Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/09/03CITY of ANDOVER 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. • ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 • (763) 755 -5100 FAX (763) 755 -8923 Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda December 9, 2003 Andover City Hall Council Chambers 7.00 p.m., 1. Call to Order 2. Approval of Minutes — November 25, 2003 3. PUBLIC HEARING: Rezoning (03 -08) to change the zoning from Single Family Rural Residential R -1 to Single Family Urban Residential (R -4) for property located at 1374 161 Avenue NW. 4. PUBLIC HEARING: Preliminary Plat of Oakview Park, a Single Family Urban Residential development located at 1374 161 Avenue NW. 5. Other Business a. 2030 Regional Development Framework b. 2003 Year in Review 6. Adjournment CITY of ANDOVER 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. • ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 • (763) 755 -.5100 FAX (763) 755 -8923 TO: Planning and Zoning Commissioners FROM: Courtney Bednara, City Planner SUBJECT: Item 2. Approval of Minutes - November 25, 2003 DATE: December 9, 2003 Request The Planning and Zoning Commission is asked to approve the minutes from the November 25, 2003 meeting. , A • 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. • ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 • (763) 755 -5100 FAX (763) 755 -8923 • WWW.CI.ANDOVER.MN.US PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING — NOVEMBER 25 2003 0 LJ The Regular Bi- Monthly Meeting of the Andover Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order by Acting Chairperson Kirchoff on November 25, 2003, 7:03 p.m., at the Andover City Hall, 1685 Crosstown Boulevard NW, Andover, Minnesota. Commissioners present: Commissioners absent: Also present: APPROVAL OF MINUTES. November 12, 2003 Commissioners Tim Kirchoff, Tony Gamache, Rex Greenwald (arrived at 7:34 p.m.), Dean Vatne, Jonathan Jasper and Michael Casey. Chairperson Daninger. City Planner, Courtney Bednarz Associate Planner, Andy Cross Others Motion by Gamache, seconded by Casey, to approve the minutes as presented. Motion carried on a 5 -ayes, 0 -nays, 2- absent ( Daninger, Greenwald) vote. PUBLIC HEARING: COMPREHENSIVE PLANAMENDMENT (03 -08) TO CHANGE THE SEWER STAGING FROM 2015 -2020 TO 2000 -2005 FOR PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 15773, 15803,1582 7 AND 15955 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD NW. Mr. Cross explained that the applicant is requesting a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to change the Comprehensive Plan's sewer staging classification for four contiguous properties located on Crosstown Boulevard. Mr. Cross explained the properties are designated to receive municipal services in 2015- 2020 time frame. Municipal water and sewer is presently available as a result of the Constance Corners subdivision. The applicants are requesting the Comp plan be amended to allow the properties access to municipal sewer and water between 2000- 2005. Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes —November 25, 2003 Page 2 LA Mr. Cross stated City Engineering staff has indicated that the sewer pipes that would be extended to serve Fire Station #3 have sufficient capacity to allow the connection of all of these properties. Availability of the sewer pipe would serve Fire Station #3 would put it in close proximity to these other properties. This would enable them to connect without involving other property owners in the area that may not be ready to proceed at this time. Mr. Cross discussed the information with the Commission. Acting Chairperson Kirchoff asked if the fire station would require sewer and water for that property. Mr. Cross stated that was correct and it was a request by the Fire Chief to have that property brought up to 2000 -2005. Commissioner Gamache asked if this was a request or was it needed by the fire department. Mr. Bednarz explained it would be advantageous for them to have access to City utilities. Commissioner Vatne asked if there was sufficient capacity to allow a connection across the road. Mr. Cross stated this was true. Motion by Vatne, seconded by Gamache, to open the public hearing at 7:07 p.m. Motion carried on a 5 -ayes, 0 -nays, 2- absent (Daninger, Greenwald) vote. • There was no public input. Motion by Casey, seconded by Vatne, to close the public hearing at 7:08 p.m. Motion carried on a 5 -ayes, 0 -nays, 2- absent (Daninger, Greenwald) vote. Mr. Bednarz explained he had a phone conversation with an adjacent resident and his concern was urban development adjacent to his acreage property and he wanted to share with the Commission his desire to see if the urban development could be developed at the central part of the property and if the perimeter could be left in some type of acreage or larger lot form. Acting Chairperson Kirchoff noted this information to be added to the public hearing. Commissioner Gamache asked if they would be seeing a plat. Mr. Bednarz stated that if these items move ahead they will be seeing a plat as the next step in the process. Commissioner Vatne asked if approved, would this change the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Bednarz stated this would be process like any other Comprehensive Plan Amendment and would need to be approved by the Met Council. Motion by Gamache, seconded by Vatne, to recommend to the City Council approval of Resolution No. , approving the request for an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. Motion carried on a 5 -ayes, 0 -nays, 2- absent (Daninger, Greenwald) vote. Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes — November 25, 2003 Page 3 • Mr. Bednarz stated that this item would be before the Council at the December 2, 2003 City Council meeting. PUBLIC HEARING: REZONING (03 -10) TO CHANGE THE ZONING FROM SINGLE FAMILYRURAL RESIDENTIAL (R -1) TO SINGLE FAMILY URBAN RESIDENTIAL (R-4) FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 15827 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD NWW, Mr. Cross explained this rezoning will allow the development of a 15.22 -acre parcel that can now get sewer service as a result of the Constance Comers subdivision. Mr. Cross stated the City's sewer staging, as drafted in the Comprehensive Plan, has this parcel slated to receive sewer service between 2015 and 2020. With the development of the Constance Corners subdivision, sewer service will be available next year. This rezoning would have taken place when the area received sewer service in 2015, but is sought now with the early arrival of the sewer utility. Mr. Cross discussed the item with the Commission. Commissioner Gamache stated in the staff report, it showed 15.22 acres, but the map showed 43.5. Mr. Cross stated they are only looking at rezoning the Thomas Miller Property. The entire area requesting a change to the sewer staging plan is 43.5 acres. Motion by Gamache, seconded by Jasper, to open the public hearing at 7:12 p.m. Motion carried on a 5 -ayes, 0 -nays, 2- absent (Daninger, Greenwald) vote. Mr. Mark Lipske, 629 157`" Avenue, showed where his property was on the map and explained his understanding was some other neighbors sold out and he believed that this was not going to be the only land wanting to be rezoned. He thought the surrounding properties would also request the same. He stated he was concerned about the progressive development in Andover and he wondered if they could save part of Andover as a natural type of area and instead of rezoning urban, require it be at 2.5 acres per parcel so they do not have to clear cut everything. He showed on the map what he would like to see. He noted he would like to have a buffer of trees around the perimeter of the property to shield the development from adjoining properties. Acting Chairperson Kirchoff explained that the details on how the development would lay out would be available for review as a part of a future sketch and plat. It was his understanding there was not any development plans for the site at this time and it is strictly a rezoning request. Mr. Troy Gamble, Anderson Engineering of Minnesota, explained he was at the meeting is on behalf of the applicant, Lorent Development. He stated that at this time they do not Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes — November 25, 2003 Page 4 have a detailed plan. When they do get a piece of land that is well wooded, it is to the • developers' advantage to look at perimeter screening and ways of custom grading lots to make it more appealing to the buyer and the residents in the area as well. He stated the points made are duly noted and they plan on bringing a plan in to the City in the next month. Motion by Casey, seconded by Gamache, to close the public hearing at 7:28 p.m. Motion carried on a 5 -ayes, 0 -nays, 2- absent (Daninger, Greenwald) vote. Commissioner Gamache asked what the implications were for bringing the sewer across the road and is it inevitable the entire area will get rezoned R -4 because of the available sewer and water or is it still feasible for these lots to be developed as 2 1/2 acres with septic and wells. Mr. Bednarz explained the City would not accept a rural plat in terms of coming in with just 2 '/2 acre lots because it is all within the MUSA. He stated it is all guided to be urban development at some time in the future. If this is rezoned to R -4, 11,400 s.f. is the minimum lot size and they could make some lots larger but he thought it was unlikely they would be 2.5 acres. Commissioner Vatne asked if these were larger than ' /< acre, would they still be serviced by sewer and water. Mr. Bednarz stated this was true. Commissioner Jasper asked if this issue came about because the owners wanted to develop these properties or because the sewer was going to be coming in for the Fire Department. Mr. Bednarz explained the sewer became available when the Constance Comers Development went in. The brought sewer under the railroad tracks and down through the property to the northwest. At this point sewer crossed Crosstown Boulevard and became physically available to the properties and the Fire Station site. Commissioner Vatne asked if the timeline for development of these properties was originally out ten to fifteen years but because utilities came in sooner, property owners asked for it to be brought in sooner. Mr. Bednarz stated this was correct and showed a graph and explained the different sewer stages and adjustments that have been made as result of properties not developing in the stage they were initially assigned. Acting Chairperson Kirchoff explained this is only a plan and may change. Commissioner Jasper asked if rezoning was inevitable if development of the properties were to come about. Mr. Bednarz stated this was true. Commissioner Greenwald arrived at 7:34 p.m. Commissioner Vatne explained the importance of the drawing of the MUSA line, once the line in the past was expanded out, served as the destiny for the properties therein, rural designation going from an R -1, splits could not take place any longer, similar to the Rural Reserve which they have talked about a number of properties in, basically locked Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes — November 25, 2003 Page 5 • those so they could not make them into 2 % acres. Mr. Bednarz stated this was essentially correct, especially for the Rural Reserve. The Council allows a little more flexibility in the general area that is undeveloped in the MUSA in that you can still do a rural lot split once every three years but you could not come in and divide up a forty acre piece in ten or twelve 2 '/z acre lots. Motion by Gamache, seconded by Casey, to recommend to the City Council approval of Resolution No. , approving the rezoning request subject to the conditions of the resolution. Commissioner Vatne stated they heard from the developer regarding the concerns with the trees and the landscape. They have seen other developers come in with similar concerns so he thought this was something that was being addressed. Mr. Lipske had a good idea with a buffer zone and he thought there was some merit to that when the developer is laying out some of these tracts to give some consideration that way. He explained the trade off is the value of land that they will be looking at in all cases so it will be a balancing act but it is an interesting suggestion and he would encourage this to be taken forward for the City Council also. Commissioner Gamache asked if he understood this correctly, they will not see a plat on this property before the end of the year so the chances of having the developed will not . happen until the spring of 2005. Mr. Bednarz explained it may be sooner based on what they heard from the developer. Commissioner Gamache asked if this needed to be heard before the end of the year for this area to be developed in 2004. Mr. Bednarz explained it depended on if the developer would construct the streets and utilities or if the City would do this. If the developer would construct their own streets and utilities, they would not be subject to the same requirements and time limits. Acting Chairperson Kirchoff asked if it would be under that scenario where they could see development in 2004. Mr. Bednarz stated if they went with a public improvement, they would need to have a preliminary plat be approved by January 31, 2004. Motion carried on a 6 -ayes, 0 -nays, 1- absent vote. Mr. Bednarz stated that this item would be before the Council at the December 2, 2003 City Council meeting. Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes —November 25, 2003 Page 6 PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (03 -14) TO ALLOW LAND • RECLAMATION /SOIL STORAGE ON PROPERTYLOCA TED AT 2748161 sr AVENUE NW. Mr. Bednarz explained that the applicant is requesting to store up to 15,000 cubic yards of dirt on the subject property. Bringing material in excess of 400 cubic yards onto a property is considered land reclamation and requires a Conditional Use Permit. The material will be generated as a part of the Round Lake Boulevard Reconstruction Project. Mr. Bednarz explained a permit is required to allow the City to review the type of material, the route and method of transportation, measures to prevent displacement from wind, hours of operation, length of permit, site restoration, etc. Mr. Bednarz discussed the staff report with the Commission. Acting Chairperson Kirchoff asked if this would be an annual permit or would it be a three year permit. Mr. Bednarz stated this would be inspected annually and could be brought back to be revoked if not in conformance. The Commission could also make the permit an annual renewal permit. Commissioner Gamache asked how large would be a 15,000 cubic foot pile. Mr. Bednarz stated a typical truck can haul ten yards of material. • Mr. Rocky Lindberg, Forest Lake Contracting, stated the pile will be rounded off in the back and will not be seen from the road. Commissioner Gamache asked if they would be coming in from 161". Mr. Lindberg showed on the map the road they will use to access the site. Commissioner Vatne asked if this would mainly be used for the Round Lake Boulevard reconstruction. Mr. Lindberg stated it would be along with different construction sites in the area. It is to benefit the people in the area also. Acting Chairperson Kirchoff asked if this would be gravel and soil. Mr. Lindberg stated this would be top soil only without any debris. Commissioner Jasper asked what was on the property directly to the south. Mr. Bednarz stated this was all farmland. Mr. Bednarz noted a question brought up by the Fire Chief that there was a natural gas line running across the property and he wondered if Mr. Lindberg gave any consideration to the crossing location. Mr. Lindberg stated they knew about the pipe and they will have this inspected and work with the gas company regarding this. Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes — November 25, 2003 Page 7 • Chief Winkel stated his concern was if they will be driving all winter across the line and pound the frost line down on the pipeline, so they may need to work with the gas company closely so they will not disturb the gas line. Mr. Lindberg stated they will be in contact with the gas company before they do any crossing over the pipeline. Commissioner Gamache asked how doing something like this affects the Ordinance regarding compost sites. Mr. Bednarz stated this would not be the same situation because they are talking about top soil, not a composting area. Motion by Gamache, seconded by Casey, to open the public hearing at 7:51 p.m. Motion carried on a 6 -ayes, 0 -nays, 1- absent vote. There was no public input. Motion by Vatne, seconded by Gamache, to close the public hearing at 7:52 p.m. Motion carried on a 6 -ayes, 0 -nays, 1- absent vote. Commissioner Vatne asked for verification of the resolution, under the first whereas, it notes a two year period there, whereas it notes three years down below. Mr. Bednarz stated the requested permit is for 3 years. • Acting Chairperson asked if everyone would be fine with a three year permit as stated and an annual review. The Commission agreed. Motion by Gamache, seconded by Vatne, to recommend to the City Council approval of Resolution No. , approving the proposed Conditional Use Permit for a three year period and subject to the conditions of the attached resolution and that they get something in writing from the gas company as to what the gas line will handle and approval from the gas company. Motion carried on a 6 -ayes, 0 -nays, 1- absent vote. Mr. Bednarz stated that this item would be before the Council at the December 2, 2003 City Council meeting. PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT (03 -15) TO ALLOW PRESCHOOL WITHIN THE EXISTING BUILDING AND TO EXTEND THE TIME ALLOWED FOR EXISTING TEMPORARY CLASSROOMS FOR THE FAMILY OF CHRIST CHURCH LOCATED AT 16045 NIGHTINGALE STREET NWW, Mr. Bednarz explained expansion of the use of the church for a preschool requires an amendment to their existing conditional use permit. The existing temporary classrooms were to be removed this year as indicated in the attached Resolution R242 -99. Attached letters from the applicant provides the details of the proposed preschool and justification for the requested extension of time allowed for the temporary classrooms. Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes — November 25, 2003 Page 8 • Mr. Bednarz stated Staff has inspected the property with the applicant and finds that with minor alterations, the existing structure can be modified to meet building and fire code requirements for the preschool. The school will be open Monday through Friday and will not conflict with weekend church services. With a maximum of 40 children attending classes at any one time, the existing parking areas will be sufficient to satisfy parking needs. Mr. Bednarz discussed the information with the Commission. Acting Chairperson Kirchoff asked what the zoning for this was. Mr. Bednarz stated it was zoned R -1. Commissioner Greenwald asked how many acres was the site. Mr. Bednarz estimated it to be around 6 acres. Commissioner Gamache asked how many portable buildings they were using. Mr. Bednarz stated it was only one building. Motion by Vatne, seconded by Greenwald, to open the public hearing at 7:58 p.m. Motion carried on a 6 -ayes, 0 -nays, 1- absent vote. Mr. Jay Squires, representing Family of Christ Church, showed pictures of the area to show how the building sits on the property and explained the layout. He explained the impact of the portable would not be great. He noted that the building is not visible from the roadway and they have not heard any negative feedback from the neighbors: He stated the portables today are a lot different than what they used to be. Mr. Squires stated the City has always had a good practice to have finite period permits so everyone once in awhile people have to check in with the City to make sure everything is going fine. He stated the one thing he is concerned about is the proposed resolution that indicates the extension of the permit would expire if the church were sold. They are in the process of trying to sell it to another church and the church is a specialized piece of property that they have come to realize is not highly marketable as other uses. The prospective purchasers are other churches and if they would come in, they would use the portable for the same uses. Mr. Squires stated all the churches they have talked to think the portables are an asset and it would be important to them to utilize them. Another practical aspect is it hurts the marketability of the church. He would ask that the proposed resolution not include the last part of item four after the year of 2008. He explained they have more than enough parking for the preschool and he does not foresee any types of traffic problems. LJ Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes — November 25, 2003 Page 9 • Commissioner Jasper asked if the church moved to Ham Lake. Mr. Squires stated this was true. He stated they are currently worshiping at the new site but they are currently using the old site for Sunday school. Commissioner Jasper asked if they have all the classrooms at the new building, why they would need to still use the portable. Mr. Squires stated they still use the old site for some of the activities and for the youth group because on the new site, they do not have the room at this time. Commissioner Greenwald asked who made five years the time limit on the permit. Mr. Squires stated the church is requesting 5 years. Commissioner Greenwald asked if the church planned on being out of the church site within five years. Mr. Squires stated it would be their hope that they would be able to integrate all of their uses on the new site if they found a buyer for the property. Acting Chairperson Kirchoff stated when the portable was put on the site, there seemed to be a permanency by putting in the concrete piers. Mr. Bednarz stated typically churches and other buildings considered to be commercial in format would be of some type of masonry construction. He stated this was always viewed to be a temporary structure. Acting Chairperson Kirchoff asked if this has been done in the past where they could sell a permitted piece for a time so if this was to be sold, the new buyer would be buying a permit until the permit time would run out. Mr. Squires stated the Conditional Use Permit runs with the land so the purchaser of the property step into the shoes of the property owner in terms of the permit and that it is why it is important to the church to be able to market the facility with at least some duration left on the temporary permit so they have some ability to do that, recognizing they have an obligation to come in front of the City in a couple of years and to realize that the permit may not be there after that. Motion by Greenwald, seconded by Vatne, to close the public hearing at 8:16 p.m. Motion carried on a 6 -ayes, 0 -nays, 1- absent vote. Commissioner Jasper stated he was in support of this. His initial reaction was he was more comfortable with what staff had proposed with regard to it sun setting on the sale and he would not be opposed to doing something in regards to sixty days after the sale. If a church buys this they will now that it is approved now and if they use it in the same manner and come in for an extension, they may be approved again. He stated that while a church is the most likely buyer, they do not know if a church actually will buy this. He explained he would prefer to say the permit lapses sixty-days after the sale. Commissioner Gamache stated he agreed but instead of lapsing, they could have the permit transferable with the City Council's approval. • Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes —November 25, 2003 Page 10 Commissioner Greenwald agreed with both of the Commissioners but if they had a • potential buyer they would need to have some facts so he could see that if they sell this to a church, the permit will continue. Acting Chairperson Kirchoff agreed. W. Bednarz explained that the permit, once approved, runs with the property. Mr. Squires stated Commissioner Jaspers' concerns were valid because he would feel the same way but he also thought Commissioner Greenwald's idea would be a good solution. Commissioner Vatne suggested they have the parcel inspected within sixty days after the sale of the church by the City to make sure the ongoing use of the facility is within the intention of the temporary structure. He thought they should grant a five year window on the life of the usage but the new buyer upon the purchase, sixty days after, would be subject to a review. Mr. Squires stated he has a problem with that idea because it leaves that issue yet to be determined at someone's discretion and they need certainty. It is important for them to know that if another church came in with a language so long it remains a church use or a substantially identical use to the existing use, the permit would remain to be valid and would be much more important language the church could have. Commissioner Vatne stated his concern was the upkeep the buyer may provide as well and that was the reason of his proposing this the way he did. Commissioner Greenwald stated the problem with what Commissioner Vatne is saying is they are changing codes and if the church is sold in a few years, they may not allow . temporary structures at all and a building inspector may not allow it. Acting Chairperson Kirchoff asked if conditional use permits were required to be reviewed annually. Mr. Bednarz stated they can be reviewed at any time they are out of compliance with the terms of the permit. Commissioner Jasper stated they have different ways of doing what he suggested they do and is there one way preferable to another. Mr. Bednarz stated in either scenario, it gets to what was his concern in the first place, that by putting the additional wording in there, to give the potential buyer the feeling that they have more than a temporary structure. They are getting away from the original intent of what the structure is there for. Mr. Bednarz stated in this scenario, his only request is the City is allowed to review the use of the temporary structure. Commissioner Greenwald stated he did not like either one of the suggestions because in a couple of years, the churches will have different church boards and this will get missed. Commissioner Jasper stated sales like these do not close instantly, they take months to close and he does not think this would scare off a potential buyer. Commissioner Greenwald stated that if they do sell the building to a church for an identical use, why would this need to be reviewed again. Commissioner Jasper stated he did not disagree if they sold it to a church. • Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes — November 25, 2003 Page 11 • Motion by Greenwald, seconded by Gamache, to recommend to the City Council approval of Resolution No. , approving the proposed preschool and time extension for the temporary classrooms subject to the conditions of the attached resolution making item 5, item 6 and to add item 5, conditional use permit will stay intact until November 2008, if the sale is to a church. Commissioner Gamache stated he thought Mr. Bednarz has some valid concerns regarding temporary structures in the City whether it be a church or school and he thought they needed to look at putting some wording in somewhere as to what a temporary structure is and how long temporary structures can be around because they will be renewing the ones at Oakview for the next thirty years, if they do not do something like that. Commissioner Jasper stated he thought they would be renewing the temporary structures for the next thirty years regardless. Commissioner Vatne stated he thought it was still important, regardless of whom they sold the property to, that the property should be inspected to make sure the temporary structure is being used appropriately. Motion carried on a 5 -ayes, 1 -nays ( Vatne), 1- absent vote. Mr. Bednarz stated that this item would be before the Council at the December 16, 2003 . City Council meeting. PUBLIC HEARING. LOT SPLIT (03 -05) TO CREATE A NEW RURAL RESIDENTIAL LOT FROM PR OPER TY LO CA TED AT 16150 MAKAH STREET NW. Mr. Bednarz explained that the property owner is seeking approval to divide their five - acre double frontage lot into two single - family rural residential lots. Mr. Bednarz noted the existing home will continue to have access onto Makah Street while the new lot will have access onto 161 Lane where the street ends in a dead end at the edge of the property. Mr. Bednarz discussed the information with the Commission. Acting Chairperson Kirchoff asked when they add the 90 foot radius to the cul -de -sac, how much do they have left to build on. Mr. Bednarz stated this does remove a significant amount of buildable area from the west central portion of the property to provide the turn around. Commissioner Vatne asked what the end of 161" Lane would look like. Mr. Bednarz • stated staff is recommending a temporary size cul -de -sac be considered. The applicant would rather construct a hammerhead. Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes —November 25, 2003 Page 12 Commissioner Kirchoff asked if the turnaround could be pulled back to the west to reduce the impact on the property. Mr. Bednarz stated this can be done but only to a limited extent because only 60 feet of right -of -way exists for 161 Ave. Commissioner Vatne asked if there were other hammerhead style turn around in the City at this time. Mr. Bednarz stated there are a couple of areas, but not many. Commissioner Vatne stated there was some commentary about the impact on plowing. Has there been any feedback on the impact of plowing on a hammerhead turn around and would this ease the burden. Mr. Bednarz stated he believed all of the comments pertaining to either plowing or emergency vehicles were the necessity to make the additional movement in backing up to turn out of the turnaround as opposed to just turning around in the cul -de -sac. Commissioner Greenwald asked if they would access the lot from 16r Lane. Mr. Bednarz showed on the map the area in question and explained what was constructed there. Motion by Greenwald, seconded by Gamache, to open the public hearing at 8:42 p.m. Motion carried on a 6 -ayes, 0 -nays, 1- absent vote. Mr. William Bush, 4613 161 Lane NW, explained he was at the meeting of the lot split • of the lot they were talking about off of 16r Lane and the concerns at the meeting were that there were established homes on both sides of the property like this one and at that meeting, it was finally decided there would be a sixty foot cul -de -sac taken off the south lot and sixty feet of a possible north lot to give the 120 feet needed. He explained he built out there in 1972 and they had dirt roads. He explained that when the roads were graded and paved the ditch was blocked and now water backs up in the ditch. He does not understand how in a rural residential area that is two and a half acres, how a street can be taken out of the two and a half acres, this still gives them a two and a half acre lot. Mr. Bednarz stated there is a difference between platted right of way in which the City or County physically owns the property and a street easement which gives the City or County the ability to build an improvement such as a road and to have the public use it, but the property owner still owns the underlying, property, which is the same way Makah Street is put in. Mr. Bush stated as far as the cul -de -sac goes, it is to the applicant's benefit to be splitting this off and to encroach onto existing properties is not acceptable. The hardship as such should be born by the party splitting the property, not by the parties that are existing. Acting Chairperson Kirchoff asked if this property moves water out of the entire area. Mr. Bednarz stated he thought water was retained in the front of the properties. He explained they had a discussion last week with Mr. Bush and he followed that up by talking with the City Engineer and this type of an improvement, if the cul- de-sac is the • Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes —November 25, 2003 Page 13 • desired choice, would need to be engineered and designed to make sure the run off is not going to overload any existing situation out there. Mr. Bush stated the other problem is the cul-de -sac would be longer than what is allowed in the City. He stated the cul -de -sac would be better than what they have now. His other concern is where they do flair this out to the south, it takes two to three jogs to turn around on that street, is that widening been abandoned. Mr. Bednarz stated he thought the existing partial turnaround would be eliminated in its entirety, and the new turnaround would improve the existing situation. Mr. Bush asked where the private utilities would come into the property and if there would be an easement. Mr. Bednarz stated there would be an easement necessary and the utilities would be provided from the existing right of way. Mr. Bush stated there are not any power lines at all and his property is the last one on the line. Mr. Bednarz stated this could be brought down the right of way and could be accomplished. Mr. Gary Cotton, 16150 Makah Street NW, stated he would like to stick with the hammerhead because the Fire Chief approved that particular turn around. He wondered how much of this would come onto his property and affect the sale of the property. Mr. Darren Peterson, 161 Lane, stated there is a drainage problem, especially in the spring. The road floods out and there is a drainage issue. There is a culvert on his • neighbors' lot but he does not know where it goes. There is not a ditch on his lot. Commissioner Vatne asked if there were curbs on the street to help divert the water. Mr. Bednarz stated there were not. Mr. Bush stated there currently are not curbs out there and he would not want to be imposed with the cost of the street for the benefit of this property. Acting Chairperson Kirchoff stated this was not part of the proposal. Motion by Vatne, seconded by Gamache, to close the public hearing at 8:59 p.m. Motion carried on a 6 -ayes, 0 -nays, 1- absent vote. Commissioner Jasper stated when he read through the report, the Fire Department has said the hammerhead is ok so he would be comfortable with the hammerhead. The Ordinance calls for 93 foot cul-de-sacs and the proposal is for an 80 foot temporary cul- de -sac. He stated they have standards and he thought the standards should be observed one way or another. Acting Chairperson Kirchoff concurred because a cul -de -sac to be bom by this one property eats into the property and there are six lots that feed onto the adjacent street so there are seven homes. • Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes — November 25, 2003 Page 14 Commissioner Greenwald stated item two in the Resolution would need to be reworded • and item number one says the applicant is required to dedicate a ten foot drainage and utility easement around the perimeter of both properties so they are taking into consideration the drainage issue. Acting Chairperson Kirchoff stated he thought that is a requirement of almost any lot. Commissioner Greenwald asked if the applicant was aware of the non - conforming pole barn. Mr. Cotton stated he was. Commissioner Greenwald asked in item six, the lot split would be subject to the sunset clause, he wondered what this meant. Mr. Bednarz stated they had one year to record this at the County. Acting Chairperson Kirchoff stated the hammerhead minimizes the amount of paved surface for runoff. Commissioner Gamache stated the hammerhead is hard to plow and takes a while to plow as opposed to a cul-de -sac. Commissioner Gamache asked how long the cul -de -sac would be and does it meet the five hundred feet Ordinance. Mr. Bednarz stated the street is beyond 500 feet. Commissioner Gamache stated they would have to give approval of a long cul-de -sac to be beyond the length of what is in the Ordinance. Mr. Bednarz stated what is proposed is to improve a non - conforming situation and they could add a variance to the length of the . cul -de -sac because they are extending the street. Commissioner, Jasper stated anything would be an improvement to nothing at all. Commissioner Vatne asked for clarification on what Commissioner Jasper stated. He asked that by City Code, a full size cul -de -sac is what is being proposed. Mr. Bednarz stated that what is proposed is less than a typical permanent cul -de -sac. Commissioner Vatne asked what the recommendation is. Mr. Bednarz stated the recommendation is an 80 foot paved cul -de -sac with an additional easement for utilities around it. Commissioner Jasper stated this recommendation came from the Andover Review Committee. He wondered what this group was. Mr. Bednarz explained the group involved in reviewing items. Commissioner Vatne stated his personal feeling is he does not like the hammerhead and would have to default back to the recommendations of the ARC committee. Acting Chairperson Kirchoff stated the ARC's preference is the cul -de -sac. Motion by Jasper, seconded by Greenwald, to recommend to the City Council approval of Resolution No. , approving the proposed lot split with two changes, paragraph two would be changed to the applicant is required to dedicate a roadway easement to allow the construction of the hammerhead turnaround as proposed by the applicant and a paragraph be added to allow a variance to the five hundred foot cul -de -sac length • limitation based on the fact that the creation of the cul -de -sac is not the applicants doing. Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes — November 25, 2003 Page 15 • Commissioner Greenwald asked if the variance rules applied if this was a hammerhead. Mr. Bednarz stated they would because they are still extending the street. Motion carried on a 5 -ayes, 1 -nays ( Vatne), 1- absent vote. Commissioner Vatne stated he thought this was important to provide consistency with the recommendations and he thought there was still plenty of space to build on the land even with the cul -de -sac. Mr. Bednarz stated that this item would be before the Council at the December 16, 2003 City Council meeting. VARIANCE (03 -10) TO ALLOW A NEW HOUSE TO BE CONSTRUCTED ONA NONCONFORMING LOT LOCATED AT 3131169 LANE NW. Mr. Bednarz explained the subject of the property contains a dilapidated structure that needs to be removed from the property. The applicant would like to construct a new home in its place. • Mr. Bednarz discussed the report with the Commission. Acting Chairperson Kirchoff asked if there was a septic system on the property. Mr. Bednarz stated there was. He stated a new septic system would need to be installed. Commissioner Gamache stated the City established this as an acceptable piece of land before 1970 and he would have to see this as a hardship because the owner of the lot had nothing to do with the way this is platted out. If they do not grant the variance the land will be unusable so they might as well put a new house on this and take down a house that is unsafe. Motion by Greenwald, seconded by Gamache, to recommend to the City Council approval of Resolution No. , approving the proposed variance subject to the conditions of the attached resolution. Commissioner Vatne asked if they approve the variance, would the builder be able to come in with a building permit proposal to be in conformance with code. Mr. Bednarz stated if the variance is approved, the builder would apply for a building permit and would need to be in conformance with City Code. Commissioner Jasper asked if they should have a sunset provision on this. Mr. Todd Stenvick stated he is the builder and the plan is they will tear down the house as soon as . they get approval from the City Council. The reason they have not down this until now is because of the time of year, if they would tear this down before they get approval, the Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes — November 25, 2003 Page 16 hole will freeze and they will incur additional excavating costs. He stated the well and • septic is being abandoned for new ones. He stated they have already gone through inspections with the Department of Health and had asbestos tests done. He stated the goal would be to get a basement in before the end of the year. . Motion carried on a 6 -ayes, 0 -nays, 1- absent vote. Mr. Bednarz stated that this item would be before the Council at the December 2, 2003 City Council meeting. PUBLIC HEARING. LOT SPLIT (03 -06) TO CREATE A NEW RURAL RESIDENTLAL PROPERTY FROM EXISTING RURAL RESIDENTIAL PROPERTYLOCA TED NORTHEAST OF THE INTERSECTION OF CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD NW AND NIGHTINGALE STREET NW. Mr. Cross explained the City of Andover has submitted an application to divide into two lots the 28 acres adjacent to the property located at 15211 Nightingale Street NW. Mr. Cross explained the survey indicates how the property will be divided. The property being split off is the easterly 8 acres. The City of Andover currently has a contract to purchase this 8 -acre lot from its owner, Ken Slyzuk. The new lot will join the City's property to the West and serve as an expansion to the Public Works Department. The • purchase is part of the City's 2002 -2006 Capital Improvement Plan. CIP Project 03- 41960-06 is dedicated to the purchase of new land that will allow Public Works to expand and maintain their facilities together on one complex. The additional land will be used for a salt storage building, material storage, recycling center, and future facility addition. Mr. Cross discussed the report with the Commission. Acting Chairperson Kirchoff asked if the salt would be stored indoors. Mr. Cross stated it would be. Commissioner Jasper asked if the City was going to raise options to acquire the entire property. Mr. Cross stated that was true. Motion by Greenwald, seconded by Gamache, to open the public hearing at 9:21 p.m. Motion carried on a 6 -ayes, 0 -nays, 1- absent vote. Mr. Tom Booths, 15336 Lynette Street, asked where on the map, the property split was going to be. Mr. Cross stated the parcel is being split