HomeMy WebLinkAbout11.10.201685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. • ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 • (763) 755-5100
FAX (763) 755-8923 • WWW.ANDOVERMN.GOV
Andover Planning and Zoning Commission
Meeting Agenda
November 10, 2020
Andover City Hall
7.00 p.m.
1. Call to Order
2. Pledge of Allegiance
3. Approval of Minutes — August 25, 2020 Regular Meeting
September 8, 2020 Workshop
September 8, 2020 Regular Meeting
4. Public Hearing: Sketch /PUD Concept Plan —Nightingale Meadows — PID# 22-32-24-24-0017 —
Tamarack Land Development, LLC (Applicant)
5. Other Business
6. Adjournment
Please note:
Some or all members of the Andover Planning & Zoning Commission may participate in the November 10,
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
currentiv 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 call
will be available on the Planning Department website the day of the meeting.
I
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: Approval of Minutes — August 25, 2020 Regular Meeting
September 8, 2020 Work Session
September 8, 2020 Regular Meeting
DATE: November 10, 2020
RE UEST
The Planning and Zoning Commission is requested to approve the August 25, 2020 Regular
meeting, September 8, 2020 Work Session, and September 8, 2020 Regular meeting minutes.
8 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING —AUGUST 25, 2020
to The Regular Bi-Monthly Meeting of the Andover Planning and Zoning Commission was
11 called to order by Chairperson Bert Koehler IV on August 25, 2020, 7:00 p.m., at the
12 Andover City Hall, 1685 Crosstown Boulevard NW, Andover, Minnesota.
13
14 Commissioners present: Karen Godfrey, Scott Hudson, Nick Loehlein (remote),
15 Mary VanderLaan, Marni Elias and Dawn Perra (remote)
16
17 Commissioners absent:
is
19 Also present: Community Development Director Joe Janish
20 City Planner Peter Hellegers
21 Associate Planner Jake Griffiths
22 City Attorney Scott Baumgartner
23 Others
24
25 PLEDGE OFALLEGL4NCE
26
27 Chairperson Koehler asked City Attorney Baumgartner to explain the rules regarding
28 mask wearing at the Commission meeting. Mr. Baumgartner stated masks must be worn
29 at all times except when the Commissioners are at the dais and participating in the
30 meeting. He stated the audience must wear a mask at all times except when they are at
31 the podium speaking to the Commission.
32
33 PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP)ITLANNED UNIT
34 DEVELOPMENT (PUD) AMENDMENT "THE PRESERVE AT PETERSEN
35 FARMS"PHASE 2 - PIDS 07-32-24-42-0002, 07-32-24-43-0003, 07-32-24-34-0002, 07-
36 32-24-34-0003, 07-32-24-33-0001, 07-32-24-31-0001, 07-32-24-32-00011 07-32-24-23-
37 0002, 07-32-24-24-0001- JD HOLDINGS
38
39 Mr. Janish stated the Planning and Zoning Commission is asked to review a Conditional
40 Use Permit (CUP)/Planned Unit Development (PUD) Amendment for the Preserve at
41 Petersen Farms. Mr. Janish reviewed the definition of a Planned Unit Development which
42 gives the developer the opportunity to use the land more efficiently and greater flexibility
43 to build a higher quality development.
44
45 Mr. Janish showed the Master Plan and stated it is outside of the MUSA area. Mr. Janish
46 said Phase 2 consists of building 46 homes on 100 acres of land. He said the applicant is
47 looking to deviate from the length of the cul-de-sacs, utilize private septic systems, have 5
Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
Minutes —August 25, 2020
Page 2
1 lots under 1 acre of usable net land area, remove the east/west connector roadway, and
2 make adjustments to the Master Plan. Mr. Janish provided additional details for each of the
3 applicant's requests as provided in the staff report. Mr. Janish reviewed the items in the
4 packet that the Commission and residents can use for reference.
6 Commissioner Godfrey asked Mr. Janish to explain the three properties with the gray dots.
7 Mr. Janish stated the gray dots are pad elevations.
9 Commissioner VanderLaan asked Mr. Janish if he can address the comments in Mr.
to Berkowitz's memo that were listed as not completed. Mr. Janish stated 83 comments have
11 been addressed, 19 comments carried over to review #3, and there are 20 new comments.
12 He said the two larger items that need to be addressed are the east/west connection/south
13 access and the access to the 2 residences to the north.
14
15 Commissioner VanderLaan stated approval of the project was contingent on a secondary
16 access. She asked if the City could set that contingency or should it be a guideline. Mr.
17 Janish replied the Engineering Department is asking that the secondary access be a
18 condition of approval.
19
20 Chairperson Koehler asked if the 5 properties below 1-acre net area have a lot size of at
21 least 1.5 acres. Mr. Janish stated the lot sizes are 1.5 acres or greater.
22
23 Motion by Godfrey, seconded by VanderLaan, to open the public hearing at 7:33 p.m.
24 Motion was taken by roll call:
25 VanderLaan - aye
26 Koehler - aye
27 Hudson - aye
28 Godfrey - aye
29 Elias — aye
3o Loehlein - aye
31 Perra- aye
32 Motion carries unanimously
33
34 Darren Lazan, JD Andover Holdings, came forward and stated the gross size of the 5 lots
35 identified is over 2 acres. Mr. Lazan presented the development at Petersen Farms and
36 identified Phase 1 as the Preserve and Phase 2 as the Meadows. He said Phase 1 has been
37 a tremendous success and he showed photos of the completed lots.
38
39 Mr. Lazan spoke on the details of Phase 2, the Meadows, showing aerial photos of the 100-
40 acre, 46lot property. Mr. Lazan explained they decided to eliminate the proposed east/west
41 connector roadway because it went through wetland and they wanted to preserve the
42 wetland as much as possible. He said the company is working on acquiring a property to
43 the south that is in foreclosure but have not had success in connecting with the bank or
44 property owner. He explained their goal is to acquire the property, divide it into 3 lots, and
45 construct a road through it to provide the second access. He stated he does not want the
Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
Minutes —August 25, 2020
Page 3
I secondary access as a condition of approval because it is contingent on them acquiring
2 property they have not been able to get.
4 Mr. Lazan defined the net land area as usable land, taking out the acreage of wetland and
5 bluff. He said there are 5 lots that are under 1 acre of net land area but contain a gross lot
6 size of 2 acres or greater.
8 Jim Stiller, 15250 Verdin Street, came forward and identified himself as a representative
9 of Sharper Homes and Keller Williams. Mr. Stiller spoke on the quality of the homes and
to the value they bring to Andover.
11
12 Commissioner Loehlein asked about the east -west connector road and what could have
13 been done to anticipate this. Mr. Lazan stated they are pursuing a connector road to the
14 south due to the urgings of City staff and Council. He explained the topography and
15 surrounding properties make it difficult to find a second access. Mr. Lazan stated the
16 developer has taken soil borings on the proposed roads in the future phases to make sure
17 the roads are feasible.
18
19 Commissioner Loehlein stated the City requires gross density in the R-1 zone at .4 units
20 per acre and the applicant is proposing .46 units per acre. Commissioner Loehlein asked
21 why. Mr. Lazan stated the gross density of the development is .32 units per acre which is
22 well under the City requirement of .40 units per acre. Commissioner Loehlein stated he is
23 referring to Phase 2 which is .46 units per acre. Mr. Lazan stated Phase 2 does not have as
24 many natural resources, so it is slightly denser than Phase 1 and Phase 3, but the overall
25 average is .32 units per acre and the City looks at the entire development to determine
26 density.
27
28 Bud Holst, 4276 — 165 h Avenue NW came forward and thanked the Commission for
29 originally denying the PUD. He stated he felt the PUD should not be decided in a one-
30 night hearing but should be a longer process. He stated the revised Master Plan is vastly
31 different from the original and he thinks it has nothing to do with the natural resources. He
32 said if the developer did not do their homework, Andover residents should not have to deal
33 with it. He said there are more lots than originally planned and there are no parks.
34
35 Hope Luedtke, 16932 Jivaro St NW, came forward and asked how the sewer and septic is
36 going to affect her water pressure and quality. She felt the developer did not do their
37 homework on the road that was proposed to go through the property. She stated the process
38 is moving too fast and feels the City should pull back. She said the homes do not look rural
39 and look more like a Monopoly board. She is concerned about the number of trees being
40 taken down. She thinks they should not plan for that many homes in Phase 2. She said the
41 development will add to light pollution. She asked the Commission to remember why
42 people were drawn to Andover: for the rural aesthetic.
43
Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
Minutes —August 25, 2020
Page 4
1 Bryan Kost, 4460 —1980' Lane, Oak Grove, came forward and stated he is concerned about
2 County Road 7 and would like to see it straightened out and not have roundabouts. He
3 stated roundabouts are cheap, dangerous, and disrupt traffic.
