HomeMy WebLinkAbout09.10.19A L66W
o' yam`
1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. • ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 • (763) 755-5100
FAX (763) 755-8923 • WWW.ANDOVERMN.GOV
Andover Planning and Zoning Commission
Meeting Agenda
September 10, 2019
Andover City Hall
Council Chambers
7:00 p.m.
1. Call to Order
2. Pledge of Allegiance
3. Approval of Minutes — August 13, 2019 Regular Meeting
4. Public Hearing: Lot Split Request — 124 1701h Ave NW — Brian & Corrine Smith
5. Other Business
6. Adjournment
LNDOVE
,I 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: Approval of Minutes — August 13, 2019 Regular Meeting Minutes
DATE: September 10, 2019
REQUEST
The Planning and Zoning Commission is requested to approve the August 13, 2019 regular
meeting minutes.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING –AUGUST 13, 2019
The Regular Bi -Monthly Meeting of the Andover Planning and Zoning Commission was called to
order by Chairperson Bert Koehler IV on August 13, 2019, 7:00 p.m., at the Andover City Hall,
1685 Crosstown Boulevard NW, Andover, Minnesota.
Commissioners present: Dean Daninger, Karen Godfrey, Scott Hudson, Nick Loehlein, Jeff
Sims, and Mary VanderLaan.
Commissioners absent: None
Also present: Community Development Director Joe Janish
Others
PLEDGE OFALLEGL4NCE
APPROVAL OFMINUTES
July 23, 2019
Commissioner VanderLaan requested the following change:
Page 5, Line 20, "Engineer Berkowitz" changed to "Sathre-Bergquist, Incorporated."
Motion by Loehlein, seconded by Godfrey, to approve the minutes as amended. Motion carried on
a 6 -ayes, 0 -nays, 1 -present (Daninger), 0 -absent vote.
PUBLIC HEARING: Interim Use Permit – Land Reclamation — 4239 165th Ave NW — Bobby
Petersen
Community Development Director Janish located the subject property on a map and said on July
22, 2019, staff became aware the applicant had begun to stockpile fill in excess of 400 cubic yards
at that location. He said once the applicant was aware of staff s concerns, he met with City staff
and obtained the permit application. Currently the amount of fill on the property is estimated at
3,000 cubic yards. The applicant is seeking permission for the fill already on the property and to
add another 4,000 cubic yards to build a berm five feet from the northern property line 50 feet
wide with a 3:1 slope. The fill material is coming from outside of Andover. The applicant is
proposing to use 7th Ave, 165th Ave NW, and his driveway as a haul route. The applicant will
need to contact Anoka County Highway Department to find out if "Trucks Hauling" signs will
need to be placed along the route. Silt fencing is required on the south side of the berm; the
applicant has placed silt fencing around the berm, so he has gone above and beyond the
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
Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
Minutes —August 13, 2019
Page 2
requirement. He also seeded the berm to stabilize what has been done so far. The applicant said
the berm will provide privacy due to the Preserve at Petersen Farms development. Referencing
maps, he identified the berm location. A Memo from Assistant Public Works Director Todd Haas
indicated the berm must be seeded and mulched or disc anchored within seven days, the berm must
be graded at a 3:1 slope or flatter, and the applicant is responsible for obtaining all necessary
permits. Also, the berm appears to impact the existing farm road. If there is a concern from others
about any impact, that will need to be discussed between the property owner and the person
bringing up a concern; the City would not be involved in the conversation.
Community Development Director Janish stated the City Code's definition of land reclamation as:
"the reclaiming of any land by depositing of materials so as to elevate the grade. Any lot or parcel
upon which 400 cubic yards or more of fill is to be deposited shall be considered land reclamation."
In order to grant an Interim Use Permit (IUP), certain criteria will be evaluated: 1) Will not create
an excess burden on parks, streets, and other public facilities. No damage to roadways is expected
nor any burden to parks or other public facilities is expected with the construction of the berm. 2)
Will not be injurious to the surrounding neighborhood or otherwise harm the public health, safety,
and general welfare. The applicant shall establish vegetation as identified in the Resolution and
recommended by City staff and there are no issues expected. 3) Will not have a negative effect on
the values of property and scenic views. The land reclamation is taking place in an area the property
owner desires to create a berm. The owner desires the berm to provide privacy from future
development to the north. 4) Will not impose additional unreasonable costs on the public. The
applicant is responsible for the cost to construct the berm, so there will not be any unreasonable
costs to the general public. He stated there were Resolutions both approving and denying the
application, and City staff and the applicant were available to answer any questions.
Commissioner Daninger asked how staff became aware of the situation, adding there may need to
be something in the Resolution regarding that awareness if, for example, there was something on
the road. Community Development Director Janish stated it was reported to the Natural Resource
Technician. He went to the site, discovered trucks hauling the material, and told them they needed
to stop. The property owner then contacted the City to set up a meeting. Commissioner Daninger
commented it was both a question and an education, because if the complaint was that there was
fill on the road, this was an opportunity for people to be educated and understand how to make
things work better.
Commissioner Godfrey asked staff what the procedure would be if the IUP was approved and the
Anoka source of dirt would no longer be available, whether the applicant would be required to
amend the IUP or if the process would start over. Community Development Director Janish said
it would be a negotiation process. The applicant requested, at staffs urging, a five-year period to
provide the fill. At the time of the application, the source of the material may have been at risk so
the thought process was to give the applicant five years in case the material source was no longer
there or if a future source would arise, which would give the applicant the opportunity to complete
the project as long as the conditions are followed.
Commissioner Godfrey asked if a different material source and different haul route were to be
identified, whether that would be a negotiation with staff. Community Development Director
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
Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
Minutes —August 13, 2019
Page 3
Janish stated that scenario would potentially require an amendment, depending on where the
material was coming from and what streets would be used, and that a discussion with the applicant
would be necessary at that time. Commissioner Godfrey followed up by saying the question was
also more of an education/instruction.
Commissioner VanderLaan asked staff if all properties within 700 feet of the subject property were
notified of the action and when that occurred. Community Development Director Janish said he
did not have the actual mailing date but notice was sent out within ten days and he used the map
feeder program to populate the list, using 705 feet as the buffer number instead of 700 feet to err
in favor of notifying more people. Notice was also published in the local paper and a sign was put
on the property.
Commissioner VanderLaan asked why the City of Anoka was not consulted for a mining permit
due to the large amount of soil being moved. Community Development Director Janish stated the
material being hauled is from a project in Anoka where a plan was approved so a mining permit is
not needed. Once the grading plan is approved, the excavator has the ability to bring it down to the
grading requirements and make some modifications such as soil corrections. It is part of the
permitting process versus an independent mining process. City Code states the building permit is
exempt from the land reclamation process if you have an approved building permit or approved
grading plan.
Commissioner Sims asked if there were any zoning regulations regarding berm size or height.
Community Development Director Janish said the berm being proposed is less than one acre in
size with a 50 -foot base and a 3:1 slope or 4:1 if it would be mowed or maintained, which is what
the City would regulate. There is no maximum berm height in the Code. Using a map, he pointed
out locations in the area which will be higher in elevation than the berm.
Commissioner Sims questioned whether the berm could be 20 feet as long as the applicant kept
the 3:1 ratio. Community Development Director Janish didn't know mathematically if that would
pencil out and stated the applicant would be restricted by the area identified and the amount of
cubic yardage he wants to bring in, and if they want to construct what they're proposing, they
would have to spread the fill out when they get to the 7,000 cubic yard number.
