The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About01/13/04A i T Y O F \D60W • 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. • ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 • (763) 755 -5100 FAX (763) 755 -8923 • WWW.CI.ANDOVER.MN.US Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda January 13, 2004 Andover City Hall Council Chambers 7.00 p.m. 1. Call to Order 2. Approval of Minutes — December 9, 2003 3. PUBLIC HEARING: Residential Sketch Plan to review a single family urban residential development for properties located at 15955, 15827, 15803, and 15773 Crosstown Boulevard. 4. PUBLIC HEARING: Rezoning (04 -01) to change the zoning from Single Family Rural Residential (R -1) to Single Family Urban Residential (R -4) for properties located at 15955, 15803, 15773 Crosstown Boulevard. 5. PUBLIC HEARING: Rezoning (04 -02) to change the zoning from Single Family Rural Residential (R -1) to Single Family Urban Residential (R -4) for property located at 15929 Crosstown Boulevard for Fire Station #3. 6. Variance (04 -01) to vary from the front and side yard setback requirements for existing house at 921 158 Avenue NW. 7. PUBLIC HEARING: Rezoning (04 -03) to change the zoning from Single Family Urban Residential (R -4) to Multiple Dwelling Low Density (M -1) for property located at the northeast comer of Crosstown Boulevard and 141 Lane NW. 8. PUBLIC HEARING: Conditional Use Permit (04 -01) for Planned Unit Development Review of Crosstown Meadows, a twinhouse project containing 16 units located at the northeast corner of Crosstown Boulevard and 141 Lane NW. 9. PUBLIC HEARING: Preliminary Plat of Crosstown Meadows, a twinhouse project containing 16 units located at the northeast corner of Crosstown Boulevard and 141 Lane NW. 10. Other Business 11. Adjournment C I T Y O F Db 06� 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. • ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 • (763) 755 -5100 FAX (763) 755 -8923 • WWW.CI.ANDOVER.MN.US TO: Planning and Zoning Commissioners FROM: Courtney Bednarz, City Planner SUBJECT: Item 2. Approval of Minutes - December 9, 2003 DATE: January 13, 2004 Request The Planning and Zoning Commission is asked to approve the minutes from the December 9, 2003 meeting. E a K Y O E OVE 0! 1 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 — DECEMBER 9 2003 E The Regular Bi- Monthly Meeting of the Andover Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order by Chairperson Daninger on December 9, 2003, 7:00 p.m., at the Andover City Hall, 1685 Crosstown Boulevard NW, Andover, Minnesota. Commissioners present: Commissioners absent: Also present: APPROVAL OFMINUTES. November 25, 2003 Chairperson Daninger, Commissioners Tim Kirchoff, Dean Vatne, Jonathan Jasper and Michael Casey. Commissioners Tony Gamache, Rex Greenwald. City Planner, Courtney Bednarz Associate Planner, Andy Cross Others Motion by Kirchoff, seconded by Casey, to approve the minutes as presented. Motion carried on a 4 -ayes, 0 -nays, 1= present ( Daninger), 2- absent ( Gamache and Greenwald) vote. PUBLIC HEARING: REZONING (03 -08) TO CHANGE THE ZONING FROM SINGLE FAMILYRURAL RESIDENTIAL R -1 TO SINGLE FAMILY URBAN RESIDENTLAL (R-4) FOR PROPER TY LOCA TED AT 1374161 AVENUE NW. Mr. Bednarz explained the Planning Commission is asked to review the proposed rezoning to allow the Oakview Park project to move forward. The rezoning is proposed for only the south 13 acres of the property that will be developed at this time. The residual parcel with the existing house would remain Single Family Rural Residential (R- 1). Mr. Bednarz explained the times and conditions have changed due to the fact that the surrounding properties have developed at urban densities and municipal utilities are now available to serve the subject property. Staff recommends approval of the proposed rezoning. Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes — December 9, 2003 Page 2 • Commissioner Vatne stated he cannot question that times have changed and the neighborhood has changed and it has been developed on three of the four sides. Motion by Vatne, seconded by Kirchoff, to open the public hearing at 7:02 p.m. Motion carried on a 5 -ayes, 0 -nays, 2- absent (Gamache and Greenwald) vote. There was no public input. Motion by Kirchoff, seconded by Casey, to close the public hearing at 7:03 p.m. Motion carried on a 5 -ayes, 0 -nays, 2- absent (Gamache and Greenwald) vote. Motion by Vatne, seconded by Casey, to recommend to the City Council approval of Resolution No. , approving the rezoning request based on the fact that times and conditions have changed. Motion carried on a 5 -ayes, 0 -nays, 2- absent (Gamache and Greenwald) vote. Mr. Bednarz stated that this item would be before the Council at the January 6, 2004 City Council meeting. PUBLIC HEARING. PRELIMINARY PLAT OF OAKUEW PARK, A SINGLE . FAMILY URBAN RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT LOCATED AT 1374161 AVENUE NW. Mr. Bednarz explained that the Planning Commission is asked to review a preliminary plat for the subject property.. Mr. Bednarz stated the subject property is approximately 19.5 acres in size. The proposal is to develop the southern 13 acres with urban lots and to preserve approximately 6 acres with the existing home on the north end of the property for future urban development. Mr. Bednarz discussed the information with the Commission. Commissioner Kirchoff explained that regarding the Highway Departments comments, how they can recommend to have the developer improve the intersection at Crane and Hanson and not collect fees from the properties that are already there. He stated they cannot blame the 13 acres for the problems with the intersection. Mr. Bednarz stated this is an unfortunate situation that a significant amount of the area has developed without contributing to the improvements to the County Road system. Given this situation, as development occurs and increases traffic at the intersections, it is appropriate for this development to pay a portion of the ultimate improvement pf the intersections. What is being requested of the developer is not the ultimate improvement of these intersections, it is in fact a right turn lane and bypass lane for the two intersections and would not include a left turn lane and other improvements that would require additional widening of the Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes — December 9, 2003 Page 3 • road. This is not an easy situation but it is something they will continue to see with projects adjacent to County roads. The City needs to work on a policy as to how they are going to deal with this for future development. He stated they try to work with the County Highway Department in terms of identifying development early on, identifying other areas of development that may contribute to the intersections and someplace along the line, there needs to be a bar set on what the development will have to pay. Staff believes the developer should pay a portion of this. Commissioner Jasper stated it appeared at the south end of the development, two outlots are created and the outlots will.be combine with properties that front on Drake Street that have previously been developed. Mr. Bednarz explained there are two outlot shown at the southwest comer of the plat that the developer has negotiated with the adjacent property owners in the existing houses to trade for access of the trail to come out on Drake Street. The outlots will be combined with the residential properties. Commissioner Jasper stated at the sketch plan, they spent a lot of time talking about the park and the location of the park, the location of the park has been moved more towards the center of the development. He wondered why 155th Lane isn't moved further to the north and made into a bigger park instead of taking a small partial park and cash. Mr. Bednarz stated this is not something he can answer. • Mr. Quigley stated they discussed this in the sketch plan but further discussion by both the Park Commission and City Council resulted in the park location. Mr. Quigley also showed on the map the area in question and explained 155 has to be a specific distance from the further north street. Commissioner Vatne asked if there was going to be a trail through there because there was no way to put a road through there. He wondered why that was. W. Bednarz stated only the southern quarter of the development touches the right -of -way and on either side they have private property. The developer was able to negotiate with them a limited amount of area to put a trail through and the homeowners were not amenable to contributing land to put a road in adjacent to their homes. The only way to put a road connection would be for the City to condemn the property for a road connection. This has not been a policy of the City Council and not something they would probably entertain. Commissioner Vatne stated in the same area, there is a temporary cul-de -sac on the south end that ends at the east edge of the property. They have in most cases, ghost plats where development may occur on the north and northeast sections and he thought there would not be anything on the lower area because of the existing wetlands. Mr. Bednarz stated at the south end of the property, they could put a full size cul -de -sac in and could achieve two lots without variances and could potentially get up to two more lots with a small amount of wetland fill or adjusting the edge of the wetland boundary. He stated two lots • are possible; the other two lots would have to be worked with Coon Creek Watershed to decide what could be done. Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes — December 9, 2003 Page 4 • Commissioner Jasper asked if this was really a temporary cul-de -sac or a small permanent cul-de -sac. Mr. Bednarz stated it depended on the landowner to the east. Commissioner Jasper asked if the land to the east was developable. Mr. Bednarz stated a portion of it was. Commissioner Vatne asked if there was a potential to connect a road down to 156 Mr. Bednarz stated there is not. Chairperson Daninger stated in reference to the Anoka County letter and the ARC recommended was not everything the County recommended, it is a compromise. Mr. Bednarz explained that the County discussed two intersections, they discussed an intersection that this property does not have access to and they did not mention anything about 159' Avenue, which this property does have access to. Chairperson Daninger stated in reference to the park, what type of parking would there be. Mr. Bednarz stated his understanding was this would be a neighborhood park so people would most likely walk to it. Chairperson Daninger asked if the trail was a standard City trail. Mr. Bednarz stated it would be eight -foot wide bituminous trail. Motion by Kirchoff, seconded by Casey, to open the public hearing at 7:25 p.m. Motion . carried on a 5 -ayes, 0 -nays, 2- absent (Gamache and Greenwald) vote. Mr. Larry Emmerich, 134 161 st Avenue NW, asked if there were any streets being proposed in the development that would have any impact on his property. He stated they have development ideas for their property on the north side of 161 and they have received permission from the County to have a street 300 feet to the east of Crane Street or directly across from Crane, depending on the homeowners. He explained he is concerned how this impacts the property on the north side. Mr. Bednarz stated there are no additional street connections proposed, there would remain Crane and Yellow Pine as the connections. In terms of improvements at the Crane intersection, if required, what is proposed at this time is a right tum, which would be eastbound on the south edge of County Road 20 and then a bypass lane on the north side heading west. He believed there is sufficient right -of -way to make the improvements but he is not sure there is sufficient roadway for the improvements. In the future, if his development moves forward, and they choose the Crane intersection, it would be beneficial to know if his intention is to move ahead with that and would be nice to do the complete improvement at the same time. If not, he would very likely have to modify the intersection and provide their own right turn lane or additional improvements at the time his property develops. Mr. Emmerich discussed the plans for his development with the Commission. Chairperson Daninger suggested Mr. Emmerich discuss this further at another time with • staff because they should only discuss the item at hand. Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes — December 9, 2003 Page 5 • Mr. Quigley stated in regards to the Counties' letter and Commissioner Kirchofrs comment, the recommendation from staff was to have the developer install bypass and turn lanes at the intersection of two County roads, which he does not agree with and in reading the County's letter, that is what they are asking for, it is not the full blown improvement and does not correspond with the diagram. He felt the recommendation to install the turn lanes is a burden and should not only be placed on this piece of property. Motion by Vatne, seconded by Casey, to close the public hearing at 7:33 p.m. Motion carried on a 5 -ayes, 0 -nays, 2- absent (Gamache and Greenwald) vote. Commissioner Kirchoff stated he did not read that the County was asking to have the intersection improved to the level shown in the transportation plan, they are asking for interim improvements with only turn lanes and bypass lane. He stated that they cannot expect one developer to bear the burden of all the costs and there has to be something developed that makes it fair and equitable for new development as well as the old development that is already there. He stated he supported this project. Commissioner Vatne stated he was troubled with the length of the cul-de -sacs. He asked from staff's vantage point, how is this similar or different from what they have already looked at. Mr. Bednarz stated this is one of the longer urban cul -de -sacs they have seen in the City. He stated that typically with undeveloped property they have enough room to work out some kind of roadway connection to make it work but when they get to the infill properties, their options are limited, due to what is already there and there is only so much that can be done. Unfortunately, the limited width of this property, there is only one way to get a double loaded street and that is to put the street down the middle of the project. He stated that even in the event the property to the east was participating at this time, there is still not a way to make this work in terms of a road connection. In terms of the size of the cut -de -sacs, what is proposed is consistent with that temporary cul -de -sac design adjacent with undeveloped properties. Commissioner Kirchoff explained he thought they looked at this property three years ago regarding the connection and this prompted some of the needs for a transportation plan to try not to have this happen. Commissioner Vatne stated in the past they have had comment from the Fire Chief, he wondered if it was reviewed by him. Mr. Bednarz stated he did and the Fire Department is not thrilled with this length of cul-de -sac but there is not anything else that can be done. Commissioner Jasper agreed with Commissioner Kirchoff in regards to the intersection improvements. He stated he is not sure what the answer would be in this situation but it seems a little bit arbitrary for him to be saying the developer has to pay for the • improvements on Crane and 159 He stated there should be a more unified policy that should be developed to address this. Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes — December 9, 2003 Page 6 • Chairperson Daninger stated because of the plats he has seen and the history, this seems to be coming up more often. He stated they will need something in the future. He wanted to indicate the Commissions concern of the length of the cul -de -sac but given what they have, this is the best they can do at the time. Motion by Kirchoff, seconded by Vatne, to recommend to the City Council approval of Resolution No. , approving the proposed preliminary plat with concerns to item eight in the Resolution. Motion carried on a 5 -ayes, 0 -nays, 2- absent (Gamache and Greenwald) vote. Mr. Bednarz stated that this item would be before the Council at the January 6, 2004 City Council meeting. OTHER BUSINESS. a. 2030 Regional Development Framework Mr. Bednarz explained this item is intended to share information and solicit input on the preparation of a response to the draft 2030 Regional Development Framework prepared by the Metropolitan Council. • Mr. Bednarz stated the Metropolitan Council is in the process of adopting a document to replace the 2030 Regional Blueprint prepared by the previous Metropolitan Council. The document outlines regional goals for the seven county metropolitan area and identifies roles for both the Metropolitan Council and local communities. Mr. Bednarz noted the document also defines six geographic planning areas based on land use characteristics. Andover has been placed in both the "Developing Communities" and "Rural Residential' planning areas. Mr. Bednarz stated the final chapter of the document describes the statutory authority of the Metropolitan Council