from the entire parcel. Mr. Booths asked if the improvements they were planning on doing affect Lynette Street. Mr. Bednarz showed on the map what will be happening to the property. • Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes — November 25, 2003 Page 17 • Commissioner Jasper asked if the City intended on extending Lynette Street or do they intend to leave it as is. Mr. Bednarz stated he has not seen a final plan for the build out of the area but from what he has seen, it does not contemplate changing the cul -de -sac. He stated that someday the property may have access to Nightingale but this would be over a course of fifteen years. Acting Chairperson Kirchoff asked if there was a complete cul -de -sac at the end of the road. Mr. Booth stated there was. Mr. Bednarz stated if anyone lives on a cul -de -sac, nest to undeveloped land, it is a temporary cul -de -sac and has been posted as such within the last year. Commissioner Jasper stated there were conflicts to the maps in the staff report. One was showing the split would be in the middle of Lynette and the other did not show that, which the correct map is. Mr. Bednarz showed the original plat and where the split would take place on the plat. Mr. Steve Bonfields, 15312 Lynette Street explained he is on the end of the cul -de -sac and he needs to know the plans. Mr. Bednarz stated this was important to note that there will be a staged acquisition of the property to the west. The City has reached a purchase agreement for all of the property but at this point, only the first eight acres, or about 355 feet west of the existing water treatment facility would be required. Commissioner Gamache stated at this time, the City does not have plans to vacate the cul -de -sac. Mr. Bonfields stated they were also concerned about the buildings that will be coming in and the noise. Mr. Cross stated there has not been any official site plan for the area but the Public Works will move in slowly and this is in the very early stages. Acting Chairperson Kirchoff stated there will be a preliminary plat proposal and the residents will be notified of those items also. Commissioner Jasper stated it may give the residents some comfort that the City is buying the land; a developer will not come in and put a bunch of houses in. Mr. Tom Booth stated his concern is that Lynette Street may eventually be continued to Crosstown Boulevard and the residents would not like that because it would become a mainly used road. Commissioner Greenwald and Acting Chairperson Kirchoff stated they did not think the City would do this because of the curve in the road. Mr. Bednarz stated he did not think they would continue Lynette Street into the City Hall Complex. Motion by Gamache, seconded by Greenwald, to close the public hearing at 9:33 p.m. Motion carried on a 6 -ayes, 0 -nays, 1- absent vote. L Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes — November 25, 2003 Page 18 Commissioner Gamache stated he understands the residents concerns because temporary • cul -de -sacs sometimes do become through streets but he would like to reassure the residents that the City will do all that they can. He did not think it was the City's intention of expanding any of the roads at this time. Motion by Greenwald, seconded by Gamache, to recommend to the City Council approval of Resolution No. , approving the lot split request subject to the conditions of the resolution. Motion carried on a 6 -ayes, 0 -nays, 1- absent vote. Mr. Bednarz stated that this item would be before the Council at the December 16, 2003 City Council meeting. PUBLIC HEARING: PRELIMINAR Y FLA T FOR DONOHUE CREEKSIDE ADDITION TO CREATE TWO NEW URBANRESIDENT7AL LOTS LOCATED AT 2733 BUNKER LAKE BOULEVARD NW. Mr. Bednarz explained the Planning and Zoning Commission is asked to review a preliminary plat for Donohue Creekside Addition, a three lot suburban subdivision. Mr. Bednarz explained Tim and Virginia Donohue wish to subdivide their 2.9 acre single - family urban residential lot into three single - family urban residential lots. Their existing home will remain on what'will become Lot 3, while the newly created lots will be similar in orientation and size to those found in the adjacent development. Mr. Bednarz discussed the information with the Commission. Motion by Greenwald, seconded by Gamache, to open the public hearing at 9:38 p.m. Motion carried on a 6 -ayes, 0 -nays, 1- absent vote. There was no public input. Motion by Gamache, seconded by Jasper, to close the public hearing at 9:38 p.m. Motion carried on a 6 -ayes, 0 -nays, 1- absent vote. Commissioner Jasper stated it seems like every preliminary plat they get has some exception to the rules and this one does not have any so he would approve it. Motion by Jasper, seconded by Greenwald, to recommend to the City Council approval of Resolution No. , approving the proposed plat subject to the conditions of the attached resolution. Motion carried on a 6 -ayes, 0 -nays, 1- absent vote. Mr. Bednarz stated that this item would be before the Council at the December 16, 2003 City Council meeting. • Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes — November 25, 2003 Page 19 • OTHER BUSINESS. Mr. Bednarz updated the Planning Commission on related items. Mr. Bednarz mentioned that they may have a lighter agenda so they will have time to discuss what happened throughout the year. Commissioner Greenwald asked if the December 15, 2003 meeting with the City Council was confirmed. Mr. Bednarz stated it was. ADJOURNMENT. Motion by Gamache, seconded by Greenwald, to adjourn the meeting at 9:41 p.m. Motion carried on a 6 -ayes 0 -nays, I- absent vote. Respectfully Submitted, �J Sue Osbeck, Recording Secretary Timesaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. • 3 E TO: Planning and Zoning Commissioners FROM: Courtney Bednarz, City Plannesp SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING: Rezoning (03 -08) to change the zoning from Single Family Rural Residential (R -1) to Single Family Urban Residential (R -4) for property located at 1374 161 Avenue NW. DATE: December 9, 2003 INTRODUCTION The Planning Commission is asked to review the proposed rezoning to allow the Oakview Park project to move forward. The rezoning is proposed for only the south 13 acres of the property that will be developed at this time. The residual parcel with the existing house would remain Single Family Rural Residential (R -1). DISCUSSION As with all rezonings, in order to change the zoning the City must establish one of the two following findings are present: 1. The original zoning was in error. 2. The character of the area or times and conditions have changed to such an extent to warrant the rezoning. The proposed plat is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan as the property is designated Transitional Residential (TR). This designation indicates that the property will transition from rural to urban with the extension of utilities to the property. The property is located in the Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA) and lies within the current growth stage (2000 -2005) in the City's Sewer Expansion Plan. Staff Recommendation The times and conditions have changed due to the fact that the surrounding properties have developed at urban densities and municipal utilities are now available to serve the subject property. Staff recommends approval of the proposed rezoning. Attachments City Code Amendment Location Map ACTION REQUESTED The Planning Commission is asked to recommend approval of the rezoning request based on the fact tat t es and conditions have changed. • ACc:E itted, erich Dev pment Corporation 1875 Station Parkway NW Don Peterson 1374 16 1 st Avenue NW 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. • ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 • (763) 755 -5100 FAX (763) 755 -8923 • WWW.CI.ANDOVER.MN.US CITY OF ANDOVER COUNTY OF ANOKA STATE OF MINNESOTA ORDINANCE AMENDING CITY CODE TITLE 12 -3 -5 ZONING DISTRICT MAP TO CHANGE THE ZONING DESIGNATION FROM SINGLE FAMILY RURAL RESIDENTIAL (R -1) TO SINGLE FAMILY URBAN RESIDENTIAL (R -4) THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANDOVER DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: City Code 12 -3 -5, The Zoning District Map of the City of Andover is hereby amended as follows: 1) Rezone land from R -1, Single Family Rural Residential to R-4, Single Family Urban Residential on approximately 13 acres (P.I.D. 14- 32 -24 -31 -0003) legally described in Exhibit A 2) The times and conditions have changed due to the fact that the surrounding properties have developed at urban densities and municipal utilities are now available to serve the subject property. • 3) All other sections of the Zoning Ordinance Shall remain as written and adopted by the City Council of the City of Andover. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Andover on this _ day of 2003. CITY OF ANDOVER ATTEST: Michael R. Gamache, Mayor Victoria Volk, City Clerk • 'DEC. 5. 2003`10 N0. 918""P. 2/2C 13AM Land Surveyors & Civil Engineers, Inc. 710 East River Road • Amb. MN 55303 (763) 712 -9099 • Fax (763) 7124055 Toll Pee (888) 786.6909 December 5, 2003 Proposed Description OAKVIEW PARK 0 0 The West one half of the West one half of the Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 14, Township 32 North, Range 24 West, Anoka County, Minnesota and that part of the West one half of the West one half of the Northeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of said Section 14 which lies south of the following described line: Commencing at the southeast comer of said West one half of the West one half of the Northeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter, thence northerly along the east line of said West one half of the West one half of the Northeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter, a distance of 419.36 feet to the point of begin of the line to be described; thence westerly, deflecting to the left 90 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds, a distance of 329.12 feet to the west line of said West one half of the West one half of the Northeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter and said line there tenninating. TOTAL P.02 DEC 05 2003 09 :57 -� LJ Rezoning R -1 to R -4 Project Location Map N W- $ Andover Planning i • • l y C I T Y ND O • TO 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. • ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 • (763) 755 -5100 FAX (763) 755 -8923 • WWW.CI.ANDOVER.MN.US FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: Planning and Zoning Commissioners Courtney Bednarz, City Plannel* PUBLIC HEARING: Preliminary Plat of Oakview Park, a Single Family Urban Residential development located at 1374 161 Avenue NW. December 9, 2003 INTRODUCTION The Planning Commission is asked to review a preliminary plat for the subject property. DISCUSSION The subject property is approximately 19.5 acres in size. The proposal is to develop the southern 13 acres with urban lots and to preserve approximately 6 acres with the existing home on the north end of the property for future urban development. Conformance with local and Regional Plans The proposed plat is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan as the property is designated Transitional Residential (TR). This designation indicates that the property will transition from rural to urban with the extension of utilities to the property. The property is located in the Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA) and lies within the current growth stage (2000 -2005) in the City's Sewer Expansion Plan. Municipal utilities can be extended to serve the development. A rezoning to Single Family Urban Residential (R -4) will also need to be approved. Park Location The park has been moved to a more central location on the plat as requested by the City Council and Park and Recreation Commission. The park is proposed to be 1.04 acres in size. This is less than the 1.95 acres that would be required based on the ten percent park dedication requirement of City Code 11 -3 -7. As a result the balance of park dedication will be paid in cash based on the formula described in this section of the City Code (see attached). Trail Connection A trail connection from the south end of the project is proposed to be made with Drake Street NW as shown on the plat. A portion of the adjacent neighbor's property is needed to make this connection. The developer and adjacent property owners have agreed to exchange the area needed for the trail connection for Outlots A and B which would be created to be attached to these adjacent properties. The trail will be constructed at the developer's expense. A condition of approval will require the outlots to be combined with the adjacent properties to conform with City Code 11 -3 -6 which prohibits unbuildable outlots. • Access Access to the development can only be provided from 159 Avenue NW at this time. The cul- de -sac to the north will be approximately 730 feet in length. A fixture street connection to Yellowpine Street NW could be constructed to eliminate this cul -de -sac in the future if the property to the north and east develops as shown on the ghost plat. The existing driveway for the existing house will remain at this time. However, the Anoka County Highway Department . (ACHD) has indicated that a future street connection to County Road 20 will not be permitted. Unfortunately, street access was not preserved at the south end of the property when Cambridge Estates Second Addition and Chesterton Commons Third Addition were created. A wetland and Woodland Estates eliminates the potential of a street connection to Yellowpine Street NW. In addition, the park is no longer located at the south end of the plat and there is developable property at the south end of the property to the east that needs to be provided with access. As a result, the cul -de -sac length is proposed to be approximately 1,320 feet in length. Variances will be needed to allow the cul -de -sacs that exceed the maximum length of 500 feet allowed by City Code 11 -3 -3. ACHD Comments As discussed during sketch plan review, the Anoka County Highway Department has requested intersection improvements as a part of the proposed development (see attached letter). Due to the fact that the proposal will not require a right -of -way permit from the County, the ACHD does not have the ability to require these improvements. However, the County has encouraged the City to make these requirements conditions of approval. In reviewing existing intersection conditions and comments from the ACRD, staff recommends the following. The proposed development does not have access to Yellowpine Street NW and should not be required to pay for improvements at this intersection. The development would have access to both 159 Avenue NW and Crane Street NW. The development should be is required to pay for right turn lanes and bypass lanes at these intersections. These improvements should be constructed in conjunction with the project. A condition of approval will require the applicant to pay for the cost of these improvements as determined at the time a feasibility report is prepared. The recommended bypass and turn lane improvements would not be the ultimate improvement of these intersections. The ultimate improvements are shown on Figure 16 of the Transportation Plan and the following page of the attachments. The additional improvements shown in the attachments would be constructed in the future. Lots The proposed lots conform to the minimum district provisions and buildable area requirements of the City Code. As mentioned above, Outlots A and B will be required to be combined with the adjacent residential properties from the Cambridge Estates Second Addition and Chesterton Commons Third Addition. Due to the changing location of the park, a potential roadway connection is shown at the southeast edge of the property to allow developable property on the adjacent property to the east to be utilized in the future. It should be noted that no more than two lots appear to be able to meet the City's buildability requirements without altering the existing wetland. 