Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/09/02CITY of ANDOVER 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. • ANDOVER; MINNESOTA' 55304 •'(763) 755 -5100 FAX (763) 755 8923 Andover Planning and Zoning Commission, Meeting Agenda July 9, 2002 Andover City Hail Council Chambers 7 :00 p.m. 1. Call to Order 2. Approval of Minutes — June 25 2002 3.. PUBLIC HEARING: Lot Split (02 -06) — Lot Split request to create two " urban residential lots at 14393 Osage Street NW for Taylor Made Homes: Staff report by D Tyler. Mckay, Associate Planner. 4. PUBLIC HEARING: Variance (02 -06) — Variance to Ordinance" No. 8, Section 6:02 Minimum District Provisions to vary from the required building , setbacks for proposed utility structure at 4517 Valley Drive NW for Northern Natural Gas. Staff report by Courtney Bednarz, City Planner. 5. - PUBLIC HEARING: Variance .(02 -07) —Variance to Ordinance No. 8, Section 6.02 Minimum District Provisions to vary from the required building setbacks for proposed utility structure at 14800 Prairie Road for Northern Natural Gas. Staff report by Courtney Bednarz, City Planner. 6. PUBLIC HEARING: Consider amendment to Ordinance 8, Section 4.21 Fences and Walls to allow decorative fences taller than four feet in height within the front yard setback of residential properties. This Ordinance Amendment would be Citywide. Staff report by Courtney Bednarz, City Planner. 7. Other Business .8. Adjournment r; Courtney BedDarz, City Planner . CITY of ANDOVER PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING —JUNE 25, 2002 The Regular Bi- Monthly Meeting of the Andover Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order by Chairperson Jay Squires on June 25, 2002,`'7:01 p.m., at the Andover City Hall, 1685 Crosstown Boulevard NW Andover,' Minnesota: Commissioners present: Chairperson Jay Squires, Commissioners Dean Daninger, Tim Kirchoff, Mark Hedin, and Tony Gamache. Commissioners absent: Commissioners Douglas Falk and Rex Greenwald. Also present: City Planner, Courtney Bednarz Others APPROVAL OF MINUTES May 28, 2002 Motion by Gamache, seconded by Hedin, to approve the minutes as presented. Motion carried on a 3 -ayes, 0 -nays, 1- present.(Squires) 3- absent (Daninger, Greenwald, and Falk) vote. June 11, 2002 Motion by Hedin, seconded by Gamache, to approve the minutes as presented.' Motion carried on a 4 -ayes, 0 -nays, 3- absent (Daninger, Greenwald, and Falk) vote. PUBLIC HEARING: RESIDENTIAL SKETCH PLAN FOR WOODLAND DEVELOPMENT FOR PROPERTYLOCATED IN SECTIONS 2I AND 22, TOWNSHIP 32, RANGE 24. ' Chair Squires stated that after a discussion with the City Attorney it's been,decided that he won't participate in the discussion or the voting, however will make comments to the Commission as a resident. He stepped down from the Commission. Commissioner Kirchoff took over as Acting Chair. Mr. Bednarz summarized the staff report. Motion by Gamache, seconded by Hedin, to open the public hearing at 7:09 p.m. Motion carried on a 4- ayes, 0 -nays, 3- absent (Daninger, Greenwald, and Falk) vote. Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes — June 25, 2002 Page 2 The Developer Byron Westlund explained that the original plan has been revised. He stated that they eliminated Lots 1, 2, and 3 on 152 Lane, since they would have required variances. Gary Witt, 2368 151 Lane NW, stated that since 1999 it's been the understanding that Uplander would end in a cul -de -sac. He stated that because the street ended in a cul -de- sac it was a deciding factor in them purchasing the home. Fire safety is definitely a concern, however mentioned that there are a large number of children in the area most of them under 10 which also poses a safety concern. Furthermore, the traffic would likely increase if the road were to be a through street. Theresa Birch stated that she currently lives on Uplander Street. She stated that they were highly influenced to purchase their home because of the cul -de -sac. She stated that if the street becomes a through street the traffic would likely increase and be faster. She suggested it remain as a cul -de -sac. Fred McConmick stated that he will soon be living at 15172 Uplander Street. He mentioned that they have young children; therefore the cul -de -sac was an important part of them purchasing this house. He suggested the cul -de -sac have a park at the end of it, therefore there could be an emergency access through the park. • Curtis Moore, 2237 151 Lane NW, stated that he's in favor of the cul -de -sac, especially • since there are other accesses to get into the development. Chad Gilispie, 2091 151 Lane NW, stated that the traffic already is fast when traveling on 151" Lane, furthermore this would only add to the problem. He suggested the City put up signs to slow down drivers. A member from the audience stated that the cul -de -sac also influenced them when they purchased their property. She mentioned that the Fire Marshall informed her that there have been variances in the past to allow a cul -de -sac longer than the 500 -foot regulation. Al Hanson, 15394 Uplander Street, stated that he lives in the Nightingale Addition. He mentioned that he lives on the corner where Uplander curves into 154'', and has witnessed the increase in traffic. Carol McCormick stated that she will also be living at 15172 Uplander Street soon. She mentioned that their decision to move five miles down the road was partially impacted by the original plan consisting of a cul -de -sac. Motion by Hedin, seconded by Gamache, to call a recess at 7:27 p.m. Motion carried on a 4 -ayes, 0 -nays, 3- absent (Daninger, Greenwald, and Falk) vote. Motion by Hedin, seconded by Gamache, to reconvene the public hearing at 7:33 p.m. . Motion carried on a 4 -ayes, 0 -nays, 3- absent (Daninger, Greenwald, and Falk) vote. I Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes —June 25, 2002 • Page 3 Commissioner Daninger arrived at 7:34 p.m. Ms. McCormick mentioned that there may be some misrepresentation at this public hearing, since it appears there was a small delay in the notification change. Don Skelly, 2292 151 Lane, stated that he works for Hanson Builders and has an appreciation for what it takes to put developments like this together. He mentioned that no one that lives on the street knows that the street is a bike route. He suggested the City put in a bike path instead. Bill Stowe, 2159 153` Lane NW, stated that what he saw two weeks ago was different than what's being presented now. He mentioned that it's disappointing that there hasn't been better communication. Jay Squires, 2338 151S Lane NW, stated that another point for consideration is the topography of the street in that most of the lots slope towards the street; therefore the kids tend to play at the end of the driveways. He stated that after doing some research he said there are about 30 -40 cul -de -sacs throughout the City that exceed the 500 foot standard length for a cul -de -sac. He mentioned that in response to the fire chief's request for a • shorter cul -de -sac, it's important to remember that they always want the shortest possible cul- de- sacs. It's