The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCC December 3, 1996 / :.-.....,...;. --.,'" ", . :~ ~. ~. '~ ~.. :-,; .,-....-.- ,'.~--, ...., - '- .~. . ," . ' ,,<;y-.\3\l, - , -, ..'-' CITY of ANDOVER 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. . ANDOVER. MINNESOTA 55304 . (612) 755-5100 Regular City Council Meeting - December 3, 1996 agenda Call to Order - 7:00 PM Resident Forum Agenda Approval Consent Agenda Approval of Minutes Bookmark Name minutes Fire Dept. Poster Contest Winner Citizen Recognition Award'" I . . Discussion Items'. ",., "', , ," ;,' ,," " ,,',.. ~'" ., ,., ',,'; ., I : Public HearingN acation of EasemeniIBill' S Super~tt~jI4041 R~uDd LalCe ,Blvd~ ':''eilheanrig 2. Assessment HearingIDelmquent Mowing Charges '.- ,,',.: i: ','~ , '. .:.....mowing. 3. Coon Creek Bikeway/WalkWay Trail Discussionl95-24 '.. ' " ' : ,''';''trail - 4.1997 Water & Sewer Rates ',' ,",., " rates' '. 5. Lot SplitIVariance/17841Bluebird St. NW/Jill Spurgin spurgin 6. Tree Preservation Policy, Continued. tree . , ~: ~~~~i~~;~7B:~~~~~::~rojects ";r,te:v' ~1.ee:w;.!..~,','.,,:,.,:','.;~.:.,',1:.;;,',',;..',:~,':..,:,::.".,. . 9. Set Date for AnnUal'Admiriistrator Review · , '. Non-DiscussioDlConsent Items' .' ". . 10~ Regional Growth Strategy "growth" . ,. . 11. SUP/Real Estate Signl170XX Roanoke St. NWffimber River Est./Woodland Dev. sign , '12. Approve Request for Occupancy PermitslHunter's Hollow hhollow 13. Reduce Park Dedication Fee/Shadowbrook shadow 14. Release Escrow/Wandersee Addition wanderse 15. Approve Final Plat/Indian Meadows 4th Addition fplat 16. Approve Survey Quotes/Coon Creek Bikeway/Walkway Trail/95-24 ' quotes 17. Approve Change Order # 1/96-4/Sealcoating co964 18. Approve Final Paymentl96-4/Sealcoating fpay964 , 19. Approve Final PaymentIHartfiel's Estates Lot Cleanup/96-21 fpay9621 20. Accept Petitionl14531 Drake St. NW 194-6 drake Mayor-Council Input Paymentof Claims Adjournment CITY OF ANDOVER REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION / DATE: December 3.1996 AGENDA SECTION ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT Approval of Minutes City Cler~ I ) ~~)Y ITEM NO. Approval of Minutes The City Council is requested to approve the following minutes: November 1 9, 1 996 Regular Meeting November 19, 1996 EDA Meeting / ) AGENDA f\O. ITEM f\O. \ / '. I MOTION BY: CITY OF ANDOVER REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE npC'pmnpr 1 1 QQh SECTION ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT APPROVED FOR AGENDA Non-Discussion Item Fire Department City of Andover Fire Department Poster Contest Winner Dan Winkel, Fire Chief h.W. BY: The Andover Fire Department would like to acknowledge Ms. Sarah Sullivan as the 1996 North Suburban Regional Mutual Aid Association poster contest winner for the City of Andover. Ms. Sullivan's poster will be judged, along with other participating city winners, in hopes of being forwarded to the state level. The overall state winner will have her/his poster shown on the cover of a Minnesota State Fire Chiefs magazine. Ms. Sullivan, her family, and her teacher were also invited to a dinner and presentation, hosted this year by the Andover Fire Department, to have her poster judged against the other participating north suburban cities. The Andover Fire Department invites the City Council and residents of Andover to congratulate Ms. Sullivan and all the students involved in this year's fire prevention poster contest. The Fire Department acknowledges all of the hard work done by the students and compliments them for the creative artwork. SECOND BY: AGENDA f'.O ITEM f'.O / \ MOTION BY: CITY OF ANDOVER REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACfION December 3, 1996 DATE SECTION ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT Fire Department APPROVED FOR AGENDA Non-Discussion Item City of Andover Citizen Recognition Award Dan Winkel, Fire Chief p.vD . BY: The Andover Fire Department would like to acknowledge Mr. Douglas F. Meister, 541 Andover Boulevard, for his quick action in assisting the Andover Fire Department in a personal-injury accident on Thursday, November 14. Mr. Meister assisted the fire department by operating his skid-steer loader to lift an overturned van that had the occupant pinned underneath. The driver of the van had to have emergency surgery and has been in the Intensive Care Unit at Mercy Hospital. We have received information from the driver's family that he is doing much better and that he will have a very long recovery. In acknowledging Mr. Meister, we would like to present him with a plaque, given to him on behalf of the citizens, City Council, and the fire department, for the City of Andover. SECOND BY: -~ CITY OF ANDOVER REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE December 3,1996 AGENDA SECTION I\Q Discussion Item ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT APPROVED FOR AGENDA ITEM I\Q Public Hearing Vacation of Easement 96-04 14041 Round Lake Blvd NW \ Rademacher Companies, Inc. . Planning ~wW BY: John Hinzman Request , The City Council is asked to hold a public hearing to review the vacation of easement request of Rademacher Companies, Inc. for Bill's Superette located at 14041 Round Lake Blvd NW. Rademacher proposes to abandon an- existing drainage and utility easement in conjunction with the relocation of underground gasoline storage tanks and above ground fuel dispensers. Upon vacation, the easement would be relocated as shown on the attached site plan. / Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the vacation of easement request. Attachments A-I Resolution A-2 Area Location Map A-3 Site Location Map A-4 Site Plan A-5 Vacation of Easement Application A-6 Notice of Public Hearing , , MOTION BY: SECOND BY: CITY OF ANDOVER COUNTY OF ANOKA STATE OF MINNESOTA RES. NO. R -96 A RESOLUTION GRANTING THE REQUEST OF RADEMACHER COMPANIES, INC. TO VACATE A DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENT ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 14041 ROUND LAKE BOULEVARD NW (PIN 32-32-24-12-0077). WHEREAS, Rademacher Companies, Inc. has requested to vacate a drainage and utility easement on property located at 14041 Round Lake Boulevard NW, Lot 1, Block 2, Andover Community Shopping Center, legally described as the following: A 15.00 foot wide easement for utility and drainage purposes over, under, and across Lot 1, Block 1; Andover Community Shopping Center, Anoka County, Minnesota, according to the recorded plat thereof. The centerline of said easement is described as follows: Commencing at the southwest corner of said Lot 1; thence North 90 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds East, assumed bearing, along the south line of said Lot 1, a distance of90.00 feet to the point of beginning of the centerline to be described; thence North 00 degrees 10 minutes 48 seconds East a distance of 60.00 feet; thence North 29 degrees 40 minutes 30 seconds East a distance of34.53 feet; thence North 00 degrees 10 minutes 48 seconds a distance of206.00 feet; thence North 31 degrees 09 minutes 56 seconds West a distance of32.71 feet; thence North 00 degrees 10 minutes 48 seconds East a distance of 7.00 feet to the north line of said Lot 1 and said centerline there terminating. The sidelines of said easement are to be prolonged or shortened to terminate on the north and south lines of said Lot 1. WHEREAS, the City Council finds the request would not have a detrimental effect upon the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the City of Andover; and WHEREAS, a public hearing was held and there was no opposition to the request; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Andover hereby grants the vacation of a utility and drainage easement. J " ) / , " , / Vacation of Easement 14041 Round Lake Blvd NW Bill's Superette, Rademacher Companies, Inc. Page 2 Adopted by the City Council ofthe City of Andover on this 3rd day of December, 1996. CITY OF ANDOVER ATTEST: I.E. McKelvey, Mayor Victoria V olk, City Clerk -...- ... ..., rr= C! i I I I q-- ~ SHADED P"'R:Ri~E~ENOTES \ J C1T'( ,.....-. '......../. \ NI/2 SEC. 32 7:32 R.24 CITY CITY OF ANDOVER OF ANOKA @ @ N //4 CORNER SEe .J2 @ ~ ~ .....""~. ... ,,''11 .. :-:-: :.~ .:; :."!',: 0' ~ .-..... .' ~.". " .... ;,' 'f.l ; J ~ ..i ~i ,",0# , ..~ \ /.,ff: , * of /II~ .~.. '~_.f~ \~~) f/ rh.) ~ ., .r ,,- .~ .>.YE.' fli. f N. ~j ~ ~ E: . ;[,-Z_~:,'~~ ;;:. ;~?;;;.~~(" , ,.. ~. ... ~ .- . ',~ i', .. ;. .::;. .~ ~. :; ~ ';;.'~: ';. :;) I . .., _M - 139TH L'>'NE J _ ... ~ .. .:.:' .~~ ., ~ , .. I\:: ~ ,.. . ~ 6 , -, _ :'.: ~ :. "~J I,) q39TH - l :.~ '",~".- , ' ~r Z , 5" ,- . ~ ..)~i F,r.' ..- ',z 12 ;r ,i ~ t) AI ..,. ~ . .,38TH "4.~ ,," ,1,i..; .. ..-. s~ #) : :~_::; ~ '~111~' '.' i" ;:"~c:si LANE NW....: _l~ ~ r".."q. d~~1 ~. :.. w~ !:i.. ~tL. ., c:...i ,.., '~Io.. ::>~. .o~ -!:!ll:: I' )... '-:51: ,~::.,~ ..~ , .;-~.,.: ." -',. ...~ ::-:::' '~.~ or ~ ~~ don .", HI'G'HWAY_~'~":': NO-,116 '. ~ ''':r':~:~~:'j.~;- _J~?:' - --_~ ~;::~Mns \)F' em '.OF::AN~:~-71 [,~, ~-- . "\''''' I ~ '2 .r'J ~ "" .._ .....~ / '\i:~'''':tr~ \,;~ CENT~.-!!; R ~ ,-- @ 164: \,----",/ .-........ .....: 'J6>/ .' dYE. N.W. .-~ 31'. z, )lr.38TH :.' ,) i.'1 ~ 1:1 ~ 9 ~ d - L'>'NE .' , ,., '-I . , : (~I - (II) , ~" ; '" :,,) . '. .:J; "') L:.:....: .. /......~ , " , I ~. ' , , Ol~ '~DD~ , ~OC~ ~ ., ...... '" n - " - -- ~, " -. .. ~ ,...~ ~ > DOWNTOWN ANOOVER CENTER ,; .;0 _.. , ,- i~ CENTER ,-(~ .......' S+AH: --AlG--,.:~ -Mlrl16+- ) I IANOOVEfl SHOPPING ~ I I (\3) '-.../ COMMUNITY' CENTER ... <0> a2\:! ~:~ \~---\---------- j:--\c '= -~-~_:--=--~~=-=-- - ~.' -~-..:::-----"-- ~'-::'-'LANE < ... '" ;;\ II !J. ,I...... / ,~.",..~ ~-\ q, \ a ," , 4f!.Cf \ \ \ \ ~ 0 ;1< ,. " . 0 c s: z =-: '- ~ "" '!t " '" H:\"1 ~ t:I:l ,... , c"! ::; < \:l i Rl~ '- VJ 0 ~ .. ." ~ ',", ::0: - ~ ~ I " " CIl , ,I. \ -0 .., ~ --- I. / ~ f=' " , - -, z z - ~ - ~o- I , ... '" !; - tq, , - ,J I- i I I I ;1 -I- I , I I I I I~ '~ I \~ I g~ 'I z:,. 'Q,I I I I I I ( , \ \ , \ \ \ \ \ \J ~ \ I' \ " \"" -~ - -- ~ ~ , z z i ~ 15 ~ ~ ~ ~.~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~= , 0_ \ l ~ :;~ ~ ~ \ :l' , 'N ~ -~-- ~ <' ~ - ~ ~ ~ ~ '1 ~ ~~ z is ~ c >~ :;: ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ < < 40 ~ :; ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ------ , ~ ~ ,----...... z ~ ~ / NOU-05 96 14:58 FROM: 755-8923 TO: 5361198 PAGE: 02 , / (. '(]~ ~:: .' 6 " .. ..... ' " ,. ..:~>.,... ",l" ..--".lC"','........ CITY of ANDOVER 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEvARD NW. . ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 . (612) 755-5100 VACATION OF EASEMENT REQUEST FORM Property Address 14041 Round Lake Blvd. ffiJ Legal Description of Property: (Fill in whichever is appropriate): Lot 1 Block 2 Addi ticn Andover Community Shopping Center plat Parcel PIN R32-32-24-l2-00n (If metes and bounds, attach the complete legal) ----------------------------------------------------------------- Reason for Request See Attached "Reason for Request" I Current Zoning Shopping Center Name of Applicant Rademacher Companies. Inc. Address 6272 Boone Avenue North Brooklyn Park, MN 55428 Horne phone NA Business phone 536 9600 ~~~::~~:~~C4f~--------~:~:--!~~~::~------ property Owner (Fee Owner) (If different from above) William C. Rademacher Address 6272 Boone Avenue North Brooklyn Park, MN 55428 Horne Phone Business phone ~~~::~~:~;~5----- ____~:~:___0~_~_____ 478-2400 536-9600 / NOU-05 96 14:59 FROM: VACATION OF EASEMENT l'AGE 2 755-8923 TO: 5361198 PAGE: 03 , ) The following information shall be submitted prior to review by the City of Andover: 1. 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 wi thin 100 feet. 2. The names and addresses of all property owners within 350 feet of the subject property. Application Fee: Filing Fee: Date Paid JJ /13/qb 6tt) Receipt i ~ Rev. 1-27-93 4-25-94 \ , , / " , ! CITY of ANDOVER 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.w.' ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304. (612) 755-5100 CITY OF ANDOVER COUNTYOFANOKA STATE OF MINNESOTA NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING The City Council of the City of Andover will hold a public hearing at 7:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as can be heard, on Tuesday, December 3, 1996 at the Oak View Middle School, 15400 Hanson Blvd. NW, Andover, Minnesota to review the vacation of easement request of Rademacher Companies to relocate a drainage and utility easement at Bill's Suprette, 14041 Round Lake Blvd. NW (pIN 32-32-24-12-0077) legally described as follows: '. A 15.00 foot wide easement for utility and drainage purposes over, under, and across Lot 1, Block 1; Andover Community Shopping Center, Anoka County, Minnesota, according to the recorded plat thereof.. The centerline of said easement is described as follows: Commencing at the southwest comer of said Lot 1; thence North 90 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds East, assumed bearing, along the south line of said Lot 1, a distance of 90.00 feet to the point of beginning of the centerline to be described; thence North 00 degrees 10 minutes 48 seconds East a distance of 60.00 feet; thence North 29 degrees 40 minutes 30 seconds East a distance of 34.53 feet; thence North 00 degrees 10 minutes 48 seconds a distance of206.00 feet; thence North 31 degrees 09 minutes 56 seconds West a distance of32.71 feet; thence North 00 degrees 10 minutes 48 seconds East a distance of 7.00 feet to the north line of said Lot 1 and said centerline there terminating. The sidelines of said easement are to be prolonged or shortened to terminate on the north and south lines of said Lot 1. All written and verbal comments will be received at that time and location. A copy of the application and location will be available at the Andover City Hall for review prior to said meeting. ~d/P Victoria V olk, City Clerk Publication dates: November 22, 1996 November 29,1996 '. / PIN: 293224340060 PETERSEN R P & MONTGOMERY B A 3628 141ST LN NW :DOVER MN 55303 . / PIN: 293224340061 FINEST HOMES INC 13611 N FORESTVIEW LN DAYTON MN 55327 PIN: 293224430037 BLOODGOOD SHERRIE L 3552 141ST LN NW ANDOVER MN 55304 PIN: 293224430038 KITZBERGER MELVIN J & I A 3548 141ST LN NW ANDOVER MN 55304 PIN: 293224430039 JACOBSON HAROLD E & S A 3528 141ST LN NW ANDOVER MN 55304 PIN: 293224430040 EDGARTON NEIL E & PAT 3518 141ST LN NW ANDOVER MN 55304 PIN: 293224430041 STCLAIR RICHARD B & J M 3508 141ST LN NW ANDOVER MN 55304 PIN: 323224120003 GROETTUM DALE MYRON & APRIL S 3545 140TH LN NW ANDOVER MN 55304 PIN: 323224120004 TIERNEY MICHAEL C & KRISTI 3531140TH LN NW ANDOVER MN 55304 PIN: 323224120005 DUSENKA GLENN D 3517140TH LN NW ANDOVER MN 55304 . / PIN: 323224120006 NORMAN JAMES M 3503 140TH LN NW ANDOVER MN 55304 PIN: 323224120007 KELLY STEVEN F & STACY C 3491 140TH LN NW ANDOVER MN 55304 PIN: 323224120041 COFFIN JOHN P & KAREN LYNN 14056 ROSE ST NW ANDOVER MN 55304 PIN: 323224120042 ZAJAC WILLIAM J & CHRISTINA I 14042 ROSE ST NW ANDOVER MN 55304 PIN: 323224120043 RUNGE DALE E & KATHERINE A 14026 ROSE ST NW ANDOVER MN 55304 PIN: 323224120053 HANSON CLAUDETTE M 13971 SILVEROD ST NW ANDOVER MN 55304 PIN: 323224120054 LANGE STUART C & LYNETTE P 13987 SILVEROD ST NW ANDOVER MN 55304 PIN: 323224120055 MILLER STEVEN M & MARY BETH 14001 SILVEROD ST NW ANDOVER MN 55304 \I: 323224120056 ....:>TUM BARTON K & JULIE A 14013 SILVEROD ST NW ANDOVER MN 55304 PIN: 323224120057 NELSON JOHN V & LYNN L 14027 SILVEROD ST NW ANDOVER MN 55304 PIN: 323224120058 LOE NORMAN C & LOE MELODY J 14043 SILVEROD ST NW ~DOVER MN 55304 . / PIN: 323224120059 FORTUNA ANTHONY S & MICHELLE M 14059 SILVEROD ST NW ANDOVER MN 55304 PIN: 323224120073 RADEMACHER WILLIAM C 6272 BOONE AVE N BROOKLYN PARK MN 55428 PIN: 323224120077 RADEMACHER WILLIAM C 6272 BOONE AVE N BROOKLYN PARK MN 55428 PIN: 323224120078 RADEMACHER WILLIAM C 6272 BOONE AVE N BROOKLYN PARK MN 55428 PIN: 323224120079 FRAKIE ROY V & JULIE A 14058 SILVEROD ST NW ANDOVER MN 55304 PIN: 323224120080 GERBER JOAN M 14044 SILVEROD ST NW ANDOVER MN 55304 PIN: 323224120081 CAUSBY NEAL R 14030 SILVEROD ST NW ANDOVER MN 55304 PIN: 323224120082 WILLADSON LARRY L 14018 SILVEROD ST NW ANDOVER MN 55304 PIN: 323224120083 PEAL JEFFREY A & LYNN M . 14006 SILVEROD ST NW ANDOVER MN 55304 , , / PIN: 323224120084 BERGSAGEL IRVIN E ETAL * 13994 SILVEROD ST NW ANDOVER MN 55304 PIN: 323224120085 SCHOWALTER DANIEL P 13982 SILVEROD ST NW ANDOVER MN 55304 PIN: 323224120086 TELEGA TERRENCE TIMOTHY 13970 SILVEROD ST NW ANDOVER MN 55304 PIN: 323224120087 KRAFT LEE ANN M 13958 SILVEROD ST NW ANDOVER MN 55304 PIN: 323224120088 RADEMACHER WILLIAM C 6272 BOONE AVE N BROOKLYN PARK MN 55428 PIN: 323224210005 BARNUM MICHAEL D & PAIGE P J 3617 140TH LN NW ANDOVER MN 55304 PIN: 323224210006 HOLDERNESS DONALD L 3629 140TH LN NW ANDOVER MN 55304 PIN: 323224210007 CHOU NARD RICK L & TERASA S 3641 140TH LN NW ANDOVER MN 55304 'oJ: 323224210021 . I JMAS PAUL E 3616 140TH LN NW ANDOVER MN 55304 PIN: 323224210022 HAGENSON DALE J & BARBARA J 3628 140TH LN NW ANDOVER MN 55304 PIN: 323224210023 MOELLER B S & WAHL S L 14049 UNDERClIFT ST NW 'DOVER MN 55304 PIN: 323224210024 WRIGHT JAMES L 14027 UNDERClIFT ST NW ANDOVER MN 55304 . I PIN: 323224210025 BAUMAN KENDRA A 14021 TULIP ST NW ANDOVER MN 55304 PIN: 323224210026 WARZECKA GEOFFREY A & S K 14015 TULIP ST NW ANDOVER MN 55304 PIN: 323224210027 SANDSTROM JOHN D & MARY C 14009 TULIP ST NW ANDOVER MN 55304 PIN: 323224210028 SCHNEIDER JAMES E & JANELLE R 14003 TULIP ST NW ANDOVER MN 55303 PIN: 323224210029 KAWLEWSKI GLEN A & KAREN 13999 TULIP ST NW ANDOVER MN 55304 PIN: 323224210030 JORGES VICTOR F & DIANE K 13989 TULIP ST NW ANDOVER MN 55304 PIN: 323224210037 KOSTUCK DAVID A 14012 TULIP ST NW ANDOVER MN 55304 PIN: 323224210038 STADSVOLD KENNETH & DEBORAH 14002 TULIP ST NW ANDOVER MN 55304 '. 'rtN: 323224210071 ANDOVER CITY OF 1685 CROSSTOWN BLVD ANOKA MN 55304 \ j CITY OF ANDOVER REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION / DATE: December 3. 1996 Discussion Items ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT City Clerk O. u P AGENDA SECTION ITEM NO. Assessment HearinglDelinquent tx,MOWing Charges The City Council has scheduled an assessment hearing for delinquent mowing charges to be certified to the 1997 property taxes. Attached is the list of charges to be certified along with a resolution adopting the assessment roll. / / CITY OF ANDOVER COUNTY OF ANOKA STATE OF MINNESOTA . / RES. NO. A RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE ASSESSMENT ROLL FOR DELINQUENT MOWING CHARGES FOR CERTIFICATION. WHEREAS, pursuant to a proper notice duly given as required by law, the Council has met and heard and passed upon all objections to the proposed assessment for delinquent mowing charges. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF ANDOVER, MINNESOTA: 1. Such proposed assessment, a copy of which is attached hereto and made part hereof, is hereby accepted and shall constitute the special assessment against the lands named therein, and each tract of land therein included is hereby found to be benefited by the proposed improvement in the amount of the assessment levied against it. 2. Such assessment shall be payable in one annual installment, the first of the installments to be payable on or before the first Monday in January 1997 and shall bear interest at the rate of 8 percent. \. I 3. The owners of any property so assessed may, at any time prior to certification of the assessment to the County Auditor, pay the whole of the assessment on such property with interest accrued to the date of payment, to the City Treasurer, except that no interest shall be charged if the entire assessment is paid within 30 days from the adoption of the resolution. CITY OF ANDOVER Attest: J. E. McKelvey - Mayor Victoria V olk - City Clerk / ., J _PIN DELINQUENT MOWING CHARGES AMOUNT TO BE CERTIFIED ) 16-32-24-12-0004 18-32-24-32-0007 26-32-24-23-0011 32-32-24-11-0030 32-32-24-41-0019 32-32-24-42-0048 33-32-24-11-0030 33-32-24-21-0043 33-32-24-21-0045 33-32-24-21-0048 33-32-24-21-0053 33-32-24-24-0024 TOTAL , I 108.69 405.00 108.69 253.12 108.69 226.45 181.16 241.56 150.96 226.45 169.08 205.31 2,179.85 CITY OF ANDOVER REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION ~ J DATE: December 3. 1996 AGENDA SECTION Discussion Item ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT Scott ~ricks.on,~t Englneenng ITEM NO. Coon Creek BikewaylWalkway Trail 3 ~iScussion/95-24 The City Council is requested to discuss the proposed trail layout for the Coon Creek BikewaylWalkway project. The original trail layout identified the trail running between Hanson Blvd. and Crosstown Blvd. utilizing the existing sanitary sewer service road along Coon Creek. This alignment would run along the rear of the existing residential properties at this location. On November 13, 1996, the Park and Recreation Commission held a neighborhood meeting with the residents between Hanson Blvd. and Crosstown Blvd. (See attached meeting minutes). Although the City would have to purchase the easement rights over the existing service road for the construction of a pathway, the residents were opposed to the project and " have indicated that they do not want the project in their backyards. After reviewing various alternatives staff is recommending the pathway not extend between Hanson Blvd. and Crosstown Blvd. at this time but instead extend north along Hanson Blvd. (within the existing right-of-way) to Prairie Road. The path would end at this intersection which in the near future should be a controlled intersection. We did discuss this proposed realignment with the representative administering the DNR trail grant program and he did concur with the change. If the City Council agrees with the realignment suggested we will submit this modification to the DNR for their formal approval. The Park and Recreation Commission had requested staff also evaluate the feasibility of installing the path along the south side of the creek at this location. In response, the construction of the pathway along the south side of the creek would dramatically increase the project cost due to subgrade soil corrections, wetland disturbances, tree removal, bridge construction, etc. that would be required. In addition, the path would need to be located within the WDE site which at this time would not be recommended. . J j --- r\ ct~ .'- \ / , .. z o H ... U C:J z :z: o u >< .::: 3 :<: ..... .::: 3 ....... >< .::: 3 C:J :<: H a:l :<: c:: .::: ill en ..... ..... H = c:: C:J :<: :z: ~ a:l ,,~,....itl::...:~ j CITY of ANDOVER 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD NW,. ANDOVER. MINNESOTA 55304. (612) 755-5100 PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION - NOVEMBER 13, 1996 MINUTES A Special Meeting of the Andover Park and Recreation Commission was called to order by Chairperson Jim Lindahl on November 13, 1996, 7:06 p.m., at the Oak View Middle School, 15400 Hanson Boulevard NW, Andover, Minnesota. Commissioners present: Commissioner absent: Also present: Dave B1ackstad, Jeff Kieffer, Dave O'Toole Tom Anderson, Al Grabowski, Roger Paulson Park Coordinator, Todd Haas City Engineer, Scott Erickson Others DISCUSSION WITH RESIDENTS - PROPOSED COON CREEK TRAIL BETWEEN HANSON BOULEVARD AND CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD Mr. Erickson gave the history and an overview of the proposed project to construct a trail from Bunker Lake Boulevard at the railroad tracks north to Coon Creek, then west along the north side of Coon Creek to Crosstown Boulevard. The purpose of this evening's meeting is to \ receive input from those residents affected by the trail between Hanson ) and Crosstown Boulevards. The proposal is to construct a 10-foot wide bi tuminous pathway on the existing gravel roadway behind the houses which is on top of the sewer line. A portion of the funding would come from a DNR grant that the City has been awarded. The City has no right to put a trail in there without the permission and easement rights of the property owners. Those residents present were adamant in their opposition to the project, stating they would be liable for anyone who gets hurt, that they do not want to allow that access to the public, that they were told the gravel road would only be for City maintenance and not for public use, and that they really don't have much privacy left with all of the developments coming in. This is a private area where they can let their children and grandchildren play without worrying about them. Even with the road closed to the public, they have people back there and have to pick up trash. They asked why the trail couldn't be placed on the south side of the creek. Mr. Erickson explained the City would assume the liability when it puts in the path. Placing the trail along the north side of the creek is the least costly. The Park Board has to first look at the economic side of the project. The south side has a lot of trees and wetlands as well as the restricted Superfund site. 1 ) Gloria Frevho1tz. 1806 Andover Boulevard NW - has lived there 37 years. They have a lovely back woods, and she didn't feel they have to contend with having strangers walk through their back yard. They have considerable yard between the proposed trail and the creek, and they do not want strangers and dogs going back down there. Plus there is the Special Andover Park and Recreation Commission Meeting Minutes - November 13, 1996 Page 2 \ i {Discussion with Residents - Proposed Coon Creek Trail between Hanson and Crosstown Bouelvards, Continued} element of people breaking in that they have never had to contend with before. She didn't feel this is right. When the City carne through with the trunk line, it said nothing would be back there but wilderness, that it was for maintenance and maintenance only. The residents went along with everything on that; therefore, the City should go along with the residents and put the trail on the other side of the creek because they don't want to have it in their back yards. Ms. Freyho1tz also read an article that the City cannot legally take their land unless the residents allow it. Though it would take money to hire legal representation, they would sue to keep what is theirs. Chairperson Lindahl stated it is not the intent of the City to take that property. If the residents do not want it, the Park Board will not pursue it. Patricia Ward, 1846 Andover Boulevard NW - has the same feelings as Ms. Freyho1tz. She is opposed to the trail system in general. The City has gotten so large and congested, this is all they have left. It is their property and they want it to stay the way it is. / David Overbauqh, 1826 Andover Boulevard NW - went through this with the City with the sewer system, and it still upsets him. He still feels there was something under the table with the developers regarding that project. There is no way he wants anybody back there running around on a trail. Also, with the new proposed developments to the west, it will mean many more people corning through their back yards. He is opposed~ Mike Hollister. 