and outlines the programs intended to implement the framework. Among these are the regional grants administered through the Livable Communities Act. This program administers approximately $10 million dollars in grant funds annually. Andover is not a member of the Livable Communities program and does not qualify to receive funds as a result. Mr. Bednarz discussed the staff report with the Commission. Commissioner Jasper asked if staff interpreted this 2030 framework differently as opposed to the blueprint that had been in place, as changing the way the City will or should be looking at the Rural Reserve area. Mr. Bednarz stated the primary difference • in this document is that they are identifying the planning areas specifically and then Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes — December 9, 2003 Page 7 • putting together policies on how they should develop. In Andover's Comprehensive Plan they have some rural residential areas that would be allowed to develop at that two and a half acre density. There is some conflict between their approved plan and some of the policies. Commissioner Kirchoff asked if the 2 % acres would be eligible for urban services. Mr. Bednarz stated there is always the potential for that. The reality is, especially on the west side of Andover, where they have entire square miles of this type of development, it would be difficult at best to provide those services. He stated the capacity does not exist and a new interceptor line would need to be installed. Commissioner Vatne stated there is language in this document that Andover is going to develop some two and a half acre rural residential and while that type of development is not outlined by the MET Council at this time. Mr. Bednarz stated that was true and they do not want any community to develop at that density. He stated the MET Council is outlining their policy to discourage that type of development. In Andover, there is limited amount of that type of development that could occur but there is still some potential and their land use controls do allow this. Commissioner Vatne stated they are taking the position that they set aside, per the Rural Reserve, what was required to appease the direction of the MET Council, but while doing • so, they are still keeping the door open to further rural residential development that may occur. Mr. Bednarz stated this was correct. Commissioner Casey stated in the staff report, it indicated that they are not a member of the livable communities program and they do not receive funds for it, what is the stipulation for getting into the livable communities. What are they missing. Mr. Bednarz stated presently and for the last ten years, Andover has qualified for being a member of the livable communities program but has selected not be a member of that program. It is a conscious decision by the City Council not to be a member of that program. Commissioner Casey asked if W. Bednarz knew the reason for this. Mr. Bednarz stated it has always been the view of the Council that the MET Council is trying to change the way development occurs in Andover and instruct Andover on how it should do its business. He stated this has been a long standing decision that has been made by the City not to be a member of the livable communities program. Commissioner Kirchoff stated that transit is an important part of the transportation system and more needs to be done to expand service in developing areas. Chairperson Daninger stated staff has done a lot of work in a lot of areas and now there is a conflict created. He thought the guidance they were taking was from this group and has the guidance changed. Mr. Bednarz stated the administration has changed and the 2030 • blueprint is being altered based on their perceptions. He stated it is important to go on Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes — December 9, 2003 Page 8 record that the City has a plan and an agreement with the MET Council and that is how • they intend to develop. Commissioner Vatne stated it seemed to him that Andover in general values natural resources very highly and language should be created to help support it. Chairperson Daninger stated they need to make sure that the items agreed upon prior to this, some of the work, maybe gets reiterated in the letter and would be a starting point. b. 2003 Year in Review Mr. Bednarz explained this item is to review the different types of projects and trends they are seeing. He requested preferences on the packets and what they would like improved. 1. Residential development 2. Commercial development 3. Packets Commissioner Jasper asked if at all possible they could get the information more in advance. Chairperson Daninger stated it may be helpful to receive information by email. Mr. Bednarz stated 'they could email staff reports but plans are not always in the correct • format. Commissioner Kirchoff stated he personally likes getting the packet on Friday for a Tuesday meeting. Commissioner Vatne stated he thought the packets have been really good and informative for him. He wondered how much they need the Resolution in the packet. Chairperson Daninger wanted to commend staff on trying to answer questions brought up at the meetings. C. General Discussion Chairperson Daninger stated he always likes to know when the City gets letters and phone calls regarding the items in the packet. They also like getting pictures of the items. Commissioner Kirchoff stated be likes seeing house numbers on adjoining properties. Commissioner Vatne stated if there was a way they could link back to information regarding an item on an as needed basis, to go through a specific history of a project. He stated this would be helpful. Mr. Bednarz asked if he would like a timeline on a project. Commissioner Vatne stated he thought this would be more of a starting point but he would like to have drill down capabilities to look at the history of a project. • Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes —December 9, 2003 Page 9 • Commissioner Jasper asked how the meeting minutes are stored. Mr. Bednarz stated he was not sure how they were stored but he thought they were saved as PDF files. d. 2004 Zoning Ordinance update Mr. Bednarz explained in the future, staff will bring information to the Planning Commission concerning sections of the Zoning Ordinance that need to be updated. Mr. Bednarz mentioned that they are in the process of putting together an annual report based on what the Planning Commission has reviewed. Chairperson Daninger asked if the deadline for Planning Commission applications has passed. Mr. Bednarz stated the City Council wants to interview everyone up for positions on January 6, 2004. Mr. Bednarz stated they will be canceling the last meeting in December and will meet again in January 2004. Chairperson Daninger reminded the Commission that they have a joint meeting with the City Council on December 15, 2003 at 7:00 p.m. • Mr. Bednarz informed the Commission that the City Council will be having a meeting on December 11, 2003 with the County Commissioners regarding projects. Chairperson Daninger wanted to thank everyone on the Commission for their participation on the Commission in 2003. ADJOURNMENT. Motion by Vatne, seconded by Kirchoff, to adjourn the meeting at 8:25 p.m. Motion carved on a 5 -ayes, 0 -nays, 2- absent (Gamache and Greenwald) vote. Respectfully Submitted, Sue Osbeck, Recording Secretary TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. • 0 ANL6 6 W A 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. • ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 MAIN (763) 755 -5100 FAX (763) 755 -6923 • WWW.CLANDOVER.MN.US TO: Planning and Zoning Commissioners FROM: Andy Cross, Associate PlannerA SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING: Residential Sketch Plan to create roughly 90 single family urban residential lots on property located north of 157' Avenue along Crosstown Boulevard. DATE: January 13, 2004 INTRODUCTION The Planning and Zoning Commission is asked to review a residential sketch plan for a 43 -acre development located along Crosstown Boulevard between 157 Avenue and 161 Avenue. The proposed sketch plan 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. DISCUSSION Conformance with local and Regional Plans The proposed sketch plan is consistent with the Comprehensive Land Use 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). Contingent on the Metropolitan Council's approval of a Comprehensive Plan Amendment, which the City Council has already approved, the development will lie within the current growth stage (2000 -2005) in the city's sewer expansion plan. Municipal utilities can be extended to serve the entire development. Conformance with Local Ordinances Chapter 11 -2 -1 Sketch Plan The applicant is required to sketch the entire property under review and surrounding properties in enough detail to indicate how streets, lots, drainage and utilities can be configured to incorporate undeveloped areas in the future. The sketch plan shows the ghost - platting properties to the north and south of the proposed • development. Refer to the attachment to see this land outlined in dashed lines. It is important to note that this property cannot be served with a sewer from this trunk. Crosstown Boulevard borders the development to the West, and existing residential properties • border it to the South and East. Access The sketch plan shows access to both Crosstown Boulevard and Constance Boulevard. The access to Constance would not be established until the northern properties are developed. 