HomeMy WebLinkAboutWK April 26, 2005
o
CITY OF
NDOVE
1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. . ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 . (763) 755-51DO
FAX (763) 755-8923 . WWW.CI.ANDOVER.MN.US
City Council Workshop
Tuesday, April 26, 2005
Conference Rooms A & B
1. Call to Order- Following Board of Review Scheduled for 7:00 p.m.
2. Discussion on Status of Property Located at 1049 Andover Blvd. NW
0 3. Discussion on Need for Traffic hnpact Studies
4. Discussion on Fees for Roadway hnprovements
5. Discussion on Direction for Tree Preservation
6. Discussion on Buildability Requirements
7. Discuss Advertisements in Parks
8. Other Business
9. Adjournment
o
o
o
o
@
TO:
1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. . ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 553D4. (763) 755-51DO
FAX (763) 755-8923 . WWW.CI.ANDOVER.MN.US
Mayor and Councilmembers ~
Jim Dickinson, City Administrator~ .
Will Neumeister, Director of Community Development ~
CC:
FROM:
SUBJECT: Discussion on Status of Property Located at 1049 Andover Boulevard
April 26, 2005
INTRODUCTION
DATE:
The property at 1049 Andover Boulevard began going tax forfeit on May 24, 2004. As state law
allows, the County assessor worked out a payment plan with the property owner, but the property
owner has not been making his payments. Ifhe does start up his payments again, before May 24,
2005 he can redeem it and it will no longer be on the list of tax forfeit parcels.
DISCUSSION
The property at 1049 Andover Boulevard has been identified as a substandard/dilapidated
property for nearly two years. The property owner does not seem to be interested in keeping it
maintained. Staff also sees similarities at two other properties in Andover located at 510 Andover
Boulevard and 17700 Tulip Street (see attached photos). To correct these conditions the Council
could begin the abatement process, described in the attached letter from the City Attorney. Staff
is requesting direction from the City Council as to the next steps to remedy these worsening
conditions on these properties.
ACTION REOUESTED
The Council is asked to review and discuss the status of residential property located at 1049
Andover Boulevard. If Council's preference is to begin the abatement process, staff will begin
working on that. Or if the Council would like to pursue acquiring the property through claiming it
under the tax forfeiture laws, staff will stay on top of the status of the property and if it becomes
available, it will be identified for acquisition by the City for a public purpose.
Council direction is also sought on whether to begin the abatement process on two other properties
located at 510 Andover Boulevard and 17700 Tulip Street.
Respectfully subm.: itt:.~e7d,
Will Neumeister ~
Attachments
Photos of Properties (1049 Andover Blvd., 510 Andover Blvd., 17700 Tulip Street)
Letter on Abatement Process from City Attorney
LAW OFFICES OF
William G. Hawkins and Associates
WILLIAM G. HAWKINS
BARRY A. SUWVAN
Legal Assistant
T AMMI J. UVEGES
HOLLY G. PRovo
2140 FoURlll AVENUE NOIml
ANOKA. MINNESOTA 55303
PHONE (763) 427-8877
FAX (763) 421-4213
E-MAIL HawkLawl@ao1.com
o
RECEIVED
January 15, 2004
'1," 1 6
,: .c. ;'1: 2004
CITY OF ANDOVER
Will Neumeister
Planning Administrator
Andover City Hall
1685 Crosstown Blvd. NW
Andover, MN 55304
Re: Public Nuisance Abatement - 1049 Andover Boulevard
Dear Will:
o
You have asked me for a summary of some of the options that are available to the
City in cases of public nuisance properties such as the above-referenced site.
Generally, the City has four options: (1) issue criminal citations; (2) attempt to
abate the nuisance by application of the procedures outlined in the City Code
(Section 4); (3) treat the property as a hazardous structure and proceed according
to state statute under Section 463.15; or (4) acquire the property through eminent
domain. I will briefly discuss each.
Typically, criminal citations work well for minor violations such as junk vehicles,
exterior garbage, weed violations, etc. The threat of the criminal legal process with
fines, court appearances and potential jail usually motivates property owners in
these types of cases to take action. Also, because compliance is generally easy to
do in these types of cases, judges are willing to order defendants to comply with
the ordinance or face further fines or jail. Criminal citations do not work so well in
cases involving significant nuisances. These property owners are often willing to
pay the small fines associated with these tickets rather than undertake the
substantial effort necessary to comply and judges are often unwilling to incarcerate
property owners in these. situations feeling that the City has other more appropriate
remedies.
o The second option of treating the property as a nuisance under City Code can be
useful because it is something that the building official can do directly without
o
o
o
Will Neumeister
January 15, 2004
Page 2
having to go though the time and effort of involving the City Council, at least
initially. Procedurally, the building official would declare the property to be a public
nuisance and order an abatement. The property has a right to a hearing before a
hearing examiner and a further right to appeal the matter to the City Council. If the
property owner fails to timely abate the nuisance, the City has the authority to
implement a "summary abatement." The costs associated with this process can
be assessed against the property owner. This process works well in many nuisance
cases where City Council and/or court involvement is going to be unlikely or
unnecessary. However, in cases involving significant nuisances or hazardous
structures, Council or Court involvement is likely to be necessary and it may be
more appropriate to proceed under state statute.
