HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/25/02CITY of ANDOVER
1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. • ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 • (763) 755 -5100 FAX (763) 755 -8923
Andover Planning and Zoning Commission
Meeting Agenda
Tune 25, 2002
Andover City Hall
Council Chambers
7.00 a.m.
1.
Call to Order
2.
Approval of Minutes— May 28, 2002 and June 11, 2002
3.
PUBLIC HEARING: Residential Sketch Plan for Woodland
Development for property located in Sections 21 and 22, Township 32, Range
24. Staff report by Courtney Bednarz, City Planner.
4.
PUBLIC HEARING: Variance (02 -05) - Variance to Ordinance No. 8,
Section 6.02 Minimum District Provisions for reduction of corner side yard
•
setback at 1353 142 ° Avenue NW for Mary Evers- Rystrom and Dave
Rystrom. Staff report by Tyler Mckay, Associate Planner.
5.
PUBLIC HEARING: Special Use Permit (02 -09) for an off- -sale liquor
license to be issued to Bruce Knowlan (Liquors Plus, Inc.) at 2300 Bunker
Lake Boulevard. Staff report by Tyler Mckay, Associate Planner.
6.
• PUBLIC HEARING: Ordinance Amendment to consider amending
Ordinance No. 10, Section 6.02 (Procedure) The proposed amendment
would extend the review /comment period for the Andover Review Committee
to a full fifteen working days from the time it.is received at the City. Staff
report by Courtney Bednarz, City Planner.
7.
Other Business
8.
Adjournment
----
.- .,..,
--
.' "
,.-".~<'. ,,,"",, .:' :'.<', .:..;L,:':",O::.,'-"... ""'.'~.., :""';"_""""'-".','.-:", ", ',', .-'.:..,:'.:__.'.
City Planner,CoJIrt,l1ey 13edI1arz;explained~t thl~jterUjsaiunifresi4entiaI plat ',." " , ,__
proposingtocreateeight rural properties 'from. aforty-acteparceIlo,cated nOrtl1311dw~t
(jftheinte~section of CSi\,H '203114 Verdin Street NW, '. The CbnmlissionpreviouslYi ',.
revi~\Vedilii.s ,proposal aSa.sketch'p'lanonNovetnber13; 2001.Ordinahce lO,~ectiqnT "
()utlines,~e~equirements for preliminary pla~reviFw.' TheC?Il1missiori isa;sk~dt1) , .' ,.,.
determmewhether the proposed subqiVision ism confonnityWith. the Comprehensive
l?lan and in conforInance with City,ordmances; ,,' .,', , ' ,':0-- ,,'
Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
"Unapproved" Minutes — May 28, 2002
Page 2
Commissioner Kirchoff questioned if every lot would be 150' X 150'. Mr. Bednarz. •
explained that there would only be two lots reduced to the 150' X 150'.
Commissioner Kirchoff questioned if Lots 5 and 6 would be the ones affected. Mr.
Bednarz stated that that is correct.
Mr. Bednarz explained that the reason for the 150' X 150' building pad is to save some of
the trees.
Motion by Greenwald, seconded by Kirchoff to open the public hearing at 7:07 p.m.
Motion carried on a 5 -ayes, 0 -nays, 2- absent (Squires and Falk) vote.
Jeremy Botts, representing John Oliver and Associates, explained that the reason they are
requesting a variance is for the 150' X 150' building pad, which will help to save some of
the trees.
The Developer, Chet Whielock, mentioned that it isn't a strong request, but instead just a
suggestion as a way to save some of the trees. Mr. Boots pointed out on a drawing the
location where some trees would be preserved.
Mr. Bednarz stated that essentially the developer would be custom grading those two lots.
Mr. Boots pointed out a specific area on the map where approximately 1.2 acres of i
woodland would be saved. They feel this could add some value to the City. He
mentioned that another concern was the storm water drainage. He stated that because of
the nature of the hydraulics and the wooded land they are proposing an 18" culvert under
the driveway to help provide plenty of capacity. He stated that the culvert would be
placed at the exact grade that is already there.
Mr. Boots explained that the run off from certain areas would be going into a storm water
collection system. It would direct the storm water on the south side of the trail way away
from the adjacent property.
Mr. Bednarz stated that it's staff's recommendation to raise the trail and install a culvert
to allow drainage to the south, however the engineer for the trail hasn't addressed the
need for this culvert. He suggested it be added as a condition if the Commission so
desires.
Commissioner Greenwald questioned Mr. Bednarz if staff has reviewed what Mr. Boots
is proposing. Mr. Bednarz stated that the Watershed District would need to review the
plan.
Commissioner Greenwald questioned what type of trees would be saved. Mr. Whielock
stated that he's unsure. 0
Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
"Unapproved" Minutes — May 28, 2002
Page 3
• Robert Whitney, 2520 166` Avenue, questioned what elevation the trail would be at the
trail crossing.
Mr. Whielock stated that they weren't aware they were going to raise the trail; therefore it
would be the City's requirement. Mr. Bednarz stated that it would be at least 3 feet
above the elevation, however it would be researched further.
Steve Erickson, 166 Verdin Street, questioned who would be putting in the trail. He
stated that from the beginning it was the developer that would be doing the entire trail
back through the park. He questioned the reason it's changed. Mr. Bednarz stated that
nothing has changed from the original agreement.
Steve Friese explained that he owns the 10 acres to the south of the development on
County Road 20. He stated that they would like to see the trees preserved. He
questioned where the driveway and trail would be located. Mr. Boots pointed out the
location of the driveway and trail in relation to the wetland. He mentioned that they
would mitigate at a 2:1 ratio.
Lora Erickson, 166 Verdin Street, questioned if curb and gutter would be included in the
development. She also questioned if there would be streetlights. Mr. Bednarz stated that
this development would be required to meet all rural development criteria. He mentioned
that the development would have streetlights.
Ms. Erickson questioned who would be paying for the street lights. Mr. Bednarz stated
that the homeowners would be responsible to pay for the street lights.
Ms. Erickson questioned if the sewer and water would affect the area to the north of their
development. Mr. Bednarz explained that it would not affect their development or any
other neighboring developments.
Mr. Whitney asked for an explanation on the depression in the north central lot. Mr.
Boots stated that this would be a storm water retention pond.
Mr. Erickson questioned if the development would have curbing. Mr. Bednarz stated that
that is correct.
Mr. Erickson questioned if the trail would be by itself. Mr. Bednarz pointed out how the
trail would lay out.
Mr. Erickson questioned the reason the driveway can be located with the trail, since
vehicles wouldn't be allowed on the trail. Mr. Bednarz stated that there would be a
separation between the two.
There was no further public input.
•
Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
"Unapproved" Minutes — May 28, 2002
Page 4
Motion by Kirchoff, seconded by Greenwald, to close the public hearing at 7:29 p.m. •
Motion carried on a 5 -ayes, 0 -nays, 2- absent (Squires and Falk) vote.
Commissioner Greenwald questioned if it's typical for the developer to do the grading
and put on the class 5 rock, however the City put in the trail. Mr. Bednarz explained that
the City also has trail fees, therefore it could be considered double dipping if the City
were to require them to do the whole trail in addition to charging a trail fee.
Commissioner Hedin questioned what the separation would be between the driveway and
the trail. Mr. Bednarz stated that it would be approximately 10 feet. Mr. Boots stated
that in reality the separation is almost 18 feet wide.
Commissioner Hedin questioned if the area between the trail and driveway would be
lower. Mr. Boots stated that the middle area would be a dipped, and the trail and
driveway would be built up.
Commissioner Hedin questioned where the rainwater would go. Mr. Boots stated that the
water would drain to the north and into the culvert.
Commissioner Hedin questioned the distance the water would travel. Mr. Boots stated
that the culvert would be approximately 150 feet away. He mentioned that the area could
be filled in if the Commission would prefer.
Acting Chair Daninger questioned if it's correct to say that staff was unaware of the two
150' X 150' building pads. Mr. Bednarz stated yes.
Acting Chair Daninger stated that he's a little skeptical since the City hasn't reviewed it.
He questioned if staff would like the issue of raising the trail listed as a condition. Mr.
Bednarz stated that there are questions that need to be addressed in regards to the trail.
He suggested the plans be reviewed by the Watershed District and the Engineering
Department.
Commissioner Kirchoff stated that he does like the idea of raising the trail and putting in
the culvert. He also like the idea of saving some of the trees however suggested the size
of the culvert be researched.
Commissioner Hedin stated that he's comfortable with the proposal.
Motion by Hedin, seconded by Kirchoff, to recommend to the City Council approval of
the Preliminary Plat for a Rural Residential Plat to be known as `Silver Meadows'
containing eight lots located at 16326 Verdin Street NW and including the conditions in
the resolution in addition to the ones listed below:
1. That an 18" culvert or whatever size staff determines is appropriate in terms of height
be installed. •
Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
"Unapproved" Minutes —May 28, 2002
Page S
• 2. That the height of the trail be raised as recommended by staff.
3. That as many trees be saved as possible.
Motion carried on a 5 -ayes, 0 -nays, 2- absent (Squires and Falk) vote.
Mr. Bednarz stated that this item would come before the Council at the June 18, 2002
City Council meeting.
4. PUBLIC HEARING: REZONING (02 -01) TO REZONE PROPERTY LOCATED
AT 1516148T LANE NW FROM RURAL RESIDENTIAL (R -1) TO URBAN
RESIDENTIAL.
Associate Planner, D. Tyler McKay, explained that the applicant is requesting the
property to be rezoned to allow the property to be split into two urban residential lots.
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. 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, or the character of the area or times 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.
Commissioner Gamache questioned if the original intent was to some day split the lots.
Mr. McKay stated that that was the original intent.
Commissioner Hedin questioned what the surrounding properties are zoned. Mr. McKay
stated that the properties to the north and south are zoned R -4, the property to the east is
zoned R -1.
Commissioner Kirchoff questioned what the disadvantage would be to rezoning the entire
area. Mr. Bednarz explained that it's been a City policy in the past for people to petition
the City independently, however it's possible to petition the City as a group as well.
Mr. McKay stated that some of the property owners do like the lower density and
wouldn't be interested in rezoning.
Commissioner Greenwald questioned if the property is already stubbed in for two lots.
Mr. McKay stated that that is correct.
Commissioner Hedin questioned if the property to the east is stubbed. Mr. McKay stated
that the property to the east isn't stubbed. Mr. Bednarz mentioned that there are several
. lots in the area that are stubbed for sewer and water.
Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
"Unapproved " Minutes — May 28, 2002
Page 6
Commissioner Kirchoff questioned what would happen if it went further to the east, •
however there were people in between that didn't have sewer and water. Mr. Bednarz
explained that there would be a neighborhood meeting.
Commissioner Kirchoff questioned if the lots down the road would end up paying the full
cost.
Motion by Greenwald, seconded by Hedin, to open the public hearing at 7:47 p.m.
Motion carried on a 5 -ayes, 0 -nays, 2- absent (Squires and Falk) vote.
The applicant, Ry -chel Gaustad, introduced herself and offered to answer any questions.
She mentioned that she did speak with the neighbor who had some concerns; as a result
she felt they came to a conclusion and an understanding.
Myron Rooney, 1529 148 Lane, stated that he is opposed to the rezoning. He stated that
he is on City sewer and water, but still is opposed to the idea.
There was no further public input.
Motion by Hedin, seconded by Gamache, to close the public hearing at 7:51 p.m. Motion
carried on a 5 -ayes, 0 -nays, 2- absent (Squires and Falk) vote.
Commissioner Gamache questioned if from 1519 to 1529 was originally one lot and was •
rezoned. Mr. McKay stated that he doesn't have that information.
Commissioner Greenwald questioned if this request fits into the Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Bednarz stated that it does fit into the Comprehensive Plan. The area is identified as
transition residential, with the understanding that at some point the site would be rezoned.
Commissioner Greenwald questioned when the Comprehensive Plan was implemented.
Mr. Bednarz stated that the most recent Comprehensive Plan was adopted in December
2001. He mentioned that before the Comprehensive Plan was approved it was previously
determined that this area be a transition residential site.
Commissioner Greenwald questioned if he were to own one of the lots that there would
be a good chance that one of his neighbors could split their property. Mr. Bednarz stated
that that is correct.
Motion by Greenwald, seconded by Gamache to recommend to the City Council
approval of Ordinance No. 8, an Ordinance Amending Ordinance No. Section 6.03,
Zoning District Map of the City of Andover. Motion carried on a 5 -ayes, 0 -nays, 2-
absent (Squires and Falk) vote.
Mr. Bednarz stated that this item would come before the Council at the June 18, 2002
City Council meeting. •
Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
"Unapproved " Minutes — May 28, 2002
Page 7
•
S. PUBLIC HEARING. LOT SPLIT (02 -04) TO CREATE TWO RESIDENTIAL
LOTS FROM PROPERTYLOCA TED AT 1516148 LANE NW
Mr. McKay explained that the property owner is seeking approval of a proposal to divide
the subject property into two urban residential lots. The applicant is dependant upon a
rezoning to a 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. Both lots
would exceed the minimum lot width, depth and area requirements of the R -4 Zoning
District.
Mr. McKay stated that 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 isn't available
immediately. 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 his or her own well.
The survey included in the staff report 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 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.
Commissioner Greenwald questioned if there is currently a well. Mr. McKay stated no.
Acting Chair Daninger mentioned that there is City sewer but no water.
Community Development Director, Will Neumeister, pointed out the lots that don't have
water but have sewer.
Motion by Kirchoff, seconded by Greenwald, to open the public hearing at 7:59 p.m.
Motion carried on a 5 -ayes, 0- nays, 2- absent (Squires and Falk) vote.
The applicant, Ry -chel Gaustad, offered to answer any questions from the Commission.
Myron Rooney, 1529 149"' Lane, questioned if the lot would be required to have both
City sewer and water. Mr. Bednarz stated that the City can't require someone to connect
to the City's water system as long as the well meets the state standards.
Mr. Rooney (Myron) questioned if he could put in a well as long as it meets the state
codes. Mr. Bednarz stated yes.
•
Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
"Unapproved " Minutes — May 28, 2002
Page 8
Mr. Rooney (Myron) questioned if she would be required to connect to City sewer. Mr. •
Bednarz stated yes.
Mr. Rooney (Myron) questioned who would bear the cost for the connection to City
sewer. Mr. Bednarz explained that the stubs are already available for City sewer.
Mr. Rooney (Myron) questioned if the sewer connection were to move down the street
more that it would be the homeowner's that would pay for the sewer. Mr. Bednarz stated
that that is correct. He encouraged Myron to contact the City's engineering department
for further questions.
There was no further public input.
Motion by Kirchoff, seconded by Hedin, to close the public hearing at 8:03 p.m. Motion
carried on a 5 -ayes, 0 -nays, 2- absent (Squires and Falk) vote.
Motion by Greenwald, seconded by Gamache, to recommend to the City Council
approval of Resolution No. _, Approving the Lot Split request by Ry -chel Gaustad to
Subdivide Property into Two Urban Residential Lots for Property Located at 1516 148`
Lane NW, subject to the conditions included in the resolution and:
1. A separate easement document will need to be prepared and recorded with Anoka •
County.
Motion carried on a 5 -ayes, 0 -nays, 2- absent (Squires and Falk) vote.
