Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/09/20171685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. • ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 • (763) 755-5100 FAX (763) 755-8923 • WWW.ANDOVERMN.GOV Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda May 9, 2017 Andover City Hall Council Chambers 7.00 p.m. 1. Call to Order 2. Approval of Minutes — March 14, 2017 Work Session and Regular Meeting; April 11, 2017 Regular Meeting 3. PUBLIC HEARING: Variance Request —14791 Blackfoot Street NW — LeRoy and Sandra Wameka 4. PUBLIC HEARING: Conditional Use Permit Amendment/Revised Planned Unit Development — Andover Clocktower Commons — Classic Construction 5. PUBLIC HEARING: Preliminary Plat — Andover Clocktower Commons 2nd Addition — Classic Construction 6. PUBLIC HEARING: City Code Amendments to Title 12 Zoning Regulations and Title 13 Planning and Development 7. Other Business 8. Adjournment 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. • ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 • (763) 755-5100 FAX (763) 755-8923 • WWW.CI.ANDOVER.MN.US TO: Planning and Zoning Commissioners FROM: Stephanie L. Hanson, City Planner SUBJECT: Approval of Minutes — March 14, 2017 Work Session and Regular Meeting; April 11, 2017 Regular Meeting DATE: May 9, 2017 REQUEST The Planning and Zoning Commission is requested to approve the work session and regular meeting minutes from March 14, 2017 and April 11, 2017 regular meeting. 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION WORKSHOP MEETING 9 MARCH 14, 2017 10 11 12 The Workshop Meeting of the Andover Planning and Zoning Commission was called to 13 order by Commissioner Koehler on March 14, 2017, 6:30 p.m., at the Andover City Hall, 14 1685 Crosstown Boulevard NW, Andover, Minnesota. 15 16 Commissioners present: Commissioners Scott Hudson, Bert Koehler IV, Steve 17 Peterson and Jeff Sims 18 19 Commissioners absent: Timothy Cleven, Kyle Nemeth, Dean Daninger 20 21 Also present: Community Development Director Joe Janish 22 City Planner Stephanie Hanson 23 Associate Planner Dan Krumwiede 24 Others 25 26 27 DISCUSS ANDOVER COMPREHENSIVE PLANAMENDMENT — RURAL 28 RESERVE RESIDENTL4L LAND USE DENSITY CHANGES 29 30 Stephanie reviewed the proposed Comp Plan amendment with the Commission utilizing 31 illustrations drawn on the white board. 32 33 She indicated that she planned to keep the explanation simple at the hearing at the 34 Commission meeting. She acknowledged that the language is a little hard to follow, but 35 it is what is used by Met Council and is specific to their work. She reported that 10 36 residents had called the City and that 130 public hearing notices were mailed out. Most 37 residents were asking for clarification. Two residents came in to the offices and one sent 38 in an email that will be shared at the Commission meeting later. The current Comp Plan 39 states that you can split a 40 acre area into 20 acres and you can have 2 houses. This 40 applies to the entire rural reserve area. And you can have 2 units per 40 acres, according 41 to City Code. This Comp Plan amendment allows residents to go to 4 units per 40 acres, 42 and also meets Met Council policy. The City is going to adopt the language proposed to 43 "get up to snuff' with the Met Council language. 44 45 Chairperson Daninger arrived at 6:36 pm. 46 Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Workshop Meeting Minutes —March 14, 2017 Page 2 1 Ms. Hanson continued by stating that if you follow these provisions in the zoning code, 2 you can go as small as 5 acres, however the rest (20 acres) would be a preserve. The 3 illustration showed 4, 5 acre lots and 20 acres of preserve in a 40 acre area. She noted 4 that the home has to be placed in such a way to allow for water/sewer/future roads etc. 5 6 Commissioner Koehler asked about splitting lots once every 3 years and if that would 7 apply. Ms. Hanson confirmed that this is correct and noted that residents were concerned 8 that the whole 40 acres was going to be split into 5 acre plots. These homes need road 9 frontage, so that will be limiting financially. Ms. Hanson also noted that the rural reserve 10 was already designated for future urban development in the previous Comp Plan. 11 12 Commissioner Hudson inquired if they have to ghost plat the whole 40 acres. Ms. 13 Hanson indicated, not a full plat, but that would be the next step. There will need to be a 14 decision about how much detail is wanted and that is part of the zoning code. 15 16 Commissioner Koehler asked how this came about. Ms. Hanson responded that the 17 family came to the City and stated they would like to do this and the Council agreed. 18 19 Ms. Hanson commented that there are about 600 developable acres left in the City. 20 21 Mr. Janish asked what would happen if they only have 39.5 acres when surveyed. Ms. 22 Hanson replied that the City would have to talk to Met Council. 23 24 Commissioner Sims asked why this would not be part of the Comp Plan process coming 25 up. Ms. Hanson stated the acreage had been left to 5 members of the family and the 2 26 youngest grandchildren would really like to build homes on the property. The Council 27 would like to get some homes built. This parcel is the last that will see urban 28 development and the Council considered how long the City should hold the land, 29 acknowledging the property is their land, while the City has the tools to preserve it. 30 31 Commissioner Sims noted that the immediate density does not change, but the future 32 density could change. Commissioner Hudson responded that some density is limited by 33 sewer and water, which must be in place first. 34 35 Ms. Hanson confirmed that there would likely be a work meeting at the end of March 36 where more information will be brought forward for discussion. 37 38 Commissioner Peterson arrived at 6:49 pm. 39 40 Ms. Hanson stated that this is the most developable part of the rural reserve area, 41 referring to the area south of 161St, west of Hanson Blvd, and east of Round Lake Blvd. 42 43 Chairperson Daninger stated that the goal of this meeting was simply to discuss the 44 matter in preparation for the Commission meeting. He responded that he believes that Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Workshop Meeting Minutes — March 14, 2017 Page 3 1 this matter is being driven by the Council now. He commented that this area is set aside 2 for urban development, but is called "rural reserve," so it is a little confusing. 3 4 Ms. Hanson confirmed that the sewer capacity would be fine, but they do not know about 5 the soils yet. Some of this is coming about because Atlas 14 is raising flood elevations. 6 As part of the Comp Plan update there will be more discussions about that. 7 8 OTHER BUSINESS 9 10 There was no other business. 11 12 ADJOURNMENT 13 14 Motion by Daninger, seconded by Hudson, to adjourn the meeting at 6:55 p.m. Motion 15 carried on a 5 -ayes, 0 -nays, 2 -absent vote (Cleven and Nemeth). 16 17 18 Respectfully Submitted, 19 20 Marlene White, Recording Secretary 21 TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. 22 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING — MARCH 14, 2017 The Regular Bi -Monthly Meeting of the Andover Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order by Chairperson Daninger on March 14, 2017, 7:00 p.m., at the Andover City Hall, 1685 Crosstown Boulevard NW, Andover, Minnesota. Commissioners present: Commissioners Scott Hudson, Bert Koehler IV, Steve Peterson and Jeff Sims Commissioners absent: Timothy Cleven and Kyle Nemeth Also present: Community Development Director, Joe Janish City Planner, Stephanie Hanson Associate Planner, Dan Krumwiede Others APPROVAL OFMINUTES. February 28, 2017, Workshop Meeting No changes from staff. Commissioner Koehler recommended corrections as follows: Page 2, line 19, add "the" to "go to the school district" Page 2, line 23, add a comma after the word "meeting" February 28, 2017, Regular Meeting No changes from staff. Commissioner Koehler recommended corrections as follows: Page 3, line 2, add the word "because" after the word "removed," and change "steeper" to "too steep" Page 3, line 4, insert "off -sale" before the word "liquor" Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes — March 14, 2017 Page 2 1 Motion by Koehler, seconded by Peterson, to approve the February 28 Workshop and 2 Regular Meeting minutes as amended. Motion carried on a 4 -ayes, 0 -nays, 1 -present 3 (Peterson), 2 -absent vote (Cleven and Nemeth). 4 5 PUBLIC HEARING: Andover Comprehensive Plan Amendment—Rural Reserve 6 Residential Land Use Density Changes 7 8 City Planner Hanson reviewed the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment with the 9 Commission. The CPA request is being made by Jake and Jon Packer to allow the 10 subdivision of land within the Rural Reserve District to be made into parcels smaller than 11 what is currently allowed in the Comprehensive Plan. City Council provided direction to 12 staff to proceed with a CPA and ordinance to address future development within the rural 13 reserve area. The City has reached an agreement with the Metropolitan Council that 14 areas designated for residential development in the rural reserve will be developed at 3 15 unit/houses per net acre once MUSA is available. Staff is proposing to retain a density of 16 1 unit/house per 10 acres; however with the adoption of an ordinance, the minimum lot 17 size may be reduced to 5 acres as long as the provisions in the ordinance are addressed at 18 the time of the lot split or subdivision. The intent of the ordinance is to allow subdivision 19 of land while preserving the land for future urban development. Once the CPA is 20 submitted to the Met Council, staff will begin to work on the zoning ordinance that 21 coincides with the CPA. 22 23 Ms. Hanson stated that approximately 130 notices regarding the public hearing were sent 24 out to residents. There were 10 inquiries. 25 26 Commissioner Koehler asked what the future was of this land. Ms. Hanson stated that 27 somewhere down the road this area is planned for urban development when services 28 become available. 29 30 Commissioner Peterson asked about getting access to the remaining 20 acres if there 31 were 4 - 5 acre parcels [along 1615`]. Ms. Hanson stated that will happen at the time of 32 the plat work. As part of that, they will have to plan for how the lots would be accessed, 33 which is part of the zoning code. 34 35 Chairperson Daninger clarified that "rural reserve" really means urban development, 36 specifically higher density development once municipal utilities become available. This 37 action does not change that. 38 39 Motion by Koehler, seconded by Sims, to open the public hearing at 7:12 p.m. Motion 40 carried on a 5 -ayes, 0 -nays, 2 -absent vote (Cleven and Nemeth). 41 42 Mike Olson, 3052 153`d Avenue, asked a series of questions, starting with what are the 43 road frontage requirements. Ms. Hanson responded 300 ft. Mr. Olson inquired about 44 the dirt road on the south. Ms. Hanson stated all lots within the city require road 45 frontage. He continued by asking if there are services available now on the south side. Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes —March 14, 2017 Page 3 1 Ms. Hanson stated that rural reserve lots are served by individual septic and well. Mr. 2 Olson asked if there was a Master Plan for the area. Ms. Hanson stated that there was a 3 sketch plan at one time. He followed up by asking if there would then be a need to 4 amend the Comp Plan and why do that now. He asked if property owners had 5 approached the City and would these changes hinder potential future development. He 6 expressed that he did not want to set up a potential situation that would be a hindrance 7 down the road to a bigger plan for the site. He recommended doing a master plan first. 8 As a neighbor, he would like to see a coordinated approach to looking at the whole 9 spectrum of possibilities. He also wondered about getting access to the road from the 10 rural reserve area and if there would need to be an easement. 11 12 Lee Packer, 3074 161st Ave, spoke on behalf of the Packer family and stated that their 13 parcels had been in their family since the 1930s. On the 40 acres in question, his 14 grandparents had a house there. He has been involved with the land since 1992. Their 15 family did not have a choice at the time and their land was put in the rural reserve area. 16 Splitting up the land inherited by the family equals 8 acres a piece and they are trying to 17 find a way to continue to enjoy the family property. The plan has always been to use 18 their land this way so that they can preserve their lifestyle. If the area is fully developed, 19 their family is not interested in staying there. In the current term, they would like to 20 enjoy the land and his sons would like to build homes on the land. He noted that the 21 amendment gives his family the ability to continue using the land that has been in the 22 family for 70 years. 23 24 Mr. Olson came back to the podium and acknowledged his support for a long-term 25 resident wanting to do something with their property. He stated he was trying to make 26 sense of the proposed change without pressing the issue. 27 28 Chairperson Daninger stated that there will be time for forward thinking about the Master 29 Plan. 30 31 Motion by Koehler, seconded by Hudson, to close the public hearing at 7:23 p.m. 32 Motion carried on a 5 -ayes, 0 -nays, 2 -absent vote (Cleven and Nemeth). 33 34 Mr. Peterson asked what was known about the soils on the site of the 40 acres. Ms. 35 Hanson confirmed that the Packer site is buildable, but there is a lot of area in the rural 36 reserve area that has a lot of peat. 37 38 Commissioner Sims asked if a property owner could sell all of their land to a developer. 39 Ms. Hanson replied that they could but a developer would be held to the same 40 requirements of the rural reserve area, they would also need to meet the density 41 requirements. 42 43 Chairperson Daninger stated that the 40 acres is an example of how the new 44 considerations are going to be applied throughout the entire rural reserve area. 45 Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes —March 14, 2017 Page 4 1 Commissioner Koehler asked if the MUSA line follows the outside edge related to the 2 rural reserve. Ms. Hanson confirmed that it follows the outline, including on the edge of 3 Round Lake. 4 5 Mr. Hudson asked Ms. Hanson if she had checked with other Cities with similar 6 situations. Ms. Hanson confirmed that she had similar circumstances when she worked 7 in Forest Lake. He followed up by asking if there was a demand for mid-size lots. Ms. 8 Hanson stated that was the case. 9 10 Commissioner Sims asked if there had been feedback from the written notices. Ms. 11 Hanson confirmed that the City had to notify residents all around rural reserve area. She 12 indicated she received calls about the public hearing notice; they wanted clarification and 13 information on the proposal. There was one resident opposed. The email was submitted 14 and will become part of the public record. 15 16 Commissioner Koehler asked what happens after approval. Ms. Hanson stated there will 17 be a need to set up zoning regulations to allow for the 5 acre lot splits. She indicated that 18 the process is hoped to be completed by the beginning of May. There would be another 19 public hearing process. 20 21 Commissioner Sims inquired as to how many unique land owners were in the rural 22 reserve area. Ms. Hanson believes there were less than one dozen and they will be 23 involved in the discussions of the rural reserve area during the 2018 Comp Plan update. 24 25 Motion by Koehler, seconded by Peterson, to recommend to the City Council approval of 26 Resolution No. amending the comprehensive land use plan of the City of Andover 27 to include the following: within the rural reserve residential land use, to allow one unit 28 per ten acres with the opportunity to allow one unit per five acres with the compliance of 29 ordinance provisions as proposed. Motion carried on a 5 -ayes, 0 -nays, 2 -absent vote 30 (Cleven and Nemeth). 31 32 City Planner Hanson stated that this item would be before the Council at the Tuesday, 33 March 21, 2017 City Council meeting. 34 35 OTHER BUSINESS 36 37 So far in 2017, the City has issued 22 single family housing permits. Dunkin Donuts will 38 be opening by the end of the week, following one more fire inspection. At the Shoppes 39 at Andover, Joy Kitchen will open mid-April. The movie theatre has requested a building 40 permit to redo the seating to have luxury recliners; as a result there will be one-half the 41 amount of seats. Walgreens is being remodeled to add a minute -type clinic. The Estates 42 at Arbor Oaks is undergoing inspections. Of note is the catering kitchen was changed to 43 a commercial kitchen with the ability to serve meals to all the residents of the complex. 44 Online permitting so far has yielded 145 online permits in the amount of $7,800. Online 45 permitting saves residents money. 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes —March 14, 2017 Page 5 ADJOURNMENT Motion by Koehler, seconded by Sims, to adjourn the meeting at 7:36 p.m. Motion carried on a 5 -ayes, 0 -nays, 2 -absent vote (Cleven and Nemeth). Respectfully Submitted, Marlene White, Recording Secretary TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING —APRIL 11, 2017 9 10 The Regular Bi -Monthly Meeting of the Andover Planning and Zoning Commission was 11 called to order by Chairperson Daninger on April 11, 2017, 7:00 p.m., at the Andover 12 City Hall, 1685 Crosstown Boulevard NW, Andover, Minnesota. 13 14 Commissioners present: Scott Hudson, Bert Koehler IV, Kyle Nemeth and Steve 15 Peterson 16 17 Commissioners absent: Timothy Cleven and Jeff Sims 18 19 Also present: Community Development Director, Joe Janish 20 City Planner, Stephanie Hanson 21 Associate Planner, Dan Krumwiede 22 Others 23 24 25 APPROVAL OFMINUTES 26 27 March 14, 2017, Work Session 28 29 No changes from staff or corrections were identified. 30 31 There was not a quorum so the March 15, 2017 Work Session minutes will be considered 32 at the next meeting for approval. 33 34 March 14, 2017, Regular Meeting 35 36 No changes from staff or corrections were identified. 37 38 There was not a quorum so the March 15, 2017 Regular Meeting minutes will be 39 considered at the next meeting for approval. 40 41 PUBLIC HEARING. Preliminary Plat Revisions and Variance Requests — Catcher's 42 Creek 2nd Addition 43 44 City Planner Hanson reviewed the proposed preliminary plat revisions and variance 45 requests for Catcher's Creek 2 Addition. On October 6, 2015, City Council approved 46 the preliminary plat for 27 urban lots. Two variances were granted at that time. Mark Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes —April 11, 2017 Page 2 1 Smith submitted a revised preliminary plat for 28 lots and is requesting 5 additional 2 variances. The revised plan eliminates the 143`d Avenue NW access point to the 3 development; thus creating an additional lot. Ms. Hanson described the individual 4 variance requests related to lot widths for Lots 5, 6, 7, and 8. Ms. Hanson also reviewed 5 the criteria in the City Code for variances. 6 7 Mr. Daninger noted that there were two resolutions in the materials; one if the plat 8 revisions are approved and another if denied. If denied, the findings of fact must be 9 determined. 10 11 Commissioner Peterson requested a review of the criteria for "practical difficulties." He 12 also asked if all of the review criteria needed to be met. Ms. Hanson indicated that all 13 should be met and gave an example of a practical difficulty. 14 15 Commissioner Nemeth asked if the reason for the plat revision was primarily so the street 16 is eliminated as an access point. Ms. Hanson stated that Mr. Smith can answer that 17 question. 18 19 Commissioner Nemeth asked for clarification, believing that the access to lot 6 is not 20 changing, but that a culvert needed to be changed or updated. Ms. Hanson confirmed that 21 the driveway would be in the same place. 22 23 Commissioners asked if the engineering memo was shared with Mr. Smith. Ms. Hanson 24 replied that he did receive engineering comments for the second review of the plat. Today 25 she received the revisions to the plat from the developer; however staff has not had a 26 chance to review the changes yet. The developer may have already addressed staff 27 comments. 28 29 Commissioner Hudson asked how the front of the home is defined. Ms. Hanson stated 30 that the front would be facing Prairie Road as the front lot line is defined as the portion of 31 the property abutting the street. 32 33 Commissioner Koehler asked if there were future plans to widen Prairie Road. Ms. 34 Hanson does not believe so but will verify that with the Transportation. Plan. 35 36 Chairperson Daninger asked about the original plat and variances. Ms. Hanson 37 confirmed there were two variances approved for .6 -feet for lot depth on lots with double 38 street frontage. 39 40 Commissioner Peterson asked what would happen if variances were denied. Ms. Hanson 41 confirmed that the plat would revert back to what has already been approved. 42 43 Motion by Nemeth, seconded by Peterson, to open the public hearing at 7:22 p.m. 44 Motion carried on a 5 -ayes, 0 -nays, 2 -absent vote (Cleven and Sims). 45 Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes—April 11, 2017 Page 3 1 Commissioner Nemeth stated that he was concerned that 143rd would be the only 2 entrance to the development. He also referenced the staff memo citing multiple variance 3 requests. Mr. Smith stated that he did not think he had seen it yet. 4 5 Chairperson Daninger asked Mr. Smith what he would do if denied the plat revision. He 6 stated that he would be disappointed and that he was concerned about the entrance. 7 8 Mr. Smith asked if Carson Ridge was a PUD. Ms. Hanson confirmed that it was a PUD. 9 Ms. Hanson also clarified that there were 2 original variances and 4 new ones for a total to of 6. Mr. Smith was asked to show illustrations of how the driveways might be 11 configured. He stated that he sees the longer driveways as a benefit to the development. 12 He also showed a photo of a house with a side -loaded garage and a front door on the 13 other side, as would be the case on lot 6. He pointed out that the requested variances are 14 small, while still meeting a majority of the City requirements and the lots are very large. 15 There would be 400 homes that would benefit from the new trail connection. 16 17 Commissioner Peterson asked about eliminating one access point to the development. 18 Mr. Smith stated that 144`x' seems to be a better way to split/disperse the traffic. 19 20 Commissioner Nemeth asked how many lots are in Catcher's Creek 15` Addition. Mr. 21 Smith stated there are 68 lots. 22 23 Chairperson Daninger stated that he felt that there may be some opportunities to reduce 24 the number of variances. Mr. Smith indicated that they plan to start working on the 25 development in the next couple of weeks. When asked why this plan was not proposed at 26 the initial time, Mr. Smith stated that he missed.it, partially because they were looking at 27 trying to save the existing houses. Once they realized the houses would be hard to save, 28 they considered a revised plat. 29 30 There was no one else in the audience to speak at the public hearing, beyond the 31 applicant. 32 33 Motion by Koehler, seconded by Nemeth, to close the public hearing at 7:40 p.m.' 34 Motion carried on a 5 -ayes, 0 -nays, 2 -absent vote (Cleven and Sims). 35 36 Commissioner Koehler asked about the additional review from engineering going out to 37 Mr. Smith, wondering what might have been addressed, noting that his fellow 38 Commissioners had similar questions. 39 40 Chairperson Daninger noted that tonight's request is for what has already been presented. 41 42 Commissioner Koehler indicated that it would be easier to approve if Commissioners had 43 more information and less variances to consider. He wondered at what point it would 44 need to be considered a PUD. Ms. Hanson stated that a PUD is a flexible planning tool. 45 The developer needs to request a PUD. PUD's are not used because of a number of Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes—April 11, 2017 Page 4 1 variances requested or needed. The most recent PUD granted was related to low impact 2 development for the Preserve at Oak View. 3 4 Mr. Smith reviewed the memo from the Engineer. 5 6 Chairperson Daninger repeated that the Commission had to vote on what was originally 7 proposed for the plat revision. 8 9 Ms. Hanson stated that any updated request may need to come back to the Planning and to Zoning Commission before going to the Council. 11 12 Commissioner Hudson expressed concern with the number of variances and the roadway 13 changes and the ability to prove "practical difficulties." 14 15 Chairperson Daninger asked if anyone was in favor of approval. No Commissioners 16 responded. Then he asked if a Commissioner would like to make a recommendation for 17 denial. 18 19 Commissioner Nemeth indicated he would still like to see 143`d as an access point. 20 Commissioner Koehler expressed agreement, as did Commissioner Peterson. 21 22 Commissioner Koehler stated that the revised plat had an advantage, in that the lots 23 would lose streets on both their borders. 24 25 Chairperson Daninger thanked everyone for the good discussion. 26 27 Commissioner Peterson expressed his feeling that the challenges bringing about the need 28 for the variances were not unique to the property and is essentially created by the 29 landowner. Chairperson Daninger was in agreement and expressed support for shifting 30 of the lots [to reduce variances]. 31 32 Commissioner Nemeth voiced support for a recommendation of denial of the plat 33 revision due to: 1) plight of the landowner is due to circumstances not unique to the 34 property but is created by the landowner; 2) 143`d should connect to Prairie Road to 35 create additional access to the development; and, 3) plat/lots could be reviewed/changed 36 so less variances would be needed. 37 38 Commissioner Koehler reiterated that more work needs to be done, prior to consideration 39 of a new proposed plat, for approval. 40 41 Commissioner Peterson would like to hear from staff about their thoughts on the trail. 42 43 Motion by Nemeth, seconded by Koehler, to recommend approval of Res No. 44 denying the preliminary plat of "Catcher's Creek 2"d Addition" and variances for said 45 property based on the following rationale: Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes—April 11, 2017 Page 5 1 1) Plight of the landowner is due to circumstances that are not unique to the property 2 and have been created by the landowner. 3 2) 143`d should connect to Prairie Road to create additional access to the 4 development. 5 3) Plat/lots could be reviewed/changed so less variances would be needed. 6 7 Motion carried on a 5 -ayes, 0 -nays, 2 -absent vote (Cleven and Sims). 8 9 City Planner Hanson stated that this item would be before the Council at the Tuesday, 10 May 2, 2017 City Council meeting. 11 12 OTHER BUSINESS 13 14 Mr. Janish updated the Commission on the progress at the Shoppes at Andover. Three 15 tenant spaces remain open. The Andover Theatre is updating their seating, which will 16 reduce seating by one-half, but it will be more luxurious. Construction at the Estates at 17 Arbor Oaks is proceeding with siding. Bunker Lake Blvd. is experiencing road closures. 18 Mr. Janish encouraged residents to sign up for weekly updates from the County that are 19 sent out on Fridays via email, noting there is a link on the City's website. 20 21 Councilmember Peterson congratulated the Andover High School Girls and Boys 22 Basketball teams for a great season. He also recognized Chairperson Daninger, as a 23 parent of a senior player. 24 25 Councilmember Nemeth asked if the City had been approached about new commercial 26 business. Mr. Janish confirmed that the Clock Tower Commons project is on hold for 27 now. 28 29 ADJOURNMENT 30 31 Motion by Koehler, seconded by Nemeth, to adjourn the meeting at 8:06 p.m. Motion 32 carried on a 5 -ayes, 0 -nays, 2 -absent vote (Cleven and Sims). 33 34 Respectfully Submitted, 35 36 37 38 Marlene White, Recording Secretary 39 TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. 