Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/10/02CITY of ANDOVER 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. • ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 • (763) 755 -5100 FAX (763) 755-8923 " Andover Planning and Zoning Commission' Meeting Agenda September 10, 2002 Andover City Hall Council Chambers 8.01 p.m. - 1. Callao Order 2. Approval of Minutes - August 13, 2002 3. PUBLIC HEARING: Consider amendment to Special Use Permit (97 -03) to adjust boundaries of allowed retail trade and services in an industrial zoning district for Beberg Landscaping at 13540 Hanson Boulevard NW. 4. Variance (02 -10) Variance to Ordinance 8, Section 4.21 Fences to increase" fence height from' four feet to six feet in the front yard for property located at - 13540 Hanson BoulevardNW.. 5. PUBLIC HEARING: Consider establishing Bunker Lake Boulevard Overlay Zoning District. 6. PUBLIC HEARING; Comprehensive Plan Amendment' (02 -03) to change the land use designation from General Commercial to Low Density Residential for:property located northwest of the intersection of Bunker Lake Boulevard and Hanson Boulevard. 7. PUBLIC HEARING: Consider amendments to Ordinance 8, Section 6.02 ' Minimum District Provisions to clarify dimensional and setback requirements.. 8. Other Business -, 9. Adjournment CITY of ANDOVER Planning and Zoning COI;nmissioners FROM: Courtney Bednarz"Cit)r Planner SUBJECT: Item 2. Approval ofMinutes,- August 13,2002 DATE: September 10,2002 Reauest The Planning and Zoning Commission is asked to approve the minutes from the August 13, 2002 meeting. f CITY of ANDOVER PLANNINGAND ZONING COMMISSIONMEETING — AUGUST 13, 2002 The Regular Bi- Monthly Meeting of the Andover Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order by Chairperson Jay Squires on August 13, 2002, 7:00 p.m., at the Andover City Hall, 1685 Crosstown Boulevard NW, Andover, Minnesota. Commissioners present: Chairperson Jay Squires, Commissioners Tim Kirchoff, Douglas Falk, Tony;Gamache Rex Greenwald, Dean Daninger, and Paula Larsen. Commissioners absent: There were none. Also present: City Planner, Courtney Bednarz Planning Intern, Jon Sevald Others Chairperson Jay Squires introduced Corrunissioner Paula Larsen to the Board. Ms. Larsen read the Oath of the Commission. APPROVAL OF MINUTES. July 23, 2002_ Commissioner Daninger stated the motion to adjourn was by Commissioner Hedin. Motion by Daninger, seconded by Gamache;,to approve the minutes as corrected. Motion carried on a 5 -ayes; 0 -nays, 2- present (Larsen and Falk), 0- absent vote. PUBLIC HEARING.- VARIANCE (02 -08) FOR REDUCTION TO FRONT SETBACK AT 17340 ROANOKE STREET NW (CS_AH 7). Mr. Bednarz summarized the staff report. Commissioner Kirchoff asked what the seventy -five feet or greater on the hand drawn map was. Mr. Bednarz stated this was taken from the of the roadway. • Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes —August 13, 2002 Page 2 • Chairperson Squires asked if the forty -foot setback was measured from the right -of -way. Mr. Bednarz stated it should be measured fifty feet from the right of way. Chairperson Squires asked if a public hearing is needed for a public hearing on a variance because the agenda states there is no public hearing but the report states there is a public hearing. Mr. Bednarz stated a public hearing is not required but the Commission could hold one. He stated the City's ordinance for variances does not require a public hearing be held. Motion by Daninger, seconded by Kirchoff, to open the public hearing at 7:10 p.m. Motion carried on a 7 -ayes, 0 -nays, 0- absent vote. Mr. John Larkin stated he is a neighbor to the applicant and asked for some clarification to the setback and how it applies. He stated he had plans in the future for having some work done and he wanted to know what the front yard setback was. Mr. Bednarz explained what the Ordinance is regarding the setback. Motion by Falk, seconded by Daninger, to close the public hearing at 7:12 p.m. Motion carried on a 7 -ayes, 0 -nays, 0- absent vote. 11 Commissioner Greenwald stated he did not understand this because the map is not clear. Mr. Bednarz stated there is no survey for the property and the setback from the arterial roadway is fifty feet. Commissioner Greenwald asked if they needed to amend the motion if they make a motion for the difference in setback. Mr. Bednarz stated the recommended action is to approve the existing structure as it presently stands and for the life of the structure. Commissioner Daninger stated there would not be any changes to the front of the home but they need this in order to pull a building permit for an addition to the backyard. Mr. Bednarz stated there is a provision in the zoning ordinance that does not allow legal non- conforming structures or non - conforming structures to expand in any way until it conforms or a variance is acquired. Motion by Greenwald, seconded by Gamache, to recommend to the City Council approval of Resolution No. , approving the variance for reduction to front setback at 17340 Roanoke Street NW for Ernest England and Gwen Blossom. Motion carried on a 7 -ayes, 0 -nays, 0- absent vote. Mr. Bednarz stated that this item would be before the Council at the September 3, 2002 City Council meeting. Ms. Blossom stated she talked with Councilmember Knight and he told her this could be heard at the August 20, 2002 City Council meeting. Chairperson Squires stated he was not aware of this and she would need to work it out with staff to see if this item could be added to the August 20, 2002 agenda. P Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes —August 13, 2002 Page 3 • PUBLIC HEARING: VARIANCE TO ORDINANCE 8, SECTION 6.02 TO VARY FROM THE REAR YARD BUILDING SETBACK FOR ADDITIONAT 2815134 AVENUE NW. Mr. Bednarz explained that the applicant is requesting a variance to reduce the rear yard setback from 30 feet to 22 feet to allow an addition to the home to be constructed. He summarized the staff report. Commissioner Gamache asked what the difference was between this item and the other comer lot item they had last month. H.r. Pednarz sfated the difference is this house faces the side of the lot. The lot is one hundred feet wide or deep and when the front and rear yard setbacks are taken away, there is a very limited buildable area. Commissioner Daninger asked how many of these do they see a year. Mr. Bednarz stated that there have been between one dozen and fifteen rear yard variances but they varied in situations. The findings for similar cases are typically the location of the structure close to the rear setback line and the inability to build a porch, patio or deck. Commissioner Falk asked if there was alresdy a patio or deck on the house now. Mr. Bednarz stated there was a concrete patio that is a transition into a walkway and they are trying to utilize the current doorway and enclose additional living space there. Commissioner Daninger asked if they should look at these on a case -to -case basis or change the Ordinance. Mr. Bednarz stated there is not any other way to look at these but on a case -to -case basis because each one is unique. He stated that this is an old neighborhood and houses on corner lasts were not required to face the front yard as they are now. Commissioner Gamache asked if the nlacement of the mouse is the hardship. Mr. Bednarz stated this was true. Motion by Greenwald, seconded by ziarnache, to recommend to the City Council approval of Resolution No. , approving the variance to Ordinance 8, Section 6.02 to vary from the rear yard building setback for addition at 2815 134` Avenue NW. Motion carried on a 7 -ayes, 0 -nays, 0- absent vote. Mr. Bednarz stated that this item would be before the Council at the September 3, 2002 City Council meeting. PUBLIC HEARING: LOT SPLIT (02 -08) TO CREATE TWO INDUSTRIAL LOTS FROM PROPERTY LOCATED AT .13530 HANSON BOULEVARD NW FOR BEBERG LANDSCAPE AND NUR,5ERY Regular Andover- Planning and Zonin- Coalimission Meeting Minutes — August 13, 2002 Page 4 • Mr. Bednarz summarized the staff report Commissioner Greenwald asked if the trail fee could be explained. Mr. Bednarz explained in depth Resolution 270 -99 for he trail lee. Commissioner Greenwald asked what the solution to this is but he stated he did not understand why they needed to pay the trail fee up front even if there are not any trails currently around there or planned on being built for a couple years when Hanson Boulevard would be expanded. Mr. Bednarz stated the trail would be installed in conjunction with the