Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/27/04C 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 27, 2004 Andover City Hall Council Chambers 7.00 p.m. 1. Call to Order 2. Approval of Minutes — April 13, 2004 3. PUBLIC HEARING: Residential Sketch Plan for proposed urban development to be known as `Miller's Woods' on properties located at 15955, 15827, 15803, and 15773 Crosstown Boulevard NW. 4. PUBLIC HEARING: Preliminary Plat of Gardner /Sanborn Plat, a rural . residential development with variances located at 17022 and 17052 Round Lake Boulevard NW. 5. Work Session: a. Planned Unit Development Ordinance b. Temporary Structures c. Parking Lot Lighting d. Comprehensive Plan Update 6. Other Business 7. Adjournment • NDOVE10A • ,~•14 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 - April 13, 2004 DATE: April 27, 2004 Request The Planning and Zoning Commission is asked to approve the minutes from the April 13, 2004 meeting. • • A C I T Y NDO V,.E^ a 0 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING —APRIL 13 2004 n �J The Regular Bi- Monthly Meeting of the Andover Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order by Chairperson Daninger on April 13, 2004, 7:00 p.m., at the Andover City Hall, 1685 Crosstown Boulevard NW, Andover, Minnesota. Commissioners present: Chairperson Daninger, Commissioners Tony Gamache, Rex Greenwald, Dean Vatne, Jonathan Jasper and Michael Casey. Commissioners absent: Commissioner Tim Kirchoff. Also present: City Planner, Courtney Bednara Associate Planner, Andy Cross Planning Intern, Jon Sevald Assistant Finance Director, Lee Brezinka Others APPROVAL OFMINUTES. March 23, 2004 Motion by Gamache, seconded by Casey, to approve the minutes as presented. Motion carried on a 5 -ayes, 0 -nays, 1- present (Daninger), 1- absent ( Kirchoff) vote. APPROVE RESOL UTION — REDEVELOPMENT PLAN /COMMUNITY CENTER PROJECT AREA Mr. Bednatz explained 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 comment to be done by the City of Andover Planning Commission. 0 Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes — April 13, 2004 Page 2 Commissioner Jasper stated he reviewed the report and he did not understand it. He • wondered why the building is owned by the EDA and leased to the City. Mr. Brezinka stated he needed to get back to the Commission on this question. Commissioner Jasper stated he understood the redevelopment area for the Community Center but the land across the street has already been approved and there is no reason for tax increment or abatement to spur development there. Mr. Brezinka stated what they are trying to show is that the Community Center will affect all of the intersections. Mr. Bednarz stated there is no intent to provide any public subsidy or partnership according to the Finance Director. Mr. Bednarz stated one of the purposes is to demonstrate that the project is generating value in the surrounding neighborhood. Commissioner Greenwald asked if the developers were aware of this. Mr. Bednarz stated they were. The Commission discussed the findings and declarations and questioned if some of the properties will be partly funded by the City. Mr. Bednarz stated that without the Community Center, development on other comers surrounding the intersection may not occur. He stated the City is not intending to finance the surrounding properties. Mr. Bednarz stated he did not fully understand all of the subtext of the document and he could only give the Commission the information he had. He did not believe it was the Commission's job to question the financing tool that the Council/EDA selected for this project; it is the Commission's purpose to review and comment on this Resolution. Commissioner Gamache did not think it was their job to question the means by which this will be financed but it is their job to question these parts they are questioning because staff is saying the money is going to finance the Community Center and the document is saying the money is going for the Community Center, infrastructure improvements, and some kind of tax deferred financing to help develop the development across the street and he did not know if that was something the residents would want. Mr. Bednarz stated the Commission could modify the Resolution that is in review to move it forward to the City Council. Commissioner Greenwald asked who drafted the Resolution. Mr. Brezinka stated it was written by Briggs and Morgan. Commissioner Greenwald questioned some of the wording in the Resolution. Mr. Bednarz stated they will not be able to do a step by step breakdown of the document. The Commission continued to discuss wording in the Resolution regarding financing. 0 Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes —April 13, 2004 Page 3 Commissioner Jasper stated he cannot vote for something that the language seems to undercut what the intent is stated to be and that goes contrary to everything he understood about the development of this area and where some real basic questions cannot be answered. Commissioner Gamache agreed. Motion by Jasper, seconded by Gamache, to deny Resolution No. , Concerning the Economic Development Authority of Andover, Minnesota's Redevelopment Project Area Proposal based on discussion. Commissioner Vatne stated he felt they needed more information in order to approve this. Motion carried on a 5 -ayes, 1 -nays ( Daninger), 0- absent vote. Mr. Bednarz stated that this item would be before the Council at the April 20, 2004 City Council meeting. PUBLIC HEARING: RESIDENTIAL SKETCH PLAN FOR TOMBLOMBERG FOR PROPERTYLOCATED IN THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 36 TOWNSHIP 32, RANGE 24 ANOKA COUNTY, MINNESOTA. Mr. Sevald explained that 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. Mr. Sevald discussed the information with the Planning Commission. Commissioner Jasper asked if there was an existing structure on the property. Mr. Sevald stated there was not. Commissioner Gamache asked if the properties to the north of this development were urban lots. Mr. Sevald stated that was correct. Commissioner Vatne stated he was glad to see the watershed was addressed before the sketch plan went forward. He did not see any mention made in the information regarding a custom grading plan. Chairperson Daninger stated this is a sketch plan and that will be the next step. Commissioner Greenwald stated the developer saw the information from the Watershed District, will they be able to answer questions. Mr. Sevald stated they may be able to. 9 Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes —April 13, 2004 Page 4 • Motion by Gamache, seconded by Casey, to open the public hearing at 7:32 p.m. Motion carried on a 6 -ayes, 0 -nays, 1- absent (Kirchoff) vote. Mr. Brian Plueger, 745 140` Lane, stated there is an undeveloped stretch of land he owns up to this development and he plans to eventually sell the land and if the wetland is moved to the east, it will be in his woods and he will have to pay to have the wetlands taken care of at a later date. Mr. Sevald stated the mitigation of the wetland area should not affect negatively on the surrounding properties. Ms. Pam Caps, 798 141` Avenue NW, stated she thought it was interesting that the Commission thought just approaching the Watershed District was great. The Watershed District is in serious disagreement with the facts the developer has presented to them. She stated that they disagree with the mapping of the wetlands, the square footage of the dig, the viability of the soil in the dig area to sustain wetland. She stated insufficient soil borings have been done to answer any and all questions they may have. She stated the Watershed District was not convinced the adjoining property owners were notified prior to soil borings and disputed staling of the wetland. She explained they were not notified. There are questions of mitigating property and impacting property values negatively. She did not think the rules have not totally been followed, people have not been notified and there are items in dispute. She stated there is standing water out there and it is deep and it goes beyond the properties that are mapped. Ms. Melissa Mills, 784 141" Avenue NW, stated her entire property is to the north of the wetland and she was interested in the statement that the wetland will not affect any of the surrounding property negatively. She explained that her backyard is the low point except in the very middle and much of the spring her yard is under water. She noted that anything that is going to fill in south of her yard will fill her yard with more water. When she bought her house she was told the land behind her property would never be built on because it was a protected area and used for drainage and that there would never be any building on the Iand because the wetland could never be changed and now she has heard that it is alright to move the wetland. She stated she cannot see how filling in and taking down all of the trees will not affect her property. She would like a guarantee that this will not be a problem and become even worse than it already is. Mr. Bill Loja, 752 140 Lane, asked for clarification on the property behind the wetland area. He wondered how much deforestation can be done on a piece of land. Mr. Bednarz stated the City does not have a specific requirement on the number of trees that needed to be saved. Mr. Paul Gray, 772 141` Avenue NW, stated his concern is the water problems on their lawns. His concern is if the property is changed, the berm behind his property may not control the water and it may come over. Motion by Vatne, seconded by Gamache, to close the public hearing at 7:46 p.m. Motion carried on a 6 -ayes, 0 -nays, I- absent (Kirchoff) vote. Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes — April 13, 2004 Page S • Commissioner Gamache stated the concerns they have heard and the letter they received, everything hinges on this wetland and what Coon Creek will allow the developer to do with this piece of land. Whatever the developer fills in, they have to replace what they remove so it should not disturb what is going on now and if Coon Creek lets them do this, it will alleviate some of the problems on the residents land now. Commissioner Greenwald asked if this is a designated drainage lot. He wondered if he should abstain because this is his neighborhood. He stated he has a designated dra lot behind his house. Mr. Sevald stated he did not think there was currently a drainage easement on this property. Commissioner Greenwald thought when the homes were built; there was no consideration for drainage. He wondered if there was enough area on that lot to be a wetland. He thought there needed to be a lot of due diligence done. The sketch of the area was shown and discussion ensued regarding how the wetland is laid out and how it should be corrected. Mr. Bednarz explained there was a review letter from the Coon Creek Watershed District and it stated nine items that this proposal is deficient on and staff had the developer • approach the District before it came to the Commission to see if it was even within the realm of possibility that the wetland could be altered in the way it was proposed by the developer. He stated the answer is it can but there are a lot of issues that need to be addressed in the design of the mitigation area. All of these items will need to be addressed to the satisfaction of the CCWMO before the plat can move forward. Commissioner Greenwald thought this area was a natural designated drainage area. Commissioner Gamache stated it is a natural wetland, not drainage area. Mr. Bednarz concurred and stated there is also storm sewer collecting drainage from the rear yards of this development and storm sewer collecting drainage from 140 Lane NW. Commissioner Greenwald asked who will determine how much wetland there will be. It was noted Coon Creek Watershed District would determine that Commissioner Jasper stated a lot split in the neighborhood is not out of the type of neighborhood it is in and the lot is going to be bigger still than the lots directly behind it and the configuration of the lots comply with all of their guidelines and regulations so he does not have a problem with that but he does have a problem with the drainage of the water and the Coon Creek letter did say that adjacent property owners will be affected by changes in the drainage so they are the experts on the water and it would seem to him that the information for the developer is they have to work with the district to solve the problems with the water and he thought there will have to be some drainage easements in order to correct the problem. Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes —April 13, 2004 Page 6 Chairperson Daninger summarized the concerns of the residents and Commissioners. • Mr. Bednarz stated that this item would be before the Council at the May 4, 2004 City Council meeting. PUBLIC HEARING. COMPREHENSIVE PLANAMENDMENT (03 -09) TO EXTEND THE METROPOLITAN URBAN SERVICE BOUNDARY (MUSA) TO INCLUDE PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 1341 AND 1433161 AVENUE NW. Mr. Bednarz explained that 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. Mr. Bednarz discussed the information with the Planning Commission. Commissioner Gamache stated in the eighty -five, he saw the two properties were include that are not being included in the extension of the MUSA boundary, do they still need to • save some sewer for those two properties. Mr. Bednarz stated the eighty -five units include the two properties. Commissioner Jasper asked if the owner of 1177 161 Avenue NW was interested in being included. The owner stated he was. Commissioner Gamache asked what format has been used up to this point to allocate the 185 sewer connections. Mr. Bednarz stated the property owner at 1101 161 Avenue that was allocated 100 units was the largest of any property in that area of the Rural Reserve and that played a factor in the Council's decision to give them 100 of the 185 units. Discussion ensued in regards to how the eighty -five units should be allocated and whether there is enough room for future expansion. It was noted two property owners submitted letters regarding this issue and there was also a memorandum from the City Engineer regarding the sewer capacity of this area - Motion by Greenwald, seconded by Gamache, to open the public hearing at 8:11 p.m. Motion carried on a 6 -ayes, 0 -nays, 1- absent (Kirchoff) vote. Mr. Winslow Holasek, 1159 Andover Boulevard, read a letter to the Commission and • showed the attachments to the letter. (See attached). Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes — April 13, 2004 Page 7 11 Mr. John Swisher, 1433 161` Avenue NW, stated he is one of the affected property owners. He read his letter to the Commission stating his concems. Mr. Rick Davis, 1177 161 Avenue, stated he is interested in having his property included in the MUSA. He stated the sketch plan of Pentagon Properties shows his property with three and he spoke with Mr. Bednarz expressing his concern that he would like to have four units applied to his property and with the intent that they may be able to get some boundary adjustments from Pentagon Holdings to accommodate a fourth unit. Mr. Steve Olmscheid, 1487 161 ", stated his concern was because there were only so may being allocated, that they are given out fairly to everyone. He wondered what the process was. Chairperson Daninger stated there is a sewer study being done now, which will guide them. Mr. Swisher explained the steps they took to develop their property. Mr. Larry Emmerich, 1241 161` Avenue, stated he is the majority landowner on this request. He stated they did this sketch plan at the request of the City Council. Mr. Keith Rischer, 16157 Hanson Boulevard, explained his letter to the Commission and • explained their position on developing their property. Motion by Vatne, seconded by Gamache, to close the public hearing at 8:56 p.m. Motion carried on a 6 -ayes, 0 -nays, 1- absent (Kirchoff) vote. Mr. Bednarz summarized the item with the Commission. Commissioner Jasper asked if the sewer study changed. Mr. Bednarz stated the consultant that prepared the study is confident that the area can be served with the number of units that were designated as a part of the Rural Reserve, but they are not confident that any more can be provided. Commissioner Jasper stated he did not understand some parts of the study where it states the sewer system is runnin at 182 percent capacity which can not be correct. Mr. Bednarz stated this assumed full development of Mr. Holasek's property. If development were to occur in a given scenario with existing trunk lines. The engineering challenge is how to develop the area with other connections and adding more pipes. That is what is being worked on. The sewer study formulates alternatives on how to address that. Commissioner Greenwald did not think they could pass this on to the City Council with their approval until they get additional information from the sewer study because he did not know if the sewer would allow the additional 85 units. • Discussion continued in regards to the sewer system and what it could handle. Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes —April 13, 2004 Page 8 Commissioner Greenwald stated he cannot approve this until they get a more thorough sewer study to the north of 161 ". Commissioner Casey agreed. Commissioner Jasper stated the City Council has already looked at this and they are aware of the sewer capacity and they indicated they would allocate 85 lots to these five properties bringing them into the MUSA- It seems that because there is capacity with the current configuration, that decision has been made. That approving moving these into the MUSA is alright. Allocating the lots is another matter because he did not know how to allocate them between the lots. Commissioner Greenwald stated he could agree with him if they were assured it would work at full development. Commissioner Vatne stated the dilemma is if they approve this with the two properties going into the MUSA, by default they are approving a number of sewer capacity that would leave the re mainin g acreages at a disadvantaged number that is left or a less than equitable number that is left. Commissioner Jasper asked if this were to go to the MET Council, would they need a lot count before they will consider a MUSA change. Mr. Bednarz stated they would not. • Commissioner Greenwald asked once the property is in the MUSA, are they not allowed to do sewer and septic. Mr. Bednarz stated this was correct. Commissioner Greenwald • asked if they could develop the property with sewer and septic if it never got added to the MUSA- Mr. Bednarz stated at this point, the answer is no because there are restrictions on the Rural Reserve that don't allow subdividing the property with out City sewer and water. Discussion ensued in regards to how the motion should be made. Motion by Gamache, seconded by Jasper, to recommend to the City Council approval of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment to allow expansion of the MUSA boundary and adjustment of the sewer staging plan adding the property 1177 161" Avenue to the Resolution and striking from number one and number two, the number of properties and adding a third paragraph including the added property. Commissioner Vatne stated his concern is there are two other property owners. Commissioner Gamache stated they need to take action only on the properties that have applied. He stated he is going by staff's findings in his motion. Commissioner Vatne asked if they could include all five properties and add them to the MUSA. Mr. Bednarz stated they have a property owner at the meeting who does not want to be included in the MUSA. Commissioner Gamache asked if the property owner at 1177 161 st Avenue filed the • paper work and paid fees. Mr. Bednarz stated he did not. Commissioner Gamache stated Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes — April 13, 2004 Page 9 • the reason he added the property to the Resolution was because he thought he filed paper work. Commissioner Jasper asked if there would be problems including 1177 161 Avenue without a public notice. Mr. Bednarz stated he did not think so because the public notice was sent to the surrounding neighborhood. Commissioner Gamache stated he would like to continue with the motion because the staff report recommended it and it made sense to include this property. Commissioner Greenwald stated he cannot go along with this because he felt they would be leaving someone out of this. If the sewer study came back verifying this, he would go along with it. Commissioner V atne stated principally he is ok with this but he would prefer to include all interested properties in this or just the two. Chairperson Daninger stated he preferred only including just the two properties. The property owner at 1177 161 Avenue stated he talked with W. Bednarz and he was not told there would be a fee but he would be willing to pay a fee if needed. • Motion failed on a 3 -ayes, 3 -nays (Greenwald, Vatne, and Daninger), 1- absent vote (Kirchoff). Commissioner Vatne stated this is at a stage that as it goes to Council, it sounds like they are close to getting all five parcels included in this. Chairperson Daninger stated if the parcel at 1177 161` was not included in the motion, his vote would be favorable for this. Commissioner Jasper stated they should allocate the capacity according to buildability and he suggested the five properties get together and do this together. Mr. Bednarz stated that this item would be before the Council at the April 20, 2004 City Council meeting. WORK SESSION: Commissioner Greenwald suggested tabling th following Work Session items to another meeting because they would take time to discuss. Commissioner Gamache agreed. Motion by Greenwald, seconded by Gamache to table Item Six to another meeting. • Motion carried on a 6 -ayes, 0 -nays, 1- absent (Kirchoff) vote. Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes — April 13, 2004 Page 10 A. Planned Unit Development Ordinance Mr. Bednarz stated the City Planning staff have reviewed the Planned Unit Development ordinance and found that it is inadequate for use in reviewing new requests for a Planned Unit Development approval. B. Temporary Structures Mr. Bednarz stated On February 24, 2004, the City Council reviewed information that was provided to them regarding "temporary buildings ". 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 standard 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 and location where they may be placed on a site. C. Parking Lot Lighting Mr. Sevald explained City Code 12 -14-10 D.B. requires parking lots to be illuminated a minim 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 Ill uminatin g Engineering Society of North America (IESNA). • D. Comprehensive Plan Update Mr. Cross stated 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 Mr. Cross stated 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_ OTHER BUSINESS. There was no other business. • Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes — April 13, 2004 Page 11 • ADJOURNMENT: Motion by Gamache, seconded by Jasper, to adjourn the meeting at 9:42 p.m. Motion carried on a 6 -ayes, 0 -nays, 1- absent (Kirchoff) vote. Respectfully Submitted, Sue Osbeck, Recording Secretary Timesaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. • April 13, 2004 To: Andover Planning and Zoning Commission cc: Mayor and City Council, City of Andover Will Neumeister, Community Development Director Dave-Berkowitz, City Engineer Courtney Bednarz, City Planner From Winslow and Corinne Holasek Re: Agenda Item 5. Comphensive Plan Amendment (03 -09) to extend MUSA Boundry The Bluebird sanitary sewer trunk is currently the only trunk sewer to serve this area. In your background material for the above item, it states a sewer study conductead last year shows the Bluebird trunk can serve 88 acres of urban developement or 185 units on the north side of 161st Avenue NW. • This sewer study was conducted by WSB & Associates in November of 2003. A sewer study has since been done by TKDA dated March 25, 2004 that directly contradicts this statement. Page 12, Table 3 of TKDA's sewer analysis report dated March 25, 2004 shows the percent of theoretical maxim capacity of the 12" BLUEBIRD TRUNK(the 150th lane section) TO BE 182% OVER LOADED, the 15" BLUEBIRD TRUNK TO BE 126% OVERLOADED. Encluded is a copy of this page 12 of TKDA's report with the 12" and 15" Bluebird trunk highlighted to confirm the percentage we listed above. (see attachment No. 1) These percentages of overloading are probably even worse than the 182% and 126 % shown in TKDA "s report, because they failed to list all the current units being served by the 12" Bluebird trunk ( the 150th Lane section.). On page 5 Table 3 of TKDA's report it shows a total of only 671 units being served by the 12" Bluebird trunk. Enclosed is a copy of page 12, Table 3 of TKDA's report with the total number of 671 units highlighted that TKDA has listed as currently being served by the 12" Bluebird trunk. (See attachment No. 2) 0 • However TKDA missed listing 181 units currently being served by the Bluebird 12" trunk north of Crosstown Blvd. So the total number of units currently being served by the 12" Bluebird trunk is really 852 units instead of the 671 TKDA has listed in their report. We obtained the number of units TKDA missed with the help of Andover Community Development Director Will Nuemeister and City Engineer Dave Berkowitz in a meeting we had with them. We sincerely thank them for their help on this. Enclosed is a list of the 181 units TKDA missed that we gave to both Mr. Neumeister and Mr. Berkowitz on April 2, 2004 to confirm it for accuracy. (see attachment No. 3) When Bluebird trunk sewer was built from 1987 through 1993 it was designed and sized as a gMy& sewer sy stem. because it was Andover's policy never to have any lift stations or force fed sewer system's in the city. So when there was a series of lift stations built to extend the Bluebird trunk way beyond its gravity range to 161st and even east of the BNSF . Railroad track to Crosstown Blvd, it should be no surprise to anyone that it would be seriously overloaded for what it was designed for. • As a consequence of extending its range by the use of a series of lift stations, the 12" Bluebird trunk off the east end of 150th Lane no longer has the capacity left to serve the area it was supposed to serve. On page 2 of TKDA's March 25, 2004 sewer report it says according to Andover's sanitary sewer comprehensive plan that the 150th Lane trunk is to be one of the four trunk extensions to serve the 1,000 acres of the rural land east of Hanson Blvd. Specifically extending a central trunk line off the east end of 150th Lane to serve the property to the east and northeast across the BNSF railway east to Prairie Road. The rest of our to develop along with several other land owners is part of this area. Enclosed is a copy of this page 2 of TKDA's report with the 150th trunk line extension highlighted. (see attachment No. 4) This 12" Bluebird 150th Lane trunk sewer stub is a thirty foot deep gravity trunk line that should have its capacity restored because it is the most economical and efficient way to serve the area, as it would not require any lift stations. Also costs to build other trunks to serve this 150th Lane sewer stub area are estimated to cost approximately three million dollars ($3,000,000.00). Also these new trunks would go through areas that are either already servered by city sewer or big lot R -1 areas with private • systems, neither of which would require sewer services, so you would be building a lot of expensive trunk sewer that wouldn't need to be built. C� At the last city council meeting on April 6, 2004 the city council extended the contract with TKDA to do an additional study of Andover's sewer system to see if a way can be found to bypass some of the many units north of Crosstown Blvd. that currently drain into the overloaded 12" Bluebird trunk. We are not opposed to Andover extending the MUSA boundry to anybody who wants it, as long as there is adaquate trunk sewer capacity to handle it . However the area you are considering to extend in this particular MUSA boundary to tonight, would drain into the 12" Bluebird trunk which is already at 182% + of its theoretical maximum capacity. Therefore it would seem very unwise and premature to make any decision to extend MUSA to any area that would drain into the 12 "Bluebird trunk until TKDA completes trunk overloading Rroblem. So we ask you not to compound the overloading problem of the 12" Bluebird trunk by recommending the approval of any additional MUSA areas to drain • into it until a solution can be found to relieve the overloading problem Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Winslow and Corinne Holasek 0 3 • ANLb Y ; O�{F i` L 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 SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING: Residential Sketch Plan for "Miller's Woods" on property located at 15955, 15827, and 15773 Crosstown Boulevard. DATE: April 27, 2004 INTRODUCTION The Planning and Zoning Commission is asked to review a residential sketch plan for Miller's Woods, a Planned Unit Development (P.U.D.) on 43 -acres located along Crosstown Boulevard between 157 Avenue and 161 Avenue. Review Criteria City Code 11 -2 outlines the requirements for sketch plan review. The Planning Commission is asked to informally advise the subdivider of the extent to which the plan conforms to the Comprehensive Plan, design standards of city, county, state and federal agencies and possible modification necessary to secure approval of the plan. Submission of a sketch plan does not constitute formal filing of a plat. DISCUSSION Gary Laurent is now the sole owner of all the properties involved in this development. His previous sketch plan, which came before the Planning Commission in January 2004, showed approximately 90 lots in this development. This new concept plan shows 86 lots and incorporates elements that have arisen from the neighborhood meeting, public hearings, and meetings with staff. An effort has been made in this neighborhood design to create a softer transition between its urban housing density and the existing rural properties to the east of the development. A stand of pines on the south border has been preserved, which will provide an effective natural buffer, and increased rear yards have helped produce a buffer along the eastern border of the development. Conformance with Local Plans and Ordinances 1. The proposed site is designated Urban Residential Low Density in the Comprehensive • Plan which carries a maximum density of four units per acre. The proposed housing development would have a density of roughly 2 units per acre. 2. The property is currently zoned Single Family Urban Residential (R -4) which carries a minimum lot width of 80 feet and a minimum lot size of 11,400 square feet. The proposed project would require Planned Unit Development Review to reduce the lot sizes . and setbacks from the typical R -4 standards. 3. The property is located in the Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA). The Metropolitan Council has approved a Comprehensive Plan Amendment that changed the sewer staging time for this area to 2000 -2005. Municipal utilities can be extended to serve the entire development. Chapter 11 -2 -1 Sketch Plan The applicant is required to sketch the entire property under review and surrounding properties in enough detail to indicate how streets, lots, drainage and utilities can be configured to incorporate undeveloped areas in the future. . The sketch plan has ghost - platted the properties to the north and south of the proposed development. The land to the north will eventually provide Miller's Woods with access to 161 Avenue. The properties to the south are not ghost - platted as part of this development and it is important to note that they cannot be served with a sewer from the trunk serving Miller's Woods. Access The sketch plan shows access to both Crosstown Boulevard and Constance Boulevard. The access to Constance would not be established until the northern properties are developed. 