HomeMy WebLinkAbout06.12.181685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. • ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 • (763) 755 -5100
FAX (763) 755 -8923 • WWW.AN DOVE RMN.GOV
Andover Planning and Zoning Commission
Meeting Agenda
June 12, 2018
Andover City Hall
Council Chambers
7:00 p.m.
1. Call to Order
2. Pledge of Allegiance
3. Approval of Minutes —May 22, 2018 Regular Meeting
4. Change August 14, 2018 Regular Meeting Date and Location
5. Public Hearing — To consider city code amendments to Title 12, Accessory
Structures
6. Public Hearing - Variance request to reduce the required width at the front yard
setback from 300 feet to 200 feet - 1670' Avenue NW and Maniteau Blvd. NW
7. Other Business
8. Adjournment
LNDOVEA
1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. • ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 • (763) 755 -5100
FAX (763) 755 -8923 • WWW.ANDOVERMN.GOV
TO: Planning and Zoning Commissioners
FROM: Stephanie L. Hanson, City Planner
SUBJECT: Approval of Minutes — May 22, 2018 Regular Meeting
Minutes
DATE: June 12, 2018
REQUEST
The Planning and Zoning Commission is requested to approve the regular meeting minutes from
May 22, 2018.
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING — MAY 22, 2018
9
10 The Regular Bi- Monthly Meeting of the Andover Planning and Zoning Commission was
11 called to order by Chairperson Kyle Nemeth on May 22, 2018, 7:00 p.m., at the Andover
12 City Hall, 1685 Crosstown Boulevard NW, Andover, Minnesota.
13
14 Commissioners present: Dean Daninger, Bert Koehler IV, Nick Loehlein, Jeff Sims,
15 Mary VanderLaan
16
17 Commissioners absent: Scott Hudson
18
19 Also present: City Administrator Jim Dickinson
20 Community Development Director Joe Janish
21 City Planner Stephanie Hanson
22 City Attorney Scott Baumgartner
23
24 PLEDGE OFALLEGL9NCE.
25
26 APPROVAL OFMINUTES.
27
28 May 8, 2018.
29
30 There were no changes from staff.
31
32 Commissioner Koehler requested the following changes be made to the regular minutes:
33 - Page 8, lines 28 and 29 - "This e "4l ''�° thing that needs to be deeid°''
TS12TL�V CIIG� thing IIGGR' CO C1G CTGGawvu.
34 Legally, the designation is changing, but it is just a matter of what it is changing
35 to. This is really the only thing that needs to be decided."
36 - Page 9, line 29 - "...change it to rural residential, it would need to be residential
37 property."
38
39 Chairperson Nemeth requested the following changes be made to the regular minutes:
40 - Page 4, line 11 — "...according to the map, ..."
41 - Page 4, line 28 — "He also asked what the Park & Recreation Commission had
42 determined for park space."
43 - Page 5, line 9 — "Mike and Deb Bertrom, of 3537 157th Avenue NW,
44 - Page 6, line 26 — "...curb, a rain garden, ditches, and landscaping."
45 - Page 7, line 14 — "Narrowing the road in that..."
46 - Page 8, line 16 — "...Agricultural Preserve Program; therefore, it no longer..."
Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
Minutes — May 22, 2018
Page 2
1 Commissioner VanderLaan requested the following changes be made to the regular
2 minutes:
3 - Page 10, line 13 —"One was discovered to have been named for a Peruvian
4 headhunter, which should maybe be changed if a park is established, as it should
5 not be named Jarvin Street."
6
7 Commissioner Loehlein requested the following changes be made:
8 - Page headers throughout corrected to read May 8, 2018
9
10 Motion by Loehlein, seconded by Koehler, to approve the minutes as revised above.
11 Motion carried on a 5 -ayes, 0 -nays, 1- present (Daninger), 1- absent (Hudson) vote.
12
13 PUBLIC HEARING: Conditional Use Permit /Planned Unit Development —Petersen
14 Farms — 7th Avenue 1165th Avenue NW
15
16 Community Development Director Janish reviewed desirable Planned Unit Development
17 (PUD) design qualities sought in any PUD as per City Code. He stated the Planning
18 Commission is asked to review a Conditional Use Permit (CUP)/Planned Unit
19 Development (PUD) for Petersen Farms. The proposal contains 24 rural residential lots
20 and two Outlots. The PUD request is by Landform, on behalf of JD Andover Holdings.
21 It was noted the Commission had received the developer's PUD narrative and applicant's
22 "Concept Master Development Plan" that shows how the overall property could develop
23 and how tonight's PUD request for Phase 1 would blend in with the development.
24
25 Community Development Director Janish reviewed the proposed CUP and PUD with the
26 Commission. He noted that according to City Code 13 -3 Planned Unit Development, the
27 purpose of a PUD is to encourage more efficient allocation of density and intensity of
28 land use where such arrangement is desirable and feasible by providing the means of
29 greater creativity and flexibility in environmental design than provided under strict
30 application of the standards set in Code.
31
32 Community Development Director Janish explained City Code 13 -3 -9 regulates the
33 findings that are required for a PUD to be approved and 13 -3 -11 identifies desirable PUD
34 design standards that are sought in any PUD proposal. As part of the PUD Narrative, the
35 applicant addresses the design qualities they believe the City seeks when granting a PUD
36 proposal as identified in City Code 13 -3 -11. He presented the four required findings to
37 consider when approving a PUD per City Code 13 -3 -8 as well as the applicant's response
38 to each.
39
40 Community Development Director Janish noted right -of -way changes, allowance for
41 water drainage easements, tree removal and atypical ponding due to rural development.
42 He said the Commission is only reviewing Phase 1 at this time and reviewed street
43 improvements and proposed right -of -way widths of 50 feet with rural street widths of 27
44 feet. He stated rural street pavement widths including ribbon curb are 30 feet, but after
45 review Fire Chief Streich was comfortable with the overall proposed street widths.
Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
Minutes —May 22, 2018
Page 3
1 Community Development Director Janish reviewed lot size standards and based on width
2 and depth allowed on 63.19 acres the plat resulted in one less than allowed. He said the
3 development would be served by private septic and well and reviewed proposed lot sizes
4 and lot summary.
5
6 Community Development Director Janish stated the Planning and Zoning Commission is
7 asked to hold a public hearing and gather public input, review the proposed PUD, and
8 make a recommendation to City Council. He said if the Commission provides a positive
9 recommendation, it needs to keep in mind the four required findings and if the
10 Commission recommends denial, then findings of fact will need to be provided to City
11 Council and direction provided to staff, including language for the draft Resolution of
12 Denial. He noted there was a typographical error in the draft Resolution for approval and
13 that the word "not" should be removed in the third Whereas paragraph.
14
15 Chairperson Nemeth inquired about the two outlots. Community Development Director
16 Janish identified Outlots A and B and said the Outlots would remain under current
17 ownership and that the applicant would only purchase the area identified as Phase 1. He
18 said discussions regarding roadway and Outlot A, may not become part of the plat but
19 would be discussed further with the applicant during the preliminary platting process.
20
21 Chairperson Nemeth clarified that the Commission was only reviewing Phase 1 and that
22 additional phases were ghost platted for future determination only.
23
24 Commissioner Loehlein referred to regulations for lot standards and density and asked if
25 the proposed 63.19 acres included the Outlots. Community Development Director Janish
26 said both Outlots were excluded from the acreage calculations.
27
28 Commissioner Sims asked how much of Phase 1 was buildable. Community
29 Development Director Janish said the density calculations are gross density and counted
30 whether the area was buildable or not.
31
32 Commissioner Sims commented on the lot size of Lots 1, 2, and 3 and that the northwest
33 corner included other one -acre lots at the very outside comer in the PUD. Community
34 Development Director Janish said there were different standards in place at the time of
35 the adjacent development and did not include a PUD for that area.
36
37 Commissioner Sims further questioned if the proposal is not part of MUSA and what is
38 the zoning and abutting against a differently -zoned parcel. Community Development
39 Director Janish indicated the zoning adjacent to the proposal is zoned a different type of
40 residential which is either Suburban or Estates. These areas still rely on septic and well.
41 PUD's can create a higher quality development.
42
43 Commissioner Koehler confirmed the current zoning was R -2 (Single Family - Estate).
44
Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
Minutes — May 22, 2018
Page 4
1 Commissioner VanderLaan questioned why this item was coming back so quickly and
2 clarified conditions for a CUP that would grant the PUD. She asked if residents within
3 350 feet of the parcel were properly notified within 10 days and confirmed they were
4 notified for the Council action as well from Agricultural Preserve to Rural Residential.
5 Community Development Director Janish said separate notifications had been sent for
6 this meeting and that the notification sign was along 7 I Avenue was switched out so
7 individuals who drove on 7 I Avenue would be informed. A notification sign was also
8 placed at the end of 168`h Avenue. He said property owners within 750 feet of the
9 proposal would have received mailed notice of the proposed Comprehensive Plan
to amendment including any outside the City.
11
12 Commissioner Koehler asked about the Anoka County Highway Departments comments
13 and how staff and the developer would address noise impacts and volume coming from
14 local County roads should this development exceed the City's noise ordinance.
15 Community Development Director Janish summarized his discussions with City Engineer
16 Berkowitz and how the reports comments would cover the County from having to
17 provide future financial support for a sound wall, or other sound mitigation should the
18 development ever reach a specific volume level.
19
20 Commissioner Koehler confirmed this development would not violate any current noise
21 ordinance. Community Development Director Janish said Engineering had no noise
22 concerns based on this development with the exception of mufflers and jake braking.
23
24 Chairperson Nemeth inquired about the proposed trail construction. Community
25 Development Director Janish said staff would bring the item forward to the Parks and
26 Recreation Commission as part of preliminary plat. The Parks and Recreation
27 Commission would provide a recommendation to the City Council, which ultimately
28 would determine the need for a trail.
29
30 Commissioner VanderLaan reviewed roadway lists and the proposal of 27 feet of
31 bituminous surface and ribbon curbs, with slopes toward the roadway, and asked if they
32 are each 18 inches. Community Development Director Janish explained the slope and
33 ditch system on the ribbon curb so water sheds off the roadway and stormwater moves
34 down and infiltrates within the ditch system to avoid larger ponding and that through the
35 design process it would be determined how ditches would handle stormwater runoff.
36
37 Commissioner VanderLaan asked how much staff has explored potential flooding to the
38 surrounding lots in this area due to the high -water table. Community Development
39 Director Janish said this work would be done as part of the stormwater management plan
40 in accordance with State law through the creation of a stormwater calculation model.
41
42 Chairperson Nemeth confirmed one side of the street would be signed no parking.
43
44 Commissioner Koehler said the Preserve at Oakview development included 22 -foot
45 roadways and one -sided parking and was working well. Community Development
Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
Minutes — May 22, 2018
Page 5
1 Director Janish agreed at this point the parking was working fine but noted Emergency
2 Management personnel would prefer 27 -foot widths with 18 -inch ribbon curb.
4 Commissioner Koehler said that width is significantly wider than other areas.
5 Community Development Director Janish said the width is one foot less then the standard
6 design, but wider than the Preserve at Oak View. He said the applicant wanted 22 feet
7 but after the Fire Chief s review it was determined that 27 is better in order for stability
8 arms to be deployed for the ladder truck, and for the movement of fire tanker trucks.
9
10 Chairperson Nemeth clarified the reason for the wider street width was because of the
11 need for fire equipment access and not because it was located outside the MUSA.
12
13 Motion by Daninger, seconded by Sims, to open the public hearing at 7:43 p.m. 5 -ayes,
14 0 -nays, 1- present (Daninger), 1- absent (Hudson) vote.
15
16 Darren Lazan, Landform Professional Services, LLC, 105 South Fifth Avenue, Suite 513,
17 Minneapolis, explained the proposed development was a collaboration between
18 Landform and Metrowide, recapped key items and shared background of Petersen Farms
19 which was a declining turkey farm. He said the proposal would include removing the
20 plat from Agriculture Reserve and shared proposed plats for Phase 1 and ghost plats for
21 any future phases. He reviewed the process from the first Planning Commission meeting,
22 Council, workshop and the concept of rural PUDs and noted the PUD component is a
23 legitimate section in City Code equal to R -1 zoning. Mr. Lazan explained PUD zoning
24 was as purposeful as other zoning and adds flexibility to create a better, low- impact
25 designed neighborhood with the smallest footprint possible to avoid large grading work.
26 He explained the plat would result in roughly the same number of lots and the two areas
27 of flexibility in lot size averaged 2.46 acres with lot width averages of over 207 feet. He
28 said they were asking for relief on width of right -of -way as the 60 -foot portion has more
29 through- traffic but only on other roadways.
30
31 Mr. Lazan said they were promoting a fair amount of preservation and Phase 1
32 development would have no expected impacts to any wetlands. He shared a diagram
33 depicting house placement near the wetlands and how the PUD flexibility allowed for
34 better development and home placement by balancing the upland. Mr. Lazan reviewed
35 the entire proposed Phase 1 concept, the development purpose was not to add density and
36 was in compliance with City Code. The development will result in the same number of
37 house tops as a standard development so the impacts to schools, fire coverage, and City
38 services will not increase, but remain the same. There will be a trail at the end of the cut-
39 de -sac to access Martins Meadows. He shared a tree inventory aerial and outlined tree
40 stands and explained how the balanced upland areas would preserve current tree stands.
41
42 Mr. Lazan said they took comments shared from sketch plan review into account and
43 noted they wanted to retain the outlot as unbuildable until they come back with a plat. He
44 spoke about approach to density and how they attempted to match lots to the abutting
45 development in the southern portion at the 2.5 -acre level. He shared the density study
Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
Minutes — May 22, 2018
Page 6
1 from the existing figure ground to the proposed figure ground and how the same number
2 of homes and demands on City services resulted in less infrastructure and blends well
3 with the community.
4
5 Mr. Lazan noted the Parks and Recreation Commission reviewed the plat and had no
6 additional park land requests in Phase 1 but possibly would in Phase 2 and asked that
7 adequate space be provided cast/west for that and that while there would be no trail now,
8 a contribution would be paid for us of a future trail. He commented on Phase 1's cul -de-
9 sac to the north to Martin Meadows and that stormwater was currently under design and
to that the high -water table in the northern portion of the site was 30 feet above ground and
I 1 no concern. He shared soil borings were complete and the septic field survey done which
12 showed no groundwater concerns, adding street review with the Fire Department was
13 adequate and may even result in future City Code revisions.
14
15 Jason Osberg, Metrowide Development, 15356 Yukon Street NW, shared the revised
16 sketch plan was based on public comment and that the road on the very eastern edge had
17 no lots abutting 168th Avenue. He referred to trees on the east side of the property that
18 will be left as a buffer and likely fill in and shared that they met with Mr. Leudtke and his
19 son -in -law and shared that the ghost plat road proposed through their home had been
20 relocated to the south.
21
22 Chairperson Nemeth inquired about issues with the ribbon curb. Mr. Lazan said they
23 believed the ribbon curb has performed as designed and no changes were proposed other
24 than making the overall roadway wider as the curb allows the water into ditches and
25 infiltrates immediately. He said the cracking that has occurred in other areas is only
26 surface cracking and was likely an installation issue as it was not adequately jointed.
27
28 Chairperson Nemeth inquired about the proposed trail. Mr. Lazan said there will be an
29 internal trail on the roadway but no proposed internal trails and that the Parks and
30 Recreation Commission wanted adequate right -of -way and full payment for the park in
31 the future phase. He noted they were adding a trail from the end of the cul -de -sac into
32 Martins Meadows.
33
34 Chairperson Nemeth asked how many trees will be removed. Mr. Lazan outlined the
35 proposed tree removal and said the roadway design followed the existing tree line as best
36 as possible.
37
38 Community Development Director Janish identified tree impacts on an aerial and said the
39 developer was trying to place the majority of homes within the field, noting the PUD
4o allowed the ability to cut and fill and tried to utilize the existing contours in the area.
41
42 Chairperson Nemeth inquired about the price point. Mr. Lazan said the homes will range
43 between $400,000 - $500,000+ but that they need to do more market research first, adding
44 they currently have two or three home builders interested in this development.