Minnesota state statute provides for a process authorizing cities to deal with
"hazardous" structures." See, Minnesota Stat. ~ 463.15, et. seq. Procedurally,
the "hazardous" declaration would need to come from the City Council following a
hearing. At that time, the Council would also order the appropriate abatement
procedure. This could include an order from the Council that the property owner
"correct or remove the hazardous condition of the building or property or to raze or
remove the building." Section 463.16. Once the order is issued by the Council,
the property then has 20 days to file a formal answer contesting the order and the
case would proceed as any other civil lawsuit. The Court would then ultimately
determine whether or not the property is in fact hazardous and whether the
abatement order (correct, raze or remove) is appropriate. If the property owner
does not comply or answer, the city could seek an order from the Court for
summary abatement and again assess the costs. The process can be prolonged
should the property owner contest the matter and file an answer with the court.
Before the Council could declare a property to be "hazardous" within the meaning
of the statute, there should be a comprehensive inspection report and/or structural
engineer report or study that provides the Council with an adequate factual basis
for such a finding. Finally, the statute also authorizes a city to acquire hazardous
property through eminent domain. This, of course, requires the payment of just
compensation and the action would proceed like any other eminent domain action
with the appointment of commissioners, a hearing, and a potential appeal to court.
In this case, from what I've seen so far, it sounds like the above-referenced
property may very well qualify as a "hazardous building" within the meaning of
state statute. It may be that the only way to abate or correct the problem is to
remove the structure or acquire the property. This would mean proceeding under
state statute which would mean bringing the matter to the City Council in the first
place. Again, there should be a significant inspection or engineer's report made
available to the Council to adequately justify the findings that the Council would
need to make in support of any resolution. As an alternative to raising or removing
o
c
o
Will Neumeister
January 15, 2004
Page 3
the structure in the hazardous building resolution, the Council could resolve to
acquire the property.
I trust this answers the questions which you have raised. If you wish to discuss
the matter additionally, or if there is more information which you think we should
consider, please feel free to call. Finally, if you anticipate bringing this property to
the Council and seek a hazardous building declaration, I would like to be involved in
that process and have the opportunity to coordinate the information I think would
be necessary for that hearing and to see that the procedures outlined in the statute
are f-ollovved.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
~rs very truly,
f
~\/~
'rlr . lIivan
s istant ity Attorney
BAS/IIs I
o
10I/i ~A.ter' BI.J.
o
o
o
.l..\8 ""b~.~~ >>Oi
o
o
1041 ,(ta.".... ,[..d.
o
o
o
.lw\\l ~'1ob~ ,~O\
o
o
o
rt>'l'f "^~ II"J.
o
o
· ~\e\' --u'V.."" ~l
o
o
o
1 ~ ~Qver ~{1/J,..
o
o
(o4-q A~~ 81vJ.
Q
o
o
.
:l
tQ
l
1
~
s
'^
o
.
f"
;;;;-
""
i
t
y
o
g.
'"
o
c
o
o
.
;!
~
~
1
1Iq:
~
LA
o
.
r
<Id~
~
~
t
?
Q
4J
o
o
Q
o
1'1'100 -Wi-IP S-rr<.eq-
Q
o
o
@
CITY OF
NDOVE
1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. . ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304. (763) 755.510D
FAX (763) 755-8923 . WWW.CI.ANDOVER.MN.US
TO:
Mayor and Councilmembers
J;mDkkmwo, CHy ~
Will Neumeister, Director of Community DevelopmentwJv..-
CC:
FROM:
SUBJECT: Discussion on Need for Traffic Impact Studies
DATE:
April 26, 2005
INTRODUCTION
Traffic impact studies are an important tool to determine the impact a new development or
commercial site will have on the transportation system. The need for discussion on this topic
comes from recent developments where improvements were needed to the transportation
system, but since the City had no policy requiring a "Traffic Impact Study" (TIS) the
developer did not have to show what impacts the new development would have. New
development sites, including commercial/industrial sites, can impact the surrounding roadway
system by adding to existing traffic volumes or altering traffic patterns. The costs of needed
roadway system improvements should be borne by the new development that is generating the
additional traffic.
During the process of approving proposed developments, the City should strive to maintain a
satisfactory level of transportation services and safety for all roadway users. Traffic access
and impact studies gather and analyze information that will help determine the need for any
improvements to interior, adjacent and nearby road systems. Not all development proposals
require a traffic access and impact study, but many do.
The purpose of the traffic impact study itself is to help solve a localized problem and deal
with project related traffic within a limited area. Usually, this is the street system immediately
adjacent to the site. As the size of the development grows, so should the area of analysis. A
Traffic Impact Study would indicate the minimum needed roadway improvements that would
become a requirement of the developer. The developer would be required to post the
necessary surety to guarantee their installation before the development may proceed.
