HomeMy WebLinkAbout11.13.181685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. • ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 • (763) 755 -5100
FAX (763) 755 -8923 • WWW.ANDOVERMN.GOV
Andover Planning and Zoning Commission
Meeting Agenda
November 13, 2018
Andover City Hall
Council Chambers
7.00 p.m.
1. Call to Order
2. Pledge of Allegiance
3. Approval of Minutes— September 11, 2018 Regular Meeting, September 25, 2018
Work Session Meeting, and October 9, 2018 Work Session Meeting.
4. Public Hearing — Planned Unit Development Amendment — Preserve at Petersen
Farms — JD Andover Holdings LLC
5. Other Business
6. Adjournment
t C I T Y 0 F
A
1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W.. ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 • (763) 755 -5100
FAX (763) 755 -8923 • WWW.ANDOVERMN.GOV
TO: Planning and Zoning Commissioners
FROM: Stephanie L. Hanson, City Planner
SUBJECT: Approval of Minutes — September 11, 2018 Regular Meeting Minutes;
September 25, 2018 Work Session Meeting Minutes, and October 9, 2018 Work
Session Meeting Minutes
DATE: November 13, 2018
REQUEST
The Planning and Zoning Commission is requested to approve the regular meeting minutes from
September 11, 2018 and the Work Session meeting minutes from September 25, 2018 and
October 9, 2018.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING — SEPTEMBER 11, 2018
The Regular Bi- Monthly Meeting of the Andover Planning and Zoning Commission was
called to order by Chairperson Kyle Nemeth on September 11, 2018, 7:00 p.m., at the
Andover City Hall, 1685 Crosstown Boulevard NW, Andover, Minnesota.
Commissioners present: Dean Daninger, Scott Hudson, Bert Koehler IV, Nick
Loehlein, and Mary VanderLaan
Commissioners absent: Jeff Sims
Also present: City Administrator Jim Dickinson
Community Development Director Joe Janish
City Planner Stephanie Hanson
Others
PLEDGE OFALLEGL4NCE.
Chairperson Nemeth requested a moment of silence in recognition of 9/11.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES.
August 15, 2018 Regular Meeting
Chairperson Nemeth requested the following corrections:
Page 4, Line 17: `...their intentions.'
Motion by VanderLaan, seconded by Hudson, to approve the minutes as revised. Motion
carried on a 4 -ayes, 0 -nays, 2- present (Daninger and Koehler), 1- absent (Sims) vote.
August 28, 2018 Work Session Meeting
Motion by Koehler, seconded by Daninger, to approve the minutes as presented. Motion
carried on a 5 -ayes, 0 -nays, 1- present (Nemeth), 1- absent (Sims) vote.
PUBLIC HEARING: Conditional Use Permit Amendment (CUPA) — Addition of
Private Utility Structures —15825 71 Avenue NW — Northern Natural Gas Co.
Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
Minutes -September 11, 2018
Page 2
1 City Planner Hanson used a map to point out the location of the subject site. The purpose
2 of this item is to hold a public hearing and take input on an amendment to the existing
3 Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to allow for additional utility structures to meet the safety
4 guidelines of the United States Department of Transportation (US /DOT). She reviewed
5 that in 2009, a CUP was granted for the installation of above ground equipment that was
6 a requirement to comply with Federal regulations. She explained Northern Natural Gas
7 Company is regulated by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) and
8 required to follow safety guidelines of the US /DOT and as part of a Federal mandate,
9 required to conduct on -going in -line inspections. Twof its pipelines need to be
1 o modified. One 8 -inch diameter receiver and one 6 -inch r idineter launcher will need to be
11 installed along with concrete support footings The w of the structures will be 4 feet
12 high and 25 feet long. City Planner Hanson dtsp� e-yeral colored pictures of the
13 existing structure, noting the proposed structure -will be sinurk in appearance.
14
15 City Planner Hanson reviewed the propose (JPA request with t -Commission, noting
16 the process requires review of the site plan.- TAhe Andover Review Committee completed
17 its review and provided comments to tho a liGant salon with .fie Engineering
p g
18 Department, both of which haven provided fog the Commission's review. One
19 recommendation is to pave the dri tension ar o it is no longer gravel.
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
Chairperson Nemeth asked whether
Commissioner Kok
requirements. City
Mr.
Motion by Koehn
Motion carried on a
There was no public
of staff.
is to meet Federal
the affirmative.
e eA-,J5 currently paved and the requirement
City lax R Hanson stated that is correct and would
She new structures.
iNomern iNaturai vas t-ompany, was prescut.
VanderLaan, to open the public hearing at 7:07 p.m.
1- absent (Sims) vote.
Motion by Daninger, seconded by Koehler, to close the public hearing at 7:08 p.m.
Motion carried on a 6 -ayes, 0 -nays, 1- absent (Sims) vote.
40 Commissioner Daninger asked whether there had been complaints relating to the existing
41 vegetation or security issues in need of upgrading. City Planner Hanson answered staff
42 has received no complaints on the vegetation and is not aware of any security issues
43 related to the fencing.
44
Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
Minutes - September 11, 2018
Page 3
1 Motion by Koehler, seconded by Daninger, to recommend to the City Council approval
2 of the request from Northern Natural Gas Company for a Conditional Use Permit
3 Amendment to allow the addition of private utility structures at 15825 71h Avenue NW,
4 subject to conditions as detailed in the draft resolution. Motion carried on a 6 -ayes, 0-
5 nays, 1- absent (Sims) vote.
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
City Planner Hanson stated that this item would be before the Council at the October 2,
2018 City Council meeting.
PUBLIC HEARING: Variance - Reduce Front
181''' Avenue NW - TC Homes.
13 City Planner Hanson displayed a map to po-inVotit and
14 purpose of this item is to hold a public hea and take
15 setback variance requests of TC Homes, &:'for their p.
16 tracks on 181" Avenue NW to build a fides single -far
17 building setback and reduces it from 110 feet tt_feeE
18 -
19 City Planner Hanson displayed an e hotograph `€rf f
20 proposed location of the home on the -east W�de, locatit
21 as the railroad tracks. She noted t o wgetation
22 accommodate the ne n' Family h6t*',
23
24 City Planner Hanso
25 Improvements, and
26 variance a& follows:
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
property -6
fitted by an
on a County Road -
the subject site. The
the building and road
t east of the railroad
encroaches the
property and pointed out the
of existing structures, as well
all need to be removed to
Building Setbacks and Future Street
in City Code 12 -14 -7 to consider a
to use -ihe property in a reasonable manner not
City Planner pn noted tproperty is zoned R -1, Single - Family Rural, and has 3.05
acres that are h- y woodand secluded. The location of the proposed principal
structure would be X11 mvered from adjoining properties due to the trees on the
property. In addition, erty has a wetland that would be impacted if trying to meet
the 110 -foot setback. She pointed the proposed location is also the highest elevation on
the lot, reducing the need for fill and it would keep the proposed home farther from the
railroad tracks but the property has 3.05 acres so there are potential other locations for the
principal structure.
39
40 2. The plight of the property owner is due to circumstances unique to the property
41 not created by the landowner.
42
43 City Planner Hanson noted the variance is being requested to build the principal structure
44 in a location on the property that has the least impact on the environment and to avoid
45 removal of mature trees. The proposed location is the farthest location from the railroad
Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
Minutes —September 11, 2018
Page 4
1 tracks. She noted there is limited space between the County Road and wetlands and the
2 elevation of the property needs to keep a two -foot buffer from the highest anticipated
3 water level.
4
5 3. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality and
6 will not alter the rural residential character.
7
8 City Planner Hanson stated the variance will allow access to the principal structure from
9 18151 Avenue /County Road 58 and it will have minimal iract on the natural landscape.
10 She noted tree coverage adds to the essential charactep rural area and the applicant
11 would like to maintain that. In addition, if the prmei structure is placed on the other
12 side of the property, it would be within closer pX- 0-afrt pf the railroad tracks, which
13 would detract from a rural feel. She noted theeibormgerty to the east is 70 feet
14 from the centerline of County Road 58 and thaftouse was bull MEJ 972.
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
4. Economic considerations alone do
City Planner Hanson explained ifl
cost of removing mature trees ands
existing driveway. It was noted '
because of economic reason, more
removal. City Planpo�f%fpn pc
closer to the railroad cks and",the
is nat 'ted, they wouldhave the added
nateri the principal structure from the
ant is nofi',.seeking the proposed variance
ility, conrence, and minimizing tree
tl ��_ opos d home would be located
rations I mit the buildable area.
City Planner Hanson r ated lie Andover review Committee discussed this variance
proposals a were n n oht hared`at.the time. The Anoka County Highway
Depar n t &is curiftl ie tm the peal aria indicated they would have comments
basedaccess to the nert v frtitn Countv`ad 58.
City Plann slanson explained this tem will be heard by the City Council at its
September 18,8 meeting f the variance is granted, the applicant will be required to
obtain a building4pgmit fog e principal structure and any other appropriate permits
necessary. She not; staff--!-, drafted resolutions with potential findings of fact the
Commission may congdetwhen recommending approval or denial of this variance
request.
Chairperson Nemeth asked whether Commissioners had questions of staff.
39 Commissioner Loehlein asked about the setback from the County Road centerline and
40 whether the variance is to reduce the setback from the centerline from 110 feet to 80 feet
41 so conceivably, the house could be 20 feet from the edge of the County roadway if ever
42 expanded. City Planner Hanson stated that is correct.
43
44 Commissioner VanderLaan asked staff to verify whether the existing building is located
45 on a contiguous lot and not the proposed site. City Planner Hanson stated that is correct.
Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
Minutes - September 11, 2018
Page 5
1
2 Commissioner VanderLaan commented on the number of vehicles pictured on the site,
3 which is distorting. She asked whether there is sufficient setback from the common lot
4 line for the proposed house and existing building on the next lot. City Planner Hanson
5 answered in the affirmative.
6
7 Chairperson Nemeth asked whether the house previously displayed currently has a 70-
8 foot setback. City Planner Hanson stated that is correct.
9
10 Chairperson Nemeth referenced the aerial view of thc,4�-Ubject site, noting it is being
11 displayed with north to the bottom of the subject site asked about the location of the
12 two wetlands. City Planner Hanson pointed ouf location of the wetlands on the
13 northern side.
14
15 Motion by VanderLaan, seconded by Loehl , to open the public hearing at 7:22 p.m.
16 Motion carried on a 6 -ayes, 0 -nays, 1- absent ns) vote.-
17
18 There was no public input.
19
20 Motion b Loehlein, seconded b �' der ; , to cl
' y y i os&Ibe public hearing at 7:23 p.m.
21 Motion carried on a 6 -ayes, 0 -nays, 1-sentT vote
22
23 Commissioner Koe state&fie is not ikessanly oppo cd to the variance but disagrees
24 strongly g y that there aW-Dicircumst €es beyondie owner's control since the house can be
25 located on the other i of t1roperty. e stated since there is another building
26 location, tt L_bey6_ control. Commissioner Koehler questioned
27 whethers requestually Meets the gu1Clnnes for variance consideration.
28 � -
29 ChairpersttnrNemeth nod d the 12gy, was incorporated in 1974 and the house was
--
30 constructed 1972. He asked if tBW__ 0 -foot setback went to Grow Township at that
31 time. City Planner Hanson §W fed she is not sure. Chairperson Nemeth asked if the 110-
32 foot setback requi rent ha §,bhanged. City Planner Hanson stated she is not aware of
33 any change.
34
35 Commissioner Koehler asked if the house is built on the other side of the property, would
36 any other condition force a variance. He also asked if the elevation on the other side of
37 the property can meet the required two -foot buffer for the low floor elevation. City
38 Planner Hanson suggested that question be asked of the builder.
39
40 Commissioner VanderLaan noted staff has indicated the proposed location has the
41 highest elevation, which should be considered as the City's elevations are slightly lower
42 than other cities in the area. She felt asking them to locate by the railroad tracks would
43 bring other difficulties as opposed to living closer to the County Road.
44
Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
Minutes - September 11, 2018
Page 6
1 Mr. Brian Tutt, TC Homes, Inc., stated there would be both sound and safety issues if the
2 house is located on the other side of the property. In addition, with regard to the required
3 two -foot buffer from the highest anticipated water level, it would require so much fill to
4 create that elevation that they would have to cut down 110 trees instead of 20 trees.
5
6 Chairperson Nemeth requested a motion to re -open the public hearing.
7
8 Motion by Loehlein, seconded by VanderLaan, to re -open the public hearing at 7:28 p.m.
9 Motion carried on a 5 -ayes, 1 -nay ( Daninger), 1- absent (Sims) vote.
10
_ ........:.........
11 Commissioner Koehler stated he does not have a quesct of the applicant.
12
13 Mr. Paul Syrdal, 18086 Palm Street, stated he wants iT Ito know the stakes for the
14 proposed home location as it would be feet from hiiA property line, which he
15 understands is within the allowances of tk ty. He stated his pr- aprty does not have a
16 screen of natural plants in that location as t it -is an opening betvi the two properties
17 so he will clearly see this house from his back 'yat4 _
18
19 Mr. Tutt stated he would be willing Ib4ppye the homtrther to the right but there is not
20 a lot of depth. In addition, they are - illhig plant adrenal trees and screening in the
21 location mentioned by Mr. Syrdal
22
23 Commissioner Dam --r state ince the= ub sus heart -as been re- opened, he has a
24 question of the apple He asked what 9p401es of trees Will be removed by the railroad
25 tracks if the house is re ed. -W Tutt stafe e does not know the species.
26 -_
27 Comm osioner battier asY about ffii. cies of trees Mr. Tutt would plant if he
28 receivbs. he variance anllanovegithe house 1-6eation several feet to provide more setback
29 from NO dal's proper„ 118o asked if it would be an economic hardship to
3o relocate th6- use to the other „side o -e property, remove the additional trees, and bring
31 in fill neededeet the fm400t low floor elevation requirement. Mr. Tutt stated
32 economic hardshs not the pson for the variance request.
33
34 Motion by Loehlein, sand by VanderLaan, to close the public hearing at 7:31 p.m.
35 Motion carried on a 6 -ay 0 -nays, 1- absent (Sims) vote.
36
37 Commissioner Koehler stated his question to staff was answered outside of the public
38 hearing when the applicant indicated the house could be moved with additional tree
39 clearing and fill. To him, that means this application does not meet the requirements for
4o a variance consideration.
41
42 Motion by Koehler, seconded by Daninger, to recommend to the City Council denial of
43 the Variance request of TC Homes, Inc. for their property just east of the railroad tracks
44 on 181st Avenue NW to build a single - family home that encroaches the building setback
45 and reduces it from 110 feet to 80 feet, based on the finding that the variance
Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
Minutes - September 11, 2018
Page 7
1 requirements are not met, specifically that the plight of the property owner is not due to
2 circumstances unique to the property since the house can be located somewhere else on
3 the property that meets City Code with additional fill and tree removal.
4
5 Motion failed on a 3 -ayes (Daninger, Hudson, Koehler), 3 -nays (Loehlein, Nemeth,
6 VanderLaan), 1- absent (Sims) vote.
7
8 City Planner Hanson stated this item would be before the Council at the September 18,
9 2018 City Council meeting and will be presented with a tied vote of the Planning
10 Commission.
12 PUBLIC HEARING: Sketch Plan - 9 Urban Lots -1049 Andover Blvd.
13 NW - Mark of Excellence, Inc.
14 _
15 City Planner Hanson used a map to point and describe the lation of the subject
16 property. The purpose of this item is to holdublic hearing andtal€,input on a sketch
17 plan submitted by Mark Smith of Mark of Exd4ence end consisting o vine urban lots
18 located at 1049 Andover Boulevar NW.
19
20 City Planner Hanson reviewed the po sketch plan along with comments from the
21 Andover Review Committee that v ire pr -4 to th��?lanning Commission and
22 applicant. With regarten ormanceth local ar<dregloiplans and ordinances, she
23 noted the property ts- liscated Within the 2QgQA#tropoIit0Xrban Service Area (MUSA)
24 boundary and the currC 0t stage ,sewer ex—p Sion. The property is zoned Single Family
25 Rural Residential (R-T sp a ring to eagle Family Urban Residential (R -4) is
26 necessary tl allc the prole t ard'
27
28 City der Hanson'-I&d a soh plan inap to point out the location of the access
29 proposedEm Andover R3vulevdid ,NW, which is governed by the Anoka County
3o Highway Dr6o ment, so tfi�*veloper will be required to comply with its requirements.
31 Each lot will served by ritaiicipal sewer and water by extending services from the
32 south. The grosEO city requ ments in the Residential Urban Area is 1.75 to 3.6 homes
33 per acre so the propz>d sk�`plan at a gross density of 1.87 homes per acre meets that
34 requirement as set ford over's Comprehensive Plan and City Code.
35
36 City Planner Hanson used an aerial map to point out the location of wetlands within the
37 sketch plan area, stating the wetlands will be required to be delineated and that report
38 submitted as part of the preliminary plat process. In addition, once the overall layout of
39 the sketch plan has been agreed upon and direction provided, the developer will prepare a
40 grading plan, hydrology calculations, and soils report for review by the City, an
41 engineering consultant, and the Coon Creek Watershed District.
42
43 City Planner Hanson noted the Park and Recreation Commission reviewed the request
44 and recommends cash in lieu of land as the current Master Park Plan does not show the
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
Minutes — September 11, 2018
Page 8
potential of parkland in this area. She stated there is already a trail on the south side of
this development.
City Planner Hanson displayed a ghost plat of what the area could look like in the future,
if developed, noting the developer and /or owner is responsible to obtain all necessary
permits from governing agencies. She explained that based on feedback, the developer
will modify the layout and make application for preliminary plat and final plat. The
Commission is asked to review the proposed sketch plan, hold a public hearing, and
informally advise the applicant on adjustments to conform-1p local ordinances and review
criteria.
Chairperson Nemeth asked whether
Commissioner VanderLaan referenced staff sno and
out a lot of problems with this sketch planasrior to pr(
discrepancy on the location of a property lin ommur
explained the discrepancy in the eastern pexty_f
developer's surveyor can verify location
preliminary plat is submitted. t «:
Commissioner Loehlein stated he ap
plat so it is known wktJ ftld look
of staff.
iOA- Mented staff for ferreting
tatiort. She asked about the
Development Director Janish
was noted staff so the
I need to occur before the
the overall potential ghost
Commissioner Koehlxeferenc the discrTncy in the property line and asked if there
was a loss of 50 feet uld th&lots still nit City Code. Community Development
Director Janish rtswered &EO not other modifications would need to be
Conumssr Daninger std he is trot worried about the cul -de -sac but there should be
no need or tines that resu i the req*st for a variance on this property. He stated he
wants the dev er to make-,:Sure that the 50 feet is addressed prior to submittal of the
preliminary plat so ariancuW not requested.
Commissioner Hudson kabout the western property line. City Planner Hanson used
a map to point out its location.
Chairperson Nemeth asked whether that is the railroad's property. City Planner Hanson
stated the railroad's property is to the east.
Motion by Daninger, seconded by Koehler, to open the public hearing at 7:45 p.m.
Motion carried on a 6 -ayes, 0 -nays, 1- absent (Sims) vote.
Mr. Joe Krekelberg, 6282 West Shadow Lake Drive, Circle Pines, a member of family
that owns the property, asked about the City's plans for sewer and water to allow for
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
Minutes —September]], 2018
Page 9
continued development to the north and east as the family looks for development
opportunities for their land.
Chairperson Nemeth noted the City is currently reviewing the Comprehensive Plan and
asked staff to respond.
City Planner Hanson stated the overall sewer plan has been studied and there are a certain
number of sewer hook -up allocations within this portion of the City to allow for these
properties to be subdivided.
Chairperson Nemeth asked if the Commissioners
of the applicant.
Commissioner VanderLaan recounted how theoCity of Att ver's name was selected
when it had originally been Round Lake Tosilp and then Grove Township. She noted
at one time, there were historic buildings rtr that railroad track1 asked whether any
building foundations remained in that locattE City Planner Hansofiated there was an
old general store and printing store in that location but tlf site has been caned up.
Commissioner Hudson asked if thtnt has a
Mr. Mark Smith, 2120 Otter Lake Dries St.
Motion by Hudso4 cond tk_ 1
Motion carried on a taxes, 0 -nos, 1
mvi
the
did not.
hearing at 7:50 p.m.
vote.
provide their sketch plan comments to
Commisster Koehler rated th .purpose for his question on the property line
discrepancy: directly tiromml §ner Daninger's point that the applicant needs to
clean up all pfh ms at this- ime, meet City Code, and get it right the first time. He
noted other issuesgwcre rats lon staff's memorandum and advised Mr. Smith to make
sure they are address6d befor 'submitting the preliminary plat. Commissioner Koehler
stated he looks forwards project as Mr. Smith has done a great job so far.
Chairperson Nemeth concurred and stated the proposed layout looks good, and especially
when looking at the ghost plat. He agreed with comments made that Mr. Smith should
make sure staff's comments are taken to heart and resolved, including the property line
discrepancy. He agreed the Planning Commission should not have to consider variances
for this property.
City Planner Hanson stated this item would be before the Council at the October 2, 2018
City Council meeting.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
Minutes –September 11, 2018
Page 10
PUBLIC HEARING: Rezoning – Ag Agriculture to RI Single Family Rural – 71
Avenue NW / 16St" Lane – JD Andover Holdings LLC.
Community Development Director Janish noted the purpose of this item is to hold a
public hearing and take input on the request to rezone the parcels that make up the
Petersen Farm area from Ag Agriculture to R -1 Single - Family Rural to be consistent with
the Comprehensive Plan Amendment.
Community Development Director Janish reviewed that -opr May 8, 2018, the Planning
Commission provided a positive recommendation for a prehensive Plan Amendment
for this area and on June 5, 2018, the City Counc improved a Comprehensive Plan
Amendment to change the future land use desighkior�pm Agricultural Preserve to
Rural Residential.
Community Development Director Janish,,,tftlayed the zoning- V and described the
zoning of the subject and surrounding propeft s being R -1 and Re s` He explained the
Code does not allow rezoning to R -2. _
Community Development Directoi!�: explamed tether 20 -acre parcel is also asked
to be reviewed as it is no longer coniterttth the CityN Comprehensive Plan due to the
recent Comprehensive Plan Amendm changing the fut&dJand use. The Commission
is asked to consider a Jr ng of Parcel 073- 4743 -00 (southeast comer of the
Petersen property) tik- consis tent with tfii p, ehensive Plan.
Community Developmet Diret�Janish eined that with a rezoning, the City shall
find one of two State =u dregs: , _ original zoning was in error; or, the
characif`the area_ntlmtd conctitittz Have changed to such an extent to warrant
the re mng. He note-, - s prosy is not in the MUSA and staff finds that times
and conditions have changed as _ property owner's family is shifting away from
farming ancl.5eeking rezorift to & op the eastern portion of the property into a
Planned Unit Development CRUD) known as The Preserve at Petersen Farms. The
requested rezomn will keW— the zoning consistent with the Comprehensive Plan
Amendment.'
Community Development' irector Janish noted staff cited two reasons it finds that times
and conditions have changed. He reviewed the meeting minutes and documentation that
had been provided for the Planning Commission's review.
Chairperson Nemeth asked whether Commissioners had questions of staff. Hearing
none, he entertained a motion to open the public hearing.
Motion by Daninger, seconded by Hudson, to open the public hearing at 7:57 p.m.
Motion carried on a 6 -ayes, 0 -nays, 1- absent (Sims) vote.
Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
Minutes — September 11, 2018
Page 11
1 Chairperson Nemeth noted a Comprehensive Plan Amendment was made in 2018 so this
2 rezoning request would result in matching the zoning to the land use.
3
4 There was no public input.
5
6 Motion by Hudson, seconded by VanderLaan, to close the public hearing at 7:58 p.m.
7 Motion carried on a 6 -ayes, 0 -nays, 1- absent (Sims) vote.
8
9 Motion by Daninger, seconded by Hudson, to recommend_to the City Council approval
to of the request by JD Andover Holdings, LLC to rezoni e parcels that make up the
11 Petersen Farm and Parcel 07- 32 -24 -43 -0002 from triculture to R -1 Single Family
12 Rural to be consistent with the Comprehensivn amendment and based on the
13 finding that the character of the area, times and condrtiori$„Lhave changed to such an
14 extent to warrant rezoning, as detailed in th�aff resolution. motion carried on a 6 -ayes,
15 0 -nays, 1- absent (Sims) vote. F "
16 �.
17 City Planner Hanson stated that this item woize b,the Counctfx the September
t8 18, 2018 City Council meeting
19 -
20 PUBLIC HEARING: Planned it D r pmeni -- _mendment — The Preserve at
21 Petersen Farms — JD Andover Hold � LLCM
22
23 Community Develpprient Dirtor Janish-uli_zonp to point out the location of
24 the subject site. Ther ose of-is item is thold a public hearing and take input on the
25 request of Landform, OW", half= J,D Andes Holdings, for a Conditional Use Permit
26 (CUP) and 1?lat d Unit Deft' Iopriit itt Amend—r t (PUDA) for 24 Rural Residential lots
27 and twouilofs at Pdrsen Films, 7t" Avenue and' 165th Avenue NW.
28 - -
29 Commuhit --_pevelopment irector.J ish presented the proposed CUPIPUDA, noting the
30 Planning dsrnission had reyJewed 0. the City Council approved a CUP /PUD on June
31 19, 2018, to alv flexibihton street construction standards and lot standards. The
32 original PUD alsWfe uired amendment to include the preliminary plat as part of the
33 PUD. The changes e o ri ` '�al PUD that are under consideration tonight are: a smaller
34 front yard setback of isf versus the standard 40 feet; shifting the intersection of the
35 north/south and east/west Yoadway to allow for better site visibility as a traffic calming
36 method; and, an easement to protect slopes that exceed 18 percent for over 50 feet of run
37 with that easement being in the Home Owners Association (HOA) favor.
