HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC May 15, 1990
. \
'--)
)
CA.'
CITY of ANDOVER
CITY COUNCIL 'WORK SESSION
May 17, 1990
7:00 P.M. Call to Order
1. Consent Decree/WDE Site
2 .
3. Adjournment
, ,__ AND9VER",
,.-J ANqKA "',
CHAMPLIN,
RAMSEY"
"" QU '-..., 2015 1st Avenue, Anoka, Minnesota 55303 . 421-6630
~UAD CITIES CABLE COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
\ May 14, 1990 "
Mayor Elling and Members of Andover City Council:
I regret that I can not personally attend the Andover Council meeting of May
15, 1990. I am enrolled in an "Amiga" computer graphics course at
Minneapolis Community College which meets on Tuesday nights.
It is my understanding, an agenda item for the Council meeting is to
determine if city staff should assist Quad Cities Community Television in the
production of city oriented information programs. Let me provide a review
of some of the objectives the Cable Commission has established and hopes to
achieve for government programming. Also, explain why city assistance is
so vital.
One of the most important functions of government programming is to give
citizens an opportunity to see their public officials in action. By covering the
deliberations of local government officials, we as community producers help
return local government to the people. This cannot be accomplished without
your cooperation. It is established that city meetings are among the
programs with local origins that enjoy a consistent viewership. City council
members from all four cities have reported that they are stopped by citizens
who have watched the meetings and commented on something that
happened during the meeting. Frankly, sometimes it is to mention some
technical difficulty of our equipment. However, the primary government
program objectives of the Commission's programming entity, Quad Cities
Community Television (QCTV-33), are to accomplish the following:
* better provide public service iruormation to the citizens of the
member cities:
* increase awareness of the activities and deliberations of the
legislative and advisory bodies of the member cities:
...J * increase the citizen's knowledge of their cities' various functions;
* determine if programming or information distribution between the
member cities is viable.
o
In light of the importance of this type of programming, not only did we need
to overcome technical problems, the Commission has spend time clarify their
policies and procedures for handling important and sometimes sensitive
government proceedings. Effective city coverage does not start when the
cameras are turned on and stop when they are turned off. The information
needs to be expanded and explained. This can only be accomplished by
people involved in the policy making decisions. In other words, we at QCTV-
33 certainly need staff assistance to allow us to expand our ability to
transmit unbiased information to the citizens of Andover concerning the
operation of the city government.
At your meeting of May 14th, Councilmembers may ask questions about
subscriber numbers and viewership numbers. It is a mistake to think along
these lines or place importance on any types of "numbers". The kind of
community programming we are trying to develop for the Quad Cities are
not driven by the traditional commercial "rating numbers". An Andover
community television show is never going to knock The Cosby Show off the
top of the viewership hill. It was never intended for that purpose. It is
unjust to try and draw a comparison of our efforts to those of the multi-
million dollar funded tv networks.
It would be better for the Council to make the analogy of a city park to
QCTV - 33 than to commercial television. Certain land and areas are
designated (mandated by ordinance) within in the boundary of the city for
the purpose of community parks. Certain channels or space is designated
(mandated by ordinance) on the cable tv system for government/community
channels. City parks require a certain amount of budge't concerns and
maintenance. The local channels require money and maintenance. No park
is ever used 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Quite likely, one may pass a city
park several times and find no one using or enjoying this property costing
funds to operate. However, it is a sure and definite fact that many, many
families will enjoy these city parks throughout any given year. Likewise,
QCTV knows cable viewers are not "glued" to our community or government
channels, but we do have a identifiable 'consistent viewership in our cities.
Viewers which appreciate that we provide tv coverage of local community
events and government deliberation when no other communications medium
is inclined to do so. A recent exclusive example being the Andover Recycling
Day.
J
\ /
- '\
,--I
The Cable Commission has established QCTV - 33 as its programming entity.
Along with the basic program production requirements, the Commission
requires of QCTV's staff of 3 the following: run two facilities: one, containing
a studio, the other an office/playback/editing/computer center; train the
volunteers: schedule all programs: archive pertinent city video: make dubs:
recommend equipment for purchase or replacement and work with the Cable
Commission to set policy for prioratizing programming between community,
government or educational. QCTV has and will continue to take care of all
technical aspects of any city programs. We try to work with city staff
always to meet and maximize their work schedules. However, we can not go
"on-the-air" for city staff or officials involved directly with the decision
making policies these programs are intended to highlight.
Actually, municipal staff should work no differently and think no differently
about a tv programming challenge and getting information to the public than
Council already requires of them to undertake. Staff should deal no
differently with daily functions of information gathering than it currently
does in preparing the written "Andover Newsletter", a publication which
already is testimony to a staff properly in tune with its community. Please
allow them the time to work with us to put this important information into a
video format.
Covering local government activities provides a valuable service to the
community. It also provides QCTV - 33 a direct link to you, our political
leadership. Further it gives us the opportunity to educate you about our
community operation, for as we expand, we will surely be calling on you for
assistance too. If government and community programming is done well,
everyone wins!!
Thank you in advance for your cooperation in accomplishing our
programming goals and again I am sorry that I am unable to address you in
person to do my school schedule. If you have any questions or concerns,
please call me to discuss at 427-1411.
(~htlE.-( I
;~1'connell
Administrator
'\
,j
~J
~' %
~/f)
~---_c. C~ ~/>/?L-)
Rr~~1:~9~~n .
/U
CITY OF ANDOVER
A"~llJJlmA
QUAD CITIES CABLE COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
ANOKA CITY HALL
May 17, 1990
1. CALL TO ORDER: 5:00 P.M.
2. ROLL CALL
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: 4/19/90
4. APPROVAL OF BILLS
5. NORTH CENTRAL ACTION ITEMS:
A. SUBSCRIBER REPORT
B. 1989 ANNUAL REPORT
C. NCTA's HISTORY OF CABLE PRESENTATION
6. COMMISSION ACTION ITEMS:
A. TREASURER'S REPORT -APRIL-
B. ACTION PLAN - ADOPTION OF JOB DESRIPTIONS
C. REVIEW NOTICES TO CITY CABLECASTERS
D. 1990 SCHOLARSHIP FUNDS-NOTICES TO SCHOOLS
7. ADMINISTATOR'S REPORT:
A. AUDIT UPDATE
8. ATTORNEY'S REPORT:
A. MR. CREIGHTON'S CHANGE OF LAW FIRMS
9. NEW BUSINESS
'\
)
, \
o
AGENDA
MEMORANDUM
1. CALL TO ORDER: Chair Cotten will call the meeting to order at 5:00.
2. ROLL CALL: Mava will take the roll for the benefit of the home
viewers
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Minutes of 4/19/90
4. APPROVAL OF THE BILLS: The bills this month are as follows:
* Spring Clean,
* U,S, West Comm"
* A/V Wholesalers,
#36730 -
* City of Anoka,
$ 225.00 - Aprll cleaning
$ 113,60 - Phone service,
$ 1 ,050.00Cinvoice breakdown below)
1,050.00 - Champlin Camcorder
$ 1,825.39 - Commission's portion of invoice,
5. NORTH CENTRAL ACTION ITEMS: ChaIr Cotten has requested that I
changed the order of agenda to break up my responsibllities of reportIng as
much as posslb Ie. Therefore I have moved the company's report up on the
agenda.
A. Subscriber Report--Enclosed Is Kathi's company reports and the
statistics for the previous month's activity. Please review and direct any
questions you may have to her.
B. 1990 Annual Report--On April 6th Cable TV North Central
dellvered Its 1989 Annual Report. ThIs document accompanied the agenda
packets last month. I have reviewed this year's document and find in to
meet all of the criteria established by the franchise ordInance. Each of
you should look through the entire document, but if you don't have time to
page througtilt all, I have ctiecked the Important sections on the table of
contents, Please review sections.. 2, 6, 7, and 12, If j'ou should have any
questions regarding the annual report, please brln~o the meeting and
Kathl or I w111 answer them, If you find the report to be satisfactory, It
would be appropriate to off1cially accept the annual report via a motion,
C. NCT A's HIstory or Cable TV--Kathi w111 be bringing a short video
tape produced by the National Cable Television Association detailing the
history of cable televis1on. It should prove informative for the newer
members and provide an good refresher course for all of us
)
,J
)
- Page Two -
6. COMMISSION ACTION ITEMS:
A. Treasurer's Report--Report 15 Included In the packet. I have
reviewed the report with Melinda Coleman, I w1ll give the oral
report for the Treasurer,
B. Act10n Plan-Job Desrlptlons--The motlon to accept the 1990
Action Plan at last month's meeting called for Job descrlptlons to be
written and included in the plan. Please review the enclosed descriptions
for both the Facilitator/Producer and the Program Producers, If
acceptable,1 think theV1 will be automatically included in 1990 Actlon Plan
with no further act i on necessary.
C. Rev1ew of City Cablecasters--QCTV-33 has sent a notice to
all the employees that cable cast city meetings. We are going to piece
several meetings together and review them providing the operators with
constructive suggestions on improving their coverage of these
proceedings. We w1l1 also be looking at the Councils and staffs to help
improve their "on-air" conducting of meetings as suggested by the
Commission members. The meeting is scheduled for Thursday, May 24th at
6:00p.m.
D. 1990 Scholarshlp--Enclosed 1s a copy of the notice I sent to
several area schools and colleges.
7. ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT:
A. Aud1t Update--A meeting is scheduled for May 15th with
representatlves of the accounting form of McGladery & Pullen to discuss
the proper procedures, timing, franchise requirements, etc. I will provide
an oral update at our meeting
8. ATTORNEY'S REPORT: Tom Creighton returned to his former Law
Firm. He wll1 provide detalls of his decision and what 1t wll1 mean to the
Cable Commission.
9. NEW BUSINESS: Any business which is not directly addressed by the
agenda items can be brought up and discussed at this point in the
meeting.
'''.
.:J
ANDOVER.
---
ANOKA ",
CHAMPLIN
.___ w_____..__..
RAMSEY',
" '. .
"'..,0 U'.. 2015 1st Avenue, Anok~~~~~~~~~~03 · 421-6630
"-,-" AD CITIES CABLE COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
"
QUAD CITIES CABLE COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
April 19,1990
CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Gerald Cotten called the meeting to order at 5:00
p.m.
ROLL CALL
Commissioners present were Chairman Gerald
Dulgar (5:07 6:02 p.m.): William Haas,
Netzloff; Gary Reimann: and Gerry Wegner.
absent were Melinda Coleman and Randy Johnson.
Cotten: Jerry
Jr.: Richard
Commissioners
Others present included Kathi Donnelly-Cohen, Cable TV North
Central; Terry O'Connell and Torn Creighton, Commission staff:
and Joe Perrin, ABC Newspaper.
APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES
Motion was made by Haas, seconded by Wegner, to APPROVE THE
MARCH 22, 1990, MEETING MINUTES AS PRINTED.
VOTE: 5 ayes - D nayes. Motion carried.
APPROVAL OF THE BILLS
O'Connell reported
the December 1989
$7 5 0 . 0 0 .
the per diems paid to QCCCC members for
and the first quarter of 1990 totaled
The March bill for legal services, as indicated on the April
4, 1990, billing, totaled $768.35.
The April 13, 1990, bill from the City of Anoka totaled
$8,039.08. Of that, $6,223.86 will be paid for by QCTV-33:
and the Commission will pay the remaining $1,815.22.
. -..
\
'-~
The total bill from A/V Wholesalers carne to $862.35.
#34419, in the amount of $350.00 for two microphones
City of Andover, will be paid out of the Commission's
Invoice
for the
budget.
QCCCC
April
Page
Meeting l1inutes
19, 1990
2
'-)
The following invoices, totaling $512.35, will corne from the
QCTV-33 budget: #34420 for $20.00, barrel1 connector; #34720
for $143.93, one hour 3/4 inch tapes; #35060 for $191.72, 10
minute 3/4 inch tapes; #35123 for $21.70, camera repair;
#36007 for $45.00, camera repair; and #36131 for $90.00, tape
deck rapairs.
The remaining bills provided in the agenda packet are as
follows: Spring Clean, l1arch services, $225.00; U. S. West
Communications, $113.10; Collins Communications Systems Co.,
$82.50; Dartek, $299.95; Channels Magazine, $45.00; City of
Ramsey, computer classes, $68.36; and Frederick's Accounting
and Tax Service, quarterly statement, $200.00.
l1otion was made by Haas, seconded by Reimann, to APPROVE
PAYMENT OF THE BILLS FOR BOTH THE QUAD CITIES CABLE COl1MUNI-
CATIONS COMMISSION AND QCTV-33, AS PRESENTED BY STAFF.
VOTE: 5 ayes - 0 nayes. l1otion carried.
NORTH CENTRAL ACTION ITEMS
Subscriber Report
Ms. Donnelly-Cohen presented Cable TV North Central's sub-
scriber report along with statistics for the previous month's
activities. Their abandonment rates have been reduced, with
continuing efforts to reduce them even further. commission-
ers concurred with l1s. Donnelly-Cohen's report that subscri-
ber complaint calls have been reduced.
(Dulgar arrived 5:07 p.m.)
"l1ovie Time" will be changing
of l1ay 1, 1990, "Pay-Per-View"
number.
as of June 1, 1990, to E!. As
will be changing to a 1-800
Commissioners were pleased with the report.
Cable Useage Request
Ms. Donnelly-Cohen requested QCCCC's non-objection to North
Central's purchase and use of jacketed-flooded cable instead
of the armor jacketed cable. Her l1arch 28, 1990, letter to
Chairman Cotten explained further. The cable has been
ordered upon receiving approval from the other commissions.
l1otion was made by Dulgar, seconded by Haas, INDICATING THE
QUAD CITY CABLE COl1MUNICATIONS Cm-mISSION HAS NO OBJECTION TO
CABLE TV NORTH CENTRAL'S PURCHASE AND USE OF THE JACKETED-
FLOODED CABLE, AS REPORTED.
,
..
,~
VOTE: 6 ayes - 0 nayes. l1otion carried.
QCCCC
April
Page
l-feeting Minutes
19, 1990
3
'\
'J
1990 Line Extension Report
Ms. Donnelly-Cohen presented the tentative 1990 Line Exten-
sion Report, an attachment to her March 7, 1990, letter to
Terry O'Connell.' Updated information on the number of homes
proposed to be reached in a given area will be available
after next week's meeting at which density will be discussed.
O'Connell stated he will be meeting with the City Planners
from each of the four cities and will report back next month
if all City Planners concur on the number of homes per mile.
O'Connell has a number of names of people from Ramsey and
Andover who want to get cable hook-up. The cost of updating
key maps will be obtained.
Ms. Donnelly-Cohen discussed the 1989 Annual Report, which
included consumer services information. O'Connell stated he
would go through this extensive report and identify specific
information of which the commission should be aware, and
place it on the May meeting agenda.
COMMISSION ACTION ITEMS
Treasurer's Report
O'Connell presented the Treasurer's Report for the period
ending March 31, 1990, showing an ending balance of $14,663.
Total expenses in March were $7,709.85.
O'Connell explained the first and second quarter studio rent
will be paid out of the Commission's budget, and the third
and fourth quarter rent will corne out of the QCTV-33 budget.
Motion was made by Reimann, seconded by Haas, to APPROVE THE
TREASURER'S REPORT AS PRESENTED.
VOTE: 6 ayes - 0 nayes. Motion carried.
Review of Franchise Fee Payment
O'Connell presented the 1989 franchise fee report dated March
23, 1990. A check totaling $40,873.08 was received from the
cable company. Five per cent of the franchise fee totaled
$27,248.72; and 2.5 per cent of the gross, $13,624.36, was
paid to QCTV-33. O'Connell noticed the report contained an
error in that there showed $0.00 for Miscellaneous/Ad Sales
Revenue. A revised report was then provided showing Miscel-
laneous/Ad Sales Revenue of $10,478.92. Five per cent of
that was $523.95.
, '\
,)
O'Connell reported the audit is continuing.
QCCCC
1I.pr il
Page
Meeting Minutes
19, 1990
4
\
'J
Approval of QCTV-33 Funds Transfer
Motion was made by Haas, seconded by Dulgar, to TRANSFER HALF
THE FRANCHISE FEE, $13,624.36, (FIRST CHECK) AND $261.97
(SECOND CHECK) PLUS SUPPORT PAYMENT FROM THE TWO CHECKS IN
THE AMOUNTS OF $13,624.56 AND $261.97 RESPECTIVELY; FOR A
TOTAL TRANSFER TO THE QCTV-33 ACCOUNT OF $27,808.66.
VOTE: 6 ayes - 0 nayes. Motion carried.
Franchise Fee Reporting Form
O'Connell stated he was unable to meet with other cable
commission administrators, who are served by Cable TV North
Central, to discuss the format of the franchise fee payment
worksheet. He again reiterated he does not like the current
form and recommended the Commission not accept it. O'Connell
felt the categories should be broken out further. He felt it
was inadequate reporting to lump the advertising together.
He would relent on past demands for extensive installation
breakdowns and pay-per-view reporting.
However, O'Connell stated this is the cities' franchise fee
payment, and Cable TV North Central should be using our
reporting form. He felt strongly that the QCCCC need more
detail provided.
Ms. Donnelly-Cohen felt the current worksheet provides an
adequate report for QCCCC, as it does for the other commis-
sions. She asked that the Commission consider the excessive
costs involved in changing software. Ms. Donnelly-Cohen felt
Mr. O'Connell's requests were unreasonable. It was reported
the other commissions recognize things will change in the
future and are tentatively approving it pending the outcome
of the audit.
O'Connell felt the term "reasonable"
As for the advertising, he suggested
mechanism now while it is relatively
future increased volume.
was a matter of opinion.
they set up a tracking
easy in preparation for
O'Connell recommended he be allowed to work with the QCCCC
attorney on this matter through the audit period. However,
he would like to see the North Central advertising sales
agreements.
Motion was made by Cotten, seconded by Dulgar, to TABLE
FURTHER CONSIDERATION OF THE FRANCHISE FEE PAYMENT WORKSHEET,
WITH THE UNDERSTANDING IT l'mULD COME BACK NO LATER THAN 60
DAYS, TO ALL~~ O'CONNELL TO DISCUSS THE ISSUE FURTHER WITH
MS. DON}lliLLY-COHEN AND ATTORNEY TOM CREIGHTON.
"
I
-J
VOTE: 6 ayes - 0 nayes. Motion carried.
QCCCC
Apr il
Page
Meeting Minutes
19, 1990
5
,J
Review of Action Plan (1990 Goals and Objectives)
The Commission reviewed the proposed 1990 goals and objec-
tives as set out by staff in the form of an Action Plan.
Also provided was O'Connell's job description. O'Connell
agreed to provide, at the next meeting, a job description of
the Facilitator and Community Television Producer, listing
their responsibilities.
Creighton indicated there would be a few minor changes to the
Action Plan presented. However, a suggested change of . some
importance is found on page one of the Mission Statement,
paragraph four, first sentence: "This Action Plan will guide
the deliberations of the Cable Commission and will serve as a
means of measuring Canmission and staff performance."
Haas stated he is pleased with the proposed Action Plan which
will be an effective guide throughout the year.
Netzloff stated city personnel and board members, including
the school board, should be trained to be TV-wise, such as
not putting their backs to the camera and and speak fairly
closely to the microphones when making a statement.
Haas suggested cutting some tape and actually showing them
what these actions look and sound like. Apparently addition-
al training is necessary. Dulgar concurred.
O'Connell suggested speakers approaching the public micro-
phones might feel more comfortable and at ease if there was a
podium.
Haas suggested O'Connell contact the
Ramsey to obtain information on their
reviews. O'Connell sould then draft
form to use for each employee after the
obtained.
Cities of Anoka or
employee performance
a performance review
job descriptions are
Motion
AcrION
TIONAL
was made by Haas, seconded by Netzloff, to ACCEPT THE
PLAN FOR 1990 AS DRAFTED. THERE SHALL ALSO BE ADDI-
ON-TELEVISION TRAINING OF CITY COUNCILS AND STAFFS.
VOTE:
6 ayes - 0 nayes. / Motion carried.
1990 Scholarship Funds
)
The Commission considered their scholarship awarding options.
O'Connell recommended the Commission award a scholarship in
the form of an internship to QCTV rather than awarding it to
a graduating senior that leaves the quad cities. He sug-
gested one of the criteria for receiving a scholarship be
QCCCC
April
Page
Meeting Minutes
19, 1990
6
,
-)
that the student's parents must be residents of one of the
four cities.
O'Connell agreed to report further next month and would draft
a notice to the area schools:
Motion was made by Dulgar, seconded by Haas,
1989 SCHOLARSHIP PROGRAM FOR 1990, KEEPING
ORGANIZATION, AS LAST YEAR.
to CONTINUE
IT WITHIN
THE
THE
VOTE: 6 ayes - 0 nayes. Motion carried.
ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT
First Quarter 1990 Financial Report
O'Connell reviewed the first quarter 1990 financial report
completed by Frederick's Accounting Service. He is currently
working with Mr. Frederick to change the "Budget" column so
that it provides information on the portion of the budget
spent to date. O'Connell also preferred to know from this
form, under expenses, what percentage represents the total
money spent.
(Dulgar left at 6:02 p.m.)
ATTORNEY'S REPORT - None.
NEW BUSINESS - None.
CLOSING
Motion was made by Haas, seconded by Reimann, to CLOSE THE
QCCCC MEETING AND MOVE ON TO THE QCTV-33 AGENDA.
VOTE: 5 ayes - 0 nayes. Motion carried.
Time of closing: 6:05 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
~y~~.
. /
Mava Mikkonen
Recording Secretary
,
)
"
"
,_/
~~[Eli1I[D~
~(clrWg~al
MAY 17, 1990
1. OPEN
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: 4/19/90
3. REVIEW/APPROVAL OF BILLS
A. FINANCIAL REPORT
4. EXCECUTlVE DIRECTOR'S REPORT:
A. LOCAL PROGRAMMING REPORT
B. OPTIONS ON SHIRTS, CAPS,BADGES, ETC.
C. EQUIPMENT PURCHASE REVIEW
D. N.F.l.C.P. CONFERENCE
5. CLOSE
6 ADJOURN aCT V & COMMISSION MEETINGS
"-
i
-.j
'\
,
J
fiM:I~ IdU~~~~~~ W~~~lIImtif
~I.t\l-WW ~~~Ie:8 "''''''B!::H:IS
r..~"~~Il\A ~
~W~II"~ J~.JUW'=.~
1. OPEN-Chair Cotten will declare meeting open at the close of the Commission Meeting.
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES-The minutes from the meeting held 4/1 9/90 will be
reviewed and approved.
3. REVIEW/APPROV AI. OF BILLS--Here are bills this month which need to be
submitted for approval.
AN Wholesalers - $9,348. 69 (invoice breakdown below)
#36730 - 2,440.00 - portion of this invoiceforQcrv
#36729 - 220.00 - Microphones for studio
#36806 - 66.79 - Studio lights
#36938 - 120.00 - Copy Stand for Amiga
#36937 - 3n. 90 - Shotgun Microphones
#37448- 5,748.00-CamerasforMX12
#37608 - 376.00 - Camera cables
A. FinancialReport: A report similiarto the Commission's Treasurer's Report is
enr;losed formiew. It details actuals of the March expenditures of Qcrv -33.
4. EXCEUTIVEDIRECTOR'SREPORT--
A. Local Program mi n~ Report: I will give an oral report on both production and
playbackhoursforQcrv- 3.
B. Options on shirts. etc.: I will have prir;e quotes and comparisons at the meeting.
The suppliers I have r;ontar;ted so far have not been able to submit the quotes at packet
mailing .
C. Equipment P1Irchase Review: Last weekI purchased another Commodore "Amiga"
computer for Qcrv. The decision to purchase a second computer will be explained in detail
at the meeting. Basicallywhathappeen is that bothof our~duction Character Generators
went defunct during the same week. I have made the deClsion to replace the C. G. 's with the
Amiga Computer. Priorto actual purchase I disc:ussed with Chairman Cotten.
D. N. F. L. C. P. Annual Cant erence: Enclosed is the brochure for this year's
conference to be held in Washington D. C. The budget has appriated funds for one of
Qcrv's emplyeesto attend the annual conference. We can disc:uss further at the meeting.
5. NEW BUSINESS--Any items not covered by the agenda can be disc:ussed at this point in
themeeting.
6. CLOSE--
ADJOURN THE COMM:ISSION MEETING-- The Chair will ukfOt" motion to
7.
adjourn.
)
\.
"
,
ANDOVER
\ ---ANOKA .---.--
) CHAMPLIN
--_.
RAMSEY
',QU . 20151st Avenue, Anok~, Min_~esot:.~~~~~ . 421-6630
"'_. AD CITIES CABLE COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
"
QCTV-33
April 19, 1990
CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Cotten called the meeting to order at 6:05 p.m.
immediately fOllowing the regular Quad Cities Cable Communi-
cations Commission meeting.
ROLL CALL
Commissioners present were Chairman Gerald Cotten: William
Haas, Jr.; Richard Netzloff; Gary Reimann: and Gerry Wegner.
Commissioners absent were Melinda Coleman, Jerry Dulgar, and
Randy Johnson.
Others present included Terry O'Connell and Tom Creighton,
Commission staff; and Joe Perrin, ABC Newspaper.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Motion was made by Wegner, seconded by Reimann, to APPROVE
THE MARCH 22, 1990, MEETING MINUTES AS PRINTED.
VOTE: 5 ayes - 0 nayes. Motion carried.
REVIEW/APPROVAL OF BILLS
Bills were approved during the QCCC Commission meeting held
earlier this evening.
Financial Report
/
O'Connell presented the Financial Report
ending March 31, 1990, showing a balance of
ses for this period totaled $13,564.30.
for the
$16,213.
period
Expen-
QCTV-33 expended $30.00 on mini-bowl tape refunds at $15.00 a
piece because of production problems.
)
O'Connell reported purchasing a used, one year old Cannon
copy machine for $400.00.
QCTV-33 Meeting Minutes
April 19, 1990
Page 2
'\
,~
Motion was made by Haas, seconded by Reimann, to APPROVE THE
FINANCIAL REPORT AS PRESENTED.
VOTE: 5 ayes - 0 nayes. Motion carried.
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S REPORT
Local Programming Report
O'Connell reviewed the
schedule. He expects to
programming schedules for
29, 1990, were presented.
February and March 1990 playback
do more advertising promotion. The
the weeks of April 16 through April
First Quarter Financial Report
O'Connell reviewed the QCTV-33 first quarter financial report
as prepared by Frederick's Accounting Service. There will be
a few changes made prior to the next report: "Sales" will be
renamed, an "Equipment Grant" line will be added, and under
"Budget" the figures representing salaries and benefits need
to be broken down.
Netzloff queried the possibility of obtaining shirts and/or
jackets with a QCTV-33 emblem identifying employees. It was
noted there has been $529.00 budgeted for this expense.
O'Connell agreed some sort of identification patch for
clothing or shirts should be obtained.
Netzloff further suggested magnetic signs be
on QCTV-33 employee vehicles identifying
entity so the public will be aware they are
functions.
provided for use
the programming
present at these
Haas concurred such magnetic signs would achieve better
recognition, and directed staff to check into the cost of
such signs and report back at the next meeting. As for
identifiable clothing for employees, Haas asked that staff
check into the cost of nylon jackets, something screen
printed, or perhaps a shell of some sort and report back.
Reimann suggested perhaps a name tag or identification badge
would be sufficient, at the least.
Equipment Purchase Review
)
O'Connell reported ordering an MX12 three-camera switcher at
a cost of $2,100. He would like to order some new cameras
and tripods and currently has three bids out. O'Connell
expected the cameras will cost approximately $7,000. The
Commission will receive a further update at the next meeting.
QCTV-33 Meeting Minutes
April 19, 1990
Page 3
)
Motion was made by Cotten, seconded by Reimann, RECOGNIZING
THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S REPORT.
VOTE: 5 ayes - 0 nayes. Motion carried.
NEW BUSINESS - None.
CLOSE - None.
ADJOURNMENT
Motion was made by Haas, seconded by Wegner, to ADJOURN BOTH
THE QUAD CITIES CABLE COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION MEETING AND
THE QCTV-33 MEETING.
VOTE: 5 ayes - 0 nayes. Motion carried.
Time of adjournment: 6:24 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
y'{~ y' 7tL4u..J
Mava Mikkonen
Recording Secretary
'\
)
I) .r) ....0
. I , (.,
L; I.../~ IS' I
:/
,)
BI-LAWS
of the
ANDOVER VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT, CITY OF ANDOVER, ANORA COUNTY,
STATE OF MINNESOTA
ARTICLE I
No person except the following , to wit, who are members of said
organization at the time of the adoption of these By-Laws and the
Constitution of said organization, but are now in the military
service of the United States shall become a member of said
organization until he/ she has signed a copy of the By-Laws and
Constitution of the organization, thus signifying his intention
to abide by the provisions thereof. The Secretary of the
organization is hereby authorized to affix the signatures of the
above named members in the military service to said documents.
...
ARTICLE V
Section 4
A grievance committee shall be elected by the members at the
Annual Business Meeting. The committee shall consist of 5 active
members & 2 substitutes. A vote of 51% of the active members of
this organization present and voting, providing that the
favorable total equals fiftyone percent or more of the total
active membership, shall dtermine the committee.The substitutes
shall take the position of active committee member as the need
arises.
ARTICLE VI
Section 7
:J
Absentee Ballots shall be accepted for election of officers when
submitted prior of the date of elections.
ARTICLE VIII
Section 3
Ho member of this organization shall be suspended except by the
, ,
\
~~
authority of the chief of the organization. If suspension is
accepted, it is dropped here. If suspension is contested,
suspension shall be written and posted within 7 days and member
notified in writing. Members appeal of suspension shall be
written and posted within a 7 day period following
notification. The greivence committee shall receive in writing
information from accused and accuser and prepare a findin~ of
facts within 7 days. Only information on the specific incident
will be considered in the finding of facts. The grievence
committee may seek information from anyone with facts on the
incident. The finding of facts shall be delivered to the chief.
The comittee chairman shall present all findings of facts to the
general miembership. It will be voted on at a regular
business meeting or a special
meeting on the 3rd or 5th Wednesday. Two-thirds of the active
members present, provided a quorum is present, is needed to lift
a suspension. A former member not receiving a favorable vote for
reinstatement may not reapply within 6 months of said vote.
~J
. \
J
CONSTITUTION
ANDOVER VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT CITY OF ANDOVER, ANOKA
COUNTY, STATE OF MINNESOTA
Revision N
ARTICLE III
Section 1
The elected officers of this organization shall be Chief,
Assistant Chiefs, and Secretary.
Section 5
The Assistant Fire Marshal shall, hold position of Fire Marshal,
when Fire Marshal is on leave or not able to perform duties.
ARTICLE II
Section 1
Any person who is a resident of or works in the City of Andover,
Minnesota, not less than 18 years and not over 65 years of age,
may submit an application for membership to the Organization.
Upon approval, said applicant shall be admitted to the
Organization and shall exercise all the privileges enjoyed by the
members of ;siad Organization.
~)
\
j
..-J
., -,
:.......
C-,''/'-'' :'~K"" (I 'j
G'"
Individual resident- 64
Security Fence & Construction- 2
Anoka Electric Cooperative- 62
FIC Cooperative- I
- Midwest Gas- 41
Muller-Pribyl Utilities- 63
Preferred Construction- 1
Beaver Plumbing- !
Mickman Brothers- 3
Marty Brothers- 4
Northdale construction- 4
North Country Irrigation- 3
Woodland Developers- 2
Hank Weidma Excavating-3
US West- 4
Ron & Son Construction-6
Mickelson Plumbing- 1
Bc,rden-Holt- 2
Design Contractors-2
Diggers Inc.- 2
T.D.C. Inc.-l
City of Andover-2
City of Anoka- 2
Hutton & Row- 1
Raintree Builders-
Dahl & Associates- I
Wilderness Landscaping-
Stanway Excavating- 2
Corrow Lawn Care- I
Emerald Irrigation-2
D.T. Landscaping- 2
Northway Landscaping-
American Excavating- I
Dellwood- I
Pop-up Sprinkler- I
Steve's Sprinkler-l
All Service Blacktop-
L & N Sewer&Water-! 1
Solid Gold Construction-l
Dick's Excavating-l
Kunde Co.- I
Hokanson Plumbing-
Arrow Signs- I
Streamline- I
Anoka County Highway Dept.- 3
Stumper's Stump Grinding-I
Northwest General Service-l
Outside Services-2
B & B Excavating- 4
Lessard- Nyrad utilities- 2
Warning Lights~ I
Waleski & Sons- I
... rHI!'SE Ai=.E C.A~I-s T!fAT"'
c.:'Td S,.ItFP /2.~CIEV'5D
l=-rzofl-1 6orl'or,e .srIlT;
ONE
c../tLl- F()!t'- rilE"
/v1O/VTlI OF /trAIt...
7~";~
Total for the month of April- 325
, '\
,~
THE RESULTS ARE IN:
* 78% of the homes are too far from the Fire Station (Insurance
Services Office Study. 1985)
* In order to maintain proper response times, Andover must build
2 more fire stations (BRA Study, Nov., 1987)
* The current location of one centrally located fire station is
inadequate to meet even current needs (Aldrich & Associates
Study, Dec., 1989)
* The City has doubled in size since the last fire bond issue in
1978 with no substantial changes in fire protection
* Average response time to structure fires exceeds 9 minutes:
maximum standard response time should not exceed 7 min (ISO and
Aldrich)
* The present apparatus inventory is aging and inadequate to meet
the needs of present population and building units
WHAT IS NEEDED?
According to the Aldrich report, Dec., 1989:
* To construct two new fire stations immediately and acquire a
site for future relocation of the current fire station (see map
below)
* The acquisition of new apparatus and refurbishing of the two
existing pumpers
* Aggressive recruiting campaign to increase Fire Department to
at least 50 members
WHAT IS THE COST?
Bui Idings
Trucks & Equipment
Land Acquisition
Inflation Allowance
Bond Costs
TOTAL
$1,447,000
802,000
25,000
113,000
113.000
$2,500,000
'\
'-~
:)
WHAT WILL IT COST ME?
Est Mkt
Value
Average
Annual Inc~
Average
t10nthly InGL~
Ave
Wkly InG~
75,000
100,000
125,000
150,000
200,000
122.96
167.51
256.61
10.25
13.96
21.38
2.36
3.22
4.93
~ Currently Andover Is the 9th fastest growing Glty In MInnesota
with 39.4% increase in 1980-88 (MN State Planning Agency)
* These costs assume zero Qro\~th In Andover beGause the growth
factors are unpredIctable
* As the CIty grows, these IndIvIdual costs wIll be reduced
WHO WILL BENEFIT FROM THIS BOND?
All resIdents wIll benefIt because:
* Faster response tImes to al I areas of the CIty
* 88% of homes wIll be wIthIn 2.5 mIles of statIon (ISO Standard)
* 24-hour medIcal rescue servIce provIded
~ There will be more fIrefIghters per call
* EquIpment updated to meet Andover's growth
* Bond wIll meet antIcIpated growth needs well past year 2000
WHAT MIGHT HAPPEN IF WE SAY NO TO THIS BOND?