Mr. Bednarz stated that this item would come before the Council at the June 18, 2002
City Council meeting.
6. PUBLIC HEARING. AMEND ORDINANCE 8, SECTION 8 — PERFORMANCE
STANDARDS. TO ESTABLISH STANDARDS FOR SOD TO BE INSTALLED ON
ALL RESIDENTIAL LOTS IN URBANAREAS.
Associate Planner, D. Tyler McKay, explained that the 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.
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 into 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.
•
Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
"Unapproved" Minutes — May 28, 2002
Page 9
Similarly, many lawns tend to become a 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 in the staff report 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 the 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.
The Planning Commission may choose to debate the merits of an escrow. If a builder
decides not to establish lawn, they could be given three months before the City would use
the escrow amount to establish a 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 the matter if the neglected lawn
• is causing overall neighborhood deterioration.
Staff reviewed the various options before the Commission. Mr. Bednarz stated that
staff's recommendation is 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 of organiciblack soil to be spread before the sod is laid.
Commissioner Kirchoff questioned if the reason staff is suggesting the lawns be laid with
sod over seed is for the sod industry. Mr. McKay stated that the Commission could
decide to allow sod or seed if that is the preference.
Commissioner Hedin stated that he likes the idea of the homeowner having the option to
sod or seed.
Commissioner Kirchoff stated that he doesn't have a problem with having an escrow,
since the homeowner would get the money back once they are in compliance.
Commissioner Gamache stated that if there were an escrow they would still have three
months to put in the sod.
Mr. Neumeister stated that some cities put the responsibility on the developer. He
mentioned that there wasn't a lot of support for allowing homeowners to seed.
0
Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
"Unapproved" Minutes — May 28, 2002
Page 10
Mr. Neumeister explained that staff is recommending the escrow be between the City and
the developer.
Commissioner Kirchoff questioned if the current requirement of sodding the boulevard is
with the developer. Mr. Neumeister stated yes.
Commissioner Greenwald questioned the reason Andover is suggesting more of an
ordinance than surrounding cities. He questioned if a developer is in the process of
currently developing his land would they be required to comply with this new
requirement.
Mr. Neumeister explained that this would only be for new plats that come forward. He
stated that there have been numerous complaints from residents in the last few weeks. He
mentioned that another reason for the amendment is because the City needs to be
concerned about conserving water since the City will only continue to grow. The black
dirt would definitely help the water supply.
Commissioner Greenwald questioned if the City of Andover has different soil than
surrounding cities. He mentioned that sometimes homeowners wait to install their sod or
seed until they've completed the landscaping and sprinkler systems.
Mr. Neumeister stated that staff feels the sod will reduce the amount of blowing sand, •
which causes the storm sewer system to block up.
Motion by Greenwald, seconded by Kirchoff, 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 Greenwald, seconded by Hedin, to close the public hearing at 8:24 p.m.
Motion carried on a 5 -ayes, 0 -nays, 2- absent (Squires and Falk) vote.
Acting Chair Daninger questioned what would happen with the escrow if the sod weren't
installed.
Mr. Neumeister explained how the escrow process would work between the City and the
developer. He mentioned that if the escrow is put on the developer he would put enough
hold on the contract when he sells the lot to make sure the sod or seed would take place.
Acting Chair Daninger mentioned that if this were the case, the buyer would have further
contact with the developer and the homeowner.
Commissioner Kirchoff questioned if this is the way things are already being done for the
boulevard sod.
Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
"Unapproved" Minutes —May 28, 2002
• Page I1
Commissioner Gamache stated that currently homeowners have a year to sod or seed.
Mr. Neumeister stated that is correct.
Mr. McKay recommended the Commission reduce the time frame from one year to three
months. He went on to explain what would take place after the three months if the
homeowner isn't in compliance.
Commissioner Hedin stated that he would tend to support option #2 in the staff report,
however changing the requirement to state "sod or seed ", and without the requirement of
black dirt. He agreed with having an escrow set up with the developer for & $1,000 and
that time frame remain as 12 months.
Commissioner Greenwald stated that he doesn't agree with staff's recommendation for
the ordinance.
Commissioner Gamache agreed with the time frame being three months, since once that
time frame is up the process would begin to bring the property into compliance. He
mentioned that he lived next door to a yard that wasn't sodded or seeded for some time.
He agreed that black dirt should also be a requirement since it's important the City
conserve the water supply.
• Commissioner Greenwald suggested revisiting the ordinance at a future meeting. He
stated that probably 90% of the people put in their yard within a reasonable amount of
time. Mr. McKay stated that it's hard to put a percentage on it, since the City is only
going off complaints.
Commissioner Kirchoff stated that even though there would be the three -month
requirement, it would really be six months before anything were to happen.
Acting Chair Daninger agreed with the idea of having an escrow set up with the
developer. He questioned the Commission if they are in support of the escrow being set
at a $1,000. Commissioner Hedin suggested increasing the escrow.
Mr. Neumeister stated that the building official indicated it would take almost $2,000 for
the front yard, boulevard, and black dirt.
Commissioner Hedin suggested the escrow be set at between $2,500 and $3,000.
Acting Chair Daninger questioned the Commission if everyone agrees with getting the
front yard in first. The Commission agreed.
Commissioner Gamache mentioned that most of the landscaping homeowner's do is in
the side yards and backyards.
• Commissioner Hedin suggested a $3,000 escrow.
Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
"Unapproved " Minutes — May 28, 2002
Page 12
I�
U
Commissioner Kirchoff questioned if all the responsibility is left to the developer.
Commissioner Gamache stated that the homeowner would have three months to do
something.
Acting Chair Daninger suggested a $2,500 escrow.
Commissioner Hedin questioned if the maximum size lot would be one acre or less. Mr.
Neumeister stated yes.
Acting Chair Daninger questioned the Commission on the three -month time frame
recommendation made by staff.
Commissioner Gamache mentioned that November 15 to April 15 wouldn't be
included in the time frame.
Mr. McKay explained that if someone were to move in late fall the time frame would
start over in the spring on April 15
Commissioner Hedin suggested the time frame be six months.
Mr. McKay mentioned that the City would be willing to work with any resident that •
would call the City to inform us of what their plans are and that they are working on it.
Commissioner Kirchoff suggested the time frame be six months.
Mr. Neumeister stated that the risk is more on the City in the situation where the
developer were to go bankrupt. He mentioned that there wouldn't really be any more risk
to the developer.
Mr. Neumeister mentioned that if the developer weren't getting the cooperation from the
builders, the City could stop issuing building permits to allow the developer time to
address the problem.
Acting Chair Daninger suggested six months for the time frame. The Commission
agreed.
Acting Chair Daninger questioned the Commission on how they felt about the black dirt
recommendation. Commissioner Hedin stated that he doesn't feel there should be a
requirement on the amount of black dirt required.
Commissioner Greenwald stated that if there is going to be a requirement to sod either
the front yard and/or the front yard and side yards then there should also be the black dirt
requirement. Commissioner Gamache agreed and suggested it be included in the escrow.
Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
"Unapproved" Minutes — May 28, 2002
• Page 13
Commissioner Greenwald stated that he doesn't like having a more rigid ordinance than
the surrounding cities. He questioned if existing developments would be grandfathered
in.
Mr. Neumeister stated that all existing developments would be grandfathered in.
Acting Chair Daninger stated that he agrees with the 4" black dirt requirement, which is
the same as the boulevard.
Acting Chair Daninger stated that the Commission's recommendation is option #2 in the
staff report, with the following changes. That the boulevard and front yard be sod or
seeded with an escrow to be determined between $2,000 and $3,000 and set up between
the City and the developer. There also should be a 4" black dirt requirement and a time
line of six months.
Mr. Neumeister questioned if the 4" of black dirt should be laid over the entire yard or
just the front yard.
Commissioner Greenwald questioned what the logic was behind the City just requiring
the boulevard to be sodded.
• Mr. Neumeister stated that the requirement must have been to prevent erosion.
Commissioner Greenwald questioned if the existing ordinance doesn't work. Mr.
Neumeister stated that that is correct.
Mr. Neumeister recommended the 4" black dirt requirement for the entire yard instead of
just the front yard. Commissioner Hedin disagreed with this requirement for the back
yard.
Motion by Hedin, seconded by Gamache, to recommend approval to the City Council
Ordinance No. 111, an Ordinance Amending Ordinance No. 111, Lawn Establishment in
the City of Andover, subject to the following conditions:
1. An escrow shall be set up between the developer and the City for $2,500.
2. The front yard and the boulevard be sodded and/or seeded.
3. The homeowner shall have 6 months to come into compliance.
4. That 4" of organic/black dirt be laid prior to the laying of sod and or. seed.
Further Discussion
Commissioner Kirchoff suggested the ordinance be reviewed in two years.
Commissioner Hedin stated that this would be fine, however suggested it not be included
• in the motion. Commissioner Gamache agreed.
Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
"Unapproved" Minutes — May 28, 2002
Page 14
Motion carried on a 4 -ayes, 1 -nay (Greenwald), 2- absent (Squires and Falk) vote. •
Mr. Bednarz stated that this item would come before the Council at the June 18, 2002
City Council meeting.
7. PUBLIC HEARING. AMEND ORDINANCE 8, SECTION 4.05 — ACCESSORY
BUILDINGS AND STRUCTURES TO LIMIT THE SIZE OF THE ACCESSORY
BUILDINGS ALL 0WED ON URBAN RESIDENTIAL LOTS, LIMIT HEIGHT TO
ONE S TOR YAND REDUCE INTERIOR SIDE YARD SETBACK TO FIVE FEET.
Mr. Bednarz explained that this item concerns modifications to the ordinances regulating
detached accessory structures on urban residential lots. The issue was raised at the
Council Goal Setting meetings in April of 2002 where the Council discussed the size of
detached accessory buildings on urban lots and how much of the yard they occupy. No
changes to accessory structure requirements for lots greater than one acre in size are
proposed.
A proposed ordinance amendment is included in the staff report. 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 was provided. There is additional
discussion of roof pitch and access at the end of the staff report, which is provided, .
however these items are not included in the proposed amendment.
Commissioner Gamache questioned if this ordinance includes pools or just buildings.
Mr. Bednarz stated that the ordinance is referring to just detached accessory structures.
Commissioner Kirchoff questioned if a gazebo would be considered a detached accessory
structure. Mr. Bednarz stated yes.
Mr. Bednarz mentioned that staff is proposing 308 s.f. of detached space.
Commissioner Greenwald questioned why there are other cities that have more lenient
requirements than Andover. He questioned subheading (3) in the Ordinance under
Section 4.05. Mr. Bednarz explained that someone could have an attached garage with a
minimum of 440 s.f., in addition to a 308 s.f. detached garage.
Commissioner Greenwald questioned the maximum size garage allowed if it's attached.
Mr. Bednarz stated that as long as the setback requirements are being met the attached
garage could be as large as 3,000 s.f.
Commissioner Hedin questioned if it would be possible to have 3 structures. Mr.
Bednarz stated that this is possible.
•
Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
"Unapproved " Minutes — May 28, 2002
• Page 15
Commissioner Gamache stated that the existing one stall garage would be an alternate
building so it would be 308 s.f or less.
Mr. Bednarz explained that if someone doesn't have an attached garage they would be
allowed 748 s.f of detached garage space.
Acting Chair Daninger mentioned that the concern is that someone could build a three car
detached garage.
Commissioner Greenwald questioned the reason the Commission is reviewing the
ordinance. Mr. Bednarz stated that the primary focus is that the allowable size of
accessory structure isn't appropriate on urban size lots.
Mr. Neumeister stated that there are other options than building a large three -stall garage.
He stated that it would be possible to have a 1,000 s.f. attached garage and there wouldn't
be a debate as long as the setback requirements are met. He explained that detached
garages can become a nuisance because of access.
Commissioner Kirchoff questioned if there are residents that have requests such as this.
Mr. Bednarz stated that staff does see some residents requesting to build fairly large
detached garages.
• Motion by Hedin, seconded by Kirchoff, to open the public hearing at 9:23 p.m. Motion
carried on a 5 -ayes, 0 -nays, 2- absent (Squires and Falk) vote.
There was no public input.
Motion by Hedin, seconded by Gamache, to close the public hearing at 9:23 p.m. Motion
carried on a 5 -ayes, 0 -nays, 2- absent (Squires and Falk) vote.
Acting Chair Daninger questioned how the Commission felt about the side yard setback
change. The Commission was comfortable with the recommendation made by staff.
Acting Chair Daninger questioned how the Commission felt about the maximum size
detached accessory structure on urban lots being 308 square feet. He mentioned that he
feels it's a drastic cut back from what currently exists.
Commissioner Gamache mentioned that these are urban size lots. He stated that he's
comfortable with staff's recommendation.
Commissioner Hedin stated that he doesn't have a problem with at maximum size
detached accessory structure of 308 square feet on urban lots.
•
Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
"Unapproved" Minutes —May 28, 2002
Page 16
Commissioner Kirchoff stated that he's concerned that there might be someone who •
would want a gazebo and an accessory structure. Mr. Bednarz mentioned that the City of
Blaine has a separate section that addresses gazebos.
Acting Chair Daninger suggested adding an amendment to exclude gazebos and/or pool
houses from detached accessory structures.
Commissioner Kirchoff agreed that it would be better to separate gazebos from accessory
structures. Mr. Bednarz mentioned that anything attached to the house wouldn't be
considered detached space.
Commissioner Greenwald questioned the reason Andover doesn't copy Blaine and
Anoka's ordinances. Mr. Bednarz explained that the reason staff isn't recommending to
follow the other cities is because they also regulate the attached garages.
Commissioner Hedin questioned if under the definition of detached accessory structures
gazebos would be found. Mr. Bednarz stated yes.
Commissioner Hedin questioned if a cement floor is required on a detached accessory
structure. Mr. Bednarz stated no.
Acting Chair Daninger mentioned concerns since staff is recommending a 75% reduction. •
The Commission agreed that a maximum of 308 square feet is appropriate for detached
accessory structures.
Mr. Bednarz questioned if staff should come back with language that excludes gazebos.
The Commission agreed.
Acting Chair Daninger questioned what the Commission feels is appropriate for height.
Commissioner Hedin mentioned that he doesn't care what the pitch is.
Commissioner Gamache suggested a 9 -foot sidewall with a pitch to match the house.
Acting Chair Daninger stated that it would be hard to match the house. Commissioner
Gamache agreed.
Commissioner Greenwald suggested the height be 15 feet. The Commission agreed.
Commissioner Hedin suggested a 4/12 roof pitch. He suggested Section 4.05 (2) state a
maximum height of 15 feet with a minimum roof pitch of 4/12.
Acting Chair Daninger questioned if the accessory building should be allowed to have an
additional driveway access. Commissioner Hedin recommended the building have no I* access. The Commission agreed.
Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
"Unapproved" Minutes — May 28, 2002
• Page 17
Commissioner Kirchoff questioned if the accessory building would be allowed an
additional driveway access if the property was on a corner. Mr. Bednarz stated that most
cities limit each urban lot to one access.