expansion of Hanson Boulevard. Commissioner Kirchoff asked if everyone else along the Boulevard would be assessed when the trail is built. Mr. Bednarz Mated that trail fees are collected only at the time that property is subdivided. Commissioner Greenwald asked why they do not assess the fee when the trail is built instead of holding it "Or the trail to be built. Mr. Bednarz stated this would be another option although this would be a policy shift from the way the Council has set up the system to collect money to construct these improvements. Commissioner Gamache asked who pays for the rest of the trail. Mr. Bednarz stated it comes out of the park dedication fund. Chairperson Squires stated this is a policy that has been consistently enforced. He stated as properties are developed the property owner is responsible for the segment of the ,- rail on their p. operty that would be linked to other trails. Commissioner Greenwald stated he understood this but he did not think it is right to hold the escrow for a couple of years urnil the trail is built. Commissioner Greenwald asked if everyone would get assessed. Mr. Bednarz stated the City collects funds for both park dedication and trail fees, as properties are sub - divided. Commissioner Greenwald asked if the othcr businesses are currently being assessed for the trail. Mr. Bednarz stated they were ncl. Comr-ossioner Greenwald stated the only way Beberg Landscape and Nursery is being assessed is because they are dividing the property. Mr. Bednarz stated this is a),Tect and State Statute sets up the system under which local municipalities are empowered to collect money for park dedication or land when properties are subdivided. Commissioner G- eenwald stated he understood the system but this is a unique development. Commissioner Greenwald asked if this item could be approved with out the trail fee escrow. Mr. Bednarz stated the Commission could recommend that the Council waive the trail fee. Commissioner Greenwald asked if tht, City Attorney needed to look at this to make sure the Commission is not Oing anything wrong. Mr. Bednarz stated the City Attorney would probably be asked to issue an opinion as to whether or not the City can or should require the trail fee to be paid. in this case. Commissioner Falk asked how the trail fee is determined. Mr. Bednarz stated there is an estimated construction cost of $20.00 her lineal foot. J Regular Andover Planning and Zonir`y Commission Meeting Minutes — August 13, 2002 • Page 5 Commissioner Daninger asked if Roger's _ Body's temporary structure would stay there. Mr. Bednarz stated it would he a good idea to let the applicant address the Commission to answer this. Motion by Greenwald, seconded by Cfama:,he, to npen the public hearing at 7:40 p.m. Motion carried on a 7 -ayes, 0 -nays, 0-abse t vote. Mr. Chris Beberg of Beberg Landscape; and Nursery stated the temporary structure is on the property line and will be r'.movedbe.io-e. the lot split. The two existing buildings along the Hanson Boulevard side will stay as is and there are no immediate plans to change these. The property changes will occur in the back. Chairperson Squires asked if they are purchasing track A or B. Mr. Beberg stated they would be purchasing track B. Chairperson Squires asked if the applicant is responsible for payment of the trail fee. Mr. Bed narz stated that it does not matter who pays the trail fee as long as it is paid. Mr. Beberg suited it was an agreement between Beberg Landscaping and Nursery and Roger's Auto Body that Beberg Landscaping and Nursery would pay the additional fees. Mr. Beberg stated the trail and park fee semied fairly reasonable until they looked at the ten percent park dedication fee for the proncrty. Fie stated this was a significant amount • of money for a small company He ; taw e; did c .cuss with Mr. Streich regarding purchasing the entire property but th -( wo,,id not > something they could achieve for another five to ten years. He stated his concern on the fairness side is they feel they are getting double dipped to achieve the same improve =Hunts in the Cities park needs and they want to support this but in a reps: ,labl level they can afford. He stated they are not sure why the trail fee needs to he paid up front when the trail will not be built for a couple of years. Chairperson Squires stated to some esz Eesj., the City could make it one fee and make it larger, but the Council elected as a nis�.ttor �f policy to have a separate trail fee and does not consider it double dipping. Mr. E_;d ,ar z stated by State Statute the ten percent park dedication fee for ind- ustrial property isa maximaLm that municipalities are allowed to absorb in the subdivision process. Chairperson Squires stated one alternative is to attach a condition to the lot split that would establish the obligation to pay the trail fee but it would be deferred for some time. Mr. Beberg stated this seemed more reasonable and would like the Commission to consider this. Chairperson Squires stated the trail f ha:7 resulted in an excellent trail system and has been very good for the City and most of ti-,:. residerls would agree with this. Motion by Falk, seconded by Baning;er, t,) ;;lose the public hearing at 7 :51 p.m. Motion carried on a 7- ayes, 0- nays. 0- absen'� vote. • Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Cr , nrnission Meeting Minutes —August 13, 2002 Page 6 Commissioner Greenwald asked who decides what the maximum percentage for the trail • fee is. Mr. Bednarz stated this is based_. on � cost of the improvement at $20 /lineal foot. Commissioner Daninger stated he supports. Chairperson Squires and wanted to know how they can delay this. He stated in the future the business may be established and the trail would be an added commodity. He stated delaying the fee if an option may be a wise solution. Commissioner Kirchoff asked if trail rees ,.re received, are they earmarked for a specific job or do they go into a general fund. Mr. Bednarz stated he believed there is a separate trail fund that is established to pay for the "�ity's trail system along major corridors or that would connect neighborhoods to schools n to the current trail system. Motion by Gamache, seconded by Sciuiras. to recommend to the City Council approval of Resolution No. , approving the Lot St11it (02 -08) to create two industrial lots from property located at 13530 Hanson Boulev,i Nw for Beberg Landscape and Nursery and make an amendment to number four � -f th - Resolurion and defer the trail fee of $6,571 until the time the trail is developed aml t i ^at time the property owner will be assessed the going rate for the trail and that suo o-r t;ioney will open up a dialogue between the property owner and the City to perhapq defer some of the money into goods and/or services. Motion carried on a 6 -ayes, 1 -nays (Falk), 0 - absent vote. Commissioner Kirchoff stated he dir not think: they could do this on a project because the • project would go beyond the propert -, in o _ ,estions a.nd would need to bid on the entire project and there would probably be c' ,alt s: t?d Fed fiords attached to it. Commissioner Gamache stated the tvid) , i.uld need to come out of the trail fund and would not have State or Fede­a fund a`c 1�ed and if }3eberg Landscape and Nursery could put in landscaping or sornetlh.in to i t:e trail brat would be agreed upon by the City instead of a monetary fee to defer port of e cnet. Commissioner Greenwald asked wh %7 they should crtarge them more later. Commissioner Gamache stated there is a chance the lee (,ould go uo by not paying this up front. Commissioner Greenwald stated he Cd not agree with that portion of the motion and they should limit it to the current cost now. Commissioner Daninger stated 'he is ,..c >;;ce; n­6 with the motion regarding goods and services and he did not see this in thce existsng motion. Commissioner Gamache stated that he was thinking because of the type ol business, the City could work something out with him. Commissioner Falk stated he liked tl : at ,:;ndment but his stated he is not for this because if a resident wants to split a lot. they v, ill r..ve to pay the trail fee. Chairperson Squires stated tha` the ;.. G c inte:rpr is the condition is i would not impose • any obligation on either party to do tt.ar ih ; it is a t;a , for the future. Commissioner Regular Anclover Plarani and Zorzirro C'��ni�siasiort Meeting Minutes — August .13, 2002 Page 7 • Daninger stated he did not disagree , ,F id d. current ordinance but he does disagree with the