159"' Street is shown extended from Crosstown to the existing residential neighborhood to the east. This extension of 159` will also serve the new fire station. Improvements to the intersection of 159 and Crosstown Blvd are needed. Staff is awaiting comments from the Anoka County Highway Department on what they recommend. Constance Comers has already contributed some money for these improvements. Fire Station #3 and the proposed development will also be required to contribute. Chapter 11 -1- 4,13 -6 Buildability The front 100 feet of each lot must be buildable. Lots adjacent to wetlands must provide a minimum of 116.5 feet between the front property line and the delineated edge of the wetland to provide adequate rear yard area for each lot. The lowest floor must be a minimum of three feet above the seasonal high water mark or one foot above the 100 year flood elevation, whichever is greater. Wetlands exist on the site. They will have to be delineated on the plat submission, and should any wetland need to be altered, necessary permits will have to be acquired from the proper authorities, including the Minnesota DNR, Army Corps of Engineers, and the Coon Creek Watershed District. Several lots backing up to the wetlands on the east side of the development appear to be below the 116.5 -foot distance requirement. Chapter 12 -3 -4 Minimum Lot Provisions This section requires a minimum lot size of 11, 400 square feet and minimum lot width of 80 feet at the building setback line. This section also provides a minimum lot depth requirement and building setbacks for the future houses. Some of the corner lots on the sketch plan fail to meet the City's 90 -foot width requirement for corner lots. In addition, the City discourages the use of butt lots. Near the middle of the development, squeezed between two comer lots is a middle lot that backs up to the rear yards of all the other properties on the block. This butt lot is too narrow and should be reworked. South of the fire station is another non - conforming lot that does not meet the minimum frontage requirement on the public right of way. Double- frontage lots at the northwest corner of the proposed development straddle the existing north property line, appearing to exist partially on land not owned by the applicant. The developer has noted this element of the rough sketch plan. • Parcels along the east side of the development are not drawn perpendicular to the street. The City would prefer that the lots remain perpendicular to the street along curves as seen on the lots in the southeast corner of the development. Chapter 11 -3 -3 Streets This section provides the minimum right -of -way requirements and design criteria for streets. The sketch plan introduces two outlets onto County Highways. First, 159 Avenue will be extended westward toward Crosstown Boulevard. This extension was a matter of some contention for'residents at the neighborhood meeting. The residents did not understand the need for a road connection as the roads have functioned adequately for many years. However, the extension has the full support of the Andover Review Committee. In addition, the cul -de -sac at the end of 159 was intended to be temporary at the time of the area's platting in 1977. Please refer to original staff comments and the plat of the subdivision in the attachments. The second outlet from this development is the north/south street ghost - platted through the northern properties. It may eventually connect to 161 Avenue. Comments may be provided by the Anoka County Highway Department, but a more thorough review of this access will be carried out when a development is proposed on these properties. Andover's Public Works Department noted that the "teardrop" style cul -de -sacs in the southwestern area of the sketch plan are difficult to plow and should be eliminated. • Park and Recreation Commission Comments The Parks and Recreation Commission will review this development at their February 5th meeting. The possible location of a park will require review and a recommendation by the Commission. It should be noted that there is an undeveloped park in the Oak Hollow development, which is directly to the east of this development on 159 Ave that could be considered to serve this new urban area. The residents have commented that they would prefer a new park in the nrighborhood. Neighborhood Meeting Comments Residents at the neighborhood meeting held on Monday, January 5 2004, raised several issues. The first was the proposed extension of 159' Avenue through the development to connect with Crosstown Boulevard. Residents living on the existing cul -de -sac on 159 are opposed to having their street extended and losing their dead -end. Another issue raised was the necessity to clear the large number of trees that now grow on the site. The developers explained the reason why so many trees would have to be cleared (streets, utilities, etc), but assured the residents that trees are a valuable selling point for new housing and they would strive to keep as many as possible. A third issue was that of a visual buffer between the existing residential properties and the new development. Residents showed considerable concern about seeing the new development next door and the loss of the country feel to the area. Residents suggested building larger lots on the periphery of this development and smaller lots within it to help the transition from Rural to Urban Residential. The residents also felt that there were not adequate park facilities in the neighborhood. 3 Attachments • Location Map Sketch Plan Original Staff Comments (1977) Original Subdivision Plat (1977) Engineering Comments Staff Recommendation The staff report identifies a number of issues that need to be addressed before a plat can be submitted. Staff recommends a favorable response to the proposal with the adjustments recommended in the staff report. ACTION REQUESTED The commission is asked to informally advise the applicant on the merit of the proposal and any modifications the commission feels are necessary. Staff recommends a favorable response to the proposal with the adjustments recommended in the staff report. Respectfully Submitted, • 76� 2s Andy Cross Cc: Mark Smith, Weston Woods Townhomes, 4601 Weston Woods Way, White Bear Township, MN 55127 Gary Laurent, Laurent Land Development, Inc., 100 S. Fuller St, Suite 200, Shakopee, MN 55379 4 t ■ E sv i 1 US r,�ir•,��hp • ,�;} • ,r�'d%I;:L;£Y .t "£:;:;...v ;, d } ✓'�.ti �'+ • ':�. ° •: %ti: *s'r: ;:�::C S::y;•,i:•' 1- ;:�• ��A ';F'��':;$�:;fpV.:.�;j''iy':; •;:•f {£ ; ' V: ✓L ,=' £� 1'• • 4.4 ; ��113:L'''' ✓P.':Y £:;.;ti �; �],,4, : ?e'�"4'F.fi• :1... %yj�.�,f;.: •;;, % ' . , Gr- GL „r :£••''vr' 4 �.P,r' .n,;'•.: y ',:' ';L•• n4•,;C £:`:•'h✓. -.�•: '4� 9.�c dt•.''• :;;�s ..y k �F� >�v :• {; % {•3 X: 1.4 C -, £V . .�:v.� ✓..��o L y.'S, .•u..•S'.;:;, p ��',` °.; {}�'�?�'rG•,�'.�::6 •'. S~ ` r :ve: 9.':: • L' fg 4� P �_s:•'�'�Srf •,£a,:�;:}v:-,.•..v ..; �:•r.• , � :.�C3 • +; `r� • 'fir', W ,•. �d,.•, '`F ,r vv £$�:•y'L G£; � '.,¢£; S• :� :, yam : , .' - ✓ Cti q � ,rj�'• f y -' • L L. s.: e 4 � F� > ':',7 •:riti { ' ry-• i'S'' O' :•': �i•:Y. •S; : •. L''.O✓� • 'a• ' '�':'l •.i4' L ' °;• - •;• L - fi�''•�'- f £V:❖'•�:Ln'�:LLy''t7 �•`'•`�*.•�' :;1:''"'' 4:;✓ e�;. n�',•'.;': :�•••''- Ed::.. •..'- L'!: CF::.!. 'is�:'•;'. ✓'£:L''o:';:'S';.,1,q i{ :�:5: . `.1G::.: •'•.i:41''�vj`•''�:4 :•' >w. }!v: i.: L:..'w.. ■ mini I� 0 r R� cE i3,�.vD 0 !R 1-' • 9 -9 . :., '.."'" CO-:,S7"'~<. ILVI> , !,' _ .,~ ..'-:.' > ...,....m..." .....m........-_.,.,,=.~,;.,;_.- : " ~_ .'.. _._...1-..- _'. I' ..-.::---,--~.:---::..' .--~-~:;;';;':::::"':::===---------' ,i i ,j'" . .._./- ',.>h I ." ' /' ". . """ ".. --,'/ ''', k ,1 I _ _ -.'0- .":-~I / /,' ,1 ' ",','c .