reasonable that many thought the original plan wouldn't change. He stated that the intention of connecting Uplander to the north and south hasn't always been there. He mentioned that he personally doesn't see the fire safety issue since there are other accesses throughout the development. The only safety issue would be to keep it as a cul -de -sac, especially since there are so many young children in the area. He also suggested working a tot lot in at the end of the cul -de -sac. Motion by Gamache, seconded by Daninger, to close the public hearing at 7:50 p.m. Motion carried on a 5 -ayes, 0 -nays, 2- absent (Greenwald and Falk) vote. Commissioner Gamache questioned if the original plan from 1999 showed the street as a cul -de -sac. Mr. Bednarz pointed out the cul -de -sac on the original plan from 1999. Commissioner Kirchoff questioned if this is the same plat map as when Woodland Estates 2 " Addition was developed. Mr. Bednarz stated yes. Commissioner Daninger questioned if the cul -de -sac was drawn as a temporary cul -de- sac on the original plan. Mr. Bednarz stated that the cul -de -sac was temporary; however there also was no talk of it being a through street. Commissioner Daninger mentioned that in his mind if the road were a through street, it • doesn't seem that people would really use it as a through street. Mr. Bednarz explained a how one may use the road as a through street. Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes —June 25, 2002 Page 4 Commissioner Daninger questioned how soon the connection streets would be established. Mr. Bednarz stated that the west connection to Uplander could be completed as soon as next year, however the to the east is dependant on the property owners and when they'll decide to pursue development. Commissioner Hedin questioned where the dead end street is located that Fire Chief Dan Winkel talks about in his letter to Mr. Bednarz. Mr. Bednarz pointed out the location, which is outside the MUSA area. He mentioned that none of these streets would be constructed at this time, however when they do develop there's the potential for another connection. Commissioner Hedin mentioned that the Mr. Winkel's letter is really only a temporary concern until there's a future development. Mr. Bednarz stated yes. Commissioner Hedin questioned why the plat was changed in the last two weeks and the cul -de -sac removed. Mr. Bednarz stated that it's desirable to provide multiple connections and alternate routes into a development. Commissioner Hedin questioned if it was staff's idea to take out the cul -de -sac. Mr. Bednarz explained that staff supported the sketch after it was revised. • Commissioner Kirchoff questioned if the intent of the transportation plan is to give the • Commission input on what issues are important to consider. Mr. Bednarz explained that one of the goals of the transportation plan is to analyze the area as a whole and prevent a situation where there could be problems. He mentioned that there is also a review criteria to look at with small developments. Mr. Bednarz mentioned that currently the City has ordinances that limit the length of cul- de -sacs. He stated that the City is in agreement that an off - street trail is more desirable than an on- street trail. He stated that they are looking for the trail to be part of the development. Mr. Bednarz agreed that the idea of a park at the end of the cul -de -sac may be a good possibility. Mr. Bednarz mentioned that there really isn't a benefit that the right -of -way for future 152 Lane be moved 20 feet to the south as was indicated in the staff report. Commissioner Hedin questioned if Lots 1, 2, and 3 would be connected to the lots in the Woodland South Addition. Mr. Bednarz stated that with the proposed Woodland Estates 4 th Addition there would be no lots on the north side of 152 Lane. Commissioner Hedin questioned if it's correct that Mr. Bednarz is not talking about the • south side of 152 nd Lane. Mr. Bednarz stated that's correct. Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes —June 25, 2002 • Page 5 Mr. Westlund explained that the 1999 original plan was a drawing that was done prior to him even owning the property on the east side. He stated that the revision came after a committee met of staff, engineers, among others. He mentioned that the objective was that the plan met the ordinances with little or no variances; therefore with the change the plan now meets all City ordinances. Commissioner Hedin questioned how the plan would be affected if the cul -de -sac were put back in the plan. Mr. Westlund stated that he thinks it's possible, however his concern is the location of the park since the Park Commission gave a different recommendation. Commissioner Hedin stated that it sounds like most residents want to see the cul -de -sac stay. He mentioned that it would be great to have a park in the area of the cul -de -sac. Commissioner Daninger stated that in this situation the cul -de -sac seems the most appropriate. He stated that he would also like to see some kind of a park in the area. He mentioned that the City needs to learn from this and that even though we want ghost plats it needs to be made clear that it isn't set in stone. Commissioner Gamache agreed with Commissioner Daninger. He stated that he tends to • lean towards the concerns of the residents. He suggested the City make the cul -de -sac work if at all possible. Commissioner Hedin stated that the Commission has heard many reasons on to support the cul -de -sac such as safety issues, topography, etc. He stated that overall he likes the sketch plan. He suggested the parties come together to make the cul -de -sac work and in the end everyone will benefit. Commissioner Kirchoff agreed with the rest of the Commission. He also stated that it would be nice to have an all around transportation plan. He mentioned that it doesn't seem that it's necessary to have Uplander as a through street. Mr. Bednarz stated that this item would come before the City Council at the July 16, 2002 City Council meeting. PUBLIC HEARING. VARIANCE (02 -05) — VARIANCE TO ORDINANCE NO. 8, SECTION 6.02 MINIMUM DISTRICT PROVISIONS FOR REDUCTION OF CORNER SIDE YARD SETBACKAT 1353142" AVENUE NW FOR MARY EVERS- RYSTROMAND DAVE RYSTROM. Mr. Bednarz explained that 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. Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes —June 25, 2002 Page 6 This variance was reviewed by the Andover Review Committee on June 11, 2002. The majority of staff recommends denial of the variance. The basis of this recommendation is that the property owner: 1.) has been able to make reasonable use of their 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 haven't changed. 