HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/13/04C I T Y O F
ND OVE
• 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W.. ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 • (763) 755 -5100
FAX (763) 755 -8923 • WWW.CI.ANDOVER.MN.US
Andover Planning and Zoning Commission
Meeting Agenda
April 13, 2004
Andover City Hall
Council Chambers
7.00 a.m.
1. Call to Order
2. Approval of Minutes — March 23, 2004
3. Approve Resolution — Redevelopment Plan/Community Center Project Area.
4. PUBLIC HEARING: Residential Sketch Plan for Tom Blomberg for
property located in the Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section
36, Township 32, Range 24, Anoka County, Minnesota.
5. PUBLIC HEARING: Comprehensive Plan Amendment (03 -09) to extend
the Metropolitan Urban Service boundary (MUSA) to include properties
located at 1341 and 1433 161 Avenue NW.
6. Work Session:
a. Planned Unit Development Ordinance
b. Temporary Structures
c. Parking Lot Lighting
d. Comprehensive Plan Update
7. Other Business
8. Adjournment
• C I T Y O F
NDOVE
19k 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: Item 2. Approval of Minutes - March 23, 2004
DATE: April 13, 2004
Request
The Planning and Zoning Commission is asked to approve the minutes from the
March 23, 2004 meeting.
11
NDOVE c•n'ap
0
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING — MARCH 23, 2004
•
•
The Regular Bi- Monthly Meeting of the Andover Planning and Zoning Commission was
called to order by Acting Chairperson Tim Kirchoff on March 23, 2004, 7:00 p.m., at the
Andover City Hall, 1685 Crosstown Boulevard NW, Andover, Minnesota.
Commissioners present:
Commissioners absent:
Also present:
APPROVAL OFMINUTES.
March 9, 2004
Commissioners Tim Kirchoff, Tony Gamache, Rex
Greenwald, Dean Vatne, Jonathan Jasper and Michael
Casey.
Chairperson Daninger.
City Planner, Courtney Bednarz
Associate Planner, Andy Cross
Others
Motion by Jasper, seconded by Casey, to approve the minutes as presented. Motion
carried on a 6 -ayes, 0 -nays, 1- absent (Daninger) vote.
RESIDENTIAL PROPER TYFROM PROPER TIES LOCATED AT 17845 PALM
STREET NWAND 560177 AVENUE NW.
PUBLIC HEARING: LOT SPLIT (04 -01) TO CREATE A NEW RURAL
Mr. Cross explained that the property owner has submitted a request to split off the
northwest 3.6 acres of his property to make a new residential lot. This lot split is the
second component in a two -part plan to create this new lot. The first part was to have the
property line on the northern adjacent piece of land adjusted so as to deed a portion of
land to the applicant that would provide access to 177 Avenue. When that is
accomplished, Mr. Fanucci is seeking to split the northwest 3.0 acres of his original
property along with the newly deeded .6 acres from his land at 560 177 Avenue NW.
Mr. Cross discussed the information with the Commission.
Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
Minutes — March 23, 2004
Page 2
Commissioner Jasper asked what the existing access was off o£ Mr. Cross stated the
survey did not do it justice but there is a rough access to the property. He showed on the
map where the access was. The applicant's daughter showed on the map where existing
access is.
Motion by Gamache, seconded by Greenwald, to open the public hearing at 7:10 p.m.
Motion carried on a 6 -ayes, 0 -nays, 1- absent (Daninger) vote.
There was no public input.
Motion by Vatne, seconded by Gamache, to close the public hearing at 7:10 p.m. Motion
carried on a 6 -ayes, 0 -nays, 1- absent (Daninger) vote.
Motion by Gamache, seconded by Vatne, to recommend to the City Council approval of
the lot split subject to the conditions on the Resolution. Motion carried on a 6 -ayes, 0-
nays, 1- absent (Daninger) vote.
Mr. Bednarz stated that this item would be before the Council at the April 6, 2004 City
Council meeting.
PUBLIC HEARING: REZONING (04 -06) FR OMS17VGLEFAMILY URBAN •
RESIDENTL4L (R-4) TO SHOPPING CENTER (SC) FOR A PORTION OF
PROPER TY LOCA TED AT 13748 ROUND LAKE BOULEVARD.
Mr. Bednarz explained the Planning Commission is asked to review the proposed
rezoning of the southern portion of the above single - family residential lot.
Mr. Bednarz stated the Planning Commission previously tabled the proposed CUP for a
drive - through window with variances to parking lot setbacks and parking stall size, and
directed CVS to redesign their site to adhere to City Code. CVS responded with an
agreement to purchase the residential property to the north and will complete an
administrative lot line adjustment adding 19 -feet from the southern portion of the
residential property to the CVS site. This will eliminate the need for any variances. The
residential property will still be in compliance with the minim lot size and building
setbacks for the R -4 Zoning District.
Mr. Bednarz discussed the information with the Commission.
Motion by Greenwald, seconded by Gamache, to open the public hearing at 7:15 p.m.
Motion carried on a 6 -ayes, 0 -nays, 1- absent (Daninger) vote.
Mr. Dean Johnson, Precision Tune Owner, stated this was confusing that they are
showing an easement going on his property. He asked for clarification on the drawing he •
Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
Minutes — March 23, 2004
Page 3
• received. Mr. Bednarz explained this appeared to be the surveyors attempt to illustrate
the shared easement and it is not part of this approval.
Mr. Johnson stated the other issue he has is with lopping off part of the parcel behind the
site. He did not think this was a good idea because it was not done in the best interest of
the owners in the area.
Commissioner Gamache asked why this business would not be in the best interest of
surrounding property owners. Mr. Johnson stated he felt a gas station would be in the
best interest for him and he did not know what a pharmacy would do for him.
Mr. Tom Loucks stated they would not be purchasing only nineteen feet of land, they
have purchased the entire parcel of land and they plan on using nineteen feet of this and
the home will be resold with a residential classification in the future.
Motion by Gamache, seconded by Casey, to close the public hearing at 7:20 p.m. Motion
carried on a 6 -ayes, 0 -nays, 1- absent (Daninger) vote.
Commissioner Jasper thought the applicants have done everything the Planning
Commission has asked of them and he felt this plan was a good one. Commissioner
Gamache agreed.
• Motion by Jasper, seconded by Gamache, to recommend to the City Council approval of
the proposed rezoning. Motion carried on a 6 -ayes, 0 -nays, 1- absent (Daninger) vote.
Mr. Bednarz stated that this item would be before the Council at the April 6, 2004 City
Council meeting.
PUBLIC HEARING. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (04 -02) FOR DRIVE
THROUGHAT PROPOSED CVS PHARMACY /CONVENIENCE STORE AT 3631
BUNKER LAKE BOULEVARD NW.
Mr. Bednarz explained the Planning Commission tabled this item at the February 24,
2004 meeting. The applicant has revised the site plan to allow the Conditional Use
Permit for a drive - through window to move forward without the need for a variance.
Mr. Bednarz stated CVS has an agreement to purchase the residential property to the
north and will complete an administrative lot line adjustment adding 19 -feet from the
southern portion of the residential property to the CVS site. This will eliminate the need
for any variances. The residential property will still be in compliance with the minimum
lot size and setbacks for the R-4 Zoning District. Additionally, this 19 -foot parcel will
need to be rezoned from Single - Family Urban Residential to the Shopping Center Zoning
10 District.
Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
Minutes — March 23, 2004
Page 4
Mr. Bednarz discussed the staff report with the Commission.
Acting Chairperson Kirchoff asked if the building footprint was larger because of the
additional land. Mr. Bednarz stated it was not.
Motion by Gamache, seconded by Greenwald, to open the public hearing at 7:23 p.m.
Motion carried on a 6 -ayes, 0 -nays, 1- absent (Daninger) vote.
Mr. Dean Johnson stated a couple of concerns he has is there seems to be quite a bit of
difference in elevation from the front to the back of their property. He wondered if a
retaining wall will be installed between the two properties. Mr. Bednarz asked if the
existing curbing will remain. Mr. Loucks stated there will be curbing in that area of the
site and all of this will be addressed in the process.
Commissioner Gamache wanted to clarify that they are only looking at the drive thru part
of this plan. Mr. Bednarz stated that was correct.
Mr. Johnson stated that a curb island on the CVS property encroached into an easement
be owns on the property and Mr. Tom Loucks, Loucks McLangan, stated they would
move the island over one parking stall so the island is outside of the cross access
easement.
•
Motion by Greenwald, seconded by Gamache, to close the public hearing at 7:27 p.m. .
Motion carried on a 6 -ayes, 0 -nays, 1- absent (Daninger) vote.
Commissioner Jasper asked if there is a fence between Precision Tune and the property
directly to the north. Acting Chairperson Kirchoff stated he thought there was an existing
fence there already and it would need to be changed.
Commissioner Jasper asked if the CVS property will require a fence and he noticed the
two fences will not line up. Mr. Bednarz stated it will be required to adjoin the Precision
Tune fence if there is agreement between the two property owners. He stated the exact
location north of CVS will be selected based on the topography.
Motion by Gamache, seconded by Vatne, to recommend to the City Council approval of
Resolution No. , approving the conditional use permit. Motion carried on a 6 -ayes,
0 -nays, 1- absent (Daninger) vote.
Mr. Bednarz stated that this item would be before the Council at the April 6, 2004 City
Council meeting.
Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
Minutes — March 23, 2004
Page 5
• PUBLIC HEARING: REZONING (03 -04) TO CHANGE THE ZONING FROM
SINGLE FAMILY RURAL RESIDENTLAL (R -1) TO SINGLE FAMILY URBAN
RESIDENTIAL (R-4) FOR PR OPER TY L OCA TED IV THE SOUTHEAST
QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 21, TOWNSHIP 32,
RANGE 24, ANOKA COUNTY, MINNESOTA.
Mr. Bednarz explained the Planning Commission is asked to review the proposed
rezoning to allow the Woodland Estates 6 Addition to move forward.
Mr. Bednarz discussed the report with the Commission.
Motion by Gamache, seconded by Casey, to open the public hearing at 7:31 p.m. Motion
carried on a 6 -ayes, 0 -nays, 1- absent (Daninger) vote.
There was no public input.
Motion by Casey, seconded by Gamache, to close the public hearing at 7:32 p.m. Motion
carried on a 6 -ayes, 0 -nays, 1- absent (Daninger) vote.
Motion by Greenwald, seconded by Gamache, to recommend to the City Council
approval of the rezoning request based on the fact that times and conditions have
changed. Motion carried on a 6 -ayes, 0 -nays, 1- absent (Daninger) vote.
Mr. Bednarz stated that this item would be before the Council at the April 6, 2004 City
Council meeting.
PUBLIC HEARING: PP- ELIMINARYPLAT OF WOODLAND ESTATES 6'
ADDITION, A SINGLE FAMILY URBAN RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
LOCATED IN THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER
OF SECTION 21, TOWNSHIP 32, RANGE 24, ANOKA COUNTY, MINNESOTA.
Mr. Bednarz explained the Planning Commission is asked to review a preliminary plat for
Woodland Estates 6 Addition. The proposed project is located west of Nightingale
Estates 3` Addition.
W. Bednarz discussed the information with the Commission.
Commissioner Vatne asked regarding custom grading, when a plan is submitted, how
specific are the plans. Mr. Bednarz explained to the Commission the process the
developer takes on designing the plans.
Commissioner Vatne stated there was a reference to the existing ditches with a couple of
ponds that will replace the ditches. He asked where the ditches were in relation to the
• ponding. Mr. Brian Johnson, Hakanson, Anderson Assoc., Inc., explained the County
Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
Minutes — March 23, 2004
Page 6
ditch system does not go through this property. It extends the forty acres west of the site
where there is a private ditch system. Their proposal is to expand the private ditch areas
into storm water ponds to improve treatment.
Acting Chairperson Kirchoff asked if the private ditches will eventually drain into the
County ditch system. Mr. Johnson stated this was correct.
Commissioner Greenwald asked in regards to the park dedication, money is collected per
lot, is there a spot where there will be a potential park on this site. Mr. Bednarz stated the
money collected on this plat will be applied elsewhere.
Acting Chairperson Kirchoff asked if there was any idea when Veterans Memorial Blvd.
would connect to Round Lake Boulevard. Mr. Bednarz stated that without assessing the
property owners, it is not feasible to construct at this time.
Acting Chairperson Kirchoff asked if there was any idea when the connection would be
built. Mr. Bednarz stated it depended on the timing of development in the area.
Commissioner Greenwood asked what the time frame for completion of the 6 Addition.
Mr. Johnson stated they would anticipate the site grade would be in early fall and home
construction would start at the end of the year in the fall through 2005 and into 2006.
Motion by Gamache, seconded by Vatne, to open the public hearing at 7:54 p.m. Motion •
carried on a 6 -ayes, 0 -nays, 1- absent (Daninger) vote.
There was no public input.
Motion by Casey, seconded by Gamache, to close the public hearing at 7:55 p.m. Motion
carried on a 6 -ayes, 0 -nays, 1- absent (Daninger) vote.
Commissioner Gamache thought the developer did an excellent job drawing up the plans
after numerous discussions.
Motion by Gamache, seconded by Casey, to recommend to the City Council approval of
Resolution No. , approving the Preliminary Plat for Woodland Estates 6 Addition
subject to the conditions of the attached resolution. Motion carried on a 6 -ayes, 0 -nays,
1- absent (Daninger) vote.
Mr. Bednarz stated that this item would be before the Council at the April 6, 2004 City
Council meeting.
PUBLIC HEARING: RESIDENTL4L SKETCH PLAN OF COUNTRY OAKS WEST
TO REVIEW REVISED PROPOSAL FOR DEVELOPMENT OF 1101161 •
AVENUE NW.
Regular Andover Planni »g and Zoning Commission Meeting
Minutes — March 23, 2004
Page 7
• Mr. Bednarz explained the Planning Commission is asked to review a revised residential
sketch plan for a single family and townhouse development formerly called "White Tail
Ridge". The revised plans attempts to address the issues raised by the City during the
first round of sketch plan review.
Mr. Bednarz discussed the staff report with the Commission.
Commissioner Jasper asked if the emergency access was meant to be an access or was
this for emergency vehicles only and whether it would be taken as an easement or right -
of -way. Mr. Bednarz stated the access would be for emergency vehicles only. The City
could take the access as right -of -way or easement. He did not know what the preferred
method was.
Commissioner Gamache asked if it was determined if the property to the north was
buildable. Mr. Bednarz stated there is interest in the development community and there
is some potential for development in the north.
Commissioner Greenwald stated the way he looked at this; there is not a good way to
access this property.
• Mr. Jon Jondahl, Pentagon Holdings made a presentation to the Planning Commission.
Commissioner Greenwald asked if twin homes were considered two dwellings. Mr.
Jondahl stated that was correct.
Discussion ensued in regards to the number of homes that could be built in the
development that would be able to access City sewer and water.
Motion by Vatne, seconded by Casey, to open the public hearing at 8:32 p.m. Motion
carried on a 6 -ayes, 0 -nays, 1- absent (Daninger) vote.
Mr. Winslow Holasek, 1159 Andover Boulevard explained his views on the sewer
limitations to the property and how the City in the past did not plan well for the future
when planning the sewer. He stated that the City needed to come up with better plans.
Acting Chairperson Kirchoff stated there would be a City Council workshop discussing
this issue at the end of March and maybe Mr. Holasek could discuss his ideas and views
with them also.
Mr. Gary Johnson, 1055 161 Ave. NW, stated he has a private septic system and he
wondered who would be responsible for that if the water from the development drained
onto his property and ruined his septic system. Mr. Bednarz stated the Coon Creek
Watershed would make sure that no more water than currently drains onto the property
• would result from the development.
Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
Minutes — March 23, 2004
Page 8
IN
Motion by Vatne, seconded by Gamache, to close the public hearing at 8:51 p.m. Motion •
carried on a 6 -ayes, 0 -nays, 1- absent (Daninger) vote.
Acting Chairperson Kirchoff thought this was an improvement over what they previously
have seen.
Discussion ensued in regards to a second access road and where they could place it and
what other changes needed to be made.
Acting Chairperson Kirchoff stated he liked the layout and did not think there needed to
be many changes made.
Commissioner Gamache stated they are trying to make better use of space by moving the
road over sixty feet.
OTHER BUSINESS.
Mr. Bednarz updated the Planning Commission on related items.
Mr. Bednarz mentioned that the City Council will be meeting on March 30 to discuss
the sewer study issue.
•
ADJOURNMENT.
Motion by Gamache, seconded by Vatne, to adjourn the meeting at 9:25 p.m. Motion
carried on a 6 -ayes, 0 -nays, 1- absent (Daninger) vote.
Respectfully Submitted,
Sue Osbeck, Recording Secretary
TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc.
0
• A I T Y O F
ND OV
1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. • ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 • (763) 755 -5100
FAX (763) 755 -8923 • WWW.CI.ANDOVER.MN.US
TO: Planning Commission
CC: Will Nuemeister, Community Development Director &IeL
FROM: Jim Dickinson, Finance Director
SUBJECT: Approve Resolution- Redevelopment Plan/Community Center Project Area
DATE: April 13, 2004
INTRODUCTION
As the Andover Community Center Project proceeds forward the City Council has called upon the
Andover Economic Development Authority (EDA) to provide lease revenue financing for the project. A
requirement of the lease financing is a Redevelopment Plan and a review and continent to be done by the
City of Andover Planning Commission.
The first step in the financing of the Community Center Project is the initiation of the review process of a
Redevelopment Plan (draft attached) that requires review and comment by the Planning Commission.
The Redevelopment Plan is a joint work product of Briggs & Morgan (EDA bond counsel) and City Staff.
BUDGET IMPACT
The issuance of lease revenue bonds will be used to finance the proposed Andover Community Center
Project.
ACTION REQUIRED
The Planning Commission EDA is requested to approve the attached resolution, "Concerning the
Economic Development Authority of Andover, Minnesota's Redevelopment Project Area Proposal ".
submitted,
Resolution Concerning the Economic Development Authority of Andover, Minnesota's
Redevelopment Project Area Proposal;
Draft Redevelopment Plan
0
RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION, CITY OF ANDOVER, MINNESOTA,
CONCERNING THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF •
ANDOVER, MINNESOTA'S REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA PROPOSAL
WHEREAS, the proposal by the Economic Development Authority of the City of
Andover, Minnesota, to establish a Redevelopment Project Area as described herein (the
"Redevelopment Project Area "), in connection with construction of a new community center and
adopt the Redevelopment Plan for the Redevelopment Project Area (the "Plan"); all pursuant to
and in conformity with applicable law, including Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.001 through
469.047 and 469.090 through 469.1082; have been submitted to the Planning Commission, City
of Andover, Minnesota (the "Commission "); and
WHEREAS, the Commission has reviewed the Plan to determine the consistency of the
Plan with the Comprehensive Plan of the City.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission, City of
Andover, Minnesota, that the Plan is consistent with the Andover Comprehensive Plan the
Commission recommends approval of the Plan to the Andover City Council
Adopted on April 13, 2004.
LIM
Its
C�
•
1626254v2 — L _
0
REDEVELOPMENT PLAN
FOR
ANDOVER COMMUNITY CENTER PROJECT
DATED APRIL 20, 2004
9
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF THE
CITY OF ANDOVER, MINNESOTA
•
16262542
Exhibit A - Redevelopment Area Boundary Map
Exhibit B - Budget
•
•
1626254v2 i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
•
Page
I. INTRODUCTION AND LEGAL BASIS .......................................... ...............................
1
A .
Intent ....................................................................................... ...............................
1
B .
Statement ................................................................................ ...............................
1
C .
Redevelopment Area Boundaries ............................................ ..............................1
D .
Statement of Authority ........................................................... ...............................
1
E.
Findings and Declaration ........................................................ ...............................
2
H REDEVELOPMENT PROGRAM ..................................................... ...............................
2
A.
Redevelopment Plan Objectives ............................................. ...............................
2
B .
Land Use ................................................................................. ...............................
3
C.
Redevelopment Activities ....................................................... ...............................
3
D .
Financing Plan ........................................................................ ...............................
3
E .
Development Standards .......................................................... ...............................
4
F .
Environment Controls ............................................................. ...............................
4
G.
Administration of Project ....................................................... ...............................
4
H .
Modification of Plan ............................................................... ...............................
