The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutWK - May 23, 2017ANL661Y^ 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULLVARU N.W. • ANDOVLK, MINNLSOIA 5530 FAX (763) 755-8923 . WWW.ANDOVERMN.GOV City Council Workshop Tuesday, May 23, 2017 4 • (763) 755-5100 Community Center Conference Rooms A & B and City Hall Conference Rooms A & B Call to Order — 6:00 p.m. - Community Center Conference Rooms A & B 2. Joint Meeting with Community Center Advisory Commission — Community Center 3. Recess/Reconvene to - City Hall Conference Rooms A & B (estimated 7:30 / 8:00 pm) 4. Discuss Pedestrian Signal Crossing/1491h Ave. NW & Crosstown Blvd. NW - Engineering 5. Rural Reserve Zoning Code Update Discussions - Planning 6. Review Community Vision & Organizational Goals & Values Document - Administration 7. April 2017 Budget Progress Reports - Administration 8. April 2017 City Investments Review - Administration 9. Other Business 10. Adjournment 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. • ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 • (763) 755-5100 FAX (763) 755-8923 . WWW.CI.ANDOVER.MN.US TO: Mayor and Councilmember's CC: Jim Dickinson, City FROM: Erick Sutherland — Recreational SUBJECT: Community Center Update DATE: May 23, 2017 The Andover Community Center Advisory Commission, Andover Community Center Facility Manager, along with the Andover YMCA has put together a presentation to share with the City Council. There are three primary discussion points we would like to discuss. • Serving our Community - Guests • Financial review • Our future o Programs & Partnerships o Community Investment We will review ways the Andover YMCA/Community Center continues to reach out and offer quality programs and services to the residents of Andover and neighboring communities. We have invited a few guests to share their stories. We will review our financial reports. To conclude we will share with you some of our current programs and partnerships and how they shape our operation. In addition we will talk about the impact we are having on the community and ways we would like to expand on some of those programs and reach some of those groups that are underserved. Respectfully submitted, Erick Sutherland Andover YMCA Community Center YEAR IN REVIEW - 2016 Agenda ■ z5erving uur Vommunity ■ Financial Review ■ Our Future: Programs & Partnerships Community Investments $1,550,000 $1,450,000 $1,350,000 $1,250,000 $1,150,000 $1,050,000 $950,000 $850,000 $750,000 Revenue Expense 2012 Budget Review Revenue Expense Revenue Expense Revenue Expense Revenue Expense Revenue Expense 2013 2014 2015 2016 Unaudited 2017 Budgeted $1009000.00 $19400,000.00 $1,200,000.00 $190005000.00 $8005000.00 $600,000.00 $4005000.00 $200,000.00 $0.00 2016 Revenue Breakdown $200,000.00 $1905000.00 $180,000.00 $1705000.00 $1605000.00 $1505000.00 $1409000.00 $1309000.00 $1205000.00 $11000.00 $100,000.00 Field Nouse 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Unaudited Budgeted Proforma ■ Budget ■ Actual 2012 2013 1 2014 2015 2016 1 2017 Hourly Rate $46 $46 $48 $48 $50 $50 N Metro Means $40 $40 $41 $41 $43 $44 Pro-Fonna $41 $42 $43 $45 $46 $47 $430,000.00 $420,000.00 $410,000.00 $4005000.00 $3905000.00 $3809000.00 $370,000.00 $3609000.00 $3509000.00 $3409000.00 $3309000.00 We Arena 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Unaudited Budgeted Proforma ■ Budget ■ Actual 1 1 2012 1 2013 1 2014 1 2015 1 2016 1 2017 1 Hourly Rate $185 1 $190 1 $192 1 $195 1 $198 1 $203 NMetro Means $178 $180 $186 $189 1 $192P$2288193 Pro -Forma $197 $203 1209 $215 $221 200000 150000 100000 50000 0 -50000 -100000 -150000 -200000 -250000 -300000 Fund Balance Programs & Partnerships Andover YMCA ■ 2013-2016 Annual Giving Program - $1,012,349 ■ Membership & Program Assistance - $278,111 ■ Forever Well Program ■ YMCA Certification Programs - 233 ■ YMCA Intervention Programs • Swim Lessons Participants - 1,936 • Safety Series Camp Anoka County Sheriff - 125 ■ YMCA Volunteers Service Hours - 4,439 Andover Community Center ■ Program Assistance Fund • Community Donations/Meeting Rooms • Andover Youth Athletic Associations • Anoka Hennepin School District ■ Non -Profit Community Groups ■ Tot Time Open Gym Program - 400 Families • Youth Soccer & Skate Programs - 572 • Pickleball/Sports Activities • Andover Family Fun Fest �-; ■ Library On the Go '1 Community Events ■ Morning Walking Club ■ Community Members 0 After School Student Gym & Youth Center — 400 Community Investments Com-mu-ni-tv Cen-ter a place where people from a particular community can meet for social, educational, or recreational activities. Our Future ND. 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. • ANDOVER. MINNESOTA 55304 • (763) 755-5100 FAX (763) 755-8923 • WWW.ANDOVERMN.GOV TO: Mayor and Council Members CC: Jim Dickinson, City Administrato FROM: David Berkowitz, Director of Public rks / City Engineer SUBJECT: Discuss Pedestrian Signal Crossing/149`" Ave. NW & Crosstown Blvd. NW - Engineering DATE: May 23, 2017 0 INTRODUCTION The City Council is requested to discuss the pedestrian signal crossing at 1491h Avenue NW & Crosstown Boulevard NW. DISCUSSION Identified in the City's 2017-2021 Capital Improvement Plan is a LED Crosswalk Warning System to be installed along Crosstown Boulevard at 149" Avenue to enhance the visibility of the crossing. In discussions with the Anoka County Highway Department they were not very supportive of this type of at grade crossing. Their belief is an underpass is the right solution. They may be willing to accept an at -grade crossing as an interim solution for the area until Crosstown Boulevard is reconstructed. For the County to approve this crossing a pedestrian study is required. The County has adopted MnDOT's Pedestrian Crossing Facilitation Guidance and Procedures (January 7, 2015) as the technical memo to follow for the study. The City's consultant, Bolton & Menk, Inc. has recommended the following as possible options: Complete a School Speed Zone Study per the new MnDOT guidance. Focuses mostly on the pedestrian movements, where the previous study of the area focused mainly on the vehicles. Cost is around $10,000. Complete a first look analysis focused on this crossing to see if the full study is worth pursuing. The first look would include putting up a camera to look at pedestrians at this crossing (school days and warm weather weekends), lay out tube counters to get an idea of vehicle speeds, and look at sight distances to see if warrants are met. This first look would cost around $2,200. Complete a more detailed underpass feasibility study. Scope would need to be determined and the County may be willing to participate. ACTION REQUIRED The City Council is requested to discuss the pedestrian signal crossing at 1491" Avenue NW & Crosstown Boulevard NW. CRespectfully submitted, .... David D. Berkowitz, PE Attach: LED Crosswalk Warning System CIP Item's Capital Plan City of Andover, MN Project u 17-41600-06 Project Name LED Crosswalk Warning System 2017 thm 2021 Type Improvement Department Engineering Useful Life 15 Yeah Contact DPW / City Engineer Category Improvements Priority I -High solar powered Rectangular Rapid Flash Beacon LED Crosswalk Warning System will be constructed on Crosstown Blvd at hance the awareness of the pedestrian crossing that currently exists. Justification rhere has been concern at this intersection that a pedestrian crossing exists but motorist frequently do not stop system will enhance the visibility of the crossing when the push button is activated. 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Total 21,000 21,000 Total 21,000 21,000 Funding Sources 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Total Road & Bridge Funds 21,000 21,000 Total 21,000 21,000 46 Ave to 5. AN66q^ 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. • ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 • (763) 755-5100 FAX (763) 755-8923 • WWW.ANDOVERMN.GOV TO: Mayor and City Councilmembers CC: Jim Dickinson, City Administrator FROM: Joe Janish, Community Developm t D ector SUBJECT: Discussion: Zoning Text Amendment (ZTA) Rural Reserve DATE: May 23, 2017 INTRODUCTION At the October 25, 2016 City Council work session, City Council discussed a CPA request by Jake and Jon Packer to allow the subdivision of land within the Rural Reserve District into parcels smaller than what is currently allowed in the Comprehensive Plan. City Council provided direction to staff to proceed with a CPA and ordinance to address future development within the rural reserve area. Since October 25, 2016 the Planning Commission and City Council have approved a Comprehensive Plan amendment to address for higher density and further subdivision of property within the Rural Reserve District. The Metropolitan Council Community Development Committee will discuss the CPA at the June 5, 2017 meeting and the Metropolitan Council Board will make a determination on June 14, 2017. Staff is proposing to continue to hold a hearing and make a recommendation to contingent upon the Metropolitan Council approval. Due to the Comprehensive Plan Amendment, we are now amending the City Code to be consistent with the plan. The Planning Commission held a Public Hearing on May 9, 2017. The Planning Commission suggested some changes within the ordinance for the City Council to consider. Staff has used blue text for language the Planning Commission suggests to be utilized within this write-up, and is inserted into the ordinance as either blue strike through to be removed. DISCUSSION 1. Splitting Process Highlights Staff has proposed adding a new section with Title 13 while modifying the existing section. This creates a 1A (original language with some modification) and 1B (proposed splits in the Rural Reserve). The creation of two "1's" will allow for individuals to continue to split land as they do currently in other areas of the city and 1B will apply to property within the Rural Reserve area. Within the Rural Reserve rH area, an administrative lot split is not an option for land owners, all splits will be done through a public hearing process. Staff has also included language under the review process indicating: 13-1 B-6: REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATIONS: A. If a parcel contains less than 40 acres but is 35 acres or greater and is described by the rectangular survey system as a quarter, quarter section at the time of adoption of this ordinance then that quarter, quarter is eligible for 4 units. Reviewing our current Lot Split Application, many of the items that are included in the draft ordinance are listed as required items in the application. The ordinance allows for the use of "public" information on the remnant parcels. This in theory should help to keep costs down for applicants that desire to split property within the Rural Reserve, yet still provide enough detail for the city to perform an appropriate review. 2. Restricting Future Development According to the Met Council the need to restrict future development on properties is required as part of the comprehensive plan. According to Metropolitan Council's Flexible Residential Development Ordinance Guidelines for the Diversified Rural Area (August 2008, page 2): 4. Require that the parcel(s) set aside for future urbanization be covered by a temporary development agreement or deed restriction, rather than a permanent conservation easement or other permanent restriction. In a typical open space development, with the purpose of long-term preservation of natural resources, communities usually ensure the long- term maintenance and protection of sensitive natural resources through the placement of a conservation easement that is often conveyed to a trust or public entity. When seeking to reserve land for future development, however, the community should not place permanent restrictions on the capability of the land to be developed. Instead, communities should place on the future urbanization parcel temporary development agreements or deed restrictions that contain "triggers" for the removal of such restrictions. The restrictions prevent the land from being developed before urban services are available. The ordinance should also detail the "triggers," or conditions, under which such restrictions would be removed and the parcel made available for development. Such conditions may include the rezoning of the parcel, change in the comprehensive plan, and the provision of urban infrastructure and utilities, among others deemed appropriate by the local unit of government. Currently the draft Ordinance includes language that a blanket easement will be applied to the remnant parcel as part of 13-1 B-4: DI J. When a lot split results in a lot less than 10 acres in size, a deed restriction -restricting placement of residential structures may be required until future rezoning occurs, a change in the City of Andover's Comprehensive Plan, occurs removing the property from the Rural Reserve, and/or municipal water and sewer are extended to the property that would eliminate the need for the density restriction. K. When a lot split results in a lot less than 10 acres in size, an easement stating that future roads, trails, city utilities, and future park areas may be located on the remnant parcel will be required. Staff would suggest the discussion between a blanket easement, temporary development agreement, or lot tracking as to ways in which to handle splitting of the property within the Rural Reserve. This item could be modified to language such as: J1. When a lot split results in a lot less than 10 acres in size, the applicant shall restrict future development of homes through a development agreement until defined "triggers" are met such as: urban services are available, rezoning of said parcel to a higher density, change in the comprehensive plan to a zoning district that would allow higher density, among other "triggers" as may be deemed appropriate by the City Council on the remnant parcel. J2. Staff shall track and monitor the splitting of parcels through an internal tracking process. The proposed language of J1. or J2. could replace the existing language of J. and K. in the proposed draft ordinance. The Planning Commission suggested J1. The temporary development agreement could provide the flexibility for the city and developer/property owner. Lot tracking would require staff to provide an "in-house" process that would allow staff to track the number of splits and remaining splits for each parcel within the Rural Reserve area. This could be established through electronic means and physically track the number of lots created through the splitting process. Through the tracking process staff would monitor the splits to avoid the inconsistency of the comprehensive plan and verifies the density as established in the comprehensive plan. 3. Ghost Platting According to Metropolitan Council staff, when 75% of the land is not preserved for urban development, ghost platting should be utilized in order to prevent issues with future extension of city utilities and roadways. As drafted the proposed ordinance will require the applicant to show how the property could be developed at an urban density regardless of the percentage of land that is preserved for future development: N. Sketch of how the lot(s) can be further subdivided to allow for a higher urban residential density (3 units per acre or greater). If the Planning Commission and City Council choose, it is possible to modify the ordinance to: N1. A sketch plan on how the property would be able to develop at 3 units to per acre shall be required when the area of lots to be developed exceeds 25% of the original parcel. The Planning Commission's recommendation removes the language of the sketch plan due to the use of the Temporary Development Agreement, and the fact the lot split submittal will be reviewed by ARC, Planning Commission and City Council based on the Comprehensive Plan. The Planning Commission stated that it would be up the applicant to determine if they would want a sketch plan to maximize the value of the land, however, for future roadways and utility extensions ARC, Planning Commission and City Council would be reviewing the requests and watching out for future improvements. 4. Zoning District Staff is clarifying the zoning regulations within the Rural Reserve. This information is similar to R-1 Single Family -Rural with the exception of a 5 -acre minimum lot size required in the proposed district vs. 2.5 acre minimum in R-1. ACTION REQUIRED Staff recommends the City Council review the proposed zoning text amendment as discussed by the Planning Commission. Res c ully bmitted, Joe Janish Community Development Director Attachments: Met Council Residential Development Ordinance Guidelines Draft Title 12 Changes Draft Title 13 Changes Andover City Council Meeting Minutes March 21, 2017 Andover City Council Workshop Meeting Minutes March 28, 2017 Andover City Council Workshop Meeting Minutes April 25, 2017 Draft Andover Planning Commission Meeting Minutes May 9, 2017 Draft Sample Easement — This would be customized for each request Draft Sample Development Agreement — This would be customized for each request Draft Zoning Map 0 CHAPTER ZONING DISTRICTS AND MAP SECTION: 12-3-1: Purpose Of Zoning Districts 12-3-2: Zoning Districts Established 12-3-3: Purpose Of Each District 12-3-4: Zoning District Map 12-3-5: Minimum District Provisions 12-3-2: ZONING DISTRICTS ESTABLISHED: For the purpose of this title, the city is hereby divided into the following zoning districts: Symbol Name RR Single Family Rural Reserve R-1 Single Family Rural Residential R-2 Single Family Residential Estate R-3 Single Family Suburban Residential R-4 Single Family Urban Residential R-5 Manufactured Housing M-1 Multiple Dwelling Medium Density M-2 Multiple Dwelling AgP Agricultural Preserve GR General Recreation LB Limited Business NB Neighborhood Business SC Shopping Center GB General Business I Industrial CLR Closed Landfill Restricted 12-3-3: PURPOSE OF EACH DISTRICT: A. RR Single Family Rural Reserve: Rural Reserve District is approximately one thousand acres in size to accommodate future urban growth beyond the Previously planned Municipal Urban Service Area. This area is designated as an H area of which is restricted from urban development until a master plan has been approved and municipal sewer and water can be constructed to serve the area. The city prohibits lot splits and subdivisions of less than one parcel per ten acres to prevent this area from rural residential development that would preclude orderly MUSA expansion However, there are opportunities to allow for rural reserve lot splits of 5 acres minimum in situations which ensure that the majority of the residual land be preserved for future economical urban development as long as the provisions of the city codes are met. The intent of the ordinance is to allow subdivision of land while preserving residual land for future economical urban development. R-1 Single Family Rural Residential: 1. This district is intended to provide a residential atmosphere for those persons desiring to retain a large parcel of land. Such large lots are logical in areas where development into smaller lots would be difficult, or where public utilities will not be available in the foreseeable future. Furthermore, larger houses are more costly and require larger lots. Thus, to provide an area to accommodate those persons with the financial means to erect a large house, it is necessary to have an area of large lots. 2. Land which is wooded, or which has a changing topography, and low land which tends to be poor agriculturally is also the most expensive to develop for residential sites and, after development, the sites tend to be expensive to maintain. Such areas are the most interesting and most susceptible to large lot development. The district also is intended to preserve productive land for agricultural use. (Amended Ord. 314, 10-4-05) B. R-2 Single Family Residential Estate: This district is intended to provide a residential atmosphere for those persons desiring a single-family neighborhood with a suburban density. Lots in this district created after 1978 and without City sewer and water must be at least 2.5 acres. This zoning district was used for rural residential developments prior to 1978. No existing properties may be rezoned to R-2. (Amended Ord. 8, 10-21-1970; amd. 2003 Code, Amended Ord. 314 10-4-2005) C. R-3 Single Family Suburban Residential: This particular district is intended to satisfy those persons who prefer a medium sized lot. Lots in this district created after 1978 and without City sewer and water must be at least 2.5 acres. This zoning district was used for rural residential developments created before 1978. No existing properties may be rezoned to R-3. (Amended Ord. 314 10-4-2005) D. R-4 Single Family Urban Residential: This district represents urban density use by single-family detached dwellings. (Amended Ord. 314 10-4-2005) 0 E. R-5 Manufactured Housing District: This district would permit all types of manufactured housing including manufactured homes and modular houses, provided public sewer and water is provided. (Amended Ord. 8, 10-21-1970) F. M-1 Multiple Dwelling Medium Density: This district is intended to provide a location for medium density attached dwelling units (townhouses) with private entrances. These areas may be transitional, however, the townhouse resident should have convenient access to all facilities provided for single-family neighborhoods. This district's location shall provide sufficient space for buffering from less intense uses. (Amended Ord. 8, 10-21-1970; amd. 2003 Code, Amended Ord. 314 10-4-2005) G. M-2 Multiple Dwelling District: This district is intended to provide a location for all types of multiple dwellings. This district's location shall have convenient access to all facilities provided for neighborhoods, open space, and buffering from less intense uses. Access to an M-2 district shall be from a collector or arterial roadway. (Amended Ord. 314 10-4-2005) H. GR General Recreation District: This district is intended to provide a location for all types of commercial recreation uses such as golf driving ranges, outdoor theaters, racetracks, and snowmobile areas, most of which require large amounts of land and good separation from residential areas. This district's location shall provide sufficient space for buffering from less intense uses. (Amended Ord. 314 10-4-2005) LB Limited Business District: This district is suitable only for commercial uses of a limited (less intense) nature. This may be due to the close proximity of residential uses. The LB district can be used as a transitional district or buffer between non -compatible uses such as intense commercial (GB) and low density residential uses. (Amended Ord. 314 10-4-2005) J. NB Neighborhood Business District: This district is used for retail sales and services in such scale as to serve the surrounding neighborhood needs. Locations for Neighborhood Business districts are typically small plots in close proximity to or surrounded by residential areas. NB zoning districts do not require frontage on an arterial roadway and can be served by local and collector streets. However, this district shall not be served exclusively by local streets. This district's location shall provide sufficient space for buffering from less intense uses. (Amended Ord. 314 10-4-2005) K. SC Shopping Center District: This zoning classification is reserved for modern retail shopping facilities of integrated design in appropriate locations. Locations for the SC district are larger plots that can accommodate more intensive retail development. Access shall be available from arterial roadways. This district's location shall provide sufficient space for buffering from less intense uses. (Amended Ord. 314 10-4-2005) L. GB General Business District: These are areas containing a wide variety of business uses including retail, service and semi -industrial. As such, they may contain businesses that tend to serve other business and industry as well as those catering to shopper needs. M. I Industrial District: These are areas that have the prerequisites for industrial development, but because of proximity to residential areas or the need to protect certain areas or uses from adverse influences, high development standards will be necessary. I district uses include service industries and industries which manufacture, fabricate, assemble or store, where the process is not likely to create offensive noise, vibrations, dust, heat, smoke, odor, glare or other objectionable influences. Generally, those include wholesale, service and light industries that are dependent upon raw materials refined elsewhere. An industrial "park" which maintains high development standards would be zoned I. This district's location shall provide sufficient space for buffering from less intense uses. (Amended Ord. 8, 10-21-1970, Ord. 314 10-4-2005) N. CLR Closed Landfill Restricted: This district is intended to apply to former landfills and adjacent lands which are managed under the Closed Landfill Program of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPGA). The purpose of the district is to limit uses of land both actively filled and related lands, to minimal uses in order to protect the land from human activity where response action systems are in place. This district shall only apply to the former landfill and pertinent adjacent lands (the limits of which are defined by the MPCA). This district shall apply whether the landfill is in public (State, MPCA, County, City, Township), Indian tribal, or private owners. 