45
Regular,4ndover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
Minutes — May 22, 2018
Page 7
1 Chairperson Nemeth inquired about the quality of the homeowners' association. Mr.
2 Lazan said they expect the association to be the same as The Preserve and referred to
3 discussion of storage, recreational use of properties and a base line for recreational
4 vehicles such as prohibiting dirt bikes, etc. He said there will be architectural controls
5 implemented on the home and accessory buildings and strict home occupation parameters
6 to help create a quality neighborhood, adding stormwater management and entrance
7 monuments will be included.
s
9 Chairperson Nemeth noted the Council has had issues in the past with some
10 homeowners' association and their attention to maintenance.
11
12 Commission Koehler inquired about covenants. Mr. Lazan said the covenants would be
13 recorded with the land and a functioning homeowners' association would provide
14 funding for maintenance, etc.
15
16 Commissioner VanderLaan asked if property owners would be charged an association
17 fee. Mr. Lazan said the association would start out wholly controlled by the builder and
18 then turned over to homeowners and become self - controlled with bylaws still in place
19 and an annual fee for common area maintenance.
20
21 Chairperson Nemeth reminded those in attendance that the hearing was not about any
22 future development but only about the Conditional Use Permit/Planned Unit
23 Development request.
24
25 Jim Zushin, of 3943 168th Avenue, said he was in favor of the development as long as no
26 negative impact occurred to those already here. He said the residents were counting on
27 the City to maintain the 2.5 -acre minimums and that they had no problem with
28 development just the number of units. He said from the eastern side toward the wetland
29 is a 30 -foot drop and shared concerns about traffic, wetland impacts, and necessary road
30 improvements that he does not wish to pay for. Mr. Zushin said 24 lots are impactful and
31 that the plat has much involvement with little access. He said allowing approval of the
32 smaller lots will set a precedent and referred them to owners on Aztec Street with one-
33 acre lots and septic systems and by adding more, drainage problems could occur,
34 especially since City water will not be in place for decades. Mr. Zushin commented on
35 the applicant's flexibility and that while we need more residences we need to maintain
36 the flavor of Andover. He shared concerns about water, drainage, and other impacts
37 polluting their land and commented on street widths and requested they be maintained.
38 He said traffic impacts during development will be huge and the current roadway will not
39 support the additional traffic.
40
41 Chairperson Nemeth asked about access points currently through 168th Avenue and going
42 through 165th Avenue instead as it branches east and north and is currently private
43 property at Eldorado. He also inquired about flooding on Outlot B. Mr. Zushin said the
44 area was on the south end of Aztec Street and is wetland.
45
Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
Minutes — May 22, 2018
Page 8
1 Timothy Timm, of 16676 Valley Drive NW, said his property was at the southeastern
2 edge of the development and emphasized the drainage problem, adding he was unsure
3 about external access to the development. He shared about a Colorado Springs
4 development that was low and had water draining incorrectly, noting the drainage was
5 good internally to the development but not externally. He said his 4.6 -acre lot is 10 feet
6 below the farmland and that water will pond on his lot and shared concerns regarding
7 increased traffic, noting with current speeds at 50 mph and the addition of more residents
8 will create a bigger problem as the road is too narrow and speed limits need to be
9 reduced. Mr. Timm shared concerns about noise and asked who the builders will be.
10
11 Chairperson Nemeth said they are not sure yet who the builders will be and noted Anoka
12 County determines speeds and maintenance for Valley View Drive.
13
14 Steve Bury, of 17230 Aztec Street, thanked the Commission for their questions and
15 commented how noise comes right up the river from 71h Avenue and how keeping lots
16 down will help. He shared concerns regarding water, mosquitos, condition of the ribbon
17 curb, lack of parking on Aztec Street, no trail connection, and how Valley View Park
18 never was constructed as intended.
19
20 Jim Neilson, an Andover resident and real estate attorney at 118 East Main Street, Anoka,
21 said he represented the Zushins. He requested the acreage be corrected to include the
22 outlots and noted there are nine lots less than 2.5 acres which is a norm for single - family
23 residences with private septic and wells, adding 1.5 -acre lots are not adequate. Mr.
24 Neilson said Lots 1 -6 total 9.84 acres and should result in four lots, not six and said his
25 concern was about setting precedent as this should be a 60 -foot road with parking
26 restrictions on one side and that the temporary cul -de -sac was not dedicated or noted on
27 the plat.
28
29 John Edewaard, of 3983 168Th Avenue NW, commented on density calculations and how
30 there was not enough land to build this many homes. He shared a different sketch plan
31 was shown than originally shared with future development of a ghost plat and included a
32 four -phase development but has now changed to one phase of 400 acres. He said all
33 objections were not addressed in an appropriate manner to satisfy the neighborhood and
34 he shared alternatives about using 168"' Avenue as an access as there was no room for
35 garbage trucks at 60 -feet of right -of -way and this was proposed for 50 feet. Mr.
36 Edewaard shared concerns regarding the curve on 168t" Avenue and accidents with the
37 30 -foot drop in elevation if developed and said he took exception to the language of the
38 notices that showed a symbiotic relationship between the developer and City staff who
39 suggested utilizing 168th Avenue instead. He asked questions regarding conflict of
40 density calculations with the City and the Metropolitan Council and referred to PUD
41 criteria and how the criteria was not feasible as a complete unit and was dependent on the
42 other development such as 168th Avenue. He said the Planning Commission was being
43 asked to consider a long -term project presented in the short-term and commented on
44 public street assessments and poor quality of the road, adding if approved the
Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
Minutes — May 22, 2018
Page 9
1 neighborhood will present the need for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW)
2 because engineering standards were not being considered.
3
4 Pam Zushin, of 3943 1681h Avenue NW, shared concerns regarding safety and watched as
5 a fire truck tried to make turns on 168th Avenue and could not negotiate the turn. She
6 said the road was not designed for construction or that many vehicle trips and should
7 include additional access from this area, especially in an emergency.
8
9 Commissioner Sims left the dais at 9:24 p.m. and returned at 9:30 p.m.
10
11 Becky Leudtke, of 16932 Jivaro Street, agreed with points raised and said she was against
12 the PUD as it did not meet the 2.5 acres and would create high density. She said she
13 understood development would happen and trees would be removed but that the density
14 did not have to be high. She said the notification sign was for a Conditional Land Use
15 and that most did not see it as they do not live within the notification area for the letter
16 and that traffic concerns were too high.
17
18 Darren McDonald, of 16927 Jivaro Street, shared how his wife was in an accident
19 yesterday which speaks to traffic concerns and density. He shared his concerns and
20 asked when the County and City talk about traffic, noting while he understood that
21 development will occur traffic needs to be addressed. He shared concerns about students
22 walking to school and noted the 20 -foot property they own on the east side would affect
23 the easement to get to Martins Meadows.
24
25 Kenneth Clements, 3952 169"' Lane, clarified the current lot size was 2.8 acres and
26 implored that the neighboring lots be larger as this was the reason they bought in this
27 area.
28
29 Chairperson Nemeth invited Mr. Lazan to respond. Mr. Lazan commented that soil
30 borings were completed and deemed good for infiltration. He said stormwater today was
31 more complicated than in past developments and can no longer leave the site and includes
32 new requirements for groundwater, adding any stormwater that leaves has to be current
33 patterns and must leave the area in pre- developed condition. He said they do not
34 anticipate flooding as the area is 20 -30 feet high but noted they cannot control floodplain
35 or where floodwater stores. Mr. Lazan said Anoka County will be addressing traffic
36 impacts over the entire development, likely at Valley View Drive and 168th Avenue,
37 when the remaining development comes online with connections to future phases. He
38 said they are required to make connections to 168th Avenue as per City policy but have
39 secured all construction staging off the Farm Road and Jivaro Street off 168th Avenue.
40 Mr. Lazan noted all drainage concerns would be addressed during the preliminary
41 platting process.
42
43 Mr. Lazan clarified Mr. Neilson's concerns that the outlots were included in the
44 calculations. He said 50 -foot rights -of -way have been done in the City and there are
45 additional easements on both sides, noting this will result in less road to maintain, plow,
Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
Minutes — May 22, 2018
Page 10
1 and repair and the connecting piece is 60 feet wide and matches the other plat. He said a
2 precedent is already in existence at The Preserve at Oakview with smaller lots and
3 commented that minimum standards occur in the PUD zoning similar to R -1 zoning but
4 allows it to occur in a more orderly manner. He complimented staff on their assistance
5 and professionalism and noted the wetland delineation was underway but would not
6 result in a threshold for an EAW or Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) as there is a
7 recreational lake in Phase 2. Mr. Lazan said they will meet to review the 20 -foot
8 property owned by Mr. McDonald and address this area accordingly.
9
10 Commissioner Loehlein referred to the east/west connection to 168th Avenue to be 60-
11 foot but said the sketch plan was in error. Community Development Director Janish said
12 staff believed everything to the east of the north/south road would be 60 feet to match so
13 there was no jog in the right -of -way. He noted the draft approval resolution included 60-
14 foot right -of -way for the eastern portion of the road with 50 -foot right -of -way traveling
15 west.
16
17 Chairperson Nemeth inquired about how to address the trail easement from Martins
18 Meadows. Mr. Lazan said the area did not show on the survey but that they will work to
19 still provide a trail easement up to the neighbor's property.
20
21 Commissioner Koehler thanked the applicant for the description of the PUD showing
22 what would happen with strict Code interpretation and said he appreciated the time and
23 place for a PUD. He commented on the low impact design and the desire to retain a
24 number of trees, most of which are in the wetland, then inquired about the benefit to the
25 City to approve the PUD. Mr. Lazan outlined reasons to approve PUD which included
26 reduced impervious area, heat gain, ongoing repair of cement /concrete for roadways,
27 treatment of stormwater into smaller basins, better infiltration at its source, and
28 tremendously less grading impacts.
29
30 Commissioner Koehler said water is taken in a more aesthetically pleasing way and the
31 non -PUD development would be flattened and built to City code. He said the PUD
32 would create smaller lots and have less impact to wildlife if smaller lots are worth
33 preserving the nature of the land.
34
35 Mr. Lazan agreed, noting the wetlands would be less impacted as well with a PUD.
36
37 Mr. Osberg referred to the north area of Phase 1 discussing roadways and wetlands on the
38 west side and tree coverage. He shared an illustration that showed moving the road to the
39 west. He said this would result in an encroachment towards the wetlands. The
4o development will not lose any lots but it would limit useable area for the yards.
41
42 Ms. Zushin disagreed, stating she has lived in this area for 60 years and knows the trees
43 and brush and asked why there are zoning rules if they were not followed. She asked
44 how this was decided and if it was based on who has more money.
45
Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
Minutes — May 22, 2018
Page 11
1 Ms. Leudtke suggested taking out five more homes and keeping the road where it is
2 currently placed.
3
4 There was no one else in the audience to comment on the Conditional Use
5 Permit/Planned Unit Development request.
6
7 Motion by Koehler, seconded by Loehlein, to close the public hearing at 10:05 p.m. 6-
8 ayes, 0 -nays, 0- present, 1- absent (Hudson) vote.
9
to Commissioner Koehler referred to the concept of taking out homes and placing the road
11 anywhere helps, as they are following the natural lay of the land. He noted a PUD does
12 meet City Code as it is a different zoning code that allows the City to choose how it is
13 completed.
14
15 Commissioner Daninger asked if the land use change eight years ago was a public
16 process. City Planner Stephanie Hanson said homeowners applied to come out of
17 agricultural preserve and noted it was their right with the intent to develop the property.
18
19 Commissioner Daninger commented how the natural traffic flow to the west off 7"
20 Avenue was for traffic to flow to the west instead of 168th Avenue. Community
21 Development Director Janish agreed.
22
23 Commissioner Daninger asked if the PUD, ponds and more drainage ditches instead of
24 holding ponds was a newer, successful concept. Community Development Director
25 Janish said this concept has been around for a while but was new to the City.
26
27 Commissioner Loehlein asked how outlots were used in wetland areas instead of lots.
28 City Administrator Dickinson said outlots in backyards were no longer recommended and
29 instead were attached to lots so individuals can own and maintain so they do not result in
30 tax forfeit.
31
32 Chairperson Nemeth inquired about maintenance for the south lots and why outlots were
33 brought into the development. Mr. Dickinson said they could include the easement for
34 clean -up and access agreements or give the outlots to the individuals and keep out of the
35 City's control. The outlots proposed would remain under the current ownership.
36
37 Commissioner Sims commented how it was confusing for residents to see PUD zoning as
38 part of the code when the area was zoned RI, adding he understands why they feel they
39 were not being represented. He said the residents understand development is coming but
40 want the same expectation and precedent in Phase 1 to continue throughout.
41
42 Chairperson Nemeth noted this was only a ghost plat and could include changes, adding
43 the PUD was something of a higher quality. Commissioner Sims agreed but noted that
44 due to the wetlands this intent cannot occur.
45
Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
Minutes — May 22, 2018
Page 12
1 Chairperson Nemeth said he understood the point but noted the developer was creating a
2 better selling point on the west side with larger backyards.
3
4 Commissioner Koehler said the expectation was for 2.5 -acre lots and noted the single
5 point of access was major concern. He cautioned about homeowners' associations and
6 what happens when they go defunct and said the traffic would not be good either way and
7 that assessing current 168th Avenue residents for road improvements was not acceptable.
8
9 Community Development Director Janish explained if an association becomes defunct
10 the City and or the association has the ability to assess property owners.
11
12 Commissioner VanderLaan said any development adds the potential for pollution and
13 while traffic and water impacts are expected the residents should be comforted with the
14 advancement of roads, planning, and the Metropolitan Council's communication. She
15 said 2.5 -acre lots were nice but drawn to enhance the features and maximize the
16 development and that we have to balance neighborhood concerns. She said she was in
17 favor of dropping lots on the very north of the site for the proposed trail and long road for
18 a cul -de -sac and inquired about the maximum length. Community Development Director
19 Janish said a cul -de -sac could be up to 500 feet.
20
21 Commissioner Loehlein said the concern as proposed was not based on density as an
22 average of 2.5 -acres but lot width variances as a large percentage and length of cul -de-
23 sacs.
24
25 Commissioner Koehler asked if anyone else was concerned with the lot width.
26 Commissioner Loehlein said the proposed lot width would affect the character of the
27 neighborhood.
28
29 Chairperson Nemeth said he would prefer something over two acres but understood the
30 trade -off as the road would be constructed through an area of least resistance. He said he
31 had more concerns with emergency vehicles but said the 60 -foot right -of -way would not
32 solve that issue so the improvement at 168' Avenue and Valley View Drive was needed,
33 adding he did not perceive any noise concerns now.
34
35 Community Development Director Janish said that prior to any motion, findings would
36 be necessary.
37
38 Commissioner VanderLaan suggested tabling the item to a future meeting to allow the
39 developer to review comments made this evening as well as the Planning Commission, as
40 she understood a special meeting was called for this item.
41
42 Chairperson Nemeth noted this was one of their regular meeting dates and asked staff
43 about tabling the item. Community Development Director Janish said staff would need
44 direction as the timing of the application was approaching the 60 -day rule.
45
Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
Minutes — May 22, 2018
Page 13
1 Commissioner Daninger encouraged a vote because they were a recommending body and
2 had plenty of time to review, adding he would like to respect the neighborhood and
3 provide staff with some direction.
4
5 Motion by Loehlein, seconded by Koehler, to recommend to the City Council denial of
6 the Conditional Use Permit for Petersen Farms and the Conditional Use Permit/Planned
7 Unit Development for Landform on behalf of JD Andover Holdings based on the
8 following findings:
9 1. This residential zoning district has requirements in place to retain rural zoning and
10 the Planned Unit Development project does not meet that requirement based on
11 long cul -de -sacs and lots less than 2.5 acres.
12 2. Planned Unit Development project is in contract with Land Use Goals, Objectives
13 and Policies Goal 4 to allow residential growth while maintaining the quality of
14 natural resources and amenities.
15
16 Commissioner Daninger said any approval would be based on flat grading to meet the
17 2.5 -acre lots of which the result would be less than what the City wanted.
18
19 Commissioner VanderLaan asked if the denial was approved would the Planning
20 Commission have the opportunity to make small changes as this is was a preliminary plat
21 only and if denied could not be acted upon for one year. Community Development
22 Director Janish clarified the request was for a Conditional Use Permit/PUD request. He
23 further commented the request for the PUD is to develop minimum standards, then they
24 (applicant) would move forward with a preliminary plat based on that Conditional Use
25 Permit. He said the Council could override a denial recommendation and then it would
26 not be considered again for one year. Community Development Director Janish said
27 reasons were needed to deny the request.
