HomeMy WebLinkAboutJanuary 9, 1979
o
o 00
~ 01 ANDOVER
o
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
Regular Meeting
January 9, 1979
AGENDA
Approval of Minutes
1. Comm. #10-78-4 William Rademacher Rezoning Continued Public Hearing
2. Comm, #10-78-5 Good Value Homes Request for Continuation of Rezoning
Continued Public Hearing
3, Comm. #11-78-1 North Birch Creek Estates Preliminary Plat
Public Hearing
4. Comm. #1-79-1 Perry Madison Sketch plan
5. Comm. #9-78-6 Proposed Rum River Ordinance Discussion
6. Comm. #12-78-6 Ordinance 10D Public Hearing
For publication on January 5, 1979
o
o
o 0
f!it9 01 ANDOVER
o
o
REGULAR PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING
January 9, 1979
MINUTES
The Regular Meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order at
7:34 P.M. by Chairman d'Arcy Bosell on January 9, 1979 at the Andover Community
Center, 1685 Crosstown Boulevard NW, Anoka, Minnesota.
Commissioners Present:
Commissioners Absent:
Also Present:
Ralph Kishel, George Lobb and Jeannine Pyron
Walter Dick and Larry Retzlaff
Dave Pillatzke, Engineer from T.K.D.A., and others
Minutes
Motion by Pyron, seconded by Kishel, to approve the Minutes of December 26, 1978,
Motion carried unanimously.
William Rademacher Rezoning Continued Public Hearing (Corom, #10-78-4)
Chairman Bosell reopened the public hearing. Eugene M. Branstrom, of Eugene M. Branstrom
Associates Architects, 4010 West 56th Street in Minneapolis, '~e have assisted Mr.
Rademacher to prepare, for you, a limited feasibility study for this site for your
consideration in rezoning it for shopping type center. For the numbers, the sizes
and the projections, the study is presented very low from what your community appears
to us to need. The site, in so far as what is proposed for the shopping center, is
based upon what your City requires for development of the site, it's parking, size,
landscaping and setbacks." William Rademacher, 1901 Pennsylvania Avenue North, Golden
Valley, '~e aren't entirely sure of everything that would go into a shopping center
because you don't do that until you build; but the primary thing would be a supermarket.
We have talked about possibly off-sale liquor if we could get a license, and things such
as barber shops, beauty shops, gift/card shops, rental offices like a lawyer's office
and any type of non-retail sales office in the small parts of the center. Groceries
would be the main thing and it would be developed from that point. We really can't
say definitely what would be going in. It is hard to get landlords before you know if
you can build the building. They don't want to commit themselves."
o
Dave Pillatzke asked what the developer was planning on as far as extending utilities
to service this area. He mentioned that he understood that this was in conjunction
with Good Value Homes. Mr. Rademacher said that it would all tie together. Chairman
Bosell, "Good Value has not presented to the City any definable plan but they are going
to meet with the City on January 30th to present an allover concept with the City.
What would happen if Good Value did not put in or participate in the extension of
utilities?" Mr. Rademacher, "Part of the agreement with Good Value is that they will
extend the sewer and possibly put up a water tower, If they did not do that, then we
would put in our own water system." Chairman Bosell asked what sensitivity he would
have to the people in the area in putting in many different types of uses in the center,
if the people didn't want it. Mr. Rademacher said that it would be up to the Council,
and that it would have to be up to all the people in the shopping area and not just
the ones in the local area. The Anoka County Highway Department did the traffic count
that was contained in the feasibility report.
o
()
o
o
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
Minutes - January 9, 1979
Page 2
,r' -"
'-..- I
Don Cann, 13828 Round Lake Boulevard, "I don't know what there traffic count is but
the one I have from the County Engineer for 1978 averaged 6788 cars a day and it is
a 2-lane road and they are planning later on on having turning lanes and a light on
the corner of Round Lake Boulevard and Bunker Lake Boulevard. The congestion that is
going to be created there is hard to imagine if there is any business there at all
and along with the traffic that is already there. According to this same traffic
survey, by 1999 there will be 11,500 cars. There are no plans for a 4-lane there.