12.3.5: MINIMIM DISTRICT PROVISIONS RR R-1 R-2 R-3 R-4 R-51 M-1 M-2 AgP GR LB NB SC GB Lot area per dwelling unit (square feet) 1 -family homes 5 to 10 acres 2.5 acres 2.5 acres 2.5 acres 11,400 5,500 1 -family homes (lots created before 10/17178) 1 acre 20,000 Single-family twin homes 6,000 5,000 Single-family attached 6,000 5,000 Apartments (lot area per unit in square feet) 1 -bedroom units 4,000 2 -bedroom units 5,000 Floor area per dwelling unit (square feet) See floor area definition for two story homes 1 -family homes 960 960 1,200 960 960 960 960 Single-family twin homes 960 960 Single-family attached 960 960 1 -bedroom apartment units 700 Each additional apartment bedroom (plus) 150 Lot dimensions RR R-1 R-2 R-3 R-4 R-51 M-1 M-2 AgP GR LB NB SC GB I Lot width -front setback line (feet) 300 300 300 300 80 150 150 300 120 100 150 200 100 100 Lot width (lots created before 10/17/78) 165 100 Lot width (feet) 1,320 Lot depth (feet) 150 150 150 150 130 150 150 135 135 150 150 150 150 Minimum garage size (square feet) 440 440 440 440 440 220+1 prk spc 220+1 prk spc 220+1 prk spc 440 Lot dimensions RR R-1 R-2 R-3 R-4 R-51 M-1 M-2 AgP GR LB NB SC GB (continued) Nonresidential lot area 10 5 acres 1 acre 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 40 20,000 20,000 22,500 30,000 20,000 24,000 (acres or square feet) acres sf sf sf sf acres sf sf sf sf sf sf Minimum district size 2 acres 5 acres Principal structure height 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 45 45 45 (maximum) subject to City Code 12-3-5 B.s Land coverage (maximum 20 20 20 30 30 20 30 30 Up to 40 Up to 40 Up to 40 Up to 40 Up to 50 percent of structures) Building setbacks? RR R-1 R-2 R-3 R-4 R51 M-1 M-2 AgP GR LB NB SC GB Any yard setback from 50 50 50 50 40 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 55 county road subject to City Code 12-5.47 Front yard setback (feet) 40 40 40 35 352 30 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 Side yard principal 10 10 10 10 10 20 30 10 104 104 104 104 104 structure setback from interior lot linea Side yard setback from 40 40 40 35 355 30 30 40 30 30 30 30 30 30 property line adjacent to street Attached residential 6 garage (over 20 feet wide) from interior lot line Rear yard setback 50 50 50 30 30 30 30 30 25 25 25 25 25 Rear yard setback for any 40 40 40 35 35 residential structure from prop. line adjacent to street Notes: 1. Allowed by Planned Unit Development only. 2. Unless existing structures would indicate a lesser setback to maintain uniformity. 3. An additional 5 -foot setback shall be added when plans for the principal structure accommodate an access for a deck. 4. See Section 12-5-3 of this title for setback adjacent to residential areas. 5.25 feet if it is a back-to-back lot. 6. See City Code 12-13 for exceptions allowed as a Conditional Use 7. See also City Code 12-5-4 when less than minimum required right-of-way exists All setback measurements are from property lines. (Ord. 273, 9-2-2003; amd. Ord. 274, 9-2-2003; amd. Ord. 314,10-4-2005; Ord. 403,12-21-10; Amended Ord. 423,10-16-12) CHAPTER 7 FENCES AND WALLS 12-7-3: FENCE HEIGHT: A. In the rear and side yards up to the front fagade of the principal structure, fences up to a height of six (6) feet are allowed. (Amended Ord. 386, 8/5/09) B. Fences located closer to the front property line than the principal structure, shall not exceed four (4) feet in height. In the RR Single -Family Rural Reserve, R-1 Single -Family Rural Residential and R-2 Single -Family Estate zoning districts, "ornamental fences", as defined in Section 12-2-2 of this title, of up to six (6) feet in height are permitted in all yards, provided the fence does not encroach upon the Clear View Triangle as defined in Section 12-2-2 of this code. (Amended Ord. 386, 8/5/09) CHAPTER 9 HOME OCCUPATIONS 12-9-12: FARM WINERIES: The following provisions shall apply to all farm wineries that are considered home occupations under the Conditional Use Permit process: Farm wineries which shall be allowed on 2'/z acre or larger parcels in the RR, R-1, R-2 and R-3 Zoning Districts. Chapter 12 RESIDENTIAL D�� PERMITTED, PERMITTED ACCESSORY, CONDMONAL, INTERIM AND PROHIBITED USES P -Permitted Use R -I Single Family -Rural M-2 Multiple Dwellin PA -Permitted Accessory Use R-2 Single Family- Estate RR Single Familv Rural Reserve C -Conditional Use' sraroo `10m R-3 Single Family- Suburban X- Prohibited Use Rd Single Family- Urban PUD- Planned Unit Development R-5 Manufactured Housing I -Interim Use M-1 Multiple Dwelling- Low Density If Use Not Specifically Listed or Provided for Elsewhere in the City Code, It Is Prohibited Permitted- Perm' ed Accesgorv. Conditional, Interim and Prohibited Uses I RR Zon"no R -I R-2 R-3 I R4 a R-5 M-1 M-2 Animal Therapy Facility -on properties larger than five acres in size C C C C X X X X Commercial animal training (2.5 acre minimum residential lot size) C C C C X X X X Commercial riding stables C C X X X X X X Dog kennel license - Private (2.5 acre minimum lot size required) in compliance with City Code 5 -IA C C C C C C C C Dog kennel license - Commercial (minimum 2.5 acre lot size) in compliance with City Code 5-1A C C C C C C X X Domestic animals in compliance with City Code Title 5 PA PA PA PA PA PA PA PA Farm animals up to 5 per acre, plus one additional farm animal per acre above 5 acres on residential properties 5 acres or greater up to a maximum of 20 animals and definition under City Code 12-2 P p P p X X X X Farm animals greater than allowed as a permitted use on residential properties 5 acres or greater in compliance with City Code Title 5s and definition under City Code 12-2 C C C C X X X X Feedlots, except Anoka Independent Grain and Feed Inc. which is a permitted use that predates the adoption of this ordinance. X X X X X X X X Pleasure/recreation animals on residential properties at least 2.5 acres in size in compliance with City Code Title 5 and definition under City Code 12-2 PA PA PA PA PA X X X Poultry on residential properties with neither municipal sewer or water in compliance with City Code Title 5 and definition under City Code 12-2 p P P P X X X X Dwellm¢s Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) C C X X X X X X Manufactured homes and modular homes, provided they are developed under a planned unit development and the complex is a minimum of twenty (20) acres in size X X X X X PUD X X Multiple dwellin X X X X X X PUD PUD Relocated dwelling units in compliance with City Code 9-11 C C C C C C C C Single-family residential buildings (detached) P P P P P PUD PUD PUD Single-family residential buildings (attached) and townhouses X X X X X X PUD PUD Temporary Family Health Care Facility X X X X X X X X Two-family home conversions (splits) in compliance with City Code 12-84 X X X X X X C C Home Occuoatinns Home occupations within principal structure in compliance with City Code 12-9 PA P PA PA PA PA PA PA Home occupations in accessory structure on a parcel of land three (3) acres or larger utilizing an accessory structure and/or exterior storage in compliance with City Code 12-9 C C C C C C C C Barbershops and beauty salons C C C C C C C C Bed and breakfast C C C I C C C If Use Not Specifically Listed or Provided for Elsewhere in the City Code, It Is Prohibited X Boarders or roomers, up to two persons, by a resident family, with no private RR zonim, D R-1 R-2 R-3' R4 a Rtrieft R-5 M-1 M-2 Da care Facility -Gmup Family P P P cooking facilities PA P PA PA PA PA PA PA Cabinet making/wood working (home occupation) in compliance with City C X X X X Group Homes as regulated by State Statute ( Code 12-9 C C X X X X ]PA X Commercial greenhouse C C C C X X PA X Daycare Centers- Home Occu ation (12 or fewer children) C P P P P P C P Da care Centers -Home Occu ation (13 or more children) P C C C C C C P- Permitted Use R -I- Single Famil -Rural M-2- Multiple Dwelling PA- Permitted Accessory Use R-2- Single Family- Estate RR Sinele Famil v Rural Reserve C -Conditional Use sreroon UM R-3- Single Family- Suburban X -Prohibited Use R4- Single Fairly- Urban PUD- Planned Unit Development R -S- Manufactured Housing 1- Interim Use M-1- Multiple Dwelling- Low Density If Use Not Specifically Listed or Provided for Elsewhere in the City Code, It Is Prohibited Eermitted. Permitted Accesse". Cond6flonal. Interim and Prohibited Uses RR zonim, D R-1 R-2 R-3' R4 a Rtrieft R-5 M-1 M-2 Da care Facility -Gmup Family P P P P P P P P Farm Wineries (subject to City Code 12-9-12) PA PA C C X X X X Group Homes as regulated by State Statute ( C P P P P P P Office in compliance with City Code 12-9 C C PA PA PA PA PA PA Therapeutic massage establishment (as a home occupation offering on site massae services) as regulated by chapter 9 of this title and title 3, chapter 6 P P C C C C C C SCIIOOIS K-12 Schools P P P P P P X X Post -secondary Schools PA PA C C C C X X Schools exceeding height maximum up to 45 feet in height C C C C C C C C Subordinate Classroom Structures (when located on a licensed Primary and/or Secondary school property) C C I I I I I I Subordinate Classroom Structures (when located on a property where there is a church as the principal use) P P I I I I I 1 Utilities Private utilities (gas, electric, phone, cable, etc) in Compliance with City Code 8-2 P P P P P P P P Private utility structures and/or uses (electrical transmission lines, gas pipelines, etc.) C C C C C C C C Public utility uses for local services P P P P P P P P Other Agricultural uses- Waal outside MUSA boundary only) P P P P X X X X Agricultural uses- urban P P P P P P P P Antennas in excess of thirty-five feet (35') in height in compliance with City Code 9-12 C C C C C C C C Buildings (Principal) exceeding height maximum subject to City Code 12-3-5 C C C C C C C C Bulk fuel storage (tanks greater than 1,000 gallon storage capacity) in compliance with City Code 12-8-5 C C X X X X X X Campgrounds, gun clubs and ranges, archery ranges, racetracks C C X X X X X X Cemeteries P P C C C C C C Churches C C C C I C C I X X v CHAPTER 13 PERFORMANCE STANDARDS 12-13-21: RESIDENTIAL BUILDING STANDARDS': All permitted residential structures in RR R-1, R-2, R-3, and R-4 zoning districts shall meet the following design criteria: A. All structures shall have permanent concrete or treated wood foundations that will anchor the structure, which comply with the State Building Code as adopted in Section 9-1-1 of this code and which are solid for the complete circumference of the house. Except, four -season porches may be constructed without the permanent foundation, provided the porch does not exceed a maximum coverage of twenty percent (20%) of the footprint of the habitable portion of the principal structure. B. Sixty percent (60%) of a residential structure shall have a minimum width of twenty-four feet (24'). Width measurements shall not take into account overhangs or other projections. Such width requirement shall be in addition to the minimum area per dwelling requirements of Section 12-3-5 of this title. C. Single-family dwellings other than approved earth sheltered homes shall have at least a 4:12 roof pitch and shall be covered with shingles or tiles. This requirement shall not apply to three -season porches, four -season porches, greenhouses and solariums, provided they meet the State Building Code and are approved by the Building Official. D. All single-family dwellings shall have roof overhangs that extend a minimum of one foot (1) from all the walls of the structure unless the style of the house dictates otherwise and said plan is approved by the Building Official prior to any permits being granted. E. All single-family structures must be built in conformance with Minnesota statutes sections 327.31 to 327.35 or the State Building Code as adopted in Section 9-1-1 of this code. F. Any metal siding upon single-family residential structures shall have horizontal edges and overlapping sections no wider than twelve inches (12"). Sheet metal siding shall not be permitted in such districts. G. All exterior construction, including finish and the final grading, shall be completed in accordance with plans and specifications within one year following date of See also title 9, chapter 1 of this code. \b permit issuance. All existing buildings not meeting the provisions of this title shall comply within one year following adoption of this title. (Amended Ord. 8, 10-21- 1970; amd. 2003 Code) TITLE 13 PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT Subject Chapter Splitting Lots, Parcels Or Tracts Of Land Generally. 1A Solittino Lots, Parcels Or Tracts Of Land Within Rural Reserve.................................................1 B Agricultural Preservation............................................2 Planned Unit Development (PUD) .............................3 Shoreland Management.............................................4 Bluffland And Riverland Development .......................5 Buffer Strips And Standards For Protection Of Wetlands And Storm Water Ponds.......................6 CHAPTER1A SPLITTING LOTS, PARCELS OR TRACTS OF LAND GENERALLY SECTION: 13-1A -1: Definition 13-1A -2: Minimum Lot Requirements 13-1A -3: Frequency Of Splitting Lots 13-1A -4: Application For Lot Split 13-1A -5: Fees 13-1A -6: Review And Recommendations 13-1A-7: Variances 13-1A -8: Compliance With Provisions 13-1A -9: Application And Term Of Provisions; Conflicts 13-1A -10: Enforcement And Penalty 13-1A-1: DEFINITION: A "lot split' is any division of a lot, parcel, or tract of land into not more than two (2) parcels when both divided parcels meet or exceed the minimum requirements for platted lots in the applicable zoning district. (Amended Ord. 40, 8-16-1977) 13-1A-2: MINIMUM LOT REQUIREMENTS: No lot, parcel or tract of land shall be divided unless the resultant lots have at least the minimum width, depth and square footage as required for any parcel of land in the zoning district wherein the lot is located. (Amended Ord. 40, 8-16-1977) 13-1A-3: FREQUENCY OF SPLITTING LOTS: No owner may utilize this method of land division on any parcel more than one time in any three (3) year period. A three (3) year waiting period for a lot split is required on all lots, parcels or tracts from the date they were created by previous lot splits under this chapter. (Amended Ord. 40, 8-16-1977) A. Exceptions. A lot split may be applied for within the three (3) year waiting period provided the following conditions are met: 1. The property owner has owned the property for more than five years. 2. A one year waiting period shall be required between splits. 3. A maximum of three lots shall be created including the original lot. 4. City infrastructure and utilities such as sanitary sewer, storm sewer, water main and streets are in place. 5. Grading, drainage and erosion control plans shall be prepared that properly address how drainage will be handled on the site as well as the affect on adjacent properties to the satisfaction of the City. (Amended 431, 10-15-13) 13-1A-4: APPLICATION FOR LOT SPLIT: The applicant shall provide the following information: A. The scale and north direction. B. Dimensions of the property. C. Names and locations of adjacent streets. D. Location of existing buildings on and within one hundred feet (100') of subject property. E. Current zoning and legal description. F. Sufficient proof that the lot has not been split within the last three (3) years. G. A_lost of the pmperF owners_fith;n three h, RdFed fifty feet (350') of the lnf #G. Such other information as may be required to fully represent the intent of the lot split. (Amended Ord. 40, 8-16-1977) 13-1A-5: FEES: A. There shall be a single charge as set forth by ordinance plus consultant's fees, if any, for a lot split application'. B. Where parkland was dedicated or a park fee paid at the time the original parcel was created, there shall be no park fee assessed or land dedicated at the time of the lot split application. If no park fees have been assessed nor land dedicated as above, the fee, as set forth by ordinance for each lot created under this chapter, may be assessed for park fees2. (Amended Ord. 40, 8-16-1977; amd. 2003 Code) 13-1A-6: REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATIONS: A. Planning And _Zoning Commission Review: The proposed lot split shall first be presented to the Planning and Zoning Commission for its review and recommendation. Such recommendations shall consider land uses, traffic control, zoning regulation, future developments, and conformance with the See subsection 1-7-31-1 of this code. z See subsection 1-7-3G of this code. comprehensive development plan, and any other criteria deemed pertinent by the Planning and Zoning Commission. (Amended Ord. 40, 8-16-1977) B. Notice To Adjacent Property Owners: Upon receipt of an application for a lot split, the Community Development Director shall notify by mail all property owners within three hundred fifty feet (350') of the property of the date of the review of such lot split. (Amended Ord. 40, 8-16-1977; amd. 2003 Code) C. Planning And Zoning Commission Recommendation To City Council: The division of a lot may be recommended for approval; provided that such split is in conformance with the City Comprehensive Plan, does not interfere with orderly planning, is not contrary to the public interest and does not nullify the intent of this chapter. D. City Council Action: 1. Following review and recommendation by the Planning and Zoning Commission, the request for a.lot split shall be placed on the agenda of the City Council in the following manner: a. Recommendations from the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting held on the second Tuesday shall be placed on the agenda of the City Council at the first Tuesday meeting of the following month.' b. Recommendations from the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting held on the fourth Tuesday shall be placed on the agenda of the City Council at the third Tuesday meeting of the following month, unless there are five (5) Tuesdays in the given month from which the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission is made, in which case, the recommendation shall be placed on the agenda of the City Council at the first Tuesday meeting of the following month. 2. Within sixty (60) days following receipt of the proposed lot split from the Planning and Zoning Commission, the Council shall approve or disapprove by resolution. If approved, a certified copy of the resolution approving the lot split shall be forwarded to the petitioner. E. Record Of Lot Split: The lot split, together with a certified copy of the resolution, shall thereafter be filed with the County Recorder's office. Do F. Time Limit On Implementing Lot Split: If the City Council determines that the conditions of approval are not met within twelve (12) months, the lot split will be null and void. (Amended Ord. 40, 8-16-1977) 13-1A-7: VARIANCES: Variances from the requirements of this title, Title 11: Subdivision Regulations, and Title 12: Zoning Regulations, may be granted by the City Council as provided in City Code 12-14-7, except that any variance request shall be made as a part of the lot split approval process. (Amended Ord. 407, 6-21-11) 13-1A-8: COMPLIANCE WITH PROVISIONS: A. The effect of this chapter shall not work to preclude compliance with utilities hookup, payment of levied and pending assessments, and performance of any other requirements of the ordinances of the city. B. The owner, or agent of owner, of any parcel shall not divide any lot or parcel for the purpose of sale, transfer, or lease with the intent of evading the provisions of this chapter. C. The owner, or agent of owner, of any parcel shall not sell or otherwise convey said parcel with the intent of evading the provisions of this chapter or circumventing attempts to plat acreage or otherwise subdivide tracts of land within the city. (Amended Ord. 40, 8-16-1977) 13-1A-9: APPLICATION AND TERM OF PROVISIONS; CONFLICTS: A. This chapter shall apply to and govern the entire city during the period for which it is in effect. This chapter, during its effective period, shall replace and supersede provisions in all other ordinances and regulations applicable to the city which are in conflict or inconsistent with the provisions herein. All ordinances and provisions therein which are not in conflict with the terms and conditions of this chapter shall continue in full force and effect. 