Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/28/02CITY of ANDOVER 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. • ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55394 • (763) 755 -5100 FAX (763) 755 -8923 Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda May 28, 2002 Andover City Hall 7.00 p.m. L Call to Order 2. Approval of Minutes — May. 14, 2002 3. PUBLIC HEARING: Preliminary Plat for a rural residential plat to be known as `Silver Meadows' containing eight lots located at 16326 Verdin Street NW. Staff report by Courtney Bednarz, City Planner. 4. PUBLIC HEARING: Rezoning (02 -01) to rezone property located at 1516 148 Lane NW from Rural Residential (R -1) to Urban Residential. Staff report by Tyler Mckay, Associate Planner. 5. PUBLIC HEARING: Lot Split (02 -04) to create two urban residential lots from property located at 1516 148 Lane NW. Staff report by Tyler Mckay, Associate Planner. 6. PUBLIC HEARING: Amend Ordinance 8, Section 8 - Performance Standards. To establish standards for sod to be installed on all residential lots in urban areas. Staff report by Tyler Mckay, Associate Planner. 7. PUBLIC HEARING: Amend Ordinance 8, Section 4.05 - Accessory Buildings and Structures to limit the size of the accessory buildings allowed on urban residential lots, limit height to one story and reduce interior side yard setback to five feet. Staff report by Courtney Bednarz, City Planner. 8. PUBLIC HEARING: Amend the Comprehensive Land Use Plan to change land use designations for various properties in the City. Also consideration will be given to add a new category of Limited Commercial (LC) to the land use designations to establish office park areas in the City. Also consider allowing some sites to have a dual land use designation, such as LClURM to allow the site to be zoned for either offices or for medium density residential. Staff report by Will Neumeister, Community Development Director. • 9. PUBLIC HEARING: Amend the Zoning Ordinance to consider the following changes: • Removing "Service Stations" and "Twenty -four hour continuous operations" from uses allowed as Special Uses in the Limited Business (LB) Zoning District • Exclude "Service Stations" from the retail trade and services definition from uses allowed in the Neighborhood Business (NB) Zoning District. • Add language to the Neighborhood Business (NB) Zoning District that would limit service stations in this zone to sites that are two acres or larger as a Special Use. Staff report by Will Neumeister, Community Development Director. 10. PUBLIC HEARING: Amend the Official Zoning Map to rezone property from Neighborhood Business (NB) to Limited Business (LB). The site is located east of Hanson Boulevard, north of 138th Lane. Staff report by Courtney Bednarz, City Planner. 11. PUBLIC HEARING: Amend the Official Zoning Map to rezone property from Neighborhood Business (NB) to Single Family Urban Residential (R -4) • for property located immediately south of the intersection of Crosstown Boulevard and Crosstown Drive. Staff report by Courtney Bednarz, City Planner. 12. Other Business 13. Adjournment • ~-_.- CITY, of ANDOVER 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARDN-W. . ANDOVER" MINNESOTA 55304. (763) 755.5100 FAX (763) 755-B923- TO: Planning and Zoning Commissioners FROM: Courtney Bednarz, City Planner SUBJECT: Item 2. Approval of Minutes - May 14,2002 DATE: May 28, 2002 Request The Planning and Zoning Commission is IlSked to approve the minutes from the May 14, 2002 meeting. e e --, -, . . Acting ChairDean Daninger, CommissionersTim , 'Kirchoff,'Mark Hedin, Tany Gamache, and Rex Greenwald. Also' present: City Planner, Caurtney Bednarz ' Assaciate Plariner, D. Tyler McKay , Others April 9, 2002 Motion by Kirchaff, secanded by Hedin, to' apptavethe minutes as presented., Mation carried ana 5~ayes,O~nays, 2-abserit(Squires and Falk) vate, VARIANCE (02-03) :'- VARIANCE TO ORDINANCE NO. 8, SECTION 4.21 FENCES AND WALLS TO INCREASEFENCE HE!GHT INF'RONT YARDSETBACKFOR PROPOSED FENCE AT15672 KIOJJiA ST. NW FOR JOHN DALOS. , ' City Planner CaurtneyBednarzexplained thatthe applicant is planning tocanstructa perimeter fence araund his property. The propased fence,would be anal~inum (similar tawraught iron) fence thatWo'uld be five fe,et in height. Theprapasedfence wduldbe.. canstructed alang therear and side property lines. They plan to' place it behind an existing raw of mature evergreen trees in the front yard, HestatedthatOrdinance Na~ 8, Section4.2IFences and Walls restricts the height affences lacated within the front yard setback to' a maximum height offaur feet. He mentioned that the intent of thisardinan.ce is to prevent fencesfrani adversely affecting traffic visibility fram streets, or driveways, an the same black. The ordinance prayision is also' intended to pratect the aesthetics af thefrant yard and front elevatiansof hames fram being screened behind a taller,opaque ,'. fence. Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes — May 14, 2002 Page 2 Mr. Bednarz stated that the applicant must substantiate hardship and demonstrate that the variance would not be contrary to the intent of the ordinance. The applicant has included a letter for this purpose. The specific findings of fact that must be addressed are provided by State Statute and are listed in the staff report. John Dalos, 15672 Kiowa Street, explained that he is requesting to put a fence up surrounding his property. The fence would be constructed of aluminum and be five feet in height. He stated that it would be a very nice looking fence. He presented a picture before the Commission showing that the fence would follow the property line around the entire property. He mentioned that he's applied for a dog through his work, therefore the fence will add security for the public and also for the dog. He also mentioned that he is willing to go with a four -foot fence if that's the Commission's recommendation. Robert Tashinski, 15700 Kiowa Street NE, stated that he understands that the property owner should have the right to put up a fence if so desired, however he opposes the idea. He stated that the land is beautiful and a fence would only be an eye soar. He suggested the fence stay within all City ordinances and within the property line if the Commission decides to recommend approval. He mentioned that he does have pictures of the applicant cutting on his property, furthermore the applicant won't pay to have the property surveyed. Mr. Dalos explained that when he was trying to find the property stakes the neighbor helped. He stated that to his knowledge he didn't cut any trees off Mr. Tashinski's property. He stated that prior to this incident there wasn't any negativity towards the fence. He mentioned that in the past his dog was caught in Mr. Tashinski's property, therefore having a fence would solve the problem. He also mentioned that to his knowledge Mr. Tashinski is opposed to any fence, not just a five -foot fence. Commissioner Kirchoff stated that he's trying to find the hardship. Mr. Dalos questioned the definition of a hardship. Mr. Bednarz stated what is classified as a hardship, referencing state statute. Commissioner Greenwald questioned the reason the applicant wouldn't put up a four -foot wrought iron fence. Mr. Dalos explained his reasoning. Mr. Bednarz stated that this issue is whether or not the fence should be allowed to be five feet. • E Commissioner Gamache stated that the Commission isn't denying Mr. Dalos a fence, but instead the extra foot. Mr. Dalos explained that his reasoning for the extra foot is mostly for stabilization. • Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes — May 14, 2002 Page 3 • Commissioner Gamache questioned the distance from the road to the fence. Mr. Dalos stated that it would be approximately 20 feet. Commissioner Greenwald questioned if a five -foot wrought iron fence were installed then the intent of the ordinance wouldn't be met. Mr. Bednarz explained that the issue of concern is whether or not there is a hardship. He stated that if the Commission doesn't agree with the ordinance then maybe it should be reviewed. Commissioner Greenwald questioned if the ordinance was written in regards to a fence that one wouldn't be able to see through. Acting Chair Daninger explained that the Commission needs to determine if there's a hardship in order to approve the request of a five -foot fence. Commissioner Greenwald stated that he doesn't have a problem with a five -foot, see through fence. Commissioner Gamache stated that if this request is approved, someone could come forth wanting an 8 -foot, solid fence. He suggested the possibility of an amendment to the ordinance. Mr. Bednarz explained that it would take approximately 6 -8 weeks to amend an ordinance. • Acting Chair Daninger stated that he's not aware of the history on the ordinance, therefore it isn't guaranteed that the ordinance would change if it were reviewed. Commissioner Greenwald questioned the process that takes place when amending an ordinance. Mr. Bednarz explained that an ordinance amendment would require Planning and Zoning and Council review. Amendments are sometimes initiated by a group of residents with a specific request. Commissioner Hedin questioned the applicant on whether or not he would prefer to move the fence back 40 -feet or do a four -foot fence. Mr. Dalos stated that he would prefer to do a four -foot fence. Commissioner Hedin questioned Mr. Dalos if he would be willing to wait 6 -8 weeks in the case that the ordinance would be amended. Mr. Dalos stated that that would be fine with him, however he would need to discuss it with his wife. Commissioner Hedin questioned the Commission on how they feel about the ordinance as written. He questioned the Commission if they would prefer to table the request and move forward with the amendment process. Commissioner Kirchoff stated that it wouldn't make a difference, since he wouldn't need a variance if the ordinance allowed a five -foot see through fence. Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes — May 14, 2002 Page 4 Mr. Bednarz suggested the Commission make a recommendation based on the application. He stated that the Commission could also make comments regarding an amendment if so desired. Motion by Greenwald, seconded by Gamache, to recommend to the City Council approval of Resolution No. R - , Denying the Variance Request for John Dalos to Increase the Fence Height within the Front Yard Setback from Four to Five Feet on Property Located at 15672 Kiowa Street NW, however recommending that Ordinance No. 8, Section 4.21 Fences and Walls be reviewed in regards to what the City allows in terms of height of fences. Motion carried on a 5 -ayes, 0 -nays, 2- absent (Squires and Falk) vote. Commissioner Greenwald questioned what would be wrong with Mr. Dalos installing a five -foot fence as long as it doesn't obstruct the view. Acting Chair Daninger stated that there might be a possibility to amend the Ordinance, since there are fences that are see through. He stated that the Ordinance would be reviewed in the future if the Council so desires. n U Mr. Bednarz stated that this item would come before the City Council at the June 4, 2002 City Council meeting. • PARLANCE (02 -04) — VARIANCE TO ORDINANCE NO. 8. SECTION 6.02, MINIMUM DISTRICT PROVISIONS FOR REDUCTION OF SIDE YARD SETBACK FOR PROPOSED DETACHED ACCESSORY BUILDING LOCATED AT 1735 148' LANE NW — RICHARD WAGNER. Mr. Bednarz explained that the applicant has requested that this item be tabled until the City has completed its review of the regulations concerning accessory structures. He suggested the item be tabled until the June 11, 2002 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting. Motion by Hedin, seconded by Greenwald, to table Variance (02 -04) — Variance to Ordinance No. 8, Section 6.02 Minimum District Provisions for the Reduction of Side Yard Setback for Proposed Detached Accessory Building Located at 1735 148 Lane NW until the June 11, 2002 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting. Motion carried on a 5 -ayes, 0 -nays, 2- absent (Squires and Falk) vote. PUBLIC HEARING: RESIDENTIAL SKETCHPLAN FOR A SINGLE FAMILY AND TOWNHOUSE PROJECT TO BE KNOWNAS `FOXBURGH CROSSING' LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OFHANSONBOULEVARD AND ANDOVER BOULEVARD — BOONE BUILDERS. Mr. Bednarz summarized the staff report. • Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes — May 14, 2002 Page S • Commissioner Greenwald questioned if option one would consist of 13 single - family lots. Mr. Bednarz stated that that is correct. Commissioner Greenwald questioned the number of homes in option two. Mr. Bednarz stated that option two would consist of 12 single - family homes, and four townhouse units. Mr. Bednarz explained that staff is recommending the property be rezoned from R -3 to R -4. He mentioned that the question between the two options is either the City would choose a PUD with option one consisting of more restrictions, or option two which would not allow the City to require additional improvements. Commissioner Greenwald questioned Mr. Bednarz on why staff feels that option one is a better fit. He questioned Mr. Bednarz on whether staff feels if having more requirements will make a better development. Mr. Bednarz explained that with a PUD there is more of a guarantee, for example all lots would be sodded and irrigated. He mentioned that on the west side of Hanson Blvd. and 132 "d Avenue there's a development that came up 12 years ago, however there is a varying degree of maintenance. Commissioner Hedin questioned if there is an illustration available without the twinhouse units. Mr. Bednarz explained how the development would look without the twinhouse • units. Commissioner Kirchoff questioned if there would be an association to ensure that all lots would be maintained. Mr. Bednarz stated that there would be an association for the entire development. Commissioner Gamache questioned if the twinhouses would be for rent or owned. Commissioner Greenwald questioned what level of control the City would have at the time of building. Mr. Bednarz explained that when a PUD has been developed in the past, there has been an elevation approval required. Motion by Greenwald, seconded by Kirchoff, to open the public hearing at 7:44 p.m. Motion carried on a 5 -ayes, 0 -nays, 2- absent (Squires and Falk) vote. The applicant Bill Gleason, stated that last time this the proposal included 35 detached town homes, however now that's decreased substantially. He stated that it was his understanding the neighbors didn't want to meet even though this was the Council's recommendation. He explained that he's trying to keep the costs down, therefore if the lots are bigger the houses become cheaper. He stated that he doesn't feel it's in the best interest of the neighborhood to have 80 -foot lots. He mentioned that they feel this proposal would be a benefit to the City, since it could be bermed and landscaped. The . twinhomes would help make the homes more affordable, furthermore they are nice looking units. He explained that the twinhomes would be owned and not rented. There Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes — May 14, 2002 Page 6 • would be an association on the area that would make sure the properties are maintained. Finally, he mentioned that the lot square footage exceeds what is throughout the rest of the City. Carol Cooper, 1690 146"' Avenue, stated that her property abuts the proposed development. She stated that the area residents still feel there are too many houses for the area. She stated that the lots should be more in tuned to what is in the surrounding area. She questioned if the property would still have to be rezoned. Mr. Bednarz stated that the property wouldn't have to be rezoned as multi - family, however it would need to be rezoned from R -3 to R -4. He explained that two twinhomes aren't considered multi- family, but instead apartments or condominiums are considered multi - family units. Ms. Cooper explained that the neighbors told the developer that they would be happy to look at a plan consisting of single - family homes, however they were never contacted. Dan Stay, 1668 146"' Avenue NW, stated that he lives on Lot 12 of the Pinewoods Development. He thanked the builder for the most recent plan, since at one point it wasn't an option to build single - family homes on this land. He mentioned that he still believes it would be too many homes. He also mentioned that with this plan his property would back up to three different properties, therefore he requested his property back up to just one property. He suggested the City take their time in making a decision since the • traffic levels will likely change once Natures Run and the school is completed. He stated that if the area were rezoned to R -4 it would be zoned the same as Pinewood Estates. He also suggested changing a few things to eliminate some of the homes, since it would likely be congested if developed the way it's presented. He mentioned that the Petersons on Lot 18 aren't happy with the proposal since there would be a road put in right next to their property line. He again suggested the City wait to see what happens in the next few months in terms of the traffic levels. Commissioner Greenwald questioned when Mr. Stay received the plan from builder. Mr. Stay stated that he received a letter a week ago from the City. Commissioner Greenwald questioned Mr. Stay on how many homes he feels is appropriate for the area. Mr. Stay suggested taking out either two or three homes to widen the lots, so there would be only one property backed up to his property line instead of three. Commissioner Greenwald questioned Mr. Stay on what the topography features are of his backyard. Mr. Stay explained that his lot goes into the woods approximately five feet on one side and about fifteen feet on the other side. He stated that he wants to keep as many trees as possible. Patty Stay, 1668 146"' Avenue, stated that she would like to see the area develop as single family. She stated that they aren't against development, however they are requesting the density be brought down. She mentioned that they are totally against the twinhomes, Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes — May 14, 2002 • Page 7 since it would only take away from the aesthetics of the neighborhood. She also mentioned that they didn't know anything about two different options. She stated that it would make more sense if this development didn't have all the restrictions since their development doesn't have the restrictions. Mr. Gleason stated that it was his understanding that the neighbors didn't want to meet. He stated that he is more than willing to meet with the neighbors to discuss the development. He mentioned that the goal is to put in better housing. It is possible to put in only single - family homes, however the houses may suffer since the lots are big. Commissioner Gamache questioned what would happen if the area remained in the R -3 zoning district. Mr. Gleason explained that R -3 zoning is a holding zone and sewer and water wouldn't be available. Commissioner Greenwald questioned the price range for the single - family homes. Mr. Gleason stated that the single - family homes would be in the $250,000 to $300,000 price range. He explained that there is a ratio that needs to be met, however the number of buyers in this price range is decreasing. Commissioner Kirchoff stated that to him the second option is the less favorable of the two. Mr. Gleason stated that he is willing to do strictly single - family homes, however i option one would be a better project. Ms. Stay questioned if there would be multiple builders. Mr. Gleason stated that at this point this hasn't been decided. There was no further public input. Motion by Gamache, seconded by Hedin, to close the public hearing at 8:07 p.m. Motion carried on a 5 -ayes, 0 -nays, 2- absent (Squires and Falk) vote. Commissioner Gamache questioned if Pinewood Estates is zoned R -4. Mr. Bednarz stated that that is correct. Acting Chair Daninger explained that the development went from originally having 35 single - family homes to 12 single - family homes. He stated that the area would probably be rezoned to R -4. He reminded the Commission that the PUD would have more restrictions, and if it were decided to go with strictly single - family homes the twinhomes would be eliminated and the lots would be 80 feet wide. Mr. Bednarz stated that that is correct. Commissioner Hedin mentioned that regardless of either option the lots would need to be buildable lots. Mr. Bednarz stated that all of the lots are considered buildable. Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes —May 14, 2002 Page 8 • Commissioner Greenwald questioned if all the single - family lots meet or exceed the minimum square feet requirements. Mr. Bednarz stated that all the single - family lots would meet the requirements for the R -4 zoning district. He explained that the only requirement they would be under is the width. Acting Chair Daninger questioned why one lot couldn't be eliminated in order to make all the lots 80 feet wide if the City were to go with option two. Commissioner Gamache questioned if a variance would be required on all the lots. Mr. Bednarz explained that a variance wouldn't be required if the development was built as a PUD. Commissioner Greenwald stated that he would rather see better homes than to reduce the lot size, since this would only improve the surrounding areas. Commissioner Hedin stated that he would like to see 80 -foot lots. He mentioned that he believes the market will support one less lot. He also mentioned that he doesn't feel the City needs the twinhomes. Commissioner Gamache stated that he's comfortable with the proposal as presented with the two twinhomes. Commissioner Kirchoff questioned if lots one through five would have a fence. • Commissioner Kirchoff stated that he likes the idea of having a PUD. Commissioner Hedin stated that he doesn't like the idea of a PUD and would like to see 80 -foot lots. Commissioner Greenwald stated that he isn't in favor of the PUD and would like to see 70 -foot lots. Acting Chair Daninger stated that he isn't in favor of a PUD and would like to see 80- foot lots. He mentioned that he would like to see the number of variances limited. Commissioner Greenwald mentioned concerns regarding the possibility that the homes could become high priced. Commissioner Greenwald stated that he would support the idea of 80 -foot lots. Acting Chair Daninger stated that the majority of the Commission is in favor of 80 -foot lots in an R -4 zoning district, with no PUD. Mr. Bednarz stated that this item will come before the City Council at the June 4, 2002 • City Council meeting. Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes — May 14, 2002 • Page 9 PUBLIC HEARING: RESIDENTIAL SKETCHPLANFOR A SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT LOCATED AT 1444161"A VENUE NW— MARK TIBBETTS. Mr. Bednarz summarized the staff report. Motion by Greenwald, seconded by Gamache, to open the public hearing at 8:24 p.m. Motion carried on a 5 -ayes, 0 -nays, 2- absent (Squires and Falk) vote. There was no public input. Motion by Kirchoff, seconded by Gamache, to close the public hearing at 8:25 p.m. Motion carried on a 5 -ayes, 0 -nays, 2- absent vote. Commissioner Kirchoff questioned if there will be a need for any variances on this project. Mr. Bednarz stated that there wouldn't be any variances necessary for this project. Commissioner Hedin mentioned that the proposal looks great and makes sense the way it's laid out. Commissioner Kirchoff agreed. • The consensus among the Commission was that the sketch plan looks great, therefore there were no issues of concern. PUBLIC HEARING: RESIDENTMI, SKETCH PLAN FOR A SINGLE FAMIL Y DEVELOPMENT LOCATED AT 16034 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD NW — BR UEGGEMAN HOMES Associate Planner D. Tyler McKay explained that the Commission is being asked to review a residential sketch plan for `Constance Corners', a property located east of Burlington Northern and Santa Fe railway, South of CSAH 20/161 Avenue and west of Crosstown Boulevard. Ordinance 10, Section 6 outlines the requirements for sketch plan review. The Planning Commission is being asked to informally advise the subdivider of the extent to which the plan conforms to the Comprehensive Plan, design standards of city, county, state and federal agencies and possible modification necessary to secure approval of the plan. Submission of a sketch plan doesn't constitute formal filing of a plat. Mr. McKay stated that the project area is approximately 36.8 acres. The proposed density conforms with the low- density land use designation from the Comprehensive Plan for the property, which allows up to 3 units per acre without PUD review. The property is zoned Single Family Rural. A rezoning to Single Family Urban would be necessary to bring the zoning into alignment with the Comprehensive Plan and to allow the project to move forward. Many of the lots border wetland mitigation areas, especially south of 160' Lane and west of Quince Street. Review by the Coon Creek Watershed Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes — May 14, 2002 Page 10 • Management Organization would determine whether this development proposal is feasible. The purpose of outlot A at the northeast corner of the sketch plan is to allow the existing Church to meet minimum setback requirements should it decide to expand. Outlot B at the southwest corner of the sketch plan will also be combined with adjacent property to the south of it. Both of these properties must become party to the plat before this can move through the preliminary plat phase. The applicant doesn't plan on creating these outlots unless the adjacent property owners wish to purchase them. A covenant would then be necessary to ensure this takes place. Mr. McKay stated that although the majority of the lot sizes and arrangements conform to the R -4 requirements there are two properties that are questionable. The cul -de -sac on the southwest corner of the sketch plan may need to be shortened in order to allow lots 22 and 23 to meet the minimum depth requirements of 130 feet before the preliminary plat phase. The property is located inside the MUSA line. Utilities would need to be established to serve the proposed development. Access to the development would be provided from Crosstown Boulevard, 161 Avenue and Sycamore Street by way of Crosstown Boulevard. The sketch indicates a curvilinear 60 -foot wide street that begins on Crosstown Boulevard and ends at 161" Avenue. A planting plan, which would provide buffering of the residential area from the county road would be necessary with the preliminary plat. The developer would also be required to meet all applicable ordinances, and would be responsible to meet all necessary permits. is Commissioner Hedin questioned if there would be an outlot on the southwest corner. Mr. McKay stated that once it's completed there wouldn't be an outlot. Commissioner Hedin questioned how the fire department feels about the length of the cul -de -sac. Mr. McKay stated that they did have concerns, however they didn't make any formal statement. Mr. Bednarz explained that Sycamore would be a temporary cul- de -sac Commissioner Greenwald questioned clarification on the NE corner in regards to the church. Mr. McKay went on to explain that the church has mentioned the possibility of purchasing some property, however it's up in the air at this time (the developer is interested in selling the property to them). Commissioner Hedin questioned if this would change the location of the lots. Mr. McKay stated that that is correct. Commissioner Kirchoff questioned if the county highway department has reviewed the plan and given any input regarding the access on Sycamore, especially since it's so close to the railroad tracks. Mr. McKay stated that a few weeks ago a sketch plan was sent to the county, however there's been no response as of today. • Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes — May 14, 2002 Page 11 • Motion by Kirchoff, seconded by Greenwald, to open the public hearing at 8:35 p.m. Motion carried on a 5 -ayes, 0 -nays, 2- absent (Squires and Falk) vote. The applicant Greg Schlink, clarified on outlot B that where the road forms the cul -de- sac, an encroachment is created. He mentioned that they are discussing with the property owners the option of exchanging property. Commissioner Hedin questioned if the property owners are receptive to the idea of exchanging property. Mr. Schlink stated that they haven't come to an agreement yet, however the option is currently being discussed. Lee ' from Ham Lake (no address stated), stated that it would be possible to get sufficient size houses on Lots 22 and 23, since at the most narrowest point the lots would be 45 feet deep. The house pad would be 65 feet wide and 50 feet deep. The minimum size house would be 2,500 square feet, however they don't feel the lot size would be a problem. Commissioner Hedin questioned if they tend to find more expensive homes on smaller lots or larger Iots. Mr. Schlink stated that typically more expensive homes are found on larger lots. • Mr. (Lee) stated that the existing Sycamore Street ends at a dead end, which is 800 feet from the intersection to the south. He explained that they would be adding 300 feet to the 800 feet. He mentioned that the reason they are requesting a variance is because they border the railroad tracks and a wetland, therefore there is no place for the street to extend. Commissioner Hedin questioned if the cul -de -sac would be 1,100 feet in length. Mr. (Lee) stated that that is correct. Commissioner Kirchoff questioned if Lots 22 and 23 would require a variance since they would have a smaller building pad. Mr. McKay stated that the lot width would require a variance, however the buildable space is fine. Commissioner Gamache questioned if Sycamore Street could be swung out clockwise. Mr. McKay stated that it has been suggested, however he was unsure as to whether or not it's possible. Commissioner Kirchoff agreed with the idea of turning it clockwise. Shan , 15890 Sycamore St., explained that their property is the property the developer wants to be exchanged. She stated that they aren't sure if they want to make the exchange or not, since they want to keep their privacy. She questioned if it would be possible to curve the road and use some of the land instead of putting houses on all three lots (Lots 22, 23, and 24). Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes —May 14, 2002 Page 12 Stan Carlson, 680 Constance Blvd., questioned if they plan to put in sewer and water in the area. Mr. Bednarz stated that that is correct. Mr. Carlson questioned how his taxes would be affected and whether or not there would be any assessments. Mr. Bednarz explained that the Anoka County Accessor determines the value, however because your property is outside the MUSA line there is no reason to believe they would value your property any different than what it is now. Gary Cider, 15955 Crosstown Blvd., questioned if there has ever been any talk of a fire station going in next to his property. Acting Chair Daninger suggested Mr. Cider discuss this with staff at another time. Judy Carlson, 680 Constance Blvd., questioned what type of homes they plan to develop. Mr. McKay stated that at this time there aren't any twinhomes in the plan, only single - family homes. Ms. Carlson questioned how many single - family homes would be developed. Mr. McKay stated that the plan consists of 43 single - family homes. • Ms. Carlson questioned if it would bring down the value of her property. Mr. McKay • stated that it shouldn't bring down the value of her property. There was no further public input. Motion by Hedin, seconded by Gamache, to close the public hearing at 8:54 p.m. Motion carried on a 5 -ayes, 0 -nays, 2- absent (Squires and Falk) vote. Commissioner Gamache stated that he would like to explore the idea of moving the cul- de -sac clockwise towards the east. Commissioner Kirchoff agreed, however stated that it could be limited because of the wetlands to the east. He suggested staff look at where Sycamore Street comes out onto County Road 20. He suggested staff look into the possibility of moving the access to the east because of the railroad tracks. Commissioner Hedin stated that he has no problem with the location of the cul -de -sac. He stated that it would be in the best interest if the property owner and the developer could agree to swap land. Commissioner Greenwald suggested there be something in writing from the fire department regarding the length of the cul -de -sac. Mr. McKay stated that he would receive something in writing from the fire department, before this proceeds to City Council. Mr. Bednarz stated that this item will come before the Council at the June 4, 2002 City • Council meeting. Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes — May 14, 2002 • Page 13 PUBLIC HEARING: LOT SPLIT (02 -03) WITH VARIANCES TO MINIMUM LOT WIDTH FOR PROPERTY WITHOUT ADDRESS LOCATED IMMEDJA TEL Y SO UTH OF 13503 CROOKED LAKE BOULEVARD EAST OF THE INTERSECTION OF 135 CIRCLE AND CROOKED LAKE BOULEVARD (PARCEL ID 33- 32 -24 -43 -0001) — JOHN STAHNKE HOMES. Mr. Bednarz explained that the Commission is being asked to review the lot split and variance request of John Stahnke to split the vacant lot immediately south of 13503 Circle and Crooked Lake Boulevard east of the intersection of 135 Circle and Crooked Lake Boulevard. A variance is requested to the minimum lot width requirements of Ordinance 8, Section 6.02. The current zoning of the property is R -4, Single Family Urban. Mr. Bednarz stated that Mr. Stahnke is requesting to split the current property, with a width of 154.45 feet, into two urban residential lots with a width of 77.22 feet for Tract A and 77.23 feet for Tract B. The minimum lot frontage for this zoning district is 80 feet. Ordinance 10, Section 17 provides the procedure for reviewing variance requests. Sewer and water stubs have been constructed for two lots on this property. Staff has asked Mr. Stahnke to contact his neighbors to the North and South to determine • their interest of selling him the additional land that would be needed to meet the minimum lot width requirements. A county ditch easement, 40 feet wide, used to divide the property, but has since been vacated as of February 7, 2002. Attached is a letter from the Anoka County Attorney's Office confirming the vacation easement along with resolution. The City Engineer has asked that the existing pipe be removed prior to issuance of a building permit. Mr. Bednarz stated that staff recommends approval with the following conditions: soil borings to establish buildability, remove existing pipe before building permit is issued, establish 10 -foot easement in front and back, and 5 -foot easement on the sides of both properties to preserve 100 -year flood plain (easements would need to be recorded as separate document). Commissioner Greenwald questioned if the owner would have to remove the pipe. Mr. Bednarz stated that as a condition of approval John Stahnke Homes would be required to remove the pipe. Acting Chair Daninger questioned what kind of pipe. Mr. Bednarz stated that it's a storm sewer pipe. Commissioner Gamache questioned if the pipe has been removed on the neighboring property. Mr. Stahnke stated that the pipe hasn't been removed from the neighboring • property. Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes — May 14, 2002 Page 14 • Commissioner Gamache questioned if removing the pipe will affect the adjacent neighbor. Mr. Bednarz stated that it shouldn't be a problem. Commissioner Hedin questioned if the full intention in the past was that it be two lots. Mr. Bednarz stated that that is correct. Motion by Hedin, seconded by Greenwald, to open the public hearing at 9:04 p.m. Motion carried on a 5 -ayes, 0 -nays, 2- absent (Squires and Falk) vote. Kathy Swenson, 13453 Crooked Lake Blvd., stated that the pipe is filled on her side, however it is a 6 to 8 foot pipe. She stated that she hopes they maintain the property when its tore up on the one side. She mentioned concerns about the staggering of the homes, since it would take away her backyard. Mr. Bednarz explained that the City can't restrict the location of the house as long as it's within the setback requirements. Ms. Swenson stated that she isn't opposed to the 74 -feet, however is just concerned about her view in her backyard. Mr. Bednarz questioned Ms. Swenson if her home faces Crooked Lake Blvd. Ms. Swenson said yes. Commissioner Hedin questioned the location of the driveway. Ms. Swenson explained • that she has two lots, she pointed out their location along with the driveways. Commissioner Kirchoff suggested a fence as a possibility. Ms. Swenson explained that her neighbor lives to the south of their property, furthermore their driveway is 5 -feet from his yard. She stated that they've had problems in the past regarding her blowing snow in the neighbor's yard. She mentioned that when they bought the home it was like this, however they don't want something like this to happen to anyone else. Mr. Stahnke stated that they have two interested buyers in the properties. He explained that they are looking to place the homes back 200 -250 feet from the road, furthermore the driveways would be located in the middle of the lots. He mentioned that they plan to keep as many trees as possible. Commissioner Gamache questioned if the homes would be staggered. Mr. Stahnke stated that the homes would be staggered if it's the buyers choice, however it wouldn't make much sense since one wouldn't be able to enjoy the privacy. Commissioner Hedin stated that it appears Mr. Stahnke is doing everything possible to keep the driveways as far away from Ms. Swenson's property. Ms. Swenson agreed, however stated that they would still be in her backyard. u Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes — May 14, 2002 . Page 15 Commissioner Hedin questioned if there is woods near the area. Mr. Stahnke pointed out the location of the woods. He explained that the idea of placing the homes back is because of the drainage ditch and to be able to enjoy the privacy. Commissioner Greenwald questioned Mr. Stahnke if he would be removing the pipe. Mr. Stahnke stated that he wasn't aware there even was a pipe. Tony Capman, 2735 135"' Lane, stated that he isn't aware of anything dealing with the placement of the homes. He stated that he has spoken with the new owners and they have no problem with the lot split itself. Commissioner Hedin how close Mr. Capman's property line is to Crooked Lake Blvd., and whether or not the homes would affect his backyard. Mr. Capman explained that the backyards of the new homes would be his backyard. There was no further public input. Motion by Hedin, seconded by Gamache, to close the public hearing at 9:16 p.m. Motion carried on a 5 -ayes, 0 -nays, 2- absent (Squires and Falk) vote. Commissioner Kirchoff stated that he fills this is the best use of the site. Acting Chair Daninger questioned who made the recommendation to remove all of the pipe. Mr. Bednarz stated that it was the engineering department's recommendation. Commissioner Gamache questioned the reasoning behind removing all of the pipe. Commissioner Kirchoff suggested this be researched further or clarification received from the engineering department. Acting Chair Daninger mentioned that it could cause damage with the neighboring property owners. Motion by Greenwald, seconded by Gamache, to recommend to the City Council approval of Resolution No. _, granting the Lot Split with variances to minimum lot width for property without address located immediately south of 13503 Crooked Lake Boulevard, subject to the following condition: 1. That fiuther investigation be conducted to determine whether or not it is necessary to remove all of the pipe or just portions of it. Further Discussion C] Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes — May 14, 2002 Page 16 • Commissioner Hedin questioned if the pipe is closed up anywhere or does it go forever. Ms. Swenson explained that there are two sewer pipes, however there aren't any other access points other than the two and theirs is cemented. Acting Chair Daninger stated that it's important the City take the best approach for the neighborhood and for the health and safety of the area. Commissioner Hedin questioned what would happen to the neighboring properties if that section of the pipe were removed. Mr. Bednarz explained that the engineering department would have to research the various possibilities. Motion carried on a 5 -ayes, 0 -nays, 2- absent (Squires and Falk) vote. Mr. Bednarz stated that this item will come before the Council at the June 4, 2002 City Council meeting. PUBLIC HEARING: SPECIAL USE PERMIT (02 -06) FOR REPAIR GARAGE, TOWING SER VICE AND OUTDOOR STORAGE AT 3118162 LANE NW. Mr. McKay explained that the applicant is seeking approval of a repair garage, towing service, and outdoor storage in the Hughes Industrial Park. The City of Andover prohibits auto storage and reduction yards. The use of the property may only be limited • to repair services. Exterior storage of two or more unlicensed motor vehicles or the remains thereof is prohibited. Vehicles cannot be kept for the purpose of dismantling, sale of parts, sale as scrap, storage, or abandonment. Storage waste tires on the site is also prohibited. Mr. McKay stated that based on the nature of the business and the number of vehicles proposed to be stored on the property, staff has determined that this request will not meet the City's requirements. Ordinance No. 8, Section 7.01 Permitted Uses allows repair services in industrial districts, however Section 7.04 Uses Excluded prohibits auto storage and reduction yards, junk yards, and exterior storage of waste tires. The use of the property would be limited to repair services only. Ordinance 8, Section 8.01 allows exterior storage of no more than two unlicensed motor vehicles or remains thereof. He mentioned that staff is recommending denial of this request. The site was inspected on April 24, 2002 and number of substandard items were noted (those items are listed in the staff report dated May 14, 2002). Mr. McKay mentioned that the applicant has submitted a letter summarizing the details of the proposed towing, repair, and impound business. Commissioner Hedin questioned if the applicant has seen the list of substandard items that's included in the staff report. Mr. McKay stated that the list was indeed mailed weeks ago. • Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes — May 14, 2002 Page 17 • Commissioner Hedin questioned if there has been any response from the applicant regarding this list. Mr. McKay stated that he hasn't heard any response from the applicant. Motion by Greenwald, seconded by Hedin, to open the public hearing at 9:25 p.m. Motion carried on a 5 -ayes, 0 -nays, 2- absent (Squires and Falk) vote. The applicant Todd Pallum, stated that he's having a problem with how staff has grouped his business. He stated that it wouldn't be an outside storage and reduction site, but instead he is just requesting to be able to tow and impound abandoned vehicles. He stated that typically the vehicles are picked up within 24 hours, and if they aren't picked up they would be sent to one of the other storage yards. He presented the Commission with pictures of other towing facilities in the area. He agreed that improvements to the property are necessary. He went through the list that's included in the staff report and gave explanations and possible solutions to be done in time. Acting Chair Daninger questioned Mr. Pallum as to what he means by "in time ". Mr. Pallum explained that as a purchase agreement he will have a CD on the property and eventually it would be his property and he would then be able to do what he wants with it. He reiterated that the business wouldn't be a recycling yard. • Commissioner Hedin questioned Mr. Pallum on what he intends to do with the pole buildings. Mr. Pallum stated that they would need to be structurally sound whether it be him that fixes them or the seller. He mentioned that he isn't sure if anyone even went inside when the inspection was conducted. Commissioner Hedin questioned if the ordinance considers this as a grouping of two types of storage. Mr. McKay explained that Ordinance 225 prohibits auto storage and reduction yards. Commissioner Hedin stated that that doesn't sound like Mr. Pallum's business. Mr. Bednarz stated that this business would be considered an auto storage yard, furthermore the applicant has agreed to this classification. Commissioner Kirchoff stated that he has concerns with Mr. Pallum's statement "in time" in terms of completion of the items listed in the staff report. He mentioned that any other business that comes before the Commission with a request has addressed and completed the areas of concern or will have addressed them by the time the business is in operation. There was no further public input. Motion by Greenwald, seconded by Gamache, to close the public hearing at 9:37 p.m. • Motion carried on a 5 -ayes, 0 -nays, 2- absent (Squires and Falk) vote. Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes — May 14, 2002 Page 18 Commissioner Greenwald stated that he agrees with Commissioner Kirchoff regarding the Special Use Permit. He mentioned that the business going into the Andover Station development have a number of requirements to fill. He also mentioned that the items that would need to be addressed aren't a quick fix, furthermore there's no guarantee that Mr. Pallum will be successful. Mr. McKay mentioned that the building official did submit a report. It included a number of items that need to be addressed after he had completed the walk through. Commissioner Gamache mentioned that even if all improvements were made, the fact remains that in the past the City has tried to get rid of auto storage yards. Acting Chair Daninger stated that for the record, Mr. Pallum submitted to the Commission a letter dated May 14, 2002 and several pictures showing what similar businesses look like. Motion by Greenwald, seconded by Gamache, to recommend to the City Council approval of Resolution No. R _, Denying the Special Use Permit Request of Todd Pallum for a Repair Garage, Towing Service and Outdoor Storage for Property Located at 3118 162 Lane NW. Further Discussion Commissioner Greenwald explained that his reason for denial is because there was no plan stated on how and when the items listed in the staff report dated May 14, 2002 would be completed. He mentioned that the Commission isn't denying Mr. Pallum his opportunity for a business, therefore if he were to come back with a plan, it's possible the Commission would consider his request. Motion carried on a 5 -ayes, 0 -nays, 2- absent (Squires and Falk) vote. Mr. Bednarz stated that this item will come before the Council at the June 4, 2002 City Council Meeting. PUBLIC HEARING: SPECIAL USE PERMIT (02 -07) FOR RETAIL TRADEAND SERVICES IN THE INDUSTRIAL ZONING DISTRICT FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3138162" LANE NW— CLARENCE ZUELEGER. • • Mr. McKay explained that the Commission is being requested to recommend approval of a retail trade and services in the Industrial Zoning District. He stated that all applicable ordinances would be required to be met. The applicant describes the retail use as limited with hours from approximately 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday through Friday and an occasional evening until 8:00 p.m. as needed, and Saturday 10:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. Currently this business is operated from a private home with minimal customer traffic. . The building will be used for both producing plaques, trophies, engraving, embroidery, Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes —May 14, 2002 Page 19 • and silk screening as well as retail sale of these items. The applicant plans to renovate the current site including a complete reconstruction of the front building and new landscaping to make the property more attractive for customers. Mr. McKay stated that the proposed renovation and retail use will have a beneficial effect on the general welfare of the surrounding area by increasing property values, aesthetic image of the property and allowing residents better access to this business. The increase in traffic will not be detrimental to neighboring businesses or residents. This property will need to be inspected by the Building Department to find it to be in compliance with the Uniform Building and Fire Codes. This Special Use Permit shall be subject to an annual review. The applicant has submitted a letter summarizing the details of the proposed business. Commissioner Gamache questioned if the Special Use Permit is for the retail use. Mr. McKay stated that that is correct. Commissioner Greenwald questioned if the applicant sells the property would the retail part then be null and void. Mr. Bednarz stated that this could be listed as a condition, however if there isn't a condition the permit would go with the building. Commissioner Greenwald questioned if a condition could be added stating that if the • building were sold it would have to be brought before the Commission at that time. Mr. Bednarz stated that it would be possible to add a condition stating something such as this. Acting Chair Daninger questioned if the areas of concern and/or issues have been addressed by the applicant. Mr. McKay stated that the applicant does have a plan as to completing the items that need to be done prior to opening, furthermore this case doesn't have issues like the previous request. Motion by Greenwald, seconded by Hedin, to open the public hearing at 9:47 p.m. Motion carried on a 5 -ayes, 0 -nays, 2- absent (Squires and Falk) vote. The Applicant Clarence Zuleger, stated that they do have a plan of what needs to be accomplished prior to opening. He stated that the front part of the building will be for retail sales and they plan to add a 30'X40' building for production. He stated that the two buildings behind have been inspected. All codes and ordinances will be met in regards to the building and parking lot. He mentioned that the landscaping and signage will be done in conjunction with the remodeling of the property. He stated that they want the building to look nice. He questioned if the business could be transferred if he were to sell it. Mr. Bednarz explained that it would depend on how the Commission drafts the resolution. It would depend on whether it were tied to the sale of the property or specific products, or the square footage of the building. 0 Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes — May 14, 2002 Page 20 • Acting Chair Daninger questioned if the permit could be reviewed yearly. Mr. Bednarz stated that that is a possibility. Commissioner Hedin stated that he doesn't see harm in having it run with the owner, therefore if he were to sell and/or retire it shouldn't be a problem to have the permit renewed. Commissioner Gamache stated that he would like to see it reviewed and if the business is in good standing there shouldn't be a problem. Commissioner Hedin stated that he doesn't want to pre- approve something since a new owner may want to add something to the business. Mr. Bednarz stated that any expansion of the building or the use would have to require the owner to come back for an amendment because of a specific square footage. Commissioner Hedin mentioned that this could be the type of business that will really help improve the area. There was no further public input. Motion by Gamache, seconded by Greenwald, to close the public hearing at 9:55 p.m. i Motion carried on a 5 -ayes, 0 -nays, 2- absent (Squires and Falk) vote. Motion by Hedin, seconded by Gamache, to recommend to the City Council approval of Resolution No. R_, Approving the Special Use Permit Request of Clarence T. Zuleger for Retail Trade and Services in the Industrial Zoning District for the Property Located at 3138 162 Lane NW, subject to the following condition: That the permit runs with the current owner, Clarence T. Zuleger, and any new owner would be required to reapply for a permit. Further Discussion Commissioner Greenwald questioned if the owner were to sell his business than the new owner would have to reapply for a permit. Commissioner Hedin stated that that is correct. Commissioner Greenwald questioned if a new owner would be grandfathered into these conditions or would there be new requirements. Acting Chair Daninger explained that the new owner would come before the Commission just as Mr. Zuleger has done. Motion carried on a 5 -ayes, 0 -nays, 2- absent (Squires and Falk) vote. • Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes — May 14, 2002 Page 21 • Mr. Bednarz stated that this item will come before the Council at the June 4, 2002 City Council meeting. OTHER BUSINESS Mr. Bednarz mentioned that Planning Intern Jason Angell has decided to take a position with the Chanhassen Planning Department. His last day will be next Friday. Multi -Sports Task Force Report - Commissioner Hedin stated at the last meeting the YMCA was present and gave a presentation on how they could help with the project. He stated that their thoughts were well received and the task force plans to continue discussing different options with the YMCA. Commissioner Kirchoff questioned if a vote by the public would ever be taken regarding the Multi -Sports Facility. Commissioner Hedin stated that that is something that's currently being discussed. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Hedin, seconded by Greenwald, to adjourn the meeting at 10:03 p.m. Motion carried on a 5 -ayes, 0 -nays, 2- absent (Squires and Falk) vote. Respectfully Submitted, Sara Beck, Recording Secretary Timesaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. LJ 3 'O G) TO: FROM CITY OF ANDOVER 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. • ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 • (763) 755 -5100 FAX (763) 755 -8923 • WWW.CLANDOVER.MN.US Planning and Zoning Commissioners Courtney Bednarz, City P1anni SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING: Preliminary Plat for a rural residential plat to be known as `Silver Meadows' containing eight lots located at 16326 Verdin Street NW. Staff report by Courtney Bednarz, City Planner. DATE: May 28, 2002 INTRODUCTION This item is a rural residential plat proposing to create eight rural properties from a forty acre parcel located north and west of the intersection of CSAH 20 and Verdin Street NW. The Planning and Zoning Commission previously reviewed this proposal as a sketch plan on November 13, 2001. • DISCUSSION Review Process Ordinance 10, Section 7 outlines the requirements for preliminary plat review. The Planning Commission is asked to determine whether the proposed subdivision is in conformity with the Comprehensive Plan and in conformance with City ordinances. The following information is required to be provided for your review: ORDINANCE 10, SECTION 9 OUTLINES THE REVIEW CRITERIA AND STANDARD_ _ S USED BY THE CITYDURING THE REVIEW OFPLATS. 9.01 General Requirements The subject property must be subdivided in a manner which utilizes existing infrastructure and/or allows for the efficient extension of existing infrastructure. The proposed development is a rural plat that will have on site utilities. 9.02, 9.03 Street Plan The proposal contains two accesses to Verdin Street NW. A previous plan contained two cul -de- sacs. At the Planning and Zoning Commission's recommendation, a street connection was made between them and the south cul -de -sac was eliminated. A 60 foot wide right -of way will be provided. The streets will be constructed in conformance with the City's regulations for rural residential streets. All work within the public right -of -way must conform with the requirements of Ordinance No. 247 and be coordinated with the City of Andover Engineering Department. Boulevard Sodding Four inches of black dirt and sod are required to be installed within all boulevard areas. 9.04 Easements The standard rural drainage and utility easements (ten feet wide along all property lines) will be provided as a part of this project as indicated on the preliminary plat. Additional easements will be established to cover all wetland areas. 9.06 Lots Lots 1 and 2, Block 1 are below the 2.5 acre minimum lot size as indicated in the table below. Standard Requirement Pro osed Lot 1, Block 1 Lot 2, Block 2 Lot Area 2.5 acres 2.33 acres 2.31 acres Lot width 300 feet 363 feet 363 feet Lot Depth 150 feet 280 feet 280 feet The lots are below the minimum lot size as a result of the roadway connection (Wren Street) which consumes 33,000 square feet (.75 acres). The roadway connection was requested by the City to improve interior access and to eliminate one of the cul -de -sacs. The roadway cannot be moved further west to increase the size of these lots without affecting the buildable area for Lots 4 and 5, Block 2. Buildability requirements of Ordinance No. 10 Section 9.06a(I) All lots are required to meet the provisions of Ordinance No. 10, Section 9.06a(1) which relates to lot size and buildability requirements. The applicant has demonstrated that each of the lots will be buildable. 9.07 Parks, Park Dedication The Park and Recreation Commission recommended that park dedication fees be collected for this development. Additional Comments A trail will be provided to connect this development to Lund's North Park as well as to aid pedestrian access to Rum River Elementary School. Specific comments related to the trail are included in the attached engineering memorandum. The developer is also required to meet the following City Ordinances and all other applicable ordinances: • Ordinance No. 8, the Zoning Ordinance Ordinance No. 10, the Platting and Subdivision Ordinance Ordinance No. 107, Shoreland Management Ordinance Ordinance No. 108, Flood Plain Management Ordinance 2 Ordinance No. 114, Wetland Buffer Ordinance Ordinance No. 214, Diseased Shade Tree Ord. & Tree Preservation Policy Coordination with other Agencies The developer and/or owner is responsible to obtain all necessary permits (Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, U.S. Army Corp of Engineers, Coon Creek Watershed District, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, LGU and any other agency that may have an interest in the site). Initial contact shall be made with the City Engineering Department regarding this item. Development Contract The development contract for this subdivision will cover grading, erosion control, street maintenance, sodding of boulevards, lighting, tree protection and the placing of iron monuments. A financial guarantee will ensure that these items are completed. Attachments Resolution Location Map Preliminary Plat (11x17 in packet) Grading Plan (11x17 in packet) Trail Plan • Engineering Comments dated May 7, 2002. Public Notice ACTION REQUIRED The Planning and Zoning. Commission is asked to recommend approval or denial of the Preliminary Plat for Silver Meadows. Re ect I submi ed, o ar J� Cc: Chet Wieloch 4201 93` Avenue N Brooklyn Park, MN 55443 • 3 • CITY OF ANDOVER COUNTY OF ANOKA STATE OF MINNESOTA RES. NO R -02 A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY PLAT OF "SILVER MEADOWS" FOR CHET WIELOCH LOCATED AT 16326 VERDIN STREET NW LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS; The northeast quarter of the northeast quarter, Section 16, Township 32, Range 24, Anoka County, Minnesota. WHEREAS, the Andover Review Committee has reviewed the preliminary plat; and WHEREAS, pursuant to published and mailed notice thereof, the Planning and Zoning Commission has conducted a public hearing on said plat; and WHEREAS, as a result of such public hearing, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommends to the City Council the approval of the plat. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Andover hereby . agrees with the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approves the preliminary plat with the following conditions: 1. The developer obtains all necessary permits from the Coon Creek Watershed District, DNR, Corps of Engineers, LGU, MPCA and any other agency that may be interested in the site. 2. Contingent upon the approval of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Contract Rezoning and the Special Use Permit for the Planned Unit Development. If any one of these applications or requests fails to be approved, in whole or in part, the preliminary plat shall be considered null and void. 3. Park dedication per Ordinance No. 10, Section 9.07. 4. Contingent upon staff review and approval for compliance with City ordinances, policies and guidelines. 5. Such plat approval is contingent upon a development agreement acceptable to the City Attorney. A financial guarantee will be required as a part of this agreement to assure typical subdivision improvements will be completed. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Andover this day of 2002. CITY OF ANDOVER ATTEST: • Victoria Volk, City Clerk Michael R. Gamache, Mayor 0 Silver Meadows 7115 _. mYl I I 918 _.. g rcgtin� e,,,�siaBR 1 Vidn� ✓ ✓ 29u mat l i 7118 V '7116 teen 7164 mis 2564 ma xn wt seat 952 ygN Ole 18620 1a6n Yr6 2934 mN mm 9n MIT 971 mA Z27 b mm 7151 7116 9~ 161)0 tent 914 16716 19 MIN '6729 me 18'21 t8140 1W]] aR ax 2W ]6 71 2171 b '7164 1802 1664] 11014 oss 16716 � 16 NV rq EB7 o 'east 15671 18853 loss 140M, is xJ. tent 7113 U 2221 m) 1641' np mN 2559 .� 7101 155" 271's 185' 15X2 166)1 x91 1082 mO usa � z¢m leu2 leu9 Y '6488 ' 64 6 16453 16011 16432 V70 ma 1 2171 lemr 1 tun 1640 11 2176 942 �i 1630 fm tum 18x1 7115 7164 mYl I I 918 921 aDo 1646) 2225 I mm I 2'v I 5Am I ma =a 00 I 2134 2064 .= Iwo 1564' mO mm 78716 1871 toll =1 tN 1061 18716 2x1 Nee 1. all 71st � `" p 1NTN IN � W A 3 A S � N 718 1671' Project Location Map N M E s City of Andover Planning Department tan{ seat tam 17116 W57 2171 '7166 '7164 234 an xis NV rq EB7 109 tent 7113 aH 2221 m) np mN .= Iwo 1564' mO mm 78716 1871 toll =1 tN 1061 18716 2x1 Nee 1. all 71st � `" p 1NTN IN � W A 3 A S � N 718 1671' Project Location Map N M E s City of Andover Planning Department 1 '} i I � r !�_ J_.e i 1 j r� ! I t 1 E l I I i 1 1 I 1 I ° i - 1 M L 2 � q ■ ai •aweF ra Y.n eom DeM 04b.@ aV Its eMR FU Y I 1/ I.. 1 r T Ie I 1., I� I. I% I I' I, Z ' - m I I I I I 1 1 1 f - " 1 1 1 1 i .. 1 I I I L V — W O m m ( O ( CS 0 O \ SILVER MEADOWS johoCBp N O w O w O N O w q ""°'+"' ° n 1 ^ • °1N °t °S0 165TH AVENUE N.W. , aaa) eae • vu /mow) aw -rwe —.,,. CONSTRUCTION PLAN I.. w.. nw ,..........,..,,,_iw1..,,, aw e.o.ery., Cm4r. apnaala in / , i l o x . .. u p A . .. ......:.......:.:.......:.:.. .. \ I p +pJ ....:.:.......:.:.......:.:. I 0.1 1 : 1: 1: 1: S.. 5 1 I, ` P • S .. .. .. _ ..:.:... wen iP � I [ 1 { tY, i �b � _ J ...... .. .....:.:.......:.:.. .... .. MLA 1 we ear�� A °mao —. _ _ -- 14 : - .:J.... i i i P.i F �� -1 m .: ... p 1 p � • rn 33 E 1 '} i I � r !�_ J_.e i 1 j r� ! I t 1 E l I I i 1 1 I 1 I ° i - 1 M L 2 � q ■ ai •aweF ra Y.n eom DeM 04b.@ aV Its eMR FU Y I 1/ I.. 1 r T Ie I 1., I� I. I% I I' I, Z ' - m I I I I I 1 1 1 f - " 1 1 1 1 i .. 1 I I I L m 0) m m J OD m � p o w o N o w o N \ SILVER MEADOWS johoCBp &Aawdap lw- \ ANDOVER, MINNESOTA L�.'p nYn annyl„y.tswa ,all,ley FOR: CHEF WEfLOCH »er ew... aarw...4 arx rw STREET & STORM SEWER ""°'+"' ° n 1 ^ • °1N °t °S0 165TH AVENUE N.W. , aaa) eae • vu /mow) aw -rwe —.,,. CONSTRUCTION PLAN I.. w.. nw ,..........,..,,,_iw1..,,, aw e.o.ery., Cm4r. apnaala 1 '} i I � r !�_ J_.e i 1 j r� ! I t 1 E l I I i 1 1 I 1 I ° i - 1 M L 2 � q ■ ai •aweF ra Y.n eom DeM 04b.@ aV Its eMR FU Y I 1/ I.. 1 r T Ie I 1., I� I. I% I I' I, Z ' - m I I I I I 1 1 1 f - " 1 1 1 1 i .. 1 I I I L --- --------- FRIES STEVEN M & SUSAN JO 2597 161ST AVE NW 4MOVER, MN 55304 1114140007 HANSON PHILLIP & WINIFRED 2779 161ST AVE NW ANDOVER, MN 55304 163224130007 LARSON TAMARA S 2602 166TH AVE NW ANDOVER, MN 5 53 04 093224430003 POSTEN DAVID A & SANDRA L 2554 166TH AVE NW ANDOVER, MN 55304 093224440014 WHITNEY ROBERT JR & KATHLEEN 2520 166TH AVE NW OVER, MN 55304 4440013 HAMNI- DALE A & MARGARET A 2492 166TH AVE NW ANDOVER, MN 55304 093224440012 HEUERMAN JUNE & KULENKAMP D 1292 DUNBERRY LANE EAGAN, MN 55123 153224220001 NEHRT CLEO L 16326 VERDIN ST NW ANDOVER, MN 55304 163224110001 SCHERT GREGORY C & PATRICIA J 16571 VERDIN STNW ANDOVER, MN 55304 103224330003 YANT DALE P & STEPHANIE K 16489 ARROWHEAD ST NW ANDOVER, MN 5 53 04 163224120002 HANDEL AL C & JANET M 16532 VERDIN ST NW ANDOVER, MN 55304 093224440011 JOHANSSON RUSSELL & JULIE M 16274 VERDIN ST NW ANDOVER, MN 55304 163224140010 PICHA THOMAS G & KATHY D 16471 ARROWHEAD ST NW ANDOVER, MN 55304 163224120003 WENDT HAROLD V & IRENE D 3325 CRESTWIND DR LAKE HAZASU CITY, AZ 86404 103224330008 153224230017 • Y i ro �r LnLEE snei. P,mIM �Nd gl T2.0f AO ' SLdaSIRY 539BN SO F7 VARD 40 oLOt 1c v,O ,16'TMl -. 60 FAbHBIf :vw \a..\i.:JVJVw.�w �a �l�uvJV pg E y ` uY � A IIDF% ZOF LOIS 9 � IW9 ATE 3 ADE 021 I 0 i T �SUD #0 NA1ER Bf5'EM. InEskuel W.W 3 l aLs # Sax ' 1'' f E p Jr 27$WSp. FT. c - rL L f 9ON JJ 4 1 oFW ® 9 T \ o ■ - .ONB% iV IAWWILE '� m seffin A - � EAS" GhVN y JOAm saver » - -I— — N ELECTRQIM1ES —ONE — XLM .' RW DAs peimm sr ,. I E EOOBCLVNOS. aloI S L � A[cerseAtH. S \i: ��/:� X OSTOEPB L Vf �6 I L / ia� 1 LAw PAN( MN 6" wwly JN F I+ NE IA SWJON 16, TOWN6MP R. F E2, AN 00W ,, ETA ro E Mm UM17Y PAReJJ5 III 'd I I I ,r I I BONS 10 FEET B8 WDTA AND 1 ADIDINM FOQW FANAY AM LOT LIMB, LMUS D11 WSE NDTED. _ ❑ m .I D:$ b boo $ • v $T T ' K th M. o $ 5 Y 6 C � •� 41 q'� A 4 a y 4 mom yyF 4 Ir Y w 4 $ NICE �Otl �U ~ J Z Q w O j �LU ZZgT L U = W CJJ i s U a O ,c— 1.— 2 OF ,/ 7 e, LnLEE snei. P,mIM �Nd gl T2.0f AO ' SLdaSIRY 539BN SO F7 VARD 40 oLOt 1c v,O 60 A4 AL51W£79 60' E y ` uY ZOF LOIS 9 SM 2E AQ 3 ADE 021 I rygA 4016AOES - - lftw #0 NA1ER Bf5'EM. InEskuel W.W 6'6 <.EY323/StBrt INMdWi Seplc Open �TffD O5fRCT. LewariLm PMrWMO. DcsnNS: A,p E Mm UM17Y PAReJJ5 III 'd I I I ,r I I BONS 10 FEET B8 WDTA AND 1 ADIDINM FOQW FANAY AM LOT LIMB, LMUS D11 WSE NDTED. _ ❑ m .I D:$ b boo $ • v $T T ' K th M. o $ 5 Y 6 C � •� 41 q'� A 4 a y 4 mom yyF 4 Ir Y w 4 $ NICE �Otl �U ~ J Z Q w O j �LU ZZgT L U = W CJJ i s U a O ,c— 1.— 2 OF ,/ 7 • • I .•` d 9{ 'E0.TP6' " FUIL9B TRL TO �L W{ BECWSTIWED I R T � BY D -L P 9L]FENCEiTfff PROTECTION I � ]. ALLEIF'ATdS KEINREFEEENCETOTE BENWMAfMA18JM11 8TBE VRBFiEDBV CP1RMCfDRAT DfiWABEAH. •BILIFB1Mf IM RGIECf OfJ J. AL TAN DsKOFl WT"s SBHaL CCMPLT'MTHLLV.L CR]NaiCEaIJ qrY 9TANDAR09PEGFlWTNNI9, BIFFE RLIHE 16'WE N, ryETAl21 DElIM1EAhgi Np9 FE�OReEDW ADIMTICEC,90WTIW9.IW_ INE UNIN B, MAYIMW aLIXiBLEBIq£fi Ai£<:I WnON MUA&TEDI6TANCE R 11 WERE A,;p2m Nf PER YfAC (61 -01.61 CAM 11' "B7 A (6] ➢]AR fA.%E III C) , D.EARB Tw PI FCq T1E FIITUiETRAIL FMMETPAIL (IJ AEe: WED\ BVILT BY 1ER6. �- !OBEO N£ IUNDIMPACTARPAT3WSF.DWYEYAYd T A BFFER UN: + l '..Y......_.... ...... i SILTFENl BE9F YANASEMEIaTPRAC110E9 dY4LL BE ll11lII ®FOI ILLEFRYIW glRtd.. CQVTtAR0R 3MOLL REFfRTD PFIJIELTFA W4*ERd1ALtt W M RSANAlEAB W0.16NED 84 TIE M1NNE90TA PCLWTW CdRR0.AOENC(. 1. rtswL1 EE THECdrtFACTws TD G]EP( AxgwBlraN 111 ERJWw CDMRLL T(W TIE WRATI W CF THE PFmIET. al AiENIfEMENT9 CFTI£ N.PDE.9. PEF811T 9HALL� MET. S. THE CONfMRIXE9MLLIM16TALL 0MMiE SILT FEN.'EFRDR ONA9S M ' 1 SILIFFNC . THE FOLKCw6T1UCTW ENTRANC 9HALL EE CUBTRJL'IEDLPoN :CMPLETIpV OF ENfRSNC_ OPPDINO CFF 6 VEiON 91f£ET MV TiE D]M1TFCfdt IBU YR 9liALL RERWA L"LLS TM@.Hl qi ROOD E ` BB7.7O AS ]EPC9ITFb CFf.WIE w PAV EMEMNEIE . REMWP6HILLEE DE' UMNEDRYTHEOVHEFLON AaWn19HEDEr A ZAL L a DR WAEEPao W A DAB.Y Ba919. N49HNJ3 W LL NDf SEALLOAE0. ELEVATION ON 166THAVEMIE N.W. BLIAND NO W DpA ATId1 POMJ661NLL 8E CW T81REO6FCEE �dMIND dNa. IBWtT ALLDSTlF6EDgtWNO LE'TINACiIYC Fp21A giNq£dYS 9NlLBE ,,,pV E'UOBCW 9EEmNO AND MIACXIN6. FWWANENTCWERSWLLCc Ww '.'F MNDOT MW NO I W'MTH WDOTT'PE 1 MlM1bip,91.EDINIOTE BqL c1OSHALLCCNFORA TOMNpDT �EgFIWTIW ND.]S}9. N IWiJI INRPMFDAh 8POT ELWALON 0 N 1W 10o OATw BARN 'TORN ENR1 - 9aL BMW i, nLT fENceITFEfvwhcmw WETLA,09 vw � ]. ALLEIF'ATdS KEINREFEEENCETOTE BENWMAfMA18JM11 8TBE VRBFiEDBV CP1RMCfDRAT DfiWABEAH. •BILIFB1Mf IM RGIECf OfJ J. AL TAN DsKOFl WT"s SBHaL CCMPLT'MTHLLV.L CR]NaiCEaIJ qrY 9TANDAR09PEGFlWTNNI9, BIFFE RLIHE 16'WE N, ryETAl21 DElIM1EAhgi Np9 FE�OReEDW ADIMTICEC,90WTIW9.IW_ INE UNIN B, MAYIMW aLIXiBLEBIq£fi Ai£<:I WnON MUA&TEDI6TANCE R 11 WERE A,;p2m Nf PER YfAC (61 -01.61 CAM 11' "B7 A (6] ➢]AR fA.%E III C) , D.EARB Tw PI FCq T1E FIITUiETRAIL FMMETPAIL (IJ AEe: WED\ BVILT BY 1ER6. �- !OBEO N£ IUNDIMPACTARPAT3WSF.DWYEYAYd T A BFFER UN: + l '..Y......_.... ...... i SILTFENl BE9F YANASEMEIaTPRAC110E9 dY4LL BE ll11lII ®FOI ILLEFRYIW glRtd.. CQVTtAR0R 3MOLL REFfRTD PFIJIELTFA W4*ERd1ALtt W M RSANAlEAB W0.16NED 84 TIE M1NNE90TA PCLWTW CdRR0.AOENC(. 1. rtswL1 EE THECdrtFACTws TD G]EP( AxgwBlraN 111 ERJWw CDMRLL T(W TIE WRATI W CF THE PFmIET. al AiENIfEMENT9 CFTI£ N.PDE.9. PEF811T 9HALL� MET. S. THE CONfMRIXE9MLLIM16TALL 0MMiE SILT FEN.'EFRDR ONA9S M ' 1 SILIFFNC . THE FOLKCw6T1UCTW ENTRANC 9HALL EE CUBTRJL'IEDLPoN :CMPLETIpV OF ENfRSNC_ OPPDINO CFF 6 VEiON 91f£ET MV TiE D]M1TFCfdt IBU YR 9liALL RERWA L"LLS TM@.Hl qi ROOD E ` BB7.7O AS ]EPC9ITFb CFf.WIE w PAV EMEMNEIE . REMWP6HILLEE DE' UMNEDRYTHEOVHEFLON AaWn19HEDEr A ZAL L a DR WAEEPao W A DAB.Y Ba919. N49HNJ3 W LL NDf SEALLOAE0. ELEVATION ON 166THAVEMIE N.W. BLIAND NO W DpA ATId1 POMJ661NLL 8E CW T81REO6FCEE �dMIND dNa. IBWtT ALLDSTlF6EDgtWNO LE'TINACiIYC Fp21A giNq£dYS 9NlLBE ,,,pV E'UOBCW 9EEmNO AND MIACXIN6. FWWANENTCWERSWLLCc Ww '.'F MNDOT MW NO I W'MTH WDOTT'PE 1 MlM1bip,91.EDINIOTE BqL c1OSHALLCCNFORA TOMNpDT �EgFIWTIW ND.]S}9. r"%C LRMLR NJOE nU SWIM Lea o • L r�ll IF y I'IIile �il??i'77 C =� a ¢ ~ O a LS Q F LL b � N g � p 0 S u 4 I � C tl W A S i y m tl :ta L5 b � � OF RL$ K S f '°L e�a yy r N. e m be p111iC j Q L 06 J 99 =C7 pa OZ� Fo p O W W �c z_O� >8 °N N Q t L W W K 3 OF r® IWiJI INRPMFDAh 8POT ELWALON w ».. WRECnw 6 RM OATw BARN 'TORN ENR1 - 9aL BMW i, nLT fENceITFEfvwhcmw WETLA,09 vw ��IUIDUUtt vEnwnAS IELKATED IN NJIAm Emosct � NC, "o BODY ENTWIE � IRMW 6EPACREW BEIXMENW 3EPTCREO ' 9.WBBD.fT.WA111p19EAffP 2.00; ME IWAOTARM. E lk SIRMDIHTASLE CMC / 9uWplEN CURB AND OUTTER L.80WT1FTMN APPRDS,:D veaslnE rIOTLmIEAnPATH NOTE: nc Set CWC CLNB k GUTTER 1 SUI➢ILi TCEEEA'W TO BE USED AT ALL RADB TC AND CATCH SASNS RE 2. PR Of PE SE r"%C LRMLR NJOE nU SWIM Lea o • L r�ll IF y I'IIile �il??i'77 C =� a ¢ ~ O a LS Q F LL b � N g � p 0 S u 4 I � C tl W A S i y m tl :ta L5 b � � OF RL$ K S f '°L e�a yy r N. e m be p111iC j Q L 06 J 99 =C7 pa OZ� Fo p O W W �c z_O� >8 °N N Q t L W W K 3 OF r® q • CITY OF ANDOVER 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. • ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 • (763) 755 -5100 FAX (763) 755 -8923 • WWW.CLANDOVER.MN.US TO: Planning and Zoning Commissioners FROM: D. Tyler Mckay, Associate Plannerrel ? SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING: Rezoning (02 -01) to rezone property located at 1516 148' Lane NW from Rural Residential (R -1) to Urban Residentia (R -4)1. Staff report by D. Tyler Mckay, Associate Planner. DATE: May 28, 2002 INTRODUCTION The applicant is requesting that the property be rezoned to allow the property to be split into two urban residential lots. DISCUSSION The subject property is located within the Oak Bluff development. At the time this development was approved, consideration was given to ensure that the lots could be converted to urban residential lots as utilities became available (see attached minutes from the meetings). As with all rezonings, one of the two following findings must be made to justify the rezoning: The original zoning /land use was in error. The character of the area or tunes and conditions have changed to such an extent to warrant the Rezoning/Comprehensive Plan Amendment. In this case the character of the area has changed through the installation of municipal utilities and the resulting urban development that surrounds the property. Attachments Resolution Location Map Property Survey Public Notice Letter from Neighbor Minutes 18 ACTION REQUIRED The Planning Commission is asked to recommend approval or denial of the rezoning request. • Respectfully submitted, D. Tyler Mckay Cc: Ry -chel Gaustad, 1516 148 Lane NW • E —z— • CITY OF ANDOVER COUNTY OF ANOKA STATE OF MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO.8 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 8, SECTION 6.03, ZONING DISTRICT MAP OF THE CITY OF ANDOVER. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANDOVER HEREBY ORDAINS: Ordinance 8, Section 6.03, The Zoning District Map of the City of Andover is hereby amended as follows (PIN 26- 32- 24- 22- 0006): 1) Rezone land from Single Family Rural Residential (R -1), to Single Family Urban Residential (R -4)on approximately 0.9 acres legally described as: Lot 1, Block 4 OAK BLUFF, Anoka County, Minnesota 2) All other sections of the Zoning Ordinance shall remain as written and adopted by the City Council of the City of Andover. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Andover on this _ day of 2002. CITY OF ANDOVER ATTEST: Michael R. Gamache, Mayor Victoria Volk, City Clerk —2— , ~~ 1;1 i.5 :;::~ .~l!) :g~ ~ tl ~::s ~ ;t '" -' ~ ..J (f),... ir - 'If W-"U W tn ~ ~w~!z ~ c 'C> -,!;l!'!l w ~ CII g ~ CI)...J~~O t/J ~ ~N~ ... f3ti;O:Qti;o:iil 1l II ~ Iii ~LLJWI-WUJC) ..... _ ~.c 00:>--00:>--'" .ll . '" E O>--~w>--~< " ~'" l'l < (J):> CI) "":> a. (I) ij i;' iG _:;0 rJ .. iD tn ~ ii.i Cl. 0 0 .. D. S ::E:!1 ~ - -"-, . ;-ij' :, -:~ , ., . , "" -~-, ; ~---. :,', '- ,-, -' -' " " ',::-:, - ::_, ': ->- .' -, ,-' - _\.. .,' .".:, - ,. -,-,-", ':-, ,," '- . :-, ,': The plannin'gcmd Zoning Gommissj()n. of theyitY ofAndov~t wilf holdapuplic ", n~aring at7:00p.m;, Qrassoon thereattera$qanbe heard;:onTu~sday; May' .,28,2002'. at Andover Gity Hall, 1685CrosstownSlvdNVV; Andover",'~innesCltat(t... r~vJewthe.~~zoning frC?rJlRuraIResldentiaL(R~1) to U~banResidel1tl~I(-R-4)and' , , LotSP!itrequest JorRy~chel GaustaqforpropertyJocatedat ,1516, t4at~L~ne . described as follows: Current Resident Current Resident Current Resident 154 Eagle St. 1536 149' Ln. 1548 149' Ln. ver, MN 55304 Andover, MN 55304 Andover, MN 55034 Current Resident Current Resident Current Resident 14944 Crane St. 1587 148' Ln. 1571 148' Ln. Andover, MN 55304 Andover, MN 55304 Andover, MN 55304 Current Resident Current Resident Current Resident 14951 Drake St. 1555 148' Ln. 1539 148' Ln. Andover, MN 55304 Andover, MN 55304 Andover, MN 55304 Current Resident Current Resident Current Resident 1529 148` Ln. 1519 148' Ln. 1487 148' Ln. Andover, MN 55304 Andover, MN 55304 Andover, MN 55304 Current Resident Current Resident Current Resident 1455 148' Ln. 14844 Eagle St. 14841 Eagle St. Andover, MN 55304 Andover, MN 55304 Andover, MN 55304 • Current Resident Current Resident Current Resident 1516 148` Ln. 1484 148' Ln. 1524 149' Ln. Andover, MN 55304 Andover, MN 55304 Andover, MN 55304 Current Resident Current Resident Current Resident 1452 148' Ln. 14834 Eagle St. 14831 Eagle St. Andover, MN 55304 Andover, MN 55304 Andover, MN 55304 Current Resident Current Resident Current Resident 1519 148' Ave. 1507 148` Ave. 14824 Eagle St. Andover, MN 55304 Andover, MN 55304 Andover, MN 55304 Current Resident Current Resident Current Resident 14821 Eagle St. 1495 148' Ave. 1481 148' Ave. Andover, MN 55304 Andover, MN 55304 Andover, MN 55304 O ent Resident Current Resident Current Resident 1463 148' Ave. 14952 Crane St. 1447 148 Ave. Andover, MN 55304 Andover, MN 55304 Andover, MN 55304 Current Resident Current Resident Current Resident )W 1 14 Eagle St. 1537 148 Ave. 1553 148 Ave. ver, MN 55304 Andover, MN 55304 Andover, MN 55304 Current Resident Current Resident Administration Veterans 14804 Eagle St. 1490 148' Ave. Fort Snelling Federal Bldg. Andover, MN 55304 Andover, MN 55304 St. Paul, MN 55111 Current Resident Current Resident Current Resident 1476 148 Ave. 1462 148' Ave. 1502 148 Ave. Andover, MN 55304 Andover, MN 55304 Andover, MN 55304 Current Resident Robert & Kyung Frank Current Resident 1514 148 Ave. 13330 Nightengale St. 1560 149 Ln. Andover, MN 55304 Andover, MN 55304 Andover, MN 55304 Current Resident Current Resident Current Resident 1526 148 Ave. 1538 148' Ave. 1552 148 Ave. Andover, MN 55304 Andover, MN 55304 Andover, MN 55304 • .r. 7 • May 21, 2002 Written Comments on the Lot Split Request at 1516 148' Lane NW Linda and Guy Mahmarian who reside at 1484 — 148th Lane NW in Andover, immediately next door to the proposed lot split, have prepared these comments. We have lived in our home since August of 1987. The biggest factor in our decision to buy this house was the fact that the entire subdivision consisted of lots that were at least one acre in size. While we understood that the property to our north and south could be developed in a different manner, the way that Oak Bluff was zoned assured that the homes would be built on lots of at least one acre. We were told by our builder, Delserve, that any resident of Oak Bluff would need approval from the majority of the other residents before any lot splits would be considered. When the for sale sign appeared on the property next door to us we assumed that the residents of 148`" Lane would be required to give their approval before any final decision is made about the lot split. After speaking to Courtney Bednarz, Andover City Planner, we have realized that this is not the case. He explained that it is in the city's best interest to receive the additional money that will be generated from utilities and property taxes as a result of a lot split. While our comments are certainly welcome, it seems that they will have little or no bearing on this decision. We have, with great sadness, come to realize that the spacious surroundings that we have enjoyed for 15 years are about to be . permanently altered so that the new owners of the property and the City of Andover will benefit financially. With this in mind, we offer our comments so that the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council will have the opportunity to consider them as they make their decision in this matter. The way that 148` Lane was originally planned is the reason that we have lived here for 15 years, The residents of Oak Bluff have intentionally chosen to live here because of the way that the lots are zoned. The residents at 1516 have lived here less than 2 years and are now hoping to benefit financially with no regard for the welfare of those homeowners who have been living here much longer. Our new neighbors across the street have already informed us that they purchased their property with the intention of splitting the lot so they would have money for their retirement. After these folks pay realtor fees, assessments, and capital gains taxes, it is unlikely that they will have more than 25% of the selling price of the lot to actually keep for themselves. . Although we realize we must accept the inevitable changes that are about to take place around us, our greatest concern is for the well being of our 11 -year old son Paul, who has autism. Since Paul's diagnosis in 1992, we have been especially appreciative of the fact that we chose not to live in an area that is