0 0) Wetland Fill/Mitigation The applicant is proposing to fill a small wetland that conflicts with the proposed roadway to the • south of 159 Avenue NW. Mitigation for the wetland fill area would be provided in another wetland that exists on the site. This approach will need to be reviewed and approved by the Coon Creek Watershed Management Organization. Coordination with other Agencies The developer and/or owner is responsible to obtain all necessary permits (Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, U.S. Army Corp of Engineers, Coon Creek Watershed Management Organization, 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. Other The developer is also required to meet the following City Ordinances and all other applicable ordinances: City Code Title 11, Subdivision Regulations City Code Title 12, Zoning Regulations City Code Title 13, Planning and Development City Code Title 14, Flood Control Staff Recommendation There has been considerable discussion about the park location and cul -de -sac lengths over the • past two years. The Council has rearmed the Park and Recreation Commission's preferred location of the park. As a result, the length of the southern cul -de -sac will be extended. Due to the fact that there is no feasible way to provide another street connection, staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat subject to the conditions of the attached resolution. ACTION REQUESTED The Planning Commission is asked to recommend approval of the proposed plat. Attachments Resolution Location Map Development Plan (11x17 in packet) ACHD Comments Figure 16 Transportation Plan Crane Street/161 Avenue NW Ultimate Intersection Improvements Council Minutes — Sketch Plan (note: Plan A indicates park location shown on the proposed plat) R ect y tted, n e z Cc: Emmerich Development Corporation 1875 Station Parkway NW • Don Peterson 1374 161 Avenue NW fd CITY OF ANDOVER COUNTY OF ANOKA STATE OF MINNESOTA • RES. NO R A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY PLAT OF "OAKVIEW PARK" FOR EMERICH DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1374 161 AVENUE NW (P.I.D. 14- 32 -24 -31 -0003) LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS: The West Half of the West Half of the Northeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section14, Township 32, Range 24, Anoka County, Minnesota, except Parcel Number 59, Anoka County Highway Right of Way Plat No. 20. Also the West Half of the West Half of the Southeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Sectionl4, Township 32, Range 24, Anoka County, Minnesota. WHEREAS, the Andover Review Committee has reviewed the preliminary plat; and WHEREAS, pursuant to published and mailed notice thereof, the Planning and Zoning Commission has conducted a public hearing on said plat; and WHEREAS, the applicant has requested a variance to the 500 foot maximum cul -de -sac length provided in City Code 11 -3 -3 to allow two cul -de -sacs that will extend beyond the 500 foot maximum, and; WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the special circumstances for the proposed variance are The existence of wetlands and surrounding development preclude a roadway design or connection that would allow the development to conform with the maximum cul -de -sac length prescribed by City Code 11 -3 -3. WHEREAS, as a result of such public hearing, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommends to the City Council the approval of the plat. 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 with the following conditions: 1. The preliminary plat shall conform to the plat drawing revised October 27,2003 and stamped received by the City of Andover October 31,2003. 2. The developer obtains all necessary permits from the Coon Creek Watershed District, DNR, Corps of Engineers, LGU, MPCA, Anoka County Highway Department and any other agency that may be interested in the site. 3. Contingent upon the approval of the Rezoning of the property to R-4 Single Family Urban Residential. If this request fails to be approved, the preliminary plat shall be considered null and void. 4. Park dedication shall be a combination of land and cash as shown on the approved plat and subject to the park dedication requirements of City Code 11 -3 -7. 5. Trail fees shall be paid on a per lot basis based on the rate in effect at the time of preliminary plat approval. 6. A variance to allow two cul -de -sacs as shown on the approved plat to exceed the 500 foot maximum length requirement of City Code 11-3-3 is granted based on the findings listed • in this resolution. 7. Outlots A and B shall be combined with the adjacent residential properties from the Cambridge Estates Second Addition and Chesterton Commons Third Addition. 8. The applicant shall be required to pay the cost of construction of right turn and bypass lanes at the 159` Avenue Hanson Boulevard intersection and the Crane Street/161 Avenue NW intersection. The cost of these improvements shall be determined as a part of the feasibility report. 9. Contingent upon staff review and approval for compliance with City ordinances, policies and guidelines. 10. Such plat approval is contingent upon a development agreement acceptable to the City Attorney. A financial guarantee will be required as a part of this agreement to assure typical subdivision improvements will be completed. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Andover this v' day of January, 2003. CITY OF ANDOVER ATTEST: Victoria Volk, City Clerk Michael R. Gamache, Mayor • • • • Project Location Map Andover Planning 0 • E M i :! � I� E' 4 liR� i 41 EL ~ w U as of �s I E , aae- C l E T- t } g gp � ao i•� i 1 E� I I I j L d �� ! t . li €ql � 1 11,13 i , � sa =4 0 f X 55 Ez @p E ii {{ � qq FF F F3if�! E T- t } g gp � ao i•� i 1 E� I I I j e 4 'Ji � _.qtr :: B '"B j i � h H g °�Ag - \.. rt '� rt� SC��BC � `) ' . B6u ;e �e � '� � I �B se ad... Ud -$ � = -I 7 �`— II - -- , ` -- I 1 —J � J _ �aorrr _ I HDI v I I '1 ®� �q "s N!� \ j Y �.} �� Pi 0. a I� O . r�, 5:� ae_3 W � 35 � I. C1 W E � .f go-- r— (------------ - - - - -- ____ [ r� -- — — CON57ANCE BOUL_E_VARD N.C..______ __ —_ _ — e.k.�. C.S.A.R. No. PD) - ---- SSSd S3 AnokoI C"nty H/gh"y Right o7 Way Plut No. 1D e 4 'Ji � _.qtr :: B '"B j i � h H g °�Ag - \.. rt '� rt� SC��BC � `) ' . B6u ;e �e � '� � I �B se ad... Ud -$ � = -I 7 �`— II - -- , ` -- I 1 —J � J _ �aorrr _ I HDI v I I '1 ®� �q I I I N!� \ j Y �.} �� Pi 0. I� i � fl e 4 'Ji � _.qtr :: B '"B j i � h H g °�Ag - \.. rt '� rt� SC��BC � `) ' . B6u ;e �e � '� � I �B se ad... Ud -$ � = -I 7 �`— II - -- , ` -- I 1 —J � J _ �aorrr _ I y4 !I , ,>8 0. I� i � fl I. ti� SI g , i `�iaN ��F � ~ �� i I F(i e w U ^ 1 r=(• w �i I w��� i O � C I 1 zFF < 1� o i\ /I 2 ro - e 4 'Ji � _.qtr :: B '"B j i � h H g °�Ag - \.. rt '� rt� SC��BC � `) ' . B6u ;e �e � '� � I �B se ad... Ud -$ � = -I 7 �`— II - -- , ` -- I 1 —J � J _ �aorrr _ I y4 !I , ,>8 i lIr NS — Y � O E` I� I� I� ISBN LANE N. r. 1 y4 !I , � fl �? ti� SI g , i `�iaN � "s 1 � fl �? ti� SI g $ ' it 1 � I z l �E, �-, :r't z I I '1 I I � I I I tee I 4 �ER� (A . O �6 S e1e��s��1�� K �� j l ( � I i �� � v �$ ' '� I I i i • • 0 �o NN4 �w r ut &ai I hi �I eat F l.• :B F¢ : I . f i e �g X 463 i •e e !! July 28, 2003 Courtney Bednarz City of Andover 1685 Crosstown Blvd. NW Andover, MN 55304 JUL 3 0 2 &M CITY OF ANDOVER RE: Sketch Plan Don Peterson Property Dear Courtney: we have reviewed the Sketch Plan for the Don Peterson Property, located south of CSAH 20 (161 Ave. NW) and east of Crane St NW within the City of Andover, and I offer the following comments. Inc existing right,of- -way south of the centerline of CSAH 20 adjacent to this property equals_ 60 feet Consequently, no additional right -of -way will be required at this time. Access for the development is to be made entirely via local roadways with connectivity to the county highway system outside of the boundaries of this Plat, which is acceptable to this department Existing driveways at 1326 and 1374 161 Avenue NW shall be removed in conjunction with this development and the ditch restored to match existing depth, grade, and slope. The right -of- access along CSAH 20 shall be dedicated to Anoka County. Since this development will further increase the number of turning maneuvers on CSAH 20 at Yellow Pine St. NW and Crane St. NW, we will require that turn lanes be constructed on CSAH 20 as a part of the permit process. The City and/or the developer shall prepare a concept plan depicting how standard right tam lanes and/or bypass lanes could be configured at both in for our consideration and review. The cost for the design and construction of the right tam lane and by -pass lanes shall be the responsibility of the City and/or the Developer. Please contact Mark Daly, Program Services Engineer, to obtain the applicable design standards and typical section/pavement design information for CSAH 20. Calculations must be submitted along with a grading and erosion control plan that delineates the drainage areas for this site. The post - developed rate/volume of runoff must not exceed the pre - developed ratelvolume of runoff for the 10 -year, 24 -hour storm, utilizing the "SCS Method". It should be noted that residential land use adjacent to highways will usually result in complaints regarding traffic noise. Traffic noise at,this location could exceed noise standards established by the U.S. Department oT Housing'and Urban Development and the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. Anoka County policy regarding new developments adjacent to existing county highways prohibits the expenditure of highway funds for noise mitigation measures. The City and/or the Developer should assess the noise situation and take any action deemed necessary to minimize associated impacts at this site from any traffic noise. COUNTY OF ANOKA Public Services Division HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT 1440 BUNKER LAKE BLVD. N.W., ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 (763) B62 -4200 FAX (763) 662 -4201 RECEIVED — /0— Atfirmative Action / Equal opportunity Employer • Cl • • A permit for work within the county right -of -way is required and must be obtained prior to the commencement of construction. License Permit Bonding, method of construction, design details, work zone traffic control, restoration requirements and follow -up inspections are typical elements of the permitting process. Contact Roger Butler, Traffic Engineering Coordinator, or Josie Scott, Permit Technician, for further information regarding the permit process. Installation of any necessary permanent traffic control devices within the County Right -of Way for this proposed development will be coordinated, installed, and maintained by the Anoka County Highway Department as part of the permit process. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Feel free to contact me if you have any questions. Sincerely, J emble Traffic Engineer xc: CSAH 201PLATS/2003 Roger Butler, Traffic Engineering Coordinator Josie Scott, Permit Technician Mike Kelly, Chief Right -of -Way Agent ` ' La ry Hoium, County Surveyor • Tom Hornsby, Traffic Services Supervisor - Signs • ��114 ,,�:�� I � e� ;� Jam` a•. �Ft Y y s T 0. M� y• K t4v n r "A ih '� � I• $T ; k.. <. , nr• 1, a M NEW CONNEC147a RD Fur HT AUOUT ONLY �1 m tAW > OJI is ¢( i NFi INS -. A � 6 ♦ �i c x fi J f b fir. J� Is, y i 1 ff` :SSE .+ r. FIGURE 16 HANSON BOULEVARD IMPROVEMENT CONCEPT t Bonestroo N Rosene 0 200' 400' 0 Anderlik & Associates j Scale in feet EngMeers & Architects — .y7 0 • .r _� � xw t �"* a �`,: � ? V. ,,,• y e�� � , 4 1 - *1 t pq fi s . c , r . F4 � 4 '�. 3:.