38
39 Community Development Director Janish reviewed the City Code 13 -3 -9 findings
40 required to consider a PUD as follows:
41
42 1. The proposed development is not in conflict with the goals of the Comprehensive
43 Plan City.
44
Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
Minutes – September 11, 2018
Page 12
1 It was noted the property was re- guided to Rural Residential on June 5, 2018, and the
2 development is consistent with the goals of the City's Comprehensive Plan.
3
4 2. The proposed development is designed in such a manner as to form a desirable
5 and unified environment within its own boundaries.
6
7 It was noted the proposed development is designed in such a manner as to form a
8 desirable and unified environment within its own boundaries. The developer is proposing
9 to create custom home sites to allow for flexibility for the buyer, the architectural finishes
10 and building standards will be of a high quality, creatin more attractive neighborhood
11 in Andover. Each lot will be custom graded to a11Q construction of the individual
12 homes in a manner that meets the needs of the hbv� and allows them to design a
13 site that works with the natural features of theme phis app ch will allow flexibility in
14 the placement of single - family homes _,each lot while preserving the natural
15 environment. In addition, the low- impaialities of this develment will lead to a
16 desirable and unified environment that emphizes preservation of natal features.
17"
18 3. The proposed developmnt „demonstrates `hiw each modihi or waived
19 requirement contributes to aphi viag the purp*..of a PUD.
20
21 It was noted the proposal is requesting flexi541i'om thxpnt yard setback in the R -1
22 District. The reque g— mbility co�ibute� ievin � the purpose of a PUD,
23 specifically the front'ard set changdacQ M_�: iutes thieving a higher quality PUD
24 development becau §k,A „allows greater ficiWty for placement of the home and allows
25 each site to utilize arid" rades. This will contribute to a more
26 attractive rhood an ailt?wv T10 rvatio i _the natural features.
27...
28 4 �M PUD is of nposi and arrangement that its construction, marketing, and
29 opawtion are f ib, as k-.-_ complete unit without dependence upon any
30 subs - en t unit.
31
32 It was noted the PW amend�ent includes preliminary plat plans for Phase 1, which will
33 operate as an indepekut Vie. Each phase of the development would contribute to the
34 overall development bdOOO d be independent of the previous future phases.
35
36 Community Development Director Janish stated the lot sizes are still consistent with the
37 minimums approved by the City Council but the applicant is requesting a 30 -foot front
38 yard setback versus the standard 40 -foot setback. He reviewed the requested change to
39 the location of the roadway, shifting it to the south which will eliminate the creation of a
40 straightaway and provide for traffic calming. As noted in February when this was looked
41 at, the cul -de -sac to service Outlot A exceeds 500 feet, at 2,150 feet, and in discussion
42 with the Fire Department it was determined the proposed street construction would allow
43 for a longer cul -de -sac as part of a PUD. It was approved as part of the Council's
44 previous approval and in the future the cul -de -sac will extend to serve the property to the
Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
Minutes –September]], 2018
Page 13
1 north. He noted each lot will be custom graded and a tree preservation plan will be
2 required for each individual lot at time of building permit.
3
4 Community Development Director Janish stated the developer is proposing an easement
5 on the north side of the property to address slopes greater than 18 percent. He read the
6 seven protective restrictions addressed in the draft resolution should this be approved and
7 explained that there should be language noting if conflicts occur, the drainage and utility
8 easement language would apply.
9
10 Community Development Director Janish reviewed the' architectural requirements
t t provided by the applicant that would be administere gh the HOA.
12
13 Community Development Director Janish noWd tonight's discussion is related to the
14 modifications, not the items included in the:orlginal PUD atoval. If approved, the
15 developer will be required to submit —ended preliminargat that includes all
16 modifications.
17 n
18 Community Development Directq ish explaiAW ie Planning Comm sion supports
tft
19 a positive recommendation to Z m
cil, it u .keep in mind the four findings
20 previously presented. If the Plam g Cb#j ission supports a denial recommendation,
21 findings of fact will need to be provided to th&lft Couns well as direction to staff.
22 In addition, a denial wuldxtty be relatt to theidelresen�d tonight.
23
24 Chairperson Nemeth eked wher Commoners had questions of staff.
25
26 Commiss itidson rear ?W2-_ of the staff memorandum and the map showing
27 preservation of natutr resour€ s. He " whether the bullet points apply to areas of
28 the m Oentified wi *value hatching map. -Community Development Director Janish
29 stated that correct. Wiz_
30
31 Commissioner dson reader bullet points and asked for clarification. Community
32 Development Daror Janisbtated the first bullet says there can be no disturbance
33 within the area (pre atloasement), other than routine maintenance, pruning, and
34 removal of dead /disea9bd,t s without approval of the Architectural Control Committee
35 (ACC), which would be snilar to a Code violation as you need approval prior to starting
36 the process.
37
38 To add clarification, Commissioner Hudson suggested adding words at the start of bullet
39 points 2 -7 indicating: `With approval of the ACC,' .
40
41 Chairperson Nemeth asked if the ACC and HOA are one in the same or different, noting
42 where both are referenced, which causes confusion. Community Development Director
43 Janish suggested the applicant be asked for a clarification on that point.
44
Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
Minutes — September 11, 2018
Page 14
1 Commissioner Daninger asked if the process tonight is to amend the PUD to create this
2 easement, which will keep more trees in the back yard and create separation. He noted
3 the Council already approved the original PUD so if this is denied, the developer could
4 go to their approved original PUD. Community Development Director Janish stated that
5 is correct.
6
7 Commissioner Daninger stated the next agenda item tonight is the preliminary plat,
8 which may be considered based on this approval (or denial). Community Development
9 Director Janish stated that is correct.
10
11 Chairperson Nemeth noted this is not in the MUSH the amendment for a 30 -foot
12 setback also provides more flexibility with the 1wells and septic systems, as
13 each lot is custom graded.
14
15 Commissioner VanderLaan agreed it woijj$ rcreate less impact 6jar as allowing for
16 drainage since every square foot of house a4iiriveway prohibits ab ption of rainwater,
17 which is a significant point with 24 lots.
18
19 Chairperson Nemeth noted the 6Ifi4 :,PUD mclI a preliminary plat. Community
20 Development Director Janish clari inal PUlancluded a sketch plan, which
21 did not have the level of detail being'pside tclnight...Tho preliminary plat gives the
22 City the ability to rele)�nler greateletail but ifahe amdments are not approved
23 tonight, the devela r -can rev back to gihal P7 and submit a preliminary plat
24 based on that approves = ��
25 =_
26 ChairpersonX noteirlora tont is on the 30 -foot front yard setback,
27 shiftinWAMe stree d cre *ion of an ea merit fo protect the slopes.
28 =
29 Motion b aninger, sodded b`y Xoehler, to open the public hearing at 8:17 p.m.
30 Motion caiiWid on a 6 -ayes, {)ways, 1 sent (Sims) vote.
31
32 Mr. Bud Hoist, 4276.165t' Niue NW, stated his property is at the southern end of this
33 property. He asked &the MD approved on May 11 and June 19, 2018, by the City
34 Council included a ply iinmunity Development Director Janish stated it included a
35 sketch plan and that layoutwas approved.
36
37 Mr. Hoist stated that plan included 27 lots. Community Development Director Janish
38 stated there have been several sketches but the plan had 24 lots on May 11, 2018, and
39 was part of the previous submittal. Mr. Hoist remembered it having 27 lots.
40
41 Mr. Hoist noted the rezoning has been changed to R -1 Rural, which requires 2.5 acres,
42 cul -de -sacs limited to 500 feet in length, and 300 feet frontage on a road unless 75 feet is
43 approved on a cul -de -sac. Community Development Director Janish stated that standard
44 is required by the Code.
45
Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
Minutes — September 11, 2018
Page 15
1 Mr. Holst noted this drawing shows nothing close to 300 feet of frontage on a road and
2 the cul -de -sac is well over 500 feet so this is not talking about R -1. He is concerned with
3 allowing building on something less than 2.5 acres, which is required by Code, because
4 he believes property values will decline with this proposal. Mr. Holst stated in May,
5 there were a lot of people in attendance who wanted it to stay at 2.5 acres. He stated he
6 lives at the south end and several years ago, there was a proposal to develop a 65.8 -acre
7 farm that had even worse conditions with more wetlands. Yet, it was developed at 2.5
8 acres and met Code. He asked if this is zoned R -1, what happens with the minimum 2.5-
9 acre lot size and maximum 500 -foot cul -de -sac length. Charperson Nemeth stated that is
10 why the PUD was proposed.
11
12 Mr. Holst asked if the City Council approved theA c those lot sizes and long cul-
13 de -sac. Chairperson Nemeth answered that is correct.
14
15 Commissioner Koehler suggested the purp-o_-_--_s_-- of a PUD be explaecl because it is not to
16 skirt the City's requirements. He noted t pity is negotiating troject and it can
17 require R -1 Code standards but then the dev�er_�not offer dkLother things in
18 return. Commissioner Koehler e#1 ed with a e trades are mAa so the intent
19 is not to meet R -1 standards. hi--6 change for some concessions, the City receives
20 benefits for the City and neighborho _
21
22 Mr. Chase Hennessey_, -I _6_�9`h Lane N_ used tuap to point out the location of his
23 property. He described the art -where th�R�n Rive ods in the spring, including his
24 property. Mr. HermeTwx stated! is conc6� with the 140A and oak wilt as this area is
25 covered with red oaks _Ie 4*4 about the area of floodplain in Valley View Park
26 Estates C�rczn Nemtggest3 fihose stions be asked of the applicant.
27
28 Mr. He essey stated he,.also questions the Iecation of septics in relation to the easement.
29 Commuft Developmehi' irecto nish stated the applicant can be asked about the
30 drainage pf d HOA dur�n the pr urinary plat consideration. The proposed location
31 for septic drai*llds meet current setbacks. Mr. Hennessey noted the location of non -
32 homeowner asso i tion propels that may also be impacted.
33 =
34 Mr. John Edewaard, 3�3I' M8�' Avenue NW, stated there should be a lot of concern
35 about the trees because afFof the trees from the corner north along the property lines will
36 be cut. He stated that metric has to fit into the tree preservation plan. Mr. Edewaard
37 stated he remembers the original PUD was basically approved in concept based on a
38 sketch plan and he did not see this preliminary plan approved as a PUD. He suggested
39 the developer make a presentation, which will answer some of resident's questions so
40 they know what is going on. Mr. Edewaard used a map to point out the location where
41 trees will be removed.
42
43 Ms. Mary Pfeiffer, 17037 Aztec Street, used a map to point out the location of her house
44 and stated on Monday, a gentleman was doing surveillance in their cul -de -sac and looked
Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
Minutes — September 11, 2018
Page 16
1 at the trees that would be cut down. She stated she did not know if the gentleman was
2 confused or the trees along her cul -de -sac will also be cut down.
3
4 Mr. Brian Pfeiffer, 17037 Aztec Street, stated the gentleman told him that in their cul -de-
5 sac, they would cut down all the trees.
6
7 Ms. Pfeiffer asked how the preservation easement line is impacting the area of her cul -de-
8 sac.
9
10 Darren Lazan, Landform Professional Services, LLC, 105 South Fifth Avenue, Suite 513,
11 Minneapolis, stated they have a successful history fa type of development with The
12 Preserve at Oak View and have been working aft axis for a year under the same
13 guiding principles. He stated he has no idea. kvho the i}leman mentioned by Ms.
14 Pfeiffer was, but they will not remove any,tr&fat that cul -d64--he. He stated he ordered
15 stakes for tree removal, that will be reviwtprior to any trees g touched, and it is
16 nowhere near that cul -de -sac as their removes Flimits are tight to the=b i fling pad location.
17 Mr. Lazan explained removal limits are the life vuhere-. h_
gy initially car. They survey,
18 walk the round, look at the trees determine °'Jrt lines can be adjusted to save
g }� Y J
19 significant trees. Then a new lm`, n. He ex ed that trees to be removed are
20 flagged in one color and trees to be seed €egged in anczther color.
21 = -
22 Mr. Lazan stated with fihsfdiwater gstion, th�r Vie, mangy governing laws to address
23 things like grounder, recharge, erosion ontrol, 'and- quality treatment. They are
24 required to emulate-ex- ing dr�age patte treat water for quality, and discharge to
25 the east, which will be 'exactly it is today He noted the City and Watershed District
26 regulate thues. E
27 =
28 Mr. Lau explained lfak wilds found, try trench around it so it is contained and if
29 found on tia site they wile the s,e process to remediate it.
11
30
31 Mr. Lazan stated un the amei4pents requested, there are two viable equally correct paths
32 to entertain a prot, like thi R -1 prescriptive zoning which is your property right by
33 rule; or, PUD, which us4a predominately in metro areas as a form -based code. He
34 explained a PUD lookt his parcel and determines what best fits, mass grading and
35 clear cutting or custom gilding. He stated there are tradeoffs though and while there is a
36 long cul -de -sac, other things were given in exchange. Mr. Lazan stated there are four or
37 five lots under 2.5 acres but they are adjacent to large open spaces, that is the give and
38 take. He displayed the approved PUD plan for 24 lots and reviewed the gross square
39 footage overall and gross square footage by lot. He stated they are required to have one -
40 acre buildable, 100 -foot minimum widths, and gross density at or under the allowable R-
41 1 standard.
42
43 Mr. Lazan stated they are asking for an amendment to attach the actual plat amending the
44 PUD, provide a steep slope preservation easement (even though not a requirement as this
Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
Minutes —September 11, 2018
Page 17
1 property is not within a shoreland overlay district), and including a HOA and ACC,
2 which is a subcommittee of the HOA and will evaluate all of these components.
3
4 Mr. Lazan stated the originally approved PUD had the roadway coming straight through
5 but then staff discussed the traffic calming effect by using an offset to slow traffic
6 through the existing neighborhood. That is one of the amendments under consideration
7 tonight.
8
9 Mr. Lazan stated they are asking fora 30 -foot setback tcz. create more flexibility and to
10 save more trees, which will result in shorter drivewaysnd`reduced impervious surface
11 on the lot. That is one of the amendments under consideration tonight.
12
13 Commissioner Koehler asked for detail on the ,function proved by the HOA outside the
14 ACC. Mr. Lazan stated it is desire of staff to bitve an HOA aoeated whenever there is
15 a PUD since there are unique situations. e'HOA would be reolsible for upkeep of
16 the landscaping and maintenance of storm, components. The Pserve at Oak View
17 was prescriptive without an ACC. He state senething sine- here plus the
18 ACC.
19
20 Commissioner Koehler stated he asslxmes Vie, HOAc iw'-U require payment of fees and
21 asked how it addresses and resolves *hen fees, are not paid so upkeep is financially
22 untenable. Mr. Laza exjinled the HO-A can unpaidE es with the land through
23 the assessment proses.
24
25 Commissioner Daninger eked }e „amendirients are recommended for approval as well
26 as the preltatlat, v�a�igie be'rtluested. He noted a lot of residents are
27 here and tW have�Jn?t of questions as th process is confusing to residents. He stated if
28 more eh Owes will be e6 1r# ng iri le,future, he will not be as considerate.
29
30 Mr. Lazan ted they donjt�: have ti fie for additional changes as they are expecting
31 groundbreaking , eptember 7M 2018. He noted that in looking at the proposed
32 amendments, onf�o is frog he developer and that is the reduced setback. The other
33 amendments (slope pservath easement, HOA, and roadway layout and redesign) were
34 driven by staff's concettd�comments.
35
36 Mr. Jason Osberg, Metrowide Development, 15356 Yukon Street NW, noted The
37 Preserve at Oak View was stopped during grading to come forward with an Interim Use
38 Permit and that may be something that could happen with this project. Commissioner
39 Koehler thanked Mr. Osberg for the clarification, noting that would not be a change to
40 the PUD but a separate permit.
41
42 Commissioner Koehler asked about the change to request the 30 -foot setback. Mr. Lazan
43 explained they got into the survey and hydrology and felt the need to ask for the 30 -foot
44 setback to gain flexibility. If not approved, then they would proceed with the approved
45 40 -foot setbacks.
Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
Minutes — September 11, 2018
Page 18
2 Commissioner Koehler stated it is not the issue of 30 -foot or 40 -foot setbacks but what it
3 would look like when some homes are set forward and others farther back. Mr. Lazan
4 stated many of The Preserve at Oak View homes are located closer to the street because
5 homeowners wanted to preserve their back yard but the third house in is located 100 feet
6 back with a beautiful wooded front yard. Commissioner Koehler stated he sees it as a
7 benefit and that it would drive property values but he wanted to picture how it would
8 look.
9 = -_
10 Commissioner VanderLaan speculated this is one of st studied and documented
11 properties in the City. She stated she shares concern Wftt what is a PUD, noting in the
12 past it was different. Now, the City has a concise ion of a PUD, which she read.
13 She stated she had submitted her PUD questipns to 'the Stattnd his comment was that
14 City officials review PUDs and detemmneq 06 City Cod6ldeyiant and what can be
15 allowed. In this case, there was previoum6yoscussion when onez piperty owner said to
16 come out and look at the property, so she
17
18 Commissioner VanderLaan coma ntpd on the poor,-obndition of the roadway, noting the
19 key point of the amendment is to t cogpize a changto, o, the intersection. She stated the
20 residents recognized the existing cal de sae not in kid condition, is eroded, and it
21 may not have been properly constructed. Sted a resttl�nt indicated she saw a fire
22 truck attempt to turn iii! n that =i a andj�was not pretty.' Commissioner
23 VanderLaan stated at- hould ,noted the �ZIFe ar pvement so she supports that
24 amendment. She thinl the Citpfias movew,"e position of PUD to protect the existing
25 characteristics of propel like t—
26
27 ChairRe cite' Nem�t tasked"' bout the versus ACC, noting first bullet point
28 addresses.disturbance -i 'the ar64 *ithout approval of the ACC. He questioned whether
29 the ACO�_, in
ore profess al in ign of the homes so it should be the HOA to
3o determine vvb _ h trees shod —W shouldn't be removed.
31
32 Chairperson Neff-eth address€; the comment about the Rum River flooding and how it
33 impacts resident's p' pert X. e asked if that has been taken into account. Mr. Lazan
34 stated they have taken'that-into account. He described the high locations and how water
35 will drain, be retained antreated, and discharged. He stated a fair amount of time was
36 taken to assess the flood condition along the Rum River.
37
38 Mr. Chase Hennessey, 3945 169`h Lane NW, stated with the run off, proposed ridge line,
39 and septics in the rear, that area floods four to five feet in the spring. He asked about the
4o discharge so the flooding does not impact his property.
41
42 Mr. John Edewaard, 3983 168t' Avenue NW, asked what cul -de -sac was mentioned about
43 fire trucks having difficulty turning around. Commissioner VanderLaan indicated 168x'
44 Avenue, not the new cul -de -sac.
45
Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
Minutes — September 11, 2018
Page 19
i With regard to fire truck access, Community Development Director Janish drew attention
2 to pages 30 and 31 of the meeting packet (Pages 7 and 8 of the City Council meeting
3 minutes of June 19, 2018) and the statement by Fire Chief Streich that they brought
4 several fire trucks to 1681h Avenue to test it and there was no issue to access that road.
5
6 Motion by Loehlein, seconded by VanderLaan, to close the public hearing at 9:06 p.m.
7 Motion carried on a 6 -ayes, 0 -nays, 1- absent (Sims) vote.
8
9 Commissioner Koehler referenced the draft resolution, condition 8, bullet point 4: Paths
10 shall be of natural permeable material, and stairs, if requixed, shall be set on permanent
11 frost footings meeting similar standards as deck structwt Commissioner Koehler asked
12 how that language compares to City Code. Cotnniiltn ","Y— Development Director Janish
13 stated the developer provided that language so flocks in thatrmquirement.
14 _"
15 Commissioner Koehler asked if this meets-a&'exceeds City Code._&rad what the paths are
16 made of now. Community Development D€ctor Janish explained depends on the
17 location and purpose of the path. -
18 -
19 Chairperson Nemeth concurred, notili ome are bifru us but that material is not allowed
20 in other areas.
21
22 Commissioner Koehlo'-Wdda. that a `Mural g material' preserves the natural
23 state of this area .Andover and keep it..x bre ru RJooking instead of requiring
24 pavement. He notedse are C¢hcessions'en by the builder when they don't have to
25 agree to do so.
26
27 ChairR n`Nemeth ated hie-* ughtittd6uld also be materials such as Class V or grass.
UL
_=
28
29 Commissr1r Loehlein enc Ae, PUD amendment for a front yard setback from
30 not less than 40 feet to not W than 3 _0�feet and asked what is the front yard setback in R-
31 1. Community ]velopmentfDirector Janish answered 40 feet.
32 y _
33 Commissioner Koehler, stag the City has asked the developer to make additional
34 concessions, as outline, Win exchange the developer has asked for one concession to
35 adjust the front yard setback to 30 feet. He stated personally, he thinks that is a fair
36 concession for the City to make, especially knowing the house placement will be decided
37 by the homeowner and ten feet is not a huge issue to the City. Commissioner Koehler
38 stated he leans towards approving the amendments being requested tonight.
39
40 Motion by Daninger, seconded by VanderLaan, to recommend to the City Council
41 approval of the request of Landform, on behalf of JD Andover Holdings, for a
42 Conditional Use Permit (CUP) and Planned Unit Development Amendment (PUDA) for
43 24 Rural Residential lots and two outlots at Petersen Farms, 71h Avenue and 1651h Avenue
44 NW, based on the rational that it meets the four findings to consider a PUD as identified
t
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
t8
19
20
2t
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
Minutes —September]], 2018
Page 20
in City Code 13 -3 -9 and detailed in the draft resolution, and subject to the conditions
detailed in the draft resolution.
Further discussion:
A friendly amendment was offered Commissioner Koehler to add words at the beginning
of condition 8, bullet points 2 -7, indicating: `With ACC approval,'. Commissioner
Daninger accepted the friendly amendment.
Amended motion carried on a 6 -ayes, 0 -nays, 1- absent
City Planner Hanson stated that this item would
18, 2018 City Council meeting. y
RECESS AND RECONVENE
Chairperson Nemeth recessed the meeting at
9:24 p.m.
PUBLIC HEARING:
Andover Holdings LLC.
vote.
Council at the September
meeting
at
at Petersen Farms — JD
Community Devetcip ent DWWr Janislia- s map e _point out the location of the
preliminary plat. Tt`u -as noted purpose this item is to hold a public hearing and
take input on The Presque at Petersen Faiii i preliminary plat consisting of 24 Rural
ComA ft Develop met Direftjanish sCkii-d the lots meet the size requirements of the
PUD. Thy plicant has 1 sated tote ,approximate location of the septic systems but they
could be adiusted with custogradin
Community Develb- Ment Director Janish reviewed the proposed preliminary plat for The
Preserve at Petersen rm$ t eluding street access from 168th Avenue NW, which is
currently a temporary euNde -sac. He noted that while Anoka County Highway
Department will not reque a south -bound right turn lane and a north -bound bypass lane
be built at County Road 58 and 168th Avenue NW. Director of Public Works /City
Engineer Berkowitz supports those improvements and recommends it as a contingency to
address current and future safety concerns.
Community Development Director Janish noted the location of the cul -de -sac that could
be continued in the future to serve Outlot A and the street location that ends with a stub
and will be signed alerting that it could be extended in the future.
Community Development Director Janish stated City water and sewer are not expected to
serve this area as the property is a significant distance from the MUSA so each property
Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
Minutes - September 11, 2018
Page 21
1 will be serviced by private septic systems and wells. He stated the applicant has made
2 application for a Lower Rum River Water Management Organization (LRRWMO) permit
3 and is responsible to meet their requirements and contingencies and obtain all necessary
4 permits from governing agencies.
5
6 Community Development Director Janish noted the developer has provided a tree
7 preservation plan for each lot, as required with a PUD, and included also an easement to
8 provide tree preservation by limiting the number of trees that will be removed. Each lot
9 will also meet the set standard for landscaping requirement
10
11 Community Development Director Janish stated thus and Recreation Commission
12 has recommended a trail easement, which is includdMl - tondition. It also requested the
13 developer consider a trail easement under the plower lines the temporary cul -de -sac
14 to Martin Meadows Preserve so area residents have access to ehgpy the preserve and park.
15
16 Community Development Director Janish not the stormwater requi rents had already
17 been discussed with the PUD and offered to anger queens of the Cobnmission.
18 -
19 Chairperson Nemeth asked wheth ssioners i questions of staff.
20
21 Commissioner Hudson asked wheth the f semeritAp. within Outlots A and B.
22 Community Developrg D ctor Jani 1_stated ld be pint of Outlot A.
23 _ =
24 Motion by Daninger _ seconde0by Koehler; to open the public hearing at 9:32 p.m.
25 Motion carried on a 6= 0- niky,5, 1- absent (dims) vote.
-_ , , .
26
27 Mr. Job B ed aard�` 983 8`" Avenue NV -asked if the right turn/left turn lane
28 propo' s not necessa r pas res 6 s will hav to pay for it eventually. He thought PUD
29 criterion Ito be in an "-f itself whin its own boundaries, which is one of the four
3o requirements_ consider aTUD, yep minimum guidelines are being considered. Mr.
31 Edewaard state& he has seewundreds of developments around the metro area and the
32 interesting thing Us that thisates a dense urban residential area in an existing rural
33 residential area. He stated hrovided a picture of what this rural residential area looks
34 like, which is in contrast -1� at is proposed. Also, the PUD says the character of a new
35 neighborhood should fit into the character of the old neighborhood but existing residents
36 have at least 200 -foot road frontage so their neighborhood is sparsely populated.
37
38 Mr. Edewaard referenced the e -mail received today from the Anoka County Highway
39 Department (ACHD) saying they technically have no jurisdiction over the plat. He stated
40 he noticed the cul -de -sac was given as a concession and questioned what the City
41 received in return.