* Alternate methods of fundIng such as lease-baGk or equIpment
bonds are more costly and restrIctIve
* Another bond soon wIth Increased costs
* Slower response times as the cIty grows
* Equipment faIlures (all pumpIng equIpment Is over 10 yrs old)
* PossIble loss of Mutual AId wIth other fIre departments
* Increases In Insurance rates as losses Increase
* Increased risk to lIfe and property
WHERE DO I VOTE?
I f you 11 ve
Vote at
'\
West of Round Lake Blvd
South of Bunker Lake Blvd.
North of Constance Blvd (161st Ave)
East of Round Lake Blvd
South of Constance, North of
Bunker, East of Round Lake
Grace Lutheran Church
Crooked Lake School
Fa.mt ] y of Cht-I st
Lutheran Church
"'- --/;
Andover School
,
'CD
II WHlrT_t2-lt~ND_~ u----.1
. ,
i
i, @
~Z~_o/'~~&~L=HOI1LtH IS1
,". I.
' I
"- ~
. . i
. i
,
,
i
!
@
@
!illIA-T-=tE - A N rou6~n (Z6'7' DeiVr>- ~5A'1 ~ n
~JLkJl:Cl2S1"t- .__~_- 1~lJ]'-6IHfS-a?ND?"
, I
(0)
~_J
~
,~
- W~i~ ~(
d'~II~
'\, ~ - j- ..?-...:.-\~.:!~ e
~ . ".
- , ,
'-------.:l..:.-:'':-.:J;; ~<::-~ / ~s--'
(j)
J ~~()/_ ._.1
......
.---- )
"18fV~~'~"V ~:~~ ~~/~
.- ..........~~_. .~--..-..~.
.-....*.--..-_..-
. -.-._.--~..~--~-::::::::.=-::::-...---_.._-_.-_..
.~-:-:- _ -,c.. .::.~~-: -. r.' . =l: .
__--~ ~~I~.J::;;~P""=;ll.P~ ~~~~~J
v._..........-..,.....___
.__...r_______
\
1\ \
'I
\
1/
I
-- - - ,_._------~--_. .' . ..----
..,.....~>-,...~).
".I'~'
. ----".... ."
..~-:.~, .' /
\ -_.,"-
','
.....-.--~.'J._. "
~'. /'. .. .-- .-" :...-..--.---
... \. .' :
,\ / - I
\ . ..--"-/ \
, .
\ I
. J
\, ; I
I
,
/j. _. '_ /-----. ~l
'1'//)1
\ ,~
___--.t ;/'
.-'-'- '\' -- ."..,/ --' \ ..
--- - ..-- ,- ~ --..-..~
\ \". ..'
'\.. -.- ------,
,.,'
">.,. /
.....-..
G ~L~lO !\Jx()\ _'Li A1C1J::-
-""",.,.;;,",",. e'..,.."'.., .,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,~,=,,,,,,.,%.;.,,,~
} 11~rl \ ~\&~rJ\NI
I \1\\.JJL. /~17 \II\\leJ~
.R'" ,.,,==,===--= -="'~--
'\..\ (. )... \ --.\ (0\'\ (1 \, \ ,y) '\ \\--,J \ (J':""V\\ f~\
I ',' .,' \ ~ ' \ \) ,,:\ I J \ )'cJO
.' ....-- J . . 5il~9dIS'.J2i '28f\OdN\i
DATE: May 15, 1990
,-J
ITEMS GIVEN TO THE CITY COUNCIL
Letter from James J. Solem, MHFA (April 1990)
Park and Recreation Minutes (5-3-90)
Regular City Council Minutes (5-1-90)
Notice of Public Meeting
Ordinance 40 F
Ordinance No. 8 LLL
Planning & Zoning Minutes (4-24-90)
Building Department Report (April 1990)
Letter from John Davidson, TKDA (5-2-90)
Letter from Richard D. Clark, MN Dept. of Health (4-27-90)
Business Media
PLEASE ADDRESS THESE ITEMS AT THIS MEETING OR PUT THEM ON THE NEXT
AGENDA.
) THANK YOU.
Subject:
James J. Solem
Commissioner
Minnesota Housing
Neighborhood Preservation Home Improvement Loan Program
'/0 (.c.
:5j/{f;u ~~/
C~
~IINNlS(Jr^ 19sc----
.'.'_ ..- - 1Il1~
."... il p!il"
R~~l
-;ITY OF ANDOVER
MINNESOTA
HOUSING
FINANCE
AGENCY
Date:
April 1990
Interested Partie
To:
From:
The Minnesota Housing Finance Agency (MHFA) is now accepting applications
for funding for a new residential improvement financing program: the
Neighborhood Preservation Home Improvement Loan Program.
Enclosed for your review is the text of the Request For Proposal for this
important new program that appeared in the April 2, 1990 State Register. The
Agency's announcement of this program was delayed due to the budget
deliberations of the state legislature.
The Neighborhood Preservation Program is a loan purchase program, whereby
the MHFA purchases qualifying loans from a lender delivering the loans locally.
The program provides property improvement financing to a wide range of
borrower types to improve a variety of residential properties within selected
neighborhoods. Because it is designed to complement a city's own
neighborhood preservation efforts, the program requires a commitment of local
resources.
As you may be aware, budgetary decisions made during the recently-adjourned
1990 legislative session eliminated the funding for the Housing Preservation
Grant Program for this biennium. While this may be disappointing news, it does
reaffirm the importance of the Neighborhood Preservation Home Improvement
Loan Program as an important tool for communities to improve residential
properties.
If you have any questions about this program or would like application materials
and a more complete program description, call the contact person referred to in
the Request for Proposal.
MHFA looks forward to your continued partnership in improving Minnesota's
neighborhoods.
'. )
400 Sibley Street, Suite 300, St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 (612) 296-7608 Telecopler (612) 296.8139
Equal Opportunity Housing and Equal Opportunity Employment
'J
MINNESOTA
HOUSING
FINANCE
AGENCY
('~
OPPHf~
L:~\~
MINNLSOI^ 1990
REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS
NEIGHBORHOOD PRESERVATION HOME IMPROVEMENT LOAN PROGRAM
The Minnesota Housing Finance Agency (MHFA) announces the availability of up to $10,OOO,ODO in
funds to assist cities in the preservation and rehabilitation of residential housing in designated
neighborhoods. This request for proposal does not obligate the state to complete this project, and the
state reserves the right to cancel the solicitation if it is considered to be in its best interest.
GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
The Neighborhood Preservation Loan Program is a program which provides property improvement
financing with attractive terms and conditions as an incentive for neighborhood preservation activities.
Eligible neighborhoods are designated by cities, and must meet basic criteria established by the MHFA.
Cities are expected to participate in the program by designating neighborhoods and local lenders, and
contributing to the total neighborhood preservation effort.
A more complete description of the program is contained in the Neighborhood Preservation Home
Improvement Loan Program Summary. See "Application Process; below.
CITY RESPONSIBILITIES
Cities or their designees, shall pertorm the following minimum tasks:
1. market the program in designated neighborhood;
2. provide a local contribution of funds, property, or services equal in value to no less than 25% of
the amount of MHFA's commitment to purchase loans;
3. take loan applications and make eligible loans in the designated neighborhood;
4. operate the program as specified in the agreements establishing the program in the designated
neighborhoods.
Responders may propose additional responsibilities or activities if they will improve the results of the
program.
APPLICATION PROCESS
All applications for funds must be in a form specified by MHFA. Prospective responders who have
questions regarding this request for proposal or who would like to receive an Application for Funding and
a Neighborhood Preservation Home Improvement Loan Program summary may call or write:
Gregory Baron
Minnesota Housing Finance Agency
400 Sibley Street, Suite 300
St. Paul, MN 55101
Telephone: (612) 297-3123
Toll Free 1-800-652-9747, Extension 7-3123
Please note that other agency personnel are not allowed to discuss the project with responders before
the application deadline.
Completed Applications for Funding must be sent to and received at the address shown above no later
than 4:30 P.M. on Monday, July 2, 1990.
400 Sibley Street, Suite 300, St. Paul, MInnesota 55101 (612) 296-7606 Telecopler (612) 296.8139
Equal Opportunity Housing and Equal Opportunity Employment
.
,
j
I
rl
Late applications will not be accepted. Submit three copies of the application. Applications are to be
sealed in mailing envelopes or packages with the responder's name and address clearly written on the
outside. Each copy of the application must be signed, in ink, by an authorized representative of the city.
CONTRACT AMOUNTS
The Minnesota Housing Finance Agency has not established a minimum or maximum contract amount.
MHFA may reduce amounts requested at its sole option and discretion.
PROJECT DATES
Generally, all loans to be purchased under the program must be made and local contributions expended
within one year of execution of program agreements.
SELECTION CRITERIA
All completed applications submitted in response to the Request for Proposals will be reviewed by the
MHFA staff and others as approved by the MHFA Commissioner. Final selections are anticipated to be
made by the MHFA Board no later than August 23, 1990. All applicants will be notified of the selections.
The MHFA may request and consider additional clarifying Information which may not
originally be In the application. The selection of the proposal for funding may be.
made contingent upon receiving the additional Information.
The MHFA additionally reserves the right to negotiate with applicants regarding
various components of their proposal Including, but not limited to, the amount of
funding requested, the administrative capabilities and fiduciary responsibilities
proposed, and the proposed goals, objectives, and activities.
Only those Applications for Funding which contain the required documentation shall be considered for
funding. Incomolete aDolications will be immediately disaualified from consideration The Application for
Funding and its related documentation is expected to clearly demonstrate the need for the program, the
expected impact of the program, and the implementation method of the program.
MHFA will take the following criteria into consideration when determining whether an application will be
selected to be funded.
A. the relative neighborhood preservation needs described in the proposal which needs may
include, but not be limited to, housing needs, the needs of commercial and public properties,
and infrastructure;
B. the extent to which other resources are or will be allocated to address the stated needs;
C. the expected impact of the neighborhood preservation activities;
D. the extent to which other conditions or resources exist for long-term preservation of the
designated neighborhood;
E. the extent to which low and moderate income residents will benefit from the neighborhood
preservation activities:
F. the extent to which displacement of residents will be minimized:
G. the geographic area to be serviced, the size of the request for funds or other factors that will
achieve a reasonable distribution of resources across the state;
H. the priority rating a city may assign to a proposal if the city submits more than one proposal;
I. the extent to which the proposal is more innovative than other proposals.
This Request for Proposals (RFP) is subject to all applicable federal, state, and municipal laws, rules, and
regulations. MHFA reserves the right to modify or withdraw this RFP at any time and is not able to
reimburse any applicant for costs incurred in the preparation or submittal of applications.
(j
Notice
of
Public Meeting
Ie') C. C. .'
~}1:Y'9 (..J
! ~::-';._'; 7<;). _ .08. .. 9f/~()
" ',j t~' f"o. 'J ,,;;; ."" '"",,
.. iJ . OM kn..J WIt.; lii._' ~
.,....,1. q ~, ir ,~ . \,' ,'" ..' .'
t,~,7 .} Lt,;.," a is,:
~ ~rl'!i~';-8 ;~9;-lJ
~ ~
CITY OF I' ~"V"'\/'::""
Examination of Metropolitan Council Policies
for the Rural Service Area
The Metropolitan Council's Metropolitan and Community Development Committee
will hold a public meeting to hear comments on its existing development policies for
the region's rural area. You are encouraged to participate in this meeting. Both
urban and rural communities would be affected by any changes in the Council's rural
area policies because the policies are closely coordinated with its urban area policies.
The Council's rural area policies are contained in its Metropolitan Development and
Investment Framework (MDIF). When it adopted the MDIF in 1986, the Council
decided to reexamine its policies for the general rural use area for lands not suited
for agriculture. By the end of 1990, the Council expects to consider policy
alternatives for:
*
*
Appropriate rural area land uses
Development density
Various implementation approaches, such as cluster development or lot-size
standards
Planning for areas in transition from rural to urban use
*
*
The Council invites your comments on these and other topics related to the general
rural use area.
PUBLIC MEETING INFORMATION
When:
Thursday, June 7, 1990
4-4:15 p.m.: Council staff presentation
4:15-6 p.m.: Discussion and comments by public
Where:
Council Chambers
Mears Park Centre
230 E. Fifth St.
St. Paul,MN 55101
,
I
j
:
Who Will be Notified: Key contacts of urban and rural local governments
Metropolitan Council Land Use Advisory Committee
Interested citizens and community organizations
How to Participate:
1.
You may attend the meeting and offer oral or
written comments. If you want to speak at the
meeting, you can sign up at the door, or you can
register to speak in advance by calling the Council's
Community Outreach Division at 291-6500.
2. You may send a letter with comments by June 14,
1990 to:
Carl Ohm
Metropolitan Council
Mears Park Centre
230 E. Fifth St.
St. Paul, MN 55101
Questions:
Please feel free to call any of the following staff of the
Council's Research and Long-Range Planning
Department:
Carl Ohm, 291-6507
Bob Overby, 291-6381
Anne Hurlburt, 291-6501
Paul Baltzersen, 291-6321
H:\LmRARY\DOCUMEN'I\LNHOOl.WPR
1,
to
1\..../
! I
I
i
I
I
)
I
vc~V~teW
Examination of Metropolitan Council Policies
for the Rural Service Area
RURAL SERVICE AREA POLICIES
The Metropolitan Council's rural service area policies are part of its Metropolitan Development and
Investment Framework (MDIF). The MDIF is the plan that sets a general direction for future
development patterns in the Metropolitan Area. It also establishes guidelines for making decisions
about major regional facilities, like sewers and highways, that are needed to support the commercial,
industrial and residential development of the area. The MDIF divides the region into a metropolitan
urban service area and a rural service area. The focus of the Council's strategy on directing growth
in the region is to encourage development to occur within the urban service area.
When it adopted the MDIF in 1986, the Council decided to reexamine its policies for the portion of
the rural service area consisting of the general rural use area where the land is not suited for
agriculture. This area comprises more than 40 percent of the land in the Metropolitan Area. By the
end of 1990, the Council expects to consider policy alternatives for the rural area.
Council policy supports agriculture in the general rural use area, and residential development at
densities of no more than one unit per 10 acres computed on a 40-acre basis (a maximum of four
units per 40 acres). Metropolitan systems (such as highways and sewers) will not be extended to
serve urban-scale development in the general rural use area. The comprehensive plans of local
governments must address these policies and the provision of services to any urban-density
development that already exists, particularly the operation and maintenance of on-site sewer systems.
The consistency of local comprehensive plans with Council policies is also a consideration in review
of proposed expansions of the urban service area in communities on the edge of the developing area.
OBJECTIVES OF THIS STUDY
The study currently under way will:
.
.
.
.
.
Examine the status of how existing Council policies for the rural service area have been
implemented.
Examine the relationship and trends of development within and outside of the MUSA.
Review the implications of development in the rural service area with respect to the following:
the history of rural area policy, MDIF policies and metropolitan growth, the legal basis for rural
area policy, sewers, transportation, housing, parks, natural resources, solid waste, human services
and grants to local governments.
Clarify the land uses appropriate in the rural area.
Review the density standard that detennines the amount of development that can be accepted
~ METROPOLITAN COUNCIL. Mears Park Cenlre .230 WSI Fifth Street. 51. Paul. Minnesota 55/01 .612291-6500
/
in the rural area without adversely impacting the environment and the provision of public (~ :
servIces.
.
Examine various approaches (such as clusrering andlor lot-size policies) that might permit the
overall density policy to be more readily adapted to individual communities within the
Metropolitan Area.
.
Look at the unique issues faced by communities on the edge of the developing area, which must
effectively plan for future expansion of the MUSA into the rural service area.
The results of this study will be used to update the MDIF, planned to begin in 1991.
SCHEDULE
In recent months, the Council's Metropolitan and Community Development Committee has worked
with its Land Use Advisory Committee to review the Council's existing policies and rural development
trends. A series of issues papers have been prepared to examine the impacts of development in the
rural area. A summary of the conclusions of the issues papers is attached as part of this Overview.
The two committees have scheduled a public meeting to receive input prior to the next steps of the
study. The tentative schedule is as follows:
June 7, 1990
Public meeting held 4-6 p.m., Metropolitan Council Chambers
June through August 1990
Policy alternatives developed and reviewed on:
Appropriate rural area land uses
Development density
Various implementation approaches, such as cluster
development or lot-size standards
Planning for areas in transition from rural to urban
September 1990
Policy alternatives recommended for public comment.
October 1990
Public meetings held on recommended policy alternatives.
December 1990
Metropolitan Council decides on general rural use area
policies.
FOR MORE INFORMATION
For more detailed information and meeting schedules, please contact anyone of the following
Council staff members:
Carl Ohm, 291-6507
Bob Overby, 291-6381
Anne Hurlburt, 291-6501
Paul Baltzersen, 291-6321
Copies of Council publications, such as the Metropolitan Development and Investment Framework
(MDIF) and the issue papers listed in the attachment, are available from the Metropolitan Council
Data Center at 291-8140.
H:\UBRAR Y\OOCUMEN'I\LNHOOL WPR
o
ATTACHMENT
SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS REACHED TO DATE
ON RURAL AREA ISSUES
The Metropolitan Council's recent work on rural area issues has concentrated on preparing a
series of issue papers focusing on a wide range of topics. These issue papers:
Describe the Council's policies relative to the rural area,
Address five key concerns that were the basis of the Council's original rural area policy
and
Identify problems concerning the interrelationship the rural area and the rest of the
region, as well as possible conflicts in staff findings.
The issue papers address the following:
The legal basis for the Council's rural area policy
The history of the Council's rural area policy
Metropolitan Development and Investment Framework policies and metropolitan growth
Sewer service
Transportation
Housing
Parks
Natural resources
Solid waste
Human services
Grants to local governments
The following is a summary of conclusions based on the issue papers. The issue papers are
available from the Metropolitan Council Data Center by calling 291-8140.
AUTHORfIY FOR DEVELOPING RURAL AREA DENSIlY POLICIES
The Council has broad statutory authority to develop and implement policies for guiding
the overall development of the Metropolitan Area. The rural area density policies
adopted by the Council should be reasonably related to legitimate regional interests and
must be supported by adequate study and analysis. The Council's rural area density
policies should promote orderly and efficient urban development, but also recognize
changing regional and local needs as development and growth occur in the Metropolitan
Area.
ORIGIN OF THE GENERAL RURAL USE AREA POLICY
"-
'J
Since the formation of the Metropolitan Planning Commission in 1957, regional
government in the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area has been concerned with coordinating,
planning and guiding growth in the region. The state legislation creating the Metropolitan
Council in 1967 called for the Council to adopt a guide or framework to promote the
orderly and economic development of the Metropolitan Area. The Council's policies for
the rural area are part of that regional development framework and are contained in the
Metropolitan Development and Investment Framework (MDIF), adopted by the Council in
1986.
Five policy concerns are common in the various reports and studies that document the
development of Council policy for the rural area. These concerns are as follows:
1. An urban service area policy must'be accompanied by a rural policy that restricts growth.
The issue papers prepared by Council staff on sewers and transportation support this
statement. There were no instances where these or any other issue papers were in
disagreement.
2. Rural uses and agriculture are legitimate and permanent land uses. These uses should be
supported and encouraged outside the urban service area.
There was no disagreement in any of the staff issue papers with this statement.
However, there were two related topics that need additional clarification. The question of
what are or should be "appropriate rural uses" needs to be better defined by the Council.
Council policy documents at times included lists of "acceptable rural uses," but there are
voids in these lists that if filled in as either acceptable or unacceptable uses would make
Council policy clearer.
The second topic that should be addressed is that of "transitional" areas. Local units of
government in the region want to see some areas converted from rural use to urban uses.
These areas occur at the fringe of the large, regional urban area. As the supply of urban
serviced land is used up, more land needs to be added. It is important that these areas be
recognized by local units and the Council so the transition can take place in an efficient
manner and cause the least disruption to those living in these areas.
3. Urban level development in the rural area results in demand for local services and
sometimes for metropolitan urban services.
Little or no information in the staff issue papers refuted this statement. Some material
developed in connection with preparing the 1986 MDIF quantifies this conclusion. The
number of services provided by rural-area local government increased in almost all cases as
the population increased during the late 1970s and early 19805. The Council does not
have any information to determine whether this development is paying for the increases in
services or will pay the cost in the future.
While a great deal of the Council's concern about local services has focused on physical
systems (such as roads, which are provided by local government), many of the services
required by additional population (such as schools, health care and social services) are not
provided by the city or township. Yet it is the city or township that allows or promotes
development that attracts additional population and jobs.
I
I
I
',J
Development in the rural area has required regional services. Urban sewers have been
extended into the rural area to correct on-site sewage problems. Clearly, increased rural
development uses regional highways.
4. Urban-level development in the rural area almost always has an impact on the "rural
character" of a community and on the preservation of agricultural land and land uses.
The staff issues papers on human services and parks address this topic. The conclusion
reached in the human services paper was that new residents of the rural area would
probably have different expectations of the level and type of services that should be
available. This could conflict with the culture of the area.
In the case of regional parks, however, no major conflict exists. A very limited amount of
agricultural land has been taken for parks, and typically it did not involve productive
farmland. In addition, parks preserve natural areas in the rural area.
5. Urban-level development in the rural area can have adverse impacts on the quality of the
natural environment.
With respect to this issue, Council policy addresses only water resources. There is very
little evidence that new urban-level development has severely impacted water resources,
but there is evidence that older development on small lots did and continues to cause
problems for groundwater.
RURAL GROWTH
1. Residential development in the rural area is one submarket of the regional housing
market. It ebbs and flows with external factors that affect the total housing market.
Council policies seem to have had some dampening effect on the number of units built in
the rural area since the late 19705, but at the same time, these controls do not appear to
have caused development to "move" to adjacent counties.
2. Based on the amount of developable land within the MDIFs year-2000 urban service area
boundary, there appears to be sufficient land for the projected residential, commercial or
industrial development in the seven counties over the next 10 years with minor additions
to some of the fastest growing communities.
IMPACf ON PROVIDING URBAN SEWER SERVICE
Regional sewer-system planning has'assumed that five percent of development will occur
in the rural area. Since 1985, the percentage of residential permits in the rural area has
exceeded five percent and is now approaching eight percent (from a low of 4.3 percent in
1984 to 7.9 percent in 1988). If a high percentage of Metropolitan Area growth occurs in
the rural service area--which is not subject to the sewer availability charge (SAC)--current
users of the metropolitan sewer system will be required to pay a disproportionate share of
the service cost for treatment facilities.
'\
)
In addition, because of the large fIXed costs of the regional sewer system, the current users
of the system will pay somewhat higher annual user fees than currently projected if more
people than planned move to the rural s~rvice area.
RELIABILIlY OF SEPTIC TANKS
1. Modem septic tanks are far superior to those installed in the past, yet the fate of all septic
tanks is that they will fail some time in the future. When these systems will fail depends
on how the systems were sited, designed, constructed, installed and maintained. These
systems are very sensitive to a wide range of factors. A dripping faucet may cause a
failure. A garbage disposal requires a 50 percent increase in the capacity of the system.
To date, more than $18 million has been spent to solve water pollution problems created
by cesspools and septic tanks in the rural area. The average cost to correct these failing
systems has been $11,900 per household, with costs ranging from $4,300 to $24,300 per
household. In the past, over 90 percent of these costs were provided by the federal and
state government.
These funds are no longer available. The homeowner and local unit of government are
responsible for the cost of solving these problems.
2. Because septic tanks can readily fail because of problems with design, siting, installation
and maintenance, it is critical that the township, city or county strictly oversee the issuing
of permits and ongoing maintenance to ensure these systems will operate as designed.
There appear to be a number of communities that are not carrying out all aspects of
monitoring and inspection.
3. Current standards of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency call for two drain fields on a
lot where a septic tank system is required.
4. While important factors for rural area development, the reliability of septic systems, the
impact of the failed systems and the appropriate lot size are not and should not be the
focal point of the Council's rural area policy.
HOUSING
1. While controlling the number of housing units in the rural area is important for many of
our regional systems, unless care is taken, controlling the type of units could diminish
diversity and have exclusionary effects. The importance of freestanding growth centers
and rural centers as locations for a full range of housing types and cost levels needs to be
considered as rural area policies are redrafted.
2. Some regional systems may experience adverse effects if residential units are clustered,
even if these units do not exceed overall development-density guidelines. However, in
some circumstances, such as institutional uses and manufactured housing, such clustering
could allow communities flexibility in meeting the life-cycle needs of rural residents.
(J HUMAN SERVICES IN THE RURAL AREA
1. People who've recently moved to the rural area will have different expectations for human
services than long-time rural residents. They're more likely to expect more "formal
services"--that is, services provided by government and other agencies, in contrast with
"informal services" provided by neighbors, family and friends. The result can be potential
conflicts over taxes, levels of public services and other issues.
2. Human services costs per person served will be higher in rural than in urban areas. In
sparsely populated areas, economies of scale are harder to achieve and the ancillary cost
of transportation is higher.
3. Over time, the need for human services in rural areas will grow disproportionately faster
than historical rates because of 1) the aging of the in-migrants and 2) current trends in
human services to distribute or reduce the concentration of people who are likely to use
people with disabilities, people with housing subsidies and the elderly--both inside and
outside the urban service area.
4. The trends of encouraging older people to remain independent in their own homes as
long as possible and "mainstreaming" people with disabilities make all human service
delivery dependent on adequate transportation services. Transit is the glue that holds the
human service system together: if the services are available, people will need to travel to
get to them.
5. The Council's health policies have been developed based on the idea that the distinction
between an urban and a rural area is important. The availability of services, the types of
services available and the response time of emergency service all reflect the concept that
those living in the rural area have, in effect, "agreed" to a different level and quality of
service than those who live in the urban area. The appropriateness of this concept needs
to be considered as the Council develops its Human Investment Framework and in all
human services the Council is involved with.
TRANSIT IN THE RURAL AREA
Increased development and the aging of population in the rural area will increase the
rural transit needs. Under existing Council policies, a 40 percent increase in the number
of transit-dependent people is projected for the rural area by 2010. As noted above,
transportation is a very big part of providing human services, especially in the rural area.
Increased transportation-service needs of rural area populations could force the expansion
of a high-cost service similar to Metro Mobility into the rural area.
At present, the rural service area is outside the metropolitan transit taxing district and
pays one tenth the transit levy paid by communities within the taxing district. This area is
not eligIble for regular route service or Metro Mobility. Should Metro Mobility or some
other form of transit service be required in the rural area, it will have to be subsidized by
urban area residents. This is due to the high cost of this service and the present levels of
subsidy needed.
'-)
HIGHWAYS
At present, many metropolitan highways in the rural area have unused capacity.
Unanticipated rural development uses highway capacity that is needed to allow commerce
to take place between the region and greater Minnesota, permit tourists to travel to and
from the region, and provide mobility for existing and planned development in the rural
area. Given the present level of funding and allocations of federal and state funds and
Council priorities, improvements to these highways will either require increased revenue
over the $70 million annual deficit projected by the Council, or will cause reduced
spending in the urban area.
LOCAL INCONSISTENCY WITII COUNCIL POUCIES
No matter what policies the Council adopts, inconsistencies will remain between
community plans and existing Council policies. Because of the diversity of present density
standards and lot sizes in the rural area, it would be very difficult to establish a uniform
Council density standard (other than the most liberal) that would ensure that the vast
majority of communities will be consistent with it. The Council will need to be flexible in
what can be grandfathered in and what has to be consistent with policy.
H:\UBRAR Y\DOCUMl!Nl\UlHOOL WPR
~ )
CITY OF ANDOVER
COUNTY OF ANOKA
STATE OF MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE 40 F
AN ORDINANCE REGULATING THE SPLITTING OF RESIDENTIAL LOTS PARCELS
OR TRACTS OF LAND WITHIN THE CITY OF ANDOVER. (40A, 10-04-77)
The City Council of the City of Andover hereby ordains:
SECTION III. REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATIONS
E.
Adopted this l7thdayof April
Council of the City of Andover.
1990, by the City
ATTEST
City of Andover
~,1 ;: f1:!t
JaJ;Id;.~ [/ ~
JaZis E. E ling, MayO;
~-J
~k,
Victoria Volk, City Clerk
.)
1
'- )
~)
'-)
CITY OF ANDOVER
COUNTY OF ANOKA
STATE OF MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO. 8 LLL
THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF CITY OF ANDOVER, MINNESOTA, RELATING TO AND
REGULATING THE LOCATION, SIZE, USE AND HEIGHTS OF BUILDINGS THE
ARRANGEMENT OF BUILDINGS ON LOTS, AND THE DENSITY OF POPULATION IN
THE CITY OF ANDOVER AND FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROMOTING THE PUBLIC
HEALTH, SAFETY, ORDER, CONVENIENCE, PROSPERITY AND GENERAL WELFARE
IN SAID CITY, AND FOR SAID PURPOSE, TO DIVIDE THE CITY INTO
DISTRICTS AND MAKE DIFFERENT REGULATIONS FOR DIFFERENT DISTRICTS.
The City of Andover does ordain as follows:
5.03 Special (Conditional) Use Permits
(D) Special Use Permit Sunset Clause
5.04 Variances and Appeals
(G) Variance Sunset Clause
been made in the first twelve
the variance, t e variance w~
Adopted this l7thday of April
City of Andov~
1990, by the City Council of the
CITY OF ANDOVER
ATTEST:
r.
( -.jL. [////
lb~-t'~ tJv-t:fi../
victoria Volk, City Clerk
"I
"-)
'\
,~
minnesota department of health
-ro c .c__
~ s;/9 i7
division of environmental health
925 s.e. delaware st. p.o box 59040 minneap.olis 55459-0040
(612) 627.5100
April 27, 1990
City Council/Owner:
Re: Stricter Penalties For Community Water Supplies Failing To Submit
.W'!.i;~r ,Samo 1 es .
The purpose of this letter is to inform all community water supplies that
the Department of Health is adopting a stricter policy concerning the
failure to submit required bacteriological water 'samples. Minnesota Rules,
part 4720.1200, requires community water supplies that serve up to 1,000
persons to submit a water sample for bacteriological analysis every quarter
(3-month period). Failure to submit these samples places the water supply in
violation of the State and Federal rules and subject to enforcement action by
State and Federal authorities.
Community water supplies that fail to submit the necessary samples will be
required to provide public notification to inform their consumers that the
required' sampling was not done., If a community water supply repeatedly fails
to submit samples, the supply will be subject to enforcement action, which may
include fines, by the Minnesota Department of Health and the United States
Environmental Protection Agency. .
The Department of Health provides sampling kits, sampling schedules, reminder
cards, a~d reminder phone calls if water samples are not received on time.
With this assistance, there should be no reason for not submitting samples on
time.
Sincerely yours,
~Z-J~tL
~ichard D. Clark, P.E., Supervisor
Water Supply Unit ,
Section of Water Supply and Well Management
RDC:bs
cc: Water Operator
an equal opportunity employer
'c~/
~
/ "
\.J
0"\\
.1'\
CITY of ANDOVER
Regular City Council Meeting - May 15, 1990
8:01 P.M. Call to Order
~)
Resident Forum
Agenda Approval
Approval of Minutes
Discussion Items
1. Public Hearing/90-6
2. Ordinance 62 Amendment, Cont.
3. Ed Fields Lot Split, Cont.
4. Special Use Permit/Jeff's Outdoor Furniture
5. Special Use Permit/Hokanson Development PUD
6. Ordinance 8 Amendments/Home Occupations
7. Gene Brown Park Dedication Fee
8. Approve Resolution/MWCC Refund Program
staff, Committee, Commission
9. Capital Budget
10. Lot purchase/Northwest Steel Fabrictors
11. Recycling Agreement
12. Revised Recycling Budget
13. Close Equipment Funds/Authorize Addn. Terminal
14. Strootman Park Parking
15. Schedule Meeting: City Council & park Board
16. Approve $2,500,000 Bond Sale
17. Receive Quotes/AAA Bldg. Electric Service
Non-Discussion Items
18. Accept Deed/Troy Olson
19. Water Surface Use Management
20. Request Speed study/133rd Avenue
Approval of Claims
Adjournment
C)
CITY OF ANDOVER
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
DATE M:.y 1" r 1 qqn
.J
AGENDA SECTION ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT ~~7~ FOR
NO. Approval of Minutes Administration
ITEM V. Volk fl
NO. ~:
BY:
,.-
The City Council is requested to approve the following minutes:
May 1,1990 Regular Meeting
COUNCIL ACTION
MOTION BY SECOND BY
TO
o
CITY OF ANDOVER
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
May 15, 1990
AGENDA SECTION
NO.
DATE
ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT
Engineering
-?~
ITEM
NO.1. Public Hearing/
BY:
The city Council has scheduled a public hearing for 8:01 P.M. to
consider the construction of sanitary sewer and watermain in Lot
1, Watts Garden Acres, Project 90-6.
Attached are the following:
* Public Hearing Notice
* List of property owners that were notified.
* Maps showing area to be served.
* Resolution ordering improvements.
PIN Name
Front Footage
34-32-24-42-0001 William Batson
170
110
264
34-32-24-42-0006 Harold V. Haluptzok
34-32-24-42-0005 & 0004 William Batson
Jim Schrantz has discussed these numbers from the feasibility
report with Mr. Haluptzok. Mr. Haluptzok will not be able to
attend the meeting. It is staff's understanding that Mr.
Haluptzok will like to be assessed over a 5 to 8 year period.
Note: The property owners have been notified that the hearing
will begin at 8:01 P.M.
COUNCIL ACTION
MOTION BY
. "
oJ TO
SECOND BY
CITY OF ANDOVER
COUNTY OF ANOKA
STATE OF MINNESOTA
')
'---
RES. NO.
MOTION by Councilman
to adopt the following:
A RESOLUTION ORDERING THE IMPROVEMENT OF SANITARY SEWER AND
WATERMAIN , PROJECT NO. 90-6 IN THE LOT 1, WATTS GARDEN ACRES
AREA AND DIRECTING PREPARATION OF FINAL PLANS AND
SPECIFICATIONS.
WHEREAS, Resolution No.
the 1st day of May
hearI'i1'g'; and
052-90 of the City Council adopted on
, 19~, fixed a date for a public
WHEREAS, pursuant to the
such hearing was held on the
19~; and
WHEREAS, all persons desiring to be heard were given such
opportunity for same; and
required published and mailed notice,
15th day of May
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City
of Andover to hereby order improvement Project No. 90-6
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Andover to hereby designate TKDA as the Engineer
for this improvement and they are directed to prepare plans and
specifications for such improvements.
MOTION seconded by Councilman
the City Council at a
Regular
Meeting this
and adopted by
15th day of
May
, 19 90 , 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
\
)
,~;,-"".,."...
o
(771'"')
,\1'\.",
:-~... ..
.~... . .,
.:~,).::-~::.;.:.:...:".,... '
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 HEARING ON IMPROVEMENT
PROJECT NO. 90-6
LOT 1, WATT'S GARDEN ACRES
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of
Andover, Anoka County, Minnesota will meet at the Andover City
Hall, 1685 Crosstown Boulevard NW in the City of Andover, on May
15, 1990 at 7:30 P.M. to consider the making of the following
improvements:
Sanitary Sewer and Watermain
The property to be assessed, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes
Section 429, for such improvements is within the following
described area:
Lot 1, Watt's Garden Acres, located in the NW 1/4 of SE
1/4 of Section 34, Township 32, Range 24, City of
Andover, Anoka County, Minnesota.
The estimated cost of such improvements is $46,800.
Such persons as desire to be heard with reference to the proposed
improvement will be heard at this meeting.