40 41 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 —14791 Blackfoot Street NW — Lee and Sandra Warneka DATE: May 9, 2017 INTRODUCTION Mr. Warneka submitted a variance request for his property located at 14791 Blackfoot Street NW. The request is to reduce the required width of the lot(s) at the front yard setback. Shoreland Management Regulations The Shoreland Management Code is adopted by the City pursuant to Minnesota Regulations that apply to the shorelands of public water bodies. The City of Andover is the governing body of code. As required by the Andover Shoreland Management code, the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) has received notice of the variance request. At this time, staff has not received comment from DNR staff. According to the Shoreland Regulations, unsewered single family lots on Recreational Development Lakes such as Round Lake are required to be a minimum of 20,000 square feet with a lot width of 100 feet. This section of the code is attached for your review. However, stricter regulations in the RI Single Family Rural district supersedes the Shoreland Regulations. Variance Review Mr. Wameka submitted a letter and is proposing a variance to reduce the lot width at the front yard setback from 300 feet to 150 feet for the purpose of subdividing the property into two (2) lots. The letter addresses the practical difficulties and is attached for your review. The existing lot meets code requirements for lot width, depth and area. If the lot is further subdivided, the lots will require variances. Existing and proposed lot measurements are as follows and the variances are highlighted in yellow: Code Regulations, Existing and Proposed Dimensions Review Criteria City Code 12-14-7 outlines criteria when considering a variance. 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: 1. The property owner proposed to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by an official control. • The proposed lot widths meet the intent and regulations of the City Code pertaining to Shoreland Management provisions. However, the City has placed stricter provisions on lots zoned Rural Residential limiting the further subdivision of the land because the lots will not meet the required 300 foot width at the front yard setback. Required lot widths at the public right-of-way is 50 feet. Forty (40) feet from the right- of-way the lot width is required to be 300 feet. The proposed lot widths of 150 feet and 180 feet provide ample access and room to construct a home while still leaving enough of a buffer space between the neighboring properties. 2. The plight of the property owner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner. • The property owner purchased the existing property. When the lot was created in July 1977, it was subdivided in such a way that the lot size and depth exceeds the existing requirements in the rural residential and shoreland management area. However, the lot width of 330 feet does not allow for the further subdivision of the land. 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 rural residential district is 2 %s acre minimums per lot. The approval of the variance will allow for the subdivision of the land that will create 2 - three (3) acre lots. The further subdivision of the land will be in compliance with the density requirement in the rural residential district. City Code Shoreland Regulations Regulations R1 (unsewered) Proposed Proposed Existing Lot A Lot B Lot Width at 50 ft 100 ft 300 ft 180 ft 150 ft ROW Lot Width at Front Yard 300 ft 100 ft 330 ft 180 ft 150 ft Setback Lot Depth 150 ft --- 830 ft 830 ft 830 ft Lot Area 2 1/2 acres 20,000 sf TBD TBD TBD Review Criteria City Code 12-14-7 outlines criteria when considering a variance. 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: 1. The property owner proposed to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by an official control. • The proposed lot widths meet the intent and regulations of the City Code pertaining to Shoreland Management provisions. However, the City has placed stricter provisions on lots zoned Rural Residential limiting the further subdivision of the land because the lots will not meet the required 300 foot width at the front yard setback. Required lot widths at the public right-of-way is 50 feet. Forty (40) feet from the right- of-way the lot width is required to be 300 feet. The proposed lot widths of 150 feet and 180 feet provide ample access and room to construct a home while still leaving enough of a buffer space between the neighboring properties. 2. The plight of the property owner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner. • The property owner purchased the existing property. When the lot was created in July 1977, it was subdivided in such a way that the lot size and depth exceeds the existing requirements in the rural residential and shoreland management area. However, the lot width of 330 feet does not allow for the further subdivision of the land. 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 rural residential district is 2 %s acre minimums per lot. The approval of the variance will allow for the subdivision of the land that will create 2 - three (3) acre lots. The further subdivision of the land will be in compliance with the density requirement in the rural residential district. • The structure setback from neighboring properties will be a great enough distance to retain the rural character. The southern X roperty line will be setback at least 245 feet from the existing structure at 4050 147 Lane NW. This is shown on the attached map. • There will be no floodplain, wetland or natural waterways impacted if an additional home is constructed on the proposed lot. The existing contour/elevations of the property provide the opportunity for an additional building pad. The vegetation, lower elevation and floodplain on the property to the south provide a natural buffer between the lots. 4. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. • The applicant is not considering the proposed variances because of economic reasons. Andover Review Committee (ARC) Comments ARC reviewed the proposed variance requests and had no comments pertaining to the request. Public Comments Staff received phone calls and emails regarding the variance requests. Attached for your review are public responses that will become part of the public record. 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 Connnission may want to consider when recommending approval or denial of the variance requests. Attachments Resolutions of Approval and Denial Location Map Photo Location Map Photos Variance Locations Applicant Letter Resident/Public Comment Letters Shoreland Regulations Existing Contours, Floodplain, and Wetlands Res ctfully m' e , Stephanie . Hanson City Planner Cc: LeRoy Warneka, 14791 Blackfoot Street NW, Andover, MN 55304 CITY OF ANDOVER COUNTY OF ANOKA STATE OF MINNESOTA A RESOLUTION APPROVING VARIANCES FOR PROPERTY LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS: LOT 5, BLOCK 4, Lund's Round Lake Estates, Anoka County, Minnesota. WHEREAS, LeRoy and Sandra Warneka has requested approval of variances to reduce the width of the lot at the front yard setback; and WHEREAS, the Andover Review Committee has reviewed variance requests; 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 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 180 feet and 300 feet to 150 feet for the future lot split of the existing lot. WHEREAS, based on the criteria for granting a variance under City Code 12-14-713, City Council finds the following findings of fact to support the approval of the variance requests: The proposed lot widths meet the intent and regulations of the City Code pertaining to Shoreland Management provisions. However, the City has placed stricter provisions on lots zoned Rural Residential limiting the further subdivision of the land because the lots will not meet the required 300 foot width at the front yard setback. • Required lot widths at the public right-of-way is 50 feet. Forty (40) feet from the right- of-way the lot width is required to be 300 feet. The proposed lot widths of 150 feet and 180 feet provide ample access and room to construct a home while still leaving enough of a buffer space between the neighboring properties. • The property owner purchased the existing property. When the lot was created in July 1977, it was subdivided in such a way that the lot size and depth exceeds the existing requirements in the rural residential and shoreland management area. However, the lot width of 330 feet does not allow for the further subdivision of the land. The density requirement in the rural residential district is 2 '/z acre minimums per lot. The approval of the variance will allow for the subdivision of the land that will create 2 - three (3) acre lots. The further subdivision of the land will be in compliance with the density requirement in the rural residential district. • The structure setback from neighboring properties will be a great enough distance to retain the rural character. The southern Property line will be setback at least 245 feet from the existing structure at 4050 1471 Lane NW. • There will be no floodplain, wetland or natural waterways impacted if an additional home is constructed on the proposed lot. The existing contour/elevations of the property provide the opportunity for an additional building pad. The vegetation, lower elevation and floodplain on the property to the south provide a natural buffer between the lots. 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 split must be approved within one year of the approval of the variances. Variance approvals will be invalid after such time. 2. At the time of the lot split, the applicant must prove both lots meet the lot area requirements within the R1 — Single Family Rural District. Minimum lot area requirements is 2.5 acres per lot. 3. Lot split approval is contingent upon all city requirements for lot splits is met. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Andover this 6bday of June, 2017. ATTEST CITY OF ANDOVER Michelle Hartner, City Clerk Julie Trude, Mayor CITY OF ANDOVER COUNTY OF ANOKA STATE OF MINNESOTA RES. NO XXX A RESOLUTION DENYING VARIANCES FOR PROPERTY LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS: LOT 5, BLOCK 4, Lund's Round Lake Estates, Anoka County, Minnesota. WHEREAS, LeRoy and Sandra Warneka has requested approval of variances to reduce the width of the lot at the front yard setback; and WHEREAS, the Andover Review Committee has reviewed variance requests; 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 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 180 feet and 300 feet to 150 feet for the future lot split of the existing lot. WHEREAS, based on the criteria for granting a variance under City Code 12-14-7B, City Council finds the following findings of fact to deny the approval of the variance requests: The proposed lot width meets the regulations of the City Code for the RI Single Family Rural District and the applicant is able to use his land in a way allowed by City Code, as he has since he purchased the property. Neighboring properties within the subdivision have a minimum of 330 feet; thus the existing lot retains the rural character of the neighborhood. 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 6a' day of June, 2017. ATTEST CITY OF ANDOVER Michelle Hartner, City Clerk Julie Trude, Mayor AN r`; VE 14791 Blackfoot St Location .. ., r 14988 4462 4426 14947 14964 14925 4463 4425 rArEs 4179, 4115 4075 4033 3975 1 14913 4325 4277 4217 4472 4428 4471 4431 14853 4290Witu LW 14870 4230 4180 4110 4060 4480 3940 14832 4487 4365 4325 4275 14820 4225 4175 LU ND LAK STATE14821 14760 4115 4490 ���Qj 14800 4491 4421 14791 4370 4330 14790 14745 41805 4110 4050 4490 4450'14420 4477 4447 14683 4123 4051 4015 4320 4292 4264 4180 14649 _•. 14661 4152 3991 41"1II�4074 4040 3979 14633 4311 34654 4177 l_1 I I ^ 3967 4484 4141 4103 406 123994 uND LAKE 14631 14629 so 4189 RI E 3970 3955 14619+ - 4252 4160 3943 4102 4066 3931 14604 4310 4175 14573 14575 39 14589 14588 14gg2 34559 14563 3934-3919 (Or N r -r O N 'O Date Created: April 26, 2017 Disclaimer: The provider makes no representation or warranties with respect to the reuse of this data. 1". IK iUl3j P!, 1: -, ' w 1 f - IF r 61 .a 17, ®J 1477H LN . r 1 1 i r COVER Andover General Mappi Date Created: May 01, 2017 Disclaimer: The provider makes no representation or warranties with respect to the reuse of this data. Applicant Letter May 2, 2017 City of Andover Planning and Zoning Commission In reference to lot variance request for 14791 Blackfoot St NW, Andover, MN 55304 We believe that both lots A and B are in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the official control and are consistent with the comprehensive plan. Both lots A and B more than meet the minimum requirements of 150 feet depth as they are approximately 880 feet in depth. We also believe that both lots A and B exceed the minimum requirement of 2 %s acres. We believe that lot A with 180 feet width and lot B with 150 feet width are in harmony with the surrounding neighborhood. Lot B meets the density requirement. Proposed lot width allows more than enough width for home construction and will still retain much open area. There would be no further subdivision of the property as there is and will not be MUSA for this area. Both lots A and B exceed the lot depth and lot area requirements. We feel this is the highest and best use and a reasonable use of the property not permitted under an official control. The obstacle to the division of these lots is due to circumstances unique to these properties not created by the landowner. These existing properties are much deeper than what is required by code. This variance will not alter the essential character of the locality. Both lots would still exceed 2 'h acres minimum and still meet density requirements in the rural residential district. Property directly to the south of Lot B has a substantial drainage ditch directly adjacent to the south lot line of lot B which would preclude any additional construction adjacent to the south of lot B. We thank you for your time and consideration to our request. Lee and Sandra Warneka 14791 Blackfoot St NW Andover, MN 55304 Resident Letter Steahanie Hanson From: Thom Jordan [Thom_Deb@msn.com] Sent: Monday, May 01, 2017 4:42 PM To: Stephanie Hanson Subject: Input on Vaeriance Request for 14791 Blackfoot St. NW, Andover, MN Attachments: Variance Request for 14791 Blackfoot St NW - Letter to City of Andover.docx Hello Stephanie, We are writing about the variance request for the property located at 14791 Blackfoot St NW, Andover, MN. Our understanding is the owner wants to split their lot which currently has ^300 feet of road frontage and is listed at -5.9 acres. We are concerned about the following items: • Even though the lot is listed at -5.9 acres, it is clear from an area view of the plat map that -50% of the lot is actually in the lake and/or cattails. This would bring the actual land area of the lot to 3 acres or below. The road frontage would be reduced to -150 feet +/- per lot if split. • Splitting the land area into "1 % acre lots would be below the development minimum requirement of 2 Y2 acres and below the minimum road frontage of 300 feet. • We are concerned the reduced acreage would not support an additional septic system and would cause risk to the lake and ground water. • We are concerned that granting this variance to allow splitting the lot would set a precedent for additional lot split requests in this development. • We all have wells in the development and would not want to risk water contamination and/or low water levels due to additional pressure on the water table. • Houses in this development are of a style and size that are not at all similar to houses being built today. We feel any new style home would not fit with the environment of the current houses in the area. We request that before any further consideration is given to this variance that the city contact the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources and the local Soil and Water Conservation District to review the potential impact of this variance request. Also we request that you have a land surveyor determine the actual buildable land area of the lot. We bought our home in this area because we like the environment of homes being on the current amount of acreage and the low profile design of the homes. We would not like to see the density of homes increased in this neighborhood. We are against the variance request for splitting the lot at 14791 Blackfoot St NW. Thank You, Thom and Deb Jordan 14800 Blackfoot St. NW Andover, MN (We have included a Word version copy in case that is easier for you to enter into the record.) Stephanie Hanson From: Jeff Kieffer Bakieff@gmail.comj Sent: Friday, May 05, 2017 9:27 AM To: Stephanie Hanson Subject: Variance request on 14791 Blackfoot street nw. Hello Stephanie, A petition has been circulated to block/stop this Variance and I did sign it. However this really doesn't affect us (Jeff @ Rhonda Kieffer) so I would like to stay Neutral on this issue. Stephanie Hanson From: Katie Shaw [shaw.katieann@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, May 04, 2017 6:25 PM To: Stephanie Hanson Subject: Variance for 14791 Blackfoot St NW Please have this added to the public record: To: Stephanie Hanson, City Planner As a direct neighbor to the resident requesting the lot width variance at 14791 Blackfoot St NW, I am concerned about and absolutely oppose forward action. The requested variance would open the possibility of a lot split, thereby causing: 1. A decline in privacy to my home and property. 2. A decline in our property value. 3. A loss of cohesion in our neighborhood. 4. Sets a precedent for other home owners to split their property, a beginning to turn Lunds Round Lake Estates into Anywhere, USA. Lunds Round Lake Estates exemplifies that which Andover places high esteem: space, nature, and the resident's access to it. It's the reason my husband and I moved from Northeast Minneapolis to Andover to raise our family. I respectfully request that the Planning Committee consider my voice, and the voices of my neighbors, and oppose this variance in order to preserve the natural state and space that is afforded with the zoning and current residence of Lunds Round Lake Estates. In peace, Katie Shaw 4050 147th Lane NW Andover, MN PETITION AGAINST VARIANCE AT 14791 BLACKFOOT STREET To: Stephanie Hanson, City Planner, City of Andover, MN MAY 4 2017 From: The Undersigned Re: Regarding the proposed variance at 14791 Blackfoot Street to change the lot width II w' future lot split r77Y0FAN (%19R We oppose this variance which would allow a lot split in the Lunds Round Lake Estates neighborhood. We oppose this action because of the precedent that would be set for the neighborhood. There are many other properties in our neighborhood that with a similar variance could split their lot as well. We chose to move or build in this particular neighborhood in Andover because of it's "Up North" feel with space between homes, surrounded by woodlands and wetlands. Splitting lots would detrimentally and irreversibly change the character and value of our neighborhood. Sincerely, NAME STREET ADDRESS SIGNATURE DATE �I LG1 K�-' ail AU L Awl ji"k� t SG�GIyR4'� a PIIS-(t�7K41V..t ✓V'/ Alp L- g� s V PETITION AGAINST VARIANCE AT 14791 BLACKFOOT STREET To: Stephanie Hanson, City Planner, City of Andover, MN MAY 4 2017 From: The Undersigned - Re: Regarding the proposed variance at 14791 Blackfoot Street to change the- lot -width allowing a future lot split C,i-TY OF ANDOVER We oppose this variance which would allow a lot split in the Lunds' Round Lake Estates neighborhood. We oppose this action because of the precedent that would be set for the neighborhood. There are many other properties in our neighborhood that with a similar variance could split their lot as well. We chose to move or build in this particular neighborhood in Andover because of it's "Up North" feel with space between homes, surrounded by woodlands and wetlands. Splitting lots would detrimentally and irreversibly change the character and value of our neighborhood. Sincerely, NAME STREET ADDRESS SIGNATURE DATE gf.> 4m I t1A g05-0 9a ''� d I n�aY7,o► t `ig La ee 1��� 4Zw 149 kr-Q[� 'LY r ' h, LUl MAI AL AlLie q2-11- 1q9+k 3FVY NV ru � 1 K 77 7 I q R T►j j4-t;�► (� (pie;, ot�� A-,,jo��,Q-c, mt1 09 q 17) t'�01 he A,I cJ Vv- V B@ q �® PETITION AGAINST VARIANCE AT 14791 BLACKFOOT STREET fl'�.�C El b6 To: Stephanie Hanson, City Planner, City of Andover, MN MAY 4 2017 From: The Undersigned Re: Regarding the proposed variance at 14791 Blackfoot Street to change the lot width allowing a future lot split F ANDOVER We oppose this variance which would allow a lot split in the Lunds Round Lake Estates neighborhood. We oppose this action because of the precedent that would be set for the neighborhood. There are many other properties in our neighborhood that with a similar variance could split their lot as well. We chose to move or build in this particular neighborhood in Andover because of it's "Up North" feel with space between homes, surrounded by woodlands and wetlands. Splitting lots would detrimentally and irreversibly change the character and value of our neighborhood. Sincerely, NAME STREET ADDRESS SIGNATURE DATE i J-0 7 �ty L L� it 126C31 O 7 y3 6` pp �/ G 1. Lakes: a. Natural environment lakes Andover City Code Chapter 4 Shoreland Management Protected Waters Inventory ID Number b. Recreational development lakes Unnamed T32N, R24W DNR ID #2-74W Ward Lake T32N, R24W DNR ID #2-85P Unnamed T32N, R24W Unnamed T32N, R24W (Lake Leeman) Unnamed T32N, R24W Bunker Lake T32N, R24W General development lakes Crooked Lake T32N, R24W —�j -– Round Lake T32N, R24W 2. Rivers And Streams: a. Remote rivers: none. b. Forested rivers: none. c. Transition rivers: none. d. Agricultural rivers: none. e. Urban rivers: none. f. Tributary streams: none. DNR ID #2-86W DNR ID #2-87W DNR ID #2-88W DNR ID #2-90P DNR ID #2-8P DNR ID #2-89P All protected watercourses in the city shown on the Protected Water Inventory Map for Anoka County", a copy of which is hereby adopted by reference, not given a classification in Subsections Ata through Ate of this section shall be considered "tributary". B. Land Use District Descriptions: 1. Criteria For Designation: The land use districts in Subsection B2 of this section and the delineation of a land use district's boundaries on the official zoning map must be consistent with the goals, policies, and objectives of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan and the following criteria, considerations, and objectives: 1. Unsewered Lakes: M a. Natural Environment: b. Recreational Development: Riparian Lots Nonriparian Lots Area Width Area Width Single 108,900 300 108,900 300 Duplex 120,000 300 160,000 400 Triplex 160,000 400 240,000 600 Quad 180,000 500 320,000 800 b. Recreational Development: General Development: Riparian Lots Nonriparian Lots Area Width Area Width Single 108,900 300 108,900 300 Duplex 108,900 300 108,900 300 Triplex 120,000 300 120,000 375 Quad 160,000 375 160,000 490 General Development: Riparian Lots Nonriparian Lots Area Width Area Width Single 20,000 100 40,000 150 Duplex 40,000 180 80,000 265 Triplex 60,000 260 120,000 375 Quad 80,000 340 160,000 490 Date Created: May 03, 2017 Disclaimer: The provider makes no representation or warranties with respect to the reuse of this data. 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: Supplemental Agenda Items for May 9, 2017 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting DATE: May 9, 2017 The Planning and Zoning Commission is requested to receive the following supplemental information. Item 3 Public Hearing: Variance Request 1. Response Letter From Applicants, LeRoy and Sandra Warneka 2. Email From Gerri Olson, 4325 149 ' Ave, 0p9osing Variance 3. Email From Clint and Gina Trousil,3940 149 Ave, Opposing Variance 4. Email from Aaron Hjelle, 14821 Blackfoot St, Opposing Variance May 8, 2017 City of Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Reference: Variance Request for 14791 Blackfoot St NW Andover, MN 55304 Response Letter From Applicants MAY 8 2017 CITY OF ANDOVER We just received a copy of our variance request that we submitted along with a copy of a petition and a letter. We would like to respond to these items: PETITION Many of the names on the petition are from the same household. We count 13 households (or 12 given to the fact that one household asked for their names to be removed) out of approximately 50 households from this immediate area. We have spoken to both some who signed the petition and some who would not. Some of the individuals who signed the petition were lead to believe that we were splitting a 2 %2 acre lot and that as such the variance would allow other people to split 2 %2 acre lots. When they were informed that it was a 6 acre lot being split into two 3 acre lots many then felt it is a reasonable use and that the variance does not open up the neighborhood to massive lot splitting. In speaking to the people who did not sign the petition the ones we spoke to felt that it was perfectly reasonable to have a new home in that comer and they did not feel that it would compromise the openness of the area. We understand that one of the actual signers of the petition has withdrawn their signature. THOM JORDAN LETTER He says: Even though the lot is listed at 5.9 acres. We say: Many lots in this development and throughout the City include low or wet areas. It is the responsibility of Anoka County to determine lot size. Anoka County determined that the size of the subject lot to be split is approximately 6 acres. He says: Splitting the land area into 1 '/z acre. We say: The 6 acre lot is being split into two 3 acre parcels. He says: He is concerned the reduced acreage would not support private sewer and water. We say: The new lot is more than adequate to provide private sewer and water and has been studied by city engineering and cleared in that respect. He says: He is concerned that granting this variance to allow splitting this lot would set a precedent for allowing additional lot split requests. We say: that there are almost no 6 acre lots in this development that would be forthcoming with additional requests for lot splits. He says: We all have wells and would not want to risk contamination. We say: This is a disingenuous statement. He says: Houses in this development that are of a style and size that are not similar to houses that are being built today. We say: that new homes being built today are of a style and size that would fit in this neighborhood. Except the duplex created by a variance next to Mr. Jordan. We also bought our home in this area because we like the environment, being on the lake and the openness . It seems clear to us that the lot split is more than reasonable; will not change the character of the area, and will retain comparable openness. We continue to have several builders approach us about this very desirable and unique property on the lake. In addition the City of Andover has approached us to buy the open property. The more that we have been approached the more it was clear to us that it just makes common sense to split. Respectfully, Sandra M Warneka Lee C Warneka 14791 Blackfoot St NW Andover, MN 55304 RECEIVED MAY 0 2011 CITY OF ANDOVER Letter From Gem Olson Stephanie Hanson From: Gerri Olson [gerri.olson322@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, May 08, 2017 10:04 PM To: Stephanie Hanson Subject: Variance request 14791 Blackfoot St Dear Ms. Hanson, I am writing in regards to the variance request for the property located at 14791 Blackfoot St NW. I have lived in this neighborhood for almost 30 years at 4325 149th Av NW. I am not close enough to this property for this to directly effect me, but I do have some concerns about granting a variance, especially when it concerns the front yard and setback. I think development should stay as was intended when this neighborhood was established. People who come to my house for the first time always remark on what a beautiful neighborhood this is, we have large well kept lots, similar houses and open spaces. My concern is that if we start making exceptions we are climbing a slippery slope, we make an exception once, what happens the next time? I would hate to see our neighborhood sliced and diced into small parcels with McMansions squeezed together. Another important consideration is what impact will this have on Round Lake? The lake supports many different species of wildlife who's habitat we need to preserve. Sincerely, Gerri Olson 4325 149th Av NW Andover, MN 55304 Letter From Clint & Gina Trousil Stephanie Hanson From: clintt7836@aol.com Sent: Tuesday, May 09, 2017 12:53 PM To: Stephanie Hanson Subject: Variance Request - 14791 Blackfoot Street NW, Andover, MN Stephanie, Thank you for answering our request for information regarding the above mentioned variance request. My wife and I have spent a good share of the past several months in our Florida home and have been out of the loop regarding the happenings back in Andover. We did receive the notice of the public hearing for variance request in our forwarded mail last week, which did not tell us much, so it is very helpful to learn the whole story. I see that there is a neighborhood petition included in the information packet. Had we been in Andover, my wife and I would have added our names to the opposition. We have lived in our current Andover home for thirty seven years and are concerned that any subdivision of lots in Lund's Round Lake Estates would dramatically change the quiet, rural nature of the community as well as negatively affect the natural wildlife habitat that is nurtured and preserved by neighboring Kelsey Round Lake Park and Round Lake itself to the east of the property. Any variance that results in a subdivision of existing lots would also set a precedent for further variance requests that could lead to even further degradation of the current amenities of our neighborhood. Therefore, we wish to go on the record as opposing the variance request. Thank you for your consideration. Clint and Gina Trousil 3940 149TH Av. NW Andover, Mn 55304 Letter From Aaron Hjelle May 3, 2017 To: Stephanie Hanson, City Planner, Andover, MN Dear Stephanie, I am concerned about the variance request which my neighbor has requested at 14791 Blackfoot St NW, Andover, MN. I feel that splitting the lot, which would enable additional development would be a mistake. My neighborhood is comprised of homes and lots of similar size, and feel that splitting and developing a lot would not only be an anomaly, but would detract significantly from the uniform development that exists. Additionally, as residents drive down the road on 147`", the undeveloped portion of this lot affords all of us the sole shared view of Round Lake. Wildlife patterns exist would also be impacted if this further development were to occur. Although I can appreciate the desire to monetize a land asset in a very hot real estate market, the loss in property value to the greater community associated with project would be significant. Thank you for your consideration, Aaron Hjelle 14821 Blackfoot Street NW Andover, MN 55304 Y O%F OVE. 