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 future. Commissioner Gamache questioned if it's correct to say that this wouldn't be an issue if this wasn't a comer lot. Mr. Bednarz stated yes, since there's typically a 10 -foot setback from the interior property line. • Commissioner Daninger questioned if the applicant is aware of other options. Mr. Bednarz stated that the option of putting an addition on the rear of the house has been • discussed with the applicant. Motion by Gamache, seconded by Kirchoff, to open the public hearing at 8:30 p.m. Motion carried on a 5 -ayes, 0 -nays, 2- absent (Greenwald and Falk) vote. The Applicant Mary Evers - Rystrom stated that they built the house in 1992. They had triplets in 2000. She explained that the contractor has stated that they could keep the house in tact if they build off the side since the sliding glass door would be the entrance into the room. The door would be blocked off until the construction is complete. However, if they built off the back of the house the entire house would be under construction, which poses a huge safety issue. Ms. Evers - Rystrom presented a number of photos of the property to show that the addition wouldn't affect the traffic flow. She mentioned that there have been a number of other applications that have been approved in the past, where there haven't been hardships to the physical land. She listed a number of these applications. She also mentioned that she doesn't feel the sideyard setback should be 35 feet, since it is too large of a requirement. Commissioner Daninger questioned Ms. Evers - Rystrom if they've looked at different houses. Ms. Evers - Rystrom stated yes. Chair Squires suggested Ms. Evers - Rystrom discuss with the builder different options on • how the addition could be built off the backside in a safe way. Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes —June 25, 2002 • Page 7 Ms. Evers - Rystrom stated that if the addition were to be built off the backside there wouldn't be anywhere for them to sleep. Chair Squires questioned the time frame for construction. Ms. Evers - Rystrom stated that the construction would take 90 days. There was no further public input. Motion by Daninger, seconded by Hedin, to close the public hearing at 8:45 p.m. Motion carried on a 5 -ayes, 0 -nays, 2- absent (Greenwald and Falk) vote. Commissioner Kirchoff stated that he doesn't see a hardship on the property itself. He stated that he does remember a number of requests for variances in the past that were denied; however he wasn't sure of the reasoning. Commissioner Hedin questioned if when a variance is approved if the hardship is stated. Chair Squires mentioned that the Commission needs to state findings whether it's for approval or denial. • Mr. Bednarz mentioned that there were a few variances granted, however most of these were prior to the City requiring an additional 5 feet of lot width for lots with sliding glass doors on the side. Conunissioner Hedin questioned if the ordinance was changed after 1992 when the house was built. Mr. Bednarz stated yes. Commissioner Gamache questioned how close Ms. Evers - Rystrom could have been in 1992 to the property line. Mr. Bednarz stated that the 35 -foot setback has been there for quite some time. He mentioned what exactly changed in 1992. Commissioner Kirchoff stated that what concerns him is that the neighbors are in favor of this so that there would be the option for them to do the same thing at some point in the future. Chair Squires mentioned that there has to be a hardship to the property in order to grant a variance. Commissioner Hedin mentioned that there is 10 -feet available on the side, therefore they could go out 10 -feet without a variance. Commissioner Daninger stated that he doesn't feel comfortable with the variance for a • number of reasons. He agreed with Commissioner Hedin. He also mentioned that the house is extended out to the side there would be some sight lost. Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes — June 25, 2002 Page 8 Motion by Gamache, seconded by Kirchoff, to recommend to the City Council approval of Resolution No. R _, Denying the Variance request of Mary Evers Rystrom to allow Reduction of the Corner Side Yard Setback for Property Located at 1353 — 142 " Avenue NW, based on the facts and findings stated in the staff report which didn't support a hardship with the land. Motion carried on a 5 -ayes, 0 -nays, 2- absent (Greenwald and Falk) vote. Mr. Bednarz stated that this item would come before the City Council on the July 16, 2002 City Council meeting. 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. Mr. Bednarz summarized the staff report. Commissioner Daninger if this site wasn't supposed to be a restaurant. Mr. Bednarz explained that that was a possibility in the past, however there still is two more freestanding building pads near the site. • Commissioner Kirchoff questioned if there would be a liquor store in conjunction with • the grocery store. Mr. Bednarz stated that there are no plans for a liquor store in conjunction with the grocery store. Chair Squires questioned the exact location of the store. Mr. Bednarz pointed out the location. Mike Hanson, representing Bruce Knowland, explained that the liquor store would be 7,100 square feet in size. Chair Squires questioned if there are specific regulations on how close a liquor store can be to a day care. Mr. Bednarz stated that there are no specific regulations with daycares. Motion by Gamache, seconded by Hedin, to close the public hearing at 9:00 p.m. Motion carried on a 5 -ayes, 0 -nays, 2- absent (Greenwald and Falk) vote. Commissioner Hedin questioned Mr. Hanson on when they plan to be open for business. Mr. Hanson stated that they hope to be open for the holidays this fall/winter. Commissioner Hedin questioned Mr. Hanson if they own the building. Mr. Hanson stated that they are renting the building. Chair Squires questioned if when making decisions with Conditional Use Permits for the • Andover Station project that the Commission will just be looking at the use. Mr. Bednarz J Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes — June 25, 2002 • Page 9 stated that that is correct. He mentioned that the EDA Board is reviewing the entire project and site plan. Commmissioner Hedin questioned if there will be painted advertising on the windows. Mr. Hanson mentioned that there might be some signs, however no painted signs. He mentioned that this would be a classy store. Mr. Bednarz mentioned that there are covenants for the entire development that need to be followed. Commissioner Daninger questioned if all the stores are the same style. Mr. Hanson mentioned that this store would be similar to the Northgate store, however smaller. There was no further public input. Motion by Hedin, seconded by Gamache, to close the public hearing at 9:07 p.m. Motion carried on a 5 -ayes, 0 -nays, 2- absent (Greenwald and Falk) vote. Motion by Hedin, seconded by Daninger, to recommend to the City Council approval of Resolution No. R _, Approving the Special Use Permit request of Bruce Knowlan for a is Liquor License on Property Legally Described as Lot 1, Block 3, Andover Station, Anoka County, Minnesota. Motion carried on a 5 -ayes, 0 -nays, 2- absent (Greenwald and Falk) vote. PUBLIC HEARING: ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO CONSIDER AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 10, SECTION 6.02 (PROCEDURE). THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT WOULD EXTEND RE VIE9 7 1COMMENT