HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC April 21, 1987
,I -' J,
'1'" ,+-
ANDOVER MEETING 4/21/87
PLEASE ADD TO AGENDA:
1. Schedule of Projects.
2. Approve Compo Plan Amend. & Refer to Planning & Zoning for hearing.
3. CR18 Wetlands EAW Bridge Alternatives.
4. Commercial Parb-Prat :Revievr;;,
~
1 }
J,r
WHAT'S HAPPENING?
***Board of Review April 23, 1987
***Dog Clinic May 9, 1987
***The City's computer will arrive in early May.
We are scheduling training sessions.
. If) -~ '--
fl ~\ ~ ,
COON CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT /~"
Bunker Hills Activities Center ' /!t
550 NW Bunker Lake Blvd.
Anoka, Minnesota 55304
\
April 10, 1987
Gerald Windschitl
Jim Schrantz
City of Andover
1685 N.W. Crosstown Blvd
Andover, Mn. 55304
The Coon Creek Watershed District Board of Managers would like to
meet with you to find out if there are some low areas in the City of
Andover along Ditch 57 and/or its branch ditches which could be used
as holding ponds for drainage. This is part of the enhancement of
Ditch 57 project.
I would appreciate it if you would give me a call so we can set up
this appointment.
Sincerely,
O,YY1.
J~~~~_A. J'
A. M. Sannerud, District Administrator
Coon Creek Watershed District
ANS:s
cc: Mel Schulte
Harold Sheff
Ed Matthiesen
Ken Slyzuk
~
LAW OFFICES OF
10 CC.
#'
fjz/ 1~7
. .
SUITE \01
299 COON RAPIDS BOULEVARD
COON RAPIDS. MINNESOTA S5433
PHONE (612) 784-2998
Burke oltd Jlowkilts
JOHN M, BURKE
WILLIAM G. HAWKINS
BARRY M, ROBINSON
April 20, 1987
Mr. James E. Schrantz
Andover City Hall
1685 Crosstown Blvd.
Andover, MN 55304
Re: Hanson Boulevard - Improvement Project No. 83-1
Dear Jim:
..;;'
Enclosed please find a Motion that I have just received in
regard to the Hanson Boulevard assessment appeal. As you can
see the appellants are arguing that the City, as a matter of
law, does not have the right to assess the cost of right-of-way
acquisition for Hanson Boulevard. It is their contention that
the acquisition by itself does not constitute an "improvement"
under Chapter 429 and therefore is not assessable. I do not
believe the argument has any merit since the statute clearly
indicates that an improvement includes acquiring streets;
however, I nevertheless thought the Council should be aware of
this position. I will keep you posted regarding the outcome of
this matter.
~.
William G. Hawkins
WGH:mk
Enc.
y
'":'"
STATE OF MINNESOTA
DISTRICT COURT
COUNTY OF ANOKA
TENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
----------------------------------------
In the Matter of the City of Andover,
Minnesota, Special Assessments for
Improvement Project No. 83-1/Hanson
Boulevard.
NOTICE OF MOTION
AND MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT
----------------------------------------
TO: Respondents and their attorney, William G. Hawkins, 299 Coon Rapids Boulevard,
Suite 101, Coon Rapids, MN 55433
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE, that on Tuesday, April 28, 1987, at 10:00 a.m. or as soon thereafter
as counsel may commence, pursuant to Rule 56 of the Minnesota Rules of Civil Procedure,
Petitioners herein, Winslow I Ho1asek; Richard J. Schneider and Stella B. Schneider;
Lora Grace Hamilton; Curtis J. Steffensen; Lawana Murney, Personal Representative of
the Estate of George Peterson, Jr., deceased; Maynard D. Ape1 and Eleanor M. Ape1;
Edward C. Lutz, Jr. and Joyce E. Lutz; and Santa's Tree Farm, a partnership consisting
of Roger J. Gupton, Percy C. Tomlinson, Charles H. Rothschild III and Robert J. Engelking,
by and through their counsel, Babcock, Locher, Neilson & Mannella, and Stephen J. Nash,
Esq., 118 East Main Street, Anoka, Minnesota 55303, will move this Court for Summary
Judgment based upon the attached Petitioners' Memorandum of Law in Support of Their
Motion for Summary Judgment, and all of the materials on file with the Court.
April
r A, 1987
BABCOCK, LOCHER, NEILSON & MANNELLA
By:
,,;zEIt 9~
Attorney I.D. No. 15167
118 East Main Street
Anoka, MN 55303
(612) 421-5151
Attorney for Petitioners
,,----
w"
STATE OF MINNESOTA
DISTRICT COURT
COUNTY OF ANOKA
TENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
-----------------------------
In the Matter of the City of Andover,
Minnesota, Special Assessments for
Improvement project No. 83-l/Hanson
Boulevard.
PETITIONERS' MEMORANDUM
OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF
THEIR MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT
-----------------------------
Petitioners, Winslow I. Holasek; Richard J. Schneider and
Stella B. Schneider; Lora Grace Hamilton; Curtis J. Steffensen;
Lawana Murney, Personal Representative of the Estate of George
Peterson, Jr., deceased; Maynard D. Apel and Eleanor M. Apel;
Edward C. Lutz, Jr. and Joyce E. Lutz; and Santa's Tree Farm, a
partnership consisting of Roger J. Gupton, Percy C. Tomlinson,
Char les H. Rothschild III and Robert J. Engelking, (hereinafter
referred to as "PETITIONERS") submit this Memorandum of Law in
Support of Their Motion for Summary Judgment against the City of
Andover (hereinafter referred to as "ANDOVER") for an Order
requiring ANDOVER to satisfy, of record, each and every special
assessment levied against PETITIONERS' property as set forth in
PETITIONERS' Petition filed herein.
~, ."",-'i~ci
I. STATEMENT OF FACTS
PETITIONERS are each fee owners of real property which
adjoins H~nson Boulevard in Andover, Minnesota. See Petition dated
March 19, 1986, filed in the above-entitled matter (hereinafter
referred to as "PETITION") at Paragraphs 1, 3, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15 and
17. In addition, PETITIONERS ,- property was assessed by theC.i ty of
Andover, Minnesota (hereinafter referred to as "ANDOVER") for
-1-
Project No. 83-l/Hanson Boulevard (hereinafter referred to as
"HANSON BOULEVARD PROJECT"). See PETITION at Paragraphs 2,4,8,
10, 12, 14, 16 and 18. The HANSON BOULEVARD PROJECT is wholly
within the city limits of ANDOVER.
On September 28, 1982, ANDOVER and the Anoka County
entered into a joint powers agreement, a copy of which is attached
hereto as Exhibit "A". Said joint powers agreement provided that
ANDOVER was only responsible for the costs necessary in acquiring
the right-of-way for the HANSON BOULEVARD PROJECT while the County
of Anoka was responsible for all other costs associated with the
actual construction of the roadway. See ANDOVER I S Answers to
Interrogatories attached hereto as Exhibit "B", Answers 1 and 2.