I don't see how, in the aspect of safety, they can even consider building something
like that there. There has been talk about Day tons putting in a big complex on the
other side of Highway 10. What is that going to do to this business? There is also
Anoka that rezoned the land at the same intersection to commercial, In view of the
safety factor and traffic count already, I would be totally against it,"
Gerald Gerard, 3442 - 136th Lane, ''Up until now we have looked at the Rademacher and
Good Value Homes proposals on just a single drawing; but if you back up a little bit
and look at the area surrounding this intersection, we have to consider these proposals
as part of a trend for this corner. The 1974 Community Development Plan, that is
kind of a fluid document at best, provides an Urban zone in the entire south and
southwest area of the City. About ~ of the area is supposed to be agricultural.
The C.D.P. (Community Development Plan) provides shopping and business areas in this
Urban zone. The plans of this 1974 C.D,P. was for the major business area of the
City to be right here at City Hall. It was Rupposed to be an area of 10 - 25 acres.
Serving the south and southwest part of the City, mostly in the Urban zone, were to
be 4 neighborhood centers from 2 - 5 acres each. At Round Lake Boulevard and Bunker
Lake Boulevard, in the southwest corner of the intersection, is an area approximately
6.4 acres owned by Hutton and Rowe that is part of the big residential development
they have in that whole area. It has been zoned shopping center. They have very definite
plans and they include a major supermarket, not a small convenience store, a large
magnet retail store, and several small shops all in an enclosed mall configuration.
Anoka's sewer, water and roads are already available, at_the property line and they will
be starting on that this year. In the northwest q8a~~nE-is an area about 3 acres
(the Joseph Chutich/Flora Chase property) that was zoned Neighborhood Business last
year. Mr. Chutich is planning on putting in a hardware store. To the west of the
Chase/Chutich property there is land owned by County Road 9 Company. Although some
of the land is swamp and a low marsh area, some of it very well could have some commercial
possibilities. I understand that the County Highway Department, when they redo ~h~^_~
intersection, may use some of that property for drainage, In the southeast q~~~,~~
4.1 acres owned by Ruth Chapman, that is zoned Neighborhood Business and has been
0\ for many years. I know of no existing plans for development of this property, But
,~~~' Jif these rezonings go through it would be very desirable property. The Rademacher
It'/J,-Pt and Good Value^Homes properties would total ;Ibout 17.2 acres. The C.D.P. shows the
\i-Z' southeast qt'a1\~ and the northwest q'Wlnifmrt as Urban Residential. The northeast
(+-""'~tt-.~1 . h . 1 1 S h h .. - h C D P
vquan J:cl11t ~s s own as agr~cu tura. omew ere near t ~s ~ntersect~on, t e . . .
proposes one of these 4 neighborhood centers. Each of these is to have an acreage of
about 2 - 5 acres. The Hutton & Rowe area is already 28% larger than the maximum
recommended size for this neighborhood center. If the Rademacher and Good Value
requests are granted, the total acreage would go up to 23.6 acres, which is 5 times
larger than the maximum size of the neighborhood center. That is 1,4 acres shy of the
maximum size of the ''major Community Center business area" that is supposed to be
somewhere around here. It (Good Value and Rademacher) is larger than all 4 neighborhood
centers combined. If Good Value and Rademacher go through, the Chase/Chutich and
Chapman properties would most likely develop and then we would have a total commercial
,-,
\.......)
o
()
o
o
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
Minutes - January 9, 1979
Page 3
1"-,
'"_/
acreage in this corner of about 31.2 acres. That is bigger than the maximum size of the
major retail business area that was supposed to be right around here. It is ~ again
larger than all 4 neighborhood centers combined. Approval of this rezoning would be
both explicit and implicit approval for full blown commercial development of 31 acres
around this intersection. Although the C.D.P. is very vague and contradicts itself,
wherever it makes specific recommendations on the locations of shopping districts and
sizes of shopping districts and the intended use of commercial development, the Rademacher
and Good Value proposal grossly exceeds the letter and policy of it.