PERIOD FOR THE ANDOVER REVIEW COMMITTEE TO A FULL FIFTEEN WORKING DAYS FROM THE TIME IT IS RECEIVED AT THE CITY. Mr. Bednarz summarized the staff report. Commissioner Hedin questioned how many years ago it was that the ordinance was changed to the 10 -day requirement. Mr. Bednarz stated that it was probably about five years ago, since the sketch plan process didn't exist prior 1997. Commissioner Daninger questioned who would be affected by this amendment. He questioned the reasoning behind not allowing 20 -days. Mr. Bednarz explained that it's already a lengthy process; therefore staff doesn't want to extend it anymore than what is necessary. Commissioner Hedin questioned if staff contacted any developers to receive their input. • Mr. Bednarz stated that the only notification was the notification in the newspaper. t Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes — June 25, 2002 Page 10 • Commissioner Hedin questioned staff on how they feel the developers will react to the extra 5 days. Mr. Bednarz mentioned that typically the developers prefer the shortest time frame that's possible. Commissioner Kirchoff mentioned that it could be less than the 15 business days. Mr. Bednarz stated that that is correct. Motion by Daninger, seconded by Hedin, to open the public hearing at 9:15 p.m. Motion carried on a 5 -ayes, 0 -nays, 2- absent (Greenwald and Falk) vote. There was no public input. Motion by Daninger, seconded by Hedin, to close the public hearing at 9:15 p.m. Motion carried on a 5 -ayes, 0 -nays, 2- absent (Falk) vote. Motion by Hedin, seconded by Daninger, to recommend to the City Council approval of 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. Motion carried on a 5 -ayes, 0 -nays, 2- absent (Greenwald and Falk) vote. OTHER BUSINESS • Mr. Bednarz stated that he has Planning Commission textbooks to distribute to each Commissioner. He mentioned that there are plans to schedule a training session between the City Attorney and the Planning Commission in July. The reason is to review basic meeting procedures and policies. Commissioner Hedin suggested his replacement also be in attendance for the training session. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Daninger, seconded by Kirchoff, to adjourn the meeting at 9:20 p.m. Motion carried on a 5 -ayes, 0 -nays, 2- absent (Greenwald and Falk) vote. Respectfully Submitted, Sara Beck, Recording Secretary Timesaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. • LES TO: FROM Planning and Zoning Commissioners D. Tyler Mckay, Associate Planne47;1 SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING: Lot Split (02 -06) — Lot Split request to create two urban residential lots at 14393 Osage Street NW for Taylor Made Homes. Staff report by D. Tyler Mckay, Associate Planner. DATE: July 9, 2002 INTRODUCTION The Robert Day of Taylor Made Homes, Inc. is seeking approval of a proposal to divide the subject property into two single family urban residential lots. 0 DISCUSSION The attached survey indicates how the property will be divided. Both lots will exceed the minimum lot width, depth and area requirements of the R -4 Zoning District. Applicable Ordinances Ordinance 40 regulates the division of lots. Ordinance 8, Section 6.02 establishes the provision for minimum lot width, lot depth and lot area for zoning districts. The minimum requirements in the R -1 districts are as follows: • Lot Width at Front Setback • Lot Depth • Front Yard Setback • Rear Yard Setback • Lot Area per Dwelling Utilities -- 80 Feet -- 130 Feet -- 35 Feet -- 50 Feet -- 11,400 Square Feet This property is within the MUSA. A sewer stub currently exists to serve the southeast lot, but not the new lot, which will be created to the northwest. The applicant shall be required to hook • up to City sewer and petition the City to connect. Water service is not immediately available on the lot to the southeast, but is available on the lot to the northwest. The nearest water line could potentially be extended if the purchaser petitions. The applicant must disclose to the buyer of the new lot that an assessment will be due and payable for sewer service at the time of connection. Initial contact should be made with the Engineering Department regarding this item. CITY OF ANDOVER 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. • ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 • (763) 755 -5100 FAX (763) 755 -8923 • WWW.CI.ANDQVER.MN.US - • Staff Recommendation It is recommended that the Commission recommend approval of this lot split request subject to the conditions of the resolution. Attachments Resolution Location Map Property Survey Public Notice RECOMMENDATION The Planning and Zoning Commission is asked to recommend approval of the proposed lot split. Respectfully submitted, D. Tyler Mckay Cc: Robert Day, Taylor Made Homes, Inc. 3200 Main Street, Suite 4310, Coon Rapids, MN 55448 0 2 . CITY OF ANDOVER COUNTY OF ANOKA STATE OF MINNESOTA RES. NO. A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE LOT SPLIT REQUEST FOR ROBERT DAY TO SUBDIVIDE PROPERTY INTO TWO URBAN RESIDENTIAL LOTS FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON 14393 OSAGE STREET NW LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: Lot 4, Block 1, Creekside Estates 2 "d Addition, Anoka County, Minnesota. WHEREAS, Robert Day has requested approval of a lot split to subdivide property pursuant to Ordinance No. 40, located at 14393 Osage Street NW; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission has reviewed the request and has determined that said request meets the criteria of Ordinance No. 8 and 40; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission finds the request would not have a detrimental effect upon the health, safety, morals and general welfare of the City of Andover; and WHEREAS, a public hearing was held pursuant to state statutes; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommends to the City Council approval of the lot split as requested. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Andover hereby agrees with the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approves the lot split on said property with the following conditions: 1. The purchaser of the property shall be required to conform with all of the requirements of the City of Andover Building Department. 2. The applicant shall pay park dedication in the amount of $1,700. 3. The applicant shall pay a trail fee in the amount of $412. 4. The applicant shall be required to hook up to City sewer and petition the City to connect. The applicant must disclose to the buyer of the new lot that an assessment will be due and payable for sewer service at the time of connection. 5. The applicant shall establish flood elevations and dedicate appropriate drainage and utility easements by separate document. • 6. The lot split shall be subject to a sunset clause as defined in Ordinance No. 40, Section III(E). 