Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/10/09Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda February 10, 2009 Andover City Hall Council Chambers 7.00 p.m. 1. Call to Order 2. Approval of Minutes — January 27, 2009 3. PUBLIC HEARING Sketch Plan to consider revised planned unit development for Andover Clocktower Commons. 4. Other Business 5. Adjournment 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. • ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 • (763) 755 -5100 FAX (763) 755 -8923 • WWW.CI.ANDOVER.MN.US 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 Commissioners FROM: Courtney Bednarz, City Planner SUBJECT: Item 2. Approval of Minutes - January 27, 2009 DATE: February 10, 2009 Request The Planning and Zoning Commission is asked to approve the minutes from the January 27, 2009 meeting. 1 it t C� *� NDOV � a PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSIONMEETING — JANUARY 27, 2009 The Regular Bi- Monthly Meeting of the Andover Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order by Chairperson Daninger on January 27, 2009, 7:00 p.m., at the Andover City Hall, 1685 Crosstown Boulevard NW, Andover, Minnesota. Commissioners present: Commissioners absent: Also present: Chairperson Daninger, Commissioners Tim Kirchoff, Michael Casey, Valerie Holthus, Devon Walton, Douglas Falk and Dennis Cleveland. There were none. City Planner, Courtney Bednarz Others APPROVAL OFMINUTES. November 13, 2008 Motion by Casey, seconded by Kirchoff, to approve the minutes as presented. Motion carried on a 6 -ayes, 0 -nays, 1- present ( Daninger), 0- absent vote. OATH OF OFFICE OF RETURNING COMMISSIONERS Commissioners Kirchoff and Walton read the Oath of Office. PUBLIC HEARING: RESIDENTIAL SKETCH PLAN TO CONSIDER REVISED PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR WOODLAND CROSSINGS. Mr. Bednarz noted the purpose of this item is to hold a public hearing and take input on the proposal by Woodland Development. Motion by Walton, seconded by Casey, to open the public hearing. Motion carried on a 7 -ayes, 0 -nays, 0- absent vote. Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes —January 27, 2009 Page 2 Mr. Byron Westlund, Woodland Development, 13436 Van Buren Street, explained to the Conunission that there is more interest in the detached townhouse style unit than the single family lots. Mr. John Squires, Sales Manager from Woodland Development, made a Power Point presentation to the Commission. Commissioner Holthus asked if the detached townhomes will have the same setback from the street as a single - family home. Mr. Squires indicated they would. Commissioner Holthus asked what is proposed to the east of the existing townhomes. Mr. Westlund stated it is open space to the east and part of the association and he believed it was a DNR protected wetland. Commissioner Kirchoff asked why this is considered a townhome when it is detached. Mr. Westlund stated it is a lifestyle. Everything is maintained for the owners and some are even snowbirds so the work gets done in the winter even when the owners are living in another state. Commissioner Walton wondered if Mr. Westlund had thought about taking over the entire development as townhomes and maybe incorporating the homes into an association. Mr. Westlund stated he has not thought that far and was not sure how to do it with the seven existing single - family homes. Commissioner Walton assumed all the street stubs were built according to the housing plat and he wondered if anything needed to be modified to allow the townhomes to go in. Mr. Bednarz stated the developer would need to add a sewer and water stub if there were an additional unit added and there are some other adjustments for drainage and utility easements that would need to be done as well. Motion by Walton to close the public hearing. Chairperson Daninger indicated he had some questions to ask the developer. Commissioner Walton withdrew his motion. Chairperson Daninger stated there are fourteen existing sites and he wondered how many are sold. Mr. Westlund indicated six were sold with one being used as a model. Chairperson Daninger indicated they are requesting six townhomes for five lots and he wondered why they needed more townhomes if it is just for a lifestyle change. Mr. Westlund stated a part of it is to hopefully try to reduce the costs of the lots by adding one unit. i ` Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes —January 27, 2009 Page 3 Chairperson Daninger stated the PUD was mentioned because of the townhomes and he wondered if it would become part of the PUD. Mr. Bednarz stated the entire development including the single family was approved as part of that PUD. Chairperson Daninger wondered what happens if all of a sudden single - family homes start to sell. Mr. Westlund stated he has talked to the City's Community Development Director to look for another location with the City to build the townhomes and they have looked at some of the suggested locations and found this is the best place for them. It is a good product and well made and he planned to keep them as townhomes. Chairperson Daninger stated he remembered the meeting with the three developments and neighbors had concerns. They spent a lot of time on these developments. To change things now is his concern. He stated it was nothing to do with the product, it was the matter of the time spent to get to where it is today and now they are changing it and that is where he is struggling with