CITY OF ANDOVER
UI (!/71c..
Vo ,Clty C erk
Dated: 5-:::1-90
-,)
Q
~ "
,-J
Project 90-6
34 32 24 42 0001
William Batson
1331 - 45th Avenue N.E.
Minneapolis, MN 55421
34 32 24 42 0004
William Batson
1331 - 45th Avenue N.E.
Minneapolis, MN 55421
34 32 24 42 0005
William Batson
1331 - 45th Avenue N.E.
Minneapolis, MN 55421
34 32 24 42 0006
Harold V. Haluptzok
1950 Bunker Lake Boulevard N.W.
Andover, MN 55304
)
OF
",J
~ iT
, '
-
, .
ANDOVER
@
CENTER
SEC.34
fWIfKC'R LAKE-Sf::V-O:;: :5.e~-~"~'~.i
. . ' I ~: " I
33
~
,
<}
t-
ot
~ "
~
~
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
I-
. I
3j
. ~
,-
~
~
. ---"
I~J
.J, f/;r)
~ hJ ~ /AAIJ,
- ~<.
.i.7ZA"('.
,
I
I
I
I
"
,
/
,
,
,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,
I
f11
/ --....::r-~ ...._.~~.:.:.:..~ _..'
" (N..rdJtd
I
(8)
(/J.o.v
.iV'.&
.... -
..
_ _...~..e;'''..,
..:.../1?,U.....
....-3~....
u,y
(;)
~LlJ
.....~.....,
-2%~i)-'"
/""
,a
-=GOUN "P(="_-:-~ ~--
(3)
(';d) )
titfJ,tiV ~.'4...AJAA/W
~."'4~
'"
/,;? (Z) I,.
. ;., (50). ~
" I(o~id;f. .Tol7nn .1,,'lber(C)~
..... Qt
(6CO)
R_.ph ~\':.i= Ka..+hrYI/ ft: 'cd 1:>0+
z
It}
(e400)
lid)
4
a.#4
94
/
/.
(3000)
frarve.y L. 'it /'4orll'(n O. Ga."I'-"
5
(;)
M
pJ/'f!,J
,. ?z-
/
WA
T'S
~
..
:t
..
:.1
..
iii
\
\.
~
lLJ
lLJ
a:
~
U)
/I)
I
PANKl
..
~
~
<J
CITY OF ANDOVER
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
May 15, 1990
DATE
ITEM Ordinance #62
NO. Amendment
;l,
BY:
.-(%
Todd Haas, Asst. Engine
Jay Blake, City Planner
,;,v
f'v
APPROVED FOR
AGENDAt2:,
, ByJi
I
AGENDA SECTION
NQ Discussion Items
ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT
Planning
REQUEST
The Andover City Council has continued this item from the May
1, 1990 meeting.
BACKGROUND
The Council referred the item to staff in order to incorporate
several changes into the amendment. Please refer to the minutes
of the May 1, 1990 meeting for specific changes.
Staff is asking that additional discussion be directed on "target
shooting". Staff recommends that the section allowing t~rget
shooting to occur on ten and 2.5 acres lots remain (for firearms
and bow and arrows respectively). Also, staff believes that
Section 2b prohibiting projectiles from crossing the property line
would adequately protect the "health, safety and welfare of the
community".
A copy of the revised Ordinance Amendment was forwarded to
Attorney Hawkins for his comments.
COUNCIL ACTION
MOTION BY
_) TO
SECOND BY
CITY OF ANDOVER
COUNTY OF ANOKA
STATE OF MINNESOTA
,
" )
ORDINANCE NO. 62
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE #62 REGULATING THE DISCHARGE OF
FIREARMS AND BOW & ARROWS WITHIN THE CITY OF ANDOVER AND REPEALING
ORDINANCES 12, 12A, 12B AND 12C.
The City Council of the City of Andover hereby ordains:
SECTION I
DEFINITIONS: The following definitions shall apply in the
interpretation and enforcement of this ordinance.
a) RIFLE - a shoulder weapon with a rifled bored barrel and
discharging a single shot or pellet at a time.
b) SHOTGUN - a shoulder weapon with a smooth bored barrel or
barrels and normally discharging more than one
pellet at a time, including when using a single
slug.
c) HANDGUN - a hand held weapon with a rifled barrel and
discharging a single shot or pellet at a time.
d) BOW & ARROWS - for the purpose of this ordinance to mean all
long bows used for target and hunting
purposes as regulated and defined by
Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 97B.
e) FIREARMS - for the purpose of this ordinance this shall mean
shotguns and pellet weapons, whether C02 or
pneumatic powered.
SECTION II
REGULATIONS: No person shall discharge at any time any firearm or
bow and arrows upon or onto any lands within the City
of Andover except as provided by this ordinance.
a) No person shall discharge a firearm within 500 feet of any
residence or a bow and arrow within 150 feet of any
residence.
b) No person shall discharge a firearm or bow and arrow in the
City of Andover except for the following conditions:
1) Landowners may discharge firearms upon their property
provided the property is 10 acres or more in size and
the projectile eaRRe~ does not carry beyond the
property line.
,
1
./
2)
not
~+1l
Landowners may discharge a firearm upon
for the purpose of slaughtering animals
property is 5 acres or more in size and
projectile-eaRRe~ does not carry beyond
line.
their property
provided the
the
the property
,-J
3+!l
No person shall discharge any firearm-----------------
upon the property of another person in an allowed area
of 10 acres or more in size without written permission
of the owner or lessee.
5)
4+~ Recreational target shooting of firearms e~-Bew-aRa-
a~~ewe in an allowed area of 10 acres or more in size
shall be directed at a target with a backstop of
sufficient strength and density to stop and control
the projectile.
7)
shootin
an
8)
c) No person shall discharge any firearm or bow and arrows
within the City of Andover shown on the attached map as
"Prohibited District"-e*eept:-at:-a1:l~he~i,Bea-~aR!ee.
d) The provisions of this ordinance shall not apply to the
discharge of firearms, rifles or handguns when done in the
lawful defense of persons or property. No part of this
ordinance is intended to abridge the constitutional right to
keep and bear arms.
SECTION III
PROHIBITED DISTRICT: The attached map shall become a part of this
ordinance.
SECTION IV
PENALTY: Any person who violates any prov~s~on of this ordinance
shall be guilty of misdemeanor and upon conviction
thereof, shall be punished according to prevailing state
Laws.
SECTION V
)
VALIDITY: The validity of any section, clause or phrases of this
ordinance shall not affect the validity of any other
part.
, '\
,-j
AOopteO oy tne Clty CounC1L ot tne City ot AnOover tnls
of 1990.
oay
CITY OF ANDOVER
James E. Elling, Mayor
ATTEST:
Victoria Volk, City Clerk
\
)
:.J
CITY OF ANDOVER
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
May 15, 1990
AGENDA SECTION
NO. Discussion Items,
DATE
ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT
Planning , \3/
"Ili'
r'?''-
I I
BY: Jay Blake, City planner
ITEM Ed Fields Lot
NO,g, Split, Continued
APPROVED{FOR
AGEN~ \:
BV, /V(~
/
REQUEST
At the May 1, 1990 meeting, the City Council tabled this request
to allow Mr. Fields an opportunity to appear before the Council.
Enclosed is the packet of information from the previous meeting.
COUNCIL ACTION
MOTION BY
J TO
SECOND BY
CITY OF ANDOVER
o
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
May 1, 1990
ITEM
NO.
2. Ed Fields Lot
Split
DATE
ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT
Planning
d'Arcy Bosell
Jay Blake
AGENDA SECTION
NO. Discussion Items
APPROVED FOR
AGENDA
BY:
BY:
In Re: 158-- NW Uplander Street
Edward Fields & Sons, Inc.
Lot Split Request
REQUEST
The request before you is for a 2.5 acre lot split (including road
easement) from a 28.61 acre parcel. The property is zoned R-1 and
is also in the Agricultural Preserve Overlay District which
restricts development to a density of not less than 1:40. The
request before you meets the criteria of Ordinance 57 as it
pertains to the Agricultural Preserve Ordinance.
BACKGROUND
Pursuant to Ordinance No. 40, Sec. 1, "a residential lot split is
any division of a lot, parcel, or tract of land into not more than
two (2) parcels when both divided parcels meet or exceed the
minimum requirements for platted lots in the applicable zoning
district." Subd. A further provides that "No residential lot ...
shall be divided unless the resultant lots have at least the
minimum width, depth and square footage as required for any parcel
of land in the zoning district wherein the lot is located."
Ordinance 40 directs your attention to platted lots and the
criteria for platting is set out in Ordinance No. 10. The
district requirements are set out in Ordinance No.8. All three
Ordinances must be considered in relation to this request.
Ordinance No. 10, the Subdivision Ordinance, at Section 9.02(c)
provides that "no preliminary plat shall be approved wherein lots
continued
COUNCIL ACTION
MOTION BY
" TO
SECOND BY
'-../
~
Page Two
May 1, 1990
Ed Fields Lot Split
front on the right-of-way of State, County, or City Arterial or
Collector roads...." At Section 16.02 is also provided that "no
permit for the erection of any building shall be issued unless
such building is to be located upon a parcel of land abutting a
public street right-of-way which has been accepted and is
currently maintained by the City, or which has otherwise been
approved by the City Council...."
Ordinance No.8, the Zoning Ordinance, at Section 6.02 provides
that the Lot Area Per Dwelling Unit (square feet) in an R-1
District is 2.5 acres and that the Lot width at Front Setback Line
(feet) shall be 300'.
The request as it is presented does not meet the criteria set out
above in the following respects:
1. The lot area is 2.24 acres when the 33' road easement is
subtracted from the total area of the lot (Ord. No.8, Sec.
6.02 requires 2.5 acres).
2. The lot proposed does not meet the frontage requirements of
300' for a platted lot (Ord. No.8, Sec. 6.02 and Ord. No. 10,
Sec. 16.02).
To complicate this matter further, the City just completed a
street improvement project in late 1988 and as a part of that
project was the construction of a bituminous cul-de-sac at the
south end of uplander Street. This cul-de-sac provides access to
this proposed lot and the lot to the west by the inclusion of the
area of the cul-de-sac (approximately 50' on each lot). At the
time the western-most lot was created, there was a 33' road
easement along the eastern side of this lot to the south for road
purposes. This parcel was originally a 5 acre parcel and prior to
1982 was divided into two (2) 2.5 acre parcels, each of which has
this 33' road easement along the east side. When you subtract
therefrom the 33' of road easement, neither lot meets the 2-1/2
acre requirement.
\
~
Our records indicate that the southern-most property was
anticipated to be a building site, however, those plans have
changed and the property has been given back to the corporation,
however, a check with the ,County shows that it is still a free-
standing parcel of land.
At the time of the street improvement project, the issue of
assessment was discussed and it was determined that even though
the property was in the Agricultural Preserve Overlay District, it
would still be assessed for road purposes. This is the reason for
the request for the lot split is to allow for the creation of a
lot for building purposes and to recoup the assessment against
said lot. At the present time, however, this lot is part of a
28.61 acre parcel.
continued
. \
.J
Page Three
May 1, 1990
Ed Fields Lot Split
OPTIONS
A. That a metes and bounds lot split be requested which requires
5 acres in area and 300' of width. Because this proposed lot
abuts uplander Street, it would have access for building
purposes and would require no further action by the City
except to review the deed and certify that it is compliant
prior to recording.
B. To allow for the lot split to be completed with the following
conditions:
1. That the dimensions and legal description of the parcel be
redone so that the area requirement of 2.5 acres is met.
2. That the road be constructed to the southern edge of this
proposed lot to meet the 300'frontage requirement. The
issue of some sort of cul-de-sac or temporary turn-around
would also have to be discussed and resolved.
C. To consider granting a variance for this proposed lot split
request as it relates to area and frontage. The variance
would be pursuant to Ordinance No. 40, Section 4; Ordinance
No.8, Section 5.04, and Ordinance No. 10, Section 17.01. The
recommendation for a variance would also have to include the
specific provisions outlined above from which the variance is
granted.
D. Deny the lot split requested because it does not meet the
criteria of several ordinances as set out above.
The lot split request is also subject to Park Dedication fees.
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS
,J
At their April 10, 1990 meeting the Planning ad Zoning Commission
reviewed the request and made the following motion:
MOTION (Ferris/Peek) ... recommend approval of the lot split for
158-- NW Uplander Street legally described as:
"That part of the West half of the Southwest quarter of the
Southwest quarter of Section 15, Township 32 North, Range 24 West,
Anoka County, Minnesota, described as follows: Beginning at the
northeast corner of the W1/2-SW1/4-SW1/4, Section 15; thence
westerly, along the north line of the W1/2-SW1/4-SW1/4, a distance
of 322.99 feet; thence southerly, parallel with the west line of
the SW1/4-SW1/4, a distance of 337.57 feet; thence easterly,
parallel with the north line of the W1/2-SW1/4-SW1/4, a distance
of 322.37 feet to the east line of the W1/2-SW1/4-SW1/4; thence
northerly, along said east line, a distance of 337.55 feet to the
point of beginning.
continued
~)
Page Three
May 1, 1990
Ed Fields Lot Split
Subject to a roadway easement over the westerly 33 feet.
Including a roadway easement over and across a 33-foot strip of
land the easterly line is described as follows: Commencing at the
northeast corner of the Wl/2-SW1/4-SW1/4, Section 15; thence
westerly, along the north line of the Wl/2-SW1/4-SW1/4, a distance
of 322.99 feet to the point of beginning; thence southerly,
parallel with the west line of the SW1/4-SW1/4, a distance of
339.75 feet and there terminating.
motion continued...
and granting a variance for road frontage less than 300' and allow
access to said lot from the existing frontage on the cul-de-sac on
Uplander Street. The Commission has reviewed this request
pursuant to Ordinance No. 57, 40, 10, Section 16.02, and 8,
Section 6.02. The lot split would be subject to Park Dedication
fees as set out in Ordinance No. 10, Section 9.07. Further,
completion of the request and required action shall be within one
(1) year.
Motion fails O-Yes; 6-No.
Wayne Visted wanted the record to reflect his reasons for voting
against the motion - Pursuant to Ordinance No.8, Section 5.04 and
Ordinance No. 10, Section 16.02, a hardship was not shown. There
is more than adequate land adjacent to this parcel to provide the
needed acreage; it would be landlocking an existing 2.5 acre
parcel to the south; it would be contrary to the Ordinance
requirement for 300' of frontage, pursuant to Ordinance No.8,
Section 6.02 and Ordinance No. 10, Section 16.02; and it would be
very unfair to other residents who may apply for lot splits if the
Commission must abide by all requests and meet the requirements of
the Ordinance. A hardship cannot be granted strictly upon
financial consideration.
Ron Ferris noted in regard to the variance that without the 300'
frontage, it will totally landlock parcel (4) which is poor
planning for a parcel that has only one access point; there is no
reason to landlock this parcel and prohibit future development.
The metes and bounds process is available to the property owner
but he does not wish to consider another type of lot division.
Becky Pease agreed and noted again there was no hardship and there
are other alternatives.
Bev Jovanovich agrees with the reasons set forth above.
J
-
,0~
~)
CITY of ANDOVER
Lot Split #
1685 CROSSTOWN BLVD, N.W.
ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304
, ' \
''-J
LOT SPLIT REQUEST FORM
property Address
Reason for Request
. ent Zoning ~/;;!;-~
********************************************************~*************
::::e:: Applie,nt fd~~~d ~
/~~- --- --~- '
H~me PhO~$ ~u,inm phoo< -7 N --<9 y:!?
Slgnatur __ ~~ Date /u;,/d)f/ff:9
**********************************************************************
~
property Owner (Fee Owner)
(If different from above)
Address
Home Phone
Business phone
Signature
Date
****~*****************************************************************
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.
~J'0
Filing Fee:
$50.00
$10.00
Date paid tf!2.)
Receipt #
3.1
" Lot Split Fee:
.J
Park Dedication:
Date paid
Receipt #
-l
<!
a:W
~z
1--
,,-l
""-' 't
" ..l..
a:
W'
:cO
1-U
5Ul
z<3
, , '<1'
N'
,-
-:;::
:;::Ul
0:::' I
0'<1'
U::::
/
/' '
'I
I
01
01
N
N
r<)
I
I
I
I .,
I
!.
;
, I
,
I
\7/1 MS - \7/1 MS' .
- VI M 3
, ' ,<;<;'L>:'i: NI13
"-
'8~
"~
si ~.
,~
~. ' ~
,.::.~
V)! "-
, , t\:,;~
,. :~
,",,-
'U ~"
e.v, "-
!
,
i
" '"
.:' ," .
! ,..-... .:...
I
, : , i : :+N3\^J~S'lt3
I.... .,' I
lzI1MS.- ,L<;'L>:>:"
, ' : :,J:/LMS3NIJ~)M
, . !: . . _ \1l:J\1d
; 0'10tl .
i j.
::-':'\1~"'1
I..... '
.:: 'I:: '\}, ']1'
. I'"
: ;:~~{::
- -J/'~- :~:.
'n" i::-'
i:':' ,.
__'_' i ,'~:I"
. :':-'I';C;".-'"
".' i ,~.':I'
:, . ,': I ' : .-' ,: !'
, '..," I
;, ' \,,-,"j'
.. <_;.1_: :,~~ r': : :
.,:, :;W"',i:';
. . ..' i..:
!;!..:.: .
:.: .:;:J!!'
... ..,
I . ; ..: : ~ ;.: i
~ ' ': I
. ":!
I
I
, I
!
,
,
I.
"
./
,
,'. I
1 '
.- :-.- .-.....
I
, I
!
I
:,
"
. I
,
r<1
r<1
r<1'
r<1
!' ..--
I' I.,
i. ;..
r
I
,
I'
I
'~ ;"
'" ,
! '
- ,
I'
'i. r
! :.. ~
i' ,
i
, '
; ,
t I'~ .,.
I'
I
:;::
, Ul
.: .1.
,I '<1"
: I :::,
,:;::
!f.- C/1
'r<)W
.N Z'
,N :;j"
,r<1
i I Z
I J '
'\ :;::
. I <!
-, 'I a:
" <{
.11 a.. ,
. I
I
II
: I
-! .
, .
. !
'<1'
::::
1- "
W,
Ul .
W
~
a..
z
o
a:_
,-0
Ul'"
W -"
1- -~
ow
Z-l
W<l:
Ou
OUl
u
o
.. w
.~ ~
~cj>-=~
'" ""
4;;$ ""i
:5 ~i -
>=0 ~ i~~~
~2:: -< ~~.;~
:c ~ ~]..1
,...:"
:z:~ I: "- =
l..L.J=> oU !!....:;
~g.5 j;!~
:SLU ~ Ji":'~-
OJ u.J ~;! ~~ .
=:'
=at:
10
~
&,
u
w
Ul
oci
::::
:;::
Ul
,
::t
- '1...._: ~
. I ;:.: - U1
: \: I" .. ; z ~ 3 ~
I ;:;:. --
,,' ;1; Ul'-.:;::N~ ~
".;,1 ,"on::. 0
, , i 'T'-~ '-l ~ ...l1.. a: u
:.:;1 :r:;~o o-<{
.,...,l1..0 ~z,~
.. 'a:N~
: ,I 0 z, <{ r<) 0
" :!, ~ r: a.. 1- ~
I . _: .: .", ":-.-. I cr: i
::::.:'; "~ I' c.:.
I' i"';;:' i," i 0
" ; , . , , " ! ,.. . >- I
, : ; : : : : : ' .; W >-
I"" ,,"" > I ~
, ",.: ,:,:; ..:.i.. ~' ~
, ,
.
, v/\ M.S - L
" , , .. yll,MS 3NIl M
, " I . '
.... . 1
!
. ,
T"
i i
1 .-...-.
, .-
,
, '
. ro,
"
. .' ~ ".1::,'';':: ':,'. . .
. "... .', ...:, "':":"l'~;"" ~
1419 Tower Avenue' Superior, Wisconsin 54880 . 715/392.2112 . FAX 715/392.2859:,~:':':'};<':''''f::',''
. . "..: . ~ ;..::~:~~~;7:t~:~~~~~;~:._.: .
, ,
..-.
..,
"
November
.- ..~.
.-; :.',
'. "'.,....
. . ."
. "
..... .
Fields & Sons,'I~c.,
DESCRIPTION OF: .~ 2.5 Acre Parcel located in Section
: MIl
..
, '
DESCRIPTION
That part of the West half of the southwest quarter
Southwest quarter of section 15, Township 32 North, Range 24
West, Anoka County, Minnesota, described as follows:
LHB ENGINEERS & ARCHITECTS
<rS:~J':f;;;" '
.- ,..:
". .'.
,-.,'1,'"
....-."':,:.....~..
'0:-,:':::;.:;"::-'
.... ~.~..,,.,,;
.;-';:-'-: :'
.-.....
", ...~'~:.,>:~..-:-?::..
Beginning at the northeast corner of the ~1/2-SW1/4-SWl/4, .',
Section 15; thence westerly, along the north line of the W1/2~
SW1/4-SWl/4, a distance of 322.99 feet; thence southerly,
parallel with the west line of the SWl/4-SW1/4, a distance of
337.57 feet; thence easterly, p'arallel with the north line of the
W1/2-SWl/4-SWl/4, a.distance of 322.37 feet to the east line of
the W1/2-SH1/4-SW1/4; thence northerly, along said east line "a
distance of 337.55 feet to the point of beginning.
Subject to a ~6adwayeasement bver the westeily33 feet.
...... ....-.
. : - '. -: -::; . :~., ::.; .
, .' . . ...' ....,,;. ;:'1".
. Inc! uding a roadway easement over and across. a 33-foot',:strip::'clf'Hi:,,:
land the easterl~ l~ne is descri.bed. asf0110ws:,.'..,.'.;:';:,/;i;,::>.::~,;~::t~0~e;:~~t:X'
corrnnencing at the :northeast corner of the :H1/2....:.SW1/4-'SWl/4,:.,<<f;:,~i~\<:' ,
Section '15;' thence westerlYi along the 'north.line of'the~n/::i~,:::':;:~:;'.':
SWl/ 4-SWl/ 4, . a distance' of, 322: 9 9 feet' to the:point':of'begi~ni;g;,t)~:...
thence 'souther! y, ,parall elwi th the' westl ine " of. the' SWl! 4~SH1I.4-;-,:';>~:.',
a distance of 339;75 feet and there .terminating; ......:: '::'"...a:i::,~;;:,'i~:-,~..::."
Subject to and together with any other valid easements, <.,>:::i~::~::';~it~;:~:{.
restrictions and reservations'. '''-.::-.'''-:.
"0- .".._
-... ...' ~ ....
'. '
)
0.1.
NOli, Z I, /080
,
/07Z!7
Superior, Wisconsin' Duluth, Minnesota' Edina, Minnesota
c~.
~ . ~. .
.~ ~" l~
jo,
;:",
':
'i
I '
::i .J-
t..
Ii
.-!
i; ~ :;: .'~.
. ~
I (,
, i
I"
'. )
.J
,
"
i
___'U -/ZL) --. __u_
(>764)
^'
'"
, ...
,
,
t
~
--7iij---
(57;0)
~
"-
~~~...... (>Tn)
'" ~~> (?8)
.-:-" " ~~
~ (~~;;-~............' ~
"" ........,~
, '
---fLjj---U
(,768)
~;~~J
~
?JW)t-r. /:-10' ~ <:l
,./ ... <:i
. ,. J- '\
.rJ8.0! tlJ. . -:10 ~
~. 7 Z {J/)'Cs
(.zr-)
(,78~
(.t7) -
('788)
..
17 -:'_~.
.,'
~--"-
(32 ~\"--- '. ~
~ GOft-J !I- C? t),tl/UJ I
07, nd.. d:J , I;
, 158M Up 1il./lJJ.r I
, ,u)
(/(!/) ,"""" I,
I po.",...
2.:07; Cl.J- I
I
I
_ . 22-0' f--- ~ "
~~,ii";:'~ ~.,-, .
. ''';'O''-~'''' . \aOJt.r ~c OZIM/J
;71 .77 ddJ
! ~ c.l1c1ciJc. SV7J;
I'
,.
,:
~ '
! t
J'
I '~:.
I" ;
I
I
I
I
I
(1-) .'
,1:~<!J: ,
2.$JtL.
~
~
~
'.;1'
IS-82-24- 33=000 J
I
j;U). {).J .
(3 _--10 )-5)
(N)
(PIG)
(9)
('7/2)
M
(,TOS)
-J:t'L.::1::'
!O
A-'IJ ~
1\f6 i'<OJ
'Ii
0.0 \ \y
~2.M..:f7
O/~"
,
~ ~
, '
, (p)
(,8~~)
(7)
(,.704)
(;-;)
( "o!J5'Q)
~
,
~
tf". ~..
$ ~""'.s4 "', ..0::
.
,
,
('-Sfj.f)
.!II.. ~~
J. I' f ~ or.
(;~)
(>860)
L'I. ,,,
\~
\0)
1<\
n
i
I
't
l ' rf1\1
~ \jot
~
~(Il~.
> 235'!;
blJ' =::
6I17~';.s / (,,"'. A<.
f;)
.~
28.hl tlJ.
(;.iJ
(r8Z0)
69Q?-1/)
(~
.i._...
:'_.:~
-:.....:,
:s~.
~l~\
_I..,.;
:1""-
1'-
~~ ~.J
,
~~'~-..
~ ,'I".,.'-~.......
1:'''' -"t~
t;.t' .:::;:
r<
/l,r
~
... "
i
~
<l:
~~~
:~:
"~
(#)
(J~/
~'l/It. ,.
'"'1,; ~5+.7
~
~-
, .~
1S55'1 h~
. ;:/Jr.'
9(l7/1!.h.uL
--::--cP~/f""
I
I
I
"'~
I '."~
I -~
. ~
I ~~.....
I ,,~
: (p) ".
... I ((,,/25)
! r
Lu .r+ ,{,! :p.;;., ,.t.r...~.
I
I
I r ,.
I )57$7 duJail.
r cfCr.
I
I
I
I
)>'1'....1:";0 a
.. ('l.o -?.5f. 7c,
~;;t-:,: :.:.~:-:<~~.~::..:-..: :::.~~~.
,.,;q
-I! I I' I; i "I' I' ::::1', :'.,;,~1 ,-I -';.i ':":d I-I
, 'I""'" I{I;-~ y ~I 1 I I
II r----..- I ''7'. ' ' I,:" ':,0/,', I ' I I.J 11
i / ---..~ ",,:~,,,~! i?<;r- L-
I Y'. d>~~", ~r'J'IS!----,
~ ~ '"' -c','0..'"' ~ . f~" 1
,rt-l I I I I ' \, . 2,,0.::1 ~ '
IHII I " ' I
. IB'I'I ',J I I/V
I ~ ,. _ ' I ' ,...~
I' - '1-'
; ~~!.! ..u..' . ,....-
i~II'I'I'IW'Ff ~ : ./..../ I .
'fi l- . V 1- .' Ji6!. .
p [:l:' ,.I'~ ,'-.1 1/ Ii "I' ,,)1L:l ~ ,f
r~c:::~ ~ TILJ II -.-- "-- . III! .
L c;..rr' .-+-,-, 'i=l 7 '
~ LI'--"' .-;=.... ~I- ,--"..-, T'-'- ~:~ ~I ,~'~J e,. r ., .
1 _ ,I L...... "::::1}-f- -,- L..JII~-;'i I
"r. " ---' -.L ~ . ! '- f :I'=h,
, C7 ~~I~~~~' .... . ~p I'~"; I..OJ I '
~ .v '., ". .,"".'".'.~ . ..C : .. =;'l~"-""-' ' ~ "' " \ '. j I '
, r ~ c,.: :~c~"..: I.".'" :.:..;;:;::-, "" ~..",=., :' - , ' '
'-- :'" ~;,. "_7""'1"" ,,_,:'!;,~'-i-:;'~,::-';.'-'- ._'~.I.:,-:" }~........ /:-w - 1'-
, n ~.'" ......... I ......~".. d'-" .-
I tLt':\ I~~~~~~'hl~~~t~:~~l''-...,,-: ~ I
, c:::::::c .lo II - ~ "......... "-......-. ~
\ I i-.--
!71./,/..H~'" '- .; ~
, .. _ >D:~,.~.<..~1:"~~.;K"='4 . I I --./ ~ I .......
-01 ~: ;:"';;~'in~(t{;'t''''Tr '... ".,., ' ,'. '. -. --
.:.. L' . . ~Ji~;;;I:S':;2,':~ " . ;;--".' ="'=,' ---+- --".
8 , " =_,~ .. ol ,.., ..... 3\ ;;; ::1~1 . . ,"!'1!,'1ft,".h '
'1,1,." l~:,"~::E'i:~:'B ! ! ' :, ",,-
JI' , . ,d.. .~.,_""" _.....-........ ""1, , : _:f -- j
7' '. '. ' .'i!;.:,il"'0',~;';:;;;:' ~,~O"j" \, - ......l
.' ' 1 1 e- .,,~,.. f
,,'h' (~~ 1rfr.i~5!Br~):'$~~:$~~~~~~ I ,;h --;: -
~ ; - I ............... -......_.. . .'-' I '-' .,
, \ ' ~;5rl' ,,:~fi~.~i~.,i~~I~t.:,..i~;:i~;'*~ ......'eJ. ! i . ~J"ll: i:'l/ . '
\ ~ . I ,~r- ~~&1f~'''>: !,,;~~~-;,~ I' II 111 ' I
. -', . ''''' ." ~"'- .=~.Q'l .. - · "
)\ . . " -... ~$';;W ~~i!ijj, I I /' ,W -,
11 : 1 r
I I ~
, "r,h I' :r;-n.~
',.1'" T' Jy 'I.g.
i~d~:,,~:..:~:,~.~~'~',~._:;',:.~:_~:,:;.,;~;;.'r.!:1 i . I-I''''->\" 'i~
..' [: 'T'~~ ::..
..~/ '; m""" : , fU.' -:- :i~
I i 'fY5..I?~ 'EN ! j~
! - ----~
\'H..I.
~~~: <. ~.. I I I ' I 1t\1,;o;,,'-l"- · . 1? . -R. . · :~~
-J'-"",,> ~ \' I I' ..>'''''" ,V?N. .---" I' ," ~
~~g ~ I~/_~" ,\, + ,i I' I' I
1Jfili~,,) e~w'DG<, \r"" .'. " II I: ~ I ;~,: (.";~~:.~,.,..,.',..~:~~,.'~:::!~~ I: ~'I ~ql'n' ' , I U',;",r- ,:',:
.. v-~.'-' ""-'::_. ",;,,;, " I ." - - " I , I
P.... .... , " =, J '
, , , , , , , , , I '" ..' ~ ,<. ." I '~:
~_:~ '.,. ~,: . /~~~II I :
",,' "JT"'j"';~- I ____ I "~ :
'1;]
j; '<'''~
...::...::
-
"
':;-
iJ
;;
~L
~ I
,
I ,
I
I
I
,
I
I
I
! '
~-J
I
i
~
~
o
,LJ
~
][
q
I)
Jl
II
.fll
i1
i
I)
11)
~es.se.,d J:f reG\.
] : : I
" J '--
- - - - -
- - - ----., - - - -
- r---
- - -- - - - -, ,--
- - - -
- -
( 17) 161 ST AVE. NW 1 I
l (I) I I r.:
(16 ) (4) en
I I
(18) 1 (15) (2) I I 3: (2)
0
I I -1 (3)
I I -1
(19) .t (14) (44) I I ~
3:
\ \ (f) "--
(20) (32)
, (13 ) \ \ (9)
r-: (45)
VJ \\ \ ('31 )
(21) ;I. (12) \ \\ I--
0::
i ',I \' (46)
0 (30) \\\ (II)
(22) Z (II)
<:x; .(
\ \ (33)
0...
(23) ::J (10) (32) \ \
)
\ \ (37) (15)
(24) { (9) I I
(41) I I
. / \ (43) (17)
- I- 24 (8) / "
7/ r, ,
(25) , I / " ...........
(34) I /S "....... -- - --
(7) I[ ;:; c-==----
l- I I (35) /'{i Lt.
N (26)
, ~ (3Si I I
I 1 (42)
. (40)
1 I I (21)
'L (27) { (28)
U I I
(36) I I (39)
,
\1 I I
< , I I
~royosed I I (2)
(3 ) (I I I
, (I)
lo-!- I I'
I (5)
I I'
SCALE: r= 200' ,
I I,
~ aon..troc !1'-Q'~.").rc::I'IlI..cI'
UPLANDER STREET Ro..n .
1\Ii And..r Ilk do
IMPROVEMENT A..-oclat..
Jt.,.....,....,~~
( 6 / 21 / 88 ( Fig. J
88 - 14 Dale: No. I
Comm. 17134
rn
CITY of ANDOVER
1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD NW. . 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, December 12, 1989 at the Andover City Hall,
1685 Crosstown Blvd. NW, Andover, MN to review the Lot Split
application of Edward Fields and Sons Inc. on the following
described property:
That part of the west 1/2 of the Southwest l.4 of the Southwest
1/4 of Section l5, Township 32, Range 24, Anoka County, Minnesota,
beginning at the northeast corner of the W l/2 of the SW l/4 of
the SW 1/4, thence westerly along the north line of said SW l/4 of
the SW 1/4, a distance 322.99 feet; thence southerly, parallel
with the west line of said SW l/4 of the SW l/4, a distance of
337.57 feet; thence easterly, parallel with the north line of said
SW 1/4 of the SW l.4, a distance of 322.37 feet to the east line
of the W 1/2 of the SW l/4 of the SW 1/4; thence northerly,along
said east line, a distance of 337.55 feet to the point of
beginning. Subject to roadway easements over the westerly 33
feet.
(Approximate Property Address: l58XX NW Uplander Street)
written and verbal comments will be received at that time and
location.
&~w
vlctoria Yolk, City Clerk
,
"
.J
~t?-.7'~- -~-",_.
:!f r~-
",~l'A;
,'~ --:;j;'
'~~~~
CITY of ANDOVER
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
MEETING MINUTES
DECEMBER 12, 1989
The regularly scheduled meeting of the Andover Planning and zoning commission
was called to order at 7:30 P.M. by Chairman Rebecca Pease on Tuesday, December
12, 1989 at the Andover City Hall Offices, 1685 Crosstown Blvd., Andover, MN.
Commissioners Present: Chairman Pease, Ron Ferris, Bev Jovanovich, Randall Peek,
Gretchen Sabel, Don Spotts, Wayne Vistad
Others Present: Jay Blake, d'Arcy Bosell
Approval of Minutes
The Andover Planning and zoning commission was requested to review minutes of
their November 28, 1989 meeting. MOTION made by Bev Jovanovich to approve
minutes. Second to motion by Gretchen Sabel. All Commissioners but Ron Ferris
voted in favor of motion. Mr. Ferris was not present at 11/28/89 meeting:
therefore he abstained from vote.
Lot split Public Hearing, Edward Fields & Sons, Inc.
Request for lot split was presented by d'Arcy Bosell.
Request is to split off from a 28.6l acre parcel a parcel which is 2.5 acres
'- in size (including a road easement.)
Property is zoned R-l and is in the Agricultural Preserve Overlay District
which restricts development to a density of not less than 1:40.
Ordinances 40, 10 and 8 relate to this request.
The reason for the request for the lot split is to allow for creation of a
lot for building purpose and to recoup the assessment for street improvement
against said lot.
Lot split request is subject to Park Dedication fee.