completely zoned as Urban Residential. Paul suffers from extreme sensitivity to noise and has great difficulty functioning in a crowded enviromnent. Our home is the one place of security and calm for Paul, and the addition of a new home immediately next to us is sure to have a drastic effect on him and cause great emotional distress to our family. Although these concerns may not be as compelling as the potential financial gains to the city, we ask that they be considered as the City of Andover reviews the lot split request at 1516 148' Lane NW. CC: Residents of 148` Lane NW _J Regular City Council Meeting June 3, 1986 - Minutes Page 12 SPECIAL USE PERMIT /CONTINENTAL DEVELOPMENT, CONTINUED Mayor Windschitl stated in looking at the extension of the sewer and water up Hanson Boulevard almost to Coon Creek, he had no doubt that at some point in time the property in question should be rezoned down to an R -4 and platted under urban ordinances. He felt there will be a continual demand for sewer and water into that area. He also felt the variance request before them is troublesome. Councilman Orttel suggested the hardship had to do with the proximity to the landfill and to the sewered district: Planning would dictate that the City does not want that land but to keep it free until the extension of those utilities. Councilman Lachinski also felt the reason this would be done is because of its proximity. If the sewer line is extended to Coon Creek this year, he felt it would only be a matter of five years or so before this parcel could be serviced. Mayor Windschitl stated in talking with the Metropolitan Council, they are amenable to changing boundaries if the acreage is substitued for other areas that would be taken out of the Urban Service area. He felt it would take about a year to complete that process. Council discussed various options for developing the parcel and for processing the semi - private green areas being proposed. Chuck Cook Developer� - stated ultimately his first desire in platting the property would be R -4 and he is interested in pursuing that possibility. However, they have a lot of time invested in the density zoning concept, feeling it would be appropriate to make a decision on the density zoning so ire the event the R -4 zoning efforts fail, they'd have the ultimate solution in place without having to start over again. Discussion returned to the variance request. Mr. Hawkins explained''i the ordinance states the green area shall be added to public open space. He felt the City could either take a deed with a reversion clause that indicates that the title would revert back again only at the time the sewer is available and it is rezoned. Or it could be done through a lease agreement for a term that would terminate on that same type of event. He felt it would come off the tax rolls in either case. Dick Schneider - stated from listening to the discussion, the hearing is a farce feeling the tem is cut and dried. The developer is coming in with the plat next week before the P & Z and nothing has been approved yet. He stated he definitely feels that the special use and variance should both be denied. If the Council wants to change it, he felt it should be properly done by rezoning to R -4, thinking that is the most logical way to do it. He stated this special use is making a mockery out of the ordinance. Mayor Windschitl felt it would take about a year to include this area in the MUSA line and there would have to be some trade -offs. Councilman Orttel stated this is a very narrow corridor, questioning how it would be financed to bring the utility lines to service just this property. His idea was this was an interim way to preserve this for the future so utilities would not be forced onto existing residents. Councilman Lachinski also stated the reason people opposed the one - acre lots was the fear of premature expansion of the sewer. By going to R -4, the line would go right past Hartfields, and that is not what is wanted. A deve - stated he does a lot of building in Coon Rapids and they are changing their MEA line in a matter of a couple weeks. He asked if it is necessary that the MUSA line be changed to include sewer and water. Mayor Windschitl stated in this case, yes. This area is physically outside the MUSA line at this time, so a boundary change needs to be done. In looking at the growth pattern, there is no Regular City Council Meeting 1 • June 3, 1986 - Minutes Page 13 (Special Use Permit /Contingental Development, Continued) Developer - asked if there is any problem bringing the line across the creek. ounce noted there are extra costs involved with bringing it across the creek, and the Council's position has been to use an inverted siphon rather than a lift station. Councilman Orttel suggested the arrangement for the open space also require the developer to make an in -lieu of payment for the taxes that would be generated from that property. MOTION by Orttei. Seconded by Lachinski, that we direct the City Staff to prepare a Resolution approving the Special Use Permit for denisty zoning requested by Contineeta}.. Development Corporation for property described as the north half of the northwest quarter of Section 26, Township 32, Range 24 except the east 100 feet thereof for the following reason: proposed use will not be detrimental to the health, safety, and general welfare of the community; it will not cause serious traffic congestion; it will not seriously depreciate surrounding property values; it is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the zoning ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan; that the primary reason for the approval of this request has to do with the property's close proximity to the Urban Service Area and to the hazardous waste site to the south of it; and that the matter regarding open space be referred to the City Attorney to develop an acceptable method whereby the City will acquire the open space until such time as the municipal utilities become available to the property and that the open space agreement be approved by the • developer. (See Resolution R069 -86) DISCUSSION: Dave Schneider - asked if a lift station was needed to cross the creek, would 160 ac�esg sti the cost of it or would more area have to be brought in. Mayor Windschitl noted the key to the economics of bringing in the utilities and to the development of that area is what Mr. Holasek will do with his property because of the amount of land he has. It is his understanding the Metropolitan Council will not stop growth and will try to give the equivalent of five year's availability. VOTE ON MOTION: YES - Lachinski, Orttel, Windschitl; ND- Knight; ABSENT - Elling Motion carried. Dic Schneider - stated it is a sorry state of affairs when everything is cut and dried before the public hearings.. He stated he heard the rumors that this would be passed, and it was true. He stated the Council didn't listen to what the property owners in the area wanted. Council noted the discussions began some time ago asking the developer to consider density zoning as a proposal, and the first attempt was to actually create a transition zone. They felt they did listen to the people and not that many people testified. Mr. Schneider = stated the hearings were so late most of the residents had to leave. MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Lachinski, that we disapprove the request for variance oar Contineetal Development Corporation to retain the open space in their density zoning project in private ownership due to the fact that the hardship of the land has not been established. (See Resolution R070 -86) Motion carried on a 4 -Yes, 1- Absent ( Elling) vote. Councilman Lachinski left the meeting at this time. 11:00 p.m. CROOKED LAKE CLEANUP SURVEY ' Mayer Windschitl understood the Watershed Board will contribute $5,000, which is the match for the feasibility study. Mr. Schrantz explained they are now looking for a commitment as to whether Andover will proceed to match the funds for whatever -to- • 9 i Regular Planning Commission Meeting May 13, 1986 - Minutes Page 6 (Menkveld Rezoning, Cont.) MOTION by Vistad, seconded by Rogers to close the public hearing. Motion carried. Commissioner Bosell noted that the Comprehensive Plans shows this property in the Metropolitan Urban Service Area.. The plan deals with the need to provide low and modest cost housing. We far exceeded what we were required to have as far as low and modest cost housing. UP, it will go to condos, apartments, etc. Commissioner Rogers felt that the zoning is controlled by the market. Right now the trend is for single family housing; when money tightens MOTION by Vistad, seconded by Pirkl that the Andover Planning and Zoning Commission recommend to the City Council approval of a request by G. M. Investment Company to rezone the property described as the Southwest one - quarter of the Northwest one - quarter of Section 34, Town- ship 32, Range 24, Anoka County, Minnesota, from M -1 and M -2 to R -4 for the following reasons: 1) The proposed will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the community; 2) it will not cause serious traffic congestion; 3) it will not seriously depreciate surround- ing property values; 4) the proposed use is in harmony and meets the intent of the zoning ordinance and the comprehensive plan. It should be noted that a public hearing was held and there was no opposition. Motion carried on a 6 yes, 1 no (Jacobson) vote. This will go to the City Council on June 3, 1986. C ONTINENTAL DEVELOPMENT SPECIAL USE PERMIT PUBLIC HEARING (COMM #4 -86 -9) Chuck Cook, Coon Rapids - stated that he attempted to plat this land in December. He came in with a 2h acre plat and the Council requested that he plat it in 1 acre lots. The City Administrator and the Council asked the City Attorney for an opinion in regard to platting this under density zoning. The attorney said that it was within the existing ordinances. Mr. Cook was then requested by the Council to apply for a special use permit to develop this property under density zoning. He noted that sewer and water are a real concern. It was Mr. Cook's opinion that this concern exists whether or not he plats this land. He stated that he is not petitioning for sewer and water and he is not asking for R -4 zoning. He is requesting a special use permit. Chairman Jacobson explained that with denisty zoning, you do not get any more lots than you would under the regular zoning for the area. Mr. Cook could plat 25 lots smaller than 2'h acres. The land that is not platted goes into public or semi - public open space. Mr. Cook also has a request for a variance so the green space will not be given to public use. He would want to reserve it for private use. At this time Chairman Jacobson opened the public hearing.. Lary Carlson, 17750 Aztec Street N W - asked if this is allowed should he be asking for this on his property. Mr. Jacobson said that he could apply for density zoning. Regular Planning Commission Meeting C;, May 13, 1986 - Minutes . Page 7 (Continental Development SUP, Cont.) Dick Schneider, 1343 Andover Boulevard N.W. - stated that when he sold this property to Mr. Cook it was with the understanding that the lots would be 2' acres. Mr. Schneider stated that he did not ask Mr. Cook to buy the land, Mr. Cook came to him. There are a lot of people who have lived in this area for years and Mr. Cook does not even live in the city. He stated that if this is approved, the city is setting a precedent for the future. Mr. Jacobson explained that under the current ordinance, any developer can come in an apply for this. Leonard Mattson, 1502 - 146th Lane N.W. - stated that there was an agreement that this would be 2k acre lots. Chairman Jacobson asked Mr. Schneider if this was in writing. Mr. Schneider said no. Tom Adler, 1480 Andover Boulevard N.W. - asked what the green space is. Mr. Jacobson explained that when someone plat by density zoning, they lose control over the green space. Mr. Cook, however, has a request to allow him to keep that green space for himself. Gilbert Menkveld -asked if the green space is for public use, who pays the taxes. Mr. Cook said that it becomes tax exempt. Winslow Holasek, 1159 Andover Boulevard N.W. - asked if the property will still be tax exempt if the variance is granted. Mr. Cook said no, that he would be paying the taxes. Mr. Holasek - felt that this is misuse of a Special Use Permit. He could see no unique features about this property. The problem is from the Council. They want the sewer up here. The ordinances were designed to make use of unique situations. If the city is going to do this, the proper way is to rezone the property. He also noted that he owns property on two sides of this and if this plat raises the water level, the city will have to take care of it. There is a dead end road on the plat which is bad for maintenance and emergency vehicles. The Coon Creek Watershed wants $5,000 in ponding fees; however, they might cut that in half if the water is ponded on -site. Chairman Jacobson asked what unique features this property has. Mr. Cook noted the following: 1) the close proximity to the landfill and concern about contiminated water; 2) high water table in the general area; 3) Council has established an area defining the area that they feel would be of special consideration. Tom Adler asked why Mr. Cook wants to plat this property if It's so close to the landfill. Mr. Cook stated that he is not concerned today; the PCA has lifted their ban. It could be a potential concern in the future. Commissioner Bosell asked what the lot size would be if this is developed under density zoning. Mr. Cook noted that they would be 39,000 square feet. Pte' FAE Regular Planning Commission Meeting May 13, 1986 - Minutes • Page 8 Ms. Bosell noted that the area of a lot is the same as on a 21� acre lot. The buildability does not change. Hartfiel's Estates was platted prior to our ordinance being adopted. If sanitary sewer were needed, they would have to petition for it. She also noted that under the PUD, the only thing we're allowing for is to develop it at a density greater than what is allowed in an R -1 zone. The setbacks, the size of the home, the garage requirement do not change. Dick Schneider - stated that the purpose of a Special Use Permit is a unique situation. He didn't feel there is anything unique about this property. Jan Balvin, 1419 - 146th Lane N.W. asked why one acre lots would be better than 2 -i /2 acre lots when the water table is so high. Chuck Cook - stated that the ordinance requires 39,000 square feet of buildable area 62 feet above the water table. He is not changing these the requirements for sewer. He also noted that he lived in a city where they had private wells and septic systems and then city sewer and water came in and he was assessed $10,000. On a 22 acre lot the assessments would be $30- 50,000. The density zoning came about because of a concern that sewer and water would be coming in. His feelings were that Hartfiel's Estates is going to need sewer and water soon. He then stated that he originally came in with 22 acre lots. S Tom Adler - asked if there was anything in the ordinance describing what unique is. Chuck Cook - stated that it is the opinion of the Council that this property is of a unique nature. Chairman Jacobson noted that unique can be the land conditions. It could be because the Council is concerned about the cost to landowners should sewer and water be required. Leonard Mattson, 1502 - 146th Lane N.W. - felt that there are financial considerations being considered in this request. Mr. Kuklok, 1533 - 146th Lane - stated that the developer has stated he didn't want this, but that he wanted 22 acre lots. Mr. Jacobson explained to the audience that Mr. Cook originally came in with a 22 acre plat, but changed it when Council expressed a concern about sewer and water. Several letters were presented from residents expressing their opposition to the smaller lots. Gilbert Menkveld - stated that many of the small communities ruin the land be putting it into large acreages. He also said that we are not going to keep sewer and water out of that area forever. MOTION by Pirkl, seconded by Rogers to close the public hearing. Motion carried. MOTION by Pirkl, seconded by Apel that the Andover Planning and Zoning Regular Planning Commission Meeting May 13, 1986 - Minutes • Page 9 Commission recommend to the City Council approval of the Special Use Permit requested by Continental Development for density zoning for the following reasons: 1) the proposed use will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the community; 2) it will not cause serious traffic congestion; 3) it is in harmony with the intent and purpose of the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoining Ordinance; 4) it will not depreciate surrounding property values. It should be noted that a public hearing was held and there was opposition. The Commission basically finds development is of a unique nature and requires a Special Use Permit for its best use. Approval of the Special Use Permit is subject to the condition that the minimum lot size will be 39,000 square feet. Discussion: Commissioner Bosell stated that a Special Use Permit onlly deviates from the placement of lots in that they will be clustered. This will not affect the front, side or rear yard setbacks. Commissioner Rogers felt that by approving this request, we are circumventing the ordinance and that will vote against approval. Vote on Motion: No - Rogers, Jacobson, Vistad, Jovanovich; Yes - Pirkl, Bosell, Apel. Motion fails on a 4 no, 3 yes vote. • Recess 9:50 - Reconvene 10:01 CONTINENTAL DEVELOPMENT VARIANCE Chairman Jacobson explained that Mr. Cook is requesting that the open space be excluded from the requirements, which requires a variance. Mr. Cook stated that this request is at the direction of the City Council and the City Attorney. He felt that dedicating the open space to the city is not appropriate. Mr. Jacboson asked Mr. Cook what he is going to do with the open space. Mr. Cook said that he will retain it for future development. It will be left as is for now. The concerns of tax forfeiture is not any different than any other land like this. Commissioner Bosell noted that the City Council minutes indicate that Mr. Cook would put a restrictive covenant on that open space until it is buildable and asked Mr. Cook if he is willing to do that. Mr. Cook replied yes. Ms. Bosell asked if the land stays as public or semi - public land, what purpose would the city have for it other than an unofficial park. Would the city be able to sell it? Chairman Jacobson stated that when park land is dedicated, it is for parks only. • It was noted that the open space would not be used for pondin g. Commissioner Vistad asked if any of the open space would be developed as parkland. Mr. Cook noted that they are dedicating 4� acres for park which is in excess of the requirements. A t such time as Phase II is l A TO: FROM: CITY OF ANDOVER 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. • ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 • (763) 755 -5100 FAX (763) 755 -8923 a WWW.CLANDOVER.MN.US SUBJECT: Planning and Zoning Commissioners D. Tyler Mckay, Associate Planner PUBLIC HEARING: Lot Split (02 -04) to create two urban residential lots from property located at 1516 148' Lane NW. Staff report by D. Tyler Mckay, Associate Planner DATE: May 28, 2002 INTRODUCTION The property owner is seeking approval of a proposal to divide the subject property into two urban residential lots. This application is dependant upon a rezoning to the Single Family Urban Residential (R -4) zoning district. An existing house on the west half of the property will remain and one new lot will be created. DISCUSSION The attached survey indicates how the property will be divided. Both lots will exceed the minimum lot width, depth and area requirements of the R -4 Zoning District. Utilities A sewer stub currently exists to serve the new lot. The purchaser of the lot must petition the city to connect to the sewer. Initial contact should be made with the Engineering Department regarding this item. Water service is not immediately available. The nearest water line could potentially be extended if the purchaser petitions and there are sufficient property owners interested in it. Without the water line extension, the purchaser would need to dig their own well. Easements The survey indicates ten foot wide drainage and utility easements along the perimeter of the existing property. These easements were established with the Oak Bluff Plat. An additional five foot wide easement is needed on both sides of the proposed interior property line. Due to the fact S that this application is a lot split and not a plat, a separate easement document will need to be prepared and recorded with Anoka County. This item has been added as a condition of approval. • Staff Recommendation It is recommended that the Commission recommend approval of this lotsplit request subject to the conditions of the resolution. Attachments Resolution Location Map Property Survey Public Notice Letter from Neighbor ACTION REQUIRED The Planning and Zoning Commission is asked to recommend approval or denial of the proposed lot split. Respectfully submitted, D. Tyle ckay • Cc: Matt and Tara Kuker, 16055 Makah Street NW E E CITY OF ANDOVER COUNTY OF ANOKA STATE OF MINNESOTA RES. NO. A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE LOT SPLIT REQUEST FOR RY -CHEL GAUSTAD TO SUBDIVIDE PROPERTY INTO TWO URBAN RESIDENTIAL LOTS FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1516 148 LANE NW LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: Lot 1, Block 4 OAK BLUFF, Anoka County, Minnesota WHEREAS, Ry -chel Gaustad has requested approval of a lot split to subdivide property pursuant to Ordinance No. 40, located at 1516 18 Lane NW; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission has reviewed the request and has determined that said request meets the criteria of Ordinance No. 8 and 40; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission finds the request would not have a • detrimental effect upon the health, safety, morals and general welfare of the City of Andover; and WHEREAS, a public hearing was held pursuant to state statutes; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommends to the City Council approval of the lot split as requested. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Andover hereby agrees with the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approves the lot split on said property with the following conditions: The survey shall be revised to provide an additional five foot wide easement on both sides of the proposed interior property line. 2. The applicant shall prepare and submit to the City for approval an easement document indicating an additional five foot wide easement on both sides of the proposed interior property line. 3. The applicant shall submit to the City three signed original copies of the survey. 4. The purchaser of the property shall be required to conform with all of the requirements of • the City of Andover Building Department. • 5. The applicant shall be required to hook up to City sewer and petition the City to connect. The applicant must disclose to the buyer of the new lot that an assessment will be due and payable for sewer service at the time of connection. 6. The applicant shall pay park dedication in the amount of $1,700. 7. The applicant shall pay a trail fee in the amount of $412. 8. The lot split shall be subject to a sunset clause as defined in Ordinance No. 40, Section III(E). Adopted by the City Council of the City of Andover on this day of , 2002. CITY OF ANDOVER ATTEST: Mike Gamache, Mayor • Victoria Volk, City Clerk El 1� woz: r AoW GI 31V0 - __�_ - "u dlud114uly . dldduluuj - N s ti N O V m O r m N ° 0 N y 0 0 w ry W { 4iF ... L° N Y m 0 yy C t r Z JS • .°. hJ v T o u N m In 0 L > °� z v `o C = M o m o c m co E o m V w z Q��N S v c N m �e o a m I U a w 3 O.L.,o�` om oo emu° m H wrov ° mVl z �_ o �� m ° rn _�v o �'rn CO yfl � uwp ^� O� ? m ° m �rU �r m TJ O �O I o oo °� ° c u E N �{ u m a+L+"'l/ N N C C m U K N =N O J B Y O) O O C O N L ' N •- O L Z N N 03 Y Q apNC m,Om - OL JO CZ O ZO O o L W N E o w rnw ° c >+:: " N O C O F m m a m F o C O O o T m no o E c a d- voc a o vum ` °_ • O O N m L C y �- >,a J d Ow O q M U .✓ c v 0.0 C N L N �- O 0 • - T X C .+ O �i 0 L N T. A � W i V T N O -° > m ° W Q O m O c 0 Z m V O O L m° V C J J OU m J IS �o Ems' - o..L✓ NAM ... ? N Li t I lG I I - - - oo 991 M IWISS. s - -- — I w o I i i I 1 1 -L , I I I j 01 LIB i LU o� I 4— cs �-i 00'991 M ligv,rz5.00 S - t cm 4 � ll1 • rse - 3 Ci I � + •..• I w -- -- ----------- T I � I •C :T :'1 _z w n 1 I 31 < c- r I wF V 0 Q N _ JV U I N z W .9-- I l r 1 ------- - - - - -� ff -.J r r ! I / -- 00'991 3 1196'1SS.00 N I 1 - - - CITY OF ANDOVER COUNTY OF ANOKA . . STATE OF MINNESOTA The Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Andover will hold a public hearing at 7:00 p.m" or as soon thereafter as can be heard, on Tuesday, MaS' ' ' 28, 2002 at Andover City Hall, 1685 Crosstown Blvd NW, Andover, Minnesota to review the Rezoning from Rural Residential (R-1) to Urban Residential ~-4) and, Lot Split request for Ry-chel Gaustad for property located at 1516 148 Lane described as .follows: e Lot .1, Block 4 Oak Bluff, Anoka County, Minnesota All written and. verbal comments will be received at that time and location. A ' copy of the proposed application will be available for review prior to the meeting at City Hall. 