13-1A-10: ENFORCEMENT AND PENALTY: Any person, firm or corporation violating any of the provisions of this chapter shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction thereof, shall be punished as defined by state law. The lot - - - fia ---- --- - - - mot 13-1A-9: APPLICATION AND TERM OF PROVISIONS; CONFLICTS: A. This chapter shall apply to and govern the entire city during the period for which it is in effect. This chapter, during its effective period, shall replace and supersede provisions in all other ordinances and regulations applicable to the city which are in conflict or inconsistent with the provisions herein. All ordinances and provisions therein which are not in conflict with the terms and conditions of this chapter shall continue in full force and effect. 13-1A-10: ENFORCEMENT AND PENALTY: Any person, firm or corporation violating any of the provisions of this chapter shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction thereof, shall be punished as defined by state law. The lot splitting not in accordance with the requirements of this chapter may be enforced by mandamus, injunction, or any other appropriate remedy in any court of competent jurisdiction. (Amended Ord. 40, 8-16-1977) �3 CHAPTER 1B SPLITTING LOTS, PARCELS OR TRACTS OF LAND WITHIN THE RURAL RESERVE DISTRICT SECTION: 13-1B-1: Definition 13-1B-2: Minimum Lot Requirements 13-1 B-3: Frequency Of Splitting Lots 13-1 B-4: Application For Lot Split 13-1 B-5: Fees 13-1 B-6: Review And Recommendations 13-16-7: Variances 13-1 B-8: Compliance With Provisions 13-1 B-9: Application And Term Of Provisions; Conflicts 13-1 B-10: Enforcement And Penalty 13-113-1: DEFINITION: A "lot split' is any division of a lot, parcel, or tract of land into more than two (2) parcels when both divided parcels meet or exceed the minimum requirements for platted lots in the applicable zoning district. 13-1 B-2: MINIMUM LOT REQUIREMENTS: No lot, parcel or tract of land shall be divided unless the resultant lots have at least the minimum width, depth and square footage as required for any parcel of land in the zoning district wherein the lot is located. 13-1 B-3: FREQUENCY OF SPLITTING LOTS: No owner may utilize this method of land division on any parcel more than one time in any three (3) year period. A three (3) year waiting period for a lot split is required on all lots, parcels or tracts from the date they were created by previous lot splits under this chapter. A. Exceptions. A lot split may be applied for within the three (3) year waiting period provided the following conditions are met: 1. The property owner has owned the property for more than five years. 2. A one year waiting period shall be required between splits. 3. A maximum of three lots shall be created including the original lot. 4. City infrastructure and utilities such as sanitary sewer, storm sewer, water main and streets are in place. 5. Grading, drainage and erosion control plans shall be prepared that properly address how drainage will be handled on the site as well as the affect on adjacent properties to the satisfaction of the City. (Amended 431, 10-15-13) 0-1 13-1 B-4: APPLICATION FOR LOT SPLIT: The applicant shall provide the following information: A. The scale and north direction. B. Dimensions of the property. C. Names and locations of adjacent streets. D. Location of existing buildings on and within one hundred feet (100') of subject property. E. Current zoning and legal description. F. Sufficient proof that the lot has not been split within the last three (3) years. G. Floodplain shall be identified if applicable within the lot(s) proposed to have a home. An overlay may be used on the remnant parcel. H. Existing topography shall be shown along with proposed grading of the site (if necessary). Light Detection And Ranging (LIDAR) contour information may be used for the remnant parcel. Wetland delineation for the lot(s) that intend to have homes located on them. National Wetland Information (NWI) is acceptable for the remnant parcel. When a lot split results in a lot less than 10 acres in size, the applicant shall restrict future development of homes through a development agreement until defined "triggers" are met such as: urban services are available, rezoning of said parcel to a higher density, change in the comprehensive plan to a zoning district that would allow higher density, among other "triggers" as may be deemed appropriate by the City Council on the remnant parcel. HILIMMM M. ._ When a lot split results in a lot less than 10 acres in size, the applicant shall restrict future development of homes through a development agreement until defined "triggers" are met such as: urban services are available, rezoning of said parcel to a higher density, change in the comprehensive plan to a zoning district that would allow higher density, among other "triggers" as may be deemed appropriate by the City Council on the remnant parcel. HILIMMM M. L. Proof of sewerability for lots proposed to have home(s). M. Geotechnical Report. A standard geotechnical report with a history and recommendations regarding the sites. In addition, the report shall include SCS soil types, mottled soil elevations or highest anticipated water table, existing groundwater elevation, and soil borings to a minimum depth of 20 feet for the lots proposed to have homes on them. O. Other information may be required to fully represent the intent of the lot split. 13-1 B-5: FEES: A. There shall be a single charge as set forth by ordinance plus consultant's fees, if any, for a lot split application'. B. Where parkland was dedicated or a park fee paid at the time the original parcel was created, there shall be no park fee assessed or land dedicated at the time of the lot split application. If no park fees have been assessed nor land dedicated as above, the fee, as set forth by ordinance for each lot created under this chapter, may be assessed for park fees'. 13-1 B-6: REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATIONS: A. If a parcel contains less than 40 acres but is 35 acres or greater and is described by the rectangular survey system as a quarter, quarter section, at the time of adoption of this ordinance then that quarter, quarter is eligible for 4 units. B. Andover Review Committee (ARC): The proposed lot split shall first be reviewed by ARC. The applicant shall make modifications based upon ARC's comments and then resubmit for consideration at a Public Hearing for Planning and Zoning. C. Notice To Adjacent Property Owners: Upon receipt of a completed application for a lot split, the Community Development Director shall notify by mail all property owners within three hundred fifty feet (350') of the property of the date of the public hearing at the Planning Commission of such lot split. D. Planning And Zoning Commission Review: The Planning and Zoning Commission for its review and recommendation shall conduct a public See subsection 1-7-3H of this code. z See subsection 1-7-3G of this code. ■ hearing. Such recommendations shall consider land uses, traffic control, zoning regulation, future developments, and conformance with the comprehensive development plan, and any other criteria deemed pertinent by the Planning and Zoning Commission. D. Planning And Zoning Commission Recommendation To City Council: The Planning Commission shall hold a public hearing and provide for a recommendation to the City Council. The division of a lot may be recommended for approval; provided that such split is in conformance with the City Comprehensive Plan, does not interfere with orderly planning, is not contrary to the public interest and does not nullify the intent of this chapter. E. City Council Action: 1. Following review and recommendation by the Planning and Zoning Commission, the request for a lot split shall be placed on the agenda of the City Council in the following manner: a. Recommendations from the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting held on the second Tuesday shall be placed on the agenda of the City Council at the first Tuesday meeting of the following month. b. Recommendations from the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting held on the fourth Tuesday shall be placed on the agenda of the City Council at the third Tuesday meeting of the following month, unless there are five (5) Tuesdays in the given month from which the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission is made, in which case, the recommendation shall be placed on the agenda of the City Council at the first Tuesday meeting of the following month. 2. Within sixty (60) days following receipt of the proposed lot split from the Planning and Zoning Commission, the Council shall approve or disapprove by resolution. If approved, a certified copy of the resolution approving the lot split shall be forwarded to the petitioner. F. Record Of Lot Split: The lot split, any deed restrictions required, any easements required, together with a certified copy of the resolution, shall thereafter be filed with the County Recorder's office. G. Time Limit On Implementing Lot Split: If the City Council determines that the conditions of approval are not met within twelve (12) months, the lot split will be null and void. 0) 13-1 B-7: VARIANCES: Variances from the requirements of this title, Title 11: Subdivision Regulations, and Title 12: Zoning Regulations, may be granted by the City Council as provided in City Code 12-14-7, except that any variance request shall be made as a part of the lot split approval process. 13-1 B-8: COMPLIANCE WITH PROVISIONS: A. The effect of this chapter shall not work to preclude compliance with utilities hookup, payment of levied and pending assessments, and performance of any other requirements of the ordinances of the city. B. The owner, or agent of owner, of any parcel shall not divide any lot or parcel for the purpose of sale, transfer, or lease with the intent of evading the provisions of this chapter. C. The owner, or agent of owner, of any parcel shall not sell or otherwise convey said parcel with the intent of evading the provisions of this chapter or circumventing attempts to plat acreage or otherwise subdivide tracts of land within the city. 13-1 B-9: APPLICATION AND TERM OF PROVISIONS; CONFLICTS: A. This chapter shall apply to and govern the entire city during the period for which it is in effect. This chapter, during its effective period, shall replace and supersede provisions in all other ordinances and regulations applicable to the city which are in conflict or inconsistent with the provisions herein. All ordinances and provisions therein which are not in conflict with the terms and conditions of this chapter shall continue in full force and effect. 13-1 B-10: ENFORCEMENT AND PENALTY: Any person, firm or corporation violating any of the provisions of this chapter shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction thereof, shall be punished as defined by state law. The lot splitting not in accordance with the requirements of this chapter may be enforced by mandamus, injunction, or any other appropriate remedy in any court of competent jurisdiction. CC Meeting Minutes March 21, 2017 (9 Regular Andover City Council Meeting Minutes — March 21, 2017 Page 2 carried unanimously. March 7, 2016, Workshop Meeting: Correct as written. Mayor Trude asked staff to confirm the accuracy. Mr. Dickinson confirmed the minutes reflected the discussion at the meeting regarding edits to the upcoming survey. Motion by Bukkila, Seconded by Knight, to approve the minutes as presented. Motion carried unanimously. CONSENT ITEMS Item 2 Approve Payment of Claims Item 3 Approve Resolution Removing No Parking Signs Along 16811, Lane NW (See Resolution R022-17) Item 4 Approve No Parking Resolution/l681h Lane NW/MSA Street Reconstruction Project/l7- 11 (See Resolution R023-17) Item 5 Declare Surplus Equipment Item 6 Approve Agreement/17-12/Reconstruction of 133rd Ave. NW (West of Crooked Lake Blvd. NW) Motion by Goodrich, Seconded by Knight, approval of the Consent Agenda as read. Motion carried unanimously. ANOKA COUNTYSHERIFF'S OFFICE MONTHLYREPORT Commander Brian Podany gave the monthly Sheriff's report. With the warmer weather, Commander Podany encouraged residents to be vigilant and to call 911 when they see anything suspicious and to provide a description of potential suspects and vehicles. He also reminded the public about the road closure on Bunker Lake Boulevard. Councilmember Holthus arrived at 7:14 p.m. ANDOVER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT — RURAL RESERVE RESIDENTIAL LAND USE DENSITY CHANGES At the October 25, 2016, City Council workshop, the Council discussed a Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA) by Jake and Jon Packer to allow the subdivision of land within the Rural Reserve District into parcels smaller than what is currently allowed in the Comprehensive Plan. City Council provided direction to staff to proceed with a CPA and ordinance to address future development within the Rural Reserve area. At the February 28, 2017, City Council workshop staff provided conceptual changes to the City Council and the City Council supported the changes. The Rural Reserve District was designated as an area to accommodate future urban growth beyond the planned Municipal Urban Service O(P Regular Andover City Council Meeting Minutes—March 21, 2017 Page 3 Area (MUSA). Lot splits of less than one unit/house per 20 acres and subdivisions of less than 1 unit/house per 40 acres is prohibited to prevent this area from rural residential development that would preclude orderly MUSA expansion. The City has reached an agreement with the Metropolitan Council that areas designated for residential development in the Rural Reserve will be developed at 3 units/houses per net acre once MUSA is available. The Met Council supports densities of 1 unit/house per 10 acres in the rural reserve area. Density beyond this is supported by Met Council; however, it requires provisions such as an ordinance to allow for future wastewater service at a minimum density of 3 units/houses per acre. Staff is proposing to retain a density of 1 unit/house per 10 acres; however, with the adoption of an ordinance the minimum lot size may be reduced to 5 acres as long as the provisions in the ordinance are addressed at the time of the lot split or subdivision. Planning tools that would need to be considered in the ordinance include requirements of build -out plans (ghost platting), the location of building pads that allow for future subdivision of the land into urban lots, and the use of deed restrictions, easements, and/or covenants to protect the remaining land for future development. The intent of the ordinance is to allow subdivision of land while preserving the land for future urban development. The Planning and Zoning Commission held a public hearing on March 14, 2017. There were public comments that are available for review in the draft minutes of that meeting. Andover resident, Mr. Chadwick, Jr., was not in attendance, but he submitted an email with his comments that became part of the public record. The Commission recommended approval of the CPA request with a 5 - 0 vote (2 absent). City staff recommends the City Council consider the proposed CPA. If approved by the City Council the amendment will be forwarded to the Metropolitan Council for their formal approval. Mr. Janish reviewed the staff report with the Council. Mayor Trude asked Mr. Janish to address the next step, will that be the zoning code revisions. Mr. Janish replied the next step is to go to Metropolitan Council for their approval. Part of the review process will be for staff to describe the provision for adequate roadways, water, sewer, and consideration of future right-of-ways. The desire is to allow use of the property today as well as to preserve the area for urban growth at a future date. Mayor Trude noted an email had been received from Bob and Mary Harrell. It expressed concerns related to: few options for development of utilities, keeping enough acreage for buffering from rural to urban, and more density being forced upon the remaining parcels - while supporting the owner's ability to develop the land. The City will reserve the right to commit or take easements for utilities and roads according to the Master Plan, which has relevance to the other 20 acres. Mr. Janish reminded the Council this is the first step in a two-step process, and even with Metropolitan Council approval it will not be effective until the City has the new ordinance Regular Andover City Council Meeting Minutes —March 21, 2017 Page 4 language in place. Preservation of the 20 acres for future development remains important. Councilmember Holthus asked if there is a problem with the proposed timeline in working with the Metropolitan Council. Mr. Janish indicated other cities are doing something similar and staff had been working closely with the City's Met Council Representative, so we expect a smooth process. Councilmember Knight asked if an overlay is available for viewing. Mr. Janish responded it is not available at this time. He pointed to where the lots would be on the available map. Councilmember Goodrich stated he supports residents being able to do what they want on their own property; therefore, he would like to support this proposal. Mayor Trude commented this property is multi -generational land, and is tied up by regulations. She expressed her desire to look at the big picture and individual property owner rights. Mr. Janish indicated ghost platting would be done as part of the review process for the new lots. Mayor Trude pointed out that sewer is already planned and access would be about 2 miles from this property. Motion by Bukkila, Seconded by Goodrich, to approve Resolution No. R024-17, amending the comprehensive land use plan of the City of Andover to include the following: within the Rural Reserve residential land use to allow one unit per ten acres with the opportunity to allow one unit per five acres with the compliance of ordinance provisions as proposed. Motion carried unanimously. CONSIDER RECOMMENDATION FOR APPOINTMENT/COON CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT VACANCY Mr. Dickinson reported no applications were received. The Council discussed the appointment. Mr. Dickinson said no action can be taken because the City must send 3 recommendations in order to be considered. No action needed to be taken. ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT City Staff updated the Council on the administration and city department activities, legislative updates, updates on development/CIP projects, and meeting reminders/community events. (New Homes) Mr. Dickinson reported there have been 19 new home permits and 5 in for review for a total of 24 this year, which is a good start. CC Workshop Meeting Minutes March 28, 2017 ANDOVER CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP MEETING — MARCH 28, 2017 MINUTES The Workshop Meeting of the Andover City Council was called to order by Mayor Julie Trude, March 28, 2017, 6:00 p.m, at the Andover City Hall, 1685 Crosstown Boulevard NW, Andover, Minnesota. Councilmembers present: Mike Knight, Sheri Bukkila, Valerie Holthus and James Goodrich Councilmember absent: None Also present: City Administrator, Jim Dickinson Community Development Director, Joe Janish Associate Planner, Dan Krumwiede Public Works Director/City Engineer, David Berkowitz Planning & Zoning Commission Acting Chair, Kyle Nemeth Planning & Zoning Commissioner, Steve Peterson Planning & Zoning Commissioner, Scott Hudson Planning & Zoning Commissioner, Bert Koehler Planning & Zoning Commissioner, Jeffrey Sims Others JOINT MEETING WITH PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION a. Zoning Text Amendment Rural Reserve Mr. Janish stated on March 21, 2017, City Council approved the Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA) for the Rural Reserve area. Staff is in the process of submitting the CPA request to the Met Council for formal approval. The CPA will allow land owners within the Rural Reserve area the opportunity to subdivide land at a density of no more than 4 units per 40 acres. He noted landowners will have two options. Mr. Janish reviewed the two different options and indicated they have the ability to go with option one but option two is typically supported by the Met Council. He noted option one is more restrictive than what the Met Council allows for because they are preserving the rest of the land. Mr. Janish indicated staff would like to get some feedback from both the City Council and Planning and Zoning Commission to get some direction on the development of the zoning text amendment. Mr. Janish stated current city code regulations do not require a public hearing for metes and bounds lot splits of 5 acres or more. Staff would like to know if a public hearing should be Andover City Council Workshop Meeting Minutes —March 28, 2017 Page 2 required for lot splits within the Rural Reserve area or should the lot split approvals come through the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council without a public hearing. Councilmember Bukkila asked how frequently someone could do a lot split. If they do one lot split is that all they can do or do they have to wait a certain period of time before doing another one. Mr. Janish stated under their current ordinance it is a three year time period or can be done in one year if a plat is done. He stated they do have some flexibility as far as the text amendment goes, if they wanted to designate it to one lot split the Council could do that. Councilmember Bukkila indicated she did not like that. Mayor Trude thought this would open up the whole fringe issue and would chip away at the edges of the Rural Reserve without a master plan. Commissioner Kohler agreed and stated it is not just the chip away but it is also about what the master plan will be going forward. He understood this area is supposed to be reserved for future urban