Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08.25.20% C I T Y 0 F LNDOVE A 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. • ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 • (763) 755-5100 FAX (763) 755-8923 • WWW.ANDOVERMN.GOV Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda August 25, 2020 Andover City Hall 7.00 p.m. 1. Call to Order 2. Pledge of Allegiance 3. Public Hearing: Conditional Use Permit (CUP) / Planned Unit Development (PUD) Amendment — "The Preserve at Petersen Farms" phase 2 — PIDS 07-32-24-42-0002, 07-32-24-43-0003, 07-32- 24-34-0002, 07-32-24-34-0003, 07-32-24-33-0001, 07-32-24-31-0001, 07-32-24-32-0001, 07-32- 24-23-0002, 07-32-24-24-0001 — JD Holdings 4. Public Hearing: Preliminary Plat — The Meadows at Petersen Farms (46 — single family rural lots) — PIDS: 07-32-24-42-0002, 07-32-24-43-0003, 07-32-24-31-0001, 07-32-24-34-0002 — JD Holdings 5. Other Business 6. Adjournment Please note: Some or all members of the Andover Planning & Zoning Commission may participate in the August 25, 2020 meeting by telephone or video conference call rather than by being physically present at the Commission's regular meeting place at the Andover City Hall, 1685 Crosstown Blvd NW, Andover, MN 55304. Members of the public can watch the meeting live on the government access channel, web stream via QCTV.org or physically attend at Andover City Hall. Please keep in mind that seating in the City Council Chambers is currently very limited as appropriate social distancing will be practiced by the Commission and visitors. The public can also participate in the public hearing remotely through the video conference call. A link to the video conference call will be available on the Planning Department website the day of the meeting. 1 00, �;�.IL 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 — "The Preserve at Petersen Farms" — 7th Avenue/165th Avenue NW — JD Andover Holdings DATE: August 25, 2020 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 will modify the original PUD and the PUD Amendment that occurred on December 18, 2018. As originally written changes to the "Master Plan" and each preliminary plat require an amendment to the PUD. 1 The attached drawings are to be reviewed as a "PUD Sketch" indicating how the remainder of the property may develop, and how Phase two proposed as "Meadows at Petersen Farms" would potentially 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. d• 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. Tonight's request does not change "Phase I" requirements or apply to Existing OUTLOTs A, B, C. ❖ If the Planning and Zoning Commission recommends denial tonight and the City Council officially denies the requested amendment the applicant will still maintain the approvals already received. 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. 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 forflexibilityfor 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. The requested flexibilities identified below contribute to achieving the purpose of a PUD, specifically: • Minimizing the disturbance of extensive wetlands and removal of wooded wetland areas will preserve natural features and allow for a pedestrian trail connection and dedication of open space within the development. Additionally, secondary impact risks to large established wetland complexes will be reduced. • Constructing a cul-de-sac greater than 500 feet in length allows for the site to utilize existing topography and avoid further wetland, and tree impacts, reduce earthwork disturbance, consistent with the low -impact design principles. • Allowing lots that are 100 feet in width where 160 feet is typically required on a cul-de-sac is to keep with the lot width approved as part of the first phase. The reduced lot width still allows for the minimum lot size and upland lot area to be achieved, meeting the intent for the development to arrange lots to preserve trees, minimize wetland impacts and preserve natural features. 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. 0 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. ❖ The City Council will need to determine if the developer's proposal satisfactorily meets these required findings. Shoreland Management A lake classified as an unnamed recreational lake 87W, exists within the development area. The applicant has provided an 11x17 map titled "PUD Development Plan — Shoreland Density" As part of the Shoreland Ordinance, the applicant is required to verify the proposed density by creating a tier system of 267 feet. Density is then compared to City Code within these tiers. The lI 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. The applicant has proposed utilizing the Home Owners Association (HOA) to monitor the vegetation around the lake. 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. Unsuitable Suitable Base Bonus Base Total Area Area Area Density Density* Proposed Tier (Acres) (Acres) (Acres) (q lots) (9 lots) Lots 1 31.1 i 7.8 23.2 9.3 13.8 9 2 31.4 10.8 20.7 8.3 16.5 12 -- j 3 32.911.6 21.3 8.5 25.6 9 4 26.3 6.8 19.5 7.8 23.4 18 Total 121.7 37.0 84.7 33.9 79.4 48 *Bonus Base Density: To Oualify: Structure setbacks from the OHWL must be at least 50% greater than the minimum setback, or, The impact on the waterbody Is reduced an equivalent amount through vegetative management, topography, or additional acceptable means, and the setback is at least 25% greater than the minimum setback. 5 5 M *map and chart created by LANDFORM 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. Developer responses are in italics. ❖ 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; To meet Section 13-4-9(F) of the city code requiring maintenance and administration, we have defined a district and incorporated restrictions for the shoreland overlay within a first amendment to the Homeowners Association (HOA) declaration recorded with the initial phase. 6 These restrictions preserve the open space areas through; • restricted uses in the shore impact zone areas and requiring approvals for alterations in those areas, • permanent easements over wetlands, wetland buffers and floodplain, and • dedication ofparkland to the city The HOA restriction will require approval by the HOA's Architectural Control Committee similar to the process set forth in Phase 1 governing the steep slopes and bluff areas. This has been effectively managed in Phase 1 as building permits are first required to be reviewed and approved by the HOA for compliance with this criteria prior to being submitted to the City accompanied by an HOA approval letter. The specific language governing these activities can be seen in the original Declaration and in Section 10 of the attached HOA Amendment document specifically addressing the Shoreland requirements of "Lake Lots ". 2. Open Space Requirements: Planned Unit Developments must contain open space; To meet Section 13-4-9(F) of the city code Open Space Requirements, and as an offset to the requested flexibility, the proposed layout dedicates nearly SO acres of upland area comprising 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 between the southern portions of the project and Martin's Meadows Open Space ensuring access and enjoyment of the lake for the broader community. This open space includes the following: • Preservation of at least seventy percent (70%) of the shore impact zone area will remain in its existing natural state. • An upland open space area that preserves at the western portion of unnamed lake 42-87W as shown on PUD Development Plan. This area is expected to contain passive uses and remain in its natural state with hiking/walking trails connecting neighborhoods north and south of this area. 3. Erosion Control And Storm Water Management; and To meet Section 13-4-9(F) of the city code Open Space Requirements Erosion Control and Storm Water Management, the proposed layout and engineering specifications call for Low Impact Designs, and natural stormwater management system consisting of natural treatment swales and infiltration basins. Erosion and sedimentation control will be managed through proven measures reviewed, approved, and inspected by City and Watershed agencies. 4. Centralization And Design Of Facilities. To meet Section 13-4-9(F) of city code Centralization and Design of Facilities, the layout calls for the use of individual wells and individual septic systems. Publicly owned water and sewer services are not available in this area, nor are they anticipated. The current design provides two areas of 5, 000 square feet for potential septic drain fields that have been reviewed, tested, and selected by a Minnesota Licensed Septic Professional. These locations were selected as they are the most suitable areas for standard systems. Individual systems will be the responsibility of the individual lot owners who shall be responsible for inspection, maintenance, and replacement of these systems. A centralized system is not available in this area and other communities have experienced issues resulting in a loss of responsibility by individual users to maintain centralized systems. 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" which shows that 52% of the area located within the shoreland overlay is "open space". Lot Standards Tonight's request continues to utilize the standards established within the original PUD. The PUD minimum lot size is 1.5 acres, minimum lot widths of 100 feet. Overall gross density for the development remains below .40 units per acre. CITY CODE REQUIREMENTS SHORELAND REQUIREMENTS PUD MINIMUM Lot size/Gross Density 2.5 acres/0.4 units per acre 2.5 acres/0.4 units per acre 1.5 + acres/0.32 units per acre Lot Width 300 feet 300 feet 100 Lot Depth 150 feet 150 feet +150 feet N 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 originally proposed providing an additional 29,960 square feet of "usable" area that does not include bluffs and wetlands, making the PUD "usable" 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. This particular phase has introduced a new challenge of floodplain. The definition of "usable" as used in Phase 1 Preserve at Petersen Farms did not address floodplain. While all lots within Phase 2 Meadows at Petersen Farms meets the "one acre" of "usable" space; when we introduce floodplain as a reduction, five lots fall below the "one acre" requirement. Floodplain typically is defined as "lands having a 1 % chance of flooding" many refer to this as 100 -year storm event/flood. This particular development also experiences a "landlocked" basin. Due to the landlocked basin the floodplain elevation does include a "back-to-back 100 -yr event' (two 100 -year storms in a row). This increases the area impacted by the floodplain. The City of Andover also requires the Floodplain (both events) to be encompassed by drainage and utility easements. The drainage and utility easements will create limitations on what individuals can do with the property, however provided no other restrictions they can still maintain and use the property. As the narrative points out and the map below; using the 100 -year event would reduce two lots below the "one acre" and using the back to back reduces a total of 5 of the 46 lots below the "one acre". Please keep in mind that these areas are still owned and maintained by the property owner. The areas tend to be generally flat, and property owners can still utilize the areas for recreation. 87W ' 0.82 Ac 7• 0194 Ac • � 0.71 Ac • j 0.83 Ac 0.AN\ 086.68 Ac• t+' •r • 0.84 Ac Iff Setbacks The applicant will continue with a front yard setback of 30 feet vs. 40 feet. Street Improvements The applicant will continue with the approved flexibility with street construction standards, which has been reviewed in the past by staff, Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council. MSA Route(s) Navajo Streevinca will be constructed to meet MSA standards including width, right of way and pavement section. This MSA route will be signed "No Parking". County Road Intersections) All County Road Intersections will need to be reviewed by the Anoka County Highway Department. Discussions occurred regarding intersection improvements along 70' Avenue. Anoka County Highway Department is looking at potential improvements to 7a' Avenue and potential funding sources. As shown in the Master Plan the connection to 7a' Avenue in the SW corner may be permitted depending on the type of future intersection improvements. East/West Connector Street The applicant is requesting the City to allow for the removal of the East/West "connector" street from Phase 1 to Phase 2. During the detailed design process necessary for Phase 2 development, an issue with constructability of the roadway connection from phase 1 was identified. More detailed geotechnical review revealed deep soils incompatible with construction of a public roadway without extensive impacts to the existing wetlands immediately adjacent on both sides of the roadway proposed in Phase]. This disturbance would have included a 30 - foot subcut nearly 300' wide through tremendous natural wooded wetlands. A disturbance of this size would have risked significant permanent damage to the diverse wooded wetland environment as an extensive review of the options to construct a safe and stable roadway were explored. Unfortunately, none were deemed feasible without the extensive impacts to established high-value natural areas. This issue was discussed at 10 City Standard PUD 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 MSA Route(s) Navajo Streevinca will be constructed to meet MSA standards including width, right of way and pavement section. This MSA route will be signed "No Parking". County Road Intersections) All County Road Intersections will need to be reviewed by the Anoka County Highway Department. Discussions occurred regarding intersection improvements along 70' Avenue. Anoka County Highway Department is looking at potential improvements to 7a' Avenue and potential funding sources. As shown in the Master Plan the connection to 7a' Avenue in the SW corner may be permitted depending on the type of future intersection improvements. East/West Connector Street The applicant is requesting the City to allow for the removal of the East/West "connector" street from Phase 1 to Phase 2. During the detailed design process necessary for Phase 2 development, an issue with constructability of the roadway connection from phase 1 was identified. More detailed geotechnical review revealed deep soils incompatible with construction of a public roadway without extensive impacts to the existing wetlands immediately adjacent on both sides of the roadway proposed in Phase]. This disturbance would have included a 30 - foot subcut nearly 300' wide through tremendous natural wooded wetlands. A disturbance of this size would have risked significant permanent damage to the diverse wooded wetland environment as an extensive review of the options to construct a safe and stable roadway were explored. Unfortunately, none were deemed feasible without the extensive impacts to established high-value natural areas. This issue was discussed at 10 11 length at a council work session and it was generally concluded that forcing that connection was not in the best interest of the project, or the natural environment. Current plans show a 10' wide natural hiking trail connecting Phase I and 2 with a wood chip surface similar to that provided on the north end of Phase 1 and throughout Martin's Meadows. This will also be the proposed trail structure for the open space areas in future phases. This trail is proposed to be maintained by the HOA but a public trail easement has been provided should the city want to take over that trail as part of a larger network at some point. The previous roadway in Phase 1 will be re -graded and excess land dedicated to existing lots on either side. There is a 2.5 acre upland "island" of sorts along this trail that will be covered in a private easement and maintained by the HOA for use by all residents as part of the system of trails and open spaces proposed throughout Petersen Farms. An alternative connection from Phase 1 through the existing neighborhood to the south is being explored, but a key parcel necessary is currently working through the foreclosure process and has stalled discussions until the formal foreclosure commences. We respectfully request the council approve an amendment to the PUD to remove the proposed vehicular connection between phases, accept the natural trail and open space, and allow Phase 2 to proceed while discussions and efforts continue on an alternate access from phase 1 to the south. Engineering provided a comment within their review stating that approval of this preliminary plat should be contingent on securing a second access to the Preserve at Peterson Farms as identified on the original PUD. As the developers comments above indicate; the developer has attempted to pursue this southerly option, however the foreclosure process has created issues at this time. Staff would suggest the Planning and Zoning Commission discuss this item and determine if this item should be placed within the resolution or tied to the PUD or Plat. Condition 13 within the approval resolution would need to be modified to adjust the Engineers comments if the Planning and Zoning Commission desires to remove this item. Other Street Connections Staff expects to have discussions and point out connections as part of the Preliminary Plat versus the Planned Unit Development. Utilities Each of the lots will be served by individual septic systems and private wells vs. a centralized system. Individual systems require the property owner to maintain, repair and replace the system. This is particular addressed within the Shoreland area as it relates to the Planned Unit Development (PUD). Parks and Open Space The applicant still continues to propose 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 11 12 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. During the December 18, 2018 City Council Meeting the City Council requested the applicant provide for off street parking along Navajo Street due to removal of the temporary cul de sac. The applicant has shown this as a "P" on the PUD documents. The Andover Park and Recreation Commission will review the preliminary plat and PUD Amendment on August 20, 2020 at their meeting. 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: The construction of a cul de sac longer than 500 feet; discussion related to the Minimum Net Land Area, removal of the requirement for an east/west roadway between Phase 1 and Phase 2, revising the current PUD to include this second phase of the project, not utilizing a centralized septic system in the shoreland overlay. HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION (HOA) The applicant has indicated that they plan to 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 12 i Wtr14 S Ewe! Shoroland Overlay Ilam Development Oroaa Developable Area 140.2 I % Net Developable Area 84.4 Im.9 w i DPaO Space Aroa 72.4 mrea . Number o/ Lots 48 �o 10 Percent Open Space In Shoreland Overlay Dlatrict (((aaa'''((( 52% _ a\ Legend 52% Open Sp.. - waterbody, shoreland setback, wetlands. r=-- .- wetla.d buffers, dod,cated parW.pen apace CMJ Trail Connection to oPon apaa:e r1°1eh"'e se 9 Q ParkMy for Martin Meadows 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: The construction of a cul de sac longer than 500 feet; discussion related to the Minimum Net Land Area, removal of the requirement for an east/west roadway between Phase 1 and Phase 2, revising the current PUD to include this second phase of the project, not utilizing a centralized septic system in the shoreland overlay. HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION (HOA) The applicant has indicated that they plan to 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 12 13 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. Please keep in mind, neither resolution is formally adopted by the Planning and Zoning Commission and Commissioners can provide general direction on the language for the City Council to consider. The City Council would 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. Attachments Draft Resolution of Denial .15 Draft Supportive of Approval. .16 Applicants Narrative .22 City Engineer Letter .37 Planning Letter .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 PUD Development Plan .59 PUD Development Plan Open Space. .60 PUD Development Plan Shoreland Density .61 Lot Area Calcs Upland .62 167'h Ave SW Lot Area Calcs Upland .63 Cc: - Jason Osberg, Metrowide Development, 15356 Yukon St. NW, Andover, MN 55304 13 14 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 155h Lane NW, Andover, MN 55304 15 CITY OF ANDOVER COUNTY OF ANOKA STATE OF MINNESOTA RES. NO. R A RESOLUTION DENYING THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT / PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT REQUESTED BY LANDFORM, ON BEHALF OF JD ANDOVER HOLDINGS, AS SHOWN AS PUD DEVELOPMENT PLAN PHASE 2 PETERSEN FARMS DATED 08.19.2020, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS: 07-32-24-42-0002, 07-32-24-43-0003, 07-32-24-34-0002, 07-32-24-34-0003, 07-32-24-33-0001, 07-32-24-31-0001, 07-32-24-32-0001, 07-32-24-23-0002, 07-32-24-24-0001 WHEREAS, Landform, on behalf of JD Andover Holdings has requested a Conditional Use Permit for an Amendment to the Planned Unit Development (PUD) for Meadows at Petersen Farms, 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 PUD DEVELOPMENT PLAN PHASE 2 PETERSEN FARMS DATED 08.19.2020 on the above legally described property due to the following findings: 1. 2. 3. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Andover on this day of 2020. CITY OF ANDOVER ATTEST: Michelle Harmer, Deputy City Clerk Julie Trude, Mayor 15 Irl CITY OF ANDOVER COUNTY OF ANOKA STATE OF MINNESOTA RES. NO. R A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT / PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT REQUESTED BY LANDFORM, ON BEHALF OF JD ANDOVER HOLDINGS, AS SHOWN AS PUD DEVELOPMENT PLAN PHASE 2 PETERSEN FARMS DATED 08.19.2020, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS: 07-32-24-42-0002, 07-32-24-43-0003, 07-32-24-34-0002, 07-32-24-34-0003, 07-32-24-33-0001, 07-32-24-31-0001, 07-32-24-32-0001, 07-32-24-23-0002, 07-32-24-24-0001 WHEREAS, Landform, on behalf of JD Andover Holdings has requested a Conditional Use Permit for an Amendment to the Planned Unit Development (PUD) for Meadows at 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 not in conflict. WHEREAS, the Planning Zoning Commission further determined the Planned Unit Development project does not conflict 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 approval of the Conditional Use Permit/Planned Unit Development Amendment request, and; WHEREAS, the City Council of Andover has reviewed the request including all materials available at the time of review, and has determined that said request does meet the criteria of City Code because: 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 16 17 13,600 square feet. In the case of the 5 lots that do not meet the 43,560 as identified in Lot Area Calcs — Upland PETERSEN FARMS — dated 08.19.2020 the area is still usable even though it contains floodplain. 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 of 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 allowingfor 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 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. 17 18 The applicant's proposal is requesting flexibilityf•om 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 andfuture rture phases. 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; To meet Section 13-4-9(F) of the city code requiring maintenance and administration, we have defned a district and incorporated restrictions for the Shoreland overlay within a first amendment to the Homeowners Association (HOA) declaration recorded with the initial phase. These restrictions preserve the open space areas through; • restricted uses in the shore impact zone areas and requiring approvals for alterations in those areas, • permanent easements over wetlands, wetland buffers and floodplain, and • dedication of parkland to the city 18 19 The HOA restriction will require approval by the HOA's Architectural Control Committee similar to the process set forth in Phase 1 governing the steep slopes and bluff areas. This has been effectively managed in Phase I as building permits are first required to be reviewed and approved by the HOA for compliance with this criteria prior to being submitted to the City accompanied by an HOA approval letter. The specific language governing these activities can be seen in the original Declaration and in Section 10 of the attached HOA Amendment document specifically addressing the Shoreland requirements of "Lake Lots ". 2. Open Space Requirements: Planned Unit Developments must contain open space; To meet Section 13-4-9(F) of the city code Open Space Requirements, and as an offset to the requested f exibility, the proposed layout dedicates nearly 50 acres of upland area comprising 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 between the southern portions of the project and Martin's Meadows Open Space ensuring access and enjoyment of the lake for the broader community. This open space includes the following: • Preservation of at least seventy percent (70%) of the shore impact zone area will remain in its existing natural state. • An upland open space area that preserves at the western portion of unnamed lake #2-87W as shown on PUD Development Plan. This area is expected to contain passive uses and remain in its natural state with hiking/walking trails connecting neighborhoods north and south of this area. 3. Erosion Control And Storm Water Management; and To meet Section 13-4-9(F) of the city code Open Space Requirements Erosion Control and Storm Water Management, the proposed layout and engineering specifications call for Low Impact Designs, and natural stormwater management system consisting of natural treatment swales and infiltration basins. Erosion and sedimentation control will be managed through proven measures reviewed, approved, and inspected by City and Watershed agencies. 4. Centralization And Design Of Facilities. 19 20 To meet Section 13-4-9(F) of city code Centralization and Design of Facilities, the layout calls for the use of individual wells and individual septic systems. Publicly owned water and sewer services are not available in this area, nor are they anticipated. The current design provides two areas of 5, 000 square feet for potential septic drain fields that have been reviewed, tested, and selected by a Minnesota Licensed Septic Professional. These locations were selected as they are the most suitable areas for standard systems. Individual systems will be the responsibility of the individual lot owners who shall be responsible for inspection, maintenance, and replacement of these systems. A centralized system is not available in this area and other communities have experienced issues resulting in a loss of responsibility by individual users to maintain centralized systems. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Andover hereby agrees with the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approves the Conditional Use Permit/Planned Unit Development request on the above legally described property for PUD DEVELOPMENT PLAN PHASE 2 PETERSEN FARMS DATED 08.19.2020 with the following conditions: 1. The developer shall amend this PUD to include any future preliminary plat(s). 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. The 4. Lots Identified in Lot Area Calcs — Upland — PETERSEN Farms S DATED 08.19.2020 shall be permitted to be under 1 acre due to the unique challenges that floodplain have caused within Phase 2. 5. The overall density for the development shall not exceed .40 units per acre. 6. 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. 7. The MSA designated route shall meet MSA requirements. 8. Developer shall be responsible for meeting Anoka County Highway Departments comments. 9. Developer shall be responsible for meeting the Lower Rum River Watershed Management Organization comments. 10. Local roadways shall be "Low Impact Development" in nature (27' asphalt width, with 18 -inch ribbon curb on both sides). 11. Developer shall adhere to platting process and meet requirements and items identified through that process. 12. Roadways shall be extended to the edge of the plat. 13. Developer shall address staff comments in Engineers Letter dated August 12, 2020 14. Developer shall address staff comments in Planners Letter dated August 12, 2020. 15. Developer shall meet all requirements of Andover City Code 13-4-F with the exception of centralized septic and water. 20 21 16. 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 in future phase. 17. All other terms and conditions in the original approval, and past amendment shall be valid, unless specifically addressed within this resolution. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Andover on this day of 2020. CITY OF ANDOVER ATTEST: Michelle Harmer, Deputy City Clerk Julie Trude, Mayor 21 22 Narrative The Meadows at Petersen Farms Lot Line Adjustment, Preliminary Plat and PUD Amendment Andover. MN L A N D F O R M Z3 Narrative The Meadows at Petersen Farms Lot Line Adjustment, Preliminary Plat and 31tl PUD Amendment Andover, MN L A N D F O R M Revised August 19, 2020 Table of Contents Introduction...................................................... Lot Line Adjustment ......................................... Preliminary Plat ................................................ Lot Standards .................................................... Street Improvements ....................................... Landscaping and Tree Preservation ................. Stormwater Management ................................ Shoreland Overlay ............................................ PUD Amendment .............................................. PUD Findings .................................................... PUD Flexibility .................................................. Summary.......................................................... Contact Information ......................................... zy ZS Introduction On behalf of JD Andover Holdings, LLC, Landform is pleased to submit this application for approval of a lot line adjustment, preliminary plat and PUD amendment for The Meadows at Petersen Farms, the second phase of the PUD multi -phased development. Our initial phase —The Preserve at Petersen Farms — has been incredibly well-received, with all 24 lots sold and closed in less than 18 months. Seven builders have invested in the community with several builder models contemplating future sales. This demand has caused us to consider the next phase earlier than originally expected. Our initial Phase, The Preserve at Petersen Farms, added 24 new homes to the Andover community averaging nearly $750,000 each, representing an addition to the economic development of the community in excess of $15million. The Preserve contributed over $100,000 to our parks and trail funds and made additional improvements to provide access for new residents to existing parks and open spaces. Building on the successful and well-received low -impact design philosophy of The Preserve, the next phase will again be designed and developed by JD Andover Holdings, a project entity managed by Metrowide Development and Landform Development Partners, LLC. This phase consists of 46 lots complying with the underlying PUD guidelines and continuing the effort to develop the 400 -acre master plan previously approved by Council. Immediate interest in The Meadows has been strong, with indications that home values will be similar to the first phase adding another $30million to the community's tax base, and another $200,000 to the park and trail funds PLUS some incredible open spaces and natural trails to connect the phases. The development team and the Petersen Family are long-time Andover residents excited about the continued improvements proposed for this site and to our community. We look forward to working with staff, parks commission, planning commission and council on another successful phase. Lot Line Adjustment There are four existing parcels that currently make up the area of phase 2. The administrative lot line adjustment is being requested to modify the common lot line for the two western parcels so a smaller portion can be included in Phase 2 and allow the remainder to remain in the farm. The lot line adjustment is completed through two stages of adjustments. Exhibits are provided to show how each lot line is adjusted for each stage. The proposed lot line adjustment complies with the standards for lot line adjustments to be processed administratively, specifically: LDP17002.002 L A N D F O R M Revised August 19, 2020 Phase 2 PUD Narrative 2Co 1. The lot line adjustment does not create any additional buildable lots. 2. The lot line adjustment does not create a lot which is below the standards for the R-1 zoning district. 3. The lot line adjustment does not have an adverse effect on the surrounding property. Preliminary Plat The parcels consist of agricultural fields, woodlands and large wetlands. The public streets have been located using LID principals 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, rough grading will be completed as part of the development, while the final grading plan and tree preservation plan for the individual lots would be developed and approved by staff at the time of building permit. This approach will allow flexibility in the placement of single-family homes on each lot while preserving the natural environment. Lot Standards Phase 1 of Petersen Farms was approved for a Planned Unit Development (PUD) on June 19, 2018. This approval set the following minimums; lot size of 1.5 acres, net land area of 1 acre and lot width of 100 feet. On December 4, 2018 City Council extended these PUD minimums to the remaining property as part of a long-term master plan to develop the entire farm. A summary table of the lot sizes and lot widths at the setback are shown on the current plans. Plans for The Meadows have been designed to allow lot sizes that are consistent with those of the adjacent residential properties. The gross density of this phase is 0.46 units per acre because the majority of the density for the development falls within the boundary of the current phase with greater natural amenities in previous and future phases. The entire development maintains a density below the allowed 0.4 GROSS units per acre. All parcels have a minimum of 1 -acre net land area. The shoreland overlay district imposes additional density restrictions by allowing a specific number of lots within each tier of a shoreland overlay based on the net land area within a given tier. An exhibit labeled "PUD Development Plan —shoreland Density" provides a map of the shoreland tiers along with the calculations for each tier to determine the base density. A bonus to the base density is allowed if you qualify with the following, 'The impact on the waterbody is reduced an equivalent amount through vegetative management topography, or additional acceptable means, and the setback is at least 25% greater than the minimum setback." LDP17002.002 L A N D F O R M Revised August 19, 2020 Phase 2 PUD Narrative 27 We will be utilizing the bonus density to have additional lots within the fourth tier and employing the additional measures required to ensure the impact on the waterbody is reduced. For the purposes of this development, minimum lot standards were developed to include a "Net Land Area" calculation. This was a self-imposed standard specifically defined as the gross lot area minus wetlands and bluff areas as defined as those slopes having a slope in excess of 18% for longer than 50 feet. This was applied throughout the first phase of the development. The Meadows introduces a new aspect to this standard which is addressed in the sections below. Portions of the project are affected by 100 -year floodplain, as well as certain conditions that require a back-to-back 100 -year analysis. This has a tremendous impact on several lots on the west side of the project, but that impact is incredibly infrequent, and in The Meadows, we propose to handle those impacts on the Net Land Area through the use of the PUD flexibility. The public streets have been located to minimize the disturbance of the existing trees and minimize required grading for the new streets. Complete grading and tree preservation plans for the new streets is provided with these applications. Tabulated Lot Area calculations are shown on sheet C0.2 and C0.3 of the full Plan set. Street Improvements PUD flexibility was received to construct the local streets with a 50 -foot ROW width with an expanded front drainage and utility easement to contain drainage and private utilities as required. In this phase, a new road meeting Minnesota State Aid (MSA) standards is proposed to be added to Andover's network and run from 165`^ Avenue North to the north end of the plat. For this purpose, Inca Street, has a 66 - foot ROW width as opposed to the typical 50 -foot width previously approved and constructed in Phase 1 and on the remaining streets in Phase 2. The plans show a 27 -foot wide two-way street with 18 -inch ribbon curb on both sides for a total width of 30 feet. This low impact design was previously approved as a condition for the PUD approval and reviewed by public works and fire for acceptable service. To mitigate a rural street section in a reduced ROW, we are continuing with 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 law -impact stormwater management. This design typically reduces the area of disturbance and number of trees removed because traditional large ponding facilities are not required to achieve stormwater requirements. This was best seen on the first phase of Petersen Farms, but continues to be actively practiced, to the extent possible, in Phase 2. LDP17002.002 L A N D F O R M Revised August 19, 2020 Phase 2 PUD Narrative ZE) Landscaping and Tree Preservation The site consists of agricultural fields, woodlands and large wetlands. A tree preservation plan for the new streets has been prepared that minimizes the disturbance of existing trees. We have provided a landscape plan that provides a seed mix for all disturbed areas during street construction and a separate seed mix for the infiltration basins. Because each lot will be custom graded to allow for construction of the individual homes in a manner that meets the needs of the homeowner, we are proposing a list canopy trees for city approval that includes common hackberry, swamp white oak, boulevard linden, American elm, balsam fir, eastern red cedar, and white spruce. As each lot is developed the builder will be required to plant three trees from the approved species list to be placed on the lot, with some exceptions granted on heavily wooded lots. This approach will provide for greater flexibility and allow for each site to incorporate trees that complement the natural environment. Stormwater Management We are proposing a low -impact stormwater design as part of the rural street section. The low -impact stormwater design treats and manages stormwater through a series of Best Management Practices (BMP's) in a natural treatment conveyance through rural ditches, ditch weirs and infiltration basins. We have submitted to the Lower Rum River Watershed Management Organization (LRRWMO) concurrent with our City submittals. Shoreland Overlay The established PUD flexibility allows the homes to be clustered on suitable areas for development allowing natural areas to be preserved. As design evolved from concept to final, and grading more closely examined, the configuration of the street layout was revised. This revision resulted in an increase of nine lots on the shoreland overlay density tiering exhibit. With the more detailed design and increased efficiency it was possible to increase the lot count and maintain the shoreland standards. The density increase is located entirely in the 4th tier of the shoreland and located as far as possible from the Lakeshore, meeting the intent of the ordinance to push residential units away from the lake. The development will meet the shoreland standards including: • 125 -foot structure 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 detailed on the exhibit labeled "Shoreland Overlay Open Space". LDP17002.002 L A N D F O R M Revised August 19, 2020 Phase 2 PUD Narrative 29 To meet Section 13-4-9(F) of the city code requiring maintenance and administration, we have defined a district and incorporated restrictions for the shoreland overlay within a first amendment to the Homeowners Association (HOA) declaration recorded with the initial phase. These restrictions preserve the open space areas through; • restricted uses in the shore impact zone areas and requiring approvals for alterations in those areas, • permanent easements over wetlands, wetland buffers and floodplains, and • dedication of parkland to the city The HOA restriction will require approval by the HOA's Architectural Control Committee similar to the process set forth in Phase 1 governing the steep slopes and bluff areas. This has been effectively managed in Phase 1 as building permits are first required to be reviewed and approved by the HOA for compliance with this criteria prior to being submitted to the City accompanied by an HOA approval letter. The specific language governing these activities can be seen in the original Declaration and in Section 10 of the attached HOA Amendment document specifically addressing the shoreland requirements of "Lake Lots". To meet Section 13-4-9(F) of the city code Open Space Requirements, and as an offset to the requested flexibility, the proposed layout dedicates nearly 50 acres of upland area comprising 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 between the southern portions of the project and Martin's Meadows Open Space ensuring access and enjoyment of the lake for the broader community. This open space includes the following: • Preservation of at least seventy percent (70%) of the shore impact zone area will remain in its existing natural state. • An upland open space area that preserves at the western portion of unnamed lake #2-87W as shown on PUD Development Plan. This area is expected to contain passive uses and remain in its natural state with hiking/walking trails connecting neighborhoods north and south of this area. LDP17002.002 L A N D F O R M Revised August 19, 2020 Phase 2 PUD Narrative 36 To meet Section 13-4-9(F) of the city code Open Space Requirements Erosion Control and Storm Water Management, the proposed layout and engineering specifications call for Low Impact Designs, and natural stormwater management system consisting of natural treatment swales and infiltration basins. Erosion and sedimentation control will be managed through proven measures reviewed, approved, and inspected by City and Watershed agencies. To meet Section 13-4-9(F) of city code Centralization and Design of Facilities, the layout calls forthe use of individual wells and individual septic systems. Publicly owned water and sewer services are not available in this area, nor are they anticipated. The current design provides two areas of 5,000 square feet for potential septic drain fields that have been reviewed, tested, and selected by a Minnesota Licensed Septic Professional. These locations were selected as they are the most suitable areas for standard systems. Individual systems will be the responsibility of the individual lot owners who shall be responsible for inspection, maintenance, and replacement of these systems. A centralized system is not available in this area and other communities have experienced issues resulting in a loss of responsibility by individual users to maintain centralized systems. PUD Amendment 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 # 07-32-24-24-0001, 07-32-24-23-0002, 07-32-24-32-0001,07-32-24-31-0001, 07-32-24-33-0001, 07-32-24-34-0002, 07-32-24-34-0003, 07-32- 24-42-0002, 07-32-24-43-0003; and, Preserve at Petersen Farms Outlots A, B and C, Lots 1-8 Block 1, Lots 1-14 Block 2, Lots 1 and 2 Block 3). The parcels consist of a completed Phase 1, together with 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 preserving the natural environment. The proposed property has a current land use designation of Rural Residential and is currently zoned R-1 Single Family Rural. LDP17002.002 L A N D F O R M Revised August 19, 2020 Phase 2 PUD Narrative 31 PUD Findings We are requesting approval of an amendment to the previously approved PUD development application. In Andover, a PUD is an acceptable path to entitlement of a project subject to the standards of Section 13 of the Andover City Code. Our plan shows compliance with the Section 13-3-9 standards. Specifically: 1. 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. The proposed development demonstrates how each modified or waived requirement contributes to achieving the purpose of a PUD. The requested flexibilities identified below contribute to achieving the purpose of a PUD, specifically: • Minimizing the disturbance of extensive wetlands and removal of wooded wetland areas will preserve natural features and allow for a pedestrian trail connection and dedication of open space within the development. Additionally, secondary impact risks to large established wetland complexes will be reduced. • Constructing a cul-de-sac greater than 500 feet in length allows for the site to utilize existing topography and avoid further wetland, and tree impacts, reduce earthwork disturbance, consistent with the low -impact design principles. • Allowing lots that are 100 feet in width where 160 feet is typically required on a cul-de- sac is to keep with the lot width approved as part of the first phase. The reduced lot width still allows for the minimum lot size and upland lot area to be achieved, meeting the intent for the development to arrange lots to preserve trees, minimize wetland impacts and preserve natural features. The requested flexibility and how it contributes to the PUD design qualities are also discussed in detail in the next section of this narrative. LDP 17002.002 L A N D F O R M Revised August 19, 2020 Phase 2 PUD Narrative 32 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 amendments to the currently approved plan, as well as typical flexibility to allow deviation to standard zoning requirements as applied in the original PUD and first phase of the project. Amendments: Revising the Current PUD to include the second phase of the project, The Meadows at Petersen Farms. As prescribed in the current PUD, each time a preliminary plat is approved within the limits of the PUD, the PUD must be amended to include and address details specific to that plat. Accordingly, we are requesting the City Council approve an amendment to the PUD to include the preliminary plat of Meadows at Petersen Farms. Substantive changes to the PUD must be approved by council as an amendment as well. During the detailed design process necessary for Phase 2 development, an issue with constructability of the roadway connection from phase 1 was identified. More detailed geotechnical review revealed deep soils incompatible with construction of a public roadway without extensive impacts to the existing wetlands immediately adjacent on both sides of the roadway proposed in Phase 1. This disturbance would have included a 30 -foot subcut nearly 300' wide through tremendous natural wooded wetlands. A disturbance of this size would have risked significant permanent damage to the diverse wooded wetland environment as an extensive review of the options to construct a safe and stable roadway were explored. Unfortunately, none were deemed feasible without the extensive impacts to established high- value natural areas. This issue was discussed at length at a council work session and it was generally concluded that forcing that connection was not in the best interest of the project, or the natural environment. Current plans show a 10' wide natural hiking trail connecting Phase 1 and 2 with a wood chip surface similar to that provided on the north end of Phase 1 and throughout Martin's Meadows. This will also be the proposed trail structure for the open space areas in future phases. This trail is proposed to be maintained by the HOA but a public trail easement has been provided should the city want to take over that trail as part of a larger network at some point. The previous roadway in Phase 1 will be re -graded and excess land dedicated to existing lots on either side. There is a 2.5 acre upland "island" of sorts LDP17002.002 L A N D F O R M Revised August 19, 2020 Phase 2 PUD Narrative 33 along this trail that will be covered in a private easement and maintained by the HOA for use by all residents as part of the system of trails and open spaces proposed throughout Petersen Farms. An alternative connection from Phase 1 through the existing neighborhood to the south is being explored, but a key parcel necessary is currently working through the foreclosure process and has stalled discussions until the formal foreclosure commences. We respectfully request the council approve an amendment to the PUD to remove the proposed vehicular connection between phases, accept the natural trail and open space, and allow Phase 2 to proceed while discussions and efforts continue on an alternate access from phase 1 to the south. Flexibility: Maximum Cul -de -Sac Length and minimum lot size. As with the initial phase, we are seeking PUD flexibility similar to that granted under the current PUD for permanent cul-de-sacs greater than 500 feet in length, and to allow lots on a cul-de-sac that are less than minimum 160 -foot lot width. Minimum Net Land Area (NLA). With this phase we are requesting flexibility under the PUD to allow eight lots providing less than 1 -acre Net Land Area (NLA) as shown on the attached Exhibit. NLA is a self- imposed restriction defined in the PUD as Gross Lot Area minus wetlands and bluff areas. While current code provides for a minimum of 13,500 square feet of upland area, as part of the PUD we more than tripled that minimum to 1 -acre, or 43,560 square feet. Currently all lots proposed in Phase 2 meet the 1 - acre minimum Net Land Area as defined in previous approvals (Gross parcel area minus wetlands and defined bluffs). However, Phase 2 has introduced new challenges in assessing what should be considered "usable" under the Net Land Area calculation. In one instance, there are 5 lots on the west side of Phase 2 that meet the NLA as currently defined. However, these lots (ironically the most desirable lots in the development) have a portion of their rear yards affected by the floodplain, something that was not a factor in Phase 1. Floodplain is typically established by determining the 100 -yr storm event (a rainfall typically seen once every 100 years at one given location) and mapping that impact as floodplain. Additionally challenging this site was the fact that the wetlands these parcels abut are part of a 'landlocked' basin that requires a more restrictive analysis of a "back-to-back 100 -yr event" (two of those 100 -year events in a row) which imposes an additional impact on the these rear yards. Removing ALL portions of the expanded floodplain puts five (5) lots short of the 1 -acre minimum. Considering the greatest impact (the back-to-back event) leaves NLA ranging from 0.68 acres to 0.84 acres. Using the more typical single 100 -yr event reduces that impact to just two (2) lots, providing 0.86 and 0.95 acres. While these portions of the NLA are included in the easement area, they are usable in almost every aspect of a "yard" as they are generally very flat, LDP17002.002 L A N D F O R M Revised August 19, 2020 Phase 2 PUD Narrative 10 3q can be used for active recreation, gardening, and even light structures as allowed in the shoreland ordinance. We respectfully request flexibility in the determination of the NLA for these lots given the incredibly infrequent occurrences of flood events. It should be noted that ALL habitable structures are well above the back-to-back event and associated drain fields are outside these limits in all cases. This issue applies only to yards. As with the original PUD, and as amended previously, our PUD proposal will allow for a more efficient allocation of lots, greatly reduce grading and wetland impacts, and will minimize removal of wooded wetlands. 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 safe access for vehicles and pedestrians and all types of activity that are anticipated to be a part of the proposed development. The proposed development is not anticipated to generate substantial traffic volumes and proposed roadways will be sufficient for the anticipated traffic that will be generated from residents within the subdivision and potential visitors. Pedestrian trail connections will be provided across the wetlands between Phase 1 and the remainder of the PUD Plan. 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. 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. Removing the wetland crossing and allowing longer cul-de-sacs will reduce impacts on wooded and open wetlands. 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 extensive ponding (which requires tree removal) required to meet stormwater design standards is substantially reduced. LDP17002,002 L A N D F O R M Revised August 19, 2020 Phase 2 PUD Narrative 35 5. Provides considerable landscaping treatments that complement the overall design and contribute toward an overall landscaping theme. Each custom-built 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 spaces can be utilized for the needs of the community. The proposed open spaces will provide connections to the existing Martin Meadows park to utilize the existing trail system within the park, and between Phases 1 and 2 of the PUD Plan. 7. Provides on 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 which includes a monument area identification sign and the use of the existing topography. 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 similar to those constructed in Phase 1. 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) A homeowner'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 lot line adjustment, preliminary plat and PUD amendment for The Meadows at Petersen Farms located adjacent to 165th Avenue NW and County Road 7. LDP17002.002 L A N D F O R M Revised August 19, 2020 Phase 2 PUD Narrative 12 3 (p 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 LDP17002.002 L A N D F O R M Revised August 19, 2020 Phase 2 PUD Narrative 13 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W.. ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 . (763) 755-5100 FAX (763) 755-8923 • WWW.ANDOVERMN.GOV �•J.-�: /JI T: I TO: Joe Janish, Community Development Director FROM: David Berkowitz, Director of Public Works/City Engineer Jason Law, Assistant City Engineer DATE: August 12, 2020 37 REFERENCE: Meadows at Petersen Farms / Grading, Drainage & Erosion Control Plan/Review #2 The following comments have vet to be completed regarding Review #1: 1. Need to obtain the necessary pemoits from the DNR, US Army Corps of Engineers, LRRWMO, MPCA, Anoka County Highway Department, and any other agency that that is interested in the site. Pending. 4. Need to provide a secondary roadway connection to the Preserve at Petersen Farm (1' Addition). Pending. Developer is pursuing option to acquire property south ofI'TAddition currently vacant and may be heading to foreclosure. Approval of thispreliminaryplat should be contingent on securing a second access to the Preserve at Peterson Farms as identified on the original PUD. 5. Geotechnical Report: The Geotechnical Report needs to identify the Highest Anticipated Water Level for each boring location / lot in the development. This is used to verify proposed low floor elevations are at least 3' above the Highest Anticipated Water Level per City Code. Include boring information for Logs 14-18, completed with l' addition per map. Pending. Geotechnical engineer provided HAWL information, but it needs to be clarified IIA WL given as "east/southInorth "portions of21d Addition. Where is the break line between those distinctions? Need clarification on HAWL for each boring completed to verify low floors meet 3'separation requirement Geotech addendum I dated 8111120 was submitted during this review. Braun is working on additional clarification to HAWE's and remedies forperched water tables. 7. Additional soil borings are required to adequately review and comment on the viability of the PUD application and future roadway locations and access locations to County Roads. The main access to 71' Avenue at 1700' Avenue cuts directly through a large wetland complex, with no soil boring information provided. Without additional information provided, there is the potential for this phase to end up as a long dead-end connection similar to Preserve at Petersen Farms. Geotech addendum 1 dated 8/11/20 was submitted during this review. Braun is preparing additional recommendation for subcut in areas where clay identified 8. Show soil boring locations on all relevant plan sheets, Removals, Site, Grading, Storm, Streets, etc. Pending Comment kept for tracking purposes. Show location of borings referenced in comments 5 and 7 above. 71. Sheet C3.3: Look at revising grading for Lots 9 and 10 so lot 9 only flows south, then the D&UE cutting across Lot 10 will not be needed. Not done. Review #2 submittal said "Plans Revised", nothing was changed Plans marked up to eliminate wall, cross drainage and need for D& UE on lot 10. 75. Sheet C3.4: What is proposed for access for the two existing property owners north of the plat? Pending. No resolution yet to access issue. 108. Need to provide separate long-term maintenance agreements that will be recorded with each property for the infiltration basin/rain garden maintenance. A sample agreement is available from the City if needed. Pending. Comment keptfor tracking purposes. The following comments have vet to be completed regarding Review #IA: 203. Sheet C0.2 and all relevant sheets: The trail alignment to the east to I" Addition is outside of the plat boundaries. Provide recordable 20' wide trail easement documents over 1St Addition trail alignment, or SB revise trail alignment so it is within the plat boundaries. Revising the trail alignment does not appear feasible as it would cut through standing water in the wetland. Pending. 213. Sheet C3.0. In the Lot Tabulation, there are multiple lots where the RAWL listed is below the ground water levels measured in the borings. This may or may not be due to a perched condition. If it is, remedies need to be designed and included in the plans to correct this. For example, around the north Guarani St cul de sac, HAWL is listed as 868, but there are two borings that show measured ground water at 880.5 and 873.5. HAWL cannot be between 5.5-12.5 below measured ground water. Another example, low floors for lots in Block 3 around the Inca/168`h intersection are below measured ground water level. Similar comment in other areas within the plat. Engineer acknowledged comment. Solution to perched water tables needs to be identified in plans and lot tabulations updated Identify areas in gradingplans where perched water tables need to be addressed, it appears to be mainly around Soil Boring 24. 215. Sheet C3.0: Update Flood elevations in lot tabulation per revised hydrology model. Verify that lot tabulation is consistent with plans. Further review of lot tabulation will be completed in subsequent reviews to confirm that it is consistent with plans and design. Engineer acknowledged. Carry through review 2 revisions in table. Table will be further reviewed in future reviews for consistency with plans and to verb low floor elevations meet 2' above HWL and 3' above H,4 WL. Column headers and order are inconsistent between the two tables. Update with Braun revised H4 WL addendum to be provided. 217. Sheet C3.1: Ponds 34,37 andm are all within Anoka County right of way. They do not allow any ponding within the ROW, these basins will need to be adjusted accordingly. High water level for Pond 34 is still in the ROW. See comments on sheet C3.1 and under Review #2 comments regarding potentially eliminating southern cell of Pond 34. 224. Sheets C3.1- C3.9: Clearly label / hatch all Vehicle Maintenance Accesses. Hatch vehicle maintenance accesses and add label to legend. Hatch important for reviewing future requests for fences, sheds, etc. 225. Sheet C3.1 -C3.9: With all the hatch patterns on this sheet, consider moving erosion control items (Fiber blanket, enkamat) to the Landscaping Plans. Response comments stated "acknowledged" but not done. It's very difficult to identify lines under multiple hatches. Move fiber blanket to sheets L2.1 to L2.4. 229. Sheets C3.2 and C3.3: Drain fields need to be removed from floodplain and D&UE for Lots 12-16, Block 3. Response said "acknowledged" but not done. 231. Sheet C3.2: Provide a 20' VMA, 10:1 max slopes, to the skimming structure for Basin 122 on Lot 16, Block 3. Response said "acknowledged" but not done. Alternate alignment (instead of along Lot 16, Block 3) could be along south sides of Lots 17 and 18, Block 3. 232. Sheet C3.2: Label Wetlands 3 and 4 and Pand32 NWL and HWL. Wetland 4 not labeled. 242. Sheet C3.5 and C6.5: Revise grading of south Guarani Street cul de sac. The depth of fill proposed creates a potential hardship for future development to the south. Proposed grades should be closer to existing grade (excluding berm). Minimizing grading also more in line with LID concept. House styles may have to change as the desire for walkout lots is not a valid reason to create hardship for future development of adjacent parcel. Not done. Alternate future profile to south provided, however, does not meet vertical curve design speeds. Lower Guarani profile several feet so street and cul de sac is below berm to south, allowing berm to block headlights, and resulting in future alignment closer to existing grade. Driveway grades on Guarani can be increased, or add steps to houses, to maintain walkout lots if desired 247. Sheet C3.6: Will 166" Avenue be graded to the extent shown on this plan? If not, clearly define grading limits for this plat. Response said "acknowledged" but not done. Clearly identi grading limits. 266. Sheet C6.8 and C6.9: Make sure VMA is contained within the 20' wide VMA / D&UE. Label 0wd Response said "acknowledged" but not done. Revise VMA location so it's within the D& UE, or, expand the D& UE to include the VMA. 269. Sheet C6.10 and C6.1 l: Submit to ACHD for review. Complete any comments they have. Provide copy to City of ACHD comments or approval of design. Comment acknowledged Keptfor tracking purposes. 270. Sheet C6.11: Label taper and turn lane widths. Not done. 273. Sheet L2.1: Show seeding and restoration of existing farm road on east side and Jivaro Street. Response said "acknowledged" but not done. 34 The following comments are regarding Review #2: 201. General note: make sure all elevations match with revised hydrology report from Review #2. 202. Proposed grading outside of plat boundaries requires a right of entry from the property owner. 203. Sheet C0.2 and all applicable sheets: Revise easterly lot line between lots 3 and 4, Block 2 so it's centered on the trail and a portion of Lot 3 is not north of the trail. 204. Sheet C0.2 and C0.3: Area Summary and Area Summary Tabulation aren't consistent. Remove the word "FEMA" from the tabulation. Update areas based upon Review #2 comments. 205. Sheet C0.2 and C0.3: Update drainage and utility easements per review comments. 206. Sheet C1.2: Correct overlapping text along 165th Avenue. 207. Sheet C3.1: Move Legend to right side of page so it doesn't cover up existing basin information. 208. Sheet C3.1: Label EOF and elevation 885.25 across existing Jivaro alignment for Pond 183. 209. Sheet C3.1: Low area in northeast corner of 165th/Jivaro is landlocked. Try to ditch out to the east towards Inca Street. Otherwise, it needs to be modeled (like last submittal, but can't pond in right of way). Look at moving culvert under Inca just north of 165th so it flows north on west side of Inca into Basin 38 with a driveway culvert for Lot 2, Block 4. It appears the southerly cell of Basin 34 could be eliminated (infiltration requirements are exceeded on-site), then trees could be saved in this area. 210. Sheet C3.1: Set the EOF for Pond 34 at the HWL. 211. Sheet C3.1: Label Ponds 41, 42 and 44 south of 165th Avenue. 212. Sheet C3.1: Label "Ultimate EOF to South" for Pond 36 with flow arrows so it's clear ultimate drainage is across 165th via the existing culvert. 213. Sheet C3.1: Revise HWL line and D&UE on east side of Lot 1, Block 1 so it's at HWL for Pond 36. Revise upland area table accordingly. 214. Sheet C3.1: Silt fence and drain field lines don't line up on Lot 1, Block 1. 215. Sheet C3.1: On north side of Lot 1, Block 1, there is a low area that is blocked that needs to head up and flow over the VMA. This will leave this area and the VMA saturated. Move culvert under the VMA further east so this area drains directly into Pond 32. Maintain at least 1' of cover on the culvert. The berm along the east side of Inca south of the VMA should be removed and allow runoff to flow directly into this low area. 216. Sheet C3.1 and C3.2: Hatch / Identify area of perched water per Braun report around Boring 24, and add note "Approximate boundary of perched water table. Correct with mass grading." This will need to be remedied during the mass grading of the site. 217. Sheet C3.1: Set the overland EOF for Pond 32 at the HWL. 218. Sheet C3.1 -C3.6: In legend behind "Floodplain A / B" add "100 -Year" to A and `B -B 100 Year" to B. 219. Sheet C3.1: Move the drain fields from Lot 2, Block 1 out of the D&UE. 220. Sheet C3.1: Label the NWL for Basin 181 as this no longer is an infiltration basin. 221. Sheet C3.2: Label the OWHL, HWL, and B -B HWL for Wetland 4. 222. Sheet C3.2: Add spot elevations to west side of Basin 122 at 883.75 to force EOF to the south away from drainfield and yard area. 223. Sheet C3.2: Show an OCS symbol at outlet for Pond 122. Revise contours at OCS so they wrap into the OCS outlet elevation. 224. Sheet C3.2: Add the floodplain mitigation areas on Lots 15, 16 and 17 into the D&UE. 225. Sheet C3.2: Add Enkamat to EOF for Basin 12. 226. Sheet C3.2: Adjust D&UE on rear of Lot 5 to minimize the D&UE on west side of Pond 32. 227. Sheet C3.3: Remove the floodplain impact area on Lots 12 and 13, Block 3 from the D&UE. 228. Sheet C3.3: For wetland 3 label, add "100 Year" and `B -B 100 Year" to water elevations. 229. Sheet C3.3: The location for Soil Boring 20 in the plans is west of 167th Avenue, but in the map from Braun it is west of 167th Avenue. Verify which is correct and revise accordingly. MW 230. Sheet C3.3: Revise contours for Lot 10, Block 3 as marked up. This will eliminate need for retaining wall, and eliminate cross drainage from Lot 9 which would require a D&UE on Lot 10. 231. Sheet C3.3: Revise silt fence line so it matches drain field for Lots 1 and 2, Block 3. 232. Sheet C3.4 & 3.5: See markups on Sheet C3.5. Look at combining Basin 115 and Basin 11, eliminating berm between them. Add flared end outlet from combined ponds into OCS. This will provide an EOF for this low area, and by revising contour lines, increase useable yard area for Lot 11, Block 2. Need to provide a D&UE around the HWL for this basin, none is shown around Basin 11. 233. Sheet C3.4: Revise bottom elevation of Basin 163 in label to match rim elevation of 896.64. 234. Sheet C3.4: Areas on north side of Basin 52 could be removed from D&UE if more closely aligned to HWL of basin. Similar comment for rear of Lot 7, Block 2. Revise upland area table accordingly. 235. Sheet C3.4: Revise IE into Basin 52 to 890. See subsequent comments for storm sewer. 236. Sheet C3.5: Per discussion with developers, lot pads on east side of Guarani Street south of 168th Avenue should be graded with mass grading. Change contours from dashed to solid. 237. Sheet C3.5: Adjust D&UE so it covers the drainage swale on rear of Lot 8, Block 1. Also make sure VMA is within the D&UE. Revise upland area table accordingly. 238. Sheet C3.5: There's an extra contour line in southwest quadrant of 168th/Guarani that should be deleted. Review ditch bottom spot elevations in same area, they appear to be off. 239. Sheet C3.5: D&UE could be minimized by getting closer to the HWL on Lots 1, 3 and 4, Block 2. Revise upland area table accordingly. 240. Sheets C3.7 -C3.9: Carry comments through from other sheets to these details. 241. Sheet C4.0: Revise boundary box for Sheet C4.2 so it covers Pond 122 outlet. 242. Sheet C4.0: In Utility Notes, RCP is called out for storm sewer which is fine. Developer asked about using HDPE. City is OK with this as long as a design is in place to prevent floating of pipes into/out of ponds/wetlands/basins. Revise note accordingly and add applicable details if HDPE will be used. 243. Sheet C4.1: Slide FES 1-FES2 east per previous comments. Maintain minimum V of cover over pipe. 244. Sheet C4.1: For FES 800-801, pipe sizes do not match hydrology report. Lower pipe from OCS 38 - FES 801 to 877.25 (and add label to OCS 38 info) to provide extra concrete for pre -casting structure. 245. Sheet C4.1: Move FES 1100-1101 to Lot 2 driveway unless Basin 34 south cell is not removed. 246. Sheet C4.1: OCS 701 may not be buildable with enough room from top of 24" pipe to rim elevation. If that's the case, set rim elevation so structure can be pre -cast and use the overland EOF as the overflow. Revise grade from FES 702-OCS 701 so inlet is at 874 to shallow up structure. Correct pipe sizes and slopes for this run so they match hydrology model. 247. Sheet C4.2: Raise up pipe from CB 901 to FES 900 so CB 901 IE=891.8, and provide a 4' sump for pre-treatment prior to discharge to infiltration basin. Raise FES 900 IE to 890, with 2% grade. 248. Sheet C4.2: Set rim elevation for OCS 141 at the HWL of Basin 141P. 249. Sheet C4.2: Show the OCS for Basin 122P, label RE, IE, and reference detail C7.3/5. 250. Sheet C4.3: OCS 57 has a 6" orifice in the hydrology report. This won't work, as the inlet from Basin 51 also goes through this structure and isn't restricted by the 6" orifice in the model. Need to revise design or model accordingly. If 6" orifice is ultimate design, need to construct in a weir wall. 251. Sheet C4.3: Raise up pipe from STMH 201 to FES 200 by 0.8' to set FES at basin outlet. 252. Sheet C4.3: Add safety aprons to FES 3-4, and 5-6. Lower FES 5-6 slightly if trail grades lower to maintain at least 0.75' cover under woodchip trail. 253. Sheet C4.3: Revise FES 204 to CBMH 203 per pond grading comments. 254. Sheet C6.3: Change "Court" to "Avenue" in Line and Curve table. 255. Sheet C6.7: Revise grade on trail to 8.3% maximum. It's possible this could be paved in the future, at which point ADA compliance is important. Could start coming down right off street to help with grades. Keep trail at base of hill in a fill section to minimize saturation in this area for pedestrian access during wet periods. Show the trail profile up to the connection point to l It Addition. 256. Sheet C6.9: Correct orientation of North arrow. Keep VMA within D&UE. n U1 257. Sheet C6.12: Label grade to west so vertical curve length can be verified. 180' seems short for a 35 mph design speed. Show how profile will match existing grade with this phase. 258. Sheet C7.1: For detail 1, delete the sidewalk and lines/notes referencing sidewalk. 259. Sheet C7.3: For Detail 3, make sure all elevations match revised hydrology report. Add structure 1001 to table. If 6" orifice is maintained for OCS 57, use Detail 418E, which shows an orifice in a weir wall within the structure. 260. Sheet C7.3: Will the proposed casting fit for Detail 5? Revise 2' to 3' in note. Is cutting the openings practical, especially for a 6" opening? Can this be pre -cast to avoid contractor cutting openings? 261. Sheet C7.4: Add a detail for wood chip trail, 10' wide chips, 6" minimum depth, 2' clear zone on each side, with 4:1 max slopes on either side of the clear zone. 262. Sheet L2.1: Show topsoil and seeding on existing trail being removed. 263. Additional comments pending further review. The following comments have vet to be completed regarding Review #1 of the Hydrology Report: 5. An O&M agreement shall be provided and recorded for maintenance of ditch checks and infiltration basins/ram. gardens. Pending. Keptforbackmg. The following comments are regarding Review 92 of the Hydrology Report: 201. In the narrative tables, correct the 2, 10 and 100 year rainfall depths and update runoff rates and volumes due to Review #2 revisions. 202. In the narrative under "High Water Levels" add a paragraph about how Pond 36 was modeled, assuming the starting elevation at the overland EOF on the south side of 165th Avenue backflowing south through the existing 24" culvert under 165th Avenue. 203. For the existing and proposed models for Pond 36, need to include an outlet device (weir) for the EOF at 877.7, not just start the model at 877.7. The 24" culvert should be in series flowing to the weir. Without this, the system will "drain" down below the 877.7 elevation through the 24" culvert. This will likely raise the HWL of this basin and upstream in the system. The 165th overtopping weir can be removed as HWL doesn't approach it, but can stay in model if chosen. Tertiary outflow should be to Pond 32 via OCS 701 (but reverse direction). These comments were reviewed with the LRRWMO engineer, specifically regarding the weir outlet at 877.7 that needs to be added. 204. On the Proposed Conditions Map 2, flow arrows are incorrect for Pond 51 and 57. Update any other flow arrows if routing is revised with Review #2 comments. 205. On the Proposed Conditions Map 4, show the area east of the current view port so the ultimate EOF location can be seen. Update any other flow arrows if routing is revised with Review #2 comments. 206. For Pond 57, how does the 6" orifice get constructed without restricting flow from Pond 51, which has a 15" culvert? 207. For Pond 163, raise up the pipe grades to allow for 4' sump structure. This won't affect HWL. 208. For Pond 12, the starting elevation should be set at the rim elevation of the structure (887.5) which is the outlet. Change 27" diameter to 48" diameter horizontal orifice. 209. For Pond 32, there's a constructability question with rim close to the pipes. Review for buildability. 210. For Pond 32, set the secondary EOF at the HWL. 211. For Pond 32, should tertiary flow (reverse flow) be to Pond 181P? Also, it's listed as 24" x 2, shouldn't this be just one 18"? Tertiary outlet should match Pond 181, but in reverse. 212. Combine Ponds 11 and 115 and eliminate berm between them. Add an FES with a culvert into the OCS structure, then the rim elevation can be the EOF. Should make Lot 11 more useable, provide EOF for Pond 11, and reduce storm sewer pipe needed. See marked up plans for schematic idea. 213. For Pond 181, the 48" orifice should be horizontal. 214. For Pond 201, raise up the pipe by 0.8' (won't affect HWL). 215. For the Infiltration Summary, update Pond 34 volume if south cell is removed per Review 2 5 comments. 216. Additional comments pending further review. q2- Note: Z Note: It is a requirement that the Developer respond to each of these items in writing (get digital cony from City and type responses below original comment) when re -submitting the revised plat to the City. If you have any questions, feel free to contact David Berkowitz, Director of Public Works/City Engineer at (763) 767-5133 or Jason Law, Assistant City Engineer at (763) 767-5130. ANL6 6 A Y A. y3 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W.. ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 • (763) 755-5100 FAX (763) 755-8923 • WWW.ANDOVERMN.GOV MEMORANDUM TO: Darren Lazan, LANDFORM President FROM: Joe Janish, Community Development Director DATE: August 12, 2020 REFERENCE: Meadows at Petersen Farms Pre -Plat Review, PUD Amendment, Lot Line Adjustment REVIEW 2 The following comments pertain to the plans stamped August 9, 2020: Comments still needing to be addressed: 104. Are the two property owners to the North in agreement on access as shown on the proposed plat? This was a requirement discussed with City Council. 167. Show the Parking area "P" on all PUD maps. Narrative Comments: /See Narrative. Review 2 Comments: R9T- Sheet C2.2 Lots 11 through 16 Block 3 show drainfields in the the "back to back" area. It is my understanding that the "back to back" will be contained within a utility easement. Drainfields cannot be located within the drainage and utility easements, the drainfield locations need to be adjusted. y01- Sheet C3.1 Lot 2 Block one show drainfields in the drainage and utility easement. �2l . Sheet C3.2, Lots 14, 15, 16 Block 3 show drainfields in the the "back to back" area. It is my understanding that the "back to back" will be contained within a utility easement. Drainfields cannot be located within the drainage and utility easements, the drainfield locations need to be adjusted. 141. Sheet C3.3 Lots 11,12,13 Block 3 show drainfields in the the "back to back" area. It is my understanding that the "back to back" will be contained within a utility easement. Drainfields cannot be located within the drainage and utility easements, the drainfield locations need to be adjusted. 212. Sheet C3.5 Elevation of Guarani Street NW appears to be higher than a berm recently put in place by a property owner to the south. The street elevation should be lowered as it will create several issues for future development on this parcel. The property 1 y,q owner to the south specifically constructed the berm to not have to look at the homes and now as part of the development the roadway is at the same height as the berm. Perhaps look out or full basement lots would be more suitable in this area to allow for lowering the street. This would also require less fill to be hauled to the custom graded lots in this area with a lower elevation for the roadway. 217. DNR will need to review the development, due to PUD request within Shoreland. A brief discussion was held with DNR and Planning staff but additional discussions need to occur. 2-Y8. Verify consistent naming on supplements for the proposed development. Currently the Preliminary Plat and PUD amendments are referring to Meadows at Petersen Farms and Petersen Farms Phase 2. This naming should be consistent. Sheet C.02 Block 2 Lots 4 and 3, sideyard property line should center over trail. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS PENDING FURTHER/ADDITIONAL REVIEW BE SURE TO OBTAIN SUBMIT TO OTHER AGENCIES AS REVIEWS AND COMMENTS CAN IMPACT TIMELINES Note: It is a requirement that the Developer respond to each of these items in writing (pet 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 city staff. 