services because what they value is nog necessarily the same value the City places on it. Chairperson Squires stated they did not necessarily have to use services or goods, it is just an idea to look at this in the futur . Commissioner Larsen asked if there be a lot of other businesses that. have already contributed to the trail fee wanting to be. treated the same way. Chairperson Squires stated they are dealing with a situation wh_:re they are not sure when the project would take place and most other businesse; ' _:r , r, when the trail would be developed. Mr. Bednarz stated this situation is diffe in the fact -:hat they know there is a project coming but they do not know when and in, ongtn.ct i trail now would not be a good idea. Commissioner Larsen asked if there people along Hanson Boulevard who have contributed the escrow amount. Chairl?e:ra,,n Squires stated he could not think of any other properties that have subdivided in the recent east. Mr. Bednarz stated the resolution establishing the trail fee was adopted in ;1.'1 Commissioner Larsen asked if they were going to be setting a precedence. CI «,imerson Squi -cs stated that if it was setting a precedence, it was one he did minds: ti Mr. Bednarz stated that this item wr -�-!Sd ra ;,cl'Jre the Council at the September 3, 2002 City Council meeting. LJ PUBLIC HEARING: COA AT TO ORDINANCE 214, SECTION 4.2 1, TREE PRESERVATION. TO F'PiD.''C.E TK1 S1ZE OFREQUIR'ED TREES FROM 2. S -INCII CALIPER TO 1. %'_> ,`?; dI CAL . PEP Mr. Bednarz explained that based ul:,,n 'z ,: a --,Mort; ta-ith a number of developers, staff is recommending changing the requires; tree �)Ia:ntinp from (2 Yz) inches to (1 %) inches in caliper. He summarized the staff repoi Commissioner TaRk asked in S::ction 13. f*'-Ti lint- down if the 2.5 -inch caliper is six feet high, would they still get the 6 K feet kJgh 1.7` inches. Mr. Beberg stated that the caliper not the height measures all trees. He stated the 1.75 inch trees are usually potted instead of burlaped arc! &,re ' ss exl:,ensive and easier to establish and will catch up to a 2.5 inch caliper tree wifh;i.n ti >> -e years. Commissioner Kirchoff asked if they coo 1 -- both 2.5 -inch caliper and six feet in height or either one. Mr. Bednarz stated he believer' it was cAher 2.5 -inch caliper or six feet in height. Commissioner Larsen asked wnat orbs ct mnrunit.;s are doing. Mr Bednarz stated the most common tree requiremcn- is 2.' -int:r caliper w six feet in height in other cities. • Regular Andover Planning and Zoni . C f;vwnissian Meeting Minutes —August 1 3, 2002 Page 8 • Motion by Greenwald, seconded by hulk. i. -, opera the public hearing at 8:22 p.m. Motion carried on a 7 -ayes, 0 -nays, 0- absen3 . oCs. There was no public input. Motion by Daninger, seconded by Kirchoff, to close the public hearing at 8:23 p.m. Motion carried on a 7 -ayes, 0 -nays, G- ahsont vote. Chairperson Squires stated he would like > to look at the wording in the Ordinance to make sure the wording is appropriate; sand. gnat they lave the product they want. Motion by Greenwald, seconded by l; to recommend to the City Council approval of Resolution No. _ _, approving the amendment to Ordinance 214, Section 4.21, Tree Preservation to reduce the si > required trees from 2.5 inch caliper to 1.75 inch caliper and have staff took at th , vx in 'Me Ordinance regarding the height and inches and correct accordingly. Motion carried on a 7 -ayes, 0 -nays, 0- absent vote. OTHER BUSINESS. Mr. Bednarz mentioned that there may not. oe a second meeting this month based on the lack of applications but they . =.re woi incr <<s= a teen stems of which will be adjusting the • Andover Station design guide "tines t thk ,:orth of Bunker Lake Boulevard. He stated the Commission would .wve a %rail _)veriay district at the first meeting in September. He stated that at that meeting they would have some discussion of the Round Lake Boulevard public improvement ;r. oje ;t and a :lumber or variance that would be required du to the additional r rad�. i- ,, Commissioner Greenwald asked for '.,-; uts:'s.ie on tly-I Sports Complex. Commissioner Daninger stated at the present time there ] s not a Snorts Task Commission because it has been disbanded but it is at the CIour� i � Rv - on how it is going to be funded. lie stated the YMCA has br: :gin f7� up n the discussion. There has been discussion regardincl the correct was ;u 11r . +.rc;t it Ztnd- there has been encouraging news on the Soderback and Associates that they have identified some funding and it is looking encouraging at the moment. Mr. Bednarz stated the Task Force presented all the information that they have gathered over t- past eight months to the City Council. He stated at this point there are fund raising activities ,and it is now up to the City Council to decide how this will move forward. Chairperson Squires asked about a discussion in tlt : EDA meeting on July 25 and there was discussion about negations with t -hear R ner Bnergry for parcels A and B and the substation on Hanson. Boulevard and hunker Lake Boulevard. Mr. Bednarz showed the Commission a map of the area and re d the plans of the City Council. • Regular Andover Planning and Zo;zi - - <- Meeting Minutes - August 13, 2002 Page 9 • ADJOURNMENT Motion by Larsen, soconded. by Fall. io L--I our , .j.<< :nt:etiag at 8:30 p.m. Motion carried on a 7 -ayes, 0 -nays, 0- absent vote. Respectfully Submitted, Sue Osbeck, Recording Secretary Timesaver Off'Site Secretarial. Inc. • 0 1' n LJ CITY OF ANDOVER COUNTY OF ANOKA STATE OF MINNESOTA RES. NO. 52- A RESOLUTION GRANTING THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT REQUEST OF CHRIS BEBERG AND JOHN SKOGMAN ON PROPERTY OWNED BY ROGER STREICH TO OPERATE A RETAIL TRADE AND SERVICE FACILITY (RETAIL LANDSCAPING SUPPLY AND CONTRACTING) IN AN I, INDUSTRIAL ZONING DISTRICT PURSUANT TO ORDINANCE NO. 8, SECTION 7.03 ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 13540 HANSON BOULEVARD NW (PIN 34- 32- 24 -41- 0006). WHEREAS; Chris Beberg and John Skogman have requested a Special Use Permit on property owned by Roger Streich to operate retail trade and service facility (retail landscaping supply & contracting) pursuant to Ordinance No. 8, Sections 7.03 on property located at 13540 Hanson Boulevard NW, legally described as the following: The East half of Lot 13, Watts Garden Acres, Anoka County, Minnesota, except roads subject to easements of record. WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission has reviewed the request and has determined that said request meets the criteria of Ordinance No. 8, Section 7.03; 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 and there was no opposition to the request; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommends to the City Council approval of the Special Use Permit 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 Special Use Permit on said property with the following conditions: 1) That the special use permit be subject to an annual review and site inspection. 2) That the special use permit be subject to a sunset clause as specified in Ordinance No. 8, Section 5.03(D). Page Two • SUP 97 -03 Beberg & Skogman 13540 Hanson Boulevard NW March 18, 1997 3) That the hours of operation be limited to Monday through Friday, 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m., Saturday from 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. and Sundays from 11:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. 4) That at no time will material be stored outside the building or outside the storage area. 5) That the site meet the minimum parking requirements of Ordinance 8, Section 8.08. 6) That the building be inspected by the City Building Official and Fire Chief for code compliance. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Andover on this 18th day of Marc h, 1997. • CITY OF ANDOVER ATTEST: Victoria Volk, City Clerk ✓J.E. McKelvey, Mayor 7- • M 41 � E. 114 CORNER SEC. 34 - A I D - H AY` 0. 116 - 7 - 7 ---- -- . - ..... 1� - NBB �.j i7 "�✓ 99L bS.... BUNKER LAKE BOULEVARD' SERVICE RDA np zbv6il A* �,pd�of ss �Z yi� u � .✓BB �3.S9'i✓ ' - nn � 7aB, /O.. - ..4lLN +- 4 I run (r) Nx V .; Y PA KON/ E r ADD: �f /�'r,s ass Suvrr /arc. ii1'i � . - F i � I I /'► - . e co fi /4 / w y } i a I 3 EE /W rz 1 i A P I � I Y `18 r 3.20 o !n 0(W?)P0 r yp9 J (32) m °! d. ,42 133 3'' 30 N7g °4pW Rp .1761( 2993, S W, - /G O \� . 169, (79) � z O j . 9OB a TRq CT 0 6 6•. 0' a h b b A . 