---. ' , I ,,' -- / ...., '1-'/ . ", r.. -' ' . , " " ' ," ' , ",,' " ,'" _.' , '. " ' " ,..,,' /' ;, "" ", "" v", \ . ", '. I' : ,', _ _ / / " I \ : \ i',: : /, ',' ,-", '" 'II ''''~~__ I'. --' ",' ,f. ,'-" "r ',~, , , " ". __ " . ~ ' ' " 'II ' - .. f..... " , ' ,--. -... --, ' ttl ' , ' ',. ' ' ' ,'''' " ,,' _ ," . ", ',~' 1 ',T, ,,- ',j' \ ," ' ", " " " "', ' ... _,.'. ' . ' ", " " ,,\ ,,' I" \ , , " ' ' _...' ~' " ' " '. ," , ',' " ... . " ",'.' -' '.,' .' ' , 1" "" " '.- ..' /' f..._., - 1- " '~'I \ (,' " \'. =. , " .. ,I ,,'_'., ._/_/._._( "', \'" 'i 1 " "m,\,.--' i ' , ' " '.' ' '\" ' ... - ..' , " "..- "- .' " '." ' ~, .. ~' . I !~ - - ::----- -- :::--~ \~ ;,' :!, ", \ .. ,." - ,-.--.- -' '- ',' /,/ \ " ,_'.., ,\ /, '!I '\ 1"/ ,.....- --- -----.. ", '.. : '" ..__,,' ',\, 'i ,/ f ... ' ' /<--.." \' .,' " ,_' " , ,,, , I ,'" ' I," ,.....-. ", " , :, ____ .-' : I ' ,,'o, '-, ',' ,-' ::: ~' f .--.'.. "', --- , I', ' __ __, . ' "\1 -_'" I I , .. " .. .... I / I \ .. \ "--- - .- \ \ I I ' ~ )' -------..- ... " ," . "m._' ",' ' ': '! "..' "., / /_, I . \ I .--- / I I \ I I \ '" ,',',' ... ,.'.. ' / I I ' " ", . '- -' "I ~ 'I , . ,... .,...' ,,' ",.. \',', ~ ,,- \ I it. .- '~,' _ /.- '...., ,.--",," ~'l ' --~ .-- -.:" '" L" '.) TI (- {\. , : \ ",' _, :' ,-., " '-, k J " /' o," ,j:-' .... .... 7t~L'A -..... " \ '.... ,'-- ',' ,'.," " ' ,,'" ' ,', " ' ' I', ,,~ "...,'.. ",,' " 1 I 1 , ", '," ,~ .." ,y. , ' . __. " ", C" ", '. ,', T .' \ r'o." .~~' ,. " ,",7',:;~' ,.', I ".' "Ii-:-"'" . \( l; JW'" "'=-:'~( .,.'...Y .' ~" " ~o~~ , ,_, --I<' 0 " -~, ' /-';~, ..' I' : . - . _ ,<' n -, ' I" ~. ,~: .:7. ,," .. .' , ~ T"jTTl ,.....--.-/ " ~, ... ,'" ~ l:~'~ ~ .~' --- C"~~' ' ,~~~~'.?'. , - , ,.' ~~,.~' . ,,' .. " .c' , " ' ."... ,~'" -....., ' '" y, I .' .,~' iJr.n, '_ " ) =- ".'1. , T": /' / :~---- .- . ' ~,~ . ,~ r. /,,~ , ,,4<. ~ ,.. '.I"ffiI' '[" +' ; fT'''''''''''=-' -' i t r'--~ """ i1\iiJ. "~'" cltJ \ ~NJjW~V, ''':::'; 'f::'. ~ , I ',-r 1":: ~.. ~~~ /I/''''',~frl(' i~1 ' ,-~' : I ~ ," b' "",/ 1 ' , ' ,'" / ..~, t '.' ' ", .' , 'Wi] / ' iT ' I ' - . 'ie, ~ ',,; - -, ' ' ~ 1 ~, ,,_' \, l-) --,: ~ .. ".' ' - ";;' , ( , . "If'" I~ .. .. ' _!.. -', ... ,,0. , ' .......;t.. .' .' '. "'., . llIDIc" ", ,\ I ... ,..' I ". ." .', ~,\ ," I \. : \Sl' '1'11 " '.~ t l~IlI;;';' ~;;\;, 11"" ii.",1;~,J ..:::.- ,,~ I " ...........1.' ~ /q,''"'J'''' '''i'' "" , ' . . ..." . ,.,.' , '. 11/ ' . I." " H+H ~L.' ",~,:" n, ,,' ' \ Y,i'~' : ~l'ttf/~1 1"" r~lL.;'I,\:~:..Jl \ ,-'" - '" - .. ' ' , ..',\ ,~ 1"':':1- ., ""-,' "'7 "",,",' .0' ...,,' ' ", " \ " y ~ ,,=", ...~L " ' " .. , , , ,."., .' -..,' ." ' . ',' : ' " J if f- ~ ' '':>' "","<Co ". !" ;'" ,"->. ",- ,,- m -- ' " " l!'" ("",,' " ~ "., 'd- "- ..... ' . . ~ : :, ~rF. l~"",,,,,~~l~:h~';!/~"":'~- ~ F"'~/- , " "'''''''''"'' .'" .,' ,. '" 'iI>>""~ I ,,,,,,""""" ....1/ . ~ ,tfj' . ' " , <" . ,. ' ' .' ,.. '. " . . , , " T ,_,' ,-,," .. -- C", " . " ^ , ' ,~, " " ", ' ' . . . ,,'Z' ' , . : ,"\\' -ci.'fJ' y . ~_' Iid~ ,~' i ~-:' ;" 0 '-~ 0 ~r "t." , '" I(("~ ' , ~ . . ~'.. c,/ ,,,.,)" ,': '... . ~ . - ,I. 'J' .' .--' . \ ' , ,., -.. , ...' ," \ '\(~ I.... I ,', r-:;. -.. "'" 7' ,', ",< /7~~" I'" :;, .~' : "1 ~ ~ ': 11- ,<,,~k:::'; "~'-'!' ~~!/ lil/.I ' , " , "" In ' , ' , ,""",~. " " · I I IT:.~' ~" ,;"... ' ~. '. " ' , ," ',., .~" . . ~- .."......"'. ' ' I 11"t.~ ~ ' ,," r:--"~~'l.."" \ . , " ': ".' ~,.~ .. _._' '" I ",. . , ,,' I ' " JJl ,~_., . .;,.:!i;p ~",~..."." ' ',' ' . ,. ~ .,.,......," ___.:"" ,"" 0' ' ",,' r"' ..I I _ - /,' / s:1J ii{.... 1~..1/"") 1,,-- "'-'; - '\,'\' :~ ) " '-- .._/ '" I I lL n: .. r I' 0 ..-.::'\ ..,' ~ "'5r...... ' I I .. ).~. ;;)'. ~ I 'I j ,l, .' 0 I' '- ' " . ' . ' , ". ,"" . '.' I' " ,,~ /, _ ! _ :: / ,~'y , l' ( ~ __~~ ,~ r""- _ ~"', ,,-~,~m\' i" ,...' J ' , ", .H ~ ' , ,/ ~.- ,,7.<:, . 'I J" "..., "0;;'- , I ,,' .,' ",,,,,. ~ ",,-' ,,'. , ' ,,' .' ,."" . ' v --' ~ ' ~ '," I : -' / f.5~..,h~, ".. I"...;;, 1_< ,j!j... i' . -J -;:::z.,~.lI fk' ",,\ "",:,~, ,:-"",,- , , I,.'" 't:lI'. ,", - .. ." .' , . ", ....,.. e ,'" -.: " ,,,',,, '""'~. ,,'7-"7' j " .' , , ,'co, ." ' , "" ~ 1 ,........ -_'fl' ! "'. , i. .if' 't' 'l,~;m,.. __ , . . . .. ~< ",", ~,~ '''" .m,) " " \ '.-. __., ~Ff~' \.-,,,,:.:s / -0- " .- ~' .:' -.' I "'-"' . ,.r ,~,' ~ I r...... ,r, " , ::' / _, ii- -1" II' I I' 'I U' EJ''!'" [Ll" t:j'" ,~It". -.; ,.-.- --------- __0' 1,'/ " :>r!1 l' ~ ,/ " :,':1~I,><T''- I 1,1, J' .." '.>"' ' . . ~. , ' ' ,,'I'. , .", """. - ., ~ "', - . ," -" ' "', ,.. " . ' ~) . ?'1ILI / "k') '~ .... -, ' " ... "",' '.' 0 ,'.' -' ~ . ~ I -'7 ~' TKDA TOLTZ, KING, DUVALL, ANDERSON AND ASSOCIATES INCORPORATED ENGINEERS AND ARCHITECTS 1408 PIONEER BUILDING SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA $5101 224 -7891 TELEX 29.7461 RICHARD M. BARKER OWEN J. BEATTY CARREL H. BERKOWITZ September 15, 1977 ROBERT A. BOYER JAMES C. BROTEN ARNDT J. DUVALL HUGO G. ERICKSON WILLIAM J. FEYDER ROYCE S. HANSEN STEPHEN M. HARTLEY Planning and Zonin g Commission WESTLY J. HENDRICKSON CLIFFORD E. JOHNSON R. KASMA Andover, Minnesota KIRK J. THOMAS KIRK J. THOMAS DAVID W. KIRKWOLD A. DEAN LUNDHOLM ROBERT T. MALONEY DENNIS R. MARTENSON RICHARD D. MENKEN Re: Oak Hollow Preliminary Plat LEONARD G. MILLER WAYNE A. OLSON Andover, Minnesota U P A R R DOLP R OBERT P. Commission No. 6223 -77 DER ROBERT R. RYDER WILLIAM H. SHERIDAN JAMES A. SKARET ABE J. SPERLING ROBERT G. SPURR WALTER W. THORPE JAMES E. VOYEN NATHAN F. WEBER Commission Members: CLIFFORD W. HAMBLIN EDWARD J. BOOTH • We have reviewed the preliminary plat for Oak Hollow Addition located in Section 13 north of 157th Avenue N. W. The property is in an R -1 Zoning District requiring a minimum lot size of 2 acres. The following are our comments regarding the proposed subdivision as prepared on August 26, 1977. General Comments 1. 157th Avenue N.W. is a designated Municipal State Aid Roadway which requires a right of way width of 120 feet. The developer has included dedication of 60 feet width of right of way north of the centerline of 157th Avenue as required for a State Aid Roadway. 2. The proposed subdivision is within the Coon Creek Watershed District. A copy of the plat must be submitted to the Board for their review to obtain approval of the plan. 3. Temporary cul -de -sacs will be constructed at each end of 159th Avenue N.W. partly on temporary easements as indicated on the plat. At such time as 159th Avenue N.W. is extended, the temporary easements would be terminated. —9— Wsf /tee P /gf � ,1v r I, -7- \ ee a I c� +ao � 'Al � r F v r I, -7- \ ee a I c� t C I T Y O F NDaVE • 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. • ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 . (763) 755 -5100 FAX (763) 755 -8923 • WWW.CI.ANDOVER.MN.US MEMORANDUM TO: Courtney Bednarz, City Planner COPIES TO: FROM: David Berkowitz, City Engineer & Todd Haas, Asst. City Engineer DATE: January 8, 2004 REFERENCE: Smith's Properties Sketch Plan/Review #1 Listed below are comments based on the sketch plan for your review. 1. It appears per City Code Title 11- 2 -1(E) that the subdivider has shown how some of the adjacent properties can be developed to ensure that adjoining properties have the ability to subdivide at some time in the future. It Will be necessary to determine if the developer has provided enough area to ensure that this ghost plat submitted fits with the other adjacent owner's ideas. It appears that the area to the south o• the sketch plan should be included to allow access to the south to 157 Avenue NW. Note: The south portion is considered a closed loop as it has 1 way in and 1 way out which could be an issue for emergency vehicles. See sketch plan for street extension to the south that would ultimately connect to 157"' Avenue NW. 2. Need to identify the boundary of the approved delineated wetland boundary on sketch plan. If no wetland exists, it would be necessary to indicate this in the legend. Wetland locations may have an impact on how lots are to be configured within the development. 3. The possible location of a park will require review and a recommendation by the Paris & Recreation Commission, which would then be forwarded to the City Council. Note: There is an undeveloped park in the Oak Hollow development, which is directly to the east of this development on 159"' Avenue NW that could be considered to serve this new urban area. 4. Need to indicate the existing right -of -way width and all existing drainage and utility easements. The right of way on 159'" Avenue NW only shall be 66 feet wide, which would be consistent with 15e Avenue NW right of way in Oak Hollow. 