HomeMy WebLinkAbout2025-01-28ioNDOVE
X - A,
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
January 28, 2025
Andover City Hall
Council Chambers
7.00 p.m.
1. Call to Order
2. Pledge of Allegiance
3. Approval of Minutes — November 26, 2024, Regular Meeting
4. Public Hearing: Amend the existing Planned Unit Development (PUD) for Grey Oaks to
allow 3-4 season porches/screen porches at the same minimum setbacks as attached decks for
the townhouses in Block 4 of Grey Oaks (Lots 4-27); PID# 22-32-24-12-0097, 1895 156t"
Lane NW, Ray & Jill Ostby (Applicant)
5. Other Business
6. Adjournment
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
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING — NOVEMBER 26, 2024
The Regular Bi-Monthly Meeting of the Andover Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order by
Chairperson Godfrey on November 26, 2024, 7:00 p.m., at the Andover City Hall, 1685 Crosstown
Boulevard NW, Andover, Minnesota.
Commissioners present:
Commissioners absent:
Also present:
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Chairperson Karen Godfrey, Commissioners Scott Hudson, Nick
Loehlein, Chuck Naughton, Jon Shafto, Pat Shuman Jr. and Ryan
Winge.
None.
Community Development Director Joe Janish, and City Planner Peter
Hellegers.
November 12, 2024 Regular Meeting
The consensus of the Commission was for approval of the minutes from the November 12, 2024 Planning
Commission Meeting as presented. Motion carried on a 7-ayes, 0-present, 0-nays vote.
PUBLIC HEARING. Sketch Plan Review for a residential subdivision using a Planned Unit
Development (PUD) — Lakeview at Sloth Farms —13624 Gladiola St NW; PID#33-32-24-31-0042 —
General Contractors of MN, Inc. (Applicant).
Community Development Director Janish reviewed the staff report with the Planning Commission noting
that the Commission is requested to review a sketch plan for a single-family PUD residential development as
proposed by Doug Schultz/General Contractors of MN, Inc. A narrative submitted by the applicant was
provided for Commission consideration.
The City has received an application for a sketch plan showing a 7-lot single-family development. The site is
located at the southwest corner of Bunker Lake Blvd. and Gladiola Street NW, just east of the boat landing
on Crooked Lake. The property falls within the shoreland district.
Mr. Janish reviewed some of the site characteristics and processes for the proposed development shown on
the sketch plan. For this concept to move forward, several actions would need to occur including
Preliminary Plat, Conditional Use Permit/Planned Unit Development (CUP/PUD), Final Plat, and Building
Permits.
Conformance with Local and Regional Plans and Ordinances.
1. The 2.4-acre property is located within the Metropolitan Urban Service Area boundary.
2. The property is guided in the 2018 Comprehensive Plan as Urban Residential Medium Low, a
designation that calls for densities of 4 to 8 units per acre. The proposed 7-lot development does not
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
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
Minutes — November 26, 2024
Page 2
currently meet the 4 units per acre (minimum net density) as it shows 3.65 units per acre net
density.
3. The property is within the Shoreland Overlay District.
4. The proposed development includes deviations from City Codes that are proposed to be addressed
through the PUD process.
The proposed sketch plan shows driveway access to Gladiola Street NW which is an existing street. Each of
the lots will be served by municipal services. The Engineering Department has provided the following
comments to achieve municipal services:
City water main and sanitary sewer are only available for a portion of this parcel. There are two
existing 4 " sanitary sewer stubs near Lots S and 6 to this parcel and no water main stubs. An
existing 8 " water main is located under the easterly portion of Gladiola Street that would need to
be connected to with 1 " water services for each parcel. An 8" sanitary sewer pipe would need to be
extended on Gladiola Street from the existing sanitary sewer line would include 4 — 4" service
stubs with one new 4 " sub connecting into the existing 8 " sanitary sewer pipe. Due to the
disturbance required with the utility connections, the existing street section would need to be
removed and replaced from the southerly removal limits for utilities to the new northerly sanitary
sewer manhole.
Crooked Lake is near this development and is classified as a General Development Lake. This places the
property within 1,000 feet of Crooked Lake within a Shoreland Overlay District. As part of the Shoreland
Ordinance, the applicant is required to verify the proposed density by creating a tier system of 267 feet.
Density is then compared to City Code within these tiers. The Shoreland Ordinance also allows for a density
increase if a developer provides a larger setback (125 feet vs 100 feet from the waterbody Ordinary High
Water and placing vegetation requirements around the recreational lake. The applicant is not seeking
additional density as they are allowed 7.2 units, and they are proposing 7 units.
Due to the Shoreland Overlay District and seeking a PUD, additional responsibilities are required of the
developer. These include a Mandatory Homeowners Association and City Code provides the requirements
of the HOA.
• Residential Planned Unit Developments within a shoreland area requires a property owner
association agreement (for residential PUDs) with mandatory membership, and addresses the
following within City Code 13-4-9 F:
1. Maintenance and Design Criteria — Each home will incorporate high -quality materials and
architectural features that reflect the character of the area. The homeowner's association
will ensure maintenance and use guidelines.
2. Open Space Requirements: Planned Unit Developments must contain open space — The
development will include common areas and landscaping. Existing trees will be preserved
for screening and privacy.
3. Erosion Control and Storm Water Management — The City of Andover and Coon Creek
Watershed District will review erosion control and storm water management as part of
future applications.
4. Centralization and Design of Facilities — The proposed homes will be connected to
municipal utilities (sewer and water).
• 25% max impervious coverage for each lot.
• 25-foot max building height.
• 50% open space preservation within the Shoreland Overlay area.
The subject property is zoned R-4 Single Family Urban Residential. The property is within the shoreland
overlay district. Shoreland regulations include additional regulations for lots.
Shoreland Regulation _ Proposed
Minimum Lot Area
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
46
47
48
49
Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
Minutes —November 26, 2024
Page 3
"Riparian Lots
15,000
13,497
Nonri arian Lots
11,400
14,213
Minimum Lot Width
"Riparian Lots
80
56
Nonri arian Lots
80
56
"City staff had a discussion with the DNR regarding if the lots are riparian or not. DNR has indicated that
the property is not riparian as there is a parcel to the west which would preclude the property from being
riparian. The Ordinary High Water Level location makes no difference to the determination. The proposed
lots (5,6, and 7) do not have the right to dock across another parcel to gain water access. Currently the
applicant is proposing an ingress/egress easement being recorded for lake access across lots 5-7 benefiting
lots 1-4.
Mr. Janish reviewed a chart showing Setbacks with Proposed PUD Standards (Sketch Plan). A sketch
showing a wetland buffer along the western boundary of 5,6, and 7 was displayed. Also provided were the
Proposed Conceptual PUD Standards. These lots do not have access to Crooked Lake. The dock that is
currently there would be removed. These are patio homes and plans were shown to the Commission.
The developer and/or owner are responsible to obtain all necessary permits (Minnesota DNR, US Army
Corp of Engineers, Coon Creek Watershed District, Minnesota PCA, and any other agency that may have
an interest in the site). Initial contact shall be made with the City Engineering Department.
The Andover Review Committee (ARC) conducted an initial review of the sketch plan and has submitted
comments to the applicant. Staff suggests the comments be reviewed as part of the sketch plan process. The
comments were provided for Commission review.
The next steps would be to forward the request to the Park and Recreation Commission for their feedback on
December 5, 2024 and the City Council for their feedback on December 17, 2024. Based on the feedback
received throughout the sketch plan process, the developer would modify the layout and make applications
for Preliminary Plat, PUD, and Final Plat and submittals to seek their desired outcome. There is a possibility
of a Comprehensive Plan Amendment.
The Planning Commission is asked to hold a public hearing, take public feedback on the proposed Sketch
Plan/Concept PUD, and informally advise the applicant through feedback on the proposed project.