Detailed information regarding request is outlined in 12/12/89 Request for
Planning Commission Action memo..
commissioner Ferris questioned why easement is not taken down to southern end
of lot.
Bosell replied it is unlikely lot could be used for residential.
Two variances would be necessary if request is granted as proposed. Lot area
does not meet criteria of Ordinance 8. Section 6.02. Frontage requirements of
Ordinance 8, Section 6.02 and Ordinance 10, Section 16.02 are not met.
)
cont'd....
Andover Planning and zoning Commission
December 12, 1989 Meeting ~linutes
Page Two
~J
If request is approved as requested, Bosell recommended city yacate edges of
existing cuI de sac.
Bosell outlined five options for the Planning and Zoning Commission to consider:
1) A metes and bounds lot split b~ requested which requires five acres
in area and 300 feet of width
2) Allow for lot split to be completed with these conditions:
Dimensions and legal description of parcel be redone so that
2.5 acre area requirement is met
Road be constructed to southern edge of proposed lot to meet
300 foot frontage requirement. A cuI de sac or temporary turn-
around would need to be resolved.
3) Consider granting a variance including specific provisions from which
the variance is granted
4) Table this matter
5) Deny lot split request
Proposed lot split is adjacent to an area to the north that is zoned R-3 and
restricted to lots being buildable on every other lot.
Mr. Fields preference, as stated to Bosell on 12/12/89, is to construct private
street and have two and one half acre lot. A metes and bounds lot split is
not acceptable to Mr. Fields.
Assessments to Mr. Fields for improvements on Uplander were $2700.00.
Ms. Bosell stated it is preferred to cluster density in an Agricultural Preserve
as long as in compliance with 1:40.
Mr. Ferris asked Blake if he recommends against running easement to southern
edge of lot line.
Mr. Blake recommends easement extend at least 300 feet down, but final distance
should be determined by Mr. Field's plan, if parcels to south are buildable.
It was determined that
natural gas easement.
easement.
when calculating acreage, area is not taken out for
Restrictions prohibit placing permanent structures on
Ferris questioned if proposal is for easement or actual road construction to
extend 300 feet down southern edge of lot.
Bosell stated actual construction of road is proposed.
Blake noted an option would be to split off two and one-half acres and allow
access from cuI de sac. This option would require a variance.
. )
cont'd...
Planning and Zoning commission
December 12, 1989 l1eeting Minutes
Page Three
vis tad stated a variance is allowed for a hardship. In this case there is no
hardship because there is ample land.
\.' '1
,---,'
Ferris asked if (in regard to lot being split out) potential for expansion to
east is as feasible as expansion to south.
Bosell replied expansion to east would be feasible.
Bosell stated land can be under separate ownership to meet 1:40 requirement.
The eight year covenant is an agreement between city and landowner that for
a minimum of eight years there will be no development. The eight year clock
begins with landowner request for decertification.
Chairman Pease opened the Public Hearing at 8:00 P.M.
Terry Boe, 15924 Uplander inquired if cost of cuI de sac will be assessed to
landowners.
Bosell replied cost will be borne privately.
Boe asked if street will be a through street.
Ferris re;lied there are not immediate plans for a through street. He believes
city should take easement for possible future construction of road.
Boe stated his opposition to developing road to become a through street.
Mr. Fields stated it is not right to assess a landowner for improvements that
are of no benefit to said landowner. Assessment to Mr. Fields for road improvement
was costly. Mr. Fields wants to create a lot for his granddaughter. Mr. Fields
is very opposed to a cuI de sac opening to his farm land.
Commissioner Vis tad stated two options that comply with Ordinance:
1) Create street for two and one-half acre lot
2) Metes and bounds lot split (five acres)
Blake explained that due to change in interpretation of Ordinance, the two and
one-half acre lot is a legally existing, non-conforming parcel.
Mr. Ferris asked Mr. Fields what option he prefers.
Fields would prefer a two and one-half acre lot, private street, with no cuI
de sac opening to farm land.
Bosell noted a private street is not allowed.
Fields stated a city street is not acceptable to him nor is metes and bounds
lot split.
con t ' d. . .
\
)
Andover Planning and zoning Commission
December 12, 1989 Meeting Minutes
Page Four
~~J
Mr. Blake explained that the fire department makes recommendations on cuI de sac
length based on urban streets. City ordinance does not distinguish between urban
and rural streets.
Commissioner Ferris noted that situation is a Catch 22 in that if
extended a variance has been granted, w~thout a variance request.
is not extended, variance has likewise been granted.
cuI de sac is
If cuI de sac
Blake explained that in past, hardship justifying variance of cuI de sac has
been that non conforming cuI de sac prior to existing Ordinance is brought up
to Ordinance.
Sabel suggested a five acres metes and bounds lot split extending over to Swallow
Street be divided into two, two and one-half acre parcels. Parcel on east
would be along Swallow Street which is an existing road with 300 feet right of way.
Blake replied that parcel to west would not have adequate frontage and would
still require a variance.
Vistad believes that in fairness to other residents who may apply for lot split,
commission must abide by Ordinance in all cases and not grant variance when
hardship cannot be defined according to Ordinance.
Ferris noted that this request brings to light the problem that Ordinances do
not play together in every case.
Blake acknowledged problem and explained that efforts by city are being,made
to improve and clarify Ordinances.
Ferris doesn't believe it is sensible to extend street at this time because
it will force emergency vehicles further down cuI de sac. Ferris stated Planning
and zoning recommendation will have to include variance, because street limit
has already been exceeded.
Bosell said the real concern is not the length of the cuI de sac but the
accessibility.
Pease suggested Planning and Zoning Commission make recommendation based strictly
on interpretation or Ordinance; while providing detailed narrative of discussion
in minutes for City Council perusal.
vis tad asked Fields which of the options discussed for a Planning and zoning
recommendation he prefers.
Mr. Fields stated he does not want a public street running into his farm.
Mr. Ferris suggested the possibility that lot split be done taking two and one-
half acres to east of Swallow. Variance would not be necessary and road is
already there.
Mr. Fields will consider this possibility.
con t ' d. . .
'1
.J
Andover Planning and Zoning commission
December 12, 1989 Heeting Minutes
Page Five
Ferris reminded Mr. Fields to bear in mind the restrictions caused by gas
easement.
'~~J vis tad also stated that parcel will be subject to assessments if/when Swallow
upgraded.
MOTION made by commissioner Ferris to co~tinue Public Hearing and table agenda
item until 1/09/90 or until such time Mr. Fields requests discussion be continued.
Item to be tabled to allow Mr. Fields time to consider two and one-half acre
parcel to the east of requested parcel as an alternative site.
Second to motion by Wayne Vistad. All commissioners favor motion; MOTION passed.
Meeting recessed from 8:55 - 9:00 P.M.
Public Hearing Commercial vehicles R-l Districts Ordinance 8 Amendment
The Planning and Zoning Commission was asked to discuss Ordinance 8 amendment
regulating the storage of commercial vehicles in residential districts.
A Public Hearing was scheduled and published for this meeting.
Request was presented by Mr. Jay Blake.
At previous meetings, ordinances from neighboring communities were reviewed.
Section 3 Definitions are taken from state statutes.
Current Ordinance allows three different gross weights for commercial vehicles
in three different sections. Proposed amendment uses gross weight of 12,000
pounds throughout Ordinance.
Proposal allows for storage of one semi tractor on three or more acres. Acreage
limitation was chosen to coincide with pole barn requirements. Restrictions
include the parking of semi trailers nor shall it include the operation of a
truch transfer station.
A change in parking requirement for RV's is included in amendment. Side yard
parking will be allowed as long as vehicle is 10 feet from property line.
Improvements in wording of Ordinance are part of amendment.
Bev Jovanovich questioned Section 8.01. A problem could occur if RV is owner's
only mode of transportation.
Blake replied that an RV could be excluded if the only mode of transportation.
Ferris noted amended Section 8.01 does not include a length limitation. He
feels a limitation to zoning should be included.
Vistad asked if there have been complaints against RV's parked in residential
areas.
cont'd...
, '\
,~
.LJ
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
MINUTES--April 10, 1990
Page -5-
After discussion of the motion, Ferris moved to modify and Peek
considered the following modification to the motion:
Under Section II, (bl 3 and 4 replace the word "allowed" area
to "restricted".
The second was held, and the vote stayed at Ferris, Jovanovich,
Peek, spotts andP~ase-~yes;.Vistad~~Do.
The Commission discussed the signs posted regarding hunting
within the City, particularly the ones worded "No hunting
south of here".
MOTION by Peek and seconded by Spotts, that the Planning and
Zoning Commission of Andover recommend to the City Council
to be reviewed at the same time that the Council reviews the
proposed changes to Ordinance No. 62, a recommendation from
the Planning and Zoning Commission that we remove the signs
about the City that say "No hunting south of here" and that
we look at placing at the entrance to Anodver signs which
would say words to the effect of "Discharge of firearms and
bows and arrows are restricted in the City of Andover".
Discussion of the motion included Peek suggesting that staff
do a study of the total sign package for the City. Blake
stated there are approximately 6 signs now at the entrance
signs of the City and expressed concern that people could
read that many signs. Blake will have the staff draft some
potential language.
Motion carried unanimously.
ED FIELDS & SONS LOT SPLIT REQUEST, contd. 158XX Uplander
STREET N.W.
Bosell reviewed with the Commission this request which was
first considered at the December 12, 1989 meeting and continued
until this date. The request is to split off from a 28.61
acre parcel a parcle lwhich is 2.5 acres in size, including
the road easement.
The property is in the Agricultural Preserve overlay District
which restricts development to a density of not less than
1 for 40. The request meets the criteria of Ordinance 57
as it pertains to the Agricultural Preserve Ordinance, but
Ordinances 8, 10 and 40 must also be considered.
'- )
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
MINUTES--April 10, 1990
Page -6-
~, )
Bosell states that the request as it is presented does not
meet the criteria as set out in that the lot area is 2.24
acres when the easement is subtracted out, and Ordinance
No.8 requires 2.5 acres.
Also, the proposed lot does not
of 300 feet for a platted lot,
No. 8 and No. 10.
meet the frontage requirements
as set out in Ordinances
In addition, this lot split would land-lock one of the lots
for the time being.
Bosell and Blake met with Fields and explored some of the
options available, including a metes and bounds lot split
or completing the lot split with the stipulations that the
parcel be redone so that the area requirement of 2.5 acres
is met and the road be constructed to the southern edge of
the proposed lot to meet the 300 foot frontage requirement.
Fields has indicated his willingness to escrow for the construction
of the road, but that it be built at a later date. He has
requested that the Planning and zoning Commission consider
,the1_e_c:tu,<3st as or ig inally presen ted.
MOTION by Ferris and seconded by Peek that the Planning and
zoning Commission of Andover recommend to the City Council
approval of a lot split for 158XX Uplander St. N.W. in granting
one variance of the frontage of 300 feet and allowing entrance
to come in off of the existing cul-de-sac on Uplander.
In looking at this request the Planning and Zoning Commission has
looked at Ordinance 57 on Agricultural Preserve, Ordinance
40 on lot split, Ordinance 10 on platted lots, Section 16.02,
and Ordinance 8, Section 6.02, on the size requirement.
The lot split would be subject to park dedication fees as
set forth in Ordinance 10.
Also, a sunset clause that there must be reasonable progress on
this lot split within 12 months.
After discussion, the vote was zero--yes; six--no, with reason
by vistad, Ferris and Pease.
\. '1
/
vistad stated that according to Ordinance 8, Section 5.04
a hardship was not shown. There was more than adequate land
to provide the needed acreage. To grant the variance would
be to extend the cul-de-sac beyond recommended footage and
extending that problem and would be land-locking the other
2.5 acre parcel to the south of it. It would be in violation
of the required 300 feet frontage for lots. It would be very
unfair to other residents who may have applied for lot splits
if the Commission does not abide by ordinances in all cases
if hardships cannot be defined.
~)
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
MINUTES--April 10, 1990
Page -7-
Ferris stated the variance in the motion was the elimination
of the 300 foot frontage. I am opposed to that for a number
of reasons: 11 without the 300 fDot frontage or easement
set aside for that frontage it will totally land-lock the
parcel shown on the map as No.4. That would be poor planning
and a mistake on the City's part to further land-lock a parcel
of land that only has one remaining access point. 2) there
is no hardship. 31 a metes and bound split is possible with
five acres without any hindrance. The owner does not wish
to do that, and furthermore, the owner does not wish to entertain
any lot split whatsoever that would cause proper frontage.
Peek stated he had nothing additional to say, other than he
agreed with the reasons given. Also, he stated that the motion
did not include extension of the cul-de-sac and was not a
reason for denial.
Pease stated her reasons agreed with everyone else in that
a hardship was not demonstrated because there were other alternatives
available and the land-locked lot.
ORDINANCE NO.8, PARKING/CURBING REQUIREMENTS
The next item discussed by the Commission was curb requirements
in non-residential areas. Staff did a survey with the cities
of Coon Rapids and Blaine_and presented the Commission with
another draft of a proposed ordinance.
Haas reviewed this draft with the Commission and stated that
the City needs some specific language as far as materials
used for curbing.
Blake and Haas will prepare a new draft of this proposed ordinance
to include specific set of standards on curbing and verbage
on parking lot islands for traffic control. This will be
ready for the Planning and Zoning Commission to review at
April 24th meeting.
ORDINANCE NO.8, HOME OCCUPATIONS
Blake reviewed a redraft of the proposed ordinance with the
Commission. It was decided to reword the verbage in Section D,
entitled "Vested Rights". Also, under number 8 (c) it will
be reworded that the home occupation portion of an outside
storage area shall not exceed 800 square feet.
,
~ i
~/
This ordinance will be redrafted with these changes and scheduled
for a Public Hearing at the April 24, 1990 meeting of the
Planning and Zoning Commission.
~~-)
'1
~ /
CITY OF ANDOVER
COUNTY OF ANORA
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RES. NO. R -90
A RESOLUTION DENYING THE LOT SPLIT REQUEST OF ED FIELDS AND
SONS INCORPORATED FOR A 2.5 ACRE PARCEL IN SECTION 15, TOWNSHIP
32, RANGE 24, ANORA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
WHEREAS, the City has received a request for a lot
split per Andover City Ordinance 40 for a 2.5 acre parcel in
Section 15 of the City of Andover; and
WHEREAS, the Andover Planning and zoning Commission has
reviewed request at their December 12, 1989 and April 10, 1990 and
recommended denial of the request; and
WHEREAS, the Andover City Council finds that the lot split
does not meet the minimum requirements for lot size and lot
frontage on an improved street and variances for lot size and
frontage would be necessary in order to approve the request;-and
WHEREAS, the Council finds that no hardship exists on the
property due to the unique shape and/or topography of the parcel
and that several alternative lot configurations exist; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of
the City of Andover, denies the request of Edward Fields and Sons,
Inc. for a 2.5 acre lot split on the property described on the
attached sheet.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Andover on this 1st day
of May, 1990.
CITY OF ANDOVER
James E. Elling, Mayor
ATTEST
victoria Volk, City Clerk
LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR ED FIELDS LOT SPLIT
~~
,~)
"That part of the West half of the Southwest quarter of the
Southwest quarter of Section 15, Township 32 North, Range 24 West,
Anoka County, Minnesota, described as follows: Beginning at the
northeast corner of the W1/2-SW1/4-'SW1/4, Section 15; thence
westerly, along the north line of the Wl/2-SW1/4-SWl/4, a distance
of 322.99 feet; thence southerly, parallel with the west line of
the SWl/4-SW1/4, a distance of 337.57 feet; thence easterly,
parallel with the north line of the W1/2-SW1/4-SW1/4, a distance
of 322.37 feet to the east line of the Wl/2-SWl/4-SW1/4; thence
northerly, along said east line, a distance of 337.55 feet to the
point of beginning.
Subject to a roadway easement over the westerly 33 feet.
inc~u~hing a roadway.eas~ment over and across a 33-foot strip of
an e easterly Ilne lS described as foil' .
'northeast corner of the W1/2-SWl/4-SWl/4 s~~~ionc~~~e~~lng at the
westerly, along the north line of the W1/2-SW1/4-SW1/4 :n~~ t
of 322.99 ~eet to the point of beginning; thence south~rl lS ance
parallel wlth the west lin~ of the SW1/4-sw1/4, a distanc~'of
339.75 feet and there termlnating.
\
,J
o
CITY OF ANDOVER
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
May 15, 1990
DATE
ITEM SUP - 13650 Hanson
NO. L/. Boulevard
ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT
Planning ~
({flY
Jay Blak~ Planner
BY:
~~~~:~OR
BY=! [
./
AGENDA SECTION
NQ Discussion Items
REQUEST
The City Council is asked to review the Special Use Permit
application of Jeff's Outdoor furniture and Custom Woodworking for
a SUP to allow retail sales in and Industrial District and outdoor
display, storage and sales, per Ordinance 8, Section 7.03.
APPLICABLE ORDINANCES
Ordinance 8, Section 5.03 (Special Use Permits) defines criteria
for granting a Special Use Permit and Section 7.03 allows such
uses in an "I" District By SUP.
GENERAL REVIEW
The request for Special Use Permit is for the business located at
13650 Hanson Boulevard NW, formerly Lou's Tire Town and Andover
Tire Town. The business builds and retails custom outdoor
furniture and also contracts for residential woodworking (ie.
doors, frames etc.)
The owners are leasing two garages, the retail area and former
attached dwelling. The rest of the building is currently not
leased.
The City has been attempting to get the property cleaned for the
past four years. The waste tires had been removed from the site
during last year's shredding operation at Tonson. A collection of
waste tire has accumulated from the previous renters. Also, the
fence has been declared a nuisance by the planning department.
COUNCIL ACTION
MOTION BY
'1
'_~ TO
SECOND BY
Page 2
13650 Hanson Boulevard
May 15, 1990
~J
The city had an agreement with the owners of the property to have
the tires, scrap metal and debris removed from the site by April
30, 1990. To date, no progress has been made with the clean up
of the property. I have forwarded the item to the City Attorney
for prosecution.
The City has the authority to review special use permit
applications based on the proposed effect on the health, safety,
morals and general welfare of the occupants of the surrounding
lands, existing and anticipated traffic conditions including
parking facilities on adjacent streets and land, and the effect on
property values and scenic views in the surrounding area, and the
effect of the proposed use on the Comprehensive Plan.
1) The Health, Safety, Morals and General Welfare of the Occupants
of the Surrounding Lands.
The presence of a retail operation on this site will not have a
significant detrimental effect on the health, safety, morals and
general welfare of the community.
The outdoor display shall be limited to the items constructed and
sold on the property and should be limited to an area at least 10
feet from the property line. The proposal should not have a
significant detrimental effect on the community.
2) Traffic and Parking Conditions
The applicant should not be generating a significant number of
large vehicles or create traffic congestion. No additional access
point on the County Road system will be created. The Display area
should be limited to the area indicated on the attached map and
should not create any significant problems with traffic or
parking.
3) Property Values and Scenic Views
The proposal will not have a significant detrimental effect on
property values and scenic views.
4) Effect on the City Comprehensive Plan
The use is allowed by the zoning ordinance and fortunately, is not
associated with tires or automotive recycling.
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OPTIONS:
0)
1. The Andover Planning and Zoning Commission may recommend
approval of the Special Use Permit request of Jeff's Outdoor
Furniture and Custom Woodworking to allow retail sales in an
"I" District and also allow the display of merchandise on the
following described property:
Page 3
13650 Hanson Boulevard
~~ May 15, 1990
Lot 4, Block 1, pankonin Addition, Anoka County, Minnesota
The City may wish to impose conditions for the operation
including, but not limited to the following:
A. Retail Sales shall be limited to items associated with
and/or constructed on the site.
B. Outdoor display shall be conducted at least twenty (20)
feet from the property line.
C. The Special Use Permit shall be subject to an annual
review.
D. The Special Use Permit shall be declared null and void if
significant progress is not made within one year of
approval of the Permit.
The Commission finds that the proposal will not have a significant
detrimental effect on the health, safety, morals or general
welfare of the neighborhood, nor will the proposal negatively
impact traffic or parking conditions, property values or scenic
views. Finally, the proposal will not negatively impact the
Comprehensive Plan of the City of Andover.
2. The Andover Planning and Zoning Commission may recommend denial
of the Special Use Permit request Jeff's Outdoor Furniture and
Custom Woodworking to allow retail sales in an "I" District and
also allow the display of merchandise on site during business
hours on the following described property:
Lot 4, Block 1, pankonin Addition, Anoka County, Minnesota
The Commission finds that the proposal will have a significant
detrimental effect on the health, safety, morals or general
welfare of the neighborhood and will negatively impact
traffic/parking conditions, property values or scenic views.
Finally, the proposal may negatively impact the Comprehensive Plan
of the City of Andover.
3. The Andover Planning and zoning Commission may table the
proposal.
\
)
:~
Page 4
13650 Hanson Boulevard
May 15, 1990
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
The Andover Planning and Zoning Commission has reviewed the
request at their April 24, 1990 meeting. The Commission
unanimously recommended approval with the above mentioned
conditions and included that the property must be cleaned prior to
the issuance of the Special Use Permit. The Commission added that
the permit is limited to the areas currently being leased by the
applicant. (see attachment A)
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends Option #1 with the conditions outlined in this
memo.
\
)
,'~~ CITY of ANDOVER sUP ,
::t'\. 1685 CROSSTOWN BLVD. N.W.
ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304
c~J SPECIAL USE PERMIT. REQUEST FORM
property Address
J 3050
AJ LV +t- O-nJOn
Blvd,
-AndOV-er ,MAl
5::J3(Jf
Legal Description of Property:
(Fill in whichever is appropriate I
Lot ~ Block I Addition
?UA1 /c~ 1kl~,17UYl
3 ~ 32 ~ Zt.j -' '11 ./ 000,-/
plat
Parcel
PIN
(If metes and bounds,
attach the
complete legaLI
\,~,\ 1J '1-
J.. I L<sfflU
Reason for Request f{e..+CJ-..lv! r<)o.le-5 Lv1.
OrJ/-fdoy safe, 011 +he. <\';.~
Section of Ordinance '7. '03
Current Zoning
x
Name of Applicant
**********************************************************************
J ()0 tv! C d fer N -.Jef+'1s 0 u.--I-dcor
er-r-en..; , \....JCUI Q-f ~urn if{}e "t (US101'^.-
A noLo- 55303 fJJCCdLVO(/(,'1l1Ji
Business Phone '157- C;33')
Date 3 -;{G -9{)
3?/S- b20Lj+I'\, Ln, N(;J
75"3- G /3L1
Signature 1jLx;L 1 j@()J2dafJ/ /itCl/ ~.
*********************************************************~************
in ,/1"<.1 OnL r!l!! ,~v'4t.;,J I/r(,
S -"JIA. R\ hLcr
Address
Home Phone
~roperty Owner (Fee Ownerl
(rf different from abovel
_.****.***
37Nv1-
Business Phone 81 (- 1)'<)7
Date /Jf),,,- I ? (<("q [)
I I
Address
Home Phone
Signature
*********************************************
'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.
'\
)The names and addresses of all property owners within 350 feet of
subject property must also be provided.
the
riling Fee:
$150.00J
$10.00
9 /37
Da te Paid Lj-5- 0 Receipt it 3c.J J
Application Fee:
\-
~~~~I\~
{o (). ~~ i tlJt-0j
I
./
-
bE? m L.,
__.____0___.. ....___... .--..------
~
--.--.--
. \
, )
. .. OffllB<;_
5.lJ1/ /looM
-. --------..--.----..-.... - -... ..-. _.....------
----------...-----..- .'. ......--..--. .... .--------
---..--~m11I(,--~.----. Jt,'.-----. 'i"~(l-
-......---- -..--------.-------- . ,-,--'-" -.. .--.------ .-------.--.--.
_____. .______._R_____.. \.-.-----=--.---- --.. ..--.- . ----..-.-- ..--------....
v> .
""4;J,,~
n__'-"'__' ___1__.... m" .- .. ---.---
_1!Jf~.~~+acft.l(!!!.j_t.~t7;raje ._____
.-.---. . .__.....d_ _ . .. .. 0" ...__ ".
-I:I .
. ..-..---0_
----------.... ...-...--" ..-.... ...-
l~r"f1\11
._____u.__h._.._._. .-.- .
CrARAG'GS
. _____.~~--__--_--h-----..
7../J:> 5frt11
......- ----.. .----.-----.----.------.--.
..' -.---' .- ._.- ..... - -'- - -- - .....-_.
..--.----...... -.....--..-.. ........-..--- ...
sro~GG. 8U.ILDI,.JC.,
~.
.-.- -......-.-.. ..---.-.----.-...-
J~~l No+-U.~cJ.QY ~_ Ilppl,CaA*--_:. ___bn___
._- ----- ---.-..-.....-..........
..
/40'
..
._____.__ - _____._ __._._. n_' ",___'._'
.--'--'--" ...-.--.-...- -.--.--..--.-.
.. --.---... jo_. . ..:. . _._.--~. - . --.-...... .-....,...----.--.--..
..... --.-..-.....-.------.
-..----- n' :1
I
.__._ __Jerp~-DuLd(;QL.F..u.[D.~t.~-e ~.. C;i.!-~fut1.J-..
.__' )N:JOcwcrICtnj //\L-.
. .__. ... I .. - - _... ----.--..----. --------.
.__.r3.b-?O.~. uJ._~ EUlb ----------
. ...--..-.,. --. ...--..-.-..
N~____.. . .
/,\ , \~ 1>.-1) ,. . . \ . --
~cr:::--_l ~_.. ~___.-_._.---n_.-- -'-
S 530Lj
. . - - .... . ..~ -. .-.----.-----....--------..
._J57 -, ,.
\
. - )
. ---..--'- -.-.-------
,.
.., -"-' -..
4tt-Ctc~cu-+ _ A-__
-------..---.- ... -.--.....
'''''''.''' . E.I/';C~Nt.HLC. . -..- ...
~ . I . . !. .-'
~.,.I,. i. SEC.' 41', ....&~~
--..,.'..... ." I. ',' . ....l~..~..~.
-r --
- @")
~j\.. .1'.\ }
.~ w
~.14"
CITY of ANDOVER
1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N,W, . ANDOVER. MINNESOTA 55304 . (612) 755-5100
CITY OF ANDOVER
COUNTY OF ANOKA
STATE QF 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, April 24, 1990 at the Andover City Hall,
1685 Crosstown Blvd. NW, Andover, MN to review the request of
Jeff's Outdoor Furniture and Custom Woodworking for a Special Use
Permit to allow retail sales and outdoor display in an Industrial
District on the following described property:
Lot 4, Block 1, pankonin Addition, Anoka County, Minnesota
Written and verbal comments will be received at that time and
location.
/'
(
~u
V~ctor~a Volk, City Clerk
\
j
ordon Clemens
751 131st Avenue
oon Rapids, Mn 55433
. '1 Power Assoc.
63~_Junker Lake Blvd
.ndover, Mn 55304
ohn Imre
5844 Sycamore Street
.ndover, Mn 55304
J
ABC Mini-storage
13624 Hanson Blvd
Andover, Mn 55304
Harold Jellison
1657 Bunker Lake Blvd
Andover, Mn 55304
Kottkes Bus Servo
13625 Jay Street
Andover, Mn 55304
Anoka County Courthouse
Anoka County
325 E. Main st
Anoka, Mn 55303
Q'
:.L~ "
CITY of ANDOVER
~)
,-'-'",~,~,:"
.-.-=~.'
REGULAR PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING
APRIL 24, 1990 MINUTES
'.
The Regular Bi-Monthly Meeting of the Andover Planning and
Zoning Commission Meeting was called to order by Chairperson
Rebecca P~ase on April 24, 1990, 7:30 p.m., at the Andover
City Hall, 1685 Crosstown Boulevard N.W., Andover, Minnesota.
Commissioners Present: Ron Ferris, Randal Peek, and
Don Spotts
Commissioners Absent: Bev Jovanovich, Wayne Vistad
Others Present: Jay Blake, City Planner; Todd Haas,
Assistant City Engineer
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
MOTION by Spotts and seconded by Ferris to approve the Minutes
of the Special Meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission
on April 9, 1990. Motion carried unanimously.
MOTION by Spotts and seconded by Ferris to approve the Minutes
of the Regular Meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission
on April 10, 1990. Motion carried unanimously.
SPECIAL USE PERMIT 13650 HANSON BOULEVARD--RETAIL SALES IN "I"
DISTRICT
Blake explained to the Commission that this is a request on
the application of Jeff's Outdoor Furniture and Custom Woodworking
for a SUP to allow retail sales in an industrial district
and outdoor display, storage and sales. The business is located
in space previously occupied by Lou's Tire Town and Andover
Tire Town. The business builds and sells custom outdoor
furniture and also contracts for residential woodworking.
Jeff and Lisa Gardas are the owners of the business and are
leasing two garages, a retail area and the residential dwelling.
The remainde~ of the building is unleased at this time.
Blake reviewed a copy of the floor plan with the Commission.
He stated that the City has an agreement with the owners of
the property to have the tires, scrap metal, and debris removed
from the premises by April 30, 1990. The fencing is also
to be removed by this date. Blake stated that some progress
has already been made on the cleaning and if the owner does
\ not complete the cleaning, the City will have it done and
/ bill the owner for the work.
Regular Planning and Zoning Meeting
Minutes--April 24, 1990
Page -2-
~~ Blake stated that staff did not feel the presence of the operation
would have a detrimental effect on the health, safety or general
welfare of the surrounding community; that there would not
be a signficant number of large'vehicles or traffic congestion
or lack of parking space; that the retail business will not
have a detrimental effect on property values; and that this
use is allowed by the zoning ordinances and would in fact
improve the overall use of this space.
Blake stated that Staff recommends approval of this request
for a special use permit.
The Commission questioned the use of the dwelling on the property.
The Gardas stated that one of their employees is living in
the house at this time. Blake stated that the house can continue
to be used as a residence and maintained as such, but that
the dwelling cannot be expanded or added on.
The Commission expressed concern that the Gardas might be
caught in the middle if the owner does not complete the cleaning
and the SUP is contingent on this. Blake stated the cleaning
would be done either by the owner or by the City and billed
to the owner, and that this was a separate issue.
PUBLIC HEARING
At this point the public hearing portion of the meeting was
opened. There were no comments at the public hearing.
MOTION by Ferris and seconded by Spotts to close the Public
Hearing. Motion carried unanimously.
Peek suggested that a copy of the drawing be attached to the
motion in order to identify the specific space involved in
the SUP.
Spotts and Ferris asked about signage for the business. Blake
stated that a sign permit is pending. The Gardas stated that
they intend to display one of their tables attached to the
sign.
MOTION by Ferris and seconded by Peek that the Andover Planning
and Zoning Commission recommend approval of the Special Use
Permit request of Jeff's Outdoor Furniture and Custom Woodworking
to allow retail sales in an industrial district and also allow
the display of merchandise on the site during business hours
on the following described property: Lot 4, Block 1, Pankonin
Addition, Anoka County Minnesota. The City may wish to impose
~
~~
Regular Planning and Zoning Meeting
Minutes--April 24, 1990
Page -3-
~)
conditions to the operation which would include:
A. Retail Sales shall be limited to items associated with
and/or constructed on the site;
B. Outdoor display shall be conducted at least twenty (201
feet from the property line;
C. The Special Use Permit shall be subject to an annual
review;
D. The Special Use Permit shall be declared null and void
if significant progress is not made within one year of
approval of the Permit;
E. The property must be cleaned of all tires and the nuisance
fence must be removed prior to the issue of a Special
Use Permit.
The Commission finds that the proposal will not have a significant
detrimental effect on the health, safety, morals and general
welfare of the neighborhood; nor will the proposal negatively
impact traffic or parking conditions, property values or
scenic views. The proposal will not negatively impact the
Comprehensive Plan of the City of Andover. A Public Hearing
was held and no comment was received.
The pencil sketch shall be labeled Exhibit A and be attached
to the Motion and that the special use permit would only apply
to the spaces listed as Manufacturing/Storage, retail area,
office and bathroom.
The Andover Building Inspector shall make a general inspection
of the premises before the permit is issued.
This recommendation shall go before the City Council at their
regular meeting on May 15, 1990.
Motion carried unanimously.
HOKANSON DEVELOPMENT, SPECIAL USE PERMIT, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOP~1ENT,
SKETCH PLAN
The Commission reviewed the special use permit application
for a planned unit development on the property located at
Southeast 1/4 of the Southeast 1/4 of of Section 1, Township 32,
Range 24, Anoka County, Minnesota.
\
)
CITY OF ANDOVER
COUNTY OF ANOKA
STATE OF MINNESOTA
~
RES. NO.
A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT REQUEST FOR JEFF'S
OUTDOOR FURNITURE TO ALLOW RETAIL SALES IN AN INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT
AND OUTDOOR DISPLAY AND SALES ON THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED AS: LOT
4, BLOCK 1, PANKONIN ADDITION, ANOKA COUNTY, MINNESOTA.
WHEREAS, Jeff's Outdoor Furniture has applied for a Special
Use Permit to allow retail sales in an industrial district and
outdoor display and sales on the above described property, per
Ordinance 8, Sections 5.03 and 7.03; and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed the
request and held a public hearing at their April 24, 1990 meeting;
and
WHEREAS, the City Council found that the request will not have
a significant detrimental effect on the health, safety, morals and
general welfare of the community; and
WHEREAS, the Council found that the request will not have a
significant negative effect on property values or scenic views in
the area; and
WHEREAS, the Council found that the request will not have a
significant negative effect on the Comprehensive Plan.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City
of Andover approves the Special Use Permit request of Jeff's
Outdoor Furniture to allow retail sales in an industrial district
and outdoor display and sales on the above described property, per
Ordinance 8, Sections 5.03 and 7.03; and
The City Council agrees to the following conditions for the
permit:
1. Retail sales shall be limited to items associated with or
constructed on the site.
2. Outdoor display shall be conducted at least twenty (20)
feet from the property line
3. The Special Use Permit shall be subject to an annual
review.
4. The Permit shall be declared null and void if significant
progress is not made within one year of approval of the
permit.
J
5. The approval is subject to the removal of the waste tires
and clean up of the property by the property owners.
:J
"-
)
Page 2
Res.
Adopted by the city Council of the City of Andover this 15th day
of May, 1990.
CITY OF ANDOVER
ATTEST:
James E. Elling - Mayor
Victoria Volk - City Clerk
~J
CITY OF ANDOVER
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
May 15, 1990
ITEM SUP - P.U.D.,
NQ Sketch Plan
DATE
ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT
Planning (
Jay Blake planner
BY:
5.
APPROVED FOR
AGENc~
BY:
AGENDA SECTION
NQ Discussion Items
I
REQUEST
The Andover City Council is asked to review the Special Use Permit
application for a Planned Unit Development on the following
described Property:
Southeast 1/4 of the Southeast 1/4 of Section 1, Township 32,
Range 24, Anoka County Minnesota.
The applicant has also requested preliminary review of the sketch
plan for the property. See the enclosed maps.
APPLICABLE ORDINANCES
Ordinance 8, Section 5.03 regulates the Special Use Permit,
outlining conditions and procedures.
Section 4.18 establishes criteria for the use of a Planned Unit
Development, including residential subdivisions submitted under
density zoning provisions. Density zoning allows substantial
variances from lot size and setback requirements provided that the
development would allow for the protection of natural features or
better use of the property.