Property owners and prospective home and commercial property buyers accept this C.D.P.
on good faith. Mr. Rademacher bought land that was clearly intended to be at least
residential and clearly earmarked to remain residential. This land is now zoned
R-l and I don't see that it can be commercial development. People near this area, all
the residents around it, have bought their homes with the understanding that according
to the long range plans of the City, this corner would be basically residential. That
it would have eventually some kind of commercial development, some neighborhood business
area, something in the neighborhood of 2 - 5 acres; but nothing like 31 acres. The
people that own land around this community center are also going to be surprised because
they have been expecting that the major center of Andover would be around here, I
think you can see that approving either the Rademacher or Good Value requests does
not nullify the commercial development plans of the 1974 C.D.P. It completely abandons
them. Over 31 acres of commercial development, where everyone expected 2 - 5 acres.
It would have the effect of moving the major retail business center from near the
center of the City to a point in the southwest corner of the City. Making a change
in the C.D.P. of this magnitude means that just about everything in the book pertaining
to commercial development and zoning would have no credibility at all. You just wouldn't
be able to use this book or any future books for a basis for your decisions, because
you would just be changing the rules of the game in midstream.
Finally, the Rademacher or Good Value developments would seem to violate some of the
zoning ordinance. Section 4.17, dealing with shopping centers, specifically prohibits
a shopping center on more than one corner of an intersection, Hutton & Rowe has held
a shopping center zoning on that corner for many years and will be building, The
Rademacher and Good Value requests would place 3 shopping centers on 2 corners of this
intersection, Also, in Section 4.18, dealing with planned unit developments, it requires
that this type of zoning be consistent with the C.D.P. I think I have demonstrated
that it is clearly not consistent with the C.D.P.; it clearly abandons the Plan. It
moves the major retail center. It allows over 30 acres of commercial development where
there was intended to be approximately only 5 acres."
Chairman Bosell said that the C.D.P, has not been officially adopted and does have some
contradictions; however, the City still uses it as a guideline. Commissioner Kishel,
"The fallacy of that booklet is that how soon do you expect sewer to come up to the
central part of the City and certainly where you have sewer is where they are going
to develop. Commercial development depends on the sewer. It is highly restrictive
without water. Those 2 items kind of dictate where your City is going to develop
commercially."
/~. Lola Fortner, 13808 Round Lake Boulevard, I~y question after looking at the feasibility
,~ study is that one thing I understood at the last meeting was that you wanted them to
show not only how much traffic passed by this area, but how many people are really
interested in shopping at this particular place, There is no reference at all as to
what the community wants. I see nothing to indicate whether the people in the area
o
o
o
o
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
Minutes - January 9, 1979
Page 4
o
actually want to use a shopping center. Also, we have brought up the question of whether
the shopping center can be supported on the basis of the other proposed things going
in the area, We in the neighborhood are concerned if it does not succeed because the
only thing worse than having it go in is having it boarded up." Mr. Branstrom said
he was sorry they didn't go out and do a research as part of this study. They based
it on the percentage of the total population of the County. The projections were
all very low. He felt that the trade area would support a shopping center of perhaps
3 times that size. We assume we would be able to accept a fair percentage of the
population based on the distance that they would have to travel to go to anything that
would be competitive. We can't assume what mayor may not happen in another suburb,
another corner or a few years from now. They did allow additional land to accommodate
turn lanes on Round Lake Boulevard in the future.
Don Cann, "The County Engineer's office told me there are no plans, as of now or in
the foreseeable future, for a 4-lane road there." Chairman Bosell related that the
former chairman of the Commission did go and view the other center that Mr, Rademacher
has developed and still owns and had nothing but good things to say as to what it looked
like and how it was being maintained. She said, "Based on the input you have put in
as far as your concern for safety, what would you propose that corner be used for?