Also provided for Commission consideration were a Location Map, City Staff Engineering Comments,
Public Comments Received, Sketch PUD Narrative, PUD Development Plan Shoreland Density, PUD
Development Plan Shoreland Open Space, Conceptual Home Plans and Sketch Plan/PUD Concept Plan.
Chair Godfrey noted throughout the presentation we are talking about net density. The recent developments
were framed in terms of gross density. Mr. Janish stated that properties that have city water and sewer are
looked at in terms of net density. Rural developments are based on gross density.
Commissioner Naughton asked about the driveway distance from the intersection and Mr. Janish stated the
first driveway would be 56 feet from the corner of Bunker Lake Blvd and they would work with the
applicant to see if that could be slightly increased. Gladiola is a right in right out intersection.
Commissioner Loehlein referred to the land use vs. the zoning. Mr. Janish stated to develop this property it
would need to be a PUD.
Chair Godfrey opened the public hearing at 7:20 p.m.
Ms. Alyssa Ryan, 13633 Heather Street NW, expressed her traffic and safety concerns. Adding homes to
this property will increase traffic. There are already bottlenecks experienced. It is across the street from two
Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
Minutes — November 26, 2024
Page 4
1 schools. It is not safe for her children to walk to school because of the traffic. She has seen countless
2 accidents, and it is a very dangerous intersection. She fears for this increase in traffic. They had tried to get a
3 footbridge installed through the school. There are some hearing -impaired children in the area, and this would
4 create added risk to them. Bunker is a high -traffic road and is dangerous. She walks her children to school
5 and would never let them walk alone. This would increase the density of the area. She moved to Andover for
6 the rural -type neighborhoods. The new homes do not fit in the neighborhood. Noise, pollution, and traffic
7 will increase. The removal of trees from the property will increase runoff into the lake. They work very hard
8 to keep the lake clean and maintained. Her son wants to feel safe getting to school or Neighborhood Park.
9
10 Ms. Emily Smith, 2837 1351' Lane NW, stated some of her questions were addressed in the presentation. Her
11 biggest concern is safety. She can work remotely and walks her children to school every day. There are
12 many near misses because of the school drop-off. The controlled intersection is a distance for them. There is
13 already a fair amount of traffic in front of her house trying to turn left. The variances for the PUD would be
14 needed. The current rules for properties are well thought out. There are no townhomes in that area or
15 duplexes. She questions adding 7 homes to that area and noted they do not fit. There are many bikers. The
16 Schools have deemed kids cannot walk to school and would need to be bused. Safety is her biggest concern.
17 Density does not match the neighborhood. She is not opposed to someone living there. It needs to be a good
18 fit for the neighborhood. She asked who pays for the street to be ripped up. They had voiced they did not
19 want city water. They are happy with their well water and city sewer. This will impact the entire
20 neighborhood. She asked if there has been a traffic study done. Has the Coon Creek Watershed been
21 contacted and what do they have to say? There are no homeowners' associations in that area. She asked what
22 the stage is for this development. Would the association be locally controlled? There is no residential
23 experience on the website for this applicant.
24
25 Mr. Andrew Smith, 2837 135t' Lane NW, agrees with what Emily said. The number of homes would be
26 doubled in an established neighborhood. The city is tearing down quadplexes down the street from this
27 development. There are other areas in Andover where this development could occur. Six feet between living
28 structures is not safe. If there is a fire others will be damaged. The intersection only allows access to the
29 eastbound lanes. There is also a problem with people doing 40-50 mph down their street. There could be 28
30 more cars in the neighborhood. They like the neighborhood the way it is.
31
32 Ms. Ellen Gish, 13608 Gladiola Street NW, stated no one is opposed to the development of that area. This
33 proposal is not a fit for the neighborhood. There are 8 houses on the street. The safety of school students and
34 their families the traffic is very difficult. The homes there are older. All 8 homes have nice -sized yards. The
35 development should keep with the homes that are there to be consistent. This plan does not make any sense.
36 It is an overdevelopment for financial gain. There are no streetlights on Gladiola. There is a lot of traffic at
37 the boat launch on the weekends.
38
39 Ms. Julie Jared, 13507 Heather Street NW, suggested the property be made a park. She is representing the
40 lake association. She is speaking on behalf of the Board. If it can't be a park two houses would be enough
41 with the remaining a park.
42
43 Mr. Gary Teigen 13554 Gladiola Street NW, stated when the streets were redone this is the narrowest street
44 in Andover. If a car is parked on the street it is difficult for other cars to pass. The street cannot be made any
45 wider. There are no sidewalks as there is no easement. They asked if the intersection could remain a 4-way
46 stop which it could not after the street was reconstructed. This will add more speeding cars down the street.
47 It does not fit the neighborhood. He is concerned about how the neighborhood will be affected. He would
48 like to see a park. The boat landing is the ugliest park in Andover. Many people would enjoy the property if
49 turned into a park.
50
51 Mr. Dan Albinson, 13425 Heather Street NW, is on the lake and shares the concerns expressed. This does
52 not fit in the neighborhood. He is glad he does not live right next to it. Listen to the concerns about the
53 traffic. His family almost was killed at the intersection of Heather and Bunker. 7 more units on that street is
Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
Minutes — November 26, 2024
Page 5
1 a mistake. It would be nice if the community would enforce parking at the boat landing. The lake is very
2 busy. A couple of houses would be fine but not 7.
3
4 Mr. Doug Schultz, GCM Construction, applicant, stated they would be paying for the street. There is 6 feet
5 on each side of each home so 12 feet between. The homes will be re -designed to get the setback. They are
6 individual homes. The homes are being designed for 55+. They will not be huge families with a lot of kids.
7 There has not been a traffic study done yet by their engineers.
8
9 Mr. Brian Person, engineer working on the project, explained that for the crosswalk, staff mentioned
10 removing trees from the boulevard and the fence. Regarding the noise at the boat launch; the development
11 will be surrounded by a 35-foot buffer to help with privacy and the noise. This is very preliminary as they
12 are at the sketch plan phase.
13
14 Mr. Janish read the following comments received from the public:
15
16 November 25, 2024: Chrisa Dziedzic, 13504 Gladiola Street NW "I live 9 houses down from this proposed
17 development and think it sounds great as proposed. It seems like the style of homes will be a nice addition,
18 and much improved from the current state of the property. The proposal seems like a reasonable balance
19 between new and existing. If I didn't already have a home that I love down the street, I would have
20 considered buying one of these homes".
21
22 November 26, 2024: Gary Nereson, Crooked Lake Area Assn. President 2006 — 2021, 13415 Heather St.
23 NW "Thank you taking my phone call last Friday regarding this proposed change for the Sloth Farms
24 property. As I remember, you said the "sketch plan" called for 6 or 7 single family homes to be built in that
25 space. My opinion is for the city to buy the property and convert it to a park. Andover has always been very
26 proud of its open spaces (parks) and this would only add to that pride. This is my first choice. Alternatively,
27 allow for only 2 houses to be built along Gladiola Street with the smallest yard depth possible to the west
28 and incorporate the rest of the property into a park abutting the public landing and Crooked Lake".
29
30 November 26, 2024: Danielle Dziedzic, 13428 Gladiola Street NW "Thank you for sending me the
31 information on the Sloth Development. I have read it over in detail, and very much in favor of the plan for 7
32 single -story, single-family townhomes. The density and aesthetics of the townhomes will be a nice transition
33 into the neighborhood and fit in nicely. It will be a great improvement to the run-down lot, buildings, and
34 fence that are currently there. Change is inevitable, and can make people uneasy, but I think this is the best
35 possible outcome for the progress of our neighborhood. I won't be able to attend the meeting, but fine to
36 read or include this letter in the meeting".
