Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/11/04C I T Y O la 0 ND CAVE 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. • ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 • (763) 755 -5100 FAX (763) 755 -8923 • WWW.CI.AN DOVER. MN. US Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda May 11, 2004 Andover City Hall Council Chambers 7.00 p.m. 1. Call to Order 2. Approval of Minutes — April 27, 2004 3. Resolution Modifying Development District No. I and Tax Increment Financing Plan for TIF District No. 1 -4. 4. PUBLIC HEARING: Ordinance Amendment (04 -02) to amend City Code • 13 -3 Planned Unit Developments. 5. PUBLIC HEARING: Ordinance Amendment (04 -03) to establish regulations for temporary structures. 6. PUBLIC HEARING: Ordinance Amendment (04 -01) amending City Code 12 -14 -10 D. S. regulating lighting in off street parking areas. 7. Work Session: a. Comprehensive Plan Update 8. Other Business 9. Adjournment L T Y O F D O� 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 27, 2004 DATE: May 11, 2004 Request The Planning and Zoning Commission is asked to approve the minutes from the April 27, 2004 meeting. CJ • C I T Y O F NDOVE • PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING —APRIL 27, 2004 The Regular Bi- Monthly Meeting of the Andover Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order by Chairperson Daninger on April 27, 2004, 7:02 p.m., at the Andover City Hall, 1685 Crosstown Boulevard NW, Andover, Minnesota. Commissioners present: Chairperson Daninger, Commissioners Tim Kirchoff, Rex Greenwald, Dean Vatne, Jonathan Jasper and Michael Casey. Commissioners absent: Commissioner Tony Gamache. Also present: City Planner, Courtney Bednarz Associate Planner, Andy Cross Planning Intern, Jon Sevald Others APPROVAL OF MINUTES. April 13, 2004 Motion by Greenwald, seconded by Casey, to approve the minutes as presented. Motion carried on a 5 -ayes, 0 -nays, 1- present (Kirchoff), 1- absent (Gamache) vote. PUBLIC HEARING: RESIDENTIAL SSETCH.PL NFOR PROPOSED URBAN DEVELOPMENT TO BE KIVOWNAS "MILLER'S WOODS" ONPROPERTIES LOCATED AT 15955,15827,158039 AND 15773 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD NW. Mr. Cross explained 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. Mr. Cross stated Mr. 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. Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes —April 27, 2004 Page 2 • Mr. Cross explained 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. Mr. Cross discussed the staff report with the Commission. Mr. Gary Laurent, Laurent Builders, gave a presentation to the Planning Commission of the proposed development. Motion by Jasper, seconded by Kirchoff, to open the public hearing at 7:36 p.m. Motion carried on a 6 -ayes, 0 -nays, 1- absent (Gamache) vote. Mr. Mark Lipski stated there were a couple of things he was concerned about regarding the sketch. He stated the communication between himself and the developer was really good and there was talk about purchasing some property. He stated when he planted the trees when they moved there; it was not intended for a buffer zone. He did not think the trees he planted should be a buffer zone. He questioned the outlots in the development. He was concerned with how much say as a property owner they will have in this buffer area and how much say he will have because no one owns the outlot. Mr. Lipski wondered if he could purchase some of the property by his trees to protect them from grading and this would provide a buffer between the properties or if there could be a variance made for this property to protect the trees and both properties. Commissioner Greenwald asked what Mr. Lipski wanted to have authorization over. Mr. Lipski stated he wanted to have a say over what happened with the outlot along his property. Chairperson Daninger stated the Association owning the outlots is to make sure the trees are not cut or the area destroyed. He stated he cannot help Mr. Lipski with ownership of the outlots. Motion by Kirchoff, seconded by Casey, to close the public hearing at 7:47 p.m. Motion carried on a 6 -ayes, 0 -nays, 1- absent (Gamache) vote. Chairperson Daninger thought the developer was looking for guidance on the road going through as well as any other thoughts. Commissioner Kirchoff asked if the tree ordinance that they developed recently apply in the P.U.D., requiring it to have two trees of the same size on one lot and will it follow through on the P.U.D. Mr. Cross stated it could be used as a form of negotiations. Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes —April 27, 2004 Page 3 Commissioner Jasper stated it seems like every P.U.D. they have looked at is a townhouse where they look at each design and landscaping. He noted this development is going to be single family homes and he wondered how a single housing unit would work for review in a P.U.D., would they look at each home individually. Mr. Bednarz stated they would probably not look at each home individually, even some of the town home P.U.D.'s that they have looked at, they have set up some standards for the types of materials used, even percentages of the types of materials on the front facade. There will be some elements of the home built into the P.U.D. He would not foresee the Planning Commission reviewing building permit applications. Commissioner Jasper stated previously they have looked at floor plans and other items for approval in a P.U.D. He wondered if this would not apply for this type of a P.U.D. Mr. Bednarz stated he did not foresee that level of involvement for a single family home. Commissioner Jasper stated one of the things they are requested and will review and approve at some point is the seven foot side yard setbacks but they do not know what the house plans are and if it is necessary to do that as a variance, why vary it for eighty -six lots, if they only need it on four lots. Mr. Bednarz stated it raised a good point. Mr. Laurent stated the point of the seven foot setback is to use it to save trees and he will agree to this any way they can write it up. The Commission discussed with the developer the reason for the seven foot side yard setback and the reasons for having this. Commissioner Greenwald stated he was a little unclear about a single family home association. He asked the developer to explain it and he asked what kind of average value homes was he thinking and he wondered if Mr. Laurent proposed the twenty -eight foot roads. Mr. Laurent stated he did propose the roads. Commissioner Greenwald asked what was the reasoning behind having twenty -eight foot roads and would emergency vehicles be able to access the development if there was parking on one side of the road. Mr. Laurent explained the homes would range from $400,000 to $600,000. He explained how the association would be run. He stated the outlots are owned and will be maintained by the association. Commissioner Jasper asked if 159"' was a collector street. Mr. Cross stated it was not. Commissioner Jasper asked what the concern was whether it would go through or not. Mr. Cross stated the concerns were related to the speed going through the neighborhood and that is why the curve street was recommended for this road. Commissioner Greenwald stated on 159 there will be improvements on that intersection because of the fire station going in and he wondered if there would be turn lanes and everything else. Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes —April 27, 2004 Page 4 Mr. Cross stated when there is talk about changing lane width on a road, they discuss it S with the Fire Chief because he has the knowledge and say when it comes to providing emergency services and he spoke unequivocally that if it is 28 feet wide and parking is prohibited on one side, it will provide at all times emergency vehicle access. He stated twenty -eight foot streets are State Aid standards and for that reason, it had engineering support. Mr. Bednatz stated regarding the intersection at 159 as part of Constance Corners, the City did collect some dollars to contribute towards the intersection improvement. The fire department also has some money in their budget for that use and Laurent Development will also be asked as a part of this project to contribute to that improvement. He stated they have not arrived at the final design and the County will be involved in dete what that design will be. Once that is determined, they will be able to assign costs with the preliminary plat. Commissioner Jasper stated it seemed like staff and the Fire Chief thought the twenty - eight foot streets were a good idea and calming and if that is the case, then Andover should look at making this their standard. If the standard is thirty -three feet, it does not seem like there is a reason to this differently in this development as opposed to other developments. Commissioner Greenwald stated they would have to put in a sidewalk. Discussion ensued in regards to the width of streets in the Andover Station P.U.D. 0 Commissioner Vatne asked in coming out of the review with the City Council, there were two points outlined. One was to preserve as much of the existing woodland as possible and he thought Mr. Laurent accomplished this and the other was to provide a buffering of trees and larger lots to be placed between the development and the acreage residential lots and then they opened the door with the P.U.D. Did they entertain or take a look at the possibility to surround the development with larger size lots to provide some of the buffering and also to save some of the trees. Mr. Laurent stated they did look into it and ended coming back to that primarily because if they take larger lots around the edge and they go all the way to the property line, then the buffer ends up being owned by a lot of different people and when that happens, what happens to it is much more in question than by a homeowners association with restrictions added on to it. Commissioner Vatne thought the economics also played a factor in this also. Mr. Laurent was not sure but he did not think it was too big of a factor. Commissioner Greenwald thought they were meeting the goals that the Council set forth for them. Chairperson Daninger asked if any of the Commission was opposed to the way 159 was planned. Commissioner Kirchoff stated he liked this design very much because he looked at the connection to Crosstown on 159 going to the east and it will be more of a detriment to the proposed development than it will be to the residents that already live to I* the east. Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes —April 27, 2004 Page 5 • Commissioner Vatne stated in going back, his recollection was the primary concern was for potential speed going through the neighborhood and this design answers the concern. He stated he did not see a lot of traffic flowing through this neighborhood. He thought this was a good answer to what they had before. Chairperson Daninger thought the developer needed to look at the seven foot variance to make sure it is addressed when this goes forward. The Commission is pleased with the design of 159'. He stated on the outlots, even thought it is part of the sketch plan, his concern and some of the Commissions concerns is when they move to a P.U.D., they will want to have more specifics and have some examples of the development process. Chairperson Daninger stated to make sure the public has access to information and brochures. He stated he was also concerned with block 2, lot 8, 9, and 10. Number 9 looks king of small and it seems kind of tight. He did not know if they were putting too many lots in the area. He stated he would be looking closer at this in the future. Commissioner Jasper stated the front yard setbacks, because there are many pie shaped lots, interplay with the side yard setbacks and if a decision is made to set things further back from the front, they will be burning even more side yard. Mr. Bednarz stated that this item would be before the Council at the May 4, 2004 City Council meeting. PUBLIC HEARING: PRELIMINARYPLAT OF GARDNERISANDBORNPLAT, A RURAL RESIDENTL4L DEVELOPMENT WITH VARIANCES LOCATED AT 17022 AND 17052 ROUND LAKE BOULEVARD NW. Mr. Bednarz explained 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. Mr. Bednarz discussed the information with the Commission. Commissioner Vatne asked if there was a sketch plan. Mr. Bednarz stated there was not. Commissioner Vatne asked if there was an easement on the north side of the property that came into play. Mr. Bednarz stated there is a power line easement on the property to the North. Commissioner Jasper asked if there was a ghost plat of the surrounding area to make sure the street connections could be made. Mr. Bednarz stated he has one in his office but there is not any desire for development surrounding this area in the near future. . Commissioner Jasper stated he would like to see a ghost plat. Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes —April 27, 2004 Page 6 Chairperson Daninger asked if the location of Orchid Street was recommended as the • best spot if there was a ghost plat. Mr. Bednarz stated there is a lot of land area around there and there are at least a dozen ways it could be laid out. Chairperson Daninger asked what Public Works thought of the shortest cul -de -sac if the street were to go through. Mr. Bednarz stated the proposed design meets the City's requirements for cul -de -sacs and the Public Works Department did not provide any negative feedback on that proposal. Chairperson Daninger stated if the 170' Lane cul -de -sac was not there if variances in acreage or with the existing structure would be needed. Mr. Bednarz stated they could redistribute the lot area to meet the 2 '/z acres but that would not affect the existing structure. Motion by Greenwald, seconded by Casey, to open the public hearing at 8:28 p.m. Motion carried on a 6 -ayes, 0 -nays, 1- absent (Gamache) vote. W. Dean Olson, owner of property to the north, asked what it does to his property if the road is dead ended to his property. He stated he does not like to see the dead end road end at his property because he has horses there and he is afraid there will be a lot of kids loitering there and partying. Mr. David Olson stated he had the same concerns as Dean Olson regarding the dead end road. He asked if his brother wants to eventually develop his land, can he extend the road and then end it or will this create problems. He wondered how the road will end unless another owner decides to develop at the same time to continue the road. Mr. Bednarz stated they are going to see further development, and the best thing to do is to have the developer set up the road system for future development. Mr. David Olson stated the plans he received seem to be different than what has been shown and he is concemed with a possible pond that will be behind his yard. Mr. Jeff Elliot, Hakanson & Anderson stated regarding the pond that is located on the south side, it is in an area that they are trying to minimiz the removal of trees and when they first designed the pond, they were trying to keep it at a minim With the amount of drainage that is coming from the south to that development, they are working with staff to keep the overflow on their property so it should not affect surrounding properties. Mr. Marise Shilling, 17025 Round Lake Boulevard, stated he watched the entire area develop and he looks at this as an opportunity. Ms. Barbara Shilling, 17025 Round Lake Boulevard, stated with regards to the dead end street, on the east side off of Round Lake Boulevard, there is another dead end street, called Heather Street and it has been there for a long time and has not created a problem with people hanging out She stated they take their walks through there everyday and • kids play in the street there but has not become a hangout and is not filled with trash. Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes —April 27, 2004 . Page 7 Ms. Debbie Olson stated she also has an issue with a dead end street. She does not have a problem with development of the land, the only thing she asks that they stay to the 2 '/2 acres. She stated there was a dead end street ending at their property until the land developed and there was a lot of vandalism and problems with parties. Mr. Erin Gardner, 17702 Round Lake Boulevard, stated he was the owner. He gave the Commission some background on his property. Ms. Shirley Sanborn stated they have lived in this area for almost forty years and she has seen all of the land develop around them. She explained in all of the years they have lived in the area, they have not had any problems with the neighbors. She stated it is quiet in their neighborhood and she did not know of any problems in the area lately. Mr. Myron Bauer, 17015 Quay Street, asked if the width of the regulatory street is 33 feet wide. He wondered if this street would be at that width. Mr. Bednarz stated it would be. Mr. Bauer stated his biggest concern is the runoff from the back of that property to his lot because it is designated as a runoff area and he is worried about his septic and well. He would like to see some plats of the development to see if it will affect his property. Mr. Dean Olson stated he is not opposing the land development but he would like to see i it done within the rules of the City. He does oppose a dead end road at the end of his property- Mr. Elliot stated they have been working with staff for awhile on this project and the plan shown earlier was their most recent plan. There are items that are going to be different each time. He showed on the sketch plan the layout from 2003. Mr. David Olson stated he is also not opposed to this development. At first he was opposed to the pond and then he got to the meeting and saw three different plans so he wondered what was going on. He is not against this, just a little concerned. Ms. Shilling asked if there was any way to make an easement on the two properties affected by the dead end until the owner decided to develop. Mr. Bednarz stated they could take a portion of the project as street easement and this area could remain part of the lots to help achieve 2 `/z acres, but physically it is not going to change the way project will look or how the homes are laid out. The City would prefer to take the street as right - of -way. Mr. Tony Ramer, 3344 169' Lane, stated Poppy Street used to be a dead end street and they did have problems on that street. He stated the police were called many times. He explained that if the City does want a street there, it could endanger Mr. Olson's horses. If they could block the street off someway until there is further development this could • solve a lot of their problems. Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes —April 27, 2004 Page 8 Mr. David Olson asked what was wrong with the previously shown plan from 2003. • Chairperson Daninger stated this would result in land locked property if the road did not go up to the property for future development. Commissioner Kirchoff asked how easy it was to take a driveway and turn it into a road with access to a county road. Mr. Bednarz stated the County Highway Department has spacing guidelines that dictate where accesses to County roads can be. Ms. Janice Staffis asked as far as the land locking, the only way the street can be put in later, would be with easements purchased from adjoining properties. Mr. Bednarz stated the purpose of the street connection is to allow for access to the north in the future. If the property owner is interested in development, that will facilitate street access to the rear part of their property. Motion by Greenwald, seconded by Vatne, to close the public hearing at 9:21 p.m. Motion carried on a 6 -ayes, 0 -nays, 1- absent (Gamache) vote. Commissioner Kirchoff asked if the issue of runoff needed to be addressed as this development went along. Mr. Bednarz stated that was correct. Mr. Elliot stated with all the projects, they have to go through the City to look at the storm sewer and they also have to go through the watershed. They are going through the watershed and working with staff. . Commissioner Vatne asked if the holding pond was the necessary size needed. Mr. Elliot stated he believed this would be adequate. They cannot go any further south. Commissioner Vatne asked if the easements were in place for the north runoff. Mr. Elliot stated there are easements in place. Mr. Bednarz concurred. Commissioner Greenwald asked if the Fire Department has seen the long cul -de -sac. Mr. Bednarz stated they have seen the preliminary plat and would like them to stick to 500 feet. They do acknowledge that this is not always possible to facilitate development so the next question is where is the road going, is there potential connection in the future and to make sure that is provided for so that the cul -de -sac can be eliminated at some point in the future. Commissioner Greenwald thought the dead end street could potentially be a "dead end" street for a long time. The Commission discussed the dead end street and the reasons why it is needed for future development and if the street could be constructed without the permanent cul -de -sac. The commission was concerned with the number of variances proposed. Motion by Kirchoff, seconded by Casey, to recommend to the City Council approval of Resolution No. , approving the design including the temporary street termination Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes —April 27, 2004 Page 9 • and also provides a nonconforming use of the structure and including the 2.3 acres as presented because it is the best interest to the City to create those somewhat smaller lots to provide the internal access which is a benefit to the City and County Highway system. Commissioner Jasper stated he was torn but would vote against this motion because he thought the dead end road should terminate on the neighbors property, he agreed with that but should be reconfigured for the garage but he did not see any reason to do 2.3 acre lots as opposed to 2.5 acre lots. He stated he would rather see six lots that conform instead of seven that do not. Chairperson Daninger concurred with Commissioner Jasper. Commissioner Vatne stated he was also going to vote against this because if the back half of the northern lot develops, it could still be a part of the total property that is there and even though the building cannot lie in the easement, it will still be a part of the buffer zone. Commissioner Greenwald stated he is not comfortable with the cul -de -sac. He thought they needed to reconsider and he would rather have a variance on the three hundred foot lot width for one of the lots than to put a cul-de -sac there to make sure they do not have to do the three hundred feet so he was going to vote against this also. Motion failed on a 2 -ayes, 4 -nays (Jasper, Vatne, Greenwald, Daninger), 1- absent (Gamache) vote. • Motion by Vatne, seconded by Jasper, to disapprove the preliminary plat for reasons sited primarily the shortage of acreage on the two lots. Motion carried on a 4 ayes, 2 nays (Kirchoff, Casey), 1- absent (Gamache) vote. Mr. Bednarz stated that this item would be before the Council at the May 18, 2004 City Council meeting. The Planning Commission recessed at 9:45 p.m. The Planning Commission reconvened at 9:53 p.m. WORK SESSION Chairperson Daninger stated the idea of this is to give general ideas to staff at this point and let them review this before the Commissions recommendation. a. Planned Unit Development Ordinance Mr. Bednarz stated the City Planning staff have reviewed the Planned Unit Development Ordinance and found that is inadequate for use in reviewing new requests for a Planned Unit Development approval. L� Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes —April 27, 2004 Page 10 Mr. Bednarz explained the staff looked 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. Commissioner Greenwald asked if it looked like they are going to have a lot of P.U.D.'s in the future in Andover. Mr. Bednarz stated the decision rests with the council and it depends on what they wanted to do with developments in Andover. Commissioner Vatne thought staff has done a good job of bench marking some of the other high growth suburbs that are established. He thought that condensing this helped clean things up and made it flow better. He thought that in some cases they may run into needing more detail to understand it. W. Bednarz stated when they get back to the public hearing they can bring up some of these items and explain them in detail. Commissioner Kirchoff asked if this new proposal offer mixed use development in an area that may be zoned differently. He wondered if it could include commercial, residential, and multi - family or would it require zoning changes. at the same time. Mr. Bednarz stated they will not be changing the zoning. Commissioner Jasper suggested adding specific language to address density. He was uncomfortable with the lack of specific requirements. Discussion ensued in regards to the wording in the report. 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 staff to 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 site. 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. Mr. Bednarz discussed the information with the Commission. • Commissioner Greenwald stated this is a substantial investment. Thought this was a good thing and staff covered if very well. Wants some control over the greenhouse structures. Need to discuss those when it has a direct affect on other businesses. W. Bednarz stated those are conditional use permits and will need to go through the Planning • Commission for approval. Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes —April 27, 2004 Page 11 • Commissioner Vatne asked how the temporary structures are approved in the first place. W. Bednarz stated they have not technically been approved yet but they do not need to go through the Planning Commission for approval. They have to meet the building code requirements and setbacks apply but there are no special rules. A majority of the Commission stated they would like to have a public hearing for the temporary structures. C. Parking Lot Lighting Mr. Sevald stated 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 Ill Engineering Society of North America ( IESNA). Mr. Sevald discussed the information with the Planning Commission. Commissioner Kirchoff stated he could understand less lighting is better for a residential neighborhood. • Commissioner Greenwald felt staff answered the criteria efficiently. Commissioner Jasper stated there is no logical reason for different criteria for each parking lot. He gave an example that it does not make sense for a church parking lot in a residential neighborhood to have more lighting than a commercial parking lot for safety reasons. The Commission discussed the need for different ways to light parking lots depending on their own situations. The Commission discussed pole height and determined that no arbitrary number should be put in the ordinance. Commissioner Greenwald thought there needed to be a little bit of flexibility given because he did not think they needed the uniform height if you have shielding and correct lighting. Commissioner Jasper stated the issue people are complaining about is about lighting on their property and the shielding and lighting is the important part. A majority of the Commission was in favor of using the IESNA standards in the new ordinance. • Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes -April 27, 2004 Page 12 • d. Comprehensive Plan Update- Text and Map Amendments to Comprehensive Plan - Minor and Major Collector Streets Text and Map Amendments to Comprehensive Plan - Railroad Grade Crossings Motion by Greenwald, seconded by Kirchofl to table item D for a future meeting. Motion carried 6 ayes, 0 nays, 1- absent. OTHER BUSINESS. Commissioner Jasper stated he did not remember them discussing a change from the Comprehensive Plan in regards to a grade crossing when they did the Sophie's Manor plat, was that a topic of discussion. Mr. Bednarz stated they did not change the Comprehensive Plan at that time; it just calls for it to be explored. Commissioner Jasper stated in the minutes they received, the City Council approved CVS Pharmacy being open from 7 to 11 and he thought CVS was open 24 hours. Mr. Bednarz stated the Council did place hours of operation on that approval. • Mr. Bednarz stated the Community Center project has started and he believed all of the contracts have been awarded. Chairperson Daninger mentioned that he went to the City Council meeting and they discussed some of things on the issue they struggled with and The City Council indicated the fine and detailed work they are doing and appreciated it. Commissioner Vatne stated they approved a lot split a month ago which the end result was they had a home facing north while the lots were going to end up facing west. In thinking further about this, they are going to see a lot more of these coming in the future and he is not comfortable without having some type of guidance around with requirements that they have some kind of consistency. He does not think it is appropriate to develop where they have a house facing the sides of the other houses and he is uncomfortable with the end result of that process. He did not think that is the right result. ADJOURNMENT. Motion by Greenwald, seconded by Vatne, to adjourn the meeting at 11:10 p.m. Motion carried on a 6 -ayes, 0 -nays, 1- absent (Gamache) vote. • Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes — April 27, 2004 Page 13 • Respectfully Submitted, Sue Osbeck, Recording Secretary TimeSaver Off'Site Secretarial, Inc. • 0 k C 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 TO: Planning and Zoning Commissioners FROM: Will Neumeister, Community Development Director( SUBJECT: Resolution Modifying Development District No. 1 and Tax Increment Financing Plan for TIF District No. 1-4 DATE: May 11, 2004 INTRODUCTION The Andover Economic Development Authority (EDA) and the City of Andover are considering a proposal to adopt a modification to the development program for Development District Number 1, to establish Tax Increment Financing District Number 1-4 (TIF District No. 1-4) and adopt a Tax Increment Financing Plan (the "TIF Plan "). DISCUSSION TIF District No. 14 will be a redevelopment tax increment financing district which has a maximum life of 26 years of tax increment (or a shorter period as determined by the City Council). Tax increments collected from TIF District No. 1-4 will enable the City of Andover to facilitate the demolition of several substandard buildings. New buildings will be constructed that will serve primarily as office and warehouse facilities for service businesses, within the City of Andover. The location of TIF District No. 1-4 can be seen on the attached maps. The TIF Plan contains the estimated fiscal and economic implications of the proposed TIF District. The City Council will hold a public hearing on the plan on June 1, 2004. A representative of Ehlers Associates, Shelly Eldridge, will be present at the meeting to answer any questions you may have. ACTION REQUESTED The Planning Commission is asked to review the information, discuss the TIF District and adopt the attached resolution that indicates the Planning Commission has determined the Program Modification and TIF Plan conform to the general plans for development and redevelopment of the City as described in the Comprehensive Plan. Respectfully Submitted, 1 Will Neumeister Attachments TIF Documents (modification of Development District No. 1) Resolution Map of Development District No. 1 and TIF District No. 1-4 PLANNING COMMISSION • CITY OF ANDOVER COUNTY OF ANOKA STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ANDOVER PLANNING COMMISSION FINDING THAT A MODIFICATION TO THE DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM FOR DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NO. 1 AND A TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN FOR TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT NO. 14 CONFORM TO THE GENERAL PLANS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT AND REDEVELOPMENT OF THE CITY. WHEREAS, the City Council for the City of Andover, Minnesota, (the "City") has proposed to adopt a Modification to the Development Program for Development District No. 1 (the "Development Program Modification ") and a Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-4 (the "TIF Plan ") therefor (the Development Program Modification and the TIF Plan are referred to collectively herein as the "Program Modification and TIF Plan ") and has submitted the Program Modification and TIF Plan to the City Planning Commission (the "Commission ") pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.175, Subd. 3, and WHEREAS, the Commission has reviewed the Program Modification and TIF Plan to determine their conformity with the general plans for the development and redevelopment of the City as described in the comprehensive plan for the City. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Commission that the Program Modification and TIF Plan conform with the general plans for the development and redevelopment of the City as a whole. Dated: May 11, 2004 Chair ATTEST: Secretary 0 -2-- ANDOVER DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT 1 • MODIFICATION TO THE DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM FOR DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NO. 1 and the TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN for the establishment of TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT NO. 1-4 (a redevelopment district) within DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NO. 1 ANDOVER ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY CITY OF ANDOVER COUNTY OF ANOKA STATE OF MINNESOTA Public Hearing: June 1, 2004 Adopted: This document is in draft form for distribution to the County and the School District. The 77F Plan contains the estimatedfiscalandeconomic implications oftheproposed IYFDistrict. The City and the EDA may make minor changes to this draft document prior to thepublic hearing. Prepared by: EHLERS &ASSOCIATES, INC. E H L E R S 0 3060 Centre Pointe Drive, Roseville, Minnesota 55113 -1105 8 ASSOCIATES INC 651- 697 -8500 fare 651 - 697 -8555 www.ehlers- inc.com 41 . TABLE OF CONTENTS (for reference purposes only) SECTION I - MODIFICATION TO THE DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM FOR DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NO. 1 ..... ............................... 