HomeMy WebLinkAboutSP November 29, 1977
'.
CITY of ANDOVER
SPT.;CTAT" CI"'Y COTJ]¡CIL TŒBTnm - "OVET·!BE'{ 29, 1977
HI~\:UT-r.:.~
~ .SnecIal !'eeting of the Andover City Council Vias called to order by !'ayor Jerry \'Iindschitl
on l'T()ve!!1ber 29 f 1977, 7: 3·3 !,i!O" a t the Andover City Hall, 1685 Crosstown Boulevnrd rJ,
~nok~, Mínnesot~, to discuss the Cedar Crest, Ilayo-Bankey Litigation,
~ol1nc:tl}Jersons "present: T..-1.chinski, !!cClure, orttel, VanderrT~an
~ouncilnersons absent: rTone
Also present: City Attorneys, ITilliam G, qawkins and John Burke; City Engineer,
Rex Stockwell; City Clerk, p. K, Lindquist; and approximately 50
interested residents,
,Tohn Burke, the Attorney from Babcock, Locher, "eilson & Ifannella doing the trial work,
~~ve ~ b~ck~round of the situation explairnmg how the settlement stipulation came about,
why the sUnulation allows l-.a.cre lots in the plat, and reviewed the points of the amended
settle!Oent stipulation made by the City to the plaintiffs and the preli!Oinary plat as
amended by the City Council and Bngineer, Engineer Stockwell indicated he had not reviewed
the storm sewer draina~e system since the Preliminary Plat had been redesigned by the
City for the amended settlement stipulation; however, the stipulation does include that
;,t 18 subject to the City ~nß'ineer's review and rnodification. The rest of the storm draìnge
systeM desir,ned by Duwayne C. Olson is the type that is necessary to meet street standards.
qe ~elt the wording in the settlement stipulation regarding the drain2m disposal system
deemed ~enerMl1y acce~table was ade~uate. The two new streets are pDobably going to
~he~~e the drainege TI~ttern somewhat, but that hasn't been looked at specifically, Hr,
Burke p-xnlained if this is acceptable, it would be our position that the Engineer's re-
view And modific~tion rr!'e an essential part of this agreement and we would not recommend
nc~e~tin~ the FinRl Pl~t unless they were reviewed and ~odified according to what the
~n~ineer hrt8 stated. ~he burden would be on them to do wh~t is acceptable to the City,
Attorney Hawkins com~ented that the entire litigation is very complex, This plat h~s been the
sl1bject of the City's review and discussion and eventual lawsuit since 1972. The facts
~_re very lengt~y and complex and not something that can be grasped in 5 minutes. 'Ie
recommended the reGidents read his letter telling what the lawsuit is about.
The ~eettn~ w~s opened for public testimony.
Relnh r-ishel,õ9?'4 173rd L~ne - lived there.since June, 1973, presented a petition signed
hy rr~rroxtmatelYI 100 þeople in that area voicing their opposition to the settle~ent of
this liti~~tion ?nder the present terms as outlined at the previous meeting, He questioned
what the develoners were requested to do by the City a~d failed to do initially, (t!ayor
c,
ITindschitl reai from the I~y 14, 1974, lfinutes of the previous Town Board in which Vr.
n~nkey had f011r thin~s to do before siGning the Fin21 Plat: 1) Su!,ply bond of 110 percent;
2) HAve title o~inion on land for the ~ovmship; 3) Be prep~red to sign Development Contract
br~nAreò by GrowlAttorney; and 4) pay all ad~inistr~tive, engineerinß, ~nd legal fees to
dote. 1',... TT~\'Ikins sto.ted this h'1S to be looked at in total, those facts !Oust be and have
been ~onsiòered ~Dt h~ did not think those ~re determinative in a~y way oh ~the future OU~
, this is not ~ c~se ~here all f~cts ~relined up on one side in favor
~11"e. In his 0ninion,
0f the ~;_ty.) I
Mr. ~i8hRl - fel~ ~et~e ~ivinG it all RW~y at first. As ~ ~ember of the P & Z, he voiced
o~~osition to recoMMendin~ ~~proval of the ,reliminary plat because it doesn't meet any
of on!" c:ri.teri~ for o. Dl~t élt thi,'"; time 2nd r,oes "'tr;ainst the wishes of the r-~etropolitan
ConncII in orderlY develoT'!Oent in the City of '\'ndover, He felt this is goinS to cost the
Gi ty a lot more tho,n the ~15n, 000 ^s1<ed for in the Ions run; and if the City lOGt, it would
nrobably cost ~IS,nOn and the City !,robably wouldn't have to accept all the aspects of the
~roþo8ed nreli~innry Dlat. The petition reads: "The City of Andover is in litigation
c;ner:i..'1.1 ~t ty Cf)l1ncj.l nesting
'T-Tnve!"Jbe:r 2Q, 1977 - 1!Üm tes
n~~e 2
of HoriJce n.,yo ë.!1d r:hrtrles B~!1key to develo'!) 45 lots, 1 acre in size, in the northwest
~nrner of the City. A court ruling could have o.n imp<'1ct on nIl City residents. The
nl)!"nose nf the he'""'.rtn,'j is to secure in:9llt on disposition of this mqtter. The following
n~Mes of ~eonle ~r0 o~posed to settling this litigation under the ?roposed terms."