development and if that is the case they probably want to make sure that what is being done and how it is being split allows them to move forward in the future with whatever the City Comprehensive Plan recommends. It gives them the chance to review it and talk about it and apply a little bit of common sense. He is not looking to make really strict rules but wants to leave the possibilities open in the future for what the City needs to do. Mayor Trude agreed. Commissioner Peterson asked if there is a difference between the notifications of local property owners versus going through the whole process. Can people be notified and have a chance to review it without going through the Planning and Zoning Commission, staff and City Council. Still an opportunity for the property owners to find out what is coming their direction in their area. Mr. Janish stated that is typically considered a neighborhood meeting and sometimes a developer holds that meeting or City staff conducts the meeting to take notes as part of that process. He thought if they were going to notify individuals of the meetings then maybe there should be the public hearing process, follow that and then if there is some legality they can say they followed a certain standard and gave a ten-day proper notice, advertised in the paper and worse case, through the public hearing process you are going to notify more people, which is not necessarily a bad thing. Mayor Trude asked how many people were notified with the one that came through for the Packer family. Mr. Janish stated with the Comprehensive Plan Amendment they went 750 feet outside of the Rural Reserve boundary and there where about 130 notices that went out and they did advertise it in the local newspaper as well. Mayor Trude noted that was because it affected all of that zoning district. Mr. Janish stated that was correct and typically they would notice 500 feet. Mr. Dickinson stated as they are dealing with the Rural Reserve and set for long term, from a staff perspective, he was a little nervous bringing this forward without having full transparency with everyone in the area. Councilmember Holthus agreed and thought the more transparency they have the better it is for everybody, the fairer it is for everyone, the neighbors and fixture developers who may have an interest in this area. Andover City Council Workshop Meeting Minutes — March 28, 2017 Page 3 Commissioner Peterson stated in their meetings when there are cases involving the Rural Reserve area there are generally more people at the meetings with more feedback. There is a lot of interest in the transition areas. Councilmember Bukkila stated she does not normally like long processes and costly steps for people but because they do not really know how this is going to go and she did not see it happening very frequently, in order to avoid the public hearing process they would have to have a measured step that staff could follow and her concern is as they start to chunk away the parcels and someone has forty acres and wants to put a ten acre strip on the side or the middle, staff tells them no, they will appeal to the Council anyway. She did not know if they could put enough criteria in there and she did not know if she wanted to enumerate what everyone can and cannot do with this land because she thought every parcel will have some certain amount of subjectivity to it and she would at least like it to be out in the public meeting section of prevue in terms of how they make the decision. Mayor Trude stated Councilmember Knight and herself sat through all of the Rural Reserve planning discussions and that did involve hundreds of property owners to decide where the land was set aside and their promise to the community was they would stop the chipping away at the edges and they were going to have something done like The Lakes in Blaine because that is what it is going to take to develop this area. She is worried if this is even appropriate in this area and is there a way to even shut this down more so they don't end up with so many rural type parcels on the edge so that the Rural Reserve does not happen. She wondered if they wanted to make it even harder to do a lot split within the Rural Reserve. She wondered if they should go through platting because they want to see a ghost plat for possible future development. Mr. Janish stated if they do adopt the public hearing process, in this particular case, the Packer Family moves forward with their two five acre parcels leaving thirty acres and if they wanted to sell that off they would be restricted to that four for forty density or they could get two more potential homes in there so they would not be able to come in and do some sort of urban development because there would not be any municipal water or sewer to that site. He stated this is meant to be a process for individuals to either provide some cash flow by splitting off a lot or in this particular case, a family to do something with their land and to provide a home for other family members. He thought that overall as they are planning it and they are analyzing it whether it is through a lot split process or through a platting process, they want to analyze where there is a potential for City infrastructure, what does the Comprehensive Plan identify for minor and major collector roadways that are going through this area. Mayor Trude wondered if they could do that with this process. Mr. Janish stated there are a couple of different ways this could be done. One is through deed restrictions and the other is through development review process. They would have to do the review process as they are doing the splitting process. Commissioner Kohler stated every one of these possible splits is going to be a little different and they need to understand what the fixture plan is and if someone comes forward with a proposal, Andover City Council Workshop Meeting Minutes —March 28, 2017 Page 4 they need to be able to check to make sure it meets the future plan. A map with the aerial of property lines was displayed. The Council and Planning and Zoning Commission discussed the future of the Rural Reserve area and how lot splits would affect it. b. Atlas 14 Discussion Mr. Berkowitz stated Atlas 14 is new rainfall distribution data compiled by a large number of observation stations across the country; including Minnesota. The new data has resulted in an increase in rainfall depths and run-off volumes. The Coon Creek Watershed District has consulted with Wenck Associates to update the existing model with the new data. The new data suggests the floodplain with Andover, especially within the Rural Reserve area, has grown significantly. Commissioner Kohler asked in terms of the floodplain, what impact does this have with development going forward. Mr. Berkowitz stated if someone wants to build in a floodplain fringe they need to mitigate it but if it is in the 100 -year floodplain than nothing can be built on it. Mr. Berkowitz showed a map of the current floodplain and the new map after Atlas 14 is updated. He reviewed the differences with the Council and Planning and Zoning Commission. He reviewed where the 100 -year floodplain exists. Councilmember Bukkila stated when talking about expanding the culverts, it would decrease the map but would have to affect farming soils as well. Mr. Berkowitz stated that is correct and could potentially affect the farmer downstream. The plan is as they start getting into the Comprehensive Plan update they would meet with all the farmers regarding this. He stated he would anticipate every farmer in the area will have a development benefit by having the floodplain reduced because when they sell off their property they will have more land to build on. Mr. Berkowitz stated there is a lot of information that needs to be reviewed. He stated what they have is a draft of Atlas 14 and will come back to both the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council for more discussion. He stated what this does is drastically impact the way Andover could potentially develop. Once the map changes are finalized the City Council is going to have to make the decision of how they deal with certain areas. Mayor Trude hoped as staff gets new information they look at some different options to bring to the Planning and Zoning Commission for discussions as Comprehensive Plan review. Mr. Janish continued to review the submittal process for lot splits within the Rural Reserve area. Mayor Trude thought it would be important to have deed restrictions in order to have the ability to connect roads in the future. Mr. Janish stated they could have the ability for requiring (9 Andover City Council Workshop Meeting Minutes — March 28, 2017 Page 5 easements on property for future development. The Council, Planning and Zoning Commission and staff continued to review the potential Packer Family lot split. Mr. Janish thought the Council and Planning and Zoning Commission would like to see some sort of blanket easement related to roadways and City utilities. Mayor Trude wondered if they could take some property as park dedication. The Planning and Zoning Commission and Council discussed the possibility of possible park dedication areas within the Rural Reserve in case large development does not occur. Mr. Janish indicated staff would need to discuss this further with the City Attorney. Mr. Dickinson thought the more land you can put under the deed restriction the more flexibility the City will have. Mayor Trude thought her concerns can be addressed with the deed restrictions and they can get the master planning started on the saved land as long as they can put some zoning overlay on it. Mr. Dickinson stated this is really a tradeoff where the current property owners are giving up some control of their own property by taking on the deed restrictions so they have the ability to get some of what they want, which are two lots they can build on. Councilmember Bukkila wondered how many forty acre parcels are around the Rural Reserve that could potentially develop. Mr. Janish thought they will not see many because of the soil mitigation costs. Mr. Dickinson thought there would be around 10 parcels. Commissioner Nemeth thought this was more of a vision and those visions can always change depending on who wants to sell and when they want to sell. He thought there were so many variables and it is great to have the vision but it will probably not come to light. Mr. Janish asked if the Council and Planning and Zoning Commission would like to see some sort of ghost plat for future splits. The Council and Planning and Zoning Commission indicated they would be in favor of that. Mr. Janish stated they will come up with a hybrid lot split plan and thought the direction he was receiving is they would not have to plat if in the Rural Reserve they do the hybrid lot split and collect the same information as if they were doing a plat. Mr. Dickinson stated this would still require a public hearing. Ms. Mary Harrell, 14955 Ivywood Street, stated her house backs up to 149th Avenue and she has a lot of concerns because it appears the northern route will be the connection through the Rural Reserve in the future. She stated the southern route was going to come in by Walmart because it is stubbed in already. Mr. Berkowitz stated that was the route that was approved prior to the Andover City Council Workshop Meeting Minutes —March 28, 2017 Page 6 floodway information. Ms. Harrell stated the concern is this is just a line on the map but the longer the line stays the more significant they become. She stated 149th Avenue is a minimum maintenance dirt road and in terms of it being any kind of an east/west connection that would impact the homes that surround it. Mayor Trude stated Mr. Eveland filed to put his land into Ag. Preserve which will last for seven years so that should ease Ms. Harrell's concerns. Mayor Trude thanked Ms. Harrell for coming to the meeting to voice her concerns. RECESS AND RECONVENE The Council recessed at 7:38 p.m. The Council reconvened at 7:50 p.m. Commissioner Koehler asked in regard to the resolution, if there are lot splits, plats or something in between will the Planning and Zoning Commission be able to review them. Mr. Janish stated they would. Mr. Dickinson stated it will need to go through a public hearing process in order for the changes to be made. c. Flag Lot Discussion Mr. Janish stated recently City staff has been contacted about the potential of creating a flag lot in the rural residential area. Current code regulations do not allow flag lots since each lot is required to have a width of 300 feet at the front yard setback and a minimum of 50 feet of road frontage. Mr. Janish reviewed what the definition of a flag lot is. He asked if the Council and Planning and Zoning Commission would be open to allowing flag lots in Andover. Mr. Janish noted if they did allow flag lots they could avoid some of the costs of public roadways. Councilmember Goodrich asked what did other cities that allow these find as downfalls. Mr. Janish stated what he has found is townships and counties mostly allow for them and his past experience as a county official is the reason they allowed for them is that the townships did not want to maintain public roadways. Commissioner Koehler stated there are many potential problems with a flag lot such as proximity of houses, being able to see into each other's yard, blocking of driveway and emergency vehicles cannot find the back lot many times. Andover City Council Workshop Meeting Minutes—March 28, 2017 Page 7 Mr. Janish stated where they could run into potential issues on the code enforcement side is being able to see things from the roadway. Councilmember Knight thought if the City had these before and stopped allowing them why would they want to start allowing them again and create possible issues. Mayor Trude asked if the City could consider variance on this other than changing the code. Councilmember Goodrich stated if there are not a lot of problems involved with doing a flag lot then he would be in favor of it. Mayor Trude stated she has seen this in other cities where the owners of the flag lots are relatives. She stated she could see this happening in Andover with relatives and parents trying to help the child out. She would be willing to look at this if it were in a rural area of Andover. Mr. Dickinson stated he would not promote this going into any urban area and is not necessarily in favor of entertaining it in the rural area but if they were going to look further at this then he would suggest it be looked at only in the rural area of the City. Commissioner Koehler asked if Fire Chief Streich could have input on this. Mr. Dickinson stated they have talked to the Fire Chief about this and he lives on a flag lot and loves it. He stated the key is to make sure that this is put in correctly and then long term what is the maintenance on the access. Mr. Berkowitz stated this could kill future development in some areas in the rural area. He stated this could make it more difficult to try to develop it. Commissioner Nemeth thought this should be decided on a case by case basis. Commissioner Koehler agreed but thought there needed to be guidelines in place. Commissioner Nemeth stated he would like to know what other cities do. There was further discussion regarding issues with flag lots. Consensus was to not support flag lots in Andover at this time. Mr. Dickinson stated the applicant will be advised they need to go through the variance process if they want to pursue. d. Other Discussion Commissioner Peterson thought for the Comprehensive Plan Amendment process he would like to have updates on the chapters before approval of them. Mayor Trude stated they did not have a schedule but can give the Planning and Zoning Commission updates. Mr. Dickinson stated the onset of the Atlas 14 is really a game changer and if this impacts the Rural Reserve the potential densities and available acreage could be affected. He stated they are in a waiting pattern for the data before anything can be done. When the information comes in Andover City Council Workshop Meeting Minutes —March 28, 2017 Page 8 the Planning and Zoning Commission will be integral in the process. Commissioner Koehler stated he would like to see more touch points with the City Council moving forward because that helps the Planning and Zoning Commission. He thought they should meet quarterly or twice a year. Commissioner Sims thought if there was a way to get good discussion from staff about what the Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed that would help the Council make their decision better. Commissioner Nemeth stated the Planning and Zoning Commission wants to be on the same page as the City Council. Commissioner Koehler asked if it would be beneficial to meet with the other Commissions and Boards during the year as well and have an open type meeting. Mayor Trude thought that may be too many meetings for everyone. Mi. Dickinson thought the Commissions could meet with each other if they wanted to. Commissioner Nemeth stated in regard to the newsletter he would like to see some articles from department heads on what they are working on and why certain roads get picked for reconstruction or other information the residents might want to know. The City Council thanked the Planning and Zoning Commission for coming to the workshop meeting. DISCUSS AUTOMATIC METER READING (AMR) FOR COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES Mr. Berkowitz stated the City Council is requested to discuss automatic meter reading for commercial properties. He reviewed the staff report with the Council. Councilmember Bukkila asked if Mr. Dickinson received her questions regarding this item. Mr. Dickinson indicated the Council will receive the answers and additional information at the next City Council meeting. This is just a review of this item. The plan is to pilot the AMR project with commercial properties and then roll out to residential in a few years. Councilmember Holthus asked how much this will save the City. Mr. Berkowitz stated they have to schedule time with each business to go in and read the meters so this would reduce staff time by ten hours per meter reading. This will provide more accurate and better service. Mr. Berkowitz stated with automatic meter reading the meter can be read from the road. 2018-2022 CIP DISCUSSION & 2017 CIP PROGRESS REPORT Mr. Dickinson reviewed the staff report with the Council. DRAFT CC Workshop Meeting Minutes April 25, 20177 2 3 4 5 6 ANDOVER CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP MEETING —APRIL 25, 2017 7 MINUTES 8 9 10 The Workshop Meeting of the Andover City Council was called to order by Mayor Julie Trude, 11 April 25, 2017, 6:00 p.m., at the Andover City Hall, 1685 Crogstown Boulevard NW, Andover, 12 Minnesota. 13 14 Councilmembers present: Mike Knight, Sheri Bukkila (arrived at 6:15 p.m.), Valerie Holthus 15 and James Goodrich 16 Councilmember absent: None 17 Also present: City Administrator, Jim Dickinson 18 Community Development Director, Joe Janish 19 Public Works Director/City Engineer, David Berkowitz 20 City Attorney, Scott Baumgartner 21 Others 22 23 24 DISCUSS ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO REGULATE DRUG PARAPHERNALIA 25 26 City Attorney Baumgartner explained cities are starting to develop ordinances that regulate drug 27 paraphernalia. 28 29 City Attorney Baumgartner reviewed the staff report with the Council. 30 31 Mayor Trude thought they should add a paragraph about allowing items that are licensed by the 32 State of Minnesota for medicinal purposes. She thought they should add a section for people 33 who are legally growing, stating "This does not apply if you are licensed by the State of 34 Minnesota to produce..." City ;Attorney Baumgartner stated this does not have to do with 35 Marijuana, it has to do with paraphernalia. Mayor Trude stated they needed to make sure the 36 City makes an exception for people who are allowed by the State to grow for medicinal 37 purposes. City Attorney. Baumgartner noted on page three under C and D, it talks about in 38 violation of MN State Chapter 152, which has the exclusions and talks about pharmaceutical 39 items as well. 40 41 Councilmember Holthus asked if Forest Lake adopted a similar ordinance because a shop that 42 was there was the same type of shop as the shop in Anoka and it is now closed. City Attorney 43 Baumgartner was not sure if Forest Lake implemented an ordinance but he did know Forest Lake 44 did implement an ordinance of some sort. He chose to go with Morehead's' model because it 45 had been tested and more closely resembled the Federal model. Since the Morehead model had 46 already been tested in court along with the Federal model they had precedent had it been 47 challenged, which it was, that they could then fall back on the Federal model. He knew that a lot 48 of cities are going in the direction of an ordinance like the one in Anoka. Andover City Council Workshop Meeting Minutes—April 25, 2017 UND Page 2 1 2 Councilmember Bukkila arrived at 6:15 p.m. 3 4 City Attorney Baumgartner stated before Anoka adopted this ordinance they reached out to all of 5 the businesses that had items or could potentially have items and gave them a period of time to 6 remove their inventory out before the ordinance went into effect. 7 8 Mayor Trude stated sometimes gas stations have paraphernalia and wondered if they are aware 9 of any of that going on in Andover. City Attorney Baumgartner stated he is not aware of 10 anything in Andover at this time. 11 12 The Council was in support of drafting an ordinance and sending it through the Planning and 13 Zoning Commission for Council review and approval. 14 15 Mayor Trude asked what kind of things were being prosecuted in Andover. Mr. Baumgartner 16 stated they have been prosecuting thefts from Walmart. He reviewed some things happening in 17 the City that he has dealt with. 18 19 DISCUSS ZONING TEXTAMENDMENTS FOR RURAL RESERVE 20 21 Mr. Janish explained there has been discussions going on regarding this item. He reviewed the 22 staff report with the Council. 23 24 Mr. Janish asked the Council if they wanted to keep item 13-113-3: A4 or remove it. Mayor 25 Trude stated this was crafted so people would not come in and flip the property. She thought 26 that section needed to be adjusted. Mr. Janish stated he could do that. 27 28 Mr. Janish reviewed the zoning text amendments with the Council. 29 30 Mr. Janish stated regarding Item K: When applicable, a blanket easement stating that fixture 31 roads, trails, city utilities, and future park areas may be located in this area on remnant parcel. 