Sketch plan requirements are outlined in Ordinance 10, Section 6
and the following items shall be addressed as part of this review:
conformance with the comprehensive plan and design standards.
GENERAL REVIEW
Staff was approached by the developer earlier this year inquiring
as to the development potential for the property. Planning Staff
suggested that due to the unique natural features present on the
site that a Planned Unit Development might be appropriate (cluster
the homes and protect the wetlands).
COUNCIL ACTION
,J
MOTION BY
TO
SECOND BY
~
Page 2
Hokanson Development
May 15, 1990
Staff gave the developer an incorrect interpretation of the
Density Zoning provisions Section of the Ordinance (Section 4.20)
stating that a density increase might be possible. Later during
our discussions, this fact was corrected. (Density zoning allows
clustering without an increase in the overall density of the
project.)
The developer then submitted a revised plan that was not a Planned
Unit Development, however, the plan still required significant
variances from the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance. A third
revision now has all of the requirements of a sketch plan and
therefore was reviewed by the Andover Review Committee.
The proposed development consists of roughly 40 acres in the
northeast section of the city,. The property currently gains
access from Crosstown Boulevard on the Andover/Ham Lake border.
The applicant is proposing to develop rural residential lots
ranging in size from 1.4 to 4.4 acres. The overall density is 1
lot per 2.35 acres (2.5 acre minimum lot size).
The land characteristics include prairie grass mixed forest
substantial wetland areas covering approximately 1/4 of the total
area. The Department of Natural Resources (DNR) has control over
a portion of the wetland. Other wetland areas may be under the
jurisdiction of the Army Corps of Engineers. Prior to the
completion of the Special Use Permit and filing of the preliminary
plat, staff recommends that both agencies are contacted by the
applicant to arrange a mapping of protected wetland areas.
SKETCH PLAN REVIEW
The Andover Review Committee met to review the proposed sketch
plan and has the following comments:
1. First, the Sketch Plan approval hinges on the approval of the
Special Use Permit. Since significant variances would be
requested and the plan could only proceed if a successful SUP
were obtained by the applicant.
2. There are DNR and Army Corps of Engineers wetlands on the
property. The Ordinary High Water mark would have to be
determined prior to approval of the plan.
3. Significant Variances.
The following charts depict the two sets of variances for the
proposed development.
, )
Page 3
Hokanson Development
May 15, 1990
)
Lot Width: Lot Block Proposed
300' Width
2 1 264'
3 1 254'
4 1 264'
4 2 160'
1 3 110'
2 3 290'
3 3 285'
4 3 287'
7 3 246'
Lot Area: Lot Block Proposed
2.5 a. Area
1 1 2.145 a.
2 1 1.7 a.
3 1 1.63 a.
4 1 1.7 a.
1 2 1. 42 a.
3 2 2.1 a.
4 2 2.0 a.
5 2 1. 4 a.
4 3 2.3 a.
5 3 2.17 a.
4. The Building Department has recommended that the home sites on
Lots 2 and 3 of Block 3 be moved from the "island of sand" to
the buildable areas adjacent to Butternut Street NW.
5. university Avenue Extension should be shown along the
southeast section of the plan from 173rd Lane NW to Crosstown
Boulevard. The alignment is currently a driveway for the
existing home on Lot 7, Block 3. The developer should contact
the City of Ham Lake for additional right-of-way acquisition
for the road if needed.
6. Butternut Street should have an oversized temporary Cul-de-sac
for turn around purposes. When the property to the north
develops, the road would have to be extended.
7. The developer should attempt to make the intersection of 173rd
Ave. and Butternut street a 90 degree angle. Also, the
City/developer should acquire the right-of-way necessary to
connect the roads, as there is a sliver of land separating
these roads.
-'
')
'->
Page 4
Hokanson Development
May 15, 1990
8. The existing shed on Lot 7, Block 3 should be moved, removed
or the lot line re-drawn to allow for a 10 foot setback.
Generally, staff recommended that the number of lots be reduced to
maintain the 1 per 2.5 acres as required by Ordinance 8, Section
6.02.
Staff believes that the street layout does make good use of the
land and existing topography.
SPECIAL USE PERMIT REVIEW
The planned Unit Development section of the ordinance allows for
creative design standards in the development of residential,
commercial and mixed use developments.
Significant variances may be granted with the granting of a
Special Use permit for Planned Unit Developments providing:
1.
when staff was initially approached by the developer, a PUD was
suggested as a way to protect the substantial wetlands on the
property through an open space agreement that would prevent
development of these areas. A density "increase" was first
discussed. However, no provision in Ordinance 8 allows for an
increase in density for a PUD.
The design has changed and the wetlands have again been
incorporated into the individual lots. The uniqueness of the
development has been lost by not protecting the integrity of the
wetland areas.
2.
The variances, if
genera 1ntent 0
ranted, would be full
t e Zon1ng Or 1nance.
consistent with the
The staff has recommended that the density of 1 to per 2.5 acres
be preserved. This would result in the loss of several lots.
Staff has also recommended that a minimum lot width of 180 feet
and an area of 1.5 acres be used. These figures correspond with
60 percent of the minimum lot requirements.
3.
.J
This provision does not apply to rural developments.
. \
-)
Page 5
Hokanson Development
May 15, 1990
4. The variances
The preliminary plat would need to indicate that a minimum of
39,000 square feet high/dry buildable land be on each lot for the
placement of on-site septic systems, per Ordinance 10.
5.
staff believes that the uniqueness of the property is not being
protected with the proposed development. The wetlands should be
part of an open space area protected by covenants on the property.
The current plan does not necessitate a PUD design.
CITY COUNCIL OPTIONS:
1. The Andover City Council may approve the Special Use Permit
request of Hokanson Development for a Planned Unit Development
on the following described property:
Southeast 1/4 of the Southeast 1/4 of Section 1, Township 32,
Range 24, Anoka County Minnesota.
The Council finds that the request meets the conditions of a
planned Unit Development as outlined in Ordinance 8, Section
4.18 and that the development is in keeping with the intent of
the Andover Comprehensive Plan.
2. The Andover City Council may deny the Special Use Permit
request of Hokanson Development for a Planned Unit Development
on the following described property:
Southeast 1/4 of the Southeast 1/4 of Section 1, Township 32,
Range 24, Anoka County Minnesota.
The Council finds that the request does meet the conditions of
a Planned Unit Development as outlined in Ordinance 8, Section
4.18 and/or the development is not in keeping with the intent
of the Andover Comprehensive Plan.
\
I
J
3. The Andover City Council may table the proposal for additional
di!':cl1!':!':inn.
, ~
~)
Page 6
Hokanson Development
May 15, 1990
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS:
The developer asked that the item not be tabled, so that the
process could proceed. the Planning Commission discussed at
length, the need for 39,000 square feet of high land per lot and
there was some concern over the DNR and Army Corp concerns with
the wetlands. The Commission unanimously recommended denial of
the planned Unit Development with the following comments:
1. The proposed development does not meet the intent of a Planned
Unit Development, as no clustering or mixed uses are present
in the development.
2. The building pads do not appear to allow for 39,000 square
feet of buildable property per site.
3. The public comment was overwhelmingly against a density
greater than 1 lot per 2.5 acres.
4. The wetlands would not be protected with this proposal and the
PUD need for a PUD is not evident.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Due to the large amount of protected wetlands on the property and
design consideration, the City Planning Staff recommends option
#3. This would allow time for the developer to contact the DNR
and Army Corps of Engineers for information on construction on the
property.
,
)
@
CITY of ANDOVER
1685 CROSSTOWN BLVO. N.W.
ANDOVER. MINNESOTA 55304
SUP ;
~-)
SPECIAL USE PERMIT REQUEST FORM
Property Address 17] / I 1/"','1/"'..... r/I-"/ /f t.-y"" ~ e
Legal Description of property: SE J.~ pt= t/.e .rE~ drfflc/l1tJ;') 11~'1
(Fill in whichever is appropriate I ,J::- (7u_'/JIr.',17 -.:z-1. ~'"'-P/c" ('pu..,r7
Lot Block Addition
plat
parcel
PIN
I - ] ?- - ?- ~ - r ~/ - t?" (7 I
(If metes and
bounds, attach the
~ 1"#1'1 ec/
"Z,.
e<frf'f
complete legall
1/ n " r ,LJ {i r-- -f /; ?'''''' 1'--1;-
,
('P""lfIr?<{ ,I- ~ /"~J,'/"'-zI''I!J
Reason for Request
Or '/V'
1/,/ t/'1
I/' &:1-: "r:f ('I
I'
r / '2...~..P'
/" /1'.
Current Zoning ;:< - /
Section of Ordinance
**********************************************************************
Name of Applicant
/Iv,/c a oot..J (7....,
.t::J ~v~/c;,/~ ("-1/ ~ ('.
,
Address
9/7 ~
..,t- f d.., I)
fl'.
Home Phone Business Phone 7 rtf - ]/1 t?
Signature ~ ~~t1E::-~~ . ~ate Y/,?/,7?t?
******************************** *********.**~..i*i*1t*********************
property Owner (Fee Owner) ~~
(If different from above)
Address
Home phone
Business Phone
Signature
Date
**********************************************************************
. (<f"lr ~.,'/I f<e/.....I#ed)
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
subject property must also be provided.
the
Filing Fee:
$150.00
$10.00
Date paid
>//'7
Receipt ~
Application Fee:
)
, "-
\ )
-
;-..)
'V-l
i~
-
€
",
<.
!~
;',J
"
'-'
-
--
.:..
-
-':
i
i
I
I
I
.::. V) L. dO&>.
:.: l.1\ ~: ~-~-.
C'l) ~ L
'r: ;.~"
_/ ....:<:
fl1-
. . ~ ,L" 1/7.,,,,,, ~ T-
. . . -- Ct.nlVe-r- -dt., :7' ITVc..
.:..
-'
Or.
l
I
-
-,...j
\...)J
--..j
.-...~
....
'--'
~,
I~
i'
It
I
---
;t
~
-......(
~
"
I
'"
"-
to<
t.
('
~
LIMITS
.' . ~ . -'.
---
-......! .:
.~._..__..
/N
~
~
,
~-
~'.'. ..
..........
.330. 1/.___
~fJ()
-<
,~ ....
<
... i
;,........ :::::-..
~~'-
. .....~
........:1 -<.
.~
-........
-....i
\.>{'
d
'.
..
-<
'.
'.
..
'.
(?
~
CITY
OF
, ..
'.
--'-'"--''' ~.-- ....-.---
--:::-.
"2:
~'.~
c
<~
:J
a::
w
>
o
o
r=.
..,.
~
...
~
"
"-
o ~ 1
!" t1) :....
r\ \I
~i ~
~
j\
fI
I.
,\
\.
i\
ii
\.
il; ~
ii 1 l
;1 II
il
1I ~ "
1- a_
il ; ~
.\
11_
1\
ii
I-
i \
I"
----.-- -i ~
-,
L
il
i"
~
~
It
-\
/.
. \
-..;
~
t'-
I I
I I
I I
.
.
.
..
"
"
":;
~
t"': ""
,
.,
"
:\! ":;
"-
. ~
"
~
n
~
~
~
I I I I I I I
I t 1 I I , I
I I I I I I I I
'( i i~~~lr :;- ----'\\\--<.1:-.(' --~~:"~:,i .,L ...~ i ;ItJ'
! ~j I~-I ) ~-I-- -/,l~~ '"'S=""~ " . . '\~_____I'n__ ~~~' .' '\: m 1- - I' ....;----
1,'\ I I,:' ~." i'l ::(.. " .?..... '!" .:, I : 1€
~ f~l. ~: '11' \ ~l 'i '~---:g L,;;~~"'liC~.,,,,~I""i: fT~I~ --.,~~L 'i ~j
,-C~ ----'~\ l-rJI ! 1h--hXQ~-n 1~L,~Tn[J( ':'t;"1-~ ;i T'Na9~!'
) ! I ',~:' ., . t~ I~; I: .."..: I -....,.
=!",---.II 'v I I Ii .,/ :--., !~i:fiIl'l I ,.~.:-"..I-'-(~ : : I ~
II, :: I I r. !.--f .......~.!..' ,,'II ~~ __ _1_./ _. '_~~_.~:~ -- i ___~ _ I- I .~
~ : / ----i----;-- " /' ~ I I \ \ L-d. _ _ J if-' L-- I -+-- '~-r---
, . 'ffM"'" '! ' ( I' 'I i ~~';': ~:~:.>.~; u__ I :
~~~_.u..;:.:J. "" Ii! I : (., ~ ~'.. 1.__ : / l
: U+~r--; i!: -,=r-- I '( -! 7"'~1' --T--~li . ----1 --
I I ~ i If.' ,! I I ,. '-j......... . I , r. I IT!, c.. '''' ._.__ I
~--~-~ ~! 1 =JI-li 'I:~: i n-B! b~ ~4~IL~rWJ~ ---- .".J..~~' : ---J':==f~-"~'fll,t~:I'::::I~lr:~~:
I I I :u I ~._~ /-' ---: i' ,I I nl :.... r.1~II!..I...:;t:; I : ('-I:' . ~,...
: : '".J' ' ,7'1 t; It'" 'I ~- =~! ! '\ I I
,I--- ~~/~:-:~ \L ~~ -~ !:,J---- --- --~-"i-~lfa-L~
.,~ . -. ~ . . . . . . ,--I' , '--~ I:'~ . j;
~~: H' ~;k 'I"I'I~II I ;f~~ i '3l-H1 'I I I i <-,. - I I ~~ :iu: '
'in' '.' . ...:U'; I """i-;l:!~' I I ~- ti)!'"
ni -' .~[;: . .~~.: it. ~.,.. c:.;..t". ---;-- ~ P.. i / . In-- - I' rf- -' 1 . ~ .
'J~",,~. . .' .~'''7 tIT:;~:- / U r .: . I,V"'"
;!P1.~...<~L . ""~~:"I;\~~'. ':-, " ,"/ ~:I 1----1 I 1"'--:-" ....h'. ; LJ, .~~ .-
I ....!!-H . ~ 1!-+1'~~:~ '~L V I 'I ~ . r-- .--. \l~ ~ _it! '/ II ~ ..
t:= ~"'71 - {;.'"f::" :':{G"'" - ~~'e-="r ++. ""'rl:=r--l : Wln-i--n-, ,-,-\"-! ~'..",==",' T--1 l!"~~
'i . ,., . .. .:J,: . ~-_. ! ,I I I r.'\..",. ",..Ic-.\./ I '"''''''''
" ~ .. , 11 "!. ., :p,.;.:H!.';; '., it' "'K-'''- "
~~Ii!~~:;.~' .... ,;.ut<ii. Ir: \' -i~ '1~~11~~;tit!~~~~~- ',. :'-'..1 i
'I~ jR1" ~.,: r fPf----L--- ' ~-~fJ~ N~~;.;'-J " '. '
.~ ' ;F' ~hiti : i: . i '! ;.b '~ ~... '. ,-
H'" ' ... ~ . I..... ,<. n I, -, I II i-I ~~;:; . " ~ . "
IJ;; I, II r I 4' __ I 'II ... '.~~I~ ~.....
. I: ;'I~ I_~~)~l/: W.rL':";!L,-'''~~;!I':~''--' :-~
~ jH- . .;1':;,'\ . /, , ' "',"'LI.C~' (..J::~_ I--ti ~.
~.._ ~-, I ;N,,~I~ ,....,...."" y I = - -
Ii . '-- i :. A~\.J.:tJ "-"3 ~..., I ~ I~' . ;. ~ .'. r,--:
l!;..: . ;::;-. ~..' ~ .yr..J.-j ii, ~- ._~~" I~.!.. '~!. "I :
i ~ ~~~...~ '/T ~. ,', :' . . : :;~t.~,:~: ':8.: I J, f-M!]: I 4
~ l)J.lJ..-..::: '\ .___1.. i:'":':'i.~~~~~"';::'~ : ..., ~ + I
rn-- 7..r',=--- ' D1~~.' "?(.'. . . -:-:-. "".' ---~~~ -. .'" . .... --
. ( ! I : '~!~. ':d.' '~'r'~8'''~'''lJ T,~~ ~i~ I i
! _' . I _, I. I ...'. I I r~l':':';: "11 ~ ~ _ rl
~I .&~ : i ~q;':'Ji"'~'''!li,/)I~I~' :...~!,~,:W =" k1 _JOo,."'=-.-=i
. 1::: I _. ~if1l,.:I'~____ :',. ~ -';~ ......
~,~ ! ! '''IJ.I"",~",I ~...,. .. ,:::,r,'I/ "'--'~' ;.:;.","",;1(:!:::t.
c~---... ----r--T--- II: ,"",j-lj-lC:=t:i'r'f~~::V/ .~ . ..~ . .
, . ~ I: . U--:.:.:f!I -~ ~
h 'I -f.- I I r./ ., , , I '!J ~,'\::-- 11lJ~
). -~~3J ----f--f" I ,..1 ,il I~))
. I r.-- I:' ,I i'1."IJ
~'"::.".". '.1 ----~ ,rY r::::f; ~J
, I ~Jf ... "_.~-
, ' ,
, '
~
z~~.
~i
.
I.
-,
II ~ I':
Ii z t
Ii :11
A ,l~li
... Ii'
0::: CC ...J b.. !
~2 irl
o I
Cl~l
lLZ~j
; <to.
:::;: ~ t:: !mill "
>-1iC ! '..
~8iHil;;i"
11111 .
lUll
...1......
IIIU.' .
..'r"
~
"
\
~
Regular Planning and Zoning Meeting
Minutes--April 24, 1990
Page -3-
,)
conditions to the operation which would include:
A. Retail Sales shall be limit~d to items associated with
and/or constructed on the site;
B. Outdoor display shall be conducted at least twenty (20)
feet from the property line;
C. The Special Use Permit shall be subject to an annual
review;
D. The Special Use 'Permit shall be declared null and void
if significant progress is not made within one year of
approval of the Permit;
E. The property must be cleaned of all tires and the nuisance
fence must be removed prior to the issue of a Special
Use Permit.
The Commission finds that the proposal will not have a significant
detrimental effect on the health, safety, morals and general
welfare of the neighborhood; nor will the proposal negatively
impact traffic or parking conditions, property values or
scenic views. The proposal will not negatively impact the
Comprehensive Plan of the City of Andover. A Public Hearing
was held and no comment was received.
The pencil sketch shall be labeled Exhibit A and be attached
to the Motion and that the special use permit would only apply
to the spaces listed as Manufacturing/Storage, retail area,
office and bathroom.
The Andover Building Inspector shall make a general inspection
of the premises before the permit is issued.
This recommendation shall go before the City Council at their
regular meeting on May 15, 1990.
Motion carried unanimously.
HOKANSON DEVELOPMENT, SPECIAL USE PERMIT, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT,
SKETCH PLAN
The Commission reviewed the special use permit application
for a planned unit development on the property located at
Southeast 1/4 of the Southeast 1/4 of of Section 1, Township 32,
Range 24, Anoka County, Minnesota.
1
J
Regular Planning and Zoning Meeting
Minutes--April 24, 1990
Page -4-
:,)
Blake stated that there are really two parts to this request
since the approval of the sketch plan hinges on the approval
of the special use permit.
This proposed development consists of approximately 40 acres
in the northeast corner of the City. The area includes substantial
wetland areas, which cover approximately 25% of the total
area. The Department of Natural Resources and the Army Corps.
of Engineers have some control and jurisdiction over at least
a portion of these wetlands.
Blake stated that Ordinance 8, Section 5.03-governs the special
use permit; Section 4.18 establishes criteria for the use
of a planned unit development; and sketch plan requirements
are outlined in Ordinance 10, Section 6.
Blake also stated there had been some miscommunication between
the City and the developer as to what was required in order
to meet the criteria for a planned unit development, and that
while the first sketch they reviewed was laid out as a planned
unit development, the revised sketch (which is the one the
developer is submitting I is 5-10% higher density than allowed
and incorporates the wetlands into individual lots, rather
than as an open space area protected by covenants. It is
Staff's opinion that the current plan does not necessitate
a PUD design.
Staff stated also that there are significant variances requested
which include nine lot width variances ranging in size from
110 ft. to 290 ft., as well as ten lot size variances which
range from 1.4 acres to 2.3 acres.
Staff recommendation was to table the proposal for additional
discussion, which would enable the developer to meet with
personnel from the DNR and Army Corps of Engineers.
KIRK CARSON, REPRESENTING HOKANSON DEVELOPMENT, INC. and
ROGER HOKANSON, 15570 Potawatomi St. N.W. spoke at this time.
Mr. Carson stated he would like the minutes of this meeting
to reflect that they are upset. He stated they originally
came to the City with an 18 lot planned unit development that
protected the wetlands, and that now they have reduced the
project to 16 lots and Staff is stating that they do not meet
the proper criteria.
He also stated that the Army Corps of Engineers want a plat
to know you are serious before they will work with you.
Mr. Carson stated that they have spent a month and a half
doing site revisions and sketch plan, which was meant to be
) an ,informal presentation and discussion with the developer
:)
Regular Planning and Zoning Meeting
Minutes---April 24, 1990
Page -5-
and the Planning Commission, and instead with the conditional
use permit and the notifications thereof, it has turned into
a public hearing.
Mr. Carson stated that their purchase price was based on there
being 18 lots available and now they are down to 16, and they
feel they have lost the value of two lots.
He stated that the two strips of land leading into the property
are both in tax forfeiture and the City could condemn it to
use for the road. Blake stated they only show the one piece
in forfeiture at this time, and the City would most likely
condemn both pieces as soon as they became available.
Mr. Carson stated their opposition to tabling this request.
He said that at least if it was denied, it would go before
the City Council, rather than be stalled.
PUBLIC HEARING
RORY LARSON, 17432 Flintwood St., stated he felt his neighborhood
was at risk. He asked why he wasn't notified of this public
hearing and Blake advised him that only people located within
350 feet of the property are notified. He stated his street
runs into Butternut. He stated he thinks lots in that area
should be five acres. He felt this development is too much
density for this land. He asked Staff to indicate on the
map where the easements were for roads.
DAVE HAUPERT, 17379 Flitwood St., stated that his property
joins the developer's property. He stated he can undcerstand
why the developer did not want this to be a public hearing
because it's a bad plan. He stated that some of the information
the developer gave was misleading. He stated that this is
very marginal land to develop. There are a few steep places
and quite a bit of very low land with water standing sometimes
year round. He urged the Commission to table the request.
JOHN O'NEIL, 901 Summer Place, Minneapolis, owns ten acres
to the north of the property, up County Road 58. He stated
the way it sits with the natural flowage, there isn't going
to be much land forty feet from a cattail, and the DNR won't
let you develop anything within forty feet of a cattail.
He also questioned where the drainage was going to go.
Haas stated there are very strict requirements the developer
must adhere to and it will be the City's job to make sure
the developer meets all of the criteria. O'Neil also stated
that he knows a number of people in the area that live on
a lot higher ground than this land who have problems with
, water in their basements.
J
Regular Planning and Zoning Meeting
Minutes--April 24, 1990
Page -6-
~)
DOUG ASPLEY, 17340 Flintwood St., stated there are several
people who could not make it to the meeting tonight, including
the person who owns the landlocked ten acres. But it is
not a concern to him because he' just has horses there._
He stated his main concern is for the wetlands, and he does
not think it will work to put that many houses there. He
requested that the issue be tabled.
MICHAEL O'NEIL, 156-177th Ave., states that he owns ten acres
just north of the proposed development. He has lived there
seven years through the dry spells and wet spells. He stated
that he has seen this wetland as la~es. He spoke of all the
wildlife that is on the property. He stated he has seen water
waist-deep on the land they are proposing to put the road
through. He stated he wanted to voice his opposition.
He also stated that the road on the existing homestead is
wet and sloppy much of the time, that it is wet and sloppy
right now. The owner parks on 18 right now and walks up to
his house.
JOEL GODDIN, 17597 Flintwood St., stated that when he moved
out to Andover it was his belief that the City cared about
nature and how people can co-exist with nature. He doesn't feel
these people have any concern about nature. He stated that
Ducks Unlimited is trying to build up the duck population
in this area. He does not think there is enough high ground
for more than five homes.
Carson stated the developers would be agreeable to putting
in the road from the other edge of the development if people
felt better about it.
Haas reminded the Commission and developers that the Park
Board must review this proposal also, and they may feel it
appropriate to put a park in this area.
MOTION by Spotts and seconded by Ferris to close the Public
Hearing. Carried unanimously.
Staff reviewed the aerial maps with the Commission. Blake
stated that the special use permit requires approval, denial,
or tabling and the sketch plan takes comments.
Blake reviewed the five criteria regarding the ordinance as
it pertains to planned unit developments.
He does not feel the first criteria is met because instead
of enhancing the unique nature of the land it is lost by
incorporating wetlands into the individual lots.
~
)
Regular Planning and Zoning Meeting
Minutes--April 24, 1990
Page -7-
:__J
The second criteria regarding the variances has not been met
either, in the opinion of Staff.
The third criteria does not apply to rural developments.
The fourth criteria discusses the threat to property values,
safety, health or general welfare of the owners or occupants
of adjacent or surrounding lands. Pease expressed concern
regarding the 39,000 ft of contiguous dry land for septic
and water systems. Staff stated that the preliminary plat
would need to meet the criteria of Ordinance 10.
The fifth criteria addresses the unique nature as consideration
for how the land is developed. There again, it is Staff's
opinion that the uniqueness is not being protected under the
proposed development.
MOTION by Ferris and seconded by Spotts to recommend that
the Andover Planning and Zoning Commission recommend to the
Andover City Council denial of the special use permit to establish
a planned unit development on that property described as the
Southeast i of the Southeast i of Section 1, Township 32,
Range 24, Anoka County Minnesota. In reviewing the criteria
used in granting a special use permit, there are five criteria
to be evaluated and the response to all five criteria must
be affirmative before a special use permit can be granted.
In reviewing the criteria Items 1, 2, 4 and 5 all produce
a negative response to this particular sketcDing drawing on
this parcel of land. Specifically, that this parcel of land
is not considered to be a planned unit development. It has
no set-aside common property. It is felt to be below minimum
requirements of 39,000 sq. ft. buildable site on at least
One site. That the lot density would require 19 variances
for front yard width and set back and for 2.5 acre minimum
lot size. The number of variances exceeds the number of lots.
That the response to Items 1, 2, 4, and 5 again are in a
negative character. Item 3 is not a judgment characteristic
in a rural area.
A public hearing was held and there were six people for abutting
areas that responded. The overall response by all six was
that this plan would over-density the area and it did not
set aside or have any provisions to preserve the wetland areas,
and that it was a danger to the environment in that there was
a certian flood plain set up here that would be disturbed by
the processing of this parcel.
)
I further recommend that this be presented to the City Council
on May 15, 1990 meeting for their review.
Regular Planning and Zoning Meeting
Minutes--April 24, 1990
Page -8-
Q
In discussing the motion, Ferris stated that even if the City Council
were to approve this that the Met Council would have something to
say about it, and they are saying that 2~ acres is too small.
Ferris also stated that he felt the City would be making a
serious mistake at this particular time in history to grant
anything less than 2~ acres with the current review being
done by Met Council and FHA.
Pease commented that she is very concerned about the number
of variances and the fact that no wetlands were set aside
on the proposed planned unit development.
The motion for denial was carried unanimously.
Next, the Commission formalized comments on the sketch plan.
Ferris commented that this is a very difficult piece of property
to develop. He stated that nineteen variances on sixteen
lots is way too many. He does not believe this is a smart
area to do this or a feasible area to do this. He does not
feel this land lends intself to high density.
Spotts commented regarding items listed on the sheeting regarding
University Extension and the southeast corner be redirected
and somehow combine so that it doesn't take that big of a
jog.
Pease commented that the houses proposed on the peninsula
area were a concern to her.
Peek commented that the developer has the right to develop
the area at no greater than 2.5 acres, and a lot of what was
discussed tonight is speculation at this point. He does not
think the developer should be bullied into five acre development.
MOTION by Ferris and seconded by Peek that the Andover Planning
and Zoning Commission recommend to the City Council that there
appears to be an inadequacy within the existing PUD ordinance
in that when variances are required that a special use permit
has to be reviewed at the time of sketch plan. The inadequacy
is that there is not enough detail or information available
at the time of sketch plan to make substantial judgment in
terms of the merit of the SUP with regards to the five provisions
that exist in the ordinance today. It would be our recommendation
that the City Council turn back to the Planning and Zoning
Commission a request to review and consider rewriting the
ordinance with regards to moving the SUP to occur at the time
of preliminary plat, not at the time of sketch plan. It would
also give a better representation between the City and developer
in that you are doing a single review at one time, not a double
review at one time with the developer, specifically the double
)
Regular Planning and Zoning Meeting
Minutes--April 24, 1990
Page -9-
-,J
"
review being the sketch plan and SUP. At that time it would
make additional information available, such as wetland study,
grading plans, etc. to which one could make a substantial
judgment on an SUP. Motion carried unanimously.
HOME OCCUPATIONS, ORDINANCE S AMENDED
The Commission reviewed the proposed changes to the amendment
for Ordinance 8, Section 3.02, Section 4.30, Section 7.02,
and Section 7.03.
Blake stated that Section 3.02 redefines home occupations,
Section 4.30 outlines regulations and standards for home occupation~
and allows for greater flexibility for home occupations in
the rural areas of the City, and Sections 7.02 and 7.03 discusses
accessory uses and home occupations using an accessory structure
with exterior storage as allowed by SUP guidelines.
After discussion, it was decided that under Section 4.30,
Part B, item 1 to add the words "on site" after the wording
limited to one person. Also, under item S to reword (al to
read "The size of the lot shall be 3 acres or larger".
Pease brought up the question of garage sales as a home occupation
if they are held frequently. Ferris stated that most cities
that have a concern have an ordinance regarding garage sales
specifically.
Blake stated he did not feel garage sales were under the realm
of home occupations and would need a separate ordinance.
PUBLIC HEARING
BARBARA SHILLING, 17025 Round Lake Boulevard, asked how daycare
fits into this ordinace. Spotts stated it is covered under
a separate ordinance. She asked about storage and accessory.
Minutes from last meeting should read 800 sq. ft. combined
square footage of the accessory structure and outside storage
area.
She questioned how the ordinance would affect existing structures.
Ferris stated this ordinance places SOO sq. ft. in this ordinance
and it will be up to future city councils if they want to
change the ordinace, but this is a starting place.
'1
/
~ffiRIS SHILLING, 17025 Round Lake Boulevard, asked if you can
have more than one home occupation. Blake stated you could
have more than one as long as you did not exceed the space
limitations of SOO sq. ft. He stated that he appreciated
being allowed to have an accessory building on their property,
and they are in the process of building one.
(~TTY OF "NJ)()VEl:
,~J
pnOPEHTY IDEN'l'IfICAT!ON NUMP.EH;; W.f'CHfN :J"O FEET 1.)1-' THE !;f. Qr.fAR'J.'ER
UF THl:: SOUTHEAST QUAltTI::R OF Sl::t:TION 1 TOIJI,ISHll-' :::2 RAl'Ha: Z4 "Nll
IDENTIFIED BY PROPERTY IDEN'fIFICATlON NUMRER 1-32-24-44-001)\
HENRY STROMGHEN,
600 CHOSSTOWN BLVD
HAM LAKE. MN,
:553U<I
6-32-23-3<:-UOUl
HENny STROMGREN
6-3Z-Z3-33-UUUl
C...nOLHl BOLANDER
99 CROSSTUWN NW,
ANDOVER, MN
5S3U4
7-32-23-22-0U19
DAVID HOIUM
12-177TH AVE,
ANDOVER, MN,
S53U<I
1-32-24-41-UUUZ
CLARENCE ALSAKEH
%JOHN O'NEIL
901 SUNMER PLACE
MPLS, 11N
:55413
1-32-24-41-UUU5
CLARENCE ALSAKEH
% MICHAEL O'NEIL
156-177TH AVE
ANDOVER, MN
553U<I
1-3Z-2'1-'II-IJUU'I
FlAL!'H PEAFlSON
2201-198TH AVE, N,W,
CEDAH. MN
55Ull
1-32-24-'12-0003
"
)
~-)
GAH't B I ALKl::
~41-90TH LANE N,E
ELAINE, MN
55<134
1-32-24-43-UOU\I
ROBERT DZIUK
1'l42'l FLINTWOOD ST. NW
ANDOVEH, MN,
~5304
1-32-2<1-<l3-UU05
DAVID HAVPEHT
1'7379 FLINT\.lOOD ST
ANDOVER, MN,
553U<I
1-32-24-43-0UU7
CHARLES REICH
43U9 NOKOMIS AVE,
MPLS" MN,
554U6
1-32-24-'I3-U006
ROBERT NAULT
24'1-173RD AVE. N,W,
ANDOVER, MN,
5530Q
12-32-24-12-U010
G.".YLE BIALKE
'loDOVGLAS ASFALY
1'730'1 FLINTVlOOD ST,
ANDOVER, MN
5530<1
12-32-24-12-0UU5
RAYMOND HALL VI,PA,
P,G, BOX 20'157
BLOOMINGTON, MN,
~5420
12-32-2<1-12-U009
5J1.ND CHEEK CORP,
5311 CENTRAL AVE, N,E,
FRIDLEY, MN,
55'132
12-32-2'1-11-UUIU
)
, ./
/ \ L,M CAPELING AND R, N NOREN
'-_) 17251 BUTTE R,NUT ::iT,
ANDOVER, MN,
55304
:2~~~~ HEREBY STATE THAT 1 HAVE
MADE A THOROUGH ATTEMPT 'fO LOCATE ALL THOSE PAllCEL:; LYING "'1TH IN
35Q FEET OF THE PERIMETER Uf THE fORTY ACRES PROPOSED fOR
DEVELOPMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE HALF SECTION MAPS LOCATEn AT
THE ANOKA COUNTY SURVEYURS OffiCE AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TAX
RECORDS STORED AT THE ANOKA CUUNTY THEASUREHS OFFICE,
'1
j
PRINTER'S AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION
)
NOTIC!! OF PUBLIC N!!ARING
.' .! i .
. CI1;Y'OF ANDOVER' " '
COUNTY OF ANOK'A :.-.
,..~_ STATE OF MINNESOTA
. The Planning end Zoning Commission of the
City of Andover' win hold . public helrlng ..
7:30 p.m.~ or as lOOn ther..ft.r as un be heerd,
on Tuesday, April 10, 1990 at the Andover City
Hall, 1685 Crosstown Blvd. NW. AndOVer~ MN to
review the request of Hokanson Development
for . Special Use Permit to allow the develop-
ment of II Planned \Jnlt Development for single
femlly home ~It.s_ ~_ the'fo."~lng~de:scrlbed
property:;rI':r..-~.... - '-'i' 'C,",'"._, .' - .
The Southeast 'I.. of the Southeiit V.. of Section
1. Township 32,' Range 24; Anok. CountY~ MI~
nesot..' : : . . .., <.
Written and verbal comments will be re<:elv'
ed atth.t.lm' and location."' :.,
.s. Vlctorl. Volk '.' ':. . . , I
Vlctorle volk.. City Clerk . ',.:,", .
ebcdefghllklmnopqrstuvWxYz' :: . ,;,?:'J. .
.- . Published In Anoka Co. Union .'. . . .
April 13, 1990 . ....
, .
