Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/23/2016C I T Y O F NDOVE 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. • ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 • (763) 755-5100 FAX (763) 755-8923 • WWW.ANDOVERMN.GOV Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda August 23, 2016 Andover City Hall Council Chambers 7:00 p.m. 1. Call to Order 2. Approval of Minutes — July 12, 2016 Regular Meeting Public Hearing — Preliminary Plat and Planned Unit Development Review of Preserve at Oak View — 16473 Crosstown Drive NW — Metrowide Development, LLC 4. Other Business 5. Adjournment 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. • ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 • (763) 755-5100 FAX (763) 755-8923 • WWW.CI.ANDOVER.MN.US TO: Planning and Zoning Commissioners FROM: Stephanie L. Hanson, City Planner SUBJECT: Approval of Minutes —July 12, 2016 Regular Meeting DATE: August 23, 2016 REQUEST The Planning and Zoning Commission is requested to approve the minutes from the July 12, 2016 regular meeting. 7 8 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSIONMEETING —JULY I2, 20I6 9 to The Regular Bi -Monthly Meeting of the Andover Planning and Zoning Commission was 11 called to order by Acting Chairperson Nemeth on July 12, 2016, 7:00 p.m., at the 12 Andover City Hall, 1685 Crosstown Boulevard NW, Andover, Minnesota. 13 14 Commissioners present: Koehissioners Timothy Hudson,, Scott 15 er IV, Kyle Nemeth, St e Peterson, son,and Jeff Sims 16 17 Commissioners absent: Chairperson Dean Daninger 18 19 Also present: Community Development Director Dave Carlberg 20 City Planner Stephanie Hanson 21 Associate Planner Brett Angell 22 Others 23 24 APPROVAL OFMINUTES. 25 26 May 10, 2016 27 28 Motion by Koehler, seconded by Cleven, to approve the minutes as presented. Motion 29 carried on a 4 -ayes, 0 -nays, 2 -present (Peterson and Hudson), 1 -absent vote (Daninger). 30 31 June 14, 2016 32 33 Acting Chairperson Nemeth requested the following edits: 34 - page 3, line 7, inserting the word "was" prior to the word "public." 35 - page 3, line 31 — inserting the word "a" prior to the word "review" 36 - page 4, line 5 — inserting an apostrophe to make the word "commission" 37 possessive, and inserting "the" prior to the word "lot' 38 39 Motion by Peterson, seconded by Hudson, to approve the minutes as presented. Motion 40 carried on a 5 -ayes, 0 -nays, 1 -present (Koehler), 1 -absent vote (Daninger). 41 42 PUBLIC HEARING. Preliminary Plat and PUD Amendment — Grey Oaks 9=h 43 Addition. 44 45 City Planner Hanson noted the purpose of this item is to hold a public hearing and take 46 input on the proposed preliminary plat and PUD with the Commission. Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes —July 12, 2016. Page 2 2 Ms. Hanson reported that RC Development proposes to construct 19 single family 3 detached townhomes to serve the 55 and older community. One additional lot is to be 4 8.33 acres in size and will be created as a common lot. The applicant is also requesting 5 an amendment to the previously approved Grey Oaks Planned Unit Development. 6 Originally, three 30 -unit apartment buildings were approved for this area. The property 7 is within the Municipal Urban Service Area and has access to municipal water and sewer. 8 The property is zoned M-2 Multiple Dwelling, as is the rest of the Grey Oaks 9 development. The single level homes are planned to be 1,645 square feet with 5 -foot side 10 yard setbacks from the lot line. They will be individually owned. A wetland area, 5.7 11 acres in size will be established as an easement area. The buildings will be similar color 12 and style to the current development. Trees will be cleared for construction, but a nice 13 buffer will be left behind the homes. Landscaping will be planted in the front of each lot. 14 15 Ms. Hanson asked to hold a public hearing. 16 17 Commissioner Peterson brought forward the fact that a PUD had been approved for 18 Estates at Arbor Oaks. Mr. Carlberg stated that work was expected to start on that 19 development in the late summer or early fall. 20 21 Commissioner Cleven referenced the July 7 memo regarding drainage and erosion 22 control plans. He noted that there were a lot of items pending, including hydrology 23 reports and wondered if any responses had been received. Ms. Hanson stated that the 24 Engineering Department feels it can move forward because the letter wasj 26 ust sent out 25 with the request. She commented that the developer has been quick on the turn -around. 27 Commissioner Cleven noted bracketed items in section 13-3-9 related to the City Code 28 and he asked about the "findings required" in order to approve a PUD. Ms. Hanson 29 stated they had been reviewed and accepted. 30 31 Commissioner Sims inquired about the homeowners association, inquiring if they would 32 be joining the existing association, or if it would be new. Ms. Hanson reported that the 33 homeowners association would be new and remain separate. 34 35 Commissioner Koehler inquired about the location of the electrical utilities and whether 36 they would be underground or overhead. Ms. Hanson replied that all utilities would be 37 underground. 38 39 Commissioner Koehler also asked about the enforcement of the homeowners association 40 and what would happen if it dissolves and would the City have any recourse or be able to 41 enforce the agreements. Mr. Carlberg confirmed that it is up to the association to enforce 42 their documents and associated rules and regulations. The only involvement that the City 43 might have is if the developer does not meet the 55 or older age requirement which is a 44 condition of the project. He confirmed that 80% of the development has to be occupied Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes — July 12, 2016 Page 3 1 by that population. Any issues that may come up around mowing lawns, etc., would be 2 addressed by the City Code through a code enforcement process. 3 4 Commissioner Hudson asked if the entire development would be built right away or as 5 needed/sold. Ms. Hanson stated that it is typical to build the units as they are sold. She 6 deferred any follow up questions to the developer. 7 8 Commissioner Nemeth also inquired about the homeowner's association agreement. Ms. 9 Hanson stated that the agreement is drawn up by an attorney and the City attorney to reviews the document and then it goes to City Council for final approval. He also asked 11 if the Fire Department had reviewed the proposal and Ms. Hanson replied that they had 12 and that there had been no comment. Mr. Carlberg reiterated that a 5 foot set back is 13 typical for townhomes in the City. He also confirmed that there is adequate capacity on 14 the sewer line for 19 single family homes. 15 16 Commissioner Koehler noted that there were a number of things yet to be turned in 17 regarding storm run-off, etc. and that all of these conditions need to be met before a 18 permit is issued. 19 20 Commissioner Cleven inquired about the Metropolitan Council and if there would be a 21 concern about reducing the number of homes available in the City with the change of 22 previously planned apartments to single family homes. Ms. Hanson stated that they have 23 worked with the Metropolitan Council Staff on density and they have been made aware 24 of these plans. In this area of the City, specifically, new models of hydrology modelling 25 show a higher water table separation requirement, so the originally planned apartments 26 could not be allowed to be built there today with underground parking. 27 28 Motion by Peterson, seconded by Cleven, to open the public hearing at 7:24 p.m. Motion 29 carried on a 6 -ayes, 0 -nays, 1 -absent vote (Daninger). 30 31 Horst Graser, 3715 Island View Circle, Prior Lake, Minnesota, came to the meeting 32 representing RC Development. He stated that the development's builder, Rick Novak, 33 was also present. 34 35 Commissioner Hudson asked if the homes would be built "as you go." Mr. Graser stated 36 that they will put up two sales models and that homes would be constructed as sales 37 develop. He also confirmed that the homeowner's association documents would be 38 submitted to the City for approval and that the development is for residents 55 years of 39 age and up. The association will maintain lawns and snow removal. In the event there is 4o an issue regarding the common area, then the City could step in. Enforcement will be up 41 to the homeowners association. The developer governs the development until there are a 42 certain number of units sold, typically 50 — 70%, yet to be determined. 43 44 Commissioner Peterson asked if there would be a variety of construction materials 45 utilized, e.g. color, or would they be relatively the same. Mr. Graser stated that the Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes — July 12, 2016 Page 4 1 exterior will be one color and accents may be different per unit, but there would be a 2 consistent theme throughout. Mr. Carlberg responded that there is a desire for the new 3 development to fit into the overall Gray Oaks development and that would likely be the 4 Council's preference as well. 5 6 Councilmember Peterson asked about sidewalks for the area and if there were thoughts or 7 plans to extend the trail. Mr. Graser responded that to his knowledge, there were not. He 8 noted that on the south side of 155th there is a sidewalk gap the way it is currently 9 designed. Mr. Carlberg stated that these are the original plans for the original Grey Oaks 10 development. He continued by stating that the City was satisfied with the trail system at 11 the time of the original design and at this time the developer is only looking at a change 12 in the style of housing units from apartments to the townhomes. 13 14 Councihnember Nemeth asked if there were plans for a sprinkler system in the common 15 area. Mr. Graser responded that there would be a sprinkler system in the common area 16 that would be metered separately and a small structure would be built for housing it. 17 18 Richard Urbanski, 1823 156th Lane, asked for clarification as to whether there would be 19 three different associations. Mr. Carlberg responded that was correct. Mr. Urbanski 20 noted that he felt the siding and the peak should be the same color as his home, when it is 21 across the street from his home. Mr. Carlberg noted that variation adds value to the 22 building, but some difference to create interest. 23 24 David Vonvett, 15550 Linnet Street, asked for clarification if the homes were going to be 25 built on a slab or have a basement and their price. Acting Chairperson Nemeth confirmed 26 that they would be built on a slab due to the water issue and that the price of the homes 27 would be about $300,000. 28 29 Ken Johnson 15570 Linnet Street, stated that the 5 foot set back from the property was 30 "hard to hear" and compared it to the City of Minneapolis. Acting Chairperson Nemeth 31 confirmed that it was the standard used in other townhome developments. Mr. Carlberg 32 noted that there will be 10 feet between the interior lot lines and the very large open areas 33 around the buildings. Ms. Hanson stated that the lots are 50 feet wide. 34 35 Dennis Brodin, 1958 156th Lane NW, expressed concerns about the infrastructure of the 36 roads going through the development, being that it is a major thoroughfare to the school 37 and businesses, including traffic late at night. He stated that the traffic has increased 38 every year with more homes in the area. Acting Chairperson Nemeth referred traffic 39 concerns to the City staff to address. Ms. Hanson stated that the traffic count was lower 40 than originally proposed and noted that one individual had contacted City staff to inquire 41 about controlled intersections, specifically a 4 -way stop. Mr. Berkowitz gave that 42 resident the standards and stated that the street could need it someday, but it is not even 43 close to the threshold at this time. Commissioner Koehler asked who generates the 44 standards. Mr. Carlberg replied that they are set by the State, not by the City. The 45 resident continued by expressing his concerns about speeding in the area. Acting Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes — July 12, 2016 Page 5 1 Chairperson Nemeth inquired about speed limit signs. Mr. Carlberg indicated that the 2 Anoka County Sheriff's office could come out to the area, and that residents could 3 contact the City and they could take a look at it. He confirmed that the speed limit is 30 4 mph in the area. Acting Chairperson Nemeth asked staff to make sure signs are posted. 5 6 Commissioner Peterson noted that what Andover residents are experiencing is a lack of 7 east to west roads because of the wetlands in Andover. 8 9 Loretta Doyen, 15550 Linnet Street, commented that she does not see any place for extra to parking for visitors in the development and that she would like to see extra parking on the 11 side for visitors. 12 13 Rich Patrow, 1742 155th Lane NW, noted that there currently is a buffer of trees between 14 current homes and the new townhome development. He wondered if the trees would 15 remain or be removed. Ms. Hanson stated that the trees in the wetland area would remain. 