4
5 Ben Reichers, 15844 Martin St NW, came forward and stated people move to Andover and
6 create costs. He stated the City should consider other things that are needed because people
7 move in, such as roads and schools. Mr. Reichers said taxes keep going up no matter how
8 many people move into Andover. He feels there should be a fee for roads when a
9 development is built.
10
11 Adi McDonald, 16927 Jivaro St NW, came forward and said the density is too high and
12 feels the City should keep Andover as it is if they are not going to change the road system.
13 She pointed out the notice of the public hearing had a map that shows walking paths and a
14 connection to Martins Meadows. She said the map is inaccurate as it is showing it goes
15 over her property and she is upset that the City did not check the map before sending it out.
16
17 Chairperson Koehler asked if Ms. McDonald had contacted the City about the trail. She
18 said the trail has been an issue prior to the mailing and City staff has been well aware of it.
19
20 Diane Park,1524 —155°i Lane NW, and Kevin Petersen, 1901-140t° Lane NE, Ham Lake,
21 came forward and stated they are the property owners of Petersen Farms. She said the
22 primary goal was to preserve the natural beauty of the land and having new families move
23 to the area to enjoy nature. She stated the reason the family chose JD Andover Holdings,
24 was because of the PUD and the ability to work with the natural beauty instead of cutting
25 everything down and having cookie cutter lots. She said her family is very satisfied with
26 the development and has received many positive comments from community members.
27 Mr. Petersen stated he has received requests for him to show him around the farm and see
28 the lots. He said Phase 1 was perfect and then residents wanted it changed. He said many
29 residents were not aware of where the property lines were so when trees were cut down,
30 the neighbors were upset thinking it was on their property.
31
32 Diane Holst, 4276 — 165 h Ave NW, came forward and asked if the PUD is a benefit to
33 Andover and something the City needed. She does not believe the PUD is a benefit and
34 said the density is something that should not be considered.
35
36 Darren McDonald, 16927 Jivaro St NW, came forward and asked how the park dedication
37 fee is helping the development. He said Inca is a State Aid road and the speed limit is 35
38 mph. He said there should be discussion about the density proposed and the speed of the
39 road.
40
41 Commissioner Godfrey asked if there was contingency plan if the access to the south fails
42 to occur. Mr. Lazan stated the access to the south was the last option to make a second
43 connection. He said the connection to the north was blocked by Martins Meadows and the
44 west is blocked by the topography. He said there is not a contingency plan. He said he
Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
Minutes —August 25, 2020
Page 5
1 would like the option to put a temporary cul-de-sac in and extend the road when it is
2 feasible.
4 Commissioner Godfrey asked how the inability to add a second access to the south impacts
5 the Master Plan. Mr. Lazan stated Phase 1 can sit on its own because it is nearly complete.
7 Commissioner Godfrey asked Mr. Lazan to clarify the plan for the trail access from Phase
8 1 to Phase 2, and then to Martins Meadows. Mr. Lazan stated his role is to provide access
9 to the edge of the development and they did. He explained they drafted a map showing an
10 easement through the McDonald's property and City staff approached the McDonalds to
11 arrange an agreement. He said he would love the trail to go through and that was the intent.
12
13 Commissioner Hudson asked how many phases are in the Master Plan. Mr. Lazan replied
14 the development is done in small bites to not overwhelm the market. He said Phase 1 went
15 really well, and Phase 2 is a bit larger. He is expecting there to be 5 phases, but it could be
16 4, depending on the market.
17
18 Commissioner Elias asked Mr. Lazan what studies they have done to see how the
19 development effects the water serving the existing homes. Mr. Lazan stated the
20 development is not high density. He said the minimum lot size of 1.5 acres would fit 6
21 single family urban homes. Mr. Lazan said well and septic are analyzed by State licensed
22 inspectors and they have done 6 samples on each lot testing the soils and verified each one
23 to be adequate to have well and septic.
24
25 Chairperson Koehler asked Mr. Lazan why there is not a park in the revised plan. Mr.
26 Lazan said the Andover Parks Commission decided to take cash in lieu of land. Mr. Lazan
27 said they allocated 40 acres of open space including the lake, upland, and community space
28 using some of the existing structures on the farm. He said there is more open space in the
29 revised plan.
30
31 Commissioner Godfrey asked if the 46-acre open space is being deeded to the City or under
32 control of the homeowners association. Mr. Lazan said it is uncertain as to who is going to
33 manage it. He stated the homeowners association could maintain it and they would install
34 woodchip trails. He said the City and developer will come to an agreement and maintain
35 the area as open space and not an active park.
36
37 Commissioner Hudson asked what the average gross density was in the original proposal.
38 Mr. Lazan stated the original and the revised have the same average gross density of .32
39 units per acre.
40
41 Hope Luedtke, 16932 Jivaro St NW, came forward and stated the City and developer did
42 not do their homework about the 20 feet that belonged to the McDonalds when the trail
43 was proposed 2 years ago.
44
Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
Minutes —August 25, 2020
Page 6
1 Jeff Luedtke, 16932 Jivaro St NW, came forward and asked if the City is going to let
2 developers come in and do what they want after they have received an initial PUD. He
3 stated roads are missing, connections are not made, major density changes, cul-de-sac
4 lengths and it seems like a trend. He said the City is giving and what are residents getting
5 in exchange. Mr. Luedtke said the City is taking the developers word for a lot of things
6 like environmental impact, a future road connection, and more items.
7
8 Adi McDonald, 16927 Jivaro St NW, came forward and said the City is looking at the
9 Master Plan for average density. She said Mr. Lazan stated Phase 1 can stand on its own
10 and she asked whether the City and developer are looking at the project as a whole or as
11 phases because it does not appear consistent.
12
13 Mr. Lazan came forward and stated he said Phase 1 can stand on its own for traffic
14 purposes. Mr. Lazan stated there are issues that are being raised which were raised before
15 the PUD was approved. He clarified that this is an existing PUD and they are asking for
16 flexibility to add amenities to the development to include ponds and floodplains. Mr.
17 Lazan said there are a number of areas in Phase 2 that required the removal of natural
18 resources in spite of the developer trying their best to retain them. He stated the Park
19 Dedication fees are paid in frill. He said Inca is an MSA road and the City can set the speed
20 limit. Mr. Lazan spoke about the density of the development and stated some lots have
21 been moved around, however, the gross density has stayed the same. Mr. Lazan stated the
22 project has not been rushed; it has been in process for 3 years. He showed a map of the
23 development displaying the roads. He stated they wanted County 7 realigned even though
24 it would cut their project in half. He said they worked with the County for 4 months on a
25 plan to realign County 7 and the County decided not to pursue realignment but install
26 roundabouts. He said these are examples of work they have done over the past two years
27 and they have come to the City when they have had problems with the plan.
28
29 Ben Reichers, 15844 Martin St NW, asked if certification of the land for well and septic
30 comes with liability or if it is just a piece of paper. Chairperson Koehler replied that he
31 had the same question and will ask staff after the break.
32
33 Motion by VanderLaan, seconded by Elias, to close the public hearing at 9:04 p.m.
34 Motion was taken by roll call:
35 VanderLaan - aye
36 Koehler - aye
37 Hudson - aye
38 Godfrey - aye
39 Elias — aye
40 Loehlein - aye
41 Pena -aye
42 Motion carries unanimously
43
44 Motion by Godfrey, seconded by VanderLaan, to recess the meeting for 10 minutes at 9:04
45 p.m.
Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
Minutes —August 25, 2020
Page 7
i Motion was taken by roll call:
2 VanderLaan - aye
3 Koehler - aye
4 Hudson - aye
5 Godfrey - aye
6 Elias — aye
7 Loehlein - aye
8 Perra- aye
9 Motion carries unanimously
10
11 Chairperson Koehler reconvened the meeting at 9:15 p.m.
12
13 Chairperson Koehler asked if the City received copies of the engineering reports from the
14 soil borings for the wells and septic system. Mr. Janish stated the City gets copies of the
15 septic systems reports. Chairperson Koehler asked what people should do if the septic
16 system does not hold up after they move in. Mr. Janish stated residents usually call the
17 City and talk to the Building Department. The Building Department finds out who designed
18 it and installed it. Mr. Janish stated the burden usually falls on the licensed installer who
19 holds liability for a certain time period. Mr. Janish said there could be multiple parties
20 involved including the installer, designer, and inspector.
21
22 Chairperson Koehler asked who residents should contact if they had issues with their water
23 such as discoloration or water pressure, after a new development comes in. Mr. Janish
24 replied they should contact a well technician to determine why that would happen.
25 Chairperson Koehler asked if they could contact the City if it was caused by the new
26 development. Mr. Janish agreed and said the City can offer guidance to a resident.
27
28 Chairperson Koehler asked what it will take to fix a map with a trail that goes across
29 someone's property. Mr. Janish stated there is a 20-foot gap, but at the scale of the maps,
30 it is not discernable. He stated the trail can be removed from the map and the developer
31 can have it removed from the plans.