159 Street is shown extended from Crosstown to the existing residential neighborhood to the east. This extension of 159 will also serve the new fire station. Improvements to the intersection of 159 and Crosstown Blvd are needed. Staff is awaiting continents from the Anoka County Highway Department on what they recommend. Constance Corners has already contributed some money for these improvements. Fire Station #3 and the proposed development will also be required to contribute. Drainage The applicant is working with the Fire Chief and the City Engineer to arrange for adequate drainage for the new Fire Station #3. Chapter 11-1-4,13-6 Buildability The front 100 feet of each lot must be buildable. Lots adjacent to wetlands and/or storm water ponds must provide a minimum of 116 S feet between the front property line and the delineated edge of the wetland to provide adequate rear yard area for each lot. The lowest floor must be a minimum of three feet above the seasonal high water mark or one foot above the 100 year flood elevation, whichever is greater. Wetlands exist on the site. They have been delineated and appear on the sketch plan included with this report. Should any wetland need to be altered, necessary permits will have to be acquired from the proper authorities, including the Minnesota DNR, Army Corps of Engineers, and the Coon Creek Watershed District. • There are several lots that do not meet the 116.5' buildability requirement for properties that back up to wetlands or storm water ponds. The applicant has indicated that the lots can be 0) • changed so they comply with the requirement and that these changes will be reflected on the Preliminary Plat submission. Chapter 12 -34 Minimum Lot Provisions This section requires a minimum lot size of 11,400 square feet and minimum lot width of 80 feet at the building setback line. This section also provides a minimum lot depth requirement and building setbacks for the future houses. 77 of this plan's 86 lots meet the city's minimum lot size requirement of 11,400 square feet. Of those that do not, only three are below 11,000 square feet. This project has been presented as a Planned Unit Development, so the minimum lot size provision for it will be 10,500 square feet. The sideyard setback in the traditional R -4 zoning district is 10 feet on either side. This concept plan shows 7 -foot sideyard setbacks. The front yard setbacks have been reduced from the traditional 35 feet (in R -4) to 20 feet for houses and 25 feet for garages. These decreased setbacks are intended to facilitate the preservation of buffers, open space, and common areas. The requested setback reduction will also be a provision in the P.U.D. for this development. A further element in this project's P.U.D. language is a reduced minimum lot width. The R -4 district requires a lot width of 80 feet for traditional lots and 100 feet for corner lots. The current Miller's Woods concept plan uses a minimum width of 76 feet. This minimum is used in seven of the development's 86 lots. All others comply with the 80 -foot minimum and 100 -foot minimum for comer lots. Staff supports these reductions to setback, area, and lot width because they are preserving the trees and providing a buffer to the existing homes in the area. Chapter I1 -3 -3 Streets This section provides the minimum right -of -way requirements and design criteria for streets. The current Miller's Woods design shows streets that are 28' wide. This is 5 feet smaller than Andover's traditional 32 -foot street width requirement. This revised street width has the support of City Staff, as long as parking is prohibited on one side of the street. The reduced street width allows for an increased rear yard, which can in turn allow for more tree preservation in the rear of the lots. It can also facilitate traffic calming and slower driving through the neighborhood. The reduced street width has the support of City staff, including the Fire Chief, who has indicated that a 28' street will afford enough room for emergency vehicle access, provided that parking is prohibited on one side of the street. The sketch plan introduces two outlets onto County highways. First, 159 Avenue will be extended westward toward Crosstown Boulevard. This extension was a matter of some contention for residents at the neighborhood meeting. However, the extension has the full support of the Andover Review Committee, primarily because there is a desire to connect the neighborhoods. The negative effects of a through -street will not be present because 159 Avenue has a curvilinear design that is intended to have a traffic- slowing effect. This is partially in response to residents' concerns that the extension of 159 may bring unsafe, speeding traffic • to the old neighborhood. The second outlet from this development is the north/south street ghost - platted through the • northern properties. It may eventually connect to 161" Avenue. Comments may be provided by the Anoka County Highway Department, but a more thorough review of this access will be carried out when a development is proposed on these properties. Park Land & Open Space There are three outlots in the development totaling 3.2 acres. Outlot A includes a neighborhood park with a swimming pool. Outlot B contains a forested area that is shared in the read yards of several properties in Block B. Outlot C contains much of the woodland that provides a buffer on the south and east borders of the development. These outlots will be preserved through either a neighborhood association agreement or conservation easements. The Miller's Woods P. U. D. When the City Council considered the development of these 43 acres, they felt that the area's design needed to incorporate some kind of buffer or transition between this development, which sits on the eastern edge of the MUSA, and the existing rural area surrounding it. To this end the Council recommended the following elements be included in any future plans for this area: 1) Every effort be made to preserve as much of the existing woodland on the site as possible 2) A buffer of trees and larger lots be placed between the existing 2.5 -acre residential lots and the urban lots in this development. In order to facilitate these design elements, the Council indicated that it would entertain P.U.D. proposals that could accomplish these goals while still producing a high - quality, profitable project for an applicant. The concept plan for Miller's Woods, along with the narrative included with it, describe the variations that this plan would make from our current zoning code: No. Item R-4 Standard P.U.D. Request Reason for Request 1 Min. Lot Width 80' (100' corner) 76' (100' corner) Allows wider perimeter buffer. 2 Front Setback 35' 20' house (25' garage) Minimize rear yard grading disturbance 3 Min. Lot Area 11,400 s.f. 10,500 s.f. Provide for more area protected in outlots 4 Side Setbacks 10"10 7 Allows more flexibility in house placement in lot - used in concert with custom - grading for specimen tree preservation 5 Street Width 32' 28' Saves trees, reduces street impact, provides traffic calming The Commission is asked to review the concept plan and comment on how well it feels the council's goals have been met in light of the variations from the City Code that the P.U.D. presently exhibits. 0 4 . Attachments Location Map Miller's Woods Concept Plan (dated March 18 2004) P.U.D. Narrative Description Staff Recommendation Staff recommends a favorable response to the proposal with the adjustments recommended in the staff report. ACTION REQUESTED The Planning Commission is asked to informally advise the applicant on the merit of the proposal and any modifications the commission feels are necessary. It is important that the commission discuss its standpoint on the narrower street width shown in the sketch plan. Respectfully Submitted, ��s Andy ross • CC: Gary Laurent, Laurent Builders, Inc., 100 South Fuller Street, Suite 200, Shakopee, MN 55379 • E . ,-- '. 1:; :z;~ lH ~ fi: ~i ~ ~J . >> ~ ~5 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~c ~ _ ~ 00 ~ ~ ~ ~~ .~ ~ EE V\ Ii ~ ~ ".2 ~. z ~c S: "'" 9. - U'l 'E'- tJ .. ~ a! UJ in 8~ .2l a; ~ ~ gj ffi S~ ei5 c~ :zZ~ ....ON >- ~-. W,jJ 'tl::; lj ~ ~ II : g 'iij.5 ) C Z U- : OJ ~ i6'~ !'ol-o::~ .....!l-2 II!!I _ UJ W LLI .. t: CD ra~ CU ~ L.LJ I- U Q) <U:::J _Oi: ..IUO:: 0:: -::li< O~ gUJI-~< 5,,;,; c> tnUl';>c.: U1S- UJ'- _ Gl C'I .- 0 'W '" '-.. _ 0 0.0 0 -- ~ "- "., _ II g. j! -:-g Z::E ~ S-s C1I '" '" " c \\\llJ\' '\ 0 ":' .,., -g 8 ~.' ,\ C1I~ t 0:" 1 \. ~.c ~ ! .. \. .. '-:2 _'=, ' 8'" T J;\ \\ e,g .. \ ' ! I ,~. () II) .. ! ' == Q) i ~. .g~ o I \ ~~ I I 1"\ '- (1J : \ ~g ) ! 15 g I ,,-' -g ~ j i co Q) i- n_.._. rJi E I _ E; >'(1) i 0 ' ~ ~ , I _ \~, ,\ - I J II I 0 .1 n I. ~! I \\\ 'r-~-" '" r---}--- ...__ _ I I I Q, c: ! ! ~ - i . ~,g W' I _ _ . i. - _! -r-ll I "7 x .. :.. I ---1( --I,'f ' . I . 1"7 B_g I :",' i[ 0 . - f=-=rJ1 - I ~ ~ ~ '~~/I . ---'\ " LJ1,m:rRI-7 ' a.~ 1M "~(,, 0 , , ;~ -=- "'- o..r4 ,I, I 0 \ -. I' JJj Ii : al .:g i - )1 .i-:- -- ~ :; I - ,,0> * - ' ,', ~~ ~~ "'" t - I---" 0 g "" ~ " 0>> I ~ I .. e.c _~: _ Ee ~' I I - I " ;,g~ ,~~ . r . I "l!! I I ~ ; , I _ I - , .J!!C1I ~ I . '-m , I ~ .. [_ I ' - ,I, ~ ,1 ~ ~Oi " ,=1.=, _ 'I I' I ,1,1 -.-,-:::;:- 8" U _ II -'-'I.DI 111\\11 I~) I \ 'r- lii~ I l iW e- 111 rrn - I - 1\ . -. 0> '0 , I-- Q _ ,'\ ~..o I~e- '::Ii.l .~ f-- - :g~ Md~ gJ .I~ \ .c:U1 , I I ea r--fFF-= ......%\ " · I, E=> I - Ii" - - - '-- , I ~ <Ii I I~ ac _____ I \ , l 20 , f I \ /~ \ ~:g ....L, I f ~.!!! I I I' " - ~\ .J:: ""0 , ~.\"''' - Q) ==- II ~: ~~ , I .~~ VlFt :~ -g.21 I ,,"C 0 I 1\lf<'<(\L! I~~ P \ '~; , Ef~~' ' '~ ~-8 ! '\ ~ ~ \; ~ CC r ' ~ :-. .2S r-!' v:m'-i'd .<'?;;; '~ ""\\, J~ I . 1 .. -=-i ' --:::;:.( .1}:.., ,~,5 ! ... lr ~~-l\1 ' ,~ 4l i ,~.J!Jl, 1ll<<',Jt '-...-W;f JIJjf~~" ~ , I , : 0nmrrrTTT1l F-t-!,,1'A:\ :=IiI JI J lJ j~\. 0 0 H-ttttit-ttttt'H1 /'// ~\ f ..-\\ I J J I J '-~~' ~ W.19. 