3 Adopted by the City Council of the City of Andover on this day of , 2002. CITY OF ANDOVER ATTEST: Victoria Volk, City Clerk 11 Mike Gamache, Mayor 0 OA h � y 4 z C� C� /5 14 o \ I I I c E P w b d D� D C � D 7 � P x z ,r If - -- x0.00- It 2 3" 4r; S 632 S E / m o C _ - O o m N m w N � O a._ D y a� t l L — O - - — — 55 cj 1\ In c rn a VE - l w " 5'37 E .rnM � y J r � fy / ` y _ o. y r l Z � yY� GY U W C 1 00 y O- = ti , m d 00 � Ok %10 k, \ne �Ok IL �rto�5�o5P(45 �P�FS w 5'37 E .rnM ¢ z 1 L ZM– ` ° it` �R oak' via l o eu r o v LO I� x ��a I ®+ I Z p w p { \ \ 1 . t/E`ry o. gafQQe U 6eO\ W Y �� OW ICUN / m ; LO IJ ^NU� m O ' LO I om w ,. o p d U I a,s r -' o :r 'W O Ln 't N cnmw rr I_ D N V.p In\ a._ � W in L O c o'c o < I N _ t g aW SI t6,35 S45- 32 -02 "E Ln It H `m z 170.49 80.23 s Ad .Z.3 � � 1 � , .' "~J F.y/24', II {'lIt?{Ie.,.. Jwtl~ ' ," Lot4,Block 1 Creek~ide EstatesSecond Addition, Anoka County, Minne,s.ota. Smooth Feed SheetST" ,i"Ist �- � lv y f(OVE RRENT RESIDENT OSAGE ST MN 55304 273224310035 CURRENT RESIDENT 14349 QUINN DR ANDOVER, MN 55304 273224310025 CURRENT RESIDENT 14354 OSAGE ST ANDOVER, MN 55304 273224310019 CURRENT RESIDENT 14360 PARTRIDGE ST ANDOVER, MN 55304 273224310009 CURRENT RESIDENT 14380 OSAGE ST ANDOVER, MN 55304 273224310020 CURRENT RESIDENT 14419 QUINN DR ANDOVER, MN 55304 273224310023 CURRENT RESIDENT 14435 CROSSTOWN BLVD OVER, MN 55304 24310007 U CURRENT RESIDENT 14361 QUINN DR ANDOVER, MN 55304 273224310024 CURRENT RESIDENT 14395 PARTRIDGE ST ANDOVER, MN 55304 273224310016 CURRENT RESIDENT 14430 CROSSTOWN BLVD ANDOVER, MN 55304 273224310001 CURRENT RESIDENT 14375 PARTRIDGE ST ANDOVER, MN 55304 273224310015 CURRENT RESIDENT 14404 OSAGE ST ANDOVER, MN 55304 273224310021 CURRENT RESIDENT 14431 QUINN DR ANDOVER, MN 55304 273224310022 7 -* * Lot Split • 14393 Osage Street NW 14670 � 14589 1{suD 1{1170 W. 1{1104 14x7 14588 1850 usse 1 {�1 14810 / ¢ - 1Nw B 14520 n m m n O n n ei m m m J 14520 1748 Y - $ m 1 L ^^... 14437 14435 1 r 2344 14314 14220 14158 N n R F 8 - V^ $ N 14138 1409 v 1 {na N N N 1988 14769. � N N' N N N z3 N ry H N N N F_ 191N 387 {ne N ry ry E 231 a 14722 W 1 z2o0 ? 14712 1920 Z 14719 147 r rv12220 1970 Z J 1488E 1487E 141104 U 14870 1488" 14662 low 14640 1{074 14620 14618 1xtD 14670 � 14589 1{suD 1{1170 W. 1{1104 14x7 14588 1850 usse 1 {�1 14810 / ¢ - 1Nw B 14520 n m m n O n n ei m m m J 14520 1748 Y - $ m 1 L ^^... 14437 14435 1 r 2344 14314 14220 14158 N n R F 8 - V^ $ N 14138 1409 v 14489 N N N 149 14948 [V � N N' N N N z3 N ry H N N N N 2t {D ry = 8 j 387 N N ry ry 14027 231 m 45T E ry Q z2o0 ? 2358 unol ..... r rv12220 14670 � 14589 1{suD 1{1170 W. 1{1104 14x7 14588 1850 usse 1 {�1 14810 / ¢ - 1Nw B 14520 n m m n O n n ei m m m J 14520 1748 Y - $ m 1 L ^^... 14437 14435 1 r 2344 14314 14220 14158 N n R F 8 - V^ $ N 14138 1409 v N 149 14948 [V � N N' N N N z3 14 TH LN t{D{e 2215 23 2t {D ry = 8 j 231 ume $ ry N 1 {DZ 14935 14027 231 1N14 1N4 14375 14357 14335 14315 • Project Location Map — 7 A B WYE S Andover Planning N '8( z) TO • FROM: CITY OF ANDOVER 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. • ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 • (763) 755 -5100 FAX (763) 755 -8923 • WWW.CI.ANDOVER.MN.US Planning and Zoning Commissioners Courtney Bednarz, City P1=14� SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING: Variance (02 -06) — Variance to Ordinance No. 8, Section 6.02 Minimum District Provisions to vary from the required building setbacks for proposed utility structure at 4517 Valley Drive NW for Northern Natural Gas. DATE: July 9, 2002 INTRODUCTION The applicant was not able to obtain consent from the property owner to pursue this application. The applicant has obtained an easement on the subject property upon which the current facilities are located. The applicant cannot pursue this request without the consent of the property owner. DISCUSSION The applicant is requesting a variance to the front yard setback to locate an accessory building on the subject property. The structure would be used to odorize the natural gas pipeline that runs through the property. This project is intended to achieve compliance with recently changed federal regulations that require the natural gas system to be odorized. ACTION REQUIRED Please table this item indefinitely. Northern Natural Gas and the property owner will need to come to an agreement before this item can be reviewed. M i Cc: Richard Kvanbeck, T.F. James Co. 21500 Highway 7 P.O. Box 560 Excelsior, MN 55331 Northern Natural Gas 1650 West 82 " Street 41250 Mpls, MN 55431 • r TO: FROM: 0 CITY OF ANDOVER 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. • ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 • (763) 755 -5100 FAX (763) 755 -8923 • WWW.CI.ANDOVER.MN.US Planning and Zoning Commissioners Courtney Bednarz, City Pl SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING: Variance (02 -07) — Variance to Ordinance No. 8, Section 6.02 Minimum District Provisions to vary from the required building setbacks for proposed utility structure at 14800 Prairie Road for Northern Natural Gas. DATE: July 9, 2002 INTRODUCTION The applicant is requesting a variance to the front yard setback to locate an accessory building on the subject property. The structure would be used to odorize the natural gas pipeline that runs through the property. This project is intended to achieve compliance with recently changed federal regulations that require the natural gas system to be odorized. DISCUSSION The attached site plan (2 of 9 in site and construction plans) indicates the proposed location of the structure, approximately 17 feet from the front property line and 63 feet from the edge of Prairie Road. As indicated on this plan, the front and rear yard setbacks do not provide enough space to locate the proposed structure. The buildable area is only ten feet wide, whereas the structure would be thirteen feet wide. The size of the proposed structure is dictated by the size of the tank enclosed within it (as illustrated on page 5 of 9 in the attached site and construction plans). Applicable Ordinances Ordinance 8 Section 5.04 prescribes the process for reviewing variance requests. This section requires applicants to demonstrate findings to substantiate variance requests. State Statute provides review criteria that are used to determine the merit of variance cases. In all cases the applicant must demonstrate undue hardship. The considerations for undue hardship include: 1. There are circumstances unique to the property that were not created by the landowner. Unique conditions may include the physical characteristics, including topography or water conditions that may exist on the property. 