U~r. LT(1wkins stated é!.t the time this M:\tter carle up for trial in 'septe!1ber, our Ordi nance
~llo\'fed deveIon~ent in th~t rtrea of I-~cre lots; the only requirement he r.'let out there
le~~lly is l-~cre. '-~r. Burke st.q ted we have chr.tn~ed the plRt in nn effort to meet our
re~111.rAMent~ now. '1:::'e ~uestioned other thGn the þarkland, whichCr-iteri::t are we still
r.1i:~si.n~?
'.11"1". V1::,,;hel - the l}lPct didn't hi'\ve b.1.ser.1ent elevations. (~.!r. Burke st:1.ted the amended
stinlll,qti.on Rt~tes the h"1.SeMent elevRtions must be on, a nevI Prelimin<1ry Plat would be
,,!,p-sp.l1ted to the Pl:'1nYÜn~ anrI Zoninr; C0mmission, who would hold n. public hearin,~ on it.
Tne street ITtr}t~ Meets the Ordin~~ce now. So~e people hrrve volunt~rily given wider
ßt....e~t 8;'>.,>et'1e11.ts, bu tour Ordin,'lnce Gt·"J.teG 50-foot en.sements. Hn.yor ','lindGchi tl st.":\ted the
'tltlith (')TI ..,. Gtrep.t llnder Section 9.03, collector street, requires 66 feet. r·~. Burke
st"ted it h~8 hee~ the Oêi~i0~ of the En~ineer ~nd thro~ßh le~~l inter~ret~tion th~t the
street~ involved ~re not collector streets under the definition of our Ordin~nce)
Hr. ~tshel - k~O~8 tne to~o~r~~hy in that area and is concerned about the 50-foot easements
!J8 the b'1ckslo~es nY'e so stee-p that ';'l~en :putting in drain,'l.r;e facilities in r1.ddition to the
sÞ"eets, it W0n't fit in thR 5n feet. ('Tr, Stockwell stqted that any rural street built
doesn't even fit into a 66-foot ri~ht of w~y, as ~enernlly on 2t acres the lot corner is
i~ the hotto~ of the ditch, Generally ~ te~porary slope en.sement is obtained on highway
r'lrnjects, ~.nd chr',nc~s :~.re SOMa construction will be done out3ide the rit:ht of way whether
it is sn or 66 feet, The develo~er is required to get that construction donej he owns
the rronerty to connlete it. mhe :3treets will be bituminous with brJ.l~kslopes not to exceed
,~ 3 to 1 slo!'9. The ro~d itself is 3?-feet wide, teMporary urban rOGdway ~ithout ditches.
IT. ~tockwell did not consider thnse streets collector streets QS the term i8 used in
every rl~y en~ineerin~. A collector street is desIgned to collect tr~ffic from Q nU!'!1bcr
of minor 8treÐt~. Gener!llly every st!'eet here Goes from "'ulj.~ to 3Þcl,foot or Aztec,)
~~ence ~~r180nt l77sn 1ztec, 3dj~cent to the pro~erty - asked how ~uch ~~rkl~nd W~G
i\iV9'1 ot':i,sinn.J.ly. (5.12 !1cres) Fe felt thot beinc; .79 ::teres short on the :D~r!{lé1.nd v!rts
,'l.T")l}roxtf.1:"!.te1.y 15 -nercent short. :'\.8 a cleve loper, he's alwqys qbided by the rules of the
cO"l~11nity. 1"'e iT'!3 told hy thG ~o~~ission 2nd the ~n~ineor he did not h!lve the ri~ht to
~~t in 5n-~oot 1treets i~ the ~l!1t he h~d just develo~ed. He felt þuttin~ in 66-foot wide
streets cost hin ".""roximo.tely ~ll),nnO in loss of l!lnd, (I!r, Stockwell felt he m!lY have
8·-:¡id ~"!e W'l.nt t;6lreet bec!11Jse of future utilities and feels it iG eGsentii'\l. !Te didn't
neli.evc he ;;,q.:t1 :you h~ve to rlut i.n tS6 feet because he's known the Ordin,"1nce sV1tef', 50-foot
An~e~ent;; on str0cts.)