ANDOVER acquired the right-of-way for the HANSON BOULEVARD
PROJECT at a total cost of $62,995.00. See Notice of Hearing on
Proposed Assessment City of Andover, Minnesota Project No. 83-
l/Hanson Boulevard Andover Boulevard to l6lst Avenue N.W. attached
hereto as Exhibit "C". On February 18, 1986, ANDOVER approved by
resolution, the special assessments for the HANSON BOULEVARD
PROJECT as.set'---forth in the PETITION. _ Said special assessments
relate solely to ANDOVER'S cost of acquiring the right-of-way for
the HANSON BOULEVARD PROJECT.
PETITIONERS served a Notice of Appeal and Peti tion on
ANDOVER on March 20, 1986 and filed the same in the above-entitled
matter on March 21, 1986.
-2-
II. ISSUES
1. Whether, pursuant to Minnesota Chapter 429, the
acquisi tion and construction of the county highway in the HANSON
BOULEVARD PROJECT consisted of an "improvement" whose costs can be
recovered by special assessments against PETITIONERS' property?
2. Whether the special assessments imposed by ANDOVER
exceeded the benefits that the PETITIONERS' property received from
any statutory improvement?
II I . LEGAL ARGUMENT
Minnesota Rule of Civil procedure 56.03 states that the
court shall render summary judgment if the pleadings, dispositions,
answers to interrogatories and admissions on file, together with
the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to
any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a
judgment as a matter of law.
See Zappa v. Fahey, 310 Minn. 555,
245 N.W.20 258, 259 (1976).
A. As a matter of
Petitioner's property pursuant
acquisition of the right-of-way
of the highway itself.
Municipalities are authorized to~l~LV'y__special assessments
law, the only "improvement" to
to Minnesota Chapter 429 is the
easement and not the construction
to
pay
for
local
improvements.
Minnesota Chapter
429.
"Municipality" is defined by MINN. STAT. S 429.011, Subd. 2, 2a &
2b. "Improvement" is defined by MINN. STAT. S 429.011, Subd. 5 and
must be specifically identified by MINN. STAT. S 429.021, Subd.
1. Peterson v. City of Elk River, 312 N.W.2d 243 (Minn. 1981).
Clearly ANDOVER is a "municipality" as defined by
statute.
Anoka County until April 27, 1984, however, was only
-3-
defined as a "municipality"
"
in the case of construction,
reconstruction or improvement of a county state-aid highway or
county highway... outside of the boundaries of any city" (emphasis
added)
MINN. STAT S 429.011, Subd. 2a.
Since ANDOVER and the
County of Anoka entered into the joint powers agreements for the
HANSON BOULEVARD PROJECT on september 28, 1982, and since the
HANSON BOULEVARD PROJECT was located within the boundaries of the
City of Andover, the County of Anoka would not be considered to be
a "municipality" with regards to the construction of County State -
Aid Highway Number 78 (the HANSON BOULEVARD PROJECT).
Since a
"municipality" did not construct the roadway in the HANSON
BOULEVARD PROJECT, the roadway itself cannot be considered an
"improvement" under Chapter 429.
In addition, even if the county was a municipality as
defined by statute, the construction by the county of the highway
in the HANSON BOULEVARD PROJECT would not consti tute an
"improvement" as defined by MINN. STAT. S 429.011, Subd. 5. Said
statute provides as follows:
"Improvement" means any type of improvement,~ made
under authority granted by section 429_._021, and in~
the case of a county is limi ted to the
construction, reconstruction, or improvement of a
county state-aid highway or county highway
including curbs and gutters and storm sewers
outside of the boundaries of any city. (emphasis
added) .
-4-
;.:.
Therefore, with regards to the HANSON BOULEVARD PROJECT,
/
the only possible "improvement" for special assessment purposes
would be ANDOVERS acquisition of the right-of-way.
ANDOVER may attempt to argue that MINN. STAT. S 429.051
allows them to impose special assessments based upon the benefits
deri ved from the HANSON BOULEVARD PROJECT as a whole even though
the county built the road.
MINN. STAT. S 429.051 provides, in
part, as follows:
The cost of any improvement, or any part thereof,
may be assessed upon property benefited by the
improvement, based upon the benefits received,
whether or not the property abuts on the
improvement and whether or not any part of the cost
of the improvement is paid from the county state-
aid highway fund, the municipal state-aid street
fund, or the trunk highway fund. (emphasis added).
As set fort~ earlier, the only "improvement" in the HANSON
i:."
BOULEVARD PROJECT was the acquisition of the right-of-way.
Consequently, the assessments by ANDOVER must be based upon the
benefits each property derived from that improvement, not from the
highway i tse 1f.
The only case which has looked at this particular statute
allowed a ci ty to_impose~ sp~ci.al _a~sessments based upon the
benefits received from the improvement ofa street even though the
commissioner of highways reimbursed the city out of state-aid funds
in the amount of $34,650.77.
In Re Mackubin Street, Minn., 155
N.W.2d 905, 906 (1968). The total contribution by the city after
they were reimbursed was $2,867.65. Id.
Mackubin is distinguishable from the present case in that,
unlike ANDOVER, the city did complete the whole project and then
-5-
was reimbursed.
In Mackubin then the whole project was an
"improvement" and the city was allowed to impose special
assessments based upon said improvement even though it was
ultimately reimbursed for the cost of most of the project. In the
present case, ANDOVERS position would be correct if they had in
fact constructed the highway and were later reimbursed.
If ANDOVER is allowed to impose special assessments based
upon benefits received from a highway that is built by the county
within city limits simply because they entered into a joint powers
agreement with the county, then MINN. STAT. S 429.011, Subd' s 2a
and 5 and MINN. STAT.
S 429.021, Subd.
1. are rendered
meaningless.
MINN. STAT. S 429.051 does not, however, attempt to
redefine "improvement".
It simply says that cities may impose
special assessments for benefits received from an improvement, even
;.
if the improvement is ultimately paid for from the county state-aid
highway fund, the municipal state-aid street fund or the trunk
highway fund. A joint powers agreement then does not make a "non-
improvement" into an "improvement." And, since the construction by
the county of a highway within a city in 1982 was not an
improvement, the entering into a joint powers agreement to build
'I
I
the same highway does not, by itself, make that highway an
improvemen t.
In conclusion, since ANDOVERS only participation in the
HANSON BOULEVARD PROJECT was to acquire the right-of-way, pursuant
to MINN. STAT.S ,429.011, Subd.'s 2a and 5 and MINN. STAT. S
-6-
429.021, Subd. 1, the only "improvement" upon which a special
assessment may be imposed is the right-of-way itself.
B.
no benefit
result, any
As a matter of law, the PETITIONERS' property received
from any statutorily allowed improvement and, as a
special assessment levied by ANDOVER was improper.
A special assessment to recover the cost of an improvement
cannot exceed the special benefit that the property realizes
because of that improvement. In other words, it must be determined
whether the market value of the property increased as a result of
the improvement. In Re village of Burnsville, 245 N.W.2d 445, 450
(Minn. 1976).
In the present case then, the question to be asked is
this: Did ANDOVERS acquisition of the roadway easement, in-and-of-
itself, increase the market value of PETITIONERS' property? And
the answer, quite simply, is no. In fact, by itself, the easement
decreased the market value of PETITIONERS' property.
Normally this determination would be a factual one. One
that could not be determined on a motion for summary judgment.