Commissioner Sims asked if the applicant was limited by the 7,000 -yard restriction on the IUP
and if they would have to come back if they wanted something else. Community Development
Director Janish confirmed his comments were correct, adding if the applicant wanted to continue
the berm along the west property line, he would be required to come back.
Motion by Daninger, seconded by Loehlein, to open the public hearing at 7:15 p.m. Motion carried
on a 7 -ayes, 0 -nays, 0 -absent vote.
Bud Holst, 4276 165th Ave NW, has lived in Andover since 1990 and lives across the street from
the applicant. They have been landowners since 1985; at one time they owned 40 acres north of
City Hall. He said the notice went out August 2 and he received his notice August 3. Mr. Holst
had three items he wanted to address: First, regarding the PUD to the north of the subject property,
Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
Minutes —August 13, 2019
Page 4
1 he commended the Commission for voting against it even though the Council approved it. He said
2 the PUD created the need for the berm when the PUD replaced R-1 zoning requirements on the
3 Petersen Farm application, he listed the requirements for R-1 zoning: 2'h acres minimum, 300 feet
4 on a straight road, 75 feet minimum on a cul-de-sac, 60 -foot minimum Right -of -Way on the roads,
5 and a maximum of 500 -foot cul-de-sacs. The maximum length of the cul-de-sac was never
6 discussed at any of the public hearings. By extending the cul-de-sac to one-quarter or one-half
7 mile, there are 75 -foot front lots available instead of 300 feet for the builders, so there is 24 feet
8 into a little less than 30 acres, which is about one acre per lot. With regard to the 2%z acre minimum,
9 they put the lowlands in the number to increase the average lot size. He reminded the Commission
0 there was ghost platting done in the original plat that was approved by the Council. In front of the
1 Petersen property is the most dense population, city -size lots, which in his opinion is the ghetto. If
2 he was Mr. Petersen, he would want a berm on the northern and western boundaries. Second,
3 Ordinance 16, cited as causing the applicant to cease and desist, has to do with land reclamation.
4 He was listening to the bulldozer and one night it just quit. He checked with the neighbors, and no
5 one complained about the noise and everyone assumed a berm was being constructed. There was
6 no dirt on the roadway so that was not the problem. Somebody complained, but it was not the
7 neighbors. Until 1974 the area was Grow Township, and a lot of the Ordinances did not fit well
8 with the City. People in responsible positions, City Council and otherwise, were touting Andover
9 as "the Edina of the north," and there were people who wanted to run it as a city instead of the
0 rural community it had always been. In addition to Ordinances, one City employee rented
1 helicopters to fly over parcels and look for old cars that did not have licenses. At that point
2 someone thought it was time to go through the Ordinances to make the rural parts rural and the
3 city parts city. He was on a committee appointed by the Council in 92-93 to accomplish that task.
4 They were up to Chapter 10-11 in terms of total Ordinances and the Council approved it. Now the
5 City is up to Chapter 16 and it includes things such as "regulate the type of fill," "include a program
6 for rodent control," and "include a plan for fire control." He stated the Council from 92-93 would
7 have thrown up over these items. He believes once R-1 zoning is in place, with a five -acre
8 minimum, an owner should be able to do what he wants, such as add outbuildings and move dirt
9 around. The regulation they kept in place at that time was that a property owner could not mine
0 more than 900 cubic yards for export per year without a permit. If a property owner wanted to
1 mine 3,000 yards over a few years, the Council would not have heard about it. Third, if he were
2 the applicant, he would want 30,000 yards and he would include the strip on the west because of
3 what is coming. The Petersen property is the showplace in the neighborhood, with a gorgeous
4 house and outbuilding, and a concrete driveway. Mr. Petersen takes very good care of everything
5 and probably enhances the value of everybody's property within 700 feet of him. In his opinion,
6 he is a great neighbor and he should get whatever he wants.
Robert Petersen, 4239 165th Ave NW, said the haul road in the application was to use his driveway
when five years was the length of time to complete the project. The dirt is currently available and
should still be available in a week. He would like to amend the haul road, using Jivaro and then
going across his uncle's land, to avoid the trucks up and down on the driveway, and he would
repair the road if any damage occurred. He offered to have Fred Petersen sign any necessary
documents so he could cross over that property. He indicated the 7,000 -yard number was used
because the contractor said that is how much he had to export but the amount could be more or
less. He wants to make the berm look right and he wants the ability to use however many yards it
Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
Minutes —August 13, 2019
Page 5
1 will take, although he does not want 30,000 yards and he does not want a berm on the west side.
2 He won't know until the project begins how many yards it will take and asked if the application
3 could be amended tonight to reflect the change in the haul road and that he may potentially need
4 another 500-1,000 yards. His plan is to seed both sides of the berm, put trees on top, and irrigate
5 it. He does not want a big dip in the berm because he ran out of dirt.
6
7 Chairperson Koehler asked, if the applicant erred on the high side, what would be the maximum
8 amount of dirt needed. Mr. Petersen stated he did not think it would be more than 10,000 yards
9 and the low spot referenced earlier is a concern. He will keep the slope, but in order to keep the
0 slope he may have to go to 55 feet for the base. He does not think it is a major argument but does
1 not want to go through this process again. He wants it to look right, be right, and not erode or wash
2 out because it is so steep. If he follows the rules that are set and it does not look right, he will get
3 the application amended, but he would like the ability to do it once and be done.
Chairperson Koehler stated that is why he is asking about the maximum number, because he also
would like this to be done once. Mr. Petersen said that is his argument about using the road from
Jivaro and across the field, because he would like to do the project now rather than when the new
streets and curbs and houses are there. He guesses there are 1-2 days of hauling.
Commissioner Loehlein stated the IUP limits the applicant to 7,000 yards and he is now asking for
more, but according to his math the berm would be about 5,200 cubic yards. Mr. Petersen said if
that is accurate, they are already over what they would need, but they were guessing on the
numbers. He never dreamed, owning 21 acres, there would be an issue building a berm and so they
started the project but then had to stop and come up with numbers. The contractor has 7,000 yards
to get rid of and they are halfway done, so that is the number they used. They have not done the
math and stakes and grading plans; they just want it to look good. Commissioner Loehlein stated
he brought that information up for consideration by everyone.
Commissioner VanderLaan asked if the City of Anoka or the hauler advised the applicant of the
possibility of needing a land reclamation permit. Mr. Petersen answered no and that the hauler
never dealt with the City of Anoka.
Commissioner VanderLaan commented that if the hauler was experienced, he would have saved
the applicant some trouble. Mr. Petersen said the hauler is an excavator friend who does quite a
bit of work with the City of Andover and who said this would not be an issue.
Commissioner VanderLaan asked if the hauler was a professional excavator, which Mr. Petersen
confirmed as correct. When his friend called the City Engineer, he learned it was an issue.
Commissioner VanderLaan referenced the applicant telling staff he thought he could construct the
berm because he was zoned as rural and asked if he knew his property had changed from
agricultural to R-1 zoning, which occurred on September 11 of 2018. Mr. Petersen confirmed that
and stated R-1 is a rural zoning. Commissioner VanderLaan clarified it is rural residential.