32
33 Chairperson Koehler asked Mr. Janish to explain how traffic is managed in this area: when
34 is the City, County, or developer involved and have all the boxes been checked. Mr. Janish
35 replied County 7 was running at 50% capacity 3 years ago and everything is operating well
36 according to the studies.
37
38 Chairperson Koehler asked how the park dedication fees the developer paid are used. Mr.
39 Janish stated the Park and Recreation Commission has a Master Plan and Capital
40 Improvement Fund which guides the development of parks and trails. Chairperson Koehler
41 stated the Park Commission may take cash in lieu of land for a variety of reasons such as
42 cost of a park, parks in close proximity, or access to parks via a trail. Mr. Janish stated the
43 Parks and Recreation Commission review developments and can make recommendations;
44 however, it is the Parks Master Plan that guides their decisions.
45
Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
Minutes —August 25, 2020
Page 8
1 Chairperson Koehler asked how the City measures the density of a development: is it by
2 phase or by the whole project? Mr. Janish replied the practice is to look at the entire project
3 (400 acres) to establish density. He stated he agreed with the developer that some areas
4 will have more density but overall, the density is lower. He stated that contributes to the
5 efficiency of the PUD in order to keep more open space.
6
7 Commissioner Godfrey asked Mr. Janish to address the floodplain, when the map was
8 revised, and when it is scheduled for revision. Mr. Janish replied the floodplain was
9 mapped this year and the developer made financial contributions to get it done.
10
11 Commissioner VanderLaan asked about Martins Meadows, a dedicated piece of open
12 space. She gave options of including Martins Meadows in the trail system or cutting it off,
13 so it is more protected. She asked how that land was acquired. Mr. Janish replied the City
14 went out to referendum for open space and Martins Meadows was acquired from a family
15 member.
16
17 Commissioner Godfrey asked if the Commission recommends approval to the City
18 Council, do the 200 items noted in the City Engineer's report need to be resolved before it
19 is official. Mr. Janish stated the items need to be resolved. He said of all the comments,
20 there are two important ones which include access to the properties north of the
21 development and the access to the south.
22
23 Chairperson Koehler stated it is quite common to see a memo from Mr. Berkowitz
24 addressing unresolved issues. He stated it is very uncommon to see issues of the magnitude
25 of access points. He said the project has not been rushed, but he believes it came to
26 Planning and Zoning earlier than it should have. He said he is uncomfortable making a
27 decision without the issues being resolved and there is a need for contingencies placed
28 upon the recommendation.
29
30 Commissioner Perra informed the Commission that the Parks Commission has struggled
31 to replace outdated parks equipment and maintain the current park system, so they have
32 become very conservative in accepting park land and lean towards cash in lieu.
33
34 Commissioner Loehlein stated he has two major hang-ups on approval of this amendment.
35 He said not having a connection makes this appear like two separate developments.
36 Commissioner Loehlein stated there is a massive list of unresolved comments that it's hard
37 to know where it's going to fall.
38
39 Chairperson Koehler asked why the east/west connection is being eliminated. He inquired
40 if it was due to the developer not wanting additional costs or the City wanting to preserve
41 the land. Mr. Janish stated the developer brought the item to the Council at a workshop
42 and discussed the impact to the wetland and showed a drone video of the land. The Council
43 reached a consensus that the feasibility of the road and the environmental impact was too
44 significant.
Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
Minutes —August 25, 2020
Page 9
2 Chairperson Koehler asked the Commission how they felt about the longer cul-de-sacs. He
3 stated they have approved longer cul-de-sacs and the main issue is snow removal. The
4 Commission did not have any issues regarding the length of the cul-de-sac.
5
6 Chairperson Koehler asked the Commission how they felt about the connection to the
7 south. He stated his opinion is that everything is contingent on constructing the access
8 road. Chairperson Koehler would approve the PUD contingent on the south access road.
9 Commissioner Loehlein stated there are too many unresolved issues and the practice has
10 been that these issues are resolved before they come to the Planning and Zoning
11 Commission.
12
13 Commissioner VanderLaan stated she attended the Council workshop when the east/west
14 road was discussed. Commissioner VanderLaan stated the Council decided to hand the
15 decision to the Planning and Zoning Commission to vet out. She stated she is okay with
16 approving the CUP and make it contingent on the southern access point.
17
18 Chairperson Koehler stated he agrees with Commissioner VanderLaan and said if the
19 developer can figure out how to build the southern access point, then go ahead. He said if
20 they cannot figure it out, then wait until they do.
21
22 Commissioner Godfrey asked if there was a ghost plat for the future phases that identifies
23 ways to get in and out of the development. Mr. Janish displayed the Master Plan map and
24 identified the other access roads into the development. Commissioner Godfrey stated due
25 to environmental factors, it is impossible to meet the requirement to extend the road as
26 originally planned, however there is a future option to make access to the development
27 more workable.
28
29 Chairperson Koehler asked Commissioner Godfrey if she thought the development did not
30 need the southern access road because the future phases would provide enough access.
31 Commissioner Godfrey said no, although she is trying to find some glimmer of hope that
32 there is a solution should the situation with the landowner to acquire the property for the
33 road were to fall through.
34
35 Commissioner VanderLaan said the issue is how firm of a stance does the Commission
36 want to take in requiring the second outlet. Commissioner VanderLaan read the line from
37 Mr. Berkowitz's memo stating the developer needs to provide a secondary roadway and
38 the developer is pursuing land to provide the access. She said Mr. Berkowitz recommended
39 the approval be contingent on providing a second access to the development.
40
41 Motion by VanderLaan, seconded by Elias, to recommend to the City Council approval of
42 Conditional Use Permit (CUP)/Planned Unit Development (PUD) Amendment "The
43 Preserve at Petersen Farms" Phase 2 - PIDs 07-32-24-42-0002, 07-32-24-43-0003, 07-32-
44 24-34-0002, 07-32-24-34-0003, 07-32-24-3 3 -0001, 07-32-24-3 1-0001, 07-32-24-32-000 1,
45 07-32-24-23-0002,07-32-24-24-0001 -JD Andover Holdings.
Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
Minutes —August 25, 2020
Page 10
1
2 Commissioner Elias seconded with an amendment making the approval contingent on
3 providing a second access to the development. Commissioner VanderLaan accepted the
4 friendly amendment.
5
6 Commissioner VanderLaan added an amendment adding the following phrase to
7 Conditions 13 and 14: "to the satisfaction of staff'. Commissioner Elias accepted the
8 friendly amendment.
9
10 Motion was taken by roll call:
I I VanderLaan - aye
12 Koehler - aye
13 Hudson - nay
14 Godfrey - aye
15 Elias — aye
16 Loehlein - nay
17 Perra- aye
18 Motion carries 5-2 (Hudson and Loehlein)
19
20 Mr. Janish announced the recommendation will be on the City Council's agenda on
21 Tuesday, September 1, 2020.
22
23 PUBLIC HEARING: PRELIMINARY PLAT - THE MEADOWS AT PETERSEN
24 FARMS (46 SINGLE FAMILY RURAL LOTS) - PIDS. 07-32-24-42-0002, 07-32-24-
25 43-0003, 07-32-24-31-0001, 07-32-24-34-0002 — JD HOLDINGS
26
27 Mr. Janish presented the Preliminary Plat for the Meadows at Petersen Farms. Mr. Janish
28 stated the Preliminary Plat is comprised of 47 pages. He reviewed the easements and street
29 access maps. Mr. Janish presented a slide depicting Jivaro Street and stated the Council
30 directed the two residents and the developer to discuss realignment of Jivaro Street. Mr.
31 Janish stated the City is not aware of any resolution to this matter. Mr. Janish spoke briefly
32 about shoreline access, tree removal, and stormwater information. Mr. Janish summarized
33 the documents available for the Commission to review in making their decision.
34
35 Motion by Hudson, seconded by Godfrey, to open the public hearing at 9:58 p.m.
36 Motion was taken by roll call:
37 VanderLaan - aye
38 Koehler - aye
39 Hudson - aye
40 Godfrey - aye
41 Elias — aye
42 Loehlein - aye
43 Perra- aye
44 Motion carries unanimously.
45
Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
Minutes —August 25, 2020
Page 11
1 Mr. Lazan came forward and stated this is the most contentious item of the development.
2 He said currently there is not an agreement between the property owners and the developer.
3 Mr. Lazan said they do not know the history of the area, but they have acquired the written
4 record. Mr. Lazan stated Jivaro street exists on GIS but not in title. Mr. Lazan stated there
5 is a private agreement between two parties granting non-exclusive access to the Luedtke
6 Property and how the easement will terminate. He stated the agreement was made with the
7 full intention of being able to develop the property at a later date.