16 Additional questions were: When would the beginning and end be for the construction of 17 the townhomes; and how long would the construction traffic continue. 18 19 Linda Mangen, 15550 Linnet Street, asked if the homes would be ADA compliant homes 20 as it relates to stairs, doors, etc. 21 22 Resident Ken Johnson further expressed his concerns about the setback due to the lack of 23 the ability to park in the streets. He wondered if the size of the lots were such that there 24 would be room to park without parking in the grass. 25 26 Mr. Graser came back to the microphone and stated: 27 1. All homes in the development would be handicap accessible 28 2. Construction timeline is anticipated to be 1 —1'/s years tocomplete all of the units 29 3. Homes will have double garages, with 2 cars parking in the garage, plus 2 more in 30 the driveway. Those homes with more of a setback will be able to park 4 cars in 31 the driveway. 32 33 Acting Chairperson Nemeth noted that the distance from the garage to the street will be 34 40 feet in length. 35 36 Motion by Koehler, seconded by Cleven, to close the public hearing at 7:55 p.m. Motion 37 carried on a 6 -ayes, 0 -nays, 1 -absent vote (Daninger). 38 39 Commissioner Koehler commented that traffic was a common theme by residents. 40 Commissioner Peterson highlighted not enough access and encouraged staff to look at the 41 issue. He also expressed concerns about the location of the crosswalk. He also suggested 42 alternative ways to slow down traffic, such as signage and monitoring by the Sherriff's 43 Department. Residents were encouraged to call the City so that they know and can work 44 with you. 45 Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes —July 12, 2016 Page 6 I Commissioner Peterson asked to have more discussion about the traffic due to the 55 plus 2 community and also expressed an interest in extending the trail segment. He asked 3 fellow commissioners if they also had interest feeling that it [trail] might be an "easy fix." 4 Commissioner Sims expressed an interest saying that it "made sense." Commissioner 5 Koehler asked to see the aerial photo. There was further discussion and review. Mr. 6 Carlberg indicated that it needed to be reviewed by engineering staff and then there 7 would need to be additional discussion, when it goes to City Council with a 8 recommendation for consideration. Commissioner Peterson proposed that it be on 9 "156th," where the cut -through is now. 10 11 Commissioner Koehler reminded residents that the upcoming vote should not be seen as 12 an approval, as the matter goes to City Council for review and approval. 13 14 Motion by Peterson, seconded by Cleven, to recommend to the City Council approval of 15 PUD with recommendation to explore extending the gap in the trail. 16 17 Commissioner Koehler asked Commissioner Peterson if he intended to use the word 18 "explore." Commissioner Peterson stated that yes that was his intent. 19 20 Motion carried on a 6 -ayes, 0 -nays, 1 -absent vote (Daninger). 21 22 City Planner Hanson stated that this item would be before the Council at the Monday, 23 August 1, 2016, 7:00 p.m. City Council meeting. 24 25 PUBLIC HEARING: Interim Use Permit —Land Reclamation —Country Oaks North 26 Second Addition. 27 28 Associate Planner Angell noted the purpose of this item is to hold a public hearing and 29 take input on proposing to store up to 15,000 cubic yards of soil until Nov 1, 2019. The 30 soil will be stored on the northeast quarter of the development known as Country Oaks 31 North 2nd Addition. The soil will be used for lots that are part of the County Oaks North 32 and Country Oaks North 21d Addition. Silt fencing will be required to be installed around 33 the perimeter and it must be left installed and maintained until vegetation occurs on the 34 stockpile. No City streets may be utilized for hauling. 35 36 Mr. Angell reviewed the proposed IUP with the Commission. 37 38 Commissioner Koehler asked how long the development would continue. Mr. Angell 39 stated as needed. He followed up by asking if the ending date was appropriate. Mr. 40 Angell stated that the staff felt that the date was appropriate and that was why staff was 41 recommending approval, noting that the end date may be earlier. 42 43 Commissioner Hudson asked about the rough layout of the road. Mr. Carlberg stated that 44 the road is in place now. 45 Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes — July 12, 2016 Page 7 i Commissioner Cleven asked about wetlands in the area where the planned road had to be 2 altered. Mr. Carlberg confirmed that there is a black ash swamp that had to be avoided. 3 4 Commissioner Sims asked if the dirt was already in that location. Mr. Angell stated that 5 the staff determined that they have to go through the IUP process and Mr. Carlberg 6 confirmed the same. Commissioner Sims went on to ask if homes would be built there in 7 the future. Mr. Angell noted the drainage area. Commissioner Sims asked if the "pile" 8 was where the drainage should be, noting that in theory all of the dirt should be spread by 9 the end of the project. Mr. Angell stated that they had been working with the to Engineering Department. 11 12 Commissioner Cleven asked if there was a possibility of ponding issues due to the dirt 13 pile and its location. Mr. Angell stated that the Engineering Department had no concerns. 14 Mr. Carlberg indicated that draining would be to the south and to the west and that 15 nothing could be approved that would affect the drainage. 16 17 Acting Chairperson Nemeth noted the end date of November 1, 2019. He asked why the 18 City would approve the IUP for 3+ years. Mr. Angell stated that was the date requested 19 by developer and that it works best for both the City and developer. 20 21 Acting Chairperson Nemeth referenced item number 4, and wondered about the hours of 22 hauling related to keeping the noise confined. Mr. Angell stated that this is a boiler 23 plate/standard language. 24 25 Acting Chairperson Nemeth inquired if the soil was from the Country Oaks 2nd Addition. 26 Mr. Angell confirmed that the soil is remaining from the old location and is going to the 27 new location, plus soil from grading both development locations. 28 29 Motion by Koehler, seconded by Cleven, to open the public hearing at 8:24 p.m. Motion 30 carried on a 6 -ayes, 0 -nays, 1 -absent vote (Daninger). 31 32 There was no public input. 33 34 Acting Chairperson Nemeth asked if any residents had contact the City. Mr. Angell 35 confirmed there had not been. 36 37 Acting Chairperson Nemeth thanked the applicant for coming to present at the meeting. 38 39 Motion by Koehler, seconded by Cleven, to close the public hearing at 8:25 p.m. Motion 40 carried on a 6 -ayes, 0 -nays, 1 -absent vote (Daninger). 41 42 Motion by Koehler, seconded by Hudson, to recommend to the City Council approval of 43 the IUP as written. Motion carried on a 6 -ayes, 0 -nays, 1 -absent vote (Daninger). 44 Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes —duly 12, 2016 Page 8 1 City Planner Hanson stated that this item would be before the Council at the August 1, 2 2016 City Council meeting. 4 OTHER BUSINESS. 6 Mr. Carlberg thanked the Commissioners for volunteering at the Andover Family Fun 7 Fest. 8 9 Acapulco Restaurant will be opening the first or second week of August. On August 16a' 10 they will host a Metro North Chamber Wine Club as well as do their ribbon cutting. 11 12 Wednesday, August 10, will be the next Planning and Zoning Commission meeting due 13 to the primary elections. Commissioners should note the change. 14 15 Commissioner Peterson inquired about the development at Bunker and Hanson. Mr. 16 Carlberg stated that the tenant list had not been disclosed as of yet. He continued by 17 . saying that until they have signed leases they will not disclose who the tenants will be at 18 the property and he hopes to be able to share that information at the August l0a` meeting. 19 20 Acting Chairperson Nemeth expressed that he enjoyed being at the community booth and 21 that he feels that it is a good thing for Commissioners to do. Residents primarily asked 22 about the opening of Acapulco and other restaurants in the new development and had 23 questions about trails. 24 25 Commissioner Koehler stated that he had been asked why the City allows certain types of 26 businesses to move in, expressing personal concerns about types of businesses. He 27 responded to the resident that if a landlord owns the property and the tenant does not 28 violate City or State codes, there is no recourse. Mr. Carlberg confirmed that the City 29 cannot tell landlords who they can rent to if all City requirements are met. 30 31 ADJOURNMENT. 32 33 Motion by Koehler, seconded by Cleven, to adjourn the meeting at 8:32 p.m. Motion 34 carried on a 6 -ayes, 0 -nays, 1 -absent vote (Daninger). 35 36 37 Respectfully Submitted, 38 39 40 41 Marlene White, Recording Secretary 42 TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W.. ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 . (763) 755-5100 FAX (763) 755-8923 • WWW.CI.ANDOVER.MN.US TO: Planning and Zoning Commissioners FROM: Stephanie L. Hanson, City Planner SUBJECT: Public Hearing — Preliminary Plat and Planned Unit Development Review of Preserve at Oak View — 16473 Crosstown Drive NW — Metrowide Development, LLC DATE: August 23, 2016 INTRODUCTION The Planning and Zoning Commission is asked to review a preliminary plat and Planned Unit Development (PUD) for the Preserve at Oak View. The plat contains 13 rural residential lots and Outlot A. The development is requested by Metrowide Development, LLC. The PUD narrative submitted by the developer is attached for your review. Conformance with Local and Regional Plans and Ordinances 1. The property is not located within the Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA) Boundary. The lots will be served by individual septic systems and wells. 2. The property is zoned Single Family Rural Residential (R-1). The property is zoned properly for this type of development. 3. The proposed project requires a PUD review to establish standards unique to this development. The Planning and Zoning Commission is asked to review the proposed PUD based on City Code 13-3, Planned Unit Development. Access Access will be provided from Crosstown Blvd. The local street will be stubbed to provide access to future development to the south. The Anoka County Highway Department reviewed the plat. The developer will be required to construct a right turn lane. However, a by-pass lane will not be required because of the low amount of traffic generated from the development. Utilities Each of the lots will be served by individual septic systems and wells. Each lot is required to have two 5,000 square foot areas for the placement of a primary and secondary septic area. Wetlands There is a wetland in the southwest corner of the proposed plat. The wetland delineation has been approved by the Coon Creek Watershed District. Coon Creek Watershed District (CCWD) CCWD is in the process of reviewing the plat. The plat is tentatively placed on the September 12, 2016 Board meeting agenda. The applicant is required to satisfactorily address any issues and conditions of CCWD prior to commencement of site grading. The CCWD and City Engineering Department will determine when all outstanding issues and conditions are satisfactorily met. Coordination with other Agencies The developer and/or owner are responsible to obtain all necessary permits (Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, U.S. Army Corp of Engineers, CCWD, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, LGU and any other agency that may have an interest in the site). Initial contact shall be made with the City Engineering Department regarding this item. Park and Recreation Commission The Park and Recreation Commission reviewed the preliminary plat at their August 18, 2016 meeting. The Commission recommended the required trail fees and cash in lieu of land for park dedication. Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council Concept Plan/PUD Review Meeting minutes are attached for your review from the May 10, 2016 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting and the June 7, 2016 City Council meeting. City Staff Review On August 5, 2016, city staff completed review #3 and provided comments to the applicant. Staff comments are attached for your review. The majority of staff comments are minor and will be addressed prior to the final plat. There are 3 significant comments that have been discussed between city staff and the applicant and are being addressed: These include the following: Comment 6: Anoka County reviewed the preliminary plat and is requiring a right turn lane. Because of the low volume of traffic generated by the development, Anoka County is not requiring a by-pass lane. Anoka County is in the process of generating a written response letter to the city with the required improvements. Comment 206: The applicant proposes to convey Outlot A to the lot to the north (Lot 5, Block 1). The legal document will be reviewed and approved by the City Attorney prior to the approval of the final plat. If not approved the outlot will be required to be combined to an adjacent parcel. Comment 315: City staff, the applicant and CCWD are continuing to work together to finalize the location of the southern portion of the street. The applicant will continue to work with the CCWD in obtaining proper permitting prior to the commencement of site work. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT REVIEW According to City Code 13-3 Planned Unit Development, the purpose of a PUD is to encourage more efficient allocation of density and intensity of land use where such arrangement is desirable and feasible by providing the means of greater creativity and flexibility in environmental design than provided under strict application of the standards set in code. Attached for your review is City Code 13-3. City Code 13-3-9 regulates the findings that are required for a PUD to be approved and 13-3-11 identifies desirable PUD design standards that are sought in any PUD proposal. As part of the attached PUD Narrative, the applicant addresses the design qualities the city seeks in a PUD proposal identified in City Code 13-3-11. City Code 13-3-9 states the following required findings to consider when approving a PUD: 1. The proposed development is not in conflict with the goals of the Comprehensive Plan for the City. The proposed PUD is compatible with the goals, objectives and policies of the Comprehensive Plan 2 First, one of the goals is to maintain and enhance the quality of life in Andover by preserving the rural character of the community. A standard rural lot size is 2.5 acres. The proposed lot sizes range from 1.5 acres to 3.38 acres. The proposed larger lot sizes preserve the rural character of the community. Second, one of the goals is to allow residential growth while maintaining the quality of natural resources and amenities by defining urban and rural areas and creating opportunities to preserve open space and natural amenities. The reduced width of the city street allows for a greater number of trees to be preserved and reduces the amount of storm water runoff. The utilization of low impact designs such as using ditches to treat storm water runoff reduces the amount of trees removed from the site that would normally be removed because of storm water ponding design standards. Also, the rural lots are proposed to be custom graded meaning more trees will be saved during the construction process. The tree preservation plan depicts areas where trees are intended to be preserved. 2. The proposed development is designed in such a manner as to form a desirable and unified environment within its own boundaries. The development will consist of rural lots. Throughout the development, the street will be constructed using ribbon curbing. Storm water runoff will be treated within vegetated swales. Trees will be preserved on each lot and homes styles and materials will be similar throughout the development. 3. The proposed development demonstrates how each modified or waived requirement contributes to achieving the purpose of PUD. Flexibility with the standard code regulations allows for low impact design. Storm water will be treated within the ditches with rain gardens rather than conventional storm water ponds. Custom graded lots allows for tree preservation since the development will not be mass graded. The decreased hard surface footprint of the street minimizes the amount of hard surface run off, preserves more trees, and decreases future costs of street reconstruction. Street Improvements As part of the PUD request the applicant is asking for flexibility with street construction standards. The city standards, PUD proposal and staff recommendations are as follows: Street Improvements Right of Way Width: City staff supports the proposal for a 50 foot right of way. This still allows enough space for snow and storm water storage. There will be additional dedicated drainage and utility easements outside the right of way. Staff City Standard PUD Proposal Recommendation Right of Way width 60 feet 50 feet 50 feet Rural Street Pavement width 26 - 31 feet 22 feet 22 ft Rural Street Pavement width including Curb (no ditches) 31 feet 24 feet 1 25 feet Right of Way Width: City staff supports the proposal for a 50 foot right of way. This still allows enough space for snow and storm water storage. There will be additional dedicated drainage and utility easements outside the right of way. Rural Street Pavement Width: Staff supports the proposed 22 foot pavement width. This allows for 11 foot drive lanes in each direction. Parking will be allowed on one side of the street. Rural Street Pavement Width Including Curb (no ditches): The typical width of a new street section from curb to curb is 31 feet. This includes 28 inches of surmountable curbing on each side. The applicant is proposing a 24 foot width which includes 12 inches of ribbon curbing on each side. Staff does not support this proposal. Staff recommends 18 inches of concrete ribbon curbing on each side of the street to maximize the protection of the edge of paved surface from the wear and tear of vehicle parking and snow removal. Since storm water will be treated within the ditch area, the ribbon curb will allow the flow of water into the ditches yet support the edging of the paved area. Lot Standards Lot standards in the R1 — Single Family Rural district require 2.5 acre lots with a 300 foot lot width at the front yard setback. The PUD proposes lot sizes to range from 1.5 — 3.38 acres and widths ranging from 100-441 feet. 13 lots are deemed buildable whereas Outlot A is deemed unbuildable. City code does not allow unbuildable outlots within developments. The applicant proposes that a recordable covenant be approved and recorded with Anoka County to require Outlot A to be owned by the property owner of Block 1, Lot 5 until which time the lot can be proven to meet buildable standards or combined with buildable land to the south. The covenant must be a legal and recordable document that must be submitted to and approved by the City Attorney. The covenant must be recorded at the time the fmal plat is recorded with Anoka County. ACTION REQUESTED The Planning and Zoning Commission is asked to hold a public hearing to gather public input, review the proposed preliminary plat/PUD and make a recommendation to City Council. Attachments Resolution Exhibit A PUD Standards Exhibit B Housing Style/Color Schemes Location Map and Aerial Map PUD Narrative City Code 13-3 Planned Unit Development August 5, 2016 Engineering Comments June 7, 2016 Approved City Council Meeting Minutes May 10, 2016 Approved Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes Preliminary Plat Plan Set Res ectfully sub i d, Stephanie L. Hanson Cc: Jason Osberg, Metrowide Development, 15356 Yukon St NW, Andover, MN 55304 Donn Eggen, 16473 Crosstown Blvd, Andover, MN 55304 CITY OF ANDOVER COUNTY OF ANOKA STATE OF MINNESOTA RES. NO XXX A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PRELRvf[NARY PLAT FOR THE "PRESERVE AT OAK VIEW ' THE PROPERTY LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS; That part of the Northwest Quarter of Section 13, Township 32, Range 24, Anoka County, Minnesota, lying West of the East 316.45 feet thereof. WHEREAS, Metrowide Development has requested approval of a preliminary plat for the Preserve at Oak View; and WHEREAS, the Andover Review Committee has reviewed the preliminary plat; and WHEREAS, pursuant to published and mailed notice thereof, the Planning and Zoning Commission has conducted a public hearing on said plat; and WHEREAS, as a result of such public hearing, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommends approval of the preliminary plat to the City Council. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Andover hereby agrees with the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approves the Preliminary Plat of the Preserve at Oak View with the following conditions: 1. Trail fees and cash dedication in lieu of land as recommended by the Park and Recreation Commission with final approval by the City Council. 2. City of Andover staff comments dated August 5, 2016 (see attached) and the Coon Creek Watershed District comments shall be satisfactorily addressed prior to any grading of the site. The Andover Engineering Department will determine when all items have been addressed. 3. An approved CCWD permit must be obtained prior to any grading of the site. 4. Long term maintenance agreements shall be recorded with each property for the maintenance of the infiltration basin/rain gardens. 5. A letter must be provided from the Anoka County Transportation Department stating required improvements to County Road 18/Crosstown Boulevard. 6. Exhibit A shall regulate the PUD standards for the development. 7. Exhibit B shall regulate home construction to be the same or similar to the housing styles and color -schemes. 8. Outlot A is deemed unbuildable. Outlot A shall be conveyed and covenanted to the property owner of Lot 5, Block 1. Legal documents shall be approved by the City Attorney and filed at the same time as the final plat at Anoka County. In the event it cannot be conveyed/covenanted, Outlot A must be combined with an adjacent parcel. 9. Prior to final plat recording at Anoka County, a development agreement acceptable to the City Attorney must be executed by the Developer. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Andover this 6th day of September, 2016. CITY OF ANDOVER ATTEST: Michelle Harhrer, City Clerk Julie Trude, Mayor Exhibit A PUD Standards Street Standards T.ot Standards City Standard PUD Standard Right of Way width 60 feet 50 feet Lot Width at Front Setback 300 feet 100 feet — 441 feet Rural Street Pavement width 26 - 31 feet 22 feet Rural Street Pavement width including 18" of Ribbon Curb Each Side 31 feet 25 feet T.ot Standards R1 Single Family Rural City Standard R1 Single Family Rural PUD Standard Lot Size 2.5 acres 1.5 acres — 3.38 acres Lot Width at Front Setback 300 feet 100 feet — 441 feet .F /�. � n L.Y.ml� 1,1' i W ryR t Fjj� �Y i`i�r3 all ILL ve 13 Q -7 bell atrjovER Preserve at Oak View Location IubTH AVf NW 886 834 f 16595 16527 16528 s 16525 16440 = 16421 3 16379 16324 SS 16971 a,;po 509 455 4071 T ,6 166TH AVE NW 516 468 422 378 o� 16464 �3 r o� S" `p0 16409 16473 16480 z _ _ r5_� s 16324 116309 / 16331 1627,9/ \V/ 16279 16234 a 633 545 421 16150 621 401 °16147 557 741 643 161ST AVE NW CONSTANCE BLVD NV! t 0 680 867 16047 160TH LN 1 16030 16035 0 16023 16019 16018 455 LUNSTANCE BLVD NW CDNSTANCf BLVD NW _[_R_60 CONSTANCE BLVD NW 556 16019 512 470 428 360 Date Created: August 17, 2016 Disclaimer: The provider makes no representation or warranties with respect to the reuse of this data. At r,qz, R Aerial - Preserve at Oak View Date Created: August 17, 2016 Disclaimer: The provider makes no representation or warranties with respect to the reuse of this data. Metrowide Development Andover, MN SKETCH PLAN NARRATIVE March 22, 2016 L A N D F O R M From Site to Finish INTRODUCTION On behalf of Metrowide Development, Landform is pleased to submit this application for sketch plan to receive feedback from City staff, Planning Commission and City Council on a Planned Unit Development (PUD) sketch plan to allow construction of new single family homes at 16473 Crosstown Boulevard NW (PID # 133224210002). The site includes one parcel, approximately 30 acres, that is currently used for an existing single family home. Our redevelopment plan includes a plat to create 13 new parcels and a new street to serve the future residents. We are excited about the improvements proposed for this site. SKETCH PLAN REVIEW Metrowide Development is requesting staff review of a sketch plan to subdivide one existing lot into 13 single family residential lots. At this time, we are planning to preserve the existing home. The parcel is heavily wooded and contains large wetlands. We are proposing to create custom home sites to allow for flexibility for the buyer. Each lot will be custom graded to allow for construction of the individual homes in a manner that meets the needs of the homeowner and allows them to design a site that works with the natural features of the lot. Therefore, the grading plan and tree preservation plan would be provided at the time of building permit. This approach will allow flexibility in the placement of single family homes on each lot while preserving the natural environment. The proposed subdivision is located in the R-1 Single Family Rural Zoning District and is guided rural residential in the Comprehensive Plan. We are requesting a PUD to allow flexibility from the typical R-1 standard. Our sketch plan is a concept for how our project could develop, but if the City supports the vision, we will proceed with a survey and begin preparation of detailed plans. Lot standards Single-family homes in the R-1 district require a minimum lot size of 2.5 acres, a minimum setback of 300 feet and a minimum lot depth of 150 feet. The Comprehensive Plan allows Rural Residential land use districts a maximum density of 0.4 units per acre. We are requesting for flexibility in the bulk area standards of the R-1 district, including lot size, dimension and density, primarily in order to have the flexibility to minimize tree removal and wetland impacts. A large wetland in the southwest corner of the site is avoided by shifting the new street to the east, which results in slightly