�.. y F ` s^ ,� w� „� �*` � � S ry '. � �• ms' & �q 4 4,tG N v .ir r ♦ ? a' v d r 'r � .E m 4 4� r 3`y s F > ' 'F .;h x.ar , ,a �'- r '3w 5.3`'y "' ✓�,^� d r j "� n M• " J � M vg' .X "r � s a W fi F a c r • i r, d aex+� � �a `" 3 Regular Andover City Council Meeting Minutes - September 16, 2003 • Page 6 railroad to see if there was a problem. Acting Mayor Orttel asked if e e artment has any remedies for this. Lieutenant Wells stated there is a reporting process that the ShenTrrOffie&4QQs through but what usually happens is the tracks are cleared before they get to talk to the official. He sta d check on this and bring that concern to Burlington Northern. ® CONSIDEREMMERICH- PETERSONSKETCHPLAN /1374- 161 VENUE (CONTINUED FROM 9 -2 -03) City Engineer Dave Berkowitz explained this item was continued from the last City Council meeting to discuss the location and the general size of the park within the area of the Peterson/Lashinski property. Mr. Berkowitz explained the developer has submitted a new layout for the Council. Acting Mayor Orttel asked if the recommendation under the new layout is to move the park to the center of the plat. Park and Recreation Chairman Jim Lindahl explained the intention from the • beginning was to have the park located in the Central area of the development. He stated they avoided grabbing small parcels from each of the four developments in order to make one large central location that would be more usable by a multitude of the units. He stated this way they could possibly have a picnic shelter, a volleyball pit and possibly some other mid -level park amenities versus a small tot lot again. The primary issue is that they felt the park location that has been presented by the developer is not real accessible to other houses. Chairman Lindahl stated it has been their direction to try to get this centrally located to make it usable for more parties. They still would recommend a trail access on the south end of the plat to allow a connect from the adjoining neighborhood so it is usable by everyone. It is anticipated to be a local neighborhood park and there will be some bike access for the youth. Acting Mayor Orttel stated the other issue has to deal with 159' and its configuration. Councilmember Trude stated the Park Commission has not seen Plan A. Chairman Lindahl stated they did receive it in the mail. Councilmember Trude asked what they thought about Plan A. Chairman Lindahl stated they may want to look at this further but this is the general area the Park Commission wanted it located at. Councilmember Jacobson asked if the park land was entirely on the particular plat or is it also on the property that is not being developed yet. Mr. Lindahl stated this was correct and the unmarked spaces to the east are Mr. Lashinski's property and are not platted. He does not know the timing on this. The location of the road and the exact location of the park are not something they are trying to push. -1/4- - Regular Andover City Council Meeting • Minutes —September 16, 2003 Page 7 Councilmember Jacobson stated if Mr. Lashinski's property is not developed soon and the road does not get built, there is no access to the park from the east and everything has to go through the west. Mr. Lindahl stated that was correct. The Council looked at two different plans for comparison and discussed them with staff and the Park Commission. Acting Mayor Orttel stated until the development is done, they will need to piecemeal this to connect the streets. Acting Mayor Orttel stated he was satisfied with this because he thought it covered all of the ground that was discussed at the last meeting. Councilmember Jacobson stated under Plan A, they are in essence, platting the Lashinski property for him because there is not much else he can do. He wondered is Mr. Lashinski will still come out with the same number of lots under this configuration compared to the other plan. Mr. Haas stated they should not landlock Mr. Lashinski's property and the developer will need to provide access up to the property line. Councilmember Jacobson wanted to make sure they were not diminishing the • ability to access the park. Councilmember Jacobson stated regarding the trail going down to Drake Street, two homeowners stated they would provide access to the land down there. He asked if this was still good. Mr. Berkowitz stated the two residents were at the meeting and they may want to address this issue. Mr. Jeff Cook, 13 89 156 stated they would be willing to talk if the park was in the south end but they are not in favor of providing access if it only goes to a neighborhood. He readdressed some of the issues that were brought up previously. They would like to sit down and work it out so traffic is not an issue and the park size is not the issue. Councilmember Trude stated they would need to give up five feet of easement for a trail access. Mr. Haas stated they will need at least fifteen feet from either one homeowner or a combination from both for the trail. Acting Mayor Orttel thought this was going to remain an open item and he thought they should get the trail to that point during the planning process and deal with the details later on. Mr. Haas stated they really want to put the trail in before the new development is put in so the potential homeowners will know there will be a trail. Councilmember Trude stated in Plan A she thought everything from the previous meeting was • covered. Mr. Lindahl stated when the sketch plan was brought to the Park Commission for approval they did recommend to Mr. Quigley as a Park Commission that they wanted the park in the middle and Mr. -Is-- Regular Andover City Council Meeting Minutes — September 16, 2003 • Page 8 Emmerich and the developer went to the Planning and Zoning with the park location in the south without the Park Commission knowledge and wishes. Councilmember Jacobson asked if when the developments came in, they took money to make the park larger and use the money for a larger park. Mr. Lindahl stated the plan was to make it an extended neighborhood park. It is considered an extended neighborhood park in the neighborhood of three acres which is larger than a neighborhood park. Councilmember Jacobson asked if this was what the Park Commission was looking at for a park in the area. Mr. Lindahl stated this has been in the works for several years. Mr. Berkowitz stated the playground equipment for the park is not in the five year capital plan so they have park dedication dollars for other projects. He stated when the park does go forward, he wanted to let the residents know not to expect to see playground equipment right away; it may take a few years for that. Councilmember Trude stated that was pretty common with all the parks in the City. Councilmember Knight stated that in the future the neighbors should be involved and they should get input from the neighborhood. Councilmember Knight stated they had a number people talk about a stop sign on 159 and there is • some concern about traffic. He wondered if there is a chance for a stop sign and asked if it meets warrants. Mr. Berkowitz stated at this point a traffic study would need to be done when it is developed and at this time, it would not warrant a four -way stop. Mr. Cook stated he would like the Council to keep in mind that the children in the development cannot get to the regional park because they are landlocked so the park is very important to them. Consensus of the Council was to accept Plan A as the concept plan for the development. Councilmember Trude stated she thought Plan A was an improvement and once the park is approved, they would need to get it on the list for the playground equipment. Mr. Mike Quigley, Emerich Development, explained he was given a schematic to overlay onto the property and he needs to take into consideration many things. He stated that Plan A is based on what is in place for City requirements as well as the previous drawing. He stated the park equipment fits in the schematic. Councilmember Knight asked if they can proceed with the trail so they can get some resolution to this issue. Mr. Haas stated he will call the property owners to see what they can work out regarding the trails. Councilmember Trude stated she thought Plan A addressed all the issues brought up at the last • meeting. She stated the other plan she was more concerned with because they would have needed more trails to access the park because it would be tucked away. -l6 - • 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. • ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 • (763) 755 -5100 FAX (763) 755 -8923 • WWW.CI.ANDOVER.MN.US TO: Planning and Zoning Commissioners FROM: Courtney Bednarz, City Planner SUBJECT: 2030 Regional Development Framework DATE: December 9, 2003 INTRODUCTION This item is intended to share information and solicit input on the preparation of a response to the draft 2030 Regional Development Framework prepared by the Metropolitan Council DISCUSSION The Metropolitan Council is in the process of adopting a document to replace the 2030 Regional Blueprint prepared by the previous Metropolitan Council. A complete copy is available at the Metropolitan Council website (www.metcouncil.or>;l The document outlines regional goals for the seven county metropolitan area and identifies roles for both the Metropolitan Council and local communities. Table 1 illustrates the four central policies of the framework. The document also defines six geographic planning areas based on land use characteristics. Andover has been placed in both the `Developing Communities' and `Rural Residential' planning areas. Tables 3 and 5 illustrate the policies for each of these categories. A map showing the boundaries of the different planning areas is also attached. The final chapter of the document describes the statutory authority of the Metropolitan Council and outlines the programs intended to implement the framework. Among these are the regional grants administered through the Livable Communities Act (Minn. Stat. 473.25- .255). This program administers approximately $10 million dollars in grant funds annually. Andover is not a member of the Livable Communities program and does not qualify to receive funds as a result. Plannine Areas Discussion The policies and accompanying roles for the `Developing Communities' planning area are discussed in Table 3 (attached). It is important to note a conflict between the 3 -5 units per acre advocated in this section and the City's previous agreement with the Metropolitan Council reflected in the housing goals of the Comprehensive Plan (see table on the following page). The Metropolitan Council has stated that communities will not be required to amend or update their comprehensive plans before the next update cycle in • 2008. However, the conflicting statements of the framework should be addressed at this time. Comprehensive Plan Figure 2.7 HOUSING GOALS It is important to note that the Metropolitan Council calculates density using a formula that subtracts the following: • Major Highways, those with rights -of -way of 200 feet or greater • Wetlands and water- bodies (e.g. NURP ponds, and Lakes) • Parks and conservation lands (federal, state, regional, and local) • Lands protected by local ordinances (e.g. woodlands, steep slopes, floodplains) Local streets and alleys are not excluded from the total area. A calculation done for projects approved since 1995 shows an approximate overall net density figure of 3.09 units per acre (see Attachment A). It is important to point out that without higher density projects such as Grey Oaks and The Farmstead, the average density would not achieve 3 units per net acre. The policies and accompanying roles for the `Rural Residential' planning area are discussed in Table 5 (attached). The Metropolitan Council acknowledges that these areas exist, but also intends to discourage this development pattern in the future. Here again, the City needs to communicate to the Metropolitan Council that it intends to implement the approved Comprehensive Plan which includes the potential development of some acreage lots in the rural area (i.e. 2'/z acre lots). Additionally, the recently designated Rural Reserve areas are shown in the Metropolitan Council's `Rural Residential' planning area. These should be shown in the `Developing Communities' area because the City's Subdivision Ordinance will only allow these areas to develop at urban densities once municipal sewer and water become available. Additional Comments The 2030 Regional Development Framework is out of balance. While increased densities are advocated in fringe areas of the metropolitan area, the framework does not specifically address funding sources for transportation improvements beyond the metropolitan highway system. Cities are doing their part to accommodate new growth, but county roads and intersections are not equipped to handle the increased traffic. This issue needs to be addressed in the framework. 9 I� • -2- CITY INDEX BENCHMARK GOAL Affordability Ownership 72% 69 -87% 40% Rental 26% 35 -50% 35% Life-Cycle Type (Non- Single family detached 4% 33 -35% 15% Owner /renter Mix 95/5% (75)/(25)% 90/10% Densi Single - Family Detached 1.0 /acre 1.9 -2.3 /acre 2.3 Net acres Multifamily 0 /acre 10 - 13 /acre 6 units It is important to note that the Metropolitan Council calculates density using a formula that subtracts the following: • Major Highways, those with rights -of -way of 200 feet or greater • Wetlands and water- bodies (e.g. NURP ponds, and Lakes) • Parks and conservation lands (federal, state, regional, and local) • Lands protected by local ordinances (e.g. woodlands, steep slopes, floodplains) Local streets and alleys are not excluded from the total area. A calculation done for projects approved since 1995 shows an approximate overall net density figure of 3.09 units per acre (see Attachment A). It is important to point out that without higher density projects such as Grey Oaks and The Farmstead, the average density would not achieve 3 units per net acre. The policies and accompanying roles for the `Rural Residential' planning area are discussed in Table 5 (attached). The Metropolitan Council acknowledges that these areas exist, but also intends to discourage this development pattern in the future. Here again, the City needs to communicate to the Metropolitan Council that it intends to implement the approved Comprehensive Plan which includes the potential development of some acreage lots in the rural area (i.e. 2'/z acre lots). Additionally, the recently designated Rural Reserve areas are shown in the Metropolitan Council's `Rural Residential' planning area. These should be shown in the `Developing Communities' area because the City's Subdivision Ordinance will only allow these areas to develop at urban densities once municipal sewer and water become available. Additional Comments The 2030 Regional Development Framework is out of balance. While increased densities are advocated in fringe areas of the metropolitan area, the framework does not specifically address funding sources for transportation improvements beyond the metropolitan highway system. Cities are doing their part to accommodate new growth, but county roads and intersections are not equipped to handle the increased traffic. This issue needs to be addressed in the framework. 