2 45 ANDOVER Meadows at Petersen Farms Notification Area Date Created August 12, 2020 Disclaimer: The provider makes no representation or warranties with respect to the reuse of this data. CHAPTER 3 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) y7 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) 13-3-10: REVISIONS AND AMENDMENTS: Administrative approval of incidental changes in the PUD may be authorized by the City Planner upon review and approval by ARC. Such administrative approvals shall not substantially alter the character of the approved PUD and shall be limited to landscaping (not including quantity reduction), color schemes (not including materials), association documents, fencing, entrance monuments and decks. Changes in uses or development/design standards must be submitted for a full public hearing review process. (Amended Ord. 314, 10-4-2005) 13-3-11: DESIRABLE PUD DESIGN QUALITIES: The following design qualities will be sought in any PUD: A. Achieves efficiency in the provision of streets and utilities and preserves area to achieve the elements of design qualities described in this chapter. B. Provides convenient and safe access for vehicles and pedestrians and all types of activity that are anticipated to be a part of the proposed development. C. Provides a buffer between different uses, adjacent properties, roadways, between backyards of back-to-back lots. D. Preserves existing stands of trees and/or significant trees. E. Provides considerable landscaping treatments that complement the overall design and contribute toward an overall landscaping theme. F. Preserves significant usable space on individual lots or through the provision of open space within the development. G. Provides an attractive streetscape through the use of undulating topography, landscaping, decorative street lighting, decorative mailbox groupings, retaining walls, boulders, fencing, area identification signs, etc. H. The proposed structures within the development demonstrate quality architectural design and the use of high quality building materials for unique design and detailing. The lasting quality of the development will be ensured by design, maintenance and use guidelines established through an owners' association. (Ord. 298, 8-4-2004) 13-3-12: APPROVAL OF PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT: The developer must demonstrate that the amenities and qualities of the Planned Unit qt Development are beneficial and in the public interest to allow the development to be approved. A substantial amount of the design qualities identified in Section 13-3-11 of this chapter shall be found to be present in order to approve a PUD. The amount of amenities and type of qualities that constitute an acceptable PUD are at the sole discretion of the City Council to determine. (Ord. 298, 8-4-2004) 13:3-13: REDEVELOPMENT PUDs: A property owner may apply for a redevelopment PUD for their property, if the property meets the criteria outlined in this section. Such redevelopment PUDs shall only be used for lot splits. PUDs on all other subdivisions shall follow the normal PUD requirements laid out in this chapter. All provisions of City Code chapter 13-3 shall apply to redevelopment PUDs except for section 13-3-11. A redevelopment PUD may be permitted if the subject property meets the following standards: A. The existing principal structure on the property is at least 30 years old, or does not meet current building codes, or has a blighting effect on the surrounding neighborhood, and will be removed as part of the redevelopment of the property. B. The houses built on the new lots would be similar in size and architectural design to those in the surrounding neighborhood. Architectural plans must be included in the application for a redevelopment PUD and approved by the Council. (Amd. 2/20/07, Ord. 341) so 5. Location of 100 -year floodplain areas and floodway districts from \napted maps or data; and contourrepresenting the ordinary high water level, the "toe" "ofbluffs, and the minimum building setback distances from e bluff and the lake or stream. D. Dedications: en a land or easement dedication is a condition of subdivision appro al, the approval must provide easement over natural drainage or pondin\insize r management of storm water and significant wetlands. E. Platting: 1. All subdivisions e five (5) or ore lots or parcels that are two and one-half (2 112less in size s II be processed as a plat in accordance with MStatutes Chapte 05. No permit for construction of builewage treatment s tems shall be issued for lots created after thial controls were enac d, unless the lot was approved as part ol subdivision. (Ord. 108, -20-1994) 2. Shoreland Plats: All plats in shoreland areas shall be s matted to and reviewed by the State Division of Waters, Soils and Mineralefore final action by the City. (Amended Ord. 8, 10-21-1970) F. Controlled Access Or Recreational Lots: Lots intended as controlled access to public waters or for recreation use areas for use by nonripa lots within a subdivision must meet or exceed the sizing criteria in _ Subsection 13-4-6A4 of this chapter. (Ord. 108, 9-20-1994) 13-4-9: PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENTS (PUDS)t: 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 See also chapter 3 of this title. S1 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 project 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 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 5�2 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: 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 53 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: 'Average Unit Floor Area (Sq. Ft. 200 300 400 500 600 700 900 1,000 1,100 1,200 1,300 1,400 1,500 Sewered General Development Lakes: First Tier On Unsewered General Development Lakes; Urban, Agricultural, Tributary River Segments 0.040 0.048 0.056 0.065 0.072 0.082 0.091 0.099 0.108 0.116 0.125 0.133 0.142 0.150 Second And Additional Tiers On Unsewered General Development Lakes; Recreational Development Lakes; Transition And Forested River Segments 0.020 0.024 0.028 0.032 0.038 0.042 0.046 0.050 0.054 0.058 0.064 0.068 0.072 0.075 Natural Environment Lakes And Remote River Segments 0.010 0.012 0.014 0.016 0.019 0.021 0.023 0.025 0.027 0.029 0.032 0.034 0.036 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. 5y d. Divide the total floor area by tier computed in Subsection E2c of 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 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 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 55 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. 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 5(0 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, 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 57 approved storm water management plan and consistency with 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 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 M 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 of the development and these standards must be identified. 2. Deficiencies: Deficiencies involving water supply and sewage treatment, structure color, impervious coverage, open space, and shore recreation facilities must be corrected as part of the conversion or as specified in the Conditional Use Permit. 3. Shore And Bluff: Shore and bluff impact zone deficiencies must be evaluated and reasonable improvements made as part of the conversion. These improvements must include, where applicable, the following: a. Removal of extraneous buildings, docks, or other facilities that no longer need to be located in shore or bluff impact zones; b. Remedial measures to correct erosion sites and improve vegetative cover and screening of buildings and other facilities as viewed from the water; and c. If existing dwelling units are located in shore or bluff impact zones, conditions are attached to approvals of conversions that preclude exterior expansions in any dimension or substantial alterations. The conditions must also provide for future relocation of dwelling units, where feasible, to other locations, meeting all setback and elevation requirements when they are rebuilt or replaced. 4. Existing Dwellings Or Sites: Existing dwelling unit or dwelling site densities that exceed standards in Subsection E of this section may be allowed to continue but must not be allowed to be increased, either at the time of conversion or in the future. Efforts must be made during the conversion to limit impacts of high densities by requiring seasonal use, improving vegetative screening, centralizing shore recreation facilities, installing new sewage treatment systems, or other means. (Ord. 108, 9-W-199`1 !� X11 ♦ •' . Vii. 1 I :: r e 6', q r ':d--' e { y - aniJG 6apeq ' .[k �yi4•« [ 1ir Ii,-1�•� !! ..- J �..;. �e,`-.�:�! ,t� w a ;.:•`. _e"�,1 �� 1.I ,y } i ': a F1i1 IL a d 1 1 ©1 !,WON, Mao � 1p s Via, a •x/r` _ • �•ORl'LCYFIG - - foupunog loofoid ' N Z CD � � o �°) C o ag00 CD, a c ' ca U a a, Z ELu, CLW oW _ LU w > CL a� 0 0 a N Z CD � � o �°) C o ag00 CD, a c ' ca U a a, Z ELu, CLW oW _ LU w > CL a� 0 0 a Q` R V LIJ L •L > > w H � O _ i o> t C E O N d m (09 N o :n U CO v m U m v O >+ L d > O {6 o z O _ s so N y ' L a d U • C m a y d NC Q 0 a` Q d Q N w Z �' Q 4) m 0._ Vi y O w Q J o Gf d E Z C CL U) a O c N U L a Q` LIJ ® > W O z _ N U L2_ C:) ct Y O N m O y N N () a -� ui d m N 3 T N m m e m 0 a v n ai m -o a 3 v m h a a E m y m n N w 0 m E E m E y w e N .� 2 m m a c vi d C n L �_ .` E y H N m 0 cOi m o `o ' c c T a o �' E ami > E o o n VI cE T m E c o m aEi c E O. UC C) U U O m N E m y m O C N (6 O C tll T Q p O D U m N O 'O m 0 r cc N om c � 3 m h y o m Q d aci c O dJm '` O N d N E p �° .Q � O_ h o vco '� '' `° t .� m 6 y O m- m E a0i 'G m h n c U m d ` `00 2N a Dv c co d -N E m o c am O_ .'§ oad E_ m `g n` (6 O O o cm w n i Eo OT p m w U a CU N N 10 M IL CL m E na v m .gym.. m aZ53 c Z c m d E 2 m n a ..m. 6a Ewi o in 0 x 2 m ocn a 2 j N l`O Q d O m y> j O) () c y `o, .o E E V E E voi c m n o d - O O - Y O c@ U -a N 3 3 CO m oamw m+ ayi omm c mi ".Namx-i O O' 0omm 0 m0 E O m m 0m0 mm m oEE 0 JCNN ai.m"' a L ao , -o (Ii y` ob E Eto m 2 u n k 'anuQdapep 4 E �4! „ i,,. 1 Itl 1 i _ 0 If a �'�� ane . ,,. s• t/ fi b r A Z o N 0 N N p� > O Q a O° = o � a cn O L LL c z w cn �w cv LU LU a� E CL O a� m Q 0 a (B0 Z �Q Q• � U W co m C C6 L -, � O o C > N e .t Z a W f +E Q 1 L T O o m ryw�y C C U Eli a cf� c c C N C O w � N w O m d m O L � � S � C � C CD O O M C C M (6 C6 CL N N E U l6 0 0 r Y N O O m E m E O O C m m (] C C H H N Y 0 J � (B0 Z �Q Q• � U CK? co m C6 Ji LL - �4� � L ig { a, . W� R / o _c y (Q L R L1 Q R a Q �+ CN a0 � r --M M m t0 V co O C � m 0 0 0 0 0 � m C CNm C H •� Y L R ❑. 0 (L) -0 R O Q O L, O V O) C' O C.0 (,o -10 R `� O O C O O w � � R C 7 O y Q S v N M N O N f— -4- -4' � R Q Jj 3 C r- M V to CO J R MWE Q� C I T Y 0 F 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. • ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 . (763) 755-5100 FAX (763) 755-8923 • WWW.AN DOVE RMN.GOV TO: Planning and Zoning Commissioners FROM: Joe Janish, Community Development Director SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING: Preliminary Plat — Meadows at Petersen Farms — JD Andover Holdings LLC DATE: August 25, 2020 INTRODUCTION The Planning and Zoning Commission is asked to review a Preliminary Plat for The Meadows at Petersen Farms. Conformance with Local Plans and Ordinances 1. The property is not located in the Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA). 2. Pending tonight's action; the Planning Commission considered a Planned Unit Development (PUD) for this property as well prior to this agenda item. Street Access Public street access to The Meadows at Petersen Farms would be provided from 165`^ Ave NW. Future access could be available with the connection of Navajo Street to Inca Street — but there are no plans at this time for that connection. Additional access is expected to occur as future development occurs within the area. When future phases develop, two additional connections to 71 Avenue (a.k.a Roanoke St.) would occur. The PUD allows the roadways to be 27 feet of pavement and 18 inch ribbon curb on each side of the roadway, for a total street width of 30 feet. The two cul de sac exceeds the 500 foot maximum requirement; however as part of the previous agenda item, it may have been approved. The access point at Inca St. and 165' Avenue allows for a 4 way intersection which has been proven in transportation studies to be much safer vs. offset intersections. This location also provides better site lines and reaction time as the intersections are approximately 750 feet from 7' Avenue. In the future Guarani Street has the ability to continue to the south to serve that particular property. If it were to connect to 165`s Ave NW the County would have to approve of the access spacing. However, there are no proposed developments for this property to provide the connection to 165' Ave NW. Jivaro Street/Inca Street During discussions of past approvals the City Council directed the developer and two residences to the north to discuss access from any re -alignment of the roadway. One of the residences has provided a letter for the Planning and Zoning Commission to review and provides a timeframe of events that they have compiled. The resident asks the Commission to specifically have time to review this information prior to our meeting. Since receiving direction from the City Council, it is staff's understanding that several meetings have occurred between the two parties. It is also staff's understanding at the time of writing this agenda item that an agreement has not yet been achieved. It is expected that both parties will want to have time to discuss this matter in greater detail at the meeting. Anoka County Highway Department (ACHD) Anoka County Highway Department is in process of reviewing the improvements for the development that will be located within the County right of way. Sewer and Water Access City Water and Sewer are not expected to serve the area as the property is located a significant distance from the MUSA. Each individual property will be serviced by private septic systems and private wells. Lower Rum River Watershed Management Organization (LRRWMO) The City of Andover continues to have correspondence with the LRRWMO and the applicant has submitted their permit(s). Coordination with other Agencies The developer and/or owner are responsible to obtain all necessary permits (Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, U.S. Army Corp of Engineers, LRRWMO, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, LGU and any other agency that may have an interest in the site). Initial contact shall be made with the City Engineering Department regarding this item. Tree Preservation/Landscaping As part of the preliminary plat the applicant has provided a tree preservation plan. As part of the PUD the applicant(s) for homes will be required to provide a tree preservation plan for each lot as the building permits are being requested. The applicant has also provided a requirement for each lot to meet a set standard for landscaping requirements noting three trees from a list will need to be planted with the exception of some wooded lots. Trees are impacted as part of the development. One area where many trees are impacted is due to the Inca Street alignment at the south. This alignment is more favorable from a transportation planning aspect as it will create a 4 way intersection vs. offset intersection. This location also provides better site lines and reaction time as the intersections are approximately 750 feet from 7' Avenue. Park and Recreation Commission Recommendation The Park and Recreation Commission reviewed the preliminary plat on August 20, 2020. The developer is proposing to construct a trail in the location of the former East/West roadway between Phase 1 and Phase 2. Lots Each of the 46 lots meet the minimum lot width, depth and area requirements of the PUD. The previous agenda item would have addressed lots with floodplain challenges. Minimum lot size requirements are as follows: Lot size: 1.5 acre Lot width: 100 feet Lot depth: 150 feet ACTION REQUESTED The Planning and Zoning Commission is asked to hold a public hearing related to the preliminary plat and to make a recommendation to the City Council. Attachments Resolution of Approval . 4 Resolution of Denial 7 Location Map .10 Planning Comments, dated August 12, 2020 .11 Engineer Comments, dated August 12, 2020 .13 Resident letter and information related to access to the North .19 Preliminary Plat Set .57 Re fullytied Joe Janish Community Development Director 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 155`h Lane NW, Andover, MN 55304 CITY OF ANDOVER COUNTY OF ANOKA STATE OF MINNESOTA RES. NO XXX A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY PLAT OF "Meadows at Petersen Farms" FOR PROPERTY LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS; For the purposes of these descriptions, the east line of the Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 7, Township 32, Range 24, is assumed to bear South 01 degree 06 minutes 09 seconds East. The Northwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 7, Township 32, Range 24, Anoka County, Minnesota. And That part of Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 7, Township 32, Range 24, Anoka County, Minnesota, described as follows: Beginning at the Southwest corner of said Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter; thence North 89 degrees 58 minutes 14 seconds East, along the South line of said Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter, a distance of 355.14 feet; thence North 19 degrees 10 minutes 32 seconds West a distance of 296.98 feet; thence North 25 degrees 50 minutes 00 seconds West a distance of 620.12 feet to the West line of said Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter; thence southerly along the West line of said Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter to the Point of Beginning. And That part of Northeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 7, Township 32, Range 24, Anoka County, Minnesota, described as follows: Beginning at the Northwest corner of said Northeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter; thence North 89 degrees 58 minutes 14 seconds East, along the North line of said Northeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter, a distance of 355.14 feet; thence South 19 degrees 10 minutes 32 seconds East a distance of 291.56 feet; thence South 13 degrees 10 minutes 07 seconds East a distance of 543.89 feet; thence South 0l degrees 05 minutes 52 seconds East a distance of 40.97 feet; thence South 66 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds East a distance of 95.45 feet; thence easterly a distance of 317.52 feet along a tangential curve concave to the North, having a radius of 725.00 feet, and a central angle of 25 degrees 05 minutes 35 seconds; thence North 88 degrees 54 minutes 25 seconds East tangent to the last described curve a distance of 226.12 feet; thence South 01 degrees 05 minutes 35 seconds East a distance of 50.00 feet; thence South 88 degrees 54 minutes 25 seconds West a distance of 226.12 feet; thence westerly a distance of 339.42 feet along a tangential curve concave to the North, having a radius of 775.00 feet, and a central angle of 25 degrees 05 minutes 35 seconds; thence North 66 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds West tangent to the last described curve a distance of 72.03 feet; thence South 01 degrees 05 minutes 52 seconds East a distance of 404.73 feet to the South line of said Northeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter; thence westerly along said South line to the Southwest corner of said Northeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter; thence northerly along the West line of said Northeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter to the Point of Beginning. And 0 That part of the Southwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 7, Township 32, Range 24, Anoka County, Minnesota, lying West of the East 701.69 feet thereof; And That part of the Northeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 7, Township 32, Range 24, Anoka County, Minnesota, described as follows; Beginning at the southeast corner of said Northeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter; thence South 89 degrees 52 minutes 15 seconds West, along the south line of said Northeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter, a distance of 563.74 feet; thence North 02 degrees 09 minutes 06 seconds West a distance of 366.16 feet; thence North 42 degrees 15 minutes 47 seconds West a distance of 150.67 feet; thence North 50 degrees 50 minutes 49 seconds West a distance of 239.20 feet; thence North 27 degrees 50 minutes 36 seconds East a distance of 574.09 feet; thence South 79 degrees 45 minutes 31 seconds East a distance of 167.87 feet; thence South 62 degrees 37 minutes 08 seconds East a distance of 474.51 feet to the east line of said Northeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter; thence South 00 degrees 37 minutes 23 seconds East, along said east line of said Northeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter, a distance of 886.77 feet to the Point of Beginning. And That part of the Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of said Section 7, lying northerly, easterly and northeasterly of a line described as follows: Commencing at the southeast comer of said Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter; thence North 00 degrees 37 minutes 23 seconds West, along the East line of said Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter, a distance of 493.90 feet to the Point of Beginning; thence northwesterly a distance of 250.89 feet along a non- tangential curve concave to the North having a radius of 455.00 feet, a central angle of 31 degrees 35 minutes 38 seconds, a chord length of 247.73 feet and a chord bearing of North 80 degrees 06 minutes 33 seconds; thence North 00 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds East a distance of 513.77 feet; thence North 51 degrees 54 minutes 00 seconds West a distance of 417.52 feet to a point on the North line of said Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter, distant 563.74 feet west of the northeast corner thereof and there terminating. And That part of 168th Avenue N.W. as dedicated on the plat of PRESERVE AT PETERSEN FARMS that lies westerly of the southerly extension of the easterly line of Lot 14, Block 2, of said PRESERVE AT PETERSEN FARMS. WHEREAS, Landform on behalf of JD Andover Holdings has requested approval of a preliminary plat for Meadows at Petersen Farms; and WHEREAS, the Andover Review Committee has reviewed the preliminary plat; and WHEREAS, pursuant to published and mailed notice thereof, the Planning Commission has conducted a public hearing on said plat; and WHEREAS, as a result of such public hearing, the Planning Commission recommends approval of the preliminary plat to the City Council; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Andover hereby agrees with the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approves the Preliminary Plat of Meadows at Petersen Farms with the following conditions: 1. City of Andover staff comments dated August 12, 2020, Lower Rum River Watershed Management Organization comments, and Anoka County Highway Department comments shall be satisfactorily addressed prior to any grading of the site. The Andover Engineering Department will determine when all items have been addressed. 2. The applicant shall be responsible for the cost of construction of all improvements proposed as a part of the preliminary plat. 3. One building permit may be issued for the proposed platted area, however no additional building permits will be issued until the final plat has been recorded with Anoka County. Prior to final plat recording at Anoka County, a development agreement acceptable to the City Attorney must be executed by the Developer. 4. Temporary cul-de-sac easement(s) shall be provided. Separate documents shall be required for each temporary cul-de-sac easement on each lot, to be recorded with the final plat. 5. Vehicle Maintenance Access (VMA) Easements shall be provided. Separate documents shall be required for each VMA on each lot, to be recorded with the final plat. 6. Such plat approval is contingent upon the requested Planned Unit Development Amendment. 7. Prior to final plat recording at Anoka County, a development agreement acceptable to the City Attorney must be executed by the Developer. 8. Turn lane improvements shall be constructed as approved by Anoka County Highway Department to address current and future safety concerns. 9. Vacation of Javiro Street right of way shall occur at time of final plat. 10. Vacation of that portion of 168" Ave NW shall occur with the appropriate Final Plat. 11. The Developer shall maintain all utility service to the two properties to the North while the development is under construction. 12. Developer shall provide appropriate and reasonable access for homeowners residing at 16927 Jivaro St NW and 16932 Jivaro St NW and emergency vehicle access to said address during construction of the proposed development. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Andover this day of , 2020. CITY OF ANDOVER ATTEST: Michelle Harmer, City Clerk Julie Trude, Mayor CITY OF ANDOVER COUNTY OF ANOKA STATE OF MINNESOTA RES. NO XXX A RESOLUTION DENYING THE PRELIMINARY PLAT OF "Meadows at Petersen Farms" FOR PROPERTY LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS; For the purposes of these descriptions, the east line of the Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 7, Township 32, Range 24, is assumed to bear South 01 degree 06 minutes 09 seconds East. The Northwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 7, Township 32, Range 24, Anoka County, Minnesota. And That part of Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 7, Township 32, Range 24, Anoka County, Minnesota, described as follows: Beginning at the Southwest corner of said Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter; thence North 89 degrees 58 minutes 14 seconds East, along the South line of said Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter, a distance of 355.14 feet; thence North 19 degrees 10 minutes 32 seconds West a distance of 296.98 feet; thence North 25 degrees 50 minutes 00 seconds West a distance of 620.12 feet to the West line of said Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter; thence southerly along the West line of said Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter to the Point of Beginning. That part of Northeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 7, Township 32, Range 24, Anoka County, Minnesota, described as follows: Beginning at the Northwest corner of said Northeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter; thence North 89 degrees 58 minutes 14 seconds East, along the North line of said Northeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter, a distance of 355.14 feet; thence South 19 degrees 10 minutes 32 seconds East a distance of 291.56 feet; thence South 13 degrees 10 minutes 07 seconds East a distance of 543.89 feet; thence South 01 degrees 05 minutes 52 seconds East a distance of 40.97 feet; thence South 66 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds East a distance of 95.45 feet; thence easterly a distance of 317.52 feet along a tangential curve concave to the North, having a radius of 725.00 feet, and a central angle of 25 degrees 05 minutes 35 seconds; thence North 88 degrees 54 minutes 25 seconds East tangent to the last described curve a distance of 226.12 feet; thence South 01 degrees 05 minutes 35 seconds East a distance of 50.00 feet; thence South 88 degrees 54 minutes 25 seconds West a distance of 226.12 feet; thence westerly a distance of 339.42 feet along a tangential curve concave to the North, having a radius of 775.00 feet, and a central angle of 25 degrees 05 minutes 35 seconds; thence North 66 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds West tangent to the last described curve a distance of 72.03 feet; thence South 01 degrees 05 minutes 52 seconds East a distance of 404.73 feet to the South line of said Northeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter; thence westerly along said South line to the Southwest corner of said Northeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter; thence northerly along the West line of said Northeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter to the Point of Beginning. UK That part of the Southwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 7, Township 32, Range 24, Anoka County, Minnesota, lying West of the East 701.69 feet thereof; And That part of the Northeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 7, Township 32, Range 24, Anoka County, Minnesota, described as follows; Beginning at the southeast corner of said Northeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter; thence South 89 degrees 52 minutes 15 seconds West, along the south line of said Northeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter, a distance of 563.74 feet; thence North 02 degrees 09 minutes 06 seconds West a distance of 366.16 feet; thence North 42 degrees 15 minutes 47 seconds West a distance of 150.67 feet; thence North 50 degrees 50 minutes 49 seconds West a distance of 239.20 feet; thence North 27 degrees 50 minutes 36 seconds East a distance of 574.09 feet; thence South 79 degrees 45 minutes 31 seconds East a distance of 167.87 feet; thence South 62 degrees 37 minutes 08 seconds East a distance of 474.51 feet to the east line of said Northeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter; thence South 00 degrees 37 minutes 23 seconds East, along said east line of said Northeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter, a distance of 886.77 feet to the Point of Beginning. And That part of the Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of said Section 7, lying northerly, easterly and northeasterly of a line described as follows: Commencing at the southeast comer of said Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter; thence North 00 degrees 37 minutes 23 seconds West, along the East line of said Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter, a distance of 493.90 feet to the Point of Beginning; thence northwesterly a distance of 250.89 feet along a non- tangential curve concave to the North having a radius of 455.00 feet, a central angle of 31 degrees 35 minutes 38 seconds, a chord length of 247.73 feet and a chord bearing of North 80 degrees 06 minutes 33 seconds; thence North 00 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds East a distance of 513.77 feet; thence North 51 degrees 54 minutes 00 seconds West a distance of 417.52 feet to a point on the North line of said Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter, distant 563.74 feet west of the northeast corner thereof and there terminating. And That part of 168th Avenue N.W. as dedicated on the plat of PRESERVE AT PETERSEN FARMS that lies westerly of the southerly extension of the easterly line of Lot 14, Block 2, of said PRESERVE AT PETERSEN FARMS. WHEREAS, Landform on behalf of JD Andover Holdings has requested approval of a preliminary plat for Meadows at Petersen Farms; and WHEREAS, the Andover Review Committee has reviewed the preliminary plat; and WHEREAS, pursuant to published and mailed notice thereof, the Planning Commission has conducted a public hearing on said plat; and WHEREAS, as a result of such public hearing, the Planning Commission recommends denial of the preliminary plat to the City Council; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Andover hereby agrees with the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and denies the Preliminary Plat of Meadows at Petersen Farms due to the following reasons: 1. 