it. Chairperson Daninger stated there are two developments to the west and he wondered what the occupancy rate was of those homes being built. Mr. Westlund stated the Cardinal Ridge is pretty much sold out and a different type of product, lower priced. The Shaws Glen development was under supervision of a bank with less activity on them. Chairperson Daninger asked if Millers' Woods was a lifestyle change with single - family homes. Mr. Bednarz thought this was different because grounds maintenance was the responsibility of the owner. These have different types of floor plans also. Motion by Walton, seconded by Falk, to close the public hearing. Motion carried on a 7- ayes, 0 -nays, 0- absent vote. Commissioner Kirchoff agreed that he did not have a problem with the quality of the homes. He understood the market changes and he did not see this as a detriment to the area. Commissioner Walton agreed. He thought this would provide some transition between the single - family homes and regular townhomes. He understood the economic times, the changes and he understood why they wanted one more unit in order to lower the cost of the homes. He thought the quality of the exterior will meld very nicely with the rest of the homes that are already built there. He did not think there was a need for separation here. He thought if it enables the developer to sell more product and the land sitting there not being productive at the moment, he thought it fits fine. This development is unique in that it is actually a large cul -de -sac with two more cul -de -sac's coming off of it and makes it quiet and remote. He thought the target market they have fits nicely for the product that is going to be in there. Commissioner Holthus wondered what happens when the economy swings back to where it was. She agreed that retiring baby boomers are in the market for a low maintenance life style and she thought there should be a place for that but did not believe this is the Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes — January 27, 2009 Page 4 place because this development was originally designed for single family homes and there are some already there. Commissioner Falk felt this was not going to be detrimental to the area at all, he thought it will meld into the area just fine and felt they were doing the right thing here. Commissioner Kirchoff felt the only difference between the proposed homes and what is there is the maintenance. Commissioner Casey thought the sketch plan as presented would be really good because with it being a detached townhome it does take the appearance of being a single family home. He thought even if the housing market takes a turn for the better the detached townhomes will be the home of the future because it is maintenance free. He thought this is characteristic of the neighborhood. Chairperson Daninger felt five members were in favor of the sketch plan but he was not for it because it will look different with the side yard setbacks. He understands the problems with the economy and would be more comfortable with this if the lots were all sold and there were people waiting for the townhomes to be built. He would also be more comfortable to have the same number of detached townhomes that were proposed for single family. OTHER BUSINESS. Mr. Bednarz updated the Planning Commission on related items. Mr. Bednarz mentioned that he supplied the Commission with the 2008 Annual Report to review. ADJOURNMENT. Motion by Walton, seconded by Casey, to adjourn the meeting at 7:37 p.m. Motion carried on a 7 -ayes, 0 -nays, 0- absent vote. Respectfully Submitted, i Sue Osbeck, Recording Secretary TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. 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 Plarm SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING Sketch Alan to consider revised planned unit development for Andover Clocktower Commons. DATE: February 10, 2009 INTRODUCTION BDT Holdings, the current owner of Andover Clocktower Commons, is seeking direct access to Crosstown Boulevard NW. DISCUSSION The right of access to both Hanson Boulevard and Crosstown Boulevard were dedicated to Anoka County through a previous plat. Since that time the city has assumed ownership of the segment of Crosstown Boulevard adjacent to this project. The city now has jurisdiction over access to Crosstown Boulevard for this project. The applicant provided the attached letter and drawing to summarize their request. A memorandum from the Engineering Department is also attached. Key items to consider are allowing sufficient access to the project while protecting public safety. Much of the discussion will be based on a traffic study and technical engineering review of this issue. However, Planning Commissioners most likely have driven through this area of the city and may have some thoughts of their own on this issue. Approval Process One of the questions in the applicant's letter asks what process is needed to approve an amendment to the approved PUD. City Code 13 -3 -10 establishes this process. The proposal constitutes a significant change to the previous approval which will require a public hearing and Council approval of any changes to the previous PUD approval. ACTION REQUESTED The applicant is asking the Planning Commission to discuss whether access to Crosstown Boulevard should be allowed and, if so, what improvements should be required. Attachments Location Map Applicant's Letter Applicant's Access Plan Engr}leer' g Depart ent Memorandum RR // miffed, C✓ n e arz Andover Clocktower Commons Project Location Map N WYE Andover Planning • • • Q L A N D F O R M e 0 It • January 21, 2009 Courtney Bednarz City of Andover 1685 Crosstown Boulevard N.W. Andover, Minnesota 55304 RE: Andover Clocktower Commons Dear Mr. Bednarz, BDT Holdings, LLC, the applicant and owner of Lots 3 and 4, Block 1, Andover Clocktower Commons, respectfully requests a sketch plan review to allow an additional access to be constructed on Crosstown Boulevard roughly 700 feet east of the centerline of Hanson Boulevard, Background In 2003, Andover Clocktower Commons, LLC made an application for PUD approval for the 8 -acre parcel formerly known as Hamilton Square. The single parcel zoned Shopping Center (SC) was proposed to be divided into 5 parcels sharing an internal drive accessed only by Bluebird Street. Previous approvals for Hamilton Square had prohibited access to the two adjacent County Roads. While underlying approvals had always considered the use of this property as an SC zoned parcel likely to develop as a shopping center, there were no conditions placed on the project by any agency to make improvements to either of the adjacent County roadways. During their review of the new proposal, Anoka County requested the applicant be required to make substantial improvements to both Crosstown and Hanson Boulevard, a segment which was completely reconstructed as part of the signalization project only a couple years earlier. The requested improvements were extensive and the new project could not have proceeded with those conditions placed on the approvals. The application was tabled at Council, and the applicant was asked to work with the County in an effort to resolve this issue. The applicant worked with both City Staff and the County, but a resolution meeting the County's request and the development's ability to finance could not be reached. Because this project would not be allowed access to either of the county's roadways, there were no County permits required and, therefore, no way for the County to "require" these improvements. Anoka County requested the City place this condition on the development. On September 2, 2003, after considerable discussion on the subject, the City Council approved the PUD for Andover Clocktower Commons without the county's request for conditions relative to improvements to County Roads 18 (Crosstown Boulevard) and 78 (Hanson Boulevard). The Council approved a Special Use Permit (Res. R157 -03), Preliminary Plat (Res. R156 -03) and Final Plat (Res. R158 -03). Because the access issue was not resolved, the City included the following condition in all three resolutions: "The applicant acknowledges that the right of access from the subject property to Hanson Boulevard (CSAH 78) and Crosstown Boulevard (CSAH 18) was previously dedicated to Landfonn Sensibfy3 aen and Site to Finish am sen,loe marks of Laneform Engineering Company a Anoka County. This must be reflected in the final plat. No new access to these roadways will be permitted without approval from the Anoka County Highway Department. The project proceeded. In 2004, construction commenced on the Gas station /Convenience store and internal roadway, followed shortly by the McDonalds parcel and the retail building. At that time, the County proposed improvements to Hanson that would have eliminated critical southbound access to these new businesses. After considerable discussion, six of the seven properties served by Bluebird Street agreed to contribute a total of $300,000 towards the County project to preserve the access into these businesses from Hanson Boulevard. This entire section of Hanson Boulevard was then reconstructed. In the summer of 2008, an addition to the retail parking lot was completed to coincide with the opening of Beef O'Bradys. Today, the remaining two parcels (an office /retail building and potential Restaurant parcel) remain undeveloped. In 2007, The City of Andover assumed ownership of Crosstown Boulevard from Hanson Boulevard to 161 Avenue making it a City street. The Comprehensive Plan was amended downgrading this section from an A -Minor Arterial to a Collector Street. By definition, an arterial provides predominant emphasis on through traffic limiting intersections and access. Alternatively, a collector provides equal emphases on access to adjacent properties as it does to through traffic. This change was welcomed by the adjacent business owners who have suffered from the limited access created by the changes to Hanson. This change also facilitates the calming of traffic on Crosstown, a road serving extensive neighborhood and pedestrian traffic that currently conflicts with the existing 50 MPH speed limits. In 2007 and 2008, the applicant approached the City to consider the additional access to the project that was proposed and considered in the original approvals, but never approved by the County. The change of ownership now allows the City to grant those approvals. Traffic Studies were completed by the applicant and reviewed by the City's consultant. A speed study requested by the applicant was completed by MnDOT providing additional insight to a potential solution. In late 2008 the concept of an additional drive was discussed at City Council where it was determined that any changes to access for this project would require an amendment to the current PUD which has initiated this application. Existing Conditions The two vacant lots remain unsold and the project cannot be completed. Interested