No one, in my opinion, would put a single family home on either of those roads and
propose a driveway or backyard to go out onto them. I wouldn't want a park there
because you would need a 12' fence to protect the children who would use the park.
How would they get to it because of the traffic? It needs to operate in some fashion
as a buffer. It may be left vacant to collect junk. Another alternative, seen in
other communities, is multiple dwellings like apartment buildings, townhouse kinds
of things," Mr. Cann said that they just bought, last summer, on the frontage road
and he felt that R-l zoning would be great all around there. It was mentioned that
those lots along the busy road would probably stand vacant however, and be undesirable
for single family residential purposes. Mr. Cann, "I can't imagine the magnitude of
the congestion that will be there and it is almost impossible now in rush hour traffic
to get out onto Round Lake Boulevard. What is it going to be during rush hour traffic
when you have a business going too?" The traffic for this development would be contained
within the center with one ingress and one egress. John Prest, 15725 - 7th Avenue
North, "I have talked a couple of times with Lee Amundson from the highway department
and there is going to be a turn lane that is going to run back at least 500' up this
road and there will be stop and go lights. There will not be turn lanes on Bunker
yet because of the bridge that may be coming over north of the high school."
rl,J
e;,>-~)1?
Stan Dedin, 13836 Round Lake Boulevard, "I have discussed my feelings about commercial
development on this corner and I don't deny that it is inevitable and the best use
for the corner. I think the Rademacher property goes too far north. I think it should
be more clustered around the corner itself rather than running so far north. That
would mean that all the commercially zoned property would be clustered in one area,"
Discussed the feasibility of having the parking on the north end of the property and
the buildings on the south. Mr. Branstrom, "This plan represents what the Anoka County
Highway Engineers have related to Good Value and that we provide access to Round Lake
Boulevard at a distance of 470' minimum to the intersection with Bunker Lake Boulevard.
The second would be another 970' away. In order to do that you have to develop the
property f~her back. Another item affecting it would be that we have to provide
a minimum of 380 parking spaces. We would wind up with all the parking at the north
end of the lot. It should be reasonably available to the building. The plan flows
about as well as can be expected for the configuration of the land and staying within
the Andover Ordinance requirements."
o
o
(J
o
o
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
Minutes - January 9, 1979
Page 5
Marnell Wilber, 3510 - l36th Lane, ,~ lived here before the church was built, for
13 years. We have had to put up with headlights from cars, etc., coming into our living
room and have had 3 runaway cars come into our yard. The same thing could happen
anyplace where there are a lot of cars. If they put a shopping center there, the
traffic will be tied up. We have had only 2 or 3 accidents in the last 11 or 12 years
here. Right now with the 4-way stop, we end up with people coming down "our street"
50 or 60 miles per hour to beat the stop sign. What kind of safety measures will
there be for kids crossing the street. What kind of hazard would their buffer zone
be? Would you be willing to put in sidewalks for all these children? Safety wise
it is unrealistic, We don't need anymore traffic problems than what we've got. Let
us grow a little more, There are a lot of homes in the area, but the northern area of
the City is growing too and that might be the area where a shopping center should be.
We are only a mile from stores. The people in the northern area would like to see some
shopping area. I don't want to see a shopping center in the neighborhood and see the
litter blowing around, From most grocery stores you have litter blowing around, lights
at night and many of the people here will have lights shining in their windows."
John Peterson, 16120 Vintage, "I am representing Grace Lutheran Church. We are not
opposed to the shopping center. We are just concerned with what would go into the
center. We would not like to see a tavern, a sauna, a roller rink or an establishment
of that type across from the Church,Mr. Rademacher and Good Value Homes had talked
about not putting something of that type in there but we were concerned if they would
sell it in a few years then what would go in? We would certainly not like to see a
zoning classification that would allow a tavern or the likes."