42
43 Mr. Edewaard stated his concern with impact to the wetland and gross density on lot
44 sizes, thinking it was misdirected as there is not a lot of buildable land here so there
Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
Minutes — September 11, 2018
Page 22
1 would be narrow lots. He stated another concern is that the developer can dissolve the
2 HOA before selling the lots.
3
4 Mr. Edewaard stated the City is trying to prevent removal of trees yet the developer is
5 proposing to put in a street that will require the removal of a lot of trees. He is also
6 concerned about the utilities down Dakota Street and asked on which side they will be
7 located. He believed the developer should be required to plant more trees to enhance the
8 neighborhood instead of taking away from it. He stated he can't entertain what they are
9 thinking about going down 168th Avenue NW and asked C#y Administrator Dickinson to
10 display the photograph he sent to him.
11
12 Mr. Edewaard stated most homes in this area are laa`& arld located on larger lots, which is
13 because residents want more wide -open spacesg-z-11 e does not Want to live on a corner lot
14 and does not understand why the City canndth ad the PUD ordinance as it is intended.
15 He noted the property owner has 400 acof land and this is complicated piece to
16 develop as it has wetlands and a river. He It this is where the Cif eds to maintain a
17 level of control as he believes the developer fikin t4ving.
18 -
19 Mr. Edewaard displayed a convey*i f land from l�dover landowners giving Valley
20 Drive NW to the County. He stated lvlr. Hiker had donate some of his land to do
21 that, for which he thanked them.
22
23 Mr. Jim Neilson, 4-n- Andover .resident Rung the Runt River and real estate attorney
24 representing Jim ane anela Z,V;§hin, stated -was before the Planning Commission on
25 May 22, 2018, for the p limina� plat that th recommended not be approved. Then on
26 June 19, 2# t1tCity Cottttcpprd,it and,did not permit people to talk. He stated
27 he talked amt tha- th the Andover City Attorney who said he would look into it but
28 has no#t gotten bacY�t him Mr. Neilson stated the Planning Commission gives good
29 input bdM_ e City Council makes d ecision.
30 _
31 Mr. Neilson noted Commissioner Koehler made a comment about a PUD but to him,
32 developers have sa a PUD is what they want because then they don't need to abide by
33 anything in the ordinces , e stated it is a give and take process and he would ask
34 where was the developer g- tying. He thinks the City gave.
35
36 Mr. Neilson stated the problem now is that it will go through and provide a huge problem
37 for his clients, Jim and Pamela Zushin of 3533 168th Avenue NW. He noted the problem
38 with 168th Avenue NW is that there are only seven lots between County Road 58 and the
39 Petersen property. The problem will be that road will get destroyed, which is obvious to
40 him when there are 27 lots being developed (24 lots with 3 on the Rum River) and many,
41 many trucks will use and destroy 168th Avenue NW. Mr. Neilson stated the developer
42 may say the adjacent property owners should pay to repair the road but those property
43 owners don't need the additional traffic. He stated the City can require the developer to
44 put away money to restore 168th Avenue NW. If not, there will be a fight in the future
45 between these seven owners and City on why they should have a special assessment to
Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
Minutes — September 11, 2018
Page 23
1 bring the road back to where it should be. Mr. Neilson stated with 27 lots, approximately
2 four times the current road use would occur when compared to seven lots. In addition,
3 there are 24 lots to the west of this first addition where those people could also use 1681h
4 Avenue NW. If that occurs, then it would be 51 lots creating seven times the current road
5 use. Mr. Neilson stated the property owners on 1681h Avenue NW should not have to pay
6 for repairs. He asked the City to include a provision as part of the PUD and plat approval
7 that the developer will be required to pay for putting 168th Avenue NW back in its
8 original condition.
9 =
to Mr. Jim Zushin, 3943 168th Avenue NW, thanked Mr. N61f for attending tonight to lay
11 out what the residents have to say. He stated is confused by the Planning
12 Commission, noting he sat through the first titiee. agenda items during which
13 Commissioners Koehler, Daninger, and Hudson -were strict ort the Code but they are now
��. ,ate_
14 `bending over backwards' for the benefit dithe developer _Mr. Zushin stated this
15 property owner will develop everything we,, if their house but residents should not have
16 to pay for the roads so they can make milliom .1f dollars. He stated W1he applicant wants
17 to do this at no cost to him, the constructiontr#tffic 411 pd come off ,Taro Street. He
18 stated it is absurd to use 168th AV6hue NW becdus-04t hurts current residents, not future
19 homeowners.
20
21 Mr. Zushin stated Planning Commissioners areiq= reserCthe residents, not big money.
22 He stated the reside he Planning Commission
ms
23 should represent tllvezn He stl at the = uue rlteetirig,hgre was not a word out of the
24 residents and he 1Aou1de ask wh are their 1tepresentatives. Mr. Zushin stated he will
25 remember that in Novetaex.
26
27 Ms. Rebecca Bracl X974 16W Avenue stated she is a new resident and trying to
28 figure dot where her pfoperty is-4- 0 the maps. She stated she also has noticed what seems
29 to be conce for existing p roperty owners in prior agenda items and is concerned why
30 there does not-seem to be much tttcern with this agenda item about the impact to
31 current residentsmShe had na ea of this project when she purchased this property.
32 vj
33 Ms. Brack stated sk is aJVeieran, her husband is active duty and will retire in two
34 months, so they want ft sere down and have roots for their three children. She stated
35 this property seemed perfect for them, it is a way back from the road, and the value is the
36 number of trees and privacy. She stated she and her husband have experienced a lot of
37 stress from multiple deployments and the value of their home and property was one of
38 privacy, the quietness, and feeling of it being a park -like setting but this will change
39 greatly. Ms. Brack stated she was told the cul -de -sac is actually on her property but she
4o has not yet learned whether the prior owners were properly compensated if that is the
41 case. In addition, there is talk about extending the cul -de -sac, which will be a great
42 impact.
43
44 Ms. Brack asked about the 30- and 40 -foot setbacks, which road it would be from, and if
45 future homeowners would be granted the option for a larger back yard, noting it will
Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
Minutes — September 11, 2018
Page 24
1 impact existing homeowners who will be losing their privacy. She stated the proceedings
2 tonight feel like they are not showing a lot of empathy to existing residents or the impact
3 to the neighborhood becoming much different. She asked the Planning Commission to
4 look at what they can do to help people who are only losing and possibly being assessed
5 for their roads that will become highly trafficked.
6
7 Ms. Marsha Dziedzic, 3928 168`h Avenue NW, stated she has the same concern about the
8 cul -de -sac and all the trees that will be cut down. She asked why trees have to be
9 removed along the road, on the east side of the property, noting the purpose of a PUD is
10 to save trees.
11
12 Mr. Jeff Luedtke, 16923 Jivaro Street NW, clarifi a Ahe May 22, 2018, Planning
13 Commission meeting when the vote was taken4o riot grant ie CUP for this PUD, the
14 vote was 4 -2 to not approve. He thanked the-Planning Comm -scion for their hard work
15 and diligence and preparing themselves to ,ikke a decision like that. He encouraged the
16 Planning Commission to use that same -�owledge. when di sing whether to
17 recommend approval of the preliminary plat. Ao-stay e developer l probably say
18 they will not use 1681h Avenue Ni` end he doesn't it them using his street either. Mr.
19 Luedtke asked about weight resi6k" forts; _ on a lim1 maintenance road and use of
20 construction trucks and trailers Hd_ a&dAhe. condition f the road is not currently the
21 best and he wants to make sure his vhicles ate notdamage if the road becomes rutted.
22 He asked if Andover +ill tain that n ad at -a: highpx lever development is going to
23 start.
24
25 Mr. Darren Lazan, Lair P�essional Services, LLC, 105 South Fifth Avenue, Suite
26 513, Mmn is, x presen taJD Andover H61 -dings LLC, presented a brief overview of
27 the 24,_1isu6vlslan °,notmit is conslstntvi the sketch plan approved by the City
28 CounIe explametlutlotll have fire development at some point. Mr. Lazan
29 stated theras been charattenzatl that this is urban density but in 1.5 acres, you could
30 fit six urbalt so this isar.from urn density. He pointed out areas surrounding the
n_
31 subject site, w the except of 168`h Avenue NW, that were developed in a similar
32 density to this proposal Mr azan stated he appreciates Ms. Brack's service as well as
33 that of her husband a'etd syrrtpiies they are coming late to this process.
34
35 Mr. Lazan stated they m'aved the location of the street to address resident's feedback
36 during sketch plan and the original PUD consideration. He agreed that to a certain
37 extent, someone will be in a less desirable position depending on where the road goes and
38 the proposed location was based on that feedback. He explained that common planning
39 practice dictates connecting to 168`h Avenue NW as well as connections to other
40 roadways surrounding this PUD. That is required and not a choice of the applicant.
41
42 Mr. Lazan presented the grading plan contemplated for this project, noting potential pad
43 and two septic system locations are also indicated for proof of concept that the property is
44 developable. Mr. Lazan reviewed the gross density and hydrology design for the storm
Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
Minutes —September 11, 2018
Page 25
1 water that has been reviewed by staff with three rounds of comments. He noted staff had
2 found the proposed system meets stormwater requirements.
3
4 Mr. Lazan stated they provided the ACHD the entire 400 -acre property plan and the
5 ACHD provided comments on improvements to five or six intersections. When they
6 provided Phase 1, the ACHD indicated it has no jurisdiction but had some areas they
7 wanted to discuss now or in future phases. Mr. Lazan stated they will continue
8 discussions about improvements that may be needed on 168th Avenue NW and are
9 willing to pay their share according to the City's policy. He stated he had not heard these
10 residents were going to be part of that cost sharing ash Wight the City would cover the
11 delta as it was an area improvement.
12
13 Using a map on display, Mr. Lazan referenced t existitig pul -de -sac, sketched in the
14 intended extension, and explained how the encroaching bubble' will be removed to
15 make a `T' connection. The `bubble' area will be restored end, turned over to the
16 property owners. He stated they will also pr— e temporary cul -de acs where shown in
17 the plat.
r
18 _
19 Mr. Lazan stated utilities (i.e., c align'. the utility companies, not the
20 developer. _
21
22 Mr. Lazan stated he ha to dous resj�ct for l son 1} connecting 168th Avenue
23 NW is not an optic far the doper. He noted Mr` Nilson mentioned the number of
24 present and lots in laare phae but they _Wk at 1681Avenue NW as a temporary
25 connection because ic'thafutura e will Wr' connections to 165' and 7�' Avenues that
26 will become — f .prxnary s on He stated there may be an interim condition of
27 increase- traffic & lath Aver NW 'W e e other connections are made, that will
28 be red cl. Mr. Lazar„ Gated t& , are working with the property owner to the south to
29 gain con 1- -tion access a d void= ,of and damage to 1681h Avenue NW.
30 -_
31 Mr. Lazan stas a wholetis project is a low- impact design. They are not scraping
32 the land and rem -iAnig every, e and with shifting the road to the east as a by- product
33 driven by resident wartrnlents; different trees will be removed. He clarified the developer
34 will only remove trees;6 eir own property and the right -of -way and will attempt to
35 minimize tree impact as trees are an asset to the project. He offered to answer questions.
36
37 Commissioner VanderLaan addressed resident's comments and stated to minimize the
38 tragedy of this progress, she would note the comment by Mr. Lazan saying they cannot,
39 as a developer, remove trees from someone else's property. She stated she has heard
40 several resident comments tonight asking how many trees will be removed and that they
41 do not know from which line, which is the property line. She noted the developer will be
42 improving the cul -de -sac, which was intended to be temporary. She stated it should offer
43 comfort to residents to know that the developer cannot come onto private property to
44 remove trees. Mr. Lazan indicated that is correct and clarified that trees to be removed
Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
Minutes —September 11, 2018
Page 26
I on their property are within the right -of -way as well as the temporary cul -de -sac right -of-
2 way when it is extended.
4 Chairperson Nemeth asked whether the Rum River flooding has been addressed. Mr.
5 Lazan stated stormwater design is a challenging matter but all follow the same set of
6 standards. Those standards are analyzed so they assure existing conditions are replicated.
7 Then they treat the water for quality (infiltration/treatment), retained the water, and
8 discharged it at the predevelopment rate. Mr. Lazan explained all those things combined
9 are common stormwater design standards. He noted theity reviews their stormwater
10 plans, make comments, request changes, and then the LWMO looks at the plans and
11 makes additional comments. He stated the LRRWb�ad four comments that have all
12 been addressed. Mr. Lazan stated the stormwater tr�ment, Ian has been approved. He
13 noted there could be unusual rainfalls and unbfecedented flooding but everything
14 required of them has been included in the stgr er treatment pin.
15
Arik
16 Chairperson Nemeth asked Mr. Lazan ifAby, , intend to utilized Street for their
17 construction traffic. Mr. Lazan stated that is cbrtvct apd IJ-hey picked fi%ro Street since it
18 is nearing its end of life and a imum main �rFzne' road. If it becomes rutted, the
19 equipment will be on site to blad and it is wort construction window so they
20 will be in and out quickly.
21
22 Commissioner KoehlefAd8ki if 168th Avenue m ill be used for lighter equipment.
23 Mr. Lazan stated ids a publlC l eet and W° -annot dictate; its use but the developer will
24 route contractors tIA* Jivaro reet.
25 — �_
26 Mr. Jason 5356 Yukon Street NW, stated the initial
27 tree rembvxa� on thdcpl- de -sa&at the enc f 1;68th Avenue NW may result in equipment
28 on 169.. venue NWto- access tie trees but large grading and earth moving equipment
29 will acce 3ivaro Street�statethere are issues, they will have equipment on site to
30 correct any siltitation that could occur 2
31
32 Mr. Osberg apolo §ed to IMF; Brack for putting his business card on her house by
33 mistake as he intende to plc it on Mr. Edewaard's door to answer his questions.
34
35 Mr. Osberg stated he has walked this site many times with buyers and builders and all are
36 concerned about the trees. He stated they are willing to walk the site with neighbors once
37 it is surveyed and work with City staff to preserve individual trees. He also offered to
38 hold weekly meetings with residents during the project.
39
40 Mr. Neilson stated one possible way to protect trees is to simply set back the road 20 feet
41 from the east line of the developer's property. He stated the public roads in Andover and
42 most cities are 60 or 66 feet in width. In this development, it is at 50 feet in width. Mr.
43 Neilson suggested platting the 20 feet to the east of the road as an outlot so the big trees
44 can remain. He stated he assumes that moving Dakota Street to the west 20 feet still
45 gives the developer plenty of room for the homes.
Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
Minutes — September 11, 2018
Page 27
2 Mr. Lazan stated they have already added ten feet in space, Outlots B and C, to give room
3 to protect the trees and once accepted by the City, they will deed that land back to the
4 property owners. He explained that by policy, the City does not allow outlots unless
5 large tracks for future development so these are temporary outlots to preserve trees and
6 then it will be given to the adjacent property owners.
7
8 Motion by VanderLaan, seconded by Loehlein, to close the public hearing at 10:24 p.m.
9 Motion carried on a 6 -ayes, 0 -nays, 1- absent (Sims) vote.
10
11 Commissioner Koehler asked if there are plans fo�sments on 168' Avenue NW.
12 Community Development Director Janish stated,-- af- hililne, a road improvement on
13 168th Avenue NW is not in the City's five- or rexi-myear plat" is City policy that when
14 reconstruction occurs, an assessment occurs.- s..
15
16 City Administrator Dickinson stated 16.. oAvenue NNW is-in the plan for
17 reconstructed and since there are no curb �"i utt would be airly minimal
18 reconstruction when it does occ , „ale explained' City's Assessm t Policy is to
19 assess 25 percent of the total pit back tWefiting properties and the City
20 covers 75 percent of the project cost. OnesCounty r, the City would look first to
21 Municipal State Aid (MSA) dollars b f abut k`-� ropertq��d not be assessed in that
22 case.
23
24 Commissioner Koehle tated it.zs not in t "eve- or ten -year plan for reconstruction and
25 whether or not this pvelog t goes t- _rough, that would not change. City
26 Admimsttnson led ache staff evaluates roads for reconstruction
27 and at_iime, 768_ ,venuIW does nvf cLuafiy for reconstruction.
28
29 Commisspr Loehlein sd 16 Avenue NW has 10 -15 years of life and when it is
30 reconstructede seven prop rties d be assessed. He asked if the City can require
31 the developer tray a propor n share should this development prematurely age 168'
32 Avenue NW. Or, ..the City'. andate the developer not to use 1681h Avenue NW. City
33 Administrator Dicktnp sta that has not historically been done. He noted all roads
34 are built to the same standard and this is a low use roadway. He stated he does not know
35 when it was constructed or on the next list, but the average life of a road is 25 -30 years.
36 City Administrator Dickinson stated the City does not have a degradation policy to
37 require the developer to pay for a road impacted through development. But the City has a
38 generous policy to pay 75 percent of the reconstruction costs. He noted temporary cul-
39 de -sacs are designed to be extended as development occurs and there are many in
40 Andover.
41
42 Commissioner Koehler asked if this cul -de -sac was signed saying it was temporary.
43 Community Development Director Janish answered in the affirmative, noting that
44 signage has been in place since shortly after it was constructed.
45
Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
Minutes — September 11, 2018
Page 28
1 Commissioner VanderLaan stated as the progression of this development goes along, and
2 should the seven residents determine the road condition is unsatisfactory, is there a
3 vehicle they can use to petition the City for a 429 assessment hearing and then proceed to
4 reconstruct the road and distribute costs back to the property owner. She asked if that is a
5 feasible situation should they find their road is deteriorating, to communicate with the
6 City and petition. City Administrator Dickinson stated under 429, there are a resident
7 petition process and City- initiated process. For the most part, road projects in Andover
8 are City- initiated. It is a City policy, not State mandate, to cover 75 percent of the project
9 cost and assess the remaining 25 percent. He stated if there is a petition for improvement,
10 the Council could consider whether it is deterior - to the point it should be
11 reconstructed. If approved, there will be a publ hearing, feasibility analysis to
12 determine the estimated cost, bid letting, and pubhn=, rtt � _on the assessment. He noted
13 the City has to be able to prove benefit at the level of the asgb�sment.
14
15 Chairperson Nemeth asked about using MA-to fund the turn laisi _ City Administrator
16 Dickinson stated if an MSA road, the City* the ability to allocht vlSA funds if the
17 project meets their criteria. _
18 - -
19 Chairperson Nemeth asked about A �aro- Street and City guidelines for maintenance
20 should the developer's equipmentiat��in the ,ad. Community Development
21 Director Janish stated he does not`ow v riteria ggers maintenance but the
22 applicant has talked ,wt hX4he City E eers so `they are mare of it. He stated the
23 developer's agreemeticould llxire main of t dway during the project.
24 -
25 City Administrator Dickinson sec the issue>of how Jivaro Street has to be maintained
26 will be part +he pre comet% meeting. Ifbeyond minimum maintenance criteria,
27 the devel�aper world be look to covet.
28
29 Commis r Loehlein rte_ enced' he previous comments received from Mr. Hennessey
30 and Mr. Celt ents and d wheer they have been considered. Community
31 Development Okeptor Janish,',--- ated those comments were received recently and during
32 the recess, Mr. Lawn spoke nth Messrs. Hennessey and Clements and addressed their
33 concerns.
34
35 Commissioner Koehler asked about the trail easement and gap in terms of where the trail
36 will run and how that issue may be resolved. Community Development Director Janish
37 stated staff will meet with individuals to discuss the potential location of the trail. Those
38 conversations have not yet occurred.
39
40 Commissioner Loehlein stated the Planning Commission is considering this preliminary
41 plat and whether it conforms to the PUD, but the PUD has already been approved. He
42 stated it is a moot point but he takes exception to the assertion that if not a PUD, then
43 with R -1 zoning the property would be clear cut and divided into tracts because this
44 property would not lend itself to that due to the unbuildable area. Commissioner
45 Loehlein stated under R -1 zoning, you would not get 24 lots as you can with a PUD. He
l
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
Minutes — September 11, 2018
Page 29
stated the Council discussed taking out a lot or two so it was less dense, which he would
have liked to see, but this plat is for 24 lots.
Commissioner Loehlein reviewed the density calculations and stated while he is not
satisfied with where it ended up, that is what was approved. He complemented the
developer on the changes made with respect to properties at the end of 168th Avenue NW
by bringing Dakota Street a bit to the west, noting it resulted in a positive change for
those property owners who are used to living on a cul -de -sac.
Chairperson Nemeth stated his biggest
thoroughfare but he realizes that when fully
entry and exit. He stated he hopes the City
Avenue NW deteriorate because of this devt
of the road's current condition so it car-
Chairperson Nemeth stated the PUD loop, $
the developer could have bulldozed the site "a'
this approval. Instead, the developer is giv
features, which he did not have to
Motion by VanderLaan, seconde(
approval of the Preliminary Plat of
residential lots and.Iw�Outlots,
resolution. Motion Tied on *a
City Planner Hanson
18, 2018 QjgPOpg ci
planning
fear is 1681' 'Avenue NW becoming a
developed, there will be additional points of
holdiitssessment policy should 168th
!lcp neiit. He eaed the City make note
determined that becomes an issue.
trod, noting there hU.ibeen give and take as
dd�received 23 -24 lots without coming in for
ins luffs� nreservin es and sellable
1_ Wger, to recommend to the City Council
e'Om _Petersearms consisting of 24 rural
to the etditio -' as detailed in the draft
Y's, ( Oehler` gild Loehlein), 1- absent vote.
be before the Council at the September
reported on City Council action related to
Motion by Loehlein, seconded by Daninger, to adjourn the meeting at 10:59 p.m. Motion
carried on a 6 -ayes, 0 -nays, 1- absent (Sims) vote.
Respectfully Submitted,
Carla Wirth, Recording Secretary
TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION WORKSHOP MEETING
SEPTEMBER 25, 2018
The Workshop Meeting of the Andover Planning and Zoning Commission was called to
order by Chairperson Nemeth on September 25, 2018, 6:00 p.m., at the Andover City
Hall, 1685 Crosstown Boulevard NW, Andover, Minnesota.
Commissioners present: Dean Daninger, Bert Koehler IV, Nick Loehlein, and Mary
VanderLaan.
Commissioners absent: Scott Hudson and Jeff Sims.
Also present: Community Development Director Joe Janish
City Planner Stephanie Hanson
Others
DISCUSSION OF 2018 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
City Planner Hanson stated tonight's discussion will focus on Chapter 1: Foundation of
the Comprehensive Plan, and Chapter 6: Implementation.
• Goals, Objectives, and Policies
City Planner Hanson reviewed the information received from the Metropolitan Council
outlining what is required to be contained in the City's Comprehensive Plan. It was
noted that Chapter 1 describes the goals of the community and the strategies that are
employed to achieve them. City Planner Hanson stated she had already updated the
growth forecast table.
Chairperson Nemeth asked whether that forecast is based on where the Metropolitan
Council thinks the City's population will be in 2030 and 2040. City Planner Hanson
stated that is correct and those numbers are required to be within the Plan but the City is
not held to meet them.
Commissioner Loehlein asked if the purpose is for the City to grow in a denser manner,
is it just a projection, or a deeper meaning. City Planner Hanson stated the Metropolitan
Council uses what it believes will be growth in the metro area and then divides it between
communities. The Metropolitan Council does prefer a denser population but that is not a
requirement.
Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Workshop Meeting
Minutes — September 25, 2018
Page 2
1 Commissioner Loehlein referenced the opening paragraph, Identity, and stated he has no
2 problem with it but wondered if a survey had been conducted to back up resident's
3 priorities or was this a subjective identity statement. City Planner Hanson stated it is
4 more of a subjective identity statement, but resident surveys have been conducted in the
5 past to provide information.
6
7 Commissioner Daninger stated it seems like this Plan review is a lot easier this time and
8 asked if that is because there are not as many drastic changes. City Planner Hanson
9 agreed this Comprehensive Plan update is easier than the last time.
10
11 Commissioner Daninger recalled that the 2008 update resulted in many residents
12 attending Planning Commission meetings to provide feedback. City Planner Hanson
13 agreed and stated it was because that Plan included major land use changes and this time
14 it is just to update the numbers and include the transportation plan. Also, in 2008 one of
15 the big issues was the Rural Reserve area and change in the Metropolitan Urban Service
16 Area (MUSA) boundaries.
17
18 Commissioner Daninger stated the goal is to get the information out so when it is viewed
19 by the public, the City can answer questions asked.
20
21 Chairperson Nemeth asked whether the MUSA is changed in this Plan update. City
22 Planner Hanson answered there are no changes to the MUSA boundaries. In addition, the
23 City Engineer has conducted calculations of service areas and determined the City is at
24 capacity considering anticipated urban development on the eastern side of the Winslow
25 property. City Planner Hanson explained with the Winslow Woods plat, the MUSA will
26 be pushed under the tracks to serve the eastern side.
27
28 Overarching Goals, Obiectives, and Policies
29
30 City Planner Hanson presented Goal 1: `Maintain and enhance the quality of life in
31 Andover,' and the accompanying objectives and policies.
32
33 Commissioner Koehler stated preserving the rural character of the community is
34 frequently the cause of debate at Planning Commission meetings. He asked what is the
35 definition of `rural character,' which some think means no homes being constructed, or
36 one home on 2.5 acre or larger lots. He asked if there is anything more specific to
37 provide a definition of `rural character.' City Planner Hanson referenced the policy
38 statement, noting the Metropolitan Council defines rural development as 2.5 acres.
39
40 Commissioner Koehler stated that is Rural Residential but residents say Rural Residential
41 and Rural are different and they don't want residential in many cases if in their own back
42 yard. He stated he understands the Metropolitan Council definition of Rural Residential
43 and wondered if the City has a statement or definition.
44
Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Workshop Meeting
Minutes — September 25, 2018
Page 3
1 City Planner Hanson referenced Chapter 2 and the Implementation chapter where the
2 rural character of the community is defined, noting it is Rural Residential. Andover is
3 classified as a Rural Residential community with one home per 2.5 acres. She noted the
4 Rural Residential Reserve Area is one house per ten acres. The City takes the
5 Metropolitan Council's definition of Andover as Rural Residential and that is
6 incorporated into the Comprehensive Plan.