4
Exhibit A - Redevelopment Area Boundary Map
Exhibit B - Budget
•
•
1626254v2 i
I. INTRODUCTION AND LEGAL BASIS
A. Intent
The Economic Development Authority of the City of Andover, Minnesota (the
"EDA "), proposes to establish a Redevelopment Project Area as described herein
(the "Redevelopment Project Area "), in connection with the acquisition and
betterment of a new community center (the "Community Center "). The City of
Andover, Minnesota (the "City ") will lease the building from the EDA with an
option to purchase pursuant to a lease with option to purchase agreement. A
portion of the Community Center will be leased by the City to the Young Men's
Christian Association of Metropolitan Minneapolis (the "YMCA ") pursuant to a
sublease (the "Sublease "). Revenue bonds in the principal amount not to exceed
approximately $ are proposed" to be sold by the EDA to finance the
redevelopment project costs. The revenue bonds will be secured by the payments
to be made by the City under the lease with option to purchase agreement and
payments to be made by the YMCA under the Sublease.
In the remainder of the Redevelopment Area the EDA proposes to promote as
appropriate, private and public development by promoting the construction of
needed public infrastructure improvements. It is contemplated that additional
commercial development will occur in the Redevelopment Project Area as a result
of the construction of the community center. The City proposes to use tax
abatement to assist with public infrastructure improvements.
B. Statement
The City and EDA have determined that conditions exist within the
Redevelopment Area which have prevented further development of land by
private enterprise. It has been found that the Redevelopment Area is potentially
more useful and valuable for contributing to the public health, safety and welfare
than has been realized under existing development.
The development of these parcels are not attainable in the foreseeable future
without the intervention of the EDA in the development process. The EDA has
prepared the Redevelopment Plan, which provides for the elimination of these
conditions, thereby making the land useful and valuable for contributing to the
public health, safety and welfare.
C. Redevelopment Area Boundaries
The boundaries of the Redevelopment Area are outlined on the Redevelopment
Area Boundary Map, Exhibit A.
All land included in the Project Area is within the legal boundaries of the City.
0
16262542
D. Statement of Authority
Minnesota Statutes Section 469.001 - 469.047 (Housing and Redevelopment •
Authority Act) grants municipalities the authority to designate redevelopment
areas within the boundaries of the municipalities. Within these areas, the
municipality may adopt a redevelopment plan and establish a project consistent
with the municipality's public purpose. The project as contemplated by this plan
consists of a redevelopment project as defined in Section 469.001, Subdivision
14. The lease with option to purchase agreement is authorized under Minnesota
Statutes, Section 465.71.
E. Findings and Declaration
The City and the EDA make the following findings:
1. The certain parcels of land in the project area would not be made available
for redevelopment without some public financial aid.
2. The redevelopment plans for the Redevelopment Area in the City will
afford maximum opportunity consistent with the needs of the locality as a
whole, for the redevelopment of the area by private enterprise.
3. The Redevelopment Plan conforms to the general plan for development of
the locality as a whole.
H. REDEVELOPMENT PROGRAM •
A. Redevelopment Plan Objectives
The EDA, through implementation of this plan, seeks to achieve the following
objectives:
1. To provide a cost effective and efficient Community Center for the City to
provide adequate City services to the region.
2. To promote and seek the orderly and harmonious development of the
Redevelopment Area
3. To provide logical and organized land use for the entire Redevelopment
Area consistent with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan and the zoning
ordinances of the City.
4. To promote the prompt development of property in the Redevelopment
Area with a minimal adverse impact on the environment.
5. To provide general design guidance in conjunction with a suitable
development contract in order to enhance the physical environment of the
Redevelopment Area •
16262542 2
--C
• 6. To provide adequate utilities and other public improvements and facilities,
to enhance the Redevelopment Area and the City for new and existing
development.
7. To assist the financial feasibility of private projects to the extent necessary
and where there is a corresponding level of public benefit.
8. To enhance the overall economy of the City and surrounding area by
retaining current, and providing additional employment opportunities for
the residents of the City and surrounding community.
9. To increase the City's tax base by providing critical public infrastructure
improvements for the City.
10. To stimulate development and investment within the Redevelopment Area
by private interests.
B. Land Use
The proposed land use for the Redevelopment Area is city owned and operated
facilities and commercial land uses. Public-illy and privately owned and operated
facilities necessary for the public health, safety and welfare are permitted uses in
the Redevelopment Area.
• C. Redevelopment Activities
1. Acquisition
The City presently owns property in the Redevelopment Area on which the
Community Center will be located.
2. Relocation
It is not expected that any persons will be displaced as a result of this
Redevelopment Plan.
3. Community Center and Other Public Improvements.
The EDA proposes to cause the Community Center to be constructed and, as
appropriate, other public improvements within the Redevelopment Area.
The Community Center will be leased to the City under a lease with option to
purchase agreement and a portion will be subleased to the YMCA.
D. Financing Plan
. 1. Project Budget
16262542
-.7
Attached hereto as Exhibit B is a budget which details estimated development
costs associated with the acquisition and betterment of the Community Center.
The items of cost and the costs thereof shown in the budget are estimated to be
necessary based upon information now available. It is anticipated that the items
of cost and the costs thereof shown in each category in the budget may decrease
or increase, but that the total project cost will not exceed the amount shown
above.
2. Source of Funds and Security
The City is entering into the lease with option to purchase agreement with the
EDA pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 465.71. The lease with option to
purchase agreement is payable from general sources including taxes, and its
payment is not limited to a specific fund or specific source of revenues. Sources
of funds for any other public improvements include rates and charges,
assessments and other available funds of the EDA or City.
Bond Issue Details
The EDA will issue approximately $
in public facility revenue
bonds to finance the acquisition and betterment of the Community Center. No
bonding has currently been structured to finance costs of any other public
improvements.
E. Development Standards
The EDA will consider among other things, the following factors when evaluating
development proposals for projects within the Redevelopment Area seeking
public assistance and support:
Degree to which redevelopment objectives are provided for or enhanced.
2. Consistency with this plan and the Andover Comprehensive Plan.
F. Environment Controls
It is presently anticipated that the proposed development in the Redevelopment
Area will not present major environmental problems. All municipal actions and
public improvements will be carried out in a manner that will comply with
applicable environmental standards. The environmental controls to be applied
within the area are contained within the codes and ordinances of the City.
G. Administration of Project
The Andover City Council has authorized the Economic Development Authority
of the City to be responsible for seeing that the contents of this Plan are promoted,
implemented and enforced.
•
•
16262542 `r
• H. Modification of Plan
The Redevelopment Plan may be modified at any time. The modification must be
adopted by the EDA and the City, upon notice and after the public hearing
required for the original adoption of the Redevelopment Plan_
Changes that do not alter or affect the exterior boundaries and do not substantially
alter or affect the general land use established in the plan, shall not constitute a
modification of the Redevelopment Plan, nor require approval by the City.
•
•
1626254x2 5
-g-
EXHIBIT A
Description of the Redevelopment Area and Boundary Map •
•
•
16262Mv2 A -1
-/0-
Andover Economic Development Authority
Redevelopment Project Area
1
Vii■
0
30 ® m
Mums
0 0da��
h
9
Project Location Map
EXHIBIT B
Budget •
Estimated Construction and related expenses $
Debt Service Reserve
Capitalized Interest
Costs of Issuance
Discount Factor
Total Issue (Rounded) I-
0
16262542 B-
-12--
I q
L T Y o f
D 0VEI
' • 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
CC: Courtney Bednarz, City Plann�
FROM: Jon Sevald, Planning Intern
SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING: Residential Sketch Plan for Tom Blomberg for property located
in the Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 36, Township 32, Range
24, Anoka County, Minnesota.
DATE: April 13, 2004
�J
INTRODUCTION
The Planning Commission is asked to review the sketch plan for Tom Blomberg. The applicant has
proposed to subdivide the vacant 1.2 -acre rural residential lot into three urban residential lots. The
property will need to be rezoned from R -1 Single Family Rural Residential to R -4, Single Family Urban
Residential, at the time the Preliminary Plat is approved.
DISCUSSION
City Code Title 11 -2 -1 outlines the requirements for sketch plan review. The Planning Commission is
asked to review the proposal for conformity with the Comprehensive Plan, the requirements of the City
and to ensure the proposal makes the best use of the land.
Conformance with local and Regional Plans
The proposed sketch plan 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
Services Area (MUSA). Municipal utilities may be extended to serve the entire development.
Access
Access will be provided by the existing 140" Lane NW.
Lot Size
The lot sizes conform to the R -4, Single Family Urban Residential Zoning District requirements provided
in the Minimum District Provisions.
R-4 Rea Lot 1 Lot 2 Lot 3
Lot Area
1 11,400
15,225
15,225
15,225
Lot Width at front yard setback
80
83
83
83
Lot Depth (avg)
130
183
183
183
0
Wetland Mitigation
There is an existing wetland located in the northwest area of the property. As a part of the mitigation
plan, the southern portion of the wetland will be filled, and the wetland area will be expanded to the east
to compensate. The back 1/3 of Lots One and Two will be wetland, along with a portion of Lot Three.
r
The Coon Creek Watershed District has reviewed the sketch plan and has indicated that the southern end
of the wetland can be filled to meet the City's buildable area requirement of 116.5 feet. However, the
applicant will need to demonstrate with the Preliminary Plat that the wetland area to be filled is replaced
with an area equal in volume, and that filling of the wetland will not negatively affect surrounding •
properties (see attached memo). The applicant will be required to obtain a permit from the Watershed
District and meet all of their requirements as a part of the preliminary plat.
Easements
The applicant will be required to dedicate an easement for the wetland area along with two maintenance
vehicle accesses in addition to the standard drainage & utility easements along the perimeter of each lot.
Additionally, the City will be asked to vacate a right -of -way easement for a cul -de -sac, which does not
exist. The easement is located in the southwest comer of the property. A separate application is
necessary to vacate easements.
Coordination with other Agencies
The developer is responsible to obtain all necessary permits (Minnesota Department of Natural
Resources, U.S. Army Corp of Engineers, Coon Creek Watershed District, Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency, LGU, Anoka County Highway Department 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.
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
ACTION REQUESTED
The Planning Commission is asked to review and comment on the proposed sketch plan.
Attachments
Location Map
Sketch Plan
Coon Creek Watershed District Memo
Photographs
Respectfully submitted,
Jon Sevald
CC: Tom Blomberg, 961 Hillwind Road Minneapolis, MN 55432
Charley Christopherson, Hakanson Anderson, 3601 Thurston Ave. Anoka, MN 55303
•
009
h
i b49
ZL9 EL9
n bZ9 Sig On
NO Leg
s' no , f
L69 9V9 669 099 r
I
t n
SOS 659 099 m Z99 .�
i
L1B ZL9 £L9 OLD 9LB OLD
069
i
E89 669 669 Loo 999
Z69 ( m j j
I �
969 i 999 f 969 669
VOL I i 30L
m
60L
10L 0tL LLC
OIL 90L i 21L
1 I �
9Z1 6LL OZL lZL ZZL ezz VzL
ZEL EEL VEL GEL
96L Let z 9eL
r
EbL (. bb[ S6L 96L ttl SOL
ESL
SSL yy 9SL LGL 8GL 69L
V9L 69L
L9L SOL 69L V OLL LLL Z1L
91L
99L UL b6L
L6L
SOL
L946L L9
.....,\ ZL9 j
Eze
` eze Leo ZED
969
699
Lug
i bS6 j
t90 �
E!9 �
w
w
wb' �gf
0
ZE(
Zet
n
.,� AT d�
ftz
n �
i Si
w /
b
`3-
a
a
u'
"
z
Ln I- LLJ
M O N
C
W
Z Z I-
J U
W
C
L, LU
N t w
d
p LU w
y a
.
w q EL
?!
y o
Ili ui 9 Ll
060
to A m
009
h
i b49
ZL9 EL9
n bZ9 Sig On
NO Leg
s' no , f
L69 9V9 669 099 r
I
t n
SOS 659 099 m Z99 .�
i
L1B ZL9 £L9 OLD 9LB OLD
069
i
E89 669 669 Loo 999
Z69 ( m j j
I �
969 i 999 f 969 669
VOL I i 30L
m
60L
10L 0tL LLC
OIL 90L i 21L
1 I �
9Z1 6LL OZL lZL ZZL ezz VzL
ZEL EEL VEL GEL
96L Let z 9eL
r
EbL (. bb[ S6L 96L ttl SOL
ESL
SSL yy 9SL LGL 8GL 69L
V9L 69L
L9L SOL 69L V OLL LLL Z1L
91L
99L UL b6L
L6L
SOL
L946L L9
.....,\ ZL9 j
Eze
` eze Leo ZED
969
699
Lug
i bS6 j
t90 �
E!9 �
w
w
wb' �gf
0
ZE(
Zet
n
.,� AT d�
ftz
n �
i Si
w /
b
`3-
•
� c9I1nI
ODOnNO � p 1®01
�"'° I 671SI9i
I.a II 40]I
� • :' ,
i4
13.w..\ . PFN 253 3 4�}3p0 I PIN / 253224:
—'-1
7
1 ,
i
S ��\ \ QY
PIN 13M22 01Q Q5
i
sua �n
R - 4
-T \ vv
r r A ,
PIN / 363224220069 I I L_._: I 1 I
PIN / 363224220074 PIA / W3224220073 I PIN ( 3632242
I Wft W* Cwt 6* Vw W. Ow w row a PIOF" by
m w .. I Nq And wgwd , mW Cwt 1 4NI 0 d* t1041NC
WW &ftVW uI ft t
low Of Cw Sb& N M AMM&
Cwriw P � z/DWO
R pF W tb4w4 Na 1C49D Gtr
—4--
Mar -25. 2004 11 27AM
No•1543 P. 2/3
(( C O O N C R E E K W A T E R S H E D D I S T R I O T
• l230I COnffp/ Avon NOrIRootr • $Vile too 91p1116 Mil7A050lp 5$43Q
NOTICE OF PERMIT APPLICATION STATUS
Project: 140' Lane Development
Date: March 25, 2004
Applicant: Tom Blomberg
961 Hillwind Road
Fridley, MN 55432
Permit Application #: 04-39
Location: 140' Lane NW west of Prairie Road in Andover, MN.
At their meeting on March 22, 2004, the Board of Managers of the Coon Crock
Watershed District tabled the above referenced project with the following concerns and
stipulations:
Groundwater: The elevation of surficial ground water is not known. The site does
include groundwater sensitive areas. Information has not been provided to substantiate
low floor elevations. It is not known if low floor elevations meet the criteria for the City
of Andover (3 ft above mottled soil elevation, 2 ft over 100- year). Information should be
provided to substantiate tow floor elevations.
Maintenance: A drainage and utility easement is not provided for the stormwater pond.
It is not known if property owners affected by changes in drainage have been notified and
acknowledge the changes proposed.
Soils & Erosion Control: Stabilizing vegetation is not proposed for disturbed areas
within two weeks of rough grading. The plans should state that revcgetation will occur
within two weeks of rough grading. All work adjacent to wetlands, watcrbodies and
water conveyance systems are not protected from erosion. Silt fence should be provided
around the wetland/stonnwater pond between the NWL and HWL.
Stormwater & Hydraulics: Stormwater leaving the site is discharged into a well defined
receiving channel or pipe and routed to a public drainage system. Drainage sensitive uses
do not exist down stream from the proposed site. The rate of post development runoff
from the site does not exceed predevelopment rates. The NWL and HWL should be
stated on the proposed plan.
Wetland: Remeasurc the amount of impact and amount of replacement area.
• Wetland Replacement Plan: Submit a replacement plan application. Provide evidence
that the replacement area will have adequate hydrology to support wetland characteristics
without the influence of stormwater. Clarify the amount of buffer strip that will be
�r...10d O• rO CV CIea OGDer
Mop x Moo 10: a7 763 755 0283 PAGE.02
Mar•25. 2004 11 :27AM .
No-1543 P. 3/3
created. Complete the Declaration of Restrictions, Affidavit of Landowner, Consent to
Replacement, and Proof of Property Ownership for the replacement wetland.
Please be advised that this is not a permit. To proceed with and obtain your permit, the
District must receive:
1. Receipt of escrows.
2. Provide proposed low floor elevations and soil borings to satisfy City freeboard
requirements.
3. Provide a drainage and utility easement around the wetland/storm water pond.
4. Provide silt fence around the wetland/storm water pond between the NWL and
HWL.
S. Confirm wetland/storm water pond control elevation.
6. Provide a proposed grading plan showing with the above items.
7. Remeasure the amount of impact and amount of replacement area, and clarify the
size of the buffer strip.
8. Provide evidence that the replacement area will have adequate hydrology to
support wetland characteristics without the influence of piped stormwater
overflow.
9. Complete the Declaration of Restrictions, Affidavit of Landowner, Consent to
Replacement, and Proof of Property Ownership for the replacement wetland
Please be advised that this is not a permit, and that work without a permit is a violation
of the terms of the Coon Creek Watershed District Rule 1.03. If you have any questions,
please call 763- 755 -0975.
Sincerely, Q��K
Rachael Howse
District Planner
cc: File 2 -1 -0439
Dave Birkowitz, City of Andover.
Ed Matthiesen, Wenck Associates, Inc.
Tony Kaster, Polaris Eng. Inc.
•
•
•
MOD x �DMAA 10! nz 7F,3. 755 PPR3 PAGE. 03
n
LJ
0
View looking East along 140th LN NW
View looking West along 140th LN NW
View of wetland area looking Northwest near the eastern portion of the property
View of wetland area looking Northwest near the center of the property
—7—
,J
C I T Y O F
ND{?
1665 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 Plannd*
SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING: Comprehensive Plan Amendment (03 -09) to
extend the Metropolitan Urban Service boundary (MUSA) to include
properties located at 1341 and 1433 161 s Avenue NW.
DATE: April 13, 2004
INTRODUCTION
The applicant is requesting a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to extend the Municipal
Urban Service Boundary (MUSA) to include the subject property. The applicant is also
requesting that the property be guided for the current stage of sewer expansion (2000-
2005).
The Commission and Council may wish to consider including 1177 161 Avenue NW in
the MUSA adjustment, if the owner is interested, to prevent a rural property from being
surrounded by the MUSA Boundary.
Background
The subject property is included in the rural reserve area designated by the Council. This
designation was given to preserve the area for urban development and to prevent a rural
subdivision from eliminating this possibility. This decision was based on the property
owner's request and on the fact that a limited amount of capacity remains in the sewer
trunks to the south of 161 Avenue NW. With development of an area along the north
side of 161" Avenue NW the non - designated sewer capacity in these trunks could be
utilized.
A Sewer Study was conducted last year and is in the process of being updated. The study
indicated that the Bluebird Trunk can serve 88 acres of urban development at a density of
2.1 units per acre (185 units) on the north side of 161 Avenue NW. This number
assumes full development of the existing MUSA area to the south of 161 st Avenue and
municipal sewer service to the Constance Free Church. 47.5 acres of urban development
(100 units) were committed to the Country Oaks West development with Comprehensive
Plan Amendment (03 -09). 85 units remain for the Rural Reserve area north of 161
Avenue NW.
DISCUSSION
Due to the fact that the amount of units is limited and five property owners need to share
the remaining units, the Council asked for a sketch plan to be prepared to determine how
the units should be allocated. A sketch of the property containing 89 units and two
parcels of 2.5 acres and 2.63 acres has been provided. The sketch also does not account
for a two acre property located at 1177 161" Avenue NW that was not a part of
Comprehensive Plan Amendment (03 -09). The Country Oaks West sketch shows that
three lots may be achieved on this property.
The sketch exceeds the sewer service that was set aside by the Council as a part of the
Rural Reserve. By staff's rough estimate, there are approximately 46.5 buildable acres in
this area of the Rural Reserve. At 2.1 units per acre, only 40.5 acres can be developed
with municipal services.
The applicants are requesting 37.14 acres of the remaining 40.5 acres (78 of 85 units).
This would leave 3.36 acres of urban development potential (7 units) for the remaining
three property owners to share. The gross acreage of these three properties is
approximately 12.7 acres.
Neighborhood Input
Staff has shared this report with each of the affected property owners. The following
responses were received:
16157 Round Lake Boulevard
The property owner has indicated the intent to develop the property as shown on the
sketch plan (x residential units) as well as an interest in having the south 2.5 acres of the
property designated for commercial use (see attached letter). It should be noted that the
Land Use and Zoning of the property would need to be changed to allow commercial
uses on any portion of the property. It should also be noted that the sewer allocated to
this area of the Rural Reserve was not intended to accommodate commercial uses. Staff
would recommend that access to the property be explored with the Anoka County
Highway Department as a part of any request to change the Land Use and Zoning of the
property. If a change was to occur examples of the potential sewer requirements include
the following:
Type of Use Residential Equivalent
• 5,046 s.f. Gas/Convenience (no car wash) 2
• 10,000 s.f. office 4-5
• Sit down Restaurant (6,867 s.f.) 25
1487161" Avenue NW
The property owner was interested in the Rural Reserve for the long term potential for
development and not immediate urbanization of the area.
1177 161" Avenue NW
As stated above, this property has been sketched with three urban lots to be served from a
cul -de -sac to the north.
Any additional information shared by the property owners will be presented at the
meeting.