When a factual determination, however, is such that no reasonable
person would disagree, such a factual determination .can be made.
~:;","..7,.-~ .
In addition, Minnesota law is well established that an
adv~rse party may not rest upon mere denials or statements in his
~
pleadings but must present specific facts showing that there is a
genuine issue for trial.
MINN. R. CIV. P. 56.05; Valentine v.
Conticommodity SVS., Inc., 344 N.W.2d 405, 406 (Minn. 1984).
It is difficult to see how ANDOVER could even argue that a,
public right-of-way over someone's property would benefit that
-7-
. .
property. Once a roadway is built, arguably, the property owner
would benefit. Until that road is built, however, the owner
receives no benefit. Prior to the acquisition of an easement a
property owner has unrestricted use of his or her property,
including the right to exclude others. Once the easement is
acquired, however, a property owners rights are limited with regard
to the use of the property covered by the easement. Specifically,
the property owner can not exclude the general public from using
this property in a manner that is consistent with the terms of the
easement.
If the acquisition of a right-of-way easement benefited
the property owner, there would be no need for the governmental
unit acquiring the easement to compensate the property owner. Yet,
ANDOVER compensated each of the PETITIONERS when it took the right-
of-way easement for the HANSON BOULEVARD PROJECT. ANDOVER,
therefore, implicitly acknowledged that their acquisi Hon of the
right-of-way easement decreased the market value of PETITIONERS
property. For ANDOVER to pay PETITIONERS money to compensate them
for the de''C'reased value 'of t.heir property which resulted from the
acquisition of the right-of-way easement and then to assess those
same PETITIONERS alleging the increased value of their property
which resulted from the acquisi Hon of same right-of-way easement
is illogical and unjust. ANDOVER is then effectively taking
property without compensating the owners of that property.
In summary, ANDOVERS only "improvement" consisted of the
acquisition of the right-of-way easement. Said right-of-way
-8-
,./
easement, in-and-of-itself, does not benefit the PETITIONERS'
property but, in fact, damages PETITIONERS' property.
Since a
special assessment cannot exceed the benefits each property has
received from the improvements, no special assessment can be
permitted to recover the cost of acquiring the right-of-way
easement for the HANSON BOULEVARD PROJECT.
III. CONCLUSION
wi th regards to the HANSON BOULEVARD PROJECT, the only
statutory "improvement" was the acquisition of the right-Of-way
easement. A special assessment is only permitted to be imposed on
properties benefited by those improvements and must not exceed
those benefi ts.
Since the right-of-way easement did not benefit
the PETITIONERS' property, no special assessment is permitted.
PETITIONERS, therefore, respectfully, ask that the Court order said
special assessment to be null and void and order that the City of
Andover satisfy them of record.
(})7 -f1 ""\
Dated this _ day of
ApJ
, 1987.
BABCOCK, LOCHER, NEILSON.& MANNELLA
BY'~ 9/<h(
ep en J. ,ACfash '
Attorney I.D. No. 151567
Attorney for Petitioners
118 East Main Street
Anoka, MN 55303
(612) 421-5151
-9:"
o
o
o
7:30 P.l'i
CITY of ANDOVER
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING - APRIL 21, 1987 - AGENDA
1. Call to order
2. Resident Forum
3. Agenda Approval
4. Senator Greg Dahl
5. Long Range Community Education Plan/Melanie DeLuca
6. Discussion Items
a. Vacation of Easement/Nightingale Estates 3rd
Addition Public Hearing
b. Vacation of Easement/Partridge Street/The Oaks
Public Hearing
c. Bond Sale/Andover Limited Partners
d. Turnberry Sketch Plan
e.
7. Staff, Commission, Committee
a. Approve Safety Manual
b. Accept Resignation/J. Pirk1/P&Z
8. Non-Discussion Items
a. Declare Adequacy of Petition/Stop Signs/135th
& Jonquil l\rea
b. Receive Feasibility Report/Order Public Hearing/
Forest Meadows Area/IP87-5
c. Approve CSAH 18 Contract
d.
9. Approval of Minutes
10. Approval of Claims
11. Adjournment
o
o
o
CITY OF ANDOVER
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACfION
DATE ADd 1 /1. 1 gA7
AGENDA SECTION
NO. Senator Greg Dahl
ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT
Admin.
ITEM
NO.
4
BY: Vicki Vo1k
Senator Dahl will not be at the meeting because of committee
hearings.
If Council has any concerns regarding legislation, Senator
Dahl would like to have you either call him at 296-5003 or
write to him.
MOTION BY
TO
COUNCIL ACTION
SECOND BY
o
AGENDA SECTION
NO. Long Range
ITEM
NO.
o
o
MOTION BY
TO
CITY OF ANDOVER
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACfION
DATE Anril?l 19~n
ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT
Admin.
5.
BY:
Vicki Volk
Melanie DeLuca will be at the meeting to discuss the
attached plan with Council.
Attach: Long Range Community
Education Plan
COUNCIL ACTION
SECOND BY
ANDOVER COMMUNITY EDUCATION LONG RANGE PLAN
o 1986-87
40 hr./wK
20 hr' ./wk
23 hr./wk
Coordinator
Assistant Coordinator
Secretary
1987-88
Add an evening aide/K.C. Program Assistant at 15hr./wk to do Key
Communicator recruitment and follow-up and evening aide duties.
5 hrs./wK paid for by program fees
10 hrs./wK funded by city
1988-89
New Andover elementary school becomes the center for communi ty education
services in the city.
Cr'ooked LaKe School becomes a sate 11 i te progr'am.
OPTION 1
o
Andover Elementary
Full time Coordinator
20 hr./wk Program Assistant
20 hr./wK K.C. Assistant/building aide
20 hr./wK Secretary
Cr'ooKed LaKe
20 hr./wK Program Assistant
15 hr./wK Secretary
building aide (pd by fees, used as needed)
ProQram Effects
Maintain full preschool and youth programs at each school. Offer
current number of family, and adult programs with some held at each
school.
Expand teen activities (if slJitable facility is av."ilable) to include a
room for stereo, board games, classes, discussion groups, etc., as well
as gym activities and special events.
OPTI ON 2
Same staffing as above except the Andover Assistant Coordinator would be
at 30 hr' s . /1"K .
ProQr'am Effec t
o
Full preschool, youth, family and adult programs would be offered at
each school (120-150 classes versus the current 60-75 that are offered
each quar.ter).
Expanded teen ac t i v it i es as. 1 i s.ted abc"Je.
Senior Citizen classes and activities offered.
o
o
o
OTHER EFFECTS
Expand summer recreation program to include both school sites.
Continue with one Andover Community Advisory Council which oversees Key
Communicator Program and community-wide projects. Have two separate
school committees to deal with building level concerns.
Continue expanding number of Key Communicator Neighborhoods with better
recruitment, training and support of Key Communicator Volunteers by
Coordinator, Key Communicator Assistant and Sector Leaders (lead
volunteers in each section of the city).
Large i ncr.ease expec ted in fac i 1 i ty use and adu 1 t recrea t i on due to the
new faci 1 i ties.
BUDGET EFFECTS
Budget Approved in 1986
21,240
6,000
27,240
percentage of Coordinator's salary
Assistant Coordinator
NOTE: 6100 for the 87 summer program and subsequent
summer amounts are not included in totals.