\
)
STATE OF MINNESOTA
County of Anoka
) 55
)
Peter G. Bodley, being duly sworn, on oath says that he is the managing editor of the
newspaper known as the Anoka County Union, and has full knowledge of the facts which are
stated below:
(A) The newspaper has complied with all of the requirements constituting qualification
as a qualified newspaper, as provided by Minnesota Statute 331A.02, 331A.07, and other
applicable laws, as amended.
(8) The printed ... .~0.nCE. .of. .~U!3.L!C. .1;IMR.I,l'!G................ ............
.............. . ..... .1:I(}.ka!\~~!\. P.~Y~.~9P.l1)~!\t;...... .............. ...... ...... .
which is attached was cut from the columns of said newspaper, and was printed and
published once each week, for. . .a,le. . . successive weeks; it was first published on Friday,
the ....13th...... day of ..A-pdl......, 19..9q and was thereafter printed and
published on every Friday to and including Friday, the ................ day of
. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . ., 19. . . .; and printed below is a copy of the lower case alphabet from A to Z,
both inclusive, which is hereby acknowledged as being the size and kind of type used in the
composition and publication of the notice:
a bcdef ghi i klmnopqrsfuvwx y2
'OCd'fgh;j~m"pq~t"'"''
~ BY.. ~..................
naging Editor
Subscribed and sworn to before me on
13 ~ h,do' "d('il . ...
.,19.9.Q
~~~~MM~U~X
'~~;'~'~'\ DIXIE L. MASOll f.:
r;;<:.t'l~ NOTARY PUBLIC . MJNNeSOTA :;
~',"a~ AN01(ACCUNTY r;
~ ~~...... My CO:T:ml.selon upl,.. M 1y i C r 1$:)5 ;::
)\. 'fY'YYVYYYYY'f"'("fYY'('(,ffinn ~~Yr rvv~
----------------------------------------
HATE INFORMATION
(1) Lowest classified rate paid by
commercial users for comparable
space
$ 7.00
(Line, word, or inch rate)
(2) Maximum rate allowed by law for the
above matter
$ 7.00
(Line, word, or inch rate)
(3) Rate actually charged for the above
ma tter
$ 3.95
(Line, word, or inch rate)
CITY OF ANDOVER
COUNTY OF ANOKA
STATE OF MINNESOTA
)
RES. NO.
A RESOLUTION DENYING THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT REQUEST FOR
HOKANSON DEVELOPMENT INC. TO ALLOW THE DEVELOPMENT OF A PLANNED
UNIT DEVELOPMENT USING DENSITY ZONING PROVISION OF ORDINANCE 8,
SECTION 4.20 ON THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED PROPERTY: THE SOUTHEAST
1/4 OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF SECTION 1, TOWNSHIP 32, RANGE 24,
ANOKA COUNTY, MINNESOTA.
WHEREAS, Hokanson Development has applied for a Special Use
Permit to allow the development of a Planned Unit Development
utilizing the density zoning provision of Ordinance 8,
Section 4.20; and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed the
request and held a public hearing at their April 24, 1990 meeting;
and
WHEREAS, the proposal calls for a overall density of one lot
per 2.35 lots, which is greater than currently allowed in the R-1
Single Family Zoning district; and
WHEREAS, the request does not provide for the protection of
the natural features, including wetlands, through the creation of
permanent open space or common property and therefore does not
justify the significant variances from Ordinance 8; and
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held and respondents opposed
lots smaller than 2.5 acres in size, as surrounding lot sizes are
five acres and larger; and
WHEREAS, the City Council agrees with the findings of the
Planning and Zoning Commission.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City
of Andover denies the Special Use Permit request of Hokanson
Development Inc. to allow development of a Planned Unit
Development on the following described property:
The Southeast 1/4 of the Southeast 1/4 of Section 1, Township
32, Range 24, Anoka County, Minnesota.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Andover this 15th day
of May, 1990.
CITY OF ANDOVER
ATTEST:
James E. Elling - Mayor
,
.~
victoria volk - City Clerk
:-J
CITY OF ANDOVER
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
May 15, 1990
ITEM Home Occupations
NO,~. Ordinance Amendment
DATE
ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT
Planning ~,foj;J!-'
Jay Blak~, City Planner
BY:
AGENDA SECTION
NQ Discussion Items,
APPROVED FOR
AGEG~\
.vitA
/
REQUEST
The Andover City Council is asked to review and approve the
enclosed amendment to Ordinance 8 relating to Home Occupations.
BACKGROUND
The Council first considered this issue when the Kelner Special
Use Permit was tabled in 1989. At that time, the Council referred
this issue to the Planning and Zoning Commission for further
study.
The Commission began with a survey of twelve (12) communities
throughout the Twin Cities. A copy of the results of the survey
is included in the packet. Andover's existing home occupation
regulations were found to be in line with many other communities.
However, no provision existed for a home occupation in an
accessory building. Several cities had such provisions.
A draft amendment has been completed that would allow for rural
home occupations on three acres or more to be conducted in an
accessory building with the granting of a special use permit by
the City Council.
A copy of the proposed amendments were sent to Attorney Hawkins
for comments.
The Planning And Zoning Commission has unanimously recommended
approval of the proposed amendment.
COUNCIL ACTION
SECOND BY
CITY OF ANDOVER
COUNTY OF ANOKA
STATE OF MINNESOTA
)
__J
ORDINANCE NO. 8
THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF CITY DF ANDOVER, MINNESOTA, RELATING TO AND
REGULATING THE LOCATION, SIZE, USE AND HEIGHTS OF BUILDINGS, THE
ARRANGEMENT OF BUILDINGS ON LOTS, AND THE DENSITY OF POPULATION IN
THE CITY OF ANDOVER AND FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROMOTING THE PUBLIC
HEALTH, SAFETY, ORDER, CONVENIENCE, PROSPERITY AND GENERAL WELFARE
IN SAID CITY, AND FOR SAID PURPOSE, TO DIVIDE THE CITY INTO
DISTRICTS AND MAKE DIFFERENT REGULATIONS FOR DIFFERENT DISTRICTS.
The City of Andover does ordain as follows:
SECTION 3.02
Definitions
H&me-eeea~a~iea~--Aay-~aia~a!-eeeu~at~eR-e~-~~e~e~~4efl-efl~a~ed-
~~-gy-~ne-eGGY~aB~-e~-a-Qwe!!iBg-at-e~-f~em-tae-6weJJ4fl~-wheB-
ea~~ieQ-eB-wi~nia-a-Qwe!!iRg-YRit-aBQ-Bet-f;em-aB-a~~e~~Q~Y-
gY~~~Bg-p~c~~ded-that-Bc-sigBs-othe~-than-those-no~mally_
a~~~~&ea-ia-a-re5ieea~ia!-eis~~ie~-a~e-~~e5eRt7-Be-~~e€k-aB6-
tr~d~-~s-stored-on-the-prem~ses,-over-the-eotlnte~-~eta~~-~a~e~-
are-fte~-iftVe}veaT-aftrl-~he-eft~faftee-te-tfie-fieffie-eeeupa~4efl-4~-
~a~fteQ-~rem-wi~flia-~fle-S~rue~ufe7-
SECTION 4. GENERAL PROVISIONS
4.30 Home Occupations
Heme-eeeu~a~ieft-U5e5-ffiay-iae!uee-p~efe55~eRaJ-eff4€e~7-m4Be~-~e~4~-
&e~~~GeST-~ne~e-e~-ar~-S~YQieT-QressmakiRgT-e;-~ea~h~Bg-l~mi~~Q-~O-
tftree-~~T-~etlrlefte~-ae-afty-efte-eiffie-afte-s~ffi~la~-u~e~~-flewe~e~/-a-fleme-
&eea~a~ieft-Sfla!!-fie~-ee-ift~ef~fetee-te-~Reluee-Ba~Be~-~fle~/-~a~~y-
S&e~Sr-~&ariS~-flemeST-reS~aYraR~S-er-5iffi~la~-U5e~-uBJe~~-aJJeweQ-~Y-
&pee~~r-tlse-Permit-tlnder-5eetion-77e37--Hoffie-Oeetlpa~~efl~-wh~~h-
ereate-a-neerl-fof-ffiOfe-ehaft-ehfee-+et-pafk~fl~-spaees-a~-afly-~4~efl-
~~me-~ft-aaai~iea-~e-tfle-~ar*iB~-5~aee5-~e~u4~e6-By-~he-e€€~~B~~-
&na~~-Be~-ge-~ermitteQT--~gWT-+-l-gC+-
(A) INTENT
)
o
~
~-)
(B) GENERAL PROVISIONS
1. The number of
on s~te ~n a
to one erson
2.
3.
shall be
serv~ces
t those clearl
we ~ng.
4.
5. Vehicles associated with a home occupation shall be
limited to one vehicle on the premises and as set out
in Section 8.08.
6.
traffic
more
7. Signs shall be regulated as set out in Section 8.07.
8.
a. The size of the lot shall be three (3) acres or
larger.
b.
location and size of an accessor
e storage area sha e as
City.
)
exceed
c.
o
\;.Y
8. continued
o
d.
e.
9.
In acting upon an a~alication for a Special Use Permit,
the City shall conS1 er:
a.
b. The effect on surroundin
c. Consistency with the Andover Comprehensive Plan and
Development Framework.
d. The
1nc
and
overnmental facilities and
san1tary sewer, water an
e.
10.
date
or
C. INSPECTION AND REVOCATION
-J
1.
~
\:j)
D. VESTED RIGHTS
, \
'-J
7.02 Permitted Accessory Uses
In All Residential Districts
Keeping of Domestic Animals (three(3) or less except in R-
1 )
Open, off street parking space (8BBB, 5-17-88)
Gardening and other horticultural uses
Keeping of not more than two (2) boarders or roomers by a
resident family with no private cooking facilities
Private Garages
Heme-eee~pat~eR5-meet~R~-er~ter~a
Home Occu ations, not re uirin the use of an accessor
structure an lor exter10r storage.
Recreation areas and swimming pools
7.03 Special Uses
Special use permits for uses not listed herein shall not be
granted except where the City Council determines that said uses
are similar in character to those listed herein.
Within any of the following districts, no land or structure
shall be used for the following uses by districts except by
special use permit and in accordance with the criteria as stated
in Section 5.03(B):
RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS
Barber Shop (8H, 7-1-80; 8P, 5-4-82)
Beauty Shops (8H, 7-1-80; 8P, 5-4-82)
Cemeteries
Christmas Tree Sales
Churches
'\
'-~
Clubs and Lodges
n
'Y
7.03 Continued
Colleges and Similar Institutions
:)
Commercial greenhouse
Craft and antique businesses in R-4 districts in building~
designated as historical sites by a county, state, or
nationally recognized historical organization (8EE, 6-17-
86; 8GG, 8-5-86; 8RR, 8-5-86)
Day Nurseries (thirteen [13] or more children) (8CC, 2-4-
86)
Dog Kennels in R-1 District only
Excavations except when a building permit has been issued
Golf Course
Highway Construction Materials (processing and storage)
Home Occu ations, On a arcel of land three (3) acres or
arger, ut1 1z1ng an accessory structure an /or exter10r
storage.
Marinas
Public utility uses or structures except when located on a
public right-of-way
Rest homes
Riding Stables
Storage buildings for boats, snowmobiles, or similar
vehicles in R-5 only
Two-Family Home Conversions (R-4 Districts only) (8RR, 7-
21-87)
Two-Family homes in R-4 and R-5 Districts only when lot
locations are established and approved on original plat
(8M, 9-1-81)
Adopted this day of
City of Andov~
1990, by the City Council of the
CITY OF ANDOVER
James E. Elling, Mayor
ATTEST:
"-
..J
Victoria Volk, City Clerk
o
'\2.)
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
March 27, 1990--Minutes
Page -7-
in the wording to "twelve months". Motion seconded by Ferris
., and carried unanimously.
-"--- )
HOME OCCUPATIONS, ORDINANCE 8
Mr. Blake reviewed a proposed draft
and Section 4.30 of this ordinance.
be made at this meeting, since this
purposes only.
The Commission members felt it had been agreed to delete ,any
reference to "urban" versus "rural" home occupations. Subsections
i, j, k, and 1 will be combined when tpe rural/urban verbage
is removed.
regarding Section 3.02
No recommendations will
draft is for discussion
The Commission decided to change the minimum lot requirement
for home occupations operating from an accessory building
from five acres to three acres. This seems to make sense
since that is the minimum requirement for erecting a pole
building. Also, this will allow the City Council leeway to
consider home occupations with the minimum three acres on
a case by case basis.
The draft provides for combined square footage of the accessory
structure and outside storage area not to exceed 800 square
feet. These types of home occupations will also require a
special use permit and will need to meet that criteria as
well.
MR. & MRS. MICHAEL KELNER, 15478 NW PRAIRIE ROAD
The Kelner's operate a boat motor repair business from their
home. They stated it is their livelihood. The three acre
plan would fit for them, but not the five acres. If this
ordinance goes into effect with three acres and they receive
a special use permit, they will meet all of the City's
requirements.
Staff will redraft the proposal for review at the next meeting
of the Planning and Zoning Commission.
PARKING LOTS AND CURB REQUIREMENTS, ORDINANCE 8
This request results from some apparent discrepancies and
~biguity in the existing ordinance. Although the Building
Department has also assumed curb and gutter to be concrete
it is not stated as such in Section 8.08, Subsection A. Also,
the wording of number three in Subsection D does not make
sense.
Mr. Blake will check with other communities and prepare a
new draft for the Commission to review at the next meeting.
\
,~j
PLANNING & ZONING CO~~ISSION
MINUTES--April 10, 1990
Page -7-
~J Ferris stated the variance in the motion was the elimination
of the 300 foot frontage. I am opposed to that for a number
of reasons: 1) without the 300 foot frontage or easement
set aside for that frontage it will totally land-lock the
parcel shown on the map as No.4. That would be poor planning
and a mistake on the City's part to further land-lock a parcel
of land that only has one remaining access point. 21 there
is no hardship. 3) a metes and bound split is possible with
five acres without any hindrance. The owner does not wish
to do that, and furthermore, the owner does not wish to entertain
any lot split whatsoever that would cause proper frontage.
Peek stated,he had nothing additional to say, other than he
agreed with the reasons given. Also, he stated that the motion
did not include extension of the cul-de-sac and was not a
reason for denial.
Pease stated her reasons agreed with everyone else in that
a hardship was not demonstrated because there were other alternatives
available and the land-locked lot.
ORDINANCE NO.8, PARKING/CURBING ~EQUI~E~ENTS
The next item discussed by the Commission was curb requirements
in non-residential areas. Staff did a survey with the cities
of Coon Rapids and Blaine-and presented the Commission with
another draft of a proposed ordinance.
Haas reviewed this draft with the Commission and stated that
the City needs some specific language as far as materials
used for curbing.
Blake and Haas will prepare a new draft of this proposed ordinance
to include specific set of standards on curbing and verbage
on parking lot islands for traffic con~rol. This will be
ready for the Planning and Zoning Commission to review at
April 24th meeting.
ORDINANCE NO.8, HOME OCCUPATIONS
Blake reviewed a redraft of the proposed ordinance with the
Commission. It was decided to reword the verhage in Section D,
entitled "Vested Rights". Also, under number 8 {cl it will
be reworded that the home occupation portion of an outside
storage area shall not exceed 800 square feet.
This ordinance will be redrafted with these changes and scheduled
for a Public Hearing at the April 24, 1990 meeting of the
, J Planning and Zoning Commission.
Regular Planning and Zoning Meeting
Minutes--April 24, 1990
Page -9-
~
review being the sketch plan and SUP. At that time it would
make additional information available, such as wetland study,
grading plans, etc. to which one could make a substantial
judgment on an SUP. Motion carried unanimously.
HOME OCCUPATIONS, ORDINANCE 8 AMENDED
The Commission reviewed the proposed changes to the amendment
for Ordinance 8, Section 3.02, Section 4.30, Section 7.02,
and Section 7.03.
Blake stated that Section 3.02 redefines home occupations,
Section 4.30 outlines regulations and standards for home occupations
and allows for greater flexibility for home occupations in
the rural areas of the City, and Sections 7.02 and 7.03 discusses
accessory uses and home occupations using an accessory structure
with exterior storage as allowed by SUP guidelines.
After discussion, it was decided that under Section 4.30,
Part B, item 1 to add the words "on site" after the wording
limited to one person. Also, under item 8 to reword (a) to
read "The size of the lot shall be 3 acres or larger".
Pease brought up the question of garage sales as a home occupation
if they are held frequently. Ferris stated that most cities
that have a concern have an ordinance regarding garage sales
specifically.
Blake stated he did not feel garage sales were under the realm
of home occupations and would need a separate ordinance.
PUBLIC HEARING
BARBARA SHILLING, 17025 Round Lake Boulevard, asked how daycare
fits into this ordinace. Spotts stated it is covered under
a separate ordinance. She asked about storage and accessory.
Minutes from last meeting should read 800 sq. ft. combined
square footage of the accessory structure and outside storage
area.
She questioned how the ordinance would affect existing structures.
Ferris stated this ordinance places 800 sq. ft. in this ordinance
and it will be up to future city councils if they want to
change the ordinace, but this is a starting place.
~
~~RIS SHILLING, 17025 Round Lake Boulevard, asked if you can
have more than one home occupation. Blake stated you could
have more than one as long as you did not exceed the space
limitations of 800 sq. ft. He stated that he appreciated
being allowed to have an accessory building on their property,
and they are in the process of building one.
Regular Planning and Zoning Meeting
Minutes--April 24, 1990
Page -10-
.J
MOTION by Spotts and seconded by Ferris to close the public
hearing. Carried unanimouosly.
MOTION by Spotts and seconded by Ferris that the Andover Planning
and Zoning Commission recommend to the Andover City Council
approval of Ordinance 8, Section 3.02, Section 4.30, Section
7.02 and Section 7.03 as noted with the changes given to Staff.
Motion carried unanimously.
MOTION by Ferris and seconded by Spotts that the Andover Planning
and Zoning Commission recommend to the City Council review
and send back to the Planning and Zoning Commission a requirement
to develop an ordinace which would restrict the frequency
with which garage sales can occur in residential zones in
the City of Andover. Motion carried unanimously.
PARKING LOT/CURBING REQUIREMENTS DISCUSSION
Blake stated that this is a complete redraft of this ordinance.
He said that when the City Council referred this ordinance
back to review curbing, other areas were discussed by Staff
and Planning Commission regarding screening, berming, design,
and etc. This is a start of a major revision to the parking
section of Ordinance 8, Section 8.08.
Blake stated he would like to start by looking at a combination
of our ordinance and that of the City of Maple Grove, because
he thinks they have a good ordinance.
Peek stated he thought it would be a good idea to look at
the whole Section 8.08.
The Commission agreed to start looking at the whole ordinace
as it applies to Section 8.08. Staff will have inforamtion
available for the Commission to review at the next meeting.
TREE ORDINANCE DISCUSSION
Blake stated that this request comes from the Andover Tree
Inspector, Ray Sowada, who thinks our current ordinance is
inadequate. Blake stated he feels Andover needs some language
added for developers so that when they come in, we have
guidelines for tree replacement.
The Commission decided to table this item until the next regular
meeting. Ray Sawada could not attend the meeting tonight.
,
~
:_)
CITY of ANDOVER
1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. . ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 . (6121755-5100
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, April 24, 1990 at the Andover City Hall,
1685 Crosstown Blvd. NW, Andover, MN to review a proposed
amendment to the Zoning Ordinance that would redefine home
occupations and establish conditions for their operation.
Copies of the proposed amendment are available at Andover City
Hall.
Written and verbal comments will be received at that time and
location.
L~ (!~0
Victoria Volk, City Clerk
)
Q
er(y
.,' '\
'-./
'\
If () db u-€--i
? .
b/t1.lYl-L
0rDt:JcJ(F1 Pa,le.
CI1 ur'/ /;Ct'&S ~
(CDf1 Rap/'ds
,c:/ 7)"
,--rY&n rTCu ('I e.
.) .
J-nuer (, ('{) v-e..
He.~9~
La k.e.. L/ die
(rllnf/.ef([slcc
f( a.-YY1ry
tUa. (07)/ c:<..
L.<J oDd 6i"'i
\_, j'
~ jWIVl {(f.f=,"S
-iU")1A.c... Ocr. u.f4...hdYJ
,/""",
,.::::Lt..- (, ~':'-<'-l
-----
19;]'1
?cl"
6 r.f11~1e.
/4, G4(~
37,482.
SS; lqtf
~
.~
\'- ,~
~~,J
. -...,,). ~
'-.; "
~ IJ
~~
.,..,
'"' ::.;V ~t- (
, .' ..,\;) t
...... .../ 1'" t f'
\(;, "c,' v.' '-;ov \2.1 ,(, '-'
'( ." s \\ 1"'-''1.-
/ \' I"fo\ J \!/t.f' V i...~v<" 'J
I': \) \ ~v. J
lIes
2rfl
~es
bo;
A-'D
ye:
/VO
~ e. tV I A
foVc
.Ir \)l';,ibLe.
IV v ~fi~cL
10,457 yes jJo iuD
s:f7.
41, 7?S' Al\)
3 Z 7 f)fc, yc-7)
7cf7,
21 ( '6st, ye'5
Lftfl
22, 707 ye;.
bC?
3i 7u 1e..s
td?-
/)/717
'3/17.2
,
/"l/1 (,/
YeS
/07.
yes
~%
NO
IUD
yc..:
fJ/Pr
No
I.Je.s
NO
yes
IUD
No
rJO
NO
/JD
rI/tr
ft) 0
;va
I /( 0)./:vL.~
vuy
p'gfy Icfn'e..
iL}Q
IUO
/V/~
J'''- ~ ,,' ",/1 /
- / ;';..c:: ,'~ c'~"-
fJ[, ND
/(/1
....' .
"7 . /' .
::.">1 it ItJ L :.'7'tvf:.-/...o.".5S/~->---
If t:
fVrJ
Ve~
yes \Ie.~ /lO
3.:%
~1 r\
,^\,' !\i"
xv \"
X" (~
\. 01
o-l'O\'"
.\,J
~/~....
v'
I) /p-
tJ/~
It-
~ti.-tVl- <6p.'Vl
r771-~
VA
pJ / ff-
IJ /9-
7:cO~-
Ie: cO p.v---
jJ / r-r
rJ4
/,v /
/4-
AJ/
11
c.J
CITY OF ANDOVER
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
May 15, 1990
DATE
AGENDA SECTION
NQ Discussion Items
::~~7~OR
/
The City Council is requested by Gene Brown, property owner of
3546 and 3534 135th Lane NW, to discuss the park dedication fee
that is required prior to Mr. Brown recording the lot split of
this property. Currently, the lots are combined as one lot.
ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT
Engineering
ITEM
NO.
7. Gene Brown Park
Dedication Fee
BY:
~~
Todd J. Haas
Attached to this item is the following:
- Location of subject property.
- Memo to Bill Hawkins from City staff.
- Letter from Curtis Larson making interpretation of ordinance.
- Letter from Bill Hawkins.
NOTE: A memo from City staff to the City Council was given to you
at the last meeting regarding properties that have had park
dedication determined by the hired appraiser, Cu~t Larson,
for both urban and rural areas.
)
MOTION BY
TO
COUNCIL ACTION
SECOND BY
~-~..-~-
I
.~
..___. ___'__"___'_r'___~~.__~_______~_____'___
'-../
NO. 116)
'"
~ . ."f-" "':;:'
. '7r,,~ ,:~~' -:/ --~M
./ ,\' . p/ ...~-- /'. '/-r --:-
t OF ANDOVER
~TY ~ ROAD
. ~.t.
,.., .~
..
"
...
..
:y;2. -oj J ;::2---(1:) (79MI .'~"
,
.
.
.
~^",U
MEA7iow
w.:
PRo PE.I!T'I : v<!N~ /3;".
( COUNT'f, -!
:c
~
<C
:.:
, 0
, 2:
~ <C
" u.
o
>-
l-
t.)
u.
01
Not,;: r-"
_. ._.3!'...P!il!:.€!:'''' r I'MI'o
(7~J"(...,,.tI,.. 'ri &I"'::"
If'I. "r^~e..~
(l9Oil _ .
;,,,. .;,........,..;,_..f.;....:, I T..H
S'I"".
ill .IV : _ I
(3f) ~ (311~A"1.
CHW/~/.
~ /." i
(44-) /.
.0 9 ~I
~ IH!Ftf?;
'AVE.
t--= ... i '''4(,1 I
CI) (- ,.1
~ ~ ~ tfAPNt.
i .". I I "
. (5dJ) (5;). ':.
10 ~ 9 I~
~ A R7jJ-
o .. I/,;
135 TH 'l, ;7;LANE N.
,..
,"J iii ,..,
(tJ) ~ ~7)
3 ~ I'
I
.:JJ;I._ _._.
:1,
'.'
~~
M
(T951 1
,
CREEK
.:;,~~ ......;;.~J. . ::,...,.,.' .~ ....:...:.;
..
(u)
i..' ~~~,~
,,,.,;!::J.. ~
.. ~::::-.y.,.,.~$;;..
.'i~'~J;O"
""'./.1.":'
~
~ 1
,-
w .-
~I.
- ~ ~I~
-I
i ~
~:ll
" \
~ ..
..
"
'!
~ .,
.,. ,,,, .~..,
...
5
:~ (i,j
I
I ...
5
-, ~
~ (24]
.",
.N
('I)
2
", il' :~{ANE
~
,
~)~M,
10 I H
~ E/~ t
AVE. N. \
· :JJ!lir.;
;I
..
;. #J ,1.11
. , J'J-*"'I I./.,,.J,
1~," .p' .'~
. ~ . ~
" 5 ~~ 5
"" " :=:
II." ~ ~
~-)
:)
CITY of ANDOVER
MEMORANDUM
TO:
COPIES TO:
FROM:
DATE:
REFERENCE:
Bill Hawkins
Todd Haas ~li\
April 24, 1990
Park Dedication for Eugene Brown Property
The City recently hired Curt Larson to determine the park
dedication for Eugene Brown's property located at 135th Lane NW
and Round Lake Boulevard. The property is l60 X 200. The
property has been approved by Council to be split. Prior to
recording, a park dedication is required. Curt Larson determined
the park dedication to be approximately $2400. Mr. Brown is
disputing the way the dedication was determined. Mr. Larson
determined the land value based on existing improvements
(sanitary sewer, streets, etc.l. See letter of April 16, 1990
from Curt Larson on how he interprets the ordinance. Please
advise City Staff if this interpretation is correct.
Q
-;
.,~
Curtis A. Larson Appraisals
6240 HIghway 65 Northeast
Suite 207
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55432
(612) 571-1554
Apnl 16, 1990
}11". T,::>dd Haas
Ci ty of Andover
1685 Crosstown Boulevard
Andover, Minnesota 55304
R~: 'Appraisal of
Eugene Braun Property
135th Lane Northwest and Round Lake Boulevard
Andover, MInnesota 55304
Dear Mr. Haas:
Thank you for the copy of 9.07 Parks. PlaY0rounds, Open Space and
Public Use. (IDA - 9/13/74\.
I am re~dering an opinIon as an appraiser ana not as an attornAY
as :.rou realize.
Section 9.07.5, the last Sent8nce, states "Such Recomm~ndation
:3nall Be cased Or:. Th,:? Market.. Valu.J of the Undev910pad La!1d That
Would Otherwise Have B~en Conveyed Or Dedicated."
S8c:.:.on 9.07.6 l~arket Value of Lands. "Market.. Vnlue," for th8'
~ur?ose of this ordnance shall b8 determIned as of the time of
the final plat withou~ lmprovem~nts, etc.
I interpret this to ~ean at the time of the plat - which is ~Q~
and un,jeveloped to mean the :and area Q~~r as it &~:ists EQ~.
Improvements, as I interpret it, mean3 no buildings: landscaping,
driveways or other site improve~ents.
Cndeveloped, as I interpret it, means as the land presently
exists with no new survey's, platting, streets or other
'" . 1" .
U...l...l'C.le~.
The questIon of speCIal assessments was referred to
of September II, 19B9 regarding Kirby Estates PIal,
Outlot A, Andover, Minnesota as follows:
in my It?t..~er
Pad:land and
. \
'J
CURTIS A. LARSON APPRAISALS
o
'-Y
. "-
',J
. )
,~.
Curtis A. Larson Appraisals
6240 Highway 65 Northeast
:3ui te 207
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55432
(612) 571-1554
April 1(3, 1990
M;". Todd Haas
Page 2
A knowledgeable buyer would research what special assessments
have been paid and what. special assessments would be charged when
the land is developed. Also, a knowledgeable seller would be
aware of ~hese facts but would still demand the market value of
the present land market, and if the special assessments the
seller paid were less, the profit would b~ greater and therefore
would realize the optImum value of the land.
Therefore, in my opinIon, my aocralsal of Mr. Braun's property
conforms to the Section 9.07.
SIncerely,
~ '~~
~:~~~~~
Curtis A. Larson, eRA
MInnesota Appraisers LIcense =4000302
cc: Mr. Haas
Our F~l6 I?1670A
CURTIS A. LARSON APPRAISALS
tS:\
'CJ
MAY-11-9121 FRI
9:4121
P _ 121 1
VlW orncu Of'
." '1
'J
Burle oHd haWKiHG
IUITttOI
allll COON ,"~06IOVLtvAI\D
COON ,",,0&, IoIIHNUOTA IllS.33
rtlONt (112) '....2IIl1.
JOIo4H '"'. .UIOIt<t
WIL.UA1\4 G. HAWlCINS
May 10, 1990
Mr. Todd Haas
Andover City Hall
1685 Crosstown Blvd.
Andover, MN 55304
ReI Value of Park Dedication
Dear Todd:
The following letter is written in response to your request for
my opinion concerning the valuation of land for calculation of
the park dedication requirements.
It is my opinion that the value that is assigned to the land
being platted is the value at the date of the plat. This land
may be improved with sewer and water utilities, etc., however,
the cash requirement is to substitute for land dedicated in the
plat. If the City required land, the developer would have to
give up land at the present value. Also, if the City were to
purchase property within the plat, 1t would have to pay a price
based upon the current value.
Therefore the appraisal the City has based upon the current
value with improvements 1s the correct method under the statute
authorizing the City to require park dedication.
Sincerely,
1??lE ~.
@
WGH: mk
Hawkins
,J
.~)
CITY OF ANDOVER
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACfION
May 15, 1990
AGENDA SECTION
NQ Discussion Items
DATE
ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT
Finance
ITEM
NO.
3.
Howard KOOlick~
APPR~~ FOR
AG ~
REQUEST
The Andover City Council is requested to approve the attached
resolution requesting a refund from Metropolitan Waste Control
Commission for the Sewer Availability Charges paid from 1973 to
1978.
BACKGROUND
As City Council directed at the last meeting, I contacted Lois
Spear from MWCC to determine the proper first step to receive the
money the City believes MWCC is holding. She indicated that the
first step should be the passing of a resolution by the City
Council requesting the refund. Once the resolution is fqrwarded
to MWCC, Ms. Spear will review the request and, along with another
manager, make a recommendation to the Commissioners on whether or
not to grant the request of the City.
Since the refund program ended in 1989, there is the possibility
that the request may be turned down. It sounded like if there
were extenuating circumstances that would allow the granting of
the request without setting the precedent of re-opening the
program, staff would recommend granting our request. Please
understand that this was inferred from my talk with Lois Spear and
is not their official position. I have asked Ms. Spear to contact
me with her recommendation prior to the Commissioners discussing
this issue.
If the resolution is approved tonight, the budget and finance
committee will review it the second week in June and the
Commissioner will act on it on June 19th.
If MWCC approves the request, they
determine the amount due the City.
Commissioners will need to approve
will then schedule an audit to
After all of this, the
the refund.
COUNCIL ACTION
MOTION BY
,~ TO
SECOND BY
CITY OF ANDOVER
COUNTY OF ANOKA
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RES. NO. R -90
~J
A RESOLUTION REQUESTING THE METROPOLITAN WASTE CONTROL COMMISSION
REFUND TO THE CITY OF ANDOVER ALL SEWER AVAILABILITY CHARGES PAID
FOR PROPERTIES LOCATED OUTSIDE THE CITY ANTICIPATED YEAR 2000
MUNICIPAL URBAN SERVICE AREA BOUNDARY.
WHEREAS, the City of Andover was required to submit to the
Metropolitan Waste Control Commission sewer availability charges
collected from 1973 through 1987 regardless of whether the
property was served by the sewer system; and
WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission offered a
refund program to cities to refund the sewer availability charges
which were collected for properties not connected to the sewer
system; and
WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission informed
the City of Andover that it had no units eligible for the refund
program since the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission had not
received sewer availability charges for properties not connected
to the sewer system; and
WHEREAS, based on the above information from Metropolitan
Waste Control Commission, the City of Andover took no action in
regards to the refund program; and
WHEREAS, the City of Andover has discovered additional
information indicating that it had units eligible for the program
since the City remitted to the Metropolitan Waste Control
Commission all sewer availability charges collected for the period
of 1973 through early 1977 and not all properties which paid the
sewer availability charge during this period are connected to the
sewer system; and
WHEREAS, the City of Andover believes that the amount paid
by these persons totals approximately $30,000.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the
City of Andover hereby requests the Metropolitan Waste Control
Commission refund to the City the sewer availability charges
remitted to the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission during the
period mentioned above for properties located outside the City's
anticipated year 2000 Municipal Urban Service Area.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Andover on this 15th
day of May , 1990.
CITY OF ANDOVER
James E. Elling, Mayor
I
.~
ATTEST:
Victoria Volk, City Clerk
Q
~
,)
Metropolitan Waste Control Commission
Mears Park Centre, 230 East Fifth Street, SI. Paul, Minnesota 55101
612 222-8423
May 7, 1990
Mr. Howard Koolick
Finance Director
city of Andover
1685 Crosstown Blvd.
Andover, Mn. 55304
Dear Mr. Koolick:
This letter is regarding our telephone conversation of May 3, 1990
concerning the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission's SAC rebate
program. In 1986, the MWCC approved a policy change to collect SAC
only if central sewer service is available. The Commission also
decided to refund SAC to communities during the period 1987 through
1989 with money now in the SAC fund for areas without sewer service
available. To obtain the rebate money, a city had to forward an
approved resolution to the Commission formally asking for a refund
along with a map indicating the area and addresses for which the
refund is being requested. This city resolution had to be adopted
by the end of December, 1989 and forwarded to the Commission as
soon as possible after adoption.
The SAC rebate program ended December 31, 1989. The City of Andover
had not applied for a refund by the deadline. In order to obtain
a deviation to the SAC rebate program, a letter and City Council
resolution asking the MWCC to make an exception to the program
needs to be sent to Gordon O. Voss, Chief Administrator with a copy
to myself so that it may be presented to the Board of Commissioners
for consideration and action. If it is approved, the city would
then have to submit a map indicating the area and addresses for
which the refund is being requested.
Staff of the MWCC met with the city of Andover on July 30, 1987 to
discuss the rebate program and how the City of Andover would be
affected by the program. In attendance at the meeting was Don
Bluhm, Richard Berg and Sandra Selby representing the MWCC and
James Schrantz and Don Almgren representing the City of Andover.