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
Minutes —August 13, 2019
Page 6
Commissioner VanderLaan asked the applicant what the berm would be achieving since his house
is approximately 700 feet from the northern lot line. Mr. Petersen stated he could plant trees and
never be asked a question. He has the ability to bring that amount of yardage in for free, he wants
to build a berm, and there is no reason not to.
Commissioner VanderLaan asked whether the applicant had considered using that fill for a
potential subdivision in the future since he has 21 acres. Mr. Petersen stated he is not presently
considering developing that land and if he would, he would deal with the fill issue at that time.
Commissioner VanderLaan asked what the purpose of the berm would be as far as keeping people
from traversing into his property or was it a sight issue. Mr. Petersen said he could put a 30 -foot
fence up if Commissioner VanderLaan would like that better. Commissioner VanderLaan stated it
is not about what she would like. Mr. Petersen said he did not understand why Commissioner
VanderLaan was having trouble with him wanting to build a berm. Commissioner VanderLaan
asked whether it was because the applicant did not want to look at other houses. Mr. Petersen
stated he also did not want others to see in and the reason he bought 21 acres was to be away from
everyone.
Commissioner VanderLaan asked if he was part of the Petersen Turkey Farm family. Mr. Petersen
responded that he is the outlaw division of them, the redheaded stepchild that got kicked to the
side. Commissioner VanderLaan responded that she did not want to get into family issues and she
suspected as much since he was doing something different with his inherited property. Mr.
Petersen said he did not get any inherited property and he bought the property from the family. He
added that what they are doing is their problem and that is why he is trying to separate himself
from them.
Commissioner VanderLaan asked to clarify that the applicant's berm is not with Petersen Farm or
Preserve. Mr. Petersen confirmed that as correct.
Chairperson Koehler asked that everyone take a breath and get back on topic and that audience
members keep their voices down because microphones pick up noise easily.
Chairperson Koehler thanked Mr. Petersen for taking the time to attend the meeting.
Hope Luedtke, 16932 Jivaro, stated she and her husband live down the street that they would have
been using to add the extra dirt. She encouraged everyone to look at the area in question. She said
Bobby and Beth have a very nice place and the berm will not be intrusive, huge, or stick out of
place but give them a nice buffer to stay at the place they have with the number of homes that are
coming in the area. She said homeowners in the area are surprised at the density numbers and how
different this area is looking compared to what they thought the 21/z acre lots would look like. She
said the berm will probably be an asset to the area versus something negative.
Marvin Christenson, 4065 165th, has lived in Andover for 53 years. He asked what Petersen Farms
thinks about the berm or whether they had been contacted. He does not believe there is anything
negative about the proposed project.
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
Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
Minutes —August 13, 2019
Page 7
There was an unintelligible comment from the audience.
Motion by Daninger, seconded by Hudson, to close the public hearing at 7:37 p.m. Motion carried
on a 7 -ayes, 0 -nays, 0 -absent vote.
Commissioner VanderLaan asked whether, each time subdivisions occur in the City, berms will
be requested and wondered whether there was a plan regarding that potential issue. Community
Development Director Janish stated he had an answer but would first like to address other
questions that came up regarding the request. He believed staff would be open to the idea of
inserting the Jivaro haul route in the Resolution as long as the route is available and property
owners allow for access. Regarding 7,000 versus 10,000 cubic yards, staff does not necessarily
have a concern with the amount of fill being hauled there. The concern is regarding how much
area would be disturbed, which could trigger additional permitting through different agencies. For
example, if 111/2 acres were disturbed, some agencies might say permits are required, which could
slow down the process, and the applicant should be aware of that possibility if a larger number of
cubic yards is granted. He stated staff could do some checking to get guidance from the appropriate
agency and also talk to the applicant, because he knows the applicant would like the berm built
quickly. If Planning & Zoning is okay with the larger number, staff could be directed to work with
the applicant to get the desired amount. He stated the City Council feels a property owner has the
right to install a berm, whether it is located in rural or urban developments, as long as it does not
negatively impact surrounding properties. Also, if somebody in a rural area was proposing a berm,
it would be looked at. However, a 50 -foot berm on a residential lot in an urban area has a much
different impact than on a 20 -acre parcel. The negative aspect is usually regarding how the berm
impacts drainage. Also, a property owner has a right to remove trees; the City does not regulate
the number of trees a property owner has. The IUP is the only regulation for land reclamation
regarding berms, and staff is not aware of a regulation that would prevent someone from building
a berm around their property.
Chairperson Koehler asked if additional permits were triggered, what agencies would be involved.
Community Development Director Janish stated the Lower Rum River, a water management
organization, could require additional permitting process when the one acre is disturbed. Different
agencies such as NPDS and MPCA have different threshold requirements as to when their
authority may kick in. He felt the applicant, because of the time frame in which he would like the
berm constructed, would want to avoid that kind of permitting process because it would cause
delays.
Chairperson Koehler asked if there would be any other permits from the City of Andover that
would be required if the cubic yards went from 7,000 to 10,000. Community Development Director
Janish responded there are no additional permits required by the City. Chairperson Koehler added
he heard Mr. Petersen say he does not want to come back to the City, nor does he want to make
the applicant come back.
Chairperson Koehler asked whether the City could work with Mr. Petersen to figure out the largest
number of cubic yards that would not trigger more permitting. Community Development Director
Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
Minutes —August 13, 2019
Page 8
1 Janish stated the applicant and staff are open to that and, as long as the Planning & Zoning
2 Commission is open to that, staff could try to provide guidance to the applicant to keep the project
3 moving forward.
Commissioner Daninger said he is okay with the project and reminded everyone that Planning &
Zoning gives a recommendation. He suggested approving the current Resolution so nothing else
gets triggered between now and when the Council meets. In the meantime, staff can be directed to
help the applicant, and when the Council makes a final recommendation, they could maybe go
with 10,000 and the haul route could be confirmed. Planning & Zoning should move forward and
approve something; staff could work with the applicant and get final approval from City Council.
Commissioner Loehlein asked if there was any limit other than cubic yardage regarding the berm
in terms of approval, or if it could be upon approval of City staff, or working with City Staff, etc.
Chairperson Koehler stated he trusts City staff and was hopeful that someone would do the math
to figure out what the largest cubic yard number would be without triggering permits from anyone
else so the applicant can get the berm done. The haul route should also be figured out before it
goes to City Council.
Commissioner Loehlein asked whether approval would be given using language such as "a number
that City staff would work out" and that he would be comfortable approving that language.
Chairperson Koehler felt that would be appropriate and reminded the Commission that theirs is a
recommendation and it can be approved with whatever number they want and it could be changed
by City Council.
Commissioner Daninger said the Commissioners know 7,000 does not trigger anything, so his
suggestion would be to use that number with the understanding staff will work with the applicant,
because if a recommendation is made using 10,000 cubic yards, that may trigger the Rum River to
get involved. He suggested approval because everyone is in favor and then getting the correct
number before the City Council makes its decision.
Chairperson Koehler stated Commissioners Daninger and Loehlein had valid points and the
number needs to be known but it does not need to be known now. He said the City needs to know
the number and staff can be trusted to get it and work with the applicant. The Resolution could be
approved as -is with the recommendation the applicant work with City staff.
Commissioner Hudson stated he supports the comments already made. He does not care how much
dirt the applicant moves as long as it does not create any problems. The applicant should get the
berm. He has 21 acres, it sounds like it is a beautiful property, and the neighbors are in support of
it. He does not want to stand in the applicant's way and is all for making him happy, so he should
work with staff and get it done.