I
"-, r,grlson - folt he h.g~ been led to believe thgt this would bo the case or his plat
,
w~1110 not recet~e ~n~rov~l, ~n0 the result is the s~~e. ~e asked the width of the street
t~n. (~O~0W"y it8elf is 32 feet, identic~l with street stand8rds riGht nOTI, and there
,
~G :'1. to~olš on the 'Plé1n ,'¡hich ~·;r. StocJ::well h,'1.S seen.) It \'l:tG ~'~r. CQrlGon's o:pinio'!l th0.t
the n'1:r':'J,?"é'f_T'h in: the otiDUl:l.tio!l rearlinr, flie e-enerally acceptable" should re!1d "Generally
C!1nnot be considered !'Iccentable ll!ltil revisions are M<"1de in th,~tt pInn" because the Prelir.'!-
in:'Jry T11~.n won't þe '~y:pl'oved until the !-;n,,;ineer h:1.s .'l!J!Jroved the entire drainage. "e felt
b'1.sic~lly everythi~~ is t~yin~ to be fin~lized here now. (l~. Burke expl~incd the draina~e
disnosal syste~, I" system of drg.in.~~e disposal of a catch b!lsis, is what is "~enerally
accenV'I.ble.fI !Te ~.lso str.!.ted the develo!1er will be required to present a letter of credit
or bond amau~tin~ to 15n percent,)
~~eci~l City Cou~cil ~~etin~
VoycMber 29, 1077 - '~Inutea
Pap;e 3
rfr. ~arl~nn - cuestioned what the developers r,qve 11~ in exchanGc for the City's settleMent.
TTe alao qucatIoned why thIs was delayed and dIdn't thInk It woa 011 the CIty'a fault
sne~ul:1tinr; they M:7..Y h:1.ve run r;hort of Money. ~e expressed irrit~tiQn that being in
cOMTIetition w~th them, dny tiMe there is trouble with the sa~e ty~e of business it hurts
A l1ttl~ c~1t~in~ ~robleMs and frustr~tions. It was his opinion it just wa3n't ~s convenicnt
fnr the~ to ret ~t this ~s it could ñ~ve been, part of the delay fell o~ the~, '-~e noted
W"''''11 ~tn.rt:tn,,: w:'Lth n DI;'\t, one Must stay with it until it is finiGhed. The sifin.'lnr, of
~ rt~velo~Ment cont~qct is st~nd:1.rd ~roced~re, not a give-In on theIr part, He felt the
~ity i~ betn~ mnre lenient wit~ them on the tiMe period between Gravelinß ~nd blacktopping
th~n it W~8 ITith hiM ~8 ~ develo~er. (l~. ~urke explained the bond would have to be given
before si~nins the ~in~l Pl~t ~s the Ordi n~nce provides. They have the S~Me time period,
h Months ~fter the ~n~~ov~l of the Preli~in~ry Pl~t by the PlanninG ComMission and the
Conncil, In which to fUe the "inal Pb.t, And that is how this whole thing got started,
Hr. Bur.ke ~t:?,ted t'1.cy <'1.re 8.nxious to Get this filed. l·1r. 1!awkins stated the lawsuit is
for ~151,()n() d'''''~es for dtlatory action on the part of the City tn proceeding with thIs
PIA.t :1nd r'. cl~iM th~t the City ho.s cone in and used the land for })nrkl....'1.c1 and convertinG
.-t t to our own '188. The llortrd authorized the work on that l;'J.nd uhiGh mi:::; 'hever given to
the CIty because the Dlat had never been fIled. They Dre givinr, u~ their claiM for d~m3ßcs.)
Mr. ~arlson - testiMony s~ys they were contacted and ~ave verb~l npproval on the parkland.
If the City is ~oì'l p,iving everything reqllirad in the Plat, why did we hold these business-
men llTI for 2* ye<1rs if we '!,'¡ere \'rro!:~ in doin~ so? (}~r. Burke stated that question strikes
at the heart of the lawsuit. The City h~s not been in error all Qlon~. So~e of Hr.