2. The property, if the variance is granted, will not be out of character with other properties in the same neighborhood. Q 3. The applicant has exhausted all reasonable possibilities for using his/her property or combining a substandard lot due to size, shape or lot line dimensions, with an adjacent vacant lot. 4. Economic considerations may not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use of the property exists with application of the minimum standards of this chapter. Findings The applicant has cited the limited area within building setbacks for the proposed variance. It is also important to note that the majority of the `buildable' area of the site is consumed by above ground equipment (see site plan and photographs). Location Factors The structure needs to be located as close to the pipeline as possible to facilitate the odorization process. It is not desirable to locate the structure directly over the underground pipeline. Staff Recommendation A variance is necessary to locate the proposed structure on the site and to allow the applicant to conform with federal regulations to odorize the pipeline. It has been the City's policy to minimize the amount and impact of variances. It is recommended that a variance to reduce the rear yard setback to 30 feet be granted to allow the structure to be located behind the existing above ground equipment (see attached Staff Recommendation Graphic). This location achieves the following: 1) Minimizes the visibility from Prairie Road. 2) Reduces the variance from 23 feet into the front yard setback to 20 feet in the rear yard setback and eliminates the variance to the side yard setback. 3) Maintains the narrow side of the structure facing into Prairie Knoll Park. Other Considerations The applicant must also complete the Commercial Site Plan process with the Andover Review Committee (ARC). This process will allow building, fire and engineering experts from both the applicant and the City to ensure that the facility will be constructed in a manner that will facilitate safe and efficient operations. Improvements to the site will also be required to bring the site into compliance with existing regulations. Initial review comments from the City's Engineering Department are attached to illustrate this review. Attachments Proposed Resolution Location Map Applicant's Letter Photographs of site (2 pages) Site and Construction Plans (9 pages) Engineering Comments Staff Recommendation Graphic a ACTION REQUIRED The Planning Commission is asked to recommend approval or denial of the proposed variance. Once the location of the structure has been determined, the Commercial Site Plan process will facilitate the remainder of review for the proposed project. Re Mar o Cc: Northern Natural Gas r'1 U 1650 West 82 °d Street #1250 Mpls, MN 55431 —3- • CITY OF ANDOVER COUNTY OF ANOKA STATE OF MINNESOTA RES. NO. R A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE VARIANCE REQUEST FOR NORTHERN NATURAL GAS TO REDUCE THE REAR YARD SETBACK TO 30 FEET ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 14800 PRAIRIE ROAD. WHEREAS, Northern Natural Gas has petitioned to vary from the building setback requirements of Ordinance 8, Section 6.02 for property located at 14800 Prairie Road legally described as follows: Part of the northwest half of the northwest quarter of Section 24, Township 32, Range 24, Anoka County, Minnesota WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the special circumstance for the subject property is the fact that the space within applicable setbacks is not sufficient to locate the proposed structure, and; WHEREAS, the structure is needed to allow the applicant to conform with federal requirements to odorize the natural gas pipeline; WHEREAS the variance is the minimum necessary to facilitate construction and will also minimize the impact on surrounding properties as follows; 1. Minimizes the visibility from Prairie Road 2. Reduces variance from 23 feet to 20 feet and eliminates a variance to side yard setback 3. Maintains the narrow side of the structure facing into Prairie Knoll Park WHEREAS, the applicant has explored all other feasible options to locate the addition on the property, and; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Andover approves the proposed variance request to allow: 1. A rear yard setback of thirty (30) feet Subject to the following conditions: 1. Successful completion of Commercial Site Plan process with the Andover Review Committee. 2. Issuance of a building permit for the proposed structure. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Andover on this day of , 2002. CITY OF ANDOVER 0 ATTEST: Michael R. Gamache, Mayor Victoria Volk, City Clerk Variance to Building Setbacks 14800 Prairie Road a 885 1 14870 1!!t 765 1 725 1 655 1 645 rJ4760 14815 720 14755 14705 715 14655 710 14590 890 840 715 887 18540 14545 i FM 650 1 580 6'4 614 15080 ( - 1 249 1 216 165 1 141 W I 475 425 375 325 275 225 155 137 IL 541 14424 510 464 418 370 308 264 222 208 140 14416 14396 t43tt1 � I I 14390 0 Project Location Map 9 w E 6 Andover Planning 14960 264 220 156 14940 14942 14921 14920 14920 14867 4556 14861 14659 14835 14826 14825 14800 329 4800 14745 LL 14]32 14744 14717 147D4 480 430 38D 330 260 230 172 W I 475 425 375 325 275 225 155 137 IL 541 14424 510 464 418 370 308 264 222 208 140 14416 14396 t43tt1 � I I 14390 0 Project Location Map 9 w E 6 Andover Planning Northern Natural Gas Company 1650 West 82nd Street, Suite 1250 Minneapolis, MN 55431 • Fax Operations 952- 887 -1740 Fax Right of Way 952- 887 -1759 July 3, 2002 Mr. Courtney Bednarz, City Planner City of Andover Minnesota 1085 Crosstown Blvd. NW Andover, MN 55304 Re: Lexington and Anoka Odorant sites Dear Mr. Bednarz: Thank you for taking time to discuss the above sites located in the corporate limits of the City of Andover. Per our discussions, any traffic by Northern or its assigns over the existing buried facilities can and will be done in a responsible manner. Placement of these Pipeline Odorant Facilities was designed in conjunction with the existing facilities and hopefully in keeping with current City of Andover Lot Set -back requirements. These Pipeline Odorant Facilities are designed using the latest technology to eliminate • any escape of the odorant. However since they are not foolproof, they also designed to adequately contain any material which may escape in the unlikely event of an accidental discharge. The effect of uncontained odorant is dependent on current atmospheric conditions, i.e., wind speed/direction, humidity, temperature, etc. The systems are also designed to notify Northern of emergency situations. Authorization is being sought for two sites located on the main Elk River pipeline. It is not necessary at this time to odorize the entire Elk river pipeline. These systems are for the purpose of providing odorant to Northern's "Lexington" branch line (Prairie Road Site) and the "Anoka" branch line (Valley Drive Site), which branch off from the mainline. - The outer material for the buildings will be a brick textured material, with an earth tone color "Legionaire Tan", and the roof will be "hunter /forest green ". Thank you again for the courtesy of any consideration, you can give to the foregoing. Sincerely, NORTHERN NATURAL GAS COMPANY Leland C. Mann Right of Way Agent . Cc John Nelson Team North Branch • • • View From Northeast _4 -- . View of Boulevard on West Side of Prairie Road from south end of site View directly across Prairie Drive • • 0 —7— View from southwest (in Prairie Knoll Park) View from south side of site from Prairie Knoll Park • • U Z — J J m Z � (D Z L. " N 4S � 0 0 �L 0Oom �0 F— U a Z 2 Q = c� o 0 �0 Z Q U 0 m O W +.j U ) X W J Z O a CO W 0 IL @Q J G O N 0 Z� U_ O z F O jr s t a N W n 0 r DJ m 0 N U) O U > i W U � V) o 0 U W Z w Y cc � > N J Z J d z J d W m W O U P Z Q O W O WO Z O Ld N Z 5 m Z:) fn Z F J W 0 J F D 2 F U M m m a. L IL @Q J G O N 0 Z� U_ O z W jr s t LU N M n 0 r DJ m U) O L IL @Q J G O N 0 Z� U_ O z 0 jr s t 0 tly Q O L U � 0 0 L. iri c G fioozq s nc'� o- �' 0.