9 I� • -2- ACTION REQUESTED The Planning Commission is asked to discuss the information provided and recommend • any language the Commission feels is appropriate to include in a response to the Metropolitan Council. Attachments Table 1 — Central Framework Policies Table 3 - Developing Area Information Table 5 - Rural Residential Infromation Map of Planning Areas Attachment A — Andover Residential Development Within the MUSA AMM Frequently Asked Questions O/wa !► / : i m o ll LJ • —3— Table 1: Growth Accommo m All 'JOmmtuuum Council Role • Invest Council resources— infrastructure improvements, grant programs and technical assistance – to accommodate regional growth while using regional systems and land efficiently. • • Conserve natural resources — particularly water resources –and protect vital natural � when planning and constructing regional infrastructure (wastewater treatment systems, roads, transit, p op sp airports). • Update regional plan for water supply and coordinate with public and private entities on regional water supply issues, source protection and conservation practices. • Pursue environmentally sound and cooperative water use practices, conservation initiatives, and joint planning and implementation efforts to maximize surface water infiltration to recharge groundwater supplies. • Maintain or replace regional wastewater facilities as they age or become obsolete. • Promote the inclusion of best practices for stormwater management, habitat restoration, and natural resource conservation in development plans and projects. • Promote proper management of individual sewage treatment systems (consistent with Minnesota Rules l Vwwuu•ar -... • Plan for development that accommodates growth forecasts at appropriate densities. • Adopt and implement a Council- approved comprehensive plan. • Maintain, replace or expand local facilities and infrastructure to meet growth and development needs. • Conserve natural resources— particularly water resources — and protect vital natural areas when designing an d constructing local infrastructure and planning land use patterns. • Prepare local water supply and wellhead protection plans as required by the MLPA. • Develop and implement environmentally sound and cooperative water use practices, conservation initiatives, and joint planning and implementation efforts, including wellhead protection plans, designed to protect and ensure an adequate supply of water for the region • Incorporate innovative stormwater management techniques, natural resources conservation practices, and habitat restoration projects into development plans and projects. • Adopt Individual Sewage Treatment System (ISTS) management ordinances and implement a maintenance program (consistent with Minnesota Rules Chapter 7080). Policy 2: Plan and invest in multi -modal transportation choices based on the full range of costs and t,•„ «eta_ to slow the ¢rowth of con gestion and serve the region's economic needs. Council Role Plan a multi- modal, interconnected transportation system in cooperation with state agencies, counties and local governments. • Expand the capacity of the regional transportation system to slow the growth of congestion Support improvements to principal arterials and A -minor arterials, including county roads. Expand the regional trails system. • Support implementation of the most appropriate and cost effective techologies to manage and optimize the use of both the highway and transit systems (examples: HOT lanes, ramp metering). • Support a variety of freight transport modes to link the region with state, national and international markets. • Help communities comply with MN/DOT's access management guidelines. • Coordinate with communities, the Metropolitan Airports Commission, and the Federal Aviation Administration to ensure planned land uses in areas surrounding airports are compatible with Land Use Community Role • Plan and develop an interconnected local transportation system that is integrated with the regional system. • Develop local land uses linked to the local and regional transportation systems. • Plan for connections between housing and centers of employment, education, retail and recreation uses. • Coordinate with business and other public agencies congestion - reduction measures such as collaboration with employers, provision of information or incentives to minimize or decrease peak -period impacts. • Use MN/DOT's access management guidelines to prepare local plans and ordinances. • Use Land Use Compatibility Guidelines for Aircraft Noise to plan appropriate land uses for areas surrounding airports. Policy 3: Encourage expanded choices in housing location and types, and improved access to jobs and Council Role • Provide guidance and negotiate lifecycle and affordable housing goals in implementing the Livable Communities Act (LCA) an d Metropolitan Land Planning Act (MLPA). • Invest Council resources to assist communities and community projects that increase the variety of housing types and costs, appropriately mix land uses, increase transportation choices, and leverage private investment • Community Role • Develop and implement comprehensive plans that provide laud appropriate for a variety of affordable and life -cycle housing options. • Adopt local housing goals and implementation plans. • Use local official controls and resources to facilitate development of a range of housing densities, types and costs • Approve and permit proposed housing developments in light of population forecasts, existing housing stock and current and future community and regional needs, as appropriate. • Policy 4: Work with local and regional partners to conserve, protect and enhance the region's vital natural nnrwo• Council Role • Partner with state agencies, counties, communities, builders and developers, and non- profits to conserve, maintain and restore natural resources identified in regional and local natural resource inventories. Integrate natural resource conservation strategies into regional system plans for infrastructure improvements and development and to restore degraded natural resources of regional importance to support an interconnected network of natural resources. • Coordinate and provide technical assistance to communities as they develop local stormwater management plans consistent with Minnesota Rules Chapter 8410 and the MLPA- • Expand the regional park system, as appropriate, to conserve, maintain and connect natural resources identified as high quality or of regional importance. Invest in acquisition and development of land for the regional park system. • Develop and promote the use of best management practices for abating, preventing and removing point and nonpoint source pollution; reducing soil erosion; protecting and improving water quality; and maximizing groundwater recharge. • Provide technical assistance to communities regarding the adoption and enforcement of environmental preservation and conservation techniques and ordinances. Work with public and private entities to maintain the quality of regional water resources. Community Role • Complete local natural resource inventories as they deem appropriate. Give strong consideration to integrating natural resources, including aggregate, identified in regional and local natural resources inventories into local land use decision - making. • Adopt and enforce erosion control ordinances and other environmental preservation and conservation techniques and ordinances. • Prepare and implement local stormwater management plans consistent with Minnesota Rules Chapter 8410 and the MLPA. • Include as a part of local park systems natural resources that are identified as high quality or of local and regional importance. • Implement surface water management practices geared to protecting and maintaining the quality of local water resources. • Adopt and implement best management practices for abating, preventing and removing point and nonpoint source pollution; reducing soil erosion; protecting and improving water quality; and maximizing groundwater recharge throueh surface water infiltration. • —s— Developing Communities Anoka County Andover (urban reserve, Rural Rmidential),,Blaine, Centerville (urban reserve),Lino Ickes (urban , reserve), Rams; (urban reserve, rural residential) Carver County: Chanhassen. Chaska, Laketown Township (urban reserve, Diversified Rural), Victoria (urban reserve), Waconin Dakota County: Coates (Agricultural Preservation), Eagan, Empire Township ,(urban reserve, Agricultural Area), Farmington (urban reserve), Hastings (urban reserve), Inver Grove Heights (Rural Residential), Lakeville (urban reserve). Rosemount (urban reserve, Agricultural Area), Sunfish Lake Hennepin County: Brooklyn Park, Corcoran (urban reserve, Diversified Rural), Dayton (urban reserve), Eden Prairie, • Hassan Township (urban reserve, Diversified Rural), Maple Grove, Maple Plain, Medina (urban reserve, Diversified Rural), Minnetrista (urban reserve, Agricultural Area, Diversified Rural), Orono (urban reserve, Diversified Rural), Plymouth (urban reserve), Rogers (urban reserve), St Bonifacius, Shorewood Ramsey County: North Oaks Scott County: Prior Lake (urban reserve), Savage, Shakopee (urban reserve) Washington County: Bayport, Cottage Grove (urban reserve, Agricultural Area), Forest Lake (Diversified Rural), Grey Cloud Township (Diversified Rural), Hugo (urban reserve, Diversified Rural), Lake Elmo (urban reserve, Diversified Rural), Oakdale, Oak Park Heights, Woodbury (urban reserve) Table 3: Growth Accommodation in Developing Communities Polio 1: Work with communities to accommodate owth in a fleMble, connected and efficient manner. Council Role • Plan, coordinate and invest in regional infrastructure (roads, transit wastewater treatment, airports, and packs and open space) and resources to support staged development, and centers with convenient access to transportation and transit corridors. • Commit to provide regional system infrastructure to support local development consistent with approved local comprehensive plans. • Reduce infiltration and inflow into the regional wastewater treatment system. • Promote development practices and patterns that protect natural resource areas and the integrity of the region's water supply. • Work with communities to identify and protect an adequate supply of land within the region to accommodate urban development that will occur after 2030. • Provide technical assistance to developing communities to establish and implement strategies to protect lands for future urban development. Community Role • Plan and stage development that accommodates the forecasts for local growth through 2030 at appropriate densities (3 =5 [nits plus per acre overall in developing communities and target higher density in locations with convenient access to transportation corridors and with adequate sewer capacity). • Stage local infrastructure and development plans to accommodate 20 years worth of forecasted growth. • Select and implement local controls and tools for timing and staging of development throughout the community. • Reduce infiltration and inflow into the local and regional wastewater treatment system. • Adopt ordinances to accommodate growth and use land and infrastructure efficiently (examples: innovative zoning techniques for mixed use development, transit oriented development, overlay districts, planned unit development provisions, adequate public facilities ordinances, community impact statements and traditional neighborhood development overlay zones.) • Plan for the conversion or reuse of declining or underutilized lands in order to accommodate growth forecasts, ensure efficient utilization of infrastructure investments and meet community needs. • Plan for the entire community and consider the need for additional serviceable land for growth beyond 2030. • Identify areas reserved for future urban development and develop strategies to minimize development in those areas that could preclude future urban development. • Plan land use patterns that will facilitate groundwater recharge to protect there ion's water supply. Policy 2: Plan and invest in multi-modal transportation choices based on the full range of costs and benefits, to slow the growth of congestion and serve the region's economic needs. Council Role • Plan for regional highway and transit systems, pedestrian and bicycle investments to improve connections between workplaces residences retail services an d entertainment activities and to accommodate growth. Community Role • Make local transportation, transit, pedestrian and bicycle investments to build connections between workplaces, residences, retail, services and entertainment activities and to support the transportation needs of the planned build out of the community. • Identify opportunities to improve transportation connections and address transportation issues such as commuting (park and rides, express bus service), access management safety and mobility when planning new development • Plan land use patterns to support transit development and service expansion. • Adopt ordinances to support integrated land use (examples: ordinances encouraging or allowing shared parking; centers; transit oriented developments). • Adopt improved design techniques (examples: context sensitive desi • better access management). Policy 3: Encourage expanded choices in housing location and types, and improved access to jobs and otmortunities. Council Role • Provide technical assistance to assist developing communities to devise ordinances and projects for lifecycle and affordable housing that respond to changing market and demographic trends. Community Role • Evaluate proposed housing developments in light of population forecasts, existing housing stock, and current and future community and regional needs; approve and permit developments as appropriate. • Adopt ordinances designed to encourage lifecycle and affordable housing (examples: increased multi- family zoning, reduced front and interior setback requirements; cluster development ordinances). Policy 4: Work with local and regional partners to conserve, protect and enhance the region's vital natural resources. See Table 1. 