Discussed what a shopping center (SC) zoning classification would allow and the special
use permit requirements. Mrs. Wilber said she thought the Planning Commission and
the City Council should put themselves in "the resident's" places before making a
decision. They don't want to live by this but can't afford to move. She asked if
they would want to buy a house next to a shopping center and said their houses wouldn't
be as resalable. She talked about traffic problems and people using their streets.
She would rather see homes or townhouses than a shopping center on that corner,
o
Commissioner Pyron, "I don't think there are any solutions to the difficulty in watching
a semi-rural area that is bounded by an urban society, in watching it grow, Progression
is difficult to handle when we live in a community that is small and does not have
all the commercial development; but the population is growing and the demand for commercial
development will be more severe and you can not tell a particular land owner that he
cannot attempt to rezone a piece of property that he owns. We have to look at things
fairly with as little emotion involved as possible but we do have personal opinions
and it is very difficult not to. I would prefer to see the commercial area in a centrally
located area of the City but you must look at the sewer possibilities and the capability
of the sewer being up here is pretty much non-existant at this point. I have to look
at the landowner and his capabilities of developing. It is very costly to develop.
It is a risk to develop. It is a lot of money. I do not like to see the Rademacher
development as far north as it is; but if you look at the set of circumstances of a
fee owner owning a piece of property of so much distance and you can not tell him
he can only develop so far. There is very little you can regulate as far as where
hewould place the shopping center on that piece of property. What he has deSigned is
very well done. I do have sensitivity to the concerns for the residents, The safety
factors, I believe no matter what is on that corner there is going to be traffic hazard
problems. I don't believe that the traffic patterns here cannot be solved or handled
o
o
o
o
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
Minutes - January 9, 1979
Page 6
o
by the sheer inducement of cormnercial property," Commissioner Kishel,"I might just
add that the single family home does not support the City's tax structure. The City
has to look at the future where they might have to have a great deal of cormnercial
development to afford taking care of a large population and cormnercial development
has to go where the sewer is. Probably where the traffic is already is the best place
to put commercial development." Commissioner Pyron said that as the community grows
we have to provide more services and the commercial development then allows us to enjoy
a lower tax rate, by the sheer fact that it is paying taxes to the City. Commissioner
Kishel mentioned that their Charge, as Planning Commission members, is to protect the
general welfare and safety of the public and we have to look at it from the standpoint
that we can't stop an individual from developing a piece of property without very good
reason. Commissioner Pyron said that we must be sensitive to the concerns of the
adjacent property owners but we have to look at the City and development as a whole.
Commissioner Lobb asked if the supermarket mentioned would be a grocery store with
a bakery, meat department deli, etc. After receiving an affirmative answer, he stated
that it seems like the only feasible thing that could be put on that corner as far as
use.
Chairman Bosell, I~e, as a community, are growing in leaps and bounds. Look at the
farm land that has been converted into residential areas in the last 3 years. We are
second in the Metro area as far as turning farm land into residential land. We are
eating up farm land very rapidly. With the growth comes the responsibility of the
City to provide services and then the City needs revenues. I feel that the concept
(in the C.D.P.) of the Community Center as being the center of the City is not feasible
because there are no services available, The Township of Oak Grove is developing
with Quickstroms, Standing Room Only and they have just put up a Tom Thumb type store.
So the Northern people in Andover will perhaps go north rather than coming into Andover
to support the City. If we don't do anything to enhance our commercial draw as far
as tax relief in the City, we are going to be built all around, Those on Round Lake
Boulevard are still going to have to carry the traffic and accept the responsibility
and the burden of the traffic, but the dollars are going to go outside the City.