8
9 Diane Park, 1524 —155a' Lane NW, and Kevin Petersen, 1901-1401" Lane NE, Ham Lake,
10 came forward and said they had conversations with their father about the agreement
I I between Anoka Independent and the Luedtke's. Ms. Park stated the agreement was for the
12 40-acre parcel. Ms. Park stated Anoka Independent was not approached about extending
13 the easement over two parcels when the Luedtke's split their lot. She explained the original
14 agreement has never been changed and it was between Anoka Independent and the
15 Luedtke's 40-acre parcel.
16
17 Mr. Lazan stated the easement was assigned to the City of Andover as part of a lot split in
18 1995. He explained the easement was converted from a private agreement to a public
19 easement without the knowledge of the Petersen family. Mr. Lazan showed the easement
20 on the map and identified the proposed street going through the development, Inca Street.
21 He explained Inca Street cannot be shifted and must go through the properties as shown on
22 the map because it is an MSA road and approved by staff. Mr. Lazan quoted language
23 from the agreement stating when the easement will be vacated. Mr. Lazan stated they have
24 worked on the issue for the past year and have brought forward 10 options for access to the
25 property owners. He explained every proposal has the developer paying all costs for the
26 driveway and putting in a cul-de-sac at the end of the development until the properties to
27 the north are developed. He said all offers have been turned down and there is no resolution
28 at this time. He stated the development is ready to move forward and the developer is
29 asking the City to honor the easement agreement and vacate the easement.
30
31 Bud Holst, 4276 — 165' Avenue NW came forward and said he heard the intent of the
32 easement agreement was to serve one 40-acre parcel. He said it does not matter what the
33 intent was, what the document says is what matters. He said there is no place in this
34 agreement that identifies the acreage, it identifies the Luedtke's. He said since the City of
35 Andover approved the easement means precedence is set and the City should honor the
36 easement.
37
38 Mr. Lazan clarified the easement agreement does not directly say 40-acre parcel, but it does
39 say the Luedtke property in Exhibit B which shows 40 acres.
40
41 Robert Petersen, 4239 - 165 h Ave, came forward and said he is the grandson of Mr.
42 Petersen and was actively involved in the business when this agreement was written up and
43 he was involved in writing it up. He stated his grandfather was very lax in putting things
44 in writing. He said the agreement with the Luedtke's was access to their home, whether
Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
Minutes —August 25, 2020
Page 12
1 they had 40 acres, 10 acres, or 5 acres. He stated the road should go to the Luedtke's
2 property the way it is going in now.
3
4 Ben Reichers, 15844 Martin St NW, came forward and said the City took responsibility for
5 Jivaro Street and it became a City street. He stated the City cannot go back and say now it
6 is an easement and not a street. He said the City should take responsibility.
7
8 Jeff Luedtke, 16932 Jivaro St NW, came forward and said Diane and Kevin were not there
9 when he and Hope talked to Fred Petersen. He said there was a lot of work done so the
to City would allow them to build a house on their property. Mr. Luedtke presented a letter
11 from Todd Haas stating Jivaro was established as a minimum maintenance road. Mr.
12 Luedtke presented Statutes for how to vacate a minimum maintenance road. Mr. Luedtke
13 explained the intent of the easement agreement was not to give him access to his property
14 because he had that with Jivaro Street. He said the intent of the agreement was so they
15 could fulfill the requirements the City was putting on them to build a house. He said the
16 agreement identified the Luedtke property because at some point they would sell part of
17 the property and still needed access to their home. Mr. Luedtke stated the City would not
18 acknowledge the lot split until all the conditions were met: Jivaro Street surveyed,
19 agreement with the Petersens, and sign over the easement rights to the City, so Jivaro would
20 become an official road. He stated this proves the intent of the agreement. He said the lot
21 split was not officially recorded. He said all he is asking is that the Commission members
22 put themselves in his position.
23
24 Mr. Lazan came forward and stated this entire situation is a mess. He stated they are
25 looking for a solution and it comes down to a couple hundred feet. He said they tried to
26 resolve this in an amicable way but could not come up with an agreement so now they are
27 deferring to the City. He said it is the Petersen's property and they have the right to develop
28 along the edge of their property. He explained he wants to resolve the issue of a couple
29 hundred feet in the most amicable way and they have 10 options which will work.
30
31 Adi McDonald, 16927 Jivaro St NW, came forward and said the options the developer
32 presented required her to give up land so her neighbor can have access to their property.
33 She said the last option was a land swap that benefited her but did not benefit the Luedtkes.
34 She stated there was not a lot of homework done and if they did do their homework, this
35 would not be an issue.
36
37 Hope Luedtke, 16932 Jivaro St NW, came forward and said it is true the developers have
38 tried to work with them. She said the land swap may be something they can work with,
39 but they are not going to say yes until everything is on paper and the lawyers have looked
40 at it. She said 25 years ago, they put a lot of work into building a home and it took them
41 three years. She stated this has been rushed and it is not ready to go to Planning and Council
42 because no agreement has been reached. She said the developer just needs to reduce their
43 plan by one lot to accommodate her access. She stated changing her access to Inca is a
44 headache and costs are involved. She said she thinks they will be able to work something
45 out, but they are not ready to make that happen yet.
Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
Minutes —August 25, 2020
Page 13
2 Diane Park, 1524 — 155 h Lane NW, came forward and wanted to be clear that she is
3 speaking on behalf of her father and speaks of his intent. She said he has no recollection
4 of a lot split and he has said his intent was to Hope and Jeff Luedtke on the 40-acre parcel.
5
6 Chairperson Koehler stated he is keeping the public hearing open as the Commission
7 discusses the item in order to gather feedback.
9 Commissioner VanderLaan said fundamentally, the City was never granting anyone to
10 have a shared driveway. She asked staff if building permits are valid and if they are not
11 valid, the City needs to rectify the issue.
12
13 Mr. Baumgartner said this is not a simple matter and is difficult going back in history. He
14 said the question is what the intent of the City Council at the time was. He said the City
15 Attorney at that time reported the easement was not necessary because the road was a
16 dedicated roadway. Yet, the Council accepted the easement and allowed buildings to be
17 constructed. He said in order for a structure to be built, it must have access to a public
18 roadway. He said the purpose of accepting the easement was to allow for the access to
19 permit construction of the properties. He said the easement is clearly defined and his
20 opinion is that the intent of the easement is to service the Luedtke property. He said the
21 Council at the time understood the intent and the location of the easement. He said that by
22 accepting the easement, the City put themselves in a difficult situation as a holder of the
23 road and acceptor of the easement. He asked: is the City vacating a road or vacating an
24 easement? He said his job is to protect the City and he always takes the conservative
25 approach first. He said if the City is bound by the easement, then the City is the grantee of
26 the agreement. He said the City, as the grantee and Anoka Grain and Feed as the grantor,
27 amend the document in any way they want. If the City allowed the Luedtke's to build their
28 home and this particular easement was going to provide access, and the City changed the
29 conditions of the easement agreement, the Luedtke's could have a case against the City if
30 they take away access. He said the bottom line is this: there is an established location for
31 the easement, it is there for a purpose, the City accepted the easement with the
32 understanding it is there for a purpose, and the current Council has no desire to damage the
33 Luedtke's access. He stated if the City is to vacate the easement, they are creating a land-
34 locked parcel. He said the parties need to figure this out, or the City will have to. He said
35 the two parties have control over the outcome and if they come to the City for a decision,
36 they relinquish control
37
38 Commissioner VanderLaan said she remembers Jivaro Road does not serve the McDonald
39 property very well. She said the road is substandard and the City has not maintained it.
40 She said the solution is to continue negotiating so the City's interest does not dominate
41 them. She said the road must move away from the lake. She said if they try to sell their
42 home, it may be difficult because of the shared driveway and the condition of the roadway.
43 She encouraged the two parties to come to an agreement.
44
45 Motion by Elias, seconded by Godfrey, to recess the meeting for a five-minute break.
Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
Minutes —August 25, 2020
Page 14
1 Motion was taken by roll call:
2 VanderLaan - aye
3 Koehler - aye
4 Hudson - nay
5 Godfrey - nay
6 Elias — aye
7 Loehlein - nay
8 Perra- nay
9 Motion fails 3-4 (Godfrey, Loehlein, Perra, Hudson)
10
11 Chairperson Koehler asked if the driveways came off a cul-de-sac and the homes do not
12 have frontage, what is the City's stance. Mr. Janish said there is not 300 feet of continued
13 right-of-way on the McDonald property as it stands now. Mr. Janish referred to a survey
14 that shows the McDonalds have 100 feet of easement. Mr. Baumgartner stated the original
15 agreement was for 18 feet of easement and the document shows 66 feet. Mr. Baumgartner
16 said at the worst, what the McDonalds have is a legal non -conforming property which
17 means it can continue to exist and if at some time a roadway is built through the property,
18 it can become a legal conforming property.