37
38 The City Council will review this on December 17, 2024.
39
40 Ms. Ellen Gish, 13608 Gladiola Street NW, asked what the next steps are. She wants to know what more she
41 can do to make those making decisions understand her feelings and concerns.
42
43 Mr. Janish stated Coon Creek Watershed's involvement in the sketch plan process is none. If the applicant
44 chooses to move forward those conversations will be held. A homeowner's association can be a variety of
45 things. Some handle maintenance. This is the first step in the process when someone is looking at a PUD.
46 Staff has reviewed this twice. This will move forward to the Park and Recreation Commission to look at the
47 City's parks plan. On December 17, the City Council will receive information from tonight's meeting along
48 with the Park and Recreation Commission's recommendation as to whether cash in lieu of land or park
49 dedication. This is a non -binding process by Council. They can make requests to the applicant for things
50 such as a traffic study. The next steps are after the applicant hears comments, they make the decision
51 whether to move forward. If they decide to move forward, there will be additional public hearings. Then the
52 preliminary plat is created, and City Council makes the decision to go forward. There is then a final plat
53 done. Some grading can commence. No construction can be done without a development agreement.
54
Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
Minutes — November 26, 2024
Page 6
1 Commissioner Loehlein asked Mr. Schultz of GCM Construction about their experience constructing
2 residential properties. Mr. Schultz stated his boss owns two companies. GCM Construction and
3 GrandeMoore Homes. GrandeMoore will be constructing these homes.
4
5 Commissioner Shafto asked how they arrived at 7 homes vs. 5 or 6. They wanted 7 for the density which
6 they could not get. There are setbacks they need to deal with. This was the most beneficial plan that would
7 look the best.
8
9 Mr. Janish stated 7 may not be enough according to the City's Comprehensive Plan.
10
11 Mr. Gary Teigen, 13554 Gladiola Street NW, stated his understanding is this is zoned R4. Density
12 designation does not cover R4. The City is trying to change it from R4 to more density. It is too crowded and
13 a bad deal.
14
15 Mr. Janish stated the property is zoned R4 which allows up to 4 units per acre. The zoning could stay at R4
16 but with a PUD it could be higher.
17
18 Ms. Emily Smith, 2837 1351 Lane NW, stated she found some discrepancies in the zoning on the website.
19 This property was changed to R4. Her lot could be the same density. Just because you can do something
20 doesn't mean you should do something. Code is there for a reason. We should be trying to do better than
21 Code. There is a lot of wildlife in the area. Why is this one lot being forced to meet Met Council's density
22 when all other homes in the area are R4. There are other properties that could be developed.
23
24 Mr. Dan Albinson, 13425 Heather Street NW, stated this development is asking for tons of variances. He
25 asked if there are not any variances for Met Council's requirements.
26
27 Mr. Janish stated when there are developments, they look at the land use map. The R4 zoning district can go
28 up to 4 units to an acre through the PUD or higher. It is possible to keep R4 zoning and keep 4 units to an
29 acre. Following the Comp Plan would be to get this to 4 units per acre. The Comprehensive Plan would need
30 to be changed if the number of units were lowered to 2 units. The City would need to show where the
31 density would be made up in other areas. The entire Comp Plan goal is 3 units per acre. Met Council wants
32 to increase that to 4 units per acre as part of Imagine 2050. This would require the City to increase density in
33 another area of the City within the MUSA. The R4 is the zoning district itself. In theory, if someone were to
34 demo a few homes they could look at redevelopment.
35
36 Motion by Loehlein, seconded by Shuman to close the public hearing at 8:28 p.m. Motion carried on a 7-
37 ayes, 0-nay vote.
38
39 PUBLIC HEARING. Conditional Use Permit (CUP) Amendment for a drive -through use at 2184 Bunker
40 Lake Blvd NW; PID#34-32-24-31-0154 — The Architects Partnership Ltd. (Applicant).
41
42 Mr. Hellegers reviewed the staff report with the Planning and Zoning Commission noting that the
43 Commission is asked to review a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) Amendment for a drive -through for the
44 subject property located at 2184 Bunker Lake Boulevard.
45
46 City Code 12-11 requires a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for drive-in businesses or businesses with a drive-
47 thru window in the General Business Zoning District. The applicant is proposing a drive -through window
48 for a proposed financial institution that will be in the Andover Station development on an area guided
49 General Commercial.
50
51 Land use guidance for the adjacent properties to the north is Urban Residential Low. The land use guidance
52 for properties to the east, south, and west is guided for General Commercial.
53
1
2
3
4
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
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
Minutes — November 26, 2024
Page 7
The proposed CUP Amendment would amend a previous approval from January 2023 for a restaurant with a
drive-through/pick-up window. The site has some history of proposed uses with drive-throughs.
The applicant is planning to build a new 3,500 sf one-story retail banking center with a one -lane drive -
through for a drive -up ATM/AHD on Lot 2 of Block 1 from the Andover Marketplace 2" Addition plat. The
site is generally located at the southwest comer of Bunker Lake Blvd and Quinn Street NW. Access to the
site would come from the internal access drive to the shopping center which runs west of Quinn Street.
Financial Institutions are permitted uses in the General Business District, though a CUP is required for
drive-in businesses or those with a drive -through window. In addition to the CUP for the drive -through
window, the Andover Review Committee is currently reviewing the Commercial Site Plan for the proposed
bank site.
Parking — The applicant is proposing a new parking lot serving the retail banking center with 25 spaces.
There are 16 existing parking spaces from the shipping center on this property which would also remain on
the west side of the property. Parking is reviewed in commercial areas as each user obtains a permit for the
building. The off-street parking requirements were reviewed.
Building Setbacks — The proposed building will comply with the General Business Zoning District building
setbacks required by City Code 12-3-5. The building will be set back 56 feet from the north property line
and will be 45 feet from the trail (which is in an easement on the northern portion of the property).
Building Exterior — Building and dumpster enclosure elevations were provided for the Commission. Exterior
building materials are primarily a tan cast stone block and dark brick with some silver ACM (metal) accents
with windows shown on the north, east and west sides of the building which provide additional architectural
character. The building would also have a flat roof with a parapet which may provide some screening of any
rooftop mechanicals; additional rooftop screening may be required.
Drive -Through — The proposed drive -through ATM and after-hours deposit will be on the east side of the
building with space for vehicles stacking around the east and south sides of the building. The applicant notes
that the retail banking center is designed for 3-4 cars to be stacked but the proposed drive-thru appears to
have enough space to accommodate two to three times that number before traffic from the drive -through
would back into the parking area. The proposed user is a retail banking center which differs from some retail
banks in that it does not have a drive -through teller window. This should also limit the number of vehicles
stacked in the drive -through. However, it is important for the City to consider that a CUP would run with the
property and a subsequent building occupant might use the site as a traditional drive -through, so the site
should be designed to ensure the site also works for a traditional drive -through. The drive -through lane
would be set back 24 feet from the north property line. This is set back further than the 16 feet in the
previously approved CUP. The existing trail on Bunker Lake Boulevard currently runs across the northern
portion of the property in a trail easement and the paved area of the trail dips further south in the area of the
drive -through. The proposal is to keep the trail in its current location as opposed to relocating the trail to the
north.
The proposed drive -through lane will be 18 feet in width and widen out to 23 feet near the drive -through
ATM/AHD space to allow space for the bypass traffic. As the drive -through lane turns around the north side
of the building it narrows to 15 feet to allow more room between the trail and the curb line for landscape
screening of the drive -through. Staff are currently evaluating the plans through the Commercial Site Plan
process.
Traffic Circulation — The site is designed to allow vehicles convenient access into the site from the private
Quinn Street NW. Internal circulation allows for easy access through the site whether using the drive -
through or the standard parking area. The parking lot will have two connection points to the existing parking
area and driveway from the shopping center, allowing for easy access without requiring people to exit onto
adjacent streets to access other businesses in the shopping center.
Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
Minutes — November 26, 2024
Page 8
1 Trash Enclosure — The trash enclosure will be constructed from the same materials as the principal building
2 and is located near the southwest corner of the site.
3
4 Rooftop Mechanical Equipment — Any mechanical equipment mounted on the roof or ground will be
5 required to be screened to comply with City Code 12-14-5.
6
7 Lighting — All lighting is required to be shielded to prevent glare. Additional details for each type of fixture
8 are reviewed through the Commercial Site Plan process to ensure adequate shielding will be provided.
9 Screening/Landscaping — A preliminary landscaping plan was provided for Commission Review. The
10 proposed plant quantities meet the requirement of City Code 12-14-6. Final adjustments to the landscaping
11 plan will be made through the Commercial Site Plan process. As vehicles enter the drive -through facing
12 northeast/north toward the single-family homes on the other side of Bunker Lake Boulevard, headlight glare
13 if not mitigated through screening could be a nuisance for those residential properties to the north of the site.
14 Coniferous landscape plant material of sufficient height should be used to provide screening along the
15 north/northeast side of the property to control headlight glare and will be required through the Commercial
16 Site Plan.
17
18 Signage — A monument sign is shown at the northwest corner of the property and areas for potential signage
19 are shown on the building elevations. All signage will be reviewed through a separate sign permit process
20 and sign permits will need to be obtained before signs can be placed on the property.
21
22 Timeline for Agency Action — If the Commission determines that restrictions greater than what is currently
23 required by City Code are needed, they may recommend those conditions to the City Council as part of the
24 CUP. One of the typical conditions that is included on conditional use permits is a timeline for
25 implementation as defined in Ordinance No. 8, Section 5.03(D), which states that if substantial progress is
26 not made within one year from approval, the City Council may revoke the CUP.
27
28 Mr. Hellegers reviewed the CUP Review Criteria. City Code 12-15-7B provides the following general
29 review criteria to consider when granting a CUP. In granting a Conditional Use Permit, the City Council
30 shall consider the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and:
31 1. The effect of the proposed use on the health, safety, moral and general welfare of the occupants of
32 surrounding lands. — Businesses with drive -through windows are regulated by the City Code as
33 conditional uses. Adjacent uses within the development include additional commercial space. CUPS
34 for drive -through windows have been granted for similar locations with drive -up banking or ATM
35 access.
36 2. Existing and anticipated traffic conditions, including parking facilities on adjacent streets and lands.
37 — The proposed retail banking center with a drive -through ATM and after-hours deposit is located
38 near the intersection of two roadways which were designed to handle commercial traffic. The
39 proposed drive -through window on the retail banking center would not create traffic beyond what
40 these streets were designed to accommodate. Access to the site would come through the existing
41 development and would not create new access points on Quinn Street or Bunker Lake Boulevard.
42 3. The effect on values of property and scenic views in the surrounding area, and the effect of the
43 proposed use on the Comprehensive Plan. — Financial Institutions are a permitted use within the GB
44 General Business District and the area has been guided for commercial uses in the Comprehensive
45 Plan. There are no scenic views in the surrounding area identified in the Comprehensive Plan. Staff
46 believes the CUP will not have a negative effect on surrounding property values.
47
48 After taking public testimony at the Public Hearing, the Planning Commission is asked to make a
49 recommendation on the proposed Conditional Use Permit Amendment to the City Council for their
50 consideration on December 3, 2024. Next steps, after Council consideration of the CUP, are that applicant
51 revises their plan sets for the Commercial Site Plan based on the City's Review Comments and obtains any
52 other permits needed from other agencies (i.e. Coon Creek Watershed District, Anoka County Highway,
53 etc.).
54
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
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
Minutes — November 26, 2024
Page 9
Also provided for Commission review were a Draft Resolution for Approval, Draft Resolution of Denial,
Location Map, Applicants Narrative, and Preliminary Site Plan Set: Site Plan, Landscape Plan and Exterior
Elevations. This item will be reviewed by the City Council on December 3, 2024.
Chair Godfrey opened the public hearing at 8:36 p.m.
Mr. Don Jackson, 2182 1371 Lane NW, stated his property is across the street from the subject site. He is
concerned with the light mitigation issue and appreciates what the City is doing with the 3-4-foot trees. The
lights will shine into his daughter's bedroom and other rooms of his house. Replacement of part of his fence
would help mitigate some of the lights. He stated all along Bunker there is Walgreens, Dunkin, Premier
Bank that have drive-throughs that run east -west. Why is this the only one that wants to run north -south? If
it were to run east -west the lights would go into the woods.
Mr. Matt Lingham, Kimberly Horn, applicant, stated they are planning along the curve to provide 3-foot-
high coniferous shrubs. Rotating the building would cause lights to shine on oncoming traffic. They can
provide more shrubs. There is some distance from the ATM.
Mr. Hellegers stated no other comments were received.
Chair Godfrey closed the public hearing at 8:40 p.m.
Commissioner Shafto stated the biggest question was answered for him on light mitigation. This was a
bigger concern when the plan was for a Chipotle Restaurant. He asked if there are still some lighting issues
after construction is there any recourse the City or residents may have to address the issues. Mr. Janish
stated it would be possible to look at the nuisance ordinance.
Commissioner Loehlein stated in the past the Commission has recommended approval for CUP for this type
of business and has no problem with it in concept. He referred to Mr. Jackson's comments on the other
drive-throughs running east -west. He understands that the lights cannot distract the drivers on Bunker Lake
Blvd. Caribou drive -through seems to manage it. He hopes we are thinking about this seriously as a potential
option. He wouldn't downplay the amount of traffic in an ATM drive -through as there is always a line at
Wells Fargo.
Commissioner Shafto stated Caribou is most often a morning use drive -through.
Motion by Loehlein, seconded by Hudson, to recommend the City Council approve the Conditional Use
Permit (CUP) Amendment for a drive -through use at 2184 Bunker Lake Blvd NW; PID# 34-32-24-31-0154
— The Architects Partnership Ltd. Motion carried on a 7-ayes, 0-nay vote.
OTHER BUSINESS
Mr. Janish mentioned there is a tree lighting ceremony at the Community Center on November 30 from 6-8
p.m. with the lighting at 7:00 p.m.
He noted that the PUD for Meadows East (Hartmann's Meadows) was denied by the City Council, the two
interim use permits for the same property were approved by the City Council, and the Circle K site was
approved by the City Council.
There will most likely be no Commission Meeting until January 2025.
Chair Godfrey stated two seats are open on the Planning and Zoning Commission. Mr. Janish reviewed the
process for applying for open positions. The link for the application is on the City's website.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
Minutes — November 26, 2024
Page 10
Commissioner Shafto expressed his appreciation for the Planning Commissioners since he is joining the City
Council.
ADJOURNMENT
Chair Godfrey adjourned the meeting at 8:50 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
Debbie Wolfe, Recording Secretary
TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc.
1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. • ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304. (763) 755-5100
FAX (763) 755-8923 • WWW.ANDOVERMN.GOV
TO: Planning and Zoning Commissioners
CC: Joe Janish, Community Development Director `'
FROM: Peter Hellegers, City Planner W
SUBJECT: Public Hearing: Consider an amendment to the Planned Unit Development (PUD) —
Regarding setbacks for 3 and 4 season porches in Block 4, Lots 4-27 - Ray and Jill Ostby
(Applicants).
DATE: January 28, 2025
INTRODUCTION
The Planning and Zoning Commission is asked to review a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for an
Amendment to a Planned Unit Development (PUD) to amend rear yard setbacks for the townhomes in
Block 4, Lots 4-27.