1UU4 3 :WM LAUK01 GUMVANItS No•rsls • ne Laurent Building LA U R E NT Inn Routh Fuller Strcct. Suite 2 n LAND '. ,,. r MafirIwiT 11k1r% (612) 445 -6745 Shakopee, MN 55379 April 19, 2004 City of Andover 1685 Crosstown Blvd. NW Andover, MN 55304 J •` 1.lGU CLVr�n".,, ,. w. Attn: Andy Cross, Associate Planner Fax: (012)44J RE: Request for Concept Plan Review —"Miller's Woods ", Laurent Land Development, Inc. 43 -Acre Site at 159 Ave NW & Crosstown Blvd NW Plan Revised per Staff Meetings and Comments Dear Andy: On behalf of the Applicant, Laurent Land Development, Inc., please find enclosed the Concept Plan for "Miller's Woods ". This plan has been revised to incorporate comments obtained from our meeting with Planning and Engineering staff on March 3 ARC comments received inlour March 9, 2004 letter, and additional input from Staff in subsequent meetings on April 7 and April 13th. In addition, we have received much neighborhood input at the various public hearings associated with the previous rezoning application. This narrative outlines the project proposal and its various elements. • BacRaround Previous to this submittal, City staff and Planning Commission has reviewed a concept plan as prepared by one of the previous landowners, which contained 92 lots with a more traditional 'grid - like" layout on the parcels comprising this 43 -acre development. We believe Millers Woods is an improved plan, which incorporates a curvilinear street design and implements solutions to most of the neighbor's concerns and staff wrnments. Recently, this area was approved for rezoning to R-4 and the timing moved up for sewer service as a result of the development of nearby Constance Comers. Sanitary sewer service is available at the intersection of 15e Avenue and Crosstown Boulevard to serve the units of this proposed neighborhood. It has been determined that sewer capacity exists for development of these parcels at the density proposed. Proposed PUD Plan A Planned Unit Development (PUD) is proposed for 86 single - family detached housing units, a Homeowner's Association maintained neighborhood pool and park and meandering residential streets to promote "traffic calming" through the area. The main goal of the project design is to preserve tree masses and existing vegetation to the maximum extent in order to preserve some of the woodland character of the existing site. The project is proposed as a PUD based on the open space outlots (to be owned and maintained by a HOA) and a couple of variations from the R-4 lot standards to attempt further tree preservation during the development and home building process. By providing the preservation and the design character as shown, the project's feasibility is challenged by the loss of lots (from the original concept's 92 lots to the current plan's 86 lots). With the flexibility afforded by a PUD, we can offset some of those challenges with minor variations to the standards. These variations are outlined in more detail later in this narrative. • Tree Preservation Much of the layout is dictated by preservation of these stands of trees while maintaining adequate pond and drainage facilities for the development. This concept plan shows the main areas, which APR 19 2004 1605 9524459727 PAIGE.02 APr-19- 2UU4 3 SUPM LAUNtNI COMNANILS No•1918 Y• 3 City of Andover Page 2 of 4 Concept Plan Narrative — Millers Woods March 23, 2004 can, to a reasonable degree of certainty, be assured of preservation at this time. That is, as we • get into the more detailed design stages of the project, we hope that these areas are the minimums to be preserved. This plan does not show the preservation achieved via "custom - grading' of individual lots, as that analysis will come later during the detailed design phases. Custom Lot Grading Custom grading is the minimization of lot grading during the construction of site improvements so that specimen trees or tree clusters may be saved by specific house placement and/or finish grading operations completed by the homebuilder. When implemented, custom lot grading can result in additional trees saved during the build -out of the project. Often times design parameters for streets, utilities and drainage are in conflict with the naturally occurring terrain, making custom lot grading a difficult or impossible option. Because tree preservation is a top priority for this project, we will be analyzing each individual lot during the detailed design process for opportunities to apply custom lot grading. Our request for 7' side yard setbacks works in concert with custom lot grading by affording more flexibility in house placement during the homebuilding process. Given the flexibility to move a house laterally on the lot can often allow for preservation of a specimen tree or tree cluster. Pro/ea BufferinarScreenlnst Based on feedback from neighbors and City Staff, a key element to this project is to provide perimeter screening by preservation of existing vegetation and trees where other homes abut the project Our plan indicates the areas of natural vegetation and trees to be preserved. The aerial photo indicates that these areas contain a wide range of tree sizes from saplings to large specimen trees. Where existing vegetation is sparse, landscape buffering will be implemented where necessary to maintain the perimeter screening. Relocation of on -site trees may also be an option to fortify the sparser vegetation areas. • We believe our design successfully addresses the buffering concerns by maintaining the perimeter vegetation to the south and east neighboring properties, as requested. In addition, this buffer will set the proposed homes at spacing distances from existing neighboring homes consistent with those currently between existing neighboring homes. Project Entrance —159 Avenue at Crosstown Boulevard Creating a "sense of entrance" to this neighborhood is an essential element to the success of this project With the new fire station located on the north corner of this intersection, integrating a residential setting becomes a great challenge. The most difficult challenge is associated with the two fire station entrances off of 15e Avenue. In effect, this "stretches" the fire station further east into Millers Woods, creating a situation of residential lots facing the fire station. To offset this effect, we propose the following: A landscaped median between the two fire station entrances. This element allows us to create an "entrance" to the project west of the second fire station entrance. Public safety being the top priority, the median would be designed such that all entrance and egress movements to and from both fire station entrances would not be restricted in any way. In addition, the landscaping would be designed such that visibility is not obstructed. We request that the appropriate City Officials work in partnership with us to create this vital element to the project 2. Landscape treatment on the south and north sides of the street near the entrance median. This would require our Landscape Architect to work in partnership with the appropriate City Officials to create a "mirrored" or symmetrical theme on both sides of the road. • APR 19 2004 1605 9524459727 PAW. 03 Apr•19. 2UU4 ? :tUPM LAUKENI COMPANIES City of Andover Page 3 of 4 Concept Plan Narrative — Miller's Woods March 23, 2004 • 3. Create a water feature on the south side of 159' Avenue adjacent to Crosstown Boulevard, This will provide a point of interest opposite the fire station, contributing to the "sense of entrance" needed at this location. The pond would also serve as a stormwater facility designed to hold water during the dry months. A fountain may be placed in the pond to add some flair to the feature. The entrance configuration of 159" and Crosstown Boulevard will be equipped with adequate turn lanes, boulevard widths for snow storage and a future trail connection per Staffs suggestions. Ghost Plattino of Parcels North and South As requested, we have shown a layout of lots on the parcels located just north and south of Miller's Woods. Although nearly endless scenarios exist of how these parcels could develop, these layouts help us to illustrate how it may look one day in the future. It should be noted that the ghost-plats have not taken into consideration topography, possible wetlands, pond /drainage facilities, utility service availability, etc. ConnecBon of 150 Avenue from the East As recommended by the City Staff, we have made the roadway connection from our proposed neighborhood to the existing 159'" Avenue cul -de -sac located just east of Miller's Woods. This roadway will provide for better emergency response to the neighbors east of this site. In addition, we have removed the street connection previously shown to the south, as requested by staff. Pro posed Oudots & Conservation Easements Our proposal contains many open space areas shown as outlots on the Concept Plans. These oulots are proposed so that the neighborhood Homeowners Association will own and maintain many of the areas where tree and vegetation preservation are proposed; or where landscaping and/or features will be proposed. We would be happy to discuss the use of Conservation Easements over appropriate areas not protected within outlots. PUD VarleVons The following are the minor variations to the R4 standards requested under this proposed PUD: No. item R-4 Standard PUD Request Reason for Request Min. Lot Width 80' (100' corner) 2. Front Setback 35' 3. Min. Lot Area 11,400 s.f 4. Side Setbacks 10', 10' • 5. Street Width 32' APR 19 2004 1605 76' (100' corner)Allows wider perimeter buffer. 20'hse., 25'gar. Minimize rear yard grading disturbance. 10,500 s.f. Provide for more area protected in outlots. 7', T Allows more flexibility in house placement on lot — used in concert with custom- grading for specimen tree preservation 28' Saves trees, reduces street impact, provides traffic calming 9524459727 PAGE.04 Apr•19. 2004 3:50PM LAURENT COMPANIES City of Andover Page 4 of 4 Concept Plan Narrative — Miller's Woods March 23, 2004 The variations above are requested as minimums and should not be construed as typical in our • proposal. In fact, the average lot size proposed is 15,870 square feet with only 9 lots being less than standard size. Only 7 lots are less than standard width. The variations requested above work together to allow for achievement of some main project goals, important to both the city and the developer, including: 1) Maintaining a buffer between existing and new development; 2) Preserving trees and providing quality building sites with the ability to place homes for best fiWee preservation on the lots; 3) Minimizing the disturbance caused by construction of utilities, streets, drainage and building pads by pulling the units closer to the street — thus allowing more preservation in rear yard areas; 4) Reducing the stress on existing park facilities by providing this neighborhood its own recreational facility in the HOA owned and maintained pool and park area; 5) Creating a neighborhood that de- emphasizes the visual impact of streets and provides an esthetically pleasing streetscape, and; 6) Develop a street plan that employs traffic calming techniques. It is important to note that without the requested variations, the preservation of perimeter vegetation and trees, unique woodland character and high quality building sites will be compromised. Other projects we've been involved with throughout the metropolitan area have employed similar variations to standards resulting in very successful and desirable neighborhoods. We hope that the same flexibility is granted here so that we are equipped with the tools to succeed in the plans for this project Additionally, these variations requested have not come without great costs to us. By adding the perimeter buffering we have in affect lost about seven lots from the original concept proposal seen by staff, Planning Commission and City Council. The loss of this number of lots has greatly increased our risks and tightened our margins for the development. We hope that the few minor variations requested are granted to help us create a neighborhood of higher perceived value to offset the loss of lot count. We look forward to meeting again to discuss this project with neighbors, City Staff and the Planning Commission on April 27th. We hope to gain more insights from everyone in order to develop a landmark project in the City of Andover. If you have any question, comments or need additional information to