19
20 Chairperson Koehler stated he agrees with Mr. Baumgartner and Commissioner
21 VanderLaan that the last thing the parties need is someone making up their minds for them.
22 Chairperson Koehler said an arbitrator may be beneficial.
23
24 Mr. Lazan proposed that they give 18 feet of easement to Inca Street to get the Preliminary
25 Plat approved and then work something out prior to bringing forth the Final Plat. He
26 requested a recommendation to approve the Preliminary Plat with that condition.
27
28 Chairperson Koehler asked what happens if the Commission does that and an agreement is
29 not reached. Mr. Lazan stated the property owner is in the same position they are today,
30 with an 18-foot easement with access to the road. Mr. Lazan displayed a visual of the option
31 and stated it provides the homeowners exactly what they have today.
32
33 Mr. Baumgartner stated that decision locks the property owners in if there is not a better
34 solution. He said he would rather see the Commission make an approval contingent upon
35 a solution acceptable to the City.
36
37 Chairperson Koehler suggested the Commission approve the plat with the condition that
38 the parties reach an agreement acceptable by the City. Chairperson Koehler stated they
39 have until it comes before Council on September 1 to reach an agreement. Mr. Lazan stated
40 that was enough time for the developer.
41
42 Commissioner Hudson stated a solution acceptable to the City is not the appropriate
43 language. He said it should be what is acceptable to the McDonalds, Luedtkes and the
44 developer and the City should not be dictating that.
45
Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
Minutes —August 25, 2020
Page 15
i Hope Luedtke, 16932 Jivaro St NW, came forward and said her family is on vacation and
2 they would not have the time to review the proposal and come to a decision by September
3 1.
4
5 Chairperson Koehler replied to Commissioner Hudson stating if the solution has to be
6 acceptable to all three, then one person can hold out and kill the project. Mr. Baumgartner
7 stated the worst scenario is the City making the decision.
8
9 Commissioner VanderLaan proposed making a motion to discontinue discussion of the
10 Preliminary Plat pending a meeting among the parties. She believes the parties are
11 reasonable and can solve it.
12
13 Mr. Lazan said they are on an extremely tight timeframe and he will commit what he can
14 in the next two days, but he would rather have a recommendation for denial than a delay.
15
16 Darren McDonald, 16927 Jivaro St NW, said they have been working with the developers
17 and it has been a long and emotional process.
18
19 Chairperson Koehler stated they have the option to deny, approve, or table. He said if the
20 Commission tables the decision, it throws a monkey wrench in the whole thing.
21
22 Mr. Janish received a phone call from a resident strongly supporting the use of roundabouts
23 and recommends approval of the plat contingent of roundabouts on 70' Avenue.
24
25 Jason Osberg, JD Andover Holdings, came forward and thanked the McDonalds and
26 Luedtkes for working with them and thanked the City staff for coordinating meetings to
27 try and resolve this issue. He said there is no easy answer and believes they are close to a
28 resolution.
29
30 Jeff Luedtke, 16932 Jivaro St NW, came forward and said it is a mess because of
31 requirements and lawyers. He said even if there is an agreement for a land swap, he is not
32 doing anything until it is in writing and the lawyers have gone over it. He said having the
33 documents drafted is not going to be done in two or three days. He does not want to be in
34 this position again.
35
36 Motion by Hudson, seconded by Godfrey, to close the public hearing at 11:35 p.m. Motion
37 was taken by roll call:
38 VanderLaan - aye
39 Koehler - aye
40 Hudson - aye
41 Godfrey - aye
42 Elias — aye
43 Loehlein - aye
44 Perra- aye
45 Motion carries unanimously.
Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
Minutes —August 25, 2020
Page 16
2 Chairperson Koehler stated he does not want to table the item, but he also does not want to
3 rush it because what Mr. Luedtke stated is true. He suggested recommending approval
4 with the condition that the parties reach an agreement and give them the time to come to
5 an agreement.
7 Commissioner Loehlein stated he thinks it is outrageous that they are at this point. He said
8 the City has developments going on all over and there are disagreements between property
9 owners and developers all the time that get worked out. He said the Luedtke's and
to McDonalds should not be put out or inconvenienced because of the development. He stated
i l the developers should be giving more than the Luedtke's and the McDonalds to leave them
12 as happy neighbors.
13
14 Commissioner Godfrey said she feels that they approve it with contingencies, it puts undue
15 pressure on the property owners to reach a solution. She said it is not appropriate for the
16 Commission to put pressure on the residents and says she thinks the Commission should
17 recommend denial of the application because it is not ready.
18
19 Chairperson Koehler stated the Commission should decide either way, so it goes to City
20 Council.
21
22 Motion by Loehlein, seconded by Elias, to recommend to the City Council denial of
23 Preliminary Plat - The Meadows at Petersen Farms (46 Single Family Rural Lots) - PIDs:
24 07-32-24-42-0002, 07-32-24-43-0003, 07-32-24-31-0001, 07-32-24-34-0002 - JD
25 Holdings due to the developer has not provided reasonable access to the properties on the
26 north.
27
28 Chairperson Koehler asked Mr. Baumgartner to comment on the motion. Mr. Baumgartner
29 stated if approval creates a landlocked property, then it is appropriate to deny. In addition,
30 Mr. Baumgartner stated approval would eliminate access to a property that the City
31 previously provided access to.
32
33 Motion was taken by roll call:
34 VanderLaan - nay
35 Koehler - nay
36 Hudson -aye
37 Godfrey - aye
38 Elias - aye
39 Loehlein - aye
40 Perra - aye
41 Motion carries 5-2 (Koehler, VanderLaan)
42
43 Commissioner VanderLaan stated she is voting nay because she feels stating the.project is
44 moving forward will motivate the parties to come to a resolution.
45
Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
Minutes —August 25, 2020
Page 17
1 Mr. Janish stated the item will be presented to City Council on September 1, 2020.
2
3 Chairperson Koehler stated this has been a difficult four hours and he cannot imagine what
4 the parties are going through. He wished the parties good luck and hoped for the best for
5 them.
6
7 OTHER BUSINESS
8
9 Chairperson Koehler thanked staff individually and stated they are phenomenal.
10
11 No other business.
12
13 ADJOURNMENT
14
15 Motion by Hudson, seconded by EIias, to adjourn the meeting at 11:47 p.m. Motion was
16 taken by roll call:
17 VanderLaan - aye
18 Koehler - aye
19 Hudson - aye
20 Godfrey - aye
21 Elias — aye
22 Loehlein - aye
23 Perra- aye
24 Motion carries unanimously.
25
26 Respectfully Submitted,
27
28 Shari Kunza, Recording Secretary
29 TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc.
8 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION WORKSHOP MEETING —
9 SEPTEMBER 8, 2020
10
11 The Workshop Meeting of the Andover Planning and Zoning Commission was called to
12 order by Chairperson Bert Koehler IV on September 8, 2020, 6:15 p.m., at the Andover
13 City Hall, 1685 Crosstown Boulevard NW, Andover, Minnesota.
14
15 Commissioners present: Karen Godfrey, Mary VanderLaan, Nick Loehlein
16 (remote), and Marni Elias
17
18 Commissioners absent: Scott Hudson, and Dawn Perra
19
20 Also present: City Planner Peter Hellegers
21 Associate Planner Jake Griffiths
22 Others
23
24
25 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
26
27 City Planner Hellegers explained the Comprehensive Plan process required by the
28 Metropolitan Council. Mr. Hellegers reviewed the major components focusing on density,
29 affordable housing, and the discussions by Council and the Planning Commission.
30
31 Commissioner Godfrey asked Mr. Hellegers to explain how the target number for
32 affordable housing is reached. Mr. Hellegers responded the number of units required for
33 affordable housing is dependent on the City's population. He explained that as a
34 developing community, the City has a higher requirement than a community that is fully
35 developed. Mr. Hellegers stated the dollar amount is based on average income for a family
36 of four.
37
38 Chairperson Koehler asked if renewable energy is addressed in the Comprehensive Plan.
39 Mr. Hellegers stated it is addressed in the Land Use chapter and it is not a stand-alone
40 section. Mr. Hellegers explained solar power is addressed within the Comp Plan. Mr.
41 Hellegers further explained the City has adopted an ordinance allowing greater use of solar
42 power.
43
44 Associate Planner Griffiths stated there is also a map in the Comprehensive Plan that shows
45 areas of the City suitable for solar power.
46
Andover Planning and Zoning Workshop Meeting
Minutes —September 8, 2020
Page 2
1 Commissioner VanderLaan asked about the growth forecast and stated the Metropolitan
2 Council has varied from the Census Bureau. Mr. Hellegers replied the Census forecast is
3 used for some essential purposes and the Metropolitan Council provides updates and
4 forecasts into the future. Commissioner VanderLaan asked for copies of the data. Mr.
