HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC September 5, 1995
CITY of ANDOVER
Regular City Council Meeting - September 5, 1995
Call to Order - 7:00 pm
Resident Forum
Agenda Approval
Consent Agenda
Approval of Minutes
Presentation of Badges to New Firefighters
Discussion Items
1. Public Hearing/94-33/Commercial Boulevard Extension
2. Public Hearing/Modification of TIF District
3. Met Counci1/MUSA Discussion
4. Accept petition/Navajo St., 175th, 173rd/95-18
5. Special Use PermitjVariance/719-157th Avenue N.W.
6. Special Use Permit/In-home Beauty Salon/981-140th Ln.
7. Special USe Permit/In-home Beauty Salon/840-146th Ln.
8. Variance/2721 - 134th Avenue N.W.
9. Amend Ordinance 8, Section 3.02/Definition/Family
10. Approve Ordinance 111/Sodding & Seeding Requirements
11. Approve Handling of Park Fund Expenditures
12. Adopt Preliminary 1996 Budget
13. Computer Presentation update
14. Woodland Terrace Traffic Discussion
Non-Discussion/Consent Items
15. Approve Lower Rum River Water Management Organization Joint
Powers Agreement
16. Approve Quotes/95-13/Hidden Creek North Park
17. Approve Security Light/Fox Meadows
18. Approve Quotes/pavement Markings/95-17
19. Release Development Contract Escrows/pinewood Estates 2nd
20. Reject Feasibility Report/95-11/181st Ave. W. of Tulip st.
21. Approve "No Parking"/Bunker Lk. Blvd. Service Rd. & Grouse
Street/93-30
22. Accept Petition/Order Feasibility/95-19/13748 Round Lake
Blvd.
23. Approve C.O. #1/95-3/Cracksealing
24. Set Externalities Discussion Date
25. Amend Ordinance 19/5od Escrows
26. Select Truth in Taxation Public Hearing Dates
27. Approve Quotes/93-7/HVAC & Electric/Parts Only
28. Receive Petition/Order Feasibility/95-22jVerdin Acres
29. Accept Feasibility Report/Order Public Hearing/95-~2
30. Approve Ordinance Summary/Shoreland Mangement Ord./No. 108
31. Approve Ordinance Summary/Therapeutic Massage/No. 110
32. Approve 1996-1998 CDBG Program
Mayor-Council Input
payment of Claims
Adjournment
CITY OF ANDOVER
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
DATE September 5, 1995
AGENDA
f'.O
SEcnON
ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT APPROVED
FOR AGENDA
Approval of Minutes
ITEM
f'.O
City Clerk
Approval of Minutes
V. Volk iLo)l;
,
ffY{J;J
The City Council is requested to approve the following minutes:
August 7, 1995 Special Meeting (Kunza absent)
August 15, 1995 Regular Meeting
August 15, 1995 HRA Meeting
August 21, 1995 Special Meeting
\
I
,
/
MOTION BY:
SECOND BY:
CITY OF ANDOVER
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
DATE
September 5, 1995
AGENDA
t\O.
SECTION
ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT
Discussion Item
Scot~ Eric;kson, J\t
Englneenng I:V
APPROVED
FOR AGENDA
ITEM
t\O.
Public Hearing/94-33/Commercial
Boulevard NW Extension
BY:. ju
dt
/,
The City Council has scheduled a public hearing for 7:00 P.M. for
Project 94-33, for the extension of Commercial Boulevard and the
construction of Nightingale Street NW.
Attached are the following:
\
j
* Resolution ordering improvement
* Letter to property owners
* Public Hearing Notice
* List of property owners
* Location map
Note: The feasibility report was in the August 15, 1995 packet.
Please bring this to the meeting.
This is a Council initiated project and requires a 4/5 vote by the
Council for approval.
,
)
MOTION BY:
SECOND BY:
CITY OF ANDOVER
COUNTY OF ANOKA
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RES. NO.
MOTION by Councilmember
to adopt the following:
A RESOLUTION ORDERING THE IMPROVEMENT OF STREETS, SANITARY SEWER,
WATERMAIN, STORM DRAIN AND APPURTENANCE ,PROJECT NO. 94-33 IN THE
COMMERCIAL BOULEVARD EXTENSION AREA AND DIRECTING PREPARATION
OF FINAL PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS.
WHEREAS, Resolution No. 153-95 of the City Council adopted on
the 15th day of August , 19~, fixed a date for a public
hearIng; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the
such hearing was held on the
19~; and
WHEREAS, all persons desiring to be heard were given such
opportunity for same; and
required published and mailed notice,
5th day of August
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City
of Andover to hereby order improvement project No. 94-33
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Andover to hereby designate TKDA as the
I Engineer for this improvement and he is directed to prepare plans and
specifications for such improvements.
BE IT STILL FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Engineer is to obtain
all the necessary drainage and utility easements before construction.
the City Council at a
regular
meeting this
5th
and adopted by
day of
MOTION seconded by Councilmember
. September
, 19 95 , with Councilmembers
voting in favor of the resolution,
voting against,
and Councilmembers
whereupon said resolution was declared passed.
CITY OF ANDOVER
ATTEST:
Jack McKelvey - Mayor
Victoria Volk - City Clerk
,--
CITY of ANDOVER
1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. . ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 . (612) 755-5100
August 29, 1995
Re:
Commercial Boulevard NW Extension (project~S~~~3101~
1"~~'";,~,,.r~)o-
Dear property Owner:
The Andover City Council will be holding a public hearing at
the regularly scheduled City Council meeting on September 5, 1995, at
7:00 PM in the City Council Chambers. The public hearing will
address the extension of Commercial Boulevard NW and the construction
of Nightingale Street NW.
If you have any questions regarding this project, feel free to
contact me at 755-5100.
Sincerely,
aJ~LL
Scott Erickson, P.E.
City Engineer
SE:rja.
cc: Mayor
City Council
Dick Fursman, City Administrator
CITY of ANDOVER
1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. . ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 . (612) 755-5100
CITY OF ANDOVER
COUNTY OF ANOKA
STATE OF MINNESOTA
NOTICE OF HEARING ON IMPROVEMENT
PROJECT NO. 94-33
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Andover,
Anoka County, Minnesota will meet at the Andover City Hall, 1685
. Crosstown Boulevard NW in the City of Andover, on Tuesday, September
5, 1995 at 7:00 PM to consider the making of the following .
improvement:
Commercial Boulevard Extension
The property to be assessed, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section
429, for such improvement is within the following described area:
From Nightingale Street NW to Thrush Street NW and
Nightingale Street NW from Commercial Boulevard NW
to Bunker Lake Boulevard NW.
The estimated cost of such improvement is $1,200,000.00.
Such persons as desire to be heard with reference to the proposed
improvement will be he~rd at this meeting.
CITY OF ANDOVER
~.d/b
Victor~a Volk - City Clerk
Publication Dates: August 18 & 25, 1995 and September 1, 1995
34 32,24 32 0006
~~ Olson & L Ladonna
2220 l27th Lane NW
Coon Rapids, MN 55433
34 32 24 31 0004
J" ~s & Arlene L~esinger
40..::5 43rd Ave. S.
Mpls, MN 55406
34 32 24 31 0017
Richard A Heidelberger
2052 Bunker Lk. Blvd. NW
Andover, MN 55304
34 32 24 31 0012
Marian F Heidelberger
2052 Bunker Lk. Blvd. NW
Andover, MN 55304
34 32 24 42 0007
Harold & JoAnn Wilber
13608 Jay St. NW
Andover, MN 55304
labels94-33 (Rhonda)
34 32 24 32 0005
MR Olson & L Ladonna
2220 l27th Lane NW
Coon Rapids, MN 55433
34 32 24 31 0005
John P Imre
17965 Hwy. 10
Big Lake, MN 55039
34 32 24 31 0006
Richard A Heidelberger
2052 Bunker Lk. Blvd. NW
Andover, MN 55304
34 32 24 31 0019
James 0 & Arlene Liesinger
4625 43rd Ave. S.
Mpls, MN 55406
34 32 24 42 0008
Charles E Mistelske
13576 Jay St. NW
Andover, MN 55304
34 32 24 31 0014
Tax Ladies Inc.
17600 Hwy. 65 NE
Soderville, MN 55304
34 32 24 31 0022
Marian F Heidelberger
2052 Bunker Lk. Blvd. NW
Andover, MN 55304
34 32 24 31 0016
Richard A Heidelberger
2052 Bunker Lk. Blvd. NW
Andover, MN 55304
34 32 24 31 0018
Tax Ladies Inc.
17600 Hwy. 10 NE
Soderville, MN 55304
34 32 24 42 0010
BBP Investments Inc.
460 Highland
Big Lake, MN 55309
u__~~
~
a::::
------..-- ~ \P
(J) ...J J~ '"
<z ~~ . '"
0::: ~p "-
U~ "
W co "<
co a:::: ~!
lJ.J .
~ ~a:::: 0 ~ N
Z 15
~~ z '"
:::> ~ '"
0
Z 00 ~ .:
UCl a:: ~i 0
0 z
Z a::::~ ::i
:::;
a.. lJ.J ~:, 0
~ u
E..d
Cl
z
<
IAN JJ3~S H3QNYldO
o
z~
L___-LLLI-W .
-
.
-
. . .~. ----11-.--
.t::,
o
w
z~
Qu
< "'10-
u::>o
;;:0-
~ [3~
o W j::(.)/X:'
Z ga:::w~
I.&J . ~i=6
~ ",,0 0
~ n: g:~~
o
oll<
o
o
I
N
'"
I
'"
N
I
N
...,
I
'"
...,
!
.;;
);
..1
;"
CITY OF ANDOVER
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
April 4, 1995
DATE
AGENDA SECTION
NQ Discussion Items
Public Hearinq
ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT APPROVED
Finance FOR AGENDA
ITEM
NQ
1995D General Obligation Tax
Increment Bonds
~
Jean D. Nichols
Finance Director
~
c/o
REQUEST
The Andover City Council is requested to hold a public in
regard to the proposed changes for the Tax Increment
Financing District.
BACKGROUND
'\
)
The City Council affirmed the intent to modify the Tax
Increment Financing District on August 1, 1995. On the August 1,
1995 City Council meeting it was motioned to hold a Public Hearing
regarding this matter on September 5, 1995.
)
MOTION BY:
SECOND BY:
r
CITY OF ANDOVER
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACfION
september 5, 1995
DATE
AGENDA SECnON
toO. Discussion
ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT
Metropolitan Urban
Service Area (MUSA) Map
2020
David L.
Planning
~
Carlberg BY/J~~
Di rector f)L'"
APPROVED
FOR AGENDA
ITEM
toO.
Planning
....3.
The City Council is asked to discuss the extension of the
Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA) boundary. Attached is the
current MUSA map which indicates the proposed expansion of the
MUSA.line in five (5) year increments. The Council should note
that the properties in the 1990-1995 time frame have been included
in the MUSA and are under development. Also attached is a 2020
MUSA map which was prepared by TKDA in August of 1995.
All letters and requests for MUSA received from property owners
~ have been included on the 2020 map.
J
Upon Council direction, staff will schedule a public hearing
before the Planning and zoning Commission to review the MUSA map
amendments. City Staff met with Met. Council staff on Wednesday,
August 30, 1995 to discuss the 2020 MUSA map. Staff will update
the Council on the results of this meeting.
,
)
MOTION BY:
SECOND BY:
,
'\ :, ...:';.
.~"_.\(_. ': l'.
. ( ".jl'
~j ~..
~
'Ow
''1<' ,
,'- ... .w.,..
il
H
'I
(
\
~
"
,
1
I \
I ,!
---',-"_._-
I
I
I
I
"
-.-.---.
---l;'I
.:.\
.\ ' ~ Ui')'
:~';=ll
~t'
.
I
"
,
,
"
L
iiI" (I'i.::-"::::::==-::(rij'~~-
,
\ en
\u.iZ
o
~-
'4.(f)
0-
a..>
::>~
.2_
~-~= j ~
, n.. en
.
w::>
, > .
I: -~
I: r (f) ....-
-- - Z<(
\ Ww
\ :c a.:
'\~<(
, .' a..w
1'~O
--- 0::;:
00:
a:W
wen,
>0:
oW
:~-I, 0>'
_,l z>
W.
'. <t. 00,:
..- -..l'-:;';""'''.r;;::~:~ 1;":':I1~ ----, -\l~-'-''''._'
-:;-.. .,;,..:....f.!,... "I' .1. I..
~ ~. I, . \" -'I/..' . . .: ...,'
I 1IIl:.. 'll' '~' t.. '''''.'-'~. "~~"""{'l ".
. ~ . !' ...~. ....~ :'Jj(~~" "::,- :, :/'9~ ~I"'"
." I I 1:1 ..... :\;u'" ;.~~.~"
~ \\--\L]I-"~- ':"=~1 ~,'~~f.~r' . ,,~!~,,'
\ ~ \ )-"" ~-. ":'\f' ~.
,_ ~ ri: ii i~ .....'.II~:;!t.!I~
-
(/)
Z
-
0'
w
o
o
ct
ct
W
0:
ct
W
-1.
m
<
w
0,
-
>
0:
W
en
I-
o
Z
. .
I-
(f)
.::l
o
Z
'1
-
.....
~!
~
o
O!
.
I-
-
I-
en
z
-~
I "4~
"~
I I
to
m
m
, T"'"
I
o
m
m
. T"'"
-
"-
o
-
'-I'
'Ol;
::l'
0..
I
,
I'
'0
o
o
C\1
I
to
Q')
m
T"'"
,
to
o
o
c\1
:, I '
o
o
o
C\1
~.
~~,l
. .
I
:0
:,...
o
C\1
. I
to
o
o
C\J
C\J
r
" ____1.___.1 ..
'J c:li';~,~;;!.:J; r~- I
;~~'d:.~,!~:1.(" I I .
'I'~:"'(: .~~~.!I"J .
.. . "1'"
il:.!I:....~i(;I' . s-~~.
t.J"\ '..
I" 'f
..
. .
<!
...,.I~'~~
';;";I,:,:.~~
\'~"I"'.~
f'....,C .'.
"1 ""
I"',I..,,~
r "
I...J
...""" , -;...
~~~" c;a..
t"~'~ -
"Y", t.~...\. , ( ~'_ ' -4,'
'" ",,,.....' . ..... 'loO:~~s~......",
...".....',"" ,:~;::'~.],~.~I.:.. I
,;. , "" , ,.~,.,; ,."".1. ~ .
,,~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~ .~~-;~~.;t;'", ~ r
It"""" ~''.i.f:''' ~ .~~
!\,"" "" ~~.'i~'.' .. J.r-
f"."",~~ ~',i l}1ft;,.~ .
"~~'l.~:"l1>~ r ~~. ~ ~
I, -J:,:'- ~ ---- """":- 1"~\"'
I rr_--~ &:r-- --... . """". ~i~:.rti .. ' . .
I - - ~ ... - ... '"'I,, '" ''I" ',. ~ ',',~: !:~."!{'."~ ....:~(~. ()P~
I~-;~~~~?j ..: 'c 'l"~~~~~~~' ~';:i~~i~ ',: ,. J ...:.'r
. ::~-_-_K:tc~- _::. .:. ~": :~-~~:~ m~f'~ h- j -1. f~
i .. ----:~~:~:F::,.jjf:::~:.Jt ~~ /. il.~
: E=:::::-:~s-t~~;:;~2~-~7~:~~~~::.~ __' I - !\,;:, . ~i . _ ~~::-~~:
r----~~. - -j-- - ... ..--. - . - - -l ".~ U
t-_-_-_..._..:',~.-.:_:.:-_-_ .. ";-" -- :--------...:...'--- ~. __ i ..~ _
t:---------~-.:._~ -'.--;" - ... . .:. - - -'. :)~.1fii,'~;::-;:~....:.;~;{:J . &\
f-::'-.- {. ~.'iir\~u.i.;;8~r ., "1.i'N.(~t.'i~~~~]1DiII . m!~ill ,* ~~I:l .': ,
.. - - -~.,-'~t>>: . f "~~'~g. '';,1'' ;.f":; I'''' . ....~ I
~- ~:i~;;,~~~.,ik& ~~(l~~?~" ; : .::. ;.;t i;' ~~ ~"'" '.
~:#r;.. ~.., -..; . ". ''''1 ~...' "1'4 =-','l::i'
..... -- on - ---l~t4,Wj.,;7. - .;. - "; ~~~y~ 11......' :. H .
\''V:':,'-B:.~;...~~' ,1 C '..l:T' . t 'till, , ao.. .
"",i; '.._.,.~.; ~<;< \' , '. ;r~..;; . ..;.:, ~~~.:....~.;
t:;~~~'~~a~~ .....,. -I'~ \'. 0;.-'. .. "0" . ....."'. r.L'.
~'.'''''''.'.<'' ..~.. , - ,. C '!' ,. ~_ . ;' . '. 'I~: .
V~~~.:.~~.;:.o.7,~~'" . " . ..~' .. If - "'! I. . -..1.'",-:-: --_..:,:~ ." ~"~'~!'.)' t' .:. ~." ~/", ~J"
. .1'''.'......,;.....'.1 - ~l;;' . . 'r "r- .~'J
., ~';'~;'."lJ~" ,. ' -., il .I. ~:v'~'~" ";'l~" ,.
.;::.:.~~;:::;h;;~ t:~4'!i '\ .'.l~~:' O\'t.PI' -f..~..::::'}i....:c:.i' ~:.,..,..:'} ;
.i"~,, "", .:t-~:,-,!.; . · ~;-:~...;'~~.;; ""':"'1' '! :';m'" ~
: >. . . =1':0"' ~i-:r.::; . '" '11~,. t',,:I~~,'~'I~;~'Il:: _ I ~ . ~
. ~:~':1:'1: 3!".t:'\JI-~- 1"1('1 1.11\'II'~~;~II~1 . ",,"
'.;.'1 ~:. '.\. \ ...t.;....~., 'II' ~~,,~ t.':~J~ .' /<. ~+ i
: '" t~;: .. .-.... f "" ~:I;.f11,j'ii4t:Wi, moo ,j ~ d~l :
· C'O. "''I" '\~ ."I'. , It " ~. 'J."J\t.~'~I."I~I~'" .1.'1 0
~,~~'''' ~~..:.. ':i! 71 (~ "t-. . l"ll,~~''fIL.I~,;.ll'~lfl~I' I'" ""~' .
.."""", ~'l: ~ . t .. ~'''TII' 1~~t"II~"\I"~""1 .Ii ' ~ I
I "."'."'" (~"':"~l, ~ I I. ,~~ ~ r''', ~1:'~t',f'I"I~,II~.'I".'" '. 11111 "....<.
",,,,,,,,,, ::'::;- ':'1' 11\",. 1"';,I~'j':,~ lUll I '.. ._~
''I'"'''''' ..' ...... "l'~" I'!'!""' ~ '~'i'" .'.w"o'7,
d .~<~~,.:...:, II::..};':..'.... .' ~ ~y;, ,~;"'~~;!io~, llt,~l.;::~~~ 1~~~t.;"l.:I: , :.tQ~:~ Ill'.
"",).""""""", . 7' f"k/''')( "\}!i;\:J$',' 'if:'. , . !... .": . I ; ,.,
""'\;~"""".,"'" . v~~~""~ . :~'i;~i,;.";" '~..~~. ':~~I' = ....11".. ...:.: .;' . . ''t'k .
"'" x:\."""""",... ,. ~ .'V_7'-v..I'ro.., I~ ' \.t'.......~,.. ',-~' :-w 1 '_~': . L,
,~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~l.;.7'~:..i 10'~_~;o..Q: A. "" ..f.'L ..:. .~?::~i1!,f" .~:, r.' '~. . .r. -- ...... ' ~ : II".
",:\...~- """"""'i:-'~ :700.."'" '" '" "I]i:" . I' : . ". . II .'~. .
",;...."" ""'," :,',,', . ..... ~'f-.l~ II~ );: '1 o:~~~ .' -:;7':~~'i';;;"~;:1I . .. . .
"'I"" "'''''''<.J'L~ "~. :.\ ,. ..:~. . ~,., . _ ....
"',,\.... ~.\"\," ..r'NYl'o. .~ ;.' . ~.,. " ., " . I;~ . ~ "',~~" .'
",,,"',,, ""'" ~.., j' ~~V N 7'0"; "Y .,. ~~ : '..',..' ..~ I". '. .... .
~~~~~~g~~~~~g~ (~~ ~,.::;:y., ~~:~G!lJ.t.~ o-!:, <'- ~,,f,., .' ':"::~'.' !,' ':~:~~~i:J2-~ 'il"::
I'"'....~I..... I.. 'q.. ~ 1..~.L- ~ .
. ...1.\,1, .,.... '.I,:. ~--.. ":.~( . I". "~l.. ..
~ ;...., 'I' .'t., 'A-4' . I I 'I~ ow. .
.1 i':;QSl::/~-l:;(, - :,I.'.I{\.::,,(.'.\...:, '!! i~~~~;' ',': . .;.oJ-'",,', ..: .
t-l."N,-I-l'h.'t:f. ~ ;i:(r':~l.:I"J'.~:;'~'~I'I: ::. .;i:.~~'~V. :!i.!;l f+'~ . L--i:;..
I .,I~...,.~ ......' .1fl · t-n:~~Ii\.~:.,. . I ....,. ....-:;~
/" ~I,I.'.':"',,:,,:, ~ \ ,'" .~~,. ,CIli<:.... . J, _
, If 1'" "'" .' to '.jJ ~:-......: 10
J '~,(M':';:'i~;'f'':'': ....l~ ,.... \I..'~ v.t.. "'~\~' ,_ ,
. oC' I ( . ~ I" '. \, I" ; ~ ':: . U - . L.:..
I " "I~~ I ~"';'~J'111 ..!; . JI . , _. .....
I ~,(.;,\, ',),'. " ; ~ ....';'... -" ~ ., fI" ~.. I
..... ~, .; ~., "-'~'-I ""'~' .,J ::;- .; I~
,1 . . ,., ~ ~~., '. '~
~,'" . "J' ',t. .,~...' I. '.. .. ~~ '.-;.J.
l., ~ I i ~:. L~~r;~~: II I' . V ..: ,
. - I - . ,~".,,:~ IW II' ': "~ a~~_,
I ! \' " '. . ~.............
'.i :. .:: I ~;':~. :,'::-:i\
, . r:1Ji1 '" '-.-T ......
. ".. '.-;Ii?'=; :,'i{iJ-'it:..
" ~ .... ~. I"'- ll.!t.~":., .'
'~'~"~l';h~. \.. .,. :: ~~...,:.; .."
~:I.' .. _~ 't' . , ,". .
,~J'" f~f' .:~: ::: . I
.~, lid~' It! .~ 'II
.~~.:- .. ~'n ~):. _aI,
~ ~~ ~.:..:J:a:- ,: "F:I . .'.'U',II.:ll~._
, ~ 'l~ ; ,~...,..' ... ' .. .....,
.'. r:-:,-s, .. .., r".'
- : ~ ! v
.- . . j. 'f
.' I ~ .J..'
'.~. ., ". ~1 :1.
", ~~ I:U "".W
. I!' ~__. .---t::i,;;.J '
~.: .~~,~.~
.'.
~
~.!. ~~
.~.r,~~~1. . ~;
!(~.i?~ ~.,'
~~~':I: <';'
__ '~f~~; ~:
L ".,..,.~-
~\ '~"
~ 't
~ ;
~ :1
~ :1
~ I
/
rtJ./
.,
/
L,
I
.
.
.
I
,
L__
~
-
en
z
-
.
I-
UJ
~
C
z:
-
-...
.
:2
~
"0
o
~ IIII111
~ ~
~ m
~ i ~
a:
~
<Il
"'lr~:':~~
,~t,.11,4'I.l.
l~~4<:'~
";"11'.'.'('
r\
\ J
'.. /
+
't ij
. ~.
,.
. $ ..-
. ",
; r. ~ .
- .
~ ' I
J
",
....;,;,.
.
- ....,
. . .. I
.
....
i=
UJ
z
-
-...
(.)
:J
m
::l
~
. .'
\ :
..
.... lit....
Q
C'I
o
~
.'
ll) .. I
-
'0
('\II
an
.,..
o
N
,.
o
..-
~'Q
N
..
ft
~
~ ~
~ ~
~ ....,
'. ~ .
.
"
0, :
I' ~
:-:-:-:i. i; .s: .
.----
...."
..
"0 or- --"
: , I
. )
~ t",
, ~
~ .
..'~,
o ...
. .
~.
;
0' .., I ..:'
:;<~ ~.
:~.r:: .~::~.
';;:"'~;" .
;;;:" ""'I"
"','I"
=~ "",
;; "'"
= "'"
-
----
----
----
.
I
\
!.
0
.,.. \.'
0
('\II I
,;
. .
It)
Q :
0
~
/ .. ..1.:'''; J'i~1
-- ~ \. ,
'.'~'. . !\, ~
'..J;r '7 \ S~~
t ",:;f' I ::,.-. ~,.., ,/:,
r:t '." ....., ~ " .' k.
. .,.., i t
'.. . :,'. 1 ).
," '.!'
._..l' ,t..
r \
\.J
_ t-'~
~
-
'",
.0
0.
o
C\I
.-
U')
CD
0)
,...
It)
Q
Q
C\I
I
o
o
o
N
..
, ,
;
r. (,
. . .
'. ,
~ "-
~ : ~ , \' :
,~ .', ,I.
~ . .,-
l' 1,...;.....,
.".. ....4
'. .
. ~ c..
.~ t';;'..ri,:;'t;"'~ (-~
.,' 1:.[:"iW;~'~.l.
f '.'i~.:"'~oSi \..
!t,,:...<"Jr-~ '"
1f:1~,:-')'!iJ~.. \or
"
,...
N
..~
j
CITY OF ANDOVER
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
September 5, 1995
DATE
AGENDA
r-n
SECTION
ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT
APPROVED
FOR AGENDA
Non-Discussion/Consent Item
Scott Erickson,
EngineeringJl
. BY:
ITEM
r-n
Accept Petition/Navajo st., 175th,
173rd/95-18
~
#.
The City Council is requested to approve the resolution declaring
adequacy of petition and ordering preparation of a feasibility report
for the improvements of streets, project 95-18 for Navajo Street NW,
175th Avenue NW and l73rd Avenue NW.
History
A petition was received and a feasibility report was prepared in 1985
to pave the above noted streets. At that time the Council chose to
)' terminate the project as the petition needed to be signed by at least
35% of the property owners (by frontage) along the streets (see
attached attorney's opinion).
Information
The petition which has been submitted does not include 35% (by
frontage) of the property owners along 173rd Avenue NW and 175th
Avenue NW. As previously noted, this results in an inadequate
petition and would require a "Council" initiated project as compared
to a "Petitioned" project. A "Councilh initiated project would
require a 4/5 vote to order the project.
If the Council chooses to order the feasibility report, staff will
revisit the previously developed feasibility report and attempt to
identify an assessment formula that may be acceptable based upon the
diversified land use and the variable size of the parcels within this
area.
proposed total number of lots - 34
Number in favor of improvement - 15
Number against - 2
Number unavailable - 18
"
/
MOTION BY:
SECOND BY:
CITY OF ANDOVER
COUNTY OF ANOKA
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RES. NO.
MOTION by Councilmember
to adopt the following:
A RESOLUTION ORDERING
IMPROVEMENTS OF
PROJECT NO. 95-18
AND l73RD AVENUE NW
PREPARATION OF A FEASIBILITY REPORT FOR THE
STREET CONSTRUCTION
, IN THE NAVAJO STREET NW, l75TH AVENUE NW
AREA.
WHEREAS, the city Council of the City of Andover is cognizant of
the need for improvements, specifically street construction
in the following described area:
Navajo Street NW, l75th Avenue NW and l73rd Avenue NW i and
WHEREAS, the City Council proposes to assess the benefitting
property for all or a portion of the costs of the improvement,
pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 429.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Andover that:
1. The City Council is cognizant of the need for improvements.
,
2. The proposed improvement is hereby referred to the City
Engineer and he is instructed to provide the City Council with
a feasibility report.
MOTION seconded by Councilmember
and adopted by
the City Council at a
regular
meeting this
5th
day of
September
, 19~, with Councilmembers
voting in favor of the
resolution, and Councilmembers
voting against,
whereupon said resolution was declared passed.
CITY OF ANDOVER
J. E. McKelvey - Mayor
ATTEST:
Victorla Volk - City Clerk
<;
~
c
~
8
.
~
..
:!
s
~
c
z
i3
c
.
j
i
~
M
2
w
I!
~
:;;
g
z
c
~
~
i
.
If
c
~
c
i
~
g
"'
~
i
~
i
~
~
~
~
"
c
~
r:
'l
i
J;;
..
~
~
w
;!
l/ -..
3 !I
Io!
"
"
e
1
X := Oellof<s c.. 1/ yeS'1 1Ic Ie.
1
===:::Dni:-=~
~
.
nlZ5
"
.
0 i
[
a
8
1,,"2"7
..
....,
.
.
.
8
\)
'IIZ3
<<::
j ~ il
~
CO.AD.'? I.'~" ....Ii
I~ ~ ~ ~ J ,""...
.
,
~I ''''''Z
''-3'"''
",.,.
I.
..
)
,,~
,'J
: . (jj."
, ..l'\,
CITY of ANDOVER
RECEIVED
AUG 8 1995
CITY QIC I\I\IIln\ll=R
RECEIVED
. F~G 8 ;;;;l
- .~ ~
Date: 0-,~1-'9S "
-.. ,. ~
....-
No. .
Gentlemen:
. CITY OF AI\!'iO'/;:R-
We, the unders~gred. owners of real p~operty in the following described
area:
J-..)IL~'1.-Cr- Or:-h ~ ~ .i~.~U.M .;to I ).~ ~ "-rei
/1"J +h~' 1 yc lid f!1B'J . ~ ".
'/ U1J..t.'c:Lr -:' + /b.U. ^ /7.5 '. 'Y[Z:/C2C\ (IeJV1.Jlult'k/'A. ~ ~~
do hereby petition that aid ~ortion of said area be improved by
Construction of City (.; CL~tllt.oe
and that the cost of said improvement be assessed against the benefiting
property, as authorized by Chapter 429, Laws of Minnesota.
vote..
j..
ADDRESS
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
YES
NO
This petition was circulated by: ~~~ ~~K\~Dh
Address: (Ilqa tJ~'JUJ() .sr.
f
;0"'.'
.1'\.
CITY of ANDOVER
,-
.... ~ ~
"
Date:
No.
Gentlemen:
We, the undersigned, owners of real property in the following described
area:
do hereby petition that said portion of said area be improved by
Construction of City
and that the cost of said improvement be assessed against the benefiting
property, as authorized by Chapter 429, Laws of Minnesota.
YES NO
v
~
)<
This petition was circulated by:
Address:
CITY OF ANDOVER
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
DATE
September 5, 1995
AGENDA SECTION
NJ. Discussion Items
ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT
APPROVED
FOR AGENDA
Planning
~
BY:
ITEM
NJ.
SUP/Variance
Home Cccupation
719 - 157th Avenue
Peter King
David L. Carlberg
Planning Director
s:
REQUEST
The City Council is asked to review the Special Use
Permit/variance request of Peter King to operate a home
occupation (metal sawing) in an accessory building that does not
meet the minimum rear yard setback on the property located at 719
- 157th Avenue NW, legally described on the attached resolution.
BACKGl~OUND
/
For background information please consult the attached staff
report presented to the Planning and Zoning Commission and the
minutes from their August 8, 1995 meeting.
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION REVIEW
The Planning and zoning Commission at their August 8, 1995
meeting, reviewed the request and recommends to the City Council
approval of the Special Use Permit/variance as requested.
A resclution is attached for Council review and approval.
MOTION BY:
SECOND BY:
CITY OF ANDOVER
COUNTY OF ANOKA
STATE OF MINNESOTA
J
RES. NO. R
-95
A RESOLUTION GRANTING THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT/VARIANCE REQUEST OF
PETER KING TO ALLOW FOR THE OPERATION OF A HOME OCCUPATION (METAL
SAWING BUSINESS) IN AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE THAT DOES NOT MEET THE
MINIMUM REAR YARD SETBACK OF FIFTY (50') FEET BY THIRTEEN (13')
FEET ON THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 719 - l57TH AVENUE NW, LEGALLY
DESCRIBED ON EXHIBIT A.
WHEREAS, Peter King has requested a special Use
Permit/variance to allow for the operation of a home occupation
(metal sawing business) in an accessory structure that does not
meet the minimum rear yard setback on the property located at 719
- 157th Avenue NW, legally described on the attached Exhibit A;
and
WHEREAS, the Planning and zoning Commission has reviewed
the request and has determined that said request meets the
criteria of Ordinance 8, Sections 4.30, 5.03 and 7.03; and
WHEREAS, the Planning and zoning Commission finds the
proposed use will not be detrimental to the health, safety and
general welfare of the occupants of the surrounding lands; the use
will not cause serious traffic congestion or hazards; the use will
not depreciate surrounding property; and the use is in harmony
with the Comprehensive Plan; and
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 allow Peter king to operate a
home occupation (metal sawing business) in an accessory structure
that does not meet the minimum rear yard setback on said property
with the following conditions:
1. The size of the lot shall be 3 acres or larger.
2. The specific location and size of the structure and/or
outside storage area shall be as allowed by the City.
3. The combined squ~re footage of the accessory structure
and or outside storage area shall not exceed 800
square feet.
4. Setbacks of the accessory structure and or outside
storage area shall be of a magnitude found necessary
by the City, but in no case shall it be less than a
one hundred (100')'foot front yard setback, thirty
(30') foot side yard setback and a thirty-seven (37')
foot rear yard setback or as required in Section 6.02.
\
Page Two
Resolution
Home Occupation - Peter King
719 - 157th Avenue NW
September 5, 1995
/
5. The outside storage area and all vehicles, materials
and equipment being stored there shall be fenced,
landscaped and screened in such a manner as to prevent
it from being visible at any time of the year from
road right-of-ways, public properties and surrounding
properties.
6. The' number of employees shall be limited to one (1)
person on site in addition to family members.
7. On-site sales shall be prohibited, except those
clearly incidental to services provided in the
dwelling.
8. Vehicles associated with the home occupation shall be
limited to one (1) vehicle on the premises and as set
out in Section 8.08.
9. Unusual parking and traffic patterns shall not be
created, which are not normally found in the
neighborhood, and in no case, shall the need for more
than three (3) additional vehicles be created on the
property.
10. Signs shall be regulated as set out in Section 8.07.
11. The Special Use Permit will be subject to a sunset
clause as defined in Ordinance No.8, Section 5.03(0).
12. The city may at any time inspect the home occupation
and revoke the Special Use Permit if the applicant is
not adhering to the permit and the conditions of the
permit.
13. Hours of operation shall be:
7 a.m. to 8 p.m., Monday - Friday
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Andover on this
5th day of September, 1995.
CITY OF ANDOVER
ATTEST:
J. E. McKelvey, Mayor
Victoria Volk, City Clerk
EXHIBIT A
That part of the west 660 feet of the Southwest Quarter of the
Southwest Quarter of section 13, Township 32, Range 24, Anoka
County, Minnesota, lying southerly of the following described
line: Beginning at a point on the West line of said Quarter,
Quarter, 400 feet North of the Southwest Corner of said Quarter
Quarter, thence East at right angles to said West line to the East
line of said Quarter, Quarter, and there terminating and lying
easterly of the following described line: Commencing at the above
mentioned point of beginning, thence East at right angles to said
West line 275 feet to the point of beginning, thence South
parallel with said West line to the South line of said Quarter,
Quarter and there terminating; Except Roads; Subject to Easement
of Record.
Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
Minutes - August 8, 1995
, Page 4
/
...
@
PUBLIC HEARING: SPECIAL USE PERMIT/VARIANCE - HOME OCCUPATION. IN AN
ACCESSORY STRUCTURE - 719 157TH AVENUE NW - PETER KING .
7: 40 p.m. Mr. Carlberg reviewed the request for a Special Use Permit by
Peter King to operate a home occupation, a metal sawing business, in an
accessory structure. A l3-foot variance is also required because the
building does not meet the 50-foot minimum rear yard setback from the
property line. The building itself meets the minimum setbacks of the
district; however, the home occupation use requires additional setbacks.
The property is zoned R-l and is 3.67 acres. It is a 40x40-foot
building, but only 800 square feet of that structure will be allowed to
be used for the home occupation.
Mr. Carlberg stated the 800-square-foot portion of the building for the
home occupation could b~ structured such tha~ it would be 50 feet from
the rear property line. The City has been flexib.le in allowing the use
to be located such that it meets the setback from within the building,
though the building itself does not. The building was constructed
several years ago. Commissioner Apel also noted the City should be
flexible if the building was placed legally and then something changes.
Mr. Carlberg also noted the business is currently operating in the
attached garage of the house. It would be moved to the accessory
building if this Permit is approved. If the Commission would like to
/ word the Resolution such that the use would be placed in the front
portion of the building, a variance would not be necessary.
Mr. Carlberg stated if approval is recommended, Staff is recommending 12
conditions. One resident did stop in to the City offices upon receiving
the notification. The concern was not with the home occupation but with
the exterior storage and vehicles existing on the parcel. He indicated
that was not a part of this process, though Staff is working with Mr.
King to get that problem corrected.
MOTION by Peek, Seconded by Doucette, to open the public hearing. Motion
carried on a 6-Yes, l-Absent (Putnam) vote. 7:52 p.m.
Peter Kino, 719 157th Avenue NW - explained his business consists of
sawing metals for table legs, etc. He contracts to do the work, buys and
picks up the aluminum, cuts it into three-foot lengths, and delivers it
to the contractor. He only cuts steel and aluminum. He got started when
a friend with a machine shop needed some work done. He has a 6x6-foot
band saw. He does no welding for the bU9iness, only for himself. It is
s~rictly a service; there are no sales. The only delivery truck would be
when he buys materials, though he hasn' t had any deliveries yet.
Generally he picks up the materials in his pickup truck. There is a
large turnaround for the vehicles that would deliver material. He did
not expect to work weekends, only 7 a.m. to 5 p.m. weekdays.
/ Mrs. Earl Woodcock. 15745 Crosstown. Boulevard NW - had no objection to
the home business, but she is concerned with the noise. Will they still
be able to enjoy their back yard and entertain guests or have problems
sleeping. Mr. King stated there would be no problem. The saw is very
quiet. He can hear the radio and TV over the running saw.
Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
Minutes - August 8, 1995
Page 5
(Public Hearing: Special Use Permit/Variance - Home Occupation in an
Accessory Structure - 719 157th Avenue NW - Peter King, Continued)
Commissioner Jovanovich asked when a service has outgrown the home
business. Mr. Carlberg explained it would be when the conditions in the
Resolution can no longer be met, such as the size restric~ions, the
number of employees, traffic generated, etc. Mr. King stated he had no
problem with the conditions listed. Commissioner Apel suggested the
hours of operation be extended somewhat to be able to meet rush orders
or deadlines without being in violation of the Special Use Permit. Mr.
King then suggested the hours of operation be from 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. on
weekdays. The Commission stated they would not support that, countering
with 7 a.m. to 8 p.m., Monday through Friday. Mr. King agreed.
MOTION by Peek, Seconded by Jovanovich, to close the public hearing.
Motion carri~d on a 6-Yes, 1-Absent (Putnam) votG- 8:10 p.m.
Commissioner Peek and Commissioner Doucette felt it is a similar use to
wood working, which has just been added to the ordinance. Also,
Commissioner Peek recalled in the past that the interpretation has been
that if the activity takes place outside of the required setbacks that
a variance is not required. Commissioner Apel agreed that the proposed
use is in line with what has been allowed in the past. Also, he'd
prefer it be without a variance. The Commission agreed to leave the
I decision for a variance request with the applicant. Mr. King stated he
would rather have a variance granted.
MOTION by Peek, Seconded by Doucette, to forward the requ'est for a
Special Use Permit for a metal sawing business at 719 157th Avenue NW to
the Andover City Council with the recommendation for approval. The
Planning Commission finds it meets the criteria established in Ordinance
No.8, Section 4.30 and Section 5.03, and that the use is permitted by
Special Use under Ordinance No.8, 7.03 in residential districts; and
that the Special Use Permit contain the 12 conditions outlined in the
Staff report, in addition add Condition 13 which is hours of operation
should be limited to 7 a,m, to 8 p.m., Monday through Friday. A public
hearing was held and there was no negative comment. Motion carried on
a 6-Yes, 1-Absent (Putnam) vote.
MOTION by Peek, Seconded by Doucette, the Planning Commission recommends
approval of the variance request, a variance of 13 feet to the 50-foot
rear yard setback. Motion carried on a 6-Yes, 1-Absent (Putnam) vote.
This will be placed on the September 5, 1995, City Council agenda. 8:13
p.m.
VARIARCE - FENCE HEIGHT IN REAR YARD - 14015 PARTRIDGE STREET NW - LOREN
KUCH
..
! Mr. Carlberg reviewed the variance request of Loren Kuch to~allow for
the continued placement of a 9-foot fence exceeding the maximum height
requirements at 14015 Partridge Street NW, Lot 3, Block 4, Red Oaks
Hanor 4th Addition. The ordinance requires that any fence in excess of
CITY OF ANDOVER
REQUEST FOR PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
DATE 1lI11qll!':t' A 1 qqC;
AGENDA ITEM
4. Public Hearing
SUP/Variance
Home Occupation
Peter King
ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT
Planning
David L. Carlberg
BY: Planning Director
APPROVED FOR
AGENDA
BY,!? ~
REQUEST
The Andover Planning and Zoning Commission is asked to review the
Special Use Permit/variance requested by Peter King to operate a
home occupation (metal sawing business) to be conducted in an
acce5s~ry structure that doez not meet the minimum rearyard
setback from the property line on the property located at 719 -
157th Avenue NW (PIN 13-32-24-33-0005), legally described on the
attached resolution.
The property is zoned R-1, Single Family Rural and is 3.67 acres,
more or less.
APPLICABLE ORDINANCES
Ordinance No.8, Section 4.30 defines home occupation uses,
including, "office uses, repair services, photo or art studio,
dressmaking, or teaching limited to three (3) students at anyone
time and similar uses".
Ordinance No.8, Section 3.02 defines repair services as, "Repair
and/or servicing of such items as musical, scientific and medical
instruments, photographic equipment, jewelry, watches, clocks,
small household appliances, office machines, shoes and clothes,
and similar uses".
Ordinance No.8, Section 7.03, special Uses, allows cabinet
making/wood working as a home occupation by the granting of a
Special Use Permit.
Ordinance No.8, Section 4.30, Home Occupations, requires a
Special Use Permit for any home occupation that is located in an
accessory structure and/or that requires exterior storage. These
home occupations shall be subject to the following conditions:
1. The size of the lot shall be 3 acres or larger.
2. The specific location and size of the structure and/or outside
storage area shall be as allowed by the City.
3. The combined square footage of the accessory struct~re and
outside storage area shall not exceed 800 square feet.
/
Page Two
SUP - Home occupation (719 - 157th Avenue Nw)
August 8, 1995
4. Setbacks of the accessory structure and/or outside storage
area shall be of a magnitude found necessary by the City, but
in no case shall it be less than a one hundred (100') foot
front yard setback, thirty (30') foot sideyard setback and a
fifty (50') foot rear yard setback or as required in Section
6.02.
5. The outside storage area and all vehicles, materials and
equipment being stored there shall be fenced, landscaped and
screened in such a manner as to prevent it from being visible
at any time of the year from road rights-of-ways, public
properties and surrounding properties.
Ordinance No.8, Section 5.03 regulates the Special Use Permit
process.
Ordinance No.8, Section 7.03 lists those uses allowed by Special
Use Permit. In a Residential District, Home occupations, on a
parcel of three acres or larger, utilizing an accessory structure
and/or exterior storage, is allowed under a Special Use Permit.
In granting a Special Use Permit, the following criteria shall be
examined as defined in Ordinance No.8, Section 4.30.
1. The effect of the proposed use upon the health, safety, morals
and general welfare of the City including but not limited to
the factors of noise, glare, odor, electrical interference,
vibrations, dust and other nuisances; fire and safety hazards;
existing and anticipated traffic conditions; parking
facilities on adjacent streets and land.
2. The effect on surrounding properties, including valuation,
aesthetics and scenic views, land uses, character and
integrity of the neighborhood.
3. consistency with the Andover Comprehensive plan and
Development Framework.
4. The impact on governmental facilities and services, including
roads, sanitary sewer, water and police and fire.
5. The effect on sensitive environmental features including
lakes, surface and underground water supply and quality,
wetlands, slopes, flood plains and soils; and other factors as
found relevant to the City.
Ordinance No.8, Section 4.30 also states that, "a Special Use
Permit is valid for one year from the date of issuance unless
otherwise specified in the Resolution for approval and thereafter
shall be automatically renewed each year unless objections or
I complaints are received from neighboring property owners, the City
Councilor City Staff and a request for review is made.
Page Three
Special Use Permit - Home Occupation
Peter King - 719 - 157th Avenue NW
August 8, 1995
Ordinance No.8, Section 5.04, variances and Appeals, establishes
the variance procedure and process. In this case, a 13 foot
variance from the rearyard setback is being requested.
GENERAL REVIEW
The Commission needs to determine whether the requested use meets
the intent of Section 4.30, Home Occupations.
COMMISSION OPTIONS
1. The Planning and Zoning Commission may recommend approval of
the Special Use Permit requested by Peter King to operate a home
occupation (metal sawing business) to be conducted in an accessory
structure located at 719 - l57th Avenue NW, legally described on
the attached Exhibit A.
The Commission finds the request meets the criteria established in
Ordinance No.8, Section 4.30 and 5.03. The Commission also
finds that the use is permitted by special use under Ordinance No.
8, Section 7.03, Residential Districts.
/
2. The Planning and Zoning Commission may recommend denial of
the Special Use Permit requested by Peter King to operate a home
occupation (metal sawing business) to be conducted in an accessory
structure located at 719 -157th Avenue NW, legally described on
the attached Exhibit A.
The Commission finds the request does not meet the criteria
established in Ordinance No.8, Sections 4.30 and 5.03. In
denying the request, the Commission shall state those reasons for
doing so.
3. The Planning and zoning Commission may table the item.
CONDITIONS
If the Commission recommends approval of the Special Use Permit
requested by Mr. King, the Commission should add the following
conditions:
1. The size of the lot shall be 3 acres or larger.
2. The specific location and size of the structure and/or outside
storage area shall be as allowed by the City.
3. The combined square footage of the accessory structure and
outside storage area shall not exceed 800 square feet.
!
Page Four
Special Use Permit - Home Occupation
Peter King - 719 - 157th Avenue NW
August 8, 1995
I
4. Setbacks of the accessory structure and or outside storage
area shall be of a magnitude found necessary by the City, but
in no case shall it be less than a one hundred (100') foot
front yard setback, thirty (30') foot sideyard setback and a
thirty-seven (37') foot rear yard setback or as required in
Section 6.02.
5. The outside storage area and all vehicles, materials and
equipment being stored there shall be fenced, landscaped and
screened in such a manner as to prevent it from being visible
at any time of the year from road right-of-ways, public
properties and surrounding properties.
6. The number of employees shall be limited to one (1) person on
site in addition to family members.
7. On-site sales shall be prohibited, except those clearly
incidental to services provided in the dwelling.
8. Vehicles associated with the home occupation shall be limited
to one (1) vehicle on the premises and as set out in Section
8.08.
9. Unusual parking and traffic patterns shall not be created,
which are not normally found in the neighborhood, and in no
case, shall the need for more than three (3) additional
vehicles be created on the property.
10. Signs shall be regulated as set out in Section 8.07.
11. The Special Use Permit will be subject to a one (1) year
sunset clause.
12. The City may at any time inspect the home occupation and
revoke the Special Use Permit if the applicant is not adhering
to the permit and the conditions of the permit.
I
..
.
(.f) ~ I
~
t-
en I
en
0 ! I'.
a:
u
\ - /(j
/ ~
. .
,
d ........ .
~ z - .'
~.
~
"
~
28 ~
"
. ..
~ 0
<
0 /JJ
a:
>
t-
Z
;:)
o
u
-
\.
J
:(
(4)
:1t
"I
!
r.-
I~
10
r~
!
~"~., ...
(1)
-f>o
(2)
~,.z" A~
..
~
.;,; ,.~
M
.
.~
,&711
...~t....
(5)
~)
,~
"J., ,,~
_ _.:..6;~;::.-...
(,tu "'-4.4/.) ~ .
. ":_-
/
S~Oli'tli'
...........'fC.1
@
J
<"
.30 0
< >
- ,
,3-J 1
2c
~o
____)3'0
<.
,
._---- . --"..--
2o"'-YO
~)
\
-
~
o
\
,0
~
/ -7 2-
'>
__----Ja._~ ------ --.. -
fe -Ie ~.^Y
7/; /S7 f-( Ac>e
CITY of ANDOVER
1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. · ANDOVER. MINNESOTA 55304 . (612) 755-5100
SPECIAL USE PERMIT
Property Address
'711 1'5-1 ~ AV(. /tI'LJ
AndtV't/
Legal Description of Property:
(Fill in whichever is approp;iate):
Lot
Block
Addition
PIN ...B.J ~ 3d. .a'-l 33 O(){Y.=)
3.fi7 ().L(es
(If metes and bounds, attach
the complete legal
description. )
Is the property: Abstract t or Torrens ? (This
information must be provide~ can be obtained from the
County. )
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Reason for Request JD CoIJQUCl -HuMe- ()(Cv/,,477olo.J (lV\eTAL-
<I-IJNJ~ ~U'5ltJesS [tJ -P-CCE550t:^1 ~c.7Ul.E 60 ~. L 7 Aca
fft(/(. a
Section of Ordinance
's:o)3current Zoning Q-I
Name of Applicant ?elU" ~i:j
Address ",IIi IS7t! Av<.- "'IV , ~
Home Phone ~3~ .b4~.. Business Phone
Signature ~~ ~
....
>'-
Date
I-lei _o~
-----------------------------------------------------------------
property Owner (Fee Owner) JAlnt
(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; dimensions of the
property and structures; front, side and rear yard
building setbacks; adjacent streets; and location and use
of existing structures within 100 feet.
2. The names and addresses of all property owners within 350
feet of the subject property.
Application Fees:
Commercial
Residential
Amended SUP 50.00
Recording Fee
Abstract property($2S.00J
Torrens property $34.50
~ It"( 5.00
Date Paid
T7ftz,/~
I
Receipt #
~:3 8 b-
;M 8 if &,
~
Rev. 5-06-93:d'A
5-04-94:bh
2-01-95:bh
3-22-95: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.
4. The effect of the proposed use on the comprehensive Plan.
:~
CITY of ANDOVER
VARIANCE REQUEST FORM
Property Address
7/9
/~7 7"- fJUe...
Legal Description of Property:
(Fill in whichever is appropriate):
Lot
Block
Addi tion
plat Parcel PIN
(If metes and bounds, attach the complete legal)
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Description of Request U~IA#(e 7lJ ~ YMLl .\c7tWK.
~.Ilt:~ .{l/'.t.C11/JtF ~ u,Ur7lc?7 IS TEET (Afib
,S::7"64cK (~YM.tJ) OM- ~(J. Y,..r~ 4-3<'> (&))No.g{cl)
Specific Hardship W(JVL/J /f;IfV1f7D ~tA76 ~T;-z(/cn..ae
Section of ordinance;.J. ~ . Y<.-r 4-~(Bturrent Zoning {2..- I
,
~:::-:;-~;;~;:::~-----j)~-+~~-----~~~~-------------------------
Address JIg J~-)T""" Prue_
Home Phone ~3.4- 0413 Business Phone
~~~::~:::_~~---~--------------~:~:_---~~-~~=-~~---
Property Owner (Fee Owner)
(If different from above)
Address
Home Phone
Business Phone
Signature
Date
-----------------------------------------------------------------
J
IE
_ 2
The following information shall be submitted prior to review by
the City of Andover:
1. A scaled drawing of the property and structures affected
showing: scale and north arrow; dimensions of the
property and structures; front, side and rear yard
building setbacks; adjacent streets; and location and use
of existing structures within 100 feet.
2. Application Fee:
Single Family
Other Requests -
$ 75.00
$100.00
Date Paid
N1 A Receipt I
~.~ -~ so.P. MfL.!C#'flvvJ
Rev. 1-07-92:d'A
S-23-94:bh
Res. 179-91 (11-05-91)
CRITERIA FOR GRANTING A VARIANCE
In granting a variance, the City Council shall consider the
advice and recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission,
and:
1. If the request is in keeping with the spirit and intent of
this Ordinance.
2. If it finds that strict enforcement of this Ordinance will
cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to
the individual property under consideration.
3. If it finds that denying the request does not deny
reasonable use of the property.
4. Economic considerations shall not constitute an undue
hardship if reasonable use of the property exists under
the terms of the Ordinance.
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 as soon thereafter as can
be heard, on Tuesday, August 8, 1995 at the Andover City Hall,
1685 Crosstown Blvd. NW, Andover, MN to review the Special Use
Permit request of Peter King to operate a home occupation (matal
sawing) in an accessory structure as Gstablished in Ordinance No.
8, Section 7.03, Special Uses and Section 4.30, Home Occupations
on the property located at 719 - 157th Avenue NW (PIN 13-32-24-33-
0005) .
All written and verbal comments will be received at that time and
location.
A copy of the application and location will be available at
Andover City Hall for review prior to said meeting.
~.~
Victoria Volk, City Clerk
Publication dates: July 28, 1995
August 4, 1995
eg Linder
8 l57th Ave. NW
dover, MN 55304
Irt. \ndquist
,633 prairie Road NW
ldover, MN 55304
lrry Walden
;803 Crosstown Blvd. NW
ldover, MN 55304
~ter King
L9 157th Ave. NW
ldover, MN 55304
)
/
Melvin Lockwood
654 l57th Ave. NW
Andover, MN 55304
Sharon Thompson
838 Crosstown Blvd. NW
Andover, MN 55304
Bruce Wetherbee
15773 Crosstown Blvd. NW
Andover,' MN 55304
Earl Woodcock
15745 Crosstown Blvd. NW
Andover, MN 55304
Eugene Walters
752 l57th Ave. NW
Andover, MN 55304
Leonard Jenson
15726 Crosstown Blvd.
Andover, MN 55304
Mark Lipski
629 157th Ave. NW
Andover, MN 55304
Resident
773 157th Ave. NW
Andover, MN 55304
CITY OF ANDOVER
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
DATE
September 5, 1995
AGENDA
fIO.