�' s mob a mom a C S Q � 3 r � r� •g, 3 g. m E m u atom m w� C S d..�$•c m o O co 0 p m °zs6 gut � ^II O°O av� 5 0 O O W t °0 o o � 76 a ° g Zt +r �c m� w.• vE - � H °c� � dao Sao pp m �' p •3. r' erg6 m4W o m\ rl cU �+ LL V Z Z so b o � fi �3 ° i ] § - Z W o° o w„ ° t c, _ r S r d ° m m Cam 0 !U�! u i ; t S � Bz �4A.. 9 EEL u c m °� pt e- _ * �' o fi �4o §eyx°°z �6 0 = 0 0 ' Y- •• U ° R �' J ml o 9 V O 3 O C ' L Fi a o 18- j a 8 r 'c o .c ; x n n It z a o_r �y$�rgt6$ U �o o �,�� g 1 k g f� Y �W U O -E x n o _ c d �j O SP.i58 to p c x eN�n` $O 1-N Z p E Ob9 Z O o° O w 8 I p w dl N 2 ED t n S � I s 5 IRS , 1 a S I am �5 Q- \ \ P \ �fy \ ey \ �b 6r°•i,KI, -, ,- an >- �nev\a3m.°rAW° \en>!- �nn� \° mdwA wkrA, s ;°' goo.° n� 9 dog � �eg / � b / 1 / P V � Q cr W, 0 • • 3 S d � C o � � Bq 6t Bp — t t h \ z VZ189 OlsOjgaN 'OgDwO laaJIS 'Pa�OL 41no5 L L l l a N ANvdwoo svz ivun.LvN NU3H. WON ' o o .LO31r®Ud NOLLVZIHO(30 3003 ` ° z o z_ 2 Y Y O 6Q w p a W S a K N N rc n� 1 i .e ei ,T � L �' p s� a aooA00003a�aooE HIMONOR sMils 0901a919G�02� ©�I�e��0��C11C0160�110 BEIoo000��GEe ©EeWe�C�IECIG0113608116 090eo100060oaoE1��0�910CI018f�fi60110' MOM WEI' Mgo - WOMM20110 X09® a9911�Daeea0eoE01�I010b16060118 80@ �A999�9821oE�ooE BIDfia011E1B60ae IB�E918MME0110 •' .. �IIIIOO�IC�001�10101�0001116100 i .e ei ,T � L �' p s� a r Q� a °gin �g�g qq � q gj i • Nb �l -JC�)J St;��) �dN(1 N elf ]; 1 -0)w 4 x U \ � VVV �IVVI F � Z U i an O = Z N ow o Z O 5 J O 5 Z Y O WJJ W m m S I LL VVV N 0 � [ --------------------- - - - - -- i (§ � )) ! � � � .. f k wil �k#i�;�■ lb �k §�22k 'oLi � e ia D�S w w m awG PJC @ , G n e ` &NVdm00 SYS �FU¥N NU3HIMON �_& !; I!l2�I� | LO 3 0� NOLWHOOO Z00z 2 `� � §§ . m § # l ;�� ! §! §¢| 0 � [ --------------------- - - - - -- i (§ � )) ! � � � .. f , —a- k wil �k#i�;�■ lb �k §�22k ! !; I!l2�I� , —a- 0 0 0 WF-- 00 0:2 L r(loo 4" 0 0 coo z 0 Ld �2 0 (L a. M (n 0 z MJ P • LLI z al ,Iti y3 I N PI • LLI z 0 i r Is e a o N 8 , g il l ell � it Eg I P j 4 I ri y l z • 6. Tit I II ;;q Y a id 6 _p a N 0 u C W i s ¢ D 12 3 g � L ih I g�; s Al l. a yg g y v g g ` 3 a � ° n � o N s 4 u T` oQ c W n u Z IP an ° Isl 9 9 " g � a cg ov P 12 g $2W2 n ,chiEap�� C R :1 Ail s h g gig na " g g � �egi�QsQ gA� raP��33- �i w��8e 2P9 ��aa���d saa8 �y Y yy$ r BBgg$3 t` 48RE �dBb�YRR Sa<Sr:�fg 1 K 6 8 5 aa65 kit R S F a a A 44 99� :d_g 2� § a ai § p a 5 F g $ 'NI °e.N ° k Tba i %j d� 4 9 ry �R � b ag�g B 8 $g R �e ° e ° a a k b ca;ee g � "d' hag s 8� a Ye ° s sE 2- F �^ r e bey, U � . 1 . !�` a iF b e L ddb b C 33 +� y r NS - a % §5 � < d ' s� gx` Cab a wig jig `d �a �rn G) 0 i 0 Z m w J I d P o� r k e c a �l a r- 1 a tl w ti d `, 3 4d 40 v a ria o Y .Y. � e J v W C Htt"OIf 311W OOiNYR 3G'iY l aY�.RRf IUW1 f[iUL'ltlml !A't3 L.Ni.1fVl2Vi1 M OI`h ; LP ' u�W.0 lY 1M'tlf IHTY TI' 6K AIfY 0 , Both Sites , .' , ,._.1 :'S~eet3..~eed to.i?dicatethe width o,fthe~rivewayentrance/~~it(maXimumwidthIs ,30 feet) ~t Valley Drive NWandPrameRoad NW. ' ,.' , , ,'.'" .' , 2"Sheet 3. It will' be necessary to Tnaicat~percentofgradein the parking lots and driveway/aisfes. ' A 1 % , minimumgradeisrequiredby OrdinanceS, SectionS.08 E.5.;' .." ..,. . .', ,'" .",' 3. Sheet 3,A.minimum 6 foot sidewalk is required where there is head"on(perpendicular) parking; ,5 foot is ..' requiredforaiagonal and4 footwherethere is no parking. <' '. . ,.' '.. ' '. . ...' 4. 'Sheet 3., Providedimensionalinformation for all proposed radius are<3sformedi1ms,driyelNaywidths, " etc..asrequiredinOrdinance8,Section8,OS. . ." ..' . '... '..,'. ..', .,.. . ',.' . ..,' '.., 5. Sheet 3: Need toprovicledetail ohiltJence and installation requirements. Also, need to. idertify: . propos'edlocationofsiltfence: '...... " .' . ..','.. ,', " .'.... '. .' .'.. .. .,.. '.. .....,.. 6. Sheet 3. Need toPtovicledeta,llof bituminous s~ctionand' curbing~equ.irements for parking areas,;' Attac~ed.istheaetailthatneedstobeusedandtheminimurnrequirements. .'..... ...... '" .'. '., '. ....' .,.,.' '.' 7. Contact the <:>90n CreekWatershedpi~trict todetermine.ifapermit is r~quiredfor thePrairieR()~dsite<' and the Lower Rum RiverWMO(contactTodd l4aas'C3't tneCity:ofAndover)forthe Valley D~vesite: . 8.Sheeq.lr'ldicaterfocatjonofconcrete' curb and gutter.Theentir~ parking arid drive. areas should have, , ..concretecurb ahdgi.Jtter'.(B6~12isok,) '. ',' ...'"".;' '.. ,...'..' ",. 9~Sheet3. $e~ c;ommentsJromFQrestiY.1 nterhreg~rdingtreeprote6tionplan.: ..,.. .... ,.. ...'. ,'...... ,.,. ,.., ..'....,...'.. ..... . 10. .8~ee(3. Needte irldi7ate,minirn8mof2SJ6e~radius,Wher,t3th~c;Irivewaysm@tVaUeY,[)rlve'and Prairie.,. , . Road....",.' ..". ,".."." ".',' ..' '" [",L.,", 11. Sheet 3. Need tQ identify the site distanQe for both entraoeetexitand verify to ensu~e that sit~ distance ... requirements'aremefper MnDOr.> " . '",", . . ".' . ,.'.' , .:" ...", ",.,... ',.12:,She.et 3,ldentify driveway elevations atentr~mceIQc€ltions,A 1%graCfe isrecomlJ!lended .within30 fee* , . '.' ofVaUeyDriveand Prairi~Road: ..... . ..'. .....'. '.. ...'.... .'.'.'. .', . ........ . '... ". . ,..., ." ". ' , ." ',. '13; 'Sheet 3. The Grading, DrailJage and ErosionContro! Plan needs,to,b,ecertifiedbyalicensedengin~er, _14.S~eet 3. Need to indicate proposedgradingcontourstoensurethatthereisadeQ,uatedrain!3geaway. ' .' . .,. from thebuilding:Also,maxiJrnJ.m ~I~pe isA1(noteis to be indicate9jl1thel~gend),ot,herwise}et~ining , ., wall will be required. . '. .> '.' .' '.. . ". ...... ,.' ". ..... ". . . '.' ..' . 15.Sheet3. DitCh culverts will berequiredwlth 6:1 aprons'forbothsites~ , . ," ~.. j._" ..' . .'-.' , . " . ,-" -I,': ' '. ',- -" , ------ r N.W. comer of the N.W. 1/4 of Soo. 25. Twp. 32. Rge. 24. —, ,—North line of the NAL 1/4 of See. 25. Twp. 32. Rya 24. — — — 1357.46 _ _ — — _ t � N69 \ r- - - -HNC p ue // �Aeline fo �m IN I Rani P I I I \ FamE i M^ / 1 � jo g I i I { { { Buildable Area provided with 1 30 foot rear yard setback P rp e i�- I • T � V n A 4 J LL �Z CL Z ` Z O v f 0�U W v! � Z C m t tl0 €j 0 N 4 d p U c � �1 O Z > U C Z O U a o o Z c Z< M a N N 00 i N so 4>1 0 N n J p � O G 2 �� ")) 4 ; O [ m Y= p N O I O C O cV Z £ W oar y o W W en ri n CC E T C O a U 0M UV)LO V) O �tV� >Z e E3= � Z,M 0 T E � o Z P C Z N � O 0 m Y a w � u II °o g° fA A c A Z 7 E a T T U O t� 0 o 0 O J p E LLJ v oe o o c O O LU O O P U L EE = «« c o� O pCC y C O C C O W C '� O d Do W O m O Y X n n 11 tl A d =s o� n� E oo� u -NN 0 x �$W O z ^ II to rn E o C E `o cE o Zm m up s � n � F c4a f •/ ' 4' � '` H�yUi�� Y'r �? r �� Y, �,r -"" rl op i_-pro O N '�. �m aB S O !jgt B r L - 1 1 1 $ 1 o no i� �`� /' ��.r -•C b O u § s 5 o toPp (89 � o p 1 0 s°`� M F • F .E ° / (40.0 I buAdlr•9 / o Lo ' O 1 eXlst 5• O O 0 1 0 1 / l i l / P w r N O T N 0 f roA _ ss O Aa § I Q'4 e I 00 i N so N G f \ I 4 ; [ IL Z F- LU sW / ! 