'Please contact Courtney Bednarz, City Planner with any questions at (763) 767-5147, Current Resident Current Resident Current Resident Eagle St. 1536 149' Ln. 1548 149' Ln. S 4 ver, MN 55304 Andover, MN 55304 Andover, MN 55034 Current Resident Current Resident Current Resident 14944 Crane St. 1587 148 Ln. 1571 148"' Ln. Andover, MN 55304 Andover, MN 55304 Andover, MN 55304 Current Resident Current Resident Current Resident 14951 Drake St. 1555 148' Ln. 1539 148` Ln. Andover, MN 55304 Andover, MN 55304 Andover, MN 55304 Current Resident Current Resident Current Resident 1529 148' Ln. 1519 148` Ln. 1487 148' Ln. Andover, MN 55304 Andover, MN 55304 Andover, MN 55304 Current Resident Current Resident Current Resident 1455 148` Ln. 14844 Eagle St. 14841 Eagle St. Andover, MN 55304 Andover, MN 55304 Andover, MN 55304 Current Resident Current Resident Current Resident 1516 148` Ln. 1484 148 Ln. 1524 149` Ln. Andover, MN 55304 Andover, MN 55304 Andover, MN 55304 Current Resident Current Resident Current Resident 1452 148' Ln. 14834 Eagle St. 14831 Eagle St. Andover, MN 55304 Andover, MN 55304 Andover, MN 55304 Current Resident Current Resident Current Resident 1519148 th Ave. 1507 148 Ave. 14824 Eagle St. Andover, MN 55304 Andover, MN 55304 Andover, MN 55304 Current Resident Current Resident Current Resident 14821 Eagle St. 1495 148 Ave. 1481 148" Ave. Andover, MN 55304 Andover, MN 55304 Andover, MN 55304 t ent Resident Current Resident Current Resident 1463 148' Ave. 14952 Crane St. 1447 148 Ave. Andover, MN 55304 Andover, MN 55304 Andover, MN 55304 mm Current Resident Current Resident Current Resident W 4 Eagle St. 1537 148' Ave. 1553 148' Ave. ver, MN 55304 Andover, MN 55304 Andover, MN 55304 Current Resident Current Resident Administration Veterans 14804 Eagle St. 1490 148' Ave. Fort Snelling Federal Bldg. Andover, MN 55304 Andover, MN 55304 St. Paul, MN 55111 Current Resident Current Resident Current Resident 1476 148' Ave. 1462 148' Ave. 1502 148`" Ave. Andover, MN 55304 Andover, MN 55304 Andover, MN 55304 Current Resident Robert & Kyung Frank Current Resident 1514 148' Ave. 13330 Nightengale St. 1560 149' Ln. Andover, MN 55304 Andover, MN 55304 Andover, MN 55304 Current Resident Current Resident Current Resident 1526 148' Ave. 1538 148 Ave. 1552 148' Ave. Agdover, MN 55304 Andover, MN 55304 Andover, MN 55304 0 ­7 _ • May 21, 2002 Written Comments on the Lot Split Request at 1516 148' Lane NW Linda and Guy Mahmarian who reside at 1484 — 148th Lane NW in Andover, immediately next door to the proposed lot split, have prepared these comments. We have lived in our home since August of 1987. The biggest factor in our decision to buy this house was the fact that the entire subdivision consisted of lots that were at least one acre in size. While we understood that the property to our north and south could be developed in a different manner, the way that Oak Bluff was zoned assured that the homes would be built on lots of at least one acre. We were told by our builder, Delserve, that any resident of Oak Bluff would need approval from the majority of the other residents before any lot splits would be considered. When the for sale sign appeared on the property next door to us we assumed that the residents of 148 Lane would be required to give their approval before any final decision is made about the lot split. After speaking to Courtney Bednarz, Andover City Planner, we have realized that this is not the case. He explained that it is in the city's best interest to receive the additional money that will be generated from utilities and property taxes as a result of a lot split. While our comments are certainly welcome, it seems that they will have little or no bearing on this decision. We have, with great sadness, come to realize that the spacious surroundings that we have enjoyed for 15 years are about to be • permanently altered so that the new owners of the property and the City of Andover will benefit financially. With this in mind, we offer our comments so that the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council will have the opportunity to consider them as they make their decision in this matter. The way that 148 Lane was originally planned is the reason that we have lived here for 15 years. The residents of Oak Bluff have intentionally chosen to live here because of the way that the lots are zoned. The residents at 1516 have lived here less than 2 years and are now hoping to benefit financially with no regard for the welfare of those homeowners who have been living here much longer. Our new neighbors across the street have already informed us that they purchased their property with the intention of splitting the lot so they would have money for their retirement. After these folks pay realtor fees, assessments, and capital gains taxes, it is unlikely that they will have more than 25% of the selling price of the lot to actually keep for themselves. Although we realize we must accept the inevitable changes that are about to take place around us, our greatest concern is for the well being of our 11 -year old son Paul, who has autism. Since Paul's diagnosis in 1992, we have been especially appreciative of the fact that we chose not to live in an area that is completely zoned as Urban Residential. Paul suffers from extreme sensitivity to noise and has great difficulty functioning in a crowded environment. Our home is the one place of security and calm for Paul, and the addition of a new home immediately next to us is sure to have a drastic effect on him and cause great emotional distress to our family. Although these concerns may not be as compelling as the potential financial gains to the city, we ask that they be considered as • the City of Andover reviews the lot split request at 1516 148' Lane NW. CC: Residents of 148 Lane NW I Regular City Council Meeting June 3, 1986 - Minutes • Page 12 SPECIAL USE PERMIT /CONTINENTAL DEVELOPMENT, CONT Mayor Windschitl stated in looking at the extension of the sewer and water up Hanson Boulevard almost to Coon Creek, he had no doubt that at some point in time the property in question should be rezoned down to an R -4 and platted under urban ordinances. He felt there will be a continual demand for sewer and water into that area. He also felt the variance request before them is troublesome. Councilman Orttel suggested the hardship had to do with the proximity to the landfill and to the sewered district. Planning would dictate that the City does not want that land but to keep it free until the extension of those utilities. Councilman Lachinski also felt the reason this would be done is because of its proximity. If the sewer line is extended to Coon Creek this year, he felt it would only be a matter of five years or so before this parcel could be serviced. Mayor Windschitl stated in talking with the Metropolitan Council, they are amenable to changing boundaries if the acreage is substitued for other areas that would be taken out of the Urban Service area. He felt it would take about a year to complete that process. Council discussed various options for developing the parcel and for processing the semi - private green areas being proposed. Chuck Cook Developer - stated ultimately his first desire in platting the property would be R-4 and he is interested in pursuing that possibility. However, they have a lot of time invested in the density zoning concept, feeling it would be. appropriate to make a decision on the density zoning so irat the event the R -4 zoning efforts fail, they'd have the ultimate solution in place without having to start over again. Discussion returned to the variance request. Mr. Hawkins explained' the ordinance states the green area shall be added to public open space. He felt the City could either take a deed with a reversion clause that indicates that the title would revert back again only at the time the sewer is available and it is rezoned. Or it could be done through a lease agreement for a term that would terminate on that same type of event. He felt it would come off the tax rolls in either case. Dick Schneider - stated from listening to the discussion, the hearing is a farce feeling the tem is cut and dried. The developer is coming in with the plat next week before the P & Z and nothing has been approved yet. He stated he definitely feels that the special use and variance should both be denied. If the Council wants to change it, he felt it should be properly done by rezoning to R -4, thinking that is the most logical way to do it. He stated this special use is making a mockery out of the ordinance. Mayor Windschitl felt it would take about a year to include this area in the MUSA line and there would have to be some trade -offs. Councilman Orttel stated this is a very narrow corridor, questioning how it would be financed to bring the utility lines to service just this property. His idea was this was an interim way to preserve this for the future so utilities would not be forced onto existing residents. Councilman Lachinski also stated the reason people opposed the one- acre lots was the fear of premature expansion of the sewer. By going to R -4, the line would go right past Hartfields, and that is not what is wanted. A develo er - stated he does a lot of building in Coon Rapids and they are changing elr MUSA line in a matter of a couple weeks. He asked if it is necessary that the MUSA line be changed to include sewer and water. Mayor Windschitl stated in this case, yes. This area is physically outside the MUSA line at this time, so a boundary change needs to be done. In looking at the growth pattern, there is no 0 L_J Regular City Council Meeting June 3, 1986 - Minutes Page 13 (Special Use Permit /Contingental Development, Continued) Develo er - asked if there is any problem bringing the line across the creek. Touncil noted there are extra costs involved with bringing it across the creek, and the Council's position has been to use an inverted siphon rather than a lift station. Councilman Orttel suggested the arrangement for the open space also require the developer to make an in -lieu of payment for the taxes that would be generated from that property. MOTION by Orttei, Seconded by Lachinski, that we direct the City Staff to prepare a lesolution approving the Special Use Permit for deniity zoning requested by Continental.. Development Corporation for property described as the north half of the northwest quarter of Section 26, Township 32, Range 24 except the east 100 feet thereof for the following reason: proposed use will not be detrimental to the health, safety, and general welfare of the community; it will not cause serious traffic congestion; it will not seriously depreciate surrounding property values; it is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the zoning ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan; that the primary reason for the approval of this request has to do with the property's close proximity to the Urban Service Area and to the hazardous waste site to the south of it; and that the matter regarding open space be referred to the City Attorney to develop an acceptable method whereby the City will acquire the open space until such time as the municipal utilities become available to the property and that the open space agreement be approved by the developer. (See Resolution R069 -86) DISCUSSION: Dave Schneider - asked if a a -c:r e - s justify the cost of it Windschitl noted the key to development of that area is the amount of land he has. not stop growth and will tr lift station was needed to cross the creek, would 160 or would more area have to be brought in. Mayor the economics of bringing in the utilities and to the what Mr. Holasek will do with his property because of It is his understanding the Metropolitan Council will y to give the equivalent of five year's availability. VOTE ON MOTION: YES - Lachinski, Orttel, Windschitl;:NO- Knight; ABSENT - Elling Motion carried. Dick Schneider - stated it is a sorry state of affairs when everything is cut and dried be fore the public hearings., He stated he heard the rumors that this would be passed, and it was true. He stated the Council didn't listen to what the property owners in the area wanted. Council noted the discussions began some time ago asking the developer to consider density zoning as a proposal, and the first attempt was to actually create a transition zone. They felt they did listen to the people and not that many people testified. Mr. Schneider - stated the hearings were so late most of the residents had to leave. MOTION by Orttel, Seconded by Lachinski, that we disapprove the request for variance o Continental. Development Corporation to retain the open space in their density zoning project in private ownership due to the fact that the hardship of the land has not been established. (See Resolution R070 -86) Motion carried on a 4 -Yes, 1- Absent (Elling) vote. Councilman Lachinski left the meeting at this time. 11:00 p.m. CROOKED LAKE CLEANUP SURVEY May Windschitl understood the Watershed Board will contribute $5,000, which is the match for the feasibility study. Mr. Schrantz explained they are now looking for a commitment as to whether Andover will proceed to match the funds :,for whatever — 1 z-. -- Regular Planning Commission Meeting May 13, 1986 - Minutes Page 6 . (Menkveld Rezoning, Cont.) 1 MOTION by Vistad, seconded by Rogers to close the public hearing. Motion carried. Commissioner Bosell noted that the Comprehensive Plans shows this property in the Metropolitan Urban Service Area. The plan deals with the need to provide low and modest cost housing. We far exceeded what we were required to have as far as low and modest cost housing. Commissioner Rogers felt that the zoning is controlled by the market. Right now the trend is for single family housing; when money tightens up, it will go to condos, apartments, etc. MOTION by Vistad, seconded by Pirkl that the Andover Planning and Zoning Commission recommend to the City Council approval of a request by G. M. Investment Company to rezone the property described as the Southwest one - quarter of the Northwest one - quarter of Section 34, Town- ship 32, Range 24, Anoka County, Minnesota, from M -1 and M -2 to R -4 for the following reasons: 1) The proposed will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the community; 2) it will not cause serious traffic congestion; 3) it will not seriously depreciate surround- ing property values; 4) the proposed use is in harmony and meets the intent of the zoning ordinance and the comprehensive plan. It should be noted that a public hearing was held and there was no opposition. • Motion carried on a 6 yes, 1 no (Jacobson) vote. This will go to the City Council on June 3, 1986. C ONTINENTAL DEVELOPMENT SPECIAL USE PERMIT PUBLIC HEARING (COMM. #4 -86 -9) Chuck Cook, Coon Rapids - stated that he attempted to plat this land in December. He came in with a 2' acre plat and the Council requested that he plat it in 1 acre lots. The City Administrator and the Council asked the City Attorney for an opinion in regard to platting this under density zoning. The attorney said that it was within the existing ordinances. Mr. Cook was then requested by the Council to apply for a special use permit to develop this property under density zoning. He noted that sewer and water are a real concern. It was Mr. Cook's opinion that this concern exists whether or not he plats this land. He stated that he is not petitioning for sewer and water and he is not asking for R -4 zoning. He is requesting a special use permit:. Chairman Jacobson explained that with denisty zoning, you do not get any more lots than you would under the regular zoning for the area. Mr. Cook could plat 25 lots smaller than 2'- acres. The land that is not platted goes into public or semi - public open space. Mr.. Cook also has a request for a variance so the green space will not be given to public use. He would want to reserve it for private use. . At this time Chairman Jacobson opened the public hearing. Lary Carlson, 17750 Aztec Street N.W - asked if this is allowed should he be asking for this on his property. Mr. Jacobson said that he could apply for density zoning. 13 - Regular Planning Commission Meeting May 13, 1986 - Minutes . Page 7 (Continental Development SUP, Cont.) Dick Schneider, 1343 Andover Boulevard N.W. - stated that when he sold this property to Mr. Cook it was with the understanding that the lots would be 2� acres. Mr. Schneider stated that he did not ask Mr. Cook to buy the land, Mr. Cook came to him. There are a lot of people who have lived in this area for years and Mr. Cook does not even live in the city. He stated that if this is approved, the city is setting a precedent for the future. Mr. Jacobson explained that under the current ordinance, any developer can come in an apply for this. Leonard Mattson, 1502 - 146th Lane N.W. - stated that there was an agreement that this would be 2331 acre lots. Chairman Jacobson asked Mr. Schneider if this was in writing. Mr. Schneider said no. Tom Adler, 1480 Andover Boulevard N.W. - asked what the green space is. Mr. Jacobson explained that when someone plat by density zoning, they lose control over the green space. Mr. Cook, however, has a request to allow him to keep that green space for himself. Gilbert Menkveld -asked if the green space is for public use, who pays the taxes. Mr. Cook said that it becomes tax exempt. Winslow Holasek, 1159 Andover Boulevard N.W. - asked if the property will still be tax exempt if the variance is granted. Mr. Cook said no, that he would be paying the taxes. Mr. Holasek - felt that this is misuse of a Special Use Permit. He could see no unique features about this property. The problem is from the Council. They want the sewer up here. The ordinances were designed to make use of unique situations. If the city is going to do this, the proper way is to rezone the property. He also noted that he owns property on two sides of this and if this plat raises the water level, the city will have to take care of it. There is a dead end road on the plat which is bad for maintenance and emergency vehicles. The Coon Creek Watershed wants $5,000 in ponding fees; however, they might cut that in half if the water is ponded on -site. Chairman Jacobson asked what unique features this property has. Mr. Cook noted the following: 1) the close proximity to the landfill and concern about contiminated water; 2) high water table in the general area; 3) Council has established an area defining the area that they feel would be of special consideration. Tom Adler asked why Mr. Cook wants to plat this property if it's so close to the landfill. Mr. Cook stated that he is not concerned today; the PCA has lifted their ban. It could be a potential concern in the future. Commissioner Bosell asked what the lot size would be if this is developed under density zoning. Mr. Cook noted that they would be 39,000 square feet. Jan Balvin, 1419 - 146th Lane N.W. asked why one acre lots would be better than 2 -1/2 acre lots when the water table is so high. Chuck Cook - stated that the ordinance requires 39,000 square feet of buildable area 6z feet above the water table. He is not changing these the requirements for sewer. He also noted that he lived in a city where they had private wells and septic systems and then city sewer and water came in and he was assessed $10,000. On a 2z acre lot the assessments would be $30- 50,000. The density zoning came about because of a concern that sewer and water would be coming in. His feelings were that Hartfiel's Estates is going to need sewer and water soon. He then stated that he originally came in with 2z acre lots. • Tom Adler - asked if there was anything in the ordinance describing what unique is. Chuck Cook - stated that it is the opinion of the Council that this property is of a unique nature. Chairman Jacobson noted that unique can be the land conditions. It could be because the Council is concerned about the cost to landowners should sewer and water be required. Leonard Mattson, 1502 - 146th Lane N.W. - felt that there are financial considerations being considered in this request. Mr. Kuklok, 1533 - 146th Lane - stated that the developer has stated he didn't want this, but that he wanted 2 acre lots. Mr. Jacobson explained to the audience that Mr. Cook originally came in with a 2 1 - 2 acre plat, but changed it when Council expressed a concern about sewer and water. Several letters were presented from residents expressing their opposition to the smaller lots. Gilbert Menkveld - stated that many of the small communities ruin the land be putting it into large acreages. He also said that we are not • going to keep sewer and water out of that area forever. MOTION by Pirkl, seconded by Rogers to close the public hearing. Motion carried. MOTION by Pirkl, seconded by Apel that the Andover Planning and Zoning — l5' -- Regular Planning Commission Meeting May 13, 1986 - Minutes Page 8 Ms. Bosell noted that the area of a lot is the same as on a 2k acre lot. The buildability does not change. Hartfiel's Estates was platted prior to-our ordinance being adopted. If sanitary sewer were needed, they would have to petition for it. She also noted that under the PUD, the only thing we're allowing for is to develop it at a density greater than what is allowed in an R -1 zone. The setbacks, the size of the home, the garage requirement do not change. Dick Schneider - stated that the purpose of a Special Use Permit is a unique situation. He didn't feel there is anything unique about this property. Jan Balvin, 1419 - 146th Lane N.W. asked why one acre lots would be better than 2 -1/2 acre lots when the water table is so high. Chuck Cook - stated that the ordinance requires 39,000 square feet of buildable area 6z feet above the water table. He is not changing these the requirements for sewer. He also noted that he lived in a city where they had private wells and septic systems and then city sewer and water came in and he was assessed $10,000. On a 2z acre lot the assessments would be $30- 50,000. The density zoning came about because of a concern that sewer and water would be coming in. His feelings were that Hartfiel's Estates is going to need sewer and water soon. He then stated that he originally came in with 2z acre lots. • Tom Adler - asked if there was anything in the ordinance describing what unique is. Chuck Cook - stated that it is the opinion of the Council that this property is of a unique nature. Chairman Jacobson noted that unique can be the land conditions. It could be because the Council is concerned about the cost to landowners should sewer and water be required. Leonard Mattson, 1502 - 146th Lane N.W. - felt that there are financial considerations being considered in this request. Mr. Kuklok, 1533 - 146th Lane - stated that the developer has stated he didn't want this, but that he wanted 2 acre lots. Mr. Jacobson explained to the audience that Mr. Cook originally came in with a 2 1 - 2 acre plat, but changed it when Council expressed a concern about sewer and water. Several letters were presented from residents expressing their opposition to the smaller lots. Gilbert Menkveld - stated that many of the small communities ruin the land be putting it into large acreages. He also said that we are not • going to keep sewer and water out of that area forever. MOTION by Pirkl, seconded by Rogers to close the public hearing. Motion carried. MOTION by Pirkl, seconded by Apel that the Andover Planning and Zoning — l5' -- 0 • • Regular Planning Commission Meeting J May 13, 1986 - Minutes Page 9 Commission recommend to the City Council approval of the Special Use Permit requested by Continental Development for density zoning for the following reasons: 1) the proposed use will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of the community; 2) it will not cause serious traffic congestion; 3) it is in harmony with the intent and purpose of the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoining Ordinance; 9) it will not depreciate surrounding property values. It should be noted that a public hearing was held and there was opposition. The Commission basically finds development is of a unique nature and requires a Special Use Permit for its best use. Approval of the Special Use Permit is subject to the condition that the minimum lot size will be 39,000 square feet. Discussion: Commissioner Bosell stated that a Special Use Permit onlly deviates from the placement of lots in that they will be clustered. This will not affect the front, side or rear yard setbacks. Commissioner Rogers felt that by approving this request, we are circumventing the ordinance and that will vote against approval. Vote on Motion: No - Rogers, Jacobson, Vistad, Jovanovich; Yes - Pirkl, Bosell, Apel. Motion fails on a 4 no, 3 yes vote. Recess 9:50 - Reconvene 10:01 CONTINENTAL DEVELOPMENT VARIANCE Chairman Jacobson explained that Mr. Cook is requesting that the open space be excluded from the requirements, which requires a variance. Mr. Cook stated that this request is at the direction of the City Council and the City Attorney. He felt that dedicating the open space to the city is not appropriate. Mr. Jacboson asked Mr. Cook what he is going to do with the open space. Mr. Cook said that he will retain it for future development. It will be left as is for now. The concerns of tax forfeiture is not any different than any other land like this. Commissioner Bosell noted that the City Council minutes indicate that Mr. Cook would put a restrictive covenant on that open space until it is buildable and asked Mr. Cook if he is willing to do that. Mr. Cook replied yes. Ms. Bosell asked if the land stays as public or semi - public land, what purpose would the city have for it other than an unofficial park. Would the city be able to sell it? Chairman Jacobson stated that when park land is dedicated, it is for parks only. It was noted that the open space would not be used for pondin g. Commissioner Vistad asked if any of the open space would be developed as parkland. Mr. Cook noted that they are dedicating 42 acres for park which is in excess of the requirements. A t such time as Phase II is *( z) CITY OF ANDOVER 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. • ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 • (763) 755 -5100 FAX (763) 755 -8923 • WWW.CI.ANDOVER.MN.US TO: Planning and Zoning Commissioners FROM: D. Tyler Mckay, Associate Planner SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING: Amend Ordin ce 8, Section 8 — Performance Standards. To establish standards for sod to be installed on all residential lots in urban areas. Staff report by D. Tyler Mckay, Associate Planner. DATE: May 28, 2002 INTRODUCTION The Planning and Zoning Commission is asked to consider requiring developers to install sod on residential lots prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or appropriate escrow during the winter months. Currently, the City has no requirements on lawn establishment prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy DISCUSSION The problem of residents not installing sod was discussed, as part of the Council goal- setting workshop. The City has relied upon homeowners to either install sod or seed the lawn within one year of occupancy. Additionally, all properties in violation were given one year to bring their property in compliance. Unfortunately, several examples of recently