supplement our submittal, please contact our office. Respectfully, L aure nt land Develop t, Inc. Gary Laurent 1 President Cc: Troy Gamble, Anderson Engineering of MN, LLC Gene Ernst, Ernst & Associates APR 19 2004 1606 9524459727 PAGE.05 "" 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 Planne SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING: Preliminary Plat of Gardner /Sanborn Plat, a rural residential development with variances located at 17022 and 17052 Round Lake Boulevard NW. DATE: April 20, 2004 INTRODUCTION The Planning Commission is asked to review a rural plat containing seven rural residential lots. Two of the lots will be occupied by existing homes. DISCUSSION Conformance with Local Plans • The proposal is consistent with the rural residential Land Use Classification and Single Family Rural Residential (R -1) Zoning District that exist on the subject property. Access Access is proposed to be provided from Round Lake Boulevard in alignment with 170' Lane NW. The street would extend approximately 950 feet into the subject property before terminating in a cul -de -sac. Additional right -of -way and an additional street segment to the north of the cul -de -sac are proposed at the request of City staff to facilitate a street connection and future development of properties to the north and west. A variance to the maximum cul -de -sac length of 500 feet is needed as a part of the proposal. The Anoka County Highway Department (ACHD) has not provided comments on the proposed plat. The developer will need to obtain a right -of -way permit from the ACHD and follow their design requirements to install the proposed street access. Easements The typical ten foot wide drainage and utility easements will be provided on each lot. Additional easements will be provided to cover storm water ponds, drainage areas, underground utility lines and maintenance vehicle accesses. The Public Works Department requires two maintenance vehicle accesses to each storm water pond. Twenty foot wide easements are needed for these access points. Lots Lot 1, Block 2 and Lot 2, Block 1 are below the 2.5 acre minimum lot size (2.3 acres each). The applicant has provided the attached `Cul -de -Sac Drawing' to illustrate that each of the lots could meet the 2.5 acre minimum lot size requirement if the street connection to the north were not provided to justify the proposed variances. • Buildability Requirements Each of the lots exceeds the area needed to meet the buildability requirements for rural lots. These include a 3,600 square foot building pad and two 5,000 square foot areas for the primary and secondary drainfield to be located. Park Dedication It is anticipated that park dedication and trail fees will be collected on a per unit basis for the five new lots. The two lots provided for existing homes are exempt from this requirement. Tree Protection Plan The applicant is proposing to custom grade lots throughout the development to minimize tree loss on the lots. The primary area of disturbance will be around the proposed street. Coordination with other Agencies The developer and/or owner is responsible to obtain all necessary permits (Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, U.S. Army Corp of Engineers, Lower Rum River Watershed Management organization, Anoka County Highway Department, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, LGU, and any other agency that may have an interest in the site). Initial contact shall be made with the City Engineering Department regarding this item. The developer is also required to meet all other applicable ordinances, including: • • 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 Attachments Resolution Location Map Cut -de -Sac Drawing Preliminary Plat (Full Size in packet) ACTION REQUESTED The Planning Commission is asked to recommend approval of the peliminary pat subject to the conditions of the attached resolution. Cc: Aaron Gardner 17022 Round Lake Boulevard Shirley and Marvin Sanborn 17052 Round Lake Boulevard Brian Johnson Hakanson Andersoc Assoc. 3601 Thurston Avenue Anoka, MN 55303 • CITY OF ANDOVER COUNTY OF ANOKA STATE OF MINNESOTA RES. NO R -04 A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY PLAT OF" "FOR ON PROPERTY LOCATED IN SECTION 8, TOWNSHIP 32 RANGE 24 LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS: The Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 8, Township 32, Range 24, EXCEPT the North 330 feet of the East 660 feet thereof (as measured along the East and North lines thereof) Also EXCEPT that part platted as PRAIRIE MEADOWS; Also EXCEPT Road; Subject to Easement of Record. AND That part of the Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter Section 8, Township 32, Range 24 Described as follows: Beginning at the Northeast corner thereof and continuing West along North line thereof for 660 feet; thence South and parallel with the East line of the Southeast Quarter of Northeast Quarter a distance of 330 feet; thence East and parallel to the North line thereof to part of the intersection with the East line thereof; thence North Along the East line of • said Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter to Point of Beginning; Subject to Road Easement over easterly portion thereof. WHEREAS, the Andover Review Committee has reviewed the preliminary plat, and; WHEREAS, pursuant to published and mailed notice thereof, the Planning Commission has conducted a public hearing on said plat, and; WHEREAS, the applicant has requested variances to City Code 12 -3 -4 to allow Lot 1,Block 2 and Lot 2, Block 1 to be below the minimum lot size requirement of 2.5 acres, and; WHEREAS, the findings for the proposed variances are that the applicants have demonstrated that each lot can meet the required minimum lot size. However, the City is requesting a street connection to the property to the north. This street connection reduces the developable area of the subject property and prevents the proposal from meeting this requirement, and; WHEREAS, the applicant has requested variances to City Code 11 -3 -3G. to allow a street terminating in a cul -de -sac to exceed 500 feet in length, and; WHEREAS, the finding for the proposed variance is that strict enforcement of the ordinance would prevent half of the subject property from being developed and would also prevent a street connection to the north, and; WHEREAS, as a result of such public hearing, the Planning Commission recommends to the City Council the approval of the plat, and; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Andover hereby • agrees with the recommendation of the Planning Commission and approves the preliminary plat with variances to City Code 12 -3 -4 and City Code 11 -3 -3G. subject to the following conditions: 1. The developer obtains all necessary permits from the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, U.S. Army Corp of Engineers, Lower Rum River Watershed Management organization, Anoka County Highway Department, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, LGU, and any other agency that may have an interest in the site. 2. Park dedication and trail fees shall be collected for five units based on the rate in effect at the time of preliminary plat approval. 3. The developer shall be responsible for the cost of construction of all improvements proposed as a part of the preliminary plat. 4. Contingent upon staff review and approval for compliance with City ordinances, policies and guidelines. 5. Such plat approval is contingent upon a development agreement acceptable to the City Attorney. A financial guarantee will be required as a part of this agreement to assure all of the subdivision improvements will be completed. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Andover this day of , 2004. CITY OF ANDOVER ATTEST: Victoria Volk, City Clerk Michael R. Gamache, Mayor 0 • 17022 and 17052 Round Lake Boulevard 0 DD ® �a000000 :��� � dlo ©00000000© . `00000 D0000090ii �� oea o m o .00000 ,,,, ��� nano ©orooaao ©oqm '.®�m o000000me'no0oo Op0` oem000 0 Doom DO 00 ppp "�00 oaieir�oo Doe ©vo �� � �� oveo�oovovo ®0�_ �O�Q 000000 0000 OOIa000 0000; - ®, "_'! ESMo��I� mob o►� ���0000 ®��o���l © ®oo ..n00000 �. . ;000000 ' 0 Project Location Map / l N W s A N� r L Z 7 U W 4 2 20'30dd 9ZSO LZ7 29L 9S:Bti 7002 St ddd ' I ' e i �yl °� Z I c nQ 9 • � n L IL i� ° °l $ v 2 g — — � L — ygC�S 6 'ON 'N'tl'S'� M 91.ca0os on18 3Ntll aNnoa m — 0 t 0 0 1 OT 99119Z 4� 0 00 Oe N d i� a 1 jz _ i v 1 � ^ I • I » V W »u 0 ! I-' O HN O O w a I N O mh O ^ n 2 N I I » V OI V1 I Le R CO 0 » u o " 1 m0 0n 01 LV `» LD 00 m 1n co LV O n a1a Z9'669 3.9£,1L005 gene I I — \ \ • I \ Gwp 2115tOQL[E \G.p \t7QL1(f \pa. s -.1S�lQ l - 000 2 'so I � /1n i1 Ax>r,1� + )V • '��1 .'10' Panels ualt - �QQ 'SI �d ���V fr`v J \� v n 7 7Cn_!7L_CO/ - 30%SLJ uosuaouu uosuemeu di.4,:4f1 irn CI udH � O a1 �� I :' p$ I � 01 � I �� [f I j I i EKi II[V AS E I c, . .-.-$- --- 5 . 78-- ---- --- ROUN LAKE LYO. a _ ------ _ - - -- _ - - i 1 1 '`li � I ram � 2 I ! 1 1 1 1 1 i '' I 1 f €R I I 1 i i = i I ��• i t i I i i \\ BR - .Y I 1 J y t s 1 1 C i 7 I 1 1 ins -- �r I 1 1 � 1 ___• _'_ 1 1 1 s€ 1 y 1 _- -- ` ♦ � 1 I ll 1 1 NN% 1 -• 1 1 i i l9 R 1 n 1 I 1 1 1\ iM 1 �n TI _ — a�ixc\K s wiunal 659.62_ fwPt:i cB+llj' 'idf! ?ice 41 :'YEY, enl t rC V"I s3•a �iP:.. �'9.^. Ine w "4w nq On t s„Pm vrlS ihut 3 ,�n. O w's la P. ,n. '.S�rsVYx ,nvfer ??� 4nea 111P SF a O5 Mur�: -a..a Ifa f 1 -K, Si;kt% i Hn wH L'r orzsa Fb :E62fi i:::Ix ►II Z ' ✓_� 9Ni'NY$'� c J - - ----- - 0 C— � Z z, YI C � O Z L U - -i I --- L 0 L— co W 06 L1 r O Z C L ' O o 06 20- G W W C Z cu N W C Q J (a W 0 T Q S a .SAS �r: ifs. i t � •Y 9. A 0 3 9 —4 x- �S ii U W p � G . �$ f° o g o g p i 6 !CJ z6 �� 5m$5m�OF I a �o A M 3 Y s` a ' ✓_� 9Ni'NY$'� i _ - - ----- - - --� r 1� I, z, YI � , Tye i O 11 II I 1 . Is - -i I --- r° I S a .SAS �r: ifs. i t � •Y 9. A 0 3 9 —4 x- �S ii U W p � G . �$ f° o g o g p i 6 !CJ z6 �� 5m$5m�OF I a �o A M 3 Y s` a • 1 I all. PI ' ► + ► li i !I 4►� tI .t j u . I + ++ i t til ;d +, ,i ►�I at +t (; ij �gj ��1i ► � j ► I � � i {f 11 ► t tt ►� , ti t l ti� t' It tt tl + t ►) , pl 1 31 . F of 1 ++ t..,,. i ni.ii,' ;iI i T i i. ;vl ait fjt tEtit '�''►'li' ! ' hlt i !I , 3 t t t . • • • • h!`fFC 66 0 pie i • i t P !1` a�? r,( �!e ' a 1 ' r 4 0 p a 3 P �1(I i► + ' gg t W i!E 41 a 4 i Y N W 0 z ge W W U 0. 1/1 — W 0 a W 8 ® U t3 9 t W i i 3 -; P ee e ! ( 1h p M t i l l rill aE.1 P a W 1 0 z z a W O U i C 3 C w� Y' t; 4yw op :r o Ld r vi E� P �1(I i► + ' gg t W i!E 41 a 4 i Y N W 0 z ge W W U 0. 1/1 — W 0 a W 8 ® U t3 9 t W i i 3 -; P ee e ! ( 1h p M t i l l rill aE.1 P a W 1 0 z z a W O U i C 3 C ° I I VVIZ Tg -- ____ - - -__ de _ c W I LJ \ �_��• \\� ` \�\ 1 I 1 1 i - - - fir 7 T ff 6 Of • t E ��y {ii { 1 { �'lii tt lt ,t8ett { {41�lt�l { 1 � 1 I �x— t Blt, t « { {, {4i i,1 Ilfitltl is {Ii { { {�6 lilt 41141141411444 { { { i:.