42 Commissioner VanderLaan referenced Mr. Christenson's question regarding the master
43 development plan for the PUD which was approved October 23. She stated it looked like two lots
44 would be on the northern part of the boundary. Since the developer has not indicated resistance,
45 the Commissioners should consider the applicant's property rights. She stated she would not like
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
Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
Minutes —August 13, 2019
Page 9
a big berm on her lot, but it is not her choice and the applicant has the right to construct the berm
within the guidelines and laws of the City and she feels approval is necessary.
Chairperson Koehler asked staff whether notification was given to the development in that area.
Community Development Director Janish said notice was given to property owners, including
owners to the north. It is also published in the City's official newspaper, and there was also a sign
posted at the applicant's property. Historically, the City has not contacted a developer in the area
saying somebody is doing X, Y, or Z. The City follows the process which is guided by Minnesota
State Statute and the Zoning Ordinance.
Chairperson Koehler asked if whoever owns the land where the PUD is going was notified, which
Community Development Director Janish confirmed as correct.
Chairperson Koehler stated Mr. Petersen has plans of putting the berm in and wants to make it
look right, he wants to seed it, he wants to irrigate it, so he is not going to be dumping a pile of dirt
there and leaving it. He does not feel there is a reason not to proceed.
Motion by Godfrey, seconded by Loehlein, to recommend to the City Council approval of the
Resolution as written. Commissioner Daninger noted the applicant will work with City staff, since
the Commission is approving the Resolution as presented, to look at the haul road and the increased
amount of cubic yards. Motion carried on a 7 -ayes, 0 -nays, 0 -absent vote.
Community Development Director Janish stated the item will be before the City Council at the
August 20, 2019 meeting.
PUBLIC HEARING: Conditional Use Permit (CUP) — Interim Performance Standards
(Curbing) — 3017 161 st Avenue NW — Upper Midwest Athletic Construction/Erik Hicks
Community Development Director Janish used a map to orient the area of Andover allowed to
have Interim Performance Standards and also oriented the applicant's property. He said Interim
Performance Standards are intended to establish an alternative level of site improvements for
properties located in the rural industrial area generally referred to as the Hughs/Westview
Industrial Park. The City acknowledges there is a lack of municipal utilities, limiting the
development potential of these properties. The performance standards are intended to allow
continued use, expansion, and redevelopment with a level of site improvements that commensurate
with the development potential of the properties. City staff reviews applications using Conditional
Use Permit criteria along with additional criteria such as: 1) Existing appearance of the building
and site; 2) Compatibility of the proposed site development plan with other industrial properties
in the area; 3) The effect of the proposed use and proposed site development plan on the adjacent
residential neighborhood, including traffic, noise, glare, buffers, and environmental impact. There
are deviations allowed in the Code which is related to parking and impervious surface areas related
to a new development proposal as the City Council may deem appropriate or relevant. The term
of the approval identifies that at the time of any future expansion or redevelopment of the affected
property, it shall be required to conform to the regular performance standard. Essentially, if an
Interim Performance Standard is approved for a property, that time period lasts until City water
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
Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
Minutes —August 13, 2019
Page 10
and sewer is there and the applicant expands again. The applicant would then need to become
compliant with the regulations. There is not presently a set time period for when City utilities will
be extended to the industrial park.
Community Development Director Janish said City Code states parking lots are required to have
a high back curb; the applicant is proposing to deviate from that requirement. Commercial areas
such as Walmart and Target have high back concrete curb consisting of concrete gutter and then
the curb, which channelizes water. The area sheet drains, hits the back of the curb, and then flows
to either catch basins or a riprap outlet that goes into ponding areas. Due to the sugary sand material
in the area, the applicant would like to sheet drain the water and use curb stops. Using the overhead
projector, a curb stop was identified, which can be concrete, painted yellow, or painted blue. If
someone is driving and their tires hit a curb stop, it will stop them. A curb stop acts similar to a
high back curb but does not function like a high back curb does in regards to water. Water hits the
curb stops and then continues on. Using Document C300, he pointed out the ponding for the area
and stated the area would sheet drain and flow to the ponding area. From an environmental
standpoint, a curb stop functions similar to diverting water to an area, allowing for infiltration and
settlement. He indicated City Engineer Berkowitz provided a Memo expressing concern about
using curb stops versus the high back curb. The Memo discusses the longevity of curb stops versus
the high back curb, the plowing process and potential damage to the curb stops, and the aesthetics
of the area when using curb stops. The City Engineer indicated the stormwater flow could function.
The City Engineer would not like to see the Commission move forward with a recommendation.
He stated there was some discussion with a Commission member related to the curb stops
deteriorating. When a Conditional Use Permit is granted, the City has the ability to go on the
property to look at things; and one of the conditions, if approved, could be that City staff would
be able to go on the property and look at the curb stops and verify they are still in working order.
Community Development Director Janish explained there is standard criteria for granting a
Conditional Use Permit: 1) The effect of the proposed use upon the health, safety, morals, and
general welfare of occupants of surrounding lands. The applicant is proposing the utilization of
ribbon curb vs. high back curb and parking stops, which will allow for sheet draining of the site.
It is expected, due to the soils in the area and the ponding adjacent to the parking lot, no negative
impacts to the health, safety, morals and general welfare of occupants of the surrounding lands
will occur. The applicant is proposing to utilize eight -foot long rubber curb stops to prevent
vehicles from leaving the impervious surface. 2) Existing and anticipated traffic conditions,
including parking facilities on adjacent streets and land. The applicant is looking at expanding the
parking area which allows for ease of movement of equipment and is also proposing to sheet drain
to the ponding versus a high back curb. 3) The effect on values of property and scenic view in the
surrounding area. The applicant is proposing to utilize curb stops and proposing to transplant trees
between 161 st Ave NW and his proposed parking expansion to screen the property more, which
was shown on documents using the overhead projector. He stated Engineering indicated
maintenance issues could exist for parking stops because they can break down over time. The curb
stop does meet the stormwater requirements within the Comprehensive Plan. He reviewed the
Interim Performance Standards criteria again. He stated both he and the applicant were available
to answer questions.
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
Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
Minutes —August 13, 2019
Page 11
Commissioner Loehlein referenced two comments from Mr. Berkowitz: First, he is not aware of
the normal curb requirement being waived in other parts of the City; second, if this is approved, it
could set a precedent. He asked whether the same sheet draining and curb arrangement could be
requested in another part of the City or is it unique to the Hughes/Westview area and could only
be requested there. Community Development Director Janish said anybody can request anything
anywhere but the way the current Ordinance is written, the Conditional Use Permit for the Interim
Performance Standards applies to the Hughes/Westview Industrial Park area. As a result, if
someone wanted to propose park stops or curb stops in other locations of the community, they
would have to pursue some other type of avenue to do that versus the Interim Performance
Standards through the Conditional Use Permit process.
Commissioner Loehlein asked staff why he thought no one had done so before. Community
Development Director Janish said he could not really respond to that, although he thought it may
be due to the particular area. He said in the early to mid -2000s there was work done on some of
the buildings in the area. Using the overhead projector, he referenced Code which talks about the
ability to deviate related to parking and impervious surface and could not speculate why someone
would ask for another type of deviation from Code versus the parking.
