Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/12/03CITY of ANDOVER 755 FAX 755 -8923 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. • ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 • (763) -5100 (763) Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda August 12, 2003 Andover City Hall Council Chambers 7.00 A.m. 1. Call to Order 2. Approval of Minutes — July 8, 2003 3. PUBLIC HEARING: Lot Split (02-10) to create two rural residential lots from property located at 16287 Makah Street NW. 4. PUBLIC HEARING Sketch Plan Review of an urban residential plat located at 1374 161 Avenue NW. 5. PUBLIC HEARING: Preliminary Plat of Andover Clocktower Commons located at the northeast corner of Hanson and Crosstown Boulevards. 6. PUBLIC HEARING: Special Use Permit (03 -08) for Planned Unit Development review of Andover Clocktower Commons, a commercial development to be located at the northeast corner of Hanson and Crosstown Boulevards. 7. PUBLIC HEARING: Amendment to Ordinances 8, 10, and 40 amending subdivision restrictions within the Rural Reserve. 8. 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 July 8, 2003 DATE: August 12, 2003` Request The Planning and Zoning Commission is asked to approve the minutes from the July 8, 2003 meeting. • 0 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. • ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 • (763) 755 -5100 FAX (763) 755 -8923 • WWW.CI.ANDOVER.MN.US PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING —JULY 8 2003 The Regular Bi- Monthly Meeting of the Andover Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order by Chairperson Daninger on July 8, 2003, 7:01 p.m., at the Andover City Hall, 1685 Crosstown Boulevard NW, Andover, Minnesota. Commissioners present: Chairperson Daninger, Commissioners Tim Kirchoff, Tony Gamache, Rex Greenwald, Dean Vatne, Jonathan Jasper (arrived at 7:04 p.m.) and Michael Casey. Commissioners absent: There were none. Also present: City Planner, Courtney Bednarz City Engineer, David Berkowitz Others APPROVAL OF MINUTES June 24, 2003 Chairperson Daninger stated he did not recall making the motion to approve the previous minutes and he wondered if anyone else could have made the motion. Commissioner Kirchoff explained he believed he made the motion. Chairperson Da noted the minutes should be changed to reflect Commissioner Kirchoff as making the motion approving the May 27, 2003 minutes. Motion by Gamache, seconded by Casey, to approve the minutes as amended above. Motion carried on a 6 -ayes, 0 -nays, 1- absent vote: Commissioner Jasper arrived at 7:04 p.m. PUBLICHEARING. SKETCHPLANREVIEW FORA RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT TO BE EVOWNAS "BUNKER LAKE VILLAGE" LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST AND SOUTHEAST CORNERS OF HANSON BOULEVARD AND 139 LANE NW Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes —July 8, 2003 Page 2 Mr. Bednarz explained that 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 comer of Hanson Boulevard and 139' Lane NW. The proposed development would require planned unit development review to provide alternative development standards. 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. This sketch will need to be evaluated by the PCA to verify the line is properly located. 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. Mr. Dean Hanson, owner of Hanson Builders made a presentation to the Commission regarding the sketch plan for Bunker Lake Village. Commissioner Vatne asked if the density in the Brooklyn Park Villas of Mississippi Development was comparable to this development. Mr. Hanson stated it was. Commissioner Kirchoff asked if the windows in the garage were decorative or actual windows. Mr. Hanson stated they would be real windows. Chairperson Daninger stated he talked to Mr. Hanson previously about cul -de -sacs and he • wondered if a cul -de -sac would be more beneficial to him than a thm street. Mr. Hanson Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes — July 8, 2003 Page 3 • stated he wanted to be as positive as he can for everyone involved and the City has expressed the importance of traffic control. A cul -de -sac is always desirable but when looking at the better of the whole, he understands the City's reasoning why the street should go through the development. Motion by Gamache, seconded by Kirchoff, to open the public bearing at 7:23 p.m. Motion carried on a 7 -ayes, 0 -nays, 0- absent vote. Ms. Charlene Booker stated they are one of the families that live on Drake Street overlooking the park and she is trying to get an idea about where the five acres is that has been for sale. She asked how much of the park will be left. She stated this seems like this will be too dense. She wanted to know if the future residents will want the added traffic from the development behind them. Why will they have three to four bedroom homes, if they are targeting empty nesters. Mr. Bednarz showed a layout of the area and explained where the land meets the park and the traffic patterns. He stated that what they have heard from the Anoka County Highway Department is that with the improvement on Hanson Boulevard, access to Hanson from 138 Lane will likely be eliminated and from 140 Lane, a median will be extended to limit access to right in/right out. The intent being to limit uncontrolled access points to the county road and focus traffic to 139 Lane where there will be a stop light. He explained the goals of the County and City regarding traffic access onto Hanson Boulevard. Chairperson Daninger asked if they could have proposed six units per acre instead of four. Mr. Bednarz stated this was true. Mr. Jim Vandrick, 139 Avenue, asked how many units total there were. Mr. Hanson stated there were 41. He asked when the signal light on 139 will be installed. Mr. Bednarz stated at this point, Hanson Boulevard is a County Roadway and when Andover Station North develops, there will be a signal light needed and could occur within the next two to three years. Mr. Vandrick stated there could be a number of years that this development will impact traffic until the light is installed. Mr. Bednarz stated there will be more traffic but the residents will retain the ability to use the access points and will not have the additional traffic down 139 until the improvements are done. Mr. Vandrick asked if any of the trees will remain and if there will be any buffering between the development and the park. Mr. Hanson explained this is an association maintained project. As far as the number of bedrooms, the empty nesters typically want to have two bedrooms on one floor and a bedroom on the lower level for company or visiting family. He showed on the map where the walk out lots will be. He stated their plan is to keep all of the natural trees that they can for a barrier along Hanson Boulevard and they will need to build up a berm and add trees for barriers in other areas. Wherever they can save trees, they will do it. Construction will not happen until 2004, although grading may start this fall. They hope to have a model in the fall of 2004 and the build out will happen over a couple of years and may not be finished until 2007 which could coincide with the stop light at 139 He Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes — July 8, 2003 Page 4 m explained the Villas of Mississippi is on 105 River Road for anyone who would • like to see a comparable development. Ms. Bartells stated this was a great concern to them because they live where the walkouts are going to be and she wanted to know if Mr. Hanson was planning on putting a berm in between them and the development because the walkouts face their deck. Mr. Daniel Webber, 1556 140 Lane, stated he backs up against the development. He stated he does not have a problem with the development but he does have a 9roblem with Eagle Street being a through street. He stated there is enough traffic on 140 already and he has two kids and is concerned about it. He asked what the buffer will be to his property and what will they do to control the dirt and dust from entering his property. Ms. Kathy Nyland, 140' Lane, stated she thought the development going back five lots was in error, the park land border is on lot four rather than lot five. Mr. Bednarz explained the development does go back five lots and shares the fifth lot with the park. He showed the area in discussion on the map. Ms. Joyce Twistle, 1518 139"' Lane NW, stated she is president of the neighborhood association which was instrumental in stopping the superette from coming in. She stated she was pleased with the development and they support this project. She wanted to speak against a cul-de -sac. She explained cul -de -sacs are difficult to provide fire service, police service and plowing. She wanted to express for the record that she supports Eagle Street is as a through street. Ms. Twistle stated her concern is with the traffic in the area already because it is difficult right now to get off of 139' onto Hanson. She asked consideration of the Planning Commission to put an all way stop sign, north and south, on Hanson and also on 139' until the stop light is put in. This will at least allow current residents to come and go. She would also like to address the fact that empty nesters will not be traveling at the same time as school buses or rush hour. She wanted to thank Hanson Builders on behalf of the residents on 139`' Lane. Mr. Hanson explained due to the fact there is no house on the corner lot, their section actually comes over 3 `/z lots. He wanted to explain that they are not trying to create more traffic on 140 Lane and he did not think there would be any additional traffic going back into the existing development and this does not dump any additional traffic into the existing development, it will bring the traffic out onto Hanson Boulevard. Mr. Hanson explained they will be using silt fences to lower the and debris blowing but it will not stop everything. He stated they are working with staff on the issue of traffic. If the traffic lights do come in, they will be contributing some funds to installing the lights. • Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes — July 8, 2003 Page 5 • Mr. Hanson explained they will install spruce trees along the property line to give a break between the properties in the two developments. W. Nyland asked if they would consider berming in areas. Mr. Hanson stated he would. W. Nyland wanted to know how far off the property line the comer unit is. Mr. Hanson stated the distance back on that unit appears to be about 33 feet. Mr. Hanson stated the standard side setback is ten feet. Commissioner Greenwald stated the concern is the traffic from 140 Lane will need to go down Eagle Street to access 139 He wondered if W. Hanson was concerned with the traffic going down Eagle Street. Mr. Hanson stated the reality is there needs to be some way to get out of the development when the restrictions are put in place. Commissioner Greenwald asked if the houses will be priced for empty nesters or if anyone could purchase the homes. Mr. Hanson stated there is no age restriction but he believed most of the houses would be sold to people without children. Mr. Tony Brozeck, 140 Lane stated he has listened to everyone's concerns and they have to accept something that they can live with. He stated a commercial building is not the answer and this will disperse the traffic better than a commercial business. As a resident of the development, he likes what he sees and he does not see any better option. Mr. Dan Beyers, 1423 138 Avenue, stated he is for the development for a couple reasons. It is zoned now for commercial use and he does not think anyone in the development wants this. He stated they need to find an option for the two parcels and he is in favor of putting in some sort of single family homes. He explained the second issue is Eagle Street coming down to 139 He did not think it is ideal to be funneled up to 139 Lane but it is a solution. Mr. Berkowitz explained regarding the four way stop on 138 and Hanson, it is something they can entertain to the County but more likely, because Hanson is a free flowing road, they probably would not allow the City to put in a three way stop in those areas. He explained the traffic signal is dependant on development of Andover Station North. This development could be phased in a year or two or all at once. A question from the audience was if they were going to screen the park from the development. Mr. Hanson stated they wanted the openness so they will not screen this. Motion by Gamache, seconded by Kirchoff, to close the public bearing at 8:15 p.m. Motion carried on a 7 -ayes, 0 -nays, 0- absent vote. Commissioner Jasper stated it seemed that there was a concern with the proximity of Eagle Street to Hanson Boulevard and whether that leaves enough room on 140 and 139 for traffic to funnel out of the development to the proposed new stop light because it is only a seventy foot or sixty foot section of road between Eagle and Hanson on 13961. Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes —July 8, 2003 Page 6 Mr. Bednarz explained 139 Lane is approximately 200 feet to Hanson from 140 Lane • and Eagle Street between paved surfaces. The dimension on the plan that says 13 5 feet will be the horizontal line and does not include the distance that is consumed in the curves at the edges of the lot. He explained they also have the distance of right -of -way on Hanson. Commissioner Jasper asked if this was a deviation from what would have normally been. Mr. Bednarz stated that all of the access points for Eagle Street are short of the three hundred and thirty feet spacing requirement that typically is required adjacent to arterial roads. Commissioner Jasper asked if the two hundred foot measurement will bottleneck traffic. Commissioner Greenwald stated some of the people from the development will find alternate ways to get out and they will not all use 139 Mr. Bednarz stated they cannot assume the entire development will exit on 139 to Hanson. He explained the goal is to reduce the number of access points onto Hanson. Commissioner Kirchoff stated this type of development is helping the City and the issues they have in this development. He stated he commends Hanson Builders for putting this type of development in. Chairperson Daninger stated there were some issues in the staff report that he wanted to bring forward so Hanson Builders was aware of them. Mr. Bednarz discussed the following issues: 1. Working with the Anoka County Highway department, the adjacent proper 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. 4. Increasing the comer 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. 