Figure I - Location of Grey Oaks and Townhomes in Block 4 (Lots 4-27)
DISCUSSION
On March 2, 1999, the City Council approved the Planned Unit Development and Preliminary Plat for the
Grey Oaks development. The development plan was geared toward seniors and empty nesters and the 60-
acre plan included 5 blocks on the plat with two 65-unit apartment buildings, six 30-unit apartment
buildings, thirty-eight townhouses, four single family lots, and 3 commercial lots. The Final Plat for Grey
Oaks was approved on June 20, 2000.
The proposed PUD Amendment would modify the PUD Design Standards; allowing the rear setback for
the townhomes on Block 4, Lots 4-27 to allow 3 and 4 season porches to follow the same setback as for
decks (15') instead of the distance required for the house (25'). There are currently 6 units that have porches
built at this 15-foot setback, but the PUD design standards have not been clarified to state that porches and
decks can have these same setbacks.
The Grey Oaks development is generally located east of Nightingale Street NW, south of 1571' Lane NW,
west of Hanson Boulevard NW, and north of 1551 Avenue NW, shown as the area outlined in red on the
image on the previous page.
The Grey Oaks development is currently guided for Urban Residential High and zoned M-2: Multiple
Dwelling High -Low Density.
Tonight's proposed amendment to the PUD provides the following:
• Reduce rear yard setback for townhomes on Block 4, Lots 4-27:
o Currently rear setbacks within the Grey Oaks development are:
■ 25' to House, and
■ 15' to deck.
o The amendment would allow rear setback for 3-4 season porches/covered porches to be
consistent with those of decks (15').
o Currently 6 of the 24 townhouse units in this block are already built with 3-4 season porches
at this 15' setback distance.
o PUD design standards have not been updated to reflect this distance specifically for the
porches.
F,ure 2 - Aeriral photo o/'Grcy Oaks townhomes (Block 4)
Developments to the north of this area, Shaw's Glen, and Shaw's Glen Second Addition (shown on the next
page), include parcels that are very deep, 100-150 feet deeper than typically required. These developments
also have a significant amount of that southerly portion of those yards encumbered by drainage and utility
easement which can be as deep as 150 feet on some of these already deep lots. The result is that the
development to the north is much further apart from the townhomes in Block 4 of Grey Oaks than in a
typical development in Andover.
2
SHA W'COUNTY OF NOKF OANOK
S GLEN CITY OF A
SEC.15—T32N—R24W.
fr '- cou•loc ssu�s _� ,
:: lu
' zF
L_---
15_ Pik
1 e i
ro I it
r'• /
0°c K1 c3
\ 7777
Ir F
�� 771 .seevl orY m � 1
Io .... a rrn.n '-_•
a
Figure 3 - Excerpt from Shaw's Glen Plat
SNAWS GLEN SECOND ADDITION ftWd Mb C�apM�Nt�
See.15,fll, W
Easements
°
1 5 7 T H L A H E a H. W.
r----------- jr------------ Ir---- -----
'-�-----------
__---------
I 1
I I
1
, I
Ir I
���•.ii
Figure 4 - Excerpt from Shaw's Glen Second Addition Plat
1)
What is a Planned Unit Development (PUD)
City Code 13-3-1: PURPOSE: The purpose of a PUD is to encourage more efficient allocation of
density and intensity of land use where such arrangement is desirable and feasible by providing the
means for greater creativity and flexibility in environmental design than provided under the strict
application of this code. It must be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the City Council that a higher
quality development will result than could otherwise be achieved through strict application of this code.
(Ord. 298, 8-4-2004)
PUD CRITERIA
According to City Code 13-3 Planned Unit Development, the purpose of a PUD is to encourage more
efficient allocation of density and intensity of land use where such arrangement is desirable and feasible
by providing the means of greater creativity and flexibility in environmental design than provided under
strict application of the standards set in code. Attached for your review is City Code 13-3.
City Code 13-3-9 regulates the findings that are required for a PUD to be approved and 13-3-11 identifies
desirable PUD design standards that are sought in any PUD proposal. As part of the attached PUD
narrative, the applicant addresses the design qualities they believe the City seeks when granting a PUD
proposal as identified in City Code 13-3-11.
City Code 13-3-9 states the following required findings for the Council to consider when approving a
PUD:
1. The proposed development is not in conflict with the goals of the Comprehensive Plan for the
City.
The Comprehensive Plan shows this property as Urban Residential High. The
proposed change for the rear setbacks for porches on Lots 4-27 of Block 4 within
the development would not change this land use guidance.
2. The proposed development is not in conflict with the goals of the Comprehensive Plan for the
City.
2018 Comprehensive Plan Goals that may be relevant which are found in Chapter 1:
Foundation of the Comprehensive Plan.
Overarching Goals, Objectives and Policies
Goal 1: Maintain and enhance the quality of life in Andover
Land Use Goals, Objectives and Policies
Goal: Encourage appropriate economic growth and redevelopment.
3. The proposed development is designed in such a manner as to form a desirable and unified
environment within its own boundaries.
The completed PUD has been designed in a manner to form a desirable and unified
environment within its own boundaries. The proposed PUD amendment would not
change the character or the development and would not increase the rear setbacks
overall, it would make the rear setback for porches consistent with the rear setbacks
al
allowed for decks for these townhouse units. This is consistent with other townhouse
units within that block that have already been built to these proposed setbacks.
4. The proposed development demonstrates how each modified or waived requirement contributes
to achieving the purpose of PUD.
The proposed PUD amendment would not increase the rear setbacks overall, it would
make the porches consistent with the setbacks allowed for decks for these townhouse
units. This is consistent with other townhouse units within the block that have already
been built.
5. The PUD is of composition, and arrangement that its construction, marketing, and operation are
feasible as a complete unit without dependence upon any subsequent unit.
The development within the PUD has already been constructed and is not dependent on a
subsequent unit or phase. The proposed PUD Amendment would not impact this finding.
• The City Council will need to determine if the developer's proposal satisfactorily meets
these required findings.
PROPOSED PUD STANDARDS
Any other deviations from City Code that were approved with the PUD for Grey Oaks, other than the
proposed change to the rear setback for porches on Block 4, would remain as is and would not be
impacted by the proposed PUD Amendment. The proposed change would only apply to the rear
setbacks for 3 and 4 season porches for those townhome properties identified within Block 4 of the PUD.
Other Standards
With a PUD all standards apply as typical, unless otherwise specified in the PUD request. Other
amendments may arise in the future that the Planning and Zoning Commission, and City Council would
have to approve.
Owners Association
If association documents need to be amended the applicant and other townhome properties within Block 4
would need to collaborate with the owners' association.
PLANNING COMMISSION REQUESTED ACTION
After taking public testimony at the Planning and Zoning Commission Public Hearing, the Planning
Commission is asked to make a recommendation to the City Council for their consideration on February 4,
2025.