Acting Chair Daninger summarized the changes. The Commission is recommending a
maximum detached accessory structure of 308 square feet, with the ordinance including
language to exclude gazebos or other recreational structures from this classification. The
Commission agreed the side yard setback should be changed from ten feet to five feet on
urban lots. The accessory building should be one story or a maximum height of 15 feet
with a minimum roof pitch of 4/12. Finally there should only be one driveway access per
urban lot.
Motion by Greenwald, seconded by Gamache, to recommend to the City Council
approval of 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, including the
following changes:
1. A maximum detached accessory structure of 308 square feet, with the ordinance
including language to exclude gazebos or other recreational structures from this
classification.
2. The side yard setback should be changed from ten feet to five feet on urban lots.
3. The accessory building should be one story or a maximum height of 15 feet with a
minimum roof pitch of 4/12.
4. Only one driveway access per urban lot shall be permitted.
Motion carried on a 5 -ayes, 0 -nays, 2- absent (Squires and Falk) vote.
Mr. Bednarz stated that this item would come before the Council at the June 18, 2002
City Council meeting.
RECESS
Acting Chair Daninger recessed at 9:40 p.m.
Acting Chair Daninger reconvened the meeting at 9:46 p.m.
Commissioner Hedin suggested the Commission post pone item 8 and proceed with Items
9 and 10 since there are residents present for those public hearings.
Motion by Hedin, seconded by Gamache, to approve post - poning Item 8 until after Items
is 9 and 10 have been discussed. Motion carried on a 5 -ayes, 0 -nays, 2- absent (Squires and
Falk) vote.
Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
"Unapproved " Minutes — May 28, 2002
Page 18
•
9. PUBLIC HEARING: AMEND THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO CONSIDER
THE CHANGES TO NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS AND LIMITED BUSINESS
ZONING DISTRICTS.
10. PUBLIC HEARING: AMEND THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP TO REZONE
PROPERTYFROM NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS (NB) TO LIMITED BUSINESS
(LB). THE SITE IS LOCATED EAST OF HANSON BOULEVARD, NORTH OF
138 TH LANE.
Mr. Neumeister explained that the 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.
Mr. Neumeister stated that 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 uses, traffic generation, and public facilities. Up to this
point the staff 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 Zoning Ordinance and map.
Mr. Neumeister went on to review the Zoning Ordinance and what purpose it serves. He
stated that staff recommends 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.
Item 10 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. The subject property has been zoned Neighborhood Business for
many years. During this time, the surrounding property has developed with single - family ,
Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
"Unapproved" Minutes — May 28, 2002
Page 19
• residential housing. This neighborhood also shares access to Hanson Boulevard with the
subject properties. 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 doesn't 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. It's recommended that
the subject properties be rezoned to Limited Business 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.
Motion by Kirchoff, seconded by Hedin, to open the public hearing on Item 9 at 9:56
p.m. Motion carried on a 5 -ayes, 0 -nays, 2- absent (Squires and Falk) vote.
Motion by Hedin, seconded by Gamache, to open the public hearing on Item 10 at 9:57
p.m. Motion carried on a 5 -ayes, 0 -nays, 2- absent (Squires and Falk) vote.
in Jim Miller, 1458 138 Lane, spoke on behalf of the Hills of Bunker Lake Homeowners
Association. He commended the Commission for addressing this issue. He questioned
why staff is recommending changing the zoning to Limited Business instead of
residential. Mr. Bednarz explained that a residential zoning would have the same types
of uses as well, therefore if a residential developer were interested they would come
before the Commission to request a contract rezoning. Limited Business would narrowly
identify what can go on the two sites.
Pat Fugena, 1511 138 Lane NW, stated that she lives three houses east of Site A -1 and
all seven of the residents present live within a block of Site A -1. She stated that they feel
the report is a major step forward on how the property should be used. They support the
rezoning from Neighborhood Business to Limited Business. She mentioned that it
appears the rezoning classification will address all of their concerns. They have feel that
a gas station would create a lot more traffic in the area, therefore adding to the
congestion. She stated that they support this change.
Joyce Twistol, 1518 139` Lane, stated that she is also part of the Hills of Bunker Lake
Homeowners Association. She stated that they are representing over 300 homes. She
thanked the Council for ordering the study. She mentioned that they are very pleased
with the results and the transition proposed. She encouraged the Commission to think
about what they would like to be on the site. Finally their focus is to be a good neighbor
and they would like anyone who were to develop the sites to be good neighbors.
Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
"Unapproved" Minutes — May 28, 2002
Page 20
Commissioner Gamache questioned what affect the rezoning would have on the Special •
Use Permits that might occur on the property. Mr. Bednarz stated that the zoning itself
wouldn't affect any Special Use Permits.
There was no further public input.
Motion by Gamache, seconded by Kirchoff, to close the public hearing on Item 9 at
10:02 p.m. Motion carried on a 5 -ayes, 0 -nays, 2- absent (Squires and Falk) vote.
Motion by Hedin, seconded by Kirchoff, to close the public hearing on Item 10 at 10:02
p.m. Motion carried on a 5 -ayes, 0 -nays, 2- absent (Squires and Falk) vote.
Commissioner Hedin questioned if there is wetland to the east of the most northern lot.
Mr. Bednarz stated that the zoning of this property is R -4 and a large portion of it is
wetland.
Commissioner Hedin questioned if the lot is separate. Mr. Bednarz stated yes.
Commissioner Greenwald stated that he supports staff's recommendation. He stated that
he would rather see a special use brought before the Commission or a variance for other
circumstances. Mr. Neumeister stated that someone could bring forth a variance request
if necessary. •
Commissioner Greenwald stated on the ones that are being changed to Limited Business
the Commission could construct "medical or dental clinic ". Mr. Neumeister stated that
that is correct.
Commissioner Greenwald stated that this would also eliminate a school from being built
there. Mr. Neumeister stated that that is correct.
Acting Chair Daninger stated that staff is recommending the Commission discuss the
restaurant issue at a later time. Mr. Neumeister stated that the Commission will need to
clarify at some point what types of restaurants would be permitted.
Acting Chair Daninger stated that another issue to be discussed in the future is general
performance standards. The Commission agreed to post -pone this issue as well.
Commissioner Hedin questioned the reason staff wants to keep schools out of the
Neighborhood Business District. Mr. Neumeister stated that traffic concerns are
primarily the reason.
Commissioner Hedin questioned what district is appropriate for schools. Mr. Bednarz
stated that they are permitted uses in any residential district.
•
Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
"Unapproved " Minutes — May 28, 2002
• Page 21
Commissioner Kirchoff questioned where it is that schools have been stricken from the
ordinance. Mr. Neumeister stated that it hasn't been stricken, but instead is something
for the Commission to think about.
Commissioner Hedin questioned if the City differentiates between public and private
schools. Mr. Neumeister stated that private schools fall into the same category as public
schools.
Commissioner Gamache suggested taking it out so if there's a request they would have to
come before the Commission as a special use because of the traffic concerns.
Commissioner Greenwald agreed that it should be a special use.
Acting Chair Daninger stated that the consensus of the Commission is to strike out
schools on page 4, under "Permitted Uses" and instead have it as a Special Use Permit
request.
Commissioner Hedin stated that he supports going with the Limited Business District.
He agreed with removing "retail trade and services" under special uses, and including it
under permitted uses and including the language "except service /fuel stations. He also
agreed with adding language to the Neighborhood business Zoning District that would
limit service stations in this zone to sites that are two acres or larger as a Special Use.
• Finally removing private and public schools from permitted uses.
Commissioner Hedin suggested the Commission discuss at a future date the restaurant
clarification. He also recommended taking out the mining/land reclamation under
Special Uses of the Neighborhood Business District.
Motion by Hedin, seconded by Greenwald, to recommend to the City Council approval
of amendments to the Zoning Ordinance to allow for various language changes
recommended by the Neighborhood District Study, those changes are as follows:
1. Removing `retail trade and services" under special uses, and including it under
permitted uses and including the language "except service /fuel stations.
2. Rewriting under Special Uses to state Twenty-four hour continuous operation of
"Medical Clinics ".
3. Adding language to the Neighborhood Business Zoning District that would limit
service stations in this zone to sites that are two acres or larger as a Special Use.
4. Removing private and public schools from permitted uses.
5. Removing the mining/land reclamation under Special Uses of the Neighborhood
Business District.
Motion carried on a 5 -ayes, 0 -nays, 2- absent (Squires and Falk) vote.
Mr. Bednarz stated that this item would come before the Council at the June 18, 2002
City Council meeting.
Regular Andovi
"Unapproved"
Page 22
>r Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
Minutes — May 28, 2002
•
Motion by Greenwald, seconded by Gamache, to recommend to the City Council
approval of Ordinance No. 8, an Ordinance Amending Ordinance No. 8, Section 6.03,
Zoning District Map of the City of Andover. Motion carried on a 5 -ayes, 0 -nays, 2-
absent (Squires and Falk) vote.
Mr. Bednarz stated that this item would come before the Council at the June 18, 2002
City Council meeting.
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 COMMERCL4L (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.
Mr. Neumeister stated that the Commission held a workshop meeting on April 9, 2002
where the Neighborhood Business District 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. 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 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 uses types,
scale and performance standards, and site issues such as surrounding land uses, traffic
generation, and public facilities. The staff 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.
Acting Chair Daninger mentioned that the word "care" on page 4 under Neighborhood
Commercial, could be interpreted a number of ways. Mr. Neumeister suggested using the
words "design review instead.
Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
"Unapproved" Minutes — May 28, 2002
• Page 23
Commissioner Hedin agreed on going with a low- density land use for the area.
Motion by Greenwald, seconded by Hedin, to open the public hearing at 10:39 p.m.
Motion carved on a 5 -ayes, 0 -nays, 2- absent (Squires and Falk) vote.
Mr. Neumeister stated that staff did receive one phone call in regards to Site D -1. The
recommendation from the neighborhood is low density residential.
Grant Rademacher, representing the Homeowners from Kensington Estates, mentioned
that he has a number of potential buyers for two different sites. He questioned the
number of units per acre allowed between single - family and medium - density. Mr.
Neumeister stated the density numbers that are allowed.
There was no further public input.
Motion by Hedin, seconded by Greenwald, to close the public hearing at 10:44 p.m.
Motion carried on a 5 -ayes, 0 -nays, 2- absent (Squires and Falk) vote.
Acting Chair Daninger questioned the Commission if everyone is comfortable with
Limited Commercial. The Commission proposed no changes.
Acting Chair Daninger suggested the wording change on page 4 from "care" to "design
review ".
Commissioner Kirchoff stated that he's comfortable with changing the Limited
Commercial to urban residential low density. Mr. Neumeister stated that it would be
labeled LC/URL.
Mr. Bednarz mentioned that it isn't appropriate for the City to raise the density to
medium - density at this point; therefore this decision can be made at a later date.
Acting Chair Daninger stated that on page 11 the recommendation by staff is to change it
to low density.
Commissioner Hedin questioned what is the highest density surrounding the area. Mr.
Bednarz stated that the area is surrounded by low density.
Commissioner Hedin questioned the reason it would be changed in the future. Mr.
Bednarz stated that he isn't sure it would even be changed. The Commission agreed with
low density.
Mr. Neumeister recommended low density residential on page 13.
. Acting Chair Daninger summarized the changes. On page 3, the Commission is in
agreement with the Limited Commercial language. On page 4, change the wording from
Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
"Unapproved " Minutes — May 28, 2002
Page 24
"care" to "design review ". On page 8, the Commission is recommending the change to •
LC/URL. On page 11, the Commission is recommending a change to low density. On
page 13, the Commission is recommending a change to low density.
Mr. Neumeister stated that staff is recommending the Commission adopt the language at
the bottom of page 5 and the top of page 5 as the goals and objectives. The Commission
agreed with the language on page 4 and 5 stated as the goals and objectives.
Motion by Greenwald, seconded by Gamache, to recommend to the City Council
Amending the Comprehensive Land Use Plan to change land use designations for various
properties in the City, the recommendations are as follows:
1. On page 3, the Commission is in agreement with the Limited Commercial language.
2. On page 4, change the wording from "care" to "design review ".
3. On page 8, the Commission is recommending the change to LC/URL.
4. On page 11, the Commission is recommending a change to low density.
5. On page 13, the Commission is recommending a change to low density.
6. On page 4 and 5 adopt the goals and objectives as presented.
Motion carried on a 5 -ayes, 0 -nays, 2- absent (Squires and Falk) vote.
Mr. Bednarz stated that this item would come before the Council at the June 18, 2002 •
City Council meeting.
11. PUBLIC HEARING: AMEND THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP TO REZONE
PROPERTY FROMNEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS (NB) TO SINGLE FAMILY
URBAN RESIDENTIAL (R -4) FOR PR OPER TY L 0 CA TED IMMEDIATELY
SOUTH OF THE INTERSECTION OF CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD AND
CROSSTOWNDRIVE.
Mr. Bednarz explained that 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. He
stated that the subject property is currently zoned Neighborhood Business (NB). The
property is 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's important to note that the City doesn't rezone property to
medium or high - density designations without a rezoning contract. Therefore, it's
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.
•
Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
"Unapproved" Minutes —May 28, 2002
Page 25
•
n
LJ
Motion by Greenwald, seconded by Hedin, to open the public hearing at 10:56 p.m.
Motion carried on a 5 -ayes, 0 -nays, 2- absent (Squires and Falk) vote.
Kathy Strutman 13858 Crosstown Drive, stated that she has a couple of questions
regarding the original intent. She questioned if there's ever been any intent to build
anything there. She mentioned that they were told that nothing would be done with it.
Mr. Bednarz stated that there isn't much possibility that anything would come of it.
There was no further public input.
Motion by Hedin, seconded by Greenwald, to close the public hearing at 10:58 p.m.
Motion carried on a 5 -ayes, 0 -nays, 2- absent (Squires and Falk) vote.
Motion by Greenwald, seconded by Kirchoff, to recommend to the City Council approval
of Ordinance No. 8, an Ordinance Amending Ordinance No. 8, Section 6.03, Zoning
District Map of the City of Andover. Motion carried on a 5 -ayes, 0 -nays, 2- absent
(Squires and Falk) vote.
Mr. Bednarz stated that this item would come before the Council at the June 18, 2002
City Council meeting.
Commissioner Greenwald stated that he would like to revisit the surrounding properties.
The Commission agreed.
OTHER BUSINESS
Acting Chair Daninger mentioned that Commissioner Hedin has put in his resignation
effective August 1, 2002. Commissioner Hedin has accepted the position as Head Coach
of the Andover High School Girls Swim Team. He thanked Commissioner Hedin for all
his input and help on the Commission.
ADJOURNMENT
Motion by Gamache, seconded by Kirchoff, to adjourn the meeting at 11:00 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.
•
'. "
, "
. The Regular Bi-Monthly Meeting of the Andover Planning and Zoning Commissioriwas.
called to order by ChairpersonJaySqUiresonJune 11,2002, 7:01p.m.! at the Andover
City Hall, 1685 Cr:osstown Boulevard NW;Andover, Minnesota..
Chairperson Jay SqUires, Commissioners Dean Daninger,
Tim Kirchoff, Mark Hedin, Tony Gamache, and Rex.
Greenwald.
Commissioners absent: Commissioner Douglas Falk.