16 0� 0 O D ' 2 , Q t 4, v » z _ ro _ 4 g 1231 Jg �0 3 0 N \t (34) L' m / /BO) w 1. rho 2 N 01311 SO R =60 �> 3 _ 4 (411 4, 1 > k I R. 0 :i J . N 0 99"W - ..5 ¢ 0 ra3 20 o n (42) 143 N69�3049W 3337 °W 0 ? pc= v f 21 w 141.66 w 0 h 133 >0F B9 01241 : m 0 L•279$'; n b (351 'O 19 49 9g4 d5 y0) 'y\. . >9 .1rv¢p w(30) L =1791 +U 6p I�g 0.7 /4 O N (40) h R. 143 60 Q \ 5 ° {43) p 6p V -�("�z (Bl�� B. 1 N R W � 02 •20 d__ 2 > '{56 a 4 y r�� - 1 y - y - 1 I } .0 146 82 J 51 23 I 1 64 ° 06'" 150 P G � P q 0(25) 4 ° -I 1 _T L,� ° w u t 6q aW N60° i h r� O n o ¢ a /B 1391 132.43 `� Y 1. Z v, A 01291 P _'f2; ti '� Jc (3 61 S n CITY OF ANDOVER 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. • ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 • (763) 755 -5100 FAX (763) 755 -8923 • WWW.CI.ANDOVERMN.US TO: Planning and Zoning Commissioners FROM: Courtney Bednarz, City Plann SUBJECT: Variance (02 -10) Variance to Ordinance 8, Section 4.21 Fences to increase fence height from four feet to six feet in the front yard for property located at 13540 Hanson Boulevard NW. DATE: September 10, 2002 INTRODUCTION The applicant is seeking a variance to allow a six foot tall ornamental fence in the front yard of the subject property. A new property is being created for Beberg Landscaping. The new building will face Grouse Street NW. The property will be given a Grouse Street address. Due to the location of the new business on the corner of Grouse Street NW and Station Parkway, the front yard exists on both the west and south sides of the proposed building. Applicable Ordinances Ordinance 4.21 Fences and Walls provides the following: (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. Any such fence, hedge, wall or similar barrier shall be removed by the owner upon action of the Andover City Council. (8PPP, 11- 06 -90) DISCUSSION As the attached site plan indicates, Beberg Landscaping is planning substantial improvements and will be constructing a new building on the west side of the property. The applicant would like to construct a six foot fence around the entire perimeter of the property to secure the materials that are stored outdoors. This fence is permitted except within the front yard setback of the property where the height of the fence is limited to four feet. The applicant has experienced theft in the past and is seeking to increase security as a part of the proposed expansion. Hardship is imposed by the four foot maximum height. This height is not sufficient to adequately secure the landscaping products that are commonly displayed outdoors. If the fence were moved out of the front yard, a large amount of space that could be utilized for landscaping display would be lost. • The fence proposed within the front yard will be a six foot tall wrought iron ornamental fence. The fence would be located as indicated on the attached site plan. The proposed fence would have gated entrances that would be closed in the evening. The applicant has agreed to provide some landscaping treatments along the base of the fence to soften the appearance of the fence. Staff also believes that planting material should be provided on the outside of the fence along Hanson Boulevard. The fence is shown on the property line. This fence would need to be moved back a few feet to allow planting to occur. This can be addressed as a part of the Commercial Site Plan application. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the proposed variance to allow a six foot tall ornamental fence within the front yard setback area. ACTION REQUIRED The Planning Commission is asked to approve a variance to allow a fence up to six feet in height in the front yard setback area. Attachments Resolution Location Map Applicant's Letter Site Plan Res ctf Ily submitted, ourl Cc: Beberg Landscaping c/o Chris Beberg, 13540 Hanson Boulevard NW -Zr J0 • CITY OF ANDOVER COUNTY OF ANOKA STATE OF MINNESOTA RES. NO. R A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE VARIANCE REQUEST FOR BEBERG LANDSCAPING TO CONSTRUCT A SIX FOOT TALL ORNAMENTAL FENCE WITHIN THE FRONT YARD SETBACK OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT 13540 HANSON BOULEVARD LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS: THE EAST HALF OF LOT 13 WATTS GARDEN ACRES, ANOKA COUNTY, MINNESOTA EXCEPT THAT PART TAKEN FOR CSAH 78 AND THAT PART TAKEN FOR COMMERCIAL BOULEVARD IN CITY OF ANDOVER RIGHT -OF -WAY PLAT NO. 1, ANOKA COUNTY, MINNESOTA AND SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS OF RECORD. WHEREAS, Chris Beberg has petitioned to vary from the four foot maximum fence height in the front yard setback provided in Ordinance 8, Section 4.21 for property located at 13540 Hanson Boulevard, and; WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the special circumstance for the subject property is the fact that the additional height is needed to provide adequate security for the landscaping display area, and; WHEREAS, allowing a six foot tall ornamental fence within the front yard setback area is not contrary to the intent of the ordinance because the fence will be setback from the curb of the street to allow adequate sight distance, and; WHEREAS, the applicant has explored all other feasible options to locate the fence 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. An ornamental fence with a maximum height of six feet within the front yard setback area. 2. Subject to Fire Department access requirements. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Andover on this th day of 2002. CITY OF ANDOVER • ATTEST: Michael R. Gamache, Mayor Victoria Volk, City Clerk .3- Ah 0 Project Location Map A H W�p ►E b Andover Planning www.beberglandscape.com 13540 Hanson Blvd. Andover, MN 55304 763-754-9491 August 28, 2002 ,.."<V- :~J'::::: ' ..~:"... ".;",.""";::...,:,~,:,:!. :",;':., :::;:,,~';';';:';l;;..-,' :,',:~~ City of Andover ': :",?~<.: ' ",~ > ' .1' ., _, ,_ _:,; i ,__ _ ~";_~< ~.-;>' '_':::-:::- ',-" 1685 Crosstown Blvd. NW, ';' 0, :~~':.~:> Andover MN 55304~ ,/, ':~.~:> ,., '.--,.- -" " - _ '_-t ' _+.;;~~j:)~;~:i:_>_~,__ ~::-:~:-,- _ {:}:-'~-~;~r-:c:. '~~:~~1;;~ Dear Staff and CO~$iR,m;i:s':-" rill; "l, ' . If'" . . Please conSider~:;f~~:.- . '~ ~~~", '.. ~.1~~t~fated to pro~~:ed'" ,'; ,'-' ,--;}.,,~~'tT~_ -_.:-~ -,~-~ ,~~' ~~ ,," J!X:t.- '~~~'F:;l'...-;::' i~h 4'tAA1:f-' ':i~~::~~:P_-~ garden center operatf<!m", '''''~~, ,~. "",;"""", ",h.:" ,~<t'''''' ' ," -.."'~, ~~_,~-_7tio:_~;- ,>'.;"'. --:", 4; -Of._, ,'_' - - - ,,'" - _ <':t'!i?7-:---;:~~':, "c,.' - ,. , ~" ,'o'P,f )~~~-::yf~~(';~:;:-'~ Description of'Request: ;','1 , Beberg Landscape Nursery Co. requests variance to allow constructioIlbfa six foot tall , . Wrought Iron style fence along sections of our property line in lieu of construction of a four e' "", foot tall fence in the samel~fri1on. '", ' ',' " TheW~~iJ~~~~h offenc~;yrjt'be. constr;uct~d 'al9P:g'~9!.9;tSe Street property line from thi:e~'I:::, feet inside the North bouhdary to five feet inside,ofthe:,SOlitll boundary. This"secfion.wpuldll!l'..;,' ' , , be l~cated fifteen feet East of t4e, West pTop'etty line'ilria,ii~Uld el'lClOl;le our parking lof ar'ea:~), < ,j~;""" ' "",,,,4:'~'" :"~~ '" ': ' ,'{;::," , ,;;."7 , The South sectiQnot''l:etl~Wil.rbe constructed along the Station, rarkway property line set in five feet,fi6mJhe P~Q~~~e::;This section will connect on the East end to an exist4l;gJeI\ce ~ng~~~~~out~:i~r}~;~:;~i "". ,,'.,. r~X;~;~, " ,The East S!'l9tienoffenC'e':'Wi.1I'b~;19,qIJ'~cted along the Hans<m:BlvdprDperty line ~d NV~H~Ji>g , "'. ::';.,"__",-- ---'<<}:';''''~_:if?''':-''';''-,_".,::_2,'''-'' -'-_, ':,___:::''''$\ ...;">>~~,~,":'--. _)_' ":_: _...,'H,_"___,_____ "_":>'__-'-'~_'--~!_~', ___ '.'.',' ,;;.,-_' -"\'-',:--,', ,'-Y':?- , "WesfseyentY[e,!l{ali;lug the~~9,J;t~;~gJS6uth property lines:' ,',',. ~i: .;;;;~\~ ::':,' 'i,;rt$t~';~f;{i~~"'~T"':='!r{~":",-~~li:';: .' '" .,,' '''i','' The setb'a:y~.l1"fro~ t11e;pr'oB~,lirfe:~lla1low for'significant landscape plantmg beds. Specific phintifigswill be proposed llirough the CommercialSije RJAA Appljcation process ~, .thtlt C'tY P'Arid' " ,',' .' .,',,' ""j:"i'if~/'i"":~4, .. '-,W-~~~'~::_~.r,,#;~:~,:J::'_-_ ,~,~:,:~" ,OVel\ <"": '----;"i-;'_'";:~"~,','\~~<<< ',fc,~'kJ.~J~~~~~,,!t~$~ J"&~~~~'i~;i~: ,.~~~~~~~i~ "~~~;::~~\~j~~!:3:~';":';':~"~~~~' . 'J3eb~rg'hap.~rca.IJ'eNursery Co. re~~~~t~~variance"~o.F:~:$,.r~asoiis. The first reason bemg the hardshipfcreated by the four foot rl;talfl1ng wall constructed m the boulevard area of the, ," intersection of Grouse Street aridStation Parkway. This retaining wall is located just off o'Ur ,," " property line. The concern is for safety and security of persons encouraged to jump over a . 