1 f W W en ri n mil j E j i i n vi O i M � F y b E o« vrn Oo K nv o n p G Eel ice] TO FROM: Planning and Zoning Commissioners Courtney Bednarz, City Plannk� SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING: Consider amendment to Ordinance 8, Section 4.21 Fences and Walls to allow decorative fences taller than four feet in height within the front yard setback of rural residential properties DATE: July 9, 2002 INTRODUCTION The City Council has asked the Planning and Zoning Commission to review the maximum fence height in the front yard setback area of rural residential properties. This item is the result of a previous variance request that was unsuccessful. 0 DISCUSSION Applicable Ordinances Ordinance No. 8, Section 4.21 Fences and Walls restricts the height of fences located within the front yard setback to a maximum height of four feet. Background The intent of this ordinance is to prevent fences from adversely affecting traffic visibility from streets or driveways on the same block. This ordinance provision is also intended to protect the aesthetics of the front yard and front elevations of homes from being screened behind a taller, opaque fence and to prevent a gated community look. Other Cities The attached table indicates the maximum fence height for other communities. Eleven of the sixteen communities surveyed have a maximum front yard fence height of four feet or less. Only two of the communities differentiate fence height by the type of fence (Chanhassen and Plymouth). In these communities, additional fence height is allowed if the fence is not opaque. 9 Feedback from Residents CITY OF ANDOVER 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. • ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 • (763) 755 -5100 FAX (763) 755 -8923 • WWW.CI.ANDOVER.MN,US Staff has received comments on several occasions that the limited front yard fence height is not sufficient to prevent access into or out of a property. • Staff Recommendation Staff does not favor increasing the maximum front yard fence height in urban neighborhoods. The primary feature of urban neighborhoods are front yards. An increased front yard fence height would result in passersby looking through fences to see the homes in the neighborhood. It is staff's view that this scenario would reduce curb appeal and result in an undesirable gated community appearance. Staff does not have an issue with increasing the fence height for rural properties provided that the fence meets the following criteria: The fence is a decorative style fence constructed from aluminum, steel or wrought iron. 2. The fence is not opaque. 3. The fence is not greater than six feet in height. 4. The fence conforms with traffic visibility requirements ACTION REQUESTED The Planning Commission is asked to discuss the potential for amending the ordinance affecting front yard fence height. • Attachments Table of Other Cities Regulations Potential Ordinance Amendment Res ctf y submitt , Cc: John Dalos, 15672 Kiowa Street NW • C� Fencing Regulations CITY PERMIT REQ. FRONT HEIGHT REAR HEIGHT Andover No 4' 6' Anoka Yes 4' 6' Blaine Yes 4' 6' interior, or 4' if fronting right-of-wa Bloomington No 6' 6' Champlin No 4' 6' Chanhassen' Yes 4.5', or 6.5' if not opaque 6.5' Coon Rapids No 4' 6' Dee haven No 6' 6' Eden Prarie No 6' 6' Maple Grove Yes 3' 6' Minnetonka No 4' 6' North Oaks Rev'd by hm own's assoc 6' 6' Plymouth' Yes 3', or 4' if not opaque 6' Shoreview Yes 4' 6' if on interior lot, 4' if boarding non - arterial ! Ramsey No 4' 6' Woodbu No 2.5' 1 6' 0 1 Cities that allow ornamental fences to have increased height in the front yard • CITY OF ANDOVER COUNTY OF ANOKA STATE OF MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. 8 THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANDOVER, MINNESOTA, RELATING TO AND REGULATING THE LOCATION, SIZE, USE AND HEIGHTS OF BUILDINGS, THE ARRANGEMENT OF BUILDINGS ON LOTS, AND THE DENSITY OF POPULATION IN THE CITY OF ANDOVER AND FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROMOTING THE PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY, ORDER, CONVENIENCE, PROSPERITY AND GENERAL WELFARE IN SAID CITY, AND FOR SAID PURPOSE, TO DIVIDE THE CITY INTO DISTRICTS AND MAKE DIFFERENT REGULATIONS FOR DIFFERENT DISTRICTS. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANDOVER DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: 4.21 Fences and Walls. Fences, walls and similar barriers shall be permitted in all yards subject to the following: (A) Any fences, hedges and walls, following the adoption of this Ordinance amendment, may be located in any private yard or along a side or rear property line, • unless the City deems it necessary to access the area for drainage and utility purposes. (8BBBB, 8- 17 -93) (B) Any fence, hedge, or wall in excess of six (6') feet in height shall meet the minimum required building setback for the Zoning district in which it is located and does not create a traffic hazard. (8PPP, 11- 06 -90; 8BBBB, 8- 17 -93) (C) Any fence, hedge, wall or similar barrier located in the minimum required front yard setback shall not be over four (4') feet in height or obstruct vision and thereby create a traffic hazard except for the following; 1. Decorative aluminum, steel or wrought iron fences in the R -1 Single Family Rural Residential and R -2 Single Family- Estate zoning districts provided the fence is not opaque, conforms with traffic visibility requirements and is not greater than six feet in height . (D) Any sueh-fence, hedge, wall or similar barrier not in conformance with subsection (C) shall be removed by the owner upon action of the Andover City Council. (8PPP, 11- 06 -90) • (E) Any fence, hedge, wall or similar barrier which is not properly maintained so as to create an eyesore or nuisance shall be removed or repaired to an original condition by the owner upon action of the Andover City Council. (8PPP, 11- 06 -90; 8ZZZ, 10- 06-92) • (F) A security arm for barbed wire to a maximum height of eight (8') feet may be permitted by Special Use Permit in any Industrial or Business District. (8PP, 11 -06- 90) (G) Barbed wire and electric fences shall not be permitted in platted residential lots of less than 2.5 acres. A sixty (60) day amortization period shall be established for non - conforming fences. (8ZZZ, 10- 06 -92) (M Fences which are for the sole purpose of containing non - domestic animals are not subject to the provision of this Ordinance. 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 • • M IO S TO: FROM: CC: CITY OF ANDOVER 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. • ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 • (763) 755 -5100 FAX (763) 755 -8923 • WWW.CI.ANDOVERMN.US Planning & Zoning Commission Members Dana Peitso, Human Resources Manager Will Neumeister, Community Development Director Courtney Bednarz, City Planner SUBJECT: Commission Training DATE: July 9, 2002 There will be a Planning & Zoning Commission training on Tuesday, July 23, 2002, beginning at 6:00pm in the Council Chambers. The agenda will include: The Role of the Commission Member . Roberts Rules of Order Other Issues Please plan on attending. If you have any concerns or questions please feel free to contact me. Respectfully Submitted, t � Dana. Peitso •