2. 3. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Andover this day of , 2020. CITY OF ANDOVER ATTEST: Michelle Harmer, City Clerk Julie Trude, Mayor LOCATION MAP 1 • Best attempt to ' hand" mark the location of the proposed preliminary plat area. 1121 10 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. • ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 • (763) 755-5100 FAX (763) 755-8923 • WWW.ANDOVERMN.GOV MEMORANDUM TO: Darren Lazan, LANDFORM President FROM: Joe Janish, Community Development Director DATE: August 12, 2020 REFERENCE: Meadows at Petersen Farms Pre -Plat Review, PUD Amendment, Lot Line Adjustment REVIEW 2 The following comments pertain to the plans stamped August 9, 2020 Comments still needing to be addressed: 104. Are the two property owners to the North in agreement on access as shown on the proposed plat? This was a requirement discussed with City Council. 194. --Show the" „allR140 Ae�l sxd :r Must recons Narrative Comments: SXTz Na-�. AaA,%Ied P cut Review 2 Comments: 208. Sheet C2.2 Lots It through 16 Block 3 show drainfields in the the "back to back" area. It is my understanding that the "back to back" will be contained within a utility easement. Drainfields cannot be located within the drainage and utility easements, the drainfield locations need to be adjusted. -2-89- Sheet C3.1 Lot 2 Block one show drainfields in the drainage and utility easement. 219. Sheet C3.2, Lots 14, 15, 16 Block 3 show drainfields in the the "back to back" area. It is my understanding that the "back to back" will be contained within a utility easement. Drainfields cannot be located within the drainage and utility easements, the drainfield locations need to be adjusted. id i. Sheet C3.3 Lots 11, 12,13 Block 3 show drainfields in the the "back to back" area. It is my understanding that the "back to back" will be contained within a utility easement. Drainfields cannot be located within the drainage and utility easements, the drainfield locations need to be adjusted. 212. Sheet C3.5 Elevation of Guarani Street NW appears to be higher than a berm recently put in place by a property owner to the south. The street elevation should be lowered as it will create several issues for future development on this parcel. The property 1 12 owner to the south specifically constructed the berm to not have to look at the homes and now as part of the development the roadway is at the same height as the berm. Perhaps look out or full basement lots would be more suitable in this area to allow for lowering the street. This would also require less fill to be hauled to the custom graded lots in this area with a lower elevation for the roadway.-Ukvlber' r7E a rwrr Rc-c 7 5a 4lrr14L 217. DNR will need to review the development, due to PUD request within Shoreland. A brief discussion was held with DNR and Planning staff but additional discussions need to occur. _ OME 10r I QNK -24-8- Verify consistent naming on supplements for the proposed development. Currently the Preliminary Plat and PUD amendments are referring to Meadows at Petersen Farms and Petersen Farms Phase 2. This naming should be consistent. zN nnrr &Ceti, %ae�'%TA- -2k9. Sheet C.02 Block 2 Lots 4 and 3, sideyard property line should center over trail. - 'V01 r 9 J 3/'� !'r4l ADDITIONAL COMMENTS PENDING FURTHER/ADDITIONAL REVIEW BE SURE TO OBTAIN SUBMIT TO OTHER AGENCIES AS REVIEWS AND COMMENTS CAN IMPACT TIMELINES Note: It is a requirement that the Developer respond to each of these items in writing (pet digital cony 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 city staff. N 12, 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W.. ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 • (763) 755-5100 FAX (763) 755-8923 • WWW.ANDOVERMN.GOV MEMORANDUM TO: Joe Janish, Community Development Director FROM: David Berkowitz, Director of Public Works/City Engineer Jason Law, Assistant City Engineer DATE: August 12, 2020 REFERENCE: Meadows at Petersen Farms / Grading, Drainage & Erosion Control Plan/Review #2 13 The following comments have vet to be completed regarding Review #1: 1. Need to obtain the necessary permits from the DNR, US Army Corps of Engineers, LRRWMO, MPCA, Anoka County Highway Department, and any other agency that that is interested in the site. Pending. 4. Need to provide a secondary roadway connection to the Preserve at Petersen Farm (1' Addition). Pending. Developer is pursuing option to acquire property south of II Addition currently vacant and may be heading to foreclosure. Approval of thisprefiminaryplat should be contingent on securing a second access to the Preserve at Peterson Farms as identified on the original PUD. 5. Geotechnical Report: The Geotechnical Report needs to identify the Highest Anticipated Water Level for each boring location / lot in the development. This is used to verify proposed low floor elevations are at least 3' above the Highest Anticipated Water Level per City Code. Include boring information for Logs 14-18, completed with la addition per map. Pending. Geotechnical engineer provided HA WL information, but it needs to be clarified LNWL given as "east/southMnorth "portions of 21Addition. Where is the break line between those distinctions? Need clarification on HAWL for each boring completed to verb low floors meet 3'separadon requirement Geotech addendum I dated 8/11/20 was submitted during this review. Braun is working on additional clarification to HAWL's and remedies for perched water tables. 7. Additional soil borings are required to adequately review and comment on the viability of the PUD application and future roadway locations and access locations to County Roads. The main access to 7th Avenue at 170th Avenue cuts directly through a large wetland complex, with no soil boring information provided. Without additional information provided, there is the potential for this phase to end up as a long dead-end connection similar to Preserve at Petersen Farms. Geotech addendum I dated 8/11/20 was submitted during this review. Braun is preparing additional recommendation for subcut in areas where clay identified 8. Show soil boring locations on all relevant plan sheets, Removals, Site, Grading, Storm, Streets, etc. Pending. Comment keptfor tracking purposes. Show location of borings referenced in comments 5 and 7 above. 71. Sheet C3.3: Look at revising grading for Lots 9 and 10 so lot 9 only flows south, then the D&UE cutting across Lot 10 will not be needed. Not done. Review #2 submittal said "Plans Revised", nothing was changed Plans marked up to eliminate wall, cross drainage and need for D& UE on lot 10. 75. Sheet C3.4: What is proposed for access for the two existing property owners north of the plat? Pending. No resolution yet to access issue. 108. Need to provide separate long-term maintenance agreements that will be recorded with each property for the infiltration basin/rain garden maintenance. A sample agreement is available from the City if needed. Pending. Comment kept for tracking purposes. The following comments have vet to be completed regarding Review #lA: 203. Sheet C0.2 and all relevant sheets: The trail alignment to the east to I" Addition is outside of the plat boundaries. Provide recordable 20' wide trail easement documents over 151 Addition trail alignment, or 13 N revise trail alignment so it is within the plat boundaries. Revising the trail alignment does not appear feasible as it would cut through standing water in the wetland. Pending. 213. Sheet C3.0. In the Lot Tabulation, there are multiple lots where the HAWL listed is below the ground water levels measured in the borings. This may or may not be due to a perched condition. If it is, remedies need to be designed and included in the plans to correct this. For example, around the north Guarani St cul de sac, HAWL is listed as 868, but there are two borings that show measured ground water at 880.5 and 873.5. HAWL cannot be between 5.5-12.5 below measured ground water. Another example, low floors for lots in Block 3 around the Inca/ 168"' intersection are below measured ground water level. Similar comment in other areas within the plat. Engineer acknowledged comment. Solution to perched water tables needs to be identified in plans and lot tabulations updated Idents areas in grading plans where perched water tables need to be addressed, it appears to be mainly around Soil Boring 24. 215. Sheet C3.0: Update Flood elevations in lot tabulation per revised hydrology model. Verify that lot tabulation is consistent with plans. Further review of lot tabulation will be completed in subsequent reviews to confirm that it is consistent with plans and design. Engineer acknowledged Carry through review 2 revisions in table. Table will be further reviewed in future reviews for consistency with plans and to verify low floor elevations meet 2' above HWL and 3' above HAWL. Column headers and order are inconsistent between the two tables. Update with Braun revised HAWL addendum to be provided. 217. Sheet C3.1: Ponds 34,37 and 39 are all within Anoka County right of way. They do not allow any ponding within the ROW, these basins will need to be adjusted accordingly. High water level for Pond 34 is still in the ROW. See comments on sheet C3.1 and under Review #2 comments regarding potentially eliminating southern cell of Pond 34. 224. Sheets C3.1 - C3.9: Clearly label / hatch all Vehicle Maintenance Accesses. Hatch vehicle maintenance accesses and add label to legend. Hatch important far reviewing future requests for fences, sheds, etc. 225. Sheet C3.1 -C3.9: With all the hatch patterns on this sheet, consider moving erosion control items (Fiber blanket, enkamat) to the Landscaping Plans. Response comments stated "acknowledged" but not done. It's very difficult to idents lines under multiple hatches. Movefiber blanket to sheets L2.1 to L2.4. 229. Sheets C3.2 and C3.3: Drain fields need to be removed from floodplain and D&UE for Lots 12-16, Block 3. Response said "acknowledged" but not done. 231. Sheet C3.2: Provide a 20' VMA, 10:1 max slopes, to the skimming structure for Basin 122 on Lot 16, Block 3. Response said "acknowledged" but not done. Alternate alignment (instead of along Lot 16, Block 3) could be along south sides of Lots 17 and 18, Block 3. 232. Sheet C3.2: Label Wetlands Sand 4 acid Pard 3 NWL and HWL. Wetland 4 not labeled 242. Sheet C3.5 and C6.5: Revise grading of south Guarani Street cul de sac. The depth of fill proposed creates a potential hardship for future development to the south. Proposed grades should be closer to existing grade (excluding berm). Minimizing grading also more in line with LID concept. House styles may have to change as the desire for walkout lots is not a valid reason to create hardship for future development of adjacent parcel. Not done. Alternate future profile to south provided, however, does not meet vertical curve design speeds. Lower Guarani profile several feet so street and cul de sac is below berm to south, allowing berm to block headlights, and resulting in future alignment closer to existing grade. Driveway grades on Guarani can be increased, or add steps to houses, to maintain walkout lots if desired. 247. Sheet C3.6: Will 166' Avenue be graded to the extent shown on this plan? If not, clearly define grading limits for this plat. Response said "acknowledged" but not done. Clearly identify grading limits. 266. Sheet C6.8 and C6.9: Make sure VMA is contained within the 20' wide VMA / D&UE. Label 20' -wide. Response said "acknowledged" but not done. Revise VAL4 location so it's within the D& UE, or, expand the D& UE to include the PMA. 269. Sheet C6.10 and C6.11: Submit to ACHD for review. Complete any comments they have. Provide copy to City of ACHD comments or approval of design. Comment acknowledged. Kept for tracking purposes. 270. Sheet C6.11: Label taper and turn lane widths. Not done. 273. Sheet L2.1: Show seeding and restoration of existing farm road on east side and Jivaro Street. Response said "acknowledged" but not done. 2 Iq 15 The following comments are regarding Review #2: 201. General note: make sure all elevations match with revised hydrology report from Review #2. 202. Proposed grading outside of plat boundaries requires a right of entry from the property owner. 203. Sheet C0.2 and all applicable sheets: Revise easterly lot line between lots 3 and 4, Block 2 so it's centered on the trail and a portion of Lot 3 is not north of the trail. 204. Sheet C0.2 and C0.3: Area Summary and Area Summary Tabulation aren't consistent. Remove the word "FEMA" from the tabulation. Update areas based upon Review #2 comments. 205. Sheet C0.2 and C0.3: Update drainage and utility easements per review comments. 206. Sheet C1.2: Correct overlapping text along 165`" Avenue. 207. Sheet C3.1: Move Legend to right side of page so it doesn't cover up existing basin information. 208. Sheet C3.1: Label EOF and elevation 885.25 across existing Jivaro alignment for Pond 183. 209. Sheet C3.1: Low area in northeast corner of 165'h/Jivaro is landlocked. Try to ditch out to the east towards Inca Street. Otherwise, it needs to be modeled (like last submittal, but can't pond in right of way). Look at moving culvert under Inca just north of 165" so it flows north on west side of Inca into Basin 38 with a driveway culvert for Lot 2, Block 4. It appears the southerly cell of Basin 34 could be eliminated (infiltration requirements are exceeded on-site), then trees could be saved in this area. 210. Sheet C3.1: Set the EOF for Pond 34 at the HWL. 211. Sheet C3.1: Label Ponds 41, 42 and 44 south of 165`" Avenue. 212. Sheet C3.1: Label "Ultimate EOF to South" for Pond 36 with flow arrows so it's clear ultimate drainage is across 1651" via the existing culvert. 213. Sheet C3.1: Revise HWL line and D&UE on east side of Lot 1, Block 1 so it's at HWL for Pond 36. Revise upland area table accordingly. 214. Sheet C3.1: Silt fence and drain field lines don't line up on Lot 1, Block 1. 215. Sheet C3.1: On north side of Lot 1, Block 1, there is a low area that is blocked that needs to head up and flow over the VMA. This will leave this area and the VMA saturated. Move culvert under the VMA further east so this area drains directly into Pond 32. Maintain at least V of cover on the culvert. The berm along the east side of Inca south of the VMA should be removed and allow runoff to flow directly into this low area. 216. Sheet C3.1 and C3.2: Hatch / Identify area of perched water per Braun report around Boring 24, and add note "Approximate boundary of perched water table. Correct with mass grading." This will need to be remedied during the mass grading of the site. 217. Sheet C3.1: Set the overland EOF for Pond 32 at the HWL. 218. Sheet C3.1 -C3.6: In legend behind "Floodplain A / B" add "100 -Year" to A and `B -B 100 Year" to B. 219. Sheet C3.1: Move the drain fields from Lot 2, Block 1 out of the D&UE. 220. Sheet C3.1: Label the NWL for Basin 181 as this no longer is an infiltration basin. 221. Sheet C3.2: Label the OWHL, HWL, and B -B HWL for Wetland 4. 222. Sheet C3.2: Add spot elevations to west side of Basin 122 at 883.75 to force EOF to the south away from drainfield and yard area. 223. Sheet C3.2: Show an OCS symbol at outlet for Pond 122. Revise contours at OCS so they wrap into the OCS outlet elevation. 224. Sheet C3.2: Add the floodplain mitigation areas on Lots 15, 16 and 17 into the D&UE. 225. Sheet C3.2: Add Enkamat to EOF for Basin 12. 226. Sheet C3.2: Adjust D&UE on rear of Lot 5 to minimize the D&UE on west side of Pond 32. 227. Sheet C3.3: Remove the floodplain impact area on Lots 12 and 13, Block 3 from the D&UE. 228. Sheet C3.3: For wetland 3 label, add "100 Year" and `B -B 100 Year" to water elevations. 229. Sheet C3.3: The location for Soil Boring 20 in the plans is west of 167"Avenue, but in the map from Braun it is west of 167`" Avenue. Verify which is correct and revise accordingly. 3 157 Cp 230. Sheet C3.3: Revise contours for Lot 10, Block 3 as marked up. This will eliminate need for retaining wall, and eliminate cross drainage from Lot 9 which would require a D&UE on Lot 10. 231. Sheet C3.3: Revise silt fence line so it matches drain field for Lots 1 and 2, Block 3. 232. Sheet C3.4 & 3.5: See markups on Sheet C3.5. Look at combining Basin 115 and Basin 11, eliminating berm between them. Add flared end outlet from combined ponds into OCS. This will provide an EOF for this low area, and by revising contour lines, increase useable yard area for Lot 11, Block 2. Need to provide a D&UE around the HWL for this basin, none is shown around Basin 11. 233. Sheet C3.4: Revise bottom elevation of Basin 163 in label to match rim elevation of 896.64. 234. Sheet C3.4: Areas on north side of Basin 52 could be removed from D&UE if more closely aligned to HWL of basin. Similar comment for rear of Lot 7, Block 2. Revise upland area table accordingly. 235. Sheet C3.4: Revise IE into Basin 52 to 890. See subsequent comments for storm sewer. 236. Sheet C3.5: Per discussion with developers, lot pads on east side of Guarani Street south of 168th Avenue should be graded with mass grading. Change contours from dashed to solid. 237. Sheet C3.5: Adjust D&UE so it covers the drainage swale on rear of Lot 8, Block 1. Also make sure VMA is within the D&UE. Revise upland area table accordingly. 238. Sheet C3.5: There's an extra contour line in southwest quadrant of 168th/Guarani that should be deleted. Review ditch bottom spot elevations in same area, they appear to be off. 239. Sheet C3.5: D&UE could be minimized by getting closer to the HWL on Lots 1, 3 and 4, Block 2. Revise upland area table accordingly. 240. Sheets C3.7 -C3.9: Carry comments through from other sheets to these details. 241. Sheet C4.0: Revise boundary box for Sheet C4.2 so it covers Pond 122 outlet. 242. Sheet C4.0: In Utility Notes, RCP is called out for storm sewer which is fine. Developer asked about using HDPE. City is OK with this as long as a design is in place to prevent floating of pipes into/out of ponds/wetlands/basins. Revise note accordingly and add applicable details if HDPE will be used. 243. Sheet C4.1: Slide FES 1-FES2 east per previous comments. Maintain minimum V of cover over pipe. 244. Sheet C4.1: For FES 800-801, pipe sizes do not match hydrology report. Lower pipe from OCS 38 - FES 801 to 877.25 (and add label to OCS 38 info) to provide extra concrete for pre -casting structure. 245. Sheet C4.1: Move FES 1100-1101 to Lot 2 driveway unless Basin 34 south cell is not removed. 246. Sheet C4.1: OCS 701 may not be buildable with enough room from top of 24" pipe to rim elevation. If that's the case, set rim elevation so structure can be pre -cast and use the overland EOF as the overflow. Revise grade from FES 702-OCS 701 so inlet is at 874 to shallow up structure. Correct pipe sizes and slopes for this run so they match hydrology model. 247. Sheet C4.2: Raise up pipe from CB 901 to FES 900 so CB 901 IE=891.8, and provide a 4' sump for pre-treatment prior to discharge to infiltration basin. Raise FES 900 IE to 890, with 2% grade. 248. Sheet C4.2: Set rim elevation for OCS 141 at the HWL of Basin 141P. 249. Sheet C4.2: Show the OCS for Basin 122P, label RE, IE, and reference detail C7.3/5. 250. Sheet C4.3: OCS 57 has a 6" orifice in the hydrology report. This won't work, as the inlet from Basin 51 also goes through this structure and isn't restricted by the 6" orifice in the model. Need to revise design or model accordingly. If 6" orifice is ultimate design, need to construct in a weir wall. 251. Sheet C4.3: Raise up pipe from STMH 201 to FES 200 by 0.8' to set FES at basin outlet. 252. Sheet C4.3: Add safety aprons to FES 3-4, and 5-6. Lower FES 5-6 slightly if trail grades lower to maintain at least 0.75' cover under woodchip trail. 253. Sheet C4.3: Revise FES 204 to CBMH 203 per pond grading comments. 254. Sheet C6.3: Change "Court" to "Avenue" in Line and Curve table. 255. Sheet C6.7: Revise grade on trail to 8.3% maximum. It's possible this could be paved in the future, at which point ADA compliance is important. Could start coming down right off street to help with grades. Keep trail at base of hill in a fill section to minimize saturation in this area for pedestrian access during wet periods. Show the trail profile up to the connection point to I" Addition. 256. Sheet C6.9: Correct orientation of North arrow. Keep VMA within D&UE. 4 /(0 17 257. Sheet C6.12: Label grade to west so vertical curve length can be verified. 180' seems short for a 35 mph design speed. Show how profile will match existing grade with this phase. 258. Sheet C7.1: For detail 1, delete the sidewalk and lines/notes referencing sidewalk. 259. Sheet C7.3: For Detail 3, make sure all elevations match revised hydrology report. Add structure 1001 to table. If 6" orifice is maintained for OCS 57, use Detail 418E, which shows an orifice in a weir wall within the structure. 260. Sheet C7.3: Will the proposed casting fit for Detail 5? Revise 2' to 3' in note. Is cutting the openings practical, especially for a 6" opening? Can this be pre -cast to avoid contractor cutting openings? 261. Sheet C7.4: Add a detail for wood chip trail, 10' wide chips, 6" minimum depth, 2' clear zone on each side, with 4:1 max slopes on either side of the clear zone. 262. Sheet L2.1: Show topsoil and seeding on existing trail being removed. 263. Additional comments pending further review. The following comments have vet to be completed regarding Review 41 of the Hydrology Report: 5. An O&M agreement shall be provided and recorded for maintenance of ditch checks and infiltration basins/rain gardens. Pending. Kept far tracking. The following comments are regarding Review #2 of the Hydrology Report: 201. In the narrative tables, correct the 2, 10 and 100 year rainfall depths and update runoff rates and volumes due to Review #2 revisions. 202. In the narrative under "High Water Levels" add a paragraph about how Pond 36 was modeled, assuming the starting elevation at the overland EOF on the south side of 165`h Avenue backflowing south through the existing 24" culvert under 165`h Avenue. 203. For the existing and proposed models for Pond 36, need to include an outlet device (weir) for the EOF at 877.7, not just start the model at 877.7. The 24" culvert should be in series flowing to the weir. Without this, the system will "drain" down below the 877.7 elevation through the 24" culvert. This will likely raise the HWL of this basin and upstream in the system. The 165`h overtopping weir can be removed as HWL doesn't approach it, but can stay in model if chosen. Tertiary outflow should be to Pond 32 via OCS 701 (but reverse direction). These comments were reviewed with the LRRWMO engineer, specifically regarding the weir outlet at 877.7 that needs to be added. 204. On the Proposed Conditions Map 2, flow arrows are incorrect for Pond 51 and 57. Update any other flow arrows if routing is revised with Review #2 comments. 205. On the Proposed Conditions Map 4, show the area east of the current view port so the ultimate EOF location can be seen. Update any other flow arrows if routing is revised with Review 42 comments. 206. For Pond 57, how does the 6" orifice get constructed without restricting flow from Pond 51, which has a 15" culvert? 207. For Pond 163, raise up the pipe grades to allow for 4' sump structure. This won't affect HWL. 208. For Pond 12, the starting elevation should be set at the rim elevation of the structure (887.5) which is the outlet. Change 27" diameter to 48" diameter horizontal orifice. 209. For Pond 32, there's a constructability question with rim close to the pipes. Review for buildability. 210. For Pond 32, set the secondary EOF at the HWL. 211. For Pond 32, should tertiary flow (reverse flow) be to Pond 181P? Also, it's listed as 24" x 2, shouldn't this be just one 18"? Tertiary outlet should match Pond 181, but in reverse. 212. Combine Ponds 11 and 115 and eliminate berm between them. Add an FES with a culvert into the OCS structure, then the rim elevation can be the EOF. Should make Lot 11 more useable, provide EOF for Pond 11, and reduce storm sewer pipe needed. See marked up plans for schematic idea. 213. For Pond 181, the 48" orifice should be horizontal. 214. For Pond 201, raise up the pipe by 0.8' (won't affect HWL). 215. For the Infiltration Summary, update Pond 34 volume if south cell is removed per Review 2 5 r7 18 comments. 