Commissioner Godfrey asked for confirmation that the presentation focused on the
Hughes/Westview Industrial Park because in the documents it says "Hugh/Westview" and
"Hughes Industrial Park," and she wanted to make sure it was the same site. Community
Development Director Janish stated she was correct.
Commissioner Godfrey asked whether the proposed use of ribbon curb and sheet draining will
accomplish the goal consistent with the Comprehensive Plan of effectively controlling stormwater
with no negative impact to the health and safety of the occupants in the surrounding lands.
Community Development Director Janish confirmed she was correct.
Motion by Loehlein, seconded by Godfrey, to open the public hearing at 8:06 p.m. Motion carried
on a 7 -ayes, 0 -nays, 0 -absent vote.
Chairperson Koehler asked the applicant to take the podium and to ask any questions he had.
Applicant Erik Hicks, 3017 161 st Ave NW, had no questions.
Chairperson Koehler asked the applicant why he was choosing this method as opposed to the high
back curb. The applicant stated he does the work himself and does not pour high back curb. He
owns 5'/z acres, and if at some point in the future he wants to expand parking or change any grading
or make the storm ponds bigger, he will not have to rip out the curb and have somebody else do it
again.
Chairperson Koehler commented the applicant's reasons were basically financial and future -
proofing his property, which the applicant stated was correct.
Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
Minutes —August 13, 2019
Page 12
1 Motion by Daninger, seconded by Hudson, to close the public hearing at 8:08 p.m. Motion carried
2 on a 7 -ayes, 0 -nays, 0 -absent vote.
3
4 Commissioner Sims asked whether the applicant is required to have the curb there, if this is rural
5 enough that he would not need the Conditional Use Permit, or what was requiring the curb at that
6 location. Community Development Director Janish said Code requires curb be provided around a
7 parking space, and the definition of curbing is that you have the channel and high back to catch it
8 and drain it. Instead of creating a high back curb and perhaps at a future date having to tear it out,
9 haul it away and/or crush it, to meet staff s concern about vehicles going over the concrete/asphalt
0 area, the applicant suggested curb stops rather than bollards, because if you hit a curb stop, you
1 know you've hit something. Because of the location and the Interim Performance Standards, the
2 applicant can and did ask for something other than the high back.
Chairperson Koehler stated he heard there is no issue with the water leaving the area, City
Engineering has no concerns, and environmentally it's sound. The issue is the longevity of the curb
stops compared to the longevity of the curb from the City's perspective, a plowing perspective,
snow removal, and things like that. From the applicant's perspective, he may expand down the
road or would like to expand down the road and wants to put in something that is easier to expand
without tearing things out. He asked if anyone on the Commission heard anything different or had
any thoughts to share.
Commissioner Loehlein referenced the Memo from the City Engineer recommending the City hold
to its standard curb. He said when he evaluates this proposal against City criteria, he does not see
any reason why it should not be approved by the Commission. It then becomes a City Council
decision as to whether the issues raised by City Engineering make it worthy of approving or not
approving.
Commissioner VanderLaan said her position would be to vote no on this proposal, stating the
Commission weighs heavily on the City Engineer, who has been with the City for 23 years, and
his recommendation is to hold to the required standard of the B6 concrete curb. Also, by changing
the standard, this commercial property could lead to setting a precedent for other commercial
projects in the future. She accepts other Commissioners will listen to the reasons given, but she
feels the City Engineer is highly skilled and she will listen to him and vote no.
Commissioner Daninger commented that Commissioner VanderLaan does not yet know the
motion. Commissioner VanderLaan clarified she will vote against the furtherance of the project.
Commissioner Godfrey commented the Interim Performance Standards for the industrial park
recognize that an alternative level of site improvements for this rural industrial area is appropriate.
Since it lacks municipal utilities and other niceties other industrial parks in the City may have, the
intent with the Interim Performance Standards, as she understands, is to allow continued use of the
property, expansion, and redevelopment of property within that area commensurate with the
potential development of the property. She feels this argues for flexibility on the part of the
Commission as long as the core health and safety requirements are met. It has been established
that the water flow will be appropriate. The property owner has been put on notice that under an
Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
Minutes —August 13, 2019
Page 13
1 approved Conditional Use Permit, the City would have the right to enter the property at an
2 appropriate time, inspect, and perhaps require repair or replacement if necessary, of those curb
3 stops. She believes it is appropriate to approve this exception within the Hughes/Westview
4 Industrial Park and does not believe doing so would set a precedent for all industrial parks in
5 Andover, because this is a special case.
6
7 Chairperson Koehler asked for confirmation that the use of parking stops would endure until City
8 utilities are brought in. Community Development Director Janish stated there were two conditions:
9 First, City water and sewer is available to the property; second, an expansion occurs. For example,
0 if water and sewer is available and the applicant decides he wants to expand, at that point the curb
1 stops would have to be removed and the high back curb would need to be installed.
Chairperson Koehler clarified that after water and sewer are in place, as long as the curb stops are
in place and well-maintained, they can stay. As soon as any change is requested, City Code applies
again. Community Development Director Janish agreed with his statement.
Chairperson Koehler asked if the City has the downstream capacity to expand sewer and water to
the area. Community Development Director Janish stated if the City were to service the area, it
would have to come from the rural reserve pipe, which is part of long-term growth. Chairperson
Koehler commented that is a pipe that is not there yet, which Community Development Director
Janish confirmed as correct.
Chairperson Koehler asked if the Conditional Use Permit in the area would last a while, potentially
indefinitely. Community Development Director Janish stated that could be the case.
Commissioner Daninger asked if that would be the case until there is an expansion by the applicant.
Community Development Director Janish stated water and sewer would have to be available and
an expansion by the property owner.
Commissioner Daninger asked whether at that time the property owner could make an application
to use the same type of curb stops. Community Development Director Janish responded that would
not be allowed if water and sewer were there.
Commissioner Daninger referenced the two caveats, those being water and sewer or an expansion.
Community Development Director Janish said it is "and" rather than "or." He said if the
Conditional Use Permit is granted by the City Council, the applicant would be able to use the curb
stops. If there is an expansion that occurs without water and sewer, the request would have to come
forward again.
Commissioner Hudson stated he thought Commissioner Godfrey was correct, that there is enough
ambiguity within the district and the Interim Performance Standards that it will not create a
downstream problem for other sites within the City. Although he does not want to go against Mr.
Berkowitz, he felt it was a special and unique enough situation that he would probably vote for the
plan.
45
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
Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
Minutes —August 13, 2019
Page 14
Chairperson Koehler asked who was responsible for snow removal in the area. Community
Development Director Janish stated it was the owner's responsibility since it is private property.
Chairperson Koehler questioned who would be responsible for fixing the curb stops if they were
to break down and look bad. Community Development Director Janish responded that would be
the property owner.
Chairperson Koehler seconded Mr. Hudson's comment, that although he has immense respect for
Mr. Berkowitz and he understands about setting precedent, he does not see how it affects the City
since the City is not responsible for snow -plowing or fixing the curb stops if they break down but
the City has the right to tell Mr. Hicks they have to be fixed. He wondered what the extra work
would be for the City because, as he sees it, the City would only be responsible for inspection. If
the area was an "eyebrow curve" or there was extra plowing involved, he would understand the
reasoning. He would like a better explanation but he does not have it.