smaller lots in that area. However, the impact of these minor lot size reductions is minimized by the fact that the property directly to the east is an not developable due to the fact that a wetland makes it inaccessible. Our sketch plan shows how minimum lot sizes could be met if we included the land to the parcel on the west that is undevelopable due to the presence of wetland. VEN16001 L A N D F O R M March 22, 2016 Sketch Plan Narrative 2 Street Improvements We are requesting flexibility in the street right-of—way width (ROW). Section 11-3-3 of the Subdivision Ordinance requires local rural city streets to be constructed with a 60 -foot ROW. Section 11-4-8 of the Subdivision Ordinance requires concrete curb and gutter to be installed for new streets with municipal sanitary sewer and/or water, however, the code does not require curb and gutter for street improvements without municipal sanitary sewer and/or water. We are proposing to construct the street generally in accordance with City Standard Drawing No. 513F design for typical rural section with ditches. We are proposing a 24 -foot wide street in a 50 -foot ROW. In return for a rural street section in a reduced ROW, we are proposing a wider drainage and utility easement adjacent to the right-of-way, which will provide adequate space for utilities and drainage. We are proposing a street design for a rural section that includes ditches for low -impact stormwater management. This design will also reduce the number of trees removed because we will not need ponding to achieve stormwater requirements. We have been in contact with Anoka County to determine any improvements required for Crosstown Boulevard and will continue to work out any issues with the County as the proposal progresses. We are currently proposing to provide a deceleration lane to provide access from vehicles traveling northeast on Crosstown Boulevard; however, we do not believe a by-pass lane is warranted because the visibility is adequate to provide safe access. Connectivity: Our sketch plan provides an example of how the newly constructed street would connect to new development in the future. We are proposing future connectivity to the south of the site. Our ghost plat shows how the property to the south could develop and the street extended, but we are not proposing any development on that property. The ghost plat is provided at the request of City staff simply to show how the future street connection could occur. PUD FLEXIBILITY We are requesting City approval for flexibility from area standards in the R-1 district and minimum ROW width. In return, our PUD proposal will provide a low -impact, creative stormwater design, minimize tree removal and minimize wetland impact. Section 13-3-11 of the Zoning Code outlines nine design qualities that the City desires in PUDs. Our plan is consistent with these requirements, specifically: 1. Achieves efficiency in the provision of streets and utilities and preserves area to achieve the elements of design qualities described in this chapter. VEN16001 L A N D F O R M March 22, 2016 Sketch Plan Narrative 3 Our proposed plan will achieve development efficiency and allow for low -impact design by preserving trees and reducing wetland impacts. Our linear cluster development allows preservation of natural features and provides creative design elements, as described above. 2. Provides convenient and safe access for vehicles and pedestrians and all types of activity that are anticipated to be a part of the proposed development. The proposed development is not anticipated to generate substantial traffic volumes. The narrower rural street and ROW will be sufficient for the anticipated traffic that will be generated from residents within the subdivision and potential visitors. We are working with the County to determine the improvements to Crosstown Boulevard and are confident our proposed improvements will provide convenient and safe access for vehicles. 3. Provides a buffer between different uses, adjacent properties, roadways, between backyards of back-to-back lots. Adequate buffers between different uses are provided in the development sketch plan. The development is clustered in a linear fashion and the lots on the east side will be buffered from existing and future development because the abutting land is comprised of mainly wetland and is undevelopable. The existing vegetation will screen this project form adjacent properties. 4. Preserves existing stands of trees and/or significant trees. The narrower rural section street and reduced ROW allow for a number of significant trees to be preserved. Allowing flexibility in the lot sizes and configuration of development allows a greater number of trees to be preserved. Shifting the development to the east will allow the bulk of trees on the west to be preserved. Additionally, the proposed design includes utilizing ditches as part of the low impact stormwater management practices, which will allow a greater number of trees to be preserved because ponding (which requires tree removal) will not be required to meet stormwater design standards. 5. Provides considerable landscaping treatments that complement the overall design and contribute toward an overall landscaping theme. Each custom -build lot will allow residents to provide landscaping that is consistent with City Code and will be reviewed at the time of building permit. Additionally, as part of the storm water management plan, individual lots will provide bio swale gardens (rain gardens) adjacent to the driveway. This landscaping will be designed to provide consistency along the street. VEN16001 L A N D F O R M March 22, 2016 Sketch Plan Narrative 4 6. Preserves significant usable space on individual lots or through the provision of open space within the development. As described above, a linear cluster development preserves significant open space and natural features 7. Provides an attractive streetscape through the use of undulating topography, landscaping, decorative street lighting, decorative mailbox groupings, retaining walls, boulders, fencing, area identification signs, etc. This level of detail has not been determined at this stage of development but will be incorporated at the time of preliminary plat submittal. 8. The proposed structures within the development demonstrate quality architectural design and the use of high quality building materials for unique design and detailing. The details of the structures within the development will provide quality design. The details will be provided at the time of preliminary plat. 9. The lasting quality of the development will be ensured by design, maintenance and use guidelines established through an owners' association. (Ord. 298, 8-4-2004) There will not be an owner's association for the proposed development. SUMMARY We respectfully request feedback and comments on the sketch plan to allow a PUD at a 16473 Crosstown Boulevard Northwest. CONTACT INFORMATION This document was prepared by: Kathleen Hammer Landform 105 South Fifth Street, Suite 513 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Any additional questions regarding this application can be directed to Darren Lazan at dlazan a()landform.net or 612.638.0250 VEN16001 L A N D F O R M March 22, 2016 Sketch Plan Narrative 5 If CHAPTER PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) SECTION: 13-3-1: Purpose 13-3-2: Utilization of PUD 13-3-3: PUD Concept Review 13-3-4: Uses 13-3-5: Density 13-3-6: Zoning And Subdivision Standards And Requirements 13-3-7: Approval Process 13-3-8: Fees And Costs 13-3-9: Findings Required 13-3-10: Revisions And Amendments 13-3-11: Desirable PUD Design Qualities 13-3-12: Approval Of Planned Unit Development 13-3-1: PURPOSE: The purpose of a PUD is to encourage more efficient allocation of density and intensity of land use where such arrangement is desirable and feasible by providing the means for greater creativity and flexibility in environmental design than provided under the strict application of this code. It must be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the City Council that a higher quality development will result than could be otherwise achieved through strict application of this code. (Ord. 298, 8-4-2004) 13-3-2: UTILIZATION OF PUD: Planned Unit Development (PUD) regulations may be allowed by the City Council to be applied and/or utilized for all developments including the following: townhomes, single- and two-family homes (both urban and rural), apartment projects, multiuse structures, commercial developments, industrial developments, mixed residential and commercial developments and similar projects. (Ord. 298, 8-4-2004) 13-3-3: PUD CONCEPT REVIEW: Any person or persons who may apply for a PUD may request a concept review with respect to land which may be subject to a PUD. The purpose of a PUD concept review is to afford such persons an opportunity, without incurring substantial expense, to have the general feasibility of a PUD proposal considered. PUD concept reviews shall follow the sketch plan procedures provided in Section 11-2-1 of this code. (Ord. 298, 8-4-2004) 13-3-4: USES: Planned Unit Developments shall be required to conform to the permitted and conditional uses set forth in Title 12 of this code pertaining to the applicable zoning district. (Ord. 298, 8-4-2004) 13-3-5: DENSITY: The density of residential developments shall be required to conform to the applicable land use district. (Ord. 298, 8-4-2004) { 13-3-6: ZONING AND SUBDIVISION STANDARDS AND REQUIREMENTS: All standards and provisions relating to an original zoning district shall apply, unless otherwise approved as a part of the PUD. All standards may be modified or waived provided the applicant demonstrates harmony with the purpose of the PUD and the findings described in Section 13-3- 9 of this chapter. (Ord. 298, 8-4-2004) 13-3-7: APPROVAL PROCESS: An applicant for a PUD shall submit in the application all of the material required by this chapter. Each PUD requested must adhere to the following process: A. Permitted and conditional uses shall follow the Conditional Use Permit procedures provided in Section 12-14-6 of this code to establish the development standards for the PUD. These uses shall also complete the commercial site plan process once the Planned Unit Development has been approved. (Amd. 2/20/07, Ord. 341) B. Applications involving the subdivision of land shall complete a preliminary and final plat under the procedures provided in Title 11, "Subdivision Regulations", of this code. (Ord. 298, 8-4-2004) i 13-3-8: FEES AND COSTS: Applications for a PUD shall be filed at the office of the City Planner along with a nonrefundable application fee for the approval process specified in Sections 13-3-3 and 13-3-7 of this chapter in the amount established by the City Council to defray administrative costs. (Ord. 298, 8-4-2004) 13-3-9: FINDINGS REQUIRED: In order for a PUD to be approved, the City shall find that the following are present: A. The proposed development is not in conflict with the goals of the Comprehensive Plan of the city. B. The proposed development is designed in such a manner as to form a desirable and unified environment within its own boundaries. C. The proposed development demonstrates how each modified or waived requirement contributes to achieving the purpose of a PUD. D. The PUD is of composition, and arrangement that its construction, marketing, and operation are feasible as a complete unit without dependence upon any subsequent unit. (Ord. 298, 8-4-2004) F 13-3-10: REVISIONS AND AMENDMENTS: Administrative approval of incidental changes in the PUD may be authorized by the City Planner upon review and approval by ARC. Such administrative approvals shall not substantially alter the character of the approved PUD and shall be limited to landscaping (not including quantity reduction), color schemes (not including materials), association documents, fencing, entrance monuments and decks. Changes in uses or development/design standards must be submitted for a full public hearing review process. (Amended Ord. 314, 10-4-2005) 13-3-11: DESIRABLE PUD DESIGN QUALITIES: The following design qualities will be sought in any PUD: A. Achieves efficiency in the provision of streets and utilities and preserves area to achieve the elements of design qualities described in this chapter. B. Provides convenient and safe access for vehicles and pedestrians and all types of activity that are anticipated to be a part of the proposed development. C. Provides a buffer between different uses, adjacent properties, roadways, between backyards of back-to-back lots. D. Preserves existing stands of trees and/or significant trees. E. Provides considerable landscaping treatments that complement the overall design and contribute toward an overall landscaping theme. F. Preserves significant usable space on individual lots or through the provision of open space within the development. G. Provides an attractive streetscape through the use of undulating topography, landscaping, decorative street lighting, decorative mailbox groupings, retaining walls, boulders, fencing, area identification signs, etc. H. The proposed structures within the development demonstrate quality architectural design and the use of high quality building materials