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. • Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes —July 8, 2003 Page 7 • He stated there were two additional issues he wanted to add. The first was to explore the potential to flatten curves on Eagle Street. The other issue was the potential for whether or not parking should be permitted on Eagle Street. As proposed, the street would meet the City's local street requirements, which would allow parking on both sides of the street. Commissioner Greenwald stated he did not think the City could stop the residents from parking in the street. He also stated he did not think they should straighten out the curves because it slows traffic down. Commissioner Gamache stated he could see the concern LT�fiisinimm Chairperson Daninger stated they could post parking signs at designated times. Commissioner Jasper stated he lives on a feeder street where people drive too fast and he would welcome cars parked on the street to slow the traffic down. Commissioner Vatne asked if there will be a final neighborhood meeting before this development is built. Mr. Bednarz explained the public hearing is held by the Planning Commission for the residents to express their feelings. The sketch plan will also be reviewed by the City Council before the plat is submitted and the same process begins again. Mr. Bednarz stated that this item would be before the Council at the August 5, 2003 City Council meeting. Note: Staff will send a notice to reflect the meeting date was changed to August 6 PUBLIC HEARING: COMPREHENSIVE PLANAMENDMENT (03 -04) TO REVIEW THE TRANSPOR TA TION PLAN UPDATE TO THE CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. Mr. Berkowitz explained the City has been working on the Transportation Plan Update to the Comprehensive Plan for about one year. W. Shelly Johnson, BRA and Associates, presented the Transportation Plan Update to the Commission. Commissioner Gamache explained that an intersection hotspot is Andover Boulevard and Hanson Boulevard he wondered why this was not addressed. Mr. Johnson stated this was left out because the County is already studying this. Mr. Berkowitz stated the County is looking at upgrading this intersection in 2005 if there is funding. Commissioner Greenwald stated the access from the theatre onto Jay Street is dangerous • because the landscaping is already grown too large, can there be something done about this. Mr. Johnson stated an engineering analysis could be done to see what is needed for Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes —July 8, 2003 Page 8 the proper site distance, and then the landscaping could be evaluated to see what would need to be taken out to improve the intersection. Commissioner Greenwald asked in the future if consideration will be made to pick the correct landscaping for these areas. He asked if he had a concern who would a citizen call. Mr. Berkowitz stated they could call either himself or Mr. Haas. He stated they have had a few complaints about the Jay Street access and they are working with their landscaper to see if they can trim the plants down so there is not a safety issue. Commissioner Greenwald stated if they were going to look at that area, he would also request them looking at the area on Station Parkway. Commissioner Kirchoff stated all questions should be brought forward to Mr. Berkowitz. Mr. Berkowitz stated the residents could also petition for a traffic study on safety issues. Commissioner Greenwald asked how the residents would petition for a study. Mr. Berkowitz stated there is a form residents could fill out from the City. Other ways are an informal signature page and the City uses that as a petition. Commissioner Jasper stated stop light timing is an issue in the City and he wondered who residents would contact regarding this. Mr. Berkowitz stated the County controls the traffic lights but he could forward the concern on. Commissioner Vatne stated one of things that stood out was the assumptions of traffic flows in the future and there was speaking specifically about the Rural Reserve options, he stated one of the assumptions was that ninety percent of the acreage is developed and he was surprised to see that at ninety percent. Mr. Johnson stated what they asked the staff to do when they asked them to look at the two Rural Reserve areas was to give them how much of the property could be developed. Chances are that it would not be developed up to ninety percent. Commissioner Vatne stated there was quite a bit of focus on Hanson Boulevard and Crosstown but not on Round Lake Boulevard and he wondered why. Mr. Johnson stated Round Lake Boulevard is as wide as it is going to get. Mr. Berkowitz stated through the process, Round Lake Boulevard was already planned through the County for development. Commissioner Vatne stated he has heard a lot of feedback from the northern area about the access to trails. He stated the existing trail system is south and central and the short range plan is all in the southern area, he asked if there was a feeder system from the north to the south for the rural area Mr. Johnson stated the City has a quite comprehensive trail system planned. He explained that the reason why there are not any short range plans for trails in the north side is the numbers of people who will be served by the trails are not great. Mr. Berkowitz stated looking at some of the short range trail systems, it is more cost beneficial to build the trails during the reconstruction of roads. They also look at tying the existing trail system together. He stated this is something they will look into. 11 Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes — July 8, 2003 Page 9 • Motion by Gamache, seconded by Casey, to open the public hearing at 8:54 p.m. Motion carried on a 7 -ayes, 0 -nays, 0- absent vote. Ms. Joyce Twistle, 1518 139 Lane, stated she would like to address the issue of the sketch plan review heard earlier on the proposed Bunker Lake Village development. It is her understanding that the traffic from the proposed Eagle Street will eventually come forward and out onto 139 Lane. She stated that with transportation plans for the future, there will be a proposed right in on 138 and 140 The traffic on Hanson is dangerous and numerous. She stated she would like to encourage the City to look at installing stop signs at the intersection of 139th Lane and Hanson Boulevard intersection. She sees this as an all -way stop. She explained that as traffic starts dumping into this area, it will only be worse. Mr. Berkowitz stated through the transportation plan, 138 will be closed to traffic completely and 140 will have a right in/right out and 139 will have the full traffic signal. He stated in regards to the four way stop on 138 and 140 in the interim before the traffic signal is installed, it is something they could entertain with the County but he did not think it would be approved. Ms. Twistle stated she is not requesting a four way stop at 138 or 140 but at 139 until the stoplight is in. Mr. Berkowitz stated this is something the City could ask the County about. Commissioner Greenwald stated that Mr. Berkowitz could relay to the County that a group of citizens would like a stop sign installed. • Ms. Charlene Booker, 14014 Drake Street asked if there would be a way to do a left in onto 140 Mr. Berkowitz stated this issue is access management and they did have meetings with the County. The access management in an urban area is'A mile, and in an urban area is '/2 mile. Mr. Dan Webber, 1556 140 Lane NW, stated he is against the proposed Eagle Street. He feels it is too close to Hanson. There is enough traffic on the road the way it is and the speed of the road is too fast. He wanted to know if there was a traffic study done on this road. Mr. Berkowitz stated there was not a traffic study done on this roadway. Mr. Johnson stated once Eagle Street is constructed, which does fit the conceptual plan, the traffic volumes will change and the traffic on 140 will decrease, 139 will increase and 138 will really decrease. Mr. Johnson explained access management has a number of functions, one is to protect the major roadway and in order to give good access management, accesses presently given to certain streets will change and some of the patterns of driving will change, however they try not to decrease the efficiency of the street and they have to always be aware that it should be efficient so public service can get in out of the area as best as possible. Ms. Kathy Nyland, 1529 140 Lane, asked regarding the speed on Hanson Boulevard • from Andover Boulevard to Bunker Lake Boulevard, is there any plan to decrease the speed limit and control it any better. Mr. Berkowitz stated the County is in the process of Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes — July 8, 2003 Page 10 doing an improvement to the median to restrict access in that area and to extend a median • all the way up Hanson to Andover Boulevard and beyond but he would not see any decrease in speed. Mr. Johnson stated as a roadway tends to develop, historically the speed comes down and that is controlled by the MN Department of Transportation. They set all of the speeds in Minnesota At the request of any City, the MN Department of Transportation will do a speed study. Mr. Berkowitz stated if he is not available, Mr. Todd Haas would be available for help. Motion by Vatne, seconded by Gamache, to close the public hearing at 9:08 p.m. Motion carried on a 7 -ayes, 0 -nays, 0- absent vote. Commissioner Greenwald stated he saw on one of the plans of a proposed river crossing of Rum River, he wondered what kind of time frame they were looking at. Mr. Johnson stated one of the difficulties is they have two few river crossings and any City adjacent to a river should put a river crossing in the plan as a potential river crossing but it does not mean it will be built, but if they do, it better be in the plan. Commissioner Vatne stated he did take time to review the entire book, and he thought it was an excellent source of work. This will be very useful down the road. Chairperson Daninger thanked the staff involved in putting this together. Motion by Greenwald, Seconded by Vatne, to approve the Comprehensive Plan • Amendment (03 -04) update. Motion carried on a 7 -ayes, 0 -nays, o- absent vote. Mr. Bednarz stated that this item would be before the Council at the August 5, 2003 City Council meeting. PUBLIC HEARING: LOT SPLIT (03 -01) TO CREATE TWO URBAN RESIDENTIAL LOTS FROM PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1415 ANDOVER BOULEVARD NW. Mr. Bednarz explained that 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. 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. 9 Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes —July 8, 2003 Page 11 • Mr. Bednarz discussed the history of the land with the Commission. 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 (R4) 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. 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 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. 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. • 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. 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 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 recommends approval of the proposed lot split. Motion by Kirchoff, seconded by Gamache, to open the public hearing at 9:16 p.m. Motion carried on a 7 -ayes, 0 -nays, 0- absent vote. There was no public input. Motion by Gamache, seconded by Kirchoff, to close the public hearing at 9:16 p.m. Motion carried on a 7 -ayes, 0 -nays, 0- absent vote. Commissioner Jasper explained this item came before the Commission before and he • explained that he voted against this at that time because he felt it did not have a hardship to meet the Ordinance. He stated the City Council agreed with him but since then, the Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes — July 8, 2003 Page 12 Ordinance has been changed and this item now meets the Ordinance. He commended the • applicant for working through an extremely long process and he will now speak in favor of the lot split. Other Commissioners agreed. Motion by Jasper, seconded by Vatne, to recommend to the City Council approval of Lot Split (03 -01) creating two urban residential lots from property located at 1415 Andover Boulevard NW. Motion carried on a 7 -ayes, 0 -nays, 0- absent vote. Mr. Bednarz stated that this item would be before the Council at the July 15, 2003 City Council meeting. 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 Mr. Bednarz explained that 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. 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. 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. Commissioner Gamache asked what the typical dimensions of an R4 lot. Mr. Bednarz stated 80 by 130 is the minimum but the minimum area is 11,400 square feet so typically they end up with an 80 by 143 or 85 by 136 or somewhere in those dimensions. Commissioner Greenwald stated he was not real clear about the intention of this item. He asked if there were two items they needed to look at. Commissioner Gamache stated they are only discussing one issue and that is reducing the size of the buildable area. Discussion ensued in regards to what the current ordinance states. • Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes — July 8, 2003 Page 13 • Commissioner Greenwald stated in the staff report, there was not any other suburban examples found so he wondered how they could go from 150 by 150 to 60 by 60, there had to be some logic in thinking. Mr. Bednarz stated they did not find any examples of a requirement for such a large area beyond the foundation size of the house. The 60 by 60 is somewhat of a standard planning and engineering tool when reviewing grading plans to allow sufficient space on a lot to fit most styles of homes constructed. He stated they would rather not tie it to a straight 60 by 60 box given the long rambler with the inline garage for an example so it can be modified somewhat. Commissioner Gamache stated he agreed with what they were trying to do but he did not know if this was the right way to go with this. He stated he would feel more comfortable going with a percentage as compared to the footprint of the house. He asked if they could entertain a percentage such as three times the square footage of the house rather than a strict 3600 square feet. W. Bednarz stated this is something that would work if they knew what the house was going to be but in terms of a rural plat, they do not know the size of the home or the footprint at the time the plat is under review. Commissioner Jasper stated he had the same note and what he thought would be appropriate would be the 3600 square feet or twice the footprint of the building. He thought it was doable that way because if they are doing a rural plat and they are showing a buildable space of 3600 square feet or 4000 square feet, you know what size house can . be built there. He stated that by using twice or three times, whatever is appropriate, the footprint of any buildings, they would have room to do this. Putting in an alternative is a good idea. Commissioner Kirchoff stated the building code must have something regarding this already. Commissioner Gamache explained the applicant would still have to meet building codes in order to get a building permit. Chairperson Daninger stated the number is a minim and he wondered if it could be increased if needed. Commissioner Jasper stated he disagreed because what the section does as he reads it, you have to have a flat buildable pad so far above the high water marks so you could have people who are building on a slope that goes under the high water mark. Commissioner Greenwald stated they have Ordinances that could eliminate the chance to build the house. A resident stated in order to build; you need to be three feet over the high water mark. Mr. Bednarz stated there are other building department requirements in terms of where the lowest floor can be placed in relation to the water level. What the ordinance amendment is dealing with the amount of area that would need to be cleared or raised to reach a finished grade that meets the minimum buildability requirements. Commissioner Jasper asked if the original purpose of this ordinance to have an area outside of the footprint of the house that is graded level to the house. Commissioner • Gamache asked if there is a minimum in the building code for graded level around the Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes — July 8, 2003 Page 14 house. Mr. Bednarz stated the building code does provide a maximum slope away from • the foundations. Commissioner Vatne stated the purpose of this is to determine whether this can be a platable 2'/2 acre or above lot within the covenants of Andover so it is establishing a minimum buildable area. Commissioner Kirchoff stated they do address in this ordinance under 9.06, lots, they address the high water level for the lowest floor. Commissioner Jasper stated the six-foot above the seasonal high water mark would not go beyond the footprint of the house with the change that is being suggested. Mr. Bednarz stated this was correct; it is the finished grade or the top layer of the lot. Motion by Greenwald, seconded by Casey, to open the public hearing at 9:40 p.m. Motion carried on a 7 -ayes, 0 -nays, 0- absent vote. Mr. Franklin Peach stated he is trying to build on 157 Avenue without a variance so he does not need to take down trees. The original ordinance was for people who want to install a pool and his whole point is if he wants to install a pool, he will clear the trees then but right now he wants to keep his land the