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. • ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 • (763) 755-5100 FAX (763) 755-8923 • WWW.CI.ANDOVER.MN.US TO: Planning and Zoning Commissioners FROM: Joe Janish, Community Development Director SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING: Conditional Use Permit Amendment/Revised Planned Unit Development — Andover Clocktower Commons — Classic Construction DATE: May 9, 2017 INTRODUCTION BDT Holdings, LLC, the current owners of the Andover Clocktower Commons are requesting to amend the existing approved Conditional Use Permit to revise the approved Planned Unit Development on Lot 3, Block 1, Andover Clocktower Commons. DISCUSSION Background The original CUP/PUD approval was granted in September of 2003. The PUD, which is located in a SC, Shopping Center District, included five (5) lots consisting of a gas convenience store (Lot 1), fast food restaurant (Lot 2), bank (Lot 3), restaurant (Lot 4) and retail (Lot 5) as shown on the attached plan. The approval also included a landscape plan identifying the common area amenities including a clock tower feature and related landscaping on Lot 4. Cross parking and access agreements were also put in place. There was an amendment made in 2009 related to the direct access to Crosstown Blvd. NW in the form of a 3/4 intersection, which was approved. An Amendment was made in 2014 related to Lot 3, Block 1, Andover Clocktower Commons to convert the "bank" site to retail trade and service building. Lot 4, Block 1, was also converted from a "restaurant lot in the original PUD for a retail, trade and service building and allowed for a 20 foot encroachment in to the required 30 foot setback from Crosstown Blvd. NW. This encroachment created a 10 -foot setback for the future buildings on Lot 4, Block 1. The significant proposed changes or proposed revisions for tonight are as follows: Changing the PUD from 5 lots to 6 lots. Adjusting the setback on proposed Lot 2, Block 1, PSM Addition. Lot 3, Block 1, Andover Clocktower Commons — 1. This lot was originally approved as a bank lot with a 10,000 s.f. building. In 2014 an 11,200 s.f retail, trade, and service building was proposed and approved in place of the bank building. 2. The applicant is seeking to split Lot 3, Block 1 to create two lots for two separate buildings. 1. Proposed Lot 1 Block 1 is 50,557 square feet (approx. 1.16 acres) • The proposed "retail, trade, and service" building is proposed to be approximately 7,000 square feet. 2. Proposed Lot 2 Block 1 is 30,949 square feet (approx. 0.79 acres) • The proposed retail building is expected to be a 7,440 retail, trade and service building. The building will encroach 20+/- feet into the required 30 -foot setback from Crosstown Blvd. NW. 3. A Shared garbage enclosure is proposed to be constructed between the two lots. The applicant has a buyer for the proposed Lot 1, Block 1, PSM Addition and the applicant is proposing a future building on Lot 2, Block 1. Design Standards -Architecture The proposed buildings will be similar in architectural styles and color as the existing buildings. See the attached color elevations. Commercial Site Plan Review In conjunction with this requested CUP/PUD amendment, the. applicant is also proceeding through the Commercial Site Plan Review and approval process. As a part of this process, utility, grading, drainage and erosion control, landscape, and detailed site plans will be reviewed and approved by city staff. K ACTION REQUESTED The Planning and Zoning Commission is asked to hold a public hearing to make a recommendation to the City Council. Attachments Draft Resolution Location Map Color Elevations Plan Set approved in 2003 Resolution 157-03, 064-09, 063-14 Proposed Plan Set R c 1 su miffed, Joe Janish Cc: Tom Roberts BDT Land, LLC 6484 Pinnacle Drive, Eden Prairie, MN 55346 Diane Leverentz Classic Construction 18542 Ulysses Street NE East Bethel, MN 55011 3 CITY OF ANDOVER COUNTY OF ANOKA STATE OF MINNESOTA RES. NO A RESOLUTION AMENDING THE APPROVED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO AMEND THE PLANNNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT OF ANDOVER CLOCKTOWER COMMONS, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOT 3, BLOCK 1, ANDOVER CLOCKTOWER COMMONS WHEREAS, BDT Holdings, LLC have requested approval of an amendment to the approved Conditional Use Permit (Resolution No. 157-03) and to the approved planned unit development; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission finds the request meets the criteria of City Code 12-14-6 regulating Conditional Use Permits and City Code 13-3-1 regulating Planned Unit Developments; and WHEREAS, pursuant to published and mailed notice thereof, the Planning Commission has conducted a public hearing on said amendment; and WHEREAS, as a result of such public hearing, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommends to the City Council the approval of the amended CUP and PUD. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Andover has received the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and hereby approves the proposed amendment subject to the following conditions: 1. The conditions of the approval of the original CUP/PUD (Resolution No. 157-03) shall remain in effect if not altered or changed with the approval of this amended CUP and revised PUD. 2. The conditions of the approval of all past amendments to the CUP/PUD (Resolution No. 064-09 and Resolution No. R063-14) shall remain in effect if not altered or changed with the approval of this amended CUP and Revised PUD. 3. The Declaration Concerning Easements, Covenants and Restrictions (Doc. #1874731) shall be amended as necessary to incorporate the revisions approved with this amendment. 4. The plan set shall be modified as necessary to achieve commercial site plan approval by the City of Andover and watershed permit approval from the Coon Creek Watershed District. 4 5. This amended CUP and revised PUD is contingent upon the approval of the replatting of Lot 3, Block 1 Clocktower Commons. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Andover this June 6, 2017. CITY OF ANDOVER ATTEST: Michelle Hartner, Deputy City Clerk Julie Trude, Mayor 5 LOCATION MAP F—All(lover I' Property N Location t 6 '{'•, NORrTHd ELEVATION i i gm�d WEST ELEVATION _ 1Atti•i'd s x rH ELEVATION PAST ELEVATION "s I FROWPERSPECTIVE N.Tr S Rosa Architectural Group Inc. 1064 Steding Street SL Paul, 69nnesota 66119 tel: 661-739.7966 h6: 661-7393166 MOTHER GOOSE ANDOVER, MN CLASSIC CONSTRUCTION PH: 763434-6870 18542 ULYSSES ST. NE EAST BETHEL, MN PROIECi NUMBER: ]1]05 MIE: MRtt 13, 201] CHECKED aY& pR P SONS'. COLOR ELFJA71ONS Av 0o mvNw�lNniYu- MSM PUN NOM� ClY OF ^WDO K R PARMNG SUUMARY KI ... xp=- . . ..... .... O'FYNPOP3 ARG 9UMMARVLP MMEA SUMMARY REVRED rxD. SUdY & RECEIVED ANDOVER aDMWERCOMMONS ,jTy OF ANDOVER LANDFORM iam rAerrnouRr cz. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I ANDOVER CLOCKTOWER COMMONS .P/tl'li'J6'/ iffel'JJ � M/Y'l)!6 f i ®NO1'tl ••••' •^•„r — 4i8610S141O� AL DMRA ONGMM..............••,f J �i m ROPOEm LEOAL D6oR oN1,�*n"^xe^�^^^�_^ r ................ +......... ......,....... �wofixQ�QtonFxo�la'�Suc OHJBENEH4ARK °�°I`�i..rcx. CITY OF ANDOVER a.00lMWERCOMMOONS ®ZDNUIGrk m4RAC10Q.Tds.T.s�.6;d'ar w .n...n ................. ........ CT! OF ANOOV K ®AREA suY Ry ®o"m — RECEIVED ' REYL9¢W BdARTAL AB(R .Mpf X. Ol,TO4i . ANDOVER CITY OF ANDOVER a.00lMWERCOMMOONS J` m xLAPMFORM xu..... rxx,xu ntea►,Ncr o ,e m C. 1 CITY OF ANDOVER COUNTY OF ANOKA STATE OF MINNESOTA RES. NO. R157-03 A RESOLUTION GRANTING THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT REQUEST OF LANDFORM, INC. FOR A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT TO DEVELOP ANDOVER CLOCKTOWER COMMONS A COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT TO BE LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF HANSON AND CROSSTOWN BOULEVARDS LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOT 1, BLOCK 2 HAMILTON SQUARE, ANOKA COUNTY, MINNESOTA. WHEREAS, Landform, Inc, has requested a Special Use Permit for a Planned Unit Development to develop a residential development Andover Clocktower Commons a commercial development pursuant to Ordinance No. 112, An Ordinance regulating Planned Unit Developments on the property legally described above, and; WHEREAS, The Planning Commission finds the request meets the criteria of City Code 12-15-6 regulating Special Use Permits and City Code 13-3-1 regulating Planned Unit Developments, and; WHEREAS, a public hearing was held before the Planning and Zoning Commission and there was no opposition to the request; and; WHEREAS, The Planning and Zoning Commission is recommending to the City Council the approval of the Special Use Permit for the Planned Unit Development as requested, and; WHEREAS, The Council finds the proposed use will not be detrimental to the health, safety, morals and general welfare of the occupants of the surrounding land, and; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Andover hereby agrees with the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission permitting the following: I. Special Use Permit for a service station and car wash on Lot 1 subject to the conditions listed in this resolution. 2. Special Use Permit for a drive through for restaurant on Lot 2 subject to the conditions listed in this resolution. ' 3. Special Use Permit for a drive through for drive through for bank on Lot 3 subject to the conditions listed in this resolution. 4. Special Use Permit for on sale liquor for restaurant on Lot 4 subject to the conditions listed in this resolution. 5. Planned Unit Development for Andover Clocktower Commons per plans revised August 7, 2003 and stamped received by the City of Andover August 7, 2003 subject to the following: a. The bankloffice building may be constructed with a second floor. Any adjustments to the proposed plan shall be reviewed by the Andover Review Committee. b. The applicant acknowledges that the right of access from the subject property to Hanson Boulevard (CSAH 78) and Crosstown Boulevard (CSAR 18) was previously dedicated to Anoka County and that no new access to these roadways will be permitted without approval from the Anoka County Highway Department. c. The interior trail and outdoor patio areas shall be designed and constructed to complement the building architecture. Plain concrete or asphalt are not acceptable. d. The Clocktower feature shall provide brick at the corners adjacent to the clock to replace EIFS Color #2. e. The raingarden landscaping must be further detailed and approved by the Andover Review Committee. f. All perimeter shrub beds shall provide a variety of species within each planting bed. One plant species per planting bed is not acceptable. g. Additional shrub planting beds shall be located in the landscaped corridors along the west and southeast sides of Lot 2. 6. Each of the proposed uses shall be required to complete the commercial site plan review process administered by the Andover Review Committee. 7. A provision of the association documents shall allow the City access to utilities on each of the properties. 8. A provision shall be added to the association documents to establish a repair, maintenance and replacement program and funding for the private drive, parking areas, private utilities and all common areas and other improvements. 9. That the Special Use Permits shall be subject to a sunset clause as defined in City Code 12-15-6. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Andover on this ^ day of , 2003. ATTEST CITY OF AND VER U� Victoria Volk, City Clerk Michael R. Gamache, Mayor CITY OF ANDOVER ® COUNTY OF ANOKA STATE OF MINNESOTA =008 ; t 95 I A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE APPROVED PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT OF ANDOVER CLOCKTOWER COMMONS TO ALLOW INTERIM INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS THAT PROVIDE AN ACCESS TO CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD NW WHEREAS, BDT Land, LLC has requested approval of an amendment to the approved planned unit development to allow direct access to Crosstown Boulevard NW; and WHEREAS, City Code 13-3-10 requires a public hearing to review changes to the approved development and design; and WHEREAS, pursuant to, published and mailed notice thereof, the. Planning Commission has conducted a public hearing on said amendment; and WHEREAS, as a result of such public hearing, the Planning Commission recommended to the City Council that a % intersection be allowed provided that the roadway improvements conform to Engineering Department review comments; and WHEREAS, to obtain approval of interim intersection improvements to provide access to Crosstown Boulevard the applicant has agreed to construct a permanent intersection improvement of the westbound right -tum lane off Crosstown Boulevard accessing the Andover Clocktower Commons development as described by the feasibility study of City Project File #08-20A at the time Lot 3 or Lot 4 of Block 1 of Andover Clocktower Commons are built upon; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Andover has received the recommendation of the Planning Commission and hereby approves the proposed amendment to allow interim intersection improvements to provide access to Andover Clocktower Commons from Crosstown Boulevard subject to the following: 1. Design and construction of the interim intersection improvements shall follow city policy for developer installed improvements and conform to the recommendations of the Engineering Department Memorandum dated August 14, 2009 with the following exceptions: a. For comment #1 lwhere the City Council agrees to allow bituminous curb; b. For comment #14 where the City Council finds the applicant's professional engineer's proposal for the turn lane length will be followed; and c. For comment 416 where the City Council finds the applicant's professional engineer's storm drainage plan proposal to be acceptable and the final plan will need to be signed by the applicant's professional engineer. 2. The applicant shall be required to complete a development contract in the form adopted by the © City Council, in compliance with the City Code and as acceptable to the City Attorney for the interim intersection improvements approved with this resolution. The applicant shall provide a financial security as determined by City Code 1-7-3 in a form acceptable to the city to guarantee that these improvements will be completed. Lal E E 3. The applicant shall also be responsible for all permanent westbound right turn lane improvements off Crosstown Boulevard accessing the Andover Clocktower Commons development described in the feasibility study for City Project File #08-20A. These improvements shall be completed in compliance with city design standards and adopted policies by the time a certificate of occupancy is issued for either Lot 3 or Lot 4, Block 1 of Andover Clocktower Commons. The applicant shall provide a financial security as determined by City Code 1-7-3 in a form acceptable to the city to guarantee that these improvements will be completed at the time a building permit is approved for Lot 3 or Lot 4, Block 1 of .Andover Clocktower Commons. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Andover this 18th day of August, 2009. ATTEST: Mt !elle Harmer, Deputy City Clerk CITY OF ANDOVER -chael R. Gama c e, Mayor CITY OF ANDOVER COUNTY OF ANOKA STATE OF MINNESOTA RES. NO. R063-14 A RESOLUTION AMENDING THE APPROVED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO AMEND THE PLANNNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT OF ANDOVER CLOCKTOWER COMMONS, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOTS 3-5, BLOCK 1, ANDOVER CLOCKTOWER COMMONS WHEREAS, BDT Land, LLC and BDT Holdings, LLC have requested approval of an amendment to the approved Conditional Use Permit (Resolution No. 157-03) and to the approved planned unit development; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission finds the request meets the criteria of City Code 12-14-6 regulating Conditional Use Permits and City Code 13-3-1 regulating Planned Unit Developments; and WHEREAS, pursuant to published and mailed notice thereof, the Planning Commission has conducted a public hearing on said amendment; and WHEREAS, as a result of such public hearing, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommends to the City Council the approval of the amended CUP and PUD. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Andover has received the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and hereby approves the proposed amendment subject to the following conditions: The conditions of the approval of the original CUP/PUD (Resolution No. 157-03 shall remain in effect if not altered or changed with the approval of this amended CUP and revised PUD. 2. The Declaration Concerning Easements, Covenants and Restrictions (Doc. #1874731) shall be amended as necessary to incorporate the revisions approved with this amendment. 3. The plan set shall be modified as necessary to achieve commercial site plan approval by the City of Andover and watershed permit approval from the Coon Creek Watershed District. 4. The City Council supports the implementation of Option B to resolve the trail/drainage issue in an amount not to exceed $10,000 and the City is responsible for any upsizing charges. 0 Adopted by the City Council of the City of Andover this 2"a day of September, 2014. ATTEST: Michelle Hartner, Deputy City Clerk 0 2 CITY OF ANDOVER chael R. G che, Mayor f PRELIMINARY PLAT -of- PSM ADDITION -for- CLASSIC CONSTRUCTION h NORTH GRAPHIC SCALE 30 a 1s 30 60 120 1 INCH = 30 FEET —� DENOTES BITUMINOUS SURFACE DENOTES CONCRETE SURFACE DENOTES ADJACENT PARCEL OWNER INFORMATION •v (PER ANOKA COUNTY TAX INFORMATION) PROPERTY DESCRIPTION Lot 3, Black 1. ANDOVER CLOCKTOWER COMMONS, Anoka County, Minnesota. NOTES — Field survey was completed by E.G. Rud and Sons. Inc. an 3/20/17. — Address of the surveyed premises: 15216 Bluebird Street N.W. Andover, MN 55304. — Fee owner is invested in BDT Holdings, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company. PIN NO. 23-32-24-32-0024 —Boundary area of the surveyed premises: 81,5051 sq. ft. (1.87 acres) — Bearings shown are Anoka County Datum. — Parcel Zoned: SC — Shopping Center Curb shots are taken at the tap and back of curb. — Surveyed premises shown on this survey map is in Flood Zone X (Areas determined to be outside the 0.25 annual chance floodplain.), according to Flood Insurance Rate Map Number 27OU3CO3D6E Community Na. 270689 Panel No. 0306 Suffix E by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, effective date December 16, 2015. — Proposed site plan information provided by Rosa Architectural Croup Inc. on 4-06-2017. — This survey was prepared based upon Title Commitment File No. 057394, prepared by C.U. Commercial Title Services, as agents for Old Republic National Title Insurance Company. dated March 28th, 2017. — According to the Declaration of Restrictive Covenants far Hamilton Square per Document No. 1295930.0, the surveyed premises can not be a primary medical clinic. — According to Restrictive Covenant per Document No. 1973561.001, the surveyed premises can not be a restaurant. • — According to the Declaration Concerning Easements, Covenants and Restrictions per Occurrent No. 1874731.0 and amended by Document No. 2074824.001, the surveyed premises along with Lots 1. 2. 4 k 5. Block 1, ANDOVER CLOCKTOWER COMMONS, are subject to and together with easements for Ingess, Egress, Parking and Access purposes; Utility purposes; Drainage purposes; Building Encroachment purposes; Work purposes; and permanent easement for temporary access for City of Andover. Said easements are undefined in location. �Enemm�nR ANOKA COUNTY BENCHMARK NO. 2031 5 19H ELEVATION = 898.602 FEET (NAV088) Professional Land Surveyors www.egrud.com 6776 Lake Drive NE, Suite 110 Lino Lakes, MN 55014 Tel. (651) 361-8200 Fax(651)361-8701 0 n St�lan jk \ v!F✓� eua-+v �v,t ���- Q69 fav 't// / 1 / WI Ole z y � v � D \ v e j \ 'r EXISTING ZONING t / CURRENT ZONING IS SC — SHOPPING CENTER VICINITY MAP PART OF SEC. 23, TWP. 32, RNG. 24 ANOKA COUNTY, MINNESOTA QNO SCALE) I hereby certify that this survey, plan or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I om c duly Registered Land Surveyor under the laws of the State of Minnesota. JASO LEGEND TREE DETAIL DENOTES IRON MONUMENT FOUND AS LABELED '/DENOTES ELEVATION O DENOTES IRON MONUMENT SET, MARKED RLS#' 41578 OTES TREE QUANTITY --DEN"-`\DENOTES UNLESS OTHERWISE SHOWN.` V� TREE SIZE IN INCHES [3 DENOTES CATCH BASIN DENOTES TREE TWE Cl DENOTES CABLE PEDESTAL 6D DENOTES ELECTRICAL BOX 'Cr DENOTES HYDRANT ® DENOTES SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE \ IL DENOTES TELEPHONE PEDESTAL to DENOTES WATER VALVE + DENOTES EXISTING CONTOURS \ , n —� DENOTES EXISTING SANITARY SEWER } »— DENOTES EXISTING STORM SEWER —e DENOTES EXISTING WATER MAIN \ r \ DENOTES RESTRICTED ACCESS DEDICATED TO ANOKA COUNTY PER THE RECORDED PLATS OF HAMILTON SQUARE AND ANDOVER CLOCKTOWER COMMONS —� DENOTES BITUMINOUS SURFACE DENOTES CONCRETE SURFACE DENOTES ADJACENT PARCEL OWNER INFORMATION •v (PER ANOKA COUNTY TAX INFORMATION) PROPERTY DESCRIPTION Lot 3, Black 1. ANDOVER CLOCKTOWER COMMONS, Anoka County, Minnesota. NOTES — Field survey was completed by E.G. Rud and Sons. Inc. an 3/20/17. — Address of the surveyed premises: 15216 Bluebird Street N.W. Andover, MN 55304. — Fee owner is invested in BDT Holdings, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company. PIN NO. 23-32-24-32-0024 —Boundary area of the surveyed premises: 81,5051 sq. ft. (1.87 acres) — Bearings shown are Anoka County Datum. — Parcel Zoned: SC — Shopping Center Curb shots are taken at the tap and back of curb. — Surveyed premises shown on this survey map is in Flood Zone X (Areas determined to be outside the 0.25 annual chance floodplain.), according to Flood Insurance Rate Map Number 27OU3CO3D6E Community Na. 270689 Panel No. 0306 Suffix E by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, effective date December 16, 2015. — Proposed site plan information provided by Rosa Architectural Croup Inc. on 4-06-2017. — This survey was prepared based upon Title Commitment File No. 057394, prepared by C.U. Commercial Title Services, as agents for Old Republic National Title Insurance Company. dated March 28th, 2017. — According to the Declaration of Restrictive Covenants far Hamilton Square per Document No. 1295930.0, the surveyed premises can not be a primary medical clinic. — According to Restrictive Covenant per Document No. 1973561.001, the surveyed premises can not be a restaurant. • — According to the Declaration Concerning Easements, Covenants and Restrictions per Occurrent No. 1874731.0 and amended by Document No. 2074824.001, the surveyed premises along with Lots 1. 2. 4 k 5. Block 1, ANDOVER CLOCKTOWER COMMONS, are subject to and together with easements for Ingess, Egress, Parking and Access purposes; Utility purposes; Drainage purposes; Building Encroachment purposes; Work purposes; and permanent easement for temporary access for City of Andover. Said easements are undefined in location. �Enemm�nR ANOKA COUNTY BENCHMARK NO. 2031 5 19H ELEVATION = 898.602 FEET (NAV088) Professional Land Surveyors www.egrud.com 6776 Lake Drive NE, Suite 110 Lino Lakes, MN 55014 Tel. (651) 361-8200 Fax(651)361-8701 0 n St�lan jk \ v!F✓� eua-+v �v,t ���- Q69 fav 't// / 1 / WI Ole z y � v � D \ v e j \ 'r EXISTING ZONING t / CURRENT ZONING IS SC — SHOPPING CENTER VICINITY MAP PART OF SEC. 23, TWP. 32, RNG. 24 ANOKA COUNTY, MINNESOTA QNO SCALE) I hereby certify that this survey, plan or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I om c duly Registered Land Surveyor under the laws of the State of Minnesota. JASO C I T Y O F YDOVER. 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: Supplemental Agenda Items for May 9, 2017 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting DATE: May 9, 2017 The Planning and Zoning Commission is requested to receive the following supplemental information. Discussion Items PUBLIC HEARING: Conditional Use Permit Amendment/Revised Planned Unit Development - Andover Clocktower Commons -Classic Construction. The write up notes that both lots meet the minimum requirements for SC, Shopping Center District. However, Lot 2 Block 1 does not meet the minimum requirements. The minimum lot width required is 200 feet while the proposed lot is 163.74 feet. Staff would like to point this out as it can be incorporated into the PUD. Staff has also included photo's of the area. Res lly s 'tt , Joe Janish Community Development Director !t �' McDo�alds I �! t_ f,� t =TOW Y O F 4VE: 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. • ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 • (763) 755-5100 FAX (763) 755-8923 • WWW.CI.ANDOVER.MN.US TO: Planning and Zoning Commissioners FROM: Joe Janish, Community Development Director SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING: Consider Preliminary Plat (Replat into two lots) of Lot 3, Block 1, Andover Clocktower Commons; located at the northeast corner of Hanson Boulevard NW and Crosstown Boulevard NW. DATE: May 9, 2017 INTRODUCTION BDT Holdings, LLC, the current owners of the Andover Clocktower Commons are requesting to replat Lot 3, Block 1, Andover Clocktower Commons into two lots. DISCUSSION Background The original CUP/PUD approval was granted in September of 2003. The PUD, which is located in a SC, Shopping Center District, included five (5) lots consisting of a gas convenience store (Lot 1), fast food restaurant (Lot 2), bank (Lot 3), restaurant (Lot 4) and retail (Lot 5) as shown on the attached plan. The approval also included a landscape plan identifying the common area amenities including a clock tower feature and related landscaping on Lot 4. Cross parking and access agreements were also put in place. There was an amendment made in 2009 related to the direct access to Crosstown Blvd. NW in the form of a % intersection, which was approved. An Amendment was made in 2014 related to Lot 3, Block 1, Andover Clocktower Commons to convert the "bank" site to retail trade and service building. Lot 4, Block 1, was also converted from a "restaurant lot in the original PUD for a retail, trade and service building and allowed for a 20 foot encroachment in to the required 30 foot setback from Crosstown Blvd. NW. This encroachment created a 10 -foot setback for the future buildings on Lot 4, Block 1. Conformance with Local and regional Plans and Ordinances The property is proposed to be replatted and create two lots. Staff does not expect major impacts to the local and regional plans and ordinances due to the splitting of the existing lots. 0 Access The property would not add additional direct access onto a city or county roadway. The traffic movements would be internal on private roadways and is consistent with the past proposals. Anoka County Highway Department The ACHD did not provide comments on the plat due to the proposal not fronting a county roadway. Lots The two lots proposed meet the minimum lot size requirements for SC — Shopping Center. Minimum lot size requirements are as follows: Lot size: 30,000 sq. ft Lot width: 200 ft. Lot depth: 150 ft. Commercial Site Plan Review Each building constructed within the development will be subject to the Commercial Site Plan Review and approval process. As a part of this process, utility, grading, drainage and erosion control, landscape, and detailed site plans will be reviewed and approved by city staff. ACTION REQUESTED The Planning and Zoning Commission is asked to hold a public hearing to make a recommendation to the City Council. Attachments Resolution Location Map Engineering Memo Dated April 19, 2017 Plat approved in 2003 Proposed Plat R ;'peatfully ub itted, L' Joe Janish Cc: Tom Roberts, BDT Land, LLC 6484 Pinnacle Drive, Eden Prairie, MN 55346 Diane Leverentz, Classic Construction 18542 Ulysses Street NE East Bethel, MN 55011 2 Resolution CITY OF ANDOVER COUNTY OF ANOKA STATE OF MINNESOTA RES. NO A RESOLUTION AMENDING THE PRELIMINARY PLAT OF "PSM ADDITION" BY CLASSIC CONSTRUCTION LOCATED IN SECTION 23, TOWNSHIP 32, RANGE 24, ANOKA COUNTY, MINNESOTA, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOT 3, BLOCK 1 CLOCKTOWER COMMONS, ANOKA COUNTY, MINNESOTA WHEREAS, the Andover Review Committee has reviewed the preliminary plat; and WHEREAS, pursuant to published and mailed notice thereof, the Planning and Zoning Commission has conducted a public hearing on said plat; and WHEREAS, as a result of such public hearing, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommends to the City Council the approval of the plat. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Andover hereby agrees with the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approves the preliminary plat for two commercial lots for "PSM ADDITION", subject to the following conditions: 1. The Grading Drainage and Erosion Control Plan shall be revised as necessary to obtain approval from the Andover Review Committee and the Coon Creek Watershed Management Organization. 2. The Developer obtains all necessary permits from the Coon Creek Watershed District, DNR, Corps of Engineers, LGU, and MPCA 3. Contingent upon staff review and approval for compliance with City ordinances, policies and guidelines. 4. All storm sewer and drainage areas on the site are considered private and will be maintained by the property owners at their expense. 5. If necessary, the developer shall revise association documents, and record cross access easements for proposed shared garbage facility. 6. Approval of the PUD amendment by City Council RXXX-17. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Andover this June 6, 2017. 3 CITY OF ANDOVER ATTEST: Michelle Hartner, Deputy City Clerk Julie Trude, Mayor Location Map LOCATION MAP Property N Location ANL6 Y O F 6W1 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. • ANDOVER, MINI. FAX (763) 755-8923 • WWW.ANDOVERMN.GOV MEMO"NDOM TO: FROM: DATE: REFERENCE: Engineering Memo April 19, 2017 Stephanie Hanson, City Planner David Berkowitz, Director of Public Works/City Engineer Jason Law, Assistant City Engineer April 19, 2017 Preliminary Plat/Review #1/Mother Goose Daycare (PSM Addition to Clocktower Commons) The following comments are in regards to Review #1 of the Preliminary Plat: 1. It will be required to construct a minimum 24' wide drive aisle with bituminous curb on the "temporary side" to allow for two way traffic on the southwest and southeast lot lines. This would require either adjusting the lot lines to accommodate the 24' wide drive aisles, OR, have an agreement with the property owner where the improvements could be made on Lot 2, Block 1. Either option is acceptable. 2. Detailed review in regards to the site layout, hydrology, utility improvements, etc. will be completed as a part of the Commercial Site Plan review. 3. Additional comments pending further review. Note: It is a requirement that the Developer respond to each of these items in writing Lqet digital copy from City and type responses below original comment) when re -submitting the revised plans 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. C:\Users\jjanish.CITY_HALL\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.0utlook\GU513PB1\PP Review#1.doc KNOW ALL PERSONS BY THESE PRESENTS: That Ian Caeca Hamilton And Edward Lynn Hamilton As Trustees OF The Lon Gxsce Handtm Revocable Tent U/A Dated October 22, 1998, As To An Undivided One Half Interest And Edward Lyon Hamiltn And fart Grace Hanlillm As Tames, Of The Edward Lym Hamilton Revocable Trust U/A Dated October 22, 1998, As To An Undivided One ITdf Interest, fa owner of the following described propnty, situated in the Corny of Amla and Stale of Minnesota;, and Andover Cloeluo c CommmB, LLC, a Mwnaae limited liability compary, contract pa•chasr dT6c following described property riWaed in the County ofAaokq State ofMnvends, to wit: Id 1. Block 2 Hemiltoo Swine, aemding an the recorded pit thorn(, Aactu Crony, Mmvaota Harr caned the same to be noveyed it platted as ANDOVER CLOCKTOWER COMMONS and do hereby donate and dedicate to the public for public use faever We drainage sed utility ras®anLq as shone in the piL Also dedi ne to the Carry of Amla the right of access Into Canty Sate Aid Highw yNo. 78 and Canty Rod an. 18, as Brown On the Plat- 1. lati wines whereof said tan Gam Harris son And Edward Lyn Hamilton As Trustees Of The Lara Grace Haniltm Revocable Trust WA Dated October 22, 1998, As To M Undivided One Half bitai And Edward Lyn Harahan And Lara Dace Hamilton As Tnmtees Of The Edward Lynn Ha alion Revocable Trust LVA Dated Ocbber 22, 19M As To M Undivided One Half Interest have caused base Presents to be signed tbi_13n dryd' Ase nitn6CaL .200_3 In wastes; whereof said Andover Clorktower Cossmtn, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company, has caused these presents to be signed by its PmperotfiBasthis /!n dryof 14.Nafatam .200_,;l. / �A[ Q�a.,SJ / • —i ,�Y, off, ww ,_....t g aft a lLor F Iara Gram Harrdlim as hsatee afthelnn Edward Lyn 'Iron as tndtx ofthe Lore Clan Hasiltm Revocable Trust U/A dated Grace Hamilkn Revocable Trust U/A deed October 22, 1998, u to an smdivided ane October 22, 1998, as to an undivided we half halfintetes7 venal z.L',6..4� seriarlLUi. —s°'Liet_ J LL� Edward LynH�hudwaftbe Edward Late Grace Hamilton as mato ofthe Edward Lyn Hanham Revocable Trust UT/A dated Lyn Hamilton Revocable Trust U/A dated October 22, 1998, as to an undivided one October 22, 1998, as to an arAvided me half haHiateea interest C7ACTC1'OWER COMMONS, LLC 11 II .. 11 let ChidMdger SIATEO COUNTY caTNrr of The foregoing iatommt war advnwledgd befue an due 3 day of 2003, by Lam Cru Hao an ad Fdwad Lyn Hamilton as trustee N'thetan Cera Hmnilt Revmahle Tsmt U/Adated Odobm22,1998,mbehalfd'datold. R No* Public F_7=IM STATE. OFCOUNfYOF N. err, 20n The fortgowg imhummt w ackmwldgdbefv = thw jaday of Nod • 2011, by Ian C Hemilton and Edward Lyn Hessian in trustees of On Edward Lynn Houston Revocable Treat O/A bited Ocuber22, 1998, in be afof the tat. Public [�,VMI,,C�ELLE HARTNERRiuc-nMEXTASTATE OF MAI =.,wasBalN AN. v. 2003 COUNTY OF CI7111tlsn The fosrgowg InMnalml was admowladgd b.fm son this_L.I_dw of A)01/ . 200_3_by D. B.Manager-SEA_ Rlackta err Conewai LLC, a Mislada limited liability company in oftbalisiftedliabilrymentany. CHEUIMARIEOIIIIIN MI 53fNahly PUMk4AYItIIWod Z, Public try P Ctlugy EvgnaJn.31,i0O5 1 amby certify ant I have surveyed and planed the land dumbed in the dedicalioa on this plat as ANDOVER CLOCKTOWER COMMONS; that this pit is a armed rnpesmldIn of said survey that all diemvs ate uxrcily shown on the plat in feet and hundredths of a fat, that all nnmcorrectly have been ectly Placed w the m shown ar will be pl" as required b1 the local eo ernantal unit: that the outside boundary lines are correctly designated on said Plat and as ane m republic highwgs to be designated on said Plat other Zhao shown acrma. I HEREBY MTR RaT 1NB iWBM AM XL NIMH Tran ON " uaws DiSmAtD Risen Land Swyer WIIi11N F n ANn TK IEANWR n Li= No. 10945 fN1af0 NI,MICHELLE MANE DURGIN My Cme...m Fspima y®ury 31, 200 Ebirynsb9nCounly P Dwb My tidal Fxpina Jan.31,7006 LTTY OF ANDOVER We hereby IDXhfy the the city cased of Andover, Mariana duly accepted and approved this the odANDOVER CIACICTOWFR COMMONS a a regular mmdag held aw 2"a day of September, 2003. V applicebi, ow written commend sd recwrmc led . of theCm .,inner of Trmm.a ion mud the Camty Ihghway Entuncer have berm received by the City in the prescribed 30 day paid ha clapsd without receipt of such commend am rccommmdeliom, in povidd by Mwaaata Stmao, Section 503.03, Subdiviii. 2. Mayor By /L f :. /LlL oak COUNfY SURVEYOR Tbi pia W ban checked sed atF ovs'd thi. M n day or /YOVEMQCA . 200.3 _ Lys P�- Larry D. Anoka CountySw vryar ANDOVER CLOCKTO14ER COA& AI \ U I nulr!4J 1 D"V. f VkOPaIY iM ADMInn,BATpI STATE OF MINNESOTA N89.27'45"3 586'01'44 COUNTY OF HENEPIN InD-O- •�11 Tbc Cacgwog Saawyds Cm1Cuak war slsowledeed bcfom me Ibis _�`dry of NO V 0v anatt TMAmamsruToa iTATE OF MINNESOTA, 'BOUNTY CIF AKO1U1 200__, by Howmd W. Rage; fad Survgor. - - l aar.by certify -'z' the Within faslru• NI,MICHELLE MANE DURGIN My Cme...m Fspima y®ury 31, 200 Ebirynsb9nCounly P Dwb My tidal Fxpina Jan.31,7006 LTTY OF ANDOVER We hereby IDXhfy the the city cased of Andover, Mariana duly accepted and approved this the odANDOVER CIACICTOWFR COMMONS a a regular mmdag held aw 2"a day of September, 2003. V applicebi, ow written commend sd recwrmc led . of theCm .,inner of Trmm.a ion mud the Camty Ihghway Entuncer have berm received by the City in the prescribed 30 day paid ha clapsd without receipt of such commend am rccommmdeliom, in povidd by Mwaaata Stmao, Section 503.03, Subdiviii. 2. Mayor By /L f :. /LlL oak COUNfY SURVEYOR Tbi pia W ban checked sed atF ovs'd thi. M n day or /YOVEMQCA . 200.3 _ Lys P�- Larry D. Anoka CountySw vryar ANDOVER CLOCKTO14ER COA& AI \ U I 19941730 p p� N89.27'45"3 586'01'44 I 95.00 50.0 g64ggAry pts 0 _ 125 125 M k 25 I 1 101 I I I .1 _I I I 11 I I 589i7'45'W I79.94 I I I I I I I so � Approved Plat /-UUJ Boo)" �(=' T49 e .2-1 19941730 i N car / I WHCE OF COUNTY RECORDER iTATE OF MINNESOTA, 'BOUNTY CIF AKO1U1 _ ^• - - l aar.by certify -'z' the Within faslru• 8 Chid Or ren Q' S 7p! `^"� ,G6 / malt was Riad In Loss nYice to. m.,d ihe1$ AfoJ aD., ZQP3 7'453 2'L — -� 473,27 _ on . I \ I2 • sj. o'clock PN.. a:: +vas ddu1uly'1racordec _ -- 66.05 •�T6.72 ••. , __ �E�e'ol'--i aro o.Ba a�ej$6 \ 011141\ •`s In book%?say /-� .• c:mI"r1 liar I d0 \ �071y 4 .. \ By H C \1 N SYS \ \ J Ip \ pq 1e Nm d1 NOB TANGENT \ aR \ Obi•• \ �i�?v Srup'E NSo 9]0 •\\ � i" e rq, •' 8 / "'a Z. +I �E Chime l do �y^ry NORTH d®g�f3 R� 2 o 60 BLOCK '�, 1 �s� car / I .. ,. •v'S i/D 9bg \ ,G6 / I _ S89'27Y5'W 151.05 r�hk •' 8 / NORTH o 60 / I / �D SCALE IN FEET I � / FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS PLAT THE Z WEST LINE OF LOT 1, BLOCK 2, HAMILTON `.ta`7`�� // p •''''`', // SOUARE IS ASSUMED TO BEAR N00.32'15"W. IkDENOTES IRON MONUMENT FOUND '� D / •� O DENOTES 1/2 INCH IRON PIPE SET MARKED RLS 10945 a 't DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENTS —n— DENOTES RESTRICTED ACCESS DEDICATED $ � _ ARE SHOWN AS THUS: (NOT TO SCALE) TO THE COUNTY OF ANOKA � / / Car AS g1 6,919-.3 —J------ � 10J / BEING 10 FEET IN WIDTH AND ADJOINING RIGHT OF WAY LINES UNLESS OTHERWISE / / SHOWN ON THIS PLAT LANDFORM ' MINNEAPOLIS—PHOENIX a9 PY CoC1316I115z Sed 1`15.oD PRELIMINARY PLAT -of- PSM ADDITION -for- CLASSIC CONSTRUCTION NORTH GRAPHIC SCALE Ja a 15 b 60 120 I INCH = 30 FEET PROPERTY DESCRIPTION Lot 3. Block 1, ANDOVER CLO', [OWER COMMONS, Anoka County, Minnesota. NOTES - Field survey was completed by E.G. Rud and Sons, Inc. an 3/20/17. q, T` - Address of the surveyed premises: 15216 Bluebird Street N.W. Andover. MN 55304. 10, - Fee owner is invested in BDT Holdings, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company. PIN NO. ¢ 23-32-24-32-0024 444LLL - Boundary area of the surveyed premises: 61,505± sq. ft. (1.87 acres) Sy, - Bearings shown are Anoka County Datum. - Parcel Zoned: SC - Shopping Center e - Curb shots are token at the top and back of curb. - Surveyed premises shown on this survey map is in Flood Zone X (Areas determined to be outside the 0.2% annual chance floodplain.), according to Flood Insurance Rate Map Number 27003CO306E Community No. 270689 Panel No. 0306 Suffix E by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, effective date December 16, 2015. - Proposed site plan Information provided by Rosa Architectural Group Inc. on 4-06-2017. - This survey was prepared based upon Title Commitment File No. 057394, prepared by C.U. Commercial Title Services, as agents for Old Republic National Title Insurance Company, dated March 28th, 2017. - According to the Declaration of Restrictive Covenants for Hamilton Square per Document No. 1295930.0, the surveyed premises can not be a primary medical clinic. According to Restrictive Covenant per Document No. 1973561.001, the surveyed premises can not be a restaurant. • - According to the Declaration Concerning Easements, Covenants and Restrictions per Document No. 1874731.0 and amended by Document No. 2074824.001, the surveyed premises along with Lots 1. 2. 4 & 5. Black 1, ANDOVER CLOCKTOWER COMMONS, are subject to and together with easements for Ingess, Egress, Parking and Access purposes; Utility purposes; Drainage purposes; Building Encroachment purposes; Work purposes: and permanent easement for temporary access for City of Andover. Said easements are undefined in location. DENCNMARK Ron a SONSP INC, ANOKA COUNTY BENCHMARK NO. 2031 ELEVATION = 898.602 FEET (NAV08B) EST. 1777 Professional Land Surveyors www.egrud.com 6776 Lake Drive NE, Suite 110 Lino Lakes, MN 55014 Tel. (651) 361-8200 Fax (651) 361-8701 �0 /` t... j ..• '. / / / X' /10 / // do EJUSTING ZONING / r•• / // CURRENT ZONING IS SC - SHOPPING CENTER Proposed Plat ANCKA COUNTY, IVIMESOTA INO SCALE) that this survey, plan repored by me or under vision and that I am d Land Surveyor under State of Minnesota. LEGEND TREE DETAIL • DENOTES IRON MONUMENT FOUND AS LABELED --DENOTES ELEVATION 0 DENOTES IRON MONUMENT SET, MARKED RLS# 41578 - --OENOTES TREE QUANTITY UNLESS OTHERWISE SHOWN. DENOTES TREE SIZE IN INCHES ❑ DENOTES CATCH BASIN DENOTES TREE TYPE p DENOTES CABLE PEDESTAL 13 DENOTES ELECTRICAL BOX Y7 DENOTES HYDRANT m DENOTES SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE M DENOTES TELEPHONE PEDESTAL Da DENOTES WATER VALVE DENOTES EXISTING CONTOURS \�\ _ \ e DENOTES EXISTING SANITARY SEWER —»— DENOTES EXISTING STORM SEWER \" I— DENOTES EXISTING WATER MAIN \e \ —4 DENOTES RESTRICTED ACCESS DEDICATED TO ANOKA COUNTY PER THE RECORDED PLATS OF HAMILTON SQUARE AND ANDOVER CLOCKTOWER COMMONS - f -1 DENOTES BITUMINOUS SURFACE Pal DENOTES CONCRETE SURFACE v DENOTES ADJACENT PARCEL OWNER INFORMATION (PER ANOKA COUNTY TAX INFORMATION) PROPERTY DESCRIPTION Lot 3. Block 1, ANDOVER CLO', [OWER COMMONS, Anoka County, Minnesota. NOTES - Field survey was completed by E.G. Rud and Sons, Inc. an 3/20/17. q, T` - Address of the surveyed premises: 15216 Bluebird Street N.W. Andover. MN 55304. 10, - Fee owner is invested in BDT Holdings, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company. PIN NO. ¢ 23-32-24-32-0024 444LLL - Boundary area of the surveyed premises: 61,505± sq. ft. (1.87 acres) Sy, - Bearings shown are Anoka County Datum. - Parcel Zoned: SC - Shopping Center e - Curb shots are token at the top and back of curb. - Surveyed premises shown on this survey map is in Flood Zone X (Areas determined to be outside the 0.2% annual chance floodplain.), according to Flood Insurance Rate Map Number 27003CO306E Community No. 270689 Panel No. 0306 Suffix E by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, effective date December 16, 2015. - Proposed site plan Information provided by Rosa Architectural Group Inc. on 4-06-2017. - This survey was prepared based upon Title Commitment File No. 057394, prepared by C.U. Commercial Title Services, as agents for Old Republic National Title Insurance Company, dated March 28th, 2017. - According to the Declaration of Restrictive Covenants for Hamilton Square per Document No. 1295930.0, the surveyed premises can not be a primary medical clinic. According to Restrictive Covenant per Document No. 1973561.001, the surveyed premises can not be a restaurant. • - According to the Declaration Concerning Easements, Covenants and Restrictions per Document No. 1874731.0 and amended by Document No. 2074824.001, the surveyed premises along with Lots 1. 2. 4 & 5. Black 1, ANDOVER CLOCKTOWER COMMONS, are subject to and together with easements for Ingess, Egress, Parking and Access purposes; Utility purposes; Drainage purposes; Building Encroachment purposes; Work purposes: and permanent easement for temporary access for City of Andover. Said easements are undefined in location. DENCNMARK Ron a SONSP INC, ANOKA COUNTY BENCHMARK NO. 2031 ELEVATION = 898.602 FEET (NAV08B) EST. 1777 Professional Land Surveyors www.egrud.com 6776 Lake Drive NE, Suite 110 Lino Lakes, MN 55014 Tel. (651) 361-8200 Fax (651) 361-8701 �0 /` t... j ..• '. / / / X' /10 / // do EJUSTING ZONING / r•• / // CURRENT ZONING IS SC - SHOPPING CENTER Proposed Plat ANCKA COUNTY, IVIMESOTA INO SCALE) that this survey, plan repored by me or under vision and that I am d Land Surveyor under State of Minnesota. F1 ?CN Db 06 NVYE __ ____ - - ---A 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 the following: Title 12 Zoning Regulations to amend the zoning districts to include RR — Single Family Rural Reserve and provisions; and Title 13 Planning and Development to add provisions for lot splits in the Rural Reserve Residential District. DATE: May 9, 2017 INTRODUCTION At the October 25, 2016 City Council work session, City Council discussed a CPA request by Jake and Jon Packer to allow the subdivision of land within the Rural Reserve District into parcels smaller than what is currently allowed in the Comprehensive Plan. City Council provided direction to staff to proceed with a CPA and ordinance to address future development within the rural reserve area. Since October 25, 2016 the Planning Commission and City Council have approved a Comprehensive Plan amendment to address for higher density and further subdivision of property within the Rural Reserve District. The Metropolitan Council Community Development Committee will discuss the CPA at the June 5, 2017 meeting and the Metropolitan Council Board will make a determination on June 14, 2017. Staff is proposing to continue to hold a hearing and make a recommendation to contingent upon the Metropolitan Council approval. Due to the Comprehensive Plan Amendment, we are now amending the City Code to be consistent with the plan. DISCUSSION 1. Splitting Process Highlights Staff has proposed adding a new section with Title 13 while modifying the existing section. This creates a 1A (original language with some modification) and 1B (proposed splits in the Rural Reserve). The creation of two "1's" will allow for individuals to continue to split land as they do currently in other areas of the city and 1B will apply to property within the Rural Reserve area. Within the Rural Reserve area, an administrative lot split is not an option for land owners, all splits will be done through a public hearing process. Staff has also included language under the review process indicating: a* i 13-113-6: REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATIONS: A. If a parcel contains less than 40 acres but is 35 acres or greater and is described by the rectangular survey system as a quarter, quarter section at the time of adoption of this ordinance then that quarter, quarter is eligible for 4 units. Reviewing our current Lot Split Application, many of the items that are included in the draft ordinance are listed as required items in the application. The ordinance allows for the use of "public" information on the remnant parcels. This in theory should help to keep costs down for applicants that desire to split property within the Rural Reserve, yet still provide enough detail for the city to perform an appropriate review. 2. Restricting Future Development According to the Met Council the need to restrict future development on properties is required as part of the comprehensive plan. According to Metropolitan Council's Flexible Residential Development Ordinance Guidelines for the Diversified Rural Area (August 2008, page 2): 4. Require that the parcel(s) set aside for future urbanization be covered by a temporary development agreement or deed restriction, rather than a permanent conservation easement or other permanent restriction. In a typical open space development, with the purpose of long-term preservation of natural resources, communities usually ensure the long- term maintenance and protection of sensitive natural resources through the placement of a conservation easement that is often conveyed to a trust or public entity. When seeking to reserve land for future development, however, the community should not place permanent restrictions on the capability of the land to be developed. Instead, communities should place on the future urbanization parcel temporary development agreements or deed restrictions that contain "triggers" for the removal of such restrictions. The restrictions prevent the land from being developed before urban services are available. The ordinance should also detail the "triggers," or conditions, under which such restrictions would be removed and the parcel made available for development. Such conditions may include the rezoning of the parcel, change in the comprehensive plan, and the provision of urban infrastructure and utilities, among others deemed appropriate by the local unit of government. Currently the draft Ordinance includes language that a blanket easement will be applied to the remnant parcel as part of 13-1 B-4: J. When applicable, a deed restriction -restricting placement of residential structures may be required until future rezoning occurs, a change in the City of Andover's Comprehensive Plan, occurs removing the property from the Rural Reserve, and/or municipal water and sewer are extended to the property that would eliminate the need for the density restriction. K. When applicable, an easement stating that future roads, trails, city utilities, and future park areas may be located on the remnant parcel will be required. Staff would suggest the discussion between a blanket easement, temporary development agreement, or lot tracking as to ways in which to handle splitting of the property within the Rural Reserve. This item could be modified to language such as: J1. Remnant parcels shall restrict future development of homes through a development agreement until defined "triggers" are met such as: urban services are available, rezoning of said parcel to a higher density, change in the comprehensive plan to a zoning district that would allow higher density, among other "triggers" as may be deemed appropriate by the City Council. J2. Staff shall track and monitor the splitting of parcels through an internal tracking process. The proposed language of J1. or J2. could replace the existing language of J. and K. in the proposed draft ordinance. The temporary development agreement could provide the flexibility for the city and developer/property owner. Lot tracking would require staff to provide an "in-house" process that would allow staff to track the number of splits and remaining splits for each parcel within the Rural Reserve area. This could be established through electronic means and physically track the number of lots created through the splitting process. Through the tracking process staff would monitor the splits to avoid the inconsistency of the comprehensive plan and verifies the density as established in the comprehensive plan. 3. Ghost Platting According to Metropolitan Council staff, when 75% of the land is not preserved for urban development, ghost platting should be utilized in order to prevent issues with future extension of city utilities and roadways. As drafted the proposed ordinance will require the applicant to show how the property could be developed at an urban density regardless of the percentage of land that is preserved for future development: N. Sketch of how the lot(s) can be further subdivided to allow for a higher urban residential density (3 units per acre or greater). If the Planning Commission and City Council choose, it is possible to modify the ordinance to: N1. A sketch plan on how the property would be able to develop at 3 units to per acre shall be required when the area of lots to be developed exceeds 25% of the original parcel. 4. Zoning District Staff is clarifying the zoning regulations within the Rural Reserve. This information is similar to R-1 Single Family -Rural with the exception of a 5 -acre minimum lot size required in the proposed district vs. 2.5 acre minimum in R-1. ACTION REQUIRED Staff recommends the Planning Commission review and discuss the proposed zoning text amendment, zoning map changes, conduct a public hearing, and provide a recommendation to the City Council for approval, and provide direction to staff to draft the ordinance for consideration by the City Council. Res tfu ub itted, Joe Janish Community Development Director Attachments: Met Council Residential Development Ordinance Guidelines Draft Title 12 Changes Draft Title 13 Changes Andover City Council Meeting Minutes March 21, 2017 Andover City Council Workshop Meeting Minutes March 28, 2017 Andover DRAFT City Council Workshop Meeting Minutes April 25, 2017 Draft Sample Easement — This would be customized for each request Draft Sample Development Agreement — This would be customized for each request Draft Zoning Map I /jj.A Metropolitan Council .A.I Met Council Residential Development Ordinance Guidelines Flexible Residential Development Ordinance Guidelines for the Diversified Rural Area August 2008 Background The 2030 Regional Development Framework (RDF)' indicates that land use patterns in Diversified Rural Area Communities "include a mix of a limited amount of large -lot residential and clustered housing with agriculture and other uses" (RDF p. 27). The RDF further states the communities in the Diversified Rural Area should preserve areas where post -2030 growth can be provided with cost-effective and efficient urban infrastructure and accommodate growth without prematurely requiring the provision of regional urban services. In addition, the 2030 Water Resources Management Policy Plan (WRMPP) identifies areas for post -2030 wastewater investment and service. These areas are described in the text of the document as well as illustrated in Appendix E on a map titled Regional Wastewater System Long -Term Service Areas. The existing regional wastewater treatment plants and the broader infrastructure efficiency of contiguous sewered development are predicated on a residential density" of three units per acre or greater (WRMPP p. 54). The Council's planning strategies for Diversified Rural Areas call for communities in those areas to have land use plans that "[a]ccomodate growth not to exceed forecasts and clustered development not to exceed 1 unit per 10 acres" (RDF p. 32). However, the results of a recent study of "flexible residential development ordinances" employed in Diversified Rural Area communities show that some communities have implemented ordinances that permit activities that are in conflict with metropolitan system plans."' Density bonuses, large -lot development, and open space preservation ordinances sometimes permit residential development at densities that will severely limit the ability of some communities to achieve (in the future) the minimum density requirement of at least three units per net developable residential acre that is necessary for future cost-effective and efficient regional wastewater treatment services. The Council has developed guidelines for flexible residential development ordinances applied in communities in the Diversified Rural Area and identified as a Long -Term Service Area (LTSA) for regional wastewater services. These areas are essentially staging areas for future urbanization, and so development ordinances and land use patterns should reflect as much and not preclude future development on appropriate lands in those areas. A purpose of flexible residential development ordinances in these areas should be to preserve land for post -2030 growth and to accommodate the future extension of regional urban services. Communities should study and assess their landscapes to refine their development priorities. There may be areas within the community that contain an abundance of sensitive natural resources or that the community has identified as a greenway or conservation corridor. These areas may not be most suitable for future urbanization as the capability of the land to support development is low and constrained. In these cases, open space development or cluster development may be adapted to protect those resources to meet the community's goals. These guidelines are not intended to replace the work that has been done by numerous communities and organizations in developing flexible development ordinances. Rather, these guidelines are intended to be used along with those methods and standards for the varying types of flexible development ordinances. 