SECTION
ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT
APPROVED
FOR AGENDA
Discussion Items
Planning
-=I?
7J;G
ITEM
fIO.
Special Use Permit
In-Horne Beauty Salon
981 - 140th Lane NW
Curtis Chesness
David L. Carlberg
Planning Directo'
t:.
.
REQUEST
The City Council is asked to review the Special Use Permit request
of Curtis Chesness to operate an in-home beauty salon on the
property located at 981 - 140th Lane NW, legally described on the
attached resolution.
BACKGROUND
For background information please consult the attached staff
report presented to the Planning and zoning Commission and the
minutes from their August 22, 1995 meeting.
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION REVIEW
The Planning and zoning Commission at their August 22, 1995
meeting, reviewed the request and recommends to the City Council
approval of the Special Use Permit as requested.
A resolution is attached for Council review and approval.
MOTION BY:
SECOND BY:
\
CITY OF ANDOVER
COUNTY OF ANOKA
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RES. NO.
A RESOLUTION GRANTING THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT REQUEST OF
CURTIS CHESNESS TO OPERATE AN IN-HOME BEAUTY SALON ON THE
PROPERTY LOCATED AT 981 - 140TH LANE NW (PIN 35-32-24-12-0048),
LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOT 9, BLOCK 9, HILLS OF BUNKER LAKE 5TH
ADDITION.
WHEREAS, Curtis Chesness has requested a Special Use
Permit to allow for the operation of an in-home beauty
salon located at 981 - 140th Lane NW (PIN 35-32-24-12-0048),
legally described as Lot 9, Block 9, Hills of Bunker Lake 5th
Addition; and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission has reviewed
the request and has determined that said request meets the
criteria of Ordinance 8, Sections 5.03 and 7.03; and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission finds the
proposed use will not be detrimental to the health, safety and
general welfare of the occupants of the surrounding lands; the use
will not cause serious traffic congestion or hazards; the use will
not depreciate surrounding property; and the use is in harmony
with the Comprehensive Plan; and
. /
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 allow Curtis Chesness to
operate an in-home beauty salon on the above described property
with the following conditions:
1. The Special Use Permit shall be subject to a sunset
clause as defined in Ordinance No.8, Section 5.03(D).
2. The Special Use Permit shall be subject to annual
review and site inspection by City Staff.
3. One salon chair only.
4. The site shall be subject to meeting the requirements
of Ordinance No.8, Section 8.08, Parking.
5. The beauty salon shall be owner occupied.
6. Hours of operation shall be as follows:
9 a.m. to 9 p.m. Monday - Friday
9 a.m. to 5 p.m. Saturdays
Page Two
SUP - In-Home Beauty Salon
Curtis Chesness
Resolution
7. Upon sale of the premises for which the Special
Use Permit is granted, such permit shall terminate.
8. Drawings detailing the salon shall be submitted at the
time of the request for the Special Use Permit.
9. The provisions of Ordinance No.8, Section 4.30, Home
Occupations shall apply.
10. The salon must comply with the State Cosmetology Board
requirements.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Andover on this
5th day of September, 1995.
CITY OF ANDOVER
J. E. McKelvey, Mayor
ATTEST:
Victoria Volk, City Clerk
\
l
CITY of ANDOVER
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING - AUGUS~/22, 1995
MINUTES
/'
//
The Regular Bi-Monthly Meeting of the Andover P/I'anning and Zoning
Commission was called to order by Chairperson Ja Squires on ~ugust 22,
1995, 7:00 p.m. at the Andover City Hall, 168 Crosstown Boulevard NW,
Andover, Minnesota. ri
Commissioners present::
Commissioner absent:
Also present:
Maynard Apel,
Jovanovich,
Randy Pe
City P nning Director, David Carlberg
Othe
atherine Doucette, Bev
effrey Luedtke, Jerry Putnam
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
August 8,.1995: Page ,third paragraph, change: "Commissioner Luedtke
felt the defi 'tion in the ordinance is not flawed."
Page 6, tl),ird paragraph, Correct: "Mr. Carlberg stated the
ordinance regulating the height of fences regarding swimming pools
was ado ed in 1979 and has not changed. It is a 4-foot high
minim around pools."
MOTION Y Jovanovich, Seconded by Doucette, to approve the Minutes as
carr cted. Motion on a 5-Yes, 1-present (Putnam), 1-Absent (Peek),
'10 e.
~
~
PUBLIC HEARING: SPECIAL USE PERMIT - IN-HOME BEAUTY SALON - 981 140TH
LANE NW - CURTIS CHESNESS
7:02 p.m. Mr. Carlberg reviewed the request by Curtis Chesness for a
Special Use Permit to operate an in-home beauty salon at 981140th Lane
NW. He noted the applicable ordinances, conditions for the use and
criteria to be considered. "One salon chair only" means that there will
be only one cutting station. He did not believe construction of the
salon has been started. He is aware of six or seven other in-home.
beauty salons in the City. Staff is recommending approval.
MOTION by Apel, Seconded by Jovanovich, to open the public hearing.
Motion carried on a 6-Yes, 1-Absent (Peek) vote. 7:10 p.m.
Cindv Chesness, 981 140th Lane NW - thought at the most two people could
be done at one time. As a rule, just one family comes at a time. The
number of people per day will vary, but she intends to do this part
~ime. Mr. Carlberg stated if there is a concern about the number of
'lehicles, Section 4.30 of Ordinance 8, Horne Occupations has a provision
that regulates additional vehicles and is included as a contingency in
the proposed Resolution. In no case should there be more than three
additional vehicles on the property. He also reported he received one
call from a neighbor who was concerned with the traffic patterns because
this is in a cul-de-sac.
,.
F~gular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
~inutes - August 22, 1995
page 2
:Public Hearing: Special Use Permit/In-Home Beauty Salon - 981 140th
~ane NW - C Chesness, Continued)
Ms. Chesness - couldn't imagine having more than two cars at one time.
Commissioner Jovanovich asked if there needs to be a concern with
chemicals. Commissioner Apel didn't think so and stated she must comply
with the State Cosmetology Board.
There was a discussion on the hours of operation. Ms. Chesness
preferred evenings over mornings. She thought Monday and Tuesdays until
9 p.m., Fridays and every other Saturday. Commissioner Apel was not in
favor of regulating the specific hours of operation. He preferred a
range of hours of operation to allow her flexibility to change hours as
it meets her needs.
(.
Doua Frve. 2721 134th Avenue NW - stated a neighbor who has a beauty
shop has just sold her home. If there is a concern with the number of
shops, it should help to know that another one is being closed.
Commissioner Apel did not think there has ever been complaints about
~hose existing in-home beauty salons.
,MOTION by Luedtke, Seconded by Jovanovich, to close the public hearing.
,Motion carried on a 6-Yes, 1-Absent (Peek) vote. 7:16 p.m.
MOTION by Apel, Seconded by Luedtke, that the Planning and Zoning
Commission forward to the City Council a Resolution granting a Special
Use Permit request of Curtis Chesness, and add to the Resolution
Condition 4 in the agenda material as Number 10, The salon must comply
1tTith the State Cosmetology Board requirements. Number 6, hours of
ogeration shall be 9 a.m. to 9 p.m. on weekdays, and 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. on
Saturdays. Motion carried on a 6-Yes, 1-Absent (Peek) vote. This will
be placed on the September 5, 1995, City Council agenda. 7:18 p.m.
I?~IHHNG. ~P"'("TAT "SF: PERMIT - IN-HOHR BEAUTY SALON - 840 146TH
- KAROLYN RUCKS
(.
7:18 P.M. reviewed the Special Use Permit requested by
Karolyn Rucks operate an in-home beauty salon at 84- 146th Lane NW.
The property is zon R-1, Single Family Rural. The difference from the
:ast request is that his is in the non-sewered area; therefore, a
ninimum of 39,000 square eet of lot size is required and the sep~ic
system must be inspected an lly and be in compliance with Ordinance
No. 37, the On-Site Septic Syste Ordinance. The salon is considered as
cne bedroom in terms of usage.
to open the public
e. :
c~ relating
.,
hearing.
1>10TION by Luedtke, Seconded by Jovanovic
'.E'Jtion carried on a 6-Yes, 1-Absent (Peek)
/
M=. Carlberg stated Staff received no
"',?plication.
to this
\
/
CITY OF ANDOVER
REQUEST FOR PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
August 22, 1995
DATE
AGENDA 'iTE~ .
3. Pl1'OTl.C Hean.ng
Special Use Permit
In-Home Beauty Salon
981 - 140th Lane NW
ORIG IN~l1 '!lftn ~ h 'gARTMENT
APPROVED FOR
AGENDA
David L. Carlberg
Planning Director
B~
BY:
REQUEST
The Andover Planning and zoning Commission is asked to review the
Special Use Permit requested by Curtis Chesness to operate an in-
home beauty salon on the property located at 981 - 140th Lane NW
(PIN 35-32-24-12-0048), legally described as Lot 9, Block 9, Hills
of Bunker Lake 5th Addition.
The property is zoned R-4, Single Family Urban.
APPLICABLE ORDINANCES
Ordinance No.8, Section 7.03, Special Uses, allows beauty
shops in all residential districts by the granting of a Special
Use Permit.
Ordinance No.8, Section 5.03(B)(1) establishes criteria to be
considered in reviewing applications for Special Use Permits for
in-home beauty salons. In-home beauty salons shall be subject to
the following conditions:
1. One salon chair only.
2. The hours of operation shall be approved by the City Council.
3. Parking requirements shall be as set out in Ordinance No.8,
Section 8.08, parking.
4. The salon must comply with the State Cosmetology Board
requirements.
5. The Special Use Permit shall be subject to annual review.
6. The beauty salon shall be owner occupied.
7. Upon sale of the premises for which the Special Us~ Permit is
granted, such permit shall terminate.
8. Drawings detailing the salon shall be submitted at the time of
the request for the Special Use Permit.
Page Two
Special Use Permit - In-Home Beauty Salon
981 - 140th Lane NW
Curtis Chesness
August 22, 1995
P & Z Meeting
Ordinance
process.
following
No.8, Section 5.03 regulates the Special Use Permit
In reviewing a special~se Permit application the
shall be considered:
1. The effect of the proposed use upon the health, safety, morals
and general welfare of the occupants of the surrounding land.
2. The existing and anticipated traffic conditions including
parking facilities. on adjacent streets and land.
3. The effect on values of property and scenic views in the
surrounding area.
4. The effect of the proposed use on the Comprehensive Plan.
GENERAL REVIEW
Consult the attached application materials and location maps for
background information on the request.
COMMISSION OPTIONS
1. The Planning and zoning Commission may recommend approval of
the Special Use Permit requested by Curtis Chesness to operate an
in-home beauty salon on the property located at 981 - 140th Lane
NW, legally described as Lot 9, Block 9, Hills of Bunker Lake
5th Addition.
The Commission finds the request meets the criteria established in
Ordinance No.8, Section 5.03. The Commission also finds that the
use is permitted by special use under Ordinance No.8, Section
7.03, Residential Districts.
2. The Planning and zoning Commission may recommend denial of
the Special Use Permit requested by Curtis Chesness to operate an
in-home beauty salon on the property located at 981 - 140th Lane
NW, legally described as Lot 9, Block 9, Hills of Bunker Lake 5th
Addition.
The Commission finds the request does not meet the criteria
established in Ordinance No.8, Section 5.03. In denying the
request, the Commission shall state those reasons for doing so.
3. The Planning and zoning Commission may table the item.
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends option A, approval of the Special Use Permit with
the conditions on the attached resolution.
CITY OF ANDOVER
COUNTY OF ANOKA
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RES. NO.
A RESOLUTION GRANTING THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT REQUEST OF
CURTIS CHESNESS TO OPERATE AN IN-HOME BEAUTY SALON ON THE
PROPERTY LOCATED AT 981,- 140TH LANE NW (PIN 35-32-24-12-0048),
LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOT 9, BLOCK 9, HILLS OF BUNKER LAKE 5TH
ADDITION.
WHEREAS, Curtis Chesness has requested a Special Use
Permit to allow for the operation of an in-home beauty
salon located at 981 - 140th Lane NW (PIN 35-32-24-12-0048),
legally described as Lot 9, Block 9, Hills of Bunker Lake 5th
Addition; and
WHEREAS, the Planning and zoning Commission has reviewed
the request and has determined that said request meets the
criteria of Ordinance 8, Sections 5.03 and 7.03; and
WHEREAS, the Planning and zoning Commission finds the
proposed use will not be detrimental to the health, safety and
general welfare of the occupants of the surrounding lands; the use
will not cause serious traffic congestion or hazards; the use will
not depreciate surrounding property; and the use is in harmony
with the comprehensive Plan; and
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 allow Curtis Chesness to
operate an in-home beauty salon on the above described property
with the following conditions:
1. The Special Use Permit shall be subject to a sunset
clause as defined in Ordinance No.8, Section 5.03(0).
2. The Special Use Permit shall be subject to annual
review and site inspection by City Staff.
3. One salon chair only.
4. The site shall be subject to meeting the requirements
of Ordinance No.8, Section 8.08, Parking.
5. The beauty salon shall be owner occupied.
6. Hours of operation shall be as follows:
TO BE ESTABLISHED
:
Page Two
SUP - In-Home Beauty Salon
Curtis Chesness
Resolution
"
.
7. Upon sale of.the_pr~mises for which the Special
Use Permit is granted, such permit shall terminate.
8. Drawings detailing the salon shall be submitted at the
time of the request for the Special Use Permit.
9. The provisions of Ordinance No.8, Section 4.30, Home
Occupations shall apply.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Andover on this
___ day of , 1995.
CITY OF ANDOVER
J. E. McKelvey, Mayor
ATTEST:
Victoria Volk, City Clerk
/
Parcel Search
N
~*E
s
"
I
.""'~I
~iill~! :
~'1
iE I
'" I
I
.. 1
;!~ I
;l~ I
~;; I
'"" I
':, I
"~
1
I
I
I ..
I ~
I ~
I 2
1
I
I I '. ,
I / \., ,
I ~ i I,l,
., I j ~f i t
'f~' ..,'
I ~; I Eli:
I' f~ i Ie,
I' <0 I -
I .Ii, : i '"j
.. I. t. ,
II! I
'J i wI:
I 'p I,
I~I. ~
::: ',? ~ ~:
:~ 'I~~ L
~:~ I f~! \~
::: I - I
I .
,
I
',.
~i I
I
1
I
,
_I
I
I
I
:!:I
"' I
;~ I
:;:,
,
I
I
I
I
,
I
1
~ := I
= ::;. 1----
~ ~ -" "\ '-
~ SIp -t";:-__-t----
~ ~ -r- :
,., Ie I I
v: Q I I
'" I
R" .
..
..
N
~
WH
'1'1'
I lj[
1111'
"'ilIl
1.
ho!
'I"
:.!l
~o
.-. 0 ~
. 1.0 I"lit. ~
II -r If,., >0
f' * if -~.' t i 0'"
I '! '!i;~1 ~ 2~
L -! it ..I~ 8 Z 8
r . - "I ~! ~~~I! ~ <
I ""~~;'!-m
! ;;. ~.. 3::;:1
r. . ~ ;z::
,.
...
1'.--
.....-n
1n'.;:, I
W(..'lt
:"i":
1':;:1.
rl.:s
- J
~ 'I
..
.
"
"
,.
J."
- ,
: 1''-
:..r
)
~
..
.
z
~
..
.
"
"
, :
..
.
"
"
....
o
::t'
~
,
vs- ~:.,,1____
. .~o~~_____
-..",!,~ -.;.;~
~______'~.-.:l;~";-;';;:A;-';;" '"
-----1
1 .'
~
t--<
t--<
CI)
c
~
t:c
~
~
~
t
~
C1l
~
~
b
b
.....
~
c
~
/
//70
c~ ,-II.! ~ ~.! ~ S S --- ,;)-'<c-7..r
9?/ /1l~ S L" ~"'--< 4;.,<1.1.:'~1
767')'7'?1
"
IV
,
'\.'
\
\
\
\
\
\
t
9-.l \
vJ\
4:0:
""'\ \
~ \
\
\
f!.[J' .~-l ..
." ""..'- I
, I
-.-....,-~
.-- .' , j
lf~ i ':.J-.<t f
I. ,
1 .
~
; Or'lot :
. w;\'1 '
; 30,.,SO :
, I
\
\
.
,
i
\
~
,
\
\
\
i
L
~
II f~
/ 10 ~ t. /""
'"
,
.".tr....<..+u~:. e)/(I"./.:, j,J"'~"-S
..J I' j
~/1
"','~A I;'
,
I
.,....' .
'J
-
':......'1 I.
I.~ .., ,.,..
':!.'
v -
.1
,/ /'wI
/ 1/
- 40 ::7"
,
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
j
lw
t-.l
iO
....,
~
j
i
f
I
,
,
-.
,
l
I
i
j
,
i
I
.
i
I
.
I:,,,. r;.. .: ;::./<. j'
r I/VI d (,,\ ~ .Ie.. .:v""z ~
- f~-< "
:) -< .
t'w" \ ~!.... ""
/'1' ,:.
~' co
\
7?/ /~c>:t('~. .A/.lr-.
4;,c~~.
~r~s .. ~j1?7h
C ~...r/2.c"SJ
'I.
flin...'"
",Ilk 0 I..\T
C!.r,t IN'" F'foor
e",T'j
i {j/fj/lsT"L
I
TH.,/..~ j...~ /'1..4s
02 )( ~ h,.nt.<..e!
..% S"~rf-j?"d: <"<""',
X. I' ,. ""..liS'
/Z1"'~7"7 .c~r.> ~ i!'!-li
~., .q',!?/rr:"J<li
@,A..ws.d /I/~.fl/ I
sr~'.I:"-- I~~f F,~/..", 4.1.(
p,,'/ LJur>-""'l !2.r.:"^ I
/''"/'^ 717..... / LJ}~~ J~ g.d
.;....."k.. 4~<"~ //p V.
. J '"
1\.... :--,tI ~
4f'V"
.'
~
,
"
o
_.
~~
c- ....,.
...,.;f'<"....(' I
to"" 1'",'/<; /
~
'"
......
~~
______. ,.,.;, ,f1'~e;'
../ /l1~ (f / o~
'T f~J.I"
~
1
"-
~
-L.
f!?:
8mf".
~
. ,
! / .'/ \"
/ ) i/-
jJ;~~(~ II,! '75" . \
,
--
tr
~ !
,.. :;..
'^
s-~
....."b
~.
I
'1-
e
'- -.. ..
, '\
/
CITY of ANDOVER
1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. . ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 . (612) 755-5100
SPECIAL USE PERMIT
Property 'Address 9't:f/ /"101], [1/, /v.tv. /}JI1c1PI/O) ,
Legal Description of property:
(~ill in whichever is appropriate):
9
Block Cf
Addition#';Jr of /?I.!,,~A t4k .{'r.6..,/lclcJ,f
Lot
PIN s'S3c2J 4/.100<;8
(If metes and bounds, attach
the complete legal
description. )
Is the propertyrAbstractl or Torrens ? (This
information mus~r~ed and c?n be obtained from the
County. )
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Reason for Request
~/;- s.;,~ ,.t:!:,:,/ /1 ~...., ~/"CJ'hJS..P-S
Section of Ordinance <:03 +-7.tJ3 Current Zoning
1:<-4 ~RI
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Name of Applicant ~/z1.r ~Aes/l~sS
Address 9',?1 /"f!0 -3 </J../l< J.-.
Home Phone /67 c270J _ ~uyness Phone St:,("',?5J.-O
Signature a~. /~ Date d)'d,.?-9S
c::'
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Property Owner (Fee Owner) ~;1~6
(If different from above)
Address
Home Phone
Business Phone
Signature
Date
-----------------------------------------------------------------
.. ~
SPECIAL USE PERMIT
PAGE 2
I
/ The following information shall be submitted prior to review by
the City of Andover:
" 1. A scaled drawing of the property and structures affected
showing: scale and north arrow; dimensions of the
property and structures; front, side arid 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
$20.00
$25.00
$34.50
Date Paid
0n~
~45
02.. L/22-o
Receipt #
Rev. 5-06-93:d'A
5-04-94:bh
2-01-95: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.
4. The effect of the proposed use on the Comprehensive Plan.
, ,
CITY of ANDOVER
1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. . ANDOVER. MINNESOTA 55304 . (612) 755-5100
,CITY OF ANDOVER
COUNTY OF ANOKA
STATE_9~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, August 22, 1995 at the Andover City Hall,
1685 Crosstown Blvd. NW, Andover, MN to review the Special Use
Permit request of Curtis Chesness to operate an in-home beauty
salon as established in Ordinance No.8, Section 5.03, Special
Uses on the property located at 981 - l40th Lane NW (PIN 35-32-24-'
12-0048), legally described as Lot 9, Block 9, Hills of Bunker
Lake 5th Addition.
All written and verbal comments will be received at that time and
location.
A copy of the application and location will be available at
And~ver City Hall for review prior to said meeting.
. iL-~ !~
VJ.ctorJ.a Vo , City Clerk
Publication dates: August 11, 1995
August 18, 1995
PIN:263224410002
ASHFORD DEVELOPMENT CORP INC
3640 152ND LANE NW
/ 'OVER MN 55304
/
PIN: 263224410003
WINDSCHITL GERALD G & CAROL A
3640 152ND LN NW
ANDOVER MN 55304
PIN:263224430014
JOHNSON JAMES G & CHERYL A
14135 VALE ST NW
ANDOVER MN 55304
PIN: 263224430070
ASHFORD DEVELP CORP INC
3640 152ND AVE NW
ANDOVER MN 55304
"
PIN:353224110026
GILBERT GREG & DIANE J
14032 QUINCE ST NW
ANDOVER MN 55304
PIN: 353224110027
FRENCH TERRENCE W
14038 QUINCE ST NW
ANDOVER MN 55304
PIN: 353224110028
GOODIN MICHAEL S & SUSAN P
946 140TH LN NW
ANDOVER MN 55304
PIN: 353224110029
STEINWAND NED J & KELLY A
958 140TH LN NW
ANDOVER MN 55304
PIN:353224110030
DELMAR HOMES INC
3825 122ND AVE NW
COON RAPIDS MN 55433
PIN: 353224110031
STEWART & BROWN HOMES
9505 LEXINGTON AVE NE
CIRCLE PINES MN 55014
PIN: 353224110032
ROWLEY CHARLES J & CAROL ANN
996 140TH LN NW
ANDOVER MN 55304
PIN: 353224110047
HILLS INC
2619 COON RAPIDS BLVD NW
COON RAPIDS MN 55433
PIN: 353224110065
MOER HOMES INC
1237 148TH LN NW
ANDOVER MN 55304
PIN: 353224110066
LARSON LARRY C & CAROL A
941 140TH LN NW
ANDOVER MN 55304
PIN:353224110067
HILLS INC
10738 HANSON BLVD NW
COON RAPIDS MN 55433
PIN: 353224110068
TIC BUILDERS INC
11317 OREGON AVE N
CHAMPLIN MN 55316
PIN:353224110069
WEAST KEVIN S & SANDY J
971 140TH LN NW
AN'DOVER MN 55304
PIN: 353224110077
ANDOVER CITY OF
1685 CROSSTOWN BLVD NW
ANDOVER MN 55304
; 353224120024
HILLS INC
1685 CROSSTOWN BLVD NW
ANDOVER MN 55304
PIN: 353224120028
POQUETTE WARREN D
1075 140TH LN NW
ANDOVER MN 55304
PIN:353224120046
HILLS INC
2619 COON RAPIDS BLVD NW
, ')N RAPIDS MN 55433
, /
PIN: 353224120048
CHESNESS CURTIS J & CYNTHIA M
981 140TH LN NW
ANDOVER MN 55304
PIN: 353224120049
JOHNSON JEFFREY L & MILDRED A
14315 PRAIRIE RD NW
ANDOVER MN 55304
"
/
CITY OF ANDOVER
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
september 5, 1995
DATE
AGENDA SECTION
fIO. Discussion Items
ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT
Planning
~
APPROVED
FOR AGENDA
ITEM
fIO. Special Use Permit
In-Home Beauty Salon
840 - 146th Lane NW
Karolyn Rucks
David L. Carlberg
Planning Director
~
-J.
REQUEST
The City Council is asked to review the Special Use Permit request
of Karolyn Rucks to operate an in-home beauty salon on the
property located at 840 - 146th Lane NW, legally described on the
attached resolution.
BACKGROUND
For background information please consult the attached staff
report presented to the Planning and zoning Commission and the
minutes from their August 22, 1995 meeting.
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION REVIEW
The Planning and zoning Commission at their August 22, 1995
meeting, reviewed the request and recommends to the City Council
approval of the special Use Permit as requested.
A resolution is attached for Council review and approval.
)
MOTION BY:
SECOND BY:
CITY OF ANDOVER
COUNTY OF ANOKA
STATE OF MINNESOTA
, /
RES. NO.
A RESOLUTION GRANTING THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT REQUEST OF KAROLYN
RUCKS TO OPERATE AN IN-HOME BEAUTY SALON ON THE PROPERTY LOCATED
AT 840 - 146TH LANE NW (PIN 26-32-24-14-0005), LEGALLY DESCRIBED
AS LOT 5, BLOCK 1, BARNES ROLLING OAKS SECOND ADDITION.
WHEREAS, Karolyn Rucks has requested a Special Use Permit
to allow for the operation of an in-home beauty salon located at
840 - 146th Lane NW (PIN 26-32-24-14-0005), legally described as
Lot 5, Block 1, Barnes Rolling Oaks Second Addition; and
WHEREAS, the Planning and zoning Commission has reviewed
the request and has determined that said request meets the
criteria of Ordinance 8, Sections 5.03 and 7.03; and
WHEREAS, the Planning and zoning Commission finds the
proposed use will not be detrimental to the health, safety and
general welfare of the occupants of the surrounding lands; the use
will not cause serious traffic congestion or hazards; the use will
not depreciate surrounding property; and the use is in harmony
with the Comprehensive Plan; and
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 allow Karolyn Rucks to operate
an in-home beauty salon on the above described property with the
following conditions:
1. The Special Use Permit shall be subject to a sunset
clause as defined in Ordinance No.8, Section 5.03(D).
2. The Special Use Permit shall be subject to annual
review and site inspection by City Staff.
3. One salon chair only.
4. The site shall be subject to meeting the requirements
of Ordinance No.8, Section 8.08, Parking.
5. The beauty salon shall be owner occupied.
6. Hours of operation shall be as follows:
9 a.m. to 9 p.m. Monday - Thursday
8:30 a.m. to 9 p.m. saturdays
8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. Sundays
Page Two
SUP - In-Home Beauty Salon
Karolyn Rucks
Resolution
7. Upon sale of the premises for which the Special
Use Permit is granted, such permit shall terminate.
8. Drawings detailing the salon shall be submitted at the
time of the request for the Special Use Permit.
9. The provisions of Ordinance No.8, Section 4.30, Home
Occupations shall apply.
10. A minimum of 39,000 s.f. of lot size shall be
required.
11. The septic system shall be inspected annually before
the Special Use Permit is reviewed.
12. The septic system must be in compliance with
Ordinance No. 37, Septic System Ordinance. A beauty
shop is equivalent to one (1) bedroom in terms of
usage.
13. The salon must comply with the State Cosmetology
Board requirements.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Andover on this
5th day of September, 1995.
CITY OF ANDOVER
J. E. McKelvey, Mayor
ATTEST:
Victoria volk, City Clerk
~
R~gular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
Minutes - August 22, 1995
'Page 2
I
/
~
IPublic Hearing: Special Use Permit/In-Home Beauty Salon - 981 140th
~ane NW - C Chesness, Continued) ~/
Ms. Chesness - couldn't imagine having more than t 0 cars at one time.
Commissioner Jovanovich asked if there needs be a concern with
chemicals. Commissioner Apel didn't think so a stated she must comply
with the State Cosmetology Board.
There was a discussion on the hours operation. Ms. Chesness
preferred evenings over mornings. She t ught Monday and Tuesdays until
9 p.m., Fridays and every other Satur y. Commissioner Apel was not in
favor of regulating the specific h rs of operation. He preferred a
range of hours of operation to all her flexibility to change hours as
~t meets her needs.
'"
Dou 2721 134th NW - stated a neighbor who has a beauty
shop has just sold her horn. If there is a concern with the number of
shops, it should help 0 know that another one is being closed.
Commissioner Apel did t think there has ever been complaints about
~hose existing in-ham beauty salons.
MOTION by Luedtke, econded by Jovanovich, to close the public hearing.
'Motion carried 0 a 6-Yes, 1-Absent (Peek) vote. 7:16 p.m.
MOTION by AQ , Seconded by Luedtke, that the Planning and Zoning
Commission rward to the City Council a Resolution granting a Special
Use permi request of Curtis Chesness, and add to the Resolution
Conditio 4 in the agenda material as Number 10, The salon must comply
'<lith teState Cosmetology Board requirements. Number 6, hours of
opera 10n shall be 9 a.m. to 9 p.m. on weekdays, and 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. on
Sat days. Motion carried on a 6-Yes, 1-Absent (Peek) vote. This will
laced on the
~ PUBLIC HEARING: SPECIAL USE PERMIT - IN-HOME BEAUTY SALON - 840 146TH
LANE NW - KAROLYN RUCKS
'"
7:18 P.M. Mr. Carlberg reviewed the Special Use Permit requested by
Karolyn Rucks to operate an in-home beauty salon at 84- 146th Lane NW.
The property is zoned R-1, Single Family Rural. The difference from the
last request is that this is in the non-sewered area; therefore, a
minimum of 39,000 square feet of lot size is required and the sep~ic
system must be inspected annually and be in compliance with Ordinance
No. 37, the On-Site Septic System Ordinance. The salon is considered as
cne bedroom in terms of usage.
~fOTION by Luedtke, Seconded by Jovanovich, to open the public hearing.
Hotion carried on a 6-Yes, 1-Absent (Peek) vote.
Mr. Carlberg stated Staff received no calls relating to this
2pplication.
]. 'igular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
M~nutes - August 22, 1995
.~age 3
'"
(?ublic Hearing: Special Use Permit/In-Home Beauty Salon - 840 146th
Lane NW - K Rucks, Continued)
DouO Frve, 2721 134th Avenue NW - stated there is another home on
Gladiola that has just been sold and the owner is moving to Coon Rapids.
That home also had an in-home beauty salon, so that is two uses that
will no longer be operating in Andover.
Karolyn Rucks, 840 146th Lane NW - basically agreed with the hours of
operation given in the previous request except on Fridays and Saturdays
she would prefer to start earlier, that is at 8:30 a.m. After a brief
discussion, Ms. Rucks and the Commission agreed to the following hours
of operation: 9 a.m. to 9 p.m. on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and
Thursday; 8:30 a.m. to 9 p.m. on Friday; 8:30 a.m. to = p.m. on
Saturday.
MOTION by Putnam, Seconded by Doucette, to close the public hearing.
~{otion carried on a 6-Yes, 1-Absent (Peek) vote. 7:27 p.m.
NOTION by Jovanovich, Seconded by Doucette, to forward to the City
C0uncil approval of the Resolution granting the request of a Special Use
.~'ermit of Karolyn Rucks to operate an in-home beauty salpn at the
/property located at 840 146th Lane NW, with the hours of operation as
e'Jreed to. There was a public hearing and there was no opposition. Add
I':.em 13, The salon must comply with the State Cosmetology Board
~equirements. Motion carried on a 6-Yes, 1-Absent (Peek) vote. This
~ill be placed on the September 5, 1995, City Council agenda. 7:29 p.m.
DISCUSSION: AMEND ORDINANCE NO.8, SECTION 3.02, DEFINITIONS - AN
DMENT RED IL Y.
Er. erg explained the proposed amendment to the definition of
"family" ~ the result of the discussion at the last Planning and Zoning
Commission m ting. The City Attorney has reviewed the proposal and
finds it accep le. Commissioner Doucette wondered if the Council
considered struc ed relationships to include fraternities and
sororities and shou~language be written to exclude them. After some
ciscussion, the feelin~of the Commission was that this would probably
r:ot be a problem since'-"there is no college or university in the
v~cinity. If it does become~ problem, the City can de~l with it at that
~: ^"\.,
_~me....
"-
,
Commissioner Putnam noted St. Louis Park recently dealt with this issue,
end he suggested Staff contact them for further informatton. Mr.
C~rlberg agreed.
,!-:DTION by Apel, Seconded by Jovanovich, to forward this ordinance
".~:1endment to the City Council with our recommendation for approval.
i'~Qtion carried on a 6-Yes, 1-Absent (Peek) vb.te. This will be placed on
-:::1e September 5, 1995, City Council agenda. '....
CITY OF ANDOVER
REQUEST FOR PLANNING COMMISSION AC110N
August 22, 1995
AGENDA ITEM
4. Public Hearing
Special Use Permit
In-Home Beauty Salon
840 - l46th Lane NW
DATE
ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT
Planning
David L. Carlberg
BY: Planning Director
APPROVED FOR
AGENDA
BY, =e..
REQUEST
The Andover Planning and zoning Commission is asked to review the
Special Use Permit requested by Karolyn Rucks to operate an in-
home beauty salon on the property located at 840 - 146th Lane NW
(PIN 26-32-24-14-0005), legally described as Lot 5, Block 1,
Barnes Rolling Oaks Second Addition.
The property is zoned R-l, Single Family Rural.
APPLICABLE ORDINANCES
Ordinance No.8, Section 7.03, Special Uses, allows beauty
shops in all residential districts by the granting of a Special
Use Permit.
/
Ordinance No.8, Section 5.03(B)(1) establishes criteria to be
considered in reviewing applications for Special Use Permits for
in-home beauty salons. In-home beauty salons shall be subject to
the following conditions:
1. One (1) salon chair only.
2. The hours of operation shall be approved by the City Council.
3. Parking requirements shall be as set out in Ordinance No.8,
Section 8.08, parking.
4. The salon must comply with the State Cosmetology Board
requirements.
5. The Special Use Permit shall be subject to annual review.
6. The beauty salon shall be owner occupied.
7. Upon sale of the premises for which the Special Use Permit is
granted, such permit shall terminate.
8. Drawings detailing the salon shall be submitted at the time of
the request for the Special Use Permit.
9. In non-sewered areas, a minimum of 39,000 square feet of lot
size shall be required.
j
Page Two
Special Use Permit - In-Home Beauty Salon
840 - 146th Lane NW
Karolyn Rucks
August 22, 1995
P & Z Meeting
10. In non-sewered areas the septic system shall be inspected
annually before the Special Use Permit is reviewed.
11. In non-sewered areas, the septic system must be in compliance
with Ordinance No. 37, the On-Site Septic System Ordinance.
A beauty shop shall be considered equivalent to one (1)
bedroom in terms of usage.
Ordinance
process.
following
No.8, Section 5.03 regulates the Special Use Permit
In reviewing a Special Use Permit application the
shall be considered:
1. The effect of the proposed use upon the health, safety, morals
and general welfare of the occupants of the surrounding land.
2. The existing and anticipated traffic conditions including
parking facilities on adjacent streets and land.
3. The effect on values of property and scenic views in the
surrounding area.
4. The effect of the proposed use on the Comprehensive Plan.
GENERAL REVIEW
Consult the attached application materials and location maps for
background information on the request.
COMMISSION OPTIONS
1. The Planning and zoning Commission may recommend approval of
the Special Use Permit requested by Karolyn Rucks to operate an
in-home beauty salon on the property located at 840 - 146th Lane
NW, legally described as Lot 5, Block 1, Barnes Rolling Oaks
Second Addition.
The Commission finds the request meets the criteria established in
Ordinance No.8, Section 5.03. The Commission also finds that the
use is permitted by special use under Ordinance No.8, Section
7.03, Residential Districts.
Page Three
Special Use Permit - In-Home Beauty Salon
840 - 146th Lane NW
Karolyn Rucks
August 22, 1995
P & Z Meeting
j
2. The Planning and Zoning Commission may recommend denial of the
Special Use Permit requested by Karolyn Rucks to operate an in-
home beauty salon on the property located at 840 - 146th Lane NW,
legally described as Lot 5, Block 1, Barnes Rolling Oaks Second
Addition.
The Commission finds the request does not meet the criteria
established in Ordinance No.8, Section 5.03. In denying the
request, the Commission shall state those reasons for doing so.
3. The Planning and Zoning_ ~o~ission_m~y table the item.
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends Option A, approval of the Special Use Per~it with
the conditions on the attached resolution.
j
CITY OF ANDOVER
COUNTY OF ANOKA
STATE OF MINNESOTA
j
RES. NO.
A RESOLUTION GRANTING THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT REQUEST OF
KAROLYN RUCKS TO OPERATE AN IN-HOME BEAUTY SALON ON THE PROPERTY
LOCATED AT 840 - l46TH LANE NW (PIN 26-32-24-14-0005), LEGALLY
DESCRIBED AS LOT 5, BLOCK 1, BARNES ROLLING OAKS SECOND ADDITION.
WHEREAS, Karolyn Rucks has requested a Special Use Permit
to allow for the operation of an in-home beauty salon located at
840 - l46th Lane NW (PIN 26-32-24-14-0005), legally described as
Lot 5, Block 1, Barnes Rolling Oaks Second Addition; and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission has reviewed
the request and has determined that said request meets the
criteria of Ordinance 8, Sections 5.03 and 7.03; and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission finds the
proposed use will not be detrimental to the health, safety and
general welfare of the occupants of the surrounding lands; the use
will not cause serious traffic congestion or hazards; the use will
not depreciate surrounding property; and the use is in harmony
with the Comprehensive Plan; and
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 allow Karolyn Rucks to operate
an in-home beauty salon on the above described property with the
following conditions:
1. The Special Use Permit shall be subject to a sunset
clause as defined in Ordinance No.8, Section 5.03(D).
2. The Special Use Permit shall be subject to annual
review and site inspection by City Staff.
3. One salon chair only.
4. The site shall be subject to meeting the requirements
of Ordinance No.8, Section 8.08, parking.
5. The beauty salon shall be owner occupied.
6. Hours of operation shall be as follows:
TO BE ESTABLISHED
/
Page Two
SUP - In-Home Beauty Salon
Karolyn Rucks
Resolution
7. Upon sale of the premises for which the Special
Use Permit is granted, such permit shall terminate.
8. Drawings detailing the salon shall be submitted at the
time of the request for the Special Use Permit.
9. The provisions of Ordinance No.8, Section 4.30, Home
Occupations shall apply.
10. A minimum of 39,000 s.f. of lot size shall be
required.
11. The septic system shall be inspected annually before
the Special Use Permit is reviewed.
12. The septic system must be in compliance with
Ordinance No. 37, Septic System Ordinance. A beauty
shop is equivalent to one (1) bed~oom in terms of
usage.
Adopted by the city Council of the City of Andover on this
___ day of , 1995.
CITY OF ANDOVER
ATTEST:
J. E. McKelvey, Mayor
Victoria Volk, City Clerk
/
"~~I/
'~'~IL -HOi.l.oW' ;
.J ! . I:c=:- '~Jr"-
~-~i- ~ If--.---- ' ,. . . 'L .
, --lil:r- II --'''--'_ .
r' '. ' ,
~:_....._" '--, ::1 ~'~ -; I I "
I ' I d' ~;;...:"y- --i I I! I' ......(.
\ I ,- I ,. 3:/''\--~~-;--3:'S::'':'~: .
, ,-' '- 2.1' [-- r:q'Wc;~~EN.: i ,
I, ., I , I-M Al)c.~i;r()f(.. '. ~ i i
---- -------- , . II
'", R:-'-~-: -~. ,"""C Lt "-~" - ~,.., I
'~'~":. I J :11 . 'y..., , :' i.... ~, -, ) I
~ ~ - ~ ~'-' ; //'I 1 :il~ '10m . ~Vr ~17!I~)~";
, ""y ~ I I' >.. / ... I
-::::::: ' " I il! \.' '" , ,\~ I
'~ ,~i ~. I Iii \\ ~ I' '\~\ ~"
E ITY:~~ :V_.'l;'o'!":.'.>.~~ ! I! ~....... \l ' /; ,~~" I \
~ ALL':: ~;'.-~', "*~~'~ : ( \ : ~ #~ < " \, ...'"'-...1(J.I
. , , ~ .~ ~'. ~ !!l"'" I ~. "...., LV I
.~.. : :F-- p.~~i ~ "\':r~, -"'-11.';-- ,~-\- f-'.~... I ." -I "" I ,.!.,. II I I
I . ~~ . , .' "'H \ ~....~, ~ ( -.:.J..
: ' ~~j :; . ~ ~I~. "1 IP-~"" - ~''''''''''J~~I : -..J 01\oll' I :" I
'=,:" : ':' '''~.:7: .': ~ I IJ'lD.t'~ 1'. ~q..-:'~~I::~-L-:- - :
. ,. .. ," ~ ~-:. .. n I I:' l " ~ ..... ~ 1 'Y:' -s.,h _ I
.." ..."".. .....Jj ~';:'. . ,./. ;": :I~ /. / ;; I """ ~~ .'! -' I---"" .C'.c -: ~
{, I.... ~~; '.{ / / I ",.., .!. ~I: ;. I . I. \ ; . ~n 'l
:...... ,...", ,. ~;, ". ,x~. 2/ , I I ,'\ 'IL ~.-' . I L ..... -"- ,
~~,: ; ~ ~/i-:;; '~:"~. 'f' ;f ;01. i :. rPAI.Q.visl~!!t13 'j ~C.IMmV" \ l i ~: ,I
~..-.- ::t ~-7~ ,.. ?\.--(, II'. f. . II .., J .-----: I~. I I-- Eal
p'.. ."""" j: " ''''iCC'",. ," '(~'/.;;::. :. .." o.~'l\ 2NO~'OtJ.-' "---- - - I I
I~...:; ~~-".,....... .",~117 '-~"I. li7'fo~""r-I' ,\":1 . i \ I................... - I
,J..:;;; .. ~ ''''''/'''10101'''''''''''_ --;t j._~ - -s....L-k~- __.\..... _ __ __,__
'1'.~. ~~111~~~~~ R' 4' / ~ I' j'. . -~~-. ~I;' I. t:~ -'-:./!.I.,! .1,; 1~1~1'
~ . ~.:; I ~.. --'!". - I ~ ,,:,:,,:"'" < ! 8AR"IE$ i R()4L1NI" I- f'.,
~F"3 5!! ~. U.-"I II '~::-:1;rl?r"I~ : '. ~rf . ,. ~I
~I I: ~ I i I ~~ ".,.,. ~ ~ I ~' .~::" - I II I I : I I
~: 1:/ ~~\,mc~ I I i ~ 7'l~N~~~~ ',i- - : I^U~t".: t- f-
: I n:;......, r I -. , II ~,
: I: ...... n.... · , ~: ,r-- t- . '.J II'
" '~.Ai ~I o;l . J.::q ! R L..o.L: 4 ~.... ~ i 4 I .J.'
~ : J-f - Q '....". ,f~,";;; ''''':':: .' I "'l"'T" ,.~ '" ~ /---, '-- --'- ~ru ~ ',Vp;..loi-""....__
h . :.~ ~. .,: .",~ l:l!ci-'J:-llI 't-n-- r-' -.;;;;; '-;...,"I"'~~_u:--I::';;~l-- r'
'L".,~. I: ..,.~:" I~~;~~ f i:1 \~ ~~ ~'"-_I ':""'.~ ~i " ,: I
~ ,~-,'~. II. ", ~.."I '/'" J .l'~.... _ ..",. !j"I'I'- ,
-..!!.r......1 ~ .,~,~ . ;;;I;;,"~'''1:f I \ J - ...."""t1.-1 1
. '..;"., "'~~~'~~ ..~: .;.!....~..... ~ .J1f ~~~ft>'
!~~ t... --...... -t-L~ . ,,1->1../7 .. -Iff J ~ ~.~ A;
;' i", .,... ""'" .,~, _ ....... ~ !!}', , , II 'Ii;' '<:
. "'0:.:. ~:iif; ",~,~,"~~:,~'~:'fJ- . ill I' II I ~
II) ;":'. :>S~~\' '.'. ' . 1 ~(',LS 1/ I , .-
i ~~~i~~ I'R 4 " R-I f'-!1~~
; .~'':iY;;I.\.4;-." -'. '., - 1:~;1'
---' .,'-~.~~..... , "I. I ~
'H . 8'~ '. :.;......: ?j.,,-~ ::'I~" ,- . i.
:: I -I', ~.~ '1.1....., '" 4!~. I I .
'r:-: '. ~ 1"-;;"" ...... "",,:,,';;\~'.,. .: I I " 'I ---=--- r-
I ~I'/m--''''', "'---"'-;)'. I ' ~
I 1"':5 '-..,,1.. ____
I.'~' . .,. '.. . ~\oU~ _:;..o:;~
I NB ."" ._........:.- "~,~..:' '. \~
: r' ....... ,.Y-', ....~..~~....... \." l'
?-,.. ~ I-;J;",IJ ..,...... ,-_ ._ .J --\ _ . ~/ 8t./NKeR 4'~-:- r--~--v;-"':"'..J.-~~~~
~ .- I I I I \ ~ LAKe f 1",<., ,1\'1< . ./ ......,.) ,
. , ,.: I:.: :.1. ~:.'" ~ lk'.',;, '-'- I. J,. ~ . I";~::\' .~
," ' I!.;..,-.' '. ~:..I, --':. "'. '.' I.;, '.. "'.~. - \1~ II '.' ~.~I:.,'.:;'.].'..>.;"1.:
::.:.. :...... . I ' . I '. I ' . " . .." .... ...J 1 ~~ I ,. :.:, : ~ I ..:\~. )-'
~Ir--~-i-:----i----'I~r-___-) f7~'\." ~~ --'~{-~~'\.' T-~~l'"j.-J'..
~t.YI !''''- -1--.- II'!'" '1lft..... ~ I ""'-,'" .(i/,I r..-f. ~ y '. .
, ,
. ,
i:
r:-
,
-:;j
. _~1.r
" 'I
(,
II
r"
J~.. .
~8
...
.~
~'6
Cl~
~!<i
d~~
- <(
'" ...I
~-
... ""
~
~:l:
~~
il
TI~
l ()
I
UTIO ,
I:
I;
I'I"J'J.
_n.. ..
"T. ...
II$TIll.
"T. >>
4MD 6lI~
uae ..v~
...IT AVE
IIOt.. lYE
Ie,TN A'(
"TN AVf
"'TN A'E
'""" ..,
WlTM ~E
aMTlf avE
IUC ,wE
'62Il1O Avt.
16111 _t
Il1O'. ~E
III'" _
...'" ....
Q71l1 iWt.
..."'-
Qll" a<< .
I lLJ I ~
I 0:: I ~
II-I'" 5
t en I tt-,
I ~ I
I <:::) I
J: I
'1 ~.
:-" I 5/0()t}" I
II ~ I I 'J~i\\.-~ I
II ~ I~ ~.- ~~
\\ ~ 16\ I "'~
~I I~. ~~
I lLJ t'" :-y-- -----r--; -
I a: I ~ Uti/,'t ~
I 0 I " l~ '\
I 100 '" -.:
J :E ----, 510.00 I
., <t r :S40.00
1(,)11/\ l~ ~
~I >- I~ I~ ~
:'il en I ~ I :) ~ .~
~ I "" I "i I-. "S' ~ ~
I I 8'5t "" <l
I .&, ISO ~
i.., ~:,~~;o'f~ '- - - - - ~ -r~
-"<~ -?::. ~,,: 2~.z J~ /1"
~~~ ~ .
, ~ .s-- ,
" .
I
~l , It\
.. I~
4 ~I I~ 2 "'i
4 ~
~I I~ Vol ~ \.. K Vol ~ '( N 1~
I <;::, I
<;::, >:\ I
II::i ~ I ~ ,50.J;!.
lit 'I.( I ,
,5/).-1-$ "
"
"
I
I
I 2
I
I 5
I N 8~'/e'()~"'Jt'
-
I
J8S,5~ ~
.IV 98";1$'+2 "E ~~
~.
., ~'"
01 l::) "I\{
d ~~
c: ~ ~
~ ~
"
2 '"
,
A
-,
/
/
.I . 'Hot ~ //n e
54't7.t78
-----------
~ 75'z. ~5' F
CSAH. t NO.
-/- --,7B~;
/ AI B~'5.z
I
\... 56V-rh fin,
~
- - -;ft~-
--
I "A,.,,,kQ t,.
1M"".
I .
'S'vIAw~iT-
t!",.,,~,. , ~
/r'W ~~I S~r..zS
~ J,z~ )? J+
d--~S.. (Jo
\
/1 ",\,
I
I
l~
\ \}.)
, v,
~'~
.- '\ .
, )','
,j
, 'E"
....... ~.
~() $......
o'
---+
"I()'
~ IIM1 c/
)..::3 ~ eLl- S
......
i
~/
~ sl'
(-:ru' ~
t
" ,,[
~I
/
-,/>-
LX. "C3
~,
.;;:. ?
o ....
~J
(U ~
,c X'
'( p \'
~,;,,~'i\ {lO
"\. '2f~
"-.l
~
....
v
....
\tQ1 I \1 c)
I
1
I
!\j'J
I
<-~
-
~
--
, ,
/
o dl
~
~
/
~l
\0
c-
---
r--
'<
S7~~O '\
z.-,
,~
d
8
1
D~" :c\ CCLr-1 bU-l
-,~~ - S /60
CITY of ANDOVER
1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. . ANDOVER. MINNESOTA 55304 . (612) 755-5100
Property Address
SPECIAL USE PERMIT
8 +c - I 4& +k. La.. Y\ e..- N Ld
Legal Description of Property:
(Fill in whichever is appropriate):
Lot 5 Block i Addi tion BA Y)IU ~
&/// OetJ:S
:l ~ Mer
"rt- _
PIN ~ .3;). - .J-4-.... /4-- t1a:sS(If metes and bounds, attach
the complete legal
description. )
Is the property: Abstract)( or Torrens ? (This
information must be p.ovide~ can be obtained from the
County. )
----------------------------------------
Reason for Request
J
Section of Ordinance .:;~ 4 ~//1. d '::-:> Current Zoning /~ - I
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Name of Applicant ~ 12/) Iy 11 1h4f)1'P~ (It:k5
Address <g'l/o .- It(~-r:t- 1-41 /I/a)
Home Phone =- _ ~ Business Phone
Signature , _-1 ~ Date ~/1/9S-
-----------------------------------------------------------------
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; dimensions of the
property and structures; front, side and rear yard
building setbacks; adjacent streets; and location and use
of existing structures within lOO feet.
The names and addresses of all property owners within 350
feet of the subject property. ,,~ 1..J.6..i>
\b
Application Fees:
Commercial
Residential
Amended SUP
Recording Fee
Abstract property
Torrens property
~oo
50.
$ .
~
~
$l'1S.00
Date Paid
e/a. Iq5
Receipt It 02.488'1
Rev. 5-06-93:d'A
5-04-94:bh
2-0l-95:bh
3-22-95:bh
Res. l79-9l (ll-05-9l)
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.
4. The effect of the proposed use on the Comprehensive Plan.
\
)
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 BEARING
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, August 22, 1995 at the Aridoyer City Hall,
1685 Crosstown Blvd. NW, Andover, MN to review the Special Use
Permit request of Karolyn Rucks to operate an in-home beauty salon~
as established in Ordinance No.8, Section 5.03, Special Uses on
the property located at 840 - 146th Lane NW (PIN 26-32-24-14-
0005), legally described as Lot 5, Block 1, Barnes Rolling Oaks
Second Addition.
All written and verbal comments will be received at that time and
location.
A copy of the application and location will be available at
Andover City Hall for review prior to said meeting_
fy;;,-/ . ~
Victoria Vol , C1ty
Clerk
Publication dates:
August 11, 1995
August 18, 1995
j
PIN: 253224230001
SOLBERG RONALD & KATHLEEN
F 14655 PALM NW
Al'l ',\ MN 55304
PIN: 253224230002
GRORUD DAVID & DIANE
14545 PALM ST NW
ANDOVER MN 55304
PIN: 253224230003
GRORUD DAVID C & DIANE M
14545 PALM NW
ANOKA MN 55304
PIN: 263224140002
MAZZEI PAUL & MAZZEI LINDA
935 ANDOVER BLVD NW
ANDOVER MN 55304
PIN: 263224140003
MAZZEI PAUL & MAZZEI LINDA
935 ANDOVER BLVD NW
ANOKA MN 55304
PIN: 263224140004
RYAN M W & SCHUMACHER A J
14540 PALM ST NW
ANDOVER MN 55304
.. -.;..
PIN: 263224140005
RUCKS K & ROSENBUSH R
840 146TH LN NW
ANOKA MN 55304
PIN: 263224140006
MCLAUGHLIN KEVIN V & C C
890 146TH LN NW
ANOKA MN 55304
PIN: 263224140009
FISH KEVIN L & CHRIS M
835 146TH LN NW
ANDOVER MN 55304
PIN: 263224140010
KIRKEIDE CLIFTON A & AUDREY
885 146TH LN NW
ANDOVER MN 55304
I
PIN: 263224140011
LANGLEY DANIEL R & DIANE M
14655 SYCAMORE NW
ANOKA MN 55304
CITY OF ANDOVER
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
september 5, 1995
DATE
Variance
Accessory Building
2721 134th Avenue NW
Doug & Beth Frye
David L.
Planning
APPROVED
FOR AGENDA
ca3-- ~()J
Di rector f::JP--
AGENDA
fIO.
SECTION
Discussion
ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT
ITEM
fIO.