216. Additional comments pending further review. Note: It is a requirement that the Developer respond to each of these items in writing (pet digital copy from City and type responses below original comment) when re -submitting the revised plat to the City. If you have any questions, feel free to contact David Berkowitz, Director of Public Works/City Engineer at (763) 767-5133 or Jason Law, Assistant City Engineer at (763) 767-5130. E.0 Hope and Jeff Luedtke ' l 16932 Jivaro Street NW Andover, MN 55304 August 19,2020 Dear members of Andover's Planning and Zoning Commission, On the 251h of August we will have the opportunity to share our concerns and history of the access to our home, 16932 Jivaro Street NW. Phase 2 of the Peterson farms is upon us and there has yet to be a solution that has been agreed upon in reference to how our property will be accessed. As phase 2 of Peterson farms was in the planning stages, it was very evident that the developers knew of the access situation and legality attached to Jivaro street being vacated and new access granted to 16932 Jivaro street. Knowing that, the development and lot layout should have been designed at that time to accommodate this need. Instead, plans have been made in spite of this and now it appears as though what you have been presented, is how things need or should be moving forward. Please do not be swayed or pressured until you have all the facts. We would hope that even though our pockets aren't deep, and we don't carry a big name, that we have just as many rights as those that have the money and means to push things through. We've done our best to stay informed, do our part and talk to the appropriate people to assist us in the end result of obtaining legal and rightful access to our home. So much time, money and energy were put forth 25 years ago so we would not find ourselves in this situation. Yet here we are, over 2 years of dialog, meetings, emails, lawyer fees, surveying cost for a Ghost Plat, not to mention the time taken from work and family. Included are various documents that will support our position in seeking the appropriate access to our home. In addition, there are documents, emails and meeting references that demonstrate the efforts that have been made by myself, husband Jeff Luedtke, Darren and Adi McDonald, adjoining neighbors and owners of 16927 Jivaro street, our lawyer, Mark Berglund, the developers, Darren Lazan and Jason Osberg and the city staff of Andover. Our request is that you have some time to review these documents and become familiar with how these events unfolded, and to ensure that you have been well informed. We thank you for your time and service to the city of Andover. Included: • General Overview and History • Documentation of support • Documentation of communication and meetings between city Employees and Landform. • Comments in reference to Phase II of Petersons Farms PDU Again, thank you for reviewing the information, please let us know if you have any questions. Hope and Jeff Luedtke History of Jivaro Street Access We would like to thank the city staff for allowing us to provide history, facts and the truth about Jivaro Street to the commission and council that you won't hear from the developer. Jivaro street has provided the only access to the Luedtke property unofficially for over 80 years and officially for 25 years. In 1993 we approached the city for a building permit on the property and we were told to tear down the old farm house or split the lot into 10- and 30 -acre parcels. We split the 40 into 10- and 30 -acre parcels in 1993. This is contrary to what the developer will tell you. *Document #1 of 3. We were then told by the city that the 10 -acre parcel did not have 300 feet on an approved road by city standards and we could not build. That rejection prompted all of the following action in 1994 and 1995 to make our 10 acre parcel a conforming lot by city standards to attain a building permit to build our existing home. 1. Official survey of Jivaro Street (easement property of Anoka Independent Grain). *Document #2 2. Legal Easement Agreement obtained *Document# 3 3. Transfer of Easement Agreement *Document #4 4. Action by City Council *Document#5 5. Obtained site and approval by city (Don Olson) with the legal road access shown. *Document #6 All of these actions were taken with a great expense of money and time to ensure a legal conforming and transferable lot and house for years into the future at the request of the city in order to receive approval for a building permit. In 2020, a developer comes along and wants to take away, abandon or vacate Jivaro Street and replace it. For the past 25 years Jivaro Street, because of all the actions just listed has had the sole purpose of providing legal access to our property, (the 10 acres). The replacement plan offered by Darren Lazan is a cul-de-sac ending in the middle of a plowed field, land locking the 10 acres, taking away the access to a road, resulting in a non -conforming lot that is now unable to be sold. Regardless of working with the city and doing what was asked of us, in 1994 and 1995, we find ourselves in this unfortunate position. The developer suggests we either purchase land from or obtain an easement from the property owners of the adjacent 30 acres. The 30 acres were sold to Adi and Darren McDonald in 2016. The developers' claim is that their legal obligation to provide access to the original 40 acres. However, in reviewing all documentation it is clear that the intent of the easement agreement in 1995 was to provide access to the Luedtke property and driveway, (10 acers). *Document#3 We believe that the developers are aware that this is their legal responsibility because recently a possible solution, providing part of the easement on the Peterson Farms property was presented to us*Document V. This thought process is headed in the right direction, but still is not acceptable. In summary we feel that our neighbors should not be forced to sell land or grant easement for the purpose of access to our property that we fought for with time, money and actions by the city over 25 years ago. If Darren Lazan is allowed to vacate Jivaro street, he needs to be held responsible as to how the agreement states in *Document #3, "an alternate public roadway easement equal to or better than"— the easement granted to the Luedtke's by Anoka over the easement property, (Petersons Farm property). Thank you for taking the time to review the other side of this argument. This property has been in the family for over 85 years and hopefully many more years into the future. Jeff and Hope Luedtke r uj Y � • I•s �•I y�� r; !, jj Certificate of Survey M EMA F Iml LL L j Lij M CY N �N N PLLI t � � Z p M 0O N O N F- O � � W \ tm _ 4 0� lyj i c U v O Z Z J OOO w CY N �N N PLLI t N co Z 0(0 _\ W 0: 0O N n = M < a F- O � � W o OZZ °> 0� lyj i c U v O Z Z J OOO r U ~ o > (f) Y NO > to0Q 1 3 T HY-LAND `-1URVEYING LAND SURVEYORS 7845 Brooklyn Blvd. Brooklyn Park, Minnesota 55445 JEFF LUEDTKE i II� NZ7e9ooa„� N 8s s 7;7e o Q s E 8'54 ico L' 210.35 34,(. 11 � F� pro%imwte N� I J o� I8� W ice m LU drive o_ f � N N N � Z as �o I O _ CP v , �k- 0 -- ProPose� � d o 66 Wide t 1 — � eendwwJ Eas eln en-� O I uJ d\ o N o ,z S lq Corner o� See. 7 CSAH No. 7 I 165+5 Ave Nw. 560-1984 u �• f U• f 'u• line 4 Sec. 7 The only easements shown are from plata of record or Information provided by client. I hereby certify that this survey was prepared by me or unser my direct supervision, and that I am a duty Registered Land Surveyor under the taws of the State of Minnesota. Surveyedbyusthle 18TH day of APRIL tg 94 INVOICE NO. 4124 F. 0. NO. 141-6 SCALE 1” = 300' A 66 foot easement for roadway purposes over, under and across the following described property: The Southeast Quarter of Section 7, Township 32, Range 24, and The Southwest Quarter of Section 7, Township 32, Range 24 The centerline of said easement described as follows: Beginning at the Southwest corner of the Southeast Quarter of said Section 7; thence North 0 degrees 10 minutes 02 seconds East, a distance of 1125.39 feet; thence North 1 degree 27 minutes 23 seconds East, a distance of 826.98 feet; thence Northeasterly a aiPFannm mf 11in 15 fnef curve concave to the Southeast having a radius of 346.11 feet and a central angle of 34 degrees 49 minutes 16 seconds; thence northeasterly a distance of 380.31 feet along a reverse curve concave to the northwest having a radius of 520.00 feet and a central angle of 41 degrees 54 minutes 15 seconds; thence North 17 degrees 31 minutes 30 seconds East, not tangent to said curve, a distance of 85.50 feet; thence North 27 degrees 30 minutes 00 seconds East a distance of 100.00 feet and said line there terminating. For the purposes of this description the West line of said Southeast Quarter of Section 7 has an assumed bearing of North 0 degrees 47 minutes 48 seconds West. Signed Milton E. Hyland, MA' Reg. No, 20262 0-7 -3a -ay - 13 - o00 31 W0I (-c-t 3 y 600) EASEMENT AGREEMENT - ' 3 Z� 1145919 AGREEMENT dated this 20th day of October , 1994, by and between Anoka Independent Grain and Feed Dealers, Inc. ("Anoka"), a Minnesota corporation,, a Jeffrey R. Luedtke and Hope Luedtke, husband and wife ("Luedtke"). WHEREAS, Anoka is the owner of the property described in Exhibit A ("Easement Property"); and WHEREAS, Luedtke is the owner of the property described in Exhibit B ("Luedtke Property"); and WHEREAS, Anoka is willing to grant Luedtke a nonexclusive easement over the Easement Property for the benefit of the Luedtke Property described; and WHEREAS, Anoka and Luedtke wish to deal with the conditions and circumstances under which the Easement granted to Luedtke by Anoka will terminate. NOW, THEREFORE, Anoka and Luedtke agree as follows: Anoka grants to Luedtke a nonexclusive roadway easement over the Easement Property. 2. Anoka shall have no obligation to maintain the Easement Property. Luedtke understands that Anoka makes no representations as to the title or condition of the Easement Property. 4. At such time as the Luedtke Property and driveway is serviced by an alternate public roadway easement equal to or better than the easement granted to Luedtke by Anoka over the Easement Property, Luedtke shall, on written request of Anoka, promptly vacate the abs s ment7ropertyy,, "and shall execute any documentation required by Anoka to confirm that Luedtke no longer has any right, title or interest in the Easement Property. 5. The parties agree that if the Luedtke Property is encumbered by a Mortgage or Contract for Deed when an alternate roadway easement to the Luedtke Property, as contemplated in paragraph 4 of this Agreement is in place, Anoka may not terminate the easement over the Easement Property without the written consent of the Mortgagee or Contract Vendor baying an interest in the Luedtke Property. 1 Receipt # k !. fct SJ fed .� Data 1� If Y' Doc. Order _�_ of {-1"eir So .t QN o .� filing Fee ( chocked d'l 18 1J +%oU Scr FJ A ✓ e a. c. ti� �s M N S6 • It / 6. This Agreement shall be binding upon Anoka, Luedtke, their heirs, successors and assigns. ANOKA INDEPENDENT GRAIN AND STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF- Ct- FEED DEALERS, ) �-- On this � iYay of )t -T , 1994, before me, a Notary Public, personally appeared i -t r � ( :r.� to me personally known, who, being by me duly swom did say that he is the a of Anoka Independent Grain and Feed Dealers, Inc., the corporation named in the foregoing instrument, and that said insent was tgned on behalf of said corporation by authority of its Board of Directors and said 1rjW, C E' acknowledged said instrument to be the free act and deed of said corporation. ••;,.Sf 144.VAA4AAAAAAAI AAAAAA4ARA4-x" Z UabLlt All�u `. `', 1, 1 V, ft., .. ..L•�:r ea U•0. 1Y. �YY1y ,;.r,.rnYv,r,r rv•W r. Yrvi /7 vtYrYYYY?f STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF A I7 . Ll. ) 0-AYC".!] _ Notary Public — I,/t - On this 1 day of o 4 t 1994, , before me, a Notary Public, personally appeared Jeffrey R. Luedtke and Hope Luedtke, husband and wife. _..L... •� MAflY SUSANNF SWANSON' OIa'•���.� NOTAAY WBuc-MINNESOTA ANOK4 COUNIY NOtery b11C ---- 6�Y epnmhelon F+pAwAugyt 41888 EXHIBIT A (Description of Easement) An 18 foot easement for roadway purposes over, under and across the following described property: The Southeast Quarter of Section 7, Township 32, Range 24, and The Southwest Quarter of Section 7, Township 32, Range 24. The centerline of said easement described as follows: Beginning at the Southwest comer of the Southeast Quarter of said Section 7; thence North 0 degrees 10 minutes 02 seconds East, a distance of 1125.39 feet; thence North 1 degree 27 minutes 23 seconds East, a distance of 826.98 feet; thence Northeasterly a distance of 210.35 feet along a tangential curve concave to the Southeast having a radius of 346.11 feet and a central angle of 34 degrees 49 minutes 16 seconds; thence northeasterly a distance of 380.31 feet along a reverse curve concave to the northwest having a radius of 520.00 feet and a central angle of 41 degrees 54 minutes 15 seconds; thence North 17 degrees 31 minutes 30 seconds East, not tangent to said curve, a distance of 85.50 feet; thence North 27 degrees 30 minutes 00 seconds East a distance of 100.00 feet and said line there terminating. For the purposes of this description the West line of said Southeast Quarter of Section 7 has an assumed bearing of North 0 degrees 47 minutes 48 seconds West. EXHIBIT B (Description of Luedtke Property) The Southwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 7, Township 32, Range 24, Anoka County, Minnesota. 'a-,4 31 - o00 ( -1 /J 3y -ouo I l� a'I�'UOU \\ 43-OJUI ASSIGNMENT OF EASEMENT RIGHTS �� Dated: January ,1Z, 1995 1161227 FOR VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, Jeffrey R. Luedtke and Hope Luedtke, husband and wife, Assignors, hereby sell, assign and transfer unto the City of Andover, a municipal corporation, Assignee, all the Assignors' interest in that certain Easement Agreement dated the 20th day of October, 1994, made by and between Anoka Independent Grain and Feed Dealers, Inc., a Minnesota corporation, and Jeffrey R. Luedtke and Hope Luedtke, husband and wife, filed for record in the Office of the Anoka County Recorder on December 2, 1994, as Document No. 1145919, which document grants an easement over the following described property located in Anoka County, Minnesota, to -wit: An 18 foot easement for roadway purposes over, under and across the following described property: The Southeast Quarter of Section 7, Township 32, Range 24, and The Southwest Quarter of Section 7, Township 32, Range 24. The centerline of said easement described as follows: Beginning at the Southwest corner of the Southeast Quarter of Section 7; thence North 0 degrees 10 minutes 02 seconds East, a distance of 1125.39 feet; thence North i degree 27 minutes 23 secnnds East, a distance of 826.98 feet; thence Northeasterly a distance of 210.35 feet along a tangential curve concave to the Southeast having a radius of 346.11 feet and a central angle of 34 degrees 49 minutes 16 seconds; thence northeasterly a distance of 380.31 feet along a reverse curve concave to the northwest having a radius of 520.00 feet and a central angle of 41 degrees 54 minutes 15 seconds; thence North 17 degrees 31 minutes 30 seconds East, not tangent to said curve, a distance of 85.50 feet; thence North 27 degrees 30 minutes 00 seconds East a distance of 100.00 feet and said line there terminating. For the purposes of this description the West line of said Southeast Quarter of Section 7 has an assumed bearing of North 0 degrees 47 minutes 48 seconds West. /� FLS 9 Subject to all the covenants of Assignor in said Easement Agree- ment, which Assignee hereby assumes and agrees to keep and perform. i Jeffrey R.-,Luedtke Hope Luedtke STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss COUNTY OF ANOKA ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of January, 1995, by Jeffrey R. Luedtke and Hope Luedtke, husband and wife. Notary Public 1q=0T'A'F1Y"P= ESWANSON -MINNESOTA THIS INSTRUMENT WAS DRAFTED BY: ANOKACOUNTY My conn. E>tWns,an. 91, 2000 BERGLUND & VARCO, LTD. 2140 Fourth Avenue North Anoka, Minnesota 55303 2 o -r 4 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City of Andover, County of Anoka, State of Minnesota, has accepted on �J;'yf, - 1995, the attached described easement in this document. Dated: is 1995 .. ''(SEAQ CITY OF ANDOVER By // Z Clerk 3a -F4 X01 ... , CITY OF ANDOVER By // Z Clerk 3a -F4 Recel t# Ic.S DOCUMENTNO. 1161227.0 ABSTRACT P CarGlied Ccyy i O�.1eiilllla: / - _9,S rrO+^�TM Lle°yRNeaaes ANOKA COUNTY MINNESOTA Libfulll•Co. Dm Tax Paid I HERE BY CERTIFY THAT THE WITHIN INSTRUMENT WAS FILED IN THIS OFFICE Dec. order �FORRECORDONAPR 20 95 �[ r� AT 4 : 3 0 PM AND WAS DULY RECORDED. Chrttk6d h�/; riling „ Q riTranslxr I_ .� Pda�y RrrxdabIInY Foea D CsSc. FEES AND TAXES IN THE AMOUNT OF 20.50 rr��33 r^' $ PAIO. CO%tqusma Plns k Slalua L„i C;, lI RECEIPT NO. 95016552 EDWARD M. TRESKA ANOKA COUNTY PROPERTY TAX ADMINISTRATO"ECORDERINE,fSTRAR OF 777LES BY JLS DEPUTY PROPERTY TAX ADMINISTRATOR/RECORDER/REGISTRAR OFTfTlES 4b -F j /T\ CITY OF ANDOVER Discussion Item REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION March 7, 1995 DATE Accept Jivaro Street DEPARTMENT Todd J. Haas Engineering AGENDA The City Council is requested to approve the assignment of easement rights that are being conveyed from Jeffrey R. Luedtke and Hope Luedtke to the City of Andover. Attached is a letter from the City Attorney explaining the situation. The City Staff is concerned that the easement does not meet the requirement of 60 feet as required in Ordinance 10.. Attached is a map that shows Jivaro Street NW which the City currently maintains and will continue maintaining from 165th Avenue NW to the red reflectors. That portion between where the red reflectors are and the existing home, the City has been using this.section to drive their vehicles, with some blading, up to the home to be able to turn around. The first question is should the City require a 60 feet dedicated easement/right-of-way and meet the required Standard Specifications for Rural Residential Street Construction (bituminous with necessary storm sewer)? The second question is should an easement/right-of-way provide for a turnaround near the home since that is currently where the Public works vehicles turn around now? Note: A portion of this road is currently designated as a minimum maintenance road. MOTION BY: SECOND BY: I 3�f Regular Andover City Council Meeting Minutes - March 7, I995 Page 4 (Appove Plans & Specs/IP94-321Well #5, Continued) MOTION by Knight, Seconded by Dehn, to approve the Resolution as presented. (See Resolution R033-95 accepting bids and awarding contract for -Project No. 93-30 for sanitary sewer, watermain, street and storm drain, Bunker Lake Boulevard frontage road to Hydrocon, Inc., $381,772.50) DISCUSSION: Attorney Hawkins advised the City has waivers of trespass on all properties for the project except one parcel which has given the City a right of entry agreement. Once the right-of-way plat is filed, he will proceed with the eminent domain proceeding to acquire the remaining easement; however, everyone has given the City permission to construct the project on their properties. Motion carried unanimously. ACCEPT JIVARO STREET Mr. Erickson reviewed the request of Jeffrey R. and Hope Luedtke to accept the easement for a roadway from them from 161st Avenue to their residence. The City currently quasi -maintains that section of roadway and has done so for more than 17 years. It is listed for minimum maintenance. The street does not have any easement or right-of-way dedication over it. He also noted that there is no easement for a turnaround. The maintenance equipment currently turns around at the Luedtke residence, and he suggested the easement description include a turnaround. Jeffrey Luedtke - explained the easement passes through property owned by Anoka Independent Grain and Feed. Mr. Erickson explained the Luedtke's obtained the easement from Anoka Grain and Feed and in turn would dedicate it to the City. The Council questioned the width, as it is not the legal width of a road. They didn't know of anywhere else in the City where there is such a narrow road easement. Mr. Luedtke - stated they only own the exact width of the easement that has been maintained. He originally asked for a 66 -foot easement from Anoka Grain and Feed and was told no. Only one family is being served. In order for Anoka Grain and Feed to develop their property, the streets would have to meet City standards; however, that land is totally zoned Agricultural Preserve. He is not asking for anything. By accepting the dedication, there will be no more traffic because he is the only family that lives back there. That property has been in his family for 56 years. He wants to secure a building permit on his property. Attorney Hawkins advised it is a publicly dedicated road now because the City has maintained it for over six consecutive years. Nothing will change with the acceptance of the easement except formalizing existing rights. MOTION by Knight, Seconded by Jacobson, that we accept the easement rights being conveyed from Jeffrey R. Luedtke and Hope Luedtke to the City of Andover. Motion carried unanimously. 2 ,- Z INVOICE NOS 412 HY-LAND SURVEYING _ F. 8. N0. LAND SURVEYORS SCALE I"= to l00%7) Proposed Top of Block o Denotes Iron Monument 100t-2- Proposed Garage Floor o Denotes Wood Hub Set 7845 Brooklyn Blvd. Brooklyn Park, Minnesota 55445 For Excavation Only 6'12,-7 Proposed Lowest Floor 560-1984 x000.0 Denotes Existing Elevation Type of Building - O Denotes Proposed Elevation �-y \il Q4SevvAe�. *tlr Baro VdifirW E- Denotes Surface Drainage W cAk-ov-� =�t L9 z I� W JEFF LUEDTKE APPROVED STAMPED SURVEY I"189Si; Y PM JOU SITE t'02 U:0N G INSPEICTIOIAa 332,45 x �34,9oD 5q,io„,1 F+ ee sa z sb�„e. \ $EEve. Mottled soil elevation - 82.2 feet I I Top wj- - ICVO 2z' CD ToY IRoN- 94 0_ 160,00 7,8„ 94,7 T1210" o t W o' L Q -wN O q i ��— PpP05ED I `� �ESIOF Sze I a�,4---- � i I n I � 1 �ETAIL SCALE: 1'1=20i } DEraz I N r,R Bc,g J - , ,POST A W 9 M , o M 1•Ja'� r Lle.r,- 3.2-__ �a•g Proposecl Dr;�ewmn Ca$e yvt e✓. -I- Elevation datum assumed. The West 332.45 feet of the Southwest 1/4 of the Northeast 1/4 of Section 7, Township 32, Range 24, Anoka County, Minnesota. (Containing 10.00 Acres) The only easements shown are from plats of record or Information provided by client. I hereby certify that this survey was prepared by me or under my direct supervision, and that I am a duly Registered Land Surveyor under the taws of the State of Minnesota. Surveyed by us this 17th dayof April _19 94 Signed rVO. 4ULOG RMA 0=1 I � it F j '£r Si> rim fix: E: �d E'. ZR tiffs 9 ea i r., RMA 0=1 -W-7 Collection of emails, and communications between; Hope and Jeff Luedtke Adi and Darren McDonald Mark Berglund, Lawyer City administrators Developers Daren Lazan and Jason Osberg This is only a percentage of the communications that we have been involved in since the beginning of phase 2 of Petersons Farms over 18 months ago. This is presented to you to demonstrate the time and energy that has been put forth, with yet no formal conclusions. We look to you for your assistance. Thankyou Writee s E -Mail: l l i r C)f AP(_ September 18, 2019 Darren Lazan Jason Osberg Landform MetroWide Development LLC 105 S. Fifth Avenue, Suite 513 15356 Yukon St NW Minneapolis, MN 55401 Andover, MN 55304 Re: Peterson Farms Development Our Clients: Jeffrey and Hope Luedtke Adi and Darren McDonald Dear Mr. Lazan and Mr. Osberg: Please be advised our office represents Jeff and Hope Luedtke as well as Adi and Darren McDonald. I understand that your respective entities are the developers of the Peterson Farms Development located in Andover, Minnesota. I also understand that you have completed or are nearing completion of Phase I of that project and commencing additional future phases. I believe that you met with my clients in mid-July of this year to discuss those future development plans. Part of that discussion centered on the fact that your desired course of action would be to bring future road construction up to the southern border of the Luedtke and McDonald properties and vacate Jivaro Street, which is the current access for both of my clients' properties. As you are aware access to the Luedtke and McDonald property is made via Jivaro Street which was a road created by easement in 1994 by an agreement between the Luedtkes and the City. Further, Jivaro Street provides direct access for both the Luedtke and the McDonald properties as a result of a lot split that was accomplished in 1995 so that both the Luedtke and McDonald property are not landlocked. In your discussion with my clients you indicated that you believe access could be gained to the Luedtke property by traversing over the McDonald property if Jivaro Street were vacated. That is not an acceptable proposition to either of my clients. The McDonalds are not willing to voluntarily grant an easement across their property for access to the Luedtke property. Accordingly, any access to the McDonald and Luedtke property from the proposed cul-de-sac at the southern border of the McDonald property would have to traverse the Northern border of the Peterson Farms Development at that location. Darren Lazan and Jason Osberg September 18, 2019 Page 2 For your information, the Luedtkes and McDonalds are willing to entertain future proposals from you as the developers of the property and wish to be kept informed with regard to the progress of the development. A copy of this letter is being shared with the Andover City Administrator and Counsel. The Luedtkes and McDonalds would like those officials to know that should they have any desire to come and view the property my clients are happy to schedule that visit. Please direct all future correspondence and inquires to my attention on behalf of my clients. Sincerely, Mark E. Berglund MEB:hjs cc: Clients; Andover City Administrator; and Andover City Counsel 819!2020 ---Original Message ---- From: hopelm To: markberglund Sent: Sun, Jan 19, 2020 12:19 pm Subject: Re: Jeff and Hope Luedtke - update Hello Mark, AOL Mail (38) ED) � e �.cr�e i kG?"er amort, 4aeJ4K,-J . Jeff contacted and met with one of the developers, Jason Osberg, Darren Lozano's partner this past Friday, January 10. It appears that their position is still the same, requesting that we purchase property from the McDonalds to secure an easement. They would create the roadway and be responsible for any financial needs, such as survey and filing fees, however are not inclined to give up land in order to provide a road to our 10 acres. Jason was going to go back to discuss this meeting with his partner Darren, but Jeff is feeling that most likely nothing will change. As you know this is not an option nor should it even be presented to us as one. Knowing that this is their agenda in moving forward,"yes", we feel it would be beneficial to set a meeting date with you, Scott, and the City developer Joe Janish ( this is who Jason said they submit their information to) as soon as possible, preferably this week or early next week. Ifs critical to have some dialog before this goes to the Planning and Zoning department, and feel it needs to be expressed and documented that there are alternatives to what the developers wants to happen. I look forward to hearing from you. Hope and Jeff hftps://mail.aol.wmtwebmaii-std/er us/sufte 1/1 Writer's E -Mail: January 29, 2020 Joe Janish Community Development Director City of Andover 1685 Crosstown Blvd NW Andover, MN 55304 Re: Peterson Farms Development Luedtke and McDonald Properties Dear Mr. Janish: ?VIA EMAIL j janishOandovermn.Qov Thank you for organizing the meeting of January 22, 2020 which included myself, my clients Jeff and Hope Luedtke and Adi and Darren McDonald, as well as Jim Dickinson, City Administrator and Dave Berkowitz, Director of Public Works. As we discussed, the Luedtkes and McDonalds own property adjacent and to the north of the Peterson Farm Development being conducted by Metrowide Development in the City of Andover. It was discussed that the direction the City Counsel gave to Metrowide when the PUD master development plan was approved on October 23, 2018 was that an agreement was needed between Metrowide and my clients regarding access to my clients' properties when the development is completed. As was further discussed, the master development plan proposed by Metrowide as approved leaves the Luedtke property landlocked. My clients have been in conversations with Metrowide and have proposed alternatives to the plan. My clients have even made modifications to their proposals over time in an attempt to reach an accommodation that would not leave the Luedtke property landlocked. However, the compromise suggested by the Luedtkes, which would be to move the proposed cul-de-sac to the West and even have part of that cul-de-sac placed upon the McDonald and Luedtke properties, has been rejected by Metrowide because it would result in fewer lots to be developed. Interestingly however, with the number of lots that Metrowide is seeking to develop, which is significantly more than were indicated on the master development plan from October 23, 2018, the Luedtkes proposal would not result in fewer lots overall. Joe Janish January 24, 2020 Page 2 In any event, the Luedtkes, McDonalds, and Metrowide have not reached an agreement. One take away from the meeting of January 22, 2020 is that City Staff will not make a "recommendation" to the City Counsel regarding any future proposed plat from Metrowide. However, City Staff will point out code violations and remaining issues to the counsel. It is therefore understood that it will be made clear to the City Counsel that no agreement exists between the Luedtkes, McDonalds, and Metrowide that alleviates the Luedtke property being landlocked under Metrowides current plan. Further, you have indicated that when any application and plan are submitted to the City by Metrowide, or any other developer for the development for the Peterson Farms Development, you will inform the Luedtkes. They will look and expect to hear from you when that does occur so that they are completely informed about the situation and can make their voice heard. In the meantime, if any of the above changes for any reason, please do not hesitate to contact my clients or myself and we will be sure to do the same. Sincerely, Mark E. Berglund MEB:hjs cc: Dave Berkowitz, Director of Public Works, (D.Berkowitz@andovermn.