for unique design and detailing. The lasting quality of the development will be ensured by design, maintenance and use guidelines established through an owners' association. (Ord. 298, 8-4-2004) 13-3-12: APPROVAL OF PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT: The developer must demonstrate that the amenities and qualities of the Planned Unit Development are beneficial and in the public interest to allow the development to be approved. A substantial amount of the design qualities identified in Section € �" 13-3-11 of this chapter shall be found to be present in order to approve a PUD. The amount of amenities and type of qualities that constitute an acceptable PUD are at the sole discretion of the City Council to determine. (Ord. 298, 8-4-2004) 13:3-13: REDEVELOPMENT PUDs: A property owner may apply for a redevelopment PUD for their property, if the property meets the criteria outlined in this section. Such redevelopment PUDs shall only be used for lot splits. PUDs on all other subdivisions shall follow the normal PUD requirements laid out in this chapter. All provisions of City Code chapter 13-3 shall apply to redevelopment PUDs except for section 13-3-11. A redevelopment PUD may be permitted if the subject property meets the following standards: A. The existing principal structure on the property is at least 30 years old, or does not meet current building codes, or has a blighting effect on the surrounding neighborhood, and will be removed as part of the redevelopment of the property. B. The houses built on the new lots would be similar in size and architectural design to those in the surrounding neighborhood. Architectural plans must be included in the application for a redevelopment PUD and approved by the Council. (Amd. 2/20/07, Ord. 341) 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. • ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 • (763) 755-5100 FAX (763) 755-8923 • WWW.ANDOVERMN.GOV MEAMMMADDM TO: Stephanie Hanson, City Planner FROM: David Berkowitz, Director of Public Works/City Engineer Jason J. Law, Asst. City Engineer DATE: August 5, 2016 REFERENCE: The Preserve at Oak View / Grading, Drainage & Erosion Control Plan/Review #3 The following comments have vet to be completed in regards to Review #1: 2. Need to submit additional information in relation to suitability for septic systems. Need a map showing boring/auger/sample locations and a summary about the suitability of each lot to accommodate a primary and secondary septic location (5,000 square feet each). Do not need full blown septic designs until building permit application. Per developer, additional borings being completed the week ofAugust 1. Work this through with Fred Patch, Head Building Official All documents should still be submitted through Stephanie Hanson, City Planner, she will route them to Fred Patch. 6. Sheet Cl.l : Show removals necessary for tum/bypass lane construction on Hanson Blvd (pavement, sawcut, edge mill, pavement markings, etc.). Provide comment letter regarding what Anoka County will require for improvements. Developer working with ACRD on requirements. Update plans once the required improvements are determined with ACRD. 20. Sheet C2.3: What is being proposed for widening? It's not clear if it's removal and reconstruction of the entire shoulder, adding several feet on the edge, etc. This will need to be coordinated and approved by the ACRD. PendingrequirementsfromACHD. 21. Sheet C2.3: Add ACRD detail for Tum/Bypass Lane Additions. Pending requirements from ACRD. 22. Sheet C2.3: Identify which pavement inset is being proposed per the ADT on Crosstown Blvd. Confirm with ACHD. Pending requirememsfromACHD. 23. Sheet C2.3: Show pavement marking removals on centerline of Crosstown Blvd (grind off. Pending requirements from ACRD. 24. Sheet C2.3: Culvert under the roadway must be a minimum of 18" RCP per Anoka County development guidelines. If in the clear zone, the culvert will require safety aprons. ACHD will likely require design calculations for sizing of this culvert. Plans / calculations for the intersection improvements need to be submitted to the ACHD. Pending requirements from ACRD. 25. Sheet C2.3: Call out proposed striping. Pending requirementsfromACHD. 44. Sheet C3.1: Need to provide separate long term maintenance agreements that will be recorded with each property for the infiltration basin/rain garden maintenance. A sample agreement is available from the City (attached). Pending The following comments have vet to be completed in regards to Review #2: 206. Sheet C2.2 and all applicable plan sheets. Regarding Outlot A, either need to combine it with Lot 6 to the north, provide conveyance documents selling Outlot A to the property owner to the south for development at a fixture date and remove Outlot A from the plat boundaries, or purchase additional land necessary to make Outlot A buildable with this plat from the property owner to the south. City staff does not support platting of outlots. If Outlot A is combined with Lot 6, revise the Lot Area Summary Table on sheet C2.2. Developer wishes to provide a covenant that OutlotA remain in common and contiguous ownership with Lot 5, Block I until such time as the proposed OudotA be in a final plat to the south approved by the City. Staff requests the developer prepare the documentation necessary to effectuate this request and cite the provisions in law that provide the legal authority to do so for the City Attorney's review. This will be a decision that the City Council will have to review and approve as outlots are typically no longer accepted in plats. 215. Sheet C3.1: For Wetland 7, try to provide a lower EOF towards the roadway, revise contours accordingly. The design as proposed with an "if' option is not acceptable. Plans show a potential option of either filling in Wetland l as part of custom grading (which would require IO' offill and considerable expense), OR leaving the low areal Wetland 7 as is. If Wetland 7 is NOT filled, then we need to have Drainage and Utility Easement up to the IM (10 Day Snowmelt event as it's landlocked) plus over an area encompassing the EOF. There is currently no D& UEfor area depicted in the plans. Also, this wetland filling, per preliminary discussions with the CCWD may not qualms for no loss wetland fill exemption when considered in aggregate with potential offuture fill of wetlands to the south for the future roadway extension. This can't bean either/or situation because of easement requirements. Note 19 will also need to be revised accordingly. If the wetland remains, need to provide an emergency overflow The way the plans are currently drawn there is an EOF/spot elevation at 907.0 near the road ditch (which contradicts the proposed contours to fill the wetland) and the ditch bottom is 906. This I' difference should keep the majority of the waterfrom the roadwayfrom coming into this wetland especially considering the high point in the roadway is only 130' east of this EOFlocadon. Revise plans /contours to show ultimate conditions, OR, if an "if 'scenario is desired the drainage and utility easementMITST be dedicated over the wetland up to the HUE elevation plus an area encompassing the overflow to the north in case it is not filled If the ultimate plan is to fill the wetland per the currently shown gradingplan contours, then the IIWL information should be removedfrom the plan andNOTfdling it is not an option as D& UE would not be dedicated Again, this will need to be reviewed and approved by the CCWD, the LGUfor the wetland conservation act if it's even an option for a no loss exemption. The best way to handle this it decide what you wantfor the final design, and remove the " "scenario. I would assume the CCWD will not allowfilling of the Wetland 7 unless there is a valid reasoulargumentfor doing so. The following comments are in regards to Review #3: 301. Return Review 43 marked up plans and report with next submittal. 302. For development contracts, we need costs estimates. Need a separate estimate for site grading/erosion control (which includes costs for any fill and testing needed for lot pad construction) and a separate cost estimate for street/utility construction. We will also need an estimate for the future roadway extension to the south to review to determine the required escrow amount for the future extension to the plat line. 303. Sheet C2.1: Revise drainage and utility easements around Wetland 4, Wetland 7 (see above comment) and Buffer Basin 1. 304. Sheet C2.2: Call out the easement around the temporary cul de sac as "Temporary Street, Drainage & Utility Easement" for cul de sac. 305. Sheet C3.1: For all infiltration basins, delete the "EOF" labels in the text since they are the same as the Outlet elevation. 306. Sheet C3.1: For Infiltration Basins 1, 7, and Wetland 6, add Enkamat for the overflow outlet similar to other basins. 307. Sheet C3.1: Identify with an arrow and elevation the EOF for Wetland 4 to the north. It is listed as 903 in the hydrology model. Make sure the plans and model are consistent. Provide 10 -Day Snowmelt HWL for Infiltration Basin 7 as it's directly tied into the landlocked Wetland 4. Adjust easements accordingly. The model and text for IB 7 says the basin bottom is 901 but the contour label is 900. Also need to add a 902 contour around IB 7, top of basin in plans is 901.5 but outlet elevation in model is 901.75, which doesn't work. Show silt fence around Infiltration Basin 7. 308. Sheet C3.1: For Infiltration Basin 8, add additional spot elevations near outlet so the elevation and location is clear. Enkamat not required for this basin because of limited flow/discharge expected from this basin. Put silt fence around the basin similar to other basins. 309. Sheet C3.1: For Infiltration Basin 3 the text for the overflow elevation isn't legible. Should be 902.25 per the model. Add spot elevations between Wetland 6 and Buffer Basin 5 to define that Wetland 6 is presumably supposed to flow to the Buffer Basin, not southeast where it is lower. 310. Sheet C3.1: For Buffer Basin 5, the top of the basin is labeled as 901.5, but model calls out 902.5. Draw a contour or provide spot elevations at 902.5, adjust drainage and utility easement as necessary. This basin will actually backflow to Wetland 6 based upon spot elevations and outlet elevations, is that the intent? Question if there is much value in this basin, all it will handle is a small amount of rear yard drainage which already flows over grassy areas prior to entering Wetland 5. Wetland 6 doesn't even discharge to this Buffer Basin per the model in a 100 -year event. It can be kept in, but there's minimal benefit. The tributary area based upon contours is actually less than what is depicted on the proposed drainage area maps, the southern third of the drainage area to this basin will just flow directly into Wetland 5. 311. Sheet C3.1: Lower the Rear Elevation on Lot 4, Block 1 to 913.0 so it is 0.5' below the Low Floor Elevation. 312. Sheet C3.2: For Buffer Basin 1, add a contour line of 900 along the west side so the outlet can be at 899.5. Model defines the outlet as 10' wide at 0.5' of head (elevation 900). 313. Sheet C3.2: The proposed raised driveway culverts for Lots 6, Block 1 and Lot 7, Block 2 will stick out of the driveway pavement; there is no cover on them. Need to either raise driveways, lower culverts, or eliminate the "raised" culvert situation and make them normal ditch culverts. If they are lowered revise the drainage report to exclude those two upstream basins from the infiltration basin volume calculations. 314. Sheet C3.2: The HWL and Outlet elevations for Both Infiltration Basin 5 and 6 do not match the hydrology report. Double check that all basin HWL's and outlet elevations and outlet configurations are consistent between the model and the plans. 315. Sheet C3.2: Preliminary discussions with the CCWD stated they were asking for the future roadway alignment to the south to be moved west. The City prefers the alignment as currently shown as it lines up with property lines to the south and provides better access to future developable parcels to the south, though it may result in a larger wetland impact. Our understanding is the developer needs to work with the CCWD on sequencing and future wetland impacts for this future extension. Provide a copy of CCWD approvals once received. 316. Sheet C3.2: Fill out Lot x Lot Tabulation, information missing in HWL and EOF columns. There are some discrepancies between the plan and tabulation elevations, review all to make sure they are consistent. 317. Sheet C3.3: Add label on the Pad Hold Down details showing 4:1 maximum finished grade slopes. 318. Sheet C7.1: Why was detail 7 changed from Review #1 back to 12" ribbon curb and 24' wide back to back? This was commented on in Review #1 and revised correctly, and now it's back to the way it was prior to Review #1? This is the comment from Review 41 "Add a typical section detail. Can create a hybrid between City Details 516F and 517E Need to include the pavement inset, pavement widths, ROW, ditch slopes, etc. Pavement width should be 22' wide with 18" ribbon curb on each edge for a total width of 25 "'. Change this back to the way it was commented on in Review #1 with 18" ribbon curb and 25' wide back to back. Hydrology report says area beyond curb is designed at 5% grade for cleaning for 10'. Label as such on this detail, is this how the contours and grading/ditches were layed out? If not, need to either revise the grading or text discussing this in the hydrology report. 