constructed homes continue to reflect an absence of established lawns by the homeowners that contribute to sand runoff into City streets and storm sewers. Similarly, many lawns tend to become little more than weed beds due to inadequate cultivation and the fact that many property owners fail to bring in enough topsoil to establish and maintain their lawns. Weeds quickly invade neighboring properties and greatly increase their lawn maintenance work and costs. As the aesthetic quality of their neighborhood decreases, often their property values and the community image also decreases. A survey of similar and neighboring communities is shown below and indicates Blaine requires developers to sod the entire lot, including 4 inches of black dirt before issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy. Lakeville requires sod on front and side yards with a $1,000 escrow during the winter months before issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy. All other Cities surveyed require developers to install or escrow for boulevard sod alone before issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy. An example of Blaine's final check- off/escrow requirements are attached and shows that before a Certificate of Occupancy is issued either the improvements must be made or escrow put on deposit with the City to insure they will be done. • LAWN ESTABLISHMENT IN VARIOUS CITIES 0 City Boulevard Only ntire Lot ront/Side Yards Iffispected by Andover X Building Department Anoka X Building Department Blaine X Planning Intern Coon Rapids X Building Department Lakeville X Building Department Maple Grove X Building Department Ramsey X Building Department St. Louis Park X Building Department St. Michael X Building Department Woodbury X Building Department Blaine requires 4 inches of black dirt. Lakeville requires a$1, 000 dollar escrow during the winter months. PROS AND CONS An important question to ask is, "would this change in the Ordinance solve the lawn establishment problem ?" It is likely that the individuals who chose not to put in a lawn for an entire year after purchasing their home would also not take care of it once it was in. There are a number of examples where this is the case. Evidence for this consists of the fact that a number of residents who waited as long as possible before putting in their lawn often allow the required boulevard grass to die in the mean time. Weeds do seem to take longer to establish themselves in the neglected grass area as compared to bare areas, which quickly sprout a multitude of high weeds. Sometimes the resident will then simply mow these weeds and it becomes difficult to know if they ever tried to establish a lawn or not. • Another concern may be the planned use the prospective homeowner has for the back yard may not coincide with establishing a full lawn. For example, if a resident decides to build a large deck, pool or garden they may have to destroy some of the lawn that was included in the original purchase price of the home. Although the price of those strips of sod might be low compared to the over all price of a home, it may increase the overall price of the home. ..2,_ • A potential problem to enforcement of this ordinance is the fact that putting a lawn in the middle of summer would take a large amount of watering to allow the sod to take root and become established. This would be problematic during especially hot and dry times when City water rationing is in effect. Builders would only be allowed to use a limited amount of water and at the same time be required to put in the sod before being able to sell the property. Consideration should be given to the advantage of requiring just the front and side yard be sodded before a Certificate of Occupancy is issued, as the City of Lakeside currently requires. Although this would mitigate some of the above concerns, this does become a problem on corner lots, which still allow for easy viewing of their unsodded back yards. Another issue is the ease with which weeds can move between neighbor's properties is especially troublesome in the rear adjoining yards. ESCROW REQUIREMENTS The Planning and Zoning Commissioners may wish to debate the merits of using an escrow. If a builder decides not to establish a lawn, they could be given three months before the City would use the escrow amount to establish the lawn. This would allow for unseasonably warm temperatures or arrangements between the builder and the new homeowner as to other uses for the yard such as a pool or garden. Although this may increase the overall purchase price of the home and cause more administrative and enforcement duties by City staff, it will also allow the City an option to resolve this matter if the neglected lawn is causing overall neighborhood deterioration. These standards may need to be raised as our community continues to grow and prosper. OPTIONS There are a range of choices that could be made: 1. Boulevard sod only with or without escrow. 2. Boulevard and Front yard only sodded with black soil with or without escrow. 3. Boulevard, front and side yard sodded with black soil with or without escrow. 4. Boulevard, front, Side and rear yards sodded with black soil with or without escrow. Each has its own inherent problems and strengths. Due to over a dozen of complaints which each affect several other residents, staff recommends option 3 with a $1,000 dollar escrow at this time and would like to review after 2 years. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Given the above concerns, staff believes to reduce the number of residential complaints regarding lawn establishment and enhance the aesthetic aspects of completed residential subdivisions, that • Ordinance No. 111 and the Development Contract be amended to require front and side yards of newly constructed residential urban lots to be completely sodded before a Certificate of Occupancy is issued. This would include four inches (4') of organic/black soil be spread before the sod is laid. W • Attachments Resolution Public Notice Blaine's final check -off /escrow requirements ACTION REQUIRED The Planning Commission is asked to consider amending Ordinance #111 — Lawn Establishment Ordinance. Rfully submitted, D. Tyler Mckay 0 —rt_ CITY OF ANDOVER COUNTY OF ANOKA STATE OF MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. 111 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 111, LAWN ESTABLISHMENT IN THE CITY OF ANDOVER. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANDOVER HEREBY ORDAINS: Ordinance 111, An Ordinance for the Establishment of Lawn Requirements for Residential Districts of the City of Andover is hereby amended as follows: (Strike out indicates words to be deleted, underlining represents words to be added.) Section 1. Purpose. To provide protection to all natural terrain features of the residential site, which if preserved as required herein, will add to the attractiveness and stability of the site. Standards set forth in this ordinance will increase the desirability of residences, encourage investment or occupation in the city, optimize use and value of land and improvements, increase the stability and value of the property, and add to the conditions affecting health and welfare of the city. Section 2. Definitions. Organic /black Tep Soil: For the purpose of this ordinance, tep organic /black soil shall be defined as soil /dirt that has sufficient amounts of organic material to establish a suitable foundation for vegetative growth. Section 3. Teg Organic /Black Soil and Sodding Requirements. Organic black - yep soil shall be spread so as to provide at least four (4) inches of cover. The site shall also be stabilized by seeding .....d l^... sodding the front and side yards of the lot Section 4. Organic /black Soil - -e—Seea Requirements. All boulevards are required to be sodded in areas served by municipal sanitary sewer and /or water. Gr ..d... eL empes areas whieh aEe n et sedd d, 1'...• grass seed s hall be sawn at n et le than .Ce (4) peu nds t.. eae tth ...d (1,999) — squave feet e€ land area. The se ed shal , ..c -- max ef ten r _ ______ _ g rass b ..__ and » mini __ _______y r _______ __ permanent bluegrass and�er feseue grass by weight— All residential lots with municipal sanitary sewer and /or water shall be sodded er seede from the boulevard edge to the rear wall of a di _r thirty (99) feet 'b__`__-a the principal residence on the lot. Wetlands shall be exempt from the sodding and seeding requirements as determined by the city, Department of Natural Resources, watersheds, or conservation district. The spreading of soil and sodding seeding of the front and side yard lawn shall be completed within three months ene yeaF f the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy. —✓r— • Section S. Retroactive Clause. All properties in violation of the provisions of this ordinance shall have ene year three months from the time of issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy to comply with the requirements set forth in this ordinance. After that time the Citv shall be authorized to use the escrow to establish the lawn. Section 6. Enforcement. The Code Enforcement Officer of the City of Andover shall enforce this Ordinance. Section 7. Penalty. A violation of this Ordinance shall constitute a misdemeanor as defined by State Law as amended. Section 8. Separability. Should any section, subdivision, clause, or other provision of this ordinance be declared by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the ordinance as a whole or any part, other than the part so declared to be invalid. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Andover on this _ day of 2002. CITY OF ANDOVER • ATTEST: Michael R. Gamache, Mayor Victoria Volk, City Clerk • The PlanniJig and Zonjng Commission of the City of Andover Will hold a public hearing', ' at 7:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as can be heard, on Tuesday, May 28,2002 at Andover .. City Hall, 1685 Crosstown Blvd; NW, Andover, Minnesota to amend Ordiriance 8~, ' . Section 8 - Performance Standards. To establish standards for sod to be installed on all residential lots in urban areas. This ordinance is City wide. All ,Written and verbal co~ents Will be received at that time' and location. A copy of ' the proposed application will be available for review prior to the meeting at City Hall. Please contact Tyler Mckay, Associate Planner with any questions at (763) 767-5142. JUL -17 -1996 08 :43 CITY OF BLAINE ble IU4 .3044 r. UJC. /C! Final Check-Off/Escrow Requirements ADDRESS: OWVNEPjCONTRAC'TOR: FIELD INSPECTOR: DATE: 1. Curb stop box not in driveway and brought to grade flush with sod. Yes _ No _. 2. Driveway completed and approved for side yard setback ,- and width No brush piles or construction debris pushed onto neighboring lots _ Tree preservation plan complied with _. During the summer season (April 16th through November loth) it is expected that all work and improvements will be completed at the time of final inspection for the certificate of occupancy. 0 4, Other unique requirements as per development agreement and coveasrtts. Also, if the new house is is the designated flood -plain management area, as noted by the City Engineer, is there an as -built elevation from an R.L.S. in the permit file qualifA* lowest floor elevation! During the winter season (November 15 through April 15), the following items will have to be escrowed for at the following suggested rates: 5. Final grading =npl0W per grading plaa. ($1,000) 6. A minimum of four (4') inches of black dirt on all yards before laying 50 d- R-1, R -lAA 5750 R -IA SIAM 7. Sodding of boulevard and yards. R-1, PWAA $1,250 P lA $1,750 8. 2 1/2" caliper balled & burlapped front yard tree. (5250 each) Two required in the R -1A districts. 9. 2 1/2" caliper balled and burlapped boulevard tree (two if corner lot). Location and specie per handout. (5250 each) 10. Driveway, hard surfaced. ($1,500) i M17 Escrow Provisions: Builder of home is to make a cash deposit with City for uncompleted items prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy. However, a builder may submit a letter from the lender in a form set forth on the reverse side, stating they will escrow the above cited amounts for the umco+no e<ed1 itmm and not release such funds until Building Inspection verifies that the work is completed. Building Inspection can than issue a cestiftcata of occupancy. A fee of My dollars ($50.00) will be charged for every escrow inspection, The fee shall be paid prior to the inspection unless the escrow is held by the City. Signature of this agreement authorizes the City to deduct the appropriate fee from the escrow prior to remittance. By: - - -- Date: -97 , . � __ >K �• -r• }� e rg ,s n ; �>. v � a• ' 3, • L � � f f /� f - r G .�. i t lL 5 4 Ilk . 1 �,.ti♦ yZ' 7 r n t Z T ,� r '09) CITY OF ANDOVER 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. • ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 • (763) 755 -5100 FAX (763) 755 -8923 • WWW.CI.ANDOVER.MN.US TO: Planning and Zoning Commissioners FROM: Courtney Bednarz, City Plarm SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING: Amend Ordinance 8, Section 4.05 - Accessory Buildings and Structures to limit the size of the accessory buildings allowed on urban residential lots, limit height to one story and reduce interior side yard setback to five feet. Staff report by Courtney Bednarz, City Planner. DATE: May 28, 2002 INTRODUCTION This item concerns modifications to the ordinances regulating detached accessory structures on urban residential lots. This issue was raised at the Council Goal Setting meetings in April 2002 where the Council discussed the size of detached accessory buildings on urban lots and how much of the yard they occupy (see attached minutes). No changes to accessory structure requirements for lots greater than one acre in size are proposed. DISCUSSION A proposed ordinance amendment is attached. The amendment addresses the size, height and location of detached accessory structures on urban lots to strike a balance between allowing these structures and limiting their impact on urban neighborhoods. Discussion of these three aspects is provided below. There is additional discussion of roof pitch and access at the end of the report. These items are not included in the proposed amendment. Size At the present time, the maximum size of a detached accessory building on an urban residential lot is 75% of the foundation size of the house. It is not uncommon to see a foundation size of 1,000 square feet or greater. This size foundation can result in a 750 square foot detached accessory structure. This example would allow a three stall detached garage (22 x 34) in addition to any attached garage that may exist on the property. Detached accessory structures allow equipment and recreational vehicles to be stored indoors which protects these items from the elements and contributes toward a more aesthetically • pleasing neighborhood. As the number and size of these structures increase, however, the size of these structures begins to overshadow the rest of the yard and the neighborhood as a whole. The attached amendment sets a maximum size of 308 square feet for detached accessory buildings on urban lots. This equates to a wide one stall garage (14 x 22). This size was chosen to ensure that the structure would be large enough for yard equipment, vehicles and some boats. All detached structures (including yard barns less than 120 square feet in size) are included in this calculation. It is important to note that garages are not required to be attached to the principle structure. Therefore, it would still be possible to have a 748 square foot detached garage in the rear yard. The attached amendment would also require houses constructed in the urban area after the effective date of the ordinance to construct an attached garage that meets the minimum garage size requirement (440 square feet). This provision will prevent large detached structures from being constructed in new developments. Older developments with small detached garages would not be covered by this provision. It is likely that older lots with a small detached garage will seek to reconstruct a two or three stall garage on the property at some point. Depending upon the location of the house or the style of construction, it may be difficult or impossible to attach a new garage to some existing structures. Side Yard Setback • The attached amendment would reduce this setback from ten feet to five feet on urban lots. This adjustment is in line with what neighboring communities require and will prevent wasted yard space between the detached accessory building and property line. In some cases, the greater setback has pushed accessory buildings further into the yard and caused conflicts with a homeowners ability to construct a deck or addition to the home. As you know, structures can not be located in easements so easements wider than five feet will still affect the location of these structures on some urban lots. Height The current regulations limit the height to be not greater than the height of the principle structure (house). With three or four floor split -level home plans, a detached accessory structure could easily be two stories or taller. The attached amendment limits the height of accessory structures to fourteen feet in height. This height will accommodate a standard nine foot sidewall and a variety of roof pitches. Other Considerations Roof Pitch There was a discussion at the staff level concerning roof pitch as it relates to the height of the structure. There was some concern that flatter roof pitches would result with the addition of a maximum height provision. There was also discussion about the potential for a 12/12 roof pitch or a gabled roof pitch that may be used to achieve additional storage space as a result of the more restrictive maximum size provision and the effect on sightlines of neighboring properties. The Commission can consider setting a minimum and/or maximum roof pitch for detached accessory • • buildings on urban lots. Alternatively, the Commission can consider requiring roof pitch to match the principle structure. Access There has been discussion about whether a second access should be granted for a detached garage on an urban lot. A lawn maintenance issue can result if no access is granted and no hard surface driveway is constructed. Property owners are currently required to establish and maintain lawns through separate ordinances. In some cases second accesses may be granted if spacing and sightlines can be accommodated. The Commission is asked to consider whether a separate ordinance amendment should be brought forward to restrict secondary accesses on urban lots. Other Cities Regulations City Maximum Size Side Yard Height Maximum Setback Anoka 1,056 sf, including attached garage 5 feet 15 feet Blaine 1,000 sf including attached garage 5 feet Same as principle structure Coon 1,200 sf including attached garage 5 feet Same as Principle Rapids structure or 20 feet, lesser of two Andover 308 sf not including attached garage 5 feet 14 feet (p roposed ) ACTION REQUIRED The Planning and Zoning Commission is asked and make a recommendation to the City Council. Attachments Proposed Ordinance Amendment 7Ae ctfu ly submitted, i - e arz to discuss the proposed ordinance amendment 0 • CITY OF ANDOVER COUNTY OF ANOKA STATE OF MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. 114A AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE 8, SECTION 4.05 ACCESSORY BUILDINGS AND STRUCTURES TO AMEND THE SIZE, SETBACKS AND HEIGHT REQUIREMENTS FOR ACCESSORY STRUCTURES ON URBAN RESIDENTIAL LOTS THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANDOVER DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: 4.05 Accessory Building and Structures (A) No accessory building or use shall be constructed or developed on a lot prior to the time of construction of the principal building except by Special Use Permit. (B) No accessory building in a residential area shall exceed the height of the principal structure except subject to Section 4.06 (F) and Section 8.21. • (C) Accessory buildings on a residential parcel of five (5 a.) acres or less shall be subject to size restrictions based on the total square footage of land cover of the foundation of the principal structure as stated below. However, in the case where the accessory building serves to satisfy the minimum garage requirements as specified in Section 6.02, the garage will not be calculated in the accessory building square footage requirement. (8MMMM, 11- 07 -95) (1) The accessory buildings on a residential parcel with a lot area of five (5 a.) acres or less, but more than one (1 a.) acre, shall not exceed the total square footage of land cover of the foundation of the principal structure. (8MMMM, 11- 07 -95) (2) The accessory buildings on a residential parcel with a lot area of one (1 a.) acre or less, shall not exceed 308 square feet and one story in height. seve five (759%) p n t o f the tot s quar e footage o f land e ever- of foundation of the prineipal struetur-e. (8U, 7- 19 -83) (8MMMM, 11- 07 -95) (3) All principle structures constructed within the Single Family Urban Residential (R -4) District after the effective date of this ordinance shall have an attached garage with a minimum size of 440 square feet. (D) When a private garage is oriented so as to face onto a public right -of -way it shall • not have less than the minimum required setback for the principal structure as measured from the lot line. (E) Accessory buildings and structures located in residential zoned districts that ar one hundred and twenty (120) squar-e feet or- less shall be setback a minimum of • five 5 ten (10) feet from side and rear lot lines unless an easement exists that is more restrictive. In no case shall an accessory building be located within an easement. Accessory buildings and structures located on corner lots are required to meet the sideyard setback requirements from the street as stated in Section 6.02. Accessory buildings and structures located in residential zoned districts that are greater than one hundred and twenty (120) square feet shall comply with all setback requirements as stated in Section 6.02. All accessory buildings and structures shall not be constructed or placed in a drainage or utility easement. (8BBBBB, 9- 16 -97) (F) Accessory buildings in the "Business " and "Industrial" Districts shall not be closer than ten (10) feet from side and rear lot lines subject to provisions for abutting residential zone provided herein. (G) No detached garages or other accessory buildings shall be located nearer the front lot line than the principal structure except as herein provided: (1) On residential parcels with a lot are of one (1 a.) acre or more, a detached garage or accessory building may be constructed closer to the front lot line than • the principal structure, however, the minimum distance it may be form the front lot line is sixty (60') feet. (2) All detached garages or accessory buildings constructed nearer the front lot line than the principal structure shall be similar in design and exterior finish material so as to be compatible to the principal structures. (8U, 7- 19 -83) (IT) No accessory building in a commercial or industrial district shall exceed the height of the principal building except by Special Use Permit. (I) An accessory building may be located within the rear yard setback provided said accessory building does not occupy more than twenty-five (25 %) percent of a required rear yard. (J) A private garage in a residential district shall not be utilized for business or industry. Further, that not more than one -half (1/2) of the space may be rented for the private vehicles of persons not resident on the premises, except that all the space in a garage of one (1) or two (2) car capacity may be so rented. Such garage shall not be used for more than one (1) vehicle registered as a commercial vehicle with the State of Minnesota. Said vehicle must be registered to the property leasor, or relative living on the premises. The gross weight of such commercial vehicle shall not exceed 12,000 pounds gross capacity. (8KKK, 1- 16 -90) • In an R -1 or R -2 Single Family Residential District on a parcel of at least three (3 a.) acres in size, one (1) truck- tractor may be stored within an accessory building. This shall not include the parking of semi - trailers. (8KKK, 1- 16 -90) • (K) Vehicles exceeding 10,000 pounds gross weight shall be parked in a garage or along the side or rear of a residential lot. Such vehicles shall not be parked in the front yard. (L) No permanent sheet metal, painted or unpainted accessory building, except small garden sheds not exceeding one hundred twenty (120) square feet, shall be allowed on parcels of three (3 a.) acres or less in all residential districts and within the Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA) Boundary. The foregoing shall not apply to painted and finished metal siding normally used on residential structures. (81,10-21-80; 8U, 7- 19 -83; 8DDD, 11- 01 -88; 8QQQ, 4- 02 -91) • is as CITY OF ANDOVER 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. • ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 • (763) 755 -5100 FAX (763) 755 -8923 • WWW.CI.ANDOVER.MN.US TO: Planning and Zoning Commissioners FROM: Will Neumeister, Community Development Directorc1� . SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING: Amend the Comprehensive Land Use Plan to change land use designations for various properties in the City. Also consideration will be given to add a new category of Limited Commercial (LC) to the land use designations to establish office park areas in the City. Also consider allowing some sites to have a dual land use designation, such as LC/URM to allow the site to be zoned for either offices or for medium density residential. DATE: May 28, 2002 INTRODUCTION The Planning Commission held a workshop meeting on April 9, 2002 where the Neighborhood Business District (NBD) study was presented by staff. The report and discussion focused on the various changes needed in both the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Ordinance to implement the study recommendations. This report focuses on the portions of the NBD study that detail the changes needed in the Land Use Plan to allow the zoning changes to be implemented. DISCUSSION The City recognizes the need for commercial and industrial uses within the community