1816 Andover Boulevard NW stated he has little children, and the neighbors have grandchildren over all the time. He's been picking up trash the last eight years he's lived there with people coming through with beer and pop cans, etc. He lights a bonfire in his back yard, puts it out, and people corne back there, relight it and have a party. He has to pick up after them the next day. Four-wheel vehicles and trucks go through there. He wants the privacy and does not want the trail through there. If the trail must go through, put it on the other side of the creek. Craiq Ward. 1846 Andover Boulevard NW - concurred with his neighbors. He grew up in Andover. He doesn't want the trail to go through. He has two children and they like their privacy. Use the 10 feet of land on the other side of the creek. It doesn't have to be a blacktop trail. Just place Class 5 on the other side of the creek for the trail. Or it would be as easy to go up to Andover Boulevard and across rather than through their back yards. Chairperson Lindahl stated the intent is for more of a natural trail in a natural setting, which is lacking along the roadway. The other issue is that of safety. A trail along Andover Boulevard would mean looking at using the land in their front yards as opposed to the backyards. / Mr. Ward stated the "natural" is part of what they like, that is the creek in their back yard. That is why he bought the house. Special Andover Park and Recreation Commission Meeting Minutes - November 13, 1996 Page 3 " {Discussion with Residents - Proposed Coon Creek Trail between Hanson and Crosstown Bouelvards, Continued} Lilia Overbauoh. 1826 Andover Boulevard NW - asked how many people have 1 1/2 acres with a creek in their back yard. They have children riding bikes, playing football and basketball, playing with dogs pulling sleds it is a nice little neighborhood. That is the beauty of the neighborhood and it is just theirs. It is not fair for the City to put a path through a person's yard. They have had the land for many years, and this is not fair. Their property is mowed right to the creek. People walking the trail will not want to just stay on the trail; they will want to see the creek and sit on the benches. Even now people ride through on their horses and leave their mess, then the kids come down through it on their sleds. Nobody has the right to come in. Is the trail going to go further than Crosstown? Chairperson Lindahl explained the intent is to get a link to the City park complex and eventually to the Kelsey-Round Lake nature park. In the future, it is anticipated that the easement for the trail will be taken as property develops. Unfortunately, the plan was not in place when these properties were developed. This is the first option being considered for this area. The Park Board felt it needed to research the most economical way first. If the residents are opposed, different options will be considered. " Ms. Frevho1tz - felt a trail could actually lower their property values J as well. In answering questions of the residents, Chairperson Lindahl also explained the trail is for general recreational needs. There has been a great deal of interest and many requests for such a system through the City. It is also an issue of getting children to the parks safely. The intent is to hook up with the trails in the Bunker prairie Park. Other cities have been more successful in constructing trails because they have had the luxury of being able to take over abandoned railroad lines. The reason the residents were notified was to receive their input. The residents noted that all but three neighbors were represented this evening. All were opposed, and several stated those not present were also opposed. Mr. Erickson stated the City is not trying to push anything through. This item will be presented to the City Council on December 3, at which time the residents can also state their opinions. It doesn't sound like anyone wants the project as proposed, so the City will look at other options. Commissioner Blackstad stated there will be a trailway in Andover somewhere. The other options besides north of the creek would be on the south side of the creek or to come across the front of the properties along Andover Boulevard. Ms. Frevho1tz - stated there is no parking along Andover Boulevard, and their driveways are short that only three cars can park. Whenever they have company, people have to park on the boulevard. That could mean people would be parking on the trail itself. Several other residents stated the best option would be to place the trail along the south side Special Andover Park and Recreation Commission Meeting Minutes - November 13, 1996 Page 4 " {Discussion with Residents - Proposed Coon Creek Trail between Hanson and Crosstown Bouelvards, Continued} of the creek. Chairperson Lindahl suggested Staff evaluate how much land would need to be acquired and the cost to acquire the land from the service trail to the creek itself along the north side of the creek. Also, evaluate the cost of putting the trail system on the south side of the creek. Mr. Erickson stated Staff will look at those alternatives and have that information available for the Council. Residents also noted the creek is not the same since the filtration has been installed. Also, the installation of the trunk line along their back yards created a dike; and now they never get their land drained properly. Before the sewer line, their land drained into the creek. Now the water just sits there and the land gets to be a bog until late fall. The pipe blocked the natural flow of the water. At this point the Commission recommended to the Council that given the testimony from the citizens in opposition of having the trail on the north side of the creek, that the City should look at the feasibility of building it on the south side or along Andover Boulevard on the street. Commissioner O'Toole wondered if a gravel trail on the south side would be more economical. Mr. Erickson stated the subgrade is still needed. It would not save that much. No further action was taken on this item. I FEE SCHEDULES FOR FIELD USE Mr. Haas stated the Commission had asked that the fee schedules for use of the fields be reviewed. Since nothing has been collected for hockey rinks, he suggested that rema~n the same for 1997. Commission agreed. Mr. Haas also noted the fee schedule for adult tournaments will be placed on the next Commission agenda. the the The ball MOTION by Blackstad, Seconded by Kieffer, to adj ourn. Motion carried on a 4-Yes, 3-Absent (Anderson, Grabowski, Paulson) vote. The meeting was adjourned at 8:04 p.m. Respectfully submitted, c .' J (:.~\_~ ~ ,."~~ (\ ,-X f L't: L- Marcella A. Peach Recording Secretary \ / CITY OF ANDOVER REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE December 3.1996 AGENDA SECTION Discussion ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT Finance - Jean D. McGann ~~ ITEM NO'4-I, 1997 Water and Sewer Rates The Andover City Council is requested to review the following information regarding utility rates. Water Rates City staffhas been reviewing current water usage and future capital purchases that may be needed. We have also been reviewing the way in which the rate schedule for water usage is structured. In doing this review, the following conclusions have been reached; . Our Comprehensive plan indicated that by the year 2000 the City will need eight(8) wells. Currently we are operating five (5) wells with the sixth (6th) well to be operational in 1997. The construction of these wells will be paid for through the Water Trunk Fund. The maintenance of these wells is paid for by the Water Enterprise Fund which is supported by user fees. ./ The City may need to construct a storage facility and/or one or more treatment plants. This construction can be paid for in one of two ways. The most cost effective way to pay for this would be to use cash reserves. The other alternative would be to issue a Water Revenue Bond. The Water Revenue Bond alternative is selected, water rates would have to increase significantly at the time of bond issuance to pay off the debt. . Presently, all usage of water is charged at the same rate. This system does not promote conservation. Each summer the City has a sprinkling ban. By changing the rate structure, residents may be encouraged to adhere to the sprinkling regulations. The current and proposed water rate structures are as follows: Minimum Charge CURRENT $6.30 per quarter PROPOSED $7.30 per quarter Water Rate $1.01 per 1,000 Gal. $ .98 per 1,000 for 1st 10,000 Gal. 1.01 per 1,000 for 10,000 through 20,000 1.05 per 1,000 for 20,00 I through 35,000 1.12 per 1,000 for 35,001 through 60,000 1.20 per 1,000 for 60,001 through 100,000 1.35 per 1,000 for 100,001 through 200,000 1.60 per 1,000 for 200,001 and above / An analysis of current and proposed rates was completed. Listed below is the output of this analysis: , , / W A TER USAGE CURRENT RATE PROPOSED RATE 64,000 Gallons $70.94 $75.75 18,000 Gallons 24.48 25.18 30,000 Gallons 36.60 37.70 136,000 Gallons 143.66 167.55 264,000 Gallons 272.94 356.35 295,000 Gallons 304.25 405.95 372,000 Gallons 382.02 529.15 RESIDENTIAL COMMERCIAL INSTITUTIONAL By restructuring the rate schedule residential rates increase on the average of 4.3%. Total additional revenue anticipated is approximately $20,000. SEWER RATES Currently the City has two areas for sewer rates. Area A is charges a flat fee of $30.00 per quarter and Area B is charges a flat fee of $42.00 per quarter. The City of Andover will continue to have two areas for sewer rates until the first (1st) quarter of 1999. rity staff is proposing to increase sewer rates by $3.00 per quarter for Area A and $1.00 per quarter for -'eaB. This would generate approximately $22,000 of additional revenue for 1997 to be used for future infrastructure maintenance. Attached is a memo from Brian Kraabel, Water and Sewer Supervisor, related to future improvements. Frank Stone and Brian Kraabel will be available to answer any questions related to future improvements to the systems. CONCLUSION If the City Council aggress with these recommendations, City staff requests the council to make a motion to accept the new rates for 1997. The rates will then be included on the 1997 fee schedule that will be presented to the Council on the December 17, 1996 meeting. If the City Council does not agree with the recommended rate adjustments, City staff asks for recommendations. Enclosed for your review is a preliminary 1996 financial statement for the Water and Sewer Enterprise funds. I CITY OF ANDOVER SEWER FUND BALANCE SHEET AS OF 10-31-96 " , I I 12/31/95 10/31/96 ASSETS I I ACCOUNT CODE CURRENT ASSETS 10101 Cash $ 239,273 $ 247,004 10451 Interest Receivable 5,021 - 11501 Accounts Receivable 258,992 38,061 15500 Prepaid Items 43,711 - 12101 Special Assessments Rec. 13 907 13734 Total Current Assets $ 560,904 $ 298,799 FIXED ASSETS 16301 Improvements other that Bldg. $13,694,906 $13,694,906 16311 Accum Depre. - Improvements - 2,448,869 - 2,448,869 16421 Furniture and Equipment 108,005 108,005 16431 Accum Depre, - Furniture - 42,418 - 42,418 Total Fixed Assets $11,311,624 $ 11,311,624 Total Assets $11,872,528 $11,610,423 LIABILITIES CURRENT LIABILITIES 20201 Accounts Payable $ 5,890 $ - 20801 Due to Other Governments 2,337 2,337 21601 Accured Payroll Payable 1,797 - 21705 Life Insurance With. Payable 52 93 21706 Medical Insurance Payable - 7,260 21708 Dental Insurance Payable - 553 22201 Deferred Revenue 2,951 2,951 Total Current Liabilities $ 13,027 $ 13,194 LONG TERM LIABILITIES 23901 Compensated Absences Pay $ 2,249 $ 2,249 I Total Liabilities $ 15,276 $ 15,443 I ! RETAINED EARNINGS I , , 24400 I Reserved Retained Earnings $ 35,074 $ 35,074 25320 I Unreserved Retained Earnings I 576,141 313,870 26101 Contributed Capital I I 11,246,037 11,246,037 I I ' Total Retained Earnings I : $11,857,2521 $11,594,980 I ! I I Total Liab. and Retained Earnings I $11,872,528 $11,610,423 , , CITY OF ANDOVER STATEMENT OF PROFIT (LOSS) FOR THE TEN MONTHS ENDED OCTOBER 31, 1996 , / SEWER I I Revenue Actual Actual , Actual Budget Actual I ~ ~ 1994 .1nS ~ 1 0/31/96 341 33 Sewer Dept. Fees $ - $ - $ 1 ,959.22 $ - 1 , 1 38 361 03 Assmt. - County - - - - - 361 1 0 Certified Bills 20,1 06.22 (662.33) 21 ,606.30 22,000.00 1 7,498 3621 0 Interest Earned 9,221 .07 6,783.35 7,481 .87 7,200.00 1 2,292 36230 Contributions - - - - - 36260 Refunds & Reimburse. 38.1 0 48.00 - - - y...........T..~T...'....Su6totir..'...T '$....29,365:31FiF$ . ;".6;169])2..... $.....3.1;()41..3'9..T$~...29:2()O~()()r...7...."F30:92!f .-"..' i.,".""",,,..,,,~.,,,," "0~,,,".:'v"'~c,.o.''"''''~"'~""'-,>,;c.''; ~.:";;":~'","".:;";."-,,;;,,,,c..,c ., _.~- . .' - ...........- . . .. ,. .. -_._-, . ,~._",," . 3721 0 Sewer Charges - Gen. $ 488,002.95 $ 542,342.40 $647,608.00 $ 665,000.00 357,085 37240 Sewer Charges - Other - 1 3,306.40 48,974.22 - - 37260 Penalties - Sewer 9,749.57 1 1 ,1 1 5.27 1 1 ,222.22 1 1 ,000.00 5,01 7 ;;;:T.~:=JuZZ':J:E:]tl.~.I:!~t~.~rTfJ'q~;..2Tf~..497752:52". ..$~5'66.7a4:0iii;.~'!Q?;~q4~[:.B~c:~Z6~5(f(j'(F.l.7"'.-1362.;102 39204 Trans. Sewer Conn. $ - $ - $ 30,500.00 $ 30,500.00 30,500 ............F.'........'.."..............,.. 1...1i{'c''c'.,.....$.\ . . ". ;'.0'$'..' 'T"",',~, .....$r30. finn. nnC<$.';jU,. J.".."C<...... , i1,'~ Note: Third quarter billings not reflected on this report. . " ISEWER - COLLECTION DEPARTMENT # 49450 ENTERPRISE FUND " I , i , Object I Actual Actual Actual Budget Actual Code ~ ~ ~ 1.9.9.6 10/31/96 Personal Services 101 Salaries $ 18,724.51 $ 24,534.57 $ 44,420.49 $ 75,169.00 $ 46,855 121 PERA 679.55 1,009.16 2,108.99 3,332.00 2,139 122 FICA 1,264.19 1,550.35 2,703.30 4,660.00 2,723 125 Medicare 295.64 362.99 632.25 1,090.00 637 131 Health Insurance 1,629.06 2,622.42 5,647.96 7,000.00 5,408 132 Dental Insurance - - - - 421 133 Life Insurance 12.01 17.58 33.34 25.00 28 151 Workers Compensation - - - - 3,450 . ..,,,-,""., Subtotal -, '''~"-;,,,-.~~,~~ .... $"S" 22,604.96' $'30;091.01 .. $ .. 55,546:3:3;$' 91,276.00"'$'" 6f,662 .~-",., <"~ "'. K.2.H-'.^ . -~. -; ">-""""ii~",,,,'.. 'h~,'_''''",_;;;,;",,,;;'," , .' ,_c>.'__......_"'M-<,""..".'m'~ .,~","''''''"~,' ^-""',-"-".,,,--,.,_...,,.~,.",~, .,_.~-~,., >"" " ~'" "'""":'-,,,.~.:.,,,, ,',. ~~^"', .:'~- -,--, -"~-".,_,,,-,'-' ",;~ ,,_...,'I.~",., ~u'~__L,..'; ,,_~"";__" Supplies and Materials 210 Operating Supplies 1,180.26 1,477.10 2,330.86 2,500.00 $ 2,303 212 Gas - Vehicle - - - - - 218 Diesel Fuel - - - - - 220 Repair/Maint - General 1,540.46 2,098.34 2,150.34 5,000.00 1,333 221 Repair/Maint -Veh. - - - - - \ 224 Repair/Maint - Streets 2,124.47 - - 2,500.00 294 / 240 Small Tools 332.80 121.05 49.17 750 00 112 ;....'C;7(c7~~'7...Su6total..7c.:..~....'.....c..~.;.$.7"7;ts:1'71:99~e~$'1'C'73:69'6:49'" $.......7..... 4:5S(>:31;T$?'To;t50:'()(r'7'$'~~.......n4:042' ."',c",,,,-, ".""~,.,,,. C'.>.,_".'L-b_..'.J~""", ";,'_.~;.,"",,, ,"~''''''';A_..;<--",,,,,,__,___ ____~; _""'_~" ,",^, ;.,' '.,' "_;"'.,.~,""~.~M"~'_.._~.,_',.~'" ,. ~^","-".'~.', ".'M"""'~' '";"'_'~';"_"__'_"'" ".^ ..........--".<~ "'''- Purchased Services 303 Consulting Engineer - 618.32 - 8,500.00 $ - 314 Gopher One-State Call 853.87 317.99 308.02 500.00 644 316 Contractual Sewer Syste 280.00 685.00 - 5,000.00 1,595 321 Telephone - - - 300.00 - 360 Insurance 736.00 794.00 1,900.00 1,960.00 1,960 381 Electric 295.60 405.38 439.41 500.00 333 385 Metro Waste Control Com 349 459 00 362 880.00 423 121 00 510 200 00 442 871 ..,. Subtotal'" . $ . 351:624.47 $ 365;700.69 " $ 425,768.43 $526,960:00 $<' 447,403 I I i.... ....".,., I IOther Services and Charges 401 i Repair/Maint. - General I $ 1,571.14 $ 6,594.47 I $ 1,917.50 $ 4,000.00 $ 368 403 Repair/Maint. - Streets i - ! - 718.00 845.00 I - 404 i Repair/Maint. - Impr I 190.00 ! - I - 2,000.00 - , 405 i Repair/Maint. - Vehicle - I - I - - - I 410 Rentals i 18.43 , - 1,000.00 1,000.00 I - 1 , 415 Equipment Services 7,480.00 . 10,000.00 16.000.00 I 16,000.00 , . -_.~~~~- 16,000 "- 420 ' Depreciation i 211,936.50 i 231,704.72 i 236,427.80 - - , 433 i Dues/Registrations i 340.00 581.44 507.00 750.00 518 499 IContingency -I . -I. . - - - Subtotal $ 221;536.07.... $ 248,880.63$ 256,570.30 $ 24,595.00 $ 16,888 . , '\ Capital Outlay I Office Equipment -$ Equity Transfer Out I Equipment Maintenance Res 1,000.00 $ $ $ 750.00 $ \ , / / 201 General Office Supplies $ 1,006.25 $ 1,712.48 $ 764.27 $ 1,500.00 $ 210 Operating Supplies 200.00 - - 200.00 220 Repair/Maint - General - - I - 100.00 0' .~. ..- Subtotaf7 '::'7..:","'0..$~'?'};206'.25::'$::"::'1:112;48'$'7"."164;21....$.n;1~800.00' '$' ;"",~;.^,,,";,,,,.:;,___",_,,",,,,L.;,~_,.~,,,:,.^;,;;w.,';'.""< ,. /r,",,:,,_:,'_",_,,;"'i;"""';'';'~;'i ~=,;';;;';';:~:;;';'~.~~.;~,~ ~_ ,_'" "" ~,..." ~~~,,""'''A> "'_",_,,,,'="_k_"^__'~__," ^ ._~ ~_""""... ~"",,"_~_.~_>___o.,_..,__..., '. ,"'"u.<," SEWER - ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT # \ / Actual 1993 Actual ~ Object Code Personal Services 101 Salaries 121 PERA 122 FICA 125 Medicare 131 Health Insurance 132 Dental Insurance 133 Life Insurance 'r . "'Silbtotcil.' $ 29,070.96 $ 35,959.87 1,347.29 1,611.17 1 ,808.53 2,123.15 422.90 496.59 2.420.62 2,940.71 - - 16.41 21.61 .. $'~35;086:7f'$ , 43;153:1'0 Suoolies and Materials Purchased Services " J 49450 ENTERPRISE FUND Actual Budget Actual ~ ~ 10131196 $ 36,649.78 $ 23,795.00 $ 29,543 1,586.90 1,066.00 1,292 2,118.97 1.475.00 1,816 495.66 345.00 425 2,471.10 2,241.00 1,852 - - 132 19.22 7.00 12 '$ 743:341'.63 $ .28,92~fo(j'$ . . . ....35,012 .., _"~,'__~W_ .,~ . ".'.,.,-- 590 ~:"-" /:--",'~--' 590 301 Professional Services 303 Consulting Engineer 322 Postage 330 Transportation 351 Publishing 352 Printing 360 Ilnsurance C'7::::' Subtotal .. $ 2,001.11 $ 1,978.00 $ 2,730.58 $ 3,600.00 $ - - - 200.00 1,650.35 1,657.50 1,844.49 2,225.00 106.58 289.55 215.10 600.00 97.60 - 19.20 400.00 - - - 150.00 460.00 541.00 600.00 600.00 -'",,''77C'T$-'::;'':4;3n;:'641\$''l~' .''4:466;<557;$''',..~;409.31..'...;f$'~'JZ71~115;<5<5'::$~'7 .,,;.;';G1Ll;'Zl~"""''''''''''''-' ..-C.. .0..... ...j". .. ..~.~...........'.. .. ............ ".. Q';"':,~J.>;;.,.;,~c"""",c",~",~;,~",~,.,~,="c.-,,'= ",_,,"C Other Services and Charges 2,206 105 327 168 600 7"3;406 401 Repair/Maint - General 406 Contractual Services 410 Rentals 416 Computer Services 433 Dues/Registrations 442 ' Meals/Lodging 499 I Contingency Subtotal I , Caoital Outlay ; " 560 I Furniture / 570 IOffice Equipment Subtotal ! . T 64.47 $ 46.93 $ 47.68 $ 300.00 $ 143 - - 5,386.70 1,000.00 10,051 - - - - - - - - - - 207.50 217.50 121.50 - 16 - , - - 100.00 - I - i - I - 1,500.00 ! - I i 271.97 $ 264.43 $ 5,555.88 $ 2,900.00 $ 10,210 I I I I -c. , I i ! . ~.__..__._----- : i , I - '$ - 1$ - 1$ 500.00 I $ - 1,000.00 I - I - 1$ 1,300.00 I - . .... . 1,000.00 $ - $ - 1,800.00 $ - I T I I $ $ $ I , 712 727 Transfer - Cert of Indebt Transfer to Other Funds '",:Subtotal 37,630.00 37,630.00 37,630.00 7,590.00 $ 7,590 / ""$" '37,630:00$37,630:00 $37:630:00 -$' 7,59'0.00. $ ,', 7,590 ~"TdTACADMINISTRATION'~~'f' '$'~-79~510~57'$'~'87:226.06 " $'--92;njf:15' '$---SO,794:00":$ ,- 56:868~ " .0 0 __ 'j 'NET'PRbFIT(LdSSf~~:$ -:-152~370:35' :s '162;667:85 .._$.......65;764:75 $~".' -- ',' "'T''''''""'''.'..., ~h , ; \ / CITY OF ANDOVER WATER FUND BALANCE SHEET AS OF 10-31-96 , 12/31/95 10/31/96 ASSETS ACCOUNT CODE CURRENT ASSETS 10101 Cash $ 594,933 $ 582,288 10451 Interest Receivable 14,688 - 11501 Accounts Receivable 108,626 40,848 15500 Prepaid Items 9,692 9,692 14101 Inventory 3814 - Total Current Assets $ 731,753 $ 632,828 FIXED ASSETS 16301 Improvements other that Bldg. $ 9,729,204 $ 9,729,204 16311 Accum Depre. - Improvements - 1,151,315 - 1,151,315 16401 Machinery and Auto Equip. 898,814 898,814 16411 Accum Depre. - Machinery - 314,408 - 314,408 16421 Furniture and Equipment 240,598 240,598 16431 Accum Depre. - Furniture - 85,173 - 85,173 16441 Water Meters 276,466 276,466 16451 Accum Depre - Water Meters - 55,081 - 55,081 Total Fixed Assets $ 9,539,105 $ 9,539,105 Total Assets $10,270,858 $10,171,933 LIABILITIES CURRENT LIABILITIES 20201 Accounts Payable $ 4,635 $ - 20801 Due to Other Governments 342 5 21601 Accured Payroll Payable 2,979 - 21705 Life Insurance With. Payable 70 119 21706 Medical Insurance Payable - 9,030 21708 Dental Insurance Payable - 680 22003 Deposits Payable 75 - Total Current Liabilities $ 8,101 $ 9,834 LONG TERM LIABILITIES 23901 I Compensated Absences Pay $ 4,581 $ 4,581 I Total Liabilities $ 12,682 $ 14,414 , ! ! 1 I , i RETAINED EARNINGS , i I I I 24400 . Reserved Retained Earnings I $ 25,000 $ 25,000 , 25320 'Unreserved Retained Earnings ! 849,496 I 748,839 26101 Contributed Capital 9,383,680 i 9,383,680 - I Total Retained Earnings i I $10,258,176 I $10,157,518 , , Total Liab. and Retained Earnings $10,270,858 $10,171,933 , , , \ / CITY OF ANDOVER STATEMENT OF PROFIT/LOSS FOR THE TEN MONTHS ENDED OCTOBER 31, 1996 / WATER Revenue Code Budget 19.96. Actual 10/31/96 14,000.00 3,238 12,665 216 67 . . 16;186 34132 Water Dept. Fees 36210 Interest Earned 36245 Sale of Used Equip. 36260 Refunds & Reimburse. i$ , / NOTE: Third quarter billing is not reflected on this report. , J IWA TER-SOURCE STORAGE DEPARTMENT # I 49400 ! ENTERPRISE FUND / 1 I I , , I I I Objecti , I Budget Actual Code I I 1996 10/31/96 Supplies and Materials 201 'General Office Supplies $ 500.00 $ - 210 Operating Supplies 1,600.00 821 216 Chemicals 17,500.00 18,455 227 Repar/Maint. - System 2 500 00 1 161 Subtotal" . '. .$ ".,,, .....22;-100.00.$ . 20,437 ...... I >''',.~ >.,. ""~' .. ~ ~ , . .. ! Purchased Services I I 301 Professional Services $ 2,000.00 $ 1,015 315 Professional Service - Lab 800.00 1,018 321 Telephone 500.00 - 360 Insurance 2,600.00 2,600 381 Electric 30,000.00 27,623 383 Natural Gas 1,700.00 1,182 386 Water Permit - DNR 3 000 00 1 613 i}'\';}"; I.....,. ... ... ..... - ..........:L.; !.$;7T1r,...';....7'~O:6bO:OO7.$'.. , . ....;7''''.;.35;05.1 ."..c,. ...... "-'," , / Other Services and Charges 401 Repair/Maint. - General $ 4,000.00 $ 1,807 402 Repair/Maint. - Building 2,000.00 83 403 Repair/Maint. - Well/Pump. 25,000.00 694 404 Repair/Maint. -Improvements 2,500.00 - 406 Contractual Services 500.00 - 433 -,. 1 000 00 237 .... .......,... $ ,-~,',,,,""," '35,000:00.7 $ -- .. " on......,; 2,820< I'" ...... .... .". ,,~. .. .'N.....,"~ ,," .,",-'..,. .. ,"', ...,....>-.. Capital Outlay 580 i Equipment $ 6,000.00 $ 1,213 582 iCapital Maintenance Res. i 25,000.00 25,000 603 'Assessment Principal i I - - 613 'Assessment Interest 1 - - I Subtotal $ 31,000.00 $ 26,213 I ! , I i , i I ! 'r"""'",,...w~_."''''''''',,~ fOTA[SOTJRC'ESfofr"~' .~....^=~""";=,~".-,,,...,,~,,~...,,- l ~~,~ ......~.128:ioo:oo.l...... . -,","""',-'" $ 84,520 , I WATER-DISTRIBUTION DEPARTMENT # O~ect I . Code I 49430 Budget fi9.6. I ENTERPRISE FUND Actual 10/31/96 Purchased Services 301 Professional Services I 303 . Consulting Engineer 314 Gopher One-State Call 321 Telephone i 322 I Postage 351 Publishing 360 Insurance .,.', ," ....~ I....".. ,C",C. $ 19.600.00 $ i i , Capital Outlay i I 560 Furniture $ 500.00 $ ------------------ ----- ---- ---- -------------- _?~9.._~quipmen!.__ .. __.______._M__. n 19,275,00 . ._., 581 Meters/Horns '-.----~T3b6~0.0 .n ,-- I Subtotal $ 81.075.00 $ i ' ! I I '...T....f[...~[:;[..;!gtAC~DIS,.RIB0110N.g,.Q):~iT&'t~!i~".fi,"i;](;~.;g:7;l:;:;;tr\'!lEJ!!.,"r"'$';!c'[::;2r9;805~nOW:$T!f''I:''''''-.'R'';':I;1':2183;16~- " ,., ",..0:.'" _"_"'~ ~'''''''.~"''~+/ "'-., ",",.,-".-:" ',' ","",,,,,,-,,,,,,,,',;A,,~,-c,,,:_,,,,,":~L_",,H"";lo,,",,,,;;,,",..j;~:F~~",~""~'_"",,,,,,,,,,,o:p;";t:w;,",..,.~.,,:.,~,,f:i-"ii. . ." '''' . " ;101 j 121 122 125 131 132 133 151 201 210 214 219 220 224 227 ';''''';::'''0. 32.00 ".' 94;680~00.J$"" , I . - I 300.00 I $ 4.500.00 2,000.00 2.500.00 3.000.00 3.000.00 3 000 00 I 1St30b.OCj""'O"$' ",--~ ~'_"m_y-",_ : Personal Services : Salaries IPERA ,FICA , Medicare I Health Insurance Dental Insurance Life Insurance . [Workers Compensation .. . ... Subtotal' .'.. .,. .... . I I $ 77.965.00 $ , I 3,493.00 I 4,834.00 , 1.131.00 I , I 7.225.00 - I mL ,- 'n" $' I I ISupolies and Materials 'General Office Supplies Operating Supplies i Meter Repair Supplies, Hydrant Repair Supplies Repair/Maint. - General I Repair/Maint. - Streets i I Repair/Maint. - System "'-.' -^'; S'ubtolal > ''':'^'t:_''~t'<y:;-';-.'r,-~"-::,,,~::",,:<t~~::~-:''> "': .,,' ..,,' ".. $ ="""",","C""""',:-'~' ~"--"$'" $ $ ~"~;"''':.'~<'-'~:'':'-:,1''" :'.:' TC> :~.., "'''''::$' ., 500.00 500.00 500.00 50.00 1,500.00 3 10000 "'6.150.00 $ I c-~,c=",~;c.....::~;ol~:~'~L:",~"~L-,",,- ;,i_,,~, , ~';i:~~:";~<_~,,,,"'_h 401 403 407 408 410 415 420 433 442 Other Services and Charges Repair/Maint. - General Repair/Maint. - Streets: I Meters - Labor Hydrants - Labor I Rentals I Equipment Services I Depreciation I Dues/Registrations Meals/Lodging Subtotal 1.000.00 , $ 800.00 $ 1.000.00 500.00 500.00 700.00 15.100.00 78,700 3.587 4.770 1.116 7.177 548 37 3,450 .......'....99.383 2.957 1 ,402 2.140 1,492 2145 10; 135 -" 46 - 609 208 25 416 3 100 " 4,405 M_, - ~.. ,..- 830 - 540 - 66 15.100 - 1,113 100 17.749 13,642 37.848 51,490 I "itA TER-ADMINISTRA TION DEPARTMENT # 49440 i ENTERPRISE FUND ,Jjecti ! Budget Actual Code i 1996 10/31/96 ! Personal Services 101 I Salaries I $ 23,795.00 i $ 29,591 121 iPERA I I I 1,066.00 1,294 I 122 iFICA , 1,475.00 1,818 125 i Medicare 345.00 425 131 Health Insurance I 2,245.00 1,856 132 I Dental Insurance I - 133 133 Life Insurance 3.00 12 151 Workers Compensation - - Subtotal ,"I>" '....$'."'