Crn'lson's st.:1.te~ents [!.!'e true on the delé1Y on their part and !JerhilI's the reasons. It is
~ard to reGonst~uct ex~ctly whQt took ~l~ce three to four years a~o. For some time there
h~d been so~e i~nlied authority thn.t the Preliminnry Plat had been approved ~nd there ì'l~S
80Me tt~e tn uhtch to file the ~in~l Dl~t. Thcy waIted too long and the City said the
nreli.~i..!'1.:" ·!'Y t'll~.t \'l;'1!1 void. At thQt time there was no discussion about w~at w~s taking
t11"'(:e vdth the "p.qrk. 1701" f)1")r.19 :t:'e,~r;on this un:'\'!'J!,roved '?l,qt got on a County mn.p. There WetS
''''!. r::nnvBrs~tir)n ...·dth !.~. 1f,'1Y() rel,'1.tiv9 to the develo'Prnent of that area. as Q park. The
issne ~_s if we Y!"1nt tr'J l111!'c'h~!1e the l'''.nd th!'ough inverse conderm'J.tion. ~.'J'. Burke cOM~ended
'!I.~..... (j:'1!'lR()::1' S fj.ne re1')llt.1. t~.on A.S a develo1')er.)
'!I'~r~ (j."!rl~(' n - ~t'"!ted he would not Grit~.ze the Council whatever they do bec'1.use they é\re :h
:t b.,rl ~'J'1i.t5''1'''.1 T-1'()ì'.rever, '1e didn't like \'fhn.t he sees 'here and felt thP1.t not once has the
n1'1n1'1-'i.:1~ ()r n~!'k8 r:-0;"!rn5J~Gions nur"'}oselv or kno'.'/inCl"ly ever caused Qny unnecessary del<"lY for
I ~ - ~ -'
hi~. H"'! ~Hr81)eG 1--tts oym intcrc::'Jts .'IT''.d felt these develoners should h~ve done the sar.:c.
,
TT~ S"f:!r;1.tl~ted 2.t 1'1.é'.y h:'1ve been lQcl: of funds or le.:tvinn; their optionG o~en for po.:;sible
pl",t c'h:"!.n.n;e'1 lr!te~, ';.'·'litin~ fo~ 'better zonin!,,:, etc. (~T. ~IéJ.w1:ins stated i!1 lool<:in.s at the
, . -
leG,'"!l issne8, he t,:"ied to come up ,',ri th \'lh,')t he felt v.'as ['.. re~.sonD..ble scttlcr.tent in vic\'!
nf the ~itY'G o~~n~ure ~n~ tn vieIT of the conduct of the developer.)
I
~~~Y0r ','!indGchitl reV5_8\'rGd <')ectio!l 9 .()3~ on 1:111'101" streets. The City'.8 fOI'r::.er c!l!:jineerin.:;
,
ftrT'!, Coro.G'11ting "'\"r'.~i_necrB Diversified, Gent a letter u!1on revie'!,'!in.r::; the plat stéltinr, the
ro~¿ ri~~t of w~Y ~~B bee!l ~idened to 66 feet in the rinal ?lat. Aþp3re~tly at one time
there ~~G ~nother set of h~rd shells for the ~ourth AdditIon. 'The Tm'm I3oa.rd .:\Imroved
, "
(;~(hr r,"'est ~r.:i.-rd Addi tj.on \'dth 50 feet fo!' r.J:inor Dtr'..eets and 66 feet for collector streets.
Zen to tn the n,J.,.d .~ddI tio~ ia 66 feet,,~d in the "'ourth Addition is 50 feet, !~e.yor
~.'tt!ldGr:h:ttl ('1te'1tioncd 'hm'! c~n th'!.8 be defined ;1.8 ;'1 minor street? Vr. Burke stated this
,
'.':,'1r; thb ·±nter:--retntj.on r;t~rted \'!ith the -p1.:1t and the C0.HSe of the trouble. In Decer.lber, 1973
C'hucl: 'R.":.n1:ey :J~te.'lT'ed b~fore the Tm'm Ronrd. It \T1S the "80.3rd'3 decision that their hard
shells be ~o fP.èt fo!' ~inor ~nd 66 feet for collector streets. The only docUMents that
òove he~n file" I hwe been "lith 50-foot eoseMents and noone knoVls of rmy hard shells tho.t
n~ve ever been ?~eGented to the City. At Go~e ~oint in tiMe rrn ~n~ineer recom~ended and the
r.i.tyr-:."1ye ~t'eli_mj.n~ry ~.1')"Drov'J.I for 50-foot !':linnr streets, and thrtt is the only thin,~ the
rjtty h~s.