1 -1 Foreword.............................. ............................... 1 -1 SECTION H - TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN FOR TAX INCREMENT FINANCING District NO. 1 -4 .......................... 2 -1 Subsection 2 -1. Foreword ............... ............................... 2 -1 Subsection 2 -2. Statutory Authority ........ ............................... 2 -1 Subsection 2 -3. Statement of Objectives .... ............................... 2 -1 Subsection 2 -4. Development Program Overview ............................ 2 -1 Subsection 2 -5. Description of Property in the District and Property To Be Acquired . 2 -2 Subsection 2 -6. Classification of the District . ............................... 2 -2 Subsection 2 -7. Duration of the District ..... ............................... 2-4 Subsection 2 -8. Original Tax Capacity, Tax Rate and Estimated Captured Net Tax Capacity Valuelincrement and Notification of Prior Planned Improvements ............... 2-4 Subsection 2 -9. Sources of Revenue /Bonded Indebtedness .................... 2 -5 Subsection 2 -10. Uses of Funds ........... ............................... 2-6 Subsection 2 -11. State Tax Increment Financing Aid (Local Contribution) ........... 2 -7 Subsection 2 -12. Fiscal Disparities Election ... ............................... 2 -7 Subsection 2 -13. Business Subsidies ....... ............................... 2 -7 Subsection 2 -14. County Road Costs ....... ............................... 2 -8 Subsection 2 -15. Estimated Impact on Other Taxing Jurisdictions ................. 2 -9 Subsection 2 -16. • Supporting Documentation .. ............................... 2 -9 Subsection 2 -17. Definition of Tax Increment Revenues ........................ 2 -9 Subsection 2 -18. Modifications to the District . ............................... 2 -10 Subsection 2 -19. Administrative Expenses .. ............................... 2 -10 Subsection 2 -20. Limitation of Increment .... ............................... 2 -11 Subsection 2 -21. Use of Tax Increment ..... ............................... 2 -12 Subsection 2 -22. Excess Increments ....... ............................... 2 -13 Subsection 2 -23. Requirements for Agreements with the Developer .............. 2 -13 Subsection 2 -24. Assessment Agreements .. ............................... 2 -13 Subsection 2 -25. Administration of the District ............................... 2 -13 Subsection 2 -26. Annual Disclosure Requirements ........................... 2 -13 Subsection 2 -27. Reasonable Expectations .. ............................... 2 -14 Subsection 2 -28. Other Limitations on the Use of Tax Increment ................ 2 -14 Subsection 2 -29. Summary .............. ............................... 2 -15 APPENDIX A APPENDIX B APPENDIX C APPENDIX D APPENDIX E APPENDIX F APPENDIX G PROJECT DESCRIPTION ...... ............................... A -1 MAPS OF DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NO. 1 AND THE DISTRICT ...... B -1 DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY TO BE INCLUDED IN THE DISTRICT ..C-1 ESTIMATED CASH FLOW FOR THE DISTRICT .................... D -1 MINNESOTA BUSINESS ASSISTANCE FORM ..................... E -1 REDEVELOPMENT QUALIFICATIONS FOR THE DISTRICT .......... F -1 BUT /FOR QUALIFICATIONS .... ............................... G -1 ,S— SECTION I -MODIFICATION TO THE DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM FOR DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NO. 1 • Foreword The following text represents a Modification to the Development Program for Development District No. 1. This modification represents a continuation of the goals and objectives set forth in the Development Program for Development District No. 1. Generally, the substantive changes include the establishment of Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-4. For further information, a review of the Development Program for Development District No. 1, adopted September 2, 1986, is recommended. It is available from the City Administrator at the City of Andover. Other relevant information is contained in the Tax Increment Financing Plans for the Tax Increment Financing Districts located within Development District No. 1. 0 9 Andover Economic Development Authority Modification to the Development Program for Development District No. 1 1 -1 SECTION II - TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN • FOR TAX INCREMENT FINANCING District NO. 1-4 Subsection 2 -1. Foreword The Andover Economic Development Authority (the "EDA "), the City of Andover (the "City"), staff and consultants have prepared the following information to expedite the establishment of Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-4 ( "the District "), a redevelopment tax increment financing district, located in Development District No. 1. Subsection 2 -2. Statutory Authority Within the City, there exists areas where public involvement is necessary to cause development or redevelopment to occur. To this end, the EDA and City have certain statutory powers pursuant to Minnesota Statutes ( "M.S'}, Sections 469.090 to 469.1082, inclusive, as amended, and M.S., Sections 469.174 to 469.1799, inclusive, as amended (the "Tax Increment Financing Act" or "TIF Act "), to assist in financing public costs related to this project. This section contains the Tax Increment Financing Plan (the "TIF Plan") for Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-4. Other relevant information is contained in the Modification to the Development Program for Development District No. 1. Subsection 2 -3. Statement of Objectives • The District currently consists of six parcels of land and adjacent and internal rights -of -way. The District is being created to facilitate the demolition of several substandard buildings. New buildings will be constructed thatwill serve primarily as office and warehouse facilities for service businesses, within the City. Contracts for this have not been entered into at the time of preparation of this TIF Plan, but development is likely to begin in the Summer of 2004. This TIF Plan is expected to achieve many of the objectives outlined in the Development Program for Development District No. 1. The activities contemplated in the Modification to the Development Program and the TIF Plan do not preclude the undertaking of other qualified development or redevelopment activities. These activities are anticipated to occur over the life of Development District No. 1 and the District. Subsection 2-4. Development Program Overview 1. Property to be Acquired - Selected property located within the District may be acquired by the EDA or City and is further described in this TIF Plan. 2. Relocation - Relocation services, to the extent required by law, are available pursuant to M.S., Chapter 117 and other relevant state and federal laws. 3. Upon approval of a developer's plan relating to the project and completion of the necessary legal requirements, the EDA or City may sell to a developer selected properties that it may acquire within the District or may lease land or facilities to a developer. 4. The EDA or City may perform or provide for some or all necessary acquisition, • construction, relocation, demolition, and required utilities andpublic streets work within the District. Andover Econonric Development Authority Tax Inc7tment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-4 2 -1 Subsection 2 -5. Description of Property in the District and Property To Be Acquired The District encompasses all property and adjacent rights -of -way identified by the parcels listed below. See • the map in Appendix B for further information on the location of the District. Parcel Numbers 16- 32 -24 -23 -0001 16- 32 -24 -23 -0002 16- 32 -24 -23 -0005 16- 32 -24 -23 -0018 16- 32 -24 -23 -0019 16- 32 -24 -23 -0020 The EDA or City may acquire any parcel within the District including interior and adjacent street rights of way. Any properties identified for acquisition will be acquired by the EDA or City only in order to accomplish one or more of the following: storm sewer improvements; provide land for needed public streets, utilities and facilities; carry out land acquisition, site improvements, clearance and/or development to accomplish the uses and objectives set forth in this plan. The EDA or City may acquire property by gift, dedication, condemnation or direct purchase from willing sellers in order to achieve the objectives of this TIF Plan. Such acquisitions will be undertaken only when there is assurance of funding to finance the acquisition and related costs. Subsection 2 -6. Classification of the District The EDA and City, in determining the need to create a tax increment financing district in accordance with • M.S., Sections 469.174 to 469.1799, as amended, inclusive, find that the District, to be established, is a redevelopment district pursuant to M.S., Section 469.174, Subd. 10(a)(1) as defined below: (a) "Redevelopment district" meansatypeofta xincrementfinancingdistrictconsistingofaproject, or portions of a project, within which the authority finds by resolution that one or more of the following conditions, reasonably distributed throughout the district, exists: (I) parcels consisting of 70 percent of the area in the district are occupied by buildings, streets, utilities, paved or gravel parking lots or other similar structures and more than 50 percent of the buildings, not including outbuildings, are structurally substandard to a degree requiring substantial renovation or clearance; (2) The property consists of vacant, unused, underused, inappropriately used, or infrequently used rail yards, rail storage facilities or excessive or vacated railroad rights -of -way; (3) tank facilities, or property whose immediately previous use was for tank facilities, as defined in Section 115C, Subd. 15, if the tank facility: (i) have or had a capacity of more than one million gallons; (ii) are located adjacent to rail facilities; or (iii) have been removed, or are unused, underused, inappropriately used or infrequently used; or (4) a qualifying disaster area, as defined in Subd. 10b. is Andover Econornic Development Authority Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 14 2 -2 IF— (b) For purposes of this subdivision, "structurally substandard" shall mean containing defects in • structural elements or combination ofdeficiencies in essential utilities andfacilities, light and ventilation, fire protection including adequate egress, layout and condition of interiorpartitions, or similar factors, which defects or deficiencies are of sufficient total significance to justify substantial renovation or clearance. (c) A building is not structurally substandard ifit is in compliance with the building code applicable to new buildings or could be modified to satisfy the building code at a cost of less than 15 percent of the cost of constructing a new structure of the same square footage and type on the site. The municipality may find that a building is not disqualified as structurally substandard under the preceding sentence on the basis of reasonably available evidence, such as the size, type, and age of the building, the average cost ofplumbing, electrical, or structural repairs or other similar reliable evidence. The municipality may not make such a determination without an interior inspection of the property, but need not have an independent, expert appraisal prepared of the cost of repair and rehabilitation of the building. An interior inspection of the property is not required, if the municipality finds that (1) the municipality or authority is unable to gain access to theproperty after using its best efforts to obtain permission f rom theparty that owns or controls the property; and (2) the evidence otherwise supports a reasonable conclusion that the building is structurally substandard. (d) A parcel is deemed to be occupied by a structurally substandard building for purposes of the finding under paragraph (a) if all of the following conditions are met: (1) the parcel was occupied by a substandard building within three years of the filing of the . request for certification of the parcel as part of the district with the county auditor, (2) the substandard building was demolished or removed by the authority or the demolition or removal was f nanced by the authority or was done by a developer under a development agreement with the authority; (3) the authority found by resolution before the demolition or removal that the parcel was occupied bya structurallysubstandard building and that afterdemolition and clearance the authority intended to include the parcel within a district, and (4) upon filing the requestfor certification of the tax capacity of theparcel as part of a district, the authority nodes the county auditor that the original tax capacity of the parcel must be adjusted as provided by § 469.177, subdivision 1, paragraph ()9. (e) For purposes of this subdivision, a parcel is not occupied by buildings, streets, utilities, paved or gravel parking lots or other similar structures unless 15 percent of the area of the parcel contains buildings, streets, utilities, paved or gravel parking lots or other similar structures. (n For districts consisting of two or more noncontiguous areas, each area must qualify as a redevelopment district under paragraph (a) to be included in the district, and the entire area of the district must satisfy paragraph (a). in meeting the statutory criteria the EDA and City rely on the following facts and findings: ❑ The District is a redevelopment district consisting of six parcels. ❑ An inventory shows that parcels consisting of more than 70 percent of the area in the District are Andover Economic Development Authority Tax Increment Finking Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-4 2 -3 WAN occupied by buildings, streets, utilities, paved or gravel parking lots or other similar structures. o An inspection of the buildings located within the District finds that more than 50 percent of the buildings • are structurally substandard as defined in the TIF Act. (See Appendix F). Pursuant to M.S.469.176 Subd. 7, the District does not contain any parcel or part of a parcel that qualified under the provisions of M.S 273.111 or 273.112 or Chapter 473H for taxes payable in any of the five calendar years before the filing of the request for certification of the District. Subsection 2 -7. Duration of the District Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.175, Subd. 1, and Section 469.176, Subd. 1, the duration of the District must be indicated within the TIF Plan. Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 1b, the duration of the District will be 25 years after receipt of the first increment by the EDA or City (a total of 26 years of tax increment). The date of receipt by the City of the first tax increment is expected to be 2006. Thus, it is estimated that the District, including any modifications of the TIF Plan for subsequent phases or other changes, would terminate after 2031, or when the TIF Plan is satisfied. If increment is received in 2005, the term of the District will be 2030. The EDA or City reserves the right to decertify the District prior to the legally required date. Subsection 2 -8. Original Tax Capacity, Tax Rate and Estimated Captured Net Tax Capacity ValuelIncrement and Notification of Prior Planned Improvements Pursuant to M.S., Section 469. 174, Subd. 7 and M.S., Section 469.177, Subd. 1, the Original Net Tax Capacity (ONTC) as certified for the District will be based on the market values placed on the property by the assessor in 2003 for taxes payable 2004. • Pursuant to MS., Section 469.177, Subds. 