32 He stated his concern with this is that this does allow the City, at a later date, to come through 33 and put a road through the parcel and the easement would allow the City to "take the road" and 34 put the road in and the property owner might not be compensated. 35 36 Councilmember Bukkila stated that is what she is concerned with. Mr. Dickinson stated one of 37 the things he asked is how many other cities are doing blanket type easements and Mr. Janish did 38 not find any. Mayor Trude asked how they guarantee this will not happen. She wondered how 39 they would solve the problem. She stated if this was platted they would be giving up their land 40 for the roads and parks. She stated they would be giving up their land for the road because they 41 need access for their homes. There is a community interest at stake. Mr. Janish stated what 42 other communities are doing is they are placing a deed restriction on the property saying that it 43 can't be split again until urban services are provided. 44 There was discussion between staff and Council regarding possible ways to split 40 acres in 45 order to allow future development. Andover City Council Workshop Meeting Minutes—April 25, 2017 Page 3 1 2 Mayor Trude asked if the easement would be over the top of the properties and not pushed to the 3 edge of the properties. Mr. Janish stated if that is where the road would go. 4 5 Discussion continued regarding future lot splits within the Rural Reserve. 6 7 Councilmember Bukkila stated she had a problem with a blanket easement because wouldn't it 8 go on recorded documents with the land. It is one thing to structure the code to prevent any 9 building in an area before there is a grand plan but to legally encumber the acreage with 10 easements does not seem right. City Attorney Baumgartner stated the reason he has an issue 11 with this is how do they come up with a legal description to record the easement. He stated they 12 could do an easement over the entire property but at some point they will need to release a 13 portion of that easement over which it will need to be surveyed to get the legal description. 14 Mayor Trude thought they could release the easement at that point because it is a bargaining 15 process. City Attorney Baumgartner stated at some point they are going to have to identify 16 somehow what the legal description for the easement is. If they want to throw an easement over 17 the entire parcel now before it is split they will still need to identify if they want to split the 18 parcel. There will need to be surveying done to vacate that portion of the blanket easement. 19 Mayor Trude asked if they could vacate the easement on the five acre parcels where the homes 20 will go. 21 22 There was further discussion regarding blanket easements. 23 24 Mr. Berkowitz explained how developments go about getting plat approval with easements. He 25 stated if the city does not grab the easement then it makes it harder to develop in the future. 26 27 Mr. Janish stated the original intent of the blanket easement was to try to minimize someone 28 from putting something in the way of future development. Councilmember Bukkila gave an 29 example of issues people might have with using their land with a blanket easement on their land 30 in the Rural Reserve. City Attorney Baumgartner stated the property owner could have an 31 encroachment agreement with the City on the land. Mayor Trude stated if there was not any 32 easement on the property then the City loses their bargaining. They are trying to bargain to 33 protect the master plan and the landowners all bought into that. Mr. Janish stated an 34 encroachment agreement could be done in order to allow buildings on structures with a blanket 35 easement. 36 37 Further discussion ensued between staff and the Council regarding easements and encroachment 38 agreements. 39 40 Mr. Jake Packer and Mr. John Packer, 3074 16151 Avenue NW, stated they have two forty acre 41 parcels with two buildable lots with two five acre parcels and as far as the easement goes they 42 are not comfortable with that and did not know why they could not leave a chunk of land open. 43 City Attorney Baumgartner stated the problem with that is if they wanted to sell off another five 44 acres of the forty acres the City would have no way to say they cannot do that without a blanket 45 easement, the future development may never happen. Andover City Council Workshop Meeting Minutes—April 25, 2017 Page 4 1 2 Mr. Packer stated he understood that but it is tough for them and they felt like their hands are 3 being tied. Mayor Trude stated they are being allowed to build on ten acres of the forty acres 4 available. She thought they needed to have a master plan for the Rural Reserve but they want to 5 allow families to build on part of their land. 6 7 The Council, staff and the Packers reviewed possibilities that could be done on their property and 8 in the Rural Reserve District including deed restrictions. City Attorney Baumgartner stated he 9 would need to review language regarding deed restrictions and see how that would work. 10 11 Mayor Trude asked if there was ever discussion regarding removing some land out of the Rural 12 Reserve because of close access to City sewer and water. She wondered if they could apply 13 some kind of process in their code that indicates it no longer makes sense. Mr. Janish stated with 14 Atlas 14 discussion that is where a lot of the discussion is going to be. He stated all of the 15 meetings they have been doing may not even be valid discussions when they start working on the 16 next update because of Atlas 14 and other new rules, the Rural Reserve may not be as 17 developable as they thought in the past. 18 19 Mayor Trude thought if things were to change they could vacate easements based on new 20 discoveries and circumstances. Mr. Berkowitz agreed. 21 22 City Attorney Baumgartner stated the City wants to allow residents to do what they want with 23 their property but the City has an obligation to the community to plan for what may happen 24 twenty years down the road and the hard part is trying to predict what is going to happen there 25 because there is nothing there at this time. They want to make sure they do not box in future 26 development in the area which is the tough part. 27 28 Mr. Packer wondered if the City could add some blanket language and approve items on a case 29 by case situation. City Attorney Baumgartner stated when they put together an ordinance they 30 should apply it universally otherwise you get discriminatory enforcement. They can look at 31 certain things back to back but in the end, it should all come together under that ordinance and 32 has to be applicable. They need to treat people similarly. 33 34 Mr. Berkowitz thought the best solution would be to have a blanket easement with an 35 encroachment agreement. Mr. Dickinson stated they could look at a floating easement with an 36 encroachment agreement if they want a particular use of the easement area. He stated the 37 easement could move within the property so it is not specified. City Attorney Baumgartner 38 stated they would not need an encroachment agreement unless or until they want to put 39 something on the land that would encroach into the easement. 40 41 Councilmember Bukkila indicated she was not a fan of this plan. Councilmember Goodrich 42 agreed and stated he needed more information and history before making a decision. Mr. 43 Dickinson stated staff will get some examples of deed restrictions and bring that back to the 44 Council for further discussion. 45 Andover City Council Workshop Meeting Minutes —Apri125, 2017 Page 5 1 Mr. Janish stated they could allow a change to the language in the ordinance, remove the 2 splitting of property additionally each year and place either an easement or some sort of 3 restriction over the remnant parcel so they get a one-time split in the Rural Reserve and then try 4 to sort it out as part of their Comprehensive Plan update because they may come back and 5 change the entire area again once they find out how Atlas 14 will affect this area. He noted he 6 would work with the City Attorney on language. 8 Councilmember Holthus asked if this would allow the Packer family to build. Mr. Janish stated 9 it should. It would restrict the remnant piece unless the entire parcel is sold and they want to 10 plan a development. 11 12 Mayor Trude, Councilmembers Holthus and Knight were in favor of moving this forward. 13 14 Mr. Packer thought they may be willing to allow the easement but he wondered what they are 15 giving up to do that. Mr. Baumgartner stated they are allowing the City the opportunity to place 16 the road and easement in there at some point when the entire property becomes developable. 17 18 Mayor Trude stated she would like to see three goals: 1. Allow the Packers to build, 2. Continue 19 on the path they started with the Met Council approvals that are permitted and 3. Make sure there 20 is room for things to happen in the future that are not going to be impeded by today's actions. 21 22 Mr. Janish stated as a part of the Comprehensive Plan update, it is going to determine what is 23 going to happen in this area. Mr. Berkowitz noted after the update with Atlas 14 staff may even 24 come back to the Council looking for a vacation of the easement they put on the property. 25 26 Councilmember Bukkila indicated she wanted more information before making a final decision. 27 Councilmember Goodrich agreed. Councilmember Bukkila stated even if Mr. Packer is willing 28 to agree to this easement she acknowledges there are other property owners who have interest as 29 well and she is trying to protect them as well. 30 31 Mayor Trude stated the entire Rural Reserve is restricted at this point. Councilmember Bukkila 32 noted the property owners can still use the land. Mayor Trude stated if they move towards the 33 plan that was started two months ago the property owners will have more rights than they do 34 now. Councilmember Bukkila stated right now the property owners can build an accessory 35 building on their property but if there were an easement placed on the property then according to 36 the code they could not build at all on the easement. She stated she would prefer a method that 37 would not include encroachment so that a property owner could have full use of their land. She 38 would like staff to look to see if there are alternative options. 39 40 Mr. Dickinson stated they will look for the deed restriction component. He noted an easement is 41 a form of a deed restriction. City Attorney Baumgartner stated an easement is an interest in 42 property, a deed restriction is only as good as whoever holds that deed, that is the problem he has 43 with it. Mr. Dickinson stated they need to look at what the County recorder will accept. For the 44 most part Counties will not record those things unless it is signed off by the municipalities and 45 that is really where the City wants to get to. City Attorney Baumgartner stated that is what he Andover City Council Workshop Meeting Minutes—April 25, 2017 Page 6 91k 1 wants to see. 2 3 Mayor Trude asked when the City went to the Met Council and asked to move down this path, 4 what was on their list that the City had to do. Mr. Janish stated it is a deed restriction of some 5 manner to prevent the density and preserve that future development possibility. 6 7 Mr. Packer stated they do not necessarily want the easement, if there is another way to do it that 8 would be the way they would want to go but if it ends up that it is the only way to get it done 9 then they may need to go along with it. He asked for a status update on the Comprehensive Plan 10 amendment. Mr. Janish stated he has not heard from the Met Council yet. He reviewed the 11 process with Mr. Packer and the Council. 12 13 Mr. Packer stated they are looking to move forward with building as soon as possible. Staff 14 reviewed a possible timeline of actions that need to occur before building can happen. Mr. 15 Dickinson stated they need to figure out Item K in the staff report that talks about blanket 16 easements on the property. 17 18 Councilmember Goodrich stated he did not want to hold the Packers back from building if the 19 only issue is Item K. Mr. Dickinson stated he would talk to the Packers and help them to work 20 out a timeframe to build. 21 22 DISCUSS STORAGE UNITS (PODS) IN CITY PARKS & RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS 23 24 Mr. Berkowitz explained the City Council is requested to discuss portable storage containers, 25 often referred to as PODS, in City parks and residential districts. 26 27 Mr. Berkowitz reviewed the staff report. 28 29 Mr. Berkowitz asked if the Council supported permanent PODS in the City. Council consensus 30 was not to allow them. 31 32 Mr. Berkowitz asked if the City Council supported a timeframe for the athletic associations to 33 get rid of their current PODS. Councilmember Holthus understood why they need them. Mr. 34 Berkowitz stated staff discussed giving them three to five years to get rid of the PODS. Mayor 35 Trude disagreed and stated five years was a long time for them to find alternative storage. She 36 thought a shed looked better than PODS. Mr. Berkowitz stated it is up to the Council to decide 37 what a reasonable timeframe is for the associations to raise funds to build a structure for storage. 38 39 Councilmember Bukkila stated her issue is the burden on one association for multiple structures. 40 If it was only one park and one organization she would agree to three years but if one 41 organization had something in two or more parks then she would be more sympathetic to a 42 longer timeframe to plan out multiple structures. 43 44 Mr. Berkowitz reviewed where the PODS are located at. He noted the Andover Baseball 45 Association wants to move a POD from the high school to Sunshine Park and thought the City Andover City Council Workshop Meeting owMinutes —April 25, 2017 Page 7 1 Council would not be in favor of that. The Council agreed. Mr. Berkowitz stated the Andover 2 Football Association has one at Prairie Knoll Park during the season. He stated they could have 3 multiple associations put their resources together and build one structure at the parks. 4 5 Councilmember Holthus thought the associations need to clean out the buildings and see what 6 their needs are. Mr. Berkowitz stated they would need to have a structure at each park to house 7 the equipment needed for that park so he thought the Council should give them enough time to 8 figure out what their full needs are and how they can do it efficiently so they can raise money, 9 design and build a structure so it works for them for a long time. 10 11 Councilmember Bukkila thought the associations should be given twelve months to make a plan 12 and tell the Council what they would like to see before a decision is made by the Council. She 13 stated she wanted the associations to react and not put it off. 14 15 Councilmember Knight asked if some of the items being stored at the parks was City owned. 16 Mr. Berkowitz stated the associations are now buying their own equipment to use at the parks so 17 the City does not have any equipment that is stored. Mayor Trude stated that takes a big load off 18 of the City, she wondered if there was a way to find a way to build some little sheds with money 19 from their reserves to store equipment so the parks look better. Mr. Berkowitz stated he would 20 need to go to the Park and Recreation Commission to see how they would weigh in on a 21 recommendation for that. 22 23 Councilmember Goodrich asked if they could screen the PODS with some sort of nice fencing so 24 they cannot be seen. Mayor Trude stated she liked that idea. 25 26 Councilmember Bukkila stated she is not ready to put a drop -dead date on this, she would like to 27 get some feedback from the associations on what they propose. Councilmember Holthus 28 suggested staff go look at the buildings and see what the associations have in them to see how 29 space can be better utilized. 30 31 Mr. Berkowitz asked if there was support for the associations to come back after twelve months 32 with a storage plan. Council agreed. 33 34 Mayor Trude suggested staff work with the associations on getting a plan together. 35 36 Mr. Berkowitz asked if the Council was in favor of using park dedication money to fund the 37 storage. Mayor Trude stated she is in favor of doing this. The rest of the Council is against. 38 39 The Council is not in favor of permanent PODS in residential use. The Council is in favor of 40 temporary PODS in residential use. Councilmember Bukkila stated she would be in favor of 41 temporary storage if there is an open construction permit. Mr. Dickinson noted construction 42 permits could be open for years. Councilmember Goodrich asked what other cities do. Mr. 43 Dickinson stated most do not allow them at all or for only ninety days. Mayor Trude thought 44 they should start with ninety days. Mr. Berkowitz stated if allowed there would need to be an 45 ordinance change because they currently do not allow anything like that in the City. He stated Andover City Council Workshop Meeting CNA)b Minutes—April 25, 2017 Page 8 1 staff will work on language change and bring it back for Council review. Councilmember 2 Bukkila stated there needed to be some language stipulating ninety days in total so it does not 3 disappear for one day and then come back again for another ninety days. 5 Mr. Berkowitz noted there are not any restrictions on five acres or more. The majority of the 6 Council did not have an issue with that. Mayor Trude is not sure if she wanted that because then 7 the property owner can have as many of them as they want and then it starts to look bad. Mr. 8 Janish thought there needed to be some type of screening on those sites. Mayor Trude stated she 9 did not support allowing them on five acres or more. 10 11 CLOC%TOWER COMMONSAMENDMENT 12 13 Mr. Janish stated this is in regard to the Clocktower Commons PUD amendment. He passed out 14 a building design and stated the new building they are proposing is mostly rock face block and 15 he is requesting the Council review the building fagade and indicate any changes that should be 16 made to the building. Mr. Dickinson stated according to the PUD all the buildings need to look 17 alike in appearance. 18 19 The City Council thought the new building fagade looked better than some of the existing 20 buildings. They thought maybe there could be the same style of roofing or closer looking brick 21 to the color in the design of the existing buildings. 22 23 2018 BUDGETDEVELOPMENTDISCUSSION 24 25 Mr. Dickinson reviewed the staff report. 26 27 2017 BUDGET PROGRESS REPORTS 28 29 Mr. Dickinson reviewed the staff report. 30 31 2017 CITYINVESTMENTS REVIEW 32 33 Mr. Dickinson reviewed the staff report. 34 35 36 OTHER TOPICS. 37 38 TRAFFICREDIRECTIONFROMBUNKER LAKE BOULEVARD 39 Mayor Trude stated she has had voicemails and emails regarding Bunker Lake 40 Boulevard. A resident is even wondered if they could close down Butternut Street during 41 the construction because of excessive traffic going into residential areas. Councilmember 42 Bukkila stated the same thing happened with the Hanson Boulevard construction and they 43 have to just put up with it. 44 45 Mayor Trude told the resident to contact the County and see what they could do about it 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 PLANNINGAND ZONING COMMISSIONMEETING —MAY 9, 2017 The Regular Bi -Monthly Meeting of the Andover Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order by Vice Chairperson Nemeth on May 9, 2017, 7:00 p.m., at the Andover City Hall, 1685 Crosstown Boulevard NW, Andover, Minnesota. Commissioners present: Commissioners Scott Hudson, Bert Koehler IV, Steve Peterson and Jeff Sims Commissioners absent: Timothy Cleven and Chairperson Daninger Also present: Community Development Director, Joe Janish City Planner Stephanie Hanson Associate Planner Dan Krumwiede Others APPROVAL OFMINUTES March 14, 2017 Work Session There was not a quorum, so this item will be put on the next meeting agenda for approval. March 14, 2017 Regular Meeting There was not a quorum, so this item will be put on the next meeting agenda for approval. April 11, 2017 Regular Meeting There were no changes from staff. Commissioner Nemeth requested a correction on page 2, line 25, by adding a comma after the word "however." Motion by Peterson, seconded by Koehler, to approve the April 11 Regular Meeting minutes as amended. Motion carried on a 5 -ayes, 0 -nays, 2 -absent vote (Cleven and Daninger). Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes — May 9, 2017 Page 2 2 PUBLIC HEARING: Variance Request —14791 Blackfoot Street NW— LeRoy and 3 Sandra Warneka 5 Ms. Hanson presented the variance request to reduce the required width of the lot at the 6 front yard setback. She noted that staff has not received comment from DNR staff and 7 that it is typical not to receive a response. Mr. Warneka submitted a letter and proposes a 8 variance to reduce the width at the front yard setback from 300 feet to 150 feet for the 9 purpose of subdividing the property into two lots. One lot would have a 150 -foot width to and the other a 180 -foot width. The variance meets the City Code requirements for size 11 and depth. Ms. Hanson outlined the City Code criteria that states, "variances may be 12 granted when the applicant for the variance establishes that there are practical difficulties 13 in complying with the official control." The definition of "practical difficulties" was 14 further described by Ms. Hanson. The lot was originally created in 1977 and the drainage 15 and utility easement in the neighboring property was explained. The ARC reviewed the 16 proposed variance requests and had no comments pertaining to the request. Staff also 17 received phone calls and emails regarding the variance requests. 18 19 There was supplemental information to the report which included an additional letter in 20 opposition to the variance. 21 22 The Commissioners had no questions of staff. 23 24 Vice Chairperson Nemeth asked if the variance was approved and if the applicant splits 25 the lot, would it just be an administrative matter. Ms. Hanson replied that was correct. 26 The applicant would need to have the appropriate buildable area, have soil borings done, 27 contract for a professional survey, etc. She clarified that each lot would have to be a 28 minimum of 2.5 acres, proven by survey, and that the Coon Creek Watershed District 29 would not need to review the matter. 