~T'eci<11 r;i ty GOllneil ~-'~eetinr.
IT'''ve~l1e!' 29, 1977 - r-~inutes
PrJ,ge h
r:onn~il~ers()n 01"'ttel ~oted t1-te P!-eli:_1inctry Plo..t \'!1-S approved Octob9r 10, 1972, They had
11.!"lt5.l !t-rril IO, 1973 to file at which tiMe they were ~tven a 6-Month extension. Although
the extension w~s ~ive~ ~rior to that tiMe, it norM~lly should run frOM April 10, 1973, to
0ctobrJr IO, 1973. ~ccordin~ to the ~F,D letter, the Final Plat IT~S filed with the City on
()ct0ber (), 1973, one d~y before tho tiMe they h~d to file it, If that is true, accordin~
to Ordin~nce 10, Section 11.02, this pInt was npproved bec~usc of inaction by the City.
The ~n!";ineer ~oesn't revtm'¡ the f'·tn-'11 PIG.t unti.l it has been filed with the City, and then,
~ccordin~ to Ordin~~ce, the Glcr1: refers cOI'JÍes to the Enßineer. That apparently hQ9pened,
bec~HGe nt th~t tiMe our ~~~ineer said he reviewed the Fin;')l Plat drawn 10-9-73. Council-
~er8on Orttel su~~eGted the plat w~s filed with 66-foot easeMents and the hard shells ha~
dis"IPTlc::1red.
!-fr. Burke stated thÜ~) letter frO!'".1 C~D stD.tos a set of final plans Qnd specificD.tions consist
of a set of 4 drawin~s dated October 9, 1973, including the ijradinß and drainage :plans,
street ~lßr~, and profile in ~etQil. The ~ity héts thoDe docnment::: 'which .show 66-foot
street widths for streets, The letter states the Fi~al Plat is virtually ide~tical;
hm'lever, the ~ity doc~ not h~ve that ~i~al nlat with those specification~. They City
doesn't hove tho 66-foot streets on their plat, and that h~s been tho distinction all ~lon~,
g'"!yor ~:rLn.¿_r;l":hi tl COMMcnted the !>la!l.s ,'1.nd GT'ecificD.tioTI3 for 66-foot ~'ride streets mllst
confor~ to 0 ~l~t; the only offi.ci..o.l filins th,').t can try,.kc !,lace to malΠthis 60-dn.y rule
oT1e:rnti.ve is j_f the 1;'in,"'!,l Plo.t ~.G filed wtth the City. There is no record, and they h2ve
no 1'.rrr~r of T'rovi.n~ tr:1.t it ""·').G filed. ~T. Stock~ell stGted that not in all CGses does the
T'i.n"l ~10.t CO!'"!A to ~Üm f:t."o~ the City CIerI:; so~etiMes it comes dire~tly froM the develoT'er.
TTo'\'_rP-ver, he QIìC'1 not ':,Tite !1 letter to the Council n.bout it :prior to the time it has been
-f";.leri.
':,r,.,lly A~~tze~~1 17g17 ':.-'~_"t'd r.-".ke T);-i.ve - "13..'3 an eM"!jloyee ,'1t the tiMe élnd does nat rC8!111 a
~tn~l Pl~t cn~t~~ i_nto this office, n.nd he hasn't been ~onsuIted nbout this situation since
i t~0t ~_....,tn th~' ler";''\l st:>,G'e. "rhe develoner c~or:;e to nl:'1ke the del!:l.ys t~-'J.t took !JIace. If
t'!1e r;;_ty m,....l:c~ rist.:l1-:~G in the initi:"tl stétge, he D.sked ",hy are we obligated to concur in
the fin~l r,t~~e, 'Ie felt it would be f~r More fin~nci~lly beneficial to the City to lose
t1:e l,ïrrm:tt .'11".d bHY the l~nd throu~h conder1n:¡tion and r.l'Jl:e :l bi~ park out of it. There
nre I0~~-rQngc ~robleMs t~l~t could be very costly to ~eople livin~ in the northern ,art
of tl--t~ 8':t ty. _\ C'yn,rtor of a Million doll::1.rs for the l:'Jnd "/QuId be far less expcnsive than
th!"ee to four ~illion doll~rs to run se~ers up there. ~e felt there ~ould be enou~h people
to reti. ti'1n to :r<;'t') on thir:; order ar to force é1. referendurl in this rtctiO!l if it \'ras necesso.ry.