103 tip] illy Y 1.. =Y r +F - 9 QUA 1 0 W-0 11 ' M g Y l y X. ..a.: .., L K '`qx www.bebergiandscape.com 13540 Hanson Blvd. Rndover, MN 55304` 763- 754 -9491 four foot fence from the entrance and continues Our second reason for district to the South. The at our property from the plants we will be better, importance to us that our Thank you for consideringlus Sincerely, Chris Beberg Beberg Landscape Nursery raised retaining wall. down the Station Parkway v .. the request's ; to provide higher six "foot fence resident's'backyards. able,to "soften" the"ippearance facit% ecreat�`d Ht 4 e Tequest Co: 44, , f ; {k d ' This wall begins just south of our property hne Iry u. ♦ ... . ,. .. a i.iM a more pleAing presentation for the would draw a cleaner line in-,:.one's Throilgh'the use of v neso-and othef of our garden center. It is as pleasing 6-the eye of our neighbors Grouse Street � residential eye looking landscape of at as possible. sr: a i. €4� rt, , U 5 rf " 1 < A.SN'S'1.. x .... _ , 3 00 � WW �W VY y W�� D Yy NS� DOm OY m OaJy� h'Om= • oO� z Q N1 HON 2,0 �N a ` "' 69 9Zi ammo I I 3 T. i H � T. oiYW DW NOO � ' D• a g° Wei a'e� ti � h MJVB135 F mr � �BNIMHYd ` Jn a I I1 7m ° y �_ 4 N6 V k M7vB135 6LLL 9N1011OB h 1N3"MY3 inin r I Z r w ti 3avNWW • Waw 2 � T .o -.al - I a .I � I `�� °�� � SSA <�• ©�lJ�{��I�"r�(.� v:N 2 zzi.. ciz u � � •ce3w zy ". x°uz� f Iz.a °_a bza zz TI- W � a v � m uW 00�6l N7tl8135 rr ^' roa I ol^ Q W � Q N N6 CNialn ONIOInB Q a N I W ry NJb8133 z m CNINNYd a m .0 -,01 " rJ I ^ 0 -.S ZC 0 -,09 Z tt3 rya � l 1N3N35tl3 b o A1nLLn A m � ¢�9i m I �aa mvi,- m N l I �z3 .0 -01� w I H v3 47� �� m l I" I � .�� � � y W> ` S D� ,s0.0N .oxm SCI oa�u uo a �m I b g� "o? m � '"w aD V D O °ilw °O �D num? I �lomz �'mm� (ti'.11/ ,L992f15 3S1102I� ``pJ"' r • 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 Planner 0 • SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING: Consider establishing Bunker Lake Boulevard Overlay Zoning District. DATE: September 10, 2002 INTRODUCTION Staff was asked to prepare an overlay zoning district to guide future development along Bunker Lake Boulevard. Subsequently a decision was made to continue to utilize the standard Andover Station covenant document that has been a part of the sale of EDA owned land in the past. Therefore, no overlay district will be needed at this time. STAFF RECOMMENDATION No action is necessary. Attachments None Re ubrl}f�ed, (CcC �ednarz y Cc: Property owners • 22 * S CITY OF ANDOVER 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. • ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 • (763) 755 -5100 FAX (763) 755 -8923 • WWW.CLANDOVER.MN.US TO: Planning and Zoning Commission Members FROM: Will Neumeister, Community Development Director�j SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING: Comprehensive Plan Amendment (02 -04) to change the land use designation from General Commercial (GC) to Urban Residential Low Density (URL) for property located north of the intersection of Bunker Lake Blvd. and Jay Street. DATE: September 10, 2002 The Comprehensive Land Use Plan of the City of Andover was adopted in December of 2001. As required by State Statute, any proposed changes to the Land Use Plan shall be reviewed at a public hearing and approved by the local elected officials. The proposed change is considered a minor amendment of the Comprehensive Plan due to the size being less than 40 acres. The City has developed a master plan for the area known as "Andover Station North" and is recommending that the land use plan be amended to reflect a transitional area of low density residential between the existing residential area and the new commercial development that is expected. DISCUSSION The area that is proposed to be changed to low density residential is fifteen acres in size (see attached map). Due to the amount of trees on the property and its location relative to the existing single family neighborhood to the west, it is recommended that this change be made so that this area would become the area of transition from the existing single family neighborhood. It is anticipated that there would be a future development in this area that would respect the existing wetland boundary and also save as many of the existing trees as possible. In minor plan amendments such as this, the Metropolitan Council requires a standard seven page summary to be submitted explaining the proposed change and potential impacts to Metropolitan systems. Based on no major system impacts being created from the change, they review and approve the change within a very short period of time. The City staff has completed the required form and in our opinion, there are no major metropolitan systems that are impacted from the proposed change in land use. ACTION REQUESTED Staff requests the Planning Commission discuss and approve the suggested changes to the Comprehensive Land Use Plan to change the land use from General Commercial (GC) to Urban Residential Low Density (URL) for the fifteen acre area located generally north of POV's sports bar shown on the attached map. The basis of the change is explained in the paragraph above and also appears in the proposed resolution approving the change. R�� lly submitted, Will Neumeister �--� Attachments Comprehensive Plan- -Land Use Map (showing change) Proposed Resolution CITY OF ANDOVER • COUNTY OF ANOKA STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. R- AMENDING THE COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN OF THE CITY OF ANDOVER, TO CHANGE THE LAND USE GUIDING OF LAND FROM GENERAL COMMERCIAL TO LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL. The City of Andover does ordain that Comprehensive Land Use Plan be amended for the land legally described as follows: The northwest quarter of the southwest quarter of the northeast quarter of Section 34, Township 32, Range 24; and also, the north half of the northeast quarter of the southwest quarter of the northeast quarter of Section 34, Township 32, Range 24; all located in Anoka County, Minnesota. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the land use guiding of the parcels described above and recommend that the land use plan be amended to change the guiding of the land from General Commercial to Low Density Residential; and WHEREAS, the basis for the change in land use is that the Economic Development Authority has prepared a master plan for the redevelopment area known as Andover Station North; and WHEREAS, the master plan for the area shows that there is a need for a buffer area of low density residential to be located to the westerly edge of the commercial area known as Andover Station North. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, THAT THE LAND USE GUIDING OF THE AREAS DESCRIBED ABOVE BE CHANGED FROM GENERAL COMMERCIAL TO LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Andover this day of , 2002. CITY OF ANDOVER Attest: Victoria Volk — City Clerk is Michael R. Gamache — Mayor 2— MIN 05/29/02 08:59 FAX 651 1674 METROPOLITAN COUNCIL X1002 i Metropolitan Council 7 2A Working for the Region, Planning for the Future Local Planning Handbook Information Summary for Comprehensive Plan Revisions and Plan Amendments This completed form should accompany each comprehensive plan revision or plan amendment submitted to 'the Metropolitan Council for review. The information submitted on this form is reviewed by Council staff within 10 working days to determine if the comprehensive plan or amendment is sufficiently complete for Council review purposes. NOTE: Plan amendment s that are simply "housekeeping" changes, need only supply the information in Section I of this form, • • Please send plan revision or amendment to: Cheryl Olsen, Referrals Coordinator Metropolitan Council Mears Park Centre 230 E. Fifth Street, St. Paul, MN 55101 -1634 li/— 05/29/02 08:59 FAX 651 602 1674 _ _ -.VM OPOLITAN COUNCIL Im009 0 SECTION 1: GENERAL INFO A. Sponsoring Governmental Unit Name of Local Contact Person If Address. 7 dLvr Telephone Number " - 7 _ F / Fi Internet Address (if applicable) rir/i' e.4! Date of Preparation B. Type of submittal O Overall plan revision or update or ,K Plan amendment Name of amendment/brief description: TION Z3 . t La use change (de c Size of affected area (in acres) — 1 MUSA Expansion ?,WNo ❑ Yes. if yes, size of expansion (in acres) Other (Please describe) C. Please attach seven (7) copies of the following: 1. Completed information Summary for Comprehensive Plan Revisions and Plan Amendmonrs (this form) 2. The proposed plan revision or plan amendment. 