28
29 Commissioner Koehler said Goal 4 clearly defines areas for urban and rural residential
30 development. Commissioner Loehlein agreed.
31
32 Motion carried on a 4 -ayes, 2 -nays ( Daninger, Koehler), 1- absent (Hudson) vote.
33
34 Community Development Director Janish stated this item would be before the Council at
35 the June 19, 2018, City Council meeting.
36
37 Commissioner Sims inquired about the similarity of denying the Catcher's Creek
38 development and how staff forwards the recommendation. Community Development
39 Director Janish said he would provide the meeting minutes to the Council and attempts to
40 provide a short abbreviated overview of the discussion with the staff write up.
41
42 City Administrator Dickinson said the fully- contained discussion was included in the
43 minutes and that while staff would provide a draft version of the minutes that many City
44 Councilmembers review Planning Commission meetings online.
45
Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
Minutes — May 22, 2018
Page 14
1 Chairperson Nemeth thanked the public for their input and said the Commission takes
2 their comments very seriously which was provided in the reasoning for denial. He
3 thanked the applicant as well for their work.
4
5 OTHER BUSINESS.
6
7 Community Development Director Janish updated the Planning Commission on related
8 items stating no other items are moving forward to Council. He commented that the
9 Growing Generations Childcare expects to open in August and that staff wilt be meeting
1 o with other developers on potential development.
11
12 Chairperson Nemeth noted the Muddy Paws Doggy Daycare location scheduled to open
13 in August appears to have already opened.
14
15 ADJOURNMENT.
16
17 Motion by Daninger, seconded by Loehlein, to adjourn the meeting at 10:51 p.m. Motion
18 carried on a 6 -ayes, 0 -nays, 1- absent (Hudson) vote.
19
20 Respectfully Submitted,
21
22 Cathy Sorensen, Recording Secretary
23 TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc.
1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. • ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 • (763) 755 -5100
FAX (763) 755 -8923 • WWW.ANDOVERMN.GOV
TO: Planning and Zoning Commission Members
FROM: Stephanie L. Hanson, City Planner
SUBJECT: Change August 14, 2018 Commission Meeting Date and Location
DATE: June 12, 2018
INTRODUCTION
Change the August 14, 2018 Commission meeting date and location.
DISCUSSION
Primaries are held on the date of the regular scheduled Commission meeting on August 14. The
meeting date will be moved to Wednesday, August 15.
Due to the remodel of the City Council Chambers, staff is requesting the location of the August
15, 2018 Commission meeting be changed to the Anoka County Sheriff's Office, 13301 Hanson
Blvd NW. The Anoka County Sherriff's Office community room can accommodate the
Commission televised meeting.
ACTION REQUESTED
The Commission is requested to change the date of the meeting to Wednesday, August 15, 2018
and change the location to the Anoka County Sherriff s Office, 13301 Hanson Blvd NW.
R ctful su i ed,
Step anie L. Hanson
City Planner
C I T Y O F
ND OVE.
1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. • ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 • (763) 755 -5100
FAX (763) 755 -8923 • WWW.ANDOVERMN.GOV
TO: Planning and Zoning Commissioners
FROM: Joe Janish, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Public Hearing — To consider city code amendments to Title 12, Accessory
Structures
DATE: June 12, 2018
BACKGROUND
November 14, 2017 the Planning Commission reviewed potential modifications to the City Code
related to Accessory Structures and made a recommendation to the City Council. November 14,
2017 the City Council tabled action on the proposed amendments and spent several work
sessions reviewing the proposal (1 /23/18; 3/27/18; and 4/24/18).
During the City Council review staff was directed to clean up the ordinance language to make it
easier to read and comprehend, allow architectural features compatible to principal structures in
lieu of prohibiting steel exterior wall sheathing ( "pole sheds "). Planning and Building staff
worked together and provided the attached draft ordinance to the City Council.
At the April 24, 2018 City Council work session staff was directed to bring the attached draft
ordinance through the adoption process for consideration.
DISCUSSION
Due to the rewriting of the ordinance staff has provided a full "draft" version and the original vs.
a redlined copy of the ordinance.
Some highlights of draft ordinance:
• Rewritten for ease of understanding;
• "Shipping and Storage Containers" language added to Temporary structures;
• Architecturally compatible language is included;
• Language related to architectural standards for lots "less than 2.5 acres" vs. "less than 3
acres" has been modified, this change would allow for vertical steel siding on lots 2.5
acers or greater vs. the current 3 acres or greater.
ACTION REQUIRED
Staff recommends the Planning and Zoning Commission conduct a Public Hearing to review and
discuss the proposed ordinance, and consider a recommendation to the City Council.
Resp t ub fitted,
t
Joe J fish
Community Development Director
Attachments
Current Ordinance
November 21, 2017 City Council Meeting Minutes Excerpt
January 23, 2018 City Council Workshop Meeting Excerpt
March 27, 2018 City Council Workshop Meeting Excerpt
April 24, 2018 City Council Workshop Meeting Excerpt
Proposed Draft Ordinance Amendments
Map "Lot Proportions By Acre"
Page
3
8
.10
.13
.14
.15
.20
2
i
c0aQF-N,r
CHAPTER
ACCESSORY BUILDINGS AND TEMPORARY STRUCTURES
SECTION:
12 -6 -1:
Definition
12 -6 -2:
Construction Prior To Principal Building
12 -6 -3:
Building Height
12 -6 -4:
Size And Construction Requirements
12 -6 -5:
Location And Setback Requirements
12 -6 -6:
Temporary Structures
12 -6 -1: DEFINITION: For the purpose of this chapter, "accessory building"
shall mean garages and sheds. (Ord. 8NNNNNN, 7 -16 -2002)
12 -6 -2: CONSTRUCTION PRIOR TO PRINCIPAL BUILDING: No
accessory building or use shall be constructed or developed on a lot prior to the
time of construction of the principal building except by Conditional Use Permit.
(Ord. 8NNNNNN, 7 -16 -2002)
12 -6 -3: BUILDING HEIGHT:
A. Residential District: No accessory building in a residential area shall
exceed the height of the principal structure except subject to Subsection
12 -3 -5B2 of this title; and shall not exceed fifteen feet (15) in height in the
R -4 zoning district.
B. Business Or Industrial District: No accessory building in a commercial
or industrial district shall exceed the height of the principal building
except by conditional use permit. (Ord. 8NNNNNN, 7 -16 -2002)
12 -6 -4: SIZE AND CONSTRUCTION REQUIREMENTS:
A. Accessory buildings on a residential parcel of five (5) acres or less shall
be as stated below. However, in the case where the accessory building
serves to satisfy the minimum garage requirements as specified in
Section 12 -3 -5 of this title, the garage will not be calculated in the
accessory building square footage requirement.
B. The accessory buildings on a residential parcel with a lot area of five
3
4
(5) acres or less, but more than one acre, shall not exceed the total C0g-P'E,JT'
square footage of land covered by the foundation of the principal
structure.
C. The attached garage and detached accessory buildings on a residential
parcel in the R -4 zoning district or any property less than one acre shall
not exceed one thousand two hundred (1,200) square feet total, and in
no case shall the detached accessory building be greater than fifty
percent (50 %) of the total square footage of the foundation of the
principal structure. (amd. Ord. 314, 10 -4 -2005)
D. All principal structures constructed within the single - family urban
residential (R -4) district after the effective date hereof shall have an
attached garage with a minimum size of four hundred forty (440)
square feet.
E. All detached accessory buildings within the single - family urban
residential (R -4) zoning district shall have a minimum 4:12 roof pitch.
F. All detached accessory buildings shall be constructed to be similar in
design and exterior finish material so as to be compatible to the
principal structure, except as stated in Subsection G of this section.
G. Exterior Finishes: No per sheet metal, painted or unpainted
accessory building, except small garden sheds -not .exceeding one
hundred twenty (120) square feet, shall be allowed on parcels of three (3)
acres or less in all residential districts and within the metropolitan urban
service area (MUSA) boundary. The foregoing shall not apply to painted
and finished metal siding normally used on residential structures. (Ord.
8NNNNNN, 7 -16 -2002)
12 -6 -5: LOCATION AND SETBACK REQUIREMENTS:
A: Private Garages Facing Public Ways: When a private garage is oriented
so as to face onto a public right -of -way, it shall not have less than the
minimum required setback for the principal structure as measured from
the lot line.
B. In Residential Districts:
1. Accessory buildings and structures located in residentially zoned
districts shall have a minimum setback of five feet (5') from side and
rear lot lines unless an easement exists that is more restrictive.
(Amended Ord. 314,10-4-2005)'
2. Accessory buildings and structures located in a yard adjacent to a
5
County road shall have a minimum setback fifty (50) feet from the
property line in all residential zoning districts except for the R -4 district,
where the setback shall be forty (40) feet. (Amended Ord. 314, 10 -4-
05)
3. Accessory buildings and structures located in a yard adjacent to a City
street shall have a minimum setback forty (40) feet from the property
line in R -1 and R -2 zoning districts and thirty -five (35) feet in R -3 and
R -4 zoning districts. (Amended Ord. 314, 10 -4 -05)
4. Accessory structures located in the side or rear yard of corner lots that
are adjacent to a lot that fronts on a cul -de -sac shall be no closer to
the property line than the outside wall of the house. (Amended Ord.
325A, 4- 18 -06)
5. Where less than 120 feet of right -of -way exists for county roads or
arterial streets, setbacks for all structures shall be measured assuming
a sixty -foot right -of -way on each side of the existing right -of -way
centerline. (Amended Ord. 314, 10 -4 -05)
6. Where less than the minimum roadway right -of -way required by City
Code 11 -3 -3 exists, setbacks for all structures shall be measured
assuming right -of -way required by City Code 11 -3 -3. (Amended Ord.
314, 10 -4 -05)
C. In Business And Industrial Districts: Accessory buildings in the
business and industrial districts shall not be closer than ten feet
(10') from side and rear lot lines subject to provisions for the
abutting residential zone provided herein.
D. Location In Rear Yard Setback Areas Generally: An accessory building
may be located within the rear yard setback, provided said accessory
building does not occupy more than twenty five percent (25 %) of a
required rear yard.
E. Prohibited In Drainage And Utility, Easements: All accessory buildings
and structures shall not be constructed or placed in a drainage or utility
easement.
F. Front Yard Setback Requirements: No detached garages or other
accessory buildings shall be located nearer the front lot line than the
principal structure except as follows:
1. On residential parcels with a lot area of one acre or more, a detached
garage or accessory building may be constructed closer to the front lot
line than the principal structure; however, the minimum distance it may
R
be from the front lot line is sixty feet (60') subject to City Code 12 -6 -5.
(Amended Ord. 314, 10 -4 -2005) j
2. All detached garages or accessory buildings constructed nearer the
front lot line than the principal structure shall be similar in design and
exterior finish material so as to be compatible.with the principal
structures. (Ord. 8NNNNNN, 7- 16- 2002)
G. Animals: Any building in which farm animals, pleasure /recreational
animals or poultry are kept shall be a distance of one hundred feet (100')
or more from any other occupied residence, and any open or roofed
enclosure in which such animals are kept shall be. a distance of fifty feet
(50') or more from any occupied residential lot. The City Council may order
the owner of any such animals to apply for a Conditional Use Permit if it is
deemed to be in the interest of the public health, safety, or general
welfare. (Amended Ord. 8,10-21-1970; amd. 2003 Code; Amd Ord. 314
10 -4 -2005; Amd. 4/18/06, Ord. 325A)
12 -6 -6: TEMPORARY STRUCTURES: Temporary structures shall be:
required to obtain a Conditional Use Permit, as otherwise provided by this title.
The Conditional Use Permit for a temporary structure shall be reviewed subject
to the following regulations:
A. Temporary structures governed by this chapter shall be allowed by
Conditional Use Permit in all zoning districts.
B: There shall be a time limit established for temporary structures to remain
on a site as a part of the Conditional Use Permit review during the
construction process. Temporary structures allowed by administrative
approval, other than construction trailers, shall be limited to six
(6) months in duration. The City Council may extend the six (6) month time
limit, if special circumstances exist.
C. Prior to issuance of a building permit, a site plan review must also be
approved.
D. Security measures such as lighting and including .connections to the
main building shall be reviewed as a part of the Conditional Use Permit.
E. Parking shall be subject to the provisions of Section 12 -14 -10 of this title.
F. Signage shall be subject to the provisions of Section 12 -14 -9 of this title.
G. The Conditional Use Permit will address the date the temporary
structure shall be removed from the property. The applicant will provide
a written long -term plan for its removal.
7
H. Temporary structures shall follow the required building setbacks. The
temporary structure is to be located to the side or rear of the site and will
be reviewed as a part of the Conditional Use Permit.
All applicable requirements of the International Residential Code,
International Building Code, International Fire Code, and State Building
Code shall be met.
J. Provisions for water and sewer servicing a temporary structure shall be
subject to the review and approval of the building official.
K. Construction trailers shall be allowed administratively through the
commercial site plan review process through the construction process. No
trailers shall be allowed to be used as temporary sales offices.
L. Tents for promotional sales events shall be allowed up to ten (10)
calendar days .per year. A permit must be approved for tents by the city
Fire Department to assure they will conform to the International Fire
Code. Fees for-tents shall be set as stated in Subsection 1 -7 -3A of this
code. No Conditional Use Permit is needed for this type of temporary
structure.
M. Upon sale or transfer of ownership of the property, the Conditional Use
Permit shall be brought up for renewal or the temporary structure shall
be removed. (Ord. 294, 7 -6 -2004)
E
Regular Andover City Council Meeting
Minutes —November 21, 2017
Page 3
Recons ction (See Resolu ' n R093 -17)
Item 5 Approve 18 TimeSaver See tarial Service Con act
em 6 Approve L IT Liability Cove ge
Mo ' n by Goodrich, S onded by Bukkil approval of the nsent Agenda as ad. Motion
carrie unanimously.
ANOKA UNTYSHERIF OFFICE MON LYREPORT
Commander B ' Podany from th oka County Sh 'ff s Office highlig ted a scam which
targets daycares i the area. He also pressed appreciate n for tips received om the public in
olving a recent inv tigation surrounds the death of a 1 ear -old in highly blicized
ci umstances. He al reported upcomi volunteering opp unities being don y members
of t department.
Mayor ude thanked the S riffs Office and c gratulated Comm der Podany on bei
promoted Police Chief of th City of Blaine.
Councilmemb Knight joined Ma r Trude in thanki Commander Pod y.
Councilmember B ila thanked the mmander for willi to "get down in t dirt" and take
c e of the commune
Coun 'lmember Goodric tated he appreciat the additional in ation the dep ent has
given t Council and corn ity.
Commande odany thanked th Council for the op rtunity to serve th community for th ast
20 years.
Mr. Dickinson als wished Command Podany well.
Co mander Podany in oduced Lieutenan aul Lenzmeier. L' utenant Lenzmeie esponded he
had' ig shoes to fill." has had a long ca er with the Sheri f Office and he is e ited for
this op rtunity.
Mayor Tru confirmed the Ci Council is lookin orward to workin with him.
CONSIDER CITY CODE AMENDMENTS — TITLE 12 ZONING REGULATIONS,
CHAPTER 6, ACCESSORY BUILDINGS AND TEMPORARY STRUCTURES AND
ORDINANCE SUM" Y PUBLICA TION
Mr. Janish presented information regarding City Code amendments addressing accessory VV
structures and movable storage containers.
E
Regular Andover City Council Meeting
Minutes — November 21, 2017
Page 4
Mayor Trude asked if all of a resident's garages together could be bigger than their house with this
new proposal. Mr. Janish replied, "not necessarily." Mayor Trude then asked if the garage plus
all accessory buildings could be larger than the square footage of a home, to which Mr. Janish
replied, "potentially yes." He pointed out that 30% coverage of the lot size would still continue to
apply.
Mayor Trude asked if this would almost doubling what people can do now. Mr. Janish confirmed
that was true, however, the setbacks will still have to be met.
Mr. Janish reminded the Council that earlier in the year the City had a request for a variance and
the Council requested that staff look into it. Mr. Janish showed what surrounding cities have in
their Code on these matters.