Respectfully submitted,
Peter Hellegers,
City Planner
5
Attachments
Draft Resolution of Approval
Draft Resolution of Denial
City Code 13-3 Planned Unit Development
Location Map
Originally Approved PUD (R055-99) and Design Standards
Applicant's Narrative
Letter from Genesis Property Management — December 16, 2024
Cc: Ray and Jill Ostby, 1895 1561 Lane NW (email only)
Grey Oaks at Andover Owners' Association - c/o Caroline Olson, Genesis Property
Management, LLC, 8857 Xylon Avenue North, Brooklyn Park, MN 55445
E
CITY OF ANDOVER
COUNTY OF ANOKA
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RES. NO. R
A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT / PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT REQUESTED BY RAY AND JILL OSTBY, FOR GREY OAKS,
LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS:
Block 4, Lots 4-27, Grey Oaks
WHEREAS, the City Council of Andover approved the Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Unit
Development (PUD) for the Grey Oaks development through Resolution R055-99 on March 2, 1999, and
subsequently amended the design standards for the PUD on June 20, 2000, through Resolution R128-00,
and;
WHEREAS, Ray and Jill Ostby, 1895 1561 Lane NW, have requested a Conditional Use Permit for a
Planned Unit Development (PUD) Amendment to amend the previously approved Planned Unit
Development to allow a porch to be set at the same rear setback as allowed for a deck under the approved
design standards for Grey Oaks, and;
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission has reviewed the request and has determined that said
request meets the criteria of City Code and 13-3-9; as the proposed PUD is not in conflict with the goals
of the Comprehensive Plan for the City, and would not have a detrimental effect upon the health, safety,
general welfare, values of property and scenic views in the surrounding area, and;
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommends to the City Council the approval of the
Conditional Use Permit / Planned Unit Development Amendment request, and;
WHEREAS, the City Council of Andover has reviewed the request and has determined that said request
meets the criteria of City Code and 13-3-9 because:
1. The proposed development is not in conflict with the goals of the Comprehensive Plan for the
City.
2018 Comprehensive Plan Goals that may be relevant which are found in Chapter 1:
Foundation of the Comprehensive Plan.
Overarching Goals, Objectives and Policies
Goal 1: Maintain and enhance the quality of life in Andover
Land Use Goals, Objectives and Policies
Goal: Encourage appropriate economic growth and redevelopment.
2. The proposed development is designed in such a manner as to form a desirable and unified
environment within its own boundaries.
VA
The completed PUD has been designed in a manner to form a desirable and unified
environment within its own boundaries. The proposed PUD amendment would not
change the character or the development and would not increase the rear setbacks
overall, it would make the rear setback for porches consistent with the rear setbacks
allowed for decks for these townhouse units. This is consistent with other townhouse
units within that block that have already been built to these proposed setbacks.
3. The proposed development demonstrates how each modified or waived requirement contributes
to achieving the purpose of PUD.
The proposed PUD amendment would not increase the rear setbacks overall, it would
make the porches consistent with the setbacks allowed for decks for these townhouse
units. This is consistent with other townhouse units within the block that have already
been built.
4. The PUD is of composition, and arrangement that its construction, marketing, and operation are
feasible as a complete unit without dependence upon any subsequent unit.
The development within the PUD has already been constructed and is not dependent on a
subsequent unit or phase. The proposed PUD Amendment would not impact this finding.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Andover does hereby
gpprove the Conditional Use Permit/ Planned Unit Development Amendment for Grey Oaks on the above
legally described property with the following conditions:
1) Applicant shall address all staff comments and outside agency comments related to the Preliminary
Plat, Commercial Site Plans, and all applicable permits to the satisfaction of the City.
2) The following changes to the design standards for the previously approved Grey Oaks PUD shall be
permitted, any items not addressed within this resolution shall adhere to City Code:
a) Rear setbacks for townhouse units within Block 4, Lots 4-27, shall be amended to allow
both decks and 3-4 season porches to have a rear setback of 15 feet. The rear setback for the
house shall remain at 25 feet.
3) If the City Council determines that no significant progress has been made in the first twelve (12)
months after the approval of this resolution, the PUD will be null and void.
4) The Owners Association documents are updated as needed.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Andover on this 4�h day of February 2025.
CITY OF ANDOVER
ATTEST:
Michelle Hartner, City Clerk
Jamie Barthel, Mayor
CITY OF ANDOVER
COUNTY OF ANOKA
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RES. NO. R
A RESOLUTION DENYING THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT / PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT REQUESTED BY RAY AND JILL OSTBY, FOR GREY OAKS,
LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS:
Block 4, Lots 4-27, Grey Oaks
WHEREAS, the City Council of Andover approved the Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Unit
Development (PUD) for the Grey Oaks development through Resolution R055-99 on March 2, 1999, and
subsequently amended the design standards for the PUD on June 20, 2000, through Resolution R128-00,
and;
WHEREAS, Ray and Jill Ostby, 1895 156' Lane NW, have requested a Conditional Use Permit for a
Planned Unit Development (PUD) Amendment to amend the previously approved Planned Unit
Development to allow a porch to be set at the same rear setback as allowed for a deck under the approved
design standards for Grey Oaks, and;
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission has reviewed the request and has determined that said
request does not meet the criteria of City Code and 13-3-9; as the proposed PUD is in conflict with the
goals of the Comprehensive Plan for the City, and would not have a detrimental effect upon the health,
safety, general welfare, values of property and scenic views in the surrounding area, and;
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommends to the City Council the denial of the
Conditional Use Permit / Planned Unit Development Amendment request, and;
WHEREAS, the City Council of Andover has reviewed the request and has determined that said request
does not meet the criteria of City Code and 13-3-9 because:
1.
2.
3.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Andover does hereby
deny the Conditional Use Permit on the above legally described property for a Planned Unit Development
Amendment for Grey Oaks due to the following findings:
1.
2.
3.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Andover on this 4' day of February 2025.
CITY OF ANDOVER
ATTEST:
Michelle Hartner, City Clerk
Jamie Barthel, Mayor
I
CHAPTER 3
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD)
SECTION:
13-3-1:
Purpose
13-3-2:
Utilization of PUD
13-3-3:
PUD Concept Review
13-3-4:
Uses
13-3-5:
Density
13-3-6:
Zoning And Subdivision Standards And Requirements
13-3-7:
Approval Process
13-3-8:
Fees And Costs
13-3-9:
Findings Required
13-3-10:
Revisions And Amendments
13-3-11:
Desirable PUD Design Qualities
13-3-12:
Approval Of Planned Unit Development
13-3-1: PURPOSE: The purpose of a PUD is to encourage more efficient
allocation of density and intensity of land use where such arrangement is
desirable and feasible by providing the means for greater creativity and flexibility
in environmental design than provided under the strict application of this code. It
must be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the City Council that a higher quality
development will result than could be otherwise achieved through strict
application of this code. (Ord. 298, 8-4-2004)
13-3-2: UTILIZATION OF PUD: Planned Unit Development (PUD)
regulations may be allowed by the City Council to be applied and/or utilized for all
developments including the following: townhomes, single- and two-family homes
(both urban and rural), apartment projects, multiuse structures, commercial
developments, industrial developments, mixed residential and commercial
developments and similar projects. (Ord. 298, 8-4-2004)
13-3-3: PUD CONCEPT REVIEW: Any person or persons who may apply
for a PUD may request a concept review with respect to land which may be
subject to a PUD. The purpose of a PUD concept review is to afford such
persons an opportunity, without incurring substantial expense, to have the
general feasibility of a PUD proposal considered. PUD concept reviews shall
follow the sketch plan procedures provided in Section 11-2-1 of this code. (Ord.
298, 8-4-2004)
13-3-4: USES: Planned Unit Developments shall be required to conform to
the permitted and conditional uses set forth in Title 12 of this code pertaining to
the applicable zoning district. (Ord. 298, 8-4-2004)
13-3-5: DENSITY: The density of residential developments shall be
required to conform to the applicable land use district. (Ord. 298, 8-4-2004)
13-3-6: ZONING AND SUBDIVISION STANDARDS AND
REQUIREMENTS: All standards and provisions relating to an original zoning
district shall apply, unless otherwise approved as a part of the PUD. All
standards may be modified or waived provided the applicant demonstrates
harmony with the purpose of the PUD and the findings described in Section 13-3-
9 of this chapter. (Ord. 298, 8-4-2004)
13-3-7: APPROVAL PROCESS: An applicant for a PUD shall submit in
the application all of the material required by this chapter. Each PUD requested
must adhere to the following process:
A. Permitted and conditional uses shall follow the Conditional Use Permit
procedures provided in Section 12-14-6 of this code to establish the
development standards for the PUD. These uses shall also complete the
commercial site plan process once the Planned Unit Development has
been approved. (Amd. 2/20/07, Ord. 341)
B. Applications involving the subdivision of land shall complete a
preliminary and final plat under the procedures provided in Title 11,
"Subdivision Regulations", of this code. (Ord. 298, 8-4-2004)
13-3-8: FEES AND COSTS: Applications for a PUD shall be filed at the
office of the City Planner along with a nonrefundable application fee for the
approval process specified in Sections 13-3-3 and 13-3-7 of this chapter in the
amount established by the City Council to defray administrative costs. (Ord. 298,
8-4-2004)
13-3-9: FINDINGS REQUIRED: In order for a PUD to be approved, the City
shall find that the following are present:
A. The proposed development is not in conflict with the goals of the
Comprehensive Plan of the city.