Proposed Budget 1987-88
22,400
6,422
2,520
31,342
percentage of Coordinator's salary
Assistant Coordinator
Key Communicator Assist./Evening Aide
Projected Budget 1988-89
OPTI ON 1
23,600
6,688
6,080
3,000
500
39,868
OPTI ON 2
23,600
6,688
9,120
3,000
500
42,908
percentage of Coordinator's salary
C.L. Assistant Coordinator
Andover Assistant Coordinator
K.C. Assistant/Evening Aide
K. C. Pr i n t i ng
percentage of Coordinator's salary
C.L. Assistant Coordinator
Andover Assistant Coordinator
K.C. Assistant/Evening Aide
K. C. Pr i n tin g
o
o
o
1.\.;.
i\
',.
BUDGET WORKSHEET
1987-1988
CROOKED LAKE COMMUNITY SCHOOL
Expend i tur'es
182 Coordinator
70% pd by city
150 Secretary
Rate
Hours/Day
Days/Year'
Vacation Pay
K.C. Summer- hrs
(30 h r s . )
1 86 Ins t r u c tor s
Building Aide/K.C. Assistant
180 Days/3hrs. each/$7
10 hrs. pd by city
5 hrs. pd by fees
180 Ass. Coordinator
Rate
Hour's/Day
Days/Year
397 Other Expense
Includes class and office
suppl ies, newsletter pc,stage,
etc.
423 Printing In House
Brochure Covers (3)
Misc Flyers
Key Communicator
200
495 Purchased Services
Kar-a te
50 students/$16/7 sessions
.Jazzer-c i se
40 students/$15.30/7 sess.
Other Classes $300/Qtr.
901 Mil e age
442 Transportation
950 Refur,ds
$32000
$7170
8.05
4.6
180
263
242
6240
$10020
2520
1260
$6422
8.45
4
180
$4500
$800
300
300
$10833
6720
3213
900
$700
$600
$700
o
398 Administrative Allocation
$1648
TOTAL EXPENDITURES
$75.393
INCOME
City
$31,342
Distr'ict
$16,770 NOTE: does not reflect
fringe benefit expenditure
Fees
$27,281
TOTAL INCOME
1;.75,393
o
o
o
CITY OF ANDOVER
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACfION
DATE ADri1 21. 1987
ITEM Vacation of Easement/
NO. 6/a Nightingale 3rd
BY: Vicki Vo1k
APPRO(gE OR
AGENDA
,
Ii
AGENDA SECTION
NO. Discussion
ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT
Administration
A public hearing has been scheduled for 7:30 P.M. for
the vacation of an easement used for turnaround purposes
in Nightingale Estates 3rd Addition.
Due to the extension of 154th Lane N.W., this easement
is no longer necessary.
Attached is an ordinance vacating the easement.
V
Attach: Ordinance
Public Hearing Notice
Request for Vacation
COUNCIL ACTION
MOTION BY
TO
SECOND BY
o
o
o
CITY of ANDOVER
CITY OF ANDOVER
COUNTY OF ANOKA
STATE OF MINNESOTA
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
The City Council of the City of Andover will hold a public
hearing at 7:30 P.M., Tuesday, April 21, 1987 at the Andover
City Hall, 1685 Crosstown Boulevard N.W., Andover, MN to
consider the vacation of an easement used for turnaround
purposes, described as 'That part of Lot 1, Block 1 and
that part of Lot 1, B1cok 2, Nightingale Estates Third
Addition lying within that part of the SW~ of the NW~ of
Section 22, Township 32, Range 24, Anoka County, Minnesota,
lying within the circumference of a circle having a radius
of 60.00 feet, the center of said circle bieng a point
distant 60.00 feet Northwesterly of the Northwest corner of
Lot 1, Block 1, Nightingale Estates and distant 60.00 feet
Southwesterly of the Southwest corner of Lot 1, Block 1,
Nightingale Estates Second Addition, according to the
recorded plat thereof in Anoka County, Minnesota.
The above described easement is no longer necessary due to
the extension of 154th Lane N.W.
All opponents and proponents of said easement vacation will
be heard at the above time and location.
~ld/
Victoria Volk
City Clerk
S&8.~'SO"E
341.00
2
~\.OO
~
:
....
co
~
o
o
<f)
p.J 88041.' 38" W
-
r-
N
~
o'
o
CI)
o
o
~
,/
2
o
./[{l
\' t~\' s
t~~ s
2' ~
;,.
o
o
en
3( 5.00
~e8Q4-'2.'38"W
'a\S.oo
I
3
~
h
C/)
.9
o
~
('J
\ '-2.
34\.00
~~~
I
~~
Cl)-
IOcr
~c'J
8i1 ~
16'2 ~
I
300
\~.OO
- I
45"1.~
~1~
.ff J: I
O~~
\1'
\'0
d
..t
N
, 4'5"7.4.8
C'
.....-.1
~
LJ,("'
..... ?-..1
'....: j.......).....
~.,. ....1 I <:'"
"- ..... ....
r" ':..1-'" r",
~ J'_
c..~ ;--.....
j"::: I...........
.........., .............
:1.... \J) 0.
". ...
r;:: \..' I l.""'
,-' I..... ..J
:::..... 1- <:...,
e? <:."T '
'I ...
1-
v~
I
,-I .
.....
lis
pu
BE
8
Si
Ga
St
Cc
De
I r 54 TH $
I I A~'U~- 1\1\0\'
I L_ nil::' I ...'v.
~
..
-
....
('I
..
~
o
b
(/)
-
NW cOYne....
Lot- \, Bloc.oc. \
St
Cc
Ol
J ~--
..-;
-
cO
1'1
........
,I
.....
"-T v'
_ ..... J
\....') :.... ,
'::,. .....
.,- ,-
..... ,
,.... ~,
,_, "-
'1,1-
.... -
(~ '-'J
-......; '..
.......... ..........,
'~
<=',
I
i~
me
pJ
St
Cc
A.
Tt
.~
o
o
o
CITY of ANDOVER
REQUEST FOR EASEMENT VACATION
NAME Esther W OT"nn, r,;lry ~ n...hr:l ;Inri R""."rly 11 Dehn
ADDRESS 15450 Nightingale St. N. W.
Andover, MN. 55304
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION:
2210 - 154th Lane N. W
Andover, MN ~~~o4
That part of Lot 1, Block 1, and that part of Lot 1. Block 2, Nightin-
gale Estates Third Addition lying within that part of the SW~ of the NW~
of Section 22, Township 32. Ranqe 24. Anoka Countv, Minnesota, lying
within the ci~cumference of a circle having a radius of 60.00 feet, the
center of said circle beinq a point distant 60.00 feet Northwp.stp.rly of .
the Northwest corner of Lot 1, Block 1 , Nightingale Estates and distant
REASON FOR REQUEST: 60.00 feet Southwesterly of the Southwest corner
of Lot 1, Block 1, Nightingale Estates Second
Addition, accordin~ tn th", r",rnrrl",rI rT;lt th"r"of'
in Anoka County, Minnesota.