Also present: City Planner, Courtney Bednarz
e Associate Planner, D. TylerMcKay
Community DevelopmentDirector, ,Will Neumeister
Cl1air Squires stated that Items 5 and 6 would be moved to the beginning of the agenda
with Item 7 to follow. ,He stated that after Item 7 is addressed the Commissiori would
, ' ,
fake up the remaining items in their nonnalsequence.
5. PUBLlCHEARlNG:RESIDENTIAL SKETCH PLAN FOR' WOODLAND.
DEVELOPMENT FORPROPERTYLOCATEDIN SECTIONS 21 AND 22;
TOWNSlJIP 32, RANGE 24.
A
Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
Minutes — June 11, 2002
Page 2
Further Discussion
Chair Squires mentioned that new notices would be sent out to the same property owners
that received a notice for this public hearing.
Motion carried on a 6 -ayes, 0 -nays, 1- absent (Falk) vote.
6. PUBLIC HEARING: COMPREHENSIVE PLANAMENDMENT TO ADJUST
THE 2020 MUSA BOUNDARY TO INCLUDE OUTLOT C OF WOODLAND
ESTATES SECOND ADDITION.
Mr. Neumeister summarized the staff report.
Commissioner Kirchoff questioned if a specific area is also included in the Ag Preserve
land. Mr. Neumeister stated that staff has researched this thoroughly and has determined
that the area in question isn't part of the Ag Preserve program.
Commissioner Hedin questioned if this should be tabled until the sketch plan is reviewed.
Mr. Neumeister explained that the sketch plan that was tabled is a different issue;
therefore it requires separate action from the Commission. He mentioned that this item
has previously had a sketch plan review. •
Commissioner Greenwald questioned where the Ag Preserve land stops. Mr. Neumeister
explained.
Commissioner Daninger questioned if there would be any variances. Mr. Neumeister
stated no.
Chair Squires stated that he is going to refrain from the participating in the discussion and
the vote, since his home is very close to the site being discussed.
Motion by Greenwald, seconded by Gamache, to open the public hearing at 7:11 p.m.
Motion carried on a 5 -ayes, 0 -nays, 1- abstain (Squires), 1- absent (Falk) vote.
Dan Johnson, 2165 154` Lane, stated that he lives approximately two blocks from the
site. He stated that the site probably consists of peat land. He questioned if people
realize that when they move in there, there will be frequent dust storms. He stated that
he's concerned that eventually the peat will be dug out and houses will be built. He
questioned what the purpose is of the rules if the City is continually bending them. He
recommended the Commission stick with the original dates as to when the land would be
developed.
Gaylon Hora, 2358 151 Avenue, stated that he's in favor of this. He mentioned that in
his mind he would rather the City finish it off into a street rather than leaving it as an
unfinished cul -de -sac.
Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
Minutes —June 11, 2002
Page 3
Al Hanon, 15394 Uplander Street, stated that he lives next to the area. He questioned if
the shaded area on the map is in the 2020 plan. He stated that his concern is that if the
City is able to change the rules on the shaded area then how soon would the rest of the
area be changed to accommodate the builders. He stated that he supports the 2020 rules.
There was no further public input.
Motion by Greenwald, seconded by Daninger, to close the public hearing at 7:18 p.m.
Motion carried on a 5 -ayes, 0 -nays, 1- abstain (Squires), 1- absent (Falk) vote.
Commissioner Kirchoff questioned what the difference is between the 2020 MUSA
boundary and the Ag Preserve. He questioned what's the chance of the Ag Preserve
changing. Mr. Neumeister stated that it takes 8 years for the property to be changed to
Ag Preserve.
Mr. Bednarz mentioned that the owner of the property has petitioned to have the Ag
Preserve identification removed, however this would take another 7 years.
Commissioner Kirchoff stated that he would support the request since the property is
• outside the Ag Preserve area and it's developable land. Commissioner Greenwald
agreed.
Commissioner Hedin questioned how often something like this happens. Mr. Neumeister
stated that a request such as this may come before the Commission numerous times over
a 10 year time frame. He stated that he feels it's a unique situation and a logical change.
Commissioner Hedin questioned if the City Council were to approve this, then would the
Metropolitan Council also approve it: Mr. Neumeister explained that staff would submit
it to them but doesn't expect any problems with adding it into the MUSA.
Motion by Greenwald, seconded by Gamache, to recommend to the City Council
approval of a MUSA boundary line adjustment to include the five acres within the
MUSA Area. Motion carried on a 5 -ayes, 0 -nays, 1- abstain (Squires), 1- absent (Falk)
vote.
Chair Squires questioned if the property owners would be notified as to when it will go
before the Council. Mr. Neumeister stated yes.
7. PUBLIC HEARING. VARIANCE (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 1735148 LANE NW— RICHARD WAGNER.
c
Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
Minutes — June 11, 2002
Page 4
Mr. Bednarz stated that the applicant has requested this item be tabled until an ordinance
amendment has been finalized.
Motion by Daninger, seconded by Greenwald, to table this item as requested by the
applicant until an ordinance amendment has been finalized. Motion carried on a 6 -ayes,
0 -nays, 1- absent (Falk) vote.
Z PUBLIC HEARING. AMEND THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP TO REZONE
PROPERTY FROM NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS (NB) TO SINGLE FAMILY
URBAN RESIDENTIAL (R -4) FOR THREE PROPERTIES AT THE
INTERSECTION OF CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD AND CROSSTOWN DRIVE
EAST OF, NORTH OF AND AT 13875 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD.
Mr. Bednarz summarized the report.
Motion by Gamache, seconded by Daninger, to open the public hearing at 7:28 p.m.
Motion carried on a 6 -ayes, 0 -nays, 1- absent (Falk) vote.
There was no public input.
•
Motion by Kirchoff, seconded by Hedin, to close the public hearing at 7:28 p.m. Motion .
carried on a 6 -ayes, 0 -nays, 1- absent (Falk) vote.
The Commission discussed this at a previous meeting; therefore there was no further
discussion.
Motion by Greenwald, seconded by Hedin, to recommend to the City Council approval
of Ordinance No. 8, an Ordinance Amending Ordinance No. 8, Section 6.03, Zoning
District Map of the City of Andover. Motion carried on a 6 -ayes, 0 -nays, 1- absent (Falk)
vote.
Mr. Bednarz stated that this, item would go before the City Council at the July 2, 2002
City Council meeting.
3. PUBLIC HEARING. SPECIAL USE PERMIT (02 -08) TO ALLOW
TEMPORARY CLASSROOMS FOR THE MEADOW CREEK CHRISTIAN
SCHOOL AT 3037BUNKER LAKE BOULEVARD NWW,
Associate Planner D. Tyler McKay summarized the staff report.
Commissioner Gamache questioned if there would be just one building with four
classrooms. Mr. McKay stated that that is correct.
Commissioner Daninger stated that he will refrain from the discussion and from voting •
since he will have a child attending the school next year.
P
Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
• Minutes —June 11, 2002
Page 5
Commissioner Kirchoff stated that he supports the concept. He questioned if further
reduction of the speed limit along Bunker Lake Blvd. would be required. Mr. McKay
stated that he isn't aware of any changes that will be made to the speed limit.
Commissioner Kirchoff questioned if the length of time the speed limit is reduced would
be lengthened. Mr. McKay stated that to his understanding the length of time the speed
limit is reduced would not change.
Chair Squires mentioned that the resolution doesn't say that the Conditional Use Permit
is void upon completion. Mr. McKay stated that this could be added if this is the
Commission's request.
Chair Squires suggested there be some control or an end to it. He suggested the permit
expire June 11, 2007, which would provide plenty of time.
Mr. Bednarz mentioned that there is a letter from the applicant in the staff report that
states a completion date of 2005.
Chair Squires suggested the Commission go with 2007 since it would give the applicant
• some flexibility. Commissioner Greenwald agreed.
Motion by Greenwald, seconded by Hedin, to open the public hearing at 7:36 p.m.
Motion carried on a 5 -ayes, 0 -nays, 1- abstain (Daninger), 1- absent (Falk) vote.
Scott McLellan, 1444 McLeod Street — Columbia Heights, explained that the new
facilities will help relieve some pressure off the school.
Chair Squires questioned if the five -year period would give them adequate time. Mr.
McLellan stated that this would be greatly appreciated. He mentioned that they do need
to develop the campus in order to keep students coming to Meadow Creek.
Commissioner Greenwald questioned Mr. McLellan if he has any issues or concerns with
the proposed resolution. Mr. McLellan stated that he hasn't seen the proposed resolution,
however has been in contact with staff and at this point is in agreement with the
conditions.
Commissioner Greenwald suggested approving the request and allowing the permit for
two years beyond the completion. Chair Squires mentioned that then there is no end date.
Commissioner Kirchoff questioned the number of students that attend Meadow Creek.
Mr. McLellan stated that there are 700 students from preschool through 12 grade.
Warren Hense, 2936 139 Avenue, NW, stated that in the 8 years he has lived on his
property the church has always been a good neighbor. He questioned if the same
Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
Minutes —June 11, 2002 •
Page 6
amenities would apply for this building. He mentioned that they are concerned that the
aesthetics are maintained since their property abuts the school property.
Mr. McLellan explained that their proposal is to purchase from the school district,
furthermore the only exposure they will have are to the rear properties. He mentioned
that they would be made as attractive as possible and everything would be cleaned up as
necessary.
Joe Weium, 2033 151 st Lane NW, explained that the school does need to expand since
they are currently on a waiting list. She mentioned that it's an excellent school; therefore
she encouraged the Commission to allow them to expand. She questioned the reason for
the additional classroom. Mr. McLellan explained that it would be for the students on the
waiting list.
There was no further public input.
Motion by Greenwald, seconded by Kirchoff, to close the public hearing at 7:45 p.m.
Motion carried on a 5 -ayes, 0 -nays, 1- abstain (Daninger), 1- absent (Falk) vote.
Motion by Greenwald, seconded by Hedin, to recommend to the City Council approval
of Resolution No. R_, Approving the Special Use Permit request of Meadow Creek •
Christian School to Allow Temporary Classrooms for Property Located at 3037 Bunker
Lake Boulevard NW, subject to the conditions stated in the resolution.
Further Discussion
Chair Squires suggested an additional condition be added to state, that the Special Use
Permit would expire by June 11, 2007 or earlier upon the sale of the premises for which
the Special Use Permit is granted.
Commissioner Greenwald and Commissioner Hedin agreed to the amendment.
Motion carried on a 5 -ayes, 0 -nays, 1- abstain (Daninger), 1- absent (Falk) vote.
Mr. Bednarz stated that this item would go before the City Council at the July 2, 2002
City Council meeting.
4. PUBLIC HEARING. LOT SPLIT (02 -05) TO CREATE TWO SINGLE FAMILY
RURAL RESIENTIAL LOTS SOUTHEAST OF THE INTERSECTION OF
ROUND LAKE BOULEVARD AND 181 AVENUE NW.
Mr. McKay summarized the staff report.
•
P
Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
Minutes — June 11, 2002
• Page 7
Mr. McKay stated that staff did receive a letter from Ken Meyer, 3028 181 Ave. NW,
stating concerns about the impact on the adjoining wetland. It suggests that the lower lot
size could create more run off.
Commissioner Kirchoff questioned if there would be two septic systems. Mr. McKay
stated that that is correct. He mentioned that it's a requirement to have 10,000 square
feet.
Commissioner Daninger questioned if there were any more specifics as to why the
Planning Commission didn't approve something in the past on this particular site. Mr.
McKay explained that the past request that was denied was for a rezoning, however this
is for a lot split. He stated that he did look in past reports, however couldn't find when
that request went before the Commission.
Motion by Daninger, seconded by Kirchoff, to open the public hearing at 7:53 p.m.
Motion carried on a 6 -ayes, 0 -nays, 1- absent (Falk) vote.
Jim Szykulski, 18015 Round Lake Blvd., stated that what was denied previously was a
proposal for a Bill's Superette. He mentioned that they are planning to build away from
the wetlands.
Commissioner Hedin questioned when the proposal for the Bill's Superette was before
the Commission. Mr. Szykulski stated that it was about six or seven years ago.
Commissioner Greenwald mentioned that the wetland is mostly on Mr. Meyer's (the
resident that wrote the letter) land. Mr. Szykulski stated that that is correct.
There was no further public input.
Motion by Daninger, seconded by Gamache, to close the public hearing at 7:56 p.m.
Motion carried on a 6 -ayes, 0 -nays, 1- absent (Falk) vote.
Commissioner Daninger stated that he's comfortable with the lot split, since it appears
the wetland isn't on the property.
Chair Squires stated that for the record a letter dated June 11, 2002 was written by Ken
Meyer, 3028 18 1 5[ Ave. NW, stating that he's opposed to the request due to the impact it
would have on the wetland. It states that the run -off from the increased surface area will
be impervious to water will end up in the wetland, along with any of the attendant gas,
and oil spills from vehicles, fertilizers, and herbicides used by landowners.
Commissioner Greenwald questioned the reason Mr. Meyer wasn't notified. Mr.
• Neumeister stated that Mr. Meyer's address is listed as an Andover address, from the
records at Anoka County, however, the post office won't deliver it unless it had a Cedar,
Minnesota address.
7
Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
Minutes —June 11, 2002
Page 8
Commissioner Hedin questioned if it's correct that they aren't requesting to rezone the
property and the property is over 2.5 acres. Mr. McKay stated that that is correct.
Commissioner Greenwald questioned how he would go about fighting this request if he
were opposed to it.
Mr. Neumeister stated that the process is that the residents are encouraged to come to the
public hearings, and if they can't make it, it's recommended they write a letter. The
Commission and Council then can take the residents opinions and concerns into
consideration.
Commissioner Greenwald mentioned that he doesn't have the knowledge to answer the
aquatic concerns of Mr. Meyer. Mr. Neumeister stated that these issues are beyond the
City's control.
Commissioner Hedin mentioned that if the lot split were to go through, the property lines
will match up to the two lots on the opposite side of the street, therefore it isn't out of
character.
Commissioner Daninger stated that he supports the request.
Motion by Kirchoff, seconded by Daninger, to recommend to the City Council approval
of Resolution No. , Approving the Lot Split Request for James M. Szykulski to
Subdivide Property into two Rural Residential Lots for Property Located at 18015 Round
Lake Boulevard NW, subject to the conditions as stated in the Resolution. Motion
carried on a 6 -ayes, 0 -nays, 1- absent (Falk) vote.
Mr. Bednarz stated that this item would go before the City Council at the July 2, 2002
City Council meeting.
8. PUBLIC HEARING. TO CONSIDER AMENDMENTS TO ORDINANCE 10 —
(SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE). THE CHANGES WOULD INCLUDE
REVISIONS TO DEFINITIONS, AND SECTIONS 10.02 AND 10.03. THIS
ORDINANCE AMENDMENT WOULD BE CITYWIDE.
Mr. Neumeister summarized the staff report.
Commissioner Greenwald questioned if the City has ever gone after someone with a
performance bond. He also questioned the reasoning behind the 150 %. Mr. Neumeister
explained that the 150% has been in the contract for years. He explained the reasoning
behind it.
•
•
Commissioner Greenwald questioned if 150% is common in other cities. Mr. Neumeister •
stated that 150% is typical in other cities.
r
Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
• Minutes — June 11, 2002
Page 9
Commissioner Greenwald questioned the reason behind the last bullet point on the first
page of the staff report. He questioned the reason for the increase from 15% to 125 %.