¢ovl Jim Dickinson, Andover City Administrator, (J.Dicldnsonoandovermn.gov) Jeff and Hope Luedtke Adi and Darren McDonald 8/9/2020 From: To: cm.bukkila@andovermn.govcm.knighL Subject: Fwd: Peterson Farms Development Date: Sun, Feb 2, 20201:22 pm Attachments: 2020_01_30_Ltr to Janish.pdf (125K) Fwd: Peterson Farms Development Dear Mayor Trude and Andover City Council Members. 0 Please note the above attachment. This document is a followup review from a meeting that took place on January 22nd that included myself Hope Luedtke, my husband Jeff Luedtke, Adi and Darren McDonald,Joe Janish, Dave Berkowitz, Jim Dickenson, and Mark Berglund. A formal copy was was sent through USPS to those in attendance on Friday January 31st, 2020. Knowing the second phase of Peterson Farms is in the planning stage, we want to make certain that you are fully aware that there has been no agreement between Metrowide, the McDonalds and the Luedtkes to the vacating of Jivaro Street and the subsequent connection to the Luedtke property. As members of council, we invite you to not only review the preliminary plot on paper, submitted by the developer, but to also physically see how it affects the existing land owners, the Luedtkes and the McDonalds. Feel free to contact us, and I would hope that you would find the time to take a drive and see the big picture. Thank you for your time. Hope Luedtke Ct rrct c� /s 5e erns r �R o`�s, — https:/Imaii.aol.com/webmail-std/en-us/PrintMessage 1/1 -Da rreln Me, no e' id d i 4 0 February 14,2020 VIA EMAIL re is po(As. i rA pp �I C�n8,23. Mr. Jeff Luedtke 4U!, Lrr� 16932 Avaro Street NW Andover, MN 55304 Dear Mr. Luedtke: Thank you for the opportunity to sit down over breakfast on January 17, 2020 to discuss our future residential development, Phase 2 of Petersen Fauns. 1 appreciate you and your wife's ("Luedtke's") concerns, as well as those of your family and adjacent property owners Darren and Adie McDonald ("McDonald's"), as it relates to removal of the existing driveway easement and relocating to connect with public right-of-way access to be constructed on the Petersen property. As we concluded our breakfast meeting, 1 indicated that I would bring your concerns to my business partner, Darren Lazar, to review what measures could be taken to coordinate a positive long-term outcome for this relocation. This letter sets out the options we are willing to consider. Before we dive into these options, however, we thought it would be best to summarize the terms of the existing easement agreement to assist in your review of the proposed options. EASEMENT AGREEMENT The existing easement was granted by Anoka. Independent Grain and Feed Dealers, Inc. ("Anoka") to Luedtke's on October 20, 1994 pursuant to an Easement Agreement recorded on December 2, 1994 as Document Number 1145919 ("Easement Agreement''}. On January 27, 1995, Luedtke's assigned their interest in the Easement Agreement to the City of Andover ("City') pursuant to an Assignment of Easement Rights recorded on April 20, 1995 as Document Number 1161227 ("Assignment"). Section 4 of the Easement Agreement states: "At such time as the Luedtke Property and driveway is serviced by an alternate public roadway easement equal to or better than the easement granted to Luedtke by Anoka over the Easement Property, Luedtke shall, on written request of Anaka, promptly vacate the Easement Property, and shall execute any documentation required by Anoka to confirm that Luedtke no longer has any right, title or interest in the Easement Properly." This language contemplates development of the Anoka property and installation of public right of way as an alternate access road to the Luedtke's property. Once public right of way is installed to serve the Luedtke's property, the easement rights are to be terminated. Our installation of public right of way in connection with Phase 2 of Peterson Farms as an alternate access point, together with our proposed options below, is equal to or better than the current easement and satisfies the terms and conditions for terminating the easement. in Addition, we would like to point out that the current easement was intended to serve the single 40 -acre parcel constituting the Luedtke property at the time the easement was granted. It was not intended to serve multiple parcels, including the separate McDonald's property which was once part of the original 40 -acre Luedtke property. When the Luedtke property was split to create the McDonald's property, it appears to us that Luedtke's created their own hardship by assuming that the alternate public roadway easement would have to be installed over the exact area of the existing easement. Unfortunately, this split is part of the underlying cause we are currently trying to resolve. Finally, the Assignment states that Luedtke's "... hereby sell, assign and transfer unto the City of Andover, a municipal corporation, Assignee, all the [Luedtke's] interest in [the] Easement Agreement..." Pursuant to the Assignment then, Luedike's have no interest in the Easement Agreement and we believe that any rights 00219509 2) Luedtke's may have had to consent to, or approve, any termination of the Easement Agreement in connection with installing alternate public right ofway access have been conveyed to the City. Luedtke's assignment of its rights in the Easement Agreement to the City is further evidence that the easement was not intended to serve additional parcels, such as the McDonald's property, otherwise Luedtke's would not have relinquished their rights. Although it appears Luedtke's do not have standing to object to the alternate public right of way access (such rights (if any) being held solely by the City), we respectfully present the options below for your consideration. OPTIONS The three options presented below considered all potential driveway connections and are the best options to accommodate your concerns and the City's recommendations for future development in the area, including future possible development of the Lueddw and McDonald properties. Under any option, we would also be willing to include the Luedtke and McDonald properties in our overall PUD approvals, which would significantly increase the value of the properties. Option #A: The current plans remain unchanged, with public access available at the cul-de-sac immediately south of the McDonald's property. At our cost, we would construct a driveway over the McDonald's property that connects the cul-de-sac to the driveways serving the Luedtke and McDonald properties. Location of proposed driveway connection to be at mutually agreed location. We would also be willing to construct a landscaped bean at our cost south of the driveway connection on the Luedtke property to provide screening for the Luedtke homestead and the lot adjacent to the south. We would be happy to install "private driveway" signage at the entrance of the new driveway connection to help divert people from potentially wandering onto the Luedtke and McDonald properties. All small utilities would be available to both the Luedtke and McDonald properties should they wish to connect. A site plan exhibit is enclosed to help visualize this option. To avoid the necessity of a new easement over the McDonald property for the driveway, we could work with you, at our cost, to adjust the southern boundary line between the Luedike and McDonald properties. Option #B: Under this option, the planned cul-de-sac south of the McDonald's property would be extended onto the McDonald and Luedtke properties, at approximately the point where their respective driveways split This would provide direct public road frontage for both the Luedtke and McDonald properties. The necessary right of way would need to be platted and recorded, all at our cosi Again, small utilities could be carried along with the road extension. A site plan exhibit is enclosed to help visualize this option. Option #C: We are willing to sell you the lot adjacent to the south boundary line of the Luedtke property, and construct a new driveway at our cost from the currently planned cul-de-sac along the boundary line of said tot and the Luedtke property. Please let us know if any of these options address your concerns. If none of these options address your concerns, please respond with your proposal(s) for our, and the City's, consideration Respectfully Submitted ion Osb JD ANDOVER HOLDINGS, LLC CC: DARREN LAZAN, JD ANDOVER HOLDINGS, LLC MR. JIM DICKINSON, CITY ADMINISTRATOR— CITY OF ANDOVER 100219509 21 0 f ILo r► -I ,O�c rrcn /nc /J on c ld 7A50n-503ber s February 23rd, 2020 b a -a Mr, Jason Osberg JD Andover Holdings, LLC Mr. Osberg, Thank you for providing us with a copy of the letter you sent to Mr. Luedtke. Although we are family, we are also two separate entities; both affected by the development of Peterson Farms. The Luedtke's and McDonald's each are faced with unique concerns requiring different outcomes and needs related to the vacating of the current access to our properties. We'd like to take this opportunity to address our concerns along with our suggestions as we work towards an amicable solution. 1. As you stated, the existing easement was granted by Anoka Independent Grain and Feed Dealers, Inc. to the Luedtke's on October 20th, 1994 and recorded on December 2nd, 1994. Additionally, on January 271h, 1995, the Luedtke's assigned their interest in the easement agreement to the City of Andover which was recorded on April 20`h, 1995. When Jivaro St. is vacated, so is the easement. However, current designs do not fulfill requirements of the easement which are supposed to allow for a public roadway equal or better than the existing access to the Luedtke Property. Current designs require us (McDonald's) to relinquish a portion of our property for the purpose of accessing the Luedtke property. Comments have been made regarding a sale, easement, and/or lot line changes. All of which are creating hardships that are a direct result of the Peterson Farm's development and no fault of our own, including the Luedtke's. In your letter you wrote: "Once public right of wav is installed to serve the Luedtke's property, the easement rights are to be terminated" I underline "public right of way" because you have indicated that you meet this requirement by providing access to the original Luedtke property which was never intended to serve two parcels/properties. In paragraph four (4) line 1 (1) you wrote and I quote: "in Addition, we would like to point out that the current easement was intended to serve the single 40 -acre parcel constituting the Luedtke property at the time the easement was granted. It was not intended to serve multiple parcels, including the separate McDonald's property which was once part of the original 40 -acre Luedtke property. When the Luedtke property was split to create the McDonalds's property it appears to us that the Luedtke's created their own hardship by assuming that the alternate public roadways easement would have to be installed over the exact area of the existing easement." In contradiction to your statement we'd like to point out that the property split occurred as a direct result of the requirements for approved road access that were put in place by the City of Andover to allow the Luedtke's to build their current home. Several years were spent discussing the Luedtke's property split and the design seen here was completed to allow for required approve roadway frontage. Although your intended road placement would provide public road right of way to our property it does not provided any right of way to the Luedtke's property. V 2. Additionally, you have referred to the Luedtke's assigning interest of the agreement (easement) to the City of Andover several times. However, during a meeting with city administrator Jim Dickinson, public works director Dave Berkowitz & community development director Joe Janish we (the Luedtke's & McDonald's) were encouraged to consider future development. It was made clear that the city is wanting us to work with you to come up with a solution. They have chosen not to be involved so it is still considered our burden at this time. 3. We'd also like to point out the density comparison from the original plan unit development (PUD) application to the most recent preliminary plot application. The PUD was granted based on approximately (....... ) along the eastern edge of the recreational lake (pond). Recent documents depict (....... ) lots in this same location. I mention this because we understand that the lots that could and should be used for the roadway and access to our properties are limiting our ability to come to an agreement. Option C which offers the sale of the adjacent lot supports our assumptions. 4. Aside from the issues of easement/access I'd like to address our concern with the proposed roadway at the northeastern portion of phase two "Meadows" development and how it directly prohibits any future roadway onto our property. During our meeting with city staff we were encouraged by Mr. Dickinson to plan for future development. Including what it might look like if we were to develop our thirty acres. In a separate meeting that took place at our home last June with Mr. Lazan and Mr. Osberg we were presented a plat plan that included the southeast portion of our property. This plat plan showed a road continuing through their current proposed development and onto our property should we choose to develop. Recent road designs include no temporary cul-de-sac as discussed early on and now show a dead-end road surrounded by houses. We feel that it is necessary to discuss how the roadways might access our property in the future in the event our property is developed. You have offered to include our property in the PUD approvals saying it would significantly increase the value. We also believe the value can be hindered based on your current road design/placement. :[000NALD . 11OFNC- Ex�slmy Jr ev:ay REE'-_EYGE Berm and Plantings ' Driveway Easement Area Exactrouteto bedetermined North end of Publf mal d as Dr000 LGurrent \ Driveway & 1 i Easement to be3e ab ed _i VVI 5. I'd also like to remind everyone that in 2009 the city reached out to the Luedtke's to pursue property for the Open Space Preservation program. The Luedtke's worked with the City of Andover and the Open Space Committee to successfully preserve 40 acres of land on the Rum River. They believed in preserving a piece of property that will be enjoyed for many years. This same preserve is aiding in the marketing and sales of the Peterson Farms/Meadows. We currently own parcel 07-32-24-12-0003 which is described as: THE E 20 FT OF GOVT LOT 1 SEC 7 TWP 32 RGE 24, EX RD SUB] TO EASE OF REC Current real estate advertisement indicates that Phase one of the Peterson Farms development includes access to Martin's Meadows. The following photo is from the development's website https://buildatpetersenfarms.com/about-petersen-farms OM Although attempts have been made by the public works director Dave Berkowitz to develop access to Martin's Meadows from phase one no agreements have been reached. However, plans continue to develop for access without our approval or consent. Additionally, we've dealt with trespassing issues and park signage/private property signage that has gone missing. To summarize, we don't feel that we are at a point where any of the options you've provided are accurately representing in your words "all potential driveway connections". Actions were taken in years past to ensure access to the Luedtke property. The intent of the easement agreement was to provide access to the current 10 -acre parcel and was put in place specifically to grant the Luedtke's the opportunity to build their home in 1995. The hardships were not created by us or the Luedtke's and no lot split took place at the time we purchased the property. The City of Andover wants us to work together to find a solution and as I've said before I believe we can find a solution that works for everyone. We are not against the development. In fact, we appreciate that you're a local company who are directly affected by its design. Martin's Meadows was preserved fully knowing that the day would come that it would and should be used by new neighbors. We understand the importance of planning for the future and that includes the main issue of road placement and access to both of our properties. Sincerely, Darren McDonald 16927 Jivaro St. NW. Andover, MN 55304 CC: MR. JIM DICKINSON, CITY ADIMINSTRATOR — CITY OF ANDOVER CITY COUNCIL STAFF 4bFlq n C • rte. ( r. � 00 .. o I �n 1` v p \1 C �y � 4 S - Future Phases `}si Legend '. .. Trailconnea9mla _. open spce n „ p a. :.� ♦ _. i.� a �I�».. _. Although attempts have been made by the public works director Dave Berkowitz to develop access to Martin's Meadows from phase one no agreements have been reached. However, plans continue to develop for access without our approval or consent. Additionally, we've dealt with trespassing issues and park signage/private property signage that has gone missing. To summarize, we don't feel that we are at a point where any of the options you've provided are accurately representing in your words "all potential driveway connections". Actions were taken in years past to ensure access to the Luedtke property. The intent of the easement agreement was to provide access to the current 10 -acre parcel and was put in place specifically to grant the Luedtke's the opportunity to build their home in 1995. The hardships were not created by us or the Luedtke's and no lot split took place at the time we purchased the property. The City of Andover wants us to work together to find a solution and as I've said before I believe we can find a solution that works for everyone. We are not against the development. In fact, we appreciate that you're a local company who are directly affected by its design. Martin's Meadows was preserved fully knowing that the day would come that it would and should be used by new neighbors. We understand the importance of planning for the future and that includes the main issue of road placement and access to both of our properties. Sincerely, Darren McDonald 16927 Jivaro St. NW. Andover, MN 55304 CC: MR. JIM DICKINSON, CITY ADIMINSTRATOR — CITY OF ANDOVER CITY COUNCIL STAFF 4bFlq 8/9/2020 From: Martin's Place Ghost Plat McDonald and Luedtke Property 5a To: j.janish@andovermn.gov, Cc: _ Subject: Martin's Place Ghost Plat McDonald and Luedtke Property Date: Mon, Apr 27, 2020 3:31 pm Attachments: Possible future Plot plan for property.pdf (366K) April 27,2020 Joe Janish, Please review the attached PDF document. When we met on January 22,2020, we were asked by you, Jim Dickenson and Dave Berkowitz to submit a purposed Ghost Plat of what we felt our combined properties could look like if we would consider development in the future. This PDF created by Sunde Land Surveying displays our thoughts for future development. We would be happy to meet with you and discuss any questions that you may have. Darren and Ad! McDonald Hope and Jeff Luedtke https://maii.aol.com/webmail-std/en-us/PrintMessage 1/1 F%1 00 M y� - t 4 i of TIM QV 01 �a A 'b ti y. LJiJ } �V LJiJ jF May 4, 2020 par-`te n We (Jona id , Mon r J ( Oli,_ r C o mmtAfi r u rle 5Z Mr. Jeff Luedtke VIA EMAIL ONLY Dear Mr. Luedtke: I hope this info finds you and your family safe and healthy during these unprecedented times we currently live in. With respect to our next phase of the Petersen property, "Meadows at Petersen Farms", I wanted to reach out as a formal follow up to our letter dated February 14, 2020 in which we outlined 3 potential options for you and your family to consider regarding the driveway connection. Looking back through our records/ correspondence, we have not been able to find any response from your side regarding the 3 options we had proposed. Further, Darren McDonald and I have met to review the future layout of your properties should you wish to sub- divide your properties in the future. We also discussed the thought of your properties being included into our Planned Unit Development (PUD) application, this is an option we are certainly willing to work with your family on should you decide this may be a good idea at the time. Although the process has been delayed given the current circumstances, we fully intend to continue through the application and review process. Our plan is to break ground and deliver buildable lots to our builders in 2020. We feel that we have offered viable options to your family for the connections to both properties. If you wish to meet to discuss further, please let me know and I am happy to meet again. Respectfully Submitted Jason Osbert JD ANDOVER HOLDINGS, LLC CC: MR. DARREN LAZAN, JD ANDOVER HOLDINGS, LLC, MR. DARREN McDONALD MR. JIM DICKINSON, CITY ADMINISTRATOR— CITY OF ANDOVER 8!9/2020 Re: MEADOWS AT PETERSEN FARMS - FOLLOW UP LETTER From: To: Cc: i, J.Dickinson@andovermn.gov, Subject: Re: MEADOWS AT PETERSEN FARMS - FOLLOW UP LETTER Date: Tue, May 5,2020 1:38 pm May 5, Dear Jason Osberg, In response to the email dated May 4, 2020 Darren McDonald responded to the February 14 email on March 4 with concise and in depth input from both of us and included a 4th proposal and or viable option which by the way has been our 1st and foremost position all along. In reviewing the legal requirement in the Easement Agreement for an alternate access of Jivaro Street, you will find that your proposal does not meet any of those said requirements by definition. 1.It does not service the Luedtke property (10 acre lot with house) 2 A cul-de-sac that ends in a plowed field that would require us to purchase land or another easement agreement form the McDonald's is not access, by definition. 3. A public road abutting the said 10 acres is necessary to maintain a conforming lot set by city standards, which our 10 acre lot currently is. Your firm position does not offer a viable solution of the vacation of Jivaro Street. Sincerely, Hope and Jeff Luedtke To: r_ 'Darren McDonald' <J. Dickinson@andoverm n. gov> Cc: 'Darren B. Lazan, RLA' Sent: Mon, May 4, 2020 2:09 pm Subject: MEADOWS AT PETERSEN FARMS Good Afternoon: Jim Wilson' FOLLOW UP LETTER >;'James Dickinson' Attached is a follow up letter regarding the February 14, 2020 letter outlining the 3 proposed driveway options as part of our future neighborhood, 'The Meadows at Petersen Farms". As we continue to move forward with our development application, we wanted to formally reach out and find out if you had any feedback / response to the options we proposed back in February. I am happy to meet again to review and discuss the proposal and talk further. Please let us know your thoughts on this matter at your earliest convenience. Jason Osberg https:tlmail.aol.comtwebmaii-std/en-us/PrintMessage 1/1 8!9/2020 MEETING -TUESDAY, JUNE 23, 2020 - 3:45 P.M. From: To: t i, j.janish@andovermn.gov, J.Dickinson@andovennn.gov, D.Berkowitz@andoverrnn.0ov. S Cc: Subject: MEETING -TUESDAY, JUNE 23, 2020- 3:45 P.M. Date: Fri, Jun 19, 2020 12:45 pm Good Afternoon: Thanks to all parties involved for agreeing to this meeting and to the City for hosting the meeting at City Hall. We are able to meet as an entire group on Tuesday, June 23, 2020 3:45p.m, at Andover City Hall — Council Chambers. Our goal is to determine if we can arrive at a resolution for the driveway connection and discuss the eastern cul de sac extension north to the McDonald property. Please let me know if you are unable to attend this meeting. Have a great weekend! Respectfully, Jason Osberg _' Svc did Mee- on �u /Z-,-, ;�3 �,ja i Inel https://mail.aol.com/webmail-std/en-us/PrintMessage 111 8/9/2020 From: ! — - -......-_..., Tort Cc: Subject: THANKS Date: Thu, Jul 2,2020 1:25 pm Thanks for the meeting this morning. Have a great 4th! Jason Osberg Sent from my jPhone THANKS https:Umaii.aol.cDmtwebmail-std/e us/PrintMessage 1M 5D Concern and Comments in reference to the phase 2 proposal Landform / Metrowide is a successful company and we understand their desire for density and lots, however, what does it really look like and is their proposal the one and only way for development? There are huge concerns from Phase #1 that should be discussed and areas of red flags in Phase #2. • Road access between phase 1 and 2 will not be happening. They will assure you that their desire to not follow through is due to environmental concern, but I would argue that due to the roadbed, or lack of one, it is more than likely that it is too costly. • In looking at the proposal it appears that most of the trees will be removed. I had thought that Andover was trying to save tree habitat, this current layout wipes out everything. I would assume that without trees, a higher density can be achieved, very unfortunate. • The current proposed Phase 2 looks very different from the first proposal of Phase 2. The number of lots that are presented around the "recreational" lake has a much higher density. • Knowing that every new site needs well and septic is a huge concern. Can we be guaranteed that the quality and pressure that we have now will be maintained as all the new wells and septic are put in? • The number of roadways and cul-de-sacs that are being constructed will add to light pollution. Andover prides itself in looking rural, not residential, I believe that with these additional lights in this phase and phase 3, the aesthetic feeling of peaceful and open is soon to be gone. • If PUD's continue to be approved as proposed, this sets precedence for all future land in Andover. This is not the Andover that folks have in mind. This high-density PUD looks no different than city lots. Development is something we know is inevitable, however its necessary to remember what has drawn people to this area. Once it's all gone, we can't get it back. Let's make sure that great consideration and heart go into how we move forward. V 75 ry Z CW v W W o {jos �o 2z JQ L 6EEfi 00 € a LU oLL0 00- op, 0 O•• _ W'! h/1 Q LU ljjt{S ptp E Z - wi p s O it Et6 n • 0 m Z - Pi38 PHJ ¢' L9'i • Z Q V 75 ry Z CW v W W o {jos �o 2z S a €e 00 € 0. oLL0 00- op, 0 O•• it Et6 n • 0 m PHJ ¢' L9'i • Z $yg 7ip'¢ g` f 0 6�"ip 30 zd z5 os!'ri„.c o �5 g eta S a €e 0. op, 0 O•• it Et6 n • 0 m PHJ ¢' L9'i • Z $yg 7ip'¢ g` f F4 Q I1 xxxxx x x xxxxxxxxxxx x�xxxxxx xxxx 22:€„ gg333s�����'�'��ee�p��o„��������� g N s �d£a s _ „III r no ( LL o.