DISCUSSION
The City could establish criteria for a Traffic Impact Study and require the developer to
provide it prior to Council approval of a new development of a certain size and/or scope. The
specifics of what is covered in a typical traffic impact study is listed below:
c
o
o
Traffic Impact Studies
1. A Traffic Impact Study shall be required for any development generating approximately 1,000
or more vehicle trips per day, or 100 or more vehicle trips in anyone hour period. The trip rates
in the most current edition ofthe Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation
should be used in determining the amount of traffic a particular development will generate. If no
ITE rates exist for a particular type of development or there is some uncertainty regarding the
need to conduct a study, the City Engineer shall determine if a Traffic Impact Study is required.
The transportation consultant or project manager shall meet with the City Engineer to establish
the study area, to discuss critical issues, and to determine the parameters of the report to be
submitted. The Traffic Impact Study report shall include the following information:
A. Report Letter
1. Identify the persons to whom the report is addressed
2. Smnmary of fmdings and recommendations
B. Proposed Development and Study Area
1. Describe proposed development
2. Map of site and street network
3. Identify intersectionslhighway links to be analyzed
C. Existing Traffic Conditions
1. Figures showing ADTs, peak hour turning movements and levels of service (for PM
peak hour and peak hour of development unless otherwise directed by the City
Engineer)
2. Indicate roadway/intersection geometrics, street right-of-way, type of traffic control
at intersections, traffic regulations (i.e. no parking zones, posted speed limit), and bus
stops
3. Determine queue lengths at controlled intersections that may affect project
D. Future Projected Traffic Conditions Without Development (city staff may provide base data)
1. Figures showing future projected ADTs, peak hour turning movements and level of
servIce.
2. Identify changes in road network and land use expected under full development
conditions.
3. Determine queue lengths at controlled intersections that may affect project.
E. Proposed Site Traffic
1. Site-generated traffic - ADT and peak hours (If development is to be completed in
phases, show cwnulative traffic for each phase added.)
2. Figure showing distribution by direction of approach
3. Figure showing assignment (volwnes and turning movements) to each link in the
network analyzed
o
o
o
4. "Pass-by" trip assumptions, distribution and assignment
F. Traffic Impact of Proposed Development
1. Figures showing ADTs, peak hour turning movements and level of service for
present conditions with proposed development
2. Figures showing ADTs, peak hour turning movements and level of service for future
projected conditions with proposed development
3. Determine queue lengths at controlled intersections that may affect the project
4. Review ingress/egress sight distance, capacity and safety
5. Review on-site circulation for vehicles and pedestrians
6. Review driveway and parking lot design for compliance with city standards and
codes
G. Problem Areas
1. Identify congestion or safety problems for present conditions with proposed
development
2. Identify congestion or safety problems under full development conditions with
proposed development
H. Recommended Improvements and Solutions
1. Identify possible short-term improvements and solutions
2. Identify possible long-term improvements and solutions
3. Recommended improvements and solutions
I. Appendices
1. Capacity analysis calculations, data and assumptions (Provide sufficient information
for reviewer to follow analysis and to be able to spot check results.)
2. Queue length analysis calculations, data and assumptions
1. Provide other pertinent information that may be needed to explain or justify data used in the
report (i.e., if data from an actual field study of sites in the metro area is used in place of ITE
trip generation rates, then a report of the field study results should be included in the
appendix.)
ACTION REOUESTED
Staff requests the Council provide direction on whether there is interest in bringing this
requirement forward for adoption or not.
Respectfully sUbmitt~
Will Neumeister t(/C.
c
o
o
@
1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. . ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304. (763) 755-5100
FAX (763) 755-8923 . WWW.CI.ANDOVER.MN.US
TO:
Mayor and Councilmembers
CC:
Jim Dickinson, City Administrato
Will Neumeister, Community Development Directora/L
David Berkowitz, City Engineer"DDJ:)
FROM:
SUBJECT: Fees for Road Improvements
DATE:
April 26, 2005
INTRODUCTION
Based on comments from a recent Council Goal Setting Workshop, this item is being
brought back for Council review and discussion. The report is basically the same as it
was written and presented on November 9, 2004 (with only minor changes).
The Council made it clear at a previous workshop that improvements to the
transportation system need to be plarmed and paid for by utilizing three potential
funding sources:
· Assessments
· Tax Levy
· Developer Proportionately Making Payments
At the last meeting this was discussed (January 25, 2005), it was determined that there
where two additional sources that needed to be added to the list:
· County
· State Aid
You will recall staff made the case that as demands on the City and County road
network increase needed improvements such as upgrades to intersections and widening
of roads are needed. Also, the City and County need to make plans to allocate adequate
resources to allow transportation issues to be taken care of before they build up to a
level of service that is considered unacceptable. This report will attempt to explain the
issues that arise and explain how City staff would recommend establishing new policies
to achieve the desired effects.
o
o
o
DISCUSSION
The matrix on the last page of this report was discussed at the last workshop discussion
on this topic. Once again, the Council will be asked to address how they feel these
needed roadway improvements will be paid for. For example, if improvements are
needed on the road system, will the City require the developer to pay for these
improvements or will the City increase the general tax levy to pay for it, or will it be
assessed. To better plan for the needed improvements, staff needs to know the
appropriate levels of contribution from each funding source. If the Council would like
to offer a qualified yes on a given improvement, that is acceptable. Staffs desire is to
get Council's opinion and clear direction on this complicated issue.