1 Guidelines for Flexible Residential Development Ordinances'" Areas immediately beyond the current urban services boundary within the LTSA are considered temporarily rural. Residential development ordinances in these areas should limit densities to one unit per 10 acres, or allow the clustering of dwellings in a manner that will reserve land for future sewered development, in addition to protecting any sensitive resources that may exist. Ordinances providing for residential clustering in the above- described areas should take the following guidelines in consideration when developing or adapting flexible residential ordinances for these areas. Provide a purpose within the ordinance that describes the need to reserve land resources for efficient future urbanization when appropriate infrastructure is available to support that development. Defusing the purpose and intent of any ordinance provides the local unit of government with a basis for the regulations that follow. Clearly stating that a purpose of the flexible residential development ordinance is to reserve land resources for future development will allow potential applicants to better understand the regulations as they apply to individual properties. The local unit of government may also wish to apply aspects of an open space ordinance to other areas within the community that have different characteristics that they wish to set aside or protect; this distinction should also be stated and defined within the purpose section of the ordinance. 2. Describe the characteristics of the land required for future urbanization and seek to reserve tracts of land in a size and configuration capable of supporting future development (for example, non -hydric soils, location in relation to existing development, etc.). The ordinance should define the lands that are considered "buildable," as these lands are considered the most suitable for development. Removing lands that are restricted due to federal and state regulations, as well as any features that the local government has defined for protection or conservation, will allow the community to preserve sensitive natural features and to ensure the availability of land to accommodate future development. Density bonuses are commonly used by local communities as a means to encourage developers to use a non - conventional development ordinance. However, without specifying the types of lands that are required for future development, many communities have inadvertently encouraged large -lot development in which the private lots often consume most of the developable land and leave little remaining developable acreage available for future development. The lots within the development are often too large to efficiently extend urban -level services to the development. 3. Allow no more than 25% of the developable land in a project to be developed. For the purposes of future urbanization, larger future urbanization parcels should be reserved, limiting the cluster to a development area that a covers a minority of the area. To ensure that land is available for future development, the local unit of government should specify the maximum amount of developable land that is allowed to be used for the initial residential development. For the purposes of future urbanization, communities should limit the initial development envelope to no more than 25% of the total buildable area of the project parcel. 4. Require that the parcel(s) set aside for future urbanization be covered by a temporary development agreement or deed restriction, rather than a permanent conservation easement or other permanent restriction. In a typical open space development, with the purpose of long-term preservation of natural resources, communities usually ensure the long-term maintenance and protection of sensitive natural resources through the placement of a permanent conservation easement that is often conveyed to a trust or public entity. When seeking to reserve land for future development, however, the community should not place permanent restrictions on the capability of the land to be developed. Instead, communities should place on the future urbanization parcel temporary development agreements or deed restrictions that contain "triggers" for the removal of such restrictions. The restrictions prevent the land from being developed before urban services are available. The ordinance should also detail the "triggers," or conditions, under which such restrictions would be removed and the parcel made available for development. Such conditions may include the rezoning of the parcel, a change in the comprehensive plan, and the provision of urban infrastructure and utilities, among others deemed appropriate by the local unit of government. Page 2 Portions of the development that are designated as undevelopable or are to be set aside for recreational use or conservation purposes, on the other hand, should be either dedicated to the public or covered with a permanent conservation easement or permanent deed restriction. 5. Provide for the rezoning of the future urbanization parcel to a residential zoning classification at densities consistent with Council policy at such time that urban services are available to the parcel. To ensure the efficient utilization of urban services, communities should allow for the rezoning of the future urbanization parcel to densities that, at a minimum, are consistent with Council policy. This rezoning should only occur in conjunction with or after the provision of urban services, when the land is served by the infrastructure required to support higher density uses. 6. Encourage the use of community wastewater treatment systems to serve the temporary cluster and to allow for smaller lot sizes within the development. Clustering homes on smaller lots facilitates the connection of those homes to future sewer services and ensures that these services are being efficiently and economically utilized. These small lot sizes, however, are often too small to provide the necessary space for individual sewage treatment systems on each lot, in addition to a back-up site in case of primary system failure. Using a community treatment system resolves that issue: by employing a shared drainfield located in a common open space area, individual lots no longer need to be large enough to accommodate two on-site septic treatment sites. The use of smaller lot sizes will not only facilitate future connection to sewer services, once they become available, but also will reserve more developable land for future development. ' This memorandum references the online versions of the 2030 Regional Development Framework (as amended through December 14, 2006), the 2030 Water Resources Management Policy Plan (with revised forecasts as of January 9, 2008), and the Local Planning Handbook. " The Council defines "residential density" as the `number of dwelling units per net residential acre of land" (WRMPP p. 111). For planning purposes, the Council uses a standard calculation of net developable acres and net density to measure a community's capacity to accommodate residential development. The minimum density requirement is three units per net developable residential acre. Net residential acreage is calculated by subtracting from gross acres wetlands and water bodies, public parks and open spaces, arterial road right-of-way, and natural and other resources mapped and protected by local ordinances and in the comprehensive plan update. (Local Planning Handbook p.3-5) "' Under Minnesota Statutes sections 473.858, subdivision 1 and 473.865, subdivision 2, a local governmental unit cannot adopt any official control of fiscal device which is in conflict with its local comprehensive plans `or which permits activity in conflict with metropolitan system plans." Official controls are: ordinances and rules which control the physical development of a city, county, or town, or any part thereof or any detail thereof and implement the general objectives of the comprehensive plan. Official controls may include ordinances establishing zoning, subdivision controls, site plan regulations, sanitary codes, building codes, and official maps. (Minn. Stat. § 473.852, subd. 9) The "metropolitan system plans" are the "transportation portion of the Metropolitan Development Guide, the policy plans, and capital budgets for metropolitan wastewater service, transportation, and regional recreation open space." (Minn. Stat. § 473.852, subd. 8) Minn. Stat. § 473.854 authorizes the Council to "prepare and adopt guidelines and procedures relating to the requirements of sections 462.355, 473.175, and 473.851 to 473.871 [the Metropolitan Land Planning Act] which will provide assistance to local governmental units in accomplishing the provisions of [the Act]." Page 3 Draft Title 12 Changes CHAPTER ZONING DISTRICTS AND MAP SECTION: 12-3-1: Purpose Of Zoning Districts 12-3-2: Zoning Districts Established 12-3-3: Purpose Of Each District 12-3-4: Zoning District Map 12-3-5: Minimum District Provisions 12-3-2: ZONING DISTRICTS ESTABLISHED: For the purpose of this title, the city is hereby divided into the following zoning districts: Symbol Name RR Single Family Rural Reserve R-1 Single Family Rural Residential R-2 Single Family Residential Estate R-3 Single Family Suburban Residential R-4 Single Family Urban Residential R-5 Manufactured Housing M-1 Multiple Dwelling Medium Density M-2 Multiple Dwelling AgP Agricultural Preserve GR General Recreation LB Limited Business NB Neighborhood Business SC Shopping Center GB General Business I Industrial CLR Closed Landfill Restricted 12-3-3: PURPOSE OF EACH DISTRICT: A. RR Single Family Rural Reserve: Rural Reserve District is approximately one thousand acres in size to accommodate future urban growth beyond the Previously planned Municipal Urban Service Area. This area is designated as an area of which is restricted from urban development until a master plan has been approved and municipal sewer and water can be constructed to serve the area. The city prohibits lot splits and subdivisions of less than one parcel per ten acres to prevent this area from rural residential development that would preclude orderly MUSA expansion. However, there are opportunities to allow for rural reserve lot splits of 5 acres minimum in situations which ensure that the majority of the residual land be preserved for future economical urban development as long as the provisions of the city codes are met. The intent of the ordinance is to allow subdivision of land while preserving residual land for future economical urban development. R-1 Single Family Rural Residential: 1. This district is intended to provide a residential atmosphere for those persons desiring to retain a large parcel of land. Such large lots are logical in areas where development into smaller lots would be difficult, or where public utilities will not be available in the foreseeable future. Furthermore, larger houses are more costly and require larger lots. Thus, to provide an area to accommodate those persons with the financial means to erect a large house, it is necessary to have an area of large lots. 2. Land which is wooded, or which has a changing topography, and low land which tends to be poor agriculturally is also the most expensive to develop for residential sites and, after development, the sites tend to be expensive to maintain. Such areas are the most interesting and most susceptible to large lot development. The district also is intended to preserve productive land for agricultural use. (Amended Ord. 314, 10-4-05) B. R-2 Single Family Residential Estate: This district is intended to provide a residential atmosphere for those persons desiring a single-family neighborhood with a suburban density. Lots in this district created after 1978 and without City sewer and water must be at least 2.5 acres. This zoning district was used for rural residential developments prior to 1978. No existing properties may be rezoned to R-2. (Amended Ord. 8, 10-21-1970; amd. 2003 Code, Amended Ord. 314 10-4-2005) C. R-3 Single Family Suburban Residential: This particular district is intended to satisfy those persons who prefer a medium sized lot. Lots in this district created after 1978 and without City sewer and water must be at least 2.5 acres. This zoning district was used for rural residential developments created before 1978. No existing properties may be rezoned to R-3. (Amended Ord. 314 10-4-2005) D. R-4 Single Family Urban Residential: This district represents urban density use by single-family detached dwellings. (Amended Ord. 314 10-4-2005) E. R-5 Manufactured Housing District: This district would permit all types of manufactured housing including manufactured homes and modular houses, provided public sewer and water is provided. (Amended Ord. 8, 10-21-1970) F. M-1 Multiple Dwelling Medium Density: This district is intended to provide a location for medium density attached dwelling units (townhouses) with private entrances. These areas may be transitional, however, the townhouse resident should have convenient access to all facilities provided for single-family neighborhoods. This district's location shall provide sufficient space for buffering from less intense uses. (Amended Ord. 8, 10-21-1970; amd. 2003 Code, Amended Ord. 314 10-4-2005) G. M-2 Multiple Dwelling District: This district is intended to provide a location for all types of multiple dwellings. This district's location shall have convenient access to all facilities provided for neighborhoods, open space, and buffering from less intense uses. Access to an M-2 district shall be from a collector or arterial roadway. (Amended Ord. 314 10-4-2005) H. GR General Recreation District: This district is intended to provide a location for all types of commercial recreation uses such as golf driving ranges, outdoor theaters, racetracks, and snowmobile areas, most of which require large amounts of land and good separation from residential areas. This district's location shall provide sufficient space for buffering from less intense uses. (Amended Ord. 314 10-4-2005) LB Limited Business District: This district is suitable only for commercial uses of a limited (less intense) nature. This may be due to the close proximity of residential uses. The LB district can be used as a transitional district or buffer between non -compatible uses such as intense commercial (GB) and low density residential uses. (Amended Ord. 314 10-4-2005) J. NB Neighborhood Business District: This district is used for retail sales and services in such scale as to serve the surrounding neighborhood needs. Locations for Neighborhood Business districts are typically small plots in close proximity to or surrounded by residential areas. NB zoning districts do not require frontage on an arterial roadway and can be served by local and collector streets. However, this district shall not be served exclusively by local streets. This district's location shall provide sufficient space for buffering from less intense uses. (Amended Ord. 314 10-4-2005) K. SC Shopping Center District: This zoning classification is reserved for modern retail shopping facilities of integrated design in appropriate locations. Locations for the SC district are larger plots that can accommodate more intensive retail development. Access shall be available from arterial roadways. This district's location shall provide sufficient space for buffering from less intense uses. (Amended Ord. 314 10-4-2005) L. GB General Business District: These are areas containing a wide variety of business uses including retail, service and semi -industrial. As such, they may contain businesses that tend to serve other business and industry as well as those catering to shopper needs. M. I Industrial District: These are areas that have the prerequisites for industrial development, but because of proximity to residential areas or the need to protect certain areas or uses from adverse influences, high development standards will be necessary. I district uses include service industries and industries which manufacture, fabricate, assemble or store, where the process is not likely to create offensive noise, vibrations, dust, heat, smoke, odor, glare or other objectionable influences. Generally, those include wholesale, service and light industries that are dependent upon raw materials refined elsewhere. An industrial "park" which maintains high development standards would be zoned I. This district's location shall provide sufficient space for buffering from less intense uses. (Amended Ord. 8, 10-21-1970, Ord. 314 10-4-2005) N. CLR Closed Landfill Restricted: This district is intended to apply to former landfills and adjacent lands which are managed under the Closed Landfill Program of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPGA). The purpose of the district is to limit uses of land both actively filled and related lands, to minimal uses in order to protect the land from human activity where response action systems are in place. This district shall only apply to the former landfill and pertinent adjacent lands (the limits of which are defined by the MPCA). This district shall apply whether the landfill is in public (State, MPCA, County, City, Township), Indian tribal, or private owners. 12.3-5: MINIMIM DISTRICT PROVISIONS RR R-1 R-2 R-3 R-4 R-51 M-1 M-2 AgP GR LB NB SC GB Lot area per dwelling unit (square feet) 1 -family homes 5 to 10 acres 2.5 acres 2.5 acres 2.5 acres 11,400 5,500 1 -family homes (lots created before 10/17/78) 1 acre 20,000 Single-family twin homes 6,000 5,000 Single-family attached 6,000 5,000 Apartments (lot area per unit in square feet) 1 -bedroom units 4,000 2 -bedroom units 5,000 Floor area per dwelling unit (square feet) See floor area definition for two story homes 1 -family homes 960 960 1,200 960 960 960 960 Single-family twin homes 960 960 Single-family attached 960 960 1 -bedroom apartment units 700 Each additional apartment bedroom (plus) 150 Lot dimensions RR R-1 R-2 R-3 R-4 R-51 M-1 M-2 AgP GR LB NB SC GB I Lot width -front setback line (feet) 300 300 300 300 80 150 150300 120 100 150 200 100 100 Lot width (lots created before 10/17/78) 165 100 Lot width (feet) 1,320 Lot depth (feet) 150 150 150 150 130 150 150 135 135 150 150 150 150 Minimum garage size (square feet) 440 440 440 440 440 _2_20+1 prk spc 220+1 prk spc 220+1 prk spc 440 - Lot dimensions RR R-1 R-2 R-3 R-4 R-51 M-1 M-2 AgP GR LB NB SC GB I (continued) i Nonresidential lot area 10 5 acres 1 acre 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 40 20,000 20,000 22,500 30,000 20,000 24,000 (acres or square feet) acres sf sf sf sf acres sf sf sf sf sf sf Minimum district size 2 acres 5 acres Principal structure height 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 45 45 45 (maximum) subject to City Code 12-3-5 13.5 Land coverage (maximum 20 20 20 30 30 20 30 30 Up to 40 Up to 40 Up to 40 Up to 40 Up to 50 percent of structures) Building setbacks RR R-1 R•2 R-3 R-4 R-51 M-1 M-2 AgP GR LB NB SC GB I Any yard setback from 50 50 50 50 40 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 county road subject to City Code 12-5-47 30 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 Front yard setback (feet) 40 40 40 35 352 Side yard principal 10 10 10 10 10 20 30 10 104 104 104 104 104 structure setback from interior lot linea Side yard setback from 40 40 40 35 355 30 30 40 30 30 30 30 30 30 property line adjacent to street Attached residential 6 garage (over 20 feet wide) from interior lot line Rear yard setback 50 50 50 30 30 30 30 30 25 25 25 25 25 Rear yard setback for any 40 40 40 35 35 residential structure from prop. line adjacent to street Notes: 1. Allowed by Planned Unit Development only. 2. Unless existing structures would indicate a lesser setback to maintain uniformity. 3. An additional 5 -foot setback shall be added when plans for the principal structure accommodate an access for a deck. 4. See Section 12-5-3 of this title for setback adjacent to residential areas. 5.25 feet if it is a back-to-back lot. 6. See City Code 12-13 for exceptions allowed as a Conditional Use 7. See also City Code 12-5-4 when less than minimum required right-of-way exists All setback measurements are from property lines. (Ord. 273, 9-2-2003; amd. Ord. 274, 9-2-2003; amd. Ord. 314,10-4-2005; Ord. 403,12-21-10; Amended Ord. 423, 10-16-12) CHAPTER FENCES AND WALLS 12-7-3: FENCE HEIGHT: A. In the rear and side yards up to the front fagade of the principal structure, fences up to a height of six (6) feet are allowed. (Amended Ord. 386, 8/5/09) B. Fences located closer to the front property line than the principal structure, shall not exceed four (4) feet in height. In the RR Single -Family Rural Reserve, R-1 Single -Family Rural Residential and R-2 Single -Family Estate zoning districts, "ornamental fences", as defined in Section 12-2-2 of this title, of up to six (6) feet in height are permitted in all yards, provided the fence does not encroach upon the Clear View Triangle as defined in Section 12-2-2 of this code. (Amended Ord. 386, 8/5/09) CHAPTER HOME OCCUPATIONS 12-9-12: FARM WINERIES: The following provisions shall apply to all farm wineries that are considered home occupations under the Conditional Use Permit process: Farm wineries which shall be allowed on 2'/2 acre or larger parcels in the RR, R-1, R-2 and R-3 Zoning Districts. Chapter 12 Katy 11) 3Q111 r I PERMITTED, PERMITTED ACCESSORY, CONDITIONAL, INTERIM AND PROHIBITED USES? P -Permitted Use R-1 Single Family -Rural M-2 Multiple Dwellin PA- Permitted Accessory Use R-2 Single Family- Estate RR Single Family Rural Reserve C -Conditional Use' sraFoorrioTES R-3 Single Family- Suburban X -Prohibited Use R-4 Single Family- Urban PUD- Planned Unit Development R-5 Manufactured Housing I- Interim Use M-1 Multiple Dwelling- Low Density If Use Not Specifically Listed or Provided for Elsewhere in the City Code, It Is Prohibited Perm4tted. Permitted Accessory, Condiflonal. Interim and Prohibited IJqeq RR Zononp Diptricts I R-1 I R-2 R-3 j R4 I R-5 I M-1 I M-2 �IIII�S Animal Therapy Facility -on properties larger than five acres in size C C C C X X X X Commercial animal training 2.5 acre minimum residential lot size C C C C X X X X Commercial riding stables C C X X X X X X Dog kennel license - Private (2.5 acre minimum lot size required) in compliance with City Code 54A C C C C C C C C Dog kennel license - Commercial (minimum 2.5 acre lot size) in compliance with City Code 54A C C C C C C X X Domestic animals in compliance with City Code Title 5 PA PA PA PA PA PA PA PA Farm animals up to 5 per acre, plus one additional farm animal per acre above 5 acres on residential properties 5 acres or greater up to a maximum of 20 animals and definition under City Code 12-2 P P P P X X X X Farm animals greater than allowed as a permitted use on residential properties 5 acres or greater in compliance with City Code Title 5' and definition under City Code 12-2 C C C C X X X X Feedlots, except Anoka Independent Grain and Feed Inc. which is a permitted use that predates the adoption of this ordinance. X X X X X X X X Pleasure(recreation animals on residential properties at least 2.5 acres in size in compliance with City Code Title 5 and definition under City Code 12-2 PA PA PA PA PA X X X Poultry on residential properties with neither municipal sewer or water in compliance with City Code Tide 5 and definition under City Code 12-2 P P P P X X X X Dwellings Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) C C X X X X X X Manufactured homes and modular homes, provided they are developed under a planned unit development and the complex is a minimum of twenty (20) acres in size X X X X X PUD X X Multiple dwellings X X X I X X I X PUD JPUD Relocated dwelling units in compliance with City Code 9-11 C C C C C C C C Single-family residential buildings (detached) P P P P P PUD PUD PUD Single-family residential buildings (attached) and townhouses X X X X X X PUD PUD Temporary FamilyHealth Care Facility X X X X X X X X Two-family, home conversions (splits) in compliance with City Code 12-8-1 X X X X X X C C Home Occu ato ions Home occupations within principal structure in compliance with City Code 12-9 PA PA PA PA PA PA PA PA Home occupations in accessory structure on a parcel of land three (3) acres or larger utilizing an accessory structure and/or exterior storage in compliance with City Code 12-9 C C C C C C C C Barbershops and beauty salons C C C C C C C C P- Permitted Use R-1- Single Family -Rural M-2- Multiple Dwelling Bed and breakfast C C C C C C I X I X RR Boarders or roomers, up to two persons, by a resident family, with no private PA etriptc R-5 M-1 M-2 Daycare Facility -Group Family P P P P P cookingfacilities P P PA PA PA PA PA PA X Cabinet making/wood working (home occupation) in compliance with City C C X X X X X X P Code 12-9 P P Office in compliance with City Code 12-9 C C PA PA PA Commercial greenhouse C C C C X X X X C Daycare Centers- Home Occupation (12 or fewer children) C P P P P P P P Daycare Centers -Home Occupation (13 or more children) C C C C C P- Permitted Use R-1- Single Family -Rural M-2- Multiple Dwelling PA- Permitted Accessory Use R-2- Single Family- Estate RR Sinale Family Rural Reserve C -Conditional Use' sn:FoorrroITS R-3- Single Fam4- Suburban X Prohibited Use R4- Single Family- Urban PUD- Planned Unit Development R -S- Manufactured Housing I- Interim Use M-1- Multiple Dwelling- Low Density If Use Not Specifically Listed or Provided for Elsewhere in the City Code, It Is Prohibited Permitted, Permitted Accessory, Cond4flonal. Interim and Prohibited Uses RR ZOE R-1 R-2 R-3 2 i an R4 31 etriptc R-5 M-1 M-2 Daycare Facility -Group Family P P P P P P P P Farm Wineries (subject to City Code 12-9-12) PA PA C C X X X X Group Homes as regulated by State Statute C C P P P P P P Office in compliance with City Code 12-9 C C PA PA PA PA PA PA Therapeutic massage establishment (as a home occupation offering on site massae services) as regulated by chapter 9 of this title and title 3, chapter 6 P P C C C C C C Schools K-12 Schools P P P P P P X X Post -secondary Schools PA PA C C C C X X Schools exceeding height maximum up to 45 feet in height C C C C C C C C Subordinate Classroom Structures (when located on a licensed Primary and/or Secondary school property) C C I I I I I I Subordinate Classroom Structures (when located on a property where there is a church as the principal use) P P I I I I I I tiltttes Private utilities (gas, electric, phone, cable, etc) in Compliance with City Code 8-2 P P P P P I' P P Private utility structures and/or uses (electrical transmission lines, gas pipelines, etc.) C C C C C C C C Public utility uses for local services P P P P P P P P Other Agricultural uses- rural outside MUI bound onl P P P P X X X X Agricultural uses- urban P P P P P P P P Antennas in excess of thirty-five feet (35') in height in compliance with City Code 9-12 C C C C C C C C Buildings (Principal) exceeding height maximum subject to City Code 12-3-5 C C C C C C C C Bulk fuel storage (tanks greater than 1,000 gallon storage capacity) in compliance with City Code 12-8-5 C C X X X X X X Campgrounds, gun clubs and ranges, archery ranges, racetracks C C X X X X X X Cemeteries P P C C C C C C Churches C C C C C C X X Clubs and lodges C C C C C C C C Crafts and antique businesses in buildings designated as historical sites by a county, state or nationally recognized historical organization X X X X X X X C Garages and Accessory Structures in compliance with City Code 12-6 PA PA PAI PA PA PA PA PA Golf courses and driving ranges C C C C C C C C Highway construction materials (temporary rocessin and storage) I I I I I I I I Marinas C C C C C C C C Publicly owned and operated property except as herein amended P P P P P P Resorts C C C C X X Solar En Systems (ground mounted subject to Ci Code 9-15 PA PA X X X X Solar EnergySystems roof mounted subject to Ci Code 9-15 PA PA PA PA PA PA fPAPA Swimmin ools and recreation areas or structures PA PA PA PA PA PA Uses which may be detrimental to the health, safety, and welfare of persons residingor working in the vicinity X X X Wind Energy Conversion Systems (WECS)-as defined in and in compliance with Title 9, Chapter 13 of this code. WECS are prohibited on WDE site. C C C CC C C C (Amended Ord. 8,10-21-1970; amd. Ord. 8JJJJJJ, 7-18-2002; Ord. 8000000,8-5-2002; Ord.8000QQQ, 10-1-2002; Ord. 8RRRRRR, 10-1- 2002; amd. Ord. 8AAAAAAA, 4-15-2003; amd. 2003 Code; amd. Ord 314 10-4-2005; amd. Ord. 385 7-21-09; amd. Ord. 388 10-20-09; amd. Ord. 390 3-16-10; amd. Ord. 397 8-17-10; Amd. Ord. 404,1-18-11; Amd. Ord. 436,4-15-14; Amd. Ord. 463,6-21-16 1 Conditional use permits for uses not listed herein shall not be granted except where the city council determines that said uses are similar in character to those listed herein. Within any of the following districts, no land or structure shall be used for the following uses by districts except by conditional use permit and in accordance with the criteria as stated in subsection 12-15-613 of this title. 