Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/11/07i • i. G � 11 k rkll?l 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W.. ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 • (763) 755 -5100 FAX (763) 755 -8923 • WWW.CI.ANDOVER.MN.US Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda September 11, 2007 Andover City Hall Council Chambers 8.01 p.m. 1. Call to Order 2. Approval of Minutes — August 28, 2007. 3. PUBLIC HEARING Conditional Use Permit to allow retail sales in the Industrial Zoning District for Anoka Independent Grain and Feed Dealers, Inc. at 3121 161" Avenue NW. 4. PUBLIC HEARING Preliminary Plat of Woodland Hills, a rural residential development containing 5 acreage lots. 5. PUBLIC HEARING City Code Amendment to modify the requirements of City Code 5 -1 Animal Control. 6. PUBLIC HEARING City Code Amendment to update the requirements of City Code Title 11 Subdivision Regulations. 7. Work Session: a. Discuss Comprehensive Plan Update i. Land Use Plan ii. Wastewater and Comprehensive Sewer Plan 8. Other Business 9. Adjournment is 0 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. • ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 • (763) 755 -5100 FAX (763) 755 -8923 • WWW.CI.ANDOVER.MN.US TO: Planning and Zoning Commissioners FROM: Courtney Bednarz, City Planner SUBJECT: Item 2. Approval of Minutes - August 28, 2007 DATE: September 11, 2007 Request The Planning and Zoning Commission is asked to approve the minutes from the August 28, 2007 meeting. 0 9 • ANDOVER PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING AUGUST 28, 2007 The Regular Bi- Monthly Meeting of the Andover Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order by Chairperson Daninger on August 28, 2007, 7:00 p.m., at the Andover City Hall, 1685 Crosstown Boulevard NW, Andover, Minnesota. Commissioners present: Chairperson Daninger, Commissioners Tim Kirchoff, Michael Casey, Valerie Holthus, Devon Walton (arrived at 7:05 p.m.), Douglas Falk and Dennis Cleveland. Commissioners absent: There were none. Also present: City Planner, Courtney Bednarz Associate Planner, Andy Cross Associate Planner, Chris Vrchota • Others APPROVAL OF MINUTES. August 14, 2007 Motion by Kirchoff, seconded by Casey, to approve the minutes as presented. Motion carried on a 7 -ayes, 0 -nays, 0- absent vote. PUBLIC HEARING: CITY CODE AMENDMENT ESTABLISHING INTERIM PERFORMANCE STANDARDS FOR HUGHSIWESTVIEW IND USTRIAL PARKS. Mr. Vrchota stated the Planning Commission reviewed a proposal for the creation of interim performance standards for the Hughs/Westview industrial park area at the August 10 meeting. The Planning Commission was not in favor of creating interim standards, but indicated a willingness to review and provide input on a potential code amendment if the City Council wanted them to do so. The City Council has indicated that they want to proceed with a code amendment to create interim performance standards for the Hughs/Westview industrial park area. Commissioner Walton arrived at 7:05 p.m. Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes —August 28, 2007 Page 2 Commissioner Kirchoff stated they discussed the possibility of having water installed in the area and he wondered if that was currently in the MUSA. Mr. Vrchota stated the proposal was that these standards would remain in place until City sewer and water are available. The MUSA would need to be expanded to include this area along with the Rural Reserve. Commissioner Kirchoff wondered if the City would force City sewer and water into this area or would the property owners have to want to be part of the MUSA area in order for it to be expanded. Mr. Vrchota stated they would have to petition to have the services installed. Chairperson Daninger stated his understanding was instead of an applicant asking for multiple variances in this area could they come forward indicating their concerns and what they would like to do. He kind of compares this to a PUD and would this be similar. Mr. Vrchota stated that is correct. Chairperson Daninger wondered if there was any thought to putting a renewal date on this or a time frame on the CUP. Mr. Vrchota did believe that had been discussed. 1 J Commissioner Kirchoff he is comfortable with what is stated but if a different standard is listed than what they currently have such as lighting will they relax the current standard to allow something else in this area. Mr. Vrchota stated Section D is a list for the applicant of what the City will be looking at and they could be things they could request to vary from or things the City could stand on. Commissioner Cleveland asked if one of the business owners in the area wanted to do a substantial site improvement or expand their business will they have to get a CUP? Mr. Vrchota stated that is correct. Commissioner Holthus asked what would happen to a CUP if a business were sold. Mr. Vrchota indicated a CUP goes with the property if sold. Motion by Casey, seconded by Kirchoff, to open the public hearing at 7:11 p.m. Motion carried on a 7 -ayes, 0 -nays, 0- absent vote. No one wished to address the Commission. Motion by Walton, seconded by Casey, to close the public hearing at 7:12 p.m. Motion carried on a 7 -ayes, 0 -nays, 0- absent vote. Chairperson Daninger thought Commissioner Holthus made some recommendation at the last meeting and he wondered if what staffbrought forward was a product similar to what she was trying to express. Commissioner Holthus thought this was a little more vague than she thought it would be and she wondered if that was to allow a little more Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes —August 28, 2007 Page 3 • flexibility for the Planning and Zoning and ultimately the City Council to make decisions on an individual basis. Mr. Vrchota stated the intent is to be flexible to allow give and take on both sides. Commissioner Holthus thought they were going to have stricter regulations such as amount of landscaping, etc. but she thought this was fine and should be open ended. Commissioner Falk wondered if the City Council was going to direct this or will there be some sort of spread sheet for them to look at. Mr. Vrchota stated this will be based on Commission, City Council and staff input, each based on a case by case review of the properties. Commissioner Walton stated his only concern is the length of time that is allowed by the vagueness of City sewer and water being brought to this area. His concern was how long that is going to be because they could have a lot of deterioration in that area and turn over and without a CUP being applied for on a regular interval, he would like to see something shorter than that vague timeline because the area could get run down and they should have a periodic review of the area regardless of when City sewer and water will be available. Commissioner Kirchoff wondered if staff had received any input from the property owners in this area. Mr. Vrchota stated this started because a property owner was notified they needed to obtain a CUP and they voiced some concerns about improving their site and the costs to bring it up to City standards. Chairperson Daninger indicated if they make it too difficult nothing will get done. They want to be flexible so the applicant is willing to make some improvements. Commissioner Walton wondered if every business out there currently has a CUP. Mr. Vrchota indicated not every business has a CUP or requires one in the area. Chairperson Daninger stated on page 2, the Hughs/Westview Industrial Park area is very specific and the only area they are talking about. Mr. Vrchota indicated that was correct. He stated Letter B gives the legal description of the area they are discussing. Commissioner Cleveland stated he had a concern because there is a standard for the City; they are talking about interim standards for this because it is more rural and that would be an upgrade for the businesses in this area. He wondered what standard they are operating at now. His concern is if one of the sites decides to upgrade they will have to get a CUP and do upgrading at some level but the surrounding properties will not need to and until or unless they decide to upgrade these sites will never have to do that. Mr. Vrchota indicated that was correct. • Commissioner Cleveland wondered why anyone would want to make the choice to upgrade. Chairperson Daninger stated a person may want to start a new business in the Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes —August 28, 2007 Page 4 area. He stated the intent was before it was too restrictive and now they have the • opportunity for someone to do a little improvement and have flexibility. Commissioner Cleveland thought this would be the same as living next to someone who did not keep up their yard. Chairperson Daninger asked in the language presented to them was there anything in the performance standard that the Commission would like explained, corrected or did they feel comfortable with what was presented. Commissioner Cleveland thought going through the CUP process should handle all of the questions that would come up. Chairperson Daninger wondered if staff felt there was enough information to move forward with this. Mr. Vrchota indicated there was. Motion by Kirchoff, seconded by Casey, to recommend approval of the Interim Performance Standards for Hughs/Westview Industrial Parks. Motion carried on a 7- ayes, 0 -nays, 0- absent vote. Chairperson Daninger noted the only real concern was with the question about the timeline. Mr. Vrchota stated that this item would be before the Council at the September 4, 2007 City Council meeting. . PUBLIC HEARING: CITY CODEAMENDMENT TO MODIFY THE REQUIREMENTS OF CITY CODES -1 ANIMAL CONTROL. Mr. Vrchota stated the Planning Commission discussed potential changes to the City's animal control code at the July 24` meeting. The City Council has provided some additional feedback, and the changes are now being brought back for a public hearing and formal discussion. Mr. Vrchota discussed the staff report with the Commission. He suggested this item be tabled to get more information out to the public regarding this item. Motion by Kirchoff, seconded by Cleveland, to open the public hearing at 7:29 p.m. Motion carried on a 7 -ayes, 0 -nays, 0- absent vote. Ms. Sylvia Munson, 2705 134"' Lane NW, stated explained why she came to the City for help. She also noted she recently realized how dangerous electric fences are. She stated she is currently and historically been having problems with a neighbors dog barking. She stated the neighbor has an electric fence. She wants different changes to this ordinance because she did not think electronic fences were being addressed in the ordinance. She thought there should be regulations regarding these fences. She thought a permit should • be required when installing an electronic fence and they should not be allowed in the Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes —August 28, 2007 Page 5 • front yards. She stated she worries about her grandchildren when they come over and she thought they should do more research on them because they are not safe. She did not think an electronic fence should be allowed to contain aggressive dogs. Ms. Trudy Vanhouse, 2701 134 Lane NW, stated underground electronic fencing is a difficult issue for the Commission and if she can help with any information, she would be willing to help. She also would like some kind of window on how long it would take to research this. Ms. Munson asked if staff made any changes regarding restraint. Mr. Vrchota stated no changes were made regarding restraint and electronic fences were not specifically addressed in this amendment. Chairperson Daninger stated the Commission discussed this with staff but no changes were requested. Ms. Munson wondered if they had received information from other areas regarding electronic fencing. Chairperson Daninger indicated they have and would discuss this information. Motion by Cleveland, seconded by Kirchoff, to close the public hearing at 7:41 p.m. Motion carried on a 7 -ayes, 0 -nays, 0- absent vote. • Commissioner Kirchoff wondered on the electronic fence if a dog is wearing a collar don't they get shocked. He thought electronic fences work because no fence will stop every dog and if they want to get out of a yard they will. He wondered if there was some type of a threshold on the electronic fences to keep an animal in the yard. Chairperson Daninger stated they discussed this before and determined that if a fence will stop a dog it is an adequate type of a restraint. He stated he did not have any further questions because if it works it is considered a restraint and if a fence does not restrain an animal it is not effective. Commissioner Casey wondered if staff received any information from other cities regarding restraining an aggressive animal. Mr. Vrchota stated they did receive information from other cities on how they handle restraint and can provide that to the Commission at the next meeting. Commissioner Holthus did not think that an electronic fence is reliable and she did not think they could consider it an effective restraint. She understood a dog could go under or over a fence but typically fences are reliable. It is a physical thing that can be seen by all. Chairperson Daninger agreed an electronic fence is not considered a restraint because he also did not think it was reliable. Commissioner Cleveland did not think it was their responsibility to write code that would be one hundred percent reliable because other restraints could be broken through by a dog. Commissioner Holthus thought that if the City indicates an electronic fence is a reliable restraint then if someone would get hurt the City would be responsible. Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes —August 28, 2007 Page 6 Commissioner Cleveland stated if a dog is outside of their boundaries it is considered an • animal at large and not under restraint so it would not be the City's responsibility. Chairperson Daninger thought staff could bring back information from other cities on what they have done in their cities regarding restraint. Motion by Kirchoff, seconded by Falk, to table. Motion carried on a 7 -ayes, 0 -nays, 0- absent vote. WORKSESSION A. Subdivision Ordinance Discussion 1. Subdivision 11.1.3 - Platting Authority Mr. Cross stated this section is updated to reflect the State Statute. 2. Subdivision 11.1.4- Definitions Chairperson Daninger stated on page 6, lines 21 and 22 he asked for a definition of mottled. Mr. Bednarz stated mottled soils are soils stained by water which means the • water table had reached that point at some time. Commissioner Kirchoff stated mottled soil can be stained by salt or anything in the water even when dry. Commissioner Holthus asked if 2,500 average trips per day was a typical number in other cities for minor /major collector streets and she wondered where the number came from. Mr. Cross stated that number came straight from the Engineering Department as a recommendation. Commissioner Kirchoff thought it probably came from the Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE). Chairperson Daninger remembered talking about this two or three years ago and changing collector streets based on a 2030 study. Mr. Bednarz stated the whole purpose is to allow driveway access to minor collector streets and not major collector streets. Commissioner Walton wondered if they would define types of homes that can be built on lots in this section. Mr. Bednarz stated this is all covered under the lowest floor. He explained the process they go through to find the lowest floor and how that affects the type of home that can be built. 3. Subdivision 11.2.1 - Sketch Plan Changes Chairperson Daninger stated Sketch Plans are not required but they do pay a fee for both a sketch plan and a preliminary plat. Mr. Cross stated that was correct, they pay for them • separately. Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes —August 28, 2007 Page 7 • Chairperson Daninger wondered what the incentive was to do a sketch plan. Mr. Cross indicated they are less expensive and gives the developer a chance to discuss the plans with the City to see if something is needed to be changed or if the City would allow a plan. Chairperson Daninger asked if they encouraged ghost platting next to the sketch plan. Mr. Cross indicated a ghost plat is a requirement. 4. Subdivision 11.2.2 -Preliminary Platting Mr. Cross stated they pulled the requirements of the Preliminary Plat out of the City Code and put them in a checklist, which makes it more fluid and easier to update annually. Chairperson Daninger wondered on page 14, line 38, what "Meets and Bounds" means. Mr. Bednarz stated it is any piece of land that had not been platted and does not have a lot and block number. Commissioner Holthus wondered if there were two checklists, one for the sketch plan and one for the preliminary plat. Mr. Cross stated that was correct. • Chairperson Daninger referred to page 16, line 17, stating "all persons interested in a plat shall be heard ", he wondered if this meant that anyone could speak no matter who they are. Mr. Cross stated that was correct. Chairperson Daninger asked if this could be at the Planning Commission and City Council meetings. Mr. Cross stated it means whenever there is a public hearing, anyone can be heard. Chairperson Daninger stated in this section four pages were deleted and he wondered if the checklist addressed all of the deletions. Mr. Cross stated the information that has been removed is in the checklist but not word for word, it has been streamlined. Mr. Bednarz indicated this is much more user friendly and saves time for staff and the developer in reviewing the applications. 5. Subdivision 11.2.3 - Final Plat Requirements Mr. Cross stated there is also a final plat checklist. Chairperson Daninger asked for clarification of plat phasing on page 22, line 10. Mr. Cross reviewed plat phasing with the Commission. He noted the developer usually requests which plats they want to develop and they are called phases. Mr. Bednarz stated the developer will request which area of the preliminary plat they want to start as the first phase and a final plat is recorded with the County to create this phase and so on. . Commissioner Falk stated the word "clerk" has been stricken and he wondered why they changed this. Mr. Cross stated the City Clerk no longer plays a role in subdivision Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes — August 28, 2007 Page 8 review and all of the documents are given to the city representatives and the Planning Department and they initiate the review and handle it. 6. Subdivision 11.3.1 - General Requirements Commissioner Cleveland stated he could not make the added word "that" on page 26, line 10 fit in that sentence. Mr. Cross stated they could add at the end of line 9 "adjacent to" to make the sentence structure work. Chairperson Daninger stated on page 25, MN Statute 462.358 is referred throughout the entire document and he wondered if this was accessible somewhere. Mr. Cross stated they could keep it on hand at City Hall but is as accessible as any other Statute. Mr. Bednarz stated this is the Statute that provides cities with the ability to review plats. Their code does not reiterate the Statute but shows how the City applies it. 7. Subdivision 11 .3.2 -Street Plan Chairperson Daninger stated on page 29, line 29, he thought they discussed sodding one time that went farther than the boulevard. Mr. Cross stated this only refers to boulevard sodding and not any lawn maintenance. Mr. Bednarz stated this section refers to what is required of the developer when they install streets and utilities, not what is required of the • homeowner for lawns. Chairperson Daninger wondered who is responsible for maintenance of the boulevard sod. Mr. Cross stated the City Code explains that it is the responsibility of the homeowner to maintain the boulevard of their lot. Mr. Bednarz explained the City also holds an escrow or letter of credit to make sure it is maintained until a.homeowner becomes responsible for it. 8. Subdivision 11.3.6 —Lots Commissioner Walton wondered at what point they discuss anywhere the changes about the expectations of the decks being ghosted onto a house plan. Mr. Cross stated the Building Department has now started to review plans to make sure that any possible deck to be built in the future is shown on the survey. Commissioner Walton wondered where the code states this. Mr. Bednarz believed it was adopted into the Building Code Section. He stated the issue comes up when they bring the house plan in for permit. 9. Subdivision 11.4.14 — Dead and Diseased Trees Commissioner Kirchoff agreed they should remove dead and diseased trees but he was • concerned with putting the burdon of clean up on the homeowner because according to Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes — August 28, 2007 Page 9 • the City Council meeting he watched, it could add up to a lot of money. Mr. Bednarz stated the City Council discussion did allow the Council review for some hardship cases and the City does have some grant funds from the DNR to work with homeowners and they try to target those larger areas. Chairperson Daninger thought the goal was not to create a hardship but to create a cure. Commissioner Cleveland wondered if there was anywhere in the City Code a time frame to remove a dead tree whether it be struck by lightening or from some other means. Mr. Cross stated if a tree is diseased that is another issue but if a tree dies from natural causes there is no time frame but there is also the nuisance factor that they consider. OTHER BUSINESS. Mr. Bednarz updated the Planning Commission on related items. Commissioner Falk wondered what the Council decided on irrigation for the Mosquito Control building. Mr. Bednarz stated that will be part of the landscaping plan that comes back to the Council and will be part of the final approval of that plan. • ADJOURNMENT. Motion by Falk, seconded by Casey, to adjourn the meeting at 8:43 p.m. Motion carried on a 7 -ayes, 0 -nays, 0- absent vote. Respectfully Submitted, Sue Osbeck, Recording Secretary Timesaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. • 3 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: Chris Vrchota, Associate Planner/' DATE: September 11, 2007 SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING Conditional Use Permit to allow retail sales in the Industrial Zoning District for Anoka Independent Grain and Feed Dealers, Inc. at 3121 161'` Avenue NW. INTRODUCTION The applicant wishes to operate a retail feed store in an existing building located in an industrial zoning district. DISCUSSION As per City Code 12 -13 -3, Retail Trade and Services is a conditional use in the Industrial Zoning District. This grants the City the ability to make sure that the site is suited for retail traffic and is compatible with the. surrounding land uses, including the adjacent industrial uses and the residential area to the south. The applicant is also proposing exterior sales, which is also a conditional use in the industrial district. As stated in the applicant's letter, the area under the canopy in front of the building would be used • for display of materials for sale during store hours only. Normally, when a property is granted a CUP, the site is required to be brought into compliance with the City's Zoning Code. However, the City Council is likely to approve the interim performance standards for the Hugh's/Westview industrial park area at the September I e meeting. If those standards are adopted, this site will be eligible to use them. Staff recommends that site improvements for this CUP request be considered under the assumption that the interim performance standards will be used. A condition has been included in the attached resolution stating that if the Council does not adopt the interim performance standards, the site will need to be brought into compliance with the zoning code or the applicant will need to apply for a variance. The site does not currently comply with the following standards: • Parking Stall Striping- there are 4 parking stalls striped in front of the building. Based on the applicant's drawing, the space is approximately 2000 square feet. This amount of space would require 10 parking stalls. The south half of the parking lot is not striped, so the additional stalls could be provided in that area. • Parking Lot Lighting - The only lighting for the parking lot is a light on the roof of the building. • Parking Lot Curbing - There is no curbing around the parking lot. • Trash Enclosure- There is no screened trash enclosure for the business. • Landscaping - There is no landscaping around the parking lot. Staff makes the following recommendations in regard to the performance standards: The parking lot . striping is an inexpensive and simple improvement that should be made. The existing lighting is likely sufficient for the small parking lot- no additional lighting is needed at this time. Curbing of the parking area is not being recommended, since the parking area is not being expanded and curbing would accomplish little at this time. A fully screened trash enclosure is not needed, but the dumpsters should be kept in the rear of the building, away from 161` Avenue and the residential properties to the south. Lastly, a minimal amount of landscaping should be provided around the parking lot to provide screening from 161' Avenue and the adjacent residential area. The Planning Commission and City Council will need to determine what site improvements will be required, using the proposed interim performance standards as a guide. Fire Suppression System Requirement The Fire Marshall has indicated that, because of the change in occupancy for the building, from B (Business) to M (Mercantile), the building must be sprinkled. This is a requirement of the Minnesota State Building Code (1306) that the City cannot vary from. Applicable Ordinances Chapter 12 -5 -6 B of the Andover City Code provides the following criteria for the issuance of a Conditional Use Permit: 1. In granting a Conditional Use Permit, the City Council shall consider the advice and recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and: a. The effect of the proposed use upon the health, safety, morals and general welfare of occupants of surrounding lands. b. Existing and anticipated traffic conditions, including parking facilities. c. The effect on values of property and scenic views in the surrounding area, and the effect of the proposed use on the Comprehensive Plan. 2. If it shall determine by resolution that the proposed use will not be detrimental to the health, safety, morals, or general welfare of the community, nor will cause serious traffic congestion or hazards, nor will seriously depreciate surrounding property values, and that said use is in • harmony with the general purpose and intent of this title and the comprehensive plan, the City Council may grant such permits. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the proposed Conditional Use Permit subject to the conditions in the attached resolution. Attachments Resolution Location Map Site Plan Survey Letter From the Applicant Site Photographs Draft Interim Performance Standards ACTION REQUESTED The Planning Commission is asked to recommend approval or denial of the proposed Conditional Use Permit. Respect ll�itted, Chris rchota • Cc: Kevin Petersen, 2315 2 nd Avenue N, Anoka, MN 55303 • CITY OF ANDOVER COUNTY OF ANOKA STATE OF MINNESOTA RES. NO. A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST OF KEVIN PETERSEN FOR RETAIL TRADE AND SERVICES IN THE INDUSTRIAL ZONING DISTRICT ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3121 161 AVENUE NW, (PIN 16- 32- 24 -23- 0001) LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS: Unplatted City -of Andover; that part of the southwest 1/4 of the northwest 1/4 of Section 16, Township, 32, Range 24 described as follows- Commencing on the southeast corner of the southwest 1/4 of the northwest 1/4 of Section 16, Township, 32, Range 24- then westerly on the south line of said 1/4 a distance of 461 feet to the actual point of beginning- then northerly parallel to the east line of the southwest 1/4 of the northwest 1/4 to a point a distance of 2,106.01 feet south of the north line of Section 16, Township, 32, Range 24- then westerly parallel to the south line of said 1/4 to a point a distance of 650 feet east of the west line of the southwest 1/4 of the northwest 114- then southerly parallel to the east line of the southwest 1/4 of the northwest 1/4 a distance of 78.98 feet- then westerly parallel to the south line of the southwest 1/4 of the northwest 1/4 of Section 16, Township, 32, Range 24 to a point 370.42 feet east of the west line • of said 1/4- then southerly parallel to the west line of the southwest 1/4 of the northwest 1/4 to a point on the south line of said 1/4 a distance of 370.42 feet east of the southwest comer of the southwest 1/4 of the northwest 1/4 of Section 16, Township, 32, Range 24- then easterly on the south line of said 1/4 to the point of beginning, except roads; subject to easements of record. WHEREAS, Kevin Petersen has requested a Conditional Use Permit for retail trade and services in the industrial zoning district, and; WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission has reviewed the request and has determined that said request meets the criteria of City Code, and; WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission finds the request would not have a detrimental effect upon the health, safety, and general welfare of the City of Andover, and; WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommends to the City Council approval of the Conditional Use Permit request; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Andover hereby agrees with the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approves the Conditional Use Permit for retail trade and service in the industrial zoning district on said property with the following conditions: 1. If the City Council does not adopt the interim performance standards for the Hugh's/Westview industrial park area, the site will need to be brought into conformance with the City's Zoning Code or the applicant will need to obtain variances from the City's standards. 2. Site improvements as determined by the City Council shall be made. 3. Exterior storage of materials shall only be allowed during business hours. 4. The building shall be sprinkled, in compliance with Minnesota State Building Code 1306. 5. The Conditional Use Permit shall be subject to a sunset clause as per section 12- 14 -6 -D of the Andover City Code. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Andover on this day of , 2007. CITY OF ANDOVER ATTEST: Victoria Volk, City Clerk Michael R. Gamache, Mayor • • CD ~a. <Dee 1:):2 a: "- c.<= 0 <(.2' ;; fo- '" J!! 0 ",'" -(J) 0 _W a:> '" Ou ., C)en ~:~ "'Ifr--N a:'" II 0 N w<c OU "5 0 j;) >~ l::! " """ '" Oz .- N ::I c::> ti ...... co <C Zo ~ CD j!i q:U z rlm .. g:~ ~ W '" (.!) c: ~ ",co l!O ~ ] UJ L.IJ ~ U a.o.,! "z ..J ~ c: ~ .. .. .. al<c ;Il a.. 3= ~ ~ ;l;;l; 0 ~!lDD c. .. ~\SS~ :; !'l ~\D~ "'-" QOBZ c " l'! f -, ~ ~ '* 0:: , ..... 1/ I I J ' Q,"" , ' " i / ! I '- I (~~ ~ i ..... , 0"'" 0"'" " U... ", ., 1 "I e I .- ...., ozoo .... i L'ot I ~ SIIot i ~ .... ~ .... 'Lot QLOC ! i not 00'. m N '" ~ gue "'. ""'. ...... .... i I9ZaIL i f . -, om: ,... ,,~~~/ ! , ow: - - -. B .... .I~JL' ., .BZl: ~ ~ N "" =' <.0 I u:I to ~ 'js O":N ~ ~~~~ --=1Z / :! e I ~ I I .... .- I , \ .... '--, . -~ 1- \ I 1 i ~ \ ~ ~ " m m ~ 9� MA Z • u U z r s �� c9 9� MA Z • u CAINE & OUALLEY LAND SURVEY0RS, INC 17720 Centro/ Ave. N.E. SOdLvvNe Profea Bldg. SOdsrville, MFnneao W 55304 434 -7646 SURVEY FOR: P. i R. Properties .. DESCRIDED AS: Parcel A: That part of the West Half of the Northwest Quarter of Section 16, Township 32, Range 24, Anoka County, Minnesota, .lying South of the North 2106.01 feet. East of the West 650 feet, and West of the East 461 feet thereof. Parcel 8: The East 279.58 feet of the West 651) feet of the West Half of the Northwest Quarter of Section 16, Township 32, Range 24, Anoka County, Minnesota, lying South of the North 2184.99 feet thereof. ^l a h i • :C • e a P, I f -- - - - - -- - 3 nO. O � ?h Z SCALE,• f A4YYIt Fttr O QfAmrs //l Mfc# ef" mpg. WAMA s sworn ARE ASMNER of tho P 0 N 1 Y 92, RR4. i 0 w l: sA.tA l,n• ei -,hA -W � k of /b• NW 04 a Scc. 16, r'Jt, 914 - -• - m • 0 �w �z 3 a • C 1. d oat AP• %! to r h �r rt wn .L3L / r N Y I I / ntotr eOmor :ry nnr xwttR ato: a • m o•aeart or o woos ncwnvr aweanr mr a ANA 40 ms :reiar1m cunt a:warroa nhW a m aq x m mm saoo:rttsrt. z u oat AP• %! to r h �r rt wn .L3L / r N Y I I 2315 - 2ND AVENUE NORTH - ANOKA, MINNESOTA 55303 OFFICE: 427 -1050 • MILL: 421 -3160 • FAX: 427 -3507 • RECEIVED August 20, 2007 City of Andover 1685 Crosstown Blvd NW Andover, MN 55304 Dear Sir or Madam: AUG 2 1 20(7 CITY OF ANDOVER Anoka Independent Grain & Feed Dealers has entered into a lease agreement with Joseph and Rita Kowa[ for the store front located at 3131 161 Ave. NW, Andover. This parcel is included within the following legal description as follows: That part of the SW % of Sec 16-32 -24TH WLY on S Unassigned Situs Andover, MN. The lease of this property will allow us to expand our current operations in Anoka County. We have owned and operated a feed mill in downtown Anoka since 1948. We would be retailing horse feed, chicken feed, deer feed, bird feed, dog food, and cat food. We would also be selling water softener salt and lawn care products, including fertilizer and grass seed. This new location would increase our exposure to existing and new customers. We would put miscellaneous items under the canopy in front of the store during business hours. The location will only be used for retail. All storage of excess inventory will remain at our warehouse in Anoka. As we have demonstrated with our Anoka property, we will maintain this new property with a focus on cleanliness and appeal to the surrounding properties. This is not only friendly to our neighbors, it is also critical to our customer satisfaction. I appreciate your consideration of this request Sincerely, Kevin Petersen Vice President Anoka Independent Grain & Feed Dealers, Inc. L 0 �^,K .x•V I � 1 : l i 5 "f S 1 � r �•a {yS,� �- a.s:.,� '...___u� � ' Y Y a - } xlr�v`Fi4 il�+'.'M -G �1' C �� � t J � �" a :.t a3� �, y f��y✓ �� ��8 f t be L 11 I� �j• „i 5y�y, � tia 6� �Mrt yr q �..1 e ri'.' x f '�i - ✓ ✓ 5� l r NC; Icy �� ± � i f ,� t Y L 4}p� n , s ✓ ✓ � J 4 M a4 � III � .. { ♦ � � r �'N" i ��,y11{ ^ � A >� 1 '`'a Ni tS � 5 v.J w z Y rh 5 5 T ty _ _ 1 I � � t �I t '' ' �4 I Yc 5 . n 5 H �s fi4P j1 _fi: _ S r a y` l m t + c a -. +yY ... - .� t , t � d Ar �,f5y�tf S ��j♦ try $7•r1 t i ' ¢ �o '14�rrr, {, •�. V +�J 1 �. 14 'C Hirt la.`16 ? L y k - - � L' '•' �� �� � _� 1 ` # _� � ay ,,�+ ap "' �y KS+ra� ?�r a +�Y s t if _ x � A �y' y 1 3a�4 4, •, � 1 i \ a F.., .�'r.• 4 � . ( � 1 l l ! yy �a• 10 11 1 1 1 {' 4 ! ' a • � l a i y a • + M, �A' a DRAFT 12- 13 -23: INTERIM PERFORMANCE STANDARDS: • A. Purpose: Interim performance standards are intended to establish an alternative level of site improvements for properties located in the rural industrial area generally referred to as the Hughs/Westview industrial park area. The City acknowledges that the lack of municipal utilities limits the development potential of these properties. These performance standards are intended to allow continued use, expansion and redevelopment with a level of site improvements that is commensurate with the development potential of the properties. B. Applicability. and Scope: This section shall apply to any expansion of use requiring a conditional use permit or commercial site plan on all properties generally described as the Hughs/Westview industrial park area and legally described as the southwest quarter of the northwest quarter of Section 16, Township 32, Range 24, Anoka County, Minnesota and the west half of the west half of the southeast quarter of the northwest quarter of section 16, Township 32, Range 24, Anoka County, Minnesota. C. Procedure: Applications shall be processed under the Conditional Use Permit procedures described in City Code 12 -14 -6 except as follows: 1. Application: The property owner or designee shall submit a complete application to the Community Development Department. A complete application • consists of the following: a. A completed Conditional Use Permit form and fee as described in City Code 1 -7 -3. b. A site plan that describes all of the existing and proposed site improvements, including the dimensions of the property, buildings, parking, landscaping and storage areas and distances from property lines. c. A letter describing the existing use of the property, the proposed use of the property and all of the proposed site improvements. d. Other information deemed necessary by staff to review the request. 2. Council Determination: The City Council shall approve or deny the application based on the factors established in this section. The City Council may attach such conditions as they determine necessary to provide the appropriate level of site and building improvements to accomplish the purpose of this section. The level of required improvements shall be determined on a case -by -case basis. Applications shall be reviewed based on the following factors: a. Existing appearance of the building and site; • DRAFT . b. Compatibility of the proposed site development plan with the other industrial properties in the area; c. Effect of the proposed use and the proposed site development plan on the adjacent residential neighborhood, including traffic, noise, glare, buffers, and environmental impacts; D: Deviations to the performance standards will be considered in the following areas: 1. Parking and Impervious Surface Areas: a. Screening, landscaping, visual appeal, and lighting of parking lot areas. b. Paving of parking areas for customers. c. Dust control measures for unpaved parking and storage areas. 2. The amount, type, location, and screening of exterior storage requested as part of any Conditional Use Permit. 3. Screening of mechanical equipment and trash bins /dumpsters. • 4. Other factors related to the new development proposal, as the City Council may deem relevant. E. Term of Approval: Interim performance standards approved under this section shall endure until City sewer and water are extended into the area affected by this section. At that time, any future expansion or redevelopment of the affected properties shall be required to fully conform to the regular performance standards of City Code 12 -13. F. Other Requirements: Proposed improvements or changes in use will be reviewed by the Building Official and Fire Chief. They will make a determination of whether or not the building(s) on the site need to be brought into compliance with applicable building and fire codes. Site improvements must also be made to meet the requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). No portion of this section shall be used to vary from these requirements. C I T Y a F ND6ovE 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. • ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 • (763) 755 -5100 FAX (763) 755 -8923 • WWW.CI.ANDOVER.MN.US TO: Planning and Zoning Commissioners FROM: Courtney Bednarz, City Planne* SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING Preliminary Plat of Woodland Hills, a rural residential development containing 5 acreage lots. DATE: September 11, 2007 INTRODUCTION The Planning Commission is asked to review a plat containing five rural lots. The Commission previously reviewed a sketch plan for this project on June 13, 2006, DISCUSSION Conformance with Local and Regional Plans and Ordinances The proposed project would conform to both the Rural Residential Land Use Designation and R- 1, Rural Residential Zoning District. No amendment or rezoning will be necessary. Access Public Street access is proposed to be provided from Ward Lake Drive with a new street extending approximately 1,150 feet into the property before terminating in a cul -de -sac. A stub street would be