Development Pays a Proportionate Amount
As new development is approved, the City and/or the County typically require the
County road improvement be made at the time of construction or a permit will not be
issued. In the past few years, the County was making recommendations that a given
plat be approved subject to required intersection, turn lanes or shoulder improvements
on the County roadway. As a part of the plat approvals, the City calculated the
proportionate amount that was attributable to the development and the developer was
required to pay as a part of the plat approval, or in some cases make the entire
improvement on their own. This will likely continue to be recommended for future
developments where there are specific needed improvements and can be sustained (with
a nexus test).
To take this one step further, there are sections of new roadway in the City that are
collector or arterial roads that are not contained within a given plat that may also need
to be expanded/improved and should the funding be looked at in the same way? For
example, a road that is outside the plat that is greatly affected by the new development
may need to be upgraded or improved. One situation that comes to mind is the
intersection of Crosstown and Nightingale that is affected by all the latest increases in
traffic caused by the Woodland Estates developments.
. Capital Improvement Plans
The City plans for their portion of major future roadway improvements in the Capital
Improvement Plan (CIP). The County also uses their CIP to plan for where their
transportation dollars will be spent on the County roadway system. There are a number
of improvements that show up in the County plan as "unfunded" and makes it rather
difficult to determine if or when there will be any improvement to a road that needs
upgrading. The demands are greater than the available money and they continually
work at prioritizing where their money will be spent.
Federal Grant Applications
Staff had recommended participation in joint grant applications with the County for
Federal Grant funds (Le. RES or ISTEA grants). Council has authorized staff to work
with the County on this, as it makes a great deal of sense to work together to achieve
-2-
o
o
o
upgrades of this roadway over the coming decade. Both the City and County could
benefit if grants could be obtained to aid in the funding for the needed improvements.
If the grant application is successful, the soonest funding would be available is 2009.
The next application round is August of 2005, and we will be working diligently to
make sure Hanson Boulevard ranks as high as possible. These federal funds will be
available for construction projects in the years of 2009-2010. Agencies have the option
to advance fund these projects after the federal funding for a selected project has been
granted.
Andover needs to continue positioning this city in the public arena to gain favor to be a
Federal grant recipient. There are recent examples of how cooperation between the
City and County can produce great results. For example, look at Andover and Hanson
Boulevard. At that intersection, there was an identified proven need with economical
identified solutions and with all levels of government involved, a solution was
identified and is now being put into action. Another recent example can be found at
Prairie Road and Bunker Lake Boulevard. Once again, the cooperation of City and
County produced an outcome that was very positive and was completed far sooner than
originally believed possible.
Intersection Improvements
The City staff have identified a list of intersections in the City that will need funding
assistance, much like Andover Boulevard and Hanson did. . We have identified the
following list of intersections that will need to be put on a priority list and should be
routinely examined to ascertain whether the improvements are needed in the short term
(1-5 years) or longer term (6-10 years).
. 139th Avenue/ Hanson Boulevard (planned to befunded by the construction in
Andover Station North by 2006)
. CrosstownlNightingale (1-5 years)
. 133rd Avenue/Hanson Boulevard (1-5 years)
. 154th Avenue/Hanson Boulevard (1-5 years)
. South Coon Creek Drive/Round Lake Boulevard (1-5 years)
. 161 st A venue/Hanson Boulevard (5-1 0 years)
. 161st Avenue/Crosstown Boulevard (5-10 years)
. Prairie Road and Crosstown Boulevard (5-10 years)
Each intersection needs various upgrades to be fully signalized. Intersection upgrades
can range in cost from around $200,000 to $750,000 or more per intersection. As a
percent of new growth, the amount that can safely be earmarked for allocation into a
fund to handle these improvements is around 1 % of the new growth (equating to
roughly about $200,000 per year). Under the current policies there will be intersections
that will need upgrading and there won't be any funding available. It will be a repeat of
the Andover Boulevard intersection situation multiplied many times over. If our grant
application for Hanson Boulevard is successful, then many of these will be taken care
of with the federal funding and 20 percent paid for by Andover and the County. The
chances of achieving a successful grant on the first try are not great, but it is something
-3-
o
o
o
which we must pursue each year until we are successful. If we were to become
successful, that would reduce our needs list to only three that are unfunded
(Crosstown/Nightingale, South Coon Creek Drive/Round Lake Boulevard, 161 st
Avenue/Crosstown Boulevard). Hanson will continue to be the main corridor for most
of Andover's new growth. As time goes on, the safety and drive time at the various
intersections on the list will continue to get worse. We need to continue to lobby the
County to allocate more towards intersection upgrades.
Railroad Bridges and Road Crossing Improvements
Another area of fiscal concern for the future will be the projected railroad bridge
crossings and intersections that will likely need to be upgraded over time. The amount
of train horn blowing will likely continue to increase with the new federal rules. The
growing train traffic, population and the potential of a commuter rail line could add to
additional delays at railroad crossings in the City. Without planning for the
construction of these improvements over the next decade, we will once again be
fighting a losing battle to find the dollars to construct the needed improvements. Staff
is asking the Council to acknowledge whether or not these types of projects are to be
integrated into our future planning.
Summary
The staff has described various options that are available. The Council may want to
consider requiring developers to make proportionate payment for certain roadway
improvements, raising the tax levy. Together these measures could generate significant
money for city-wide projects important to the overall quality of life of Andover
residents.