On the topic of portable storage units, known as PODS, the City is trying to make it easier for
people moving to the community. The staff is proposing adding to the City Code that PODS can
remain for a 30 -day timeframe and for PODS to be parked on a lot. The POD has to be on a paved
surface, preserve sight - lines, and be limited to 30 days. According to the industry, they are
typically on site for 1 -2 weeks. If it is longer than that, it is typically stored off site. Families still
have other options such as having a POD moved or renting a storage unit.
Mr. Janish reported the Planning and Zoning Commission voted in favor of the changes to the City
Code. Councilmember Holthus asked if this matter would be one or two motions. Mr. Janish
replied it could be one motion. Mr. Janish reminded the Council any new structure built has to be
in character with what has already been constructed in the neighborhood.
Councilmember Bukkila asked if the topic could be moved to a workshop meeting of the Council.
Mayor Trude indicated she wanted to see different scenarios.
Councilmember Bukkila felt more information was needed to make a fair review.
Motion by Bukkila, Seconded by Holthus, to table the matter to an upcoming City Council
Workshop. Motion carried 4 ayes, 1 nay (Goodrich).
Mr. Janish will put some material together for the January City Council workshop meeting. Mayor
Trude asked Councilmembers to forward him any questions, so he could be prepared.
Mr. Dickinson encouraged concluding this by the end of February or March so residents can plan
their spring projects. Mayor suggested public comments could go to City Council or Staff.
\DMINISTRA To \devel ORTff updated cil on th\J ation and \remin artment activiti egislative
updates oent/CIP d meeting rs /commun ity ev Its.
10
Andover City Council Workshop Meeting
Minutes —January 23, 2018
Page 3
Mayor Tru asked if Mr. Ban \under felt the Cit hould get somethi on the books an
work on chap slater. Mr. Bar felt if they not have an ordin cc then the City Is
under the laws o the new Statnder their purvie , as to what is app priate under the Statute. He felt it as better foto control their o destiny than to 1 ve it up to the tute. He agreed th Mr. Bt get it into place n and he thought t re may be
ch ges coming. This ig pusbec use of the Super B w] coming into to and a lot of
the c 1 phone carriers ex ect tore c verage downtown d is now moving little further ut of downtown. tat after e Super Bowl is ne things will die own.
The ouncil thought thi should move forty d. Mr. Berkowitz tated they will dra up
an or ' ance and bring it rward to the Coun '1 along with the s gested changes an
place on he consent agenda.
b. Accessory Structures/Portable Storage Units
Mr. Janish stated after two variances had been granted recently by the Council, staff was
provided direction on looking at increasing the square footage of allowable accessory
structures. After the approved variance requests, staff was under the understanding, it
was the City Council's desire to increase the square footage of allowed accessory
structures within the City of Andover.
Mr. Janish stated staff recommends the City Council review and discuss if increasing the
size of allowable accessory structures is appropriate, and if so should the size increase be
based on lot size, and zoning classifications.
Mayor Trude reviewed some of the history of this item with the Council. The Council
discussed an accessory structure going up in the City.
Mr. Dickinson stated if they have a significant number of variance requests that usually
triggers looking at a code amendment. Over the course of ten years there have been only
five variance requests related to accessory structures. Mr. Janish stated in 2011 there
were two variances related to height and setbacks and not related to the actual size of the
structure. Both of those variances were denied. He reviewed other variances throughout
the years.
The Council discussed if the ordinance should be changed since there have not been a lot
of variance requests.
Councilmember Goodrich leaned towards allowing people to do what they want to do
with their property. He is leaning towards changing this because it is private property
and he felt the owner should be able to do what they want on their property.
Councilmember Bukkila stated she understood what Councilmember Goodrich was
saying and felt the larger properties would have the room to do this but she felt the
11
Andover City Council Workshop Meeting
Minutes —January 23, 2018
Page 4
smaller properties would not have the room. In terms of profile and how it looks, some
lots are the entire house and would not be able to have an accessory structure on it. She
did not know if this change would cure any issues that are out there.
Councilmember Bukkila stated she would like to have a review of their accessory
structures and the design they require. She has gotten complaints about why the
requirements are so strict and if there are alternatives to the building materials that could
make it cheaper for landowners particularly on larger lots. She thought if they were
going to open up accessory structures they could look at the materials requirements as
well.
Staff reviewed with the Council the different areas in the City where large accessory
structures are permitted.
Councilmember Bukkila wondered if what they were doing made sense or were they
being so restrictive that in order to afford anything they need to be on a high -end salary.
She wondered if someone has the land with a $200,000 split level home why are they
restricted.
Mr. Patch asked if the concern was with the exterior looks because he thought newer
materials that were not costly looked good. Councilmember Bukkila stated she did not
know if there was something that would satisfy their curb appeal concern but not be so
expensive.
Mr. Patch stated in terms of how the current ordinance works now the ordinance Andover
has right now works well. It seems that the Council's primary concern is should they
allow lots that are larger in all districts to have accessory structures. He thought that one
of the things that should be done is a rewrite of the structure ordinance. He stated they
need to straighten out the ordinance, so it makes sense and they can also look at what
those material standards should be. Mr. Dickinson stated in that instance they would
need to go by zoning district regulations because they would want different districts to
allow different materials. Councilmember Goodrich thought that sounded logical.
Councilmember Bukkila asked if the City is trying to dictate the footprint of the structure
and the type. Mayor Trude stated after the 2002 City bus tour there was a feeling of
proportionality. There should be proportionality within a development. Councilmember
Bukkila agreed but thought they already differed by the lot size requirements. She stated
over the years the houses have gotten bigger on the same size lots and the scale is
different than what it was years ago. She wondered if it mattered what the building is as
long it does not exceed the twelve hundred requirement.
Councilmember Knight stated everyone has their own perspective on what looks nice.
Councilmember Goodrich asked who gets to decide what looks good. He thought it
should be up to the landowner to decide that to a certain extent. Mayor Trude thought
12
Andover City Council Workshop Meeting
Minutes — January 23, 2018
Page 5
this started because of a perceived problem. She did not think they wanted to spend more
time on this until staff can bring forward more information.
The majority of the City Council did not see a problem with the ordinance and did not
think the ordinance should be rewritten.
Mayor Trude thought the architectural design part of the ordinance can be reviewed for
possible changes. She did not hear support for changing the sizes within the districts in
the City.
Mr. Patch thought the ordinance needed reorganization but keep the same standards and
look at some alternative materials that could be used. Mr. Dickinson stated this would be
brought back in February for further review.
C. Ultimate
Mr. Janish statN Tony Denucci w the American stling FederationXWF)
approached city ff and expressed terest in setting u n event within th City of
dover either at a institution/public commercial ven . Due to the curr t Ultimate
F hting Ordinance p hibiting "Ultimat Fighting" regardl s of how named o
des ibed and defines ` himate Fighting" any form of ente ainment where th
prima practice involves individuals engage in physical conta by striking an op nen
with ha s, feet or body, th event cannot occu within the City o ndover.
Mr. Janish s ted staff recomm ds the City Counc discuss the possi 'lity of allowing
this type of ev t to occur and if sired, staff will m ve forward with a otential code
amendment thro h the regular co adoption process.
Janish stated if ere is interest by t Council then sta will need to go ba and try
to termine what mo 'fications need to b made and how th can distinguish b tween
Mayor T de stated they all reed that they di of want Ultimate ighting in Andove%
so she won red if the Counci wanted to see a re ite done for this i m.
Councilmembe Knight stated he - not. Council\no r Holthus state he might, if it
can be used as a ndraiser. She did of want to saprofess ional wres ing, but she
\tha
t to say no ultimate fighting. ayor Trude indi ted she is not sure he wanted
is in Andove Councilmember ukkila stated she not have a probl with
uld happen in e ring, she is more oncerned with wh t was going to ha en in
ing lot.
City Atto ey Baumgartner a ed how this can bb,,written into an or ance to make
sense that nr fessional wrestlin is ok but ultimate ghtin is not. He 'stated this will
Andover City Council Workshop Meeting
Minutes —March 27, 2018
Page 4
The Pla ing &Zoning Co mission left them \ting.
The City Co cil reconvened at :10 p.m.
CODE AMENDMENT DISCUSSION /ACCESSORY STRUCTURES
Mr. Janish explained after two variances had been granted recently by the Council, staff was
provided direction on looking at increasing the square footage of allowable accessory structures.
Mr. Janish reviewed the Accessory Structures Code Amendment with the Council.
Mr. Patch stated when he tries to prepare an ordinance he tries to whittle it down to what needs to
be said.
Mr. Patch reviewed different types of accessory structures with the Council. The Council agreed
they like structures with nicer fagades that complement the homes.
Mayor Trude thought the current variance process works well. Councilmember Holthus agreed.
Mr. Janish showed some out building photos and the Council discussed which ones would be
appropriate.
Councilmember Knight asked if there was a way to require some type of landscaping plan for the
accessory structures.
CI CAMPUS MAS R PLAN UPDA DISCUSSION
Mr. Be owitz reviewed the agade of the public orks facility
Majority of ouncil liked the bl k/grey color for th ew public works c
Mr. Dickinson r iewed the Commu 'ty Center Master P , indicating the
estimated space ne s based on stakeh der input.
DISCUSS 2019 BUD T DEVELOPME T GUIDELINES
Mr. Di inson indicated the
them fort to the Council for
2018 B UDGLY PROGRESS
are muc the same as those
on April 3` .
Mr. Dickinson staN all budgets are oiXrack, no surprises.
13
for 2018. He NI bring
14
Andover City Council Workshop Meeting
Minutes — April 24, 2018
Page 4
Mayor rude stated they st 1 have time to revs w this for adding 1 to their budget for ext year.
RECESS D RECONVEN
The Council re sled at 7:08 p.m. d reconvened at 5 p.m.
CITY CODE AMENDMENT DISCUSSION
Mr. Janish explained after two variances were recently granted by the Council, staff was provided
direction to look at increasing the square footage of allowable accessory structures.
Mr. Janish reviewed the staff report with the City Council.
Mr. Patch noted there are currently three conditions that need to be met in order to construct a pole
structure on a property. Mayor Trade wondered if it should only be allowed in certain zoning
districts.
Councilmember Goodrich thought there was also discussion about architectural design of the
building. Mr. Patch reviewed the new wording with the Council. He stated there is some concern
with who reviews the plans and the subjectivity of the design. Mayor Trade stated they currently
have that issue. Mr. Patch stated that is correct and staff needed to determine a standard.
The Council reviewed the amendment wording with staff.
Councilmember Bukkila agreed to lowering the restrictions to 2.5 acres from 3 acres because she
did not think it would have an impact on the neighborhood. Councilmember Goodrich agreed.
Council agreed the new design standards proposed should go through the approval process.
Mr. Patch noted height was also brought up and Council never wanted to change the height and
the new wording changes it, so he will clean that up and go back to the original wording.
Mayor Trade stated they never discussed the shipping and storage container in the driveway and
wondered if this should be shortened from thirty days to two weeks. Councilmember Bukkila had
mixed feelings about this because some large projects may take longer than two weeks. How
would they accommodate a resident through a remodel without residents abusing it.
Councilmember Goodrich thought two weeks might be a little short.
Councilmember Bukkila thought the temporary storage code proposed reads better than the old
wording.
RURAL P ED UNIT DE OPMENT (PUD) ISCUSSION
Mr. Janish explai ed the City Coun 7 recently review two rural PUD equests. Both
15
CHAPTER 6
ACCESSORY STRUCTURES, USES AND TEMPORARY STRUCTURES
SECTION:
12 -6 -1:
Definition
12 -6 -2:
Construction Prior To Principal Structure
12 -6 -3:
Accessory Structure Height
12 -6 -4:
Size And Construction Requirements
12 -6 -5:
Location And Setback Requirements
12 -6 -6:
Temporary Structures
12 -6 -1: DEFINITIONS:
A. Accessory Structure: For the purpose
mean garages, sheds, utility buildings
to principal structures and uses.
B. Building Height: For the purposes of this S,
vertical distance from the average of grade
adjoining the exterior of the building) to the
surface.
12 -6 -2: CON
structure shall be I
Use Permit.
12 -6 -3: AC
sha
PRIOR TO P
ny lot prior to
sory structure" shall
iilar uses accessory
iilding height shall mean the
-age finished ground level
height of the highest roof
STRUCTURE: No accessory
al structure except by Conditional
STRUCTURE HEIGHT: The maximum building height of
A. Residential Districts: Except as provided by Section 12 -3 -5 of this Title, no
residential accessory structure shall exceed the building height of the principal
structure., and in the R -4 zoning district the maximum accessory structure building
height shall not exceed fifteen (15) feet.
B. Business or Industrial Districts: Maximum accessory structure height in a
commercial or industrial district shall be equal to the building height of the principal
structure, except by conditional use permit or except subject to Section 12 -3 -5.
12 -6 -4: SIZE AND CONSTRUCTION REQUIREMENTS:
A. Residential Districts:
Accessory Structure Area: If an accessory structure or portion thereof serves to
satisfy the minimum garage size requirements of Section 12 -3 -5, then that area,
whether attached or detached, will not be deducted from the maximum allowable
area of accessory structures. The maximum allowable area of residential
accessory structures must not exceed the area specified below:
16
a. Lots In The R -4 District and Lots Less Than 1 Acre — In the R -4 District and in
all other residential districts, on lots of less than one (1) acre the maximum
allowable area of accessory structures shall not exceed fifty percent (50 %) of
the principal structure foundation area (excluding attached garage); and the total
combined area of attached garage and accessory structures shall not exceed
one thousand two hundred (1,200) square feet, whichever is less.
b. Lots 1 Acre To Less Than 5 Acres -- In residential districts other than the R -4
district, on lots of at least one (1) acre but less than five (5) acres, the maximum
allowable area of accessory structures shall not exceed the principal structure
foundation area (excluding attached garage).
c. Lots 5 Acres And Larger -- In residential districts other than the R -4 district, on
lots of five (5) acres and larger, the maximum allowable area of accessory
structures shall be limited only by the setbacks and maximum impervious land
coverage requirements of this code.
B. All Districts: Accessory structures shall not occupy more than twenty five percent
(25 %) of any required rear yard
C. Construction Requirements:
1. To preserve residential neighborhood aesthetics and property values, accessory
structures located:
• closer than the principal structure to a_ property line fronting on a public right of
way; or
• within the Metropolitan Urban
• on any lot of less than two and
shall be located and designed to be
structure. use and neiahborhood.
,rea [MUbH tsounaaryj; or,
.5) acres
turally compatible with the principal
Architectural compatibility shall be accomplished by integrating the exterior design
elements and finishes of the principal structure, use and neighborhood into the
residential accessory Architectural features may include:
• roof pitch (minimum 4:12 required), soffits, gables, dormers,
• fenestration (placement of windows /doors);
• exterior finish colors and textures consistent with or complementary to the
principal structure;
• decorative exterior finishes, siding, wainscot and veneers (brick, stone,
stucco, EFIS, etc.),
• decorative lighting, and
• landscaping.
2. Except as allowed by Section 12 -6 -5 C for Farm Animals /Livestock, exterior roof
and wall finishes of galvanized or unfinished metal panels are not allowed on
residential accessory structures.
3. Where a determination of architectural compatibility cannot be made by the
Building Official or Zoning Administrator, the determination must be made in
17
accordance with Title 9, Section 9 -1 -4.
12 -6 -5: LOCATION AND SETBACK REQUIREMENTS:
A. Setbacks:
1. Front Yard Setbacks:
a. In all districts accessory structures shall not be located nearer the front lot line
than the principal structure; except on residential lots with a lot area of one (1)
acre or more, the minimum front yard setback is sixty feet (60').
b. In all districts, front yard setbacks for
principal structures (See Section 12 -;
i. Accessory structures located on
cul -de -sac, shall be setback at l
adjacent cul -de -sac lot.
ii. Where less than the minimum rigf
11 -3 -3 exists, accessory structure
the right -of -way width required by
tructures are the same as for
as specified below:
)rner lot adjacent to a lot that fronts on a
as far as the principal structure on the
)f -way required by City Code Section
�tbacks shall be measured assuming
:v Code 11 -3 -3.
iii. Accessory structures located in a yard adjacent to a county road shall have
a minimum setback of fifty (50) feet from the property line; except in the R -4
district, where the minimum setback shall be forty (40) feet.
iv. For lots abutting county roads or arterial streets, where less than 120 feet of
right -of -way exists, the setback for accessory structures shall be measured
assuming a sixty -foot (60') right -of -way on each side of the existing right -of-
way centerline.