Planning
K'
REQUEST
)
The city Council is requested to review the variance application
of Doug & Beth Frye to Ordinance No.8, section 6.02, which
requires accessory structures on a residential parcel with a lot
area of one acre or less not to exceed 75% percent of the square
footage of land cover of the principal structure on the property
located at 2721 134th Avenue NW, legally described on the attached
resolution. Mr. & Mrs. Frye,are requesting a 180 square foot
variance to allow them to construct a 12' x 20' accessory
building (storage shed).
For further background information, please review the attached
staff report and minutes from the August 22, 1995 Planning and
zoning Commission meeting.
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION REVIEW
The Planning and zoning Commission on August 22, 1995, made the
motion to recommend to the City Council approval of the variance
request. Attached is a resolution for Council review and approval
that reflects the motion made by the Commission.
,
)
MOTION BY:
SECOND BY:
CITY OF ANDOVER
COUNTY OF ANOKA
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RES. NO. R -95
A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE VARIANCE REQUESTED BY DOUG AND BETH
FRYE TO ALLOW FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 12' x 20' ACCESSORY
STRUCTURE (STORAGE SHED) THAT EXCEEDS THE REQUIREMENTS OF
ORDINANCE NO.8, SECTION 4.05(B)(2) BY 180 S.F. ON THE PROPERTY
LOCATED AT 2721 - 134TH AVENUE NW, LEGALLY DESCRIBED BELOW.
WHEREAS, Doug and Beth Frye have requested a variance to
allow for the construction of a 12' x 20' accessory structure
(storage shed) exceeding the requirements of Ordinance No.8,
Section 4.05(B)(2) by 180 s.f. on the property located at 2721 -
134th Avenue NW, legally described as follows:
Grow Township. That part of Lot 9, Auditors Subdivision No. 137,
Anoka County, Minnesota described as follows: Commencing at a
point on the North line of said Lot 9, which is 350 feet East of
the Northwest Corner of said Lot 9; thence South and parallel with
the West line of said Lot 9 for a distance of 135 feet; thence
East and parallel with the North line of said lot 9 for a distance
of 150 feet; thence North and parallel with the West line of said
Lot 9 for a distance of 135 feet and to the North line thereof;
proceeding thence West along said North line to the point of
commencement; and
/ WHEREAS, the Planning and zoning Commission has reviewed
the request and has determined that said request meets the
criteria of Ordinance No.8, Section 5.04; and
WHEREAS, the Planning & zoning Commission recommends to
the City Council approval of the variance as 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 and hereby approves the variance
requested to Ordinance No.8, Section 4.05(B)(2) as stated above
on said property.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Andover this
____ day of , 1995.
CITY OF ANDOVER
J. E. McKelvey, Mayor
ATTEST:
Victoria Volk, City Clerk
i:egular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
l!inutes - August 22, 1995
,-:>age 5
\.
~VARIANCE - ACCESSORY BUILDINGS EXCEEDING 75 PERCENT LAND COVERAGE OF
l])IPRINCIPAL STRUCTURE - 2721 134TH AVENUE NW - DOUG AND BETH FRYE
Mr. Carlberg reviewed the variance request of Doug and Beth Frye to
allow the construction of an accessory structure exceeding the
=equirements of Ordinance No.8, Section 4.05, Accessory Building and
Structures. The Frye's are proposing to construct a 12' x 20' storage
shed which exceeds the maximum allowed land coverage by 180 square feet.
. The house, which is 912 square feet, was constructed in 1960; however,
~he Zoning Ordinance was adopted in 1971 and the specific regulations on
6ccessory structures and land coverage were adopted in 1983. There is
c detached garage on the parcel. Accessory structures combined cannot
exceed 75 percent of the square footage of land cover of the principal
~;tructure, and the detached garage is being considered an accessory
structure. If granted, the accessory structure will meet or exceed all
setback requirements. Staff supports the variance. Commissioner Apel
ergued that since the City requires garages, they would not be
considered accessory buildings. All the Frye's have to do is construct
i:, breezeway between the two buildings and it is considered attached. He
c.:id not believe the City ever considered a garage as an accessory
~uilding unless it is a second garage. .
)pr. Carlberg explained Staff considered this request similar to the one
~.n 1993 on Crosstown Boulevard where the applicant wished to add on to
" detached garage, which resulted in exceeding the coverage requirement.
;,. variance was granted in that case. He then read the ordinance
definition uf accessory structure. Commissioner Apel felt the key word
.~s "subordinate". Garages are required and are a part of the principal
l~se; accessory buildings are subordinate to the principal use of the
property. He felt the variance will resolve this request. The issue of
detached garages being considered as accessory structures was discussed
~n the past, but he did not think it was resolved.
MOTION by Doucette, Seconded by Jovanovich, that we pass this to the
City Council with our recommendation of approving the variance request
by Doug and Beth Frye to allow for the construction of a 12' x 20'
accessory structure that exceeds the requirements of Ordinance 8,
Section 4.05(B)(2) by 180 square feet located at 2721 134th ~venue NW.
I-lotion carried on a 6-Yes, I-Absent (peek) vote. This item will be
placed on the September 5, 1995, City Council agenda.
:n further discussion, the Commission felt the issue of characterizing
a detached garage as an accessory structure to include in the allotment
toward the 75 percent coverage requirement should be reviewed by Staff.
Otherwise it has the effect of punishing those with detached garages.
On the other hand, unlimited garage space is not desirable either. Mr.
'~arlberg agreed to research the history and bring it back to the
'J Commission for discussion.
j
CITY OF ANDOVER
REQUEST FOR PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
DATEAuqust 22. 1995
AGENDA ITEM
ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT
APPROVED FOR
AGENDA
7. Variance - Accessory
Building - 2721 134th
Avenue NW - Frye
Planning
BY". David L. Carlberg
pl..,.,,.,;"'''' n;rp~t-nr
By,t
REQUEST
The Andover Planning and zoning Commission is asked to review the
'variance requested by Doug and Beth Frye to allow for the
construction of an accessory structure exceeding the requirements
of Ordinance No.8, Section 4.05, Accessory Building and
structures. The applicant is proposing to construct a 12' x 20'
accessory structure (storage shed) which exceeds the maximum
allowed land coverage as specified in Section 4.05(B)(2) by 180
s.f. The property is located at 2721 - 134th Avenue NW, legally
described on the attached resolution.
The property is zoned R-4, Single Family Urban and is .46 acres
'(20,250 s.f.) in size.
I
APPLICABLE ORDINANCES
Ordinance No.8, Section 4.05(B)(2), states that, "Accessory
buildings on a residential parcel with a lot area of one (1 a.)
acre or less, shall not exceed seventy-five (75%) percent of the
square footage of land cover of the principal structure".
In this case, the applicant's principal structure is 912 s.f.
Seventy-five percent of that is 684 s.f. By ordinance, the
combined square footage of all accessory structures cannot exceed
that amount. The applicant has an existing detached garage that
is 624 s.f. allowing only sixty (60 s.f.) square feet of
additional accessory building construction. The applicant is
proposing to construct a storage shed that is 12' x 20' = 240 s.f.
Hence the need for the 180 s.f. variance.
Ordinance No.8, Section 5.04, establishes the variance procedure
and process. Variances may be granted where there are practical
difficulties or unnecessary hardships in any way of carrying out
the strict letter of the provisions of the zoning Ordinance. The
hardships or difficulties must have to do with the characteristics
of the land and not the property owner.
BACKGROUND & REVIEW
) The Commission should be aware that the applicant's house was
constructed in 1960. The zoning Ordinance was adopted in 1971 and
the specific regulations regarding accessory structures and land
coverage were adopted on July 19, 1983.
page Two
Variance - Accessory Structure
/ 2721 - 134th Avenue NW
Doug & Beth Frye
August 22, 1995
The Commission should also be aware that if the variance is
granted, the accessory structure (storage shed) will comply with
the setback requirements as established in Ordinance No.8, the
zoning Ordinance.
COMMISSION OPTIONS
A. The Andover Planning and zoning Commission may recommend
approval of the variance requested by Doug and Beth Frye to
allow for the construction of an accessory structure (storage
shed) that exceeds the minimum requirements of Ordinance No.
8, Section 4.05(B)(2) by 180 s.f. on the property located at
2721 - 134th Avenue NW, Legally described on the attached
resolution.
The Planning Commission finds that the proposal meets the
conditions established in Ordinance No.8, Section 5.04.
B. The Andover Planning and zoning Commission may recommend
denial of the variance requested by Doug and Beth Frye to
allow for the construction of an accessory structure (storage
shed) that exceeds the minimum requirements of Ordinance No.
/ 8, Section 4.05(B)(2) by 180 s.f. on the property located at
2721 - 134th Avenue NW, Legally described on the attached
resolution.
The Commission finds that the proposal does not meet the
requirements set forth in Ordinance No.8, Section 5.04. The
Commission finds that no hardship exists due to the unique
shape or topography of the parcel and that the land owner
would not be precluded reasonable use of the property.
C. The Andover Planning and Zoning Commission may table the item.
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends option A.
~~ 11~'~l ,.," '.j,.
' 11'~'-'-"jJ J;' i, ,I '/~()Q~i (", 1_+';; :
II I I 'I '!' '- ~...._ L~_I_'_\ ,'S1,. ",' ";:'L.. ,
' '-'" - - ~ , -- '. -" .;" ' / ..' ''''. ,
"'I ,- '..._;- '", . '" " ""', . , ,
/
~ ~ J (I - ,'~Fo 'k;;. )t.~ I'? &,__il,fi;ll);\t1~
~:".....I 1\ ROfJNO / i~J/J ';>,7;:,,,"'" ,
~(' LA V~ ." -.;..:.:,:.'....'.'''' ',<.,L" ,I'!ff.
I ~. "';;; / .',1...., I. ~~__^""
leE! Y;('J ) . . -=' c!- n~ .. '" '..' ....
'I' . ,.-~ /. .. (." 2>, -I}<;r . , " . . , ~_
" -. /. , ~ " ~ I., ". .", '. ~
' . ~" ~... ' ~ ,- ,~~ """ ~
I 'I! . , " -;. '~r"" I ' ,,,....-;---.. . """
' . "= u, '.. . ".
.'L, 'f.c .; ~''''7'r' I "' . :" ~
'"~ /~""""---_. ;;t'.J,<~W. nm' ;!; l",q I ,,' _" , '. ,~
.--/ ~ t,l~it-". ;{. ~ ',' :JWt~.- !!t'" 7" _ ~ " , ~
---91 -. .. Ill<~ " '. . . I I ~:":;::;:;: ~,~~s
~ J:l" .. ~""'h~ ' .. '.I)'~\. """''';S;::!i..,... . "'-4/", "'"
'J".; .... :.' , '.. 1'':'.ii'~' '" ~:;;, \ " , ,. ,{"'.....,'i' ,;."'.,-> ,.,.Y'. , <Ok..~.. ~
-~ ..-;.'t:t 'Cio~ ~ .. . "\c: f7""'.~ ,. ../......;..[...."..,{,.I.;;))'.w~,....
j ~ i;l ='":': '1tJ.t I~ ~- ,^ :......, , ~.. -l'i 'TI '*l "; ''':';,\':1''-/0,':'''''''; r"7?" fA, ::.::.:~~ f[
. ". """,.,. \ '."" , 1"'" ., ''''':''"<:F:''',;,;::,,:,,~// ~,.\. "~,
- ~... ~." .-.,.", ~ ,,", "' h ",..-. 8.. in'" _rl~ ~..::
""= ...... 'liD I ~;.,.. tr I . "hr.......... -., :,'.; J, . " ~~;"" , . .~,
.., , ,"""~ \ ,.', " ~,.",'. ~ , "'''''tt/,'' '" ve,=-,,~.. 17..;..1 ~"',~:c,.
, ",~ ',~ , ,,' .,. .. .C!, Co, ''''~ """""' ~ .
"Y-;J..11 ~0;~ rl:~I';r..t.f.::ft:..1' th -~~"'7' I '~LI5il~";;:::;,::. =: ;:'Iic ''''''~'',; :,,~:~
· ~ om""" -' ~ __n.... '... "11.,,,,.,,,, ~"~. " .
"""- ~L""I~. ~ """"""". "",..", '!; ~~~.'" 'll:;,t' w~ 'ri;n/:fl.j~." ~ ~~
"'JJ~ T ~.jl""" '''~ -/1 , ~'~&.~.t'tb ',s,1t':'r' "". '''''~/V'/}"II , .... ~~.
',.-" , .. ".. , .'" -.-"" .....~'~GOIl ~~~~ ::=:f.,.I..!. " .'~.~ '-~. ~~~_' t..';(;...c; ':"1'H:rfo.~
~" I I .... ._..~~. ""... ",' _...."'. ,'~ """'."'-',.... "
..., -., ./"'. ~ : '~Ii\' l.'1;-.c:tw~,,,. \.. ""'_~ ""'~ . /,.: ,: ='....~
" · " . .. ..... ""<., -.- . ~ '. ,,- '. , '~ R~ " " . "'~~"-I
",. , ':".. '''''.. ...,.,. "'.", ,..... .... ~ '''W,!~~ - 1\ 01.":: ~ :; ". '~'~-<J171
.' . '" ..".. '1' 'I" , ". "'"-. ~.~. '...,," . ""~h. ,0:0=.l. jJI.IIO, '. ..' :;;o,~["
. ' ,. ...~,. "~'"'''''''''' '" W"" =_""', ., . . .. . ',,,, <
J!F_"wm,:. '._"", ~"'3l"'--'"'' 4- i,' , ", ""I~ '~\~-.w ~,,,.,,.~.,~.
'1m ,rr@i'Iffi;,.. .. .....:... ",.,,', ~=. I R - ~ ~ t~: I .IJ.. ~ \ '':' ,., I I '
'.".. . ":.",,,. ',: ..;. :..~~ , -- ../ ~,. "" ""
r$ l)II ,.,... '-. . =- ~ [gl .. ;;;;:;...-" Ih!-'_ ht1 i
'" ~ . :...." - . :''''''''; ..,,~ S ,,~. , .:, . > 'I~JJnn R _:--'! L---.J
.~. . ii' . " I l _ ~ T'I:\ ~",-.",_ '. "'" _~, "
/ -.f~1'::E~:.:; "_ !' ~ seT' '-";'-' :1'1 m"l.nl't!;." ,~"'~" ..... . ':".'~ I~, hi T
'}:: I! ,. ..... ;i;9lb=--..~"",.l':. "" ," #. ~ , '~__ . ,
"'....... .;J<.". . ,~"' "-II..~.. 7.<;C1,(-~~ ';i;"'c~, "if !?'~;:;::~'" 0<, , "" ~~'"'".''-'''
~ -=,, ."',-" - f'< """/~:V,".F " .~ .~~__ ""h&~~ "-"'''''_ ,,<
-- ..'...."" .... ''i!i'~/':)'::i:i:",,,,",,r.; '"" '.." ""-'''.~Ia'''''''':~~Y,~i.:;~ +I ~...
n..~~....,~ "": ~ ,~. '". "_ I ',.. V~'_~"
I~......~ Ts . ~.~ . iIorr. - '! I~~ '.., , " ffi~,. ," 1_I.~t~.' J i: '~ ~,.;..;.l ~41~.rlfj'~!~'~~.
' .. - ~ ", .. - - '.. ~ _. . ~ . , . . .Iii...._..,
""'.'.' ~ >.<,,; ;~" -+-'~ '" , . .. '''.: "" . ~/~~~.:;., ~ ~' ~~~~' '~~-;.
: jJ :t;:;r. ~. . ';;:::'3"~:;<~ b 1:-.-\\' ~:.... '_-::""io;-iL,.,:~~c ....,~~_...' 8lt~..:... ~~:'
.. -. ''''''" "-H '~. 'en -- ,,,, ""0 ..
'.:..:,....~ i;;; ""'~):!4, i=v~ ' ',~" "', II '''''''.' ..(,C.,'',....,., '
[7.,~,.. ~"'i'r_I'O " .. " ~. S:) , '''''-I ._~' c.,J'"",
:!.. ", " · . ,,' . '" R' !<,. rr:k :,,..~ ~ _.. CITY ~
~ ~'~.!:<. "N <l ...,----, - NB I L
~~~'iiP.~~ :' '5,,',. J '-"
rr!! '~~~ ,.. .. I.
r., ,
......_Cl
I
-
-
AREA DEHOTU
~K AREA
~
j
1 - u.J
. ,41.' ~/3 I~) tf)
,1 , .', r . 1'1"""- .....
, ,
" ' .' ,..".- , ..
. IJ'1- CO
NO.
ij~
:/)
.~ N#
-H AVE.
(45) ~
~ ~
4-
/<..
)
f
~ (#0)
I
,..
40,11 ?..
102
rm)
M.u;.'-' ,.4 r
" f,.~...,. ~,/.'
II (~)
/'"
~
.~ ~ .-. -Go "....J,
I .IJ,,",,;
~~
: ~~ "i I ""
'~~ (.1~) ~
, "
. .".. ~ : {.... /',
.It-i
. ~!\''b
i~~
, '
,-,,;..'.
o
z
'#I~." -
>=
;;
- ~
I:
.
~ '
lLJ~ '
r-'" '"
"=t' '//
~
~.~ .
- - -.' ~:,
s' .~'. .....
~' >
I-
Z
::;:)
o
u
~"Iki',.;;..:
,"f :.
1"'-'
0
..!M ~ ~:
/. m
N.W. ~ ~,
t
,," IJJ'
~ ~,
/ (#) <t,
..J~
,
~
.
~
,.
J! (4-1) ,
~
,
-' (-fz) ~
, ,
'f' (4-3)
"-
~
...
~
NY'.
.1
'~'JY .......
\
j
c: ~ /1-/)
IJJ
~,
:Jf)
,
:1
. .
t~t:,~" /
.If /
,',.' 2 /
, 1~'
"' oJ: ,,~~!',.
~/I' ~.~,;t
~~l !fZ{'
"4 /'
/3~, ,.{ ~.
. . ~:r 5 . /"
/' //;. .t.:f~1
-J;:':"-
/' 6
,//
/ '~I'
/
( //..'
..J.,..J .. '. ,
v v"''''',,;
/
r/."'" ",
.' /
I'
I /
/
.I' I~ :.:i"/#,,:
.-v.' ~i
..!(,,_', ~3~'
/~
/.
/
._J..
...~.
....
/ /
/,/ /
/ / /
I~'<,"-
LJ~~
3 (I)
.,...~..
~J"'__
"
~;:.
.If. "....J
,~...
/
/
:-----
4 (,z)
1,
~~
(J)
f.:
.u.'/~
134TH:!
'.
~--.
,.!'..-
HI.:';
... -~.'
~_'u
n','
,..
(~)
,/u,...,~ ./. /'.tf.:. ~
a,..,,,,,,1,e,,r
(/.)
~ f{,.,e ,
I:#;-'''~
~.Y""~
~
en
(a1)
.
,
'~~rl
.
'"
~
~
("S)
.
".:'
~.~
..
/,
,~..
,-so:
,(/J) I. M 9'
~ uv",,' ~I:~ Mw'~'A4 ~
E,,:/,I" .,~;.I,'
'"
Cl
,~, <[ ,
IJJ'
~:r:
::
o
Q:
Q:
<[~
\:
"
(/6)
';;f'~./'.: ,
,A,. Et:6E
(17.)
~ &../r.,./ ~
K ('.";'",,
(I')
.v..hj. r e",./
LI.'6./~
(/~)
.1./';'-;), ~
(iJ)
- ~.-
df
/S'
- "'~
,U~ ~
,.
(.u)
Cv....,l.J' H f NJ".I
"''V~UJ'
lOoT)
j
,
,
"
" ("y)
, -f'.~/'/~: " ,
11',/,,,,.,1 ,.,
..-/9'
,'#'.--
NW. (~I) "
d<
~IJ)
Or--..jo~-M...:0..6
o~
Q:
U
,
f33RD~
LANE
S# "
AJ...,. ...:.
,. .:
~ lU'-'
I S'I/4 CORNER
SEC. 33
~-u~ -
(4') II
(41)
(N) .
FiJ'''' K /' ~
.I!/6.'" ~ '~I.I
M
.!)..' .'
"".,'1"
.'511''1
/'
/'
@
. :~.'
~f
/-~~> .:
:6~~;.}.;.-, ;.,.5:......-:.
- - :':'-' :y.
41~
t
~.7~
. (.,;8 4' s F
~
. (po
.~ ;~
,. ~
~:'
. . ~: -.' .
;~~~:t? :f::. :i.
.: .;>r~;;.~~
.-;:
~ :<,> ..
:-;..:..:..~
,
pc:.T"'c. 14: ~ &\J & t.d., ~
-.
.... - ~ .
",' :,...~-Y...
;.~
.;.---;-
sF'
76
_ufo.-'
~
.. AL..LouJ For<-
(j".A p:. ~ ~
htlr-
f~1Y. \s""o
. .-:--':'~'~:-:..
___T'
,. --.-' -- ----...
--,--.".-.;:...;:.:~.;....::~. .;
.-::J n.11~'
~ "~l- \3 loft' ll--Ik tJ w
A \,\.~1I ~t.n:; ..~.Y\." .. .
,
" "'.'-
.;::"'''
. ....
.;:
.
"
-.;.~,.-. ~ -.
~~~~~l, .."
~).:;ii~'~~!~
GUIDE ToA.ssIsr You WITH YOUR
EZ FRAME SHED
I~I.
1:. GENERAL
· Prior to beginning construction. the area selected for the shed location
I
'must be leveled and cleared of obstructions.
I
:. INVENTORY
Separate all lumber. hardware. etc. into individual stacks of like items.
3. FRAME
PREPARATION
Unfold each frame. -setting
aside two frames to be used as
end walls. From 1"x4" Pine
boards: cut Gusset plates 6"
long--24 for a 12' building.32
for a 16' building or 40 for a
20' building. Apply gusset
plates on each side of the top
and bottom fold locations.
Frames to be used as end
walls require only one gusset
plate top and bottom on the
side qpposite of the metal
plate. and to the inside of the
building. Use four 8d nails on
I "each plate. See Figure 1.
I FIGURE x.1
ZZ4 upper
aa4 t-wer
.... Fra..
........
X"X4":ldI"
Ieac .-c
plate at top
loW Ioc:atioa
ZZ4 Side WaD
Fr--. X_her
Treat..s :a"X4"-
BoU- Fra..
"'--her
+
.
X"X4":z6"
Joac cu-t
plate at bono.
loW Jocatiaa
..
, .
X:'oO"
X.X/:"
u'
11.....
64"
;\~)
'.
J
J
CITY of ANDOVER
VARIANCE REQUEST FORM
Property Address
:J7d / .. / 311#- Av~ N0
Legal Description of Property:
(Fill in whichever is appropriate):
Lot
Block
Addi tion
Plat Parcel PIN
(If metes and bounds, attach the complete legal) I
---------------------------------------------------~~---------
Description of Request &..-J/I /~ X ~;. ~ S,r.
-5/rr-~d:~' 0; ;(}~~r ~ ~~aW'<e*
~-f .r.; .M. .5: _ -9. '" --;- '-&$drJ;
-:5lruclur~5 ~d 7S~J! ~ 1~,.4 r:,UA ;/j/hne,~,/
Specific Hardship /;h'uG< .~..I...,I.. .n1 /96(J j ~c.A,/,<"
~ AM- ~/kw ...-u't!L<;"nahh. u~ 7 ~/l~~7'"
Section of Ordinance :S: ,,/fd"" 4. ~S-Current Zoning ~- ~ 75Ft(
~:::-:;-~~~~;::~~-~:.r~-~~~A--~~-~-----------------------
Address .?1JJ - /3l./ t. qUe. N'uJ Al-t.dvVotrL
, De.",^-
Home Phone 1'5"1- '17'11 Business Phone /};?- '173p-
~~~::~:::--~~~--~~-------------~:~:---~-~.-~~~~~-~
Property Owner (Fee Owner)
(If different from above)
Address
Home Phone
Business Phone
Signature
Date
-----------------------------------------------------------------
VARIANCE
PAGE 2
/
The following information shall be submitted prior to review by
the City of Andover:
l. A scaled drawing of the property and structures affected
showing: scale and north arrow; dimensions of the
property and structures; front, side and rear yard
building setbacks; adjacent streets; and location and use
of existing structures within lOO feet.
2. Application Fee: Single Family ~.OQ:)
Other Requests - $lOO.OO
9;1)/~s Receipt # C~4-7g&
Date Paid
Rev. l-07-92:d'A
5-23-94:bh
Res. l79-9l (ll-05-9l)
CRITERIA FOR GRANTING A VARIANCE
In granting a variance, the City Council shall consider the
advice and recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission,
and:
/
l. If the request is in keeping with the spirit and intent of
this Ordinance.
2. If it finds that strict enforcement of this Ordinance will
cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to
the individual property under consideration.
3. If it finds that denying the request does not deny
reasonable use of the property.
4. Economic considerations shall not constitute an undue
hardship if reasonable use of the property exists under
the terms of the Ordinance.
/
CITY OF ANDOVER
COUNTY OF ANOKA
STATE OF MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO. 8U
/
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO.8, EFFECTIVE JANUARY 1, 1971,
ORDINANCE NO. 8F, EFFECTIVE FEBRUARY 19, 1980, AND ORDINANCE NO. 81.
EFFECTIVE OCTOBER 21, 1980, KNOWN AS THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE
CITY OF ANDOVER.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANDOVER HEREBY ORDAINS:
Ordinance No.8, effective January 1, 1971, Ordinance No. 8F,
effective February 19, 1980, and Ordinance No. 81, effective
October 21, 1980, are hereby amended as follows:
SECTION 4.05
ACCESSORY BUILDINGS AND STRUCTURES.
B. No accessory building in a residential area shall exceed the
height of the principal structure except subject to Section 4.06(F)
and Section 8.21.
The accessory buildings on a residential parcel with a lot area
of five (5) acres or less, but more than one (1) acre, shall not
exceed the total square footage of land cover of the principal
structure.
The accessory buildings on a residential parcel with a lot area
of one (1) acre or less, shall not exceed 75\ of the square
footage of land cover of the principal structure.
F. No detached garages or other accessory buildings shall be located
nearer the front lot line than the principal structure except as
herein provided:
/
1. On residential parcels with a lot area of one (1) acre or
more, a detached garage or accessory building may be
constructed closer to the front lot line than the principal
structure, however, the minimum distance it may be from
the front lot line is sixty (60) feet.
2. All detached garages or accessory buildings constructed
nearer the front lot line than the principal structure
shall be similar in design and exterior finish material
so as to be compatible to the principal structure.
K. No permanent sheet metal. painted or unpainted accessory
building shall be allowed on parcels of three (3) acres or
less. The foregoing shall not apply to painted and finished
metal siding normally used on residential structures.
SECTION 6.02
Minimum Requirements
Garage requirements to provide for a minimum 440 square foot double
garage in all residential districts, excepting mobile home courts/
parks and in those districts zoned specifically for multiple
dwellings (structures containing more than two (2) units).
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Andover this 19th
day of
. July
, 1983.
CITY OF ANDOVER
/
~.. /4/' /
J Y Wf'dschitr -.
.,
/.J~
Mayor
CITY OF ANDOVER
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
DATE ~~p~~mh~r ~ 1QQ~
AGENDA
fIO.
SECTION
ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT
APPROVED
FOR AGENDA
Discussion
Amenj Ordinance No.8,
Section 3.02, Definintion
of Family.
'=t:>
Planning ~
ITEM
fIO.
9.
David L. Carlberg
Planning Director
Frf:ju
W(
On June 20, 1995, the City Council directed the Planning and
Zoning Commission to review the definition of "family" and make
recommendations to change or amend the definition if necessary.
As a.part of the review, the City Attorney prepared a legal
analysis on the validity of the Zoning Ordinance. Attached is the
legal analysis for Council review. Based on this review, the
Planning and Zoning Commission is recommending approval of the
attached amendment to Ordinance No.8, Section 3.02, Definitions.
/
/
MOTION BY:
SECOND BY:
!
CITY OF ANDOVER
COUNTY OF ANOKA
STATE OF MINNESOTA
ORD NO. 8
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO.8, KNOWN AS THE ZONING
ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANDOVER.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANDOVER HEREBY ORDAINS:
Ordinance No.8, is hereby amended as follows:
SECTION 3.02
DEFINITIONS.
Family:
a. an individual, or two (2) or more persons related by
blood, marriage or adoption living together, or
NOTE: All other sections and subsections of the Zoning Ordinance
shall remain as written and adopted by the City Council of the
Ci ty of Andover.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Andover this 5th day
of September, 1995.
CITY OF ANDOVER
ATTEST:
J. E. McKelvey, Mayor
Victoria Volk, City Clerk
Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
M~nutes - August 22, 1995
/ Page 3
(Public Hearing: Special Use Permit/In-Home Beauty
Lane NW - K Rucks, Continued)
- 840 146th
DouO Frve, 2721 134th Avenue NW - stated ther another home on
Gladiola that has just been sold and the owner' moving to Coon Rapids.
That home also had an in-home beauty salon so that is two uses that
will no longer be operating in Andover.
Karolyn Rucks. 840 146th Lane NW - sically agreed with the hours of
operation given in the previous re est except on Fridays and Saturdays
she would prefer to start earlie, that is at 8:30 a.m. After a brief
discussion, Ms. Rucks and the ommission agreed to the following hours
of operation: 9 a.m. to p.m. on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and
Thursday; 8:30 a.m. to p.m. on Friday; 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. on
Saturday.
NOTION by Jo novich, Seconded by Doucette, to forward to the City
C0uncil ap2 oval of the Resolution granting the request of a Special Use
~'ermit 0 Karolyn Rucks to operate an in-home beauty salpn at the
proper located at 840 146th Lane NW, with the hours of operation as
egre to. There was a public hearing and there was no opposition. Add
I~ 13, The salon must comply with the State Cosmetology Board
:.quirernents. Motion carried on a 6 Yes 1 Peek vote. This
~i e epte er 5, 1995, City agenda. 7: p.m.
conded by Doucette, to close the public hearing.
6-Yes, 1-Absent (Peek) vote. 7:27 p.m.
MOTION by Putnam,
~(otion carried
@)
DISCUSSION: AMEND ORDINANCE NO.
l-\MENDMENT REDEFINING -FAMILY-
8,
SECTION 3.02, DEFINITIONS - AN
l'~r. Carlberg explained the proposed amendment to the definition of
"family" is the result of the discussion at the last Planning and Zoning
Commission meeting. The City Attorney has reviewed the proposal and
finds it acceptable. Commissioner Doucette wondered if the Council
considered structured relationships to include fraternities and
sororities and should language be written to exclude them. After some
c~scussion, the feeling of the Commission was that this would probably
Eat be a problem since there is no college or university in the
v~cinity. If it does become a problem, the City can deal with it at that
r'
__lIne.
Commissioner Putnam noted St. Louis Park recently dealt with this issue,
c,nd he suggested Staff contact them for further informatton. Mr.
Carlberg agreed.
rOTION by Apel, Seconded by Jovanovich, to forward this ordinance
,I ,,:~endment to the City Council with our recommendation for approval.
lcotion carried on a 6-Yes, 1-Absent (Peek) vote. This will be placed on
~ae September 5, 1995, City Council agenda.
CITY OF ANDOVER
REQUEST F.OR PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
AGENDA ITEM
5. DISCUSSION
Amend Ord. No. 8
Section 3.02,
Define Family
DATE
ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT
Planning
David L. Carlberg
BY: Planning Director
August 22, 1995
APPROVED FOR
::~~
REQUEST
The Andover Planning and Zonfng Commission tabled this item at
their August 8, 1995 meeting to allow staff to prepare
a new or revised definition of "family". Staff has prepared the
amendment to Ordinance No.8, Sections 3.02, Definition for
Commission review.
Attached please find additional research and background
information regarding this item.
I
-L~FJ \Pt-2
8/~;!./~
CITY OF ANDOVER
COUNTY OF ANOKA
STATE OF MINNESOTA
ORD NO. 8
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO.8, KNOWN AS THE ZONING
ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANDOVER.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANDOVER HEREBY ORDAINS:
Ordinance No.8, is hereby amended as follows:
SECTION 3.02
DEFINITIONS.
Family:
a. an individual, or two (2) or more persons related by
blood, marriage or adoption living together, or
I NOTE: All other sections and subsections of the zoning Ordinance
shall remain as written and adopted by the City Council of the
Ci ty of Andover.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Andover this 5th day
of September, 1995.
CITY OF ANDOVER
J. E. McKelvey, Mayor
ATTEST:
Victor1a Volk, C1ty Clerk
-'
\ -r k..- "I I \ '-4..7+ro.\-d
)
c C- J)(-=~\C. t'\~,,+
.-
!.>CJJ'<..
C!:
FACTORY
C!:
FACTORY-BUILT
HOUSE
~ rI
FAIR MARKET
VALUE
~ F AIR SHARE
HOUSING PLANS
)
[i] FALLOW LAND
~ FAMILY
..
/~fl/ L:-.;y."~, 71.- ~h.k... L!11'.'<r:.'7 ~+- AL-
A building in which semilinished or linished materials
are converted to a different form or state or where goods
are manufactured. assembled. treated, or processed.
A dwelling unit that is constructed and assembled at a
factory and transported to the building's site and placed
on a prebuilt foundation.
The price of a building or land which would be agreed
upon voluntarily ill fair negotiations between a knowl-
edgable owner willing. but not forced, to sell and a
knowledgable buyer willing. but not forced, to buy.
Commrnt: The delinition describes an ideal abstract
situation. In real life situations, brokers use a variety
of methods to est:lblish the fair market value including
comparable sales. income capitalization and replacement
value.
Plans designed to promote low- and moderate-income
housing opportunities equitably distributed among all
of a region.s communities.
Farmland left uncultivated.
One or more individuals occupying a dwelling unit and
living as a single household unit.
Comment: The above definition places no limit on the
number of unrelated individuals that may occupy the
dwelling unit. Up to very recently, definitions of family
usually limited the number of unrelated individuals.
often as low as three or four. Thus, under the old def-
inition a family was frequently defined as ~one or more
persons related by blood, marriage, adoption or guardian-
ship, and not more than three persons not so related."
The change to unlimited numbers of unrelated indi-
viduals reflects the most recent decision by the New
Jersey Supreme Court (Slau v. Baker. N.J. Supreme
Court, A-59), decided July 30, 1979. In this case, the
Court threw out a Plainfield, New Jersey, ordinance that
established a limit on the number of unrelated indi-
viduals. It suggested that by limiting unrelated indi-
viduals it prohibited many reasonable occupancies such
as unrelated widows, bachelors. or Meven judges.~ The
decision suggested that the municipality could regulate
density by limiting the number of occupants in relation
84
.-
"
-
~
--,
"
~
:0
J
'"
~
n .
II .
.
,
t
~~
i
l
1. ...
i
_. ~
~
I
'J:
...
~
t.
J
'-j
/
to the number of bedrooms. bathrooms. or a minimum
number of square feet per Occupant. It also suggested
that traffic could be restricted by limiting the number
of vehicles.
The New Jersey decision was decided upon New Jersey
State Constitutional grounds which were interpreted
more restrictively than the Federal Constitution. The
leading federal case is Vil/agt! of Bt!/It! Tt!rrt! v. Boraas
416 U.S. 1.9. 9LEd. 2d 797 (1974) in which the U.S.
Supreme Coun upheld limits on the OCcupancy of UQ-
related individuals. St!t! GROUP FAMILY HOUSEHOLD.
~ lil FARM or FARMLAND A parcel of land used for agricultural activities.
~
Commt!nt: Many states have minimum acreage and/or
income production requirements for a .farm~ classifi-
cation. In New Jersey the minimum requirement to
qualify for a reduced tax assessment is five acres and gross
revenues of S500 per year.
FARM STAND
A booth or stall located on a farm from which produce
and farm products are sold to the general public.
/
~
~
Comment: Very often municipalities impose the ad-
ditional restriction that the farm products sold at the
booth or stall must be raised on the farm orthe land upon
which the booth or stall is located. In actual practice.
this has proved to be impractical. A better approach is to
place restrictions on the size of the stand in terms of the
availability of parking and size of the lot.
FARM STRUCTURE
Any building or structure used for agricultural purposes.
FAST-FOOD
RESTAURANT
An establishment whose principal business is the sale
of pre-prepared or rapidly prepared food directly to the
customer in a rcady-ta-consume state for consumption
either within the restaurant building or off premises.
Comment: The distinction between the fast. food restau-
rant and other types of restaurants is rapidly becoming
blurred. The major objection to fast. food restaurants
came from the adverse impacts including high traffic.
glare. garish design. litter and noise. Often they became
hangouts. With stringent performance standards these
problems can be controlled and there appears to be little
reason to differentiate between fast. food restaurants and
other types of restaurants. Set! DRIVE.I:,; RESTAUR,>.:,;..
85
~
~
... ?1'
- .
.
r.. _', ..:. " .
"',...:. >-. '." ~,.- ..,
'r. -~ ," ~l .......... . ~
; ~......-,-:i~. ~."'.l' ~ .'_._.-
~rl[i] GROUNDWATER The supply of freshwater under the surface in an aquifer
or soil that forms the natural reservoir for potable water.
Su Figure 20.
~rl[iJ GROUNDWATER Groundwater that is discharged into a stream channel as ~ [I
RUNOFF spring or seepage water. ~
~ GROUP CARE A facility or dwelling unit housing persons unrelated by
FACILITY blood or marriage and operating as a group family house-
hold.
Comment: A group care facility may include half-way
houses; recovery homes; and homes for orphans, foster
children, the elderly, battered children and women. It
also could include a specialized treatment facility pro-
viding less than primary health care. SuGROUP FAMILY
HOUSEHOLD.
C!:@) GROUP FAMILY A group of individuals not related by blood, marriage.
HOUSEHOLD adoption or guardianship living together in a dwelling
unit as a single housekeeping unit under a common
housekeeping management plan based on an inten-
tionally structured relationship providing organization
) and stability. See FAMILY.
~ GROUP LIVING Su GROUP QUARTERS and DORMITORY.
QUARTERS
~ GROUP QUARTERS A dwelling that houses unrelated individuals.
Comment: Group quarters include fraternities, sororities, ~
army barracks, dormitories and the like. ~
[i] GROWTH Techniques used by government to control the rate,
MANAGEMENT amount and type of development.
~
H
~ rl HABIT ABLE FLOOR Su MINIMUM -HABITABLE FLOOR AREA.
AREA
~ HABIT ABLE ROOM Any room in a dwelling unit other than a kitchen, bath-
room, closet, pantry, hallway, cellar, storage space,
garage and basement recreation room.
98
Ordinance No.8, Section ~.CJ~
/
/
.0
Dog Kennel: Any place where four (4) or more dogs over six
(6) months of age are boarded, bred and/or offered for sale,
except a veterinary clinic.
Drive-In Business: Any business in which people are provided
a serv~ce or a sale is made without the passenger being
required to leave the vehicle.
Drop-In Child Care Center: A center whose total licensed
capacity is based primarily on children who attend on an
irregular basis. (8QQ, 5-19-87)
Durable & Dustless Surface: Durable and dustless surface
shall be asphalt, concrete, or other surface (water sealed)
as approved by the Engineer or Building Inspector.
Dwellina Unit: A residential building or portion thereof
intende for occupancy by a family but not including hotels,
motels, boarding or rooming houses, tourist homes or
trailers. It shall include manufactured homes. (8S,07-20-
82)
o.
Dwelling Unit, Attached (single family): A form of
individual ownership of single family attached dwelling unit
which entails joint ownership and responsibility for
maintenance and repairs of the land and/or other .common
property. This shall include, but not be limited to,
townhouses, carriage homes, manor homes and similar. Such
structures shall not exceed two (2) stories in height,
excluding the basement. (8BB, 4-2-85)
Dwelling, Detached: A dwelling which is entirely surrounded
by open space on the same lot.
Exterior storare (includes Open storage): The storage of
goods, materia s, equipment, manufactured products and
similar items not fully enclosed by a building.
@FamilY:
f1i?1"1 tt~ .
~~
a. an individual, or two (2) or more persons related by
blood, marriage or adoption living together, or
b. a group of not more than five (5) persons who need
not be related by blood, marriage or adoption, living
together as a single house keeping unit in a dwelling
unit, exclusive of usual servants.
Farm Truck: All single unit trucks, truck-tractors,
tractors, semi-trailers, and trailers used by the owner
thereof to transport agricultural, horticultural, dairy, and
other farm products, including livestock, produced or
finished by the owner of the truck, and any other personal
property owned by the farmer to whom the license for the
truck is' issued, from the farm to market, and to transport
property and supplies to the farm of the owner. Trucks,
truck-tractors, tractors, semi-trailers, and trailers
registered as "farm trucks" may be used by the owner thereof
to occasionally transport unprocessed and raw farm products,
not produced by the owner of the truck, from the place of
production to market when the transportation constitutes the
Page 6
/
II
~
~
[
I
!
~
i
..
Occupancy Restrictions
and the Fair Housing Act
By Mark S. Dmnison
/
On May 15, the U.S. Supreme Court, in a narrow decision in
City of Edmonds II. Oxford Houu. Inc., revisited the issue of
family occupancy restrictions as they affect group homes under
the Fair Housing Act Amendments of 1988 (FHM).
Courts have long held that local governments may further a
legitimate public interest in preserving the residential character
of single-family zoning distriCtS by using zoning to limit the
occupancy of dwelling units to families. Still, specific ordinance
definitions of the term family in single-family residential use
provisions have often been subject to constitutional attack as
discriminating against nontraditional families and alternative
living arrangements, such as group homes for mentally disabled
persons, recovering alcoholics and drug addicts, and battered
women.
In response to moderate success by those
challenging family occupancy restrictions.
municipalities generally broadend their
ordinance definitions to permit occupancy by a
certain number of unrelated individuals who
live together as a functional family. In addition,
some of the conflict was resolved through
special permit procedures or by State legislation.
So, although group homes continue to be
greeted by local residents with cries of "not in
my backyard," some degree of balancing
between societal needs and community
concerns has taken place through reasonable
community accommodation of group home
living arrangements.
Despite the progress made by state and local
governments in accommodating group home
living arrangements, Congress decided that
additional federal legislation was needed to
ensure that adequate housing accommodations
were being made for the handicapped. Thus,
with the FHM, single-family zoning
occupancy restrictions became subject to possible federal
scrutiny for Fair Housing Act discrimination. Unfortunately, it
was unclear whether or how the FHM might apply to these
restrictions. Since its passage, group home proponents have
brought numerous challenges to family occupancy restrictions,
alleging discrimination. Some courtS ruled that such zoning
restrictions were exempted from the FHAA's coverage, while
others held that they were subject to its scrutiny.
The U.S. Supreme Court apparendy setded the issue by
concluding that family composirion restrictions in local zoning
ordinances are to be evaluated for Fair Housing Act
discrimination. This issue of Zoning N=s reviews the law
governing single-family zoning occupancy restrictions, examines
how the FHAA affect such restrictions, and analyzes the
Supreme Court's recent decision.
- State Group
: Home Statutes
~'Permitting
;c;EGroup Homes
;:~ of Right
:-~:,L,::;;~",~~-,~,
,-." *'-~<.~
'...','.,:....
Family Occupancy Restrictions
Before ~nalyzing the Edmond> decision. it is important to review
the prior C:lSC law ooncerning the scope and validity of ordinance
definitions of familv. Suburban communities have used a wide
range of zoning techniques to effectively exclude nontraditional
family gtoUPS from residential areas. A common method is the
enactment of ordinances limiting the number of unrelated
persons who can occupy a dwelling unit.
Although an ordinance's definition of what constitutes a
family for purposes of single-family zoning may act to exclude
group homes and nontraditional types of family living arrange-
ments. the courts in some jurisdictions will uphold such ..
restrictions when they are reasonably related to furthering a goal
of maintaining a residential community's character. [See
Hayward II. Gascon. 542 A.2d 760 (Del. 1988); Ma(on Associa-
cion for R((ard~d Cirizms II. Ma(on-Bibb County Planning 6- .
l'
{
.
r,
r.
'-
r
i.
~.
California Welfare & Institutions Code 5115-511 (,
Maryland Health-General Code Annotated 741(,)b){2)
tyll' i I [;,;.'! Ii""" f.1 fll [3:. ~ lit [I~ f) ~ ~ f=""Mt.l'i61
11";11.:\'''11111''' F.lil1~:"111[1lF.l~ I:~.I ~..(IW'"
Il~ !'iTi'Ir:ll":" <<':Tif7.'~ 1'I{t)F.l~"l~..e' If..
.~~ liI :~;.'j ...--::,;...., F.1m~"";:.I)iI'~ 1;...1
.~~: 1':11Ilti..~ ,lIi;.l :~~'J ~ L1 F.1 m r=:.:y':'~11111I r:lai nilla 1f..r:'f,.'Qi:ITt-. .,..r:T.:.~"'"
.~~[:.I...--:<lt.'.'r.\lTir;:;y"IIILtlF.H~~!Ii:.~'!!":"f:JI. .,_ 'f.
.~!w.'I,',,~ .~, /CImr.:y" ,,,,,,/CI'" "!l'~ !!lit.. :.~'~
.~~liTi~l~~r.1.:,,~(:.II(~"l,.a:'lICfl 't'ff",4
,.,s:~
.~miii1'F.1'rnF.1.C":i"i1llCi!i~J.~r~[:1"41 .'_"'~'Vv-; "~
I'JI..~t]I.:(:.6'j~""F.1m~~"'j{:!IIIlUI .c:"".
Rhode Island General Laws 34-4-3S, 4S-24-22
Zoning Commission, 314 S.E.2d 218 (Ga. 1984), mt. dmiul,
105 S.Ct. 57 (1987); City ofLaDu~ II. Horn, 720 S.W.2d 745
(Mo. App. 1986); Ba~r II. Town ofBrookhallm. 73 N.Y.2d 942,
537 :--J.E.2d 619, 540 N.Y.S.2d 234 (1989).]
Still, a majority of courts addressing the issue have held that
group homes and nontraditional families may occupy single-
family dwellings in residential zones if the group has "the
generic character of a family unit :IS a relatively permanent
household: [See City ofWhiu Plains II. hrraioli. 34 :--J.Y.2d
300.313 :--J.E.2d 756. 357 N.Y.S.2d 449 (1974).]
Vi/ug' of Sf'"~ TaT( v. BoraaJ. ThdJ.S. Supreme Court has
rendaed decisions on the exclusion of group homes and func-
tional families from single. family occupancy in residential zones.
These C:lSes consider the meaning of the term family, which many
communities rely on [Q exclude alternative living arrangements.
t
I
,', j
} 1
I
I
,
I
.
I
1
.
, 1
'; I
1
,j I
"
,,-;> j
~
. .'~ I
~. .-.~
.,'
r "
if-
..': ~x~
"
<
"
1
:~ ',1
'''' 'I
1
..
1
,< i
-~
'. ~
'~
.:~ t
~j, 1
.
" I
, I
.
'1
t.
<
-.it I
-~
/ .
.
In a seminal dccision on zoning ordinances rhar limir occup.ncy
in singlc-family zones ro relared individuals, the Court in Villag~
ofB~lu T~rr~ v, BoraaJ, 416 U.S. I (1974), upheld as constitu-
tional a local ordinance that defined familv as "one or more
pcrsons relared by blood, adoption. or ma~riage' or up to twO
unrelated pcrsons "living together as a single housekeeping unit."
The court was unsympathetic to the equal protection. right-
to-travel. and right-of-privacy claims of six unrelated college
students leasing a house in the village. It found the ordinance
re:lSonably related to the legitimate governmental purpose of
preserving family values. Although the Court's family needs
rationale for upholding the validity of such ordinances can easily
be construed as a legitimate means of excluding certain groups
from residential communities, the ordinance must be reasonably
related to furthering this family values goal. Intrusion into the
freedom to make "choices concerning family living
arrangements' requires careful examination of the governmental
interests advanced and the extent to which they are served by
the zoning regulation. [See Moor~ v. Ciry of East Clrv~land. 431
U.S. 494 (1977) (where the Court invalidated a zoning
ordinance that limited its definition offamily to the nuclear
family. which effectively made it unlawful for the plaintiff to
reside in the same house with her grandson).]
City ofCI~bum~ v. CI~bum~ Living Cmur. Instead of
limiting the number of unrelated individuals who can live
together, some zoning ordinances require a special use permit to
establish a group home. These provisions ordina.rily will
safeguard the ordinance against facial challenge because they
provide an adminisrr.tive mechanism for a special use applicant
to secure .pproval by meeting certain conditions. Denial of a
special use permit, however, must also be premised on
legitimate zoning concerns. [See Baxm'v. Ciry ofB~"nli"~, 720
F. Supp. 720 (S.D. Ill. 1989); Davis County v. Cl~arfi~la Ciry.
Utah. 82 Utah Adv. Rep. 38. 756 P.2d 704 (1988).]
In Ckbum~, 105 S. Ct. 3249 (1985), the U.S. Supreme Court
had the opportunity to rule on the denial of a special use permit to
establish a group home for the mentally retarded in a multiple-
dwelling zone. The group home showed that the ordinance's
special use permit provision, as applied, was discriminatory. In its
equal protection challenge, the group home demonstrated that the
mentally retarded as a group would not threaten any of the city's
legitimate intereSts in a way different from other uses not subject
to the requirement. The Court specifically denounced governmen-
tal concerns for negative attitudes and fears of neighboting
property owners and elderly residentS as improper justification for
denying me permit, ruling mat such neighborhood fears alone
cannot sanction discrimination against me handicapped.
The impact of Cubum~ on zoning regulation is limited to
situations where zoning ordinances, as applied, discriminate
based on "irrational prejudice against me menrally retarded.'
The decision does not prohibit the use of special permit
mechanisms by local zoning bodies, nor did it disturb the
court'S earlier approval in B~lu Tn7~of reasonable ordinance
definitions on what constitutes a family for purposes ofliving
arrangements in single-family zones.
State Court Challenges
Srate couctS generally have applied tougher standards, and
challengers there have been far more successful. As a general rule,
/Vlark Dmnison is an arromey in privau pracriu in Ridgnvood.
Nnv J~rrey. H~ is th~ author of num~roUJ books and "rticl~s on
zoning, l"nd-uu. and mvironmmtal law iISUt!.
2
plaintiffs acracking the reasonablencss of singlc-family restrictions
must prove that the resrriction advances no reasonable
governmental interest or that the ordinance is unreasonable
because of rhe purely arbitrary. capricious. and unfounded
exclusion of various orher nontraditional family groups.
Definirions that limit relationships in the family ro those of
blood or adoption have been found overly restrictive. [Sce
Marrtr ofGm~Jis afMount V~mon, NY., Inc. v. Zoning Board of
App~a!.s ofth~ Ciry of Mount VL"17l0n. 152 Misc.2d 997, 579
N.Y.S.2d 968 (Sup. Ct. 1991).J Occupancy restrictions based
generally on the biological or legal relationships between
inhabitants often have been found to bear no reasonable
relationship to the declared goals of single-family zoning, such
as reducing parking and traffic problems, controlling population
density. and preventing noise and disturbance. [McMinn v.
Town ofOysur Bay. 66 N.Y.2d 544. 498 N.Y.S.2d 128.488
N.E.2d 1240 (1985).]
Generally. the key inquiry will be determining whether the
excluded group will be considered a functionally equivalent
family. In a leading case, City ofWhiu PlaifU v. F<rraio/i, me
city contended that a group home consisting of a married
couple living with two of their own children and 10 foster
children was not a family, but either a philanthropic institution.
allowed only by a special permit, or a boarding house wholly
excluded from a single-family residential zone. New York's
highest court, however, disagreed. Distinguishing the U.S.
Supreme Couer's decision in B"k T~rT~, it stated:
[A]n ordinance may restrict a residenrial zone to occupancy by
scable families occupying single-family homes. bur neither by
express provision nor ,onscrucrion may it limit the definition of
fan1ily to exclude a household which in every but a biological
sense is a single family. The minimal arrangement to meet' the
rest of a zoning provision, as this one. is a group headed by a
householder caring for a reasonable number of children as one
would be likely to find in a biologically unitary family, [34
N.Y.2d at 306. 313 N.E.2d at 758-59, 357 N.Y.S.2d at 453.J
In this situation, all children in the household lived rogether
as brothers and sisters with common parents. Importandy. me
stability of this group srood in contrast to the transiency of me
group of unrelated college students in Btl/~ T <rrt. Thus. the COUrt
determined that, as long as the excluded group bore the generic
character of a family unit as a relatively permanent household,
and was not a framework for transients or transient living. it
would be found to conform to the ordinance's purpose.,
Courts in Colorado. Missouri. New Jersey, Michigan. and
Pennsylvania have followed this reasoning to invalidate zoning
that excludes group homes and functional families from
tesidential areas. Similarly. coures in Connecticut. Georgia.
Iowa, Louisiana, Minnesota. Montana, Rhode Island. and
Tennessee have negated local government effores to exclude
group homes based on their purported institutional or
commercial nature by concluding that shared housekeeping
activities and supervision by surrogate parents equates the group
to a single housekeeping unit. Still. some states have relied on
factors such as the residents' transiency. the absence of a
permanent head of household, and the economic gain ro the
operators to place group homes and alternative living
arrangements outside rhe scope of permitted occupancy under
ordinance definitions of family. :
Preempting State Statute
In some states. the siting of group homes in single-family zones
has been upheld on rhe basis of overriding state policy and by
/
srate s,atute. Such statUtes have been upheld on ,he grounds
that they bear a substantial relationship to a legitimate
governmental interest and embody a subject of statewide
concern that justifies the preemption of local controls. They
generally provide ,hat group homes with a mJ.~imum residency
ranging from six co eight persons ate permitted as of right
without needing co meet restrictive local zoning standards.
Other states have cnactcd statUtcs allowing for group homes
in residential communities as long as the dwelling remains a
specified distance flOm similar uses. States in Alabama and
Connecticut General Statutes Annotated 8-3e
Delaware Code Annotated tit. 22. 309(a)
/
Washington expressly prohibit unreasonable discrimination in
zoning restrictions placed on group homes. Further. most states
have licensing requirements for group homes to ensure that
certain healch. safety, and treatment standards are maintained.
which enhances the legitimacy of group home use.