-.Z_
Staff Recommendation
Less sewer capacity was assigned to this area of the Rural Reserve than is necessary to
realize the maximum development potential. A majority of the available sewer capacity
was given to the Country Oaks West Project (100 units). The sketch plan shows potential
for 111 units. If an equitable approach is to be taken, each of the properties discussed in
this report will also need to accept less than full development potential of their property.
The actual distribution of units will need to be approved by the council, but the Planning
Commission may want to recommend a rational method to make this determination such
as dividing the 85 remaining units based on a ratio of the estimated buildable area on
each of the properties.
Attachments
Resolution
Resolution - Attachment A
Proposed MUSA Boundary Expansion
Sketch Plan (Full Size in Packet)
ACTION REQUESTED
The Planning Commission is asked to recommend approval of the proposed
Comprehensive Plan Amendment to allow expansion of the MUSA boundary and
adjustment of the sewer staging plan and to provide any additional recommendations
regarding the allocation of sewer capacity.
• Res ectfully sub 'tted,
B dnazz
Cc:: Larry Emmerich, 1341 161" Avenue NW
Heidi Swisher, 1433 161" Avenue NW
Steve Olmscheid , 1487 161 St Avenue NW
Keith Rischer 16157 Round Lake Boulevard NW
Rick Davis 1177 161 Avenue NW
0
-3-
CITY OF ANDOVER
COUNTY OF ANOKA
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RES. NO. R
A RESOLUTION AMENDING THE COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN OF THE
CITY OF ANDOVER TO EXPAND THE METROPOLITAN URBAN SERVICE
BOUNDARY TO INCLUDE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1341 and 1433 161
AVENUE NW (P.I.D. 14-32-24-24-0002,14-32-24-0003,14-32-24-23-0009,14-32-23-
0008, LEGALLY DESCRIBED ON ATTACHMENT A
WHEREAS, Larry Emmerich and Heidi Swisher have petitioned the City of Andover to
extend municipal sewer and water to the above referenced property, and;
WHEREAS, The 2020 Metropolitan Urban Service Boundary (MUSA) does not include
the subject property, and;
WHEREAS, analysis of the City's sanitary sewer trunk system has determined that
capacity exists to serve the subject property, and;
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held pursuant to state statutes, and;
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommends to the City Council
approval of the amendment as requested, and;
WHEREAS, The Council finds the proposed use will not be detrimental to the health,
safety, morals and general welfare of the occupants of the surrounding land, and;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Andover
hereby agrees with the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and
amends the Comprehensive Plan to extend the Municipal Urban Service Area (MUSA) to
include the subject properties, subject to the following:
1. The Emmerich property (P.I.D. 14- 32 -24 -24 -0002, 14 -32 -24 -0003, 14-32-24-23 -
0009) shall be allowed access to municipal utilities for _ residential units.
2. The Swisher property (P.I.D. 14 -32 -23 -0008) shall be allowed access to
municipal utilities for _ units
3. The subject properties shall be added to the 2000 -2005 stage of sewer expansion
on the City's Sewer Expansion Plan.
4. Subject to review and approval by the Metropolitan Council.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Andover on this day of 2004.
CITY OF ANDOVER
ATTEST: Michael R. Gamache, Mayor
Victoria Volk, City Clerk
0
•
Attachment A
Comprehensive Plan Amendment 03 -09
Legal Descriptions
Page 1 of 2
P.I.D. 14- 32 -24 -24 -0002 (Emmerich)
THAT PART OF THE SOUTH 16.50 FT OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE
NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 14 TOWNSHIP 32 RANGE 24 & THAT
PART OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SAID NORTHWEST QUARTER
LYING EASTERLY OF THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED LINE, COMMENCING AT
THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID QUARTER, THENCE SOUTH 88 DEGREES
40 MINUTES 45 SECONDS EAST (ASSUMED BEARING) ALONG THE SOUTH
LINE OF SAID QUARTER 1415.72 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING OF SAID
LINE, THENCE NORTH 0 DEGREES 26 MINUTES 36 SECONDS SOUTHEAST
231.82 FEET, THENCE NORTHEASTLY 233.02 FEET ALONG A TANGENTIAL
CURVE CONCAVE TO SOUTHEAST HAVING A RADIUS OF 213.43 FT & A
CENTRAL ANGLE OF 62 DEGREES 33 MINUTES 24 SECONDS, THENCE
NORTH 63 DEGREES EAST TANGENTIAL TO SAID CUR 50 FT, THENCE
NORTHERLY 348.45 FEET ALONG A TANGENTIAL CURVE CONCAVE TO THE
WEST HAVING A RADIUS OF 300.22 FEET & A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 66
DEGREES 30 MINUTES, THENCE NORTH 03 DEGREES 30 MINUTES WEST
TANGENTIAL TO SAID CURVE 601.69 FEET TO THE NORTH LINE OF SAID
SOUTH 16.50 FT & SAID LINE THERE TERMINATING, EXCEPT ROAD,
SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS OF RECORD
P.I.D. 14- 32 -24 -24 -0003 (Emmerich)
THAT PART OF SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF
SECTION 14 TOWNSHIP 32 RANGE 24 LYING WESTERLY OF THE FOLLOWING
DESCRIBED LINE, COMMENCING AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID
QUARTER, THENCE SOUTH 88 DEGREES 40 MINUTES 45 SECONDS EAST
(ASSUMED BEARING) ALONG SOUTH LINE OF SAID QUARTER 1415.72 FEET
TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING OF SAID LINE, THENCE NORTH 0 DEGREES 26
MINUTES 36 SECONDS EAST 231.82 FT, THENCE NORTHEASTLY 233.02 FEET
ALONG A TANGENTIAL CURVE CONCAVE TO SOUTHEAST HAVING A
RADIUS OF 213.43 FEET & A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 62 DEGREES 33 MINUTES
24 SECONDS, THENCE NORTH 63 DEGREES EAST TANGENTIAL TO SAID
CURVE 50 FEET, THENCE NORTHERLY 348.45 FEET ALONG A TANGENTIAL
CURVE CONCAVE TO WEST HAVING A RADIUS OF 300.22 FT & A CENTRAL
ANGLE OF 66 DEGREES 30 MINUTES, THENCE NORTH 03 DEGREES 30
MINUTES WEST TANGENTIAL TO SAID CURVE 601.69 FEET +OR- TO NORTH
LINE OF SAID QUARTER QUARTER & SAID LINE THERE TERMINATING,
EXCEPT ROAD, SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS OF RECORD
E
— S—
Attachment A
Comprehensive Plan Amendment 03 -09
Legal Descriptions
Page 2 of 2
P.I.D. 14- 32 -24 -23 -0009 (Emmerich)
THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 14
TOWNSHIP 32 RANGE 24, EXCEPT THAT PART OF THE WEST 717.89 FEET OF
SAID QUARTER QUARTER LYING NORTH OF THE SOUTH 689.92 FEET
THEREOF, ALSO EXCEPT THE WEST 717.89 FEET OF THE SOUTH 689.92 FEET
THEREOF & EXCEPT THE EAST 300.55 FEET OF THE WEST 1115.55 FEET OF
THE SOUTH 776.19 FEET OF SAID QUARTER QUARTER, TOGETHER WITH
THAT PART OF THE SOUTH 16.50 FEET OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF
THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION LYING WESTERLY OF THE
FOLLOWING DESCRIBED LINE: COMMENCING AT THE SOUTHWEST
CORNER OF THE SOUTH HALF OF SAID NORTHWEST QUARTER, THENCE
SOUTH 88 DEGREES 40 MINUTES, 45 SECONDS EAST, ASSUMED BEARING,
ALONG SOUTH LINE THEREOF 1415.72 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING
OF SAID LINE, THENCE NORTH 0 DEGREES 26 MINUTES 36 SECONDS EAST
231.82 FEET, THENCE NORTHEASTERLY 233.02 FEET ALONG A TANGENTIAL
CURVE, CONCAVE TO THE SOUTHEAST HAVING A RADIUS OF 213.43 FEET &
A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 62 DEGREES 33 MINUTES 24 SECONDS, THENCE
NORTH 63 DEGREES EAST & TANGENTIAL WITH SAID CURVE 50 FEET,
THENCE NORTHERLY 348.45 FEET ALONG A TANGENTIAL CURVE CONCAVE
TO THE WEST AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 300.22 FEET ANDA CENTRAL
ANGLE OF 66 DEGREES 30 MINUTE$, THENCE NORTH 03 DEGREES 30
MINUTES WEST TANGENTIAL WITH SAID CURVE 601.69 FT TO THE NORTH
LINE OF THE SOUTH 16.5 FEET OF SAID QUARTER QUARTER & SAID LINE
THERE TERMINATING, EXCEPT ROAD, SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS OF
RECORD
P.I.D. 14- 32 -24 -23 -0008 (Swisher)
THE EAST 300.55 FEET OF THE WEST 1115.55 FEET OF THE SOUTH 776.19
FEET OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF
SECTION 14 TOWNSHIP 32 RANGE 24,EXCEPT ROAD, SUBJECT TO
EASEMENTS OF RECORD
Proposed MUSA Expansion
• H
W-
8
7-
C I I T Y O F
J. \DO r L
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: Will Neumeister, Community Development Director
Courtney Bednarz, City Planned
SUBJECT: Discuss changes to the Zoning Code Section for "Planned Unit Developments"
DATE: April 13, 2004
INTRODUCTION
The City Planning staff have reviewed the Planned Unit Development ordinance and found that
it is woefully inadequate for use in reviewing new requests for a Planned Unit Development
approval.
DISCUSSION
After reviewing the current criteria upon which to judge an application for a "Planned Unit
. Development ", it is obvious it is time to make them more current and pertinent. The staff
looked at how small changes could be made, but it was felt that would just be putting a band-
aid on a situation that requires a rethinking/rewriting of the ordinance. After looking at various
other cities and how theirs was structured, staff concluded that a new PUD ordinance should be
patterned after one that is simple and straight - forward. The two pages that are attached
represent the work of staff to keep it simple and directly related to what a "Planned Unit
Development" should include.
ACTION REQUESTED
The Planning Commission is asked to review the information, discuss these ideas and comment
on the proposed new regulations for Planned Unit Developments.
Attachments
Existing City of Andover PUD Ordinance
City of Eden Prairie PUD Ordinance
City of Plymouth PUD Ordinance
City of Brooklyn Park PUD Ordinance
n
►.J
Title 13 -- Chapter 3. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD).
13 -3 -1 Purpose. The purpose of PUD is to encourage more efficient allocation of density and intensity •
of land use where such arrangement is desirable and feasible by providing the means for greater
creativity and flexibility in environmental design than provided under the strict application of the City
Code. It must be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the City Council that a higher quality development
will result than could be otherwise achieved through strict application of the City Code.
13 -3 -2 Utilization of PUD. Planned Unit Development (PUD) regulations may be allowed by the City
Council to be applied and/or utilized for all developments including the following: townhomes, single
and two- family homes (both urban and rural), apartment projects, multi -use structures, commercial
developments, industrial developments, mixed residential and commercial developments and similar
projects.
13 -3 -3 PUD Concept Review. Any person or persons who may apply for a PUD may request a
concept review with respect to land which may be subject to a PUD. The purpose of a PUD Concept
Review is to afford such persons an opportunity, without incurring substantial expense, to have the
general feasibility of a PUD proposal considered. PUD concept reviews shall follow the Sketch Plan
procedures provided in City Code 11 -2 -1.
13 -3-4 Uses. Planned Unit Developments shall be required to conform to the permitted and conditional
uses set forth in Chapter 12 pertaining to the applicable zoning district.
13 -3 -5 Zoning and Subdivision Standards and Requirements. All standards and provisions relating
to an original zoning district shall apply, unless otherwise approved as a part of the PUD. All standards
may be modified or waived provided the applicant demonstrates harmony with the purpose of PUD and
the findings described in City Code 13 -3 -8. •
13 -3 -6 Approval Process. An applicant for a PUD shall submit in the application all of the material
required by this Chapter. Each PUD requested must adhere to the following process:
A. Permitted and conditional uses shall follow the conditional use permit procedures provided in
City Code 12 -15 -6 to establish the development standards for the PUD. These uses shall also
complete the Commercial Site Plan process once the planned unit development has been
approved.
B. Applications involving the subdivision of land shall complete a preliminary and final plat
under the procedures provided in Title 11 Subdivision Regulations of this code.
13 -3 -7 Fees and Costs. Applications for a PUD shall be filed at the office of the City Planner along
with a non - refundable application fee for the approval process specified in City Code 13 -3 -3 and 13 -3 -6
in the amount established by the City Council by resolution, to defray administrative costs.
13 -3 -8 Findings Required. The developer making request for a PUD shall provide findings for review
by the City Council. The findings necessary for approval of a PUD shall be as follows:
A. The proposed development is not in conflict with the goals of the Comprehensive Plan of
the City.
B. The proposed development is designed in such a manner to form a desirable and unified
environment within its own boundaries.
C. The proposed development demonstrates how each modified or waived requirement contributes to
achieving the purpose of PUD.
-2—
D. The PUD is of composition, and arrangement that its construction, marketing, and operation are
feasible as a complete unit without dependence upon any subsequent unit.
• 13 -3 -9 Revisions and Amendments. Administrative approval of minor changes in the PUD may be
authorized by the City Planner upon review and approval by ARC. Changes in uses or
development/design standards must be submitted for a full pubic hearing review process.
13 -3 -10 Desirable PUD Design Qualities. The following design qualities will be sought in any PUD
review:
A. Achieves efficiency in the provision of streets and utilities and preserves area to achieve the
elements of design qualities described in this Chapter.
B. Provides convenient and safe access for vehicles and pedestrians and all types of activity that are
anticipated to be a part of the proposed development.
C. Provides a buffer between different uses, adjacent properties, roadways, between backyards of
back -to -back lots.
D. Preserves existing stands of trees and /or significant trees.
E. Provides considerable landscaping treatments that compliment the overall design and contribute
toward an overall landscaping theme.
F. Preserves significant usable space on individual lots or through the provision of open space
within the development.
G. Provides an attractive streetscape through the use of undulating topography, landscaping,
decorative street lighting, decorative mailbox groupings, retaining walls, boulders, fencing, area
identification signs, etc.
H. The proposed structures within the development demonstrate quality architectural design and the
use of high quality building materials for unique design and detailing.
The lasting quality of the development will be ensured by design, maintenance and use guidelines
established through an owners association.
12 -2 -2 Definitions. A Planned Unit Development (PUD) is a development with alternative
development standards approved by the City Council to create a higher quality development than
might otherwise be achieved through the strict application of the City Code. The PUD is an overlay
to the original zoning district; and the use of PUD allows the development to waive or modify the
standards of the original zoning district.
j S —
13 -3 -1
CHAPTER 3
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENTS'
SECTION:
13 -3 -1:
13 -3 -2:
13 -3 -3:
13 -3 -4:
13 -3 -5:
13 -3 -6:
Purpose
Description
Zoning District Supplement
General Requirements And Standards
Application, Review And Administration
Violation; Penalties
*06 V &K
IF?7s
13 -3 -1: PURPOSE: This chapter is intended to provide for the
permitted flexibility of site design and architecture for the
conservation of land and open space through clustering of buildings and
activities. This flexibility can be achieved by waiving or varying from the
provisions of title 12 of this code, including lot sizes, setbacks, heights and
similar regulations, while at the same time preserving the health, safety,
order, convenience, prosperity and general welfare of the city and its
inhabitants. Planned unit developments shall accomplish all of the following:
A. Attaining a higher standard of site design and development that
cannot be accomplished under strict adherence to development
ordinance provisions.
B. The preservation and enhancement of desirable site characteristics
such as natural topography, woodlands geologic features and the
prevention of soil erosion.
C. A more efficient use of land resulting in smaller networks of utilities
and streets thereby lowering the development costs and public
investments.
1. See also section 13 -4 -9 of this title.
r
•
0
City of Andover
13 -3 -4 13 -3 -4
• 3. City Ordinances: The proposed PUD shall be consistent with the
intent and purpose of city ordinance provisions relating to land use,
subdivision and development.
C. Open Space And Service Facilities:
1. Common open space at least to meet the minimum density
requirements established by the city shall be provided within the
area of the PUD, except as provided in subsection D of this section.
2. Whenever and wherever common open space or service facilities
are provided within a PUD, the PUD shall contain provisions to
assure the continued preservation, operation and maintenance of
such open space and service facilities to a predetermined
reasonable standard. Common open space and service facilities
within the PUD may be placed under the ownership of one or more
of the following, as approved by the city council:
a. Dedicated to public, where a communitywide use is
anticipated, and the city council agrees to accept the dedication.
b. Property owners' association, provided all of the following
conditions are met:
• (1) Prior to the use or occupancy or sale or the execution of
contracts for sale of an individual building unit, parcel, tract,
townhouse, apartment, or common area, a declaration of
covenants, conditions and restrictions or an equivalent
document shall be filed with the city. Said filing with the city
shall be made prior to the filing of said declaration or
document with the recording officer of the county.
(2) The declaration of covenants, conditions and restrictions
or equivalent document shall specify that deeds, leases or
documents of conveyance affecting buildings, units, parcels,
tracts, townhouses, or apartments shall subject said
properties to the terms of said declaration.
(3) The declaration of covenants, conditions and restrictions
shall provide that an owners' association shall be formed and
that all owners shall be members of said association which
shall maintain all properties, private infrastructure and
common areas in good repair and which shall assess or
charge individual property owners proportionate shares of
joint or common costs. This declaration shall be subject to
is
City of Andover
-S—
13 -3 -4 13 -3 -4
area of common or public open space or land escrow security in any S
stage of development shall, at a minimum, bear the same
relationship to the total open space to be provided in the entire PUD
as the stages or units completed or under development bear to the
entire PUD.
D. Density:
1. Net build ability shall include total gross acreage minus parks,
roadways, major drainage and utility easements, and types 3, 4, and
5 wetlands as defined by the U.S. corps of engineers pamphlet
entitled, "10 Important Questions ", U.S. government printing office
no. 1979- 768 -929, or future revisions. The density of a PUD shall
conform to the regulations of the zoning district in which the land and
project are located. Density increases of up to five percent (5 %) (15
percent maximum total) may be allowed for each category listed
below at the discretion of the city council, as an incentive for the
developer to include the following features hereby determined to be
a benefit to the public:
a. Provide trails, parks, or other recreational facilities above and
beyond minimum park or trail dedication requirements, that are
accessible to the general public.
b. Provide additional significant high quality open space above •
and beyond minimum dedication. requirements.
c. Incorporate higher quality design elements including, but not
limited to, housing materials, landscaping and streetscaping. All
design elements must be uniform and compatible to the surrounding
buildings and landscape.
d. The burden for justifying a density increase rests with the
applicant.
2. Whenever a PUD is to be developed in stages, the density of the
stages, when totaled, shall not exceed the proposed residential
density of the entire PUD. The city may require a developer to record
a restrictive covenant in favor of the city to ensure that all stages or
phases will be developed within the overall density for the entire
PUD.
0
City of Andover
—4—
13 -3 -4 13 -3 -4
• (2) No building shall be located less than twenty feet (20')
from the back of the curb line.
(3) No building within the project shall be located nearer to
another building than one -half ( the sum of the building
heights of the two (2) buildings.
2. Commercial Or Industrial Planned Unit Developments:
a. Required Frontage And Minimum Project Size: The tract of
land for which a project is proposed and permit requested shall not
have less than two hundred feet (200') of frontage on a publicly
dedicated and maintained right of way and be a minimum of two (2)
acres.
b. Yards: The front and side yard restrictions at the periphery of
the PUD site shall, at a minimum, be the same as those required in
the zoning district.
c. Landscaping, Surfacing And Screening:
(1) All areas disturbed on the site other than that covered by
structures or hard surfacing shall be landscaped in
• compliance with this chapter and all other applicable city
ordinances.
(2) The entire site other than that taken up by structures or
landscaping shall be surfaced in accordance with the
standards on file in the office of the city engineer.
(3) Additional consideration shall be taken to screen existing
residences.
3. Mixed Use Planned Unit Developments:
a. Required Frontage And Minimum Project Size: The tract of
land for which a project is proposed and permit requested shall not
have less than two hundred feet (200') of frontage on a publicly
dedicated and maintained right of way and be a minimum two (2)
acres.
b. Yards: The front and side yard restrictions at the periphery of
the PUD site shall, at a minimum, be same as those required in the
zoning district.
•
City of Andover
_7 —
13 -3 -6 13 -3 -6
13 -3 -6: VIOLATION; PENALTIES:
A. Violation A Misdemeanor; General Penalty: Any person, firm or
corporation violating any of the provisions of this chapter shall be
guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction thereof, shall be
punished as defined by state law.