to provide a broad range service and employment opportunities for residents, and also to support the local tax base. However, an over -riding priority is development of cohesive land use patterns that establish compatible uses for surrounding areas. For the most part, these zoning designations were established prior to the most recent 2001 Comprehensive Plan update. Continued growth and development within the City has evolved its character to the extent that the appropriateness of some of the neighborhood business locations should be reviewed. To evaluate the various neighborhood business locations, the City must consider the general philosophy for neighborhood commercial locations, appropriate land use types, scale and performance standards, and site issues such as surrounding land uses, traffic generation, and public facilities. To this end, this report and the Neighborhood Business District study are intended to evaluate the City's goals for neighborhood commercial land use and neighborhood business zoning designations based upon current City policies and various area or site characteristics. The end result of this evaluation is to make recommendations as to potential changes to the Comprehensive • Plan, Zoning Map and Ordinance. Page 2 • Commercial Land Use - -As noted in the Economic Overview Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan, commercial land use in Andover comprises a small amount of the total land area. While residential growth rates have been increasing, new commercial development has not followed. The Comprehensive Plan cites a lack of major regional transportation corridors as one factor in the lack of commercial land use developing in the City. In general, the City's existing commercial development pattern evolving from that of a rural community to that of an active participant in the development boom occurring in the northern Twin Cities suburbs. This change in community character will result in development of larger commercial nodes along minor arterial corridors through the City, reflecting more regional shopping and employment patterns. The City has designated three major commercial nodes at Hanson Boulevard/Bunker Lake Boulevard, Round Lake Boulevard/Bunker Lake Boulevard, and Hanson Boulevard/Crosstown Boulevard on the Land Use map. Currently, there are nineteen neighborhood commercial sites designated on the Land Use map. Existing Goals and Objectives - -The Andover Comprehensive Plan outlines a broad set of goal and objective statements intended to guide the City's comprehensive planning land use decisions. The goal statements are the most generalized statements of the Comprehensive Plan's vision, while objectives are intended as means to realize these goals. Those which apply to the location and development of commercial land uses are outlined below: 0 Goal 1: Maintain a high degree of community planning and involvement. Applicable Objectives: Encourage commercial development along major thoroughfares, especially at major intersections to discourage strip development. Goal 2: Allow growth while maintaining the quality of natural resources and amenities. Applicable Objectives: Promote, protect, preserve and enhance residential, agricultural and open space in Andover through implementation of land use ordinances. Goal 3: Encourage appropriate economic growth, and redevelopment. Applicable Objectives: A. Develop a diversified tax base through balanced development of commercial, light industrial, and residential properties. Page 3 • B. Minimize potential zoning and land use conflicts by providing transitional zones or buffers between commercial, light industrial and residential activity and review regularly. C. Allow limited commercial growth to serve residential areas outside of the urban service area. D. Create and enhance commercial nodes for clustering neighborhood commercial activities. Goal 4: Plan for the externalities of future growth. Land Use Districts- -Based upon the goals and objectives cited above and generally within the Comprehensive Plan, the Comprehensive Plan establishes more specific polices through land use districts and a land use map. The purpose of the land use districts is to ensure compatible development, and to protect natural resources and amenities. The Comprehensive Plan explains that the designation of the various commercial locations within Andover is based upon a number of factors, including access to major traffic corridors, rapid residential growth creating an under served market and growing trade area. To meet the expected commercial activity created by the expanding market within the community, the Comprehensive Plan designates two commercial land use districts. The Neighborhood Commercial (NC) District and the General Commercial (GC) District. The Comprehensive Plan establishes guidelines for development of the commercial areas within the City. Recommended Changes - -It is recommended that a third new commercial land use district (e.g. Limited Commercial) be added to the City's Land Use Plan. Limited Commercial (LC) would specifically designate the nature of the more sensitive commercial areas that should be established in sensitive locations. The appropriate new language that should be added to the Land Use Plan includes the following (underlined is new): Limited Commercial (LC) land use district is designated for locations in the community that should be limited to primarily office uses These areas also need extra care to be taken to protect surrounding residential areas from traffic and noise associated with more intense commercial activities. Area Requirements: 1 to 5 acres City Utilities: Only within the MUSA Corresponding Zoning District: Limited Business (LB) Type of Development: Primarily Offices Development Criteria: Buffer uses adjacent to residential areas. E Page 4 • Neighborhood Commercial (NC) land use district is designated for businesses that serve local neighborhood needs. Care should be taken to properly separate neighborhood commercial locations from other commercial centers and properly screen activities and traffic from surrounding residential areas. Area Requirements: City Utilities: 1 to 5 acres Only within the MUSA Corresponding Zoning District: NB - Neighborhood Business Type of Development: Retail trade and services serving the immediate area Development Criteria: Create development nodes and avoid strip development One item of concern is that the Comprehensive Plan lacks a specific statement establishing a priority for establishment of larger GC areas. Because of the City's changing character, the opportunity to encourage and invest in major commercial centers is becoming possible. • Development of these larger commercial nodes will allow for a more efficient land use pattern, increase interchange opportunities for established businesses, and expand the City's tax base. To this end, the City should limit the amount of land allocated to neighborhood commercial uses. The sporadic designation of neighborhood commercial uses will only serve to fragment the City's land use pattern and reduce buying power away from the City's designated GC centers. The Comprehensive Plan should be amended to establish a structure by which development of General Commercial nodes are given a clear priority over limited NC sites. Recommendations for a set of goal and objective statements to be incorporated into the Comprehensive Plan is outlined below (new language is shown in underlining): Goal 5• Establish maintain and improve vital retail and service locations within Andover. Obiectives• 1. Promote development of commercial areas as cohesive, highly- inter - related nodes responsive to the needs of the community and surrounding market area. 2. Focus on new development and redevelopment efforts of general commercial areas to create site designs that promote attractive shopping environments, easy accessibility, and a high level of business interchange. i 3. Strongly discourage any fragmented or uncoordinated linear commercial development in favor of a unified and pre - planned development pattern. Page 5 • 4. Select strategic locations for neighborhood commercial sites and establish design performance standards for such uses that promote quality site design and compatible land use arrangements. 5. In evaluating commercial sites consideration shall be given to the physical implication of commercial use related to compatibility with surrounding land uses, traffic generation, sewer and water demands, and environmental issues. Dual Land Use Designations In order to address compatibility with the surrounding residential uses, the City may consider redesignating the sites for dual land use designations on a given piece of property (i.e. Urban Residential Medium Density (URM) and/or Limited Commercial (LC) on the Comprehensive Plan Land Use map). The dual URN/LC land use designation would serve to buffer the existing residential uses from more intensive commercial uses. Under such a scenario, the City could consider entertaining a rezoning to Multiple Dwelling (M -2) or if the site were zoned Limited Business (LB) would allow the development of an office use on the site. Goal 6: Establish proper buffering between commercial and residential uses with transitional land uses. . Objective: Allow for transitional sites to be designated as URM/LC to allow for the site to be zoned either as medium densitv residential or limited business. Needed Modifications to Land Use Designations Shown on the Comprehensive Plan —Based on the Neighborhood Business Study, there were three areas (Area A, C, and D) identified that need to be examined in regard to the goals and objectives that are listed above. The discussion and recommendations from the NBD study are shown below. Area A - Hanson Boulevard and 139 Lane Existing Conditions Area A consists of two parcels located northeast of Hanson Boulevard and Bunker Lake Boulevard. Each of these parcels was guided for commercial land use under the City's 1991 Comprehensive Plan and is currently guided for NC, Neighborhood Commercial use by the current Comprehensive Plan. The two properties are zoned NB District. The following table illustrates the dimensions of the properties within Area A: 0 Lot Area Lot Width Lot Depth Site A -1 5.5ac. 600ft. 400ft. Site A -2 5.2ac. 650ft. 350ft. Page 6 • Site A -1 is located east of Hanson Boulevard between 138 Lane and 139 Lane. The property is undeveloped and has some scrub vegetation scattered on the property and a few trees at the northeast corner. The property is generally higher in elevation than surrounding streets or properties and slopes downward to the east. There is a ponding area to the east of the property at the rear of a block of single family residential lots. Site A -2 is at the northeast quadrant of Hanson Boulevard and 139` Lane, north of Site A -1. The property is heavily wooded with a general slope down from west to east. There are two deep swales through the center of the property that may impact development potential of the site. Surrounding Land Uses Existing and planned land uses surrounding the subject parcels are identified in the following table: The primary issue for compatibility of these two sites is providing for an appropriate transition to the single family residential areas to the east of the subject sites. Given the change in elevation between Site A -1 and the residential uses to the east (which are lower), attention must be given to the orientation of any use and providing for an appropriate transition. Traffic generated by any use of the property may also be an issue as 138' Lane and 139' Lane, which abut the property, are local streets that provide direct access into the neighborhood to the east. The wooded nature of Site A -2 provides a means to buffer the surrounding residential uses, as does the location of Bunker Hills Park. Again, topography issues on this property may serve to limit the development potential of the site. The location of existing residential uses to the north however presents some compatibility problems due to their proximity. Commercial land use of these properties is likely to be impacted by the City's plans for a General Commercial area west of the Hanson Boulevard and Bunker Lake Boulevard intersection. As described in the Comprehensive Plan, retail and business activity at this location is experiencing steady growth with an increase of housing within the market area during the 1990s. Existing Use Existing Zoning Comprehensive Plan Land Use North Single Family R -4, Single Family -Urban URL, Urban Residential LD Residential East Single Family R -4, Single Family -Urban URL, Urban Residential LD Residential OS, Open Space Bunker Hills Public Park South Medical Office /Clinic NB, Neighborhood NC, Neighborhood Business Commercial West Convenience Gas GB, General Business GC, General Commercial Station GB, General Business GC, General Commercial Power Transfer Station GB, General Business GC, General Commercial Undeveloped The primary issue for compatibility of these two sites is providing for an appropriate transition to the single family residential areas to the east of the subject sites. Given the change in elevation between Site A -1 and the residential uses to the east (which are lower), attention must be given to the orientation of any use and providing for an appropriate transition. Traffic generated by any use of the property may also be an issue as 138' Lane and 139' Lane, which abut the property, are local streets that provide direct access into the neighborhood to the east. The wooded nature of Site A -2 provides a means to buffer the surrounding residential uses, as does the location of Bunker Hills Park. Again, topography issues on this property may serve to limit the development potential of the site. The location of existing residential uses to the north however presents some compatibility problems due to their proximity. Commercial land use of these properties is likely to be impacted by the City's plans for a General Commercial area west of the Hanson Boulevard and Bunker Lake Boulevard intersection. As described in the Comprehensive Plan, retail and business activity at this location is experiencing steady growth with an increase of housing within the market area during the 1990s. Page 7 Areas designated for General Commercial land uses are intended to provide for a wide variety of • commercial activities on a larger, more intense scale than Neighborhood Commercial areas. Therefore, it may be expected that the area west of Hanson Boulevard would develop a range of uses that adequately serve the population within the immediate trade area. An area southwest of the Hanson Boulevard and Bunker Lake Boulevard intersection is the subject of a specific redevelopment plan that would include community commercial, office, and entertainment uses. Designation of Neighborhood Commercial uses east of Hanson Boulevard may lead to development that is an expansion of the General Commercial area and more intense than intended by the Comprehensive Plan. Access Site A -1 has frontage to Hanson Boulevard, 138`' Lane, and 139 Lane. Site A -2 has frontage on Hanson Boulevard and 139` Lane. Hanson Boulevard is a two -lane road therefore, a use that generates significant traffic may necessitate construction of turn lanes in order to avoid disrupting traffic. 138' and 139' Lanes are local streets that primarily provide access to residential neighborhoods east of the subject sites. The ability of these streets to carry significant traffic is limited and may be disruptive to residential uses to the east. (AREA A MAP) i Site Site A- 0 Study Area A I M M 0 500 Feet Page 8 • The Anoka County 2015 Transportation Plan designates Hanson Boulevard (CSAH 78) as a "A" Minor Arterial Street. Under the Anoka County functional classification system, the emphasis of minor arterial roadways is on mobility rather than land access. The plan specifies that direct land access within the MUSA is to be limited to concentrations of commercial or industrial uses. Access to Hanson Boulevard is subject to approval of Anoka County. Any access to 138 Lane and 139 Lane would need to be setback 60 feet from the Hanson Boulevard intersection, per Section 8.08.E.3 of the Zoning Ordinance. This would allow stacking distance for only three or four cars at the intersection. Shifting the any access to the local streets farther west has the effect of moving traffic closer to the established neighborhoods. Utilities Area A -1 and A -2 sites are with the City's current 2020 Municipal Urban Service Area (MUSA) and are within the existing gravity flow service area for sanitary sewer. Development of Sites A -1 and A -2 with commercial uses may present land use compatibility challenges based upon their physical characteristics, traffic generation, and surrounding land uses. Further, the development of these sites with commercial uses may attract patrons from beyond the surrounding area due to business interchange with the planned general commercial area to the west of Hanson Boulevard. The location of these sites at the periphery of a larger commercial area may increase the intensity of a commercial land use on Sites A -1 or A -2 beyond scope of neighborhood commercial uses anticipated by the Comprehensive Plan. In order to address compatibility with the surrounding residential uses, the City shall consider redesignating the sites for dual land use designations on a given piece of property (i.e. Urban Residential Medium Density (URM) and/or Limited Commercial (LC) on the Comprehensive Plan Land Use map). A medium density residential land use would serve to buffer the existing residential uses to the east from traffic on Hanson Boulevard and planned intensive commercial uses to the west as encouraged by the Comprehensive Plan's stated objectives. Recommendations Existing residents would not be deprived of shopping opportunities as a result of a land use change for Sites A -1 and A -2 given the scope of the general commercial land use designation defined by the Comprehensive Plan. However, these two sites may present an opportunity for Limited Business (LB) as a transition between the residential areas and commercial area west of Hanson Boulevard. These two sites may be appropriate for designation as a reconstituted LB District, eliminating potentially intensive retail commercial use. Under such a scenario, the City would look for development of an office use similar in scale and intensity to the medical clinic located at the southeast corner of Hanson Boulevard and 138 Street. • City of Andover NB - Neighborhood Business District Study Area C - Crosstown Boulevard and 141 Lane 0 Existing Conditions Area C consists of one undeveloped parcel located along Crosstown Boulevard between 141 Land and 142 Avenue. The City's 1991 Comprehensive Plan guided the property for Residential - Urban Single Family Use. The current Comprehensive Plan guides the site for Neighborhood Commercial. However, the property is zoned R- 4, Residential Urban Single Family District, but a PUD allows for commercial use. The site is within one mile of the NB District commercial area at Crosstown Boulevard and Bunker Lake Boulevard. The property is flat with no existing vegetation. The following table illustrates the dimensions of Site C -1: Lot Area Lot Width Lot Depth Site C -1 3.98ac. 550ft. 300ft. Surrounding Land Uses Site C -1 is surrounded on all sides by developed single family uses. The single family uses to the north and south are separated from Site C -1 by local streets, but the • residences face the subject site. The site abuts the rear yards of the single family uses to the east. The single family uses to the west are across Crosstown Boulevard with rear yards adjacent to the roadway. The character and configuration of surrounding land uses raises question as to the planned neighborhood use of Site C -1. The only physical feature that exists to provide a transition between a commercial use and the surrounding single family uses is a small earth berm along the easterly property line. 0 (amended by City Staff on 4/03/02) Page 24 Existing Use Existing Zoning Comprehensive Plan Land Use North Single Family Residential R -4, Single Family- URL, Urban Residential Urban LD East Single Family Residential R-4, Single Family- URL, Urban Residential Urban LD South Single Family Residential R-4, Single Family- URL, Urban Residential Urban LD West Single Family Residential R-4, Single Family- URL, Urban Residential Urban LD The character and configuration of surrounding land uses raises question as to the planned neighborhood use of Site C -1. The only physical feature that exists to provide a transition between a commercial use and the surrounding single family uses is a small earth berm along the easterly property line. 0 (amended by City Staff on 4/03/02) Page 24 Study • Area - C 11 0 500 Feet O E Page 11 Access Site C -1 has frontage to Crosstown Boulevard, which is designated as a `B" minor arterial by the Anoka County Transportation Plan. Direct property access to minor arterial roads is to be limited except for concentrated commercial nodes, whereas this site is a single isolated property. Access to Crosstown Boulevard from Site C -1 is subject to review and approval by Anoka County. Site C -1 also has frontage to 141 Lane and 142 "d Avenue, which are local streets. As noted above single family residential uses have direct access to these streets across from the subject site. Directing commercial traffic onto these streets to access Site C -1 may be intrusive to the established residential character of the area. Utilities Site C -1 is within the 2020 MUSA and existing gravity sewer service boundaries. Municipal water service is also available to the property. Recommendations The area surrounding Site C -1 has developed with an urban single family character. The introduction of a commercial use on this site could be incompatible within this area due to its • existing character and lack of physical features to create a transition. As noted in previous sections, the Comprehensive Plan discourages commercial development away from concentrated nodes or major intersections to avoid intruding into residential areas. Staff recommends that the Land Use Plan be amended to designate Site C -1 for Urban Residential Medium Density Use to ensure full utilization of the site, provided that the site design provides proper orientation and transition to the adjacent single family residences. Overall density should be near the lower end of range prescribed by the Comprehensive Plan for medium density uses and developed under the City's M -1 Multiple Dwelling Low Density Zoning District to ensure compatibility. Alternatively, the site could be designated URL and allow the zoning to remain R -4. Area D - Crosstown Boulevard and Crosstown Drive Existina Conditions Area D includes one undeveloped parcel located on the south side of the Crosstown Boulevard and Crosstown Drive intersection. The parcel was guided for commercial land use under the City's 1991 Comprehensive Plan and is currently guided for NC, neighborhood commercial use by the current Comprehensive Plan. The property is zoned NB District. 