2 Private sewer and water systems shall only be permitted on every other lot, or no more frequently than one private system for each forty thousand (40,000) square feet where large lots are established. This shall not apply to lots of record at the time this title is adopted. On each new plat, the lots are to be developed in accordance with this chapter and shall be so designated. 3 Private sewer and water systems shall only be permitted to replace systems on existing lots when municipal sewer and water is not available. (Amended Ord. 314, 10-4-2005) 4 Provided a minimum of twenty five thousand (25,000) square feet of retail floor space is constructed, except as otherwise approved as part of a Planned Unit Development. 5 Loading berths prohibited in the LB district. 6 After a minimum of two thousand (2,000) square feet of retail floor space is constructed, provided the site is two (2) acres or larger. 7 See subsection 13-2-4 of this code for permitted, conditional, and prohibited uses in the AgP district. 8 Farm operations in existence on April 18, 2006 are exempt from this provision. See also City Code 124-4. 9 Sec 12-2-2 for definitions of "Continuous Operation and Non -continuous Operation'. (Amended Ord. 421, 10-2-12) 10 From November 15th to January 1st continuous operation will be allowed in the General Business and Industrial Zoning District. (Amended Ord. 424, 11-7-12) CHAPTER 13 PERFORMANCE STANDARDS 12-13-21: RESIDENTIAL BUILDING STANDARDS': All permitted residential structures in RR R-1, R-2, R-3, and R-4 zoning districts shall meet the following design criteria: A. All structures shall have permanent concrete or treated wood foundations that will anchor the structure, which comply with the State Building Code as adopted in Section 9-1-1 of this code and which are solid for the complete circumference of the house. Except, four -season porches may be constructed without the permanent foundation, provided the porch does not exceed a maximum coverage of twenty percent (20%) of the footprint of the habitable portion of the principal structure. B. Sixty percent (60%) of a residential structure shall have a minimum width of twenty-four feet (24'). Width measurements shall not take into account overhangs or other projections. Such width requirement shall be in addition to the minimum area per dwelling requirements of Section 12-3-5 of this title. C. Single-family dwellings other than approved earth sheltered homes shall have at least a 4:12 roof pitch and shall be covered with shingles or tiles. This requirement shall not apply to three -season porches, four -season porches, greenhouses and solariums, provided they meet the State Building Code and are approved by the Building Official. D. All single-family dwellings shall have roof overhangs that extend a minimum of one foot (1') from all the walls of the structure unless the style of the house dictates otherwise and said plan is approved by the Building Official prior to any permits being granted. E. All single-family structures must be built in conformance with Minnesota statutes sections 327.31 to 327.35 or the State Building Code as adopted in Section 9-1-1 of this code. F. Any metal siding upon single-family residential structures shall have horizontal edges and overlapping sections no wider than twelve inches (12"). Sheet metal siding shall not be permitted in such districts. G. All exterior construction, including finish and the final grading, shall be completed in accordance with plans and specifications within one year following date of See also title 9, chapter 1 of this code. permit issuance. All existing buildings not meeting the provisions of this title shall comply within one year following adoption of this title. (Amended Ord. 8, 10-21- 1970; amd. 2003 Code) Draft Title 13 Changes TITLE 13 PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT Subject Chapter Splitting Lots, Parcels Or Tracts Of Land Generally.1A Snlittina Lots. Parcels Or Tracts Of Land Within Rural Reserve.................................................1 B Agricultural Preservation............................................2 Planned Unit Development (PUD) .............................3 Shoreland Management.............................................4 Bluffland And Riverland Development ....................... 5 Buffer Strips And Standards For Protection Of Wetlands And Storm Water Ponds.......................6 CHAPTER 1A SPLITTING LOTS, PARCELS OR TRACTS OF LAND GENERALLY SECTION: 13-1A -1: Definition 13-1A -2: Minimum Lot Requirements 13-1A -3: Frequency Of Splitting Lots 13-1A -4: Application For Lot Split 13-1A -5: Fees 13-1A -6: Review And Recommendations 13-1A -7: Variances 13-1A -8: Compliance With Provisions 13-1A -9. Application And Term Of Provisions; Conflicts 13-1A -10: Enforcement And Penalty 13-1A-1: DEFINITION: A 'lot split" is any division of a lot, parcel, or tract of land into not more than two (2) parcels when both divided parcels meet or exceed the minimum requirements for platted lots in the applicable zoning district. (Amended Ord. 40, 8-16-1977) 13-1A-2: MINIMUM LOT REQUIREMENTS: No lot, parcel or tract of land shall be divided unless the resultant lots have at least the minimum width, depth and square footage as required for any parcel of land in the zoning district wherein the lot is located. (Amended Ord. 40, 8-16-1977) 13-1A-3: FREQUENCY OF SPLITTING LOTS: No owner may utilize this method of land division on any parcel more than one time in any three (3) year period. A three (3) year waiting period for a lot split is required on all lots, parcels or tracts from the date they were created by previous lot splits under this chapter. (Amended Ord. 40, 8-16-1977) A. Exceptions. A lot split may be applied for within the three (3) year waiting period provided the following conditions are met: 1. The property owner has owned the property for more than five years. 2. A one year waiting period shall be required between splits. 3. A maximum of three lots shall be created including the original lot. 4. City infrastructure and utilities such as sanitary sewer, storm sewer, water main and streets are in place. 5. Grading, drainage and erosion control plans shall be prepared that properly address how drainage will be handled on the site as well as the affect on adjacent properties to the satisfaction of the City. (Amended 431, 10-15-13) 13-1A-4: APPLICATION FOR LOT SPLIT: The applicant shall provide the following information: A. The scale and north direction. B. Dimensions of the property. C. Names and locations of adjacent streets. D. Location of existing buildings on and within one hundred feet (100') of subject property. E. Current zoning and legal description. F. Sufficient proof that the lot has not been split within the last three (3) years. MG. Such other information as may be required to fully represent the intent of the lot split. (Amended Ord. 40, 8-16-1977) 13-1A-5: FEES: A. There shall be a single charge as set forth by ordinance plus consultant's fees, if any, for a lot split application'. B. Where parkland was dedicated or a park fee paid at the time the original parcel was created, there shall be no park fee assessed or land dedicated at the time of the lot split application. If no park fees have been assessed nor land dedicated as above, the fee, as set forth by ordinance for each lot created under this chapter, may be assessed for park fees2. (Amended Ord. 40, 8-16-1977; amd. 2003 Code) 13-1A-6: REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATIONS: A. Planning And Zoning Commission Review: The proposed lot split shall first be presented to the Planning and Zoning Commission for its review and recommendation. Such recommendations shall consider land uses, traffic control, zoning regulation, future developments, and conformance with the 1 See subsection 1-7-3H of this code. 2 See subsection 1-7-3G of this code. comprehensive development plan, and any other criteria deemed pertinent by the Planning and Zoning Commission. (Amended Ord. 40, 8-16-1977) B. Notice To Adjacent Property Owners: Upon receipt of an application for a lot split, the Community Development Director shall notify by mail all property owners within three hundred fifty feet (350') of the property of the date of the review of such lot split. (Amended Ord. 40, 8-16-1977; amd. 2003 Code) C. Planning And Zoning Commission Recommendation To City Council: The division of a lot may be recommended for approval; provided that such split is in conformance with the City Comprehensive Plan, does not interfere with orderly planning, is not contrary to the public interest and does not nullify the intent of this chapter. D. City Council Action: 1. Following review and recommendation by the Planning and Zoning Commission, the request for a lot split shall be placed on the agenda of the City Council in the following manner: a. Recommendations from the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting held on the second Tuesday shall be placed on the agenda of the City Council at the first Tuesday meeting of the following month. b. Recommendations from the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting held on the fourth Tuesday shall be placed on the agenda of the City Council at the third Tuesday meeting of the following month, unless there are five (5) Tuesdays in the given month from which the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission is made, in which case, the recommendation shall be placed on the agenda of the City Council at the first Tuesday meeting of the following month. 2. Within sixty (60) days following receipt of the proposed lot split from the Planning and Zoning Commission, the Council shall approve or disapprove by resolution. If approved, a certified copy of the resolution approving the lot split shall be forwarded to the petitioner. E. Record Of Lot Split: The lot split, together with a certified copy of the resolution, shall thereafter be filed with the County Recorder's office. F. Time Limit On Implementing Lot Split: If the City Council determines that the conditions of approval are not met within twelve (12) months, the lot split will be null and void. (Amended Ord. 40, 8-16-1977) 13-1A-7: VARIANCES: Variances from the requirements of this title, Title 11: Subdivision Regulations, and Title 12: Zoning Regulations, may be granted by the City Council as provided in City Code 12-14-7, except that any variance request shall be made as a part of the lot split approval process. (Amended Ord. 407, 6-21-11) 13-1A-8: COMPLIANCE WITH PROVISIONS: A. The effect of this chapter shall not work to preclude compliance with utilities hookup, payment of levied and pending assessments, and performance of any other requirements of the ordinances of the city. B. The owner, or agent of owner, of any parcel shall not divide any lot or parcel for the purpose of sale, transfer, or lease with the intent of evading the provisions of this chapter. C. The owner, or agent of owner, of any parcel shall not sell or otherwise convey said parcel with the intent of evading the provisions of this chapter or circumventing attempts to plat acreage or otherwise subdivide tracts of land within the city. (Amended Ord. 40, 8-16-1977) ■ - -• - - ...._ _.WORN. �-SnzW9kr2T11P.M 13-1A-9: APPLICATION AND TERM OF PROVISIONS; CONFLICTS: A. This chapter shall apply to and govern the entire city during the period for which it is in effect. This chapter, during its effective period, shall replace and supersede provisions in all other ordinances and regulations applicable to the city which are in conflict or inconsistent with the provisions herein. All ordinances and provisions therein which are not in conflict with the terms and conditions of this chapter shall continue in full force and effect. 13-1A-10: ENFORCEMENT AND PENALTY: Any person, firm or corporation violating any of the provisions of this chapter shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction thereof, shall be punished as defined by state law. The lot splitting not in accordance with the requirements of this chapter may be enforced by mandamus, injunction, or any other appropriate remedy in any court of competent jurisdiction. (Amended Ord. 40, 8-16-1977) CHAPTER 1 B SPLITTING LOTS, PARCELS OR TRACTS OF LAND WITHIN THE RURAL RESERVE DISTRICT SECTION: 13-1 B-1: Definition 13-1 B-2: Minimum Lot Requirements 13-1 B-3: Frequency Of Splitting Lots 13-1 B-4: Application For Lot Split 13-1 B-5: Fees 13-1 B-6: Review And Recommendations 13-1 B-7: Variances 13-1 B-8: Compliance With Provisions 13-1 B-9: Application And Term Of Provisions; Conflicts 13-1 B-10: Enforcement And Penalty 13-113-1: DEFINITION: A "lot split' is any division of a lot, parcel, or tract of land into more than two (2) parcels when both divided parcels meet or exceed the minimum requirements for platted lots in the applicable zoning district. 13-1 B-2: MINIMUM LOT REQUIREMENTS: No lot, parcel or tract of land shall be divided unless the resultant lots have at least the minimum width, depth and square footage as required for any parcel of land in the zoning district wherein the lot is located. 13-1 B-3: FREQUENCY OF SPLITTING LOTS: No owner may utilize this method of land division on any parcel more than one time in any three (3) year period. A three (3) year waiting period for a lot split is required on all lots, parcels or tracts from the date they were created by previous lot splits under this chapter. A. Exceptions. A lot split may be applied for within the three (3) year waiting period provided the following conditions are met: 1. The property owner has owned the property for more than five years. 2. A one year waiting period shall be required between splits. 3. A maximum of three lots shall be created including the original lot. 4. City infrastructure and utilities such as sanitary sewer, storm sewer, water main and streets are in place. 5. Grading, drainage and erosion control plans shall be prepared that properly address how drainage will be handled on the site as well as the affect on adjacent properties to the satisfaction of the City. (Amended 431, 10-15-13) 13-1 B-4: APPLICATION FOR LOT SPLIT: The applicant shall provide the following information: A. The scale and north direction. B. Dimensions of the property. C. Names and locations of adjacent streets. D. Location of existing buildings on and within one hundred feet (100') of subject property. E. Current zoning and legal description. F. Sufficient proof that the lot has not been split within the last three (3) years. G. Floodplain shall be identified if applicable within the lot(s) proposed to have a home. An overlay may be used on the remnant parcel. H. Existing topography shall be shown along with proposed grading of the site (if necessary). Light Detection And Ranging (LIDAR) contour information may be used for the remnant parcel. I. Wetland delineation for the lot(s) that intend to have homes located on them. National Wetland Information (NWI) is acceptable for the remnant parcel. J. When applicable, a deed restriction -restricting placement of residential structures may be required until future rezoning occurs, a change in the City of Andover's Comprehensive Plan, occurs removing the property from the Rural Reserve, and/or municipal water and sewer are extended to the property that would eliminate the need for the density restriction.* K. When applicable, an easement stating that future roads, trails, city utilities, and future park areas may be located on the remnant parcel will be required.* L. Proof of severability for lots proposed to have home(s). M. Geotechnical Report. A standard geotechnical report with a history and recommendations regarding the sites. In addition, the report shall include SCS soil types, mottled soil elevations or highest anticipated water table, existing groundwater elevation, and soil borings to a minimum depth of 20 feet for the lots proposed to have homes on them. N. Sketch of how the lot(s) can be further subdivided to allow for a higher urban residential density (3 units per acre or greater).* O. Other information may be required to fully represent the intent of the lot split. 13-1 B-5: FEES: A. There shall be a single charge as set forth by ordinance plus consultant's fees, if any, for a lot split application. B. Where parkland was dedicated or a park fee paid at the time the original parcel was created, there shall be no park fee assessed or land dedicated at the time of the lot split application. If no park fees have been assessed nor land dedicated as above, the fee, as set forth by ordinance for each lot created under this chapter, may be assessed for park fees2. 13-1 B-6: REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATIONS: A. If a parcel contains less than 40 acres but is 35 acres or greater and is described by the rectangular survey system as a quarter, quarter section, at the time of adoption of this ordinance then that quarter, quarter is eligible for 4 units. B. Andover Review Committee (ARC): The proposed lot split shall first be reviewed by ARC. The applicant shall make modifications based upon ARC's comments and then resubmit for consideration at a Public Hearing for Planning and Zoning. C. Notice To Adjacent Property Owners: Upon receipt of a completed application for a lot split, the Community Development Director shall notify by mail all property owners within three hundred fifty feet (350') of the property of the date of the public hearing at the Planning Commission of such lot split. D. Planning And Zoning Commission Review: The Planning and Zoning Commission for its review and recommendation shall conduct a public hearing. Such recommendations shall consider land uses, traffic control, zoning regulation, future developments, and conformance with the comprehensive development plan, and any other criteria deemed pertinent by the Planning and Zoning Commission. D. Planning And Zoning Commission Recommendation To City Council: The Planning Commission shall hold a public hearing and provide for a recommendation to the City Council. The division of a lot may be recommended for approval; provided that such split is in conformance with See subsection 1-7-3H of this code. 2 See subsection 1-7-3G of this code. the City Comprehensive Plan, does not interfere with orderly planning, is not contrary to the public interest and does not nullify the intent of this chapter. E. City Council Action: 1. Following review and recommendation by the Planning and Zoning Commission, the request for a lot split shall be placed on the agenda of the City Council in the following manner: a. Recommendations from the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting held on the second Tuesday shall be placed on the agenda of the City Council at the first Tuesday meeting of the following month. b. Recommendations from the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting held on the fourth Tuesday shall be placed on the agenda of the City Council at the third Tuesday meeting of the following month, unless there are five (5) Tuesdays in the given month from which the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission is made, in which case, the recommendation shall be placed on the agenda of the City Council at the first Tuesday meeting of the following month. 2. Within sixty (60) days following receipt of the proposed lot split from the Planning and Zoning Commission, the Council shall approve or disapprove by resolution. If approved, a certified copy of the resolution approving the lot split shall be forwarded to the petitioner. F. Record Of Lot Split: The lot split, any deed restrictions required, any easements required, together with a certified copy of the resolution, shall thereafter be filed with the County Recorder's office. G. Time Limit On Implementing Lot Split: If the City Council determines that the conditions of approval are not met within twelve (12) months, the lot split will be null and void. 13-1 B-7: VARIANCES: Variances from the requirements of this title, Title 11: Subdivision Regulations, and Title 12: Zoning Regulations, may be granted by the City Council as provided in City Code 12-14-7, except that any variance request shall be made as a part of the lot split approval process. 13-1 B-8: COMPLIANCE WITH PROVISIONS: A. The effect of this chapter shall not work to preclude compliance with utilities hookup, payment of levied and pending assessments, and performance of any other requirements of the ordinances of the city. B. The owner, or agent of owner, of any parcel shall not divide any lot or parcel for the purpose of sale, transfer, or lease with the intent of evading the provisions of this chapter. C. The owner, or agent of owner, of any parcel shall not sell or otherwise convey said parcel with the intent of evading the provisions of this chapter or circumventing attempts to plat acreage or otherwise subdivide tracts of land within the city. 13-1 B-9: APPLICATION AND TERM OF PROVISIONS; CONFLICTS: A. This chapter shall apply to and govern the entire city during the period for which it is in effect. This chapter, during its effective period, shall replace and supersede provisions in all other ordinances and regulations applicable to the city which are in conflict or inconsistent with the provisions herein. All ordinances and provisions therein which are not in conflict with the terms and conditions of this chapter shall continue in full force and effect. 13-1 B-10: ENFORCEMENT AND PENALTY: Any person, firm or corporation violating any of the provisions of this chapter shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction thereof, shall be punished as defined by state law. The lot splitting not in accordance with the requirements of this chapter may be enforced by mandamus, injunction, or any other appropriate remedy in any court of competent jurisdiction. CC Meeting Minutes March 21, 2017 Regular Andover City Council Meeting Minutes — March 21, 2017 Page 2 carried unanimously. March 7, 2016, Workshop Meeting: Correct as written. Mayor Trude asked staff to confirm the accuracy. Mr. Dickinson confirmed the minutes reflected the discussion at the meeting regarding edits to the upcoming survey. Motion by Bukkila, Seconded by Knight, to approve the minutes as presented. Motion carried unanimously. CONSENT ITEMS Item 2 Approve Payment of Claims Item 3 Approve Resolution Removing No Parking Signs Along 168th Lane NW (See Resolution R022-17) Item 4 Approve No Parking Resolution/1681h Lane NW/MSA Street Reconstruction Project/17- 11 (See Resolution R023-17) Item 5 Declare Surplus Equipment Item 6 Approve Agreement/17-12/Reconstruction of 133rd Ave. NW (West of Crooked Lake Blvd. NW) Motion by Goodrich, Seconded by Knight, approval of the Consent Agenda as read. Motion carried unanimously. ANOKA COUNTYSHERIFF'SOFFICE MONTHLYREPORT Commander Brian Podany gave the monthly Sheriff's report. With the warmer weather, Commander Podany encouraged residents to be vigilant and to call 911 when they see anything suspicious and to provide a description of potential suspects and vehicles. He also reminded the public about the road closure on Bunker Lake Boulevard. Councilmember Holthus arrived at 7:14 p.m. ANDOVER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT — RURAL RESERVE RESIDENTIAL LAND USE DENSITY CHANGES At the October 25, 2016, City Council workshop, the Council discussed a Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA) by Jake and Jon Packer to allow the subdivision of land within the Rural Reserve District into parcels smaller than what is currently allowed in the Comprehensive Plan. City Council provided direction to staff to proceed with a CPA and ordinance to address future development within the Rural Reserve area. At the February 28, 2017, City Council workshop staff provided conceptual changes to the City Council and the City Council supported the changes. The Rural Reserve District was designated as an area to accommodate future urban growth beyond the planned Municipal Urban Service Regular Andover City Council Meeting Minutes — March 21, 2017 Page 3 Area (MUSA). Lot splits of less than one unit/house per 20 acres and subdivisions of less than 1 unit/house per 40 acres is prohibited to prevent this area from rural residential development that would preclude orderly MUSA expansion. The City has reached an agreement with the Metropolitan Council that areas designated for residential development in the Rural Reserve will be developed at 3 units/houses per net acre once MUSA is available. The Met Council supports densities of 1 unit/house per 10 acres in the rural reserve area. Density beyond this is supported by Met Council; however, it requires provisions such as an ordinance to allow for future wastewater service at a minimum density of 3 units/houses per acre. Staff is proposing to retain a density of 1 unit/house per 10 acres; however, with the adoption of an ordinance the minimum lot size may be reduced to 5 acres as long as the provisions in the ordinance are addressed at the time of the lot split or subdivision. Planning tools that would need to be considered in the ordinance include requirements of build -out plans (ghost platting), the location of building pads that allow for future subdivision of the land into urban lots, and the use of deed restrictions, easements, and/or covenants to protect the remaining land for future development. The intent of the ordinance is to allow subdivision of land while preserving the land for future urban development. The Planning and Zoning Commission held a public hearing on March 14, 2017. There were public comments that are available for review in the draft minutes of that meeting. Andover resident, Mr. Chadwick, Jr., was not in attendance, but he submitted an email with his comments that became part of the public record. The Commission recommended approval of the CPA request with a 5 - 0 vote (2 absent). City staff recommends the City Council consider the proposed CPA. If approved by the City Council the amendment will be forwarded to the Metropolitan Council for their formal approval. Mr. Janish reviewed the staff report with the Council. Mayor Trude asked Mr. Janish to address the next step, will that be the zoning code revisions. Mr. Janish replied the next step is to go to Metropolitan Council for their approval. Part of the review process will be for staff to describe the provision for adequate roadways, water, sewer, and consideration of future right-of-ways. The desire is to allow use of the property today as well as to preserve the area for urban growth at a future date. Mayor Trude noted an email had been received from Bob and Mary Harrell. It expressed concerns related to: few options for development of utilities, keeping enough acreage for buffering from rural to urban, and more density being forced upon the remaining parcels - while supporting the owner's ability to develop the land. The City will reserve the right to commit or take easements for utilities and roads according to the Master Plan, which has relevance to the other 20 acres. Mr. Janish reminded the Council this is the first step in a two-step process, and even with Metropolitan Council approval it will not be effective until the City has the new ordinance Regular Andover City Council Meeting Minutes — March 21, 2017 Page 4 language in place. Preservation of the 20 acres for future development remains important. Councilmember Holthus asked if there is a problem with the proposed timeline in working with the Metropolitan Council. Mr. Janish indicated other cities are doing something similar and staff had been working closely with the City's Met Council Representative, so we expect a smooth process. Councilmember Knight asked if an overlay is available for viewing. Mr. Janish responded it is not available at this time. He pointed to where the lots would be on the available map. Councilmember Goodrich stated he supports residents being able to do what they want on their own property; therefore, he would like to support this proposal. Mayor Trude commented this property is multi-generational land, and is tied up by regulations. She expressed her desire to look at the big picture and individual property owner rights. Mr. Janish indicated ghost platting would be done as part of the review process for the new lots. Mayor Trude pointed out that sewer is already planned and access would be about 2 miles from this property. Motion by Bukkila, Seconded by Goodrich, to approve Resolution No. R024-17, amending the comprehensive land use plan of the City of Andover to include the following: within the Rural Reserve residential land use to allow one unit per ten acres with the opportunity to allow one unit per five acres with the compliance of ordinance provisions as proposed. Motion carried unanimously. CONSIDER RECOMMENDATION FOR APPOINTMENT/COON CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT VACANCY Mr. Dickinson reported no applications were received. The Council discussed the appointment. Mr. Dickinson said no action can be taken because the City must send 3 recommendations in order to be considered. No action needed to be taken. ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT City Staff updated the Council on the administration and city department activities, legislative updates, updates on development/CIP projects, and meeting reminders/community events. (New Homes) Mr. Dickinson reported there have been 19 new home permits and 5 in for review for a total of 24 this year, which is a good start. CC Workshop Meeting Minutes March 28, 2017 ANDOVER CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP MEETING —MARCH 28, 2017 MINUTES The Workshop Meeting of the Andover City Council was called to order by Mayor Julie Trude, March 28, 2017, 6:00 p.m., at the Andover City Hall, 1685 Crosstown Boulevard NW, Andover, Minnesota. Councilmembers present: Mike Knight, Sheri Bukkila, Valerie Holthus and James Goodrich Councilmember absent: None Also present: City Administrator, Jim Dickinson Community Development Director, Joe Janish Associate Planner, Dan Krumwiede Public Works Director/City Engineer, David Berkowitz Planning & Zoning Commission Acting Chair, Kyle Nemeth Planning & Zoning Commissioner, Steve Peterson Planning & Zoning Commissioner, Scott Hudson Planning & Zoning Commissioner, Bert Koehler Planning & Zoning Commissioner, Jeffrey Sims Others JOINT MEETING WITH PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION a. Zoning Text Amendment Rural Reserve Mr. Janish stated on March 21, 2017, City Council approved the Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA) for the Rural Reserve area. Staff is in the process of submitting the CPA request to the Met Council for formal approval. The CPA will allow land owners within the Rural Reserve area the opportunity to subdivide land at a density of no more than 4 units per 40 acres. He noted landowners will have two options. Mr. Janish reviewed the two different options and indicated they have the ability to go with option one but option two is typically supported by the Met Council. He noted option one is more restrictive than what the Met Council allows for because they are preserving the rest of the land. Mr. Janish indicated staff would like to get some feedback from both the City Council and Planning and Zoning Commission to get some direction on the development of the zoning text amendment. Mr. Janish stated current city code regulations do not require a public hearing for metes and bounds lot splits of 5 acres or more. Staff would like to know if a public hearing should be Andover City Council Workshop Meeting Minutes —March 28, 2017 Page 2 required for lot splits within the Rural Reserve area or should the lot split approvals come through the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council without a public hearing. Councilmember Bukkila asked how frequently someone could do a lot split. If they do one lot split is that all they can do or do they have to wait a certain period of time before doing another one. Mr. Janish stated under their current ordinance it is a three year time period or can be done in one year if a plat is done. He stated they do have some flexibility as far as the text amendment goes, if they wanted to designate it to one lot split the Council could do that. Councilmember Bukkila indicated she did not like that. Mayor Trude thought this would open up the whole fringe issue and would chip away at the edges of the Rural Reserve without a master plan. Commissioner Kohler agreed and stated it is not just the chip away but it is also about what the master plan will be going forward. He understood this area is supposed to be reserved for future urban development and if that is the case they probably want to make sure that what is being done and how it is being split allows them to move forward in the future with whatever the City Comprehensive Plan recommends. It gives them the chance to review it and talk about it and apply a little bit of common sense. He is not looking to make really strict rules but wants to leave the possibilities open in the future for what the City needs to do. Mayor Trude agreed. Commissioner Peterson asked if there is a difference between the notifications of local property owners versus going through the whole process. Can people be notified and have a chance to review it without going through the Planning and Zoning Commission, staff and City Council. Still an opportunity for the property owners to find out what is coming their direction in their area. Mr. Janish stated that is typically considered a neighborhood meeting and sometimes a developer holds that meeting or City staff conducts the meeting to take notes as part of that process. He thought if they were going to notify individuals of the meetings then maybe there should be the public hearing process, follow that and then if there is some legality they can say they followed a certain standard and gave a ten-day proper notice, advertised in the paper and worse case, through the public hearing process you are going to notify more people, which is not necessarily a bad thing. Mayor Trude asked how many people were notified with the one that came through for the Packer family. Mr. Janish stated with the Comprehensive Plan Amendment they went 750 feet outside of the Rural Reserve boundary and there where about 130 notices that went out and they did advertise it in the local newspaper as well. Mayor Trude noted that was because it affected all of that zoning district. Mr. Janish stated that was correct and typically they would notice 500 feet. Mr. Dickinson stated as they are dealing with the Rural Reserve and set for long term, from a staff perspective, he was a little nervous bringing this forward without having full transparency with everyone in the area. Councilmember Holthus agreed and thought the more transparency they have the better it is for everybody, the fairer it is for everyone, the neighbors and future developers who may have an interest in this area. Andover City Council Workshop Meeting Minutes —March 28, 2017 Page 3 Commissioner Peterson stated in their meetings when there are cases involving the Rural Reserve area there are generally more people at the meetings with more feedback. There is a lot of interest in the transition areas. Councilmember Bukkila stated she does not normally like long processes and costly steps for people but because they do not really know how this is going to go and she did not see it happening very frequently, in order to avoid the public hearing process they would have to have a measured step that staff could follow and her concern is as they start to chunk away the parcels and someone has forty acres and wants to put a ten acre strip on the side or the middle, staff tells them no, they will appeal to the Council anyway. She did not know if they could put enough criteria in there and she did not know if she wanted to enumerate what everyone can and cannot do with this land because she thought every parcel will have some certain amount of subjectivity to it and she would at least like it to be out in the public meeting section of prevue in terms of how they make the decision. Mayor Trude stated Councihnember Knight and herself sat through all of the Rural Reserve planning discussions and that did involve hundreds of property owners to decide where the land was set aside and their promise to the community was they would stop the chipping away at the edges and they were going to have something done like The Lakes in Blaine because that is what it is going to take to develop this area. She is worried if this is even appropriate in this area and is there a way to even shut this down more so they don't end up with so many rural type parcels on the edge so that the Rural Reserve does not happen. She wondered if they wanted to make it even harder to do a lot split within the Rural Reserve. She wondered if they should go through platting because they want to see a ghost plat for possible future development. Mr. Janish stated if they do adopt the public hearing process, in this particular case, the Packer Family moves forward with their two five acre parcels leaving thirty acres and if they wanted to sell that off they would be restricted to that four for forty density or they could get two more potential homes in there so they would not be able to come in and do some sort of urban development because there would not be any municipal water or sewer to that site. He stated this is meant to be a process for individuals to either provide some cash flow by splitting off a lot or in this particular case, a family to do something with their land and to provide a home for other family members. He thought that overall as they are planning it and they are analyzing it whether it is through a lot split process or through a platting process, they want to analyze where there is a potential for City infrastructure, what does the Comprehensive Plan identify for minor and major collector roadways that are going through this area. Mayor Trude wondered if they could do that with this process. Mr. Janish stated there are a couple of different ways this could be done. One is through deed restrictions and the other is through development review process. They would have to do the review process as they are doing the splitting process. Commissioner Kohler stated every one of these possible splits is going to be a little different and they need to understand what the future plan is and if someone comes forward with a proposal, Andover City Council Workshop Meeting Minutes —March 28, 2017 Page 4 they need to be able to check to make sure it meets the future plan. A map with the aerial of property lines was displayed. The Council and Planning and Zoning Commission discussed the future of the Rural Reserve area and how lot splits would affect it. b. Atlas 14 Discussion Mr. Berkowitz stated Atlas 14 is new rainfall distribution data compiled by a large number of observation stations across the country; including Minnesota. The new data has resulted in an increase in rainfall depths and run-off volumes. The Coon Creek Watershed District has consulted with Wenck Associates to update the existing model with the new data. The new data suggests the floodplain with Andover, especially within the Rural Reserve area, has grown significantly. Commissioner Kohler asked in terms of the floodplain, what impact does this have with development going forward. Mr. Berkowitz stated if someone wants to build in a floodplain fringe they need to mitigate it but if it is in the 100 -year floodplain than nothing can be built on it. Mr. Berkowitz showed a map of the current floodplain and the new map after Atlas 14 is updated. He reviewed the differences with the Council and Planning and Zoning Commission. He reviewed where the 100 -year floodplain exists. Councilmember Bukkila stated when talking about expanding the culverts, it would decrease the map but would have to affect farming soils as well. Mr. Berkowitz stated that is correct and could potentially affect the farmer downstream. The plan is as they start getting into the Comprehensive Plan update they would meet with all the farmers regarding this. He stated he would anticipate every farmer in the area will have a development benefit by having the floodplain reduced because when they sell off their property they will have more land to build on. Mr. Berkowitz stated there is a lot of information that needs to be reviewed. He stated what they have is a draft of Atlas 14 and will come back to both the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council for more discussion. He stated what this does is drastically impact the way Andover could potentially develop. Once the map changes are finalized the City Council is going to have to make the decision of how they deal with certain areas. Mayor Trude hoped as staff gets new information they look at some different options to bring to the Planning and Zoning Commission for discussions as Comprehensive Plan review. Mr. Janish continued to review the submittal process for lot splits within the Rural Reserve area. Mayor Trude thought it would be important to have deed restrictions in order to have the ability to connect roads in the future. Mr. Janish stated they could have the ability for requiring . Andover City Council Workshop Meeting Minutes —March 28, 2017 Page 5 easements on property for future development. The Council, Planning and Zoning Commission and staff continued to review the potential Packer Family lot split. Mr. Janish thought the Council and Planning and Zoning Commission would like to see some sort of blanket easement related to roadways and City utilities. Mayor Trude wondered if they could take some property as park dedication. The Planning and Zoning Commission and Council discussed the possibility of possible park dedication areas within the Rural Reserve in case large development does not occur. Mr. Janish indicated staff would need to discuss this further with the City Attorney. Mr. Dickinson thought the more land you can put under the deed restriction the more flexibility the City will have. Mayor Trude thought her concerns can be addressed with the deed restrictions and they can get the master planning started on the saved land as long as they can put some zoning overlay on it. Mr. Dickinson stated this is really a tradeoff where the current property owners are giving up some control of their own property by taking on the deed restrictions so they have the ability to get some of what they want, which are two lots they can build on. Councilmember Bukkila wondered how many forty acre parcels are around the Rural Reserve that could potentially develop. Mr. Janish thought they will not see many because of the soil mitigation costs. Mr. Dickinson thought there would be around 10 parcels. Commissioner Nemeth thought this was more of a vision and those visions can always change depending on who wants to sell and when they want to sell. He thought there were so many variables and it is great to have the vision but it will probably not come to light. Mr. Janish asked if the Council and Planning and Zoning Commission would like to see some sort of ghost plat for future splits. The Council and Planning and Zoning Commission indicated they would be in favor of that. Mr. Janish stated they will come up with a hybrid lot split plan and thought the direction he was receiving is they would not have to plat if in the Rural Reserve they do the hybrid lot split and collect the same information as if they were doing a plat. Mr. Dickinson stated this would still require a public hearing. Ms. Mary Harrell, 14955 Ivywood Street, stated her house backs up to 149th Avenue and she has a lot of concerns because it appears the northern route will be the connection through the Rural Reserve in the future. She stated the southern route was going to come in by Walmart because it is stubbed in already. Mr. Berkowitz stated that was the route that was approved prior to the Andover City Council Workshop Meeting Minutes —March 28, 2017 Page 6 floodway information. Ms. Harrell stated the concern is this is just a line on the map but the longer the line stays the more significant they become. She stated 1496' Avenue is a minimum maintenance dirt road and in terms of it being any kind of an east/west connection that would impact the homes that surround it. Mayor Trude stated Mr. Eveland filed to put his land into Ag. Preserve which will last for seven years so that should ease Ms. Harrell's concerns. Mayor Trude thanked Ms. Harrell for coming to the meeting to voice her concerns. fi77�7 -TaTK� �I) ` The Council recessed at 7:38 p.m. The Council reconvened at 7:50 p.m. Commissioner Koehler asked in regard to the resolution, if there are lot splits, plats or something in between will the Planning and Zoning Commission be able to review them. Mr. Janish stated they would. Mr. Dickinson stated it will need to go through a public hearing process in order for the changes to be made. c. Flag Lot Discussion Mr. Janish stated recently City staff has been contacted about the potential of creating a flag lot in the rural residential area. Current code regulations do not allow flag lots since each lot is required to have a width of 300 feet at the front yard setback and a minimum of 50 feet of road frontage. Mr. Janish reviewed what the definition of a flag lot is. He asked if the Council and Planning and Zoning Commission would be open to allowing flag lots in Andover. Mr. Janish noted if they did allow flag lots they could avoid some of the costs of public roadways. Councilmember Goodrich asked what did other cities that allow these find as downfalls. Mr. Janish stated what he has found is townships and counties mostly allow for them and his past experience as a county official is the reason they allowed for them is that the townships did not want to maintain public roadways. Commissioner Koehler stated there are many potential problems with a flag lot such as proximity of houses, being able to see into each other's yard, blocking of driveway and emergency vehicles cannot find the back lot many times. Andover City Council Workshop Meeting Minutes—March 28, 2017 Page 7 Mr. Janish stated where they could run into potential issues on the code enforcement side is being able to see things from the roadway. Councilmember Knight thought if the City had these before and stopped allowing them why would they want to start allowing them again and create possible issues. Mayor Trude asked if the City could consider variance on this other than changing the code. Councilmember Goodrich stated if there are not a lot of problems involved with doing a flag lot then he would be in favor of it. Mayor Trude stated she has seen this in other cities where the owners of the flag lots are relatives. She stated she could see this happening in Andover with relatives and parents trying to help the child out. She would be willing to look at this if it were in a rural area of Andover. Mr. Dickinson stated he would not promote this going into any urban area and is not necessarily in favor of entertaining it in the rural area but if they were going to look further at this then he would suggest it be looked at only in the rural area of the City. Commissioner Koehler asked if Fire Chief Streich could have input on this. Mr. Dickinson stated they have talked to the Fire Chief about this and he lives on a flag lot and loves it. He stated the key is to make sure that this is put in correctly and then long term what is the maintenance on the access. Mr. Berkowitz stated this could kill future development in some areas in the rural area. He stated this could make it more difficult to try to develop it. Commissioner Nemeth thought this should be decided on a case by case basis. Commissioner Koehler agreed but thought there needed to be guidelines in place. Commissioner Nemeth stated he would like to know what other cities do. There was further discussion regarding issues with flag lots. Consensus was to not support flag lots in Andover at this time. Mr. Dickinson stated the applicant will be advised they need to go through the variance process if they want to pursue. d. Other Discussion Commissioner Peterson thought for the Comprehensive Plan Amendment process he would like to have updates on the chapters before approval of them. Mayor Trude stated they did not have a schedule but can give the Planning and Zoning Commission updates. Mr. Dickinson stated the onset of the Atlas 14 is really a game changer and if this impacts the Rural Reserve the potential densities and available acreage could be affected. He stated they are in a waiting pattern for the data before anything can be done. When the information comes in r Andover City Council Workshop Meeting Minutes — March 28, 2017 Page 8 the Planning and Zoning Commission will be integral in the process. Commissioner Koehler stated he would like to see more touch points with the City Council moving forward because that helps the Planning and Zoning Commission. He thought they should meet quarterly or twice a year. Commissioner Sims thought if there was a way to get good discussion from staff about what the Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed that would help the Council make their decision better. Commissioner Nemeth stated the Planning and Zoning Commission wants to be on the same page as the City Council. Commissioner Koehler asked if it would be beneficial to meet with the other Commissions and Boards during the year as well and have an open type meeting. Mayor Trude thought that may be too many meetings for everyone. Mr. Dickinson thought the Commissions could meet with each other if they wanted to. Commissioner Nemeth stated in regard to the newsletter he would like to see some articles from department heads on what they are working on and why certain roads get picked for reconstruction or other information the residents might want to know. The City Council thanked the Planning and Zoning Commission for coming to the workshop meeting. DISCUSS AUTOMATIC METER READING (AMR) FOR COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES Mr. Berkowitz stated the City Council is requested to discuss automatic meter reading for commercial properties. He reviewed the staff report with the Council. Councilmember Bukkila asked if Mr. Dickinson received her questions regarding this item. Mr. Dickinson indicated the Council will receive the answers and additional information at the next City Council meeting. This is just a review of this item. The plan is to pilot the AMR project with commercial properties and then roll out to residential in a few years. Councilmember Holthus asked how much this will save the City. Mr. Berkowitz stated they have to schedule time with each business to go in and read the meters so this would reduce staff time by ten hours per meter reading. This will provide more accurate and better service. Mr. Berkowitz stated with automatic meter reading the meter can be read from the road. 2018-2022 CIP DISCUSSION & 2017 CIP PROGRESS REPORT Mr. Dickinson reviewed the staff report with the Council. DRAFT CC Workshop Meeting Minutes April 25, 2017 1 2 3 4 5 6 ANDOVER CITYCOUNCIL WORKSHOP MEETING—APRIL 25, 2017 7 MINUTES 8 9 10 The Workshop Meeting of the Andover City Council was called to order by Mayor Julie Trude, 11 April 25, 2017, 6:00 p.m., at the Andover City Hall, 1685 Crosstown Boulevard NW, Andover, 12 Minnesota. 13 14 Councilmembers present: Mike Knight, Sheri Bukkila (arrived at 6:15 p.m.), Valerie Holthus 15 and James Goodrich 16 Councilmember absent: None 17 Also present: City Administrator, Jim Dickinson 18 Community Development Director, Joe Janish 19 Public Works Director/City Engineer, David Berkowitz 20 City Attorney, Scott Baumgartner 21 Others 22 23 24 DISCUSS ORDINANCE AMENDMENTTOREGULATEDRUGPARAPHERNALL4 25 26 City Attorney Baumgartner explained cities are starting to develop ordinances that regulate drug 27 paraphernalia 28 29 City Attorney Baumgartner reviewed the staff report with the Council. 30 31 Mayor Trude thought they should add a paragraph about allowing items that are licensed by the 32 State of Minnesota for medicinal purposes. She thought they should add a section for people 33 who are legally growing, stating "This does not apply if you are licensed by the State of 34 Minnesota to produce..." City Attorney Baumgartner stated this does not have to do with 35 Marijuana, it has to do with paraphernalia. Mayor Trude stated they needed to make sure the 36 City makes an exception for people who are allowed by the State to grow for medicinal 37 purposes. City Attorney Baumgartner noted on page three under C and D, it talks about in 38 violation of MN State Chapter 152, which has the exclusions and talks about pharmaceutical 39 items as well. 40 41 Councilmember Holthus asked if Forest Lake adopted a similar ordinance because a shop that 42 was there was the same type of shop as the shop in Anoka and it is now closed. City Attorney 43 Baumgartner was not sure if Forest Lake implemented an ordinance but he did know Forest Lake 44 did implement an ordinance of some sort. He chose to go with Morehead's' model because it 45 had been tested and more closely resembled the Federal model. Since the Morehead model had 46 already been tested in court along with the Federal model they had precedent had it been 47 challenged, which it was, that they could then fall back on the Federal model. He knew that a lot 48 of cities are going in the direction of an ordinance like the one in Anoka. Andover City Council Workshop Meeting Minutes—April 25, 2017 Page 2 1 2 Councilmember Bukkila arrived at 6:15 p.m. 3 4 City Attorney Baumgartner stated before Anoka adopted this ordinance they reached out to all of 5 the businesses that had items or could potentially have items and gave them a period of time to 6 remove their inventory out before the ordinance went into effect. 7 8 Mayor Trude stated sometimes gas stations have paraphernalia and wondered if they are aware 9 of any of that going on in Andover. City Attorney Baumgartner stated he is not aware of 10 anything in Andover at this time. 11 12 The Council was in support of drafting an ordinance and sending it through the Planning and 13 Zoning Commission for Council review and approval. 14 15 Mayor Trude asked what kind of things were being prosecuted in Andover. Mr. Baumgartner 16 stated they have been prosecuting thefts from Walmart. He reviewed some things happening in 17 the City that he has dealt with. 18 19 DISCUSS ZONING TEXT AMENDMENTS FOR RURAL RESERVE 20 21 Mr. Janish explained there has been discussions going on regarding this item. He reviewed the 22 staff report with the Council. 23 24 Mr. Janish asked the Council if they wanted to keep item 13-1B-3: A4 or remove it. Mayor 25 Trude stated this was crafted so people would not come in and flip the property. She thought 26 that section needed to be adjusted. Mr. Janish stated he could do that. 27 28 Mr. Janish reviewed the zoning text amendments with the Council. 29 30 Mr. Janish stated regarding Item K: When applicable, a blanket easement stating that future 31 roads, trails, city utilities, and future park areas may be located in this area on remnant parcel. 32 He stated his concern with this is that this does allow the City, at a later date, to come through 33 and put a road through the parcel and the easement would allow the City to "take the road" and 34 put the road in and the property owner might not be compensated. 35 36 Councilmember Bukkila stated that is what she is concerned with. Mr. Dickinson stated one of 37 the things he asked is how many other cities are doing blanket type easements and Mr. Janish did 38 not find any. Mayor Trude asked how they guarantee this will not happen. She wondered how 39 they would solve the problem. She stated if this was platted they would be giving up their land 40 for the roads and parks. She stated they would be giving up their land for the road because they 41 need access for their homes. There is a community interest at stake. Mr. Janish stated what 42 other communities are doing is they are placing a deed restriction on the property saying that it 43 can't be split again until urban services are provided. 