7
8 Commissioner Koehler noted often the comment on support for Rural is accompanied by
9 the conflicting request for more restaurants.
10
11 Chairperson Nemeth asked if the Metropolitan Council is guiding what they consider to
12 be `rural' and when compared to other locations, `rural' denotes the same tone in those
13 areas. City Planner Hanson agreed and stated it is a blanket land use defined by the
14 Metropolitan Council.
15
16 Commissioner VanderLaan stated while the Metropolitan Council has that consistent
17 definition, residents attending meetings have a different definition. However, she noted
18 the Planning Commission needs to remain consistent when applying those guidelines.
19
20 Commissioner Daninger stated Rural Reserve at four houses per acre (with City utilities)
21 will eventually be R -4, which is a confusing term. He asked if that can be clarified in this
22 Plan update. City Planner Hanson stated it cannot because it is defined by the
23 Metropolitan Council and that definition must be used in the Comprehensive Plan.
24
25 City Planner Hanson presented Goal 2: `Maintain a high degree of community planning
26 and involvement,' and the accompanying objectives and policies.
27
28 Commissioner Koehler referenced the first policy listed: `Provide access to information
29 in a variety of forms including the newsletter, official newspaper, website, and televised
30 meetings. He stated he sees Fire Chief Streich providing information on safety, noting
31 the City does a terrific job in certain venues to provide access to information on -line,
32 outside of the City's website. He suggested that point of access also be referenced.
33
34 Commissioner Daninger referenced the sixth policy indicating: `Encourage resident
35 involvement through the public hearing process and utilize a variety of public hearing
36 notification methods including direct mailings, publication in the official newspaper, and
37 signs placed on subject properties.' He asked whether reference to `direct mailings' can
38 be eliminated, noting this is a ten -year plan. City Planner Hanson explained that by State
39 law, the City is required to make direct mailings.
40
41 Commissioner Daninger stated support to remove the `direct mailings' reference
42 regardless as the State law may change over the next ten years. City Planner Hanson
43 stated that would require a change to State statute as it is legally defined as mail via the
44 US Post Office. She stated she will add reference to on -line sources as suggested by
45 Commissioner Koehler.
Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Workshop Meeting
Minutes — September 25, 2018
Page 4
2 Commissioner Koehler stated his support to offer the City's newsletter on -line rather than
3 receiving a mailed copy.
4
5 Commissioner Daninger stated all support the US Mail service; however, the younger
6 generation is not as reliant on mail or land line telephones.
7
8 Chairperson Nemeth noted if State statute or the Metropolitan Council does change
9 something, the City can amend the Plan to be reflective. City Planner Hanson confirmed
10 the City could amend certain section through an amendment process.
11
12 City Planner Hanson presented Goal 3: `Maintain the Comprehensive Plan as a relevant
13 official document,' and the accompanying objectives and policies.
14
15 Commissioner Loehlein asked how often a Comprehensive Plan amendment is made.
16 City Planner Hanson estimated one to two per year.
17
18 Commissioner VanderLaan referenced the policy subset indicating: `Conditions have
19 changed since the present land use designation was established such to warrant the
20 proposed amendment or the present land use designation is in error.' She noted when
21 considering the Petersen Farm project, it required a change from Ag Preserve to Rural
22 Residential. However, the Ag Preserve zoning was not an error but was an appropriate
23 land use at that time. She questioned the use of the word `error' as it would be
24 incompatible with past or future conditions and does not acknowledge the change that
25 occurred from the time it was a farming activity to today's use.
26
27 Commissioner Koehler noted the language includes the word `or,' so there is another
28 condition besides being in error. The language indicates: `...the present land use
29 designation was established such to warrant the proposed amendment or the present land
30 use designation is in error.'
31
32 City Planner Hanson explained that in the past, the City has had to amend the Plan due to
33 an error.
34
35 Commissioner Koehler stated he agrees with Commissioner VanderLaan's point about
36 the change in land use not being an error; however, there is another condition stated in
37 the language.
38
39 Commissioner VanderLaan thanked Commissioner Koehler for the clarification and
40 stated she sees that other condition is established.
41
42 City Planner Hanson presented Goal 4: `Allow residential growth while maintaining the
43 quality of natural resources and amenities,' and the accompanying objectives and
44 policies.
45
Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Workshop Meeting
Minutes — September 25, 2018
Page 5
1 Commissioner Koehler stated this language gets at his initial comment about how you
2 define `rural' and not just `rural residential' as it is an issue raised regularly. He asked
3 how the City rates themselves against the Comprehensive Plan to determine if the goals
4 have been met.
5
6 Commissioner Daninger stated it is reviewed at the end of the year in a summary report.
7
8 Chairperson Nemeth stated with Comprehensive Plan amendments, he assumes either
9 staff periodically reviews the Comprehensive Plan to ensure the goals are being met and
10 if not, then an amendment may be made. City Planner Hanson stated that is correct and it
11 is typically handled by her. She stated there is not a specific meeting to review the goals
12 and objectives annually, but staff constantly reviews the Comprehensive Plan and drafts
13 amendments, when needed.
14
15 Commissioner Koehler stated goals should be measurable and the City should look to see
16 if they are being met which, as mentioned by Commissioner Daninger, is done at the end
17 of the year though the summary document.
18
19 City Planner Hanson presented Goal 5: `Encourage appropriate economic growth and
20 redevelopment,' and the accompanying objectives and policies. She noted there are few
21 redevelopment areas in Andover and as part of the Comprehensive Plan update, there has
22 been discussion on the location of higher density.
23
24 Commissioner Loehlein referenced the second objective: `Create a downtown area by
25 aggregating commercial land uses along Bunker Lake Boulevard between Hanson
26 Boulevard and Crosstown Boulevard.' He asked if there should be consideration of
27 expanding that zone to the west. City Planner Hanson stated the language is fine as
28 stated.
29
30 Chairperson Nemeth asked Commissioner Loehlein how far west he was thinking.
31 Commissioner Loehlein stated to Crosstown Drive as there is activity to purchase some
32 of the houses and to the west, there is commercial on the north side of Bunker Lake
33 Boulevard.
34
35 Chairperson Nemeth stated the big commercial hub with the Downtown Center is at
36 Round Lake Boulevard and Bunker Lake Boulevard. He noted from Hanson Boulevard
37 to Round Lake Boulevard, there are other pockets of commercial.
38
39 Commissioner VanderLaan asked whether there is evidence of skipped development on
40 Bunker Lake Boulevard from the chiropractic office, CVS, and Walgreens, noting there
41 is some residential activity and a nursery. City Planner Hanson stated the nursery is no
42 longer in operation.
43
Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Workshop Meeting
Minutes — September 25, 2018
Page 6
1 Commissioner VanderLaan asked if skipped development should be addressed, noting
2 the Sonsteby property is 112 acres and reaches almost to that area. City Planner Hanson
3 stated it is just the northeast corner of Seventh Avenue and Bunker Lake Boulevard.
4
5 Commissioner Daninger noted that would be a large area for a downtown center.
6
7 City Planner Hanson pointed out that not much of that land is developable.
s
9 Community Development Director Janish stated Sonsteby has 22 acres of buildable land
10 out of 114 acres owned due of flood plain and wetland impacts so it is mostly the corner
11 and area behind Slims Auto that can be developed.
12
13 Chairperson Nemeth agreed there is some hit and miss with commercial between
14 Crosstown Boulevard and Round Lake Boulevard. He stated it does not need to be
15 pushed beyond Crosstown Boulevard but there are several pockets on the south side of
16 Bunker Lake Boulevard.
17
18 Commissioner Daninger asked if the intent of the line having is to define a minimum. He
19 agreed the downtown area could be extended to Bunker Lake Boulevard.
20
21 Commissioner Loehlein referenced the policy indicating: `Maintain the existing
22 commercial nodes along Hanson Boulevard, Bunker Lake Boulevard, and Round Lake
23 Boulevard as cohesive, interrelated nodes of commercial activity,' which may cover the
24 issue he raised.
25
26 Commissioner Loehlein asked what is meant by the policy indicating: `Prevent
27 fragmented, uncoordinated and linear commercial development away from these
28 locations.' City Planner Hanson referenced the land use map and stated she would say it
29 is what is currently on Bunker Lake Boulevard.
30
31 Community Development Director Janish stated the intent is a mixed -use development
32 along Bunker Lake Boulevard with commercial and residential or mix to the back. He
33 pointed out and described areas along Bunker Lake Boulevard that are and are not
34 developable. He stated with the exception of the redevelopment area, Bunker Lake
35 Boulevard is pretty much developed from Hanson Boulevard to Crosstown Boulevard.
36
37 Commissioner Daninger raised the option of relocating the power substation and asked
38 whether it could be relocated to the old landfill property. Commissioner Loehlein stated
39 a solid subbase would be required to build a power substation.
40
41 The Planning Commissioners reviewed the land use map and asked questions of staff
42 about zoning, current and potential future uses.
43
44 City Planner Hanson presented Goal 6: `Protect and develop access for alternative energy
45 systems,' and the accompanying objectives and policies.
Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Workshop Meeting
Minutes —September 25, 2018
Page 7
2 Commissioner Koehler asked whether the Planning Commission discussed charging
3 stations for electric vehicles. City Planner Hanson stated it was decided to not do
4 anything at this time. Commissioner Koehler asked if any businesses have approached
5 the City about putting in charging stations. City Planner Hanson stated staff has not been
6 approached. Commissioner Koehler asked if there is anything in the Comprehensive
7 Plan to prevent it from occurring. City Planner Hanson stated there is not.
8
9 Chairperson Nemeth stated Kwik Trip had raised that option. Commissioner Daninger
t0 stated they have a charging station in the back of their property.
11
12 Commissioner Loehlein explained how electric vehicles can be charged at different rates.
13
14 Commissioner Koehler stated the Planning Commission discussed how to list it in Code
15 and whether it would require a permit. At that time, staff suggested it not be addressed
16 until someone makes the request.
17
18 City Planner Hanson presented Goal 7:' Reduce maintenance and energy costs for public
19 facilities and infrastructure,' and the accompanying objective and policy.
20
21 No comments were made related to this goal, objective, or policy.
22
23 Housing Goals, Obiectives and Policies
24
25 City Planner Hanson presented the goal: `Provide a variety of housing types to
26 accommodate the life cycle needs of all residents,' and the accompanying objectives and
27 policies. She noted one objective is: `Utilize the existing housing stock to provide a
28 portion of the affordable housing demand projected by the Metropolitan Council.'
29 However, it is her understanding that existing housing stock cannot be used in the count
30 to provide affordable housing. She also presented the goal: `Remain responsive to
31 housing market demands through implementation of the Land Use Plan,' and the
32 accompanying objectives and policies.
33
34 Chairperson Nemeth referenced the policy: `Work with property owners to identify
35 sources of funding for home improvements to prevent deterioration of the City's older
36 homes.' He stated the City Council had discussed the policy of the City setting aside
37 money to address deteriorating property, which had been raised by one individual, but the
38 City Council decided not to do so. He asked whether it is appropriate to include that
39 language if there is no intent for the City to set aside funds to rehabilitate a home.
40
41 Commissioner Koehler noted the language does not reference the City. It states: `to
42 identify sources of funding.'
43
44 City Planner Hanson stated people have contacted the City asking if there are funding
45 sources but Andover does not have a revolving loan fund so staff directs them to Anoka
Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Workshop Meeting
Minutes — September 25, 2018
Page 8
1 County. She clarified that policy relates to identifying sources of funding, not providing
2 funding.
3
4 City Planner Hanson noted the second policy addresses continuing the housing
5 rehabilitation revolving loan program, which the City no longer has so that reference will
6 be removed.
7
8 Chairperson Nemeth noted the Minnesota Housing and Finance Agency used to have
9 programs and asked if that is what is being referenced in the two policies under
10 discussion. City Planner Hanson stated the Plan policies specifically relate to City
11 programs and the City does not have such a program.
12
13 Commissioner Koehler stated he has no problem directing people to outside resources or
14 local businesses, but the wording could be misconstrued as it refers to continuing a
15 program. City Planner Hanson recommended removing that bullet point.
16
17 Chairperson Nemeth suggested another option is to merge and redraft the two policies
18 into one policy.
19
20 Chairperson Nemeth raised the issue of life cycle housing and stated he thinks the City
21 offers housing for those who want to purchase a home or a townhome, but Millennials
22 like the uptown/downtown lifestyle which Andover does not provide. He would like to
23 see the City Council and EDA push for those individuals who are not ready to purchase a
24 house or townhome and prefer to rent. He pointed out that Andover has a lot to offer
25 with outdoor open spaces, trails, and parks, and suggested a smaller two -story 30 -unit
26 complex could provide that missing housing option.
27
28 Commissioner Loehlein referenced the policy: `Utilize the planned unit development
29 (PUD) review process for medium- and high- density residential projects...' He asked
3o about using the PUD process for low density residential projects. City Planner Hanson
31 stated one - quarter acre is low density. Community Development Director Janish stated
32 medium density is a rating based on the number of units. Through the PUD process, the
33 developer can cap out at 14.2 units per acre as opposed to 12 units per acre, creating
34 bonus units if the developer provides something additional in return such as architectural
35 elements or open space.
36
37 Commissioner Loehlein stated the language references medium- or high- density
38 residential projects yet the City looked at the Petersen Farm PUD as a low- density area.
39 He asked if this language should instead indicate it is used over all densities.
40
41 Commissioner Koehler noted the wording indicated a PUD process is used for medium -
42 and high- density residential projects but it does not say a PUD cannot be used for low -
43 density residential projects. He noted if the PUD process is used everywhere, then it
44 wouldn't have to be noted here. Commissioner Koehler stated he is comfortable with the
45 way this particular bullet point is written.
Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Workshop Meeting
Minutes — September 25, 2018
Page 9
2 Commissioner Loehlein stated since it calls out two types of density, it creates ambiguity
3 in his mind and he would ask if it should also call out low density.
4
5 Transportation Goals, Objectives, and Policies
6
7 City Planner Hanson presented the goal: `Provide a safe and efficient transportation
8 system that is cost effective and serves the existing and future access and mobility needs
9 of the City,' and the accompanying objectives and policies. She noted the City's
to transportation plan has been updated.
11
12 Commissioner Koehler asked how much of the transportation system is beyond the City's
13 control as it involves Anoka County roads. He also asked about the process for the City
14 to request changes to Anoka County's transportation system. City Planner Hanson stated
15 the process involves City staff talking with Anoka County staff.
16
17 City Planner Hanson presented the goal: `Provide a coordinated transportation system
18 that is compatible with the adjacent municipality, Anoka County, Metropolitan Council,
19 and State of Minnesota transportation plans,' and the accompanying objective and policy.
20
21 No comments were made related to this goal, objective, or policy.
22
23 City Planner Hanson presented the goal: `Provide multi -modal transportation options
24 whenever and wherever feasible and advantageous,' and the accompanying objective and
25 policy.
26
27 Commissioner Loehlein stated this goal speaks to the earlier comment by Chairperson
28 Nemeth about higher- density housing for Millennials, noting they also use public
29 transportation.
30
31 Chairperson Nemeth stated his concern with the City looking at lower- income housing or
32 Section 8 because Andover does not have public transportation.
33
34 City Planner Hanson presented the goal: `Minimize impacts of the transportation system
35 on the natural environment,' and the accompanying objectives and policies.
36
37 Commissioner Koehler asked whether language should be included to address salting
38 roads and resulting natural environmental impacts. He recounted resident comments on
39 turf damage and noted this section could also address how streets are cleaned and
40 maintained. City Planner Hanson stated she will make a note of that item.
41
42 Chairperson Nemeth stated the issue with road salt deals with the winter season but there
43 are also issues during spring and summer seasons when a lot of roadway dirt can wash
44 into the storm sewer and maybe that should also be mentioned.
45
Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Workshop Meeting
Minutes — September 25, 2018
Page 10
i Commissioner Koehler stated his point is not to call out a specific action or season but
2 rather, care of the transportation system.
3
4 City Planner Hanson presented the goal: `Enhance accessibility by providing an
5 interconnected multi -use trail system,' and the accompanying objectives and policies.
6
7 Chairperson Nemeth stated the Park & Recreation Commission continues to work on the
8 City's trail system, which is a monetary consideration so as money becomes available,
9 improvements are made.
10
11 Water Resources Goals, Obiectives, Policies
t2
13 City Planner Hanson stated this section was presented at a prior meeting by Director of
14 Public Works /City Engineer David Berkowitz.
15
16 No comments were made related to these goals, objectives, or policies.
17
18 Parks and Open Space Goals, Obiectives, and Policies
19
20 City Planner Hanson presented Goal 1: `Provide parks and facilities that meet present
21 park needs and plan for the future needs of the City,' and the accompanying objectives
22 and policies.
23
24 Chairperson Nemeth asked where park dedication fees are placed. City Planner Hanson
25 stated the fees go to the Park Dedication Fund.
26
27 Commissioner VanderLaan referenced the policy: `Consider the adopted Guidelines for
28 Field Usage by Youth Athletic Associations.' She stated during an earlier Workshop,
29 there was discussion about needing $6 million to develop parks in the City. She stated it
30 is not a position of the Planning Commission to ask for fees from athletic associations,
31 but she wondered how much was collected from the athletic associations operating in
32 Andover. Commissioner VanderLaan stated her impression that no money is collected
33 and the City Council is reluctant to levy for park improvements. City Planner Hanson
34 stated she does not know but will research the item.
35
36 Commissioner VanderLaan stated athletic associations could potentially be a source of
37 funding for park improvements. She noted there was mention of volunteerism by the
38 athletic associations, but this may also be an area to get dollars to develop the City's
39 parks.
40
41 Commissioner Daninger stated volunteerism may deal with things like maintaining parks
42 but the City does not accept volunteerism to do things like mowing. He stated quite a bit
43 of money has been donated by athletic associations to update fields, though it is a
44 goodwill donation and not an obligation. In addition, the Baseball Association donated
45 money to develop a ballfield.
Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Workshop Meeting
Minutes — September 25, 2018
Page 11
2 Commissioner VanderLaan stated Andover is an attraction to families because of the
3 athletic associations and parks. Commissioner Daninger agreed.
4
5 Chairperson Nemeth stated when the Park & Recreation Commission considers requests
6 to utilize parks, a fee is charged for activities like tournaments.
7
8 With regard to the level of park land dedication fees, Community Development Director
9 Janish explained the City sets the fees based on the study findings. In addition, the fee is
10 limited by State statute, so the City can't rely on a peer review against other
11 communities. He noted it may be a question of whether peer cities have studies to
12 support the fees they are charging.
13
14 City Planner Hanson presented Goal 2: `Promote, protect, preserve and enhance the
15 City's natural and open space for the enjoyment of residents, protection of water and air
16 quality, and the preservation of wildlife habitat,' and the accompanying objectives and
17 policies.
18
19 Chairperson Nemeth asked about additional money being set aside for open space. City
20 Planner Hanson noted that would be a City Council decision.
21
22 Commissioner Koehler stated open space is phenomenal and asked whether there is a
23 way to measure the level of open space use to gauge whether more should be purchased.
24
25 Commissioner VanderLaan noted there is a dual purpose with open space as it is also an
26 issue of preservation, not just use.
27
28 • Implementation Plan
29
30 It was noted that most components of the Comprehensive Plan identify what Andover
31 intends to do over the next 30 years. The implementation portion of the Plan lays out
32 how the City intends to do it and when infrastructure investments will occur.
33
34 City Planner Hanson reviewed revisions that will be made. She stated once the Capital
35 Improvement Plan is adopted in October, those spreadsheets will also be included.
36 '
37 Commissioner Daninger asked if those tweaks will come back to the Planning
38 Commission for review or go directly to the City Council. City Planner Hanson stated
39 she will provide a copy for Planning Commission review at a future Workshop.
40
41 Chairperson Nemeth asked if the Planning Commission will receive a copy of the
42 updated Comprehensive Plan. City Planner Hanson stated it is on line, an electronic copy
43 will be provided, and Commissioners can ask for a paper copy if they prefer.
44
Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Workshop Meeting
Minutes — September 25, 2018
Page 12
1 OTHER BUSINESS.
2
3 Chairperson Nemeth asked about the next meeting date. City Planner Hanson stated she
4 has not seen any items for the October 9, 2018, meeting and the deadline is next Tuesday.
5 The Workshop on October 23, 2018 will include presentation and discussion of land uses,
6 land use maps, and the housing plan.
7
8 The Planning Commission agreed to meet in Workshop on October 9, 2018, if a regular
9 meeting is not scheduled.
10
11 Commissioner Daninger asked about the status of the clock tower, noting money is put
12 aside but now a very expensive sign was constructed where the clock tower was supposed
13 to be built. Community Development Director Janish clarified that the clocktower will
14 be part of the building constructed on that lot, which is part of that permit and PUD
15 amendment. It is not a separate clock tower.
16
17 Commissioner Daninger stated it was said the clock tower would not be built until the
18 location of all the buildings is known. Now a sign has been erected in the location he
19 thought the clock tower was to be located.
20
21 Commissioner Koehler recalled discussion of plans showing the clocktower as being part
22 of the side of a building.
23
24 Chairperson Nemeth stated this is a valid question and discussion as a clocktower was
25 promised as part of that development.
26
27 Commissioner VanderLaan stated there is a point at the intersection where the stoplight
28 pole blocks the sightline of the sign. Community Development Director Janish explained
29 that during the upcoming Hanson Boulevard reconstruction, the location of the signal
30 lights posts will be adjusted, which will minimize the obstruction.
31
32 ADJOURNMENT.
33
34 Motion by Koehler, seconded by Daninger, to adjourn the meeting at 7:46 p.m. Motion
35 carried on a 5 -ayes, 0 -nays, 2- absent (Hudson and Sims) vote.
36
37 Respectfully Submitted,
38
39 Carla Wirth, Recording Secretary
40 TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc.
2
3
4
5
6
7 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION WORKSHOP MEETING
8 OCTOBER 9, 2018
9
10 The Workshop Meeting of the Andover Planning and Zoning Commission was called to
11 order by Chairperson Kyle Nemeth on October 9, 2018, 6:00 p.m., at the Andover City
12 Hall, 1685 Crosstown Boulevard NW, Andover, Minnesota.
13
14 Commissioners present: Dean Daninger, Scott Hudson, Bert Koehler IV, Nick
15 Loehlein, Jeff Sims, and Mary VanderLaan.
16
17 Commissioners absent: None.
18
19 Also present: Community Development Director Joe Janish
20 City Planner Stephanie Hanson
21
22
23 DISCUSSION OF 2018 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE.
24
25 • Land Use Plan
26
27 City Planner Stephanie Hanson stated tonight's discussion will focus on Chapter 2: Land
28 Use Plan of the Comprehensive Plan that defines the different land uses that exist in
29 Andover and describes the growth management strategies that guide future development.
30 Also included are zoning /land use maps.
31
32 City Planner Hanson stated copies of Chapter 2 have been provided for the Planning
33 Commission at tonight's meeting with additional changes, as well as a pack of updated
34 maps. She noted the maps will not be available on the City website until the
35 Comprehensive Plan is finalized.
36
37 Metropolitan Council Plannine Area Designations
38
39 City Planner Hanson stated Metropolitan Council had previously required 2 zoning
4o designations in the City of Andover: Developing and Rural Residential. She added that
41 has been changed by the Metropolitan Council to three designations, as included in
42 Chapter 2 of the Land Use Plan: Emerging Suburban Edge (ESE), Rural Residential (RR)
43 and Diverse Rural (DR). She noted that certain irrelevant language has been deleted, and
44 Metropolitan Council zoning language added to describe the land use designations.
45
Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Workshop Meeting
Minutes — October 9, 2018
Page 2
1 Chairperson Nemeth asked why the Metropolitan Council is requiring a change to 3
2 zoning designations. City Planner Hanson stated she has contacted the City's
3 representative at the Metropolitan Council for clarification, but she has not heard back.
4 She added Residential Land Use Districts remain the same, although the Rural Reserve
5 Residential was added in Spring 2018.
6
7 City Planner Hanson stated maximum PUD density has been highlighted in the table.
8 She added the City is not required by the Metropolitan Council to include maximum
9 PUD density, so the Planning Commission and City Council will need to decide whether
to to leave it in the Land Use Plan. She noted Community Development Director Joe Janish
11 had indicated that the City Council may want to change maximum PUD density for
12 Urban Residential High Density (URH) areas.
13
14 Community Development Director Janish agreed, stating the redevelopment area adjacent
15 to Bunker Lake Boulevard falls within that district, and there is a cap of 14.4. He added
16 14.4 might not be the best number considering costs related to land acquisition and
17 development. He noted the City Council and Economic Development Authority (EDA)
18 have yet to agree on a specific number or decide to set a maximum cap for PUDs.
19
20 Community Development Director Janish stated the City Council decided on the 14.4 cap
21 because they wanted to prevent unrealistic proposals from developers. He added in this
22 way, the City can create the community by having a cap.
23
24 Commissioner Daninger expressed his support of a cap, as the concept makes sense. He
25 asked whether a cap would apply in the rural area, as the language is unclear in either the
26 Comprehensive Plan or Land Use Plan. City Planner Hanson stated caps can be used in
27 rural areas and have been used before. She added there's no specific regulation in rural
28 areas. She noted there is no language in the Comprehensive Plan, but it can be added to
29 the Zoning Code.
30
31 Commissioner VanderLaan stated the measure of controversy should be balanced with
32 information provided to property owners so they are aware of imminent changes. She
33 added this will be a good way to initiate public discussion regarding a cap, or whether
34 such conditions are necessary.
35
36 City Planner Hanson stated PUDs are not allowed in the Rural Reserve Residential
37 (RRR) zone. Community Development Director Janish stated area property owners in
38 this area were made aware of changes to the Comprehensive Plan during a recent
39 Comprehensive Plan Amendment process.
40
41 Chairperson Nemeth asked for clarification regarding a sentence prior to the table, that
42 begins with "The City reaches agreement" that residential development in the Residential
43 Reserve will be developed at 3 units per net acre once the use becomes available. He
44 added the table shows a density of 1 unit per 10 acres.