parties have expressed specific concern about the limited access to this project and have made offers conditioned on an access to Crosstown, a condition we cannot meet. Existing retailers who have invested in our community are struggling to remain viable. They cite access as major concern. Southbound Hanson commuters who enter the project at Bluebird on the North have to traverse the entire project to continue southbound. Likewise, traffic from the intersection at Hanson and Crosstown has to unnecessarily travel around the entire project to get to the retailers and a potential user of the corner lot. Courtney Bednarz January 21, 2009 2 • $ a 6 0 + s Proposal To preserve the existing businesses and in hopes of contributing new services we respectfully request consideration of additional access on Crosstown. We believe the benefits to the additional access are numerous. Specifically, this access would: • Allow direct access to lots 3 and 4 • Allow more immediate access to Hanson • Relieves traffic at the Bluebird and Crosstown intersection We understand that both the City and the development team want to ensure that that the solution works for this intersection. Some of the questions that have been raised are: • What improvements are appropriate AND safe? • Can we stage these improvements? • Can we quantify "share" of future improvement costs? • Can we design to comprehensive plan and let speed limits follow? • What is a reasonable configuration of this intersection? In response, we reviewed these issues and found that while the ultimate condition of the street is unknown, the proposed new access would be approximately 700 feet from the centerline of Hanson Boulevard and approximately 380 feet from the centerline of Bluebird. A full access at this location would operate at a Level of Service (LOS) A today. A full access would also relieve the Bluebird /Crosstown intersection, a condition noted in the traffic study, and observed today. Separation, Sightline /Stopping distances and tapers for the proposed drive would meet or exceed that which exists at the current City Hall access opposite this project. We have had preliminary discussions with staff regarding the design policies of the City, and two key questions remain: Can we design streets based upon the intent of the Comprehensive Plan, and let the speed limits reflect that calming effect, or are we bound to design to current speed limits? We believe that the Comprehensive Plan should be the guiding document for the city and this road should be designed as the Collector that the Comprehensive Plan shows it to be. Collectors provide equal consideration of access to thoroughfare and let speed limits follow as traffic is calmed to the intended design goals. If design must be tailored to current speed limits, and current speed limits must reflect the currently traveled speeds, the community will never achieve the intended pedestrian character of the collector. We believe this to be a policy decision as there is direction in current law to guide this decision. Courtney Bednarz January 21, 2009 3 • a a a M t Can improvements be effectively staged such that they effectively serve the current condition, and are efficiently improved when necessary? We believe they not only can be staged, but also should be staged to address the current needs and effectively plan for future improvements. The developer has prepared a traffic study and identified the improvements that would be needed now, as well as those that may be necessary as the adjacent properties develop. We would recommend that planning be done to avoid costly reconstruction and add improvements only when a final configuration can be determined. The development on this property and on the Holasek parcel could be used as a tool for staging improvements. Our traffic study suggests that today, a full access at the proposed location is safe and will actually relieve congestion on the Bluebird /Crosstown intersection. We would work with staff to determine appropriate acceleration and deceleration lanes and timing of those improvements. We suggest that the city review access designs as Lots 3 and 4 in our project develop, as the Holasek property develops, or as other conditions become apparent. The ultimate configuration of Crosstown Boulevard improvements will be dramatically affected by the development of these vacant parcels, and may include raised channelization, signalized intersections, re- alignment, widened right -of -way, a roundabout, and /or additional lanes. Making assumptions about those needs now will almost certainly result in considerable construction costs and disruption, only to be re- constructed at a greater cost once this development is realized. We have seen this situation on Hanson, and in other locations in the area. Courtney Bednarz January 21, 2009 4 L • 0 d 4 Request We request City feedback on the following elements of our request: 1. Can improvements be made to Crosstown Boulevard that are appropriate to the approved comprehensive plan and allow the speed limits to follow as traffic is calmed and future studies are completed? 2. Can improvements be staged such that they are designed for current conditions and improved as warranted rather than on a 30 -year projection. This would allow for timely affordable improvements and greatly reduce the likelihood such improvements would be simply removed and replaced in a couple years as conditions change. 