B. Other Remedies: In addition to the penalties imposed by this
chapter, the city may exercise, with or separately from such
penalties, all and any legal and equitable remedies then available to
the city by this chapter, or by statute, or by other ordinances of the
city, or by applicable rules and regulations, to enforce this chapter,
including, without limitation, injunction. (Amended Ord. 112,
6 -4 -1996)
!-
City of Andover
h
VE 1 /� rr JS 12 -2 -2
12 -2 -2
0
0
including station wagons but excluding
motorcycles and motor scooters. For purposes
of taxation, "passenger automobile" includes
pickup trucks and vans.
PASSENGER Any vehicle classified as a passenger
VEHICLE: automobile, pickup truck, or van. "Passenger
vehicle" does not include motorcycles,
motorized bikes, buses, railroad vehicles, farm
trucks and special mobile equipment.
PERSONAL Establishments primarily engaged in providing
SERVICES: services involving the care of a person or his or
her apparel, such as: barber and beauty shops,
carpet and upholstery cleaning, catering
services, daycare centers, health clubs and
spas, laundry and dry cleaning, locksmiths,
optical goods stores, pet grooming shops, rapid
or quick print shops, shoe repair shops, tailor
shops, tax service, travel bureaus.
PICKUP TRUCK: - Any truck with a manufacturer's nominal rated
carrying capacity of three - fourths ( / ton or
less and commonly known as a "pickup truck ".
PLANNED UNIT An urban development having two (2) or more
DEVELOPMENT: principal uses or structures on a single lot and
developed according to an approved plan.
"Planned unit developments" shall include all
developments having two (2) or more principal
uses or structures on a single parcel of land
which shall include townhouses, manufactured
homes, modular homes, single- and two- family
homes, apartment projects involving more than
one building, residential subdivisions submitted
under "density zoning" provisions, multiuse
structures, such as an apartment building with
retail at ground floor level, churches and church
schools, schools, industrial complexes, and
similar projects.
0
City of Andover
O(AMPLt
SECTION PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) CONCEPT. S PIS
Subd. 1. PUD Concept Review. Any person or persons who may apply for a PUD may
request a concept review ( "PUD Concept Review ") with respect to land which may be subject
to a PUD. The purpose of a PUD Concept Review is to afford such persons an opportunity,
without incurring substantial expense, to have the general feasibility of a PUD proposal
considered. PUD Concept Review shall consist generally of an informal consideration by the
Community Planning Board and the Council of such person's PUD proposal. PUD Concept
Review may be held with a public hearing. An application of PUD Concept Review may
provide such information with respect to the request as the applicant shall deem appropriate in
consultation with the City Planner. An applicant for PUD Concept Review shall pay all fees
and costs provided for in this Chapter. Upon conclusion of a PUD Concept Review the
Community Planning Board and Council may make such recommendations and comments and
take such action with respect to the proposal as they deem appropriate, provided, however, no
approval under this Section shall constitute, or in the future require, approval or formal
establishment or designation of a PUD, zoning or subdivision by the Council of the land which
is the subject of the PUD Concept Review.
Subd. 2. Definition. As used in this Section, the term "original district" means a zoning district
described in this Chapter.
Subd. 3. Zoning District Supplement. Planned Unit Development District ( "PUD ") is
supplementary to a zoning district within or encompassing all or a portion or portions of one or
more original districts in accordance with the provisions of this Chapter.
Subd. 4. Purpose. The purpose of this Section is to: (1) Encourage a more creative and ,
efficient approach to the use of land in the City; (2) Allow variety in the types of environment
available to the people of the City; (3) Encourage more efficient allocation and maintenance of
privately controlled common open space through the distribution of overall density of
population and intensity of land use where such arrangement is desirable and feasible; and, (4)
Provide the means for greater creativity and flexibility in environmental design than is
provided under the strict application of the provisions of this Chapter and Chapter I I (relating
to subdivisions) of this Code while at the same time preserving the health, safety, order,
convenience, prosperity, and general welfare of the City and its inhabitants.
Subd. 5. Designation. All PUD's shall be designated in the legal description of the original
district being supplemented.
Subd. 6. Permitted Uses. The permitted uses set forth in this Chapter pertaining to the original
district or districts within a PUD shall apply to and be permitted uses in that part of a PUD in
which such a district is encompassed, except as such use or uses may be limited by a
development plan, an agreement or imposed by the City as a condition to approval of the PUD.
Subd. 7. Zoning and Subdivision Standards and Requirements. All standards and
provisions relating to an original district as set forth in this Chapter and to the subdivision of
land as set forth in Chapter 11 (if land which is the subject of a PUD is or will be subdivided in
connection with a PUD) shall apply to an original district situated within a PUD and to such
land subdivided or to be subdivided unless any such standards or requirement has been
• modified or waived as provided in Subparagraph A and B hereof.
A. Any standard or provision, except permitted uses, set forth in this Chapter relating to an
original district may be waived or modified by the City provided the ordinance relating to such
PUD sets forth specifically or by reference to a development plan or an agreement such
modification or waiver.
B. Any standard or provision set forth in Chapter 11 relating to the subdivision of land which is
the subject of a PUD and is being or will be subdivided in connection with a PUD may be
waived or modified as provided in Chapter 11.
Subd. S. Application. An applicant for a PUD shall submit in the application all of the
material required by this Chapter for rezoning and if land encompassed within the PUD is to be
subdivided, all of the material required by Chapter 11 of this Code relating to the subdivision
of land. In addition, an applicant shall submit the following information:
A. Project Identification. The following and such other information as is necessary to clearly
and completely describe the project shall be provided:
1. Ownership. Identify all owners legal and equitable of and all encumbrances and easements
upon the land within the proposed PUD.
2. Developer. Identify all parties involved in the development, including their previous
. experience and the nature and extent of their participation.
3. Financing of Project. Identify the source and type of financing of the project, including
financing such as: Municipal Industrial Development Revenue Bonds, Housing Revenue
Bonds, or otherwise.
4. Development Method Describe what will be done with the project, if approved, and who
will do it. Will the property be marketed undeveloped; rough graded; developed; or will the
developer carry the project through actual construction of structures? Will structures be
retained, sold, or leased?
5. Development Timing. Specify timing of each stage of development from initial site
development through building construction. Any phasing of different portions of the
project should be clearly explained.
6. Critical Public Decisions. Identify all governmental agencies which have review authority
over any portion of the development, what aspect of the project required their review, and
what approvals are necessary. Explain what public improvements would be necessary to
serve the project, such as: utilities, roads, road improvements, parks, schools, etc.
7. Other Information. Include any other information necessary to explain the unique
characteristics of the project.
B. Plan Area Identification. Provide the following to identify the land included in the
proposed PUD.
1. PUD Boundaries. A plan clearly denoting overall project boundaries.
0
2. PUD Area. A plan which shows the overall PUD area as well as all parcels and then
- - - - ownership within 1000 feet of the PUD.
3. Regional Relationships. A description of regional factors the plan is predicated upon such •
as: market area, population centers, major roads, railroad, airport, proximity to Regional
Services, etc. Also describe any impact the PUD would have on Regional Services and
Systems.
4. Existing Land Use and Occupancy.
5. Existing Transportation Systems. Describe how the land within the PUD will be served by
transportation systems and provide an analysis of the PUD's impact upon such
transportation systems. If transportation systems are not adequate to accommodate the
traffic expected from the development, describe improvements necessary. Illustrate how
the plan provides for pedestrian and bicycle sidewalks and trails and how they tie into the
City -wide system.
6. Existing Zoning. A map which shows the existing zoning and zoning of adjacent parcels.
A listing of any zoning district changes or variances from City Code provisions should be
provided.
7. Guide Plan and PUD Concept Framework. A map which shows the Guide Plan
Designation of the project and surrounding uses. If the plan was originally part of a PUD
Concept Review, the plan reviewed should be submitted together with a comparative
analysis of the proposed PUD.
8. GeneralAnalysis and Conclusions.
C. Plan Area Analysis. Provide the following relating to analysis of the plan:
1. Two -foot contour topographic map depicting existing and proposed contours should be .
submitted at a scale of 1 " = 100'.
2. A soils map depicting surface and subsurface conditions that may affect construction.
3. A map depicting vegetation of the site with detailed locations of trees 12" or over in
diameter.
4. All water, streams, lakes, marsh, ponds, drainage, subsurface, flood plains, should be
denoted on a site plan.
5. Photographs of the site sufficient to convey its general visual qualities and relationship to
area and proposed development.
6. A general discussion of natural ecological factors, analysis and conclusions.
7. A utility plan which illustrates the easements, and general sewer, water, and power services
to all uses.
8. Preliminary architectural drawings depicting normal detail achieved during "design
development phase" of architectural design process (does not include single family
detached housing).
9. Legal instruments for plan implementation including homeowner's association documents,
scenic, pathway, drainage, or other easements and private documents, etc.
10. Housing or land/building use profile including computations of gross /leasable square
footage, housing unit breakdown to square foot, bedrooms, persons /unit, parking
requirements, etc.
11. A map drawn to scale of 1" = 200' showing roads, structures, lakes, streams, ponds,
wetlands, floodplains, vegetation, topography, utilities, sidewalks, trails, parks, zoning, and
-12--
land use within 1,000 feet of the boundaries of a proposed PUD and an analysis of the
impact the PUD would have on the above referenced items.
• D. Fees and Costs. Applications for a PUD shall be filed at the office of the City Planner. A
non - refundable application fee in the amount established by the Council by resolution to defray
administrative costs shall accompany each application. A deposit established by the City
Planner shall accompany the application. The deposit or a portion thereof, will be refunded
after final Council action on the proposal if the total sum is greater than the administrative
review cost, which may include, but not be limited to:
1. Consultant fees assisting in City review.
2. City Staff time expended in specific development review.
3. Mailing, legal notices and other administrative costs.
4. Any other reasonable costs incurred by the City in review of the proposal. Full payment
by the proponent of all fees and costs for City review must be made prior to consideration
of the application.
Subd. 10. Public Hearing. A public hearing on an application for a PUD shall be held before
both the Community Planning Board and the Council. A notice of the time, place, and purpose
of each hearing shall be published in the official newspaper at least ten days prior to the day of
the hearing. When a PUD involves changes in district boundaries, a similar notice shall be
mailed at least ten days before the day of the hearing to each owner of affected property and
property situated wholly or partly within 500 feet of the property to which the PUD relates. For
the purpose of giving mailed notice, the person responsible for mailing the notice may use any
• appropriate records to determine the names and addresses of owners. A copy of the notice and
a list of the owners and addresses to which the notice was sent shall be attested to by the
responsible person and shall be made a part of the records of the proceedings. The failure to
give mailed notice to individual property owners, or defects in the notice shall not invalidate
the proceedings, provided a bona fide attempt to comply with this Subdivision has been made.
A. An application for a PUD may not be acted upon by the Council until it has received the
recommendation of the Community Planning Board or until 60 days have elapsed from the
date of referral to the Community Planning Board.
B. In the event land within a PUD is or will be subdivided in connection with a PUD, such
subdivision pursuant to, or any waiver or modification of any provision of, Chapter _ may be
approved only upon compliance with such additional procedures as are set forth in Chapter
Subd. 11 Findings Required. The findings necessary for approval of a PUD shall be as
follows:
A. The proposed development is not in conflict with the goals of the Guide Plan of the City.
B. The proposed development is designed in such a manner to form a desirable and unified
environment within its own boundaries.
C. Any exceptions to the standard requirements of this Chapter and Chapter _ of this Code
are justified by the design of the development.
0
- !3 -
D. The PUD is of composition, and arrangement that its construction, marketing, and
operation are feasible as a complete unit without dependence upon any subsequent unit,
and the PUD shall be consistent with an approved PUD Concept. •
Subd. 12. Revisions and Amendments.
A. Minor changes in the location, placement and height of buildings or structures as well as
other matters set forth in the development plan, or any agreement, except as described in
Subparagraph B below, may be authorized by the City Planner if required by engineering or
other circumstances not foreseen at the time the final development plan was approved.
B. Changes in uses as well as any modification or waiver of any standard or requirement
relating to an original district or amendment of any waiver or modification thereof granted in
connection with a PUD may be made only in accordance with the procedures applicable to
amendments of this Chapter pertaining to zoning. Changes relating to any standard or
requirement set forth in Chapter _ pertaining to the subdivision of land or amendment of any
waiver or modification thereof granted in connection with a PUD may be made only in
accordance with the procedures provided in Chapter _ of this Code pertaining to subdivision
of land.
0
� WNM Pic
SECTION = (PUD) PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT
. PURPOSE AND INTENT: The purpose of the Planned Unit Development
District (PUD), is to provide a comprehensive procedure intended to allow greater
flexibility in the development of neighborhoods or non - residential areas than would be
possible under a conventional zoning district. The decision to zone property to PUD is a
public policy decision for the City Council to make in its legislative capacity. The intent
of this section is to:
Subd. 1. Provide for the establishment of Planned Unit Development (PUD) zoning
districts in appropriate settings and situations, to create or maintain a
development pattern that complies with the City's Comprehensive Plan.
Subd. 2. Allow for the mixing of land uses within a development when such mixing
of land uses could not otherwise be accomplished under this Chapter.
Subd. 3. Provide for variations to the strict application of the land use regulations in
this Chapter in order to improve site design and operation, while at the same
time incorporating design elements (e.g., construction materials, landscaping,
lighting, etc.) that exceed the City's standards to offset the effect of any
variations.
Subd. 4. Promote a more creative and efficient approach to land use within the
City, while at the same time protecting and promoting the health, safety,
comfort, aesthetics, economic viability, and general welfare of the City.
Subd. 5. Preserve and enhance natural features and open spaces.
Subd. 6. Maintain or improve the efficiency of public streets and utilities.
• Subd. 7. Ensure the establishment of appropriate transitions between differing land uses.
Subd. 8. Provide for the maintenance of, and an amendment procedure for, those planned
unit developments listed in Section of this Chapter.
. USES: All permitted uses, permitted accessory uses, conditional uses, interim
uses, and uses allowed by administrative permit contained in Sections through
of this Chapter shall be treated as potentially allowable uses within a PUD
District, provided they would be allowable on the site under the City's Comprehensive
Plan.
. SETBACKS AND BUILDING HEIGHT: The various setback and height
regulations of the most closely related conventional zoning district shall be considered
presumptively appropriate, but may be departed from to accomplish the purposes
described in Section
. INTEGRATED DESIGN: A PUD shall consist of a harmonious arrangement
and selection of land uses in groupings of buildings that are planned and designed as an
integrated unit. The integrated design shall include elements such as building orientation
and materials, utilities, parking areas, traffic and pedestrian circulation, and open spaces.
. SKETCH PLAN: Prior to the filing of a formal application, the applicant may
submit a sketch plan of the project to the Zoning Administrator. A sketch plan will be
— /s� =
processed according to the information requirements, standards and procedures for sketch
plans as established by Section I of this Chapter.
. GENERAL PLAN: A PUD general plan is a plan and supportive text depicting •
general land use, circulation, open space, utilities, etc. for parcels of land within a PUD.
Subd. 1. Application Procedure: PUD zoning applications shall be processed according
to the evaluation criteria and procedures outlined in Section of this
Chapter.
Subd. 2. Information Requirement:
(a) The information required for all PUD general plan applications shall be as
specified in Section of this Chapter.
(b) The Zoning Administrator, Planning Commission, and/or City Council may
excuse an applicant from submitting any specific item of information or
document required by this section which it finds to be unnecessary to the
consideration of the specific PUD being considered.
Subd. 3. Zoning Enactment. A rezoning of a parcel of land to PUD shall not
become effective until such time as the City Council approves an ordinance
reflecting said amendment, which shall take place at the time the City Council
approves the general plan.
. FINAL PLAN: After approval of the general plan, the applicant may apply for
final plan approval for all or a portion of the PUD. The applicant shall submit the
following material for review by and approval of the Zoning Administrator prior to
issuance of any building permit(s). •
Subd. 1. If the PUD will be developed in different phases, the applicant shall
submit a phasing plan for construction of the various elements of the entire
PUD.
Subd. 2. Development plans in final form, based on the approved general plan,
covering that portion of the PUD where building permits will be requested
under the phasing plan.
Subd. 3. Proof of recording any easements and restrictive covenants prior to sale of
any land or dwelling unit within the PUD and of the establishment and
activation of any entity that is to be responsible for the management and
maintenance of any public or common open space or service facility.
Subd. 4. All certificates, seals and signatures required for the dedication of land and
recording of documents.
Subd. 5. Any other plans, agreements or specifications necessary for the Zoning
Administrator to review the proposed final plan.
. PERIODIC PUD REVIEW: The City Council may require periodic review of
a PUD as a condition to approval of a PUD General Plan in order to ensure compliance
with the conditions of the PUD. At such time the City Council may, at its discretion
choose to take additional testimony on the PUD.
•
111K.-
. PLAN MODIFICATION /AMENDMENT OF A PUD:
• Subd. 1. Minor Plan Modifications /Amendments: Plan modifications /amendments
qualifying as minor as defined by Section of this Chapter, shall be
processed pursuant to that section.
Subd. 2. Major Mod f cation/Amendment. The same review procedure shall be
followed for a major /modification/amendment of a PUD as was followed with
respect to the applicant's general plan, outlined in Section and pursuant
to Section of this Chapter.
. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS:
Subd. 1. Records: The Zoning Administrator shall maintain a record of all PUD zones
approved by the City, including all pertinent project plans, any conditions
imposed on a project by the City Council, and such other information as the
Zoning Administrator may deem appropriate.
Subd. 2. Withdrawal of an Application: Any application under this section may be
withdrawn by an applicant without prejudice at any time prior to final City
Council action thereon.
Subd. 3. Platting of a PUD: In the event that a PUD is to be subdivided into lots or
parcels for the purpose of separate ownership, such PUD shall be platted under
the platting procedures contained in the Andover Subdivision Ordinance and the
related requirements of Anoka County. The preliminary plat shall be processed
in conjunction with the general plan as outlined in Section . A
• separate action on the final plat shall be processed before the City Council prior
to the approval of a Final Plan.
Subd. 4. Conveyance of Property Within a PUD: In the event that any real
property within an approved PUD is conveyed in total or in part, the buyer(s)
thereof shall be bound by all provisions of the PUD and the general plan for that
project. However, nothing in this Chapter shall be construed as to make such
conveyed property non - conforming with regard to normal zoning standards as
long as the conveyed property conforms with the approved PUD and the general
plan for a project.
Subd. 5. AgreementlFinancial Guarantee: Following the approval of the general
plan but prior to final plan approval, the applicant shall enter into an agreement
with the City relating to the terms of the PUD, and shall also provide such
financial guarantees as the City requires or deems necessary. Such agreement
may take the form of: 1) a development contract; and/or 2) a Site Improvement
Performance Agreement; and/or 3) another form of legally binding instrument
as may be required by the City.
•
—(7—
ALP Page 1 of 7
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT ZONE DISTRICT (PUD)
�j
§ 152.470 PURPOSE.��
The purpose of the PUD district is to allow development to occur that is in compliance with the
land use designation of the Comprehensive Plan and to allow innovation in development standards to
accomplish the following goals:
(A) To promote the creation of distinct areas within the city in a way that encourages social
relationships and reduces crime.
(B) To allow mixed use developments in a manner that does not follow traditional zoning
requirements, but will effectively implement the Comprehensive Plan.
(C) To produce developments and an environment that are equal to or superior in quality and
design than would be achieved with traditional zoning.
(D) To allow for the planning and construction of unified developments and environment that
may be phased over time and share common elements such as a site and landscape design,
complementary architectural schemes, a roadway network, and open space and/or recreational
amenities.
(E) To allow innovation in the creation and design of open space and development density to
create well designed developments in a manner that does not follow traditional zoning requirements.
(Ord. 2000 -936) •
§ 152.471 ESTABLISHMENT.
The Planned Unit Development District is hereby established within the City of Brooklyn Park.
The PUD zone district applies to all parcels of land labeled as PUD on the official zoning map. The
PUD zone district requirements do not apply to areas with the PUD overlay.
(Ord. 2000 -936)
§ 152.472 SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS.
All property zoned PUD may require the review and approval of the following:
(A) Preliminary development plan. Applicants must submit a preliminary development plan for
the entire Development Plan property.
(B) Development Plan. Applicants must submit a development plan for the phases of the
development under consideration by the Planning Commission and City Council. The Development
Plan must allow for the development of the property in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. All
land that is subject to a Development Plan may be under single ownership to unify control, and may
be made subject to such legal restrictions or covenants to ensure compliance with the approved
Development Plan and other sections of City Code and requirements. The applications for •
Preliminary Development Plan review and Development Plan review may be combined if desired as
http: / /www.amlegal. cornlnxtlgateway.dlll Minnesota / Brooklyn %2OParkltitle0006 2/4/2004
_ /T,
Un
Page 2 of 7
long as all procedural requirements for each action is followed and all information required has been
submitted.