5. The developer is responsible to obtain the necessary permits from the Coon Creek Watershed District, DNR, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers or any other agency that is interested in the site. 6. Need to meet the requirements of the City of Andover Water Resource Management Plan. 7. Need to submit a tree protection plan with the submittal of the preliminary plat. 8. The developer will need to petition for improvements (sanitary sewer, watermain, streets & storm sewer). Note: The Developer will have the option to install these improvements privately, Which does not require a petition. It would good to meet with City Staff to discuss this. 9. Need to meet requirements of all City Codes that apply. 10. All streets will be required to be public. 11. A copy of the sketch plan should be forwarded to the Anoka County Highway Department for review an* comment. 12. Outlots are not allowed and will need to be attached to the adjoining parcel. -->o- 13. Sidewalks may be required along 159th Avenue NW. Also, trails may be considered along Crosstown Boulevard and 161 "Avenue NW. • 14. Need to insure that all of the area can be served with gravity sanitary sewer, which will ultimately flow thru the lift station located in Constance Comers. 15. Are there any existing easements (private or public) that need to be vacated? If there are, they should be clearly indicated on the sketch plan so that it can be determined if the easement needs to be vacated. 16. The east -west street (159 Avenue NW) at the east end must have a 50 -foot minimum tangent between the reverse curves. 17. The two intersections within the sketch plan do not appear to meet at a 90° angle to each other potentially causing a dangerous intersection. These intersections must be redesigned to meet the 90° -angle requirement. Also site distance requirements will need to be met at all intersections. 16. The Developers shall identify existing street names and all other information as required in City Code 11- 2- 1(Sketch Plan). 19. Easements in the preliminary plat will need to be provided to allow utilities to be looped as required in various portions of the development. 20. City Code 11 -2 -1 D5 requires the developer to provide aerial photo (most current) with the sketch plan overlay. 21. It may be necessary to eliminate the bubble cul-de -sacs. In the past, these have not been allowed. They have been a problem for Public Works as far as snow plowing maintenance. Need to explore this more with the Public Works Department. 22. Additional comments pending further review. Note: The developer must respond in writing to each item in the memo to ensure compliance. • C � J i I= 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. • ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 MAIN (763) 755 -5100 FAX (763) 755 -8923 • WWW.CLANDOVER.MN.US TO: Planning and Zoning Commissioners FROM: Andy Cross, Associate Planner SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING: Rezoning 04 -01: Change the zoning for properties located at 15955, 15803, & 15773 Crosstown Boulevard from (R -1), Single Family Rural, to (R -4), Single Family Urban. DATE: January 13, 2004 INTRODUCTION The 43 -acre spread of land around the site of the new fire station is composed of four separate parcels that would all like to be considered for rezoning from R -1 to R -4. The owner of one parcel has already applied for a rezoning. The application represents the rezoning request of the other three properties. With the passage of this resolution, the entire 43 -acres will have the potential to be rezoned at once instead of the individual parcels being rezoned at different times. DISCUSSION At the Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting of November 25` 2003, the Planning Commission voted to favorably recommend the rezoning of a property located at 15827 Crosstown Boulevard. 15827 Crosstown is one of the four parcels that makeup the 43 acres under consideration for residential development around the site of the new Fire Station #3. When this item went before the City Council, however, it was decided that it would be to the City's advantage to see a cooperative rezoning and development effort between property owners of the entire 43 -acre area. Instead of the property owners applying for and receiving rezonings for their properties at different times, the City Council will have the opportunity to rezone the entire 43 -acre area all at once. In addition, the property owners / developers have met with neighborhood residents and submitted a sketch plan application that represents the cooperative development of all 43 acres. This satisfies all the concerns expressed by the City Council regarding informing the surrounding property owners about pending development and rezoning of this area. As with all rezonings, the City must meet one of the two following findings that are provided by state statute: 1. The original zoning was in error. 2. The character of the area and/or times and conditions have changed to such an extent to warrant the Rezoning. The times and conditions have changed with the arrival of municipal services to properties • adjacent to the applicant's property. Sewer service is available through the nearby Constance Corners subdivision and its arrival is imminent at the future site of Andover Fire Station 43. With city water and sewer available, this area will be able to developed at a density that an R -4 zoning classification provides. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends a favorable recommendation for this rezoning. ACTION REQUESTED The Planning Commission is asked to recommend approval of the rezoning request based on the fact that times and conditions have changed. Respectfully submitted, * yrS Andross Cc: Weston Woods Townhomes, 4601 Weston Woods Way, White Bear Township, MN 55127 I* Attachments Resolution Location Map E —Z— • CITY OF ANDOVER COUNTY OF ANOKA STATE OF MINNESOTA CITY CODE CHAPTER 12 -3 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CITY CODE CHAPTER 12 -3, ZONING DISTRICT MAP OF THE CITY OF ANDOVER- THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANDOVER HEREBY ORDAINS: Chapter 12 -3, The Zoning District Map of the City of Andover is hereby amended as follows: 1) Rezone properties from R -1, Single Family Rural to R -4, Single Family Urban, legally described as: PARCEL A: The South One Half (S %) of the Northwest Quarter (NW ' / 4) of the Southwest Quarter (SW 1 /4), Section 13, Township 32, Range 24. Except the North 330 feet of the West 330 feet thereof, and except any roads on the above - described property, Anoka County, Minnesota. • PARCEL B: The part of the Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 13, Township 32, Range 24, Anoka County, Minnesota described as follows: Commencing at a point on the West line thereof distant 680 feet North of the Southwest corner of said Section 13; thence North along the West line thereof a distance of 120 feet; thence East at right angles to the West line thereof to the East line of said Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter; thence South along the East line thereof a distance of 120 feet; thence West to the point of beginning. PARCEL C: The part of the Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 13, Township 32, Range 24, Anoka County, Minnesota described as follows: Commencing at a point on the West line thereof distant 400 feet North of the Southwest corner of Section 13; thence North along the West line thereof a distance of 400 feet; thence East at right angles to the West line thereof to the East line of said Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter; thence South along the East line thereof a distance of 400 feet thence West to the point of beginning. Excepting from the above described parcel that tract of land described as follows: That part of the Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter, Section 13, Township 32, Range 24, Anoka County, Minnesota described as follows: Beginning at a point on the West line thereof distance 400 feet North of the Southwest corner of said Section 13; thence North along the West line of Southwest Quarter a distance of 160 feet thence East at right angles to the West line a distance of 495 feet; thence South at right angles a distance of 160 feet; thence West at right angles a distance of 495 feet to the point of beginning. Excepting from the above described parcel that tract of land described as follows: That part of the Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter, Section 13, Township 32, Range 24, Anoka County, Minnesota described as follows: Commencing at a point on the West line thereof 680 feet North of the Southwest comer of said Section 13; thence North __3_ along the West line thereof a distance of 120 feet; thence East at right angles to the West line thereof to the East line of said Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter; thence • South along the East line thereof a distance of 120 feet; thence West to the point of beginning. 