3. A city -wide map showing the location of the proposed change(s). 4. The current plan map, indicating area(s) affected by the revision or amendment. 5. The proposed plan map, indicating the subject area(s) of the revision or amendment. D. What is the official local status of the proposed plan revision or amendment? (Check all that apply.) If a report regarding this plan revision or amendment was prepared for the local Planning Commission or City Council please include one (1) copy of that report along with the submittal package. • X Acted upon by planning commission (if applicable) on 9 date. • Approved by governing body, contingent upon Metropolitan Council review on date • Considered, but not approved by g verning body on date. AOther (please describe) �,�¢,� 7 ��v (� 4 a6mc -01 d1^ E. List adjacent local governmental units and other jurisdictions (school districts, watershed districts, etc.) to which copies of the plan revision or amendment have been sent, and the date the copies 05/29/02 08:59 FAX 651 602 167.4 _ METROPOLITAN COUNCIL 121004 F U SECTION 11: CONFORMITY WITH METROPOLITAN SYSTEM PLANS A. Transportation 1. Does this plan revision or amendment potentially Increase existing trip generation (use Institute of Transportation Engineer ' - neration manual)? X No .. if n kip to ❑ Yes .. if yes, • What is the estimated average daily traffic increase? • What is the estimated peal: hour traffic increase? 2_ Does the existing local and regional road network (including metropolitan interchanges) have the capacity to accommodate planned land use(s)? ❑ Yes ❑ No _ . if no, briefly describe the improvements to local or regional roads or interchanges that will be required to accommodate the planned use(s): Are these improvements included in a Capital Improvements Program? a� ❑ Yes .. briefly describe who will pay for improvements k ❑ No .. Please explain 3. Does this plan amendment impact transit service or facilities— either positively or negatively? ❑ No ❑ Yes .. briefly describe 4. Can the potential traffic impacts of the land use be mitigated by implementing Traffic Demand Management (fDM) strategies or through land use and urban design measures that encourage alternatives to single occupancy vehicles (SOV)? ❑ No ❑ Yes .. please describe (e.g., park & rides, flexible work hours, mixed land uses) 5. Is this proposed land use change located adjacent to a principal arterial or "A" minor arterial? XNo 0 Yes ..please describe site access to the arterial, and whether location and spacing; of the access is consistent with Access Spacing Guidelines _6 05/2 9/02 08:59 FAX 651 602 1674 METROPOLITAN COUNCIL 9 005 • 6. Does the proposed plan revision or amendment positively or negatively affect pedestrian or bike systems? )(NO ❑ Yes .. please describe the effects B. Wastewater Treatment 1. Total flow for community based or, existinb plan: ��'. WWI b, 69- year2000: million gallons /day (mgd) year 2010: million gallons /day (mgd) 2, Total proposed flow for community, based on plan revision or amendment: year 2000: million gallons /day (mgd) GG.t�MG year 2010: million gallons/day (mgd) �. 3. If community discharges to more than one metropolitan int rceptor, indicate which interceptor will be affected by the revision or amendment. _1 vtTni>�J:ra —n7 K 4. Will flows be diverted from one interceptor service area to another? X. No . ❑ Yes. . if yes, describe the change and volumes (mgd) involved 5. Is any wastewater flow an intercommunity flow to an adjoining community's sanitary sewer system? ` ❑ No /W M/ , t�j ❑ Yes. . if yes, enclose a copy of the inter- community agreement. 6. Has the community adopted a comprehensive program for the management of on -site septic systems? ❑ No ),Yes ❑ Not Applicable. . please explain C. Aviation 1. Has the community adopted (in local codes /ordinances) a "notification" element to protect regional airspace? ❑ No T, 4,.y kmul ❑ Yes 2, Do the proposed changes in the plan revision or amendment involve areas within an airport influence area or airport search area? > No (If no, skip to D. Recreation Open Space) ❑ Yes.. if yes, please answer "a" and "b" J 7`i 05/29/02 09:00 FAX 651 602 1674 METROPOLITAN COUNCIL 121 006 • a. Do the proposed changes affect the functioning of the airport(s) as defined in the approved airport Long -Term Comprehensive Plan? 0 Yes (If yes, please refer to the local plan content requirements as identified in the Aviation Policy Plan.) ,XNo, (If no, go to 2.b.) b. Are the proposed changes in the plan revision or plan amendment consistent with guidelines for land use compatibility and aircraft noise guidelines in the Aviation Policy Plan? ,Yes ❑ No (If no, please explain D. Recreation Open Space 1. Does the plan revision or proposed amendment affect existing or future federal, state or regional parks, park reserves or trails? ANo ❑ Yes .. please describe 2. Does -the plan revision or amendment include a trail segment in, or a connection to a regional trail or park? No . ❑ Yes 111. IMPACT ON LAND USE A. Overall Comprehensive Plan Update /Revision If you are submitting a plan revision and you are using your own community's land use data, please attach copies of Worksheets A and 6 —Tab 9 in the Handb ok. B. Plan Amendment _I )W/" S.'K. A Questions 1, 2 and 3 below apply to plan amendments invving a land use chtfnge and/or MUSA expansion area. 1. For the area in the amendment: a. Existing land uses in acres: - / orb: "• b. Proposed land uses in acres: ,f�� 2. For residential use amendments: a. Number of residential dwelling units and types (single, multi - family) involved under existing plan 0_ under proposed revision /amendment / ..Y - ctzy�G TDB l @Gf�c�j b. Density},' Q / under existing plan under proposed revision/amendment c. Anticipated change in the number of students in the school system under existing plan • under proposed revision /amendment L� u _05/29/02 09:00 FAX 651 602 1674 COUNCIL • u 10 007 3. For commercial /industriaUinstitutional use amendments: a. Square footage of commercial structures _ 1' under existing plan A Z0022 a]�CJ� under proposed revision /amendmen b. square footage of industrial structures under existing plan Al-A under proposed revision/amendment c. Square footage of institutiona�l under existing plan h under proposed revision /amendment AA_ d, Number of employees under existing plan G`ht ./00 under proposed revision /amendment c{{ C. Housing 1. Will the plan revision or amendment affect the availability of affordable or life -cycle housing in your community? X No (skip to D Environmental Resources) 0 Yes .. please describe D. Environmental Resources 1. Will an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (SAW) be prepared for the plan revision or amendment? XNo 0 Yes .. if yes, what is the schedule for completion of the i;AW? 2. Doe the plan revision or amendment affect a state or federal protected wetland? No 0 Yes if yes, please include a map showing the location of the wetland. Describe the type of wetland affected and tell how it will be protected or how impacts will be mitigated. 3. Will the plan revision or amendment potentially affect the quality of any surface water body? )(No 0 Yes .. if yes, identify water bodies affected and describe the impacts and plannecl efforts to protect the water body: - 4, Doe the plan revision or amendment affect any land In the Mississippi River Critical Area? No • 0 Yes. . if yes, briefly describe relationship to the Mississippi National River and Recreation Area Comprehensive Management Plan 05/29/02 09:00 FAX 651 602 1674 METROPOLITAN COUNCIL 0006 • 5. if the community has a municipal water supply system, does the local water supply plan meet the requirements of Chapter 186 of 1993 Session Laws? ❑ Not Applicable ❑ No Yes.. if yes, will the proposed plan revision or plan amendment affect your water supply plan? )(No ❑ Yes if yes, how? 6. Has the community adopted a local surface water management plan? ❑ No .. if no, has the community adopted the Council's Interim Strategy to Reduce Nonpoint Source Pollution to all Metropolitan Water Bodies? ❑ No ❑ Yes .Yes .. if yes, will the proposed plan revision or plan amendment affect your local surface water manage ent plan? )No ❑ Yes if yes, how? • IV. IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM A. Will the plan revision or amendment require changes in zoning, subdivision, on -site sewer ordinances or other official controls? XNo ❑ Yes If yes, when? Describe proposed changes: 8. Has your community adopted a Capital Improvement Program (CIP) to implement the in itial stages of the proposed plan or pia / amen � * ❑ Yes If yes, what changes will be needed in your community's Capital improvement �YU � I Program to implement the plan revision or amendment? .