constructed to the north property line where it could be extended to provide a second access in the future (as shown on the attached sketch plan). In the short term, however, the cul -de -sac will exceed the 500 foot length allowed by City Code 11 -3 -3G. A variance to this standard is necessary and has been included in the attached resolution. Staff recommends the variance be granted as the applicant has shown how a second access could be achieved to the north in the future and no other options exist for a second access due to the location of the surrounding floodplain. It is important to note that a ditch exists along the north edge of the subject property. As a result, the temporary cul -de -sac is held short of this ditch. The applicant remains responsible for extending the street to the property line, including half of the cost of a future culvert needed to cross the ditch and allow a second access to the proposed development. A condition of approval identifies this responsibility that will be addressed in the development contract. Adjacent Property to the South The site is nearly surrounded by floodplain. However, there is a limited amount of upland area adjacent to the southwest edge of the project. This area is currently occupied by a storage building with a driveway access to Ward Lake Drive. Although not discussed during the sketch plan review, staff estimates that the upland area could be split to allow two rural lots. This assumption is based on topography that was done in 1976. No soil borings have been completed 0 in this area to definitively show that this is possible. As proposed, the new street would end in a cul -de -sac with lots between it and the upland property to the south. City Code 11 -3 -2B allows the city to require roadways to be extended to the property line to allow them to be extended in the future. The applicant is opposed to extending the street to the property line as indicated in the attached letter. Conversely, the property owner to the south has provided a letter requesting the street extension. In either event is the street will not allow a.second access into the development due to the size and location of the surrounding floodplain. Extending the street to the south property line will impact the proposed plat. For the property to the south to be able to be split it appears that the road will need to be brought in roughly at the center of the upland area (see attached Potential Future Development Graphic). Extending the road in this manner will bisect proposed Lot 2, Block 1 and cause this lot to fall below the 2.5 acre minimum lot size and will increase the size of Lot 3, Block 1. Some of the lost acreage could be taken from Lot 1, Block 1 (shown at 3.12 acres in size). However, staff estimates that even this manipulation will result in one lot at 2.5 acres and one at 2.08 acres or two lots at 2.29 acres in size. To summarize, a variance to one or more lots in the proposed development will be needed to provide a street connection to the south. Additionally the permanent cul -de -sac shown on the proposed plat would need to be replaced with a temporary cul -de -sac at the south end of the property. If the Commission and Council agree that the road should be extended to the south, staff also recommends that this condition of approval be contingent upon the property owner to the south demonstrating that two buildable lots can be achieved based on the city's requirements for rural lots. A reasonable time frame for this evaluation to be completed should also be included to avoid further delay in the development of the proposed plat. As a part of its recommendation, the Planning Commission is asked to determine whether the 40 road should be extended to the south. If the Commission determines that this should be done, the recommendation should also include a preference for one of the two lot size scenarios described above. Future Street Improvements The section of Ward Lake Drive adjacent to the subject property is a gravel road. The Andover Review Committee is recommending that the applicant pay for the portion of Ward Lake Drive within the proposed plat to be improved to an urban street section. As shown on the plat, this is one half of the street adjoining the subject property. An improvement project will be triggered by further development in this area or the deterioration of the roadway to a point where it needs to be reconstructed. The estimated cost of this portion of the future street improvement is $10,224. A condition of approval has been added to the attached resolution in this regard. The applicant is opposed to this requirement as indicated in their attached letter. Lots Without the street modifications described above, each of the lots will exceed the 2.5 acre minimum required by the R -1 Zoning District as well as provide the required lot width and depth. The irregular shaped lots are a result of these requirements, the triangular shape of the property and the wetland and floodplain constraints. Tree Preservation The attached Tree Preservation Plan indicates the areas of existing trees that will be saved and those that will be removed. i Wetland and Floodplain Impact The combination of topography and the city's requirements make this a difficult site to develop. As a result, there are several areas of wetland and floodplain fill as shown on the attached grading plan. To compensate for these areas, new wetland and floodplain areas are provided in portions of the site that are not needed for the street, building pads or drain fields. This plan has been reviewed and recommended for approval by the Lower Rum River Watershed Management Organization with several conditions. A copy of this recommendation and the proposed wetland mitigation plan are attached. It should also be noted that the developer has made application to FEMA to remove the floodplain areas that are proposed to be filled from the officially adopted floodplain map. Once final approval has been granted by FEMA, the city will need to process a conditional use permit to adopt the new map to reflect the updated floodplain boundaries. It is anticipated that FEMA approval will be forthcoming based on the wetland and floodplain mitigation plan prepared by the applicant. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat subject to the conditions of the attached resolution, including payment for future improvements to Ward Lake Drive and a street extension to the southern property line. ACTION REQUESTED The Planning Commission is asked to recommend approval or denial of the proposed plat and to include a recommendation on the road connection to the south, payment for future road improvements to Ward Lake Drive and any other issues raised at the meeting. All of the items. discussed in the report are included in the attached resolution with the exception of whether one or two variances for minimum lot size will be granted as a result of the street extension to the south. This item and any other adjustments to the resolution will be made by staff for the Council meeting based on the recommendations of the Planning Commission. Attachments Resolution Location Map Preliminary Plat Plan Set Letters From Applicant Letter From Property Owner to the South Previously Reviewed Sketch Plan Potential Future Development Graphic Lower Rum River Watershed Management Organization Recommendation Sketch Plan Mu' lutes C submitte , AoWe arz Cc: David Nash MFRA 14800 28" Avenue, Suite 140 Plymouth, MN 55447 Dwight Harvey Select Companies, Inc. 12415 — 55 th Street N. Lake Elmo, MN 55042 3 CITY OF ANDOVER COUNTY OF ANOKA • STATE OF MINNESOTA RES. NO A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY PLAT OF "WOODLAND HILLS" FOR SELECT COMPANIES, INC. LOCATED AT 17404 WARD LAKE DRIVE AND LEGALLY DESCRIBED ON EXHIBIT A WHEREAS, the Andover Review Committee has reviewed the preliminary plat; and WHEREAS, pursuant to published and mailed notice thereof, the Planning and Zoning Commission has conducted a public hearing on said plat; and WHEREAS, the applicant has petitioned to vary from City Code 11 -3 -3 G. to allow 174 Lane NW to terminate in a cul -de -sac that exceeds 500 feet length; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds that the temporary cul -de -sac for Zilla Street NW provides potential for a second access in the future and no other options for a second access exist due to the location of floodplain and wetlands surrounding the proposed plat; and WHEREAS, the city has directed that applicant to extend 174 h Lane NW to the south property line to allow a street connection to the property to the south. pursuant to City Code 11 -3 -2B; and WHEREAS, as a result of the street extension a variance to the minimum lot size requirements of City Code 12 -3 -5 to ; and WHEREAS the Planning Commission finds that the requested street connection causes the need for the variance; and WHEREAS, as a result of such public hearing, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommends to the City Council the approval of the plat; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Andover has received the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approves the preliminary plat with the following conditions: 1. The Preliminary Plat shall conform to the plans revised August 1, 2007 and stamped received by the City of Andover August 6, 2007, except as follows: a. The developer shall extend 174 Lane NW to the south end of the property near the center of the upland area on the property to the south if the property owner to the south demonstrates that two buildable lots can be achieved on this property within 60 days from the approval of this resolution. b. A temporary cul -de -sac shall be provided at the end of 174 Lane NW. A temporary cul -de -sac easement shall be provided on a separate document for this cul -de -sac. 4 . c. A variance to the 2.5 acre minimum lot size requirement is granted for to allow 170 Lane NW to be extended to the south property line. 2. A variance to the maximum cul -de -sac length of City Code 11 -3 -3G. is granted for 174 Lane NW. 3. The developer shall provide a temporary cul -de -sac easement on a separate document for Zilla Street NW. 4. The developer shall be responsible for the cost of extending Zilla Street NW to the north edge of the plat, including half of the cost of a future culvert and storm sewer, to allow this street to cross the ditch and provide a second access to the proposed development. This responsibility shall be included in the development contract. 5. The developer shall obtain all necessary permits from the DNR, FEMA, Corps of Engineers, Lower Rum River Watershed Management Organization, MPCA and any other agency that may be interested in the site. 6. Park dedication and trail fees shall be paid on a per unit basis for each of the lots in the proposed development. 7. The applicant shall make payment for future road improvements to Ward Lake Drive in the amount of $10,224. 8. Contingent upon a development agreement acceptable to the City Attorney. A financial guarantee will be required as a part of this agreement to assure required subdivision improvements will be completed. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Andover this th day of , 2007. CITY OF ANDOVER ATTEST: Victoria Volk, City Clerk Michael R. Gamache, Mayor R EXHIBIT A • WOODLAND HILLS Preliminary Plat Resolution LEGAL DESCRIPTION: That part of the SW 114 of the SW 1/4 of Section 2, Township 32, Range 24, described as follows: Commencing at the Southwest comer of said Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of said Section 2; thence North along the quarter line 890 feet more or less to the centerline of a ditch, which ditch is more particularly as follows: Commencing at a point 459.35 feet North of Southwest comer of the of the Southwest Quarter of Section 2; thence deflect right 92 °51'16', a distance of 278.13 feet; thence deflect left 20 °22'30' a distance of 189.93 feet; thence deflect left 30 0 17', a distance of 199.32 feet; thence deflect left 22 0 44'40° a distance of 627.73 feet; thence deflect right 35 distance of 362.40 feet; thence deflect left 16 °44' a distance of 137.45 feet, more or less, to Town Road; thence along the aforedescribed ditch to its intersection with the centerline of Ward Lake Road as now laid out and established; thence Southeasterly along said centerline of said road to a point, which point is 66 feet from the intersection of said road and the East line of said Southeast Quarter of Southwest Quarter, said distance being measured along the centerline of said road; thence in a straight line Southwesterly to the point of beginning. Reserving, however, to the parties of the first part an easement for road purposes over that part of the above described property lying south of a line drawn parallel with and 20 feet North of the South line of said Southeast Quarter of Southwest Quarter of Section 2, Township 32, Range 24, Anoka County, Minnesota • _0/ C i r v o s , NDOVE Incorporated 1974 Woodland Hills Rural Residential Plat Location Map - SUBJECT PROPERTY N ? IF a Vf i f , Tgir I 411 i * cn 3 :2. = C) CD CID CL 0 rf C cn < CD CD C) :3 I'A or 411 i CD V CD ED CD CD 3 CD FIT cn • • • ii a E,-r WOODLAND HILLS * cn 3 :2. = C) CD CID CL 0 rf C cn < CD CD C) :3 or Z3 :3 =3 ED CID cn r o + Pa cn CD V CD ED CD CD 3 CD FIT cn • • • ii a E,-r WOODLAND HILLS 1 . r r ". �1?t1t• .e..w .' ./ I � � � x•11. � __ -- J ••. •+.' I II ✓ w lJ , n � ° P ,te J `•��� 'Y � *� � ' �r\�. ya . ; a�ty9x99�t #u ±as ;t��t��f - 's:•� 9� *[� {RS '� v �'� NIT ilia Wi iW i9 {F iiif hiRW£ ?