2. Side Yard and Rear Yard Setbacks
a. Residential Districts::ln all residential districts, accessory structures shall be
setback at least five (5) feet from side and rear lot lines.
b. Business and Industrial Districts: In business and industrial districts,
accessory structures shall be setback at least ten feet (10') from side and rear
lot lines, subject to provisions for the abutting residential zone provided herein.
B. Drainage and Utility Easements: Accessory structures and structures shall not be
constructed or placed in a drainage or utility easement.
C. Farm Animals /Live Stock: No enclosed accessory structure (barn or shed) in which
farm animals, pleasure /recreational animals or poultry are kept may be located within
one hundred (100) feet of a residential dwelling. No stationary or moveable open
animal shelter may be located within fifty (50) feet of an adjacent residential lot unless
the owner of the adjacent lot is the same parry. The City Council may order the owner
of any farm animals to apply for and obtain a Conditional Use Permit if it is deemed to
be in the interest of the public health, safety, or general welfare.
12 -6 -6: TEMPORARY STRUCTURES: Temporary structures shall be allowed by
either administrative approval or by Conditional Use Permit as otherwise provided by this
title.
A. Administrative Approval: Temporary structures allowed by administrative review and
approval by the city administrator include construction trailers, shipping and storage
containers and tents. Temporary structures allowed by administrative approval,
other than construction trailers, shall be limited to six (6) months in duration. The
City Council may extend the six (6) month time limit, if special circumstances exist.
1. Construction Trailers -- Construction trailers shall be allowed administratively
through the commercial site plan review process and building permits. No
trailers shall be allowed to be used as temporary sales offices.
2. Tents -- Tents for private parties and promotional sales events shall be allowed
up to ten (10) calendar days per year. A tent permit must be applied for by the
property owner or their agent. The Fire Department will review and approve or
deny the application based on conformance with the Minnesota State Fire
Code.
3. Shipping and Storage Containers -- In all zoning districts, moveable shipping
and storage containers shall only be allowed subject to the following limitations:
i. Containers, with or without contents, must not be on a lot for more than
thirty (30) continuous days.
ii. In no
or accessory structure.
r be used as a permanent or temporary
Containers must be placed at least fifteen (15) feet back of curb or
pavement edge, only within the allowed driveway and shall not interfere with
traffic sight lines:
4. Permits And Fees - No permit fees are required for construction trailers.
Permit fees for tents shall be set as stated in Subsection 1 -7 -3A of this code.
Conditional Use Permit: `' Temporary structures allowed by Conditional Use Permit
shall be reviewed subject to the following regulations:
1. There shall be a time limit established for temporary structures to remain on a
site as a part of the Conditional Use Permit review during the construction
process.
2. Prior to issuance of a temporary structure permit, a site plan review must also be
approved.
3. Security measures such as lighting and including connections to the main
structure shall be reviewed as a part of the Conditional Use Permit.
W
19
4. Parking shall be subject to the provisions of Section 12 -14 -10 of this title.
5. Signage shall be subject to the provisions of Section 12 -14 -9 of this title.
6. The Conditional Use Permit will address the date the temporary structure shall be
removed from the property. The applicant will provide a written long -term plan for
its removal.
7. Temporary structures shall follow the required structure setbacks. The temporary
structure is to be located to the side or rear of the site and will be reviewed as a
part of the Conditional Use Permit.
8. All applicable requirements of and the Minnesota State Building Code and
Minnesota State Fire Code shall be met.
9. Provisions for water and sewer servicing a temporary structure shall be subject to
the review and approval of the building' official.
Document Path: H: \Gisdata \Planning\ Projects \LotProportions_only2.5 -3.mxd
By Acre
VON
IN"
11
No IN
m
W.
■ move CC
'�I
: :�.! ON
MEMO —��R:
- Bosom IN
lb 111w ONE
0 MEN
-:
WIN
M
' move
��; .. mo_..11. �, ��
move
1`
i■�
. 111.111 __ •• :.. ..
L�'
.�
��,�
1 _ _,
-
��� ►
,��
– ...........
IN
/r
qty►
r �mini : ��i►�.I►� � � ■� � �.
•
•
■
� �
'
■�
7a
��
.�.■
1111111 !� ��� .•
. . ..
.■ ■■ ■ .
-- . move .....
on, NEj
malign
■ ■
move
■ move■■
MEN Elm
mill
■'
■�■I
•,. `��1..111�1111�%
�'
'
•,,
■0 ��I��`:1 i��� :::: ■17w.1
an OR
I�:::::: a ■ an
:) ti� •■ IIII�1
■_ ::::. •■ _ liiill \� �a . .�.���
.�:::::pAV !r ; :�.1 ■ ..
��
Ab
r . ,11 -....,�::
r•—
1 1
-�
•:1 .!
�
"�'► ` i1'
SIR a.
a�i=
=�i_` big �
-1
.•'o,,;,
.,,move■` . .1... -•
/ /nm.. . —I,
__
- �_••pc
_®
.: ■�►.,,
�' �
V
_`` ��.
;� _f�1,11�1
=-
move■■
Isawo man -
is
�1
-..:: IN
.1� 1' ■ `
Ili:
,�■
■
� rr' � ,■'
:,,.:
■., , ;
1,7711117110' :•9
�
1.a1�'�•I?
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII_
_
..:
R•1
�•
•.-;:���
r ;4`N
I I an
u. a a
- ':•'Pii
• im:r.nu
_ >L �= °111 ■�i
nu3 .•m••
nn ' nn
i° •
��
m'/ _ice Y:�
—
:: ■— !11111 ■ i�
- -- ■�■ ■
m MORE
move �►
e = '111111...r
15,nq`•n'.pN.ld:!
I �i /..anal
. .pll ::
r.raa7u, a__
• c: s. •• 111
: ••:g: =S..'
�.
�•••••••1 ■ ■ ■ ■■ ��,���
� �d •'�
�I
�:.
•�..
Him
.
..
►�mo■ •move• }i: s7s7Y
: •� �.�
��
�r>.
Yom,,
MEd lift"
11
,.....i Ilrlr. ,
...... �•_..3::__.r.r,,•,,',,,, IU y,;a
` :... IFF:��/►'
. '
w�
■I1111� !
�y.�
aEG' -
u1
w11 �� ������1�11
-�/, •. '■ =• iiiii °:
lot
_ ,'eL ......�.. ''.1
S
$ =
::
I j-'7
n'
b
§� r• : / /•_nn ql�j1`�\
AW..:,; ::: =n- Al
....,
-'
��\ / � u Inm :; C �I�
.inn•;: Ii nom.
' •���111111■
�.
....
�` SID
^mol
"iil ,mq�.�;.'
• ,• i1O
_-
nn�
-
- \\.�-!: nmunnnr \
� .r.
.1_.r,....rn.rrur� °\\��7�..
111• ...
=::I =: �: :. ��111111111111111�
e. . nu3::•4.1..4. .I� ,�
�� :��
IIIIImo11111111 mo � , • hiI/I:
• @�•• 4 I'-
:: :: �. q : \.r,..,. ' [
n...,.
:•C %� r °/
1 ii. \lii:�� //Ill//
\P °uu011lmolll_�muuu j
_ ......
a;�i1un111111 • ••u•::S:ii. �n
♦�,': ':
`� \. ••
�
- C nllliiio: �/I:i::73:1t
•'.: .Z14 •'�. :o
%ru. ::S ■I • iir:::i ti•... _:•
= - 111111�1,11� i' a / =i •':�ui
_.1111♦ ♦
��III ;,.•,:.�: 11IIIIIjj�ll1.117:
♦
�: :: o'ii �° rrppI� +'ph�Q
••r
:••�•:: •_..:`��.._S•••i,,lR..��.r,q
r �__.. ui
/IIP�
�,�\�.
2:x•11' ^.`••:: a• :pi 11t \Rlli'
.h �•.` •n .
y;,�s,��h;•: p•t:•:�� .
\\..
.\
?. r. ••
a_a.e�� �'_
•..::::::: _..,,
•.•Ia.:::.1Mls`. °; ;__
:,.�..�we._�: �: ,,;mm�A \ \1 \s . o���l
'Or . ��'
%. =' %,/1 X11 , ... _-
1,.,:
? ?' � ' :� I
a��nn::: ::::5:::::.Qae
y'•,:,� T..3 �.. C.�:_:
`...
►
1 ♦
. ♦ .r..
r.n == �
. nut: _: •
Iuuur. .,.
_,.1111111..`•••,
rl•■
-..2
. • - • . rc ice-:
Y , ,. .10;x. -. •
�% i• ^G:_'��1
■-/7
- Illllll�i
u... rr / / /.. r r r- �•. •
Document Path: H: \Gisdata \Planning\ Projects \LotProportions_only2.5 -3.mxd
1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. • ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304
(763) 755 -5100 FAX (763) 755 -8923 • WWW.ANDOVERMN.GOV
TO: Planning and Zoning Commissioners
FROM: Stephanie L. Hanson, City Planner
SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING: Variance Request — 167`x' Ave NW/Maniteau Blvd NW —
Charles Lein
DATE: June 12, 2018
INTRODUCTION
The property owners /applicants submitted a variance request for the properties located at 167th
Ave NW and Maniteau Blvd NW. The request is to reduce the required width of the lot(s) at the
front yard setback to allow for a future lot split.
DISCUSSION
Variance Review
The proposed variance requests are to reduce the lot width at the front yard setback from 300 feet
to 100 feet for the purpose of subdividing the two (2) properties into three (3) lots. If the
Variance requests are approved, the applicant will work with City staff to begin the process for
the lot splits.
The existing two (2) lots meet code requirements for lot width, depth and area. However, if the
lot is further subdivided, each lot will require a variance for lot width at the front yard setback
but will meet code requirements for fifty (50) feet width at the right -of -way. Attached is an
exhibit showing the proposed variance requests. Existing and proposed lot measurements are as
follows and the variances are highlighted in yellow:
Code Regulations, Existing and Prop osed Dimensions
City Code
Regsfor
Existing
Proposed
Proposed
Proposed
Shoreland
2 lots
Lot 1
Lot 2
Lot 3
Lot Width at
50 ft
330 ft
50 ft
50 ft
50 ft
ROW
Lot Width at
Front Yard
300 ft
315.5 ft
102.36 ft
102.69 ft
110.51 ft
Setback
Lot Depth
250 ft
400+ ft
800+ ft
800+ ft
336+ ft
19.34
5.42
5.26
4.15
Lot Area
4 acres
acres
acres
acres
acres
As shown on the concept plan, the future lot split will create a landlocked property shown as
Lot 4. At this time, the landowners are working with The Nature Conservancy about a
possible Conservation Easement over the property. If the parcel is obtained by an
environmental agency, the access easement will be required over the trail easement. The
Conservation Easement will allow for passive recreation; however, the Conservancy would
reestablish native vegetation and wetlands.
If the Conservancy does not obtain Lot 4, the property must be combined with an adjacent
property as to not create a landlocked parcel. This will be an item that will continue to be
discussed between staff and the property owners.
Review Criteria
The Andover Comprehensive Plan and other adopted plans, such as the Transportation Plan;
and City Codes must be taken into consideration when granting Variances. All of which are
interrelated; therefore, the cause and effect of each topic must be considered when decisions
are made.
Comprehensive Plan
The Comprehensive Plan describes goals, objectives and policies that must be taken into
consideration when the City is planning for the future of the community. The following
goals pertain to the proposed request and have been attached for your review:
Land Use Goals, Objectives and Policies
Goal: Allow residential growth while maintaining the quality of natural resources and
amenities.
The land owners are currently working with a conservation agency to possibly place a
conservation easement on the northern most lot (4). The Conservation Easement would
protect the resources and the property would be enhanced by the planting native vegetation
and restoring the natural wetlands.
Lots within the Rum River development area must be a minimum of four (4) acres. Each of
the proposed lots meets the minimum lot size requirement so the density requirement is
being met. The natural resources (i.e. trees, bluffs, wetlands, floodplain) will be maintained
and further protected through City Codes.
Transportation Goals, Objective and Policies
Goal: Enhance the accessibility by providing an interconnected multi -use trail system.
The proposed trail easement provides an accessible trail system that links the residential
neighborhoods and park area.
Parks & Open Space Goals, Objectives and Policies
Goal: Promote, protect, preserve and enhance the City's natural and open space for the
enjoyment of residents, protection of water and air quality and the preservation of wildlife
habitat.
The plan for a trail easement will provide a connection with the park and trail systems in a
manner that both preserves and allows public enjoyment of the natural area.
Andover Transportation Plan
Like the goals, objectives and policies of the Comprehensive Plan, the Andover
Transportation Plan also describes goals, objective and policies that need to be taken into
consideration.
Goal: Provide multi -model and transportation options, enhancing accessibility and providing
an interconnected multi -use trail system, whenever and wherever feasible and advantageous.
The proposed trail easement provides an accessible trail system that links the residential
neighborhoods and park areas.
City Code Variance Criteria
12 -14 -7 and 13 -5 -9 outlines criteria when considering variances. Code states "Variances
may be granted when the applicant for the variance establishes that there are practical
difficulties in complying with the official control. "Practical difficulties" as used in
connection with the granting of a variance, means:
12 -14 -7 Variance Criteria
The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by an
official control.
• Required lot widths at the public right -of -way is 50 feet. Each lot meets the required
width at the right -of -way. Fifty (50) feet from the right -of -way the lot width is required to
be 300 feet. The proposed lot widths of 100 feet provide ample access and room to
construct homes while still leaving enough of a buffer space between the neighboring
properties.
• Obtaining an additional building pad will not alter the character of the neighborhood.
Without the variance, lots 1 & 3 buildable area will remain in the same location.
Eventually homes will be constructed on these lots. With the variance, a driveway
for lot 2 will be visible; however, the building pad is set back to the west, next to the
Rum River, and will not be visible from the street.
The plight of the property owner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by
the landowner.
• City codes continue to evolve and change over time. The land has been in the Russell
family for seven (7) generations. The original land has been developed a bit at a time.
During the 1960's and 70's, the one (1) acre parcels surrounding the land were
developed, along with the 2 -acre parcels along the river. As codes have changed, so have
the lot sizes of the surrounding parcels.
The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality and will not alter the
rural residential character.
• The density requirement in the Rum River district is 4 acre minimums per lot. The
approval of the variance will allow for the subdivision of the land that will create 3 — 4+
acre lots and a 20+ acre landlocked parcel which will be addressed during the lot split
process. The further subdivision of the land will follow the density requirement in the
rural residential /Rum River development area.
• The structure setback from neighboring properties will be a great enough distance to
retain the rural character and will be buffered by the existing vegetation.
• The lot and surrounding properties are heavily wooded. A minimal number of trees
would be removed for the construction of the new home; therefore, the rural woodsy feel
of the area will remain.
• Obtaining an additional building pad will not alter the character of the neighborhood.
Without the variance, lots 1 & 3 buildable area will remain in the same location.
Eventually homes will be constructed on these lots. With the variance, a driveway
for lot 2 will be visible; however, the building pad is set back to the west, next to the
Rum River, and will not be visible from the street.
13 -5 -9 Bluffland and Riverland Development Variance Criteria
Granting of the variance is not contrary to the purpose and intent of the zoning provisions
herein established by these standard and criteria and is consistent with the Management Plan
for the Rum River.
• The variance will not increase the density within the Rum River area. Code requires
each lot to be a minimum of four (4) acres. The proposed lots exceed four (4) acres
in size.
A variance may not be granted to allow any use which is not a permitted or conditional use
in the Rum River land use district.
• Residential development is a permitted use.
Granting of the variance will not alter the essential character of the locality as established
by the Management Plan for the Rum River.
• Obtaining an additional building pad will not alter the character of the neighborhood.
Without the variance, lots 1 & 3 buildable area will remain in the same location.
Eventually homes will be constructed on these lots. With the variance, a driveway
for lot 2 will be visible; however, the building pad is set back to the west, next to the
Rum River, and will not be visible from the street.
• The home on lot 2 will be visible from the river. The homes on lots 1 and 3 will be
visible from the roadway.