We need some wise planning to see if this isn't a good spot for commercial, then
where would be a good spot. The planners for the City in 1974 looked at this corner
and felt that it could handle limited business. It didn't look to handle a "Dales"
but it did look to handle limited business, a small business complex. If we let
Anoka, Ham Lake and Oak Grove grow around us, what as a cOlllIllUnity are we going to have
to offer? What Mr. Rademacher is proposing is not undesirable as far as it's concept
and over all look. They are trying to use the property wisely. Even with the projection
of realigrunent of County Road 9 would not relieve the traffic problem at this corner,"
Stan Dedin, '~ere do you think this commercial development is going to go? Since
Round Lake Boulevard takes the brunt of the traffic now, is the cormnercial development
just going to grow on up north with Round Lake Boulevard? Our 12 little houses in
there are going to be isolated by commercial development. That is one reason why I
don't want to see it come. I don't want to be surrounded by commercial development."
o
Discussed what happened to the City of Fridley regarding commercial development in
the past &: the light industrial zoning further north on County Road 9. Mr, Gerard
said, '~OU are not really going by the C.D.P. but there has to be some kind of limit
and general idea or goal for this Corner. I don't deny that cormnercial development
is not only inevitable but probably desirable. If you approve the Rademacher rezoning,
then I think the Good Value Homes would be an almost automatic approval, Before you
o
o
o
o
o
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
Minutes - January 9, 1979
Page 7
approve this, you should think how much cotnmercial development is enough, Where is
it going to stop if you have no maximum size in mind as stated in the C.D.P.? The
C.D.P, said 5 acres. How much more than that are you going to allow? The amount
of property that would go in as a consequence of the Rademacher approval is larger
than the maximum size that the City was thinking about for the major retail area of
the City. I think this Rademacher decision is very important because it is going to
set the trend for this entire corner. Where is the line going to be drawn? Hutton and
Rowe will be building whether you approve it or not. Mr. Chutich's property is already
zoned. If you are going to be abandoning the C.D.P., as you would be by approving
Rademacher, you are going to have to have some kind of back up."
It was mentioned that the City is in the process of revising the C,D.P. Discussed
which Plan the City is using - the 1974 model or the new, updated Midwest Planning
version - and the fact that neither is a hard and fast rule, only a guideline. Discussed
the limited business zoning designation in Ordinance 8. Dale Gelling, 3432 _ l36th
Lane, "It looks like most everybody else has laid out their ground work for these
shopping centers and haven't turned a shovel and yet everybody is in a race to get the
first one in there so that they will be the leader. I think the City has to look
at the Anoka corner, If that shopping center is going to be there, it will affect
everyone in the area." He mentioned Ordinance 8 and that section that deals with
not having more than one shopping center in an intersection. Commissioner Pyron
said that that section of Ordinance 8 concerns the City of Andover and is not part
of an agreement or ordinance between the City of Andover and the City of Anoka.
Also, the Good Value Homes proposal is not on a corner. Mr. Gelling asked about
the area behind these 2 requests and what the plans are for development. Chairman
Bosell said that we have heard that it is going to be residential and they would like
to rezone it to an R-4, which would hold many homes on small lots. We will know more
about it on January 30th. There is a special public meeting being held that night to
deal specifically with Good Value Homes to present to the City what they are going to
do. They have 200 plus acres that they are talking about. She explained the time
schedule for action on this rezoning request. Mr. Gelling, "I liked what Mr. Gerard
said about the concern about how much more this (commercial) is going to spread. It
is our residential area and we're not going to have any say about it. It is devaluating
our homes and we have no say about it."
Recess: 9:32 - 9:50 P,M.
Motion by Kishel, seconded by Lobb, to close the public hearing. Motion carried
unanimously.
o
Motion by Kishel, seconded by Lobb, that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend
that the request for rezoning for the William C. Rademacher property, described as the
West 330' of the swt of the NEt of Section 32, Township 32, Range 24 in Anoka County,
Minnesota, be approved by the City Council for the follOWing reasons: 1) at the public
hearing, although there was considerable opposition from the residents immediately
adjacent to the property, the over all opposition was strictly for safety concerning
the traffic that already exists on the 2 main thoroughfares of the City of Andover.