� 9 eR Y' eeMtXet tl6 ^:RBi.ReYe I1: C ° S � A R BWYiI84ERYi[RFB &C[ENRE I.`, � � � + ,�•` - ., 4`c � � � 3 XY. eR.rR. a.e te: - °Y:ev e�ti� �._:.� # Rx�94 �➢ N� a 3 : a 1, 6 3� 5 y � n p�y6R / S a R ,Ill;lil � o WOODLAND HILLS -2.0) 7495E PAESOCVAT70wJ FYA9d s ( r r: a � �I 1 a(� i I °aa _ _ Q'�–'' �• a,' W TI, 1 ` a e �eE� p } r e �• t C ■ �II'I O II p�t ?�� ��w � 44545t4ip Ij II qqj ,� QQ e ' tt I t X. MF ?*�� iSs���� �geag�yye. q k�n4 n ! e ■ —r.l a � n� gSY4 - m I • ,� :: «^.. e – _ ty+.�'r•w..a'.•s...rr WOODLAND HILLS Sf:ILCT 00IIF'/e116 q a T E _ x'17 R I - i I C CG lu Z g o i __ - - ___ - __ -_ ei i\ i'=i� €dgN C�S6!C [�9i g k Sli�S � ° i , Spj1 : £ rr 3 m g € S € $m • e e ! ra °$ _a. ec •i9 �����° WOODLAND HILLS I\ �`pp aY, I I\ �`pp aY, i, - ---- ti - -_---- \ v � � �\ .M�! x� i� >S; + < a•1 ill: -.I . L fr I. \ r b • Elp b`e$ 3" 8 • ` �° ! \a . { :S Ig 4q glill 21m 7 °E'j'•� d IRS. A tae! A l l :41 .3 E f i - . i ti • Y tgr ly bP i3 ° ! la t t R xPe g IESps C M1d66 P �� -• £tl . g 1 y e n T2 t - 9 1 e 1 1 'lE p o ± — �. _ ! ^.rT• s+m— eM�bn..+�•>+iM WOODLAND HILLS SELECT COMPANIES Tr `••ww�• W➢ec oxu�Aae9oOl 01w0.1w T \ \ \ \. =.\ .�� ��� N ° - .�F .` >�' �t` i s R i l li WHIM lkl 11 f giA - 1 .. I`FF '"8 ♦ �� $ vav 4 LR " A •JZ[ x A :Y' 6 WY RYM1 T1 � Y y S a l c g L E � !� } B 2 9 55 ; i e t t � I ! I I II �I � K I III f, r• 1 JLI Va a as se l Lil 1: 1 g S `i S r �— �rp..w nm:+y •swpv' WODDLAND HILLS c -r. or WerlANP ► ►► ^► Fri .,f— WOODLAND HILLS DEVELOPMENT, INC. 12415-55 Street N. • Lake Elmo MN 55042 Ph: (651) 439 -2414 Fax: (651) 439 -3254 R E C E I V E D May 8, 2007 JUN 1 200 Mr. Courtney Bednarz, City Planner CITY OF ANDOVER CITY OF ANDOVER 1685 Crosstown Boulevard NW Andover MN 55304 RE: Woodland Hills SE 1 /4 of SW 1 /4 Section 2 Township 32N Range 24W Dear Mr. Bednarz: As a result of the City staffs review of the preliminary plat and plans for our Woodland Hills project located off of Ward Lake Road, staff recommended the developer extend the cul -de -sac to the south property line to allow a connection for the owner of that property should he decide to develop his site in the future. As the developer, Woodland Hills Development, Inc. strenuously objects to any such requirement for the development of our site for several reasons, including: 1. An almost identical plan was submitted last fall for Concept Review. During that review, which • was approved by all who reviewed it, no mention was made nor requirement imposed for an extension of the cul-de -sac to the south property line. Relying on that Concept approval, we asked our engineers, McCom,bs Frank Roos & Associates to draft plans and plat consistent with that approval. To suggest this change at this late hour is unfair and unwarranted. 2. The property to the south already has access to Ward Lake Road through a long - standing field approach similar to the existing driveway on our property. Like us, the owner of the south property could simply improve his existing access. 3. The City has estimated that only two lots can be developed on the south property based on the City's current guide plan for that property. The cost to extend the cul -de -sac cannot be economically justified if only two additional lots are generated. 4. Any extension to the south property would provide NO benefit whatsoever for buyers of lots in our development; the only benefit would be to the south property owner. As such, any requirement to extend the cul -de -sac should be paid for by the south property owner. 5. We have already agreed to extend a road off of our cul-de -sac to the north property line. Again, this extension provides NO benefit whatsoever to buyers of our lots. Although it appears the north property would have the opportunity to develop more than two lots, the cost is being assessed to us, not the benefited landowner. To compound the problem by requiring a south extension is unnecessarily punitive and unfair. We would be pleased to expound on our objections in person if you desire. Please contact me at (651) 439 -2414 if you have questions or comments. Sincerely, _4 • Joel T. Larson, Vice President WOODLAND HILLS DEVELOPMENT, INC. 12415 – 55' Street N. Lake Elmo MN 55042 Ph: (651) 439 -2414 Fax: (651) 439 -3254 May 9, 2007 R EC E C V `t D Mr. David D. Berkowitz Mr. Courtney B ednarz JUN 1 2007 CITY OF ANDOVER 1685 Crosstown Boulevard NW CITY OF ANDOVER Andover MN 55304 RE: Woodland Hills SE t/4 of SW 1 /4 Section 2 Township 32N Range 24W Dear Messrs. Berkowitz and Bednarz: At an earlier meeting with City staff to review comments and address concerns raised during staff review of the preliminary plat and plans for our Woodland Hills project, an issue was raised regarding a desire by the City to pave Ward Lake Road and to collect from us, as developer, a "deposit" for our "fair share" of that future cost. At the time, our representative objected to any such requirement for a number of reasons and requested an estimate on what the City would be seeking. Since the meeting, our engineers, McCombs Frank Roos & Associates ( "MFRA ") have provided us the estimate received from City staff. By this letter, we wish to restate our objections to the collection of "estimates" for the improvement of Ward Lake Road for the following reasons: 1. To our knowledge, the improvement of Ward Lake Road is not a project that the City has firmly placed on any City- approved engineering project list. As such, a clear timetable for the improvements does not exist. To collect funds now for what might eventually evolve into a City improvement project is unreasonable and capricious. 2. Any City improvement project is required to survive a comprehensive design and feasibility analysis, including a determination of all the parties benefiting from the improvement and how those parties should be assessed fairly and equitably for the benefit received. The method of assessment is required to be publicly discussed, with all parties being assessed given an equal opportunity to publicly comment on the method and manner in which the assessment will be levied. No such design or feasibility analysis has been completed, nor have we as an effected owner been advised of the method and manner of assessment and given an opportunity to publicly comment thereon. • 3. The estimate of cost we received was for a "typical urban roadway ". We don't even know if the City plans on Ward Lake Road being classified as an "urban roadway" or as "rural" for the reasons stated in 1 and 2 above. How can the City –/S-- justify the collection of any estimate until that determination has been made and • detail plans, specs and bids have been received? C We are the developers of this site. As such, we intend to develop the site and sell lots to builders who will construct homes on these sites. The homeowners will be the beneficiaries of the Ward Lake improvement, not us. Until the improvement is completed, not even the homeowners will benefit. At this point, no one has benefited from the improvement. To collect for it as though it has been completed flies in the face of fairness and equity. For all of the above reasons, we believe the City is placing an unreasonable burden on this project and we, as developer, if it attempts to collect for an undesigned, unscheduled, future improvement project at this time. We would welcome the opportunity to comment in person should you wish. Please contact me at (651) 439 -2414 if you have any questions or comments. Sincerely, Joel T. Larson, Vice President • • 4 ._ • April 16, 2007 Courtney Bednarz City of Andover 1685 Crosstown Blvd Andover, MN 55304 RE: Kuiken Property Courtney, This is notice that, as the land owners adjacent to the proposed development by Select Development on Ward Lake Road in Andover, we are requesting a stub -in at the cul -de -sac area for possible future development of the buildable areas on our property. Thank you, Jim Kuiken 612- 242 -5629 • �7� t k E fi 6:"I` � x e rot d ,. * f V? � -r y � . x ar 4 i 14 1 i � g �. I T Y >^ rn �: � i /.• � ice— ` � '6' l � / f VW 4t J r IM l ' t 4 ` r goo • Lower Rum River Watershed Management Organization Andover -Anoka -Coon Rapids- Ramsey 2015 First Avenue • Anoka, MN 55303 To: Lower Rum River Wa ement Organization From: Barr Engineering Company Date: August 16, 2007 Re: Permit #2007 -08: Woodland Hills- Andover Proieet Update On July 2, 2007, we received a Wetland Replacement Plan (WRP) for the proposed Woodland Hills development. On August 8, 2007 we received an addendum to the WRP, which addressed previously submitted Technical Evaluation Panel (TEP) questions and suggested WRP changes. Updated ProJ29 Details The addendum indicates brat the applicant is proposing to construct a residential development comprised of 5 residential homes, roadways, and a stormwater pond. The construction of the development will involve filling 0.39 acres (17,077 sq. ft.) of wetland to help facilitate the creation of roads and home building pads. The Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) requires a minimum. wetland mitigation at a 2:1 replacement ratio [039 acres (17,077 square feet) x 2 — 0.78 acres (34,154 square feet)], for the proposed wetland impacts. Mitigation will be accomplished on -site through a combination of created wetland, 0.18 acres (7,933 sq. 11 wetland hydrology and vegetation restoration, 0.24 acres (10,551 sq. fl) of credit, and upland buffer, 0.42 acres (18,484 sq. ft.). The proposed mitigation total, 0.85 acres (36,968 sq. ft.), is adequate to meet the WCA replacement requirements. Updated Recommendation We, based on the TEP's recommendation, recommend approval of the WRP Addendum, with the following wetland - related conditions: 1. Provide a revised Combined Wedand Permit Application, which includes the applicant's signature and date on page 2, line 11. 2. Proof of ownership or rights to the proposed wetland impact and wetland replacement areas. 3. A draft Declaration of Restrictions and Covenants (DOR) for the replacement wetland areas to be reviewed and approved by the LRRWMO attorney, which should include the following • Exhibit A: a survey, metes and bounds legal description, of the replacement wetland areas. Exhibit B: a map or figure of the replacement wetland areas. The DOR shall be f rush, after approval by the LRRWMO attorney, in a timely manner and proof of recording must be submitted to the LRRWMO. Immediately upon completion of grading, a comparison of the as -bolt specifications versus the design specifications must be completed and a rationale for significant changes must be submitted to the VBWD. The following additional Board of Water and Sort Resources legal documents mist be submitted, prior to construction: Affutavit of Land Owner • Consent to Replacement Wetland • P_ 1Mpis1MMt. 1102\230204T_Movedfr=Mpis_MB\0708 Wood) ridHiI ABM 0808 0707doc —zo— • • Contractor Responsibility and Landowner Statement Form Templates of these legal documents can be found on the Board of Water and Soil Resource's web site Q o: i! www. bwststate. maus !wetlaads!wcamanuaL'index.html) A cash surety in the amount of $65,500 must be provided to the LRRWMO, prior to wetlands being impacted. Portions of the cash surety may be released after completion of conshuction or when the wetland obtains a certain functionality, as indicated below: • Once grading and seeding of the wetland replacement area has been completed and a comparison of the as -built specifications versus the design specifications has been completed, which shows that WCA wetland replacement area creation requirements are met, than NO/o of the cash surety amount may be returned to the applicant • Once any /all consttuctionlerosion issues have been completely resolved and the wetland replacement have been documented to include at least 70 0 /6 cover of native, non- invasive vegetation, with no bare areas greater than 9 square feet, than 35% of the cash surety amount could be returned to the applicant • Once the wetland replacement area goal has been documented, including the presence of at least 70 % cover of native, non - invasive vegetation, with no bare areas greater than 4 square feet and the TEP has deemed the wetland to be hilly functional, than the remainder, 35 0 /6, of the cash surety amount could be returned to the applicant Within one month of grading completion, a comparison of the as-built specifications versus the design specifications must be completed and a rationale for significant changes must be submitted to the LRRV#rMO. U 0 P.Wpls\23 NM2\ 2302047\_ MovedFromMpls _MB\0708_Woodlandtiins\BM 0808 0707 doe —'Z/— Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes —June 13, 2006 Page 8 • PUBLIC HEARING: RESIDENTL4L SKETCHPLAN FOR A SINGLE FAMILY RURAL RESIDENTL. L DEVELOPMENT LOCATED AT 17404 WARD LAKE DRIVE Mr. Bednarz stated the Planning Commission is asked to review a sketch plan containing five rural lots. Mr. Bednarz discussed the staff report with the Commission. Commissioner Kirchoff asked if the second access was the reasonable spot for it to go. Mr. Bednarz stated they look at topography and look at where the road can physically be built. It does need to go to the north and there are several options that would depend on the development plans of the property owners. Commissioner