Tree Preservation/Riverland Development
As shown on the attached site photos, the properties are heavily wooded; as is the surrounding
neighborhood. City Code 13 -5 Bluffland and Riverland Development emphasizes the
preservation of trees and has strict regulations on tree removal. The vast majority of the existing
vegetation on the properties is protected by code. Clear cutting is allowed in areas designated for
construction. Selective (minimal) cutting and understory pruning or cutting is allowed on trees
less than four (4) inches in diameter. The remaining vegetation must remain intact and
protected.
Andover Review Committee (ARC)
Staff reviewed the variance proposal. Comments are attached for your review. Staff comments
pertain to items that will need to be addressed at the time the property is further subdivided; at
which time, all staff comments will need to be satisfactorily addressed.
As part of the Comprehensive Plan and Andover Transportation Plan, it's a City goal to
interconnect trails, parks and neighborhoods. When the residential development known as
Timber River Estates (to the north) was developed, the City recommended the connection of the
two (2) neighborhoods. A trail easement from Argon Street to the north would have made the
connection. However, the connection was not obtained.
The proposed development and trail easement dedication would complete the connection of the
existing neighborhood to Timber Rivers Park and the Timber Rivers Estates neighborhood. Staff
recommends the property owners continue to work with staff to ensure the proper placement for
a trail easement. The attached map shows the potential trail location.
Agency Reviews
City Code 13 -5 Bluffland and Riverland Development regulates development along the Rum
River in order to protect and preserve the scenic, recreational, natural, historical and scientific
values of the Rum River in a manner consistent with Minnesota Statutes and the Management
Plan for the Rum River. The City of Andover is the governing unit to administer the code.
As part of the administration process, the City is required to notify the Minnesota Department of
Natural Resources ( MNDNR) of all land use requests within the Rum River development area.
The public hearing notice and staff report were sent to the Area Hydrologist; in which a thirty
(30) day review period for the proposal is required. At this time, MNDNR acknowledged the
request but did not provide staff with comments.
If the variances are granted, the applicant will be required to submit an application to the Lower
Rum River Watershed Management Organization (LRRWMO) and obtain a permit prior to any
land disturbance of one (1) acre and greater.
NEXT STEP
If the variances are granted, the lot split will be completed administratively. The applicant will
be required to submit grading plans, soil borings, tree protection plan, and surveys. The survey
must reflect trail location. A wetland delineation has been completed and is under review by the
LRRWMO. The applicant and City staff will continue to work together to ensure the goals of the
Comprehensive Plan are met; and Commission, Council and staff comments are satisfactorily
addressed.
ACTION REQUESTED
The Planning and Zoning Commission is asked to hold a public hearing for the variance requests,
compare the variance requests with the review criteria of City Code 12 -14 -7 and make a
recommendation of approval or denial based on findings of fact to the City Council. Staff
drafted resolutions with potential findings of fact the Commission may want to consider when
recommending approval or denial of the variance requests. If City Council approves the Variance
requests, then the applicant will work with staff to begin the process of the lot split.
Attachments
Resolutions of Approval and Denial
Location Map
Applicant's Letter
Staff Comments, May 31, 2018
Resident Letter and Petition of Support
Comprehensive Plan Goals, Objectives, and Policies
- Land Use, Transportation, Parks and Open Space
City Code 13 -5 Bluffland and Riverland Development Review Criteria and Purpose
City Code 12 -14 -7 Zoning Code Review Criteria
Site Photos
Variance Exhibit
Potential Trail Location
FEMA Floodway Map
Proposed Lot Split Maps
R ctfu su 'tted,
Step an e L. Hanson
City Planner
Cc: Richard Lein, 16640 Roanoke St NW, Andover, MN 55304
CITY OF ANDOVER
COUNTY OF ANOKA
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RES. NO XXX
A RESOLUTION APPROVING VARIANCES FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 167th
AVENUE NW AND MANITEAU BOULEVARD NW, PIN'S 12- 32 -25 -31 -0024 AND 12 -32-
25 -33 -0025, LEGALLY DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT A
WHEREAS, the property owners have requested approval of variances to reduce the width of the
lot at the front yard setback; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to published and mailed notice thereof, the Planning and Zoning
Commission has conducted a public hearing on said variances; and
WHEREAS, as a result of such public hearing, the Planning and Zoning Commission
recommended approval of the variances based on the variance review criteria for granting a
variance under City Code 12 -14 -7 B and 13 -5 -9; and
WHEREAS, City Council completed a review of the variances, along with Planning and Zoning
Commission recommendation; and
WHEREAS, City Council approves the variances to reduce the required width at the front yard
setback from 300 feet to 102.36 feet; 300 feet to 102.69 feet; and 300 feet to 110.51 feet for the
future lot split of the existing lots; and
WHEREAS, based on the criteria for granting a variance under City Code 12 -14 -713 and 13 -5 -9,
City Council finds the following findings of fact to support the approval of the variance requests:
• Required lot widths at the public right -of -way is 50 feet. Each lot meets the required
width at the right -of -way. Fifty (50) feet from the right -of -way the lot width is required to
be 300 feet. The proposed lot widths of 100 feet provide ample access and room to
construct homes while still leaving enough of a buffer space between the neighboring
properties.
• Obtaining an additional building pad will not alter the character of the neighborhood.
Without the variance, lots 1 & 3 buildable area will remain in the same location.
Eventually homes will be constructed on these lots. With the variance, a driveway
for lot 2 will be visible; however, the building pad is set back to the west, next the
Rum River, and will not be visible from the street. There will be one (1) visible
home from the river view.
• City codes continue to evolve and change over time. The land has been in the Russell
family for seven (7) generations. The original land has been developed a bit at a time.
During the 1960's and 70's, the one (1) acre parcels surrounding the land were
developed, along with the 2 -acre parcels along the river. As codes have changed, so have
the lot sizes of the surrounding parcels.
• The structure setback from neighboring properties will be a great enough distance to
retain the rural character and will be buffered by the existing vegetation.
• The lot and surrounding properties are heavily wooded. A minimal number of trees
would be removed for the construction of the new home; therefore, the rural woodsy feel
of the area will remain.
• Lot widths of neighboring properties range from 181 feet to 500+ feet. Although lot
widths vary in the area, the rural woodsy feel of the area remains intact.
• Residential development is a permitted use.
• The variance will not increase the density within the Rum River area. Code requires
each lot to be a minimum of four (4) acres. The proposed lots exceed four (4) acres
in size.
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council acknowledge the
dedication of a trail easement will meet the goals within the Andover Comprehensive Plan
and Andover Transportation Plan to provide an accessible trail link between an existing park
and neighborhoods for passive recreational purposes.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Andover hereby
approves the variances with the following conditions:
1. The lot splits must be approved within one year of the approval of the variances.
Variance approvals will be invalid after such time.
2. Trail easement location must be determined by staff and dedicated to the City at the time
of the approval and filed with Anoka County.
3. Proposed lot 4 must be combined with an existing lot or be placed in control and
managed by an environmental agency; provided a recreational trail easement is allowed.
4. Lot split approval is contingent upon adhering to all other city requirements being met for
lot splits.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Andover this day of 2018.
ATTEST CITY OF ANDOVER
Michelle Hartner, City Clerk Julie Trude, Mayor
P
EXHIBIT A
Legal Descriptions
PIN 12- 32 -25 -31 -0024
THAT PRT OF GOVT LOT 6 SEC 12 TWP 32 RGE 25 LYG WLY OF C/L OF ARGON ST &
ITS NLY EXTN, EX THAT PRT DESC AS FOL: COM AT A PT ON S LINE OF GOVT LOT
5 SD SEC 343.97 FT W OF SE COR THEREOF, TH N AT RT ANGTO SD S LINE 1200 FT,
TH W AT RT ANG 33 FT, TH N AT RT ANG 10 FT, TH N 21 DEG 29 MIN 17 SEC E 130.76
FT, TH N 89 DEG 56 MIN 08 SEC W 190.67 FT TO POB AKA. PT "A", TH S 89 DEG 56 MIN
08 SEC E 190.67 FT, TH N 21 DEG 29 MIN 17 SEC E 49.26 FT, TH N 963.08 FT, TH W AT
RT ANG 233 FT, TH S AT RT ANG 740.59 FT TH S 22 DEG 14 MIN 10 SEC E TO A PT
208.71 FT N OF POB AS MEAS AT RT ANG TO SD S LINE OF GOVT LOT 5, TH S 208.71
FT TO POB, ALSO EX THAT PRT OF SD GOVT LOT 6 DESC AS FOL, BEG AT SD PT
"A", TH N 89 DEG 56 MIN 08 SEC W 200 FT, TH N AT RT ANG TO SD S LINE OF GOVT
LOT 5 267.88 FT, TH E PRLL /W SD S LINE 175.71 FT, TH S 22 DEG 14 MIN 10 SEC E TO
A PT 208.71 FT N OF POB AS MEAS AT RT ANG TO SD S LINE, TH S 208.71 FT TO POB,
ALSO EX THAT PRT OF SD GOVT LOT 6 DESC AS FOL, COM AT SD PT "A", TH N 89
DEG 56 MIN 08 SEC W 200 FT TO POB, TH CONT N 89 DEG 56 MIN 08 SEC W 200 FT,
TH N AT RT ANG TO S LINE OF SD GOVT LOT 5 267.66 FT, TH E AT RT ANG TO
INTER/W A LINE DRAWN N FROM POB, TH S AT RT ANG 267.88FT TO POB, ALSO EX
THAT PRT OF GOVT LOT 6 DESC AS FOL, COM AT A PT ON S LINE OF GOVT LOT 5
SD SEC 343.97 FT W OF SE COR THEREOF, TH N, ASS BRG, AT RT ANG TO SD S LINE
1200 FT, TH W AT RT ANG 33 FT, THN AT RT ANG 10 FT, TH N 21 DEG 29 MIN 17 SEC
E 180.02 FT, TH N 963.08 FT TO POB, TH CONT N TO N LINE OF SD GOVT LOT 6, TH
WLY ALG SD N LINE TO ELY SHORE OF RUM RIVER TH SLY ALG SD ELY SHORE
LINE TO INTER/W A LINE DRAWN ON A BRG OF W FROM POB, TH ON A BRG OF E
TO POB, EX RD, SUBJ TO EASE OF REC
PIN 12- 32 -25 -33 -0025
THAT PRT OF GOVT LOT 5 LYG NLY & ELY OF THE C/L OF THE RUM RIVER, WLY
OF THE C/L OF MONITEAU BLVD NW, & NWLY OF FOL DESC LINE: COM AT SE COR
OF SD LOT, TH W ALG S LINE THEREOF 376.97 FT, TH N AT RTANG 787.28 FT, TH N
56 DEG 55 MIN 20 SEC W 448.51 FT, TH NWLY ON CURVE TO RT WITH RAD OF
1237.62 FT & CEN ANG OF 5 DEG 39 MIN 51 SEC 194.4 FT, TH N 47 DEG 55 MIN 20 SEC
W 121.76 FT, TH NWLY ON CURVETO RT WITH RAD OF 57.56 FT & CEN ANG OF 10
DEG 35 MIN 22 SEC 10.64 FT TO POB OF LINE TO BE DESC, TH S 48 DEG 44 MIN 58
SEC W 665 FT +OR- TO N SHORE OF RUM RIVER & THERE TERM, EX RD, SUBJ TO
EASE OFREC
CITY OF ANDOVER
COUNTY OF ANOKA
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RES. NO XXX
A RESOLUTION DENYINGVARIANCES FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1671' AVENUE
NW AND MANITEAU BOULEVARD NW, PIN'S 12- 32 -25 -31 -0024 AND 12- 32 -25 -33 -0025,
LEGALLY DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT A
WHEREAS, the property owners have requested approval of variances to reduce the width of the
lot at the front yard setback; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to published and mailed notice thereof, the Planning and Zoning
Commission has conducted a public hearing on said variances; and
WHEREAS, as a result of such public hearing, the Planning and Zoning Commission
recommended denial of the variances based on the variance review criteria for granting a
variance under City Code 12 -14 -7 B and 13 -5 -9; and
WHEREAS, City Council completed a review of the variances, along with Planning and Zoning
Commission recommendation; and
WHEREAS, City Council denies the variances to reduce the required width at the front yard
setback from 300 feet to 102.36 feet; 300 feet to 102.69 feet; and 300 feet to 110.51 feet for the
future lot split of the existing lots; and
WHEREAS, based on the criteria for granting a variance under City Code 12 -14 -713 and 13 -5 -9,
City Council finds the following findings of fact to support the denial of the variance requests:
INSERT FINDINGS OF FACT
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Andover hereby denies
the variance requests to reduce the lot width at the front yard setback.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Andover this day of 12018.
ATTEST CITY OF ANDOVER
Michelle Harmer, City Clerk Julie Trude, Mayor
EXHIBIT A
Legal Descriptions
PIN 12- 32 -25 -31 -0024
THAT PRT OF GOVT LOT 6 SEC 12 TWP 32 RGE 25 LYG WLY OF C/L OF ARGON ST &
ITS NLY EXTN, EX THAT PRT DESC AS FOL: COM AT A PT ON S LINE OF GOVT LOT
5 SD SEC 343.97 FT W OF SE COR THEREOF, TH N AT RT ANGTO SD S LINE 1200 FT,
TH W AT RT ANG 33 FT, TH N AT RT ANG 10 FT, TH N 21 DEG 29 MIN 17 SEC E 130.76
FT, TH N 89 DEG 56 MIN 08 SEC W 190.67 FT TO POB AKA PT "A ", TH S 89 DEG 56 MIN
08 SEC E 190.67 FT, TH N 21 DEG 29 MIN 17 SEC E 49.26 FT, TH N 963.08 FT, TH W AT
RT ANG 233 FT, TH S AT RT ANG 740.59 FT TH S 22 DEG 14 MIN 10 SEC E TO A PT
208.71 FT N OF POB AS MEAS AT RT ANG TO SD S LINE OF GOVT LOT 5, TH S 208.71
FT TO POB, ALSO EX THAT PRT OF SD GOVT LOT 6 DESC AS FOL, BEG AT SD PT
"A", TH N 89 DEG 56 MIN 08 SEC W 200 FT, TH N AT RT ANG TO SD S LINE OF GOVT
LOT 5 267.88 FT, TH E PRLL /W SD S LINE 175.71 FT, TH S 22 DEG 14 MIN 10 SEC E TO
A PT 208.71 FT N OF POB AS MEAS AT RT ANG TO SD S LINE, TH S 208.71 FT TO POB,
ALSO EX THAT PRT OF SD GOVT LOT 6 DESC AS FOL, COM AT SD PT "A", TH N 89
DEG 56 MIN 08 SEC W 200 FT TO POB, TH CONT N 89 DEG 56 MIN 08 SEC W 200 FT,
TH N AT RT ANG TO S LINE OF SD GOVT LOT 5 267.66 FT, TH E AT RT ANG TO
INTER/W A LINE DRAWN N FROM POB, TH S AT RT ANG 267.88FT TO POB, ALSO EX
THAT PRT OF GOVT LOT 6 DESC AS FOL, COM AT A PT ON S LINE OF GOVT LOT 5
SD SEC 343.97 FT W OF SE COR THEREOF, TH N, ASS BRG, AT RT ANG TO SD S LINE
1200 FT, TH W AT RT ANG 33 FT, THN AT RT ANG 10 FT, TH N 21 DEG 29 MIN 17 SEC
E 180.02 FT, TH N 963.08 FT TO POB, TH CONT N TO N LINE OF SD GOVT LOT 6, TH
WLY ALG SD N LINE TO ELY SHORE OF RUM RIVER TH SLY ALG SD ELY SHORE
LINE TO INTER/W A LINE DRAWN ON A BRG OF W FROM POB, TH ON A BRG OF E
TO POB, EX RD, SUBJ TO EASE OF REC
PIN 12- 32 -25 -33 -0025
THAT PRT OF GOVT LOT 5 LYG NLY & ELY OF THE C/L OF THE RUM RIVER, WLY
OF THE C/L OF MONITEAU BLVD NW, & NWLY OF FOL DESC LINE: COM AT SE COR
OF SD LOT, TH W ALG S LINE THEREOF 376.97 FT, TH N AT RTANG 787.28 FT, TH N
56 DEG 55 MIN 20 SEC W 448.51 FT, TH NWLY ON CURVE TO RT WITH RAD OF
1237.62 FT & CEN ANG OF 5 DEG 39 MIN 51 SEC 194.4 FT, TH N 47 DEG 55 MIN 20 SEC
W 121.76 FT, TH NWLY ON CURVETO RT WITH RAD OF 57.56 FT & CEN ANG OF 10
DEG 35 MIN 22 SEC 10.64 FT TO POB OF LINE TO BE DESC, TH S 48 DEG 44 MIN 58
SEC W 665 FT +OR- TO N SHORE OF RUM RIVER & THERE TERM, EX RD, SUBJ TO
EASE OFREC
Date Created: June 06, 2018
Disclaimer. The provider makes no representation or warranties with respect to the reuse of this data. LOCATION MAP
n r,AA.%%,,.Lm n i n n n n„
Date Created: June 06, 2018
Disclaimer: The provider makes no representation or warranties with respect to the reuse of this data.