Mr. Neumeister explained that the money is a guarantee for the connections to utilities,
driveways, etc. He stated that if it's only 15 %, the City could run into trouble if the
issues aren't completed by the developer.
Commissioner Greenwald questioned the reason it would fall back on the City and not
the homeowners. Mr. Neumeister explained that the reason it falls back on the City is
because it's part of the plat requirement.
Commissioner Greenwald questioned what would happen if there were 1,000 lots
developed by the year 2010. Mr. Neumeister stated that he's unsure of how it's been
done in Andover, however he explained how it's been done in cities where he's
previously worked.
Commissioner Greenwald stated that he feels the 125% is too high. He mentioned that
the City has other ways to protect themselves.
Commissioner Greenwald questioned how many lots could be developed in the City. Mr.
• Bednarz stated that within the current 2020 MUSA line there could be 1,500 to 1,700
lots.
Chair Squires questioned if the development escrow rates are all compared equally
between the four cities listed in the staff report.
Chair Squires questioned if most of the things on the bottom of page 7 and top of page 8
could be assessed against the property. Mr. Neumeister stated yes.
Chair Squires questioned the reason there needs to be a 125 %. He stated that he can
understand the 150% on the developer - installed improvements.
Commissioner Kirchoff stated that it wouldn't be fair to the property owner to be
assessed at the time of closing. Chair Squires agreed.
Mr. Neumeister explained that the City needs some protection in case the economy were
to drop and there were a number of developments going in. He mentioned that the City is
financially responsible for the bond payments that come due.
Chair Squires mentioned that if the economy drops substantially and it was tax forfeited,
the taxpayers would end up funding it.
• Mr. Neumeister mentioned that the City Council feels 50% is more appropriate.
Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
Minutes —June 11, 2002
Page 10
Commissioner Hedin questioned if the City has received any feedback from smaller
developers to find out if this is the reason they aren't developing. Mr. Neumeister stated
that staff hasn't heard from any small developers.
Commissioner Kirchoff suggested maybe changing it to 50% now and possibly
increasing it later.
Commissioner Daninger questioned if there would even be a change if the Commission
recommended one, since the goal setting group is recommending 50 %.
Chair Squires stated that to him it's more acceptable to potentially shut out smaller
developers by raising the escrow than to have the project go bad and the taxpayers pay
the price. Commissioner Gamache agreed.
Commissioner Hedin mentioned that if a smaller developer is cutting things that close,
then the City may not want them taking the chance anyway. He agreed with having the
percentage set higher.
n
U
Chair Squires stated that it would be worth while to make sure the Commission is
comparing apples to apples when looking at the Development Contract Comparisons
Chart that's included in the staff report. •
Commissioner Greenwald stated that it seems there are a lot of inconsistencies.
Commissioner Kirchoff questioned if the developers are responsible for putting in the
improvements, then why would anything be necessary. He mentioned that he appreciates
the words "sod or seed" in the ordinance.
Motion by Greenwald, seconded by Hedin, to open the public hearing at 8:38 p.m.
Motion carried on a 6 -ayes, 0 -nays, 1- absent (Falk) vote.
Rosella Stanseby, 4151 141 Avenue NW, mentioned that she hasn't even seen a copy of
the changes; therefore she can't make a decision regarding the proposed changes. She
mentioned that there haven't been any problems in the past, therefore why is the City
making the change. She stated that the only problems are all the technical changes the
City makes without informing the residents. She stated that she objects to the changes.
Mr. Neumeister stated that there is a public copy in the entryway of the City Hall.
There was no further public input.
Motion by Greenwald, seconded by Gamache, to close the public hearing at 8:40 p.m.
Motion carried on a 6 -ayes, 0 -nays, 1- absent (Falk) vote. •
i
Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
• Minutes —June 11, 2002
Page 11
Mr. Neumeister stated that the Council wants to know the Commission has heard the
changes and agrees with them in concept.
Commissioner Greenwald stated that he would like to see a comparison chart including
the cities that surround Andover. He requested there be an explanation if there is a
difference between the cities.
Chair Squires questioned if it would be possible to get a copy of the developer's
agreements from the surrounding cities.
Commissioner Greenwald stated that he agrees with Ms. Sonsteby.
Mr. Neumeister stated that he would get copies of the developer's agreements from
surrounding cities.
Commissioner Greenwald mentioned that this could add staff since every time something
is added to an ordinance someone needs to make sure they are being met. Mr. Bednarz
stated that this should save time at the staff level.
Commissioner Daninger questioned if cable is the City's choice for communications
• instead of satellite. Mr. Bednarz explained that cable is an improvement that's put in
citywide, however if a homeowner chooses satellite instead they would be responsible for
those costs.
Commissioner Kirchoff agreed that it might be good to look at it again.
Commissioner Gamache questioned if the agreement needs to be nailed down 100 %, or is
the Commission just suppose to agree with it in concept.
Commissioner Hedin stated that he's comfortable with 125% of the escrow, furthermore
he agreed with the agreement in concept. He stated that he doesn't see any reason to look
at the agreement at a future meeting.
Commissioner Gamache stated that he agrees with the agreement in concept.
Mr. Neumeister agreed that the development contract comparisons chart is difficult to
read. He agreed to make clarifications on the chart and obtain developer's agreements
from other cities.
Commissioner Greenwald mentioned that the Commission is an advisory board. He
suggested it be reviewed in two weeks.
• Chair Squires suggested the information be gathered and further clarified by staff. He
suggested staff provide the information for the Commissioners in the next meeting packet
for their review.
LW
Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
Minutes — June 11, 2002
Page 12
Commissioner Daninger agreed to see a summary provided by staff. Commissioner
Greenwald agreed.
Chair Squires questioned who from the Commission is in support of the 125% as
recommended by staff. The majority of the Commission agreed with the 125 %.
Commissioner Gamache mentioned that the City is asking the developer to be responsible
for streets, utilities, etc. and if they don't comply, the City has the escrow to leverage the
developer to complete the work.
Chair Squires mentioned that the consensus is for the item to move on and for staff to
provide an update in the packet for the next Planning Commission meeting.
Chair Squires mentioned that he would also like to see a copy of the developer's
agreements from the surrounding cities.
OTHER BUSINESS
There was no other business.
ADJOURNMENT
Motion by Daninger, seconded by Gamache, to adjourn the meeting at 8:56 p.m. Motion
carried on 6 -ayes, 0 -nays, 1- absent (Falk) vote.
Respectfully Submitted,
Sara Beck, Recording Secretary
Timesaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc.
E
•
•
6
'O
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 Plann*
SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING: Residential Sketch Plan for Woodland
Development for property located in Section 22, Township 32, Range
24. Staff report by Courtney Bednarz, City Planner.
DATE: June 25, 2002
INTRODUCTION
The Planning and Zoning Commission is asked to review a residential sketch plan for a single
family urban residential development north of Woodland Estates Second Addition. The
proposed project will be created from two twenty acre parcels immediately north of Woodland
Estates 2 Addition.
• Review Criteria
Ordinance 10, Section 6 outlines the requirements for sketch plan review. The Planning
Commission is 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
does not constitute formal filing of a plat.
DISCUSSION
Conformance with Local and Regional Plans and Ordinances
The property is zoned Single Family Rural Residential (R -1). A rezoning to Single Family
Urban Residential (R -4) will be necessary to allow the project to move forward.
The property is located within the 2020 MUSA Boundary and is within the current (2000 -2005)
growth stage of the Comprehensive Plan. Municipal sewer and water may be extended to serve
the entire project.
Exception to Plat
It is the intent of the developer to create a rural residential property at the northeast corner of the
project to accommodate an existing house that would continue to be served by on -site well and
• septic. This area is indicated as an exception to the plat. A separate lot split application will
need to be approved before the preliminary plat or this area will need to be included in the plat.
. The sketch plan indicates one scenario for future development of the exception. As shown, the
existing house would encroach onto the lot sketched at the southeast corner of the exception. It
is recommended that the right -of -way for future 152 "d Lane be moved 20 feet to the south to
preserve the potential for a row of lots on the north side of the street and adequate space on a
potential future cul -de -sac lot for the existing house. This adjustment will increase the size of the
exception and reduce the depth of lots 1,2 and 3, Block 1 from 150 feet to 130 feet.
It is important to note that a lot split for the exception would create a remnant parcel that is
below the minimum lot width requirement of 300 feet for rural residential properties (229.92 or
209.92 with the adjustment discussed above). It is recommended that a variance be supported
due to the fact that the property will be converted to an urban residential development and that
this approach provides the best design, accommodates the existing house and preserves options
for future development.
Access
Access through the development would be provided with a street connection to Nightingale
Street NW. The western edge of the new street would end in a temporary cul -de -sac to allow the
street to continue west as apart of a future project. A temporary cul -de -sac will also be provided
east of Raven Street NW to allow a future street extension to the north. Temporary street
easement agreements will need to be drafted to accommodate these cul -de -sacs.
• Previous sketches of this area had indicated that Uplander Street NW would end in a cul -de -sac.
This sketch proposes to connect Uplander Street NW through the development and into
Nightingale Estates 3`d Addition to the north. Several property owners along 151 Lane NW in
Woodland Estates 2 "d Addition have voiced their opposition to a through street.
Uplander Street NW is part of an on -street bike route that extends south on Uplander Street NW
and east on 151 Lane NW to Nightingale Street NW (see attached bike route graphic). The bike
route aids pedestrian access to Sunshine Park. The alignment of this route was selected by the
City Council on December 7, 1999. Additional street width was constructed along these streets
as a result.
If Uplander Street NW were to end in a cul -de -sac as a part of this project, a trail easement
extending north from the cul-de -sac would be necessary to allow a trail connection to the future
east -west street.
Staff from the Planning, Engineering, Fire and Public Works departments have reviewed both
options and determined that a through street is desirable for the following reasons:
Uplander Street NW was stubbed into both the north and south sides of the project area to
allow a street connection.
2. The street connection is necessary to prevent cul -de -sacs that exceed 500 feet. The
temporary cul -de -sac on Uplander Street NW to the north is currently 3,250 feet long and
extends all the way back to Nightingale Street NW. The temporary cul -de -sac within
Woodland Estates 2 " Addition to the south would be extended to approximately 650 feet
in length as measured from the intersection with Thrush Street NW. The Fire Department
Also supports the street connection to reduce the length of cul -de -sacs as discussed in the
attached memorandum.
3. Without connecting Uplander Street NW through the development, there would be no
north -south street connection for the half -mile of development west of Nightingale Street
until some point in the future when a road connection could be established with future
development.
4. These types of roadway connections are important because they allow traffic to disperse
without congesting each collector /local street intersection by allowing local trips on
alternate routes.
Lots
All of the lots appear to exceed the minimum lot width, depth and area requirements of the R -4
Zoning District. Staff is concerned with the limited buildable area that will result from the
orientation of Lots 7,8, and 11 of Block 3. Building setbacks will need to be illustrated on the
preliminary plat to indicate how a typical house can be placed on these lots. No variances are
recommended for lots within the proposed development, modifications may need to be made to
meet all applicable ordinances.
• Trail System
The bikeway route discussed earlier is planned to be brought into the proposed development and
extended with additional pedestrian access to the temporary cul -de -sac to the west as well as
Nightingale Street NW to the east. Staff recommends that the pedestrian access be provided with
an off - street trail as opposed to an on street bike route.
The trail along Nightingale Street NW will also be extended along the east edge of the project
area.
Surrounding properties
Woodland Estates 2 °a Addition exists to the south. Nightingale Estates 3` Addition and
unplatted rural properties exist to the north. The sketch plan illustrates one alternative for future
development of the unplatted properties. Undeveloped property outside the 2020 MUSA and
within the Agricultural Preserve and Rural Reserve Study Area exists to the west. Nightingale
Street NW and unplatted rural residential property exists, to the east.
•
3
. Other Ordinances
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
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.
Park and Recreation Commission Comments
The Park and Recreation Commission reviewed this item at their June 20, 2002 meeting. The
• Commission recommended that a combination of cash and land be required. The discussion of
land that may be required focused on an area roughly one lot in size for a tot lot. The
Commission discussed a location in the northwest portion of the sketch.
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends in favor of the sketch as proposed and with the various adjustments discussed
in the report.
ACTION REQUIRED
The Planning and Zoning Commission is asked to informally advise the applicant on adjustments
to the proposed project to conform with local ordinances and review criteria. .
Attachments
Location Map
Sketch Plan
Fire Department Memorandum
Bikeway Route
Public Notice
RespectfWly submitted,
A oftrftm ednarz
Cc: Woodland Development 13632 VanBuren Street NE Ham Lake, MN 55304
4
Woodland Estates 4th Addition
0
xW 01 -
m,6
mm
,mG
Nn mx
NG ru
m mm ux
mn
xeero ,seer ieGO ,-,
,Gee xx6m x „ e
u's M, ay y
1GG x1M N4 .4e O
F
a aro an rG �� 161°° E E s � .G
�a6 .mow «e
am
ma as m6 rro rm mm i E ; # v
tGN Ga SN1 , �x6 Z Q �
IGG 11G
axl
WA aN
1 full I
women
13011019 -. .,..:..
u
I �..
�¢s 43tJ1�H171Jt1Q7U
0 Project Location Map
N
W E
S
Andover Planning
•
i
T
,
,1
r
I �I
,
,
0
, 1
I
ti�
ii
I
F --I
P. P.
E
" --
---
-- °---- - --
__
y
I
1
_
tQ
(D
f4
AN0b- -- - --- -
I
I , I
1
b
�
b
A'��g
vFSi4 �
t A
I
is
rp,
PE
CA
P.
ci
i
�� I`I'I
���E
U
_
t'
♦� u
,+
III
,
I I
°I .I -I -I -
llfmlpT TII®I x_T, w
_
,
ey I
m ,
- m
-i
I w
-i
I
I
C
I '
_LL
_ —
N{phtirpE{T SA NIA.
PLAT N0. P
----------- - - - - -- ----- - - - - --
\ f \ � I F _T _
r
I �I
,
,
0
, 1
ti�
ii
I
F --I
°I .I -I -I -
llfmlpT TII®I x_T, w
_
,
ey I
m ,
- m
-i
I w
-i
I
I
C
I '
_LL
_ —
N{phtirpE{T SA NIA.
PLAT N0. P
----------- - - - - -- ----- - - - - --
\ f \ � I F _T _
r
I �I
,
0
, 1
ti�
ii
I
�t
P. P.
f
y
I
1
_
tQ
(D
cal.
AN0b- -- - --- -
I
I , I
1
b
�
b
A'��g
vFSi4 �
t A
I
°I .I -I -I -
llfmlpT TII®I x_T, w
_
,
ey I
m ,
- m
-i
I w
-i
I
I
C
I '
_LL
_ —
N{phtirpE{T SA NIA.
PLAT N0. P
----------- - - - - -- ----- - - - - --
\ f \ � I F _T _
jig
r
1
0
ti�
ii
I
�t
P. P.
f
y
tQ
(D
cal.