• (C) Site Plan Review. All proposed uses are subject to the Site Plan Review requirements found
in §§ 152.030 through 152.039.
(Ord. 2000 -936)
§ 152.473 PROCEDURES.
(A) The review and consideration of the Preliminary Development Plan and the Development
Plan by the city must follow the procedures for the public hearing process as defined in §§ 152.030
through 152.039.
(B) The City Manager must maintain copies of city policy concerning the information required
for all applications.
(C) Develolm7ent Plan required No permits related to the preparation of the site and/or the
construction of the project may be issued for a property within a PUD district unless a Development
Plan has been adopted by the City Council for the use and development of that entire phase of the
property.
(D) Review. The Planning Commission and City Council may base their recommendations and
actions regarding approval of a Preliminary Development Plan and Development Plan on
consideration of the following items:
• (1) Conformance of the proposed Plan with the regulations of this section and the
Comprehensive Plan.
(2) Internal organization and adequacy of various uses or densities, circulation and parking
facilities, urban services, recreation areas, open spaces, screening and landscaping, and the ability to
demonstrate that a viable development will be created.
(3) Other factors related to the project as the Planning Commission and City Council deem
relevant. The Planning Commission and City Council may attach such conditions to their actions as
they determine necessary or convenient to better accomplish the purposes of this section.
(Ord. 2000 -936)
§ 152.474 EXPIRATION OF APPROVAL.
The expiration of approval and the ability to apply for time extensions is specified in §§ 152.030
through 152.039.
(Ord. 2000 -936)
§ 152.475 DEVELOPMENT PLAN STANDARDS.
S The following applies to all Development Plans:
http: / /www. amlegal .com/nxtlgateway.dlllMinnesotal Brooklyn %2OParkltitIc00064.htm /chap... 2/4/2004
��g
an
Page 3 of 7
(A) Residential density. The density of all residential Development Plans and residential
portions of mixed use Development Plans must meet the density ranges of the designated land use
categories contained within the Comprehensive Plan. The density must be calculated based upon the
amount of gross land area devoted to residential uses excluding wetlands that are designated by federal •
and state agencies and those classified by the Wetland Conservation Act. The density ranges of this
Harmed Unit Development district are defined as follows:
(1) Low density residential use. Not to exceed three. dwelling units per gross acre.
(2) Medium density residential use. Not to exceed five dwelling units per gross acre.
(3) High density residential use. Not to exceed 13 dwelling units per gross acre.
(B) Uses. Any use that is a permitted use in the residential and business districts (§ §152.200
through 152.293 and §§ 152.300 through 152.393) may be allowed in the Planned Unit Development
district as long as the use complies with the Comprehensive Plan designation. Some uses have greater
restrictions than others based on their impact with surrounding land uses, those uses are defined
in § §152.200 through 152.293 and § §152.300 through 152.393. Conditional uses defined in § §152.200
through 152.293 and §§ 152.300 through 152.393 are subject to the procedures defined in §§ 152.030
through 152.039.
(C) Area. There may be no minimum property area for the Development Plan. However, if a
property is less than three acres in size, the applicant must demonstrate to the satisfaction of the city
that the property cannot be reasonably combined with adjacent properties, and that the type and design
of the development is compatible with adjacent areas and land uses. The total maximum property area
of a Development Plan may not exceed 80 gross acres unless the City Council finds that due to the •
unique circumstances of the property, the adjacent land uses or features; or through innovative site
planning, use of cluster development techniques, landscaping and/or exterior architectural planning
efforts, that the maximum property area should be exceeded.
(D) External buffer strips. All buildings and hardsurface areas may be set back an additional
distance from exterior adjacent right -of -way of collector or arterial road ways (as designated in the
transportation chapter of the comprehensive plan), utility or trail corridors or other similar uses as
specified in division (E). The setbacks must be sufficient in size for the placement of berms,
landscaping, bicycle /pedestrian paths as determined by the city, or other design features to create
cohesive residential neighborhoods or unified non - residential development. The purpose of these
buffer strips is to protect residents and building users from noise and other traffic related impacts, to
the extent possible. Extra space in the rear yards which may count as an external buffer strips do not
count toward the fulfillment of the open space requirements.
(E) Development envelope. The development envelope for each building and parking area must
be specified on the Development Plan. The development envelope must be large enough to
accommodate the buildings and parking area associated with the proposed use(s). The development
envelope must demonstrate adherence to all applicable standards of this chapter.
(1) Lot width and depth.
(a) Detached single-family.
http: / /www.amlegal.cominxtl gateway. dll/ MinnesotaBrooklyn %20Parkltitle00064.htmlchap... 2/4/2004
ALP Page 4 of 7
1. Width at setback. 80 feet.
2. Depth. 130 feet. A maximum of ten percent of lots in any Development Plan may be
• less than 130 feet.
(b) Attached two-family.
Width at setback. 120 feet.
2. Depth. 130 feet.
(c) All other residential uses. See §§ 152.200 through 152.293.
(d) Commercial, industrial, or other non - residential uses. The width and depth must be
proposed and evaluated as part of the development plan.
(e) Additional lot depth or width may be required where residential lots abut utility
corridors or collector roads.
(f) Arterial roads. An additional 50 feet may be required beyond the required depth for all
residential uses.
(g) Trail corridors. After the effective date of this chapter, any new residential lot created
in this district must have an additional ten feet required for each lot, beyond the required depth, for all
residential uses adjacent to trails.
(2) Setbacks
(a) Detached single-family and attached two family.
1. Front. 30 feet.
2. Side on a public right -of -way. 20 feet or the front setback of adjacent lots when they
front the adjacent side street.
3. Interior side. 10 feet. (Garage or house)
4. Rear. 30 feet.
(b) Townhouses and multiple family dwellings. See §§ 152.200 through 152.293.
(c) Commercial, industrial, or other non - residential buildings.
Front or right -of -way. 50 feet or the building height, whichever is greater.
2. Interior side or rear. 40 feet or the building height, whichever is greater.
. 3. Impervious surface, including, but not limited to, driveways and parking areas, from
right -or -way or residential uses. 40 feet.
http: / /www.amlegal.cominxtl gateway. dll/ MinnesotaBrooklyn %20Parkltitle00064.htmIchap... 2/4/2004
--Z(
ALP Page 5 of 7
4. From residential areas. Setbacks from residential areas must be as defined in §§
152.300 through 152.393.
(F) Hardsurface coverage /floor area ratio (FAR). The hardsurface coverage percentage and •
FAR includes all land within the Development Plan except right -of -way or roadway easements that
exist or will be dedicated as part of the subdivision of the property. The maximum hardsurface
coverage percentage and floor area ratio for a Development Plan is as follows:
Figure 152.475.01
PUD Hardsurface Coverage and Floor Area Ratios
Use Designation
Hardsurface
Floor Area Ratio
Coverage
Low Density
40%
.5
Residential
Medium Density
40%
.5
Residential
High Density
50%
1.0
Residential
Office/Limited
'70%
1.0
Business
Commercial
75%
.8
Industrial
85%
1.0
Quasi - Public
50%
.6
Mixed use developments have the same hardsurface coverage and FAR for each use within the
development as the use designation indicated in the above table.
(G) Designated open space: The provision of undeveloped or natural areas for the enjoyment of
development residents is a primary component of the PUD District.
(1) Each Development Plan that contains a residential component must provide at least five
percent of the total area of the residential portion of the development for designated open space.
Examples of proposals qualifying as open space include public parks, private active or passive
recreational uses, trails, nature areas, community gardens, etc. Landscaping and/or recreational
equipment in the required designated open space area must be sufficient to implement the purpose of
the proposal as approved in the Development Plan by the City Council, with recommendation from
the Planning Commission.
(2) The provision of the designated open space may not occupy property within the
development that must be provided to accommodate urban service requirements such as storm water
holding ponds or property preserved to meet other state or local requirements such as the provisions of
the Wetland Conservation Act, if protected by city easement, unless the area is proposed as an open
space accessible to all residents in the development.
Ul
http: / /www. arnlegal.cominxtl gateway. dll/ MinnesotaBrooklyn %20Parkltitle00064.htmlchap... 2/4/2004
-2y-
ALP
Page 6 of 7
(3) Incentives: The City Council may allow incentives that modify the requirements of the
zoning ordinance in exchange for the creation of additional common open space areas above the five
percent requirement. Incentives may include modification of density, hardsurface coverage and floor
• area ratio requirements. Requests for incentives and proposals for additional common open space
must be clearly defined in the application for Preliminary Development Plan.
(4) Restrictions. No single - family detached residential lot may be created narrower than 75
feet wide at the front setback. For each single - family detached residential lot proposed less than 80
feet, a lot must be created that is greater than 90 feet. A maximum of five percent of all single - family
detached residential lots may be less than 80 feet wide.
(5) The designated open space component of the Development Plan must be maintained on a
continual basis by an association, organization or landlord based upon reasonable standards that are
prepared by the applicant in a form acceptable to the City Attorney and approved by the City Council
prior to the recording of a development agreement with Hennepin County. The City Council may elect
to provide maintenance or fee ownership of the undeveloped/natural area if wider community purpose
is determined and public access to the facilities is provided.
(H) Landscaping. The required landscaping quantities, screening and the like must comply
with §§ 152.200 through 152.293 and §§ 152.300 through 152.393.
(I) Staging of development and improvements: The following standards apply to Development
Plans that will be staged or phased over a number of years:
(1) The developer must submit a plan to the city describing the sequencing of infrastructure
improvements that comply with city requirements to safeguard health, safety and welfare of residents,
• employees and patrons within the development. The developer must submit financial security in a
form acceptable to the City Attorney to assure satisfactory completion of all infrastructure
improvements as required by the city.
(2) When a Development Plan provides for undeveloped/natural areas that will be staged over
a period of years, a proportionate share of open space or recreational acreage must be provided that is
equal or greater than the proportionate number of residential units or square footage of non - residential
usage or sufficient land escrow security may be provided that bears a proportionate relationship to the
total undeveloped/natural area space may be provided to the city in a form acceptable to the City
Attorney.
(J) Infrastructure /utility improvements: No Development Plan will be approved unless
municipal roads, sewer and water facilities are available or will be available to serve the entire
property at the time of project completion. All infrastructure improvements including gas, electricity,
telephone, telecable and other similar facilities must be placed underground.
(K) Platting and subdivision of property: The uniqueness of each Development Plan requires
that the general subdivision standards and specifications for design of streets, alleys, easements,
blocks, and lots; and other infrastructure improvements may be subject to modification from the
respective city ordinances normally governing them. The City Council may approve the design of
streets, blocks, lots, public utilities, easements and subdivisions which are not in compliance with the
specifications of the subdivision ordinance if the city finds that strict adherence to such specifications
• is not required to meet the intent of this section or meet the health, safety or welfare requirements of
the city. In no event may the following provisions of the city Subdivision Ordinance be waived:
http : / /www.amlegal.cominxtigateway. d1UMinnesotal Brooklyn %20Parkltitle00064.htmlchap... 2/4/2004
—Z3—
UN
Page 7 of 7
(1) Parkland dedication requirements as provided in § 151.061(B)(1) and (2) of the City
Code.
(2) Final Plat approval is withheld until the applicant complies with the provisions of §
151.085 of the City Code pertaining to the required development improvements.
(L) Parking: The design, construction and required number of parking stalls within the Planned.
Unit Development District are subject to the requirements found in §§ 152.140 through 152.149, §§
152.200 through 152.293 and §§ 152.300 through 152.293.
(M) Signage: The placement and design of signage within the Planned Unit Development
District are regulated in Chapter 150 of the City Code.
(N) Legal restrictions and covenants: The owner(s) or their respective agents may submit
restrictions or covenants of the Development Plan in a form acceptable to the City Attorney that
assigns maintenance responsibility to all private open space and landscaped areas, and ensures
compliance with all aspects of the Development Plan, site and building plan review ordinances, and
conditions of approval.
(0) Development Plan amendments: Amendments to an approved Development Plan may be
approved by the City Council after review by the Planning Commission. The notification and public
hearing procedure for such amendment may be the same as for approval of the original Development
Plan. An amendment is any change determined by the City Manager which:
(1) Substantially alters the location of buildings, parking areas, or streets.
(2) Increases the gross floor area of non - residential uses by more than five percent or
increases the gross floor area of any individual building by more than ten percent.
(3) Increases the number of floors of any building.
(4) Decreases the amount of open space or alters it to change its original design or intended
use.
(5) Creates non - compliance with any special condition attached to the approval of the
Development Plan by the city.
(P) Development Plan contract. The applicant may enter into a development contract that states
the components of the Development Plan and any conditions imposed upon the development by the
City Council. The development agreement must be signed by the applicant and the city and recorded
with Hennepin County prior to the issuance of any grading or building permits for the property.
(Ord. 2000 -936)
•
i
•
http: / /www.amlegal.cominxtl gateway. dll/ MimesotaBrooklyn %20Parkltitle00064.htmIchap... 2/4/2004
I
a a
NDOVE
is 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W.. ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 • (763) 755 -5100
FAX (763) 755 -8923 • WWW.CLAN DOVER. MN. US
TO: Planning and Zoning Commissioners
FROM: Courtney Bednarz, City Planner 0
Will Neumeister, Community Development Director Ea
SUBJECT: Discuss adding a Zoning Code Section to regulate "Temporary Buildings"
DATE: April 13, 2004
INTRODUCTION
On February 24, 2004, the City Council reviewed information that was provided to them
regarding "temporary buildings ". The minutes of that meeting are attached. Council directed
that the staff prepare criteria that would regulate them. In reviewing what could be done to
establish some type of performance criteria, staff thought that the standards for temporary
buildings should include:
• Duration of how long they may stay on a given property
• Materials that they may be made of
• • Lighting and landscaping
• Covered walkways to main building
• Location where they may be placed on a site
DISCUSSION
To help in making a decision on what should be put in this ordinance, temporary structures
ordinances have been attached from Plymouth and Lakeville. The City of Lakeville has a
zoning regulation that indicates temporary structures (including classroom structures) are
allowed by administrative permit for no longer than a nine -month period, with a 90 -day
extension. The Council did not want to require temporary buildings be subject to either an
interim use permit or a conditional use permit. They felt that temporary buildings should be
treated as a permitted use with performance standards.
Temporary Classrooms
As a point of beginning, staff thought that the "temporary classrooms" at schools should be
subject to the following:
1. Temporary classrooms are a substantial investment for the school district that would be
considered to be relatively permanent. They may be kept on a site as long as necessary
provided they are kept in good repair, meet the criteria of the temporary structures
ordinance, and are checked at the time of building permit for structural design to meet
0
the International Building Code.
2. The materials that they could be made of could be established in the zoning code under _
the visual standards section (i.e. brick facades, match the building color scheme, kept
up per the visual standards). •
3. Lighting shall be required to meet the parking lot lighting and glare ordinance sections.
4. Covered walkways are not practical and should not be required.
5. Location of the temporary classrooms should be to the side or rear of the site, between
the street and the principal structure.
6. All other elements of a typical site plan review would be checked at the time of
building permit issuance, including:
a. Adequate parking stalls for the new expansion.
b. Adequate bathroom facilities for the new expansion.
c. Connections to the main building.
d. Building codes
e. Drainage
£ Tree Preservation
g. Utilities
Other Temporary Structures
The staff thought that other temporary structures, such as construction trailers, greenhouses,
etc., should only be controlled by the duration of how long they may be allowed on the
property and be subject to the standard commercial site plan review process.
Lastly, trailers should not continue to be allowed to be used as temporary sales offices for new
housing developments.
These elements should be incorporated into a new ordinance section similar to that of Lakeville
(see attached).
ACTION REQUESTED
The Planning Commission is asked to review the information, discuss these ideas and
comment on establishing regulations for temporary structures.
Attachments
Minutes of Council Workshop (February 24, 2004)
City of Lakeville Temporary Structures Ordinance
City of Plymouth Temporary Structures Ordinance
0
-2—
Minutes from February 24, 2004 Council Workshop
CONSIDER ZONING ORDINANCE CHANGE FOR TEMPORARY STRUCTURES
• Community Development Director Neumeister cited a report to Council that provided general ideas
and information regarding how other cities in the metropolitan area might or might not regulate
temporary structures. He discussed the variation in zoning regulations from different cities.
Mr. Neumeister indicated it was important to distinguish between "portable structure" and "temporary
structure." He explained that typically a portable structure would be located on a site for a longer
period of time, would likely have a post -type foundation and anchoring system and would meet the
current Uniform Building and Fire Codes. He noted temporary structures are usually construction
trailers.
Mr. Neumeister stated the City of Plymouth also had a zoning regulation called an "interim use
permit," which they used for review and approval of portable classrooms in the Public Institution
District. He noted the interim use permit was similar to a conditional use permit, whereby a city could
regulate how long a portable building would be allowed on a site before it would need to be further
reviewed.
Mr. Neumeister requested Council review the cited information and discuss the following issues: Is
there a need to make changes to the Zoning Code to institute new requirements, such as interim use
permits for portable buildings? Is there a need to include a section in the Zoning Code that covers
temporary structures? Did schools (both private and public) need to be made a conditional use rather
than a permitted use, which was their current designation in the Zoning Code?
Discussion followed regarding the use of portable structures by public schools.
City Admirtistrator Erar noted Council's concerns are not necessarily related to denial or approval but
that a review be conducted, as Council would like a "use" that expanded the definition coming before it
for review.
Councilmember Jacobson suggested such a "use" might be a temporary structure to be used for more
than one year. Council should have the ability to ask that a long -term replacement plan be submitted.
Councilmember Orttel noted Council could not determine placement of the structures, as that was
controlled by State code.
Discussion followed regarding Council's ability to regulate the use of these structures.
Mr. Neumeister noted Brooklyn Park made changes similar to those being discussed and stated he
could bring the related information to Council for review.
Mr. Erar suggested staff could install Council's concerns as part of the permitted use by tightening the
review criteria. The City could regulate the structures to the extent the City's code requirements, State
codes, etc., were met. Council could also change the Code and establish performance standards.
It was decided Mr. Erar should prepare an administrative review guideline draft, incorporating the
items discussed by Council.
C�
11 -28 -1: PURPOSE:
The purpose of this Chapter is to provide for the erection of temporary structures (not including
model homes /temporary real estate offices or temporary classroom structures for use by a
public or private institution) needed for emergency purposes or for temporary use during the
construction of a permanent structure. (Ord. 674, sec. 1, 7 -17 -2000)
11 -28 -3: PROCEDURE:
The erection of a temporary structure shall require an administrative permit, as may be issued
by the Zoning Administrator, except as otherwise provided by this Title. (Ord. 674, sec. 1, 7 -17-
2000)
11 -28 -6: SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS:
A. Structures: Temporary structures governed by this Chapter shall be allowed in all zoning
districts.
B. Site Plan Required: No administrative permit shall be issued for a temporary structure
unless a site plan pursuant to Chapter 9 of this Title has also been approved if applicable,
or unless a building permit has been issued for a new structure, addition or remodeling of
an existing structure on the property.
C. Termination Of Permit: -The administrative permit shall terminate nine (9) months from its
date of issuance, or within thirty (30) days after a certificate of occupancy has been issued
by the Building Official for the permanent structure, whichever occurs first, unless a
different time schedule is approved as part of the permit. The permit may be extended for
an additional ninety (90) days by the Zoning Administrator.
D. Setback: Temporary structures may be placed in a required building setback area, provided
that no such structure may be placed within thirty feet (30') of a public right of way or
obstruct visibility at any street intersection or driveway access.
E. State Building Code: All applicable requirements of the State Building Code shall be met.
F. Water And Sewer: Provisions for water and sewer servicing the temporary structures shall
be subject to the review and approval of the Building Official.
G. Security Measures: Security measures such as lighting shall be implemented subject to the
review and approval of the Zoning Administrator.
H. Parking: Subject to the provisions of Chapter 19 of this Title.
•
•
I. Signage: Subject to the provisions of Chapter 23 of this Title. (Ord. 674, sec. 1, 7 -17 -2000) •
PLYMOUTH ZONING ORDINANCE
• SECTION 21167 - TEMPORARY STRUCTURES
21167.01 PURPOSE: The purpose of this section is to provide for the erection of
temporary structures (not including model homes/ temporary real estate offices or temporary
classroom structures for use by a public or private school) needed for emergency purposes or for
temporary use during the construction of a permanent structure.
21167.02 PROCEDURE: The erection of a temporary structure shall require . an
administrative permit, as may be issued by the Zoning Administrator, except as otherwise
provided by this Chapter.