B. The proposed development is designed in such a manner as to form a
desirable and unified environment within its own boundaries.
C. The proposed development demonstrates how each modified or
waived requirement contributes to achieving the purpose of a
PUD.
D. The PUD is of composition, and arrangement that its construction,
marketing, and operation are feasible as a complete unit without
dependence upon any subsequent unit. (Ord. 298, 8-4-2004)
13-3-10: REVISIONS AND AMENDMENTS: Administrative approval of
incidental changes in the PUD may be authorized by the City Planner upon
review and approval by ARC. Such administrative approvals shall not
substantially alter the character of the approved PUD and shall be limited to
landscaping (not including quantity reduction), color schemes (not including
materials), association documents, fencing, entrance monuments and decks.
Changes in uses or development/design standards must be submitted for a full
public hearing review process. (Amended Ord. 314, 10-4-2005)
13-3-11: DESIRABLE PUD DESIGN QUALITIES: The following design
qualities will be sought in any PUD:
A. Achieves efficiency in the provision of streets and utilities and preserves
area to achieve the elements of design qualities described in this chapter.
B. Provides convenient and safe access for vehicles and pedestrians and
all types of activity that are anticipated to be a part of the proposed
development.
C. Provides a buffer between different uses, adjacent properties, roadways,
between backyards of back-to-back lots.
D. Preserves existing stands of trees and/or significant trees.
E. Provides considerable landscaping treatments that complement the
overall design and contribute toward an overall landscaping theme.
F. Preserves significant usable space on individual lots or through the
provision of open space within the development.
G. Provides an attractive streetscape through the use of undulating
topography, landscaping, decorative street lighting, decorative mailbox
groupings, retaining walls, boulders, fencing, area identification signs,
etc.
H. The proposed structures within the development demonstrate quality
architectural design and the use of high quality building materials for
unique design and detailing.
The lasting quality of the development will be ensured by design,
maintenance and use guidelines established through an owners'
association. (Ord. 298, 8-4-2004)
13-3-12: APPROVAL OF PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT: The
developer must demonstrate that the amenities and qualities of the Planned Unit
Development are beneficial and in the public interest to allow the development to
be approved. A substantial amount of the design qualities identified in Section
13-3-11 of this chapter shall be found to be present in order to approve a PUD.
The amount of amenities and type of qualities that constitute an acceptable PUD
are at the sole discretion of the City Council to determine. (Ord. 298, 8-4-2004)
13:3-13: REDEVELOPMENT PUDs: A property owner may apply for a
redevelopment PUD for their property, if the property meets the criteria outlined
in this section. Such redevelopment PUDs shall only be used for lot splits.
PUDs on all other subdivisions shall follow the normal PUD requirements laid out
in this chapter. All provisions of City Code chapter 13-3 shall apply to
redevelopment PUDs except for section 13-3-11. A redevelopment PUD may be
permitted if the subject property meets the following standards:
A. The existing principal structure on the property is at least 30 years old, or
does not meet current building codes, or has a blighting effect on the
surrounding neighborhood, and will be removed as part of the
redevelopment of the property.
B. The houses built on the new lots would be similar in size and architectural
design to those in the surrounding neighborhood. Architectural plans must
be included in the application for a redevelopment PUD and approved by
the Council. (Amd. 2/20/07, Ord. 341)
1C+•
�1111C Site Location —Grey Oaks PUD Amendment
1'58TH AVE !
Incorporated 1974 .T -,• ` ; ` wAF
11 L'tLU
r.
Ilk
_ IF: l
157TH�-N ~ -, :\
Ax
f4,1 -4
a 72t.
C. ,rat•, t_ ,.
• ti
LU
Block 4, Lots 4-27 " z
.. �' � • .• f Q• , V y � t' � y ' �'—''' 13.� :� ' •I�- •_ �j% �" Z � � - f � �i�� • ?T 4 i '.�jR �'•-♦ Ui
r
Z Y = 6.z • Q
rn :56TH AVE'A `+alb. J i
'• '
_ a , � - • •} �\.0 Y �r a �5'. T - �
• w. ♦ � It �1 `` \\ •► �1 � •'� ) •�� � � � ,
or
.7 rip
r
M _ A � fit• ,
It .
_ �^ (-•i { .�7Rr.hy._ ;l _ i �• 155TH AVE "
41
s wD•, ,,., .'c reference
♦ •
.,rposes WN : 'Tj
eDMn9 Glade , . . - `' .a• • t•(!�'. r' f
.curacy ofthe c.r. me Cdy of Andover . + F' , • ~ » _
x not make claim that the features i '� S t. ti N - ./I .`•.� ai a
�leocted represent true locations;
therefore
a re the CM assumes no ha6hty for -
t
ny erroomrssans herein. • � •
ti 154 1 154TH UN .
L
r b. ! ■ J Q
,. tiC-. vJr•.� co r': ^?v.rn•Yr�M.. - f� dM la; • ^. a ^••. ifs .. ..� n , 111 .r�•'•. ,.�....r A. �h E' t��, ,00;nat of "
in r
11
CITY OF ANDOVER
COUNTY OF ANOKA
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RES. NO, R055-99
A RESOLUTION GRANTING THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT REQUEST OF CHESTERTON
PARTNERSHIP FOR A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT TO DEVELOP A MIXED USE
SENIOR/EMPTY NESTER DEVELOPMENT CONSISTING OF TWO 65 UNIT
APARTMENTS, SIX 30 UNIT APARTMENTS, THIRTY-EIGHT TOWNHOMES, FOUR
SINGLE FAMILY HOMES AND THREE COMMERCIAL LOTS TO BE KNOWN AS THE
SUBDIVISION "GREY OAKS" ON THE PROPERTY LEGALLY DESCRIBED BELOW.
WHEREAS, Chesterton Partnership has requested a Special Use Permit for a Planned Unit
Development to develop a mixed use senior/empty nester development consisting of two 65 unit
apartments, six 30 unit apartments, thirty-eight townhomes, four single family homes and three
commercial lots to be known as the subdivision of "Grey Oaks" pursuant to Ordinance No. 8,
Section 4.18, Planned Unit Developments on the property legally described as follows:
The most northerly 60.00 acres of the Northeast Quarter of Section 22, Township 32, Range 24,
Anoka County, Minnesota. Subject to easements of record if any; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the request and has determined that said request
does not meet the criteria of Ordinance No. 8, Section 5.03, Special Uses. The Commission
finds the proposed use will not be detrimental to the health, safety, morals and general welfare of
the occupants of the surrounding lands; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds the request would not have a detrimental effect on the
property values and scenic views of the surrounding area; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds the request meets the criteria of Ordinance No. 8, Section
4.18, Planned Unit Developments; and
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held before the Planning and Zoning Commission and there
was opposition to the request; and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended to the City Council the denial
of the Special Use Permit as requested.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Andover hereby
disagrees with the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and will allow
Chesterton Partnership to develop a Planned Unit Development on said property with the
following conditions:
Page Two
Resolution
Special Use Permit - Planned Unit Development
Grey Oaks - Chesterton Partnership
1. All variances associated with the approval of the Special Use Permit for the Planned Unit
Development shall be approved with the approval of the preliminary plat.