/
Fair Housing Act Amendments of 1988
The FHAA, Pub. L. 100-430, 102 Stat. 1619. mengthened and
expanded the power of the Fair Housing Act to regulate zoning
practices that limit equal housing opportunities. Discriminatory
zoning practices are constrained by adding the new prohibition
against housing discrimination based on handicap. 42 U.S.c.
3604(f). as well as discrimination based on familial status. 42
U.S.c. 3604(c)-(e). Since the FHAA went into effect. facial and
as-applied challenges have been mounted against zoning
ordinances that operate to unfairly restrict certain types of uses
and occupants from enjoying fair housing. Most of the zoning
actions instituted under the aCt have involved discriminatory
treatment of group homes for the handicapped.
The FHAA makes it unlawful to "discriminate againsr any
person in the terms. conditions. or privileges of sale or tental of
a dwelling. . . because of handicap." Discrimination is defined
to include "a refusal co make reasonable accommodations in
rules. policies. practices, or selVices, when such accommodations
may be necessary to afford such person equal opportunity to use
and enjoy a dwelling."
Although the amendments fail to spell OUt exactly what rypes
ofland-use and zoning regulation of group homes are
prohibited. the House Judiciary Committee report makes clear
that zoning practices that result in unequal access to housing for
handicapped individuals violate the act. The report states. "The
Committee intends that the prohibition againSt discrimination
against those with handicaps apply to zoning decisions and
practices. The ACt is intended to plOhibitthe application of
special requirements through land-use regulations. . . and
conditional or special use permitS that have the effect oflimiting
the ability of such individuals to live in the residence of their
choice in the communiry."
Further. Section 3615 prohibits discriminatolV actions
ostensibly authorized by a municipal ordinance. That section
States that "any law of a State. a political subdivision. or other
such jurisdiction that purports to require or permit any acrion
thar would be a discriminatory housing practice under this
subchapter shall to that eXtent be invalid.'
Validity of Occupancy Restrictions
Still. without definitive guidance. the courtS have been presented
with the task of determining which zoning practices violate rhe
FHAA. [See Barto II. City of&lkville (ciry's refusal to issue a
special use permir ro operate a residence for HIV -infected
persons violated FHAA); SUWart B. Mcf(jnn~ Foundation. Inc. II.
Town Plan and Zoning Commission of the Town of Faitfield, 790
F. Supp. 1197 (D. Conn. 1992) (special exception requirement
for use of residence for home for HIV-infected persons violated
handicap provisions ofFHAA); Unittd Sram II. City ofTaylar.
798 F. Supp. 442 (E.D. Mich. 1992) (reasonable
accommodation denied to adult foster care home for 12 elderly
disabled persons).]
Some courtS have found that ordinance definitions of family
discriminate against the handicapped. Injunctions have been
issued concerning restrictions on the number of individuals that
may occupy a dwelling unit. [See Oxford House-Elltrgrun II. City
of Plainfield, 769 F. Supp. 1329 (D. N.J. 1991); EmttrSeals
Society of New Jersey, Inc. II. Towmhip ofNorrh Bogen, 798 F.
Supp. 228 (D. N.J. 1992).] Federal appeals courts, however.
have disagreed about whether Congress intended single-family
zoning occupancy restrictions co be exempt from protection
under the FHAA. This term. the U.S. Supreme Court granted
certiorari to decide this issue in City of Edmonds II. Oxford
House. 63 U.S.L. W. 4402. 1995 WL 283468.
City of Edmonds v. Oxford House
Oxford House leased a residence for 10 to 12 recovering adult
alcoholics and drug addicts in a neighbothood zoned single-
family residential in Edmonds. Washington. The residents are
handicapped persons under the FHAA. Under the Edmonds
community development code. the only permitted primary uses
are single-family dwelling units: "[A] single-family dwelling
[unit] means a detached building used by one family. limited to
one per lot." "Family means an individual or twO or more
persons related by genetics. adoption. or marriage. or a group of
five or fewer persons who are not related by genetics. adoption.
or marriage.'
The city issued criminal citations to the owner of the Oxford
House and one of its residents, charging that Oxford House
violated the zoning provision because it housed more than five
untelated persons. Oxford House requested that Edmonds make
a reasonable accommodation as required under the FHAA by
permitting it to continue operation in the single-family
tesidential zone. The city declined and filed a declaratory
judgment action. seeking a ruling that the zoning provision did
nor violate the FHAA.
The United Slales filed an action alleging rhat the ciry's
failute co make a reasonable accommodation violated the
FHAA. The twO actions were consolidated for consideration by
the feded district court. The district court granted summary
judgment to the city. ruling that the challenged zoning
provision was exempted from the FHAA's requirements because
3
'\ 'r
-1
"i:'
_.:~'.:
.
it was a "reslriction regarding the maximum number of
occupaOlS permitted to occupy a dwelling," relying on the
Eleven Circuit's decision in Elliott u. Athms, 960 F.2d 975
(lIth Cir.), cm. dmicd. 113 S.Ct. 376 (U.S. 1992). Oxford
House and che United States appealed. The Ninth Circuit
Court of Appeals reversed, finding chat che exemption did noc
apply to che ordinance's occupancy restrictions. The U.S.
Supreme Court agreed and affirmed. .'
,.
:~
The Supreme Court's Ruling
The FHM entirely exempcs from its pueview any reasonable
local, state, or federal restrictions regarding the maximum
number of occupants permicted in a dwelling. In Edmonds, the
Court was asked to decide whether the occupancy restrictions in
the city's zoning code qualified for this exemption.
The city argued that this was a restriction regarding the
maximum number of occupaOlS even though the zoning
provision did not regulate the maximum number of r~laud
occupaOlS. Oxford House argued that the FHM exempt only
those restrictions that limit the number of all occupants.
whether related or not. In a 6-3 decision, the Court concluded
that Oxford House was correct. The majority. led by Justice
Ruth Bader Ginsburg, held that the exemption did not apply
and remanded the ca.se for further proceedings to determine
whether the city had violated che FHM by failing co make
reasonable housing accommodations for the handicapped.
The court reasoned that che ordinance provision under
accack was noc a maximum occupancy restriction but a family
composition (or use) limitation not expressly eOlitled to the
FHM exemption. The Court explained its distinction between
maximum occupancy and land-use restrictions:
To limic land use to single-family residences, a municipality
must define the term family; thus family composition rules are
an essential component of single-family residential use
resrrictions. Maximum occupancy restrictions, in
contradistinction, cap the number of occupantS per dwdling.
typically in rdation to available Aoor space or the number and
type of rooms. These restrictions ordinarily apply uniformly to
all residentS of all dwelling units. Their purpose is to protect
health and safety by preventing dwdling overcrowding.
Relying on this distinction. the Court concluded that the
law's plain language clearly encompassed maximum occupancy
restrictions, but not family composition rules that are typically
tied to land-use restrictions. The Court stated:
In sum, rules that cap the total number of occupantS in order to
preveOl overcrowding of a dwdling "plainly and unmistakably'
fall wichin Section 3607(b)(l)'s absolute exemption from the
FHA's governance; rules designed to preserve the family
character of a neighborhood. fastening on the composition of
.,
~
Zmi"f Nnm is a monthly newsletter published by the ."meMon Planning Association.
Subscriptions are availmle ror S45 (U.S.) and S54 {roreign}. )Aich:ad B. Barker. Executive
Oirel;tor: Frank S. So. Deputy Executive Oirettor. William R. Klein. Director of Research.
Ln;", Nnn is produced at APA. Jim Sch~. Editor. Michad Barrene. Dan Bivcr. Fay
Dolnidt. Scon Dvorak. ~ichdle Cregory. S:anj:ay Jeer. Beth McCuire. M~ Morris. Chris
Smi~. Reporters; Cynthi:a Chcsk.i. .\s.sistanc Editor: Lisa Banan. Design and Production.
Copyright ~ 1995 by Americ:an Planning A.ssoci,uion. 1:2 S. Michigan Ave.. Suite
1600. Chic:ago. IL 60603. The American Planning ASSOCiation hu hcadquaners
offices at I i76 Massachusetts Ave.. N.W.. Wuhington. DC 200.36.
.\11 tights reserved. ~o pan of chis publication may be reproduced or uriliz.ed in anr
form or br .znr means. decrronic or mech.lRic~l. including photocopying. recording.
or br anr information uouge and retrieval sruem. without permission in writing
rrom the American Planning A.ssociation.
Primed on recycied p:aper. including 5Q..70% retrcled Iiber
~nd 10% pouconsumer waste.
~.i<
@
, ,
4
households r.ther th.n on the tocal number of occup3ncs living
quarters can contain, do not.
Justice Clarence Thomas's dissenting opinion, joined by
Justices Antonin Scalia and Anthonv Kennedv, ridiculed the
majority for focusing its anal)'sis on'two term~-m:lJtimum
occupancy restrictions and family composition rules. He labeled
these invented categories of zoning restrictions and considered
them simply irrelevant. In his view. the plain meaning of the
FHAA's exemption for maximum occupancy restrictions
covered the challenged ordinance provision. In one particularly
contemptuous passage, Justice Thomas stated:
To my mind. the rule that "no house. . . shall have more than five
occupants" (a 'five-occupant limit') readily qualifies as a
'resrrictio[nJ regarding the maximum number of occupanlS
permitted to occupy a dwelling.' In plain fashion. it restricc[s]-tO
five-"[he m:uimum number of occupants permitted to occupy a
dwelling." To be sure, as the m.jority observes. the restriction
imposed by petitioner's zoning code is not an .bsoluce one beeause
it does not .pply to related persons. But Section 3607(b)(l) does
not set forth a narrow exemption only for ".bsolute or "unquali-
fied' resrtictions regarding the muimum number of occupants.
Inscead, it sweeps broadly to exempt .ny restricrions regarding such
m:uimum number. It is difficult to imagine what broader cerms
Congress could have used to signify [he categories or kinds of
relev.nt governmenul restrictions th.t >re exempt from che FHA.
Conclusions
Initially, this decision may prompt more litigation by group
home proponents seeking to mount attacks on family
occupancy restrictions. It is important to note, however, that
the Supreme Court's holding in the Edmonds case is a narrow
one. The Supreme Court has not stated that family occupancy
restrictions are invalid per se. Such restrictions are JUSt not
entitled to the maximum occupancy exemption provided in the
FHAA. This means that such provisions are subject to
evaluation for housing discrimination against the handicapped.
In other words. as the court directed. single-family zoning
ordinances are subject to federal scrutiny under the FHM for a
determination of whether r(luonablr accommodations have been
made to afford handicapped individuals equal access to housing.
This determination is a fact-based inquity. If a municipality can
show that it has made reasonable accommodations to provide
housing opportunities for the handicapped. the ordinance may
still withstand a FHM challenge.
The Edmonds case has now been remanded for this fact-based
inquity by the lower federal court. Since the Supreme Court
provided no test or clear guidance on how to determine whether
the city has provided reasonable housing accommodations for
the handicapped. it will be interesting to see how the federal
court tackles this issue.
It is worth noting that the city of Edmonds amended its
zoning code to allow group homes as a permitted use in
multifamily and general commercial zones. If. on remand. the
federal court decides that this action constitutes the necessaty
rtasonablr housing accommodation. the Court'S ruling in
Edmonds may turn out to have little long-lasting effect. If, on
the other hand, the federal court determines that reasonable
accommodations for the handicapped require access to housing
in single-family residential zones, municipalities may be
compelled to make group homes a permitted use in residential
neighborhoods. How the federal courts come down on the
rc:asonable accommodation issue will ultimately decide the f.ue
of single-iamily zoning occupancy restrictions under the FHAA.
JUL-25-95 TUE 14:37
LAW OFFICES
FA:< NO. 7842305
P.02
LAw 011'la:s 01'
Willialn G. Hawkins and Associates
WlLI.IA.\1 G. HAWKINS
B.'\RRY A. SULLIVAN
Ugrzl Assistants
WENDY B. DEZELAR
JehNINe KU?;MICH
SL"TT'E lOt
299 CooN RAws BLVD.
COON RAPIDs. ~~A 55433
PnoNE (612) 784-29915
July 25, 1995
Mayor Jack McKelvey end
Members of the City Council
City of Andover
1685 Crosstown Blvd NW
Andover, MN 55304
Re: Riordan\Burns
Dear Mayor McKelvey and Members of the City Council:
You have asked our opinion regi!lrding the lawfulness of the definition of the term
"family" contained in the Andover City Zoning Ordint!lnce lmd ~s applied to the Riordan
and Burns families. The following memorandum summarizes my review of the raw as
applicable to this ordinance.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
In 1995, city staff became aware that a house located at 4100 160th Lane NW in the
City of Andover had been purchased jointly by two families. The purchasers were Mr.
and Mrs. Robert Riordan and Mr. and Mrs. Timothy Bums. It is my understanding that
the house is 8 typical $ingle family home with one kitchen. The property Is located
in a R-1, single family rural zoning di5trict. Permitted uses in the R-1 single family
rural district includes a single family residential structure. The zoning ordinance at
~ection 3 defines family as follows:
"Family:
a. An individual, or two (2) or more persons related by blood,
marriage or adoption living together, or
b. A group of not more than five (5) persons who need not be related
by blood, marriage or adoption, living together as a single tlousekeeping
unit in a dwelling unit, exclusive of usual servants."
JUL-25-9S TUE 14:37
~A\.I OFFICES
FAX NO. 7842305
P.03
, Mayor MCKelvey and Council Members
I July 25, 1995
Poge 2
The Riordan and Burns families apparently purchasod the property together and occupy
the property together as a single housekeeping unit. It is intgnded to be a permanent
place of residence. They do not have a landlordftenant relationship. The Riordans
have three children and the Burns family has two children.
The RIordan and Bums families desire to continue this living relationship and
apparently feel it is In the best interest of their families to do so. They have submitted
petitions and letters of support. They have also hired counsel who submitted a
memorandum arguin9 that the definition of the term . family. contained in the Andover
City Zoning Ordinance cited above violates the United States Constitution, the Federal
Fair Housing Act and the Minnesota Human Rights Act.
I~SUE
Whether the definition of the term .family" contained in the Andover City Zoning
Ordinance violates the U.S. Constitution. the Federal Fair Housing Act or the
Minnesota Human Rights Act.
ANALYSIS
. I
It is plain that the definition of Wfamily" as contained in the zoning ordinance does not
establish a cap on the number of related persons who may live in one single family
residence. The ordinance does, however. cap the number of unrelated persons, who
can live in the same residence, at five. It is claimed that this distinction violates th~
property owners' rights of freedom of religion and freedom of association under the
First Amendment to the United States Constitution. If challenged in court, it may also
be claimed that the distinction violates the homeowners' due process and equal
protection rights as guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States
Constitution. The property owners also claim that the distinction violates the Federal
Fair Housing Act ~s unlawful discriminatIon on the basis of familial status under 42
U.S.C. ~ 3602 (1988). Finally, it is claimed that the distinction violates the Minnesota
Human Rights Act as unlawful discrimination based upon fnminal status and marital
status under Minnesota Statute ~ 363.03, Subd. 2.
Unfortunately, there are no Minnesota court cases which have addressed this issue.
The issue has been heavily litigated in other states but a consensus approach has not
been obtained. Most cases in other states are brought by organizations such as group
horr.es, halfway houses, womens' shelters, and the like, challenging local ordinances
and seek.ing to force local communities to permit these types of organizations to exist
in residential districts. Years ago, the Minnesota legislature preempted this issue by
adopting Minnesota Statute S 462.357, Subd. 7 and 8, which declares properly
/
JUL-25-95 rUE 1~:38
~AW OFFICES
FA:~ NO. 7842305
P.04
\ Mayor McKelvey and Council Members
j July 25, 1995
Page 3
licensed group homes to be permittQd uses in residential districts. This farsIghted
legislative action no doubt explains vvhy there has been very Iinle litigation in
Minnesota on this point.
Court decisions which have upheld similar ordinances generally follow the legal
analysis set forth by United States Supreme Court in Selle Terre v. Baraas. 416 U.S.
1, 94 S.Ct. 1536 (1974). The city ordinance in that case defined the term Wfamily.
to mean any number 01 persons related by blood or marriage or not more than two
unrelated persons living together In a single housekeeping unit. The United States
Supreme Court upheld the ordinance as valid land use legislation. Other cases which
have followed the Belle Terre ruling have generally held that limitations on the number
of unrelated persons are valid as they are rationally related to the municipality's goal
of controlling density and promoting single family neighborhoods. Saa, a.g., Aooeal
of lvnch Communitv Homes. Inc.. 554 A.2d 155 (Pa. 1989) (limit of two unrelated
persons upheld): City of St. Joseoh v. Preferred Familv Health Care. 859 S.W.2d 723
(MoApp 1993) (Limit of five unrelated persons upheld).
I
/
The long line of cases that have struck down similar ordinances have generally
subjected the ordinance to a more rigorous scrutiny. These cases have generally
looked with disfavor upon city ordinances that focus upon whQ are the users of
property rather than the uses to which the property is put. Those cases identify the
regulation of property use as a proper zoning function. Anempts to legislate human
relationships are viewed as unlawfully infringing upon tho rights of the property
owners. See. e.g., Borouoh of Glasshoro v. Vallorosi. 56B A.2 888 (NJ 19901:
McMinn v. Town of Oyster Bav. 488 N.E.2d 1240 (NY 1985); ~tate v. Baker, 405
A.2d 368 (NJ 1979); and City of Santa Barbara v. Adamson. 610 P.2d 436 (Cal
1980). Those cases have noted that municipalities can regulate density concerns by
means other than by attempting to define "family." These cases suggest that cities
should focus their regulations on density regulations (square footage), parking controls,
traffic controls, noise controls and similar measures that do not involve intruding upon
the relationships of the per:son:s involved. The courts recognile that the diverse
history of American relationships often does not involve 0 "typical" family setting.
These cases concludg that thesQ ordinances rGstrictively interfere with the right:s of
the property owners to associate and to contract.
The trend in the law seems clearly to favor the latter approach. For example, in a Fair
Housing Act case, the United States Supreme Court in City of Edmunds v. Oxford
House. Inc.. U.S. , 115 S.Ct. 1776 (1995), examined a zoning ordinance
that limited the number of unrelated persons. The court stated that a distinction
existed in the law between land use restrictions and maximum occupancy restrictions.
Ordinances that place caps on the total number of residents to prevent overcrowding
will generally be upheld 3S exempt from the Fair Housing Act. However, ordinances
"
JUL-25-9S rUE 1~:39
~AW OFFICES
FAX NO. 7842305
P.DS
/
Mayor MCKelvey and Council Members
July 25. 1995
Pago 4
that seek to restrict the composition of a household rather than the number of
residents are not maximum occupancy restrictions and thereforg are not exempt from
the Fair Housing Act. Consequently, the court ruled an ordinance which places no cap
upon the number of related persons that can reside in a household but does place a
cap on the number of unrelated persons that can reside in one household may violate
the Fair Housing Act as that law is applied to a group of handicapped citizens who
wish to operate a group home. This particular case would have little impact in
Minnesota dueto the existence of Minnesota Statute! 462.357, as discussed above.
However, the case does reflect the trend in the law suggesting that municipalities
should not look at the relationships of the occupants of the home, but should control
density by other means. In othQr words, if the occupants of the house are the
functional equivalent of a family, an ordinance which restricts the number of unrelated
persons may be of Questionable validity.
The Minnesota Supreme Court tacitly recognized this trend in the law in the case of
Costlev v. Caromin House, 313 N.W.2d 21 (Minn. 1981). In that case, the Minnesota
Supreme Court concluded that a group home, consisting of six mentally retarded
adults and two resident supervisors, constituted a single family unit within the
meaning of the zoning ordinance of the City of Two Harbors. The court stated in part:
/ "The word 'family' is no longer limited to a traditional concept of
marriage and biological ties....so long as the group home beer3 the
generic character of a family unit as a relatively pgrmanent household.
and is not a framework for transients or transient living, it conforms: to
the purpose of the ordinance."(Citation omitted}.
313 N.W.2d at 25. While the Supreme Court's decision in Costlev does not directly
address the issue before us, it is instructive and, I believe. strongly suggests that the
Andover city ordinance would be looked upon unfavorably by a Minnesota court
should a challenge be forthcoming.
Further. most commentators in the field of planning and zoning law have also followed
the trend of suggesting that municipalities foeus their concerns regarding
neighborhoods and density by drafting ordinances which focus on the use rather than
the character of the occupants of the land. For example, one commentator has
stated:
"Rather than mak.ing distinctions or limitations by defining 'family' or by
limiting the number of unrelated' persons who may reside together,
residential zoning ordinances should regulate such matters as population
j'
JUL-2S-95 TUE 14:tQ
LA~ OFFICES
FA:~ NO. 7842305
P.OS
, Mayor McKelvey and Council Members
/ July 25, 1995
Page 5
den!;ity. traffic and parking by reference to criteria such as floor space
and facilities. limitations on the number of cars per household and off-
street parking requirements." (Footnote omitted).
McQuillin. Municioal Coroorations 3rd. Section 25.128.10 (19911.
The Federal Fair Housing Act at 42 USC ~ 3604 (b) prohibits municipalities from
discriminating on the basis of familial status. There are no cases on point but in my
opinion the Andover city ordinance does not violate the Federal Fair Housing Act. The
case law that does exist suggests that the prohIbition against discrimination based
upon familial status was intended to prevent discriminatIon against single parent
families rathQr than to promote communal living. Palo Alto Tenents Union v. Moraan.
321 F.Supp.908.aff'd. 487 F.2d S83 (9th Cir. 1970)(Following Belle Terre).
The Andover City Zoning Ordinance definition of "family" does not violate the
Minnesota Human Rights Act. Minnesota Statute ~ 363.03. Subd. 2, Drohibits
discrimination based upon familial status in a variety of situations. However, the
prohibitions in that statute are directed toward landlords, realtors, lending institutions,
and other similar entities and are not directed toward units of government.
) Consequently. thIs statute would not tle a basis for a claim against the City of
Andover in thi:s in:stance.
CONCLUSION
In summary, I believe that a significant likelihood exists that the Andover City
Ordinance definition of "family" would be struck down if challenged. as being in
violation of the United States Constitution. I believe that a substantial likelihood exists
that Minnesota courts would follow the modern trend regarding the definition of
"familY. and require Minnesota municipalities to address their concerns regarding
density and neighborhood quality by focusing on land use restrictions rather than
examining the relationship of the persons occupying the property. As such, it is my
rocommendation that the city amend its definition of "family" in the zoning ordinance
and remove the cap on unrelated persons. This amendment should be part of a
concerted effort to examine other ordinance provisions regarding density, parking,
floor space. boarding rooms. nnd similar sections in order to assure that the strong
quality of the neighborhoods of the City of Andover be continued.
~~ speC~UllY sUbm~ d
(7 · f~.
I' "
\, ~
illliam G. Hawkins
8^S:wbd
--
/
J60 SO\Jl1iDAll OffICE CENTRE
G600 fllANCE.\VDl1.:E SO\Jl1i
EDINA. MN 554J~1804
TEUl'HONE: (6121 926-6069
fACSIMILE: (612192~812
Kt\LlAS
A~S([IATES&
MICHAEL T. KAllAS
Auo,n.v at l.......
WDllam Hawkins
Attorney at Law
299 Coon Rapids Boulevard
Suite 101
Coon Rapids, MN 55433
v( '-)()\l(
0~
June 30, 1995
RE:
City of Andover\Riordan and Burns
Dear Mr. Hawkins:
J
As I had suggested at the city council meeting on this matter, I have prepared a proposed revision to
tl,1e City of Andover's defiDition of family. In reviewing the prior version and contempla1ing a
revision. cert3in feaw.res of the existing definition have been emph~~7ed From a review of the
existing ordinance it is unclear: 1) whether an of the occupants must be related to everyone of the
other occupants by blood. mmiage, or adoption; or 2) whether each of the occupants must be related
to one or more of the other occupants; or 3) whether there must be a type of "bridge".
The bridge would be satisfied in the "Brady bunch" scenario where husband and wife marry without
adopting each other's children. As a result, the children of one parent would not be related to the
children of the other parent, but their parents may constitute a bridge linking the two families together.
l- We believe that the ambiguities presented aeate yet another basis for unconstitutionality, as void for
vagueness.
We believe that emph:l!lI7.ing the nature of the living arrangement as a single housekeeping unit steerS
clear of the unconstitutional dlsaimination wbich the other structure is fraugbt with. Our proposed
definition of family is simply: .
One or more persons occupying a premises and living as a single housekeeping unit, but not
including sororities, fraternities, or other similar organizations.
/
/
KALLAs & AsSOCIATES
Attomcys at Law
Letter to William Hawkins
June 30. 1995
Page 2
The llmltation of the number of occupants is govern by other provisions, for both related and UDre1ated
individuals.
I undc:rstand that the dty will take no action against our cl1euts and tbis matter will remain in
abeyance until following a city council meeting in September. Our cl1ent.s will proceed in rell~ on
this understanding.
Please contact me to discuss any questions or concerns.
Very tIUly yours.
KALLAS & ASSOCIATES
Michael T. Kallas
AttIJmey at Law
MTK/klc
cc: Cynthia and Robert Riordan
Sabra and T'unothy Bums
\Un1llll129~Ll2
/
CITY of ANDOVER
(
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING - AUGUST 8, 1995
MINUTES
The Regular Bi-Monthly Meeting of the Andover Planning and Zoning
Commission was called to order by Chairperson Jay Squires on August 8,
1995, 7:00 p.m. at the Andover City Hall, 1685 Crosstown Boulevard NW,
Andover, Minnesota.
Commissioners present:
Maynard Apel, Catherine Doucette, Bev
Jovanovich, Randy Peek, Jeffrey Luedtke
Jerry Putnam
City Planning Director, David Carlberg
Others
Commissioner absent:
Also present:
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
July 25, 1995: Page 4, change "Review Committee"to "Environmental
Review Committee"
l
MOTION by Jovanovich, Seconded by Luedtke, to approve the Minutes as
corrected. Motion on a 5-Yes, 1-Present (Peek), 1-Absent (Putnam),
J . vote.
PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUED: AMEND ORDINANCE NO.8, SECTION 3.02,
DEFINITIONS - REVIEW AND DISCUSS DEFINITION OF -FAMILY-
J
7:01 p.m. Mr. Carlberg explained the Commission has received a copy of
the City Attorney's opinion regarding the City's definition of "family"
in the ordinance as well as a letter from Michael T. Kallas representing
the Riordans and Burns. Given the trend today, the Attorney felt there
is a significant likelihood that Andover's ordinance definition of
"family" would be struck down if challenged in favor of addressing
concerns regarding density and neighborhood quality by focusing on land
. use restrictions rather than the relationship of persons occupying the
property. Ordinance provisions would then relate to density, parking,
floor space, boarding rooms, etc.
~
Mr. Carlberg noted Mr. Kallas' letter contains a proposed definition of
family, "One or more persons occupying a premises and living as a single
housekeepirig unit, but not including sororities, fraternities, or other
similar organizations." Mr. Carlberg also had a definition of "Group
Family Household" from a development planning handbook which reads, "A
group of individuals not related by blood, marriage, adoption or
guardianship living together in a dwelling unit as a single housekeeping
unit under a common housekeeping management plan based on an
intentionally structured relationship providing organization and
stability. " The Commission is charged to look at the definition of
"family" and make a recommendation on possible changes to the Council.
.'.
Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
Minutes - August 8, 1995
, Page 2
(Public Hearing: Amend Ordinance No.8, Section 3.02, Definitions -
Review and Discuss Definition of "Family", Continued)
MOTION by Apel, Seconded by Jovanovich, to open the publi~ hearing.
Motion carried on a 6-Yes, 1-Absent (Putnam) vote. 7:05 p.m.
Sabra Burns, 4100 160th Lane NW - explained they moved in their home on
November 15, 1994, after a struggle with the former owners to do so.
They brought two families together into one household with common
ownership, common finances and the raising of five children in common.
In the three years they were planning this, they never considered that
their legal right to be a family would be challenged. They never meant
to start a crusade; they only want to give themselves and their children
the best possible home life in a beautiful place. She went on that
while they embrace the challenge of living together, they never wanted
to challenge other people's life choices. She hoped this can be
resolved so other families will not have to go through the incredible
amount of stress they have endured. She argued that the ordinance as
written would create problems with divorced people living together to
share expenses and child care, or blended families, as well as their
case of two families not related by blood wanting to live together.
Clearly, the ordinance needs to be changed.
(
J MOTION by Apel, Seconded by Luedtke, to close the public hearing.
Motion carried on a 6-Yes, 1-Absent (Putnam) vote. 7:10 p.m.
,.
Commissioner Apel felt the ordinance definition of "family" should be
changed to comply with what has occurred in society over the last 20
years. When the ordinance was adopted, many of these situations were not
even thought of. He thought it would be difficult to look at the square
footage of the house becase many other ordinances are involved as well.
Also, ordinances such as the septic system ordinance which address the
health issues, plus there is the County Social Services regulations, all
can be brought into play if a situation develops that is contrary to the
health, safety and welfare. Commissioner Jovanovich asked where the
families in question lived before.
Robert Riordan - stated they and the Burns have known each other for
over 20 years. They were neighbors in California for awhile, then the
Burns moved back to Minnesota. They saw each other on vacation each
year. Once his family moved back here, they all lived in a 4-bedroom
house in Champlin for awhile until they could find a permanent house.
When they found this one in Andover, there was a problem getting into it
because the prior owners didn't have their new house completed in time.
This house was a group home and is an 8-bedroom home on 2.5 acres.
Commissioner Peek felt it comes down to what the City is trying to
regulate. Commissioner Apel felt that the initial purpose.may now be
/ unconstitutional. In a residential area the use is residenti~l. It is
fairly easy to keep out the commercial, but the courts have struck down
regulations of cities, states, and counties based upon personalities. He
felt the present use of this property is no different than any other
residential use, and it is easier to control than the group home.
Regular Andover Planning and zoning Commission Meeting
Minutes - August 8, 1995
Page 3
(
/
(Public Hearing: Amend Ordinance No.8, Section 3.02, Definitions -
Review and Discuss Definition of "Family", Continued)
Ms. Burns - stated there is less traffic than from the group home. Plus
those living there now have a greater vested interest in the home and
its upkeep than the previous teenagers who mainly wanted to get out.
Also, their living structure is not that common, as most people have
said they would not want to do it. She didn't foresee this being a
growing problem for Andover.
(/
Commissioner Peek felt the City's primarily concern should be the
suitability of the use. He asked if there are other ordinances
regulating the suitability and capability of the structure to the use.
Mr. Carlberg was not aware of any other than the rental housing
regulations. There is nothing else in the ordinance that would regulate
20 people in a two-bedroom house. Commissioner Apel noted the
regulations for septic system based on the number of bedrooms. He didn't
think the City should be regulating whether a married couple wants to
have 20 children. Nor did he feel it would be appropriate to regulate
the number of bedrooms per the number of people, thus requiring the
addition of another bedroom with the arrival of another child. He
preferred to see a change in the definition of "family" and then see
what happens. He didn' t think the City should be concerned as to
whether others are living under the same conditions as the Burns and
Riordans. Their living arrangements are not harmful to the health,
safety and welfare of the City, so it should not be regulated.
Commissioner Peek felt that any focus on regulating density would be
arbitrary. Commissioner Luedtke felt the definition in the ordinance is
flawed. This is a unique situation, and he suggested such situations be
allowed by variance or Special Use Permit. Chairperson Squires explained
the City cannot vary from a use by State law. Commissioner Peek
speculated this is not the only situation in the City that does not
comply with the ordinance definition. Commissioner Apel agreed, but
would not be in favor of requiring a Special Use Permit. N~ne of the
Commissioners wanted to address changes to the density regulations at
this time, all preferring to formulate a more encompassing definition of
"family" to embrace the changing family scene.
In discussing the various definitions presented to the Commission, it
was finally agreed that the best definition, subject to the City
Attorney's approval, was the "Group Family Household", though it was
agreed to modify it to state: FAMILY: a. An individual, or two or more
persons related by blood, marriage or adoption living together, or b.
A group of individuals who need not be related living together in a
dwelling unit as a single housekeeping unit under a common housekeeping
management plan based on an intentionally structured relationship
providing organization and stability.
"
MOTION by Peek, Seconded by Jovanovich, to direct Staff to prepare an
amendment to the ordinance based on our discussion to review with legal
counsel and prepare a report for the next Planning Commission meeting.
Motion carried on a 6-Yes, 1-Absent (Putnam) vote. This will be placed
on the August 22, 1995, Planning Commission meeting agenda. 7:40 p.m.
Regular Andover City Council Meeting
Minutes - June 20, 1995
Page 6
(Public Hearing: IP93-5/Winslow Hills 3rd, Continued) ,
acres of future development needed does not include the cost of
borrowing the money nor the additional charges required/ for future
development. He and Staff do not feel the City is overcharging. The
third question is whether the City is assessing uniformly on all
property. It has tried to assess everyone $0.04 per square foot in this
district, though others may disagree. The City doesn~t have a policy on
the $0.04 per square foot, but as a practical maty~r, the engineering
calculations have determined that that is the amount that will allow the
City to recover the costs of the project. /
Mr. Davidson pointed out that whole reaso~/~ constructing the Xeon
Street storm sewer was because Mr. HolaseK needed it to develop his
plats. Because of the uncertainty of futu e development, he felt it is
premature to say that the $0.04 per squ re foot is an overassessment.
Also, the City's policy is not to asse s property outside of the plat.
Because the area to be assessed is re uced, the rate per square foot is
larger. Finally, there were a numbe of meetings on the storm drainage
system where it was pointed out the e are a number of ways to handle it.
The feasibility reports were done and ultimately an assessment based on
real costs and acreage was dete ined. While they didn't survey all of
the area as Mr. Holasek did af er the fact to determine the assessment
area, they used preliminary g ading and drainage plans. In the end, the
/ same costs are still charge to the developer.
l
MOTION by Jacobson, Sec
Motion carried unanimou
ded by Dehn,
y.
to close the public hearing.
,
MOTION by Jacobson, S conded by Knight, the Resolution (See Resolution
R106-95 adopting th assessment roll for the improvement of sanitary
sewer, watermain, s reet, storm sewer and appurtenances, Project No. 93-
5, Winslow Hills 3 tl Addition) DISCUSSION: Councilmember Dehn expressed
frustration and onfusion in the figures. She felt there should be a
policy adoptin the $0.04 per square foot. Councilmember Jacobson
stated that is not a general policy because each drainage district is
different. A the drainage district develops, the costs of construction
are applied. Mayor McKelvey could see valid points on both sides, but
he believe the storm drainage assessment should remain at $0.04 per
square foo for this entire area. Both Councilmembers Knight and Kunza
also fou the matter confusing, though Councilmember Knight felt that
it will ake a neutral party to resolve the issue.
Counc. member Jacobson called the question. Motion carried unanimously.
on a ~-No (Dehnr-Kunza) vote.
as received a formal objection to this
~
I\_J
,
RIORDAN/BURNS/4100 160TH LANE/DISCUSSION
Michael Kallas, Kallas & Associates - represented Robert and Cynthia
Riordan and Timothy and Sabra Burns and the children of each family.
Regular Andover City Council Meeting
Minutes - June 20, 1995
( ,Page 7
(-
(Riordan/Burns/4100 160th Lane Discussion, Continued)
He noted the letters of support for the families as well as the petition
of support from neighbors. There is general support of these individuals
as contributing members of the community. The situation is a group of
individuals living in a single residence consisting of a husband and
wife with children and another husband and wife with two children. They
share things as a family from caring and disciplining the children to
one common checking account. Mr. Kallas reviewed his memorandum to the
City, pointing out that the fact that the City imposes the restriction
on families is an infringement on their freedom of religion, freedom of
association, and freedom of privacy. This is a large home which
accommodates them well. In 1991 the City issued a Special Use Permit to
allow the Jahn's and their two children to house 10 unrelated borders.
It was determined that that is not a detriment to the health, safety,
morals and general welfare of the City and was in compliance with the
City's Comprehensive Plan. It is fairly clear that the use of the
property presently being met is less demanding than that which was
approved by the Council in allowing the Jahn's to continue their use of
it. The house was inspected and approved by the City with special
enhancements made such as a commercial fire alarm which is still in
place and functioning. This isn't a matter of safety. In reviewing the
documents presented to the Council, he felt they will find a very
healthy and vital family that is succeeding well in the school system
/ and doing well generally in the community. Also, there isn't a question
of traffic, as there is ample off-street parking, a three-car garage
plus ancillary parking for three or four cars without blocking the
drive. The fact that they have submitted a petition to the Council
signed by 11 neighbors without one dissenting indicates there is no
issue of property depreciation. In fact, the owners have enhanced the
improvement and upkeep of the property.
Mr. Kallas went on to raise the legal issues relating to the~Minnesota
Human Rights Act, which prohibits discrimination based on familial
status and marital status. The City also cannot violate the Minnesota
Fair Housing Act. The City allows borders, but the fact that they happen
to have children is something the City cannot discriminate against. It
is important that the Council recognize that this is a family.
Andover's ordinances as written would prohibit living arrangements that
are commonly accepted on television. It was only this evening that the
children learned that they are in jeopardy of being displaced because of
not wanting to place undue stress on them while they were in school. He
asked the Council to give careful consideration and make a decision
tonight to allow this family to remain occupying the property. The
house is not a duplex. There are separate sleeping quarters for each
husband and wife and for the children, seven bedrooms in the house
total; but there is one common housekeeping unit with one kitchen. Mr.
Carlberg explained the City received one anonymous letter dated June 12,
1995, asking that the ordinance be enforced plus an anonymous. phone call
notifying the City of the situation.
\ .
,
Mr. Kallas stated they were initially told there was no letter of
opposition, only an anonymous phone call. As in the case of the Jahn's
Special Use Permit, he'd ask that no credence be given to anonymous
\
Regular Andover City Council Meeting
Minutes - June 20, 1995
\ Page 8
( .~
(Riordan/Burns/4100 160th Lane Discussion, Continued)
calls and letters. Mr. Carlberg noted there is no provision to vary from
the ordinance in this instance. If the Council wishes to accept this
situation, a review of the ordinance and definition of family needs to
be done. He believed the definition of family as noted in the ordinance
is the same as the State. Also, he is not aware that this situation is
allowed in any other City. Attorney Hawkins advised the issue is whether
two families can life in a single family residence. If this is allowed,
it would have to be uniformly applied throughout the City.
Mr. Kallas proposed a solution may be that a family be defined as a
single housekeeping unit with common facilities instead of a duplex.
Another important feature in this case is they have common ownership of
the property. All four adults own the property jointly. If the Council
opposes this, which ones would be evicted from their own property? It
would deprive their right to possess this property because there are
nine people instead of five since there are children. Or define family
as "a group of not more than five adult persons.." ~
(
Council discussion noted the merits of the situation, but also cautioned
that any change must be applied uniformly in the City. Some had a
problem with the definition of family, Section b, suggesting five may be
an arbitrary number which is now being used against them in this case.
The Riordan's and Burns' appealed to the Council noting their long-term
/ friendship, their "family" status even though they do not have the
"pedigree", that they raise their children in common with the same
values and high standards, that they were not told anywhere in the
process of purchasing the house jointly that there would be a problem,
that they relocated from California because they felt this was a better,
safer place to rear their children, and that they called City Hall and
were told the ordinance applied to renters so there would be no problem
with what they were doing.
Council asked for a show of hands. No one opposed; however,
approximately 15 people voted in favor of it. Councilmember Jacobson
stated the living situation does not meet the definition in the
ordinance, and that definition is almost the same for every City in the
State. He didn't think it was right to change the definition for one
family. Attorney Hawkins advised if the Council wishes to allow this, he
would prefer it be done by changing the definition of fambly in the
ordinance rather than by variance. Councilmember Knight did not have a
problem looking at a change to the definition of family, but cautioned
care must be taken to avoid problems in other situations. Mayor McKelvey
felt this may become more common as the price of property increases,
especially for people with children. He didn't feel good about having
to throw a person out of his/her own home.
i _
,
MOTION by Knight, Seconded by Dehn, to table the issue until the
September 1 meeting. That we ask Bill Hawkins and Dave Carlberg to look
at the language of the definition of family in the ordinance. Also refer
it to the Planning Commission for their consideration, and have Bill
Hawkins give a legal opinion on the memorandum presented by the Attorney
for the family. There be no further action taken by the City until this
is resolved. Motion carried on a 4-Yes, 1-No (Jacobson) vote.
CITY OF ANDOVER
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
DATE igptgmbgr 5, lPPS
AGENDA
fIO.
SECTION
ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT
APPROVED
FOR AGENDA
Discussion
Ordinance Establishing
Lawn Requirements
Planning ~
David L. Carlberg
Planning Director
BY:
ITEM
fIO.
If) .
The City Council is Lequested to review and discuss the attached
ordinance which establishes lawn requirements for residential
districts. The Ordinance is being brought to the Council because
of the increasing number of complaints received regarding the lack
of established lawns by adjacent property owners.
The Planning and zoning Commission reviewed the ordinance on July
25 and August 8, 1995. Attached are the staff reports and minutes
from their meetings.
/
/'
MOTION BY:
SECOND BY:
CITY OF ANDOVER
COUNTY OF ANOKA
STATE OF MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF LAWN REQUIREMENTS FOR
RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS.
The City Council of the City of Andover hereby ordains:
Section l. Purpose.
To provide protection to all natural terrain features of the
residential site, which if preserved as required herein, will add
to the attractiveness and stability of the site.
Standards set forth in this ordinance will increase the
desirability of residences, encourage inv~stment or occupation in
the city, optimize use and value of land and improvements,
increase the stability and value of the property and add to the
conditions affecting health and welfare of the city.
Section 2. Definitions.
/
Top Soil: For the purpose of this Ordinance, top soil shall be
defined as soil/dirt that has sufficient amounts of organic
material to establish a suitable foundation for vegetative
growth.
Section 3. TOp Soil Requirements.
Top soil shall be
inches of cover.
and/or sodding.
Section 4. Soil and/or Seed Requirements.
spread so as to provide at least four (4)
The site shall also be stabilized by seeding
All boulevards are required to be sodded in areas served by
municipal sanitary sewer and/or water. On grades or exposed
areas which are not sodded, lawn grass seed shall be sown at not
less than four (4) pounds to each one thousand (1,000) square
feet of land area. The seed shall consist of a maximum of ten
(lO) percent rye grass by weight and a minimum of ninety (90)
percent of permanent bluegrass and/or fescue grass by weight.
All residential lots with municip~] s~nitary sewer and/or
water shall be sodded or seeded from the boulevard edge to a
distance of thirty (30) feet behind the principal residence on
the lot. Wetlands shall be exempt from the sodding or seeding
requirements as determined by the City, Department of Natural
Resources, Watersheds, or Conservation District. The spreading
of soil and seeding of lawn shall be completed within .one year of
the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy.
Page Two
Turf Establishment Ordinance
September 5, 1995
Section 5. Retroactive Clause.
All properties in violatioL of the prov1s10ns of this Ordinance
shall have one year to comFly with the requirements set forth in
this Ordinance.
Section 6. Enforcement.
The Code Enforcement Officer of the city of Andover shall enforce
this Ordinance.
Section 7. Penalty.
A violation of this Ordinance shall constitute a misdemeanor.
Section 8. Separability.
Should any section, subdivision, clause or other provision of
this Ordinance be declared by a court of competent jurisdiction
to be invalid, such decisicn shall not affect the validity of the
Ordinance as a whole or any part other than the part so declared
to be invalid.
J
Adopted by the City Council this 5th
day of September, 1995.
CITY OF ANDOVER
ATTEST:
J. E. McKelvey - Mayor
Victoria Volk - City Clerk
Regular Andover Planning and zoning Commission Meeting
Minutes - August 8, 1995
.page 7
\.
(Variance - Fence Height - 14015 Partridge Sstreet ~ Kuch, Continued)
"
Mr. Carlberg explained the complaint was on the..fact that bees build
hives in the fence, plus the massive size. Chairperson Squires didn't
think a 6-foot versus a 9-foot fence would ma~~ a difference with regard
to bees.
Mr. Kuch - stated he is normally out 0 town during the week and at the
residence only on weekends. If a chi climbs over the fence during the
week, there would be nQ one to sto them or find them if there was an
accident. Commissioner Apel aga. stated that the fence stood for 12
years without complaint until omeone moves in and takes a different
view of things. The City has ranted many variances on things that were
done contrary to ordinance quirements. He didn't recall the City ever
asking anyone to tear dow anything. Also, he didn't agree with a 4-
foot fence around a pool Chairperson Squires felt that just because it
was built 12 years ago in his mind, did not justify a variance. Health
and safety would be mething to focus on. He wondered if there is going
to be another vari nce coming for the deck. Mr. Carlberg stated Staff
would have to do ore research. .
~
In a straw the Commission was in favor of approving the variance
for the fen ei but they suggested the applicant may wish to table this
til it is known whether or not another one is needed for the
deck. it is needed, doing both of the variances at one time would
save t e applicant time and fees. After some discussion, the applicant
aske that this item be tabled to the next meeting to allow the Staff to
lo at the deck issue. The Commission agreed. The item was tabled to
- e ~u~3t 22, 1995, meeting.
@
DISCUSSION CONTINUED - ORDINANCE FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF SEED/SOD
REQUIREMENTS FOR RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS
Mr. Carlberg explained the proposed ordinance includes the changes
requested by the Commission to include a definition of topsoil, add a
provision for wetlands, and add a retroactive clause in Section 5. One
issue still remaining is whether the time period for turf establishment
should be one or two years after the Certificate of Occupancy has been
issued. In further discussion, Mr. Carlberg explained the intent is to
prevent open bare spots after construction of a house. This does not
prevent general landscaping but is trying to get yards established. It
relates to urban lot development only.
..
There was a difference of opinion as to the length of time needed to
establish the turf. Commissioners Jovanovich and Doucette supported two
years because it is expensive to add topsoil and sod or seed.
Commissioner Luedtke supported one year. He felt a lot of ~amage could
) be done to neighboring yards within two years and that the cost of the
yard work will just be included in the builder's package. Mr. Carlberg
explained the problem the City has with dirt getting into the storm
sewer system when turf is not established. That was addressed when
Ordinance 10 was changed to require turf establishment in the boulevards
Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
Minutes - August 8, 1995
Page 8
'.
/
(Discussion - Turf Establishment Ordinance, Continued)
by the developers; however, there is nothing that addresses it after a
house is constructed. Staff would like to stay with one year.
Commissioner Doucette suggested a compromise of IS months. Chairperson
Squires felt that would address all concerns; and people would have at
least two full growing seasons to establish the turf, though he
personally preferred the one year. It provides two seasons for growth
and would be easier to administer.
MOTION by Apel, Seconded by Luedtke, to forward to the City Council with
the recommendation of approval as presented in the packet. Motion
carried on a 3-Yes (Squires, Apel, Luedtke), 3-No (Doucette, Jovanovich,
Peek), 1-Absent (Putnam) vote. Commissioners Doucette and Jovanovich
preferred the 18-month time period. commissioner Peek felt the entire
ordinance is too restrictive and did not support it in general. This
will be forwarded to the City Council for their September 5, 1995,
meeting with no recommendation.
updated the commission on the actions of the City Council
August 1, 1995, meetin /,
;
Commissione Jovanovich noted e lack of fencing along some of the
:-ental prope y along the dr nage pond between Crosstown Drive and
Crosstown Boul yard. Mr. Car erg stated there is some fencing that is
on private prop rty. The City owns the pond itself, but he did not
believe it owned of e high land along that edge of the"pond.
MOTION by
6-Yes, I-Absent
to adjourn. Motion carried on a
The meeting
p.m.
submitted,
~~(.
~ cu-vlA.. \
la A. Peach
ding Secretary \
,
;
"
CITY OF ANDOVER
REQUEST FOR PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
'.
AGENDA ITEM
6. Discussion Cont.
Turf Establishment
Ordinance
DATE
ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT
August a, 1995
APPROVED FOR
AGENDA
Planning
BY:~
David L. carlberg
BY: Planning Director
The Planning and Zoning Commission tabled this item at their July
25, 1995 meeting and requested Staff to address issues and provide
provisions in the ordinance regarding a definition of topsoil, a
retroactive clause and wetland exceptions.
The Commission, based on the changes sited above, is asked to
review and discuss the attached proposed ordinance (DRAFT)
establishing turf (sod/seed) requirements.
j
/
CITY OF ANDOVER
COUNTY OF ANOKA
STATE JF MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF LAWN REQUIREMENTS FOR
RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS.
The City Council of the City of Andover hereby ordains:
Section l. Purpose.
To provide protection to all natural terrain features of the
residential site, which if preserved as required herein, will add
to the attractiveness and stability of the site.
Standards set forth in this ordinance will increase the
desirability of residences, encourage investment or occupation in
the city, optimize use and value of land and improvements,
increase the stability and value of the property and add to the
conditions affecting health and welfare of the city.
Section 2. Definitions.
/
TOt Soil: For the purpose of this Ordinance, top soil shall
de ined as soil/dirt that has sufficient amounts of organic
material to establish a suitable foundation for vegetative
growth.
be
Section 3. Top Soil Requirements.
Top soil shall be
inches of cover.
and/or sodding.
spread so as to provide at least four (4)
The site shall also be stabilized by seeding
Section 4. Soil and/or Seed Requirements.
All boulevards are required to be sodded in areas served by
municipal sanitary sewer and/or water. On grades or exposed
areas which are not sodded, lawn grass seed shall be sown at not
less than four (4) pounds to each one thousand (1,000) square
feet of land area. The seed shall consist of a maximum of ten
(lO) percent rye grass by weight and a minimum of ninety (90)
percent of permanent bluegrass and/or fescue grass by weight.
All residential lots with municipal sanitary sewer and/or
water shall be sodded or seeded from the boulevard edge to a
distance of thirty (30) feet behind the principal residence on
the lot. wetlands shall be exempt from the sodding or seeding
requirements as determined by the city, Department of Natural
Resources, Watersheds, or Conservation District. The spreading
of soil and seeding of lawn shall be completed within one year of
the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy. .
\,
/
Page Two
Turf Establishment Ordinance
Draft - P & Z
August 8, 1995
Section 5. Retroactive Clause.
All properties in violation of the proY~s~ons of this Ordinance
shall have one year to comply with the requirements set forth in
this Ordinance.
Section 6. Enforcement.
The Code Enforcement Officer of the City of Andover shall enforce
this Ordinance.
Section 7. penalty.
A violation of this Ordinance shall constitute a misdemeanor.
Section 8. Separability.
Should any section, subdivision, clause or other provlslon of
this Ordinance be declared by a court of competent jurisdiction
to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the
Ordinance as a whole or any part other than the part so declared
to be invalid.
I
Adopted by the city Council this
day of
, 1995.
CITY OF ANDOVER
ATTEST:
J. E. McKelvey - Mayor
Victoria Volk - City Clerk
/
Regular Andover Planning and zoning Commission Meeting
Minutes - July 25, 1995
,Page 2
. /
~
(Variance - Side yard Setback/3931 158th Avenue - Portugue, Continued)
the variance. Neither the proposed 16 x 16-foot three-season porch nor
the approximately 16 x 20-foot proposed deck will encroach into the
setback. He reviewed the applicable ordinances. The-house was built
in 1973 and complied with the setback of 20 feet in,~n R-2 zone at that
time. The City has since changed the setback regulrement to 30 feet in
1984 and again to 40 feet in 1993. Staff is ~ecommending approval.
,..
//
Commissioner Apel noted the nonconformance/resulted from the action of
the elected officials. He felt ther,e/is some danger in designating
something nonconforming for homeown~'s insurance reasons. Since the
City created the problem and there is an obligation to protect the
citizens, he was in favor of th~variance.
/
Susan Portuoue - stated the~urchased the house about six years ago.
There was a deck which theyrju~t tore down because it was rotten. They
want to replace it with~ three-season porch and a larger deck. Mr.
Carlberg explained because it is a lawfully existing nonconforming use,
if the deck were of tne same size, there would not be an issue~ Because
of the addition and the enlargement of the deck, the variance is
required. Chairperson Squires agreed with the variance because the
proposed additions are not narrowing that 20-foot encroachment into the
setback. //
/ MOTION b0oucette, Seconded by Jovanovich, to forward to the City
Council~ recommendation of approval of the Resolution approving the
variaruee request of Susan portugue which requires a 40-foot sideyard
setbcrek for the property located at 3931 158th Avenue NW. Motion
ca:r;;ried on a 5-Yes, 2-Absent (peek, putnam) vote. This w~Jl_ be__placed
o;{ the August_15, 19..95. Ci ty.-CounciL~agenda.~ - __d____
r--
@
DISCUSSION - ORDINANCE FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF SEED/SOD REQUIREMENTS
FOR ALL RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS
Mr. Carlberg reviewed the draft ordinance establishing turf requirements
of sod and seed. The City has received complaints, mostly in the urban
areas, from people who establish nice sod yards; but the neighbor then
builds and does not put in a yard. The sand blows from the neighbor's
yard and kills the sod. The boulevards are required to be sodded as a
part of the construction, but not private yards. It is not~a serious
problem, but other communities have adopted a similar ordinance. The
recommendation is to set a minimum of four inches of top soil,
stabilized by seeding or sodding within one year of the issuance of the
Certificate of Occupancy.
In discussing the ordinance, there was a consensus that the ordinance
itself is warranted. It was suggested that some language be added to
allow for variations when the issue of wetlands or other exceptions is
/ involved. Discussion was on the type of topsoil required and even the
need for it. It was felt that some topsoil is needed for successful
growth of sod or seed. Commissioner Luedtke suggested a broader
requirement such as "suitable topsoil adequate to support growth" and
Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
Minutes - July 25, 1995
,?age 3
/
(Discussion - Ordinance on Turn Establishment, Continued)
leave it to the determination of the property owners. Mr. Carlberg
noted the four-inch requirement is already required for boulevards. The
Commission then suggested an addition of the topsoil specifications as
defined in the Platting Ordinance to this ordinance so this is all
inclusive. Commissioner Jovanovich stated there may be a desire not to
sod or seed in the 2 1/2+-acre lots, preferring instead to leave it
natural. Commissioner Apel felt caution must be taken because there are
many kinds of ground covers that are recommended for yards, some of
which do not conform to the nicely mowed lawn. The courts have found in
favor of the homeowners unless it is noxious weeds.