ACTION REQUESTED
Council is asked to once again review the information and discuss what methods and
policies will be employed to fund the future roadway and intersection needs in
Andover.
-i-
o
o
o
~
Q),-...
Q)'<:t
,..c:8
tI'.:lN
~ O\~
o ~
~1
:>
tI'.:l 0
~Z
Q) S
S~
Q)2
> s:::
o Q)
""'" S
~S
S ~
~ 0
~"'g
~ gj
~e
~
o
~
~
't:l
=
o
~
-
=
...
.....
=
Q)
't:l
...
l7J
Q)
~
'i
...
eJ
-
Q)
e
e
o
u
~
-
.c '"
.~ t:
C Q
&.U
'" -
~~
--
Q ~
C .-
.- -
~.2;l
. -
=<
~"O__
- ~ Q ~
~ ~ C'-
J. ._.- t
a.l~~....
"0=,_
~OI<<
-
Q
....
'-l
~
=
Q
U
-
~
'-l
Q
..::l
1::
o
'"
~
:'@
-<:C.....:l
12
o
'"
~
~-
'"
'" ~
-<:C.....:l
~ gp
a ",.-
...c:: 1ii.~
ooo~Zl
.... U ~ '"
'a,+-< > 0
",",oOU
~
o
o
-
--
Q ~ ....
C'- ~ ....
.- ~ a '" ~
~t:~t;; .3
.......000 .....
="<.;....U~t;;
.- tn d
~"b-<:c.....:l
~"O__
-~Q~",
~~ C'--
_ ._.- ~ a '"
~]~~~~
~ 01 < 'a ~
"'"' 0
-
Q
....
'-l
~
-
-
Q
U
-
~
'-l
Q
..::l
1::
o
'"
~
:'@
-<:C.....:l
~ Ol)
a '" .S
...c:: 1ii.~
00 0 '" '"
....U~t;;
'a,+-< > 0
",",oOU
~
o
o
-
-
~
g,
Q
-
~
~
~
-s--
~
~
.C :l
= C
-; t~ a
~..::l"O :l
C ~ CIl ~
~ CIl ~ :l
"E-c~<
'"
....
o
-
o u
- <S ~
. "' ~
~ ~ '"
. ~ ~
O.op...
>>
~ Q) ~
o .~ ~
- '"
o u '" ~ 0
-<S~~-
~~gg~~
O.o-<:Cp...O
~
'"
~
o
-
~
o
~
:i
'"
....
o
-
o u
.... <s g
. ~ '"
~ ~ ~
dJSp...
>>
~ Q) ~
o .~ ~
- '"
o u '" ~ 0
-<s~~""
. Q) $-c rIJ .
~~gjJ~~
oJS-<:Cp...o
~
'"
~
.8
~
o
~
:i
.e-
C
=
Q
U
"0
~
t;:::
.-
d
~
C/
'+-<
-
Ol)
~
.~
N
.~
'" '"
....-
~ '"
> 0
OU
"0
~
t;:::
1
C/
'+-<
-
Ol)
~
.~
N
.~
'" '"
t"tn
> 0
ou
"0
.-
<
~
....
~
....
00.
o
o
o
1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. . ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304. (763) 755.5100
FAX (763) 755-8923 . WWW.CI.ANDOVER.MN.US
TO:
Mayor and Councilmembers ~
Jim Dickinson, City Administrat~
Courtney Bednarz, City Planner (f J. "
Will Neumeister, Community Development DirectorUlJM----
CC:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Discussion on Direction for Tree Preservation
DATE:
April 26, 2005
INTRODUCTION
Many residents and members of the Planning Commission have voiced concern about the lack of tree
preservation in new residential developments.
DISCUSSION
This is not a new issue and developers bacically do whatever they want as there are no penalties for
tree removal. When a developer grades a site there are a number of competing interests including
efficiency, creating walkout lots and complying with City and watershed district storm water
management plans. Different developers place different emphasis on tree preservation, but tree
preservation often falls to the bottom of the list when there are no specific regulations.
The Comprehensive Plan promotes custom grading and lot specific home design to minimize tree
loss after trees have been removed for street and utility purposes. A developer will commonly grade
an entire development or phase of a development to match the contours to the approved grading plan.
One of the reasons that few trees are saved in a lot of cases is the flat topography in Andover. It is
generally very difficult take a flat site and save any trees. This is caused by the design of streets and
storm sewer and balancing the cuts and fills on a site so that the earth on site "balance" and no fill
needs to be hauled in. In these types of situations, most of the trees are removed before a builder or
architect takes control of a lot.
On the flip side, where custom grading is done to save trees, there can be a lot of potential storm
water drainage problems which appear when the homes are built. This requires more staff time and
attention to solve the problems after the homes are built.
Lastly, if tighter tree preservation controls are established, there will likely be many situations where
sound tree preservation was not followed and the trees ultimately died a year or two later.