way it is. He stated that the building codes are still there with the water table and he would really appreciate the Commissions consideration in this matter. Commissioner Jasper asked what the footprint of the building would be and the size of • the buildable area he would like to clear. Mr. Peach stated it would probably be over 5000 square feet including everything. He explained with his plans, he will go over this requirement but he stated he was just trying to keep the land as natural as possible. Motion by Greenwald, seconded by Kirchoff, to close the public hearing at 9:43 p.m. Motion carried on a 7 -ayes, 0 -nays, 0- absent vote. The Commission recessed at 9:45 p.m. The Commission reconvened at 9:50 p.m. Commissioner Vatne asked for clarification, the 3600 -foot pad as proposed so they are talking about physically building a pad, previously the 22,500 was the pad, physically was there a 22,500 pad built because he assumed it was buildable area as opposed to a pad. Mr. Bednarz stated it depended on the topography of the lot. If the land is high enough, a person could draw a box anywhere on the 2 -'/z acres and they would be fine. They may only need to clear enough area for the house if the area is high enough. Commissioner Jasper stated he still thought some area in access of buildable size is a good idea if the building standards and building code encompass an area has to be twenty feet from the building, and then this ordinance is irrelevant and not necessary because it • Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes —July 8, 2003 Page 15 • does not serve a purpose. His read of the ordinance is it serves a purpose beyond that which is to allow for an area outside of the building that is flat and uniform and presentable. He stated that while he agreed the 22,500 is antiquated and unnecessary, something in excess of the size of the building, depending on the size of the building is necessary. Commissioner Gamache stated he originally brought that up and with further discussion, he has found that it is not possible in some instances because they are also talking about plats, where they do not know what the size of the house will be so they need to put a minimum number in there. Commissioner Jasper stated he disagreed with that because they can say 3600 or twice the size of the building and if they have a 3600 size footprint, they would put a building up, if you have a 5000 square foot, then you know you can build a 2500 square foot building. He stated that when they plat it and decide on the size of the building during the time of the platting, the will be deciding what can be built on the land later. Commissioner Kirchoff stated he trusted what staff recommended because they do this every day and they obviously chose that number for some reason, knowing that if it were going to be a larger home, it would be a larger lot and they would not give a permit for it. Commissioner Jasper asked what the purpose of the 3600 if they do not need that much. Mr. Bednarz stated the purpose is to ensure that the lot is buildable and that the pad is • large enough to fit the majority of homes that are being constructed in the City. He stated there is an important point that they all need to agree upon and that is they do not know the size of the house when they are looking at a plat, that comes later at the time of the building permit. At the time that the plat is proposed, they have a piece of property and a developer who wants to split the lot up into smaller lots and the Cities primary concern is that each of those lots is going to be able to support a house. He stated this ordinance requirement sets up the minimum requirement criteria for what a buildable lot is. He stated that has to be separated from the size of the future structure because at that point, they do not know what size that structure will be. He explained the size of the pad, can limit the structure unless they have more grading done in the future. Commissioner Jasper stated since he has been on the Commission they have had this issue before them twice before and neither time has been with a plat. Chairperson Daninger stated he has dealt with this issue during a plat and it will come up again. Commissioner Vatne stated he sees this as timing, at an early stage for the plats, there is something necessary to say building lot or not, later through the building code, a definition will take place. Commissioner Greenwald stated a person could make the lot buildable and that is what the ordinance is for. He thought 3600 square feet is adequate. • Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes — July 8, 2003 Page 16 Commissioner Gamache stated they have to be very careful that if they state it a certain • way, they will not be contradicting other codes. What they are trying to do is set a minimum. Mr. Bednarz stated the purpose of this ordinance is to set a minim requirement to deem the lot buildable. Motion by Kirchoff, seconded by Casey, to recommend to the City Council approving the changes as presented by staff and to reduce the size of the required buildable area for rural properties to be a minimum of 3600 square feet. Commissioner Jasper stated he agreed that the 22,500 should be decreased but he disagreed with the way it is being done by the Commission. Commissioner Vatne stated the one other element is for him to understand what they are doing with this ordinance and how it ties into at a later phase, a building permit is issued to comply with building codes. He would need to see the process side by side and how they interrelate. He stated he does not understand how the process works. Commissioner Greenwald stated there is no precedence that they worked under to get the 3600 square feet and there was not any other suburban evidence so he agreed with Commissioner Vatne and suggested that they needed to look at the process before they • would pass this on to make sure they are comfortable with the changes. Motion carried on a 4 -ayes, 3 -nays (Greenwald, Jasper, Vatne) 0- absent vote. Mr. Bednarz stated that this item would be before the Council at the July 15, 2003 City Council meeting. Commissioner Greenwald stated Mr. Bednarz may want to give the City Council an example of a larger house plan, what would the requirements be as a minimum. OTHER BUSINESS Mr. Bednarz updated the Planning Commission on related items. ADJOURNMENT. Motion by Kirchoff, seconded by Greenwald, to adjourn the meeting at 10:06 p.m. Motion carried on a 7 -ayes, 0 -nays, 0- absent vote. • Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes — July 8, 2003 Page 17 Respectfully Submitted, Sue Osbeck, Recording Secretary Timesaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. • 3 C I T Y O F NDOVE • 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 Plannef FROM: Jon Sevald, Planning Intern SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING: Lot Split (02 -10) to create two rural residential lots from property located at 16287 Makah Street NW. DATE: August 12, 2003 INTRODUCTION A Public Hearing was held for the proposed Lot Split at 16287 Makah Street NW on October 8, 2002. The Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval of the proposed lot split with the condition that the applicant submit all necessary materials before this item proceeds to the City Council. The applicant has submitted the necessary materials. This item was mistakenly added to • tonight's agenda. There is no need for a Public Hearing to be held. This item will be addressed by the City Council on August 19, 2003. Attachments Planning Commission Minutes Location Map ACTION REQUESTED No action is necessary. Rev�' 46c— lly submitted LJ r Jon Sevald CC: Sandra and Schuyler Wallace 16287 Makah Street NW. Andover, MN 55304 0 I CITY of ANDOVER • PLANNINGAND ZONING COMIaIISSI0NMEEn7VG — OCTOBER 8 20 Regular Bi- Monthly Meeting of the Andover Planning and Zoning Co sion was call order by Acting Chairperson Dean Daninger on October 8, 2 , 7:00 p.m., at the Andov City Hall, 1685 Crosstown Boulevard NW, Andover esota Commissioners pre - t: Commissioners Tim Kircho ouglas Falk, Tony Gamache, Rex Green Dean Daninger and Paula Commissioners absent: C ay Squires. Also present: Ci anner, Co ey Bednarz . ers APPROVAL OF Septembe , 2002 M n by Greenwald, seconded by Gamache, to approve the minutes as presen otion carried on a6-ayes, 0 -nays, 0- present, 1- absent vote. PUBLIC FIEARM. LOT SPLIT (02 -10) TO CREATE TWO RURAL RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES FROM PROPERTY LOCATED AT 16287 MA$AII STREET NW FOR SANDRA AND SCHUUYLER WALLA CF. Mr. Bednarz explained that the applicant is seeking approval of a proposal to divide the subject property into two rural residential lots. An existing house on the western half of the property will remain and one new lot will be created on the eastern half Mr. Bednarz discussed the survey of the proposed lot split with the Commission. Mr. Bednarz stated in an attempt to minimise any costs before the lot split has been approved, the applicant las'not submitted all of the necessary materials. The materials to be included include 3- signed original copies of the survey, which show L Placement of the new property line. 2. A 10-foot easement around the perimeter of both properties. • Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Mznutes — October 8, 2002 Page 2 3. Placement of any new struchues, which conform to all City building and zoning, codes. 4. Locations for two 5,000 square foot (10,000 square foot total) septic areas. 5. Legal descriptions of the new properties. The Committee has three options: 1. Require the applicant to submit all necessary materials before the Commission reviews the application. 2. Recommend approval of the lot split, but require the applicant submit all necessary materials before this proceeds to the City Council. 3. Recommend approval of the lot split, but require the applicant submit all necessary materials before the lot split is recorded with Anoka County. Commissioner Greenwald asked what they were approving. Acting Chairperson Daninger stated they would be making a recommendation of approval or denial of the lot split based on the survey. Commissioner Greenwald asked if this would be coming back to them. Mr. Bednarz stated it depended on the decision made in their recommendation- Motion by Greenwald, seconded by Falk, to open the public hearing at 7:05 p.m. Motion carried on a 6 -ayes, 0 -nays, l- absent vote. There was no public input. Motion by Kirchoff, seconded by Gamache, to close the public hearing at 7:05 p.m. Motion carried on a 6 -ayes, 0 -nays, 1- absent vote. Commissioner Gamache stated per the Ordinance the only problem with this is that there is not a survey. Mr. Bednarz stated this is correct and per the staff review it seems the lot can hold all the requirements, but they need the survey to prove this. Commissioner Greenwald stated he could see why the owner would want to do this because they could put a lot of expense into it and not get approved. Mr. Bednarc stated that is part of the reason because it is expensive but they do want to look ahead and set a firm policy on how they want to review the lot splits. Commissioner Greenwald asked if it meets all requirements, do they not need to see it Commissioner Falk stated he would like to see everything in front of him before approving it in the future but he would move forward with this one. Acting Chairperson Daninger stated for this applicant Commissioner Falk would like to use option two and in • the future look at option number 1. Commissioner Falk agreed and so did the rest of the Commission. Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes — October 8, 2002 Page 3 Motion by Falk, seconded by Gamache, to recommend to the City Council approval of • Resolution No. , approving the Lot Split (02 -10) to create two rural residential properties from property located at 16287 Makah Street NW. And that the applicant have all necessary paperwork in hand and to the City Council before the presentation and they must meet all requirements. Motion carried on a 6 -ayes, 0 -nays, 1- absent vote. Mr. Bednarz stated that this item could be before the Council at the November 6, 2002 City Council meeting. PUBLIC HEARING: REZONING (02 -02) TO CHANGE THE ZONING ESIGNATION FROMR -I SINGLE FAhiILYRURAL RESIDENTIAL TO R-4 S GLE FAIVIILY URBANRESIDENTL4L ON OUTLOT C OF WOODLAND ES 2 ADDITION FOR WOODLAND DEVELOPMENT ON PROPE� LOCA D WEST OF WOODLAND ESTATES SECOND ADDITION. Mr. Bednarz lamed the Planning Commission is asked to review the pro sed rezoning to allo the Woodlamd Estates Third Addition Project to move rward As with all rezonings, a City must meet one of the two following find' that are provided by state statute: 1. The oin nal zo was in error. 2. The cacter of or times and conditio have changed to such an extenwarrant the zoning. The City Council approved a Comprehbq the subject property into the Metropolitar approval the City Council acknowledged an extent as to warrant the extension of appropriate to allow the property to re: allow the proposed project to mov orvv. 1aAmendment on July 2, 2002 to bring (Service Area (MUSA). As a part of this mes and conditions have changed to such this property. It is therefore 4 Single Family Urban Residential to Commissioner Greenwald ed what the size of the pro is. Mr. Bednarz stated it is a little over five acres. C sioner Greenwald asked how y houses they would get out of it. Acting n Daninger stated it looked like ' lots. Motion by d, seconded by Kircho� to open the public h at 7:18 p.m. Motion carri on a 6 -ayes, 0 -nays, l - absent vote. There no public input. by Greenwald, seconded by Gamache, to close the public hearing at 7:18 p. carried on a 6 -ayes, 0 -nays, l- absent vote. 0 Lot Split 16287 Makah Street NW 10 Project Location Map N A W S Andover Planning y • 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. *ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 a (763) 755 -5100 FAX (763) 755 -8923 a WWW.CI.ANDOVER.MN.US TO: Planning and Zoning Commissioners FROM: Courtney Bednarz, City Planner SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING Sketch Plan Review of an urban residential plat located at 1374 161S Avenue NW. DATE: August 12, 2003 INTRODUCTION The Planning and Zoning Commission is asked to review a residential sketch plan for the subject property. The proposed project is located in an R -1, Single Family Rural Residential Zoning District. A rezoning to R -4, Single Family Urban Residential, will be necessary to process a formal plat. 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 applicable requirements. Submission of a sketch plan does not constitute formal • filing of a plat. DISCUSSION The subject property is approximately 19 acres in size. The proposal is to develop the southern 13 acres with urban lots and to preserve approximately 6 acres on the north end of the property for future urban development. Conformance with local and Regional Plans The proposed sketch plan is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan as the property is designated Transitional Residential (TR). This designation indicates that the property will transition from rural to urban with the extension of utilities to the property. The property is located in the Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA) and lies within the current growth stage (2000 -2005) in the City's Sewer Expansion Plan. Municipal utilities can be extended to serve the entire development. Access Access to the development can only be provided from 159 Avenue NW at this time. The cul -de -sac to the north will be approximately 695 feet in length. A future street connection to Yellowpine Street NW could be constructed to shorten the length of the cul -de -sac in the future if the property to the east develops as shown on the sketch plan. The Anoka County Highway Department (ACHD) has indicated that a future street connection to County Road 20 will not be permitted. • Unfortunately, street access was not preserved at the south end of the property when Cambridge Estates Second Addition and Chesterton Commons Third Addition were created. As a result, the southern cul -de -sac is proposed to be approximately 1,150 feet in length. When this sketch plan was reviewed in 2001, the Commission and Council asked the property owner to work with adjacent property owners to achieve a street connection with Drake Street NW. Since that time a house has been constructed on the lot to the southwest of the proposed development. Variances will be needed to allow the cul -de -sacs that exceed the maximum length of 500 feet • allowed by Ordinance 10. ACRD Comments The Anoka County Highway department has provided comments for the proposed development (see attached letteo Due to the fact that the proposal will not require a right -of -way permit from the County, the ACHD does not have the ability to require these improvements. However, the County has encouraged the City to make these requirements conditions of approval. Within the past year the ACHD has established a policy to require developers to pay for improvements to the county road system adjacent to proposed developments. Previous developments, such as Chesterton Commons North Second Addition and Woodland Oaks that established the road connections to the county system were not required by the County or City to contribute toward improvements to the county road system. It is the County's position that while previous developments may not have been required to contribute, continuing development adds traffic volume to the county road system and these developments should now be required to correct the inadequacies of the county system In reviewing the attached comments from the ACHD staff recommends the following. The proposed development does not have access to Yellowpine Street NW and should not be required to pay for improvements at this intersection. The development would have access to both 159 Avenue NW and Crane Street NW. The development should be required to pay a prorated share • of the ultimate design of these intersections. These intersections will need to be designed and the potential for additional development with access to these intersections needs to be evaluated before an exact amount can be determined. Staff asks the Commission to discuss this approach and provide any relevant comments. Neighborhood Comments A resident of Woodland Oaks has provided an alternate road design for the north end of the proposed project (please see attached diagram and letter). The intent of the proposal would be to increase the amount of turning movement through the proposed development to reduce the attractiveness of 159`" Avenue NW as a cut through route to Woodland Oaks. Staff does not see a problem with the proposed adjustment. However, it should be noted that as development continues, traffic volumes will increase. The adjustment may not provide as much benefit as characterized in the attached letter, particularly if traffic backs up at the intersection of Hanson Boulevard and 161" Avenue NW. The Commission is asked to comment on the proposed roadway designs. The adjacent property owner to the east is interested in the design of the south end of the proposed project because he has some buildable property at this location. Access to the property is restricted by the wetland and surrounding development. If the park location is at the south end of the proposed project, this area could be used to satisfy the future park dedication requirements. If the park location is not at the south end of the project, the applicant and neighboring property owner will need to work together to address this situation. 2 Park and Recreation Commission Comments . The Park and Recreation Commission previously indicated that a neighborhood park approximately four acres in size should be located in this general area. The City has the opportunity to acquire four acres through park dedication as the subject property and adjacent property to the east are developed. The Commission indicated that they would prefer the park be located on the north side of the wetland (in the general area of lots 4 -7, Block 3). The intent would be for the park to be expanded to achieve four contiguous acres when the property to the east develops. The applicant asked the Park Commission to consider a park location at the south end of the property at their July 17' meeting (as indicated on the attached sketch plan). The Commission reiterated their desire to have the park located on the north side of the wetland. The minutes from this meeting are attached. The applicant will present information at the meeting to address the location of the park. Lots The proposed lots appear to generally conform to the minimum district provisions of Ordinance 8. Portions of Lots 7 and 8, Block 3 will be below the 116.5 feet of required separation between the front property line and a delineated wetland edge. The applicant has demonstrated that the lots are able to meet this requirement for the full minimum lot width of 80 feet. Wetland Fill/Mitigation The applicant is proposing to fill a small wetland that conflicts with the proposed roadway to the south of 159` Avenue NW. Mitigation for the wetland fill area would be provided in another wetland that exists on the site. This approach will need to be reviewed and approved by the watershed district. 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. 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 0 3 ACTION REQUESTED The Planning Commission is asked to review and comment on the proposed sketch plan. Attachments • Location Map Sketch Plan (11 x 17 in packet) ACHD Continents Resident Proposal for Street Adjustment Park Commission Minutes Respect ly submitted, Cc: Emmerich Development Corporation 1875 Station Parkway NW 0 • Residential Sketch Plan • N W-4 Project Location Map Andover Planning LEI I r $i yy ;..i a I I F O F 0. pwo w w K 1 e u. x k�2= voI Highway Right of Roy Plat Na 70 o I I 100TH I l � -{ LANE N.II. LU \I N I I d / ryka: _;,ours•. \����,�� � � � r'zyI I _ •, 1ANE N.V. # I e6_I �f-1 I w M M .L x V [ F i ' 9 -1 1 o: a. �l s i ,, E f56 00 e w . ill y, iiii i272 3" • L� • / � ;R X CHES COMMONS[ \ TH16PO ADDI ROI� x V [ F i ' 9 -1 1 o: a. �l s i ,, E f56 00 e w . ill y, iiii i272 3" • L� • COUNTY OF ANOKA Public Services Division HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT 1440 BUNKER LAKE BLVD. N.W., ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 (763) 862 -4200 FAX (763) 862 -4201 RECEIVED July 28, 2003 Courtney Bednarz City of Andover 1685 Crosstown Blvd. NW Andover, MN 55304 JUL 3 0 233 CITY OF ANDOVER RE: Sketch Plan Don Peterson Property Dear Courtney: We have reviewed the Sketch Plan for the Don Peterson Property, located south of CSAH 20 (161" Ave. NW) and east of Crane St. NW within the City of Andover, and I offer the following comments. The existing right -of -way south of the centerline of CSAH 20 adjacent to this property equals 60 feet. • Consequently, no additional right -of -way will be required at this time. Access for the development is to be made entirely via local roadways with connectivity to the county highway system outside of the boundaries of this Plat, which is acceptable to this department. Existing driveways at 1326 and 1374 161' Avenue NW shall be removed in conjunction with this development and the ditch restored to match existing depth, grade, and slope. The right -of- access along CSAH 20 shall be dedicated to Anoka County. Since this development will further increase the number of turning maneuvers on CSAH 20 at Yellow Pine St. NW and Crane St. NW, we will require that turn lanes be constructed on CSAH 20 as a part of the permit process. The City and/or the developer shall prepare a concept plan depicting how standard right turn lanes and/or bypass lanes could be configured at both intersections for our consideration and review. The cost for the design and construction of the right turn lane and by -pass lanes shall be the responsibility of the City and/or the Developer. Please contact Mark Daly, Program Services Engineer, to obtain the applicable design standards and typical section/pavement design information for CSAH 20. Calculations must be submitted along with a grading and erosion control plan that delineates the drainage areas for this site. The post- developed rate /volume of runoff must not exceed the pre - developed rate /volume of runoff for the 10 -year, 24 -hour storm, utilizing the "SCS Method ". It should be noted that residential land use adjacent to highways will usually result in complaints regarding traffic noise. Traffic noise at this location could exceed noise standards established by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. • Anoka County policy regarding new developments adjacent to existing county highways prohibits the expenditure of highway funds for noise mitigation measures. The City and/or the Developer should assess the noise situation and take any action deemed necessary to minimize associated impacts at this site from any traffic noise. Affirmative Action / Equal Opportunity Employer A permit for work within the county right -of -way is required and must be obtained prior to the • commencement of construction. License Permit Bonding, method of construction, design details, work zone traffic control, restoration requirements and follow -up inspections are typical elements of the permitting process. Contact Roger Butler, Traffic Engineering Coordinator, or Josie Scott, Permit Technician, for further information regarding the permit process. Installation of any necessary permanent traffic control devices within the County Right -of Way for this proposed development will be coordinated, installed, and maintained by the Anoka County Highway Department as part of the permit process. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Feel free to contact me if you have any questions. Sincerely, a tL"'� r J emble Traffic Engineer xc: CSAH 20/PLATS /2003 Roger Butler, Traffic Engineering Coordinator Josie Scott, Permit Technician Mike Kelly, Chief Right -of -Way Agent Larry Hoium, County Surveyor Tom Hornsby, Traffic Services Supervisor - Signs is • 5i6 ��c i ., l i d : W o w > a z U LL ¢ o U ti A M h� �v 1 co q Q S n h A T 9 W Q CONSTANCE EOU4EVAR0 N,E. - - - -- - - c oTw - �RI - - - I I I I r� I �n ICI W I w -- y � DQ z � _ I¢ 2 I I ° I- U 1 awl I Q /° + v ouWy High Right o/ Way Plo! No. 20 _Ty F I I I r -- I I LANE N P. WTI T T / F LANE N. W. r 1i 9 €�s it � •� n 166 DQrnoM orrsl J— 1 � 156TX LAN6 NP + � � l jj ii� a x 3 z i� 7alq .I e A � •� n 166 DQrnoM orrsl J— 1 � 156TX LAN6 NP + � � � jj ii� a x 3 J � 7alq .I e � •� n 166 DQrnoM orrsl J— 1 � 156TX LAN6 NP + � � � jj ii� a x 3 .I e John Burnes • 1442 159 Ave NW Andover, MN 55304 August 6, 2003 Courtney Bednarz City of Andover City Planner 1685 Crosstown Blvd. NW Andover, MN 55304 Dear Mr. Bednarz, I am writing this letter in regards to the preliminary sketch plan proposed by Emmerich Development for the land south of 161 Ave (Constance Blvd) and East of Hanson. I apologize for not being able to attend the planning commission hearing on this plan in person, but I must miss due to a previously planned family vacation. Please present and discuss these comments at the meeting when this sketch plan comes up on the agenda. I currently live on the corner of 159 Ave NW and Crane in Chesterton Commons North. I have two young girls (2 and 4) whom I wish to protect from being hit by speeding motorists passing down 159 to get to Crane (and eventually into this new development). Anyone who has had young children knows that even when you stress rules such as "Look both ways before crossing the street ", "stop before you chase after that ball ", "ride your bike on the shoulder, not in the middle" they do not always listen or remember. My nightmare scenario would be to have my 2 year old coast down the driveway into the road on her little scooter and get hit by a car while I look away for as little as 5 seconds. It's a scenario that you could minimize the chances of happening. I ask that you take this request seriously. My concern is the relatively straight connection that will exist between Hanson and this proposed development and ultimately the adjacent future development, and Woodland Oaks. The way the current sketch is laid out, there is a small jog in 159 Ave north by 2 lots and then east on 159` Ln directly into Woodland Oaks. That means that the path of least resistance for residents of this new development, the future development adjacent to it, and the western part of Woodland Oaks who are coming north on Hanson would be down 159 Ave and Ln, bringing a significant increase in traffic through my residential neighborhood. Efforts should be made to encourage this traffic onto Constance and not down a residential road. I have attached a copy of the proposed sketch plan that I have modified slightly to try to address this problem. My solution is a simple one: Move the connection to Woodland Oaks north by two more lots and force it to turn south again before connecting to 159th . • Ln. This extra little jog in the road serves as a traffic calming mechanism and makes the route less attractive as a shortcut through the residential neighborhoods to get to Hanson. Importantly, this solution maintains connections between the neighborhoods to allow for neighbors and children to easily and safely walk or bike from Chesterton Commons North to Woodland Oaks. It also allows for emergency vehicles to access all neighborhoods from either Hanson or Constance. This was accomplished without sacrificing any lots in the new development. It was stated in a recent Andover Today that one of the largest complaints received by the city was with regards to people driving too fast through neighborhoods. We are at a point in the development here to make a difference and minimize the amount of traffic that flows through one neighborhood at the expense of another. I ask that you please consider my suggestions. This will truly make the neighborhood a safer and more pleasant place to live. Please contact me with any questions or comments that you may have. I can be reached at 763.514.8183 (w) or 763.413.4991 (h). Sincerely, J B es • • PARKAND RECREATION COMMISSIONMEETING —JULY 17, 2003 MINUTES • The Regular Bi- Monthly Meeting of the Andover Park and Recreation Commission was called to order by Chairman Jim Lindahl on July 17, 2003, 7:30 p.m., at the Andover City Hall, 1685 Crosstown Boulevard NW, Andover, Minnesota. Commissioners Present: Chairman Jim Lindahl, Commissioners Dorrie Peterson, Dan Masloski, Dave Blackstad, Thomas Goodmanson and Valerie Holthus Commissioners Absent: Commissioner Al Grabowski. Also Present: Parks Coordinator, Todd Haas Emmerich Development Corp., Mike Quigley RESIDENTS FORUM There were no comments at this time. APPROVAL OFMINUTES Motion by Goodmanson, seconded by Blackstad, to approve the June 19, 2003, Park • Commission minutes as presented. Motion carried on a 5 -ayes, 0 -nays, 1- present (Peterson), 1- absent (Grabowski) vote. CONSIDER SKETCH PLANIPETERSON PROPER TYIPARK DEDICATION REQUIREMENTS Mr. Haas explained that this was in regard to a request by Emmerich Development Corp. for review of the proposed sketch plan and location of the new park. He supplied a map indicating the location of the park recommended previously by the Commission for review, along with the Park Commission meeting minutes from March 15, 2001. He noted the developer was interested in moving the proposed park from the middle part of the plat to the south end of the plat. Mr. Haas indicated the Park and Recreation Commission was requested to review the proposed sketch plan and recommend the location of the park to the City Council. Mr. Haas noted the Park Commission had reviewed the possibility of a park for the indicated area a few years ago. At that time, three to five acres of land were suggested with wetlands acting as a buffer. He added that Emmerich Development Corp. was proposing moving the park closer to the south end of the location. Mike Quigley, Emmerich Development Corp., submitted a sketch plan for the Peterson property, which had a park located at the south end of the proposed development. He • noted the lot at the southern end was not platted and the location was somewhat defined • by what was happening east and west of that area. He also felt an area where there were converging streets was inappropriate for a park setting. He stated the southern part of the location had a natural setting with some wetlands and there was also room for expansion on the east side. He indicated the size of the park was sufficient for the equipment and activities suggested. Commissioner Holthus asked if there was a piece of land close enough to have a trail from the street to the park. Commissioner Peterson noted that permission would be needed from existing owners. Mr. Haas stated that Council had talked with owners about a road connection and the owners were not willing. He suggested the owners might be willing to consider a trail easement. Mr. Quigley stated he was advocating a trail come off the end of the cul -de -sac west of the proposed site. He thought it was important to have a trail or bike path at Drake and 156 th Don Peterson, 1374 —161 Avenue NW, stated he was a property owner near the park site. He pointed out areas of high land where people could walk. Discussion followed regarding the location of current and anticipated homes in the area. Commissioner Peterson noted this site was 1.65 acres and the past Commission had indicated there should be three acres. Chairman Lindahl stated the previous Commission was not sure how the area would be divided when sold and developed. He indicated, at that time, the consensus had been the area would be developed and a park would be needed. Chairman Lindahl indicated the previous Commission was thinking the park needed to service a large area and a larger park could accommodate more activities. Commissioner Holthus suggested moving the park further north would give better access to more residents, considering the lots to the east would be developed. She added Mr. Quigley had noted traffic between the developments would prohibit the park in that area. Mr. Quigley responded the streets were already in place and would define what could be done, as those street locations could not be changed. Mr. Haas noted existing wetlands and housing eliminated potential park land; therefore, the City would have to work with what was available. Discussion continued regarding access to the park that would accommodate the most residents. Commissioner Holthus felt the ideal situation would be to have an easement for a trail to the street. Jim Lashinski, 1326 — 161 Avenue NW, stated that if there was a trail through the south end of the parking lot, there would not be a place to park cars on the street. Commissioner Lindahl responded that most neighborhood parks were designed for access • by walking and biking. He felt, if too much parking space were available, people from • outside the neighborhood would access the park and produce crowding. Commissioner Peterson asked if the land to the east was platted. Mr. Haas indicated what areas were platted, what areas had wetlands and the locations of developments. He added that this was only a sketch plan that would be forwarded to the Council with suggestions from the Park Commission. Commissioner Blackstad stated he would be more comfortable if there were an easement for a trail. He said the rationale for the Park Commission's recommendation two years ago was the access from both east and west. He noted that, currently, there did not seem to be any other place than the south end. Discussion followed regarding areas of high ground that would be good park land. Commissioner Masloski felt, in the past, the Park Commission had received land that did not meet their needs. He wanted to be sure the park would be located on quality high ground. Mr. Quigley responded the site he was recommending was quality upland. In addition, he noted it did not have streets running through it. Mr. Haas suggested the Park Commission take a tour of the area and talk with residents about a trail. Chairman Lindahl feared a park at the end of a long cul -de -sac would be hard for people i to find. He mentioned considering acquisition of land that could expand the park area. It was noted that area residents were anxious to have the park completed. Chairman Lindahl indicated the residents bordering the area would use the park extensively; however, the park needed to serve that entire area. He added the park should accommodate the entire development in the vicinity, and a central location would be preferred. Commissioner Blackstad agreed the Commission was looking for an area that was more accessible and had little traffic. Discussion followed regarding lots that could be used for the park area. Chairman Lindahl suggested a trail on the south end from the end of the cul -de -sac down to Drake Street. He also recommended an acre be available on each side south of where the street entered. The Commission members, excluding Chairman Lindahl, agreed with the south end location suggested by Mr. Quigley. It was agreed the site should be south of 159 Chairman Lindahl agreed the location was ideal for a park; however, he felt access to the area would be restricted. Mr. Haas stated this item would come back as a preliminary plat with Park Commission recommendations. • • Mr. Quigley indicated he would react according to the exact comments from the members. It was decided the Park Commission would not visit the site, as there was not more to see than they had on their maps. Chairman Lindahl reminded the Commission that they were trying to meet the needs of a large number of homes. • 0 • • . s x g� cvmeA amnm V Y � GRAPHIC SCALE SCALE 0 FIST o"'o nrn 4 w `Y'" •\ nETIANP AS DEUNEARO \ �— �_ -- I BY KHA11C ENNRONMFNiAI ° sE .N% 6ENNCES SIN �.rn /�/ 1 V. OWNER AND EMM£RICN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION SUBDIVIDER: 1875 STA7LON PARKWAY NW. ANDOVER' MN. 55304 (763) 755 -6554 ENGINEER: LSJ ENO/NEERING 1875 STATION PARKWAY NW. ANDOVER, MN. 55304 (763) 862 -3287 SURVEYOR: Midvieet Land Surveyors & & Clio Engineers Ina - 710 East WY., Road Anoka, Mn. 55303 (763) 712 -9099 1 I I �k WET I'VA. N +� —+ Az - - - -- -- 111�.�PD ION .117 S L� I " '� Z ke else 11 -� A I� LAND 13.1Na'Sk'ei; �� I `Q IC a t Z }e l t �RbPOSED MITIGATION AREA STURE A)�TI0 / � o Elseht BG Fie Hn t T I I vo.m vas I C.utiie SoDt C /ewr.M I Smu}wT MmMk I _ ml rw RMm F _ -- ____ — - — --� I � OF se ❑ ]Nepnens 8- \ \ 4 wM 2 Tea conra.Y War. _— ram ___ m roar cmuaw plow MINIMUM LOT REQUIREMENTS MINIMUM AREA 11,400 Sq.ft. MINIMUM FRONTAGE: 80 Feel O fraal building sefboek line 80 Feel Cvl- de -euce 90 Feet on earner lots 10 Feel rear lot Widlh MINIMUM LOT DEPTH: 130 Feel (average) BilILOINC SETBACKS: 35 F°°l Front 30 Foal Rear t0 Tam House Shl B Fool Affected Garage St \ If . A4e\ E8 PROPOSED LOTS: R -1 DISTRICT Single Fr Den."" TOTAL AREA 3.06 M PARK TOTAL PA TOTAL UR=a OESC y NW. the wee v �r a lo aaen vi I m . or m. esu me nor a sovm..•er amrm a s. Ai'yo cowry. A•An.mN aosmanla a ewdC I hereby certify that this plan, soecificOtioo or report was preaared by me or under my direct eupe'v S'on and that 1 am a duly reactered Profess.rol Engineer under the Ices of the State of Minneeam. Date _ —___ Regietrotian No. OVER .5 tNnO i TO 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. • ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 • (763) 755 -5100 FAX (763) 755 -8923 a WWW.CI.ANDOVER.MN.US FROM SUBJECT: DATE: Planning and Zoning Commissioners Courtney Bednarz, City Plannw PUBLIC HEARING: Preliminary Plat of Andover Clocktower Commons located at the northeast comer of Hanson and Crosstown Boulevards. August 12, 2003 INTRODUCTION The subject property was created in 1997 as one of the commercial properties in the Hamilton Square Plat. The applicant is proposing to plat the property into five commercial properties to create a high quality commercial development to help serve the needs of the surrounding neighborhoods. Review Process Ordinance 10 outlines the requirements for preliminary plat review. The Planning Commission is asked to review the proposal for conformity with the Comprehensive Plan, the requirements of the City and to ensure the proposal makes the best use of the land. DISCUSSION Ordinance 10, Section 9.02, 9.03 Street Plan Access in the vicinity of the development will be provided from the following intersections: Hanson and Crosstown Boulevards This intersection was recently improved to a signalized full movement intersection with turn lanes. No improvements to this intersection are necessary to accommodate the increased traffic from the proposed development. Hanson Boulevard and Bluebird Street NW Figure 16 from the proposed transportation plan shows the future design of this intersection. A median is proposed to be constructed in the future to prevent left turns from vehicles traveling on Hanson Boulevard. The Anoka County Highway Department (ACHD) has indicated that this access will be limited to right- in/right -out only unless a traffic study prepared by the applicant can justify more access at this location. The applicant has indicated that they would like to continue to work with the ACHD on this issue. It is also important to note that the offset access to the future community center site would be closed as shown in Figure 16. A signalized full movement intersection is proposed to be provided at 154` Avenue NW, directly across form the Oak View Middle School (approximately 750 feet north of the intersection of Hanson Boulevard and Bluebird). A frontage road is anticipated to be constructed along the west side of Hanson Boulevard from the community center site up to this intersection. Staff believes that some access to the community center is necessary at Bluebird Street NW. If the Planning Commission and Council agree, this should be explored in cooperation with the • applicant and the ACHD. Crosstown Boulevard and Bluebird Street NW Figure 22 from the proposed transportation plan shows the proposed future improvements to this intersection, which include left and right turn lanes at all legs of the intersection. Presently all legs of this intersection are two lanes without turn lanes or bypass lanes. The ACHD has indicated that the intersection will be required to be improved at this time. It is important to note that there is potential for a commercial development to the south of this intersection that should be required to share the cost of these intersection improvements. Access into the Development Two proposed accesses are shown along Bluebird Street NW. These accesses will be in alignment with the clinic and post office driveways. The City constructed Bluebird Street NW with sufficient road width to allow turn lanes and bypass lanes to be striped as needed. A right - in/right -out only access is shown along Crosstown Boulevard (CSAH 18). The right of access along CSAH 18 was previously dedicated to the ACHD as a part of the Hamilton Square Plat. The ACHD has indicated that they will not allow this access unless a traffic study can justify it. As a result, the access may need to be removed. A condition has been added to the resolution to require this access to be removed if agreement is not reached with the ACRD. Regardless, there are intersection improvements needed as a part of this approval as outlined in the attached resolution. Interior Access Access through the development will be provided with interior drive lanes that will be privately owned and maintained. Due to the fact that the lots will share access points to public streets, a cross access agreement for all of the properties will need to be recorded with Anoka County. Ordinance 10, Section 9.04 Easements Ten foot drainage and utility easements exist along the perimeter of the site. This easement widens to 40 feet at the westernmost access to the site along Bluebird Street NW. These easements were previously provided as a part of the Hamilton Square plat. A drainage and utility easement will need to be provided for all areas that are below the 100 year flood elevation. This regards the drainage area at the southwest corner of the development. The applicant will also need to include a provision in association documents to allow the City access to each of the properties to allow access to the utilities. Ordinance 10, Section 9.06_ Lots The lot sizes will conform to the Shopping Center Zoning District requirements provided in Ordinance 8, Section 6.02 Minimum District Provisions. Ordinance 10 Section 9.07 Parks, Park Dedication Park Dedication has previously been satisfied as a part of the Hamilton Square Plat. Grading Drainaze and Erosion Control Plan • A grading plan from the original submittal is included in the attachments. The applicant, City engineering consultant and the Coon Creek Watershed District continue to work on adjustments to the plan to ensure adequate storage is provided for storm water. The applicant has indicated that a revised plan will be presented at the meeting. Tree Preservation Sheet C1.2 indicates trees that will be saved. The applicant has revised the plan to save additional trees. This will be a challenge as the topography of the site and the location of existing storm sewer facilities will result in substantial grading of the site. Miscellaneous 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, Anoka County Highway Department 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. Staff Recommendation Access and grading issues remain as of the writing of this report. It is not unusual for these items to be resolved after plat approval due to the lengthy review time by the ACHD and the level of detail that is needed to achieve a final grading plan. Provided the Commission is comfortable with the conditions in the resolution that guide the resolution of these issues, staff recommends the Commission forward this application to the City Council with a recommendation of approval. ACTION REQUESTED The Planning Commission is asked to review the proposed plat and discuss the items noted in the staff report. If the Planning Commission is inclined to recommend approval of the proposed plat the recommendation should include the conditions of the attached resolution. Attachments Resolution Location Map Applicant's Letter Preliminary Plat (11x17 in packet) Grading Plan (11x17 in packet) Demolition Plan (11x17 in Packet) Utility Plan (11 x 17 in packet) Figure 16 Transportation plan Figure 22 Transportation plan Respectfully submitted, • o y e arz Cc: Landform 650 Butler North Building 510 First Avenue North Building Minneapolis, MN 55403 CITY OF ANDOVER COUNTY OF ANOKA STATE OF MINNESOTA RES. NO R A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY PLAT OF "ANDOVER CLOCKTOWER COMMONS" BY LANDFORM, INC. LOCATED IN SECTION 23, TOWNSHIP 32, RANGE 24, ANOKA COUNTY, MINNESOTA, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOT 1, BLOCK 2 HAMILTON SQUARE, ANOKA COUNTY, MINNESOTA. WHEREAS, the Andover Review Committee has reviewed the preliminary plat; and WHEREAS, pursuant to published and mailed notice thereof, the Planning and Zoning Commission has conducted a public hearing on said plat; and 0 WHEREAS, as a result of such public hearing, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommends to the City Council the approval'of the plat. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Andover hereby agrees with the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approves the preliminary plat for five commercial lots for "Andover Clocktower Commons ", subject to the following conditions: 1. The preliminary plat shall conform with plat drawing revised August 7, 2003, and stamped as "Received August 7, 2003 by the City of Andover ". 2. The Grading Drainage and Erosion Control Plan shall be revised as necessary to obtain approval from the Andover Review Committee and the Coon Creek Watershed Management Organization. 3. Drainage and utility easements shall be provided to cover all areas of the project that lie at or below the 100 year flood elevation. 4. The Applicant shall agree to provide a traffic study and continue to work with the Anoka County Highway Department to resolve access and road improvements concerning county roads. 5. If the applicant does not prepare a traffic study and wish to forgo work in the county right -of -way, the right- iniright out access to Crosstown Boulevard NW shall be removed from the plans, however, the applicant shall still be required to make the following improvements: a. A northbound right turn lane along Hanson Boulevard NW PJ b. Construction of improvements to limit access to right- inhight -out only for the east leg of the Hanson Boulevard and Bluebird Street NW intersection. • c. Construction of improvements at the intersection of Crosstown Boulevard and Bluebird Street NW to conform to figure 16 of the City of Andover proposed transportation plan for both legs of the intersection on Crosstown Boulevard and not including the two legs of the intersection on Bluebird street NW as the City will stripe the west leg of Bluebird Street NW to achieve the design outlined in Figuere 16 and no discernible increase in traffic will occur at the southeast leg of Bluebird Street NW as a result of this development. 6. The developer obtains all necessary permits from the Coon Creek Watershed District, DNR, Corps of Engineers, LGU, MPCA, Anoka County Highway Department and any other agency that may be interested in the site. 7. Contingent upon staff review and approval for compliance with City ordinances, policies and guidelines. 8. Such plat approval is contingent upon a development agreement acceptable to the City Attorney. A financial guarantee will be required as a part of this agreement to assure subdivision improvements will be completed. 9. All storm sewer and drainage areas on the site are considered private and will be maintained by the property owners expense. • 10. The developer shall be required to record cross access agreements for all properties created in the plat with Anoka County. 11. Approval of Title of the property by the City Attorney. 12. The failure on the part of the petitioner to submit a final plat per Ordinance 10 within one year from the date of this approval shall deem the preliminary approval to be null and void. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Andover this _ day of , 2003. CITY OF ANDOVER ATTEST: Victoria Volk, City Clerk Michael R. Gamache, Mayor Andover Clocktower Commons Project Location Map N W- Andover Planning 0 0 9 n .t& 1 LANDFORM MINNEAPOLIS•PNOENIX 7 1) 0 • July 21, 2003 Courtney Bednarz City of Andover 1685 Crosstown Boulevard NW Andover, MN 55304 RECEIVED CITY OF ANDOVER RE: Request for Approval of Site Plan, Special Use Permit, Preliminary Plat and Final Plat for Andover Clocktower Commons Dear Mr. Bednarz, On behalf our client, Landform is pleased to submit this application for "Andover Clocktower Commons °, a mixed commercial development at the northeast quadrant of Crosstown Boulevard and Hanson Boulevard. It is our intent to develop the property as a Planned Unit Development (PUD) with a high level of amenities and a mix of retail and office uses. The site plan includes a Clocktower entry feature at the comer of the Hanson and Crosstown Boulevards, which would be a landmark for this development and the Andover community. The Clocktower feature would be integrated with the public trail system and the private sidewalks within the development to allow convenient pedestrian access. The development would include integrated landscaping with water features and patios to be enjoyed by patrons. The property would be developed by a master developer and maintained under an association. The association would maintain the common elements, such as the shared parking, Clocktower and landscaping. As part of the PUD, the developer has established design standards to ensure quality building design. The buildings would be constructed of high - quality materials and would be designed to ensure compatibility within the development. Site Plan Andover Clocktower Commons includes five separate parcels with gas /convenience, a drive - through restaurant, bank, sit -down restaurant and a mix of retail/office uses. The developer is working to finalize the tenant mix. The developer has invested a great deal to ensure that this development is a high - quality development with the Clocktower Commons area as a focal point for the intersection of Hanson and Crosstown Boulevards. The buildings would be constructed with a mix of brick, stone and rock - face block with EIFS accents. All buildings finishes would be compatible and the final design is subject to approval of the developer to ensure quality and consistency with the design standards. 650 BUTLER NORTH BUILDING 510 FIRST AVENUE NORTH MINNEAPOLIS. MN 55403 OFFICE: 612.252.9070 FAX: 612.252.9077 www.landform.net Courtney Bednarz Re: Andover Clocktower Commons July 21, 2003 Page 2 The development team understands the importance of creating quality buildings, . particularly at this intersection. Consequently, we have designed all four sides of the building to have the same high - quality materials and design. To ensure that the elevations facing Hanson Boulevard do not look like the back of the building, we have wrapped the south comer of the retail building with windows and continued those windows along the service corridor that runs along the back of the building. The service corridor will provide safe employee access to the centrally located receiving and trash/recycling area in the retail building. Limited access points will be provided as emergency exits from this corridor. No customer access is provided from the employee corridor. The addition of windows and decorative awnings will maintain the quality exterior finish from the front to the rear elevation. Trash and recycling will be internal for the gas /convenience, retail and restaurant buildings on Lots 1, 4 and 5. The trash and recycling areas for the restaurant and bank/office buildings on Lots 2 and 3 will be designed to match the building elevations. A master sign plan has been prepared to ensure that all signage is consistent throughout the development. The main development signage would be located on the Clocktower, but additional signage would be provided on the building sign bands and at the project entrances. A conceptual sign plan has been submitted for your review. The landscaping plan includes a strong emphasis on the Clocktower Commons area. While the pond feature and Clocktower are clearly the emphasis, landscaping has been • chosen to complement these features and provide an attractive, comfortable area to relax, visit with friends or enjoy a cup of coffee. The developer has created a number of patio areas throughout the development. In addition to the outdoor dining /patio areas at both of the freestanding restaurant sites, a central patio area has been incorporated into the retail building. This central patio area is enclosed on three sides but open towards the east. We anticipate that this area could be used as dining space for coffee shops, bakeries or sandwich shops that may locate on either side of this patio space. Additionally, patio spaces are provided on the east sides of the retail building and the gas /convenience store. These patios may be used by employees or customers to enjoy a meal, visit with friends or simply read the paper. These patio spaces are one of the many "extras" that are provided as part of the PUD. Special Use Permit The developer is requesting Special Use Permits for the following: 1. A PUD to allow the development of Andover Clocktower Commons 2. A quality, sit -down restaurant with liquor on Lot 4 3. A bank with drive- though on Lot 3 4. A restaurant with drive- through on Lot 2 5. A gas /convenience store with car wash on Lot 1 650 BUTLER NORTH BUILDING 510 FIRST AVENUE NORTH MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55403 OFFICE: 612.252.9070 FAX:612.252.9077 www.landform.net Courtney Bednarz Page 3 Re: Andover Clocktower Commons July 21, 2003 • We have reviewed the Special Use Permit standards and believe that all of the requested Special Use Permits meet the standards outlined in Section 5.03 of the Zoning Ordinance. Specifically, 1. The proposed development would offer much needed services to the City of Andover in a high - quality, attractive environment. Andover Clocktower Commons would be developed by a master developer who will ensure the quality of the buildings and tenants within the center. The development would have no adverse effect on the health, safety, morals or general welfare of the surrounding lands. 2. The proposed development would exceed City parking requirements and would have no adverse effect on adjacent streets. The development is being developed in a manner consistent with the existing SC (shopping center) zoning and the streets can accommodate the anticipated traffic. 3. The development is consistent with the SC zoning district and the Comprehensive Plan, however, the proposed development brings a much higher level of design than was originally anticipated for this site. This development offers a mix of office and retail uses that are demanded by the residents of Andover. In particular, the development will offer restaurant and retail uses that are not currently available near this civic center. Demand for these uses is • generated from City Hall, the schools, the ballfields and the possible community center. The proposed Andover Clocktower has the potential to become a community landmark and will likely improve the views in the area. We hope to begin construction of the project this fall. We expect to begin construction of the retail building and bank/office in the first phase, followed by the remainder of the development next spring. We requesting the flexibility to phase this project based on market demand, which may dictate that the gas /convenience store be constructed prior to completion of the retail component. Preliminary Plat and Final Plat We are requesting approval of the preliminary and final plat to replat Lot 1, Block 2, Hamilton Square. We are proposing to create five new lots with shared parking and access. Cross access and parking agreements would be part of the development covenants, which will also ensure maintenance of the Clocktower common space. The proposed plat complies with all ordinance requirements for the PUD. We look forward to bringing Andover Clocktower Commons to the community. We believe that the proposed development serves the needs of the community in an attractive, high - quality development. We look forward to working with you to begin construction. • 650 BUTLER NORTH BUILDING 510 FIRST AVENUE NORTH MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55403 OFFICE: 612.252.9070 FAX 612.252.9077 www.landform.net Courtney Bednarz Paae 4 Re: Andover Clocktower Commons July 21, 2003 1 understand that this item will be schedule for Planning Commission review on August • 12"'. We hope to begin construction this fall and, therefore, we request that the item be schedule for City Council as the earliest possible date. If you have any questions, please call Darren Lazan or me at 612.252.9070. Sincerely, LANDFORM* Lindahl, AICP Planner ENCL: Application forms Application fees Map of 1000 -foot liquor restriction area •Landform Engineering Company doing business as Landfom7 • • 650 BUTLER NORTH BUILDING 510 FIRST AVENUE NORTH MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55403 OFFICE: 612.252.9070 FAX 612.252.9077 www.landform.net y . 4' f LU t-;4 AAAiii LLI FT L L] -J �� J- ------------- Ln 0! z z e it y . 4' f LU t-;4 AAAiii LLI FT L L] -J �� J- ------------- Iwo RM) A -N UkIR KOSWH Ln 0! z z Iwo RM) A -N UkIR KOSWH ------------------ ---- - ---------- --- - ------------------------- Iwo RM) A -N UkIR KOSWH I 3 Et gg { p p { r � gg SS �� gq l! i'§ 44 � k i k ��� l gg 4 F�l4� yy 1 {31�1�l�1�3i�F9�9eri6 �gp E 8iic. eZe'ri37 i :i7 n { E` '• t3t �# S[;jE; FFfjt3 `$ 3p i4 ! 3 e �iYY Y i siF lf��y, a [ E14el4� 3 � gi $4 F� Fi F�� 5�Q� ki11 ti 4 SE 4 3��F �E[ �d q p g }y q f . 4��E 4 ..4 '_ n 3 F 6 S F 3� [i ¢3[ ! {[• !l[F � 45}Ei5 i [ta t � }' € FgSi�`E €s J • 0 H a 6 F_ i [ L� Y [& 4H1 MSl) [ 'ACH UA'W OWM e E ! s T F9 ij g {�4 F4! {at E @:F�z� H t; • 0 H a 6 F_ i [ L� Y [& 4H1 MSl) [ 'ACH UA'W OWM E @:F�z� H t; � > a ❑ W o LIJ < U L— O LU • 0 H a 6 F_ i [ L� Y [& 4H1 MSl) [ 'ACH UA'W OWM z � � ¥! oil ||b�. (� ML XN HVD) MR UA WMM - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - -- - - - - - - - - - / R! ! • §| �� .§ h i,4 'A' is Ws .1; 1"R H xi- OZ § o j ML XN HVD) MR UA WMM - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - -- - - - - - - - - - / WIZ ! • §| �� .§ h > w i OZ § o j Ell oil I ML XN HVD) MR UA WMM - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - -- - - - - - - - - - AVB NW L v w ®..° I� fir uoNr D9/OVr ONI I q A if a 1, � C:� • � � � w ` r I A VE NW �J I .jti FIGURE 16 HANSON BOULEVARD j IMPROVEMENT CONCEPT ' Bonestroo N Rosen o 200' 400' J 0 Anderlik & ® I " Associates state in feet x y n rel ` � h r H i 5 Jn + x H NEW CONNEcnNo rtD a p. xiatrr wrovr ONLY 1 n'fi e ah I� fir uoNr D9/OVr ONI I q A if a 1, � C:� • � � � w ` r I A VE NW �J I .jti FIGURE 16 HANSON BOULEVARD j IMPROVEMENT CONCEPT ' Bonestroo N Rosen o 200' 400' J 0 Anderlik & ® I " Associates state in feet x y . 5 n'fi e ah I� fir uoNr D9/OVr ONI I q A if a 1, � C:� • � � � w ` r I A VE NW �J I .jti FIGURE 16 HANSON BOULEVARD j IMPROVEMENT CONCEPT ' Bonestroo N Rosen o 200' 400' J 0 Anderlik & ® I " Associates state in feet 7. 00 reel Fran 6V ROW Mr, CR O SS-SECMON > ALI m 66. ROW y, 16( z) TO: FROM: Planning and Zoning Commissioners Courtney Bednarz, City PlanneF SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING: Special Use Permit (03 -08) for Planned Unit Development review of Andover Clocktower Commons, a commercial development to be located at the northeast corner of Hanson and Crosstown Boulevards. DATE: August 12, 2003 INTRODUCTION The Planning Commission is asked to review a Special Use Permit request for a Planned Unit Development (PUD) consisting of five commercial properties on approximately 8.63 acres. As you may recall, the Council recently approved an ordinance amendment to allow a service station to be constructed during the initial stage of the proposed development with planned unit development approval. This application combines all of the elements of the development to ensure a well - coordinated development of high quality will be achieved on the subject property. This Planned Unit Development will include the following elements: • Overall PUD for Andover Clocktower Commons (development and design standards, architectural design, landscaping, signage, association documents) • SUP for service station and car wash on Lot 1 • SUP for drive through for restaurant on Lot 2 • SUP for drive through for bank on Lot 3 • SUP for on sale liquor for restaurant on Lot 4 DISCUSSION DEVELOPMENTSTANDARDS Lots Each of the proposed lots will conform to the Shopping Center Zoning District requirements provided in Ordinance 8, Section 6.02 Minimum District Provisions as discussed in the preliminary plat report. Building Setbacks The proposed structures will conform to the 50 foot minimum setback requirements from county roads as well as the Shopping Center Zoning District setback requirements. CITY OF ANDOVER 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. • ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 • (763) 755 -5100 FAX (763) 755 -8923 • WWW.CI.ANDOVER.MN.US Parking/Drive Lane Setbacks The parking areas and drive lanes conform to the 20 foot setback from property lines adjacent to public streets with the exception of the drive through on Lot 2. A portion of this drive lane is located 10 feet from the property line. This adjustment was made to accommodate traffic circulation and to allow sufficient stacking for the drive through. • Parking The proposal exceeds the City's minimum parking requirements. Additional parking is provided to accommodate the needs of individual businesses within the project. Additionally, the bank/office building may be expanded to include a second story if demand exists. DESIGN STANDARDS Architecture The architecture of the structures significantly exceeds the City's minimum requirements for commercial buildings. Building elevations are provided in the attachments. Color renderings will be presented at the meeting. A combination of stone, brick, glass and Exterior Insulated Finishing System (EIFS) will be used on the structures. asphalt shingles are proposed. The Dairy Queen building will retain its corporate design but the color scheme of the stone and EIFS will match the rest of the center to allow variety within the unified theme. A covered walkway or arcade will be provided along the front of the retail center as indicated on the architectural plans. Site Design The proposal includes a number of features beyond typical requirements for a commercial development. These features will help create an excellent image for the development and complement the civic uses in this area of the City. The signature plaza area at the southwest comer of the development will provide a clocktower feature, water features, and a boardwalk/community open space overlooking a raingarden. Existing mature oak trees will be preserved in the landscaped area to the immediate northeast. Additional detail is provided in the attachments. Patio areas are provided near the clocktower feature, at the restaurant, retail center, service station and Dairy Queen sites. The landscaping plan illustrates that restaurant and Dairy Queen patio areas will be well landscaped. An interior sidewalk is also provided to link the sites. Additional detail is needed on the proposed materials, borders and accents for both the sidewalk and patio areas. Staff recommends a material and design to compliment the building architecture instead of plain asphalt or concrete. Areas for planters to be located along the arcade should also be identified. Trash Enclosures The trash enclosures are designed to match the architecture of the structures within the development and will be surrounded with landscaping to compliment this design. Details of the trash enclosures are provided in the attachments. LANDSCAPING PLAN The landscaping plan provides an excellent combination of trees, shrubs and flowers arranged to further compliment the quality of the development. Foundation plantings around the buildings. Perimeter trees and shrubs as well as existing mature trees that will be saved will frame the site. Plantings within the landscaped areas of the development, including parking islands will complete the landscaping theme of the development. The only improvements . staff can identify would be to add the same variety of species in shrub beds along Crosstown Boulevard as is provided along Bluebird street NW. Additionally, the landscaped corridors extending from the access to Bluebird Street NW and the landscaped area to the east of the service station should provide shrub beds to continue this theme. SIGNAGE Clocktower /Area Identification Sign As illustrated in the attachments, the proposed clocktower is not only a landmark, but also a desirable architectural feature and area identification sign. The materials and colors would match those of the structures within the development. The height of the clocktower is proposed to be 33 feet. The signage area of the clocktower would be limited to approximately 22 feet. The signage will conform with the typical area identification sign height maximum of 25 feet. Monument signage is also proposed at the northwest and southeast corners of the development. These signs will also match the architectural theme of the development and be beautifully landscaped. Details of these signs are provided in the attachments. ASSOCIATION DOCUMENTS The City will need to review the document(s) that provides for maintenance of the properties. A provision of the document will need to allow the City access to the property for utility and storm water maintenance. A second provision will need to establish a repair, maintenance and replacement program and funding for the private drive, parking areas, private utilities and all common areas and other improvements. SUP for service station and car wash on Lot 1 Service stations are special uses which require Council approval in the Shopping Center Zoning District. Review of these permits includes the following elements: • Site design with particular attention to traffic circulation • Review of landscaping and screening • Review of building and canopy design with particular attention to signage and lighting • Ensuring adequate stacking for the car wash The design of the site conforms with applicable building setbacks for both the structure and canopy. The building design will conform to the overall design theme of the development which includes desirable materials such as stone, brick and glass. The design of the car wash will allow stacking of five vehicles before conflicting with parking stalls on the west side of the parking area. Lighting and signage on the canopy will need to be reviewed as a part of the commercial site plan review. Lighting under the canopy will be required to be recessed into the underside of the canopy to prevent glare. Staff will work with the applicant to provide some berming along the perimeter of the service station site to soften views into the site. Above ground fuel storage is not a part of this permit. SUP for drive throush for restaurant on Lot 2 • Drive throughs are special uses which require Council approval in the Shopping Center Zoning District. Review of these permits is intended to ensure adequate stacking for vehicles and to ensure the noise and lighting associated with this type of use will not adversely affect surrounding properties. The site was redesigned to provide stacking of up to six vehicles behind the order sign with additional stacking for another five vehicles beyond the order sign. The noise and lighting generated by the drive through are less of a concern due to the fact that the site is surrounded by commercial uses of a similar nature. There is no canopy proposed for this drive through. SUP for drive throush for bank on Lot 3 Stacking is provided for seven vehicles with additional stacking as the drive through widens into three lanes as shown on the site plan. The photometric plan provided by the applicant does not include readings for the drive through. Ordinance 8, Section 8.06 Glare requires lighting to be shielded and directed downward. The maximum light allowed at residential property lines is 0.4 foot candles. Any lighting for the canopy will be required to be recessed into the canopy to ensure it will be directed downward and will not adversely affect residential properties to the southeast. SUP for on sale liquor for restaurant on Lot 4 On sale liquor is a special use which require Council approval in the Shopping Center Zoning District. This type of review is intended to limit the locations of this type of use to appropriate areas of the City and also to ensure compliance local ordinances and with State Statutes. Andover requires on sale liquor establishments to be located a minimum of 1,000 feet from schools. A graphic is included in the attachments to demonstrate compliance with this requirement. The applicant will also be required to obtain a liquor license from the City Council. Attachments Resolution Location Map Applicant's Letter Development Packet (11x17 in packet) Staff Recommendation Clearly, the proposal represents a substantial effort by the applicant to create a unique and high quality commercial development that will provide a mix of commercial uses that are much needed in this are of the City. ACTION REQUESTED The Planning Commission is asked to recommend approval of the proposed special use permit subject to the conditions in the attached resolution. R ed, Cc: Landform 650 Butler North Building 510 First Avenue North Building Minneapolis, MN 55403 . CITY OF ANDOVER COUNTY OF ANOKA STATE OF MINNESOTA RES. NO. R -01 A RESOLUTION GRANTING THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT REQUEST OF LANDFORM, INC. FOR A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT TO DEVELOP ANDOVER CLOCKTOWER COMMONS A COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT TO BE LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF HANSON AND CROSSTOWN BOULEVARDS LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOT 1, BLOCK 2 HAMILTON SQUARE, ANOKA COUNTY, MINNESOTA. WHEREAS, Landform, Inc. has requested a Special Use Permit for a Planned Unit Development to develop a residential development Andover Clocktower Commons a commercial development pursuant to Ordinance No. 112, An Ordinance regulating Planned Unit Developments on the property legally described above, and; WHEREAS, The Planning Commission finds the request meets the criteria of Ordinance No. 8, Section 5.03 regulating Special Use Permits and Ordinance No. 112, An Ordinance regulating Planned Unit Developments, and; • WHEREAS, a public hearing was held before the Planning and Zoning Commission and there was no opposition to the request; and; WHEREAS, The Planning and Zoning Commission is recommending to the City Council the approval of the Special Use Permit for the Planned Unit Development 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 permitting the following: 1. Planned Unit Development for Andover Clocktower Commons per plans revised August 7, 2003 and stamped received by the City of Andover August 7, 2003. 2. Special Use Permit for a service station and car wash on Lot 1 subject to the conditions listed in this resolution. 3. Special Use Permit for a drive through for restaurant on Lot 2 subject to the conditions listed in this resolution. 4. Special Use Permit for a drive through for drive through for bank on Lot 3 subject to the conditions listed in this resolution. 5. Special Use Permit for on sale liquor for restaurant on Lot 4 subject to the conditions listed in this resolution. Approval of these uses as part of the Planned Unit Development for Andover Clocktower Commons shall be subject to the following conditions: 1. Each of the proposed uses shall be required to complete the commercial site plan review process administered by the Andover Review Committee. 2. A provision of the association documents shall allow the City access to utilities on each of the properties. 3. A provision shall be added to the association documents to establish a repair, maintenance and replacement program and funding for the private drive, parking areas, private utilities and all common areas and other improvements. 4. That the Special Use Permit shall be subject to a sunset clause as defined in Ordinance No. 8, Section5.03(D). Adopted by the City Council of the City of Andover on this _ day of ATTEST Victoria Volk, City Clerk CITY OF ANDOVER Michael R. Gamache, Mayor Andover Clocktower Commons • /NNE W Y E Project Location Map Andover Planning AIL War LANDFORM MINNEAPOLIS -PHOENIX RECEIVED July 21, 2003 Courtney Bednarz City of Andover 1685 Crosstown Boulevard NW Andover, MN 55304 CITY OF ANDOVER RE: Request for Approval of Site Plan, Special Use Permit, Preliminary Plat and Final Plat for Andover Clocktower Commons Dear Mr. Bednarz, On behalf our client, Landform is pleased to submit this application for "Andover Clocktower Commons", a mixed commercial development at the northeast quadrant of Crosstown Boulevard and Hanson Boulevard. It is our intent to develop the property as a Planned Unit Development (PUD) with a high level of amenities and a mix of retail and office uses. The site plan includes a Clocktower entry feature at the comer of the Hanson and Crosstown Boulevards, which would be a landmark for this development and the Andover community. The Clocktower feature would be integrated with the public trail system and the private sidewalks within the development to allow convenient pedestrian access. The development would include integrated landscaping with water features and patios to be enjoyed by patrons. The property would be developed by a master developer and maintained under an association. The association would maintain the common elements, such as the shared parking, Clocktower and landscaping. As part of the PUD, the developer has established design standards to ensure quality building design. The buildings would be constructed of high - quality materials and would be designed to ensure compatibility within the development. Site Plan Andover Clocktower Commons includes five separate parcels with gas /convenience, a drive- through restaurant, bank, sit -down restaurant and a mix of retail /office uses. The developer is working to finalize the tenant mix. The developer has invested a great deal to ensure that this development is a high - quality development with the Clocktower Commons area as a focal point for the intersection of Hanson and Crosstown Boulevards. The buildings would be constructed with a mix of brick, stone and rock - face block with EIFS accents. All buildings finishes would be compatible and the final design is subject to approval of the developer to ensure quality and consistency with the design standards. 650 BUTLER NORTH BUILDING 510 FIRST AVENUE NORTH MINNEAPOLIS. MN 55403 OFFICE: 612.252.9070 FAX: 612.252.9077 www.landform.net 0 n �I • Courtney Bednarz Re: Andover Clocktower Commons Page 2 July 21, 2003 • The development team understands the importance of creating quality buildings, particularly at this intersection. Consequently, we have designed all four sides of the building to have the same high- quality materials and design. To ensure that the elevations facing Hanson Boulevard do not look like the back of the building, we have wrapped the south comer of the retail building with windows and continued those Windows along the service corridor that runs along the back of the building. The service corridor will provide safe employee access to the centrally located receiving and trash /recycling area in the retail building. Limited access points will be provided as emergency exits from this corridor. No customer access is provided from the employee corridor. The addition of windows and decorative awnings will maintain the quality exterior finish from the front to the rear elevation. Trash and recycling will be internal for the gas /convenience, retail and restaurant buildings on Lots 1, 4 and 5. The trash and recycling areas for the restaurant and bank/office buildings on Lots 2 and 3 will be designed to match the building elevations. A master sign plan has been prepared to ensure that all signage is consistent throughout the development. The main development signage would be located on the Clocktower, but additional signage would be provided on the building sign bands and at the project entrances. A conceptual sign plan has been submitted for your review. The landscaping plan includes a strong emphasis on the Clocktower Commons area. . While the pond feature and Clocktower are clearly the emphasis, landscaping has been chosen to complement these features and provide an attractive, comfortable area to relax, visit with friends or enjoy a cup of coffee. The developer has created a number of patio areas throughout the development. In addition to the outdoor dining /patio areas at both of the freestanding restaurant sites, a central patio area has been incorporated into the retail building. This central patio area is enclosed on three sides but open towards the east. We anticipate that this area could be used as dining space for coffee shops, bakeries or sandwich shops that may locate on either side of this patio space. Additionally, patio spaces are provided on the east sides of the retail building and the gas /convenience store. These patios may be used by employees or customers to enjoy a meal, visit with friends or simply read the paper. These patio spaces are one of the many "extras" that are provided as part of the PU D. Special Use Permit The developer is requesting Special Use Permits for the following: 1. A PUD to allow the development of Andover Clocktower Commons 2. A quality, sit -down restaurant with liquor on Lot 4 3. A bank with drive - though on Lot 3 4. A restaurant with drive- through on Lot 2 • 5. A gas/convenience store with car wash on Lot 1 650 BUTLER NORTH BUILDING 510 FIRST AVENUE NORTH MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55403 OFFICE: 612.252.9070 FAX:612.252.9077 www.landforrn_net Courtney Bednarz Re: Andover Clocktower Commons Y July 21, 2003 Page 3 We have reviewed the Special Use Permit standards and believe that all of the • requested Special Use Permits meet the standards outlined in Section 5.03 of the Zoning Ordinance. Specifically, 1. The proposed development would offer much needed services to the City of Andover in a high - quality, attractive environment. Andover Clocktower Commons would be developed by a master developer who will ensure the quality of the buildings and tenants within the center. The development would have no adverse effect on the health, safety, morals or general welfare of the surrounding lands. 2. The proposed development would exceed City parking requirements and would have no adverse effect on adjacent streets. The development is being developed in a manner consistent with the existing SC (shopping center) zoning and the streets can accommodate the anticipated traffic. 3. The development is consistent with the SC zoning district and the Comprehensive Plan, however, the proposed development brings a much higher level of design than was originally anticipated for this site. This development offers a mix of office and retail uses that are demanded by the residents of Andover. In particular, the development will offer restaurant and retail uses that are not currently available near this civic center. Demand for these uses is generated from City Hall, the schools, the ballfields and the possible community • center. The proposed Andover Clocktower has the potential to become a community landmark and will likely improve the views in the area. We hope to begin construction of the project this fall. We expect to begin construction of the retail building and bank/office in the first phase, followed by the remainder of the development next spring. We requesting the flexibility to phase this project based on market demand, which may dictate that the gas /convenience store be constructed prior to completion of the retail component. Preliminary Plat and Final Plat We are requesting approval of the preliminary and final plat to replat Lot 1, Block 2, Hamilton Square. We are proposing to create five new lots with shared parking and access. Cross access and parking agreements would be part of the development covenants, which will also ensure maintenance of the Clocktower common space. The proposed plat complies with all ordinance requirements for the PUD. We look forward to bringing Andover Clocktower Commons to the community. We believe that the proposed development serves the needs of the community in an attractive, high - quality development. We look forward to working with you to begin construction. 0 650 BUTLER NORTH BUILDING 510 FIRST AVENUE NORTH MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55403 OFFICE: 612.252.9070 FAX: 612.252.9077 www.landfDrm.net Re: Andover Clocldower Commons Courtney Bednarz July 21, 2003 Page 4 • I understand that this item will be schedule for Planning Commission review on August 12 We hope to begin construction this fall and, therefore, we request that the item be schedule for City Council as the earliest possible date. If you have any questions, please call Darren Lazan or me at 612.252.9070. ra Lindahl, AICP Planner 0 • Sincerely, LANDFORM* ENCL: Application forms Application fees Map of 1000 -foot liquor restriction area - Landform Engineering Company doing business as Landform 650 BUTLER NORTH BUILDING 510 FIRST AVENUE NORTH MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55403 OFFICE: 612.252.9070 FAX:612.252.9077 www.landfbrm.net 8 - = IE 4 y I I' � �� wi +E � � U �� V 'all I cc LU 3: 0 0 cc LU 0 a z 4c t G (1) z 0 0 (0) 40; uj cr cc LLI 0 LL 0 E st 113 uw li €t Li o,i 0A 0 • i F S� t f � � s � =F t cc LLI 0 LL 0 E st 113 uw li €t Li o,i 0A 0 • 0 0 0 wi � w.l 4 f 1 7 Lij 0 LA LL Di j CA tE Ail: All. I 1 7x . U �yJ ^� - ---------- 7 ------------------ ------------ ------------------------------ -------------- - ---- ------- - - - - - - - - - - - - 'ON - - -- - - - - - - - -- - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ----- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0 Lij LO z w C) Li i z < 1 0 - - - - - - - - - - j ----- -------------- --------- ----------- ----------------- ---------------- - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - -- - - - - u �' � I (R, I� �. li` 3 € - r ;: & I I' '� I f o 1 I {� El y a 99 s� S 41 0 � '�3s..ti3`if.i e.� app ! g $ 5 l II I'l I17111l �< I C E t 0 - 2S 6 r F I i I II '.•. � I - � i Y S ,,1,11 Q W V� i LIJ SS F g I� U L Fit c— s e3 s' `+ PFD C $ I A O / 1 4 O si Q 'd x c r IIIIIIIIUII © v'� `\ I ; �. �uJ rib 5 .� � � " *�'•,,�` F•I � "r `� Y E & ON HYS71 'MN 'OA'M Mol 1.. • w w e . I! GI1 � [[ Git U ,�:`E!Eiee ? ?: Fi:asjFy I t 0o6y 9 pp gp a$ff! 8 ��fiA=::;* 'F 4 Yi7 f y a E t �? it N «b , Naa!riab E � h Si+ bd W � � b ' — f � �' �• Q tty a I _ Li f � k 4 iz E Wx tF Z 1 „........,..,.. tr 'ON HYD) 'MK 't1A7B NOS?" I EI' 11 0 ° ; w 3 p I d s , IEI9�li ��)tfi EL 4 m w 0 < U �� L I C t; U 7� C +I y tr • ' F • � 4 a -------------- - - - - -f • o F t ip: tit! IE 0 LJ C) LU cc qz cl: LU 0 0 z LL 0 �L�1 e • • pp q 3 SF Mb- 41 Y od\ 9 I k I z 9811 L z N I N — — - - - - - - - - - (K -OK m:A lame MODWH 0 o --- - -- ----- IRIN 1 1 LIZ: Pit 0 I • lz I r 5 r e j all - cN 1 4 p g Cj ig M ia ii, on 0 neon IN C LIJ > .� §� � �� � | |� |. (, J m m 1W ME 0 \ < o Mme` 'ipitimog C) � \\ Zi /| �' � 1 w l z > ip 1 19 12 1 z I II Z 11 i k i ; 2 N- \\ in L j FL 0 0 -4t IL N- \\ in L j FL 0 0 C) z < LL all 40 4 iE , • I .... - lip Z O O LU LU LU Lu W i C, W3 44 0 Nr ZI VIA I III . 1I ' 1'I� Iii rr 0 T r ie L 7a i w t • I .... - lip Z O O LU LU LU Lu W i C, W3 44 0 Nr ZI VIA I III . 1I ' 1'I� Iii rr 0 T r w Lu L.0 -Li ,,17 ill N gy 2 d t ���1� �1� PI li LL ti 7L < LL it ,,17 ill N gy 2 d t ���1� �1� PI li LL I I I ' I 7L it ,,17 ill N gy 2 d t ���1� �1� PI li LL C) LU O z iji ail 0 Lj 0 0 i is 74- I . cit, I i 44 If �� i I is 74- I . 44 If �� i I 0 w > LU I Y EL w 0 LL Hi Ell P4 iz • -------------- ----------------- ❑ .0 11 � II -------------- ----------------------- it Ell P4 iz • -------------- ----------------- ❑ .0 11 � 0 0 0 0 Lli > w z C) LU || §�. [� O 0 D Z ILL i AI ��,: gill- I 1, .� ) 0 FLO t §�� � R \ /| Z z %� § ��,: \� ( / \ a ! . . ,� \� Lu z \\ az � /� / 1, .� ) 0 FLO t §�� � R \ /| Z z %� § D. - Is located in the Rural Reserve area (as designated in the Andover Comprehensive Plan) and is residential or agricultural land of not less than forty (40) acres or less than Jive hundred (500) feet in width and its conveyance • does not result in the division of the parcel into 2 or more lots or Parcels, any one of which is less than forty (40) acres in area or live hundred (500) feet in width. ACTION REQUESTED The Planning Commission is asked to review these additional changes to Ordinance 10 and determine if these area proper to control premature subdivision of lands set aside for future urban density residential (i.e. the "Rural Reserve" areas). Respectfully submitted, Will Neumeister Attachments Portion of Ordinance 10 (section 14.01 with changes proposed) 0 • (Additional Changes to Ordinance 10) • SECTION 14. RESTRICTIONS ON FILING AND RECORDING CONVEYANCES. 14.01 Restrictions on Filing and Recording. No conveyance of land to which the regulations are applicable shall be filed or recorded, if the land is described in the conveyance by metes and bounds or by reference to an unapproved registered land survey made after April 21, 1961 or to an unapproved plat made after such regulations become effective. The foregoing provision does not apply to a conveyance if the land described (10A, 9- 10 -74): A. Was a separate parcel of record April 1, 1945 or the date of adoption of subdivision regulations under Laws 1945, Chapter 287, whichever is the later, or of the adoption of subdivision regulations pursuant to a home rule charter, or B: Was the subject of a written agreement to convey entered into prior to such time, C. Was a separate parcel of not less than two and one -half (2 '/2 a.) acres in area and one hundred fifty (150') feet in width on January 1, 1966 or is a single parcel of land not less than five (5 a.) acres in area and having a width of not less than three hundred (300') feet, and its conveyance does not result in the division of the parcel into 2 or more lots or parcels, any one of which is less than five (5) acres in area or three hundred (300) feet in width except land that is in the Rural Reserve area and is further restricted by the section that follows. D. Is located in the Rural Reserve area (as designated in the Andover Comprehensive Plan) and is residential or agricultural land of not less than forty (40) acres or less than five hundred (500) feet in width and its conveyance does not result in the division of the parcel into 2 or more lots or parcels, any one of which is less than forty (40) acres in area or five hundred (500) feet in width. U ti • LNDOVE • 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. • ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 • (763) 755 -5100 FAX (763) 755 -8923 • WWW.CI.ANDOVER.MN.US TO: Planning and Zoning Commissioners FROM: Will Neumeister, Community Development Director 4Wf,. SUBJECT: Amendments to Ordinances 8, 10, 40 amending subdivision restrictions in the "Rural Reserve" area DATE: August 12, 2003 INTRODUCTION In the spring of 2003 the City established a "Rural Reserve" area for portions of the City that will need to be reserved for urban density residential development. Currently, there are no restrictions on subdivision of these lands in either the zoning or subdivision ordinance. New language should be added to these ordinances to prevent premature subdivision of the "Rural Reserve" area without full City utilities. DISCUSSION There are multiple places in both the zoning and subdivision ordinances that need to have provisions added to have the desired effect (i.e. no subdivision without full city utilities) in the "Rural Reserve" areas. The following sections are suggested to be added or deleted from Ordinance 8, 10 and 40 (underlining and bold letters represents the new language to be added). It is suggested that the Zoning Ordinance (Ordinance 8) Table of Minimum Requirements (6.02) should a column added for Agricultural Preserve land and have minimum lot size and lot width as well as setbacks that would apply to land in the "Rural Reserve" area: Lot Area Per Dwelling Unit in the R -1 and Agricultural Preserve District for land that is in the "Rural Reserve " area (I- Family Homes in the Rural Reserve Area) — 40 acres. The table is attached at the end of this report. Note that the other minimums for setback, lot width, etc. should also be included in the changes that will be considered to be added to the ordinance regulating land that is in the Agricultural Preserve District regulated by Ordinance 57 (by reference it was made a zoning district). Therefore the column should be added to the table to reflect that these minimums will be required in Agricultural Preserve areas. 0 The Subdivision Ordinance 10 (Section 9— Subdivision Design Standards) should have the following sections added to also restrict the subdivisions until the full City utilities are extended: 9.01 General Requirements • Subsection E. — M.S. 462.358, Subd 2A, authorizes the city to condition approval of the subdivision of property on the construction and installation of certain utilities. the right to require additional improvements if deemed necessary by circumstances and conditions unique to these particular lands. No subdivision of land is allowed in the area designated on the Comprehensive Plan as "Rural Reserve" unless storm sewer, sanitary sewer and a municipal water supply are constructed to serve the area being divided Similar changes are needed for the Lot Split Ordinance 40, as shown below: Section 1. Definitions Subsection C.— No subdivision of land is allowed in the area designated on the Comprehensive Plan as "Rural Reserve" unless storm sewer, sanitary sewer and a municipal water supply are constructed to serve the area being divided ACTION REQUESTED 11 The Planning Commission is asked to review these changes to Ordinances 8, 10 and 40 to control premature subdivision of lands set aside for future urban density residential (i.e. the "Rural Reserve" areas). Respectfully submitted, Will Neumeister Attachments Portions of Ordinances 8, 10, 40 (with changes proposed) Map of "Rural Reserve" area • 11 1 0 0 Table 6.02 (Proposed Ordinance 8 changes) R1 A . Preserve New Lot Area Per Dwelling Unit (so 1 - Family Homes 2.5 acres 1- Family Homes in the Rural Reserve 40 acres 40 acres Single - Family Twin Homes Single - Family Attached 1 - Bedroom Apartment unit 2 - Bedroom Apartment unit Floor - Per - 1 - Family Homes 960 960 Single - Family Twin Homes Single - Family Attached 1 - Bedroom Apartment unit Each Additional Apartment Bedroon lus Lot Dimensions Lot Width - Front Setback Line (feet) 300 1,230 Lot Depth (feet) 150 1,230 Minimum Garage Size (square feet) 440 440 Non - Residential Lot Area (square feet or 5 acres 40 acres acres Minimum District Size Height (maximum) 35 35 Land Coverage (maximum % of 20 20 structures Buil ding Setb Any yard Setback (from County Road) 57 , 1 50 Front yard Setback (feet) 40 40 Side yard Setback from interior lotline 10 10 Side yard Setback from property line 40 40 adjacent to street Attached Residential garage (over 20' wide) from interior lotline Rear yard Setback 50 50 Rear yard setback for any residential , 40 structure from property line adjacent to city street subject to Ord. 8, Section 4.05 see reverse side (Proposed Ordinance 10 Changes) SECTION 9. SUBDIVISION DESIGN STANDARDS. 9.01 General Reuuirements. A. The Planning Commission in its review of a preliminary plat shall determine whether the proposed subdivision is in conformity with the Comprehensive Plan, and shall take into consideration the requirements of the City and the best use of the land. Particular attention shall be given to the arrangement, location and widths of streets, drainage and lot sizes and arrangements. B. The preliminary plat shall cover all of the owner's contiguous land or any other property of the owners as deemed necessary by the Planning Commission in consideration of rural and urban differences, the Zoning Ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan. The final plat may cover only a portion of the preliminary plat provided it is in conformity with the approved preliminary plat. (10X, 6 -6 -95) C. Where the parcel of land is subdivided into tracts larger than required for building lots, such tracts shall be divided so as to allow for the opening of streets and ultimate extension of adjacent streets. I* D. Unplatted portions of land (outlots) or private easements controlling access to public ways shall not be approved within the plat. E. M.S. 462.358. Subd 2A, authoriz t he c to condition approval of the subdivision of property on the construction and installation of certain utilities. The intent of this section is to specifically set out the required improvements which promote and protect the public health, safety and ,general welfare. The city reserves the right to require additional improvements if deemed necessary by circumstances and conditions unique to these particular lands. No subdivision of land is allowed in the area designated on the Comprehensive Plan as "Rural Reserve" unless storm sewer, sanitary sewer and a municipal water supply are constructed to serve the area being divided_ n u (Proposed Changes to Ordinance 40 — Lot Split Ordinance) • Section 1. Definitions A lot split is any division of a lot, parcel, or tract of land into not more than two (2) parcels when both divided parcels meet or exceed the minimum requirements for platted lots in the applicable zoning district. (40A, 10- 04 -77; 40B, 8- 23 -79; 40C, 5- 29 -85; 40Q 11- 06 -96) A. No lot, parcel or tract of land shall be divided unless the resultant lots have at least the minimum width, depth and square footage as required for any parcel of land in the zoning district wherein the lot is located. (40A, 10 -04- 77; 40G, 11- 06 -96) B. No owner may utilize this method of land division on any parcel more than one (1) time in any three (3) year period. A three (3) year waiting period for a lot split is required on all lots, parcels or tracts from the date they were created by previous lot splits under this ordinance. C. No subdivision of land is allowed in the area designated on the Comprehensive Plan as "Rural Reserve" unless storm sewer, sanitary sewer and a municipal water supply are constructed to serve the area being divided i 0 s- - {" `-A- , �.�► � �- r ■rr.�r Elmo ili�ji; ■osi /I- � �q. ���o ,W