2) the owner has had a report prepared by Branstrom and Associates of Minneapolis
indicating that the area has been studied for feasibility of shopping center in the
way of initially a grocery store and other ancillary businesses. 3) the rezoning
of this property to shopping center zoning is compatible with the updated C~y
Con../,"",.Av~ Pi""
c~vu..<te.<f I. "'-3 - 7 '7
o
o
o
o
Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
Minutes - January 9, 1979
Page 8
o
1
( CrJ"><"~ )
C,c7.H.I./te.tLt~ /-2 3~7(1
D~elopment Plan in that this is one of our major intersections in the City and would
provide services to the residents of the City of Andover. 4) it is not detrimental
to the health, safety and welfare of the residents of the City of Andover, 5) the
development of the subject property lends in with the extension of the in place sanitary
sewer which is to the East of this subject property.
Motion carried unanimously. This will be on the City Council Agenda on February 6,
1979.
Good Value Homes Rezoning Continued Public Hearing (Comm. #10-78-5)
Good Value has requested a continuation of their rezoning request until after the
special informational meeting on January 30th with the City Council, Park and Recreation
Commission, the City Attorney, the City Engineer and the Planning and Zoning Commission,
North Birch Creek Estates Preliminary Plat Public Hearing (Comm, #11-78-1)
Mike Gair was present to represent Al KIous, the owner of the property. Mr. Gair said
that they had met with the Park and Recreation Commission and they discussed providing
Lots 1 and 2 as park dedication. They met with the Coon Creek Watershed Board last
night and the Board approved the concept of the plat. There are now 29 lots instead
of the 31 as shown on the plat, because of the park dedication, Mr, Gair has reviewed
the Engineer's report and, with an exception or two, they can all be taken care of.
Engineer Pillatzke reviewed his letter of January 5, 1979, copy attached, with the
Commission and Mr. Gair. Mr. Gair will make the necessary drawing-type changes per
that letter plus providing temporary cul-de-sacs, show the park land on the plat
and change the configuration of Lot 3, Block 3 because it has 2 isolated pieces
of property. The Commission still needs approval from the Coon Creek Watershed
Board and the Park and Recreation Commission also.
Chairman Bosell called the public hearing to order. This will be continued until
the next regularly scheduled meeting to allow the developer to have the necessary
changes and corrections made.
Perry Madison Sketch Plan (Comm. #1-79-1)
Jeff Caine, from Caine & O'Malley, was present to represent Mr. Madison. The land
is located in Section 4, adjacent to l8lst Avenue and the Hawk Ridge plat, and contains
20 lots on 62.7 acres with R-l zoning. Engineer Pillatzke said that the property
is not within the flood plain area or the Coon Creek Watershed District. It does
require County review because it intersects a County road. He recommended an access
at the l78th alignment. It was suggested that something other than the circular
configuration might be used as a possible layout.
Rum River Ordinance Discussion (Comm. #9-78-6)
It was suggested that since Commissioner Retzlaff wasn't present and he had done a lot
c=) of the background work on this, that it be continued to the next meeting.
o
o
o
o
Planning and Zoning Connnission Meeting
Minutes - January 9, 1979
(~, Page 9
,-)
Ordinance 10D Public Hearing (Comm. #12-78-6)
Chairman Bose11 opened the public hearing and stated that the Planning and Zoning
Connnission is recommending that the public hearing be continued to the next meeting
on January 23, 1979.
Adiournment
Motion by Lobb, seconded by Bose11, to adjourn. Motion carried unanimously. Meeting
adjourned at 11:12 P.M.
~
<..J
o
TKDA
u
u
o
TOLTZ. KING. DUVALL. ANDERSON AND ASSOCIATES INCORPORATED
ENGINEERS
ARCH ITECTS
PLANNERS
~)
1408 PIONEER BUILDING
612-224-7891
SAINT PAUL. MINNESOTA 55101
TELEX 29-7461
January 5, 1979
Planning and Zoning Commission
Andover, Minnesota
,.'::::-----.