1
b
�
b
PE
P.
jig
r
1
L
ii
I
f
y
CITY of ANDOVER,
Date: June.21, 2002
To: Courtney Bedn.arz, City Planner
From: Dan Winkel, Fire Chief
Subject: Review of Woodland Estates FourthAddition
The fire department has reviewed the proposed plans for the Woodland Est~tes fourth
Addition and has the following comment for the project.
e 1. It is our recomrilendation that all of the proposed street connections for Uplandt':f'
Street and Raven Street be done as part of this proj ect. Without the connections
for Uplander Street the project would have a dead-end street estimated to be about
1,400 to 1,500 feet in length.As a dead-end street, this willfar exceed the
recommended length for public safety responses without a se.cond approved
access road.
Please contact meat the fire station (763-755-9825) if you have questions regarding our
comments for this project.
e
i Bikeway Rout's
IV
C�
N
W E
5
Andover Planning
Bikeway Graphic
Smooth Feed SheetsTM
PIN: 213224110003
F�S ED & SONS INC
1 ROUND LK BLVD NW
ANDOVER MN 55304
PIN: 213224120001
FIELDS ED & SONS INC
15421 ROUND LAKE BLVD NW
ANDOVER MN 55304
PIN:213224140001
SLYZUK KENNETH
15211 NIGHTINGALE ST NW
ANDOVER MN 55304
PIN: 213224410004
SLYZUK KENNETH L & MARY A
CARLSON LAWRENCE B 13632 VAN BUREN ST NE
HAM LAKE MN 55304
PIN: 213224420001
FIELDS JOSEPH W
1ROUND LAKE BLVD NW
VER MN 55304
PIN: 213224440001
LAPTUTA WALTER P & R A
15211 NIGHTINGALE ST NW
ANDOVER MN 55304
PIN: 223224130022
YANTA B J & ZASKE K K
15308 MARTIN ST NW
ANDOVER MN 55304
PIN: 223224220011
ZIGLER MICHAEL R & JULIE A P
2386 155TH LN NW
ANDOVER MN 55304
PIN: 223224230005
BLAKE JEFFREY M & KAY E
2325 154TH LN NW
ANDOVER MN 55304
PI•23224230007
DINESEN SUSAN M & ARON H
15370 UPLANDER ST NW
ANDOVER MN 55304
/d1 AVERY® Address Labels
Use template for 5161
PIN: 213224110005
ED FIELDS AND SONS INC
15421 ROUND LAKE BLVD NW
ANDOVER MN 55304
PIN: 213224130001
KNOLL FARMS INC
15709 ROUND LK BLVD
ANOKA MN 55304
PIN: 213224410003
SLYZUK KENNETH L & MARY A
15211 NIGHTINGALE ST NW
ANDOVER MN 55304
PIN: 213224410005
SLYZUK KENNETH L & MARY A
CARLSON LAWRENCE B 13632 VAN BUREN ST NE
HAM LAKE MN 55304
PIN: 213224430001
FIELDS JOSEPH W
15421 ROUND LAKE BLVD NW
ANDOVER MN 55304
PIN: 223224130016
GOR EM LLC
1875 COMMERCIAL BLVD NW #1
ANDOVER MN 55304
PIN: 223224130023
BREIWICK DUSTIN N & LESTER E J
15302 MARTIN ST NW
ANDOVER MN 55304
PIN: 223224220012
WESELY BRADLEY E & SANDRA M
2318 155TH LN NW
ANDOVER MN 55304
PIN: 223224230006
HANSEN A D & ELLINGSON B A
15394 UPLANDER ST NW
ANDOVER MN 55304
PIN: 223224230008
HIBMA JERRY M & NANCY I
15330 UPLANDER ST NW
ANDOVER MN 55304
LaCP_r ;()A TM
Smooth Feed Sheets TM
PIN: 223224230011
RICHARD W & CORINNE A
23 54TH LN NW
ANDOVER MN 55304
PIN: 223224230014
RENOLLETT DANIEL & PATRICIA
2324 153RD IN NW
ANDOVERMN 55304
PIN: 223224230016
KATVALA ROBERT D & SHARRON D
2226 153RD LN NW
ANDOVER MN 55304
PIN: 223224240016
WONES ROBERT L & SUSAN
15318 NIGHTINGALE ST NW
ANDOVER MN 55304
PIN: 223224310006
SLYZUK KENNETH
15 NIGHTINGALE ST NW
A1WVER MN 55304
PIN: 223224310008
WEIUM J & B & GEROUX A & C
2033 151ST LN NW
ANDOVER MN 55304
PIN: 223224310010
KRASZKIEWICZ ANDRZEJ & E
2061 151 ST LN NE
ANDOVER MN 55304
PIN: 223224310012
SLYZUK FARMS INC
CARLSON LAWRENCE B 13632 VAN BUREN ST NE
HAM LAKE MN 55304
PIN: 223224310014
GALAS MICHAEL T & DAWN T
2119 151ST LN NW
AND VER MN 55304
PIN: 223224310016
SLYZUK FARMS INC
CARLSON LAWRENCE B 13632 VAN BUREN ST NE
HAM LAKE MN 55304
Use template for 5161
PIN: 223224230012
ZACHAU MARK G & PAULINE M
2309 153RD LN NW
ANDOVER MN 55304
PIN: 223224230015
LENZMEIER GARY W & MARIE E
2274 153RD LN NW
ANDOVER MN 55304
PIN: 223224240014
STOWE WILLIAM A
2159 153RD LN NW
ANDOVER MN 55304
PIN: 223224240017
SAARENPAA JERRY & ELIZABETH
40826 CO RD 311
DEER RIVER MN 56636
PIN: 223224310007
BAKER JAMES C & MARY L
2019 151ST LN NW
ANDOVER MN 55304
PIN: 223224310009
BROSS DONALD & CHRISTINA
2047 NW 151ST LN
ANDOVER MN 55304
PIN: 223224310011
BARSTOW JOHN G & SARAH B
2075 151ST LN NW
ANDOVER MN 55304
PIN: 223224310013
LEIN MICHAEL J
2105 151ST LANE NW
ANDOVER MN 55304
PIN: 223224310015
DMYTRUK MICHAEL S & EMILIA
2135 151ST LANE NW
ANDOVER MN 55304
PIN:223224310017
QUINEHAN CRAIG C JR & KELLY J
2163 151ST LN NW
ANDOVER MN 55304
al
Smooth Feed SheetsTM
PIN: 223224310018
1AM SCOTT M & LEANNE M
2 51ST LANE
ANDOVER MN 55304
PIN: 223224310020.
OBLAND MICHAEL & SHANNON
2144 151ST LN NW
ANDOVER MN 55304
PIN: 223224310022
MUTZABAUGH M T & HANSON C M
2182 151ST LANE NW
ANDOVER MN 55304
PIN: 223224320007
GILLISPIE CHAD B & THERESA L
9515 VAN BUREN ST NE
BLAINE MN 55434
PIN: 223224320009
MOORE CURTIS D & GAUDETTE D L
223 A 151ST LN NW
VER MN 55304
PIN: 223224320011
SLYZUK FARMS INC
CARLSON LAWRENCE B 13632 VAN BUREN ST NE
HAM LAKE MN 55304
PIN: 223224320013
SLYZUK FARMS INC
CARLSON LAWRENCE B 13632 VAN BUREN ST NE
HAM LAKE MN 55304
PIN: 223224320015
GOODMANSON THOMAS J & STACIE T
2321 151 ST LN NW
ANDOVER MN 55304
PIN: 223224320017
MEDRANO BRIAN S & RACHEL C
2349 151ST LN NW
ANDOVER MN 55304
PIIf223224320019
SLYZUK FARMS INC
15160 UPLANDER ST NW
ANDOVERE MN 55304
�5 AVERa Address Labels
Use template for 5161
PIN: 223224310019
SLYZUK FARMS INC
13655 ROUND LAKE BLVD
ANDOVER MN 55304
PIN: 223224310021
SLYZUK FARMS INC
CARLSON LAWRENCE B 13632 VAN BUREN ST NE
HAM LAKE MN 55304
PIN: 223224320006
SLYZUK KENNETH
15211 NIGHTINGALE ST NW
ANDOVER MN 55304
PIN: 223224320008
WEINZIERL DAVID & KRISTINE M
13432 HANSON BLVD
ANDOVER MN 55304
PIN: 223224320010
SCOTT PATRICK T & MARGARET A
2251 151 ST LN NW
ANDOVER MN 55304
PIN: 223224320012
SLYZUK FARMS INC
CARLSON LAWRENCE B13632 VAN BUREN ST NE
HAM LAKE MN 55304
PIN: 223224320014
SLYZUK FARMS INC
CARLSON LAWRENCE B13632 VAN BUREN ST NE
HAM LAKE MN 55304
PIN: 223224320016
GENDREAU JEFFREY J & CATHERINE
2335 151ST LN NW
ANDOVER MN 55304
PIN: 223224320018
SLYZUK FARMS INC
CARLSON LAWRENCE B 13632 VAN BUREN ST NE
HAM LAKE MN 55304
PIN: 223224320020
WITT GARY S & GISELA N
2368 151ST LN NW
ANDOVERE MN 55304
Laser S.961 TM
Smooth Feed SheetSTM
PIN: 223224320021
SjWARTZ SCOTT A & JANE A
23 LN NW
ANDOVER MN 55304
PIN: 223224320027
LANG KENNETH R
2384 151ST AVE NW
ANDOVER MN 55304
PIN: 223224320042
LAPLACA MARK J & JILL R
2222 151ST LANE NW
ANDOVER MN 55304
PIN: 223224320044
RUEHLE MICHAEL N & JODI L
2250 151ST LANE NW
ANDOVER MN 55304
PIN: 223224320046
LA FOND RICHARD J & LINDA L
2 151ST LN NW
VERE MN 55304
PIN: 223224320048
BABEKUHL LONA M & FREDERICK J
15143 THRUSH ST NW
ANDOVER MN 55304
PIN: 223224320055
SLYZUK FARMS INC
CARLSON LAWRENCE B13632 VAN BUREN ST NE
HAM LAKE MN 55304
PIN: 223224330002
MOE JAMES M & LISA S
15092 UPLANDER ST NW
ANDOVER MN 55304
PIN: 223224420001
SLYZUK KENNETH L & MARY ANN
15211 NIGHTINGALE ST NW
ANDOVER MN 55304
•
Use template for 5161
PIN: 223224320022
SQUIRES JAY T & TONI L
2338 151ST LN NW
ANDOVER MN 55304
PIN: 223224320041
KROUSE RICHARD H & LORI A
2210 151ST LN NW
ANDOVER MN 55304
PIN: 223224320043
SCHWARTZ JOE
2236 151ST LANE NW
ANDOVERN MN 55304
PIN: 223224320045
SLYZUK FARMS INC
CARLSON LAWRENCE B 13632 VAN BUREN ST NE
I: /�l�ii 1 ►Inxe) !
PIN: 223224320047
SKELLY DONALD A & LAUREL L
2292 151ST LN NW
ANDOVER MN 55304
PIN: 223224320049
SLYZUK FARMS INC
CARLSON LAWRENCE B 13632 VAN BUREN ST NE
PIN: 223224320056
SLYZUK FARMS INC
CARLSON LAWRENCE B13632 VAN BUREN ST NE
HAM LAKE MN 55304
PIN: 223224330003
BALDWIN KEDRICK K & PENNY A
15074 UPLANDER ST NW
ANDOVER MN 55304
PIN: 223224420002
SLYZUK KENNETH L & MARY A
15211 NIGHTINGALE ST NW
ANDOVER MN 55304
4
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: Variance (02 -05) for reduction to comer side yard setback at
1353 142 Ave NW for Mary Evers - Rystrom and Dave Rystrom.
DATE: June 25', 2002
INTRODUCTION
The Rystroms are requesting a variance to the 35 foot setbacks for their side yard. Their home
was originally built with 45 feet to the boulevard. They wish to use the 10 feet allowed, as well
as an additional 10 to 14 feet of the side yard setback space. This would change their side
setback from 35 feet to 21 or 25 feet.
9 DISCUSSION
Applicable Ordinances
Ordinance 8 section 6.02 Comer Side Yard Setback.
Ordinance 8 Section 5.04 regulates Variances and Appeals. Criteria for granting of a Variance:
1. Where there are practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships in any way of carrying out
the strict letter of the provisions of this Ordinance, an appeal may be made and a variance
granted. The hardships or difficulties must have to do with the characteristics of the land
and not the property owner,
2. If it will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of this Ordinance and if it finds that strict
enforcement of this Ordinance will cause undue hardships because of circumstances
unique to the individual property under consideration. Economic Considerations shall not
constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use of the property exists under the terms of
the Ordinance.
Evaluation
This Variance was reviewed by the Andover Review Committee on June 11, 2002. The majority
of Staff recommend denial of the variance. The basis of this recommendation is that the property
owner: 1.) has been able to make reasonable use of his property without the variance; and 2.)
there is ample room in the rear yard for an addition. The applicant has submitted a letter
• summarizing the details of the proposed variance. Moreover, the hardships or difficulties are due
to the recently changed characteristics of the property owners and their children, but not with the
land characteristics, which have not changed.
Additional Information
Neighboring resident, Anna Pruchnik, at 14277 Bluebird Street wanted the Planning and Zoning
Commission to know she was in favor of this variance. She felt it would raise the neighboring
property values, aesthetic qualities and increase the likelihood she and other neighbors could
successfully apply for similar variances to build additions in the near future.
Attachments
Resolution
Location Map
Sketch
Letter from Applicant
Photos
Public Notice
RECOMMENDEDATION
. It is recommend that the Variance (02 -05) be denied based on the reason that there are no special
circumstances, conditions, or hardships to substantiate the granting of the variance.
Respectfully submitted,
D. T Mckay
Cc: Mary Evers Rystrom, 1353- 142 NW
•
—Z –
. CITY OF ANDOVER
COUNTY OF ANOKA
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RES. NO. R
A RESOLUTION DENYING THE VARIANCE REQUEST OF MARY EVERS RYSTROM
TO ALLOW REDUCTION OF THE CORNER SIDE YARD SETBACK FOR PROPERTY
LOCATED AT 1353- 142 NW.
WHEREAS, Mary Evers Rystrom has requested a reduction of the comer side yard setback for
property located at 1353 - 142 °d Ave NW, and;
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission has reviewed the request and has determined
that said request does not meet the criteria of Ordinance No. 8 Section 5.04, and;
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission finds the request would have a detrimental
effect upon the health, safety, and general welfare of the City of Andover, and;
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommends to the City Council denial of the
Variance request;
. 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 denies the
variance for reduction of the corner side yard setback with the following findings:
1. Due to the fact that the property has made reasonable use of the property, and there is the
ample room in the rear yard for an addition.
2. The hardships or difficulties are due to the recently changed characteristics of the
property owners and their children, but not with the land characteristics, which have not
changed.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Andover on this of 1 2002.