.?R Q?Q nn $... /"""35,129 J " I"i '.,... ..... ..... ....., .. . ... .. .,. .. .. ,SupDlies and Materials 201 IGeneral Office Supplies $ 700.00 $ 312 210 ,Operating Supplies 1,000.00 385 22~JRepair/Maint - General 200.00 419 ~,..". ,..,. ""'F.i.>. '., ,.'. ,., '$>.' " "'1, ..""..$'..... 1,116 ." " ., ". ..' Purchased Services 301 Professional Services $ 16,000.00 $ 2,506 303 Consulting Engineer 200.00 - '22 Postage 1,800.00 2,029 j30 Transportation 200.00 174 351 Publishing 600.00 24 352 Printing 100.00 - 353 I Publishing 500.00 - 360 Insurance 1,300.00 1,300 386 Water Quality Fee 15,000.00 11,809 390 i Ta~e~ .......... 650 00 - .., ., .'....$' ">""':lI::'''l''nl'ln$.''' ........17.842. I" ." .....i.. , ... IOther Services and Charges 401 I Repair/Maint - General I $ 300.00 $ 526 406 ! Contractual Services 17,000.00 4,609 410 i Rentals 450.00 1 - 416 : Computer Services , - i - I 433 Dues/Registrations I I 500.00 I 233 442 Meals/Lodging I , I 300.00 ! - 499 Contingency ! I I 23,026.00 - I ! Subtotal $ 41,576.00 $ 5,368 I I I I , Capital Outlay ---. -------- - 560 Furniture $ 500.00 $ - 570 -- Office Equipment ---.--------- ----- - --- - - ----- -------- ---- -- -._------ , 1,200.00 600 .' Subtotal $ 1,700.00 $ 600 ) Transfers iTransfer to Computer Reserve i Equity Transfer to Reserve iTransfer to Other Funds Subtotal \ / , / Department Memo Date: 11/14/96 J From: Jean McGann Brian Kraabel ~ To: Subject: Water rate increase I think a rate increase would be a good idea for the future of the water department. The more you use the more it will cost you. The general public does not understand the strain that is put on a water system when they water all the time with no regard for conservation. Along with the sprinkling ban that is put into effect every year, a rate increase I believe will also make people think about using water more conservatively and following the rule. \ , ./ The City of Andover needs more wells and storage to keep up with the rapid growth. At the present time we have five (5) wells in the city and we are planning for the sixth (6) well in 1997. Our Comprehensive Water Plan states that by the year 2000 we should have wells 7 & 8. When a well takes over a year from start to finish we need to be ready to go to keep up with the demand. A rate increase would make it easier to reach our goals. '\ , I Water quality is another issue that we need to look at. A big issue with the residents is the color of the water. This is due to the iron and manganese in the water. There are two (2) sets of standards that are set by the EPA, one is the Primary Drinking Water Standard and the other is the Secondary Drinking Water Standard. The Primary Standard contains all the MCLs (Maximum Contaminant Levels) that cannot be exceeded by a water supply. Andover's water supply does not exceed any of the MCLs currently established under the (PDWS). The Secondary Standards are the Suggested Maximum Contaminant Levels that we want to try and stay below. We exceed the SMCL in iron at Wells No.1, 2, and 3 of 0.30 mg/I. Wells NO. 3, 4, and 5 exceed the 0.05 mg/l SMCL for manganese. Currently the 11/14/96 Department Memo manganese is regulated as a secondary standard. The EP A has considered . . J changing manganese to a primary standard with a MCL of 0.20 mg/l, based on health risk studies. If this is done, well #4 could no longer be used without implementing a manganese removal treatment process. Wells #3 & #5 are very close to the MCL at .16 and.13 respectively. In 1996, we took many calls on the quality of water in Andover. The majority of the calls were from the west side of town where the iron content is very high. When we explained the cause of the problem to the people they asked why they have to pay the same rate as someone who is receiving a better quality of water. With our process of treating water, we will never remove the iron, we can only hold the iron in suspension with a polyphosphate. This process of treatment releases the iron back into the water after a period of time. Some problems that are caused from iron and manganese are staining of clothing and plumbing fixtures, clogging of pipes, and growth of iron bacteria which can create taste and odor problems. '\ I guess with all the complaints that we receive, and not knowing what the EP A might do as far as MCLs on manganese, I think a rate increase is a must to boost our revenues to protect ourselves against any changes that will be necessary in the future. We are going to need more wells, a storage facility, and we will eventually need a treatment plant or two. The cost of any of these projects is very high, and we cannot afford to wait much longer to start up grading our system. BK ') / CITY OF ANDOVER REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACflON DATE December 3,1996 AGENDA SECTION f'.O. Discussion Item ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT ITEM f'.O. LS\V AR 96-08 17841 Bluebird Street NW Jill Spurgin b. ~< t~*" Planning - J \l APPROVED FOR AGENDA BY: John Hinzman Request The City Council is asked to review the lot split and variance request of Jill Spurgin at 17841 Bluebird Street NW. The applicant proposes to split the southern 2.05 acres (Parcel B) from a 4.2 acre lot (parcel A) in order to construct a new home. Variances are being sought from the minimum lot size for both parcels, and from the minimum lot width at front setback for Parcel B. "- J At the November 12, 1996 Planning Commission meeting, two neighbors spoke in opposition of the proposed lot split and variance. They expressed concern for the loss of trees, lowered property values, and setting a precedent for the division of other lots in the neighborhood. The applicant has provided a letter addressing those concerns. Recommendation The Planning and Zoning Commission recommends denial of the lot split\variance request. Please consult the attached staff report dated November 12, 1996 and the minutes from the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting for further information. " / MOTION BY: SECOND BY: '. / CITY OF ANDOVER COUNTY OF ANOKA STATE OF MINNESOTA RES. NO. R -96 A RESOLUTION DENYING THE LOT spun VARIANCE REQUEST OF llLL SPURGIN TO CREATE TWO PARCELS PURSUANT TO ORDINANCE NO. 40 AND VARYING FROM THE PROVISIONS OF ORDINANCE NO.8, SECTION 6.02, MINIMUM DISTRICT REQUIREMENTS ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 17841 BLUEBIRD STREETNW (PIN 02-32-24-24-0001). WHEREAS, Jill Spurgin has requested a lot split\variance to create two parcels pursuant to Ordinance No. 40 and varying from the provisions of Ordinance No.8, Section 6.02, Minimum District requirements for an R-1, Single Family Rural District on property located at 17841 Bluebird Street NW, legally described as follows: " That part of the Northwest Quarter of Section 2, Township 32, Range 24, in Anoka County, Minnesota described as follows: Commencing at a point on the South line of said Northwest Quarter, distant 1400 feet East of the Southwest corner of said Northwest Quarter; thence North, assumed bearing, and parallel with the West line of said Northwest Quarter a distance of 631.00 feet to the point of beginning ofland to be described; thence continue North on same described "line a distance of245.78 feet; thence northeasterly on a curve to the right having radius of248.59 feet a distance of243.11 feet; thence North 56 degrees, 02 minutes, 00 seconds East a distance of210.57 feet; thence South 22 degrees, 47 minutes, 44 seconds East a distance of298.45 feet to a point which is 1800 feet East of the West line of said Northwest Quarter as measured along its South line and 930 feet North of the South line of said Northwest Quarter as measured along its West line; thence South and parallel with the West line of said Northwest Quarter a distance of 298.83 feet; thence westerly and parallel with the South line of said Northwest Quarter a distance of 400.01 feet to the point of beginning. Subject to an easement for road purposes over the westerly and northwesterly 33 feet thereof. WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission has reviewed the request and has determined that said request does not meet the criteria for granting the request pursuant to Ordinances No.8 and 40. / WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission finds the request would have a detrimental effect upon the health, safety, morals and general welfare of the City of Andover; and . j Page Two LS 96-08 Variance 17841 Bluebird Street NW December 3, 1996 WHEREAS, a public hearing was held and there was opposition to the request; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommends to the City Council denial of the lot split\variance as requested for the following reasons: 1) Lack of evidentiary hardship according to the use of the property. 2) Possible drainage problem with the drain field of the septic system. 3) Public testimony of adjacent neighbors in opposition to the proposed use. 4) Denial of the application does not preclude the property owner reasonable use of the property. 5) Granting the variance would have significant impact of the neighborhood; that the size of the newly created parcels would not be consistent with the pattern of development in the neighborhood. , NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Andover hereby agrees with the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and denies the lot split\variance on said property. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Andover on this ~ day of December, 1996. CITY OF ANDOVER ATTEST: J .E. McKelvey, Mayor Victoria V olk, City Clerk ./ Regular Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - November 12, 1996 Page 2 '. j (Public Hearing: Special Use Permit - Real Estate Si , Timber River Estates, Continued) The Commission noted it is troublesome that is sign plus several others have been erected before receiving t proper permits. In this case, the applicant is a developer who has orked in the City and should know the regulations. Commissioner Pee felt it is a policy decision of the Council as to whether to remov the signs until the Special Use Permit is issued. Chairperson ires concurred with that issue and felt it should be addressed ut he also felt the sign meets the criteria for the Permit. mmissioner Wells was concerned with the developer selling lots ore the property is platted. Commissioner Peek pointed out the ntent of the sign indicates it is not platted. Chairperson Squires ndicated if contracts are signed, it is between the person and wood1 d; the City is not involved. MOTION dtke, Seconded by Peek, to forward to the City Council for approval e Resolution prepared by Staff for the request for a sign by Woodl d Development, with an attention to the City Council to review th policy of signage. Motion carried on a 4 - Yes, 3 -Absent (Apel, rry, Putnam) vote. This will be placed on the December 3, 1996, City Council agenda. 7:23 p.m. ,/ PUBLIC HEARING: SPURGIN LOT SPLIT/VARIANCB - 17841 BLUBBIRD STREBT NW - JILL 7:23 p.m. Mr. Hinzman reviewed the request of Jill Spurgin to split the southern 2.05 acres from a 4.2-acre parcel at 17841 Bluebird Street. The existing home was constructed in 1972 and was purchased by the applicant in 1992. Parcel A is proposed to be 2.15 acres containing the existing home, which would be sold. Parcel B would be 2.05 acres and would be retained by the applicant for the construction of a new house. Variances are being requested to the minimum lot size and lot width at the front setback. Staff has looked at other options to split the parcel so one lot would meet the minimum size requirements, but it appears the split as proposed would have the least impact to the property owner to the south and would provide the least amount of tree loss. The current septic system is located on the south side of the house and the well is in the front. The septic system would have to be updated to current standards before it is sold. Borings have been taken for the relocation of that system. No variances would be needed for the existing house if the lot is split as proposed. MOTION by Peek, Seconded by Luedtke, to open the public hearing. Motion carried on a 4-Yes, 3-Absent (Apel, Barry, Putnam) vote. 7:28 p.m. Jeff Zinnecker. 17745 Bluebird Street NW - is located immediately south of this parcel. He is concerned with the variance and with setting a precedent in the neighborhood of subdividing lots. The entire street / has lots of 2.75 acres or more. The homes are staggered down the road. The. concern is the subdivision to smaller lots will decrease their property value. From their property, they are able to see Ms. Spurgin's Regular Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - November 12, 1996 Page 3 l (Public Hearing: Lot Split/Variance - 17841 Bluebird Street, Continued) house now that the leaves are gone. Anocher house between them would mean they could see it all of the time. Their house is on the north end of their lot. He is against the variance. Commissioner Peek noted almost all of the other lots have 300-foot frontages, and this seems to be a unique lot in terms of its size. As for precedence, this is a differenc situation from all of the other lots which are basically rectangular and could not be subdivided. Lori Zinnecker, 17745 Bluebird Street NW - stated it is also a privacy factor for them, which was the biggest reason they bought their house. She felt the quality of that woods and privacy would definitely go down in that they would be able to view a house looking out the side window. They also have a pool in the back in a private area, and this would definitely decrease the value of that privacy as well. They purchased their house in 1990 before Ms. Spurgin. Jill Sourain, 17841 Bluebird Street NW - stated she has the same concern as the Zinneckers. That is why she is asking for a variance. She too enjoys the trees. It would be her intent to keep as many trees for her own privacy as well. That is why she likes living out there. j Vione Luikens, 17844 Bluebird Street NW - built their house in 1972. She has the same concerns as the Zinneckers. If everyone started subdividing their lots, it would ruin the aesthetics of the development. They expected their privacy to be maintained, which is the reason they moved out there. They get a lot of comments about how beautiful Bluebird Street is, and she felt it would take away from the value of the properties if the lots were subdivided to build more houses. \ MOTION by Luedtke, Seconded by Wells, to close the public hearing. Motion carried on a 4-Yes, 3-Absent (Apel, Barry, Putnam) vote. 7:36 p.m. Mr. Hinzman reminded the Commission that one of the criteria for a variance is that the owner is denied unreasonable use of the land due to a hardship caused by the characteristic of the land. That term can be elusive because the hardship cannot be created by the property owner nor be an economic factor. One of the determinations being considered for a variance is the significant frontage along Bluebird Street of the lot, which would allow adequate room for another house to be built if the lot was split in two. Commissioner Wells noted the newly created lot would be smaller than all of the other existing lots. Doesn't that create a hardship on the other end for all of the other property owners? She felt the construction of a new house would mean a significant amount of tree loss. There is also the issue of oak wilt through that area, which .' could preclude existing privacy. ' Commissioner Peek asked if this area was platted under the current City ordinance or before it. In the past they have considered variances / similar to this primarily because the properties were developed prior to the adoption of the platting ordinance. If this area was platted prior to the adoption of the ordinance, it would be consistent with variances Regular Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - November 12, 1996 Page 4 , J (Public Hearing: Lot Split/Variance - 17841 Bluebird Street, Continued) approved in the past. This hardship is primarily one of the platting process. He doesn't see this as an issue of setting a precedent for the subdivision in the rest of the development. If this was platted under the ordinance, is it pushing it in terms of lot acreage with the 20 percent variance on lot size for Parcel B. Mr. Hinzman suggested the Commission table the item temporarily while he goes to City Hall to research the date this area was platted. Th~ Commission agreed. This item was continued later in the meeting. REVIEW OF ORDINANCE NO.4, MOVING OF BUILDINGS " Johnson explained Staff will be placing three to five ordinances on 1anning Commission agenda for discussion of updating and revision. The f st one is Ordinance 4, Moving of Buildings. All references to Grow To ship will be changed to City of Andover. Staff feels the ordinance requires a lot of red tape and that the requirements for insurance, onding and cash deposit should be deleted. Manyother communities 0 not have a moving ordinance because of the regulations under the Uni rm Building Code and State Statutes. There is also a provision in Or 'nance 8, Section 4.11 that addresses the relocation of structures. Sta is recommending that provision be moved to this ordinance. It is so the Staff's recommendation that an applicant should go through a ecial Use Permit process, so the residents of an area where a structure ill be brought to will be notified. / Chairperson Squires state that the provisions of Ordinance 4 and the section in Ordinance 8 are ifferent, in that Ordinance 4 relates to moving the structure, and Or . ance 8 deals with the requirements once the structure reaches its final estination. Though they are different, he thought they could be combl: ed to one moving and placement of buildings ordinance. He also fel that since 1968 when the ordinance was adopted and 1979 when it was ame ded, State law has regulated many of the things this ordinance tried to dress. Any conflicts with State law should be removed from the ordinanc including the entire Section 4 dealing with cash deposits, bonds and 1 surance. Mr. Johnson stated Staff feels there is a need to keep e place even though there are no areas zoned for mobile horn Cicy. He also suggested Staff contact several of the surro ding cities to compare ordinance requirements. The Planning Commissio suggested the League of Minnesota Cities be contacted and that the City be contacted to be sure the ordinance is in line with other or and current State law. to the ordinance as The Commission generally agreed to the outlined by Staff. DISCUSSION - REVIEW OF ORDINANCES NO.6, REGULA TIN ) / Regular Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - November 12, 1996 Page 5 " LOT SPLIT/VARIANCE - 17841 BLUEBIRD STREET NW - CONTINUED I Mr. Hinzman reported the zoning Ordinance was adopted October 21, 1970. The plat for the area including Bluebird Street was recorded December 9, 1971, about one year into the present Zoning Ordinance. Commissioner Luedtke stated the lot in question is large compared to the other ones, but he would be opposed to a lot split because someone wants to build a new house in a development that requires 2.5-acre lots. He did not see the hardship. Commissioner Peek stated because the property was platted after the adoption of the ordinance, the issue of grandfathering does not apply. From his perspective, the question becomes does the degree of the variance alter the other quantities and qualities of the neighborhood. He felt the magnitude of the variance does impact it. Commissioner Wells noted from the public testimony of existing neighbors definitely opposing this and that the granting of the request might create more problems in the neighborhood, she too is against it. Chairperson Squires stated in looking at the standards the City has in the ordinance and the hardship required when dealing with variances, it comes down to whether there is a reasonable use of the property without the variance. There is'nothing that suggests any factors that there would be an undue hardship created if the variance wasn't granted. The only thing that would have been significant to him is if this plat would have predated the ordinance. That is not the case here. / MOTION by Wells, Seconded by Peek, to recommend denial to the City Council of the lot split and variance at 17841 Bluebird Street NW for the following reasons: 1) Lack of evidentiary hardship according to lot use; 2) possible drainage problem with the drain field of the septic 'system; 3) public testimony of adj acent neighbors were definitely against it as recorded for the public hearing; 4) denial of the variance does not preclude reasonable use of the property; and 5) granting the variance would have significant impact on the locale, namely that the size of the newly created parcels would not be consistent with the neighborhood pattern. Motion carried on a 4-Yes, 3-Absent (Apel, Barry, Putnam) vote. This will be on the December 3, 1996, City Council agenda. 8:10 p.m. REVIEW OF ORDINANCE NO.7, MATERIALS USED FOR BUILDING the Building Official has reviewed this ordinance and recommends that it removed entirely because all of the information given is also in the Un~ m Building Code. The Commission agreed. .' DISCUSSION - REVIEW OF ORDINANCE NO. ; , Mr. Johnson stated Staff is recommending more . formation be placed in the ordinance about the duties of the CommissI plus do general housekeeping of the ordinance to make it flow proper1 . The Commission discussed the following: FILE No.Ol0 11/26 '96 08:21 ID:CRUSADER PROGRAM FAX: PAGE 2 . ;' November 22, 1996 Mayor J. E. McKelvey City of Andover Andover City Hall 16B5 Crosstown Boulevard N.W. Andover, MN 55304 Dear Mayor McKelvey, My name is Jill Spurgin and I have lived in Anoka county all my life and at 17841 Bluebird Street, N.W. In Andover for over four years. The reason for this letter is to ask for your favorable consideration of my lot spllVvariance request at tha next meeting of the City Council. , After meeting several times with Andover City officials, I submitted an application to split my oversized 4.23 acre property into two parcels of 2.15 acres, with my current home on it: and 2.05 acres, where my new proposed modified two story home would be built. Both parcels are heavily wooded. At the November 12th Planning Commission meeting the City Staff recommended the lot spllVvarlance be granted. However, the Planning Commission recommended not granting the variance. Following are their reasons along with my reply to the concerns: 1. Drainage - The proposed new parcel was deemed absolutely "buildable" by Building Official Dave Almgren. Mark Tradewell, who did the soil borings, also said thare would be no problem. 2. Neighbor concern. Two neighbors attended the meeting. the neighbor directly across the street and the neighbor directly south of my current home. Their Issues were: a. Loss 01 privacy - I, too, am concerned with privacy. I fully appreciate the privacy and beauty the trees in our neighborhood provide - that is exactly why I want to stay in my current neighborhood. I believe a new home nestled in the middle of two plus acres of trees ......ould not deny myself or any neighbor the privacy we now enjoy. I believe denying my request because my neighbors are upset about tree loss on MY property places an unfair burden on me to provide them privacy and does not allow me to fully utilize my own property. '. ) FILE No.01D 11/26 '96 08:21 ID:CRUSADER PROGRAM FAX: PAGE 3 2 Mayor 1. E. McKelvey ~ City of Andover / NllVCmb~1' 22, I Y\I() b. Lowering of Property Va/u8s - The home I am hoping to build would be valued in approximately the $150,000 plus range. I believe this would place my new home at the high end of the neighborhood valuation scale thereby putting only myself at risK If either lot Is subsequently deemed not as buyer-attractive. Our neighborl1ood is made up of many different styles of homes positioned in all difforent directions on the various lots. I feel the positions of the homes in the neighborhood and tho fact that most of the other lots are rectangle in shape make it almost impossible for the casual looker to discam where property lines are. Furthermore, I believe most homs buyers are more Interested in the amount of land their prospective purchase would include rather than in the amount of land each neighbor owns. c. Setting a Precedence. Since I believe my lot is the only oversized, buildable lot on our block, I do not believe the granting of this varIance would set a precedence. At least one member of the Planning Commission also recognized this. , 3. HardshIn - I believe my circumstance is unique in that I have the only oversized buildable lot on my block. I do not believe the granting of this variance will alter the neighborhood aesthetics. 25 years ago my neighborhood was zoned for (rural) 2.5 acres. With all of the growth Andovar has experienced in the past several years, and with the different zoning throughout tile Cily, I do not believe the splitting of this 4.23 acre parcel would stand out as a negative overall. The granting of this lot spllVvariance request would allow for good, practical usage of the two plus acres to the south of my current home. This request was not made on a whim, I gave it considerable thought and spent a fair amount of money to even validate the request was a possibility. Prior to my purchase my home had been left vacant after being rented for some seven years and the home and lot wers left in shambles. At the time of purchase I was married to a carpenter so the purchase of a "fixer upper" was not a problem. Since purChasing this home I have spent some $15,000 plus in renovations. However, the home Is stili 24 years old and In need of ongoing repairs/updates. My reason for wanting to build a new home Is that I am now a single parent and find the upkeep of an older home that uses off-peak electric heat supplemented by a woodstove just too burdst1$Ome. I am not requesting a variance !o squeeze a house into a neighborhood where homes are spaced eQually apart so that it would stick out like a "sore thumb". ~ Both parcels would still be two plus heavily wooded acres each, a nice piece of '. J property in any suburb. FILE No.010 11/26 '96 08:21 ID:CRUSADER PRffiRAM , FAX: PAGE 4 3 Mnyor J. B. McKdvey '1 City of Andover / N'.)Ve:nb~r22. 