King stated the road going to the north shows a cul -de -sac in the north going south, he knew the area was all undeveloped at this time and is a high area. He wondered if the property owners were contacted and have they seen it. Mr. Bednarz stated the typical notification was provided but there has not been a lot of interest in the sketch plan at this time. He has not been contacted by anyone in the neighborhood regarding this development. Commissioner Holthus asked if the gravel portion of Ward Lake Drive would be paved • and if other residents .not in the development would be assessed for road improvements. Mr. Bednarz explained that the development would be asked to pay a proportionate share of the road improvements and that property owners outside of the development are typically not assessed for road improvements until the time that they develop. The Council will need to determine at what time the road will be paved. Motion by Casey, seconded by Kirchoff, to open the public hearing at 8:37 p.m. Motion carried on a 5 -ayes, 0 -nays, 2- absent (Greenwald, Walton) vote. Ms. Lilly Grey, 17947 Hanson Boulevard, stated she walks everyday along Ward Lake Drive and she noticed the proposed change sign. She wanted to have the Commission understand that this is a rural area and if they put in road lights, that they shine down instead of up into the sky. She thought the gravel road needed to be paved because cars drive through there very fast. Motion by King, seconded by Casey, to close the public hearing at 8:41 p.m. Motion carried on a 5 -ayes, 0 -nays, 2- absent (Greenwald, Walton) vote. Ms. Kathy O'Connell, MFRA, representing Select Homes, made a presentation to the Commission regarding the proposed development. • --ZL— Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes —June 13, 2006 • Page 9 Commissioner Holthus stated one of the requirements they would have to do is to demonstrate the buildability of each lot. She wondered if this was a major concern. Ms. O'Connell did not think it was a concern. Commissioner King stated he lives in that area and there are many trees in the area. He wondered if they planned on keeping a lot of the trees. Ms. O'Connell stated that is one of the main considerations for where the road and cul -de -sac are located. She noted they had noticed on the knoll there were a couple of beautiful Oak trees so they adjusted the street and will further refine it when they get the final topography and locate key trees. Commissioner King wondered if the street will be thirty-three feet wide. Ms. O'Connell stated they will put in whatever road width that the city requires but would prefer to reduce the street width because that much paving is simply not needed. Chairperson Daninger thanked Ms. O'Connell for explaining the development to the Commission. Chairperson Daninger indicated the development looked good and should be pursued. The Commission agreed. • Mr. Bednarz stated that this item would be before the Council at the June 20, 2006 City Council meeting. OTHER BUSINESS. Mr. Bednarz updated the Commission on previously reviewed items. Commissioner Kirchoff noted he picked up an architecture monthly magazine and the Community Center was in it and apparently they have won an award and thought it was great. Commissioner Casey stated this Thursday there will be an open house provided by the Andover EDA from 5:00 to 7:00 to review the Andover North project general business area. The public is welcome to come. ADJOURNMENT. Motion by Casey, seconded by Holthus, to adjourn the meeting at 8:50 p.m. Motion carried on a 5 -ayes, 0 -nays, 2- absent (Greenwald, Walton) vote. Respectfully Submitted, • Sue Osbeck, Recording Secretary TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. — Z ?— Regular Andover City Council Meeting Minutes – June 20, 2006 Page 10 Community Development Director Neumeister stated the applicant is requesting a variance to City Code section 12 -13 -9, which requires that driveways be set back 5 feet from the property line to allow a shared driveway access to 161" Avenue NW (County Road 20). Mr. Neumeister reviewed the staff report with the Council. Motion by Trude, Seconded by Knight, to approve the proposed variance. Motion carried unanimously. (RES. R078 -06) CONSIDER SKETCH PLANIWOODLAND HILLS 117404 WARD LAKE DRIVE NW Community Development D Neumeister stated the Council is asked to review a sketch plan containing five rural lots. Motion by Councilmember Knight, Seconded by Councilmember Orttel, to approve the sketch plan. Councilmember Orttel asked where the paved portion on Ward Lake ends. Mr. Berkowitz showed . on the map where gravel is located. Motion carried unanimously. APPROVE PLANS & SPECS /ORDER ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS /06 -12 /CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD NW TRAIL & 06- 171THE OAKS PARK TRAIL City Engineer Berkowitz stated the City Council is requested to approve final plans and specifications and order the advertisement for bids for Project 06 -12, Crosstown Boulevard NW Trail (east side) between 140 Avenue NW & 141 Lane NW and Project 06 -17, construction of a trail through The Oaks Park from Crosstown Boulevard NW to the Kensington 7 01 Addition development. Councilmember Trude stated the reason she had this pulled was because in the resolution they are approving the plans and specs for trails but when she read the staff report, the last couple of lines on the first page at the bottom it talks about an alternate bid for a basketball court and other things. She wondered if they need to approve that as part of this. Mr. Berkowitz stated what they have is Fox Meadows basketball court was identified in the Capital Improvement Plan and because it is such a small project they can actually go out and get quotes and do the project because it was previously approved. They preferred to bring this in as an alternate bid under this proposal. Councilmember Trude wondered if this was enough legally to get that, to just say they are going to go out and bid for the trails and then mentioned in the staff report doing basketball courts too. — Z4/ S 0 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. • ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 • (763) 755 -5100 FAX (763) 755 -8923 • WWW.CI.ANDOVER.MN.US TO: Planning and Zoning Commissioners FROM: Chris Vrchota, Associate Planner SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING City Code Amendment to modify the requirements of City Code 5 -1 Animal Control. DATE: September 11, 2007 INTRODUCTION This item was tabled at the August 28` Planning Commission meeting to allow time for additional public input. NOTE: The Planning Commission is asked to bring their staff report and information packet from the August 28"' meeting - that information has not been provided again. DISCUSSION Staff has not received any additional inquiries, comments, or information from the public since the August 28` meeting. At the previous meeting, the Planning Commission requested some additional information on how • other cities handle the issue of "restraint". A summary of the other cities' requirements is attached. It should be noted that electronic fencing was not specifically addressed in any of the other codes. Research of city codes across the country reveals a full spectrum of policies for electronic fencing, from prohibition to allowance with detailed guidelines to permission without restrictions. Many cities decline to specifically address the issue. For instance, the city of Naperville, Illinois has no official regulation regarding electronic fencing, but provides a pamphlet on "recommended guidelines" that they suggest people follow if they use it. Animal control is a difficult issue for all cities to deal with. Regardless of what changes are or are not made, some level of subjectivity will remain in the interpretation and enforcement of this code section. The changes might remove some degree of ambiguity from the code or address a few specific situations, but it is unlikely that they would eliminate all questions on how the ordinance is interpreted or enforced. Each person has their own definition of concepts like "annoy ", "habitual ", "repeated", "restraint", and as such, it is likely that there will continue to be cases where the code cannot or does not offer a solution that will satisfy all parties involved. Attachments Exhibit A- "Restraint" in Other Cities Planning Commission Minutes- 08.28.07 ACTION REQUESTED The Planning Commission is asked to continue reviewing the proposed changes to the Animal Control Code and make a recommendation to the City Council. M ubmitted, EXHIBIT A- "Restraint" in Other Cities Coon Rapids "Running at large" shall mean any dog that is not either: (a) Effectively contained within a fenced area on private property, or (b) Effectively restrained, by chain or leash, to private property with the consent of the property owner, or (c) Effectively restrained by a chain or leash not to exceed six (6) feet in length. Blaine Restraint means controlled by a leash or by a competent person and immediately obedient to that person's command, or within the property limits of its owner restricted by a secure "tether" which limits the dog's movement on and to the owner's property, or within a secure enclosure on the property limits of the owner which confines the dog. An unattended dog or other domestic animal on the property of another, without the consent of such property owner, is "at large" and not "under restraint," even though it is on a leash. • Brooklyn Park Under Restraint - An animal is "under restraint" if it is controlled by a leash or within a vehicle being driven or parked on a public street, or within the property limits of its owner's premises under some form of physical restraint such as a leash or fence or in the . presence of a competent person. An unattended animal on the property of another, • without the consent of such property owner, is "at large" and not under restraint, even though it is on a leash. No person shall permit an animal to be at large in this city, but must keep such animal under restraint at all times. No person having custody or control of any animal shall permit the same to be on any unfenced area or lot abutting upon a street, public park, public place or upon any private land without being effectively restrained from moving beyond such unfenced area or lot; nor shall any person having custody or control of any animal permit the same at any time to be on any street, public park, school ground or any public place without being effectively restrained by chain or leash not exceeding eight feet in length. Brooklyn Center Under Restraint means an animal that is controlled by a leash or at heel beside a competent person having custody of it and obedient to that person's commands, or within a vehicle being driven or parked on a public street, or if it is within the property limits of its owner's premises. Minneapolis 64.50. Leashing and tethers; feces clean up.(a) Leashing. No person having the custody or control of any dog or animal of the dog kind shall permit the dog to be on any unfenced area or lot abutting upon a street, alley, public park, public place or upon any • private land without being effectively restrained from moving beyond such unfenced area • or lot; nor shall any person having the custody or control of any dog or animal of the dog kind permit the dog at any time to be on any street, alley, public park, school ground, or public place without being effectively restrained by chain or leash, except in areas officially designated for off leash activities. Violations of this provision may result in an administrative fine. Bloomington Under Restraint - a dog is under restraint if: (1) the dog is within a secure vehicle; (2) the dog is within a secure fence or building within the owner's property limits; (3) the dog is picketed in accordance with this Division of the City Code; (4) the dog is controlled by a leash, provided that when persons or other animals are within twenty (20) feet of the dog the leash is shortened to six (6) feet; or (5) the dog: (A) is within the owner's property limits, or is involved in a scheduled dog show or obedience demonstration or trial, is legally involved in hunting or retrieving game animals, or is within the boundaries of a City park or other City -owned property designated and posted by the Manager of Parks and Recreation as an off -leash site; and (B) is controlled by a competent person and is immediately obedient to that person's command. I * 0 Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes —August 28, 2007 Page 4 area. He stated the intent was before it was too restrictive and now they hav opportunity for someone to do a little improvement and have flexibility. mmissioner Cleveland thought this would be the same as living next to someone o did not keep up their yard. Chairperson Daninger asked in the language presented em was there anything in the performance standard that the Commission would ' explained, corrected or did they feel comfortable with what was presented. C issioner Cleveland thought going through the CUP process should handle the questions that would come up. Chairperson Daninger wonderedV096aff wondered' felt there was enough information to move forward with this. Mr. Vrch mdicated there was. Motion by Kircho .onded by Casey, to recommend approval of