 'IJ\.KE AREA ASSOCIATION
. .
Jerry piche
President
CITY of COON RAPIDS
william R. ottensmann
. city Engineer
CITY OF ANDOVER
James Schrantz
city Administrator
car
Attachment
.~
"
.'
1313 COON RAPIDS BOUL.EVARD, COON RAPIDS, MINNESOTA 56433.5397
(612) 155.2B80
,f:
;?'-'-7!
~I, .1
.'
.,.'
:, .
....
,
,-J
~
,.
, -...-/
fEE 28 '90 10:38 CITY OF COON RAPIDS
P.3/3
Rough . Draft
CROOKED LAKE INFORMATION MEETING
AGENDA
WEmmSDAY, MARCH 28, ~990
7:00 P.M.
CROOKED ~ ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
~;?;?; e ~~~"""'~^"^~~~.~~~""""Y~"'''''.''''''''~'V'~~''''''''''''-;-'''''''''~''~.'''''''''''''''^'''V^'''''''''''~~~.!l.'''''''''~''~~
i&~%1~~~i"~~g~;~~W;:~~~~:;~~~ill~~~~~~~ti~]~~~~*s~(~~~~~r&-J;~~~~~Y=~~~~?"~:i~m&m~~'
1. Introduction of Panelists
2. Presentation by Metropolitan Council Representative
3. Presentation by DNR Representative
.
4. Questions and Answers
5. Questions and Answers Concerning city Improvements:
Crooked Lake Area
6. Adjourn Public Informational Meeting
7. Crooked Lake Area Association Meeting
,~.." .
'.'
~ . " .
," '.
" "
\.J
CITY of ANDOVER
1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. . ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304. (612) 755-5100
MEMORANDUM
Honorable Mayor and City Council
TO:
COPIES TO:
FROM:
DATE:
REFERENCE:
Agenda Record, James Schrantz
Jay Blake, CIty Planne'~~
March 6, 1990 0
Item ~4. March 6. 1990 city Council Meeting
BLIGHTED PROPERTY ACQUISITION
The city Council requested that additional information on ~he
possible uses for Community Development Block Grants funds be
brought to this meeting. The Building Department has provided a
list of four mobile homes or substandard homes that the City may
wish to consider for acquisition through the CDBG process. They
include:
1680 NW Andover Boulevard
1719 NW Andover Boulevard
1748 NW Andover Boulevard
16595 NW Ward Lake Drive
SENIOR CENTER IMPROVEMENTS
I also had an opportunity to meet with representatives from the
Andover Senior Citizens Organization. They expressed a great
interest in seeking permanent improvements to the Senior Center
in order to facilitate the establishment of a meal site at
Andover. Improvements include, but may not be limited to:
Dishwasher, Commercial Stove, Refrigerator and sink improvements,
and other miscellaneous improvements.
The Seniors have estimated that these improvements could cost in
the neighborhood of $7,000 to $10,000.
, "
'J
, "
. ') CITY of ANDOVER
''0..../
1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.w. . ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 . (612) 755-5100
MEMORANDUM
TO:
COPIES TO:
FROM:
DATE:
REFERENCE:
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Agenda Record, James Schr
Jay Blake, city Planne
March 6, 1990
Additional Council Items
The following issues have arisen since my return:
1. The Staff has received the resignation of Theresa Hogan as
Recording Secretary from the Andover Planning and Zoning
Commission, Park and Recreation Commission and the Andover
Comprehensive Plan Task Force. The Council is asked to
accept her resignation and authorize staff to advertise for a
replacement (or two).
2. The staff has also received the resignation of Gretchen Sabel
from the Andover Planning and Zoning Commission. Gretchen
has asked that she be considered for continued membership on
the Andover Comprehensive Plan Task Force and will continue
he commitment to the Charter Committee. The Council is asked
to accept her resignation and authorize the Staff to
advertise for a replacement for Gretchen.
3. The City has received a signed purchase agreement for the
M and N Sheetrock warehouse building in the Commercial Park.
You should recall that the Council authorized the sale of the
property at a reduced rate at the November 21, 1989 meeting.
The minutes have a slight conflict that needs to be resolved
prior to the mayor signing the agreement. The collective
memories of Attorney Hawkins and myself recall that the lot
was offered at $56,000, a $5,000 reduction in the sale price.
The minutes indicate that the sale price would be $56,555.
The Council may choose to change the minutes or ask that the
contract be re-negotiated at $56,555.
'.
'- /
IG~
I
L
, '\
U
Regula~ City CouncIl MeetIng
MInutes - Novembe~ 21, 1989
Page 3
RIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITION/H. SMITH
M~. Sch~antz explaIned the pond acquIsItIon on the Hube~t Smith
p~ope~ty is pa~t of P~oJect 89-18, the sto~m d~aInage fo~ the.
southeastpa~t of Watt/s Ga~den Ac~es. The CIty wIll bIll Coon Rapids
fo~ the acquisItion of this pond and the one in.Ki~by Estates.
Atto~ney Hawkins explained the app~aIsal fo~ the pond was $7,500 but
advised the Council to accept M~. Smith/s settlement ag~eement of
$8,000 ~athe~ than go th~ough the cost of eminent domain.
MOTION by O~ttel, Seconded by Knight, app~oval of acquisition of
Hube~t Smith p~ope~ty of the Southeast a~ea imp~ovements fo~ a dolla~
cost of $8,000 to be billed on the same basis as othe~ imp~ovements in
the a~ea with the City of Coon RapIds; and note that the Ce~tificate
of Su~vey wIll be p~epa~ed In the sp~IngtIme and the abst~act will be
b~ought up to date, and the City will pay fo~ the cost of b~inging the
abst~act up to date. Motion ca~~Ied unanimously.
COMMERCIAL PARK PURCHASE DISCUSSION
M~. Blake explained T~app Realty is p~oposing to pu~chase two lots,
Lots 3 and 4, in the Andove~ Comme~cial Pa~k fo~ the const~uctIon of
an office wa~ehouse buildIng for a sheetrock distrIbutIon busIness.
The two lots a~e approxImately 2.5 acres on which they would buIld a
13,000 square-foot building.
Dan Pasto~ius of T~app Realty - stated the purchase prIce is 65
cents a square foot for a total p~ice of $61,000. They need mo~e than
one lot because of the outsIde sto~age of metal studs. The company is
a divIsIon of U.S. Gypsum whose home office is in Chicago. They want
to iocate in this area because of so many housing sta~ts he~e. They
do not need 2 1/2 ac~es, but they couldn/t get one lot that is bIg
enough. They need two ac~es.
M~. Blake explained one lot is 1.1 ac~es; the other is 1.5 ac~es.
There is a d~ainage ditch between Lots 4 and 5, which makes it
unfeasible to split Lot 4 and combIne it wIth Lot 5.
Mr. PastorIus explained because the amount of land is more than they
need, they hoped something could be worked out to reduce the cost of
the land. The company feels the p~oJect would be mo~e feasible if it
we~e $10,000 less. It Is estImated It wIll cost about $333,000 In
ha~d costs, about $375,000 In all. The financing Is al~eady in place.
About 12 employees would be transfe~rIng from the MInneapolIs locatIon
to Andover. The Minneapolis operation would be shut down when this
one Is open.
CouncIl dIscussIon wIth Mr. Blake and M~. Pastorius was on the lots
themselves, on the needs of the company, and possIble solutIons.
,
~ )
u-
Regula~ City Council Meeting
Minutes - Novembe~ 21, 1989
Page 4
(Comme~cial Pa~k Pu~chase Discussion, Continued)
Councilmembe~ Jacobson exp~essed conce~n about negotiating with this
pa~ty and not with othe~s, feeling eve~yone should be t~eated equally.
He had a ha~d time believing $10,000 out of a $375,000 p~oJect would
kill It. M~. Blake stated he was always wo~king unde~ the imp~esslon
that the City would negotiate if it is a business that Is desi~able
and beneficial fo~ the City. Othe~ Councllmembe~s ag~eed it had
always been the intent to negotiate if It is a desl~able business.
Councilmembe~ O~ttel stated the ~edevelopment dlst~lct was set up to
be able to buy down on the p~ope~ty apa~t f~om the pu~chase p~ice o~
to help with imp~ovements If it Is a business the City wants to
encou~age. If the bUilding is not going to get in the g~ound this
yea~, he p~oposed ~efe~~ing the Item to the Economic Development
Committee fo~ a ~ecommendation.
L
Discussion was on the possibility of Inc~easlng Lot 3, Block 3~- to two
ac~es by taking land f~om the Outlot. That idea was ~eJected, feeling
the land may be needed In the futu~e elthe~ fo~ d~alnage or for
anothe~ lot from the east. Also, there Is a lot of traffIc from thIs
type of busIness, whIch may not be desIrable adJOining a resIdentIal
area. Plus, M~. Pasto~lus stated the people f~om U.S. Gypsum came in
f~om ChIcago to look at the land and agreed to Lots 3 and 4 of Block
2. They dId not look at Lot 3, Block 3.
Council also felt that splItting Lot 4 of the proposed sIte Is not
feasible since the drainage ditch p~ecludes combining It with Lot 5.
Attorney Hawkins advised that legally the City Is not obligated to
treat every pu~chaser the same, as the land Is sold based on the lot,
the Jobs, the type of business, etc.
M~. Blake stated the p~lce of the land in Andover Is about the same o~
somewhat lower than comparable land In othe~ cities; however, other
cities also use addItional TIF or CDBG funds as an Incentive for
busInesses. So the actual cost for the busIness to go Into another
cIty may be consIderably less.
MOTION by KnIght, Seconded by Orttel, that we set the purchase prIce
of Lots 3 and 4 at $56,555 and that they remain as one parcel; and the
~eason for the change In prIce Is for sIze accommodatIon -- the sIze
Is bigger than what they need but one lot Isn/t big enough. Motion
carried unanimously.
RECYCLING REPORT
LJ
Cindy DeRuyte~, Recycling Coordinator, explained about $7,000 In funds
from the county needs to be spent this year. She proposed
constructing a recycling center bUilding, reViewing the layout and
.'
LAW OFFICES OF
o
HI/fke ond j!owkins
SUITE 101
299 COON RAPIDS BOULEVARD
COON RAPIDS. MINNESOTA 55433
PHONE (61 2) 784-2998
JOHN M. BURKE
WILLIAM G. HAWKINS
March l, 1990
Mr. Jay Blake
Andover City Hall
1685 Crosstown Blvd.
Andover, MN 55304
Dear Jay:
Enclosed please find an earnest money check in the amount of
$2,000.00 and two copies of a purchase agreement for the
purchase of Lots 3 and 4, Block 2 of the Andover Commercial
Park. I met with Dan Pastorius on February 22, 1990 and he is
submitting this purchase agreement on behalf of Law II
Partnership. Apparently the original purchaser, MAT Properties,
is not involved in this~ however, Law II Partnership will be
purchasing the property for the construction of a building and
leaseback to M & N Drywall. I believe the City Council
authorized the purchase at $56,000.00, however, please confirm
this. If that is correct the mayor and the clerk should sign
the purchase agreement and you should return the photocopy to my
office. The check may be deposited by the City at this time. I
will order an abstract for the property and set up a closing
which is scheduled for on or before May 1, 1990.
If
any other questions, please contact me.
WGH:mk
Enc.
,
'-~
~
)
February 26, 1990
Andover City Hall
Attn: Personnel
1685 Crosstown Blvd.
Andover, MN 55304
This is to inform you of my resignation (effective 3/16/90) as Recording
Secretary for the Andover Planning and Zoning and Park and Recreation
Commissions.
I have enjoyed working with the City staff and commission members. I wish
you continued success in the government and growth of our city.
Sincerely,
--; /uw;a} 1/(!CL7L
Theresa Hogan
4022 l76th Avenue NW
Andover, MN 55304
,
~""''''''
. ~''''''
"'I!":-
. \
"-)
.;'.
'. '.
.......
'4. .' .
-,.......
TO:ANDOlJER CITY
MAR-06-'90 TUE 10:16 ID:PEA~~ ASSOCIAT~~JL~~.JFL NO:612 434 9358
\:1220 Plil.1.._
II
Peach Aeeoc:lates, Inc.
15830 University Avenue Northwest, Andover, MN 55304
(612) 434-9358 /
.i.: .~: : i: .
..... . March 6. 1990
-".....
"~ '~'" .
'.
"":,' 4
.'~ '.'
(>~.: "
f~.>j
~~'.: .':.
;;.::~ .
~~. ,~.,
~i.~:.,:..'
f'
,~r:.', ~.:
':,,:: ...
..... .
.~'\. :~
Mayor JIm Elling
Councllmember. Jacobson. KnIght, Orttel, Perry
CITY or ANDOVER
1685 Crosstown Boulevard NW
Andover. MN 56304
The Honorable Mayor and CouncIl:
It Is my understanding try~.e I. an opening for RecordIng
Secretary for the PlannIng CommIssIon, the Park and RecreatIon
Ccmml..Ion and other Committees such ae the Comprehensive Plan
Update Committee. I am propoelng that that poeItlon be changed
from a permanent part-tIme employee to a contract service as was
done with the CIty Council's RecordIng Secretary positIon.
The benefits to the City would be the same as It Is for the
CouncIl RecordIno Secretary positIon. The CIty would no longer
have to pay the benefIts of FICA and Insurance. It would no
long~r provide supplies other than City lette~head and tapes, and
Staff would be ~elIeved of th~ responsIbility of takIng those
minutes and of dOing accountIng work for another employee.
Peach Associates, Inc., can prOVide qU411fIed per~onnel to attend
those meetIngs and to reoord and tranecrlbe the Minutes In an
effIcient and tImely manner. Also, the turnover In thle poeItIon
has been high. whIch results In a great deal of staff time uaed
In fInding replacements. By contracting wIth Peach Associates,
Staff would be relieved of that time-consuming responSibIlIty.
The propoeal for takIng and transcribIng the CommIssion and
CommIttee MInutes for each meetIng Is:
.16 per hour o~ fractIon of CommIssion or CommIttee MeetIng
1/2 hour t~avel time per meeting
t6.26 per typewritten pag& of MInutes
1 b.lleve this contract servIoe will be mutually beneficial and
look forward to continuing my service to you. Ple4se place this
Item on an Agenda for consideratIon as soon as poselble. Thank
yOU.
BIncerely yours.
~p;;.h
SecretarIal Servlcee
~-)
Gretchen Sabel
3540-l53rd Avenue NW
Andover, Minnesota 55304
(427-5593)
March 5, 1990
Mayor James Elling,
Andover City council
Andover City Hall
1685 Crosstown Boulevard
Andover, Minnesota 55304
Dear Mayor Elling and City Council Members:
It is with sadness and regret that I will be resigning from the
Andover Planning and Zoning Commission, effective at the end of the
meeting on March 5, 1990. Growing family commitments and other
obligations have necessitated this move.
Working with the City as it grows has been a valuable and rewarding
experience for me. I have been proud of my association with city
government, and have tried to do my best to fulfill my obligations to the
posts I have held.
I would like to continue my role on the Planning Task Force, if you
see that as possible. I am aware that that group does not now have any
citizen members, and so this would be a first. The city's Comprehensive
Plan will be a major factor affecting development in the city in the years
to come, and I feel that I have strengths and insights which can help in
plan development, especially in the environmental area. I will also
continue to serve on the City Charter Commission at least until my initial
appointment expires.
Thank you for appointing me to the Planning and Zoning commission, and
giving me the chance to learn more about the people and issues of Andover.
Sincerely,
~
Gretchen Sabel
\ cc: Becky Pease, Jay Blake
j
, "
,,J
~
LAW Of'f'ICES Of'
t/urke oHd J-IowkiHS
JOHN .... BURKE
WILLlA... G. HAWKINS
March 5, 1990
Mr. Richard J. Sundberg
Attorney at Law
122-123 West Parkdale Plaza
l660 South Highway lOO
Minneapolis, MN 55416
,"" ....
. f;.. ~ ..}I \!41 ,. Pi
;;l~.{:!i~~E
~ ~r M.;: 6 1990 lUc
CITY OF ANDOVER
COpy FOR YOUR
INFORMATION
10 c.e.
-r ~7 t-
SUITE 101
1111 COON RAPIOS BOULEVARD
N RAPIDS. ...INNESOTA !l!l~33
PHONE III 1 2) 7B~.299B
Re: State of Minnesota, City of Andover, et ale V. Milton J.
LaPanta, et al.
Dear Hr. Sundberg:
This letter is to confirm that your client is unavailable on
March 8, 1990 for a deposition. Pursuant to agreement that we
have reached, it has been rescheduled for April 27, 1990 at 9:00
a.m. at my office. We will expect Mr. LaPanta to be present
with all of the documents that were requested.
Sincerely,
William G. Hawkins
WGH:mk
cc: Ms. Ann E. Cohen
Mr. James E. Schrantz
,
, 1
'--.-'
10 :JE Yb
Office of c~. ~b
ANOKA COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT
KENNETH G. WILKINSON - SHERIFF
Courthouse - 325 East Main Street - Anoka, Minnesota 55303
612-421-4760
" E -...... '.' .,.. -- ~-_.
t' i ' ~. '"' I, ~ ti. ,...
IJ, il .. .. h, ".' e',~ T' ;J ",
tt ,W ..; "'(;;..:., ::.......... ': :;~ ~:~ i
:,"'"C----...-.....-.,,-.--..... ','
, . , ,., n
h' ~ I. ~
J'~ 'r.f,'~ 5 1""0 ~ N
e., ',:',H ,.:jv jj,.p
March I, 1990
City Administrator Jim Schrantz
City of Andover
1685 Crosstown Blvd. N.W.
Andover, MN 55304
CiTY OF ANDOVER
Dear Mr. Schrantz:
Enclosed is a copy of the Anoka County Sheriff's Patrol
Activity Report for your Community. It is my intention
to provide you with this information on a monthly basis.
If I may be of any assistance to you concerning your law
enforcement and community needs, please feel free to call
me at 421-4760, Ext. 1801.
Sincerely,
~-O- ~
Captain Len Christ
Anoka County Sheriff's Office
Patrol Division
LC:nc
Enclosure (I)
.J
Affirmative Action I Equal Opportunity Employer
~
.
Office of
ANO[(A COUNTY SIIERIFF'S DEPARlillENT
l\.ENSETII G. lrll.l\./,YSVS - SllERIFF
COllrtllOlI,\€' - 315 l:a,,1 ,Hai" Strl'l't - ..\lIoha, .Him/€'.wta 55.10.1
611--IZI--I760
CITY OF ANDOVER
MON'l'HLY CONTRACT PRODUCTIVITY REPORT
January
, 1990
Month:
This report reflects the' producti vi ty of the Andover contract
cars, 3125, 3135, 3145 and 3l55. It does not include activity
by Sheriff's Department cars within the City during non-contract
hours, nor, activity by other Sheriff's Department cars within
the City during contract hours.
Arrests: Traffic
73 Radio Calls ~q1
3 Complaints ?Al
2 Medicals 1 n
0 P.I. Accidents 4
l6 P.D. Accidents 8
10 Domestics 14
0 House Checks 115
64 Business Checks 408
I
12
30
lO,940
DWI
~ Arrests: Felony
G.M.
Misdemeanor
Arrests: Warrant
Papers Served
Warnings
Aids: Public
Other Agencies
TOTAL MILES PATROLLED:
"-
'~
Captain Len Christ
Anoka County Sheriff's Department
Patrol Division
Alllrmollve Action 1 Equal Opportunity Employer
183 University Ave. East
St. Paul, MN 55101-2526
(612) 227.5600 (FAX: 221.0986)
70 C C o/?!tfO
RG~~~'~D-
League of Minnesota Cities
February 22, 1990
CITY OF ANDOVER
Kenneth Orttel
2828 - 134th Ave. NW
Andover, Mn. 55304
Dear Mr. Orttel:
I'm happy to inform you that the League Board of Directors at
their February 21 meeting unanimously voted to re-appoint you to
another three-year term as a member of the LMCIT Board of
Trustees. LMCIT's success owes a great deal to the sound
guidance you and the other Trustees have given. Speaking on
behalf of all of LMCIT's member cities, we very much appreciate
your willingness to offer your time and talents to this very
important task.
"
Let me also offer my personal congratulations on your
reappointment. I look forward to continuing to work with you
and the other Trustees.
-J
Sincerely,
~ 1(kfivdJ
Millie MacLeod
President, League of Minnesota cities
cc ,City of Andover;
LMCIT Board of Trustees
"
J
/
7:30 P.M.
....
'J
CITY of ANDOVER
1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.w. . ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 . (612) 755-5100
Regular city Council Meeting - March 6, 1990
Call to Order
Resident Forum
Approval of Minutes
Discussion Items
1. Rezoning;Woodland Creek & woodland Terrace
2. Deal Lot Split
3. Recycling Discussion
4. 1988 CDBG Discussion, Cont.
5. Establish Perm. Impro. Revolving Fund
6. LRRWMO Res;Water Quality/Feed Back
7. Assessment Manual
8. Election Equipment purchase Status
Staff. Committee, Commission
9. 90-3/Kensington Estates 5th/City Costs
Non-Discussion Items
10. Feasibility Report/90-5
11. Accept 157th Lane
12. Boundary Change
13. Approve Additional Depository
14. North Metro Mayor's Association
Approval of Claims
Adjourn
o
CITY OF ANDOVER
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
DATE M~r~h~. IPpg
FOR
AGENDA SECTION
NO. Approval of Minutes
ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT
Administration
ITEM
NO.
BY:
BY:
The City Council is requested to approve the following minutes:
February 20, 1990
Regular Meeting
/ '\
\.J
MOTION BY
TO
COUNCIL ACTION
SECOND BY
CITY OF ANDOVER
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
. ')
\.J
AGENDA SECTION
NO.
Discussion Items
ITEM 1. woodland Creek and
NO. Woodland Terrace
DATE
ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT
6 March 1990
BY:
d'Arcy
.~
Bosell & J
zoning/planning
The Planning Commission at its regular meeting on February 13,
1990, considered the rezoning request initiated by the City staff
in regard to the following properties:
Lot 1, Block 8, Woodland Creek, Anoka County, MN
Lot 1, Block 1, woodland Terrace, Anoka County, MN
The purpose for the request is to clarify what the development
intent of these two (2) parcels was when developed under a
Planned Unit Development (PUD) concept. The Resolutions adopted
in regard to these two (2) developments was not specifically
clear as to which parcels were intended to be developed as
Neighborhood Business (NB) parcels and further, when development
occurs under a PUD, the zoning Map does not reflect what the use
of the property is (i.e., R-4, R-4 PUD or NB).
The Planning packet prepared for the Commission is attached which
will give the background information upon which the
recommendation was based. Further, the minutes of the meeting of
February 13, 1990, are attached which discusses the issue at
length.
It is the unanimous recommendation of the Planning Commission
that the above-noted parcels be rezoned from R-4 Single Family
Residential to Neighborhood Business. Notice of Public Hearing
was mailed and there were no comments from the public received.
A Resolution is attached for your consideration.
MOTION BY
TO
COUNCIL ACTION
SECOND BY
,-.J
~
'J
CITY OF ANDOVER
COUNTY OF ANOKA
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RES. NO. R -90
A RESOLUTION REZONING LOT 1, BLOCK 1, WOODLAND TERRACE, ANOKA
COUNTY, MN. (generally located at 34-- NW Bunker Lake Boulevard)
FROM R-4 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL TO NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS.
WHEREAS, the City has initiated the request to rezone the
parcel described as Lot 1, Block 1, woodland Terrace, Anoka
County, Minnesota, from R-4 Single Family Residential to
Neighborhood Business (NB), and
WHEREAS, the intent of the rezoning is to clarify what uses
can be put on said parcel which was developed under a planned
Unit Development (PUD)i and
WHEREAS, at the time said development was approved by the
Andover City Council, the exact location and type of use was not
clearly stated, and
WHEREAS, said rezoning request meets all of the criteria of
Ordinance No.8, Section 6.02, Minimum Requirements, as it
pertains to Neighborhood Business Districts, and
WHEREAS, there was a public hearing held and there was no
public input received in this regard,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the
City of Andover approve the rezoning request for Lot 1, Block 1,
Woodland Terrace, Anoka County, Minnesota, from R-4 Single Family
Residential to Neighborhood Business (NB).