ACTION REOUESTED
The Council is asked to discuss whether there is interest in exploring different levels of tree
preservation. If the Council is interested, staff can put together a range of options for various levels
of the tree preservation. '
(tJ
o
CITY OF
NDOVE
@
TO:
1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. . ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 . (763) 755-5100
FAX (763) 755-8923 . WWW.CI.ANDOVER.MN.US
Mayor and CounCilmembers \.( ~
Jim Dickinson, City Administrato~
Will Neumeister, Director of Community Development u/L
CC:
FROM:
SUBJECT: Discussion on Buildability Requirements
DATE:
April 26, 2005
INTRODUCTION
The City has "Buildability" requirements in the subdivision ordinance that creates single family residential
lots with almost no usable back yard space. This causes problems when people want to build decks, put
up accessory buildings, put in pools, or landscape the back yard due to ponds/wetlands within the drainage
and utility easement. In a lot of cases if property owners want to do something like put in a deck, pool or
shed they need to change the elevations and regrade the rear yard to ensure proper drainage.
o
DISCUSSION
The question for the Council to address is whether the City should look at requiring more buildable lot
area. If the Council recalls, this same issue was discussed 6-7 years ago. At that time, there was not
interest to increase the usable back yard area. Then in September 2003 the buildability requirements were
changed to indicate the 16 Yz buffer strip should not be in the 100 foot buildable area, but in addition to the
100 foot buildable area. Thus the current standard of 116 Yz feet. Recently, the Andover Review
Committee (ARC) discussed issues the staff is having with the current requirements. ARC has indicated
that they would like the Council to reconsider the minimum buildable space which would help to avoid the
problems mentioned above. Another alternative is to lessen front yard setback to 30 feet rather than 35
feet to gain five feet of additional space for the rear yards where it is needed.
A diagram of what is occurring is attached that may help to better understand the situation. Basically, the
116 Yz feet of buildable space is not adequate Based on recent practices, the 16 Yz foot buffer area is
covered by a drainage and utility easement and that leaves only 100 feet in which to build anything that
requires a building permit. Most houses have a garage forward design and with a basic house, it pushes
the back wall of the house to the back edge of the 100 foot buildable area. With drainage easement up
close to the house, anytime that the builder has put a patio door on the back of the house, it looks like there
should be room for a deck, but that may not always be the case because of the wetland buffer area. It can
be deceiving to the potential buyer and after they have bought the lot and applied for the building permit
they are getting an answer they don't like regarding any new deck addition, if this is the situation.
ACTION REQUESTED
The Council is asked to review and discuss the buildability requirements and provide staff. direction
whether any changes are warranted.
o
Respectfully submitted,
a/L
Will Neumeister
Attachments
Photos & Diagram of Lot
Copy of Current Buildability Requirements
to meet the size and dimeBsicm staBeares ef lots in areaS sei"Ved by m1ID:iaflw sewer
where the eity deems it neeessary in these areas that can be served in the fumre.
The;; ;;eyisioftS shal.J. not apply t{) plats llflprs'lea by the city prier t8 Octobe1" 17,
1978. (:\meBooa Ord. 10,2 15 1972; ama. 2093 Cede)
o
B. Buildability Reauirements: Residential lots shall have the lowest floor a minimum of
three (3') feet above the seasonal high water mark or one (1 ') foot above the
desilmated or desilmed one hundred year flood elevation. whichever is higher unless
evidence is submitted and certified by a geotechnical engineer that shall be reviewed
and certified by an independent geotechnical engineer hired by the City at the
expense of the developer and approved by the City Council that a separation ofless
than three (3') feet can be achieved and is warranted.
1. Lots served by municipal sanitarY sewer shall remove all organic material and
replace with granular material with no more than five (5%) percent organic
material by volume for the front one hundred (100') feet of depth of the lot at
a minimum width of the lot as required for that zoning district by the Zoning
Ordinance.
2. Lots Lacking Municipal SanitarY Sewer: No plats within the Metropolitan
Urban Service Area (MUSA) shall be approved unless municipal sanitarY
sewer, municipal water and storm sewer are constructed to serve the proposed
development. All lots lacking municipal sanitary sewer shall adhere to the
following:
a.
o
o
b.
A building pad shall be created for each lot with a
minimum size of 3.600 contiguous square feet. The
Building Official shall determine that the dimensions of
the building pad are adequate to locate. a house in
compliance with all applicable reauirements.
The building pad shall be required to have a finished grade
of at least six (6') feet above the seasonal high water mark.
All organic material shall be removed from the desilmated
building pad area and replaced with granular material with
no more than five (5%) percent organic material by
volume.
There shall be two (2) 5.000 square foot areas desilmated
and staked for the primary and secondary on-site septic
drainfield based on desilm criteria for a four (4) bedroom
home. The desi P1lated drainfield locations as stated above
shall comply with Chapter 7080 as amended.
The location of the primary and secondary sites shall be
indicated on the preliminary grading [llan and the desilm
specifications for the drainiields shall be submitted at the
time of the submittal of the preliminary plat for proposed
developments and at the time of building permit application
for new homes.
These provisions shall not apply to plats approved by the
city prior to October 17. 1978.
c.
d.
e.
f.
o
BC. Location: All lots shall have at least the minimum required frontage on a publicly
dedicated street.
/
I
GD. Comer Lots: Comer lots shall be platted at least ten feet (10') wider than interior lots
on all lots ofless than three hundred feet (300') in width at the building setback line.