21167.03. SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS:
Subd. 1. Temporary structures shall be allowed as provided for in the applicable
zoning district in which they are located-
Subd. 2. No administrative permit shall be issued for a temporary structure unless a
site plan pursuant to Section 21045 has also been approved if applicable, or unless a building
permit has been issued for a new structure, addition or remodeling of an existing structure on the
property.
Subd. 3. The administrative permit shall terminate six (6) months from its date of
issuance, or within thirty (30) days after a certificate of occupancy has been issued by the
Building Official for the permanent structure, whichever occurs first. The permit may be
extended for an additional 90 days at the discretion of the Zoning Administrator.
Subd. 4. Temporary structures may be placed in a required yard area, provided that
no such structure may be placed within 30 feet of a public right -of -way or obstruct visibility at
any intersection or driveway.
Subd. 5. All applicable requirements of the State Building Code shall be met.
Subd. 6. Whenever an administrative permit for erection of a temporary structure
has been issued, a similar application for an administrative permit for erection of a temporary
structure shall not be considered again by the Zoning Administrator for at least one (1) year from
the date of approval. (Amended by Ord No. 99 -5, 01119199)
0
21167 -1
-5,
PLYMOUTH ZONING ORDINANCE
S ECTION 21650 Pi PUBLIC/INSTITUTIONA DISTRICT •
21650.01. PURPOSE: The PI District is intended to provide a specific zoning district for
facilities devoted to serving the public and specialized government activities, and semi -public
uses. It is unique in that the primary objective of uses within this district is the provision of
services, frequently on a non -profit basis, rather than the sale of goods or services. It is intended
that uses within such a district will be compatible with adjoining development, and they
normally will be located on or in proximity to an arterial street.
21650.03. PERMITTED USES: Subject to applicable provisions of this Chapter, the
following are permitted uses in the PI District:
Subd. 1. Day care facilities.
Subd. 2. Educational facilities, including public and private accredited nursery,
elementary, middle or junior high, and high schools.
Subd. 3. Essential services not including structures, except those requiring
administrative permits or conditional use permits pursuant to Section 21160 of this Chapter.
Subd. 4. Nursing homes, residential care facilities, and similar group housing, but
not including hospitals, sanitariums, or similar institutions. •
Subd. 5. Parks, playgrounds, trails, athletic and recreational fields and related
buildings.
Subd. 6. Private clubs and lodges.
Subd, 7. Publicly owned civic or cultural buildings, such as libraries, city offices,
fire stations, auditoriums, public administration buildings and historical developments.
Subd. S. Radio and television receiving antennas including single satellite dish
TVROs two (2) meters or less in diameter, short-wave radio dispatching antennas, or those
necessary for the operation of electronic equipment including radio receivers, federally licensed
amateur radio stations and television receivers, as regulated by Section 21175 of this Chapter.
Subd. 9. Religious institutions, such as chapels, temples, synagogues, and mosques
limited to worship and related social events.
Subd. 10. Trade schools.
(Amended by Ord No. 2004 -02, 01113104)
21650.05. ACCESSORY USES: Subject to applicable provisions of this Chapter, the
following are permitted accessory uses in the PI District:
21650 -1
PLYMOUTH ZONING ORDINANCE
Subd. 1. Accessory uses customarily incidental to the uses permitted in Sections
21650.03, 21650.07, and 21650.09 of this Chapter.
Subd. 2. Buildings and structures for a use accessory to the principal use but such
structure shall not exceed thirty (30) percent of the gross floor space of the principal use.
Subd. 3. Fences as regulated by Section 21130 of this Chapter.
Subd. 4. Off- street parking and loading areas as regulated by Section 21135 of this
Chapter.
Subd. 5. Signs as regulated by Section 21155 of this Chapter.
Subd. 6. Liquor on -sale when accessory and customary to uses permitted in
Sections 21650.03, 21650.07, and 21650.09 of this Chapter. (Amended by Ord No. 98-41,
12116198)
Subd.7 Temporary meteorological equipment and associated tower as regulated
by Section 21173 of this Chapter. (Amended by Ord. No. 2002 -19, 05114102)
21650.07. CONDITIONAL USES: Subject to applicable provisions of this Chapter, the
following are conditional uses in the P -I District and require a conditional use permit based upon
• procedures set forth in and regulated by Section 21015 of this Chapter. Additionally, besides the
specific standards and criteria which may be cited below for respective conditional uses, each
request for a conditional use permit shall be evaluated based upon the standards and criteria set
forth in Sections 21015.02, Subd. 5 and 21015.04 of this Chapter.
Subd. 1. Antennas not located on a public structure or existing tower, as regulated
by Section 21175 of this Chapter.
Subd. 2. Automobile parking lots as a principal use provided that:
(a) The use and design is in conformance with Section 21135 of this Chapter.
Subd. 3. Buildings in excess of height limitations as specified in Section 21650.13
provided that:
(a) For each additional five (5) feet in roof height as calculated by the Minnesota
State Building Code, which is above the maximum building height allowed by Section
21650.13 of this Chapter, front and side yard setback requirements shall be increased by
one (1) foot.
(b) The construction does not limit solar access to abutting and/or neighboring
properties.
Subd. 4. Cemeteries or memorial gardens provided that:
0 21650 -2
- 7-
PLYMOUTH ZONING ORDINANCE
(a) The site is landscaped in accordance with Section 21130.
(b) The use is available to the "public ".
(c) The use meets the minimum setback requirements for principle structures.
Subd. 5. Colleges, seminaries, and other institutions of higher education.
Subd. 6. Community centers.
Subd. 7. Correctional facilities and shelters provided that:
(a) Facilities shall comply with all applicable codes and regulations and shall have,
current and in effect, the appropriate state licenses.
(b) On -site services and treatment shall be for residents and inmates of the facility
only, and shall not be for non - residents or persons outside the facility.
(c) All new buildings or additions to existing buildings shall be consistent with the
scale and character of the buildings in the neighborhood. Exterior building materials
shall also be harmonious with other buildings in the neighborhood.
(d) No correctional facility shall be closer than one thousand three hundred waned
(1,320) feet from another licensed correctional facility or from any property designated
on the Land Use Guide Plan as residential and/or designated on the official zoning map
as residential.
(e) The conditional use permit is only valid as long as a valid state license is held by
the operator of the facility where such license is required..
(f) Appropriate transition to neighboring property shall be provided by landscaping
and site design consistent with the City ordinances and policies.
Subd. S. Day care, social services or other non - directly related worship type
activities as an accessory use within a religious institutional building(s).
Subd. 9. Essential services requiring a conditional use permit pursuant to Section
21160 of this Chapter.
Subd. 10. Essential service structures (as defined by Section 21005 of this Chapter)
that exceed five (5) feet in height or twenty (20) square feet in area, necessary for the health,
safety and general welfare of the City, excluding public works type facilities, provided that:
(a) Equipment is completely enclosed in a permanent structure with no outside
storage.
Subd. 11. Helistops, as regulated by Section 21193 of this Chapter.
Subd. 12. Hospitals, sanitariums or similar institutions provided that:
21650 -3
WE
PLYMOUTH ZONING ORDINANCE
• (a) Only the rear yard shall be used for play or recreational areas. Said area shall be
fenced and controlled and screened in compliance with Section 21130 of this Chapter.
(b) All state laws and statutes governing such use are strictly adhered to and all
required operating permits are secured.
Subd. 13. Living quarters which are provided as an accessory use to a principal use
in Section 21650.03 or to a conditional use in this Section provided that:
(a) The living quarters shall not be used as rental property.
(b) A maximum of one (1) such dwelling shall be allowed.
(c) There shall be a demonstrated and documented need for such a facility (i.e.,
caretaker, security, etc.).
Subd. 14. Medical, dental and chiropractic offices and clinics, commercial and
professional offices, funeral homes and mortuaries.
Subd. 15. Other uses of the same general character as those listed in Sections
21650.03 and 21650.07 of this Chapter.
. Subd. 16. Outdoor recreational areas including golf courses, swimming pools, and
• similar facilities.
Subd. 17. Reduction in lot area requirements.
Subd. 18. Residential shelters in accordance with Section 21190.02.
Subd. 19. Retail commercial activities and personal services, provided that:
(a) Merchandise is sold at retail.
(b) Personal services are limited to those uses and activities which are allowed as a
permitted or permitted accessory use within a C -1 Zoning District.
(c) The retail activity and personal services are located within a structure whose
principal use is not commercial sales.
(d) The retail activity and personal services shall not occupy more than fifteen (15)
percent of the gross floor area of the building.
(e) The retail activity and personal services are not located within a structure whose
principle use is residential.
(f) No directly or indirectly illuminated sign or sign in excess of ten (10) square feet
identifying the name of the business shall be visible from the outside of the building.
21650 -4
VAN
PLYMOUTH ZONING ORDINANCE - --
(g) No signs or posters of any type advertising products for sale or services shall be •
visible from the outside of the building.
Subd. 20. Public safety communication towers and antennas, provided that
(a) Public safety communication towers in excess of 150 feet in height shall be located
on property not less than 10 acres in size.
(b) Public safety communication towers shall comply with the standards and
requirements of Section 21175.
(Amended byOrd. No. 98 -12, 04115198)
Subd. 21. WECS as regulated by Section 21173 of this Chapter. (Amended by Ord
N6. 2002 -19, 05114102)
(Amended by Ord No. 2003 -35, 11125103) (Amended by Ord No. 2004 -02, 01113104)
21650.09. INTERIM USES: Subject to applicable provisions of this Chapter, the following
are interim uses in the PI District and are governed by Section 21020 of this Chapter:
Subd. 1. Landfilling and land excavation/grading operations, except mining, as
regulated by Section 21185 of this Chapter.
Subd. 2. Temporary classroom structures for use by public or private school •
21650.11. USES BY ADMINLSTRATTVE PERMIT: Subject to applicable provisions of
this Section, performance standards established by this Chapter, and processing requirements of
Section 21025, the following are uses allowed in an PI District by administrative permit as may
be issued by the Zoning Administrator.
Subd. 1. Antennas located upon a public structure or existing tower, as regulated by
Section 21175 of this Chapter.
Subd. 2. Essential services requiring a permit from the City Engineer as provided
by Section 21160 of this Chapter.
Subd. 3. Essential service structures (as defined by Section 21005 of this Chapter)
that do not exceed five (5) feet in height or twenty (20) feet in area, necessary for the health,
safety and general welfare of the City, excluding public works type facilities and uses, provided
that:
(a) Equipment is completely enclosed in a permanent structure with no outside
storage.
(b) Landscaping is provided to screen any such storage.
21650 -5
Id —
I PLYMOUTH ZONING ORDINANCE
Subd. 4. Landfilling and land excavation/grading operations, except mining, as
• regulated by Section 21185 of this Chapter.
Subd 5. Outside storage as a principle or accessory use subject to the same-
conditions as allowed in a C -3 District.
Subd. 6. Outside, above ground storage facilities for fuels used for heating
purposes, emergency backup generators, or for motor fuel dispensing purposes related to an
approved principle use, but not for sale, subject to the same conditions as allowed in a C -1
District. (Amended by Ord No. 2001 -06, 02113101)
Subd. 7. Temporary mobile towers for personal wireless service antennas, as
regulated by Section 21175 of this Chapter.
Subd. 8. Temporary outdoor promotional and sales activities beyond the confines
of the principal building.
Subd. 9. Temporary structures as regulated by Section 21167 of this Chanter.
(Amended by Ord No. 2004 -02, 01113104)
►_J
0 21650 -6
— f(
(o t=
C I T Y O F
NDOVE
1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. • ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 • (763) 755 -5100
FAX (763) 755 -8923 • WWW.CI.ANDOVER.MN.US
TO: Pluming Commission
CC: Courtney Bednarz, City Planner
FROM: Jon Sevald, Planning Intern 12
SUBJECT: Discuss changes to Zoning Code Section regulating Parking Lot Lighting
DATE: April 13, 2004
INTRODUCTION
City Code 12 -14 -10 D.8. requires parking lots to be illuminated a minimum of one footcandle as
measured at ground level. With the intent of limiting light pollution, Staff is proposing to modify the
existing city code in accordance with recommendations from the Illuminating Engineering Society of
North America ( IESNA).
DISCUSSION
The Planning Commission tabled this item at the March 9, 2004 meeting to allow staff to gather more
information regarding the following questions:
What are the related standards from other cities?
Staff has surveyed 25 cities regarding their lighting ordinances and has found several variations (please
see the attached chart). Almost all of the cities surveyed regulate the maximum footcandles allowed at
the property line. Twelve cities do not regulate the level of lighting. Fourteen cities do not regulate pole
height. Burnsville and St. Louis Park were the only cities to follow IESNA guidelines. Bloomington
requires the Police Department to review all lighting layouts, and requires a minimum of 2.0 footcandles
in most cases.
The proposed amendment would allow a minimum of 0.2 - 0.9 footcandles depending on the type of land
use.
What background information is available on how the IESNA arrived at the recommended light
levels provided in the table?
IESNA is a society made up of many experienced Architects, Engineers, Contractors, Designers,
Distributors, etc. that have formed committees throughout the United States and performed many studies
and reports to develop the recommended values.
How did IESNA arrive at different minimum light levels based on the land use categories in the
table? Isn't one minimum light level more appropriate for all land uses for safety?
Each different type of parking facility has a different security level. For example, a parking ramp has a
higher security level than an open parking lot thus making the minimum recommended levels at 1.0
footcandles rather than 0.5 footcandles.
Does the level of light used affect insurance rates?
According to the City's designated Risk Manager, there is no correlation between the City's insurance
rates and parking lot lighting. Our rates are based on valuation and claims made /paid.
What is the difference between 0.4 and 0.6 footcandles? How much of a difference in footcandles is
necessary before it is discernible?
To the untrained eye, it is difficult to notice a difference between 0.4 and 0.6 footcandles. A light meter
will be available at the Planning Commission meeting if the Commissioners wish to experiment for
themselves. Additionally, please see the attached photographs illustrating different light levels.
Why 30 -feet for maximum pole height? What are the existing pole heights around town?
According to the City's lighting consultant, 30 -feet is most common for pole height. Staff has measured
light pole heights at City Hall (30' pole, 3' base), Andover Elementary (30' pole, 2' base), Spur Gas
Station (16' pole, 2' base), Festival Foods (30' pole, 3' base) and Ando
and 30' pole with a 3' base).
The proposed amendment will allow a maximum height of 33 -feet
(i.e. 30 -foot pole mounted on a 3 -foot base).
How far does a light cone spread under a fully shielded fixture at
25 -feet, 30 -feet, 35 -feet, and 40 -feet?
The light cone spread will vary depending on the specifications of
the light fixture. Each one is different.
Would it make more sense to allow taller light fixtures toward
the center of larger parking lots and shorter ones at the
perimeter?
This is an option, which the Planning Commission may explore.
Brooklyn Park allows 15 -foot poles within 500 -feet of residential
areas, and 25 -foot poles beyond 500 -feet from residential areas.
Bloomington allows 25 -foot poles within 500 -feet of residential
areas, and 33 -foot poles beyond 500 -feet of residential areas.
Chaska allows 25 -poles within 100 -feet of residential areas, and 35-
feet beyond 100 -feet of residential areas.
What type and how many phone calls has the City received
regarding lighting?
In recent years, there has not been any `official" complaints regarding lighting, although staff has had
contact with a number of residents who have voiced their concerns: (1) This past March, a resident
adjacent to Andover Station asked to increase the height of their existing six-foot fence to reduce the glare
associated with the parking lot lighting. The Andover Review Committee determined that an eight -foot
fence would not significantly reduce the amount of glare in respect to the location of the house, which is
elevated in comparison to the fence. (2) During National Night Out, there were a number of residents in
the neighborhood north of Andover Station who commented on the amount of light that may be seen from
their yards several blocks away. (3) This past summer when lights were installed on the soccer fields at
Sunshine Park, there were a number of adjacent residents who complained that light was shining into their
homes in a manner that made it difficult for their children to sleep. The light poles are approximately 70-
80 feet tall. Under the current and proposed ordinance, light glare may not exceed 0.4 footcandles.
Sta,Q`'Rewmmmdadon
Staff recommends approval of the proposed amendment.
ACTION REQUESTED
The Planning Commission is requested to recommend approval of the proposed amendment.
Attachments
Resolution
Planning Commission Minutes
Lighting Survey
Photometric Plan Example
Photographs
Respectfully submitted,
Jon Sevald
( ) 0 0 :�>"Otk
Top: Light fixtures without shields.
Bottom: Shown with cutoff shields.
0
11
0
-z-
with a 3' base
ORDINANCE 12 -2 -2 AND 12 -14 -10
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CITY CODE 12 -2 -2; DEFINITIONS, AND CITY CODE 12 -14 -10
D.8.; LIGHTING IN OFF STREET PARKING AREAS.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANDOVER DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
12 -2 -2: Definitions:
AVERAGE FOOTCANDLE: The level of light measured at an average point of illumination between the
brightest and darkest areas.
EXTERIOR LIGHTING: Temporary or permanent lighting that is installed, located or used in such a
manner to cause light rays to shine outside. Fixtures that are installed indoors that are intended to
light something outside.
FULLY SHIELDED LIGHT FIXTURE: No light shines above the horizontal, from any part of the fixture
either directly from the lamp or a diffusing element, or indirectly by reflection or refraction from any
part of the luminaire.
FOOTCANDLE: The international unit of illumination produced on a surface.
IESNA: Illuminating Engineering Society of North America.
PHOTOMETRIC PLAN: A point -by -point plan depicting the intensity and location of lighting on the
property-
UNIFORM RATIO: The maximum -to- minimum value between adjacent luminaires.
0 12- 14 -10: Off Street Parking Requirements:
D. 8. Lighting:
a. All off street parking areas for °mia° ^ti° USes of twel°° ( 1 2) ^ a nd all eff st °°'
par-king for- , ' shall be equipped with
operable lighting designed to illuminate the entire surface of the parking area to a witini�»
level of one foot eandl° M ^~^°n-' lev in conformance with current standards as set forth by
the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America (IESNA) This shall not apply to
neighborhood parks as identified in the "Andover Comprehensive Park System And
Recreation Plan", as amended.
0
CITY OF ANDOVER
COUNTY OF ANOKA
.
STATE OF MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE 12 -2 -2 AND 12 -14 -10
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CITY CODE 12 -2 -2; DEFINITIONS, AND CITY CODE 12 -14 -10
D.8.; LIGHTING IN OFF STREET PARKING AREAS.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANDOVER DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
12 -2 -2: Definitions:
AVERAGE FOOTCANDLE: The level of light measured at an average point of illumination between the
brightest and darkest areas.
EXTERIOR LIGHTING: Temporary or permanent lighting that is installed, located or used in such a
manner to cause light rays to shine outside. Fixtures that are installed indoors that are intended to
light something outside.
FULLY SHIELDED LIGHT FIXTURE: No light shines above the horizontal, from any part of the fixture
either directly from the lamp or a diffusing element, or indirectly by reflection or refraction from any
part of the luminaire.
FOOTCANDLE: The international unit of illumination produced on a surface.
IESNA: Illuminating Engineering Society of North America.
PHOTOMETRIC PLAN: A point -by -point plan depicting the intensity and location of lighting on the
property-
UNIFORM RATIO: The maximum -to- minimum value between adjacent luminaires.
0 12- 14 -10: Off Street Parking Requirements:
D. 8. Lighting:
a. All off street parking areas for °mia° ^ti° USes of twel°° ( 1 2) ^ a nd all eff st °°'
par-king for- , ' shall be equipped with
operable lighting designed to illuminate the entire surface of the parking area to a witini�»
level of one foot eandl° M ^~^°n-' lev in conformance with current standards as set forth by
the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America (IESNA) This shall not apply to
neighborhood parks as identified in the "Andover Comprehensive Park System And
Recreation Plan", as amended.
0
-3•
IESNA EXTERIOR LIGHTING GUIDELINES
General
Vehicle Use
Parking &
Area Only
Pedestrian
Land Use
Average
Min.
Uniform Ratio
Average
Min.
Uniform Ratio
Foolcandles
Footcandlea
High
Major League Athletic Events
3.6
0.9
4:1
2.0
0.67
3:1
Major Cultural or Civic Even
Regional Shopping Centers (300,000 sq it or greater
Fast Food Facilities
Medium
Community Shopping Centers (5,000 29,999 sq it)
2.4
0.6
41
1.0
0.33
3:1
Cultural, Civic, or Recreational Event
Office Parks
Hospital Parking
Transportation Parking (Airports, Commuter Lots, Etc.