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Andover this 6th
day of March, 1990.
CITY OF ANDOVER
ATTEST:
James E. Elling, Mayor
Victor~a Volk, City Clerk
~
;-- '\
\J
CITY OF ANDOVER
COUNTY OF ANOKA
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RES. NO. R -90
A RESOLUTION REZONING LOT 1, BLOCK 8, WOODLAND CREEK, ANOKA
COUNTY, MN. (generally located at 32-- NW Bunker Lake Boulevard)
FROM R-4 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL TO NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS.
WHEREAS, the City has initiated the request to rezone the
parcel described as Lot 1, Block 8, woodland Creek, Anoka County,
Minnesota, from R-4 single Family Residential to Neighborhood
Business (NB), and
WHEREAS, the intent of the rezoning is to clarify what uses
can be put on said parcel which was developed under a Planned
Unit Development (PUD)i and
WHEREAS, at the time said development was approved by the
Andover City Council, the exact location and type of use was not
clearly stated, and
WHEREAS, said rezoning request meets all of the criteria of
Ordinance No.8, Section 6.02, Minimum Requirements, as it
pertains to Neighborhood Business Districts, and
WHEREAS, there was a public hearing held and there was no
public input received in this regard,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the
City of Andover approve the rezoning request for Lot 1, Block 8,
Woodland Creek, Anoka County, Minnesota, from R-4 Single Family
Residential to Neighborhood Business (NB).
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Andover this 6th
day of March, 1990.
CITY OF ANDOVER
ATTEST:
James E. Elling, Mayor
Victoria Volk, City Clerk
.' ,
I
'J
Andover Planning and zoning Commission
February 13, 1990 Meeting Minutes
Page Ten
2) believes a safety hazard is definitely being created with access onto 7
:J
3) approval of variance is not due to topography of land
MOTION passed; will be presented to City Council on 3/06/90.
~
Rezoning: Woodland Creek and Woodland Terrace Commercial Lots
The Andover planning and Z~ning Commission was asked to review and approve the rezoning
of the following property from R-4 (Planned Unit Development) to NB Neighborhood
Business:
Lot 1, Block 8, Woodland Creek, Anoka County, MN
Lot 1, Block 1, Woodland Terrace, Anoka County, MN
The rezoning request was initiated by ~~e City Staff. \
During the 1980s, the City of Andover utilized the PUD section of Ordinance 8 .
to allow greater flexibility for developers of land with or without unique land
features. Both Woodland Terrace and Woodland Creek were approved as PUDs by the
City Council.
The resolutions approving the PUD/Subdivision were not clear on the mixed uses
and their locations within the development. Also, the City zoning map does not
delineate between normal R-4 and R-4 (PUD). This might present some confusion to
a prospective home buyer within these Woodland developments.
From records obtained during the approval process, it is clear that it was the intent
of the City to have these properties developed similar to o~~er Neighborhood
Business properties.
All related zoning requirements are met by ~~e two parcels, no variances would
be needed. Included in the packet to commissioners is a listing of Permitted,
Accessory and Special Uses for the Neighborhood Business District.
Blake noted that car washes are not oerrnitted as a Neighborhood Business, nor are
drive-in businesses or businesseS-With a drive-~~ window.
Notice was sent to property owners within 350 feet of both properties. Several
call were received by City Staff, however, there were no major objections to
proposal.
Spotts noted that Woodland Terrace was left open wi~~ concept of possibly extending
Neighborhood Business. However, he does not believe there was ever indication
of Neighborhood Business at Woodland Creek.
Blake answered that owners of Round Barn purchased shopping center lot and are
currently working on a development plan for that property. Property is a clear
extension of commercial use all the way through district across from Assembly of
God Church. Blake feels intent was for Neighborhood Business or light commercial
use.
cont'd...
,
'J
Andover Planning and Zoning Commission
February 13, 1990 11eeting Minutes
Page Eleven
\
, )
Blake stated access will be from service road on south side or off Marigold on
north side.
Chairman Pease opened the Public Hearing at 9:35 P.M.
Ferris questioned if request has Council support.
Blake replied he has not specifically approached Council with request.
Vis tad stated Woodland Creek was maintained as a Neighborhood Business to be a
buffer. Woodland Terrace was to be an extension of the businesses to the west
and serve as a buffer. By zoning to Neighborhood Business, potential problems
can be eliminated.
"Blake noted it is his belief these properties were intended to be Neighborhood
Business, although they do not appear on City zoning maps as such.
Vis tad stated previous minutes would support intent.
Spotts made a MOTION to close the Public Hearing.
Second to motion by Vistad. All commissioners favor motion: Public Hearing
closed at 9:40 P.M.
MOTION made by Commissioner Ferris that the Planning and zoning Commission recommend
to the Andover City Council approval of a rezoning of Lot 1, Block 8, Woodland
Creek and Lot 1, Block 1, Woodland Terrace to Neighborhood Business from R4.
It is clear from review by staff of' minutes of both of these PUD's that original
intent was to classify these as Neighborhood Business. It is felt in the best
interest of community to so designate them within the City zoning structure. A
Public Hearing was held and there was no negative comment to this zoning classi-
fication from the Public Hearing. This is to be passed to City council for
their 3/06/90 meeting.
Second to MOTION by Wayne Vistad. All commissioners favor motion: motion passed.
Home Occupations, Ordinance 8, Discussion
The Andover Planning and Zoning commission was asked to review the information
regarding the regulating of Horne Occupations.
The City Council has directed the Planning and Zoning Commission to review the
current city regulations on in-home occupations. This is a direct result of
the request of Michael Kelner on prairie Road.
Jay Blake conducted a survey of 12 communities around the Twin Cities metro
area. Information is summarized on a chart presented to commission. Following
issues are included in the survey: population estimate, MUSA information,
requirements for home occupations, accessory buildings, rural vs. urban
regulations, size limitations, retail sales, SUP, parking, employee restrictions,
signs, alterations, exterior storage, and hours of operation.
cont'd...
~
CITY OF ANDOVER
.~
REQUEST FOR PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
February 13, 1990
AGENDA ITEM
6. Rezoning: woodland
Creek'and woodland
Terrace Commercial
Lots
DATE
ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT
Planning ~
BY: Jay Blak~ity
APPROVED FOR
AGENDA
planner
BY:
REQUEST
The Andover Planning and zoning Commission is asked to review and
approve the rezoning of the following property from R-4 (Planned
Unit Development) to NB Neighborhood Business:
Lot 1, Block 8, woodland Creek, Anoka County, Minnesota
Lot 1, Block 1, Woodla~d Terrace, A?oka County, Minnesota
The rezoning request was initiated by the City staff.
BACKGROUND
During the 1980s, the City of Andover utilized the Planned Unit
Development (PUD) section of Ordinance 8 to allow greater
flexibility for developers of land with or without unique land
features. Both Woodland Terrace (1985) and woodland Creek (1987)
were approved as PUDs by the City Council. Copies of the
resolutions are included in the packet. The original PUD approval
for Woodland Terrace was not done by resolution, rather as part of
the original plat.
Unfortunately, the resolutions approving the PUD/Subdivision were
not clear on the mixed uses and their locations within the
development. Also, the City zoning map does not delineate between
normal R-4 and R-4 (PUD). This might present some confusion to a
prospective home buyer within these Woodland developments.
From records obtained during the approval process, it is clear
that it was the intent of the City to have these properties
developed similar to other Neighborhood Business properties.
DISTRICT REQUIREMENTS
Requirement woodland Woodland
for District/Property Terrace Creek
District Area 2 acres *Yes Yes
Lot Width 150 feet Yes Yes
., Lot Depth 150 feet Yes Yes
'J
* Part of NB District associated with Big Wheel Rossi etc.
~
~
page 2
Rezoning
February 13, 1990
All related zoning requirements are met by the two parcels, hence
no variances would be needed. Also included in the packet is a
listing of Permitted, Accessory and Special Uses for the
Neighborhood Business District.
Notice was sent to property owners within 350 feet of both
properties. Several calls have been received with no major
objections to the proposal.
~
CITY of ANDOVER
1685 CROSSTOWN BLVD. N.W.
ANDOVER. MINNESOTA 55304
Rezoning *
:J
REZONING REQUEST FORM
3:J.XX.
property Address 3~X(
is l'.H\ Iu I' LA.,u
i3/ArtNU r Lak.
BI"tt
li/vo' .
Legal Description of property:
(Fill in whichever is appropriate)
I l'
Lot I Block I Addi tion
WfJO c/I.." J.. Ctu..t<..
wao .L/~.J.. ~ra..c..t........
Plat
parcel
PIN
Reason for Request
(If metes and bounds, attach the complete legal)
C'ry 'XiI ,.hAkcL If f:,Z rI1 ut;
dM.J.
76
Pu1)
I"e.~~ 'u.h~ .
Current zoning
If - 'i jJ("lO Requested zoning
#/3
**********************************************************************
Name of Applicant C'? df ,;,,~
Address /C:,,?,) C;ros.,IouJY1 ;3/1/ cL
~
Business Phone 7ss--S-IOO
Da te / /;;5 /90
~ ,
Home Phone
Signature
************ ********************************************************
Property Owner (Fee Owner)
(If different from above)
Address
Home Phone
Business Phone
Signature
Date
**********************************************************************
Attach 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.
.- "
\J
The names and addresses of all property owners within 350 feet of the
subject property must also be provided.
Application Fee:
Filing Fee:
$\0.00
$1~0
Date Paid
~ Receipt *
~/y-
~~,/
1\'I~~i,,~Tf:"!":'; y
~~ -
f:; ~ 'TH ~~Dij~=
~ . '~'I'I-~ -
.. ~"'.. . . 0
"1b ~; .~ : ': -0--- ::0
~ '.' . I
~"'- ,. r-;.. I
~- -..&:, "- ~: - '- - -- - """"IT"
L.' . . II UJ--
li1 ,. /Q - ~..... .... " CDT'
r-ffl .... ~.. -: I~ " x
" ~.. :: :: ~ c:- ~" . ~A"~"'" , ')f :; c,
-f.l. .: ::. S'h ~\ ~ -.._~
'~'~-I'I-I :, t-;-:~"/~~ - -Sf W" Ifl~~
~ I~: -'I ~ . . " --- ~:t:: ~ -; ~ h I ~ f~
Q I~ v.;'I~"-,"'-i-:-. '1."\ II I !L
f-" -- . !' ~ ~ ~'KJ~ lH1_ro-J... _ lilSi,QP<:w _ Cl:VrER / ~ r;-r::- l -~ Siiiiio;:~ ~
"" -;.. :. ~ i .." III.';, f;;- ';':'f- 'l'
Il:~.- I? ~ "' 0.. II ~ aN';,..- - ~ '" ./~...: : ~I~; ~'~
_'" r--- ,,.. ~.....-.= .~~. ..:' 1
~ i -',... '\ . \JI ~~ -; . .r. . . ~~ .;- ~~ i,l: l ~ 't-~ /
-\./- .....: L ~. (\ ,_ (') ~ C . .1.-';'. .I)'L," -;- ~~.: ""
....... -"10 - ~ h' ~ \oN · '- . .. ...L. r:-_ .~. ~.I:;"';r"'o~,: ......,_/YJ.-.'~._.~I.,
r.:G ~',.~ t-7.1~' - '" ~ . '7 ,.... Q , . .' . j ,...','....:......1-7 _
'. . ~'~ Io..r~r. ~ (' lo'n rT'I' Q Q ~. "_ -. jj'{..,.l;....:- I-;-'!-;-
~,~ "" ~ \.AI .,...~ ., .. , .
~ ~ ~ . I......, ,~ ,r. ... . _ ~ ~I. .,.... j. ~r.
~ "f:l;:N .~ 5), .1' 1 ~ D
~~~ (~....~~~ '-+~': ~ i. f .~ ~~--_l~}REE3.~I&
..~.~...~_.. ~ ~ l~' ~ (") -, /-1-... .-'~.I.I..r":<;,.
~~~ -~ .. ~ I:"' ~ f i-.~;if-/-r-'isrArEs,a
-':f$i)@f!#;.I/~ .'~-l"1.I.H.\,'r"nt -. ;::- ~ ;::'".: I;;i ~. =;
. ~ ~-r. ~J g. ~ ~ 0() ~,..:. n ~x &'" ~
~~-~ ~ Iul ~ ~ ~ .;r. ~~ I I r /1'"'
-,,:jf:i.l..7::r,JA"~ I' ~ " F- ~Ch ~ ~
~~ \ I I I I I 'f J:::x1: -:: = . . ~ \!: !o/' ~ ~ ~ \ ~
~ I f I I m ....._ I V . ~ ~ _ <) ~
1.[1..11, . _
'j fI i 1/ /A..' 2: :::0 w. ~ \ t- = ~ ~ ~'
~. I I 1..- ~ I - -":.,. :._"l .
C 1uKED L;;R~ fUJ "" -' -.........~ -r: __-. ~
~ f(\C~~ +- _ _ ""
- "" /A'(]I ~ ~ .r-- I i '<1:...!!!!!.... = ,.__-:<.'
J .:f. .1" '. f11 \. I 'I\).~-r:; 4-1 i! I : "l. ~ . _""T ,_ ~~.
' d.l.:.! ...;... ~ "" _ .: .....
.: :ili~J ~~;-tL~~,^ I: ~//;~!~:_~== ~~
] ': - ~ :'~- :,~ ,l~~ --, g ~ ;';; : L - - = "T1
z -- _. +- " ".-' .... - .. - -n''::':!!. ~ 'I-~ C<:.\'.".;' ':'.i:.-,,>: "I .....,
-i!1 · (/) '" . ~ 'IbT II." ~ f7" ,.. ',:0 . '. . . ,.. '0. '.' ',..'
CD - -f- = c: -j"fI""" 1> E ri: .~ 2J'JI'" ': :: ':';/:<,<~:.\" :::.:~/.!.:::;:
'- 0 ~..ID.... c: .~ ;:;,~lJ ~.,. ..........:..:.,...."...::;.'.
- ~ m ~~ ~ ,I! ~_'<.r- ~ -1...,.' ,I ",:,,",,::... ":'.. :.......:
-;: :<-" ~.,: -~.".:-r.,~: :',J,.""',, il N'; . ~~..- ~;. ~~ ~ ....;i,.?:::.:.:;,...:.~:.!:,:,:>,. ';'i,.j:..{.:
-:< -~'\(h~ (,:1' ~..~ 'I. ". ~.~_\ - _, :{:::.:.:::;::.:.:. >.......:,:. ':'.
~ a ~Q ~'\'\~...- ~ "'1:: ~~. ~. . . '''','';'.''"'.."\':'.., ~':.:
... ~i">< ~ \& ~ ~ i:B~~' - '~~~~/~ : .;. : ,,:,;,:-,..:;;:-'-,':"-:;,"':,":':7
. y\' '", . · ~ :, I<;~~'~~ -- Pl, '" ~ ~-: : : ~ U/./ii.ci.X;:
'- ; : : - l ~ ~ ic'~l~--I', ~ 'liL ' ~\,_I_ -I- _ I ',i.::/::~\:'\::::>:'::<":';':
. ~ . ;~-~\~ tf.,. rEi''':'" II . ._ _ ,~'I ~ \/':,,:';'(;';::.,.:;:::':",...
-. ,~ ~ ..... I-m-1 ~.. ...., ','. .. . ". . .
(') ~ ~ ~ : 0.: '* lk . dl'_ ." I ~/ v I I \ '/'-.."v '/;-'\';',':1': " " :'
~j)/'!-r.f- ~~ttf Ii ? ..~.~ LJ.--/ I I 1'-':; ~ I . :,;:.';:.'::..... "
.~ _ '.LI .,
~
-.
:I:
1>
o
."",
~o
::a
~~
::a
....
::a~
PI
~o
...
z
o
....
PI
<.e
'v
V,
~/
,'I'~~
.-;l-_~~.
I
r" -.....-
p
(
, )
,
'-- )
'-
CITY OF ANDOVER
COUNTY OF ANOKA
STATE OF MINNESOTA
NO. R048-85
A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE FINAL PLAT OF WOODLAND TERRACE, PHASE I,
AS BEING DEVELOPED BY LAWRENCE B. CARLSON IN SECTION 32.
WHEREAS, the City Council approved the Preliminary Plat
of Woodland Terrace on April 16, 1985; and
WHEREAS, a revised Preliminary Plat pursuant to Council
directive of April 16, 1985, has been submitted; and
WHEREAS, the developer has presented the Final Plat of
Woodland Terrace, Phase I; and
WHEREAS, the City Engineer has revised such plat for con-
formance with the revised Preliminary Plat; and
WHEREAS, the City Council acknowledges the developer will
donate land and perform services in lieu of cash dedication in the
form of grading the park, replacing the topsoil, and seeding it.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of
the City of Andover to hereby approve the Final Plat of Woodland
Terrace, Phase I, as developed by Lawrence B. Carlson.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED to make such approval contingent
upon the developer entering into a development contract with the
required security.
BE IT STILL FURTHER RESOLVED that such approval be con-
tingent upon the developer correcting the legal description as
identified by the City Attorney.
BE IT STILL FURTHER RESOLVED that such approval be also
contingent upon the developer submitting a written agreement to
grade, replace the topsoil, and seed the park per the park development
plan approved by the Park and Recreation Commission in lieu of the
cash dedication required for both Phase I and Phase II of the
Woodland Terrace development.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Andover this
21st
day of
, 1985.
May
CITY OF ANDOVER
ATTEST:
. ':i,,~ ~~",.,-.A' Jerry Windschitl - Mayor
patricia K. LindqUiS~~lerk/Adm.
\
\.J
\
, )
~
,
~'
~
.....
.~
~
"
00'011
---2[--
ci
>
-l
OJ
W
:.::
<(
..J
0:
W
:.::
z
~
OJ
....--.....
,
.
.
~
~
~
"
h..
<::l
~
:::.
<::l
o.
m .
I o.'\;oOo~
I ..,..'0'00
I I ;:,+-"~OJo
, ..(I ~
~ tl 19"!:zr
"
..
"
19'!:ZZ
:3 ..P;,9Z 00 N
..
"
.L33H.LS
0lI
- ,,"---j9=";F--~;;M r:-
.......L\ .K,IC;oZ"V"'g\ ~
I.., .0 .ot'Il\ \
1 ",'bO'?O :> I \ \
I "s;; ~ 0 "'1 \
1 :;o.>..~OO6' : l \ 't.
i J ... \ \ \"9-
'1 \
I.
I
I.lt I '1':-
~ I \
N I , ~
~ I ~
I 1j,
i ~ \';,
.-b~~L-":-=
to
cj
Z
~
<(
cIi
8
00'08
<
'/----
I
I
I
'l~ '::lIS JO J,uono I'D'~ln~
'\(110 Atuono .'D'~IJON 1\11 '0 tUI' '103, .
\
\
N
o
I
.L
d
:3
:)
x
M"OO,.LZ .OS
--- !E:L"81!E:1---
9lL'S8i
~ r
I I
.J\
;~\
~\ \'"
"'\ \'"
!..\ In
ocr"lI
OO'ZOI
ao'CiS
~
~
'0
.0
~
~
.
~
~
"
I<)
t\j
C'
i
"
....
~
:;
~
~
~
It "1".,.
\0111 :::.::
"~I I g:;
-:1 \~~.;, Ie)
~11-:
",1,:\
~I -
"\ ,
'-00
1
.~I I
WI
.:::'18 ~
~II::
CD11-
"I I
I
I
''Z-':'''S JO J'l~ono IIOlUlnos l'fl ,oJ'
JIUOno IIOI"lIJDN 1111,0 IUI1I"M
---9S'!E:891---
3"O!<,17l::.0N
CITY OF ANDOVER
COUNTY OF ANOKA
STATE OF MINNESOTA
~J
NO. Rl25-87
A RESOLUTION APPROVING A SPECIAL USE PERMIT REQUESTED BY
WOODLAND DEVELOPMENT FOR A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR THE
PROPERTY BEING PLATTED AS COLONIAL CREEK.
WHEREAS, pursuant to published and mailed notice, the
Planning and Zoning Commission has conducted a public hearing
and reviewed the request of Woodland Development for a Special
Use Permit for a Planned Unit Development for the property being
platted as Colonial Creek; and
WHEREAS, after such hearing and review, the Planning and
Zoning Commission has recommended approval of tqe.request ~ith
reasons for such recommendation being 1) the proposed u'se '\vill
not be detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare of
the community; 2) it \vill not .cause serious traffic congestion;
3) It will not depreciate surrounding property values; 4) it is in
harmony with the general purpose and intent of the zoning ordinance
and the Comprehensive Plan; and
WHEREAS, the City Council is in agreement with the reasons
cited by the Flanning and Zonia~ Commission.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by tJ",e City Council of the
City of Andover to hereby approve the Special Use Permit requested
by Woodland Development for a Planned Unit Development consisting
of a golf course, residential uses and Neighborhood Business for
the property being platted as Colonial Creek.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Andover this
2lst
day of
July
, 1987.
CITY OF ANDOVER
ATTEST:
~'- _ ~ (. /' d ---./.a7
J ry wUndschitl - Mayor
&0
Victoria Volk -
City Clerk
,)
I
I
I
,
,..---
'~
o
"
o
"
'll;_~:)..
""J\~~ :
"':J1QrJ~ :!J
.~'J,.: ci
;<1 "'1
___..J W
ii'"oON"'" Z
~ ~
001 -I
"'1
,___..J
~'--l
?J
"'1
___-.J
11-;
01
~
"'1
___...J
;~--l
21
:lI
,
Ll__.J
.i'.oNl
). :f
'Ocl' o.t
)O~~/sI "1
'/.r:~[) I
_ .!z.:r
o
"
o
"
')
.J
Zt .,'s: )0 JlIJD"O ItO".uJON
1", JO jlOW il03 I"JID lun 1.03""'\
\
!I\.~~ ,9~.OS \
--- ~cr680J--- \ --_,
.----:----:----,0"'8,.--:;:--21----. or
~I
01
~I
;1
~I
1 ~I
~
: ~I
ml
~I
~I
"z w:.::1
:'cl'cl'Oo.
~~o,. => I
"(ol-;~~ mo 9
_________.!61.6.s.___________~~:r I
I
:!.i
I --6~18~--.: ---1/ ~
I . 3,,~~,6v.ON .; .. _
I I
'zi "". I
---~I--:----~?<"..-~:-:- --- -- T
. I . .
,0 I
I I
. .il I
:..U I
;~. I
~I
" " I
"./ 'Q...
, :'1 I
"I
" ~ I
'. r I
.,
.:.:.:.-:.., <.:l I
: I
I ")<. I
)'1: ~ I
L-~_---..: -~--rJ<<
I. . '. ~~ _;;,...'"" I o.
i,~'f~
I ,.- I
.c.' .,....
.~.~.,f.
: :~;~ .~~ ':~~
..::::~ . (1:_:"
00'6801
o
"
o
"
~
.
I'
1.S 3.'<,'..ON
~
.