45
Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Workshop Meeting
Minutes — October 9, 2018
Page 3
1 City Planner Hanson stated that is what is currently allowed, but when property becomes
2 available it will be taken out of the rural residential reserve and the density will change.
3 She added the Metropolitan Council wanted a written assurance within the Land Use
4 Plan amendment that the zoning would be changed when land becomes available.
5
6 Commissioner Koehler stated he does not support including a cap in the Comprehensive
7 Plan, as it will be difficult to change the rule later if necessary. He added this would be
8 more appropriate in the Zoning Code.
9
10 City Planner Hanson confirmed that a Comprehensive Plan amendment could be
11 necessary if a developer requests a zoning change, for which City Council approval is
12 required. The Planning Commission can set the maximum PUD density, but this is not
13 explicitly stated in the Comprehensive Plan.
14
15 City Planner Hanson stated the Metropolitan Council is not concerned with restricting
16 PUDs; in fact, they prefer more density.
17
18 Community Development Director Janish stated maximum PUD density is restricted by
19 several factors, including sewer allocation. He added, in the M1 District, it is more
20 feasible to consider re- zoning than to do a PUD.
21
22 Chairperson Nemeth asked what determines specified maximum density. Community
23 Development Director Janish stated he believes the City Council decided that 14.4
24 provides a different look than 25. He stated the City Council and EDA looked at a four -
25 story facility with higher density and determined that it was not a good fit for Andover.
26
27 City Planner Hanson stated the City is not required to have a maximum PUD density by
28 the Metropolitan Council in the Comprehensive Plan, but it is necessary to include it in
29 the City Code.
30
31 Commissioner Koehler stated, as part of the PUD evaluation process, the City should
32 consider what an area would be like if it was not a PUD. He added another guideline is
33 not necessary as the City can decide to reverse the PUD. He noted a PUD must fit the
34 character of the neighborhood, which in itself provides guidance for zoning.
35
36 Commissioner Koehler asked if there was a specific reason that the City Council settled
37 on 14.4, and whether it has been challenged.
38
39 Chairperson Nemeth stated he is surprised that the Metropolitan Council does not require
40 a minimum. Community Development Director Janish stated there has been a minimum
41 amount for medium and high density, but not low density.
42
43 Community Development Director Janish stated the Planning Commission's consensus
44 seems to be to remove the cap and initiate discussion regarding a specific number that
45 would be included in the Ordinance but not the Comprehensive Plan.
Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Workshop Meeting
Minutes — October 9, 2018
Page 4
2 Commissioner Koehler agreed, adding he still questions the need for a number, but it
3 should not be in the Comprehensive Plan in any case. A basic PUD will be based on the
4 character of the neighborhood, and zoning guidance is already in place.
5
6 City Planner Hanson asked City Administrator Jim Dickinson if he remembers the
7 reasoning behind the 14.4 maximum PUD Density.
8
9 Mr. Dickinson stated, prior to 2008, the City Council discussed a number that would
10 meet Metropolitan Council requirements and arrived at a number that was as low as
11 possible. The driving factor was the proposed new high school, which was in the
12 planning stages, and the designated land had to meet the appropriate zoning requirements
13 was in Agriculture Preserve. The Metropolitan Council negotiated housing goals for the
14 community, and the City Council manipulated the low minimum density to .72.
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Councilmember VanderLaan asked whether the issue was that the land designated for the
new high school was a flood plain. Mr. Dickinson stated he does not recall whether that
was an issue.
Chairperson Nemeth asked when City utilities are required for light industrial
development, such as Hughes Industrial Park. City Planner Hanson confirmed this.
Community Development Director Janish stated Hughes Industrial Park has its own
section of the Code related to utilities.
Sewer Staeine Plan - Urban and Rural Growth Forecast
27 City Planner Hanson stated, regarding the Sewer Staging Plan in the Urban and Rural
28 Growth Forecast, the last sentence was deleted as figures are derived from both the City
29 and Metropolitan Council. She noted the Engineering Department determines an end
30 number and reviews the Metropolitan Council's numbers and arrives at a compromise.
31
32 City Planner Hanson stated, regarding Agricultural Preserve (AG), Eveland's Farm is the
33 only property in that zoning district. City staff updated that number. Eveland's Farm has
34 not filed an 8 -year request, but City staff would be notified if an expiration date is
35 determined.
36
37 Commissioner Koehler requested clarification regarding the 2nd to last sentence first
38 paragraph: "Parcel must be 40 acres in size ". He added the previous line specifies
39 maximum density of 1 house per 40 acres. City Planner Hanson stated 40 acres is not a
40 requirement.
41
42 Flood Plains
43
44 City Planner Hanson stated, regarding Flood Plains, the last plan used 1986 data, so City
45 staff obtained updated information as of 2013.
Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Workshop Meeting
Minutes — October 9, 2018
Page 5
2 Housing Plan
3
4 City Planner Hanson stated there are no changes to the Housing Plan, with 3.28 persons
5 per household, according to 2010 census. She added the graphs have not been updated.
6
7 Housing Stock Summary
8
9 Chairperson Nemeth requested clarification regarding a statement in the Housing Stock
to Summary: "a variety of housing types are available for individuals and families in all
I 1 stages of the life cycle."
12
13 City Planner Hanson stated that was not changed from the previous plan. She added the
14 City of Andover does not have a strong selection of life -cycle housing. Chairperson
15 Nemeth agreed.
16
17 City Planner Hanson stated there was not much updating required, except for some
18 changes to the Sewer Staging Plan made by the Engineering Department. She added the
19 Engineering Department is also updating two tables in the original packet: 2.6 and
20 2.7/2.78, which will be included.
21
22 Commissioner Koehler requested clarification regarding the Sewer Staging Plan, along
23 Coon Creek Drive south of the Rural Reserve area. He asked whether sewer would be
24 moving into the Rural Reserve. City Planner Hanson stated that was a different plan, as
25 the Rural Reserve originates in a different area.
26
27 Community Development Director Janish agreed, adding the Rural Reserve follows the
28 completed wetland project. He added Director of Public Works Dave Berkowitz had
29 indicated that directional borings were done on either side of the road. He noted sewer
30 staging plans are developed in incremental stages, and the map is designed to show
31 Metropolitan Council the City's plans for potential future development.
32
33 Land Use Mans
34
35 City Planner Hanson stated changes to the Land Use Maps were insignificant, and City
36 staff does not plan on changing or extending any land uses. She added Agricultural
37 Preserve was eliminated in the Comprehensive Plan amendment and is now Rural
38 Reserve. She noted Rum River Central Park should be changed to light green.
39
40 City Planner Hanson stated Country Oaks North is on the map as Single Family — Urban
41 and will be changed to Single Family — Rural, which is the correct classification.
42
43 City Planner Hanson stated regarding the area at Crosstown Boulevard and 161st
44 Avenue, the City Council and City staff have reviewed a potential zoning change from
45 Transitional Business (TB) to Urban Residential (UR). She added property owners
Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Workshop Meeting
Minutes — October 9, 2018
Page 6
1 would be notified of this potential zoning change, although they are aware of the current
2 zoning.
3
4 Chairperson Nemeth requested clarification regarding the Mark Smith development, and
5 whether he is purchasing a parcel in Ham Lake to extend sewer services.
6
7 City Planner Hanson stated Mr. Smith approached City staff at both Andover and Ham
8 Lake to discuss his opportunity to purchase the home to the east in Ham Lake. She added
9 the proposed development would be zoned urban density, and the City of Ham Lake is
10 not interested. She noted the proposed development was not added to the map as it was
I 1 not formally approved and recorded with the County, although the preliminary plat was
12 approved.
13
14 Community Development Director Janish stated the Ham Lake City Council will take
15 final action on this issue at their October 15, 2018 meeting.
16
17 City Planner Hanson stated the Transitional Residential area, which includes a 9 -lot
18 development reviewed by the Planning Commission in September 2018, would also be
19 changed to Urban Residential and the Land Use Map would need to be updated. She
20 added any map updates must be submitted to the Metropolitan Council for approval. She
21 noted existing maps are not changed until the Comprehensive Plan is reviewed and
22 updated.
23
24 Community Development Director Janish stated City staff has discussed the potential for
25 residential development at Crosstown Boulevard and Hanson Boulevard, which is
26 currently advertised as Commercial. He added this is not the most ideal location for
27 residential properties, as access would be through the commercial area.
28
29 Commissioner Koehler stated the City should have a plan to expand commercial use
30 elsewhere if this area is changed to residential.
31
32 Commissioner VanderLaan stated many residents love the rural nature of the community,
33 but commercial properties — businesses and restaurants — are also desirable.
34
35 Community Development Director Janish asked whether the Planning Commission
36 would be open to a mix of commercial and residential uses. He added this information
37 will help City staff advise and give guidance to individuals interested in developing that
38 area.
39
40 Chairperson Nemeth asked whether the property could go through a PUD to change the
41 land use. City Planner Hanson confirmed this.
42
43 Chairperson Nemeth asked, if the development becomes residential, whether the City
44 would go through the PUD process and designate an amount that the City would take
45 back.
Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Workshop Meeting
Minutes — October 9, 2018
Page 7
2 City Planner Hanson stated any loss in density would have to be made up elsewhere. She
3 added the density within the development could be increased, as it is part of a
4 redevelopment area.
5
6 Commissioner VanderLaan reviewed two significant points related to commercial use
7 of the property at Crosstown Boulevard and Hanson Boulevard that must be considered:
8 traffic congestion and the commercial tax base.
9
10 Commissioner Koehler asked how much commercial tax base funding the City would
11 lose if that area becomes residential, and whether that should be considered.
12
13 Community Development Director Janish asked whether the Commission would be open
14 to a buffer along the street.
15
16 Commissioner VanderLaan stated she would support that because it would satisfy
17 concerns of residential property owners who have built homes there. She added there is a
18 vacant lot there now, and measures of concern would be different for that property. She
19 noted a buffer would be in the best interests of existing residents. She stressed the
20 importance of determining what the City would lose because of it.
21
22 Commissioner Daninger stated he believes the area should stay commercial, as residents
23 like having the businesses there, although buffering will be an issue. He added it is the
24 ideal location for a local commercial area.
25
26 Commissioner Koehler stated he agrees, although there is currently a lot of commercial
27 use right in the path of kids walking home from school, and a lot of traffic. He added
28 there are ways to address those types of concerns and increase safety, such as walking
29 paths and controlled intersections.
30
31 Chairperson Nemeth requested clarification regarding the Hanson Boulevard
32 reconstruction project. Community Development Director Janish stated that project will
33 be completed in two phases: from Jay Street to the elementary school's southern entrance
34 in 2019, and from southern entrance to just past the YMCA in 2020. Traffic lanes will be
35 open during construction.
36
37 Commissioner Loehlein stated he is open to allowing residential use at Hanson Boulevard
38 and Crosstown Boulevard. Most residents would agree that something should be done
39 there, as it is currently an empty field.
40
41 Community Development Director Janish stated a senior housing component would be
42 considered a residential use. He added some senior services would require a Conditional
43 Use Permit.
44
Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Workshop Meeting
Minutes — October 9, 2018
Page 8
1 OTHER BUSINESS.
2
3 Commissioner Koehler asked whether the property on South Coon Creek Drive with a
4 garage on its property line will be addressed by City staff. He added the Planning
5 Commission approved a lot split on this property conditional upon removal of the garage.
6 He noted the garage is still there.
7
8 City Planner Hanson stated that deadline comes up in January 2019. She added she has
9 not heard anything about that. She added a lot with only an accessory structure is not
10 allowed by Ordinance. She noted the structure on the property met the setback
11 requirements of 10 feet from the side property line.
12
13 Commissioner VanderLaan asked whether City staff believes Andover will have to deal
14 with the "small house movement ". City Planner Hanson stated that will not be a problem
15 in Andover, as City Code stipulates that residential homes must have a permanent
16 foundation.
17
18 Commissioner VanderLaan asked what the minimum allowable square footage for a
19 home built in the City of Andover. City Planner Hanson stated the minimum square
20 footage of a foundation for a split -level home is approximately 900 square feet, and
21 approximately 1,000 square feet for a rambler.
22
23 City Planner Hanson stated the Planning Commission's next regularly scheduled meeting
24 is November 13, 2018.
25
26 ADJOURNMENT.
27
28 Motion by Chairperson Nemeth, seconded by Commissioner Koehler, to adjourn the
29 meeting at 7:23 p.m. Motion carried on a 7 -ayes, 0 -nays, 0- absent vote.
30
31 Respectfully Submitted,
32
33 Mary Mullen, Recording Secretary
34 Timesaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc.
35
l _ /
1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. • ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 . (763) 755 -5100
FAX (763) 755 -8923 • WWW.ANDOVERMN.GOV
TO: Planning and Zoning Commissioners
FROM: Joe Janish, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING: Consider Conditional Use Permit / Planned Unit
Development Amendment — Preserve at Petersen Farms — 7th Avenue /165th
Avenue NW — JD Andover Holdings
DATE: November 13, 2018
INTRODUCTION
The Planning and Zoning Commission is asked to review a Conditional Use Permit (CUP)/
Planned Unit Development (PUD) Amendment for Preserve at Petersen Farms. This request
would extend the current PUD Minimum requirements from the east (Phase 1) over the
remainder of the property. The proposed amendment area does have additional criteria as a
portion has an area defined as Shoreland. Tonight's request does not change Phase 1. The
proposal this evening would establish minimum requirements for the additional property and
would require an amendment at time of preliminary plat.
2
The attached drawings are to be reviewed as a "PUD Sketch" indicating how the remainder of the
property may develop. The PUD is requested by Landform, on behalf of JD Andover Holdings,
who has a purchase agreement for the property. The PUD narrative submitted by the developer is
attached for your review.
❖ As the draft supportive resolution is prepared, the CUP/PUD would need to be
amended to include the preliminary plat as part of the CUP/PUD application. Again
tonight's request does not change "Phase 1" requirements or apply to Existing
OUTLOTs A, B, C.
DISCUSSION
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 they believe the city seeks
when granting for a PUD proposal as identified in City Code 13 -3 -11.
City Code 13 -3 -9 states the following required findings for the Council to consider when
approving a PUD (italicized responses are from the applicant's narrative, staff review will be
provided later in the staff report):
1. The proposed development is not in conflict with the goals of the Comprehensive Plan
for the City.
The proposed project is guided RR Rural Residential. This comprehensive plan land use
is consistent with the surrounding land uses, which are all RR Rural Residential. The
proposed development will be consistent with the goals of the Comprehensive Plan.
2008 Comprehensive Plan Goals that may be relevant which are found in Chapter 1:
Foundation of the Comprehensive Plan (see attachment for additional goals).
Overarching Goals, Objectives and Policies
Goal 1: Maintain and enhance the quality of life in Andover
Land Use Goals, Objectives and Policies
Goal 4: Allow residential growth while maintaining the quality of natural
resources and amenities.
Goal: Reduce maintenance and energy costs for public facilities and
infrastructure.
3
Housing Goals, Objectives and Policies
Goal: Provide a variety of housing types to accommodate the life cycle needs of
all residents.
Transportation Goals, Objectives and Policies
Goal: Minimize impacts of the transportation system on the natural environment.
2. The proposed development is designed in such a manner as to form a desirable and
unified environment within its own boundaries.
We are proposing to create custom home sites to allow for flexibility for the buyer and a
more attractive neighborhood in Andover. 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. This
approach will allow flexibility in the placement of single-family homes on each lot while
preserving the natural environment. The low - impact qualities of this development will
lead to a desirable and unified environment.
3. The proposed development demonstrates how each modified or waived requirement
contributes to achieving the purpose of PUD.
Our proposal is requesting flexibility from lot size and lot width standards in the R -1
District and Shoreland Overlay district and from minimum ROW width in the subdivision
ordinance. The requested flexibilities contribute to achieving the purpose of a PUD,
specifically:
• The lot size change contributes to achieving a higher quality PUD development
because it helps to preserve a larger number of existing trees, it allows for linear
cluster development that preserves the natural features and allows for the
dedication ofsignificant open space within the development.
• The lot width change contributes to achieving a higher quality PUD development
because it permits the development to arrange lots to preserve trees, minimize
wetland impacts and preserve natural features.
• The ROW width change contributes to achieving a higher quality PUD development
because it allows for a rural street section that minimizes tree removals and allows
for wider drainage and utility easements that can be used as ditches for stormwater
management. The use of ditches will also reduce the number of trees removed
because we will not need traditional ponding to achieve stormwater requirements.
4. 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.
The PUD proposal includes our development plan that shows how the overall property
and adjacent large lot residential properties could be developed, visualizing how future
3
M
development could be planned for. Each phase of the development would contribute to
the overall development but would be independent of the previous and future phases.
❖ The City Council will need to determine if the developer's proposal satisfactorily
meets these required findings.
Shoreland Manaeement
Within the
an unnamed recreational lake 87W, exists.
The applicant has provided an 11x17 map titled "Shoreland Overlay Development Density." As
part of the Shoreland Ordinance, the applicant needs to verify the proposed density by creating a
tier system of 267 feet. Density is then compared to City Code within these tiers. The Shoreland
Ordinance also allows for a density increase if a developer provides a larger setback (125 feet vs.
100 feet from the waterbody Ordinary High Water (OHW)) and placing vegetation requirements
around the recreational lake.
4
61
Below is a chart and map that shows the Shoreland Overlay Density Data. This chart includes
the acreage within each 267 -foot tier based on total acres, non - developable acres, base density
(what is allowed without an increase), bonus density (what is allowed with the increase due to
larger setback and vegetation requirements) and finally the number of proposed lots by the
developer within each tier.
Shoreland Overlay Den ity Data
Tier
Total
Area
Acres
Non-
Developable
Acres
Developable
(Acres)
Base
Density
Bonus
Density
Proposed
# of Lots
1
31.3
6.0
25.3
10.1
15.2
11
2
27.2
9.9
17.4
7
13.9
8
3
32.2
11.0
21.2
8.5
25.4
12
4
27.5
6.9
20.6
8.2
24.7
8
TOTAL
118.1
33.7
84.5
33.8
79.2
39
*map and chart created by LANDFORM
iI
rel
At this level of detail the 1,000 foot Shoreland Overlay from the recreational lake is shown using
Light Detection And Ranging (LIDAR 2 foot contours). At time of preliminary platting, the
1,000 foot overlay location and associated calculations will be further refined.
Due to the Shoreland Overlay District, additional responsibilities are required of the developer.
These include a Mandatory Home Owners Association (HOA) and City code provides
requirements of the HOA.
Residential Planned Unit Developments (PUDs) within a shoreland area requires a
property owner association agreement (for residential PUDs) with mandatory
membership, and addresses the following within City Code 13 -4 -9 F:
1. Maintenance and Design Criteria;
2. Open Space Requirements: Planned Unit Developments must contain open space;
3. Erosion Control And Storm Water Management; and
4. Centralization And Design Of Facilities.
The applicant has indicated the development will meet all other shoreland standards including:
• 125 -foot setback from the recreational lake with additional vegetative management to
ensure a lessened impact on the lake.
• 25% max impervious coverage.
• 25 -foot max building height.
• 50 %open space preservation within the Shoreland Overlay area. This is calculated on
the exhibit labeled "Shoreland Overlay Open Space"
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, as does the Shoreland Overlay. The PUD proposes lot sizes to
range from 1.5 — 3.97 acres and lot widths ranging from 101 — 458 feet at the front yard setback
(the width of the lot 40 feet from the right of way).
Each lot will meet the minimum requirement of 13,600 square feet of buildable area. The
standard R -1 requirement allows for 3,600 square feet for a home location and two 5,000 square
foot locations for septic systems. The applicant is proposing to provide an additional 29,960
square feet of "usable" area that does not include bluffs and wetlands, making the PUD "usable"
2
CITY CODE
REQUIREMENTS
SHORELAND
REQUIREMENTS
PUD PROPOSAL
MINIMUM
Lot size /Gross
Density
2.5 acres /0.4 units per
acre
2.5 acres /0.4 units
per acre
1.5 + acres /0.33 units
per acre
Lot Width
300 feet
300 feet
100
Lot Depth
150 feet
150 feet
+150 feet
Lots allowed on
336.1 acres
134
-
110 proposed
Each lot will meet the minimum requirement of 13,600 square feet of buildable area. The
standard R -1 requirement allows for 3,600 square feet for a home location and two 5,000 square
foot locations for septic systems. The applicant is proposing to provide an additional 29,960
square feet of "usable" area that does not include bluffs and wetlands, making the PUD "usable"
2
7
minimum 1 acre (43,560 square feet) vs. the standard 13,600 square feet. This "one acre" would
be the area of the lot that does not include bluffs and wetlands.
Setbacks
The applicant is also asking to continue with a front yard setback of 30 feet vs. 40 feet.
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 reduced
right of way 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 27 -foot pavement width and the 18-
inch ribbon curb on each side of the road. Staff is also comfortable with parking 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 30 foot width, which includes 18 inches of ribbon curbing on
each side. The 18 inches of concrete ribbon curbing on each side of the street will 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 better
allow the flow of water into the ditches yet support the edging of the paved area.
MSA Route Navajo Street will be constructed to meet MSA standards including width, right of
way and pavement section. This MSA route would need to be designed to accommodate
parking, with off street parking, or widened to allow for parking on the shoulder.
Utilities
Each of the lots will be served by individual septic systems and private wells.
7
City
PUD
Standard
Proposal
Right of Way
50 feet /
width
60 feet
60 feet
Rural Street
Pavement width
26 - 31 feet
27 feet
Rural Street
Pavement width
including Curb
(no ditches)
31 feet
30 feet
Right of Way Width: City staff supports the proposal for a 50 -foot right of way. This reduced
right of way 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 27 -foot pavement width and the 18-
inch ribbon curb on each side of the road. Staff is also comfortable with parking 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 30 foot width, which includes 18 inches of ribbon curbing on
each side. The 18 inches of concrete ribbon curbing on each side of the street will 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 better
allow the flow of water into the ditches yet support the edging of the paved area.
MSA Route Navajo Street will be constructed to meet MSA standards including width, right of
way and pavement section. This MSA route would need to be designed to accommodate
parking, with off street parking, or widened to allow for parking on the shoulder.
Utilities
Each of the lots will be served by individual septic systems and private wells.
7
Parks and Open Space
The applicant proposes a 46 -acre protected open space that is proposed in the northern portion of
the development near the recreational lake. This open space is created by the transfer of density
from developable acres within the open space, to the adjacent acres of the project less sensitive to
the disturbance as part of the low- impact approach to the development. This proposed space
allows for a connection to Martin's Meadows to the North. As the developer has indicated this
space would be platted as an outlot and could be deeded to the City.
❖ Staff has included language within the proposed approval resolution that the applicant
shall deed the 46 -acre open space lot to the City of Andover as agreed to by the terms and
conditions of the City Council and recommendation by the Parks and Recreation
Commission.
The applicant is proposing an additional outlot for the site containing the existing machine sheds
(storage buildings). The applicant is currently evaluating proposed uses for the buildings and
currently thinking of a form of shared storage space, public gathering space, pocket park or
another type of amenity.
The applicant indicates during the first phase review, the Parks Commission requested a park in
this proposed development area, and that the width of the ROW or an easement on the East/West
road be adequate to support a future trail. The applicant is proposing the public park component
be located at the southernmost portion of the dedicated open space where access and continuity
are maximized and at the location of the existing machine sheds.
❖ If Council agrees the machine sheds (storage buildings) could be re used as part of the
development the use within the buildings:
• The "use" of the buildings needs to be a permitted use within the R -I zoning;
• The building will need to be evaluated by appropriate means to determine
compliance with the appropriate "use" related to building code. This evaluation
may also require the need for fire suppression of the buildings.
• The building will need to be evaluated for architectural compatibility with the
proposed residential structures.
• The applicant will provide for off - street parking for the proposed "use" of the
building.
Staff suggests the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council to request the developer
provide a solution for off street parking for Martin's Meadows as part of the Planned Unit
Development (PUD) proposal.
d• Applicant shall provide off street parking for Martin's Meadows as approved by City
Council. The need for off street parking is necessary due to the extension of the
temporary cul -de -sac and future designation of the existing street to a MSA route.
Other Standards
With a PUD, all standards apply as typical, unless otherwise specified in the PUD request. The
applicant is asking for deviations from the minimum standards as it relates to: lot size, lot width
E
at the front yard setback, ROW width and street design for a low impact development (ribbon
curb vs. "highback" curb). All other regulations will still apply at time of development.
HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION (HOA)
The applicant has indicated that they plan extend the current HOA to maintain any common
areas, monuments, along with enforcement of certain "uses" on the properties. These "uses"
have been noted as not allowing for ATV use except for normal domestic chores, and additional
outside storage. The HOA would be the entity that is responsible for the enforcement of the
items listed as being restricted. It should also be noted that as individuals purchase property
within the development, the buyer receives a copy of the HOA rules and requirements and title
companies generally require acknowledgment of the document. That means the buyer will be
aware of what the HOA will expect as it relates to any restrictions. This notice of HOA
regulations carries forward to second and future buyers of the property as well.
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION ACTION REQUESTED
The Planning and Zoning Commission is asked to consider a recommendation to the City
Council.
City staff has prepared two draft resolutions; one for approval and started a denial resolution. If
the Planning and Zoning Commission desires to deny the CUP /PUD Amendment request staff
will draft a denial resolution based on tonight's discussion for City Council consideration.
The City Council should consider City Code 13 -3 -9 required findings during the discussion of
tonight's request whether it be for approval or denial of the request:
1. The proposed PUD is not in conflict with the goals of the Comprehensive Plan for the
City;
2. The proposed development is designed in such a manner as to form a desirable and
unified environment within its own boundaries;
3. The proposed development demonstrates how each modified or waived requirement
contributes to achieving the purpose of a PUD;
4. 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.