Commissioner Sims said Mr. Berkowitz has to look at the situation and state his case as the City
Engineer. The Commission's job is to look at the overall City. There is a business that wants to
expand, and to make expansion more difficult would be against the better use of the City, and he
is in favor of the plan. He does not wish to make things cost -prohibitive to the applicant by making
him rip out curbs and redo them, because the applicant may take his business elsewhere.
Chairperson Koehler stated the sentence from the City Engineer's Memo, "Tire stops are
problematic from a snow removal standpoint and break up over time due to the stops being run
into and runover by vehicle tires and break down from plowing," are not the City's problems.
Motion by Sims, seconded by Hudson, to approve the Resolution as written. Motion carried on a
5 -ayes, 2 -nays (Daninger, VanderLaan), 0 -absent vote.
Commissioner VanderLaan clarified her nay vote is that the recommendation of City Engineer
Berkowitz is tantamount in this case regarding the activities.
Community Development Director Janish stated this item will be before the Council at the August
20, 2019 City Council meeting.
OTHER BUSINESS
Community Development Director Janish said the City Council approved the rezoning request for
the Villas at Crosstown Woods. The City Council also approved the preliminary plat and Planned
Unit Development for the Villas at Crosstown Woods.
Chairperson Koehler commented he has asked for a meeting since January/February regarding
emergency services and things to consider as the Commission looks at PUDs and other zoning
environments. At that time the suggestion was to wait until summer, but summer is coming to an
end and the meeting hasn't been held yet. He realizes people are busy but does not want to hear
this winter that it will need to wait again until next summer.
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
Minutes —August 13, 2019
Page 15
II�IQII_CZ `U_U/�IQ�II
Motion by Hudson, seconded by VanderLaan, to adjourn the meeting at 8:24 p.m. Motion carried
on a 7 -ayes, 0 -nays, 0 -absent vote.
Respectfully Submitted,
Ruth Holdvogt, Recording Secretary
TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc.
C I T Y O F
ND OVE
1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. • ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 • (763) 755-5100
FAX (763) 755-8923 • WWW.ANDOVERMN.GOV
TO: Planning and Zoning Commissioners
FROM: Jake Griffiths, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING: Lot Split Request — 124 170' Ave NW — Brian & Corrine
Smith
DATE: September 10, 2019
INTRODUCTION
The applicants are seeking approval of a lot split request to split and combine lots within the R-1
zoning district, resulting in a lot of less than 5 acres.
DISCUSSION
The applicants are requesting to split the unassigned 32.5 -acre parcel to create a 3 -acre lot,
described in this report as "Parcel A". The applicants are also requesting to combine the 2.5 -acre
parcel located at 124 1701h Ave NW with the remainder of the unassigned parcel to create a 32 -
acre lot, described in this report as "Parcel B". The attached survey shows the boundaries of the
existing and proposed lots.
The applicants' intent is to gift "Parcel A" to a relative in order to construct a home on the newly
created lot. The applicants also intend to use "Parcel B" as a residential property. In the future the
applicants may further subdivide the parcel for residential development. Further subdivision will
take place through a different application and review process.
Engineering Department Review
The Engineering Department reviewed the lot split application and did not have any comments
related to this application.
Park Dedication and Trail Fees
A park dedication fee and a trail fee will be required to be paid for at the time of recording of the
lot split. The park and trail fees will be based on the 2019 fee schedule: Park fee $3,319.00 and trail
fee $845.00.
Review Criteria
13-1A-6: Review and Recommendations:
F. Planning and Zoning Commission Review: The Planning and Zoning Commission for
its review and recommendation shall conduct
shall consider:
a. The effect on land uses.
public hearing. Such recommendations
The current land use of the site is residential, and the proposed lot split will not
impact the residential character of the area. The applicants are planning to
construct a residential home on "Parcel A" in the future.
b. The effect on traffic control.
It is not expected that the lot split will have an impact on traffic control in the area.
"Parcel B" will continue to have access through 170`x' Ave NW, and "Parcel A"
will have access from Crosstown Blvd NW. The residential use of the lots should
not create enough traffic to have a noticeable impact in the area.
c. The effect on zoning regulation.
The proposed lot split will create two lots. Each lot will meet all requirements for
the R-1 zoning district and all other applicable zoning regulations.
d. The effect on future developments.
It is not expected that future development will be adversely impacted by the lot
split as the lot split meets all requirements set forth in the City Code, and future
development would create lots of a similar size to "Parcel A ".
e. The effect on the comprehensive plan.
The comprehensive plan designates this site within the rural residential district,
which provides for an area of low intensity residential development in areas
outside of the Municipal Urban Service Area (MUSA) which will not be served by
municipal water and sewer. The minimum lot size is 2.5 acres to allow for enough
space for onsite sewer and water facilities. The proposed lot split meets the
minimum lot size, density and all other regulations established by the
comprehensive plan.
f. Any other criteria deemed pertinent by the Planning and Zoning Commission.
ACTION REQUESTED
The Planning Commission is asked to hold a public hearing and provide a recommendation of
approval to the City Council regarding the lot split request.
Attachments
Draft Resolution of Approval
Location Map
Certified Survey
�fect�fully submitted,
Gi
Jake Griffiths
Associate Planner
Cc: Brian & Corrine Smith, 124 170' Ave NW, Andover, MN 55304
CITY OF ANDOVER
COUNTY OF ANOKA
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RES. NO.
A RESOLUTION APPROVING A LOT SPLIT REQUEST TO SPLIT AND COMBINE
PARCELS IN THE R-1 SINGLE FAMILY URBAN DISTRICT FOR THE PROPERTY
LOCATED AT 124 170TH AVE NW, PIN 12-32-24-14-0012, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS
LOT 2, BLOCK 2, BIRCHWOOD POND ADDITION, AND;
THE UNASSIGNED PROPERTY, PIN 12-32-24-41-0004, LEGALLY DESCRIBIED AS:
THE NORTH 990 FEET OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 12, TOWNSHIP 32, RANGE 24,
ANOKA COUNTY, MINNESOTA, LYING SOUTHEASTERLY OF CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD, ALSO
KNOWN AS COUNTY STATE HIGHWAY NO. 18, EXCEPT THE SOUTH 330 FEET LYING WEST OF THE
EAST 1,100 FEET AS MEASURED FROM THE EAST LINE OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE
SOUTHEAST QUARTER, AND EXCEPT THAT PART OF NORTH 300 FEET LYING WESTERLY OF THE EAST
279.65 FEET OF SAID QUARTER. AND THE WEST 726.00 FEET OF THE EAST 1005.65 FEET OF THE
NORTH 300.00 FEET OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 12, TOWNSHIP 32, RANGE 24,
ANOKA COUNTY.
WHEREAS, the property owners have requested approval of a lot split to split and combine lots
at the properties located at 124 1701h Ave NW and the unassigned property, PIN 12-32-24-41-
0004 and;
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission finds the request would not have a
detrimental effect upon the health, safety, morals and general welfare of the City of Andover,
and;
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held pursuant to state statutes, and;
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommends to the City Council approve the
lot split, as shown on Exhibit A.
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 lot
split on said property with the following conditions:
1. The applicant shall be required to pay a park dedication fee for the new lot in the amount
of $3,319 and a trail fee in the amount of $845 prior to the recording of the lot split with
Anoka County.
2. A grading and erosion control plan must be submitted to the City at the time of building
permit submittal.