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
Hellegers displayed the revised forecast on the PowerPoint. He stated the 2020 should be
somewhat accurate although it is not official. Mr. Griffiths stated the Census Bureau based
the City's population on actual responses and the Metropolitan Council used data from the
2010 census to forecast the City's population. He explained the City has updated the
population projection based on what has been developed and what land could potentially
be developed in the future. Commissioner VanderLaan asked if staff felt the population
projection was accurate even though the Census Bureau has not completed their count for
the 2020 census. Mr. Hellegers responded it was as close as the City would get. Mr.
Griffiths replied the City will know in several months how close the projection is to actual
when the 2020 census is completed.
Commissioner Elias asked if during the next Comprehensive Plan update in 2028, can the
Met Council make the City change areas to different density if the City has not yet
developed based on the current plan. Mr. Hellegers stated it depends on how quickly these
areas develop and he said the City will run out of space. He stated the City will continue
to see requirements for density and affordable housing from the Met Council. Mr.
Hellegers stated the City has areas for new development and areas for redevelopment. He
said it is difficult to predict what will develop. Mr. Griffiths stated the Comprehensive
Plan meets the bare minimum requirements of the Met Council at this time. Mr. Griffiths
explained the Metropolitan Council requirements change based on what land the City has
left to develop within the MUSA. Mr. Hellegers stated the Rural Reserve area is not
currently counted in density by the Met Council because it is not within the MUSA.
Commissioner Elias asked if it is better to encourage or discourage development of the
higher density areas in the City. Mr. Hellegers responded the City Council has approved
and is willing to develop the areas proposed in the plan.
Chairperson Koehler stated he appreciates all the work staff has put into the
Comprehensive Plan.
ADJOURNMENT
Chairperson Koehler adjourned the workshop at 6:45 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
Shari Kunza, Recording Secretary
TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING
SEPTEMBER 8, 2020
The Regular Bi-Monthly Meeting of the Andover Planning and Zoning Commission was
called to order by Chairperson Bert Koehler IV on September 8, 2020, 7:00 p.m., at the
Andover City Hall, 1685 Crosstown Boulevard NW, Andover, Minnesota.
Commissioners present: Karen Godfrey, Nick Loehlein (remote), Mary
VanderLaan, and Marni Elias
Commissioners absent: Dawn Perra, Scott Hudson
Also present: City Planner Peter Hellegers
Associate Planner Jake Griffiths
Others
PLEDGE OFALLEGL9NCE
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
August 12, 2020 Work Session
Motion by VanderLaan, seconded by Godfrey, to approve the August 12, 2020 Work
Session Minutes as presented. Motion was taken by roll call:
VanderLaan - aye
Koehler - aye
Hudson - absent
Godfrey - aye
Elias — present
Loehlein - aye
Perra- absent
Motion carries 4 ayes, 1 present (Elias), 2 absent (Hudson and Perra)
August 12, 2020 Regular Meeting
Motion by Godfrey, seconded by Elias, to approve the August 12, 2020 Regular Meeting
Minutes as presented. Motion was taken by roll call:
VanderLaan - aye
Koehler - aye
Hudson - absent
Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
Minutes — September 8, 2020
Page 2
1 Godfrey - aye
2 Elias — present
3 Loehlein - aye
4 Perra- absent
5 Motion carries 4 ayes, 1 present (Elias), 2 absent (Hudson and Perra)
6
7 PUBLIC HEARING: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
9 City Planner Hellegers explained that the Comprehensive Plan is how the City guides
to development and the City has been working on the 2040 Comprehensive Plan for a few
11 years. Mr. Hellegers described the process of the Comprehensive Plan 10-year
12 comprehensive planning cycle. He said the plan was submitted to the Met Council in June
13 of 2019 and it was deemed incomplete. He stated since then, the City has addressed the
14 Comp Plan and making in alignment with the requirements of the Metropolitan Council.
15
16 Mr. Hellegers briefly reviewed the chapters and the changes the City was required to
17 change. He stated the population forecast was decreased while the employment forecast
18 was increased. He explained the affordable housing requirement also changed based on
19 the revised forecast, requiring the City to have 362 affordable housing units, down from
20 the previously required 483. Mr. Hellegers described the City has challenges based on
21 having suburban and rural land.
22
23 Mr. Hellegers displayed maps illustrating land use densities and the changes the City made
24 between Comp Plan drafts. He stated the current land use map went through several City
25 Council workshops and meets Met Council requirements.
26
27 Mr. Hellegers reviewed the next steps and stated the Commission is asked to hold a public
28 hearing and provide a recommendation to the City Council.
29
30 Commissioner Godfrey asked when the City would hear from the Met Council as to if the
31 plan is acceptable. Mr. Hellegers stated the City would hear within 60 days if the plan is
32 approved.
33
34 Motion by VanderLaan, seconded by Godfrey to open the public hearing at 7:14 p.m.
35 Motion was taken by roll call:
36 VanderLaan - aye
37 Koehler - aye
38 Hudson - absent
39 Godfrey - aye
40 Elias — aye
41 Loehlein - aye
42 Perra- absent
43 Motion carries 5 ayes, 0 nays, and 2 absent (Hudson and Pena)
44
45
Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
Minutes — September 8, 2020
Page 3
1 Chairperson Koehler stated no one was present in Council Chambers nor on Zoom.
2 Chairperson Koehler stated the Commission received two emails. He stated Mr. Untz
3 emailed supporting the rural residential density at .4 units per acre and questioned the
4 City's progress toward renewable energy. Chairperson Koehler said the second email
5 expressed curiosity about farmland development, wants to ensure there is ample open
6 space, and feels the City is growing too fast.
7
8 Motion by VanderLaan, seconded by Elias, to close the public hearing at 7:17 p.m.
9 Motion was taken by roll call:
10 VanderLaan - aye
11 Koehler - aye
12 Hudson - absent
13 Godfrey - aye
14 Elias — aye
15 Loehlein - aye
16 Perra- absent
17 Motion carries 5 ayes, 0 nays, and 2 absent (Hudson and Pena)
18
19 Chairperson Koehler stated he confirmed there are sections within the Comprehensive Plan
20 and within City Code addressing renewable energy and the City recently expanded the
21 option to have solar energy. He encouraged residents to call City Hall for more
22 information.
23
24 Commissioner Godfrey commended staff for their work on the Comprehensive Plan. She
25 stated she has witnessed staffs effort of maintaining the character of Andover while
26 following the requirements of the Met Council.
27
28 Chairperson Koehler stated the Commission had a workshop prior to the regular meeting
29 where Commissioners had the opportunity to ask staff detailed questions.
30
31 Motion by Loehlein, seconded by Godfrey, to recommend to the City Council Approving
32 the Submittal of the Andover Comprehensive Plan to the Metropolitan Council.
33 Motion was taken by roll call:
34 VanderLaan - aye
35 Koehler - aye
36 Hudson - absent
37 Godfrey - aye
38 Elias — aye
39 Loehlein - aye
40 Perra- absent
41 Motion carries 5 ayes, 0 nays, and 2 absent (Hudson and Pena)
42
43 Mr. Hellegers stated the recommendation will be on the City Council's agenda on Tuesday,
44 September 15, 2020.
45
Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
Minutes — September 8, 2020
Page 4
1 OTHER BUSINESS
2
3 Associate Planner Griffiths updated the Commission on items on previous agendas that
4 had been addressed by the City Council.
5
6 Mr. Griffiths stated the Commission will most likely not meet for a second meeting in
7 September.
8
9 No other business.
10
11 ADJOURNMENT
12
13 Motion by Elias, seconded by VanderLaan, to adjourn the meeting at 7:23 p.m. Motion
14 was taken by roll call:
15 VanderLaan - aye
16 Koehler - aye
17 Hudson - absent
18 Godfrey - aye
19 Elias — aye
20 Loehlein - aye
21 Perra- absent
22 Motion carries 5 ayes, 0 nays, and 2 absent (Hudson and Perra)
23
24 Respectfully Submitted,
25
26 Shari Kunza, Recording Secretary
27 TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc.
1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. • ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 • (763) 755-5100
FAX (763) 755-8923 • WWW.ANDOVERMN.GOV
TO: Planning and Zoning Commissioners
CC: Joe Janish, Community Development Directo{'�
FROM: Jake Griffiths, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING: Sketch Plan/PUD Concept Plan Review — Nightingale Meadows
— Tamarack Land Development, LLC
DATE: November 10, 2020
INTRODUCTION
The Planning and Zoning Commission is asked to review a sketch plan for a single family planned unit
residential development proposed as Nightingale Meadows. The applicant submitted a letter explaining
their request which is attached for your review.
What is a PUD Concept Plan?
A PUD Concept Plan is used to provide feedback to the developer through the Andover Review
Committee (ARC), Planning and Zoning Commission, Park and Recreation Commission, and City
Council without taking formal action.
Purpose of PUD?
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 what could
otherwise be achieved through strict application of this code.