CITY OF ANDOVER
•
ATTEST:
Victoria Volk, City Clerk
Michael R. Gamache, Mayor
—3—
0
Variance to Side Yard Setback
1353 142nd Avenue NW
4601 146m 0 w6s H683 14WD x688 1340 1s1 ^1464+
14560 Hb22 NEW 14620 116" 14554
u6w x651 w561
"m x673 S Um
1465 tarn - yy 1465
11630 4686 14698 11 w6x '� ai 4621
14641 14 6N ID49 985
usm � N
u'a 1425 `c 145 26 - 1211
USE ubti 13 1342 ^ # 1270
/ 1571 44 in 8 5 1412 1 44 14464 lees 1 R C ffi tun
1415 �� UAW 4558 1 14468 14459 -
14980 14989 x390 H387 1K 1244 14452 1Hn HM2 a 11445
Z x325 w z u3n 1431 1441 182 14436 V. u1n u4m S ' - -
O 1570 143W x423
x367 x414 14420 z 1N18 14415 14420
11W � Ha64 14363 H]fil w36i wax 14404 ww 1H06 14403 14406 14411
576 14x6 was 14X16 H196 14351 LL H8x H9fg
Z c 335 x576 us s x565 R a 143 1458 14391 14396 4
14318 14317 4318 14316 14368 um 4968 148x - 12m 1211 Hsi N96R 14379 14364 '"
Q Hn1 C114 laze 11299 x336 143RD LN ' Hal° = x262 wze8 14287 x514 ~ waa x362 16596 4342
11 as o 235 - - f Hn6 14226 11296 wax uax x921 14326 Ll.l 131 R � � wN1 uax 14343 14346
14218
wXM HR00 1419$ w2N 14269 wrs wam 4923 H2B'1 143,0 Z 14306 4]12 Ilan H9N N93t ^ 14336 was
{{ra qq gg 14188 HBTl
1574 OS 94 N 14811 w3BZ 4261 a 15917 4322 14918 ^�
x187 ^. x262 14561 14266 14294 w2x uzx 14315
` - 1425 1426 H2N' 14263 ,4276 1 43RD AVE
m i un6 ludo x128 x243 14238 x858 u Q u2N 14303
1573
'p^' 3 � x116 4121 uzN u2n 142x � x246 4262 ^ C 8 9 p ua90 wsx
- latee � 1a _ 14281 usN
1585 x168 x113 :7 <+I f
,� 14186 R 4232 ^1,j' w]1e 14279 x852
1576 gg� W�I B
14267 x 280
rn °v m 14255 x288
1
14243
14231 uw
- 4X8
14219
14207 14220
14185 77
�.' 967
2
( � p 3 p � p
", m Q N Oi m �� A• p< N I7 OJ 10111
44
V 1004
in ,°_'
` 1062
14034 1431
O' 14024
V) N 3 v i n
^ rn
401 m m 71 1
z 1400a 14015 4 4; V ry o 26 25 981
Q ' 01 4031 _ N 128 n _ 991
021 t �i m n -
154 11442
145 ^ ' ' 0TH AVE 124 1236 4 1o7s 8 9
153 1 ^' , 1260 8 Si 1 954
152 143 140 n_ $ c 996
15 4023 11 I°i 0
150 1418 4 3 �+ °' 1386 - 13883 4007 4036 1062
5 14 1485
13946 13949 J 3988 1 1081
1 4 13933 ,3896 13M 13935 � 952 - p
1373 U 18913 q
9 Project Location Map
N
W E
5
Andover Planning
—4—
JUN -13 -02 06:30 FROM:ANOKA COUNTY CORRECTIONS 1D:�7633235998
- PAGE
BENCHMARK USED: TOP R 11h 0 %7 MA 41 k<> -E zoo r � /_ £ +i51"
ST•t1,W. oN 1AZraD Arc . 1 4 % W, = 8`lI -{6S
. 8 4o S 89 °53'26» 8
85.04 ' >„ 30E g6R.15 tic.
P _Q o
LL
1 N I
8 (o
OCV f
,1 4r D
�.9
ICJ.^
r
%-. - - - L
- i�Z9 J
.Zr
8 f
>• 8 �� �" • ,N ~ te e' �'•'
C co
CV
5 el
a
O t r o � Fo ODc n g�.
jg2\ e • A '��• £
R- 0 by
N
l �` LEGAL DESCRIPTION
Lot 11, Block 3, OLD COLONY
r ESTATES, according to the plat of
rccord thurcoi, Anoka County, M inn esota.
• DENOTES IRON MONUMENT
0 DENOTES WOOD HUB SLT' I hereby certify that this survey was
FOR EXCAVATION ONLY prepared by me or under my direct
supervis►on, and that I am a duly
O DASHED UNE DENOTES DRAINAGE, Registered Land Surveyor under the
D UTILITY EASEMENT AS PER PLAT. laws of the state of Minnesota.
8A= LAND &URYEYORe 7Q7G Marvin G. l ovlein,
�i��•paosFSaiorrrw x.�xn aUSVZYORe MN Reg. No. 17259
TM HUAa OLZT Av7- NQ 7 Date: r1
saooia YN PASY. JCWxzWT'& ate S, 9 9 Z
560.7076 _ 6s444 s _
2/3
1nA NCI• q7- 1F, c- 1 rtirru — -n
•
rr Z+ 'x 32 ® f _ AAUITION t
0
k
d
11n3 - '-Y 3y -C7o31
nrY
LIVING AREA / N
2312 AREA �(y
—�— lqZnq /tvrrJw —' olt
ref b0CX �
�o
54
- P N
13,x- l 2 ha AYC
2cow,
Q�
.l�
Fief I IV
. T'ory - ' -Y /. t* . i •4 e+ Ms . "'S " > .�-L• 5 S'r t'� til �r'+?v1 I L y7 - r
tt i ...n. -i •a x
S "74v si }�.F N
�% � Q
.�
j*
�
1 I w(
_ r u . 2 �` C' °Y� �t��� °x"Fa +'.t ` �M1�[..� K / ♦� � , 'll�l
' *MW4(�I I Lz f� it
0
6/5/02
City of Andover
1685 Crosstown Blvd NW
Andover, MN 55304
Dear City of Andover;
This letter is requesting a variance for the property of 1353 -142 1d Ave NW. This is a
corner lot located on the corners of 142 and Zilla St, in Old Colony Estates.
We are interested in building an addition off the side of our home located nearest Zilla St.
The addition would be adding a family room, bathroom and possible bedrooms. The
addition would be approximately 24 feet by 30 feet. The set backs for our property are
35 feet from the front and side property lines. We have 45 feet from side property line to
the house, excluding the 15 additional feet of boulevard; which totals 60 feet. We are
asking permission to build out 14 feet of set back land, the first 10 feet are not part of the
set back. This would give 21 feet from house to side property line, 36 feet if you include
the boulevard.
We believe that we have unique circumstances that would be helpful to explain why we
are asking for the variance. We are the proud parents of two year old triplets. We built
the house in 1992 and never would have envisioned 3 children the same age running
around the house. We now have come to the conclusion that our house is too small for
our family. We really love the area that we live. The school system, neighborhood and
walking paths are excellent. We have a very nice and large yard for them to play: During
the building process we would need to move only a small portion of our fence; which
would allow the children to still play in their backyard.
Our yard dimensions are approximately 85 feet wide by 220 feet long. We have one of
the smallest homes with the largest yard in the neighborhood. Our finished square feet for
all 3 floors is approximately 1,700 square feet. This sets our loAome apart from the rest
of our neighbors. Our house also sits further back then the required set back in the front
yard. The front set back is 35 feet and we are 50 feet from the property line. The
location of the garage is 15 feet from the side property set back line instead of the
required 10 feet.
0
—8—
By adding the new addition it would not affect the sight lines for the neighbors or traffic.
There is a stop sign at the corner of 142 " Ave and Zilla St. Zilla Street also has a small
curve that affects our property. Zilla also comes to a T in the road at 142 "d Ave.
We have a multi(three) -level home with the living -room :lofted in the back of the home.
The contractors have agreed to keep our existing house intact until the very last possible
moment. The entrance into the new addition would be from the existing sliding glass
door. The structure of our yard, house and family would not be feasible to build off the
back of the home. The angle of the roof would be affected and the whole back of the
house would be removed. This would endanger the safety of our children. In addition,
the living room, all the bedrooms and family room would be destroyed and rebuilt by
going off the back of the home. We would have no place to sleep or live during the
process. Building off the back of the home is not a viable option to us at this time. This
would cause us an undue hardship.
The addition would flow right into the existing structure of our current home. The
contractor is looking at making a gable roof that would match the pitch of the garage.
This would not make the land or house appear funny to existing neighbors. Once
completed you will never be able to tell it was not part of the original structure. We have
contacted the neighbors directly around us that would be affected by the building and
they support our decision to add an addition.
• We hope that you approve our request for a variance. We would like the opportunity to
make improvements to our property. Please support the findings to grant the variance.
We believe it does meet some of the criteria to approve the variance.
1. We have provided photographs that would prove the request is in the
spirit and intent of the ordinance.
A. The photographs prove that the houses vary within the
development. The development was intentionally built to have
the houses not look the same. They wanted different
contractors building within the development.
B. Our house is already further away from the front and side set
backs. The house already sits back 50 feet instead of the 35
feet. The garage is 15 feet away from the neighbors instead of
the required 10 feet.
G. The sight lines are already impacted by the curve in the road
and the existing trees. The length of our yard (220 feet)
compensate for the sight line issue.
D. There is an existing stop sign in our yard that would not be
affected by the addition. Zilla Street makes a T in the road.
The traffic flow and sight lines would not be affected by the
addition.
E. Approving the variance would still appear to honor the sight
• lines of the neighborhood.
2. Strict enforce of the ordinance would cause undue hardship because of
circumstance unique to our property.
—q—
A. There would be a hardship to our family. As stated earlier in
this letter, we have triplets that are two years old. We need to
take into consideration what is in the best interest of them.
B. Our house is built further back from the front and side set
backs. If we would have known we were having triplets we
would have built the house differently. Including using the set
backs more wisely. We lost 5 feet of property on the side of
the neighbors. We technically could have had 15 feet of
property we could have utilized more efficiently.
C. Our property is also unique in size and shape. We have one of
the largest lots in the development.
3. We would not be able to reasonably use the property if the variance
was denied.
A. We have 10 feet of property that is not part of the set back. We
could not successfully accomplish our plan with that amount of
space.
B. The entrance into the new addition would be the sliding glass
door. The contractor has agreed to keep the sliding glass door
intact until it absolutely needs to be removed at the very end.
C. Building an addition off the back of the home is not realistic
with our family structure. It would endanger the safety and
well being of our children. As stated earlier, we would have no
where to live or sleep during the process.
We were originally looking at including a second story to the addition. However, we feel
that it would not be in the best interest of the neighborhood or the city. It would be too
high for the existing sight lines. In addition, it would not compliment the house as nicely
as a single story addition. We also considered downsizing the addition from a 24 X 30 to
a 20 X 30 space. Our first choice would still be for you to grant the variance for a 24 X
30 addition.
Thank you for you time and consideration in this matter. It is greatly appreciated.
Sincerely,
Mary Evers Rystrom
Dave Rystrom
1353 -142 Ave NW
Andover, MN 55304
Home:763- 434 -3051
. Mary's Work: 763 - 323 -5864
'to—
777.
J-
rµ .
S . 4
F
7
L
�4
N'
J-
rµ .
S . 4
F
7
L
�4
N'
1
` L r
ff
ary
9
I
i
I
f
CURRENT RESIDENT
142ND AVE
OVER, MN 55304
263224340031
CURRENT RESIDENT
1311 142ND AVE
ANDOVER, MN 55304
263224340012
CURRENT RESIDENT
1326 142ND AVE
ANDOVER, MN 55304
263224340028
CURRENT RESIDENT
1336 142ND AVE
ANDOVER, MN 55304
263224340009
CURRENT RESIDENT
1353 142ND AVE
w OVER, MN 55304
4310036
CURRENT RESIDENT
1365 142ND AVE
ANDOVER, MN 55304
263224310035
CURRENT RESIDENT
1393 141ST LN
ANDOVER, MN 55304
263224340066
CURRENT RESIDENT
14216 BLUEBIRD ST
ANDOVER, MN 55304
263224310025
CURRENT RESIDENT
14237 BLUEBIRD ST
ANDOVER, MN 55304
263224310033
CIIRR RESIDENT
14249 ZILLA ST
ANDOVER, MN 55304
263224310050
CURRENT RESIDENT
1297 142ND AVE
ANDOVER, MN 55304
263224340013
CURRENT RESIDENT
1314 142ND AVE
ANDOVER, MN 55304
263224340029
CURRENT RESIDENT
1331142ND AVE
ANDOVER, MN 55304
263224340006
CURRENT RESIDENT
1345 141 ST LN
ANDOVER, MN 55304
263224340047
CURRENT RESIDENT
1357 141 ST LN
ANDOVER, MN 55304
263224340048
CURRENT RESIDENT
1369 141ST LN
ANDOVER, MN 55304
263224340049
CURRENT RESIDENT
14188 BLUEBIRD ST
ANDOVER, MN 55304
263224340004
CURRENT RESIDENT
14232 YELLOW PINE ST
ANDOVER, MN 55304
263224340014
CURRENT RESIDENT
14237 ZILLA ST
ANDOVER, MN 55304
263224340005
CURRENT RESIDENT
14256 BLUEBIRD ST
ANDOVER, MN 55304
263224310023
CURRENT RESIDENT
1304 142ND AVE
ANDOVER, MN 55304
263224340030
CURRENT RESIDENT
1321 141 ST LN
ANDOVER, MN 55304
263224340045
CURRENT RESIDENT
1333 141 ST IN
ANDOVER, MN 55304
263224340046
CURRENT RESIDENT
1348 142ND AVE
ANDOVER, MN 55304
263224340008
CURRENT RESIDENT
1360 142ND AVE
ANDOVER, MN 55304
263224340007
CURRENT RESIDENT
1377 142ND AVE
ANDOVER, MN 55304
263224310034
CURRENT RESIDENT
14198 BLUEBIRD ST
ANDOVER, MN 55304
263224340003
CURRENT RESIDENT
14236 BLUEBIRD ST
ANDOVER, MN 55304
263224310024
CURRENT RESIDENT
14246 YELLOW PINE ST
ANDOVER, MN 55304
263224340015
CURRENT RESIDENT
14257 BLUEBIRD ST
ANDOVER, MN 55304
263224310032
-12-
3 s'3 � Lrt,4w G-ov
CURRENT RESIDENT CURRENT RESIDENT
2 YELLOW PINE ST 14263 ZILLA ST
AWD OVER, MN 55304 ANDOVER, MN 55304
263224310066 263224310049
CURRENT RESIDENT
14266 ZILLA ST
ANDOVER, MN 55304
263224310037
CURRENT RESIDENT
CURRENT RESIDENT
CURRENT RESIDENT
14276 BLUEBIRD ST
14277 BLUEBIRD ST
14278 YELLOW PINE ST
ANDOVER, MN 55304
ANDOVER, MN 55304
ANDOVER, MN 55304
263224310022
263224310031
263224310067
CURRENT RESIDENT
CURRENT RESIDENT
CURRENT RESIDENT
14281 ZILLA ST
14284 ZILLA ST
14294 YELLOW PINE ST
ANDOVER, MN 55304
ANDOVER, MN 55304
ANDOVER, MN 55304
263224310048
263224310038
263224310068
CURRENT RESIDENT
CURRENT RESIDENT
CURRENT RESIDENT
14297 ZILLA ST
14301 BLUEBIRD ST
14302 ZILLA ST
ANDOVER, MN 55304
ANDOVER, MN 55304
ANDOVER, MN 55304
263224310047
263224310030
263224310039
CURRENT RESIDENT
CURRENT RESIDENT
CURRENT RESIDENT
14310 YELLOW PINE ST
14319 BLUEBIRD ST
14321 ZILLA ST
W OVER, MN 55304
ANDOVER, MN 55304
ANDOVER, MN 55304
24310069
263224310029
263224310046
CURRENT RESIDENT
14322 ZILLA ST
ANDOVER, MN 55304
263224310040
•
CURRENT RESIDENT
14336 ZILLA ST
ANDOVER, MN 55304
263224310041
-1.3
S
TO
FROM:
Planning and Zoning Commissioners
D. Tyler Mckay, Associate Planner 0 /�
SUBJECT: Public Hearing: Special Use Permit (02 -09) for an off -sale liquor license to be
issued to Bruce Knowlan (Liquors Plus, Inc.) at 2300 Bunker Lake Boulevard.