..
(
,
Mr. Carlberg again stated the problem is not in the rural area but in
the urban. Commissioner Doucette felt the requirement of turf
establishment within one year is a financial hardship. Four inches of
topsoil and seed or sod is very expensive. She would prefer a three-
year requirement; however, she'd compromise with two years.
Commissioner Jovanovich agreed it is a financial hardship unless the
developer or builder rolls the cost into the mortgage. Commissioner
Luedtke noted if it is included as a part of the mortgage, it has to be
done before moving in. It made no difference to him whether the
requirement is one or two years. Commissioner Apel supported the one-
year requirement. Chairperson Squires felt the purchaser of a home
always has the option of placing that cost into the mortgage and having
/it done by the builder. Seeding is cheap. He felt two years is a long
time, that a year is adequate time to establish turf in a yard. ,Possibly
there could be some provision for Staff to vary somewhat in cases of
hardship. Mr. Carlberg stated Staff would work with the homeowners if
they are making a reasonable attempt to meet the requirements. There is
no variance provision in the ordinance. Chairperson Squires did no~
support exemptions. The requirements should be understood and
consistently enforced. The Commission agreed to give further thought to
the time requirement and discuss it again at the August S meeting.
..
The Commission also discussed the application of the ordinance
retroactively. Mr. Carlberg stated he would include a provision in the
ordinance, as well as the other two modifications on the definition of
topsoil and provision for wetlands, and bring the item back to the
Commission at their August S meeting.
eview City Council Actions - Mr. Carlberg reviewed the actions of the
Council taken at their July 5 and July lS meetings.
Signs in oulevards - Commissioner Jovanovich noted the concern
expressed by the.... Council on the College Pro Painters signs in the
,boulevards. She s~at~d she did call the number on the sign and asked if
;they had permission toput_ the signs in Andover. The person didn't know
but would contact the person-who placed them in the City. Within one or
two days all of the signs wer~~e. Mr. Carlberg stated the Staff has
a difficult time enforcing the smatler signs in the boulevards. They are
removed at intersections if there are~vis~al problems.
,.
CITY OF ANDOVER
REQUEST FOR PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
DATE
July 25, 1995
AGENDA ITEM
ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT
APPROVED FOR
AGENDA
5. Discussion
Turf Establishment
Ordinance
Planning
-I:)
David L. Carlberg
BY: Planning Director
BY: ?' _
The Planning and Zoning Commission is asked to review and discuss
the attached proposed ordinance (DRAFT) establishing turf
(suo/seed) requirements. The Ordinance is being proposed due to a
number of complaints received from residents whose neighbors after
a year or more have yet to put a yard in after building new homes.
J
/
CITY OF ANDOVER
COUNTY OF ANOKA
STATE OF MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF LAWN REQUIRMENTS FOR
RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS.
The City Council of the City of Andover hereby ordains:
Section 1. Purpose.
To provide protection to all natural terrain features of the
residential site, which if preserved as required herein, will add
to the attractiveness and stability of the site.
Standards set forth in this ordinance will increase the
desirability of residences, encourage investment or occupation in
the city, optimize use and value of land and improvements,
increase the stability and value of the property and add to the
conditions affecting health and welfare of the city.
Section 2. Top Soil Requirements.
TOpsoil shall be spread so as to provide at least four (4) inches
of cover. The site shall also be stabilized by seeding and/or.
sodding.
Section 3. Soil and/or Seed Requirements.
All boulevards are required to be sodded in areas served by
municipal sanitary sewer and/or water. On grades or exposed
areas which are not sodded, lawn grass seed shall be sown at not
less than four (4) pounds to each one thousand (1,000) square
feet of land area. The seed shall consist of a maximum of ten
(lO) percent rye grass by weight and a minimum of ninety (90)
percent of permanent bluegrass and/or fescue grass by weight.
All residential lots with municipal sanitary sewer and/or
water shall be sodded or seeded from the boulevard edge to a
distance of thirty (30) feet behind the principal residence on
the lot. The spreading of soil and seeding of lawn shall be
completed within one year of the issuance of the Certificate of
Occupancy.
Section 4. Enforcement.
The Code Enforcement Officer of the City of Andover shall enforce
this Ordinance.
Section 5. Penalty.
A violation of this Ordinance shall constitute a misdemeanor.
Page Two
Turf Establishment Ordinance
Draft - P & Z
July 25, 1995
,
'.
Section 6. Separability.
Should any section, subdivision, clause or other prov~s~on of
this Ordinance be declared by a court of competent jurisdiction
to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the vaildity of the
Ordinance as a whole or any part other than the part so declared
to be invalid.
Adopted by the City Council this
day of
, 1995.
CITY OF ANDOVER
ATTEST:
J. E. McKelvey - Mayor
Victoria Volk - City Clerk
/
J
CITY OF ANDOVER
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
September 5, 1995
DATE
AGENDA
fIO.
SECTION
ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT
APPROVED
FOR AGENDA
Discussion Item
Todd J. Haas,
Engineering ~
~<
~
ITEM
fIO.
Approve Handling of park Fund
Expenditures
/ I.
The City Council is requested to approve the handling of park
dedication fund expenditures up to a maximum of $1,000.
The prQcess would be as follows: Public Works and the Park
Coordinator review any requests and recommend either approval or
denial with City Administrator. For example: Public Works would like
to see a bike rack at City Hall. The cost is under $1,000. The
request would be reviewed by the Park Coordinator and approved or
denied by the City Administrator. This would minimize the paperwork
involved to get approval by the Park and Recreation Commission and
City Council. (Less red tape).
,
)
., )
MOTION BY:
SECOND BY:
CITY OF ANDOVER
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
DATE
~~r~omhor ~ 1QQ~
AGENDA
fIO.
SECTION
ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT
APPROVED
FOR AGENDA
Discussion
Richard Fursman
city Administrator
ITEM
fIO.
Adopt Preliminary Budget
jAdopt proposed 96 Levy
BY:
j)lcL
/tJ .
The Council is requested to adopt the preliminary 1996 budget and
the 1996 proposed property tax levy to be certified to the County
Auditor.
The ,budget has an estimated 3% maximum increase in the tax levy.
This number will be verified by the County before the final
tax levy and budget are adopted December 19.
Final wage adjustments will have an impact on the look of the
budget, with fine tuning to be done september through October.
\
) ATTACHED:
A RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE CITY OF ANDOVER 1996 PROPOSED PROPERTY
TAX LEVY.
TRUTH IN TAXATION CERTIFICATION FORM
,
)
MOTION BY:
SECOND BY:
. I District: City of Andover
Public Hearing Date: Wednesday, November 29, 1995
Time of Meeting: 7:00 P.M.
Place of Meeting: Andover City Hall
Council Chambers
Continuation Date: Wednesday, December l3, 1995
Continuation Time: 7:00 P.M.
ANOKA COUNTY
OFFICE OF PROPERTY TAX ADMINISTRATION
PAYABLE 1996 TRUTH IN TAXATION
CERTIFICATION FORM FOR CITIES
The "Notice of Proposed Property Tax" sent to each taxpayer contains the
following information about where to send comments and/or review a copy
of your proposed budget. Please provide it as you want it to appear on that
notice.
Name or Title:
Address:
Finance Director
l685 Crosstown Boulevard N.W.
Andover, MN 55304
Phone Number:
612-755-5l00
/
Proposed Pay 1996 Levy:
General:
Debt:
Watershed:
Other:
Subtotal:
Less HACA:
Total Tax Cap.-Based Levy
Proposed Tax Levy by
Referendum/Election:
(Mkt. Vaiue-based)
Signature of person
completing this form: ~!'\............~. ~ r\~n
Title: Finance Director
Phone Number: 612-755-5100
Date: September 6, 1995
2,502,040
448,689
l6,865
2,967,594
464,849
2,502,745
~
/
THIS FORM MUST BE RETURNED TO ANOKA COUNTY PROPERTY TAX
ADMINISTRATION BY SEPTEMBER 15, 1995
truth.cert. form .cities
/
CITY OF ANDOVER
COUNTY OF ANORA
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RES. NO.
A RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE CITY OF ANDOVER 1996 PROPOSED PROPERTY TAX
LEVY TO BE CERTIFIED TO THE COUNTY AUDITOR AND ESTABLISHING THE
PROPOSED BUDGET FOR THE GENERAL FUND.
WHEREAS, the preparation and adoption of operating budgets is
recognized as sound financial practice; and
WHEREAS, the City of Andover receives significant financial
support from its residents through the payment of property taxes;
and
WHEREAS, the City of Andover has the responsibility to
appropriate and efficiently manage the public's funds; and
WHEREAS, Minnesota State Law requires the city to certify to the
County Auditor a proposed tax levy and budget prior to September 15th.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the city Council of the City of
Andover hereby adopts the proposed 1996 property tax levy totaling
$2,502,745, of which $2,158,738 is for general purposes and is levied
, against all taxable property within the City of Andover, $13,395 is
I levied against property located within the Lower Rum River Watershed
District for the city of Andover's share of costs. of this organization
and $448,689 is for the repayment of bonded indebtedness as follows:
1992 Certificates of Indebtedness
1994 Certificates of Indebtedness
1995 Certificates of Indebtedness
1991 Fire Station Bonds
$30,131
25,668
50,733
342,157
$448,689
--------
--------
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Andover
hereby establishes the preliminary General Fund budget as follows:
Revenue:
Taxes
Licenses
Permits
Intergovernmental
Charges for services
Fines and Forfeitures
Miscellaneous
Transfers from Other Funds
$2,200,924
20,215
323,605
759,484
361,350
37,000
103,400
71,000
Total Revenue
$3,876,978
Expenditures:
I General Government
Public safety
Public Works
parks and Recreation
Recycling
Other Financing Uses
Unallocated
$1,048,326
1,176,968
1,015,132
379,778
45,226
65,276
146,272
Total Expenditures
$3,876,978
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Andover on this
of September, 19 95.
5th
day
CITY OF ANDOVER
ATTEST:
J.E. McKelvey - Mayor
Victoria Volk - City Clerk
STATE OF MINNESOTA
COUNTY OF ANOKA
)
CITY OF ANDOVER
I, the undersigned, being duly qualified and acting City Clerk of the
City of Andover, Minnesota, do hereby certify that I have carefully
compared the attached
Resolution
adopting the 1996 proposed property tax levy
with the original record thereof preserved in my office, and have
\
found the same to be a true and correct transcript of the whole
thereof.
IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I have hereunto subscribed my hand this 5th
day of
September
, 19 95.
)
Victoria Volk - City Clerk
(SEAL)
j
/
CITY OF ANDOVER
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
September 5, 1995
DATE
AGENDA
fIO.
SECTION
ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT
Discussion
Finance
APPROVED
FOR AGENDA
Computer update
~~
Jean D. McGann
Finance Director
~r
ITEM
fIO.
/3.
Mark Smith is here tonight to update the City Council on the
progress made on locating a new computer system.
Mr. Smith will be describing the steps taken in locating a
suitable computer system for the City and presenting the facts of
his research.
\
/
.
/
MOTION BY:
SECOND BY:
CITY OF ANDOVER
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
September 5, 1995
DATE
AGENDA
fIO.
SECTION
ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT
APPROVED
FOR AGENDA
Discussion Item
scot~ Eri~kson'Al
Englneenng c:fJ 0
ITEM
fIO.
Woodland Terrace Traffic
Discussion
~)
14.
A petition (188 signatures) has been submitted by residents of the
Woodland Terrace neighborhood who are not in favor of the installation
of a temporary closure of Narcissus Street NW at Marigold street NW.
A numb~r of residents have expressed their concern regarding this item
and have requested to discuss this with the City Council.
A second petition has also been submitted by the residents in
support of the temporaIY closure. I understand this petition has
been delivered to each Councilmember.
'\
I
)
MOTION BY:
SECOND BY:
/
PRESENTATION TO THE COUNCIL
SEPTEMBER 5,1995
7:00 P.M.
"
We, the undersigned, concerned residents of Woodland Terrace and other affected
parties, strongly urge the Andover City Council members and our Mayor to reverse their
decision to install a "choker" at Narcissus Street north of Marigold Street and south of
Orchid Street. We feel this is not the best possible solution to our traffic problems and
will simply transfer the issue of safety and traffic to another area of the development.
As there are currently three outlets from Woodland Terrace, choking off one would then
place a greater flow of vehicles onto the remaining two. This would cause serious
safety concerns for far more children, as the number of houses on the south end of the
proposed "choker" is much greater than on the north end. Rerouting traffic will not
decrease the total number of cars traveling through Woodland Terrace, it will simply
transfer the traffic from one end to another.
We were not represented as a whole on the original petition regarding this matter, as
the petition was not made available for review by approximately one-half of the
development residents.
We feel the other possible solutions, such as speed bumps, increased signage and law
enforcement of those signs, need to be addressed further before a public street is
closed off to the public.
PETITION
August 29, 1995
,
,:0 the Honorable Mayor and City Council members of Andover
From Concerned Citizens
"
We, the undersigned, oppose the blockage of access to Bunker Lake Boulevard at Narcissus Street
north of Marigold Street and south of Orchid Street. This access was in place prior to the
development of the neighborhood and impacts the appeal of living in Woodland Terrace. We foresee
an increase in the traffic burden resulting in serious safety concerns on 133rd Lane and 134th Avenue
should this blockage occur. We strongly urge you to rescind the decision to choke off Narcissus
Street and consider other possible solutions for the betterment of all.
Date First and Last Name
Address
Wi ~;:J (l,.;Q LJPS- rf(llIJjoRcJl.5( rJ. tJ
'$i~ 1319< 1'X;"ifrl <;} AJ,cu
'l/z--t 13t[f5{ W\A-R/60L(~ 5T ;JW
<smdtl.J; iJn1tbl<.J 1?J!//5 r()rwrl! eP, t1tJ
vQL L " \~4100 r<lo~Q~ ~, ,I(\~~
<tJ.!l ( ~ / ?21f7/ 111 ~I tL
g.Z1 (3effl ;){tiJ{I;~ 6.{
~ /Jc.jS"j .I'1,4,1i./6ot):J (J/(
o/a .' . I r ' ~ YSJ I'I,.eJ /..
11;\1 ~.j~ J3YtS Mc..r,'r;oJJ (' ;r
~ /
~ t.Q,u,~ 11,;(J~, "loP'! fJ7u"'~J(.>ll Sf f11uJ
8h~ )\WVn ,:;{cY\v,/7Y) 1'"(L(')'2 /~I1C~(\5(}ld Sf N\';v
~ht{ ti' u1;L/3C/u~ ;hl1r/~ 5/. ;v'.W.
~r . /J'ft!2- /lfur'..J~Ic/ ->t. '&'Cf.)
5J:t.y j'33-g? t;Ly aT' /Vtt/
Number of
Children
J
~.
~
~
G.
o
o
I
3-
3
1./
~
i
!'
o
PETITION
August 29, 1995
,To the Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers of Andover
J
From Concerned Citizens
"
We, the undersigned, oppose the blockage of access to Bunker Lake Boulevard at Narcissus Street
north of Marigold Street and south of Orchid Street. This access was in place prior to the
devf310pment of the neighborhood and impacts the appeal of living in Woodland Terrace. We foresee
an increase in the traffic burden resulting in serious safety concerns on 133rd Lane and 134th Avenue
should this blockage occur. We strongly urge you to rescind the decision to choke off Narcissus
Street and consider other possible solutions for the betterment of all,
DatI! First and Last Na e Address
?!d5 '~,--JrCfI/2I./eL 135/8 U.M/uNr )d
~_'/J~~~ /"?5;;t/ ()~t ~-C-
~ _!?J.A. Il~ /35,;)(( D~ cd--
%0- ~ iLf-r~~. I?{)"H w~col Ct::
r~ O~~ 'lBL..-.O J )35"3;2... C"'C..htJ;, ci-.
if. n.... P/ /rtf:' ._/i . / .. // //..,d
~j_/ /ft"!),/)J!n~ /7/} ~ /3'5 3,17 d~~cL ~,
B/tfL!Jffj F . c.J!., 13S38 OWl->!j <buM
~/2fL 1)0-- 0 _ ~ / J Cr..D I () r-c:..'-"- ~ J) Sf ,{)L.-J
$'/...('// ~ -J &_
'B:!'- ./~..?~u/z-~/>?o6 orct~ltI 51 ;Ll/V'"
<t[2B _ /A'~J /.LJ1~~L IOGD&' (Qv~d St AJuJ
o/~_ /, :.;/ . /. 1C:;71 121 ~A t' ~(2~i 11A~,.{)
;/~ 8 . 1/1 /257 q ~r~h/C( sf. Nvt/
~ f I 3 r 2. C( 0 f' '- " : d 5 f tV Lv'
"1- -z.J /35 I Y ot'CL,.'vI' 5 J- Uv.../
Jjlf ts5\g {)rc~"!- Sr-. . ,~\\I\}
/~J~ ' i,j:;i~ DJ'cL.& Sr- IV"'-J
Number of
Children
;:(
2-
,~
~
;p
c::2-
-:7
/
o
:0
12>
t)
o
o
r)
(
2-
PETITION
August 29, 1995
~o the Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers of Andover
From Concerned Citizens
"
We, the undersigned, oppose the blockage of access to Bunker Lake Boulevard at Narcissus Street
north of Marigold Street and south of Orchid Street. This access was in place prior to the
development of the neighborhood and impacts the appeal of living in Woodland Terrace. We foresee
an increase in the traffic burden resulting in serious safety concerns on 133rd Lane and 134th Avenue
should this blockage occur. We strongly urge you to rescind the decision to choke off Narcissus
Street and consider other possible solutions for the betterment of all.
Date First and Last Name
Address
9Jp!l ThCJ?Vf ~/~ I?~?a Mo 0 7{*) \~ ~
Jt'c/~ ~~,d- {57/? /;J1~r7qc~/J 51-
~z..~ ~ J 3"159 rriihr-eo c,.,
r...L.f- ,/ -:( Ii \t:::~ )j-J!l o-c.L cJ
)/1,~ ^~ "1[,<1, \ t,L ()
~i I / l
't/1{ ~~U(W~1.. 1"3<f-o:t Mu~~...ed~t- /JuJ
~~~~c~c'"- J"'~"'I (l'\'~'\f.oJ q \\)w
ill[ /"l).~ /1.~~ 17,<101 (l.A(jN
t!12.f.. ,e:..~.~ ~ /3h-','; E lI(upi..fJ (t,AJ~,
~2h (~~ /3363 fL"4>~"~) [7 E
'%(., L~ ~J19-"^~ 1?:'3Ior'7'J1~~{)(tT c
~ ~~ ~~ l~JG' ~("~olJ. c..~. 12"_
~ --{,UA;- J3nS- n I,y J iv&1 f-t f
~~ ~-e- (3~rj~ j11;;~/6dL~ C-T
(?Cf7'7 /l~I/
(>~
tv
'PI-24
/-
Number of
Children
?J
o
l
3
----
-z-
9f
/c1
/;)
o
.Q/
d
.J:j-
~
L/
Z-
PETITION
August 29, 1995
fo the Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers of Andover
From Concerned Citizens
"
We, the undersigned, oppose the blockage of access to Bunker Lake Boulevard at Narcissus Street
north of Marigold Street and south of Orchid Street. This access was in place prior to the
development of the neighborhood and impacts the appeal of living in Woodland Terrace. We foresee
an increase in the traffic burden resulting in serious safety concerns on 133rd Lane and 134th Avenue
should this blockage occur. We strongly urge you to rescind the decision to choke off Narcissus
Street and consider other possible solutions for the betterment of all.
Address
!-Z-=</pr9- 0{~.J; 7/1)
1/ 1/'
~
~
~
L~
. )-21- :;zu
~~~~p 1J)~;itf4,1 1-3, 3-33 ~ ~ n. W.
;4t ~~~1 t?~1'17YlatW-rdl5h.Jw
~ L\, \33,lP JJ. N~GoG:\ ~\).J
~, '. \~0Y\\() ~ \f\\~\\~~ ~~
'(.kJ ~~dJ I~ mr.A~ cJ- W .
<if 1--'-{ [~ l "?") 17. Vt.1c. f ~ 0 lY- c ..f-
S:::d!fO I V \ ~ W
f.::d!i ~3b
W ' D ( ~fYtU} i3:r70f'hMiatJ St. nv
~ M;/t0~J#c.j !3/5-~e ,4/M--
/)f2~ Lit), ~)'/
? /3320 {{/C} s+
u
/3,333 ({Iv Sf
~t:J.
Number of
Children
/
/
J
3
I
--L-
o
1-
2/
.3
(
~
~
rJ
~
August 29, 1995
PETITION
,
,
,'0 the Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers of Andover
From Concerned Citizens
We, the undersigned, oppose the blockage of access to Bunker Lake Boulevard at Narcissus Street
north of Marigold Street and south of Orchid Street. This access was in place prior to the
development of the neighborhood and impacts the appeal of living in Woodland Terrace. We foresee
an increase in the traffic burden resulting in serious safety concerns on 133rd Lane and 134th Avenue
should this blockage occur. We strongly urge you to rescind the decision to choke off Narcissus
Street and consider other possible solutions for the betterment of all.
Date First and Last Name Address
si7J 1 ~5 0' VI .fuiU~~ NaYUSl)[<S St. NvJ
tl&?I~ IJI/tr5/t/!JR(J""(<'(){ ,<;i;tfJ
1J~4 ~i~-q.~_'~4-\' ~ ~ y\W.
8'(41. /J~i,::;.~~ 1,~Lj/1 J(Jq(2.Ci'oysl-1<.~' }19W.
~fu. f1.Q;(r\,C!.IJ~ / 2Y/o'1 YV~ :;JrN'-tJ
t -';'Yz,. (., '5~'2.t. /11.(;1-1 hi!/ /1tu ffi,b,x.-
~ 3L({~ (~H' 1J,J
~
r;~,
~
8JJi
%1'
r--
~
~'
ik:J c---\~.>-' '^-Je\~ ~5 ~)
31/C;-'r - I 3 C{ bi. ~ P. 11/
ZL~~ - (~<t'tP ~ rJ uJ
3'170--/(3'171.. ;f{/~ /1/uJ
3!fI~ ~ L?JI01 !J JJQ '1J W
t-t.-a- ~ J y~ y - /:> f5c( t::l:: A/ /A./
15"0' - / Jtf ,4v-c /'Iv
36'6)- (6 V-&. AvG-1Jw
1'\'-1 -ib {\~ ~ W
Number of
Children
3
-z..
:2
~
~
PETITION
August 29, 1995
fo the Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers of Andover
From Concerned Citizens
"
We, the undersigned, oppose the blockage of access to Bunker Lake Boulevard at Narcissus Street
north of Marigold Street and south of Orchid Street. This access was in place prior to the
development of the neighborhood and impacts the appeal of living in Woodland Terrace. We foresee
an increase in the traffic burden resulting in serious safety concerns on 133rd Lane and 134th Avenue
should this blockage occur. We strongly urge you to rescind the decision to choke off Narcissus
Street and consider other possible solutions for the betterment of all.
-' ,
3 <..{ n f "3(.[' tj ,.-" '"-, ft ' Lu
~
'6/d6
M
j-
3-1"77 -(2J.I+hAr~ ~)LJ
3\.( 7 7 - I" \.\ tl Ave NvJ
~ J3Lj'}-o/\Ave. A}cJ
YI~7 /3Hh OVPJ I\J l\)
3lj<.j7 J 3/ (fl^0 AlJ
;;~ I/~~a~ (}iI)
3S~ 134T~ AvG
~~~ ( )C{ 1tt Ark-- ~w
Number of
Children
~
-
<2-
d
L/-
~
d--
:J-
d-...
{tJ
S-
0"
D-
5
~
~
August 29, 1995
PETITION
To the Honorable Mayor and City Council members of Andover
j
From Concerned Citizens
"
We, the undersigned, oppose the blockage of access to Bunker Lake Boulevard at Narcissus Street
north of Marigold Street and south of Orchid Street. This access was in place prior to the
development of the neighborhood and impacts the appeal of living in Woodland Terrace. We foresee
an increase in the traffic burden resulting in serious safety concerns on 133rd Lane and 134th Avenue
should this blockage occur. We strongly urge you to rescind the decision to choke off Narcissus
Street and consider other possible solutions for the betterment of all.
f/: J if
f:di dJ~
~
Ni. ,~ IJitSVr 1l0}1tj1i1~J t(~ Jr7llJ
.,. '-../1 ( \
,~~,~/'~~I).~~'t\~ -'S1l~ lJO-(<-~~,^--" ~. rv.\J
~ f-'l ( j ~uut ~~\~~ ~ J0W
"/Il!i-'. (it-I./v" 'I! /; 4-5'= vj; d,k~;f~~?1/tV .
y ,f . // .d r
>f"].ut..'L/L/ (l~v~e..-.t:~ /5 cJ..5 b
~~~ /yYSk
~.;;;;~ W~
~ uee~L~
9h.<;; ~k6/LfJ- ~.
V~<) . ;:p.'
tt7
:i;
Y27
Date
Address
JJ(f;l. g- ItJz/t{f~M/1 V- ;tJtr/
./(JW
I ~
I ,
/"
,.oJ""
I 'St(1 <:
If
II
/:]1/5
1312tJ
;1
I (
~vt6S/.l. ::.
b~ _ tIJ.. tv ..
I 3 <,(~
11{V\./~
,\-c: .N. ~.
(:; ~ ") L P -<=:s': -' :;- f- /V./J:J.
'3 t/a'( I j j ,11' IAI_ /II i-/_
Number of
Children
L
I
,3
,:2
--z..
3
\l
.5
-3
---
.r
PETITION
August 29, 1995
Jo the Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers of Andover
From Concerned Citizens
"
We, the undersigned, oppose the blockage of access to Bunker Lake Boulevard at Narcissus Street
north of Marigold Street and south of Orchid Street. This access was in place prior to the
development of the neighborhood and impacts the appeal of living in Woodland Terrace. We foresee
an increase in the traffic burden resulting in serious safety concerns on 133rd Lane and 134th Avenue
should this blockage occur. We strongly urge you to rescind the decision to choke off Narcissus
Street and consider other possible solutions for the betterment of all.
Date First and last Name Address
~~ En 6s:...=vSCN.7~/ /3""3/ 7 S-c..u~ e-T /Ur:-J
1/d.4h.J~;;: (,;" "'1<1Ii. tJ4 /.3.3 a odJ..". J t1I Ah,)
r~~ L -. 4~ 13317-1~ Cj-.)fLU.
cfzt'~ J~7"4- \ r { IJ'?Prd OT N\A}-
~~ ;o5"S?- 1.vJ7 1>1 tfJ
fl;(A .3b~:; /33'w J.rJ }JuJ
%1R;:1!;;..;fi~ 3'G5" l",~.,g I t' ~LcJ
g)2Jh:;~-~ 13~3/ f2v~* (UU
~j;Njt15~ ~ 13337 /2os<:;:. s-;:-, /Vw
-
g/;L4/~I((J(!d~ Ifhtt- .~~-/33yd~ J7W
~ f:1/9C', '7nwr--' ,;/- r;;J..d 3 '/(,C? - J 3 Ol-J L.~U' Y; w
1'/~~'-fl{)tV1 r4frmf '3'ff.;3- /!i5~ 4rn-0 -?lIt!
%iu..- --r~~ 3%10 133,,[<---, AJb.~
3-#l.f9;' t2... - _~'k9. ?;J.tC;?:r-(~~ 1..1 PI ,/" )
....-<..Y-1-s' _~~~ _ 3;<;,5'::1 13.3[(1:> CAN~ ;u...,.:)
Number of
Children
c:<-
~
2.---
cp
..1-
I
----L-
3-
3
3
~.
,J-
3
..3
~
PETITION
August 29, 1995
,
jo the Honorable Mayor and City Council members of Andover
From Concerned Citiz~ns
We, the undersigned, oppose the blockage of access to Bunker Lake Boulevard at Narcissus Street
north of Marigold Street and south of Orchid Street. This access was in place prior to the
development of the neighborhood and impacts the appeal of living in Woodland Terrace. We foresee
an increase in the traffic burden resulting in serious safety concerns on 133rd Lane and 134th Avenue
should this blockage occur. We strongly urge you to rescind the decision to choke off Narcissus
Street and consider other possible solutions for the betterment of all.
Date First and Last Name
Address
~h'f f~':"'rrJ.~ 333 f:, )3Jr~ LVI.. 1j'vJ/ A",-~~u'L'"
~ tf:,dc; ~:;~ 13,6'/ 1YI."5"I.I r!1w A~'/^~
~'-l :;~ -' ~ ::?, b L{ 1Yl~, I ~('J fd CA- kJ AVI)ov ~
t/J..4 3J3(1:'/ [,??rJ t.-v -Vw A-nJ(jvc""'-
i v .
t',}S 3379 /33 r('1 1-4/7-17 n u/ 4n~/.lt""""--
~r- 11- ~~ '])77- /))".( ;i ~ A/t.<J l4t.to~v~
~)l)Wj 1!~ '3375 /33 1&--510 flrrJ!'&
~ ~"1 ~A ~C "1~
rc!t{ t!J;,/-_ ;1t!U1"--- JfP 7 tJJ 120 l/V !Jv /!NotJllerl...
, . I
f 1;1 f/ ~ \ffJ ~tL.J .)? 7tJ I if:?>> d 4e. (1 El> /9-~
8/2!1.~'"fft&zLj4-n ?J4()7-/~~ ~~A/tJ ~V0
'O/!..1 ~~~,"'6'1? - 1330 Ln on.fA) . Pl'-~
'?'~.s-~~ 31?7 (~?/~Dl.1l/ AJI~,4J~".~
;?Q-,~t)!<s-- Y/'29 1.33tl) Iv ^!~i tU"",<-
..:J2iz t:) ~ C} f ~- 2:J <\ I I tzr ,- R 1.-& N W,4u,Jn! ' <of'
Number of
Children
1
(10) Aa>-\c
d C'x:., \J.CL
?
1-
d-
II
o
I
2
o ])11'rett~Ft
;;L.
L
c:J..
:J
:J.....
"""
PETITION
August 29, 1995
"
To the Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers of Andover
~rom Concerned Citizens
We, the undersigned, oppose the blockage of access to Bunker Lake Boulevard at Narcissus Street
north of Marigold Street and south of Orchid Street. This access was in place prior to the
development of the neighborhood and impacts the appeal of living in Woodland Terrace. We foresee
an increase in the traffic burden resulting in serious safety concerns on 133rd Lane and 134th Avenue
should this blockage occur. We strongly urge you to rescind the decision to choke off Narcissus
Street and consider other possible solutions for the betterment of all.
Date First and last Nam
~,}{-9(
.
<6 -) ~ c; )' 0u..a \Sin cf-J--
~ --;il Cj)' De f'IJ ;'.1/5 :> -"'! (T H I "3 J t./).
8oW-rs-~~~ J3~7 i?o'SLSf (It() IJnckt<R.-L
\,'I)..'/-7S' . 1 ; /sJ2/ ~O>s~ 5..;, AJIu4"cIol/'-/?
I
:'J.4L0 ~ zj}~ 1~317 ~o/ ..9. to,LA). a~
~-~>. ~ /]-:r/:J. 1tr.'lL <51 ILJI..J (iJMtl/J/J..
~'J4-~5f. ~ )33/;1. kc~ ~. N0 ~
~~41IS, J4A 0 J33/L R.d,e sf- }/(.,J ,l.,jJo-~
~-W-'/'fg-~:'Jr~ 133lZ-l?__ St-AW th, Lt~
~~vhs IrO\! 1ir?/;j'flrJer /33 il R... 'Sri 3l- N.ol A NJove,'"\
I I
'B!-:)l{ <t( l'-^..~~ (!'!,.:2'-{ s', l~~ c,,\;- ~ v~v '-f .
~ 9:. ~ f3L~'J:i::;:;>tu ~~ -:5
g . Of. _3~ci_____1l(1)~Jl~-3
'-/%"-);5" ~nJ /llZ1l7#A."MI/'3::Jrd L-/1/uL,u .4~tJer Ol
Number of
Children
-~
^
-L
I
~
;)
o
;;J-
~
~
PETITION
August 29, 1995
j-O the Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers of Andover
From Concerned Citizens
We, the undersigned, oppose the blockage of access to Bunker lake Boulevard at Narcissus Street
north of Marigold Street and south of Orchid Street. This access was in place prior to the
development of the neighborhood and impacts the appeal of living in Woodland Terrace. We foresee
an increase in the traffic burden resulting in serious safety concerns on 133rd lane and 134th Avenue
should this blockage occur. We strongly urge you to rescind the decision to choke off Narcissus
Street and consider other possible solutions for the betterment of all.
Address
Date First and last Name
0/(' ()i () ,
;).J.d..!.. .~ ~ \.h-,(~.vv...,
~;; if ,.f!'ll {! :~;f.lliL.,,- 13<4/1
XI.J.~:'.../ r-~---L.. / J3J c Po.., n .....
fJ. b I I ( I
/ J-'1 IC.-, ""', "'~ / 7 V"
)6-1 O(LL6-t<-l1--I~ tRil-l,--
7(J1 t~
~J L'i Thl'i V-~1
~~. ~7
'-
rz1- ~37J{P 133L.bJ.O+tVv"vtd -A',tJd,ve.L
-if'! rFI!L!Jq,cc! ""US S-J. JJtJ.
~y \)51~ Nar<::\\)lJS ~ N W
~! t( TI-. "S'A /3337 Ilkt>Sfp( if
<O/a~ ~ra L t5tJ1-Wl' )3337 tVarn 5-<)"U ") S-r-
. ~ t:U1\ --.-, -,3) \ S t-J elf Cl SSU S ~ lJvJ
':,c, 5~
J?;)..d
L .,. ,
;\, J 'v 0---""'"
",,-w
/'). ,.; D = '- ('-,c....u. L..J
, I' / .-
J 3 ~ ;) () R-pp'l-J\t-. It] i It}
, ~
tsy).6 ;;~-X $7, IL/~.
\1~IO PoON 01. N'{'I
.5{. tJkl
Number of
Children
-<--
;;)
~
,;;2-.
L
'2-
.:2-
~"
jJ/U:5 8
do re..
c/tj/drer1.
::L {
2
12
~
PETITION
August 29, 1995
,
.[0 the Honorable Mayor and City Council members of Andover
From Concerned Citizens
"
We, the undersigned, oppose the blockage of access to Bunker Lake Boulevard at Narcissus Street
north of Marigold Street and south of Orchid Street. This access was in place prior to the
development of the neighborhood and impacts the appeal of living in Woodland Terrace. We foresee
an increase in the traffic burden resulting in serious safety concerns on 133rd Lane and 134th Avenue
should this blockage occur. We strongly urge you to rescind the decision to choke off Narcissus
Street and consider other possible solutions for the betterment of all.
Date First and Last Name
Address
332..1 15~()d ~ Cf) Lv
.'~Zl - ," tY ~ }1~
~ 3</01 - /33~~ It.:! i~;'
12P:/95 :il u~ ltt1, ,L}f?! /:3-3 LIz N bU
'>:"%51:'7-~ 1330'7d~CA.
$--~ t5'XJ'1 jJJ......J f!:r
i)dj~1;:!)~ L5?-J!-5ke~ {Pj
Number of
Children
3
gtutt.L
/
-8-
~
3
~1le-
August 29, 1995
PETITION
,
,-0 the Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers of Andover
From Concerned Citizens
"
We, the undersigned, oppose the blockage of access to Bunker Lake Boulevard at Narcissus Street
north of Marigold Street and south of Orchid Street. This access was in place prior to the
development of the neighborhood and impacts the appeal of living in Woodland Terrace. We foresee
an increase in the traffic burden resulting in serious safety concerns on 133rd Lane and 134th Avenue
should this blockage occur, We strongly urge you to rescind the decision to choke off Narcissus
Street and consider other possible solutions for the bettennent of all.
Date First and Last Name Address
~Y/&&~A;t31dL
t:lcl~~\cc~~'
:/' z:-/r,..: 1-L/rJ', 05] I
Ij
'l-15-'iS_~t (' -J,
?,-/;{~ ~. I, ~' .
,.'......-1" ,./"......... ~.'L-- ~--
....~ .',,~I/. .,.......'.-/..,;- ..
/038> Lz> Ad j}v J\;u) (}~tY) l?r1ds, f)YU
"\ -'
"~,-,,~~,---,.~,,SS:\ ~ ~,~.. """'----
.' 'r I Ii
/7()(>rj S 11'(~t(Y'{ ~/' -1/,r{:)//!/./
/+vo:.? UnckA"(!L-f--r STAJuJ A-ndcve-,..
72 (\ i n:1.4 j:~ \, ~'-' d--cn kt~ d(
,
1!?1/C?;; 11 (l,f),1'tI- L-nr.~ 13/11 ~ 7i ('0'0/1 I2cL/,/'d$
rhiff~L..f)w;~ /5</~f ~ .Ib~
I,
~'-
Number of
Children
1+
;)....
.2.
-./
'1-
,-,
. "')
-f=-
August 29, 1995
PETITION
:ro the Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers of Andover
From Concerned Citizens
"
We, the undersigned, oppose the blockage of access to Bunker Lake Boulevard at Narcissus Street
north of Marigold Street and south of Orchid Street. This access was in place prior to the
development of the neighborhood and impacts the appeal of living in Woodland Terrace. We foresee
an increase in the traffic burden resulting in serious safety concerns on 133rd Lane and 134th Avenue
should this blockage occur. We strongly urge you to rescind the decision to choke off Narcissus
Street and consider other possible solutions for the betterment of all.
Date First and Last Name
~23 -tL Ij~cA
~d.;-rrf" md:~"tf
~Jn,/ . ~' I~
~ ~I'VVV"L) m' N )>>--
t,
,/
, ,
Address
\';<;2.<.( ~0 Cr~' "*-
134 gg \r1u ..~~c..~..ht Y\ L0
J ?>~S'?> oJa"(\I~~"-;) ,1h- nJ. L{,I
.
Number of
Children
c;
--L-
(
PETITION
August 29, 1995
:~o the Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers of Andover
From Concerned Citizens
"
We, the undersigned, oppose the blockage of access to Bunker Lake Boulevard at Narcissus Street
north of Marigold Street and south of Orchid Street. This access was in place prior to the
development of the neighborhood and impacts the appeal of living in Woodland Terrace. We foresee
an increase in the traffic burden resulting in serious safety concerns on 133rd Lane and 134th Avenue
should this blockage occur. We strongly urge you to rescind the decision to choke off Narcissus
Street and consider other possible solutions for the betterment of all.
Address
>,
v
"
'-'-
.'
Number of
Children
o
/
L
~
August 29, 1995
PETITION
;ro the Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers of Andover
From Concerned Citizens
"
We, the undersigned, oppose the blockage of access to Bunker Lake Boulevard at Narcissus Street
north of Marigold Street and south of Orchid Street. This access was in place prior to the
development of the neighborhood and impacts the appeal of living in Woodland Terrace. We foresee
an increase in the traffic burden resulting in serious safety concerns on 133rd Lane and 134th Avenue
should this blockage occur. We strongly urge you to rescind the decision to choke off Narcissus
Street and consider other possible solutions for the bettennent of all.
Date First and Last Name
11< ~ytVJ ~'\
T.,
,/
':.J-
Address
Cf'j'f \. ~'-{ ~ ~
Number of
Children
$
CITY OF ANDOVER
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
DATE
September 5, 1995
AGENDA
fIO.
SECTION
ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT
APPROVED
FOR AGENDA
"T^^_ni
"^^ Tram
Todd J. Haas,
Engineering
1-
BY:
ITEM
fIO.
Approve Lower Rum River Water
Management organization Joint
Powers Agreement
J)(~
/.5:
The City Council is requested to approve the Joint powers Agreement
for the Lower Rum River Watershed Management organization in its final
form.
'\
, . J
The City of Andover had approved the agreement a couple times in the
past couple years but unfortunately we were unable to get the other
cities to agree. This agreement now has been approved by the cities
of Anoka, Coon Rapids and Ramsey.
The reason for the delay was that the City of Ramsey was concerned
about how the Commission shall appropriate costs of any capital
improvements. See page 10, Subdivision6 and top of page 15,
Subdivision 5 on what is proposed.
Based on this agreement, I would recommend the agreement be approved.
If you have questions about the agreement or about the WMO, please
call.
)
J
MOTION BY:
SECOND BY:
,I
JOINT AND COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF
THE LOWER RUM RIVER WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ORGANIZATION TO
PLAN, CONTROL AND PROVIDE FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE LOWER
RUM RIVER WATERSHED
PREFACE
"
The Lower Rum River Watershed lying East of the Mississippi River is a watershed that is
basically a direct tributary to the Mississippi River. It encompasses all or parts of the following
cities:
Andover, Anoka, Coon Rapids, Ramsey
Minnesota Laws of 1982, Chapter 509, mandated that all watersheds within the seven
county Metropolitan area must be governed by a watershed management organization and as is
now codified as Minnesota Statutes 1992, Sections 103B.201 through 103B.251. The Watershed
is authorized to organize under a joint powers agreement pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section
471.59 and Section 103B.211 or if such an organization is not created, Anoka County shall
petition for the establishment of a watershed district under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 103D. All
the cities in the Lower Rum River Watershed expressed a desire in 1985 to create a joint powers
group rather than a watershed and now desire to adopt an amended joint powers agreement to
establish a Watershed Management Organization which will comply with the current law for
management of this watershed. It is the belief of these four cities that a joint powers group will
provide more efficient planning and administration of the Lower Rum River Watershed if the
watershed is managed under a joint powers agreement. The goal is to leave as much control as
possible with the four individual member cities.
It has been determined by the four cities involved in the watershed that they desire to
proceed under a Joint Powers Agreement rather than under Chapter 103D as a watershed district.
Each party to this agreement has been fully advised that the Watershed Management Organization
being created shall have the powers and responsibilities set forth in the Metropolitan Surface Water
Management Act, Minnesota Statutes Sections 103B.201 through 103B.251 and as amended by
this Agreement. It is further understood and agreed that it is the intent of this agreement to assign
to the watershed management organization, which has operated since 1985, the additional powers
and duties assigned by the Minnesota legislature. The management of water resources is a rapidly
changing field and new laws and regulations are being adopted and amended frequently and it
should not be necessary to amend this agreement every time the legislature enacts a new law.
Each member further recognizes that this is a binding contract and failure to cooperate or to
cany out a member's responsibilities will result in a breach of this contract.
1
. .
t
>
"
:'
, .
The purpose of this organization shall be to assist the four member Lower Rum Watershed
cities to preserve and use natural water storage and retention systems to:
1. Protect and preserve natural surface and groundwater storage and retention systems;
2. Minimize public capital expenditures needed to correct flooding and water quality
problems;
3. Identify and plan for means to effectively protect and improve surface water and
groundwater quality;
4. Establish more uniform local policies and official controls for surface water and
groundwater management;
5. Prevent erosion of soil into surface water systems;
6. Promote groundwater recharge;
7. Protect and enhance fish and wildlife habitat and water recreational facilities;
8. Secure other benefits associated with the proper management of surface and
groundwater; and
9. Promote and encourage cooperation among member cities in coordinating local
surface water and groundwater plans and to be aware of their neighbor's problems
and to protect the public health, safety, and general welfare.
The Lower Rum River Watershed waters flow through many sub-watersheds directly to the
Rum River and the Mississippi River. It is not anticipated that the Lower Rum River Watershed
will have many capital improvement projects; if they do, it is hereby expressed that the intent of
this Agreement is to encourage that the solutions should be handled by agreements between the
Cities involved.
It is the intent of this Agreement to subject all four cities in the Lower Rum River
Watershed to a common set of policies and to comply in all respects with the provisions of the
Metropolitan Surface Water Management Act.
The purpose of this Preface is to clarify and establish for any court of review or any
arbitrator or for the elected successors to the representatives who have entered into this agreement
the reasons and purpose for this joint and cooperative venture. The parties to this Agreement
realize that the success or failure of the Lower Rum River Watershed Organization created by this
Agreement is dependent upon the sincere desire of each member City to cooperate in the exercise of
a joint power to solve joint problems. Each party here by agrees to be bound by this agreement
and pledges its cooperation.
/
2
. .
/
JOINT AND COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT
The parties to this Agreement are govemmental units of the State of Minnesota, all of which
have lands which drain surface water within the Lower Rum River Watershed and all of which
have power and responsibility to construct, .reconstrUct, extend and maintain storm water
management facilities to improve water quality, to promote groundwater recharge, and to protect,
promote and preserve water resources within the Watersheds. This agreement is made pursuant to
the authority conferred upon the parties by Minnesota Statutes 1992, Sections 103B.20l to and
including Section l03B.251 and Section 471.59.
NAME
I.
The parties hereto create and establish the Lower Rum River Watershed Management
Commission.
GENERAL PURPOSE
II.
The general purpose of this agreement is to provide an organization which can investigate,
study, plan and control the construction of facilities to drain or pond storm waters, to alleviate
damage by flood waters; to improve the creek channels for drainage; to assist in planning for land
use; to repair, improve, relocate, modify, consolidate or abandon, in whole or in part, drainage
systems within the watershed area; to do whatever is necessary to assist in water conservation and
the abatement of surface water and groundwater contamination and water pollution and the
improvement of water quality; to promote ground water recharge; and to protect and enhance fish
and wildlife habitat and water recreational facilities. In addition to the aforestated purposes, the
organization hereby created shall serve as the Watershed Management Organization for the Lower
Rum River Watershed and shall carry out all of the duties and responsibilities outlined in
Minnesota Statutes, Section l03B.201 through l03B.25 1 , both inclusive.
DEFINITIONS
III.
For the purposes of this Agreement, the terms used herein shall have the meanings as
defined in this article.
Subdivision 1. "Commission" means the organization created by this agreement, the full
name of which is "Lower Rum River Watershed Management Commission." It shall be a public
agency of its members and a watershed management organization as defined in Minnesota Statutes,
Section l03B.2l1.
Subdivision 2. "Board" means the Board of commissioners of the Commission, consisting
of one commissioner or one alternate commissioner from each of the governmental units which is a
party to this agreement and which shall be the governing body of the Commission.
Subdivision 3. "Council" means the governing body of a governmental unit which is a
member of this Commission.
3
. .
/
Subdivision 4. "Governmental Unit" means any city, county, or town.
Subdivision 5. "Member" means a governmental unit which enters into this agreement.
Subdivision 6. "Lower Rum River Watershed" means the area generally contained within a
line drawn around the extremities of all terrain whose surface drainage is tributary to the Lower
Rum River and the Mississippi River and within the mapped areas delineated on the map filed with
the Board of Water and Soil Resources originally filed pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, 473.877,
Subd. 2 and as now amended by Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 103B.
MEMBERSHIP
IV.
The membership of the Commission shall consist of all of the following governmental
units:
City of Andover
City of Anoka
City of Coon Rapids
City of Ramsey
The Commission may, with the ratification of the governing bodies of all voting members
of the Organization, invite other units of government within the Rum River Watershed to become
parties to this Agreement, and in all respects thenceforth enjoy the full rights, duties, and
obligations of this Agreement
No change in governmental boundaries, structure or organizational status shall affect the
eligibility of any governmental unit listed above to be represented on the Commission, so long as
such governmental unit continues to exist as a separate political subdivision.
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
V.
Subdivision 1. The governing body of the Commission shall be its Board. Each member
shall be entitled to appoint one representative on the board, and one alternate who may sit when the
representative is not in attendance and said representative or alternate representative shall be called a
"Commissioner" .
Subdivision 2. The council of each member shall determine the eligibility or qualification
of its representative on the Commission and the terms of each Commissioner shall be as
established by each individual member.
Subdivision 3. The term of each Commissioner and Alternate Commissioner appointed by
each member shall be as determined by each individual member and until their successors are
selected and qualify.
Any vacancy shall be filled for the unexpired term of any Com~issioner by the council of
the governmental unit of the member who appointed said Commissioner. The Commission shall
notify the Board of Water and Soil Resources of member appointments and vacancies within 30
days after the Commission is notified by a member. Each member agrees to publish a notice of
4
/
vacancies resulting from the expiration of a Commissioner or Alternate Commissioner's terms or
where a vacancy exists for any reason. Publication and notice shall be in accordance with
Minnesota Statutes, Section 103B.227, Subds. 1 and 2, as they now exist or as subsequently
amended.
Subdivision 4. The council of each member agrees that its representative commissioner
will not be removed from the Board prior to the expiration of the Commissioner's term, unless said
Commissioner consents in writing or unless said council has presented the Commissioner with
charges in writing and has held a public hearing after reasonable notice to the Commissioner.
A member may remove a Commissioner or an Alternate Commissioner for just cause or for
violation of a Code of Ethics of the Commission or a member City, or for malfeasance,
nonfeasance, or misfeasance. Said hearing shall be held by the Member City Council who
appointed the Commissioner.
A Commissioner who is an elected official of a Member City who is not reelected may be
removed by the appointing Member City at the Member's discretion. Any decision by a Member to
remove a Commissioner may be appealed to the Board of Water and Soil Resources. A certified
copy of the Council's Resolution removing said Commissioner shall be filed with the Secretary of
the Board of Commissioners and shall show compliance with the terms of this section.
Subdivision 5. Each member shall within 30 days of appointment file with the Secretary of
the Board of Commissioners a record of the appointment of its Commissioner and its Altemate
Commissioner. The Commission shall notify the Board of Water and Soil Resources of member
appointments and vacancies within 30 days after receiving notice from the member. Members shall
fill all vacancies within 90 days after the vacancy occurs.
Subdivision 6. Commissioners shall serve without compensation from the Commission,
but this shall not prevent a govemmental unit from providing compensation for its Commissioner
for serving on the board, if such compensation is authorized by such governmental unit and by
law. Commission funds may be used to reimburse a Commissioner or Alternate Commissioner for
expenses incurred in performing Commission business and if authorized by the Board.
Subdivision 7. At the first meeting of the Board and in February of each year thereafter, .
the Board shall elect from its Commissioners a Chair, a Vice Chair, a Secretary, a Treasurer, and
such other officers as it deems necessary to conduct its meetings and affairs. At the organizational
meeting or a soon there after as it may be reasonably done, the Commission shall adopt rules and
regulations governing its meetings. Such rules and regulations maybe amended from time to time
at either a regular or a special meeting of the Commission provided that a ten day prior notice of
the proposed amendment has been furnished to each person to whom notice of the Board
meetings is required to be sent; a majority vote of all eligible votes of the then existing members of
the Commission shall be sufficient to adopt any proposed amendment to such rules and
regulations.
The Board shall notify each member City of the location and time of regular and special
5
. .
meetings called or established by the Board. A meeting shall be held at least annually, and all
/ meetings shail be called and open to the public pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 471.705
or as amended.
" POWERS AND DUTIES OF THE BOARD
VI.
Subdivision 1. The Commission, acting by its duly appointed Board of Commissioners,
shall as it relates to flood control, water quality, ground water recharge and water conservation or
in the construction of facilities and other duties as set forth in Chapter 103B, Minnesota Laws of
1992 and in Rules and Regulations of the Board of Water and Soil Resources, have the powers
and duties set out in this article and as prescribed bylaw.
Subdivision 2. It may employ such persons or contract with consultants as it deems
necessary to accomplish its duties and powers, and any such persons or consultants shall be
considered Commission staff.
Subdivision 3. It may contract for space and for material and supplies to carry on its
activities either with a member or elsewhere.
Subdivision 4. It may acquire necessary personal property to carry out its powers and its
duties.
/
/
Subdivision 5. It shall develop an overall plan containing a capital improvement program
within a reasonable time after qualifying, and said plan shall meet all of the requirements as
established in Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 103B. Said over all plan shall establish a
comprehensive goal for the development of the Lower Rum River Watershed and shall establish a
proposed procedure for accomplishing the purposes of the organization as set forth in Article n.
Subdivision 6. It shall make necessary surveys or utilize other reliable surveys and data
and develop projects to accomplish the purposes for which the Commission is organized.
Subdivision 7. It may cooperate or contract with the State of Minnesota or any subdivision
thereof or federal agency or private or public organization to accomplish the purposes for which it
is organized.
Subdivision 8. It may, if necessary to implement the plan, order any member
governmental unit or units to construct, clean, repair, alter, abandon, consolidate, reclaim or
change the course or terminus of any ditch, drain, storm sewer, or water course, natural or
artificial, within the Lower Rum River Watershed.
The member cities further understand and agree that the Commission in reviewing,
ordering, or authorizing these projects will use the best management practices required to meet state
and federal statutes and regulations. The Commission will also consider the ability of the member
cities to fund the enforcement of local controls and any ordered capital improvements. The
Commission shall incorporate financial review and anticipated sources of revenue as apart of the
over all management plan and as a part of local water management plans.
Subdivision 9. It may order any member governmental unit or units to acquire, operate,
6
. .
constrUct or maintain dams, dikes, reservoirs and appurtenant works or other improvements
/ necessary to implement the overall plan.
The member cities further understand and agree that the Commission in reviewing,
ordering, or authorizing these projects will use the best management practices required to meet state
and federal statutes and regulations. The Commission will also consider the ability of the member
cities to fund the enforcement of local controls and any ordered capital improvements. The
Commission shall incorporate financial review and anticipated sources of revenue as apart of the
over all management plan and as a part of local water management plans.
Subdivision 10. It shall regulate, conserve and control the use of storm and surface water
and groundwater within the Watershed necessary to implement the overall plan.
Subdivision 11. It shall contract for or purchase such insurance as the Board deems
necessary for the protection of the Commission.
Subdivision 12. It may establish and maintain devices for acquiring and recording
hydrological and water quality data within the Watershed.
Subdivision 13. It may enter upon lands, in a lawful manner, within or without the
watershed to make surveys and investigations to accomplish the purposes of the Commission. The
Commission shall be liable for actual damages resulting there from but every person who claims
damages shall serve the Chair or Secretary of the Board of Commissioners with a Notice of Claim
as required by Chapter 466.05 of the Minnesota Statutes.