Ol09RI'V1'l
o
"
o
"
at os:
-'- '
II a -.Lii'601-~ I"---S:I'OII-:-:-:\..I
I "'l4,~~Oo -I I "':J\'l.~..
l:g ";.4' ~t..o.to ~ I '" \.~"':J10~~O ~
~ .) is''.~ lftl I c>.&~\\...1: ;il
L 00'0'1_ _J L oO'OtL _...J
r - ..., r- - ~
I 3..ii,6.o0N I I J..iS:.6.o0N I
18 ~ 8i I 81
I:: -, :lIi Q:) "'I
I II C01
L _ _...J L_ _.J
j- 000111 -I r oO'oil-1
& ~! ~
Ia>> ~ COII~O) G>l
IG 11111,,- ~
L________...J '-_______..J
r- OO"Oil ., j=-- oo"Oil- I
10 01 I:. 8'1
~ .., "oJ IN ~
~ col I:' _ ~
I CDJ I:: I
L __ _..:._..J LZ __ _ __...J
r-- oo"a~I--l (---OO'OlLI -j
'0 81: 01
~ t\a cD: I :::: g: ~
~ coil ~ m
L___ Q.O..:..o.i'-:"'~ '-__ ..QQ"Q.t!.. _-' ,..,
'1,.-"'j:ili,6".OH l r-~.lili:.6.-;'oH-1
1- '., ...: _I: ""cooo" :a
.j ~~o~1 01 I' ~ . ~o o~ ,.-,1
'"''''..'''''t,OJo.oo %1 1 ...... ..~.,o~*:...~....
I~~ l>.:'" 1,: I I "...... I
~~__~:'S[.OlJ__~ L-__l!:~L2:-~
I
I
I~
t\I':....
0_"".
'N
10,..,
-.
,... "',
Q)
Iz
I
I
J-;-- - ;!;-o;,:]
I"'~ .... 00 01 I
1<<1 6+"r~~b~ -I
.... .It" 0 *4- ~
IN .,.)Oq ~I
left It) *~-I
l___"~~LJ
f-33f;6~ONl
'0 ~:
:S ... ~:
1- 1
'-_______-.J
r---Z5tlfJ--l
I 01
18~ gl
I QI
I~ 1
L_______J
r--"'1~O"fI--,
10 01
1C! 0., gl
18 21
1- 1
L_.!~!'__-l
rJ:t~;S~oaN'
I I
,: ......J, W;l
I~ ~,",'l.':~1~ ;.J
I ".....t,0)..-fi" =1
ol~: D"" 0i1
~_~J;Q!I__.J
0<
'"
..
;oo
. 0
f~
'"
'z
:t:
I-
en
,.,
at" at
o
"
o
"
IO'OZS:
J:-ilL,OoON
OIHOHO
o
"
i..3: ilL
::S
"0
. >e
m
'"
iiz "
I
I_-
I-
Ii:,;
'"
I:':
<
99 -I-'~-
:;:1
I
::.; I
....
"'f. I
-"
"
I
I
I
"Zi -,os 10 lapof'l() ISOltlpoN 0111 I
10110M 1'03 Olfl 10 ~11 jlO.Il\ J
Ii,'
..
':1
..'
_0;:"
.1.
,y
~::r
------------'-l
--------
;::-.~', .' ~ ,';-; '. I
.' .
. ,
I
-: ",
.'"
~.
,-:.N
""
o.
~m
'"
z
\
....
~
v
.~
(,).
~
~
90'"9.,9
3"i:Si:.S.oON
~
.
~
.
,IV
-,-
~~!
.f
=T:I
~)I
~'::'I
)1
II
I
II
II
~ 2/
.
~ ~I
101
:1
'-I
...1
~I
I
I
J
o
o
~
.
11:
iJJ
~
~~
::1
0:;
01
'<< r
I
I
I
I
NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS
I .
PERMITTED USES
o
Day Care Centers
Financial Institutions
Medical Clinics
Mortuaries and funeral homes
Professional offices
Professional studios
Restaurants
Retail trade and services
II. ACCESSORY USES
In all business and industrial districts
Any incidental repair, processing, and storage
necessary to conduct a permitted principal use but not
to exceed thirty (30%) percent of the floor space of
the principal building.
III. SHIPPING CENTER
Car Wash after a minimum 25,000 sq. ft. of retail floor
space is constructed
Drive-in businesses or businesses with a drive-thru
window.
, ,
,~
,-. .-...
~J
~"._'
j '.
-' .
. ,
".L )
~=://
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 Planning and zoning Commission 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, February l3, 1990 at the Andover City Hall,
1685 Crosstown Blvd. NW, Andover, MN to review a proposed rezoning
of the following properties from R-4 (P.U~D.) to NB - Neighborhood
Business:
Lot 1, Block 8, woodland Creek, Anoka County, Minnesota
and
Lot 1, Block 1, woodland Terrace, Anoka County, Minnesota
written and verbal comments will be received at that time and
location.
(-.t.. 1(,1#
&A-'1~ ~'dV
Victor~a Volk, City Clerk
" "-
'J
G
.~
CITY OF ANDOVER
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
AGENDA SECTION
NO. Discussion Items
DATE
ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT
Zoning/Planning ~\
BY: d'Arcy Bosell ~\ ~
6 March 1990
ITEM 2. James & Pamela Deal
NO. Lot Splits - RLS #72
APPRI~D FOR
AGEN \.. ~
BY: / '- ~
/
The Planning Commission at its regular meeting on February 13,
1990, considered the lot split request of James and Pamela Deal,
on property generally described as Tracts G and H, Registered
Land Survey 72, Anoka County, Minnesota. The two (2) parcels in
question are at least five (5 a.) acres in size and have frontage
along a road easement called Makah Street. The request is to
divide Tracts G and H into two (2) parcels each, thus creating
four (4) 2.5 acre parcels (plus or minus).
Tract G would be divided into two (2) parcels:
Parcel C which has frontage on Makah Street, and is
100,520.68 square feet excluding the road easement. This
parcel would require a variance as it does not meet the
district standards for R-1 subdivision (108,900 s.f..>.
Parcel D has frontage on CSAH No.7 and is 108,901.25 square
feet, excluding the cemetery (Tract Y). It is proposed that
the easement for driveway purposes to access the cemetery be
vacated and relocated as a common driveway easement adjacent
to Parcels D and A.
Tract H would be divided into two (2) parcels:
.
Parcel B which has frontage on'Makah Street, and is 98,377.48
square feet excluding the road easement. This parcel would
require a variance as it does not meet the district standards
for R-1 subdivision.
Parcel A has frontage on CSAH No.7 and is 109,139.43 square
feet.
COUNCIL ACTION
MOTION BY
TO
SECOND BY
'--
~
Page Two
In Re: Tracts G and H, RLS 72 (Deal)
6 March 1990
As noted above, Parcels A and D would also contain a fifteen
(15') easement along their common lot line for driveway purposes
to access the cemetery plus an additional area to accomodate any
parking (as shown on the survey for Parcel D). It is the
recommendation of the Planning Commission that the pie-shaped
sliver on the west side of the cemetery also be included in the
easement to provide access to the rear of the cemetery lot
without encroaching on private property.
Bill Sironen, Anoka County Highway Engineer, has reviewed this
lot split request and makes the following comments: "The current
right-of-way along CSAH No.7 is acceptable at sixty (60') feet".
There is no need to acquire additional right-of-way on Parcels A
and D.
He also states: "I understand the existing (driveway) easement
for Tract Y is to be vacated and the two (2) lots adjacent to 7th
Avenue (Parcels A and D) and Tract Y will (have) access along the
common lot line (the exact configuration not yet determined)."
In other words, the County will approve one (1) driveway access
onto 7th Avenue and then once is gets onto private property, it
can "T" or "Y" or whatever to meet the needs of each parcel.
Ordinance No.8, Section 4.22 provides that "access drives may be
placed adjacent to property lines except that drive consisting of
crushed rock or other non-finished surfacing shall be no closer
than one (1') foot to any side or rear lot line.
With regard to the easement currently providing access to the
cemetery, official action needs to be initiated by the City to
vacate same as it provides public access. I have attached a
proposed Resolution for your consideration.
It is the recommendation of the Planning Commission that this lot
split be granted and a Resolution setting forth their rationale
is attached for your consideration.
Also attached is the Planning Commission Packet materials, the
Planning Commission minutes and a copy of the letter received
from Bill Sironen.
This lot split request is subject to Park Dedication Fees on all
lots as there were no park fees paid at the time of the
Registered Land Survey. This is pursuant to Ordinance No. 10,
Section 9.07.
, ,
In regard to Makah street, if a separate easement grant has not
been provided to the City, that easement grant should be provided
and should be a contingency of this lot split request. A review
of the file indicates that we have accepted the street for
maintenance but does not indicate that an easement grant was
conveyed. This easement grant should be included in the lot
split action.
,-~
, '\
"-~
CITY OF ANDOVER
COUNTY OF ANOKA
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RES. NO. R -90
A RESOLUTION GRANTING THE LOT SPLIT REQUEST OF JAMES AND PAMELA
DEAL ON THE PROPERTIES GENERALLY DESCRIBED AS TRACTS G
AND H, REGISTERED LAND SURVEY NO. 72, and GRANTING A
VARIANCE AS TO LOT AREA ON PARCELS B AND C.
WHEREAS, James and Pamela Deal have requested a lot split to
create two (2) lots on Tract G, Registered Land Survey No. 72,
for the purpose of conveyance; and
WHEREAS, James and Pamela Deal have requested a lot split to
create two (2) lots on Tract H, Registered Land Survey No. 72,
for the purpose of conveyance; and
WHEREAS, the Planning & Zoning Commission has reviewed the
request and has determined that said request meets the criteria
of Ordinance No.8 and 40, except as noted below; and
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held and input received; and
WHEREAS, the Planning & Zoning Commission recommends to the
City Council approval of the lot splits requested, with
conditions;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the
City of Andover hereby agrees with the recommendation of the
Planning Commission to allow for the splitting of Tracts G and H,
Registered Land Survey No. 72, as follows:
Parcel A: That part of Tract H, Registered Land Survey No.
72, files of the Registrar of Titles in and for
Anoka County, Minnesota lying east of the west
339.95 feet thereof. Subject to driveway easement
over the south 15.00 feet thereof. (2.50 acres)
Parcel B: The west 339.95 feet of Tract H, Registered Land
Survey No. 72, files of the Registrar of Titles in
and for Anoka County, Minnesota. Subject to road
easement over the west 33.00 feet thereof. (2.258
acres excluding road easement)
Parcel C: The west 329.74 feet of Tract G, Registered Land
Survey No. 72, files of the Registrar of Titles in
and for Anoka County, Minnesota. Subject to road
easement over the west 33.00 feet thereof.
(2.308 acres excluding road easement)
"
,)
Parcel D: That part of Tract G, Registered Land Survey No.
72, files of the Registrar of Titles in and for
Anoka County, Minnesota lying east oE the west
329.74 feet thereof. Subject to an easement for
driveway purposes over that part of the north
15.00 feet thereof lying east of the northerly
extension of the east line of Tract Y said
~ )
Registered Land Survey No. 72. Also subject to an
easement for driveway purposes over that part of
said Tract G lying between the northerly
extensions of the east and west lines of said
Tract Y. (2.50 acres)
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that Parcels Band C be granted a
variance as to lot area and to allow for the granting of an
easement over the west 33.00 feet thereof for road purposes
(Makah Street).
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that Parcels A, D and Tract Y have one
(1) common driveway allowing for access onto CSAH No.7, said
driveway located along and 15.00 feet either side of the common
property line of said Parcels A and D, and continuing to the west
and south to provide access to Tract Y.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this lot split request is subject
to receipt of Park Dedication Fees for each lot as set out in
Ordinance No. 10, Section 9.07; said fees to be paid prior to the
conveyance and recording of said Parcels, A, B, C and D.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Andover this 6th
day of March, 1990.
CITY OF ANDOVER
ATTEST:
James E. Elling, Mayor
Victoria Volk, City Clerk
:J
~r~.r:?,l;~~~;~~c::.~a_;'.o>U."";"",.I."'.".'.~..':"i!
COUNTY OF ANOKA
Depanment of Highways
Paul K. Ruud. Highway Engineer
1440 BUNKER LAKE BLVD NW, ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 612-754-3520
"'~"J.!"~-..';~"'.
February 28, 1990
City of Andover
Community Center
1685 Crosstown Blvd. NW
Anoka, MN. 55304
Au:
Todd Haas
Regard:
Lot Split, James and Pamela Deal
161st and Makah Street
Dear Todd:
We have reviewed the proposed lot split for James and Pamela Deal located at
161st and Makah Street. The current right-of-way is acceptable at sixty (60) feet
and we will permit the access as shown along the common lot line. I understand the
existing easement for Tract "Y" is to be vacated and the two (2) lots adjacent to 7th
Avenue and Tract "Y" will access along the common lot line.
Thank: you for the opportunity to comment. If you should have any questions,
please feel free to contact me.
Sincerely,
"b~~~
William A Sironen, PE
Assistant County Engineer - Administration
mj1jJ&PDEAL
" "-
\
'.-/
Affirmative Action I Equal Opportunity Employer
4-
\
'J
~itt-C
.
MdJ
Andover Planning and Zoning Commission
February 13, 1990 Meeting Minutes
Page Four
Lot Split, James and Pamela Deal, 161st and Makah Street
The Andover Planning and Zoning Commission was asked to review application of
James and Pamela Deal for two lots splits on Tracts "G" and "H" in Registered
Land Survey #72. The development was a Registered Land Survey done through metes
and bounds, therefore proposed parcels will require a variance to the minimum
area requirements of 2.5 acres. The Deal's are working with Woodland Development
on this project.
Existing two tracts are both 5+ acres in size including the road easement for
Makah Street m~. The development was completed by Raintree Realty in 1979 as a
metes and bounds lot-sptit. As such, the tracts include the roadway easement
as part of their area requirements.
Current zoning on the property is R-l Single Family with minimum requirements
as follows:
Area
Lot Width
Lot Depth
2.5 acres
300 feet
150 feet
Trace "H" where the existing Deal house is located, would be split into Parcels
"A" and "B", each approximately 2.5 acres including roadway easement. Tract "G"
owned by the Deal's, would be split into Parcels "c" and "D". Parcels "B" and
"c" would have access from Makah Street and Parcels "A" and "D" would gain access
from Seventh Avenue.
A small part of the property is titled Tract "Y" (a city maintained historic
cemetery). The 1,'2 acre site has an existing road easement that is not improved.
An older home, demolished and burned, sat on Parcel "A". Access to 7th Avenue for
both of these Parcels was gained from 7th Avenue on the proposed driveway easement.
D meets size requirement without Tract Y.
The request will create four, two and one half acre parcels from two, five acre
parcels.
City staff recommends approval of lot split request.
Commissioner Spotts questioned if approval including road easement would set a
precedent.
Blake stated this practice has been established within the community.
Spotts asked if approving variance for substandard lot would create a precedent.
Blake replied the city has granted several such variances, provided there are
no negative impacts.
Ferris stated Tract "Y" creates a definite hardship.
Blake estimated the widest point of triangle to be 10 feet.
) There are no existing buildings on property.
Chairman Pease opened the Public Hearing at 8:05 P.M.
cont 'd...
Andover Planning and Zoning Commission
February 13, 1990 Meeting Minutes
Page Five
Byron Westlund was present to represent Woodland Development.
\
~~) Chairman Pease asked if there are restrictions against building near historical
cemetary.
Blake stated any building on Parcel "0" would have to meet setbacks from Parcel
"Y" as it is another Parcel.
Blake stated it is responsibility of city to maintain cemetary.
Ferris stated it is his understanding this lot split is intended to be a family
lot split.
Mr. Westlund stated that Parcel "c" will remain in Jim and Pam Deal's possession.
Ferris noted there appears to be a drainage ditch and pond on Parcel "C". He
questioned if there is standing water.
Byron Westlund stated frozen water on site may be result of fire trucks draining
pumper on December 17, 1989.
Ferris asked if there is typically standing water on site.
Peggy Michaelson replied there is a culvert on Tract "Y".
Blake noted one property owner in area has expressed concern that the density
will become too great.
Pease questioned the access onto Highway 7.
Blake answered that
Highway Department.
ways.
City has not received specific comment from the Anoka County
Additionally, Blake noted the City has allowed joint drive-
Peek suggested City seek written approval from County.
Blake stated County position is to limit, not prohibit, access onto Highway 7.
Ferris stated since City does need authorization from County to allow access onto
Highway 7, written approval does not need to be obtained.
Ms. Michaelson asked if this means any of the 5 acre lots can be split to 2 1/2
acres.
Blake replied that is a possibility as zoning requires minimum lot size of 2 1/2
acres.
Peek asked if County requires permit to access to County Road.
vistad noted an existing access has been granted on easement.
Westlund stated there is a driveway access already granted to the site of the
, demolished farmhouse. There is also a driveway access granted to the existing
, j
cont'd.. .
fu,dover Planning and Zoning Commission
February 13, 1990 l1eeting Minutes
Page Six
easement for the cemetary. This driveway has not been constructed. Deal's request
will eliminate one access.
,- ')
~The farmhouse was unoccupied approximately one year before it was razed.
Mr. Blake has looked over property and does not have concerns in regard to
topography.
Ferris asked the width of triangle between Parcels "B" and "c" and width of
triangle where it narrows approaching Tract "Y".
Blake figured approximate dimensions as 1 1/2 feet wide at bottom; 10 feet wide
at the top of Tract "Y"; and 13 - 14 feet wide at top of triangle.
Pease asked if cemetary is included in parcel. Blake replied cemetary is not
included in parcel.
Peek questioned if setbacks applied to "D" leave adequate building area.
Blake believes there is sufficient area to build.
Ferris asked Westlund if he would be willing to eliminate triangle.
Westlund agreed to consider elimination of triangle.
Blake stated his concern is that eliminating triangle would mean City can't utilize
property for maintenance of cemetary.
Westlund stated Parcel "A" would be built on soon but there are no immediate
plans to build on "B" and "C".
Vistad suggested picking up northwest corner of Tract "Y" and taking it straight
to southeast corner of "B", eliminating triangle to keep everything even with
north side of cemetary. The inside of cemetary should allow room for maintenance.
Vistad would be willing to grant lot size variance to "D" if necessary; in order
for legal description to be "clean."
Peek noted the intent of original subdivision was not to have primary access off
the County Road. He stated county may eventually step in and deny access.
Spotts noted that to deny access would be denying growth to City.
Blake stated there are several different levels of County Roads including:
l) those that serve as access
2) major thoroughfare with limited access points
3) four lane County Roads with only commercial access permitted
Peek questioned the City's position if all property owners in area would choose
to subdivide. Eventually he feels County would not permit additional access.
cont 'd...
'\
\
'..J
Andover Planning and zoning Commission
February 13, 1990 Meeting Minutes
Page Seven
Westlund stated the County is the recommending committee and the City is the
enforcement.
~J
Blake stated County has control over locating access on property.
Vistad feels denying access would deny property owners reasonable use of their
land.
Blake believes original intent of development was 2 1/2 acre lots. However,
development was eventually limited to 5 acre metes and bounds lot split subdivision.
This would be first time in this subdivision that homes will face 7th Avenue.
According to air photo taken in May of 1989, the following lots are built on:
Q, R, S, T, U and D, E, F. Lots J, K, Land B, W, X are not built on.
Vistad stated due to topography of land, L, K, D, E and F would not be suitable
for access. Joint access would be a possibility for J & I and also for H & G.
Therefore it is unlikely there will be multiple requests for access consideration.
Ferris noted 2 1/2 acre lots are not in keeping with the neighborhood.
Mr. Spencer, owner of Lot V, asked if split occurs, would further splits require
rezoning.
Blake explained that according to current City policy, further splitting could
not occur unless city sewer and water was brought in. This would happen only
for environmental reasons or if area residents made request.
Spencer stated he doesn't feel increased density will have a negative visual effect
due to required setback from cemetary.
Ferris asked if Park Dedication will be required on lot split.
Blake replied that Woodland started process before the change in Lot Split
Ordinance.
Blake noted development behind this area is 1 acre lots. Other surrounding develop-
ments range from 1/4 acre to 2 1/2 acre to 5 acre lots.
Vistad made a MOTION to close the Public Hearing. Second to motion by Jovanovich.
All commissioners agreed to MOTION; Public Hearing closed at 8:45 P.M.
Ferris asked if rationale for lot split request is subject to review.
Blake answered there is no criteria in Ordinance for granting or denying lot split
based on the reason for request.
Ferris questioned if the increase in density would have a negative impact on the
property value of surrounding development.
commissioner vis tad feels there will not be a negative effect in an area of 2 1/2
or greater acres.
~)
cont'd...
Andover Planning and zoning Commission
February 13, 1990 Meeting Minutes
Page Eight
'~_J
Ferris questioned if the speed limit of 55 MPH on County Road 7 may be too fast
for an access.
Blake quoted section of Ordinance 40 regarding variance "Council shall have the
power to vary or modify the application or any prov~s~on of this Ordinance upon
its determination in its absolute legislative discretion that such variance or
modification is consistent with the letter and intent of the Comprehensive Plan
or proposed amendment upon which this Ordinance is based, with the health,
safety and general welfare of the City of Andover."
Blake stated right of way is taken from property before description of property.
Commissioner vis tad made a MOTION that the Andover Planning and zoning Commission
recommend to the AndoverCity Council approval of the lot splits requested by James
and Pamela Deal on Tracts "G" and "H" of Registered Land Survey 72, and that based
on the review of the requirements of Ordinance 40, the proposal will not have a
detrimental effect on surrounding property values.
I recommend that on Parcel "C", the easterly line connect with southwest point of
Tract "Y" fOllowing the west side of "Y" and connecting the northwest point to
the southeast point of Tract "B". That is to elbninate triangle.
I recommend approval to vacate existing easement and find proposed easement will
find a safer access on 7th Avenue.
Commission recommends approval of the yariance to lot size requirement of 2 1/2
acres on Parcel "B" and "c" based on Section 4 of Ordinance 40. Also based on
fact that 2 l/2 acre minimum would be met if not for the road easement.
This is in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan and will not be detrbnental to
the health, safety, morals or general welfare of the community.
This shall also be subject to Park Dedication fees as needed.
A Public Hearing was held; there was mention by one party that had concern,
other parties at Public Hearing had mainly formative questions.
Second to motion by Jovanovich.
Commissioner Ferris stated his concerns with motion as follows:
1) Ferris believes surrounding property values could be affected
2) Ferris doesn't believe approval would be in best keeping with the safety
and well-being of community as far as bringing two dead stop driveways
onto Highway 7
3) Ferris doesn't believe split is in general keeping with the general
subdivision
cont 'd. . .
\
'- --.J
Andover Planning and Zoning Commission
February 13,1990 Meeting Minutes
Page Nine
Vistad reiterated denial of split will place undue hardship on landowner.
:-J
Blake stated that nothing is prohibiting Deal's from building a home facing
Highway 7 right now. Deal's can build on J & H and utilize joint driveway.
Sabel noted if triangle is removed, Lot "D" will be substandard. She suggested
making the triangle part of the easement.
Blake stated if easement is continued on west side of Tract "Y" up to property
line on "C", it can be included as part of the description of the easement as part
of access. Motion could be made subject to submitted drawing, if recommendation
is to change property line so it lines up with Tract "Y".
Vistad asked if the cemetary would create uniqueness to Tract "D" for a variance.
vis tad believes there will be fewer title problems if line is carried from corner
of "Y" to corner of "B".
Vistad would further amend motion to include Parcel "D" in variance due to hardship
created by location of Tract "y".
Spotts recommends area be surveyed, if so designated by City Council.
Ferris stated he could not agree to motion until calculations are made to
detemine if moving line will cause "c" and "D" to require a variance. If motion
does not include moving line, request as submitted is accurate in establishing
that variance is required for "C".
Vistad modified his MOTION to recommend that triangle created on "D" by splitting
west of Tract "Y" be described as easement for maintenance purposes to the proposed
driveway, as drawn on plat. This modification will eliminate paragraphs 2 and 3
of original motion.
Peek noted for the record that lot split fom request indicated setbacks that were
not included. The submission was, therefore, incomplete.
Ferris asked if traffic will be backing onto Highway 7.
Blake stated he is unsure what authority City has to enforce this issue.
Commissioners were polled on MOTION as MADE and MODIFIED by Commissioner Vistad.
Following is vote and comment(s) by commission:
Sabel YES
vis tad YES
Peek YES
Jovanovich YES
Spotts YES
Pease YES, with concerns to traffic situation
Ferris YES, with additional comment for the record: Belief is every land-
owner has the right to do what they want with their land. For this reason vote is
for motion. These issues remain a concern:
~J
1) precedent of lot split requests may start with unsold pieces of property
to north and south
cont 'd...