Res tfully submitted,
Joe Janish
M
10
Attachments
Draft Resolution of Denial .11
Draft Supportive of Approval. .14
Applicants Narrative .19
2008 Comprehensive Plan Goals .29
City Engineer Letter .41
Anoka County Highway Letter dated May 7, 2018 .43
Public Hearing Notification Area .45
City Code 13 -3 Planned Unit Development (PUD) .46
City Code 13 -4 -9 Shoreland Management Planned Unit Developments .50
Acreage Location Map .51
PUD Development Plan .52
Typical Surrounding Lot Sizes .58
Shoreland Overlay Open Space .59
Shoreland Overlay Development Density .60
PUD Master Development Plan — Figure Ground .61
Cc: - Jason Osberg, Metrowide Development, 15356 Yukon St. NW, Andover, MN 55304
- Darren Lazan, Landform Professional Services, LLC 105 South Fifth Avenue Suite
513 Minneapolis, MN 55401
- Kevin Shay, Landform Professional Services, LLC 105 South Fifth Avenue Suite 513
Minneapolis, MN 55401
- Diane Park, 1524 1551" Lane NW, Andover, MN 55304
10
11
CITY OF ANDOVER
COUNTY OF ANOKA
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RES. NO. R
A RESOLUTION DENYING THE CONDITION USE PERMIT / PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT REQUESTED BY LANDFORM, ON BEHALF OF JD
ANDOVER HOLDINGS, AS SHOWN AS PUD MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN DATED
10.23.2018, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS:
• Part of PID: 07- 32 -24 -41 -0001; legally described as: UNPLATTED GROW TWP NE1A
OF SE1 /4 SEC 7 -32 -24
• Part of PID: 07- 32 -24 -14 -0001; legally described as: UNPLATTED GROW TWP SE1 /4
OF NE1 /4 SEC 7 -32 -24
• Part of PID: 07- 32 -24 -11 -0001; legally described as: THAT PRT OF GOVT LOT 2 OF
SEC 07 TWP 32 RGE 24 LYG SLY OF RUM RIVER, EX RD, SUBJ TO EASE OF
REC
• PID 07- 32 -24 -42 -0001; legally described as: UNPLATTED GROW TWOP NW1 /4 OF
SE1 /4 SEC 7/32/24
• PID: 07- 32 -24 -43 -0003; legally described as: THAT PRT OF SW1 /4 OF SE' /4 OF SEC 7
TWP 32 RGE 24 LYG W OF E 701.69 FT THEREOF, EX RD SUBJ TO EASE OF REC
• PID: 07- 32 -24 -43 -0002; legally described as: THE E 701.69 FT PF SW 1/40F SE1 /4 SEC
7 TWP 32 RGE 24, EX RD SUBJ TO EASE OF REC
• PID: 07- 32 -24 -34 -0002; legally described as: THAT PRT OF SE1 /4 OF SW1 /4 OF SEC
7 TWP 32 RGE 24 DESC AS FOL: BEG AT NE COR OF SD 1/4 1/4, TH S 89 DEG 52
MIN 15 SEC W, ASSD BRG, ALG N LINE THEREOF 975.88 FT, TH S 04 DEG 29
MIN 59 SEC W 231.03 FT, TH S 85 DEG 30 MIN 01 SEC E 240 FT, TH S 04 DEG 29
MIN 59 SEC W 778.17 FT, TH S 89 DEG 46 MIN 20 SEC W 113.41 FT, TH S 00 DEG
13 MIN 40 SEC E 225.28 FT TO NLY R/W LINE OF ANOKA CO HWY R/W PLAT
NO 4,TH N 89 DEG 46 MIN 20 SEC E ALG SD NLY R/W LINE 71.24 FT, TH ELY
ALG SD NLY R/W LINE & ALSO ALG TAN CUR CONC TO S RAD OF 1152.20 FT
& CEN ANG OF 12 DEG 25 MIN 43 SEC 249.94 FT, TH N 89 DEG 46 MIN 20SEC E
NOT TAN TO SD CUR & ALG SD NLY R/W LINE 622.87 FT TO INTER/W E LINE
OF SD 1/4 1/4, TH N 00 DEG 37 MIN 23 SEC W ALG SD E LINE 1276.18 FT TO
POB, EX RDS, SUBJ TO EASE OF REC
• PID 07- 32 -24 -33 -0001; THE SWI /4 OF SW1 /4 OF SEC 07 TWP 32 RGE 24, EX RD,
SUBJ TO EASE OF REC
• PID 07- 32 -24 -34 -0003; legally described as: THE SE1 /4 OF SW1 /4 OF SEC 7 TWP 32
RGE 24, EX THAT PRT DESC AS FOL: BEG AT NE COR OF SD 1/4 1/4, TH S 89
DEG 52 MIN 15 SEC W, ASSD BRG, ALG N LINE 975.88 FT, TH S 04 DEG 29 MIN
59 SEC W 231.03 FT, TH S 85 DEG 30 MIN 01 SEC E 240 FT, TH S 04 DEG 29 MIN
59 SEC W 778.17 FT, TH S 89 DEG 46 MIN 20 SEC W 113.41 FT, TH S 00 DEG 13
MIN 40 SEC E 225.28 FT TO NLY R/W LINE OF ANOKA CO HWY R/W PLAT NO
11
M
4, TH N 89 DEG 46 MIN 20 SEC E ALG SD NLY R/W LINE 71.24 FT, TH ELY ALG
SD NLY R/W LINE & ALSO ALG TAN CUR CONC TO S RAD OF 1152.20 FT &
CEN ANG OF 12 DEG 25 MIN 43 SEC 249.94 FT, TH N 89 DEG 46 MIN 20 SEC E
NOT TAN TO SD CUR & ALG SD NLY R/W LINE 622.87 FT TO INTER/W E LINE
OF SD 1/4 1/4, TH N 00 DEG 37 MIN 23 SEC W ALG SD E LINE 1276.18 FT TO
POB, EX RD, SUBJ TO EASE OF REC
• PID 07- 32 -24 -32 -0001; legally described as: THE NWl /4 OF SW1/4 OF SEC 7 TWP 32,
RGE 24 EX RD SUBJ TO EASE OF REC
• PID 07- 32 -24 -31 -0001; legally described as: UNPLATTED GROW TWP NE1 /4 OF
SWIA SEC 7 -32 -24
• PID 07- 32 -24 -23 -0002; legally described as: SW1 /4 OF THE NW1 /4 OF SEC 7 T32 R24
TOG /W THAT PRT OF THE NW1 /4 OF THE NW1 /4 SD SEC DESC AS FOL: COM
AT THE INTER OF THE NLY EXTN OF THE WLY LINE OF THE PLAT OF GROW
OAK VIEW ESTATES & THE N LINE OF SD 1/4,1/4, TH S 0 DEG 26 MIN E ALG
SD WLY LINE & EXTN 1287 FT TO THE POB, TH W PRLL /W SD N LINE 338.46
FT, TH S 0 DEG 26 MIN E TO THE S LINE OF SD 1/4,1/4, TH ELY ALG SD S LINE
TO THE WLY LINE OF SD PLAT, TH NLY ALG SD WLY LINE TO THE POB; EX
RD; SUBJ TO EASE OF REC
• PID 07 -32- 2424 -0001; legally described as: UNPLATTED GROW TWP SE1 /4 OF
NWl /4 SEC 7/32/24
WHEREAS, Landform, on behalf of JD Andover Holdings has requested a Conditional Use
Permit for a Planned Unit Development (PUD) for PRESERVE AT PETERSEN FARMS PUD
MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN, and;
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission has reviewed the request and has determined
that said request does not meet the criteria of City Code and would have a detrimental effect
upon the health, safety, general welfare, values of property and scenic views in the surrounding
area, and;
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission has reviewed the request and has determined
that said request does not meet the criteria of City Code; as the proposed PUD is in conflict with
the goals of the Comprehensive Plan for the City; and;
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommends to the City Council the denial of
the Conditional Use Permit request, and;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Andover does
hereby deny the Conditional Use Permit/ Planned Unit Development for PRESERVE AT
PETERSEN FARMS PUD MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN DATED 10.23.2018, on the
above legally described property due to the following findings:
1.
2.
3
4
5
12
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Andover on this day of 12018.
CITY OF ANDOVER
ATTEST: Julie Trude, Mayor
Michelle Hartner, Deputy City Clerk
13
13
14
CITY OF ANDOVER
COUNTY OF ANOKA
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RES. NO. R
A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE CONDITION USE PERMIT / PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT REQUESTED BY LANDFORM, ON BEHALF OF JD
ANDOVER HOLDINGS, AS SHOWN PRESERVE AT PETERSEN FARMS PUD MASTER
DEVELOPMENT PLAN DATED 10.23.2018, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS:
• Part of PID: 07- 32 -24 -41 -0001; legally described as: UNPLATTED GROW TWP NEU4
OF SE1 /4 SEC 7 -32 -24
• Part of PID: 07- 32 -24 -14 -0001; legally described as: UNPLATTED GROW TWP SE1 /4
OF NEI /4 SEC 7 -32 -24
• Part of PID: 07- 32 -24 -11 -0001; legally described as: THAT PRT OF GOVT LOT 2 OF
SEC 07 TWP 32 RGE 24 LYG SLY OF RUM RIVER, EX RD, SUBJ TO EASE OF
REC
• PID 07- 32 -24 -42 -0001; legally described as: UNPLATTED GROW TWOP NW1/4 OF
SE1 /4 SEC 7/32/24
• PID: 07- 32 -24 -43 -0003; legally described as: THAT PRT OF SW1 /4 OF SE/40F SEC 7
TWP 32 RGE 24 LYG W OF E 701.69 FT THEREOF, EX RD SUBJ TO EASE OF REC
• PID: 07- 32 -24 -43 -0002; legally described as: THE E 701.69 FT PF SW/40F SEIA SEC
7 TWP 32 RGE 24, EX RD SUBJ TO EASE OF REC
• PID: 07- 32 -24 -34 -0002; legally described as: THAT PRT OF SETA OF SWIM OF SEC
7 TWP 32 RGE 24 DESC AS FOL: BEG AT NE COR OF SD 1/4 1/4, TH S 89 DEG 52
MIN 15 SEC W, ASSD BRG, ALG N LINE THEREOF 975.88 FT, TH S 04 DEG 29
MIN 59 SEC W 231.03 FT, TH S 85 DEG 30 MIN 01 SEC E 240 FT, TH S 04 DEG 29
MIN 59 SEC W 778.17 FT, TH S 89 DEG 46 MIN 20 SEC W 113.41 FT, TH S 00 DEG
13 MIN 40 SEC E 225.28 FT TO NLY R/W LINE OF ANOKA CO HWY R/W PLAT
NO 4,TH N 89 DEG 46 MIN 20 SEC E ALG SD NLY R/W LINE 71.24 FT, TH ELY
ALG SD NLY R/W LINE & ALSO ALG TAN CUR CONC TO S RAD OF 1152.20 FT
& CEN ANG OF 12 DEG 25 MIN 43 SEC 249.94 FT, TH N 89 DEG 46 MIN 20SEC E
NOT TAN TO SD CUR & ALG SD NLY R/W LINE 622.87 FT TO INTER/W E LINE
OF SD 1/4 1/4, TH N 00 DEG 37 MIN 23 SEC W ALG SD E LINE 1276.18 FT TO
POB, EX RDS, SUBJ TO EASE OF REC
• PID 07- 32 -24 -33 -0001; THE SWIA OF SW114 OF SEC 07 TWP 32 RGE 24, EX RD,
SUBJ TO EASE OF REC
• PID 07- 32 -24 -34 -0003; legally described as: THE SETA OF SWIA OF SEC 7 TWP 32
RGE 24, EX THAT PRT DESC AS FOL: BEG AT NE COR OF SD 1/4 1/4, TH S 89
DEG 52 MIN 15 SEC W, ASSD BRG, ALG N LINE 975.88 FT, TH S 04 DEG 29 MIN
59 SEC W 231.03 FT, TH S 85 DEG 30 MIN 01 SEC E 240 FT, TH S 04 DEG 29 MIN
59 SEC W 778.17 FT, TH S 89 DEG 46 MIN 20 SEC W 113.41 FT, TH S 00 DEG 13
MIN 40 SEC E 225.28 FT TO NLY R/W LINE OF ANOKA CO HWY R/W PLAT NO
4, TH N 89 DEG 46 MIN 20 SEC E ALG SD NLY R/W LINE 71.24 FT, TH ELY ALG
14
15
SD NLY R/W LINE & ALSO ALG TAN CUR CONC TO S RAD OF 1152.20 FT &
CEN ANG OF 12 DEG 25 MIN 43 SEC 249.94 FT, TH N 89 DEG 46 MIN 20 SEC E
NOT TAN TO SD CUR & ALG SD NLY R/W LINE 622.87 FT TO INTER/W E LINE
OF SD 1/4 1/4, TH N 00 DEG 37 MIN 23 SEC W ALG SD E LINE 1276.18 FT TO
POB, EX RD, SUBJ TO EASE OF REC
• PID 07- 32 -24 -32 -0001; legally described as: THE NW1 /4 OF SWIA OF SEC 7 TWP 32,
RGE 24 EX RD SUBJ TO EASE OF REC
• PID 07- 32 -24 -31 -0001; legally described as: UNPLATTED GROW TWP NE1 /4 OF
SW1 /4 SEC 7 -32 -24
• PID 07- 32 -24 -23 -0002; legally described as: SWl /4 OF THE NWI /4 OF SEC 7 T32 R24
TOG /W THAT PRT OF THE NW1/4 OF THE NWI /4 SD SEC DESC AS FOL: COM
AT THE INTER OF THE NLY EXTN OF THE WLY LINE OF THE PLAT OF GROW
OAK VIEW ESTATES & THE N LINE OF SD 1/4,1/4, TH S 0 DEG 26 MIN E ALG
SD WLY LINE & EXTN 1287 FT TO THE POB, TH W PRLL /W SD N LINE 338.46
FT, TH S 0 DEG 26 MIN E TO THE S LINE OF SD 1/4,1/4, TH ELY ALG SD S LINE
TO THE WLY LINE OF SD PLAT, TH NLY ALG SD WLY LINE TO THE POB; EX
RD; SUBJ TO EASE OF REC
• PID 07 -32- 2424 -0001; legally described as: UNPLATTED GROW TWP SEIA OF
NWI /4 SEC 7/32/24
WHEREAS, Landform on behalf of JD Andover Holdings has requested a Conditional Use
Permit for a Planned Unit Development (PUD) for Phase 1 of PETERSEN FARMS, and;
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission has reviewed the request and has determined
that said request does meet the criteria of City Code and would not have a detrimental effect
upon the health, safety, general welfare, values of property and scenic views in the surrounding
area, and;
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission has reviewed the request and determined that
said request does meet the criteria of City Code and 13 -3 -9 and 13 -4 -9; as the proposed PUD is
in conflict. This residential zoning district has requirements in place to retain rural zoning and the
Planned Unit Development project does not meet heat requirement based on the long cut de sacs
and lots less than 2.5 acres.
WHEREAS, the Planning Zoning Commission further determined the Planned Unit
Development project conflicts with Land Use Goals, Objectives and Policies Goal 4 to allow
residential growth while maintaining the quality of natural resources and amenities.
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommends to the City Council the a roval
of the Conditional Use Permit/Planned Unit Development request, and;
WHEREAS, the City Council of Andover has reviewed the request and has determined that said
request does meet the criteria of City Code because:
15
16
1. The proposed development is not in conflict with the goals of the Comprehensive Plan
for the City. The proposed CUP/PUD request is in alignment with the Comprehensive
Plan as it meets the following goals:
Overarching Goals, Objectives and Policies, Goal 1: Maintain and enhance the
quality of life in Andover. The proposed project has been designed to minimize
impacts to wetlands and bluffs. The applicant is providing larger usable space
for each lot, which is a minimum of 43,560 square feet vs. the R -1 requirement of
13,600 square feet.
Land Use Goals, Objectives and Policies, Goal 4: Allow residential growth
while maintaining the quality of natural resources and amenities. The proposed
project will utilize Low Impact Development (LID) features such as infiltration
ditches, and smaller roadways. The applicant will continue to work through the
development process minimizing tree removal on the property and reduce the
amount of destabilization of the soil.
Goal: Reduce maintenance and energy costs for public facilities and
infrastructure. As part q f the LID development, the roadway will be narrower
creating less cost for future replacement. The development will have minimal
stormwater hard infrastructure reducing the cities costs of long -term
maintenance.
Housing Goals, Objectives and Policies
Goal: Provide a variety of housing types to accommodate the life cycle needs of
all residents. While some lots will be under the 2.5 acre R -1 standard, each lot
will have at least 43,560 square feet of "usable "property.
Transportation Goals, Objectives and Policies
Goal: Minimize impacts of the transportation system on the natural environment.
The lots under 2.5 acres will allow for the placement of the road in a location that
minimizes the "cuts" and 'fills " on the property. The placement of the roadway
will allow the lots to be laid out in a manner that minimizes the removal of the
trees on the property at the time of development. The master plan calls for
additional connections to adjacent roadways allowing for additional access to
this development and others.
2. The proposed development is designed in such a manner as to form a desirable and
unified environment within its own boundaries.
The applicant is proposing to create custom home sites to allow for flexibility for
the buyer and a more attractive neighborhood in Andover. 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. This approach will allow flexibility in the
placement of single-family homes on each lot while preserving the natural
16
17
environment. The low - impact qualities of this development will lead to a desirable
and unified environment. The smaller lots will also allow more open space to
occur around the recreational lake.
3. The proposed development demonstrates how each modified or waived requirement
contributes to achieving the purpose of PUD.
The applicant's proposal is requesting flexibility from lot size and lot width standards in
the R -1 District and Shoreland Overlay District and from minimum ROW width. The
requested flexibilities contribute to achieving the purpose of a PUD, specifically:
• The lot size change contributes to achieving a higher quality PUD development
because it helps to preserve a larger number of existing trees, it allows for linear
cluster development that preserves the natural features and allows for the
dedication of significant open space within the development.
• The lot width change contributes to achieving a higher quality PUD development
because it permits the development to arrange lots to preserve trees, minimize
wetland impacts and preserve natural features.
• The ROW width change contributes to achieving a higher quality PUD development
because it allows for a rural street section that minimizes tree removals and allows
for wider drainage and utility easements that can be used as ditches for stormwater
management. The use of ditches will also reduce the number of trees removed
because we will not need traditional ponding to achieve stormwater requirements.
4. 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.
The PUD proposal includes our development plan that shows how the overall property
and adjacent large lot residential properties could be developed, visualizing how future
development could be planned for. Each phase of the development would contribute to
the overall development but would be independent of the previous and future phases.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Andover hereby
disagrees with the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approves the
Conditional Use Permit/Planned Unit Development request on the above legally described
property for PETERSEN FARMS phase 1 with the following conditions:
1. The developer shall amend this PUD to include the preliminary plat. The lot width
shall not be less than 100 feet at the front yard setback.
2. The lot size shall not be less than 1.50 acres in size.
3. Each lot shall have a minimum of 1 acre of property that is not bluff or wetland.
4. The overall density shall not exceed .40 units per acre.
5. Developer shall provide a 50' ROW with additional drainage and utility easements for
roadways with the exception of the MSA designated route within the development.
6. The MSA designated route shall meet MSA requirements.
17
18
7. Developer shall be responsible for meeting Anoka County Highway Departments
comments.
8. Local roadways shall be "Low Impact Development" in nature (27' asphalt width,
with 18 -inch ribbon curb on both sides).
9. Developer shall adhere to platting process and meet requirements and items identified
through that process.
10. Roadways shall be extended to the edge of the plat.
11. Developer shall address staff comments in Engineers Letter dated May 14, 2018.
12. If Council agrees the machine sheds (storage buildings) could be repurposed as part of
the development:
a. The "use" of the buildings needs to be allowed under City Code (Permitted
Use or obtain a Conditional Use Permit (CUP)) within the R -1 zoning;
b. The building will need to be evaluated by appropriate means to determine
compliance with the appropriate "use" in building code. This evaluation may
also require the need for fire suppression of the buildings.
c. The building will need to be evaluated for architectural compatibility with the
proposed residential structures.
d. The applicant will provide for off - street parking for the proposed "use" of the
building.
13. Residential Planned Unit Developments (PUDs) within a shoreland area requires a
property owner association agreement (for residential PUDs) with mandatory
membership, and addresses the following within City Code 13 -4 -9 F:
a. Maintenance and Design Criteria;
b. Open Space Requirements: Planned Unit Developments must contain open
space;
c. Erosion Control And Storm Water Management; and
d. Centralization And Design Of Facilities.
14. Applicant shall deed the 46 -acre open space lot to the City of Andover as agreed to by
the terms and conditions of the City Council and recommendation by the Parks and
Recreation Commission.
15. Applicant shall provide off street parking for Martin's Meadows as approved by City
Council. The need for off street parking is necessary due to the extension of the
temporary cul -de -sac and future designation of the existing street to a MSA route.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Andover on this day of , 2018.
CITY OF ANDOVER
ATTEST: Julie Trude, Mayor
Michelle Hartner, Deputy City Clerk
IV
19
Narrative
Proposed 2 "d Amendment to the Planned Unit Development
(PUD) for Petersen Farms
Andover, MN
L A N D F 0 R M
20
Narrative
2nd Amendment to the PUD Development Plan for Petersen
Farms
Andover, MN
Revised October 25, 2018
21
Table of Contents
Introduction........................................................................................................ ............................... 2
FullPUD Development Plan .................................................................................. ............................... 2
LotStandards ...................................................................................................... ............................... 2
ShorelandOverlay ............................................................................................... ............................... 3
StreetImprovements ........................................................................................... ............................... 4
Connectivity........................................................................................................ ............................... 4
Parkand Open Space .......................................................................................... ............................... 4
PUDFindings ....................................................................................................... ............................... 5
PUDFlexibility ..................................................................................................... ............................... 6
Summary............................................................................................................ ............................... 8
ContactInformation ............................................................................................ ............................... 8
22
Introduction
On behalf of JD Andover Holdings, LLC, Landform is pleased to submit this application for approval
of an amendment to the Planned Unit Development (PUD) for future phases of Petersen Farms.
The PUD amendment request is to include the additional Petersen Farms land under the PUD
standards approved as part of phase 1 development.
The development plan is shown for conceptual purposes, and includes thirteen parcels
(approximately 411.40 gross acres) of land on the agricultural farm located at 165th Avenue NW
and Roanoke Street NW. The land is currently used as an existing family farm. (PID # 07- 32- 24 -43-
0003, 07- 32 -24 -43 -0002, 07- 32 -24 -34 -0002, 07- 32 -24 -34 -0003, 07- 32 -24 -33 -0001, 07- 32 -24-
32 -0001, 07- 32 -24 -31 -0001, 07- 32 -24 -23 -0002, 07- 32 -24 -24 -0001, 07- 32 -24 -42 -0001, 07 -32-
24 -41 -0001, 07- 32 -24 -14 -0001, 07- 32- 24 -11- 0001).
Building on the low- impact design philosophy and success of The Preserve at Petersen Farms, the
project will be designed and developed by Metrowide Development and Landform Professional
Services, LLC. Both the development team, and the Petersen Family are excited about the
improvements proposed for this site and look forward to working with staff, planning commission,
and council on another successful project.
Full PUD Development Plan
The parcels consist of agricultural fields, woodlands and large wetlands. The public streets have
been located to minimize the disturbance of the existing trees, bluff lines and topography for the
proposed lots. We are proposing to create custom home sites to allow 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. Accordingly, and as with The Preserve, the grading plan and tree preservation plan for
the individual lots would be developed and approved by staff at the time of building permit. A
separate grading and tree preservation plan for the new streets will be provided with the
preliminary plat. This approach will allow flexibility in the placement of single family homes on each
-_
lot-while presewlrtgthe natural environment:_ - - -- - -- - -
The proposed property has a current land use designation of Rural Residential and is currently
zoned R -1 Single Family Rural.
Lot Standards
Single- family homes in the R -1 district require a minimum lot size of 2.5 acres, a minimum width of
300 feet and a minimum lot depth of 150 feet. We are requesting flexibility in the bulk area
standards of the R -1 district to match the area standards approved as part of the phase 1
development including lot size and dimension, primarily to have the flexibility to minimize tree
removal and wetland impacts. A summary table showing the minimum and average lot sizes and
lot widths at the setback are shown on the development plan.
LDP17002 L A N D F O R M Revised October 25, 2018
Future Phase PUD Narrative 2
23
The development plan has been designed to allow lot sizes that are consistent with those of the
adjacent residential properties with the smallest lot being 1.5 -acre. All parcels have a minimum of
1 -acre net land area. For the purposes of this development, net land area is defined as the gross
land area minus delineated wetlands and defined steep slopes.
The public streets have been located to minimize the disturbance of the existing trees and minimize
required grading for the new street. A grading and tree preservation plan for the new streets will
be provided with the preliminary plat.
Shoreland Overlay
Included in the development area is a lake classified as recreational lake 87W in Andover's Surface
Water Management Plan. The 1,000 -foot Shoreland Overlay boundary from the recreational lake is
shown using the existing contours, and the OHWL will be confirmed during the survey of the site.
Single- family homes in the Shoreland District for a recreational lake require a minimum lot size of
2.5 acres and a minimum lot width of 300 feet.
To determine compliance with the density requirements the 1,000 -foot shoreland boundary was
broken down into 267 -foot tiers. Each tier was then evaluated for the amount of land suitable to
development, which excludes wetlands, bluffs and land below the OHWL. The suitable land was
divided by the allowable lot size of 2.5 acres to determine the density allowed within each tier. The
table shown on the exhibit labeled "Shoreland Overlay Density" provides information on the
allowed units and shows the areas evaluated to determine the allowed units.
We are requesting the same PUD flexibility for lot size and lot width that is being sought from the
R -1 standards for the overall development. The PUD flexibility allows the homes to be clustered on
suitable areas for development while natural areas are preserved. The PUD flexibility would be from
the city standards for shoreland overlays, while still maintaining compliance with the state
standards.