,Re: North~~states
~ Preliminary.Plat Review
Andover, Minnesota
Commission No. 6223-79
Commission Members:
We have reviewed the Preliminary Plat for the North Birch Creek Estates
with respect to Ordinances No.8, 10 and their supplements. Following are
our comments and recommendations:
1. Lot 1 Block 1, Lot 1 and Lot 7 of Block 3 meet the mmimum frontage,
however, provide a dimension on the front yard set back line to avoid
confusion on their' concurrence with the minimum frontage requirement.
2. Lots 2, 4, 8, 9 and 11 of Block 3 do not meet the minimum 300 feet of
frontage at the front yard set back line.
3. Dimension the side yard set back lines on those lots adjacent to
C. S. A. H. No. 18.
4. Show the roadway widths of the existing surfaces on 167th Lane N. E.
and 3rd Street N. E.
5. Provide soil boring information for roadways as located by the City
Engineer.
6. Provide proposed street profiles including vertical curve information
and proposed culvert invert elevations and diameters.
7. Provide drainage easements for all of the proposed and existing drainage
courses and proposed retention ponds within the proposed plat. Identify
and dimension such easements.
o
ARNDT oJ. DUVALL. PRESIDENT
ROBERT R. RYDER. V. Po-TREAS.
WAYNE A. OLSON. V. .P.-SEC.
WALTER W. THORPE. v. P.
DUWAYNE R. KA9MA. V. P.
DUANE T. PREW. v.,..
JAMES E. VDYEN. v. ~.
WILLIAM J. ARMSTRONG
OWEN J. BEATTY
OARREL H. BERKOWITZ
ROBERT A. BOYER
JAMES C. BROTEN
.JAMES E. BUOKE
JOHN L. DAVIDSON
LAVAYNE R. DUPSLAf'F
WILLIAM .... FEYDER
ROYCE B. HANSEN
STEPHEN M. HARTLEY
WESTLY J. HENDRICKSON
..J. THOMAS KIRK
DAVID W. KIRKWOLD
RONALO C. LEY
ROBERT T. MALONEY
DENNIS R. MARTENSON
ROBERT J. McHIESH
RICHARD D. MENKEN
LEONARO D. MILLER
THOMAS W. MOODIE
OAVID L. MOORE
.JAMES A. SKARET
ABE J. SPERLING
ROBERT G. SPURR
RAYMOND M. BTREDE
NATHAN F'. WEBER
u
()
(J
o
/',
o
Andover Planning and Zoning Commission
January 5, 1979
Page Two
8. Clarify the proposed surface drainage at the north end of Alder Street near
the east-south curve.
9, Culve'rts will be required at all intersections where the proposed streets
intersect C. S. A. H, No.9.
10. Provide the design calculations for the proposed storm runoff retention
ponds.
11. Obtain and furnish a letter of approval from the Coon Creek Watershed,
Board of Managers.
12. The developer must submit written approval from the Anoka County
authorities, approving the proposed entrances, drainage and right of way
dedication pertaining to C. S. A. H. No. 18. Approval must also be provided
for the plat with respect to branch No. 7 of County Ditch No. 58.
13. The proposed 166th Court exceeds the maximum length of 500 feet for
cul-de-sacs,
14. Furnish degree and radius of curvature information for the proposed
streets. Note that when horizontal street lines deflect more than 10 degrees,
they should be connected bya curve with a radius of not less than 200 feet
and that a tangent of at least 50 feet in length shall be introduced between
reverse curves.
15. Block 1, 3 and 5 exceed 1320 feet in length. Block 1 could be logically split
into two blocks by introducing a street between lots 2 and 3. This would'
provide for better continuity for development to the south of the proposed
plat.
16. Approval must be provided from the Park and Recreation Commission
relative to park land dedication.
This letter will be discussed during the January 9, 1979 Planning and Zoning
Commission meeting.
Very truly yours,
TOL TZ, KING, DUVALL, ANDERSON
AND ASSOCIATES, INCORPORATED
DJP:dh
~.~-t~ 8CH1:.c->
David J. Pil atzke J
cc: Andove I' City Council
Patricia K. Lindquist, Clerk
Al Klaus, Developer
Westwood Planning &: Eng.. Co.
,r,
U