1 and 2, the County Auditor shall certify in each year (beginning in the payment year 2005) the amount by which the original value has increased or decreased as a result of 1. Change in tax exempt status of property, 2. Reduction or enlargement of the geographic boundaries of the district; 3. Change due to adjustments, negotiated or court- ordered abatements; 4. Change in the use of the property and classification; 5. Change in state law governing class rates; or 6. Change in previously issued building permits. In any year in which the current Net Tax Capacity (NTC) value of the District declines below the ONTC, no value will be captured and no tax increment will be payable to the EDA or City. The original local tax rate for the District will be the local tax rate for taxes payable 2004, assuming the request for certification is made before June 30, 2004. The ONTC and the Original Local Tax Rate for the District appear in the table on the following page. Pursuant to MS., Section 469.174 Subd. 4 and M.S., Section 469.177, Subd. 1, 2, and 4, the estimated Captured Net Tax Capacity (CTC) of the District, within Development District No. 1, upon completion of the project, will annually approximate tax increment revenues as shown in the table on the next page. The EDA and City request 100 percent of the available increase in tax capacity for repayment of its obligations and current expenditures, beginning in the tax year payable 2006. The Project Tax Capacity (PTC) listed is an estimate of values when the project is completed. • Andover Economic Development Authority Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 14 2-4 am • Project Estimated Tax Capacity upon Completion (PTC) $52,831 Original Estimated Net Tax Capacity (ONTC) $18,581 Estimated Captured Tax Capacity (CTC) $34,250 Original Local Tax Rate 91.352% Pay 2004 Estimated Annual Tax Increment(CTC x Local Tax Rate) $31,288 Percent Retained by the EDA 100% Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.177, Subd. 4, the EDA shall, after a due and diligent search, accompany its request for certification to the County Auditor or its notice of the District enlargement pursuant to M.S., Section 469.175, Subd. 4, with a listing of all properties within the District or area of enlargement for which building permits have been issued during the eighteen (18) months immediately preceding approval of the TIF Plan by the municipality pursuant to MS., Section 469.175, Subd. 3. The County Auditor shall increase the original net tax capacity of the District by the net tax capacity of improvements for which a building permit was issued. The City is reviewing the area to be included in the District to determine if any building permits have been issued during the 18 months immediately preceding approval of the TIF Plan by the City. Subsection 2 -9. Sources of Revenue /Bonded Indebtedness Public improvement costs, acquisition, demolition, utilities, parking facilities, streets and sidewalks, and site preparation costs and other costs outlined in the Uses of Funds will be financed primarily through the annual collection of tax increments. The EDA or City reserves the right to use other sources of revenue legally ap- plicable to the EDA or City and the TIF Plan, including, but not limited to, special assessments, general property taxes, state aid for road maintenance and construction, proceeds from the sale of land, other contributions from the developer and investment income, to pay for the estimated public costs. The EDA or City reserves the right to incur bonded indebtedness or other indebtedness as a result of the TIF Plan. As presently proposed, the project will be financed by a pay -as- you -go note. Additional indebtedness may be required to finance other authorized activities. The total principal amount of bonded indebtedness, including a general obligation (GO) TIF bond, or other indebtedness related to the use of tax increment financing will not exceed $831,500 without a modification to the TIF Plan pursuant to applicable statutory requirements. It is estimated that $831,500 in interfund loans is authorized to be financed with tax increment revenues. It is estimated that $831,500 in transfers is authorized to be financed with tax increment revenues. It is estimated that $831,500 in indebtedness debt proceeds is authorized to be financed with tax increment revenues. This provision does not obligate the EDA or City to incur debt. The EDA or City will issue bonds or incur other debt only upon the determination that such action is in the best interest of the City. The EDA or City may also finance the activities to be undertaken pursuant to the TIF Plan through loans from funds of the EDA or City or to reimburse the developer on a "pay -as- you -go" basis for eligible costs paid for by a developer. The estimated sources of funds for the District are contained in the table on the following page. Andover Economic Development Authority Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-4 2 -5 SOURCES OF FUNDS TOTAL . Tax Increment $815,000 Revenue $ 16,500 PROJECT REVENUES $831,500 Interfund Loans $831,500 Transfers $831,500 Bond Proceeds $831,500 Subsection 2 -10. Uses of Funds Currently under consideration for the District is a proposal to facilitate the demolition of several substandard buildings. New buildings will be constructed that will serve primarily as office and warehouse facilities for service businesses, within the City. The EDA and City have determined that it will be necessary to provide assistance to the project for certain costs. The EDA has studied the feasibility of the development or redevelopment of property in and around the District. To facilitate the establishment and development or redevelopment of the District, this TIF Plan authorizes the use of tax increment financing to pay for the cost of certain eligible expenses. The estimate of public costs and uses of funds associated with the District is outlined in the following table. USES OF FUNDS TOTAL Land/Building Acquisition $0 Site Improvements/Preparation $100,000 Public Utilities $100,000 Parking Facilities $75,000 Streets and Sidewalks $75,000 Other Public Improvements $0 Interest $400,000 Administrative Costs (up to 10 %) $ 81,500 PROJECT COSTS TOTAL $831,500 Interfund Loans $831,500 Transfers $831,500 Bond Principal $831,500 The above budget is organized according to the Office of State Auditor (OSA) reporting forms. It is estimated that the cost of improvements, including administrative expenses which will be paid or financed with tax increments, will equal $831,500 as is presented in the budget above. Estimated costs associated with the District are subject to change among categories without a modification • to this TIF Plan. The cost of all activities to be considered for tax increment financing will not exceed, Andover Economic Development Authority Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-4 2-6 —17-- without formal modification, the budget above pursuant to the applicable statutory requirements. Pursuant • to M.S., Section 469.1763, Subd. 2, no more than 25 percent of the tax increment paid by property within the District will be spent on activities related to development orredevelopment outside of the District but within the boundaries of Development District No. 1, (including administrative costs, which are considered to be spent outside of the District) subject to the limitations as described in this T1F Plan. Subsection 2 -11. State Tax Increment Financing Aid (Local Contribution) M.S., Section 273.1399 (LGA/HACA penalty) was repealed by the 2001 Legislature and does not apply to the District. Subsection 2 -12. Fiscal Disparities Election Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.177, Subd. 3, the EDA or City may elect one of two methods to calculate fiscal disparities. If the calculations pursuant to M.S., Section 469.177, Subd. 3, clause a, (outside the District) are followed, the following method of computation shall apply: (1) The original net tax capacity and the current net tax capacity shall be determined before the application of thefiscal disparity provisions of Chapter 276A or 473F. Tmere the original net tax capacity is equal to or greater than the current net tax capacity, there is no captured net tax capacity and no tax increment determination. Where the original net tax capacity is less than the current net tax capacity, the difference between the original net tax capacity and the current net tax capacity is the captured net tax capacity. This amount less any portion thereof which the authority has designated, in its tax increment financing plan, to share with the local taxing districts is the retained captured net tax capacity of the authority. (2) The county auditorshall exclude the retained captured net tax capacity of the authorityfrom the net tax capacity of the local taxing districts in determining local taxing district tax rates. The local tax rates so determined are to be extended against the retained captured net tax capacity of the authority as well as the net tax capacity of the local taxing districts. The tax generated by the extension of the lesser of (A) the local taxing district tax rates or (B) the original local tax rate to the retained captured net tax capacity of the authority is the tax increment of the authority. The EDA will choose to calculate fiscal disparities by clause a (outside the District). According to M.S., Section 469.177, Subd. 3: (c) The method of computation of tax increment applied to a district pursuant to paragraph (a) or (b) shall remain the same for the duration of the district, except that the governing body may elect to change its election from the method of computation in paragraph (a) to the method in paragraph (b). Subsection 2 -13. Business Subsidies Pursuant to M.S. Sections 116J.993, Subd. 3, the following forms of financial assistance are not considered a business subsidy: • (1) A business subsidy of less than $25,000; (2) Assistance that is generally available to all businesses or to a general class of similar businesses, Andover Economic Development Authority Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increrrent Financing District No. 1-4 2 -7 —0— such as a line of business, size, location, or similar general criteria; (3) Public improvements to buildings or lands owned by the state or local government that serve a • public purpose and do not principally benefit a single business or defined group of businesses at the time the improvements are made; (4) Redevelopment property polluted by contaminants as defined in M.S. Section 116J.552, Subd. 3, (5) Assistance provided for the sole purpose of renovating old or decaying building stock or bringing it up to code and assistance provided for designated historic preservation districts, provided that the assistance is equal to or less than 50% of the total cost; (6) Assistance to provide job readiness and training services if the sole purpose of the assistance is to provide those services; (7) Assistance for housing; (8) Assistance for pollution control or abatement, including assistance for a tax increment financing hazardous substance subdistrict as defined under M.S. Section 469.174, Subd. 23; (9) Assistance for energy conservation; (10) Tax reductions resulting from conformity with federal tax law; (11) Workers' compensation and unemployment compensation; (12) Benefits derived from regulation; (13) Indirect benefits derived from assistance to educational institutions; (14) Funds from bonds allocated under chapter 474A, bonds issued to refund outstanding bonds, and bonds issued for the benefit of an organization described in section 501 (c) (3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended through December 31, 1999; (15) Assistance for a collaboration between a Minnesota higher education institution and a business; (16) Assistance for a tax increment financing soils condition district as defined under M.S. Section 469.174, Subd. 19; (17) Redevelopment when the recipient's investment in the purchase of the site and in site preparation is 70 percent or more of the assessor's current year's estimated market value; (18) General changes in tax increment financing law and other general tax law changes of a principally technical nature. (19) Federal assistance until the assistance has been repaid to, and reinvested by, the state or local government agency; (20) Funds from dock and wharf bonds issued by a seaway port authority; (21) Business loans and loan guarantees of $75,000 or less; and (22) Federal loan funds provided through the United States Department of Commerce, Economic Development Administration. The EDA will comply with M.S., Section 116J.993 to 116J.994 to the extent the tax increment assistance under this TIF Plan does not fall under any of the above exemptions. Subsection 2 -14. County Road Costs Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.175, Subd. ]a, the county board may require the EDA or City to pay for all or part of the cost of county road improvements if the proposed development to be assisted by tax increment will, in the judgement of the county, substantially increase the use of county roads requiring construction of road improvements or other road costs and if the road improvements are not scheduled within the next five years under a capital improvement plan or within five years under another county plan. u Andover Economic Development Authority Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-4 2 -9 — /Y— Subsection 2 -15. Estimated Impact on Other Taxing Jurisdictions • The estimated impact on other taxing jurisdictions assumes that the redevelopment contemplated by the TIF Plan would occur without the creation of the District. However, the EDA or City has determined that such development or redevelopment would not occur "but for" tax increment financing and that, therefore, the fiscal impact on other taxing jurisdictions is $0. The estimated fiscal impact of the District would be as follows if the "but for" test was not met: IMPACT ON TAX BASE 2003/2004 Estimated Captured Total Net Tax Capacity (CTC) Percent of CTC Tax Capacity Upon Completion to Entity Total Anoka County 200,134,542 34,250 0.0171% City of Andover 18,604,494 34,250 0.1841% Anoka- Hennepin ISD No. 11 104,342,258 34,250 0.0328% IMPACT ON TAX RATES 2003/2004 Percent Potential Extension Rates of Total CTC Taxes Anoka County 0.352210 38.56% 34,250 12 City of Andover 0.316030 34.59% 34,250 10,824 Anoka- Hennepin ISD No. 11 0.210500 23.04% 34,250 7,210 Other (Met, Rail, Radio) 0.034780 3.81% 34.250 11191 Total 0.913520 100.00% 31,288 The estimates listed above display the captured tax capacity when all construction is completed. The tax rate used for calculations is the actual 2003/Pay 2004 rate. The total net capacity for the entities listed above are based on actual Pay 2004 figures. The District will be certified under the actual 2003/Pay 2004 rates. Subsection 2 -16. Supporting Documentation Pursuant to M.S. Section 469.175 Subd ]a, clause 7 the TIF Plan must contain identification and description of studies and analyses used to make the determination set forth in M.S. Section 469.175 Subd 3, clause (2) and the findings are required in the resolution approving the TIF district. Following is a list of reports and studies on file at the City that support the Authority's findings: A list of applicable studies, if any, will be listed here prior to the public hearing. Subsection 2 -17. Definition of Tax Increment Revenues Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.174, Subd. 25, tax increment revenues derived from a tax increment financing district include all of the following potential revenue sources: 1. Taxes paid by the captured net tax capacity, but excluding any excess taxes, as computed underM.S., Andover Economic Development Authority Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 14 2 -9 Section 469.177; 2. The proceeds from the sale or lease of property, tangible or intangible, purchased by the Authority with tax increments; 3. Principal and interest received on loans or other advances made by the Authority with tax increments; and 4. Interest or other investment earnings on or from tax increments. Subsection 2 -18. Modifications to the District In accordance with M.S., Section 469.175, Subd. 4, any: 1. Reduction or enlargement of the geographic area of Development District No. 1 or the District, if the reduction does not meet the requirements of M.S., Section 469.175, Subd. 4e; 2. Increase in amount of bonded indebtedness to be incurred; 3. A determination to capitalize interest on debt if that determination was not a part of the original TIF Plan, or to increase or decrease the amount of interest on the debt to be capitalized; 4. Increase in the portion of the captured net tax capacity to be retained by the EDA or City; 5. Increase in the estimate of the cost of the project, including administrative expenses, that will be paid or financed with tax increment from the District; or 6. Designation of additional property to be acquired by the EDA or City, shall be approved upon the notice and after the discussion, public hearing and findings required for approval of the original TIF Plan. Pursuant to M.S. Section 469.175 Subd. 4(b), the geographic area of the District may be reduced, but shall not be enlarged after five years following the date of certification of the original net tax capacity by the county auditor. If a redevelopment district is enlarged, the reasons and supporting facts for the determination that the addition to the district meets the criteria of M.S., Section 469..174, Subd. 10, paragraph (a), clauses (1) to (5), must be documented in writing and retained. The requirements of this paragraph do not apply if (1) the only modification is elimination of parcel(s) from Development District No. I or the District and (2) (A) the current net tax capacity of the parcel(s) eliminated from the District equals or exceeds the net tax capacity of those parcel(s) in the District's original net tax capacity or (B) the EDA agrees that, notwithstanding M. S, Section 469.177, Subd. 1, the original net tax capacity will be reduced by no more than the current net tax capacity of the parcel(s) eliminated from the District. The EDA or City must notify the County Auditor of any modification that reduces or enlarges the geographic area of Development District No. 1 or the District. Modifications to the District in the form of a budget modification or an expansion of the boundaries will be recorded in the TIE Plan. Subsection 2 -19. Administrative Expenses In accordance with M.S., Section 469.174, Subd. 14, and M.S, Section 469.176, Subd. 3, administrative expenses means all expenditures of the EDA or City, other than: r'1 ►�J 1. Amounts paid for the purchase of land; 2. Amounts paid to contractors or others providing materials and services, including architectural and engineering services, directly connected with the physical development of the real property in the project; 3. Relocation benefits paid to or services provided for persons residing or businesses located in the project; or Andover Economic Development Authority Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 14 2 -10 —/9� 4. Amounts used to pay principal or interest on, fund a reserve for, or sell at a discount bonds issued pursuant to M.S., Section 469.178; or 5. Amounts used to pay other financial obligations to the extent those obligations were used to finance costs described in sections 1 to 3. For districts for which the request for certification were made before August 1, 1979, or after June 30, 1982, administrative expenses also include amounts paid for services provided by bond counsel, fiscal consultants, and planning or economic development consultants. Tax increment may be used to pay any authorized and documented administrative expenses for the District up to but not to exceed 10 percent of the total tax increment expenditures authorized by the T1F Plan or the total tax increment expenditures for Development District No. 1, whichever is less. Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 4h, tax increments may be used to pay for the County's actual administrative expenses incurred in connection with the District. The county may require payment of those expenses by February 15 of the year following the year the expenses were incurred. Pursuant to M.S., Section 469. 177, Subd. 11, the County Treasurer shall deduct an amount (currently .36 percent) of any increment distributed to the EDA or City and the County Treasurer shall pay the amount deducted to the State Treasurer for deposit in the state general fund to be appropriated to the State Auditor for the cost of financial reporting of tax increment financing information and the cost of examining and auditing authorities' use of tax increment financing. This amount may be adjusted annually by the Commissioner of Revenue. Subsection 2 -20. Limitation of Increment • Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.176, Subd la, no tax increment shall be paid to the EDA or City for the District after three (3) years from the date of certification of the Original Net Tax Capacity value of the taxable property in the District by the County Auditor unless within the three (3) year period: (1) Bonds have been issued in aid of the project containing the District pursuant to M.S., Section 469.178, or any other law, except revenue bonds issued pursuant to M.S., Sections 469.152 to 469.165, or (2) The EDA or City has acquired property within the District, or (3) The EDA or City has constructed or caused to be constructed public improvements within the District. The bonds must be issued, or the EDA or City must acquire property or construct or cause public improvements to be constructed by approximately June, 2007 and report such actions to the County Auditor. The tax increment pledged to the payment of bonds and interest thereon may be discharged and the District may be terminated if sufficient funds have been irrevocably deposited in the debt service fund or other escrow account held in trust for all outstanding bonds to provide for the payment of the bonds at maturity or redemption date. Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 6: • if, after four years from the date of certification of the original net tax capacity of the tax increment financing district pursuant to M.S., Section 469.177, no demolition, rehabilitation or renovation of Andover Economic Development Authority Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-4 2 -11 -17- property or other site preparation, including qualified improvement of a street adjacent to a parcel but not installation of utility service including sewer or water systems, has been commenced on a • parcel located within a tax increment financing district by the authority or by the owner of the parcel in accordance with the tax increment financing plan, no additional tax increment may be taken from that parcel and the original net tax capacity of that parcel shall be excluded from the original net tax capacity of the tax increment financing district. If the authority or the owner of the parcel subsequently commences demolition, rehabilitation or renovation or other site preparation on that parcel including qualified improvement of a street adjacent to that parcel, in accordance with the tax increment financing plan, the authority shall certify to the county auditor that the activity has commenced and the county auditor shall certify the net tax capacity thereof as most recently certified by the commissioner of revenue and add it to the original net tax capacity of the tax increment financing district. The county auditor must enforce the provisions of this subdivision. The authority must submit to the county auditor evidence that the required activity has taken place for each parcel in the district. The evidence for a parcel must be submitted by February I of the fifth year following the year in which the parcel was certified as included in the district. For purposes of this subdivision, qualified improvements of a street are limited to (1) construction or opening of a new street, (2) relocation of a street, and (3) substantial reconstruction or rebuilding ofan existing street. The EDA or City or a property owner must improve parcels within the District by approximately June, 2008 and report such actions to the County Auditor. Subsection 2 -21. Use of Tax Increment The EDA or City hereby determines that it will use 100 percent of the captured net tax capacity of taxable property located in the District for the following purposes: 1. To pay the principal of and interest on bonds issued to finance a project; 2. To finance, or otherwise pay the cost of redevelopment of Development District No. l pursuant to the M.S., Sections 469.090 to 469.1082; 3. To pay for project costs as identified in the budget set forth in the TIF Plan; 4. To finance, or otherwise pay for other purposes as provided in MS., Section 469.176, Subd. 4; 5. To pay principal and interest on any loans, advances or other payments made to or on behalf of the EDA or City or for the benefit of Development District No. 1 by a developer; 6. To finance or otherwise pay premiums and other costs for insurance or other security guaranteeing the payment when due of principal of and interest on bonds pursuant to the TV Plan or pursuant to M.S., Chapter 4620. M.S., Sections 469.152 through 469.165, and/or MS, Sections 469.178; and 7. To accumulate or maintain a reserve securing the payment when due of the principal and interest on the tax increment bonds or bonds issued pursuant to M.S., Chapter 462C, M.S., Sections 469.152 through 469.165, and/or M.S., Sections 469.178. These revenues shall not be used to circumvent any levy limitations applicable to the City nor for other purposes prohibited by M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 4. Tax increments generated in the District will be paid by Anoka County to the EDA for the Tax Increment Fund of said District. The EDA or City will pay to the developer(s) annually an amount not to exceed an amount as specified in a developer's agreement to reimburse the costs of land acquisition, public improvements, demolition and relocation, site preparation, and administration. Remaining increment funds will be used for EDA or City administration (up to 10 percent) and the costs of public improvement activities . outside the District. Andover Economic Development Authority Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-4 2 -12 —/16— Subsection 2 -22. Excess Increments Excess increments, as defined in M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 2, shall be used only to do one or more of the following: 1. Prepay any outstanding bonds; 2. Discharge the pledge of tax increment for any outstanding bonds; 3. Pay into an escrow account dedicated to the payment of any outstanding bonds; or 4. Return the excess to the County Auditor for redistribution to the respective taxing jurisdictions in proportion to their local tax rates. In addition, the EDA or City may, subject to the limitations set forth herein, choose to modify the TIF Plan in order to finance additional public costs in Development District No. 1 or the District. Subsection 2 -23. Requirements for Agreements with the Developer The EDA or City will review any proposal for private development to determine its conformance with the Development Program and with applicable municipal ordinances and codes. To facilitate this effort, the following documents may be requested for review and approval: site plan, construction, mechanical, and electrical system drawings, landscaping plan, grading and storm drainage plan, signage system plan, and any other drawings or narrative deemed necessary by the EDA or City to demonstrate the conformance of the development with City plans and ordinances. The EDA or City may also use the Agreements to address other issues related to the development. Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 5, no more than 25 percent, by acreage, of the property to be acquired in the District as set forth in the TIF Plan shall at any time be owned by the EDA or City as a result of acquisition with the proceeds of bonds issued pursuant to M.S., Section 469.178 to which tax increments from property acquired is pledged, unless prior to acquisition in excess of 25 percent of the acreage, the EDA or City concluded an agreement for the development or redevelopment of the property acquired and which provides recourse for the EDA or City should the development or redevelopment not be completed. Subsection 2 -24. Assessment Agreements Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.177, Subd. 8, the EDA or City may enter into a written assessment agreement in recordable form with the developer of property within the District which establishes a minimum market value of the land and completed improvements for the duration of the District. The assessment agreement shall be presented to the County Assessor who shall review the plans and specifications for the improvements to be constructed, review the market value previously assigned to the land upon which the improvements are to be constructed and, so long as the minimum market value contained in the assessment agreement appears, in the judgment of the assessor, to be a reasonable estimate, the County Assessor shall also certify the minimum market value agreement. Subsection 2 -25. Administration of the District Administration of the District will be handled by the City Administrator. Subsection 2-26. Annual Disclosure Requirements • Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.175, Subd. 5, 6, and 6b the EDA or City must undertake financial reporting for all tax increment financing districts to the Office of the State Auditor, County Board, County Auditor and Andover Economic Development Authority Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-4 2 -13 —19— School Board on or before August I of each year. M.S., Section 469.175, Subd. 5 also provides that an annual statement shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation in the City on or before August 15. If the City fails to make a disclosure or submit a report containing the information required by M.S. Section 469.175 Subd. 5 and Subd. 6, the OSA will direct the County Auditor to withhold the distribution of tax increment from the District. Subsection 2 -27. Reasonable Expectations As required by the TIF Act, in establishing the District, the determination has been made that the anticipated development would not reasonably be expected to occur solely through private investment within the reasonably foreseeable future and that the increased market value of the site that could reasonably be expected to occur without the use of tax increment financing would be less than the increase in the market value estimated to result from the proposed development after subtracting the present value of the projected tax increments for the maximum duration of the District permitted by the TIF Plan. In making said determination, reliance has been placed upon written representation made by the developer to such effects and upon EDA and City staff awareness of the feasibility of developing the project site. A comparative analysis of estimated market values both with and without establishment of the District and the use of tax increments has been performed as described above. Such analysis is included with the cashflow in Appendix D, and indicates that the increase in estimated market value of the proposed development (less the indicated subtractions) exceeds the estimated market value of the site absent the establishment of the District and the use of tax increments. Subsection 2-28. Other Limitations on the Use of Tax Increment General Limitations All revenue derived from tax increment shall be used in accordance with the TIF i Plan. The revenues shall be used to finance, or otherwise pay the cost of redevelopment of Development District No. 1 pursuant to the M.S., Sections 469.090 to 469.1082. Tax increments may not be used to circumvent existing levy limit law. No tax increment may be used for the acquisition, construction, renovation, operation, or maintenance of a building to be used primarily and regularly for conducting the business of a municipality, county, school district, or any other local unit of government or the state or federal government. This provision does not prohibit the use of revenues derived from tax increments for the construction or renovation of a parking structure. Pooling Limitations At least 75 percent of tax increments from the District must be expended on activities in the District or to pay bonds, to the extent that the proceeds of the bonds were used to finance activities within said district or to pay, or secure payment of, debt service on credit enhanced bonds. Not more than 25 percent of said tax increments may be expended, through a development fund or otherwise, on activities outside of the District except to pay; or secure payment of, debt service on credit enhanced bonds. For purposes of applying this restriction, all administrative expenses must be treated as if they were solely for activities outside of the District. Five Year Limitation on Commitment of Tax Increments Tax increments derived from the District shall be deemed to have satisfied the 75 percent test set forth in paragraph (2) above only if the five year rule set forth in M.S., Section 469.1763, Subd. 3, has been satisfied; and beginning with the sixth year following certification of the District, 75 percent of said tax increments that remain after expenditures permitted under said five year rule must be used only to pay previously committed expenditures or credit enhanced bonds as more fully set forth in M.S., Section 469.1763, Subd. 5. . 