19lJfi I hope you'll find that all things considered fairly my lot split/variance request is a reasonable one. I truly believe that at worst there will be a net no difference to my neighbors and at best could possibly increase the property values. Additionally, it would be a positive for the city In that It Increases the tax base in an existing neighborhood. Although I know schedules are hectic and busy t urge you to drive down Bluebird street and see for yourself. I do not feel white paper with black property lines do this property justice. I know that change makes some people uncomfortable and variance requests are about change. However, this shouldn't in and of itself make change a negative. I am hoping you will consider and accept the City Staffs recommendation to approve my lot split/variance request on December 3rd. Sincerely, . I L. Spurgin 434-0570 (home) 572.6610 (work) , , I cc: City Council Members \ , / \ ) CITY OF ANDOVER REQUEST FOR PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION DATE November 12,1996 AGENDA ITEM ORIGINATING DEPARTMEN~K< APPROVED FOR AGENDA 3. Public Hearing: LS 96-08 Variance Planning ~'\J~ 17841 Bluebird Street NW Jill Spurgin John Hinzman BY: BY: Request The Planning and Zoning Commission is asked to review the lot split\variance request for Jill Spurgin to split the southern 2.05 acres from a 4.2 acre parcel located at 17841 Bluebird Street NW (PIN 02-32-24-24-0001), legally described on attachment A-2. The property is zoned for R-l, Single Family Rural. Applicable Ordinances Ordinance No. 40, regulates the division of lots. A lot split is defmed as any division of a lot, parcel or tract ofland into not more than two (2) parcels when both divided parcels meet or exceed the minimum requirements for a platted lot in the applicable zoning district. Section IV also gives the City Council the power to vary or modify the application of this ordinance provided such variance or modification is consistent with - the letter and intent of the Comprehensive Plan. Ordinance 8, Section 5.04, establishes the variance procedure and process. Ordinance No.8, Section 6.02, establishes the provisions for minimum lot width, lot depth and lot area in an R-l, Single Family Rural zoned district. The minimum requirements in an R-l district are as follows: Lot Width at Front Setback - 300 feet Lot Depth - 150feet Lot Area Per Dwelling - 108,900 square feet (2.5 acres) Ordinance No. 10, Section 9.07.10, establishes the minimum area of land dedicated to park and open space. For all subdivisions by metes and bounds description the subdivider or developer may elect to pay, in lieu of park dedication requirements, the sum of four hundred dollars (400.00) for each dwelling unit that could be constructed upon the proposed subdivided property. In the event the developer elects to pay said four hundred dollar ($400.00) charge, the City may collect additional park fees if the , I \ ) Page Two Lot Split\Variance - Jill Spurgin 17841 Bluebird Street NW November 12, 1996 developer re-subdivides the property in the future. Background The existing home was constructed in 1972, and was purchased by the applicant in 1992. The applicant proposes to split the parcel into two lots measuring 2.15 and 2.05 acres (Parcel A & B, respectively) as presented in attachment A-5. Parcel A, containing the existing home, would be sold. Parcel B would be retained by the applicant for construction of a new house. Variances are being sought to the minimum lot size and lot width at front setback provisions of the R-1, Single Family Rural Zoning District. Specific requests are as follows: Parcel Provision Proposed Required Difference A Lot Size 2.15 acres 2.5 acres 0.35 acres / B Lot Size 2.05 acres 2.5 acres 0.45 acres B Lot Width 265 feet 300 feet 35 feet Determination Staff has determined that the 4.2 acre size of the parcel prohibits the creation of two lots meeting the 2.5 acre minimum requirement. Division of the parcel rougWy in half, as opposed to creating a conforming 2.5 acre lot and a non-conforming 1.7 acre lot decreases the impact to the neighbor South of Parcel B. The location of the existing home prevents Parcel B from achieving the required minimum frontage. The size of the lot and location of the existing house create an unnecessary hardship, not created by the property owner, as stipulated in Ordinance 8, Section 5.04. Commission Options 1. The Planning and Zoning Commission may recommend to the City Council approval of the lot split\variance requested by Jill Spurgin on property located at 17841 Bluebird Street NW, legally described on attachment A-2. The Commission finds the request meets the requirements of Ordinances No.8 and 40 \ .I 2. The Planning and Zoning Commission may recommend to the City Council denial of the lot split\variance requested by Jill Spurgin on property located at 17841 Bluebird Street NW, legally described in attachment A-2. The Commission finds the request does , / Page Three Lot SplitWariance - JiIl Spurgin 17841 Bluebird Street NW November 12,1996 not meet the requirements of Ordinances No.8 and 40. In recommending denial of the request, the Commission shaIl state those reasons for doing so. 3. The Planning and Zoning Commission may table the item pending further information from Staff. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the lot split\variance as requested with the following conditions: 1. That the lot split be subject to a sunset clause as defmed in Ordinance No. 40, Section III(E). 2. That the existing on-site sewage treatment system be relocated so as to be completely upon the same parcel as the existing home. , 3. That the approval is contingent upon the split parcel meeting the minimum building site requirements as set forth in Ordinance No. 10. / 4. That the applicant obtain all necessary building permits. 5. That the applicant pay all park dedication fees as defmed in Ordinance No. 10, Section 9.07.10. Attachments A-I Resolution A-2 Legal Description A-3 Area Location Map A-4 Site Location Map A-5 Site Plan A-6 Amended Special Use Permit Application A-7 Notice of Public Hearing / / CITY OF ANDOVER COUNTY OF ANOKA STATE OF MINNESOTA RES. NO. R -96 A RESOLUTION GRANTING THE LOT SPLIT\V ARlANCE REQUEST OF JILL SPURGIN TO CREATE TWO PARCELS PURSUANT TO ORDINANCE NO. 40 AND VARYING FROM THE PROVISIONS OF ORDINANCE NO.8, SECTION 6.02, MINIMUM DISTRICT REQUIREMENTS ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 17841 BLUEBIRD STREET NW. WHEREAS, Jill Spurgin has requested a lot split\variance to create two parcels pursuant to Ordinance No. 40 and varying from the provisions of Ordinance No.8, Section 6.02, Minimum District requirements for an R-1, Single Family Rural District on property located at 17841 Bluebird Street NW, legally described as follows: That part of the Northwest Quarter of Section 2, Township 32, Range 24, in Anoka County, Minnesota described as follows: Commencing at a point on the South line of said Northwest Quarter, distant 1400 feet East of the Southwest comer of said Northwest Quarter; thence North, assumed bearing, and parallel with the West line of said Northwest Quarter a distance of 631.00 feet to the point of beginning ofland to be described; thence continue North on same described line a distance of245.78 feet; thence northeasterly on a curve to the right having radius of248.59 feet a distance of243.11 feet; thence North 56 degrees, 02 minutes, 00 seconds East a distance of210.57 feet; thence South 22 degrees, 47 minutes, 44 seconds East a distance of 298.45 feet to a point which is 1800 feet East of the West line of said Northwest Quarter as measured along its South line and 930 feet North of the South line of said Northwest Quarter as measured along its West line; thence South and parallel with the West line of said Northwest Quarter a distance of298.83 feet; thence westerly and parallel with the South line of said Northwest Quarter a distance of 400.01 feet to the point of beginning. Subject to an easement for road purposes over the westerly and northwesterly 33 feet thereof. WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission has reviewed the request and has determined that said request meets the criteria of Ordinance No. 40 and that based on . Section IV, the City Council may vary the application of any of the provisions of the Ordinance; and , / / Page Two LS 96-08 Variance 17841 Bluebird Street NW September 17, 1996 WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission finds the request would not have a detrimental effect upon the health, safety, morals and general welfare of the City of Andover; and WHEREAS, a public hearing was held and there was no opposition to the request; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommends to the City COWlcil approval of the lot split\variance as requested. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City COWlcil of the City of Andover hereby agrees with the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approves the lot split\variance on said property with the following conditions: 1. That the lot split be subject to a sunset clause as defmed in Ordinance No. 40, Section III(E). " 2. That the existing on-site sewage treatment system be relocated so as to be completely upon the same parcel as the existing home. 3. That the approval is contingent upon the split parcel meeting the minimum building site requirements as set forth in Ordinance No. 10. 4. That the applicant obtain all necessary building permits. 5. That the applicant pay all park dedication fees as defmed in Ordinance No. 10, Section 9.07.10. Adopted by the City COWlcil of the City of Andover on this.3rd day of December, 1996. CITY OF ANDOVER A TIEST: J.E. McKelvey, Mayor / Victoria V olk, City Clerk Attachment A-2 j 17841 Bluebird Street NW Legal Description That part of the Northwest Quarter of Section 2, Township 32, Range 24, in Anoka County, Minnesota described as follows: Commencing at a point on the South line of said Northwest Quarter, distant 1400 feet East of the Southwest corner of said Northwest Quarter; thence North, assumed bearing, and parallel with the West line of said Northwest Quarter a distance of 631.00 feet to the point of beginning ofland to be described; thence continue North on same described line a distance of245.78 feet; thence northeasterly on a curve to the right having radius of248.59 feet a distance of243.11 feet; thence North 56 degrees, 02 minutes, 00 seconds East a distance of210.57 feet; thence South 22 degrees, 47 minutes, 44 seconds East a distance of298.45 feet to a point which is 1800 feet East of the West line of said Northwest Quarter as measured along its South line and 930 feet North of the South line of said Northwest Quarter as measured along its West line; thence South and parallel with the West line of said Northwest Quarter a distance of298.83 feet; thence westerly and parallel with the South line of said Northwest Quarter a distance of 400.01 feet to the point of beginning. Subject to an easement for road purposes over the westerly and northwesterly 33 feet thereof. \ , / . z ~ .. ~ o ~ o . ~ . . . ~ . . Z Z . Z ~ Z Z . Z z ti . . . ~ .. . . ~ ~ Z ~ . . :; ~ Z Z Z . . Z .. ~ .. Z Z .. Z ~ .. Z .. g ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ .. << ~ ~ 8 ~ .. .. .. ti ~ .. E i:l z E = . . ~ ~ .. ~ ~ ~ ;; ; x ~ ~ ~ i j . z ~ u ~ ~ ~ ~ u ~ ~ 0 << << ~ j 2 i 0 E j 3 z :l E E 3 ~ ~ << << ~ 2 0 0 u 0 . . E . j g ~ u ! +1. I!'I~I ,jY : U :--- ..'lf1ttfJ3 ~ I --l ~ I I;. I i '4W,~, i,! -+ 1 i! 1/ ~---1 ~; ~ "i i . z ti ~ ~ ~fJu-.l ,. . -.- / u 0 ~' r-1 u.J-i ~ _ u.J l ., ; ') uu i ___-1_____ i ,I -: ---- ~ I ~ T ~,.?'i'\ ----.. ~~ --~ i ~ ','-- ~'" ~_ I \J"'": I ! I 'I I I / ~ 7i I H-j:II~-q ;--6 ./ I' ~---j I !-/,-______~_____ ~ __ I ~. , - I ~ {/., II ~ 'I r ~~lAJ.C;. . \1 ~ ~ ,/ :t.JJv ~'/ . \ I i I I I 'I I[ ,\ '\.'\: - 7~ ~ 1 I 1 II I,il " !I 1;11 'I Iii 1111 I'll :111 1"1 j g II11 \" I ~ lili ",~::;:-_ ____! li:f -- ~ ::::::::::::I::::::::~~~~-- : ;} I ,--,.:-- .-J I . ,- _ :: _I""'"'" _ LI~ 8! I --~w__ 11 I -.J41l..r.;.......E ~ ~ ,~i -~,' -, I~ n I I I!I ~_ / T\ ~ ---~ I I' ~,.-=- ;1 1. J .. l I ~,. I /~" I ~=~:::::-----T- .::.:L:.--=-=-=-=.--- :;---,- T -- ~-~~~--.T' ~,s I II DO"S ,I :-f I I I I ::-.: :" ': II I i ADD. i .... ... :t: ,I 5... ... , , I I I I -----T---- I I I I ; I' '<', ; . '....'1.... ~--g ---_!','--~, I! ~ I ,'-, Iv: ..,/ I ~ i I ! : : I I I - .."'- - " :=.:.-/" Z.' ~.:. /- t . ~/:..~~ . I "/0 I--- ""i.~' 'S 1 I: I I' L, " " ,,; I I , " ': I' - L ! , L _____k- - ~ ~:ARD\\,! \ LAKE I : Ai ,,"'='" I \ I I i , , I" , '- -- -~ I -----.J I / / I , ,H,OLt'~ . / I ADD-Z. B . . ~'\ E";~' ~~ ~~; .LEEMAl(.. ~ \~' '1 ,~. Es1~ ...:. I I g I ~ 71- ~ __n____1 n___ ~// .-- 'Annn- ff,i>-: If~ W'7"i'\' .~ -- ,~'" I Ly~/ ~ I ',',' r I - r--7.'" I ~ ~V"..., I --t{V l ',';:- '_ ......... I //1 _ '<',,(':~,...., l ii' '. " -" -- I ' ... - -=i i, i '-.~, ,r----1 r-: - , ~1-1! ! Ii'':' ~! i ..J i, C- ~ I I : I ~ -1-- I!~ .Ll, ': !'\, ,;:::: I _~-!~~"-~L~-V' y' ~:f-,__u_n t . _ . L-Jfn..< z:o~ l .:}ioo' ''$-,-' r~'; , " .. ~ J . .-::~. .~ -.;,,-.'0" . '"' -,~~'f.~ r .. 0- ..~ .. - . . . 1# ..1('1. :! fP"J .1' .... ~ . t. .....r.--;:- ~.I.o. . ---"'"; '~j/:;" r.:,.i:'t.:!16' ." o' ;~. ~.~ ~,~"'''-.;o'';-:r:...:.,..$,'~''''''' . "'. '.,.,,'?j"'" ~'i""'" .>,' .-.?;~~ .", -~'-~~ *'ff .r t ~.. ... " .....,l f"'It.' ~ "'.cr~ . ..ifY ., ',. ,..... . ..-' ~ -.>~ 1 . .~', J:, ..(~;:~o' .". "f~ ;;;-::..;,: .. . .- ~...._,':. I ~ . .. " ('"1.:' , "!-~- ~ ,. ~ ~ ~ ., -' #' .-.::.::---,.. ~ '::. J:-~J S~. -.' ,;o,('ltL.r; .... ~- ./~ --~/;-: ,--.:<' or._';". ~ , ~ ...,..... ......~. -- ~ . , .+ , . ,.,y i.. fl. .. . . ..,!'-', . . ... '"', ~. - . , ..;- .".-,:", " /' J /' / /' /' .' /' /' /' " j " " .\~ . -,-- / \ \. / / " " y ~ ?-CS'v <? ~ +,. ~ .. ."",... /' .".'J' '" '" ... '~".. ~~, it ....----- s -.- +.. -- -- "-40 -~.~ - - - .. - . ~JB.r _ +tU.-. +t;l." __ -.)n- I,'" .~"" No - ')04~. _.I 1. " "'Ill,;. U _ _ _ _ " - 90: -- +"Ill <,0 "~'I.A " ~ ' :I: ,. '" ~ I +itl.1Il . .-, '" .#... - -- ..." _ 9130 - .. ,~~ .,. , ."~<l~" ."", ", ,';i;711139C-Q, , 'V ! +... .~ ....tt..... . ......1 '" 0' III ~ '" .. ,,< . . <, -". , ct\;;:~;~-, ?_~~ ."0 - R ......~ +~... , 9,),.. I I .- -- -....-..... --' . ... ., !!' ... o d o ... , +....: ... /-- . I I I ml - " .'(oj Go / I , ,.J">' + >..ct" ..I.: .."Ill / ...~ .. '... . '..., I '.\ r- f.L[VATlOh ;01 g~~~ .. '../ . 6.ra" Afll vt , ," .,-. ", ," _ .ARE" .;. \ IP..,\)() "E. uclTlll'> ~()" ",' -,. i. . ........... ------ '- )0,_ ,-- .. *~. " ------- "..a,',l , / -. 9,:,_ 367.00 ,.. ,. "..0. .... 400.01 .. +-:. ""'" ...".: S 89-12"07-( \ -' .;" ~ ) CITY of ANDOVER 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD NW. . ANDOVER. MINNESOTA 55304 . (612) 755-5100 Property Address LOT SPLIT REQUEST FORM 1'1~t.i1 B\ue..biYcL Street. N.w. . ft:ndOVty ". I Legal Description of Property: (Fill in whichever is appropriate): Lot Block Addi tion PIN Cd - ~ -,,~4- ,)'-{-lj(;'(.; i (If metes and bounds, attach the complete legal description). Abstract X or Torrens ? (This Cqll (o(.,ut!., be provided and can be obtained from the ~3-Sqc() IS the property: information must County) . ----------------------------------------------------------------- / Reason for Request De.s.U6 CL t\.LlU, Lu..r-Se..r ~ but ri ~ . ltXUL-t. +0 LL~ (Jlif hD ~~rd.. ) +n'ends. ) d l\A .s<:-~S-. ~ -t:h0'1l(5k..." I'U.W p.a 0 ~ (l\()uod. bL.l o~..v \L--~ cQ.., a.tA-L.o U:- La N Q l~ 1.1 JTYYl & ("JJJ:l U ")011 0 JJ S:b,'1j cU~ ~ ril.$.Uo,{;, ~t11'J( n~_ ~nr- ~tL () P 5,.--k-nc.$ . Current zoning ----------------------------------------------------------------- Name of Applicant ..::::ITI! L. Spu..r,:)i V\... Address I 'l%Lf I ~lLle..biY.L S~e.e.,I- Nu..) A-McvU'" , Home Phone L!3L\-DS"10 Business Phone 5t"J;)- u,(pID ~~:::~:::_~~_~~~_~~______~:~:___~~J~~~~_______ Property Owner (Fee Owner) (If different from above) Address Home Phone Business Phone Signature Date 1 / ----------------------------------------------------------------- LOT SPLIT PAGE 2 , 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. ~c!?~ ~gnature ~ A P ~c t Lot Split Fee: Recording Fee Abstract property Torrens property $100.00 ~r~~~ Date Paid tJ/;;4/tib Receipt # 05t:,5QO ) Park Dedication: Date Paid Receipt # Rev. 5-06-93:d'A 5-25-94:bh 2-0l-95:bh Res. 179-91 (11-05-91) CITY of ANDOVER 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD NW. . ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 . (612) 755-5100 CITY OF ANDOVER COUNTYOFANOKA STATE OF MINNESOTA NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING The Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Andover will hold a public hearing at 7:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as can be heard, on Tuesday, November 12, 1996 at the Oak View Middle School, 15400 Hanson Blvd. NW, Andover, Minnesota to review the lot split and variance request of Jill Spurgin to split the southern portion of a lot located at 17841 Bluebird Street NW (PIN 02-32-24-24-0001) legally described as the following: I That part of the Northwest Quinter of Section 2, Township 32, Range 24, in Anoka County, Minnesota described as follows: Commencing at a point on the South line of said Northwest Quarter, distant 1400 feet East of the Southwest comer of said Northwest Quarter; thence North, assumed bearing, and parallel with the West line of said Northwest Quarter ~ distance of 631.00 feet to the point of beginning ofland to be described; thence continue North on same described line a distance of245.78 feet; thence northeasterly on a curve to the right having radius of 248.59 feet a distance of243.11 feet; thence North 56 degrees, 02 minutes, 00 seconds East a distance of21O.57 feet; thence South 22 degrees, 47 minutes, 44 seconds East a distance of298.45 feet to a point which is 1800 feet East of the West line of said Northwest Quarter as measured along its South line and 930 feet North of the South line of said Northwest Quarter as measured along its West line; thence South and parallel with the West line of said Northwest Quarter a distance of298.83 feet; thence westerly and parallel with the South line of said Northwest Quarter a distance of 400.01 feet to the point of beginning. Subject to an easement for road purposes over the westerly and northwesterly 33 feet thereof. All written and verbal comments will be received at that time and location. A copy of the application and location will be available at the Andover City Hall for review prior to said meeting. ~itb Victoria V olk, City Clerk " Publication dates: November 1,1996 November 8,1996 " PIN: 023224210011 SIEGLER FREDERICK J & LINDA 17917 BLUEBIRD ST NW , , )DOVER MN 55304 PIN: 023224220006 GULDEN GARY E & SWANNETTA 17916 BLUEBIRD ST NW ANDOVER MN 55304 PIN: 023224230003 LUIKENS VIONE G 17844 BLUEBIRD ST NW ANDOVER MN 55304 PIN: 023224230004 LEGOULLON KAREN S 17816 BLUEBIRD ST NW ANDOVER MN 55304 PIN: 023224230005 SIMONSON FREDERICK & SUSAN 17714 BLUEBIRD ST NW ANDOVER MN 55304 PIN: 023224230006 MOONEY THOMAS 0 & NANCY E 17744 BLUEBIRD ST NW ANDOVER MN 55304 PIN: 023224240001 SPURGIN JILL L 17841 BLUEBIRD ST NW ANDOVER MN 55304 PIN: 023224240002 ZINNECKER JEFFREY A & LORI D 17745 BLUEBIRD ST NW ANDOVER MN 55304 PIN: 023224240003 SENTYRZ SUZANNE S 17715 BLUEBIRD ST NW ANDOVER MN 55304 \ J PIN: 023224240005 JOHNSON,MARTIN & DITTBERNER 17816 YELLOW PINE ST NW ANDOVER MN 55304 PIN: 023224240004 PACKER LLOYD J & BETTY J 17879 BLUEBIRD ST NW ANDOVER MN 55304 PIN: 023224240006 COFFEY ANTHONY E & BONNIE J 17744 YELLOW PINE ST NW ANDOVE MN 55304 PIN: 023224240007 KING MICHAEL D & MARIA T 17714 YELLOW PINE ST NW ANDOVER MN 55304 , , , CITY OF ANDOVER REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION '\ j DATE: December 3. 1996 AGENDA SECTION Discussion Item ORIGINATING DEP~TMENT Scott Erickson,~t Engineering(f ITEM NO. &; ;ree Preservation Policy, Cant. The City Council is requested to review the revised Tree Preservation Policy. The revised policy was drafted by the Forestry Intern over the last five months and was the subject of a City Council workshop held September 11, 1996. This item was tabled at the November 6, 1996 and November 19, 1996 City Council meetings so that staff could meet with developers to review the latest draft of the policy. , I '- j " Proposed Tree Preservation Ordinance City of Andover County of Anoka State of Minnesota / I. Purpose: The purpose of this ordinance is to preserve and protect the forest resources of the City of Andover by ensuring that the development and use of land occurs in an orderly fashion with minimal loss of existing vegetation. To that end, this ordinance promotes the following: A. Protection of the forest and tree resources which provide the following benefits: 1. Reduced storm water runoff; 2. Reduced erosion; 3. Reduced air particles and pollution; 4. Increased cooling and shade; 5. Reduced winter wind speed and drifting; 6. Increased privacy and property values; B. Protection of the natural beauty and characteristics of the City; C. Inclusion of existing forest resources in all phases of development creation; / D. Evaluation of development proposals with regards to their impacts on trees, forests, and existing ecosystems; E. Enforcement of City Tree Preservation Standards to promote and protect the public health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of Andover. II. Applicability: This ordinace shall be applied to any person or entity proposing to engage in any of the following activities: A. New development in any zoning area; B. New home or commercial construction in any zoning area; C. Expansion of any commercial, industrial, or institutional building or impervious surface by twenty percent (20%) or greater where an approved Tree Preservation Plan is not already on file with the City; D. Any project requiring a special use permit which may significantly impact or destroy existing forest resources; E. Any public project with a potential to impact forest resources. , I / III. Definitions: For the purpose of this ordinance, the following terms shall be identified as stated: " "Applicant" shall mean any person or entity which is required to submit and implement a City approved Tree Preservation Plan under this policy. "Construction Area" shall mean any area in which the movement of soil, alteration of topography, compacting of soil, disruption of vegetation, change in soil chemistry, or any other modification of the existing character of the land is scheduled to occur for development or construction. "Critical Root Zone (CRZ)" shall mean the area encompassed by an imaginary circle around a tree where the tree's trunk is the circle's center and the circle's radius is one and one half (I 1/2) feet in length for every one inch or tree DBH, e.g. a tree with an 18" DBH has a CRZ with a radius of27 feet. "Diameter at Breast Height (DB H)" shall mean the diameter of a tree measured through the stem at a height of fifty-four (54) inches above normal ground level. , J "Land Disturbance Permit" shall mean an official authorization issued by the City of Andover Engineering Department allowing tree and vegetation removal to occur in association with development, new home construction, commercial, industrial, and institutional contstruction or expansion, or mining. This permit shall be issued as approval of a Tree Preservation Plan submitted in conjunction with application for a building permit for new home construction, building permit for commercial, institutional or industrial construction, grading permit, or special use permit. IV. Tree Preservation Plan Standards for Residential, Commercial, Industrial, and Civil Development Purposes A. Submission Requirements: A Tree Preservation Plan shall be submitted prior to approval of a grading permit for any development project proposed on a parcel with forest resources. This plan shall be reviewed by the City to determine the extent to which the proposed development preserves woodlands and trees. , B. Review Standards: The City review process will involve inspection of the proposed site to evaluate the quality and quantity of existing forest resources. Tree Preservation Plans shall show the approximate location of trees and wooded areas as well as the proposed grading limits and location of all construction areas. In addition, the plan shall show the location of all required tree protection fencing (see sub-section C: Protection Requirements). The plan will then be analyzed to determine the extent to which the forest resources will be retained. Tree Preservation Plans should demonstrate an effort to limit tree removal to that which is needed to accommodate the necessary components of the development. These components include, but are not limited to, road right-of-ways, creation of storm water drainage systems, new building construction, poor soils correction, and / utilities installation. As a guideline, tree removal in areas where the afformentioned activities are not scheduled to occur should be limited to 10% of the total remaining forested area on the project site. C. Protection Requirements: Prior to issuance of the land disturbance/grading permit, the City will inspect the development site to insure that preserved trees are separated from the construction area by either an orange, polyurethane safety fence or one hundred and fifty (150) linear feet ofland outside the construction area and a line of yellow safety tape. The applicant shall make every effort to locate tree protection fence such that the maximum amount of critical root zone (CRZ) is preserved. In the event that the entire CRZ cannot be protected, the applicant may encroach upon up to 50% of the CRZ. Such encroachment may only occur upon one side of a tree, and the fence shall be located no less than two (2) feet from any tree stem. D. Enforcement: The City will inspect the development site during the construction period to ensure that tree protection fences are maintained. If the tree protection area has been disturbed, fines shall be levied against the applicant based upon the amount of area affected and the number of previous infractions at the project site (see section VII- Penalties). .' E. Exceptions: Applicants wishing to move tree protection fences to further encroach upon a tree protection area during the construction period may arrange a meeting on site with the City Forester or the Forester's designee to evaluate the potential damage such encroachment may cause and determine