.. ~
It was the Commission's understanding based on this meeting that
the city did collect SAC for every new building permit issued and
for every building that existed prior to 1973 at the time the sewer
connection permit was issued. The difference was that the City only
submitted the SAC funds to the Commission if the building was
connected to the local sewer system. Thus, the city has collected
money from homeowners located within the City's MUSA that was not
forwarded to the Commission. The City was then asked if the money
that was escrowed for these new homes was forwarded to the
Commission when these homes connected to the sewer system and at
what rate. The City didn't believe this was a problem but they
Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer
",~(i)
acknowledged that the possibility for a problem may exist and would
look into it.
"-
)
An additional understanding that resulted from the meeting was that
since SAC revenues were only forwarded to the Commission for
buildings that were connected 'to the sewer system, the City in
retrospect had already implemented the SAC rebate program. The
Commission's rebate policy called for the refund of SAC at the rate
that it was originally paid. For this reason the City had no claim
for extra money.
In addition to this meeting, a letter was sent to James Schrantz,
City Administrator on November 16, 1988 again stating the
Commission I s understanding of the above stated SAC situation
between the Commission and the City of Andover. No one from the
City cf Andover, has attempted to correct the Commission's
understanding of this situation if in fact our understanding was
incorrect.
Per our conversation, I now understand that the city may have
remitted SAC from 1973 through 1977 to the Commission for areas in
which no central sewer service was available and will not be
available for some time. Because the MWCC's rebate program ended
December 31, 1989, a formal request and city resolution requesting
the Commission to allow this exception to the rebate program needs
to be sent to the Chief Administrator as stated above. This request
would then be submitted to the Board of Commissioner's for their
consideration. My estimate of the timeframe involved is
approximately 3 months from the date the Commission receives the
letter and resolution. This would allow one month to place the item
on the Board's agenda and for them to take action, one month to
conduct the audit and determine the findings and then an additional
month for the Board to approve the disbursement.
If there is any other information you need, please contact me at
229-2017.
Sincerely,
~ c4-JfYO-A-/
Lois I. Spear
Controller
cc: Ray Odde
Don Blume
Teresa Willey
Sandra Selby
5490ANDO
.J
~
CITY OF ANDOVER
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
May 15, 1990
DATE
ITEM
NO.9. Capital Budget
BY:
~l",mo" 1:' ~_L
..
APPROVEDOFOR
AGENDA
BY' )l
/
AGENDA SECTION
NO. Staff, Committee,
rnmm; "c,; .~
ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT
Administration
The City Council is requested to review the proposed 5 Year
Capi tal Budget.
The principle items are Public Works due to the cost for large
equipment. All other departments have been included except for
the Fire Department. I have assumed that the Fire Department's
needs are covered in the Proposed Bond issue.
I have included the 1990 Fire Department requests for a 5-ton
Military Vehicle and a list of other equipment requested in the
1990 budget.
All capital equipment is presented as being financed through
equipment bond for five years.
All current and proposed equipment payments per year are totaled
so capital expenditure can be uniformly budgeted and bonded for.
It appears that an average of $157,000 per year of capital
expenditures are needed.
The General Fund will need to bond for $127,000 per year and the
Sewer Fund for $30,00~ (Vac-AII Jetter) average per year for 1991
through 1995.
The years shown after 1995 just show the bond pay-offs and not
equipment needs to replace existing equipment; nor does it show
new equipment that may be needed.
COUNCIL ACTION
MOTION BY
') TO
'-,
SECOND BY
u
r .
u
--.------..-----r'Fi(IPClS'1.:U---
FIVE YF.r-Ht CnPITAL EUUIPMENT
l"XPE.NtlI1URE f'l.nN
I : 1 ",~==....c,.,.=,":"",......."".::..""..r:""":.r="!:I"""""I'1I""=-r.l!i'I:"'="""':'t,."....."",===...,-==-=:s,..,.""..",.. '-:",,,,,,...,,,..:1"',, '... -""==="::"2"" =":I:=~",,,="',,,, _.......=....""",,,""",,."'...L1l.........U.""c""..:-r..a...........,, ::l:=!:I""====:O....'==..===...="."""""'=
Coj 1 PUflCHrlSE I I I I I I I I I
, c:.X1ST1NS-EClUIPMF.:N'1 I PRICE--.-t'3'JO--t~'31-.-tn2--'-"'3'3~ I 1'39"t I 1::1:1;,) I ,L;I'3b I l'3'3T--r----
,I
"
I 0 ===e=~=..Ke.u........~~u..a~_..n_e.ft.n~=e~==Il~==.=z...==~==..~.r..ar-r.~=~~an_=~~...~~==~...z_=n=r.=.a.r.=n=~_cn.=e=acue===.=_~~=~====cr.==~e=====
. 1979 John O@(!rB M<:ltor GradQ"'. I I I I I I I I 1 I
1o______..:~:._____~~__________________________1__________.______________________________________________________________________________
111 /
121980 Ford Truck w/Ple.w, Win~h 1 :1 I **. I I I I 1 1 I
Our .........,-00'1.1 nU'p.d\;;;e I I..), ,....'1.1 1..J, I....V l~, IwV l~, I~v I.':', ,....'1.1 I I
II.---------------~~----------~--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IS' I I I I I I I I I .1
J::I;;;~~~~;;-:;~~-~~~~-~-~~--------~----------~----:-----~----:::---~----:-----~----------~----------~----------7----------~----------~
~OOO I
1 ftuq.lldl..ti' I
3,1"'0 I
3,1~v I
.!., ,....'1.1 I
.:iI".....J I
..."....'1.1 I
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"
211983 Truck w/Plow, Wing,
. I
I CV,VVV
*.* I
F1f:,'~ll &.lL.t: I
J...., O(ll)
l....,vvv
l.....,VVV
l~VV
"
"
:1.5 0::"0::" J...t,
4~5"
I I
1 R1!!p-hI...o::' I
..
211988 Truck w/Plow, Wing,
.d. ~r
I
8tW6 1
:n I I I I I I I" I 1 I
,. -~~:~_:~~-~:~~-~~--~:~:_--------~----------~----------~----------~----------~----------~----------~----------~----------~----------~
"
"
"
.. OlO.!.
I I
1 l.!,OO!j I
I ... I
I Rep-lcH..;u.
J
.!.,OOO I
I
'>,000 I
I
~,QoO I
I
.!;,O...O I
----.-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"
"
"0 1-;11:)" L..rl~V., J;'I!UU. fie.
I
... 1
tI.~~i""Ovv
...,VVV
...,VVV
...,vvv
~., \.IVV
Jc:.,VVV
;: -t'-'!8:l f:;1.....v.., t:"l:II' -tHO
I I
I 12.,O~., I
I ... 1
, ftvp-1......... I
J
z,ooo I
I
3,000 I
I
.!.,OOO I
I
.!-;-OOl) I
.
1
~~ L..llev., .l;<ldIrJ. ,,!
"'II r 1 I I I I .... I I I I
... .!.~ I l"ooo I .!., l:SO I I I I '\';:t..ldl..c I J.,...OV I J.,....06 I 3,......1.) I
I--------_:_---------------------~-------~--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
=:1 I I I 1 I 1 I r I I
~:l:~~-~~~~~~~~~~------------------~----------~----------~----------~----------~----------~----------~----------~----------~----------~
:; - 1 r I 1 I I I I I I
ej19B9 Ford I-ton, I1GO I I 1 I 1 I I I I I
;:j19B9 FOt"d 1-te.n, ff5Sa
~i------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
'I I 1 .....-11 I I I I I I I 1
,1970 FQrd DlJIl'lp Truck 1 55,000 l' Repl.acl:!' I 13,750 1 13,750 I 13,750 '1 13,750 I 13,750 I 1 I
---------.---------------------------------.----.------------------------------------------------------------------------..---------.-.----.----
"
'I I I I .....~ I I I I I I
: ~:~:_:~=:~~-~::~=~~::::~~------~-_::~~~~--~----------~--~:~:~::_~---~~~:~--~---~:::~-_:_--~~::~-_:_--~~~:~--:_--~:~~~--~----------~
101 I I, I I -II'''''' I I I I I I
:;~~~~:_:::=~~~-~::~:~~--------------_:~:~~~--~------------------------~~~:~::_---_:::~~-----_:~:~~-----_:::~~-----_:::~~--~--_::~~~--~
:" 1 I 1 I I I I I I
,,,IFork Li ft, "305 I I 1 I I 1 I I 1 I
: ,1----------------------------------------------------______________________________________________________________________________..:_
II' I I I ......':11 I I I I I I
'1:U515 F.:.t~t1 Tr"actr::w 23,000 Replace 1 G,Z~O I 6,Z50 6,250 6,250 G,2~50 1
t: ----------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------..------------
.' I I ... I I I
:c'tt5Z0 Massey Tri'c-tot~ I 25,000 RE'plltce I 6,~50 ("c50 e.,c50 b,250
1:----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------__________________________
...-... -,---'
;:; ~~~-~~-~:~~~::_---------------------~~~~~----------------~:~~~::_~--_:~~~~-----_::~~~-----_::~~~_._~--_:~~~~-_!._--------.--.---- ---- ._--~
.i I I I I I I I I I .
:lIltt551 Trailer Tllndem I 1 I 1 1 I I I 1 I
,!---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------~--------------------------------------
....
...;tl5/19 Tl:"rc. Gt"c.IJnd Ma.~t(!'~5 15, (1)0 Replaco ~. 7:50 ~I 750 Z,730 3,7:50
.~: ------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------..----------------------- --..--.-.----------
"
"
~1"S50 TC'lro Grc,l.JYld Master"s
15,000
... J
Rephee 1
3,750
3,750
3,750
3,750
~._------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
~in542 Oi'thla SWl?~per
, ,------ ---------.------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------
...ISh"':ons 21,150 19,800
t t ----.----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
,:Cc,rllputer 22,000 20,900 19,700'
:::;-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------.---------------------------------------------.----
)1
..!Fire DepC\rtMent Vlln
6,300
(,,000
5,&00
r' ----------.-------------------------------___________________________________________________________________________________.________
,~. I I I I I I I I I I
,1 PROPOSED EQUIPMENT I I I 1 I I I I I I
.----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------.--------------
,
,.
: Tr~ct;elt' [l~cl_.hc'e
5(1,000
1".UI.:tT"dsIi! I
~lilter~ I
\------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
.
.......
~' St reo:?t Sw~ep~r
85,000
21,250
Zl,~50
21,250
21,250
.21,250
----------_._~._--------------------------------~._-----------.------------------------------------------------------------~._------------
....'"
-r-'"
12, ~;OO I
Patch i rIg Hot Box
50,000
12,500
12,500
12,500
12, ~,OO
-----------------------------------------------------------------..--------------------------------------------------..-----------.-----
~-1--..- -~- *...~--.~-, f--- - -'1--- ._--~ ,-.
1-t'~n Roller 7,000 1,7~0 1,7:50 1,750 1,750 I 1,750 I I
----------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------.----.- ---
; 1 V...c-Al1 ~lf.t t I,'r"
,
120,000 I
,......
SE'\r~et.
30,000
30,000
30,000
~o,ooo
30,000
,-----
I
---.--.--.'------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------- ------.------------ ------------
'-; . I I ,.." I 1 I I I I t---
3.l3obcat . I 17,000 1 I I 4,250 I "',250 I "',2~O 1 "',250 I '.,250 I I
.1-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------_______________________
I ..... I
:~::~:~-~~~~:-------------------------:~~~~~-J~------___________________::~~~______::~~~______:~~~~______~::~~______:::~~__~___________
::I:~:~~~=:-~~~~~~~~~~~:~:~~~~~:~~~~~~~2l--~~-~~~--l:::~::~_l::i~:~__l~::~:_:~:_l__________l___~------l--------__l_________~l
;'1 I I I I ...... I I I I I I
:j~~~~~~~-~~~~-~~~~~:~-~~~:~------~--~~::~~--~--~-------~---------~----------~--_:::~~-_:_--~::~~-_:_-_:::~~--~--_:::~~-_!._-_:~:~~--~
'.j 1..1: ".j 1 I..~ R 1 I I I I I I
120,Building Dep.rtfnent,;j\ --.... '1". 6,000 I I 1 1,~OO I 1,~OO I 1,500 1 1,:500 I 1,~OO I I j2f
:::.1 1--------------------------------..:..------------------------------------------------------------ --------------------------.------------ ;~:
.;.:..;!i I I I ....... I I I I I 1 1 ::u
:,!SpedC\l Assl:'s!\rI'If'nts I 2,500 I I I E.2S I (,25 I E.2S J (,25 I 6.25 I I iT-
,.1------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ I"
';';1 . I I I I I 111111 I I I I t----;:
.~:i~~~~~::---~-----~~----------~--~---:::~~--~----------:----------~----------~-----~----:----~~:---~----~::---~----~::~--~---~~::---~ I~:
.:11 I I I I...... ~ I I I I I 1 ,~;
. ..:GIS I 10, (100 1 I I I e, :;0(1 I l::, t;(I(1 I 2, ~.OO I 2, tiOO I l::, ti(\O I .'"
~o. --------.----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- !'V
"1'r~,ctJ~""1..'Sl.."''', I 1 IUI I I I I I 1, I I
"2 Rec..,nditioned Military Veh1cle 1 35,000 1 I 8,750 I a,nso I 8,750 I 8,750 I 6,750 I 1 I ;:;
;1) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ;.~
"lrFlr""'I'~fJ...rLIII~(IL I I R"'~ 1 I 1 I I I I I '''~
nEquiprlul'nt Miscelli'lneou~ I' 30,000 I I 7,500 I 7,500 I 7,500 I 7,500 I 7,500 I I I j"G
".1------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ !:.:.
i7] I I I I I I I I 1 I
:111 TOTALS 1.1 81,200 1 117,200 I 1.36,7;25 1 155,925 1 185,050 I ISS,S50 I 121,300 I 06,'925 I I:;
,..' ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------.-----..--- ,"
,"
~, I
I"
'"
ill
:~~
;2:
!2'
'"
::1'
..&.
"
i'.
t"
'!j
i::1
.,.,
i:~j
r.~'
~,I
.,1
:~
o
CITY OF ANDOVER
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
May 15, 1990
ITEM
NO./D. Lot Purchase
DATE
ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT
Planning (j){~l~
BY: Jay Blak{l City Planner
AGENDA SECTION
NO. Staff, Committee,
APPROVED FOR
AGENOn i;1
BY: 1
J
REQUEST
The Andover Economic Development Committee will be meeting on
Thursday, May 10, 1990 to discuss the proposed Commercial Park lot
purchase by Northwest Steel Fabricators. A summary report and
recommendation will be available at the meeting.
MOTION BY
~) TO
COUNCIL ACTION
SECOND BY
,
'J
~~
Q::o
~~
Q:~
}..
i-
~
...Jo
~u
U
t5
~
8
~~
~2
.J
.,
<<
H ::""
n ~;~E
f ~ ~::Hi 'I
.. 00'"
~i ~~:!~!.
r,.~!.n .
~,::C.~Ct
:l~:;~~i
~,.-,-..
1:':-:0:
'::'~":"''Q.
.. ';il; c....:.. ~
.. ~ .... .. ~
.o.c ....
~5iH~~::
:.P:..:U:
:;::bl'l
~: lC... I:::..
iil~i~~:~
:,1:'L1
:"r:s~n
lli;Hii
.. :..t....:lo
........
.. ~.. .... ~
,....c...c
::~ ~3:~
~i.nsjl
!
i r
,; i~.8..
l,_~. -
I:: ~;~
.. " ..!
E~~ ;~s
u". ..
:;::" r.,
1, :!. .".:
: ~.~ i
~ :.; I ..
_li.! f ~~
~!= J:;
i:; ;1"
L t ~ ... I: ':
""0 :n
i~~"..~! :i~
- j~:..
~" ,i":
.. a:lo !~:~
}~~:
~:: !!i:
i c:
.n
"
"
~
~~
~.
,-
,.
~ "
.~
.0'.
~ .\; I
: ".
.....
.. ~ -..
. ,.
.....
7 ; i
! :>!
i ~ ~
!h
. ..
I..~::
;:!~:
~ I:"
.,
,--
~!J: "
;
8
1
~
n
~~
;e
.
!
0.."..
.:.. --
'"
., .
mL
t...c..
~~t d~
,;;:ni
:~.l..
i" il:
..!:.;!
~~~:h
-.... ..
v-co..
,.....<;.
.r=: ~
......
t l,l..: ~ ~
;!!:: 1,
.~;..~..~
!~ ~ ~ n:
:~;~:~:
~i~~l~~
..C....IC..
iH~~~~
~ ::: : .. : ~:
.c......
.. 0__....
_.....a.a
;."....-:..
.
!~
l'
~l
n
~:
,
ii
1
i; !
i'l!
. ..
1; ~I'
"
.,
,
....i...':
.
.,
j t
~~
i!
0'
n
~..... ....
\:-1': i~
U ~ ,~;::
:"I:..d
U!.i"~ .
~~ .~ ::~
n :;:~
i~ ::~;
..~ :Hj
~I ;~L
U" ".c.c.
,....:;
...
.. ,
... ...~ I ~ ..:
','en.
:; ;~"'n
1:'\1 i: ~
U ~ ~:..
:: ~:::
'iLUg
... ~..U ....
.....c....
; %~~;;;
~;~:~;~
el:'::'
,;j;;H
ll~~ii~
. ~ ::: ~ ... !
"c........
'j,..:
~I
(j
~;<:
~~
~~
<:lC>
~~
<ll~
~'"
:;,;
~-.:
.....
t
n
t',C
H
.
~
"
.
t:;~~
. 'r!e
\~ ~~e
......1
(~~
Ii ~~~
~ ~;:'
. u . ~:III;
h:i"
i''' ..,~
~ ~ ~.~
~!~~
~
'~I'II'zr:l '''t-~1~ A M....~ 1NJ JO "/1_ 1NJ A 1NIJ J~J'J__
----r-m
'1-
>':;!:.
~.~~~~~;)
...............--...............--.....- .+...........
I
3.rZ,/I.ON
--- J09~' ---
. , 'M'N
~
~.::
,-
--
!:
~i
.~ , ., v ., I
I ,
, i: 1 .
:;,; , u , ..
i-.j -, ""tI ~ , ~.
., ~~If , .
,
l ; ~ 'I ,
.... ", . ~
. ! ::; C> !, ~._]
:8 - ~i ...... .', . ~
,l S ; , <:l <;> If) , -
W , ' , d: 1 ! ,
F :il , ,
::,; , .. , a
-.: , f':. ~
, ., . :11 , ~
..,'\ (-;fl '3 , I
' ' , ~
e, ',/1 ::z 1 3
" 1
.:. "f'."~6 .. 1 ,
L..::~ ::..._.......__ .. - '.':.:':!!.!.'!.':-".~ --- _ ____.;:;.:;J , .
,- 0111161.--- I , ~ ~
, , ~
, I I'() !
~ , .,
" :a: . , g
:1 " l '" a ..
'" " ~i
!:l I .. j
"
I " ,
1).~Q<P"" , ~ .
, ~g
I,'!~ ,
,,~.- --, . .,
.',".0"
'.u....o..
'/
,
,
"
.,
~.
. c
8-
~~
"
"
,
,
I
--.....\
.1:J:7U.1S.
,
,
.-
'.
..
:
,
,
,
L-
...0'-----1
,,,1
"
l:
.,
I
I
I
__""....:..'J!.,____J
r--1'-U'- ~,~;..
I .'~~~~~ ~
~ .~ I.
i::i ~ &1'& ~
... ~: ~ ~
! I:
, '
L___'l9;....'~,____J
...
'J"."
I.",~O~.
'"
J!.:.!U
I.U..O~.
"
1_.',
i...~jt:.
~ 1: ;.~:~
'& I~ tr)
::
"
,
'-
UD...
'~_o,,~. I
;.:...~... :
--:.......,.:/
. .. ~" ,
(Oi .ON m"(l!I- AJN/Y).~)) -~'
--.-.
I~
:: ~
':!I -..J
,
\:':"1
~ I ,I ...."
1 ,q r5'"'
I~: :~
n~ ~
1 a1.: ('::~
.,
.'
~
~
-a ~
~ -~ ~
,
~ -
's -~ ~
. ,
~ &
.
,
I"
~~!
,
j
.........~
NiQH3.1
__ I . ____~_~/i __-- n~~::.._-T-,I-I-T-T-l-
1..1..1 \ NCWCi7tt \ :7N'-':;:'1"" /1 )I;;;-S:'\ I IN3Xi.j' I I
~J
CITY OF ANDOVER
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
DATE
May 15, .1990
ITEM
NO.
Recycling Agreement
11.
ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT
Planning e..-
O;
Cindy DeRuyter,
BY: Recvclinq Coordinator
::~~g~OR
/
AGENDA SECTION
NO. Staff, Committee
. ",,,,inn
REQUEST
The City Council is asked to review and approve the Municipal
Agreement with O.L.E.O.
BACKGROUND
The agreement states that the City of Andover is trying to start
an environmentally sound yard waste program. The OLEO farmers
will help by accepting yard yaste. When yard waste is d~livered
to an OLEO farm, they will be compensated $1.20 for each non-
compressed cubic yard of leaves. It also states that the yard
waste must be clean. This is one method for handling the yard
waste problem.
OLEO is a group of Anoka County farmers, who use landspreading
for disposal of leaves and grass clippings for fields. They are
supportes by the Metropolitan Council and Anoka County.
MOTION BY
,~ TO
COUNCIL ACTION
SECOND BY
~)
\
,-j
. .
(Q) lL ~ (Q)
- '"
ANOKA
(OUlm
ON.LAND ENVIRONMENTAL
orrORTUNIllES
6912156 AVE. N.W.
RAMSEY MN. 55303
MUNICIPAL AGREEMENT _
THIS AGREEMENT is entered into this ___ day of
1990 by and between OLEO, Inc. and i I. e. f! ~.+r.{.. 7. [(JJtd (Tr J<!.A..J
(hereinafter referred to as "party of the secohd .art").
WHEREAS, the State of Minnesota has forbidden the disposal
of yard waste in landfills; and
WHEREAS, the State of Minnesota has adopted a policy of
encouraging landspreading yard waste; and .
WHEREAS, various cities in the state have. assumed the
obligation of collection and disposal of yard waste; and
WHEREAS, certain cities in carrying out their responsibility
for yard .waste disposal have contracted with OLEO, Inc. to.
accomplish the orderly and environmentally sound disposal of yard
waste; and
WHEREAS, the parties
agreement to assure the
disposal of yar~ waste.
NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereto agree as follows:
hereto
orderly
.wish
and
to enter irito. this
environmentally sound
. ,
1. OLEO,' Inc. shall provide the party of the second part
with sites for disposal of their yard waste.
2 . OLEO, Inc. agrees, when. the party of the second. part
has caused the yard waste to be deposited at a place designated
by OLEO, Inc., to assume the full possession and obligatiori for
disposal of the yard waste.that has been deposited and OLEO, Inc;
assures the party of the second part that said. yard waste would.
be spread and incorporated into the soil' in .an orderly' and
~nvironmentally sound manner.
3. The party of the second part shall pay OLEO, Inc. $~:lD
for. every compressed cubic yard and $ /,;) 0 for. every non
compressed cubic yard unloaded as hereinabove described. A
billing statement will be submitted by OLEO, Inc. which shall be
paid by the hauler within'ten (10) days of the receipt of said
statement. .
4. It is presumed by the parties that said price . is'.
predicated upon. the yard waste being free of non biodegradable
material. If non biodegradable material is present, then' the
party of the second part agrees to reimburse OLEO, Inc. for all
costs incurred in removing said non biodegradable material at the
rate o~ $18.00 per hour. Said payment is due and payable to OLEO,
<)
"
)
Inc. ~3u days after said work is accomplished and the party of
the second part notified of the cost incurred in removing
biodegradable )l~teria~ consistent with, ~he h~reinabove described
condi tions. \::j-J~r"- ~6-'Z..-'YYltLrz ~ ~ f~
5. The parties hereto agree to submit any disputes arising
from this agreement to arbitration conducted by and in accordance
with the rules of the American Arbitration Association.
6. The terms and conditions of this agreement will remain
binding upon the parties hereto for the balance of the calendar
year 1990.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this
contract this day of , 1990.
OLEO, Inc.
By
PARTY OF THE SECOND PART:
By
2
~
CITY OF ANDOVER
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
May 15, 1990
DATE
ITEM Revised Recycling
NO.. Budget
/ :J-.
ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT
Planning . ~
Jay Blak~~ty Planne,
BY:
APPROVED FOR
AGE.l'IPp'
I ,
\..
BY: /
,/
AGENDA SECTION
NQ Discussion Items
REQUEST
The Andover city Council is asked to review and approve the
attached resolution that amends the 1990 budget.
BACKGROUND
Cindy DeRuyter has secured three additional grants for the Andover
recycling program, including $20,860 for recycling bins and
promotion, $5,000 for Drop-off Center improvements and $2,250 for
yard waste removal. The total grant award from Anoka County has
increased from $13,570 to $44,630.
The Finance Director has assisted the Planning Department in
preparing the enclosed resolution amending the 1990 budget.
The resulting changes include:
A. The City will sponsor four recycling days during 1990. In
addition, the recycling building will be open 6 days a week for
resident recycling.
B. Five percent of the City Planner's time will be shifted from
Economic Development to Recycling to cover monitoring and
assistance with the program. Subsequently, these funds will not
be expended and will be transferred to the City's Contingency
Fund.
C. The City contribution to the program will be reduced and the
subsequent funds transferred to the City's Contingency Fund.
The following items have been included in the packet:
1990 Anoka County Municipal Funding Chart
Existing 1990 Recycling Budget
Resolution Amending the 1990 City Budget
MOTION BY
~ TO
COUNCIL ACTION
SECOND BY
-' 0 10 10 10 0
0 10 10 0 10 10 0 10 0 10 0
10 0 10 10 ~1 0
<t M ,.... ro 0)
" 0) <D ro 0 10 M 0) 0 10 10
0) 0 " '" ,....
I- <D_ M ro 10 '"
'" " " ,.... M 0) M ro <D "'-
,....- ,....- "'- " N
0 " a; ,,- cri' ,....-
cri' d cri' d 6 6 ,..: d cri' on
M " " a; ~
I- " ,.... " ~
'" 0) ~ 0) M '" M ~
~ ~ M co
t!> ~
~ ~
en
,.J
....
w
I- 0 0 6 0 0
6 0 0 6 6 0 0 6 6 0 0
6 6 6 9 ~i 0
tfl 10 0 10 0 10
0 0 0 0 10 0
<t '" 0 '" 0
'" 0 0 0 0 '"
0
::: d M- d "'"
d "'" "'" "'" "'" d
0"
t!>
M
0
...
a:
<t
>
u.. 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 ~i 0
u.. 0 0 9 0 0
9 9 0 9 0 0 9 0 9 9 0
9 9 9 9 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0- on on lO- on
lO- on on lO-
on 0-
0 t!>
lo
a:
....
0
CJ
z
0 0
-' 0 lo lo 10 0
0 10 10 0 10 10 0 10 0 10 0
10 0 10 10 ~j
Z a:0 0
<D ,.... M ,....
ro 0 '" 0 0 Iii 0) Iii ro
10 " 10 0 0 ro M
~ wI ro <D" 10 M 10
0 <D "- 10 <D_ O OJ '"
M 10 '" 10 (JJ
O-W 6 0)- "'"
d ,....- 0) 10- d d " "'" N
"'" d 10- ,....- cri' M- ,...."
u.. tfl '" M 10
CO) ro ~ 10 ~
~ ~ en
~ tfllO::J t!>
CO)
1-....0
....
Z I
:::i <t
<l: a:
a. 0
() ...J
<t
Z I- 0
Z -'
~ W 0 '" M 10 ,.... "
(JJ N 10 0 N M CJ M (JJ ;:::
ro ;::: 0 ~ ,.... ~i (JJ
2 :::: I ,.... '" ~ <D ;:::
~ CJ 0 0 M 0 ~ "
0 ;::: N
W M ~ ro 10 CJ
-- " 10 0) ,.... ,.... '"
0 lO (JJ lo
W to ..:
- ,..: to d 6 N
",- ~- ...: "'"
...J (f) '<T ~
~ en'
~ 0- ::J ~
~ ~
,....
0- 0
Z ::J I
~ '"
0
()
<l: z 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 ~1 0
0 '" (JJ " 0 '"
<D " " ro 0 " " ro '" 0
<D " 0 " " "
:::.::: 10 ,.... '" 0 ,.....
(JJ 0 (JJ lD ro N ro ,....
ro ,.... " N 0 ro_ (JJ
I- d on OJ- N
ro- ,..: N a; lo- lD- a; ",- '<T-
,..: N ri ",- en"
0 0 ;;:; M ,....
" en <D
~ ~
Z ~
<l:
....
0
en
en
,....
...J(/) M '<T <D 0 M
" lD <D ,.... 0 (JJ lD ,.... ro 0
" 0 lD ~I ~
<tZ M 0) lO "
lO N ,.... lD en " 10 '<T <D '"
0) iD ro 0 " en
00 OJ 0),
~- '<T ~ lD_ N ~
~ CO) "
01-
~ d
0"
;;;
w
'"
<t
III
W
U
Z
<t
::::
a: w 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 ~1 0
0 tfl 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
u.. <t 0_ 0 0 0 0_
0_ 0 0 0 0 0_ 0_ 0_ 0_ 0_ 0_
0_ 0_ 0_ 0_ 0
a: en " '<T- ..,: ..,: "
" ,,- ,,- ,,' " " " " '<T '<T
" " " " " "
t!>
co
W
...
0-
<f)
""
,
E'
0;
,~
Ol
"-
'iii <f)
<f) I u
OJ
OJ OJ <f) "6. ID OJ
<f) Cl <f) ""
e ro .!:: e Cl
> "u ro
Q;
a:: OJ ro Qi "" 0
"" U 0 -' '"
"1:
ii .D II ro 0, ro
0 >- e ...J
> ro ID
E E en >- -' a. ...J
0 Cl ro Ol
\
,-~
0 Qu1O\C 0 ... OOOOiJ1 '" 00 0 C>
'" "''''''' .... VlOOOC'- '" '" '" '"
'" "''''.,. '" rlCONU'l .... M M 0
0
'" '" '" .... '" '" '"
0- ....
0-
'"
0
C>
C>
.... 0 0<11'" 00 .,. OOOOUl '" 00 0 " '"
'" "''''''' .... 1J10 0 Or-- '" '" '" " '"
U) "''''''' '" rl(l)NU'l .... M M " 0
0 "
0- '" '" .... '" '" " '"
0 " ....
'" "
0- "
"
"
"
"'... 00000 0 00000 0 00 0 0
"''''
"''''
....0
... '"
'" en
'"
0
'"
en
0
"'aU) "'..., 00000 0 000.00 0 00 0 0
"'z'" "''''
...."'''' "''''
tw'" ....... ,.
'" ... u
"'...,~ '" I
"''''0 ;,.
O"'z
0"''''
zzo-
"''''x
"''''
tw "'... 00000 0 OOoe 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 "''''
"''''
>< ....0
... '"
~ en
u
......., 00000 0 00000 0 00 0 " 0
"'''' "
C>'" "
....... "
u "
'" "
"
"
"
"
"
U)
'"
'" U)
u z
~ '" ><
'" 0- '"
'" U) " X ...,
U) '" '" c '" ...
'" ~ U1 U1 0 ::>
u u z " .,; '" 0
~ c ~ ..., '" ~ c ... z ><
'" ~ u '" 0- .... 0 '" ~ '" ..J
'" ... c z x .... .... ... ... ..J " '"
Z '" :> ~ 0 '" "- ... ., '" ... ., ...
0 '" " ... U) "- " "''' '" '" c ~
~ c :> '" '" :> +J t:-11 '" 0 ~ ., 0-
... ..J " ~ " '" z U1 .....r1 tr. 0- S C '"
0. '" QI C 0- ~ 41 0...:: 111 0 ..J QI QI U
Z .... .t::~ ... QI OIu.tI1U::: '" ~ s
'" ~ ... ., ..J '" U ~ VI'r4 .... ..J ... 0 0. ..J
U U) "'" .... QI '" '" .... ., c.... ~ '" ~ ... .... '"
lO '" ...."'''' "'... ... '" ... " ~ .Q QI ... 0- 0.:> ...
0 '" '" ~"'U) QI.... 0 0- ~ 0 H ;S :l 0 '" E 0' 0
.,. 0 0. U]~U]:I:...J ... 0 o 0.. E-Hl. 0 ... u ~'" ... '"
.... z
'" ~
.,. ...,
u
'" ..J
, 0 ><
'" 0 ..........N.....M ONO.....M 0 0 u
'J z u ONNMM ONMU'lM M '" '"
~ .........rl......... NMMM~ '" '" '"
..J ...
U U ..J
,.. '" '"
u ..., ...
'" m (471 0
'" ~ ...
. ,
~J
CITY OF ANDOVER
COUNTY OF ANOKA
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RES. NO. R -90
A RESOLUTION AMENDING THE 1990 GENERAL FUND BUDGET.
WHEREAS, The City of Andover believes that the preparation
and adoption of operating budgets is sound financial practice;
and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Andover adopted
resolution number R194-89 establishing the 1990 General Fund
budget; and
WHEREAS, the budget established included estimates for the
revenue available to fund recycling activities; and
WHEREAS, additional information has become available
indicating the City will receive increased funding for recycling
activities, and
WHEREAS, the City Planner intends to spend additional time
monitoring the recycling program; and
WHEREAS, the Andover City Council desires to amend the
General Fund budget to reflect this additional funding and staff
time required to monitor the recycling program.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the
City of Andover hereby amends the 1990 General Fund Budget by
increasing revenue from other grants by $31,360, reducing Economic
Development salaries by $1,613, increasing the Contingency amount
by $3,402 and increasing the recycling budget to the amounts shown
on Attachment A.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Andover on this 15th
day of May , 1990.
CITY OF ANDOVER
ATTEST:
James E. Elling - Mayor
Victoria Volk - City Clerk
/
,-J
'\
J
CITY OF ANDOVER
COUNTY OF ANOKA
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RES. NO. R -90
ATTACHMENT A
Description Object Code
Salaries 101
PERA 121
FICA 122
Amount
$ 10,100
429
758
400
1,250
250
1,300
125
6,000
6,498
17,520
$ 44,630
--------
--------
Office Supplies 201
Operating Supplies 210
Transportation 330
printing 351
Conferences/Dues 433
Contractual Services 406
Improvements 530
Equipment - Recycling Bins 582
Total Recycling Budget
~~
CITY OF ANDOVER
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
May 15, 1990
AGENDA SECTION
NO. Staff Committee Comm.
DATE
ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT
Finance
ITEM
NO.
Funds/
BY:
Howard Koolick ~
APPROVED FOR
AGENT)~
REQUEST
The Andover city Council is requested to discuss the purchase of
an additional one or two terminals for the accounting system
and approve closing the equipment fund.
BACKGROUND
REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL TERMINAL
On December 19, 1989 the City Council approved the bid by Business
Records Corporation for the purchase of the computerized
accounting system. The configuration bid included one color and
one monchrome display station. During my presentation I noted
that two terminals were adequate at the time of purchase, however
a third terminal would be needed eventually.
Since attending training and beginning to use the financial
system, the two existing terminals have been used approximately
50% to 75% of the time. Not included in the time used is the
management analysis that I need to do to supply meaningful and
timely financial data to department heads and City Council. I
hope to begin supplying this information once all the data from
the beginning of the year is input. In addition, we intend to add
the payroll module in June and the utility billing module in the
fall. (Please note that these modules were part of the software
bid by BRC, the City just has not installed them yet).