44 There was discussion between staff and Council regarding possible ways to split 40 acres in 45 order to allow future development. Andover City Council Workshop Meeting Minutes —April 25, 2017 Page 3 1 2 Mayor Trude asked if the easement would be over the top of the properties and not pushed to the 3 edge of the properties. Mr. Janish stated if that is where the road would go. 4 5 Discussion continued regarding future lot splits within the Rural Reserve. 6 7 Councilmember Bukkila stated she had a problem with a blanket easement because wouldn't it 8 go on recorded documents with the land. It is one thing to structure the code to prevent any 9 building in an area before there is a grand plan but to legally encumber the acreage with 10 easements does not seem right. City Attorney Baumgartner stated the reason he has an issue 11 with this is how do they come up with a legal description to record the easement. He stated they 12 could do an easement over the entire property but at some point they will need to release a 13 portion of that easement over which it will need to be surveyed to get the legal description. 14 Mayor Trude thought they could release the easement at that point because it is a bargaining 15 process. City Attorney Baumgartner stated at some point they are going to have to identify 16 somehow what the legal description for the easement is. If they want to throw an easement over 17 the entire parcel now before it is split they will still need to identify if they want to split the 18 parcel. There will need to be surveying done to vacate that portion of the blanket easement. 19 Mayor Trude asked if they could vacate the easement on the five acre parcels where the homes 20 will go. 21 22 There was further discussion regarding blanket easements. 23 24 Mr. Berkowitz explained how developments go about getting plat approval with easements. He 25 stated if the city does not grab the easement then it makes it harder to develop in the future. 26 27 Mr. Janish stated the original intent of the blanket easement was to try to minimize someone 28 from putting something in the way of future development. Councilmember Bukkila gave an 29 example of issues people might have with using their land with a blanket easement on their land 30 in the Rural Reserve. City Attorney Baumgartner stated the property owner could have an 31 encroachment agreement with the City on the land. Mayor Trude stated if there was not any 32 easement on the property then the City loses their bargaining. They are trying to bargain to 33 protect the master plan and the landowners all bought into that. Mr. Janish stated an 34 encroachment agreement could be done in order to allow buildings on structures with a blanket 35 easement. 36 37 Further discussion ensued between staff and the Council regarding easements and encroachment 38 agreements. 39 40 Mr. Jake Packer and Mr. John Packer, 3074 161' Avenue NW, stated they have two forty acre 41 parcels with two buildable lots with two five acre parcels and as far as the easement goes they 42 are not comfortable with that and did not know why they could not leave a chunk of land open. 43 City Attorney Baumgartner stated the problem with that is if they wanted to sell off another five 44 acres of the forty acres the City would have no way to say they cannot do that without a blanket 45 easement, the future development may never happen. Andover City Council Workshop Meeting Minutes — April 25, 2017 Page 4 1 2 Mr. Packer stated he understood that but it is tough for them and they felt like their hands are 3 being tied. Mayor Trude stated they are being allowed to build on ten acres of the forty acres 4 available. She thought they needed to have a master plan for the Rural Reserve but they want to 5 allow families to build on part of their land. 6 7 The Council, staff and the Packers reviewed possibilities that could be done on their property and 8 in the Rural Reserve District including deed restrictions. City Attorney Baumgartner stated he 9 would need to review language regarding deed restrictions and see how that would work. 10 11 Mayor Trude asked if there was ever discussion regarding removing some land out of the Rural 12 Reserve because of close access to City sewer and water. She wondered if they could apply 13 some kind of process in their code that indicates it no longer makes sense. Mr. Janish stated with 14 Atlas 14 discussion that is where a lot of the discussion is going to be. He stated all of the 15 meetings they have been doing may not even be valid discussions when they start working on the 16 next update because of Atlas 14 and other new rules, the Rural Reserve may not be as 17 developable as they thought in the past. 18 19 Mayor Trude thought if things were to change they could vacate easements based on new 20 discoveries and circumstances. Mr. Berkowitz agreed. 21 22 City Attorney Baumgartner stated the City wants to allow residents to do what they want with 23 their property but the City has an obligation to the community to plan for what may happen 24 twenty years down the road and the hard part is trying to predict what is going to happen there 25 because there is nothing there at this time. They want to make sure they do not box in future 26 development in the area which is the tough part. 27 28 Mr. Packer wondered if the City could add some blanket language and approve items on a case 29 by case situation. City Attorney Baumgartner stated when they put together an ordinance they 30 should apply it universally otherwise you get discriminatory enforcement. They can look at 31 certain things back to back but in the end, it should all come together under that ordinance and 32 has to be applicable. They need to treat people similarly. 33 34 Mr. Berkowitz thought the best solution would be to have a blanket easement with an 35 encroachment agreement. Mr. Dickinson stated they could look at a floating easement with an 36 encroachment agreement if they want a particular use of the easement area. He stated the 37 easement could move within the property so it is not specified. City Attorney Baumgartner 38 stated they would not need an encroachment agreement unless or until they want to put 39 something on the land that would encroach into the easement. 40 41 Councilmember Bukkila indicated she was not a fan of this plan. Councilmember Goodrich 42 agreed and stated he needed more information and history before making a decision. Mr. 43 Dickinson stated staff will get some examples of deed restrictions and bring that back to the 44 Council for further discussion. 45 Andover City Council Workshop Meeting Minutes—April 25, 2017 Page 5 1 Mr. Janish stated they could allow a change to the language in the ordinance, remove the 2 splitting of property additionally each year and place either an easement or some sort of 3 restriction over the remnant parcel so they get a one-time split in the Rural Reserve and then try 4 to sort it out as part of their Comprehensive Plan update because they may come back and 5 change the entire area again once they find out how Atlas 14 will affect this area. He noted he 6 would work with the City Attorney on language. 7 8 Councilmember Holthus asked if this would allow the Packer family to build. Mr. Janish stated 9 it should. It would restrict the remnant piece unless the entire parcel is sold and they want to 10 plan a development. 11 12 Mayor Trude, Councilmembers Holthus and Knight were in favor of moving this forward. 13 14 Mr. Packer thought they may be willing to allow the easement but he wondered what they are 15 giving up to do that. Mr. Baumgartner stated they are allowing the City the opportunity to place 16 the road and easement in there at some point when the entire property becomes developable. 17 18 Mayor Trude stated she would like to see three goals: 1. Allow the Packers to build, 2. Continue 19 on the path they started with the Met Council approvals that are permitted and 3. Make sure there 20 is room for things to happen in the future that are not going to be impeded by today's actions. 21 22 Mr. Janish stated as a part of the Comprehensive Plan update, it is going to determine what is 23 going to happen in this area. Mr. Berkowitz noted after the update with Atlas 14 staff may even 24 come back to the Council looking for a vacation of the easement they put on the property. 25 26 Councilmember Bukkila indicated she wanted more information before making a final decision. 27 Councilmember Goodrich agreed. Councilmember Bukkila stated even if Mr. Packer is willing 28 to agree to this easement she acknowledges there are other property owners who have interest as 29 well and she is trying to protect them as well. 30 31 Mayor Trude stated the entire Rural Reserve is restricted at this point. Councilmember Bukkila 32 noted the property owners can still use the land. Mayor Trude stated if they move towards the 33 plan that was started two months ago the property owners will have more rights than they do 34 now. Councilmember Bukkila stated right now the property owners can build an accessory 35 building on their property but if there were an easement placed on the property then according to 36 the code they could not build at all on the easement. She stated she would prefer a method that 37 would not include encroachment so that a property owner could have full use of their land. She 38 would like staff to look to see if there are alternative options. 39 40 Mr. Dickinson stated they will look for the deed restriction component. He noted an easement is 41 a form of a deed restriction. City Attorney Baumgartner stated an easement is an interest in 42 property, a deed restriction is only as good as whoever holds that deed, that is the problem he has 43 with it. Mr. Dickinson stated they need to look at what the County recorder will accept. For the 44 most part Counties will not record those things unless it is signed off by the municipalities and 45 that is really where the City wants to get to. City Attorney Baumgartner stated that is what he Andover City Council Workshop Meeting Minutes — April 25, 2017 Page 6 1 wants to see. 2 3 Mayor Trude asked when the City went to the Met Council and asked to move down this path, 4 what was on their list that the City had to do. Mr. Janish stated it is a deed restriction of some 5 manner to prevent the density and preserve that future development possibility. 6 7 Mr. Packer stated they do not necessarily want the easement, if there is another way to do it that 8 would be the way they would want to go but if it ends up that it is the only way to get it done 9 then they may need to go along with it. He asked for a status update on the Comprehensive Plan 10 amendment. Mr. Janish stated he has not heard from the Met Council yet. He reviewed the 11 process with Mr. Packer and the Council. 12 13 Mr. Packer stated they are looking to move forward with building as soon as possible. Staff 14 reviewed a possible timeline of actions that need to occur before building can happen. Mr. 15 Dickinson stated they need to figure out Item K in the staff report that talks about blanket 16 easements on the property. 17 18 Councilmember Goodrich stated he did not want to hold the Packers back from building if the 19 only issue is Item K. Mr. Dickinson stated he would talk to the Packers and help them to work 20 out a timeframe to build. 21 22 DISCUSS STORAGE UMTS (PODS) IN CITY PARKS & RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS 23 24 Mr. Berkowitz explained the City Council is requested to discuss portable storage containers, 25 often referred to as PODS, in City parks and residential districts. 26 27 Mr. Berkowitz reviewed the staff report. 28 29 Mr. Berkowitz asked if the Council supported permanent PODS in the City. Council consensus 30 was not to allow them. 31 32 Mr. Berkowitz asked if the City Council supported a timeframe for the athletic associations to 33 get rid of their current PODS. Councilmember Holthus understood why they need them. Mr. 34 Berkowitz stated staff discussed giving them three to five years to get rid of the PODS. Mayor 35 Trude disagreed and stated five years was a long time for them to find alternative storage. She 36 thought a shed looked better than PODS. Mr. Berkowitz stated it is up to the Council to decide 37 what a reasonable timeframe is for the associations to raise funds to build a structure for storage. 38 39 Councilmember Bukkila stated her issue is the burden on one association for multiple structures. 40 If it was only one park and one organization she would agree to three years but if one 41 organization had something in two or more parks then she would be more sympathetic to a 42 longer timeframe to plan out multiple structures. 43 44 Mr. Berkowitz reviewed where the PODS are located at. He noted the Andover Baseball 45 Association wants to move a POD from the high school to Sunshine Park and thought the City Andover City Council Workshop Meeting Minutes—April 25, 2017 Page 7 1 Council would not be in favor of that. The Council agreed. Mr. Berkowitz stated the Andover 2 Football Association has one at Prairie Knoll Park during the season. He stated they could have 3 multiple associations put their resources together and build one structure at the parks. 4 5 Councilmember Holthus thought the associations need to clean out the buildings and see what 6 their needs are. Mr. Berkowitz stated they would need to have a structure at each park to house 7 the equipment needed for that park so he thought the Council should give them enough time to 8 figure out what their full needs are and how they can do it efficiently so they can raise money, 9 design and build a structure so it works for them for a long time. 10 11 Councilmember Bukkila thought the associations should be given twelve months to make a plan 12 and tell the Council what they would like to see before a decision is made by the Council. She 13 stated she wanted the associations to react and not put it off. 14 15 Councilmember Knight asked if some of the items being stored at the parks was City owned. 16 Mr. Berkowitz stated the associations are now buying their own equipment to use at the parks so 17 the City does not have any equipment that is stored. Mayor Trude stated that takes a big load off 18 of the City, she wondered if there was a way to find a way to build some little sheds with money 19 from their reserves to store equipment so the parks look better. Mr. Berkowitz stated he would 20 need to go to the Park and Recreation Commission to see how they would weigh in on a 21 recommendation for that. 22 23 Councilmember Goodrich asked if they could screen the PODS with some sort of nice fencing so 24 they cannot be seen. Mayor Trude stated she liked that idea. 25 26 Councilmember Bukkila stated she is not ready to put a drop -dead date on this, she would like to 27 get some feedback from the associations on what they propose. Councilmember Holthus 28 suggested staff go look at the buildings and see what the associations have in them to see how 29 space can be better utilized. 30 31 Mr. Berkowitz asked if there was support for the associations to come back after twelve months 32 with a storage plan. Council agreed. 33 34 Mayor Trude suggested staff work with the associations on getting a plan together. 35 36 Mr. Berkowitz asked if the Council was in favor of using park dedication money to fund the 37 storage. Mayor Trude stated she is in favor of doing this. The rest of the Council is against. 38 39 The Council is not in favor of permanent PODS in residential use. The Council is in favor of 40 temporary PODS in residential use. Councilmember Bukkila stated she would be in favor of 41 temporary storage if there is an open construction permit. Mr. Dickinson noted construction 42 permits could be open for years. Councilmember Goodrich asked what other cities do. Mr. 43 Dickinson stated most do not allow them at all or for only ninety days. Mayor Trude thought 44 they should start with ninety days. Mr. Berkowitz stated if allowed there would need to be an 45 ordinance change because they currently do not allow anything like that in the City. He stated Andover City Council Workshop Meeting Minutes —April 25, 2017 Page 8 1 staff will work on language change and bring it back for Council review. Councilmember 2 Bukkila stated there needed to be some language stipulating ninety days in total so it does not 3 disappear for one day and then come back again for another ninety days. 4 5 Mr. Berkowitz noted there are not any restrictions on five acres or more. The majority of the 6 Council did not have an issue with that. Mayor Trude is not sure if she wanted that because then 7 the property owner can have as many of them as they want and then it starts to look bad. Mr. 8 Janish thought there needed to be some type of screening on those sites. Mayor Trude stated she 9 did not support allowing them on five acres or more. 10 11 CLOCKTOWER COMMONSAMENDMENT 12 13 Mr. Janish stated this is in regard to the Clocktower Commons PUD amendment. He passed out 14 a building design and stated the new building they are proposing is mostly rock face block and 15 he is requesting the Council review the building fagade and indicate any changes that should be 16 made to the building. Mr. Dickinson stated according to the PUD all the buildings need to look 17 alike in appearance. 18 19 The City Council thought the new building fagade looked better than some of the existing 20 buildings. They thought maybe there could be the same style of roofing or closer looking brick 21 to the color in the design of the existing buildings. 22 23 2018 BUDGET DEVELOPMENT DISCUSSION 24 25 Mr. Dickinson reviewed the staff report. 26 27 2017 BUDGET PROGRESS REPORTS 28 29 Mr. Dickinson reviewed the staff report. 30 31 2017 CITY INVESTMENTS REVIEW 32 33 Mr. Dickinson reviewed the staff report. 34 35 36 OTHER TOPICS. 37 38 TRAFFIC REDIRECTION FROM BUNKER LAKE BOULEVARD 39 Mayor Trude stated she has had voicemails and emails regarding Bunker Lake 40 Boulevard. A resident is even wondered if they could close down Butternut Street during 41 the construction because of excessive traffic going into residential areas. Councilmember 42 Bukkila stated the same thing happened with the Hanson Boulevard construction and they 43 have to just put up with it. 44 45 Mayor Trude told the resident to contact the County and see what they could do about it. DRAFT Sample Easement TEMPORARY ROADWAY, DRAINAGE, AND UTILITY EASEMENT/DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENT KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENT, for valuable consideration, ("Grantor"), hereby grants, sells, and conveys to the CITY OF ANDOVER, a Minnesota municipal corporation ("Grantee"), a permanent easement for future roadway, drainage and utility purposes, including, without limitation, the construction, maintenance, repair and replacement thereof, and uses incident thereto ("Easement"), in, under and upon the real property, in Anoka County, Minnesota described as follows: INSERT LEGAL ("Property") Further, the right is hereby granted to the Grantee to restrict the further development of said Property. This Easement or portion(s) of said Easement can be vacated by the Grantee upon: 1. Rezoning of the Property to: a. a commercial zoning classification; b. an industrial zoning classification; c. a denser residential development; 2. A change in the City of Andover's Comprehensive Plan that no longer considers the Property as being in the Rural Reserve; 3. Municipal water and sewer is extended to the Property; 4. A defined location for the Easement has been determined due to development occurring on and/or around the Property. Grantor covenants that he is the owner of the easement area and has the right, title, and capacity to grant the easement described above. TO HAVE AND TO HOLD THE SAME, together with all the hereditaments and appurtenances thereunto belonging or in anyway appertaining to the said Grantee, forever, for said roadway, drainage and utility purposes. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have hereunto set their hands on or as of the date opposite their respective signatures. RR Temporary Easement Dated: , 2017 By:, Total Consideration: One and 00/100 Dollars ($1.00) State Deed Tax Due: None STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF ANOKA ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _ day of , 2017, by , who has caused these presents to be executed or has set his hand the day and year first above written. Notary Public NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City of Andover, County of Anoka, State of Minnesota, has accepted on , 2017, the above described easement in this document. CITY OF ANDOVER Dated: , 2017 By: THIS INSTRUMENT WAS DRAFTED BY: City of Andover 1685 Crosstown Blvd. NW Andover, MN 55304 Telephone: 763-755-5100 RR Temporary Easement DRAFT I Sample Development Agreement RESTRICTION OF DEVELOPMENT DECLARATION AGREEMENT This RESTRICTION OF DEVELOPMENT DECLARATION AGREEMENT ("Agreement") is made and entered into by and between, , ("Owner"), and the City of Andover, a Minnesota municipal corporation, 1685 Crosstown Blvd. NW, Andover, Minnesota 55304 ("City"), and is effective as of the date of the last signature of the parties.. WHEREAS, Owner is the fee owner of the property legally described on attached Exhibit A ("Property"); and WHEREAS, the City of Andover's 2008 Comprehensive Plan had a restriction on lot splits and subdivisions of less than one parcel per twenty acres, in the Rural Reserve; and WHEREAS, this restriction on lot splits and subdivisions was implemented to prevent this area from rural residential development that would preclude orderly future MUSA expansion; and WHEREAS, the City of Andover has amended their Comprehensive Plan to prohibit lot splits and subdivisions of less than one parcel per ten acres within the Rural Reserve; and WHEREAS, the City of Andover's Comprehensive Plan amendment allows for lot sizes of 5 acres within the Rural Reserve with conditions; and WHEREAS, the conditions to be attached relative to allowing lot splits creating lot sizes of 5 acres within the Rural Reserve are necessary to continue to maintain orderly future MUSA expansion; and WHEREAS, one of the conditions necessary in order to maintain orderly future MUSA expansion, is the inclusion of restrictions on the placement of structures within the subdivided parcels; and 1 WHEREAS, these restrictions will prevent the impediment of future MUSA expansion; and WHEREAS, in connection with an application by Owner for , the City has required, as a condition of approval, the execution and recording of this Agreement; and WHEREAS, as a condition of securing the benefits and advantages of the City's approval of Owner's application, Owner desires to subject the Property to the terms and conditions of this Agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, Owner declares that the Property is, and shall be, held, transferred, sold, conveyed and occupied subject to the terms and conditions of this Agreement. 1. Definitions. For purposes of this Agreement, the following terms shall have the meanings given. 1.1. "Home(s)" means a residential building or portion thereof intended for occupancy by a family. 1.2. "Family" means an individual or two (2) or more persons related by blood, marriage or adoption living together; or a group of not more than five (5) persons who need not be related by blood, marriage or adoption, dwelling unit, exclusive of usual servants. 2. Owner's Obligations. 2.1. The Owner shall not construct a Home within the area described in exhibit A. 2.2 The Owner shall not further subdivide the Property until the Property is released from this Agreement. 3. Enforcement. 3.1. By entering into this Agreement, Owner acknowledges that the City has a valuable and enforceable interest in the Property and that this Agreement may be enforced by the City to the fullest extent allowed by law. Owner agrees to reimburse the City for all costs incurred by the City in defense or enforcement of this Agreement, or any portion thereof, including court costs and reasonable attorneys' fees. 2 4. Miscellaneous. 4.1. No Waiver. Failure to enforce any provision of this Agreement upon a violation of it will not be deemed a waiver of the right to do so as to that or any subsequent violation. 4.2. Validity. If any portion, section, subsection, sentence, clause, paragraph or phrase in this Agreement is for any reason held to be invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect or void any of the other provisions of the Agreement. 4.3. Duration of Agreement. The agreement granted herein shall remain in effect until: 4.3.1 Rezoning of the Property to a commercial zoning classification; 4.3.2 Rezoning of the Property to an industrial zoning classification; 4.3.3 Rezoning of the Property to a denser residential development; 4.3.4 A change in the City of Andover's Comprehensive Plan that no longer considers the Property as being in the Rural Reserve; 4.3.5 Municipal water and sewer is extended to the Property; 4.4. Warranty of Owner. The Owner warrants that it is the owner of a fee simple interest in the Property, and that it has the right to enter into this Agreement. 4.5. Binding Effect. The terms and provisions hereof shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the heirs, representatives, successors and assigns of the parties hereto and shall be binding upon all future owners of all or any part of the Property and shall be deemed covenants running with the land. Owner agrees that the City shall have the right to record a copy of this Agreement with the Anoka County Recorder to give notice to future purchasers and owners. This shall be recorded against the Property. 4.6. Notices. Whenever in this Agreement it shall be required or permitted that notice or demand be given or served by either party to this Agreement to or on the other party, such notice or demand shall be delivered personally or mailed by United States mail to the addresses hereinbefore set forth on Page 1 by certified mail (return receipt requested). Such notice or demand shall be deemed timely given when delivered personally or when deposited in the mail in accordance with the above. The addresses of the parties hereto are as set forth on Page 1 until changed by notice given as above. 3 \ - , V 4.7. Amendments. This Agreement may not be amended without the prior written approval of the City. 4.8. Clerical Revisions. In the event that any technical or clerical revisions are needed in this document or if for any reason the County Recorder deems the Agreement un -recordable, Owner shall cooperate with the City in the execution or amendment of any revised agreement. OWNER By: Its: STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ss. COUNTY OF ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 2017, by the on behalf of Notary Public day of CITY OF ANDOVER Lin LE STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF ANOKA ) Julie Trude, Mayor Michelle Hartner, Deputy City Clerk of The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 2017, by Julie Trude and Michelle Hartner, the Mayor and Deputy City Clerk of the City of Andover, a municipal corporation under the laws of Minnesota, on behalf of the municipal corporation. 4 Notary Public v , I THIS INSTRUMENT WAS DRAFTED BY: City of Andover 1685 Crosstown Blvd. NW Andover, MN 55304 Telephone: 763-755-5100 For City use only: Planning File # Date of Council approval EXHIBIT A Description of the Property CONSENT The undersigned Mortgagee of the real estate described in the attached instrument pursuant to the Mortgage recorded as Document No. in the office of the Anoka County Recorder's Office, hereby joins in and consents to all of the terms and provisions contained in the attached Restriction of Development Declaration Agreement ("Agreement"). The undersigned Mortgagee further agrees that its interest in the property covered by the Mortgage is subject to the Agreement and to all of the terms and provisions contained in it and agrees that if the Mortgagee forecloses its mortgage(s) on the property, or takes a deed in lieu of foreclosure, the Mortgagee will take title subject to the Agreement. By: Its: STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ss. COUNTY OF The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of 20_ , by the , on behalf of the corporation. Notary Public of .9 . '