319. Sheet C7.1: For detail 9, define what "Planting Soil" means. Typically for infiltration basins we've seen a mixture of topsoil/sand/compost to ensure that there is porosity in the medium for infiltration. Also add a note "Do Not Compact" near the subgrade label. 320. Sheet C7.1: Revise Detail 6 to be 18" Concrete Ribbon Curb. 321. Sheet C7.1: Need to add a detail for the Infiltration Basin overflows. Show a cross sectional view. Somehow need to define what the bottom width, side slopes and elevations are for each overflow. A small table might be the cleanest way to do this. Per the hydrology report, each basin has a different bottom width, some are v shaped. Also show on the detail where the Enkamat is proposed, should cover bottom but also go up side slopes of the outlet. 322. Sheet C7.1: Add details for Enkamat for overflows. 323. Sheet Ll.1/1.2: Carry over revisions from all comments to these sheets. Easement lines don't match the other sheets within this submittal. 324. Additional comments pending further review. The following comments are in regards to Review #3 of the Hydrology Report: 301. In the proposed model for Ditch A (Pond 21P) and Ditch B (Pond 24P), the outlets are not buildable as there is no cover on the culverts under the driveways. Culverts would need to be lowered 1' +/- to get cover based upon the driveway grades. On sheet 2 of the report, revise text regarding raised culverts if these are lowered as this would result in just normal ditches, not ditches with ponding/storage volume. 302. In the proposed models, IF Wetland 7 ends up NOT being filled, need to put Wetland 7 back into the proposed models and label HWL's. See comments above in regards to Wetland 7. 303. In the proposed model should Wetland 6 be routed through Buffer Basin 5? 304. Need to include output information for Infiltration Basin 7 for the 10 -Day Snowmelt Event as it's directly tied to Wetland 4 which is landlocked. Label HWL (10 -Day Snowmelt) info for IB 7. 305. Additional comments pending further review. Note: It is a requirement that the Developer respond to each of these items in writing (get digital copy from City and type responses below original comment) when re -submitting the revised plat to the City. If you have any questions, feel free to contact David Berkowitz, Director of Public Works/City Engineer at (763) 767- 5133 or Jason Law, Assistant City Engineer at (763) 767-5130. Regular Andover City Council Meeting Minutes —dune 7, 2016 Page 5 REVIEWCONCEPTPLAN/PLANNED UATITDEVELOPMENT-16437CROSSTOWNBLVD NW Mr. Carlberg reviewed a concept plan for a 13 lot single family rural residential planned unit development as requested by Metrowide Development, LLC. The City Council was asked to review the proposed concept plans and informally advise the applicant on adjustments to the proposed project to conform to local ordinances and review criteria. Councilmember Bukkila asked for a description of a by-pass lane. Mr. Berkowitz stated it allowed a driver to turn left more easily. It was noted the recommendations by the Planning and Zoning Commission included balancing the size of the lots and further consideration of access points to the east. It was suggested the developer work with staff. Mr. Carlberg noted this was a low -impact design development (LID). Mr. Lazan, the developer, presented the revised concept design. He reviewed the process and what brought about his involvement. He reminded the Council these were concepts and are being revised based on additional input they are receiving. He stated he believes that a connection to the south is important. The project is 30 acres in total and has great resources. The property in the center has some of the best environmental resources where the road would normally go, which drew them to a LID approach. Examples of other LID projects were shown for review, which included how storm water can be treated and incorporated into landscaping. Councilmember Holthus asked to review a photo with the disturbed area. It was noted that it was already disturbed with very few trees. Mr. Lazan replied they have identified what is already disturbed and plan to make it work as a building site if they can without disturbing additional areas. On the east side it backs up to a wetland and open space that would remain. Councilmember Holthus asked if there are concerns about the public ditch and if there might be needed modifications to this plan based on additional information on the wetland. Mayor Trude asked if that was the only significant change since the packet. Mr. Lazan stated the lots are 2.5 acres or larger and no smaller than 1.5 acres, and those smaller lots are adjacent to open space. Councilmember Holthus asked how lot 6 would be accessed. Mr. Lazan responded that every lot would have a culvert under the driveway. Mr. Berkowitz stated the cul-de-sac can be left short. In this case the developer puts up an escrow that the City would keep until it is developed. All costs to re -do the street would be in escrow. Escrow is 150% so developers do not usually like to do that for a long time. Mr. Lazan commented the presentation is a preliminary concept and that it is a really small section of road. Regular Andover City Council Meeting Minutes —June 7, 2016 Page 6 Mayor Trude inquired about zoning. Mr. Lazan noted the development is zoned R-1 and that it took some time and effort to look at the ordinances. He quoted the definition under the purpose of a PUD purpose. He explained that is why they "landed" on pursuing a PUD. He continued that he needed flexibility to fit the homes within the landscape and preserve trees. As the plan was presented at the Planning & Zoning Commission meeting, 1.5 acres is the smallest lot. Mr. Lazan stated at a subsequent meeting he could illustrate where they need flexibility with the lots along with a narrower roadway. He went on to say there are no issues with access to the south, however there are significant challenges with an access to the east, requiring 300 — 500 feet of road to nowhere. He said they are not interested in helping the neighbor develop $100,000 lots, even though the adjacent landowner says he has no interest in development. Mr. Lazan respectfully asked for consideration on the east side. He stated the number of lots, the LID, swales, etc. all have extra costs so they have proposed an additional lot to help cover the additional costs. There is already a lot of public interest in building homes on the lots. Mr. Lazan stated Mr. Kytonen and Mr. Carlberg have been very helpful. Mr. Carlberg stated staff does support the concept of a LID as well as supporting the standards. Under city code, staff is required to evaluate the adjacent property. Mr. Lazan responded the better access point is to the south. Mr. Lazan indicated their goal is to submit a preliminary plat on June 21 s` and then fall timing for construction. He was excited to announce that Hanson Builders would be the builder for the development. Hanson Builders would take all the lots and would control and manage the project going forward. Dean Hanson, Hanson Builders, recalled when Hanson Boulevard was a dirt road. He stated he had a preference for building amongst trees while most builders do not want to do it. He said he enjoys a challenge and it is a skill that their company has. He believes the development supports a "move -up" buyer and that it is an exciting property. Mayor Trude asked Mr. Hanson to share with the Council what kind of homes he builds. He replied the typical home they build would range in price from $650,000 - $950,000 and have a 4 car garage. Councihnember Knight asked about the pole barn shown in the materials. Mr. Lazan stated it would be removed. Mayor Trude referenced estate zoning. Mr. Lazan stated the homeowners would be able to customize the homes the way the owner wanted. He continued that it would be a quiet neighborhood and that most of the new owners would likely be current Andover residents. Mayor Trude asked if the development would be a cohesive looking neighborhood. Mr. Lazan replied they will have architectural control, but no two homes would be identical and even the Regular Andover City Council Meeting Minutes —June 7, 2016 Page 7 smallest lot is bigger than what they typically build on. He said there is a lot of space and plenty room for well and septic systems. Mayor Trude asked about the rain gardens. Mr. Lazan stated there would be rain gardens along with wild flowers and wild grasses planted and that both looked good. Mayor Trude asked if the development would look well -manicured and then thanked Mr. Lazan for his time. Councilmember Bukkila stated she liked the idea of having concrete ribbon curbs on the road and the right turn lane on Crosstown Boulevard not impeding traffic. Her greatest concern is what to do with enforcement on the size of the lots, pointing out there is an "equator" in the City where residents can do this, and cannot do that (e.g. park RVs, bow hunting, ride ATVs). She stated this has caused division in other neighborhoods and sees this as a potential neighborhood dispute and would like to see it be "all or none" within the development. Mr. Lazan replied diversity is both a benefit and a concern. Covenants will be used as a restriction to control the whole neighborhood. The covenants will be filed on the deeds, in addition to City ordinances that can be enforced. Items addressed in the covenants, for example, could be motor homes. The thought would be to make covenants in the development uniform relative to the 1.7 -acre size lot, creating an even playing field, so even if ordinances allow something, covenants would restrict. Councilmember Bukkila commented a homeowner's association takes over after the builder is out and that the majority of the lots would be of a larger size. Mr. Carlberg stated there is only I lot where residents could do those rural kinds of things. That lot is 2.6 acres. Mr. Lazan stated there could be ATV restrictions so that there is no recreational use or it can only be used to haul wood. Councilmember Bukkila stated whatever is determined it should not be her battle to fight after the developer is gone. She is also concerned that parking issues are addressed. Mr. Berkowitz clarified Andover has other streets that are 24 feet wide with ditches and staff is familiar with that width in the community. Councilmember Bukkila stated she did not want to go backwards. Mr. Berkowitz replied new streets are 30 feet wide and where you have large lots, supporting the roadway is important. He confirmed this road size is going to become the new standard if the City moves forward. He clarified the standard lane is 12 feet and that staff supports the ribbon curb and feels that 12 feet is a reasonable width. Councilmember Bukkila asked what happens when a resident has a party. Mr. Lazan responded that guests would park on one side of the street and utilize their long driveways. Councilmember Bukkila stated she supports parking on one side of the street. Mr.-Lazan responded that estate lots have more opportunity to park on driveways which are much longer without parking on the lawn. Regular Andover City Council Meeting Minutes —June 7, 2016 Page 8 Councilmember Holthus stated she liked the changes from Concept 1 to Concept 2. She appreciated the more uniform size of the lots and liked the idea of a PUD. She also supports the effort to save trees. She had concerns about the narrower street and that she had seen the developments and they do have longer driveways and then referenced her own driveway. She appreciated the answer on the county ditch and expressed her excitement in seeing the preliminary plat when it is completed. Councilmember Knight asked about parking of camping trailers. Mr. Lazan said campers are often parked on sold surface pads, driveways, and not in the front yard. They would provide surface. pads, and because the street volume is low trailering in the neighborhood would be fine. Councilmember Bukkila stated parking large items on large property is okay and the law enforcement does not want to pick winners and losers Mayor Trude referenced Bruce Lee's photo studio with its driveway 2 — 3 times in length. She stated estate homes have attractive garages matching the home and screening from trees. She is happy to see low impact development and has been hoping for a development like this in Andover. Lots without trees do not sell fast noting that the City does not have any lots left like that in Andover. She is pleased there would not be 4 different builders involved in the development and noted buffers are already there between the lots. She stated her belief that she did not want to pursue a street to the east. Councilmember Goodrich stated he liked what he saw and had watched the Planning & Zoning Commission meeting. He thought it was a good conversation and appreciated the input given by the neighbors that spoke. He stated he would like to see curb as was discussed and appreciated the plans for the swale. He was supportive