Subdivision 14. It shall provide any member governmental unit with technical data or any
other information of which the Commission has knowledge which will assist the governmental unit
in preparing land use classifications or local water management plans within the watershed.
Subdivision 15. It may provide legal and technical assistance in connection with litigation
or other proceedings between one or more of its members and any other political subdivision,
commission, Board or agency relating to the planning or construction of facilities to drain or pond
storm waters or relating to water quality within the Watershed. The use of commission funds for
litigation shall be only upon a favorable vote of a majority of the eligible votes of the then existing
members of the Commission.
Subdivision 16. It may accumulate reserve funds for the purposes herein mentioned and
may invest funds of the Commission not currently needed for its operations, in the manner and
subject to the laws of Minnesota applicable to statutory cities.
Subdivision 17. It may collect monies, subject to the provisions of this agreement, from its
members, Anoka County and from any other source approved by a majority of its board.
Subdivision 18. It may accept gifts, apply for and use grants or loans of money or other
property from the United States, the State of Minnesota, a unit of government or other
governmental unit or organization, or any person or entity for the purposes described herein; may
enter into any reasonable agreement required in connection therewith; may comply with any laws
or regulations applicable thereto; and may hold, use, and dispose of such money or property in
7
accordance with the terms of the gift, grant, loan or agreement relating thereto.
/ Subdivision 19. It may make contracts, incur expenses and make expenditures necessary
and incidental to the effectuation of these purposes and powers and may disburse therefor in the
manner hereinafter provided. "
Subdivision 20. It shall cause to be made an annual audit by a certified public accountant
or the state auditor of the books and accounts of the commission and shall make and file a report to
its members at least once each year including the following information:
a. the approved budget;
b. a reporting of revenues;
c. a reporting of expenditures;
d. a financial audit report or section that includes a balance sheet, a classification of
revenues and expenditures, an analysis of changes in final balances, and any
additional statements considered necessary for full financial disclosure; and
e. the status of all commission projects and work within the watershed;
Copies of said report shall be transmitted to the clerk of each member govemmental unit.
Subdivision 21. Its books, reports and records shall be available for and open to
inspection by its members at all reasonable times.
Subdivision 22. It may recommend changes in this agreement to its members.
Subdivision 23. It may exercise all other powers necessary and incidental to the
implementation of the purposes and powers set forth herein and as outlined and authorized by
Minnesota Statutes, Sections 103B.20l through 103B.251.
Subdivision 24. It shall cooperate with the State of Minnesota, the Commissioner of
Natural Resources and the Director of the Division of Waters, Soils and Minerals of the
Department of Natural Resources in complying with the requirements of Chapter 1030 of the
Minnesota Statutes.
Subdivision 25. Each member reserves the right to conduct separate or concurrent studies
on any matter under study by the Commission.
Subdivision 26. It shall establish a procedure for establishing citizen or technical advisory
committees and to provide other means of public participation.
Subdivision 27. Where the Commission is authorized or requested to review and make
recommendations on any matter, the Commission shall act on such matter within sixty (60) days of
receipt of the matter referred. Failure of the Commission to act within sixty (60) days shall
constitute approval of the matter referred, unless the Commission requests and receives from the
referring unit of government an extension of time to act on the matter referred. Where the
Commission makes recommendation of any matter to a party, the governing body of a party not
/ acting in accordance with such recommendation shall submit a written statement of its reasons for
doing otherwise to the Commission within ten (10) days of its decision to act contrary to the
Commission's recommendation. The Commission shall review the written statement and if
8
/
determined insufficient by the Commission, request written clarification within an additional ten
(10) days.
METHOD OF PROCEEDING
VII. ,~
Subdivision 1. The procedures to be followed by the Board in carrying out the powers and
duties set forth in Article VI, Subdivisions 5,6,7,8,9, and 10, shall be as set forth in this article.
Subdivision 2. The Board has previously prepared the over all plan as required in Article
VI, Subdivision 5. This plan shall be updated as required by state law. The Board shall proceed
to implement said plan, and this implementation may be ordered by stages.
Subdivision 3. No project which will channel or divert additional waters to subdistrict and
subtrunks which cross municipal boundaries shall be commenced by any member governmental
unit prior to approval of the Board of the design of an adequate outlet or of adequate storage
facilities.
Subdivision 4. All construction, reconstruction, extension or maintenance of outlets for the
various subdistrict and subtrunks, including outlets, lift stations, dams, reservoirs, or other
appurtenances of a surface water or storm sewer system which involve construction by or
assessment against any member governmental unit or against privately or publicly owned land
within the watershed shall follow the statutory procedures outlined in Chapter 429 of the
Minnesota Statutes except as herein modified.
The Board shall secure from its engineers or some other competent persona report advising
it in a preliminary way as to whether the proposed improvement is feasible and as to whether it
shall best be made as proposed or in connection with some other improvement and the estimated
cost of the improvement as recommended and the proposed allocation of costs between members.
The Commission shall have authority to separate the watershed into subtrunks or
subdistricts if the capital improvement project and costs only benefit a subtrunk or subdistrict area.
If the Commission determines that a capital improvement and capital cost benefits only a subtrUnk
or subdistrict area it may so designate that said area shall be responsible for said costs and may
allocate the costs to said area or areas rather than to the entire watershed.
The Board shall then hold a public hearing on the proposed improvement after mailed
notice to the clerk of each member governmental unit within the Watershed. The Commission shall
not be required to mail or publish notice except by said notice to the clerk. Said notice shall be
mailed not less than 45 days before the hearing, shall state the time and place of the hearing, the
general nature of the improvement, the estimated total cost and the estimated cost to each member
governmental unit. The Board may adjourn said hearing to obtain further information, may
continue said hearing pending action of the member governmental units or may take such other
action as it deems necessary to carry out the purposes of this Commission.
To order the improvement, in accordance with the powers and duties established in Article
VI, Subdivisions 7, 8 and 9, a resolution setting forth the order for a capital improvement project
9
shall require a favorable vote by two-thirds of all eligible votes of the then existing Board of the
/ Commission. (In all cases other than for a capital improvement project, a majority vote of all
eligible members of the Board shall be sufficient to order the work.) The order shall describe the
improvement, shall allocate in percentages the cost-allocation between the member govemmental
units, shall designate the engineers to prepare plans and specifications, and shall designate the
member who will contract for the improvement in accordance with Subdivision 7 of this Article.
After the Board has ordered an improvement it shall forward to all member governmental
units an estimated time schedule for the construction of said improvement. The Board shall allow
an adequate amount of time, and in no event less than 45 days, for each member governmental unit
to conduct hearings, in accordance with the provisions of the aforestated Chapter 429, or the
charter requirements of any city, or to ascertain the method of financing which said member
governmental unit utilize to pay its proportionate share of the costs of the improvement. Each
member governmental unit shall ascertain within a period of 90 days the method it shall use to pay
its proportionate share of the costs.
If the Commission proposes to utilize Anoka County's bonding authority as set forth in
Minnesota Statutes, Section 103B.25I , or if the Commission proposes to certify all or any part of
a capital improvement to Anoka County for payment, then and in that event all proceedings shall be
carried out in accordance with the provisions set forth in said Section 103B.251.
Subdivision 5. The Board shall not order and no engineer shall be authorized by the Board
to prepare plans and specifications before the Board has adopted a resolution ordering the
improvement. The Board may order the advertising for bids upon receipt of notice from each
member governmental unit who wiIl be assessed that it has completed its hearing or determined its
method of payment or upon expiration of 90 days after the mailing of the preliminary report to the
members.
Subdivision 6. Any member governmental unit being aggrieved by the determination of the
Board as to the allocation of the costs of said improvement shall have 30 days after the commission
resolution ordering the improvement to appeal said determination. Said appeal shall be in writing
and shall be addressed to the Board asking for arbitration. The determination of the member's
appeal shall be referred to a Board of Arbitration. The Board of Arbitration shall consist of three
persons; one to be appointed by the Board of Commissioners, one to be appointed by the appealing
member governmental unit, and the third to be appointed by the two so selected. In the event the
two persons so selected do not appoint the third person within 15 days after their appointment,
then the Chief Judge of the District Court of Anoka County shall have jurisdiction to appoint, upon
application of either or both of the two earlier selected, the third person to the board. The third
person selected shall not be a resident of any member governmental unit and if appointed by the
Chief Judge said person shall be a registered professional engineer. The arbitrators' expenses and
fees, together with the other expenses, not including counsel fees, incurred in the conduct of the
arbitration shall be divided equally between the Commission and the appealing member.
10
Arbitration shall be conducted in accordance with the Uniform Arbitration Act, Chapter 572 of the
/ Minnesota Statutes.
Subdivision 7. Contracts for Improvements. All contracts which are to be let as a result of
the board's order to construct, repair, alter, reclaim or change the course or terminus of any ditch,
drain, storm sewer, watercourse, or to acquire, operate, construct or maintain dams, dikes,
reservoirs or their appurtenances or to carry out any of the other provisions of the plan as
authorized by Minnesota Statutes, and for which two or more member governmental units shall be
responsible for the costs, shall be let in accordance with the provisions of Section 429.041 of the
Minnesota Statutes. The bidding and contracting of said work shall be let by anyone of the
member governmental units, as ordered by the Board of Commissioners, after compliance with the
statutes. All contracts and bidding procedures shall comply with all the requirements of law
applicable to contracts let by a statutory city in the State of Minnesota.
The Commission shall not have the authority to contract in its own name for any
improvement work for which a special assessment will be levied against any private or public
property under the provisions of Chapter 429 or under the provisions of any City charter. This
section shall not preclude the Commission from proceeding under Minnesota Statutes, Section
103B.251.
Subdivision 8. Contracts with Other Oovernmental Bodies. The Commission may
exercise the powers set forth in Article VI, Subdivision 7, but said contracts for a capital
improvement shall require a favorable vote of two-thirds majority of the eligible votes of the then
existing members of the Commission.
Subdivision 9. Supervision. All improvement contracts awarded under the provisions of
Subdivision 7 of this Article shall be supervised by the member governmental unit awarding said
contract or said member governmental unit may contract or appoint any qualified staff member or
members of the Commission to carry out said supervision, but each member agrees that the staff of
this Commission shall be authorized to observe and review the work in progress and the members
agree to cooperate with the Commission staff in accomplishing the purposes of this Commission.
Representatives of the Commission shall have the right to enter upon the place or places where the
improvement work is in progress for the purpose of making reasonable tests and inspections. The
staff of this Commission shall report, advise and recommend to the Board on the progress of said
work.
Subdivision 10. Land Acquisition. The Commission shall not have the power of eminent
domain. The member governmental units agree that any and all easements or interest in land which
are necessary will be negotiated or condemned in accordance with Chapter 117 of the Minnesota
Statutes by the unit wherein said lands are located, and each member agrees to acquire the
necessary easements or right-of-way or partial or complete interest in land upon order of the Board
of Commissioners to accomplish the purposes of this agreement. All reasonable costs of said
acquisition shall be considered as a cost of the improvement. If a member governmental unit
11
determines it is in the best interests of that member to acquire additional lands, in conjunction with
/ the taking of lands for storm and surface drainage or storage, for some other purposes, the costs of
said acquisition will not be included in the improvement costs of the ordered project. The Board in
determining the amount of the improvement costs to be assessed to each member governmental unit
may take into consideration the land use for which said additional lands are being acquired and may
credit the acquiring municipality for said land acquisition to the extent that it benefits the other
members of this agreement. Any credits may be applied to the cost allocation of the improvement
project under construction or the Board if feasible and necessary may defer said credits to a future
project.
If any member unit refuses to negotiate or condemn lands as ordered by the Board, any
other member may negotiate or condemn outside its corporate limits in accordance with the
aforesaid Chapter 117. All members agree that they will not condemn or negotiate for land
acquisition to pond or drain storm and surface waters within the corporate boundaries of another
member within the Lower Rum River Watershed except upon order of the Board of this
Commission.
The Commission shall have authority to establish land acquisition policies as a part of the
overall plan.
Subdivision 11. Pollution Control and Water Quality. The Commission shall have the
authority and responsibility to protect and improve water quality in the Watershed as this is one of
the main purposes set forth in the Surface Water Management Act. All member governmental units
agree that they will refuse to allow the drainage of sanitary sewage or industrial wastes onto any
lands or into any water course or storm sewer draining into the Rum River or Mississippi River.
The Board may investigate on its own initiative and shall investigate upon petition of any member
all complaints relating to pollution of surface water or ground water draining to or affecting the
Rum River or the Mississippi River or their tributaries. Upon a finding that the creek or surface
waters or groundwater are being polluted, the Board shall order the member governmental unit to
abate this nuisance and each member agrees that it will take all reasonable action available to it
under the law to alleviate the pollution and to assist in protecting and improving the water quality of
surface water and groundwater in the Watershed.
Subdivision 12. Local Water Management Plans. The Commission shall have power and
authority to review the members' local water management plans, capital improvements relating to
surface water management programs and official controls required by Minnesota Statutes Section
103B.235 and/or by rules promulgated and adopted by the Board of Water and Soil Resources.
FINANCES
VIII.
Subdivision 1. The Commission funds may be expended by the Board in accordance with
this agreement and in accordance with the procedures as established by law and in the manner as
may be.determined by the Board. The Board shall designate one or more national or state bank or
12
/
"
trust companies, authorized by Chapters 118 and 427 of the Minnesota Statutes to receive deposits
of public moneys and to act as depositories for the Commission funds. In no event shall there be a
disbursement of Commission funds without the signature of at least two Board members, one of
whom shall be the Treasurer or Authorized Deputy Treasurer. The Treasurer shall be required to
file with the Secretary of the Board a bond in the sum of at least $10,000 or such higher amount as
shall be determined by the Board. The Commission shall pay the premium on said bond.
Subdivision 2. Each member agrees to contribute each year to a general fund, said fund to
be used for general administration purposes including, but not limited to: salaries, rent, supplies,
development of an over all plan, engineering and legal expenses, insurance, and bonds, and to
purchase and maintain devices to measure hydrological and water quality data. Said funds may
also be used for normal maintenance of the facilities, but any extraordinary maintenance or repair
expense shall be treated as an improvement cost and processed in accordance with Subdivision 5 of
this Article. The annual contribution by each member shall be based fifty percent (50%) on the net
tax capacity of all property within the Watershed and fifty percent (50%) on the basis of the total
area of each member within the boundaries of the Watershed each year to the total area in the
Lower Rum River Watershed governed by this Agreement.
Subdivision 3.
(a) An irnprovement fund shall be established for each improvement project instituted
under Article VII, Subdivision 4. Each member agrees to contribute to said fund its
proportionate share of the engineering, legal and administrative costs as determined by
the Commission as the amount to be assessed against each member as a cost of the
improvement. The Board shall submit in writing a statement to each member, setting
forth in detail the expenses incurred by the Commission for each project. Each member
further agrees to pay to or contract with the member governmental unit awarding said
contract for the improvement, its proportionate share of the cost of the improvement in
accordance with the determination of the Board under Article VII, Subdivision 4. The
member awarding the contract shall submit in writing copies of the engineer's certificate
authorizing payment during construction and the member being billed agrees to pay its
proportionate share of said improvement costs within 30 days after receipt of the
statement. The member awarding the contract shall advise other contributing members
of the tentative time schedule of the work and the estimated times when the
contributions shall be necessary.
(b) Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (a) of this subdivision, the Commission
may by a vote of 2/3rds of all eligible votes of the then existing members of the
Commission decide to proceed to fund all or any part of the cost of a capital
improvement contained in the capital improvement program of the plan pursuant to the
authority and subject to the provisions set forth in Minnesota Statutes, Section
103B.251. It is expressed as a goal of this Agreement that cost sharing of capital
13
improvement costs be assigned and agreed to by members pursuant to Article VIII,
/ Subdivision 5, Subsections 1 and 2 of this Agreement. Without such agreement, all
improvements will be constructed pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 103B.251.
The Commission and Anoka County may establish a maintenance fund to be used for
normal and routine maintenance of an improvement constructed in whole or in part with
money provided by Anoka County pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 103B.251.
The levy and collection of an ad valorem tax levy for maintenance shall be by Anoka
County based upon a tax levy resolution adopted by a majority vote of all eligible
members of the Commission and remitted to the County on or before the date
prescribed by law each year. If it is determined to levy for maintenance, the
Commission shall be required to follow the hearing process established by Minnesota
Statutes, Sections 103D.9l5 and 103D.92l and acts a mandatory thereof and in
addition thereto. Mailed notice shall be sent to the Clerk of each member municipality
at least 30 days prior to the hearing.
Subdivision 4. On or before July 1 of each year, the Board shall adopt a detailed budget
for the ensuing year and decide upon the total amount necessary for the general fund. Budget
approval shall require a favorable vote by a majority of all eligible votes of the then existing
members of the Board.
"
I The secretary of the Board shall certify the budget on or before July 1 to the clerk of each
member governmental unit together with a statement of the proportion of the budget to be provided
by each member.
The Council of each member agrees to review the budget, and the Board shall upon notice
from any member received prior to August 1, hear objections to the budget, and may, upon notice
to all members and after a hearing, modify or amend the budget, and then give notice to the
members of any and all modifications or amendments.
Each member agrees to provide the funds required by the budget and said determination
shall be conclusive if no member enters objections in writing on or before August 1. If no
objections are submitted to the Board, each member agrees to provide the funds approved by the
Board, after the Board has conducted the aforementioned hearing. Modifications or amendments
to the original budget require a favorable vote by a majority of all eligible voters of then existing
members of the Board.
The schedule of payments by the members shall be determined by the Board in such a
manner as to provide for an orderly collection of the funds needed.
Upon notice and hearing, the Board by a favorable vote of a majority of all eligible votes of
then existing members may adopt a supplemental budget requiring additional payments by the
members within 60 days of its adoption but in no event shall the budget require any member to
contribute in excess of one half of one percent of the net tax capacity of all taxable property within
the watershed and within the member's corporate boundaries in anyone calendar year.
14
. ,
Members' attention is drawn to Minnesota Statutes, Section 103B.245, which authorizes a
/ Watershed Management Tax District to be created within each member City to pay the costs of
planning and for the purpose of paying capital costs and/or normal and routine maintenance of
facilities. "
Subdivision 5. Cost Allocation. Oeneral costs of operating the Commission shall be as set
forth in Article VIII, Subdivision 2. The Commission shall apportion costs of any capital
improvements to the respective members based upon a negotiated agreement to be arrived at by
members who have lands in the subdistrict. In the event a negotiation cannot be reached, the
distribution of costs will be determined through the arbitration process described in Article VII
Subd. 6.
MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
IX.
Subdivision 1. The Commission shall not have the power to issue certificates, warrants or
bonds.
Subdivision 2. The Commission shall not have the power of eminent domain and shall not
own any interest in real property. All interests in lands shall be held in the name of the corporate
member wherein said lands are located.
Subdivision 3. The Commission shall not have the power to levy a special assessment
upon any privately or publicly owned land. All such assessments shall be levied by the member
wherein said lands are located, It shall have the power to require any member to contribute the
costs allocated or assessed according to the other provisions of this agreement.
Subdivision 4. Each member agrees that it will not directly or indirectly collect or divert
any additional surface water to the Lower Rum River or the Mississippi River or their tributaries
from any subdistrict or subtrunk without a permit from the Board of Commissioners. Permits
maybe granted by the Board for a member to proceed with the construction or reconstruction of
improvements within the individual corporate members' boundaries and at its sole cost upon a
rmding:
(1) that there is an adequate outlet;
(2) that said construction is in conformance with the overall plan;
(3) that the construction will not adversely affect other members of this agreement.
Subdivision 5. Any member who is more than 60 days in default in contributing its share
to the general fund shall have the vote of its Board member suspended pending the payment of its
proportionate share.
Any member who is more than 60 days in default in contributing its proportionate share of
the cost of any improvement to the contracting member shall upon application of the contracting
member have the vote of its Board member suspended, pending the payment of its proportionate
share.
Any Board member whose vote is under suspension shall not be considered as an eligible
15
, ,
member as such membership affects the number of votes required to proceed on any matter under
consideration by the Board.
Subdivision 6. Enforcement. Members agree to be bound by the determination of the
Commission and to agree to use their best efforts to carry out directives'from the Commission;
failure to respond may result in a legal action by the Commission to require the member to act
under a court order.
DURATION
X.
Subdivision 1. Each member agrees to be bound by the terms of this agreement until
January 1,2005, and it may be continued thereafter at the option of the parties.
Subdivision 2. This agreement may be terminated prior to January 1, 2005, by the
unanimous consent of the members or if for any reason the Commission is reduced to less than
three members. If the agreement is to be terminated, a notice of the intent to dissolve the
Commission shall be sent to the Board of Water and Soil Resources and to Anoka County at least
90 days prior to the date of dissolution.
Subdivision 3. In addition to the manner provided in Subdivision 2 for termination, any
member may petition the Board to dissolve the agreement. Upon 30 days notice in writing to the
clerk of each member governmental unit and the Board of Water and Soil Resources and Anoka
County, the Board shall hold a hearing and upon a favorable vote by a majority of all eligible votes
of then existing Boardmembers, the Board may by Resolution recommend that the Commission be
dissolved. Said Resolution shall be submitted to each member governmental unit and if ratified by
three-fourths of the councils of all eligible members within 60 days, said Board shall dissolve the
Commission allowing a reasonable time to complete work in progress and to dispose of personal
property owned by the Commission.
DISSOLUTION
XI.
Upon dissolution of the Commission, all property of the Commission shall be sold and the
proceeds thereof, together with monies on hand, shall be distributed to the eligible members of the
Commission. Such distribution of Commission assets shall be made in proportion to the total
contribution to the Commission as required by the last annual budget.
EFFECTIVE DATE
XII.
This agreement shall be in full force and effect upon the filing of a certified copy of the
resolution approving said agreement by all four members for the Lower Rum River Watershed area
to be governed by this Agreement. Said resolution shall be filed with the City Manager of the City
of Anoka, who shall notify all members in writing of its effective date. The effective date of the
new amended Joint Powers Agreement shall be when approved by all the Cities and when the
Mayor and other authorized City representatives have executed the amended agreement.
16
. / IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned governmental units, by action of their
governing bodies, have caused this agreement to be executed in accordance with the authority of
Minnesota Statutes, Sections 103B.211 and 471.59. "
Approved by the City Council
CITY OF ANDOVER
1995 By
Attest
Approved by the City Council
CITY OF ANOKA
1995 By
Attest
Approved by the City Council
CITY OF COON RAPIDS
1995 By
Attest
Approved by the City Council
CITY OF RAMSEY
1995 By
Attest
17
CITY OF ANDOVER
\
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
. September 5, 1995
DATE
Approve Quotes/95-13/Hidden
Creek North Park
Todd J. Haas,
Engineering
.pt{
APPROVED
FOR AGENDA
AGENDA
t-O
SECTION
ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT
Non-Discussion/Consent Item
ITEM
t-O
7)1
I~.
The City Council is requested to approve the quote to construct Hidden
Creek North Park (bituminous trails) and Hidden Creek East Park
(handicapped curbs only) in the amount of $9,643.77 and $582.90
respectively.
Quotes received are as follows:
Sundman Paving Northern Asphalt
\ Quote #1 Quote #2
J
Hidden Creek North $9,643.77 $13,606.00
Hidden Creek East $582.90 $662.50
The project will be funded by the Park Dedication fund.
)
MOTION BY:
SECOND BY:
CITY OF ANDOVER
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
DATE
September 5, 1995
AGENDA
tn
SECTION
ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT APPROVED
FOR AGENDA
Approve Security Light/FOX Meadows
Todd J. Haas,
Enginee~
~l
8Y~
Non-Discussion/Consent Item
ITEM
tn
/7.
The City Council is requested to approve the installation of a
security light for Fox Meadows Park as requested by the Park and
Recreation Commission.
This request originally came from Janet Siebold who lives in the
neighborhood. Apparently the parking lot is being used as a place to
hang out at night. The light would hopefully eliminate that problem
and provide a little security for the City's playground equipment.
It costs approximately $300 to install a light.
\
)
To be paid from the Park Dedication fund.
\
)
MOTION BY:
SECOND BY:
CITY OF ANDOVER
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACflON
September 5, 1995
DATE
AGENDA
f'.O.
SECTION
ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT APPROVED
FOR AGENDA
Non-Discussion/Consent Item
Todd J. Haas,
EngineerinV-
1~
BV~
ITEM
f'.O.
Approve Quotes/Pavement Markings/
95-17
I!.
The City Council is requested to approve the quotes for Pavement
markings, Project 95-17 for various City streets through the City.
This will be funded by MSA Maintenance funds which we receive yearly
from the State.
Quotes received are as follows:
'1
I
Quote
PPM
AAA
$6,610.10
$7,396.71
\
)
,
MOTION BY:
SECOND BY:
"M 4754 Ly,dol. A"". N.
_ Minneapolis, MN 55430
~RE.s/SLoN_"A'yr~rN..! ~R!!'Ng 612.529.7820 Fax 612-529-1650
DATE: August 18, 1995
TIME: 10:00 AM
PLACE: Andover
QUOTATION
R EC E~ V ED
AUG 1:; 1995 f
-
PROJECT:
City of Andover
CITY OF ANDOVER
MNDOT CERTIFIED DBE/TGB BUSINESS
Proposal to furnish and install all material required for the project listed. Quotations below may
be withdrawn if not accepted within 30 days of the bid letting. Total includes tax and bond.
APPROX UNIT UNIT BID
ITEM QUANTITY MEASURE DESCRIPTION PRICE AMOUNT
68,357 LF 4" BROKEN YELLOW PAINT .042 2,870.99
29,616 LF 4" SOLID YELLOW PAINT .042 1,243.87
52,446 LF 4" SOLID WHITE PAINT .042 2,202.73
150 LF 6" SOLID WHITE PAINT 1.500 225.00
30 LF 24" SOLID WHITE STOP LINE 2.250 67.50
6,610.10
,
,OTE:
'STIMATaRA A0~
) .
/
7--+ ~, ..&v.. @k"
AM Striping Service Co.
5392 Quam Avenue, P.O. Box 349, Rogers. MN 55374 (612) 4284322
FAX (612) 428-8557
RECEIVED
AUG 2 4 1995
CITY OF ANDOVER
,-
August 15, 1995
To whom it may concern,
We are quoting the following:
PROJECT Citywide Striping
LOCATION City of Andover
DESCRIPTION QTY U/M UNIT AMOUNT
4" Broken Line Yellow - Paint 68,357 LF $0.016 $1,093.71
4" Solid Line Yellow - Paint 29,616 LF $0.08 $2,369.28
4" Solid Line White - Paint 52,446 LF $0.07 $3,671.22
6" Solid Line White - Paint 150 LF $1.25 $187.50
24" Solid Line White - Paint 30 LF $2.50 $75.00
TOTAL $7,396.71
Tax and bond are included in quotation.
Sincerely,
DQ~<- c LJ~
Dean E. Erickson
Estimator
,
CITY OF ANDOVER
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
September 5, 1995
DATE
AGENDA
N:).
SECTION
ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT APPROVED
FOR AGENDA
Todd J. Haas,
Engineering
Non-Discussion/Consent Item
ITEM
N:).
Release Development Contract
Escrows/Pinewood Estates 2nd
~l
~~
/9.
The City Council is requested to release the escrows for Continental
Development Corporation as requested for Pinewood Estates 2nd
Additiqn.
Cash
Escrow
Amount
Available
Reduce
To
Reduction
Pinewood Estates
2nd Addi tion
$1,433.98
$1,433.98
o
$1,433.98
J
Attached is a letter from the developer requesting the fees be
released. It is recommended to reduce the escrows.
)
MOTION BY:
SECOND BY:
CoNTINENTAL DEvELoPMENT CoRPORATION
/
12301 Central Avenue NE, Suite 230 . Blaine, MN 55434
Phone 757.7568 . Fax: 757-2532
RECEIVED
August 16, 1995
City of Andover
Attn: Todd Haus
1685 Crosstown Blvd NW
Andover, MN 55304
AUG 1 8 1995
CITY Ut- kl\juUVER
RE: Pinewood 2nd Addition cash escrow release
Dear Todd Haus:
As we discussed by phone today, I write you this letter
requesting the release and refund of the $1,500 cash I have
on deposit with the City of Andover.
This $1,500 is in the Pinewood Estates 2nd Addition expense
account. Last fall you issued a refund of all but $1,500,
pending the removal of a 100 foot section of barbed wire
fence and minor grading for drainage along the Andover
Boulevard right of way. This fence is now removed and all
site work is complete.
Please process this request as soon as possible. Call me if
you have any questions, 757-7568. I have enclosed copies of
your letters releasing my letters of credit for developer
improvements on this project.
Respectfully,
~.f~
Charles S. Cook, President
Continental Development Corporation
enclosures
/
CITY OF ANDOVER
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL AcrION
DATE ~8~~emseE S, 1995
AGENDA
N:>.
SECTION
ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT
APPROVED
FOR AGENDA
Non-Discussion/Consent Item
scott.Eric~son_~(
Eng~neer~ng QJl
BY:
ITEM
N:>.
Reject Feasibility Report/95-11/
181st Ave. W. of Tulip st.
ao.
The City Council is requested to reject the feasibility report
for Project 95-11, for the paving of 181st Avenue NW west of
Tulip street NW.
The project was petitioned by both the residents of the City of
Andover and the City of Oak Grove as a joint street project
between the cities. A feasibility report was then prepared by
the cities consulting engineer, MSA Consulting Engineers.
\
)
A neighborhood meeting was held at the Oak Grove City Hall on
Wednesday, August 16, 1995 to discuss the project with the
residents. Due to the poor subgrade of the roadbed, lack of
existing right-of-way, storm drainage problems in the area and
the limited number of assessable properties, the estimated cost
per resident is extremely high. A number of different options
were explored with the worst case option costing $12,043.53. The
other scenarios explored did not result in a substantial cost
savings. Based upon the discussion at the meeting and the
consensus fram the residents, it is recommended not to pursue
this project at this time.
/
MOTION BY:
SECOND BY:
AUG-31-1995 07:50
P.02/08
IIJ
1ll'~LTLn E~G1~oo.~
Suite 225
5075 WCTfIcta Blvd.
Minneapoli$. MN 55416
612-546-0432
1.800-854.4174
F~; 612-54H398
CIVIL lNGME1ING,
~N\'IRONM!NTAl
MU.~ICIPAl
IlANNti't;
'A"n,WASTE
JURAl
SUR'lEYlrG
lRAFFlC
Tf.ANSPCl{T A TKlN
ELEORICAl/MfCHANICAl
w:iINEERING
HVAC
IQWEI tlSlRIBUiION
SCADA
SYST'EM CONTROlS
OFFICE5IN:
MINNEAPOUS
PRIOR lAKE
'AUt
wASECA
July 27, 1995
File No; 340-118-10
Honorable Mayor and City Council
City of Oak Grove
19900 Nightingale Street N.W.
Cedar, MN 55011
Honorable Mayor and City Council
City of Andover
1684 Crosstown Boulevard N. W.
Andover, MN 55304
RE: FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR ROAD IMPROVEMENTS
181ST AVENUEN.W.
Honorable Mayors and Council Members:
Based upon a petition received by city staff, in which 42 % of the affected property
owners within the City of Oak Grove an:llOO% of the affected property owners within
the City of Andover have requested a cost and feasibility ~tudy fat' bimrninous
surfacing of their road, the City Council of Oak Grove directed MSA, consulting
Engineers, through the passage of Resolution 95-43, and the City Council of Andover
under similar resolution to prepare a study which outlines construction details and costs
associated with an improvement. In general, this feasibility report will provide
estimated constnIction costs and overhead costs, including city administration,
engin:ering, fiscal, legal, assessments, and contingencies. Finally, financing will be
discussed including assessments to all benefitting properties in accordance with the City
of Oak Grove's and Andover's Assessment Policy.
The folIowing road is proposed to be improved:
. 181st Avenue N.W. (Tulip Street N.W. to the west dead end).
The overall project location map is shown on Exhibit No.1 in this report.
FXTSTTNG r.ONntTTONS
181st Avenue N.W. currently exists as a gravel surfaced City street which also serves
as the corporate boundary separating the City of Oak Grove to the north from the City
Ftm.340.118
At1 Equ:l1 Opporlunily ~Ioy.r
AUG-31-1995 07:51
P.03/08
Feasibnity Study
l81st AvenueN.W.
July 27, 1995
I
of Andover to the south. This unique location requires the processing of a cooperative
agreement between the two (2) communities where issues such as cost participation and
future maintenance responsibilities must be addressed. This agreement has been
executed by both communities where the City of Oak Grove will be the lead agency
for the project.
Existing traveled widths of 181st Avenue N.W. generally range from 22 to 24 feet.
with narrower street widths of 12 to 14 feet existing over that section of road located
west of its intersection with Aztec Street, from the south. Existing surface gravel
thicknesses vary in depth, but for the most part can be assumed to be approximately
2 inches thick.
/
181st Aveme N.W. is rural in nature with existing drainage ditches in poor condition.
In many locations aloDl~ the subject street. existing ditches have been reduced or
eliminated by yearly erosion or have been filled in by the property owners. This
condition has caused some localized flooding problems to occur and has further taken
away the Citys' ability to adequately maintain drainage flow in the immediate area.
PROPOSPTI TMPTWVRMRNTS
Streets.
. Option No. 1 proposed street improvements would consist of constrUcting 181st
Avenue N.W. to the City of Oak Grove's standards. The City's standards consist
of a 24 foot wide bituminous paved. sutface with a three foot wide topsoil shOulder
on each side. Since this standard street section is rural in nature, we would also
propose drainage ditch coostrUCtion as required to convey storm water lUDoff away
from the project site. The proposed pavement design would provide for a road
section capable of meeting minimum MnDOT design standards for a 7 ton per
axle load. In this report, we would propose II street section design of 3 inches of
/
P.",..340.lIH
2
AUG-31-1995 07:51
P.04/08
Feasibility Study
l81st Avenue N.W.
July 27, 1995
/
bituminous pavement placed over 6 inches of Class 5 aggregate base as required
to mcct minimwn MnDOT standards. Consnuction costs provided in this report
for Class 5 quantities reflect adding 4 inches of new aggregate to the existing base
materials. All radii. unless otherwise directed by the City of Oak Grove or the
City of Andover, shall be constructed to Oak Grove's city standard of 38 feet. A
typical section is shown in Exhibit No.2.
At all existing mailbox locations a 3 foot bump out of the proposed bituminous
street section will be constructed. The proposed bump out transition shall begin
at a location approximately 3~ feet ahead of each existing mailbox and termInate
at a location approximately 15 feet beyond the existing mailbox. Construction
costs associated with this work are included in this report and provided for in the
bituminous paving quantities.
. Option No. 2 would consist ofconstructiDg t8tst Avenue N.W. to a typical mban
design as established within the City of Andover. The City's standard consists of
constmcting a 24 foot wide bituminous paved surface with a bituminous paver shoe
type curb constructed along the road's perimeter. As with Option No.1, the
proposed pavement section would be caJnble of meeting minimum MnDOT design
standards for a 7-ton per axle load. This requirement, as with Option No.1,
would dictate that a section of 3 inches bituminous placed over 6 inches Class 5
aggregate base would be adequate. Since this proposed street section is urban in
nature, we would propose to construct stonn sewer improvements as required to
remove surface runoff collected within street areas. Proposed storm sewer
improvements and associated project costs are discussed later in this report. See
Exhibit No.3 for the proposed street section to be utilized under this option.
F""'.'l4OJ IB
3
AUG-31-1995 07:52
P.05/08
Feasibility Study
181st AvenueN.W.
July 27, 1995
. Proposed street improvements considered in Option No.3 would consist of
constructing existing 181~t Avenue N.W. to MnDOT State: Aid Standards allowing
for on street parking along one side of the road. In order to achieve on street
parking along one side of 181st Avenue N.W., the proposed improvement would
consist Of COnstructing a 32 foot wide bituminous paved surface with a bituminous
paver shoe type curb constructed along the road's perimeter. Although this road
section d~ provide for on street parking, as well as establishes a consistent road
width capable of haodling current and future needs, this design section does impact
adjacent properties by the additional grading that is required to widen the road. As
with previous addressed optlons, the proposed pavement section would be capable
of meeting minimum MnDOT design standards as required for a 7 ton per axle
load. Since this proposed street section is also urban in nature, stonn sewer
improvements are proposed to remove street surface runoff. Exhibit No.4
highlights the design fearures of this option.
At all existing driveway locations it is proposed to extend the bituminous street section
to the property line or match into the existing bituminous or concrete driveway surface,
whichever is less. Additional driveway pavement requested by the property owner can
be negotiated with the Contractor during construction operations. Construction costs associated with additional driveway work: are assumed to be paid by the property
owner requesting the work.
In order to keep project costs at a minimum, this report provides for reseeding all
disrupted boulevard areas in lieu of sodding, Additional topsoil has been included for
seeding of the shoulder areas.
I'cas.34G.1l8
4
AUG-31-1995 07:52
P.ffi/08
Feasibility Study
181st Avenue N.W.
July 27, 1995
~torm SewerlD~inllge'
Two (2) storm 5ewcr options are presented in this report with emphasis on minimizing
overall project costs associated with the proposed improvement. Upon evaluating the
proposed options and associated project costs, both Cities will have to decide on which
option is appropriate. For your review and discussion we present the followIng
options :
. Option No.1 proposed storm sewer improvements shall consist of constructing
catch basin pick ups at 181st Avenue's current low point, which is located
approximately 800 feet west of Tulip Street N. W. centerline. Storm water runoff
collected at this location would be carried to the south through a new 18 inch
diameter reinforced concrete pipe (Rep) outfall. The proposed 18 inch outfall
would directly discharge into an existing drainage easement dedicated through the
platting of the Cedar Hills Estates Second Addition plat in Andover. Discussing
this proposal with Andover's City Engineer, Mr. Scott Erickson, we are Informed
that the ultimate pond design may not have accommodated fOT potential runoff
volumes generated from an improved 181st Avenne N.W.. Mr. Erickson has
connnitted to follow up on this issue in detail to determine if this option is feasible
without major pond reconfiguration. Should the existing pond size be large enough
to accommodate the additional runoff volumes wltbont Impact to adjacent
properties, we suggest the City pursue this option for economical reasons. See
Exhibit No. S.
.
Option No.2 storm sewer improvements shall also consist of constructing catch
basin pick ups in the: same: location as described in the Option No.1 proposal.
Storm water runoff collected at this location would be carried to the west through
a combination of new 18 inch and 24 inch diameter Rep storm sewer. In this
option, the proposed outfall would be located just west of the west dead end of
181stAvelDle N.W.. At this location. storm water runoff would flow by overland
/
5
AUG-31-1995 07:53
P.07/08
Feasibility Study
181st AvenueN.W.
July 27, 1995
/
Aside from these two properties. which do provide for a dedicated 33 foot right-of-
way, the remaining propcnic5 lying north of 1815t Avenue N.W. provide for a
prescriptive rights classification only. For those properties with no clear right-of-way
dedicated, the City of Oak Grove will have to negotiate with the existing property
owners to acquire additional right-of-way.
Cos~ a~sociated with land acquisition over those properties providing only for
prescriptive rights have been included in this report.
PFRMTTS
No permits will be required for this work.
C.OSTS
/
The estimated project costs for the various construction related components of this
project are shown in Exhibits No.7 through No. 11. OVerhead costs are based on
30% of estimated construction costs and include engineering services, city
administration, legal, fiscal, assessments, construction services and contingencies.
Feu.~O.l1l
7
AUG-31-1995 07:53
P.08/08
)
PREPAl'lEO BY:
~
__am
OGllS-EX
182ND \IE N.W.
~
tf) f!! u'l ~
l- V! Z z
WARD ~ ffi IlJ I-- Z W
10.1 Z W ~ ~ irl z g ~
B 8 V! Cl
Cl Z D::: .... 0 < lI' "-
D::: a:: Z :J 10.1 Q Z al f..) 0
< l.:: l!l < ~ < - -'
:> l!: ffi
D::: ~ 0
................
WARD 18151 ~ H.*' ,=
SANDBERG COOl< L.UND COL.UNS
~
~
~
LEGEND
r":':Y":l ;),"", M'RO~ ~",rOIBJ
::.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:, BY Nf"Et;ltJ) AnA'BfTY O~
EXHBT 1
cmE8 OF OAK CRlVE AM) ANX>veI
LOCATION MAP / PROPERlY OWNERS
181ST AVENUE N.W.
TOTAL P.08
J
R/W
GROUNO UNE
RDAOVE TOPSOIL
GRANULAR FILL
/
PREPARED By:
~
---
,V10'd
33'
~
R/W
JJ'
0.02 FT/F'l -
1M VAR. I
\ 3:1 MIN.
--
-
3" TOPSOIL HARROW
PARALLU. TO ROADWAY
AND SEED. MIN. DITCH
DE?1H 2'
MIN. 3" BITUMINOUS MAT. MnDOT 2.331 (TYPE "")
MIN. 6" AGGREGATE BASE
(ADD 0"-4" MnDOT 2211 CL 5 NAlURAL
AGGREGATE TO ACHIEVE SPECIFIED ThiCKNESS)
MIN. 6" AGGREGATE BASE
(MnDOr 2211 CL. 5) OVER UNTRAVELED SURFACES
PROPOSE!;) TO RECIEVE BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT
12" COMPACTED GRANULAR MATERIAL,
SUBCUT If NECESSARY
3" MIN. AGGREGATE SHOULDER (MnDOT CLASS 5)
wrfH 3" TOPSOIL COVER AND SEED
EXHBT 2
CITES OF OAK GROVE AN) ANJOVBI
TYPICAL STREET SECTION - OPTION NO. 1
181ST AVENUE N.W.
SS:~0 965,-,~-8n~
R!W
33'
rt
GROUND UNE
REMOYl:: TOPSOIL
GRANUlAR FlLL
PREPARED BY:
~
...-
lVC0'd
R/W
33'
0.02 F"T/FT -
--
--
--
-
MIN. 3w BITUMINOUS MAT, MnDOT 2331 (WE 41)
MIN. 6" AGGREGATI:: BASE
(ADD OW_4" MnDOT 2211 CL. 5 NATURAL
AGGREGATE TO ACHIEVE SPECIFlED 1lI1CKNESS )
MIN. 6" ACCREGA n: BASE
(MnDOT 2211 CL 5) OVER UNTRAVELED SURfACES
PROPOSED TO RECIEVE BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT
12" COMPACTED GRANULAR MATERIAL.
SUBCUT IF NECESSARY
3w MIN. AGGREGATE SHOULDER (MnDOT CLASS 5)
W1ni 3" TOPSOIL COVER AND SEED
EXI-EIT 3
CITES OF OAK GROVE AND ANDOVER
TYPICAL STREET SECTION - OPTION NO. 2
181ST AVENUE N.W.
SS:60 S66l-l~-8n~
R/W
R/W
33'
It
33'
0.02 "TIFT --
--
-
GROUND UNE
RELlOVE TOPSOIL
GRANULAR FILL
MIN. 3" BllUMINOUS MAT, MnDOT 2331 (TYPE 41)
MIN. 6" AGGREGATE BASE
(ADD 0"-4" MnDOT 2211 CL. 5 NATURAL
AGGREGATE TO ACHIEVE SPECIFIED THICKNESS)
MIN. 6" AGGREGATE BASE
(MnDOT 2211 CL. 5) OVER UNTRAVELED SURFACES
PROPOSED TO RECIEVE BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT
12" COMPACTED GRANULAR MATERIAL,
SUBCUT IF NECESSARY
3" MIN. AGGREGATE SHOULDER (MnDOT CLASS 5)
WITH 3" TOPSOil COVER AND SEED
PREPARED BY:
~
lIIIIM _
EXHEIT4
cnE8 OF OAK C8:)VE AND AtDOVER
TYPICAL STREET SECTION - OPTION NO. 3
181 ST AVENUE N. W.
lvm'd
9S:~0 S66l-l~-8n~
PREPARED BY:
~
---
1l/J70'd
182ND \E N. M'.
0::
III CIl WJ
III CI
.... .... Ul :I z ffi
WARD w
Ct: 0: Z CIl d I- ~
W W CIl W .... ~ z 5
m lD 0:: <( Ul
0 0 CI Z WJ 0 ~ 10.
Ct: Z :J WJ Q Z a:l (.) 0
0: ~ l!l z <(
::<: <( 0 f!: iE -'
0:: f!: 0 WJ
WARD 181ST It N.w. r
SANDBERG
COOK LUND COLUNS
18- RCP J.,:
"J
~ 18" RC FES ~
EXISl1NG
STORM DRAINAGE
DETENTION BASIN
~
EXHEII" 5
aTE8 OF OAK CR>VE AN) AtlX>veI
STORM SEWER - OPTION NO. 1
181ST AVENUE N.W.
9S:~0 S661-1~-8n~
PREPARED BY:
IA]
aslllllDS
lVS0'd
182HD \rE. H. W.
~ I- Z li
~
L..I Z 0 Q:
CD <. VI ~
0 m 0 .....
~ 0
0( - --'
e: ffi
WARD H.w. r
SANDBERG COOK COI.UNS :i
to:
II)
~ ~
~
EXHM 6
cnES a= OAK CRlVE AN) ANX>VER
STORM SEWER - OPTION NO.2
1815T A VENUE N. W.
9S:L0 S66l-l[-9n~
I
PROJECT COSTS (STREETS: OPTION 1)
ITEM
ESTIMATED OUANTITYIUNIT COST
Subgrade Preparation
CODUnan Excavation
21.0 Rd. S18. @ Sloo.OO
5.780 C.Y. @$3.00
2.180 Tons@ $6.00
Class 5 Aggregate Base
(add 4 inches)
Bituminous Pa.ving
Bit. Driveway Restoration
Concrete Driveway Restoration
Seeding wrropsoil
1,260 Tons @ $23.00
532 S.Y.@$5.oo
28'S.Y. @ $25.00
1.0 Acres @ $4.000.00
Estimated Construction Cost
Estimated Overhead Cost (30%)
Easement Acquisition Cost (Assumes No Condemnation)
ESTIMATED TOTAL PROJECT COST
TOTAL
52.100.00
517,340.00
$13,080.00
$28,980.00
$2,660.00
$700.00
$4.000.00
$68,860.00
$20,660.00
$6 000.00
$95,520_00
Based upon the total project cost of$95,520.00 and 17 benefitting parcels, the estimated assessment
cost per parcel is:
$95,520.00'" 17 = 55,618.82 per parcel
, PREPARED BY:
~
tll.'aSlIaIIIS
H/90' d
EXHBIT 7
aTE8 OF OAK CIlOVE AN) AtIXlVER
ESTIMATED PROJECT COSTS
OPTION NO. 1 STREETS
1R1~T AVI="NII~ M W
9S:~0 S661-1~-Dn~
PROJECT COSTS (STREETS: OPTION 2)
If EM
ESTIMATED OUANTITY!UNIT COST
TOTAL
Sub grade Preparation
Conunon Excavation
Class S Aggregate Base
(add 4 inches)
Bituminous Paving
Bituminous Curb
Bit. Driveway Restoration
Concrete Driveway Restoration
Seeding wrropsou
21.0 Rd. Sta. @ 5100.00
3.250 C.Y. @ $3.00
1,680 Tons @ $6.00
$2,100.00
$9.750.00
SIO,080.00
1,200 Tons @ $23.00
4.300 L.F_ @ $4.00
532 S.Y. @ $5.00
28 S.Y. @ $25.00
I.? Acres @ $4,000.00
$27,600.00
$17,200.00
52,660.00
$700.00
$4.000.00
Estimated Construction Cost 574,090.00
Estimated Overhead Cost (30%) $22,230.00
Easement Acquisition Cost (Assumes No Condemnation) $6000.00
ESTIMATED TOTAL PROJECT COST $102.320.00
Based upon the total project cost ofSl02,320.00 IUld 17 benditting parcels. the estimated assessment
cost per pll1"cel is:
5102,320.00';' 17 ... $6,018.82 per parcel
PREPARED 9V,
~
---
tVl.0'd
EXtBT 8
CITES OF OAK <JIOVE AN) AtlX)vet
ESllMA TED PROJECT COSTS
OPTION NO.2 STREETS
181ST AVENUF' N.W.
~S:~0 S66t-t[-8n~
PROJECT COSTS (STREETS: OPTION 3)
ITEM
ESTIMATED OUANTITY/UNIT COST
TOTAL
Subgrade Preparation
Common Excavation
Class 5 Aggregato Base
(add 4 inches)
Bituminous Paving
Bituminous Curb
21.0 Rd. Sta. @ $100.00
4,730C.Y.@$3.00
2,350 Tons @ $6.00
$2,100.00
$14.190.00
$14,100.00
Bit. Dnveway Restol1\tion
Concrete Dnveway Restoration
Seeding wlfopsoil
I,S50 Tons@ $23.00
4,3QO L.F. @ 54.00
437 S.Y. @ $S.oo
23 S.Y. @$25.oo
1.~ Acres@$4,ooo.OO
$35,650.00
$17,200.00
$2,185.00
$575.00
$4,00000
Estimated Construction Cost $90,000.00
Estimated Overhead Cost (30%) $27,000.00
Easement Acquisition Cost (Assumes No Condemnation) $6.000.00
ESTIMATED TOTAL PROJECT COST 5123,000.00
Based upon the total project cost ofSl23,ooO.oo and 17 benefitting parcels, the estimated assessment
cost per parcel is:
$123,000.00 ... 17 = $7,235.29 per parcel
/
IA]
---
U/OO'd
EXtI3IT 9
aTE8 OF OAK <R:>VE ND ANX>Ve1
ESTIMATED PROJECT COSTS
OPTION NO. 3 STREETS
181 ST AVENUE N. W.
~S:~0 956,-,~-8n~
PREPARED BY;
PROJECT COSTS (STORM SEWER: OPTION 1)
!!eM
18" Rep Storm Sewer
18" RC Apron wtrrash Guard
Random Rip Rap
24" X 36" Catch Basin
(O-S'Deep)
48" Diameter Stonn Manhole
(0-8' Deep)
Pond Grading
Granular Foundation Material
ESTTMA TED OUANTITY/UNIT COST
TOTAL
380 L.F. @ $30.00
1 Each @ 5400.00
10 C.Y. @ $60.00
1 Each @ SI,ooO.OO
$11,400.00
$400.00
5600.00
$1,000.00
1 Each@ 51,200.00
51.200.00
1 Each @ 55,000
105 Tons@SIO.OO
$5,000.00
51.050.00
Estimated Construction Cost
Estimattd Ov~head Cost (30"/0)
ESTIMATED TOTAL PROJECT COST
$20,650.00
S6 200_00
$26,850.00
Based upon the total project cost of 526,850.00 and 17 benefitting parcels, the estimated assessment
cost per parcel is:
$26,850.00 + 17 - $1,579,41 pc;r parcel
PREPARED BY:
~
EXHIIT 10
CrTES OF OAK CfIOVE NV ANXlVER
ESTIMATED PROJECT COSTS
OPTION NO. 1 STORM SEWER
181 5T AVENUE N. W.
iV60'd
6S:60 S65l-.[-9n~
/
PROJECT COSTS (STORM SEWER: OPTION 2)
ITEM
ESTIMATED OUANTIIYIUNIT COST
TOTAL
1&" RCP Storm Sewer
460 LF. @ $32.00
950 L.F. @$37.50
I Each @ $450.00
8 C.Y. @ $60.00
2 Each @ $1,000.00
$14,720.00
24" RCP Stonn Sewer
$35,625.00
24" RC Apron wtrrash Guard
Random Rip Rap
$450.00
$480.00
24M x36M Catch Basin
(0-8' Deep)
$2,000.00
4&" Diameter Storm Manhole
(0-8'Deep)
4 Each @ $1,200.00
$4,800.00
48" Diameter Extra Depth Manhole 6 L.F. @ S100.00
(>8' Deep)
$600.00
Granular Foundation Material
420 Tons@$IO.OO
54.200.00
Estimated Construction Cost
$62,875.00
E3timi1lcd OvcrhClld Cost. (30%)
$18,865.00
ESTIMAlED TOTAL PROJECT COST
$81,740.00
Based upon the total project cost of$81 ,740.00 and 17 benefitting parcels, the estimated assessment
cost per parcel is:
581,740.00 + 17 = S4,808.24 per parcel
[G
lIIlIlDl..
i 1/01 . d
EXtBT 11
crTE8 OF OAK CIIOVE AN) AN)()'JBI
ESTl~A TED PROJECT COSTS
OPllON NO. 2 STORM SEWER
1815T AVENUE N.W.
8S:~0 S66i-i[-8n~
PREPARED &1':
H'd ll:HOl
[
Project 181ST AVENUE N.W.
Parcel:
TYPICAL ASSESSMENT SCHEDULE
Constanl Principal Paymenl Method
Lot:
Block:
Addition: 181ST AVENUE N.W.
Inlerest Start Dale:
Repayment Period:
Interesl Rate:
01-Jan-96
10 years
7.00%
Assessments:
a. STREET & STORM
b. IMPROVEMENTS
c.
d.
e.
Quanuty
1
Unll Measure
LOT
Unit Price
$12,043.53
Amount
$12,043.53
----=----~-==================--================-~==~~~~=~~~=~~=======~====~====~==~======
Total Assessment $12,043.53
YEAR ANNUAL PRINCIPAL INTEREST PRINCIPAL
PAYMENT PAYMENT PAYMENT REMAINING
1995 $12,Q43.53
1996 $2,047.40 $1,204.35 $843.05 $10,839.18
1997 $1,963.10 $1,204.35 $758.74 $9,634.82
1998 $1,878.79 $1,204.35 $674.44 $8,430.47
1999 $1,794.49 $1.204.35 $590.13 $7,226.12
2000 $1,710.18 $1,204.35 $505.83 $6,021.n
2001 $1.625.88 $1.204.35 $421.52 $4,817.41
2002 $1.541.57 $1.204.35 $337.22 $3,613.06
2003 $1,457.27 $1,204.35 $252.91 $2.408.71
2004 $1,372.96 $1,204.35 $168.61 $1,204.35
2005 $1.288.66 $1.204.35 S84.30 SO.OO
$16.680.29 "Total of Annual Payments
PREPAR(t) BY:
~
--
lVH'd
EXHBT 12
cnES OF OAK GROVE AN) ANJOVER
WORST CASE SCENERIO .