the Interim Performance S ards for Hughs/Westview Industrial Parks. Motion carried on a 7- ayes, 0 -na - absent vote. Daninger noted the only real concern was with the question about the Mr. Vrchota stated that this item would be before the Council at the September 4, 2007 City Council meeting. C J i ' PUBLIC HEARING: CITY CODE AMENDMENT TO MODIFY THE REQUIREMENTS OF CITY CODE 5-1 ANIMAL CONTROL. Mr. Vrchota stated the Planning Commission discussed potential changes to the City's animal control code at the July 20 meeting. The City Council has provided some additional feedback, and the changes are now being brought back for a public hearing and formal discussion. Mr. Vrchota discussed the staff report with the Commission. He suggested this item be tabled to get more information out to the public regarding this item. Motion by Kirchoff, seconded by Cleveland, to open the public hearing at 7:29 p.m. Motion carried on a 7 -ayes, 0 -nays, 0- absent vote. Ms. Sylvia Munson, 2705 130 Lane NW, stated explained why she came to the City for help. She also noted she recently realized how dangerous electric fences are. She stated she is currently and historically been having problems with a neighbors dog barking. She stated the neighbor has an electric fence. She wants different changes to this ordinance because she did not think electronic fences were being addressed in the ordinance. She thought there should be regulations regarding these fences. She thought a permit should • be required when installing an electronic fence and they should not be allowed in the Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes -August 28, 2007 Page 5 front yards. She stated she worries about her grandchildren when they come over and she thought they should do more research on them because they are not safe. She did not think an electronic fence should be allowed to contain aggressive dogs. Ms. Trudy Vanhouse, 2701 134`" Lane NW, stated underground electronic fencing is a difficult issue for the Commission and if she can help with any information, she would be willing to help. She also would like some kind of window on how long it would take to research this. Ms. Munson asked if staff made any changes regarding restraint. Mr. Vrchota stated no changes were made regarding restraint and electronic fences were not specifically addressed in this amendment. Chairperson Daninger stated the Commission discussed this with staff but no changes were requested. Ms. Munson wondered if they had received information from other areas regarding electronic fencing. Chairperson Daninger indicated they have and would discuss this information. Motion by Cleveland, seconded by Kirchoff, to close the public hearing at 7:41 p.m. Motion carried on a 7 -ayes, 0 -nays, 0- absent vote. Commissioner Kirchoff wondered on the electronic fence if a dog is wearing a collar don't they get shocked. He thought electronic fences work because no fence will stop every dog and if they want to get out of a yard they will. He wondered if there was some type of a threshold on the electronic fences to keep an animal in the yard. Chairperson Daninger stated they discussed this before and determined that if a fence will stop a dog it is an adequate type of a restraint. He stated he did not have any further questions because if it works it is considered a restraint and if a fence does not restrain an animal it is not effective. Commissioner Casey wondered if staff received any information from other cities regarding restraining an aggressive animal. Mr. Vrchota stated they did receive information from other cities on how they handle restraint and can provide that to the Commission at the next meeting. Commissioner Holthus did not think that an electronic fence is reliable and she did not think they could consider it an effective restraint. She understood a dog could go under or over a fence but typically fences are reliable. It is a physical thing that can be seen by all. Chairperson Daninger agreed an electronic fence is not considered a restraint because he also did not think it was reliable. Commissioner Cleveland did not think it was their responsibility to write code that would be one hundred percent reliable because other restraints could be broken through by a dog. Commissioner Holthus thought that if the City indicates an electronic fence is a reliable restraint then if someone would get hurt the City would be responsible. Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes —August 28, 2007 Page 6 Commissioner Cleveland stated if a dog is outside of their boundaries it is considered an animal at large and not under restraint so it would not be the City's responsibility. Chairperson Daninger thought staff could bring back information from other cities on what they have done in their cities regarding restraint. Motion by Kirchoff, seconded by Falk, to table. Motion carried on a 7 -ayes, 0 -nays, 0- absent vote. WORKSESSION A. Subdivision Ordinance Discussion Subdivision 11. 1.3 - Platting Authority Mr. Nss stated this section is updated to reflect the State Statute. 2. Subdiv'%Dn 11.1.4 - Definitions Chairperson D er stated on page 6, lines 21 and 22 he asked for a definition of mottled. Mr. Bedn stated mottled soils are soils stained by water which means the • water table had reache at point at some time. Commissioner Kirchoff stated mottled soil can be stained by salt anything in the water even when dry. Commissioner Holthus asked i 00 average trips per day was a typical number in other cities for minor /major collector str and she wondered where the number came from. Mr. Cross stated that number came s ' t from the Engineering Department as a recommendation. Commissioner Kircho ought it probably came from the Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE). Chairperson Daninger remembered talking about 's two or three years ago and changing collector streets based on a 2030 study. MNednarz stated the whole purpose is to allow driveway access to minor collector streets an of major collector streets. Commissioner Walton wondered if they would define types o omes that can be built on lots in this section. Mr. Bednarz stated this is all covered under lowest floor. He explained the process they go through to find the lowest floor and h that affects the type of home that can be built. 3. Subdivision 11.2.1 -Sketch Plan Changes Chairperson Daninger stated Sketch Plans are not required but they do pay a fee oth a sketch plan and a preliminary plat. Mr. Cross stated that was correct, they pay for • separately. 0 • TO: Planning and Zoning Commissioners FROM: Andy Cross, Associate Planner 1 , 4X- CC: Courtney Bednarz, City Planner SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING: City Code Amendment to update the requirements of City Code Title 11 Subdivision Regulations. DATE: September 11, 2007 INTRODUCTION For the last six months, City staff has been revising the Subdivision Ordinance, the section of City Code that determines the requirements and review criteria for new subdivisions. Much of the language dates back to the original 1974 ordinance, so we have attempted to simplify the Subdivision Ordinance, remove outdated material, and update it to conform to policies and regulations that are currently being used. This report summarizes the issues identified as significant changes related to the Subdivision Code update. The Planning Commission and the City Council have reviewed and commented on the changes at two workshops. ** Please remember to bring your old copies of the revised code for discussion. ** DISCUSSION Summary of proposed changes: 1. Park Dedication: a. The methodology for figuring the cash payment or land contribution has been reworked to follow State Statute. If a cash dedication is required, then the justification for the per -lot fee must be based on a Park Study instead of 10% of the market value of the land. b. Credit can now be given for certain park improvements made by developers (previously missing from code). c. Formally establishing a trail fee for regional trails and referencing the Code's Fee Ordinance (previously missing from code). d. The City will collect money for regional trails and the developers will construct sidewalks and internal trails (previously missing from code). 2. Required Improvements a. Utilities: The revised subdivision ordinance will require developers to construct utilities to the edge of the development, or at least into an easement that reaches the edge of the development. • Current Code does not require this, so some buildable tracts within the current sewer stage can not begin to develop until others finish developing. b. Intersection Improvements: The Code outlines a process for collection of funds for on- and off -site intersection and roadway improvements. 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. • ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 MAIN (763) 755 -5100 FAX (763) 755 -8923 • WWW.CLANDOVER.MN.US c. Street Lights: The code will specifically state that the developer must install street lights. d. Lot Splits: The Code now provides differentiation between the requirements for lot splits and • subdivisions. e. Trunk Oversui ing: Oversizing trunk utility lines may now be required following the City's Development Guidelines for infrastructure costs. E Costs for Trunk Oversizing: Credit will be given to developers for oversizing trunk utility lines as per current City policy. g. Overhead Utilities: A section has been added that requires developers to bury existing overhead lines as determined by staff review. h. Dead or Diseased Trees: A section has been added to the Subdivision Code that requires developers to remove all dead or diseased trees. Previously this requirement appeared in a different section of the City Code. 3. Traffic Impact Study: This requirement has been added to the Code and will only be used on major developments to determine what transportation improvements may be required. 4. Sketch Plan Process and Fee: An escrow is required whether the project moves forward or not. 5. Preliminary and Final Plat Application / Checklist: Lists of requirements for both preliminary and final plats previously appeared within the Subdivision Code. They have been pulled out and made into external documents that will be adopted annually. This will allow the checklists to be updated quickly and easily and it also shortens the code (see attached checklists). 6. Time Between Meeting Dates (Title 11- 2- 2 -B-6): This section creates processing and legal issues and needed to be rewritten. Staff currently uses a "Meetings and Applications Deadlines" handout that tells applicants when their items will move forward. 7. Major & Minor Collector Streets: Definitions based on traffic counts were added to differentiate the two. Minor collectors would be permitted to have driveway access. 8. Sodding of County Rights -of -Way: The Subdivision Ordinance regulates the installation of boulevard sod. Changes include sodding boulevard areas of both sides of double - frontage lots to the property Be. 9. Rural Street Widths: The City's policy for rural street construction has required a 31 -foot width for over five years. This, however, has never appeared in Code. This requirement has been added to the Revised Subdivision Code. 10. Minimum Lot Frontage: The Code previously had no reference to required frontage. This has been changed to require a minimum 50 -foot frontage on a publicly dedicated street for all lots. Please note that we have recommended many more small changes. These include small word changes in the definitions, updating references to State Statute, and replacing other outdated or obsolete language.. ACTION REQUESTED The Planning Commission is asked to open the public hearing, take public comments, recommend changes if needed, and make a recommendation to the City Council to adopt the revisions. Respectfully submitted, Attachments Spreadsheet Summary of Code Revisions Minute from Planning Commission Meeting (8.28.0: Andy Cross Associate Planner U 0 0 $ g m Q p O C a� E L° m c m E cn a c c m += ( D E ` O a) N O a O Q .0 m •p n C 'a m U_ W y > °� m ?1 m ° to C m •° m L C m m O C m �' C "6 (a n ca a) mE ° a; a ° m c c Q. a �' M �o m a�N w E �� L n a . aE 2 Y ` c U C O c O C S N '� ° Y a) p p a E = a) a vi c o N � > ° �� C 3 U `� c m — o m L E > a E> '� L a v a a Y O "' C « a) O p L % m N m C a w O _N. f�a 7 m N E 6 Co . to .+ O C '"' fn Cl) m 4) vi N a) m U) n CD U a) O ` > O w m a [(C m m cn O > > O O O n C .r O ' O N m a) L c f2 N m w a) E g m r o E ° V Y E m° ° m 3 to E nL v c >,% ca w w 0 o o tm D U m C N V a L N Q t6 N ° a) C O C N i m E m v V 3 c o y Co L m °a >' a n a a� a U > y /N y vi L {G ,Q C m m Y C L a, W N E a 'n c C c n m c L m .� m ca a) m a O a c i C. o (D Em m n w x mm 'o m cp ° aai mm : a o(D c�? CL ° QW ° CD (D a) �� o > ° ca ° ° m �o c a z 4) aa) @ a m n 8 r 3 E Q aai 6 m E � d � � Q c m a N Q U N C a ., p .4? N c= 4 E � c� a� m a �' 2 fl .m c ,� v, 0 U ° � a � � � m � m ° 0-0-0 ° m .' ° ° m _0 o flE m�mEa Cc oa c c o cc _ m � a 'a O c v_ ° m m U c c� N t.? -O L •• m m m a m c $ m d •3 d d 'a LA U) aai d m c a _ a p) a a m Q d N a) c a) - > > O N > N 7 � N U O a) tm - U1 a) CL co '� W N O .m-. E O a) c a) a) a V O_ C L a n a) U) U m ;a to U) w to U M =) W =1 to m3 Dm L U Q W U U) w rL E E O X a w o S U C U m m a) C p c m ° d aci w 0 > E L I- a W m > ° c c O o c c 0 0 c 0 CL m .. m a c U c Q m m or ) Q m c c o c o U) w d E a m m m • C m .L. O .L. . > m p m c m v ° O m Q) m m a) a) � m c Y C m •� , m EL o w W M Q� a > w to a LL C7 cn m w m z O H U W Cn iCj CO )N CO T' N 1? N CM C W � r T T r r r r T N N N M M M M M r r T r r T r r r r r r r T r r r T • • • a L > o rn a aE) c O N N p L a7 c + C o O N o T 3 m E m t N c w a) 3 0. U 0 w C m a) m N N U N _C E . 