The development will meet all other shoreland standards including:
• 125 -foot setback from the recreational lake with additional vegetative management to
ensure a lessened impact on the lake.
25c_max_impervious_cDverage--
• 25 -foot max building height.
• 50% open space preservation. This is detailed on the exhibit labeled "Shoreland Overlay
Open Space ".
As an offset to the requested flexibility, the proposed layout dedicates nearly 50 acres and roughly
half of the shoreland of this lake as dedicated open space. The net effect of this approach is a
more effective allocation of the density to the east side, and a relatively similar impact to the lake in
terms of units abutting the shoreland. The dedicated open space will ensure access to, and
enjoyment of the lake for the broader community.
LDP17002 L A N D F O R M Revised October 25, 2018
Future Phase PUD Narrative 3
24
Street Improvements
Section 11 -3 -3 of the Subdivision Ordinance requires local rural city streets to be constructed with a
60 -foot right -of -way (ROW). Section 11 -4 -8 of the Subdivision Ordinance requires concrete curb
and gutter to be installed for new rural streets.
We are requesting flexibility in the street ROW width. All local streets will be in a 50 -foot ROW. We
are proposing to construct the street generally in accordance with City Standard Drawing No. 516F
design for typical rural section with ditches. After discussion with the Andover Fire Department, we
are proposing a 27 -foot wide two -way street with 18 -inch ribbon curb on both sides for a total
width of 30 feet. 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 traditional ponding sizing to achieve stormwater requirements.
The proposed MSA, Minnesota State Aid, road runs from Navajo Street on the north end of the site
to 165th Avenue on the South side of the site, as shown on the development plan. That street will
be constructed in accordance with MSA standards and will have a dedicated 66 -foot ROW.
Connectivity
Our plan provides an example of how the new public street would connect to new development in
the future. We are proposing future connectivity to the south, west, east and north of the site. Our
ghost plat shows how the property to the north 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.
Park and Open Space
The development plan proposes a large 46 -acre protected open space that is proposed in the
northern portion of the development. This space is created by the transfer of density from
developable areas within the open space, to the adjacent areas of the project less sensitive to
disturbance as part of a low- impact approach to the development. Considerable natural areas,
wetlands and the recreational lake are included in this area and will be accessible to the public via
trails and connections to the public right -of -way. The open space connects to two different areas of
the proposed subdivision and allows for a connection to Martin's Meadows to the North. This will
create a link between these two great natural park amenities. These amenities take advantage of
the existing wetlands and topography to provide attractive spaces and will provide a local
destination for various uses that may develop including hiking, biking, and many others. This open
space is intended to be platted as an outlot and could be deeded over to the city as public open
space.
An outlot is proposed on the portion of the site containing existing storage buildings that will be
converted into a community amenity and managed by the HOA. This may come in the form of
shared storage space, public gathering space, a pocket park, or another type of amenity. Further
LDP17002 L A N D F O R M Revised October 25, 2018
Future Phase PUD Narrative 4
25
discussion with staff on the use of the buildings will be needed to ensure compliance with city
code.
During their review of phase 1 The Parks commission requested a park in the future phase, and
that the width of the ROW or an easement on the East/West road be adequate to support a future
trail. Both are currently shown reflecting Parks Commission comments. Based on the revised
layout, we are proposing that public park component be located at the southernmost portion of
the dedicated open space where access and continuity are maximized.
PUD Findings
We are requesting approval of an amendment to the approved PUD development application. A
PUD is subject to the standards of Section 13 of the Andover City Code. Our plan shows
compliance with the Section 13 -3 -9 standards. Specifically:
7. The proposed development is not in conflict with the goals of the Comprehensive Plan of
the city.
The proposed project is guided RR Rural Residential. This comprehensive plan land use is consistent
with the surrounding land uses which are all RR Rural Residential. The proposed development will
be consistent with the goals of the comprehensive plan.
2. The proposed development is designed in such a manner as to forma desirable and unified
environment within its own boundaries.
We are proposing to create custom home sites to allow for flexibility for the buyer and a more
attractive neighborhood in Andover. 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. This approach will allow flexibility in the
placement of single family homes on each lot while preserving the natural environment. The low -
impact qualities of this development will lead to a desirable and unified environment.
3. Th proposed devel9pment demonstrates how each modified or waived requirement _-
contributes to achieving the purpose of a PUD.
Our proposal is requesting flexibility from lot size and lot width standards in the R -1 District and
Shoreland Overlay district and from the minimum ROW width in the subdivision ordinance. The
requested flexibilities contribute to achieving the purpose of a PUD, specifically:
• The lot size change contributes to achieving a higher quality PUD development because it
helps preserve a larger number of existing trees, it allows for linear cluster development that
preserves the natural features and allows for the dedication of significant open space within
the development.
• The lot width change contributes to achieving a higher quality PUD development because it
permits the development to arrange lots to preserve trees, minimize wetland impacts and
preserve natural features.
LDP17002 L A N D F O R M Revised October 25, 2018
Future Phase PUD Narrative 5
26
• The ROW width change contributes to achieving a higher quality PUD development because
it allows for a rural street section that minimizes tree removals and allows for wider
drainage and utility easements that can be used as ditches for stormwater management.
The use of ditches will also reduce the number of trees removed because we will not need
traditional ponding to achieve stormwater requirements.
The requested flexibilities and how they contribute to the PUD design qualities are also discussed in
detail in the next section of this narrative.
4. 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.
The PUD proposal includes our development plan that shows how the overall property and adjacent
large lot residential properties could be developed, visualizing how future development could be
planned for. Each phase of the development would contribute to the overall development but
would be independent of the previous and future phases.
PUD Flexibility
We are requesting City approval for flexibility from lot area standards in the R -1 district and
shoreland overlay, and from the 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.
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.
2. Provides convenient and safgaccess for vehicles trial ang ill ttyp�s o_f ac�iyity
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. The MSA road will be constructed as a wider
street with a greater ROW to handle the anticipated traffic volumes. It will provide an access point
into the development from the north and south.
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 plan. The development
is clustered in a linear fashion and the lots will be buffered from existing and future development.
LDP17002 L A N D F O R M Revised October 25, 2018
Future Phase PUD Narrative 6
27
The existing vegetation will screen this project form adjacent properties and additional screening
can be provided where necessary.
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. 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.
S. 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 may provide bio Swale gardens (rain gardens) adjacent to the
driveway. This landscaping will be designed to provide consistency along the street.
6. Preserves significant usable space on individual lots or through the provision of open space
within the development.
A linear cluster development preserves significant open space and natural features within the
development and our lot layout provides significant open space on each of the lots. The open space
is shown as one large park within the development that can be utilized for the needs of the
community. The proposed open space will provide a connection to the existing Martin Meadows
park to utilize the existing trail system within the park.
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.
-- - - - Given the natural amenities of this site and the proposed improvements, the proposed landscape - -- _ --
improvements within the development will provide a high - quality design. Details 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.
Given the natural amenities of this site and the proposed improvements, the proposed homes
within the development will provide a high - 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)
LDP17002 L ,A 1\1 D F O R M Revised October 25, 2018
Future Phase PUD Narrative 7
28
A home owner's association will be established for the proposed development for the purpose of
managing stormwater improvements and common elements.
Summary
We respectfully request approval of the PUD amendment for Petersen Farms located at 1651h
Avenue NW and Roanoke Street NW.
We understand the project will be heard with a public hearing at the Planning Commission meeting
on November 13th, with action taken at the City Council meeting on December 0
Contact Information
This document was prepared by:
Kevin Shay
Landform
105 South Fifth Avenue, Suite 513
Minneapolis, MN 55401
Any additional questions regarding this application can be directed to Darren Lazan at
dlazan ®landform.net or 612.638.0250
LDP17002 L A N D F O R M Revised October 25, 2018
Future Phase PUD Narrative 8
C1T 1`
INI7 0 2008 CoMpreherrsive Plan Update
Goals, Objectives and Policies
ZCE`l� lASYt�SS'V'�
The following pages describe the goals of the community and the strategies that are
employed to achieve them. The goals, objectives and policies are structured according
to the topic that they address. However, it is important to remember that these
statements are interrelated. As a result, the cause and effect for each topic must be
considered when decisions concerning the Comprehensive Plan are made. For the
purposes of this plan these terms are defined as follows:
Goal: Astatemenf-t a expresses a�lc wire ou come or state of affairs,
Objective: A statement that provides direction on how the goal will be achieved.
Policy: A specific action that will be taken or a general rule that will be applied to a
specific situation.
Overarching Goals, Objectives and Policies
Goal 1: Maintain and enhance the quality of life in Andover
Objective: Efficiently provide basic services to improve all aspects of the city
that contribute to quality of life including land use, public safety,
transportation, recreation, health, education, and resource
Policy: Prepare, implement, periodically evaluate and update local controls
such as:
• Comprehensive Plan
• City Code
• Capital Improvement Plan
• Water Resource Management Plan
• Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program
• Park Improvement Plan
Objective: Preserve the rural character of the community
Policies:
• Preserve the Rural Residential Planning Area Designation Identified by the
Metropolitan Council 2030 Regional Development Framework
• . Plan the efficient expansion of municipal sewer and water through
implementation of the Land Use Plan
• Preserve natural areas through implementation of the Parks and Open Space
Plan
l
t
2
9E
ci VY�
{ 2008 Comprehensive Plan Update
f Goal 2: Maintain a high degree of community planning and involvement
Objective: Ensure an open and accessible local government that is responsive
to the needs of residents
Policies:
• Provide access to information in a variety of forms including the newsletter,
official newspaper, web site and televised meetings
• Maintain healthy relationships. with residents, businesses, community groups,
school districts, and government agencies to ensure all points of view are
represented
® Promote participation in citizen advisory committees
® Consider all available information and the potential impacts on all aspects of the
community when making land use decisions
• Maintain a mix of land uses, including schools, professional and medical office,
—mil, community and park acilities to, provide a vital node oof activityir tha --
vicinity of City Hall
• Encourage resident involvement through the public hearing process and utilize a
variety of public hearing notification methods including direct mailing, publication
in the official newspaper and signs placed on subject properties
Goal 3: Maintain the Comprehensive Plan as a relevant official
document
Objective: Consider Comprehensive Plan amendments that better achieve the
- - -- - - - - - -= - - - goals; objectives- and policies of the Comprehensive Plan' -- - - - --
Policies:
• Adhere to the goals, objectives and policies of this Comprehensive Plan to
prevent incremental decision making that adversely affects the intent of the plan
• Review Comprehensive Plan text amendments with the following criteria:
o A public need for the proposed amendment, can be identified
o The proposed amendment is the best way to satisfy that need
o The amendment is consistent with the goals, objectives and policies of the
Comprehensive Plan
i
1 '
3
�l1 1
2008 Comprehensive Plan Update
o The amendment is in the best interest of the City of Andover as
determined by the City Council
® Review Comprehensive Plan amendments concerning a proposed land use
change with the following criteria:
o Conditions have changed since the present land use designation was
established such to warrant the proposed amendment or the present land
use designafion ism error
o The proposed land use is compatible with surrounding land uses and with
the goals, objectives and policies of the Comprehensive Plan
o There is capacity of public systems, facilities and services to serve the
proposed land use and capacity of these systems to serve other planned
land uses is not adversely affected
o Agreement can be reached for the applicant of the proposed land use to
pay for any increased capacity of public systems, facilities and services
required to serve the proposed land use
o Potential impacts by the proposed land use on natural resources including
_-vegetation, wetlands floodplain and-other - natural - features- ea -n -be- avoided --
or sufficiently mitigated as determined by the City Council
o To ensure a transition or buffer between urban and rural residential zoning
districts
Land Use Goals, Objectives and Policies
Goal 4; Allow residential growth while maintaining the quality of natural
resources and amenities
Objective. Clearly define areas for urban and rural residential development
- -- -- - - Objective: --- Promote orderly growth to- ensure - efficient -utilization and delivery of--
community services
Objective; Prevent extension of infrastructure that is inconsistent with the
Comprehensive Plan
Objective: Work cooperatively with resource protection agencies and
organizations to minimize the impact of development on natural
resources and amenities
Objective: Create opportunities for the city to preserve open space
and natural amenities through review of development proposals
and implementation of the Parks and Open Space Plan
4
31
s'
C I P S � 1'
TV.�C}VIJ� 2008 Comprehensive Plan Update
r 1
Policies:
• Maintain a Municipal Urban Service Area (MUSA) Boundary to define the
boundary between the Developing Community and Rural Residential planning
area designations of the 2030 Regional Development Framework
® Stage urban development within the MUSA Boundary to ensure orderly growth
and cost efficient expansion of infrastructure
® Review and update the staging plan periodically to address changes in times and
conditions
• Prohibit platting of property without municipal sewer and water within the MUSA
Boundary
• Restrict lot splits without municipal sewer and water within the MUSA Boundary
® Encourage infill development within the MUSA Boundary with appropriate
transitions to existing neighborhoods
® Allow rural development outside of the MUSA Boundary consistent with the Rural
Residential Land Use Designation
® Require existing conditions information to be provided during the development
review process to allow evaluation of opportunities to preserve and protect
natural features and open. space
• Engage local watershed management organizations and other appropriate
agencies and organizations in the. review of development proposals
Goal 5: Encourage appropriate economic growth and redevelopment
Objective: Develop a diversified tax base through balanced development of
commercial, light industrial, and residential properties
Objective: Create a downtown area by aggregating commercial land uses
along Bunker Lake Boulevard between Hanson Boulevard and
Crosstown Boulevard
Objective: Select strategic locations for neighborhood and community
commercial sites and establish design performance standards for
such uses that promote quality site design and compatible land use
arrangements
Objective: Prevent the intensification of neighborhood commercial areas that
may negatively affect surrounding residential properties
5
32.
crrr Or 33.
NDOVE 2008 Comprehensive Plan Update
Policies:
Maintain the existing commercial nodes along Hanson Boulevard, Bunker
Lake Boulevard and Round Lake Boulevard as cohesive, interrelated nodes of
commercial activity
® Prevent fragmented, uncoordinated and linear commercial development
awav from these locations
® Provide limited opportunities for commercial development in other areas of
the city only when demand is demonstrated with a professionally prepared
market study
• Ensure that new development and redevelopment has a positive impact on the
community by providing appropriate transitions and demonstrating compliance
with the City Code
® Promote redevelopment of existing industrial zones to accommodate industrial
development, enhance community appearance and tax base
® Allow limited industrial development within Andover Station North when the use,
site design, and building architecture are compatible_ with the existing_ and _
-- - - - - -- planned uses within this commerciaLcener _ it
Goal: Protect and develop access for alternative energy systems
Objective: Preserve reasonable access to all parcels so that alternative forms of
energy can be used to supplement or replace conventional forms of
energy
Policies:
• Encourage and support educational programs and research that focuses on
alternative or renewable energy systems such as offered by Metro Cities,
----- �Jn +versi Hof ilAinnesota Extens tern Serviees - iNltrrrresota- Office -of- livirvnmenfial ___.______--_-- -
Assistance, Anoka County and other organizations
• Encourage the possible use of solar energy in future housing developments
• Encourage future site and building plans to design for efficient use of solar
energy including such elements as the location of windows, shade trees,
windows, and driveways
Goal; Reduce maintenance and energy costs for public facilities and
infrastructure
ri
/ t
f
4
}
I
' 2008 Comprehensive Plan Update
Objective: Where feasible, use low energy design elements for future public facilities
and infrastructure development
Policy:
• Explore alternative energy sources when replacing systems in public facilities
Housing Goals, Objectives and Policies
Goal:
Goal:
Objective:
Objective:
Objective
Provide a variety of housing types to accommodate the life
cycle needs of all residents
Remain responsive to housing .market demands through
implementation of the Land Use Plan
Utilize the existing housing stock to provide a portion of the
affordable housing demand projected by the Metropolitan Council
Utilize local controls to provide opportunities for a variety of housing
types, including affordable housing
Continue to work with agencies that provide affordable housing and
housing for residents with special needs
Policies:
• Work with property owners to identify sources of funding for home improvements
to prevent deterioration of the city's older homes
• Continue the housing rehabilitation revolving loan program to provide
maintenance assistance for housing occupied by low to moderate income
families and individuals
Support Anoka County's efforts to implement the Five Year Consolidated Plan
• Utilize the planned unit development review process for medium and high density
residential projects to encourage more efficient allocation of density and intensity
of land use and get higher quality development while providing amenities not
otherwise achievable with existing zoning classes.
• Support public service agency applications for the Community Development
Block Grant Program
7
34-
2008 Comprehensive Plan Update
RM
Goal: Provide a safe and efficient transportation system that is cost
effective and serves the existing and future access and
mobility needs of the City
Objective: Ensure adequate internal and. external transportation access and
links for efficient movement of people and goods
Objective: Provide a transportation system that enhances quality economic
development within the City
Objective: Provide a transportation system that meets the varied needs of
Andover residents
Objective: Consider the mobilityneeds of all persons in the planning and
development of the transportation system
Policies:
-- • -- Provide for early and - continuing citizen involvement-in transportation planning
and implementation of projects
• Provide a roadway system within a functional hierarchy that accommodates
existing and future travel demands by providing the necessary design features to
satisfy the roadway's intended use
• Provide sufficient roadway capacity through the construction of transportation
system improvements that accommodate existing and future demand
• Require construction of transportation system improvements in conjunction with
new developments when the need is created by the new development
• Require payment for future transportation improvements as a part of evelopment
approval proportionate to the demand created by new developments
• Ensure that all components of the transportation system are maintained and
developed to the highest standards to insure against detrimental impact upon'
community growth.
® Utilize the Capital Improvement Plan to schedule projects that increase public
safety by minimizing hazards and correcting poorly designed intersections and
access points
9
M"
l
36
I(?V
' 2008 Comprehensive Plan Update
f
Goal: Provide a coordinated transportation system that is
compatible with adjacent municipality, Anoka County,
Metropolitan Council and State of Minnesota transportation
plans
Objective: Coordin- ate- tr-ansportation-planning-and- transportation _sy_ stem
improvements with othergovernment agencies to increase
efficiencies'
Objective: Increase opportunities for funding of local transportation system
improvements from federal, state and county funding sources
Policies:
® Coordinate grant applications and other funding requests, when appropriate, with
neighboring municipalities, as well as state, regional and county agencies
• Coordinate participation of Anoka County and adjacent cities, where appropriate,
in the provision of Transportation Plan elements
Goal:
Provide mulfi -modal transpdrfiation options Whenever and
wherever feasible and advantageous
Objective: Periodically evaluate potential ridership and feasibility ofjoining the
Metropolitan Transit Taxing District to provide additional transit
options for Andover residents
Policies:
Identify locations for park and ride facilities and preserve the ability to implement
these facilities in the future
. - - -- _ _ __ _ - o -- Promote ridesharing and - increased vehicle occupancies - throughout the -City-
Goal: Minimize impacts of the transportation system on the natural
environment
Objective: Ensure environmentally sensitive implementation of the
transportation system through the planning, design and
construction of improvements
Objective: Consider the impacts of improvements to the existing transportation
system on land use, environmental, social, historic, and cultural
resources
W
cAV15V %'�. -r
2008 Comprehensive Plan Update
Policies:
Adhere to best management practices and all components of the Implementation
Plan during the planning, construction and maintenance of the transportation
system
® Separate non - motorized traffic from arterial and collector roadways
• Encourage joint parking facilities to conserve land
Goal: Enhance accessibility by providing an interconnected multi-
use trail system
Objective: Provide an accessible trail system that links residential
neighborhoods, commercial developments, and park areas
Objective: Utilize multiple funding sources to complete the regional and local
trail systems
Objective: Coordinate trail construction with street improvement projects, new
development, expansion and redevelopment projects
Policies:
• Maintain a map of existing and future local and regional trails and coordinate trail
planning., construction and maintenance in the Capital improvement Plan
• Fund regional trail system improvements adjacent to residential properties with
trail fees collected from new residential developments
• Require regional trail construction adjacent to commercial and industrial
properties, where shown on the trails plan, in conjunction with development,
expansion and redevelopment projects
• Require local trail construction adjacent to residential, commercial and industrial
properties, where shown on the trails plan, in conjunction with development,
expansion and redevelopment projects
® Develop trails in accordance with the American Association of State Highway
Transportation Officials (AASHTO) standards
• Coordinate trail and sidewalk improvements, where appropriate, with Anoka
County and neighboring cities
10
37
i
J
�I�lt?OVE '
2008 Comprehensive Plan Update
} Water Resources Goals, Objectives and Policies
These goals, objectives and policies are included within the City of Andover Water
Resource Management Plan and Water Supply Plan. These are separate documents
that have been adopted as a component of the Comprehensive Plan.
Goal 1: Provide parks and facilities that meet present park needs and plan
for the future needs of the city
Objectives:
a. Maintain and upgrade current park facilities
b. Evaluate existing conditions and future growth projections to determine
the types of parks and facilities needed to complete the park system
C. Provide more passive recreation opportunities
d. Provide for a balance among active and passive recreation areas and
activities
e. Provide recreation facilities for all age groups and abilities within the city
f. Design and maintain recreation areas with appropriate lighting,
landscaping, parking, and shelter design
g. Consider the Site Selection Criteria established in the Parks and Open
Space Plan and the standards of the National Recreation and Park
- Association in the planning and design of the park system
Policies:
Implement a maintenance schedule for the grounds and facilities within the
current park system ,
® Aggregate resources from focal, state and federal sources to complete planned
improvements as scheduled in the Capital Improvement Plan
Maintain and Update the Park Study as a guide for the number, size, type and.
location of parks and facilities needed to complete the park system to serve the
needs of residents
11
RVE
cis ^v nr•
TeN 0� 2008 Comprehensive Plan Update
39
® Accept only lands suitable for park and recreation purposes as fulfillment of the {r
parkland dedication requirements.
® Utilize the Capital Improvement Plan to schedule replacement of existing park
facilities and installation of new facilities.
Utilize the Park and Recreation Commission to advise the Council on matters
relating to parks, recreation and park facilities
a Provide regulations and policies for park use and park dedication
a Consider the adopted Guidelines for Field Usage by Youth Athletic Associations
® Work cooperatively with other organizations and government agencies to
enhance local and regional park systems
Goal 2: Promote, protect, preserve and enhance the City's natural
and open space for the enjoyment of residents, protection of.water
and air quality and the preservation of wildlife habitat _
Objectives:
— - - - - - - - -- — Consider development-of passive, stature - relates/ recreation or - - - - - - - - - -
conservancy areas on sites found to be suitable for these purposes
b. Identify appropriate areas for preservation through analysis of
natural features, the Site Selection Criteria established in the Parks
and Open Space Plan and the Land Use Plan
C. Plan for and Provide connections with the park and trail systems in a
manner that both preserves and allows public enjoyment of natural areas
d. Seek to provide buffer areas adjacent to signifrcant natural resources and
parks
Policies:
a Work collaboratively with property owners in the preservation of open space
Permanently protect open space with conservation easements, even when fee
title acquisition and other methods are used.
® Prepare, implement and monitor the effectiveness of conservation plans that
address the specific characteristics of the various types of natural areas
® Utilize the Open Space Advisory Commission to advise the Council on matters
concerning preservation of open space €
t
12
1
(3E
' 2008 Comprehensive Plan Update
® Prevent incompatible land uses from locating adjacent to parks and
open space areas through implementation of the Land Use Plan and
zoning regulations
Work- cooper -atively - with-other - organ izations- and - -government- agencies- to- acq_u- ire
and enhance open space areas within the city
13
4
1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. • ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 • (763) 755 -5100
FAX (763) 755 -8923 • WWW.AN DOVE RMN.GOV
MEMOWIINDUM
TO: Joe Janish, Community Development Director
FROM: David Berkowitz, Director of Public Works /City Engineer
Jason Law, Asst. City Engineer
DATE: November 5, 2018
REFERENCE: Preserve at Petersen Farms Phase 2 /PUD Review #1
The following comments are regarding Review #1 of the PUD Submittal:
1. In the narrative, discussion refers to submitting a grading plan and tree preservation plan
at the time of building permit. This will be needed for each individual lot; however, a
grading plan and tree preservation plan will be required prior to any site grading taking
place for the street and utilities with the preliminary plat review. Stormwater infrastructure
will need to be constructed and at minimum the front portion of each lot will need to be
graded with the plat.
2. For smaller lots, particularly in areas of farm fields where there are minimal natural
amenities to preserve or protect, it is recommended to prepare a grading plan and mass
grade the site. Custom graded lots could be used for larger lots, or those with significant
stands of trees / natural amenities to preserve.
3. The developer is requesting flexibility with the shoreland standards. This would also have
to be reviewed with the DNR.
4. The City of Andover Planning Department will comment on lot size / setbacks / minimum
lot widths, etc. This will also have to be reviewed and approved by the Planning
Commission and City Council.
5. Intersection improvements consistent with previous Anoka County Highway Department
comments would be required at new intersections with County Roads, as well as at the 7th
6. The location of a park will need to be reviewed by the Park Commission. The Park
Commission previously commented on their desire for a trail along the southerly east -
west roadway connecting into the first phase of Preserve at Petersen Farms.
7. Further discussion with the Park Commission and City Council is needed if trails are
desired within the plat.
8. Navajo Street shall be constructed to meet MSA requirements for width, ROW, and
pavement section. The City of Andover will pay for any pavement section depth greater
than the standard City street section of 3" bituminous over 5" class 5 aggregate base.
9. All streets shall be designed for a 35 -mph design speed, the statutory speed limit for rural
residential roadways.
10. Parking will need to be addressed for the Martin's Meadow's open space access. There
is a currently a large cul de sac that is used for parking at the south end of Navajo Street
that will likely be removed with the proposed project. An off - street parking lot may be
required. MSA rules require posting "No Parking" along Navajo Street, unless the
roadway is widened in strategic locations to meet on- street parking requirements. No
Parking will likely also be required on one -side of the roadway in the remainder of the plat 42
to allow for emergency vehicle access, similar to the first phase of the development.