Comer lots shall be a minimum of one hundred (100') wide as measured at the
building setback line or ninetv(90') feet wide for back to back lots. .
E. Cul-De-Sac Lots: The minimum lot width at the front setback line for cul-de-sac lots
lacking municipal sanitary sewer is one hundred sixty (160') feet. Two lots per cul-
de-sac are allowed to utilize the reduced lot width.
Pt:. Butt Lots: The use of butt lots shall be avoided wherever possible.
00. Watercourses: Lots abutting upon a watercourse, drainageway, or stream shall have
such additional depth or width as may be required to protect house sites from flooding
and shall be subject to restrictions of the department of natural resources and U.S~
corps of engineers.
FH. Double Frontage Lots: Lots with frontage on two (2) parallel streets shall not be
permitted except where lots back on arterial streets or highways. Double frontage lots .
shall have an additional depth for screen planting along the rear lot line often feet
(10').
o
G1. Access To Thoroughfares: In those instances where a plat is adjacent to a limited
access highway or other major highway or thoroughfare, no direct vehicular access
shall be permitted from individual lots to such highway.
IIJ. Natural Features: In the subdividing ofland, regard shall be shown for all natural
features, including tree growth, watercourses, historic places and similar amenities of
the area which, if preserved, will add attractiveness and stability to the area.
lK. Lot Remnants: Lot remnants which are below the minimum lot area or dimension
must be added to adjacent or surrounding lots rather than be allowed to remain as an
unusable outlot or parcel. (Amended Ord. 10,2-15-1972).
L. Re-Subdvision: The preliminary plat shall show a feasible plan for future re-
subdivision bv which lots may be re-subdivided to meet the size and dimension
standards of lots in areas served by municipal sewer where the City deems it
necessary in those areas that can be served in the future.
0=4*
M. Wetland Buffer: Pursuantto Title 13. Chapter 6 a one rod (16.5 feet or 5 meters)
wide area abutting a wetland and/or storm water pond that shall be left undisturbed or
in its natural condition during the development. buildinQ: and landscapinQ: phases.
The buffer strip shall not be included within the preceding 100 foot buildabilitv
requirement.
~t==
.~O
~
r... I A I~-
~ -' I '" J-.
, I I ,. L._
r-,r-, r...,...
1-.'1-., I I.....
I , L _ l.. _ 1...... .......
SOPHIE'S M
/_- North line NW1/4 NEI/4
/ Section 23. T32N,R24W
I
I
I
-'-.
1194.68
~: ,'1=&0 I
128.16_
-.
208.42
RAINAGE
,.
25
,s5.
17
.,
,
"
,
"
"
UTI L\I T
\
\
\ 4
\
\
\
~.
'.~;..
. "\."'v'
,,~
'\.~
'\
(t..
-.,
\~ E ;.
\~
\":.;
\~
\'Co
\
\ ' \ \ '
I \ I I I
I I II \
I \ 1\ \
I I 1\ \
1\\ \ \
\ I\U-
I l'r \ I
--r0rr\,\ '\
~ r'" ~ i "J."
I 11..\_\" \
J, \ \1,
g\ I~J,
\1.0\ 10
\~\ \<1
_IiI II I
.....-- / J
I
I
1
I
I
-+-
1
I
I
\
I
\
~
O!
I
I
I
I ___
---+-
I
I
I
r", '" I r-
,.....1//\11-.
I (I _ /.. _
I
\
\, t""-~
~896..____ I IolAlNTENIIHCE
:.....-.-.. .....t...... ACCESS
--
r-,r-, r....,.~
,..- I"'. I / I ....
I , ~_ I.. _ 1../ ....-'
\
\
,
\
\
\
\
I
I
I
I
I
)
I
\
\
I
\t I
I I
U
\
\
\
\
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
\
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
J
I
/
'*'-
,
\
, \
g~~
~ag
..~,
~&;~
Fi5I~
~lllI(
I
I
I
I
1
I
<b
o
7'
I
I
I
, /
I
..... ~\ )\~~.\ \ \
-.." \ /' \ \\\ \ I
'. ',.. \ "' \ \ \ I
.. /\ \ "\ \ I
.... \ '\'\\ t
\ II \ \ I
\ \ \ \ \ l--
\\\~ -,
\ \ \ \ I
-r0r\-\ '\ '" I
> " ).. i \ ).' \ \
I L\_\4, \
d,\I",1 \
S? \ \0 J,
"',r.b\l'to
\~\ \'?
-----
r - I r -, ,r ~ -:....
~ - J,.... - : _. L.-' ........
,
\
\
"
\
\
\
\
I
\
I
I
I
J
I
---
R-4
\
\
,
~.~
r
o
/
/
.it.
-.\
/
/
"' .
,
!
o
(]
"'-.
~
o
- - -- 4 I yy
122.21
.,
898.oe
'9
I
/ 4J
I ,,..::
-0 I ~
~1/At. / "'5 8?
~G~ I . .