of parking on one side of the street. Keeping the forested areas is a key feature. Because he likes to think long term he would still like to consider a road to the east or at least like to see a design with that option. He is not concerned with some of the lots being smaller. Councilmember Knight asked if there would be ponding on the lots themselves. Mr. Lazan stated the runoff from the lot would be treated in the swales and other than natural wetlands there would be no open ponding. Mayor Trude noted there would be rain gardens as well, so no clear-cutting is needed. Mr. Carlberg asked for direction from councihnembers about the access to the east. Mayor Trude, Councilmembers Holthus and Knight all stated they are not interested in an access to the east. Councilmember Bukkila stated it was a low priority for her. Mayor Trude asked for any other comments. Hearing none, she recommended that next steps be taken and summarized the comments previously shared by councilmembers. Regular Andover City Council Meeting Minutes—June 7, 2016 Page 9 Shawn Lidberg, 545 Constance Boulevard NW, who owns the property to the south, expressed his concern for the small footprint of Lot 6 that backs up to his property. He stated he is very familiar with the natural area. In addition, he has concerns about ditch 53 and a possible road to the east and 10 foot setbacks from the south property line. Mr. Carlberg commented the development will still have to meet the setback requirements. Mr. Lidberg continued that he would like to see vegetation maintained as a barrier and it seems impossible to.have vegetation maintained with a 4,800 square foot house on that particular property (Lot 6). He is more concerned as a homeowner that there would be a house without a barrier. Mayor Trude stated on paper it is hard to tell the proportions of the lots and that showing the development more to scale would be helpful. Mr. Lidberg stated he believes there is not enough room for the septic system. Mayor Trade responded by encouraging him to stay in contact with Dave Carlberg. She followed up by asking him about the cul-de-sac. Mr. Lidberg expressed he felt there is plenty of vegetation where the cul-de-sac is. Mayor Trude stated his concerns are well noted and if the vegetation was gone, they will need work on being a good neighbor. No others wanted to speak on the matter from the Council or audience. Mayor Trude reiterated the recommendations made by the Councihnembers during the previous discussion. CONSIDER PARK IMPR 0 VEMENTS PR OPOSA L FROMSWLAND, LL CICO UNTRYOAKS NORTHYT ADDITION Mr. Berkowitz reviewed the improvements that were recommended by the Park and Recreation Commission for Maple View Park located in Country Oaks North 2nd Addition. It was noted the developer will have the option to pay the fees in 2016 or the fees will be assessed to each of the properties. In this case it may take another 5 years to collect the remainder of the park dedication fees. The new name of the park was noted Motion by Goodrich, Seconded by Knight, to approve the recommended improvements. Motion carried unanimously. Mr. Wold stated the parking lot was paved on the day of the meeting and was already completed. No additional trees will need to be cut down for the improvements and the work will be done this summer. He described the buffering to the housing. He confirmed that everything has now been paved. Additional lots remain. Mayor Trude thank Mr. Wold for working with the Park and Recreation Commission and Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes — May 10, 2016 Page 4 1 PUBLIC HEARING: Sketch/Planned Unit Development Plan Review —16473 2 Crosstown Blvd — Metrowide Development, LLC. 3 4 City Planner Hanson noted the purpose of this item is to hold a public hearing and take 5 input on preliminary plans for a proposed development at 16473 Crosstown Boulevard. 6 7 City Planner Hanson reviewed the proposed concept plan with the Commission. Of note 8 is the fact that these are rural lots and that they are not located within MUSA boundaries. 9 The property is zoned R-1. Each lot is planned to have its own septic and well. There to are 13 proposed lots with 5 of them being less than the typical 2.5 acres for an R-1 zoned i l lot. Ms. Hanson stated that there are minimal wetlands on the property and since the 12 project is at the concept phase, it has not yet been submitted to the Coon Creek 13 Watershed District. The Park and Recreation Commission recommended cash in lieu of 14 land for park dedication. One letter from a resident was placed into the public record. 15 Ms. Hanson requested to move to a public hearing. 16 17 Acting Chairperson Nemeth asked for clarification, stating that the Commission would 18 not be voting and that the concept plan was simply open for review. Ms. Hanson replied 19 that the development would come back to the Commission in a preliminary plat hearing 20 and that there would be more communication at that point. 21 22 Commissioner Cleven noted that 8 of the lots meet the lot requirement and 5 are under 23 review. He asked what the option would be for them. Ms. Hanson responded by saying 24 that was why the development was coming to the Commission as a PUD. 25 26 Commissioner Koehler asked if the City had received any information regarding how 27 small the lots might be. Ms. Hanson replied 1.33 acres, indicating that the sizes were 28 described in the agenda packet. 29 30 Commissioner Peterson inquired about extending the road to the southern boundary and 31 asked if they had received any concepts from the developer. Ms. Hanson stated that the 32 City does not want homes to be landlocked, and that they did receive a ghost plat from 33 the developer. She described the ghost plat and stated that it is an illustration of what it 34 might be like if it were developed in the future. 35 36 Commissioner Sims inquired if the developer was required to work under the PUD 37 guidelines. Ms. Hanson stated that the work with City officials was on the PUD and that 38 they worked with the developer with the idea of being flexible and creative to come up 39 with a product that works for everybody. 40 41 Acting Chairperson Nemeth stated that developments within MUSA must have city 42 sewer and water. He inquired as to what makes this different. Ms. Hanson responded 43 that City water and sewer is not available to this property. 44 Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes —May 10, 2016 Page 5 1 Acting Chairperson Nemeth asked if the developer had spoken with the Anoka County 2 Highway Department. Ms. Hanson indicated that question should be asked of the 3 applicant. 4 5 Acting Chairperson Nemeth asked staff if the right-of-way was a concern. Ms. Hanson 6 responded that 50 feet would be sufficient, and because of that, there would be signs 7 posted indicating no parking on either side of the street. 8 9 Acting Chairperson Nemeth made note of the memo by Mr. Berkowitz related to curb 10 and gutter. Ms. Hanson stated that it was not required because it is rural, but staff is 11 recommending it. 12 13 Acting Chairperson Nemeth inquired about their tree preservation plan. Ms. Hanson 14 stated that it is informal, but it is not required and there will be references to it on the plat. 15 16 Acting Chairperson Nemeth indicated that he felt he could not really see the lots 17 themselves in the printed material and that it would be helpful to be able to see them 18 better. 19 20 Commissioner Cleven stated that adding ditching alongside the roadway, for drainage 21 and runoff for the property would be of interest to the watershed district. 22 23 Commissioner Koehler wondered if 60 feet ROW might work better for the roadway, and 24 if there was 50 feet in another area to observe. Mr. Carlberg confirmed that 50 feet can 25 be found in other areas of the City and that he has not heard of any issues with the 26 narrower ROW. 27 28 Mr. Carlberg noted the staff report and discussion related to a potential street connection 29 to the east and to the south. He referenced item 4 in the staff memo. 30 31 Acting Chairperson Nemeth gave instructions to anyone wishing to address the 32 Commission and reminded those in attendance that nothing would be approved at this 33 evening's meeting, but that the purpose was to give feedback to the developer as well as 34 the City Council, who also reviews the minutes and/or video of the meeting. 35 36 Motion by Peterson, seconded by Koehler, to open the public hearing at 7:36 p.m. 37 Motion carried on a 5 -ayes, 0 -nays, 2 -absent (Daninger and Hudson) vote. 38 39 Shawn Lidberg, of 545 Constance Boulevard NW, stated that he had a few concerns in 4o reading the staff report, including the number of variances requested. Mr. Lidberg noted 41 the smaller lots, believing that the developer was trying to develop as many lots as they 42 could when the property is not actually designed for that many. In addition, Mr. Lidberg 43 noted that there were plans for a deceleration lane, but not a bypass lane. He expressed a 44 preference for a vehicle count and study believing that the traffic would increase due to 45 the additional housing, since he moved to the area 18 years ago. Mr. Lidberg also noted Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes —May 10, 2016 Page 6 1 the ghost plat and stated that his property would not be developed any time soon. He alsc 2 expressed the need to have a turn -around for emergency vehicles. Wetlands were briefly 3 mentioned, he felt what was not addressed was the County Ditch #58. He asked how the 4 ditch would be crossed and with what type of road structure. The fact that there would be 5 no parking on the street with the reduced right of way he felt could be an issue, if there 6 was an event at someone's home. On the PUD, Mr. Lidberg noted that he had concerns 7 about Lots 6 and 7 and how the vegetation buffer might be maintained and what that 8 requirement involve and if there was any flexibility in where the lot line was placed. His 9 final question was would the development affect his ability to have horses on his 10 property. In summary, he asked the Commission to take into consideration the 11 consistency in the ordinances, as the development has been laid out. 12 13 Acting Chairperson Nemeth responded by saying that if a resident is abiding by the City 14 Code that they could certainly maintain their horses. 15 16 Greg Shultz, 16331 Crosstown Boulevard NW, stated that he had concerns about a 17 pipeline that runs through the area. He wondered what the potential impact might be on 18 those lots and the layout of those lots. 19 20 Steve Heinen, 455 166th Avenue NW, stated that he lives just north of the proposed 21 development. He wanted to know if there would be a study done on how it might affect 22 adjacent property as it relates to well water and pressure. He also had concerns about the 23 width of the roadway if there was a graduation party or family reunion. He commented 24 that it is hard to get through when there is parking on both sides of the street for a 25 roadway that is not a reduced width. 26 27 Diane Schultz, 16331 Crosstown Boulevard NW, asked about the ghost road and if there 28 would be a planned road to the east and where would it be located. 29 30 Doug Engstrom, 509 166th Avenue NW, asked why the Commission would consider less 31 than the minimum 2.5 acres. 32 33 Joe Maki, 16409 Crosstown Boulevard NW, expressed their interest in a development 34 that included a tree preservation plan. 35 36 Patty Diestler, 401 Constance Blvd NW, wrote a letter against the development with 37 concerns focusing on the reduction of habitat. Her comments were acknowledged. 38 39 Darin Lazan, of Metrowide Development, stated that he had informal meetings with staff, 40 including discussion regarding trees with Kameron Kytonen. He appreciated the work 41 that had been done with the staff. He reiterated that it is an interim step to get feedback 42 from residents and the Commission and then he would get back to work and bring back 43 additional information to share. At this point the project is at a concept level. Generally 44 speaking, he does not prefer to do ghost platting, but it is required. The road as shown to 45 the east is one potential option to meet requirements, but it is not shown on the concept, Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes — May 10, 2016 Page 7 1 because it is unlikely to be developed. If it becomes critical to the project, it can be 2 addressed. Wherein, access to south does make sense. Because this is designed to be a 3 low impact development, the objective is to have the least disturbance possible and the 4 smallest footprint possible with custom grading to preserve trees. Considerable 5 flexibility was taken to align the road to preserve the best amenities. This was also the 6 motivation for reducing the size of the roadway. Their initial thought was to have no 7 parking on one side and he is willing to work with staff on that concern. Since the focus 8 of the design is to minimize the footprint and the property is generally surrounded with a 9 considerable amount of wetland the reduced lot size is not as noticeable. Also, by 10 reducing the lot sizes the best stand of trees would be able to be left undisturbed as 11 opposed to where the road would have gone in a traditional development. Mr. Lazan 12 showed an example of a low impact design (LID) development in Edina. He discussed 13 how storm water is treated naturally and showed examples of similar projects where the 14 swale was planted with native grasses. Residents can choose to have a rain garden 15 adjacent to the driveway. Their plan asks for a 13a' lot, instead of 12, because low impact 16 developments are a more expensive process and this would offset the costs with one extra 17 lot to support it. He noted that the traffic volume is not expected to be as much of a 18 concern and there are plans for a deceleration lane to get into the neighborhood. Site 19 lines are a consideration. This would be a pilot project for Andover and a way to save 20 trees and wetlands. If the concept is appealing Mr. Lazan would like to know before he 21 puts more time and money into the project. 