6° C A • • 0 • Rural Residential Communities Anoka County: Ham Lake Scott County: Credit River Township Portions of Ando ver, Ramsey and Inver Grove Heights are designated Rural Residential. Table 5: Growth Accommodation in Rural Residential Areas Policy 1: Work with communities to accommodate growth in a flexible, connected and efficient manner. Council Role • Provide technical assistance to communities to plan for adequate infrastructure to address current needs and to accommodate forecast growth using development practices that protect the integrity of the region's water supply and natural resources identified in regional or local inventories. • Discourage rural residential patterns (unsewered areas of 2'/2 acre lots) elsewhere in the region. • Provide technical assistance about alternative wastewater treatment systems and share specific information, as it becomes available, about the performance of such systems in the region. • Support the continued issuance of required MPCA permits for community treatment systems on a case -by -case basis that will allow the type and size of the system and the degree of treatment required to be determined based on site - specific soil conditions and effluent discharge points. • Advocate that the local government should be the permit holder for alternative wastewater treatment systems to ensure accountability for the proper functioning and maintenance of the systems. Community Role • Plan and develop interconnected local streets, adequate water supply, and properly managed individual sewage treatment systems to accommodate local growth forecasts. • Plan land use patterns that will facilitate groundwater recharge to protect the region's water supply. • Protect the rural environment. Locally oversee the management and maintenance of alternative wastewater treatment systems such as community drainfields to avoid the environmental and economic costs from failed systems. • Ensure financial and environmental accountability for installation, maintenance, remediation and management of any permitted private wastewater treatment systems. Policy 2: Plan and invest in multi-modal transportation choices based on the full range of costs and benefits, to slow the growth of congestion. Council Role • Plan for regional transportation infrastructure consistent with a Waal level of service. • Support the limiting of access points to state and county roads systems (consistent with state and county access manss ement policies) and emphasize construction of an interconnected local public streetsystem- Community Role • Plan for and construct local transportation infrastructure sufficient to serve local needs. • Construct an interconnected local public street system. • Adopt improved design techniques for access management. Policy 3: Encourage expanded choices in housing location and types, and Improved access to jobs and opportunities. See Table 1. 17. Page 1 of 1 • • 0 Urban Phoning Araar Cese ✓.p a,g A: N Ne. lope d Ate a Planning Areas Rural PLenimg Aram FnraL cquur - AOrir vlbssai - ai"Aq. Dw*ndud Fuel FxraLFiaAmual Additional Information W Matrorob ta n COau('a/ http: / /www.metrocouncil.org/ planning /framework/PlatmingAreas8x l l.jpg 12/4/2003 Fe K> ?ha1 }faWral FAiow <e An4s ........ F.E19hal Trol .'n N'!. t6 u�•GV }. m.••. rlman a. .•.�...... 15ahs33015Corn4er - ?,4jmul yul Dana IP al ArtUTUI Oyen Water Q rrd P. l P ta W Matrorob ta n COau('a/ http: / /www.metrocouncil.org/ planning /framework/PlatmingAreas8x l l.jpg 12/4/2003 Attachment A Residential Development Within the Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA) 0 9 YEAR DEVELOPMENT GROSS ACRES NET ACRES* Single Townhome TOTAL DENSITY (units/net acre) 2000 Aztec Estates' 30.60 12.00 3 44 47 3.92 2003 Bunker Lake Village 10.80 10.00 41 0 41 4.10 1999 Cambridge Estates 1st & 2nd Addition 60.63 19.93 76 0 76 3.81 1997 Cherrywood Estates 16.64 14.76 26 0 26 1.76 1997 Chesterton Commons 104.01 28.70 92 0 92 3.21 1999 Chesterton Commons 4th Addition 16.45 8.70 21 0 21 2.41 1999 Chesterton Commons North 22.28 19.08 49 0 49 2.57 2000 Chesterton Commons North 2nd Addition 14.41 14.04 39 0 39 2.78 2003 City View Farms` 1.06 1.06 0 7 7 6.60 2002 Constance Corners 36.80 20.41 42 0 42 2.06 2001 Creekside Estates 2nd addition 5.70 1.95 5 0 5 2.56 1997 Crown Pointe East 2nd Addition 31.67 28.09 70 0 70 2.49 2001 Devonshire Estates 1.38 1.21 0 8 8 6.61 1999 Fox Hollow 46.70 45.50 101 0 101 2.22 2002 Foxburgh Crossing 6.25 6.25 13 0 13 2.08 1998 Grey Oaks 60.00 34.06 0 352 352 10.33 2003 Maple Hollow 2.22 2.06 6 0 6 2.91 2002 Natures Run 36.10 13.94 0 54 54 3.87 2000 Red Pines Fields 66.54 44.92 67 34 101 2.25 1995 Shadowbrook 82.40 72.00 175 0 175 2.43 1997 Shadowbrook 2nd Addition 50.70 39.50 99 0 99 2.51 1997 Shadowbrook 3rd Addition 20.80 20.80 0 67 67 3.22 1998 Shadowbrook 4th Addition 27.50 20.50 37 0 37 1.80 1998 Shadowbrook 5th Addition 20.60 17.04 0 43 43 2.52 1999 Shadowbrook 6th Addition 48.60 17.73 34 o 34 1.92 2002 Shady Oak Cove 12.46 8.01 16 0 16 2.00 2000 Sunridge 9.70 9.47 0 35 35 3.70 1998 The Farmstead 10.79 10.79 0 6 140 12.97 2000 Townhomes of Woodland Creek 4.82 4.82 0 18 18 3.73 2003 Village @ Andover Station 8.65 7.70 0 75 75 9.74 1995 Woodland Creek 5th Addition 9.90 9.90 20 0 20 2.02 2003 Woodland Creek Golf Villas 4.08 3.05 0 11 11 3.61 1997 Woodland Estates 77.83 70.34 165 0 165 2.35 2000 Woodland Estates 2nd Addition 45.71 36.74 70 0 70 1.91 2002 Woodland Estates 4th Addition 35.92 34.11 78 0 78 2.29 2000 Woodland Oaks 38.93 37.721 76 0 76 2.01 TOTAL 1079.63 746.68 �� 2309 3.09 'some net acres calculations are estimated based on intormation avaiiaoie. - 7, � MAIN Association of 2030 Framework Metropolitan FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS Municipalities Q . Is the Framework really less prescriptive than the Blueprint? A. The language used in the Framework is less prescriptive and appears to leave room for greater variety in implementation. There is less of a sense of the Council having found "the answer" or the best way for the region to develop and more of an emphasis on economic and efficient use of regional infrastructure. However, the root of the Frame- work -- or the policies that are actually enforceable by the Met Council as they review local comprehensive plans -- are very similar to those in the Blueprint. Items such as the population and household forecasts and the minimum densities for sewered develop- ment remain largely unchanged. Q, What are the similarities and differences between the Framework and Blueprint 2030? A. The greatest difference between the Framework and the Blueprint lies in the "tone" of the document. The Framework is less aggressive in advocating for "new urbanism," "smart growth," or any other style of urban desgin. The draft Framework focuses much more heavily on stewardship of the public infrastructure, rather than a regional vision for the Twin Cities, but gives less attention to the need for additional financial resources. Additionally, the Framework's transportation policy emphasizes the need to move people and goods and alleviate congestion, rather than the role transportation investments can play in shaping land uses. The Framework is similar to the Blueprint in that it continues to project an additional 930,000 people and 460,000 households in the seven county area by the year 2030. The Frameworks calls for an increase in mixed use development, greater emphasis on rein- vestment and protecting natural resources, and expansion of the transit system. Q. Does the Framework continue the "MUSA Cities" policy? A. Yes. While the term "MUSA cities" is not used, the Framework continues to call for more local control over decisions about which parcels of land will receive urban services next. "Local communities would have discretion in staging growth, recognizing that development opportunities do not always occur in a contiguous manner." /6 9 What does the Framework say about preserving agriculture in the seven - county area? A. The Framework does not classify the preservation of agriculutre as a regional prior- ity, but does say that the Metropolitan Council will support communities that have decided they want to preserve agriculutral lands. (� Does the Framework continue to call for concentrating growth "in centers, along corridors "? A. The Met Council has devoted a signifiant amount of debate and discussion to this _issue, with some Council members arguing that developmentalg4&corridors will only increase congestion and others arguing that it will facilitate increased walk- ing, biking and transit use, thereby reducing congestion. While continuing to in- clude this concept, the draft Framework has been softened somewhat, with refer- ences to development "with convenient access to" transportation corridors and a discussion of the numerous different types of centers. • Q What does the Framework say about natural resource protection or the NRP A. The Framework's fourth policy is to "work with local and regional partners to con- serve, protect and enhance the region's vital natural resources." The recently com- pleted Natural Resources Inventory is mentioned several times, as is the importance of preserving natural resources as part of land use planning decisions. The draft Framework does not make any mention of new or expanded programs or authorities for the Metropolitan Council in the area of natural resource protection. Does the Framework have the same reinvestment goals as the Blueprint? A. Yes. The draft Framework continues to call for 30 percent of the projected house- hold growth to be accommodated through reinvestment in the already developed portions of the region. • Q Does the Framework say anything about extending regional wastewater services to rural growth centers? A. The Framework says the Council will "provide technical and/or financial support for wastewater services in rural growth centers where feasible," and "consider acquring and operating" treatment plants "if doing so would be more efficient and cost effec- tive." -/l � Association of Metropolitan Municipalities 2030 Framework V CITY CHECK LIST The 2030 Framework and its appendices include information specific to indi- vidual cities and some policies specific to certain groups of cities. Cities are en- couraged to review the draft Framework, giving particular attention to the follow- ing items. Questions, concerns or comments about the Framework components specific to your city should be directed to your Metropolitan Council member and/or sector representative. ❑ Population, Household and Employment Forecasts. Appendix A includes population, household and employment forecasts for each city in the metropolitan area. The tables, which group cities by county, include actual population figures for 1990 and 2000, and then the forecasted amounts for 2010, 2020 and 2030. ❑ Geographic Planning Area Grouping. Chapter 3 of the Framework discusses the strategies for each of the Council's six geographic planning areas and identifies the cities within each planning area. Although most cities are included in only one planning area, a few cities will find themselves included in more than one (in the developing area and the rural residential area, for example). Metropolitan Council members have ex- pressed an interest in hearing from cities included in more than one planning area to determine whether this dual classification should be continued. ❑ Community Roles by Geographic Planning Area. After locating the designated geographic planning area, cities are encouraged to review the corresponding table, which identifies communities roles for imple- mentation. Additionally, cities should review Table 1, which applies to all cit- ies in the metropolitan area Some of the "roles" listed are statutory require- ment or federal mandates. Others, however, are intended to implement the Framework's goals and policies. ❑ Natural Resources Inventory and Assessment Maps. Appendix C contains four maps related to the Natural Resources Inventory and Assessment (NRI/A). The maps present a regional view of the NRI elements but city boundaries are deliniated. Cities are encouraged to review the maps to determine what regionally significant natural resources have been identified within or along their borders. The maps can be accessed online at www.metrocouncil.ore, by clicking on the "Framework" button, "read the Framework document," and then selecting Appendix C. is • • —12-- 0 0 0 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. • ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 • (763) 755 -5100 FAX (763) 755 -8923 • WWW.CI.ANDOVER.MN.US TO: Planning and Zoning Commissioners FROM: Courtney Bednarz, City Planner SUBJECT: 2003 Year in Review DATE: December 9, 2003 INTRODUCTION This item is intended to be an informal discussion of our meetings in 2003. DISCUSSION Staff is seeking feedback from the Commission on the following items: 1. Residential development 2. Commercial development 3. Packets (reports, plans, other materials) 4. General Discussion LOOKING AHEAD 2004 Zoning Ordinance Update Staff will be bringing information to the Planning Commission concerning sections of the Zoning Ordinance that need to be updated. ACTION REQUESTED The Planning Commission is asked to hold an informal discussion on these items. r; VP u