(;'~,'lYr)r '·.ri~r1schitl st-1.ted r'.!1ot~er develolment h~d been approved in 1972 or 1973 t!1<tt ltas
not been f~rrish~d in th:¡t ß~me section, which rleilnS an additional 51 lots will be deve1o~ed
~_G soon ~cS streets <1re }Jut in.)
I
Thr5_c TnDoTIne. 384(, 173 L'lne - ~~s concerned abaut the andition~l children that would be
co~~_nr tnto thel ~rc~_ with the cray/cled school conditions in District 15. Their schools
,'11'0 fi.11cò. to c!1_n::>.city no\'!; where <1.re they Going to put the addttional children?
I
~~fteen-Min11te recess ~t 9:05 ~.M.
T).~ve T~~1-,n. 17l~n() ~l"'ct~font .r;treet - felt it \,[.1.8n' t a cut and dried si tun.tion and felt the
~(11)ncil should do \'.r~at the ;"1eo,,;,1e in the ;:;.re,"1, "f.'1.nt; and if nccessrtry, ra to court.
I
'9'1'11 Sl1yõe"'. 2QS~ lr,7th Jf~ne '"., - ~r,I'ed toe ",~xi",u" jeop~rdy on the City's ,JRrt if the
~~.~~ w~s lost in court. "lould we r:~in 1'cnythinr, or would they still be able to go through
wi.t'-1 one-:Jcre lots. (Hr. Burl:'3 stated they cr1n't have the d,qT:'!.'1ges, D.nd they are inflated,
n110 tne, ~ls() be ~ble to ~lQt. !·~".yor ~'lindGchitl stated in a court D..ction OTIe possibility
\'!f)111r:1 be the City be re0uirerl to ncce:pt the DInt as is, \','hich is sub:::;t;1..ntially whD.t ia in
':-;'!"~~î_':'!l Ci.ty ~()unc1_1 Heetin,r-;
l!ovembe!' 2Q, 1977 - l':inutes
n,,,!_ ,~e ~
the ~ettleMent G~ree~ent. If the court SQYs the developers CRn't file the Dlat as is but
tne City h~r, done Q~M8~eS QS f.'1r <'1.8 the p~rk is concerned, the ~orst case would be weld
have to rr:.l!'chase the land, ray our costs in the land purc'hase a!1d his Qttorney and apþraisor
for the l8.~d Pl1rchase, which would be considerably belm1f ~15l,00().)
Payor '7intischitl also r!"\.Ü1ed the followinG points about the settlement stirmlation: allcm-
i~~ more collector roads to COMe out onto Tulip creates a safety factor as three streets
are co~tn~ out onto Tuli~ in less than 1050 feet ahd it would require a Varié1hCe; if the
settlement is a~Þroved, it would require a Va!'iance from Ordinance 43, which doesn't allow
-IN::8 thGTI 2} acre lots.
Councilner30n T.IC'1.chinski <1S1Œd vrhat han1Jens i!1 the CGoe 50 - 50 hult is found, !!r, Bur!Œ
stated a court m~y ~llo~ the filinc of onc-acre lots and allow adjuGt~ents as safety and
he",lt~ factors ~rovide, He has not bee" of the o"inion that the court is goih['; to allow
the ~lattinr, and then ~SseGG some ty~e of daMaßes. Council~erson Lachinski stated if we
lose More than 70 þercent, the~e is no way the City i~ [';oing to end up with that land, If
we were to win in court totally, they could sttll COMe in and plat it at 2;"\- acres, !,T.
llur',:e :1~reed and there \'1ould remrdn a question about their ability to file a one-acre
't'lRt, ~ettin~ b~ck to t~e Dro~Qsition thnt we were in settle~ent at the tir.e the Ordinance
".r~_s R~::ti.n chanr;ed.
C()l1!1~i.l1"!er:'>()n Orttel folt if ì'!e went to court anrì lost 50 - 50 ê1nd they were allowed to
fi.le l-ac~e Pl~t, jt wou11 be the one filed here; and he felt that ~ould be the Most
l()p;i.~~l w~y to COMe out because of the inforr.1~tion here and because of the Hinutcs here
bei'1t'!: ':1.'"ðe ~y,~_ilable to them. 17~r"p. that to h<1.TJTJen, we would C:ld u:? wit'\-¡ l~l lots and over
~n ac~e less D~rl~lrrnd, possibly not havin~ the control over the on~ineerinG stand<1rds,
an~ ~~ b~se~enti~levnttons on the ~l~t. So he felt "/e would be gi viTI/:; u:') Q. lot more than
f";r)i.n": wit~ the Bti~,tl::>,tton é1sree"".ent.