3. Lots shall be combined to create "Parcel B".
4. All required permits must be obtained from the Lower Rum River Watershed
Management Organization and the Anoka County Transportation Department prior to the
issuance of a building permit.
5. The lot split is subject to a sunset clause as defined in Ordinance No. 40, Section III(E).
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Andover on this 17th day of September 2019.
CyIwas)I.101163LIVIaH
ATTEST:
Michelle Hartner, Deputy City Clerk
Julie Trude, Mayor
C : 4. . 1 ... 4.: �
Date Created: August 21, 2019
Disclaimer. The provider makes no representation or warranties with respect to the reuse of this data.
I
N
100 0 100 200
SCALE IN FEET
LEGEND
® Cast iron monument found
• - Iran monument found
O a Iron monument of and marked
with license No. 49138.
0 w Anaka Count, Right of Way Mmurrenl
NOTES.
I p 'd' g ths at I n been made m
bt " show
o d t - rig - t size, depth,
dl cap ctya -cairon ofoy UR,exstng
the fate, whi thil,rte, muacpal ar pubic
owned
2. The prefesional surve,or has made no avestgotian
of in,
apendent search for eosements of record,
e mbrance. rest/cave covenants, omorwar a title
e6...a or any ath, facts that on m curate and
Current ltle search m]r• disclose,
3 Beann, are based on the Am.k'l Cott, -y Coordinate
System (NAD 83-1996 AONst G t)
s ',,mer-us-mro.emenls es sl ch Lot 2, Block 2.
6IRCHw000 POND, which are not depicted an this
survey.
/ / I
/ / I
/ / I
1 n.: •r-
/ L-
T -,r A TT;^
/ � I
i
\ ---- --- --
170TH AVENUE /
-T-------7----rte
North Me of Lot 2. Block 2.'
SIRCHw000 POND
-0
.aCNI
I m
m
e= I I
a ad
I
-Ipr,I ,4 f,r\r,n I Z. �Kln
/ I North lin! / ar of aI &RCXWOOPOND
`OuvtOf the $eat1011South line of lel 2, lc2-1IS89'06'08"E
1005.81
o x z--�}`J 1011.16
93435
- M1 _ • _-,e-N,�L. '. �e of tM1e Cauln ."94::.�
0 4�0 �O + �t18401.68�W 'a -nth feel Of the North 560 tee ::f { - •
, / 401 62 n Saumwst Oharte. /
?°fid., el
I Op ,§ Cx proposed 10 offering. h= I - I /
unity Eu..m.N
,P
re
I, ✓/ 11 Its ' ' a PARCEL A of
f
I I
76 BI L - - S6l 95 � w
S -EF DETAIL A SOuth line 01 the North 660=
feet a1 the ::auzneaet Wort.
(y 1,
r NNB906'OB'w�� Xeaz.Je X�„`
401.62 xam f,
�
60 ,1 681 0 33a.8t / \, O� xsazm
rg�-
��y `/ B %
!V ho
6oe9 / `I Proposed l0 Dra ncge
89w.n L / /
Y ` , x��\k Maly Easement
0 50=Siiixwsn \� -
SCALE IN DEETart, Ah,e- x90)1. \ 1
Q b \
/x W%
�� ' so..ze I xsoslp x eaa.n, /
x9a.N 1 Xund ..,..9./
of i x ��' ^w'.>e �� /�� ,:n�iof
/ ,.. ,/ / qs / PARIaEL A ,�
/ fJ•-r%.� X4. / xe�.so X9esv rvx•:..w
saw 74
would..Y3
Fita X\\ \\ 1 /
A 9o..se
Mx gyp�y/ y / r R �r \ 1 \ x9bseNo z �(9azn, Xx
xzo... voxeo
/ \ & \ x fa %9a.3
901 21lo/ rip 0
/ L
_ _ x
i
kw
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
564.95 --
r
3Z``0x99ps.a
sap3x v311'kN89tl6,00..3.
8'OB"w �xsoam �i /F`--�A3ze9e.•3 I
/ ID.N Bx• /
L - -------------------------- e. -------j
DETAIL A-
II O
` N
I �
I natneost Corner of-�
the 5oulheost coati r
of See 12. T 32, R.24
I I
to I L _)26.00'
w
sh o
oM
o
s w1 h.wl <.d I`
- - � - 27965'-----
--.
IF ----------- s
I
Cy
�J a PARCEL B
fe
--------------------
I
ob
Rb 3
3=
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I-1!ll Ixy/ - I
south
feel of
n Irl r\r
vv I L.v 1 n
---".U0.: 0'------ - - - ------------ ------
1100.17
N89'06408'W
6 Ea
<r PEiy�
13C 5 W e
Ambi_ j
n
OC)
O
/AV '-' '�-' ,✓
V)he
Crosstown Boulevard, also known as County Stale Highway Na. 18. except the acuth 330 feet lying we,' of the ..at 1.100 feet as
� zt
CIO V�J i
.=
i ol3.
n
'`c
9..V�.
/ r• r
e
`�• /
line of the North 300-.
feetel
/�Q�
/ i
at of the sowneaet aart<r
/ e ` ' / l i r
r -11 S89'06'OB'E .... rwwe
o x z--�}`J 1011.16
93435
- M1 _ • _-,e-N,�L. '. �e of tM1e Cauln ."94::.�
0 4�0 �O + �t18401.68�W 'a -nth feel Of the North 560 tee ::f { - •
, / 401 62 n Saumwst Oharte. /
?°fid., el
I Op ,§ Cx proposed 10 offering. h= I - I /
unity Eu..m.N
,P
re
I, ✓/ 11 Its ' ' a PARCEL A of
f
I I
76 BI L - - S6l 95 � w
S -EF DETAIL A SOuth line 01 the North 660=
feet a1 the ::auzneaet Wort.
(y 1,
r NNB906'OB'w�� Xeaz.Je X�„`
401.62 xam f,
�
60 ,1 681 0 33a.8t / \, O� xsazm
rg�-
��y `/ B %
!V ho
6oe9 / `I Proposed l0 Dra ncge
89w.n L / /
Y ` , x��\k Maly Easement
0 50=Siiixwsn \� -
SCALE IN DEETart, Ah,e- x90)1. \ 1
Q b \
/x W%
�� ' so..ze I xsoslp x eaa.n, /
x9a.N 1 Xund ..,..9./
of i x ��' ^w'.>e �� /�� ,:n�iof
/ ,.. ,/ / qs / PARIaEL A ,�
/ fJ•-r%.� X4. / xe�.so X9esv rvx•:..w
saw 74
would..Y3
Fita X\\ \\ 1 /
A 9o..se
Mx gyp�y/ y / r R �r \ 1 \ x9bseNo z �(9azn, Xx
xzo... voxeo
/ \ & \ x fa %9a.3
901 21lo/ rip 0
/ L
_ _ x
i
kw
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
564.95 --
r
3Z``0x99ps.a
sap3x v311'kN89tl6,00..3.
8'OB"w �xsoam �i /F`--�A3ze9e.•3 I
/ ID.N Bx• /
L - -------------------------- e. -------j
DETAIL A-
II O
` N
I �
I natneost Corner of-�
the 5oulheost coati r
of See 12. T 32, R.24
I I
to I L _)26.00'
w
sh o
oM
o
s w1 h.wl <.d I`
- - � - 27965'-----
--.