whether or not such encroachment shall be allowed. If the forester allows encroachment, any tree protection fence which has been removed must be replaced within twenty-four (24) hours of encroachment. V. Tree Preservation Requirements for Single Family Home Construction A. Submission Requirements: A Tree Preservation Plan shall be submitted prior to issuance of a building permit for new home construction on any lot with forest resources for review by the City. " B. Review Standards: The City review process will include inspection of the proposed construction site to evaluate the quality and quantity of existing forest resources. The tree preservation plan will then be analyzed to determine the extent to which the forest resources will be retained. The City will expect that the tree preservation plan indicate the location of the following: 1. Any tree greater than four (4) inches DBH within fifty (50) feet of the construction area; 2. Access paths which will be used by vehicles and equipment to exit and enter the construction area; 3. The working envelope around the proposed structure where construction activities are anticipated to occur; / J 4. The location where excavated soil will be stored on the site; 5. The location where concrete washout will occur; 6. The location where construction materials will be stored; 7. The location of tree protection measures (see sub-section C: Protection Requirements). " If the City determines that the absence of the any of the above information will have an effect upon the health oftrees proposed for preservation, the plan may be returned to the applicant for revision. The applicant may meet with the City Forester or the Forester's designee at any time for assistance in preparing a Tree Preservation Plan. \ ;' C. Protection Requirements: Prior to approval of a land disturbance/ building permit, the City will inspect the construction site to insure that the preserved trees are separated from the areas listed in Subsection V-B; 1-6 (construction area) with either an orange polyurethane fence or fifty (50) linear feet of un forested land outside of the construction area and a line of yellow safety tape. The applicant shall make every effort to locate protective fence such that the maximum amount of critical root zone (CRZ) is preserved. In the event that the entire CRZ cannot be protected, the applicant may encroach upon up to 50% of the CRZ. Such encroachment may only occur upon one side of a tree, and the fence shall be located no less than two (2) feet from any tree stem. D. Enforcement: The City will inspect the construction site during the construction process to ensure that the tree protection fences are respected. If the tree protection fence has been violated and critical root zones impacted, fines shall be levied against the applicant based upon the area affected (see section VII- Penalties). E. Exceptions: Applicants wishing to move tree protection fences to further encroach upon a tree protection area during the construction period may arrange a meeting on site with the City Forester. The Forester will evaluate the potential damage such encroachment may cause and determine whether or not such encroachment shall be allowed. If the forester allows encroachment, any tree protection fence which has been removed must be replaced within twenty-four (24) hours of encroachment. VI. Tree Preservation Requirements for Special Use Permit Applicants A. Submission Requirements: A Tree Preservation Plan shall be submitted for review by the City prior to approval of any project requiring a Special Use Permit which may impact or destroy forest resources. \ J B. Review Standards: The City review process will involve inspection of the proposed site to evaluate the quantity and quality of existing forest resources. The plan will then be analyzed to determine the extent to which the project will impact ) the trees and woodlands on the site. The plan shall indicate the approximate location of trees and woodlands on the site and show the limits of the proposed special use area. The plan shall also indicate the location of tree protection measures to be installed on the site (see sub-section C: Required Tree Protection). If the City determines that greater than 50% of the forest resources will be removed as a result of the proposed activity, the applicant may be asked to resubmit the Tree Preservation Plan. The applicant may schedule a meeting with the City Forester for assistance in preparing a tree preservation plan at any time. C. Required Tree Protection: The Tree Preservation Plan submitted with an application for a Special Use Permit shall indicate the location of preserved trees and the location of an orange polyurethane fence separating a tree preservation area from the proposed activity. This fence shall be located such that the maximum amount of the tree's Critical Root Zone is protected. In the event that the entire CRZ cannot be protected, the applicant may encroach upon up to 50% of the CRZ. Such encroachment may only occur upon one side of a tree, and the fence shall be located no less than two (2) feet from any tree stem. '\ ) D. Enforcement: The City will inspect the activity site during the period for which the special use permit has been granted to ensure that the tree protection fences are respected. If the tree protection fence has been violated and critical root zones impacted, fines shall be levied against the applicant based upon the area affected (see section VII- Penalties). E. Exceptions: Applicants wishing to move tree protection fences to further encroach upon a tree protection area during the construction period may arrange a meeting on site with the City Forester. The Forester will evaluate the potential damage such encroachment may cause and determine whether or not such encroachment shall be allowed. Ifthe forester allows encroachment, any tree protection fence which has been removed must be replaced within twenty-four (24) hours of encroachment. VII. Penalties A. Tree Protection Area Encroachment: If a City inspection of a tree protection area reveals that the tree protection measures have been disregarded and that a tree's critical root zone has been impacted beyond what was shown on an approved tree preservation plan, fines shall be levied according to the following schedule: 1. First Infraction- $2.00 per square foot of CRZ impacted; 2. Second Infraction- $4.00 per square foot of CRZ impacted; 3. Third and subsequent Infractions: $10.00 per square foot ofCRZ impacted. " B. Removal or Destruction of Trees Within the Tree Protection Area: If a City inspection of a tree protection area reveals that trees have been removed or ) J destroyed within the tree protection area, the applicant shall be fined an amount equal to $50.00 per inch ofDBH removed or destroyed. Where no indication to the size of a removed tree is recorded or available, the fine amount shall be $200.00 per tree. B. Fine Levy Process: Applicants will be notified by mail of the total fine amount where a tree protection area has been encroached upon. Fine payment must be made prior to the City accepting a grading certification or issuing a Certificate of Occupancy. C. Fine Fund- Fines levied will be placed in a City fund for tree planting projects on public property. VIII. Effective Date: This ordinance shall be enacted following approval by the Andover City Council; it shall be applied to all applicants approaching the City for grading permits for new development in any zoning area, new home or commercial building permits for any zoning area, special use permits for projects which may significantly impact or destroy existing forest resources, and any public project with a potential to impact forest resources, subsequent to approval. J , J CITY OF ANDOVER REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION \ J DATE: December 3. 1996 AGENDA SECTION Discussion Item ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT Scott Erickson,~l.(, Engineering . ITEM NO. Establish 1997 State Aid Street Projects I. The City Council is requested to discuss and prioritize State Aid improvement project(s) for 1997. The Road Committee met on September 3, 1996, and discussed this item (See attached meeting minutes). The project list that has been generated is as follows: 1. Crooked Lake Blvd. from Bunker Lake Blvd. to the Coon Rapids Border. Staff will meet with the affected property owners and review options to resolve the drainage issue at the intersection of Bunker Lake Blvd. and Crooked Lake Blvd. 2. Reconstruct the intersection of Bunker Lake Blvd. and Prairie Road. This project was discussed with the Road Committee on March 19, 1996 (See attached meeting minutes). \ 3. Other streets that have been previously discussed: J · Jay Street north to Bunker Lake Boulevard . Tulip Street . Ward Lake Drive 4. Other? / " ) CITY of ANDOVER 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD NW. . ANDOVER. MINNESOTA 55304 . (612) 755-5100 Road Committee Meeting Minutes September 3, 1996 The meeting was called to order at 6:00 PM at the Andover City Hall, 1685 Crosstown Boulevard NW, Andover, MN 55304. Members present: Councilmember Mike Knight, Councilmember John Kunza Also present: Scott Erickson, City Engineer 2. 1997 State Aid Road Reconstruction The Road Committee discussed prioritizing the state aid streets for 1997. The Committee recommended pursuing the reconstruction of Crooked Lake Boulevard. Trying to resolve the storm drainage issues that exist. This item was also discussed with and concurred by the City Council at the September 3, 1996 City Council meeting. - , i Other state aid road priorities that were discussed were the continuation of Jay. Street NW to north of Bunker Lake Boulevard, the reconstruction of Tulip Street NW, and the possible reconstruction of Ward Lake Drive NW. The Road Committee did not discuss improving the intersection of Bunker Lake Boulevard and Prairie Road, although that was previously discussed and recommended by the City Council at a previous Council meeting. (. 3. SealcoatlSlurry Seal The Road Committee field inspected the 1996 sealcoat and slurry seal project. The Committee concurred that both sealcoating and slurry sealing appear to be effectively maintaining the City streets. It was the general consensus that the slurry seal was a more aesthetic type of seal but that the additional cost of the '.. slurry seal was not warranted at this time. The Committee reco.mmended . "1Il staying with the sealcoat program. 4. Crooked Lake Boulevard/Project 95-14 The Road Committee recommended pursuing the resolution of the drainage easements and continuing with the reconstruction of Crooked Lake Boulevard for 1997. c :; Meeting was adjourned at 6:59 PM. Respectfully submitted, (2I4L Scott Erickson Recording Secretary \ , ) CITY of ANDOVER 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD NW. . ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 . (612) 755-5100 \ C j Road Committee Meeting Minutes March 19, 1996 The meeting was called to order at 6:17 PM at the Andover City Hall, 1685 Crosstown Boulevard NW, Andover, MN 55304. Members present: Councilmember Mike Knight, Councilmember John Kunza Also present: Scott Erickson, City Engineer Richard Fursman, City Administrator Ray Sowada, Public Works Supervisor Frank Stone, Public Works Superintendent 2. Designation and Revocation of State Aid Streets The Road Committee identified designations and revocations of state aid streets with the modifications as noted and presented to the City Council. . 3. Status of 1996 Crackseal & SeaIcoat Projects '" . A status report was given on 1996 crackseal and sealcoat projects. No comment ~ or discussion was initiated. 4. Discuss Intersection of Prairie Road & Bunker Lake Boulevard The Road Committee discussed the reconstruction of the intersection of Prairie Road and Bunker Lake Boulevard. The Committee concurred that this intersection was a high priority location and should be reconstructed in the 1997 funding year. 5. Discuss Road Fee The Committee discussed the possibility of establishing a road fee. It was indicated that the establishment of a road fee would need to be based on actual impacts or improvements relating to a particular development. The establishment of a flat rate fee structure could possibly be challenged and is currently being challenged in the City of Eagan. The recommendation from the Committee was to discuss this with the City Council. 6. 1996 Overlays/Reconstructs This item was discussed with the Road Committee and the Committee agreed to forward this to the City Council for further discussion. 7. Discuss Anoka County Traffic Studies (See City Council Packet) This item was not discussed and will be discussed at the Council meeting following the Road Committee meeting this evening. The meeting was adjourned at 6:59 PM. Respectfully submitted, (_.,1 G2r~ Scott Erickson Recording Secretary CITY OF ANDOVER REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION , ) DATE: December 3. 1996 AGENDA SECTION Discussion Item ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT Richard Fursman, Administration ITEM NO. ~. Public Works Building Footprint Craig Kronholm from Adolfson and Peterson has presented a preliminary footprint for the Public Works building (see attached). The preliminary budget for the building is estimated at $1,770,000.00. \ ) .ii~ J! ~I.ll. . Ii :21~ .o-.91. 'I his -c Ii !I Js - I. ~. II !Ii .1 [![ ~ i .0 ill lIII: a: 00 III~ .0 OUIII~ A.::iS:! OIDII.! a::)lI. II; A.A.O Co {;~ II! ' "'..,~ ' . .......,~.:. a.i ~ U~"<~:~ :9 g:.!:~ ~~t.~ :~:!:;7J ~O:S:.:,;o~'" ~ III @ I l! IIlZ 1< ...J c.. a: 0 0 ...J LL IJ~ 0..... -w ~:::E ~ <w :::EX I~O lOCI) (/)1 I ~ ~ ~ i C!J ! ; I g~ I~ a:i I~I! 9 Iii >l ~ I~ " ~ .~,OQI. Is. ill C ! 1.1 (In" rT v ",,,'nT ",TC' CITY OF ANDOVER REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION , ) DATE: December 3 1996 AGENDA SECTION Discussion Item ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT Richard Fursman, Administration ITEM NO. q, Set Date for Annual Administrator Review The City Council is requested to consider the date of December 17, 1996 and the time of 6:30 PM at the Oak View Middle School for the annual Administrator review. If there are no conflicts with this time and date the item can be moved to the Non-Discussion/Consent Items section of the agenda. I i CITY OF ANDOVER REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: December 3. 1996 AGENDA SECTION Non-Discussion/Consent Item ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT Richard Fursman, Administration ITEM NO. ID.RegiOnal Growth Strategy The Metropolitan Council's Proposed Regional Growth Strategy will be in public hearing in the middle of December. The North Metro Mayors Association has drafted a response to the Growth Management Strategy. Please review the response statements to see if they are consistent with your understanding of the North Metro Mayors Association's representation of the City of Andover. '. ) ,...~ 'OHAr i '\ J , ) Response to the Metropolitan Council's Proposed Regional Growth Management Strategy October, 1996 From the North Metro Mayors Association November, 1996 ....1' f DAAr ' . , Introduction In May, 1996, the North Metro Mayors Association submitted its comments on Growth Options for the Twin Cities to the Metropolitan Council. Since that time, the Council has engaged in a lengthy and innovative process of gathering public comments from throughout the region. North Metro Mayors Association appreciates the attention given to a number of its comments in the Council's Summary of Public Comments and in the September-October issue of Metro Directions. The Council is to be commended for both the depth and the breadth of this process. In response to the comments received and to its own efforts, the Council has now produced its public hearing draft, the proposed Regional Growth Management Strategy which, when adopted, will become the cornerstone of the Regional Blueprint. Once again, North Metro Mayors Association (NMMA) offers its comments on this new Council document. The comments will focus on two basic areas: (1) NMMA's Basic Values for the Future Growth of the Region, and (2) Additional Comments and Recommendations. / ~ J The May, 1996, NMMA comments also contained a section evaluating the Growth Options for consistency with the policies of the Regional Blueprint. Comments from this section have now been combined with the comments in the Basic Values section. The North Metro Mayors Association urges the Council to consider these comments and recommendations and to incorporate them into the final Growth Management Strategy. ) .".,- IJRAr · Basic Values for the Future Growth of the Region. In its May, 1996, comments, NMMA listed the following eight values: (1) Statewide land use planning to control urban sprawl outside the seven-county area. (2) Recognition that new growth cannot take place at the expense of existing development. (3) Priority for regional resources to revitalization of older communities with below- average tax base, and examination of the entire financing system for municipal government. (4) No investment ofregional resources in developing areas that do not need them and will develop on their own, or establishment of a "but-for" test for regional investment. ;' (5) Maintenance and upgrading of infrastructure that serves existing urban development, and a requirement for adequate maintenance reserves for all current and future infrastructure investments. (6) Priority for development that supports existing transportation and transit systems. (7) Priority for regional resources to communities with their share of lower-cost housing. (8) Efficient and economical use of land and resources. The Regional Growth Management Strategy will be evaluated in line with each of these values. ;' 2 ...'f ORAr · (1) Statewide land use planning to control urban sprawl outside the seven- county area. Comments on the Council's previous Growth Options document often included the need for statewide land use planning. The Council's own information demonstrated that growth outside the seven-county area had strong impacts on the region. Freeways were becoming overcrowded with commuters from outside the seven-county area driving into the region to work. Housing developed in those border counties was built on land that was cheaper than land inside the MUSA, thereby attracting additional development, often in unsewered areas that would one day require conversion to public systems. Eventually, as these exurban areas gained in population and housing, employment also moved out to take advantage of the lower land costs and easy freeway access. This is the classic description of urban sprawl. But why is it such a problem? Aside from the increasing traffic congestion on almost every segment of the freeway system, sprawl is costly to the region in several ways. It passes over existing, often underutilized, infrastructure inside the MUSA and will eventually create a demand for additional costly infrastructure outside the metro area. It wreaks havoc on school enrollment projections, causing major growth in some districts while other, more established districts are losing students. , \, / Sprawl makes it extremely difficult to plan for and operate a transit system with an ever- increasing array of potential destinations and decreasing population densities. And, it represents a continuing lack of regard for those less affluent and mobile, who are generally left behind in the inner areas of the region where jobs often don't match their skills and where housing may be at least somewhat affordable, but not necessarily the most desirable. Does the Council plan to prevent further urban sprawl? In its Regional Growth Management Strategy, the Council has indicated that it will discourage leapfrog urban development into the rural service area or adjacent counties (page 38), focus regional investments within and around the 1-494/1-694 beltway and set housing density benchmarks (page 39), and expect local governments in rural areas to require overlay ghost-platting for any large-lot development (page 41). All of these are designed either to reduce sprawl or to mitigate its effects, within the seven-county area. But, unfortunately, they will have no influence on development outside the region's borders, which is already having a strong impact on the region and shows no signs of letting up. " I 3 / ~,r ORAr · In Appendix F., page 66, of the Growth Management document, the Council says that it "intends to call this situation (sprawl) to the attention of the legislature and encourage it to make sure adjacent counties and the cities within them are equipped to plan and manage it..." But then the Council goes on to say that it "is not proposing a statewide mandatory planning initiative." Actually, this may be at least in part a problem of semantics, because in the next paragraph, the Council says that "where more than 50 percent ofa local jurisdiction's residents commute to the seven-county metropolitan area for work, the Council will support targeted planning requirements. ." '\ I Perhaps the word "mandatory" sounds too harsh. Or, perhaps the problem is with the term "statewide". It is clear that the development decisions of a large and growing area all around the seven-county metropolitan area are having a profound effect on the region, and that coordinated planning that includes this area is absolutely necessary. The difficulty lies in drawing the boundaries as to who should plan, and who doesn't have to worry about it. If that decision had been made 20 years ago, it would probably be of little value today. And, this is an issue of some importance to other metropolitan areas in the state, as well. How much harm could it cause to expect a reasonable, responsible level of planning throughout the state? NMMA Recommendation: That the Metropolitan Council recognize that its Growth Management Strategy will not be effective unless accompanied by a corresponding level of planning in all areas that have a current or potential future impact on the shape of the region. And, because the state of Minnesota has other metropolitan regions with development issues, as well as a need to manage land use in non-metropolitan areas, that planning not be limited to only a few areas, but be instituted throughout the state. J 4 ,,,1"' DRAt i (2) Recognition that new growth cannot take place at the expense of existing development. The Council is to be commended for its position (page 34) that public investments should be "primarily targeted to maintaining current systems and upgrading them as necessary.." The Growth Management Strategy further states (page 40) that as cities plan for 2020 staging areas, "redevelopment potential within each sector will also be considered when reviewing expansion requests." In other words, new growth outward will not take place without consideration of opportunities for development within the existing, already developed area. This is a strong departure from some past practices which have allowed existing, developed areas to be passed over and new areas opened to development. When this has happened, older areas have been left with declining population and employment bases and fewer resources to support infrastructure designed to serve greater numbers of people. Initiatives such as cleanup of polluted sites, so that they can be redeveloped, and revitalization of older neighborhoods, encourage the most economical and best uses of all parts of the region. .. '\ / In the section on priorities for regional investments (page 54), the Council states that "The existing urban area represents an investment in regional facilities that should be maintained. The outer edge of the urban area that accounts for much of the region's new growth should be provided with facilities to serve its needs. When regional funding is adequate, meeting the needs of both areas is not a problem; when funding is especially limited, the region must target decisions." The Council goes on to say that "A prudent policy is to build on existing investments and keep the facilities already serving urbanized areas in good condition. Investing to support new developments at the urban edge would have a secondary priority." In Appendix G, page 68, the Council establishes its Performance Indicators for Regional Reinvestment. These indicators are excellent measures, and the Council is encouraged to use them vigorously. NMMA Recommendation: That the Council place a high priority on implementation of its policies, action steps, and performance indicators to assure that new growth in the region does not take place at the expense of existing development, and that the first priority for regional investment is, in fact, the already developed areas of the region. 