I
'T-~()TTO'!'T 'hy '_':indf1chitl, tr,<'1t the City Council, City of Andover, refuse to agree to the
,
nro,-,onen settle:"ent ,mder letter frOM 1'o.rlin Greenburr; dated October 28, 1977, and that
vIe terninate .'1n~' future discussiono......about settler.¡ent D.nd we tho C3.se liticated. !-Iotion
~i.es for lact: of Q seconrt.
I
l-rnTT()'\: by 1···inr1s~hitl th.:1,t \'Ie refuse to -2Gree to the settler.1ent of H'J.rlin Grcehbur~, d:>.ted
October 28, 107!, !~tion dies for lack of a second.
~,~()r:'1:r()~T by 'r"1..nderI,,"1~n, :;econr1ed by !1cClure, t'hat the City Coun~il, City of Andover, <1.ccept
t~e a"ended !;ettlo"ent Stipulation ,ryj_th '~"yo and Ba"key, (.~ee Resolution r1138-7)
'.r()'r~ n~~ ~iOr:'I()"':: YJ;'3-1,<"1chinski, t:cC¡urc, Orttel, VanderTßün; "'~O-r!indGchi tl
1'~ntion carried.
u,-:¡,yo!' "Tind'"jchi tl - I thin1:: it is :J. cor~1'plcte nellout of Qur Ordin<1TIces and rer;U.latiohs in
t'l1.D Clty. I
~'~n"'TrV'T by l':~C::lnre to (1_djrmrn.
"r. Arntzen - sl"ten r:0unc;.lne!'sons O,.ttel "nd r..,chinski ",,,,de 'In oath to residents when
~~"'1,!,)"Itro;~în~ 1.'\"]1: ye¿tr tney wOllId al\'lf"-ys sup!'ort w'hrtt the Majority of the residents wanted.
~nw ~~c they ~01n~ to eXnl~jn this? (Councilpcrson Orttel didn't believe he ever m~dc
tne 8t~teMent hè would SU?~0Tt the n~jority on a localized i8sue. Fe didn't believe
,
tne ~ettti_()n rept'esent3 G r.¡ajOI'ity of the ~eo:rle in that <3.re,:l êJ.S it contrlinG only 100
st~n,'ltllt'ec; 0ut of over 4()f) residents.)
~Tl9ci!'1.l ~i ty r;oun~il i-~eetin.~
""nve'Mber 29, 1977 - 1~tnutes
T'."1r::e h
Pr. T-"ishel - eX!,l"'es!1ed disn!,point!1ent in the vote becau3û the petition brought in re-
~resented the majority opinion, anð no one in attendance expressed support for the
settle'Ment ~~reCMGnt.
Poi"l1t of order - Councilperson ~'~c~lure \':ithdrew hi3 ['¡otion to adjourn.
!-~r.. Kishel continued, the Council ~~s elected to protect the heolth, education, and welfare
of the City of ~ndover, and he didn't feel they were doin~ a good job by acccptin~ the
ri"!"'onosed settler:!ent bec.1_usc it is definitely aGainst all the criteria presented to us.
':Te com~cnded the ~~QY01'" h:tr:hly for hi:] st.'1.11d on the issue throughout the entire -proceedinß3
~Plr] felt the ~'tblic wasn't ~.'1de a11,rQre of ðll the facts except what was done by the r~a.yor.
Cnuncjl~err;on 0rttel - ~he extent of the lawsuit dollarwiBe amounted to roughly our an!lual
t~_x levy. This is not just R loc~l i~Gue with 200 homes but the entire City of 2,000
nO"'l9s. l'e ~lso àIdn' t feel the sel'l9r is a valId issue.
¡;(' 1tncil~erson Tnchinsld. alr10 felt the Gei'rer issue was not a valid issue and sté1ted he
hr~rl invited ~e()T'le into 1-¡is home to discuss this situation, several from the directly
.': ffe~ted r!!'eq; r.t'I_d 0'tt of ::1.11 the reo!,le, with one exception who indicated he would
fi~ht it O~ ~rincirle, all 8~id we do not h~ve Q very stron~ case if the facts are read
in senuenti~l orde~. ~he City did not Maintqin the tYT-e of records and punctuality on
thoRe ~.teMs ns it does today. The develoner is not ri~ht In this, but the City is not 100
nercent correct eithe~; ~nd be~Guse of that, we're not 0oin~ to COMe out on toP.