�_;II•• iis:i:::,...N,1!t'iit�tlf � °��:� ®� 1� I I Z9 3,9f,1L I I \ I i t Kl. Divi p Od — t I I I I I I I �• I ly, I � P I , 91 .r \f ; -- I 'I � I I / I \ ,f , ' # tit 1 a '! q -j l I I a s 1 tt ;;r 1 tf! Jiiu �i fit 3 ! 1 i L ! .i', 4 tt9Z.`] {tt 1'31 f ft 3si1, ;lil�jt /,fi t 11,11 l it p . 01 5A L a ,,ILL 1• \ '"gym 1� I I Z9 3,9f,1L I I \ I i t Kl. Divi p Od — t I I I I I I I �• I ly, I � P I , 91 .r \f ; -- I 'I � I I / I \ ,f , ' # tit 1 a '! q -j l I I a s 1 tt ;;r 1 tf! Jiiu �i fit 3 ! 1 i L ! .i', 4 tt9Z.`] {tt 1'31 f ft 3si1, ;lil�jt /,fi t 11,11 l it p . 01 5A L A C I T Y O F 0 NDO 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 Directorea Courtney Bednarz, City Plann+ SUBJECT: Discuss changes to the Zoning Code Section for "Planned Unit Developments" DATE: April 27, 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. 0 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. 40 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. I. 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. 0 j 3 — EXAM 13 -3 -1 CHAPTER 3 PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENTS' SECTION: 13 -3 -1: Purpose 13 -3 -2: Description 13 -3 -3: Zoning District Supplement 13 -3 -4: General Requirements And Standards 13 -3 -5: Application, Review And Administration 13 -3 -6: Violation; Penalties VGK 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 -49 of this title. City of Andover 4) • 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 • City of Andover —S— 13 -3 -4 13 -3 -4 area of common or public open space or land escrow security in any • 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. U City of Andover 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 n • n U Q= i VE-:. 1 N rr1 oNS r' 12-2-2 12 -2 -2 • 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. City of Andover _1_ 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 J/a , SECTION . PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) CONCEPT. 5� 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 J/a , 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. 8. 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. • /! 2. PUD Area. A plan which shows the overall PUD area as well as all parcels and their 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. General Analysis 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 V = 200' showing roads, structures, lakes, streams, ponds, wetlands, floodplains, vegetation, topography, utilities, sidewalks, trails, parks, zoning, and • • 0 — /Z — 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. E 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. • • SECTION _- (PUD) PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT 'j f up . . 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 �J /S= processed according to the information requirements, standards and procedures for sketch plans as established by Section 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. 0 -4 - 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 Modification/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. Agreement/Financial 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) § 152.470 PURPOSE. iyt�'C + ✓ 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.cominxtlgateway.dlll Minnesota / Brooklyn %2OParkltitle00064.htmlchap... 2/4 /2004 _Ar, "Aft 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) Development 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. The following applies to all Development Plans: http:// www. amlegal .r-ominxtlgateway.dltlMinnesotal Brooklyn %20Parkltitle00064.htmlchap... 2/4/2004 jq ALP 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 Planned 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 setback 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. 0 http: / /www. amlegal.cominxtlgateway.dlll Minnesota / Brooklyn %2OParkltitle00064.htm /chap... 2/4/2004 ALP Page 4 of 7 1. Width at setback 80 feet. - 2. Depth. 130 feet. A maximum often percent of lots in any Development Plan may be . less than 130 feet. (b) Attached two family. 1. 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. 1. 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: / /vwvw.arnlegal.com/nxt/ gateway. dll/ Minnesota / Brooklyn %2OPark /title00064.htnVchap... 2/4/2004 —vl 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 developmeiit 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. http: / /www. amlegal.cominxtl gateway. dll/ MinnesotaBrooklyn %20Parkltitle00064.htmlchap... 2/4/2004 n LJ —Zv— 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. (I) Landscaping. The required landscaping quantities, screening and the like must comply with §§ 152.200 through 152.293 and §§ 152.300 through 152.393. (1) 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. (I) 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 ofproperty: 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.cominxtl gateway. dll/ MinnesotaBrooklyii%2oParkltitle00064.htmlchap... 2/4/2004 —Z3— ALP 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. (M1) Signage: The placement and design of signage within the Planned Unit Development District are regulated in Chapter 150 of the City Code. (1) 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) • http: / /www. amlegal. cominxtlgateway.dlll Minnesota / Brooklyn %o20Parkltitle00064.htm /chap... 2/4/2004 Mr.. � NDOVE 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 Planneia Will Neumeister, Community Development Directo>L SUBJECT: Discuss adding a Zoning Code Section to regulate "Temporary Buildings" DATE: April 27, 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 J 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 f. 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. 0 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 rime, 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 Administrator 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. 54Z • 0 0 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. • ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 • (763) 755 -5100 FAX (763) 755 -8923 • WWW.CI.ANDOVER.MN.US TO: CC: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: Planning Commission Courtney Bednarz City PlannOK Jon Sevald, Planning hitern � Discuss changes to Zoning Code Section regulating Parking Lot Lighting April 27, 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 first 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 Andc 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? base Top: Light fixtures without shields. Bottom Shown with cutoff shields. 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 both the current and proposed ordinance, light glare may not exceed 0.4 footcandles along residential property lines. StaffRecommmdadon Staffrecommends approval of the proposed arr=dment. 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, J.on Sevald • 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 g ociety of North America. PHOTOMETRIC PLAN: Apoint- bypoint plan depicting the intensity and location of lighting on the ro , 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 c - fesidef of tNwilve ( 2) a _a ^11 „ee ^# par4dng for , iadustFW, institutional, and publie uses shall be equipped with operable lighting designed to illuminate the entire surface of the parking area to a min 1 ^ ° ^ ^f ^F^ r At ^ n- 11 ° at gretmd level 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 Footcandles Footcandles High Major League Athletic Events 3.6 0.9 4:1 2.0 0.67 3:1 Major cultural or Civic Events Regional Shopping Centers (300,000 sq it or grealar Fast Food F acilities Medium Commmily Shopping Centers (5,D00- 29,999 sq ft) 2.4 0.6 4:1 1.0 0.33 3:1 Cullural, Cnnc, or Recreational Events Office Parks Hospital Parking Transportation Parking (Airports, Commuter Lots, Etc. Residential Complex Parkin Low Neighborhood Shopping (under 5,000 sq ft 0.8 0.2 4:1 0.5 0.13 4:1 Industrial Employee Parkin Educational Facility Parking Church Parldng -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 axzaaged fully shielded • with a total cutoff an lg a equal to or less than 90-degrees. d. Illumination from light fixtures shall be measured at one fo 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 parapet or roof, which ever is greater. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Andover this 4 th day of May 2004. CITY OF ANDOVER ATTEST: Michael R. Gamache, Mayor Victoria Volk, City Clerk 0 4f Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes — March 9, 2004 • Page 3 by Gamache, seconded by Greenwald, to table this item until the March 23, 2004 Commission Meeting. Motion carried on a 6 -ayes, 0 -nays, l- absent (Vatne) 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. vote. PUBLICH G. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (04 -04) AMEND SPECIAL U PERMIT (03-05) TO ALLOW A NEW TOWNHOUSE D IGN FOR THEPREVIO YAPPROVEDNATURE'SRUNRESIDENTTAL 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 develop t for Nature's Run. A fourth floor plan was added wi Planning Commission Council approval of Special Use Permit amendment (03 -05) in une of 2003. The p posed fifth floor plan will also need to be approved by Council. Mr. Bednarz discussed the staff report wi Motion by Kirchoff, se nded by Gamache, to close the public h g at 7:14 p.m. Motion car a ayes, 0 -nays, 1- absent (Vatne) vote. Commissioner a 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 royal of the roposed amendment. Motion carried on a 6 -ayes, 0 -nays, 1- absent (Vame) ote. Bednarz stated that this item would be before the Council at the April 6, 2004 ncil meeting. PUBLIC HEARING: ORDINANCE AMENDMENT (0¢01) AMENDING CITY CODE 12-14-10D. x REGULATING LIGHTING IN OFF STREET PARSING AREA. 0 -.5- c� Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes —March 9, 2004 Page 4 W. Bednarz explained 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 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. • 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. CJ 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, l- absent (Vatne) vote. BUSINESS. Mr. Bednarz up�'atec),the Planning Commission on related items. ADJOURNMENT. Motion by Gamache, seconded by , to adjourn ling at 8:00 p.m Motion carried on a 6 -ayes, 0 -nays, 1- ent (Vatne) vote. • I LNDOVE ^ 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. Min Avg Max IESNA Max r*At Prop Max Pole • • tAm 1 Photometric Plan with 1.0 minimum footcandles under the curr city code. W w ww a+w.r t 61 e yy YYbY LbyLLL4bb4U yyyLLLL44LL Lb44 P4U yLL1�OL wUw4 Ly y+q�L4LLLwLL1ULb L44UUww y b 4L 4 Y Y L Y cm� Y L4 U U b LL U U L L L ba ba L � L bb L L U U L L L L b U U L U Yb UU UU UL �` b w w b bw Ub L L b L w b Ub b b 4 UU 4Y 44 UU U L y U 4U 4U 44 44 w 4 rt y 4y yY Yy U w U % 4 L 4 44 L b U 4 Y 44 L U L Y LY L4w Y4 L44 Y 44 L 4 w YU U 44 4b b U Ub U%. L U 64 4 L L 4 PROPOSED U L b w 94 w L w 4 b w ANDOVER COMMUH'1Y C� U U b b w bb yw4 Lwb 101.7756 SF 1sl FLOOR UU L U wb I U LY i.0 UY4 asgn5F3aFL.00R Yw w w 