3. Will the City accept an application for a new drive connection to Crosstown as proposed, with language that allows for further review and improvements as adjacent properties develop? 4. Will the City clearly define the process to make these changes ?. We have prepared a sketch plan showing the location of the new access. The only plan changes would be minor changes to the grading plan. Staff has suggested that in order to process this request, we would be required to submit a new preliminary plat and final plat. Since there are not changes to the lot lines, we do not believe this is the right approach. We believe that this action would require Council action to allow us to remove the deed restriction and city approval of 'a minor change via the commercial site plan approval process outlined in Section 13 -3 -7 of the City Code. If the request to remove the deed restriction and construct the proposed access is approved, the applicant will prepare a revised commercial site plan to show the grading for the new access for review an approval. We would anticipate construction in spring of 2009 to be completed in summer of 2009. We request that this sketch plan review be considered at the February 10 Planning Commission meeting and the March 3` City Council meeting. If you have any questions, please call me at 612.638.0225 or email me at klindahlna.landform.net Sincerely, Landform Kendra Lindahl, AICP Principal COPY: Tom Roberts, BDT Holdings, LLC Courtney Bednarz 5 January 21, 2009 NVY'NWOONV LOOZ - MRA 030 co :Z 0 0 0 Neoo (.3 0 1 C) Q� LLJ C) C) Z: tl t C 1 4 C Jb 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. • ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 • (763) 755 -5100 FAX (763) 755 -8923 • WWW.CI.ANDOVER.MN.US MEMORANDUM TO: Courtney Bednarz, City Planner FROM: David Berkowitz, Director of Public Works /City �Engineer & Byrant Fieck,TKDA DATE: February 4, 2009 REFERENCE: PUBLIC HEARING Sketch Plan to consider revised planned unit development for Andover Clocktower Commons. Background Mr. Tom Roberts and Mr. Darren Lazan approached staff in late 2007 to request full access along Crosstown Boulevard NW to the Clocktower Commons development. Staff requested that they provide a traffic impact analysis along with a $3,000 escrow to cover City costs related to the review. A traffic impact analysis was completed and a memorandum, dated January 24, 2008, detailed the results. The City consulted with a Traffic Engineer (Byrant Fieck, TKDA) to review the analysis. Additional information and analyses were requested on March 4, 2008 to do an adequate review. A second analysis report dated April 1, 2008 provided the requested traffic information. Following TKDA's review of all the traffic information, a recommendation was issued to allow access, but restrict it to a right in /right out or entrance access only, meaning left and right turns in only from Crosstown Boulevard NW. The recommendations were discussed with Mr. Roberts and Mr. Lazan. Also discussed was the possibility to construct a 3 / intersection similar to what exists at Hanson Boulevard NW and Bluebird Street NW. In May 2008, the owners submitted a % intersection concept plan that would be acceptable to the City as long as design criteria are met and the cost of the improvements would be funded 100% by the owners. A detailed plan with cross sections was never submitted. As staff continued to discuss the Andover Clocktower Commons access request, the Andover Review Committee (ARC) recommended that any access request constitutes a major revision to the PUD and should go through an amended PUD process which would require a public hearing at the Planning & Zoning Commission level. Mr. Roberts requested this be discussed with the City Council. At the regular City Council meeting on September 16, 2008 the Council directed this request go back through an amended PUD process and be reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Commission. At this point Mr. Roberts has decided to submit a sketch plan concept to receive feedback if a full access would be supported by the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council. Staff recommends that if an access is granted it should be one of three options with all costs associated with the improvements be funded by the developer. The three options are as follows: 1. Right In /Right Out 2. Entrance Access Only 3. 3 / Intersection Answers to Questions Four questions have been raised by the applicant's representative. The questions and responses are as follows: 1. Can improvements be made to Crosstown Boulevard that are appropriate to the improved comprehensive plan and allow the speed limits to follow as traffic is calmed and future studies are completed? Answer: The Comprehensive Plan shows a concept plan for Crosstown Boulevard to accommodate projected 2030 volumes and provide safety and mobility on the corridor. The proposed access between Hanson Boulevard and Bluebird Street is not shown in this concept plan. Thus, consideration of any access at the proposed location is already a change from the Comprehensive Plan To protect mobility and increase safety on Crosstown Boulevard, the concept plan shows a two -lane roadway with exclusive right- and left -turn lanes at the intersections with Hanson Boulevard and Bluebird Street. Other intersections along this corridor are being built with turn lanes, are being restricted in turning movements, or are being closed in accordance with the concept plan. The safety and mobility of Crosstown Boulevard should remain