Hayor l.','indschit1 - stated the esti~é1te that WrlS given as far dS our ex:posure in this case::
W~R ~~nroxiMGtely ~15,O00.. (Council!,erson Orttel com'Oented that tho.t \'/OS the !'oyor's
estiMote nnd dId not include lego.l fees,)
1i0b .Si.!"lnn. õg2S 173rd Jane - asked a hypothetical question. If :he brouGht in a set of
blueprints of <'1 house !J.e wants to build, he received a letter from the BuildinG Inspector
~3yin~ the houGe ~l~n w~s ~nproved, but then the City lost the pIons, i'!auld the City
still nllow hi", to build thot house? (Gouncilperson Orttel felt it would be the City's
¥ry\11t if the bluen~ints ~erc lost; and yes, he would be nble to build his house, ~'~é1yor
T·rtn'Ì.s-:~itl felt 0bv2.olls1y :rl0t. Conncllrerson I~cClure felt the City ,',rould not turn hiT:'!
d0vrn "fter a~:rrovrt.l \,!!1.8 ro;-iyen Gven thOl1~h the City lost the -plans. CouncilperGon
Orttel st.qted Ordin,"'tnce 10 states \'lh:qt j,o required of a developer ,~'md of the City. In
ni.s ontn;~n, thel rity definitely did not abide by tbe Ordinance; therefore, State Statutes
st~te t1-¡'.t ~h".t rlat Ins '~J1!,roved beCC111se of in"cti,on on t1-¡e CIty's ""rt.)
't-r11"!'1 ";'lo!'M-;'7). 17318 nltJc~{f(j0t - felt the þ!'~l!Jose of the !Jublic twcting is to s;1r.Jple the
+:~'r' T'fn' ðf the T'ltvli.c, to he I!, the :;o'1TIcil for!"!'11Jln.te it's decision. "-{e felt the Council
è""'!e tn tl-¡c !"1eeti'1,"': wi.th t'hei.r dec:ts:i.ons .qlre,'J.dy M,:>,de. ~hose opinions \'Jere not changed
eV~'!1 t'1.rJ1l",:1 evc7:'Y ""IE'r':>on nare s~oke 5,n oPPoR~_tion to the way you v0ted.. !fe questioned if
t~_e r;ounc5_J., w:'ttl~ the exce-rtion of Gouncilperson T..-'1chinski, tolked to the !'eople in the
nfli.~nbnrho0d th~t 0re ~0in~ to be Gffected by that directly. ~e ex~reG8ed disapDointMent
I' . ..
i_~ the r,011!1~il's ldeci~~.f)~.
r;ouYJ.cil"t")erson ,\.r,"_:nðerV'~0n - lent her file folder on M·'1terial to residents in the area.
~re of~ered ~n i1vtt3tion 0t the 1é1~t ~eeting to nnyone who'wdnted to talk with her to
c~ll. ~he did ~~t receive ~ny tele~~one calle. She ex,ressed sorrow th~t the decision
~~rle is 'Innonuln~, but she h~~ ~~de ~ decision on it.
I
'~'Pe!;tal City Council I1eetin,;
nr')v~T":be1:" 2Q, 1077 - ~~inl1teG
'P.-;r:e 7
H()'T'Tn~T by V,'1ndcrrJ~é1.n, .\")ecnnded by ~:cr;lure, to Gdjourn the ~eetin~.
'~1"" . ~rnt7.en - faIt th~t the ~ity of Andover ~ent on record to develo~ers ~s beinG an
e~8Y t~ke, ~n o~en admission to ~ develo~er in the room that he W3S lead to believe th~t
!¡p- !¡~d to do "o",ethin~ he didn I t 'w.ve to do, é1.r.d that we nre ~ow o~en for scver~l la~-
~'Pl"¡_ ts f!"oT:'! dcvclone!'."'> foroed to nnt in GG-foot wide streets in the p.~st severl11 ye,qrs thl1t
r.t"'lJld ~o fé!.r nnd above the "t;l~l,nn() t~lked ~.bout here.
Ht1tiJH'!: cr\.T'!'i~d l1.l"!:.':u...:tn'111c¡ly.
~~eAt4'.l1,",: ~rtj('l1Jrned n.t 9:ltr:; n.M.
'?esr'f:H~tf'llly ~lJbMttted,
'0\c ~~~L
~ C'"~~ CA.. \ tLc':
Vé?rcellA. A. T'e.'1c'h
~ec0rdin~ ~ecretary
~ :\11
f'
,1
(l
"
.-~1~·'
,(I'
r I-
" _0'
hl:;¡
lþ'
I
I