Andover Planning and Zoning Commission
February 13, 1990 Meeting Minutes
Page Ten
2) believes a safety hazard is definitely being created with access onto 7
~
3) approval of variance is not due to topography of land
MOTION passed; will be presented to City Council on 3/06/90.
Rezoning: Woodland Creek and Woodland Terrace Commercial Lots
The Andover Planning and zoning Commission was asked to review and approve the rezoning
of the fOllowing property from R-4 (Planned Unit Development) to NB Neighborhood
Business:
Lot 1, Block 8, Woodland Creek, Anoka County, MN
Lot 1, Block 1, Woodland Terrace, Anoka County, MN
The rezoning request was initiated by the City Staff.
During the 1980s, the City of Andover utilized the PUD section of Ordinance 8
to allow greater flexibility for developers of land with or without unique land
features. Both Woodland Terrace and Woodland Creek were approved as PUDs by the
City Council.
The resolutions approving the PUD/Subdivision were not clear on the mixed uses
and their locations within the development. Also, the City zoning map does not
delineate between normal R-4 and R-4 (PUD). This might present some confusion to
a prospective home buyer within these Woodland developments.
From records obtained during the approval process, it is clear that it was the intent
of the City to have these properties developed similar to other Neighborhood
Business properties.
All related zoning requirements are met by the two parcels, no variances would
be needed. Included in the packet to commissioners is a listing of Permitted,
Accessory and Special Uses for the Neighborhood Business District.
Blake noted that car washes are not permitted as a Neighborhood Business, nor are
drive-in businesses or businesses with a drive-thru window.'
~'
Notice was sent to property owners within 350 feet of both properties. Several
call were received by City Staff, however, there were no major objections to
proposal.
Spotts noted that Woodland Terrace was left open with concept of possibly extending
Neighborhood Business. However, he does not believe there was ever indication
of Neighborhood Business at Woodland Creek.
Blake answered that owners of Round Barn purchased shopping center lot and are
currently working on a development plan for that property. Property is a clear
extension of commercial use all the way through district across from Assembly of
God Church. Blake feels intent was for Neighborhood Business or light commercial
use.
cont'd...
, )
:_J
CITY OF ANDOVER
REQUEST FOR PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
February 13, 1990
AGENDA ITEM
4. Lot Split, James
and Pamela Deal:
161st and Makah St.
DATE
ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT
Planning ~~
BY: Jay Blake~ity
APPROVED FOR
AGENDA
Planner
BY:
REQUEST
The Andover Planning and Zoning Commission is asked to review the
application of James and Pamela Deal for two lots splits on
Tracts "G" and "H" in Registered Land Survey 172. Because the
Development was a Registered Land Survey and done through metes
and bounds, the proposed parcels would require a variance to the
minimum area requirements of 2.5 acres. The Deal's are working
with Woodland Development on this project.
BACKGROUND
The existing two tracts are both 5+ acres in size including the
road easement for Makah Street NW. The development was completed
by Raintree Realty in 1979 as a metes and bounds lot development.
As such, the tracts included the roadway easement as part of their
area requirements.
Zoning and Lot Information
Current zoning on the property is R-1 Single Family with minimum
requirements as follows:
Area
Lot Width
Lot Depth
2.5 Acres
300 feet
150 feet
Tract "H", where the existing Deal house is located, would be
split into Parcels "A" and "B". Tract "G", owned by the Deal's,
would be split into Parcels "C" and "D". Parcels "B" and "C"
would have access from Makah Street and Parcels "A" and "D" would
gain access from Seventh Avenue.
A small part of the property is titled Tract "Y" (a city
maintained historic cemetery). The 1/ acre site has an existing
road easement that is not improved. An older home, demolished and
burned, sat on Parcel "A". Access to 7th Avenue for both of these
Parcels was gained from 7th Avenue on the proposed driveway
easement.
-I
Page 2
Deal Lot Spli ts
~ February 13, 1990
.J
The Anoka County Highway Department has been contacted by Woodland
Development. They do not want additional access points on the
County Road 7 if it can be avoided.
Lot Size Discrepancy
Due to the fact that the development was a metes and bounds
development, roadway easements were included in the original lot
size requirements.
Both Parcels "A" and "D" meet the minimum requirements of the
Zoning Ordinance. Parcels "B" and "c" on the proposed split would
be approximately 2.3 acres in size (minus the road easement). If
the road easement is included, both parcels would be 2.5 acres.
Cemetery Easement
The existing driveway easement for the cemetery was dedicated to
the City as part of the Registered Land Survey. The 30 foot
driveway was never built and is located at a poor intersection
point with Anoka County Highway 7. This easement should be
vacated when the split is approved.
The new easement described on the survey consists of l5 feet on
either side of the property line between Parcel "A" and Parcel
"D". Also included on the survey is a small area for parking
associated with the cemetery (approximately 100' by 50'). This
easement is located at the point of the existing driveway and
would create no new access points on 7th Avenue.
Staff recommends that the triangle created on Parcel "D" by the
split west of Tract "y" should also be described as easement for
maintenance purposes.
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OPTIONS
1. The Andover Planning and zoning Commission may recommend
approval of the lot splits requested by James and Pamela Deal
on Tracts "G" and "H" of Registered Land Survey 72, and that
based on review of the requirements of Ordinance 40, the
proposal will not have a detrimental effect on the surrounding
property.
J
/
The Commission may also recommend approval of the variance to
lot size requirements of 2.5 acres on Parcels "B" and "C".
The Commission finds that based on Section IV of Ordinance 40,
such variation from the provision of the City Ordinances would
be consistent with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan and
would not be detrimental to the health, safety, morals or
general welfare of the community.
The Commission recommends approval of the vacation of the
existing easement and finds that the proposed easement will
provide safer access from 7th Avenue.
~)
,-~
Page 3
Deal Lot Splits
February 13, 1990
2. The Andover Planning and Zoning Commission may recommend
denial of the lot splits requested by James and Pamela Deal on
Tracts "G" and "H" of Registered Land Survey 72, and that
based on review of the requirements of Ordinance 40. The
recommendation is based on any of the following:
* Criteria for a Variance to Area Requirements
* Housing Density and the Surrounding Property
* Safety and the General Welfare of the Community
3. The Andover Planning and Zoning commission may table the
request for further discussion.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends option #1 and finds that the criteria for the Lot
Split and Variance requests are met.
~
CITY of ANDOVER
1685 CROSSTOWN BLVD. N.W.
ANDOVER. MINNESOTA 55304
Lot Spli t it
~J
LOT SPLIT REQUEST FORM
Property Address Registered Land Survey t/72 Tract G
Reason for Request To split one - five+ acre parcel into two 2.5 acre parcelR.
Current Zoning R-l Single Family
**********************************************************************
Name of Applicant Woodland Development
Address
830 West Main Street. Anoka. Minnesota 55301
Home Phone
Business Phone 427-7500
signature
Date
**********************************************************************
Property Owner (Fee Owner)
(If different from above)
Jim and Pam Deal
Address
16191 Makah Street N.W.. Andover, Minnesota 55304
Signature
427-0290
. Date~. , '1 J 9 ~ i)
********************************* **************
****~*************
Attach a scaled drawing of the proposed split of the property showing:
scale and north arrow; dimensions of the property and structures;
front, side and rear yard building setbacks; adjacent street names;
location and use of existing structures within 100 feet.
The date the property became a lot of record, the names and addresses
of all property owners within 350 feet of the property proposed to be
split, and the complete legal description of the subject property must
also be provided. .
I hereby certify that this property has not been subdivided within the
last three years.
Signature of Applicant
~.J Lot Spli t Fee:
Filing Fee:
$50.00
$10.00
Date Paid j....j?
Receipt it 33<t'ts-'
Park Dedication:
Date paid
Receipt it
~.;-~';;>.:::;:.~~-"~
1 '.~
~'J ~
.1 'j
.~) ..'eJ
CITY of ANDOVER
1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. . ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 . (612) 755-5100
CITY OF ANDOVER
COUNTY OF ANORA
STATE OF MINNESOTA
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
The Planning and Zoning Commission 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, February 13, 1990 at the Andover City Hall,
1685 Crosstown Blvd. NW, Andover, MN to review the Lot Split
application of James and Pamela Deal on the following described
property:
Tract G, Registered Land Survey #72, Township 32, Range 24, Anoka
County, Minnesota. (Approximate Property Address: 1614l NW
Makah Street)
Written and verbal comments will be received at that time and
location.
u.u/
v~cto~v~tk:-City Clerk
. ~ "
''-~
f-:).
'CI
~
CITY of ANDOVER
1685 CROSSTOWN BLVD. N.w.
ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304
Lot Spli t 1t
')
.....-/
LOT SPLIT REQUEST FORM
property Address
Registered Land Survey #72 Tract H
Reason for Request
To split one - five+ acre parcel into two 2.~ acre parc~lR.
Current Zoning R-l Single Family
**********************************************************************
Name of Applicant
Woodland Development
Address
830 West Main Street, Anoka, Minnesota 55303
Business Phone 427-7500
Home Phone
Signature
Date
**********************************************************************
Property Owner (Fee Owner)
(If different from above)
Jim and Pam Deal
Address
16191 Makah Street N.W., Andover, Minnesota 55304
Home phone
427-7897
427-0290
****~***************
Date ~ I ~ JCj'1D
**********************************************
Signature
Attach a scaled drawing of the proposed split of the property showing:
scale and north arrow; dimensions of the property and structures;
front, side and rear yard building setbacks; adjacent street names;
location and use of existing structures within 100 feet.
The date the property became a lot of record, the names and addresses
of all property owners within 350 feet of the property proposed to be
split, and the complete legal description of the subject property must
also be provided. .
I hereby certify that this property has not been subdivided within the
last three years.
Signature of Applicant
~~ Lot Split Fee:
Filing Fee:
$50.00
$10.00
Date Paid I-/S"
Receipt 1t 3BLf'1S"
Park Dedication:
Date Paid
Receipt 1t
_~;l::;'C:[';\-".
"~:/'>"17'
-y ~ -"
j "\.
: '4
) 'n.
"f a
'j
,J :.., .I.. ;'
~,~, -/:/
<'''~'''''~
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 Planning and zoning Commission 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, February 13, 1990 at the Andover City Hall,
1685 Crosstown Blvd. NW, Andover, MN to review the Lot Split
application of James and Pamela Deal on the following described
property:
Tract H, Registered Land Survey #72, Township 32, Range 24, Anoka
County, Minnesota. (Approximate Property Address: 16141 NW
Makah Street)
written and verbal comments will be received at that time and
location.
( - ./ ////,
,~./C~ O=-LL!.
V~ctor~a volk, c~ty Clerk
/ '\
,~
o
~
UIIIII r-
:.: ) , '":::;! 0 (J
!',i~!!!!!~~
, !!!mj :::I 0
. 0: ~
!~a~
I 0
1-111-. . <
11r fTI
I I ::0
... ...
ll~il V
i !: II
: i ~ Ii;:
. I i I ._.~
',., II:
- -
r '\
,~
~...ft -.J)a I ! \l.._..
_ /ff:~--' ,~___J .::W
((J~i 11:< i =t L--l-E~--\
\\~'1 ~ II I ., _ ~ I r, I
,*~;~~\\,> =J;i~~:"" '11 / i -1,__ _ ~.._,0H, .',-,~,~i(
~~,,~~:' .;,::s,~~ '1",.,~".." '-,' """"1"" ".,--=,
~a.,., "" ~.:{t ----~;i' ' - ;Ji . P
'\1F....." YQ', tF~'iB~Ri'!jj:"I'r"":!y. : ! ,'~{7, ';r ~.
C" -I' ~ ~~ ~. ;l1.'..~.,..~Iti,: U;,~,:" ,;~,,;,,/, " ~~': )
__~,-::- ;""'t--' i'J ,..,.,...0 '. ~t..'J:; i ___. ' -'
i \ . : ~ -.~-- T--~:"~!' "8~' ::rl~. '~~'!F I " i t '.---
, ~Ir-l . . ..." . .,. ,'''' : -. .. ":'ll ; ,.,
I 1'll'I~t---1 J '.' '. '1 " . ~ I r""7' I: .., ..... !-"~'. !
: i" /;'-}=f.......J: ; :"' ":. "".~. " . ! ctr.~~:11~~ . - ......~
' ___.,: ,.~ t:t:. .~~. ___'_~__n I ,-.'~!:'~ l.; ~~ht:)"' -! :'~T~' I~;:';~'
;~~T'I. 'l'I--lL" .or,I,T."_,, T~/I~:"
_ '. --_: Iiii.~t;;: I :'''',''''..:.l..:;:;!. :/ ,'. ."',~ I" I ~
'M A',~,-;' 'I, ,,_:;111 I L..!D.\'~.5~', i "~I i: i
.. .. ~~~~:. .. ,-~ --- ,-..\'<.:'."
~, 0, ~ ~~ d1.,"'! H II ,IL' :, II U .;fll,:~~ 1 !-b, ' 1"1' ~,'
,0yy.'%.'-. .. ~ ~"'" i: r;r-. :' : ;j.~ 1- , ~.. ~
: I ',,~~',,#~~~}i;::J,:-,~,:tffl: "~', ,-'1,-, 4i-~1 : \' ---r---ri!J j ; '~ '~,_:""~
, 1 _ '__' ,~".'J)... . '-1 , r-r-r: ,',,;1, I 11;>\ , I" , t:--l=, ' I' :::J,
I r r-' ~'#'""""~':-;.J l-:: .-_re: 1_ ~A' I .,~~-~..
I I !.,.~' i '~:'\'L, '~- , ,- ."trj', \, ,...jU ~~ ::-j~ ~;Hh.' Ii" I -1i
I I ........" Ko0.:>' 1,\ I I , -\"" " I I :,1 Ii ; -'" _..........., I:, "' \, b./;J':J," ',' _-, .' i=+\;, " '~,"Il ., ,Ii' I r-'----, " ,n
.,~, t--::::~~ I ~~H-----\---tJ-T E ~V~~~:~~~I ,ij~ $!:~t
I I I - ---:- I I, 1 f;; /...:.~~ ~'H''i~:,:::": ...,..';;;,';i;i
,;..,= t.J :-~ . ' -~---- ' 1'/ !~:'~-- ..P~:.,.'-:t:\:..:'~:..~":!i"'-~,li
11;1:~~' I I ~:Q i I I 1 \ !'~ :.~ I li:II.1 ~.; 1-[ :_~J~
1: I ~I >,' I ~tl./ '~~'1\ "-SI' ~'~:"~:~::"'~''':''':~~~4j;J.
t:--- I __ __..---- ____ ___ r-r.i;jtv___ _=-!_ _.. -,-~--,r'""bi:;.:..T~v~.' "f1:
~ h-i -;. , i I' li!id) .. =-?f= i ~ ..._.,r~o'. ',~. :.11.1).
g II _ __ . I .- ~~ ~I-! I .;::- ,"" ,~r--!;:)' ''''
~.I'I.!.I.I U, F:Y: il . ':;ll'i-' . ~.. flU I: ,'- I 'J....1.-c,.<: i t- -~.j H i I I! ..
I~ .~ ~ t1"! I ~ ~....:;.,.~I ~ f H II \: r--! I Q l '-....., It. ! J.1__..1 ~
~~I,.;~~i.~-"'-T-'''I----I/J~";,, ----~~-lil.~-- ----~ I .=- '--,iT---f/ i~, c...:
~~_~ rl-~-: -:=: _~ Ii C-M.i. . r-c -:: I 1.'1 ] t ., I L.t. : ~ - I
: -..-. '~-! i'l :~ j: "..........P '; I I! ,~ I ! ill!
, ~ ...~.~ : !.,..J I / 1 I I r j I . ~ '
~---+--- / I __.'. .. -----;- - \> --;-- ( ----roo - i --, ..-..= ~
: : -- ..;~ :.. i,: r ' ),!,' ..,,!:ill':- , ,
; ,----i-- ~'I;""' . r . - +:---j ~ \; !}- / !' L/: -z. f-d~c 1\
:., I ~=f. r I .: ; \, I I I If I: . :~~
rsJ7 --r - q=. .) ~1i~:~'T---11 ~,~ ' ("" d! _ ! J rl i----!""-- I ^ ! 1 i. L)! L
mtlf,i, '))N 1,1 If '.,,~, ;~~u)rJU L~,' 'ill,' ~ ~ ""I,~~ I II,: I r I I PD '~~'i '
~~~~ i --t~~ ~-1'717"--N---1Il~~~~ 8~. ~l 1--' i----;w-~
\. -rt---" \ ,'::'1~ - -j tm" '" I"; '.....r.' ---- : Fr~"~~~ !,' i' 1l' \ \ I ! ' I
Jf i ' , ..t......... ''''11 ~H L.!' t' , " I ' I \
_~__: I ---~---- :~~~: : "::'.:.,;;'. ~ ----;---- ,\ i ; ,.~~_--== :t'~.;~. i=-~~]' ',i~I'" J~ I 1 ~ I
, ' : .,,' ,,_ I l r I '= '\~ ~' .~ih:- ' --\1 '
, , ! ---1- '>--:... :~~ _ ' ---'" \:-- -'~- .
I I I I I I I I I I I
I I . I . I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I
.
.~~1? .
...~!~
"':..
.
.
....
.J
'I
"
n6' ~
..-."'
m
'I
~
-(JfJ- . ,
'J
tI)
''''' .
-,
,ot
~~
<,
~>}
IT4q '<
. ,~
u
1} (#) t
"" It .~)l..:/'
f~
, !2 m
"
0 ~
_.J
'. I w
;; i (~) .
'20) I. rXK2l l~
i'
,- ..
~
~
5,C) f ,,"S'MJ ( ~
-, - ,..
~ } {II} }
..
'~A
~~"l"
(!)
(71
,
,
,
TRACT
"0"
v
4 "".J.~_:":'",
c..:,ZI
~. (8)
TRACT "R"
,'1'9.1..".
'4tf,el
f>)
TRACT'S"
~'''''.(.''~:'''
(,.l,...'
~o.
(o)
TRACT"r"
.Y~_J~.!'2<v
..~,'..!I
{1}
TRACT "t/'
Kn.~!f"'!L'
I#~:LI
I
TRACT .V"
f1)
--- ......
~~tr;-~.
'. "-
,
,
TRACT"W'"
,...
~.
(4)
.....~.~:.~
I
,;;] I
I~ I
, i I
I ~ r
"~'I
I i'
...,1
1(/)1
I' ,
I ~ ;
1-':-1
I: I
I !~ I
I !~ I
l:r I
'<I
,~
'~I
I ~ I
I~: I
I I'
I ~ I
r ~ I
I
"1 I
I ~ I
d,
'~I
I)~ I
I'; i.
I
I
~"
I ,
, I
.1
~I
1"'''11
I;" I
I' I
: I
I . I
. ~ I
4'p; "J-3~..
'f>.J_rZ
i::~
i~
0.....
~ <"
-L ~ :~
. .
~~
<E
l;j~
(2)
TRACT 't"
"'#"f.Jl.~6;V
d6F'''9
..-1'.....'..
TRACT 'Ku (4)
k,9C'_~~.!ff.1II
1'Z- '''"
>i
H
z
::l
o .
!~
:h-
i":'
! ~~
: '(,)
(J)
TRACT '~"
~
..
#' -"..;~*,
61488
(2)
1~
!~
~ ,,: ;
W~
'.
.'
"'I ;
TRACT "/"
,,"'/,.J,.'.A.J
6'~/'
tI)
TRA CT "H"
~LiJ
.::l
::Z
W
~
~ '.
~
Nt'~..,;J.J,,:""
68"u
~~~1
;,;:::., \I ~
TRACT "G" (.)
~".I, J~T
.Ft1.'t..
M
TRACT "F"
~...
....
, <>
~ '" q:
.' Q:
'. ....
: '
.J1~-H'.rt!T
7;1""$
"'
,'.,t
."
~
~
'----
,
I
/
V
~.
: ~ ~
, ,
.',
(.
/-
,:S)
:J
CITY OF ANDOVER
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
DATE M~r~h~. 1990
ITEM
NO.
Recycling Dicussion
ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT ,,[\ 0,
Planning QjJA"-"
Cindy DeRuyter
Recycling Coordinator
BY:
::~~~~OR
AGENDA SECTION
NO. Discussion Items
3.
REQUEST
/
The Andover City Council is asked
to pick-up the recycled materials
Recycling Building.
to review the three bid offers
that will be left at the
BACKGROUND
The five haulers in Andover; Ace, Hall, Johnson, Peterson, and
T&R, plus Goodwill and Waste Management were contacted concerning
their interest in working with the City in the removal of recycled
materials. Three have indicated that they could handle this
project. They are Peterson Brothers of Anoka, Waste Management of
Blaine, and Goodwill Industries/Easter Seals in st. Paul.
Summary of the services offered:
Goodwill- price- $275.00/month, Goodwill containers and proceeds
go to Goodwill.
Materials collected- glass (three colors), beverage
cans, food cans, plastic bottles, flattened corrugated
cardboard, white office paper (City to take paper over
from present locations.)
Pick-up- weekly
Peterson- 1.) price- $100.00 per pull. Proceeds go to City,
dumping fees paid by City. City-owned containers.
No fees at present time.
Materials- not designated, but whatever we want per
Terry.
Pick-up- on call- 24 hour notice One material at a
time can be picked up.
COUNCIL ACTION
./"-,
MOTION BY
TO
SECOND BY
'-.J
)
Page 2
Recycling Discussion
March 6, 1990
2.) price- $100.00 per pull. Peterson containers. city
stores and, on call, loads recyclables. City pays
dumping fees.
Waste Management- price- $275.00/month, Waste containers
Materials- newsprint, and glass containers,aluminum, and
tin cans co-mingled.
Pick-up- weekly
RECOMMENDATION
The City Council is asked to consider Goodwill Industries/Easter
Seal as the best choice, concerning price, number of materials
collected, and ease of collection. To buy containers can be very
costly. 10 yard containers cost between $1700.00 and $2000.00 and
20 yard containers cost between $2500.00 and $3000.00 each.
)
~J
GOODWILL INDUSlRIES, INC.
COLLECTION CONTRACf
CITY OF ANDOVER
GoodwilllEaster Seal is submitting a bid for the collection of recyclables from the
City of Andover's Recycling Center.
MATERIAL TO BE COLLECfED:
- Glass three colors
- Metal beverage containers
Plastic containers, PET, HDPE and dairy
- Tin food containers, rinsed
- Corrugate, flattened
- White paper from the city's white paper program
GoodwilllEaster Seal is interested in collecting materials that have markets. If
there is not a current market for the material GoodwilllEaster Seal will discontinue
the collection of the material until a market is available. Currently GoodwilllEaster
has an outlet for all the material listed above and anticipates that markets for the
listed material will be available for the next year.
COLLECTION SCHEDULE:
The terms of this contract is for one year. Goodwill Industries will deliver
collection containers within two weeks of confirmation of the acceptance of the
bid. Weekly collection will be done on a set schedule.
SERVICE FEE:
$275.00 per month with containers, Goodwill's selection, provided at no additional
cost. The current collection of office paper from Andover City Hall and the school
will be discontinued and Goodwill Industries will collect this paper free of charge if
it is placed in the recycling center.
I~)
Collection Contract
Page 2
...J SORTING STANDARD FOR MATERIAL:
The City of Andover will post instructions describing the material that will be
accepted and the standards for the recycled material. Goodwill will provide
information describing the standard for the material and can provide assistance in
posting instructions. Any trash left at the drop off building will be Andover's
responsibility. Goodwill Industries will work with City staff to detennine the
number of containers needed to collect material.
REPORTS:
Goodwill Industries will submit a tonnage report with the monthly invoice. Th'e
invoice will also state that all materials where recycled, a list of markets used by
Goodwill Industries is available upon request.