+alooso•�b,Cam•®®®E�� °s �_sy � kL ti *?3,y° sE Az�.e elCti Y s (� � ”°� t i °f � b Yfe" g• .ioyy�g�E T 4 SS%_pSfiy st_: `!v"Y h 3oYP Beyy a6btl� tig9' k{,,b �y6<` Ch 6dwf €w=3. yy Ce3gg Y3 ykq e��F �°�t' sa kSb �P�fi E'_ F 9 np gC%€6f d�" "k{{s Pe 4% 88Wn8 g�f d8 gY etld 9 d h„�rrB g4 -a iiiii3>)))i�36k ��§�s§��oasa�gs000>ddoaoaas0000soo�a�aa`dd�.�d°aaa .��„ 3 z p I ^ p a5' } -• .g fp � P 6y±a � � Ftt 3'Oa L 3 „��• � s - 9- Am'6q xE a ='a is. iy�ffi ��•?' A' � \€ s ��� f q36'.” �° Y" r SU Y➢k6Ce E }} : €. P; E_ . fi. h 3 5-i".6 €g3 l ppk..I s"��e ss.,°ee�oossosww13.3-1A ywWwl259 omzMKNn ® H4 „III r no ( LL o.+alooso•�b,Cam•®®®E�� °s �_sy � kL ti *?3,y° sE Az�.e elCti Y s (� � ”°� t i °f � b Yfe" g• .ioyy�g�E T 4 SS%_pSfiy st_: `!v"Y h 3oYP Beyy a6btl� tig9' k{,,b �y6<` Ch 6dwf €w=3. yy Ce3gg Y3 ykq e��F �°�t' sa kSb �P�fi E'_ F 9 np gC%€6f d�" "k{{s Pe 4% 88Wn8 g�f d8 gY etld 9 d h„�rrB g4 -a iiiii3>)))i�36k ��§�s§��oasa�gs000>ddoaoaas0000soo�a�aa`dd�.�d°aaa .��„ 3 z p I ^ p a5' } -• .g fp � P 6y±a � � Ftt 3'Oa L 3 „��• � s - 9- Am'6q xE a ='a is. iy�ffi ��•?' A' � \€ s ��� f q36'.” �° Y" r SU Y➢k6Ce E }} : €. P; E_ . fi. h 3 5-i".6 €g3 l ppk..I s"��e ss.,°ee�oossosww13.3-1A ywWwl259 omzMKNn ® ®a® $yg 7ip'¢ g` „III r no ( LL o.+alooso•�b,Cam•®®®E�� °s �_sy � kL ti *?3,y° sE Az�.e elCti Y s (� � ”°� t i °f � b Yfe" g• .ioyy�g�E T 4 SS%_pSfiy st_: `!v"Y h 3oYP Beyy a6btl� tig9' k{,,b �y6<` Ch 6dwf €w=3. yy Ce3gg Y3 ykq e��F �°�t' sa kSb �P�fi E'_ F 9 np gC%€6f d�" "k{{s Pe 4% 88Wn8 g�f d8 gY etld 9 d h„�rrB g4 -a iiiii3>)))i�36k ��§�s§��oasa�gs000>ddoaoaas0000soo�a�aa`dd�.�d°aaa .��„ 3 z p I ^ p a5' } -• .g fp � P 6y±a � � Ftt 3'Oa L 3 „��• � s - 9- Am'6q xE a ='a is. iy�ffi ��•?' A' � \€ s ��� f q36'.” �° Y" r SU Y➢k6Ce E }} : €. P; E_ . fi. h 3 5-i".6 €g3 l ppk..I s"��e ss.,°ee�oossosww13.3-1A ywWwl259 omzMKNn ® (! Q E 5S5S = Q y6'gpa `W O Z_ @ as (i Jill iE �$ (� • i j g; Z • O _ i w w A Q jii{{a{ aleg m ti zd Z posy t !ioo ° • a N i 090Z1 M Z.Zs.695 L_/— Ias 0 C i h=--- ------ a / m w a n w v me m s 4z i 1 1 '\ / g J / • 3 C7 2 � vl I IW g m ` ------- RA �________� �=r, feat Ixi `• ' i ' a o Roo rr5 ---�; _ -- G 8 <w= e J ¢p _ — g \ :. Lam' / 6 F ( \ 6 —_________- - 7 .N 1 11 II 3 a 4 $ 1 \ 11 II r I 8 \ I ZUE I a _ S8B°84'25'W 296.12 q 'j $ dEda.OZ=D p0 L_ Y$g1.1 0333 iC zQ Q3-o.l D s9 z� ------ -- Z9. — ) la —may'♦,_ t _ L _ rtiti 6 7 3 a 4 r C ZUE `<�`��z<a•a q 'j " si Y$g1.1 0333 iC zQ Q3-o.l =V beT A ffISOO SS" m/rXl 6o VF J. I ?I I I 1 I � I m RII o � 1 JQ 3 a B E fi686 6" • s i o w I N LU 8 / •• I I I 38 f \\\\) \ee oz w 9 Q z_ ifEip S � Q / I AVENUE NW OS4Ef �S0 �zY A a � afi S J os� -B -S5 .728/so wE �g€4 a' W 0 $ C� L � z Q gg P#39 a ea. =V beT A ffISOO SS" m/rXl 6o VF J. I ?I I I 1 I � I m RII o � 1 / \ I / 11 d 3 a B < B y R IB • s i B w I 8 / •• I I I 38 f \\\\) \ee S � Q / AVENUE NW OS4Ef �S0 �zY �!� S J g i£ -B -S5 .728/so �g€4 a' W 0 $ � IIEB Q 93�7j .r 1 I S I O� MINN S 3 i N n\ - / \ I / 11 o \ I I I / •• I I I 38 f \\\\) \ee S � Q / AVENUE NW OS4Ef �S0 �zY �!� 169tH -B -S5 .728/so �g€4 a' W 0 $ e IIEB n-- .r 1 I I (0\P IN n\ - 1 \ -/ice y _ —� S A\ \a ;__ oac ■$ S I �J IH 1 I I 5- r --V r -__ z <" < L_J L_e-__________J- ___I I- I� I I° / IR / \ I / 11 \ Y 3 l \ i q / I I I / •• I I I S � Q � � �g€4 a' W • Z LL � e IIEB n-- .r 1 I I (0\P IN n\ - 1 \ -/ice y _ —� S A\ \ Y 3 l \ i q / I S � Q � � �g€4 a' W • Z LL � e \ Y 3 l \ i q / I 1 1 1 1 I <" < 3 $ $ C \ Y 3 l \ i q / I 8 Y ' ..�Q 1 1 1 1 I 8 Y ' ..�Q L (,i J � E fifi68 E 1OJ 'x OC • .Y ry 0 W = g a 3 �6�� � '. § 6 J .€ w�� egg]g] >O FA]Fa(ll ¢Q6W gg6 8. • Z F > J W • a � §^'6 0 4 yg� a �3R5 € P g gg C PP @@ w Y I jilt g g1a n i a d p @ 3 2 Fgg p➢ & �, 1 3 ' gg. ��Rge! R z ]igiw I3 1� i H ;I, 4!M 4!M I q;ii! eR f I M11 I Nip aWe �a�Y� 4o.w R� B R93 y3 N' 3�PEP 1 40433 eu 0 Wit Qo2 N M d. S R9Fs SF "EY S# s.eR n m I, E2'F� m d€ m N kie@a ea £� b [CBMI N.BZ.lS.00N N OMLL3M N N 30 h r m N 00'Z8E M.EZdf.00N �. fe'PoS 3.00.00.00N � lt7 1 55 a& S N021OY061366.16 3° - y ti P. LA i K4$� 6R[R] ib� pxg ggQd Hil¢l is eSip' r xeoserco .Q ¢49 � OC • .Y ry g Y �6�� � O LL • ~ � ; Z egg]g] y • a s gg6 ¢' • Z F J W • a � §^'6 � 4 yg� 1� i H ;I, 4!M 4!M I q;ii! eR f I M11 I Nip aWe �a�Y� 4o.w R� B R93 y3 N' 3�PEP 1 40433 eu 0 Wit Qo2 N M d. S R9Fs SF "EY S# s.eR n m I, E2'F� m d€ m N kie@a ea £� b [CBMI N.BZ.lS.00N N OMLL3M N N 30 h r m N 00'Z8E M.EZdf.00N �. fe'PoS 3.00.00.00N � lt7 1 55 a& S N021OY061366.16 3° - y ti P. LA i K4$� 6R[R] ib� pxg ggQd Hil¢l is eSip' r xeoserco .Q a v ppWs9 38s m ! \\•�--IZ'tl'FS'a'(aaSNau.gamW�w(W� s -=.l — '('+Spmnp4eaym \ 1 umpwVuw W�N.awmaaxpms Ij5 awl Zzyerpweayuex W:�o wll ulnui d----------- — -- w m HI Ij3 � m _j�rcd 296.12 4 •Of' .Seep MV 925'W $ (Ley V -- N8025'E �2 %sfi.12 `11' /z I pp fi a � .sf sozsraV m 040,® I I I _ a I g / \ Hill .:—d ------ — ----------g _ - m ro •N Cwny�y4' Z — --_—-— — — — — — � qow££ a � Emigg W _ _ Z9'6Zfl 3.64.B9.6BN \ .. rox.+w�xxNaWwa v+Yww Wa `5 �� �' 1 �1 wayo��ox:r�n,w. Wlps •wpaamwwrvs a --------- ;4P Hill / GR ya qy / / naemufoanp J A118 ag5$g �9�,!k; FiI Q E E6a6 afl i&g J Agm E fi m A fi�gggp� CD O xmnrllarm mFs im SIn f131N/l4l )1114WJ tl)NO KKR NV tl3V�]N NN '3➢IIS WtlW]x39E81 , `y 9M9[Sf0 aH W^'— I et5 Aoe 3 z @ E ppg �yp�.i Z w • 0 i 0 9g l��A w p' e ~A � .ii@, aEEdsa o8 j l o Z ®i39 a v ppWs9 38s m ! \\•�--IZ'tl'FS'a'(aaSNau.gamW�w(W� s -=.l — '('+Spmnp4eaym \ 1 umpwVuw W�N.awmaaxpms Ij5 awl Zzyerpweayuex W:�o wll ulnui d----------- — -- w m HI Ij3 � m _j�rcd 296.12 4 •Of' .Seep MV 925'W $ (Ley V -- N8025'E �2 %sfi.12 `11' /z I pp fi a � .sf sozsraV m 040,® I I I _ a I g / \ Hill .:—d ------ — ----------g _ - m ro •N Cwny�y4' Z — --_—-— — — — — — � qow££ a � Emigg W _ _ Z9'6Zfl 3.64.B9.6BN \ .. rox.+w�xxNaWwa v+Yww Wa `5 �� �' 1 �1 wayo��ox:r�n,w. Wlps •wpaamwwrvs a --------- ;4P Hill / GR ya qy / / naemufoanp A118 ag5$g �9�,!k; FiI afl i&g Agm �� fi m A fi�gggp� egss gg fi fi�M➢�gg 5g)3?�$E R���$YF5$9P�l� xmnrllarm mFs im SIn f131N/l4l )1114WJ tl)NO KKR NV tl3V�]N NN '3➢IIS WtlW]x39E81 , `y 9M9[Sf0 aH W^'— I a v ppWs9 38s m ! \\•�--IZ'tl'FS'a'(aaSNau.gamW�w(W� s -=.l — '('+Spmnp4eaym \ 1 umpwVuw W�N.awmaaxpms Ij5 awl Zzyerpweayuex W:�o wll ulnui d----------- — -- w m HI Ij3 � m _j�rcd 296.12 4 •Of' .Seep MV 925'W $ (Ley V -- N8025'E �2 %sfi.12 `11' /z I pp fi a � .sf sozsraV m 040,® I I I _ a I g / \ Hill .:—d ------ — ----------g _ - m ro •N Cwny�y4' Z — --_—-— — — — — — � qow££ a � Emigg W _ _ Z9'6Zfl 3.64.B9.6BN \ .. rox.+w�xxNaWwa v+Yww Wa `5 �� �' 1 �1 wayo��ox:r�n,w. Wlps •wpaamwwrvs a --------- ;4P Hill / GR ya qy / / naemufoanp et5 5 gg @ E ppg �yp�.i Z w • 0 i 9g l��A W • Q � ,� ' E � � i AMSYN 10tlf tl5T618roJ1 tl3L.YJ ' ILLaiS NV tll^LONIIN:SWJYJT3@F a v ppWs9 38s m ! \\•�--IZ'tl'FS'a'(aaSNau.gamW�w(W� s -=.l — '('+Spmnp4eaym \ 1 umpwVuw W�N.awmaaxpms Ij5 awl Zzyerpweayuex W:�o wll ulnui d----------- — -- w m HI Ij3 � m _j�rcd 296.12 4 •Of' .Seep MV 925'W $ (Ley V -- N8025'E �2 %sfi.12 `11' /z I pp fi a � .sf sozsraV m 040,® I I I _ a I g / \ Hill .:—d ------ — ----------g _ - m ro •N Cwny�y4' Z — --_—-— — — — — — � qow££ a � Emigg W _ _ Z9'6Zfl 3.64.B9.6BN \ .. rox.+w�xxNaWwa v+Yww Wa `5 �� �' 1 �1 wayo��ox:r�n,w. Wlps •wpaamwwrvs a --------- ;4P Hill / GR ya qy / / naemufoanp et5 5 �yp�.i Z w • 0 i l��A W • Q � ,� ' E � � i a v ppWs9 38s m ! \\•�--IZ'tl'FS'a'(aaSNau.gamW�w(W� s -=.l — '('+Spmnp4eaym \ 1 umpwVuw W�N.awmaaxpms Ij5 awl Zzyerpweayuex W:�o wll ulnui d----------- — -- w m HI Ij3 � m _j�rcd 296.12 4 •Of' .Seep MV 925'W $ (Ley V -- N8025'E �2 %sfi.12 `11' /z I pp fi a � .sf sozsraV m 040,® I I I _ a I g / \ Hill .:—d ------ — ----------g _ - m ro •N Cwny�y4' Z — --_—-— — — — — — � qow££ a � Emigg W _ _ Z9'6Zfl 3.64.B9.6BN \ .. rox.+w�xxNaWwa v+Yww Wa `5 �� �' 1 �1 wayo��ox:r�n,w. Wlps •wpaamwwrvs a --------- ;4P Hill / GR ya qy / / naemufoanp ` J Q E SfiSfi 1 3 : z fr� i e -O a oam A wj w��IjO o f o� Q O Z pii@ E lInI Q 60 11 �� 9mj ae � n mu eaeo I A I ] d]tl I . NANYb1KWv � p � MV 3Ydnv HI�LDO < T I fdw moot srseL�. g I I N I I �� II co I I I PI Z420`B[S'�beg r ; <� AS.EE�Sf S62,p I yw �B ./ to I i N� 8• €� " Is I I E I � I I I I I I �L �i EI I /� L•� 4q�<�\ I N I n a0$1' li 3& I 1ig l \ f xmm o 3 m i ates[e� 3om sr.&so ry �a z s € F o a ]11 3RJ} 3 .. sa.0 H r �i G �.j¢-dam �� ;C�� Q � n.• � � � off jt � E@&5 1� a !fj v ���� W • Q � � � $ � Q save? i� )5 d •� 33 g� �'—� g tii 7 0 m 0 � Z O O U 3= Q T 0 m � �• 30 ;U 0 c H r �i tl Y Y Y Y 'nw Aw ams xe I i III 09 99Z M.M.699 / / / MN 9 4� g•3 I , (� e g-- _ / J/ JQ O E SfiSfi E 1 °� r 5 F• ��� P a ,3 ( : oil �` } . a e 3 Z F� --� o Al ---_—_--- =L p 1z= iJ R@Y8 O 8 j ` 3 F3 � a' • Z Z Z R RRRS i R }i C.�g [� [ W a s m g w SiSfjj tl Y Y Y Y 'nw Aw ams xe I i III 09 99Z M.M.699 / / / MN 9 4� g•3 I , (� e g-- _ / J/ m� 6 I' I I � l I w \ \ \ o \� SM -925W 296.12 LUY.0a= ' \\ N DW ------ ° 16 sq2,,- $ - -- - at,/ f0 "�V 1 --� w' _ 298.72 a S W -925-E g Jill--f— __ --� 1+ 1 Al ---_—_--- =L m� 6 I' I I � l I w \ \ \ o \� SM -925W 296.12 LUY.0a= ' \\ N DW ------ ° 16 sq2,,- $ - -- - at,/ f0 "�V 1 --� w' _ 298.72 a S W -925-E g E F E fi888 � ' S r �• a g ggE � i � 1 a A�y d � • p Y � f a 3 Z' Jill qq9g i fiy )t AAAy i� °! jE v e W • Q E = g i I�E 1 •--•T B'a K o sseee r,�rosos9s— _ en dW o ,� l r ---------, 931 i Cb I _ _ MIA w a \• \ , � � 3.B6Ag, RIN .9 .09. .e 00", E -I-- - 1--� -, ----------------- vI 111 ,\ zozF L_L_J l8S .� 7 LT_�� --- — — — I $ / Aqy 81 Nissl it /�, All --_ -- � �l � , I a \ 111,\ x _AV Ate;_ — — — — , L-1 U--LJ-- Z9'6N9 3JIA9.69N \ \ 3 IF8:3i:�Yy i R.RQl a - � yg Z � H g rc fi < m�a3 sg< �£ g 299 k i k I C) J Q 0 e E688 OM a Z 4 F m R - m ®666600000666666660 C) - LU Gla j�l y� a s8 X606006066 o 0 RR�g eReBe (�f� Q € �£ g 299 k i k I I %. i R I 1 )U I 1360000:1110000000000100 rr i F m R - m ®666600000666666660 y� FF s8 X606006066 1 (�f� 6�y� ®000005 • O � 00008800100 M6666666666@:11000000100 cZC Yi } H6666666666�66666666166 �10�0����D�BB8988EBI98 0 v �[I 1999 EEM p EME111BIBg1 n HE009MMEN8G00 z M U1118111 g ecCb ---©EEEEEE968�9E�69���CCEI 0 'o 1 E j s g HIM I a w o I %. i R I 1 )U I 1360000:1110000000000100 rr i I %. i R I 1 )U I 1360000:1110000000000100 F m R - m ®666600000666666660 M L) I %. i R I 1 )U I 1360000:1110000000000100 ®666600000666666660 X606006066 6600 ®000005 � 00008800100 M6666666666@:11000000100 H6666666666�66666666166 �10�0����D�BB8988EBI98 �[I 1999 EEM EME111BIBg1 HE009MMEN8G00 M U1118111 ---©EEEEEE968�9E�69���CCEI 1 E dRXlpi WQ x�— 83a'" p ®w JQ 4y I� E• s a€ a� E 6685 E r a 3 �� L OLU . �W i Oa�pp �W Z � asF yyO Eiji w mea �Q Q CLE afrf F Lj • iia{{ A7pqp o 5 Ea§$p �1 L � • � i l y m if O t' \� sC1g 13 [ �gE4 ] ¢' Q Z e aasc � F jp Z x�— 83a'" p ®w � Q 4y I� E• s a€ a� 9 3 �� c .I �W i Eiji LL 3 F LL • A7pqp 5 Ea§$p �1 L � • � i l y m if 1 t' \� 13 [ �gE4 ] ¢' • Z � � F Z p0 0 a s � O � O N 3 ;U 0 Y o � 9 4y I� g I tl 9 c .I �W i 11111111MR1,1191M1' M.� oma AM Q 9 9 g g 9 A7pqp i l l 1 t' \� 11111111MR1,1191M1' M.� oma AM Q .1 0 LO u FM F r3 // O ui H rA 8 j � F}d7 Zo Q OZ Fpt9 a 8 F� co Zi .1 0 LO u f� J Q E 8888 f rQ L (A O, 12M. ��o o LU mg tr1 i� �� jOla A � aIm IL � err ® z s S HIM z AD le is Hil 6 i \ alnill U 01` I j LO h _ CIDh I-- J Q E EE88 E F- " _ co` LU `� a a 0 M Z a p�8 A w[II ;#�j0 sPpe �a • Z AAAA 4� EI t6 • Q N € o w 4 ®_ ~ o K � o > nEri,NI, o n m sU X o t gw s'A�� � — — / 8� Lo It ld I a 1 a \ m a+ s— $-._ STREET _____,_7I - - GUARANIlim "'® IIS w mI0 ��8 J aT1 I �W TI a lu/ W 9 CD 11H x z " 'His U IS 0 A 13- bOFY m 3 $ boNl m�3rsaas omzmwaorm0 J Q E 6686 O ' za R J„sa a 3 'W Z z wA � a3pi Z-8 C O�fiii E < gg z P339 ..WQ) _ ^ lv ' V a� F ly ease fi J o O 3 LU • O Jw'ga O Z � ae _ j'�d Y^ Q R� ajj3sjLL yg � � AAASgA CD Q 5 past 0 J Z ¢ _ N y Z amimtlophYl® a a� wig • O 9 `g iF5 3X!§ L amimtlophYl® a a� • O 9 `g • 6 Yi amimtlophYl® (! J T J Q E 6fi6fi ~ L O � • N n 2 Oryp�w p�pg¢y�5 l®y�� O Z_ aEs[ � • m o m � 9 Y¢ jLU 9 K � � IIII fl II Z y • D � - f �g� a i N M • Z § F • a m e \ \\` SQA- / e J i i N m ' U Lm m cnofM a�rco mom � � • N n 2 p�pg¢y�5 l®y�� } n � • m o m � 9 9 K � � IIII fl II Z y • D � - �g� a N M • Z § F • a m 0 o i �U) t i Z o, o e \ \\` SQA- / e J i i N m ' U Lm m cnofM a�rco mom � �oo z (/) Y 2 a CO Co � EROSION _ Y 2 LL I I 1 LL I omxrro Awo � • N n 2 p�pg¢y�5 l®y�� } n � • m o m � 9 9 K �,p`p� Z y • D � - �g� a W • Z § F • a m �oo z (/) Y 2 a CO Co � EROSION _ Y 2 LL I I 1 LL I omxrro Awo m Q _ w 1 y LL � z z o gZmm� � LLJ w 3::cr � Z O e a w.:�cate saw .. Bi8.5dx x I JQ E 6fi88 L / O ) Z ¢ qi o f e v, lu o N 3lu � R � a • o Z oxnxop i, m X U A " o CD JIM 0 z < & N m Q _ w 1 y LL � z z o gZmm� � LLJ w 3::cr � Z O e a w.:�cate saw .. Bi8.5dx x I / w YI ) Z ¢ qi o f e d o N FpF � R � a • m m X U " o �w N m Q _ w 1 y LL � z z o gZmm� � LLJ w 3::cr � Z O e a w.:�cate saw .. Bi8.5dx x I 0 r ¢ o J —0 z 1 U ° I z Q m i w YI ) Z ¢ qi o U e d o N FpF � R � a • m 0 r ¢ o J —0 z 1 U ° I z Q m i tin O 2 w YI ) Z ¢ qi o U OJ N � a m tin O 2 x BgA=gg€°Fgb R J J Q s 6666 $ a O wz o 0�& ��F OC • N Fi � g fftill a k O • �E� o a LL i � RA05 Eiyk Q ; x BgA=gg€°Fgb R Al I 0 "'m =,« M.Q ��F OC • N Fi � g fftill a k O • �E� �' P" a LL i LL• € €F� Z � • O 9 � �g34 � ¢' • Z � z o e�A W • < g G Al I 0 "'m =,« M.Q 11 i JQ *t E fi86fi 8 o x 3 LU ippsp i Z R' R LL s €fF Q ^ Wjp Q � gEy f42i3 H35� C) • 0 i WW j a F ii { an! ¢' • Z fix z 1, s0 .. 11 i *t 8 � o i a&£ R' R LL s ag Q ^ H35� ? y • 0 i { an! ¢' • Z fix Lu s 11 i *t i a&£ R' R LL s ag Q ^ H35� ? y • 0 i 11 i A a&£ R' R LL s ag Q ^ H35� ? y • 0 i { an! ¢' • Z fix Lu A a x U) LL \ mua m m m m w 9 N O Renee�ee r LU LU m O � r r W LL MN 3ntl H1S9L _ O 1' U) Lij O CO W I U— 3 x 5 Ffir6fi �3YE o: 1 o LU d Z p M$oo Z e gzkmF zs o_ i J o z( s� s q rAY � .b rw 11 19 a .J 1 4+ g k W&�F3FF g 2 a p z M i ° sy� ge 44 P � 46C4 esa Q p:e e s a x U) LL \ mua m m m m w 9 N O Renee�ee r LU LU m O � r r W LL MN 3ntl H1S9L _ O 1' U) Lij O CO W I U— 3 x 5 z �3YE o: 1 LLmaF d Z p M$oo Z e gzkmF zs 00 i J Z s� s q rAY � .b rw 11 19 a .J 1 4+ g k C g 2 a p M i ° sy� ge 44 P a =ypPEq: s avr esa 4 m mm��g m 58 a AEE $g E 55 04 s a x U) LL \ mua m m m m w 9 N O Renee�ee r LU LU m O � r r W LL MN 3ntl H1S9L _ O 1' U) Lij O CO W I U— 3 x 5 z �3YE o: 1 LLmaF d Z p M$oo Z e gzkmF 126_ a x U) LL \ mua m m m m w 9 N O Renee�ee r LU LU m O � r r W LL MN 3ntl H1S9L _ O 1' U) Lij O CO W I U— 3 x 5 s g o: 1 d Its. 126_ 00 i J Z encu q rAY � .b rw 11 19 a .J 1 4+ g O 75 m m -8 a x U) LL \ mua m m m m w 9 N O Renee�ee r LU LU m O � r r W LL MN 3ntl H1S9L _ O 1' U) Lij O CO W I U— 3 x _ I �;Dg I m m m Y \ m m m j W \ mG L 1 pg`a 9 � N� �L u — — LCl I� a iy \ \ m � omrron .Q d 126_ encu q rAY � .b rw e � M i sa�a s avr esa 4 m mm��g m \ m m m j W \ mG L 1 pg`a 9 � N� �L u — — LCl I� a iy \ \ m � omrron .Q m m m m JQ g _ga fi 66ae L a J O 0 Yw� o FF 9g� a tl p �g L LL• z . 3 �34$e$ ��og a Z Ii ofI �g3! � a • Z 8 � ? yQ tt� LLm�m � — oras/ LV Z A LU v o a o m WW U.) b+ ee a O 1IN! Q s pos ® / J m I m m m m F g _ga a O w� Yw� o FF 9g� a tl p �g L LL• Ms 3 �34$e$ 'rn 0��Sr iB / �g3! � a • Z 8 � ? 3kk tt� LLm�m � — oras/ LV Z c / A / LL v r / o m U.) b+ ee a -BggLU LL ® / J m I ercaE - 8 2 g E%nB r g i �nsg sa o r w U— � � t.E SC F 5 e f E„AS q• $ U j E 0BE Egi m m m m m 8 A O a O w� Yw� o L LL• 3 �34$e$ 'rn 0��Sr iB / �g3! � a • Z 8 � ? 3kk tt� LLm�m � — oras/ LV Z c / A / LL v r / o m m m / ® / J m I r \ is z j � w a / r w ( � elf m Egi 4� i M 6Z 86* I r I i I I I i I m A 8 3�N3�b O a A O ° m O U LU LL N O O T T 9 � e m 0 e g Z •• �p gU Y � 8 2 O a O gg994� L LL• 3 �34$e$ 'rn • 0 $ „ �g3! � a • Z 8 � ? 3kk tt� J LU � gig o t LV k LL O ° m O U LU LL N O O T T 9 � e m 0 e g Z •• �p gU Y � m m m wog Mqu =...(D 8 2 O a 4 L LL.L L I I C) :gyp 3kk � gig / LV k LL m o m m m m wog Mqu =...(D ZY EIS - 11 B�qYl l • � I x"• - ow_ m • .� m • • . 12 • • I P _ RJ I ? ep s c =� 615 r } s ss ` v j I �a z oz� zc as � m� 1 \ zii� � fi 3i a o o!100 e A§ � 3 LU E ay U g o O r fL1 b � 2 �� sa L) C) y O O O N^ U) LLL LL V O N^ V! LLL LL b I I I 1 I f I I I I l 1 1 1 1 I 1 \ l JQ R /p E E656 a � iSb o v g'S LL Bad g CSD ; 1 \ `g NIPR$ 2 ff0 ON6 WFA urea LL en J CLd a 8 p" Ly J A QS U) < j e LLA o Q so - CO ZY EIS - 11 B�qYl l • � I x"• - ow_ m • .� m • • . 12 • • I P _ RJ I ? ep s c =� 615 r } s ss ` v j I �a z oz� zc as � m� 1 \ zii� � fi 3i a o o!100 e A§ � 3 LU E ay U g o O r fL1 b � 2 �� sa L) C) y O O O N^ U) LLL LL V O N^ V! LLL LL b I I I 1 I f I I I I l 1 1 1 1 I 1 \ l R /p m a � iSb a� v g'S LL Bad g CSD ; 1 \ `g NIPR$ 2 ff0 ON6 5 yyyy 9 urea LL en J O a 8 p" Ly J SP U) LL e LLA U- o o g a ` �'nn ¢¢¢ y fwg a,B E 8 Y$ PS d g'eE§: ¢ _• o oE�� B E VJ P LLA8 LL sE y A'i'm a E 9ygg @ s sage av B F g 5 y €E as Vi v9 &' s W Lj— w t ZY EIS - 11 B�qYl l • � I x"• - ow_ m • .� m • • . 12 • • I P _ RJ I ? ep s c =� 615 r } s ss ` v j I �a z oz� zc as � m� 1 \ zii� � fi 3i a o o!100 e A§ � 3 LU E ay U g o O r fL1 b � 2 �� sa L) C) y O O O N^ U) LLL LL V O N^ V! LLL LL b I I I 1 I f I I I I l 1 1 1 1 I 1 \ l : � m i� m m m m qA p lahig R /p m m �€ � iSb a� O G. Bad g M 1 \ `g NIPR$ 2 ff0 ON6 �as.c$i'1 -�3� urea LL en : � m i� m m m m qA p lahig o M /p m �€ N 6 HUI O lI) y® M 1 \ a esgee uj / 5 ? LL \` O e Ly a5t;'a �L LL e : � m i� m m m m qA p lahig m LNWW m o M /p 6 LO 1 \ lI) \ (n LLA 1 --_ LLINCH A m LNWW m JF E 6666 o 04 Ld 3 z i3 Z LU o > Fi 2 0 OZ g�g P135 U Q � ossa E F E• � F� E�9 O {j x@§ J oe • r 2 �J M—A � Z w C) z �� d o z LU i z \ O W e " •. -- r r �� \ • s' a "3� i is li a 1 L 3M30 HB91 0 Z LU w Of F- U) Q U z R' 9'.. S -- p m. o202WtlJf wo Km� � Z o \ m _ " •. -- r r \ - Al � Y \ 1 1 — — . l r TIT 5 L II axx� I 6Zf I naa iL -------------------- --- m I I m I,E�IdI N E as -` — 9 335, I I �5•lt �1 n I I 1 I I _____ -L______________ 1 —_____J I I` 0 Z LU w Of F- U) Q U z R' 9'.. S -- p m. o202WtlJf wo L_— r ae ®s g JQ ��E a E Ed66 } N o o L M <N § z�81 Q n N 3 x Z 5 a ��oo �G:i Z I to La�rvs WH yyO F� • ¢ �SfF I W srus&a / / / / / / / Z P939 L_— r ae ®s g ��E a .M } N o CCS :ui Q n LL. 5 a J Z g a 4 § W La�rvs s g I / 6 1 I Ill 11 �I NOLXIp�Wo / / I a I sue / I La�rvs I I / 6 1 I I srus&a / / / / / / / / / / I I I I I ®p I E k I I .III I I � I I II I I I L I sm �S.�yy \ SIL SMi 1 AIDi 3TV Ill 11 �I NOLXIp�Wo av+E JF \ o \ � i666 \, m I O ai LU LL• i z .o z Q 0 o8 > 3 F z Q AAS§ ea.e m�3rs3� � av+E I \ Y \ U \, m Y O m I s'J sInIh I I LU LL U) Q U z I PU LU z LU F— i` ®R•0 •Yl9 9BiMfl E 0 gg I O ai LL• i z .o z 0 � p sInIh I I LU LL U) Q U z I PU LU z LU F— i` ®R•0 •Yl9 9BiMfl E O ai LL• i z .o sInIh I I LU LL U) Q U z I PU LU z LU F— i` ®R•0 •Yl9 9BiMfl E 1 I I I I _ l E• n {, m J Q E 6686 � � F Z `{GJ$ g ' 0 em_ w C:) .<ag w z e 1 Ax,ill -C ai a mR g nO A > F� • 7�� 55 RZ, ; � (. ei e Z N Z Sd o s 3s1 j z •� � sof }c � I o a sLu a 1 I I I I _ l E• n {, m � I C • p A g � 1 Z `{GJ$ g ' 0 em_ w I 1 s� mR • j{j = s •� � sof � � SSS -nlli Otq.Y15 Wi➢3Mfl m m $ I I Z ' w I 1 s� mR z = s Q I I � uws aa�a YY SVd 1 SSS -nlli Otq.Y15 Wi➢3Mfl m m $ u I I ¢#¢# pfd fl f` ------------- I G J o_, = 4gp$€ggg g,,,s,/� t)..J c7 z z & `Gid fn O W O Z @ aEsE c C R lEEsana� s„lg� Q z dd � W ;� Ap y j(�7� YL �3 ms cea S15f6 3`�9 fN[[ § v i W LULU p a a lli3 �s i 35 It d u I I ¢#¢# pfd fl f` ------------- I G �A6 AHI � 1 �p•YIS wL83NeO I '1 1 1 1 rsrere sra 1 1 818'1 SAV.. 1 WSQ' dd � YL �3 ms cea S15f6 3`�9 fN[[ / 1 � ,,PP�� I �esmsn+e �A6 AHI � 1 �p•YIS wL83NeO OS LTI SY9 818'1 SAV.. fN[[ s LULU Si 44 44dd°4. d / !/l BIffi3YE 'JIC30` / BI pa 3MH V ! piBYL S'MH DILtlIB MBM SJIB Z I QN LL � I I I I rc I I o:x-i s✓a rv�ra I s n3 gY a2 I I �A6 AHI � 1 �p•YIS wL83NeO JQ E fifi86 L r• x^ m l J 0 £ CD ii . o`sq W Q z $ as CL iL e'g R LL i .s 1 CS wap A� iFslse`i j °��¢ Z '�• 1 Z 0 g�g a)[7 ss5a C� i. [ W • g s $ i In J Q e P339 o? k5 d • .E w' S c " O r N m m • 3V w a & m m m smu1�s s3s o 1 1 I y 69'91 •• �3 f9tl 8 aoq•ns9v9:x l va a 1 I 1-------------------- --------- --------- -------- � 'M'N'3Atl H189L 0 z 1 ' ---------�� 1 os9 �•\ sox a 1 � �6 1 ZI 11 ,- it I sffi w \ d6 _� W 31w9af X36 f AVE es U) 1 r b'E I _ iL - R8T 6]I3 F \ (J �q fSW.3 9 lea m I IJ 4 z z wa a g f_ 88 \ II 4 Wigg a V f III IL II �i$9m I '� 13/ l[w SeR 1 7 �- z / pa - IV \ z � Lrre \ I o¢w I € I 1 � / / 1 5 y 611f •K93 ELIf q J / n fq•vlsNly631/A UW d w / H � A 9i sxa .esv i FraE es LLJ LU 1 �a z / 3 sw ara - afaaw ¢W 9a as \ Z 6HH N3 W N RQt S'N9 \ 1� F— U) U) \ a� z— \ 1 6m 8 Q e� s� i�p�Sa 1 sm 8 =. .a) w m m s m m m m m i i i I I r� I °mx.A.0 z - I ui r � 3 2• ; y z y o LLw LU z O � I 1 I I I RH W �e� r A d' 8 aEESSai2i [; I I I I °i4e@ rn 0�8 J W jin l I L .' b" � I I I p Z e Pia$ w m m s m m m m m i i i I I r� I °mx.A.0 z - I r � 3 • J S � N S � I 1 I I I I I I I I 1\ I 1 I I l I L .' b" � I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I II I I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 I I I I 1 1 I I I I I I II I I I I I I I I I I — �133T11S _ MN ----- w m m s m m m m m i i i I I r� I °mx.A.0 r � 3 • J S � N S � w m m s m m m m m i i i I I r� I °mx.A.0 L.% J < E 8668 i \ ! (� co O \ \ Z= a LLW o 3 Z E d�� O .ten _ \ /O� cZ 11l!l``jIj`` \ o g � -A Lcl LU o O \ Z sss T] ; Fsf J 1 \ � \/ � � rc Zg gWZq •YW WR9� Sm6. O m \ I I I I II m I I I I Isl I / I O----U > 1 ------------ --------------- I SSSS /\/J O 1 I / / \ \ I 1 \ 1 1 \ I — - W I � I O 1\ Cn \ uwxva 1 I v I I Z I ��YYg / as I I / � I j ws sxa I / I I I � I I I I 11 I 1! I I l � l 1 I 1 _ 1 1 I \ I 1 \ I \ \ I I II SM 935 \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ I L w Q L 656fi S Q O O "• i • i v j � � � � • J w' F i f - ods o[l z mkt§ � Q 1 sae99a I W O ry U) co LU O U Q z CO Q m G' • ry � 2 y r O \ "• i • i v j � � � � • J w' F i f � 1 i J 'M'N 133111$ \ I I I W O ry U) co LU O U Q z CO Q m a m a & m G' • ry � 2 y O "• i • i � � � • J w' F i f a m a & m J Q€€€€ i f• R 8= b$ J LU n m a owg Gsa 0 Z W � p �� ���a' � $ �Esaa= q`4 � �+ gg z 'w • 0 d � !�! X08 w j `�lE e�!//�0 �gYB¢' • Z e LL 3 ° aoRg L • a y$ w a a a': DWEm L 5 W t= I I I I Z Il JQ I I I E 68Sfi I ,r O J 22V 111 0 UZI •� 1 1 1 — $�p 1 Z 111. �l O ✓� yyO `� ffjj l{�f� F^ • Q^§F ^ W gd o 9 £�f 0 Z 1toI L 5 W t= I I I I Z Il W Ld a MN I3E2JiS VONT Z LO Cc i 4§0 __-_-__---__i___ i retti.Am o I I I I I I I I ,r I 111 0 1� 1 1 1 — 1 1 111 a 111. �l 111. 1 W Ld a MN I3E2JiS VONT Z LO Cc i 4§0 __-_-__---__i___ i retti.Am o | (I < % \ ) j § LL U 7 . / .it In'l | (I q § \ | (I \ (� � ) !I !A 2 I Ell ` !^ � G . \ \, 01 $ z \ g [ DRi � : 0 \�|U ! � ` # : / . � ) !I !A 2 I Ell � . 01 [ � / ] t � jT4 k / \ / ; \J ;)� 3 j § / .. | ! � � \\ Ld a 4 � ` # / \ � : .<; y!!! •, \ . t � jT4 k \ ! ; ;)� �! Oi .. | ! a 4 � §° / \ � : .<; y!!! •, / § § § \k i t � jT4 k 7] J ) ! ( \ Ell, 4 � §° � : .<; y!!! •, / § § § \k � \ . > 7] J ) ! ( § ; ( Ell, z � : .<; y!!! •, § ; ( Q 8888 S r• & q E F E 3 a o a 3 z- 4''E y. , o gyo m& i O Z $ aEsE (% 6E WH o s - o LU a € P3: t� i t li a 33WISH 8 is 3 �'62adx E=� GGz� i` p F Z � iya� Un •ppa f 3 rK �g6EgGGI:G RBA LLI oC 5 2 -- Z W PGfRaaa 9888ggg s YQ � R V n ?} O N 33WISH 8 is 3 �'62adx s 95=`9 8G56Gtl GGz� i` p F Z MINN INN gq rK �g6EgGGI:G RBA oC 2 -- ,r � -� PGfRaaa 9888ggg s r •nau e•x wox xw S3WNYIWAdWlr-u n.wr s�_y �P�yq Sb ���yt Pjtl��v F� . l -E1 � 6E6¢N� pp CA]•iii '�} 3�$R O .o. nanwn .P 4 ru 0 0 a Q a z y� a zI H aLaLrvtlo (D rK s�_y �P�yq Sb ���yt Pjtl��v F� . l -E1 � 6E6¢N� pp CA]•iii '�} 3�$R O .o. nanwn .P 4 ru 0 0 a Q a z y� a zI H aLaLrvtlo (D 4 O z id ogp 3� rt 3 � v i ti 0 Q E 8fifi8 F S fA W 3 ii Z p yQ f a • � m pi 1. 3S � tsbs LU V O ORIISRg qvl Q e 4 O z id ogp 3� rt 3 � v i ti 0 ppY� 4e6 iep�1 W be L] i L] rc m ycggY = cW t -Q �§RR 5� x -O N N � Z 3 E � z I � m I I I Z �3 a � a I t fig¢ yV ��N +___ S< g� W K I Z €� v a A J W 0 N a 3 ci 2 oml naoioun® S� Eb Z � • � m pi } uj ppY� 4e6 iep�1 W be L] i L] rc m ycggY = cW t -Q �§RR 5� x -O N N � Z 3 E � z I � m I I I Z �3 a � a I t fig¢ yV ��N +___ S< g� W K I Z €� v a A J W 0 N a 3 ci 2 oml naoioun® �y� E g E c g g F @@@ gg g E $ og? pp ggg pp @€ p g p ggpP & I F[ o w : fi EfifiB o z a � ease1 A ~� !I! O • J g � i PSAF �y� E g E c g g F @@@ gg g E $ og? pp ggg pp @€ p g p ggpP & I 000 o a � 000 i .e o g . a • J g � i i .e {� a c� • m tF' d 1 it y4Z6fie ie gY8 a' • Z 0 3 tl a !� v [!�l � • ¢ S � � � g G � -� �• 2mo _ O 0 Ififi88 `W Q z_ • F {P, � P 1 �O Q w w 9?FEFE 0 � Q PICg e Piss {� a c� • m tF' d 1 it y4Z6fie ie gY8 a' • Z 0 3 tl a !� v [!�l � • ¢ S � � � g G � -� �• 2mo _ O q� k I �— — — — — — — — — — — — — 1 I` I 3 5 w 0 y \ Eli I \� e \ {� a c� • m tF' d 1 it y4Z6fie ie gY8 a' • Z 0 3 tl a !� v [!�l � • ¢ S � � � g G � -� �• 2mo _ O q� k I �— — — — — — — — — — — — — 1 I` I \ Eli I \� e \ 0l m �IIr I `-------------- IZ / r �� L L -1J II 11 �/� — _ •Pwt �` I B9t r- l � I o II Nj I I 1 I �� 1 L—=L _I JQ F E • 8 £ E SE66 i O C7 VJ 0 8 } e o w • 1 O • 0 Q Z a � s qq Q LL • i Z • Q @4 � �g48 � ¢' • Z g $ a LU O Sly Q e Pis: f 1 � 1 L — - 1 � r 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 OL I I I L--J---J L I _ rA F E • 8 £ 8 } e o o O • � a � s r��� Q LL • Jill Z • Q @4 � �g48 � ¢' • Z g $ a LU L I _ rA • 3 3w �w3 D® V J a E fi866 OC7 a o= a 3 z Z� as w A �� a w a as o <WJ j b ol p Z e€dl r TCNNNE: SEE SN TUU I / J I ale°ep1 a ?�S I I v\ � II` i> I I \ IV I L I? s> \ / / I 1 r 1 @9@ p ggggb =1 1 i 1 e It It or F E• z m 5 � r > R Jill x�9 W • Q A" e G r/ 4r66' 1 1 1 1 1 /1 1 � 1 1 1 1 i ..rvMJf Wo »1- � < \ \ / ) j ) » \§ •, -- ;;■ �; ;!, }| �. |� | o | \ \: § ! / < ; »1- � ! i •, -- ;;■ �; ;!, }| �. |� | o | �g7 Sgg� wit 55 ftlg pitWIN 91,11" 11 g11 3YLL VN E514A SEPES �� N'MW. I�P�I AN AAA ON] aoa esus U EW so Q E fi6Efi J • H E 1121, W C7 {n U) o 3 z o J6i0 C3.-- {{qq ��Y$ S cc 0 sc l; 2 ¢ F! 6 > � A Q aE{i{ds po S Gil > 0 b o wear � Q a Pea �g7 Sgg� wit 55 ftlg pitWIN 91,11" 11 g11 3YLL VN E514A SEPES �� N'MW. I�P�I AN AAA ON] aoa esus oU EW so i a �o • og^£J� e 1121, W :N.! � ��Y$ S ¢' J E f d W • � �' G i b � d � e g� 8 gg 'q 9 E� a fa 0lKD oOO O E ❑ �g7 Sgg� wit 55 ftlg pitWIN 91,11" 11 g11 3YLL VN E514A SEPES �� N'MW. I�P�I AN AAA ON] aoa esus s �_ oU EW so i a �o • og^£J� tomw 1121, W :N.! s �_ oU EW so jg� gni a �o og^£J� 1121, W :N.! � ��Y$ S ¢' J • Z � � F g v f d W • � �' G i s �_ oU EW so jg� gni a �o og^£J� 1121, W :N.! KO[MMJ .(D