5 ) ".' .,.. trj ;:'; A r I vr. (3) Priority for regional resources to revitalization of older communities with below-average tax base, and examination of the entire financing system for municipal government. Despite the current property-tax base sharing system, there are still wide disparities for tax base among communities. Competition for tax base among communities continues to escalate. Generally, the communities most in need of revitalization have the fewest resources at their disposal. Alternatives to the property tax as the major source of municipal government financing should be considered. I In Appendix A., page 60, the Council discusses disparities in fiscal capacity and service expenditures as follows: "The Council supports reductions in disparities in fiscal capacity and service expenditures within the region. Disparities include differences in fiscal capacity, or the availability of resources to finance public services, and recognize that tax base is not distributed equitably throughout the region. It also recognizes disparities in service needs and public expenditures resulting from factors outside a governmental unit's control and encourages revenue-sharing through federal, state and regional programs that address these disparities in service needs and expenditures." This position is to be commended. However, it is not accompanied by a specific proposal for change. Ifplans for the future development of the region are clear and well-known, the competition for development and its accompanying tax base may lessen somewhat. But, as long as the property tax system is the chief source of revenue for local government, it will be difficult for local governments in need of resources not to compete, even if they are aware that the development would better serve the region in another location or in a different form. For example, many of the developing communities in the region need to add lower-cost housing to meet the needs of their current populations as well as the needs of potential employees in the communities. However, because housing is not affected by the current tax-base sharing law, the property taxes generated by more expensive housing are all the more alluring. Cities with strong tax bases have options that lower-tax base cities lack, such as the ability to operate opt-out transit systems or to front-end the costs of highway improvements, as was the case with the Mall of America. . / 6 ...,~ _" II. , r'..JAr \ lJf1. In the Council's earlier Growth Options document, a number of areas were earmarked for regional support for additional development under the Growth Centers option. These areas were selected primarily because of existing concentrations of employment. In contrast, areas without existing employment concentrations were not selected. While this selection process may have had some advantages based on efficiencies, it would also have had some negative impacts on the communities not selected, which were generally low tax-base communities. The disparities between the lower and higher tax base communities would have increased considerably had the Growth Centers option been selected. While the current Growth Management Strategy also encourages development along transportation corridors that often have considerable employment, it also encourages redevelopment and infill, which should help some of the lower tax base communities to add resources. NMMA Recommendation: That the Council work with local governments to develop a legislative proposal that supports reductions in disparities in fiscal capacity and service expenditures within the region, and that until such legislation is enacted, the Council implement its policies giving priority for regional resources to revitalization of older communities with below-average tax base. \ 7 \ ~'. ,'\ j f rj ;..i j..4 r I iL,)' .. / (4) No investment of regional resources in developing areas that do not need them and will develop on their own, or establishment of a "but-for" test for regional investment. This statement reflects the guiding principle of tax-increment financing, that the public should not step in unless the development is needed and would not take place "but for" this assistance. A prime example of this principle is polluted sites in areas badly in need of redevelopment, where such redevelopment would not take place "but for" government assistance. \ At the other end of the spectrum are many of the region's rapidly-developing areas, which are using scarce state and regional resources such as school aids and park funds, which might better be paid for with local resources, while older communities may have underutilized school or park facilities. It would be difficult to demonstrate that these new facilities could not be provided "but for" state or regional investments. In Appendix A, page 60, the Council encourages the use of user fees, stating that "User charges should be used to the maximum extent feasible and should be related to benefits received." This indicates that those who benefit from the services provided should be expected to pay for them. This is especially true in cases where new development not only benefits the new area, but may also have negative effects on older areas. Another term for user fees may be "impact fees". These are fees charged by local or other levels of government to cover costs that the new development will have on the overall community. Such fees have been used to cover the costs of new schools, libraries, other public buildings, roads, and other services and facilities. While the use of impact fees has not been widespread in the Twin Cities, it may offer an alternative to making older areas help foot the bill for new development. NMMA Recommendation: That the Council not provide regional resources in developing areas that do not need them, and that reasonable user fees be established instead to cover many of the costs of new development. Legislation to authorize user, or impact, fees should be proposed. ; 8 ........ I~ '-"A :.I... J ~,.Jl~rf Vr.r / (5) Maintenance and upgrading of infrastructure that serves existing urban development, and a requirement for adequate maintenance reserves for all current and future infrastructure investments. It is imprudent to allow existing infrastructure to decay while building new infrastructure farther out. Maintenance reserves should be built into the costs of all future infrastructure investments, and all existing infrastructure should also have adequate maintenance reserves. Many rental housing developments built with federal or state subsidies were required to include adequate maintenance reserves in their operating budgets in order to receive approval for subsidy funds. Likewise, condominium resident's association fees also generally include funds to be placed in reserve for future maintenance needs. In either case, the developments could not be considered feasible or solvent unless these reserves could be provided. This example of asset management should be followed for many types of public infrastructure investments. '\ I The Council's Growth Management Strategy, page 34, indicates that "targeted public investments. . should be primarily targeted to maintaining current systems and upgrading them as necessary to preserve high quality service." This principle is repeated numerous times throughout the document. However, the Council is also committeed to providing the services needed for orderly and economic growth of the region. Policy 5, page 36, reads "The Council will ensure that regional services and facilities under its jurisdiction are provided cost-effectively to support development and revitalization in the region." Areas scheduled for new development under the Council's Growth Management Strategy will probably expect that the regional services they need will be available, even if older, already- existing infrastructure has not been brought up to standards. An example of new development taking precedence over existing infrastructure needs involves Highway 100 north ofI-394. Several older, developed communities have been working for more than two decades to obtain needed improvements to Highway 100 north of Minneapolis. Meanwhile, other highway expansion and improvements have been provided to meet the needs of newer, developing areas. While the Council does not appear to be advocating this type of situation, it is difficult to identify anything in the document that would prevent it from happening again. " -' 9 ) f' DRAt f The topic of maintenance reserves for existing or new infrastructure is also difficult to find in the Growth Management Strategy. Generational equity is mentioned, page 60, as follows: "Payments for regional services should relate to benefits received on a generational basis. What is the timing of benefits and costs/payments and how do they correspond?" This could be interpreted to mean that when a facility is built, the providers should not assume that the next generation will be responsible for maintaining it. NMMA Recommendation: That the Council should give priority to the maintenance and upgrading of existing infrastructure over provision of infrastructure for new development, as indicated throughout the Growth Management Strategy document, and that maintenance reserves should be budgeted as a part of the cost of all infrastructure, existing and proposed. , / / 10 DRAFT (6) Priority for development that supports existing transportation and transit systems. This value statement includes the need for housing and employment, particularly for lower-income people, in close proximity to transit service. It also speaks to locating employment of all kinds closer to transportation to shorten trips and reduce congestion. The Council's Growth Management Strategy recognizes the need to coordinate transportation and transit with both existing and new development. On page 40, the Council encourages higher-density development along specific transportation corridors through a variety of efforts. Action Step SF, page 45, states that "The Council will plan for higher-density development in nodes and job centers in selected transportation corridors where major transit capital investments (transitways) are made, or at major transit transfer points (transit hubs and park and ride lots), and guide a portion of the region's future growth to such corridors and locations." \ To maximize development and redevelopment opportunities along these transportation corridors, the Council has indicated on page 47 that "local units of government must be involved in efforts such as developing specific improvement plans, including the necessary regulatory and zoning changes, assembling or acquiring sites, removing substandard or underutilized structures, cleaning up polluted sites, and providing financial incentives." NMMA Recommendation: That the Council develop strategies to successfully implement its policies to coordinate transportation with employment, housing and other development. 11 I .> -i'" . _.." ~ J .: DHJ-' r ' (7) Priority for regional resources to communities with their share of lower-cost housing. This value statement includes priority for infrastructure investments such as highways and parks, housing and neighborhood improvements, and other resources, with the exception of subsidized housing. In Action Step 5G., page 47, the Council states that it "will work with local communities in a partnership to meet the range of housing needs of people at various life-cycle stages; broaden locational choice and access throughout the region for people of all income levels; and support use of public funds to help achieve these goals." / The Council goes on to say that it will "Give priority for regional infrastructure investments or expenditure of public dollars to communities that have implemented plans to provide their share of the region's low- and moderate-income and life-cycle housing opportunities." The above language has been in the Regional Blueprint since its adoption, but the Council has yet to take any action to implement it. The Council needs to identify which funding programs it will include and develop guidelines for its use. The Council may also be able to work with other funders to add this priority to their funding decisions as well. This initiative should be well publicized so that local units of government are aware that the Council will be taking this action. Implementation of a Council housing policy of this kind was successful in the past in encouraging many communities to increase their supplies of subsidized housing for lower-income households. NMMA Recommendation: That the Council implement its already-adopted policy of giving priority for regional infrastructure investments to communities with their share of housing for lower-income households. ; 12 '1'" 1r" .-~~ ~ I" !1Jjij..\ r (8) Efficient and economical use of land and resources. This value statement supports development that combines housing, transportation and employment in an efficient manner. It also supports higher density development that cuts back on the use of raw land, and infill development to make better use of existing infrastructure investments. Finally, it supports large-lot development in llllsewered areas that can be ghost-platted and subdivided into smaller lots when sewer service becomes available. The Council's Growth Management Strategy supports all of the types of development mentioned above throughout the document. Its forecasts for growth through the year 2020, and its designation of the 2040 urban reserve, are based on higher density than the development that has taken place during the past decade. It encourages efficient housing and employment development clustered near transportation corridors and hubs. It supports redevelopment of obsolete land uses and infill development in older areas. And, it encourages the use of ghost-platting in rural areas, so that large-lot housing on septic systems can be subdivided when public sewer is available. \ All of these are approaches that can make a finite supply of land go further and cut back on the need for costly new infrastructure investment while improving the quality of life for area residents. The biggest challenge, of course, is to implement these changes in a region that has demonstrated a development pattern that favors low density development and shies away from redevelopment of older areas. The Council has suggested some implementation approaches, such as offering resources to assist in the cleanup of polluted sites. However, it will take strong new initiatives to achieve these goals. NMMA Recommendation: That the Council develop a strong set of implementation tools to assist it in achieving its goal of efficient and economical use of land and resources. 13 I .,,1" DRAr , Additional Comments and Recommendations Because the proposed Regional Growth Management Strategy is considerably different from the previous Growth Options document, there are three additional issues to be raised, that were not covered in NMMA's May, 1996, comments. (1) Regional Costs of the Growth Management Strategy. In the Growth Options document, a range of regional costs was given, with one cost level for each of the three growth options. The current Growth Management Strategy does not contain a comparable cost estimate. " It is important that this cost information be provided, along with an analysis of what is included and who will be paying each of the costs. This information is important to NMMA for several reasons. First, it relates to the concern that regional investment should be equitably divided between revitalization of older areas and development of new areas. Second, it is important in determining how lower-tax base communities will fare under this proposal. Third, it is important in deciding which development costs actually need regional resources and which can be paid for locally. Finally, it relates to the concern that all infrastructure, existing and new, should have adequate maintenance reserves. NMMA Recommendation: That the Council provide detailed regional cost information for its proposed Growth Management Strategy before final approval of the document. J 14 DRAFT (2) Implementation Strategies for Growth Management. Throughout the document, many positive ideas and initiatives are included. However, the number of actual action:; propos;:d to implement them is much smaller. This is a concern that has its basis in past Council performance. For example, since the adoption of the Livable Communities Act, the Council has given high priority to the need for affordable housing throughout the region. However, the Regional Blueprint directive to give priority in regional funding decisions to communities that have provided adequate amounts of affordable housing has yet to be implemented. This policy has been reaffirmed in the Growth Management Strategy, and it should be implemented. " " The Blueprint also contained a proposal for establishment of a Regional Enterprise Fund, which has yet to be proposed to the legislature by the Council. Another example is the need to curb urban sprawl outside the seven-county area. The Council has no legal authority to control the development decisions made outside its boundaries. Yet, its policies recognize the need for action against continued sprawl. The Council does have the authority to bring the issue before the legislature with a proposal for statewide land use planning, or a similar approach. Voluntary cooperation may offer some promise, but it will not solve the problem. The Council's position giving priority to revitalization of the existing infrastructure over development of new infrastructure is highly commendable. Assuming that there will not always be enough money for both existing and new, it is critical that the Council have a plan for the implementation of this position. The Council's position in support of user fees may require legislative action if impact fees are required to finance new development costs. The Council's proposal to increase density in the region may be among the most difficult of all to implement, but it is essential for the future quality of life of the region, and new implementation initiatives must be developed. 15 DRAFT " NMMA Recommendation: That the Council develop strong implementation strategies, including legislative proposals, to go along with its Growth Management Strategy. , / (3) Need for Designation of Older Areas and Developing Areas. In all of its past growth management documents, the Council has designated the older communities in the region as Fully-Developed Areas and the newer, developing communities as Developing Areas. In the current Growth Management Strategy, these communities are all lumped together into one category, the Urban Area. What's in a name? The need for some way of distinguishing between older and newer communities is important in the implementation of many of the policies in the Growth Management Strategy. The Council has said that it will give priority to redevelopment of older areas and older infrastructure, but there is no indication in the document as to what qualifies for this priority. / Perhaps the assumption is that you'll know it when you see it. But it would be helpful for communities, especially as they are revising their comprehensive plans, to know how they will be affected by these priorities. NMMA Recommendation: That the Council designate the communities or areas that will receive priority for redevelopment/revitalization needs. ) 16 CITY OF ANDOVER REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION December 3, 1996 DATE AGENDA t--O. SECTION Non-Discussion ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT APPROVED FOR AGENDA Jeff Johnson Planning 8YQA ITEM t--O. pecI se emu Real Estate Sign - 170XX Roanoke S1. NW Timber River Estates Woodland Development Company H, REOUEST The City Council is asked to review the Special Use Permit request of Woodland Development Company to erect a real estate sign at 170XX Roanoke Street NW, Timber River Estates. ) BACKGROUND I For background information please consult the attached staff report presented to the Planning and Zoning Commission and the minutes from their November 12, 1996 meeting. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REVIEW The Planning and Zoning Commission at their November 12, 1996 meeting, reviewed the request and recommends to the City Council that Woodland Development Company be granted a Special Use Permit to erect a real estate sign as requested. A resolution is attached for Council review and approval. \ , ) MOTION BY: SECOND BY: \ ; J CITY of ANDOVER 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD NW. . ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 · (612) 755-5100 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING - NOVEMBER 12,1996 MINUTES The Regular Bi-Monthly Meeting of the Andover Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order by Chairperson Jay Squires on November 12, 1996, 7:04 p.m. at the Oak View Middle School, 15400 Hanson Boulevard NW, Andover, Minnesota. Commissioners present: Commissioner absent: Also present: Jeffrey Luedtke, Randy Peek, Lorna Wells Maynard Apel, Lynette Barry, Jerry Putnam Planning Intern, John Hinzman City Planning, Jeff Johnson Others APPROVAL OF MINUTES October 22, 1996: Correct as written. . MOTION by presented. vote. Peek, Seconded by Luedtke, to approve the Minutes as Motion carried on a 4-Yes, 3-Absent (Apel, Barry, Putnam) " I 7t PUBLIC HEARING: SPECIAL USE PERMIT - REAL ESTATE SIGN - 170XX ROANOKE STREET NW - TIMBER RIVER ESTATES - WOODLAND DEVELOPMENT COMPANY 7:05 p.m. Mr. Johnson reviewed the request of Woodland Development to erect a real estate sign at 170xx Roanoke Street, Timber River Estates. He noted the applicable ordinances and criteria to be considered. The sign is 32 square. feet, located at the proposed entrance to the subdivision at 170th Avenue, 10 to 20 feet off the right of way. It fronts on CoRd 7 and the proposed 170thAvenue. It is already in place. Commissioner Wells was concerned with marketing lots before a plat is approved because of the legal problems it can cause. Commissioner Peek was concerned because they have seen a lot of requests recently for signs that were erected prior to receiving the permit. Is there any mechanism for a penalty in these cases? Mr. Johnson stated there is none in the ordinance at this time. Staff could request that the sign be removed before the item comes to the Planning Commission. The county is not notified because the sign is outside of the right of way. MOTION by Luedtke, Seconded by Peek, to open the public hearing. Motion carried on a 4-Yes, 3-Absent (Apel, Barry, Putnam) vote. 7:14 p.m. Garv Brown. representinq Woodland Development - stated they are not selling real estate off that site. It is a temporary sign is to announce the future development. It is a 4x8-foot piece of plywood. / MOTION by Wells, Seconded by Luedtke, to close the public hearing. Motion carried on a 4-Yes, 3-Absent (Apel, Barry, Putnam) vote. 7:17 p.m. Regular Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - November 12, 1996 Page 2 / (Public Hearing: Special Use Permit - Real Estate Sign, Timber River Estates, Continued) The Commission noted it is troublesome that this sign plus several others have been erected before receiving the proper permits. In this case, the applicant is a developer who has worked in the City and should know the regulations. Commissioner Peek felt it is a policy decision of the Council as to whether to remove the signs until the Special Use Permit is issued. Chairperson Squires concurred with that issue and felt it should be addressed, but he also felt the sign meets the cri teria for the Permit. Commissioner Wells was concerned with the developer selling lots before the property is platted. Commissioner Peek pointed out the content of the sign indicates it is not platted. Chairperson Squires indicated if contracts are signed, it is between the person and Woodland; the City is not involved. MOTION by Luedtke, Seconded by Peek, to forward to the City Council for approval the Resolution prepared by Staff for the request for a sign by Woodland Development, with an attention to the City Council to review the policy of signage. Motion carried on a 4-Yes, 3-Absent (Apel, Barry, Putnam) vote. This will be placed on the December 3, 1996, City Council agenda. 7:23 p.m. \ ) PUBLIC HEARING: LOT SPLIT/VARIANCE - 17841 BLUEBIRD STREET NW - JILL SPURGIN 7:23 p.m. Mr. Hinzman reviewed the request of Jill Spurgin to split the southern 2.05 acres from a 4.2-acre parcel at 17841 Bluebird Street. The existing home was constructed in 1972 and was purchased by the applicant in 1992. Parcel A is proposed to be 2.15 acres containing the existing home, which would be sold. Parcel B would be 2.05 acres and would be retained by the applicant for the construction of a new house. Variances are being requested to the minimum lot size and lot width at the front setback. Staff has looked at other options to split the parcel so one lot would meet the minimum size requirements, but it appears the split as proposed would have the least impact to the property owner to the south and would provide the least amount of tree loss. The current septic system is located on the south side of the house and the well is in the front. The septic system would have to be updated to current standards before it is sold. Borings have been taken for the relocation of that system. No variances would be needed for the existing house if the lot is split as proposed. MOTION by Peek, Seconded by Luedtke, to open the public hearing. Motion carried on a 4-Yes, 3-Absent (Apel, Barry, Putnam) vote. 7:28 p.m. Jeff Zinnecker. 17745 Bluebird Street NW - is located immediately south of this parcel. He is concerned with the variance and with setting a ; precedent in the neighborhood of subdividing lots. The entire street has lots of 2.75 acres or more. The homes are staggered down the road. The concern is the subdivision to smaller lots will decrease their property value. From their property, they are able to see Ms. Spurgin's Regular Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - November 12, 1996 Page 3 (Public Hearing: Lot Spli t/Variance - 17841 Bluebird Street, Continued) house now that the leaves are gone. Another house between them would mean they could see it all of the time. Their house is on the north end of their lot. He is against the variance. Commissioner Peek noted almost all of the other lots have 300-foot frontages, and this seems to be a unique lot in terms of its size. As for precedence, this is a different situation from all of the other lots which are basically rectangular and could not be subdivided. Lori Zinnecker. 17745 Bluebird Street NW - stated it is also a privacy factor for them, which was the biggest reason they bought their house. She felt the quality of that woods and privacy would definitely go down in that they would be able to view a house looking out the side window. They also have a pool in the back in a private area, and this would definitely decrease the value of that privacy as well. They purchased their house in 1990 before Ms. Spurgin. Jill Sourqin. 17841 Bluebird Street NW - stated she has the same concern as the Zinneckers. That is why she is asking for a variance. She too enjoys the trees. It would be her intent to keep as many trees for her own privacy as well. That is why she likes living out there. Vione Luikens. 