2. That the Special Use Permit shall be subject to a sunset clause as defined in Ordinance No. 8,
Section 5.03(D).
3. The Special Use Permit shall be subject to annual review by Staff.
4. The Special Use Permit for the Planned Unit Development shall be contingent on the
approval of the preliminary plat of Grey Oaks.
5. A property owners association shall be created with the following documents provided to the
City for review and approval by the City Council prior to being recorded with the final plat
in accordance with Ordinance No. 112:
a. Articles of Incorporation.
b. By-Iaws of the association
c. Declaration of covenants, conditions and restrictions regulating the properties,
maintenance of the common areas and age restrictions so as to comply with Minnesota
Statutes 363.02, subd. 2(2)(b) and Federal Fair Housing Act Amendments 42 U.S.C.A.
3607 (b)(2).
6. Grey Oaks will be a phased development in keeping with the development guidelines in the
Andover Comprehensive Plan which indicates the Grey Oaks area is in two development
time frames. It will be developed in two phases so no comprehensive Plan amendment will
be needed.
7. Should, after passing the Special Use Permit and the preliminary plat, the developer change
his mind about following the Minnesota and federal statutes mentioned in Item 5,c, the
Special Use Permit and preliminary plat will then be null and void and full reapplication
must be made for both the Special Use Permit and preliminary plat.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Andover on this 2nd day of _March, 1999.
ATTEST
Victoria Volk, City Clerk
CITY OF ANDOVER
JE.McKelvey, Mayor
DESIGN STANDARDS
GRAY OAKS PUD
RECEIVED
DEC 0 ;1998
In order for the front and side setbacks to be discussed I need to explain how they wTY 0 F AN DOVE
determined. When the Gray Oaks PUD was presented it had private streets and setbacks as were
approved in the Shadowbrook plat. These were as follows:
24' street width
25' setbacks to the front of the building structures
If this is viewed on a plat it would look like this:
Center line of Street
25' 12' 12' 25'
BIdg i
I
� f �
0T5
Bldg
25' setback from right of way on
Both sides
This would give a center line of road to building distance of 3T on each side. (12' Street Width +
25'setback)
In developing the Gray Oaks PUD, the city staff expressed a wish to have the streets in Gray
Oaks be public streets. We met with city staff and worked out a formula that would give public
streets, but still allow a similar building setback as was approved for Shadowbrook_ It was
calculated as follows:
Center line of street.
8' 17' 13' 13' IT 8'
BIdg Bldg
8' setback from right of way on both sides
U TS
This would give a centerline of road to building distance of 38' and provide a minimum front
setback of 8' from city street right of way. (13' street width +17' of blvd + 8' setback)
The effect of the above was to give the Gray Oaks PUD a similar setback as was approved for
Shadowbrook.
DESIGN ST.aI -DARDS
GRAY OAKS PUD
Page 2
If after reviewing the setbacks for Gray Oaks by the city and the above setbacks are not
acceptable, we wish to put the private streets back into the plat and use the 25' setback as was
approved in Shadowbrook--
SETBACKS
PROPOSED u_2
Gray OAKS PUD ZONE
FRONT YARD SETBACK TO BUILDINGS
Single Family Homes 25+
Town Homes g+
30 unit Buildings 14.6+ (building 3 & 10)
(Long side considered the front)
65 Unit Buildings 16.2 (building 2)
(Long side considered the front)
Day Care 40'
Office Retail 40'
Convenience Store 40'
SIDE YARD SETBACK TO BUILDINGS
Single Family Homes
6+
Town Homes
6+
30 Unit Building
14' (building 3 & 10)
(Short side)
65 Unit Building
16.2'
(Short side)
Day Care
10+
Office Retail
10+
Convenience Store
10-1-
REAR YARD SETBACK TO BUILDING
Single Family Homes
25 +
Town Homes
25' to house
15' to deck
30 Unit Building
65 Unit Building
Day Care
30,
Office Retail
30+
Convenience Store
30+
40'
10'
30'
'ote: See the plat for the rear setbacks as each building has a very extensive open space behind
them. I did zx know how to calculate these.
DESIGN ST_4ti,DARDS
GRAY OAKS
Page 3
PROPOSED M-2
GRAY OAKS PUD ZONE
SIDE YARD SETBACK TO BUILDING
From a major arterial road 50' 50'
APARTMENT SIZE
65 UNIT BUILDING Apartment Size (sq.fL)
Efficiency 580+ 500+
I Bedroom 688 700
2 Bedroom 932-1,072 850
30 UNIT BUILDING Apartment Size (sq.ft.)
Efficiency 580+ 500
I Bedroom 700+ 700
2 Bedroom 932+ 850
BUILDING UNITS (2) 65 Unit Buildings 24 Units per bldg
(6) 30 Unit Buildings
PARKING Gray Oaks PUD M-2=
(2) 65 Unit & (1) 30 Unit 1.5 per unit 2.5 per unit
Buildings proposed for the TIF.
Note: In other sections of the ordinance a parking factor of .75 per unit is used for senior
housing.
Each building would have one parking space under the building.
DESIGN STANDARDS
GRAY OAKS PUD
Page 4
PROPOSED
GRAY OAKS PUD M_2
30 Unit Buildings
Not in TIF 1.5 per tout 2.5 per unit
Each building would have one parking space under the building.
Note: Additional parking can be provided if needed. However, it would result in additional tree
and green space removal.
PROPOSED
GRAY OAKS PUD M_2
Single Family & Twin Homes Double car garage 2.5 per unit
Plus 2 spots in front of garage
OTHER PARKING
Stalls
Stalls
Other Ordinances
Day care
34
30
Office/Ret 1
90
40
Convenience
63
30
7:39 0G: 0BM - 0'�'gall74%■
To Whom it May Concern:
We are Ray and Jill Ostby. We
purchased a townhome in the Grey
Oaks in Andover development and
moved in March 31, 2023. Our address
is 1895 156th Lane NW, Andover. We
moved here from Minneapolis where
we both lived our entire lives. We :love
the area and our townhome, but we
would like to turn our deck into a
three -season porch. There are other
townhomes along our street that already
have existing four -season porches. We
would just like to take our existing deck
and turn it into a three -season porch.
We really do not utilize the deck much
and know we would use the porch daily.
Thank You, Ray & Jill Ostby
t G PROPERTY EStj
ES►
December 16, 2024
Joe Janish — Community Development Director
City of Andover
1685 Crosstown Blvd. NW
Andover, MN 55304
RE: Grey Oaks at Andover Owners' Association
Mr. Janish:
Grey Oaks at Andover Owners' Association
Genesis Property Management LLC
8857 Xylon Ave N I Brooklyn Parl< MN 55445
Office 763.424.0300 1 Fax 763.493 0061
www.GeriesisMN.com
Ray Otsby, a homeowner in our association at 1895 156th Lane NW, has requested permission to
add a 3-season porch to his unit. The porch will be similar to the porches that already exist on 6
other units. The Association's Board of Directors has approved the request to add the 3-season
porch.
The contractor has submitted a request for a building permit to construct the porch and has been
told that the addition would be too close to the rear property line. On behalf of the Board of
Directors and residents at Grey Oaks, we are giving Ray Otsby permission to apply for an
Amendment of the PUD to the City of Andover for approval. The amendment would allow the
porch addition to be constructed closer to the property line.
We appreciate your assistance with this and please let us know if you need any additional
information.
On Behalf of the Board of Directors,
Ron Sewald, Marcia Baker and Cheryl Lockwood
Sincerely,
emdit a et...
Genesis Property Management, LLC
763-424-0300 Ext. 205