DISCUSSION
The Andover Review Committee (ARC) reviewed the sketch plan and submitted comments to the
applicant. These comments have been attached for your review. Staff suggests the comments be
reviewed as part of the sketch plan process.
Conformance with Local and Regional Plans and Ordinances
1. The property is located within the Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA) boundary.
2. The property will be required to be rezoned from R-1 Single Family Rural to R-4 Single Family
Urban.
Access
A new access will be created from Nightingale Street NW as shown on the attached sketch plan. Due to
the site not having adequate access to additional right-of-way, the applicant is proposing a temporary cul-
de-sac near where the future connection to Quinn Street NW and the existing Woodland Estates
neighborhood would occur. It is staffs understanding that the applicant has had discussions with adjacent
property owners to acquire additional right-of-way and make a full Quinn St NW connection, however, at
the time of this report the right-of-way has yet to be acquired. The applicant also identifies street stubs to
adjacent properties with development potential. Staff has suggested that roadway stubs be constructed and
utilize appropriate signage and barricades.
Staff has recommended the applicant construct a temporary emergency vehicle access between the
proposed temporary cul-de-sac and existing Quinn Street NW. Final design of said access would be
included at time of preliminary plat.
The City of Andover does have road easement rights across the adjacent property to the west located at
2159 — 153rd Lane NW as shown on the attached sketch plan. The easement was dedicated at the time of
construction of the dwelling on the adjacent property and could potentially be required as part of this
development. However, since the adjacent property is also within the MUSA boundary and has
development potential, staff is not explicitly suggesting that connection at this time. In the future,
whenever the adjacent property to the west is developed roadway connections to Quinn St NW to the
south and 153rd Lane NW to the west would be required.
Utilities
Each of the lots will be served by municipal sewer and water. During Comprehensive Planning 24 sewer
hook ups had been allocated for this property, with additional connections allocated for adjacent
properties with development potential. The applicant is proposing 22 lots as part of the proposed
development which is 2 less hook ups than what has been allocated for this property.
Lots
The property would be rezoned from R-1 Single Family Rural to R-4 Single Family Urban at the time of
preliminary plat request. The R-4 zoning district includes lot size requirements of 11,400 square feet and
lot widths of 80 feet at the front yard setback line. The applicant is proposing to deviate from the R-4
standards.
Homes
The applicant is proposing a detached single-family townhome/villa product. A sample of housing styles
and elevations has been attached for your review. The applicant has indicated to staff that the
development would be constructed with homes of the attached style, with architectural variations between
each lot.
Screening and Buffering
The applicant is proposing a 30-foot landscape and tree preservation buffer along the north side of the site
to provide a buffer between the proposed development and the existing rural development to the north.
Adjacent properties to the west and southeast also have development potential so screening and buffering
is not explicitly required from these properties.
Tree Preservation Plan
There are a significant number of trees throughout the property the applicant is proposing to preserve.
The trees will provide a buffer between neighboring properties. As part of the PUD process, the applicant
is required to submit a tree protection plan showing trees to be preserved. This will be required during the
preliminary plat process.
Wetlands
The City is not aware of any wetlands located within the sketch plan area. Regardless, the site will need to
be reviewed by the Coon Creek Watershed District (CCWD) and wetland delineation completed for any
wetlands that may be found.
Coordination with other Agencies
The developer and/or owner are responsible to obtain all necessary permits (Minnesota Department of
Natural Resources, U.S. Army Corp of Engineers, CCWD, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, LGU
and any other agency that may have an interest in the site). Initial contact shall be made with the City
Engineering Department regarding this item.
Park and Recreation Commission Review
The Park and Recreation Commission is scheduled to review this application at their November 5, 2020
meeting. Staff will provide a verbal update at the meeting regarding the Park and Recreation
Commission's review.
Planned Unit Development (PUD)
The applicant is requesting a Planned Unit Development (PUD) as part of this development. The
applicant is requesting flexibility in the bulk area standards including size, dimension, etc. in order to
accommodate greater flexibility in site design and to meet minimum net density requirements. Applicable
City Code requirements for PUDs are attached for your review.
The table below depicts the proposed PUD standards:
o.
Item
R-4 Standard for
W.D. Request
Description of Request
single-family
for detached
homes
single family
villas
1
Min. Lot Width
80 feet
65 feet +
A smaller lot width would better fit a villa and
allows for minimum net density requirements to be
met within the site.
2
Min. Lot Area
11,400 sq/ft
10,200 sq/ft —
The smallest lot in the development is 10,200 sq/ft
31,420 sq/ft
with the largest being 31,420 sq/ft. 5 out of 22 lots
do not meet standard R-4 requirements.
3
Side Yard
10 feet
7.5 feet
The reduced side yard setback would be sufficient
Setback
for a narrower lot.
(Dwelling Side
4
Side Yard
6 feet
7.5 feet
The proposed 7.5-foot side yard setback for the
Setback (Garage
garage is greater than standard R-4 requirements.
Side
5
Cul-De-Sac
500 feet
Est. 1,000 feet
Proposed cul-de-sac is temporary.
Length
Density
The Draft 2018 Comprehensive Plan identifies the subject property within the Urban Residential Low
(URL) net density range of 2.4 - 4.0 units per acre. Since the site is within the MUSA boundary, we use
net density rather than gross density for the purposes of the Comprehensive Plan. At this time staff is
unable to calculate the exact net density because the proposed ponding has yet to be fully designed.
Once designed, any ponding under the 100-year flood elevation would be excluded from the net density
calculation and would significantly impact net density. With the information available at this time, staff
estimates that the net density will be close to the minimum of 2.4 units per acre and the applicant has
indicated to staff that without the proposed reduction in lot width they could not meet minimum net
density requirements.
Woodland Estates 4th Addition Ghost Plat
At the time the Woodland Estates neighborhood to the south was constructed, the developer of that
neighborhood ghost platted the site and adjacent properties. A copy of this ghost plat is attached for your
review. The ghost plat identifies the potential for 24 lots within the subject property using R-4 zoning
district standards. Through the PUD, the applicant is proposing a total of 22 lots which is two less than
the ghost plat.
NEXT STEPS
Based on feedback received on the sketch plan, the applicant will modify the layout and make application
for Preliminary Plat, PUD, Rezoning and Final Plat and any other submittals to seek their desired
outcome.
ACTION REQUESTED
The Planning and Zoning Commission is asked to hold a public hearing, take public feedback on the
proposed sketch plan/PUD and informally advise the applicant on adjustments to the proposed project to
conform to local ordinances and review criteria. City staff will also share these comments with the City
Council.
Respectfully submitted,
ak�ths/�
Associate Planner
Attachments
Page #
PUD Standards and Review Criteria.....................................................................5
LocationMap...............................................................................................6
ApplicantLetter............................................................................................7
City Staff Comments Dated October 26, 2020.........................................................8
Proposed Home Elevations..............................................................................10
Sketch Plan of Proposed PUD/Detached Villas.......................................................15
Ghost Plat of Standard R-4 Single Family Urban Lots...............................................16
Cc: Dale Willenbring, Tamarack Land Development LLC, 1536 Beachcomber Blvd,
Waconia, MN 55387 (Applicant)
Jerry Saarenpaa, 40827 County Road 311, Deer River, MN 56636 (Property Owner)
11
Planned Unit Development (PUD) Standards & Review Criteria
PUD Review
Applicable Ordinances
City Code 13-3-9 regulates the findings that are required for a PUD to be approved:
1. The proposed development is not in conflict with the goals of the Comprehensive Plan of
the City.
According to the Comprehensive Plan, the properties are to be developed as either
commercial or residential. The overall density of the proposed residential development
follows the Comprehensive Plan as well. The plan requires 1.5 — 3.6 houses per acre.
The proposed PUD development is 2.61 houses per acre; therefore, meets the density
requirements of the plan.
2. The proposed development is designed in such a manner as to form a desirable and
unified environment within its own boundaries.
The PUD would provide a buffer of existing vegetation to provide privacy from adjoining
properties and to separate the villas from the single-family homes to the south.
The PUD reduces the number of streets needed to serve the overall development.
A smaller footprint of the lot and home provides larger open space areas that will be
managed through a Homeowner's Association.
3. The proposed development demonstrates how each modified or waived requirement
contributes to achieving the purpose of PUD.
City Code 13-3-11 identifies Desirable PUD Design Qualities that are sought in any PUD
proposal as listed below.
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 tree line buffer between backyards of back-to-back lots.
D. Preserves existing stands of trees and/or significant trees and provides additional tree
plantings.
E. The proposed structures within the development demonstrate quality architectural design
and the use of high -quality building materials for unique design and detailing.