17844 Bluebird Street NW - built their house in 1972. She has the same concerns as the Zinneckers. If everyone started subdividing their lots, it would ruin the aesthetics of the development. They expected their privacy to be maintained, which is the reason they moved out there. They get a lot of comments about how beautiful Bluebird Street is, and she felt it would take away from the value of the properties if the lots were subdivided to build more houses. ( \, / MOTION by Luedtke, Seconded by Wells, to close the public hearing. Motion carried on a 4-Yes, 3-Absent (Apel, Barry, Putnam) vote. 7:36 p.m. Mr. Hinzman reminded the Commission that one of the criteria for a variance is that the owner is denied unreasonable use of the land due to a hardship caused by the characteristic of the land. That term can be elusive because the hardship cannot be created by the property owner nor be an economic factor. One of the determinations being considered for a variance is the significant frontage along Bluebird Street of the lot, which would allow adequate room for another house to be built if the lot was split in two. Commissioner Wells noted the newly created lot would be smaller than all of the other existing lots. Doesn't that create a hardship on the other end for all of the other property owners? She felt the construction of a new house would mean a significant amount of tree loss. There is also the issue of oak wilt through that area, which could preclude existing privacy. Commissioner Peek asked if this area was platted under the current City ordinance or before it. In the past they have considered variances similar to this primarily because the properties were developed prior to the adoption of the platting ordinance. If this area was platted prior to the adoption of the ordinance, it would be consistent with variances \ I Regular Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - November 12, 1996 Page 3 ) (Public Hearing: Lot Spli t/Variance - 17841 Bluebird Street, Continued) house now that the leaves are gone. Another house between them would mean they could see it all of the time. Their house is on the north end of their lot. He is against the variance. Commissioner Peek noted almost all of the other lots have 300-foot frontages, and this seems to be a unique lot in terms of its size. As for precedence, this is a differenc situation from all of the other lots which are basically rectangular and could not be subdivided. Lori Zinnecker. 17745 Bluebird Street NW - stated it is also a privacy factor for them, which was the biggest reason they bought their house. She felt the quality of that woods and privacy would definitely go down in that they would be able to view a house looking out the side window. They also have a pool in the back in a private area, and this would definitely decrease the value of that privacy as well. They purchased their house in 1990 before Ms. Spurgin. Jill Sourqin. 17841 Bluebird Street NW - stated she has the same concern as the Zinneckers. That is why she is asking for a variance. She too enjoys the trees. It would be her intent to keep as many trees for her own privacy as well. That is why she likes living out there. " Vione Luikens. 17844 Bluebird Street NW - built their house in 1972. She has the same concerns as the Zinneckers. If everyone started subdividing their lots, it would ruin the aesthetics of the development. They expected their privacy to be maintained, which is the reason they moved out there. They get a lot of comments about how beautiful Bluebird Street is, and she felt it would take away from the value of the properties if the lots were subdivided to build more houses. / MOTION by Luedtke, Seconded by Wells, to close the public hearing. Motion carried on a 4-Yes, 3-Absent (Apel, Barry, Putnam) vote. 7:36 p.m. Mr. Hinzman reminded the Commission that one of the criteria for a variance is that the owner is denied unreasonable use of the land due to a hardship caused by the characteristic of the land. That term can be elusive because the hardship cannot be created by the property owner nor be an economic factor. One of the determinations being considered for a variance is the significant frontage along Bluebird Street of the lot, which would allow adequate room for another house to be built if the lot was split in two. Commissioner Wells noted the newly created lot would be smaller than all of the other existing lots. Doesn't that create a hardship on the other end for all of the other property owners? She felt the construction of a new house would mean a significant amount of tree loss. There is also the issue of oak wilt through that area, which could preclude existing privacy. .' Commissioner Peek asked if this area was platted under the current City " ordinance or before it. In the past they have considered variances I similar to this primarily because the properties were developed prior to the adoption of the platting ordinance. If this area was platted prior to the adoption of the ordinance, it would be consistent with variances , ) CITY OF ANDOVER REQUEST FOR PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION November 12,1996 DATE AGENDA ITj:M 3. Public Hearin~: Special Use Permit Real Estate Sign - 170XX Roanoke St NW Timber River Estates Woodland Development Company BY: APPROVED FOR AGENDA Planning Jeff Johnson ~ BY: REQUEST The Planning and Zoning Commission is asked to review the Special Use Permit request of Woodland Development Company to erect a real estate sign at 170XX Roanoke Street NW, Timber River Estates. Please consult the attached location map. The property is zoned R-1, Single Family Rural. APPLICABLE ORDINANCES Ordinance No.8. Section 8.07 (Signs) Ordinance No.8, Section 8.07 (2) (E) lists types of signs that are allowed by Special Use Permit. Real estate signs may be allowed for a residential project of five (5 a.) acres or more provided: 1. The sign is at least one hundred thirty (130) feet from any residential structure. 2. The sign area shall not exceed two hundred (200) square feet in area. 3. An agreement is made to remove the sign within two (2) years unless an extension of time is granted by the governing body, after approval of a Special Use Permit has been granted. Ordinance No.8. Section 5.03 (Special Uses) Ordinance No.8, Section 5.03 regulates the Special Use Permit process. In reviewing a Special Use Permit request for any sign the following criteria shall be considered: ) Page Two Special Use Permit - Real Estate Sign 170XX Roanoke Street NW Timber River Estates Woodland Development Company November 12,1996 1. No sign shall be permitted that constitutes a hazard to vehicular safety. 2. No sign shall be permitted that may tend to depreciate nearby property values, be a detriment to scenic or pleasant views, or otherwise mar the landscape. GENERAL REVIEW The applicant is requesting a Special Use Permit to erect a sixty-four (64) square foot real estate sign to market the subdivision known as "Timber River Estates", a single family residential development. COMMISSION OPTIONS A. The Planning and Zoning Commission may approve the Special Use Permit requested by Woodland Development Company. The Commission finds the request meets the criteria established in Ordinance No.8, Section 5.03, including: the use will not be detrimental to the health, safety, morals or general welfare of the community; the use will not cause serious traffic congestion or hazards; the use will not depreciate surrounding property values; and the use is in harmony with the Comprehensive Plan. The Commission also finds that the request meets the criteria established in Ordinance No.8, Section 8.07. The Commission shall also make the following conditions in accordance with Ordinance No.8, Sections 5.03 and 8.07. 1. The area for development is larger than five (5) acres. 2. The sign is located at least one hundred thirty (130) feet from any residential structure. 3. The sign area shall not exceed two hundred (200) square feet in area. / 4. An agreement is made to remove the sign within two (2) years unless an , / Page Three Special Use Permit - Real Estate Sign 170XX Roanoke Street NW Timber River Estates Woodland Development Company November 12.1996 an extension of time is granted by the governing body, after approval of a Special Use Permit has been granted. 5. The sign is located ten (10) feet or more from any property line. 6. The Special Use Permit shall be subject to annual review by staff. 7. The owner shall be responsible for the maintenance of the sign. B. The Planning and Zoning Commission may deny the Special Use Permit requested by Woodland Development Company. / The Commission finds the request does not meet the criteria established in Ordinance No.8, Sections 5.03 and 8.07. In denying the request, the Commission shall state those reasons for doing so. C. The Planning and Zoning Commission may table the item. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends Option A. I / CITY OF ANDOVER COUNTYOFANOKA STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. ~ -96 A RESOLUTION GRANTING THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT REQUEST OF WOODLAND DEVELOPMENT COMPANY TO ERECT A REAL ESTATE SIGN AT 170XX ROANOKE STREET NW, TIMBER RIVER ESTATES SUBDIVISION. WHEREAS, Woodland Development Company has requested a Special Use Permit to erect a real estate sign on the property described as unplatted City of Andover SE 1/4 of NE 1/4 of Section 12-32-25 (Excluding part platted as Anoka County Highway Right-of- Way plat No.4); and WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission has reviewed the request and has determined that said request meets the criteria of Ordinance No.8, Sections 5.03 and 8.07; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission finds the proposed use will not be detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare ofthe occupants of the surrounding lands; and \ I WHEREAS, a public hearing was held and there was no opposition regarding said request; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommends to the City Council approval of the Special Use Permit requested. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Andover hereby agrees with the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission to Woodland Development Company to erect a real estate sign on said property with the following conditions: 1. The area for development is larger than five (5) acres. 2. The sign shall be located at least one hundred thirty (130) feet from any residential structure. 3. The sign area shall not exceed two hundred (200) square feet in area. 4. An agreement is made to remove the sign within two (2) years unless an . I Page Two / Resolution - Special Use Permit - Real Estate Sign 170XX Roanoke Street NW, Timber River Estates Woodland Development Company November 12,1996 extension of time is granted by the governing body, after approval of a Special Use Permit has been granted. 5. The sign shall be located ten (10) feet from any property line. 6. The Special Use Permit will be subject to annual review by staff. 7. The owner shall be responsible for the maintenance ofthe sign. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Andover on this 3rd day of December, 1996. CITY OF ANDOVER / ATTEST: J. E. McKelvey, Mayor Victoria V olk, City Clerk THIS IS .A COMPILATION 0' RECORDS .AS THEY UPE,U IN THE ANOKA. COUNTY OFFICES AFFECTING THE AREA SHOWN. THIS OlAWING IS TO IE USED ONLY FO. IEFERENCE PURPOSES mo THE COUN- TY IS NOT RfS1ONSl!1.! fOl ANY IN- ACCUltAC1ES HEREIN CONTA.JNfD. ~ - 7:32 R.25 ,)F' / RAMSEY 1F ANDOVER ~ ) . /~--~~ 'RNFR 1- JiY '"'~ .- ~'d ~, -. .-12 -P". i ; ". '- - - - - - - - + - - ~ _.._.=_ .._ l .L_,_ ._----11.3RD~..A~W"__ ..... , !.- --=- ~- -_..-~ ~ ~~..,~ -,: --- -=- -= ~ ~ ~ ---.:.,. -.:"_."-'- ~ ~ - "j - - - - :::0,. '--- I, ~_ --=""tL=._ --- ::::> " y . ". / .~ II) T--~ ~ i (;) i , ,. r,) / / ....r""" -' &-M'_-" o \ / (> ~~ ~ 44-~....,.. /lj \J ~ Q.,.......... . -- - .. .' ...~. / / (;) \0 / // ,Kd~~Af""......)"I',4M- Jtt",'i'"-")' (,/ '1'l'R 12 @ @ ~) / - 3 892/2 ME. CORNeR ..~ 'I ~% iO :c ...; ~I&l. ~~" (I'I':'IU) . J~ i.!' !l;8 C:i ~ ~ ),.j ~~ ~z ~ \ ./ TIMBER RIVER ESTATES (REAL ESTATE SIGN) BY WOODLAND DEVELOPMENT SIXTY-FOUR (64) SQUARE FOOT SIGN '\ " / ~:'.'''~ ',"::" ~\.~~ \~. ..... .!'....~~:'<~;i,> - --~ .,('.,,'1 - n,,:;':,' :~. ,,',..' ":-', _ _ ....-;_ ..P....,,, .""__,;' '{".~ -;- '''''~'''-'.'':.: "- . . . . ~ t"~S.~.'f+"~~it-'7"_ -. _ "''.lo..f)-;.'~'-'-: A~,-';~'::'~'~"':",,~, :'C:'/':;,- , . "-" '-~' "'- . . . "- . ~r'" ~<~ . .<d . COMING IN 1997 ~ . . . ....;; . ___ TIMBER RIVER ESTATES ~... ._- BY WOODLAND DEVELOPMENT: " I FOR INFORMATION CALL 427-7500 \ /' \ '\ J '\ / L ~ -- - - - ~~"t:\\~\" ,~~~~-~~@\~~~ ~V =f-( ~x :/Ii~""~~//>-/~/~{~ ~ " \, \ '," ~.-' / / -- t:J / i " ../ ~ / ---:- ! ~ 1"..., '-........... \ \ ','_-' / ,,-__......... \ /;.,.x '- _-_--"" )(: <CI~ ( / CITY of ANDOVER , , 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. . ANDOVER. MINNESOTA 55304 . (612) 755-5100 SPECIAL USE PERMIT Property Address I '1 OJ( X 1~ Civ.x. ~,W Ce,A-/o.)OKE.. ST ') Legal Description of Property: (Fill in whichever is appropriate): Lot Block Addi tion PIN J 2'3?~ ~ I t..t 000 I (If metes and bounds, attach the complete legal description.) . Is the property: information must County. ) ----------------------------------------------------------------- Abstract f or Torrens ? (This be provided and can be obtained from the Reason for Request ~~iAf-- ~Snt-7t-- { lYc.":>Tt ~(c.A"r"IO)J '5.1 oN \ ) Current zoning ~-t.{- Section of Ordinance Name of Applicant WOO of) L~,'::l{:) D'C..u 'CUP MftJ r Address '6~ l.;.J. M...tA-l~ ~'tLt<e.. \' Property Owner (Fee Owner) (If different from above) Address Home Phone Business Phone ) Signature Date ----------------------------------------------------------------- SPECIAL USE PERMIT ) PAGE 2 The following information shall be submitted prior to review by the City of Andover: 1. A scaled drawing of the property and structures affected showing: scale and North arrow; dimension of the property and structures; front, side and rear yard building setbacks; adjacent streets; and location and use of existing structures within 100 feet. 2. The names and addresses of all property owners within 350 feet of the subject property. Application Fees: Commercial Residential Amended SUP Recording Fee Abstract property Torrens property $190.00 $150.00 ./ $50.00 ~\7r~ $25.00 v $40.00 Date Paid I (j It r /ti " Receipt # d 03(,(,/(r 2S:CV 03(,("/~-~ ({(),OO , J Rev. 5-06-93:d'A 5-04-94:bh 2-01-95:bh 3-22-95:bh 9-30-96:bh Res. 179-91 (11-05-91) CRITERIA FOR GRANTING SPECIAL USE PERMITS In granting a Special Use Permit, the City Council shall consider the advice and recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and: 1. The effect of the proposed use upon the health, safety, morals and general welfare of occupants of surrounding lands. 2. Existing and anticipated traffic conditions including parking facilities on adjacent streets and lands. 3. The effect on values of property and scenic views in the surrounding area. \ J 4. The effect of the proposed use on the Comprehensive Plan. Ordinance No.8, Section 5.03 Special (Conditional) Uses General Statement , ) (A) Special Use Permits may be granted or denied in any district by action of the City Council. The Andover City Clerk shall maintain a record of all Special Use Permits issued including information on the use, location, conditions imposed by the City Council, time limits, review dates, and such other information as may be appropriate. A copy of the Special Use Permit shall also be filed with the Building Inspector. Any change involving structural alteration, enlargement, intensification of use, or similar change not specifically permitted by the Special Use Permit shall require an amended Special Use Permit and all procedures shall apply as if a new permit were being issued. / All uses existing at the time of adoption of this Ordinance and automatically granted a Special Use Permit, shall be considered as having a Special Use Permit which contains conditions which permits the land use and structures as they existed on said date and any enlargements, structural alteration, or intensification of use shall require an amended Special Use Permit as provided for above. Certain uses, while generally not suitable in a particular zoning district, may, under some circumstanc~s be suitable. When such circumstances exist, a Special Use Permit may be granted. Conditions may be applied to issuance of the permit and a periodic review of the permit may be required. The permit shall be granted for that particular use and not for a particular person or firm. The cancellation of a Special Use Permit shall be considered administratively equivalent to a rezoning and the same requirements and procedures shall apply. (B) Criteria For Granting Special Use Permits: In granting a Special Use Permit, the City Council shall consider the advice and recommendation of the Planning Commission and: the effect of the proposed use upon the health, safety, morals and general welfare of occupants of surrounding lands, existing and anticipated traffic conditions including parking facilities on adjacent streets and land, the effect on values of property and scenic views in the surrounding area, and the effect of the proposed use on the Comprehensive Plan. If it shall determine by Resolution that the proposed use: will not be detrimental to the health, safety, morals, or general welfare of the community Page 42 Ordinance No.8, Section nor will cause serious traffic congestion nor hazards, nor will seriously depreciate surrounding property values, and I that said use is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of this Ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan, the City Council may grant such oermits. (1) In-home beauty salons/barber shops shall be subject to the following: a. One (1) chair salon/barber only b. The hours of operation shall be approved by the City Council. c. Parking requirements shall be as set out in Ordinance No.8, Section 8.08. d. The salon/shop must comply with the State Cosmetology Board and the State Barbers Board requirements. e. In non-sewered areas, the septic system must be in compliance with Ordinance No. 37, the On-Site Septic System Ordinance. A beauty shop/barber shop shall be considered the equivalent to one (1) bedroom in terms of usage under Ordinance No. 37. \ ) f. The Special Use Permit shall be subject to an annual review. g. The beauty shop/barber shop shall be owner occupied. h. Upon sale of the premises for which the Special Use Permit is granted, such Permit shall terminate. i. Drawings detailing the salon/shop shall be submitted at the time of the request for the Special Use Permit. j. In non-sewered areas, a minimum of 39,000 square feet of lot size shall be required. k. In non-sewered areas, the septic system shall be inspected annually before the Special Use Permit is reviewed. (8Q, 5-4-82) (2) Retail Sho!ping in Industrial Districts shall be subject to the ollowing: . a. The Special Use Permit shall be subject to an annual review. J b. Detailed drawings of the building to be used or converted shall be submitted. Page 43 Ordinance No. S, Section c. The use that the Retail Shopping is to be put shall be stated. , d. Parking requirements shall be as set out in Ordinance No.8, Section S.OS. / e. A general inventory shall be provided along with other items determined necessary by the City Council. (SR, 7-6-82, SYY, 11-03-8S)) (e) Procedure: (1) The person applying for a Special Use Permit shall fill out and submit to the Clerk a "Request for Special Use Permit form" together with a fee as set by City Council resolution. An additional fee as set by Council Resolution may be required for each meeting in excess of two (2), which is necessary because of incomplete information or changes in the petition. .' (2) The Clerk shall refer the application to the Planning Commission. Property owners and occupants within three hundred fifty (350') feet of the property in question shall be notified at least ten (10) days prior to the Planning Commission meeting, although failure of any property owners or occupants to receive such notification shall not invalidate the proceedings. Notification shall be by mail. The petitioner shall be required to submit a list of the property owners and occupants within three hundred fifty (350') feet as part of the petition. (8A, 2-14-75; 8FFF, 12-06-8S) (3) The Planning Commission shall consider the petition at its next regular meeting, but not earlier than seven (7) days from date of submission to the Planning Commission. (4) The petitioner or his representative shall appear before the Planning Commission in order to answer questions concerning the proposed Special Use Permit. (5) The report of the Planning Commission shall be placed on the agenda of the City Council in the following manner: a. Recommendations from the Planning Commission meeting held on the second Tuesday shall be placed on the agenda of the City Council no later than their first Tuesday meeting of the following month. / b. Recommendations from the Planning Commission meeting held on the fourth Tuesday shall be placed on the agenda of the City Council n~ later than their third Tuesday meeting of the following month, unless there are five (5) Tuesdays in the given month from which the recommendation of the Planning Commission is made, in which case the recommendation shall be placed on the agenda of the City Council no later than their first Tuesday meeting of the following month. (8FFF, 12-06-88) Page 44 \ Ordinance No.8, Section ) (6) The City Council must take action on the application within sixty (60) days after receiving the report of the Planning Commission. If it grants the Special Use Permit, the City Council may impose conditions (including time limits) it considers necessary to protect the public health, safety and welfare, and such conditions may include a time limit for the use to exist or operate. (7) An Amended Special Use Permit application shall be administered in a manner similar to that required for a new special use permit except that the fee shall be as set by City Council resolution. Amended Special Use permits shall include re-applications for permits that have been denied, requests for changes in conditions, and as otherwise described in this Ordinance. (8) No application for a Special Use Permit shall be resubmitted for a period of one (1) year from the date of said order of denial. ; (9) When a Special Use Permit may be of general interest to the Community or more than the adjoining owners, the Planning Commission may hold a public hearing and the Special Use Permit shall be reviewed with notice of said hearing published at least ten (10) days prior to the hearing. (D) Special Use Permit Sunset Clause If the City Council determines that no significant progress has been made in the first twelve (12) months after the approval of the Special Use Permit, the permit will be null and void. (8LLL, 4-17-90) 5.04 Variances and Appeals Where there are practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships in any way of carrying out the strict letter of the provisions of this Ordinance, an appeal may be made and a variance granted. The hardships or difficulties must have to do with the characteristics of the land and not the property owner. The procedure for granting variances is as follows: (A) A person desiring a variance shall fill out and submit to the City Clerk a "Request for Variance form" together with a fee as set by City Council resolution if the variance request involves single-family residential. All other requests shall have a fee as set by City Council Resolution. (800, 2-18-86) (B) The application shall be referred to the Planning Commission which shall submit a report to be placed on the agenda of the City Council in the following manner: \ (1) Recommendations from the Planning Commission meeting held on the second Tuesday shall be placed on the agenda of the City Council no later than their first Tuesday meeting of the following month. Page 45 '0 CITY of ANDOVER 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. . ANDOVER. MINNESOTA 55304. (612) 755-5100 CITY OF ANDOVER COUNTY OF ANOKA STATE OF MINNESOTA NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING The Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Andover will hold a public hearing at 7:00 p.m., or soon thereafter as can be heard, on Tuesday, November 12, 1996 at the Oak View Middle School, 15400 Hanson Boulevard NW to review the Special Use Permit request of Woodland Development Corporation to allow for the erection of a real estate sign as defined in Ordinance No.8, Section 8.07 located at 170XX Roanoke Street NW, Timber River Estates. All written and verbal comments will be received at that time and location. \ , ) A copy of the application and location will be available at the Andover City Hall for review prior to said meeting. ~t!~ Victoria Volk, City Clerk Publication Dates: November 1, 1996 and November 8,1996 \ \.J / PIN: 073224220006 SIEGEL FREDERICK H 17185 ROANOKE ST NW --- ANDOVER MN 55304 ------~ PIN: 073224220007 WEGNER JOHN R & KRAUS J J 17125 ROANOKE ST NW ANDOVER MN 55304 PIN: 073224320001 ANOKA IND GRAIN & FEED INC 2315 SECOND AVE N ANOKA MN 55303 PIN: 123225420001 DALY FRANCIS E & VIVIAN L 16860 ROANOKE ST NW ANDOVER MN 55304 PIN: 123225110005 MCCAULEY GLADYS L 1710 3RD AVE S ANOKA MN 55303 " PIN: 123225120001 TSM DEVELOPMENT INC 2516 4TH AVE N ANOKA MN 55303 PIN: 123225130001 PFANNSCHMIDT G L & BENDIX LA 1710 3RD AVE S ANOKA MN 55303 \ I ,.~) 1 / CITY of ANDOVER SIGN PERMIT APPLICATION Sign Location Address Jl0 XX Lot ~OPrND~ Sr. ~,1.0 Block Current Zoning Address Property Owner ~3o City ~~l4\ ~ \It.W P r/v\fi...t0 ( Mo't,{/0 ST State ~ Zip 5"'".0d 3 Phone I.fz 7-7662> Sign Erector SFPrM.y, Address City State Zip Phone Contractor's License No. ~I \ .n (i ~,~ Date lo ~ ~ - '1 ,., Applicant's Signature ,. -~------------------------------------- Marquee* Multi-Faced Pedestal Motion Portable Reader Board Roof Wall Sign Sign Style: Bench* Combination Electric Flashing Free-standing Ground Illuminated ~ Tyae : A vertising* Governmental Identification: Area* Business Re:iC:~~~:~~l Temporary eX --------------------~-------~------------------~L;-~S-~-~p~ Attach a sc~led drawlng show:ng: St"')). WLL."- 6<t. ~M.C:ll)4I.O V. locatlon of proposed s1gn on the property u)1t"'~ 6LA..tio-I)I"I~I/J,A.) '\J> V drawing of proposed sign showing its dimenslons, message, .