9 4 44 44 Y44 MAN FFE"Wm U U U HOUSE/CE U Y FIELD E FUW FFE -M37 4 4 4 4 l y L U t 4 LOADING DOCK FFE M 4 4 4 4 {^n1 4 y L L U b U.L 44 4 L L O 44 4 Y UU4 44L 4L LY 4 b4 4b U4 4L 44L YLw 4 4Y Y 4Y4 4 L 4 UY4 UL b a 4 L 4 444 Lb L b b b L LbU ybL bb Y UL Ub 1y�1� LLb Lb U b b 1 �b w w w w b b Lw y U r U Y U LY 4 4 L L 4 44 LY y 4Y 412�i 4 44 44 YU UU UUU LLE 4 L4 Y4 44 L L UUA 4 4 b 44 4 L LLL 4 4 Y 4U U L w1rY ' 4 UL yw y�4 ���_• —•_ _•• 4 bL b U1iTi 00 4 b L U 4L �__ - -• "�� � 4 Lb L Y aU 4L L bU4 LLyyLyLYYUbY LUU wyyLYyy44V4LLUyUwbbLL4 LUbi L 44 YLd U4LL4L ' 44w w4 b� LYL444 b UU _ O 3 ELECTRICAL SITE PLAN e y • • __ +__ ._ • • r • -- ---- mm --- �'� � v AO ®F � T OWWQiR mR nWY° 1 E = -- _ = 5 i 4. ALTERNATE SOM DRIVE � ' n I It o j A z I1� 4 i I ly� p I I I I II I I I I I .I I I 1 II I I 11 II I� ;l i I I I I I I I �( i I ! I I II I I i . Photometric Plan with 0.67 minimum footcandles (medium -level land use) under the proposed ell IWC !rr r •\ � w • j r� Vi l , i i i F- i i i pi i s i ' { IIII1111111111 � 2F� � I i l»Y•ltl f wro.en r •1116 OK 4 + ALTERNATE SOUTH DRNE �oaz w /0 J� 1_ Z� amendment. � 1 L M 1 I L OC Ip R 1 R W I L "M q 0 � W �1 { ,fi CY V V i Y 1 1 1 1 I 1 I 4 0 a a a �J \ wYb44YYbwbYb4bYYYbYYY4YbbY YroYbbb44YYYY4lb yy4bYbYlYYYwrobbbwb robbb4 YYYLYbYYYbbbYwbbbb444YYYYro4YbbbYYbbYYYwyYbb Y 4 4 bbro rob4 L 4 4b 4 Y 44 bw Yro b Y b b 444 i 444 Yb b b Lb bbb Y b bYb bb bro by ro b 4b b b wbb I Yw bb by bb rob Y b bb �lw by by wb b Y b bb Y b Y b 44 b b brob I SApY b b b r b 4 I b 4L UTA 4L L 4 Yu%u 31i 44 Y 4 IU 44 Z 4 44 b 44 w w w w uuu bbb% 4L YL ro Y LLYY 44 4 4 Y _ b 4 4 bbro4 44 bb bb 44 4 b 4 Lb 1.4 ro Yllu j YY bb by w Y bb Y b ti w w b b Y b PROPOSED 4 b 4 L ro b b L b L w Y b HOOVER CDMMLW TY CENTER Yb b bb wbbro bw bb bl: bbw 104.776* W lf( FLOOR Yl b b robbb bb by b bar 2BA17 Sr yp FLOOR 44 Y Y b4 b b bw ro4b MAN FFE"W.00 Ulm w 4 U bwb Y b b b b 4 4 L 4 4 FIELD HGL13ENCE RINK FFE -M.36 4 b Y b w Y 4 Y LOADM DOCK FFEMM� Oro b b aba0�b l.u b b robb b4 4 4 bbY4b 444 w 4 bbl bbw b4 rob wbY % LL 4444 444 bbb LL b Yob 44 4 4 �4b LL % 4 4wb bb b b bbb bb b Y b4 rob * b US. bb ro bb bb bb b b Yb i Y bb bb lbw bb vbb b 4Yro 'w Y b bb b Y b bbb L b b LL ro ro b 44 4 b b bb 4 Y 4 rorob u4 w w 44 b YY ro Ybb b4 bb Y4 LY by Yw4 b robro ' b4 w 4 lb Y 4 L Yb b4 Y 4 lb Y 4 w YY b4 4 Y bb b Y Y by r4 4 1. wb _ ' @µy0 b bb 'YY b4 b4 by wb lb <.�YY t` 4 bro Y Yb by w rob Y bb —.J ww Y Y bb 4 4 L b lb lroYbYbwbwbY4blbbb4 LbYbroY by L4bbb bbbbbb lb 4LLb ro 1� l wY wbwb444bb b b 4 Y tau' Ylbbb roYbbYbbb bb bb lwYbYbbYwbro 44bbYwb urn r O ' ELECTR SITE PLA1V __ l S -- l _ f -01 -- l»Y•ltl f wro.en r •1116 OK 4 + ALTERNATE SOUTH DRNE �oaz w /0 J� 1_ Z� amendment. � 1 L M 1 I L OC Ip R 1 R W I L "M q 0 � W �1 { ,fi CY V V i Y 1 1 1 1 I 1 I 4 0 a a a �J �J 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. sd C I T Y O F NDC�VE • 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. •ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 MAIN (763) 755 -5100 FAX (763) 755 -8923 • WWW.CLANDOVERAN.US TO: Planning and Zoning Commissioners FROM: Andy Cross, Associate Planner SUBJECT: Workshop Item: Text and Map Amendments to Comprehensive Plan — Minor and Major Collector Streets DATE: April 27, 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. 0 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. 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 1 (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 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 11 - Transportation Plan (shown with major and minor collector streets highlighted) Figure 13 - Transportation Plan Respectfully submitted, An4 Cross 0 -y_ TRA1�St�6'�1A11u -� 1�1,A,t -�► n 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 1 /4 to' /a miles in a fully developed area to l/z 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 is Iq City of Andover 24 IVI Transportation Plan 3— C OMO 91-AtA 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 Waal 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 shouldservice 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. —Xf sd • ANLb Y O F 6 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. • ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 MAIN (763) 755 -5100 FAX (763) 755 -8923 • WWW.CI.ANDOVER.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 27, 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 St 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, .7 Andyltross n U 0 -z_ CITY OF 03 ND OVE >• 1665 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. • ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 • (763) 755 -5100 FAX (763) 755 -8923 • WWW.CI.ANDOVER.MN.US TO: Mayor and Councilmembers CC: John Erar, City Administrator / FROM: Will Neumeister, Community Development Director&AL David D. Berkowitz, City Engineer TAJS SUBJECT: Discuss Crosstown Boulevard Grade Separation at Railroad Crossing — Eng. & Ping. DATE: 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 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, �Is �.w.iY✓ • ` Will Neumeister David D. Berkowitz Attachments Transportation Plan Text and Maps U • 71 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 Andover include: + Anoka — Jo 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 1 -3 • Coon Rapids — Coon Rapids Um d Methodist Church — Hanson Blvd and Northdale Blvd • 'Coon Rapids— Faith Lutheran Church 111th 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 — Croo d Lake and Coon Rapids Blvd. • Coon Rapids — Northstar Commuter Coach Riverdale of — Northdale Blvd. • East Bethel — Hwy 65 at County Road 24 (no bus servic • Elk River — Hwy 169 &. School, Street NW (no bus service) • Elk River — Northstar Commuter Coach Park-and-Ride— Hwy 9 on 171st Ave NW • Fridley — St. Phillip's Lutheran Church — Hwy 65 and W. Moore a Drive In the event that transit services are expanded into Andover, the City has be 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 Lak 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 R amsey. It expected that this lot would be constructed in 200 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. ofAndover 8 5-- 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 azding reported crashes in Andover was obtained from the Minnesota Department of Transp ion. This data consisted of three years of reported crash data The data was evaluated wi 'gh incident locations being mapped. The high incident locations are portrayed on Fi 5 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. L 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 an 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 A "Z — • 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 over trail system and City parks. Figure 4 illustrates the proposed trails network thro out the City. Trail crossing locatiNkalong 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 ncems 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 The proposed trait should be extended to the intersection of 140th Lane. Additionally, the pro sed trail system for Crosstown Boulevard includes a segment from Vale Street to Kum Street that is proposed as a future trail. Immediate pedestrian needs for this segment of r way • - need to be considered. If feasible, the trail should be constructed as an off -road trail. J0. 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 m inimize 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 r7_ 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 recd endations are deemed to be necessary with regard to the Transportation Plan. J. Ac s Management The manag t of access along roadway systems, particularly arterial and collector roadways is a ve important component of maximizing the capacity of a roadway and. decreasing the acci nt potential along those facilities. Arterial roadways have a function • of accommodating 1 er volumes of traffic and often at higher speeds. Therefore, access to such facilities must be h ited in order to protect the integrity of the arterial function. Collector roadways provi link from local streets to arterial roadways and are designed to provide more access to loc land uses since the volumes and speeds are often lesser than arterial roadways. The Minnesota Department of Trans ation (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 cess. Well- designed access to commercial properties supports long -term economic vitality. As with many transportation related decisions, land activity and planning is an integral part of creation of a safe and efficient roadway system. and use decisions have a major impact on the access conditions along the roadway system. very land use plan amendment, subdivision, rezoning, conditional use permit, o ite plan involves access and creates potential impact to the efficiency of the transportation s em. Properties have access rights and good design will minimize the deleterious effect on the roadway system. Access management is a combination of good land use 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 with each having the permitting process responsibility over roadways undetc ontrol. City ofAndover 59 Transportation Plan --8_ EAST BETHE. r and ke r W 177th Ave NW t woo .Ids ♦ I I �i .. .7.. I I 1 l l City of Andover Transportation Plan Functional Ckmiications Ekistin Propos Roadway Roadu AMinorArterial . BMinorArterial Collector • • Ragroad Parks �_— - Lakes /Rivers Q City Lim Long Range Rail/Street Grade Separation Proposed Functio Classi, fccation Sys 2003 -2023 Figure 11 Sonesmo ON" A#dW&& _Amoden CW Mamhwo3 - 3g$� $$ 4 `� 3.200 Z350 13 p59 ? "� ;� X3.750 43,45 J as c►� # 7 350 ,� a am 07 1., __ _ # 80U # 900 ii y 1XD MUNICIP r , War AND E Lak 17 7,111 PREPAR � � = MINNESOTA PROGRAM T � j it� IN COOPS U.S. DEPARTMENT _ 400 ' i �.'" FEDERAL HIGH\ 9 _ F ^t 1r5.Y n. ,�� #950 Sc : $ `�3 � @ 1600 0 vas r 1500 soo 0 # 3 300 @3850 A --�- -� 400 r so a 2( � � BASIC DA 19,150 _ W ( r - 2� 4,550 O� 5p -- #18650 #IZ55D #71.7 11c��1f'�ioC y , v* b = ;v: 014,250 013, $� LEC . p 2020 SCENARIO Y 2020 5CENARI0 Y 5 # 1.200 ' 01.2001 T 2020 SCENARIO 3�RILY INTERSTATE TRUNK F U.S. TRUNK HIGHWAY.. STATE TRUNK HIGHWE $$F #�cp COUNTY STATE AID F COUNTY ROAD ................... s } M �t� #300 CORPORATE LIMITS...... +�� �� .._,� PUBLIC ROAD ................. =1`6 L '49 i = j _ ® I PRIVATE ROAD ............. # 3150 -101 950 _ + FUTURE. ROADWAY .. Cre te @ I � + eoc '� 3 s5o : �✓ - Ag (Vote: Volume Projectl Reserve Land Use changes will chanc TD r �p #5,� ,�_. • �` I D O C ' Creek $$• �: �� t-- FIGURE 13 ® v YEAR 2020 DAI SCENARIOS 29.7501 31 150 r� . �.4w Bean er 17,0 -- �1 23400 24 SW L a k ? # 17,e00 6 5W #24wo AD Rl 4 1 At i u A i ( #3. Engineers 3 -IC City Council Workshop Minutes — February 24, 2004 DISCUSS CROSSTOWNBOULEVARD GRADE SEPARATIONAT RAILROAD CROSSING Community Development Director Neumeister referenced a recent memo from the Anoka County is 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. is