'~~S~.i(~r77~/Jy~,___/'/ ~~
..., 'v
x 896.58 \ -<-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
897.0ty /
, I I
I
.,
x 896.48
l
~
N
I
:0
1 INCH =
(572-1 pP.,Af~
S-~-r'
LEGEND
~
. = Iron monument foun
o = Iron monument set
" with license No. 184
x 800.0 = Denotes existing ele
<@Q;9) = Denotes proposed el
from grade or devel
~ = Denotes drainage &
_ = Denotes drainage ar
,
o
,~
/e
~.
/..J
/-
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
(2)
CITY OF
NDOVE
1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. . ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 . (763) 755-5100
FAX (763) 755.8923 . WWW.CI.ANDOVER.MN.US
TO:
CC:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Mayor and Council Members ~
Jim Dickinson, City Administrator ..
Todd J. Haas, Parks Coordinator
Discuss Advertisements in Parks - Engineering
DATE:
April 26, 2005
INTRODUCTION
This item is in regard to advertisement on park property and along trails
DISCUSSION
Prior to City staff spending a great deal of time and effort researching advertisement in parks,
staff would like some feedback from City Council to ensure that everyone on the Council is on
board to evaluate this. The Planning Department will be heading the research of what other cities
are allowing and the fees that are being collected.
Attached are the minutes of the joint meeting between the City Council and Park Commission for
your reVIew.
ACTION REQUIRED
The City Council is requested to authorize the Planning Department to move forward with
research of advertisement in parks in other cities. Once the research is done, it will be forwarded
to the Park Commission for their review and recommendation.
Respectfully submitted,
~e~
Attachments
o
o
o
Special Joint Andover City Council / Park & Recreation Commission Meeting
Minutes - January 24, 2005
Page 8
Mayor Gamache asked what the base is they should be looking at. Mr. Dickinson replied he was
looking at 45 percent, but ifthere is a regional benefit of the park, then that would raise the
number from 45 percent to another percentage.
The Council was supportive ofthe plan and requested staff work on a policy with the Park
Commission.
DISCUSS ADVERTISEMENTS ON PARK PROPERTY
Mr. Haas explained that this item is in regard to considering advertisements on park property. The
Park and Recreation Commission, during the past couple months, has discussed whether or not
advertisements should be allowed in parks. Commissioner Walton has been taking the lead on this
and will be addressing the Council.
Commissioner Walton stated the concept is to provide other possible revenue sources. They are
looking at advertising on park benches, the hockey arena, and outfield fences. He noted they
have a lot of industrial growth in the City who would like to advertise their business as well as
show their support. He had called the City of Coon Rapids and they have a start up cost for the
advertising boards on their fences. He had information as to who built the signs and what the
hard costs were. He passed out rough estimates as to how much revenue could be generated by
advertising.
Councilmember Knight suggested the football poles could also be paid for by a business which
could be advertised on. He noted they should not allow liquor or tobacco advertising.
Councilmember Jacobson stated he did not have a problem with benches, but he did not want to
see signs all ofthe way around outfield fences.
Councilmember Trude stated she had also seen memorial benches done. She was concerned
about the visual image ofthe community ifthey put advertising on the fences.
Commissioner Masloski noted this would take a lot of staff time. Mr. Dickinson stated once a
program is up and running, it would require minimal staff time each year.
Commissioner Bedor stated advertising is necessary for businesses to survive and he was not
opposed to advertising. He noted he did not see advertising as bad.
Councilmember Knight noted all ballparks have advertising.
Councilmember Trude stated she wants public feedback on this proposal also.
Chairman Blackstad stated they would look at this further and come back to the Council.
o
Special Joint Andover City Council/Park & Recreation Commission Meeting
Minutes - January 24, 2005
Page 9
Councilmember Orttel asked they also look at other Cities for their advertising policies.
Councilmember Trude does not like the idea of advertising on the fences, but could support
some type of memorial advertising.
Commissioner Bedor noted any funds received would benefit the City.
ANDOVER STATION SOUTH PARK DEDICATION ALLOCATION
Mr. Haas explained that this item is in regard to a question the Park Commission has raised
regarding $96,144 for the Community Center contribution. He drew the Council's attention to a
memorandum from Jim Dickinson, Finance Director, regarding the allocation of the park
dedication fees from the Andover Station South development.
Councilmember Trude asked staff to look into this further.
OTHER BUSINESS
o Councilmember Jacobson asked ifthere was something the Council could doto improve or make
the Park Commission's job easier or better.
Commissioner Masloski stated he has been on the Commission for two years and he felt their
hands had sometimes been tied. There are a lot of things within the park system that need
attention soon and asked Council to fmd other revenue sources for the parks. They are trying to
get the athletic fields updated and new developments are going to be sitting without a park for
five or six years. He noted there are parks that need to get done.
Chairman Blackstad stated they had been performing a juggling act for the past five years and
that some of the regular park projects had been delayed and now they had to try and bring those
projects back in.
Councilmember Knight stated demands changed also with an aging community and this put the
park demands into a cycle, which is where they are now.
Councilmember Trude noted she had seen a lot of money put into park infrastructure over the
past four to five years.
Commissioner Walton stated he would like to see some type of a scoring system for the parks
and work on the parks at the head of the list. Councilmember Trude indicated that was a good
idea.
o . Chairman Blackstad intended on having a workshop meeting with the Commission to discuss
this issue.