~I,,-r. material composition and coloration vi *Special Use Permit application, if appropriate A fee of $1.00 per square for governmental units or Rev. 1-07-92 5-20-94 5-01-95 Res. 179-91 (11-05-91) Sign Permit Fee $ ~4,OO foot of sign space shall be paid except non-profit organizations. \ I tl> (},( ~ Date Paid i~ ..It, Receipt ,5foftJlllJ" . J .. j ~.. , , " ) , " Conditions of Permit: fJfr6 ~ ~~ "Lb-{: ~j;67 Approved by Date 10/~r/~ / _/ ~M/rJl.Y IN ttt q 7 TI VVt 'OUL- ~ l\)Ut- t.. S'JiOr-fli. S l3i WOe) p f.A't1tJt) D~ u t.LOf M. ul r +v,L ItV ft>~ON C~L. '-/27- 7oS0l:> q-' ? ' ;' ./ 'JI br0 \.,ulL-0 6z.. V V t\: St> CLkfi-"L- f<Cez r: 'S l+rttfz:.:b j~p t!-Dl\. 1-z.- II - 1 I ANOKA COUNTY GJ.S. 10/23/96 2100 3RD AVENUE ANOKA, MN 55303 OFFICE: 612/422-7508 FAX: 612/422-7507 PIN: 013225330010 PIN: 123225220003 VOSS WALTER W & SALLY 5401 173RD AVE NW ANOKA MN 55303 SCHMELZER DELMAR L & L A 17300 ROANOKE ST NW ANDOVER MN 55304 SCHMELZER DELMAR L & AGNES 17300 ROANOKE ST NW ANDOVER MN 55304 SIEGEL FREDERICK H 17185 ROANOKE ST NW ANDOVER MN 55304 WEGNER JOHN R & KRAUS J J 17125 ROANOKE ST NW ANDOVER MN 55304 ANOKA IND GRAIN & FEED INC 2315 2ND AVE N ANOKA MN 55303 ANOKA IND GRAIN & FEED INC 2315 SECOND AVE N ~OKA MN 5~ro RAMSEY CITY OF 15153 NOWTHEN BLVD ANOKA MN 55303 TSM DEVELOPMENT INC 2516 4TH AVE N ANOKA MN 55303 MCCAULEY GLADYS L 1710 3RD AVE S ANOKA MN 55303 TSM DEVELOPMENT INC 2516 4TH AVE N ANOKA MN 55303 PFANNSCHMIDT G L & BENDIX LA 1710 3RD AVE S ANOKA MN 55303 PFANNSCHMIDT G L & BENDIX LA 1710 3RD AVE S ANOKA MN 55303 PFANNSCHMIDT G L & BENDIX LA 1710 3RD AVE S ANOKA MN 55303 WIRZ'S NURSERY INC 17201 ST FRANCIS BLVD NW RAMSEY MN 55303 NELSON NORWOOD G & MURIEL B 5410 173RD AVE NW ~OKA MN ~3ro ONGIE ARLEN N & CHERYL A 5420 173RD AVE NW RAMSEY MN 55303 PIN: 013225340001 PIN: 013225430001 PIN: 073224220006 PIN: 073224220007 PIN: 073224230002 PIN: 073224320001 PIN: 113225140013 PIN: 123225110001 / PIN: 123225110005 PIN: 123225120001 PIN: 123225130001 PIN: 123225140001 PIN: 123225210001 PIN: 123225220001 PIN: 123225220004 1 ANOKA COUNTY G.I.S. 10/23/96 2100 3RD AVENUE ANOKA, MN 55303 OFFICE: 612/422-7508 FAX: 612/422-7507 C / PIN: 123225220005 PIN: 123225310023 WEBER JAMES J JR & DIANE M 5450 173RD AVE NW RAMSEY MN 55303 KREYER GARY R & JUDITH G 5510 173RD AVE NW ANOKA MN 55303 BOEHLAND LYNN C & JOY L 17211 GERMANIUM ST NW ANOKA MN 55303 RAMSEY CITY OF 15153 NOWTHEN BD NW ~OKA MN ~3ro GRAY J MERLE TRUSTEE 5550 170TH LN NW RAMSEY MN 55303 WELLE DUANE P & CHARLOTTE A 17021 HELIUM ST NW ANOKA MN 55303 QUAAL RICHARD C JR & KELLY 17001 HELIUM ST NW RAMSEY MN 55303 CARLSON KENNETH A & VICKI L 16941 HELIUM ST NW RAMSEY MN 55303 DURAND W R & GROEBNER P M 16931 HELIUM ST NW RAMSEY MN 55303 RALPH DANNY M & CHERYLE A 16911 HELIUM ST NW RAMSEY MN 55303 RALPH DANNY M & CHERYLE A 16911 HELIUM ST NW RAMSEY MN 55303 PFANNSCHMIDT G L & BENDIX L A 1710 3RD AVE S ANOKA MN 55303 WILSON EDWARD E & JOYCE M 16831 ARGON ST NW ANDOVER MN 55304 RUSSELL CLYDE A & MARY A 16518 ROANOKE ST NW ANDOVER MN 55304 RUSSELL GRADY IRWIN 16850 ARGON ST NW ANDOVER MN 55304 RUSSELL CLYDE A & MARY A 16518 ROANOKE ST NW ANDOVER MN 55304 RUSSELL CLYDE A & MARY A 16518 ROANOKE ST NW ANDOVER MN 55304 PIN: 123225220006 PIN: 123225220008 PIN: 123225220009 PIN: 123225230001 PIN: 123225230002 PIN: 123225230003 PIN: 123225230004 . , PIN: 123225230005 ) PIN: 123225230006 PIN: 123225230006 PIN: 123225240001 PIN: 123225310006 PIN: 123225310017 PIN: 123225310020 PIN: 123225310024 2 ANOKA COUNTY GJ.S. 10/23/96 2100 3RD AVENUE ANOKA, MN 55303 OFFICE: 612/422-7508 FAX: 612/422-7507 PIN: 123225310025 PIN: 123225410001 RUSSELL IRWIN E & LINDA M 16850 ARGON ST NW ANDOVER MN 55304 WAY JAMES F & LORI A 6270 163RD LANE NW RAMSEY MN 55303 RICHARDS LOREN & SALLY L 16841 HELIUM ST NW RAMSEY MN 55303 ANDERSON THOMAS W & P E 16831 HELIUM ST NW ANOKA MN 55303 DALY FRANCIS E & VIVIAN L 16860 ROANOKE ST NW ANDOVER MN 55304 DALY FRANCIS E & VIVIAN L 16860 ROANOKE ST NW ANDOVER MN 55304 PIN: 123225320001 PIN: 123225320002 PIN: 123225320003 PIN: 123225420001 I .' 3 CITY OF ANDOVER REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION ) DATE: December 3. 1996 AGENDA SECTION Non-Discussion/Consent Item ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT Scott Erickson, ~~ Engineering ITEM NO. Approve Request for Occupancy Permits/ 19-~unter's Hollow The City Council has been requested by Mr. Horst Graser of Gold Nugget Development Inc. to allow him to obtain occupancy permits for the Hunter's Hollow development. Under the development contract he is able to receive building permits once the streets are paved within the development. The development contract does not allow occupancy permits to be issued until the final grading is completed and certified and the final punch list items have been completed. To-date the developer has performed the site grading and the streets have been paved. The final boulevard grading along with the punch list items remain to be completed and due to the weather will not be able to be completed until next year. We are also working out some issues with the developer regarding the thickness of the asphalt streets which were installed. As noted in the attached letter from Mr. Horst Graser, Gold Nugget Development will bring the streets into compliance with the City requirements. To insure the required work does get completed next spring and the streets are brought into compliance with City requirements City staff is recommending that occupancy permits be allowed to be issued up until June 13, 1997. If the developer fails to complete all construction including all punch list items by this date, the City will not issue any additional occupancy permits after that date. Note: The City has collected an escrow for the developer improvement portion of the development contract in the amount of $160,252.50 to cover uncompleted items such as street construction. 11 /22/96 11:56 NOVAK-FLECK ~ 755 8923 NO. 532 [;102 GOLD NUGGET DEVELOPMENT INC. 8857 Zealand Avenue North 'lrooklyn Park. Minnesota 55.....5 , - \612) 424-4955 November 22, 1996 Scott Erickson, City Engineer City of Andover 1685 Crosstown Blvd. NW Andover. MN 55303 RE: Hunters Hollow Dear Mr. Erickson, Based on a conversation I had with Todd Haas and his follow up letter dated November 19 the streets in Hunters Hollow will not be accepted until the corrective work is completed in the 5pring of 1997. It was most dishearting for me to learn that Midwest Asphalt did not construct the street to your specifications. However I will endeavor to take whatever steps are necessary to bring the streets in Hunters Hollow into compliance with your specifications, Unfortunately this work cannot be undertaken until spring of next year. \ ) In the interim I am requesting that the City of Andover provide snow plowing services in Hunters Hollow. I understand that any damage to the streets and utilities will be my responsibility. We currently have a model home under construction. which will be completed in December of this year. I am also requesting that occupancy permits be issued for this model and any other homes that would need an occupancy permit prior to the corrections being completed in the spring of the next year. We currently have several pending sales. It would be a great hardship on Gold Nugget Development Inc. to market this project without the assurance of occupancy pennits, Yau have my fullest cooperation in taking whatever steps are required to arrive at a positive resolution. I thank you fOf your anticipated cooperation in this matter. Respectfully. 1ttt4OMA- Horst Graser Gold Nugget Development Inc. CITY OF ANDOVER REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION I / DATE: December 3.1996 AGENDA SECTION Non-Discussion Item ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT Todd J. Haas, ~ Engineering4' ITEM NO. Reduce Park Dedication Fee/Shadowbrook 13. The City Council is requested to reduce the park dedication in the amount of $28,500.00 as requested by Gor-em, LLC, developer of Shadowbrook. The reason for the reduction was that the appraisal for the development was not complete. Therefore, the developer paid a larger escrow for park dedication to record the plat until the appraisal was complete. , J " " GOR-EM, LLC 10732 Hanson Blvd. NW. Coon Rapids, MN 55433 Tel (612) 767-3965 Fax (612) 755-1117 Mike Quigley / Director of Developement November 12, 1996 City of Andover 1685 Crosstown Blvd. NW Andover, MN 55304 Re: Park Dedication Refund On September 6, 1996 Bunker, LLC. paid an estimated park dedication fee for Shadowbrook in the amount 01'$79,500.00. Since this time an appraisal, ordered by the City of Andover, has been completed establishing this fee at $51,000.00. Therefore we are requesting a refund 01'$28,500.00 based on the appraised value of the property. Thank you for your prompt consideration in this matter and please call if you have any questions. Sincer~y, . /3/.. ?{'4'" ..,; . ..."'. ' ./" + ----r" ~. c-. ../' Mike Quigley 7 .. CITY OF ANDOVER REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION \ DATE: December 3 1996 , , ITEM NO. Release EscrowlWandersee Addition 14. ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT Todd J. Haas, Engineerin~ AGENDA SECTION Non-Discussion Item The City Council is requested to reduce the following escrow for the plat known as the Wandersee Addition as requested by Arlene Wandersee, developer of the property. Amount Available Reduce To Reduction Wandersee Addition $1,984.66 $58.27 $1,926.39 The $58.27 will be used for staff time for preparing the agenda item. . I All items have been complete. \ j RECEIVED NOV 1 8 1996 CITY OF ANDOVER ~over.nber18,1996 City of Andover 1685 Crosstown Boulevard NW Andover, M~ We hereby request that all rer.naining escrow fees be returned for the Wandersee Addition. /:'~ j c:.-.,. (1/>-Z~./....--c C::V4'"/{}<:L'-c..-<'~--L-' Arlene Wandersee 14260 Round Lake Boulevard ~W Andover, M~ 55304 .. CITY OF ANDOVER REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION ~ ) , ./ DATE: September 3. 1996 AGENDA SECTION Non-Discussion/Consent Item ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT ITEM NO. 16,Approve Final PiaU Indian Meadows 4th Addition The City Council is requested to approve the resolution approving the final plat for the Indian Meadows 4th Addition development project. The final plat is found to be in compliance with the preliminary plat. It is recommended that the final plat be approved subject to the following stipulations: 1. City Attorney presenting a favorable title opinion. 2. Security to cover legal, engineering, street sign and installation costs to be determined by the City Engineer. 3. The developer escrow for the uncompleted grading of this site which is to be determined by the City Engineer or if the site is completed, a letter from the developer's engineer that lots and streets are graded according to the grading plan submitted and approved or any revisions thereof. 4. Street light costs to be paid to Anoka Electric Cooperative. Costs to be determined by \ ) Anoka Electric Cooperative. 5. Receipt of all necessary drainage and utility easements outside the plat if necessary. 6. Developer is responsible to obtain all permits from U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, DNR, LGU, Lower Rum River WMO, MPCA and any other agency that may be interested in the site. 7. The park dedication requirements have been previously met. Todd J. Haas, >>! Engineerin~ Note: The following variance was approved as part of the approval of the preliminary plat: 1. A variance to Ordinance 10, Section 9.06 A3 for Lots 1 & 2, Block 5 and Lot 4, Block 4 that do not meet the minimum 39,000 square foot requirement. \ ) , ,I CITY OF ANDOVER COUNTY OF ANOKA STATE OF MINNESOTA RES. NO. MOTION by Councilmember to adopt the following: A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE FINAL PLAT OF INDIAN MEADOWS 4TH ADDITION AS BEING DEVELOPED BY NORTH SUBURBAN DEVELOPMENT IN SECTIONS 19 AND 20, TOWNSHIP 32, RANGE 24, ANOKA COUNTY. WHEREAS, the City Council approved the preliminary plat of Indian Meadows 4th Addition ; and WHEREAS, the Developer has presented the final plat of Indian Meadows 4th Addition. WHEREAS, the City Engineer has reviewed such plat for conformance with the preliminary plat; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Andover to hereby approve the final plat of Indian Meadows 4th Addition contingent upon receipt of the following: 1. The City Attorney presenting a favorable opinion. 2. Security to cover legal, engineering, street sign and installation costs as determined by the City Engineer. 3. The developer escrow for the uncompleted grading of the site which is to be determined by the City Engineer or if the site is completed, a letter from the developer's engineer that lots and streets are graded according to the grading plan submitted and approved by the City. 4. Street light costs to be paid to Anoka Electric Cooperative. Costs to be determined by Anoka Electric Cooperative. 5. Receipt of all necessary drainage and utility easements outside the plat if necessary. 6. Developer is responsible to obtain all permits from U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, DNR, LGU, Lower Rum River WMO, MPCA and any other agency that may be interested in the site. 7. The park dedication requirements have been previously met. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED the following: 1. A variance to Ordinance 10, Section 9.06 A3 for Lots 1 & 2, Block 5 and Lot 4, Block 4 that do not meet the minimum 39,000 square foot requirement. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Andover this 3rd day of December, 19~. CITY OF ANDOVER \ ATTEST: ) J.E. McKelvey - Mayor Victoria Volk - City Clerk CITY OF ANDOVER REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION . , , J DATE: December 3. 1996 AGENDA SECTION Non-Discussion/Consent Item ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT ITEM NO. Approve Survey Quotes/Coon Creek I ~~eWaYlWalkWay Trail/95-24 Scott Erickson, ~~ Engineering The City Council is requested to award the quotation for the Coon Creek BikewaylWalkway Trail, Project 95-24, to Bolten & Menk, Inc. in the amount of $4,000.00. Quotation requests were sent to 6 separate consultants. Quotes received are as follows: Consultant Quote Bolten & Menk, Inc. $4,000.00 Caine & Associates Lan Surveyors, Inc. $6,000.00 (Not to exceed) J Schoell & Madson, Inc. $7,790.00 Orr, Schelen, Mayeron & Associates, Inc. $8,180.00 Short Elliot Hendrickson Inc. $12,000.00 (Not to exceed) We have reviewed the credentials of Bolten & Menk, Inc. and accept them to perform the work. CITY OF ANDOVER REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION / DATE: December 3. 1996 AGENDA SECTION Non-Discussion/Consent Item ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT Scott Erickson,~t Engineering ITEM NO. Approve Change Order #1/96-4/Sealcoating \1. The City Council is requested to approve the resolution approving Change Order #1 to Project 96-4, Sealcoating, in the amount of $3,911.01. This change order provides for additional sealcoating of Zone 1. I \ CITY OF ANDOVER COUNTY OF ANOKA STATE OF MINNESOTA RES. NO. MOTION by Councilmember to adopt the following: A RESOLUTION APPROVING CHANGE ORDER #---1- TO PROJECT NO. 96-4, SEALCOATING. WHEREAS, the City of Andover has a contract for Project No. 96-4 with Allied Blacktop Co. of Maple Grove. MN . NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Andover to hereby approve the change order to Project No. 96-4. MOTION seconded by Council member and adopted by the City Council at a regular meeting this 3rd day of December , 19---.lliL, with Councilmembers voting in favor of the resolution, and Councilmembers voting against, whereupon said resolution was passed. CITY OF ANDOVER ATTEST: J.E. McKelvey - Mayor Victoria Volk - City Clerk CITY OF ANDOVER REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION " ) DATE: December 3. 1996 AGENDA SECTION Non-Discussion/Consent Item ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT Scott Erickson, d (. Engineering ITEM NO. Approve Final Payment/Hartfiel's Estates q Lot Cleanup/96-21 \ . The City Council is requested to approve the resolution accepting work and directing final payment to Sauter & Sons, Inc. in the amount of $7,364.00 for Project 96-21, Hartfiel's Estates Lot Cleanup. ;' \ / ) CITY OF ANDOVER COUNTY OF ANOKA STATE OF MINNESOTA RES. NO. MOTION by Councilmember to adopt the following: A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING WORK AND DIRECTING FINAL PAYMENT TO SAUTER & SONS INC. FOR PROJECT NO. 96-21, HARTFIEL'S ESTATES LOT CLEANUP. WHEREAS, pursuant to a written contract signed with the City of Andover on September 17 , 19 96, Sauter & Sons. Inc. of Anoka. MN has satisfactorily completed the construction in accordance with such contract. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Andover, Minnesota that the work completed under said contract is hereby accepted and approved; and ) BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Clerk and Mayor are hereby directed to issue a proper order for the final payment on such contract, reimbursing the contractor's receipt in full. MOTION seconded by Councilmember and adopted by the City Council at a regular meeting this 3rd day of December , 19.....92.., with Councilmembers voting in favor of the resolution, and Councilmembers voting against, whereupon said resolution was passed. CITY OF ANDOVER ATTEST: J.E. McKelvey - Mayor Victoria Volk - City Clerk . I CITY OF ANDOVER REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION , ) DATE: December 3 1996 AGENDA SECTION Non-Discussion/Consent Item ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT Scott Erickson,~l Engineering ITEM NO. I /1, Accept Petition/14531 Drake St. NW/94-6 'nO, The City Council is requested to approve the resolution declaring adequacy of petition for the improvement of sanitary sewer and watermain for Project 94-6, in the area of 14531 Drake Street NW. The property owner at the above noted address has requested City sewer and water service for the property. The sanitary sewer and water is currently identified as a deferred assessment which means the property has already been through the Chapter 429 procedures. The City Clerk will be contacting Anoka County to have the assessment levied to the property. / \ . l " ) CITY OF ANDOVER COUNTY OF ANOKA STATE OF MINNESOTA RES. NO. MOTION by Councilmember to adopt the following: A RESOLUTION DECLARING ADEQUACY OF PETITION FOR THE IMPROVEMENT OF SANITARY SEWER AND WATERMAIN ,PROJECT NO. 94-6, IN THE 14531 DRAKE STREET NW AREA. WHEREAS, the City Council has received a petition, dated November 21. 1996 . requesting the construction of improvements; and WHEREAS, such petition has been validated to represent the signatures of 100% of the affected property owners requesting such improvement. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Andover that: J 1. The petition is hereby declared to be 100% of owners of property affected, thereby making the petition unanimous. 2. Escrow amount for feasibility report is -0- 3. The City Clerk will contact Anoka County to have the assessment levied to the property. MOTION seconded by Council member and adopted by the City Council at a regular meeting this 3rd day of December , 19 96, with Councilmembers the resolution, and Councilmembers against, whereupon said resolution was declared passed. voting in favor of voting CITY OF ANDOVER ATTEST: J.E. McKelvey - Mayor Victoria Volk - City Clerk l \"'\'HD . / p~~-'~~.- ~..,;_ 1, .,". "": :....'-. J :\10: ,'. - / 99- ".....'-r \.J I ~y <-.,'-;:.-, November 20. 1996 Andover City Engineer 1685 Crosstown Boulevard NW Andover. MN 55304 Subject: Municipal Improvements Dear City Engineer: We do hereby petition for improvements of watennain. sanitary sewer to be brought up to our home. We understand the costs of the improvement to be assessed against my benefiting property. I Said petition is unanimous and the public hearing may be waived. We would like to be assessed over a fifteen ~ year period. 10 Sincerely. /J'// ~j jL...- t-. I L(~ '-- ;((~ n. 11.<' t;- " .~ /~~ iY\ ,", / ' ~ :;: t!."WTA-CTEP .:r1'Cl>'l...e:. Nel :>0.. .n<- II /~7/e". .fp Ie-/- J....o, K~~ ~ CA$SesSJl'e..rt- I'~ ..fa\"'" ()>. I &> ~ C4..$~SS"'6"'+ . Rick A And Joanne E. Nelson 14531 Drake Street NW Andover. MN 55304 434-6886 (Home) 391-7065 (Work/Joanne) 569-3381 (Work/Rick) 1\ 1'Z.'"1)<tl, ~ ... . CITY at ANDOVER ?"/,5VU /.l(?t?/.-~ - JO~a/~"~ 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W.. ANDOVER. MINNESOTA 55304. (612) 755-5100. .-.' '. ) ,- November 20 , 1995 -Re: Improvement Project 94-6 Hartfiel's Estates The Andover City Council at the assessment roll for the area. . their November 7th meeting, adopted t~~Y improvements' recently done in your S ~ . . ./ srot'~~ -4~20;~', 4,981.00 . The 'total cost of your assessment is $ ~ Two optioris for payment of this assessment are available: - . ) "1.: ,The entire assessment, with 'no interest, can be paid in full within thirty days following the date of adoption . of the assessment roll. The fina~ date for payment is . Decembe~ 7, 1995; or , I 2. The assessment will be certified . each year for the next ten years first year's payment is $ 760.75 after that the payment will be $ to your property taxes at.7% interest. The . Each year 709.16 The 'assessment can'be paid in full at any time during the year. If.you wish to pay the assessment in full after December 7, 1995 the payoff would be the principal portion of the assessment for the yea~ 1997 ~~d b~ycnd. The portio~ certified to th~ propert~ taxes must be paid with the taxes ~or that year. # There is also a deferred assessment on your property for sanitary sewer and watermain in the amount of $7,923.54. This assessment will be certified when you connect to the c~ty's sewer and water system. If you have any questions, please feel free to call me at 755- 5100. ~tI~ V~ctoria Volk City Clerk " I . ; DATE December 3. 1996 ITEMS GIVEN TOTHECITYCOUNCIL Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes - November 12. 1996 Park and Recreation Commission Minutes - November 13. 1996 City Council Minutes - November 19.1996 Economic Development Authority Minutes - November 19. 1996 Park and Recreation Commission Minutes - November 21 1996 Final Plat/Indian Meadows 4th Addition Schedule of Bills . {f.ltJ ~iS ::s . , tJfg 0 !E , c H '" IlY It! . ~'i !f~ 'd~ , J ~ . J~ .. j ~ 1 'h , ! i!J , -.. J - .. ( I ) Jil 'oit u. .. I lit 8 . t l 8 ~.J i.!N .J fi I :J ih .ll !~J ..J I) ~ If's' t a. ra .I 8 f ! l ~~ Ii J Ii j .j>J J f= 1 j ij . - I J :lII. rl .,. f~' J S ] 1 a j ! jJ! X .J. .. ~ X j 1~ . .! ~ 1:1 - Ij II f I. dh Jl X h jl .d i fJ ~!h Ij ~ II '0 ~ S Il IJH Z J i] i~ h Ii h {. J.lI I. hii fit; z~ I; fl ./Jiij! Z 8 I./J II lift If !! I 00 if . a 'll)1 .. ......Z 1 al lfl1 i E-c< L ~I un ~~I ...... h~1 'I ~~ IJ Il ll~l Ii ~o ~ If I <~ . i l~ ~ fl: ~ I! ::sO ::si:l flf~ i:li:l ~f I J J =~ ~~ ~~ . ~~ I;; . f.; J J ~ 8 ;;e~1 ~ II E-c0 I "'l:f4u i , 00 ~ 0 .~~ ~~ !i J j J!!Jj iJ If I!!! ilJI )18 ''11 1 Z i" J I ~11.'1 II ./l ln~ tiJl1 z< 11 I I lilll ~! ~I IllII !! .. ~f:; stIr Is ~ I x .I 1.1 I' I Xaj 1'& ~~ J1.s 8) I ~ ~~i~ ; i ~~jl 1 l~ z_ H., f ~U!l Xl X) ~Uh J~IJ ......u f -.. II II f !'i!j III ~! !,iJI f: ~ t .a l I . -. ~lf! ~~ .. i ~Hj! 1~! :I if ~~ . ~"i J J ','~ _ '0 Hi ~ fa t! ~ Ji~ll ~11 ~~ J~~;! ~ ii j j~.IUf . h~ l~ .,JHJ i5p..1 It .1 ! j"lll "II "I Ilil, la~~i II 11 ! 'i'~ll 1,- I, lii~l I ! :JJl 14.8 ~I"I j 1 J~.I i'1l~ 1 1 'o! ~{.. s ... J! l!jJ~. It !.]!jJ./l .1!H I s ~ lit 11 J 'll 'Ij 'I'.! U!H ., ~ ~J If j t~~i~~ II j J i~~iJ . nln ~ If !~ j' J Jli!!! ill i" lij!) Id~J I ilHj , ~ j ~h II i bil!1 IU I~i bi!l If~J ~ . ~ a llllM1 i I ~ :!i ;11 ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~l~ ~ ~~f j lH~J ~ '" I ~ '" ~ _..-_. . I I i . .. ----- ----- . ~~ tf.) rJ ~~ ~ is ~ 1-.... ~ ( Z < I !l; ~ ~ 1 o ~ I \ ... ~~ 00 CJ ...... 0 I II. 60.\:.,.19 S OO'O"~,, ~ ~ C' L.. Z . gt.g9L rS :a '( t:""" < I 00'''' z~ ...... ) l~ ~~ C' ,.,.... ~ .-- ..9{~.~: r c '0,; ... ~ ' ....... - '.. Z -or... ( ,..... 0 ' ~ \t. '"" "', 0 " ~ ( t--t {\ ~~'" ~~"il;, \ a.. iiii ~ J. .-..4 \ ',,,0 H CJ ~ >- ~ '\ \ ~ .. p, ~ -'!- I\ft / ' .... Z \.~ r.,' -- - , ~! I-r"4 ~ . '\ \\ f '" Zw ~ >-' : \ '\". I ~~ \ ~O Ii \ \ if ...Ir' \ ...... U ~ \. I /i "'l:j 'l' !l' ~'1 . % ~ '),<!lIo.., (' r Tr. , , '.. ~ , V4 I..j.J ~ d, ~ 1 '1111"... O "-, . --- fj I.... '0 8 ,..... ,.,.. ~W .............. LU ~. l'- < ~ .L l~rn ~ ~ >0 ..1?~ CO ~ ~ f ::s ~ .d ~~ ~ Z ~ I il -~. \ i Z < ~ """~ I . a- -- I I \ 1 .-..4~ l II I m ~O.. 11 I"Y"\ C":l \ :: ...... l I I I.e' eJ I , ~>- ~ II I .. Z~ II I L-.....O ....U --..~ I I, Ut.l.t.6& S \ ....... -'. I ~nlilZ _________...1 . I I I ~ I r ",.:ft,u.LT s ~ II I , I I I I I 1 ~ I I ~ .. I ~ f ~ ~ 1 ~ ~ ! w 1 I Z "6 . I I ::. ~ I .:. ~ I~: 1 I ". ; I' . L _ _ _ _ !!:6,!l .-- :5 ..... 04. . N . , r , ~ I I I " I 1 !l I I III ~ ....: : I ~ S .-, ;:: <. ...- 1 I" .' ." Ii C":l 81 I~ I Ii! .,'. ~ :.: Z ..... .. I'C. ~ . I UJ ii!1 Ik CO Of ,.."" a } . 'f"""t I I. I lllg u ow ~ I I I z ~ ~ I- I I I ~ f ~' I I 12 ..,. "6 I~! I I I 0 ~~e , I i C\l ].~.:r_ea$ Ii I I "~_ .,.:....Z2 ~ I : ~:QlI -9031l,.. --.J L ZO'ZOZ SC! U...:ffi-<~~ ~ : ~. '"';';'--:;;:>i eill~1t '" trL;9 .. .00001" '. i:' 0 \(!~'" 3.;;.~68S . Itl;.~_98N ,', ~ \"~2jO~:; ...... w ~lt .......NJi. ":N I ~ uz)-~w ., ~~ Uoz z~~ '" ~ .. 8 8 "'g;:>'" .9 . ^' 2 ~~ N olll",NN l'ila ~'" x ~ I :.: ~ ~i5u~jO"':1' . . ~z~~~~8 p:t ~ ~~ I ~ 0 1!;:;l\~O...z g~ ~ ~~ ~ ''''';:-~",!;!~~ I 8 - V'lV'lV)~:)U en . 'O.. - .. Io!Io!Io! ~illili III ~ ~-t I ~ OOO~~"'"O r )_~<;.r~&" S "\ I Ii ~ ~~~~wo.... \ r 1 . I ~.. C\1 \ ~ ],......... ~~ ';" '" t Io! \ 1 r '0- ~~ ~ 0 .\ \2 co ~ ... 0 1'1 ~ a! 0 o@ z ~\ ~ I~ I g~~ ~ ":;~8 Iili ~\ ~ \ I dpi i oil! 81~ ~" \ \ I :Sg~ I U zl !l~ ~ , \ \ 1 z~ ! n ~ ' 2 :~.-4 \ ~I <:: ! B I i'O~ ~~ I" .-4 ..I Ii '. ' .." ~ \ ." "I . i. w I J~~ ~ ~ f'I tI . I i- 0 ; ~~ : ! i \ I .i: N ~~ i Wi: !:J I ' i \ h'O \! I ;;8~ 1 W I \ I ~ ~~ ! ~ ow _ I mil ~ ih ~i ____tt:..!L___J I I i ~o ].".~RS 8 '~' m - 'A&.'N 'iAY H1L9JS iil ---- 1 I jO::! ::l a.. ::l 0....... i! -' ----- --- ----;--. -- '^ .".. ".,_.......\ ....., ......,-...." ,., .,,, "" ,.----)~~r'"e8s ....... :1 --'" .~"'. "1. IIS8S "..'u ....1"'......',.- ~... .~.. "" /' .. .z - - - - ~.~ ~ ~.~ I tZ 'wr.;r ~~:~ ~;~~'.~.J: ~;~~ ;:~~ ::-~:.:::,,-,-,=-.-...-'-- @; I :,= I 2~ I,,': :;; I i~ .__ h. II!~ I:;; 1,:1 ('.."1 , , l