30 31 Commission Koehler commented that if the variance was approved at the meeting, the 32 Commissioners would not be approving a smaller size lot, only a smaller size width. 33 34 Commissioner Sims asked about the history of the City's 300 -foot lot width. Ms. Hanson 35 indicated that the standard had changed some time ago and it was previously 330 feet. 36 Ms. Hanson stated that there have been variances in the past for lot width under different 37 circumstances. In this development, all lots are zoned R-1, and directly to the south, the 38 lots are R-4. 39 40 Motion by Koehler, seconded by Peterson, to open the public hearing at 7:20 p.m. 41 Motion carried on a 5 -ayes, 0 -nays, 2 -absent vote (Cleven and Daninger). 42 43 Vice Chairperson Nemeth gave instructions for the public hearing. 44 Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes — May 9, 2017 Page 3 1 Katie Shaw of 4050 147`h Lane NW, expressed concern about the maintaining of a 300- 2 foot lot width because it creates an "environment of space." The distance between the 3 properties is significant in their development. 5 Tom Jordan of 14800 Blackfoot Street NW, stated that his concern is the precedent that 6 would be set in the neighborhood and the effect on the values of the surrounding homes 7 based on the lot size that surrounds them. By splitting the lots, there is an increase in 8 density, and he asserted there would also be a change in character and the value of the 9 homes. Homes built today are very different in style. He also noted that there is a lot of 10 wildlife going through their development. 11 12 Lee Wameka of 14791 Blackfoot Street NW, stated that he felt that some of his 13 neighbors had been misled by other neighbors and that [too] much had been made about 14 the open area. He pointed out that there will be a lot of open area because of the drainage 15 ditch to the south. Mr. Wameka showed photographs of his property. He believes that 16 there is a nice, large building pad area that is available and that the property will 17 accommodate two 2.5 acre lots. 18 19 Commissioner Koehler asked for clarification as to the location where the photographs 20 were taken. Mr. Wameka described the location. 21 22 Mr. Wameka stated that one home in the neighborhood had been turned into a duplex via 23 a variance. Commissioner Koehler asked about identifying the duplex. Ms. Hanson 24 indicated that she would research this question. 25 26 Ben Shaw of 4050 147th Lane NW, lives south of the property for which the variance has 27 been requested. He showed an Anoka County plat that demonstrated that the property for 28 which the variance has been requested might not be 5 acres in size. He also felt that the 29 variance would change the essential character of the neighborhood. 30 31 Heather Myers of 4115 147th Lane NW, wanted to clarify that her home was not a 32 duplex, but that it was remodeled and an addition created to accommodate a mother -in - 33 law suite. She noted that there is not an outside entrance. 34 35 Tom Jordan of 14800 Blackfoot Street NW, stated that his home was one of 2 homes that 36 were shown in the photographs across the street from the property for which the variance 37 is being requested. The house next to his is the one further away. He asked the 38 Commissioners to consider [housing] density due to residents being on well water. 39 4o Katie Shaw wanted to address the assertion that the neighbors were being misled. Her 41 primary concerns related to the potential for setting precedence. She also stated that the 42 open land referred to in the photographs actually showed her land. 43 44 Derek Jordan of 14800 Blackfoot Street NW, asked for clarification regarding the 45 applicant being approached by builders and the City [regarding purchase of the property]. 0 Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes — May 9, 2017 Page 4 1 Ms. Hanson stated at this time the City was not interested in the property, but she was not 2 sure about what might have come up in the past. 4 Motion by Koehler, seconded by Sims, to close the public hearing at 7:45 p.m. Motion 5 carried on a 5 -ayes, 0 -nays, 2 -absent vote (Cleven and Daninger). 6 7 Commissioner Koehler asked if the City knew the size of the property. Ms. Hanson 8 replied she did not and that the applicant would be required to have a licensed survey and 9 must meet the 2.5 -acre minimum for each lot. 10 11 In response to Commissioner Peterson's question, Ms. Hanson stated that it is up to the 12 applicant to prove the "plight of the property owner." 13 14 Commissioner Koehler stated that the issue of open space has nothing to do with the City 15 Code. He expressed his belief that homeowners have an expectation that everyone is 16 expected to play by the same rules. He was not comfortable that the lot split did not meet 17 City Code. 18 19 Ms. Hanson stated that if the variances are approved, the home owner has to act within 20 one year or the variance will become void. If the acreage minimum is not met, the 21 variance goes away. She believes that there is sufficient high ground for septic, well and 22 a building pad. 23 24 Commissioner Koehler commented that the approval of other variances should not have a 25 bearing on the decision making and that the Commission should look at the issue on the 26 basis of the argument. 27 28 Motion by Koehler, seconded by Peterson, to deny the request for a variance. Motion 29 carried on a 4 -ayes, 1 -nays (Nemeth), 2 -absent vote (Cleven and Daninger). 30 31 This matter will be heard at the June 2"a Council meeting at 7 pm. 32 33 Commissioner Koehler stated his belief that the rules were put in place when the 34 residents bought their property and it is the Conunission's obligation to uphold those 35 expectations. He believes that the variance request would have too much impact on the 36 neighborhood. 37 38 Commissioner Peterson stated that he believed that the "practical difficulties" were not 39 unique to the property. 40 41 Vice Chairperson Nemeth expressed that he believed that the variance would only 42 slightly change the essential character of the neighborhood. He noted that other residents 43 were neutral. 44 45 100 Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes — May 9, 2017 Page 5 1 PUBLICHEARING: Conditional Use PermitAmendment/Revised Planned Unit 2 Development —Andover Clocktower Commons — Classic Construction 4 Mr. Janish explained that this request is to amend the existing approved Conditional Use 5 Permit to revise the approved PUD. There was an amendment made in 2009, related to 6 the direct access to Crosstown Blvd NW, in the form of a'/4 intersection, which was 7 approved. In 2014, the bank site was converted to a retail trade and service building. Lot 8 4 was also converted from a restaurant lot in the original PUD, for a retail, trade and 9 service building and allowed for a 20 -foot encroachment into the required 30 -foot setback 10 from Crosstown Blvd NW. This encroachment created a 10 -foot setback for the future 11 buildings on Lot 4, Block 1. The CUP changes the PUD from 5 lots to 6 lots and adjusts 12 the setback on proposed Lot 2, Block 1, PSM Addition. 13 14 Ms. Hanson clarified that the PUD establishes overall requirements for the project area. 15 16 Commissioner Peterson noted that the building size had been reduced and expressed 17 concerns regarding parking. Mr. Janish stated that there was 7,000 square feet of parking 18 and that parking requirements will be based on the use of the property. If a day care 19 occupied the space the requirement would be 1 parking space per 7 students/children, 20 plus 1 for each classroom, plus office space. He noted there is cross parking and there is 21 an association that is part of the PUD and they could address it. Parking will be reviewed 22 further as part of the commercial site plan. In answer to questions, Mr. Janish stated that 23 the water issues on the nearby trail had been rectified in 2014 and signage will be 24 addressed when the site moves forward on the next building, as was originally planned. 25 26 Motion by Koehler, seconded by Peterson, to open the public hearing at 8:17 p.m. 27 Motion carried on a 5 -ayes, 0 -nays, 2 -absent vote (Cleven and Daninger). 28 29 The Commissioners did not have any questions of staff. 30 31 No one from the community was there to speak to the issue. 32 33 Motion by Koehler, seconded by Hudson, to close the public hearing at 8:19 p.m. 34 Motion carried on a 5 -ayes, 0 -nays, 2 -absent vote (Cleven and Daninger). 35 36 Motion by Koehler, seconded by Hudson, to approve the resolution as presented with a 37 note to reflect the change in distance brought up by staff. Motion carried on a 5 -ayes, 0- 38 nays, 2 -absent vote (Cleven and Daninger). 39 4o This CUP will be heard at the May 16 City Council meeting. 41 42 PUBLIC HEARING: Preliminary PlatAndover Clocktower Commons 2"d Addition — 43 Classic Construction 44 45 Mr. Janish stated that staff recommends consideration of re -platting this particular lot. 52 Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes — May 9, 2017 Page 6 1 2 Commissioners had no questions. 4 Motion by Koehler, seconded by Hudson, to open the public hearing at 8:22 p.m. Motion 5 carried on a 5 -ayes, 0 -nays, 2 -absent vote (Cleven and Daninger). 7 No one from the community was there to speak to the issue. 9 Motion by Koehler, seconded by Hudson, to close the public hearing at 8:23 p.m. 10 Motion carried on a 5 -ayes, 0 -nays, 2 -absent vote (Cleven and Daninger). 11 12 Commissioner Sims referenced the internal road near the McDonalds. Ms. Hanson 13 responded that there would be no changes to that road. She acknowledged that the road 14 will allow access to the lot. 15 16 Motion by Peterson, seconded by Koehler, to approve the preliminary plat as presented. 17 Motion carried on a 5 -ayes, 0 -nays, 2 -absent vote (Cleven and Daninger). 18 19 PUBLIC HEARING: City Code Amendments to Title 12 Zoning Regulations and Title 20 13 Planning and Development 21 22 At the October 25, 2016 City Council work session, City Council discussed a CPA 23 request by Jake and Jon Packer to allow the subdivision of land within the Rural Reserve 24 District into parcels smaller than what is currently allowed in the Comprehensive Plan. 25 City Council provided direction to staff to proceed with a CPA and ordinance to address 26 future development within the rural reserve area. 27 28 Since October 25, 2016 the Planning Commission and City Council have approved a 29 Comprehensive Plan amendment to address for higher density and further subdivision of 30 property within the Rural Reserve District. 31 32 The Met Council will discuss the CPA at the June 5, 2017 meeting and the Metropolitan 33 Council board will make a determination on June 14, 2017. Staff is proposing to 34 continue to hold a hearing and make a recommendation, contingent upon the 35 Metropolitan Council approval. 36 37 Due to the Comprehensive Plan Amendment, this amendment to the City Code needs to 38 go forward to be consistent with the plan. 39 40 Mr. Janish confirmed for Commissioner Sims that this matter only applies to the rural 41 reserve area. 42 43 The applicant for the Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Jake Packard of 3074 164th Ave 44 NW, addressed the history of the 80 acres, including the information that he would be the 33 Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes —May 9, 2017 Page 7 i fourth generation to build a house on the acreage. He requested that the Commission 2 consider the least restrictive option. 4 Motion by Peterson, seconded by Hudson, to open the public hearing at 8:43 p.m. 5 Motion carried on a 5 -ayes, 0 -nays, 2 -absent vote (Cleven and Daninger). 6 7 Much discussion ensued regarding the lot splitting and City Code. The primary focus of 8 the discussion was around the topic as to what tools would be recommended in order to 9 restrict future development until urban services, zoning changes, or the comprehensive 10 plan is modified to allow for additional development within the area. Mr. Janish 11 confirmed that Met Council has identified that a tool is needed in order to restrict the 12 future development until the area is considered to become urban in nature. 13 14 The Met Council had outlined tools available including staff tracking, development 15 agreements, or easements can be one of the tools used to restrict future development. 16 The tool selected would have triggers such as: urban services are available, rezoning of 17 the area based on comprehensive plan changes or the zoning for the property is modified 18 to allow for a higher density. Mr. Janish noted the Met Council allows the community to 19 select the appropriate tool to use to maintain the development restriction. 20 21 Discussion centered on the tools available to the city for restricting future development 22 until triggers occur. 23 24 Jl. Remnant parcels shall restrict future development of homes through a 25 development agreement until defined "triggers" are met such as: urban services 26 are available, rezoning of said parcel to a higher density, change in the 27 comprehensive plan to a zoning district that would allow higher density, among 28 other "triggers" as may be deemed appropriate by the City Council. 29 30 Commissioner Sims stated that he does not feel that it is fair to pose additional 31 restrictions/burdens on those that live in the rural reserve compared to those that live in 32 the City. 33 34 Commissioners also discussed the requirement of ghost platting. Commissioner Koehler 35 indicated that it would be in the property owners interest to ghost plat or at least provide a 36 sketch, however through the review process outlined within the ordinance staff, planning 37 commission and city council would be reviewing the proposed split and comparing the 38 request to future major alignments of utilities and roadways so the requirement is not 39 needed. 40 41 Motion by Koehler, seconded by Nemeth, to approve the City Code amendment as 42 discussed with the language included in JI reference above and remove the requirement 43 of the ghost platting within the Rural Reserve. Motion carried on a 3 -ayes, 2 -nays 44 (Hudson and Sims), 2 -absent vote (Cleven and Daninger). 45 0 Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes — May 9, 2017 Page 8 1 Vice Chairman Nemeth expressed his preference for a future development opportunity 2 and indicated that he felt that this was a middle of the road decision. 3 4 This matter will come before the Council at the June 61h meeting. 6 OTHER BUSINESS 8 Ms. Hanson updated the Commissioners regarding the Catcher's Creek variance request. 9 The City Council did move ahead with approval of the variances and revised plat. The 10 developer removed one of the variances prior to presentation to the Council. 11 12 Ms. Hanson reported that the MedExpress Clinic has opened on the north side of 13 Walgreens. Joy Kitchen at Shoppes @Andover should have their certificate of 14 occupancy in May. The CEC Theatre building permit was issued for new luxury seating 15 being installed at this time. The exterior and floors are almost complete at Arbor Oaks 16 and they anticipate a July opening. Acapulco is opening their patio in May. At the end 17 of April, 42 permits for new single family homes had been granted. Mr. Janish, in 18 response to Vice Chairperson Nemeth's question, clarified that 50 new homes are the 19 budgeted amount, not the anticipated or projected amount. 20 21 Vice Chairperson Nemeth requested a quarterly report regarding City Code adherence. 22 Commissioner Koehler also expressed his support for the review process. 23 24 ADJOURNMENT 25 26 Motion by Koehler, seconded by Sims, to adjourn the meeting at 9:44 p.m. Motion 27 carried on a 5 -ayes, 0 -nays, 2 -absent vote (Cleven and Sims). 28 29 30 Respectfully Submitted, 31 32 33 34 Marlene White, Recording Secretary 35 TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. 36 DRAFT Ss Sample Easement TEMPORARY ROADWAY, DRAINAGE, AND UTILITY EASEMENT/DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENT KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENT, for valuable consideration, ("Grantor"), hereby grants, sells, and conveys to the CITY OF ANDOVER, a Minnesota municipal corporation ("Grantee"), a permanent easement for future roadway, drainage and utility purposes, including, without limitation, the construction, maintenance, repair and replacement thereof, and uses incident thereto ("Easement"), in, under and upon the real property, in Anoka County, Minnesota described as follows: INSERT LEGAL ("Property") Further, the right is hereby granted to the Grantee to restrict the further development of said Property. This Easement or portion(s) of said Easement can be vacated by the Grantee upon: 1. Rezoning of the Property to: a. a commercial zoning classification; b. an industrial zoning classification; c. a denser residential development; 2. A change in the City of Andover's Comprehensive Plan that no longer considers the Property as being in the Rural Reserve; 3. Municipal water and sewer is extended to the Property; 4. A defined location for the Easement has been determined due to development occurring on and/or around the Property. Grantor covenants that he is the owner of the easement area and has the right, title, and capacity to grant the easement described above. TO HAVE AND TO HOLD THE SAME, together with all the hereditaments and appurtenances thereunto belonging or in anyway appertaining to the said Grantee, forever, for said roadway, drainage and utility purposes. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have hereunto set their hands on or as of the date opposite their respective signatures. RR Temporary Easement Dated: 2017 By: Total Consideration: One and 00/100 Dollars ($1.00) State Deed Tax Due: None STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF ANOKA ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 2017, by , who has caused these presents to be executed or has set his hand the day and year first above written. Notary Public NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City of Andover, County of Anoka, State of Minnesota, has accepted on 2017, the above described easement in this document. Dated: 2017 THIS INSTRUMENT WAS DRAFTED BY: City of Andover 1685 Crosstown Blvd. NW Andover, MN 55304 Telephone: 763-755-5100 RR Temporary Easement CITY OF ANDOVER LIN (01 DRAFT 0 Sample Development Agreement RESTRICTION OF DEVELOPMENT DECLARATION AGREEMENT This RESTRICTION OF DEVELOPMENT DECLARATION AGREEMENT ("Agreement") is made and entered into by and between, , ("Owner"), and the City of Andover, a Minnesota municipal corporation, 1685 Crosstown Blvd. NW, Andover, Minnesota 55304 ("City"), and is effective as of the date of the last signature of the parties.. WHEREAS, Owner is the fee owner of the property legally described on attached Exhibit A ("Property"); and WHEREAS, the City of Andover's 2008 Comprehensive Plan had a restriction on lot splits and subdivisions of less than one parcel per twenty acres, in the Rural Reserve; and WHEREAS, this restriction on lot splits and subdivisions was implemented to prevent this area from rural residential development that would preclude orderly future MUSA expansion; and WHEREAS, the City of Andover has amended their Comprehensive Plan to prohibit lot splits and subdivisions of less than one parcel per ten acres within the Rural Reserve; and WHEREAS, the City of Andover's Comprehensive Plan amendment allows for lot sizes of 5 acres within the Rural Reserve with conditions; and WHEREAS, the conditions to be attached relative to allowing lot splits creating lot sizes of 5 acres within the Rural Reserve are necessary to continue to maintain orderly. future MUSA expansion; and WHEREAS, one of the conditions necessary in order to maintain orderly future MUSA expansion, is the inclusion of restrictions on the placement of structures within the subdivided parcels; and 1 WHEREAS, these restrictions will prevent the impediment of future MUSA expansion; and WHEREAS, in connection with an application by Owner for , the City has required, as a condition of approval, the execution and recording of this Agreement; and WHEREAS, as a condition of securing the benefits and advantages of the City's approval of Owner's application, Owner desires to subject the Property to the terms and conditions of this Agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, Owner declares that the Property is, and shall be, held, transferred, sold, conveyed and occupied subject to the terms and conditions of this Agreement. 1. Definitions. For purposes of this Agreement, the following terms shall have the meanings given. 1.1. "Home(s)" means a residential building or portion thereof intended for occupancy by a family. 1.2. "Family" means an individual or two (2) or more persons related by blood, marriage or adoption living together; or a group of not more than five (5) persons who need not be related by blood, marriage or adoption, dwelling unit, exclusive of usual servants. 2. Owner's Obligations. 2.1. The Owner shall not construct a Home within the area described in exhibit A. 2.2 The Owner shall not further subdivide the Property until the Property is released from this Agreement. 3. Enforcement. 3.1. By entering into this Agreement, Owner acknowledges that the City has a valuable and enforceable interest in the Property and that this Agreement may be enforced by the City to the fullest extent allowed by law. Owner agrees to reimburse the City for all costs incurred by the City in defense or enforcement of this Agreement, or any portion thereof, including court costs and reasonable attorneys' fees. 2 0 4. Miscellaneous. 4.1. No Waiver. Failure to enforce any provision of this Agreement upon a violation of it will not be deemed a waiver of the right to do so as to that or any subsequent violation. 4.2. Validity. If any portion, section, subsection, sentence, clause, paragraph or phrase in this Agreement is for any reason held to be invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect or void any of the other provisions of the Agreement. 4.3. Duration of Agreement. The agreement granted herein shall remain in effect until: 4.3.1 Rezoning of the Property to a commercial zoning classification; 4.3.2 Rezoning of the Property to an industrial zoning classification; 4.3.3 Rezoning of the Property to a denser residential development; 4.3.4 A change in the City of Andover's Comprehensive Plan that no longer considers the Property as being in the Rural Reserve; 4.3.5 Municipal water and sewer is extended to the Property; 4.4. Warranty of Owner. The Owner warrants that it is the owner of a fee simple interest in the Property, and that it has the right to enter into this Agreement. 