Turnaround is no longer np.cp.SSrlry (Ii,,,, tn "'>ct",n"inn nf 154th 1;1"<> N 1>,.
Westerly.
Fee: $150.00
Paid:
~;Jf~
Property Owner Signature
Esther W;llJL
C D.h"
.,aJ~
Beve~ A. Dehn
Attachment: Names/Addresses of property owners within 350
feet of easement to be vacated.
! i
o
a?~~.~~~
ii~I.fOu.. /~vy~ ~~Y7W.
I
il
Ii
, I
I:
,
!'!LJa<yv_~ _c?~ ~...
u i.l. QZ!c:e_~u.l9~7!45~~VJ. .W. .
: i - - -.- - - - ---- - -- -
i:i
L!
,.:- -
"
i'
, .
I;
.;~~~(l_.:~....j~...n__.
'I .~~,
nul')/S5$'Z _~._w..!~~uv?/'<nu_
"I ~z:r-
,
-- - ti--
i:
I : ~
i,l
o
i:-!- -
, .
- f: ~.
, ,
hi
:1
o
~
~
.:5~~ 6)"
.....0
~--_._~._-----~-_.-------
_0
r
~
I
I
i
,I"
,
I
o
o
CITY OF ANDOVER
COUNTY OF ANORA
STATE OF MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE VACATING AN EASEMENT IN NIGHTINGALE ESTATES
THIRD ADDITION.
The City Council of the City of Andover hereby ordains:
An easement for turnaround purposes described as follows
is hereby vacated: That part of Lot 1, Block 1 and that
part of Lot 1, Block 2, Nightingale Estates Third Addition
lying within that part of the SW~ of the NW~ of Section 22,
Township 32, Range 24, Anoka County, Minnesota, lying with-
in the circumference of a circle having a radius of 60.00
feet, the center of said circle being a point distant 60.00
feet Northwesterly of the Northwest corner of Lot 1, Block
1, Nightingale Estates and distant 60.00 feet Southwesterly
of the Southwest corner of Lot 1, Block 1, Nightingale
Estates Second Addition, according to the recorded plat
thereof in Anoka County, Minnesota.
o
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Andover this
day of
, 1987.
CITY OF ANDOVER
ATTEST:
Jerry Windschit1 - Mayor
Victoria Vo1k - City Clerk
o
o
o
o
CITY OF ANDOVER
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACfION
DATE April 21. 1987
AGENDA SECTION
NO. Discussion
ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT
Administration
APPROVED FOR
. AGE~p.,A t:'''
BY/l (f-J
f/
ITEM Vacation of Easement/
NO. Partridge Street
6.b.
BY: Vicki Vo1k
A public hearing has been scheduled for 7:30 P.M. for the
vacation of an easement at the south end of Partridge
Street in The Oaks.
Attached is an ordinance vacating that easement.
V
Attach: Ordinance
Public Hearing Notice
.
COUNCIL ACTION
SECOND BY
MOTION BY
TO
o
o
o
CITY of ANDOVER
CITY OF ANDOVER
COUNTY OF ANOKA
STATE OF MINNESOTA
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
The City Council of the City of Andover will hold a public hearing
at 7:30 P.M., Tuesday, April 21, 1987 at the Andover City Hall,
1685 Crosstown Boulevard N.W., Andover, MN to consider vacating
a drainage and utility easement located at the south end of
Partridge Street in The Oaks subdivision in the Northeast one-
quarter of the Southwest one-quarter of Section 27-32-24.
All opponents and proponents of said easement vacation will be
heard at the above time and location.
LLUv
victoria Vo1k - City Clerk
"
'\.S')
\ ~ \
\ ~ \
) ~ \."
>f ( ~ ) (;,C ,c1 / d i ("Clro I
the' 0 vC{ ), ~ Wl/?dg('I-:';,j /
13/071':..<Yl "
~
'1ade/y,-;e 1(, I
'8~
REII: 3/18/87
01)5
"
\C
\? l,/
-'"
.......\
\
uutl.ot t' ~s 1:0 L
(/1,100) DENOTES AI
r'
IL"
,..){ .:::..)
(1 J-xl ....
\J ..
""
1<- 4-
o
CITY OF ANDOVER
COUNTY OF ANOKA
STATE OF MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE VACATING AN EASEMENT FOR ROAD PURPOSES AT THE
SOUTH END OF PARTRIDGE IN THE OAKS IN SECTION 27-32-24.
The City Council of the City of Andover hereby ordains:
An easement for road purposes described as follows is
hereby vacated: An easement for road purposes at the south
end of Partridge Street in The Oaks subdivision in the
Northeast one-quarter of the Southwest one-quarter of Section
27-32-24.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Andover this
day of
, 1987
CITY OF ANDOVER
o
ATTEST:
Victoria Vo1k - City Clerk
o
o
o
o
AGENDA SECTION
NO.
ITEM
NO. 5C
MOTION BY
TO
CITY OF ANDOVER
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
DATE April 21.1987
ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT
Engineering
BY: James E. Schrantz
The Bond Sale for the Shopping Center has been
schedu~ed for this meeting. The agreements are
all belng changed to reflect Rademacher instead
of Boisclair.
COUNCIL ACTION
SECOND BY
APPROVED FOR
AGEN~A . \
( 111/\.
BY://Y ~)
f/
o
o
CITY OF ANDOVER
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACfION
April 21,1987
DATE
ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT
APPROX ED ~ R
AGENqJ 1'\
/J~
,,-
I
AGENDA SECTION
NO.6D
Engineeri7,JJ 4~'
BY: Todd J. Haas
BY: i
V
ITEM Turnberry Concept Plan
NO.
Case: Turnberry Concept Plan
Location: Location is East of Johnson's Oakmount Terrace
Application: Bruce Hay
Request: The City Council is requested to review the Turnberry
Concept Plan Alternates A and B.
The Andover Review Committee (ARC) has reviewed the
Concept Plan and their comments are as follows:
General Comments
*
Fire Department recommends the removal of cu1desacs
located on west half of the concept plan Alternatives
A and B.
* ARC recommends a street be constructed from the
southeast corner of the concept plan to the south
end of Shirley's Addition with 143rd Ave. NW.
Currently as the concept plan stands there is
only one way to enter and exit with traffic for
Alternatives A and B.
*
The developer shall comply with the city of
Andover's Shore1and Management Ordinance 71 for
both Alternatives A and B.
*
The Ordinary High Water Mark for Round Lake is
866.4 Ft. The 100 yr. flood elevation is 869.
Therefore lowest floor elevation adjacent to
Round Lake is 870.
COUNCIL ACTION
SECOND BY
MOTION BY
o TO
o
* The Concept Plan is outside the 1990 Metropolitan
Urban Service Area boundry.
* Alternate "A"
(1) Ordinance No. 10C section 9 subsection
9.06 a (3) regulates lot size out side
sewer district.
(2) Ordinance No. 37 Governs relative to water
table and flooding.
*
The Developer is proposing to develop in the ditch
area on south end of plan. Will a newly relocated
constructed ditch or storm sewer by provided to
allow drainage from Round Lake?
*
If this area is to recieve city sewer and water, the
ARC recommends the larger lots width (100') to give
the landowner of the individual lots the opportunity
to build the larger homes.
*
There are a couple Non-typical lots within the concept
plan.
o
o
o
o
o
CITY OF ANDOVER
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACfION
DATE April 21. 1987
AGENDA SECTION Staff, Commi ss ion, ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT
NO. Committee
APP~7~OR
AGEN\.. bJj
BY: I
1/
ITEM
NO.
Approve Safety Manual
7a
BY: Helena Griffev
The City Council is requested to approve the Andover Safety Manual
with the changes that were made by the Safety Committee and the Personel
Committee; Jim Elling and Ken Orttel.
Attached are copies of the pages that either had something changed on it
or something added to it.
Please bring your copy of the Safety Manual to compare the pages.
MOTION BY
TO
COUNCIL ACTION
SECOND BY
o
o
o
2. Upon the notification that an employee has been injured on the job,
the supervisor shall insure that:
a. First Aid is administered, if qualified to do so.
b. If treatment by a medical doctor is required, furnish the employee
with an Authorization For Treatment form.
c. If necessary, the injured employee is taken to the medical facility
listed above for treatment.
3. Injuries appearing to be superficial, but extremely painful or showing
any unusual symptoms, shall be examined by a City Physician.
4. All claims of back injuries shall be examined by a City Physician.
5. If subsequent treatment is required and the patient prefers to be treated
by his own family doctor or a referred specialist, the change must be
approved by the city physician.
THERE ARE NO PROVISIONS FOR SWITCHING DOCTORS WITHOUT THIS APPROVAL.
C. FIRST AID TREATMENT IN THE FIELD OR OFFICE
SUPERFICIAL INJURIES such as minor cuts, bruises, small punctures, scratches,
etc., shall be treated in the field or office when an employee qualified to
administer FIRST AID is present and a FIRST AID kit is available. Such injuries
shall be made a matter of record in the supervisor's book and retained by the
supervisor.
D. DOCTOR AND PRESCRIPTION BILLS
After treatment of an occupational lnJury, bills for medical treatment and
medicines are normally sent directly to the City Clerk or for processing.
However, bills are sometimes inadvertently sent to the employee for payment.
Employees have a responsibility to forward such bills to the City Clerk for
processing immediately upon receipt in order to avoid unnecessary complications.
E. ESTABLISHING AN OCCUPATIONAL INJURY CLAIM
It is not necessary to have a physician treat an injury in order to validate
an occupational injury claim. A minor injury such as a small cut, scratch, or
bruise should be treated in the field by someone qualified to administer First
Aid from a kit. As long as the injury is reported to the supervisor and recorded,
the employee will be fully covered for medical treatment later if the need
should arise.
- 3-2 -
o
c. Capable of passing a City physical examination when a question of
fitness to drive arises because of prolonged or serious illness.
d. Capable of passing written tests on driving regulations whenever required.
e. Capable of successfully passing a driver check ride administered by his
supervisor periodically.
f. Capable of demonstrating familiarity with the type of vehicles assigned.
g. Capable of passing a review of their driving record each year.
2. Defensive Driving Courses
Full-time and designated part-time employees driving City vehicles shall be
required to attend the Defensive Driving Course and periodic refresher courses
when administered by the Police Department.
a. Assignments for classes shall be made by the employee's division super-
visor to maintain satisfactory work schedules.
b. Frequency of employee attendance of Defensive Driving Courses shall be
determined by the division head when a review of records indicated a need
for training.
o
c. New employees required to drive City vehicles may be required to complete
a Defensive Driving Course satisfactorily before starting their driving
assignment.
d. Any driver involved in a preventable collision or demonstrating question-
able driving capabilities may be required to be retrained in Defensive
Driving.
o
- 5-3 -
c. While on injury-1eave-without-pay, an employee shall not earn vacation
or sick leave credits.
o
2. Method of Compensation Payment
During total temporary occupational disability as certified by a City Physician,
the employee shall receive the benefits stipulated by the Workers' Compensation
Laws of Minnesota. In addition, the City shall augment such state compensation
payments in accordance with the Personnel Code of the City of Andover.
a. An individual disabled three calendar days is not eligible for lost time
compensation through workers compensation insurance. However, that employee
may choose to be paid for the lost time from his or her own accum1ated sick
leave. If the employee has lost ten consecutive working days, that employee
will be eligible for payment for the initial three days of lost time through
workers compensation.
b. An individual disabled between three and nine calendar days will receive
state compensation payments for all workdays excepting the first three days
of disability. The City will pay the balance of the employee's normal
compensation for the first three uncompensated days in sick leave, if avail-
able.
c. An individual disabled ten or more calendar days will receive state
compensation payments for all workdays at the rate of 66-2/3% of gross
salary, with the balance in normal compensation (net pay) being paid in
in sick leave, if available.
C.
EMPLOYEE RETURN TO WORK AFTER INJURY
A SUPERVISOR SHALL NOT ALLOW AN EMPLOYEE TO RETURN TO WORK AFTER AN OCCUPATIONAL
INJURY UNLESS HE RECEIVES A SIGNED AUTHORIZATION FROM THE TREATING PHYSICIAN.
o
D.
FATALITY REPORTING
The death of an employee as a result of an injury by accident arlslng out of and
in the course of his employment shall be reported to the City Clerk immediately by
telephone. The supervisor in charge shall be responsible for making the call and
providing as much initial information as possible.
E. SUDDEN ILLNESS
Sudden illness occurring to employees during duty hours requlrlng EMERGENCY MEDICAL
TREATMENT such as possible heart attack, strokes, seizures, fainting, etc., shall
be reported to the City Clerk BY TELEPHONE as soon as possible.
F. VEHICLE COLLISION REPORTING
1. When a City employee is involved in a vehicular collision while operating a
City-owned vehicle, the employee shall call the police to the scene for invest-
igation and report.
o
2. The supervisor of the emp1yee shall also investigate the collision and complete
the City of Andover Supervisor's Vehicle Report Form (See example, Appendix III)
within 48 hours. Investigation in this context does not mean drawing any con-
clusions, making any statements or otherwise involving one's self in the police
investigation. The supervisor shall confine his fact finding to names, vehicle
number, and similar information. Statements as to liability are strictly for-
bidden.
- 7-3 -
o
2. Inspection of City Buildings and Facilities
Since each department is responsible for maintaining their own facilities,
the abatement of facil ity safety violations will usually be the responsibility
of that department.
The Superintendent of that department shall:
a. Accompany the compliance officer on the inspection tour when any
City building or other related facility is being inspected.
b. Record any violations detected by the compliance officer.
c. Upon receipt of a citation, insure that it is posted on a bulletin
board nearest to the violation until it has been abated.
1. If the violation is a minor housekeeping problem or something
similar, a directive will be made to have the area cleared or
otherwise modified to comply with standards.
2. If abatement of the citation will require more extensive work,
an effort will be made to determine if the job can be done with-
in the abatement period or if an extension or time will be needed.
o
d. Insure that when correction of a violation can be accomplished
within the abatement period it is done without delay.
e. Notify the Public Works Director when modification requires the
expenditure of funds so that appropriate action can be taken.
f. Prepare any requests for extensions needed indicating why it is
needed and how long the delay will be. The request shall be in
memo form to the Safety Coordinator, who shall in turn address
to OSHA. The request shall be forwarded to the Safety Coordinator
before the abatement deadline.
g. Prepare timely requests for a variance or for a hearing when
aggrieved by a questionable citation.
h. Upon actual completion of corrective action, certify by date and
signature at the bottom of the citation form that each violation
has been abated. The citation form shall be retained by the Safety
Coordinator.
3. Inspection of Operational Practices, Equipment and Recordkeeping
I
Comp 1 a i nce offi cers wi 11 concern themselves with employee regard for,'safe
working practices, use of prescribed protective equipment, adequacy of pro-
tective equipment, equipment configuration with respect to operator pro-
tection, etc. Violations of standards in this category will be cause
for issuing citations. Department/division heads in receipt of a State
OSHA citation shall:
o
a. Post each citation on a bulletin board as near the area of violation
as possible until is has been abated.
b. Correct the violation within the abatement period, if possible.
- 9-3 -
o
CITY OF ANDOVER
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACfION
AGENDA SECTION
NO.
DATE
ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT
April 21, 1987
APPROVED FOR
AGENDA
Staff
ITEM Resignation/J .Pirk1/P&Z
NO. BY:
7.b.
Admin.
The City Council is requested to accept the resignation
of Joy Pirkl from the Planning and Zoning Commission
effective May 1, 1987. Ms. Pirkl is moving out of the
city. Her term expires 12-31-87.
Council is also requested to authorize staff to advertise
for another Commissioner.
o
o
MOTION BY
TO
COUNCIL ACTION
SECOND BY
o
Total Look Hair Design
2393 Coon Rapids Blvd.
Coon Rapids, Minnesota 55433
Phone 755.1136
April 3, 1987
Maynard Apel, Chairman
Andover Planning & Zoning Commission
Andover City Hall
1685 Crosstown Blvd. NW
Andover, MN 55304
Dear Maynard:
o
It is with great regret that I must resign my position.as commissioner
for Planning and Zoning. Radical changes in my life will mean that as
of May 1, 1987 I will no longer be a resident of Andover. It has been
my pleasure to be a member of the Commission and it is my sincere hope
that this resignation does not cause you or the city of Andover any
inconvenience.
My thanks to the city of Andover for the opportunity to serve and for
providing myself and my family with an extremely pleasant area in which
to Jive and work.
/'j:!e''A"'I2.u
~irkl
JMP:ra
cc: Jerry Windschitl
Andover City Council
o
o
CITY OF ANDOVER
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
AGENDA SECTION
NO. 8A
DATE April 21 1987
ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT
j
Engineering
APP,~2VE~ FOR
AGE.". A
I,~ \
\}
BY:
ITEM Request for Stop Signs
NO.
BY:
v
The City Council is requested to consider stop signs on
Jonquil St. and Heather St. using the stop signs for
speed control.
This is a small neighborhood without a through street so
the speeders must live in the area or visit the neighborhood.
I recommend the neighborhood meet and discuss their problem,
and if the people that live in the southern part of the area
refuse to respect their neighbors, then the City could install
signs.
o
As a neighborhood they surely can identify the speeders and
deal with them, rather than make everyone needlessly stop.
Note the attachment-stop signs really do not slow traffic.
COUNCIL ACTION
o
MOTION BY
TO
SECOND BY
,
o
Do Stop Signs Really Slow Traffic?
A stop sign is one of our most valu-
able and effective traffic control
devices; . . . when used at the right
place and under the right condi-
tions. It Is intended to help drivers
and pedestrians at an intersection
decide who has the right of way.
Quite often stop signs are arbi-
trarily installed along a roadway
for the expressed purpose of inter-
rupting through traffic and "reduc-
ing speed". The stop signs are not
needed to assign right of way or to
control traffic volumes. Unfortu-
nately. a number of studies indicate
that stop signs do not slow traffic
at locations where the stop sign is
not justified by traffic volumes.
Where stop signs are installed to
control. speed, there is a high in-
cidence of intentional violations.
Most of our drivers are reasonable
people and they obey stop signs as
long as the stop makes sense to
~m. However, when stop signs
Ve erected arbitrarily and witho.ut
apparent reason, violations increase
rapidly. In those locations where
vehicles do stop, the speed reduc-
tion Is effective only in the Immedi-
ate vicinity of the stop sign. and
frequently speeds are higher be-
tween intersections.
A San Francisco study showed that
speeds 100 ft. past the stop sign
were within 3 miles per hour of the
top level of speeds. The study also
showed that speeds in a mid-block
location 2 blocks from any stop
sign were 3 to 5 miles per hour
higher with the stop sign than after
the stop signs had been removed.
A more recent study in Troy, Mich-
igan, showed that average speeds
also increased slightly after instal-
lation of stop signs. This study also
showed that approximately half of
the motorists made a rolling stop
and one-quarter did not stop at all.
An Indiana study of several stop
C!. ns showed that 31 % failed to
p for stop signs installed along
ow volume .roads. Several undocu-
mented studies in the Twin City
metropolitan area also indicate a
rather substantial violation rate and
an increase in speeds as a result
of unjustified stop sign Installa-
tions. Finally, a citizen successfully
sued a city in northern Ohio for il-
legally Installing stop signs for the
express purpose of speed control.
The city was forced to remove the
signs and to pay the plaintiff for
his court fees.
Apparently drivers who fail to see
the reason for Installation of a stop
sign develop a tendency to disre-
gard the sign and to roll past It.
There is also a tendency for drivers
to over accelerate and exceed low-
er speed limits. It Is also apparent
that a number of drivers are also
somewhat Irritated by the Installa-
tion of these signs and develop
a tendency to make up for lost time
by traveling at higher speeds be-
tween signs. A most interesting ob-
servation of enforcement agencies
monitoring these types of Installar
tions is that the arrests generally.
are of nearby residents who may
have campaigned for the sign in-
stallation in the first place.
The annual cost to stop 1000 vehl~
cles per day on a 35 mph street
was calculated. as $9600 In excess
vehicle operation costs, according
to Long Beach, CA engineers. Also
of concern are additional emis-
sions, lost time, extra fuel use and
the urge to squeal tires.
It is extremely difficult to face a
number of angry citizens armed
with petitions and emotions and not
accede to their demands. Perhaps
studies like these will help citizens
understand that stop signs will not
automatically solve their "prob-
lem". Many times it is possible to
try to better define the problem
which in turn enables one to find a
solution or means of managing the
problem by means other than arbi-
trarily installing a stop sign.
~ ~....~- ......._.-,. -.
o
o
CITY OF ANDOVER
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACfION
AGENDA SECTION
NO.
DATE April 21, 1987
ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT
Non-Discussion Items
ITEMReceive Feasibility Report/
NO. Order Public Hearing/Shady
Kn 7-
Engineering
The City Council is requested to approve the resolution recelvlng the
feasibility report and ordering the public hearing for Shady Knoll area
project 87-7.
TKDA will discuss the report with the Council, with the public hearing
being scheduled for April 30th at 7:30P.M.
A resident that was at the last meeting is taking the petition around the
neighborhood again.
This is a petitioned for project as of today as we have not received his
petit.ions.
Attachment:
. Resol ution
MOTION BY
TO
COUNCIL ACTION
SECOND BY
o
o
o
CITY OF ANDOVER
COUNTY OF ANOKA
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RES. NO.
MOTION by Councilman
to adopt the fo 11 owi ng:
A RESOLUTION RECEIVING FEASIBILITY REPORT AND CALLING PUBLIC HEARING ON
IMPROVEMENTS OF WATERMAIN, SANITARY SEWER, STREETS, PROJECT NO. 87-7 IN THE
SHADY KNOLL AREA.
WHEREAS ,purS'Uant; to Reso 1 uti on No. R43-87, adopted the 7th day of
April, 1987, a Feasibil ity Report has been prepared by TKDA for the improvement
of Watermain, Sanitary Sewer, and Street Construction, Project No. 87-7 in the
Shady Knoll area; and
WHEREAS, such report was received by the City Council on the 21st day
of April, 1987; and
WHEREAS, such report declared the proposed improvement to be feasible
for an estimated cost of $220,000.
that:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Andover
1. The City Council hereby accepts the Feasibility Report for Project
No. 87-7, for the improvements of Watermain, Sanitary Sewer, and
Street Construction Project No. 87-7 in the Shady Knoll area as
prepared by TKDA.
2. The Council will consider the improvements in accordance with the
report and the assessment of abutting property for all or a portion
of the cost of the improvement pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter
429 at an estimated total cost of the improvement of $220,000.
3. A public hearing shall be held on such proposed improvement on the
30th day of April, 1987 in the Council Chambers of the City Hall at
7:30PM and the Clerk shall give mailed and published notice of such
hearing and improvement as required by law.
MOTION seconded by Councilman
and adopted by the City Council at
a
Meeting this
day of
, 19_____, with Councilmen
voting in favor of the resolution,
and Councilmen
voting against, whereupon
said resolution was declared passed.
CITY OF ANDOVER
ATTEST:
Kenneth D. Ortt~l -'ActIng Mayor
Victoria Volk - City Clerk
o
CITY OF ANDOVER
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACfION
AGENDA SECTION
NO.
DATE April?l IqR7
ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT
Non-Discussion Items
APPROVED FOR
AGENDA
Engineering
ITEM Recei ve Feas i bil ity Report/
NO.Order Publ ic Hearing/Kensin ton BY: James E. Schrantz
Est
The City Council is requested to approve the resolution recelvlng the feas-
ibility report and ordering the public hearing for Kensington Estates Phase I
Project 87-8.
TKDA will discuss the report with the Council. The public hearing has been set
for April 30th at 7:30 PM.
Attachments:
Resolution
o
o
MOTION BY
TO
COUNCIL ACTION
SECOND BY
o
CITY OF ANDOVER
COUNTY OF ANOKA
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RES. NO.
MOTION by Councilman
to adopt the following:
A RESOLUTION RECEIVING FEASIBILITY REPORT AND CALLING PUBLIC HEARING ON IMPROVE-
MENTS OF WATERMAIN, SANTIARY SEWER AND STREET CONSTRUCTION PROJECT NO. 87-8 IN THE
KENSINGTON ESTATES PLAT.
WHEREAS, pursuant to Resolution No. R42-87, adopted the 7th day of April,
1987, a Feasibility Report has been prepared by TKDA for the improvement of
Watermain, Sanitary Sewer, and Street Construction, Project NO. 87-8 in the
Kensington Estates Plat Phase I ~rea; and
WHEREAS, such report was received by the City Council on the 21st day
of April, 1987; and
WHEREAS, such report declared the proposed improvement to be feasible
for an estimated cost of $720,000.
that:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Andover
o
1. The City Council hereby accepts the Feasibility Report for Project
No. 87-8, for the improvements of Watermain, Sanitary Sewer and Street
Construction Project No. 87-8 in the Kensington Estates Pl~t Phase I
area as prepared by TKDA.
2. The Council will consider the improvements in accordance with the report
and the assessment of abutting property for all or a portion of the cost
of the improvement pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 429 at an
estimated total cost of the improvement of $720,000.
3. A public hearing shall be held on such proposed improvement on the 30th
day of April, 1987 in the Council Chambers of the City Hall at 7:30PM
and the Clerk shall give mailed and published notice of such hearing
and improvement as required by law.
MOTION seconded by Councilman
and adopted by the City Council at
a
Meeting this
day of
, 19
, with Councilmen
voting in favor of the resolution,
and Councilmen
voting against, whereupon said resolution
was declared passed.
CITY OF ANDOVER
o
ATTEST:
Kenneth D.' Orttel - Acting Mayor
Victoria Volk - City Clerk
~
o
CITY OF ANDOVER
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACfION
AGENDA SECTION
NO.
DATE April 21. 1987
ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT
ITEM Award Bids 87-3A/Bunker Lake
NO. Boulevard
8d
BY: Jame
FOR
Non-Discussion Items
Engineering
The City Council is requested to approve the resolution awarding the bids for
project 87-3A, Water and Sanitary Sewer along Bunker Lake Boulevard.
Bids will be received Friday, April 17 at 10:00 AM, tabulated and presented to
the Council at the meeting April 21st.
Attachments:
Draft Resolution
o
MOTION BY
TO
COUNCIL ACTION
SECOND BY
o
o
o
CITY OF ANDOVER
COUNTY OF ANOKA
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RES. NO.
MOTION by Councilman
to adopt the following:
A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BIDS AND AWARDING CONTRACT FOR THE IMPROVEMENT OF PROJECT
NO. 87-3A FOR WATERMAIN, SANITARY SEWER AND STOR/1 DRAINAGE IN THE AREA ALONG
BUNKER LAKE BOULEVARD.
WHEREAS, pursuant to advertisement for bids as set out in Council Resolution
No. , bids were received, opened and tabulated according to law for Project
No. 87-3A, with results as follows:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Andover
to hereby accept the above bids as shown to indicate
as being the apparent low bidder.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED TO HEREBY direct the Mayor and Clerk to enter into,
a Contract with in the amount of $
for construction of Improvement Project No. 87-3A for Watermain, Sanitary Sewer and
Storm Drainage in the area along Bunker Lake Boulevard; and direct the City Clerk
to return to all bidders the deposits made with their bids, except that the deposit
of the successful bidder and the next lowest bidder shall be retained until the Contract
has been executed and insurance and bond requirements met.
MOTION seconded by Councilman
and adopted by the City Council at a
Meeting this,
day of
19_____, with Councilmen
voting in favor of the resolution, and
Councilmen
voting against, whereupon said resolution
was declared passed.
CITY OF ANDOVER
ATTEST:
Jerry Windschitl - Mayor
Victoria Volk - City Clerk
o
CITY OF ANDOVER
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACfION
AGENDA SECTION
NO. Approval of Minutes
DATE April 21, 1987
ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT
Admin.
ITEM
NO.
9
Vicki Vo1k
BY:
The City Council is requested to approve the following minutes:
March 31, 1987 - Special Meeting (Lachinski absent)
March 31, 1987 - Special Closed Meeting (Lachinski absent)
April 6, 1987 - Special Meeting (Lachinski absent)
April 7, 1987 - Regular Meeting
MOTION BY
TO
COUNCIL ACTION
SECOND BY