'N t O. E s d ,o O .N Y a) > a a a) 3 ui m E in 5 ca 6� c c a) N E °' 2 y a d cm m N Q o o y a m a . ca o v a v a) ;° c 4D o a3i Q Y m `o m m a) ` a 0) E 3 a c n c Y v � c o E wq)vo t5 c O a) N 'a m Y m Y w a a) m a Y a m ca Y 7 N a) o ca Y O c E c. @ a N a) c o C m L L N c o cE N o m .0 v co 3 N N Ca Ca O m a1 w U j 'y -0 N O L O L « c cm N d o ai — O O C 7 C a) O L m m E c0 m O O L O O N a m 3 3 t c 0 c y N 4) Y C O E a N m N C c m> 2 rn E m e ° a m c m E E `� �, c () a m N a m a c m o ` aEi a) N c a) o o U> m m o'L �w m 0 �a�E _ m Y ° ca E c ° c Q N 7 d > m U m c°) Q �.o c y v N a� o C.) c o cm -p a) N N V) Qa)om w C a $ N N m O m -�?� a ) NE o E d w 2m m o a a;c do c cam c m a d� �. S Im m N m 0 C.) c c m la m o 72 rr C cw C O C m c O I O 3a ° acid o =E v °110 E c N o� m> d a wN m a E a) d d o c 0 a o m N w a) > a) a) >- 0) ac a m O 2 Y Cu NN u L E c c Q d o o ` ma c v 3 ca rr 3 3 �L) E U c 0 v` m a ¢�� a a E a a m � ca a Q zw a E a) ca co N m m cn N c > m a m m N O a N U) a N y a) > N > C N o fn a m I m C 0 0 m E E E •. N a) d 7 w '2 'o m =U m a EE rnD >. od ate ) cc N � o m M U) m `o Z m. v) c o as °;mace Y c a N a `v �E m w m �(a m m m O N m 7 m to Jam a) N O N = O UU❑ O . 6) ❑ i7 o 0 F- �❑ U tQ h M c? M T N CM I )ri 9 co 9 M T T T r T r T T T T T r r T T T T T • • • Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes —August 28, 2007 • Page 6 mmissioner Cleveland stated if a dog is outside of their boundaries it is considered an anima a not under restraint so it would not be the City's responsibility. Chairperson Daninger thought staff co Ptl'b' back information from other cities on what they have done in their cities regarding restrai . Motion by Kirchoff, seconded by Falk, to table. Motion carried on a 7 -aye , 0- absent vote. WORKSESSION A. Subdivision Ordinance Discussion 1. Subdivision 11. 1.3 -Platting Authority Mr. Cross stated this section is updated to reflect the State Statute. 2. Subdivision 11. 1.4 -Definitions • Chairperson Daninger stated on page 6, lines 21 and 22 he asked for a definition of mottled. Mr. Bednarz stated mottled soils are soils stained by water which means the water table had reached that point at some time. Commissioner Kirchoff stated mottled soil can be stained by salt or anything in the water even when dry. Commissioner Holthus asked if 2,500 average trips per day was a typical number in other cities for minor /major collector streets and she wondered where the number came from. Mr. Cross stated that number came straight from the Engineering Department as a recommendation. Commissioner Kirchoff thought it probably came from the Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE). Chairperson Daninger remembered talking about this two or three years ago and changing collector streets based on a 2030 study. Mr. Bednarz stated the whole purpose is to allow driveway access to minor collector streets and not major collector streets. Commissioner Walton wondered if they would define types of homes that can be built on lots in this section. W. Bednarz stated this is all covered under the lowest floor. He explained the process they go through to find the lowest floor and how that affects the type of home that can be built. 3. Subdivision 11 .2.1 - Sketch Plan Changes Chairperson Daninger stated Sketch Plans are not required but they do pay a fee for both a sketch plan and a preliminary plat. Mr. Cross stated that was correct, they pay for them separately. Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes —August 28, 2007 Page 7 Chairperson Daninger wondered what the incentive was to do a sketch plan. Mr. Cross indicated they are less expensive and gives the developer a chance to discuss the plans with the City to see if something is needed to be changed or if the City would allow a plan. Chairperson Daninger asked if they encouraged ghost platting next to the sketch plan. Mr. Cross indicated a ghost plat is a requirement. 4. Subdivision 11.2.2 -Preliminary Platting Mr. Cross stated they pulled the requirements of the Preliminary Plat out of the City Code and put them in a checklist, which makes it more fluid and easier to update annually. Chairperson Daninger wondered on page 14, line 38, what "Meets and Bounds" means. Mr. Bednarz stated it is any piece of land that had not been platted and does not have a lot and block number. Conunissioner Holthus wondered if there were two checklists, one for the sketch plan and one for the preliminary plat. Mr. Cross stated that was correct. • Chairperson Daninger referred to page 16, line 17, stating "all persons interested in a plat . shall be heard ", he wondered if this meant that anyone could speak no matter who they are. Mr. Cross stated that was correct. Chairperson Daninger asked if this could be at the Planning Commission and City Council meetings. Mr. Cross stated it means whenever there is a public hearing, anyone can be heard. Chairperson Daninger stated in this section four pages were deleted and he wondered if the checklist addressed all of the deletions. Mr. Cross stated the information that has been removed is in the checklist but not word for word, it has been streamlined. Mr. Bednarz indicated this is much more user friendly and saves time for staff and the developer in reviewing the applications. S. Subdivision 11 .2.3 -Final Plat Requirements Mr. Cross stated there is also a final plat checklist. Chairperson Daninger asked for clarification of plat phasing on page 22, line 10. Mr. Cross reviewed plat phasing with the Commission. He noted the developer usually requests which plats they want to develop and they are called phases. Mr. Bednarz stated the developer will request which area of the preliminary plat they want to start as the first phase and a final plat is recorded with the County to create this phase and so on. Commissioner Falk stated the word "clerk" has been stricken and he wondered why they . changed this. Mr. Cross stated the City Clerk no longer plays a role in subdivision Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes —August 28, 2007 Page 8 review and all of the documents are given to the city representatives and the Planning Department and they initiate the review and handle it. 6. Subdivision 11.3.1 - General Requirements Commissioner Cleveland stated he could not make the added word "that" on page 26, line 10 fit in that sentence. Mr. Cross stated they could add at the end of line 9 "adjacent to" to make the sentence structure work. Chairperson Daninger stated on page 25, MN Statute 462.358 is referred throughout the entire document and he wondered if this was accessible somewhere. Mr. Cross stated they could keep it on hand at City Hall but is as accessible as any other Statute. Mr. Bednarz stated this is the Statute that provides cities with the ability to review plats. Their code does not reiterate the Statute but shows how the City applies it. 7. Subdivision 11.3.2 - Street Plan Chairperson Daninger stated on page 29, line 29, he thought they discussed sodding one time that went farther than the boulevard. Mr. Cross stated this only refers to boulevard • sodding and not any lawn maintenance. Mr. Bednarz stated this section refers to what is required of the developer when they install streets and utilities, not what is required of the homeowner for lawns. Chairperson Daninger wondered who is responsible for maintenance of the boulevard sod. Mr. Cross stated the City Code explains that it is the responsibility of the homeowner to maintain the boulevard of their lot. Mr. Bednarz explained the City also holds an escrow or letter of credit to make sure it is maintained until a homeowner becomes responsible for it. 8. Subdivision 11.3.6 —Lots Commissioner Walton wondered at what point they discuss anywhere the changes about the expectations of the decks being ghosted onto a house plan. Mr. Cross stated the Building Department has now started to review plans to make sure that any possible deck to be built in the future is shown on the survey. Commissioner Walton wondered where the code states this. Mr. Bednarz believed it was adopted into the Building Code Section. He stated the issue comes up when they bring the house plan in for permit. 9. Subdivision 11.4.14 — Dead and Diseased Trees Commissioner Kirchoff agreed they should remove dead and diseased trees but he was concerned with putting the burdon of clean up on the homeowner because according to Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes — August 28, 2007 Page 9 the City Council meeting he watched, it could add up to a lot of money. Mr. Bednarz stated the City Council discussion did allow the Council review for some hardship cases and the City does have some grant funds from the DNR to work with homeowners and they try to target those larger areas. Chairperson Daninger thought the goal was not to create a hardship but to create a cure. Corrunissioner Cleveland wondered if there was anywhere in the City Code a time frame to remove a dead tree whether it be struck by lightening or from some other means. Mr. Cross stated if a tree is diseased that is another issue but if a tree dies from natural causes there is no time frame but there is also the nuisance factor that they consider. OTHER B USINESS. Mr. Bednarz updated the Planning Commission on related items. Commissioner Falk wondered what the Council decided on irrigation for the Mosquito Control building. Mr. Bednarz stated that will be part of the landscaping plan that comes back to the Council and will be part of the final approval of that plan. ADJOURNMENT. Motion by Falk, seconded by Casey, to adjourn the meeting at 8:43 p.m. Motion carried on a 7 -ayes, 0 -nays, 0- absent vote. Respectfully Submitted, Sue Osbeck, Recording Secretary TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. �J • 7 C I T Y O F NDOVE • 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. • ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 • (763) 755 -5100 FAX (763) 755 -8923 • WWW.CI.ANDOVER.MN.US TO: Planning and Zoning Commissi ners FROM: Courtney Bednarz, City Planne> SUBJECT: Work Session: Discuss Comprehensive Plan Update i. Land Use Plan ii. Wastewater and Comprehensive Sewer Plan 0 DATE: September 11, 2007 INTRODUCTION Staff will make a presentation of the materials that were distributed at the August 10 meeting. Please bring these materials to the meeting. DISCUSSION The Planning Commission will have an opportunity to ask questions, make suggestions and generally discuss these two chapters of the Comprehensive Plan. Additionally, a second opportunity to discuss these items will be scheduled for the October 9" meeting. Ultimately, the Commission will be asked to host a series of public forums and a public hearing for the Comprehensive Plan. The Schedule is attached. ACTION REQUESTED As stated above. Attachments Schedule • 9 2008 Comprehensive Plan Update - Tasks and Timeline July 26, 2007 Staff August 14th Planning Commission Meeting with MCES regarding sewer plan Provide copy of Sewer and Land Use Plan to Commission and Counci August 28, 2007 Council work session Review Sewer and Land Use Plan with Council Provide copy of Transportation Plan for future review September 11, 2007 Planning Commission Review Sewer Plan and Land Use Plan with Planning Commission Provide copy of Transportation plan for future review September 18, 2007 Council Meetin September 25, 2007 Council work session Review Transportation Plan with Council Present Overview of Water Supply Plan Provide updated Sewer and Land Use plan September 25, 2007 Planning Commission Review Transportation Plan with Planning Commission October 2, 2007 Council Meetin October 9, 2007 Planning Commission 12nd review Sewer and Land Use Plans October 16, 2007 Council Meetin October 23, 2007 Council Work Session Final Worksession review Sewer and Land Use Plans Provide update on Parks and Open Space Chapter Provide updated Transportation Plan to Council October 23, 2007 Planning Commission 12nd Review of Transportation Plan November 6, 2007 Council Meetin November 13, 2007 Planning Commission Resident Input Session for Sewer and Land Use Plans November 20, 2007 Council Meetin November 27, 2007 Council Work Session Final Worksession review of Transportation Plan Review Parks and Open Space Chapter November 27, 2007 Planning Commission Review Parks and Open Space Chapter E 9 December 4, 2007 Council Meetin December 11, 2007 Planning Commission Resident Input Session December 18, 2007 Council Meetin December 25, 2007 Planning Commission January 2, 2008 Council Meetin January 8, 2008 Planning Commission Public Hearing for Comprehensive Plan January 15, 2008 Council Meeting Present Public Hearing Findings to Council January 22, 2008 Council Work Session Final Com rehenisve Plan Worksession Discussion January 22, 2008 Plannning Commission February 5, 2008 Council Meeting Approve Draft of Comprehensive Plan for submittal to Other Cities Allow 6 months for other cities to comment August 5, 2008 Review Comments from other cities August 19, 2008 Approve Draft of Comprehensive Plan for Submittal to Met Council 9