Loading...
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.