4.5. Binding Effect. The terms and provisions hereof shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the heirs, representatives, successors and assigns of the parties hereto and shall be binding upon all future owners of all or any part of the Property and shall be deemed covenants running with the land. Owner agrees that the City shall have the right to record a copy of this Agreement with the Anoka County Recorder to give notice to future purchasers and owners. This shall be recorded against the Property. 4.6. Notices. Whenever in this Agreement it shall be required or permitted that notice or demand be given or served by either party to this Agreement to or on the other party, such notice or demand shall be delivered personally or mailed by United States mail to the addresses hereinbefore set forth on Page 1 by certified mail (return receipt requested). Such notice or demand shall be deemed timely given when delivered personally or when deposited in the mail in accordance with the above. The addresses of the parties hereto are as set forth on Page 1 until changed by notice given as above. 4.7. Amendments. This Agreement may not be amended without the prior written approval of the City. 4.8. Clerical Revisions. In the event that any technical or clerical revisions are needed in this document or if for any reason the County Recorder deems the Agreement un -recordable, Owner shall cooperate with the City in the execution or amendment of any revised agreement. OWNER By: Its: STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of 2017, by I the on behalf of Notary Public CITY OF ANDOVER IIn STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF ANOKA ) Julie Trude, Mayor Michelle Hartner, Deputy City Clerk of The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of 2017, by Julie Trude and Michelle Hartner, the Mayor and Deputy City Clerk of the City of Andover, a municipal corporation under the laws of Minnesota, on behalf of the municipal corporation. Notary Public 0 (0O THIS INSTRUMENT WAS DRAFTED BY: City of Andover 1685 Crosstown Blvd. NW Andover, MN 55304 Telephone: 763-755-5100 For City use only: Planning File # Date of Council approval CONSENT The undersigned Mortgagee of the real estate described in the attached instrument pursuant to the Mortgage recorded as Document No. in the office of the Anoka County Recorder's Office, hereby joins in and consents to all of the terms and provisions contained in the attached Restriction of Development Declaration Agreement ("Agreement"). The undersigned Mortgagee further agrees that its interest in the property covered by the Mortgage is subject to the Agreement and to all of the terms and provisions contained in it and agrees that if the Mortgagee forecloses its mortgage(s) on the property, or takes a deed in lieu of foreclosure, the Mortgagee will take title subject to the Agreement. By: Its: STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of 20_ , by the on behalf of the corporation. Notary Public of ri A F►' 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W.. ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 . (763) 755-5100 FAX (763) 755-8923 • WWW.CI.ANDOVER.MN.US TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: Mayor and Council Members Jim Dickinson, City Administrator Review Community Vision and Organizational Goals and Values Document May 23, 2017 INTRODUCTION A strategic planning session was held with the City Council in 2015, with a final Council Community Vision and Organizational Goals and Values document approved by the City Council. Administration will be reviewing that document with the Council at the workshop to determine if any updating is needed as direction provided in that document is integrated into various department work plans and budgets. DISCUSSION The 2018 Budget Development guidelines adopted at the April 18th City Council meeting contain guidelines related to strategic planning and adherence to community goals and values. The most specific guidelines are as follows: The use of long-term financial models that identify anticipated trends in community growth and financial resources that will help designate appropriate capital resources for future City needs. The financial models will be used in the budget planning process to ensure that key short-term fiscal targets are in line with lona-term fiscal projections. Note: The City continually maintains various financial models to determine the long- term impacts of present day expenditures and financing decisions. Fiscal assumptions are based upon a complex set of financial data including growth factors, tax capacity valuations, per capita spending and debt ratios. Continued commitment to strategic planning targeted toward meeting immediate and long-term operational, staffing, infrastructure and facility needs. Note: The most recent strategic planning session was held with the City Council in 2015, with a final Council Community Vision and Organizational Goals and Values document approved by the City Council. A management philosophy that actively supports the funding and implementation of Council policies and goals, and a commitment to being responsive to changing community conditions, concerns, and demands, and to do so in a cost effective manner. Note: Management will pay special attention to fiscal values, commercial & residential development or redevelopment, collaboration opportunities, service delivery and the livability/image of the community. ACTION REQUESTED Review the attached City of Andover Community Vision and Organizational Goals and Values document and be prepared to provide direction to staff if any changes are necessary. submitted, Jim City of Andover COMMUNITY VISION & ORGANIZATION VALUES AND GOALS The City of Andover's Community Slogan: "Welcome Home" The City of Andover's Vision Statement: "Andover, a safe, growing community in which to live and work which enhances the quality of its citizens' lives through recreational opportunity, quiet neighborhoods, civic involvement, and fiscal and environmental stewardship." City of Andover's Long Term Organizational Values and Goals: 1. EXCELLENCE AND QUALITY IN THE DELIVERY OF SERVICES The City of Andover exists to provide quality services to the public in a professional and cost-effective manner. 2. FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY The City of Andover believes that fiscal responsibility and prudent stewardship of public funds is essential if citizens are to have confidence in government. 3. ETHICS AND INTEGRITY The City of Andover believes that ethics and integrity are the foundation blocks of public trust and confidence and that all relationships are built on these values. 4. TREATING THE CITIZEN AS OUR CUSTOMER The City of Andover believes that the citizen is our customer and, as such, should be treated with courtesy, respect, and integrity. 5. OPEN AND HONEST COMMUNICATION The City of Andover believes that open and honest communication with each other and the public we serve is the key to having an effective organization and informed citizens. 1 Approved July 7, 2015 City of Andover's Highest Priority External Goals: Goal #1 To ensure city services keep pace with the city's growing and changing population. Goal #2 To enhance communication with the public. Goal #3 To support processes that involve citizen engagement. Goal #4 To develop and update the city's capital improvement program. Goal #5 To broaden and preserve the city's tax base. Goal #6 To balance and prioritize provision of city services with available resources. Goal #7 To respect the environment. City of Andover's Short -Term (one to five years) Organizational Goals - (with work plan): 1. FISCAL GOALS - the City recognizes the following fiscal values as the basis for delivering current and future services to the residents of Andover. A. Assure city financial stability through cost effective services. B. Focus spending on community needs; wants need to be supported by new or redirected sustainable revenues. C. Explore new revenue streams and capture new growth for community needs. D. City investments need to focus on long term sustainability. E. While still providing excellent services to all Andover residents, look for and identify opportunities to reduce tax burdens whenever possible. F. Maintain property values and keep property taxes affordable through good fiscal management. G. Prioritize projects to best serve community priorities when resources are inadequate to address/meet all community demands. H. Plan ahead for large projects (master planning) to maintain consistent revenues and expenses to avoid property tax spikes. 2. COMMERCIAL/RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT/REDEVELOPMENT GOALS - the City wants to be supportive of those invested in or wanting to invest in our community. 2 1 Approved July 7, 2015 A. Facilitate upgrades or redevelopment of blighted or underdeveloped parcels. B. Work with business owners and property owners to assist them in being successful in our community. C. Continually analyze existing commercial areas to determine if expansion is feasible and seek out new areas to better serve the community. D. Continually evaluate how to meet sewer/water and street needs of any proposed development and redevelopment projects. E. Review City development processes to help reduce unnecessary steps, time delays and development costs. F. Review development requirements to minimize impacts from overly burdensome requirements. G. Be aware of negative environmental impacts to our community including to proposed developments and attempt to mitigate where economically feasible and practical. H. Evaluate housing programs to determine useful programs that we could adopt that have a positive impact on community market value and preserve neighborhoods. I. Evaluate whether we are adequately providing locations, through zoning, for expanded commercial areas and "starter homes". J. Begin discussion for the 2018 Comprehensive Plan update, soliciting input from large property owners on land set aside land for future development. K. Respond to regional and state initiatives that impact our City or residents through our organizational memberships. 3. COLLABORATION GOALS - the City is supportive of collaboration efforts that are cost-effective and improve efficiency in delivering services. A. Cautiously review any new mandate to determine whether we need to act. B. Foster positive relationships with: school districts, Anoka County, and nearby cities. C. Advocate for safe, efficient commuting routes for our residents and business owners. D. Support an effective and comprehensive transportation system. E. Support upgrade of transportation routes to the Twin Cities Metro for our commuters. F. Work with waste/garbage haulers to determine if a more efficient garbage collection process for the community can be achieved without restricting the citizen's freedom to choose from all available companies. G. Evaluate how volunteers can help our community become a safer, more welcoming and attractive place to live. H. Continue to work with the railroad company that manages the tracks through Andover to reduce the interference trains have on traffic blockages and public safety. 3 1 Approved July 7, 2015 4. SERVICE DELIVERY GOALS - the City is committed to providing efficient and cost-effective city services. A. Evaluate parks maintenance to ensure the city is preserving park assets and not committing to unsustainable service delivery. B. Continue fostering positive relationships with athletic, youth, and other service organizations to obtain their input and seek their contributions with time and funds towards community improvements. C. Alter packet format to improve viewing function on tablets and reduce redundancy found in format. D. Keep current with advances in technology where appropriate. E. Analyze the "administrative fine" process to reduce use of courts, increase local revenues, and improve code compliance. F. Commit to providing the public with effective Public Safety through Fire and Law Enforcement service. G. Pursue local programming for the community youth. H. Continually review our processes to reduce unnecessary or unwanted service deliveries. I. Encourage quality building standards. J. Begin comprehensive evaluation of future Public Works needs on city campus, hire architect, begin construction of new maintenance facility and related projects along with parkway road to come from Nightingale Street that equally benefits all citizens of Andover. K. Begin space needs study for Community Center expansion and financial pro forma, continue conversations with partners about their needs and finances. Create public process for public input. L. Continually evaluate whether we are following our Park Dedication Study when spending park dedication funds. M. Continue to maintain Kelsey Round Lake Park as a signature nature park. N. Preserve current trails and complete trails where we have missing connections or need to improve pedestrian safety. O. Develop an effective Emergency Preparedness Plan to come to the aid of those in Andover when effected by community disasters. 5. LIVABILITY/IMAGE GOALS - the City recognizes that providing quality basic & desired services enhances the quality of life of our residents. A. Continue to support preservation of natural resources (land, water and air quality). B. Pursue management plan for Open Space properties that minimizes staff involvement and emphasizes users create their own experience and support volunteer efforts to provide additional programming and activities. C. Improve community aesthetics by enhancing corridor to city campus with sustainable landscape plantings, seeking volunteer assistance. 4 Approved July 7, 2015 D. Look at ways to improve and coordinate a cohesive, attractive appearance along county corridors when the County upgrades roads. E. Explore new methods of collecting public feedback. F. Continually review newsletter content. G. Plan and provide quality city services to residents and adapting to changing demographics. H. Look at ways information from resident survey can be incorporated into goals, plans and policies. I. Find ways to utilize volunteers and engaged residents. J. Evaluate whether current policies and codes inhibit families from improving and upgrading their homes and remove unnecessary barriers to allow increased market value and updating of private property in ways that enhance neighborhoods. K. Support improvements to the website that provide residents with information that is user-friendly so they can be informed about recreation opportunities. 5 Approved July 7, 2015 ND OVE % 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. • ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 • (763) 755-5100 FAX (763) 755-8923 • WWW.ANDOVERMN.GOV TO: Mayor and Councilmembers FROM: Jim Dickinson, City Administrator SUBJECT: April 2017 General Fund Budget Progress Report DATE: May 23, 2017 INTRODUCTION The City of Andover 2017 General Fund Budget contains total revenues of $10,825,139 and total expenditures of $11,039,719 ; a decrease in fund balance is planned. Monthly reporting of the City Budget progress to the Governing body is a recommended financial practice and often viewed positively by rating agencies. DISCUSSION Attached is the General Fund Revenue & Expenditure Budget Summary - Budget Year 2017, reflecting year to date actual through April 2017. The attachments are provided to assist discussion in reviewing 2017 progress; other documents may be distributed at the meeting. The following represents Administration's directives and departmental expectations that are in place for 2017: 1. Expenditure budgets while approved, expenses are to meet with the spirit that needs are fulfilled first, expansions of service and special requests are to be reviewed with City Administration before proceeding. 2. Departments are to be committed to search for the best possible prices when purchasing goods and services. 3. Departments are to be committed to continually searching out new efficiencies and to challenge the status quo of how the City provides services. 4. Departments are to be committed to searching out collaborative opportunities to facilitate efficient and cost-effective utilization of governmental assets and personnel. 5. Departments are to be committed to developing effective, consistent and ongoing communications with City residents, businesses and other stakeholders. 6. Departments are to be cognizant that services provided are subject to available revenues and should not commit to services that are not sustainable. ACTION REQUESTED The Council is requested to receive a presentation from staff. submitted, CITY OF ANDOVER General Fund Budget Summary Totals Budget Year 2017 2016 2017 REVENUES Budget Apr YTD %Bud Final Budget Apr YTD %Bud General Property Tax $ 8,113,528 $ 267 0% $ 8,217,768 $ 8,420,354 $ 52 0% Licenses and Permits 346,205 137,099 40% 625,907 367,705 182,157 50% Intergovernmental 673,248 197,158 29% 733,951 766,150 190,093 25% Charges for Services 767,950 253,003 33% 857,163 773,950 168,941 22% Fines 100,750 25,588 25% 88,600 100,750 19,998 20% Investment Income 75,000 (8,631) -12% 43,747 75,000 (4,811) -6% Miscellaneous 116,800 63,908 55% 194,802 124,300 89,524 72% Transfers In 196,930 196,930 100% 196,930 196,930 196,930 100% Total Revenues $ 10,390,411 $ 865,322 8% S 10,958,868 $ 10,825139 S 842,884 8% 2016 1 2017 EXPENDITURES Budget Apr YTD %Bud YE - Unaudited Budget Apr YTD %Bud GENERAL GOVERNMENT Miscellaneous 31,728 - 0% 258,577 31,728 4,500 14% Mayor and Council $ 88,780 $ 47,176 53% $ 86,990 $ 89,991 $ 46,304 51% Administration 192,778 61,748 32% 187,876 199,541 62,376 31% Newsletter 26,000 10,477 40% 22,731 26,000 - 8,827 34% Human Resources 35,260 8,825 25% 13,403 27,913 9,327 33% Attorney 187,640 46,226 25% 184,990 191,360 46,979 25% City Clerk 157,075 52,814 34% 148,338 148,599 51,321 35% Elections 82,919 18,633 22% 64,433 63,881 3,430 5% Finance 261,016 92,083 35% 252,563 268,129 95,760 36% Assessing 150,000 143,883 96% 146,472 150,000 145,367 97% Information Services 173,483 49,145 28% 151,386 180,722 54,587 30% Planning & Zoning 435,606 137,048 31% 414,141 462,212 122,816 27% Engineering 509,514 163,989 32% 511,074 535,715 167,022 31% Facility Management 568,201 128,570 23% 408,250 681,733 150,044 22% Total General Gov 2,868,272 960,617 33% 2,592,647 3,025,796 964,160 32 PUBLICSAFETY Miscellaneous 31,728 - 0% 258,577 31,728 4,500 14% Police Protection 2,936,467 734,117 25% 2,936,467 2,962,551 740,638 25% Fire Protection 1,294,795 379,860 29% 1285,416 1,422,522 426,678 30% Protective Inspection 441,807 135,725 31% 424,247 446,688 139,574 31% Civil Defense 22,982 5,955 26% 17,495 24,847 5,786 23% Animal Control 7,950 906 11% 3,700 5,950 542 9% Total Public Safety 4,704,001 1,256 563 27% 4,667,325 4,862,558 1,313,218 27 PUBLIC WORKS Miscellaneous 31,728 - 0% 258,577 31,728 4,500 14% Streets and Highways 656,237 213,868 33% 686,087 614,668 188,356 31% Snow and Ice Removal 563,587 261,450 46% 468,174 547,777 229,585 42% Street Signs 204,193 48,841 24% 167,283 215,244 62,842 29% Traffic Signals 35,000 5,578 16% 27,919 37,000 7,031 19% Street Lighting 36,400 8,904 24% 37,089 38,400 6,813 18% Street Lights - Billed 217,500 50,395 23% 200,509 217,500 35,486 16% Park & Recreation 1,257,247 380,941 30% 1,247,501 1,275,530 324,576 25% Natural Resource Preservation 10,096 50 0% 7,255 12,697 485 4% Recycling 130,927 22,973 32% 124,860 122,221 44,326 36% Total Public Works 3,111,187 993,000 32% 2,966,677 3,081,037 899,500 29% OTHER Miscellaneous 31,728 - 0% 258,577 31,728 4,500 14% Youth Services 38,600 24,500 63% 24,500 38,600 0% Total Other 70,328 24,500 35% 283,077 70328 4,500 6% Total Expenditures $ 10,753,788 S 3,234,680 30% S 10,509,726 $ 11,039,719 $ 3,181,378 299 NET INCREASE (DECREASE) $ (363,377) $ (2,369,358) $ 449,142 $ (214,580) S (2,338,494) �g^ i NDOVE 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W.. ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 • (763) 755-5100 FAX (763) 755-8923 • WWW.ANDOVERMN.GOV TO: Mayor and Councilmembers FROM: Jim Dickinson, City Administrator SUBJECT: April 2017 City Investments Review DATE: May 23, 2017 INTRODUCTION Summary reporting of the City Investment portfolio to the Governing body is a recommended financial practice and often viewed positively by rating agencies. Furthermore, the City of Andover Investment Policy recommends the Finance Director presents to the City Council at least quarterly the type of investments held by the City. DISCUSSION Attached is the Investment Maturities Summary for April 2017, the April 2017 Investment Detail Report, and the April 2017 Money Market Funds Report. These attachments are intended to assist with discussion when reviewing the April 2017 investments. ACTION REQUESTED Informational. The Council is requested to review and provide feedback to staff. submitted, Attachments Investment Maturities - April 2017 Investment Maturities (in Years) Credit Fair Less Than More Than Investment Type Rating _ Value 1 1 -5 6-10 10 Money market funds N/A $ 1,664,006 $ 1,664,006 $ $ $ MN Municipal Money Market Fund (4M) N/A _ 1,005,197 1,005,197 - - - Premier Banks Money Market Fund N/A 261,028 261,028 Certificates of deposit FDIC 11,609,782 7,760,540 3,849,242 Local governments A/Al/A2 562,453 81,400 316,853 60,529 103,671 AAI/AA2/AA3 7,250,358 1,456,795 4,024,975 1,352,531 416,056 AAA 3,508,947 457,776 2,669,681 381,489 - - 218,708 _ - - State governments A/Al/A2 - - - AAl/AA2/AA3 2,535,102 1,197,917 1,118,477 AAA 865,334 261,760 398,976 204,598 - U.S. agencies AAA 4,217,843 799,354 3,295,923 - 122,566 FNMA REMIC N/A 2,160 - 2,160 - - U.S. agencies N/A 1,460,522 720,410 740,112 - - Total investments $ 34,942,730 $ 15,666,182 $ 16,416,401 $ 2,217,855 $ 642,293 Deposits 1,222,894 Total cash and investments $ 36,165,625 April 2017 Investment Detail Description Cusip Number Credit Rating/F DIC # Type Purchase Price Carrying Cost Maturity Amount Interest Rate Current Market Value Interest Paid Date Acquired Coupon Date Maturity/ Due Date Bank of India NY 06279HWi6 095577DY5 33648 90160 _CD CD 245,000.00 245,000.00 245,000.00 245,000.00 245,000.00 245,000.00 245,000.00 245,000.00 0.650% 0.650% 244,995.10 244,995.10 maturity maturity 02/23117 none 05124/17 Blue Hills Bk Boston MA CIT Bank NA _ Bank of America RBS Citizens NA Providence RI 01/25117 none 05125/17 _ 12_556LAA4 06051VZY5 75524KFZ2 58978 CD 245,000.00 245,000.00 245,000.00 245,000.00 245,000.00 0.650% 0.700% 245,012.25 245,009.80 maturity 05/31/16 none 05/31/17 3510 _CD CD maturity 08/02116 none 06102/17 57957 245,000.00 245,000.00 0.700% 244,997.55 maturity 12/07116 none 06/07/17 State Bank India NY 8562845135 33682 29700 CD CD 245,000.00 245,000.00 245,000.00 245,000.00 245,000.00 245,000.00 0.750% 0.650% 245,009.80 244,977.95 maturity maturity 12/12/16 12/14/16 none none 06/12/17 06/14/17 Bank of Ruston LA 06427LBV6 Bank of China NY 06426TZ69 33653 CD 245,000.00 245,000.00 245,000.00 0.700% 244,992.65Lfenu,I 12115/16 none 06/15/17 Berkshire Bk Pittsfield MA 084601GP2 23621 CD 245,000.00 245,000.00 245,000.00 0.750% 244,997.5512/30/16 none 06/30/17 Patriot Bank NA 70337MAR9 33928 CD 245,000.00 245,000.00 245,000.00 0.850% 245,039.2012130/16 none 06/30/17 Capital One NA 14042E400 4297 CD 248,000.00 245,000.00 248,000.00 245,000.00 248,000.00 245,000.00 1.150% 248,121.52 07/15115 01/15/16 07117117 Investors Savings Bank 46176PFF7 28892 CD 0.650% 244,990.2007/21/16 none 07/21/17 _ Champlain Natl Bk Elizbt 158716AU4 7356 CD 245,000.00 245,000.00 245,000.00 0.700% 244,958.3512/29/16 none 07/28/17 First Foundation Bank 32026UCN4 58647 CD 245,000.00 245,000.00 245,000.00 245,000.00 249,000.00 245,000.00 0.700% 0.850% 0.900% 1.050% 244,879.9512/16116 one 09/15/17 Bank Leumi USA 063248GF9 19842 CD 245,000.00 245,000.00 245,012.25 maturity semi-annual 12/22/16 none 12/29/16 02/22116 09/22/17 _ Mercantil CommerceBank Fanners & Merchants Svgs Bk 5_8733ADB2 22953 CD 245,000.00 245,000.00 244,975.50 07112116 01122116 09/29/17 30856PAG1 9298 CD 249,000.00 249,000.00 249,505.47 monthly 10/23/17 Washington Trust Company 940637HU8 23623 CD 245,000.00 245,000.00 245,000.00 0.750% 244,786.85 maturity 12/05/16 none 11/17117 _ 1 Year CD - Premier Bank 1 Year CD - Premier Bank Rochester 1 Year CD - Premier Bank MN Valley Cent Svgs Bk Reading OH Safra National Sk BankUniled NA Bank Baroda New York First Bank of Highland TCF National Bank 1091003210 2055214401 3041574901 91944RAE8 78658OD59 066519CT4 06062QY99 319141EL7 21714_ 33202 33204 28555 26876 _ 58979 33681 CD CD CD CD CD _CD CD 251,504.10 246,474.02 246,474.02 150,000.00 245,000.00 245,000.00 245,000.00 245,000.00 251,504.10 251,504.10 0.700% 251,504.10 maturity maturity maturity monthly maturity maturity 12/16/16 12/16/16 12/16/16 12/22/14 none none none 01/22/15 12/16/17 12/16/17 12116117 12122117 246,474.02 246,474.02 150,000.00 245,000.00 245,000.00 245,000.00 245,000.00 246,474.02 246,474.02 150,000.00 245,000.00 0.600% 0.600% 1.250% 1.000% 1.100% 1.000% 0.850% 246,474.02 246,474.02 150,291.00 245,071.05 245,232.75 12129/16 none 12128117 245,000.00 245,000.00 12/29/16 none 12/29/17 245,066.15 maturity 03131117 none 01/02118 02/22/18 02/22/18 17470 CD 245,000.00 244,627.60 maturity 02122117 02/22117 none none 872278YZ3 28330 CD 245,000.00 245,000.00 245,000.00 245,000.00 0.850% 244,627.60 maturity Plains Commerce Bank 72651LBM5 1678 CD 245,000.00 245,000.00 0.850% 244,600.65 maturity 02/28/17 none 02/28/18 Home Savings &Loan Co 43731 LCF4 28114 CD 245,000.00 245,000.00 245,000.00 0.900% 244,664.35 maturity 03110117 none 03/09/18 Old National Bank 680061GYB 3B32 CD 245,000.00 245,000.00 245,000.00 0.950% 244,742.75 maturity 03/15/17 none 03/15/18 _ S & T Bank 783861CJ4 11124 CD 245,000.00 245,000.00 245,000.00 1.000% 244,850.55 maturity 03/15/17 none 03115118 Synovus Bank_ _ Augusta ME 87164DHW3 873 CD local 244,999.78 11,250.00 244,999.78 11,250.00 245,000.00 10,000.00 1.000% 5.250% 245,056.35 10,146.90 semi-annual 12/05/16 03107/12 none none 04/13/18 051411 ND4 A3 10101117 Kaufman TX 486206KL8 A3 local 72,922.50 72,922.50 70,000.00 4.000% 71,253.00 semi-annual 06128116 02/15117 02/15/18 McKinney TX 581646Y91 AA1 local 126,856.25 126,856.25 125,000.00 1.472% 125,132.50 semi-annual 05120115 none 08/15/17 Reg] Transprin Dist, Denver 759136RR7 AA1 local 254,312.50 254,312.50 250,000.00 2.000% 250,845.00 semi-annual 07/12/16 11101113 11/01/17 Dane County WI 236091M92 AA1 local 106,487.00 106,487.00 100,000.00 2.450% 100,679.00 semi-annual 07/16112 none 12/01/17 Minneapolis MN 6O374YF93 AA1 local 220,938.00 220,938.00 200,000.00 4.000% 204,850.00 semi-annual semiannual 03/04/14 none none 03/01/18 _ Waterloo IA 941647KE8 AA2 local 105,594.00 105,594.00 100,000.00 3.500% 100,222.00 02/24/15 06/01/17 Prior Lake MN 742617CB7 AA2 local 230,000.00 230,000.00 230,000.00 1.000% 229,751.60 semi-annual 05/14/15 12115115 12115/17 Hopkins Minn ISD#270 439881 HC0 AA2 local 95,278.40 95,278.40 80,000.00 5.250°k 82,284.00 semi-annual 04/30/12 08/01/09 02/01118 Orono MN ISD #278 687136LA7 AA2 local 115,511.00 115,511.00 110,000.00 4.000%1 112,568.50 semi-annual 08/04116 02/01/17 02/01/18 7,760,539.98 CD Description Cusp Number Credit Rating/F DIC # Type Purchase Price Carrying Cost Maturity Amount Interest Rate Current Market Value Interest Paid Date Acquired Coupon Date Maturity/ Due Date Tucson AZ Tennessee Valley Auth 898711033 AA3 local 254,202.50 254,202.50 250,000.00 85,000.00 2.139% 5.500% 250,462.50 85,802.40 semi-annual semi-annual 12/09/15 none 07/01/17 07/18/17 880591FA6 AAA local 93,153.11 93,153.11 06/01/09 01/18/08 Washington County MN 937791KL4 AAA local 115,000.00 115,000.00 115,000.00 3.750% 116,401.85 semi-annual 07/01/10 01/01/11 01/01/18 Saint Louis Park MN 791740WC3 AAA local local 112,114.00 112,114.00 100,000.00 3.850% 101,873.00 semi-annual 12/22111 none 02/01/18 Bandera TX ISD 059_851HR9 AAA 154.890.00 154,890.00 150,000.00 4.000% 153,699.00 semi-annual 12122116 none 02/15/18 _ Minnesota St 604129F92 AA1 state 811,520.00 811,520.00 800,000.00 2.000% 801,888.00 215,602.00 180,426.60 semi-annual semi-annual semi-annual semi-annual 07105/16 none 08/01/17 _ New Hampshire St Hsg Kansas St Dev Fin Auth Tennessee State 64469DWUl 485429X90 880541 QM2 AA2 AA3 AAA state state state 215,819.15 182,743.20 201,894.00 215,819.15 182,743.20 215,000.00 1.789% 1.877% 2.326% 12/09/15 07/01/16 01/01/18 160,000.00 07/12/16 none 04/15/18 201,894.00 200,000.00 200,712.00 10/26111 02/01/12 08/01117 Virginia Sl Res Auth Infrastructure 92817QKSO AAA state 61,500.00 61,500.00 60,000.00 4.710% 61,048.20 100,007.00 199,844.00 249,995.00 semi-annual semiannual 02/09/17 11/01/09 11/01117 Fed Farm Credit Bank 3133EATE8 AAA US 99,647.00 99,647.00 199,800.00 251,187.50 100,000.00 200,000.00 250,000.00 0.900% 0.790% 1.000% 11/04/13 12/08/12 06/08/17 Fed Farm Credit Bank _ _ Fed Home Ln Bank 3133ECA95 3130A15P9 AAA US 199,800.00 semi-annual semi-annual 12/08/15 03118/13 09/18/17 AAA US 251,187.50 07/08/16 none 09/26/17 _ Fed Farm Credit Bank 3133EFJMO AAA US 249,750.00 249,750.00 250,000.00 0.930% 249,507.50 semi-annual 05/25/16 04/13/16 04/13118 FICO Strip Pdn Zero Coupon 31771KACJ US 295,932.00 295,932.00 300,000.00 298,635.00 maturity 10/23/15 none 10/06/17 FICO Strip Pm -0 Zero Coupon 31771 FADS US 194,572.00 194,572.00 200,000.00 199,090.00 maturity maturity 03/16/15 none 10106/17 FICO Strip Cpn-E Zero Coupon 31771JXM7 US 215,452.16 215,452.16 224,000.00 222,685.12 12/11/14 none 11102/17 12,735,951.65 Capital One Bank (USA) 140420ZQ6 33954 CD 245,000.00 245,000.00 245,000.00 0.900% 244,299.30 244,443.85 245,735.00 242,949.35 249,232.88 249,166.19 242,640.65 semi-annual semi-annual semi-annual semi-annual semi-annual semi-annual quarterly semi-annual 07/13116 07113/16 01122/16 06/30/16 01/13/17 01/13/17 07/22/16 12/30/16 07/13118 07/13118 01/22/19 07/01/19 Key Bank National Association _ BMW_ Bank of North America Ally Bank Midvale Utah Barclays Bank Synchrony Bank JP Morgan Chase Bank NA PrivateBank & Trust Co 49306SWQ5 05580ADR2 02006LF32 06740KHB6 87164WBT4 48125Y51.4 17534 CD 245,000.00 245,000.00 245,000.00 0.850% 1.600% 1.200% 2.050% 2.050% 1.100% 2.000% _35141 57803 57203 27314 628 CD CD CD CD _CD CD 245,000.00 245,000.00 247,000.00 247,000.00 245,000.00 245,000.00 245,000.00 245,000.00 247,000.00 247,000.00 245,000.00 247,000.00 245,000.00 247,000.00 247,000.00 245,000.00 247,000.00 07103114 01/02/15 07/02/19 07111/14 01/11115 10115/16 07/11/19 07/15/16 07/15119 74267GUQ8 33306 247,000.00 249,151.37 07/21/14 01/21/15 07/22/19 Goldman Sachs Bank USA 38147JU59 33124 CO 247,000.00 247,000.00 247,000.00 2.050% 248,931.54 semi-annual 07/23/14 01/23/15 07123119 _ _ _ First Federal Svgs Bk _ Victory Bank _ Third Federal Sav & Loan 32021YCH4 29690 CD 249,000.00 249,000.00 249,000.00 1.500% 2.000% 251,248.47 monthly 01/21/16 02/21/16 08/21/19 92644LAB8 58615 CD 247,000.00 247,000.00 247,000.00 249,032.81 semi-annual 09/24/14 03/24/15 09/24/19 88413QAW8 30012 CD 128,000.00 128,000.00 128,000.00 2.000% 129,290.24 semi-annual 11/24114 06/24/15 11/25/19 Celtic Bank 15118RJMO 57056 CD 247,000.00 247,000.00 247,000.00 2.050% 250,391.31 semi-annual 12/20113 06/20/14 12/20/19 Steams Bank NA _ _ _ Citizens Alliance Bank 857894PB9 10988 CD 247,000.00 247,000.00 249,000.00 247,000.00 249,000.00 1.000% 2.000% 249,484.82 252,217.08 semi-annual monthly 12126/14 06127/14 06/26/15 07/27/14 12/26119 06/26/20 17318LAP9 1402 CD 249,000.00 Enerbank USA _ Elbow Lake MN 29266NA31 57293 CD 249,000.00 249,000.00 170,045.70 249,000.00 165,000.00 2.100% 2.750% 251,026.86 monthly 07/18/14 12/08/14 08/18/14 none 07/20120 284281KC5 A local 170,045.70 168,717.45 semi-annual 12/01/19 Oneida County NY _ Junction City Kansas Farmington MN _ Al local 45,755.20 45,755.20 40,000.00 6.250% 43,042.00 semi-annual 08116/10 none 04/15/19 _6824543R2 481502F72 A2 local 101,558.00 101,558.00 100,000.00 5.500% 105,094.00 semi-annual 05128/08 03/01/09 09101/18 311297W84 AA local 102,787.00 102,787.00 100,000.00 2.000% 101,723.00 07/06/16 none 02/01/19 Rios Cnty MN Racine WI 762698GK8 AA local 45,466.80 45,466.80 40,000.00 4.400% 42,035.60 _semi-annual semi-annual semi-annual 03/07/12 none 02101/19 7500216D4 AA- local 101,792.00 101,792.00 100,000.00 2.100%1 100,751.00 01/24/12 06/01/12 06/01/18 Indiana St Bond Bank 454624540 AA+ local 146,123.60 146,123.60 140,000.00 4.302% 144,548.60 semi-annual 12/30/16 none 08/01/18 Minnetrista MN 604229KE3 AA+ local 10,000.00 10,000.00 10,000.00 2.450% 10,009.10 semi-annual 10/10/13 08/01/14 02/01119 1,995,971.25 local 1,459,676.80 state 1,519,763.62 US Less Than 1 Year 3,849,241.72 CD Description Cusfp Number Credit RatinglF DIC # Type Purchase Price Carrying Cost Maturity Amount Interest Rate Current Market Value Interest Paid Date Acquired Coupon Date Maturity I Due Date Ramsey MN 751813PB6 AA+ local 158,677.85 158,677.85 145,000.00 4.500% 145,377.00 204,972.30 semi-annual semi-annual 02/16/12 04/01/16 04/01/19 Rothsay MN ISD #850 T78731AZ2 AA+ local 208,640.25 208,640.25 195,000.00 3.000% 07/06/16 none 02/01/20 Saint Paul MN Pon Auth 793067CC1 AA+ 79,756.80 79,756.80 80,000.00 2.000% 80,116.80 semi-annual 01110/17 09/01/17 03/01/20 Steams Cc MN 857896MH4 AA+ _local local 276,875.00 276.875.00 250,000.00 4.500% 250,565.00 semi-annual 04/17/13 none 06/01/20 Minnetrista MN 604229KG8 AA+ _ AA- _ AA1 _ AA1 _ AA1 local 161,038.40 161,038.40 160,000.00 3.100% 160,160.00 semi-annual semi-annual 10/10/13 08/01/14 02/01/21 Greenway MN ISD #31 _ New York City NY Transitional Scott County IA _ Minneapolis MN 39678LDF6 local 27,593.50 27.593.50 25,000.00 100,000.00 100,000.00 5.000% 1.600% 4.400% 26,465.50 07/09/13 none 03/15/21 64971QTU7 809486EZ2 60374YS73 local 100,440.00 112,617.00 111,898.00 100.440.00 112,617.00 100,201.00 semi-annual semi-annual semi-annual 01/27/17 none 05/01/18 local local 102,315.00 10/31/12 06/05/12 12/01/12 06/01/18 111,898.00 100,000.00 3.250% 103,267.00 12101111 12/01/18 _ Cedar Rapids IA 150528RM1 AAi local 217,672.00 217,672.00 200,000.00 3.000% 205,972.00 semi-annual 06/11/13 12101/13 06/01/19 Minneapolis MN 60374YS81 4095582J1 596782RX2 2500971-121 AAi AA1 _ AAi AAi AA2 local 278,632.50 278,632.50 250,000.00 3.500% 261,725.00 semi-annual 02/26/13 none 12/01/19 Hampton VA _ Middleton WI Des Moines IA Area Cmnty_ Col local 100,836.00 100,836.00 100,000.00 2.209% 101,138.00 semi-annual 01/20/16 none 04/01/20 _local local 106,979.00 106,979.00 100,000.00 3.750% 102,751.00 semi-annual 02/24/15 none 09/01/20 50,606.00 50,606.00 50,000.00 2.450% 51,178.50 semi-annual 11/10/14 12/01/14 06/01/21 Orange Beach ALA 68406PHF1 local 241,689.60 241,689.60 240,000.00 4.400% 247,744.80 semi-annual 0_8/05110 02/01/11 02101/19 Sioux City IA 829458FC7 AA2 AA2 local 156,100.50 156,100.50 155,000.00 2.000% 2.000% 3.150% 156,481.80 50,444.00 semi-annual semiannual 12/22/16 none 06101/19 06101/19 10/01/19 02/01/20 05/01/20 03/01/21 12/01/18 02/01/20 Waterloo IA 941647PA1 local 50,559.50 50,559.50 50,000.00 06/27/13 12/01/13 Western Lake Superior MN 958522WU4 _ _ AA2 AA2 local 100,000.00 100,000.00 100,000.00 103,128.00 semi-annual 08/16/11 07/17/13 08121115 03110/17 07/16/12 11114/11 09113111 06/09/11 06/26/13 04/01/12 02/01/14 none none none none Portsmouth VA _ 73723RSL8 local 286,268.00 286,268.00 295,000.00 2.400% 1.740% 3.250% 3.800% 4.650% 4.650% 3.980% 3.100% 299,823.25 109,754.70 258,322.50 193,170.00 101,632.00 100,361.00 108,842.00 245,152.50 207,642.00 35,715.75 semi-annual semi-annual semi-annual maturity semi-annual semi-annual semi-annual maturity semi-annual Brunswick Cnty 117061VHI AA2 AA2 AA3 AA3 AA3 AA3 AAA _ AAA local 108,967.10 108,967.10 110,000.00 250,000.00 Fan Du Lac Cnty WI Kane McHenry Cook & De Kalb Zero Cpn _ _ Moorhead MN Davenport Iowa Whitewater Wis Brownsville TX ISD Zero Coupon King Cnty WA 344442KK3 local local local local local local 259,715.00 259,715.00 -157,328. - 00 108,820.0 111,948.00 109,541.00 229,640.00 224,634.00 484080MB9 6161412R7 238388GS5 966204KA6 116421E46 157,328.00 108,820.00 111,948.00 109,541.00 229,640.00 200,000.00 100,000.00 100,000.00 100,000.00 none 06/01/20 none 12/01/20 250,000.00 none 08/15/18 49474E31.5 local 224,634.00 200,000.00 03/27/12 none 12/01/18 Minnetonka MN ISD #276 604195RA7 AAA local 37,433.20 37,433.20 35.000.00 semi-annual 12/22/11 none 02/01/19 _ Palm Beach Cnty FLA 696497TR7 _ AAA local 256,504.60 256,504.60 220,000.00 5.898% 229,710.80 semi-annual 07/06/11 none 06/01119 Tenn Val Auth Cpn Strip Zero Cpn 88059EWZ3 W local 262,890.00 262,890.00 300,000.00 289,500.00 maturity 12/27/13 none 06/15/19 Norwalk Conn 668844DS9 AAA local 122,464.80 122,464.80 120,000.00 4.050% 123,752.40 semi-annual 08/04/10 08/01/11 08/01/19 Greensboro NC 39546OV21 AAA local 366,832.80 366,832.80 360,000.00 3.263% 371,181.60 semi-annual 07/15/11 none 10/01/19 _ Saint Paul MN Pon Auth 793028WS6 AAA _AAA AAA _local local 201,806.00 201,806.00 200,000.00 2.000% 202.196.00 semi-annual 12/22/16 08/01/17 02/01/20 Woodbury MN 97913PCQ7 123,037.35 123,037.35 115,000.00 3.250% 117,094.15 semi-annual 12/22/11 none 02/01/20 Dallas TX Indpl Sch Dist 235308QK2 local 116,900.00 116,900.00 100,000.00 4.450% 107,832.00 semi-annual 04/16/12 08/15/11 02/15/20 Tenn Valley Auth Zero Cpn 88059EHD9 _ _ AAA local 263,970.00 263,970.00 300,000.00 283.602.00 maturity maturity 03/11/13 none 05/01/20 Tenn Val Auth Cpn Stip Zero Cpn 88059EMX9 _ AAA local 88,133.00 88,133.00 100,000.00 94,071.00 03118113 none 07/15/20 McAllen TX Dev Corp 579086AW9 AAA local 175,000.00 175,000.00 175,000.00 1.400% 172,257.75 semi-annual 07/26/16 02/15/17 08/15/20 Baltimore Cnty MD 05914FME7 _ AAA local 51,290.00 51,290.00 50,000.00 2.097% 50,166.00 semi-annual 08/31/16 none 08/01/21 New York St Mtge Agy 64988RHGO AAA local 100,000.00 100,000.00 100,000.00 2.375% 99,707.00 semi-annual 10/27/15 04/01/16 10/01/21 Columbus OH 199492CS6 _AAA AA local 39,956.40 39,956.40 40,000.00 2.133%1 40,100.40 semi-annual 02/20/15 none 12/01/21 Washington State 939758DL9 state 205,804.00 205,804.00 200,000.00 4.500% 207,330.00 semi-annual 01124/12 04/01/12 10/01/18 Massachusetts State 57582P2T6 AA1 state 199,744.00 199,744.00 200,000.00 2.090% 201,594.00 semi-annual 12/17/14 11/01114 05/01/20 7,011,510.25 local Description Cusip Number Credit RatinglF DIC Type Purchase Price Carrying Cost Maturity Amount Interest Rate Current Market Value Interest Paid Date Acquired Coupon Date Maturity/ Due Date New Hampshire St Hag_ 64469OWV9 34074GDH4 AA2 AA3 state state 120,715.20 120,715.20 279,439.80 100,000.00 214,954.00 26,742.50 103,089.00 120,000.00 1.939% 120,652.80 semi-annual semi-annual 12/09/15 07/01/16 07/01/18 _ Florida St Hurricane 279,439.80 270,000.00 2.995% 277,465.50 11/10/15 07/01/13 07/01/20 Minnesota St Colleges & Univ 6D414FPJ3 AA3 stale 100,000.00 100,000.00 2.000% 3.517% 2.970% 99,983.00 semi-annual 02/26/15 10/01/15 10/01/20 Connecticut State Georgia Stale _ Texas State _ Tennessee State Virginia State Kentucky St Hsg Corp 20772JQN5 373384RQ1 AA3 AAA state state 214,954.00 26,742.50 200,000.00 211,452.00 semi-annual 05/27116 02/15/14 08/15/21 25,000.00 100,000.00 25,520.00 semi-annual 02/08/12 none 10/01/18 AAA state 103,089.00 2.894% 102,250.00 semi-annual 08/10/11 04/01/12 10/01/18 _882722,151 880541QQ3 928109XD4 49130TSHO AAA_ AAA AAA stale state state 48,218.85 22,126.00 48,218.85 45,000.00 3.178% 4.100% 2.780% 46,961.55 semi-annual semi-annual semi-annual 08/30/16 02/07/12 03/29/17 02/01/12 none none 08/01/20 22,126.00 20,000.00 200,000.00 20,922.60 203,322.00 06101/21 203,458.00 203,458.00 07/01121 Fed Farm Credit Bank _ Fed Home Ln Mtg Corp Med Tem/ Note Fed Fane Credit Bank Fed Farm Credit Bank _ Fed Nall Mtg Assn 3133EHDQ3 3134G3ZK9 31331Y4S6 3133EG_K87 3136GOY70 AAA AAA US US 200,042.00 200,000.00 200,042.00 200,000.00 200,000.00 200,000.00 1.180% 1.200% 200,020.00 200,188.00 semi-annual 03/30/17 07/30/12 0627/17 06/27/18 01/30/13 07/30/18 08/01/18 09/24/18 01/30/19 AAA US 114,000.00 114,000.00 100,000.00 200,000.00 5.050% 1.020% 104,688.00 semi-annual semi-annual 09/11/13 03/30/17 10/30112 none none AAA US 199,462.00 199,462.00 199,322.00 199,092.00 AAA US 199,300.00 199,30000 200,000.00 1.080% 01/30/13 _ Fed Farm Credit Bank _ _ _ _ Fed Home Ln Mtg Corp Med Term Note Fed Home Ln Mtg Corp Med Term Note 3133EC5N0 AAA US 99,587.00 99,587.00 100,000.00 1.250% 99,569.00 198,044.00 249,930.00 semi-annual 01/07113 03/04/13 03/04/19 0823/19 09/30/19 313413961.16 AAA US 200,000.00 200,000.00 249,835.00 200,000.00 250,000.00 1.050% quarterly _ semi-annual 0823116 11/23/16 3134GALU6 AAA US 249,835.00 0.800% 0329/17 03/30/17 RFCSP Strip Principal Zero Coupon Fed Farm Credit Bank 76116FAA5 AAA US 185,568.00 185,568.00 200,000.00 192,670.00 maturity 0722/15 05/25/16 11/02115 12/30/16 07/22/15 12/28/16 07/30/03 none 11/25/16 none 06/30/17 08/10/15 06/28/17 none none none none 10/15/19 11/25119 11/29/19 12/30/19 02110/20 12/28/20 3133EGBKO AAA US 199,600.00 199,600.00 950,527.00 200,000.00 99,500.00 200,000.00 2,180.68 529,947.00 1,453.48 93,140.00 200,000.00 1,000,000.00 1.300% 1.700% 1.500% 1.850% 4.500% 4.500% 198,582.00 semi-annual maturity semi-annual semi-annual semi-annual monthly maturity monthly Fed Home Ln Mtg Corp Zero Cpn _ Fed Nall Mtg Assn Fed Home Ln Bank Fed Nall Mtg Assn Fed Nall Mtg Assn Remic FICO Strip_ Cpn Zero Coupon Fed Home Ln Mtg Corp _ _ FICOSfip 03 Zero Coupon_ 313400BV4 AAA US 950,527.00 954,960.00 3136G4KL6 3130A3XL3 3136G4JM6 31393EAL3 AAA US 200,000.00 99,500.00 200,000.00 204,187.50 529,947.00 153,656.25 200,000.00 200,012.00 AAA AAA _ _ US US US US US 100,000.00 200,000.00 2,135.95 550,000.00 1,418.90 99,892.00 198,954.00 2,159.98 543,944.50 1,433.88 97,783.00 0825/18 31771EAA9 31393VMQ1 06/09/14 06/30/03 12/29/14 04/17/15 05/11/18 06/15/18 31771 C2G9 _ US 93,140.00 100,000.00 maturity 12/27/18 FICO Strip Cpn Zero Coupon 31358BAA6 us 94,480.00 94,480.00 100,000.00 _ 96,951.00 maturity 02/01119 3.000% 4.000% 6.000% 3.850% 16,416,400.76 Kaufman TX 486206KR5 A3 local 61,821.00 61,821.00 60,000.00 60,528.60 semi-annual 0628/16 02/15/17 02/1523 Chaska MN 161663653 AA local 104,657.00 104,657.00 100,000.00 103,234.00 107,203.00 semi-annual semi-annual semi-annual 09/08Ita none 02/0124 Mitchell SD Sch Dist #17-2 606687EHO AA local 116,702.00 116,702.00 100,000.00 1220/11 06_/15/19 08/01/14 06/1524 Minnetrista MN 604229KJ2 AA+ local 40,000.00 40,000.00 40,000.00 40,051.60 10/10/13 02/0123 _ Savage Minn 80465PAN4 AA+ local 198,018.00 198,018.00 200,000.00 4.800% 206,450.00 semi-annual 06/17110 02/01/11 02/01/24 _ Lake City Minn ISD #813 508084DW7 AA+ local 103,933.00 103,933.00 100,000.00 5.000% 104,113.00 semi-annual 05/11/11 none 02/01/25 _ Milaca Minn ISD #912 598699NT9 AA+ local 106,941.00 106,941.00 100,000.00 5.650% 106,326.00 semi-annual 07122/11 none none 02/01127 Minneapolis MN 60374YG68 AAt kcal 110,419.00 110,419.00 100,000.00 4.700% 105,269.00 semi-annual 10131/11 03/0123 Minneapolis MN 60374YG76 AA1 local 72,201.35 72,201.35 65,000.00 4.800% 68,410.55 semi-annual 12/09/14 none 03/01/24 _ Alexandria MN ISD#206 015131LQ6 AA2 local 279,760.50 279,760.50 270,000.00 3.000% 280,662.30 semi-annual 01/21/15 none /12/01/23 Duluth MN 264438ZL9 AA2 local 29,767.20 29,767.20 30,000.00 2.625% 29,147.70 semi-annual 12/05/12 08/01/13 02/0125 _ _ W Palm Beach Fl. _ 955116BE7 AA3 Ictal 101,245.00 101,245.00 100,000.00 2.264% 98,471.00 semi-annual 07105/16 10101/16 10/01/22 Hawkins Cnty TN 420218PL7 AA3 local 111,480.00 111,460.00 100,000.00 4.800% 103,193.00 semi-annual 03/13/12 none 05/01/24 1,517,453.45 state 4,038,195.36 US 1- 5 Years Description Cuslp Number Credit Rating/F DIC # Type Purchase Price Carrying Cost Maturity Amount Interest Rate Current Market Value Interest Paid Date Acquired Coupon Date Maturity) Due Date Tennessee Valley Auth Ser E Joe Deposit- National Sports Center 880591CJ9 local local stale 121,500.00 250,000.00 217,800.00 204,444.00 105,024.00 102,750.00 121,500.00 100,000.00 6.750% 131,489.00 250,000.00 semi-annual maturity 03/19/09 none 11101/25 none _AAA 250,000.00 217,800.00 204,444.00 250,000.00 200,000.00 200,000.00 8.206% 2.780% 5.550% 6.430% 02106/08 08/30N0 none 07/01/10 01/01/26 07/01/22 Florida St Dept Environmental Georgia State3733842(18 -- — _ - Itasca County Minn _ Van Buren Mich Public Schools Will County IL Cmnty Zero Coupon 34160WUA0 AA3 218,708.00 semiannual AAA state — _local local local 204,598.00 semi-annual 12/13116 none 02/01/23 465452GP9 2,217,864.75 semi-annual semi-annual maturity semi-annual — 105,024.00 102,750.00 103,671.00 108,236.00 307,820.00 A 100,000.00 07/12/11 07117/09 none 11/01/09 none none 02/01128 920729HD5 AA1 AA2 100,000.00 500,000.00 05/01129 969078QM9 159,000.00 159,000.00 08125/09 11/01/27 Fed Farm Credit Bank 31331VLC8 AAA US 106,030.45 106,030.45 100,000.00 5.250% 122,566.00 02/26/10 04121/28 642,293.00 32,012,500.18 1,794,548.75 local 423,306.00 state 6 -10 Years 519,727.00 local 122,566.00 US 10+ Years INVESTMENT SCHEDULE - Money Market Funds April 30, 2017 Description. Current Market Value. YTD Interest - Wells Fargo I Wells Fargo Government Money Market Fund 1 $1,664,005.841 $896.68 4M I 4M 1,897.491 2.75 4M PLUS I 4M Plus 1 1,003,299.251 191.70 Premier Bank 1 I Premier Bank Money Market 261,027.661 214.43 Grand Total Money Market Funds $2,930,230.24 1 $1,305.56 Updated: 511512017