OPTION NO. 3 STREETS AND OPTION NO. 2 STORM INPRO\B4ENTS
TYPICAl ASSESSMENT PAYMENT SCHEDULE
8S:~0 S661-1~-8n~
,}lSi
I
romL TI\I; [\f;1\HRS
Suire 225
5075 Wayzero Blvd.
.\',innecpalil. MN 55416
612.546.0432
'-800-854-4174
'ox: 612.544.6398
: - :":"'::=\"';
- .=.:..'.:.....
. . -:.
. ". -.
,:..,. -:
/ . ~ , . .-:
---- --
-:':'\5::;-:'- :'.
:.:::-: :.:.. '.'::-':". .::.:..
- -,---,-
: _.~- .::' . "
; - . :; - ~-:; :. - -,
- ". - - ~ ~ -'
.':'''::'.-::.:
OFFICES IN:
, \\lNNEAPOllS
/
PRIOR LAKE
Si. PAUL
WASECA
MINUTES OF NEIGHBORHOOD MEETIN
181ST AVENUE N.W. STREET IMPROVEMEl RS E r;. f j V iJ:D' ,
OAK GROVE CITY HALL ~. . ....-:.:-.......:. ~..
OAK GROVE, MINNESOTA . ~I 1 i .
AUGUST 16, 1995 7:00 P.M. . . AUG 22 1995 I' .
._~ . I
CITY OF l"~!:;O\/::R
A TTFND FFS .
Ian Olsen
Scott Erickson
Tom Madigan
Kirk R. Roessler
Joe Lock
Randy Cook
Teresa Collins
Chris Lunday
Maynard Tradwell
Angie Erickson
Ian Ward
Tom Ward
Arvid Vangsness
Gregory Roberts
Sara Donndelinger
David Donndelinger
Donna Roberts
Lance Lund
City of Oak Grove
City of Andover
MSA, Consulting Engineers
MSA, Consulting Engineers
MSA, Consulting Engineers
3746 181st Avenue N.W.
3638 181st Avenue N.W.
3638 181st Avenue N.W.
3701 181st Avenue N.W.
3633 181st Avenue N.W.
3908 181st Avenue N.W
3908 181st Avenue N.W
3753 181st Avenue N.W
3831 181st Avenue N.W
3655 181st Avenue N.W
3655 181st Avenue N.W
3711 181st Avenue N.W
3694 181st Avenue N.W
753-1920
755-5100
546-0432
546-0432
546-0432
753-1595
753-6031
753-6031
153-2429
753-2399
753-2762
753-2762
752-3354
753-4130
753-4808
753-2406
753-2406
753-0022
msr.USSTON' \]::)f'I'-~
Mr. Madigan called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.. He began by stating up-
front that, due to the extremely high assessment rates associated with the
proposed improvements, he could not recommend the project proceed any
further unless costs could be reduced. He went on to state that staff recently
learned the two of the properties abutting the proposed improvements could not
be assessed (one is a cemetery and the other is a side lot), reducing the total
number of assessable parcels to 15, thereby increasing the already high
assessment rates even further.
.
Mr. Madigan explained that staff attempted to balance the need to keep project
costs as low as possible, while at the same time building a quality product that
will last. He higWighted the differences between the Oak Grove and Andover
street sections and indicated that Staff proposed 7-ton designs that would
accommodate school buses, garbage trucks, and local traffic.
340/118-180I.aug
An Equal Opportunity Employer
-'
Mr: Madigan explained that, since the time Staff submitted the original
feasibility study to Council, two additional street sections were examined.
These smaller sections were considered feasible from an engineering standpoint
because the native materials in the area of the proposed improvements are
stable sands.
,-
. Mr. Madigan explained the issues associated with the proposed storm sewer
improvements. Draining the runoff south into an existing pond is not viable
because Andover requires such ponds without outlets to be capable of
accommodating two 100-year storms back-to-back. The easement required to
enlarge the existing pond to the required size would make this solution cost
prohibitive. Draining the runoff west into Cedar Creek is also not an
economically viable solution. Existing topography would require runoff to be
conveyed via an extensive system of storm sewer pipe.
Mr. Madigan pointed out that assessment rates for similar street improvements
in Oak Grove and Andover are typically around $4,000. The rates for the
proposed improvements would be much greater for a number of reasons,
including:
. the need to acquire easements along the north side of 181st to build the
road on previously undedicated right-of-way.
. the need to address unusual drainage problems in addition to the street
improvements.
Some of these costs could be offset if the abutting property owners would be willing
to donate land for easements.
. At this point, Mr. Madigan opened up the discussion for questions and
comments.
The residents raised some concerns regarding what they viewed as inconsistent
maintenance of the existing road. They were not sure which City was
responsible for the upkeep of the road. Mr. Erickson indicated that Andover
was responsible and that he would look into the matter.
. The residents expressed concerns about the high assessment rates of the
proposed improvements. Ms. Olsen indicated that due to the unusual nature
of the project, they could petition their respective City Councils to participate
in sharing the cost of the storm sewer improvements.
. Mr. Madigan asked the residents how much they were willing to spend. They
responded that assessment areas in the neighborhood of $4,000 seemed fair.
Mr. Madigan reminded the residents that assessment rates depend greatly on
both the type of construction and the number of assessable parcels.
3401118-1801.aug
.
.
The residents raised safety concerns about the posted 55 mph speed limit along
181st Avenue. Mr. Madigan indicated that they could petition the Cities of
Andover and Oak Grove to do a speed study. They would need to petition the
State to lower the posted speed limit.
"
.
Mr. Madigan asked the residents if they were willing to proceed with the
proposed improvements based upon the costs presented. They responded that
they were not. Mr. Madigan indicated that he knows of no precedent in which
either the City of Oak Grove or the City of Andover had contributed public
monies to such improvements.
.
Mr. Erickson indicated that there was a possibility of subsidizing project costs
with State Aid money. Ms. Olsen cautioned the residents that this was not
likely in the near future because Oak Grove's share of that money has been
designated for higher priority roads in the next two to three years.
Mr. Madigan explained the qualifications for using State Aid money to fund a
project. In order for this particular segment of 181st Avenue to qualify, it
would have to widened to 32 feet, built to a 9-ton capacity, upgraded to
collector status, and connected to other collector roads. Oak Grove does not
assess any project costs to residents when a project receives State Aid money.
Andover assesses the portion of the project costs not covered by State Aid.
. Mr. Madigan recommended that the proposed improvements not go any further
unless some way was found to reduce the assessable project costs.
. The residents expressed that, at the minimum, they would like to see something
done to lessen the dust problems along 181st Avenue. Mr. Madigan indicated
that Oak Grove address does not dust control at this time.
. The meeting adjourned at 7:45 p.m.
34011 18.1801.aug
CITY OF ANDOVER
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACflON September 5, 1995
DATE
AGENDA SECTION
NO Non-Discussion/Consent Item
ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT
Todd J. Haas,
Engineering
1t
ITEM
NO
Approve "No Parking"/Bunker Lk.
Blvd. Service Rd. & Grouse st./
93-30
01/.
The City Council is requested to approve the resolution
designating "No Parking" along Bunker Lake Boulevard Service
Road NW and Grouse Street NW.
I
)
MOTION BY:
SECOND BY:
APPROVED
FOR AGENDA
BY:
~
CITY OF ANDOVER
COUNTY OF ANOKA
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RES. NO.
A RESOLUTION DESIGNATING NO PARKING ALONG BUNKER LAKE BOULEVARD
SERVICE ROAD NW BETWEEN JAY STREET NW AND GROUSE STREET NW AND ALONG
GROUSE STREET NW BETWEEN BUNKER LAKE BOULEVARD SERVICE ROAD NW AND
COMMERCIAL BOULEVARD NW LOCATED IN SECTION 34, TOWNSHIP 32, RANGE
24.
WHEREAS, the Andover Review Committee has reviewed the
request and recommends approval.
WHEREAS, the City of Andover will be responsible for the
installation of the signs.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City
of Andover to designate no parking zones along Bunker Lake Boulevard
Service Road NW between Jay Street NW and Grouse Street NW and along
Grouse Street NW between Bunker Lake Boulevard Service Road NW and
Commercial Boulevard NW.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Andover this 5th
,
day of
September
, 1995.
CITY OF ANDOVER
J. E. McKelvey - Mayor
ATTEST:
victoria Volk - City Clerk
CITY OF ANDOVER
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
september 5, 1995
DATE
AGENDA
NJ.
SECTION
ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT
APPROVED
FOR AGENDA
Accept Petition/Order Feasibility/
95-19/13748 Round Lake Blvd. NW
Todd J. Haas,
Engineering
1
~~;J
if
Non-Discussion/Consent Item
ITEM
NJ.
~A.
The City Council is requested to approve the resolution declaring
adequacy of petition and ordering preparation of a feasibility
report .for the improvement of watermain, project 95-19, in the area of
13748 Round Lake Boulevard NW.
,
I
I
,
J
MOTION BY:
SECOND BY:
CITY OF ANDOVER
COUNTY OF ANOKA
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RES. NO.
MOTION by Councilmember
to adopt the following:
A RESOLUTION DECLARING ADEQUACY OF PETITION AND ORDERING PREPARATION
OF A FEASIBILITY REPORT FOR THE IMPROVEMENT OF WATERMAIN
PROJECT NO.
AREA.
95-19
, IN THE 13748 ROUND LAKE BOULEVARD NW
WHEREAS, the City Council has received a petition, dated
August 2, 1995 , 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:
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 proposed improvement is hereby referred to the City
Engineer and he is instructed to provide the City Council
with a feasibility report.
MOTION seconded by Councilmember
and adopted by the
City Council at a regular Meeting this 5th day of September
19 95 , with Councilmembers
voting in favor of the resolution, and Councilmembers
voting against, whereupon said resolution was declared passed.
CITY OF ANDOVER
ATTEST:
J. E. McKelvey - Mayor
Victoria Volk - City Clerk
"-
INDIVIDUAL EXAMPLE PETITION
'9~-I.'7
?~r~~/ A0D.MSf
1 ~?tj f- ~NfJ LAKE.....
"
Date
~}J-Y).19~
Andover City Engineer
1685 Crosstown Boulevard NW
Andover, MN 55304
RECEIVED
AUG 2 2 1995
CITY Or ANUOVER
Re: Municipal Improvements
Dear City Engineer:
We do hereby petition for improvements of ~term"'; n ~ sani tary
sewer, storm sewer and streets (circle one or more) with the
costs of the improvement to be assessed against my benefitting
property.
,
Said petition is unanimous and the public hearing may be ~
waived. ~~ ~gyld like to be aooeGsed over a S ]car pcri8d.~
j
Sincerely,
Property Owner
Address
City, State, Zip
Phone (Home)
(Work)
~ R- je...
19.' ~ b~ /
s-3/P - "b? ~
CITY OF ANDOVER
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
September 5, 1995
DATE
AGENDA
f\O
SEcnON
ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT
APPROVED
FOR AGENDA
Non-Discussion/Consent. Item
Scott Erickson;-
Engineering &1.
ITEM
f\O
Approve Change Order *1/95-3/
Crack Sealing
BY:
~ ~;j.,
01..3.
The City Council is requested to approve Change Order *1 in the amount
of $9,591.52 for Crack Sealing, Project 95-3.
The additional crack sealing was necessary due to the extremely poor
condition of the street surfaces and the large amount of surface
cracking which is occurring.
I
,
)
MOTION BY:
SECOND BY:
/
CITY OF ANDOVER
COUNTY OF ANOKA
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RES. NO.
"
MOTION by Councilmember
to adopt the following:
A RESOLUTION APPROVING CHANGE ORDER *~ TO PROJECT NO. 95-3
Crack Sealinq
,
WHEREAS, the City of Andover
95-3, Crack Sealinq
Berqman Companies. Inc.
has a contract for project No.
with
of Eau Claire. Wisconsin
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of
Andover to hereby approve the change order to project No. 95-3
MOTION seconded by Councilmember
and adopted by
the City Council at a reqular
meeting this Fifth
day
of September
, 19~, 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
08-31-1995 02:44PM
FROM Bergman ~~mp?~~es
TO
16127558923 P.02
rH\:IC I gc:
........._~. ........,
CHANGE ORDER
CITY OF ANDOVER
Andover, MN AugUlijt 2!l9.llJi Project No. ~:i-3
To Bervm,n CompanieR. In~
Change Order NO'L--
for C~~r.k Sealina
for Gitv of Andov~r. MN
~QU are hereby directed to make the following change to your
contract dated ~ 2(; . , l~. The change and 'the
work affected thereby is subject to all contract stipulatioDB and
covenants. ~his Change Order will (increase) (decrease)
(not change) the contract sum by N~np $hn....'..."~ fivf>-h..nrl~~d
l'Iil'l"+y-n'l" And ';2/100 Dollars ( Q"jQl,'" ).
Increase crackseal quantltf bf 12,080 lba.
Amount of original Contract
Additions approved to date (Nos.
Deductions <<pproved to date (Nos.
Contract a=ount to date .
Amount of this Change Ord@r
(Add) (Deduot) (Not changed)
Revised Contraot Amount
)
)
Date
Approved CITY OF ANDOVER
(owner)
E1y
By
\
)
TOTAL P.02
AGENDA
t\O.
ITEM
t\O.
c?1.
;
"
)
CITY OF ANDOVER
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
DATE
SECTION
c::!orromhor
~ 1QQt;
.
ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT APPROVED
FOR AGENDA
Non-Discussion/
Richard Fursman
City Administrator
Set Externalities
Discussion Date
BY:
JjJ
The City Council is requested to consider holding a
discussion with "Change Facilitators" on September 19, one hour
before the regular City Council meeting. .
Included with this memo is a report on the joint staff-council
workshop held July 18. Personnel from Change Facilitators
requests that staff and council review the material in
preparation for discussion at the next meeting. If the Council
is agreeable to this arrangement, a workshop will be called for
the 19th at 6PM.
MOTION BY:
SECOND BY:
;
[IDOO&~lf
. ,
THE COUNCIL/SUPERVISORS TEAM
.Ii 7//J910./V uf
A./V DO 1/ ,/;"Il
, /
facilitated by
CHANGE FACILITATORS
"
July 18, 1995
mm&~v
,
,
J
BACKGROUND
The northwestern Twin City suburb of Andover is one of the fastest growing young
cities in the metropolitan area. Incorporated in 1974 with a population of .
the City now is estimated to have 22000 people. Rapid growth brings many
challenges for both the community and the City organization.
The stress of leading a developing community weighs heavy on the City Council.
Due to heavy workloads, stress and inexperience the Council has difficulty making
decisions. Council positions are often changed or altered before a final vote is taken
to adopt an ordinance or set a policy and at times, consistency is lacking. The
Council may reverse a policy because some citizens oppose an action taken at a
previous meeting.
Due to the lack of consistency, the City staff is reluctant to make recommendations
which leaves the Council without professional advice and counsel. Staff
experiences high levels of pressure and stress due to the large number of
subdivisions being developed. This causes mistakes which can compromise the
quality desired by the City.
\
J
Citizens become upset at perceived mistakes, and vent their anger at public
meetings. They also become upset with public facilities which are not growing
adequately to keep up with the rapid population growth. A recent lawn watering
ban angered many residents. Since there is currently no community newspaper, it is
difficult to communicate city activities and policies and convey information of
community events.
The Council and Staff are well aware of the difficulties being encountered. Time has
been spent attempting to address "externalities", the ramifications of rapid growth
and development. There is recognition of the need for policies and procedures to
address day-to-day City operations. They have discussed the need to "get back to the
basics", and answer the questions: Where is Andover going? What will Andover
become? What purpose does City government serve? There is agreement the City
needs to know where it is going before it could determine how to get there.
Change Facilitators LLC is a partnership of former elected and appointed city
government officials. We are experienced in planning and implementing city
government operations. Our strength lies in merging our experiences to identify
issues and establish problem solving strategies to assist our clients.
The City Council, acting on City Administrator Fursman's recommendation, hired
Change Facilitators LLC to facilitate a Council and Staff Visioning Work Session. The
group would focus on the Andover of the future and create images of the future
M A Vision of Andover"
July 1995
Pagel
by Change Facilitators LLC
'\
wrn!JJ~rr
"
City. The consultants would draft a City Mission Statement, goals and initial
objectives from findings of the Work Session. These report items would then be
reviewed by the City Council/Staff group and final revisions adopted by the City
Council. These documents will direct how the City will proceed to the future.
/
VISIONING PREPARATION
Change Facilitators LLC partners, Greg Withers and Lucille Crow, interviewed City
Administrator Richard Fursman to learn the community history, its rapid growth -
especially in the last eight years, its culture, community perceptions, and attitudes
toward government. Information gathered included expanding staffing needs, the
City's need for more administrative and Public Works space as well as a fire station
to be relocated.
The partners then prepared by conducting one-on-one, confidential interviews with
each of the Work Session participants. The purpose was three-fold, to introduce
ourselves, to get to know the participants before hand, and to assure all issues and
concerns would be addressed at the Work Session. The Council members were
interviewed by former Mayor Crow, who asked about areas in which the
community excels, needed improvements, individual concerns about the City, and
where they thought the City was headed. Former City Manager Withers asked
Andover staff members what they did in their position, what prior work
experiences they had, and what they liked and disliked about their jobs.
"
/
Final preparation involved a tour of the community, a study of Andover's map, and
conversations with developers, residents, a neighboring city council member, and a
former Anoka County law enforcement official.
VISIONING WORK SESSION
It is important for community leaders -- the City Council -- to establish a clear
Vision of the future, and to be able to relate and convey that Vision to the
community. In the Visioning process, key, internal players are brought together to
focus the City's efforts and activities. The Vision describes Why City government
exists, and What purpose it serves.
Visioning is beneficial in that: 1) the direction of the City is jointly designed and
developed by the City Council and the Team of Supervisors; 2) the resulting Vision
gives stakeholders of the City a destination to which to draw their respective road
maps.
"A Vision of Andover"
July 1995
Page 2
by Change Facilitators LLC
'\
)
mm~~u
"
)
This approach to planning can best be visualized by studying a tree. The 'City Tree'
has the following parts:
VALVES: A tree grows from its roots. An organization's roots are the
community's values. Values are fundamental beliefs, rules of
conduct, or truths. .
MISSION: The City's Mission is a focused statement of purpose, describing
what the City offers, and who it serves. It helps identify and
orient the City organization to the Council, Staff, and all
stakeholders of the City.
ROLES: Roles are single words descriptive of the functions the City
performs. Roles are the means through which the Mission is
fulfilled.
GOALS: The Goals are statements of where the City wants to be at a
future but undefined time. Goals which are broad descriptions of
what the City wants to accomplish.
OBJECTIVES Objectives the action steps or the means to achieve the
Goals. They are specific and have measurable targets by which
success can be gauged.
(picture)
"
/
UA VIsIon of Andover"
July 1995
Page 3
by Change Facilitators LLC
/
wmffi~V
In this document, "City" (with a capital C ) is defined as the legal Andover
government entity. "Community" refers to everything and everyone within the
corporate boundaries of Andover.
/
The July 18th full-day Work Session began with activities designed for the
participants to better know each other. The participants listed their personal roles
and prioritized the top four of importance in their lives. These personal roles and
the frequency of each are found in Appendix A of this Report.
Participants listed values which they believed to be significant. These values, found
in Appendix B, also contributed to the segment of the Work Session when
community values were discussed.
The first group activity of the Work Session was to list the Stakeholders, those
individuals, groups, organizations, or agencies that have a relationship, stake, or
interest in the Andover community. Internal Stakeholders are integral parts of the
City organization, whereas External Stakeholders may be in the community or even
beyond the borders. The group's list of Stakeholders is found in Appendix C.
"-
)
Strengths and weaknesses must be identified before looking to the future. The
strengths are assets to build upon and enhanced, while the weaknesses are addressed
with specific corrective actions. These inventories of the City and its community are
found in Appendices D and E. An important element of the process had the group
developing consensus on these inventories. This has significance in the long term
as there must also be consensus that these are the areas to be addressed in a positive,
productive manner.
The 19 participants were divided into smaller discussion groups to first construct
"Image Frames" of the future Andover community. The "Image Frames" were
designed to focus discussions on four areas:
. Population Profile
(size, race, culture, family status, age, economic diversity)
. Natural Resources
(water, land, wildlife, vegetation)
· Land Uses
(% of residential, retail, commercial, industrial, natural open space &
parks, government/ institutions - municipal, school, medical, ...)
· Other
(city hall center, economy, transportation, communication, education,
medical & personal health, social, housing, leisure issues)
Following small group discussions of each "Image Frame", participants returned
and the entire group reviewed and discussed what had originated within each
UA Vision of Andover"
July 1995
Page 4
by Change Fadlitators LLC
,
j
[IDwill~u
group. The group as a whole came to consensus on each of the statements found in
) Appendices F, G, H & I.
After viewing the Andover community, focus was then directed to City
government. By consensus, the purpose of City government was agreed upon and
the roles Andover City government will have. These are found in Appendix J.
THE VISION
The Council/Supervisor Visioning Team on July 18, 1995, defined the future
Andover community as being rooted in values. A City government that conducts
its business based on values of honesty, integrity, and consideration is trusted and
respected and becomes a valued, community role model.
A City government Mission Statement reflecting these values and purpose is stated
as:
'\
The City of Andover is responsive to its citizens,
provides services to encourage quality land development,
protect the natural resources, and regulate
the use of property to ensure the safety and well being of
/"
persons.
;
/'
The City fulfills its Mission by performing its functions or acting in agreed upon
roles. In Andover the City has the following roles:
Leader
Protector
Provider
Planner
Regulator
Enforcer
Organizer
The remainder of the Report consists of Goals and Objectives developed from the
findings of the Work Session. These Goals and Objecctives are the means to reach
the Work Session's "Vision of Andover". They also address issues and concerns
"A Vision of Andover"
July 1995
PageS
by Change Fadlitators LLC
'\,
/
[ID[2ill~u
raised during the day, or provides a means to strengthen a perceived weakness. The
"-
) Goals are categorized by Roles the City performs.
Each Goal has recommended Objective(s) attached as initial implementation steps as
a starting point on the City's road to the future. This is not a complete or
comprehensive list. Others can be added at any time. When an Objective is
completed or achieved, it is checked off. The Council/Supervisory Team need to
formally review Goals and Objectives on an annual basis to establish agreement by
consensus as to successes and new directions. Discussions will address whether
Goals should then be removed from the active list, amended, or retained.
\
J
UA VIsion of Andover"
July 1995
Page 6
by Change Facilitators LLC
"
,J
'\
)
')
/
"
,
/
[IDrnill~u
Role of Leader, City of Andover
L
As leaders of the City, the Council practices and promotes community values
that guide moral decisions and dictate ethical standards.
A. By Laws will be adopted to conduct City Council and citizen advisory
commissions and task force meetings.
B. An ordinance to define acceptable conduct of Andover officials as
representatives of the City, at home, during travel, at conferences or
meetings, will be adopted.
ll. The City Council, Staff and employees listen to citizen concerns and plan
strategies to address the needs.
A.
An all-inclusive, community-wide survey will be conducted by a
statistically valid method to determine the needs/ desires of citizens.
B. On significant issues, input to the Council decision making process will
be sought through citizen forums and focus groups.
m. Andover's unique image creates credibility and recognition for the community.
A. A City logo and slogan will be created.
B. Regular community events will be held to promote identity and enhance
a sense of pride.
C. The Andover City Center (Community/Recreation/City Hall) will be
sited in a prominent location.
D. The City will jointly promote its unique image with a chamber of
commerce and with local service clubs.
UA VIsion of Andover"
July 1995
Page 7
by Change Facilitators LLC
,
)
'.
)
rnwffi~V
ROLE of LEADER (cont.)
IV. Routine medical needs are met within the community.
A. The City will initiate discussions with medical providers to locate
appropriate facilities within the community.
V. Educational needs of all persons through grade 12 are met within the
community.
A. The City will initiate cooperative contacts with Anoka-Hennepin School
District No. 11 and other educational entities to develop learning
facilities.
VI. Intergovernmental Cooperation optimizes the utilization of resources and
spreads the benefits and responsibilities over the greater community.
A.
Regular meetings with officials of neighboring cities, Anoka County, and
Anoka-Hennepin School District No. 11 will be initiated by the City
Council to identify and define areas of mutual benefit.
B. City Staff will develop professional relationships with representatives of
State and County agencies to acquire cooperation and support to preserve
open space and protect wetlands.
"A Vision of Andover"
July 1995
Page 8
by Change Fadlitators LLC
"-
J
rnJrnill~u
ROLE of PROTECTOR, City of ANDOVER
;
I. The City protects people's property rights as it wisely saves or mitigates
wetlands, continues floodplain protection, spares wildlife, and preserves the
Scenic Rum River and other natural resources in the community.
A. The City will adopt its own Wetlands Conservation Ordinance which
will not rely on state or federal legislation to maintain and increase the
number of wetlands in Andover.
B. A zone will be created around wetlands to buffer the animal and plant
life from land and building development.
C A Marginal Land Use Ordinance will be created to define and protect land
from inappropriate development.
J
n. Personal injury and property loss from fire are minimal due to an efficient fire
department which responds quickly.
A. Fire Station No.3 will be relocated to an area east of the railroad tracks to
better service the east side of the community.
ill. Law Enforcement Services, controlled by the City, establish a safe environment
on the roadways, in the residential neighborhoods, and the business areas.
A. The City will negotiate a new agreement with the Anoka County Sheriff
to define services, increase control over enforcement needs and costs.
"A ViSIon of Andover"
July 1995
Page 9
by Change Facilitators LLC
\
I
oornill~u
,
!
ROLE of PLANNER, CITY OF ANDOVER
I.
Andover's population of 35,000 tends to be comprised of smaller households
with a cross section of ages, education, and income levels.
A. To accommodate the maturing population, affordable elderly housing
units will be developed, including the availability of a range of care
systems.
B. City ordinances will be amended to accommodate Planned Unit
Developments (PUD's) so as to allow clustering of units, diversity in
density, a larger variety of uses, and preservation of trees, wetlands, and
wildlife.
C. A Tree Preservation Policy will be adopted which will require tree
planting as well as preservation of existing trees in developments.
,
)
II. 52.8 % of Andover's land is for Residential uses, 25 % for Parks and Open
Space, 10 % for retail, commercial and light industrial, 7.6 % for Agricultural,
and 4.6 % for government and institutional uses.
A. Adopt a moratorium on the approval of new plats and rezonings, to
create a Master Plan for long range development which addresses new
guidelines for land use.
B. Amend the Zoning Ordinance to double (to 10 %) the land zoned for
retail, commercial and light industrial, to assure optimal siting of
commercial uses, and provide an expanded tax base.
(cont. on next page)
July 1995
Page 10
by Change Fadlitators LLC
"A VisIOn of Andover"
\
/
fIDrnDJ~u
(ROLE of PLANNER (cont.)
)
./
m. Agricultural land uses and farming operations are an important, valued aspect
of the Andover community protected by City policies and ordinances.
A. Agricultural/Farm tracts will be identified to initiate a planning process.
B. A legal vehicle will be designed to retain Agricultural/Farm use of
property and describe it as the "highest and best use" of the land.
c. City infrastructure planning and development will minimize the
economic impact on Farm/ Agricultural tracts.
D. The City will facilitate negotiations with Agricultural/Farm land owners
and adjacent land owners on the optimum use and development of the
non-farm property.
IV. Andover's transportation system allows people and goods to move efficiently
and safely throughout the community.
,
)
A.
A Master Plan for streets and roadways will be develop to assure access to
and between all developable properties.
B. The City will meet with Anoka County to negotiate expansions and
improvements to the County roadway system.
C. The City will adopt policies and standards for street construction and
improvements.
D. The City will identify public transportation needs and negotiate
alternatives with local and regional providers.
(cont. on next page)
"A Vision of Andover"
July 1995
Page 11
by Change Facilitators LLC
\
,
j
[IDrnm~u
ROLE of PLANNER (cont.)
V. Andover residents and businesses are connected with the world through the
latest communications technologies.
A. The City will approach telecommunication providers to install fiber optic
cable in the community to enhance business opportunities, and improve
telecommunication efficiencies.
M A ViSIOn of Andover"
July 1445
p"!;c12
by Changc Facilitators LLC
[IDOOill~u
'\
ROLE of PROVIDER, City of ANDOVER
)
L There is adequate space and facilities to meet all the administrative needs of the
City.
A. A citizens committee will report to the Council on the space needs and
requirements, and optimum location of City offices.
B. The community will be informed of the needs and justification for space
for a new administrative facility.
II. Fire Stations are located throughout the community to provide minimum
response time to fire and medical calls.
A.
Fire Station No.3 will be sited to reduce the potential of a delayed
response to an emergency call due to a train blockage of grade crossings,
and to be in closer proximity to new development.
-\
;
III. Public Works equipment and materials are stored in secure outdoor areas or in
adequately sized buildings.
A. Long range equipment and storage needs will be assessed and a plan to
meet the needs adopted.
IV. Existing streets are maintained to a standard recognized by the community and
its neighborhoods.
A. A plan will be adopted addressing routine maintenance schedules and
standards including snow plowing, sea1coating, sweeping, pot hole
repair, crack sealing, and stripping.
(conL on next page)
"A Vision of Andover"
July 1995
rage 13
by Change Facilitators LLC
'\
, )
"
"
, J
"
)
[IDOOill~V
ROLE of PROVIDER (cont.)
J
V. An established Sewer and Water Utility Service District designates where lines
are placed and what areas of the City receive service.
A. A Water and Sewer Utility Service District Plan will be drawn and linked
to the City's master development plan.
B. A Plan will be developed to finance the Water and Sewer extensions.
VI. City services are provided using the most cost effective means possible.
A. The City will seek economy in service delivery by establishing
competition between public and private providers, and by reviewing
opportunities for joint power coalitions.
B.
All City services will be reviewed to determine if a charge should be
levied to the beneficiaries of the service, and if so, what the fee should be.
VII. Residents can spend their leisure time at City park facilities being involved in
active or passive pursuits.
A. City-wide and neighborhood taskforces will be created to review the
facility needs in each of the parks, to prioritize the needs, and to discuss
alternative methods of financing the improvements.
by Change Fadlitators LLC
"A Vision of Andover"
July 1995
Page 14
'\
)
fID[2f}J~u
ROLE of ENFORCER. City of ANDOVER
I.
City Ordinances are codified to permit easy review, enforcement and
amendment.
A. City Ordinances will be reviewed and those which the community does
not want enforced shall be removed from the City laws.
B. Ordinances and Resolutions shall be reviewed and responsibility for
enforcement shall be delegated.
'\
)
II A Vision of ~dover}~
July 1995
Pape ~~
by Change Facilitators LLC
'\
J
'\
-'
'\
)
\
/
OOOOffi~u
ROLE of ORGANIZER, City of ANDOVER
I.
A City staff person, representing the City's interests, is assigned to each
community festivity or special event to coordinate the involvement of City
labor, equipment and materials.
A. A 25th Birthday Celebration Committee will be appointed to coordinate
events for the City's anniversary celebration in 1999.
B. A Music, Culture and Fine Arts Committee will be appointed to promote
and preserve these features within the community.
"A Vision of Andover"
by Change Facilitators LLC
July 1995
Page 16
[IDOOill~u
ROLE OF REGULATOR, City of ANDOVER
"
I. Supported by state statutes the City Council is responsive to citizen voices to
control the sale of liquor and cigarettes through licenses and permits.
A. The City will.annually review the appropriate regulations with each
liquor and cigarette licensee.
M A Vision of Andover"
July lYYS
p"l;c17
by Change Facilitators LLC
\
fID[2~~V
APPENDIX A
I
/
PERSONAL ROLES
Parent (12)
Spouse (11)
Companion (6)
Employee (6)
Provider (5)
Leader (4)
Employer (3)
, Friend (3)
,
)
Sport enthusiast (3)
Advisor (2)
Grandparent (2)
Student (2)
Teacher (2)
Arbitrator (1)
Coach (1)
Coordinator (1)
U A Vision of Andover"
July 1995
Page 18
by Change Facilitators LLC
')
i
/
,
)
"A Vision of Andover"
\
Farmer
Protector
Reader
Sibling
Volunteer
[IDUdffi~u
Roles (cont.)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
July 1995
Page 19
by Change Facilitators LLC
APPENDIX B
"
)
VALUES
Honesty Effort
Commitment Integrity
Respect Dedication
Determination Responsibility
Love Sharing
Dependable Spirituality
Open minded Non-judgmental
J
Considerate Accountability
[IDrnill~u
flA VIsIon of Andoverfl
"
July 1995
Page 20
by Change Facilitators LLC
/
./
,
/
fIDoom~u
APPENDIX C
CITY OF ANDOVER STAKEHOLDERS
INTERNAL
City Council
Advisory Commissions
City Staff/Employees
Resident committees
Consultant employees
Property owners
City Attorney
City Engineer
Anoka Sheriff Patrol
EXTERNAL:
Chamber of Commerce
PCA
Developers
MN Department of Health
Met Council
HUD
Legislature State of Minnesota
Private contractors
CDGB
Anoka-Hennepin School District
Perspective businesses
Anoka County Sheriff Department
Consumers
Human Services
EPA
Health Department
Churches
Highway Dept.
Neighboring Cities (5 adjacent)
Assessor
North Metro Mayor's Assn
Auditor
,
\
,
"
"A VISIOn of Andover"
July 1995
Page 21
by Change Facilitators LLC
)
'\
)
Lions Club
DNR
STAKEHOLDERS (cont.)
Anoka County
League of Minnesota Cities
Athletic Associations
MNDOT
Corps of Engineers
'\
)
"
Court System
Prosecutor
ffi)illm~~
Coon CreekWatershed District
Lower Rum Watershed District
"A VIsIOn of Andover"
by Change Facilitators LLC
July 1995
Page 22
"
)
"
./
Energetic Council
Quality Staff
Unlimited potential
Public safety, Fire Department
Volunteers
Undeveloped area
Community interaction (blend?)
Space for industry / commercial
Well planned new areas
Infrastructure, new
Fluid approach to change; adaptability
Value of! quality of homes
Quality developers, "we know 'em"
APPENDIX D
STRENGTHS
Options available with 21/2 acre development
,
)
/
"A VIsIon of Andover"
[IDOOill~u
Low taxes
Low crime
Quality of life
Location convenient
Comprehensive Plan
Schools (system)
Diversity in County, City
Humor
Parks - potential
TIF District
Lack of HEAVY industry
Long term residents
Wetlands
by Change Facilitators LLC
July 1995
Page 23
[ID[2ill~V
APPENDIX E
,
/
WEAKNESSES
Inadequate communication within the organization:
City Council <--- -->City Staff
Uninformed residents
Lack of adequate city signage
Lack of focal point of city
Lack of quality communication
Lack of time for City Council involvement
Lack of time for City Staff involvement
j
Lack of teamwork
Development too fast for adequate quality
Inadequate Council understanding of City department functions and workload
Inadequate commercial/ industrial development for support of tax base
Lack of public facilities space in City Hall, Public Works
Lack of major thoroughfares (state, county, and city) to move traffic
Inadequate staffing #'s
Lack of law enforcement control, inadequate patrol for size
Inadequate facilities within parks
Don't have adequate long range planning
(continued on next page)
)
"A Vision of Andover"
July 1995
Page 24
by Change Facilitators LLC
, )
WEAKNESSES (cont.)
Lack of review of established goals, objectives for '95
Lack of technology support
Inadequate staff continuing education
Low wages and benefits
Postal department service slow
Inadequate revenue
Inadequate Comprehensive Storm Sewer Plan
policies, procedures lacking or inadequate
Policies, procedures lacking or inadequate
Lack of City identity and image
" Andover not recognized beyond city boundaries
I
/
Ordinances outdated
Insufficient ordinance enforcement
Lack of Council consistency and support
City Council and Staff P.R with the residential community
Inadequate amount of external funding sources
"
)
rnOOffi~1l
"A VIsion of Andover"
July 1995
Page 25
by Change Facilitators LLC
[IDOOffi~1r
APPENDIX F
)
/
IMAGE OF ANDOVER
POPULA nON:
Ideal population - 35,000
Families will tend to be smaller
The population will be maturing.
Racial and cultural diversity will track with an increased population.
There is a need for diversity in housing and multiple housing units to
accommodate different ages and differing income levels. Economic diversity
will track with the increased population.
Higher level of education will reflect a higher earning power and the value of
''\
J homes will increase.
There is a need to plan and provide transportation to accommodate population
growth.
(cont. next page)
,
J
UA VIsion of Andover"
July 1995
Page 26
by Change Facilitators LLC
'\
)
"-
)
'\
J
[IDOOffi~u
APPENDIX G
IMAGE OF ANDOVER (cont.)
NATURAL RESOURCES:
Wise use of resources
Wetlands will be maintained or increased in number.
Wetland Conservation Act: preserve larger wetlands and mitigate the
smaller
ones.
Scenic River District
Continue to promote naturalization.
Floodplain, continue protection
Create a buffer zone to the wildlife and wetland areas.
Use of state and federal grant money to acquire pieces of wetlands.
Marginal Land Use Ordinance
Support agricultural operations 100%
Control development to limit impact on farm property.
Use of PUD's to preserve trees, wetland, wildlife, etc.
Review rezoning or PUD's to allow additional green space.
Density zoning
Rezone to limit number of convenience stores/ gas stations on intersections and to
limit visual pollution
Develop town house clustering to allow for green space.
"A VIsion of Andover"
by Change Facilitators LLC
July 1995
Page 27
)
,
Require tree planting in new developments in addition to Tree
Policy.
Intergovernmental open space cooperative
Preservation 1st, development 2nd.
)
\,
J
[IDillm~u
Preservation
"A Vision of Andover"
by Change Facilitators LLC
July 1995
Page 28
\
J
'\
"-
)
APPENDIX H
IMAGE OF ANDOVER (cont.)
LAND USE:
ill~&~V
Residential land use:
Agricultural use:
Retail, commercial office space, light industrial
(combined current use: 5%)
Parks, open space
Municipal government
Schools
Medical facilities
J
TOTAL
Less residential land use with more restrictions.
52.8%
7.6%
10.0%
25.0%
4.6%
100.0%
Lot size needs to increase to accommodate a bigger variety of uses.
Relax commercial building height restrictions of 35 feet.
Plan for medical facility, funeral facility, cemetery
Possible high school
Protect agricultural property.
U A Vision of Andover"
July 1995
Page 29
by Change Facilitators LLC
\
j
"-
)
')
/
APPENDIX I
IMAGE OF ANDOVER (cont.)
OTHER:
rnrnill~V
City Hall facility needed:
Community Center as a possible focal point of the City before year
2000.
Public Works building needed also
Economy:
Diverse
Identify fees to charge for services in house
Create and complete commercial area to increase tax base
Discuss/review outside contracting for services
Analyze "Joint Powers Agreements" with other cities to share
Transportation:
Much needed road improvements
LRT
Policy changes (Ass. Policies) (?)
Support quality infrastructure
Prioritize road construction projects
Where 4 lane roads needed
Meet with County to set priorities
services
"A Vision of Andover"
July 1995
Page 30
by Change Facilitators LLC
"
,
/
-,
)
IMAGE OF ANDOVER (cont.)
Communication:
[]J[lliill~V
State of the art
Install "Fiber Optics" system to promote telecommunications
Education:
Joint Powers Agreement
Construct one additional elementary school and a high school
Medical and personal health:
Attract clinics
Provide total health care
Elderly housing system with total care system
City "Wellness Program"
Social:
Community festivals
Theaters, cultural, "stuff"
Community Recreation Center
Housing:
Provide town houses and clustering
Elderly housing developments
,
J
"A Vision of Andover"
July 1995
Page 31
by Change Facilitators LLC
'\
j
,
)
"-
,
,
/
APPENDIX J
City of ANDOVER
Purpose of the City
Roles of the City
rnJ[2ill~ll
Provide what the citizens want and need
Provide public safety
Protection of property rights
Provide sewer and water services
Maintain infrastructure
Protection of land use
Insure quality is built into all improvements
Protection of code enforcement
Long range City and community planning
for construction
Provide collectively what individuals could
not afford
Provide for aesthetic needs of community,parks
a A Vision of Andover"
July 1995
Page 32
LEADER
PROTECTOR
PROVIDER
REGULATOR
ENFORCER
PLANNER
by Change Facilitators LLC
CITY OF ANDOVER
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACfION
DATE September 5. 1995
AGENDA SECTION
f>O.
ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT
Non-Discussion/Consent
Building &
Engineering
APPROVED
FOR AGENDA
ITEM
f>O.
Amend Ordinance 19
Scott Erickson,~
City Engineer
BY:
.::< s.
Dave Almgren,
Rlnt'T ni'-Fi,..i"l
The escrow agreement section of the Building Ordinance is a
cleanup item - adding items to be escrowed for and removing the
30 day option for sod and seed during the summer construction,
May.1st to October 1st to be completed at certificate of
occupancy. This is being done to help keep the sand off the
streets.
Council is requested to adopt the attached amendment to Ordinance
19.
\
I
,
/
MOTION BY:
SECOND BY:
"
CITY OF ANDOVER
COUNTY OF ANOKA
STATE OF MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE No. 190
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 19, AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE
MINNESOTA STATE BUILDING CODE.
The City Council of the City of Andover hereby ordains:
Ordinance 19 is amended as follows:
Section 3.C.
2. Items to be escrowed for but not limited to. at the
discretion of the City Building Inspector. driveways. steps.
brickwork. stucco. siding. garage floor. grading. deck footing.
retaining wall. sidewalks. drainfields.
Section 3.C.
D. If any of the improvements required under Section 3C are not
completed at the time of the final inspection as determined by
\ the Building Inspector, the general contractor or home builder
shall furnish to the City, a security agreement in an amount
equal to 150 percent of the Building Official's estimated cost
for such improvements. The improvements shall be completed
within 30 days of the furnishing of the security agreement with
the exception of providing four (4") inches of topsoil and sod on
all boulevards in areaa served by municipal sewer and/or water
and four (4") inches of topsoil and seed on all boulevards in
other areas at time of certification of occupancy, except between
October 1 and May 1 and all work shall be completed by June 1.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Andover this
day of , 19
CITY OF ANDOVER
ATTEST:
J.E. McKelvey - Mayor
'\
J
Victoria Volk - City Clerk
CITY OF ANDOVER
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACfION
DATE
~~prpmhpr ~ 1qq~
AGENDA
r..o.
SECTION
ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT
APPROVED
FOR AGENDA
Non-Discussion/
ITEM
r..o.
-- .~-
Richard Fursman
city Administrator
Set Truth in Taxation
Public Hearing Dates
BYlYf
~I".
The Truth in Taxation law requires cities to hold a public
hearing for property taxes payable in the year 1996. The
hearings must be held between November 29 and December 20.
The second meeting is a date set for the continuation of the
first meeting. It is unlikely a second meeting will be needed
however.
,
)
I am recommending the Council set the Truth in Taxation date for
Wednesday, November 29, at 7PM; and set the continuation for
December 13. Again, unless there is a major revision to the tax
rate after the 29th, the December meeting will be unnecessary.
,
j
MOTION BY:
SECOND BY:
CITY OF ANDOVER
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
DATE
September 5, 1995
AGENDA
t\Q
SECTION
ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT APPROVED
FOR AGENDA
Non-Discussion/Consent Item
Todd J. Haas,
Engineering
~
BY: - lu
W
ITEM
t\Q
Approve Quotes/93-7/HVAC & Electric
Parts Only
.;r 7.
The City Council is requested to approve the quotes for
the following for the Concession Building, Project 93-7.
Quote U
Quote #2
Heating, Ventilation,
Air Conditioning (HVAC)
Electrical
(including light fixtures)
"
J
This would be paid for from Park Dedication funds.
The quotes received will be presented to the City Council the night of
the meeting.
,
)
MOTION BY:
SECOND BY:
CITY OF ANDOVER
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
DATE
September 5, 1995
AGENDA
NJ.
SECTION
ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT APPROVED
FOR AGENDA
Non-Discussion/Consent Item
Scott Erickson,
EngineeringJl
BY:
ITEM
NJ.
Accept Feasibility Report/Order
Public Hearing/95-22
~
~~.
The City Council is requested to approve a resolution rece1v1ng
feasibility report and calling a public hearing on improvements of
streets, project 95-22 in the Verdin Acres area.
The feasibility report and resolution will be provided to the Council
for this item.
,
1
J
\
)
MOTION BY:
SECOND BY:
CITY OF ANDOVER
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION September 5, 1995
DATE
AGENDA SECTION
r-.o. . Non-Discussion/Consent Item
ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT
Scott Erickso/(!
Engineerin01c
APPROVED
FOR AGENDA
ITEM
r-.o.
Receive Petition/order Feasibility/
95-22/Verdin Acres
BY~
d9.
The City Council is requested to approve the resolution declaring
adequacy of petition and ordering preparation of a feasibility report
for the improvements of streets, Project 95-22, in the Verdin Acres
area.
Proposed total number of lots - 11
Number in favor of improvement - 7
Number against - 0
Number unavailable - 4
)
I
/
MOTION BY:
SECOND BY:
CITY OF ANDOVER
COUNTY OF ANOKA
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RES. NO.
MOTION by Councilmember
to adopt the following:
A RESOLUTION DECLARING ADEQUACY OF PETITION AND ORDERING PREPARATION
OF A FEASIBILITY REPORT FOR THE IMPROVEMENTS OF
STREET CONSTRUCTION
VERDIN ACRES
, PROJECT
NO. 95-22 IN THE
AREA.
WHEREAS, the City Council has received a petition, dated
August 29 , 19~, requesting the construction of
improvements; and
WHEREAS, such petition has been validated to contain the
signatures of more than 35% of the affected property owners
requesting such improvement.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City
of Andover that:
1. The petition is hereby declared as adequate.
2. The proposed improvement is hereby referred to the City
Engineer and he is instructed to provide the City Council
with a feasibility report.
MOTION seconded by Councilmember
and adopted by the
City Council at a
regular
meeting this 5th day of September
19~, with Councilmembers
voting in favor of the resolution, and Councilmembers
voting against, whereupon said resolution was declared passed.
CITY OF ANDOVER
Jack McKelvey - Mayor
ATTEST:
victoria Volk - C1ty Clerk
".~'(....
1/~"'''''''''\
.\~
'. ;
..... .~'
;-
..~~~....:'"
CITY of ANDOVER
"
Date: ?j~~ho
No.
Gentlemen:
We, the undersigned, owners of real property in the following described
area:
Verdin Acres
do hereby petition that said portion of said area be improved by
Const.ruction of City "f'rpp/,,, /'0 hp paved at the cost of no greater than
$4,000.00 per owner,
and that the cost of said improvement be assessed against the benefiting
property, as authorized by Chapter 429, Laws of Minnesota.
ADDRESS
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
YES
NO
This petition was circulated by: Valerie Holthus", ca.rd Alafler:<;!(J~
Address: 0 17680 Arrowhead St. N.W., Andover, MN sS3d4
-'
~
~
~
~
~
~
"
i'
u
~
"
~
~
a
~
~
~
"
~
----
"
~
I;;
l;;
~
~
~
~
~
I;;
-'
~
a
z
Sl
~
~
~
~
~
i5
.
~
,
l;;
~
~
~
~
:;;
u
~
~
~
::
;;;
z
"
N
~
iil
~
~
"
-'
"
..,
~
..
2
~
~
~
::;
"
~
~
~
"
..
~
,
~
"
~
~
..
:::
~
~
~
"
;;;
~
~
~
~
u
"
~
u
~
~
...
~
..
-'
"
<5
::\
..,
:;;
:;;
8
~
~
..
::;
,
..
"
..
~
"
It
z
il
i!
~
~
/1 '71~"1 ~
l" ~ :r 1-
... ... .. ~
~
.
-y-----;---
~ ~! ~
I
ilx q,.~
=
I i: I ! /1 nil'
~T"'v-
"''' I~' ~ ""
I--- '~~-
,.. ~! 17.."
H?) ,......
/170'
f--
"<$> f ~
11.....'
~ 11J..l1
l7'zo
115S'
17.'0
~
..-
'1,Z",
I,'P]
~3
IT?":' Q
.
<
/771.0 .J
1770Z.
c /112.S
l
~
J1~5
11e'l'S
11.'7
17101t
17"7~
17'2'5
:/ ! i! ! j;z ~ i I ~ ~ is.
i~Ii;~ ~ aim H ~lq'l
.1.1~. .1, -. :r.1
-I :I~! ~I: ::I~I
. , .
1-=-=.b,.,I~..~ l~~ I.~ ..
/?4}' 1." 11;;:;1...t/,.", ~ or I~
- ~t~,.,n 11~21 ;:~ ~ i;:~ _. ~ ~
IT"'I. /"Il/_~ $ ......" ,"
- " , ; !
/7JU 11j~I~n aT! Sl ~I' ""~I ~n;l ;
?T2 _...r-r....- ",," ...," "."'1
""<' ... 1.-"1.....1""" ",'" '" I..,. ",."
,II
",..
-
~I
~ j '0 , . -...,
.
j/J
---L\- .
;4.'0 k J31f4( 132...0
,
I J!51 : J2QS
I . ,
.:.. . ~...... ~~"'lJ
'" :., -i"''''-
~ ~
,. ,
~
~ ~:&
11."
,
."
o I!
~
'"
~
L:J-
115Zil
~JI1S3'
11t.tO
~
,'....
11')\
1'1o!It.
IU<.
m'
~i
3271
i""~
!Z'7c.:
,-
:;:90
3Z~. ~
I .1.1
""'"
n...,
tTaoO
11=
,
.
..
~
II
~
_I
I
.
9
.
!
<>
II
- I ~
i
~
.
i
1
~
'''''l6
------
~
~
~
~
I;;
~
~
~
~
~
-'
..
~
z
"
~
..,
z
z
~
~
~
z
<5
~
u
>
:;;
~
~
"
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
<>
z
..
-'
~
~
w
..,
"
~
~
..
~
~
"
-'
-'
..
~
~
~
~
~
~
,
~
z
z
5
a
~
"
~
~
..,
;;\
"
-
~z 180'1/
18030 Z /803/
'8Q:lo 8 In~ - _
\ ~7H" __ leOOl) /8001
/1'58 \ \'........__
j1"l! ~.t 17'10
~~
=:4:-----___
' ~~~ '\ \ ;~JE.'" ·
... t ",'" "~
J8coo ,80" 1""- ~ \ ,ZI%I
~ 1,1" " W
lIDO' ..... ~I:SO .,J ]
ll~~1 ~ ttZJ Z 0 11'"
~-;::::::: eo... 1'l--IP ~ ~
,y ~ l~/ ,7"S.3
lfl"'l '"...'" \1pl
, ,
IBOJO
160~,
18_
/8001
,. '
-
i '
'"
ll,
'"
~
~ I
/7'3/
11"0
~L--
;;
.
.
.w
~
~
178'502
~ I !
!
~
~
.
;:
.
/7""'$
178'"
/7''''
"
f7800
17801
"'..
/7",
171."
"
.
,
!17~~
;;
.
.
":'117,...
il--
~
~
7~
.
.
~
J17$O
t ~
<1H" ""f'. N'H
/777"
~
1
.
~
N
~
.
.ll
i""
..
)76080
')(
""- _'1 ~, 4,,,,,
1J1~~~{'Op~
~ ri~1\:
;<
l
l.J1.J2:iIII:9.1 _
L--3 , ~
"/ ~ 1 (lY '"
. ~ ~ \ ~
fj"" \~'O'l ",'
J_:--- z''''
.. :z.nr
~~ ~ L I~ ~t'Y.i~ 127TS
. Ilcr w ~ ~:;1HS z6+8 Z5Q,
-----.i\ ~ N 2.770~
__ \.) I1J61 Z631
",,"~Y;"Sl k ,.
r/737~
~Z2
)~
~l ~,s1
C:J'- ~ ~ 171 f/
111110
~7'~ ;;;s:-
/7111f'
\.
~C!2."~ ~
, .
~ ~
~
G
;;
~
XE
'15"10
i
i I i
~85 ~'5 Iz.. ""Ii
zsl8 Z"'f1
){"'.~
",. I Z~11 /' mo
I 2+7-4
" f--
~ 26,8 /2,62 12;14- \ /7330
, 1~ .,( 11260
.,." 'I'
In'
,
i I i
j'1 .f I
"",
.
;;
f
N
,
i:
"
,-
~,
"
~
:::
..
.
e
g
HO"m
J7Il1
i1"""\
'f /1oto I C
~~I
'70'1/ ,,-
- 170X> 17011
14,.,1
,." \1
/101J
'".
~1"
~u.
"..
no~s
17o;.D
.11>"
.
.
~
"''111
;0
.
:1"r
..~"s
~
'1."1.
2'''; I W~
".,.,
1'-"1("
'.U!!f
l6lJ'f')
.
~
t
~
.
.
,
:
~ r~.w
. "I'"
..hl...,.
;',
~ ! fn.:
w :11 I
I
R
~
1 ,
~UI
I
f
/'5.f 1/51,
,.,71
""
to,. IJI ~,.,,, flf,,.n,
..111"'"/ !1
I rt
Ir..
~
~
,,-
""'"
-
""'"
~
""50 ~ 177$/
~
,
.
I
-..;:m;-
,~
010' z.J",
.. .....
2~ 23'0
m.o
'3lo'
"..
-
n4q/Q
f---
17-4U1
"'$~
I"1z80
111'3a
17llO
=.
nf~
.
--i'"
l'l~ 1'7/31
t'"
/,." ~
'''''''
/7'101
"'51
'\1~O
-------f--
/77"
-J)
11&ooA"7eal
'''50
.,."
~~t\''''
f~
~ .,TIII
-::
l'b7Q
z.z"~
1.2.0'7
.z.1~'
LZ~~
--
~,
I!