11. Should Navajo Street be constructed prior to development of the ghost platted parcel in
the middle of the site, temporary cul de sac construction would be required at each dead
end.
12.A 50' Right -of -Way is not typical for City streets. Remove "TYP" on the PUD Master
Development Plan.
13. Use the most current aerial photo which shows an existing home that was built is 2017 on
the ghost platted for reference area.
14. The developer will be required to apply for permits from all other agencies interested in
the site.
15. Please review all City Codes for compliance.
16. Additional comments pending further review.
Note: It is a requirement that the Developer respond to each of these items in writing
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 Jason Law, Assistant
City Engineer at (763) 767 -5130 or David Berkowitz, Director of Public Works /City Engineer at
(763) 767 -5133.
2
A I Anoka County 43
TRANSPORTATION DIVISION
Highway
Stephanie Hanson CEWLE May 7, 2018
City of Andover FAA;nr>v'4 C>w+�7
1685 Crosstown Blvd. NW MAY 1 1 2018 �'"'e_�
Andover, MN 55304
Re: Sketch Plan - Andover Farms -I�F
Dear Stephanie
We have reviewed the sketch plan for Andover Farms, to be located north of CR 158 (1651
Avenue NW) and east of CSAH 7 (Roanoke Street NW) within the City of Andover, and I offer
the following comments:
An additional 27 feet of right of way adjacent to CR 158 will be required for future
reconstruction purposes (60 feet total right of way width north of the CR 158 right of way
centerline). The existing .right of way adjacent to CSAH 7 is 60 feet east of the CSAH 7
right of way centerline, which should be adequate for future reconstruction purposes,
unless additional right of way is needed to construct the required turn lanes for this
development. The sketch plan proposes three connections to the county highway
system, one on CSAH 7 at 170th Avenue NW, and two on CR 158 at Inca Street NW and
- - - -- - - -- - - - via Eldorado- Street -NW -In concept,, we find these - local street connections acceptable - - - - - -
provided that full turn lane construction occurs on the county at each location (ex- NB
and SB CSAH 7 left and right turn lane construction at 170th Avenue NW, EB and WB
CR 158 left and right turn lane construction at Inca Street NW, EB CR 158 left turn lane
or bypass lane and WB CR 158 right turn lane at Eldorado Street NW). In addition, we
also have concerns regarding safety and operations at the intersections of CSAH 7 1CR
158 and CR 58 /CR 158 as a result of this development, and it is likely that the
construction of a NB CR 58 bypass lane and a SB CR 58 right turn lane will be required
at the intersection of CR 581CR 158, as well as the construction of a SB CSAH 7 right
turn lane /bypass lane at the intersection with CR 158.
It appears Case I and Case IIIB Intersection Sight Distance Requirements are not met at
the CR 158 1Inca Street NW intersection with obstruction being trees, brush and
-horizontal curve. The City and the Developer should ensure that clearing and /or grading----- -
is completed to satisfy the sight distance requirements to the fullest extent possible for
this development. Please note that no plantings or business signs will be permitted
within the county right of way, and care should be exercised when locating signs,
plantings, berms, etc. outside of the county right of way, so as not to create any
additional sight obstructions for vehicles entering /exiting the new city street. If the City
has additional concerns regarding intersection operations as a result of this
development, we would be supportive of the development completing a traffic study.
ACHD would like to work with local governments in promoting compatibility between land
use and the county highway system. It should be recognized that residential land uses
located adjacent to County highways often results in complaints about traffic noise.
Existing and /or future traffic noise from CSAH 7 and CR 158 could exceed noise
Our Passion is Your safe Way Home
1440 Bunker Lake Boulevard N.W. A Andover, MN 55304 -4005
Office: 763-324-3100 ® Fax: 763-324-3020 A wwmanokacounty.us /highway
Affirmative Action I Equal opportuniay Employer
44,
standards established by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA), the U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development, and the U.S. Department of
Transportation. Minnesota Rule 7030.0030 states that municipalities are responsible for
taking all reasonable measures to prevent land use activities listed in the MPCA's Noise
Area Classification (NAC) where establishment of the land use would result in violations
of established noise standards. It is advised that the City and the Developer should
assess the noise situation for this development as it is proposed to be located directly
adjacent to CSAH 7 and CR 158, and take the level of action deemed necessary to
minimize the impact of any highway noise by incorporating the appropriate noise
-- mitigation- elements -into the design and - phasing -of this plat as applicable.
The ACHD Engineering Plan Review process will apply to this site. Calculations must
be submitted along with a grading and erosion control plan that delineates the drainage
areas for this development. The post- developed rate /volume of runoff must not exceed
the pre - developed rate /volume of runoff for the 10 -year, critical design storm. Contact
Nicholas Dobda, Engineer III via telephone at 763.324.3118, or via email at
Nicholas. Dobdaa-co. anoka. m n. us for further information and to coordinate the ACHD
Engineering Plan Review process. Please submit the drainage calculations, grading and
erosion control plans, CSAH 71CR 158/CR 58 right turn lane + left turn lane plans, ACHD
Design Requirements Checklist for County Highway.Modifications (copy available via
our website), and the applicable ACHD Engineering Plan review fee to Mr. Dobda for his
review and approval, -
Following completion of the ACHD Engineering Plan Review process, the contractors)
- - - - - - - - - completing the work in -the county right-of way can begin- the-ACHD Permit process Two - - -
Access Permits for the new City street connections (fee = $250.00 each) and Permits for
work within the county right of way (fee = $150.00 for each county roadway) are required
and must be obtained prior to the commencement of any construction. License Permit
Bonding, methods of construction, design details, work zone traffic control, restoration
requirement and follow -up inspections are typical elements of the permitting process.
Contact Sue Burgmeier in the ACHD Permit Office at 763.324.3176 for further
information regarding the permit process.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Feel free to contact me if you have any questions
regarding this review.
Sinc rel ,
Jane Rose
Traffic Engineering Manager
Rc., CSAH 7 1Plats + Developments /2018
Nicholas Dobda, Engineer III
Chuck Gitzen, County Surveyor
Sue Surgmeier, Traffic Engineering Tech I
>ovER
Andover General Mapping Map
°GOm4
c �o
e°
0 0
c � s
u a
9
0
G
OB
P°
.O°
fl�
C
A
G
B
L
B
f
9
A
S
A
E
B
B
n
A
00
ao
to
ae
e
a
e
a
e
a
0
0
B
0
A
0
�0
00
4 8 e
� QA
A
6
o.
Date Created: October 30, 2018
u ae9
6
5 ENCHANTED DR
Disclaimer. • The provider makes no representation or warranties with respect to the reuse of this data.
N 2
w
x '^
a
'-I
�D
.tll L.TiCWD M
Wtm
166TH LN
tI33%1 m
8
t� m
m
Public Hearing Notification Area
4 I Land Use Request Area
; 7 Notified Properties
E
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)
47
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)
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)
HI
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.
I. 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
of
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. 2120107, Ord. 341)
50
C:NrtPTeq. q !4ANAL%6 -/1GMT
E. 14Etting:
1. All sLkdivisions that create five (5) or more lots or par s that are two
and one-h 2 112) acres or less in size shall be pr9p6ssed as a plat in
accordance wi Minnesota Statutes Chapter 50 o permit for
construction of bu ings or sewage treatme ystems shall be issued for
lots created after the official controls a enacted, unless the lot was
approved as part of a for I subdivi ' (Ord. 108, 9 -20 -1994)
2. Shoreland Plats: All plats i reland areas shall be submitted to and
reviewed by the State Di 'ion of ers, Soils and Minerals before final
action by the City. (Am6nded Ord. 8, 1 1 -1970)
F. Controlled A ss Or Recreational Lots: Lots ended as controlled
access t ublic waters or for recreation use area or use by nonriparian
lots in a subdivision must meet or exceed the sizi criteria in
section 13 -4 -6A4 of this chapter. (Ord. 108, 9 -20 -19
13 -4 -9: PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENTS (PUDS)':
A. Types Of PUDs Permissible: Planned Unit Developments (PUDs) are
allowed for new projects on undeveloped land, redevelopment of
previously built sites, or conversions of existing buildings and land. The
land use districts in which they are an allowable use are identified in the
land use district descriptions in Subsection 13 -4 -513 of this chapter and
per Title 12, Chapter 12 of this code.
B. Processing PUDs: Planned Unit Developments must be processed as a
conditional use. The expansion to an existing commercial PUD involving
six (6) or less new dwelling units or sites since the date this chapter was
adopted is permissible, provided an Amended Conditional Use Permit is
granted and the total project density does not exceed the allowable
densities calculated in the protect density evaluation procedures in
Subsection E of this section. The provisions of Title 12, Chapter 12 and
Section 12 -15 -6 of this code shall apply. Approval cannot occur until the
Environmental Review Process (EAW /EIS) is complete.
C. Application For PUD: The applicant for a PUD must submit the
following documents (in addition to the requirements as specified in
Title 11 and Title 12, chapter 12 of this code) prior to final action being
taken on the application request:
1. A site plan and /or plat for the project showing location of property
boundaries, surface water features, existing and proposed structures and
1 See also chapter 3 of this title.
51
other facilities, land alteration, sewage treatment and water supply
systems (where public systems will not be provided), and topographic
contours at ten foot (10') intervals or less. When a PUD is a combined
commercial and residential development, the site plan /plat must indicate
and distinguish which buildings and portions of the project are residential,
commercial, or a combination of the two (2).
2. A property owner association agreement (for residential PUDs) with
mandatory membership, all in accordance with the requirements of
Subsection F of this section.
3. Deed restriction, covenants, permanent easement, or other instruments
that:
a. Properly address future vegetative and topographic alterations,
construction of additional buildings, beaching of watercraft, and
construction of commercial buildings in residential PUDs; and
b. Ensure the long -term preservation and maintenance of open
space in accordance with the criteria and analysis specified in
Subsection F of this section.
4. When necessary, a master plan /drawing describing the project and the
floor plan for all commercial structures to be occupied.
5. Those additional documents as requested by the Planning and Zoning
Commission and City Council that are necessary to explain how the PUD
will be designed and will function.
D. Site Suitable Area Evaluation: Proposed new or expansions to
existing Planned Unit Developments must be evaluated using the
following procedures and standards to determine the suitable area
for the dwelling unit/dwelling site density evaluation in Subsection
E of this section.
1. The project parcel must be divided into tiers by locating one or more
lines approximately parallel to a line that identifies the ordinary high water
level at the following intervals, proceeding landward:
SHORELAND TIER DIMENSIONS
Unsewered Sewered
(Feet) (Feet)
General development lakes
First tier 200 200
Second and additional tiers 267 200
Recreational development lakes 267 267
Natural environment lakes 400 320
All river classes 300 300
2. The suitable area within each tier is next calculated by excluding from
the tier area all wetlands, bluffs, or land below the ordinary high water
level of public waters. This suitable area and the proposed project are
then subjected to either the residential or commercial Planned Unit
Development density evaluation steps to arrive at an allowable number of
dwelling units or sites.
E. Residential And Commercial PUD Density Evaluation: The procedures
for determining the base density of a PUD and density increase multipliers
are as follows: allowable densities may be transferred from any tier to any
other tier further from the water body, but must not be transferred to any
other tier closer.
1. Commercial PUD Base Density Evaluation: The suitable area within
each tier is divided by the single residential lot size standard for lakes or,
for rivers, the single residential lot width standard times the tier depth,
unless the City Council has specified an alternative minimum lot size for
rivers which shall then be used to yield a base density of dwelling units or
sites for each tier. Proposed location and numbers of dwelling units or
sites for the residential Planned Unit Developments are then compared
with the tier, density, and suitability analysis herein and the design criteria
in Subsection F of this section.
2. Commercial PUD Base Density Evaluation:
a. Determine the average inside living area size of dwelling units
or sites within each tier, including both existing and proposed
units and sites. Computation of inside living area sizes need not
include decks, patios, stoops_ ,- steps,_ garages, or porches and
- — -
basements, unless they are habitable space.
b. Select the appropriate floor area ratio from the following table:
Sewered
General
Development
Lakes:
First Tier On
Unsewered
General
Development
Second And
Additional Tiers
On Unsewered
General
Development
Lakes;
Recreational Natural
Development Environment
52
53
*For average unit floor areas less than shown, use the floor area ratios
listed for 200 square feet. For areas greater than shown, use the ratios
listed for 1,500 square feet. For recreational camping areas, use the
ratios listed at 400 square feet. Manufactured home sites in recreational
camping areas shall use a ratio equal to the size of the manufactured
home or, if unknown, the ratio listed for 1,000 square feet.
c. Multiply the suitable area within each tier by the floor area ratio to
yield total floor area for each tier allowed to be used for dwelling
units or sites.
- - -- - - - -- -
d. CSivic>e`tlie total oor area by tier computecFn Subsection E 2co
this section by the average inside living area size determined in
Subsection E2a of this section. This yields a base number of
dwelling units and sites for each tier.
e. Proposed locations and numbers of dwelling units or sites for the
commercial Planned Unit Development are then compared with the
tier, density and suitability analysis herein and the design criteria in
Subsection F of this section.
3. Density Increase Multipliers:
a. Increases to the dwelling unit or dwelling site base densities
Lakes; Urban,
Lakes; Transition
Lakes And
*Average
Agricultural,
And Forested
Remote River
Unit Floor
Tributary River
River Segments
Segments
Area
Segments
(S q. Ft.
200
0.040
0.020
0.010
300
0.048
0.024
0.012
400
0.056
0.028
0.014
500
0.065
0.032
0.016
600
0.072
0.038
0.019
700
0.082
0.042
0.021
800
0.091
0.046
0.023
900
0.099
0.050
0.025
1,000
0.108
0.054
0.027
1,100
0.116
0.058
0.029
1,200
0.125
0.064
0.032
1,300
0.133
0.068
0.034
1,400
0.142
0.072
0.036
1,500
0.150
0.075
0.038
*For average unit floor areas less than shown, use the floor area ratios
listed for 200 square feet. For areas greater than shown, use the ratios
listed for 1,500 square feet. For recreational camping areas, use the
ratios listed at 400 square feet. Manufactured home sites in recreational
camping areas shall use a ratio equal to the size of the manufactured
home or, if unknown, the ratio listed for 1,000 square feet.
c. Multiply the suitable area within each tier by the floor area ratio to
yield total floor area for each tier allowed to be used for dwelling
units or sites.
- - -- - - - -- -
d. CSivic>e`tlie total oor area by tier computecFn Subsection E 2co
this section by the average inside living area size determined in
Subsection E2a of this section. This yields a base number of
dwelling units and sites for each tier.
e. Proposed locations and numbers of dwelling units or sites for the
commercial Planned Unit Development are then compared with the
tier, density and suitability analysis herein and the design criteria in
Subsection F of this section.
3. Density Increase Multipliers:
a. Increases to the dwelling unit or dwelling site base densities
54
previously determined are allowable if the dimensional standards in
Section 13 -4 -6 of this chapter are met or exceeded and the design
criteria in Subsection F of this section are satisfied. The allowable
density increases in Subsection E3b of this section will only be
allowed if structure setbacks from the ordinary high water level are
increased to at least fifty percent (50 %) greater than the minimum
setback, or the impact on the water body is reduced an equivalent
amount through vegetative management, topography, or additional
means acceptable to the City Council, and the setback is at least
twenty five percent (25 %) greater than the minimum setback.
b. Allowable dwelling unit or dwelling site density increases of
residential or commercial Planned Unit Developments:
Density Evaluation Tiers
First
Second
Third
Fourth
Fifth
F. Maintenance And Design Criteria:
Maximum Density Increase
Within Each Tier (Percent)
50
100
200
200
200
1. Maintenance And Administration Requirements:
a. Before final approval of a Planned Unit Development, adequate
provisions must be developed for preservation and maintenance in
perpetuity of open spaces and for the continued existence and
functioning of the development.
b. Deed restrictions, covenants, permanent easements, public
_ dedication and acceptance, or other equally effective and-
permanent preservation and maintenance of open space are
required. The instruments must include all of the following
protections:
(1) Commercial uses prohibited (for residential PUDs);
(2) Vegetation and topographic alteration other than routine
maintenance prohibited;
(3) Construction of additional buildings or storage of vehicles
and other materials prohibited; and
(4) Uncontrolled beaching of watercraft prohibited.
55
c. Unless an equally effective alternative community framework is
established, when applicable, all residential Planned Unit
Developments must use an owners' association with the following
features:
(1) Membership must be mandatory for each dwelling unit or
site purchaser and any successive purchasers;
(2) Each member must pay a pro rata share of the
association's expenses, and unpaid assessments can
become liens on units or sites;
(3) Assessments must be adjustable to accommodate
changing conditions; and
(4) The association must be responsible for insurance,
taxes, and maintenance of all commonly owned property and
facilities.
2. Open Space Requirements: Planned Unit Developments must contain
open space meeting all of the following criteria:
a. At least fifty percent (50 %) of the total project area must be
preserved as open space;
b. Dwelling units or sites, road rights -of -way, or land covered by
road surfaces, parking areas, or structures, except water oriented
accessory structures or facilities, are developed areas and shall not
be included in the computation of minimum open space;
c. Open space must include areas with physical characteristics
unsuitable for development in their natural state, and areas
containing significant historic sites or unplatted cemeteries;
d. Open space may include outdoor recreational facilities for use by
owners of dwelling units or sites, by guests staying in commercial
dwelling units or sites, and by the general public;
e. Open space may include subsurface sewage treatment systems
if the use of the space is restricted to avoid adverse impacts on the
systems;
f. Open space must not include commercial facilities or uses, but
may contain water oriented accessory structures or facilities;
g. The appearance of open space areas, including topography,
56
vegetation, and allowable uses, must be preserved by use of
restrictive deed covenants, permanent easements, public
dedication and acceptance, or other equally effective and
permanent means; and
h. The shore impact zone, based on normal structure setbacks,
must be included as open space. For residential PUDs, at least fifty
percent (50 %) of the shore impact zone area of existing
developments or at least seventy percent (70 %) of the shore impact
zone area of new developments must be preserved in its natural or
existing state. For commercial PUDs, at least fifty percent (50 %) of
the shore impact zone must be preserved in its natural state.
3. Erosion Control And Storm Water Management: Erosion control
and storm water management plans must be developed, and the
PUD must:
a. Be designed, and the construction managed, to minimize the
likelihood of serious erosion occurring either during or after
construction. This must be accomplished by limiting the amount
and length of time of bare ground exposure. Temporary ground
covers, sediment entrapment facilities, vegetated buffer strips, or
other appropriate techniques must be used to minimize erosion
impact on surface water features. Erosion control plans approved
by a soil and water conservation district may be required if project
size and site physical characteristics warrant; and
b. Be designed and constructed to effectively manage reasonable
expected quantities and qualities of storm water runoff. Impervious
surface coverage within any tier must not exceed twenty five
percent (25 %) of the tier area; except that for commercial PUDs,
thirty five percent (35 %) impervious surface coverage may be
allowed in the first tier of general development lakes with an
approved storm water management plan and consistency
Subsection 13 -4 -6C of this chapter.
4. Centralization And Design Of Facilities: Centralization and
design of facilities and structures must be done according to the
following standards:
a. Planned Unit Developments must be connected to publicly
owned water supply and sewer systems, if available. On site water
supply and sewage treatment systems must be centralized and
designed and installed to meet or exceed applicable standards or
rules of the Minnesota Department of Health and Subsections 13-4 -
6B and H of this chapter. On -site sewage treatment systems must
be located on the most suitable areas of the development, and
57
sufficient lawn area free of limiting factors must be provided for a
replacement soil treatment system for each sewage system;
b. Dwelling units or sites must be clustered into one or more groups
and located on suitable areas of the development. They must be
designed and located to meet or exceed the following dimensional
standard for the relevant shoreland classification: setback from the
ordinary high water level, elevation above the surface water
features, and maximum height. Setbacks from the ordinary high
water level must be increased in accordance with Subsection E3 of
this section for developments with density increases;
c. Shore recreation facilities, including, but not limited to, swimming
areas, docks, and watercraft mooring areas and launching ramps,
must be centralized and located in areas suitable for them.
Evaluation of suitability must include consideration of land slope,
water depth, vegetation, soils, depth -to ground water and bedrock,
or other relevant factors. The number of spaces provided for
continuous beaching, mooring, or docking of watercraft must not
exceed one for each allowable dwelling unit or site in the first tier
(notwithstanding existing mooring sites in an existing commercially
used harbor). Launching ramp facilities, including a small dock for
loading and unloading equipment, may be provided for use by
occupants of dwelling units or sites located in other tiers;
d. Structures, parking areas, and other facilities must be treated to
reduce visibility as viewed from public waters and adjacent
shorelands by vegetation, topography, increased setbacks, color, or
other means acceptable to the City Council, assuming summer,
leaf -on conditions. Vegetative and topographic screening must be
preserved, if existing, or may be required to be provided;
e. Accessory structures and facilities, except water oriented
accessory structures, must meet the required principal structure
setback and must be centralized; and
f. Water oriented accessory structures and facilities may be allowed
if they meet or exceed design standards contained in Subsection
13 -4 -613 of this chapter and are centralized.
G. Conversions: The City Council may allow existing resorts or other land
uses and facilities to be converted to residential Planned Unit
Developments if all of the following standards are met:
1. Proposed Conversions: Proposed conversion must be initially evaluated
using the same procedures for residential Planned Unit Developments
involving all new construction. Inconsistencies between existing features
^t )t
C�. `�• rt �'��� �t \ t WJ, .,ate.\ M. �� .� f tfV
i C..'
y _ •
`\ R
r
Density
Gross Density (units /acre): 0.33 0.27 0.32
'' Net Density (units /acre): 0.38 0.37 0.38
��� Legend O Trail Connection to
L -i4 NORTH open space
Item
Future Phases
Phase 1
Total
Gross Developable Area
336.1 acres
88.7 acres
424.8 acres
Net Developable Area
287.8 acres
65.4 acres
353.2 acres
Number of Lots
110
24
134
Lot Sizes
Minimum:
1.50 acres
1.50 acres
1.50 acres
Maximum:
6.70 acres
3.97 acres
6.70 acres
Average:
4.10 acres
2.47 acres
3.81 acres
1.0 -1.499 acres:
0 lots
0 lots
0 lots
1.5 -1.99 acres:
66 lots
5 lots
71 lots
2.0 -2,49 acres:
18 lots
6 lots
24 lots
2.5+ acres:
26 lots
13 lots
39 lots
Lot Widths
Minimum:
107 feet
100 feet
100 feet
Maximum:
233 feet
192 feet
225.7 feet
Upland Lot Area
Minimum:
1.0 acre
1.0 acre
1.0 acre
x.
Average:
1.59 acres
1.60 acres
1.59 acres
Outlot Areas
OutlotA (Phase 1):
25.9 acres
25.9 acres
;..
Outlot B (Phase 1):
2.2 acres
2.2 acres
Outlot C (Phase 1):
2 acres
2 acres
Density
Gross Density (units /acre): 0.33 0.27 0.32
'' Net Density (units /acre): 0.38 0.37 0.38
��� Legend O Trail Connection to
L -i4 NORTH open space
Typical Surrounding Lot Sizes
Date Created: February 13, 2018
Disclaimer: The provider makes no representation or warranties with respect to the reuse of this data.
D
7 U)
D W
?N
7�
r~
j0
I-A
YK
Yti �) I
` ar
31.2 acres
R
y`
S:
A
C
0
m
Green space:
6.6 acres
Total Open Space
U
O
sad
a`
$r►uaaeP.
Iwo
L
Fr Y.
'
� a
(aQ�•
ait
.h
F4
9�
ty �
Open Space
Shoreland Overlay
Item Development
Gross Developable Area 140.2 acres
Net Developable Area 74.0 acres
Number of Lots 42
Open Space
Lakes:
17.0 acres
Wetlands:
31.2 acres
Wetland Buffers:
3.9 acres
125' Open Water Setback:
14.3 acres
Green space:
6.6 acres
Total Open Space
72.9 acres
Percent Open Space in Shoreland Overlay District
52.0%
Legend O Trail Connection to
open space
-1 1
NORTH
Legend Xi Trail Connection to
open space
Unsuitable
Suitable
Bonus
Total Area
Area
Area
Base
Base
Proposed
Tier
(Acres)
(Acres)
(Acres)
Density
Density
# of Lots
1
31.3
6.0
25.3
10.1
15.2
11
2
27.2
9.9
17.4
7.0
13.9
8
3
32.2
11.0
21.2
8.5
25.4
12
4
27.5
6.9
20.6
8.2
24.7
8
Total
118.1
33.7
84.5
33.8
79.2
39
Legend Xi Trail Connection to
open space
't
1
1
� . 1
r
1 ■ • • • ,
,
Iti
I � � 1 �
I i
1
l
�•. 1 r '
` • a
•r
i
�
L
1 �
1•
L •
.
+
i
J
1 •.
a
a
t
t
-
■ Y
L w. t
i ■ - _
^
�
Op
'
M
e
L •
•
• r-
-
t
•
�
y , - .�.. ••
t
1 1
_
�
e �
S _
•,
1 1
w •
5
1 H
�
I'
Project
�• •
�
'
J
Y 4
• . ,
..
r
, . . -
. r
�+
Boundary
L
i
a
4P
� s
"
•
t >
r
♦
I 1
.
L a
r
IN
I
4r
> 1
T 1
♦ t
1 1'
't
1
1
r
1 ■ • • • ,
,
Iti
I � � 1 �
I i
1
l
�•. 1 r '
` • a
•r
i
L •
.
♦ b
a
t
t
-
■ Y
L w. t
i ■ - _
Op
'
L •
•
• r-
-
t
•
�
y , - .�.. ••
t
1 1
_
e �
S _
•,
1 1
1 1 ,
• 0 0 PUD Master Development Plan - Figure Ground
L A N D F O R M PETERSEN FARMS • Andover, MN
From Site to Finish • •
10.23.2018