■■ a4&- lz77 \J leea llvcv I 10( 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 PlanndV SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING: Consider amendments to Ordinance 8, Section 6.02 Minimum District Provisions and 7.01 Permitted Uses to clarify dimensional and setback requirements. DATE: September 10, 2002 INTRODUCTION Staff has revised a table from Section 6.02 of the Zoning Ordinance to clarify various zoning requirements such as lot size, setbacks, minimum house size, etc. This table summarizes requirements from various sections of Ordinance 8 and 10 and is intended to be an easy to read handout to provide information that is frequently requested. db DISCUSSION This table has been amended many times since it was first adopted in 1971. A variety of ordinances that affect this table have been created and amended over time. As a result, this table provides information that can lead to misunderstandings. The adjustments are illustrated on the attached table and discussed below. Adjustments to 6.02 Table Lot Area per Dwelling unit The minimum lot size for all new properties without municipal sewer is. 2.5 acres. This minimum lot size for new lots was adopted on October 17, 1978 in Ordinance 10, Section 9.06A2. when "no residential lot shall be developed for residential purposes unless it contains a minimum of 108,000 square feet" was added to this section which governs areas without municipal sanitary sewer. The table for 6.02 must indicate a 2.5 acre minimum lot size for new lots in the R -1, R -2 and R -3 zoning districts. The table must also reflect the one acre and 20,000 square foot minimum lot size for properties created prior to October 17, 1978 to protect the conforming status of a number of properties in the rural area that contain less than 2.5 acres. Two - Family Homes Two - Family homes are two attached dwelling units on a single residential property under one ownership. One or both of the dwelling units may be rented. The name is not accurate because there are separate dwelling units for each `family'. • Two Family homes was removed from the special uses permitted in the R -4 and R -5 Zoning District with 8NNNNN on August 3, 1999. It is recommended that this category be removed from the table for Ordinance 8, Section 6.02. Single Family Twin Homes Single Family Twin Homes are two attached dwelling units that have a separate property for each unit and are typically owner occupied. This use would be permitted in the M -1 and M -2 Zoning Districts under `townhouses not to exceed 8 units per building with public sanitary sewer and water service'. No minimum lot or unit size is prescribed for this use. It is recommended that the minimum lot size for single family attached units be added to establish a minimum lot size for this type of use. It is also recommended that 960 square feet be added as the minimum unit size for this type of use. Apartments in the M -1 Zoning District The M -1 Zoning District currently allows apartments. This conflicts with the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan lists single family detached, two family residences, townhomes and condominiums with private entrances as the prescribed uses for the Urban Residential Medium Density Land Use Designation. It is recommended that apartments be removed from the uses allowed in the M -1 zoning district and that the lot and floor area requirements be deleted from the M -1 column of table 6.02. 0 Efficiency Apartments The minimum unit size and lot area requirements for efficiency apartments were a part of the original 6.02 table from 1971. Efficiency apartments are not addressed anywhere else in Ordinance 8 or 10. This type of unit is not commonly constructed in suburban communities. It is recommended that efficiency apartments be eliminated from table 6.02. Non - Residential Lot Area / Minimum District Size The non - residential lot area requirements shown for the NB and SC districts are actually the minimum zoning district size and not the minimum lot area size. The correct minimum lot area for these districts needs to be reflected. A new category will be added to reflect the minimum district size. Side Yard Setback From Street Staff proposes to add `from property line adjacent to street' to clearly indicate that setbacks are measured from the property line and not the street. Residential garage or carport (over 20' wide) from interior lot line Staff proposes to add `attached residential garage' to correctly describe this allowance for three car garages on R -4 lots and to prevent confusion with setbacks for detached garages. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends in favor of the proposed adjustments to the table in Ordinance 8, Section 6.02 Minimum District Provisions as described above and illustrated in attachments A and B. —Z - • Attachments 6.02 Table Illustrating Changes Proposed Ordinance Amendment Documentation i N C d E r � 3 to _ Vl A N N O p O (D — E c L E O N � � u m � n m `O N N N O O w O (D a LO cd a '� r > o CL= m m Q C L m � c � c � Q a N a1 of a7 al C al Y 5D U `� L N C y "r N f0 N p a1 cc T— Y �a U p { m {p� a U N E c o c a a) o aa 3 v ) Y c U ❑ ` O co Y m : a0 m m O a m a r O C n T •X S C O C w 3 y m 0 Q 7 (/) N • • G.cZ 741840 444v$%"? f` n U CITY OF ANDOVER COUNTY OF ANOKA STATE OF MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. 8 0 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE 8, SECTION 6.02 MINIMUM DISTRICT PROVISIONS AND 7.01 PERMITTED USES THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANDOVER DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: -I/ - 6.02 Minimum District Provisions f -74, • 7.01 Permitted Uses M -1 Single Family Attached Dwelling Units & Apartments: Single family attached dwelling units and -apa ents not to exceed eight (8) per building or be more than two (2) stories in height. Must have public sanitary sewer and water. (BBB, 4- 02 -85) 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 • 0 �J _ CITY OF ANDOVER COUNTY OF ANOKA STATE OF MINNESOTA • ORDINANCE NO. 10C AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 10, ORDINANCE NO. 10A, AND ORDINANCE NO, 10B, AN ORDINANCE KNOWN AS THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANDOVER HEREBY ORDAINS: Ordinance No. 10, adopted February 15, 1972, Ordinance No. 10A, adopted September 10, 1974, and Ordinance No. 10B, adopted October 5, 1976, are hereby amended to read: (Provisions being amending are so indicated) Section 9 - Subdivision Design Standards Subsection 9. 06 - Lots a(1) (Water-and) Municipal Sanitary Sewer. In areas served by municipal sanitary sewer systems (pub4i- Gwate -r- and - sa- n- itasy- s,&wev s y-stena-s -,- the - maxiPiparn- aunibar - of -lots to -be psrr�zittesl -�r�a- plat- stiaLl lae aoi�zpated bye}xbtsasti g- norfl- thstetal- gress�r-eaa# -tbe- plat -tti.e tota4- d skxeet- r -ight -e —way - and4-ivicling -tho- area- reaaaining-by l 5 r 0 09 tc} d etar -r�-ixi a the- r�za�in -zu � �u.�r�b e r -of- lot -s- pe rxi�itterl �.xi - swirl - glat-) no lot shall contain less than 13, 000 square feet nor have a • width of less than 85 feet at the building set back line. No lot shall be larger than twice the average size of lots in said plat. a(2) Areas Lacking (W -ates -and) Municipal Sanitary Sewer Within the Urban Service Area. In areas lacking (whit -h aae- net se��ed- by- pt�bdts water) municipal sanitary sewer within the Metropolitan Urban Service A rea ................. a(3) reas Lacking Municipal Sanitary Sewer Outside the Metropolitan Urb n Service Area. In areas which are not served by municipal nitary sewer and outside the Metropolitan Urban Service Area, no residential lot shall be developed for residential purposes unless it contains a minimum of 108, 900 square feet, of which 39, 000 square feet of land area is buildable, and has a width of at least 300 feet at the building set back line. The preliminary plat shall show a feasible plan for future re- subdivision by which lots may be re- subdivided to meet the size and dimension standards of lots in areas served by municipal sewer. These provisions shall not apply to plats approved by the City prior to October 17, 1978. • Subsection 9. 