ZZo.+1Z'!l1O
",,1
IZISI
"bD4
17b4'
~~
'7bZ.3
"-'lq
(I n~q5
,0 '
'ZZoo j t7~lc'-1 J
ll'Z.~ l, J
~~:/1~1/;.~:~.1 '::'1
- --\.,." 11~1
,
I"~" ::2:3" rj 0 Ir
A""" """ (Z.~l
11Z81 l2~ f73::!l!J / _,~
/11'-80 In.?"
"" ,d%d "". j ~
~ ; J/~'1"\.y -ij1~-
%138 ,,"'- 'V, ,U3l l
","V", j:,. ~I
~
I
,
Z2'8
1/'32:
''''Nr
,j
1(
g
~
I
CITY OF ANDOVER
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
September 5, 1995
DATE
AGENDA
t\Q
SECTION
ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT
APPROVED
FOR AGENDA
n;c:,."c:c:;n,.,
Planning
~
BY:
ITEM
t\Q
Approve Summary
Shoreland M~nagement
Ordinance
David L. Carlberg
Planning Director
,
30.
REQUEST
The City Council is requested to review and approve the attached
summary to Ordinance No. 108, An Ordinance for the Management of
Shore1ands. The summary will be published in the Anoka Union in
place of the ordinance to decrease the publishing costs.
Minnesota Statutes, Section 412.191 gives the City the authority
to publish summaries if ordinances are lengthy as long as the
, summary clearly informs the public of the intent and effect of the
J ordinance.
MOTION BY:
SECOND BY:
CITY OF ANDOVER
COUNTY OF ANOKA
STATE OF MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO. 108 SUMMARY
AN ORDINANCE REGULATING AND MANAGING SHORELANDS WITHIN THE CITY
OF ANDOVER AND REPEALING ORDINANCE NO. 71 ADOPTED AUGUST 6, 1985.
The City Council of the City of Andover does hereby ordain:
STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION AND POLICY
Statutory Authorization
This shoreland ordinance is adopted pursuant to the
authorization and policies contained in Minnesota
Statutes, Chapter 105, Minnesota Regulations, Parts
6120.2500 - 6120.3900, and the planning and zoning
enabling legislation in Minnesota Statutes, Chapter
462.
Policy
The uncontrolled use of shorelands of the City of
Andover, Minnesota affects the public health, safety
and general welfare not only by contributing to
pollution of public waters, but also by impairing the
local tax base. Therefore, it is in the best
interests of the public health, safety and welfare to
provide for the wise subdivision, use and development
of shorelands of public waters. The Legislature of
Minnesota has delegated responsibility to local
governments of the state to regulate the subdivision,
use and development of the shorelands of public waters
and thus preserve and enhance the quality of surface
waters, conserve the economic and natural
environmental values of shorelands, and provide for
the wise use of waters and related land resources.
This responsibility is hereby recognized by the City
of Andover.
GENERAL PROVISIONS AND DEFINITIONS
Jurisdiction
The provisions of this ordinance shall apply to the
shorelands of the public water bodies as classified in
Section 4.0 of this ordinance. Pursuant to Minnesota
Regulations, Parts 6120.2500 - 6120.3900, no lake,
pond, or flowage less than 10 acres in size in
municipalities or 25 acres in size in unincorporated
areas need be regulated in a local government's
shoreland regulations. A body of water created by a
private user where there was no previous shoreland
may, at the discretion of the governing body, be
exempt from this ordinance.
1
Compliance
The use of any shoreland of public waters; the size
and shape of lots; the use, size, type and location of
structures on lots; the installation and maintenance
of water supply and waste treatment systems, the
grading and filling of any shoreland area; the cutting
of shoreland vegetation; and the subdivision of land
shall be in full compliance with the terms of this
ordinance and other applicable regulations.
Enforcement
The Zoning Administrator is responsible for the
administration and enforcement of this ordinance. Any
violation of the provisions of this ordinance or
failure to comply with any of its requirements
(including violations of conditions and safeguards
established in connection with grants of variances or
conditional uses) shall constitute a misdemeanor and
shall be punishable as defined by law. Violations of
this ordinance can occur regardless of whether or not
a permit is required for a regulated activity pursuant
to this ordinance.
Interpretation
In their interpretation and application, the
provisions of this ordinance shall be held to be
minimum requirements and shall be liberally construed
in favor of the governing body and shall not be deemed
a limitation or repeal of any other powers granted by
State statutes.
Abrogation and Greater Restrictions
It is not intended by this ordinance to repeal,
abrogate, or impair any existing easements, covenants,
or deed restrictions. However, where this ordinance
imposes greater restrictions, the provisions of this
ordinance shall prevail. All other ordinances
inconsistent with this ordinance are hereby repealed
to the extent of the inconsistency only.
A printed copy of this Ordinance is available for inspection by
any person during regular office hours of the City Clerk and at
the Andover Branch of the Anoka County Library
'\
/
2
CITY OF ANDOVER
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACI10N
September 5, 1995
DATE
AGENDA
r-n
SECTION
ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT APPROVED
Planning FOR AGENDA
David L. ca~ ~:.....
Planning Director
- --
Discussion
ITEM
r-n
Approve Summary
Therapeutic Massage
Or_cli.nance _ __
-
.31.
-
-
._-.~~:.,
REQUEST
The City Council is requested to review and approve the attached
summary to Ordinance No. 110, An Ordinance Regulating Massage
Businesses and Services. The summary will be published in the
Anoka Union in place of the ordinance to decrease the publishing
costs. Minnesota Statutes, Section 412.191 gives the City the
authority to publish summaries if ordinances are lengthy as long
as the summary clearly informs the public of the intent and effect
of the ordinance.
"
,
/
MOTION BY:
SECOND BY:
,
CITY OF ANDOVER
COUNTY OF ANOKA
STATE OF MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO. 110
ORDINANCE SUMMARY
AN ORDINANCE REGULATING MASSAGE BUSINESSES AND SERVICES WITHIN THE
CITY OF ANDOVER.
The City Council of Andover does hereby ordain:
PURPOSE. The purpose- of this Ordinance i s---tc'iJ4",l1.ibi t massage
businesses and services to the public except those licensed as
Therapeutic Massage Establishments and Therapeutic Massage
Therapists pursuant to this Ordinance. The licensing regulations
prescribed herein are necessary in order to prevent criminal
activity and to protect the health, safety and the general welfare
of the people of the city. The purpose of this Ordinance is not
intended to impose restrictions or limitations on the freedom of
protected speech or expression.
FINDINGS.
It is hereby found that within the City of Andover there is a need
to license therapeutic massage enterprises and therapists and to
prohibit all other types of massage businesses and services to the
publi c:
(a) Persons who have a bona fide and standardized training
in therapeutic massage, health and hygiene can provide a
legitimate and necessary service to the general public.
(b) Health and sanitation regulations governing therapeutic
massage establishments and therapists can minimize the risk of the
spread of communicable diseases and can promote overall health and
sanitation. .
(c) License qualifications for and restrictions on
therapeutic message establishments and therapists can minimize the
risk that such businesses and persons will facilitate prostitution
and other criminal activity in the community.
(d) Massage services provided by persons with no specialized
and standardized training in massage can endanger citizens by
facilitating the spread of communicable diseases, by exposing
citizens to unhealthy and unsanitary conditions, and by increasing
the risk of personal injury.
(e) Massage businesses which employ persons with no
specialized and standardized training can tax city law-enforcement
services, because such businesses are more likely to be operated
as fronts for prostitution and other criminal activity than
operations established by persons with standardized training.
,
/
J
LICENSING REQUIREMENTS.
a.
Thera~eutic Massage Establishment License. It shall be
unlaw ul for any person to directly or indirectly, upon any
pretense or by any device, engage in the business of keeping,
conducting, or operating any massage establishment within the
City of Andover, which is open to the public or for which any
charge or fee is made or any money or thing of value is
solicited or received except a therapeutic massage
establishment and then only after first obtaining a duly
issued license therefor from the City. A person who operates
an establishment described in this Ordinance without a valid
license issued by the City shall be guilty of a misdemeanor
offense.
b.
Therapeutic Massaie Therapist License. It shall be unlawful
for any individua to practice, administer, or provide massage
services to tpe public for consideration within the City of
Andover without first having obtained a therapeutic massage
therapist license. A person who practices, administers, or
provides massage services as described in this Ordinance
without a valid license issued by the City shall be guilty of
a misdemeanor offense.
VALIDITY AND EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall be effective
from and after its passage and publication according to law.
A printed copy of this ordinance is available for inspection by
any person during regular office hours of the city clerk and at
the Andover Branch of the Anoka County Library.
Page 2
CITY OF ANDOVER
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
September 5, 1995
DATE
AGENDA
NJ.
SECTION
ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT
Planning ~
David L. Carlberg
Planning Director
APPROVED
FOR AGENDA
Non-Discussion
ITEM
NJ.
BY:
1996 - 1998 CDSG
program - Opportunity
to withdraw
&.
REQUEST
The City Council is asked to reconfirm the City of Andover's
par~icipation in the CDSG 1996-1998 Program. The HRA on June 6,
1995, agreed to continue to participate in the three year cycle.
However, HUD has informed Anoka County and the City that the
Andover HRA does not have the authority to enter into the
agreement. Therefore this item is back before the city Council
for approval.
MOTION BY:
SECOND BY:
SENT BY:Xerox I e I ecop19r ./U;t I . o-~u-~o . ''''U~
\.IUUI"t. I MUOI'.""", '10010.1 ...>JiL....
Augullt. 30, 1.
MEM:lRANDUM FOR: Shawn Hucklebl', Dirac
Attn: Tom lCoon, CPD Rep~e"entative
FROM: s~~~. (!hf-.f CO\1n.el, G
SUBJECT: Lega.l Review of Urban County Renewal Documents
Anolta. County
I have reviewed the revieed and executed Addenda to the
Joint coop~ra~1on Agree~ent betwaan Anok& count! and ehe 21
par~1cipatlng jurisdictions tor the renewal per od 1996 through
1998. The addenda as submitted are acceptable, with the condition
that this may SUbsequently change once I have aeenthe mi.aing
.eElol\ltionli.
I have alao reviewed the accompanying re.oluticns from the
participating juriSdictiOns approving p&rclciV4~lgn in aDd
exe~!tion of ~he Addendum and ~lnd the following problems:
1-
~,
= .A.<..-n.~..qr~.6,. B..~
/
:; _The resolution from Andover ill not adequate !linee it W&l!I
passed by the Andover Housing an6 R8developmen~ AuthOrity and not
the Ci~y council, although it appears that it W3S ths C1~y
councll acting as the BRA Board who acte6 on the rel!lolution. The
HRAwould not have the authority to authori2. the Ci~y ~o enter
into the program. This would be the City'S peroga~ive. Therefore,
! find the resolution to be deficient.
(IJ
. . . ~ HUb
~ _ :;;~IJ~~ &..., ~ :r.:;f-..~
~ ~ I / ? ___..._2Z~
. u. r~~C ::~-O'
--'~ J:? ~ ~ 0/
&- r~ ~ -r-rn(f-~a '~~'. ~ -r
~ ~./? -z::;; ~~...v'.._.H ;...u....r-~
~~~~ 7
~c.-.~~~~'~~
. r:
,
\
n
.
COUNTY
OF
ANOKA
Urban Anoka County Community Development Block Grant
GOVERNMENT CENTER
2100 3rd Avenue · Anoka, Minnesota 55303-2265. (612) 323-5709
"
May 25, 1995
Mr. Dave Carlberg, City Planner
City of Andover
Community Center
1685 Crosstown Boulevard N.W.
Andover. Minnesota 55304
Re: 1996-1998 CDSG and HOME Programs - Opportunity for Communities to Withdraw
Dear Dave:
Anoka County has been notified by HUD that it is time for a new three-year cycle of Community
Development Block Grant (CDBG) and HOME Programs. HUD requires that we give the communities
an opportunity to "opt-out" of the Anoka County CDBG and HOME Programs at the beginning of each
three year cycle.
A community's decision to withdraw from the program reduces the County's CDBG population count
'. and entitlement amount and technically is effective for three years, until June 30, 1999. Anoka
County can exercise the option to invite a community that has "opted-out" of the County CDBG
Program to participate in the second or third year.
If your community wants to have its population excluded from Anoka County's total for the COSG and
HOME Programs, please provide notice in writing to Alyce Osborn, Anoka County Government Center,
at the above address and also to Tom Koon, HUO, 220 South Second Street, Minneapolis, MN 55401,
not later than June 15,1995.
All of the communities executed Joint Cooperation Agreements for 1987 that continue in effect so
long as there is a CDBG Program and they do not elect to withdraw. However, HUD has now required
some new language which includes the HOME Program. This requires a new document to be signed
and evidence of authorization by your City Councilor Town Board. We must submit this to HUD prior
to July 14, 1995. This document will be forwarded to you shortly. Please schedule your councilor
board discussion in June.
If you have any questions about this process, please call me at 323-5709.
Sincerely,
a~a~
Alyce A. Osborn
Community Development Manager
AAO:sw
cc: Jay Mclinden
Tom Durand
Affirmative Action I Equal Opportunity Employer
DATE:
September 5, 1995
ITEMS GIVEN TO THE CITY COUNCIL
Special City Council Minutes - August 7, 1995
Planning and zoning Commission Minutes - August 8, 1995
Housing and Redevelopment Authority Minutes - August 15, 1995
City Council Minutes - August 15, 1995
Park and Recreation Commission Minutes - August 17, 1995
Special City Council Minutes - August 21, 1995
Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes - August 22, 1995
Letter from Len Christ, Anoka County Sheriff's Office - 8/10/95
Letter from Bill Hawkins, City Attorney - August 17, 1995
Letter from Tim Yantos, Anoka County HRA - August 25, 1995
Memo from Vicki Volk - August 30, 1995
Ordinance No. 19N
Violence - Ticket Order Form
Schedule of Bills
PLEASE ADDRESS THESE ITEMS AT THIS MEETING OR PUT THEM ON THE NEXT
AGENDA.
THANK yOU.
.,
~".~.' I
et q-5-gtj
8
..
Office of
ANOKA COUNTY SHERIFF
LARRY PODANY
325 Jackson Street - Anoka, Minnesota 55303-2210
612-323-5000 Fax 612-422-7503
August 10th, 1995
Mayor Jack McKelvey.
City of Andover
1685 Crosstown Blvd. N.W.
Andover, MN 55304
DECEIVED
AUG 18 1995
CITY OF ANDOVER
Dear Mayor McKelvey:
The July Calls For Service Law Enforcement Report and Municipality
Arrest Report are attached for your review. Should you have any
questions or concerns please contact me at my office, 323-5131.
Sincerely,
~~
~a~ Christ
Patrol Division
LC:nc
Attachments
Affirmative Action I Equal Opportunity Employer
\JI
'-~
(oj - -
." '.0
., 'J.:'
., 0
::......
0
'L'
(~.
<<
0-
W
'"
0- "- ..J '" "' - C
'" >::
UJ .... -
,,, 0 ....
<< ....
e
>-
....
-
>
t-
o
<:
""
.:J!...i.
.. :: ,~
-........
-<.... 410--
~ :....
W',
0' r-
..J
W LU
>>::
<C_
"'....
....
.J
) I
on\O"'lIl0l0_f\l "'lll
10\0"'''''''''''......<::......''::
0'IlJ)-,.
M .~"l en
'.U
NIJ'o.!J
--lil
~tlJ""
Q)
.,. t. M (lJ "=t
r"l ...... .... '.0) ..,.
~.' <nt....'))
o_...,.'t'f'
r";';
o
...
'"
..J U'lo
..J
q: ~J ('IJ
U
LV
oJ M
~ (lJ
'2-
a:~
_j'>
<: UJ
......
>--
0.' ua:::
0' :;;::0
I)) w_
U. 00:
U <<a.
l.~
(7\ LL.'(j)
e....
'"
o::w
r- we
a>_
'" :u
=>:;:
lJl z_
..J
..J
<:
u
w
"-
,..
.....'
>-
....
'"
a.
o _
:!_~.':'.
...
...
o
...-~
1 .,
I
:~ ? ~I .... ~~ - ., ,
")
,U "1'1 w-
.... I- J::(J)
'. 0 -w ... 0)
u. .. ....1- ....,..
'" ". ::>
1I: l! -lZ
., c' <<-
" c :r 1-.1:
"- 0-
....
0
,..,
,...
<(
"-
'"~
'"
"-
W
I-
<<
C
>-
I-
>
I-
U
<< C) C)
'"
a.
0
u..
:I:
>.0 U
...J ....w
"l:%:
<: a. -
u ~,,-
-
c
.,..
0>
....
~,
Lfl
...
M
('J
...J
...J
'" <<
II U
'.')
<: l:J W
a.
.. 1- >-
>-- I-
0) ur;:
'" ZO ,..
(I) W- I-
U. "'''' '"
u <<a. a.
{'
:q :!: ~ ~ ~ I ~ ! 3. :_?-=-::-=-1~~_~. _~ : ~ ~ ~
l'o-r-;-"',"
., ." ...,:.'
l
OJ
?
o
-t>
C
&::
'"
>-
.CO
0) ""M~'M'-Ll
Ll) r UI '"'-lil
MI"ll1
,..lr......'
4:
C
'"
,..If\
"'0)
u.
")
.J
<::
u
00 IJ"O li
0:
'"
CO
I"
U.
W
0-
W
Z
'"
'-'
'"
2-
~ N M . ~ ~ ~ ~ m 2 :
iD-r;;- !D i <J\ () - 1", '"' -t I~. ',.~ J
. "~'!..J..='_ IlJ _~ 1Il_ ""'._,!"! ~lll_" ~..;
..
~-
o
o C)
...~~~;~~
l/'I "'.... iol ~ 0 _ N'",," ""
'D\D"":!!~'_':""~,
o
c
'-'J
o
o
~N".no""m~~~~=:~~~~~~~~M~
L'"
r-
,"
':;',\1" '\1
,"
o
,-
!."
-,
"-
C"I
'"
,~
'.If
'"
U-
l'J
I-
-.::
Q
:-
<t
Q
:-
'"
:-LIl
I- '"
'"n_'
~......:> -
*~-M
:.. 1- '....
__oLWr-
.o.;.:J c::co
::: ~t:
:J t::,,'
'" <"
~ .;: ':J):C
UJWr-
r:::::W
:::';:uJ-1Jl
:JU~O't
zero::,
':;':JLiJ-
LL u) <0
.::;;:: .......
*lJJO::J".
0':>
::1...
~
--''''
--'
--'
-.::
'-"
)-
<t <.-
"
" W
4 ,~
~ <:
l
r--,
)
~" ~~:f~'
..,-...-.,.
"' ., ..,
': ~ '!l-
:; a J' ~-i:C",:
:'
1.- r <.. c c 0 0 0 0 j ) ,
,
1n!D""G;lOIoO_N ;! ~ ~
<0 to lD <D ,,I),..,.....
L:"l
C-
'))
"
c.J "
L" 0:' .J '"
<C '" .. III
lL I-
0
0 I-
W
'"
..
ll. ...
W
a::
ll.
'"
W
I-
..
0 OJ
III
C>
III
."
:I: ...
""
>- lJl
I- <.
.;.t)_ "-
. .... :> - I'-
- '" -M
':.> '- ~,
;.- "- WI'-
>- UI .. '"
0::
1 :;,
0 I- 0::
WZW
uJ U I-
<:: " -
>< 'u :>",
0 Va:: C- M
0:: W '.
'" u) -
'c '"
ll. '. OJ
. uJ C I'-
"-0
::J
-< '" ...
...J ...J
...J
..
U
>-
liI U
'='
u" tu
U. 0
U ..
I
c-~
L
Q)
?
o
1-
a:.
..
~ _~.,.g_~ K_~__~,i-~.
01 '=' ... r..,..., -t '"
..f'l_':"I_;'~..'. '~_L"'. M
~ ~ l ~ :(1: I ~ _~ ~
1.__
'I -, .,
,'", ", '"
'" ,
'71'!.
~--"'-fl.~ .'
\. ( )
VllC"'I!3",O...N ~ ~....
lDUllD lD 00"""""'"
'" ",
'"
,
.f>
.:>
W ,
'" <Y> -' M
.. 0 << M
a. 0-
0
'" 0-
W
a:
'"
a. <>
w
a:
a.
0
'"
""
<(
Q
0
a:
:I:
L,;
;- 111
- ,
...- '..
U.-' _
. '.1.: - M
...:J_.....
1. ':...J ,...
"''''0
.."
:.~
"'1".'
.r "
':J r-
I.L. ::..
~ ,j.
-'-'
-'
'"
u
'"
>-
f> u
~ .-
" III
C .;
J -
LJ.~M..
(
1\I
M
M
,..
~_'(I \":__ ~-;;; l-~ ~_ ~~ '5
=-~ ~"""'iOij)
':""_'"'...2- ~n----.:!. ...,
~--~-~
~ _:; ._':; ,.~~~~_ -~ J~ ~~ ~ , ",
.1,.,
.
Office of
ANOKA COUNTY SHERIFF
LARRY PODANY
325 Jackson Street - Anolca, Minnesota 55303-2210
612-323-5000 Fax 612-422-7503
CITY OF ANDOVER
MONTHLY CONTRACT PRODUCTIVITY REPORT
MONTH:_JULY, 1995_
This report reflects the productivity of the Andover contract cars,
3125, 3135, 3145 and 3155. It does not include activity by
Sheriff's Department cars within the City during non-contract
hours, nor, activity by other Sheriff's Department cars within the
City during contract hours.
Arrests: Traffic
Radio Calls 714
Complaints 510
Medicals 17
P. I. Accidents 6
P.D. Accidents 11
Domestics 30
House Checks 54
65
DWI
5
Arrests: Felony
5
G.M.
8
Misdemeanor 34
Arrests: Warrant
5
Papers Served:
1
Warnings:
36
Business Checks 414
Aids: Public
38
Other Agencies___89_
TOTAL MILES PATROLlED:
10,666
CAPTAIN LEN CHRIST
ANOKA COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT
PATROL DIVISION
-6-
Affirmative Action I Equal Opportunity Employer
"II
I.
iai
1--
I-
I.
[I
r:.-
r.
~
~
a=-
I::.
.~-
~
~
L.
11
-=-
~
-=-
I=-
~
1-
II
"". -.
.
Office of
ANOKA COUNTY SHERIFF
LARRY PODANY
325 Jackson Street - Anoka, Minnesota 55303-2210
612-323-5000 Fax 612-422-7503
Affirmative Action I Equal Opportunity Employer
.
"
OJ
~ ~
... OJ
0 '" 0 ... 0 ... 0 0 ... ... ..
... u
"
!;1
to
...
Ul 0 0
.., :f.! '" ... M 0 ... 0 ....
... ... .. '"
"
OJ
r:l 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
., 0
..
[;l
~
....
tJ
~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
....
"
.,
, ~ 0 0 0
15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
..
Z
0 "
....
... OJ 0 0
.. :.l! 0 0 0 0 ... 0 ...
.,
U .,
1;1 '"
U
.,
'" Ul
.... ...
Z Ul 0
~ ., 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
~
Ul
...
i Ul 0 ... ... 0 ..
~ 0 0 0 M
., Ul
Ul tl .. .. ... "' .. M
Z M ..
., 0 .. .. '"
.. .. M
.. .,
0 '"
~ .
U .
8 ~
Ul ~ ., ~
'" u
6 ....
... Ul
,.. Ul ....
tl u ~ '"
. OJ ., ...
. z ., ., '"
. 0 ~ .. ... '"
,.. . '" .... 0 Ul 0
i . .. g ~ '" .. z ..
. Po ....
"' .. " Ul 0 ~ Ul
'" Z Ul '" 0 '" ~
'" .... .... OJ ... ..
'" Ul ... ., Ul '" to '" ...
~ ~ Ul ~ Z ... ., z Ul 0
Z Ul .... 0 I ., .... ~ ....
~ ., OJ Ul .. '" ..
:.l! ~ .. 0 s ~ 0 OJ ....
.. '" .... '" '" .
0 to " Ul ... U .
~.
QL q-b-~
LAw OffiCES OF
William G. Hawkins and Associates
WILLIAM G. HAWKINS
BARRY A. SULLIVAN
Legal Assistants
WENDY B. DEZELAR
JEANlNE KUZMICH
SUITE 10 1
299 CooN RAPIDS BLVD.
COON RAPIDS, MINNESOTA 55433
. PHONE (612) 784-2998
August 17, 1995
r~ E r. E ~ V ~ n
RG: 2'1',l;llJ
CITY OF ANDf)\!ER
Mr. Dick Fursman
City of Andover
1685 Crosstown Blvd NW
Andover, MN 55304
Re: Status of Municipal Civil Litigation
Dear Dick:
I wanted to provide you with a brief summary of the civil litigation cases that are
currently being undertaken by our office on behalf of the City of Andover. They are
as follows:
1. Old is Gold
This contract dispute came on for trial on June 12, 13 and 14. The jury
awarded Old is Gold a judgment in the amount of $36,000.00. We
brought a Motion for JNOV/New Findings which was heard by Judge
Muehlberg on July 24. A decision is due by October 24, 1995. I expect
a decision tu be issued sooner than that. The judge has several options.
He could simply grant the JNOV and enter judgment in favor of the city.
He could deny the motion and we would need to consider an appeal.
The third option the judge has it to grant a new trial and we would start
over.
2. Ashford Development Corporation
Our Motion for Summary Judgment was heard on February 23, 1995 and
denied by Judge Gibbs. The matter was scheduled for trial on June 12.
We decided to appeal the order by Judge Gibbs and the trial was
postponed. All briefs have been submitted on the appeal to the Court of
Appeals and the oral argument is scheduled for October 3. The decision
Mr. Dick Fursman
August 17, 1995
Page 2
from the Court of Appeals will be due by January 3, 1996. The Court
of Appeals could reverse Judge Gibbs and direct that summary judgment
be entered in favor of the city, or the court could affirm Judge Gibbs and
send the matter back for trial, or the court could affirm Judge Gibbs in
part and strip away some of the claims. If the matter is sent back for
trial, it seems unlikely that the trial will be held anytime before February
1, 1996.
3. Commercial Boulevard - Rogers Auto Body
This condemnation matter is scheduled for trial on September 25. It was
scheduled for trial earlier this year, but the trial was continued due to the
construction ongoing at the courthouse. Discovery is complete in that
opposing counsel has responded to our written discovery demands. They
did not serve upon us any discovery demands. Opposing counsel's
appraiser is still working on preparation of an updated appraisal. It is
unlikely that trial would be continued again and we should be prepared
to try the case on September 25. All witnesses have been notified and
we have had several meetings with city staff and Mr. Allen, our
appraiser. The issue in this case will be severance damages as well.
Roger's Auto Body seems to be claiming that the location of Commercial
Boulevard forces him to re-Iocate the building on his property.
4. Winslow Hills Special Assessment Appeal
This is a special assessment appeal that we have just been notified has
been scheduled for a court trial on November 13. We are in the process
of submitting discovery documents to the appellants in preparation for
the trial. You will recall that we have a defect in the notice of the
assessment hearing and I have contacted the attorney for Mr. Holasek
to see if we can get an agreement on waiver of this slight defect. I also
inquired regarding the possibility of submitting the matter to arbitration
and he indicated to me that he would discuss these items with his client
and contact me within the next several weeks. Since we have received
a trial date, and the matter is a court trial, I do not see much advantage,
if any, in arbitrating the matter at this time.
5. Bunker Lake Frontage Road
We have had appraisals completed on all of the property easements that
are needed for the construction of the Bunker Lake frontage road. All of
the parties had previously granted us waivers of trespass so the work
Mr. Dick Fursman
August 17, 1995
Page 3
was completed. The appraisals have been received and offers have been
made to the effected property owners. Several of them have rejected
the offer and, therefore, it has become necessary to commence an
eminent domain action to appoint three commissioners to hear testimony
as to the damages that these properties have sustained. The city council
authorized the eminent domain action approximately twelve months ago.
We have filed the Petition with the district court and expect an initial
hearing on this matter in late October. The commissioners will meet to
take testimony in all likelihood in November and a final determination on
the amount of the award should be reached in November or December
of this year.
I believe those are all of the outstanding litigation matters that we are currently
working on. We will keep you posted on the status of each of them if any significant
developments occur. If you have nay questions, please contact me.
WGH:wbd
~. .
(t; q-Q-q!5
ANOKA COUNTY HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Paul McCarron, Chairman
Dennis D. Berg
Dan Erhart
Jim A. Kordiak
Dave McCauley, Vice Chair
Margaret langfeld
Dick Lang
August 25, 1995
H,,),:. f?-r---ff:'---"
,'r - i. --.. ';" '" r;---::
:,. ~ .: qJ =':.. .::" ~
~ '-''"'lr ...' jIli.f" . r
/(t~~~il
--..--J'
CITY or-
... ANDOVER
The Honorable Jack McKelvey
Mayor, City of Andover
15327 Nightingale Street NW.
Andover, MN 55304
--J
Dear Mayor McKelvey:
I am writing to inform you that the Anoka County Housing and Redevelopment Authority at their
most recent meeting of Tuesday, August 22, 1995. approved the proposed budget and levy for
1996 (see attached). The Board also directed the establishment and convening of a Senior
Housing Committee and a Housing Rehabilitation Committee to develop detailed work plans for
the implementation of these programs.
The jjrst meeting of the Housing Rehabilitation Committee will be Wednesday, September
6, 1995, at 2:30 p.m. at the Fridley City Hall. The Senior Housing Committee will meet on
Friday, September 8, 1995, at 9:00 a.m. at the H am lake City Hall. All municipalities who may
be considering programs in these areas or who may be interested are welcome to attend.
As always, should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
<:;;. fja;6
Tim Yantos
Executive Director
TY:bje
Enclosures
cc: Anoka County HRA Board of Trustees
City HRNEDA Chair
City HRNEDA Director
City Administrator/Manager/Clerk
Anoka County HRA Intergovernmental Advisory Committee
Anoka County HRA Technical Advisory Committee
Telephone: (612) 323-5680; Fax: 323-5682; TDD!ITY: 323-5289
Government Center, Administration Office, 2100 3rd Avenue, Anoka, MN 55303-2265
PROPOSED 1996 HRA SPECIAL BENEFIT LEVY
AS OF AUGUST 22,1995
BURNS
COLUMBUS
LINWOOD
BETHEL
CENTERVILLE
EAST BETHEL
HAM LAKE
HILLTOP
LEXINGTON
L1NO LAKES
OAK GROVE
ST. FRANCIS
PROPOSED SPECIAL BENEFIT LEVY
$ 13,765
18,576
15,977
1,370
8,322
34,225
43,015
1,356
6,388
56.998
25,195
9,220
$234,407
RESOLUTION #95-2
PROPOSED ANOKA COUNTY HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
BUDGET AND TAX LEVY FOR 1996
WHEREAS, Anoka County Housing and Redevelopment Authority (UACHRAU) is authorized
pursuant to Minn. Stat. ~469.033, subd. 6, to levy a special benefit tax on property located within the area
of operation of the ACHRA, and all property within the area of operation is deemed to be benefitted by
projects to the extent of the proposed levy; and
WHEREAS, ACHRA has developed a budget to fund its activities for 1996, which budget is the
basis of this proposed levy.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVfD that ACHRA hereby adopts a budget for 1996 in the
amount of $275,407 and levies a tax of $234,407 for taxes payable 1996 on all taxable property situated
within the ACHRA area of operation.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the area of operation of the ACHRA and the taxing district for
the purpose of the proposed 1996 tax levy shall include those areas of Anoka County where a municipal
housing and redevelopment authority has not been established.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the ACHRA Board of Trustees requests the Anoka County
Board of Commissioners to consent to the proposed levy in the amount of $234,407.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that, in accordance with Minn. Stat. ~275.065, the ACHRA shall
file a certified copy of this resolution with the Division Manager of Property Records and Taxation on or
before September 15, 1995, and that the Division Manager of Property Records and Taxation shall
extend, spread and include the ACHRA's proposed property taxes as a part of the general taxes for the
State, county and municipal purposes.
BE IT FI NALLY RESOLVED that all such tax monies collected by the Division of Property Records
and Taxation shall be accumulated and kept in a separate fund to be known as the Housing and
Redevelopment Project Fund and shall be remitted to the Treasurer of the ACHRA.
~
CITY of ANDOVER
1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. . ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 . (612) 755-5100
MEMORANDUM
TO:
COPIES TO:
FROM:
DATE:
REFERENCE:
Mayor and City Council
City Clerk d rJ,.tt
August 30, 1995
League of Minnesota Cities Regional Meetings
Attached is information regarding the League's Regional Meetings.
The closest meeting is at Greenhaven in Anoka.
If anyone is interested in attending, please contact Dick Fursman
so that he can make reservations.
CITY HALL. 2015 FIRST AVE. NO. . ANOKA, MINNESOTA 55303-2270
PHONE (612) 421-6630 . FAX (612) 421-9194 . TrY (612) 422-0442
Office of the Mayor
August 30, 1995
Dear City Official:
I ~ish-;-extend a cordial inv~tion to attend the League of Minnesota Cities''i-egional meeting
hosted by the City of Anoka on Thursday, September 28, 1995, at Greenhaven Country Club (map
enclosed). '
The afternoon program will begin at 2:00 p.m. and cover a variety of subjects. These discussions
will include subjects of an important nature, both locally and statewide.
The Regional Meeting program is enclosed. There will be adequate time in the afternoon program
for open discussion of local issues - bring your questions or concerns to the meeting for
discussion.
The afternoon program will conclude by 5:00 p.m., followed by a social hour. Dinner will be
served at 6:00 p.m.
Following a welcome to our city, LMC President Karen Anderson will address the audience
regarding the organization's focus for the coming year. After the president's message, the League
will present its new video on dealing with difficult personnel situations, followed by a discussion
on personnel issues.
To make reservations for your city, please return the enclosed registration form as soon as
possible. In case of cancellations, please notify Deb Young or Jessica Morgan at Anoka City Hall
at 421-6630 by Monday, September 25th. Unless registrations are canceled, it will be necessary
to bill your city for those who did not attend and did not cancel.
If anyone from your city needs special accommodations or bas special dietary needs, please advise
us so special arrangements can be made.
I look forward to seeing you on Thursday, September 28th!
On behalf of the Anoka City Council,
p~t. ''(..,. rJd't~
Peter M. Beberg J
Host Mayor
Enclosures
(dy\lmc-invitation)
- AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER -
nsons
"0 0 -a"-Q)
n. w ns- e >-~
0'0 <(nsns
~ A 0:: ns ..c;:I-Q)
0
Co:: O).c ..c
~CI) O>~ _
~ Z~ I Q) :J._ X 0
> e OIQ)_
, ns Q) ....
0 OI~~WH .c> ..cQ)'O"O
cx: - e ns -~nsns
:: t Q)..c ..cnsoo
~ % Q) e tl-~~
~ ... Q) 0
e> ~ ..z.....ee
C') (/)Q)Q)
".Be> ~ffi~~~
0 .PilIS uosuSH cae
..- ..c.c
~ -"-0 >-~o e e
~ ~tl H >- >- -c- cD ~cu.~Q)~
'p~ ."., PUnCljf ;nst(/) ~;:>-~""cD
.c;:og o>..c ns (!) e> (/)
-- tn.c e .c .- .0);: 0 e :J
691 WH .- .!2l 0 .0 ::I::c.c_o~
::I: I e>.=! 0>_
E Q).- (/):E.o
E Q) . 0 o~I Q) O):J
.l.twH o~~ Q) ... ns 0 s: .- 13
...nsx.c u..1-_ ....
u..1-Q)_
..c
doE
<1.>U
~ ~
~~
<1.> ~
<1.> 0
tsu
z
...
,
r'
City of Anoka, Thursday, September 28, 1995
We will have city officials attending the regional meeting in Anoka and we agree to
pay for these meals unless the City of Anoka is notified of any changes by Monday, September
25, 1995.
NAMES/TITLES OF PERSONS ATTENDING:
(please furnish names of people
attending so that name tags
can beJ!!:9lared)
-- _--7"'--
PERSON MAKING RESERV ATION(S):
CITY:
PHONE: ( )
* Number of attendees
x $10.00 registration fee
Number of attendees
x $15.00 dinner
TOTAL PAYMENT ENCLOSED $
Please make checks payable to CITY OF ANOKA and return with registration form to:
Deb Young
CITY OF ANOKA
2015 First Avenue
Anoka, MN 55303
* $10.00 registration fee applies only to the first ten registrants. There is no charge for more than
ten registrations from one city.
WANT TO GOLF NINE HOLES BEFORE THE DAY BEGINS? ...
Call Jon Bendix, 427-3180, at the Greenhaven Golf Course if you are interested. Let him, or anyone
on his staff, know you're with the LMC group so they can set you up with other LMC players.
/'
'-
3490 Lexington Avenue North
League of Minnesota Cities St. Paul, MN 55126-8044
1995 REGIONAL MEETING PROGRAM
2:00-2:30 p.m.
AFTERNOON PROGRAM
lMC Information Systems UpdatefTelecommunications
Barb Gallo, lMC's Director of Technology Services
2:30-3:00 p.m.
liability Issues Involving Contracts
- _-c-- lMCIT Staff_,-
3:00-3:15 p.m.
Break
3:15- 3:35 p.m.
legislative Issues at the Upcoming Session
IGR Staff
3:35-4:00 p.m.
Tobacco and Smoke Free Communities for Children
Minnesota Department of Health Staff
4:00-5:00 p.m.
Discussion by cities attending of City Achievements
Moderator: Tom Thelen, LMC Field Representative
5:00-6:00 p.m.
6:00-7:00 p.m.
Social Hour
Dinner
7:00-7:15 p.m.
EVENING PROGRAM
Introduction by Jim Miller, LMC Executive Director
Welcome by Host City Mayor
7:15-7:30 p.m.
Presentation of LMC's Strategic Plan
(lMC 2000: Service and leadership)
Karen Anderson, Mayor, Minnetonka
President, League of Minnesota Cities
7:30-7:45 p.m.
7:45-8:30 p.m.
8:30-9:00 p.m.
A video dealing with difficult personnel situations
Roundtable discussions of difficult personnel situations
Response to roundtable discussions questions
9:00 p.m.
Adjourn
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER
l12l490.5600
1-800-925-1122
TDD(612}490.9038
Fax (612 '490-00j2
.
3490 Lexington Avenue North
St. Paul, MN 55126-8044
.eague of Minnesota Cities
1995 REGIONAL MEETING SCHEDULE
DATE
CITY
lOCATION/CONTACT PERSON
Septemb~~6
ELY
Kennedy Cafeteria Facilities
600 E Harvey Street
Ely, MN 55731
Patricia Wellvang
218/365-3224
September 27
AITKIN
American Legion Club
20 First Avenue NW
Aitkin, MN 56431
Ross Wagner
218/927-2527
September 28
ANOKA
Greenhaven Country Club
2800 Greenhaven Drive
Anoka, MN 55303
Mark Nagel
612/421-6630
October 3
GREEN BUSH
Greenbush Community Center
244 Main Street North
Box 98
Greenbush, MN 56726
WyAnn Janousek
218/782-2570
October 4
MC INTOSH
Centennial Community Center
115 Broadway NW
Mcintosh, MN 56556
Ann Lohse
218/563-3043
October 5
HENNING
Henning Public SchooUCommunity Room
Henning Community Center/Evening
607 2nd Street
Henning, MN 56551
Wilma Morse/Sarah Ebeling
218/583-2402
(OVER)
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER
190-5600
1-800-925.1122
TDD(612i490-9038
Fax(6121490-0072
.; '..
PAGE 2
1995 REGIONAL MEETING SCHEDULE
QATI;
CITY
lOCATION/CONTACT PERSON
October 17
STEWARTVILLE
Stewartville Civic Center
Intersections of Highway 63 & Highway 30
Stewartville, MN 55976
Cheryl Roeder
507/533-4745
October 18
OWATONNA
Ramada Inn
1212 North Interstate 35
Owatonna, MN 55060
Jim MoecKI)" . ".
507/451-4540
October 19
WINTHROP
Community Center
305 North Main Street
Winthrop, MN 55396
Samuel Shult
507/647 -5306
October 24
FAIRMONT
Holiday Inn-Fairmont
Junction 1-90 & Highway 15
Fairmont, MN 56031
David Schornack
507/238-9461
October 25
WILLMAR
Holiday Inn
2104 E Highway 12
Willmar, MN 56201
Kevin Halliday
612/235-4913
October 26
PIPESTONE
Pipestone Country Club
1003 8th Avenue SE
Pipestone, MN 56164
Joan Lange
507/825-3324
CITY OF ANDOVER
COUNTY OF ANORA
STATE OF MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO. 19N
AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING THE MINNESOTA STATE BUILDING CODE:
PROVIDING FOR ITS ADMINISTRATION AND ENFORCEMENT: REGULATING THE
ERECTION, CONSTRUCTION, ENLARGEMENT, ALTERATION, REPAIR, MOVING,
REMOVAL, DEMOLITION, CONVERSION, OCCUPANCY, EQUIPMENT, USE,
HEIGHT, AREA AND MAINTENANCE OF ALL BUILDINGS AND/OR STRUCTURES IN
THE CITY OF ANDOVER: PROVIDING FOR THE ISSUANCE OF PERMITS ~ND
COLLECTION OF FEES THEREOF; PROVIDING PENALTIES FOR THE VIOLATION
THEREOF: AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 19 OF THE CITY OF ANDOVER.
The City Council of the City of Andover does ordain as
follows:
SECTION 1. APPLICATION, ADMINISTRATION AND ENFORCEMENT.
The application, administration, and enforcement of the
code shall be in accordance with Minnesota rule part 1300.2100 and
as modified by chapter 1305. The code shall be enforced within
the extraterritorial limits permitted by Minnesota statute
16B.62 subdivision 1 when so established by this ordinance.
The code enforcement agency of this municipality is called the
City of Andover.
A Minnesota certified Building Official must be appointed by this
jurisdiction to administer the code (Minnesota statute 16B.65).
SECTION 2. PERMITS AND FEES.
The issuance of permits and the collection of fees shall be as
authorized in Minnesota statute 16B.62 subdivision 1 and as
provided for in chapter 1 of the 1994 Uniform Building Code and
Minnesota rules parts 1305.0106 and 1305.0107.
Permits fees shall be assessed for work governed by this code in
accordance with Resolution #R307-94 and as amended by the city
council. In addition, a surcharge fee shall be collected on all
permits issued for work governed by this code in accordance with
Minnesota statute 16B.70.
SECTION 3. VIOLATIONS AND PENALTIES.
A violation of the code is a misdemeanor (Minnesota statute
16B.69).
SECTION 4. BUILDING CODE.
The Minnesota State Building Code, established pursuant to
Minnesota Statutes 16B.59 to 16B.75, is hereby adopted as the
building code for this jurisdiction. The code is hereby
incorporated in this ordinance as if fully set out herein.
Page Two
Adoptive Ordinance - Building Code
A. The Minnesota state Building Code includes the following
chapters of Minnesota Rules:
1. Chapter 1300 - Minnesota Building Code
2. Chapter 1301 - Building Official certification
3. Chapter 1302 - state Building Construction Approvals
4. Chapter 1305 - Adoption of the 1994 Uniform Building Code
including Appendix Chapters:
a. 3, Division I, Detention and Correctional Facilities
b. 12, Division II, sound Transmission control
c. 29, Minimum Plumbing Fixtures
5. Chapter 1307 - Elevators and Related Devices
6. Chapter 1315 - Adoption of the 1993 National Electrical
Code.
7. Chapter 1325 - Solar Energy systems.
8. Chapter 1330 - Fallout Shelters.
9. Chapter 1335 - Floodproofing Regulations.
10. Chapter 1340 - Facilities for the Handicapped
11. Chapter 1346 - Adoption of the 1991 Uniform Mechanical
Code
12. Chapter 1350 - Manufactured Homes.
13. Chapter 1360 - Prefabricated Buildings.
14. Chapter 1365 - Snow Loads.
15. Chapter 1370 - storm Shelters
16. Chapter 4715 - Minnesota Plumbing Code
17. Chapter 7670 - Minnesota Energy Code
B. This municipality may adopt by reference any or all of the
following optional appendix chapters of the 1994 uniform
Building Code as authorized by Minnesota rule part 1305.0020
subpart 2: 15, Reroofing; 33, Excavation and Grading.
The following optional appendix chapters of the 1994 uniform
Building Code are hereby adopted and incorporated as part of the
building code for this municipality.
1. 15, Reroofing
2. 33, Excavating and Grading
C. This municipality may adopt by reference any or all of the
following optional chapters of Minnesota rule: 1306, Special Fire
Protection systems with option 8a (Group M, S, or F occupancies
with 5,000 or more gross square feet); 1335, Floodproofing
regulations parts 1335.0600 to 1335.1200.
, ,
page 2
Page Three
Adoptive Ordinance - Building Code
The following optional chapters of Minnesota rule are hereby
adopted and incorporated as part of the building code for this
municipality.
1. 1306 Special Fire Protection System with Option 8A.
2. 1335 Floodproofing regulations parts 1335.0600 to
1335.1200.
SECTION 5.
1. Architectural Design, Exterior Facing
The application for a building permit, in addition to other
information required by applicable laws or regulations, shall
include exterior elevations of the proposed structure amd drawings
which will adequately and accurately indicate the height, size,
design, and appearance of all elevations of the proposed structure
and a description of the construction and materials proposed to be
used.
\
2. Referral of Application by Inspector in Certain Cases
When an application is filed with the City for a building
permit for any structure to be built, enlarged, or altered within,
or moved into the City, the Building Official shall review such
application and accompanying documents to determine whether the
exterior architectural design, appearance, or functional plan of
such proposed structure, when erected will be so at variance with,
or so similar to the exterior architectural design of any
structure or structures already constructed or in the course of
construction which is within three hundred (300') feet of the lot
upon which the structure is located, or so at variance with the
character of the applicable district as established by the zoning
ordinance of the City as to cause a substantial depreciation in
the property values of the neighborhood. The three hundred (300')
foot restriction shall be determined by measurement along the
street upon which the structure fronts (19K, 11-15-88)
If the Building Official finds that the exterior architectural
design of the proposed structure, when erected, may be so at
variance with, or so similar to, the exterior architectural
design, appearance, or functional plan of structures already
constructed or in the course of construction in the neighborhood,
no building permit therefore shall be issued and the Building
Official shall within ten (10) days after receipt of the
application of the building permit application and supporting
documents, file the same and such opinion in writing, signed by
the Building Official, with the Secretary of the Board of Design
Control, which shall review the determination of the Building
Official. (19J, 3-15-88)
/
Page 3
Page Four
Adoptive Ordinance - Building Code
3. Board of Design Control Created
The Andover Review Committee of the City of Andover shall be
and is hereby appointed as the Board of Design Control. The Board
shall review all building permit applications referred to it by
the Building Official upon his determination that the exterior
architectural design of the proposed structure would violate the
provisions of this ordinance. The Andover Review Committee shall
act upon all applications or other matters referred to it within
twenty (20) days from the date such application was originally
filed with the Building Official. It may approve, conditionally
approve or disapprove the exterior design of any proposed building
or structure, enlargement or alteration and may modify, request
such modifications as it may deem necessary to carry out the
purpose and intent of this section.
Any person aggrieved by the decision of the Andover Review
Committee may take an appeal therefrom to the City council. Such
appeal shall be taken within five (5) days after the decision of
the Andover Review Committee. The City Council shall act upon all
application or other matters referred to it within forty-five (45)
days from the date of appeal. (191, 2-02-88)
SECTION 6.
; ,
A. The general contractor or home builder shall meet the
improvements required under Ordinance #10 as:
1. provide four (4") inches of topsoil and sod on all
boulevards in areas served by municipal sewer and water, and
four (4") inches of topsoil and seed on all boulevards in
other areas, and the conditions regarding hard surfaced
driveways and erosion control.
B. If any of the improvements required under Section 6A are
not completed at the time of the final inspection by the Building
Inspector, the general contractor or home builder shall furnish to
the City, a security agreement in an amount equal to 150 percent
of the Building Official's estimated cost for such improvements.
The improvements shall be completed within 30 days of the
furnishing of the security agreement, except between October 1 and
May 1 and all work shall be completed by June 1. Requests for the
release of any security agreements provided hereunder may be made
by the general contractor or home builder upon completion of all
improvements covered by the security agreement. The Building
Official shall approve or deny the request. If denied, the
Building Official shall state in writing the reasons for such
denial. The general contractor or home builder may appeal the
decision to the City Council by filing with the Building Official
a written request for such appeal within ten days after receiving
the Building Official's notice. The appeal shall be placed on the
agenda of the next regular Council meeting. The general
contractor or home builder shall be notified of the time and place
of such meeting. The Council may affirm or reject the decision of
the Building Official.
; \
Page 4
Page Five
Adoptive Ordinance - Building Code
C. The security referred to in this ordinance may be in the form
of cash, money order, cashier's check or irrevocable letter of
credit.
D. If the improvements for which a security agreement has been
given are not completed within a thirty (30) day period, the
builder shall forfeit the security agreement and the City shall
proceed to complete the improvements and collect the costs thereof
from the security.
E. If proof of other security is provided by the general
contractor or home builder the above security will not be
required.
F. For the purposes of this ordinance, the term "boulevard" shall
mean the area of a public right-of-way extending from the back of
the curb, or the edge of a roadway where no curb is installed, to
the right-of-way limit. (19H, 1-12-88)
This Ordinance shall become effective from and after its passage
/ and publication as required by law.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Andover this 4th day of
April, 1995.
CITY OF ANDOVER
ATTEST:
V~V~
City Clerk
Amended thru 19N, 4- 4-95
j//::;,(C~
Mayor
Page 5
-" -- -----. _...~-- ---.- ----.- -- - ------- _. - -
~ l. __ .___ __~.J-
,I
,..,
i'
.- :e,I
,,,.,.
-.,.-..- ...__.-.
. .
-r
.
.
. ;
'.'
I
f
":'
~ . 1
; , . ~ , ::".' ~'~
. -.J!--'--.--- - --~.. - .._- ----~..-~~~~------~-.......~-~..P,.-....~~~~~-~...:.-----_______.._---.-:a."-.~ __ .-:-_______., .. _.~ t.
' . . . t
. ,
Stt'adh;arius Productions, in collaboration with Hamline University ahd
Hennepin Avenue United Methodist Church
presents
. ~
j
The Musical
Vi
I
!. : J
, ,
ence
I
!
\
W~at can a person do?
. -.---- ---. ... - - .---_. - - -- ~. ',-
A musical by Dick Wilson and DeAnn Allison . ;
: !
exploring the pain, anger, fear and resentment inherent in violence-:-
though with hopeful resolution.
;.
ANNE SIMLEY THEATRE
HAMLINE UNIVERsiTY
N. SNELLING AND HEWITt
(SOUTH ',wD EAST OF THE STATE FAiRGROUNDS)
: EIGHT PERFORMANCES
Thur.c;day; September 28 through Saturday, September 30, at 7:30 p.m.; Sunday, Octobci 1 ~12 p.m.;
Thursday. October 5 through Saturday, October 7 at 7:30 p.m.; and Sunday, October 8at ~ p.m.
TICKET ORDER FORM , ,
Gaiho!~ a g'(.~lr. or orrIt!T rickets indMdually. TIckers will be senr as soon as orden II~ received. There is g.:'';:,af ~~"i.uioll.
PJea~ sen.1 ...____lickets@$15eachto:
N_
.
.......~-_.-
.; ,
Add,.."
.. ..' ....---
. ;
- , - , -fc~'jI-"'V.t /IIl1IIbcr
!
Cay
Stair
Zip
Pcrform'IOc'i": i~ 'rhu~day, September 28, 7:30 p.m. 0 Friday, September 29, 7:30 p.m. ,
I' Saturday, September 30. 7:30 p.m. 0 Sunday. October 1,2 p.m. 0 Th\lrsday, Ocfob<:i 5,:'7:JO p.m.
o Friday, October 6, 7:30 p.m. 0 Saturday, October 7, 7:30 p.m. 0 Sunday, Oc1obcr 8, 2 pm. :
Amounl en,'I"-"ll S (MaJ.e checlcs payable ro Hamline Universiry) ,': .
!knd tJ.-k,i orilel'" ond payment to: MusIcal, HamUne University, MS-CI917, 1536 HewItt, St. Paul, ~'Ii SsIO.( ,
For .hore infmtnalion or to order by phone, contact the Office of Church Relations at 612-641-2032. 'i
, i
, I
t
r
.-
I:
I
J
J
f
i
I
I
.t
'f
CITY OF ANDOVER
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
DATE
September 5, 1995
AGENDA
/10.
SECTION
ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT
Finance
~
Jean D. McGann
Finance Director
APPROVED
FOR AGENDA
Approval of Claims
ITEM
/10. Schedule of Bills
BY:
REQUEST
The Andover City Council is requested to approve total Claims
in the amount of $ 200,978.14.
BACKGROUND
Claims totaling $ 33,305.79 on disbursement edit list #1
dated 8/22/95 have been issued and released.
Claims totaling $ 57,877.86 on disbursement edit list #2
dated 8/29/95 have been issued and release.
Claims totaling $ 109,794.49 on disbursement edit list #3
dated 9/05/95 will be issued and released upon Council approval.
AUTHORIZATION
The schedules of bills payable as described above were reviewed
and approved for payment.
Date: 9/05/95
Approved By:
MOTION BY:
SECOND BY:
CITY OF,ANDOVER
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
DATE
September 5, 1995
AGENDA
NJ.
SECTION
ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT APPROVED
FOR AGENDA
Todd J. Haas,
Engineering
1(
1Y
ITEM
NJ.
Non-Discussion/Consent Item
Approve Quotes/93-7/HVAC & Electric
Parts Only
.;r 7.
The City Council is requested to approve the quotes for
the following for the Concession Building, Project 93-7.
Quote #1
Quote #2
Heating, Ventilation,
Air Conditioning (HVAC)
Electrical
(including light fixtures)
$2,650.82
$4,192.06
$10,069.29
Request not to authori: e
more than $10,069.29
This would be paid for from Park Dedication funds.
)
Quotes are available in the Engineering Office for review.
MOTION BY:
SECOND BY: