Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/08/03CITY 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 8, 2003 Andover City Hall Council Chambers 7:00 p.m. 1. Call to Order 2. Approval of Minutes — June 24, 2003 3. PUBLIC HEARING: Sketch Plan Review for a residential development to be known as `Bunker Lake Village' located at the northeast and southeast corners of Hanson Boulevard and 139 Lane NW. 4. PUBLIC HEARING: Lot Split (03 -01) to create two urban residential lots from property located at 1415 Andover Boulevard NW. • 5. PUBLIC HEARING: Comprehensive Plan Amendment (03 -04) to review the Transportation Plan Update to the City's Plan. 6. PUBLIC HEARING: Ordinance Amendment (03 -07) to consider amendment to Ordinance 10, Section 9.06 to reduce the size of the required buildable area for rural properties. 7. Adjournment CITY of ANDOVER • 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. •.ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 • (763) 755 -5100 FAX (763) 755 -8923 TO: Planning and Zoning Commissioners FROM: Courtney Bednarz, City Planner SUBJECT: Item 2. Approval of Minutes -June 24, 2003 DATE: July 8, 2003 R, eguest The Planning and Zoning Commission is asked to approve the minutes from the June 24, 2003 meeting. 0 CITY of ANDOVER 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. • ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 • (763) 755 -5100 FAX (763) 755 -8923 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING —JUNE 24, 2003 The Regular Bi- Monthly Meeting of the Andover Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order by Chairperson Daninger on June 24 2003, 7:00 p.m., at the Andover City Hall, 1685 Crosstown Boulevard NW, Andover, Minnesota. Commissioners present: Chairperson Daninger, Commissioners Tim Kirchoff, Tony Gamache, Jonathan Jasper and Michael Casey. Commissioners absent: Commissioners Rex Greenwald and Dean Vatne. Also present: City Planner, Courtney Bednarz Associate Planner, D. Tyler McKay Others APPROVAL OFMINUTES. May 27, 2002 Motion by Daninger, seconded by Gamache, to approve the minutes as presented. Motion carried on a 5 -ayes, 0 -nays, 2- absent vote. VARIANCE (03 -05) TO VAR Y FROM ORDINANCE 10, SECTION 9.06 BUILDABILITY TO ALLOW A HOME TO BE CONSTRUCTED ONPROPERTY LOCATED AT 3632171 sT A VENUE NW Mr. Bednarz explained that the applicant has requested that discussion of this item be suspended to allow consideration of the ordinance amendment concerning buildability requirements on rural lots. If the ordinance is amended the variance would no longer be necessary and this item would not need to be considered: Motion by Gamache, seconded by Casey, to suspend this item indefinitely. Motion carried on a 5 -ayes, 0 -nays, 2- absent vote. Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes — June 24, 2003 Page 2 i PUBLIC HEARING: SPECIAL USE PERMIT (03 -07) TO ALLOW RETAIL SER VICEAND SALES ONA PROPERTY ZONED LIMITED INDUSTRIAL (I) LOCATED AT 13420 HANSONBOULEVARD NW. Mr. McKay explained that the applicant is seeking approval of a family martial arts studio at 13420 Hanson Boulevard. Premier Karate intends to provide martial arts instruction to students ages 4 and up. No alterations will be made to the exterior appearance or dimensions of the building. Normal hours of operation will be from 4:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, and 10:00 am to 2:00 pm on Saturdays and/or Sundays for seminars or workshops. The maximum size of classes will be 24 students and the maximum number of sessions per day would be 6. Mr. McKay stated this use will not be detrimental to the health, safety, morals, or general welfare of the community. It will not cause serious traffic congestion or hazards and it will not seriously depreciate surrounding property values, and it is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the Special Use Permit Ordinance. Mr. McKay discussed the staff report with the Commission. Motion by Gamache, seconded by Kirchoff, to open the public hearing at 7:04 p.m. Motion carried on a 5 -ayes, 0 -nays, 2- absent vote. There was no public input. Motion by Kirchoff, seconded by Gamache, to close the public hearing at 7:04 p.m. Motion carried on a 5 -ayes, 0 -nays, 2- absent vote. Commissioner Kirchoff stated he read the report a couple times to see if there were any concerns and he did not find any. He asked if the access was off of Hanson Boulevard or the Parkway. Mr. McKay explained there were accesses off both streets. Commissioner Jasper asked if this was a new business or if it existed elsewhere. Mr. O'Neill stated he has been working for the past six years through the school district and he has decided they need more room to operate. Motion by Gamache, seconded by Casey, to recommend to the City Council approval of Resolution No. , approving the Special Use Permit to Allow Retail Service and Sales on a Property Zoned Limited Industrial. Motion carried on a 5 -ayes, 0 -nays, 2- absent vote. Mr. Bednarz stated that this item would be before the Council at the July 15, 2003 City Council meeting. Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes —June 24, 2003 Page 3 • VARIANCE (03 -06) TO VAR Y FROM ORDINANCE 10, SECTION 9.06 BUILDABILITY TO ALLOW A HOME TO BE CONSTRUCTED AT 75157' A VENUE NW. Mr. Bednarz noted the applicant is seeking a variance to the 150 foot wide by 150 foot deep dimensions of the buildable area required for rural lots to allow a home to be constructed on an existing vacant lot. Mr. Bednarz showed a survey of the property to the Commission. He explained the survey show the area that would need to be filled to meet the 150 x 150 foot buildable area requirement. The applicant is proposing to custom grade only a portion of the lot to allow a walkout style home to be located on the existing slope of the property. This would prevent excessive fill and grading which would cause the loss of many of the existing mature trees on the property. The variance would be to reduce the size of the buildable area to allow custom grading of the lot. Mr. Bednarz discussed the information with the Commission. Mr. Bednarz explained in this situation, the future owners of the home would prefer to maintain the natural character of the lot rather than have a large area cleared and flattened. The size of the required buildable area would change the character of the property such that it would effectively defeat the purpose of living in a rural area. The opportunity will exist in the future to clear an area for a pool or garage if the owner or a future owner would wish to construct one. Mr. Bednarz explained the hardship presented by the applicant. Commissioner Kirchoff asked on the survey if the white area was the area not to be filled. Mr. Bednarz stated that was true. Commissioner Gamache stated where they build the house, they will need to bring in some fill anyway but they are trying to get away from filling the entire 150 x 150. Mr. Bednarz stated that was correct and the issue is how much of the lot will need to be graded. Commissioner Kirchoff stated at the last meeting they had discussion regarding the 150 x 150 and he asked if part of the discussion regarding the septic system. Mr. Bednarz explained there were two separate requirements for rural lots; the first is the 150 x 150 box, which is exclusively for the house and garage. There is a separate requirement of ten thousand square feet for the drain fields, which would not be affected by this proposal. Commissioner Jasper asked if the lot split was final because in the staff report, it states the finalization is dependent on the lot split. The applicant stated the lot split was final and recorded with the County. Commissioner Kirchoff stated the lot is buildable but trees would have to be taken down. This item is to try to get away from taking the trees down. Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes —June 24, 2003 Page 4 Chairperson Daninger explained he is interested in what the City Council decides regarding this because he does not want to see trees bulldozed down but unfortunately he is guided by the current ordinance in his decision making. Commissioner Kirchoff stated he hated to recommend a variance for he can not see a true hardship. He would rather wait and see what the City Council decides on the ordinance amendment. Mr. Peach stated they were currently set back six weeks; they were originally set to build four weeks ago. He stated time for them is of the essence for them because his wife is pregnant with their fourth child and they do not have the room in their current home. Chairperson Daninger asked if the builder told him how long it would take to build the house from start to finish. Mr. Peach stated the builder told him it would take 120 days. Chairperson Daninger stated they need to move this item forward and make a decision on it. Mr. Dan Munt, Tri-Star Homes, stated in this particular area they have granted variances to save trees so it has already been done for this exact purpose and would otherwise change the entire feel of the lot. There has already been a precedent set because there have already been variances granted to other property owners. He would ask that • because interest rates are low and there is a hardship to the owners and taking the trees out is also a hardship. Chairperson Daninger stated he agreed they should not delay their vote. Chairperson Daninger asked Mr. Bednarz if there were other variances granted that compared to this application. Mr. Bednarz explained in looking at the history, more typically, these types of variances have been approved to the shape of the box and not so much the total area of the 22,500 square feet. In at least one case however, a variance was granted to reduce the size of the buildable area even though it could have been achieved. Commissioner Jasper asked if the variance were granted, what would be the footing of the area after grading. Mr. Bednarz stated it could be determined or recommended by the Commission, the homeowner's request to clear only the area to build the home. Mr. Munt stated he has worked with Mr. Dave Almgren and he has carefully looked at and suggested what the building pad should be and they have agreed this is something they could work with. Basically it is the whole print plus an additional twenty feet outside of the parameter. He stated the area that is already high is where the drain field will go. Mr. Peach stated it would be 60 feet by 60 feet or 3,600 square feet. Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes — June 24, 2003 Page 5 • Chairperson Daninger explained if the recommendation does move forward from the City Council, this would not be a variance. He stated he has to follow the ordinance and he cannot approve it based upon the ordinance because he cannot see a hardship. Commissioner Gamache stated he felt the same way and if there is a precedent out there he cannot say whether or not it is right or wrong and he stated he did not see a hardship involved. Commissioner Jasper stated he agreed and that this is a change that is eighty -five percent from the existing ordinance and the only hardship is cutting down trees. Motion by Gamache, seconded by Jasper, to not grant the variance due to lack of hardship. Motion carried on a 5 -ayes, 0 -nays, 2- absent vote. Mr. Bednarz stated that this item would be before the Council at the July 1, 2003 City Council meeting. PUBLIC HEARING. ORDINANCE AMENDMENT (03 -08) TO CONSIDER AMENDMENT TO ORDINANCE 8, SECTION 4.05 TO ALLOW RIGHT -OF -WA Y TO BE USED IN CALCULATING LOT AREA FOR DETERMIMNG THE • ALLOWABLE SQUAREFOOTAGE OFA CCESSOR Y STR UCTURES. Mr. Bednarz explained that the City Council has directed staff to investigate the possibility of allowing right -of -way to be used in calculating lot area for determining the allowable square footage of accessory structures. Mr. Bednarz discussed the staff report with the Commission. Mr. Bednarz explained the Andover Review Committee discussed these issues on June 10, 2003 and voted unanimously to recommend that right -of -way not be counted towards the lot area. If right -of -way were to be included, it is thought that many Andover residents with parcels close to five acres will apply to construct large pole barns. Another option the city has is to amend the ordinance to reduce the total square feet allowed for accessory structures or limit this provision to agricultural uses as other communities do. The current ordinance allows almost unlimited square footage of accessory structures for properties with more than five acres. This could be changed to "ten acres or more ". Mr. Bednarz also stated that a definition of lot lines which applies to all of the zoning ordinance, excludes right -of -way from lot area calculation. Amending the accessory structure section of the ordinance to allow right -of -way to be used for determining the size of garage that can be built would conflict with the ordinance wide definition. • Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes — June 24, 2003 Page 6 • If the ordinance wide definition were changed to include right -of -way this would effectively reduce the minimum lot size in all zoning districts as, in that case, right -of- way could make up a portion of the required lot area. Commissioner Kirchoff asked if the right -of -way is there for the County to purchase at a later date. Mr. Bednarz explained the City or County already owns the right -of -way. Chairperson Daninger asked if there were any positives to having this change. Mr. Bednarz stated the positive would be for homeowners who were close but not above five acres were allowed to count the right -of -way, that would allow a larger garage to be built, which would be a benefit to that homeowner. Commissioner Kirchoff asked if the homeowner owned the right -of -way and then the County took it for public use, it could be a hardship. Chairperson Daninger explained they were looking at amending the ordinance and not an individual case. Discussion ensued in regards to right -of -way versus road easements. Chairperson Daninger stated he has a problem with the cause and affect of this ordinance amendment. Motion by Gamache, seconded by Casey, to open the public hearing at 7:41.m. Motion • carried on a 5 -ayes, 0 -nays, 2- absent vote. There was no public input. Motion by Jasper, seconded by Gamache, to close the public hearing at 7:41 p.m. Motion carried on a 5 -ayes, 0 -nays, 2- absent vote. Commissioner Kirchoff asked if there was anything else that would be a positive point for amending the ordinance. Mr. Bednarz explained by building a larger garage, could allow more items that are stored outdoors to be stored indoors and make properties look tidier. Commissioner Jasper stated it appears in previous discussion that there was some confusion so he thought it might makes sense to recommend an amendment to the ordinance but instead of stating "including the right -of- way ", state "excluding the right - of -way" so it is not ambiguous. Motion by Kirchoff, seconded by Gamache, to recommend to the City Council to amend the ordinance to specifically exclude right -of -way as stated in the discussion. Motion carried on a 5 -ayes, 0 -nays, 2- absent vote. Mr. Bednarz stated that this item would be before the Council at the July 1, 2002 City . Council meeting. Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes — June 24, 2003 Page 7 • PUBLIC HEARING. ORDINANCE AMENDMENT (03 -06) TO MODIFY ORDINANCE 8, SECTION 8.23 RESIDENTIAL BUILDING STANDARDS Mr. McKay explained that the Planning and Zoning Commission is asked to consider updating the Residential Building Standards section of Ordinance 8. This change would allow residents to construct four- season porches without permanent foundation provided the porch does not exceed a maximum coverage of fifty (50 %) percent of the footprint of the habitable portion of the principle structure. Mr. McKay discussed the Ordinance with the Commission. Mr. McKay explained a survey was taken of neighboring cities in regards to their restrictions on decks. The cities of Anoka, Blaine, Coon Rapids, Ham Lake and Ramsey, use setbacks as the only restriction as to the size of the porch. The regulatory mechanism is the same as any other addition. Commissioner Jasper stated the reason why the Commissioners had asked how many times people asked for more than twenty percent is to find out from whence this proposal comes and if it is a problem so did he have any idea how many people requested this. Mr. McKay stated the Building Department has noticed an increase in requests for this • and they examined it themselves and felt like increasing it from twenty to fifty percent would not be at all detrimental and would benefit the homeowner by increasing the value and amenities on their property. Commissioner Gamache asked in looking at what the neighboring communities are doing, is fifty percent right or should they strike a limitation on the porches. What harm is there in striking a limitation for a four season add on to a house as long as it is within setbacks so why would they not allow that to happen for four seasons. Mr. McKay explained the building officials told him the reason they went from twenty to fifty percent was because they did not want to stray too far from the original intent of the ordinance. Commissioner Jasper stated his concern is it would devalue the property and the neighbors surrounding the home. He stated fifty percent seems tremendously large for what is a less than structurally permanent addition to a house. If twenty percent is too small then maybe there is a number in between that is more satisfactory because fifty percent seems to be too high. Chairperson Daninger stated it also has to meet setbacks. Commissioner Gamache stated the five other communities looked at does not have anyone putting large additions onto their houses and he is comfortable with the fifty percent and this is not unlimited like in the other cities. Commissioner Jasper stated some of the other cities reviewed do not have the rural areas that Andover has. • Commissioner Kirchoff stated he agreed and thought fifty percent is a decent number. Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes — June 24, 2003 Page 8 Commissioner Casey stated he thought fifty percent was too high. Even forty percent is too high but it would be a comfortable compromise. He stated he did think it did have an affect their neighbors. Chairperson Daninger stated he has a lot of faith in staff and he is comfortable with fifty percent. Motion by Gamache, seconded by Kirchoff, to open the public hearing at 7:56 p.m. Motion carried on a 5 -ayes, 0 -nays, 2- absent vote. There was no public input. Motion by Kirchoff, seconded by Gamache, to close the public hearing at 7:56 p.m. Motion carried on a 5 -ayes, 0 -nays, 2- absent vote. Commissioner Casey stated he believed this will affect the aesthetics of the community because if they allow it to get to such extreme levels, people will play it to that end. Commissioner Gamache stated he has seen forty -four porch permits last year and he did not think that was a huge number for the number of residents in Andover. i Motion by Gamache, seconded by Kirchoff, to recommend to the City Council to raise the ordinance to fifty percent as prepared by staff. Commissioner Jasper stated if this motion was voted down, he would like to offer an amendment to change the ordinance to thirty -five percent, which seems to be more of a compromise to him and seems to be more palatable than to jump to fifty percent. Commissioner Gamache stated he was comfortable with the fifty percent. Commissioner Jasper stated the reason why he brought this up is because there was not any reason why fifty percent was chosen. Motion carried on a 3 -ayes, 2 -nays (Jasper, Casey), 2- absent vote. Mr. Bednarz stated that this item would be before the Council at the July 1, 2003 City Council meeting. OTHER BUSINESS. Mr. Bednarz updated the Planning Commission on related items. Chairperson Daninger asked if the development at the NE Corner of Hanson and is Crosstown Boulevard was moving forward. Mr. Bednarz stated there will be a service Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes — June 24, 2003 Page 9 • station that may have a restaurant as a part of it as well as a free standing restaurant, potentially a bank and office building so there will be a retail development there and it seems like they are putting together documents for the City to review so this may be coming up in the next couple of weeks. Commissioner Gamache asked what was happening with the Community Center. Mr. Bednarz stated the City Council did vote to go ahead with the Center project and the stakeholders meetings are being held Thursday nights to shepard that project along. At this point they are looking at potential layouts of the building, which would be located to the north of the Senior Center on the City Hall site. ADJOURNMENT. Motion by Kirchoff, seconded by Gamache, to adjourn the meeting at 8:05 p.m. Motion carried on a 5 -ayes, 0 -nays, 2- absent vote. Respectfully Submitted, Sue Osbeck, Recording Secretary Timesaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. • M LA CITY of ANDOVER 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. • ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 • (763) 755 -5100 FAX (763) 755 -8923 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSIONMEETING — JUNE 24, 2003 The Regular Bi- Monthly Meeting of the Andover Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order by Chairperson Daninger on June 24, 2003, 7:00 p.m., at the Andover City Hall, 1685 Crosstown Boulevard NW, Andover, Minnesota. Commissioners present: Chairperson Daninger, Commissioners Tim Kirchoff, Tony Gamache, Jonathan Jasper and Michael Casey. Commissioners absent: Commissioners Rex Greenwald and Dean Vatne. Also present: City Planner, Courtney Bednarz Associate Planner, D. Tyler McKay Others APPROVAL OFMINUTES. May 27, 2002 Motion by Daninger, seconded by Gamache, to approve the minutes as presented. Motion carried on a 5 -ayes, 0 -nays, 2- absent vote. VARIANCE (03 -05) TO VAR Y FROM ORDINANCE 10, SECTION 9.06 BUILDABILITY TO ALLOW A HOME TO BE CONSTRUCTED ONPROPERTY LOCATED AT 3632171 AVENUE NW. Mr. Bednarz explained that the applicant has requested that discussion of this item be suspended to allow consideration of the ordinance amendment concerning buildability requirements on rural lots. If the ordinance is amended the variance would no longer be necessary and this item would not need to be considered.. Motion by Gamache, seconded by Casey, to suspend this item indefinitely. Motion carried on a 5 -ayes, 0 -nays, 2- absent vote. Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes —June 24, 2003 Page 2 PUBLIC HEARING: SPECIAL USE PERMIT (03 -07) TO ALLOW RETAIL • SERVICEAND SALES ONA PROPERTYZONED LIMITED INDUSTRIAL (7) LOCATED AT 13420 IMASONBOULEVARD NW. Mr. McKay explained that the applicant is seeking approval of a family martial arts studio at 13420 Hanson Boulevard. Premier Karate intends to provide martial arts instruction to students ages 4 and up. No alterations will be made to the exterior appearance or dimensions of the building. Normal hours of operation will be from 4:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, and 10:00 am to 2:00 pm on Saturdays and/or Sundays for seminars or workshops. The maximum size of classes will be 24 students and the maximum number of sessions per day would be 6. Mr. McKay stated this use will not be detrimental to the health, safety, morals, or general welfare of the community. It will not cause serious traffic congestion or hazards and it will not seriously depreciate surrounding property values, and it is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the Special Use Permit Ordinance. Mr. McKay discussed the staff report with the Commission. Motion by Gamache, seconded by Kirchoff, to open the public hearing at 7:04 p.m. Motion carried on a 5 -ayes, 0 -nays, 2- absent vote. There was no public input. • Motion by Kirchoff, seconded by Gamache, to close the public hearing at 7:04 p.m. Motion carried on a 5 -ayes, 0 -nays, 2- absent vote. Commissioner Kirchoff stated he read the report a couple times to see if there were any concerns and he did not find any. He asked if the access was off of Hanson Boulevard or the Parkway. Mr. McKay explained there were accesses off both streets. Commissioner Jasper asked if this was a new business or if it existed elsewhere. Mr. O'Neill stated he has been working for the past six years through the school district and he has decided they need more room to operate. Motion by Gamache, seconded by Casey, to recommend to the City Council approval of Resolution No. , approving the Special Use Permit to Allow Retail Service and Sales on a Property Zoned Limited Industrial. Motion carried on a 5 -ayes, 0 -nays, 2- absent vote. Mr. Bednarz stated that this item would be before the Council at the July 15, 2003 City Council meeting. • Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes — June 24, 2003 Page 3 • VARL4NCE (03 -06) TO VAR Y FROM ORDINANCE 10, SECTION 9.06 B UILDABILITY TO ALLOW A HOME TO BE CONSTRUCTED AT 75157 A VENUE NW. Mr. Bednarz noted the applicant is seeking a variance to the 150 foot wide by 150 foot deep dimensions of the buildable area required for rural lots to allow a home to be constructed on an existing vacant lot. Mr. Bednarz showed a survey of the property to the Commission. He explained the survey show the area that would need to be filled to meet the 150 x 150 foot buildable area requirement. The applicant is proposing to custom grade only a portion of the lot to allow a walkout style home to be located on the existing slope of the property. This would prevent excessive fill and grading which would cause the loss of many of the existing mature trees on the property. The variance would be to reduce the size of the buildable area to allow custom grading of the lot. Mr. Bednarz discussed the information with the Commission. Mr. Bednarz explained in this situation, the future owners of the home would prefer to maintain the natural character of the lot rather than have a large area cleared and flattened. The size of the required buildable area would change the character of the • property such that it would effectively defeat the purpose of living in a rural area. The opportunity will exist in the future to clear an area for a pool or garage if the owner or a future owner would wish to construct one. Mr. Bednarz explained the hardship presented by the applicant. Commissioner Kirchoff asked on the survey if the white area was the area not to be filled. Mr. Bednarz stated that was true. Commissioner Gamache stated where they build the house, they will need to bring in some fill anyway but they are trying to get away from filling the entire 150 x 150. Mr. Bednarz stated that was correct and the issue is how much of the lot will need to be graded. Commissioner Kirchoff stated at the last meeting they had discussion regarding the 150 x 150 and he asked if part of the discussion regarding the septic system. Mr. Bednarz explained there were two separate requirements for rural lots; the first is the 150 x 150 box, which is exclusively for the house and garage. There is a separate requirement of ten thousand square feet for the drain fields, which would not be affected by this proposal. Commissioner Jasper asked if the lot split was final because in the staff report, it states the finalization is dependent on the lot split. The applicant stated the lot split was final and recorded with the County. Commissioner Kirchoff stated the lot is buildable but trees would have to be taken down. This item is to try to get away from taking the trees • down. Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes — June 24, 2003 Page 4 • Chairperson Daninger explained he is interested in what the City Council decides regarding this because he does not want to see trees bulldozed down but unfortunately be is guided by the current ordinance in his decision making. Commissioner Kirchoff stated he hated to recommend a variance for he can not see a true hardship. He would rather wait and see what the City Council decides on the ordinance amendment. Mr. Peach stated they were currently set back six weeks; they were originally set to build four weeks ago. He stated time for them is of the essence for them because his wife is pregnant with their fourth child and they do not have the room in their current home. Chairperson Daninger asked if the builder told him how long it would take to build the house from start to finish. Mr. Peach stated the builder told him it would take 120 days. Chairperson Daninger stated they need to move this item forward and make a decision on it. Mr. Dan Munt, Tri-Star Homes, stated in this particular area they have granted variances to save trees so it has already been done for this exact purpose and would otherwise change the entire feel of the lot. There has already been a precedent set because there have already been variances granted to other property owners. He would ask that because interest rates are low and there is a hardship to the owners and taking the trees out is also a hardship. Chairperson Daninger stated he agreed they should not delay their • vote. Chairperson Daninger asked Mr. Bednarz if there were other variances granted that compared to this application. Mr. Bednarz explained in looking at the history, more typically, these types of variances have been approved to the shape of the box and not so much the total area of the 22,500 square feet. In at least one case however, a variance was granted to reduce the size of the buildable area even though it could have been achieved. Commissioner Jasper asked if the variance were granted, what would be the footing of the area after grading. Mr. Bednarz stated it could be determined or recommended by the Commission, the homeowner's request to clear only the area to build the home. Mr. Munt stated he has worked with Mr. Dave Almgren and he has carefully looked at and suggested what the building pad should be and they have agreed this is something they could work with. Basically it is the whole print plus an additional twenty feet outside of the parameter. He stated the area that is already high is where the drain field will go. Mr. Peach stated it would be 60 feet by 60 feet or 3,600 square feet. • Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes — June 24, 2003 Page 5 • Chairperson Daninger explained if the recommendation does move forward from the City Council, this would not be a variance. He stated he has to follow the ordinance and he cannot approve it based upon the ordinance because he cannot see a hardship. Commissioner Gamache stated he felt the same way and if there is a precedent out there he cannot say whether or not it is right or wrong and he stated he did not see a hardship involved. Commissioner Jasper stated he agreed and that this is a change that is eighty -five percent from the existing ordinance and the only hardship is cutting down trees. Motion by Gamache, seconded by Jasper, to not grant the variance due to lack of hardship. Motion carried on a 5 -ayes, 0 -nays, 2- absent vote. Mr. Bednarz stated that this item would be before the Council at the July 1, 2003 City Council meeting. PUBLICHEARING. ORDINANCEAMENDMENT (03 -08) TO CONSIDER AMENDMENT TO ORDINANCE 8, SECTION 4.05 TO ALLOW RIGHT -OF -WA Y TO BE USED IN CALCULATING LOT AREA FOR DETERMINING THE ALLOWABLE SQUAREFOOTAGE OFACCESSOR Y STRUCTURES. Mr. Bednarz explained that the City Council has directed staff to investigate the possibility of allowing right -of -way to be used in calculating lot area for determining the allowable square footage of accessory structures. Mr. Bednarz discussed the staff report with the Commission. Mr. Bednarz explained the Andover Review Committee discussed these issues on June 10, 2003 and voted unanimously to recommend that right -of -way not be counted towards the lot area. If right -of -way were to be included, it is thought that many Andover residents with parcels close to five acres will apply to construct large pole barns. Another option the city has is to amend the ordinance to reduce the total square feet allowed for accessory structures or limit this provision to agricultural uses as other communities do. The current ordinance allows almost unlimited square footage of accessory structures for properties with more than five acres. This could be changed to "ten acres or more ". Mr. Bednarz also stated that a definition of lot lines which applies to all of the zoning ordinance, excludes right -of -way from lot area calculation. Amending the accessory structure section of the ordinance to allow right -of -way to be used for determining the size of garage that can be built would conflict with the ordinance wide definition. • Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes — June 24, 2003 Page 6 If the ordinance wide definition were changed to include right -of -way this would • effectively reduce the minimum lot size in all zoning districts as, in that case, right -of- way could make up a portion of the required lot area. Commissioner Kirchoff asked if the right -of -way is there for the County to purchase at a later date. Mr. Bednarz explained the City or County already owns the right -of -way. Chairperson Daninger asked if there were any positives to having this change. Mr. Bednarz stated the positive would be for homeowners who were close but not above five acres were allowed to count the right -of -way, that would allow a larger garage to be built, which would be a benefit to that homeowner. Commissioner Kirchoff asked if the homeowner owned the right -of -way and then the County took it for public use, it could be a hardship. Chairperson Daninger explained they were looking at amending the ordinance and not an individual case. Discussion ensued in regards to right -of -way versus road easements. Chairperson Daninger stated he has a problem with the cause and affect of this ordinance amendment. Motion by Gamache, seconded by Casey, to open the public hearing at 7:41.m. Motion carried on a 5 -ayes, 0 -nays, 2- absent vote. • There was no public input. Motion by Jasper, seconded by Gamache, to close the public hearing at 7:41 p.m. Motion carried on a 5 -ayes, 0 -nays, 2- absent vote. Commissioner Kirchoff asked if there was anything else that would be a positive point for amending the ordinance. Mr. Bednarz explained by building a larger garage, could allow more items that are stored outdoors to be stored indoors and make properties look tidier. Commissioner Jasper stated it appears in previous discussion that there was some confusion so he thought it might makes sense to recommend an amendment to the ordinance but instead of stating "including the right -of- way ", state "excluding the right - of -way" so it is not ambiguous. Motion by Kirchoff, seconded by Gamache, to recommend to the City Council to amend the ordinance to specifically exclude right -of -way as stated in the discussion. Motion carried on a 5 -ayes, 0 -nays, 2- absent vote. Mr. Bednarz stated that this item would be before the Council at the July 1, 2002 City Council meeting. • Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes — June 24, 2003 Page 7 • PUBLIC HEARING: ORDINANCE AMENDMENT (03 -06) TO MODIFY ORDINANCE 8, SECTION 8.23 RESIDENTIAL BUILDING STANDARDS Mr. McKay explained that the Planning and Zoning Commission is asked to consider updating the Residential Building Standards section of Ordinance 8. This change would allow residents to construct four- season porches without permanent foundation provided the porch does not exceed a maximum coverage of fifty (50 %) percent of the footprint of the habitable portion of the principle structure. Mr. McKay discussed the Ordinance with the Commission. Mr. McKay explained a survey was taken of neighboring cities in regards to their restrictions on decks. The cities of Anoka, Blaine, Coon Rapids, Ham Lake and Ramsey, use setbacks as the only restriction as to the size of the porch. The regulatory mechanism is the same as any other addition. Commissioner Jasper stated the reason why the Commissioners had asked how many times people asked for more than twenty percent is to find out from whence this proposal comes and if it is a problem so did he have any idea how many people requested this. • Mr. McKay stated the Building Department has noticed an increase in requests for this and they examined it themselves and felt like increasing it from twenty to fifty percent would not be at all detrimental and would benefit the homeowner by increasing the value and amenities on their property. Commissioner Gamache asked in looking at what the neighboring communities are doing, is fifty percent right or should they strike a limitation on the porches. What harm is there in striking a limitation for a four season add on to a house as long as it is within setbacks so why would they not allow that to happen for four seasons. Mr. McKay explained the building officials told him the reason they went from twenty to fifty percent was because they did not want to stray too far from the original intent of the ordinance. Commissioner Jasper stated his concern is it would devalue the property and the neighbors surrounding the home. He stated fifty percent seems tremendously large for what is a less than structurally permanent addition to a house. If twenty percent is too small then maybe there is a number in between that is more satisfactory because fifty percent seems to be too high. Chairperson Daninger stated it also has to meet setbacks. Commissioner Gamache stated the five other communities looked at does not have anyone putting large additions onto their houses and he is comfortable with the fifty percent and this is not unlimited like in the other cities. Commissioner Jasper stated some of the other cities reviewed do not have the rural areas that Andover has. • Commissioner Kirchoff stated he agreed and thought fifty percent is a decent number. Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes — June 24, 2003 Page 8 Commissioner Casey stated he thought fifty percent was too high. Even forty percent is • too high but it would be a comfortable compromise. He stated he did think it did have an affect their neighbors. Chairperson Daninger stated he has a lot of faith in staff and he is comfortable with fifty percent. Motion by Gamache, seconded by Kirchoff, to open the public hearing at 7:56 p.m. Motion carried on a 5 -ayes, 0 -nays, 2- absent vote. There was no public input. Motion by Kirchoff, seconded by Gamache, to close the public hearing at 7:56 p.m. Motion carried on a 5 -ayes, 0 -nays, 2- absent vote. Commissioner Casey stated he believed this will affect the aesthetics of the community because if they allow it to get to such extreme levels, people will play it to that end. Commissioner Gamache stated he has seen forty -four porch permits last year and he did not think that was a huge number for the number of residents in Andover. Motion by Gamache, seconded by Kirchoff, to recommend to the City Council to raise • the ordinance to fifty percent as prepared by staff. Commissioner Jasper stated if this motion was voted down, he would like to offer an amendment to change the ordinance to thirty -five percent, which seems to be more of a compromise to him and seems to be more palatable than to jump to fifty percent. Commissioner Gamache stated he was comfortable with the fifty percent. Commissioner Jasper stated the reason why he brought this up is because there was not any reason why fifty percent was'chosen. Motion carried on a 3 -ayes, 2 -nays (Jasper, Casey), 2- absent vote. Mr. Bednarz stated that this item would be before the Council at the July 1, 2002 City Council meeting. OTHER BUSINESS. Mr. Bednarz updated the Planning Commission on related items. Chairperson Daninger asked if the development at the NE Corner of Hanson and Crosstown Boulevard was moving forward. Mr. Bednarz stated there will be a service • Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes — June 24, 2003 Page 9 • station that may have a restaurant as a part of it as well as a free standing restaurant, potentially a bank and office building so there will be a retail development there and it seems like they are putting together documents for the City to review so this may be coming up in the next couple of weeks. Commissioner Gamache asked what was happening with the Community Center. Mr. Bednarz stated the City Council did vote to go ahead with the Center project and the stakeholders meetings are being held Thursday nights to shepard that project along. At this point they are looking at potential layouts of the building, which would be located to the north of the Senior Center on the City Hall site. ADJOURNMENT. Motion by Kirchoff, seconded by Gamache, to adjourn the meeting at 8:05 p.m. Motion carried on a 5 -ayes, 0 -nays, 2- absent vote. Respectfully Submitted, • Sue Osbeck, Recording Secretary Timesaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. • U 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. • ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 • (763) 755 -5100 FAX (763) 755 -8923 • WWW.CI.ANDOVER.MN.US TO: Planning and Zoning Commis si ners FROM: Courtney Bednarz, City Plann SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING: Sketch Plan Review for a residential development to be known as `Bunker Lake Village' located at the northeast and southeast comers of Hanson Boulevard and 139`" Lane NW. DATE: July 8, 2003 INTRODUCTION The Planning Commission is asked to review a sketch plan for `Bunker Lake Village', an urban residential development containing 41 single family lots on two properties located at the northeast and southwest corner of Hanson Boulevard and 139 Lane NW. The proposed development would require planned unit development review to provide alternative development standards. Review Criteria Ordinance 10, Section 6 outlines the requirements for sketch plan review. The Planning Commission is asked to informally advise the subdivider of the extent to which the plan conforms to the Comprehensive Plan, design standards of city, county, state and federal agencies and possible modification necessary to secure approval of the plan. Submission of a sketch plan does not constitute formal filing of a plat. Conformance with Local and Regional Plans and Ordinances 1. The proposed project would conform to the City's Comprehensive Plan, which indicates a dual land use of Limited Business and Medium Density Residential. The maximum density allowed under the Medium Density Residential land use designation is six units per acre. The proposed project would contain 4 units per acre. 2. The proposed project would require the property to be rezoned from the current Limited Business designation. The most appropriate zoning district would be Single Family Urban Residential (R -4) which allows detached single family dwellings up to four units per acre with planned unit development review. The City Council must agree to allow Planned Unit Development Review to create development standards that are different from the typical Single Family Urban Residential (R -4) minimum district provisions. This is accomplished with a Special Use Permit that details the following: a. Development standards (lot size, dimensions and setbacks) b. Design of the units (overall design and exterior materials of the structures) c. Landscaping plan d. Area identification sign(s) e. Association documents a 4. Due to the proximity of the closed landfill site, there are additional restrictions on the use of the subject properties within certain distances of the limits of the landfill. No enclosed buildings are allowed within 200 feet of the edge of the landfill. A line on the sketch plan indicates the approximate 200 foot setback line based on documents provided by the Pollution Control Agency (PCA). This sketch will need to be evaluated by the PCA to verify the line is properly located. Enclosed buildings between 200 and 500 feet of the landfill require the development to install a monitoring well to be regularly tested by the PCA. This will be done at the northwest corner of the development in conformance with PCA requirements. Site Design The site is organized with lots on both sides of a public street that extends through the center of the development. The majority of the structures have side - loaded garages that utilize shared driveways. Parking would be possible in front of the garages. A comparison of the proposal to the R -4 standards and similar smaller lot single - family detached projects is located below. The Villas of the Mississippi project south of 109 Avenue and West River Road in Brooklyn Park is a similar project by Hanson Builders that could be visited to provide more insight. 0 2 Shawdow- City View Woodland BunkerLake R-4 brook Farm Creek Golf Village Standards Villas Avg Lot Area 6,000 sf 6,204 sf 4,307 sf 6,600 sf 11,400 sf Avg Lot width 57 feet 44 feet 59 feet 50 feet 80 feet Avg Lot Depth . 100 feet 141 feet 73 feet 132 feet 130 feet min. Land Area (acres) 47.2 1.35 4.08 710.187NA # Units 118 7 11 NA Density 2.5 5 . 2 2.7 4 up to 4 with (units /acre) M -1 zoning) PUD 3 feet to row 25 to 30 feet 25 to 35 feet to 11.5 feet to Front 25 feet to to county row 35 to 50 row 25 feet to street 35 feet street row feet to street Side Interior 10 feet 10 feet 6 feet garage 5 feet garage 5.5 -12 feet 6 feet garage 10 feet living livin 10 feet living Side corner lot 25 feet 35 feet NA 20 -34 feet corner lots 35/25 feet for back to back lot 24 to 52 feet Rear 25 feet min. 69 to 74 feet 30 to 75 feet 30 feet average 30 feet to 30 feet 40 feet to county road Hanson 0 2 Unit Style Elevations, floor plans and a typical lot detail are provided in the attachments to illustrate the proposed unit styles. A combination of materials will be used including brick, stone and maintenance free siding. Most of the garages would be side loaded to allow improved street appeal. There will be units with both two and three car garages. There will be a combination of walkout and lookout units. Some units will have full basements and some will have partial basements. The main floor finished square footage would be 1,590 square feet including a 126 square foot sun porch. The basement would offer additional options for finished living space up to a total of approximately 2,500 square feet for both levels. The applicant will describe the units in more detail at the meeting. Access The proposed development would be served with a public street that would provide an interior access road from 138 Lane up to 140 Lane. Staff has asked that a through street be provided to conform to the proposed Transportation Plan update. As indicated on attached Figure 18 from this plan, access to Hanson Boulevard from 138 Lane NW will be closed with future county road improvements. Additionally, a future median will restrict access to 140 Lane NW to right - in/right -out only. As a result, 139 Lane will be the only full movement access to Hanson Boulevard between Bunker Lake Boulevard and Andover Boulevard. By limiting access to Hanson Boulevard, these county road improvements will require an interior access road to serve the Hills of Bunker Lake neighborhood. The attached location map also helps to illustrate the roadway network in the surrounding neighborhood. Some residents along 140 Lane NW have voiced opposition to the through street. As designed at the request of City staff, the through street would create a corner lot at 140 lane NW. The setback for the existing structure would be 13 feet from the right -of -way and approximately 27 feet from the curb of the proposed street. This would be below the typical 35 foot setback. With the proposed design, a variance would need to be granted for the existing house to prevent a non- conforming structure from being created by the location of the proposed street. Staff will need to explore further the potential to create additional space between the existing home and the proposed street. This will be difficult, however, as there is limited space to Hanson Boulevard. All four of the proposed access points to local streets would be below the 330 feet that is required by Ordinance 10 for intersection spacing from arterial roadways. At the north end the access to 140 Lane NW is approximately 120 feet from Hanson Boulevard. At the center of the development the distance between Hanson Boulevard and new accesses to 139 Lane would be approximately 200 feet. At the south end of the development the distance between Hanson Boulevard and a new access to 138 Lane would be approximately 240 feet. Variances would need to be granted to allow reduced intersection spacing. Justification for the variances include the fact that direct access to Hanson Boulevard for the project will not be allowed by the Anoka County Highway Department. Additionally, the properties do not have enough frontage to locate an access to local streets in compliance with the intersection spacing requirements. Additional right -of -way will be provided for turn lanes at 139 Avenue. The applicant will also be responsible for a portion of the cost of the total intersection improvement which will include 3 signalization and turn lanes at all four legs of the future intersection. The timing of these improvements will likely coincide with the development of Andover Station North which may begin within the next two years. Parking The proposed development would have a public street, which allows parking during the day. Shared driveways would provide additional parking beyond the two or three stalls in each garage. Planned Unit Development Review Ordinance 112 provides the requirements for Planned Unit Development review. This ordinance requires proposals to meet the following criteria: 1. Attaining a higher standard of site design and development that cannot be accomplished under strict adherence to development ordinance provisions. 2. The preservation and enhancement of desirable site characteristics such as natural topography, woodlands, geologic features and the prevention of soil erosion; 3. A more efficient use of land resulting in smaller networks of utilities and streets thereby lowering the development costs and public investments; A development pattern in harmony with the Andover Comprehensive Plan. (PUD is not a means to vary applicable planning and zoning principles.) Staff Recommendation S Due to the fact that access can only be provided from local streets and the county road improvements that will restrict access to Hanson Boulevard in the future, a through street is needed as part of this proposal. The proposed lots are similar in size to those approved for other planned unit developments. The housing style is high quality and will enhance the appeal neighborhood. Staff believes that this is a good project and with some adjustments can be made to fit within the development constraints of the sites. With this being said, staff would like to explore the following adjustments: Working with the Anoka County Highway department, the adjacent property owner and the applicant to determine the best location for the access to 140 Lane NW and the curve in this street to allow additional space between the existing home and the proposed street for berming and landscaping. 2. Increasing the north side yard setback of the structure on Lot 12, Block 1 to save existing mature evergreen trees at this location to provide an excellent buffer for the existing neighborhood. 3. Working with the Anoka County Highway Department and the applicant to determine the appropriate amount of additional right -of way for 139 Lane NW. 11 4. Increasing the corner side yard setback of the structure on Lot 1, Block 3. The distance . between the structure and 139 Lane could decrease as much as 12 feet with the addition of turn lanes. 5. Evaluating landscaping and screening approaches for areas adjacent to existing homes, along Hanson Boulevard and adjacent to corner lots in the proposed development. 6. Working with the PCA to ensure appropriate location of enclosed buildings. Other Ordinances The developer is also required to meet the following City Ordinances and all other applicable ordinances: Ordinance No. 8, the Zoning Ordinance Ordinance No. 10, the Platting and Subdivision Ordinance Ordinance No. 107, Shoreland Management Ordinance Ordinance No. 108, Flood Plain Management Ordinance Ordinance No. 114, Wetland Buffer Ordinance Ordinance No. 214, Diseased Shade Tree Ord. & Tree Preservation Policy Coordination with other Agencies The developer and/or owner is responsible to obtain all necessary permits (Minnesota • Department of Natural Resources, U.S. Army Corp of Engineers, Coon Creek Watershed District, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, LGU and any other agency that may have an interest in the site). Initial contact shall be made with the City Engineering Department regarding this item. Park and Recreation Commission Comments The Park and Recreation Commission will review this item at an upcoming meeting. ACTION REQUIRED The Planning and Zoning Commission is asked to informally advise the applicant on adjustments to the proposed project to conform with local ordinances and review criteria. Attachments Location Map Sketch Plan (Full Size in Packet) Building Elevations Floor Plans Figure 18 from Transportation plan update Res ect lly submitt , • z Cc: Hanson Builders 13432 Hanson Boulevard NW F' Bunker Lake Village I i ii SO i IN 0 J C6 Z O Z Q 2 Project Location Map 0 LJ M • W-01 B Andover Planning • U LU uj rr uj � Z j �j co 4ZIAM ir 16 . . ........ I l��s��� All FQj 3 �sy 5 z dr s Q Y �jif � 7 CL LU 4ZIAM ir 16 . . ........ I l��s��� All FQj 3 �sy 5 z dr s Q Y �jif � 7 0 A I ul 11 `:: 'I- 11���IlIIIIAClI'lPllf�llr� ��e III III 111 0 - 1 1 1 i iIiI�ILi TgTi ' I a �il��pt WWWW a v:. � n U • C� • 0 • II. ��i ii■ �L ME ���� t �rl�O _ II ■ iz- 4 Of "W� : �eK"•f: AII t .n V �3� + yp �h`Rro A� t t' 7 5i ✓\ B P � 4,lf, ti l t fj N J v i.( 1! r • w. 7� r �, ♦o 1 e t� lY �� r �� •.J.��/ ll .: to Ae NZ ��rC� �� r _ r • r i� ,,,�, r ' Y „i r � �. N"0..+' � � � r '�.• - "•ie.;,+i;a. - � �' , ;:�>;'1 !• t �: ��n R 1 d 4 �' •i 1 a T 1 t _ • -. �t`'°� s r �v� —1'1� �'r.f f + °l %% %'\ �,qA/' •"' ,:'v :�, l ' vY � `� • ®�; °_.�,� i � Eq ! ' � +{)di r r ;. C � '^' "� J r i � � '�,�® 5 1 4^ . fin_ ^. r. �. wr� �.e•. �!' : �• e I r •ll t lW M�= �...� T �� •M ��. I #,�r y, 'i J JF t � L ✓, �g, _�� 116 .yam � T °�Y 1 e f ti �� ` �, Y L . I • r Y"a I 1 �'fy ,'a .,,�'�" ••rk4 a r �a.. < r �� �I { � at a y li(] I I'.r � I ���.�1 � a °� ! � �,a N -.�"n �6 �1 r• �" ^" 9 p �.� qp� A � • •N � JG+ Asf p r . I F�: C� • VO t r1 7 s • 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 CC: Courtney Bednarz, City Plann*j FROM: Jon Sevald, Planning Intern SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING: Lot Split (03 -01) to create two urban residential lots from property located at 1415 Andover Boulevard NW. DATE: July 8, 2003 INTRODUCTION This item (Lot Split with Variance to lot depth) was reviewed and denied by the City Council on February 11, 2003. The Council has recently amended Ordinance 8, Section 6.02 Minimum District Provisions to allow lot splits for lots that are close, but do not meet all of the requirements. With this amendment, the applicant has requested that this item be reconsidered. A variance to lot depth is no longer necessary. DISCUSSION The applicant is seeking to re- establish a property line between two previously combined urban residential lots (Lots 5 and 6, Block 4 of Hartfiel's Estates). A house exists toward the south end of the lot. The proposed lot split would allow a second home to be constructed on the northerly portion of the lot. There is a considerable amount of history concerning the subject property and surrounding land. The following timeline is intended to provide an overview of significant events: • Circa 1948 -The existing houses and accessory buildings on the subject property and the property to the west were constructed as a part of the Heil Farmstead. See attached aerial photograph from 1969. • October 12, 1971 - Grow Township Board approves final plat of Hartfiel's Estates (containing subject property). The plat is approved contingent upon home construction on every other lot until utilities become available. The issue of detached accessory buildings encroaching on Lots 5 and 6, Block 4 is not addressed. At this time Ken Heil owns Lots 1 -6, Block 4 and the 5 acres immediately to the west. See attached aerial photograph overlaid with Hartfiel's Estates plat drawing. • January- February 1978 - Mr. Heil wishes to sell lots 5 and 6, Block 4, yet also wishes to retain use of the accessory buildings located on these lots. Instead of moving the buildings, Mr. Heil requests that the west 50 feet of lots 5 and 6, Block 4 be severed and added to the property to the west. Moving the buildings was presented as a hardship. After much discussion (reflected in the attached minutes) the request was granted with the condition that lots 5 and 6 be combined and conveyed as a single lot in the future. 1994 - City installs sewer and water connections for both lots 5 and 6 as a part of the • public improvement project that brings utilities into the neighborhood. The property was assessed for one sewer and water service. Applicable Ordinances Ordinance 8, Section 6.02 Minimum District Provisions. (A) Lot splits may be allowed with lot sizes that cannot conform to the minimum district provisions as follows: This provision shall only apply to lot splits which result in no more than two lots. Reduced lot standards shall not be considered for plats containing more than two lots. 2. Each lot within the proposed lot split shall meet at least two of the following requirement for the applicable zoning district; lot width, lot depth, lot area. 3. Each lot within the proposed lot split shall provide at least ninety percent of the requirement that cannot be met. Summary . The removal of 50 feet from the west side of the subject property reduced the lot depth from 167 feet to 117 feet. The minimum lot depth of the Single Family Urban Residential (R -4) Zoning District is 130 feet. 117 feet is 90% of 130 feet. With the amended ordinance, the lot split can be approved without a variance. OTHER CONSIDERATIONS Easements If the lot split is approved the City should require the standard drainage and utility easements for urban properties to be dedicated with a separate easement document for both lots (ten feet wide along front and rear property line and five feet wide along side property lines. Park Dedication Park dedication was satisfied through the dedication of land as a part of the plat. Ordinance 40, Section S.B. (Lot Split Ordinance) prohibits park dedication from being collected for a lot split once land was dedicated as a part of the plat. 0 -Z- R -4 Requirements Subject Property (existing) Lot 5 (proposed) Lot 6 (proposed Lot Width 80 feet 117 feet 100 feet 100 feet Lot Depth 130 feet 200 feet 117 feet 117 feet (90% of Lot Depth Reg.) 117 feet 200 feet 117 feet 117 feet Lot Area 1 11,400 feet 23,400 s.f. 1 11,700 s.f 1 11,700 s.f. OTHER CONSIDERATIONS Easements If the lot split is approved the City should require the standard drainage and utility easements for urban properties to be dedicated with a separate easement document for both lots (ten feet wide along front and rear property line and five feet wide along side property lines. Park Dedication Park dedication was satisfied through the dedication of land as a part of the plat. Ordinance 40, Section S.B. (Lot Split Ordinance) prohibits park dedication from being collected for a lot split once land was dedicated as a part of the plat. 0 -Z- Trail Fee A Trail fee in the amount of $523 will be required if the lot split is approved. The City Council • established a trail fee requirement with Resolution 270 -99 for all lot splits, regardless of what has been collected in the past. Utilities If the lot split is approved the new house will be required to connect to municipal water and sewer and pay the assessment as calculated by the City Clerk. Existing Structure There is an existing detached garage that straddles the proposed property line. The structure would be required to be moved before a building permit will be issued for the new lot. Access Access to the new lot will be provided from Bluebird Street NW. The applicant would also be willing to relocate the access to the existing house from Andover Boulevard to Bluebird Street NW. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the proposed lot split. ACTION REQUESTED The Planning Commission is asked to recommend approval or denial of the proposed lot split. Attachments Resolution Location Map Applicants Letter Plat Site Photographs Planning Commission Minutes February 11, 2003 City Council Minutes April 15, 2003 City Council Minutes [Ordinance 8(6.02) Amendment] June 17, 2003 Respectfully submitted, A 5�n c: Jon Sevald Cc: Wade Petersen, 1415 Andover Boulevard NW 11 -3- CITY OF ANDOVER COUNTY OF ANOKA STATE OF MINNESOTA . RES. NO. A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE LOT SPLIT REQUEST FOR WADE PETERSEN TO SUBDIVIDE INTO TWO PARCELS PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1415 ANDOVER BOULEVARD NW (26- 32 -24 -23 -0058) LEGALLY AND DESCRIBED AS: Lot 5 and 6, Block 4 Hartfiel's Estates except the west 50 feet thereof, Anoka County, Minnesota To be divided into properties to be described as; Lot 5, Block 4 Hartfiel's Estates except the west 50 feet thereof, Anoka County, Minnesota Lot 6, Block 4 Hartfiel's Estates except the west 50 feet thereof, Anoka County, Minnesota WHEREAS, Wade Petersen has requested approval of a lot split to subdivide property pursuant to Ordinance No. 40, located at 1415 Andover Boulevard NW, and; WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission finds that the special circumstances for the subject property include the following: 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, and; WHEREAS, The Council finds the proposed use will not be detrimental to the health, safety, morals and general welfare of the occupants of the surrounding land, and; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Andover hereby agrees with the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approves the lot split on said property with the following conditions: The applicant shall provide drainage and utility easements in favor of the City of Andover for both lots 5 and 6, Block 4 Hartfiel's Estates to be consistent with the City's easement requirements for urban lots. 2. The applicant shall be required to pay a trail fee in the amount of $523. 3. A new house on lot 5 shall be required to connect to municipal water and sewer and pay the assessment as calculated by the City Clerk. . - I/_ 4. The existing driveway on Andover Boulevard shall be required to be relocated to • Bluebird Street NW. 5. The existing detached accessory building located across the proposed property line shall be moved in compliance with Ordinance 8, Section 4.05 prior to a building permit being issued for Lot 5, Block 4 Hartfiel's Estates. 6. The new deeds for the property shall contain the legal descriptions included in this resolution. 7. That the lot split be subject to a sunset clause as defined in Ordinance No. 40, Section III(E). Adopted by the City Council of the City of Andover on this 8th day of July, 2003. CITY OF ANDOVER ATTEST: Mike Gamache, Mayor Victoria Volk, City Clerk 0 • .S' Lot Split 1415 Andover Boulevard 1 r r r � CI4 1340 O� r r r 147D6 T 14607 C-4 M Cr) M M O C1 I[) O O> O CO t T 14677 ti m lC1 W M M ti to � �- N N 541 t 1N T IA O tt T T UI) T T r M CO T N T ,- 14613 14521 T T T T T T T T T T 1 �M 14390 T CO T M T 14387 P 00 a � N r � 14560 14550 14540 14530 14520 14510 O C 1534 N � CI4 1340 O� � T T 14607 C-4 dT �o VD T ti r T � N r � 14560 14550 14540 14530 14520 14510 O C 1x590 N T 14589 1340 O� 14643 ) 14572 14569 Cr) C-4 dT �o VD T � T T T T T T 14633 M rn rn w o> 14565 c 14623 14533 T T UI) T T T r T T T 14613 CO 12 1334 306 m t0 N Cr) 14616 m r 127 T ,c Y 289 N 1 r 299 t° 14566 14583 1x590 N T 14589 1340 0 I 14565 V 14572 14569 14570 LO �o 14577 14531 14554 14544 14541 r 14525 14530 LD 14565 c 1425 14533 T CO 12 1334 306 m t0 N Cr) 14616 m r 127 T ,c Y 289 N 1 r 299 t° Project Location Map '-la- 1244 144 +' C M ' 14379 143B2 14381 C-4 ed 436 14359 14368 1 5 14339 143RD LN 14352 14435 14342 14319 14336 14321 14326 14307 14322 14297 1431 14277 143M 14281 14294 ■ w�■ Andover Planning CJ 0 C LL7 T 1331 Cr) N T 14589 1340 I 14565 t[) M LO �o 14577 14596 r 1412 r 14565 14572 14533 T 14528 T 14553 14548 14399 V 14521 A 14516 a 14541 14524 14390 14389 .8 14387 P T 1 14378 14372 14371 1270 1 1 14369 1342 '.° Project Location Map '-la- 1244 144 +' C M ' 14379 143B2 14381 C-4 ed 436 14359 14368 1 5 14339 143RD LN 14352 14435 14342 14319 14336 14321 14326 14307 14322 14297 1431 14277 143M 14281 14294 ■ w�■ Andover Planning CJ 0 C t[) M LO r 1412 T T T 14399 V CO 14390 14389 14390 14387 P T m 14378 14372 14371 14372 14369 '.° 14414 14352 14357 14354 14353 14354 14351 o 14396 m 1 9 14326 14336 14335 14336 14333 14378 r 14318 14317 14318 14315 14358 14278 14271 14299 14338 14250 ~ 14288 14287 44316 A 14239 'T m 14228 14276 14275 14296 14219 14200 14195 14254 14253 44276 14199 Ca I SSI 1 •..e. i 1 14252 14251 14256 Project Location Map '-la- 1244 144 +' C M ' 14379 143B2 14381 C-4 ed 436 14359 14368 1 5 14339 143RD LN 14352 14435 14342 14319 14336 14321 14326 14307 14322 14297 1431 14277 143M 14281 14294 ■ w�■ Andover Planning CJ 0 C Feb 20 03 09:29p 0 Hrnola vetersen (O.J T AL Andover City Hall 1685 Crosstown Blvd- NW Andover, MN 55304 Andover City Council, The reason of the request for the lot split and variance on the lots depth are as follows: First, the city has allowed and put in hookups for city sewer and water on tat 5 of the Heartfiel's Estates. Second, when 1 purchased the property (Lots 5 and 6 of the Hearlfiel's Estates), I was led to believe that the two lots were splitable which would allow me to build on the new lot That was my reasoning for purchasing this property and my plan was to build in two years on Lot 5. I believe that this would benefit the city because of the existing water and sewer stubs and besides that, it would benefit me. While talking with the city on trying to split the lots, history in regard to this property was found as to why the west 50 feet of Lots 5 and 6 were not included in the original Plat of the development. it was found that the land was not plotted properly due to the existing outbuildings. After reviewing the Council Meeting on the variance, You can see that it was questioned as to wbether combining the two lots was the best move at the preset time and also in the future when the city sewer and water were made available. This is a very unique situation. So, with this unique situation, I believe that it would be in the best interests of the city to go forward and allow the splitting and variance of the lots because of the city spending time and money to put in these hookups. A house on this property would complete the development of • the neighborhood and allow more taxable properly for the city. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Wade Petersen 1415 Andover Blvd. NW Andover, MN 55304 • -7- r• - 793 434 1229 PRGE.02 LL 4 /vG -/4 V /d (. r4 ) aa a r /. ii Ice '5' 1 NNDOVEP BL�10- 6 lit f .1� 3 r� L G f r - _ Iz w MOW to �c. Oil ' r MOW to Oil ' 0 PLANNEVGAND ZONING COMMISSIONMEETING — FEBRUARY 25, 2003 e Regular Bi- Monthly Meeting of the Andover Planning and Zoning Commission was to order by Chairperson Daninger on February 25, 2003, 7:00 p.m., at the Andover City 1685 Crosstown Boulevard NW, Andover, Minnesota. Commission resent: Chairperson Daninger, Commissioners Tim Kirchoff, Douglas Falk, Tony Gamache, Rex Greenwald, Dean Vatne and Jonathan Jasper (arrived at 7:04 p.m.). Commissioners absent: one. Also present: City PNqner, Courtney Bednarz Others APPROVAL OFMINUTES. February 11, 2002 Co Vatne indicated in the minutes on page 3, sixth par4Qph down, he recalled saying "Commissioner Vatne stated r uested clarification fro Mr. Bednarz that staff would prefer to review not only the size of the sign, ' but the quality of the sign. Mr. Bednarz concurred. Motion by Kirchoff, seconded by Greenwald, to approve the minutes as amended. Motion carried on a 3 -ayes, 0 -nays, 3- present ( Daninger, Falk, Gamache), 1- absent (Jasper) vote. PUBLIC HEARING: LOT SPLIT (03 -01) TO CREATE TWO URBAN RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIESAS PREVIOUSLYPLATTED WITH VARIANCE TO LOT DEPTH AT 1415 ANDOVER BOULEVARD NW. Mr. Bednarz explained that the applicant is seeking to re- establish a property line between two previously combined urban residential lots (Lots 5 and 6, Block 4 of Hartfiel's Estates). A house exists toward the south end of the lot The proposed lot split would allow a second home to be constructed on the northerly portion of the lot A variance to lot depth is necessary to allow the lot split to occur. 11 -1 — Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes — February 25, 2003 Page 2 S Mr. Bednarz discussed the history and staff report with the Commission. Commissioner Gamache asked if they were considering the stubbing of lots 5 and 6 being a mistake. Mr. Bednarz stated he did not, but a decision was made that the potential for a future split existed. Commissioner Jasper stated there is a question in the applicant's letter in regards to buildability. He asked if lot five could be built on, as it exists. Mr. Bednarz stated lot five does not have the ability to be built on because it has been combined with lot 6 which has already been built on. Commissioner Kirchoff stated the 117 feet was created when they took the fifty feet in 1978. Mr. Bednarz stated it was correct. Commissioner Jasper stated in 1978, was the resolution filed with the County recorder. Mr. Bednarz stated it was. Commissioner Vatne noted the development on the other side of the street the lot size looked comparable. Commissioner Greenwald stated in width they would but not in depth. Commissioner Vatne stated he asked this question for clarification in the relative lot size of the homes in the neighborhood. • Motion by Greenwald, seconded by Gamache, to open the public hearing at 7:12 p.m. Motion carried on a 7 -ayes, 0 -nays, 0- absent vote. Mr. Wade Petersen, owner of the property stated when he purchased the property a year and a half ago; he was led to believe the lots were split -able which encouraged him to buy the property. He stated with the City going forward with the variance, it would benefit the City because they already have the hook up there. Commissioner Gamache questioned who owned the acreage to the west and if the person who owned the land still used the buildings. He asked if they could purchase the fifty feet back to make the land split -able. Commissioner Greenwald stated they would need a variance for this because the building is probably too close to the property line. Commissioner Jasper asked Mr. Peterson if the fifty feet is acquirable. Mr. Petersen stated the owner uses the buildings and has a driveway on the fifty feet to access the buildings. He stated the neighbor had an easement to access the building. Mr. Peterson stated he believed the property owner would not want to sell because he is still using the buildings frequently. Chairperson Daninger stated in the letter Mr. Petersen wrote, who led him to believe the lots were split -able. Mr. Petersen stated the realtor said they could be split and they went Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes — February 25, 2003 Page 3 to the City to find more information and did not find out about it not being split -able until they wanted to split the land. • Mrs. Diana Petersen, 331 157' Avenue NW stated before the property was purchased, the land was platted out and they thought they could split the land and if they knew the property was not able to be split, her son would not have purchased the land. Commissioner Gamache asked if the land were split, would the access need to be moved from Andover Boulevard to Bluebird Street. Mr. Bednarz stated he talked to Mr. Petersen in regards to this and it was agreed this would happen. Motion by Kirchoff, seconded by Gamache, to close the public hearing at 7:23 p.m. Motion carried on a 7 -ayes, 0 -nays, 0- absent vote. Commissioner Kirchoff stated there were a combination of things that were done over the years which contributed to the situation and he would like to finally correct the situation and move forward with this. Commissioner Jasper stated he disagreed because he believed the problems were fixed in 1978. He stated in the County records, it indicates the land is not split -able. Commissioner Kirchoff stated in 1994, the City put in the additional stub and he would like to see the City recoup the costs. Commissioner Vatne stated he thought the minutes in 1978 were inconsistent with each other and opens the door for a potential split. Commissioner Greenwald agreed and in his opinion, part of the hardship was the fact that utilities were roughed in allowing a • possibility of a split. Commissioner Gamache stated he believed the City created a hardship by creating this in 1978. Commissioner Falk stated conditions change and he would be in favor of this. Commissioner Greenwald stated this would look similar to the other plats in the area. Chairperson Daninger stated there are other things to take into consideration. He stated the City continues to change as it grows and sometimes situations are created over time that need to be corrected. He stated there is a benefit to public safety by moving the existing access onto Bluebird Street. There is also the issue of recouping the investment in utilities. Commissioner Jasper stated the minutes from February 1978 were not reviewed by anyone before the decision to buy the property. He stated the only hardship he could see was monetary which did not seem appropriate. Commissioner Greenwald stated the City may not have read the minutes from 1978 either before roughing this in. • — I Z- Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes — February 25, 2003 Page 4 Motion by Greenwald, seconded by Kirchoff, to recommend to the City Council approval • of Resolution No. , approving the lot split. Motion carried on a 6 -ayes, 1 -nays (Jasper), 0- absent vote. Mr. Bednarz stated that this item would be at the March 18, 2003 City Council meeting. PUBLIC HEARING: VARIANCE (03 -03) TO ORDINANCE 8, SECTION 6.02 TO VARY FROM THE 50 FOOT BUILDING SETBAC% FROM COUNTYROADWAYS FOR NORTHERN NATURAL GAS AT 4517 VALLEY DRIVE NW (CSAH 58). Mr. Bednarz explained that the applicant is requesting a variance to the setback from County Road 58 (Valley Drive) to locate a building within an existing easement on the subject property. The structure would contain an above ground tank used to odorize a branch of the natural gas pipeline that originates on the property. This project is intended to achieve compliance with recently changed federal regulations that require branch lines off of the natural gas system to be odorized. Mr. Bednarz discussed the staff report with the Commission. Commissioner Gamache asked if the building size was comparable to the building at the other site. Mr. Leland Mann, Northern Natural Gas, stated it would be considerably smaller. • Commissioner Vatne requested on page nine, he would like clarification of the landscape plant material. He asked if this was something that staff would get involved with or was it part of the proposal itself. Mr. Bednarz stated in the easement agreement, the landscaping language is by mutual consent between the property owner and Northern Natural Gas. Motion by Greenwald, seconded by Gamache, to recommend to the City Council approval of Resolution No. , approving the variance to the County Road setback requirements and the fencing requirements based on the proposed findings by staff. Commissioner Gamache stated they would need to be careful in locating landscaping because of the busy comer and they would not want anything blocking the view. Commissioner Vatne asked with the addition of the building, would this fit into the area. Commissioner Gamache stated it would. . Commissioner Falk asked who would do the upkeep on the area- Mr. Mann stated it would be Northern Natural Gas responsibility. Mr. Bednarz stated the County would continue to mow the right -of -way. 0 -13- Regular Andover City Council Meeting . Minutes —April 15, 2003 Page 7 CONSIDER LOT SPLIT WITH VARIANCE TO LOT DEPTM415 ANDOVER BLVD. (CONTINUED) Community Development Director Neumeister explained this item was reviewed by the City Council at the March 18, 2003 City Council meeting and referred to the City Attorney for his opinion. The applicant is seeking to re- establish a property line between two previously combined urban residential lots (Lots 5 and 6, Block 4 of Hartfiel's Estates). A house exists toward the south end of the lot. The proposed lot split would allow a second home to be constructed on the northerly portion of the lot. A variance to lot depth is necessary to allow the lot split to occur. Mayor Gamache reviewed a portion of the letter from City Attorney Hawkins which read, "the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner and the variance, if granted would not alter the central character of the locality." He stated in his mind, he could see an area where they would say the prior judgments by the previous City Council and last land owner, when they cut off the last fifty feet, actually created the situation. He asked if this was an argument. City Attorney Sullivan stated the question that City Attorney Hawkins was addressing • was related to the financial aspects of it. The situation was a financial one which was the person who purchased the property was under the impression that they could subdivide this at some future date, which turned out to be wrong. He stated the financial consideration is not an undue hardship and not a situation unique to that property itself. Councilmember Trade suggested the Planning Commission should look at the Ordinance on Lot Split Standards for changes. Motion by Jacobson, Seconded by Trade, to deny Item No. 25 (Consider Lot Split with Variance to Lot Depth/1415 Andover Blvd). (See Resolution R084 -03) Councilmember Orttel asked if a developer came in with a plat, it would be approved but if an individual came in, they make them tow the line and he did not think this was fair. Councilmember Trade stated she felt they will be getting more of these requests because as land becomes pricier they will have more unusual situations. Motion carved 4 ayes, 1 nay (Gamache). Mayor Gamache left the meeting at 8:50 p.m. • • Regular Andover City Council Meeting Minutes —June 17, 2003 Page 11 uncil would choose to not follow state law, a section needs to be added to the ce spec' the hours as 8:00 am to 1:00 am, Monday through Saturday, and 10:00 ugh 1:00 am on Sunda If Council chooses to stablishments to be able to sell lit ti12:00 am a public hearing must be scheduled. If Council es the closed hour to re at 1:00 am, the ordinance must be amended If the hours are changed to am, the bar era must apply to the State. for a permit to allow them to remain open and pay a fee to te. Motion by Knight, Seconded by T ",not authorize hours to be extended beyond the current hours of operation and to have bring back an ain in n the Ordinance stating the 1:00 am closing time. Mayor G stated the reason they are not extending this, is because the ding cities have not ext ed their hours to 2:00 am. carried unanimously. • CONSIDER ORDINANCE AMENDMENT /ORDINANCE 8, SECTION 6.02 MI 0WUM DISTRICT PROVISIONS Community Development Director Neumeister noted the Council asked the Planning Commission to review an ordinance amendment that would allow lot splits for lots that are close, but do not meet all of the requirements of Ordinance 8, Section 6.02 Minimum District Provision (without a variance) under certain circumstances. This request was initiated from the lot split request at 1415 Andover Boulevard that included proposed variances to lot depth for both lots. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the proposed lot split. However, the City Council denied the lot split citing a lack of hardship for the variances to lot depth. As a part of the discussion, the Council discussed establishing a method to approve similar lot splits provided the lot met two of the three size requirements and was within ninety percent of the third. The proposed ordinance amendment will allow flexibility for infill lots in both urban and rural neighborhoods. As demonstrated with 1415 Andover Boulevard, infill lots may have development constraints that would otherwise prevent efficient use of the land. • Mr. Neumeister explained there were some word changes in the Ordinance that he wanted to point out. "Lot splits sly M be allowed" to give the Council some discretion because it is permissive rather than mandatory. The second is under point number one "This provision shall 15 Regular Andover City Council Meeting • Minutes —June 17, 2003 Page 12 only apply to a lot split eeng which results in no more than two lots." The last change is "each lot within the proposed lot split shall provide at least ninety percent of the requirements that cannot be met for only one of the requirements ". City Attorney Hawkins stated he did not think the additional wording is needed for item three. Motion by Orttel, Seconded by Trude, to approve the Ordinance Amendment to Ordinance 8, Section 6.02 with the changes recommended by staff. Councilmember Trude stated she talked to Mr. Bednarz about another situation where this change will not work because the problem is where they measure the setback. She stated normally they measure the width at the setback line and in some cases if they could measure the width at the property line or the setback line, whichever is greater, it would allow people to not have to go into the category and Mr. Bednarz thought it would be something to look at. She wondered if the rest of the Council would support this change. Councilmembers Jacobson and Orttel stated they would be willing to look at it but until they had more information, they would not approve it Motion carried unanimously. (Ord. 8CCCCCCC) OMMUMCATE METROPOLITAN COUNCIL APPROVAL -RURAL RESERVE ARE 4 & =' R ON CERTAINPROPEWMS Communi evelopment Director Neumeister explained the Metropolitan Council informed the CitK that the full Metropolitan Council has approved the 964 acres se for the "Rural Reserve ". Councilmember Orttel state ugh the entire process, they had a that had eighty acres on the railroad tracks that were hing for this and now they 250 Mr. Neumeister stated when the engineering staff, plannin , on and N ' departments sat down and discussed this item the past week, they not know a which areas would be agreed upon to receive the sewer because there is only ei -ei of capacity and they need to come back to the Council with more information as to ch areas would be recommended for gravity sewer because they have a pipe on Vale an rane is that could be extended and it may be more favorable to extend one and not other. Without detailed information, they did not want to release this until City Co . reviewed it. Councilmember Orttel ow long it would be before the matter solved Mr: Neumeister stated the y 15th Council meeting would do it. Counc' er Orttel asked if they should table s until that meeting. Mr. Neumeister stated they could be ould not need to be. Orttel, Seconded by Jacobson, to approve of removing certain areas from Motion carried unanim ously. (Resolution R130-03) \ —142- -tLNDOVE 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W.. ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 • (763) 755 -5100 FAX (763) 755 -8923 • WWW. CLAN DOVER. MN. US TO: Planning Commission Members FROM: Dave Berkowitz, City Engineer -3 Will Neumeister, Director of Community Development 44L— SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING: Comprehensive Plan Amendment (03 -04) to review the Transportation Plan Update to the Comprehensive Plan DATE: July 8, 2003 INTRODUCTION The City has been developing the Transportation Plan Update to the Comprehensive Plan for about one year. During that time, there were many meetings of a Technical Advisory Committee, and "Open House" meetings for residents of the community. DISCUSSION The Transportation Plan is a critical element of the City's Comprehensive Plan and as such it should be reviewed with a critical eye. Staff, citizens, and Technical Advisory Committee have all offered their input to this point and now it is ready for the final public hearings before it is officially adopted. Please review the attached document and please refrain from marking in the notebooks as we ask that they be returned at the end of the meeting, so that we may use them for the City Council as well. ACTION REQUESTED The Planning Commission is asked to hear the presentation of the Transportation Plan by the City's Engineering consultant, hold a Public Hearing and make comments and/or changes to the document. Respectfully submitted, Will Neumeister Dave Berkowitz 1] 0 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 PI SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING: Ordinance Amendment (03 -07) to consider amendment to Ordinance 10, Section 9.06 to reduce the size of the required buildable area for rural properties. DATE: July 8, 2003 INTRODUCTION The Planning Commission and Council have asked staff to prepare information to consider reducing the amount of buildable area required on rural lots. The purpose of this amendment is to preserve more of the natural character of the rural areas and allow more potential home sites without affecting the minimum lot size of 2.5 acres. DISCUSSION Applicable Ordinance — Ordinance 10, Section 9.06(A2.) This Ordinance Section with potential changes is attached for your review. Limited Scope of Amendment It is important to begin this discussion with the understanding that this ordinance amendment will only affect the size of the area that needs to meet the buildability requirements of Ordinance 10. It is proposed that the 22,500 square foot contiguous area be eliminated as a requirement. However, no changes are recommended to how a home can be placed in relation to the water table, the size of on site septic areas or lot size requirements. Situation As more of the City develops, more parcels of land with