HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC December 3, 1985
o
o
..-
CITY of ANDOVER
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING - DECEMBER 3, 1985 - AGENDA
5. Non-Discussion Items
a. Planning and zoning Commission/Interview Date
b. Authorize Advertising/Park and Recreation Commission
c.
6. Reports of Committees
a. Personnel Cowmittee Report
b. Martin Luther King Day/Delcare Holiday
*c. Closed Meeting with Attorney
7. Approval of Minutes
8. Approval of Claims
9. Adjournment
*Not on published agenda
--o-~--
o
CITY of ANDOVER
MEMORANDUM
TO:
COPIES TO:
FROM:
DATE:
REFERENCE:
Mayor and City Council
City Clerk
City Administrator
November 27, 1985
What's Happening?
-Happy Thanksgiving~
-November 29th is a holiday for Andover - Floater
-December 3rd during the A.M., the Clerk/Treasurer
applicants are visiting City Hall to briefly discuss
the job and look at Andover.
-I am meeting with Anoka County, Coon Rapids, along
with Jim Johnson, TKDA's traffic engineer, to review
Crooked Lake Boulevard relocation and 133rd Avenue as
to the impact on Good Value's proposed plat.
Good Value is reviewing their proposed plat with
Crooked Lake relocated and 133rd Avenue.
-December 5th the Lower Rum River Water Management
Organization is interviewing consulting engineers.
-December 9th is the special meeting to interview the
Clerk/Treasurer applicants.
We have cut the list to 5. I pulled out Hallman, the
'app1icant from northern Wisconsin - he was. oil my list.
JES:vv
o
o
CITY of ANDOVER
1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. . ANDOVER. MINNESOTA 55304 . (612) 755-5100
PRO C LAM A T ION
WHEREAS, THE WEEK OF DECEMBER 1 THROUGH DECEMBER 7, 1985
HAS BEEN DESIGNATED AS NATIONAL HOME CARE WEEK; AND
WHEREAS, THE DELIVERY OF THE BEST QUALITY HEALTH CARE
TO ALL CITIZENS IS THE FUNCTION OF THE HOME HEALTH CARE AGENCIES
IN THE CITY OF ANDOVER; AND
WHEREAS, THESE AGENCIES ARE ABLE TO PROVIDE A WIDE RANGE
OF HEALTH AND SUPPORTIVE SERVICES WHICH EMPHASIZE THE DIGNITY AND
INDEPENDENCE OF CITIZENS IN THEIR HOMES; AND
WHEREAS) HOME HEALTH CARE IS RECOGNIZED AS AN. EFFECTIVE
AND ECONOMICAL ALTERNATIVE TQ UNNECESSARY INSTITUTIONALIZATION; AND
WHEREAS) THE CITY OF ANDOVER JOINS THE UNITED STATES
CONGRESS IN PAYING TRIBUTE TO THE DEDICATED PEOPLE WHO SERVE THE
ILL) RECUPERATING AND AGED CITIZENS IN OUR COMMUNITY.
NOW, THEREFORE) BE IT RESOLVED THAT I, JERRY WINDSCHITL)
MAYOR OF THE CITY OF ANDOVER) HEREBY PROCLAIM DECEMBER 1 THROUGH
DECEMBER 7, 1985 AS NATIONAL HOME HEALTH CARE WEEK AND DO URGE THE
CITIZENS OF THE CITY OF ANDOVER TO TAKE COGNIZANCE OF THIS EVENT
AND TO PARTICIPATE FITTINGLY IN ITS OBSERVANCE,
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I HAVE HEREUNTO SET MY HAND AND
CAUSED THE SEAL OF THE CITY OF ANDOVER TO BE AFFIXED THIS 3RD
DAY OF DECEMBER ,1985.
CITY OF ANDOVER
JERRY WINDSCHITL - MAYOR
( SEAL)
.'
o
o
.....
. CITY OF ANDOVER
REQUEST FOR COUNCil ACTION
DATE
NDA SECTION
NO. Discussion
ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT
ark & Recreation
ITEM Crooked Lake Warming
NO. House Funding
4a
BY: Vicki Vo1k
Attached is the Park Commission's recommendation to fund
the salary for the Crooked Lake School warming house
attendant for a total not to exceed $2,500.
COUNCIL ACTION
MOTION BY
TO:
SECOND BY
o
o
)
...
CITY of ANDOVER
MEMORANDUM
TO:
COPIES TO:
FROM:
DATE:
REFERENCE:
Mayor and City Council
Administrator and City Clerk
Park and Recreation Commission
November 21, 1985
Crooked Lake Warming House and Red Oaks Park and
1986 Budget.
The following motions were made at the November 21, 1985
meeting of the Park and Recreation Commission for your
consideration:
MOTION: by LeFebvre, seconded by Kinkade to accept the request
by the Crooked Lake Advisory Council for the funding of salary
for a warming house attendant at Crooked Lake School with the
first payment to be allocated out of the 1986 budget - not
te exceed $2500 total - and for future purposes to have this
item budgeted each year. Motion carried unanimously.
MOTION: by Kinkade, seconded by Strootman that it be understood
that the City of Andover will water and groom the 2 rinks at
Crooked Lake School and will budget $600 per year to pay for power
to the hockey rink. Motion carried unanimously.
MOTION: by Kinkade, seconded by LeFebvre that the City be
responsible for cleaning (dredge) the pond at Red Oaks West
park including those areas of debris on dry land from the
1983 storm. The Park and Recreation Commission recommends that the
City Cou~cil approve cost of dredging the pond with th~ costs
not to be included in the Park 860 budget. Motion carried
unanimously.
MOTION: by Kinkade, seconded by Strootman to allow $500D to be
cut from the $60,DOO allocated for 1986 budget $530 upon request
by the City Council for each department to cut $5000; therefore,
the 1986 budget for Park and Recreation Commission #530 will be
$55,000. Motion carried unanimously.
. CITY OF ANDOVER
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
..0-.--.----.-----,.. .,,~ '-'
o
- _~,..C_;_i_c..;i,~;~ ,.,~,;;i..c--......'-'-~DAT~--..~-,_...- . ----'----'-
ITEM
NO.
APPROVED ~R
ACt" '" cr- .
Roger Jung1en Lot Split
4b
Engineering
BY:
This item has been continued from November 19th.
COUNCIL ACTION
SECOND BY
MOTION BY
TO:
o
e
~
'" '--
. CITY OF ANDOVER
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
NDA SECTION
NO. Discussion
BY:
DATE
Of<<ClNATINC DEPARTMENT
APPROVED FOR
ACENDA:
ITEM Hunting Ord. Boundary
NO. Change
4c
Vicki Volk
BY:
Attached is a copy of the Firearms Ordinance (#62)
with a map showing the boundaries for allowed and
prohinited areas.
The Council is requested to discuss the possible
change of the boundary line.
MOTION BY
TO:
SECOND BY
o
o
'-
CITY OF ANDOVER
COUNTY OF ANOKA
STATE OF MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO. 62
AN ORDINANCE REGULATING THE DISCHARGE OF FIREARMS AND BOW & ARROWS WITH1N THE
CITY OF ANDOVER AND REPEALING ORDINANCES 12, 12A, 12B and 12C.
The City Council of the City of Andover hereby ordains:
SECTION I
DEFINITIONS: The following definitions shall apply in the interpretation and
enforcement of this ordinance.
a) RIFLE - a shoulder weapon with a rifled bored barrel and discharging a single
shot or pellet at a time.
b) SHOTGUN - a shou 1 der weapon with a smooth bored ba rre 1 or ba rre 1 s and norma lly
discha~ging more than one pellet at a time, except when using a single saug.
c) HANDGUN - a hand held weapon with a rifled barrel and discharging a single shot
or pellet at a time.
d) BOW & ARROWS - for the purpose of this ordinance to mean all long bows used
for target and hunting purposes.
e) FIREARMS - for the purpose of this ordinance this shall mean rifles, shotguns,
handguns and pellet weapons, whether C02 or pneumatic powered.
SECTI ON I I
REGULATIONS: No person shall discharge at any time any firearm or bow and arrows
upon or onto any lands within the City of Andover except as provided by this ordinance.
a) No person shall discharge a firearm or bow and arrow within 500 feet of any
residence.
b) No person shall discharge a firearm or bow and arrow in the City of Andover
except for the following conditions:
1) Landowners may discharge firearms or bow and arrows upon their property
provided the property is 10 acres or more in size and the projectile cannot
carry beyond the property lines.
2) Landowners may discharge a firearm upon their property for the purpose of
slaughtering animals provided the property is 5 acres or more in size and
the projectile cannot carry beyond the property line.
3) No person sha 11 discharge any fi rea rm or bow and arrow upon the property of
another person in an ano~led area of 10 acres or more in size without
written permission of the owner or lessee.
4) Recreational target shooting of firearms and bow and arrows in an allowed
area of 10 acres or more in size shall be directed at a ta~get with a back-
stop of sufficient strength and density to stop and control the projectile.
o
c) No person sha 11 di scharge any fi rearm or bow and arrows withi n the City of
Andover shown on the attached map as "Prohibited District" except at authorized
ranges.
d) The provisions of this ordinance shall not apply to the discharge of firearms
when done in the lawful defense of persons or property. No part of this
ordinance is intended to abridge the constitutional right to keep and bear
arms.
SECTION I II
PROHIBITED DISTRICT: The attached map shall become a part of this ordinance.
SECTION IV
PENALTY: Any person who violates any provlslon of this ordinance shall be guilty
of a misdemeanor and upon conviction thereof, shall be punished according to
prevailing State Laws.
SECTION V
VALIDITY: The val idity of any section, clause or phrases of this ordinance shall not
affect the validity of any other part.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Andover this ~ day of September
1982.
CITY OF ANDOVER
(/ ATTEST:~), _
\ _ . ' ,-;>",-, '.1
\. --
..........~ .-!
--.... ',' '-
~atricia K.
/ I
.-...,......-~. "',
City Clerk
o
..
.
'-
'&'~",' 'I; i ' '~7'~ 21iAi i",/ ,i H iHhi. i i ~'ilj \l'rLi
I l'li ~ I .~ ... ,-- t-' ..." ~: I r I !
,- . CV.I'I,~~~;:tr : i ~rr~'''j; -~::) I t1't7'o- ,.
.~ "Ir,'! tirJ. ,II II! !~,),,.J,~ --d' :..' ,~: ',.: / N ,,)<<
::: L W U:, ,'I~ I\:.;:EJ!:~ I l/~
.;. :;-r--.~I/. - __._ __j : -1,.'T' '/,' ~-~_ - L -L . '"il' ~ -1':"" : ~ -;~'
._-l'~i'(--! /;i' ~_ -i,u--f~\\--I' ~ !~~--- --- ~r--
.- IT - - --I'D: r----t r I I~!b j"
~~'i?ii ~~l J'~L\' ~ '~9,~ ':IP~[ '" . i , ~ ,~t :~'..'
'.:= 1 1- f /' d-\ ~ ';I~/ )~I U ._'--
.=. il ;;':'1 'r-r= ":J_+_"\: ".;",,1 J~th- - - p-- -- -- ..
:::. I , '" r-tl :'11 --r:
:: "t:.~: J:: I U
.- .~ ~ ., I
.-.:.m.::11: . ." . ---1---:..1-'-" ____.___.._
.- . '. J.+ j I'rfi. : ii' I r r-l' --
.- ", [I' ,-:t:o V J--:-n i : I'lfll
~~~p ,\!': -~ . . j r'l ---+.- ____h., -',-.- _h -\}~ ~ _ ~
.- - ... n., ~, ~ ~. r It-- 'I - u, -ti
.~; ~ L_ ~ -. n. -. ~~ .. .l~~---I [. l! ,~,; H I ~'
~I H .. I. _ 1__ If-' i -1 WI'
~.tL4 ,II,! 1," --~? I, _ :~W--~,-'--;- ~ ,,,;t~~ ,"
'~L- I .rr:,~,HU ,..: ~t:1,-:: -, n i .. ,1
.:.: (w",. I I _or (l i i I~'---]~--'-
'~~J ( I: 1- -'l'--- 3=f-- J ! - -1-- 'I--~'I' ;'~:~~-i+- ':.
:: I- '~.,t.. I II /' i !, 2, !"rfi. !" 11 ItG;: J)J h. .Ir-l I
r= ~f;: ~ I' -i /1'=::::: ;:~:= 2..~! "J"':"[ 1
.;~ ~ j.(} I.... -'< 7-H~~ ~ -
~ ' fmf '" ' . ._1.~
'.. (hIIIIII.'1I II illl
~ .Jll'"._ 'I ~
~~ : F'ff ~
. \\ I ~ .LA
I , . , , .. . .
I I I I I I I
I I , - "
0"-
..
.- ,
r.::= . )
.1 f.1
"
-
~
Ja"
-. .
--.--' .
.,
I.
lUll
1,'11
d'
I'
a:::
w
>
o
o
z
<(
lJ...
o
>-
I-
<.)
Jl;
"
"
"
IHUlI'
HIII.r: I
1'11"'1,
I ,: I
_. I 11_ : I
I I : ~"---,-- -z-
-1__l'~~') !,~
I
.1
,.,
....
, , I I . I' I I , I .-. , tit t I I I
tit I , 1 , If' , I I . I I , I tit
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
. I I I . t
I f I I I ,
I I I I I I
I I I It' ,
, , f I I I ,
I I I I I I :
. , '"< I , I . , , I
I t I , , t I I , ,
I I I I I I I I I I
, I I I ,
i t Iii
,
o
o
. CITY OF ANDOVER
REQUEST FOR COUNCil ACTION
SECTION
OIUCeNATlNC DEPAll.TMfNT
Zoning Administrator
4
ITEM
NO-
Curfew Discussion
BY:
d'Arcy Bosell
d.
OATE
In your City Council packet you have received numerous
petitions received at City Hall in regard to- the adoption
of a Curfew Ordinance.
Enclosed please find a proposed Curfew Ordinance for your
consideration. Also enclosed please find a memorandum
with regard to Section 4
Upon review of the same, please advise as 'to the steps to
be taken, if any, to implement this Ordinance.
COUNCIL ACTION
MOTION BY
TO:
SECOND BY
o
o
MEE'I'ING J J. - 3 - "lJ 5
AGEND,1\ ITEM :f:I:jJ . =
CITY of ANDOVER
MEMORANDUM
TO:
COPIES TO:
FROM:
DATE:
REFERENCE:
Mayor and City Council
Administrator and, ft;wney
d'Arcy Bosel1 ~~
26 November 1985
Proposed Curfew Ordinance
Section 4, Curfew Procedures, 4.1 states: Any Police Officer or
Sheriff's Deputy upon finding a minor in violation of this
Ordinance shall notify... the juvenile authorities.
I talked with Marlene Hale (422-7396) of the Probate Division
in regard to the above section of our proposed Ordinance to
ascertain what exactly would happen if a minor was picked up
under this Ordinance.
The procedure would be as follows:
1. The Officer would notify the Parents/Guardian
2. The Officer would complete a report (citation)
3. The Report is sent to the Corrections Department
a. The Corrections Department monitors the reports.
b. If there are frequent violations, an Informal
Hearing is set with the parent(s)/guardian(s)
and the Minor and an Intake Officer
c. After three (3 ).. Informal Hearings, the matter is
sent on to the Juvenile Court to be set on the
calendar before a Judge
d. The County Attorney drafts a Petition for violation
of the Curfew tit is a Petty matter)
This information is included only for your information so that you
know "what happens if ..."
o
CITY OF ANDOVER
COUNTY OF ANOKA
STATE OF MINNESOTA
Ordinance No.
An ordinance establishing and setting a curfew for minors.
The City Council does hereby ordain:
Section 1. Definitions:
1.1 Curfew - a regulation enJolning the withdrawal of
specified persons from the streets, avenues, parks and public
property within the City of Andover at a stated hour.
1.2 Minor ~ a person who has not attained majority
(age 18).
Section 2. Regulations:
2.1 It shall be unlawful for any person under the age of
16 years. to be present on any public street, avenue, park or other
public place in the City of Andover between the hours of:
Sunday 9:30 pm through Monday 5:00 am
Monday 9:30 pm through Tuesday 5:00 am
Tuesday 9:3.0 pm '. through Wednesday 5:00 am
Wednesday 9: 30. pm through Thursday 5:00 am
Thursday 9:30 pm through Friday 5:00 am
Friday 10:30 pm through Saturday 5:00 am
Saturday 10:3Q pm through Sunday 5:00 am
unless accompanied by a parent, guardian or person having lawful
custody and control thereof, or unless there exists a reasonable
necessity therefor.
2.2 It shall be unlawful for any person 16 years of age
to be present on any public street, avenue, park or other public
place in the City of Andover between the hours of:
Sunday 10:30 pm through Monday 5:00 am
Monday 10:30 pm through Tuesday 5:00 am
Tuesday 10:3Q pm through Wednesday 5:00 am
Wednesday 1.0: 30 pm through Thursday 5:00 am
Thursday 10:30 pm through Friday 5:00 am
Friday 11:30 pm through Saturday 5:00 am.
Saturday 11:30 pm through Sunday 5:00 am
o
unless accompanied by a parent, guardian or person having lawful
custody and control thereof, or unless there exists a reasonable
necessity therefor.
o
o
.
to
in
2.3 It shall be unlawful for any person 17 years of age
be on any public street, avenue, park or other public place
the City of Andover between the hours of:
Sunday through Saturday 12:30 am and 5:00 am
unless accompanied by a parent, guardian or person having lawful
custody and control thereof, or unless there exists a reasonable
necessity therefor.
Section 3. Prima Facie Evidence
3.1 It shall be unlawful for any parent, guardian, or
other person having the lawful care, custody, or control of any
minor to allow or permit such minor to violate the provisions
of this Ordinance.
3.2 The finding of any minor in violation of the curfew
shall be prima facie evidence that a parent, guardian, or other
person having lawful care, custody, or control allowed or permitted
the violation.
Section 4. Curfew Procedures:
4.1 Any Police Officer or Sheriff's Deputy upon finding a
minor in violation of this Ordinance shall notify the parents,
guardian, or person having custody or control of such minor, and
the juvenile authorities.
Section 5. Validity:
5.1 If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase
of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be unconstitutional,
such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining
provisions of this Ordinance.
Section 6. Effective Date:
6.1 This Ordinance shall take effect and be in force upon
its passage and publication as required by law.
Adopted by the Andover City Council on the
1986.
.day of
Jerry Windschit1
Mayor
Marcella Peach
City Clerk
MEETING };J -3- :$S-
AGENDA ITEM #U
We, the undersigned, petition the City of Andover to adopt a curfew
ordinance for persons under the age of 18. We believe a curfew would
give the Sheriff's office an additional tool. to aid in law enforcement
and would help reduce the number and cost of juvenile vandalism and
property damage.
o
o
l.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16
17.
18.
19.
20.
2l.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
3l.
32.
33.
34.
. 35.
"\
NAME
J.th VoN..
~
ADDRESS
/~J)X b//lrJ ~v.:.I"{"YSi
. iiJ~~1f~~)
14~ 1 J1.lrJJJr!/J1 3t.' D. 4)
,~'C:8 Il/,/b.- t?Aft. /7. U..J.
3 ic D 7 j LfLI ::U.- Cfu.e.. _ AI- u} <
/135X' lLir., (iN) fll<ft."J'f.
ICj3~/8 :~,{~L-r
\'4 "3 S X' \..^N\('\.()A.'~...\~ X;
/W(}/~."
.] 62~. 14 r- L;/V i ,V ",J .
/<II.{ :Lei La~c70" ~ !fAY
,.
-::? () ) /""" v. vJ .
We, the . undersigned, petition the City of Andover 'to adopt a curfew
ordinance for persons under the age of 18. . We believe a curfew would
give the Sheriff's office. an additional tool to aid in law enforcement
and would help reduce the number and cost of juvenile vandalism and
property damage.
NAME
1. 4//~<<-
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
ll.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
2l.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
3l.
32.
33.
34.
. 35.
o
o
ADDRESS.
LY~d ~;c~d.#'d~:/~
, .
o
o
We, the undersigned, petition the City of Andover to adopt a curfew
ordinance for persons under the age of 18. We believe a curfew would
give the Sheriff's office an additional tool to aid in law enforcement
and would help reduce the number and cost of juvenile vandalism and
property damage.
1
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
ll.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
2l.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
. . 35.
NAME
ADDRESS
(
3
131
\~~ ~
/399'1 04~ 8-/.;UWa,~
~ '-I \ 'l .\ '-/ U y..... Q..;. ..... Y\ w
:;''1''-/]' /y'c/"#' /fu~ AJ.u1.
;1;(0 ~h :t;- IVW:
1- b ~ .f A,l.0
/~. is- (.,. .~~. :5 r. IJ./{),
3 '7. --. ... tV
c3 f IC;o'fi uJ
-2:i:i1 () ~ AJ W
.5 S lJ 3 - / iJ-tJ
3S~1 l~. Lane A).w.
I I.JrLfi. S!I v ~r5V _
! !foffr 7' /'L-f/P/f<r.!> Y-;-
/ <Ie) '-/V S f'/v~1/
/MSY!:~~
It/&? 2-7.. . ~
liT V) L) s.' /.;.~ -,A r f-
;ct(jl:? S;!t/eroJ)
l'(OO/~k
j .~97 / S)/~.L';,T.
/.Jqr,f,J S: I u ~l"~. .:;r
~~jf;; r:lJ:J.l~)
j~'7.~. LJ'1___ ~'Yl.C0'<
3~gCj IJ1{l . z_i\J.~).
3Yly 1;;,f0~Lo.~rJ.tJ _
31(' 6. ';~'tA~. t/~ I~<{~_
3i.J.5/ /39'f11 ~. ;th.J
sr.es-( 1""3~~ ~fJW
31&1 a/iJ?i tn /11/)
.3YbY /..l7~ ..(,.,._~ #tJ
We, the undersigned, petition the City of Andover to adopt a curfew
ordinance for persons under the age of 18. We believe ac:urfew would.
give the. Sheriff's office an additional tool to aid. in law enforcement
and would help reduce the number and cost of juvenile vandalism and
property damage.
. ,
o
o
l.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
ll.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
. 35.
ADDRESS
. ...... ... ... .74/.. .
~Y39-/37M'
~(lJ r- !.~9 4.77a}MdcJ(~
3ti;;l, (~~~ }~~~ ~ ~J
~43q-/'j~Wt~~.......... · ..
~1:38' Ic37~. . .
d'f31 I j7.bu cLJ-<YU
,q:() 11Zt~f7/Y/-j~H')
c3LJ9D - )3q,1:);~ '-/I
-3<-}9D - ;.Jq tic >fdAe. YJuJ
We, the undersigned, petition thElCity of Andover to adopt a curfew
ordinance for persons under the age of 18. We believe a curfew would
give the Sheriff's office .an additional tool to aid in law enforcement
and would help reduce the number and cost of juvenile vandalism and
property damage.
o
NAME , ,
-,,1 ,/l' . 1:. j~ /' , /1
1.~/-ALeey 9' ( ahtV~<iA{(?/
2\ /~/?c?~
3. Qa;t 'tlA-<. rj~ #_
;<J / / J
4'. 1,f.~.L-- ~ ,~, (~,~-_,/ -c C""
~
5. - .
/~r:
7.
8.
9.
1
11.
//"
12. / I
'-'
13.
14.
15.
16.
17
18. ,i
19.
20.
21-
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31-
o 32.
33.
34.
. 35.
ADDRESS
..., ---:>--:> /'
/:););'7 Y
J 3 5</7
. .. ? .' .
/;A/'>'~LJt:t:JI:dJflJ1d~
4"".";0 / '" K<.: ,5u/,??
/38",."7/ /(e,,,,../ )c,K<?
. r? ..
, ~/ /
//'-? .Y')" :"/ '~_.t'/ :.;" .z..'''"i: .....-./.:."
I :) g:>~5- gG,",,-~Q LI\I""C
/fL (J D
/1
':::d/,- (.,
)~Slf'7
o
o
. .
We{ the undersigned, petition the City of Andover to adopt a curfew
ordinance for persons under the age of 18. We believe a curfew would
give the. Sheriff's office an additional tool to aid in law enforcement
and would help reduce the number and cost of juvenile vandalism and
property damage.
1.
2. .
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
;;
1/( '^ flA~ ~ S1. /lNJ
.I I //
,1
,3 1~ IL/..~ f?D (W-{ ,y~ .
/ <Ie <J<l (~/d ~<7<C~>~
/0g1 1d6~~~ r ,
I, ~ !I_
I 't 2 t t L.. ;.-..-..U~ ~
~~:;. ;~'(:~
) f{/;2 "79 0 h-. I----.Q
PI ;).~() VI'''' k.C;r.?
/ I
/ f;):;> c:J l/. "I rl:: ~1 f""
I V ,,'i) 'j ... /i , /~;/~ C=-
3 fcs- '. / ;,/ /-! v'f:.. ~v'
~ .C, . / ':II (c,/
? ;/V{) /Vs.">~Av' /'l.../ ~
3 7'16 ('1 r~ Au' . ,lUe0
-' '-t)S ~ . Um(lJ.,^vtk~fr t\I-::J
i If )- ,v-q \'~'Y\(U~1,f- ^ j (,0
~~~q ~2~1:jt~'A/ !A)
I Y':;. 7 ~ () fidel( /,"(r SI /uU
Ill,) b&lJJ~ 51,77. -p ,
/~I:)'J ?).,~. S~ /17./ ,
/1
!7c-:J
/74 )
We,. ttu~undersi9ned', petition the Cityof Andover to adopt a curfew
ordinance for persons under the. age of 18. We believe a curfew would
give the Sheriff's office an additional tool' to aid in law enforcement
and would help reduce the number and cost of juvenile vandalism and
property damage.
1-
2.
3.
4.
. \ "
:: e ',3t:C~""\ ~~
7. '. 1, .=~~~
::J?~';;; '/ ,")h'^~-.
10. . };.t:# . 17 '~~:1<d' ~'P,-
1, ""- "1//'/" .)' . < /"
'. ~~'" ":'./0./ .... {(r. .0./','(, ,/. _
if
',2.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
2l.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
3l.
32.
33.
34.
. 35.
o
c
NAME
ADDRESS
ie-Ii .,',7 (;It,..{,~ ,V/'//L./ ,~/~,J.:'-i. '"
///c' t'~: t~V1~. ;Jr' #./l._>i!~(d1-4U.R"'--
- ,
;:7~:Z 2;/~::; j ~:~~/ ~j~Z:/
jA./6~~&.. "~\~ ,'\,IJ'i -'~~\,- ~}v\.i\i-1-J:'-
\ " r
14 (n, C. ,;J ,'::,-, I.J....)...J"
/ 17'';; Y C~~"" St. {JAjO ,\..:.,
LJi!oj~~ )6';;;~~~/At))t(;Ja;:/
,-,- ',',' " ," ..-. /'. /- ,:
i ., (i ! 'i (i ,~...-r- )/ V 'vI- (J~</......_
" ...-:-<.'...... ....;.c .'.;' - /....... -~.....' /". ,. A I
'. " ': r~[ <" /ft~/~j. I 1.,.../ . " "'-~-u" ;(<...." L" <'::""\J
(
We, the undersigl"led~ petition the City of Andover to adopt a curfew
ordinance for persons under the age of 18. We believe a curfew would
give. the Sheriff's office an additional tool to aid in law enfo,.c~ment;
and would help reduce the number and cost of juvenile vandalism and
property damage.. . .
, .
o
l.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
ll.
12.
13.
14."1
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
2l.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
3l.
32.
33.
34.
. 35.
o
/
/
/
NAME
ADDRESS
/ cJfJoG VIAJ~GS7 IJ/.,Q
;J;1 ~{~~
37nf I'I'('~~'/i,%> ..
57/( -,'is- ~ ~. ~.
3723 (((Silt. I1lh>fU~ J
~7 :)1 ((S tit A J/E. )Jf.J-
<-3 7..39 Iys ~ /;~
'. I /....... c _ - _ - --.
/ '1'i/c; fI//J/"Jj': Pblfd 4/.W- .
I </<;/P 7 / .a~" <...1-/. h-..{;... >
LL/.~~& (v~h '/l/,tJi
/'-/ '1"10 Ii!~>l~" 1srAl.h1.
F/3r/.? ~ .)/, lq
/JkJdq W~ ~ A./ v)
/i]119 /1) cnrrJJ A~~ .~~ AJ.tJ. .
~ ~ ~\(\~ ~D.\'),
I'-IS').,3 7th- ,Y]. ~f1.
NJZiJ WOO~~A/e. sr r:;
i 1./.3 2. 'i Wo 0 ;'" <. s:+ f .
.3 Cc;9 - / V .........,#113 /II,.W.
..11.5.5-/<;3 . ~'/7.~
I L{~ 11 )(eM fA- ~Sf N. CJ
\L\-::<"~ \~\c}'-0""""<: ~.. Vs\;0
?G.o7'- /2!.:J-dk;.uQ, /V.t// ~
~le: KEY
__ or t: KC LI ST
AME
CARROLL AND SUE ABBOTT
cTOH~~ A~,lD BARB HO,^IARD
GAF,Y AI'-lD t'1AR I E LENZI'1E I EF;
CLYDE AND SUE BADE
BILL AND SHIRLEY LEFEBVRE
STP)E AND MARY MI LLER
BILL AND LITAHNI COLEMAN
STEVE AND BETTY NOKK
DARRELL AND c1ot'-lI SPAETH
CATHY' AND ~1ICHAEL NIZNICK
JEANETTE AND ROGER SCHAUER
Craig and Mary Liet3k~
Mik~ and Bev Knight
Tim and Kim Dalbec
L i :.a and Dav i d Rc.we
cTa.nette Niema.nn
Jack and Linda Merda
/athy and Larry McAlpine
~ale and Gail G.erd~s
Sandy and Gene Stroins~ i
Jerry and Marilyn ~yding
Stuart and Karen Kincade
Gee.r.gia. and Dona.ld G~,"",dr.ik
Ceei 1. and D.c<le :':.. ",...ie t
Da.l e and Ka ther' I ne l:.dl '.'r.d
Sh i r 1 e :,' Ap 0 1 1 0
Bruce & Joan Ferrario
Clark & Sus.c<n COY
G 1 e:.r. i a. & Car. 1 Bo:.:.."" 'm."n
Gr'e tchen S.c<.be 1
ADDRESS
2<;'17 142 LN Nt,)
2B24 142 LN Nl..)
2'7'0 t: 141 A'.JE Nt,)
14406 I,)!NTAGE
14278 UNDERCLIFF
14001 SILVEROD
:::046 16BTH LAt~E
28'57 167TH LANE
14~.41 GUARAI'~ I ST.
14007 QUINN ST. N
3'7'61 S. EI'-lCHANTED
14001 P",.r.tr'idge
4611 175th Ln 1'~v.J
2955 142nd Ln NW
1707::: E ide 1 ""e is:.
2421 179th Ave NW
35<;'5 143d A',Je N!J)
13868 (,)oodb i n e
1853 Andover 81vd
13616 Heather St
2032 159th Ln NW
13781 Quay St. NW
16382 Ward Lake D
16279 Cr'o<E:.~.toIAln
1 ~,957 Xe fl i ~.
2775 172nd Aue NW
2211 139th Aue NW
13848 Ouinn St.NW
14013 Yukon St N.
3~,4(l 153r'd Al.)l?
Page
CITY PHONE NUMBER SECTIOI')
------------ ------------ --------
ANDOVER, MN 757-3475 Y4
ANDO()EF.: , ~1~'.J 757,-"-7"4"73 Y'j
AI"~DOVEF.: . MN 7~,7-62<;'2 "{2
ANDOI)ER, ~1~~ 427-370 '7' 81
AI'-lDOVER, MN 427-2841 8'-'
,-'-
ANDOVER, "'I~,J 427-5847 p'"
AI'..JDO'JE F; , MN 753-471 1 Gl
ANDOl,)ER, MN 753-32:30 Gl
AI'WOI)ER, MN 427-7307 B4
AI',JDO")EF.: MN 755-89'7'2 '..~' c::
. l...f
AI'~DO'.)EF; , MN 427-E:51 1 F: !
An dOl.} e- r l"lN 757-2979 '..,'c
, 1._'
An dOl.) €' [, , MI'~ 421-~'::::'47 F:;:'
An de.',' er' . MN 757-1 237 'f -
An do'.! e r. ,. MN 753-41 2~' b ~~,'
Andover, MN 753-2749 G::::
Ar,do....er. , MI'.J 427-6818 EO':'
Andover' , "'IN 427-0346 8h
Ando'..!er' , l1N 7~,7-5~,O.t.; " .'
Andover ~1N 421-931 <= y
, ,-J
An dOl.) E' r. , 11N 434-6334 (...4
Ando'.'er' , ~11"J 427-0638 1<';
An dOl;) €' f' , t"lI'.j 434-648:3 '-'.",
Arrdo')er' ~11'J 434-501'::' c.,~.
Ar. do'" e r. 1"11'~ 421-00$',~ i:.'
,
An do~' e r. . "'In 7~13~46~'~5 ..
Andover- 1"'ln 75~1-747~~. -;L
,
Ando')l:?f , ~"In 757-(Iq4.f:
An dOl) t? f' '''In 7~,5-1 (i~\'7' ::1
Andover Ivln 427-55"<::~
These are areas where the Key Communicator Crime
Watch l?rogram has been instituted.
o
4.4.;.......
.,
,
. CITY OF ANDOVER
, '. .'. REQUEST FOR' COUNCII~ ACTION
_.:~O~"-~.i;,-.:,,-<~;...,,,,,~.:~;.;:'c~.,~~~~~._ ~~."c:.c'...."____....__,__;:j.._ ',' ;~;;;;f;~~')":'i7;:d,.i.;..;.;i:":;;;^ 1"1:"':;"":::': ...,,-'~;:' '.' '. .
. .
L....,.',.
SECTION ORlGINA TINe DEPARTMENT
NO.
Discussion Planning and Zoning
ITEM Prairie Oaks Pre. Plat
NO. 4e BY: Vicki Vo1k
MOTION by Apel, seconded by Rogers that the Andover Planning
and Zoning Commission recommend to the City Council approval
of the preliminary plat of Prairie Oaks, being developed by
Gene Bak and Bob Grover, legally described as 'The North
660 feet of the Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter
of Section 23, Township 32, Range 24, Anoka County, Minnesota,
except the North 300 feet of the East 400 feet thereof', with
a variance being granted for the length of the cul-de-sac
pursuant to Ordinance 10, Section 9.03G. Also, that a variance
be granted for Lot 3, Block 1 for the 300 feet at the setback
line. In the case of the lot, the 300 feet is measured 105
feet back. This is 65 feet more than is required in Ordinance
10, Section 8.03 G and Ordinance 8, Section 6.02; Both
variances are for topographical purposes.
As a note, the Park Board has reviewed this plat and has
decided to accept cash in lieu of land per their memo of
October 15, 1985.
Approval is recommended for the following reasons:
1) It conforms to the Comprehensive Plan;
2) It does not adversely affect the surrounding area;
3} It does not adversely affect traffic patterns in the
area.
--'~'-The Ci-t:y'Engineer has reviewed-~nd-commented-on--'Lhep1at---
-.c and. changes he has recommended have. beentakenc' care of
by the developer.
Motion carried unanimously.
COUNCil ACTION
o
MOTION BY
TO:
SECOND BY
CITY OF ANDOVER
COUNTY OF ANOKA
STATE OF MINNESOTA
--0------- ---.--...-----.---. -
MOTION by Councilman
NO.
to adopt the following:
A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PRELHIINARY PLAT OF PRAIRIE OAKS AS BEING
DEVELOPED BY ROBERT GROVER AND GENE BAK IN SECTION 23-32-24.
WHEREAS, pursuant to published notice thereof, the Planning
and Zoning Commission has conducted a public hearing on the Preliminary
Plat of Prairie Oaks; and
WHEREAS, as a result of such hearing and review, the Planning
and Zoning Commission is recommending approval of such Plat, citing as
reasons for such recommendation as being 1) it conforms to the Compre-
hensive Plan; 2) it does not adversely affect the surrounding area; and
3) it does not adversely affect traffic patterns in the area; and
WHEREAS, the City Council acknowledges that a recommendation
has been received from the Park Board for cash in lieu of land; and
WHEREAS, the City Council is in agreement with the reasons
given by the Planning and Zoning Commission; and
WHEREAS, the City Council further acknowledges that the plat
has been reviewed by the City Engineer and the Andover Review C0111ffiittee.
City of
'Oaks,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the
Andover to hereby approve the Preliminary Plat of prairie
noting the following variances:
1. 154th Lane shall exceed the allowable length for
a cul-de-sac.
2. Lot 3, Block 1 shall have the lot width measured
105 feet back rather than 40 feet.
MOTION seconded by Councilman
and adopted by the
City Council at a
Meeting this
day of
19 , with Councilmen
voting in favor of said resolution,
and Councilmen
voting against,
whereupon said resolution was declared passed.
CITY OF ANDOVER
o
ATTEST:
Jerry Windschi tl - ~layor
Marcella Peach ~ City Clerk
~ 01 ANDOVER
. .
,___~____-c.~__....___.~__~_________..__.
PRELIMINARY PLAT APPLICATION
Street Location of Property:
l1;Avv Pra; ri e Road
Legal Description of Property: The North 660 Feet of thp SOllthpil"t Qllilrt~r nf th~ North-
east Quarter of Section 23. Township 32. Range ?4. Anokil r.ollnty. r1inn~<:nt;" ~vr~rt
the North 300 feet of the East 400 feet thereof.
Property Owner:
Bob Grover and Gene Bilk r./D / Kopplin-F~~
Phone:
Address:
(See Below)
Applicant
Bob Gnover and Gene Bak
Phone: 7gh 0600
Address:
8729 Central Ave I'IE . B1i'Iinp, Hn 1)1)414
Description of Request:
Pl at. Approva 1
Rezoning Request .Required: Yes
NO-1L Explain
Fee-//~?.3 /' -r-3at1.t1(J ...4-L~ <.,......)
"Date" Paia: /o---;';-8S
Receipt No: / 'lQI/d
(Date)
/t>hPS--
.
o
-0---.---.-------
CITY OF ANDOVER
COUNTY OF ANOKA
-STATEOFHMINNESOTA
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
The City of Andover Planning and Zoning Commission will hold a
public hearing at 7:30 P.M., Tuesday, October 22, 1985 at the
Andover City Hall, 1685 Crosstown Boulevard N.W., Andover, l''lN
to consider the preliminary plat known as Prairie Oaks, being
developed by Gene Bak and Bob Grover. Said property is legally
described as 'The North 660 feet of the Southeast Quarter of
the Northeast Quarter of Section 33, Township 32,_ Range 24,
Anoka County, Minnesota. Except the North 300.00 feet of the
East 400.00 feet thereof'. (Approximate location is Prairie
Road and County Road 18)
All opponents and proponents of said preliminary plat will
be heard at the above time and location.
-,-"7 .
~" . I
C\h...uj.--~( . f c-(./ L-
Marcel Peach, A. City Clerk
o
..0.
Property Owners vlithin 350 'of Prairie Oaks
----..-..-- -'--'Bernard' Grande
13128 Baltimore Street
Blaine, MN 55434
------.------_.~~--------------------,----_.-._-------
N.E.
Mike Kelner
15478 Prairie
Andover, MN
Road
55304
Dorthea Raiche
60 - 18th Avenue N.E.
Minneapolis, MN 55418
Gordon Nordeen
15357 Prairie Road N.W.
Andover, MN 55304
John M. Kuen
15540 Priaire
Andover, MN
Road N.W.
55304
Wayne Reed
968 Crosstown
Andover, MN
Boulevard
55304
Sophie Kozlowski
1021 Crosstown Boulevard N.W.
Andover, MN 55304
John Baily
15380 Prairie
Andover, MN
Road N.W.
55304
o
o-H-~~vlA ~'-D_QVER____~","c
Request For Planning Commission Actiol1
Andover R~view Co~ittee I 62
By: James E. Schrantz
Approved By:
Meeting Date: October 22nd Time: 7: 30 P. H.
Case: Prairie Oaks Preliminary Plat
Location: 154th and Prairie Road
Applicant: Bob Grover & Gene Bak
Attachments:
Request: The Planning Commission is requested to review and make a
recommendation to the City Council on the preliminary plat for
Prairie Oaks. The Andover Reyiew Committee has reviewed the preliminary
plat and offer the following comments:
General Comments:
OStreet access to Prairie Road is adequate.
OThe cul-de-sac exceeds the 500' length (950').
OAccess to the adjoining properties was investigated. This can be
reviewed with P&Z if desired. Variance for cul-de-sac seems preferable.
01 recommend the public hearing be continued after the public testimony
is received until the soils, grading, water table and pond areas and
elevation information_is received for staff review.
. __._._..___..__....._.___..~n.._'_ . ___
oPark Board's recommendation will be determined at the October 17th
Park Board meeting.
The following comments are per the Planning Commission checklist for
Ordinance 10.
NOTE: Comments are on items of information and concern only.
This review was made without soil borings, drainage calculations,
ponding elevations and grading plan.
o
8.02
8.03
8.04
9.01
9.04
9.05
9.06
o
JES:vv
a. prairie Oaks
b. Bak & Grover
f. 9/27/85
Existing Conditions
a. Boundary line survey not tied to nearest 1/4 section.
j. The soils as shown on the map in ti1e "Soil Survey of
Anoka County" are Sarte11 fine sand development group
#1 - soils that are suitable for development and
Lino Loamy Sand development Group #3 on part of Lot 6.
Group 3 soils are severely limited for Community
development because the percolation rates are too slow
for a septic tank absorption field to function properly.
Water table report not received - mottled water level
required.
Design Features
a. 157th Lane OK
c. Street grades flat for bituminous berm.
d. Overall grading plan not provided.
f. Pond size and elevation on lot 4 not provided
g. Side and rear setbacks not shown
h. Watershed approval needed.
Additional Information
f. 100 year flood elevation of pond lot 4 needed.
General Requirements
a. Local street - low density - 24' bituminous with berm
as shown is city standard.
Easements
a. Drainage and utility easements on lot lines not shown.
Blocks
a. Cul-de-sac exceeds 500 feet - needs variance.
Lots
a.3. 39,000 square feet of land 6.5' above the permanent or
seasonal high water table (Ordinance 37).
.~~~~oI:A NPJ)''lER_
Request For Planning Commission
Andover Revie
By,
Approved By:
Action
Meeting Date:
Time' 7: 30 P. M.
Case: Prairie Oaks Preliminary Plat
Location:
Applicant: Bob Grover/Gene Bak
Attachments:
Request:
Additional comments to request for action dated 10/22/85.
The following comments are since we have had soil, water table,
grading and ponding elevation information available.
General Comments:
OLot width at setback on cul-de-sac lots need to be addressed.
01 have asked the developer's engineer to use 1% as minimum grade
on the street.
OWe have asked that the plan show the lowest floor elevation on
each lot.
OMott1ed water table is needed for basement elevation - the water
table elevations are close per the developer's engineer. He is
..nn~_.__documenting.. that information..
CC: Developer
o
.
e
e
. CITY OF ANDOVER
REOUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
DATE
DA SECTION
NO. Discussion
ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT
Planning & Zoning
APPROVED fOR
^C'NO/~
BV/V -
ITEM Creek ridge Estates Pre.
Plat
NO.
Vo1k
MOTION by Bosell, seconded by Rogers that the Andover
Planning and Zoning Commission recommend to the City
Council approval of the preliminary plat of Creekridge
Estates being developed by Carlson-Dropps Associates,
legally described as 'Part of Government Lot 5 and part
of the Northeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of
Section 29, Township 32, Range 24, and part of the
Southwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter and part of
the Northwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section.
28, Township 32, Range 24, Anoka County County, Minnesota','
noting the following:
1. This plat has been reviewed by the City Engineer.
Corrections have been made and the plat is now in
conformance with the engineering requests.
2. The plat has gone before the Park Commission and,
their recommendation has ~een received.
3. A public hearing was held in regard to this plat
for informational purposes.
4. The plat is in conformance with the Comprehensive
Plan of the City of Andover and does not violate
the intent and philosophy of that plan.
5. It should be further noted that this plat will be done
in two parts - Phase I and Phase II. In Phase II,
there are some technical details that need to be straight-
ened out in regard to the drainage.
6. In Phase II, the lots on Round Lake Boulevard and the
north side of South Coon Creek Drive. will not be allowed
to front on those streets, but will front on interior
streets.
COUNCIL ACTION
BY
SECOND BY
o
Creekridge Estates
Page 2
7. It should be further noted that in Phase II, Block 4 on
the south side of South Coon Creek Drive shall be
provided with extra. driveway space to al1ow'for additional
parking as no parking is allowed on an MSA street..
Motion carried unanimously.
o
o
o
CITY OF ANDOVER
COUNTY OF ANOKA
STATE OF MINNESOTA
NO.
MOTION by Councilman
to adopt the following:
A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY PLAT OF CREEKRIDGE ESTATES
AS BEING DEVELOPED BY CARLSQN, DROPPS ASSOCIATES IN SECTION 29-]2-24.
WHEREAS, pursuant to published notice thereof, the Planning
and Zoning Commission has conducted a public hearing on the Preliminary
Plat of Creekridge Estates; and
\'lHEREAS, as a result of such hearing and review, the Planning
and zoning Commission is recommending approval of such plat, citing as
reasons for such recommendation as being 1) the plat is in conformance
with the Comprehensive Plan of the City of Andover and does not violate
the intent and philosophy of that plan; and
WHEREAS, the City Council acknowledges that a recommendation
has been received from the l:'ark Board for dedication of land plus cash;
and
WHEREAS, the City Council is in agreement with the reasons
given by the Planning and zoning Commission; and
WHEREAS, the City Council further acknowledges that the plat
has been reviewed by the City Engineer.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the
City of Andover to hereby approve the Preliminary Plat of Creekridge'
Estates, noting the following:
1. This plat will be done in two parts-Phase I and Phase
II. Phase II will require some technical details to
be worked out in regard to drainage.
2. The lots on Eound Lake B.oulevard and the north. side
of South Coon Creek Drive will front on interior streets.
3. B.lock 4 in phase II shall be provided with extra
driveway space to allow for additional parking as no
parking is allowed on an MSA street.
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 Council-
men
voting against, whereupon
ATTEST:
Jerry Winds chi tl. - Mayor .
Marcella Peach ~ C1ty Clerk
o
o
. &:ut 01 ANDOVER
PRELIMINARY PLAT APPLICATION
Street Location of Property:
Legal Description of property:
Property OWner: Carlson. j)r'o~~<:; a'leJ Aq<:.~.ocl;1tr>':~
Phone: 7'Y;-121:';
Address: 7"''l10].j (JpntTal lIVe. "'rid]"..', .1:" ')::,iU~
Applicant
Jichard ;~'.,Carlso11
Phone: 73'0-1 ;21<;
Address:_:J...'J:_~1 ~.Ji:i Cpnrr;ll' nve. :,-'ridle'.T. ::;,( 'SI,';;l32
Description of Request:
tu
r. f
y/'-' .
,
.4.
&'Y~<>-Vl
Rezoning Request Required: Yes
NO~ Explain
.,
Fee: r .so ()
Date Paid: Ie - .; - S <S.
Receipt No: I '7.2 'i 6,
of Property Owner)
\ \:) - .~.~ ~..:,\
(Date)
o
o
CITY 0F ANDOVER
COUNTY OF ANOKA
STATE OF MINNESOTA
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
The Andover Planning and Zoning Commission will hold a public
hearing at 7:30 P.M., Tuesday, October 22, 1985 at the Andover
City Hall, 1685 Crosstown Boulevard N.W., Andover, Hinnesota
to consider the preliminary plat known as Creekridge Estates,
being developed by Carlson, Dropps Associates. Said property
is legally described as 'Part of Government Lot 5 and part of
the Northeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 29,
Township 32, Range 24, and part of .the Southwest Quarter of
the Northwest Quarter and part of the Northwest Quarter of
the Southwest Quarter of Section 28, Township 32, Range 24,
Anoka County, ~innesota.
All opponents and proponents of said preliminary plat will be
heard at the above time and location.
-,
\\ \. '\ \ "
j t \.1..(,:-, i., '--,.--..<\\... ~ '--..:.-
l'1arce,lla Peach, A. City Clerk
L___.
PROPERTY OWNERS - CREEKRIDGE ESTATES
o
Rosella Sonsteby
4151 - 141st Avenue N.W.
Andover, MN 55304
Steven & Judy Taylor
14535 Round Lake Boulevard N.W.
Andover, MN 55304
Thomas McClusky
14545 Round Lake Boulevard N.W.
Andover, MN 55304
Marion L. O'Neill
14555 ~ound Lake Boulevard N.W.
Andover, MN 55304
Emma S. Allen
10633 Direct Drive
Coon Rapids, MN 55433
John E. Blumer
14554 Round Lake Boulevard N.W.
Andover, MN 55304
Anoka County Parks Department
550 Bunker Lake- Boulevard N.W.
Ahdover, MN 55304
Blanche Gallant
7720 York Avenue South
Edina, MN 55435
Marvin & Lois Benson
14817 Round Lake BOulevard N.W.
Andover, MN 55304
Anoka County
3~5 East Main Street
Anoka, MN 55303
Lawrence E. Vaske
14208 - 96th Street N.E.
Elk River, tiN 55330
Jay R. Seidenkranz
3400 South Coon Creek Drive
Andover, MN 55304
o
Ronailid Hoch
3426 South Coon Creek Drive
Andover, MN 55304
Leonard. & B. J. Chr istenson
3419 South Coon Creek Drive
Andover, HN 55304
Joyce AnD Palm
3425 South Coon Creek Drive
Andover, mn 55304
James R. Horris
3437 South Coon Creek Drive
Andover, MN 55304
B. Kirchner
639 Monroe Street
Anoka, i1N 55303
Lowell Lumpkin
3455 South Coon Creek Drive
Andover, MN 55304
Diane M. Kirchner
14509 Round Lake Boulevard N.W.
Andover, MN 55304
Archie Kirchner
3436 South Coon Creek Drive
Andover, MN 55304
Kenneth Nordstrom
14521 Round Lake Boulevard
Andover, MN 55304
George Adolfson
3331 Bunker Lake Boulevard N.W.
Andover, MN 55304
Wallace Johnson
3061 ~ 142nd Lane N.W.
Andover, MN 55304
Philip Rzeszutek
14242 Ivywood Street N.W.
Andover, MN 55304
S.I. Birkedal
3045 - 142nd Lane N.W.
Andover, MN 55304
Daniel Schmid
3035 - 142nd Lane N.W.
Andover, MN 55304
e
o
Creekridge Estates, Cant.
Stephen J. Brandjord
3025 - 142nd Lane N.W.
Andover, HN 55304
Charles P. Fields
2963 South Coon Creek Drive
Andover, HN 55304
John R. Hibbard
3015 - 142nd Lane N.W.
AndoVer, MN 55304
Kadlec Construction
16970 Crocus Street N.W.
Andover, r4N 55304
Lawrence TO Lauer
100~ - 142nd Lane N.W.
Andover, ~lN 55304
Donald Bengry
14249 Quay Street N.W.
Andover, MN 55304
Timothy & Kimberly Dalbec
3955 - 142nd Lane N.W.
Andover, MN 55304
John Ryhn
2949- 142nd
Andover, MN
Lane N.W.
55304
Richard Pasche
2950 - 142nd Lane N.W.
Andover, MN 55304
Scott Bayer
2642 Benjamin Street N.E.
Minneapolis, MN 55418
Richard Albertson
3030 - 142nd Lane N.W.
Andover, MN 55304
Lynn Kalahar
3014 - 142nd Lane N.W.
Andover, MN 55304
Richard J. Krusemark
2990 South Coon Creek Drive
Andover, MN 55304
John Tregner
702 Cornell
ViII. Park, IL 60181
Wesley Spadgenske
2934 South Coon Creek Drive
Andover, MN 55304
Jarnes E. Fields
2923 South Coon Creek Drive
Andover, NN 55304
o
In/lnl,,r;
City of Andover
County of Anokll
11\135 crosstown slvd. N. I..
Andover, Minnesota 55304
Andover Planning
CO'1cerninlS Creekridl!;e Estates
I a~ against developing property next to my land for Houses.
I am on the west side of said proiect
The site across Round Lake Road is to low.
The sewer line coming to this area is too small.
If you huild It should he a minimum of 2~ acres or more.
When we have a Dry year the peat underground Fires are so bad and this
proiect is right around them.
Retter hold development to south of Coon Creek Creek Drive.
Kenneth Nordstrom
14521 Round Lake Blvd.
Anoka, Minn. 55304
o
o
COUNTY
OF
MFt:'TW; . . ..' .... ... .' ........
, '. ..,-~"~- /?-jYS-
. .ID' jT"" . .--________
.n -.~:,J'IJ' ~-~ ",;2-. ~.
-----------
ANOKA
Department of lIigl/lvays
Paul K. Ruud. Highway Engineer
COURT HOUSE ANOKA, MINNESOTA 55303 612-421-4760
November 7, 1985 1
City of Andover
1685 Crosstown Boulevard NW
Anoka, MN. 55304
Attention: Jim Schrantz
Regarding: Preliminary Plat of Creekridge Estates
Alternate Plan
Dear Jim:
We have reviewed the Preliminary Plat for Creekridge Estates
located on Round Lake Boulevard/County State Aid Highway No.9 and
Ker~y Street in Andover.
Right-of-way along the County Highway is acceptable as shown. A
City Street intersection to CSAH 9 also will be acceptable as
Shown. Right of access to CSAH NO.9 from all individual lots
adjacent to it, should be dedicated to Anoka County on the Plat.
All lots have frontage on the Ci ty Streets and should have no
need for access directly to the County Highway.
If you should have any qudstions or comments, please feel free to
contact me.
Sincerely,
>>~ftJ~-J~~~
William A. Sironen, r.E.
Assistant County Enginner - Administration
dmh'
o
AHirmati\le Action / Equal Opportunity Employer
o
-l
~. c1 AN DOVER
Request For Planning Commission Action
;i::~d~;~' c.=~~:::.z f ~
Meeting Date: October 22nd Time: 7:30 P.H.
Case:
CreekRidge Estates Preliminary Plat
Location: SOuth Coon Creek Drive
Applicant: Ca.rlson Dropps & Associates
Attachments:
Request: The Planning Commission is requested to review and make a
recommendation to the City Council on the preliminary plat for
CreekRidge Estates. The Andover Review Committee has reviewed the
preliminary plat and offer the following comments:
General Comments:
OSoils, water table elevation and percolation tests haven't been
received.
OWater table and flood elevations are critical to this plat.
0100 year flood elevation from the Federal Flood Plain report is
867. Lowest floor elevation is 868.
OBasement floor must be 3' above water table.
039,000 s.f. must be 6.5 feet above the permanent or seasonal
high water level per ordinance 37.
OSouth Coon Creek Drive is a MSA 32' wide street with "No Parking"
with 15 lots fronting.
OWe have looked at Kerry Street an& Jonquil Street continuing
straight south with si~e lots on South Coon Creek Drive.
OThe sanitary sewer comes out of the existing ground at the north
end of Jonquil Street (I have never laid sewer on fill).
o oA 10' hole is to be excavated in the back yards of Block 2 for fill.
OWatershed approval needed.
ophaseI lots 2 and 5 don't meet 300' width at setback.
o
o
Estates
OWater table real critical to Phase I
OLot 1, Phase I most of the 39,000 s.f. is in the front yard setback.
OCoon Creek Hydrologic and Hydraulic Study has a 100 year flood
elevation of 869.4.
Request that the public hearing be continued until the ARC has a
chance to review the plat considering the soils, water table (mottled),
and percolation test.
JES.: vv
o
~-oi_ANDOVER
Request For Planning
Action
Andover Review
By,
Approved By:
Time: 7:30 P.M
Case:
CreekRidge Estates
Loc at ion: South Coon Creek Drive/Round Lake Boulevard
Applicant: Carlson, Dropps and Assoc.
Attachments:
Request:
Additional comments to request for action dated 10/22/85
The following comments are since we have soil and water table
information available.
General Comments:
OThe high ground part of Phase II has been revised. This new
overlay 1) saves more trees along South Coon Creek Drive on.
the north side, 2) eliminates a lot of the fill needed at the
north end of the plat, whi..::h in turn eliminates the deep hole
proposed in the back lots on previous plan, 3) the sanitary
sewer is eliminated on the north end and large lots without
public sewer are proposed. These lots may have city water,
and 4) butt lots eliminated.
OWhat size should the unsewered lots in Phase II be?
.0Planning Commission should review the grading plan at the
meeting to get a feeling of the effect of grading on these
lots.
6Anoka County doesn't have a preliminary plat. at this writing
(11/7/85) .
o
01 am still hoping the developer can save more trees on the
proposed lots south of Sout:l Coon Creek Drive and west of the
creek.
6House elevations need to be shown.
OLots 2, 3, 4 and 5, Phas.:- I are OK
Creek Ridge
O Page 2
-------
Estates
_._-_._._-~------~----- ..
OLots 1 and 2 need 39,000 s.f. graded to 871.4.
OTest hole #5 on Lot 19, Phase II, originally submitted shows
2 feet of sand over 5 feet of peat. This indicates that more
investigation is needed along the east line of Phase II. The
sand over the peat was caused by wind and rain erosion over
the years. It is very important that the boundary of the peat
is found so houses are not built over the peat.
OThe grading plan first submitted grades the lots in Block 4 and
will eliminate most of the oak trees on Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, and 7.
Lots 5 and 6 are higher lots.
OThe soils on Block 4 are very loose to loose and moist whereas the
soils on the higher ground are damp to moist and loose to
medium dense.
OThe soils report was done by Subterranean Engineering Corporation
and it is a real soi~s report. Well done.
JES:vv
-
,.
'-
.0..
.- -.
o
CITY OF ANDOVER
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
-_.__._~....,.-_._............---- ~.
DATE
NDA SECTION
NO. Discussion
ORlCINATlNG DEPARTMENT
City Attorney
IT(M Bingo & Gambling Ord.
NO.
BY: Vicki Vo1k
4
Attached is a letter from Bill Hawkins regarding
the Bingo Ordinance and the Gambling Ordinance.
Also attached is a draft ordinance repealing
these two ordinances if the Council feels they
are not necessary.
--------------------.-- --" --- ---..
COUNCIL ACTION
MOTION BY
TO:
SECOND BY
.-- --.----------.--
------------
BY:
I
I
,
I
'"1
I
,
I
I
. __. --.-----!
,
. --.......----------.---.--.... .--------------
o
o
CITY OF ANDOVER
-COUNTY OF.ANOKA-------
STATE OF MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO. 74
AN ORDINANCE REPEALING ORDINANCE NO. 39, KNOWN AS THE BINGO
ORDINANCE, AND ORDINANCE NO. 65, KNOWN AS THE GAMBLING ORDINANCE.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANDOVER HEREBY ORDAINS:
Ordinance No. 39, known as the Bingo Ordinance, and Ordinance No.
65, known as the Gambling Ordinance, are hereby repealed in their
entirety.
Adopted by the City Council this
day of
1985.
CITY OF ANDOVER
ATTEST:
Jerry Windschit1 - Mayor
Marcella Peach - City Clerk
.
LAW OFFtCES OF
MITrING /,t-.3 - ? S-
AGENDA ITEM #: 'f1J/ . .~
~
O---,-,,",-Burklllltd JlllwKiltS
299 COON RAPIDS BOULEVARD
JOHN P-01. BURKE
WILLIAM G. HAWKINS
BARRY M. ROBINSON
COON RAPIDS. MINNESOTA 55433
PHONE 1612) 784-2998
November 18, 1985
~s. Marcella Peach
Andover City Hall
1685 Crosstown Blvd.
Andover, MN 55304
Re: Ordinance No. 39 - Bingo Ordinance
Ordinance No. 65 - Gambling Ordinance
Dear ''iarcie:
Pursuant to the request of the City I have reviewed the neces-
sity for modification of Ordinance Nos. 39 and 65 in relation-
ship to the recent changes adopted by the State and establish-
ment of the State Charitable Gambling Board.
Under 1'linnesota Statute 3~9.213 a statutory city has the
authority to adopt more stringent regulations of any form of
lawful gambling within its jurisdiction including the prohibi-
tion of any form of lawful gamb1 ing. Furthermore the City has
the right to require a permit for the conduct of gambling which
is exempt from licensing by the State Board. The present exemp-
tions whereby a state license is not needed are bingo events in
connection with a county fair or civic celebration if not con-
ducted for more than twelve consecutive days or by any organiza-
tion which conducts four or fewer bingo occasions in the
calendar year. Raffles are exempt if the value of the raffle
prizes in one year does not exceed $750.00.
Unless the City Council feels it wants to regulate
gamb1ing--'events-cOt'--impos~ more str ingent.. regu1-ations-, I
need for the existence of either Ordinance- Nos. 39 or 65.
exempt
see no
Even with no such ordinance in effect, the State statute pro-
vides that the Charitable Gambling Board must submit to the City
for its review and approval licenses issued within the municipal
boundaries. Accordingly we will still have some minor degree of
control over these activities. Would you please present this to
the City Council for their review and opinion.
o
~~11J'
.will iam G. Hawk ins
WGH:mk
,
CITY OF ANDOVER
o
REOUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
OAT(
SECTION
Discussion
NO.
BY:
ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT
Engineering
Shore land Mgmt. Ordinance
4h
Attached is a letter from Molly CorreaU of the DNR regarding
the Shoreland Management Ordinance.
The concerns they have are:
1)
We define the shore land district as
of the 1000 feet which is. required.
mandates that 1000 feet be used.
300 feet instead
Legislation
2) WPC-40 is not referenced in the shore land ordinance.
We feel Crooked Lake and Round Lake are unique and fall under
DNR flexibility in negotiating ordinance standards as discussed
in the Mayor I s letter dated 8/7/85.
I
I
__ _m _ !
,
COUNCIL ACTION
,',0''''
MOTION BY
TO:
SECOND BY
,
o
o
MEETINGJJ- 3- oS-
AGENDA ITEM # 4h
~ STATE OF
[NJ [NJ[~ ~ @ 1Y~
... · DEPARTMENT
OF
NATURAL
RESOURCES
PHONE NO. 296-7523
November 13, 1985
The Honorable Jerry Windschitl
Andover City Hall
1685 Crosstown Boulevard N.W.
Anoka, Minnesota 55303
Re: Shoreland Management Ordinance Adoption
Dear Mayor Windschitl:
It was recently brought to ll1~r attention that there is one significant
change in the ordinance draft which I received in March 1985 and the
draft received September 9, 1985. The most recent draft defines the
Shoreland district as 300 feet instead of the 1000 feet which is
statuatorily required. I am enclosing a copy of the enabling
legislation which quite specifically defines the district as 1000 feet
and precludes any flexibility in negotiating lesser distances. There
is some flexibility in working our specific zoning provisions for
areas beyond the riparian tier if the city so desires.
I was not able to find in your sewage treatment ordinance 4137 a
reference to. having adopted Pollution Control Agency (PCA) standards
except in the provisions for allowing alternative systems. Does the
city have some specific reasons for not referencing PCA standards
(WPC-40) in their shoreland ordinance? Of particular concern to us is
the lack of a requirement that there be a 3 foot separation of septic
systems frol'J groundwater or bedrock. In order for your ordinance to
meet state standards, you must reference PCA standards or have
equivalent standards which PCA should evaluate for compliance.
A possible solution to differences in your dimensional standards
compared to state standards might be to reclassify all of the Natural
Environment Wetlands to General Development. You already have larger
lot sizes so if you wish to downgrade the other standards (setback,
frontage) we would be amenable to such an approach. Since all of the
basins in the unsewered area are wetlands with the same
classification, it makes more sense to have only one set of standards.
1',
There are no time limit commitments in the statutes for DNR approval
of a draft ordinance. I have been processing the information which I
receive from the city in a timely manner. Please be reminded that you
were first contacted in August 1983 and we received the draft
ordinance in March of 1985. I then requested justification for the
proposed standards in April, May and July which were received on
September 9th. This letter represents the concerns/deficiencies from
the regional and central office review.
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
~@
,
o
The Honorable Jerry Windschitl
Page Two
November 13, 1985
I would be happy to meet with you, the Planning Committee or the City
Council to resolve these remaining issues towards the ultimate goal of
approving your ordinance. Please contact me at 296-7523 at your
convenience.
Sincerely,
-\\O\\'-y \Jc~o..",-
Molly Co\1eau
Area Hydrologist
dv
Enclosure
cc: Steve Prestin, Shoreland Management Section
Don Jacobson, Planning Commission
Jim Schrantz, City Administrator
o
105.485 DIVISION OF WATERS, SOILS AND MINERALS
2114
History: 1974 c 558s 7; 1978 c 726 s 1
1050485 REGULATION OF SHORELAND DEVELOPMENT.
Subdivision 1. Purpose. In furtherance of the policies declared in section
105.38, and chapter 116, it is in the interest of the public health, safety. and
welfare to provide guidance for the wise development of shorelands of public
waters and thus preserve and enhance the quality of surface waters, preserve the
economic and natural environmental values of shore lands. and provide for the
wise utilization of water and related land resources of the state.
Subd. 2. Definitions. For the purposes of this section the terms defined in
this section have the meanings given them: (a) "Shoreland" means land located
within the following distances from the ordinary high water elevation of public
waters: (1) Land within 1,000 feet from the normal high watermark of a lake,
pond, or flowage; and (2) land within 300 feet of a river or stream or the land-
ward side of flood plain delineated by ordinance on such a river or stream.
whichever is greater. (b) "Unincorporated area" means the area outside a city.
(c) "Municipality" means a city.
Subd. 3. Commissioner's duties. Before April 1. 1974. the commissioner of
natural resources shall promulgate, in the manner provided in chapter 15, model
standards and criteria, other than a model ordinance, for the subdivision. use,
and development of shoreland in municipalities. which standards and criteria
shall include but not be limited to those listed below in regard to unincorporated
areas. Before July I, 1970, the commissioner of natural resources shall promul-
gate, in the manner provided in chapter IS, model standards and criteria for the
subdivision, use, and development of shoreland in unincorporated areas. includ-
ing but not limited to the following: (a) The area of a lot and length of water
frontage suitable for a building site; (b) the placement of structures in relation
to shorelines 'and roads; (c) the placement and construction of sanitary and
waste disposal facilities; (d) designation of types of land uses; (e) changes in
bottom contours of adjacent public waters; (f) preservation of natural shore lands
through the restriction of land uses; (g) variances from the minimum standards
and criteria; and (h) amodel ordinance. The following agencies shall provide
such information and advice as may be necessary to the preparation of the rules
and regulations, or amendments thereto: The state departments of agriculture.
economic development, and health; the state planning agency; the pollution con-
trol agency; the state soil and water conservation board; and the Minnesota his-
torical society. In addition to other requirements of chapter 15. the model staw
dards and ordinance promulgated pursuant to this section, or amendments
thereto, shall not be filed with the secretary of state unless approved by tbe
state commissioner of health and the director of the pollution control agency.
Subd. 4. Failure of county toael; commissioner's duties; enforcement. If a
county fails to adopt a shoreland conservation ordinance by July I, 1972, or if
the commissioner of natural resources, at any time after July 1. 1972. after
notice and hearing as provided in section 105.44, finds that a county has adopted
a shore land conservation ordinance which fails to meet the minimum standards
established pursuant to this section, the commissioner. shall adapt the model
ordinance to the county. The commissioner shall hold at least one public hearing
on the proposed ordinance in the manner provided in section 394.26, after
giving notice as provided in section 394.26. This ordinance is effective for tbe
county on the date and in accordance with such regulations relating to compli-
ance as the commissioner shall prescribe. The ordinance shall be enforced IS
provided in se.ction 394.37. The penalties provided in section 394.37, apply to
violations of the ordinance so adapted by the commissioner.
Subd. 5. Costs. The cost incurred by the commissioner in adapting tbe
model ordinance to the county pursuant to subdivision 4 shall be paid by the
o
2114
section
ty, and
i public
,'rve the
for the
fined in
located
f public
a lake,
.1e land~
stream,
~ a city.
ioner of
;. model
on, use,
criteria
rporated
promul-
i for the
. includ-
,)f water
relation
~ary and
anges in
lore lands
.tandards
provide
the rules
~iculture ,
tion con-
~sota his-
Idel stan-
:ndments
d by the
:<:ncy.
.lent. If a
172, or if
;72. after
, adopted
standards
he model
ic hearing
.26. after
e for the
o compli-
.forced as
apply to
,pting the
.id by the
o
2115
DMSION OF WATERS, SOILS AND MINERALS 105.485
county upon the submission to the county of an itemized statement of these
costs by the commissioner. If the county fails to pay these costs within 90 days
after the commissioner's statement is received, the commissioner may file a copy
of t~e statement of these costs with the county auditor of the county for collec-
tion by special tax levy. The county auditor, upon receiving a statement from
the commissioner, shall include the amount of the state's claim in the tax levy
for general revenue purposes of the county. This additional tax shall be levied in
excess of any limitation as to rate. or amount, but shall not cause the amount of
other taxes which are subject to any limitation to be. reduced in any amount
whatsoever. Upon completion of the tax settlement following this levy, the
county treasurer shall remit the amount due to the state to the commissioner for
deposit in the state treasury.
Subd. 6. Municipal shoreIand management. Before April 1, 1974, each
municipality having shoreland within its corporate limits shall submit to the com-
missioner, for his review, any ordinances, rules, or regulations affecting the use
and development of its shorelands. The commissioner shall review the ordi-
nances, rules, or regulations and determine whether they are in substantial com-
pliance with municipal shoreland management standards and criteria promul-
gated pursuant to subdivision 3. In making his review the commissioner also
shall consider any feature unique to the municipal shore land in question, includ-
ing but not limited to the characteristics of the waters which may be affected by
development, storm sewer facilities, and sanitary and waste disposal facilities in
existence at the time of the commissioner's review. If the commissioner deter-
mines that the ordinances, rules, or regulations of a municipality do not substan-
tially comply with the state standards and criteria for municipal shoreland man-
agement, he shall so notify the municipality and shall indicate to the municipal-
ity the changes which are necessary to bring the ordinances, rules, or regulations
into substantial compliance with state standards and criteria. Within one year
after receiving this notice from the commissioner, the municipality shall make
the changes necessary to bring the ordinances, rules, or regulations into substan-
tial compliance with state standards and criteria. If a municipality has no ordi-
nance, rule, or regulation affecting the use and development of shoreland on
April 1, 1974, it shall adopt such an ordinance, rule, or regulation complying
with state standards and criteria for municipal shore land management, before
July 1, 1975. If (a) a municipality has no ordinance, rule, or regulation affecting
the use and development of shoreland on April 1, 1974, and fails to adopt such
an ordinance by July 1, 1975, or if (b) the corporate boundaries of the munici-
pality are expanded to include shore lands not previously included within the
municipal boundaries and the municipality fails to adopt such an ordinance
within one year after including the shorelands within its municipal boundaries,
or if (c) the commissioner determines that a municipal shore land management
ordinance does not substantially comply with the state standards and criteria for
municipal shoreland management and that the municipality has failed to make
the necessary changes within one year after receiving notice of noncompliance,
the commissioner may adopt an ordinance, rules, or regulations for the munici-
pality in the following manner. The commissioner shall hold at least one public
hearing on the proposed ordinance, rules, or regulations in the manner provided
in section 462.357, after giving notice as provided in section 462.357. The ordi-
nance, rules, or regulations are effective for the municipality on the date and in
accordance with such regulations relating to compliance as the commissioner
shall prescribe. The ordinance shall be enforced as provided in section 462.362.
The penalties provided in section 462.362 apply to violations of the ordinances,
rules, or regulations adopted for the municipality by the commissioner. The
costs incurred by the commissioner in adopting the ordinances, rules, or regula.-
tions for the municipality shall be paid by the municipality and collected from
105.49 DIVISION OF WATERS, SOILS AND MINERALS
2116
the municipality in the same manner as such costs arc paid by a county and col-
lected from a county pursuant to subdivision 5; and any tax levied to pa\' the
costs shall be levied in excess of any limitation as to rate or amount. but' shall
not cause the amount of other taxes which arc subject to anv limitation to be
reduced in any amount whatsoever. . .
Subd. 7. Municipal use of land other than shoreland. Municipal planning
and land use controls for land other than shore land in the vicinity of shoreland
shall be, to the maximum extent practical, compatible with planning and land
use controls for shoreland adopted pursuant to subdivision 6.
Subd. 8. Extent of authority of municipality. Nothing in Laws 1973. Chap-
ter 379 shall be construed to prohibit a municipality from adopting and enforcine
ordinances, rules, or regulations affecting the use and development of shorcland
which are more restrictive than the state standards and criteria.
History: 1969 c 777 s 1; 1969 c 1129 art 3 s 1; 1973 c 123 artS s 7; 1973 c
379 s 1-3,5; 1975 c 271 s 6; 1976 c 149 s 59; 1977 c 305 s 45
105.49 COOPERATION WITH OTHER AGENCIES.
The commissioner may cooperate and enter into agreements with the
United States government, any department of the state of Minnesota. or any
state or country adjacent to the state of Minnesota for the purpose of effecting
any of the provisions of sections 105.37 to 105.55. He may cooperate with any
department of the government of the United States in the execution of surveys
within the state.
Personnel of the pollution control agency, the health department. and
county and municipal governments shall cooperate with the commissioner in
monitoring and enforcing water permits. It shall be the duty of all county attor-
neys, sheriffs, and other peace officers and other officers having authority to
take all action to the extent of their authority, respectively, that may be neces-
sary or proper for the enforcement of any of the provisions, regulations. stan-
dards, orders, or permits specified in sections 105.37 to 105.55.
History: 1947 c 142 s 13; 1974 c 558 s 6
105.50 COMMISSIONER TO APPEAR FOR STATE.
The commissioner may appear, represent and act for the state in any
matter relating to any application to be made to the federal government relating
to waters within the state or the use thereof; and he may do and perform such
acts in connection therewith as he deems proper to protect the interests of the
people of the state consistent with the provisions of sections 105.37 to 105.55.
History: 1947 c 142 s 14
105.51 WELLS; CONTROL, REPORTS BY DRILLERS.
Subdivision I. For the conservation of the underground water supplies of
the state, the commissioner is authorized to require the owners of wells. espe-
cially flowing artesian wells, to prevent waste.
Subd. 2. Every person, firm or corporation who shall provide the means of
appropriating ground water by drilling, boring, or otherwise shall file a verified
statement with the director of the division of waters containing the log of the
materials and water encountered in connection therewith. together with all water
pumping tests relating thereto. Such statements shall be. confidential and be used.
only by the division for scientific study, the result of which may be public infot'
mation. The commissioner may exclude from the requirement to file such state-
ments those whose operations are of a type which would not yield significant
scientific information.
-.
o
CITY of ANDOVER
1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. . ANDOVER. MINNESOTA 55304. (612) 755-5100
August 7, 1985
Ms. Molly Comeau
Rivers Hydrologist
Department of Natural Resources
1200 Warner Road
St. Paul, MN 55106
Dear Ms. Comeau:
At the Andover City Council meeting of August 6, the Council
approved and passed the attached Shoreland Management Ordinance,
complying with State Statute.
In your letter to the City of May 8, you indicate that your concerns
over earlier drafts of the Oridnance have been addressed, with the
exception of lot sizes and setbacks in two areas (Crooked Lake and
Round Lake).
The Council has considered your comments but feels there is a unique
situation in the sewered areas around these two lakes, and therefore
requests that the Department of Natural Resources concur with the
Ordinance as passed.
The justification of lesser lot sizes and setbacks in these two areas
is the fact that shore land around these two lakes in the sewered
areas is totally developed. The land has been platted and, almost
without exception, houses have been built on the lots. Since there
is no 6pportunity to plat additional lots in these areas, an~ since
home construction has already taken place, the Council feels the lot
areas and setbacks as setout in the attached Drdinanceare a
reflection of the situation as it exists. Since additional platting
1S 1mposS1 e,and development has reached its maximum, the Council
feels the modification of the suggested DNR lot size recommendations
is reasonable and proper.
Please note that in the unsewered area north of Round Lake lot
sizes are 2.5 acres and your setbacks and lot sizes are met or
exceeded.
o
I trust that the Council's reasoning for adopting lesser standards
than you suggest for these two limited areas are sufficient for the
DNR to approve the Ordinance as passed.
Sincerely yours,
OF ANDOVER
, ~~;,J-Otfl:L #_
rry ~~C~:tl, Mayor ~
V'
t\.J "l
\2;~ 'e,
o
o
PHONE NO. 296-7523
)
~~TrnT~@IY~
wt,""OEPARTMENT OF
1200 \~arner Road, St.
NATURAL
RESOURCES
Paul, r.~innesota
55106
FilE NO.
HUNICIPALITIES ADOPTING SHO,RELAND f.1ANAGE.lENT ~OL~
TllRU: Kent Lokkesrnoe, Regional Hydrologist
Metro Region Division of Waters
~.{P
'i'O:
.._.~-;..,--._---
FRO~: , Area Hydrologist
Metro Region Division of Waters
RE- DNR FLEXIBILITY IN NEGOTIATING SHORELI'~\l!) ORDINANCE STA:mAIlDS
As discussed at our January 21, 1983 Advisory C02mittee meeting, this
memorandum is a discussion of DNR flexibility t,hen working with munici-
ralities in develoring shoreland management ordinances_
Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 105.485, Subdivision 6 requires the DNR to
evaluate local ordinances, rules, or regulations and determine whether they
are in substantial comrliance with state standards and criteria. The statute
soes on to require the DNR to consider any unique feature of the municipal
shorelands in existence; (i.e. characteristics of the waters which may be
affected by develorment, storm sewers, sanitary and t.}aste disposal facilities).
In determining the substantial compliance, the D~R has three basic areas of
flexibility under the ~Statewide Standards and Criteria for the Management of
Municipal Shoreland Areas of Minnesota," (Ninn. Regs. NR 82-84, hereafter
referred to as the "Municipal Regs."). These three areas are: determination
of shoreland classifications; deter~ination of a shoreland district; and zon-
ing and dimensional standards.
Determination of Shoreland Classifications: Under current procedures, the
DNR makes a rreliminary determination of the appropriate shoreland classifi-
cations of the ba5ins identified in a city (Natur~l Environmen~t Rec!eetion~l
De-"elopr.lent, General Development) ba3ed on crit'eria ser-forth in DNR "Supple-
physical characteristics of the basi~. This data and preli~inary classifica-
tions ace submitted to the city foe review and co:nment (see NR 82(f) (3), pages
]-4 of the Municipal Regs.). ^s the Municipal Regs. outline, the DNR may only
consider classification changes tlhen officially 'requested by the city with
s~lp;Jortinq data. This supporting data should follow the same format as used
by the DNR in making the preliminary classification decision (see SuP?lementary
Report No.1). Surporting data could include official stormwater management
rlansjcontrols, watershed management programs, public ownership of land, exist-
ing development (both riparian to the basin and non-riparian within 100 feet),
and officially adorted erosionj3edimentation controls_
AN EOUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
,
o
The Municipal Regs. also give flexibility to the DNR in amending, modifying,
or expanding the classification to provide specialized regulations based upon
unique characteristics and capabilities of any protected water (5) (see NR 82
(f)(5), page 5 of the Municipal Regs.). lie have applied this approach in the
City of Maplewood's shore land controls wherein the city proposed a five classi-
fication system rather than the normal DNR three classification (NE, RD and GD)
approach. Again; the city would be required to demonstrate, with supporting
data, unique characteristics or circumstances which warrant considering appli-
cation of this system.
Determination of aShoreland District: The municipal shore land legislation
specifically defines the shore land as land within 1000 feet from.theOrdinary
High Water Mark of a lake, pond, or flowage and land within 300 feet of a river
or stream or the landward extent of the flood plain delineated by ordinance on
such a river or stream, whichever is greater (see Minnesota statutes B 105.485,
Subdivision 2). The Municipal Regs. give the DNR flexibility to allow a lesse~
limit for shoreland only "whenever the waters involved are bounded by topo-
graphic divides which extend landward from the Ordinary High \iaterMark for
lesser distances", The Municipal Regs. also give DNR the approval/disapproval
authority in such cases--see definition of Shoreland, NR 82(d), page 3 of the
Municipal Regs.
In practical terms,.the DNR can consider reducing the shoreland district only
when an area is outside of the la~e's watershed; i.e. the area cannot drain
directly or indirectly to the basin. To support such a consideration from
the DNR, communities are normally required to submit stormwater management or
city drainage plans and reports.
Zoninq and Dimensional Standards: The Municipal Regs. give the DNR flexibility
in considering zoning and dimensional standards for shore land areas under MinQ.
Regs. NR 83(c) (5) which states:
"Municipalities may, under special circumstances and with the
Commissioner's approval, adopt shoreland management ordinances
which are not in strict conformity with NR 83 (cl "Zoning Pro-
visions" provided that the proposed ordinance is based upon
individual public water capabilities and that the purposes of
Minnesota Statutes 1974, Section 105.485 are satisfied."
The DNR--.s flexibility is---restricte(j""to-conslde'i'lng" alternative zoninq stan"da."r:ds- ---.
referenced wichi:n NR 63((;). Therefure, a city cuuld prupuse alternative s1:an-u:=---
ards for the following:
o
1) Minimum lot size and width
2) Structure setbacks from protected waters
3) Structure setbacks from roads and highways
4) Maximum structure height
5) Maximum percentage of impervious surface(s) on a lot
6) Placement of roads and parking areas
7) Regulation of shorcland alterations (vegetation removal and
grading/filling)
o
The statement in the Municipal Regs. clearly requires that exceptions to
the "Zoning provisions" of NR 83(c) only be considered by the DNRwhere
the municipality demonstrates the following justification: That special
circumstances exist; that the proposed ordinance is based UpOn individual
protected water capabilities, and; that the purposes of Minnesota Statutes,
Section 105.485 are satisfied. This informa tionand justification normally
includes a detailed analysis of the following:
1) land. use plans for shorelands of each individual
protected water,
2) existing and proposed stormwater management practices
which will affect a protected water,
3) existing problems or situations contributing to the
water quality of a protected water (erosion, feedlot
runoff, industrial runoff, etc.),
4) public/private permanent open space use of shoreland
for each protected water,
5) water surface use or public access regulation of pro-
tectedwaters,
6) existing ordinances restricting development in areas
of excessive slope, restrictive soils, etc.
The city, in all cases, must provide the effort in compiling, organJ.zJ.ng, and
preparing the city's statement of justification. This need not always be
provided in lengthy written documents; DNR staff have worked with city staff
in meetings to evaluate such justifications for exceptions. A brief wri.tten
documentation is necessary in all cases--especially to summarize and conclude
relevant data.
Summary: In the seven county metropolitan area, the diversity of the
communities and their shore land areas necessitates individual examination
to determine appropriate shoreland regulations. This individualized exam-
ination requires a great deal of cooperation and initiative by both DNR
and cities.. Any questions regarding the discussion presented herein should
be directed to either John Stine or David Leuthe (296-7523).
CC: Ron Harnack, LUMS
ch
o
, . !
/ ! I _ ~._ ....__
-- ---
-1-/'-rT~-
I '
o :! --- "----. ~", ,','~"'" n",
'tEl;:! 1_____
I , I';' 'lZi<:.. "/f-V
' <l;. , I
I ',.~. ~'" '",,, -a:
!!;:~ (,yj.CL11
' '''-
- - ..... .~. - "... "-'"
1-:____ ___~---
~
Lr
~-
I
I
I
.1....____
----.f.-
I
I
I
I
.
I 1 I
-I I
...J -- T
I
I
-- --
,
I
I
I
I
I
- - ....f--
I
I
I
I
H
.4-~ ~
t I~ ~.
IQ;: ~
~ ~ ~
'f-->-_~..
"I
- - - -... - - - - L :~
~ ~'
~
~ --- J
-- I .1 tl ':"' = IJ: c" "---- ~
~ ~. ~r). ~ ~ / : \. I
-. ~T~ ~ 'I" ,. '"""'.... W
rr .. "'''''-./: I I V' ':,"i, I -I .
Y '-~, AI "'" ,,.,, , "
' j~ '( ~,,' ,,,'" ~ 1 ~ J __
r
---, -~- "'W..q-_ ',_ _ '.' I ;~.~ _
it!!;:Z'.%1tc", i . ': '.. . ~"m :
[II! .. . ~ ...."", \ ::..: llll ~
' 4-_~2u' 11 ~ ~" V': [ : J
ILTH!r....:-:~~ I J III I : a:
~"'l..", ~/ ._,.~~' a: I , 1
l.~.,V"V, , I II hI
I!':~(I '\:'>".. I.,., ':':.'~'::'M:'" .::.::~
1:\1. ~' , ","',:. ""..,. :"" ~....
~ '-.~ , ., '. .'., "" "-." '. ,~
r=-~-.-l.I'" ~ ~ )~"1 ~.l ,1'-riU~.':I: ....: . "v. ~ :".:: :: ~.
~---'\ I ~ '-' r,,, .~:~~ __ .... '"'' ..
-oti C) ~ I), "it""" : "-.~.... LlJ
--:--'j'l: ~ -..J / ~ "" .u.,' :.Jib d"'m:~: "Ii'" .. a.
,It., I f= """l.~ ~ ~ <>~. ~.:. : WI: .: ~
~ -'r'i'0, I~,taf;ir ......, I~' >;:. ,.~::. ~ I
[ '\~JL" \"cb~.wu II " , .. ""0.. d,'
~. WI:~) >L", '"""'=t......... ......'. \~~~.. W; .J..~~-"lB ~ ,~ '.' '," ~ ~. ~ I,i
~, - '. ~+'.--' .~<< L.---'<i. '" .., ... 0 .
'." ~ ~ ON:!" ;.-'
~......,. , , . ~l' .. .. " " _ -lI .
II I i '~/)''''''"-'.,;;;- I[ .~, I- ~ d.i
a:}. i. .~' I .. <0 _ U C I.
II:r " 1;l- ...'. ~*, ... ,7, ~ ~! '
'i ~'" ~ oolf
II I !, - :".... " ':. ~ ~
I .... ell
1-: -+ - ,. ~:' '. ~ ;:; 8 ~I
~ ~-7 -,-".. j- -[. '@lr.:j N
. II" ., ~'JI ,T . I
cr"\I~ '"'- IC I... :~ :};. ':;,'-I\I:~ _
~('""r~t 4 11:- t-~ .. ~
,-
I---
f--ll
~
I
,
- --j-
I
!
-c:
--c-
-c \-
-'-
I
>--.1
.-,..-.1
-<l:
_ ~:I:. _
In
.'
!
II
i-J
'"
tft
?i?
"-
\
t ~.t<J.. T ~r4_
i'i~
~lhU ~0mT ~.~> '.
" . It--r:~<,>-"'<I / I I Lu >
'- I~. 1/ :X'(
. "'II ~U?,. II I)}<
'" .~
.'.
-
,,":"
,:,-;.-"~
..r"->
. !
i
o
~,~.
,1..-:::.'
l
./
Ie'
;;
J~\
o
o
Ocu
o
"
. CITY OF
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
h -_' -'. '.
~-_-._.'--~-~~' ._~ -.;..-'."
. -~-,.~<~:..~.~._--:.
'.:,;;.;;....s.~J~.,~)::.:,,::.:, '~'.<>~'- .t~...::,~-:,:~~:::.J:;;/;~jli;i-i/:~iS~;:/;:{ ,.
.' D....TE . '.'
NO.... SECTION
NO. Discussion
ORIGIN....TING DEP....RTMENT
ITEM Red Oaks Pond/Cleaning
4i
NO.
Engineering
BY: James E. Schrantz
MOTION BY
TO:
The Council is requested to consider cleaning Red
Oaks (West) pond.
The neighbors in the area have requested the city
clean the pond as debris seems to be coming to the
surface from the '83 storm.
The people have kids cut by nails and glass.
We estimate the cost to dredge is from $1,000 to
$2,000 for rental equipment plus the city costs to
haul and dispose of the excavated material.
COUNCIL ACTION
SECOND BY
4
'-
CITY of ANDOVER
--0
.
MEMORANDUM
.
TO: Mayor and City Council
COPIES TO: Administrator and City Clerk
FROM: Park and Recreation Commission
DATE: November 21, 1985
REFERENCE: Crooked Lake Warminq House and Red Oaks Park and
1986 Budget
The following motions were made at the November 21, 1985
meeting of the Park and Recreation Commission for your
consideration:
MOTION: by LeFebvre, seconded by Kinkade to accept the request
by the Crooked Lake Advisory Council for the funding of salary
for a warming house attendant at Crooked Lake School with the
first payment to be allocated out of the 1986 budget - not
te exceed $2500 total - and for future purposes to have this
item budgeted each year. Motion carried unanimously.
MOTION: by Kinkade, seconded by Strootman that it be understood
that the City of Andover will water and groom the 2 rinks at
Crooked Lake School and will budget $600 per year to pay for power
to the hockey rink. Motion carried unanimously.
MOTION: by Kinkade, seconded by LeFebvre that the City be
responsible for cleaning (dredge) the pond at Red Oaks West
park including_...t.h.o5-~_ar.ea~_Ldebris on dry 1ang frQm the_n__ ----.- -----
1983 storm. The Park and Recreation Commission recommends that the
City Council approve cost of dredging the pond with the costs"'
not to be included in the Park 860 budget. Motion carried
unanimously..
o
MOTION: by Kinkade, seconded by Strootman to allow $5000 to be
cut from the $60,000 allocated for 1986 budget $530 upon request
by the City Council for each department to cut $5000; therefore,
the 1986 budget for Park and Recreation Commission #530 will be
$55,000. Motion carried unanimously.
o
o
;
. CITY OF ANDOVER
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
DATE
NDA SECTION
NO. Discussion
ORlCINATING OEPARTMENT
fOR
ITEM Hearing Examiner/Ord. #72
NO.
BY:
d'Arcy Bosel1
4j
Attached is a letter from the City of Coon Rapids in regard
to the hiring of a Hearing Examiner. This letter sets out
the details in regard to time and reimbursement, etc.
Mr. Beck is employed by the State of Minnesota as a Hearing
Examiner and has been hired by Coon Rapids as a consultant.
Since we have one matter pending which may require a Hearing
Examiner, it would be wise to make a decision as soon as
possible.
COUNCIL ACTION
MOTION BY
TO:
SECOND BY
-0..
. - - -
...:>'~-. ..._~.-...~,.::..-,-.~~:::,;...,,;,:,.,,~.._-:.;~:.;~~._' '- _.~.. ----_._-'..~.:....-.
August 14, 1985
Mr. George A. Beck
400 Summit Bank Building
310 Fourth Avenue South
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55415
Dear Mr. Beck:
This will confirm the City's offer and your acceptance of the position of
Hearing Examiner for the City of Coon Rapids. The rate of pay for your services
will be $50.00 per hour, payable upon your submitting work tickets to my office.
As we discussed, your work will generally be on an ad hoc basis for three to six
months, after which time we may wish to generate a written contract for ser-
vices. Your first hearing date will be September 10. 1985. at 9:00 a.m., at the
Council Chambers here at Coon Rapids City Hall.
You are requested to execute final drafts of decisions and send them to Cheryl
Bennett for delivery to the parties. If you had retained tapes of hearings, we
would want them returned as well when your decisions are entered. Please con-
tact Ms. Bennett if you have any procedural questions. Her number is 755-2880,
extension 222.
Enclosed for your reference is a copy of Chapter 8-1100, which defines your
position and duties. Ms. Bennett will be able to provide you with ordinances
dealing with specific code violations as the need arises. Because you are an
independent contractor with the City of Coon Rapids, the City contemplates that
your decisions will be within the procedural and substantive requirements of the
Code and Minnesota law, and be fair to all parties involved.
The City of Coon Rapids is pleased to have a person of your caliber and
experience as the arbiter in its nuisance abatement program. Your involvement
-in that program as it continues to d~velop will be greatly appreciated.
Very truly yours,
o
Douglas L. Johnson
Assistant City Attorney
ja
cc: Robert Thistle
Alden Hofstedt /
Cheryl Bennett V
1313 COON RAPJDS BOULEVARD, COON RAPIDS, MINNESOTA 55433-5397
(6121755-2880
o
o
,CITY OF ANDOVER
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
OA SECTION
ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT ,.
NO.
Non-Discussion
ITEM P& Z Commission
NO.
BY: Vicki Volk
5a
DATE
APPROVED/f\.. R
AGEN VU
BY:
The terms of the following Planning and Zoning Commissioners
will expire on December 31, 1985:
Don Jacobson
d'Arcy Bosell
Beverley Jovanovich
Glen Rogers
All have expressed a desire to remain on the Commission for
another term.
Steven Ward has resigned from the Planning Commission
effective immediately.
Because of Steve leaving and the previous resignation of
Don Spotts, the Planning Commission needs two Commissioners.
COUNCIL ACTION
MOTION BY
TO:
BY
...
....
.0
o
CITY OF ANDOVER
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
NDA SECTtON
NO.
Reports of Corrnnissions
ITEM Personnel Cormri.ttee Report
NO~ 6a & b
Personnel corrroittee
Vicki volk
DATE
Attached are the Personnel eommi ttee I srecornrreIldations for e 1986
salary increases which will bring all job classifications into confonnance
with the comparable worth requirerrents.
Also attached are revisions in the .Administrative Policy. Only those
policies requiring changes, Council discussion or a new policy are attached.
Deletions in the policy are shown with. a dotted line through them; additions
are underlined and items requiring Council discussion are marked in blue.
The only new policy is No. 14 - Drug and Alcohol Abuse.
COUNCI L ACTION
MOTION BY
TO:
SECOND BY
I
I
.----- .- .. --. ... .---. --.-. !
,
I
I
I
-.--.-------------- ,
,
I
I
r
I
I
!
I
I.
I
i
I
,
--..--.-----.-- . .---_._._-----------_.__._.._-----~--_._--~--
o
o
CITY OF ANDOVER
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
--..---------
DATE
NDA SECTION
No.. . .
Reports of COIlIllllsslons
OR/GINA TINe DEPARTMENT
Accounting
ITEM
NO. 6a
BY: . Vicki
Attached is revised page 1 of the above agenda item.
'Ihe hourly rates on the original Il)aterial you received
were figured using 2080 hours for 1986. 'Ihere are
actually 2088 hours in 1986.
I
I
I
I
I
1
.
I
I
,
I
I
,
I
I
___._________._______________.._______._____ J
--- COUNCIL ACTION '
MOTION BY
TO:
SECOND BY
.
* W & & ~ i (f.l j31. b ~ g< tJ Y ~
0 ~ ~.
0 I--' ~ lil g. rtrt I--' ~ f-'.
lli ~~ PJ 11 CD i
~ f-'. I--' (f.l
OJ ~ t"' ~ ~ f ~
f-" '0 (f.l (f.l IS. lD' 5'
t-h ~ OJ ~ ~ rt
f-" g 8 11 f ~ 0 ~
0 ~ PJ \DO I--'
~ ~ 11 CD "-CD 5'
\D N
f-" "- OJ g
8 (Xl rt
U1
OJ
s:
~ I--' I--' I--' tv tv I--' I--' I--' tv W ~*
"" -.J (Xl U1 '" W "" -.J '" \D
OJ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
8" 0 \D -.J tv "" I--' U1 tv U1 -.J
0 '" (Xl W -.J 0 tv \D '" (Xl
c: 0 '" 0 (Xl \D 0'\ I--' 0 U1 tv k:
~
B"
~
LJ.
g
[
I--' I--' I--' tv tv I--' I--' I--' tv ""
"" (Xl \D '" -.J W U1 -.J -.J I--'
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
U1 0'\ U1 tv U1 0'\ I--' \D 0'\ W
0'\ (Xl W "" W W 0 (Xl tv -.J
0 U1 I--' (Xl (Xl 0 tv tv (Xl W
I
7
I--' I--' I--' I--'
0'1 (Xl \D tv W U1 0'\ -.J (Xl w \D
. . . . . . .
\D \D W U1 I--' (Xl U1 tv 0'\ tv co
-.J 01 U1 -.J \D U1 w W f'-' W 1'-"
I--' I--' I--' I--' tv I--' I--' I--' I--' tv U1 ~(g
I--' "" "" U1 "" I--' tv tv "" "" 0
1.0 0'\ 0'\ -.J U1 .W 0 0 W tv I--' ~~
'0 '0 '0 '0 '0 0 0 0 fi W. '0
g. g. g. g. g. lil I--' I--' .~
CD ~ ~
I--' I--' i-' i-' i-' ~ ~ ~ .
f-" 1-" f-'. f-'. f-"
0 0 0 0 0 ~ I tJ
.~ .~ @ @ .@ H ~. rt f-"
H 5' I!:! ~
~ 0
~ ~ ~ ~ f-'. f-'. I!:! H ~
OJ OJ ::J >-3
OJ en OJ OJ OJ rt rt 0 OJ ~@
* i-' '@
H H H H (f.l CD ~
H H H ~ ~ 0
H 8" ~
*
~ 11
0 f-" f-"
OJ OJ
g rr
~
g
o
o
PERSONNEL COMMI'ITEE
The Personnel Corrmittee recommends the following action be taken to conform to
the comparable worth requirements.
Shirley Clinton's salary be raised $384 to equate her to Public Works II
classification using the following formula:
Accounting Clerk's Points (143t
Public Works II Points (146)-
Difference
$17,9.82
18,685
$ .703
143 points ~ 146 points = 97.95%
97.95% of $18,685 = $384 or $.18/hr.
New salary should be $18,301.95.
Lola Lindquist's salary be raised $1,052 per year to equate her to Public Works
III classification using the following formula.
Clerk-Typist Points (120)
Public Works III Points (1191
Difference
$13,630
14,560
$ 930
119 points + 120 points = 100.84%
100.84% of $14,560 = $1,052 or $.50/hr.
New salary should be $14,682
The budget allocated 5% increase; the Council approved an increase of 4%. The
aITDunt left over from the 4% increase is $2,136.
If the Personnel Committee recommendations are adopted, the following is requested:
Shirley Clinton adjustment
Lola Lindquist adjustment
Subtotal
Budget Balance
Left Over
$384
$1,052
$1,436-
$2,136
$ 700
$700 ~ 11 employees = $63.63 per year
~2-
o
POLICY NO. l.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
ADMINISTRATIVE POLICIES INDEX
Vacations *
Hiring of Relatives
Sick Leave *
Leaves of. Absence
Conflict of Interest
Jury Duty
Tuition Aid *
Seminars, Conferences, Workshops, Schools*
Holidays *
Affirmative Action
Mileage Reimburserrent*
overtine *
Disciplinary Action
Consumption of Alcohol & Mood Altering Chemicals *
*Indicates a change, a need for Council discussion, or a new policy.
o
POLICY NO.1 - VACATIONS
o 1. POLICY
It shall be the policy of the City of Andover to provide paid vacations
for use on' a regular basis to all * permanent employees in accordance
with the provisions in this policy.
II. PROVISIONS
A. Errployees shall accumulate vacation on the following basis:
SERVICE
VACATION ELIGIBILITY
During 1st year through 5th
During the 6th year
During the 7th year
During the 8th year
During the 9th year
During. the 10th through 15th
During the 16th year and each
year thereafter
6.66 hours each IIDnth
7.33 hours each IIDnth
8.00 hours each month
8.66 hourseachFIIDnth
9.33 . hours each;;IIDilth
10.00 hours each IIDnth
13.33 hours each IIDnth
B. Vacations begin to accrue from the first of the rronth in which
the starting date is on or before the 15th of the rronth; and
from t;he first of the following rronth for starting dates on or
after the 16th of the IIDnth.
The first day of the rronth so established will be the "anniversary
dateI' for purposes of this policy.
c. Limits on. vacation accruals -
1. Errployees should be encouraged to take vacations on a regular
basis; however, vacation can be deferred and allaved to accrue
up to 160 hours with written approval of the responsible super-
visor and notification to the City Council.
2. At the effective date of this policy, the level of vacation
hours accrued by an individual may not exceed 160 hours.
3. Each anniversary date thereafter an evaluation will be made
to see that hours accrued do not exceed the maximum or hours
over the maximum will be forfeited.
4. Permanent part-time employees shall accrue vacation hours on
a pro-rate share of 160 hours.
*permanent part-tirre employees shall accumulate vacation on a pro-rate of
eligibility based Oil the previous JtOilthworked.
III. SCHEDULING VACATIONS
o
A. It is both the supervisor's and employee's responsibility to plan
vacation use, recognizing policy limits. Supervisors should make
every effort to accorrodate employee vacation requests, recognizing
that the needs of the City do come first.
o
o
Policy No. 1 - Vacations
B. Holidays falling within a vacation period will not be considered
vacation.
c. Pay in lieu of vacation will not be allowed except that in the
event of tennination, retirerrent or death, vacation will be paid
in the annunt accrued to that date.
D. Every attempt should be made to schedule nonnal vacations at least
thirty (30) days in advance. (Adopted 1/31/84)
POLICY NO. 3 - SICK LEAVE
o 1. rOLJ:.~
The City of Andover shall provide sick. leave for all permanent enployees
subject to the provisions of this policy.
II. PROVISIONS
A. Paid sick leave is accumulated at a rate of one day per nonth for
each nonth of service.
B. New enployees will not be allowed to use sick . leave until the completion
of one nonth of service, at which time they will be credited with one
day of accrued sick leave.
C. Illness or injury occurring during a scheduled vacation or over any
holiday will not be counted as paid or unpaid sick leave.
D. Extended illness, which continues beyond the limits of any enployee's
paid sick. leave accrual may be considered for coverage. A supervisor
wishing to recommend such a consideration should send a written
reCOIIIrendation to the City Council for a final determination. If e
extended sick pay is approved, it will be charged against the enployee' s
future sick leave accrual which will resume under the usual stipulations
when the enp10yee returns to work on a permanent full-time basis.
Before the extended sick. pay begins, all of the enp10yee 1 s vacation
for which he is eligible must have been taken, either prior to or during
the illness.
E. Permanent part-time enployees are nO'l= eligible for sick leave benefits
ona pro-rata basis based on the prevLous m:mthworked.
F. In order for an enployee to be eligible for sick leave pa)l'llEIlt in excess
of three C3t consecutive days, the enployee must furnish the City with
a physician I s staterrent verifying the need for time-off.
G. Errployees shall be paid for unused sick J.,eave at time of termination
of enp10y:rrent fran the City, provided, hCMeyer, the enployee leaves
the City under favorable condLtions and in good standing. The following
schedule shall be used in the determination of pay-off:
1984 - 10% - all enp10yeeswith. over two (n years service time
1985 - 10% - all enployees with two (2) through five (5) years
service time
20% - all enployees with over five C5t years service time
19.86 - 10% - all enployees with. two (2) through five C5l years
service time
o
20% - all enployees with six (61 through ten (10) years
service time.
30% - all enp10yees with. over ten (10) years service time.
o
o
Policy No. 3- Sick Leave
1987 - 20% - all errployees with two (2). through five (5) years
service tine.
30% - all errployees with six (6) through ten (10) years
service tine.
40% - all errployees with over ten (10) years service tine.
1988 - 20% - all errployees with two (2) through five (5) years
service tine.
4Q% - all errployees with six (6) through ten (10) years
service time.
50.% - all errployees with over ten (10) years service tine.
At no tine will any errployee be paid for rrore than 400 hours as a pay-off.
H. Employees not reporting to work because of illness or other personal
reasons should notify their supervisor within one-half hour following
the beginning of their work day.
I. Sick leave of all errployees must be reported.
J. Disability Insurance shall be available to City errployees, with the
premiums for such insurance being paid by the errp10yee through a
deduction from accurnulated sick leave benefits.
o
(
'..
(0
, \.
POLICY NO.7 - TUITION AID (Effective: January I, 1980)
I. POLICY
The City of Andover shall make tuition refunds subject to the
conditions set forth in this policy to all permanent employees
who have completed six months service with the City. .
I I. PROV I S IONS
A. Voluntary Education Courses
1. This type of education includes curriculums at business
colleges, trade schools, accredited colleges and universities.
2. The purpose of financial support for this type of education
is intended for employees who are considered to have long-
range potential with the City.
3. To be eligibJe for financial support, reimbursement must be
recommended by the responsible. supervisor and must be approved
by the City Council prior to the course commencing. In addition,
courses must be designed for degree or certificate credit and
must result in a course grade.
4. Approval will be based on the applicability and valueor--
course to the employee's present or potential position.
5. If approval is granted, the City will pay for three-fourths
of course costs, including books, course fees and incidental
fees. These benefits will not be available if duplicate
benefits are available elsewhere, i.e. G.I. benefits.
Transportation and parking will not be paid to the employee
as well as costs not associated with the particular course,
such as charges for diplomas, certificates and the like.
6. Reimbursement for completed courses will be made only
upon presentation to the City Council of the grade slip.,
Verifying satisfactory completion of a course (Grade C
or better.
7. Employees will not be allowed time off during their normal
work hours to attend classes this category.
o
o
POLICY NO. 8 - SEMINARS, CONFERENCES, IDRKSHOPS, SCHOOlS
1. POLICY
'Ihe City of Andover shall allow employees to attend seminars, conferences,
workshops, and similar functions for which employees will be given tirre off
with pay to a maximum salary for eight (81 hours per day. 'Ihe employees
attending such seminar, workshop, conference or school shall be required
to furnish the City Council with a brief report of the function.
POLICY NO.9 - HOLIDAYS
o
I. POLICY
The City of Andover shall provide paid holidays for all permanent and
permanent part-tine errployees subject to the provisions of this policy.
II. HOLIDAYS
New Years Day (January 1)
Martin Luther King Day (3rd Monday in Januaryt
Veterans Day
Merrorial Day
Independence Day
Labor Day
Thanksgiving Day
President's Day
Christmas Day
Floating Day (This day to be . determined by Administrator at beginning
of each year)
Columbus Day (Adopted 12/8lt
III. ELIGIBILITY
A. Permanent Employees
1. Employees must be errp10yed on a permanent status on both the
last working day before the holiday and the first working day
after the paid holiday.
2. Employees on paid or unpaid sick leave either the last working
day before a holiday or the first working day after the holiday,
or both, will receive holiday pay.
3. Permanent part-tine errployees will be paid holiday pay under
thesarre schedule as permanent full-tine errp10yees, but on a
pro-rata basis based on the previous ro::>nth worked.
IV. PROCEDURE
A. City Offices will be closed on all holidays.
B. One day's regular pay will be paid to errployees for each holiday for
which lbhey are eligible.
C. When a holiday falls on a Saturday, the City will observe it the
previous day (Friday).
D. When a holiday falls on a Sunday, the City will observe it on the
following day (Monday)_.
o
E. When a holiday falls within an errployee's vacation period, the
errployee is entitled to an extra days vacation. The additional day
will be given at a time mutually agreed upon by the City and errployee.
\.
o
(
;,0
, "
POLICY NO. 12 - OVERTIME (Effective 1/31/84)
I. POLICY
It shall be the pOlicy of the City of Andover to pay
employees overtime or give them compensatory time-off
in accordance with the provisions of this policy.
Compensatory time-off accrual shall not exceed forty
(40) hours at anyone time.
II. PROVISIONS
Hours worked in excess of forty (40) hours within a
seven (7) day work week will be compensated at one
and one-half (1~) times the base rate of payor.
compensatory time-off to all non-exempt employees.
Changes of shifts do not qualify an employee for
over-time pay. .
Holidays shall be included in hours worked. Only
those holidays included in this Administrative Policy
shall qualify for this inclusion.
In the caie of city emergencies, defined as snow
emergencies, water or_sewer utility emergencies, Or
any natural disasters declared by the City Council,
sick leave time-off will be included in hours worked,
provided, however, such sick leave is taken prior
to the day of the emergency for which over-time is
worked. Sick leave may be included in hours worked
if taken during the work week following tge emergency
if such sick leave is tak~n as a result of a personal
emerqencv, i.e.~ critical illness or death of a family
member, or receipt of a physic~an's statement of
illness for the sick leave time taken following the
emergency.
Hours worked for the purpose of overtime shall not
include vacation time-off unless prior approval of
such vacation has been granted by the employee's
supervisor.
City employees shall be required to work over-time,
if requested to do so by their supervisor, during a
city emergency. No employee shall work more than
sixteen (16) consecutive hours without reasonable
time-off (8 hours).
The City Council may determine the services of an
exempt employee are needed to perform a specific duty
not normally cOnsidered to be part of the position
requirements, and for whic~ compensatory time-off is
not reasonable. . If this determination is made, the
Council shall indicate the duties and an hourly wage
for same.
In the case of employees required to take minutes at City rreetings,
a two (2) hour minimum at the~loyee's overtirre rate shall be paid.
o
o
POLICY NO. 14 - ALCOHOL AND DRUG ABUSE
City errployees shall not consl.Ilre or use m:xrl altering chemicals or alcoholic
beverages on City property except at functions or activities approved by the
City Council.
.
o
o
~
. CITY OF ANDOVER
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
DATE
DA SECTION
NQ Closed Session
ITEM
NO.
ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT
Engineerin
Woodland Terrace Appeal
Closed Session w/attorne
The City Counci1 is requested to discuss this item with
the City Attorney and the Engineer in closed session.
Attached:
OTKDA's letter explaining how the storm drainage could
have been assessed if done all at one time.
OLary Carlson rebuttal
OLary Calrson's appeal letter
MOTION BY
TO:
SECOND BY
.
~KDA
TOl TZ. KING. DUVAll. ANDERSON
AND ASSOCIATES. INCORPORATED
ENGINEERS ARCHITECTS PLANNERS
2500 AMERICAN NATIONAL BANK BUILDING
SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA 55101
612/292.4400
July 15, 1985
Honorable Mayor and Council
Andover, Minnesota
Re: SW ArelJ Storm Sewer Assessments
Chapman's Addition and
Woodland Terrace (85-5)
Andover, Minnesota
Commission No. 7379-85
Dear Mayor and CounCil:
The purpose of th Is report I s to compute a new assessment rate structure
for the SW ar88 storm sewer constructed In 1981. The new assessment rate
Is necessary In order to Include the additional drainage area and storm
sewer construction adjacent to Chapman's Addition In the Woodland Terrace
Addition.
The total 1981 storm sewer project cost was $314,924.10. Assessment rates
were calculated based on $0.10/SF for Chapman's Addition, SO.15/SF for
COllllllElrclal and church properties and SO.089 for Carlson's Woodland Terr8Ce.
Total assessments of $288,934 left a project deficit of $25,990. According
to the report dated October 15,1981, "the remaining unassessed portion of
this storm sewer project would be recovered through the use of 88rned
Interest monies which would relate to the percentage of total
construction."
The new assessment rate calculations are based on the procedures used In
the 1981 calculations extended to Include Carlson's Woodland Terr8Ce
Addition. R8tes for high density residential, park, and well-site were
based on the ()l val ues of CI ass A sol I s. A new total project cost was
calculated based on the InitIal project cost, plus storm sewer construction
In Woodland Terrace.
1. I nl tl al A:i.sil~~.D:L&I.!il.s (fran report date 10-15-81)
o
Res I dentl al
High Density Resldentlal*
Church/Collllilerc I al
Park*
Wel'-Slte*
Carl son
SO.10/SF, or $4,356/Acre
SO.107/SF, or S4,661/Acre
SO.15/SF. or $6,534/Acre
SO.07/SF, or $3,049/Acre"
SO.ll/SF, or $4,792/Acre
SO.089/SF, or $3,877/Acre
* New R8tes based on (}l val ues.
o
Honorable Mayor and CI ty Council
Andover, Minnesota
July 15, 1985
Page Two
2 . CQ.st.:L~~Qr:.tl~)Dm~.of_b~3~L.upQD_H.8L.Ba.t~.s
A. .b'~D.d_~r:.tl~.s.....h~it.s.sm~Dt
Commercial
Res I dent I al
High Densl ty ResldentI al
Park
0.41 Acres 8 $6,534/Acre = $ 2,679
58.36 Acres 8 $4,356/Acre = $254,216
7.15 Acres 8 $4,661/ Acre = $ 33,326
~ Acres 8 $3,049/Acre = 1__~86Q
Total
68.5
Pond Area of 4.07 Acres Is not Included In assessments.
B. ~.omL~~_Dit.d.uctl2n.s
Project
______________~ract Co.sL
Pond Land Value 4.07 x 2,700
Pond ConstructIon (Estimate) $40,QOO x 1.39 x 0.84
Storm Sewer: Phase I $63,555 x 1.39 x 0.84
Phase II (Est. )$30,500 x 1.39 x 0.84
Conv.to
1 98Ll:&.sL
$ 10,989
= $ 46,704
= $ 74,207
= .s~12
Subtotal (ConstructIon and Land))
Assessment Rate PaId = 15.90 Acres 8 $3,877/Acre =
Total Deduction
C. ImL&D.dlml_CQ.s.t_.tQ_~1.amL~.r.r~~J.
Assessment
Deductions (Credit)
$298,087
- .s2~...126
Total Pendl ng
$ 68,931
IQt~&D.dlDg_CQ.sL.t.QJ;l~_loc-Will=.sln
0.26 Acres 8 $4,792/Acre = $1,246 (In I tl al )
o
TOTAL ASSESSMENT =
$ 70,177 (at 9/81 rates)
$298,087
$167,512
UL.2~
$229,156
o
Honorabl e Mayor l!Ind CI ty Council
Andover, Mlnnesotl!l
July 15, 1985
Page Th ree
3 . .F4tLAp~QL:tlQDe~LI~L12132~
A. ~JQlaLE'L:Q~~~1
Orl gl nl!ll Project Cost
Woodll!lnd Terrl!lCe Const.Cost
and Ll!Ind
Anokl!l CI ty Payment
New Totl!ll Project Cost
(1981 Rl!Ite)
$314,924
$167,512
Uil...1200
$512,436
B. New Rat~~L&~~ments (1981 Rate)
~lJ
New
-Ba1.e
Adjusted
AmQ.llJlL_
ResidentIal: Chapml!ln's
Woodland Terrace
High Density ResidentIal
Church/Commercial
Park
Wel'-sl~
35.287 Acres
58.36
7.15
11.58
2.58
0.26
$4,243/Ac. $149,723
$4,243/ Ac. $247,621
$4,540/Ac. $ 32,461
$6,365/Ac. $ 73,707
$2,970/Ac. $ 7,663
J.~1L&;. S 1.2U
Total
$512,388
4. lQia I Owed bLWQQdl.muLI.e~e
New AdJ usted
AJ:.ea_______fu:l1.e__~.lln:L_
Commercial 0.41 Acres S6,365/Ac. $ 2,610
Residential 58.36 $4,243/Ac. $247,621
High Density Residential 7.15 $4,540/Ac. $ 32,461
e~________-ZA.213______12...91J1LA{;...J.~L.6.Q~
Totl!ll
Deductions
$290 ,355
-1229,156
Total Owed (bl!lsad on 1981 Costs)
$ 61,199
o
o
o
Honoreble Mayor and City O:>uncll
Andover, Minnesota
July 15, 1985
Pege Four
AssessmenIs_Du~_il28~_BaI~l
Woodland Terrace
$61.,199 x 1.19 (ENR) = $72,827
The peyment to Anoka City for addltlonel drelnage eree would be Included In
this essessment.
1981 proj acts essessed by separete erees consol Idetl n9 llll proj act costs
end drlllnege ereas. within the Chepmen's Addition end the Woodland Terrllce
Addition result In a new essessment rete 2.7% lower then the previous
essessment rate.
Sincerely yours,
Davidson, P.E.
JLD:j
o
o
-.-
WOODLAND DEVELOPMENT CO.
201 Hardie Bldg.. ~33 Jackson Street
Anoka. Minnesota 55303
(612) 427-7502
August 23, 1985
The Honorable Mayor and Council
City of Andover
1685 Crosstown Boulevard N.W.
Andover, Minnesota 55304
RE: SW Area Storm Sewer Assessments
Chapman's Addition and
Woodland Terrace (85-5)
Andover, Minnesota
Commission No. 7379-85
Honorable Mayor and Council:
This letter is in response to the above referenced storm sewer project.
As perhaps you know, I had a recent meeting with Mr. Davidson, Mr. Rodeberg,
and Mr. Schrantz regarding this issue. Also in attendance was Mr. Curt Adams
from my office.
The purpose of the meeting was to review a July 15, 1985 letter on the same
issue which was prepared by Mr. Davidson and submitted to you. We were also
encouraged to review the method of calculation carefully since they did expect
a response and, further, anticipated that we may find differences in estimated
costs used or a different method of calculation which would be more appropriate.
It is obvious that the primary concern of the Council is that all parties involved
with the storm sewer assessments are treated relatively fairly - meaning equally,
In a subsequent paragraph, I have compared the Woodland Terrace deductions
as reflected by Mr. Davidson on page 2, 2.B., with revised and more accurate
cost figures. The major difference, and the only one I have bothered to revise
due to its material nature, involves the value of the land used for our onsite
ponding. In my itemization of credits or allowances due us, please note that
I have indicated the estimated fair market value of the lots which would have
been available to us had we not set this land aside for ponding purposes.
Since Chapman's Addition was fully developed, with no land set aside for ponding,
they have been able to spread their assessment against a higher number of
saleable lots. This means that we also should be provided the same benefit,
since our development costs are substantially the same with or without the
12 lots that would have been developed on the pond acreage. I have arbitrarily
reduced the market value of these lots by approxim~tely 55,000 each to cover
any additional construction costs that would have been necessary. Please
keep in mind that these per lot construction costs are less due to the fact
that we have already extended sewer past the area and the same is true for
water, surface drainage, and roadway. We discussed this concept with the
engineers and I believe they concurred with us that the raw land cost reflected
in their initil credit should not be used as a proper comparison to Chapman's
Addition, which is fully developed.
Prl)p.:rty - I n".::::lm.:nl. D.:\"elopment. Saks
o
The Honorable Mayor and Council
August 23. 1985
Page 2
The following is a comparison of credit or allowance due Woodland Development:
Description
Estimate per
Davidson letter
dated 7/15/85
Recalculation of
Credit/Allowance
Pond land value - 4.07 x $2.700
As corrected. this land on a lot value
basis would reflect a credit equal to
12 lots. each. $12.00.0
Pond construction (estimate)
We contacted the road builder, our
engineer. and also calculated our
costs incurred. We arrived at an
estimated cost of $53.0.05.
$
10..989
$ 144.000
46.704
46,704
Storm sewer - Phase I
- Phase II
Subtotal (Construction and Land)
74,20.7 74,20.7
35,612 35,612
167,512 300,523
61,644 61,644
$ 229.156 $ 362.167
Assessment rate paid = 15.90 acres @ $3,877/ac.
Total deduction
In Mr. Davidson's letter, he indicates that a fair apportionment of cost to
Woodland Terrace would have been $298,0.87. The actual cost which we have
incurred or will incur. when added to the fair market value of the land we
have set aside for ponding area, totals $362,167, which is $64,080 in excess
of our apportionment of cost. Assuming we are expected to pay the full $30.,0.0.0
fee to be charged by the City of Anoka, which I had previously agreed to do,
our excess cost is then $95,0.00 as compared to what the benefited parties
lying within Chapman's addition have paid.
I would like to graphically point out for your consideration the economic
difference I have explained above relative to the land. In the following
presentation, I have merely assumed that Chapman's Addition is exactly the
same size as Woodland Terrace. This example is intended to reflect the economic
difference in merely being credited for the raw land value versus the actual
contribution of land within a subdivision which would otherwise be developed.
Chapman's
Woodland Terrace
o
Total area within plat
Gross number of lots available using full
parcel
Less: Land area and therefore lots removed for
ponding purposes
Net lots
same
same
42
42
0.
42
12
30
(more)
The Honorable Mayor and Council
August 23, 1985
Page 3
o
(cont. )
Cha pman ' s
Woodland Terrace
Fair market value - assume $17,000 per lot
Additions/Adjustments:
Credit for raw land value (4 acres each
at $2,700)
Estimated reduct~on in total construction
cost of project (12 lots, each $5,000)
Total Additions/Adjustments
Total saleable value of land plus allowances/
credits
$ 714,000
$ 510,000
0 10,800
0 60,000
0 70,800
$ 714.000 $ 580.800
The above indicates correctly that Chapman's is coming out considerably ahead
of Woodland Terrace. The picture is not. distorted. Further, as long as we
are dealing with 12 lots, the dollar amount reflecting the difference will
always remain the same, it will just become a greater .or lesser percent depending
on the size of the project.
I ask you to please note the economic difference and advantage that the Chapman
addition has received merely by being allowed the opportunity to fully develop
the entire parcel. It is this economic advantage which I am trying to clearly
prove to all concerned, thereby satisfying the Council that we have in fact
paid our fair share, or considerably more, of the total project cost. In
conclusion, the fact that we have incurred a higher than normal cost was stated
by the city engineers on several occasions during prior discussions. This
comment was made even prior to our agreeing to pay the $30,000 fee to the
City of Anoka. The above calculations support this conclusion. I also believe
a significant point involved is that through our ponding system in Woodland
Terrace, we are adding only a maximum of 12 CFS to the downstream drainage
system. This should be compared to the Chapman's Addition, which did not
provide onsite ponding, and is adding considerably more surface water runoff
to the downstream system than are we. If we were to view the issue and calculate
the appropriate costs based on CFS runoff, we would find the picture totally
turned around. There would have been a significant increase in the costs
allocated to Chapman's.
In summary, the entire issue comes back to the economic benefit of each landowner,
and Chapman's has benefited far greater than has Woodland. I do not object
to this difference, but merely wish to make the point very clear. I remain
willing to pay the fee requested by the City of Anoka, but do not agree with
any further assessment. Again, I believe that during our meeting with the
engineers, they also concluded that our position in this matter was fair and
equitable to all concerned.
We sincerely hope that you will act favorably .in this matter. If this proposal
which I have made, namely payment of the $30,000 fee to the City of Anoka,
is not acceptable, we respectfully request that we be given further opportunity
to meet with the Council regarding the matter. Thank you.
o
,
~ .
p
,
,
l
I
!
;
!
I
,
.." '~'.."..
-;'0' .....'C.
.' .
",'- '.
. .--:;:
-',.:r:
L(.' ~ ?It~
/lJ-~~~)
. ll/b (ifS-
:' 't. -'."\",~:. .
K I
.\" .
I"'.\'~ ,
:~: , /
f .'~... -.
... .~,.....
: v:.....
.).~DODLAND DEVELOP~ENT co.
/1201 Hardie Bldg., 433 Jackson Street
Anoka..~Mi~nesota 55303
(612) 427.7502
November 6, 1985
HONORABLE MAYOR AND COUNCIL
Ci ty of Andover
1685 Crosstown Boulevard N.W.
Andover, Minnesota 55304
Honorable Mayor and Council:
In accordance with . the appeal process for assessments to District Court
pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 429.081, this letter serves as notice
of my appeal of the Anoka storm sewer assessment of $72 ,827. At tached is a
copy of our prior written objection, dated August 23, 1985, filed with the City
of Andover, and acknowledged by the Council at the October 7, 1985 assessment
hearing.
.
As I stated in the October 7 letter, I objected to $42,827 of the $72,827
assessed for Anoka storm sewer. The amount I object to was assessed solely on
the basis of achieving a fair share cost for total storm drainage costs for
Woodland Terrace. I still contend that I have paid my fair share for storm
drainage and in addition have provided on-site ponds to handle all additional
volumes of surface drainage in a manner which will have no additional impact on
the city's storm sewer system. As part of the design phase of the southwest
area improvements, I was notified by Mark Schumacher of TKDA on July 11, 1980
that it was necessary to include the potential development of WOodland Terrace
in their study. Mark noted in his letter to the Council that the drainage plan
as presented to me was the most effective drainage solution for Woodland
Terrace. I was then also informed that on-site ponding may be necessary to
fully develop the total proper ty. I opted to give up the increased value of
otherwise buildable lots for the ponds in lieu of over~izing the storm sewer
pipe. As a practical matter, it would have been much less costly to oversize
the pipe than to give up 4.07 acres of land that amount to 12 highly valuable
lots totally for the .purpose of drainage. \.lith that deciliion made, I already
incurred a cost for drainage of $2,700 per. acre for 4.07 ?cres, which amounts
to $10,989, not to mention the increased value of the otherwise developed lots,
estimated at a ~alue of $12,000 each which amounts to $144,000,
In any case, with the fact of ponding known, we proceeded to design a ponding
..system with the assistance of both our engineerin.g firm, Hakanlon Anderson
'. Associates, and the en.gineering firm for Andover, TKDA. Both have given
assurances that no additionaF impact on the Chutich Pond would be created in
'terms. of head 'pressure or additional capaci ty needs since our pon.Q.s' Ix>lding
'. capaci tyallows. the .addi tional surface drainage .to <Irain through ~he Andover
system (including the Chutich Pond) during offpeak times, meaning for every
Property - I nvestment, Development, Sales
.
. ,
Honorable Mayor and Council
November.6; 1985
Page 2
0/
I
addItIonal unIt of water draInIng into the draInage pond from our subdIvisIon,
the same unIt of water Is being released to the Rum River. Therefore, no
addItIonal capacIty needs for the Chutich Pond to handle our additional storm
drainage exist.
As we neared the construction start for streets and utilities, we were notified
by JIm Schrantz of a potential drainage fee required by Anoka for the use of
theIr storm sewer system and the rou ting of our surface drainage to the Rum
River. With the consultation and direction of 1l<DA and Jim Schrantz, we met
wi th Anoka. to resolve this issue quickly and insure an ou tflow for the ponds
that had been designed aud approved. I subsequently agreed to pay Anoka
$30,000 for the addi tional volume of wa ter too t would flow through their sys tem
as was noted with no negative impact on their system. I stand by thilt
commi tment even in the event the Council should negotia te a lower fee \ili th
Anoka.
Our actual construction costs have totaled what we expected, contrary to the
substantial savings reflected from the feasibility report. As we have
progressed into the final plat, John Rodeberg with TKDA revised his
feaSibility/bid estimate of project costs from $762,270 to $632,400.' John also
noted this figure was likely 107. high and an 8% contingency was included too t
he felt was unlikely to be used. Therefore, the real estimated project cost is
as follows:
Estimated project cost
Less 10% inflated cost
$ 632,400.00
63,240.00
569,160.00
45,532.80
j 523.627.20
Less 8% contingencies
Real estimated project cost
Our actual cost as submitted at the assessment hearing is $530,032.
exceeded the real estimate by adding three lots to the final plat.
cost per unit is determined by the following costs:
\.Ie
The real
Actual construction and related costs
Prior assessments against Phase I
Pond cons truction (in lieu of addi tional storm sewer
which would necessary to develop those lots)
Water connection charges
Anoka/Andover drainage fee
Total project costs
$ 530,032.00
139,616.36
With 107 un'its in Phase I, this equals a real cost of $7,943.44 per unit as
OPPOsed to the assessed cost per unit of $6,473.00 because of prior assessments
'and pond co ns truc tion.
53,000.00
96,300.00
31,000.00
$ 849.948.36
The following is to demons tra te my con ten tion tha t I have already paid my fair
share for drainage for Woodland Terrace:
o Our fair share for drainage was based on a comparison to Chapman's Addi tion,
. .
- ,
Q,:
;",f
1
I
Honorable Mayor and Council
November 6, 1985
Page 3
(
using $.10 per square foot for drainage costs. However, the $.10 per square
foot was the amount proposed in their feasibility study. The actual amount
levied was $.8699 per square foot, based on $133,659.24 assessed over 35.27
acres, which does not include the park area. Fallowing is an account of the
cost per square foot for Woodland Terrace:
Total
Less:
area
Area draining off-si te (this was de termined by TKDA)
Park area
Ponds
Wellsi te
Total area draining through Chapman's Addi tion
82.70 acres
10.40 acres
2.67 acres
4.07 acres
.26 acre
65.30 acres
Total drainage costs:
Storm sewer levied prior to 1985'
Storm sewer Phase I
Storm sewer estimate for Phase II
Pond construction
Pond raw land value ($2,700 per acre)
Anoka/ Andover drainage fee
Total drainage costs
$ 61,644.00
58,583.00
30,500.00
53,000.00
10,989.00
30,000.00
~4.716.00
The result is $.86 per square foot for Woodland Terrace. Again, this cost does
not reflect the otherwise improved lot value of 12.10ts given over to ponding.
Taking that value into account, we far exceed any development of its kind.
Therefore, any additional drainage assessments become a triple penalty when
considering the raw land value given to ponding, the improved lot value given
to ponding, and the proposed additional ponding fee.
As I stated earlier, my only intention is to be treated fairly, and I hope I
have clearly demons tra ted through my example s here in tha t the addi tional
assessment to which I am objecting is totally unfair. It is my hope this can
be resolved immedia tely by the Council remov ing the overassessment from the
assessment roll. Mayor Windschi tl indica ted, when discussing the wa ter
connection charges at the hearing, that cancellation by Council action is a
via ble solu tion for overassessmen t. To fur ther agonize over this is sue can
only overburden the Ci ty of Andover's and our time, resources, and funds, which
is a losing proposition for all of tis involved.
Yours truly,
LBC/kds
o
At tachmen t
""
f
o
e6?~
\1,1 ~
MINNEAPOLIS OFFICE
Suite 600
Midwest Plaza West
801 Nicollet Mall
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Telephone
6121339-8682
Richard A. Bowman
John O. McShane
David R. Kelly
David W. Graves. J(
George W. Soule
Hildy Bowbeer
Kent a. Hanson" . ..
Wayne O. Struble
Janice K. O'Grady
Robert K. Miller
Kennelh W. Pearson
Marcia M. Kull
Mickey W. Greene' . .
Cynthia J. Alsatt
PHOENIX OFFICE
Suite 2250
Kent Tower
100 West ClarendOn
Phoenix. AZ. 85013
Telephone
6021248.0899
Jeffrey A. Brooke'
David C. Auther' .
Paul G. Cereghini' .
'AOMITTf'l)IH.u.zoou.
-~.
.- "'*'"(O........~QOl...
....._mo...IOW.\Qfol.'
.....0000TTm...~
-~.
..u.OTt<t:IIS....DfIIfTnO
""-~....
o
L. .....
CA ..'{J~
F
'\
\\\/
Bowman and Brooke
ATTORNEYS A.T LAW
November 21,1985
The Honorable Natalie-Haas
The Honorable Albert A.Kordiak
Anoka County Board of Commissioners
County Courthouse
Anoka, Minnesota 55303
Mr. Robert Hutchinson
Director of Environmental Services
Anoka County
325 E. Main Street
Anoka, Minnesota 55303
Mr. James Schrantz
City Administrator
City of Andover
1685 Crosstown Blvd., N.W.
Andover, Minnesota 55304
Gentlemen and Ms. Haas:
Re: WDE Site, Andover, Minnesota
Enclosed please find the following:
1. Respondents' November 13, 1985 response to
MPCA October 30, 1985 response to the revised Remedial
Investigation Report; and
2. Respondents' November 20,
EPA's November 6, 198~ response tQ
Investigation IiI) Report.
MMK:dcw
Enclosures
1985 response to
th€----revised Remedial
Very truly yours,
ON BEHALF OF THE SW-28 GROUP
Ford Motor Company
.
-
...e.APOUS OFACE
__.600
~ Plaza West
n Nc:oIIet Mall
_os. MN S5402
...,...,...
21:139-8682.
cnudA.. Bowman
"'" a. uc.$nane
.....aRKelty
...:tW_G~.Jt
eaoe W. Soule
... -.....
.. B.Iiat\son......
_0.5'""""
ww;eK.O'GtaCly
-X*1 K. Millel"
.......ch W, Pearson
--=- M. Kull
"ioIleyW.G~...
'f"d'U J. Alsan
HOENIX OFACE
.... 22SO
erc10wer
00 'West Clarenoon
_.AZ 650t3
-
0212<a-<J899
_R.B"""""
...-:sc.AlJU'ler..
"G.~ni..
.~........co-.
--
-~..~
-~._000U'
-~..~
--
--~
-
o
Bowman and Brooke
A T TOR HEY S Art A. .W
HAND DELIVERED
November 13, 1985
Mr. Thomas J. Kalitowski
Executive Director
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
1935 West County Road B2
Roseville, Minnesota 55113-2785
Re: WDE Site, Andover, Minnesota
Dear Mr. Kalitowski:
In the October 30, 1985, response to the revised
Remedial Investigation (RI) Report submitted to the MPCA
on October 16, 1985, the MPCA Director stated that the
Respondents did not revise the RI Report as required in
the MPCA letter dated October 2, 1985, or provide an adequate
justification to the Agencies to approve the report as
submitted. Pursuant to the Resolution of Disputes provision
of the Order which governs submittals, if the Respondents
believe that the MPCA's Director's changes are inconsistent
with the Order, Respondents shall notify the MPCA Director.
Respondents believe that the changes set forth in
the Agency's letter of October 30, 1985, are inconsistent
with the Order and hereby formally notify the Director
of the same. In particular, the Respondents believe that
the revised RI Report as submitted by Respondents on October
16, 1985, satisfies all of Respondents' obligations under
the Order with respect to (a) a determination of the WDE
Pit contribution to the overall WDE Site contamination
problem and (b) waste characterization. Further, for
the record there. has been a misunderstandino betwee
the Respondents and the MPCA in two cases, namely, Pit
contribution and waste characterizations. Prior to this
letter the Respondents have not formally agreed to the
HPCA October 30 modifications in these two areas.
In an effort to resolve this misunderstanding and
avoid any unnecessary delays in this RIfFS program,
Respondents met with representatives of the MPCA
on Tuesday, November 5; Thursday, November 7; and Tuesday,
November 12, 1985. As a result of these meetings and
o
o
Mr. Thomas J. Kitowski
November 13, 1985
Page 2
without waiving the Respondents' position that they have
fully complied to date with all of their obligations under
the Order to complete an RI Report, the Respondents are
agreeable to all of the MPCA RI Report modifications and
the proposed modificationito be made by the Respondents
in the MPCA letter of October SO, 1985, with the following
two clarifications.
First, with regard to paragraph No. 1 on page 9 of
the MPCA letter concerning the pit contribution to the
overall WDE Site contamination problem, the following
additional work will be performed:
I.A. Install two nests of observation wells within
the upper sand aquifer. ,These nests will be located within
the limits of the flow lines that pass beneath the pit
as defined by the water table contours presented on
Figure 4.21 of the RI Report.
1. One of these well nests will consist of
two observation wells installed in the vicinity of
the Pit. In addition to supplying supplemental data
for pit plume identification, the MPCA and Respondents
agree that this well nest will satisfy Recommendation
No.4, Section 1.4 of the RI Report concerning further
investigation of any non-aqueous phase liquid (NAPL)
released from the pit. The wells will be installed
in separate bore holes through hollow stem augers
with ten-foot long well screens set on top of the
intermittent gray silt unit and on top of the red-brown
silt till unit. Sandpacks will be installed around
the screens, as appropriate, and the bore hole annulus
grouted with cement/bentonite grout pumped in place.
The wells would be installed in accordance with the
Minnesota Department of Health regulations.
o
will be examined for the presence of NAPL. Short
sumps will be installed in the well screens to collect
any NAPL that may migrate across the gray silt or
red-brown silt till surfaces in the future.
3. If the intermittent gray silt unit is not
encountered in the soil samples collected at this
location, the second observation well in the well
nest will be installed in the upper one-third of
the saturated upper sand aquifer thickness.
o
o
"
Mr. Thomas J. K< .towski
November 13, 1985
Page 3
4. The second well nest, consisting of two
wells, will be similarly constructed with the exception
of the short sump. This well nest will be located
approximately half way between the pit and well nest
W-ll, within the flow lines passing beneath the pit.
,
B. Water samples will be collected from the new
observation wells on two separate occasions and analyzed
for the Minnesota Department of Health 465B volatile organics
only. These samples will be collected and analyzed using
the same procedures used during the second round RI sampling
and analysis.
C. Upon completion of this additional investigation
as outlined above, Respondents will submit to the MPCA
modifications .to the RI Report containing all data collected
and appropriate revisions to Section 6.4.1, entitled "Pit
versus Landfill" and Section 4.4.2.1, entitled "Water .
Quality Within the Limits of Refuse Deposal." This submission
will be reviewed in accordance with Part VII.B of the
Order, entitled "Resolution of Disputes."
The second clarification deals with paragraph No.
2 on page 9 of the MPCA October 30 letter concerning the
requirements for waste characterization. On this issue,
the following additional work will be performed:
II. A. Respondents will modify Section 3.0 of the
RI Report entitled "Hazardous Substance Investigation."
This modification will summarize the existing WDE Site
waste characterization information collected to date" from
the files of the MPCA and Anoka County, plus any other
appropriate information previously provided to Respondents'
consultant, Conestoga Rovers Associates. This section
of the RI Report will be organized in accordance with
and address all points contained in Exhibit A.V.2, Task
A(8) and Task C.l.a and d.; tihiblf B.V.2., and Task AlIa)
. 0 e r er, an ar s . an
IV.A.I. of the Pit RI/FS Work Plan and Parts III.J and
IV.A.l of the Landfill RI/FS Work Plan. This task will
be completed and submitted to the MPCA within the next
thirty days. This submission will be reviewed in accordance
with Part VII B of the Order, entitled "Resolution of
Disputes."
B. Respondents and the MPCA will generate a survey
questionnaire inquiring into the WDE Site hazardous waste
disposal history. The MPCA will send this questionnaire
to all identified potentially responsible persons for
the WDE Site. The Respondents will use their best efforts
to provide a complete response to the survey questions
by the MPCA.
Mr. Thomas J. Kitowski
November 13, 1985
Page 4
o
C. The MPCA will provide Respondents with the responses
from the survey. Within thirty days of receipt of this
information, the Respondents will summarize the results
from the survey, as well as other information provided.
to the Respondents at that time, and make any amendments
to Section 3.0 of the RI Report that may be appropriate
based upon this new information. This submission will
also be subject Part VII B of 'the Order.
The MPCA staff agrees that upon completion of the
above two enumerated tasks (I and II) to the satisfaction
of the MPCA Director, the Respondents will have fulfilled
all of their obligations under the Order with respect
to the completion of the RI Report.
Very truly yours,
BOWMAN AND BROOKE
By
David W.
Attorney
FORD MOTOR COMPANY
B\O:~~J!:V Ji;{J 4~
Co-Chair, SW-28 Group
DWG:lj
cc: Bruce Borgerding, Esq.
Robert FalstadLEsq.
--Alan W. Van Norman, P. Eng.
ree
o
..
.'
o
MINNEAPOLIS OFFICE.
S<.lrte600
MiOWWe$f Plaza 'Nest
SOl NICOlle! Mall
VlInneaOOfls. MN 5$402
TeteC)tlOne
512J339~682
Archard A. Bowman
Jonn Q. McSnane
OaYCJ R. Kelly
D~W.Gra~$.Jr"...'
George W. Soule"" ....
Hdcty 8owoeef
J<..enr S. Hanson...'
Yor.IyneO.$lruble
J.ance K. O'Grady
~tmew J. Valllchka
E=iooert K. Mil5ef'
f\enneth W. Pearson
Matoa M. Kull"""
~ocey W. GfHne' ....
Cynmaa.J. A1:san
Carol A. Neecnes
PHOENIX OFFiCe
S"'Jte 2250
~ Tower
1.00 West Clarenoon
~~nu,:. AZ. 65013
T~
5021248-oS99
Jeffrey A. Brooke'
,)<WId C. Aulner'"
'~"UIU'QOUo
--.
.-~..~
"--"'lfo...o-a
--.
....6OWl'T"Io..~
-~.'
........-.nuI..~.
'O'U'(7I'......~
--.
o
..
Bowman and Brooke
ATTORNEyS AT I:A.W
November 20, 1985
Mr. Kerry Street
United States Environmental
Protection Agency
Region Five
230 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, Illinois 60605
Re: Waste Disposal Engineering, Andover, Minnesota
Dear Mr. Street:
In the November 6, 1985, response to the revised
Remedial Investigation (RI) report submitted to the Agencies
on October 16, 1985, the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) stated that the parties have not reconciled all
issues in disagreement and, pursuant to Part VII.B.3. of the
Consent Order (Order), the EPA modifies the RI final report
as specified in Attachment I. Pursuant to the Resolution of
Disputes provision of the Order which governs submittals,
Respondents hereby notify the EPA t~at they believe the
EPA's modifications are inconsistent with the Order.
The R~spondents believe that the revised RI Report as
submitted on October 16, 1985, satisfies all of Respondents
obligations under the Order.
In an effort to resolve any deficiencies between
Respondents and the EPA, Respondents have initiated tele-
phone conferences with representatives of the EPA on
November 13, 14, 18, 19 and 20. As a result o~ th~~e dis-
cussions- -ana---wtthout wai vingRespondents I posit ion that they
. lr olga lons
under the Order to complete the RI Report, the Respondents
are agreeable to the EPA RI Report modifications and pro-
posed modifications subject to the clarifications noted
below. These clarifications are itemized in accordance with
the ennumerated Attachments I and III of the EPA November 6,
1985 letter.
However, before addressing these specific points,
Respondents believe that i~ is necessary, for the record, to
comment on certain other statements contained EPA's letter.
o
Mr~ Kerry Street
November 20,1.985
Page 2
The BFA asserts that Respondents failed to make a
timely submission of the revised RI Final Report to the EPA.
Under Exhibit A, Part II, and Exhibit B, Part iI of the
Order, "the Respondents shall submit to the Minnesota
Pollution Cont::ol Agency d;.rector (!'1PCA director) and the
U. S. EPA all reports ... '.l.nd other submittals .required by
[these} Exhibit[sl." Respondents believe that they provided
a timely submission of the RI Report to the EPA and MPCA.
Respondents hand delivered the revised RI Report to the HPCA
and arranged for another copy of the report to be sent to .
the EPA via certified mail on October 16, 1985. After being
informed by the EPA that they did not receive the copy, a
second copy was sent on October 23, 1985 via Federal
Expres.s. Accordingly, Respondents have complied timely with
the Order. However, even if the EPA continues to claim that
Respondents' submittal was late, Part XXI of the Order is
applicable. The section states:
Any failure of Respondents to complete
properly the requirements of this Consent
Order which results from circumstances beyond
the reasonable control of Respondents shall
not be deemed to be a violation of its obli-
gation and shall not make Respondents liable
for the damages provided for in this Part.
To the extent delay is caused by such circum-
stances beyond the reasonable control of the
Respondents, the time for performance here-
under shall be extended pu::suant to Part XII,
below.
Accordingly, liquidated damages are inappropriate.
The EPA asserts that Respondents have failed to
finalize the QA/QC Plan. The history of the problems asso-
ciated with approval of the QA/QC Plan is well documented
port-] . R",::>pulIJt::lI ts
believe that the EPA statement that "Respondents have failed
to finalize the QA/QC Plan" is misleaaing and simplistic.
The Respondents have made good faith efforts to finalize the
QA/QC Plan. The submittals have been met by delays and
inconsistencies within the EPA. In fact, Respondents,
frustrated by six months of EPAdelays, chose to begin the
RI sampling program wi thout an approved QAPP. (See
Respondents' March 29, 1985 letter to MPCA Director.)
o
The EPA asserts that Respondents have failed to
finalize the Safety Plans. Exhibit A, Part IV and Exhibit
B, Part IV of the Order state that "{t}he Respondents shall
o
Mr. Kerry Street
November 20, 1985
Page 3
prepare ana submit to the HPCA Director and u.s. EPA for
comment . . . a WDE [Pit and Landfill1 safety
plan[s1. . . ." The Exhibits state expressly that while the
Agencies may comment on the safety plans, the Agencies "will
neither approve nor disapprove the plans." In acco~dance
with the Exhibits, Respondents submitted the Safety Plans to
the Agencies. The safety ~lans were implemented, taking
into account the comments of the MPCA Director and EFA.
(See Response to Request by MFCA/USEPA for Revised Health
and Safety Plan for WDE Sanitary Landfill, attached hereto.)
The Exhibits to the Order do not require resubmission of the
safety plans dr "finalization" after Agency comment. Thus,
Respondents have complied fully with their obligations under
the Order with regard to the Safety Plans.
Respondents are uncertain of the meaning of the EFA's
comment that they "have failed to retain a consultant(s)
qualified to undertake the requirements of the Exhibits."
Conestoga-Rovers & Associates has considerable experience in
planning and leading Remedial Investigations and teasibility
Studies. CRA has carried out successfully the requirements
of the Exhibits and the Work Plans. At no time has any
member of either the MPCA or the EPA questioned CRA's abil-
ity to perform the required tasks. It is Respondents' posi-
tion that their consultant has proceeded in accordance with
the letter and spirit of the Order, the Exhibits and the
Work Plans.
The EPA states that Respondents have failed to indicate
and propose methods in the monthly reports for any necessary
additional RI activity. Respondents did not become aware of
any necessary additional RI activities until the data col-
lected during the RI had been analyzed and synthesized into
the RI Report. Respondents did not have the benefit of
hindsight when writing their monthly reports. Notwithstand-
ing the above, Respondents have proposed additional RI
activities in their month.4--rf'pnrts (see monthl-y--rcport;-----
dated September 17, 1985).
o
Finally, on page two of the November 6, 1985, letter,
the EFA states that "within 30 days of the date of this
letter, the Respondents shall develop and submit to the MPCA
and u.S. EPA Alternative Reports....n Respondents believe
this statement is in error. Fart VII.B.4. provides for a
fourteen (14) day reconciliation period if Respondents
believe that the Agency's modifications are inconsistent
with the Order. This letter constitutes Respondents'
official notification to the Agency of the same. Agency
modifications are not deemed to be final action until the
o
Mr. Kerry Street
November 20, 1985
Page 4
end of the fourteen (14J day reconciliation period or
approval by the Agency. The Alternatives Report is then due
within thirty (3D) days of approval or final agency action.
Respondents requested ~ meeting with the EPA to dis-
cuss, in person, the contents of the Agency's November 6,
1985 letter. Part VII B.S. of the Order provides: "U.S.
EPA, the MPCA, and Respondents' Project leader shall provide
the opportunity to consult with each other during the revi~w
of submittals or modifications under this Part."
Respondents are disappointed that EPA has failed to provide
any meaningful opportunity to meet or discuss the Agencies'
concerns with the revisedRI Report prior to this response
to EPA'~ November 6 letter.
Respondents believe that the modifications set forth in
the Attachments to the EPA's letter of November 6, 1986, are
inconsistent with the Order and hereby notify the Agency of
the same. Respondents hereby make the following responses
to the Agency's modifications contained in Attachments I and
III of the November 6, 1986 letter:
ATTACH!-'I-ENT I
1. Respondents believe that the Agency's modification
requiring submittal of the data base to QA/Qc procedures is
inconsistent with the Order. The detailed, time-consuming
assessment is unnecessary at this state of investigation,
and perhaps will never be necessary. If the reliability of
specific data is questioned, a QA/QC assessment is a reason-
able means to resolve any concerns with respect to that
data. Since the reliability of the data base as a whole is
not at issue, the control measures built into the process
through split samples and laboratory blanks are sufficient
for assurances of general data base reliability. This
appr-oach has been used-throughout the RI Report where indi-
,..iduJ.l dJ.tu.points have beell yue~tibned. anyad.dltlonal
assessment is costly and unnecessary at this time.
Without waiving Respondents' position that they have
complied fully to date with all of their Obligations under
the Order, Respondents are agreeable to the fOllowing modi-
fication.
o
Conestoga Rovers & Associates will conduct a QA/QC
assessment on all data collected during the Remedial
investigation. The analysis will consist exclusively of the
steps outlined in paragraphs 3, 4, 5, and 6 of Attachment II
,
o
Mr. Kerry Street
November 20, 1985
Page 5
to HPCA' s Apr il II, 1985 letter to Respondents and will
limited to the following activities:
a. A summary of dates when samples and blanks
were collected and wer,~ analyzed.
,
b. A summa~y reporting of matrix spikes and sur-
rogates spikes, including sample dilution factors,
amount of spike added, amoUnt of spike compound
measured in a sample with and without addition of the
spike, and percent recovery of the spike.
c. A summary reporting of reference sample
results.
d.
based on
and QAPP
Identification of "out of control" situations
comparison of calculated data base statistics
target statistics.
e. Identification of outliers, identified as
compounds, present in a sample at a concentration
within ten times the parameter concentration reported
in the corresponding blank analysis.
f. A summary presentation of mean, standard
deviation and 95 percent confidence interval for matrix
spike, surrogate spike and reference sample results
after removal of "out of control" samples and outliers.
g. A summary presentation of field and labora-
tory duplicates.
h. A summary tabulation of the performance cri-
teria for DFTPP and/or BFB for each day the GC/MS was
used to analyze samples from this project and a list of
samples analyzed on each of those days.
The format for reporting the results of this analysis will
be in accordance with a sample RI/FS data assessment~ to be
provided to Respondents by the EPA. Respondents' data
assessment will be submitted pursuant to Section VII.B. of
the Order within thirty (30) days after receipt of the
sample RI/FS data assessment. The completion of the above-
referenced tasks will constitute adequate completion of the
QA/QC assessment.
o
2. Respondents do not object to the EPA modifications
set forth in paragraph 2. However, Respondents do not
o
Mr. Kerry Street
November 2nr 1985
Page 6
believe that EPA's editorial comments contained therein are
true or that their inclusion in paragraph 2 is appropriate.
While Table 1.1 does not aid in data analysis, it is
not misleading. The Table l~akes express reference to both
consultants retained on be~alf of Respondents. Further,
Respondents believe that there were assurances from the EPA
that the QA/QC Plan would be approved. While we believe
assurances were made, the statement "without an applicable
approved QA/QC Plan" is true. The controversies surrounding
the EPA's approval of Respondents' laboratories and the
QA/QC is set forth in detail in the correspondence and,
therefore, additional reference to these issues in the RI
ReportJs redundant.
3. Respondents do not object to this modification
subject to EPA's agreement that the referenced "written con-
sideration" requirement can be satisfied simply by a letter
from CRA describing both the proposed location of the NAPL
well nest and the underlying rationale for the proposal.
Based on discussions to date with the EPA and the MPCA this
proposed well nest will be located in an area where the gray
silt layer slopes downward and away from the Pit.
4. Respondents do not object to this modification
provided the following revision is made to the second
sentence: "The existence of hazardous substances outside
the Pit's probable area of influence will be evaluated.
Additional consideration will be given to relative contribu-
tions, independent impacts and remedial alternatives using
the results of the revised waste characterization and the
supplemental boreholes described in Respondents' November
13, 1985, letter to the MPCA Director."
5. Respondents do not object to this modification.
...
drawn from the NAP~ wells referred to in Respondents'
November 13, 1985 response to the MPCA. Respondents do not
object to this modification.
ATTACHMENT III
Respondents and EPA agree that additional tasks
required by this Attachment will be submitted pursuant to
Section VII.B of the Order.
o
o
Mr. Kerry Street
November 2G, 1985
Page 7
A. Major Tasks
1., 2., 3., and 4. Respondents and EPA agree to these
tasks as clarified and in accordance with Respondents'
November 13, 1985, letter t? the MPCA Director. Respondents
will provide in the revised RI report a discussion of the
relative contributions of the pit and the Landfill to the
overall site contamination. EPA will have the opportunity
to comment on the waste characterization questionaire to be
created by Respondents and MPCA.
5. Respondents have completed this Major Task by
incorporation of the October 30, 1985 MPCA modification to
page 56. of the revised RI and MPCA Figure 4. 24B in the
revised RI Report. A copy of Figure 4.24B is enclosed with
this letter.
6. Respondents have not advanced a "homogeneous con-
tamination theory" in their discussion of the relative con-
tribution of contamination from the landfill. Rather,
Respondents have identified additional source areas within
the Landfill, independent of the pit. Notwithstanding the
above, Respondents do not object to this modification and
will revise Section 6.4.1 to discuss discrete sources of
contamination from the landfill. The revision will analyze
all RI data collected to date, the Respondents' revised
waste characterization section and the additional data to be
collected pursuant to Respondents' November 13, 1985,
letter.
7. Respondents do not object to this modification.
The impacts of leachate seepages will be addressed further
in a revision to Section 6.1 of the revised RI Report. The
modification will include a figure indicating where leachate
seepages are located, a description of leachate seepage
flow, consideration of how seepage flow can be isolated, and'
~. from casual con-
tact.
8. The Respondents believes that it is premature to
consider a detailed final Landfill closure plan at this
time. However, the Respondents will provide an evaluation
of the present Landfill closure and the effect of the lime
sludge located presently on the site.
o
9. Respondents believe that they have complied fully
with the requirements regarding static water level measure-
ments. Exhibit At Part V, Task A, Item 2.b(3) of the Order
requires Respondents to conduct at least three (3) sets of
o
Mr. Kerry Street
November 20, 1'85
Page a
static water level readings. In fact, Respondents conducted
six sets of static water level readings and reported and
compared this data with data previously complied in Section
4.3.4 of the revised RI Report. Further, in accordance with
Exhibit B, Part V, Task A, Item 2.b.(4) of the Order,
Respondents conducted "montAly static water level
readings...during the period of the WOE Landfill RI...." The
tesults from the monthly monitoring is reported and compares
with data previously compiled in the revised RI Report at
Section 4.3.4.
Notwithstanding Respondents position that they have
complied fully with all requirements regarding static water
measurements, it is Respondents understanding that, based
upon the last sentence of Major Task 9 and conversations
with EPA, no additional monitoring is required at this time.
ATTACHMENT III(b) --MINOR TASKS
l.
Figure
Report
data.
This comment correctly identifies an error on
4.18. The error will be corrected in a modified RI
and the figure will be made consistent with actual
2. Table 4.0 was omitted inadvertently from Section
4.4 and will be included in a modified RI Report.
3. Agricultural animals will be identified as
potential receptors in Section 6.2 of a modified RI Report.
4. Modifications will be made to Appendix B to indi-
cate that the extra VOC compounds to be screened by GCMS
were addressed by Hazelton.
5. Modifications will be made to Appendix B to
identify detection limits for compounds wherever they are
not resented in the e . This comment
applies specifically to the volatile analysis by GC con-
ducted by Pace Laboratories Inc.
o
Based upon discussions with the EPA and the MPCA,
Respondents will address and incorporate Minor Tasks 1, 2
and 3 into a revised RI report prior to the completion of
the Pit/Landfill Feasibility Study. Minor Tasks 4 and 5
will be incorporated into a revised Appendix B and will be
issued contemporaneously with the QA/QC data assessment
referred to in the comment to paragraph one, Attachment I,
above.
o
Mr. Kerry Street
November 20, 1985
Page 9
ATTACHHENT n - QUALITY ASSURANCE/QUALITy CONTROL
Attachment II to the November 6, 1985, EPA letter
reflects claimed QA/QC deficiencies. Although the comments
contained in Attachment II ~re not proposed modifications,
the following reflects, fcr the record, Respondents'
response to the claimed deficiences.
1. Hazelton has advised us that detection li~its for
many of the VOC and semi-volatile compounds were raised in
accordance with procedures defined in the Contract
Laboratory Program (CLP). In addition, CRA has received a
letter from Hazelton advising CRA that the procedures of the
Contract Laboratory Program were indeed followed. A copy of
the Hazelton letter is attached hereto.
2. The general response to this comment is the same
as to comment 1 above. A more detailed response to this
comment would require identification of specific samples in
question.
3, Sample contamination from extraneous sources is
identified by reference to appropriate field and laboratory
blanks throughout Section 4.4 of the RI Report. However, as
identified under the response to comment 1, Attchment I,
above, a more detailed assessment of QA/QC data will be per-
formed.
4. As indicated in the Respondents' October 16, 1985,
response to the MPCA Director, we have investigated
dichlorobenzene results and find no reason to doubt the
accuracy of the values reported to us by our contractor
laboratories. As no QA/QC data on the MPCA results is
available at this time, it is not possible to examine the
differences from the perspective of the MPCA laboratory.
5. We hav invpst1gMrPn the ref~€nCe8 E~ult3 ~fi6--
determined that the total dissolved solids concentrations
were reported correctly in the RI Report. We agree that
these total dissolved solids results should be considered
inaccurate and that discarding these results should not
affect the RI Final Report's conclusions.
6. A more detailed assessment will be performed in
accordance with Comment 1 to Attachment 1 above.
o
Based upon discussions with the EPA, completion of the
above tasks and the tasks set forth in Respondent's November
13, 1985 let.ter to the HPCA Director will fulfill all of
o
Mr. Kerry Street
November 20, 1985
Page 10
Respondents' obligations under the Order with respect to the
completion of theRI Report, subject only to further discus-
sions relating to Modification No. 4 on Attachment I and
Major Task No. 6 on Attachment III. Respondents and the .EPA
have agreed to confer on th~se two matters during the next
two weeks in accordance wi til Section VII.B. 4. of the Order.
,
Very truly yours,
BOWMAN AND BROOKE
By Dgd~~~A
Attorney for Ford Motor Company
FORD MOTOR COMPANY
By ?::.~~~v~~
Co-Chair, SW-28 Group
cc: Bruce Borgerding, Esq.
Robert Falstad, Esq.
Alan W. VanNorman, Esq.
Mr. Thomas J. Kalitowski
o
o
CONESTOGA-ROVERS & ASSOCIATES LIMITED
Consulting Engineers
March 15., 1985
Reference No. 1472-50
Response to Request by MPCA/USEPA
for Revised Health and Safety Plan
for WDE Sanitary Landfill
RI/FS
prepared by
Conestoga-Rovers and Associates Ltd.
The provisions of the April 1984 Hickock Plan and letter of June
29, 1984 from Hickock to the MPCA/USEPA were generally followed
except as modified in this response.
CRA hired the industrial hygiene firm of Industrial Health
Engineering (IHE) of Minneapolis Minnesota to provide qualified
professional advice on matters of health and safety. Industrial
Health Engineering assessed the site conditions and provided
appropriate advice to CRA and subcontract field staff.
The on-site safety program as defined by IHE and implemented by
CRA is summarized in the report entitled "Waste Disposal
Engineering Site, Andover, Minnesota, Employee Safety and Health
Information Packet". A copy of this report is attached. All CRA
and subcontractor employees who worked directly on-site were
briefed on the reports contents by IHE and given a copy of the
report.
CRA's on-site Safety Officer is Mr. Kevin T. Bricknell. Mr.
Bricknell directly supervises all on-site activities. In the
event that Mr. Bricknell could not be available Mr. Alan Van
Norman will assume the responsibilities of Safety Officer.
o
.C
('
o
WASTe DISPOSAL ENGINEeRING SITe
ANDOVER, MINNESOTA
EMPLOYEE SAFETY AND HEATLH
INFORMATION PACKET
o
o
o
.C"
['
'.
GENERAL " INfORMAtioN
Drilling at the Waste Disposal Engineering Site may expose to the
surface hazardous or flammab.le vapors and. liquids. These may be
old paint residues and solvents containing substances such as
acetone, toluene, styrene, xylene, benzene, 1,1,1-
Trichloroethane, 1,1,2-Trichloroethylene and a multitude of other
chlorinated and non-chlorinated hydrocarbons.
Exposure to hazardous concentratiohs of these materials during
drilling operations is possible however, not considered probable.
Air monitoring will be conducted by Conestoga-:Rovers with a photo
ionization detector and a combustible gas indicator to ensure
that air quality and fire potential is at a safe level.
1
c
D'
O'
AREADESiGNATtONS
Zone I:
Is the hazardous waste c.ontainment trench.( Waste
Disposal Engineering (WOE) Pit. This area marked
clearly with stakes and flags.
Zone II: An area 100 feet of the perimeter of Zone I. This
area is enclosed by a snow fence.
Zone III: The rest of th~ site as described as that area within
the WDE landfill security fence.
Decontamina tion
Zone.:
The zone will occur at the main gate entrance to the
WOE site and will provide for the transfer of
construction. materials into. and out of the work site.
Th{s will also b. the zone in which decontamination of
equipment, vehicles, and other types of materials
prior to l~aving the work site will be performed.
Decontamination of personnel and clothing prior. to
leaving the work site will also be performed in this
zone.
,
o
2
,r--'.
\(i
'-
0.
Zone I & II
1.
Rubber boots or impermeable type steel
chemical.reaistant soles. Alternatively
boots with chemical resistant outer boots.
toe boots with
~tee~ toe safety
2. Disposable chemical resistant coveralls.
3. Two layers of gloves, first layer being surgical type and the
second being the impermeable rubber or polypropylene type.
4. Full and/or half face respirators with high efficiency
organic vapor, acid gas and/or particulate filt~rs. The type
of respiratory protection will be dependent upon the
concentration obtained by the eRA safety and health officer with
the direct reading air monitor.
5. Safety goggles or safety glasses will be worn when half mask
respiratory protection is used.
Zone' I it
1.
Rubber boots or impermeable type steel
chemical resistant soles. Alternatively
boots with chemical resistant outer boots.
toe boots with
steel toe safety
2. Chemical resistant coveralls.
3. Work gloves.
o
3
f".
I '
\...
o
RESPIRATORY' PROTECTioN
All individuals required to we~~ a respirator will have
previously. been given a pulmonary "lung function and chest X-ray
and have a general medical history to. insure that they are
capable of wearing a re~pirator while working. On-site personnel
unable to pass' the respiratory fit test will not be able to work
iIT the dirty area or decontaminated zone.
The respiratory protection is based upon a graduated scale of
protection factors depending upon the concentration of substaAce-$'-
measured by the direct reading photo ionization detector (PIO).
'.
Each of the protocols for wearing a specific type of respirator
is dependent upon the protection factor afforded and the
limitations of each type of respirator. The following procedures
will be followed for wearing the various types of respirators in
exposure areas:
1. 5 to-2S-~~~: Concentrations of 5to 25 ppm as indicated by
the PIO wlll constitute wearing a half mask negative pressure
organic vapor cartridge respirator.
2. 25-S0-~~~: Concentrations of 25 to 50 ppm as indicated by
the PID will constitute a full face negative pressure organic
vapor cartridge respirator.
3. ~i~~f~~-E6~ri'So-~~~: Concentratio~s exceeding 50 ppm as
measured by the prD will require wearing an air-line or self-
contained apparatus (SCBA).
4. Gr~~f~i-t6~ri-l00'~~~-6i-20i-6f'f6~~~'~i~i6ii6~-ii~i~: Any
hazardous waste removal location exceeding 100 ppm for any
single reading with the photo ionization detector or
'approaching 20 percent of the Lower Explosive Limit (tEL)
indi:-c-a-ted by the cO'llbustibl", YC1"',.i.IIJ.i.cdtor, work wlllbe sout
down and evacuated upwind. Wor'k will not resume until the
location has been thoroughly assessed and concentrations are
found acceptable by the eRA on-site safety and health officer
or project manager.
o
. .
4
o
o
r---...
!.
,.
.(
RESPIRATOR PROGRAM
Negative "Pressure "Harf-Mask Respirators. The hale face piece or
half face mask typ. resplrator has a protection factor of 10.
This means that the respirator can be ....orn whe.re concentrations
are kno....n not to exceed 10 times the Threshold Limi t Value (TLV)
for organic vapors or dust, mist and fumes. This respira.tor must
be ....or~.in a~m6spheresthat are ri6f oxygen deficientand"the
material is not irritating to the eyes or could result in eye
damage.
piece or' Full Face Respirators. The full face
respirator is similar to the half face respirator in that it also
must be used in areas ....here an adequate supply of oxygen is
available. This respirator has" an additional protection factor
and can be ....orn. in areas ....here the concentration of dust, mist,
gases and fumes does not exceed 50 times the ACGIH TLV. The eye
piece po~tion ....~ll provide protection against m.teria~s ....hich
could cause damage to the eyes either due to high vapor solvent
exposure or to actual splashes to the face.
Self-Contained-Breathiri." A6aratus "or"scot-Air-Pack. This
resplrator has aprotectlon factor 0 greater than 10,000. This
respir.tor ....ill be used in conjunction ....ith the airline
respirator for ....ork involving removal of contaminated material
oxygen may be defic:ient~ i.e., less than 19.6% or ....here the
toxicity or identity of the material is not kno....n. The Scot Air
Pack type respirator may be used for emergency ~nd/or escape
purposes.
5
0'
o
PROTECTIVE-EQUIPMENT"usAGE-PRQCEDURES
following procedures have been developed for general da ily
applications for working in the' dirty area at the site.
1. Allpcescription glasses in use at the site will be safety
glasses. Contact lenses will not be permitted On site within
the active work areas.
2. Respirator cartridges will be changed at the end of each
shift or upon breakthrough whichever occurs first.
3. Coveralls and gloves ~ill be tightly secured with masking
tapeoc duct tape to outer clothing to minimize work expesure
to contaminants.
4. All disposable outerwear, gloves, and respirators worn on
site will be approved by the CRA project safety manager. The
first layer or inner layer gloves will be disposable latex,
i.e., surgical type.
5. footwear used on site will be rubber or impermeable type
steel toe boots with chemical resistant soles which will be
worn in the dirty area or decontaminatipn zones.
Alternatively, steel toe safety boots with chemical resistant
outer boots can be worn. Disposable outerwear will not be
reused and will be removed and placed into disposable
containers provided for that purpose.
6
o
o
. \
'"'.
(
PERSONAL 'HYGIENE
The following procedures are to be carried out to maintain a high
quality of personal hygiene at the removal site:
1. On-site personnel will wear di~posable outerwear, gloves and
outer footwear at all times while entering 6r working in the
WOE pit Zones I & II.
2. Disposable outerwear will not be reused and will be removed
and placed 'into disposable containers provided for that
purpose.
3. Smoking will be prohibited except at designated smoking
areas ..
4. .Eating and drinking will be prohibited except in a designated
lunch or break area.
5. Soiled disposable outerwear will be removed prior to entering
the lunch area and prior to cleaning hands.
6. On-site personnel will thoroughly cleanse their hands and
other exposed areas before entering the smoking and lunch
areas.
o
o
r
MINNESOTA
EMPLOYE8RIGHTTO"KNOW"LAW
Minnesota law r'equires employebs to evaluate their workplaces for
the existence of hazardous substances, har'mful physical agents,
and infectious agen.ts and to provide training and infarmation to
those employees coveced under the law who ace routinely exposed
to those substances and agents.
Exploratory drilling at the Andover, Minnesota Waste Disposal
Engineering site falls under the jurisdictian of this law. Site
exploratory drilling may expose to the surface vapo.rs, gases o.r
materials which may be hazardous. The camposition .of these
materials is unknown. However, site ground watec analysis
indicates the presence of a variety of chlorinated hydrocarbons.
It is assumed these same chemicals would be cont~ined in the
so il .
Employees may come in contact with these materials during
drilling ar handling samples. Depending upon the exact chemical
encountered and its form (liquid, vapor o.r solid) health and
safety hazards vary. Ho.wever, acute exposure to chlorinated
hydracarbons can depress the central nervous system potentially
causing headaches, dizziness, nausea, drowsiness and intaxicatio.n
similar to drunkenness. Repeated contact with the skin may cause
dermatitis. Cardiac sensitization and kidney inju!="y may result
if inhaled in large quantities. Specific chemical health hazard
info.rmation relative to some of the most likely chemicals
encountered are as follows:
8
o
o
\... I~
TOXICITY INFORMATION
Tc ichloroethy le'ne
Trichloroethylene is a colorless, nonflammable, noncorrosive
liquid which has a sweet odor characteristic of most chlorinated
Trichloroethylene is basically used as a vapor degreasing
,
solvent. The ACGIH TLV is 50 parts per million (ppml.
Exposure to high concentrations of trichloroethylene vapor
may cause irritation to the eyes, nose and'throat. If. the
liquid is splashed in the eyes it may cau~e burning, irritation
and damage. Prolonged, repeated skin contact with this liquid
could cause dermatitis.
Acute exposures to trichloroethylene dep~ess the central nervous
system and could exhibit the following symptoms--headache,
. \ \
dizziness, vertigo, tremors, nausea, vomiting, irregular
heart beat, sleepiness.. fatigue, blurred vb:ion and ~ntoxication
similar to that ~f being drunk. If alcohol is consumed after
exposure to trichloroethylene,symptoms could become worse.
-9-
1. t.l-Tl'lt:h:1Q("Q~LI" ,- (MeLll)'l C111ucut<.)clllj r>
l,l,l-crichlorocthane 1.S a colodcss, flonfLlnUn.ll.Jlc liquid \.lith
o
an odor similar to chloroform.
nasically decomposition products
from this chlorinated hydrocarbon can also form \.Ihen in. contact
.....ith ultraviolet light OC' heat such as hydrochloric acid and
phosgene. This material is also basically used as a dry cleaning
agent or vapor d~greasing agent. The ACGIH TLV is 350 ppm.
Liquids and vapoC's could be irritating to the eyes upon contact.
Mild conjunctivitis, i.e., reddening of the eyes, could occur
after contact. Repeated skin contact may also cause dermatitis.
Essentially this chlorinated hydrocarbon also causes narcotic
central nervous system depression .....hich could include dizziness,
incoordination, drowsiness and increase reaction time. These
effects are similar to that described for trichloroethylene.
Perch'loroethyle'ne" " (Te'l:'r'a'ch'lo'r'o'e"thvTen'e )
Tetrachloroethylen~ or perch is a clear," colorless, nonflammable
liquid .....ith a', characteristic odor.
It is.~ .....idely used.solvent
used again as a dry cleaning ~gent or a'degreasing agent. The
ACGIH TLV is 50 ppm.
"
This chlorinated hydrocarbon may also cause eyes and nose
irritation. Repeated contact .....ith the skin may cause dermatitis.
Acute exposure' to t'etrachloroethylene vapors may re'sult in
central nervous system depression and liver damage. Cardiac
sen~itization and kidney injury have been produced in experimental
c:> animals. Acute exposures may result in dizziness, headaches,
increased perspiration, fatigue, staggering gait and an increase
.'
in reaction time. Essentially the same types of symptoms as
described for the other chlorinated hydrocarbons.
l ..../ l ,....
o
o
F'
1, 2-Dichlor;"0~ttlYlenc
Similar decompOsition products such a~ hydrochloric acid could
be formed upon contact with hot or ultraviolet light. The
ACGIH TLV for dichloroethylene is 200 ppm. Dichloroethylene is
used as a solvent for waxes, resins, and is also used in the
extraction of rubber,as a refrigerant and in the manufacture
of pharmaceuticals and extraction of oils and fats.
The liquid can act as a primary irritant producing dermatitis
and irritation of the mucous membranes. Essentially the liquid
or vapor is a narcotic,causing central nervous system depression
which could include headaches, dizziness, nausea, frequent
vomiting and intoxication similar to that caused by alcoho~.
This material could affect the kidney if inhaled in large con-
centrations.
Toluen'e
Xy'le'ne
Both these substances are benezene derivatives and are flammable
liquids. They are essentially used as carrier liquids for paints.
They have the ability to produce dermatitis d~e to the'defattlng
\ \
of the skin. Both of the materials have a sweet type odor. Both
toluene and xylene can be absorbed through the skin and both have
an ACGIH TLV of 100 ppm.
Acute exposure to toluene and xylene could result in central"
nervous system depression which could result in the symptoms
of headache, dizzine~s, fatigue and drowsiness, incoordination,
st~ggering gait and symptoms previously described above. Xylene
exposures essentially could result in the irritation of the mucous
membranes and aspiration could cause chemical pneumaniti5',
pulmonary edema or fluid in the lungs.
o
- ."
o
(~
A certain amount of lead and chrome materials were found in water
samples taken in and around the WDE site. However, these materials
are not expected to be airborne during drilling operations.
Additionally, since the respirators will provide protection factors
exceeding the ACGIH limits for these materials, exposures to these
substances are considered very minimal.
-12-
.' I
r-,
( ,
(\
WASTE DISPOSAL ENGINEERING SITE
o
ANDOVER, MINNESOTA
INDUSTRIAL HYGIENE AND SAfETY ATTENDEES
I have attended a safety meeting cQveFing aspects of the
Minnesota Right to Know Law to include personal protective
equipment, safe opeFating pcocedures, and the hazards associ~ted
with vaFious mateFials which may be pFesent during drilling. I
undeFstand these proceduces and am able to don personal
Protective equipment such as respicators and othec devices.
CkP.-l. ->A~t: rv\\LL~Q...D_ I
2. ';!7/J.J /'~ f/C,J(
clLi'-3. ~.'\ br~<..\c.(\.t.I\
4.,dJ~LC?~ r/d//<?~
:~10;n~P;? //?5jJ
/
7 . E N ~ ,~---t ~ / (). ( I <5 ~ /
V-
a. A.L-<- l\-~- "'/' -I. I'C.' I
.. 'e. c. .; l.c:
/1 J - ,) IJ __ '. '
9. ~v-r-~- CS'.'":;Z// ~~'
. '-?:" ..' /
c~~-lO.(26u't [..(lv\ .f~~~
11.
12.
1 3.
1 4 .
15.
16.
17.
0 18.
19.
A \"(."'-t~/s....fd'"'11 ('esp,,,,,,,+o.r ~~"".\~ D.."\d
f'"\,,,...e.s.of..,. R\~~ '\-0 K~ 5~M.l"'-D..V'
, \ l' 'C\\ .\ -+;J~ .rL~\"~N +.;+ -+e~3, u.)-~
\r.L"<G\"~ 't" \~. -\ ., ,
\. ~ ~c.e :>~"\eJ \~10\~~~.1
q\XY'\ ~ }
~ _ 2..\ - ~\.{ I a.;...", ~-t 4-w A.ndc0e /, MI\J.
v.J'^~ l>\$t>O~~ ~t;INE6,zttU::r >.TT ~i
iZ-- \ tN:\......'" J -r......! vI.b~ i -../ t{~ ~ t""1'....<:ev-
Pc ";>?.... .
/f;4 0 dt~,
-- _, ,...~U
-13-
y
y--t
147Z;
HAZLe'tON LABORATORIES AMERICA. INC.
o
3301 KINSMAN BLVD, . P.O. BOX 7545 . MADISON, WI 53707 . (608) 241-4471 . TLX 703956 HAZRAL MDS Uo
November 11, 1985
Mr. Alan Van Norman
Conestoga Rovers and Associates
3585 N. Lexington Avenue
Suite 328
St. Paul, MN 55112
Dear Alan,
Pursuant to your letter o~ October 18, 1985 regarding elevated detection limits,
we examined the data for the list of samples you provided.
In each case, the sample involved was diluted due to the presence of compounds
detected in the sample matrix at concentrations above the instrument's calibr-
tion range. As the sample is diluted to bring these compounds within the
calibration range, the detection level of all other compounds are elevated by
the dilution factor.
If you require any further information, please feel free to contact us.
always, if you would like to meet with us either here at Hazleton or any
location, we will be more than happy to make those arrangements.
And, as
other
Mark E. Hottinger
Client Service Representative
cc: Central File
MEH/mh
o
Chemical & BioMedical Sciences Division
" ' . ~ t
o
gv,,1:.4r LI::. ElvJ,
1N
l
o
o
A...dcver 8olll~V4r4
WI>E
.F'>
J'.
\
\.
\
'l7JA \.
.
W2.c.
Sovf4,
A"'oll<!!r~
S/f-e.s
.
Wt<:.
~
i6
t(
()
'"
co
<:s
~
/31!>T Av~. NW
-----,-~
,.
1
S'MO FT
Expf#.lld/M:
- - - lint! or~!)6.) witTer (~>,e.1
ff7~, 3 - 'Wd.ter- / eve! f!lella.t/~....
"'uSllred. Sel>~'~""
;t s-- ot') I'H/S
FI~/)r<!; 4. ,).'f[S : S4f-e1>'lba ~5"-~6) 1'f~5'
L..OIA.J~r $aNi Pof~",tfo",ef-r"( Lo...-flIVyS A.s.su""i^1
lfof'ra.ol\.1a.( Flow d./ld WI'f D Me~ 5IJre ,.,......f ~e /iCl.b;//Ii'
.------:
_\ V'
.' I.. \
o
o
November 22 . 1985
@
Northwestern Bell
Regulatory Department
200 South -5th Street. Room 3A75
Minneapolis. Minnesola 55.102
RE: H1nnesota Pub11c Ut1l1t1es Commlss1on
Docket Numbers P-42l/H-85-647
P-442, P-421/C-85-202
In the Hatter of a Proposed F1llng by
Northwestern Bell Telephone Company to
Change 1ts Schedule of SpecIal Intrastate
Access Charges
H1nnesota Count1es and Hunlclpa11tles Served by Northwestern Bell:
Enclosed and served upon you, 1n comp11ance w1th Item 6 of the
enclosed Order, are the the followIng:
1. Rate Change Not1ce
2. Order SuspendIng Rates, ConsolIdatIng Dockets, and
Not1ce and Order for HearIng
SIncerely,
L/-Y. ~,/
ijtY2b- ~
Keren nsher
Superv1sor-Regulatory
(612) 344-5680
Enclosures
C1J~
6~~ iV1
cc: M. E. Hennen
. .
~ .........-:r.....
o
Metropoliton Council
300 Metro Square Building
Seventh and Robert Streets
St. Paul, Minnesota 55101
Telephone (612) 291,6359
November 21, 1985
Patricia Lindquist, Clerk
City of Andover
1685 Crosstown Blvd. NW.
Dear Ms. Lindquist:
Enclosed is the 1985 Agricultural Preserves Act Status Report.
Each year the program has become more successful; however, there
is still a significant amount of farmland yet to participate in
the program and landowners need to be informed. TheMetropolitan
Area has over 160,000 acres of farmland designated as agricultural
preserves.
I hope you wi 11 find th i s report usefu 1. Please contact Jim
Schoett 1 er at 291-6411 or myse If at 291-6533 for addit i ona 1
information.
Sincerely,
"J.uu:. (' J..ccd.
Tori Flood
Planning Assistant
TF:bm
Enclosure
---------~--"---. - - -"--- ..----------------------. ..--- --_.- .._-----~--
.------- ---~._-~---------_._---_._._._....-
o.
An !:quOI OPPOnUrHty ,Employ'er