2 June 2018
Planning Commission /Planning staff
City or Andover
Re: Russell /Lehn Property PIN# 12- 32 -25 -31 -0024, and PIN# 12- 32 -25 -33 -0015
This letter serves to request the City of Andover to review and approve the variance application
submitted for the Russell /Lehr property. The proposed land change has three planned parcels
that meet criteria for lots adjacent to the river including adequate building pad square footage
and primary and secondary septic sites, four acre minimum plots, river bluff and all other set-
backs except the lineal frontage requirement at the front setback. The current required 300' lineal
frontage at the set back (50') is requested to be approved at 100' lineal frontage and a variance is
sought by the owners in order create these three lots. The 100 lineal feet does not adversely
affect any of the three lots and there is ample space to accommodate driveways and maintenance
areas in each of the proposed lots. The proposed lots' lineal frontage measurements will
resemble other grandfathered lots in the neighborhood and will not be an unordinary
characteristic to the neighborhood.
Along with the planned parcels, the owners wish to provide a trail easement to the City of
Andover,(should the City decide to accept) that would connect the existing neighborhood to
Timber River Park and its respective neighborhood in order to make a scenic trail connection and
provide for a recreation amenity to the Community. The City would undertake at some point in
the future, the cost of construction of said trail, however a 15' trail easement would be provided
and cross lower river bottom portions of the land. It is proposed that this trail be created as a
Veteran's Memorial Scenic Rum River trail in special remembrance of its past owner WWII
Marine Corp Warrant Officer Clyde A. Russell and his loving wife Mary A. Russell. The owners
would request the City to consider 1.5 park dedication credits to be granted towards the donation
of said easement to be an amount in lieu of paying full park dedication credits on proposed three
parcels. Should the variance be approved, the owners would like to discuss with the City of
Andover other options in purchasing remaining acres of land. The owners request the Planning
Commission recommend the City Council approve said variance and consider trail easement
option. Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Charles Lehn
Owner Representative
m
m
J
V)
C
a
a
Q
1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N W. • ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 • (763) 755 -5100
FAX (763) 755 -8923 • WWW.ANDOVERMN.GOV
MEMORANDUM
TO: Stephanie Hanson, City Planner
FROM: David Berkowitz, Director of Public Works /City Engineerlxtm-�
Jason Law, Asst. City Engineer
AAA `j 31,
DATE: X2018
REFERENCE: Lehn /Russell Property/Variance Request/Review #1
The following comments are regarding Review #1:
1. Lot 4 is proposed to be landlocked. It either would need to be attached to Lot 3, or to
another existing property to the north or east that has road frontage.
2. The proposed trail shown on the plan is not identified as a regional trail in the City's
Comprehensive Plan. Therefore, it would be considered an interior trail and the developer
would be responsible for the cost of constructing the trail. Easement would also be
required from the property to the north for the trail to extension.
3. Provide a 15' wide Vehicle Maintenance Access and Trail Easement along the east side
of Lot 3 up to the northern property line. It is currently shown as 10'. Typical easement
for this purpose are 20', but due to the limited lot pad space on Lot 3, 15' would be
sufficient in this case. Construct a class 5 base with topsoil /seed on top. This is used to
maintain a control valve that prevents water from the Rum River backflowing into the
property and provides access to other storm sewer infrastructure. Moving the trail east
from it's current location would require some tree removal as currently laid out.
4. A permit will be required from the Lower Rum River Watershed Management
Organization as more than 1 acre will be disturbed.
5. Floodway and Flood Plain boundaries and elevations must be identified on the plans.
Drainage and Utility Easements shall be dedicated in all areas encompassing the 100 -
year flood elevation of the Rum River (861.0).
6. Please review all City Codes for compliance.
7. Additional comments pending further review.
Note: It is a requirement that the Developer respond to each of these items in writing
diaital copv from Citv and type responses below original comment) when re- submitting
the revised plat to the City. If you have any questions, feel free to contact Jason Law, Assistant
City Engineer at (763) 767 -5130 or David Berkowitz, Director of Public Works /City Engineer at
(763) 767 -5133.
V/
f--
uJ o
� N
O�
U�
LL }
U-
<�
U)
Stephanie Hanson
From: LeeAnn Horton <Ikhorton763 @outlook.com>
Sent: Wednesday, June 6, 2018 9:48 AM
To: Stephanie Hanson
Subject: Variance hearing
For the record Harvey and I have no problem with approving the request of variances for PIN 12- 32 -25 -31 -0021
32 -25 -33 -0025.
Any further information needed from us contact us.
LeeAnna Horton
Aral ovY✓ MrJ
Sent from my iPad
02 June 2018
This is a request for support towards a land use change and variance in order to create three (four
acre) buildable lots on the "intersection" of Maniteau Blvd and 167'' Lane NW for the property
owned by Mr. and Mrs. Irwin Russell, Mr. and Mrs. Arnold Reese, Mr. and Mrs. Richard Lehn,
Ms. Rosella Baker, and Ms. Gail Hemsworth, all heirs to the late Mr. and Mrs. Clyde A. Russell
family. The three proposed four acre parcels, (which are portions of PIN 12- 32 -25 -31 -0024,
28.39 acres and PIN 12- 32 -25 -33 -0015 , 6.86 acres) all meet lot acreage requirements, buildable
house and septic square footage amounts, and all river bluff criteria except the lot width
dimensions at the front setback. The minimum lineal feet per current requirements are 300' at the
front setback and for these three proposed lots, the requested variance to the city is to allow a
100 lineal feet at front setback for each lot. There is no interference with driveways or any other
known reason to require the arbitrary 300'. The owners therefore, are requesting a variance be
granted to allow this setback dimension to be approved. Again, all other criteria to create these
lots will be met per city requirements. Other lots in the area were grandfathered in and do not
meet the 300' or river acreage now, and therefore this is not an unordinary characteristic for
parcels in this neighborhood.
The owners will also allow the City of Andover, (should it choose to do so), to utilize a trail
easement that would connect the neighborhood in general to the Timber River Park to the north
and its collective neighborhood community via the lower river bottom portions of the parcels.
The owners would like to dedicate this trail easement for public use as the Veteran's Scenic
Memorial Rum River Trail with special dedication to WWII Veteran U.S. Marine Corp Warrant
Officer Clyde Russell and his loving wife Mary Russell. Please support this variance approval
and the land use change associated with these parcels as the owners desire to sell their
collaborative ownership in this property. Your support will be presented to the City Planning
Commission and City Council in their respective meetings when this topic is addressed.
Thank you on behalf of all owners associated
Sincerely,
Irwin Russell
Please support by signature and address below:
2.
'1
Vk 16 Y 3J "6,-JW s/— A,/ ml ss �
c�
l
1 I l Gi lbq 14 k
abh WOV Mo
&ader-s)A 1 ,1o7f; 7 A!'ao ] J l / V L(/ Avdpl-e(MA)-��61K
I
__ 1
1 J r�J i LD
gloo
J I t
�i
i
L '
i 1 i i
I •.
I
rt,
�� -- °-- - - _
................... ..........
�)
- m
% i
0 j -
J ..tf
i m i
4 / - -_ - -
1
i n I IE+ry
u
I
I
- o AT
I kES
-- I- Notes: PUD /Scenic River
--
Lot Layout
Proposed Minimum Width - 200111
_ Minimum Area - 4 acres
� ✓�, Fysb: 50 It
Sysb: 10 ft 110 it
K w +�_ a t a .• l - Rysb: 50 ft
13,600 SF minimum buildable area
- - -- _ - 5011 min frontage at street
150 ft OHWL Setback
OWH -853.0
19'RN AVENUE Floodplaln X661.0
Bluff location based on Chapter 4
IE, ff// ..•' Shoreland Management -
zsos
i'- _ —�, � • ¢� 4 Top of Bluff - higher point of SOft segment
with average slope exceeding 18%
,.,:' : �- `�`' • '' +v- m Bluff Impact Zone - Bluff & land located
within 20ft from top of bluff
i
• .. RUM RrVER _
pN WAE IC T GR ---- MTAEGCII Albi w, Re SS9 RIFRIGHTTO�YM➢"NNEWIWiE IIFINl1'OEIIIfYTYT T1tl NMIMIR%PIIGNWM Lflr IO.
1[E I}CLMMGCMNG 'JISi.IIrtM NKA WIMTM�p
MCNMTI[MIOC iw SVPWVCi SSWCRV rIM1®Mlayl A9M ®aY1<GUpgaYCNFLT Wr61E�114pTINTI � FILE M]
_ __ _ �_ _ _�ul "ourluwErumrmrwuwevral�ml>H O "+. - Concept Plan 3 Lot - 051718
crtcuon __ -_ _-- LLE�oow. x,- o..urEawzsm. `"1N8O'"'Q "rzwzf•`"4fA SATHRE- BERGOUIST. INC. LEH
_ Im.wlN Narar.. r:,,rxa "uE.Nl mcawm ANDOVER, N /RUSSELL PROPERTY
pO° __ _ __18E10"rumlecuzraESraxzleiE roa o.wcEZwlaEalreN.aiw.rs �� .✓J MINNESOTA �.
CHARLIE LEHN
N�� u
DOVE R 2008 Comprehensive Plan Update
V)
o The amendment is in the best interest of the City of Andover as
J
p W
determined by the City Council
J
Z J
g Q
• Review Comprehensive Plan amendments concerning a proposed land use
0
change with the following criteria:
w 0
>W�
• Conditions have changed since the present land use designation w
Z D w
established such to warrant the proposed amendment or the present lai
W Z
use designation is in error
W g v
e: W
EL
• The proposed land use is compatible with surrounding land uses and wi
M
the goals, objectives and policies of the Comprehensive Plan
0
v
• There is capacity of public systems, facilities and services to serve ti
proposed land use and capacity of these systems to serve other planne..
land uses is not adversely affected
o Agreement can be reached for the applicant of the proposed land use to
pay for any increased capacity of public systems, facilities and services
required to serve the proposed land use
o Potential impacts by the proposed land use on natural resources including
vegetation, wetlands, floodplain and other natural features can be avoided
or sufficiently mitigated as determined by the City Council
o To ensure a transition or buffer between urban and rural residential zoning
districts
Land Use Goals, Objectives and Policies
Goal 4: Allow residential growth while maintaining the quality of natural
resources and amenities
Objective: Clearly define areas for urban and rural residential development
Objective: Promote orderly growth to ensure efficient utilization and delivery of
community services
Objective: Prevent extension of infrastructure that is inconsistent with the
Comprehensive Plan
Objective: Work cooperatively with resource protection agencies and
organizations to minimize the impact of development on natural
resources and amenities
Objective: Create opportunities for the city to preserve open space
and natural amenities through review of development proposals
and implementation of the Parks and Open Space Plan
4
NbOA 2008 Comprehensive Plan Update
Policies:
• Maintain a Municipal Urban Service Area (MUSA) Boundary to define the
boundary between the Developing Community and Rural Residential planning
area designations of the 2030 Regional Development Framework
• Stage urban development within the MUSA Boundary to ensure orderly growth
and cost efficient expansion of infrastructure
• Review and update the staging plan periodically to address changes in times and
conditions
• Prohibit platting of property without municipal sewer and water within the MUSA
Boundary
• Restrict lot splits without municipal sewer and water within the MUSA Boundary
• Encourage infill development within the MUSA Boundary with appropriate
transitions to existing neighborhoods
• Allow rural development outside of the MUSA Boundary consistent with the Rural
Residential Land Use Designation
• Require existing conditions information to be provided during the development
review process to allow evaluation of opportunities to preserve and protect
natural features and open space
• Engage local watershed management organizations and other appropriate
agencies and organizations in the review of development proposals
Goal 5: Encourage appropriate economic growth and redevelopment
Objective: Develop a diversified tax base through balanced development of
commercial, light industrial, and residential properties
Objective: Create a downtown area by aggregating commercial land uses
along Bunker Lake Boulevard between Hanson Boulevard and
Crosstown Boulevard
Objective: Select strategic locations for neighborhood and community
commercial sites and establish design performance standards for
such uses that promote quality site design and compatible land use
arrangements
Objective: Prevent the intensification of neighborhood commercial areas that
may negatively affect surrounding residential properties
U)
w
>
NDOVI✓ zoos Comprehensive Plan Update �-
aw
Policies: 8 M
m
Z
• Adhere to best management practices and all components of the Implementatic g J
Plan during the planning, construction and maintenance of the transportation w O
system > (7
ZZ
• Separate non - motorized traffic from arterial and collector roadways u1 O
1:~U)
Qw
• Encourage joint parking facilities to conserve land —
�O�
ap
Goal: Enhance accessibility by providing an interconnected multi- o Z p
use trail system Cr Z
Objective: Provide an accessible trail system that links residential
neighborhoods, commercial developments, and park areas
Objective: Utilize multiple funding sources to complete the regional and local
trail systems
Objective: Coordinate trail construction with street improvement projects, new
development, expansion and redevelopment projects
Policies:
• Maintain a map of existing and future local and regional trails and coordinate trail
planning, construction and maintenance in the Capital Improvement Plan
• Fund regional trail system improvements adjacent to residential properties with
trail fees collected from new residential developments
• Require regional trail construction adjacent to commercial and industrial
properties, where shown on the trails plan, in conjunction with development,
expansion and redevelopment projects
• Require local trail construction adjacent to residential, commercial and industrial
properties, where shown on the trails plan, in conjunction with development,
expansion and redevelopment projects
• Develop trails in accordance with the American Association of State Highway
Transportation Officials (AASHTO) standards
• Coordinate trail and sidewalk improvements, where appropriate, with Anoka
County and neighboring cities
10
I r 11
VDV 2008 Comprehensive Plan Update
• Accept only lands suitable for park and recreation purposes as fulfillment of the
0 ¢ w_
0 U
parkland dedication requirements.
C7
Z w O
• Utilize the Capital Improvement Plan to schedule replacement of existing park
g U a-
facilities and installation of new facilities
w a z
• Utilize the Park and Recreation Commission to advise the Council on matters
z w w
relating to parks, recreation and park facilities
w >
LU
06
• Provide regulations and policies for park use and park dedication
a Y �
M
oU
• Consider the adopted Guidelines for Field Usage by Youth Athletic Association
a
• Work cooperatively with other organizations and government agencies to
enhance local and regional park systems
Goal 2: Promote, protect, preserve and enhance the City's natural
and open space for the enjoyment of residents, protection of water
and air quality and the preservation of wildlife habitat
Objectives:
Consider development of passive, nature - related recreation or
conservancy areas on sites found to be suitable for these purposes
b. Identify appropriate areas for preservation through analysis of
natural features, the Site Selection Criteria established in the Parks
and Open Space Plan and the Land Use Plan
C. Plan for and Provide connections with the park and trail systems in a
manner that both preserves and allows public enjoyment of natural areas
d. Seek to provide buffer areas adjacent to significant natural resources and
parks
Policies:
• Work collaboratively with property owners in the preservation of open space
• Permanently protect open space with conservation easements, even when fee
title acquisition and other methods are used.