22 23 Acting Chairperson Nemeth expressed concerns about the dead end and the need to 24 accommodate fire department vehicles. Mr. Lazan stated that this point was an oversight 25 in the design and would be addressed. 26 27 Acting Chairperson Nemeth inquired if there would need to be a culvert placed where the 28 county ditch goes through. Mr. Lazan agreed that this would need to be addressed. 29 3o Acting Chairperson Nemeth addressed tree preservation, clarifying that the homeowner 31 makes the ultimate decision to keep or what is taken out as development moves forward. 32 Mr. Lazan stated that was a correct statement. 33 34 Acting Chairperson Nemeth asked if there would be an impact to the pipeline. Mr. Lazan 35 stated that it is a natural gas pipeline and that the necessary requirements and setbacks 36 would be maintained, the same as in his own Andover neighborhood. 37 38 Acting Chairperson Nemeth inquired if the developer expected that there would be any 39 effects on well water or the water table by 12 or 13 new lots particularly since 4o neighboring residents are already having issues. Mr. Lazan stated that the question 41 would need to be addressed at a future date and that they would look at the well depth. 42 43 Acting Chairperson Nemeth inquired as to why the lots were less than 2.5 acres, which is 44 standard. Mr. Lazan stated that this plan helps to preserve more trees and with a PUD it 45 is typical to have give-and-take. Acting Chairperson Nemeth followed up by asking why Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes — May 10, 2016 Page 8 1 there was a request for an additional lot. Mr. Lazan responded that the trees were the 2 greatest asset and that the goal was to minimize disturbance as little as possible. He 3 stated that he hoped to maximize the lots, in exchange to help fund the extra expenses for 4 the more expensive low impact development process. 5 6 Acting Chairperson Nemeth encouraged Mr. Lazan to work with City staff on parking, 7 stating that even no parking signs do not stop people and that he shared the same concern 8 as the resident that spoke earlier in the evening. 9 10 Acting Chairperson Nemeth asked whose responsibility it would be to maintain the 11 vegetation. Mr. Lazan replied that the landowner is responsible for taking care of their 12 property. He indicated that the swale is intended to be allowed to grow and would be 13 marked accordingly and that homeowners could choose more or less vegetation, but there 14 would still be native vegetation in the swale. He noted that in other developments they 15 had to keep coming back for a few years, but with newer standards they can more easily 16 predict effectiveness and they are able to be maintained. 17 18 Commissioner Cleven reiterated that these systems work well for runoff and as 19 stormwater drainage systems, and if kept up by property owners are appealing. 20 21 Commissioner Peterson thanked the developer for trying something new and innovative. 22 He expressed a preference for parking on one side of the street and commented that Club 23 West in Blaine, has a narrower feel that is too tight. He commented that he was curious 24 what Anoka County would say about the safety issue as it is planned. He wondered if 25 consideration could be given to remove lot #8, and then lot #7 and #9 would be back up 26 to usual standards. He also wondered if an offset driveway makes sense. 27 28 Mr. Sims also commented on the pipeline noting that the easement on one lot already 29 exists today. Mr. Carlberg confirmed that the dedicated easement carries through to the 30 plat. Mr. Sims asked about the narrow road. Mr. Lazan responded that there was less 31 disturbance, grading, etc. 32 33 Commissioner Koehler indicated that he is hesitant on the road to the east. He also feels 34 that there should be consideration for the need for emergency vehicles to allow for 35 redundancy. He stated that the narrower road slowed people down in his own 36 neighborhood. He felt what it boils down to is having lots size of less than 2.5 acres and 37 whether or not it is worth allowing for a nicer neighborhood to compromise on the size. 38 He noted that the developer is offering more in exchange for the compromise. 39 40 In summary, Acting Chairperson Nemeth stated that the Commission had listened to the 41 residents including concerns about the size of the lots and noted that this was a PUD so 42 there is give and take. He also stated that he liked the plans for the storm water swales 43 and applauded the developer for the planned effort to save the trees. 44 Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes —May 10, 2016 Page 9 1 Commissioner Sims asked if there would be a sole builder and if interest had been 2 expressed in the lots. Mr. Lazan stated that there may be individual builders or a builder 3 could buy several lots. Commissioner Sims asked if they would be "cookie cutter" 4 homes. Mr. Lazan replied that the lots are planned to be custom graded for the eventual 5 homeowner. 6 7 Mr. Carlberg asked for direction from the Commission on lot size as well as a connection 8 to the east. 9 to Acting Chairperson Nemeth inquired if the existing home would be removed. Mr. Lazan 11 stated it may be restored and that the pole barns would be removed. 12 13 Commissioner Koehler stated that he felt that the development needs to be thoughtfully 14 planned out. He also expressed concerns about there being one way in and one way out 15 of the development and encouraged the developer to work with staff to find a way out to 16 the east and not to ignore the standard 2.5 acres lot requirement for 5 of the 13 lots. He 17 stated that he believed that it would be a nicer neighborhood if he was good to his word. 18 19 Commissioner Cleven noted that Lot 12 is 112,300 square feet and the others are all 20 smaller. He stated that a PUD is give and take and that consideration be given to getting 21 Lots 8 and 9 closer to 1.5 acres. He stated that he believed there were people that would 22 buy the smaller lots. 23 24 Commissioner Peterson stated that he agreed with what had been said by his fellow 25 Commissioners. He noted that two lots were over an acre smaller, and were quite a bit 26 less than 2.5 acres. He recommended looking at ways to unify the lot size more. He 27 indicated that he was not supportive of putting a road into a wetland and that the 28 preliminary plans cannot provide for every possible connection. Commissioner Peterson 29 asked the developer to work with staff. 30 31 Commissioner Sims recommended enlarging the 1.3 acre sites to closer to 2 acres. He 32 also expressed concerns with the road. 33 34 Commissioner Koehler asked that the developer talk with staff about the road. He asked 35 that they not "put a bridge to nowhere." He noted the size of the smaller lots -- two of the 36 five, are 1.33 and 1.38, and the rest are all 1.66 or more. Mr. Lazan stated that the sizes 37 are all negotiable. He noted that Lot 8 has a large area to build on with less usable 38 wetland behind and some of the bigger lots actually have less buildable area. 39 Commissioner Koehler thanked Mr. Lazan for calling out the difference. 40 41 Acting Chairperson Nemeth summarized the previous comments made by the 42 Commissioners. 43 44 Mr. Lazan stated that they could break out what is buildable and not buildable for each of 45 the lots. Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes —May 10, 2016 Page 10 2 Motion by Sims, seconded by Koehler, to close the public hearing at 8:49 p.m. Motion 3 carried on a 5 -ayes, 0 -nays, 2 -absent (Daninger and Hudson) vote. 4 5 City Planner Hanson stated that this item would be before the Council at the June 7, 2016 6 City Council meeting. 8 OTHER BUSINESS. 10 Mr. Carlberg updated the Planning Commission on related items. 11 12 There is now dirt moving on the Re/Max Results building site. This is a 2 story office 13 building that will be completed this summer. The Shoppes @ Andover had its permit 14 issued the day previous to the meeting. It will be a 13,000 square foot retail center with 15 restaurants and one tenant will have a drive-through feature. There are no 16 announcements about the proposed tenants for the building as of yet. Andover Animal 17 Hospital has had their site plan review with staff and they will be working with the Coon 18 Creek Watershed District to secure their permit from them. 19 20 The Andover Family Fun Fest is coming up and the City will have a booth. Mr. Carlberg 21 asked for volunteers to participate. There will be zoning maps available and he will be 22 emailing out a sign-up sheet to the Commissioners. Volunteer slots are for 2 hours each. 23 24 Commissioner Peterson noticed that nothing is progressing at the Clocktower Commons 25 development. Mr. Carlberg stated that nothing has been submitted to date but that the 26 site is being actively marketed. 27 28 Acting Chairperson Nemeth stated that he appreciated the commentary and information 29 given by residents. 30 31 ADJOURNMENT. 32 33 Motion by Koehler, seconded by Cleven, to adjourn the meeting at 8:53 p.m. Motion 34 carried on a 5 -ayes, 0 -nays, 2 -absent (Daninger and Hudson) vote. 35 36 37 Respectfully Submitted, 38 39 40 Marlene White, Recording Secretary 41 TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. 42 ©wQFORuzofs PID I I L_ \ \ I I �I AO W I I I B, BB \ \ ��, I•Bpe I I I I I I I I I I L Via I n e§ n " v H s 31 ' Z • 6� PID I I L_ \ \ I I �I AO W I I I B, BB \ \ ��, I•Bpe I I I I I I I I I I 6905, // I � s 31 ' Z • 6� r \ m o () aqg�qi • a o T m • Olit " Z c5 3 IJ I L �— ______________J 211,00 E E -. F L____ u N00°16'50"fi 1313.08 / y,sB E / o 41�a T I I I I I I I I I I s 31 ' Z • 6� 9q m o () aqg�qi • a o T m • Olit " Z c5 3 IJ 41�a T I I I I I I I I I I 41�a T y/ \ { E!!• \ \ \ of = 7 | ■ )\ .ate /§ ---\�j � I 1 4 , ~ 9R6 R22 \ eee a,.------------- \ ! .. ,..( | ■ )\ .ate /§ ---\�j � I 1 4 , ©w+oranuxfa . � . P P Mz a a e a r A Z C m mm O m PH '� H D o m a a z y Z /l' '-'tee I ! n� ,a,4� ���i ��P $$\-\\' `�.p_ \ tc.: •y'\ / � S00°1293" W t 1309.33 --� — __ \ \ X,F ' i' __' - i\� _2-, ,/ /T L• / r______i 1 /i`vio�� Vii: °/'". � - \ $�''.� t.; 1 / I � / , :.i:: is .: �:.�f.. :�...:°?iy::.\�.�: , .:.:. �'.:. ��. ,� ' (b E %\ "'a;• J I ( 1 J' I I / �___ \ \ ,..i."i i /:U .G:i: ili i. i.. :�: i:: �i�. i � .::.i° \ •. \ — — ':''1',;i`\:::�:::; �:i�r �5: �: ���i%'iii i>'� '•\ •.' �, —-- 4 / / l a 4 .,I I � �-_ 1:;1::'::8::. Y. i';'!(�' :ii� - - -�- .:.. I bi' l --• ° I I.� :XI :,!�i pOoC° - I ��Xop l 4 di0 0 P1 0 I d r o O 02 a a e a r A Z C m mm O m PH '� H D 4 di0 0 P1 0 I d r o O D a a e a r A Z C m 1T7 O Ru'g D o m a a z y Z I - � o• am • 0 io o 4 di0 0 P1 0 I d r o O Ln IM � � Z C m 1T7 O I p $$8 E e z > W fl 11 33 y0 i g0 FN- z • "�„a a :� SLU m t &I ggw 1�- s LL 3 t O� Q 0a MFS@ H -, O�I 1 o • ❑ S '��'P LL yLL N •r s �hg � mm } -Y ;_.. } w � $ h n • � � x yK `I � \T � ,yp3 S `� `� Q {I 6 y I I / \ 1 �, i 1 1-•� a�, mm } -Y ;_.. } tl ' ©L DF°IiMHIS i r n / i c/in^19'n"i4�1 P m INA 0� F 1 ro IER ` I \ =T- I , \ � r I / i r I I t L 9veA) 21/.00 � ! —(9 J 00.0) m N00'16'50' ( 13Z3:0I i ��iyiv%F ��o`�••W\•��I i C /pi efi�i���rl irwod � 1 r � � 4JE��••O•�•tp2�i••'•tt•A6Lo`a`�, � 6 oo.Ooa•Oi•�/�i•✓'/ippi�io+�>�4 00] FZ f � / r�a��Qj`�k••ip•A�,►•ip�••Q••pJy��:••�f' i�f' r , �•<�V�•jar•��1i4�,1.0�♦•�•�••••••�•�•11 •:►ir••1.2C� +s••9•• is i �•�4p•I ►•i'rs�rOp•��4i�e°••i' I / mg i .I �I /I I ro IER ` I \ =T- I , \ � r I / i r I I t L 9veA) 21/.00 � ! —(9 J 00.0) m N00'16'50' ( 13Z3:0I i ��iyiv%F ��o`�••W\•��I i C /pi efi�i���rl irwod A rJ t 3 e a r• 0 s 1555051 10-2 1 g o� 6 m .a m Q • NQS ��� O� it YY OYY' O l�J /I, g O O_ i •'}i _ Q aLa o ill OZ ��o •3 N RRR� I � 4JE��••O•�•tp2�i••'•tt•A6Lo`a`�, � 6 oo.Ooa•Oi•�/�i•✓'/ippi�io+�>�4 00] FZ r�a��Qj`�k••ip•A�,►•ip�••Q••pJy��:••�f' i�f' �♦\e d"/•• �e•2:���I>•�•�1••2••�O�••OO•1V••� �•<�V�•jar•��1i4�,1.0�♦•�•�••••••�•�•11 •:►ir••1.2C� +s••9•• is i �•�4p•I ►•i'rs�rOp•��4i�e°••i' mg a •1►4f�yA'1►�O�Q�W A rJ t 3 e a r• 0 s 1555051 10-2 1 g o� 6 m .a m Q • NQS ��� O� it YY OYY' O l�J /I, g O O_ i •'}i _ Q aLa o ill OZ ��o •3 N RRR� I I f - y I / 1 I I I -- 7pI,--ao•ata 1 I I \ I � I ---.;-----_--— ------------ 1.?..:..'. r BLWWtlO' (D w O Cf) W a z> HER w=Y� w > CA 110 w w < 0 z1<1 o I f - y I / 1 I I I -- 7pI,--ao•ata 1 I I \ I � I ---.;-----_--— ------------ 1.?..:..'. r BLWWtlO' (D