2041I
, ,
,~
Peterson Brothers Sanitation Inc.
740 Industry Ave.
Anoka, Mn 55303
'~
City of Andover
1685 Crosstown Blvd.
Andover, Mn 55304
Feb. 14, 1990
RE: Proposal to service city drop off center.
Option 1:
Peterson Bros. Sanitation Inc. would pull the city owned roll off boxes to
metro area rrarkets, City would purchase the roll off boxes. .Recycable.'
materials shall be the property of the city. Any proceeds will go to the
city. All materials must be in the roll off boxes and they must be
accessable for Peterson Bros.
Roll off boxes will be pulled on a will call basis with a 24 hour prior notice
to Peterson Bros.. Any dumping fees will be paid by the city of Andover. A
fee of $100.00 per pull will be billed to the city.and payable within
30 days.
Option 2:
City of Andover will store recycable materials at drop off center. Peterson
Bros., upon request, will drop off a roll off box/boxes. City of Andover
will then load recycables within 12 hours for Petersen Bros. to transport to
rrarket.
Roll off boxes will be on a will call basis, with a 21! hour prior notice.
Any dumping fees will be paid by the city of Andover. A fee of $100.00
per pull will be billed to the ci~y and payable within 30. days.
This proposal can be cancelled by either party With a 90 day written notice.
Peterson BRothers Sanitation Inc.
Terry Lanoue
cc/jl
"
,J
'90 10:51
WASTE MANAGEMENT
867 P02
"') 'S" S' ~ ~ l(....;\-t3
August 14, 1989
?-
~~~ ~O~ 1)
~~ ;~ .\'If
~ '1~ ~
1\~ J ~~~ ~ ~~". J
~~. e~ i if ~ ~~
~Ir; I df "
~bf ~\~" .\\~
~ \ r' \~
ql~~
q,l
Ms. Carolyn Smith
Solid Waste Abatement Specialist
Moka County
Courthouse
Anoka,:!iN 55303
RE: County Drop-Off Stations
Dear Carolyn:
Thank you for the opportunity to sub~it this proposal to operate Anoka County
drop-off stations.
We are prepared to collect newspapers, glass containers, and aluminu~ and tin
cans from the drop-off stations. We would use two separate systems.
For the high-volume stations, we will provide one (1) multi-compartmental
roll-off box and one roll-off box for newspapers for a renta~ charge of $50
per box per month. These stations will be serviced as needed at a charge of
$110 per hour (minimum charge of one hour). Four cities are eligible for
this service:
Andover. GOOl)UJ,....1..
Circle Pines- W')
East Bethel _110
Lino Lakes - (')~:c;\'c!
For the low-volume stations, we will provide 90-gal10n wheeled carts. These
stations will be serviced once a week for $275 per station per month. Six
stations are eligible for this ,ser, ~k,lji7.-~,"""""l\,1'''':'~r:~'''''~'''''''~'\'~~-~''''''~-'''''-'''' "
~~~;':;~~!1:0v.'\l 'i !~o;:lt~~!~.>J.<:&?~~:;;t1"'-srI;do'.t:!'")/'
'6 ;:Q'rJ.' .:~.,-t~~~w~..:t...,.,). ~-./)'~:~~'~~:~~';'~'~ I~,:-:,\(":,,,,,,,'.:-to":r \....~::... .~":..~;.."- .....~..."jO
'" . . "'''-'Co'1umbus Township
'Ham Lake~'lS'\. .
. Q/'<\\ c: -t'Linwood- '{~f'!.
Wl\\ v~ iO!- Oak Grove .'{.', 'r.. 'r-- """"--=-'~Br<"""'-1':"7:"',""r..?Sr'~,
1I~"'~--"1 ~' j5.ili!ff!j:g:.';"ll;q; ;~ ~.~;:,)~;~;'-..,.~ . ''"'
." 7Eif.~~'?'" .. ....\~,...",..-1",.:,~..--I/.. ",.;......... ..~
. - . . -_. urns ~ ~
...~~=:eo'~~~ ~"'n.~-'~....,..,.,..,!",.........LJ~ u. "'~' I.
, ~_ Jr"", ' . ~t\ll ~....' ......,.: .C(.-T'~~Iof"~~ 'a\~-.:J....,.L~x.l :"Tj t:
We are not certain "that B;tl;el'i~ stat' on ~~:~~~~~~~~.t11:yj:i~""~~h~~~;l~", ~.
Bethel's materials could be delivered to one of the sites listed above.
,j
Thank you for your time and consideration, Carolyn. Please let me know how we
can assist your efforts.
Sincerely,
~
Program Development Hanager
o
CITY OF ANDOVER
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
DATE
M::!I,..,..h f;. 10QQ
.
AGENDA SECTION
NO.
ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT
Planning
ITEM
NO.4. 1988 CDBG
Discussion cont.
BY:
The information needed to write this item was not available prior
to Jay's leaving for Florida.
Jay will provide information at the meeting.
COUNCIL ACTION
MOTION BY
~) TO
SECOND BY
'0
CITY OF ANDOVER
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
March 6, 1990
AGENDA SECTION
NQ Discussion Item
DATE
ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT
Finance
ITEM
NO. Establish Perm. Improv.
t:. Revolvi
BY:
Howard Koolick '((-
REQUEST
The Andover City Council continued the discussion of the
Permanent Improvement Revolving Fund (PIR Fund) to allow
the City Attorney to be present for the discussion.
BACKGROUND
Attorney Hawkins and myself discussed the concerns Council
expressed on February 6th. The resolution has not been updated
for the changes, pending additional discussion this evening.
.Council had three major concerns. First, can the resolution
require a 4/5ths majority to expend or receive funds into the PIR
fund? If City Council desires this it can be added, along with an
additional section requiring amendments to the resolution also
be by 4/5ths majority.
The second concern was whether the surplus account in section
3.01(c) can be eliminated. It can be eliminated and will limit
the flexibility for spending funds. It is my understanding that
this was City Council's intent.
The third concern dealt with the public improvement account in
section 3.01(a). Council wondered whether money could be put in
this account and later transferred out. At the last meeting I
gave a poor description of the purpose of this account. It's use
is to accumulate resources and make payments on some or all of the
City's debt. As such, it would not be proper to transfer money
out of the account, since the money in it would have been
previously pledged for debt service when the bonds were issued.
The other issue that must be decided is in which account the money
that is available, roughly $400,000.00 should be deposited. At
the previous meeting, it was recommended by the attorney and
myself that most, if not all, be put in the capital improvement
fund.
COUNCIL ACTION
'\
\.-J
MOTION BY
TO
SECOND BY
...) H "1 - ..;. .&. - ;;- .-'
I
'\
,
,_ __J
r-
,
r--..
,
'\
. )
RESOLUTION RELATING TO THE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT
REVOLVING FUND OF THE CITY: ESTABLISHING
THE FUND: DESIGNATING THE USES THEREOF: AND
PROVIDING FOR ITS MAINTENANCE
BE IT RESOLVED By the city Council of the City of
Andover (City) as follows:
Section 1. Background: Findinqs.
1.01 The city has issued and sold various series of
general obligation bonds to finance the cost of various public
improvements and other items of a capital nature, which bonds
are now outstanding.
1.02 The City has called for redemption and prepayment
on February 1 (Redemption Date) the following series of bonds
(collectively the Redeemed Bonds):
a) General Obligation Improvement Bonds of 1976, Series
1976A;
b) General Obligation Improvement Bonds of 1976, Series
1976B;
c) General Obligation Improvement Bonds of 1977; and
d) General Obligation Improvement Bonds of 19BO.
1.03 On the Redemption Date there will be available in
the debt service funds for the Redeemed Bonds monies not needed
for payment of the Redeemed Bonds, which funds are surplus funds
within the meaning of Minnesota Statutes, Section 475.61,
Subdivision 4, and may be used for any authorized municipal
purpose.
1.04 There exist now and there is anticipated to exist
in the future balances in the debt service funds for various
bonds of the City which are or are anticipated to be in excess
of the amounts needed to pay the principal of and interest on
those bonds and which amounts are or will constitute surplus
funds. .
1.05 The City i~! authorized by Minnesota Statutes,
Chapter 412 and 475 and/Section 429.091, Subdivision 7A
(collectively, the Act) to establish a revolving fund to finance
,the costs of any assessable public improvement or any utility
described in Minnesota Statutes, Section 444.075 and 115.46, and
to establish such other funds as it deems desirable.
-1-
JAN-31-90 WED 15:34
t-' .. 1;:.1 ~
f"\,
'-J
r--
,
(',
, "-
'-)
. ,
1.06 The City Council finds and determines that it is
necessary and expedient to the sound financial management of the
City to establish a Permanent Improvement Revolving Fund as
authorized by the Act to efficiently and economically finance
various capital improvements in the City and to utilize for
authorized municipal purposes the surpluses described above.
Section 2. FIR Fund Established: Sources: Uses.
2.01 There is established as a fund of the City the
Permanent Improvement Revolving Fund (PIR Fund).
2.02' The following monies are to be paid into the PIR
Fund:
a) balances in the respective debt service funds for
the Redeemed Bonds remaining after the Redeemed,
Bonds have been redeemed and paid;
b) balances remaining in any construction fund or .dept
service fund established for an assessable public
improvement under Section 429.0911 Subd. 4 of the
Act when (i) all bonds or other obligations payable
from that construction or debt service fund have
been redeemed 1 paid or defeased and (ii) anticipated
collections of special assessments and other
revenues pledged to a debt service fund for an
assessable public improvement are estimated by the
City Treasurer to be adequate to produce at least 5%
in excess of the amount needed to meet when due the
principal and interest payments on bonds issued to
finance the improvements for which the fund was
established;
c) bala.nces remaining in a debt service fund for any
other general obligation bonds of the City when
those bonds have been redeemed, paid or defeased;
d) proceeds of any bonds or other obligations issued by
the city pursuant to Section 429.09l, Subd. 7 of the
Actl and
e) any other monies appropriated to the PIR Fund by the
City Council from time to tUle.
/
2.03 Monies in the PIR Fund are to be usedl subject to
the provisions of this resolution, for the following purposes
and no other:
a) the temporary or permanent financing of the cost of
assessable public improvements under Chapter 429 of
the Act;
-2-
JAN~31~9~ WED 15:-35
r-"
')
...._~
,,-..
r
'-)
t-".. 1-.:..1 "'+
, .
b) the temporary or permanent financing of the costs of
water, sewer or storm sewer utilities described in
Section 444.075 and 115.46 of the Act;
c) loans to other City funds for any purpose other than
operating expense; and
d) other lawful municipal purposes as authorized in
this resolution.
Section 3. FIR Fund: Accounts.
3.01 Thera are to be maintained in the PIR Fund the
fOllowing accountsf
a) ll'he Public Improvement Account. :Monies in this
account are to be used to finance the costs of
assessable public improvements and water, sewer and
storm sewer utilities described in Section 444.075
and 115.46 of the Act. Into this account are to be
paid (1) all special assessments, interest thereon,
and prepayments thereof, levied for such improve~
ments, (ii) revenues of the utility so financed and
(Hi) the proceeds of bonds or other obligations
issued to finance the public improvements described
herein and payable from debt service accounts in the
PIR Fund. The City Treasurer must establish sub-
acoounts within the account for each public
improvement so financed. The initial balance in
this account is $
b) The Capital Improvement Account. Monies in this
account may be loaned or transferred to other City
funds for any corporate purpose other than operating
expense. The initial balance in this account is
$
c) The Surplus Account. Monies in this account may be
used for any authorized corporate purpose. The
initial balance in this account is $
Section 4. Procedures I Appropriations.
il
4.01 Loans, expenditures and transfers from the FIR
Fund must be authorized by Council resolution.'
4.02 The debt service balances of the Redeemed Bonds
remaining after the payment are appropriated to the accounts in
the PIR Fund in the respective amounts indicated in Section 3.
other deposits of monies to the PIR Fund must be authorized by
Council resolution.
-3-
JAN-31-90 WED 15:36
t"'".Id-.:J
5
r
r
. "
'-~
. ~
4.03 The Finance Director shall prepare.and submit to
the Council a proposed budget for the PIR FundI together with
the recommendations of the city Administrator for the use of the
PIR Fund in the next ensuing year.
4.04 Nothing in this Resolution is to be construed as
limiting the discretion of the City Council in financing
assessable public improvements or other public improvements
pursuant to any provision of law or this Resolution.
Mayor
ATTEST:
Clerk
.II
;,/'
-4-
'\
\.J
CITY OF ANDOVER
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
DATE
M~ r,...h t; 100n
.
BY:
APPROVIl~FOR
AGEND~
BY:
AGENDA SECTION
NO.
ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT
Engineering
ITEM
NO.6. LRRWMO Res/Water
The City Council is requested to make comments and/or
recommendations on the LRRWMO's resolution and water quality
section of the water management plan.
The WMO will be approving water management standards shortly for
your review.
Andover should establish a taxing district that the city can levy
Andover's share of the cost of the WMO. As of now, it has been
funded from the general fund.
Enclosed: Resolution 90-1
Draft Water Quality Guidelines
"
\..J
MOTION BY
TO
COUNCIL ACTION
SECOND BY
~J
LOWER RUM RIVER WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ORGANIZATION
JOINT MEETING WITH THE MEMBER CITY COUNCILS
. WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 21, 1990, AT 7:05 P.M.
COMMUNITY ROOM OF ANOKA CITY HALL
INTRODUCTION
. ," " .. - . -. . ." .
Chairman Schrantz called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m.
Those present were as follows:
LRRWMO Members: Jim Schrantz, Tom Mathisen, Pete Raatikka,
and John Weaver. Technical advisors were Attorney Curt
Pearson and Engineering Consultant Dean Skallman.
City of Andover Mayor Jim Elling, and Councilmember.s
Michael Knight, Ken Orttel, and Marjorie Perry
City of Anoka; Mayor Stephen Halsey, and Councilmembers
Gerald Cotten, Lorraine Hostetler, city Manager Mark Nagel,
and Public Works Director Ray Schultz.
City of Coon Rapids: There was no city representation other
than LRRWMO member Torn Mathisen.
City of Ramsey Mayor Gary Reimann, and Councilmembers
Stephen DeLuca, Alan Pearson, and Kenneth Peterson, and City
Administrator David Hartley.
Others: Joe Perrin, ABC Newspaper.
PURPOSE OF THE MEETING
Schrantz stated tha purpose of this joint meeting is to
inform member city councils and staffs about proposed water
legislation and to report on the current state of managing
water resources within the Lower Rum River WMO. LRRWMO
members also requested direction in which the cities would
like this board to take.
BRIEF HISTORY OF THE LRRWMOAND PENDING LEGISLATION
"
,~
Pearson provided a brief history of the LRRWMO and its
implementation through the Chapter "509" Metropolitan Water
Management Act. The responsibilities of the LRRWMO were
presented, same of which includes surface water management,
water quality management, and ground water protection.
This organization is created through a Joint Powers Agreement
which currently provides that if the four member cities do
not do things unanimously, nothing will get done. Pearson
t'd
2602 22v 2t9 tl>101.Jl::l 030 AiD 9v:0t 06, to CltlW
Joint WMO Mtg. /Member Cities
February 21, 1990
Page 2
'\
,~ foresaw that eventually this Joint Powers Agreement will have
to be changed.
A recent Report of the Metropolitan Local Water Management
Task Force. was. .presented to the Governor and Sta te . Legisla-
turG.describing what they saw happening to the State's water
management. As a result, a 23-page bill, authored by Senator
Gregory Dahl,. will be sent to the Legislature with specific
recommendations affecting this WMO and member cities.
Details were outlined. Pearson reported that the, Metropol-
itan Council wants to operate and control the watershed
districts and will be drafting and introducing their bills to
the Legi sl a ture.
Pearson drew attention to packet resolution No. 90-1
requesting support and cooperation of member cities regarding
the management of water resources within the Lower Rum River
Watershed. It is the commission's request that the four
cities not only understand the WMO's actions, but request
assistance in establishing uniform standards to protect the
water in the Lower Rum River WMO.
Pearson went on to explain that once the Board of Water and
Soil Resources approves the Water Management Plan, the law
requires each city to adopt its own Water Management Plan.
As part of the local plans, it will be the responsibility of
each member city to carry out the responsibilities this WMO
gives you. It is this board's intention to retain control at
the local level.
Pearson explained the difference between a watershed district
and a water management organization. A watershed district is
a. separate unit of government with separate powers. A WMO
operates under a Joint Powers Agreement with members, at this
time, appointed by the member cities.
In answer to Orttel's query, Pearson stated according to the
Task Force's recommendations, if the WMO's or watershed
districts are not managing their resources properly or making
capital improvements, their control may be turned over to the
county. However, th.e Lower Rum doesn't have any maj or
capital improvements.
Orttel expressed concern with the use of different categories
or classifications to describe various wetland areas by the
LRRWMO and by the DNR. He feared the confusion would cause
problems. Orttel added should the LRRWMO begin reviewing
each development project that comes in, this will be a fourth
level of government for them to have to go through in order
to do a proj ect.
, '\ Schrantz confirmed that this board is another level of
,_J government mandated by the State Legislature with the respon-
2'd
2602 221> 219 1:i)IONtJ .:JO AlD LI>: 0l 06, l0 CltIW
Joint WMO Mtg./Mernber Cities
February 21, 1990
page 3
, )
, / sibility to regulate this area's water quality and to see
that it is properly discharged from the numerous developments
into our water resources.
Nagel pointed out while the State Legislature is. mandating
these. duties and directives, they are. not providing the
financial backing in order to fund these activities.
As Treasurer, Mathisen stated the LRRWMO has been operating
from an annual budget of approximately $6,500 distributed,
based on valuation, among the four member cities. He warned
those present that in the future these actual costs will go
up. However, he didn't foresee that a huge amount of money
will have to be spent. There will have to be more review and
mandated requirements for water quality, but didn't feel
costs to the cities would have to gO up a great deal more.
Project reviews will be charged back to the developer.
Hartley felt each community is concerned with retaining good
water quality and controlling the surface water. They now
have to deal with another level of government, which is
already here. The real concern is who will ultimately retain
control. Rather than letting the Legislature turn everything
over to the Met Council, Hartley felt the Legislature should
be informed that we have an organization in place, the
LRRWMO, doing the work. The cities would then be able to
establish and maintain local control through the Joint Powers
Agreement. passing control to the county and Met Council
creates more problems than dealing with them ourselves.
WATER QUALITY DRAFT GUIDELINES
Skallman briefly reviewed the draft guidelines for water
quality management in the Lower Rum River WMO. He recom-
mended priorities for getting these guidelines implemented
without having to spend a lot of money: Identify problem
areas~ then new developing areas, working with them so they
take care of the problems On a planning basis; redeveloping
areas; and then finally, retrofitting existing systems.
Knight queried whether it
tional level of government
issues the DNR and PCA does.
things.
is necessary to have this addi-
dealing with many of the same
He felt we are only duplicating
,J
Orttel again urged if these standards and guidelines are
necessary, the terminology and rules used should be the same
as those used by the DNR and other agencies. Schrantz agreed
that the terminology used to classify water resources in the
draft guidelines provided could be changed from "Class" to
"Category" to avoid confusion with wetlands.
E.d
2602 22v 2t9 tl)\ON1:f .:l0 AiD Lv:0t 06, to ~tlW
Joint WMO Mtg./Member Cities
February 21, 1990
Page 4
)
Schrantz confirmed the LRRWMO is another hoop to jump through
with responsibilities mandated according to the law. The
board is now debating the level at which subdivisions are re-
viewed. Mathisen reported the Legislature will be coming out
with minimum guidelines of their own.
Weaver responded to. Knight's concern about duplicating agency
functions indicating this body could have the ability to
review projects and determine water run off and the potential
effects before it reaches the wetlands. Seeing that water
quality is maintained is the LRRWMO's mandated responsi-.
bility. Pearson added that with control staying with the
local government, you have the ability to attempt to improve
water quality at a cheaper cost for area citizens through the
planning process.
Nagel queried the time line for retrofitting. Pearson stated
that that hasn't been determined. Cities with a population
of 250,000 must apply for permits by 1992, and the State will
work its way back to municipalities. In answer to Nagel's
query about retrofitting standards, Mathisen reported they
will come out over the next few years. The WMO will have to
have a monitoring program established for water quality.
SUMMARY
Schrantz felt the main issue of the meeting is to make
certain everyone is aware that the LRRWMO has been given the
responsibility for managing water through a review process.
He felt the commission will want to review every development
going in, with a legal responsibility to do so. If managed
well, Schrantz felt the majority of the process can be
handled by the cities' staff. He requested comments on this
statement.
Elling felt if the four cities are in agreement,' why didn't
the staffs resolve the problems so the LRRWMO board doesn't
have to, which would be a more cost effective and efficient
method. Mathisen's response was it COmes down to the manner
in which permit reviews are handled. The Task Force Report
indicates there was too much delegation, and the cities
aren't being that careful. "
Reimann agreed water quality is an important issue that has
to be addressed, but another layer of government is not
preferable. The developers won't like it. He felt the
situation would work if the cities worked together in addres-
sing these issues from the same ordinances, etc.
,
\
',~.J
Schrantz reiterated that the LRRWMO is an established added
level of government. He urged the city councils to consider
what has been discussed tonight, including how they prefer
v'd
2602 221:> 219 ~ON~ jO A1IJ 81:>:01 06, 10 ~~W
Joint WMO Mtg./Member
February 21, 1990
Page 5
Cities
~'-)
the LRRWMO to handle the project review issue, and respond
back through their LRRWMO representative.
Perry and Knight queried how the future LRRWMO, once solidly
established, would be structured and whether or not it would
contain civ.ilian representation. Pearson stated the. most
effective organizations are. the. . ones where there are mostly
technical staff involved working in the field. Councils can
then rely on the fact that the commission is giving a good
set of recommendations to the developers. Nagel suggested
the possibility of having four technical board members with
one citizen representative.
Reimann stated the cities should go
quality is the number one concern.
ated by controlling what happens in
lessen the LRRWMO's job.
On notice that water
A step could be elimin-
the cities, which would
Cotten suggested the cities should establish a criteria to be
put in place with our planning Commissions. Their initial
review of these project developments with these established
guidelines could eliminate potential water quality problems
later in the review process. weaver confirmed it is the
board's hope that the standards they are recommending would
be included in the cities' planning process. Knight agreed
that if similar ordinances were created within the member
cities along with standards addressing the water quality
issues, a good share of the problems would be caught at the
city level.
There being no further discussion, SchrantZ d~clared the
meeting adjourned at 9;10 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
yt~H-/ ~~
Mava Mikkonen
Recording Secretary
, "
,,_J
S'd
2602 22v 219 ~~ON~ jO AIIJ 8v:01 06, 10 ~~w
- "
'-)
RESOLUTION NO. 90-1
A RESOLUTION REQUESTING SUPPORT AND COOPERATION
OF MEMBER CITIES REGARDING THE MANAGEMENT
OF WATER RESOURCES WITHIN THE LOWER RUM RIVER WATERSHED
WHEREAS, in 1985 the Cities of Andover, Anoka, Coon Rapids, and
Ramsey formed a joint powers agency known as the Lower Rum Ri ver Watershed
Management Organization to comply with requirements established by
Minnesota Laws of 1982, Chapter 509, and
. WHEREAS, the LRRWMO Commissioners have been meeting and prepar ing
a watershed management plan as directed by state law and the Commi,ssion has
operated doing the minimum required because it has been the belief of this
Commission that the four member cities wanted the Watershed Management
Organization to operate with the minimum interference to local control, and
WHEREAS, since 1982 the concerns about water resources and water
quality have increased substantially as the metropolitan area has become
aware of water shortages and threats to underground and surface water
resources, and the responsibilities of the Commission have been increased
by the Legislature and by the realization that it is in the public interest
to protect our water supply and water quality, and
WHEREAS, the Minnesota Legislature has been alerted to concerns
about a lack of uniformity in the manner in which water resources are being
managed in different areas of the metropolitan area, and the Legislature
established a task force known as the "Metropolitan Local Water Management
Task Force" to respond to the Governor and the Legislature on methods for
improving the way waters are managed in the metropolitan area, and that task
force has met and taken testimony from numerous interested agencies and has
conducted studies as to what has happened as a result of Chapter 509 and has
made a substantial number of recommendations to the Legislature on what
should be done to protect water quality and the water supply, and .