5
0
a
m
0
i
`hAMARACK[r
LAND DPVELOPMEN'P
1536 Beachcomber Blvd.
Waconia, MN 55387
October 22, 2020
City of Andover
Planning and Zoning Commission
1685 Crosstown Blvd. NW
Andover, MN 55304
To the Andover Planning Commission members,
Over the past few months, Tamarack Land Development, LLC has coordinated with Andover
city staff to design Nightingale Meadows, which we are pleased to submit for your consideration.
The development site is 9.4 acres and will be subdivided into 22 single-family residential lots.
We are proposing 65' lots to meet the increased demand for this size lot, which accommodates
popular villa homes. An example of the type of home we propose for the development is
attached. We feel a quality -built villa home priced at or above $400,000 would be a welcome
addition to the Andover real estate market.
The cul-de-sac is temporary until the neighbor to the west chooses to develop at which point
that developer will deconstruct the cul-de-sac and connect to Quinn. The privacy of existing
homes will be maintained through extensive screening, and we intend to leave the tree line on
the edge of the property intact as much as possible.
Our development plan provides several benefits over the existing vacant land condition
including:
1. An efficient use of land for single family residential construction that enables greater
community engagement and interaction.
2. An in -demand housing product type which appeals to a variety of home buyers and
enhances the visual interest of the area.
3. All lots can be serviced by existing city sanitary and water.
We look forward to working further with City staff to develop this beautiful area of Andover, MN.
Sincerely
'Dk ,
;�
Dale Willenbri4 Owner
Tamarack Land Development, LLC
1
1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. • ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 . (763) 755-5100
FAX (763) 755-8923 • WWW.AN DOVE RM N.GOV
MEMORANDUM
TO: Jake Griffiths, Associate Planner
FROM: David Berkowitz, Director of Public Works/City Engineer
Jason Law, Asst. City Engineer
DATE: October 26, 2020
REFERENCE: Nightingale Meadows/Sketch Plan/Review #3
The following comments are regardina Review #3:
301. Public utility connections at Quinn Street may have to angle to the northeast to avoid grading
onto property to the west if a construction easement cannot be obtained by the developers.
302. Proposed Quinn Street temporary cul de sac shall be extended within 5' of south plat line.
303. Stub for 1531d Lane shall be constructed from proposed roadway to within 5' of west plat line.
304. As a road connection is not being proposed at Quinn Street NW at this point, developer shall
escrow money with the City for 50% of the costs to remove the old and proposed cul-de-sacs
at Quinn Street NW and construct the roadway connection. The remaining 50% shall be paid
by development west of this plat in the future when said improvements are completed. A cost
estimate shall be prepared by the developer and reviewed by the City to determine escrow
amount.
305. All other engineering comments were previously addressed.
Note: It is a requirement that the Developer respond to each of these items in writing (pet dfpita!
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 Jason Law, Assistant City Engineer at
(763) 767-5130 or David Berkowitz, Director of Public Works/City Engineer at (763) 767-5133.
E
AN66W
1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W.. ANDOVER. MINNESOTA 55304 • (763) 755.5100
FAX (763) 755.8923 . WWW.ANDOVERMN.GOV
MEMORANDUM
TO: Dale Willenbring, Tamarac Land Development
FROM: Jake Griffiths, Associate Planner
DATE: October 26, 2020
REFERENCE: Nightingale Meadows Sketch Plan — Review #3
The following comments are regarding Review #3•
1. Identify and provide justification for all deviations to R-4 zoning district standards on plan set or
within applicant letter. Staff is aware off deviations to City Code related to minimum lot size,
minimum lot width, building setbacks, and cul-de-sac length at this time. The City Council will need
to approve deviations from R-4 zoning district standards through a Planned Unit Development
(PUD) agreement.
2. Right-of-way shall be dedicated from the end of the temporary cul-de-sac to the future Quirm St NW
alignment connecting with the area identified as "Future ROW' on the concept plan. Only right-of-
way within the project boundary shall be dedicated at this time and shall be dedicated prior to
recording of final plat.
3. Include lot widths on concept plan.
4. Include cul-de-sac length on concept plan.
5. Due to increased cul-de-sac length, future reviews will require detailed information on fire hydrant
locations and emergency access points to the development. A temporary emergency access road
through the right-of-way dedicated to make a future Quinn St NW connection may be required.
6. All other Planning Department comments were addressed during previous reviews.
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 Jake Griffiths, Associate Planner at (763) 767-5142.
�e
ill' ,.�.i•
'f��pl► .III �,
Illllllllllllllde�0;'B
ICI il,e.p
'll ..JIIIIII�
I f�l ICI •.
III Illllllllllll�l�jobj11 Am
�i'
■'■ ■ ■
=1III Ill----------
III � ■■■■
Il�illlll,. � ■ ■ ■ ■
illl nnnnnnglr�glilii
•
o
LO
g
n
08
g99 yy
yYA sYR $A
g3
,o-,
s�
w
CU
w
I
o-d
B 64
m
4
w
w
I I
3
I
I
I
I
T
'
4
Iil
Q
I
I
I
I
I
z
w
9 I
II
I
�
fig{
B
Q
aooz
LL
510
ud
„9 61
6,9
I ar. aossloe
I
o
Z 8 a
z
I
O
i
9
x
I 17�rc
UZ
-'
LU
v 2
4
z 9 anvtel
I
r w
Iq
I
Nll
LL Q z 7,
O
4
i
K
1
Y
0
3m
y
s
x
U
30
fm
9399ffa1 iDOa
w
p
9
rc
4
q
N
•
r d
OI-,L P,OI
g
Q
•------------------
-----------------r...
z
1p
�
Yu
O
P
xa
7
Q
w
,4,6b
i2
Ln
Ln
\
�
LLI
LU
LU
)
Q
\
Ji
ly p
Ll
— 9—
/
�al
s
s
j�
�tFt
3
E
'r'
c�
ya
0 oil
w
Y..........
!'�
lzl
3 w
m m t
t•L
�
_`
_.... _.�iJ I
`�NU
0
o
s
r+4m -r
mil.+,y i
e�
f ,
1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W.. ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 • (763) 755-5100
FAX (763) 755-8923 • WWW.AN DOVE RM N.GOV
TO: Planning and Zoning Commissioners
FROM: Jake Griffiths, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: Supplemental Information for the November 10, 2020 Planning & Zoning
Commission Meeting
DATE: November 10, 2020
The Planning and Zoning Commission is requested to receive the following supplemental
information:
Park & Recreation Commission Review:
At their November 5, 2020 meeting, the Park & Recreation Commission held a brief discussion
regarding the proposed development and unanimously recommended cash -in -lieu of land for park
dedication requirements. Other items discussed by the Park & Recreation Commission included the
type of housing product and the potential for future roadway connections.
Public Comments:
Public comments received prior to tonight's meeting are attached for your review as part of the
public hearing process.
11Y,
ake Griffiths
Associate Planner
Attachments
Public Comments
Jake Griffiths
From:
Bridget McLaughlin INOW
Sent:
Monday, November 9, 2020 6:54 PM
To:
PublicComments
Cc:
Lance Dockter
Subject:
Sketch
EXTERNAL EMAIL ALERT: This message originated from outside the City of Andover email system. Use Caution when
clicking hyperlinks, downloading pictures or opening attachments.
Hello Mr, Griffiths - Thank you for speaking to us last week. My name is Bridget Dockter, my husband Lance Dockter
and I live at 15318 Nightingale St NW, Andover - the property adjacent to the south end of the proposed Nightingale
Meadows urban residential development - unassigned property PID #22-32-24-24-0017. We have concerns about this
development as it abuts our property that we ask the Planning Commission to consider.
It appears there is a 30 foot buffer zone planned for the north side of the development. We appreciate the
Commission's foresight and consideration of the public benefit, and believe it to be a value add and reasonable
expectation to require a 30 foot tree buffer on the lots 1-10 as they surround our property. When we purchased the
property in 2013, we did so because of the close proximity to schools while still offering three acres of amazing tree
lined solitude. Item 1: Lots 1-4 have more than 30 feet of buffer, we ask that 30 feet be left intact and the dry pond be
extended beyond those trees. Item 2: The remaining lots 5-10, have some filler, we ask the developer to be required to
add larger trees to be added as a 30 foot buffer to the new development. Item 3: When we spoke with you, you
indicated a buffer was not necessary because our property was slated for further development. Our property may be
slated for further development, but that should have no bearing on the buffer if our home is not to be sold. This is a
wonderful piece of property that is a rare gem close to our schools and amenities.
Lance and I love our home. Andover is the community we have chosen to live and raise our children in for almost 20
years now (each of us had separate houses prior to our marriage) and we have no intention of leaving.
Please consider our requests as you work through the development of Nightingale Meadows. In summary, our ask is to
retain the established wooded area and trees surrounding our home with additional fill in to create a reasonable buffer
from another neighbors home.
Thank you for your consideration. We look forward to speaking with you tomorrow evening.
Best Regards,
Bridget & Lance Dockter
15319 Nightingale St NW, Andover