The addition of both these modules will necessitate two extra
terminals; one for the accounting clerk responsible for payroll
since she also does regular disbursements and will therefore be at
a terminal approximately 80% of her time and one for the utility
billing clerk to replace the terminal she now has from the old
system. This should complete the equipment needs for the
accounting system for several years.
COUNCIL ACTION
~
MOTION BY
TO
SECOND BY
Below is a summary of the costs of display stations similar to the
color and monochrome stations we currently have (IBM 3477 and IBM
0 3476-EAZ):
1. Business Records Corporation $935 per terminal (monochrome)
$1,204 per terminal (color)
2. IBM $877 per terminal (monochrome)
$1,120 per terminal (color)
3. Computerland $796 per terminal (monochrome)
$1,067 per terminal (color)
4. CBM Computers $873 per terminal (monochrome)
The above prices do not include cabling. I estimate that we would
need approximately 40-50 feet of cable for each terminal.
Computerland quoted me a price of approximately $0.50 per foot for
the twinaxial cable plus $21 for the connectors. IBM recommended
calling Custom Computer Cable who quoted me a price of $19.00 for
the connectors and $0.34 per foot for the cable. Both bids
include attaching the connectors and cutting the cable to the
required length.
I also looked at the price of a personal computer. While a
personal computer can be purchased for much less than than the
above prices, an emulation card would be needed for it to tie into
the AS/Entry system we have. BRC charges $670 for the emulation
card, while IBM charges $750. When considering the emulation card
and PC, the 3476 display station is a less costly option.
The funding for these terminals would come from the money
remaining in the equipment fund prior to its closing, which is
discussed further below. The following is a summary of the
balance of the equipment fund:
Balance 12/31/89 $ 48,384
Plus: Estimated interest
thru 4/90 800
Less: Contract Price of
BRC Bid 34,950
Furniture for System 500
Balance at 4/30/90 $ 13,734
CLOSE EQUIPMENT FUND
All accounting funds have a life cycle as shown below:
)
Creation of Fund ---> Revenue Generation ---\
I
Close the Fund <--- Incurring of Expenditures <--I
o
The above analysis shows that approximately 11,500 to 13,500
remaining in the equipment fund. Since this fund has served its
purpose and has no additional scheduled activity, the fund should
be closed. In the 1988 management letter from the auditor, he
recommended this fund be reviewed and closed if appropriate.
City Council will need to decide into what fund to close the
equipment fund. Options include the general fund, the permanent
improvement revolving fund or the water or sewer funds.
The origin of these funds are the 1987 equipment funds and a self
insurance fund for the grader used by public works. Since the
City repaired the grader in 1989 at a cost of approximately
$11,500, it would seem appropriate to transfer these funds to the
general fund.
CITY COUNCIL OPTIONS
REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL TERMINAL
1. Authorize staff to purchase one additional terminal from the
monies remaining in the equipment fund.
2. Authorize staff to purchase one additional terminal from the
monies remaining in the equipment fund and include a terminal
for utility billing in the 1991 budget. This will delay the
implementation date of the utility billing module until spring
of 1991.
3. Authorize staff to purchase two additional terminals from the
monies remaining in the equipment fund.
4. Authorize no additional terminals at this time.
1.
2.
CLOSE EQUIPMENT FUND
Close equipment fund into general fund.
Close equipment fund into permanent improvement revolving
fund.
Close equipment fund into water fund.
Close equipment fund into sewer fund.
3 .
4.
5. Do not close equipment fund at this time.
Closing this equipment fund does not require a resolution. It can
be done by Council motion. I would recommend the motion be worded
without a dollar amount since the amount may vary slightly once
interest is allocated and the terminals, if any are approved for
purchased.
)
c)
CITY OF ANDOVER
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
May 15, 1990
AGENDA SECTION
NQ Staff, Committee,
CommiC!C!inn
DATE
ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT
Engineering
-{1::t
~~ J H",,,,,,
::~~9[F-R
ITEM
NQ 14. Strootman Park
pondinq
BY:
I
The City Council is requested to discuss the parking situation at
Strootman Park.
City Staff has been contacted by a couple of residents living in
the area regarding the parking situation. Apparently, the
spectators watching the baseball games have been parking off the
street portion onto the grassy areas along Kiowa Street which is
causing property owners to do more maintenance to control erosion
and keep up the nice looking ditches that exist.
Attached is a resolution designating no parking on Kiowa Street NW
from 154th Avenue NW to 155th Avenue NW.
This resolution is allowed by Ordinance No. 33C.
Two parking lots currently exist along 154th Avenue and this would
force spectators to use these.
MOTION BY
.~~ TO
COUNCIL ACTION
SECOND BY
u
CITY OF ANDOVER
COUNTY OF ANOKA
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RES. NO.
A RESOLUTION DESIGNATING NO PARKING ON KIOWA STREET NW FROM 154TH
AVENUE NW TO 155TH AVENUE NW.
WHEREAS, the Council is cognizant of the public nuisance,
traffic hazard, congestoin; and
WHEREAS, the Council believes restricting the parking in the
area will be a solution to the problems.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the
City of Andover that Kiowa Street NW from 154th Avenue NW to
155th Avenue NW be designated no parking.
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
'1
~
--
\
',,_J
'1
~
CITY OF ANDOVER
COUNTY OF ANOKA
STATE OF MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO. 33C
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 33, 33A AND 33B ENTITLED AN
ORDINANCE REGULATING THE PARKING OF MOTOR VEHICLES ON PUBLIC
STREETS IN THE CITY OF ANDOVER.
The City Council of the City of Andover hereby ordains:
Add to Section 1:
Notwithstanding the foregoing restrictions, the City Council may
1mpose additional parking restrictions on streets within the City
1f 1n its opinion such restrictions are necessary to protect the
health, safety and welfare of persons or property. Streets sub;ect
to such additional restrictions shall be designated by Council
resolut1on and such restrictions shall not be enforced until after
posted notice thereof on such streets has taken place. Violation
of such restrictions shall be deemed a misdemeanor.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Andover this
19th
day of
May
, 1987.
CITY OF ANDOVER
ATTEST:
~ tv . /.7.,.~i(/
Je ry Windschitl - Mayor
U. ;~~:
"' . .i /!,./
.., ,'-- y'
Victoria Volk - City
Clerk
;1 ')
'~
-
,
~ ~\ i I .\ -. ~ ~ _~I!
CASTNER -. I ~
. ,A~D~T/~N . t-REGl TE!!fO HEGIS7:EREO
I -. -, ~ LANP.._S.'l!.IlI{~'( "'. __ ~
II h -=~ ~l-n_,:,,! -~\11J1
I! I -. -. ~ : 1L ..J.,,~
1 I" _I _,SL Vq- ~ /f---l.?~t;S.\:~{
1 I I _ ~_'~j Jl-- >--
-I-I--+--J- ~ _. e -. J .".. I
f--. _ I _~~ 72-' ~ -:-- -:, J; I , \. .' ,_ ~
I I~,,_, R.L..' 'Ii. . ~ TI If
I-- -j'(-'f0' . FdX'(. l l#r~~'rr-
t-- ~ -" '"'IT ,:;\-,_r 'I IT,
n... - ~JJ ./-}J '~I:..~ ~ ~ 'I<< ~ '--., l/ /-., '_
RNERl L:- '.' '}, . r--/...'~:7~ ~ " . /" t.J f' _
' , , .,. lil - ILK/~A rl; " ~ "<;!lb. t--
'CHF.,ArES ~'/;t M .x;--;...... -. ,. .......-' t"-
' '''' I ::::J...~ '" . v-; , r- _
: , ~~~. r;~H~A ~.> 5 1---
I .1'; ~ :::.... . I!.l.... L ~ c..:"---!- I'..., I-- _
~'"'-... J" ,............"I.~;-,l. _...._.. ____n
/. ~ ~~Y- - .i!. '1' .:-;- I -I ::1
) 1,'vVER' ~. ~t-',;kA~ WiAb(;.,.. U - - c-;-.~
J. ,. r, ': ' .::' :. I' . ~ ' .
!l!E:m; T F=r,
\.! :1. 1- ;, . ,. .. /___ , .', ~h1
r-rr- ' '1;:--; . .2 /T.f~Esj ~ . '/ V' 12~ '..
!J5~ l,:'\"l!- I. ..... / I ' , . " . =~
~ ": I. 1'1".1. '..
AJ.0.6~{; ~~. : .'. 1 ,..,c.,,""\ ~ \. -,--i-- I . L;,f ,
~ 'Ji~A' """:', ~-;-WES,T,'" '\" L
~\ " , .- ,/ \,
~RI/IIf~. I -......r ...:..: 5' '. '~
' I ,
''z ". '" .1. E,f"
/, f&OO' ~~~~ ~ ~~ ~ ;-: .', ROUND ,[1 ~ . .
V~ <~ _ f(~' '~'l~Jm"." - L,,,,7iD::'~S I ~9~'); "~K; E~T~Th ,\' LAKE ~1
' L 7i '~U". . "'~':j _ "'.1 -/ -:..... ~ _ }. ~,"./.~
. 'I.W lH!"'"' . r- :l I. I' , ~ I __ ..""..,..
. ':i ~j,;--~ .. '~', J ~ 31 ~ T I 1'4,
I lV'1."'\G' t.....!:I .: ' f . J .
1/7I'I'~ . j . I . I" , 7ir., '16' I . . .... I' z'
,'IT'" . "IL'.l'/ T'II"""";, "' ._.-' ::/.
V" I ~ . ,_ . '''f'L g .'
o or. " ~ ~ - . "", ,. I _______ / r?P "
~,;:;, ~:~~;~~:f.~ / \~~~Ll--h7 ^~~~X~,::;':,~ _\!,-________
~.:1' . l<ll" '. ::J:'t:;r<;k~ ~ [1 ~ ~ . \.'
!"f"'.j.I' ,\'---.!: >'.~/'I' , --.f; A I,ll ~ n::'i~~~', ri11i'''''~ ~
AN~k' CO '.1iJ ~" "",~,V/ .;. ~ ~ _~ .
'.V.,,,,,.. ;..' :_ I;''''~I'BIIIN'-''''-'/< ''''~ ~
a ~""', 1/""7-./ / A":: "" ~'\ IT... CRE'EKRIDGi.
I#. .. ~- . == t- '.~ I.'....
ph........ -'.01'1-1.1- ''''1-''
-fJ ..'. !=t= I tt{'f-~P:''', cSTlTC:
, ----t--- ~I ===ft :.~~ .::;~~~ _'" ._~~l..L
:h I I-i- ~.~v.
t-' I . " '" _'.' _"
I I 0Y/i''l-;~ '~7",,~,cK;;""';!'~ I . ...... /'
COUNTY ROA ,116 ~ I . . AOCIITION . .1. '" I..... '.... ,
~-... ""'.:JJ, ~~ ",""/
", I .'I 'I j , I.. .. . .. .,. - , '7 J
''>-''''''1''...1 ' ~/:~' -;"~',_ I
'::~t : . .'%J':~ 1'1 ~ .. ~ ~~~ .
'Ci1 ., -. J -.- ..~~ ~.. . '--
~JJ-1l~ 0 ~ ~ ~'i~~t;: i~t ~t ~'. ~!'j"!:J.: l__~~~O'pL,A~~.i.r;
~,~~"'.'.I"I. ....... , ".. ,"Ii "" -T\ ~
~:v
~ --t?--
-
,
/'\'''III.U
H i IJJ
Hili
TJt~JI
[I TJl":""_
I , ____
. Ht.IGH'S NwsmM
il '! I IS:"!'..IJj
l::r [I I
gr' 11~
~!f .
//~
-
. ,
"j. .;\.j'L'1 L
-~ rP/'YE,- ~ r--r. L-
t-(-H.'j!ffl r---: I ..L 'I f-
. V~':':\"31\.
I'f' - H/
I I _
:n 11:L =i
r- L L-.
L;.D
L-...L ~
l
I
.>f-E
ffO~: I
-~)
f'r=
C)
CITY OF ANDOVER
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
May 15, 1990
AGENDA SECTION
NO. Staff, Committee,
rnmm;<:<:;nn
ITEM 15. Schedule Meeting:
NO. city Council &
Park Board
DATE
ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT
Engineering ~
.{~
BY: ~ J ~;",<:
~~t1\D FOR
BY>}~
c/
The City Council is requested by the Park and Recreation
Commission to schedule a work session to discuss the following
items:
* Ordinance 10, Section 9.07, Park Dedication Requirements;
specifically Section 9.07.6 (b) (hiring of appraiser) and
Section 9.07.11 (Metes and Bounds Lot Splits).
* Kelsey-Round Lake Park. The Park and Recreation Commission is
looking at the possibility of developing the park and
acquiring property as part of a grant. Also, the Commission
would like to discuss the thoughts and/or exchange ideas for
the development of this park with the City Council.
* Capital Budget for 1991.
* Comprehensive Plan.
* Future maintenance of parks.
COUNCIL ACTION
MOTION BY
. "-
.~ TO
SECOND BY
'0
CITY OF ANDOVER
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
May 15, 1990
AGENDA SECTION
NO. Staff Committee Comm.
DATE
ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT
Finance
ITEM
NO.
$2,500,000
Howard Koolick
tK
~':i.~'I,&OR
REQUEST
The Andover city Council is requested to authorize the
solicitation for bids for a $2,500,000 bond sale as recommended
by the city Attorney.
BACKGROUND
Attached is a recommendation letter from Bill Hawkins. The
proposed bond issue is to finance the portion of the 1987
temporary bonds. The amount proposed, one-half of the
original issue, represents the portion of special assessments yet
to be collected by the City.
The resolution required will be presented by the attorney at the
meeting, if it is not available before assembling your packets.
MOTION BY
"J TO
COUNCIL ACTION
SECOND BY
'0
,J
LAW OFFICES OF
Burke Ilnd Jlllwkins
JOHN M. BURKE
WILLIAM G. HAWKINS
SUITE 101
299 COON RAPIDS BOULEVARD
COON RAPIDS. MINNESOTA 55433
PHONE (612) 784.2998
April 27, 1990
Mr. Howard Koolick
Andover City Hall
1685 Crosstown Blvd.
Andover, MN 55304
Re: $2,500,000 General Obligation Temporary Improvement Bonds,
Series 1990A
Dear Howard:
Enclosed herein please find our recommendation letter with
regard to the above referenced bond issue. Please distribute to
the mayor and councilmembers and have it placed on the agenda
for the May 15, 1990 council meeting.
Hawkins
WGH:mk
Enc.
LAW OFFICES OF
~J
RUfke oud Jlnwkius
JOHN M. BURKE
WILLIAM G. HAWKINS
April 27, 1990
SUITE 101
299 COON RAPIOS 80ULEV ARD
COON RAPIDS. MINNESOTA 55433
PHONE (612) 784.2998
Mayor and Members of City Council
Andover City Hall
1685 Crosstown Blvd.
Andover, MN 55304
Re: Recommendation for issuance of $2,500,000 of General
Obligation Temporary Improvement Bonds, Series 1990A
Dear Mayor and Councilmembers:
On August 1, 1987 the City of Andover issued $5,000,000 of
General Obligation Temporary Improvement Bonds, 1987A for the
purpose of funding the following improvement projects:
87 - 3A
87-3B
87-3C
87-2
87-4
87-7
87-8
87-l0A
87-l0B
87-11
Bunker Lake Blvd.
Crosstown
Coon Creek
Hills of Bunker Lake
Woodridge
Shady Knoll
Kensington Estates
Water Well *3
Pumphou se #3
Elementary School utilities
Pursuant to our recommendation on June 30, 1987 temporary bonds
were issued since these projects were constructed to serve a
large area of new development within the City. It was antici-
pated that a substantial amount of prepayments would be received
by the Ci ty since assessments have to be paid in full on new
subdivisions within thirty (30) days following the issuance of
the certificate of occupancy.
We have been advised by Howard Koolick, the City Finance
Director, that as of December 31, 1989, the City has the
following funds available for payment of these bonds:
"-
)
-,
,-~
Mayor and Council
April 27, 1990
Page 2
Debt Service Fund
Construction Fund
Water Trunk Fund
Sanitary Sewer Trunk Fund
Total
$ 1,250,000.00
500,000.00
359,400.00
390,600.00
$ 2,500,000.00
As planned the City has received a substantial amount of
prepay~ents and we are able to reduce the amount of debt
outstanding for these projects by 50% by use of existing City
funds.
The remaining $2,500,000.00 must be refinanced until additional
assessment collections are received by the City. The City has
two options in considering the refinancing of the unfunded
existing debt. They are as follows: (1) The City may issue
permanent long term financing to cover the costs of funding the
temporary obligations, or: (2) The City may issue a second
temporary bond issue for a period of three years.
It is our recommendation that the City issue general obligation
temporary improvement bonds at this time. The reason for our
recommendation is that a great deal of these projects are for
trunk sanitary sewer and water services which are funded through
area and connection (unit) assessments. These benefit a large
area of new development which is anticipated to be constructed
within the next two to three years. As with the first temporary
issue a substantial amount of prepayment is anticipated. When
the second temporary issue matures it is likely that a sub-
stantial reduction in the amount of outstanding debt can be made
at that time. Also the issuance of temporary bonds would keep
the net interest rate lower than if long term definitive bonds
were issued. Furthermore, the City assessments that were levied
for these projects were assessed at 1% over the interest rate
bid on the temporary bonds. If long term bonds were issued at
this time the net interest rate on these bonds would be
substantially higher which would require the City to reassess
all properties which have outstanding assessments to increase
the interest rate on their assessments. I would, however,
anticipate that the interest rate bid on these temporary bonds
would be approximately the same as the temporary bonds issued in
1987 which should require n.o change in the assessment roll and
the need for a supplemental hearing.
The disadvantage to issuance of the temporary bonds is that the
City will incur the issuance costs for this temporary issue as
well as the issuance cost for a long term bond issue in three
years if it is needed. I would expect this would add between
$65,000.00 to $70,000.00 of costs to the project: however, this
cost can be funded from the existing funds that are in the
construction account. Also, the lower interest rate on the
'i
/
Mayor and Council
April 27, 1990
Page 3
~
temporary bonds should offset this cost. The second disadvan-
tage would be the possibility that if the City is required to
issue long term bonds in three years that the interest rate for
bonds at that time would be significantly higher than the market
at the present time. The City would be able to respond to this
change in market conditions, however, by re-assessing properties
who have not paid these assessments by increasing the interest
rates accordingly. Since the majority of the properties which
were assessed for these projects are developers, this would not
be as controversial as it may at first seem. In order to
provide the City with flexibility concerning the interest rates,
we will provide the call feature in the bonds which allows the
City to call them at the end of the first two years and any time
thereafter. This should provide additional flexibility in time
of the refunding of the temporaries to correspond with the
change in market conditions as they relate to interest rates.
The City is currently rated "Baa-I" by Moody's and we do not
anticipate an improvement ~n the rating. As you are aware the
Anoka-Hennepin School District has recently had a decrease in
its bond rating. While we do not believe this should have a
substantial effect on the City of Andover, nevertheless, it may
be taken into consideration by Moody's in rating this bond
issue. We would recommend that the City obtain another rating
from Moody's Investors Service since it will be necessary for
the marking of the temporary improvement bonds.
The bonds would be dated July 1, 1990 and the first interest
payment would be due on January 1, 1991. Interest would be due
thereafter on July 1st and January 1st of each year until
July l, 1993 when the entire temporary bond issue would mature
and must be refinanced, unless called earlier as set out above.
~ve are recommending that the City authorize the taking of bids
at their meeting on May 15th and that the bids be considered
awarded on Tuesday, June 19, 1990, at 7:30 p.m. at the Andover
City Hall. If the award of bids is made on June 19th, funds
will be available in time to meet the maturity date of the out-
standing bonds of August 1, 1990.
If any members of the Council have any questions regarding this
matter, please feel free to contact me.
WGH:mk
,
,
)
'~~)
CITY OF ANDOVER
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
May 15, 1990
AGENDA SECTION
NO. staff, Committee,
DATE
ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT
APPROVED FOR
AGEND
ITEM
NO. 17. Receive Quotes/AAA
BId . Electric Sr'
BY:
Engineering
.(1)(<
The City Council is requested to approve the installation of
single phase underground from the pole along the west side of City
Hall to a transformer which will set near new building. The
service line from the transformer to the building is included in
the price. Total installation cost is $1,277.
Optons
1. Require Andover Athletic Association to participate in the
cost.
2. Take $1,277 from the $20,000 contingency fund.
3. Use park dedication funds.
4. Do nothing.
NOTE: The Andover Athletic Association has indicated any other
wiring would be done as part of the construction of the
building. Cost for installing overhead single phase is
$ 693.00
MOTION BY
.,J TO
COUNCIL ACTION
SECOND BY
05/10/90 15=29
G /P"E'
z: 612 421 1343
""Z~-
,C)
~HOK~ ELEC CO-OP
7 ;;L>
02
.~ QUESTIONA.BLE PEIti'lANENCE - MOl IT LeAD UHARGESI (membership & new service fees not incl)
,
J$(J
I
3~O
Of! tin~le Phafle
Standard Fee
Total footago X 1.75 rt
~~~~~~..~t~,-~.r
Total Charges
Refunrlable Portion,
1.75 rt up to 300 ft.
un Single PhAse
Standard Fee - ell Bourcl'!
un Souroe
Footage to 800' X 3.00 ft
Footage after 800' X 1.00 ft
41!lt{tf:~(~~i1'f=1o,,2"4"
Total Charges
Refundable Portion:
3.00 ft up to 300 it.
Oft Three Phase
.... T
Standard Fee
Total footage X 2.50 rt
Addit1.onlll Special CharF,6s
Total ChAr [tea
Refundable Porti,on:
2.50 ft up to 600 ft.
,
un Three Phase
,J
Standard Fee
Total foot,go X L.oo ft
Additional Special Char~eA
Total Charges
Refundable Portion:
4.00 ft. up Lo 600 ft.
': i
I.
, I
. '100.00
~?P: ot1
/:> e>()
'11.6,9.5> ~ ~ ?ir/l~ t(J,f' 6~r
11 5",J.S" DeJ
~?J- -0 ( 2.00)
(- 1.00)
~,;, . <I"
/~ ",
#/~??A1
, ?tJtI~
100.00 ~
500.00
~,;,,~ "6: e(l1f,..
~
&/g,;)I:>/f4~E ~#R
~ y"'''A'S
~ J"lj P?d~ ~ ,h,rC, &
~ 7d ,;?~ ~, ~e
&'i/!.U/b,9~~t/F ~b-";6'N
~d YE#A' nR 5" y,.eS
u
CITY OF ANDOVER
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
May 15, 1990
AGENDA SECTION
NO.
DATE
ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT
Engineering
.-(5-*"
FOR
ITEM
NO. 18.
BY:
The City Council is requested to accept a quit claim deed from
Troy D. Olson to the City of Andover for road purposes.
See attached deed for description and map showing location of the
easement.
Mr. Olson will be constructing a home on the lot and the
certificate of survey does not recognize 181st Avenue under
ownership of the City of Andover.
MOTION BY
~_) TO
COUNCIL ACTION
SECOND BY
_ f.p!!!:'1!.~28:.~=-aullclAIM OEEO
Individual 15110 Corporal ion
orPartnflrshlp
Mlnnuo~._.l!n!!o'm.ConYfYSn~~!,ll_ n!sn~,!, (l ~-'_~) _____ .
MiII~r-D8..1~ Co~. Mi........"p...li5
:0
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: $
Date:
lI.['T; 1 ?t;"
,19 ----'lll
(reserved for recording data)
FOR VALUABLE CONSIDERATION,
Troy n Olson. sinalp-
lmaritalsllltus)
, Grantor,*o),
hereby convey (s) and quitclaim (s) to
Thp rity of Annnvpr
a rnrrnr~t;nn
real property in 1\ n n k;:l
under the laws oC Mi nnpsnt,q
County, Minnesota, described as !ollows:
, Grantee,
An easement for road purposes over the North 33 feet of
that part of the Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter
of Section 5, Township 32, Range 24 described as follows:
Beginning at a point on the north line of said Northwest
Quarter of the Northwest Quarter distant 1633.5 feet west
from the northeast corner of the Northwest Quarter of said
Section 5 (being the point of intersection of said north
line with the northerly extension of west line of AZTEC
ST. N.W. as shown on the plat of CEDAR 1I1LLS RIVER ESTATES
SECOND ADDITION); thence south, along said northerly extension
and along the west line of said AZTEC ST. N.W., a distance
of 264 feet to the northeast corner of Lot 3, Block I,
said plat; thence west, along the north line of said Lot
3. a distance of 330 feet to the northwest corner of said
(if more space is needed, continue on bllckl
together with all hereditaments and appurtenances belonging thereto.
i\rrix Deed Tax Stamp Hert:'
Troy D. Olson
STATE OF MINNESOTA
COUNTY OF
ANOKA
} 55.
The foregoing instrument was 89knowledged before me this 25 t h day of Apr i 1
by Troy D. Olson, a SIngle person
,19~,
'-NO-TARIALSTAMPORSEAL' (OROTHERTJ'iLi on' RANK) .
I
I
I
, Grantor r&}.
SIGNATURE OF PERSON TAKING ACKNOWLEDGMENT
Tu: Ststemenh lor the u.1 property de.crlblld In thl. Instrument should
be "nt to (lncludll nlITls .nd .ddren 01 Guntn):
__I
THisINSTRUMENT WAS DRAFTW BY (NAMEANDADDRESS): 1
Robert Munns
2150 Third Avenue North
Suite 20
Anoka, MN 55303
'-)
I
1-
,,~..t
(legal continued)
o
Lot 3; thence north, along the east lines of Lots 2 and 1,
said Block I, and along the northerly extension of the
east line of said Lot I, a distance of 264 feet to the
north line of said Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter;
tllcnce east, along the north line of said Northwest Quarter
of the Northwest Quarter, a distance of 330 feet to the
point of beginning.
\
j
(3)
263/./6/1e5
.s. I"~"'.I'~I.
.........
19,.~dr A(l~'
4<'~.## ,
........
::;,
<;60
~.,o
/
r",.)
~
."
.
:! .;
.
.
,>
,~
. "
" ~
. OJ
'i
(;,t)
I
L1f\
~
'"
t
~
.
.
;,
~
~
..
..
"
.,
&~3.,c;9'
-J. n..r"J.~.4.
;;;
J. 69.S'".J'B.
0<>
2
.,;
,I-
".
~. .
".
.J.8r.r'JJ1"r.
(9
3
.~1ft
"..
."Gf '"
~, 0"1)
, "
" 0
'"
,
..
","
~.~
..
(lJ)
2
..1,,".4"'4
.
'l'
6
~)
.:t
---... ....-.-..__.-
". ...~. 2."4'''~''
4. J,s
"
"
,
~)
. ADDIT/ON
7
~""
""
........1~ g~"'T
.s. '.-'J""J~-":
""'-;"'.'Y
118 TH
LAN E ...,.
/
(5)
/2
------- .'...r. 7:.... _
'ot ~"".c"o..
~ . .... ";70' &:r..
~)
/3
P9L
~<?wr~nce B. .::'.,..r/..."""
I
--
o
CITY OF ANDOVER
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
May 15, 1990
AGENDA SECTION
NO.
DATE
ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT
Nnn..n;..,........;",.., T+-om..
Engineering
APPR6V,I Eu.../ FOR
AGEND..~rA I
\) .'
BY:
/
ITEM
NO. 19. Water Surface Use
Manaaement
BY: .1"m..", R C!,..h..",..,+-~
The City Council is requested to consider if there is a need to
regulate the water surface use of various waters in the City of
Andover such as Round Lake.
The DNR held a meeting with the residents along the Rum River.
See attached notice.
The Rum River has to be regulated by Anoka County and to date the
County hasn't deemed it necessary because there wasn't an
agreement between Anoka, Ramsey and Andover when the Lower Rum
River WMO worked on the "No Wake" ordinance.
The City of Anoka is in the process of passing an ordinance
regulating the part of the Rum River that is totally in Anoka.
If Anoka regulates the Anoka section it may take care of the
concern the LRRWMO investigated.
The Councill may consider sending this item to the Planning and
Zoning Commission.
Attached: Memo from d'Arcy
DNR Notice
DNR Letter, 7/89
If the Council wants them, I have the "Water Surface Use Rules and
Statutes" and a model ordinance and application from the DNR.
COUNCIL ACTION
,- '!
MOTION BY
TO
SECOND BY
...J
,)
~)
~'
CITY of ANDOVER
M E M '0 RAN DUM
To:
James E. Schrantz, City
Administrator
('.'! LJ)
;;(/1/
eLI/-
~
From:
d'Arcy Bosell, Zoning Administrator
In Re:
Water Surface Use Management
Date:
17 April 1990
As a part of the Rum River workshop held on April 16, 1990, at
Ramsey City Hall (also scheduled for April 18, 1990 at Andover
City Hall), Anita Twaroski from the Boat & Water Safety Section
provided to each participant a copy of a model Water Surface Use
Management Ordinance, applicable Statutes, etc.
I would like these materials forwarded on to the City Council for
their information. Perhaps consideration should be made and
adoption of something similar pursued in light of the event on
Round Lake approximately two (2) weeks ago. This would certainly
assist in the enforcement of such inappropriate uses.
cc: Jay Blake, City Planner
I '-<-..-c. u.
-.-.--....~~....,
~ STATE OF
[N][N]~~@LJ~
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
d/}/C: u)"riw/7.,/,-;'
')1~;p
~
,J
DNR INFORMATION
(612) 296.6157
500 LAFAYETTE ROAD · ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA. 55155.40
/ "
V
To Whom it May Concern:
Each year the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR)
receives numerous inquiries regarding water surface use management. ~
This letter is intended to provide general information concerning the
rules and statutes that may govern the water surface of lakes and other
waterways in Minnesota.
Water surfaces are managed through numerous statutes and rules.
Minnesota Rules parts 6110.3000-.3800, Water Surface Use Management
(WSUM Rules) describe the goals of the rules, requires an assessment of
the water surface use conditions, and establishes water surface
management standards or parameters which may be included in an
ordinance. For more specific information, a copy of the statutes and :
rules are enclosed. .
'~n..~~~o.,..YJ~J. ',u..'~~~~!li.t..Af~~{m. '~la. t i pg ;:..p.. :m~.qQ~j. 09:;..". ~r~f~~.."'.~.~:tQ..gZ~Ji!l~.r.91.~'{\
Jor;,~'1~MJ'l;~H.~f!SIP.'~~I}J~~~~~S;'t,~~~.~J91J QI1J!J9 ~ ~ nfo~atJ 00.10' tIle. 'pNIli1
fo!,_ r:evJ ~~d PX.l or,:1,to'ado~ i ng ::.U!:Ep'o~_e~_~~!1.,~~dl~~~~e. ~
1. Water surface use ordinance worksheet with a map of the
lake highlighting the areas to be regulated.
2. A statement evaluating whether the information reveals
significant conflicts and explain why the particular
controls proposed were selected.
3. The proposed ordinance.
4. A description of the public hearing held concerning the
proposed controls, including an account of the statement
of each person who testified.
. If more th~J) ofl~,Q,g~~rn~lW1Hl unjt,j~,.jrJP.JYE!~Lt~ ~dopting an
ordl nance, th~n/~it.~.!l.e;.g"a}'...e...t;~!lteL;.Y_Qjt~;J!1U~.t;il:.gr~~wl th the proposed
ordi nance and \ai;lop'tdQentl~aLprdi nances~ All toe governmental units
must submit therequrrecr~informationto-the DNR for approval. . Enclosed!
. is an example of a WSUM ordinance~ If for some reason DNR denies the
proposed ordinance, then the denial will be in the form of a letter
which will explain the reasons for denial. The governmental unit may
amend the proposed ordinance in accordance with the denial letter and
resubmit the proposed ordinance for a second review by the DNR.
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
...._.__....~........,...
- 2 -
The DNR will notify the governmental unit in writing of approval or
denial within 120 days after receiving all of the above information.
Failure of the DNR to notify the gove~nmental unit shall be considered
approval. The governmental unit adopting an ordinance must provide for
notification of the ordinance to the public, which involves placing
signs at public watercraft launch sites outlining essential elements of
the ordinance.
Governmental units desiring further information on water surface
use management may call the Department of Natural Resources, Boat and
Water Safety Section at (612) 296-3310 or me at (612) 297-5708.
Sincerely,
aU~ ~a~'
Anita Twaroski
Boating Staff Specialist
Enclosures
07/89
~ STATE OF
[N]0'8~~@ir~
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
~/~,
----- /'>,,&b"'-i-.___________
\i~e--i/
~mNF5OI.'Y~
1990./
"/
~
DNR INFORMATION
(612) 296.6157
500 LAFAYETTE ROAD · ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA. 55155.40
INVITATION TO RUM RIVER RESIDENTS
In April, the Department of Natural Resources, in cooperation with local units of
government in Anoka County, will be holding two workshops for Rum River residents.
Similar workshops were held the past two years. This year's meetings are planned as follows
(see map on reverse):
Monday, April 16, 1990
7;00 pm
City of Ramsey City Hall
15153 Nowthen Blvd. NW
Ramsey, MN 55303
Wednesday, April 18, 1990
7:00 pm
City of Andover City Hall
1685 Crosstown Blvd. NW
Andover, MN 55304
You are invited and encouraged to attend either of the above sessions. The focus of the
workshops will be to provide you with useful informational materials and advice for
activities which you may be considering, such as installing a stairway or a dock, landscaping,
. or protecting your riverbanks. Additionally, this year we will have a representative of the
DNR Boai and Water Safety Section talk about water surface use, no-wake zones, and how
water surface use ordinances can be adopted. Please bring your questions and ideas. We'll
be glad to listen and discuss them with you.
Following the presentation, representatives of the DNR, Anoka County Soil and Water
Conservation District, and the appropriate city or county staff will be available to help you
individually advise you of available assistance, work out your ideas for improving your
property, and outline the necessary procedures. The enclosed fact sheet gives a brief
description of the local permit requirements and should be a good place to start when
looking for answers.
If you have any questions, feel free to call Shoreland Hydrologist Sandy Fecht at 297-2401,
or me at 296-7523. We hope to see you at the workshops!
~' t!:7
Tom Hovey
Area Hydrologi t
:J
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
C.ZTY
OF
ANnOVER
CITY OF AA M S e r
~ )
NORTH
~
"
14 ~
o I CONS AHj;I =
e I - ci
. nz
N... I :: Ii
':': a::
,.: I ..,."...
'"
~--
~
z
~
~
z
2
[ST AV
I
I
U4T14 LA..
"
.
~
~
-
.
.
.
.
2,6
I
~I
lUTHU.Iil.W.
. " 3
. .
; IUTN ;. AWl. N.W.
BUN:EA i
-
,..
'"
\
V
CITY OF ANDOVER
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
May 15, 1990
DATE
ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT
AGENDA SECTION
NO.
Engineering
..("5*
APPROVED FOR
AGnD~1
B'. ~
ITEM
NQ 20. Request Speed
Stud
BY:
The City Council is requested to consider requesting a
speed/traffic study along 133rd Avenue NW between Crosstown
Boulevard and Hanson Boulevard.
Currently, the speed limit allowed is 55 mph because areas along
133rd Avenue NW do not meet the state Statute 169.01, Subd. 59
which defines an "urban district".
The City of Coon Rapids will be considering this at their next
meeting.
F ....
MOTION BY
TO
COUNCIL ACTION
SECOND BY
'---./