06 - Lots c. Corner Lots. Corner lots shall be platted at least 15 feet wider than interior lots on all lots of less than 300 feet in widt_i at t:.e building set back like. Section 10 - Construction of Improvements Subsection 10. 08 Street Improvement Standards L Wit., Municipal Sanitary Sewer an.d /or Water II. In Subdivisions Without Municipal Sanitary Sewer and /or Water Section 16 - Permits Subsection 16. 03 - Limitations. No building permit shall be issued for the erection of any building on any land conveyed in violation of the provisions of this ordinance. No permit shall be issued for the erection of any building on any tract of land described by metes and bounds and consisting of less than 5 acres and having a width of less than 300 (Z3-04 feet. Section 17 - Variances Subsection 17. 01 Hardship., The Council may grant a variance from the require- ments of this ordinance as to specific tracts of land where it is shown that by reason of topography or (of) other physical conditions strict compliance with these requirements could cause an exceptional and undue hardship to the enjoyment of a substantial property right; provided, that a variance may be granted only if the variance does not adversely affect the adjacent property owners and Comprehensive Development Plan or the spirit and intent of this ordinance. • Section 18 - Violation and Penalty: Any person, firm or corporation violating any of the provisions of this ordinance shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction thereof shall be punished as defined by State Law (a faxie�f- xieGe�exan- 30090- or- by- imprasexisnt -net ko- Exc -eed- 9 0 -days- or- both # e r -e-ac-h- a#fsnsa. ) Adopted by the City Council of the City of Andover this 17th day of October , 1978. ATTEST: Patricia K. u - City Clerk CITY OF ANDOVER 4q Jer�y W" dschitl - Mayor V _.7_ • PRINTER'S AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION CENO.aNNNNN 3FANDDVER STATE OF MINNESOTA ) SS ryDFANOICa County of Anoka ) WMINNESOTA \M E'NDIN&ORDt NANCE uc ORDitvriNCE OF THE Peter G. Bodley, being duly sworn, on oath says that he is the managing editor of the it of the city of Andover` newspaper known as the Anoka County Union, and has full knowledge of the facts which lioy+s• are stated below: I I Uses . rots for uses not listed here- (A) The newspaper has complied with all of the requirements constitutin rted� except where thetCty -; P q $ thdt said uses are similar qualification as a qualified newspaper, as provided by Minnesota Statute 331A.02, sted :_ 331A.07, and other applicable laws, as amended. s: __ _ _ _ __ (B) The printed ORDINANCE , (No. 8NNNNN) which is attached was cut from the - J columns of said newspaper, and was printed and published once each week for one ms.ot rnis- ordlneiue stink_- successive weeks; it was first published on Friday, the 13th day of August, 1999 and was d appr.. vec'< Ctty CounciC> thereafter printed and published on every Friday to and including Friday, the day of City Council-of the city ot.' 1999, and rented below is a co of the lower case alphabet from A to Z, both inclusive, day of August, 199+ P PY P which is hereby acknowledged as being the size and kind of type used in the composition and publication of the notice: ATTUT,' -s- Victo Vldoria abcdefg Subscribed and sworn to before me on Bey, mayor Volk abcdefghijklmnopgrxtuvwxyz lk, City Clerk klmnopgrstuvwxyz abcdefghijklmnopgrstuvwxyz ibnshed -in Anoka Co. Union August 13, 1999 4 Managing Editor this 13th day of August, 1999 r Notary Public D„C!E L. hAASON laOTA.RY pubL.10 - NAINNESOTA try Comm. Exp. Jan. 31, 3000 —J RATE INFORMATION FX �t=�Nt 2ont�nR� �D�n�j • Urban Agricultural Uses. R -5 Manufactured Housing: Mobile homes and modular homes provided they are developed under a "Planned Unit Development" and the complex is a minimum of twenty (20) acres or fifty (50) dwelling units in size. Multiple dwellings shall be permitted in addition, at a density as established in section 6.02 and as a part of the planned unit development. Permitted only in areas with public sanitary sewer and water service. (8C, 10- 17 -78) M -1 ultiple Dwelling: Townhouses not to exceed eight (8) units per building with public sanitary sewer and water service. B M -1 Single Family Attached Dwelling Units & Apartments: e family attached dwelling units and apartments not to exceed eight . (8) per building or be more than two (2) stories in height. Must have public sanitary sewer and water. (8BB, 4- 02 -85) M -2 Multiple Dwelling: Multiple dwellings with public sanitary sewer and water service. Townhouses not to exceed eight (8) units per building at a M -1 district designation with public sanitary sewer and water service. M -2 Single Family Attached Dwelling Units & Apartments: Single family attached dwelling units and apartments not to exceed twenty -four (24) units per building or be more than three (3) stories in height. Must have public sanitary sewer and water. (813B, 4- 05 -85) Recreational Districts: GR General Recreation District: Cafes and restaurants • Golf courses Information centers 64 _IF- 0 i r1 LJ ® City of Andover Comprehensive Plan - Chapter Four distance, landscaping and berming shall be utilized. Facilities that generate noise, traffic, and/or glare should have major separation from URL neighborhoods. Standard Density PUD Density 2 -3 units per acre 2.4 - 3.6 units per acre Minimum Lot Size City Utilities Corresponding Zoning District Type of Development 11,400 square feet Required R-4, Single Family Urban Single Family Detached Housing T wo- Family Residences c. rban Residential- Medium Density (URM) URM, Urban Residential - dium Density identifies areas suitable for both single and lower density multiple family uses. The district addresses the need f& life cycle housing by offering an alternative to traditional 11,400 square foot lot size of single- family detached housing. Although traditional housing will still be the predominate housing option in the City, changing demographics will increase the need for this type of housing. Reduced lot and home sizes assist in making home ownership more affordable to first time homebuyers, and requires less maintenance for empty nesters and senior citizens. The URM district should serve as a buffer — between lower density residential and higher density commercial districts. Proper screening and setbacks to minimize negative effects including landscaping and berming or physical separation should be utilized when abutting a major thoroughfare or commercial district. Standard Density: PUD Density City Utilities 3 -5 units per acre 3.6 - 6.0 units per acre Required Corresponding Zoning Districts Type of Developmen R-4, Single Family Urban M -1, Multiple Dwelling (Low Density) Single Family Detached Two Family Residences Draft Copy- December, 1999 Page 10 of 14 0 ® City of Andover Comprehensive Plan - Chapter Four Town homes and Condominiums with private entrances u Location Criteria Must abut major thoroughfare d. Urban Residential - High Density (URH) URH, Urban Residential - High Density is the most dense residential land use district in the City. Its purpose is to provide additional affordable housing choices for all stages of the life cycle including young single and married people, families, and senior citizens. Owner occupied as well as rental housing is appropriate in this area. The district can act as a buffer between residential and commerciallindustrial uses. Because of the higher population densities associated with this type of development, the City encourages development via the planned unit development process to ensure a high standard of site design and amenities for its residents. Care should be taken to provide adequate separation from areas of differing intensities and high traffic areas through greater setbacks and screening, including berming and landscaping. Standard Density: 6 to 12 units per acre Maximum PUD Density City Utilities: Corresponding Zoning District: Type of Development Location Criteria facilities i 3. Commercial Land Uses 14.4 units per acre Required M -2, Multiple Dwelling Single Family Dwelling Two Family Dwelling Multiple Dwellings Must abut major thoroughfare Near shopping, service, and transit Although commercial land uses comprise a small percentage of land, their location is most critical in terms of location and accessibility. Commercial activities require access and visibility to major traffic arterials. Andover's lack of state and federal roads has limited commercial growth in the past. Rapid residential growth is creating a commercial market that is under - served within the Draft Copy -December, 1999 Page 1 1 of 14