IF ----------- s
I
Cy
�J a PARCEL B
fe
--------------------
I
ob
Rb 3
3=
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I-1!ll Ixy/ - I
south
feel of
n Irl r\r
vv I L.v 1 n
---".U0.: 0'------ - - - ------------ ------
1100.17
N89'06408'W
6 Ea
<r PEiy�
13C 5 W e
Ambi_ j
n
OC)
O
`IJ
V)he
Crosstown Boulevard, also known as County Stale Highway Na. 18. except the acuth 330 feet lying we,' of the ..at 1.100 feet as
� zt
CIO V�J i
.=
i ol3.
n
'`c
9..V�.
G
N
e
aC
And
$4
c«
7PRoil
a
If!
0
(�
-X
�11"r1 rl
w M
fn xse
VI
tr�-1
`4M 0
y Y I U
O
wZ E
The south 294.00 feet of the north 660.00 feet of the Southeast Quarter of Section 12, Township 32, Range 24, Anoka County,
QcdCi 0
le .rr
Minnesota, lying southeasterly of Crosstown Boulevard. also known as County Slate Highway No. 18. and lying west of the east
167THAw
+� y
LANE NE
Cd
----
Pei
EXISTING PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: (PID NO. 12-32-24-41-0005)-32.511 Acres (PER DOC. NO. 879360 and 1247131)
The north 990 feel of the Southeast Quarter of Section 12 Township 32, Range 14, Anoka County. Minnesota, lying southeasterly of
Crosstown Boulevard, also known as County Stale Highway Na. 18. except the acuth 330 feet lying we,' of the ..at 1.100 feet as
measured from the east line of the Northeast Quarter of the Sautnelosl Quarter, and except that port of north 300 feet lying
f�
westerly of the east 279.65 feet of said Quarter.
And
$4
The West 726.00 feet of the East 1005.65 feel of the North 300.00 feet of the Southeast Quarter of Section 12, Township 32,
u
Range 24, Anoka County.
(�
-X
W
tr�-1
PROPOSED PARCEL A DESCRIPTION (3.00 Acres not including County ROW)(3.52 Acres including County ROW)
O
The south 294.00 feet of the north 660.00 feet of the Southeast Quarter of Section 12, Township 32, Range 24, Anoka County,
le .rr
Minnesota, lying southeasterly of Crosstown Boulevard. also known as County Slate Highway No. 18. and lying west of the east
0 }�
1669.00 feet of said Southeast Quarter.
cu
few
41
ca
t
PROPOSED PARCEL R DESCRIPTION: (32.01 Acres not including County ROYQ(32.13 Acres including County ROW)
U
The nOflM1 990 feet 0( the Southeast Quarte) Of Section 12 Township 32 Range 24 MOkp Count Minnesota. lying southeasterlyof
s y
:N
4.
sag
Crosstown Boulevard, also known No. a apt the south Sex lett lying west of the s[
County Stole except (eel s
and except that part of north feet lying
measured measured from Ins east line he pl ou feet
the Northeast Quarter Of the Southeast
+",1
the sr,
westerly S easter
et
feet of 90id Southeast Quarter, and except the south 294 feel 01 IM1e north 660 feet o/ said Southeast
feet
the east 1the
F„I
`
lying
Quarter lying west of lM1a east 1669.011 feel of said $aulheast Quarter.
co
�
And
Lot 2, Black 2. BIRCHWOOD POND, Anoka County, Minnesota.
SHEET NuuBER }j$
1
North line of the Southeast Quarter of Sec.12, T.32, R.24.
t
DESCRIPTION OF DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENT:
N
North line of the South Q� The West 10.00 feet of the East 1769.00 feet of the South
294.00 feet of the - cl294.00 feet of the North 660.00 feet of the Southeast Quarter
t North 660.00 feet of 1 of Section 12, Township 32, Range 24, Anoka County, Minnesota.
- the Southeast Quarter `
of Sec.12, T.32, R.24 N AND
1
60` _ That part of the South 10.00 feet of said North 660.00 feet of
X \ _ ° the Southeast Quarter, which lies West of the East 1769.00 feet
-I a of said Southeast Quarter, and which lies Southeasterly of a line
drawn parallel with and distant 10.00 feet Southeasterly of the
oJ� \\� r� v• /< oo I - -1769.00' I a Southeasterly line of Parcel 18, ANOKA COUNTY HIGHWAY
A\ �v I RIGHT-OF-WAY PLAT NO. 24, said Anoka County.
6 l\/\
\X?Q�� �(/ I I s AND
o o ° o N That part of the North 10.00 feet of said South 294.00 feet of
o�Ga,`O� t-�J J�� �• I (
� u3 N y the North 660.00 feet of the Southeast Quarter, which lies West
/ I y o 0 of of the East 1769.00 feet of said Southeast Quarter, and which
o _ f I�.aN o lies Southeasterly of a line drawn parallel with and distant 10.00
ac. oS�P /r�, G• \� �/ �P 14-^ I r ° N feet Southeasterly of the Southeasterly line of Parcel 18, ANOKA
G c v/ Q X r' N a - COUNTY HIGHWAY RIGHT-OF-WAY PLAT NO. 24, said Anoka
\� \ a ���0. I \ I �f N County and its extensions.
° o m
j /r\` O �� I I 10.00' I _---, n n AND
OO,. oO�P I That part of said Southeast Quarter, which lies North of said
South 10.00 feet of the North 660.00 feet of the Southeast
�o�?r� I I -1669.00'-J Quarter, and which lies South of said North 10.00 feet of the
�v 00 South 294.00 feet of the North 660.00 feet of the Southeast
60 `/ Quarter, and which lies Southeasterly of said Southeasterly line
of Parcel 18, ANOKA COUNTY HIGHWAY RIGHT-OF-WAY PLAT NO.
24 and its extensions, and which lies Northwesterly of said line
drawn parallel with and distant 10.00 feet Southeasterly of the
Southeasterly line of Parcel 18, ANOKA COUNTY HIGHWAY
\t 0� RIGHT-OF-WAY PLAT NO. 24 and its extensions.
South line of the North 660.00-'
feet of the Southeast Quarter of
N Sec.12, T.32, R.24 NOTES.
A
0 80 160
SCALE IN FEET
1. In providing this survey no attempt has been made to obtain or
show data concerning existence, size, depth, condition, capacity or
Denotes Proposed Drainage & Utility Easement location of any utility existing on the site, whether private,
municipal or public owned.
2. The professional surveyor has made no investigation or
independent search for easements of record, encumbrance,
restrictive covenants, ownership title evidence, or any other facts
that an accurate and current title search may disclose.
3. Total area of Proposed Drainage & Utility Easement is 15,146
Sq.Ft. or 0.348 Acres.
Dote Revision
I hereby certify that this survey, plan or report was prepared
by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly
es
Professional Licensed Land rveyor under the laws of the
°`°.
08/08/19
APhMN license No. 49738 Dale
Hakanson
- IfflAnderson
Ck6 En9inees and Lard 5.1-.11
301 %nst�
763-427-5860 4FM 763-4275 0520 303
Easement Exhibit
for
Kevin Whitaker
SHEET
Or
1
SHEETS
DATE 08/08/19 AE N0. 4407.01
Aug 09, 2019 - 7:29.m
K:\cad_sury\Lord Desktop 2008\4407.01\dwg\4407.01 Easement EAibit.dw9