\'.'HEREAS, a report entitled "Report of the Metropolican Local Water
Management Task Force to the Governor and Legislature of the State of
Minnesota" dated December 15, 1989, has now been circulated to water
management organizations and to cities, counties, and other agencies
concerned with the management of water in the metropolitan area, and said
task force report recommends a substantial number of legislative changes
requir ing that water management organizations be responsible for managing
underground and surface water and for establishing an administrative
procedure which will provide uniformity in management practices, and the
recommendations of said report are currently being drafted into
legislation' which will be introduced in the 1990 LegiSlature,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED By the Lower Rum River Watershed
Management Organization as follows:
'\
/
1. The LRRWMO recommends to the four member cities that they
support their joint powers commission in carrying out the responsibili ties
mandated by state and federal law and to manage water resources in
:~
compliance with the prepared Watershed Management Plan.
2. The LRRWMO intends to establish standard cr iter ia for the
management of surface and underground water resources and states its
intention to adopt regulations and take all reasonable action to protect
water quality within the watershed. '
3. The LRRWMO respectfully requests that the four member
cities agree to cooperate with the WMO and to aid and assist the WMO in
enforcing the watershed Management Plan and uniform standards established
and adopted by the Commission to cover water resources within the
watershed. '
. .
4. The LRRWMO hereby states to its members and to the public
its intention to establish specific requirements and criteria relating to
the review and recommendation of the Commission as it relates to certain
plats and to the issuance of certain construction and development permits,
and further states that it is the Commission's intention to draft standards
and criteria which will require the submission to the Commission for its
review and approval certain items, and the Commission will request that
each ci ty include the Commission recommendations as a part of their plat or
permit approval.
5. Upon approval of the Lower Rum River Watershed Management
Plan by the Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources, each of the four
member cities will be required by state law to prepare and submit to the
LRRWMO local plans as to the management of water resources within the
individual member cities. It is the intention of this Commission to
require that all the local water management plans include the technical and
administrative standards, criteria and regulations which are to be
promulgated by the Commission and that each of the local plans will be
required to incorporate these technical and administrati ve requirements in
the local plans as the responsibili ty of each individual member city. It
is the intention of this Organization to provide technical expertise to the
member cities and to require the local communities to manage their water
resources and to protect the water quality within the watershed, and the
enfor~ement agency responsible for administering the standards and
criteria of the Commission will be each of the member cities.
Dated February 7, 1990.
Att~~
. . / ii
1 I I" _ ~~j
Sec~tary
Qmti<J [~
. Chairman
!/
~'I
,I --= /
.<:~ l}a-7Z,:i)
~)
C/
"
, -)
---
\ .'
./
:./
~J
DRAFT GUIDELINES
FOR LOYER RUM RIVER YHO
FEBRUARY 9, 1990
, YATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT
The Organization's water quality management plan has identified all
surface water bodies expected to be classified Class I or Class II. These
water bodies will receive the bulk of the attention of the Board for the
initial implementation. Although many management practices exist for
enhancing water quality, their application in the watershed is limited by a
lack of knowledge regarding cause and effect, limited fiscal resources.
availability of water quality data, appreciation of the intangible benefits
of enhanced water quality versus potential high cost, enforcement ability,
and conflicting scientific knowledge about the effectiveness and long-term
implications of available management practices. Yater quality enhancement
must be approached reasonably, practically, and systematically. The state-
of-the-art approach to water quality enhancement is to evaluate numerous
site-specific parameters and to analyze the probable benefits of water
quality management practices on a case-by-case basis.
I
i
,
f
I!
Class I
I
I
i
.
.
v
f
r.
I:
.
t'
~
~
Yater quality management levels for surface water resources in the
watershed are defined as follows:
Yater resources in this category are typified by some or all of the
/
following characteristics: ~~gional recreational resource; adjacent to
a regional park; accessible to the public by bike and/or pedestrian
trails; extensively used for water contact sports such as swimming,
waterskiing or wind surfing; high demand for boating or sailing; popular
fishing resources (summer or winter); regionally perceived by the public
....;
. ;
~ I
Ii I
,. '
'\
,-,2302047/LRRWMO.WP/TMK
1
DRAIT - FEBRUARY 9, 1990
, ~.
as valuable amenity; and/or a major water resource. The Organization
~~ will have substantial involvement in the water quality management of
water resources in this category.
Preliminary classification included the Rum River, Mississippi River,
Round Lake, and Sunfish Lake as Class I bodies of water.
Class II
~ater resources in this category are typified by some or all of the
following characteristics: adjacent to local park; limited access to
the public through bike and/or pedestrian trails; lacks public swimming
beach; neighborhood pond with some adjacent public property; supports
substantial waterfowl; provides general wildlife habitat; locally
perceived by the public as valuable amenity; used for stormwater
control; located along or is part of trunk conveyance system; known
groundwater recharge area; maintenance of existing water quality
desirable objective; may require limited public maintenance; and
includes ponds, wetlands, regional stormwater detention basins, streams
and ditches. The water quality management of resources in this category
will generally be a local responsibility.
Preliminary classification included Lake Itasca, ~ard Lake, Rodgers
Lake, l14P (waterbody), Trout Brook, Ford Brook, and Cedar Creek as
Class II waterbodies.
Class III
:
/
I
~ater resources in this category are typified by some or all of the
following characteristics: lacks public swimmi~g beach; lack of
adjacent park lands; neighborhood pond with adjacent public property;
supports substantial waterfowl; provides general or unusual wildlife
..J
2302047/LRRWMO.WP/TMK
2
DRAFT - FEBRUARY 9, 1990
:,J
habitat; easy access for maintenance or periodic restoration; minor
water resource used for stormwater control; access to public is limited;
least public concern regarding existing or future water quality; located
along or forms part of lateral conveyance system; includes on-site or
local stormwater detention basins, wetlands, streams or ditches. The
water quality management of water resources in this category will
generally be a local responsibility. The exception will be when they
are used to enhance downstream water quality.
Each water body or wetland that is classified as Class I, Class II or
Class III will be evaluated to determine if water quality storage can
be provided consistent with the other functions and uses intended for
that body. A water quality management envelope will be established for
each water body or wetland to preserve that water quality storage
volume. The water quality management envelope will protect the water
quality storage volume until final evaluation of the water quality
storage volume needs for that subwatershed are completed.
Possible management practices to achieve desired water quality
objectives in each subwatershed would include some or a combination of
the following practices:
A. Source Control
1. On-Site "Detention Basins
a. Retrofit only existing areas with on-site detention
basins when specific need and benefit identified.
.I
b. Require development of on-site sediment basins in areas
of new development and redevelopment, discharging
directly to Class I or Class II water bodies.
"
'-)
2302047/LRRWMO.WPjTMK
3
)
. ~
, /
DRAFT - FEBRUARY 9, 1990
2.
Erosion Control
a.
Control erosion at all construction sites.
~
b. Control man induced stream bank erosion and streambed
degradation.
,
c. Enforce soil conservation practices for all areas.
3. Stormwater presettlement Before Discharge to Class I waters
a. Include grit chambers or equivalent structure in all new
systems and redevelopment
b. Retrofit when necessary.
4. Establish Good Housekeeping Practices
a. Require litter and refuse control.
b. Improve maintenance of streets, increase frequency of
street sweeping, and initiate leaf pickup.
c. Properly store and regulate application of road salt.
d. Establish program for oil and chemical disposal.
I
i
e. Actively di;courage residents from applying fertilizers
at excessive rates.
2302047/LRR~O.WP/TMK
4
DRAFT - FEBRUARY 9, 1990
f.
Actively encourage residents to p'roperly dispose of pet
litter from public areas adjacent to Class I and II
.- ')
'..J
waters.
B. Reeional Detention Basins
1. Retrofit existing conveyance systems when feasible due to
need, benefit, cost, and include on all new systems.
2. Incorporate in new conveyance systems.
3. Preserve and use existing wetlands greater than 1 acre in size
(Types 3, 4, 5).
4. Restore historic wetlands where area undeveloped or vacant.
5. Create new wetlands at detention basins along conveyance
system.
6. Construct outlet control systems for existing, restored, or
new wetlands to provide for more effective operation and
maintenance.
C. Public Information and Education
1. Active Program -- Develop brochures and pamphlets concerning
water quality, distribute brochures and pamphlets through
city-wide mailing~, hold water quality workshops, distribute
information at city offices and parks.
2. Passive Program - - Obtain brochures and pamphlets prepared by
others and distribute at city-sponsored functions.
. "
'-)
2302047/LRRWMO.YP/TMK
5
DRAFT - FEBRUARY 9, 1990
~ . The specific practices which must be implemented for each management
level at each site are beyond the scope of this plan. The Organization
intends to complete a detailed plan of the Class I and Class II waters in the
near future. At that time, the restrictions imposed by development,
economics and conflicting needs can be evaluated and appropriate practices
selected to meet the goals of the Organization.
WATER QUALITY CRITERIA
:-The Organization has adopted criteria for the design of water quality
enhancement features in the watershed to ensure that water quality objectives
are achieved. They are not intended to restrict the design process but they
are minimum requirements which must be met to obtain approval.
Enforcement of the maintenance program is the responsibility of the
municipality it is located in. Access to all water quality enhancement
features is required to be deeded to the city.
On-Site Water Ouality Basins
Although it is the Organization's policy to manage its water resources
using the regional detention basin concept, sound water quality management
occasionally requires the use of on-site detention basins to meet stormwater
runoff and water quality objectives. When on-site detention basins are
required, these basins must:
:
1. Conform to the stormwater runoff criteria.
/
I
2. Have water quality features and dead storage volume, designed for
a ,l-inch rain in 4 hours.
\
\J
2302047jLRRWMO.WPjTMK
6
i'
DRAFT - FEBRUARY 9, 1990
3.
Be constructed according to the Nationwide Urban Runoff Program
.. )
, /
(NURP) guidelines.
4.
Have an outlet control structure that effectively prevents floating
debris and oils from entering the downstream conveyance system.
Control of Streambank Erosion and Streambed DeEradation
Streambank erosion and streambed degradation control measures will:
1. Be employed on a case-by-case basis whenever the net sediment
transport for a reach of stream is greater than zero as the result
of development activities or whenever the stream's natural tendency
to form meanders directly threatens damage to structures, utilities
or natural amenities in public areas.
2. Include effective energy dissipation devices or stilling basins to
prevent streambank or channel erosion at all stormwater outfalls.
Specifically:
a. Outfalls with outlet velocities of less than 4 fps that
project flows downstream into the channel in a direction at
least 30 degrees from the normal flow direction generally
shall not require energy dissipators or stilling basins, but
they may need some riprap protection.
b. . Energy dissipators shall be sized to provide an average outlet
velocity of no mo~e than 6 fps. If rip rap is also used, the
average outlet velocity may be increased to 8 fps.
c. Riprap stilling basins shall not be used where outlet
velocities exceed 8 fps.
\
....-.-J
2302047/LRRWMO.WP/TMK
7
DRAFT - FEBRUARY 9, 1990
..
, . .
~- )
3.
Specify riprap consisting of natural angular stone suitably graded
by weight for the anticipated velocities.
4. Provide riprap to an adequate depth below the channel grade and to
a height above the outfall or channel bottom so as to ensure that
the riprap will not be undermined by scour or rendered ineffective
by displacement.
5. Specify that riprap be placed over a suitably graded filter
material or filter fabric to ensure that soil particles do not
migrate through the riprap and reduce its stability.
6. Require that streambank stabilization and streambed control
structures by submitted for review by the Organization. The review
will consider the need for the work, the adequacy of design, unique
or special site conditions, energy dissipation, the potential for
adverse effects, contributing factors, preservation of natural
processes, and aesthetics.
Grit Chambers
Grit chambers for presettlement of stormwater must:
1. Be designed and sized to provide theoretical settlement of a 0.3-mm
grit particle in still water at 10C (based on Stoke's Law).
I
. 2. Be designed to provide/sufficient storage volume for the settled
I
particles consistent with the maintenance schedule.
3. Include a device to diffuse inflow and provide a relatively uniform
distribution of flow over the cross section of the chamber.
~J
2302047/LRRWHO.WP/THK
8
. .
. "
'\
'--)
,'J
DRAFT - FEBRUARY 9, 1990
4.
Provide convenient access for equipment and maintenance personnel
to the chamber site and into the chamber itself.
5. Be inspected at least three times a year (spring, summer and fall)
to determine the volume of stored grit, and be, cleaned immediately
whenever significant grit has accumulated or there is a likelihood
that the chamber will be full of grit before the next scheduled
inspection.
Reeional Detention Basins
Regional detention basins must:
1. Conform to stormwater runoff criteria.
2. Have water quality features and dead storage designed based on a
runoff event generated by 1 inch of rain in 4 hours.
3. Be designed in accordance with the National Urban Runoff Program
(NURP) guidelines.
4. Include an outlet control structure that effectively prevents
floating debris and oils from 'entering the downstream conveyor
system.
Sediment Collection and Nutrient Entrapment
/
Basins used for sediment collection and nutrient entrapment must conform
to the criteria for on-site or regional detention basins (whichever are
appropriate). In addition, the detention basins must:
2302047/LRRWMO.WP/TMK
9
~~
"
,..)
DRAFT - FEBRUARY 9, 1990
1. Provide an outlet structure capable of draining the basin
substantially dry to permit harvesting of vegetation and removal
of sediment.
. 2. Be harvested every fall (usu~lly-b~fore October 15) by cutting the
vegetation and removing the cuttings to an approved disposal site.
:-.
/
,
2302047/LRRWMO.~P/TMK
lO
,
~ .
-'
I
.~
CITY OF ANDOVER
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
DATE
M~r,...h
h 1QQn
.
Administration
AGENDA SECTION
NO.
ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT
ITEM
NO'1,
Assessment Manual
BY:
The city Council is requested to discuss the Assessment Policy
Manual and discuss the additional items attached to be included in
the final manual.
NOTE: Added items underscored, deleted items dashed out, except
for the titles that were underlined.
Pages 8, 9, and 14 have been revised as requested at the
February, 6, 1989 meeting. These are included for your review.
The twelve items proposed are:
I. Rural Street Development with a Mixture of Large
Agriculture Type Lots and Smaller Residential ~ots.
II. Trunk Storm Drainage in the Urban Development Area.
III. MSA/County Roads.
IV. Regional and Local Ponds.
V. Street Lights.
VI. Maintenance Project.
VII. Seal coat.
VIII. Senior Citizen Deferrment.
IX. Assessments for Subdivision Improvements.
X. capital Improvements Financed by Bonding.
XI. Capital Improvements Financing.
XII
COUNCIL ACTION
MOTION BY
. "
'J TO
SECOND BY
o
,J
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 fSee-EHhieit-!+ (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 calendar year or the current market rate, if
higher.
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
, )
~J
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 yearby the ENR Construction Index.e~-
the-€eRs~me~-P~iee-;Rae*
1. Area: The area to be 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
'0
where lateral benefit is received from a trunk, the benefiting
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 benefiting
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 Lateral
storm drainage laterals are considired incidental to the street
construction and are assessed as part of the street costs.
Sidewalks
Sidewalks area assessed to the benefiting properties by front
footage or unit costs.
streets: City Local/Distributor/Collector
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 benefiting lots.
streets: M.S.A./County Roads
1. properties along M.S.A. streets and county roads: The city
may assess all or part for street improvement costs incurred
by the city. Sidewalks will not be assessed.
PAGE 13
o
The city will assess as follows:
Lots on MSA streets $500/unit plus right-of way acquisition.
Lots on County Roads $1000/unit plus right-of way acquisition.
*Land acquisition costs - 100% of all land acquisition costs
will be assessed with the commercial and industrial area rate
being twice that of residential.
*50% of the costs incurred by city for construction and
expenses shall be assessed to abutting commercial and
industrial properties.
*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.
*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 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 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 ~qual annual installments with interest
thereon at the maximum rate allowed by Minnesota law in
effect at that time on unpaid special assessments.
,
~~
PAGE 14
Assessment policy Recommendation:
~-)
I. RURAL STREET DEVELOPMENT WITH A MIXTURE OF LARGE AGRICULTURE
TYPE LOTS AND SMALLER RESIDENTIAL LOTS.
Assessment
In areas where the lot sizes are unreasonably different and the
large rural lots are not planned to be subdivided in the next 5
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 only.
Large agriculture lot is any agricultural lot larger than 10
acres.
Smaller residential lot is any smaller lot smaller than 1 acre.
Funding
f~Ae-ei~y-will-AaYe-~e-E~Re-~Ae-eeEe~~ee-a5se5smeR~-ame~R~+T
The City may, transfer from the "permanent improvement revolving
fund", ma*e-aYailaele-~e-~Ae-ll~~ema~~~e-eeYele~meR~-E~Rell an
amount of up to $30,000 per year.
Ra~ieRale
, ,
~~ ~Ae-$3GTGGG-is-aee~~-wAa~-~Ae-ei~y-will-ea~R-as-iR~e~e5~-eR-~Ae-
$4GGTGGG+-iR-~Ae-~e~maReR~-im~~eYemeR~-~eYelyiR~-E~ReT
page Two
,'\
'---)
seme-eE-~Ae-~~~al-laRe-may-eeYele~-aRe-Ael~-~e~aY-~Ae-ll~~ema~~~e-
eeYele~meR~-aeee~R~llT
II. TRUNK STORM DRAINAGE IN THE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AREA
The trunk storm drainage cost will be assessed on a gross area
basis at a rate as follows:
commercial/Industrial
$1742/gross acre ($0.04/s.f.)
$3484/gross acre ($0.08/s.f.)
Residential
The rate is based on an ENR Mpls./St. Paul index of 4805,
December 1989.
The benefitting properties will pay for 100% of their lateral
storm sewer plus the trunk area charge.
Ne~e~--~Ais-is-simila~-~e-wAa~-~Ae-ei~Y-Aas-eeRe-wi~A-~Ae-
saRi~a~y-sewe~-~~~R*-aRe-la~e~al-assessmeR~sT--~Ae-
$GTG4/sTET-is-wAa~-was-~~e~esee-Ee~-~Ae-WiRslew-HillsT-8a*-
Bl~EET-81e-eeleRY-5~e~m-e~aiRa~e-sys~em-aRe-is-aee~~-~Ae-
same-R~mee~-as-Ee~-~Ae-KeRsiR~~eR-Es~a~es-a~eaT
~~~T--HSA/e8YN~~-R8Aes
~Ae-~elieY-Ee~-HSA-aRe-ee~R~y-~eaes-Aas-eeeRT-esseR~iallYT-iE-~Ae-
~~e~e~~y-ewRe~-~iYes-~Ae-~i~A~-eE-waY-~Ae~e-is-Re~-aR-assessmeR~-
Ee~-~Ae-5~~ee~T
~-)
~Ae-ei~y-is-leE~-wi~A-seme-ee5~5-a5-Eellews~
Page Three
'~
HSA-S~~ee~s
~Ae_ees~_eE_~Ae_~i~A~_eE_waY_Re~e~ia~ieRsT-le~al-eese~i~~ieRsT-
le~al-aRe-~eee~eiR~-Eees-a~e-ees~s-~Aa~-a~e-Re~-HSA-eli~ieleT
~Ae_~i~A~_eE_way_ae~~isi~ieR-ees5~-Ee~-eeReemRa~ieR-
eemmissieRe~s-a~e-eli~iele-e~~-wAeR-~Ae-~i~A~-eE-way-is-eeeiea~ee-
e~_~iYeR_~Aese_ees~s_a~eRL~_eli~ieleT__e~Ae~_i~emT_~Aa~-a5-we-~e~-
iR~e-a-~~ejee~-ea~se-seme-~~eelemsT-is-iE-all-~Ae-s~e~m-sewe~
ees~s-a~eRL~-eli~iele-as-ee~e~miRee-ey-S~a~e-Aie-E~em-~Ae-EiRal
~laRsT--~Ais-Aas-Aa~~eRee-~e-a-small-ee~~eeT--~Ae-ei~yLs-eRly-
E~ReiR~-se~~ee-is-E~em-AReeYe~LS-iR-Ae~se-HSA-E~Res-wAieA-was-
aee~m~la~ee-E~em-eellee~iR~-HSA-E~Re--aRe-assessiR~-eR-HaRseR-
Be~leYa~eT
ee~R~y-Reae5
WAeR-~Ae-ee~R~y-eeRs~~~e~s-aR-~~eaR-~eaewaY-~Ae-ei~y-Aas-~e-~ay-
Ee~-AalE-eE-~Ae-ees~-eE-~Ae-e~~e-aRe-~~~~e~-~1~s-8%-eR~iRee~iR~-
~Aa~-~Ae-ee~R~y-eAa~~es-~l~s-~Ae-~i~A~-eE-way-ees~-Ee~-Rew-
ali~RmeR~s-aRe-eYe~Aeae-ees~s-as-eise~ssee-~Ree~-HSA-5~~ee~sT
eR-e*is~iR~-ali~RmeR~-~Ae-ee~R~y-ae~~i~es-~Ae-~i~A~-eE-waYT
~Ae-eR1Y-E~ReiR~-se~~ee-Ee~-~Aese-eYe~Aeae-ees~s-is-~e-assess
~Ae5e-ees~5-e~-~se-~Ae-ei~yLs-iR-Ae~5e-HSA-E~Res-wAieA-a~aiR-was
aee~m~la~ee-E~em-HaRseR-Be~leYa~eT
~E-~Ae-ee~R~y-~eae-is-ee~R~y-S~a~e-Aie-e~-~Ae-ei~y-eesi~Ra~es-~Ae-
~eae-as-aR-HSA-s~~ee~T-li*e-wa5-eeRe-eR-~a~~5-eE-HaRseR-Be~leYa~eT
,) ~Ae-~i~A~-eE-way-aRe-eemmissieRe~s-ees~s-a~e-eli~iele-Ee~-HSA-
E~ReiR~T
Page Four
, ')
, -.-/
~Ae-ei~y-ee~Reil-sAe~le-~AiR*-eE-assessiR~-Ee~-HSA-aRe-ee~R~-
~eaes-~e-eeYe~-~Ae-e~~-eE-~ee*e~T-se-~e-s~ea*T-eeS~ST--=e~Ls-say-
HSA-$;GG-~e~-le~T-ee~R~y-~eaes-$;GGG-~e~-~a~eel-fe~~e-aRe-~~~~e~-
a~-$6TGG/E~T-ees~s-$6GG-Ee~-a-;GGL-le~+T
IV. REGIONAL AND LOCAL PONDS
In the urban and rural areas the City shall take title to all
storm drainage ponds that are part of the storm drainage trunk
system f~~iYa~e-~a~~ies-eaRRe~-ee-e*~ee~ee-~e-maiR~aiR-a-~~elie-
sys~em+T
Storm drainage ponds (local) in rural development may be part of
a lot or lots with storm drainage easements for ponding on the
affected lots designed for a 100 year storm event.
Regional (trunk) ponds will be paid for from the storm drainage
trunk fund. Local or plat ponds will be paid for by the
benefitting properties unless the local pond is part of a larger
system and is part of the design of the storm drainage system.
V. STREET LIGHTS
New Development (rural and urban)
The developer pays Anoka Electric for the capital costs and
installation. The lot owners pay for energy, maintenance and the
City's overhead costs on a per lot basis with all parcels in the
,"
~ subdivision paying equally.
Page Five
~
Existing Developments
The property owners pay equally for the capital and installation,
facility and City overhead costs. The capital and installation
costs are spread over 5 years, then the costs to the lot owner
are only for energy, maintenance and City overhead costs.