9 Andover Economic Development Authority Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-4 2 -14 4. Redevel District At least 90 percent of the revenues derived from tax increment from a • redevelopment district must be used to finance the cost of correcting conditions that allow designation ofredevelopment and renewal and renovation districtsunderM.S., Section 469.176Subd. 4j. These costs include, but are not limited to, acquiring properties containing structurally substandard buildings or improvements or hazardous substances, pollution, or contaminants, acquiring adj acent parcels necessary to provide a site of sufficient size to permit development, demolition and rehabilitation of structures, clearing of the land, the removal of hazardous substances or remediation necessary for development of the land, and installation of utilities, roads, sidewalks, and parking facilities for the site. The allocated administrative expenses of the EDA or City, including the cost of preparation of the development action response plan, may be included in the qualifying costs. Subsection 2 -29. Summary The EDA is establishing the District to preserve and enhance the tax base, redevelop substandard areas, and provide employment opportunities in the City. The TIF Plan for the District was prepared by Ehlers & Associates, Inc., 3060 Centre Pointe Drive, Roseville, Minnesota 55113, telephone (651) 697 -8500. • • Andover Economic Development Authority Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-4 2 -15 _2� /— APPENDIX A PROJECT DESCRIPTION There are two separate sites included in the proposed District. Currently under consideration for the first site is a proposal to facilitate the demolition of several substandard buildings. Newbuildings will be constructed that will serve primarily as office and warehouse facilities for service businesses, within the City. The initial building has an estimated value of $725,000. It is anticipated that the vehicle count on Bunker Lake Road will increase by approximately 75 additional vehicles per day. Development is likely to begin in the Summer of 2004. There is also potential for an additional building to be built on the first site at a later date. The second site is currently occupied by a building that may require some renovation within five years. The EDA and City have determined that it will be necessary to provide assistance to the project for certain costs which include, but are not limited to demolition costs, site improvements, utility installation and parking facility costs. The EDA has studied the feasibility of the development or redevelopment ofproperty in and around the District. To facilitate the establishment and development or redevelopment of the District, this TIF Plan authorizes the use of tax increment financing to reimburse for the cost of certain eligible expenses paid by the developer. APPENDIX A -1 • 9 —ZZ— — Mole ® Y • y , Ari TIF district 1-4 0 0 2 1 �- Economic Development Authority APPENDIX C 0 DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY TO BE INCLUDED IN THE DISTRICT The District encompasses all property and adjacent rights -of -way identified by the parcels listed below. Parcel Numbers Address Partial Legal Description Owner 16- 32 -24 -23 -0001 UNPLATTED 16 -32 -24-23 -0002 3017 161' Avenue NW UNPLATTED 16- 32 -24 -23 -0005 UNPLATTED 16- 32 -24 -23 -0018 16191 Round Lake Boulevard NW LOT/UNTT: 1 BLOCK/TRACT: 1 WESTVIEW IND PARK 16- 32 -24 -23 -0019 16191 Round Lake Boulevard NW LOT/UNIT: 2 BLOCK/TRACT: I WESTVIEW IND PARK 16- 32 -24 -23 -0020 LOT/UNIT: 3 BLOCK/TRACT: 1 WESTVIEW IND PARK 0 • APPENDIX C-1 APPENDIX D ESTIMATED CASH FLOW FOR THE DISTRICT • �J u APPENDIX D-1 EHLERS '"'00'4" INc Round Lake Blvd between 161st Ave and 162nd Lane City of Andover District Redevelopment District # 1-4 Inflation Rate - Every Year 0.0000% Pay -As- You -Go Interest Rate: 5.7500% Note Issued Date (Present Value Date): 01- Aug -04 Local Tax Rate - Maximum (51011 L) 91.3520% Pay 2004 Year District was certified Pay 2004 Assumes First Tax Increment For District 2006 Years of Tax Increment 26 Assumes Last Year of Tax Increment 2032 Fiscal Disparities Ratio 0.321645 Pay 2004 Fiscal Disparities Metro Wide Tax Rate 137.107% Pay 2004 Local Tax Rate - Current 91.352% Pay 2004 State Wide Property Tax Rate (Used for R16- 32 -24 -23 -0001 total taxes) 54.1090% Pay 2004 Market Value Tax Rate (used for total 1.5/2.00% taxes) 0.14343% Pay 2004 Commercial Industrial Class Rate 1.5 % -2.0% Pay 2003 First 150,000 1.50% Over 150,000 2.00% 2004 • Note: 1. Value estimates are based upon developer's estimates 4/30/2004 Estimates Only Fiscal Implicationruns.xis -L'j° Original Additional Land Building Total Class Tax Date PID Mkt Value Mkt Value Mkt Value Rate Capacity Payable R16- 32 -24 -23 -0001 147,000 135,900 282,900 1.5/2.00% 4,908 2004 R16-32- 24-23 -0002 206,400 189,200 395,600 1.5/2.00% 7,162 2004 R16- 32 -24 -23 -0005 74,500 7,200 81,700 1.50% 1,226 2004 R16- 32 -24 -23 -0018 63,000 65,200 128,200 1.50% 1,923 2004 R16- 32- 24-23 -0019 94,900 29,600 124,500 1.50% 1,868 2004 R16- 32 -24 -23 -0020 99,600 0 99,600 1.50% 1,494 2004 Totals 685,400 427,100 1,112,500 18,581 Note: 1. Value estimates are based upon developer's estimates 4/30/2004 Estimates Only Fiscal Implicationruns.xis -L'j° Additional Total Market Class Tax Year Pay Phase Use Taxes Value Rate Capacity Constr Year 1 Commercial 23,064 725,000 1.5/2.00% 13,750 2004 2006 2 Commercial 14,172 500,000 1.5/2.00% 9,250 2004 2006 2 Commercial 17,225 600,000 1.512.00% 11,250 2004 2006 TOTAL 54,462 1,825,000 34,250 Note: 1. Value estimates are based upon developer's estimates 4/30/2004 Estimates Only Fiscal Implicationruns.xis -L'j° EHLERS t C3DCII.i Cf INL CITY OF ANDOVER • 0 NOTES: 1. State Auditor payment is based upon 1st half, pay 2002 actual and may change over term of district 2. Assumes redevelopment Is completed in 2004, assessed in 2D05 and first increment is paid in 2006. If Increment received in 2005, district will be shortened by one year. 3. Amount of increment will vary depending upon market value, tax rates, class rates, construction schedule and • inflation on Market Value. 4. Inflation on tax rates cannot be captured. 5. TIF does not capture state wide property taxes or market value property taxes. 413012004 Estimates Only Fiscal Implicationmesxis - 7-5 - Base Project Captured Semi - Annual State Admin. Semi- Annual Cumul. PAYMENT DATE PERIOD BEGINNIN Tax Tax Tax Gross Tax Auditor at Net Tax Net Tax PERIOD ENDING Yrs. Mth. Yr. Capacity CapacitE Capacity Increment 0.36% 10.00% Increment Increment Yrs. Mth. Yr. 0.0 02 -01 2004 18,581 18,581 O.D 08 -01 2004 0.0 08 -01 2D04 18,561 18,581 0 0 0 0 D 0 0.0 02 -01 2005 D.D 02 -01 2005 18,561 16,581 0 D 0 0 D 0 0.0 08-01 2005 0.0 DS-01 2005 18,581 18,581 0 D 0 0 0 0 0.0 02 -01 2006 0.0 02 -01 2006 18,581 52,631 34,250 15,644 (56) (1,559) 14,029 14,029 0.5 08 -01 2006 0.5 OS -01 2006 18,581 52,631 34,250 15,644 (56) (1,559) 14,029 28,058 1.0 02 -01 2007 1.0 02 -01 2007 18,581 52,831 34,250 15,644 (56) (1,559) 14,029 42,087 1.5 08 -01 2007 1.5 08 -01 2007 18,581 52,831 34,250 15,644 (56) (1,559) 14,029 56,116 2.0 02 -01 2DD8 2.0 02-91 20D8 18,581 52,831 34,250 15,644 (56) (1,559) 14,029 70,145 2.5 08 -01 2008 2.5 08-01 2008 18,581 52,831 34,250 15,644 (56) (1,559) 14,029 84,174 3.0 02 -01 2009 3.0 02 -01 2009 16,581 52,831 34,250 15,644 (56) (1,559) 14,029 98,203 3.5 08-01 2009 3.5 0B -01 2009 18,581 52,831 34,250 15,644 (56) (1,559) 14,029 112,232 4.0 02 -01 2010 4.0 02 -01 2010 18,581 52,831 34,250 15,644 (56) (1,559) 14,029 126,260 4.5 08 -01 2010 4.5 06-01 2010 18,581 52,831 34,250 15,644 (56) (1,559) 14,029 140,289 5.0 02 -01 2011 5.0 02 -01 2011 18,581 52,831 34,250 15,644 (56) (1,559) 14,029 154,318 5.5 08 -01 2011 5.5 08 -01 2011 18,581 52,831 34,250 15,644 (56) (1,559) 14,029 166,347 6.0 02 -01 2012 6.1) 02 -01 2012 18,581 52,631 34,250 15,644 (56) (1,559) 14,029 182,376 6.5 08-01 2012 6.5 08 -01 2012 18,581 52,831 34,250 15,644 (56) (1,559) 14,029 196,405 7.0 02 -01 2013 7.0 02 -01 2013 18,561 52,831 34,250 15,644 (56) (1,559) 14,D29 210,434 7.5 08 -01 2013 7.5 08 -01 2013 18,561 52,631 34,250 15,644 (56) (1,559) 14,029 224,463 8.0 02 -01 2014 8.0 02 -01 2014 18,581 52,631 34,250 15,644 (56) (1,559) 14,029 238,492 8.5 08-01 2014 8.5 08 -01 2014 18,581 52,831 34,250 15,644 (56) (1,559) 14,029 252,521 9.D 02 -01 2015 9.0 02 -01 2015 18,581 52,831 34,250 15,644 (56) (1,559) 14,029 266,550 9.5 OB-01 2015 9.5 08 -01 2015 18,581 52,831 34,250 15,644 (56) (1,559) 14,029 280,579 10.0 02 -01 2016 10.0 02 -01 2016 16,581 52,831 34,250 15,644 (56) (1,559) 14,029 294,608 10.5 08 -01 2016 10.5 08-01 2016 18,581 52,831 34,25D 15,644 (56) (1,559) 14,029 308,637 11.0 02 -01 2017 11.0 02 -01 2017 18,581 52,831 34,250 15,644 (56) (1,559) 14,029 322,666 11.5 08 -01 2017 11.5 OB -01 2017 18,581 52,831 34,250 15,644 (56) (1,559) 14,029 336,695 12.0 02 -01 2018 12.0 02 -01 2018 18,581 52,831 34,250 15,644 (56) (1,559) 14,029 350,724 12.5 08 -01 2018 12.5 08 -01 2018 18,581 52,831 34,250 15,644 (56) (1,559) 14,029 364,752 13.0 02 -01 2019 13.0 02 -01 2019 18,581 52,831 34,250 15,644 (56) (1,559) 14,029 378,781 13.5 08-01 2019 13.5 08 -01 2019 18,581 52,831 34,250 15,644 (56) (1,559) 14,029 392,810 14.0 02 -01 2020 14.0 02 -01 2020 18,581 52,831 34,250 15,644 (56) (1,559) 14,029 406,839 14.5 08 -01 2020 14.5 08-01 2020 18,581 52,831 34,250 15,644 (56) (1,559) 14,029 420,868 15.0 02 -01 2021 15.0 02 -01 2021 18,561 52,831 34,250 15,644 (56) (1,559) 14,029 434,897 15.5 08 -01 2021 15.5 DS -01 2021 18,561 52,831 34,250 15,644 (56) (1,559) 14,029 448,926 16.0 02 -01 2022 16.0 02 -01 2022 18,581 52,631 34,250 15,644 (56) (1,559) 14,029 462,955 16.5 08 -01 2022 16.5 08-01 2022 18,581 52,631 34,250 15,644 (56) (1,559) 14,029 476,984 17.0 02 -01 2023 17.0 02-DI 2023 18,581 52,631 34,250 15,644 (56) (1,559) - 14,029 491,013 17.5 08-01 2023 17.5 08 -01 2023 18,581 52,831 34,250 15,644 (56) (1,559) 14,029 505,042 16.0 02 -01 2024 18.0 02 -01 2024 18,581 52,831 34,250 15,644 (56) (1,559) 14,029 519,071 18.5 08-01 2D24 18.5 08-01 2024 18,581 52,831 34,250 15,644 (56) (1,559) 14,029 533,100 19.0 02 -01 2025 19.0 02 -01 2025 18,581 52,831 34,250 15,644 (56) (1,559) 14,029 547,129 19.5 0B -01 2025 19.5 08-01 2025 18,581 52,831 34,250 15,644 (56) (1,559) 14,029 561,158 20.0 02 -01 2026 20.0 02 -01 2026 18,581 52,831 34,250 15,644 (56) (1,559) 14,029 575,187 20.5 08-01 2026 20.5 06-01 2026 18,581 52,831 34,250 15,644 (56) (1,559) 14,029 589,215 21.0 02 -01 2027 21.0 02 -01 2027 18,581 52,831 34,250 15,644 (56) (1,559) 14,029 603,244 21.5 08 -01 2027. 21.5 08 -01 2027 18,581 52,831 34,250 15,644 (56) (1,559) 14,029 617,273 22.0 02 -01 2028 22.0 02 -01 2028 18,581 52,831 34,250 15,644 (56) (1,559) 14,D29 631,302 22.5 OB -01 2028 22.5 08-01 2026 18,581 52,831 34,250 15,644 (56) (1,559) 14,029 645,331 23.0 02 -01 2029 23.0 02 -01 2029 18,581 52,831 34,250 15,644 (56) (1,559) 14,029 659,360 23.5 08-01 2029 23.5 08 -01 2029 18,581 52,831 34,250 15,644 (56) (1,559) 14,029 673,389 24.0 02 -01 2030 24.D 02 -01 2030 18,561 52,831 34,250 15,644 (56) (1,559) 14,029 687,418 24.5 08-01 2030 24.5 08-01 2030 18,581 52,831 34,250 15,644 (56) (1,559) 14,029 701,447 25.0 02 -01 2031 25.0 02 -01 2031 18,581 52,831 34,250 15,644 (56) (1,559) 14,029 715,476 25.5 08-01 2031 25.5 08-01 2031 18 581 52,831 34,250 15,644 56 (1,559) 14,029 729 26.0 02 -01 2032 Totals 813,490 (2,929) (81,056) 729,505 419, ( 1,387) (38,393 • 0 NOTES: 1. State Auditor payment is based upon 1st half, pay 2002 actual and may change over term of district 2. Assumes redevelopment Is completed in 2004, assessed in 2D05 and first increment is paid in 2006. If Increment received in 2005, district will be shortened by one year. 3. Amount of increment will vary depending upon market value, tax rates, class rates, construction schedule and • inflation on Market Value. 4. Inflation on tax rates cannot be captured. 5. TIF does not capture state wide property taxes or market value property taxes. 413012004 Estimates Only Fiscal Implicationmesxis - 7-5 - APPENDIX E • MINNESOTA BUSINESS ASSISTANCE FORM (MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT) Form to be added prior to the public hearing L J • APPENDIX E-1 -L?- APPENDIX F REDEVELOPMENT QUALIFICATIONS FOR THE DISTRICT • The City's engineering firm, SEH is currently in the process of accumulating the required data to substantiate the coverage requirements and determine that the level of blight is sufficient for qualification under the law. Prior to the public hearing, SEH will provide a written report outlining their findings. • LJ APPENDIX F -1 —3e — APPENDIX G BUT/FOR QUALIFICATIONS To be added to prior to the public hearing • 0 APPENDIX G-1 —31— r 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. • ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 • (763) 755 -5100 FAX (763) 755 -8923 • WWW.CI.ANDOVER.MN.US TO: Planning and Zoning. Commissioners FROM: Will Neumeister, Community Development Director Courtney Bednarz, City Plannef SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING: Ordinance Amendment(04 -02) to amend City Code 13 -3 Planned Unit Developments. DATE: May 11, 2004 INTRODUCTION 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. DISCUSSION 49 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. At the Planning Commission's request, applicable density requirements have been included in the proposed ordinance. ACTION REQUESTED The Planning Commission is asked to hold a public hearing and make a recommendation to the City Council. f • 1 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 Density. The density of residential developments shall be required to conform to the applicable Land Use District. 13 -3 -6 Zoning and Subdivision Standards and Requirements. All standards and provisions relating to an original zoning district shall apply, unless otherwise approved as a part of the PUD. All standards may be modified or waived provided the applicant demonstrates harmony with the purpose of PUD and the findings described in City Code 13 -3 -8. 13 -3 -7 Approval Process. An applicant for a PUD shall submit in the application all of the material required by this Chapter. Each PUD requested must adhere to the following process: A. Permitted and conditional uses shall follow the conditional use permit procedures provided in 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 -3-8 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 -9 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. 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 -10 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 -11 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. • A C I T Y 0 F NDOVEA 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. • ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 . (763) 755 -5100 FAX (763) 755 -8923 • WWW.CLANDOVER.MN.US TO: Planning and Zoning Commissioners FROM: Will Neumeister, Community Development Director &06. SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING: Ordinance Amendment (04-03) to establish regulations for temporary structures DATE: May 11, 2004 INTRODUCTION On February 24, 2004, the City Council reviewed general information provided to them regarding "temporary structures ". The minutes of that meeting are attached. Council directed that the staff and Planning Commission review regulations for temporary structures. 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 • Location where they may be placed on a site In discussing this topic at the Planning Commission workshop on April 27, 2004, there was a great deal of discussion regarding allowing temporary structures subject to approval of a Conditional Use Permit. This report has been written to follow that direction. As a comparison and to help make a decision on what should be put in an ordinance of this type, similar ordinances from Plymouth and Lakeville were previously distributed. 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. Temporary Classrooms The Ordinance amendment should regulate temporary classrooms at school sites subject to the following criteria: 1. Temporary classrooms 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 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 r visual standards). 3. Lighting shall be required to meet the parking lot lighting and glare ordinance sections. • 4. Location of the temporary classrooms should be to the side or rear of the site. 5. 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 How Other Temporary Structures Should Be Regulated Other temporary structures, such as construction trailers, greenhouses, etc., should be controlled in the ordinance with standards and details that indicate the duration of how long they may be allowed on the property and be subject to the standard commercial site plan review process. Also, the ordinance should indicate that trailers should not be allowed to be used as temporary sales offices for new housing developments. These elements have been incorporated into an Ordinance amendment (see attached). Trailers shall not be allowed as temporary sales offices for new housing developments. Construction trailers, greenhouses shall be allowed only through the commercial site plan review process. It is recommended that tents for promotional sales events shall be allowed up to ten calendar days per year. Building permits must be approved for these types of temporary structures by the City Building and Fire Departments to assure they will conform to the Uniform Fire Code and International Building Code. Fees for this type of temporary structure shall be set by the City Fee Ordinance. It is recommended that no Conditional Use Permit would be needed for this type of temporary structure. ACTION REQUESTED The Planning Commission is asked to hold a Public Hearing, take public input and discuss the proposed Ordinance amendment establishing regulations for temporary structures. Respectfully Submitted, Will Neumeister Attachments Proposed Ordinance Amendment for Temporary Structures Minutes of February 24, 2004 Council Workshop Minutes of April 27, 2004 Planning Commission Workshop CC: Tom Durand, Anoka School District 11, Educational Services Center, 11299 Hanson Blvd NW, Coon Rapids, MN 55433 - -Z CITY OF ANDOVER • COUNTY OF ANOKA STATE OF MINNESOTA ORDINANCE AN ORDINANCE REGULATING TEMPORARY STRUCTURES. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANDOVER DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: The Planning Commission held a public hearing to review the need for a new section to be added to the Zoning Code (Title 12) that will regulate temporary structures. Upon the recommendation of the Planning Commission, the following language shall be added to, or modified in Section 6 of Title 12 (underlining indicates added language, strikeouts indicate deleted language): Section 6 of Title 12 shall be modified to read as follows: Section 6 — Accessory Buildings and Temporary Structures 12 -6 -7: Erection of temporary structures • All temporary structures shall be required to obtain a Conditional Use Permit, as otherwise provided by this Title The Conditional Use Permit for a temporary structure shall be reviewed subject to the following regulations: A. TemporarX structures govemed by this Chapter shall be allowed by Conditional Use Permit in all zoning districts. B. Prior to issuance of a building permit, a site plan review must also be approved. C. Security measures such as lighting shall be reviewed as a part of the Conditional Use Permit. D. Parking shall be subject to the provisions of Section 14 -10 of this Title. E. Siignage shall be subject to the provisions of Section 14-9 of this Title. F. The Conditional Use Permit will address the daze the temporary structure shall be removed from the property. G. Temporary structures shall follow the required building setbacks. The temnorary structure is to be located to the side or rear of the site and will be reviewed as a part of the Conditional Use Permit. • H. All applicable requirements of the International Residential Code. International --.5— Building Code and State Building Code shall be met. I. Provisions for water and sewer servicing a temporary structure shall be subject to the review and approval of the Building Official. J. Trailers shall not be allowed as temporary sales offices for new housing developments. K. Construction trailers Menhouses shall be allowed only through the commercial site plan review process. L. Tents for promotional sales events shall be allowed up to ten calendar days per year. Building permits must be approved for these types of temporary structures by the City Building and Fire Departments to assure they will conform to the Uniform Fire Code and International Building Code. Fees for this We of temporary structure shall be set by the City Fee Ordinance. No Conditional Use Permit is needed for this type of temporary structure. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Andover on this day of , 2004. CITY OF ANDOVER Michael R. Gamache, Mayor ATTEST: Vicki Volk, City Clerk • 0 • C--/ 1 Minutes from February 24, 2004 Council Workshop • CONSIDER ZONING ORDINANCE CHANGE FOR TEMPORARY STRUCTURES Community Development Director Neumeister cited a report to Council that provided general ideas and information regarding how other cities in the metropolitan area might or might not regulate temporary structures. He discussed the variation in zoning regulations from different cities. Mr. Neumeister indicated it was important to distinguish between "portable structure" and "temporary structure." He explained that typically a portable structure would be located on a site for a longer period of time, would likely have a post -type foundation and anchoring system and would meet the current Uniform Building and Fire Codes. He noted temporary structures are usually construction trailers. Mr. Neumeister stated the City of Plymouth also had a zoning regulation called an "interim use permit," which they used for review and approval of portable classrooms in the Public Institution District. He noted the interim use permit was similar to a conditional use permit, whereby a city could regulate how long a portable building would be allowed on a site before it would need to be further reviewed. W. 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. _!5-- l C I T Y O F N. • 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. • ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 • (763) 755 -5100 FAX (763) 755 -8923 • WWW.CI.ANDOVER.MN.US TO: Planning Commission CC: CourtneyBednarc,CityPlaim* FROM: Jon Sevald, Planning hitem SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING: Ordinance Amendment (04 -01) amending City Code 12 -14 -10 D. 8. regulating lighting in off street parking areas. DATE: May 11, 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 discussed this item at the April . 27 h meeting. The consensus was to adopt IESNA guidelines and require that all light fixtures be "fully shielded" with a cutoff angle equal to or less than 90- degrees (see graphic at right). The lighting ordinance regarding glare would remain unchanged, allowing a maximum of 0.4 footcandles as measured at the property line adjoining a residential land use. Additionally, there would be no limit on pole heights. The Planning Commission was most concerned with reducing the amount of glare. Staff spoke with a lighting manufacturer who advised on what would be the best option for reducing glare, which includes requiring fixtures with "Full Cutoff' shields and "Flat Lenses." Staff consulted with the City of Bloomington, who perhaps has the most detailed lighting ordinance. Several years ago, there were two murders committed in Bloomington parking lots, which were attributed to a lack of lighting. A committee consisting of city staff, police, residents, businesses, and lighting consultants was formed to revise their lighting ordinance. Bloomington requires that photometric plans be approved by both the Planning and Police Departments. With the P intension of deterring crime, the City requires a minimum of 2.0 footcandles and a uniform ratio of 10:1 in commercial areas, meaning that a strip mall parking lot would measure between 2.0 — 20.0 footcandles at a minimum (there is no maximum). Under Andover's proposed amendment, • that same strip mall would be between 2.0 — 8.0 (or a minimum of 0.6 — 2.4 footcandles, once again with no maximum). Following the minimum standards, a parking lot in Andover would not be as bright as one in Bloomington, but would be lit more uniformly and in turn would have either more light poles or more efficient head fixtures. Bloomington planners have acknowledged that it is the uniform ratio that matters most, not the level of brightness, and have reduced their regulations in residential areas from 2.0 footcandles to 1.5 and are considering reducing it again to 1.0. The Uniform Ratio was reduced from 10:1 to 6:1 and may be reduced further to 4:1. Commercial areas would remain with a minimum of 2.0 footcandles and a uniform ratio of 10:1. Additionally, under the discretion of the Planning Manager with the intension of controlling light trespass, Bloomington does not regulate lighting along a 30 -foot perimeter of the parking lot. The idea here is that these parking spaces are only utilized during the holiday shopping season, so businesses have the option of not installing poles along the parking lot edge. Bloomington often receives complaints from residents regarding the excessive amount of light and has been sued by a business, stating that the requirement of 2.0 footcandles is excessive and financially restrictive. The case was ruled in the City's favor. In comparing the proposed amendment to those found in other cities, the proposed amendment is more detailed than most with the intention of providing clear d to developers and their architects, and consultants on how to design their parking lot lighting plan, whereas arbitrary • decisions would need to be been made otherwise. Sta f Recommendation Staffrecommends approval of the proposed amendment. ACTION REQUESTED The Planning Commission is requested to recommend approval of the proposed amendment. Attachments Resolution Planning Commission Minutes Lighting Survey espectfully submitted, L)n 3 VOW Jon Sevald • 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 directs from the IM or a diffusing element, or indirectly by reflection or refraction from any part of the luminaire. FOOTCANDLE: The international unit of illumination produced on a surface. IESNA: Illuminating Engineering Society of North America. PHOTOMETRIC PLAN: A point -bv -point plan depicting the intensity and location of lighting on the property. UNIFORM RATIO• The maximum -to- minimum value between adjacent luminaires. • 12 -14-10: Off Street Parking Requirements: D. 8. Lighting: a. All off street parking areas f or- msid uses of twelve "O` o s and a14 off we , ' ' , institatiena4 and publie uses shall be equipped with operable lighting designed to illuminate the entire surface of the parking area to a n3ini level of one f e et eandle at gr Ievel 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. l / 1 u 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 directs from the IM or a diffusing element, or indirectly by reflection or refraction from any part of the luminaire. FOOTCANDLE: The international unit of illumination produced on a surface. IESNA: Illuminating Engineering Society of North America. PHOTOMETRIC PLAN: A point -bv -point plan depicting the intensity and location of lighting on the property. UNIFORM RATIO• The maximum -to- minimum value between adjacent luminaires. • 12 -14-10: Off Street Parking Requirements: D. 8. Lighting: a. All off street parking areas f or- msid uses of twelve "O` o s and a14 off we , ' ' , institatiena4 and publie uses shall be equipped with operable lighting designed to illuminate the entire surface of the parking area to a n3ini level of one f e et eandle at gr Ievel 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. l / 1 u �3— )ESNA EXTERIOR LIGHTING GUIDELINES General Vehicle Use Parking & Area Orgy Pedestrian Land Use Average Min. Unliorm Ratio Average Min. Unglorm Rago Footcandles Footcandles High Major League Athletic Events 3.6 0.9 4:1 2.0 0.67 3:1 Major cultural or Civic Even Regional Shopping Centers (300,000 sq fl or greater Fast Food Facilities Mad Wm Consrxrnity Shopping Centers (5,000 29,999 sq ft) 2.4 0.6 4:1 1.0 0.33 3:1 Cultural, Civic, or Recreational Ew Office Parks Hospital Parking Transportation Parking (Airports, Commuter Lots, Etc. Residential Complex Parkin Low Neighborhood Shopping (under 5,000 sq fl 0.8 0.2 4:1 0.5 0.13 4:1 Industrial Employee Parkin Educational Facility Parking Church Parking �3— b. For the pWoses 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 srfmged fully shielded • with a total cutoff angle equal to or less than 90- degrees. FLU CUJVFF Hwm=* IAmped RdkcW aFIN Lm �ayra.m. m+.p� oP Al Lsaw YIml�Mni µ:r .Iadwe SOJ.y� d. Illumination from light fixtures shall be measured at one foot above ground level on a 45- degree angled plane. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Andover this l' day of June 2004. CITY OF ANDOVER ATTEST: Mayor Victoria Volk, City Clerk Michael R. Gamache, • C 1 Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes —April 27, 2004 Page 11 E Commissioner Vatne asked how the temporary structures are approved in the first place. Mr. Bednarz stated they have not technically been approved yet but they do not need to go through the Planning Commission for approval. They have to meet the building code requirements and setbacks apply but there are no special rules. A majority of the Commission stated they would like to have a public hearing for the temporary structures. C. Parking Lot Lighting Mr. Sevald stated 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). Mr. Sevald discussed the information with the Planning Commission. Commissioner Kirchoff stated he could understand less lighting is better for a residential neighborhood. • Commissioner Greenwald felt staff answered the criteria efficiently. Commissioner Jasper stated there is no logical reason for different criteria for each parking lot. He gave an example that it does not make sense for a church parking lot in a residential neighborhood to have more lighting than a commercial parking lot for safety reasons. The Commission discussed the need for different ways to light parking lots depending on their own situations. The Commission discussed pole height and determined that no arbitrary number should be put in the ordinance. Commissioner Greenwald thought there needed to be a little bit of flexibility given because he did not think they needed the uniform height if you have shielding and correct lighting. Commissioner Jasper stated the issue people are complaining about is about lighting on their property and the shielding and lighting is the important part. A majority of the Commission was in favor of using the IESNA standards in the new ordinance. n U n U SURVEY OF LIGHT GLARE & ANGLE OF LIGHT FIXTURE CUTOFF Max Fc At Prop Line Max Angle C1TV lGlarol of Cutoff Andover (current) 0.4 N /A" Andover (proposed) 0.4 90- degrees Apple Valley WA NW Blaine 0.4 N /A" Bloomington 1.0 90- degrees Brooklyn Park 0.5 90- degrees Burnsville 0.5 NIA` Chanhassen 0.5 90- degrees Coon Rapids 3.0 NIA' Cottage Grove 0.5(Res) 1.0(Comllnd) N /A" Elk River 0.5 N /A" Farmington 0.5(Res) 1.0 (Com/Ind) NIA" Lakeville 1.0 NIA' Maple Grove 1.0 N /A" Minnetonka 0.5(Res) 1.0 (Com/Ind) NW New Hope 1.0 NIA' St. Louis Park 0.5(Res) 1.0 (Com/lnd) N /A" Stillwater N/A N /A" Woodbury 0.4 (Res) 1.0 (Comlind) WA" . Ordinaoe language is similar to "Shall be arranged as to deflect light away from any adjoining residential zone or public street." There are a few cities that do require fixtures to be shielded, but do not specify how. • 40 70- • TO 0 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. • ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 MAIN (763) 755 -5100 FAX (763) 755 -8923 • WWW.CI.ANDOVER.MN.Us FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: Planning and Zoning Commissioners Andy Cross, Associate Planner- Workshop Item: Text and Map Amendments to Comprehensive Plan – Minor and Major Collector Streets May 11, 2004 INTRODUCTION Prohibiting driveways on all collector streets per Chapter 11 -3 -2 of the City Code is not practical given the wide range of subdivision designs and topography in Andover. While it makes sense to prohibit them on busy, high- capacity streets, lots should be allowed to put driveways on streets that are considered collector streets because of their function in the City's road system and not because of their high traffic count. Changing the Transportation Plan's definition to include two different classes of Collector Streets will solve this problem. DISCUSSION Currently the City's Comprehensive Plan describes only one class of collector street and the City Code defines it as a street that carries 1,000 average daily trips. While the Comp Plan's existing language about collector streets' purpose and intent can remain intact, a new distinction needs to be added between minor and major collectors. A road with 1,000 average daily trips can safely accommodate driveways, whereas a road with more than 2,000 may not. The City Engineer decided upon the threshold of 2,000 average daily trips. After studying and analyzing existing streets, daily traffic, and trouble -spots within the city, it appeared that problems with driveways entering onto roads became a problem when the street began to carry more than 2,000 average daily trips. Other Cities The City of Brooklyn Park has Major and Minor collector streets. Major collectors are intended to carry a higher volume of traffic than the minors, are longer in length, and provide access from neighborhoods to arterial roadways. Brooklyn Park's minor collector streets are intended to provide access from more residential neighborhoods to adjacent land uses. There is no specific threshold of traffic volume that separates Brooklyn Park's two classes of collector streets. The City of Blaine has no concise description for a collector street and define it only has a road that connects residential neighborhoods to arterial streets. The City of Coon Rapids also has no detailed definition for "collector streets," other than to say that they are those roads that connect residential areas to the arterial street network. There is no numerical threshold that differentiates between one type of collector street and another. 