Residential Complex Parking
Low
Neighborhood Shopping (under 5,000 sq ft
0.6
0.2
4:1
0.5
0.13
4:1
Industrial Employee Parking
Educational Facility Parking
Church Parking
-3•
b. For the purposes of interpreting IESNA standards, land use categories shall be interpreted by
the Community Development Director.
c. Any lighting used to illuminate the off street parking area shall be affmged fully shielded •
with a total cutoff angle equal to or less than 90 -de ees.
d. Illumination from light fixtures shall be measured at one foot above ground level on a 45
degree angled plane.
e. Free standing light fixtures shall not exceed a height of thirty (30) feet with a three (3 ) foot
base. Building mounted light fixtures shall be attached only to walls, and the top of the
fixture shall not exceed the height of the parayet or roof, which ever is erg ater.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Andover this 4` day of May 2004.
CITY OF ANDOVER 0
ATTEST:
Michael R. Gamache,
Mayor
Victoria Volk, City Clerk
•
'4(-
Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
Minutes —March 9, 2004
• Page 3
1
Commissioner Jasper asked how many lots eft. Mr. Bednarz stated there were
approximately twenty lots left.
• Motion by Gamache, seconded by rchoff, to open public hearing at 7:13 p.m.
Motion carried on a 6 -ayes, 0 -na , 1- absent (Vatne) vo .
There was no public input.
okon by Gamache, seconded by Greenwald, to table this item until the March 23, 2004
PI ng Commission Meeting. Motion carried on a 6 -ayes, 0 -nays, 1- absent (Vatne)/
vote.
PUBLIC H NG: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (04 -04) AMENDIN
SPECIAL US PERMIT (03 -05) TO ALL OWA NEW TOWNHOUSE D IGN FOR
THE PREVIO YAPPROVED NATURE'S RUNRESIDENTIAL
Mr. Bednarz explained applicant has proposed a new floor pl for the Nature's Run
Project. Three floor plans ere initially reviewed and approve as a part of Special Use
Permit (01 -05) which establi ed the planned unit developmpfit for Nature's Run. A
fourth floor plan was added wit Planning Commission Council approval of Special
Use Permit amendment (03 -05) in une of 2003. Thep posed fifth floor plan will also
need to be approved by Council.
Mr. Bednarz discussed the staff report wiH� the
Motion by Mrchoff, se 96nded by Gamache, to close the public h g at 7:14 p.m.
Motion carried on a Odayes, 0 -nays, 1- absent (Vatne) vote.
Commissioner 96mache stated he thought the more townhouse floor pl they came up
with in this d elopment, the better.
Motion Kirchoff, seconded by Gamache, to recommend to the City Council roval
of the roposed amendment. Motion carried on a 6 -ayes, 0 -nays, 1- absent (Vatne) ote.
Bednarz stated that this item would be before the Council at the April 6, 2004 City
ncil meeting.
PUBLICHEARING: ORDINANCEAMENDMENT (04 -01) AMENDING CITY
CODE 12 -14 -10 D. & REGULATING LIGHTING IN OFF STREET PARKING
AREAS.
•
-.5-
Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
Minutes —March 9, 2004
Page 4
Mr. Bednarz explained City Code 12 -14 -10 D.B. requires parking lots to be illuminated a
minimum of one footcandle as measured at ground level. With the intent of updating
lighting standards and limiting light pollution, staff is proposing to modify the existing
city code in accordance with recommendation from the Illuminating Engineering Society
of North America (IESNA).
Mr. Bednarz discussed the information with the Planning Commission.
Commissioner Kirchoff asked how limiting the thirty feet in height affect ball diamonds
or stadiums. Mr. Bednarz stated ball field lighting will be higher than thirty feet. This
Ordinance applies only to parking lots.
Commissioner Jasper stated Target typically uses taller lighting than thirty feet. He
wondered if they will be using thirty feet tall fixtures at Andover Station. Mr. Bednarz
stated Target has proposed using different heights of lighting in their parking lot and the
tallest will be thirty-eight feet and the City will be working with them in trying to revise
their lighting plan for that development if the ordinance amendment is approved as
proposed.
�J
Commissioner Gamache asked if Target did not wish to revise, would they be
grandfathered into the old Ordinance or would they have to comply with this. Mr.
Bednarz stated timing would be an issue. If Target would be issued a building permit •
before this Ordinance became effective, then it could not be applied to them
Commissioner Kirchoff asked if the existing lighting at Andover Station and Festival
Foods were higher than thirty feet. Mr. Bednarz stated the lighting is around thirty feet
high.
Commissioner Greenwald asked what the justification of thirty feet was. Mr. Bednarz
stated it was somewhat of a uniform height for commercial areas. Commissioner
Greenwald asked what their current City Code was. Mr. Bednarz stated there is not a
height limit at this time.
Commissioner Greenwald asked what the surrounding communities have for height code.
Mr. Bednarz stated the municipalities they have looked at have the same codes Andover
has. Not well defined in terms of height and fixtures.
Discussion ensued in regards to changing the Ordinance to thirty feet maximum.
Commissioner Greenwald stated he is not comfortable with going with thirty feet and he
wondered what Coon Rapids used in building the Riverdale area. Mr. Bednarz stated he
was not sure if they had a maximum height. He stated they can spend time in reviewing
this before changing the Ordinance.
•
Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
Minutes —March 9, 2004
• Page 5
Discussion continued in regards to the reasons why the Ordinance should be reviewed for
changes.
Commissioner Jasper questioned the legitimacy of requiring different minimum lighting
levels for different types of uses. He wondered if there was not a minimum lighting level
for safety for all uses.
Motion by Greenwald, seconded by Gamache, to open the public hearing at 7:40 p.m.
Motion carried on a 6 -ayes, 0 -nays, 1- absent (Vatne) vote.
Mr. Winslow Holasek, 1159 Andover Boulevard, asked what the chart meant that staff
showed. Mr. Bednarz showed the graphic and explained how the ratio related to the
minimum and maximum footcandles. He discussed the graph.
Mr. Holasek asked if 3.9 footcandles would be the maximum. Mr. Bednarz stated this
would be the average in this example.
Mr. Bednarz gave examples of different lighting.
Motion by Casey, seconded by Kirchoff, to close the public hearing at 7:45 p.m Motion
carried on a 6 -ayes, 0 -nays, 1- absent (Vatne) vote.
• Commissioner Jasper stated he is not comfortable in making a decision and he would
want them to justify the numbers before approval.
A suggestion was made to go out at the next meeting and look at the lighting in the
parking lot.
Commission consensus was to table this item for further information.
Motion by Greenwald, seconded by Gamache, to table this item for further information
per comments summarized and any additional comments that come about until a future
meeting. Motion carried on a 6 -ayes, 0 -nays, 1- absent (Vatne) vote.
BUSINESS.
Mr. Bednarz updated the Planning Commission on related items.
ADJOURNMENT.
Motion by Gamache seconded byj4rehe, to adjourn eting at 8:00 p.m Motion
carried on a 6 -ayes, 0 -nays, 1- ent (Vatne) vote.
11
-7
rD OVE
1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. • ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 . (763) 755 -5100 •
FAX (763) 755 -8923 • WWW.CI.ANDOVER.MN.US
The following survey reflects exterior lighting ordinances found in several Twin Cities
communities.
— 8—
I
•
Min Avg Max IESNA Max Ft At Prop Max Pole
Of
N �v
D
Photometric Plan with 1.0 minim footcandles under the current
A•I rw
IIIIIIIIII;I PIII
Yw Yr M•Y�
Y �
p E
o
4444LLS - . - G Ly4y44L4yL
�a444LL1wp 4yyL444b0gay
44
4
y
b
u
u4
44
4444
4
y
4L
yL
yy
y
y
y b
4 y y L
y
byb
yy
L
LL
vu
y�
y
y
y
yy
yy
by
4
4
L
L L
y
b y
4 4 4
4 L 4 L
b
b
y
y
4
u
L 4yb4
bb
4ub
by
U 44
bb
Liy
4 Y b
U
L
4u
b
bb
u4
b4
bx
b
ybyyLyyL 41�L y4ybyuybb4yyu
y
uy
4L
y
4L 444444
rM� •r
L
U
444
Vu
bb
by
y yL
44
'.�
b
uu
Uu
U
4
y y
u u
y y
a
y
y
LL
bbu
C1
y
y y
y y y b
b L y b
6�
y
U
uu
uyb
L
4 b
y L
b o b
ry
^I
b
q�,•L.••
n1
y
4
y
4
yb
y
Eyb
ybb
y4L
F
y
L
yy
44
byb
L4
y44
4y
L
U
b
y
yob
U
U
y
%
4
bb4
yyy
4
y b
Y
U
e y
L
•
L
y
Y
y4
L
y
b
yb
U
y
LY
Y4
by
U
uy
4L
YL
b
U U
b4
4
L
44
L
L 4
yy
J
b
4
4
L
4
yy
yby
b14
by
U uy
bb
00
L
4 u
by
b 4 y y y y
y y y y b
y U b b
uU
LLLy4UUUU%ry
44
4
L 4y
444
4b
y4
44
4444
L44L.
44
y
y
yy
y
y
yy
y
y
byb
yy
yy
yyy4
ubb
yy4
y
y
4
y
u
4
4
4
4
4 Y
4
4
4 4 4
4 L 4 L
4 4 4 4
4
4
4
4
u
4
U
y
y
-- - -- 4 44
y
Liy
4 Y b
L
b y y
4y
L
b
ybyyLyyL 41�L y4ybyuybb4yyu
a y y y b
4
4L 444444
rM� •r
L
• 444
4LyL4LL Ly __
- O
ELECTRICAL SITE PLAN
t r•w �N -T-- _
® 1'w - - T -- i
r•Or...wlr _ __1__
nla m ' r M•we.. _ "vl
_ - --
„T /j --
I
S I
4 ALTERNATE SOUTH DRNE
code.
yyb4ybyyy =bob
LLLLy4y41�b L4yLL4
1 y
uy
4 L
yy
4
b
L
4
b
b
b
b
UUEM y y a
uyy r yy by u
bU L b L
b4 4 4 b
4L L 4 y
b4 u y y
4L4 L 4y bb b
44 y L 4
bL y b b
PROPOSED u y b b
ANDOVER CONMUNTY CENTER u b y y
L b y
1a,77st SF 1st FLOOR L 1 L L b
25317 SF 2nd FLOOR b b b b b
L b
MAIN "E-M.00 .00 b L 4
FIELD NOUSEACE RPM FFE4WX y b u 4 4
LOADING DOCK FFE=BNAB 4 4 L 4 L
L 4 y y
i I
ii
ii
ii
i
ii
V �
J
z
0
a
O
U
.i
i i
I
i�
i
i �
a
kl
J
0
M°
P Plan with 0.67 minimum footcandles (medium -level land use) under the proposed amendment.
h rn !
f�i N
f
� � � i� i• luw•M•w i � i I ` I o
� 1 1 1 MCI
Y f. yyy Y p.wn I Mq
• a 9 a
1 i � iL 44U
gene[ f owww • _ �
-T -- _I
- - r -- -- i
1
I i
I
I�
l W
� I
I
1
a °
W
W
0
•
a
•
4 ALTERNATE SOUTH DRIVE
/ r
LUYYULUYY4bYY
bYLLYUY
}Y
YbYYUL444UYbYUUYLbYUUYLYYY�UU4YYbYYUb4LLLb
ULYYLb4YULLLYY4b4YYYLaLYL4baYLYY4YUYY4YYYbaLYY4LaaYLb
Y
UUYLYLyU44YbYbUUbLb
LL4
L
b
v
Y 4
44
Y4Y
44
Y
a
ULU
UU Y
4
YU
LLU
U
a
YUU
i
UL L
a
UU
UaU
Y
b
UU
P r
UU U4
LaUb
Lbb
Y b
b
L
LLL
'
LU UU
UL
LL
Ub
L
L
LU
e
b L L
L L
Y Y
Y U
L
a
L L
'
�b bb
U
L
UL
L
U
LLL
b LY
L
by
UUL
L4
UL
YYUb
L by
to
UU
YUY
4U
Y
4
UU44
i
y_ UY
L4
YL
UU
Y
U
ULYY
r� p4 YY
Z YL Y
UY
4
LY
UY
LL
Y
U
U44Y
Y4 L
4
44
4Y
UU4
b
YY
U
U
Y444
4Y4
U YUUY
i
UY UU
4Y4
U4
LU
4
4
IT, 4U U1.
UU
UY
U
U ULU
UU YL
Ua
LL
4b
4
b
1. U L 4 Y
Y
L Y
PROPOSED
U b
L
L
U L
Y U U L
L
L U Y
A OVER cOM.KTY CENTER
D XY
4 b
L
U Y
b b Y Y
I
UY U
Y
YY
"I
io4j S2 SF tsl FLOOR
UL
Y
U
UUUa
w
as bL
LL
Uab
25 .917 sF 21d FLOOR
4U
L
4
UU44
u u
UY
Y44
L
L
L
Y Y Y U
I U'
ly 4 Y Y Y
U
Y 4
F IELD HOUSEaOE RIM( FFE-900.�{
Y 4
4
4
4 L Y
;►
4 Y
^ r" 1 4
4
4 4 b
LOADING �K FFE-899M
4U
U
4
a a4
.
I =�
'V b
U
LUY
LY
U
Y
uu Z
L4
O U U Y Y
Y
Y b Y
UU Y
Y U
Y L
L Y 4
1
U U
UL
UU Y
4Y
Y4U
4444 UYb
UU 4
U%
YYY
UU
4
Y
obY
LU L.
U
a4Y
4L
a
U
UbU
UU
a
b
bUa
UU a
bU
11
Ubb
Ua
bU
z
i
T L Lb
YL
UU
LbUU
UbY
U
UYY
b L
U
UL
U,
Y
4
bbU
i
U U
b
UL
U
4
Y
LY
L 4
Y
ab
Y
4
4
Y U Y
ub L
4
LL
UL
YU
4
4
YL b4
U4
UY
bU
UU
b
U UYY
UL u
Y
UU
4
4
4
by
YL U
Y
UU,
L
4
4
YY
LL Y
Y
YL
L
U
L
UL
I
UU L
b
Y4
MINE M111gK I
4
b U
1M Y
U"
L4 UU
LL
YY
� LbAM9q
4 b4
U
UL
LY
b Ub
Y
Lb
U L
4 L
Yb
UYLLLU4ULUYULYLUY4L4ULUU
YL
Y La Y L
Y L L Y
4 4 Y Y
,y4YLY
Y
YL
a YYULU4YYYyYLU4Y
6aUUY44ULLYYU
4 LLULYY
6uuu
MUUY4UYLaL
ELECTRICAL SITE PLAN
X CP _
I
S
:i ♦
18
T -- _
- -
-
ii
i
no...gM
_
M_wrM
• MWw.w walla CA aal
_ __1__ __
1 i � iL 44U
gene[ f owww • _ �
-T -- _I
- - r -- -- i
1
I i
I
I�
l W
� I
I
1
a °
W
W
0
•
a
•
4 ALTERNATE SOUTH DRIVE
/ r
•
0
E
These light measurements represent the level of footcandles as measured approximately one foot
above ground level on a 45- degree plane as indicated in the proposed amendment.
W
0 ANLb �& 9
1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. • ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304
MAIN (763) 755 -5100 FAX (763) 755 -8923 • WWW.0 LAN DOVER. MN. US
TO: Planning and Zoning Commissioners
FROM: Andy Cross, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: Workshop Item: Text and Map Amendments to Comprehensive Plan —
Railroad Grade Crossings
DATE: April 13, 2004
INTRODUCTION
The Transportation element of the Comprehensive Plan recommends grade separated crossings at
4 public street railroad crossings within the City. Based on a recent City Council decision, this
list should be reviewed and consider reducing the number of crossings on it.
DISCUSSION
The Transportation Plan recommends grade separated crossings at the following public railroad
crossings:
• Bunker Lake Boulevard
• Andover Boulevard
• Crosstown Boulevard
• 161 Avenue NW
At a February 2004 Council workshop, the City Council approved the removal of the Crosstown
Boulevard crossing from the Comp Plan. The attached staff report and minutes for the item
describes the reasoning behind the decision. First, the right of way on Crosstown Boulevard
would have to be widened from its current 120 feet to 175 -200 feet, which results in the loss of a
number of new residential lots in a proposed nearby development. Second, the 2001 traffic count
on Crosstown Boulevard was only 4,100, with a 2020 maximum projection of 8,650. This
compares to Bunker Lake Blvd's 2001 traffic count of 10,800 and 2020 maximum of 23,400.
For reasons of right of way and low projected future traffic count the City Council approved the
removal of Crosstown Blvd from the above list.
Two other crossings on the list should be considered to be removed for similar reasons. Andover
Boulevard has a 2001 traffic count of 5,000 and a 2020 maximum projection of 10,400. The
2020 maximum for 161 Avenue NW is about 11,150. Since both of these are close to
• Crosstown Boulevard's totals and below that of Bunker Lake Boulevard, it is recommended that
Andover Boulevard and 161 Avenue be removed from the list of grade separated crossings in
the Comprehensive Plan.
ACTION REQUESTED •
The Planning Commission is asked to discuss the changes to remove three grade separated
roadways from the Transportation Plan and make a recommendation on its approval.
Attachments
Staff Report — February 2004 City Council Workshop
Minutes - February 2004 City Council Workshop
Respectfully submitted,
And ross
0
LJ
-z-
i C I T Y 0 F _
TO:
CC:
FROM:
1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. • ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 • (763) 755 -5100
FAX (763) 755 -8923 • WWW.CLANDOVER. MN. US
SUBJECT:
Mayor and Councilmembers
Will Neumeister, Community Development Director
David D. Berkowitz, City Engineer DP
John Erar, City Administrato>�
Discuss Crosstown Boulevard Grade Separation at Railroad Crossing — Eng. & Ping.
117.7419
February 24, 2004
INTRODUCTION
There was a recent memo from Anoka County Transportation Department that drew attention to the
issue of whether the City will pursue a grade separated roadway at the BNSF Railroad crossing on
Crosstown Boulevard (please reference the attached letter).
DISCUSSION
The City's current Transportation Plan shows a grade separated roadway for four different streets:
• Bunker Lake Boulevard
• Andover Boulevard
• Crosstown Boulevard
• 161 Avenue NW
0
The plan indicates both on the maps and text that future grade separated roadways are recommended.
The question that has arisen is whether the City Council will recommend the grade separated roadway
for Crosstown Boulevard. Whether it is going to be recommended may have a significant impact on a
pending new development proposal (Sophie's Manor) and ultimately future developments on both
sides of the railroad crossing. The grade separation will necessitate additional right -of -way dedication,
thus causing the loss of new single family residential lots. The right -of -way would need to be widened
from 120 feet wide (60 feet from centerline) to 175 -200 feet to allow for embankment area. staff has
discussed the issue and it is felt that this is not very realistic. The plan indicates that this is desirable
because the future daily.traffic counts will be greater than 10,000 vehicles per day on these roadways.
The year 2001 traffic count on Bunker Lake Boulevard is 10,800. The' year 2001 traffic count on
Crosstown is 4,100, with a 2020 projection of approximately 10,000 (with development of the rural
—3—
ACTION REQUESTED •
The four grade separated roadways listed above need to be reviewed and a determination made
whether this is still going to be recommended by the Council, and remain in the City's Transportation
Plan. This decision does affect the platting of property that is going to be coming before the Council
on March 16, 2004.
Council is asked to make a determination regarding the need to plan for a grade separated roadway on
Crosstown Boulevard at the BNSF railroad crossing.
Respectfully submitted,
Will Neumeister David D. Berkowitz c
Attachments
Transportation Plan Text and Maps
i
-4--
ere are no park- and -rides or transit centers in Andover, although there are a number of
An aver residents using park -and -ride facilities along Highway 10 to access service to
Minne olis and along I -35W to access service to St. Paul. Current regional Park - and -Ride
lots near dover include:
• Anoka — JoX Ward Park - Church Street and Forest Avenue (no bus service)
• Anoka — G i d and 7th Avenue
• Blaine — Northto Shopping Center Transit Hub — 85th and Jefferson
• Blaine - Oak Park — 109th and University Avenue
• Blaine —Park of Four ons =11300 Block of University Ave. NE
• Blaine — Blainebrook Bow Paul Parkway and Highway 65
• Blaine — 95th Avenue and I.3
• Coon Rapids —Coon Rapids Uni d Methodist Church —Hanson Blvd and Northdale
Blvd
• 'Coon Rapids— Faith Lutheran Church 1l It and Hanson Blvd
• Coon Rapids -VFW Post 9625 —1919 C Rapids Blvd
• Coon Rapids — Foley Blvd — Between Coon ids Blvd and East River Road near
Hwy 610
• Coon Rapids — Coon Rapids Country Store — Cr\H9 d Coon Rapids Blvd.
• Coon Rapids — Northstar Commuter Coach River61411 Blvd.