• Prepare, implement and monitor the effectiveness of conservation plans that
address the specific characteristics of the various types of natural areas
• Utilize the Open Space Advisory Commission to advise the Council on matters
concerning preservation of open space
12
2. Where a setback pattern from the ordinary high water mark has already
been established on both sides of a proposed building site, the setback of
❑
the proposed structure may be allowed to conform to that pattern. This
z
provision shall apply to lots that do not meet the minimum lot width
requirements in Subsection 13 -5 -56 of this chapter. (Ord. 223, 8 -19 -1997)
L9 > z
13 -5 -9: VARIANCES: Variances to the strict provisions of this chapter may
-w UJ
o ❑ a
be granted as provided in City Code 12 -14 -7 and as follows
o Q o
(Amended Ord. 407, 6- 21 -11):
o
A. Granting of the variance is not contrary to the purpose and intent of the
v L °
zoning provisions herein established by these standards and criteria, and
U-
is consistent with the Management Plan for the Rum River.
m
B. A variance may not be granted to allow any use which is not a permitted
or conditional use in the Rum River land use district. (Amended Ord. 407,
6- 21 -11)
C. Granting of the variance will not alter the essential character of the locality
as established by the Management Plan for the Rum River. (Ord. 223, 8-
19 -1997; amd. 2003 Code)
13 -5 -10: PLATS: ('
A. Copies To State: Copies of all plats within the boundary of the Rum River
land use district shall be forwarded to the Commissioner within ten (10)
days of approval by the City Council.
B. Inconsistent Plats: Approval of a plat which is inconsistent with this
chapter is permissible only if the detrimental impact of the
inconsistency is more than overcome by other protective characteristics
of the proposal. All inconsistent plats approved by the city must be
certified in accordance with Section 13 -5 -13 of this chapter. (Ord. 223,
8 -19 -1997)
13 -5 -11: AMENDMENTS:
A. Amendments Authorized; Certification: This chapter may be amended
whenever the public necessity and the general welfare require such
amendments by the procedure specified in this section. Amendments to
this chapter must be certified by the Commissioner as specified in
Section 13 -5 -13 of this chapter.
B. Initiation Of Amendment; Application: Amendments to this chapter
may be initiated by a petition to the Planning and Zoning Commission
or by action of the City Council. An application for an amendment
l
t
CHAPTER5
BLUFFLAND AND RIVERLAND DEVELOPMENT
SECTION:
13 -5 -1:
Policy And Authorization
13 -5 -2:
Purpose
13 -5 -3:
General Provisions
13 -5 -4:
Definitions
13 -5 -5:
Scenic River District Regulations And Requirements
13 -5 -6:
Administration Of Provisions
13 -5 -7:
Permits Required
13 -5 -8:
Nonconforming And Substandard Uses
13 -5 -9:
Variances
13 -5 -10:
Plats
13 -5 -11:
Amendments
13 -5 -12:
Conditional Use Permits
13 -5 -13:
Certification Procedures
13 -5 -14:
Violation; Penalties
13 -5 -1: POLICY AND AUTHORIZATION: These provisions are for the
controlling of bluffland and riverland development in order to protect and
preserve the scenic, recreational, natural, historical and scientific values of the
Rum River in Andover in a manner consistent with Minnesota Statutes and the
Management Plan for the Rum River. (Ord. 223, 8 -19 -1997)
13 -5 -2: PURPOSE: The purpose of this chapter is to:
A. Establish a scenic river district along the bluffland and shoreland of
the Rum River as required by the Management Plan for the Rum
River.
B. Regulate within the Rum River district, a land use district, the area of the
lots, and the length of bluffland and water frontage suitable for building
sites.
C. Regulate the setback of structures and sanitary waste treatment facilities
from bluff lines and shorelines to protect the existing and /or natural
scenic values, vegetation, soils, water quality, floodplain areas, and
bedrock from disruption by manmade structures or facilities.
D. Regulate alterations of the natural vegetation and topography.
E. Maintain property values and prevent poorly planned development.
F. Conserve and protect the natural scenic values and resources of
the Rum River and maintain a high standard of environmental
quality.
G. Comply with Minnesota Statutes and the Management Plan for the Rum
River. (Ord. 223, 8 -19 -1997)
13 -5 -3: GENERAL PROVISIONS:
A. Jurisdiction: The jurisdiction of this chapter shall include all lands
designated within the Rum River land use district within the jurisdiction of
Andover as defined in the Management Plan for the Rum River.
B. Compliance With Provisions: The use of any land within the Rum River
land use district; the size and shape of lots; the use and location of
structures on lots; the installation and maintenance of water supply and
waste disposal facilities; the filling, grading, lagooning, or dredging of any
river area; the cutting of vegetation or alteration of the natural topography
within the district; and the subdivision of land shall be in full compliance
with the terms of this chapter and other applicable regulations.
C. Interpretation And Application: In their interpretation and application, the
provisions of this chapter shall be held to be minimum requirements, and
shall not be deemed a limitation or repeal of any powers or rights granted
by Minnesota Statutes.
D. Severability: It is hereby declared to be the intent of the City that
several provisions of this chapter are separable in accordance with the
following:
1. If any court of competent jurisdiction shall adjudge any provision of this
chapter to be invalid, such judgment shall not affect any other provisions
of this chapter not specifically included in said judgment.
2. If any court of competent jurisdiction shall adjudge invalid the
application of any provision of this chapter to a particular property,
building, or other structure, such judgment shall not affect the application
of said provision to any other property, building, or structure not
specifically included in said judgment.
E. Abrogation And Greater Restrictions: It is not intended by this chapter to
repeal, abrogate or impair any existing easements, covenants, deed
restrictions, or land use controls. Where this chapter imposes greater
restrictions, the provisions of this chapter shall prevail. (Ord. 223, 8 -19-
462.354 subdivision 2, and Minn. Stat. 462.357, subdivision 6, shall have
the authority to hear requests for variances from the requirements of the
zoning ordinance and other sections of the City Code where variances
are authorized, including restrictions placed on nonconformities.
(Amended Ord. 407, 6- 21 -11)
B. Review Criteria:
1. Variances shall only be permitted when they are in harmony with the
general purposes and intent of the official control and when the variances
are consistent with the comprehensive plan. (Amended Ord. 407, 6- 21 -11)
2. Variances may be granted when the applicant for the variance
establishes that there are practical difficulties in complying with the official
control. `Practical difficulties," as used in connection with the granting
of a variance, means:
a. The property owner proposes to use the property in a
reasonable manner not permitted by an official control;
b. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to
the property not created by the landowner;
c. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of
the locality;
d. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical
difficulties. (Amended Ord. 407, 6- 21 -11)
C. Conditions Authorized: The City Council may impose conditions in the
granting of variances. A condition must be directly related to and must
bear a rough proportionality to the impact created by the variance.
(Amended Ord. 407, 6- 21 -11)
D. Specific Variances Authorized: No variance may be granted that would
allow any use that is not allowed in the zoning district in which the subject
property is located, except as follows: (Amended Ord. 407, 6- 21 -11)
1. Variances shall be granted for earth sheltered construction as defined
in Minn. Stat. 216C.06, subdivision 14, when in harmony with the official
controls. (Amended Ord. 407, 6- 21 -11)
2. Variances may be granted for the temporary use of a one family
dwelling as a two family dwelling. (Amended Ord. 407, 6- 21 -11)
E. Procedure: The procedure for granting variances is as follows:
1. Request For Variance; Fee: A person desiring a variance shall fill out
and submit to the Community Development Director a request for variance
U)
Za
�o�
LUC7
U
❑ww
C) Z
?Cr
U Z Q
O>
7
O
w
Q
a z
Y
O
J
11 i
1 `
_
+ 1
,
Lu
1 ,1 'v 111 W
if
I 1 I 11 r•, 1 I , /,
I / 1 1 „ ,,, 1•l, / , r
I I \ „ • \ ,1,11, � �
r ,
r I 1
(r2 r,I
'
` / ' ,' ___ -� -'Yr ` \\ i i \`I �♦`\ \``x"6'1 i '''T �^_E1. )' / r I // i � i
_ -___ / /'�' _`\ \\ PI it \ +1', \'1 t1 \\ \' / � I�I� /�f, \Y�''� A•r'' /ji '. i i (/ 1, N �f I
\ / / / r / I III ♦I 1 Y I 1 1 ,� ����1 ,1 1 / i
ni i ,,44 //11, r/ . � \. r i `::\♦ j i i 1 I I I
,l
' �' � i ' i ' i /i y�• / � r�. 11 v 1 i i i i i rvy i i it /r i %/i
`l
r
r /
_-i _____ S 2'E�/ �' axN' ,'L:sr�_i� �^y___ / _ -r,��' 11 ♦ \.. i i / i
T P recursy+� \. m II 11 '1\< 9r/• �'
,--nE 1 1
I X
I
RUM RIVER
it
P ii 1
---- - - - - -� ------ - - - - -- - -'BIP_ --------------- -_ -- 11 ---- -
- ------ ---- �.g' - --11 /
___--------------- '----------dSP"' __ i • ,x 111`\ - i i i lyii i /
gig- - �qP_____________ __ ______yy�._ " -_
-- 98P.____
- 858- -_____ --- -" _ 9 __, -854
r
mm
W
W
U
Z
Q
Q
AN OVER Andover General Mapping Map
Date Created: June 07, 2018
Disclaimer. The provider makes no representation or warranties with respect to the reuse of this data.
AN, OVER Andover General Mapping Map
,? ,
Date Created: June 07, 2018
Disclaimer: The provider makes no representation or warranties with respect to the reuse of this data.
a
c
v
N
x
NIN N'N
oA
a
z
o
Z
i
2
H
1
■
2
1
1
■
!
h,
e.
•
■
1
U1 NW
ESyTH (N A,w
2
3
2
z
z
S
z
F
o
I"TN AVE NW
aa,�
0
�
3
I
A
N
i
9
2
c
s
g
0
LLI
Date Created: June 07, 2018
Disclaimer: The provider makes no representation or warranties with respect to the reuse of this data.
AN OVER Andover General Mapping M---
f�,,,,,,,,,�„
Date Created: June 01, 2018
Disclaimer., The provider makes no representation or warranties with respect to the reuse of this data.
a
Q
r
Q
0
O
O
J
LL
Q
LLJ
LL
<
M
X
C
K
;0
M
X
T
20 MID SF
2
229,539 of
5,2m�
----- ------
----------
4
-- --------------
------------
---- --- -------- - -----
------------- ---
ILL
3
ISO
VA SI
I SF
Q 167TH AVENUE NW
LL� f7uTu aa
---- ---- --
----------
----------
----- ---- ---
I - -----------------------
-------------
11•
ILI
X
C
K
;0
M
X
T
20 MID SF
2
229,539 of
5,2m�
----- ------
----------
4
-- --------------
------------
---- --- -------- - -----
------------- ---
ILL
3
ISO
VA SI
I SF
Q 167TH AVENUE NW
LL� f7uTu aa
---- ---- --
----------
----------
----- ---- ---
I - -----------------------
-------------
11•
RUM MVER
TL
V,
40.
BY
DATE
REVISIONS
USE,INCLUDINIC COPYING, DISTRIBUTION AND/OR CONVEYANCE OF
INFORMATION) OF THIS PRODUCT IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED WITHOUT
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN OR SPECIFICATION WAS
PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I
4i
1
SATHRE-BERGOUIST, INC.'S EXPRESS WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION, USEW[THOU�
AM A DULY REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE
--------------
- --
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
--
SAID AUTHORIZATION CONSTITUTES AN ILLEGITIMATE USE AND SHALL THEREBY
LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA.
- -
-- --
- --
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
-
INDEMNIFY SATHIRE-BERGGUIST, INC. DFAUL RESPONSIBILITY.
F— Cb T:
- -
-- --
- --
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
-
SATHRE�ERGQUIST, INC. RESERVES THE RIGHT TO HOLD ANY ILLEGITIMATE
- -
-- --
- --
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
-
USER OR PARTY LEGALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR DAMAGES OR LOSSES RESULTING
N P.E.
Lk. W.
X
C
K
;0
M
X
T
20 MID SF
2
229,539 of
5,2m�
----- ------
----------
4
-- --------------
------------
---- --- -------- - -----
------------- ---
ILL
3
ISO
VA SI
I SF
Q 167TH AVENUE NW
LL� f7uTu aa
---- ---- --
----------
----------
----- ---- ---
I - -----------------------
-------------
11•
RUM MVER
TL
----------
------- MW
40.
BY
DATE
REVISIONS
USE,INCLUDINIC COPYING, DISTRIBUTION AND/OR CONVEYANCE OF
INFORMATION) OF THIS PRODUCT IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED WITHOUT
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN OR SPECIFICATION WAS
PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I
SATHRE-BERGOUIST, INC.'S EXPRESS WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION, USEW[THOU�
AM A DULY REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE
- --
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
--
SAID AUTHORIZATION CONSTITUTES AN ILLEGITIMATE USE AND SHALL THEREBY
LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA.
- -
-- --
- --
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
-
INDEMNIFY SATHIRE-BERGGUIST, INC. DFAUL RESPONSIBILITY.
- -
-- --
- --
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
-
SATHRE�ERGQUIST, INC. RESERVES THE RIGHT TO HOLD ANY ILLEGITIMATE
- -
-- --
- --
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
-
USER OR PARTY LEGALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR DAMAGES OR LOSSES RESULTING
N P.E.
Lk. W.
FROM II-LLGn MATE USE
G)
0
z
171 -----
171
-4
z
I - - - - -- - - - -
CITY PROJECT NO
Notes: PLID/Scenic River
Lot Layout -
Proposed Minimum Width - 1 00ft (at front
setback)
Minimum Area - 4 acres
Fysb: 50 ft
Sysb: 10 ft / 10 ft
Rysb: 50 ft
13,600 SF minimum buildable area
50ft min frontage at street
150 ft OHWL Setback
OWH- 853.0
Floodplain -861.0
Bluff location based on Chapter 4
Shoreland Management -
Top of Bluff - higher point of 50ft segment
with average slope exceeding 18%
Bluff Impact Zone - Bluff & land located
within 20ft from top of bluff
IN 50 0 W IN 200
11111111116mJ 6"emomi
SCALE IN FEET
z
I Concept Plan 3 Lot - 060418
SATHRE-BERGQUIST, INC.
150 SOUTH BROADWAY WAYZATA, MN. 5838I (952) 4768000 ANDOVER, LEHN/RLISSELL PROPERTY
MINNESOTA CHARLIE LEHN
FILE NO
50398-001
It
Uj
X
D
LL
cn L
UJ
L)
Z U)
< 1--
EE 0
<
W
U)
0
Nn-
o
LL
LOCATION MAP
/ I V
I �A
a
I
I .w.
SITE
LOCATION ' 1
Notes: PUD /Scenic River
Lot Layout -
Proposed Minimum Width -100ft (at front
setback)
Minimum Area - 4 acres
Fysb: 50 ft
Sysb: 10 ft / 10 ft
Rysb: 50 ft
13,600 SF minimum buildable area
50ft min frontage at street
150 ft OHWL Setback
OWH= 853.0
Floodplain =861.0
Bluff location based on Chapter 4
Shoreland Management -
Top of Bluff - higher point of 50ft segment
with average slope exceeding 18%
Bluff Impact Zone - Bluff 8L land located
within 20ft from top of bluff
Too 50 0 50 iao zao
SCALE IN FEET
1,
DRAWING NAME i NO. I BY I DATE I REVISIONS USE (INCLUDING COPYING, DISTRIBUTION, ANDIOR CONVEYANCE OF I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PL ANOreSE(AFQ]AT ➢ oNWA!S E 9L _1111 rnu1�i". FILE NO.
B_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ INFORMATION) OF THIS PRODUCT IS STRICTLY PROHIBRED WITHWT PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I t t s4 - Concept Plan 3 Lot - 060418 „�,
ECHMECKEDBY SATHREAERGOUIST,INC.'eE RESSWRITTENAUTHORIZATION. USEWITHOUT AM A DULY REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE
— -- - -- ---------- - - - - -- SAID AUTHORIZATION CONSTITUTES AN ILLEGITIMATE USE AND SHALL THEREBY LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA $ SATHRE- BERGQUIST, INC.
— _ -- ------ ---- -- - - -- INDEMNIFY S ATHRE- BERGOUIST . INC. OF ALL RESPONSIBILITY. 158 SOUTH BROADWAY WAYUTA, MN 55391 (9SL >ITBA000 ANDOVER, LEHN /RUSSELL PROPERTY
---------- - - - - -- SATHREAERGOUIST. INC. RESERVES THE RIGHT TO HOLD ANY ILLEGITIMATE USER OR PARTY LEGALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR DAMAGES OR LOSSES RESULTING Name, RE. VGy` MINNESOTA CHARLIE LEHN
_______ - - -- FROMILLEGITMATE USE FRS P�'' 2
-- - -- - - - -- Dale: Lk. No.
0
Z
Q
j$W
Z
6