wetlands and significant changes in topography will be encountered. In some situations these development constraints will prevent lots from being built upon. In other situations the 150 foot wide by 150 foot deep required buildable area will cause significant grading and tree removal, thus eliminating the rural character of the property. Proposal The proposed ordinance amendment would require only that area needed for the foundation of the house to be subject to the buildability requirements of Ordinance 10. This amendment would eliminate the 150 foot wide by 150 foot deep buildable area. As a result, homeowners would be able to choose to fill/flatten areas around their house or to preserve the existing rural character based on their values instead of having this decision made for them by an ordinance requirement. Eliminating the 150 foot by 150 foot buildable area allows more flexibility in choosing a location for new homes. Custom grading techniques will allow builders to work with the topography of the lot instead of against it. • This change will also provide more flexibility in the establishment of new lot lines as they would no longer need to meander around the 150 foot by 150 foot buildable area. Discussion Item Eliminating the 150 foot by 150 foot buildable area will remove the minimum standard for a building pad. Without some sort of minimum, developers may submit plats with very small building pads to save money on site work. Therefore, some type of minimum requirement is needed. This requirement could range from the minimum house size of 1,200 square feet up to the existing requirement of 22,500 square feet. Staff would recommend a minimum building pad size of 3,600 square feet. This number is based on a 60 foot by 60 foot building envelope that would accommodate the vast majority of homes constructed in the City. Staff would prefer to use 3,600 square feet instead of a static 60 foot by 60 foot box to allow some flexibility for a home site to fit the character of each lot. One example of this would be a walkout rambler with an attached garage that may be 70 or 80 feet in length, but only 30 to 45 feet wide. City Council Work Session The Council met to discuss this item on June 24 The Council was generally in agreement that the buildability requirements should be relaxed. They seemed comfortable with the staff recommended approach of 3,600 square feet. The minutes from the meeting are attached. Other Examples Two example surveys are attached to illustrate the differences between the current and proposed buildability requirements. Additional Information Staff was unable to find a suburban City with similar buildability requirements that extended beyond the footprint of the principal structure and septic areas. ACTION REQUESTED The Planning Commission is asked to hold a public hearing for the proposed ordinance amendment and to formulate a recommendation for the Council to consider. Attachments Proposed Ordinance 10, Section 9.06A2. Sample Survey #1 Sample Survey #2 City Co it Work ession Minutes R 11 u fitted, CITY OF ANDOVER COUNTY OF ANOKA • STATE OF MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. 10 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE 10, SECTION 9.06 A.2 AREAS LACKING MUNICIPAL SANITARY SEWER OUTSIDE THE METROPOLITAN URBAN SERVICE AREA. TO REDUCE THE AMOUNT OF REQUIRED BUILDABLE AREA TO ALLOW CUSTOM GRADING OF RURAL LOTS THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANDOVER DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 4. DEFINITIONS. For the purpose of this Ordinance, certain words and terms are hereby defined as follows: Buildable Lots: A. In areas lacking municipal sanitary sewer, all lots or parcels shall have an area of at least 22,300 3,600 square feet with a finished grade of at least six (6') feet above the seasonal high water mark. All organic material shall be removed and replaced with granular material with no more than five (5 %) percent organic material by volume. The lowest floor shall be at least three (3') feet above the seasonal high water mark in the area of construction pursuant to Ordinance No. 17 as amended unless evidence is submitted and certified by a geotechnical engineer that shall be reviewed and certified by an independent geotechnical engineer hired by the City at the expense of the developer and approved by the City Council that a separation of less than three (3') feet can be achieved and is warranted. (1OV, 11- 17 -92; 10Y, 9- 25 -96) SECTION 9.06 LOTS. A2.Areas Lacking Municipal Sanitary Sewer Outside the Metropolitan Urban Service Area. In areas which are not served by municipal sanitary 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 °high 22,500 s,,,,e f o f eei l area i b . '+h a m n a+1, o f a t l eas t e 1.. n d f e.l fift (1 59') f + a a fn depth e.,e h ., ( m d ra c) f e et . In addition, there r � shall also be two (2) 5,000 square feet areas designated and staked for the primary and secondary on -site septic drainfield based on design criteria for a four (4) bedroom home. The designated drainfield locations as stated above shall comply with Chapter 7080 as amended. The location of the primary and secondary sites shall be indicated on the preliminary grading plan and the design specifications for the drainfields shall be submitted at the time of the submittal of the preliminary plat A building pad shall be created for each lot with a minimum size of 3,600 contiguous square feet. Said lot building pad shall be required to have a finished grade of at least six (6') feet above the seasonal high water mark and shall also require the lowest floor to be a minimum of three 4D (3') feet above the seasonal high water mark or one (1') foot above the designated or designed one hundred (100) year flood elevation whichever is higher unless evidence is submitted and certified by a geotechnical engineer that shall be reviewed and certified by y an independent geotechnical engineer hired by the City at the expense of the developer and approved by the City Council that a separation of less that three (3') feet can be achieved and is warranted. Said lot shall also have a width of at least three hundred (300') feet as measured at the front building setback line. For lots which abut a cul -de- sac, the lot width at the setback line is to be a minimum of one hundred sixty (160') feet. Two lots maximum are allowed at the end of each cul -de -sac regarding the lot width. 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 where the City deems it necessary in those areas that can be served in the future. These provisions shall not apply to plats approved by the City prior to October 17, 1978. (10C, 10- 17 -78; 10M, 3 -7 -89; 10R, 8 -7 -90; 10S, 11- 19 -91; 10X, 6 -6- 95; 10Y, 9- 25 -96; 10EE, 6 -6 -00) Adopted by the City Council of the City of Andover on this day of , 2003. CITY OF ANDOVER Michael R. Gamache, Mayor ATTEST: Vicki Volk, City Clerk 0 • 90 .97 - - - - - - - - 974.60 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- ------------------ - - - - -- 300.00-- - - - - -- �i L L 902.860 ` k t S te` n 1'V r - 1 \ x901.32 z 903.42 ` f \ \ I x903.73 � PAR�EL A r u e .2 ti 1x 900,94 L 899.92 - o / 9 3 /x 900.82 1 � -- 0 1t 901.99 x I ' x 907 \5B \ I / 901.40 g02' � i 3 1 / 150.0 90.' 1.15 i �9 x 903.92 x 902.6 \ 1 - Proposed max 900.74 g 1 - x903.02 � ( BY / 6 - .3 . �� / //L - -903 - 8 0 ®� K03.56 / z / r 4o4-I -- 904 - -. x 906.60 � 1 _ 3.75 90 5 904.66 _ 1 x 903.73 .94 3 . x903.53 x 903. 1 i 05.29 _ \ )4. / ���` J� I x90297�� x902.49 / ��903 - o i In 1 901 - ' lF - - x 901.58 901.95 - j i ' 900.3 x 900.68 x899.32 3 � _ - 1 X89 .48 r ` - 699- _ x 900.Y6 ��terw°mo 1® i \ \ 90758 l \ \ � PRWOSMIW CLwff \ 901 50 j I x 899.61 \ x 698.35 x899.78 901.44 ������ ��� 99 900.05 9.85 8 W- 901.43 goo 49 0HW - 14 �� ��- --� 0012 157TH AVENUE 900.0 oHw oH90O.0 - - - -- - - card, �_oHw 1 .x 902.59 SURFACE-- \� n 901.33 L -3 02.82 900.49 - �_ _ basYl899.44 ,31 A-21 al 1 R=81 8. 51 - 899.8' 899.92 3 O c, C.4 04 c q O O V) , 1 1 1 1 Northeast corner 1 1 -------------- iwas_--- _-- _of_Lot 5 �` 1 ---- - - - --- 1r=------ ---- ------ - - - -- --- -- - --- -O I - -- 1 / 1 North line of Lot 6� - Z ----- - - - - -- 1 � g I ! S --- 4.8 r!- -- r \ m : 64.1 1 Cw 14* ! B ...Ni p at to It suaer No Ta a J.tWU eebinp ee,alal ManMan ar.ae dewtaan.nt dtra . Oweta or - k .my we..nwt 1= a D.1= .flaN Mm seeKegr orb.. ir. ..snned . r iMn tnwe t ew fan awaar.t a a.dq sla. x 50 0 50 100 1 hereby aenffr Not Nis eM hey, plan or moan .as prepared by me or .,der .q dreet super,•ialan end the I orn o dulr Ucsnsed Land Surveyor ,,. under the lows of Dm State Of MM.nm*tb G**" Ds /IS /as Charles R. CM Mphvrxon, MN L'eense lla. 13420 Date e c o $ ~ i... b ee w lti 000.00 � k 1 AJTY FAEM047 •�g� td � / � c - -- - -- l.tc 891- Z4 1 a 0 E. . ? / °a `,.y+..i^ mss -.xr L r V '1 • 1 ,1 ie =- - --aa• rot �` �\ \ �G 1 1 �, i+ � l VWTY CASEMENT � 1 e''4 �'�. 7 /!�1 •, �. O 1 N PARCEL a l l• I t o / I I^ 1 ° 109.030 saff or 2.5030 Dues c � � l�lll �',� g ��i 1 •r 1y'lltll l� I. Z l Cage of .ea..a m° ;yll 9.a f I. t 1 1 • I t ll 1 1 II! ay g f g0 1 } t .' V ' t lt ' y II II'1,•` 0 o PARCEL B I I' I 25992 Dun C� T •223 soft or 1„ 111!I 1 1 1 j¢sw , 1 1 1 1 (fll:l ,�i in fij(j!( l!(E1 % 4 �P;:�P11, r ' 1 PROVOSED DHAwACE G f !,; ; / '•C ! I I Southwest tY k aTRJTY CASEMENT f ' ' ! ' B ! V --- ------- of Parcel - - - - f - - - - - - - - - - -_ -- - - -� n Southwest corer \\ _ �- .i .�> of Porcel A 1 1 _ - -- - -- _ - -- - MIS to r 455.00 .•- see sm'r'/ Southeast eorTlor 1 vT .eessmZ 566S5'00'W / \ of Lot 6 \ \ n South line of Lot 6 1 n _-- _---- - /UND POWER ASSOCIATION EASEMENT AS PER PLAT -- 1 _ —_ -7 ITE \ \\ to i \ '------- 1 / `- - - - -�/ .. LEGEND B ...Ni p at to It suaer No Ta a J.tWU eebinp ee,alal ManMan ar.ae dewtaan.nt dtra . Oweta or - k .my we..nwt 1= a D.1= .flaN Mm seeKegr orb.. ir. ..snned . r iMn tnwe t ew fan awaar.t a a.dq sla. x 50 0 50 100 1 hereby aenffr Not Nis eM hey, plan or moan .as prepared by me or .,der .q dreet super,•ialan end the I orn o dulr Ucsnsed Land Surveyor ,,. under the lows of Dm State Of MM.nm*tb G**" Ds /IS /as Charles R. CM Mphvrxon, MN L'eense lla. 13420 Date e Special Council Workshop June 24, 2003 — Minutes Page 3 Mr. Berkowitz didn't feel that the problem would cause issues as the clay and sand should hold everything in place. Discussion centered on the inspections that were performed on the project. Mr. Berkowitz explained that at that time he was the only field inspector on all of the city's projects and passive inspections were done. The policy has changed and staff is a lot more involved. Brian Kraabel noted that all sanitary sewer lines are televised and that we are going to start requiring storm sewers to be televised also. Consider R -1 and R -2 Custom Grading/Buddability Issues Mr. Neumeister explained that the questions is whether the city would be willing to require only that area needed for the foundation of a house to be subject to the buildability requirements of Ordinance 10. The current ordinance requires 22,500 square feet of contiguous area and the proposed amendment would eliminate that requirement. The homeowner would then be able to choose to fill areas around their house or to preserve the existing rural character based on their values rather than having an ordinance making the decision for them. By eliminating the 150' x 150' buildable area there would be more flexibility in choosing a location for new homes. A building pad of about 60' x 60' is recommended by staff. Dave Almgren noted that some sort of minimum needs to be established because staff does not know what type of house is going to go in a plat. Councilmember Jacobson stated that when someone comes in for a building permit staff knows the square footage of the house. By having a 3600 foot pad plus a certain percentage would allow more flexibility. Mr. Neumeister asked if Council would like this to go to the Planning Commission for a pubic hearing. Councilmember Jacobson asked if 3600 feet would be a problem if the owner wants to add on to their home. Mr. Ahngren stated it would not. Staff wants to make sure that they have enough room for their garage, swimming pool, etc. He felt we need to be a little more flexible than we have been in the past. Consensus of the Council was to forward this item to the Planning Commission. Amend Consulting Agreement — Saterbak and Associates E