• East Bethel — Hwy 65 at County Road 24 (no bu
• Elk River - Hwy 169 &. School, Street NW (no b
• Elk River — Northstar Commuter Coach Park - an9 on 171st Ave NW
Fridley — St. Phillip's Lutheran Church — Hwy 6e a Drive
In the event that transit services are expanded into Andover, the City has bN discussing
and examining future locations. Major north -south commuting routes, such as anson
Boulevard and Round Lake Boulevard, and east -west routes, such as Bunker I
Boulevard, should be examined for potential Park- and -Ride locations. Mn/DOT has
proposed a new Park - and -Ride facility for 143rd and Ramsey Boulevard in the City o
Ramsey. It expected that this lot would be constructed in 2003.
1 F. Rail System
There is one commercial rail company operating on rail trackage in the City of Andover.
The Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railroad operate on a rail track that is situated in a
north/south direction in the eastern part of the City. According to data provided by the
MnDOT Office of Freight, Railroads, and Waterways, there are an average of 13 trains per
day on this rail line operating at a maximum train speed of 50 miles per hour.
City ofAndover 8
Plan - Y__
There are six (6) railroad grade crossings with public streets in Andover. There are also •
four (4) private crossings in the City. The public street crossings are with the following
roadways:
• Bunker Lake Boulevard N.W.
• Andover Boulevard N.W.
• Crosstown Boulevard N.W.
• 161" Avenue N.W.
• Ward Lake Drive
• 181 " Avenue N. W.
All crossings are presently controlled by flashers, gates,-and bells. The data provided by
MnDOT indicates that there has not been any rail crossing accidents in the last five years in
Andover. MnDOT establishes the type of crossing protection on the public streets and has a
process that involves variables such as train and vehicular volumes, speeds, sight distance
and number of tracks in order to determine the crossing types. The controls appear to be
correct for those crossings in Andover. MnDOT works with cities in the event that a
request for crossing review or improvement is presented by the City.
Crash Data
Data arding reported crashes in Andover was obtained from the Minnesota Department •
of Trani' This data consisted of three years of reported crash data The data was
evaluated wiftVgh incident locations being mapped. The high incident locations are
portrayed on Figare S and the numbers of deer caused accidents are illustrated on Figure 6.
H. Air Service
There are no airports within City of Andover, nor are there any airports in near enough
proximity to cause an effect with and to airport runway clearances and land use
designation.
I. Intersection "Hot Spots"
One element of the study included a study of fift (15) intersection "hot spots ". These
locations were chosen by the Technical Advisory Co ittee (TAC) following a review of
the volumes and crash data as well as the receipt of inp m City staff and from the
public: The intersection "hot spots" selected did not include a intersections that handle
higher traffic volumes. Those intersections had recently been zed, or will shortly be
analyzed, by Anoka County as they are on the County system. These ' tersections were
selected based on the history of each location and not on anticipated issu in the future.
•
City ofAndover
Transportation P
E
• construction of trails as part of these roadway projects should be considered. Trails
shou so be developed along a number of sub - collector roadways to provide linkages
between overall trail system and City parks. Figure 4 illustrates the proposed trails
network thro out the City.
Trail crossing locati along collectors and arterials should be carefully considered to
maximize trail user safe There are a number of trails within the City that switch from one
side of the roadway to the o r. Examples include trails along Bunker Lake and Hanson
Boulevards. Appropriate solutio be they signed crosswalks, signals, or grade separated
crossings, should be developed for e h crossing location.
School walking routes have been develope ' cooperation with the Anoka- Hennepin
school district to handle safety concerns. These ncerns have increased due to the
discontinuation of bus service to students living wi ' 2 miles of a school. Many of these
walking routes follow existing trails or sidewalks. Seve of the school walking routes
follow the sidewalks or trails along existing arterial and co for roadways. The City
should provide a continuous connection along the arterial and c ector roadways that
support walking routes. For example, currently, the proposed trail ng Hanson Boulevard
ends at 140th Lane, however the walking route continues to 139th Lan a proposed trail
should be extended to the intersection of 140th Lane. Additionally, the pro ed trail
system for Crosstown Boulevard includes a segment from Vale Street to Kum t Street
that is proposed as a future trail. Immediate pedestrian needs for this segment of r way
need t b e considered. If feasible, the trail should be constructed as an off -road trail.
` H. Rail Crossing Safety
The issue with rail crossings with public streets in Andover is one of delay caused to
vehicular traffic when trains are at the crossings. Flashers and gates control all but one of
the crossings. The last uncontrolled crossing, at Ward Lake Drive, is scheduled to receive
flashers and gates in the year 2003. The accident history does not appear to be significant
and the crossing protection is up to accepted standards.
The delays, whether excessive or not can be caused by length of trains, train speeds, and
number of trains per day. The presence of a switching operation will also add to incurred
delay. Since rail traffic and length of trains has increased during the past few years, the
problem of vehicular delay to motorists is one experienced in many cities. The only short-
term action that would be advisable is to continue dialogue with the owners/operators of
the rail system to ensure that all is being done to minimize the time that crossings are
blocked. A long -term solution is the provision of grade- separated crossings for. the present
rail/roadway at -grade crossings. Such crossings are, obviously, solutions that take a long
time to implement. However, the approvals process needs to begin in order to have hope of
realizing such improvements. Another option is to request that the railroad move the
switching operation to a less populated area
•
City ofAndover 58
Transportation Plan
For purposes of the transportation plan, future grade separated crossings are being •
recommended for the following four public street crossings:
• Bunker Lake Boulevard
• Andover Boulevard
• Crosstown Boulevard
• 161" Avenue N.W.
Each of these crossings has 20 -year volume projections of 10,000 or more. Of course, a
Bunker Lake Boulevard crossing should be the highest priority as volumes on that roadway
are and will continue to be the highest of these four east -west routes. Bunker Lake
Boulevard is under the jurisdiction of Anoka County so the City should work with the
County for this beneficial improvement.
I. Air
An ver is not directly affected by any of the area's airports. Therefore, no
reco endations are deemed to be necessary with regard to the Transportation Plan.
J. A\accte anagement
The man of access along roadway systems, particularly arterial and collector
roadwayimportant component of maximizing the capacity of a roadway and
decreasinci nt potential along those facilities. Arterial roadways have a function •
of accomg I er volumes of traffic and often at higher speeds. Therefore, ac cess to
such facist be 1 'ted in order to protect the integrity of the arterial function. Collectoys provi link from local streets to arterial roadways and are designed
to providaccess to loc land uses since the volumes and speeds are often lesser than
arterial rs.
The Minnesota Department of Trans tion (MnDOT) reports that studies have shown
that as the density of accesses increase, ether public or private, the traffic carrying
capacity of the roadway decreases and the hicular crash rate increases'. Businesses suffer
financially on roadways with poorly designe ccess. Well- designed access to commercial
properties supports long -term economic vitality..
As with many transportation related decisions, land \usepl and planning is an integral
part of creation of a safe and efficient roadway systse decisions have a major
impact on the access conditions along the roadway ery land use plan
amendment, subdivision, rezoning, conditional use ite plan in access and
creates potential impact to the efficiency of the trans tem. Properties have
access rights and good design will minimize the delect on the roadway
system. Access management is a combination of goe pl g and effective
design of access to property.
The granting of access in the City of Andover is shared by the City and by oka County, •
with each having the permitting process responsibility over roadways under th ' control.
City ofAndover 59
Transportation Plan --8_
T ardke r W Lob
W.d �
im ,
EAST
BETHI
�L
Andover
,
,
I
City of Andover
Transportation
Plan
ftnctional Classifications
Ekisriny ono=
Roadway Roadu
AMinorArterial
B Minor Arterial -
Collector - -
Railroad Parks
(_'_ Iakes /Ricers Q City Lim
Long
Separation
Rail/Street Grade
Proposed Functio
Classification Sys
2003 - 2023
Figure 11
N
An*
M&
AaatlYo
rp+.aai+rs
PxvE dMmch2oo3
V ! - 1�liT�li7ioz :ozl�l�J�l
'3.95 S g '� 3.200 2.350 ;� Z3 �
X3,750 ' 350 4
_ d t
# 7 # 600 nw x .w, u2 li
,.650
QT °:r' # 800 0 r
MUNICIPI
War
°an Lak
AND[
� ' fi��n: 'w ,$ ➢ ;.r xv vc. PREPAR
MINNESOTA DEPARTM
g PROGRAM SL
x
IN C[IOPE
U.S, DEPARTMENT
FEDERAL HIGH%
se
16 11- r_r-i-
4:a 1 M
dab 9 a. {2xf ,5W
113300
ro ^_ X3,850
400 ` io
0 za }x.. 5' L� !♦ BASIC DA
VF /
888
;o ,6.,50 s / W L
io —01 4,55D
30 #51W
II it g "» Nr
11,z
111 f i.
Q, 4 5 5o .250 X13 $
age LEC
moo
44 0 111ENARIO O LY
#,.200 ' 2020 SCENARIO LY
C1.2001 2020 SCENARIO
" _ 1 b• �� INTERSTATE TRUNK F
a "> U.S. TRUNK HIGHWAY.,
jJ '`` ' ` STATE TRUNK HIGHWI
COUNTY STATE AID F
3008 COUNTY ROAD ...................
s
9300 CORPORATE LIMITS.,.
PUBLIC ROAD ..
PRIVATE ROAD .........
-j �! - FUTURE ROADWAY ......
r ' r
Note: Volume Projecti
`Yr Crete •
110,E Reserve Land Use
+ s000 — n �� p changes will chanc
A 1 �; 1 0 0<` C'reek
FIGURE 13
I ✓l ' YEAR 2020 DAI
, ��
IL -�'�' SCENARIOS
a
-
150 r 23 5 B W n r 1 : 77.38 Kam.
! N � �g � 11�� 24 W - 0 Lak a. .1117,800
Ri
IT-
11225.
$g p
III
A.4
_l
WO f
' � Q3800 3� — '' %C •�
City Council Workshop Minutes — February 24, 2004
DISCUSS CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD GRADE SEPARA TIONAT RAILROAD CROSSING
Community Development Director Neumeister referenced a recent memo from the Anoka County
• Transportation Department that drew attention to the issue of whether the City would pursue a
grade separated roadway at the BNSF Railroad crossing on Crosstown Boulevard.
Mr. Neumeister explained the City's current Transportation Plan shows a grade separated
roadway for four different streets: Bunker Lake Boulevard, Andover Boulevard, Crosstown
Boulevard and 161 Avenue NW.
Mr. Neumeister indicated the question that had arisen was if Council would recommend the grade
separated roadway for Crosstown Boulevard. He stated Council's decision might have a
significant impact on a pending new development proposal (Sophie's Manor) and ultimately on
future developments on both sides of the railroad crossing. He noted the grade separation would
necessitate additional right -of -way dedication, thus causing the loss of new single - family
residential lots.
Mr. Neumeister stated the right -of -way would need to be widened from 120 feet (60 feet from
centerline) to 175 feet to 200 feet to allow for the embankment area. He noted staff had discussed
the issue and felt this was not very realistic.
Mr. Neumeister indicated the future daily traffic counts would be greater than 10,000 vehicles per
day on these roadways. The 2001 traffic count was 10,800 vehicles on Bunker Lake Boulevard
and 4,100 on Crosstown, with a 2020 projection of approximately 10,000 vehicles (with
development of the rural reserve area).
Mr. Neumeister requested that the four grade separated roadways be reviewed and Council
determine whether or not to recommend they remain in the City's Transportation Plan. He added
Council's decision did affect the platting of property that was going to be coming before Council
on March 16, 2004.
Mr. Neumeister also asked Council to make a determination regarding the need to plan for a
grade separated roadway on Crosstown Boulevard at the BNSF railroad crossing.
Mayor Gamache suggested everything but Bunker Lake Boulevard be removed from the Plan.
Councilmember Orttel stated only the major roads should get the roadway.
City Engineer Berkowitz noted Bunker Lake Boulevard would be the most realistic location for
the roadway.
Councilmember Jacobson suggested the Crosstown Boulevard roadway be eliminated and staff
should determine if houses needed to be eliminated if the other three roadways remained in the
Transportation Plan.
Motion by Jacobson, Seconded by Orttel, to approve removal of the Crosstown Boulevard grade
separated roadway from the Transportation Plan and direct staff to review the grade separated
roadways planned for Bunker Lake Boulevard, Andover Boulevard and 161" Avenue NW.
Motion carried unanimously.
•
COW fit- Figure 6.7
Metropolitan Council
Roadway Functional Classifications
Principal Arterials •
The metropolitan highway system is made up of the principal arterials in the region. Principal arterials include
all interstate freeways. Interstate freeways connect the region with other areas in the state and other states.
They also connect the metro centers to regional business concentrations. The emphasis is on mobility as
opposed to access to land uses. They connect only with other Interstate freeways, other principal arterials and
select minor arterials and collectors. The Interstate freeways provide for the longest trips in the region and
express bus service.
Spacing will vary from two to three miles in the fully developed area to six to 12 miles in the rural area, where
only radials into the urban service area will exist. Other principal arterials are very similar to the Interstate
freeways but they are less likely to connect the region to other states. They will provide land access somewhat
more frequently than Interstate freeways.
Minor Arterials
The minor arterial system connects the urban service area to cities and towns inside and outside the region.
They interconnect the rural growth centers in the region to one another as well as to similar places just outside
the region. They provide supplementary connections between the two metro centers and the regional business
concentrations. They connect major generators within the central business districts (CBDs) and the regional
business concentrations.
The emphasis of minor arterials is on mobility as opposed to access in the urban area; only concentrations of
commercial or industrial land uses should have direct access to them. The minor arterial should connect to
principal arterials, other minor arterials and collectors. Connection to some local streets is acceptable. Minor
arterials should'service medium -to -short trips. Both local and limited -stop transit will use minor arterials. •
The spacing of minor arterials in the metro centers and regional business concentrations will vary from one -
fourth to three- fourths mile. Typically, in the fully developed area, spacing would range from one -half mile to
one mile. In the developing area, a one -to -two mile space is adequate. (The region has subdivided minor
arterials into two classes for administrative purposes. "A" minor arterials are eligible to compete for federal
funding.)
Collector Streets
The collector system provides connection between neighborhoods and from neighborhoods to minor business
concentrations. It also provides supplementary interconnections among major traffic generators within the
metro centers and regional business concentrations. Mobility and land access are equally important. Direct
land access should predominately be to development concentrations. Collector connections are predominately
to minor arterials.
Typically, collectors serve short trips of one to four miles. Local transit service uses these streets. Spacing in
the metro centers and regional business concentrations may vary between one -eighth to one -half mile. In the
fully developed area, collectors are needed one - fourth to three- fourths mile apart. In the developing area,
spacing may range from one -half to one mile.
Local Streets
Local streets connect blocks and land parcels. The primary emphasis is on land access. In most cases, local
streets will connect to other local streets and collectors. In some cases, they will connect to minor arterials.
Local streets serve short trips at low speeds. In the urban area, local streets will occur every block. In the rural
area one mile spacing may be adequate.
—0/—
TR+�Sf�6R�A11G - pLA1 -�►
Collector Streets
Collector Streets provide more land access than arterials and connections to arterials,
although not in all cases. As is the case with any roadway system, there will always be
exceptions to the planning guidelines that are used to classify a roadway system. Collectors
serve a dual function of accommodating traffic and provision of more access to adjacent
properties. Mobility and land access are equally important and direct land access should
predominately be to development concentrations. Collectors generally connect to minor
arterials and serve short trips. Spacing for collectors range from '/4 to' /< miles in a fully
developed area to % to 1 mile in a developing area. In the City of Andover, Andover
Boulevard is currently classified a Collector roadway, but will likely be reclassified as a
"B" Minor Arterial roadway in the future. In order to provide a network consistent with the
spacing guidelines for a developing area; several local streets throughout the City will need
to be reclassified as collectors and some new collector roadways will need to be
constructed. This reclassification could require the reconstruction of the Local Streets to
meet the recommended roadway widths and design features of a Collector Street.. Such
reconstruction, when warranted due to street conditions, may or may not provide a wider
street section.
Local Streets
The lowest classification of roadways is the local roadway where access is provided with
much less concern for control but land service is paramount. Spacing for local streets is as
needed to access land uses. Local roadways generally have lower speed limits in urban
areas and normally serve short trips. Local streets will connect with some minor arterials
but generally connect to collectors and other local streets. The development of local streets
will be guided by the location of the existing and proposed minor arterials and collectors as
well as by development and the expansion of local utilities.
Recommendations
The proposed functional classification system is shown on Figure 11. During the
development of this Transportation Plan, Anoka County was able to implement changes to
the functional classification system that were recommended by the Andover Transportation
Plan Technical Advisory Committee (TAC). The changes that have occurred are listed
below:
• Bunker Lake Blvd NW —Changed from a `B' Minor Arterial to an `A' Minor Arterial
• 7 Avenue NW (CSAH 7) — Extended the `B" Minor Arterial Status to North City
Limits
• Round Lake Blvd NW —Changed from a `B" Minor Arterial to an "A" Minor Arterial
An additional change recommended by the TAC is the following:
• Andover Boulevard — Changed from a collector to a `B' Minor Arterial
City of Andover 24
Transportation Plan �? —
Suggested Changes
The following are the suggested definitions that should be incorporated into the Transportation
Plan:
Class A — Major Collector: Collector streets that provide access from neighborhoods to the
arterial system and have an existing and/or projected average daily traffic (ADT) volume above
2,000. No driveway access shall be allowed on these streets.
Class B — Minor Collector: Minor collector streets are shorter in length and lower in volume
than major collector streets. They provide access from neighborhoods to the arterial system,
provide greater access to adjacent land uses than major collectors and have an existing and/or
projected average daily traffic (ADT) volume below 2,000.
Upon the adoption of a revised set of standards for collector streets, existing collectors will have
to be classified as either Minor or Major. To facilitate this and to account for future increases in
traffic, it is recommended that the data used to determine the average daily trip counts for
Andover streets come from year 2020 estimates from the Comprehensive Plan's Figure 13 —
Existing and Year 2020 Daily Volumes — Scenario I (see attachment).
It is also recommended that a change be made to the language in the City Code regarding the
placement of driveways on collector streets. Currently chapter 11 -3 -2 states that no lots may
front on collector streets. Driveways can safely front onto streets with less than 2,000 ADT, so
this chapter in the code should be changed to allow lots to front on minor collector streets.
ACTION REQUESTED 0
The Planning Commission is asked to discuss this text amendment to the Comprehensive Plan
and make a recommendation on its approval.
Attachments
Existing Collector Street Description — Transportation Plan
Existing Collector Street Description — Comprehensive Plan
Figure I 1 - Transportation Plan (shown with major and minor collector streets highlighted)
Figure 13 - Transportation Plan
Respectfully submitted,
AnO Cross
E
-z
cli
•
0
i
1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. • ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304
MAIN (763) 755 -5100 FAX (763) 755 -8923 • WWW.CLANDOVER.MN.US
TO: Planning and Zoning Commissioners
FROM: Andy Cross, Associate Planner,4T
SUBJECT: Workshop Item: Text and Map Amendments to Comprehensive Plan —
Minor and Major Collector Streets
DATE: April 13, 2004
INTRODUCTION
Prohibiting driveways on all collector streets per Chapter 11 -3 -2 of the City Code is not practical
given the wide range of subdivision designs and topography in Andover. While it makes sense to
prohibit them on busy, high- capacity streets, lots should be allowed to put driveways on streets
that are considered collector streets because of their function in the City's road system and not
because of their high traffic count. Changing the Transportation Plan's definition to include two
different classes of Collector Streets will solve this problem.
DISCUSSION
Currently the City's Comprehensive Plan describes only one class of collector street and the City
Code defines it as a street that carries 1,000 average daily trips. While the Comp Plan's existing
language about collector streets' purpose and intent can remain intact, a new distinction needs to
be added between minor and major collectors. A road with 1,000 average daily trips can safely
accommodate driveways, whereas a road with more than 2,000 may not.
The City Engineer decided upon the threshold of 2,000 average daily trips. After studying and
analyzing existing streets, daily traffic, and trouble -spots within the city, it appeared that
problems with driveways entering onto roads became a problem when the street began to carry
more than 2,000 average daily trips.
Other Cities
The City of Brooklyn Park has Major and Minor collector streets. Major collectors are intended
to carry a higher volume of traffic than the minors, are longer in length, and provide access from
neighborhoods to arterial roadways. Brooklyn Park's minor collector streets are intended to
provide access from more residential neighborhoods to adjacent land uses. There is no specific
threshold of traffic volume that separates Brooklyn Park's two classes of collector streets.
The City of Blaine has no concise description for a collector street and define it only has a road
that connects residential neighborhoods to arterial streets.
The City of Coon Rapids also has no detailed definition for "collector streets," other than to say
that they are those roads that connect residential areas to the arterial street network. There is no
numerical threshold that differentiates between one type of collector street and another.