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, Andlyr os s r 1 LJ 2— TW�IS� A11u1 NAIA 0 Collector Streets Collector Streets provide more land access than arterials and connections to arterials, although not in all cases. As is the case with any roadway system, there will always be exceptions to the planning guidelines that are used to classify a roadway system. Collectors serve a dual function of accommodating traffic and provision of more access to adjacent properties. Mobility and land access are equally important and direct land access should predominately be to development concentrations. Collectors generally connect to minor arterials and serve short trips. Spacing for collectors range from ' /4 to' /, miles in a fully developed area to �/2 to 1 mile in a developing area. In the City of Andover, Andover Boulevard is currently classified a Collector roadway, but will likely be reclassified as a "B" Minor Arterial roadway in the future. In order to provide a network consistent with the spacing guidelines for a developing area; several local streets throughout the City will need to be reclassified as collectors and some new collector roadways will need to be constructed. This reclassification could require the reconstruction of the Local Streets to meet the recommended roadway widths and design features of a Collector Street.. Such reconstruction, when warranted due to street conditions, may or may not provide a wider street section. Local Streets The lowest classification of roadways is the local roadway where access is provided with much less concern for control but land service is paramount. Spacing for local streets is as needed to access land uses. Local roadways generally have lower speed limits in urban areas and normally serve short trips. Local streets will connect with some minor arterials but generally connect to collectors and other local streets. The development of local streets will be guided by the location of the existing and proposed minor arterials and collectors as well as by development and the expansion of local utilities. Recommendations The proposed functional classification system is shown on Figure 11. During the development of this Transportation Plan, Anoka County was able to implement changes to the functional classification system that were recommended by the Andover Transportation Plan Technical Advisory Committee (TAC). The changes that have occurred are listed below: • Bunker Lake Blvd NW —Changed from a `B' Minor Arterial to an `A' Minor Arterial • 7 Avenue NW (CSAH 7) —Extended the `B" Minor Arterial Status to North City Limits • Round Lake Blvd NW — Changed from a `B" Minor Arterial to an "A" Minor Arterial An additional change recommended by the TAC is the following: • Andover Boulevard —Changed from a collector to a `B' Minor Arterial City ofAndover Transportation Plan 3— 24 C.� p �� Figure 6.7 Metropolitan Council Roadway Functional Classifications Principal Arterials The metropolitan highway system is made up of the principal arterials in the region. Principal arterials include all interstate freeways. Interstate freeways connect the region with other areas in the state and other states. They also connect the metro centers to regional business concentrations. The emphasis is on mobility as opposed to access to land uses. They connect only with other Interstate freeways, other principal arterials and select minor arterials and collectors. The Interstate freeways provide for the longest trips in the region and express bus service. Spacing will vary from two to three miles in the fully developed area to six to 12 miles in the rural area, where only radials into the urban service area will exist. Other principal arterials are very similar to the Interstate freeways but they are less likely to connect the region to other states. They will provide land access somewhat more frequently than Interstate freeways. Minor Arterials The minor arterial system connects the urban service area to cities and towns inside and outside the region. They interconnect the nn 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 th urban area; only concentrations of commercial or industrial land uses should have direct access to them. The minor arterial should connect to principal arterials, other minor arterials and collectors. Connection to some local streets is acceptable. Minor arterials should service medium -to -short trips. Both local and limited -stop transit will use minor arterials. The spacing of minor arterials in the metro centers and regional business concentrations will vary from one - fourth to three - fourths mile. Typically, in the fully developed area, spacing would range from one -half mile to one mile. In the developing area, a one -to -two mile space is adequate. (The region has subdivided minor arterials into two classes for administrative purposes. "A" minor arterials are eligible to compete for federal funding.) Collector Streets The collector system provides connection between neighborhoods and from neighborhoods to minor business concentrations. It also provides supplementary interconnections among major traffic generators within the metro centers and regional business concentrations. Mobility and land access are equally important. Direct land access should predominately be to development concentrations. Collector connections are predominately to minor arterials. Typically, collectors serve short trips of one to four miles. Local transit service uses these streets. Spacing in the metro centers and regional business concentrations may vary between one -eighth to one -half mile. In the fully developed area, collectors are needed one - fourth to three - fourths mile apart. In the developing area, spacing may range from one -half to one mile. Local Streets Local streets connect blocks and land parcels. The primary emphasis is on land access. In most cases, local streets will connect to other local streets and collectors. In some cases, they will connect to minor arterials. • Local streets serve short trips at low speeds. In the urban area, local streets will occur every block. In the rural area one mile spacing may be adequate. _X/_ i 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 PlannerA SUBJECT: Workshop Item: Text and Map Amendments to Comprehensive Plan — Railroad Grade Crossings DATE: May 11, 2004 INTRODUCTION The Transportation element of the Comprehensive Plan recommends grade separated crossings at 4 public street railroad crossings within the City. Based on a recent City Council decision, this list should be reviewed and consider reducing the number of crossings on it. DISCUSSION The Transportation Plan recommends grade separated crossings at the following public railroad crossings: • Bunker Lake Boulevard • Andover Boulevard • Crosstown Boulevard • 161 Avenue NW At a February 2004 Council workshop, the City Council approved the removal of the Crosstown Boulevard crossing from the Comp Plan. The attached staff report and minutes for the item describes the reasoning behind the decision. First, the right of way on Crosstown Boulevard would have to be widened from its current 120 feet to 175 -200 feet, which results in the loss of a number of new residential lots in a proposed nearby development. Second, the 2001 traffic count on Crosstown Boulevard was only 4,100, with a 2020 maximum projection of 8,650. This compares to Bunker Lake Blvd's 2001 traffic count of 10,800 and 2020 maximum of 23,400. For reasons of right of way and low projected future traffic count the City Council approved the removal of Crosstown Blvd from the above list. Two other crossings on the list should be considered to be removed for similar reasons. Andover Boulevard has a 2001 traffic count of 5,000 and a 2020 maximum projection of 10,400. The 2020 maximum for 161 Avenue NW is about 11,150. Since both of these are close to • Crosstown Boulevard's totals and below that of Bunker Lake Boulevard, it is recommended that Andover Boulevard and 161 Avenue be removed from the list of grade separated crossings in the Comprehensive Plan. ACTION REQUESTED I* 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, t s L� 11 ♦ C I T Y 0 F L 1 iLND0VE 0 9 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. • ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 • (763) 755 -5100 FAX (763) 755 -8923 • W1NW.CI.ANDOVER.MN.US A TO: Mayor and Councilmembers CC: John Erar, City Administrator FROM: Will Neumeister, Community Development Director&(. David D. Berkowitz, City Engineer M 3 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 C3., 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 0 The four grade separated roadways listed above need to be reviewed and a determination made whether this is still going to be recommended by the Council, and remain in the City's Transportation Plan. This decision does affect the platting of property that is going to be coming before the Council on March 16, 2004. Council is asked to make a determination regarding the need to plan for a grade separated roadway on Crosstown Boulevard at the BNSF railroad crossing. Respectfully submitted, Will Neumeister David D. Berkowitz Attachments Transportation Plan Text and Maps • —'f-- • ere are no park- and -rides or transit centers in Andover, although there are a number of An ver no using park- and -ride facilities along Highway 10 to access service to M ots olis and along I -35W to access service to St. Paul. Current regional Park- and -Ride lots near dover include: • Anoka — Jo Ward Park - Church Street and Forest Avenue (no bus service) • Anoka — G i d and 7th Avenue • Blaine — Nor - Shopping Center Transit Hub — 85th and Jefferson • Blaine — Oak Park —109th and University Avenue • Blaine — Park of Four ons =11300 Block of University Ave. NE • Blaine — Blainebrook Bow Paul Parkway and Highway 65 • Blaine — 95th Avenue and I -3 • Coon Rapids — Coon Rapids Uni d Methodist Church — Hanson Blvd and Northdale Blvd • 'Coon Rapids — Faith Lutheran Church 1 l Ith 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 l71 st 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 b&q discussing and examining future locations. Major north -south commuting routes, such as arson Boulevard and Round Lake Boulevard, and east -west routes, such as Bunker I Boulevard, should be examined for potential Park- and -Ride locations. Mn/DOT has proposed a new Park- and -Ride facility for 143rd and Ramsey Boulevard in the City o Ramsey. It expected that this lot would be constructed in 2 003. J . 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. 11 City ofAndover 8 Transportation Plan - �_ 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. WDOT works with cities in the event that . a request for crossing review or improvement is presented by the City. Crash Data Data arding reported crashes in Andover was obtained from the Minnesota Department of Trans 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 S and the numbers of deer caused accidents are illustrated on Figure 6. H. Air Service There are no airports within City of Andover, nor are there any airports in near enough proximity to cause an effect with and to airport runway clearances and land use designation. 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 e (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 zed, or will shortly be analyzed, by Anoka County as they are on the County system. These ' tersections were selected based on the history of each location and not on anticipated issu in the future. City ofAndover Transportation P "Z — 9 • construction of trails as part of these roadway projects should be considered. Trails shou o be developed along a number of sub - collector roadways to provide linkages betweet overall trail system and City parks. Figure 4 illustrates the proposed trails networo out the City. Trail crossing locati along collectors and arterials should be carefully considered to maximize trail user safe There are a number of trails within the City that switch from one side of the roadway to the o r. Examples include trails along Bunker Lake and Hanson Boulevards. Appropriate solutio be they signed crosswalks, signals, or grade separated crossings, should be developed for e h crossing location. School walking routes have been develope cooperation with the Anoka- Hennepin school district to handle safety concerns. These 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 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 trail should be extended to the intersection of 140th Lane. Additionally, the pro ed trail system for Crosstown Boulevard includes a segment from Vale Street to he t Street that is proposed as a future trail. Immediate pedestrian needs for this segment of ro way • need to be considered. If feasible, the trail should be constructed as an off -road trail. 1� 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 ownerstoperators of the rail system to ensure that all is being done to minimize the time that crossings are blocked. A long -term solution is the provision of grade - separated crossings for. the present rail/roadway at -grade crossings. Such crossings are, obviously, solutions that take a long time to implement. However, the approvals process needs to begin in order to have hope of realizing such improvements. Another option is to request that the railroad move the switching operation to a less populated area. ofAndover 58 Pla n 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. I Achks Management The manage 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 t ted 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 tion (MnDOT) reports that studies have shown that as the density of accesses increase; ether public or private, the traffic carrying capacity of the roadway decreases and the hicular crash rate increases'. Businesses suffer financially on roadways with poorly designe cress. 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 asafe and efficient roadway system. d 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 n the roadway system. Access management is a combination of good land use pi g and effective design of access to property. The granting of access in the City of Andover is shared by the City and by with each having the .permitting process responsibility over roadways under Otv ofAndover Plan &a County, • control. 50 Li Tardke r W WWd , • F O c . - 1 ,EAST BETHE Andover i City of Andover Transportation Plan Functional Classifications Exisdng Propo: Roadway Roadu AMinorArterkd B Minor Arterial - - Collector • • • Railroad Parks Lakes/Rivers 0 City Lim Long Range Rail/Street Grade Separation Proposed Functio Classification Sys 2003 -2023 Figure 11 ewwuoo MO M OChOm Aeodro ra...arre - Revi Bd Marrh "os k 1j.-ilzpo mo2loadlmpr(OftI 2.= #3.150 03,450 # 35L OW! 07 • Ihn <VE. 1 • MUNICIP, ANDS PREPAR MINNESOTA DEPARTM PROGRAM SL 400 IN Ccoon U,S. DEPARTMENT # 95D - FEDERAL HIGHN - e d e 500 a 400 M r 8` r t�a 2 592 fr 1 . 0# f 3 D50 W� 7 j) lli�M, War Lak 1,5DO # 3 ,300 J 4k 4550 05 AR 0 IV. 29,75D 4w Bun er 17 LI ! 38 400 WD Lak #170M #24 23, SW # ,2DD 2D2D SCENARIO NLY 01 2W 2020 SCENARIO Ly INTERSTATE TRUNK F U.S. TRUNK HIGHWAY.. STATE TRUNK HIGHW4 COUNTY STATE AID 300I COUNTY ROAD ................... 300 CORPORATE LIMITS PUBLIC ROAD ................. PRIVATE ROAD ............. FUTURE ROADWAY ...... Note: Volume Projecti Reserve Land Use changes will chanc. eek FIGURE 13 J YEAR 2020 DAI SCENARIOS � mom A A , EVnewa , I • Ihn <VE. 1 • MUNICIP, ANDS PREPAR MINNESOTA DEPARTM PROGRAM SL IN Ccoon U,S. DEPARTMENT FEDERAL HIGHN Sc 1600 0 500 a 2( BASIC DA r 8` r W LEC 2020 SCENARIO I&MLY City Council Workshop Minutes — February 24, 2004 DISCUSS CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD GRADE SEPAR,4TIONAT RAILROAD CROSSING Community Development Director Neumeister referenced a recent memo from the Anoka County • Transportation Department that drew attention to the issue of whether the City would pursue a grade separated roadway at the BNSF Railroad crossing on Crosstown Boulevard. Mr. Neumeister explained the City's current Transportation Plan shows a grade separated roadway for four different streets: Bunker Lake Boulevard, Andover Boulevard, Crosstown Boulevard and 161 Avenue NW. Mr. Neumeister indicated the question that had arisen was if Council would recommend the grade separated roadway for Crosstown Boulevard. He stated Council's decision might have a significant impact on a pending new development proposal (Sophie's Manor) and ultimately on future developments on both sides of the railroad crossing. He noted the grade separation would necessitate additional right -of -way dedication, thus causing the loss of new single - family residential lots. Mr. Neumeister stated the right -of -way would need to be widened from 120 feet (60 feet from centerline) to 175 feet to 200 feet to allow for the embankment area. He noted staff had discussed the issue and felt this was not very realistic. Mr. Neumeister indicated the future daily traffic counts would be greater than 10,000 vehicles per day on these roadways. The 2001 traffic count was 10,800 vehicles on Bunker Lake Boulevard and 4,100 on Crosstown, with a 2020 projection of approximately 10,000 vehicles (with development of the rural reserve area). Mr. Neumeister requested that the four grade separated roadways be reviewed and Council • determine whether or not to recommend they remain in the City's Transportation Plan. He added Council's decision did affect the platting of property that was going to be coming before Council on March 16, 2004. Mr. Neumeister also asked Council to make a determination regarding the need to plan for a grade separated roadway on Crosstown Boulevard at the BNSF railroad crossing. Mayor Gamache suggested everything but Bunker Lake Boulevard be removed from the Plan. Councilmember Orttel stated only the major roads should get the roadway. City Engineer Berkowitz noted Bunker Lake Boulevard would be the most realistic location for the roadway. Councilmember Jacobson suggested the Crosstown Boulevard roadway be eliminated and staff should determine if houses needed to be eliminated if the other three roadways remained in the Transportation Plan. Motion by Jacobson, Seconded by Orttel, to approve removal of the Crosstown Boulevard grade separated roadway from the Transportation Plan and direct staff to review the grade separated roadways planned for Bunker Lake Boulevard, Andover Boulevard and 161 Avenue NW. Motion carried unanimously. 0