The City pays for the cost of street light at county road
intersections and city streets intersections with county road.
VI. MAINTENANCE PROJECT
street Overlay Project
The City shall assess all the costs incurred by the City for the
overlay project. The costs shall be assessed by the unit method
by subdivision to avoid inequity due to different plats having
different lot sizes. Front footage may be used in areas where
the lot sizes are varied.eeea~se-~Aey-we~e-Re~-~la~~eeT
VII. SEALCOAT
The City shall assess all the costs incurred by the City for the
seal coat project. The costs shall be assessed by the unit method
by subdivision to avoid inequity due to the different plats
having different lot sizes. Front footage may be used in areas
where the lot sizes are varied.eeea~se-~Aey-we~e-Re~-~la~~eeT
, ,
,~
Page Six
~
VIII. SENIOR CITIZEN DEFERMENT
See a~~aeAee-meme-E~em-eLA~ey-Besell-aRe-~Ae-eae*~~-iREe~ma~ieRT
State Statutes. This policy supersedes Res. 18-6 Senior Citizen
Deferment.
IX. ASSESSMENTS FOR SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENTS
SAe~le The City may hold the assessment roll so the developers
pay the City -sAe~le-~Ae-leYies-ee-ee~~iEiee-~e-~Ae-ee~R~Y~--~A
e-iR~e~es~-~e-~Ae-eRe-eE-~Ais-yea~-E~em-~Ae-ea~e-eE-~aymeR~-is-a-
ees~-~Ae-eeYele~e~s-aYeie-ey-~ayiR~-~Ae-ei~y-as-we-a~e-e~~~eR~ly-
eeiR~T
~Ae-ei~y-AeleiR~-~Ae-asse5smeR~s-iRYelYes-a-le~-eE-aeei~ieRal
s~aEE-~imeT--~-AaYe-~eeemmeReee-iR-~Ae-~as~-we-iRe~ease-~Ae-
aemiRi5~~a~iYe-~e~eeR~a~es-aRe/e~-~Ae-assessmeR~-~e~eeR~a~eT
The assessment percentage on City held assessment rolls shall be
1% greater than the certified assessment rolls.
e~Ae~-~Ae~~A~s
SeAee~liR~-eE-im~~eYemeR~ST--fSee-~a~e-;~T-maR~al+--See-~ime-
E~ame-iR-maR~al-~Aa~-allews-Ee~-a-well-maRa~ee-~~eeessT--We-Aaye-
eeeR-~5iR~-~e~i~ieRs-~eeay~aRe-e~ile-~eme~~ewT--~R-maRy-ei~iesT-
ye~-~e~i~ieR-~Ais-yea~-aRe-e~ile-Re*~-yea~T
Please call me with ideas that will help you as Council. I need
, to know your needs for information on these items.
, )
~ CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FINANCING BY BONDING
:~ Permanent Bonds
'\
,J
All projects will be financed using permanent bonding.
Temporary Bonds
Temporary bonds may be used to finance a project until the
project is complete. Then permanent bonds will be sold.
Discussion - The City has sold temporary bonds and we have
assessed the normal 1% over the temporary bond rate. This we
have discussed with developers and they understand when the next
issue is sold and the interest rate increases, their assessments
will increase.When we sell the next temporary or permanent bond
on these projects, we will assess 1% over the bond rate. When we
are working with developers it works fine but when existing
residences are involved and we sell the 2nd issue of temporary
bonds or permanent bonds and the rate increases, we need to hold
a re-assessment hearing and advise the residents of the new rate.
(Example 87-3B).
X t'
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
a. General Fund
b. Park Development Fund
c. Permanent Improvement Revolving Fund
d. M.S.A.
3. General Obligation Bond Issues by Referendum
4. Revenue Bond Issues
5. Bond Issue Supported by M.S.A. Funds
6. Special Assessments Bonds Issued in Accordance with
Statute Sec. 429
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
Page Two
, ,
,_J
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
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) Permanent Improvement Revolving Fund
Page Three
'\
,__I
3) Revenue Bond Issue
4) Special Assessments
b. Maintenance
1) Current Revenue
a) Water Trunk Fund
5. Sidewalks
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
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)
b)
Grants
Developer Contributions
I
I.
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.
Improvements are being constructed under City of Andover Project
No. 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
fai~ly 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. are as
follows:
~
PAGE 20
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
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.
,
\
'J
PAGE 21
:)
"j
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:
By:
James E. Schrantz - City Admin.
(Development Company)
William G. Hawkins-City Attorney
By:
Its:
By:
Its:
PAGE 22
MAR- 1-90 THU 16:32
P.02
:) 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 Eoulevard 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 within 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
,J
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 S462.3S8 authorized the City to enter into a performance
contract secu:t'ed 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 City installed improvements to the
benefited property.
-1-
MAR- 1-90 THU 16:32
P.03
~-)
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises
of the pa~ties 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 conditionsl
A. The Developer shall do all site grading including
the front 100 feet of the lots, common g~eenway
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.
E. The Developer shall control soil erosion insuring I
1. All development shall conform to the natural
limitations presented by the Topography and
soil of the subdivision in order to create
~he 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.
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.
-2-
MAR- 1-90 THU 16:33
P.04
~-)
3.
Land shall be developed in increments of
workable size such that adequate erosion and
siltation controls can be provided as con~
struction proqresses. 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.
c. . 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.
D. The Developer shall make all necessary adjustments
to the curb stops to bring them flush with the
topsoil (after grading).
E. The Developer shall remove all dead and diseased
trees before building permits will be issued.
F. 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.
G. The Developer 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-
MAR- 1-90 THU 16:33
P.05
, ')
'--'"
General Requirementss
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
operating 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 City
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 followss
Description of
Improvements
Estimated
Cost
Date to be
Completed
1.
2.
3.
4.
,
I
,-j
-4-
MAR- 1-90 THU 16:34
P.El6
~.,)
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. Const.ruct.ion. 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
conditions 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-
MAR- 1-90 THU 16:35
t-' . '" ~
, '\
'-)
Developer will furnish to, and at all times
thereaftel:' maintain with the City, a cash
deposit, certified check, Irrevocable Letter
of Credit, or a Performance Bond, based on
one hundl:'ed fifty (150%) percent of the total
estimated cost of Deyeloper'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 dra'W', 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.
s.
Reduction of Escro'W' Guarantee. The Developer
may request reduction of the Letter of
Credit, Performance Bond, or cash deposit
based on prepayment or the valu~ 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
poiicies 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 be constructed and installed by the
City to serve the Subdivision on the terms and conditions herein
set forths
A.
Street grading, graveling and stabilizing,
including construction of berms and boulevards
(hereinafter called "Street Improvements")
,J
-6-
MAR- 1-90 THU 16:35
P.0S
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" )
:,J
B.
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 II )
G.
,--_/
1.
Construction Procedures. All such improve-
ments set out in Paragraph 1 above shall be
instituted, constructed and financed as
follows I ~he 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
contract awarded for the installation of
improvements under the City's complete
supervision.
Securitv. Levv of Special Assessments and
Reauired 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
cash escrow or letter of credit in an amount
equal to fifteen (l5%) 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
2.
-7-
MAR- 1-90 THU 16:36
P.09
:)
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 reason- able 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 l5 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 ita
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 Payments of Special Assessments bv
Developer. Developer, its heirs, successors
or assigns 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 agJ:'eement against such
property.
'.
'J
-8-
MAR- 1-90 THU 16:37
''I
. '--/
\
',J
P. 10
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. S429.0Gl, Subd. 3 for
collection the following year. The City, at
its option, may commence legal action against
the Developer 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-
MAR- 1-90 THU 16:37
P. 1 1
'oJ
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 within the plat on which the
assessments have not been paid.
~ECORDING AND RELEASE. The Developer agrees that
4.
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 Develop~ent 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 1n 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 improvements.
G.
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-
MAR- 1-90 THU 16:38
',J
,
~J
P. 12
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/lOO ($1,000,000.00) Dollars for each occurrence;
limi ts for property damage shall be not less than Two Hundred
Thousand and no/lOO ($200,000.00) Dollars for each occurrence;
Or a combination single limit policy of One Million and nO/lOO
($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-
MAR- 1-90 THU 16:39
P. 13
~J coverage prior to the City signing the plat. The certificate
shall provide that the City must be given ten (lO) days advance
written notice of the cancellation of the insurance. The
certificate may not contain any disclaimer for failure to give
the required notice.
lO. REIMB~RSEMENT 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. Bindinq Effect. The terms and provisions 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
given 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.
, ,
'J
-12-
MAR- 1-90 THU 16:50
. - '\
\._)
,-)
P. 01
Final Plat: Approved. The City agrees to gtye
final approval to the plat of the Subdivision upon
execution and delivery of this agreement and of
all required petitions, bond and security.
D. Incorporation 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.
C.
l3. 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:
Ey
. Clerk
-13-
MAR- 1-90 THU 16:39
P. 14
. -\
'-)
STATE OF MINNESOTA)
) 58.
COUNTY OF ANOKA )
On this
day of
, 19___, before me,
a Notary Public within and for said County, personally appeared
James E. Elling and Victoria Volk, to me known to be respec-
tively the Mayor and Clerk of the City of Andover, and who
executed the foregoinq instrument and acknowledged that they
executed the same on behalf of said city.
Notary Public
STATE OF MINNESOTA)
) 5S.
COUNTY OF ANOKA )
On this
day 0:1:
, 19___, before me,
a Notary Public within and for said County, personally appeared
and
and
, to me known to be the
of
, a corporation organized and existing under the
laws of the State of Minnesota, and who executed the foreqoing
ins'trwnent and acknowledged that they executed the same on
behalf of said corporation.
Notary Public
,-j
This instrument was drafted byz
Burke and Hawkins
299 Coon Rapids Blvd., '101
Coon Rapids, MN 55433
,
-14-
o
CITY OF ANDOVER
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
DATE Ml'l rr-h I;
FOR
AGENDA SECTION
NO.
ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT
Administration
ITEM
NO.
8. Election Equipment
Purchase status
,BY:
The City Council is requested to review the action of the County
Board dealing with the election equipment (optical scan system) to
evaluate the City's options, if any.
Attached is the motion made by Paul McCarron authorizing the
leasing of a system. The County Board approved the motion.
Note some of the concerns that Commissioner McCarron has in the
technical comments attached.
I have marked with a * in the margin items he highlighted at a
meeting 2/23/90.
Also attached are estimated costs and a copy of the Feb~uary 12,
1990 meeting summary.
The optical election equipment hasn't been certified by the
Secretary of State's office, therefore, the County has opted to
lease until the certification when they will buy the equipment. I
have been told this will happen before May 1, 1990.
How does this affect Andover's plan to bond? We need to buy to
bond for the equipment.
The bonding also is planned as an overlevy.
Some cities are having a problem with the $9.00/hr. 15 cents/CAP
is about $2000 that we will get from the County but cost the city?
COUNCIL ACTION
MOTION BY
, "-
~ TO
SECOND BY
SENT BY:Xerox Telecopier 7021 3- 1-90 9:10AM
COUNTY ADMIN."
;# 2
CERTIFIED MOTION
~J
1.
Commissioner McCarron made motion authorizing the following relating to an optical scan
system with the County using the optical scan system in the 1990 elections, unless the
vendor is unable to perform within an acceptable time period:
A. Authorize leasing a system compatible with the optical scan system to be acquired
by several Anoka County municipalities.
B. Authorizing application to the Secretary of State's Office to operate this system
under the "Experimental Use" provision of Minn. Stat. ~ 206.18. The County will
assume responsibility for the election programming.
C. Authorizing entering into joint powers agreements with the municipalities for purposes
of accomplishing these objectives.
D. Authorizing a 15<< per capita, based on the Metropolitan Council's county population
estimates of February 23, 1990, County subsidy for augmentation of the municipal
per-hour fee paid election judges, providing the resulting pay is at least $9 per hour.
Commissioner Haas Steffen seconded the motion. Upon roll call vote, Commissioners
Haas Steffen, Langfeld, Erhart, Cenaiko, McCarron and Kordlak voted ''yes.'' Motion carried.
) SS
)
I, John "Jay" McUnden, County Administrator, Anoka County, Minnesota, hereby certify that
I have compared the foregoing copy of the minutes of the County Board of said County with the
original record thereof on file in the Administration Office, Anoka County, Minnesota, as stated in
the minutes of the proceedings of said County Board at a meeting duly held on February 27, 1990,
and that the same is a true and correct copy of said original record and of the whole thereof, and
that said Motion was duly passed by said Board at said meeting.
Witness my hand and seal this 1 $t day of March, 1990.
STATE OF MINNESOTA
COUNTY OF ANOKA
-::_)
~~~
J N "JAY" CLI DEN
County Administrator
;,
~
TECHNICAL COMMENTS ON:
2.
1.
Mun1-cipalities
3.
Election equipment
optical scan system bid proposals
Technical concerns
Reviewed and accepted by
Anoka County Commissioner Paul McCarron
Written by Paula Yankee ?V
2/21/90
The following comments are offered to assist Anoka County and
Municipalities in reviewing election technical issues. I have
conferred with Maureen Gaalaas on the election equipment bid
proposals and general Anoka County Auditor election functions and
overall concerns. I have reviewed the bid proposals and investigated
technical aspects of Unisys and Business Records Corporation (BRC)
systems. Legal concerns are not addressed in this document.
In 1987, a technical overview of election equipment was provided to
the Auditors Task Force on Election Equipment. Optical scan ballot
counting was reviewed as a possible long term solution and
investment. The County looked forward to more vendors entering the
optical scan system market to make costs more competitive.
In 1990, there is one vendor currently certified in the Minnesota
that can accommodate the volume of voting in Anoka County and there
is one vendor seeking certification in the Minnesota that can
likewise accommodate Anoka County.
ELECTION EQUIPMENT
1. Technically, the 1990 offered optical scan systems are comparable
to the 1987 offered hardware and software with minor technical
and service improvements. With t~2 major vendor players, both the
County and Municipalities can now compare systems.
MUNICIPALITIES BID PROPOSALS
,)
2. The fOllowing are concerns regarding the existing and any future
RFP for optical scan systems:
A. Whichever vendor is awarded a bid, the Municipalities and the
County must "hold the vendors feet to the ground" in
performance of all programming services. This programming is
not standard business programming nor is it quickly picked up
and learned or applied by existing personnel. This programming
is specific to these particular election voting systems. It is
also essential to realize that there will be on-g9~~9
programming costs.
,
1 of 4
B. If there is a shift to the Municipalities in certain voting
responsibilities, this must be made clear by agreement before any
election so that the responsibilities of the County and
Municipalities are clearly stated. If Municipalities take on
equipment and systems that perform certain election tasks and in
the event of problems, failure and recount, the cities must
recognize that they take on new responsibilities. Are smaller y
municipalities willing to and aware that they may need to conduct
their own public accuracy tests? ~.a
Cov'VJ5 LoQ4a.y
C. It is suggested that warranty dates start from the first vote
count. Prior to the first vote count,-vendors provide training to
local staff but equipment is generally not in daily operation.
D. However, the County and Municipalities should be able to utilize
the optical scan equipment for other purposes so that it is not
sitting idle in off election years and months. Therefore, bids
should request programming and service cost estimates for other
usages as well. For example, it is suggested that optical scan
equipment also be utilized for the performance of other "count"
functions e.g., surveys. This flexibility would make better use of
taxpayers dollars. For example, perhaps the equipment could be used
to tally survey questionnaires and information of Anoka County
citizens on a variety of issues e.g., receptivity to a recycling
idea, community development concerns, planning surveys, etc.
~J
E. Let's be clear with vendors on County and Municipality need for
on-site technical support. In future elections, particularly 1992,
there may be a need for m9~~ on-site help and it is important to
recogniza the need for the participating site to pay for such
services.
F. Maintenance requirements need to be specifically defined by the
County and Municipalities. It is recommended that we request
on-site annual maintenance. In spite of the higher costs, there
are hidden costs and administrative headaches with depot
maintenance. For example, an intermittent hardware or software
problem may not be resolvable with a central depot maintenance
because the problem may be an on-site problem. Also, the time and
cost for Municipalities and the County to transport, maintain
cartons, and crate equipment to a central depot has an impact. The
vendor does not maintain crates, storage space, nor will the vendor
transport the equipment to and from the central maintenance depot.
It is important to also know where the central location is, as this
impacts transportation and repair turn around time.
G. Unisys required a 120 day leadtime from date of order in its bid
therefore, delivery before May 1, 1990 may not be possible.
H. Other hidden, on-going costs include training costs in each
subsequent year for election officials, precinct judges, election
creation, ballot creation, pre-election testing, election day.
What is specifically included in a vendor's training for a specific
year of service?
<J
2 of 4
\,
*-
.;;r
"*
----
???
A1 rl-'-( (
*
I. Unlike punch card tabulators, optical scan ballot boxes do not
sequentially stack ballots, therefore in the event of a problem or
recount, ballots could not be tracked audited in reverse. While thiSJ
may not be a critical issue, all jurisdictions should be aware of ,~
this fact. "*
~J
J. While the~eed of tallying results is a great improvement over
prior counting methods, it is essential to note that in the event of
a recount the Municipalities would need to re- process ballots on
the Unisys equipment at rate of approximately 1000 ballots per 1/2
hr to 1 1/2 hr! The Accu- vote optical scan processes ballots at an
average of 12 ballots per minute. For instance, for 3000 votes
cast, it would take more than 4 hours to recount with Unisys
equipment. With the BRC equipment, it is estimated that it would
take more than 16 hours to recount 3000 ballots! In this arena,
recounting the same on punchcards would take 10 to 15 minutes. If a
city-wide recount'were demanded, the ability of optical scan
equipment to provide timely results may be an issue Municipalities
need to consider.
*
K. If Anoka County does not participate or does not gear up i~megi~~~lY- ~
for optical scan in 1990, the Municipalities must accept the
programming charges, administrative responsibilities and election
preparation services. The County and Municipalities must be clear on
election responsibilities before elections no matter what count
methods and equipment are implemented.
L. It is not clear in the BRC bid on what their on-site (if any)
service provides. The County and Municipalities need to state the
maintenance requirements so that we are clear on what BRC will
provide and at what cost or additional costs. Maintenance cannot be
described as on-site Q~ depot repair. It must be clearly one or the
other.
Unisys:
M. Concern is expressed below regarding Unisys and BRC pricing.
11.
2) .
BRC:
3) .
4) .
,
I
'J
A $45,000 license fee is shocking. For that kind of a fee,
there should be no additional charges for any programming or
services. Also, it should be clarified in writing if this is
a County-wide fee or a fee for eE~q city. This is not clearly
identified in the existing bid proposal.
*
7
.
7
The 20 day installation support charge of $20,000 appears to
me to be a double charge. The bidder had already identified
warranty and service charges. If this is not part of warranty
or service, then the bidder needs to specify what this $20,000
charge includes and what is the significance of the 20 day
limi t?
*
7
.
7
It was difficult to decipher the BRC programming costs in
Section V. Specifically references to formulas, attachments
and additional sections were confusing.
As previously stated, exclusions and inclusions in maintenance
options are not clear.'
\,
3 of 4
OVERVIEW OF TECHNICAL CONCERNS
~~)
,--,
~~
3. Some years ago, Anoka County Municipalities were eager to change
from the existing voting equipment to punch card equipment. In
the mid-1980's, the same Municipalities expressed dismay with
their choice.
Now some cities are eager to convert to optical scan systems.
While the advantages of scanning equipment have been repeatedly
stated, it is critical to understand the nature of
technology(iesl. Are we jumping on another bandwagon at
substantial cost to the taxpayers only to ask to change again in
5 years or less to another system at additional costs to
taxpayers? What if Unisys or BRC develops a newer election
system and reduces their response and level of service to the
"old" optical scan equipment? Isn't this what some BRC users
are experiencing now with "old" BRC punch card equipment?
With technical changes come associated costs and procedural
adjustments that impact operations and personnel. Please be
aware that technOlogies change rapidly, there are always "new
kids and toys on the block". There are suggestions even now of
terminal-like voting booths whereby voters push buttons for
their favorite candidates and issues that electronically and
immediately register and tally their votes.
Are the Municipalities going to be unhappy with optical scan in
less than 5 years and want terminal voting, voting from your TV
screen, etc? How many vendors will be competing for business at
substantial price breaks in 1991, 1992, 1993...1996? What are
the consequences of multiple systems?
Should the County and cities establish long-range election
goals, guidelines and a unified approach to elections?
,
4 of 4
:J
1990 PRIMARY & GENERAL ELECTION
COST ESTIMATES
PUNCHCARD SITUATION
City County
Costs Costs Total
Punchcard Ballots -0- $25,600 $25,600
Votomatic Pages $2,426 $29,858 $32,284
Paper Ballots $2,367 $ 3,767 $ 6,134
Precinct Forms $ 5,300 $ 5,300
Mise/Hinges/Masks $ 1,350 $ 1,350
Programming:
Vendor Provides $9,70l $ 5,223 $14,924
County Provides Not Available
Maintenance:
ELPAC 6 Units $2,400 $l,200 $ 3,600
TOTAL $l6,894 $72,298 $89,l92
l) Assumes current responsibilities remain the same
, "
,-)
\
'-J
')
'-_/
1990 PRIMARY & GENERAL ELECTION
COST ESTIMATES
OPTICAL SCAN
Countv Costs
Ballots
$54,000
$ l,OOO
$55,000
Forms
TOTAL
OPTION A - County Provides Programs & Equipment
City Costs
County Costs
Precinct Scanner
Maintenance lOO units
$23,200
County Maintenance:
Hardware
$2,748
Software
Vendor to Provide
OPTION B - County Lease of Equipment
Vendor to Provide
OPTION C
Vendor Provides Programs
primary/General Vote
Counting Programs
$11,600
Precinct Counter Maintenance Options:
Option 1 - Onsite - $464 unit
Option 2 - Central - $232 unit
Option 3 - Time & Materials
Note:
I - Yearly maintenance charges could be used to purchase spare
units. Units would be repaired on a time & material basis.
2 - All local elections during the year would be programmed free
of charge.
. '
:J
,
,J
Optical Scan Labor Savings vs. Current Punchcard Voting
Election Judges
Staff Election Night
TOTAL LABOR SAVINGS
USING OPTICAL SCAN
City
$8,640
$3,600
$l5,700
County
N/A
$3,460
8
~-)
1991 MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS
PUNCH CARD OPTICAL SCAN PAPER
City City City
Cost Cost Cost
Paper Ballots $600 $6,000 $3,864
Punchcard N/C 1 N/l>1
Votomatic Pages $2,448
Forms $l,OOO
Misc. Mask Hinges $400
Programming
Vendor Provides $3,000
County Provides Not Available No Charge ~
TOTAL $7,448 $6,000 $3,864
l. Assumes using remaining punchcard ballots from 1990
2. Anoka County provides programming free of charge
3. Figures do not include a primary election, if necessary
~)
Meeting Summary
Optical Scan Informational Meeting
February 12, 1990
Commissioner Paul McCarron opened the meeting by explaining that
the 1987 Elections Task Force had previously recommended purchase of
optical scan equipment for the 1992 elections. However, circumstances
are such that there is demonstrated interest on the part of various
cities in Anoka County in purchasing optical scan voting equipment
ahead of schedule. Provisions stated by these cities for buying this
equipment include the fact that the cities have based their purchase
agreement of said equipment contingent upon the county's participation
in the project.
Commissioner McCarron indicated that the meeting would provide a
forum for the cities to explain their position and for other interested
parties to offer information and ask questions. He then called for
any representatives from the cities to address the group.