a priority in considering the proposed access. The three recommended options for the proposed access attempt to balance the needs of access to the property with maintaining the mobility and safety of Crosstown Boulevard. One measure of this balance is provided in the table below, which shows the potential number of vehicle -to- vehicle conflicts and the potential number of vehicle -to- pedestrian conflicts for each of the recommended options and the full access intersection. Intersection Type Vehicle -to- Vehicle Conflicts Vehicle -to- Pedestrian Conflicts Full Access 32 24 Right In/Right Out 4 12 Entrance Access Only 8 12 3/4 intersection 10 16 As shown, the right in /right out option represents the fewest conflicts and least impact on Crosstown Boulevard, while the full access intersection represents the most conflicts and impact. In terms of maintaining safety and mobility on Crosstown Boulevard, the three recommended options represent less impact than full access, which is more consistent with the goals and concept plan of the Comprehensive Plan. Based on Minnesota state statutes, the commissioner of transportation sets regulatory speed limits on state and local roads. Other than the ability to request an investigation by Mn /DOT, the City does not have legal authority over the posted regulatory speed limit. A speed study was requested by MnDOT and the results of the study did not change the speed limit. Therefore, the three recommended improvements must be designed to meet the current speed limit of 50 mph. This requirement would provide adequate design criteria to meet safety goals and guidelines. 2. Can the improvements be staged such that they are designed for current conditions and improved as warranted rather than on a 30 -year projection? This would allow for timely affordable improvements and greatly reduce the likelihood such improvements would be simply removed and replaced in a couple years as conditions change. Answer: Advanced planning for 30 years into the future is typically completed to avoid multiple changes to an area. By determining the ultimate design for a roadway corridor, the City can move towards that plan as opportunities arise. In this case, a concept plan has been developed for Crosstown Boulevard that will accommodate projected volumes and improve safety and mobility as additional areas continues to develop. As noted previously, the proposed access, of any type, already represents a change to that concept plan. If the applicant would like to stage access improvements at this time, option 1, right in /right out, would have the least impact on future improvements. This option would provide public safety while allowing access at the lowest cost. Potential changes in traffic patterns are an additional consideration for the proposed access. If full access is initially allowed, driver confusion could result when the access is restricted in the future. Alternatively, starting with right in /right out and then potentially changing to 3/4 access in the future would open more routes to drivers. Established traffic patterns would not need to change under this alternative staging pattern. 3. Will the City accept an application for a new drive connection to Crosstown as proposed, with language that allows for further review and improvements as adjacent properties develop? Answer: If an access is accepted without improvements on Crosstown Boulevard, the best option at this time would be option 1, right in /right out. This option represents the least conflicts and impacts to Crosstown Boulevard, maintaining safety and mobility at the lowest cost. Once future development moves forward additional improvements such as a % intersection could be evaluated at that time keeping in mind public safety. 4. Will the City clearly define the process to make these changes? We have prepared a sketch plan showing the location of the new access. The only changes would be minor changes to the grading plan. Staff has suggested that in order to process this request, we would be required to submit a new preliminary plat and final plat Since there are not changes to the lot liens, we do not believe this is the right approach. We believe that this action would require Council action to allow us to remove the deed restriction and city approval of a minor change via the commercial site plan approval process outlined in Section 13 -3 -7 of the City Code. Answer: Section 13 -3 -7 is the incorrect provision relative to applicant's request for revisions and /or amendments to the PUD. Rather, Section 13 -3 -10 is controlling, which is stated in its entirety below: 13 -3 -10: REVISIONS AND AMENDMENTS: Administrative approval of incidental changes in the PUD may be authorized by the City Planner upon review and approval by ARC. Such administrative approvals shall not substantially alter the character of the approved PUD and shall be limited to landscaping (not including quantity reduction), color schemes (not including materials), association documents, fencing, entrance monuments and decks. Changes in uses or development/design standards must be submitted for a full public hearing review process. (Amended Ord. 314, 10-4 -2005) Since applicant's revisions do not constitute an incidental change as identified above, but rather, constitutes a change in the development/design standards, the proposed changes must be submitted for a full public hearing review process as set forth in Section 13 -3 -10. F 6 z wa r 01 m x E E e. sy us IT, ti � I r.