DATE: June 25` 2002
INTRODUCTION
Bruce Knowland wishes to open a liquor store on the United Properties property at the southeast
corner of Bunker Lake Boulevard and Thrush Street.
DISCUSSION
• A liquor license is permitted in the General Business District with a Special Use Permit.
Ordinance 8, Section 5.03, regulates Special (Conditional) Use Permits. The criteria for
granting of a Special Use Permit includes consideration of
1 . The effect of the proposed use upon the health, safety, morals and general welfare of
occupants of surrounding lands;
2. Existing and anticipated traffic conditions including parking facilities on adjacent streets
and land;
3. The effect on values of property and scenic views in the surrounding area, and the effect
of the proposed use on the Comprehensive Plan.
Attachments
Resolution
Location Map
Sketch
Public Notice
RECOMMENDEDATION
CITY OF ANDOVER
1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. • ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 • (763) 755 -5100
FAX (763) 755 -8923 • WWW.CI.ANDOVER.MN.US
Staff finds that the criteria for granting a Special Use Permit has been met. It is recommended
that the Special Use Permit (02 -09) be approved subject to the conditions in the proposed
resolution.
• Res fec ly su itted,
D. ckay
Cc: Bruce Knowland DBA Liquors Plus Inc. 1837 86 Ln. NE. Blaine MN 55449
•
•
• CITY OF ANDOVER
COUNTY OF ANOKA
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RES. NO. R
A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT REQUEST OF BRUCE
KNOWLAN FOR A LIQUOR LICENSE ON PROPERTY LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOT 1,
BLOCK 3, ANDOVER STATION, ANOKA COUNTY, MINNSSOTA.
WHEREAS, Bruce Knowland has requested a Special Use Permit for a liquor license on property
legally described as lot 1, block 3, Andover Station, Anoka County, Minnesota, and;
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission has reviewed the request and has determined
that said request meets the criteria of Ordinance No. 8 Section 5.03, and;
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission finds the request would not have a
detrimental effect upon the health, safety, and general welfare of the City of Andover, and;
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommends to the City Council approval of
the Special Use Permit request;
. 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
Special Use Permit for a liquor license on said property with the following conditions:
1. The property complies with the Andover Station design guidelines.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Andover on this of 1 2002.
CITY OF ANDOVER
ATTEST:
Victoria Volk, City Clerk
Michael R. Gamache, Mayor
0
Special Use Permit
• Off -Sale Liquor License
2300 Bunker Lake Boulevard
3
ry i N N
14003
g QQ 1995,55
N NI ry ta°3°
13993
13875 2487
I
N n N 2503 �} ry
N
A +'} ° am 13731
ry 2626 N _
9110
13716
N 2627 n 2461 _____.__
3545 \ - I .� .. I .� 1 .� I 7 � • ... + N N � � m � � N p ^
19 135 13524 1 13538 M ry N ry 7 0
ZOS 2045
493 1351 2486 N 19 1=2
gg _
^ 13492 13518 p $
3461 ° N N N N i6 IxbxB
bq 1m}e 233 os+z ,ssxu F'. IaJZe R R R n „ 2031
34 3438 Jea > Iaa}J 13611
1
Isar Iawe IJfB} ^ A In„ ry r _ 6 20'46
343
hA
i W J'1 ISVJ IaaxO
N lYl1 IM+B W IJ+OB t]! 131Y {7 m IS110 V
,nn Iw} mro W +a+
N tHl6 v 11900 i IAG+ ,L90 ,MM. INBO IJa90 N N 1]M} O I]J6 1 3499
,fJOB
1R p B Z + Iwn Ivl} N Iwa I ,yye 5 13948
O 9389
7C R Y3 ImJ O Isaw ,zxee• 325 , v+J 1y49
g g g $ R O uJSB I'+ 2277 la >e 13337 13
1 330 t 13389
A A A IsaeB (J Isw Inge +�° 3391 9
}py ry ' Jaa° ,wB ,x1x g aaRD xxx ,uBx 19359 13 p P a 339
a 444 +1ss} ,n:I ,JVa ~ A F 2288 ul 13327 M} 1338 17 13329
1861
9 Project Location Map
p
N
W E
5
Andover Planning
_ y(
---.-.-..--
t u
S-rreftAN II
e
) I L. <..; I r--'?-) ,-
~----1 " I 0
I "
I L-
.....
1- ~
I I
!.-- --I
- f
-
X 886;28
"
-~ --
1l&..l1-"
,., --
,I .~
IF X 885,58
~
. (i'j
.
) ~
>>
)( 885.72
~U/ ~ 'l:,'b'b
t X 884.75, 7684 98 X 8&5.21
"I I I "i' '
I I I ...
".
---. -- - --_..
.
-5"-
•
LL A I
M,
fA
CURRENT RESIDENT
CURRENT RESIDENT
CURRENT RESIDENT
IW MARTIN ST
13488 MARTIN ST
13494 MARTIN ST
AMDOVER, MN 55304
ANDOVER, MN 55304
ANDOVER, MN 55304
343224430101
343224430100
343224430099
CURRENT RESIDENT
CURRENT RESIDENT
CURRENT RESIDENT
13567 THRUSH ST
13585 THRUSH ST
13586 THRUSH ST
ANDOVER, MN 55304
ANDOVER, MN 55304
ANDOVER, MN 55304
343224320019
343224320018
343224320015
CURRENT RESIDENT
CURRENT RESIDENT
CURRENT RESIDENT
13624 THRUSH ST
13654 THRUSH ST
13753 PARTRIDGE ST
ANDOVER, MN 55304
ANDOVER, MN 55304
ANDOVER, MN 55304
343224320012
343224320011
343224240069
CURRENT RESIDENT
CURRENT RESIDENT
CURRENT RESIDENT
13754 QUINN ST
13755 QUINN ST
13762 PARTRIDGE ST
ANDOVER, MN 55304
ANDOVER, MN 55304
ANDOVER, MN 55304
343224240053
343224240060
343224240061
CURRENT RESIDENT
CURRENT RESIDENT
CURRENT RESIDENT
13763 PARTRIDGE ST
13763 RAVEN ST
13764 RAVEN ST
OVER, MN 55304
ANDOVER, MN 55304
ANDOVER, MN 55304
IIW24240068
343224230032
343224230046
CURRENT RESIDENT
CURRENT RESIDENT
CURRENT RESIDENT
13765 SWALLOW ST
13766 SWALLOW ST
1959 135TH AVE
ANDOVER, MN 55304
ANDOVER, MN 55304
ANDOVER, MN 55304
343224230033
343224230004
343224430096
CURRENT RESIDENT
CURRENT RESIDENT
CURRENT RESIDENT
1969 135TH AVE
1979 135TH AVE
2005 134TH IN
ANDOVER, MN 55304
ANDOVER, MN 55304
ANDOVER, MN 55304
343224430097
343224430098
343224340057
CURRENT RESIDENT
CURRENT RESIDENT
CURRENT RESIDENT
2031 134TH LN
2045 135TH LN
2054 BUNKER LAKE BLVD
ANDOVER, MN 55304
ANDOVER, MN 55304
ANDOVER, MN 55304
343224340058
343224340059
343224310027
CURRENT RESIDENT
CURRENT RESIDENT
CURRENT RESIDENT
2055 135TH LN
2065 135TH LN
2075 135TH LN
ANDOVER, MN 55304
ANDOVER, MN 55304
ANDOVER, MN 55304
3 224340060
343224340061
343224340062
CURRENT RESIDENT
CURRENT RESIDENT
CURRENT RESIDENT
2094 137TH IN
2108 137TH LN
2122 137TH IN
ANDOVER, MN 55304
ANDOVER, MN 55304
ANDOVER, MN 55304
343224240070
343224240071
343224240072
fA
C NT RESIDENT
2 137TH LN
ANDOVER, MN 55304
343224240073
CURRENT RESIDENT CURRENT RESIDENT
2148 BUNKER LAKE BLVD 2158 137TH LN
ANDOVER, MN 55304 ANDOVER, MN 55304
343224320021 343224240077
CURRENT RESIDENT CURRENT RESIDENT
2170 137TH IN 2175 COMMERCIAL BLVD
ANDOVER, MN 55304 ANDOVER, MN 55304
343224240076 343224310028
CURRENT RESIDENT CURRENT RESIDENT
2181 137TH LN 2182 137TH LN
ANDOVER, MN 55304 ANDOVER, MN 55304
343224240054 343224240075
CURRENT RESIDENT CURRENT RESIDENT
2194 137TH AVE 2206 137TH LN
ANDOVER, MN 55304 ANDOVER, MN 55304
343224240074 343224230053
CURRENT RESIDENT CURRENT RESIDENT
2234 137TH LN 2246 137TH LN
AVER, MN 55304 ANDOVER, MN 55304
3M24230051 343224230050
CURRENT RESIDENT CURRENT RESIDENT
2270 137TH IN 2284 137TH LN
ANDOVER, MN 55304 ANDOVER, MN 55304
343224230048 343224230047
CURRENT RESIDENT ROW
2356 BUNKER LAKE BLVD
ANDOVER, MN 55304
343224320010
•
CURRENT RESIDENT
2175 COMMERCIAL BLVD
ANDOVER, MN 55304
343224310029
CURRENT RESIDENT
2193 137TH LN
ANDOVER, MN 55304
343224240055
CURRENT RESIDENT
2220 137TH LN
ANDOVER, MN 55304
343224230052
CURRENT RESIDENT
2258 137TH LN
ANDOVER, MN 55304
343224230049
CURRENT RESIDENT
2352 136TH AVE
ANDOVER, MN 55304
343224320014
i
I
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 PIM114
SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING: Ordinance Amendment to consider amending Ordinance
No. 10, Section 6.02 (Procedure) The proposed amendment would extend the
review /comment period for the Andover Review Committee to fifteen working
days from the time it is received by the City. Staff report by Courtney Bednarz,
City Planner.
DATE: June 25, 2002
INTRODUCTION
Ordinance 10, Section 6.02 allows ten days for staff to review and comment on sketch plans.
The proposed ordinance amendment would allow fifteen business days for staff to review and
• comment on sketch plans.
DISCUSSION
The purpose of the sketch plan is to identify issues that can be resolved prior to preliminary plat
submittal. This is a benefit to both the applicant and the City. To adequately identify issues
within a sketch plan submittal, staff from various departments need to meet as a group on at least
one occasion. The Andover Review Committee meets once per week for this purpose. After this
meeting, staff from various departments provide additional review and submit written comments.
These comments are collected by the Planning Department and forwarded to the applicant.
The volume of service requests increases for all departments during the Spring months when the
vast majority of sketch plans are submitted. Ten days is not sufficient time to provide adequate
review to fulfill the purpose of sketch plan review.
ACTION REQUIRED
Please review and discuss the attached ordinance amendment. A formal motion is necessary to
amend ordinances.
Attachments
Proposed Ordinance Amendment
Resp.actfully submitted,
o kedn
• CITY OF ANDOVER
COUNTY OF ANOKA
STATE OF MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO. 10
ORDINANCE NO. 10
AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING THE CITY COUNCIL AS THE PLATTING
AUTHORITY OF THE CITY, ESTABLISHING REGULATIONS AND PROCEDURES FOR
THE SUBDIVISION AND PLATTING OF LAND WITHIN THE CITY, AND PROVIDING
PENALTIES FOR THE VIOLATION OF THIS ORDINANCE.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANDOVER DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS
FOLLOWS:
SECTION 6. SKETCH PLAN. Prior to platting any tract of land, the subdivider shall
prepare a subdivision sketch plan for review by the Andover Review Committee (ARC),
Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council. Such sketch plan will be considered as
having been submitted for review and discussion between the subdivider and the Andover
Review Committee (ARC), Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council. No fee shall
be required of the subdivider for the submission of a sketch plan. However, review time by the
ARC shall be billed towards the project provided the project continues beyond the sketch plan
phase to the review of the preliminary plat. (1 ODD, 8 -3 -99; l OEE, 6 -6 -00)
6.01 On the basis of the subdivision sketch plan, the ARC, Planning and Zoning Commission
and the City Council will advise the subdivider of the extent to which the plan conforms to the
Comprehensive Plan, design standards of this Ordinance and to other Ordinances of the City,
County, and State will discuss possible modification necessary to secure approval of the plan.
(TODD, 8 -3 -99; 10EE, 6 -6 -00)
6.02 Procedure. The sketch plan shall be submitted and reviewed in accordance with the
following procedures: (IODD, 8 -3 -99)
A. The subdivider shall submit ten (10) copies of the sketch plan to the
Community Development Director for review by the Andover
Review Committee. The ARC shall review and comment on the
sketch plan within ) Fifteen .(15) business days of the submittal by the
subdivider. (TODD, 8 -3 -99)
B. Upon ARC review and comment, the sketch plan shall be placed on the
next available agenda of the Planning and Zoning Commission, but no
sooner than ten (10) days after being reviewed by the ARC.
. (IODD, 8 -3 -99)
C. Notification shall be sent to adjacent property owners within three hundred
fifty feet (350') ten (10) days prior to the meeting of the Planning and
• Zoning Commission. Failure to receive such notification shall not
invalidate the proceedings. (I ODD, 8 -3 -99)
D. Upon Planning and Zoning Commission review and comment, the sketch
plan shall be placed on the next available City Council agenda, but no
sooner than ten (10) days after being reviewed by the Planning and Zoning
Commission. (IODD, 8 -3 -99)
6.03 The subdivider shall provide the following minimum information: (1 ODD, 8 -3 -99)
A. Site Location
B. A sketch of the site showing its general shape and location of
wetlands, forested areas, proposed ponding locations, adjacent roadways,
Municipal State Aid designations, waterways, existing buildings and any
other significant features of the immediate area. (10Y, 9- 25 -96;
10DD, 8 -3 -99)
C. Type of development proposed.
D. A preliminary road layout and lotting arrangement indicating minimum proposed
lot size.
• E. Aerial photo (most current) with the sketch plan overlay. (1 OEE, 6 -6 -00)
6.04 The subdivider can be required to show adjacent property and any other property as
determined necessary for proper review as required by the ARC, Planning and Zoning
Commission, and City Council. (TODD, 8 -3 -99)
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Andover on this day of 2002.
CITY OF ANDOVER
Michael R. Gamache, Mayor
ATTEST:
Vicki Volk, City Clerk