0 Page 12 • Potential development of the site is likely severely limited because of a wetland to the south and west, which limits the depth of the parcel. The elevation of the parcel is also below the grade of the adjacent roadways. The following table illustrates the dimensions of Site D -1: Lot Area Lot Width Lot Depth Site D -1 5.2 ac. 1,100 ft. 380 ft. 0 • Surroundin¢ Land Uses The area surrounding Site D -1 is described by the following table. There are single family uses fronting Crosstown Drive across from the property to the west and multiple family buildings to the south across a large wetland. The parcel guided for public use and zoned NB District east of Crosstown Boulevard and north of 139` Avenue is developed with a single family residence. The parcel east of Crosstown Boulevard and south of 139 Avenue guided for Neighborhood Commercial use and zoned NB is developed with a fire station. (AREA D MAP) Study Area D 0 500 Feet Existing Use Existing Zoning Comprehensive Plan Land Use North Single Family NB, Neighborhood Public Residential Business URL, Urban Residential LD R -4, amily Urban East Fire Station NB, Neighborhood NC, Neighborhood Business Commercial South Wetland Multiple Residential M -2 Multiple Residential URM, Urban Residential MD West Single Family R -4, Single Family Urban URL, Urban Residential LD Residential (AREA D MAP) Study Area D 0 500 Feet Page 13 • Other convenience commercial nodes exist less than one -half mile beyond the immediate area at the intersections of Crosstown Boulevard and Bunker Lake Boulevard and at Crosstown Drive and Bunker Lake Boulevard. The area southeast of Crosstown Boulevard and Bunker Lake Boulevard is designated as a general commercial area meaning a broad range of commercial goods and services may potentially be available. Access Site D -1 has frontage to Crosstown Drive and Crosstown Boulevard, which are both two -lane roadways. The intersection of these two roadways is at a curve section on Crosstown Boulevard and is aligned with 139 Avenue to the east. Dedicated right turn lanes from south Crosstown Boulevard to south Crosstown Drive and from north Crosstown Drive to south Crosstown Boulevard are provided. Crosstown Boulevard (County Road 18) is designated as an existing and 2015 "B" minor arterial street by the Anoka County Transportation Plan. Direct lot access to land from minor arterials is to be limited, except for concentrated commercial nodes. Access to Site D -1 from Crosstown Boulevard may be problematic due to spacing needs from the Crosstown Drive intersection and curvature of Crosstown Boulevard. Access to Crosstown Boulevard is subject to review and approval of Anoka County. Crosstown Drive is a local street. Single family residential lots have direct access along the west side of the roadway. Access to the Site D -1 from Crosstown Drive for a commercial use may be difficult due to the design of the Crosstown Boulevard and Crosstown Drive intersection, as well as the severely limited buildable area of the subject site. Any access to the site would need to align with Yukon Street on the west side of Crosstown Drive to avoid off -set intersections and potential conflicts. Utilities Site D -1 is within the City's 2020 MUSA and is within the current gravity sewer service boundary. Municipal water service is also available to the property. Other Chances That Are Needed Staff has found that there is one property in the vicinity of site D -1 that needs to have a change of and use from Neighborhood Commercial to Urban Residential Low Density. That site is located at the northeast corner of 139 and Crosstown Boulevard. This property is currently occupied by a single family home. The proper land use guiding for the property should be for low density residential, not commercial development and should be taken care of at this time. Recommendations The development potential of Site D -1 is severely limited due to the large wetland area adjacent to the property and design of streets serving the property. Development of a commercial use on Page 14 • the property is not recommended given the residential character of the area immediately to the west and access issues related to streets serving the property. The proximity of neighborhood commercial and general commercial uses Crosstown Drive/ Bunker Lake Boulevard and Crosstown Boulevard/Bunker Lake Boulevard limits the market for commercial use of Site D -1 because of business interchange within a larger commercial node or business interception of patrons traveling on Bunker Lake Boulevard or north on Crosstown Boulevard. Although the current Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map would anticipate neighborhood commercial uses east of Crosstown Boulevard, these properties have not developed with commercial uses, limiting the size of a commercial node at this intersection. As such, it is recommended that the City amend the Land Use map to designate the property for Urban Residential Medium Density Land Uses and rezone the property to a M -2, Multiple Dwelling District. This land use designation and Zoning District may allow for some utilization of Site D -1. Multiple family residential use of the property would likely be more compatible with the single family uses across Crosstown Drive, while less susceptible to impacts from traffic on Crosstown Boulevard than a single family use. The City may also consider amending the Land Use plan to change the designation of the land use northeast of Crosstown Boulevard and 139` Avenue from Public to Urban Residential Low Density to reflect the current use of the property. The Land Use map should also be amended to change the designation of the property southeast of Crosstown Boulevard and 139 Street to Public reflecting the location of the Fire Station. Corresponding changes to the Zoning Map should also be made for these two parcels. ACTION REQUESTED The Planning Commission discuss the various changes to the Land Use Plan to allow for the text and land use designations shown above. The Commission is requested to be make recommendations for the proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Plan. Respectfully submitted, Will Neumeister • E: CITY OF ANDOVER 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. • ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 • (763) 755 -5100 FAX (763) 755 -8923 • WWW.CI.ANDOVER.MN.US TO: Planning and Zoning Commissioners FROM: Will Neumeister, Community Development Director Gf/ SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING: Amend Zoning Ordinance to allow for various language changes recommended by the Neighborhood Business District Study. DATE: May 28, 2002 INTRODUCTION The Planning Commission held a workshop meeting on April 9, 2002 where the Neighborhood Business District (NBD) study was presented by staff. The original report and discussion focused on the various changes needed in both the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Ordinance to implement the study recommendations. This report more closely focuses on the portions of the NBD study that detail the changes needed in the language in the Zoning Ordinance for the necessary changes to be implemented. DISCUSSION For the most part, the current zoning designations and language in the Zoning Ordinance were established prior to the most recent 2001 Comprehensive Plan update. Continued growth and development within the City has evolved its character to the extent that the language that is currently in the Zoning Ordinance should be reviewed. In making these changes, the City must consider the general philosophy for neighborhood commercial locations, appropriate land use types, scale and performance standards, and site issues such as surrounding land uses, traffic generation, and public facilities. To this end, this report and the Neighborhood Business District study are intended to evaluate the City's goals for neighborhood commercial land use and neighborhood business zoning designations based upon current City policies and various area or site characteristics. Again, the end result of this evaluation is to make recommendations as to potential changes to the Zoning Ordinance. ZONING ORDINANCE The City of Andover adopted and administers a Zoning Ordinance for the purpose of implementing its Comprehensive Plan to protect public health, safety, convenience, and general welfare based upon public service capacity, land use compatibility, and growth management principals. 0 The Zoning Ordinance establishes various Zoning Districts and a Zoning Map that includes four business districts: • LB - Limited Business NB - Neighborhood Business SC - Shopping Center GB - General Business Staff recommends that the City maintain its Limited Business (LB) District. Given the range of uses presently allowed and proposed to be allowed within the NB District, the use of this designation in close proximity to developed residential areas may be problematic. With slight revisions, the LB District would provide the City an option to designate sites for uses that may be more appropriate in sensitive areas. The key element to making this concept work is the removal of both "Retail Trade and Services" and "Twenty-four hour continuous operations" from the LB district. PURPOSE STATEMENTS Using a four tiered approach to commercial zoning districts, the purpose of each district is defined as follows: LB -- Limited Business The Limited Business District is to provide for the establishment of buffer uses adjacent to residential areas. NB -- Neighborhood Business The Neighborhood Business District is intended to provide for the establishment of low to moderately intense retail, office, or service activities that deal directly with the customer for whom the goods and services are furnished. The implementation of this district is to provide goods and services on a limited community market scale and located in areas generally served by collector or arterial streets at the edge of residential districts not served by other commercial areas designated by the Comprehensive Plan. SC -- Shopping Center The Shopping Center District is to provide for land in single ownership or unified control for the purpose of developing a planned shopping center with a unified and organized arrangement of buildings and service facilities at locations well served by collector or arterial streets as designated by the Comprehensive Plan. GB General Business The General Business District is intended to provide for the establishment of commercial • retail, office, and service activities that draw from and serve patrons from the entire ,7— community or region in areas designated for General Commercial Use by the Comprehensive Plan. Based on the Neighborhood Business District study, staff and the consultant recommend amending the Zoning Ordinance to consider the following changes: • Removing "Service Stations" and "Twenty -four hour continuous operations" from uses allowed as Special Uses in the Limited Business (LB) Zoning District • Exclude "Service Stations" from the retail trade and services definition from uses allowed in the Neighborhood Business (NB) Zoning District. • Add language to the Neighborhood Business (NB) Zoning District that would limit service stations in this zone to sites that are two acres or larger as a Special Use. The following language currently exists in the Zoning Ordinance; suggested changes that are shown above are proposed to be enacted by the following changes in the Zoning Ordinance (cross out – delete; or underlining —new): Limited Business (LB) Zoning District Of these four commercial districts, the LB District is intended to provide buffer uses adjacent to residential areas that do not create significant traffic issues or noise and odors. To this end, the LB • District allows for the following: Permitted Uses (Section 7.01 of the Zoning Ordinance): Parks. Public elementary, junior and senior high schools. Public owned and operated property except as herein amended. Public utility uses for local service when located within public right -of -way utility uses require a special use permit. Barber Shops, Beauty Salons and Tanning Studios Business Schools Day Care Centers Financial Institutions Medical and Dental Clinics Mortuaries and Funeral Homes Professional Offices Professional Studios Rest Homes and Nursing Homes Veterinary Clinics (no outside pens or animal storage). All other public Permitted Accessory Uses (Section 7.02 of the Zoning Ordinance): • Any incidental repair, process, and storage necessary to conduct a permitted principal use but not to exceed thirty (30 %) percent of the floor space of the principal building. –3- • Special Uses (established by Section 7.03 of the Zoning Ordinance and which require processing of a Special Use Permit pursuant to Section 5.03 of the Zoning Ordinance): Churches Restaurants Retail Trade and S .°s (Staff recommends removal of this as a Special Use). Twenty -four hour continuous operation of Medical Clinics . (Staff recommends rewriting this to eliminate the broad category of permitted uses, but allowing medical clinics due to the fact that one currently exists where LB is proposed). Neighborhood Business (NB) Zoning District Of these four commercial districts, the NB District is intended to provide the framework for development of the properties designated on the Comprehensive Plan Land Use map for Neighborhood Commercial (NC) land uses. As stated in Section 6.01 of the Zoning Ordinance, the NB District is to provide uses for retail sales and services at such a scale as to serve the surrounding neighborhood's needs. To this end, the NB District allows for the following: Permitted Uses (Section 7.01 of the Zoning Ordinance): Parks. Public elementary, junior and senior high schools. • Public owned and operated property except as herein amended. Public utility uses for local service when located within public right -of -way. All other public utility uses require a special use permit. Day Care Centers Financial Institutions Medical and Dental Clinics Mortuaries and Funeral Homes Professional Offices Professional Studios Restaurants Retail Trade and Services except service /fuel stations) (staff is recommending adding the language to more closely control the locations and conditions under which they will be allowed). Permitted Accessory Uses (Section 7.02 of the Zoning Ordinance): Any incidental repair, process, and storage necessary to conduct a permitted principal use but not to exceed thirty (30 %) percent of the floor space of the principal building. Special Uses (established by Section 7.03 of the Zoning Ordinance and which require processing of a Special Use Permit pursuant to Section 5.03 of the Zoning Ordinance): Outdoor display only during operating hours • Service Station after minimum 2,000 sq. ft. of retail floor space is constructed provided the site is two acres or larger) (staff recommends adding this language to limit the sites to two acres —4z— or larger to prevent the introduction of a service station on a piece of land that currently is • zoned NB and is under two acres in size. This particular site is adjacent to a residential area that would be negatively impacted from such a use and by making this change would allow the other existing businesses to stay without making them non - conforming). Veterinary Clinic or Pet Hospital with no outside pets Various options to consider - -The range and character of uses allowed within the NB District are generally within the intent of the Comprehensive Plan to provide uses oriented to a small neighborhood trade area. It is noted however, that the uses are fairly generalized with no limitation placed on the scale of the businesses. Also, certain uses allowed in the Neighborhood Business District may have inherent characteristics that make them inappropriate for the NB District. In reviewing the list of uses, restaurants as a permitted use and service stations as a special use may raise some issues of compatibility. Both of these uses are potentially intensive uses that may create a negative impact to a specific area due to their character. Restaurants - -To address this issue relative to restaurants, the City may consider a number of options. First, the City may consider whether such uses should remain in the NB District, and if they do remain at what scale. The City should include definitions of various restaurants within the Zoning Ordinance and specify in which zoning districts such uses are allowed. It is common for cities to distinguish sit -down or family type restaurants, convenience (fast food) restaurants, and take -out and delivery only food services. The basis for such distinction is the differences in activity generated by each use. Convenience food uses typically generate more activity, thereby increasing potential impacts, due to the quick customer turnover of their business. In creating more specific categories of restaurants, Andover may better define which types of businesses are appropriate for the NB District. Lastly, the City may also consider making restaurants a Special Use within the NB District to allow for greater oversight and review of any development proposal. It is recommended that if the Commission desires to go into this in further detail, a separate discussion will be needed to go over the various nuances and determine if the changes are needed or not. Service Stations - -The allowance of service stations within the NB District may also create potential negative impacts for adjacent properties (especially residential uses) due to the character of these developments and typically high levels of traffic generation. It is recommended that they be allowed as a Special Use in the NB District provided their site is two acres or larger. General Performance Standards - -In addition to the uses and standards outlined for the specific NB District, the Andover Zoning Ordinance outlines a number of generalized standards applicable to the use of these sites. These standards include requirements for bulk storage of fuel, exterior storage, refuse, screening, landscaping, property maintenance, site lighting (glare), signs, off - street parking, off - street loading, traffic control, drainage, storage of explosives, drive -in businesses, emissions, building materials, nuisances, building height, and coin - operated machines. These standards are reflective of the community's adopted Comprehensive Plan goals for maintaining a high degree of community planning intent on preserving and enhancing residential, agricultural, and open space in Andover. is Zoning Ordinance Update - -The Zoning Ordinance update would expand the number of allowed uses within the revised NB District to include those additional uses listed below: --S Permitted Uses: • Bus/Transit Station without Vehicle Storage Private Clubs/Lodges (Staff recommends that this be made a Special Use) Temporary Outdoor Promotion or Sales Special Uses: Drive Through Business Liquor License (Staff recommends removal of this as a Special Use) Outside, Above/Below Ground Storage of Bulk Fuel (500 gallon or more) Planned Unit Development Vehicle Wash Note - -The only use presently allowed within the NB District not to be included as part of the update is public elementary, junior high, and high schools. As with the current allowance of restaurants and service (gas) stations within the NB District, the expanded range of uses includes uses such as bus terminals, drive- through businesses, vehicle washes, and mining may be too intensive for the intended purpose of the NB District. The decision as to whether these uses are appropriate within the NB District is a policy issue to be decided by City officials. However, several of these uses have intensive characteristics that may present compatibility issues with surrounding residential uses. If these more intensive uses are to be allowed, it should only be as a Special Use. In establishing various Special Uses, the City should prepare specific performance standards to address potential negative impacts unique to the respective use. Special Uses are typically regarded as those activities which may be appropriate in a given location provided that measures are taken to mitigate certain characteristics of the use that may result in compatibility issues with surrounding uses. A Special Use is to be approved subject to certain conditions meant to ensure compatibility which may be subject to continued review or modification over time as the use or area changes. Given the intensity of the uses conditionally allowed within the present NB District, the administration section of the Zoning Ordinance takes on greater importance. If the Commission would like to discuss further how the Ordinance should be amended to cover this in further detail it will be brought back for further review and discussion. ACTION REQUESTED The Planning Commission discuss and make recommendations relative to the proposed changes to the Zoning Ordinance shown above. Respectfully submitted, Will Neumeister -6 r '* G) TO: 0 FROM: CITY OF ANDOVER 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. • ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 • (763) 755 -5100 FAX (763) 755 -8923 • WWW.CLANDOVER.MN.US Planning and Zoning Commissioners Courtney Bednarz, City Planne* SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING: Amend the Official Zoning Map to rezone property from Neighborhood Business (NB) to Limited Business (LB). The site is located east of Hanson Boulevard, north of 138th Lane. Staff report by Courtney Bednarz, City Planner. DATE: May 28, 2002 INTRODUCTION This item follows the recommendations of the Neighborhood Business study concerning two undeveloped properties located on the east side of Hanson Boulevard both north and south of 139 Lane. DISCUSSION The subject property has been zoned Neighborhood Business (NB) for many years. During this time, the surrounding property has developed with single family residential housing. This neighborhood also shares access to Hanson Boulevard with the subject properties (139 Lane NW). The neighborhood business district allows a wide variety of commercial land uses. Some of these uses are not appropriate for a commercial property that abuts a single family residential neighborhood. Times and conditions have changed to such an extent that rezoning of the property is appropriate. As discussed with the Comprehensive Plan Amendment concerning these properties, either light commercial or medium density residential land uses are appropriate for this site. Due to the fact that the City does not zone property for either medium or high density residential land uses without a rezoning contract, a rezoning to one of these zoning districts would only occur during the review of a specific project. Therefore, it is recommended that the subject properties be rezoned to the Limited Business (LB) Zoning District with the understanding that under a dual land use designation (LC/URM), the opportunity to rezone the property for a residential land use still exists. MTN FWAO • Attachments Proposed Ordinance Location Map ACTION REQUIRED The Planning and Zoning Commission is asked to recommend approval or denial of Rezoning the subject properties to Limited Business (LB). Res ct y submitted, 0e ; F ed z Cc: Rademacher Co. 6272 Boone Avenue North, Brooklyn Park, MN 55428 Hills, Inc. 1875 Commercial Boulevard NW #1 • —z— • CITY OF ANDOVER COUNTY OF ANOKA STATE OF MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO.8 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 8, SECTION 6.03, ZONING DISTRICT MAP OF THE CITY OF ANDOVER. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANDOVER HEREBY ORDAINS: Ordinance 8, Section 6.03, The Zoning District Map of the City of Andover is hereby amended as follows (PIN 35- 32 -24 -22 -0004 and 35- 32- 24 -22- 0025): 1) Rezone land from Neighborhood Business (NB) to Limited Business (LB) on approximately 10.7 acres legally described as: Lot 1, Block 1 and Lot 1, Block 6, Hills of Bunker Lake 3` Addition, Anoka County, Minnesota. 2) All other sections of the Zoning Ordinance Shall remain as written and adopted by the • City Council of the City of Andover. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Andover on this _ day of 2002. CITY OF ANDOVER ATTEST: Michael R. Gamache, Mayor Victoria Volk, City Clerk • —3 R -1 - Single Family -Rural R -1A - Manufactured Housing R -2 - Single Family- Estate R -3 - Single Family- Suburban R -4 - Single Family -Urban M -1 - Multiple Dwelling Low Density M -2 - Multiple Dwelling LB - Limited Business ME NB - Neighborhood Business SC - Shopping Center GB - General Business • I - Industrial 0 Water GR - General Recreation 0 Right -of -Way Rezoning NB to LB City of Andover, Minnesota Incorporated 1974 ZONING MAP � May 2002 N W-9 S 1� '0 0) TO: ' • ►ll Planning and Zoning Commissioners Courtney Bednarz, City Plann6v SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING: Amend the Official Zoning Map to rezone property from Neighborhood Business (NB) to Single Family Urban Residential (R -4). Staff report by Courtney Bednarz, City Planner. DATE: May 28, 2002 INTRODUCTION This item follows the recommendations of the Neighborhood Business study concerning undeveloped property containing a significant wetland located immediately south of the intersection of Crosstown Boulevard and Crosstown Drive. 9 DISCUSSION The subject property is currently zoned Neighborhood Business (NB). The property is very likely unbuildable due to the large amount of wetland on the property. The property is owned by the City. The consultant's recommendation is to rezone the property to Multiple Dwelling (M -2) based on the assumption that this district may allow some use to be made of the property. While this may be true, it is important to note that the City does not rezone property to medium or high density designations without a rezoning contract. Therefore, it is recommended that the site be rezoned to Single Family Urban Residential (R -4) to match the zoning of contiguous property to the south and adjacent property to the west. Additional Properties CITY OF ANDOVER 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. • ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 • (763) 755 -5100 FAX (763) 755 -8923 • WWW.CLANDOVER.MN.US The vacant property immediately east of the fire station is also zoned Neighborhood Business (NB). The Land Use designation for this property is Urban Residential Low Density (URL). The property is only 80 feet wide, which is significantly below the minimum lot with requirement of 150 feet. It is recommended that this property be rezoned to Single Family Urban Residential (R -4) • to conform with the existing Land Use designation as well as the zoning of the surrounding neighborhood. A public notice will need to be issued before this action can be taken. • 2. The property at the northeast comer of the intersection of Crosstown Boulevard and Crosstown Drive is also zoned Neighborhood Business (NB) and has a Neighborhood Commercial Land Use Designation. This property contains a single family house. It is recommended that the Land Use designation be changed to Urban Residential Low Density (URL) and that the zoning be changed to Single Family Urban Residential (R-4) to bring the land use and zoning designations for this property into conformance with the way it has developed. A public notice will need to be issued before this action can be taken. 3. The fire station is also zoned Neighborhood Business (NB). Public owned and operated property is a permitted use in all zoning districts (excluding public utility uses). Due to the fact that all of the surrounding Neighborhood Business zoning designations are being changed, this would be the only site in this area to retain the Neighborhood Business zoning designation. It is therefore recommended that this site be rezoned to Single Family Urban Residential (R4) to complete the transition away from commercial zoning designations at this intersection. A public notice needs to be issued specifically for these properties before a Rezoning can be IS acted upon. Attachments Proposed Ordinance Location Map ACTION REQUIRED The Planning and Zoning Commission is asked to recommend approval or denial of Rezoning the subject property to Single Family Urban Residential (R -4). Z64ne L Te4arz is • CITY OF ANDOVER COUNTY OF ANOKA STATE OF MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO.8 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 8, SECTION 6.03, ZONING DISTRICT MAP OF THE CITY OF ANDOVER. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANDOVER HEREBY ORDAINS: Ordinance 8, Section 6.03, The Zoning District Map of the City of Andover is hereby amended as follows (PIN 33- 32- 24 -14- 0038): 1) Rezone land from Neighborhood Business (NB) to Single Family Urban Residential (R- 4) on approximately acres legally described as: Property addressed as 13875 Crosstown Drive (PIN 33- 32 -24 -14 -0038) in the Northeast Quarter of Section 33, Township 32, Range 24, Anoka County, Minnesota. • 2) All other sections of the Zoning Ordinance Shall remain as written and adopted by the City Council of the City of Andover. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Andover on this _ day of 2002. CITY OF ANDOVER ATTEST: Michael R. Gamache, Mayor Victoria Volk, City Clerk Rezoning NB to R -4 R -1 - Single Family -Rural R -1A - Manufactured Housing R -2 - Single Family- Estate R -3 - Single Family- Suburban R -4 - Single Family -Urban M -1 - Multiple Dwelling Low Density M -2 - Multiple Dwelling 0 LB - Limited Business NB - Neighborhood Business SC - Shopping Center GB - General Business City of Andover, Minnesota Incorporated 1974 (k+ \) ZONING MAP Neighborhood May 2002 • I - Industrial " Water w�E GR - General Recreation [� Right -of -Way