Tom Ryan, mayor pro-tem of the City of Blaine, outlined the history
of the cities' current involvement with optical scan, and the reasons
that many of the cities wish to accelerate the timetable for buying
an optical scan system. These reasons include; ease of use, timeliness
of results, increased public confidence, better audit trail, more appeal
for election judges, conformance with systems used in the rest of the
metro area. Mr. Ryan explained that it is the responsibility of each
municipality to determine which type of voting system its residents
will use, but that cooperation with the county in the past has been
advantageous for the municipalities as a whole. He indicated that
on November l5, 1989, after being approached by Business Records
Corporation, eight Anoka County cities representing approximately 3/4
of the precincts in the county had decided to enter into a joint powers
agreement in order to issue a request for proposals for optical scan
systems. After the proposals were received, representatives of the
eight cities met again and voted to accept the proposal submitted by
Unisys Corp., contingent upon Unisys certification by the state and
also upon Anoka County's agreement to participate.
Mr. Ryan also read portions of letters received from other election
jurisdictions detailing their experience with optical scan. He also
expressed strong support from the City of Blaine for the move to optical
scan.
Discussion ensued on the matter. Support for the project was
voiced by elected representatives from Coon Rapids (Mayor Rick Reiter,
Councilmembers Thorsvik, Racutt, and Voss), Ham Lake (Mayor Marilyn
Schultz), Spring Lake Park (Councilmember John Conde), and Blaine
(Councilmembers Ryan and Stenstrom).
~~
Roger Grams, East Bethel mayor, expressed concern that some of the
smaller cities do not have the tax base of the larger cities and are
therefore unprepared to spend the money it would take to purchase the
required units. Don Busch, City Clerk of Spring Lake Park indicated
that the city has been putting away funds for the purchase, but has
not saved enough yet to buy the units that would be needed.
Meeting Summary - Continued - Page 2
, -"
'-..-)
Commissioner McCarron informed the group that the county has
set aside $82,000 of $164,000 to be accumulated by the county by the
end of 1991.
A question arose regarding the status of the state certification
of the Unisys system. Commissioner McCarron quoted from a letter from
Joe Mansky, Director of the State Election Division. Mr. Mansky
indicated that the certification will not be completed until probably
the end of April or the beginning of May.
Tom Durand form the Secretary of State's Office, told the group
that although the certification is not complete, the Secretary of
State's Office would be willing to allow experimental use of uncerti-
fied equipment.
Questions also came up about what the county costs would be for
programming such a system, and what the vendor could promise for
delivery dates.
Commissioner McCarron passed out samples of the optical scan ballots
used in the state's testing of the Unisys system. There was then some
discussion of the wisdom of Flacing candidates names on the backs of
ballots.
Commissioner Natalie Haas Steffen brought up the question of whether
the vendor would be willing to help with financing the system, especially
for smaller municipalities.
Commissioner Jim Kordiak raised a question regarding the type of tests
to be performed on the equipment in the Georgia Tech independent testing.
Apparently these are stress tests of the system.
Coon Rapids Councilmembers Voss and Racutt expressed their wish
to switch to optical scan at this time in order to 1.) Help the
election judges, and 2.) Avoid having to use the system ofr the first
time in a presidential year.
Mayor Marilyn Schultz of Ham Lake indicated that her community
has been budgeting for the equipment, is dissatisfied with the current
punch card system, and wishes to buy into the optical scan.
Commissioner Margaret Lang'feld said she thinks most. feel the
current system is unacceptable, and that this meeting indicates that
the jurisdictions within the county are in the process of working out
the details of changing systems.
Sheriff Ken Wilkinson asked if it is possible for the county
to adopt optical scan in phases and was told it is possible.
, ,
\
"j
Blaine Councilmember Stenstrom suggested that the county might
look into leasing units to some of the smaller municipalities.
Meeting Summary-Continued-page 3
~
Commissioner McCarron set the next group meeting for February 23,
1990, at 1 PM at the Spring Lake Park Community Center Council Chambers.
Objectives to be met prior to the next meeting:
1. Get specific cost estimates for all phases of county participation.
2. Examine lowering of a proposed $45,000/year anual licensing fee.
Commissioner McCarron indicated this is totally unacceptable.
3. Determine what is included in licensing and maintenance fees from
the county's point of view.
4. Consult county attorney as to legal process to be followed (i.e.
is the county bound by the cities' acceptance of Unisys proposal
or is there a possibility of opening bids again.)
5. Check on possibility of vendor financing.
6. Determine cost projections for a five year period, both city and
county.
7. Get costs for vendor programming versus in-house programming,
8. Address question of what would be done with current equipment and
whether any allowance is made for said equipment in the bid
proposals.
,~
o
CITY OF ANDOVER
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
AGENDA SECTION
NO. Staff, Committee,
DATE March 6. lQQO
ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT
ITEM
NO.9. Kensington Estates
5th Cit Costs
BY:
FOR
Engineering
The City Council is requested to approve the costs for
improvements outside the Kensington 5th Addition Improvement
project 90-3.
The project is out for bid.
During the design phase for the storm sewer the storm sewer costs
outside the plat were determined.
The street paving and curb and gutter in Red Oaks stub streets
should be made part of this project and not left unpaved.
Attached are TKDA's recommendation and costs.
COUNCIL ACTION
SECOND BY
()KDA
TOLTZ. KING, DUVALL. ANDERSON
AND ASSOCIATES, INCORPORATED
ENGINEERS ARCHITECTS PLANNERS
2500 AMERICAN NATIONAL BANK BUR-DING
SAINT PAUL. MINNESOTA 55101
6121202...uOO
FAX 612/202.0083
February 23,1990
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Auldover,~esota
Re: Kensington 5th Addition 90-3
Commission No. 9695
Dear Mayor and Council:
The plat of Kensington 5th Addition does abut Red Oaks Manor 4th and 5th Addition.
Comlection to streets and utilities occur at Raven Street on the west and Nightingale Street on the
east.
Raven Street is constructed to the south property line of Kensington 5th Addition. However,
street surface must be removed in order to connect to the existing sanitary and stonn sewers as
well as meet street grades. The estimated cost outside of the Kensington Estates plat is
$1.200 +/-.
Ni!!htingale Street is non-existent north of l40th Lane NW. As a result approximately 150 feet
of street, curb and gutter and a storm sewer collection system will be required to connect the
street and utility systems. The estimated cost outside of the Kensington Estates plat is
$6.000 +/-.
In both cases the City park properties abut the streets on one side. Only street and storm sewer
costs are involved. No sanitary sewer or watemJain extensions were considered to benefit
property outside the plat of Kensington Estates 5th Addition,
Consideration that these costs be City costs have been requested. Since they are outside the plat
of Kensington Estates 5th Addition and abut City park property, the request should be
considered,
Financing of the City share could be from any cash reserves in original Red Oaks Manor 4th and
5th Additions bond funds or as Council might direct
Sincerely,
..J~~~
JLD/mha
(J
CITY OF ANDOVER
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
DATE M"r....h,:; 1 oon
Engineering
~>c'<
AGENDA SECTION
NO.
ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT
ITEM
NO.
10. Feasibility Report
90-5
BY:
The City Council is requested to approve the resolution accepting
the feasibility report, waiving the public hearing, ordering the
improvements and directing the preparation of plans and
specifications for Hidden Creek East 3rd Addition.
Developer to escrow $20,000 for plans and specifications.
COUNCIL ACTION
MOTION BY
"-,
'..J TO
SECOND BY
CITY OF ANDOVER
COUNTY OF ANOKA
STATE OF MINNESOTA
o
RES. NO.
MOTION by Councilman
to adopt the following:
A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING FEASIBILITY STUDY, WAIVING PUBLIC HEARING,
ORDERING IMPROVEMENT AND DIRECTING PREPARATION OF PLANS AND
SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE IMPROVEMENT OF PROJECT 90-5 FOR WATERMAIN,
SANITARY SEWER, STORM DRAIN AND STREET WITH CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER
IN THE FOLLOWING AREA HIDDEN CREEK EAST 3RD ADDITION.
WHEREAS, the City Council did on the 6th day of February, 1990,
order the preparation of a feasibility study for the improvements;
and
WHEREAS, such feasibility study was prepared by TKDA and
presented to the Council on the 6th day of March, 1990; and
WHEREAS, the property owners have waived the right to a Public
Hearing; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the feasibility study and
declares the improvement feasible, for an estimated cost of
$323,570.00.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Andover to hereby receive the feasibility report with an estimated
total cost of improvements of $323,570.00, waive the Public Hearing
and order improvements.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the City Council to hereby direct the
firm of TKDA to prepare the plans and specifications for such
improvement project.
BE IT STILL FURTHER RESOLVED by the City Council to hereby
require the developer to escrow the sum of $20,000.00 with such
payments to be made prior to commencement of work on the plans and
specifications.
MOTION seconded by Councilman
City Council at a
Meeting this
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:
'~
James E. Elling - Mayor
Victoria Volk - City Clerk
, ".
'~KDA
TOLTZ. KING. DUV^LL. ^NDERSON
^ND ^SSOCI^TES. INCORPOR^TED
ENGINEERS ARCHITECTS PLANNERS
February 19, 1990
2500 ^MERIC^N N^TION^L B-'NK BUILDING
SNNT P^Ul, MINNESOT^ 55101
8121202...4.0400
FAA 612J2ll2-oo63
Honorable Mayor and City Council
)urrdover,~esota
Re: Feasibility Report Update
Hidden Creek East - 3rd Addition
Project 90-5
)urrdover,Mlitnesota
Commission No. 9716
Dear Mayor and Council:
The above referenced project is the third phase of Hidden Creek East, as noted in the feasibility
rep01t for Project 87-1, dated January 29,1987. That report details all improvements and covers
project costs and details. This letter amends that report for the 3rd Addition.
Cost Estimate
The third addition proposes 38 residential lots. The cost estimate, based on the feasibility report,
is as follows:
Estimated Construction Cost per Unit:
$6,065 (1987) x 1.08 (ENR Index)
$ 6,550,00
Estimated Total Construction Cost (38 Lots)
248,900,00
Project Expenses
74,670,00
$323,570.00
Estimated Total Project Cost
Estimated Assessments
Estimated Project Assessment Rate, $323,570/38 Lots =
$ 8,515,00
:~
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Andover, Milmesota
February 19, 1990
" ' '\ Page Two
'---)
Trunk: charges are based on the 1990 rates for sewer and water.
Sanitary Trunk: Charge, $912.00/Acre x 13.7 Acres
12,494.40
13,316.40
8,846.02
Water Trunk Charge*, $972/Acre x 13.7 Acres
Sanitary Sewer Connection Charge, $232,9 x 38 Lots
Watennain Connection Charge*, $1,055 x 38 Lots
40,090,00
Storm Sewer Area Charge**, $600 x 38 Lots
22.800.00
Total Estimated Improvement Cost
$421,117.00
Total Estimated hnprovemellt Assessment Rate:
$421.117 = $11,082.00
38 Lots
*
100 lots within the SW 1/4 of the SW 1/4, Section 34, Township 32, Range 24 have been
assessed for water trunk: and cOlUlection charges.
** The anticipated area storm sewer assessment for 1990 is $1,742.40 per acre or
approximately $600.00 per lot.
Sincerely yours,
Jolm L. Davidson, P.E.
JLD:j
" ,
,.J
,,-)
'-
~ / I UIIli!J \
VERDIN ST. NW ~ :f
IIU
(; .. .. .. .. " " ...
l"l
= ;;; co :;; "'
; THRUSH ST. NW
(:;;
'"
a.
~
!"
z
~
;;: I
.. "' :;; N 0
... 0
m
z
... 0
:D
m
m
^
m
)>
Cf)
-;
N (:;;
N
.to 11:
II :T
g r- ~
J>
r ~ Z
0 '"
~ II:
. z
lj ~ II:
\
J
~
~
o
CITY OF ANDOVER
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
DATE M~r~h~. 199Q
Engineering
(fxY
AGENDA SECTION
NO.
ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT
ITEM
NO. Accept 157th Lane
11
BY:
The City council is requested to approve the follow
1. The resolution approving final grading and street
construction of 157th Lane NW in the South half of the
Southwest quarter of the Southeast quarter of Section 15-32
24.
2. A permanent easment for public road and utility purposes
other than that part of the Southeast quarter of the
Southeast quarter of Section 15-32 24. (Maynard Apel's
property) attached is a signed Quit Claim Deed.
This was tabled from the February 8, 1990 meeting until Maynard
Apel signed for a dedicated easement.
MOTION BY
,
''-..-,/ TO
COUNCIL ACTION
SECOND BY
()
:._)
CITY OF ANDOVER
COUNTY OF ANOKA
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RES. NO.
A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE FINAL GRADING AND STREET CONSTRUCTION
OF 157TH LANE IN THE SOUTH HALF OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE
SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 15-32-24.
WHEREAS, the street has been constructed to the City of
Andover's specifications.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the
City of Andover to hereby approve the final grading and street
construction of 157th Lane NW.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Andover this
day of
1990.
CITY OF ANDOVER
ATTEST:
James E. Elling - Mayor
Victoria Volk - City Clerk
./
" '\
\..J
, "
"~'
. " .";:;tt:~d
._u.."..-.;<.\..'J-....
',':'{S;,;~~~
Form No. 28-M-QUIT CLAIM DEED
Individual (51 to Corporation
or Partnership
Minnesota Uniform Conveyancing Blanks (1978)
Miller-Davis Co.. Minneapolis
No delinquent taxes and transfer entered; Certificate
of Real Estate Value ( ) filed ( ) not required
Certificate of Real Estate Value No.
,19_
County Auditor
by
Deputy
STATE DEED TAX DUE HEREON: $ EXEI1PT
Date: , 19-2.Q...
(reserved for recording data)
FOR VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, Mavnard D. Ape1 and Eleanor H. Apel,
husband and wife ,Grantor(s),
(marital status)
hereby convey (s) and quitclaim (s) to
the City of Andover
, Grantee,
rnrpor;:l:t: ion
Anoka
under the laws of Minnesota
County, Minnesota, described as follows:
a mllni~ip.11
real property in
See reverse side for complete legal.
(if more spece is needed, continue on back)
together with aU hereditaments and appurtenances belonging thereto. ,fl
~f-k~ {Y, ~
Maynard D. Apel
AffIX Deed Tax Stamp lIer"
STATE OF MINNESOTA
} ~.
COUNTY OF a~./?
c!5:~ -rl~A,~<J l, t0~-P
Eleanor 11. Apel '-.
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this I "'~ day of 'n1~~A
by M~yn~rn n Appl ~nn F.lp~nor MApel. husband and wife
,1!L2JL,
, Grantor (s).
1Nci-------------------------- --1
I NOTARIAL STAMP OR SEAL (OR OTHER TITLE OR RANK)
'.~.
I 1@....."SHIRlEYA.ClINTONI
~ ' NOTARY PUBLIC. MINNESOTA I
I ANOKA COUNTY ,
I .~~.~~.~:.~~~~~~..~.:.~'V. )
---- -~--~--~--~--
'THIs INSTRUMENT WAS DRAFTED BY (N A~ME ANo-ADDREsS);l
Burke and Hawkins
299 Coon Rapids Blvd., #101
Coon Rapids, MN 55433
AAA~~.." a. PfJ,:..,r~
SIGNATURJt'OF PERSON TAKING ACKNOWLEDGMENT
Tax Statement. for the rell property d8lcrtbed In tht. lnltrument should
be lent to (Include name and addle" of Grantee):
City of Andover
1685 Crosstown Blvd.
Andover, MN 55304
o
A permanent easement for public road and utility purposes over
that part of the Southeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of
Section 15, Township 32, Range 24, Anoka County, Minnesota,
which lies within the circumference of a 60.00 foot radius
circle, the center of said circle being the following described
point:
Commencing at the point of intersection of the east line of
the Southwest Quarter of said Southeast Quarter with the
north line of the south 314.00 feet thereof, as measured
along the west line thereof (said point of commencement also
being on the west line of said Southeast Quarter of the
Southeast Quarter); thence easterly at right angles to said
east line of the Southwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter
a distance of 50.11 feet to the point being described.
NOTICE
Anoka,
19_,
IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City of Andover, County of
State of Minnesota, has accepted on
the above described easement in this document.
Dated:
, 19_
CITY OF ANDOVER
(SEAL)
By
Clerk
~"!
\
'-J'
,".,' '''f
'..," " '-,." ......,~...
:""""'i"";'"
:::.' ":";~~t~(--;r~"
'/.t^~F :~
_:;.i,:t~;-?::~.~
, -,
\,.J
CITY OF ANDOVER
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
DATE M",r,..h I), 1990
FOR
AGENDA SECTION
NO.
ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT
Engineering
ITEM
NQ 12. Boundary Changes
BY:
The City Council is requested to approve the joint resolution of
the cities of Andover and Coon Rapids affecting the detachment of
certain lands from the City of Andover and the annexation of same
to the City of Coon Rapids; and further affecting the detachment
of certain lands from the City of Coon Rapids and the annexation
of same to the City of Andover.
This is using the centerline of 133rd Avenue from Crosstown
Boulevard/Coon Creek Boulevard to Hanson Boulevard as the city
limits.
Previously discussed: January 2, 1990, Item 11
January 16, 1990, Item 3
Enclosed: Resolution
Maps
" - '\
MOTION BY
TO
COUNCIL ACTION
SECOND BY
, -.-/
....-'..
.
"
, )
'_/
JOINT RESOLUTION OF THE CITIES OF
ANDOVER AND COON RAPIDS
ANOKA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
AFFECTING THE DETACHMENT OF CERTAIN LANDS
FROM THE CITY OF ANDOVER AND THE
ANNEXATION OF SAME TO THE CITY OF COON RAPIDS
AND FURTHER AFFECTING THE DETACHMENT OF CERTAIN
LANDS FROM THE CITY OF COON RAPIDS AND THE
ANNEXATION OF SAME TO THE CITY OF ANDOVER
WHEREAS, the Cities of Coon Rapids and Andover share a
common border; and
WHEREAS, the Cities have jointly constructed a street
running more or less along the southerly border line of Andover
and the northerly border line of Coon Rapids known as
133rd
"
Avenue; and
WHEREAS, such street meanders from the common border
line of the two cities; and
WHEREAS, as a result of such meandering roadway,
certain properties located within the City of Andover have a
Coon Rapids address and certain properties within the City of
Coon Rapids have 'an Andover address; and
WHEREAS, the fire and police departments believe that
this could cause confusion in providing emergency services to
such properties; and
WHEREAS, residents' located within Andover currently
receive utility services from the City of Coon Rapids; and
WHEREAS, both parties hereto are in agreement that the
concurrent annexation and detachment of such land described
"
hereafter is for the benefit of both communities and the
,
'J
affected properties; and
-1-
I ,
.,. ~.
.
WHEREAS, the affected property owners have agreed and
\
.~ consented to the relocation of their properties into the adja-
cent city.
NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved by the City Council of
the City of Andover and the City Council of the City of Coon
Rapids, Anoka County, Minnesota, as follows:
1. That certain premises and real property situated
in the County of Anoka, State of Minnesota, being legally
described as follows, to-wit:
See attached Exhibit A.
would be best served by detachment from the City of Andover and
annexation to the City of Coon Rapids.
"
2. That those certain premises and real property
situated in the County of Anoka, State of Minnesota, being
legally described as follows, to-wit:
See attached Exhibit B.
would be best served by detachment from the City of Coon Rapids
and annexation to the City of Andover.
3. That the City Councils of the Cities of Andover
and Coon Rapids finds that the above-described properties now
located within their cities are properly subject to concurrent
detachment and annexation by current resolutions of the two
councils of the two municipalities pursuant to Minnesota Statute
414.061.
4. That it is the desire of the City Council of the
City of Andover that the property described in Exhibit A. be
"\ concurrently detached from the City of Andover and annexed to
)
the City of Coon Rapids.
-2-
"
,
...-
.
","
5. That it is the desire of the City Council of the
'\
,~ City of Coon Rapids that the property described in Exhibit B. be
concurrently detached from the City of Coon Rapids and annexed
to the City of Andover.
6. That this resolution is being adopted concurrently
and jointly between the City Council of the City of Andover and
the City Council of the City of Coon Rapids, Anoka County,
Minnesota, approving such detachment and annexations as provided
by law.
7. That both the City Council of Andover and the City
Council of Coon Rapids request that the Minnesota Municipal
Board grant their request for the concurrent detachment and
--,
'.
annexations of the above described real property to be effective
upon issuance of the Board's Order or at such later date as
provided by the Board in it's Order.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Andover this
day of , 1990.
James Elling, Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
Passed by the City Council of the City of Coon Rapids
day of , 1990.
this
Rick Reiter, Mayor
Attest:
"1
'J Ci ty Clerk
-3-
o
__r.l~-!,~
i I . I
. I
....-....
~
~'
~
"~
,
.
,
.
.
.
'L'-
:~ ~n.._
,
"
.,
---~
,I
.,
'I
:,
"
, "-
:
,
I I
: I
I
l i I
.1 i
. ,
I
i I
1
',-
, i
.
".....ICMt.OUl.."AIII.
'/l N S{}';>/ I>L t/D
I(?
I~
~
I~
I~
I
....,.
/-........
V
CITY OF ANDOVER
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
March 6, 1990
AGENDA SECTION
NQ Non-Discussion Item
DATE
ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT
Finance
ITEM
NO.
t '3.
BY:
Howard KOOliCk~
REQUEST
The Andover City Council is requested to approve the attached
resolution designating Miller & Schroeder Financial Inc. as an
additional depository for investment purposes.
BACKGROUND
,/ -,
On January 2nd, 1990, the Andover City Council approved resolution
number 001-90 designating the City's official depositories and
supplemental depositories for investment purposes. The resolution
contained all the investment organizations with which we deal, as
well as a large number of organizations with which the City has
not dealt. Miller & Schroeder Financial, Inc. was not iQcluded in
this resolution.
"-"
I have met with a representative of Miller & Schroeder and would
like to use them as a additional depository. The benefits of
adding an additional depository may include slightly increased
rates due to competition, added security of Certificate of Deposit
investments by limiting the geographical areas in which they are
placed, an additional source of economic information and the
ability to aid the City in arbitrage calculations, compliance and
reporting.
COUNCIL ACTION
MOTION BY
"
'-../ TO
SECOND BY
~J
~~
,J
CITY OF ANDOVER
COUNTY OF ANOKA
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RES. NO. R -90
A RESOLUTION DESIGNATING MILLER & SCHROEDER FINANCIAL, INC. AS A
SUPPLEMENTAL DEPOSITORY FOR INVESTMENT PURPOSES.
WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes, Section 118 sets forth the
procedures for the deposit of public funds and requires the
Andover City Council to annually designate official depositories
and supplemental depositories for investment purposes; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Andover has
previously adopted Resolution No. 001-90 designating which
depositories may be used for investment purposes in 1990; and
WHEREAS, the City desires to add Miller & Schroeder
Financial, Inc. to the list of supplemental depositories for
investment purposes.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the
City of Andover that Miller & Schroeder Financial, Inc. is
designated as an supplemental depository for 1990 for investment
purposes only. '
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Andover on this 6th
day of March , 1990.
CITY OF ANDOVER
James E. Elling, Mayor
ATTEST:
Victoria volk, City Clerk
''1
'-J
CITY OF ANDOVER
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
AGENDA SECTION
NO.
DATE
ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT
Engineering
OR
ITEM
NO. 14. North Metro Mayor'
Association
BY:
The City Council is requested to consider joining the North Metro
Mayor and/or the North Metro Development Associations.
North Metro Mayor's Association dues are $2704.
North Metro Development Association dues are $4947.
We didn't budget for membership in the 1990 budget.
'-'
"
''-.-/
MOTION BY
TO
COUNCIL ACTION
SECOND BY
\ \
',-)
, '\
'-J
"-
I
'-./
NORTH METRO MAYORS ASSOCIATION
Organized 1985
R~liJ
January 15, 1990 CITY OF ANDOVER
Mr. James SChra~
City of Andover
1685 Crosstown Boulevard N.W.
Andover, MN 55303
Dear Mr. Schranz:
Enclosed find the 1990 membership fee invoices for:
o North Metro Mayors Association
o
North Metro Development Association.
If you have any questions please call.
8525 Edinbrook Crossing, Suite 5, Brooklyn Park. Minnesota 55443
Telephone 612-493-5115 FAX 612-424-1174