2) All other sections of the Zoning Ordinance shall remain as written and adopted by the City Council of the City of Andover. This rezoning is approved based upon the fact that the character of the area has changed and the conditions surround the site have changed to such an extent that a rezoning is warranted. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Andover on this _ day of January 2004. CITY OF ANDOVER ATTEST: Victoria Volk, City Clerk Michael R. Gamache, Mayor 0 u —I,. L O Ct V � a 4 F- a l0 i L W c W to w Z N J W tn Q W W � Z Z LU Z U L, 0 w S w F w w 2 Q � o O ° T 'a 2 m `O c Q o E € m � c U L N m w O 11 a H rn° m 41 m m m `o p p w A a 9 y m o , o c '0 0 c u m m ma °v u 0 m ° � L u m = m �o as m L � C O O C C m m N E m m ZU 0 3 0 0 !A m CL M G E m O tlD `c m ro a a� v m m L m -- vv m a5 0 ° c I F _ L W E� Of C 20 am m f m T W � O L '00 N CL a C r- 0 m c ` p c `c F � m }'\ z° 5 9 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. • ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 MAIN (763) 755 -5100 FAX (763) 755 -8923 • WWW.CI.ANDOVER.MN.US TO: Planning and Zoning Commissioners FROM: Andy Cross, Associate Planner /fv-- SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING: Rezoning 04 -02: Change the zoning for the property located at 15929 Crosstown Boulevard, the future location of Fire Station #3, from'(R -1), Single Family Rural, to (R -4), Single Family Urban. DATE: January 13, 2004 INTRODUCTION According to the City Code, parcels in the (R -1), Rural Residential zoning district cannot receive city sewer and water. Since it is imperative that the new fire station has access to municipal utilities, an effort is being made to change the station's zoning to an Urban Residential zoning • classification. DISCUSSION The location for the new fire station sits within the 2020 MUSA boundary, which means it will eventually be surrounded by urban residential development. This rezoning request represents an effort to have the fire station's property rezoned to R -4, the same zoning classification that the surrounding properties will eventually have. As with all rezonings, the City must meet one of the two following findings that are provided by state statute: 1. The original zoning was in error. 2. The character of the area and/or times and conditions have changed to such an extent to warrant the Rezoning. The times and conditions have changed with the arrival of municipal services to properties adjacent to the applicant's property. Sewer service is available to the nearby Constance Corners subdivision and its arrival is imminent at the future site of Andover Fire Station #3. With city water and sewer available, this area will be able to developed at a density that an R -4 zoning classification provides. U Staff Recommendation Staff recommends a favorable recommendation for this rezoning. . ACTION REQUESTED The Planning Commission is asked to recommend approval of the rezoning request based on the fact that times and conditions have changed. Respectfully submitted, *dros Cc: Weston Woods Townhomes, 4601 Weston Woods Way, White Bear Township, MN 55127 Attachments Resolution Location Map r1 LJ • —2-- r1 LJ CITY OF ANDOVER COUNTY OF ANOKA STATE OF MINNESOTA CITY CODE CHAPTER 12 -3 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CITY CODE CHAPTER 12 -3, ZONING DISTRICT MAP OF THE CITY OF ANDOVER. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANDOVER HEREBY ORDAINS: Chapter 12 -3, The Zoning District Map of the City of Andover is hereby amended as follows: 1) Rezone properties from R -1, Single Family Rural to R -4, Single Family Urban, legally described as: That part of the South Half of the Northwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 13, Township 32, Range 24, Anoka County, Minnesota, described as follows: L� Beginning at a point on the west line of said South Half of the Northwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter, distance 329.03 feet northerly of the southwest comer thereof, thence southerly along said west line a distance of 293.03 feet; thence easterly parallel with the south lie of said South Half of the Northwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter a distance of 60.05 feet; thence easterly a distance of 95.40 feet along a tangential curve concave to the south, having a radius of 505.81 feet and a central angle of 10 degrees 48 minutes 25 seconds; thence southeasterly, tangent to said curve, a distance of 87.69 feet; thence easterly a distance of 110.82 feet along a tangential curve concave to the north having a radius of 597.00 feet and a central angle of 10 degrees 38 minutes 09 seconds to the southeast corner of the west 350.67 feet of said South Half of the Northwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter; thence northerly along the east line of said west 350.67 feet a distance of 333.69 feet to the intersection with a line drawn easterly from the point of beginning, perpendicular to the west line of said South Half of the Northwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter; thence westerly along said perpendicular line a distance of 350.67 feet to the point of beginning. 2) All other sections of the Zoning Ordinance shall remain as written and adopted by the City Council of the City of Andover. This rezoning is approved based upon the fact that the character of the area has changed and the conditions surround the site have changed to such an extent that a rezoning is warranted. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Andover on this CITY OF ANDOVER ATTEST: Victoria Volk, City Clerk day of January 2004. Michael R. Gamache, Mayor - 3- C A I T Y O F ND {EVE • 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. • ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 • (763) 755 -5100 FAX (763) 755 -8923 • WWW.CI.ANDOVER.MN.US TO: Planning and Zoning Commissioners FROM: Courtney Bednarz, City Planner SUBJECT: Variance (04 -01) to vary from the front and side yard setback requirements for existing house at 921 158 Avenue NW. DATE: January 13, 2004 INTRODUCTION The subject property contains an older home that was constructed before the current setback requirements were adopted. The home does not meet the current front and side yard setback requirements as illustrated in the attached drawing. DISCUSSION The applicant purchased the property without the non - conforming situation being disclosed to them. This discovery was made when a new deck was constructed on the property last year. The property owner became aware that a building permit was necessary for the new deck at the same time. Due to the fact that the structure was already non - conforming, the City would not issue a building permit for any expansion of the existing structure, including the deck. The property is in an older rural neighborhood that developed before the current R -1 Zoning District standards were established. The streets are gravel, and meander through the right -of -way as shown on the attached aerial photograph. The deck wraps the south side of the house and is six feet wide on this side of the house as shown on the attached drawings. The posts are approximately 4.5 feet from the foundation and the remaining 1.5 feet cantilevers out. The setback is measured from the post. The new deck reduced the front yard setback from 39.6 feet to 35 feet. 0 R -1 Subject Requirement Pro erty Front Setback 40 feet 35 feet Corner Side 40 feet 35 feet Setback Interior Side 10 feet 193 feet Setback Rear Yard 50 feet 225 feet setback 0 State Statute provides review criteria that are used to determine the merit of variance cases. In all cases the applicant must demonstrate undue hardship. The considerations for undue hardship include: • 1. There are circumstances unique to the property that were not created by the landowner. Unique conditions may include the physical characteristics, including topography or water conditions that may exist on the property. 2. The property, if the variance is granted, will not be out of character with other properties in the same neighborhood. 3. The applicant has exhausted all reasonable possibilities for using his/her property or combining a substandard lot due to size, shape or lot line dimensions, with an adjacent vacant lot. 4. Economic considerations may not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use of the property exists with application of the minimum standards of this chapter. Findings for this Request The applicant has provided the attached letter to describe the findings for the proposed variance. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the proposed variance. Attachments • Resolution Location map Applicant's Letter Survey of property Aerial photograph Deck plan. ACTION REQUESTED The Planning Commission is asked to recommend approval or denial of the proposed variance to the front and rear yard setbacks. RespIctlyly submitted, ourt y n Cc: Mr. And Mrs. Genz 921 158` Avenue NW • CITY OF ANDOVER COUNTY OF ANOKA STATE OF MINNESOTA RES. NO. R A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE VARIANCE REQUEST FOR MR. AND MRS. GENZ TO VARY FROM CITY CODE 12 -3 -4 TO REDUCE THE FRONT AND SIDE YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENTS FOR AN EXISTING HOUSE AND DECK ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 921158 AVENUE NW, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS (P.I.D 14- 32- 24 -44- 0012): THAT PART OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 14 TOWNSHIP 32 RANGE 24 DESCRIBED AS FOL LOWS COMMENCING AT THE SOTHEAST CORNER OF SAID QUARTER THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID QUARTER A DISTANCE OF 561.0 FEET THENCE WEST & PARALELL WITH THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID QUARTER A DISTANCE OF 660.0 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEG OF THE TRACT HEREIN TO BE DESCRIBED THENCE WEST ALONG A LINE PARALELL WITH THE SOUTH LINE OF SAIDQUARTER A DISTANCE OF 260.99 FEET - THENCE NORTH A DISTANCE OF 300.0 FEET THNCE EAST & PARALELL WITH THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID QUARTER A DISTANCE OF 260.99 FEE THENCE SOUTH 300 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. WHEREAS, Mr. And Mrs. Genz have petitioned to vary from the requirements of City Code 12 -3 -4, and; WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the special circumstances for the subject property are as follows: 1. The home was constructed before the current standards of the R -1 Zoning District were adopted. WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the variance will not be detrimental to the health, safety or welfare of surrounding properties, and; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Andover approves the proposed variance request to vary from City Code 12 -3 -4 to reduce the front and side yard setback for the existing house and new deck to 35 feet for the subject property. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Andover on this _ day of , 2004. CITY OF ANDOVER ATTEST: Michael R. Gamache, Mayor Victoria Volk, City Clerk Variance 921 158th Avenue NW 6BO 15890 1054 15975 160191 15845 15827 LL 15850 15810 887 15762 15803 15773 15782 158T 16745 887 719 677 910 910 15748 N - 15743 -- 15726 1571 15710 25 841 LLJ w 831 752 654 939 15633 838 15615 15553 Al BBB 1021 928 15582 15549 15535 &15505 968 < 15540 15527 Project Location Map N W E s Andover Planning 0 • —I)(-- • Dec.31, 2003 To whom it may concern, Upon building our deck this past summer we discovered that our deck was encroaching on the setback of our property. While looking into this matter we found through pictures and aerial views that not only our deck, but the entire house is encroaching on the setback. Our house was built on an angle causing the entire south west and north west comers of our home to infringe. We are writing this letter to ask for a variance. Not only for our deck, but for our home as well. We are a young couple and bought this house for the sole purpose of remodeling and improving the house. With out this variance we will not be able to continue with our goal. We are hoping to keep the deck as is, since it is only a pie portion of the deck that is infringing. The amount of the deck that is infringing is only a matter of feet and the deck adds well needed curb appeal. Our house is located 65 -70 feet from the edge of the road. While researching the situation we have also found that 158 Ave does not run straight. It actually curves around making the road wider and measurements uncertain. We have talked to our neighbors and all agree that the deck looks good and they don't mind the fact that we are infringing. They show their support with their signatures on our petition. During the building of the deck we also resided our house. In the event of removing the deck we would have to tear off the existing siding and start over since the siding was installed around the deck and needs to be put on from the bottom up. This would be timely and expensive. In conclusion, as you can tell by the above description, this is no longer an issue of a deck variance. But rather,our total homestead is not built within the parameters of Andover code. With this in mind, what we are asking for is a total variance so that we may continue the enjoyment and improvement of our home. Sincerely, r' Scott and Allison Genz • -15-- I c A ur+ M . %W rn c w1 lAl . S. S TR E E T - N . — 500. 0 — /Yo,? o IN - ti N a 43. y IF n w M dG Nti C k� li 2 h Gl I a U T T U n :y •� I L /NE 10 i9/F*li r/ W /TH EAST LrNE of Sf %g aF Sec,/ /4-N/_4i 4s s m m� a n m - a. � - -,.• 4 M 0 M '•(� C 'A M KI fD MN O m 4 I O (D En r�r p d 9 I /J p S H wo 0 M Or O O O 7 p rf 'A Y p a R I Z C 07Np T �� O ♦ M p E N Y rtO h y 1A \ iV J p 9 Ell Z V R 7 r 12 i • I � , I I I 11 I SCOTT B. QENZ 921 158Th AVENUE N.W. ANDOVER, MN 55304 - 70-45-1045' fix$ S 3\5 \( 0.0 Z-z +S - Best•''%S Gy-b - 1l11�d5r(�C5 ze- to'[I" -- -- -- 9 r� • x Y d: .a i E TO: Planning and Zoning Commissioners FROM: Courtney Bednarz, City Planne." SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING: Rezoning (04 -03) to change the zoning from Single Family Urban Residential (R -4) to Multiple Dwelling Low Density (M -1) for property located at the northeast corner of Crosstown Boulevard and 141 Lane NW. DATE: January 13, 2004 INTRODUCTION The Planning Commission is asked to review the proposed rezoning to allow the Crosstown Meadows project containing attached townhouses to move forward. DISCUSSION As with all rezonings, in order to change the zoning the City must establish one of the two following findings are present: 1. The original zoning was in error. 2. The character of the area or times and conditions have changed to such an extent to warrant the rezoning. The Neighborhood Business Study contemplated either low or medium density residential development for the subject property. After a public hearing process the Council determined that low density residential was most appropriate for the site. The Neighborhood Business study contemplated either R -4 or M -1 zoning for the subject property. The M -1 zoning district allows attached residential dwellings. This zoning district is the most conducive to achieving a low density residential development given the size and shape of the subject property. Staff Recommendation Times and conditions have changed due to the recommendations of the Neighborhood Business Study which provided detailed analysis of the site. Additionally, the M -1 Zoning District is the most conducive to achieving the land use recommendations of the Neighborhood Business Study. Staff recommends approval of the proposed rezoning. Attachments City Code Amendment Location Map ACTION REQUESTED The Planning Commission is asked to recommend approval of the rezoning request based on the fact that times and conditions have changed. 0 s mitted e na Cc: odiak Homes, nc. 8512 124 th Lane Champlin, MN 55316 1665 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. • ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 • (763) 755 -5100 FAX (763) 755 -8923 • WWW.CI.ANDOVER.MN.US CITY OF ANDOVER • COUNTY OF ANOKA STATE OF MINNESOTA ORDINANCE AMENDING CITY CODE TITLE 12 -3 -5 ZONING DISTRICT MAP TO CHANGE THE ZONING DESIGNATION FROM SINGLE FAMILY URBAN RESIDENTIAL (R -4) TO MULTIPLE DWELLING LOW DENSITY (M -1) WHEREAS, a public hearing was held before the Planning and Zoning Commission, and; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and has determined that said request meets the criteria of the City Code, and; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recommends approval of the proposed rezoning to the City Council, and; WHEREAS, the City Council agrees with the recommendation of the Planning Commission, and; NOW THEREFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANDOVER DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: 0 City Code 12 -3 -5, the Zoning District Map of the City of Andover is hereby amended as follows: 1) Rezone land from R -4, Single Family Urban Residential to M -1, Multiple Family Low Density on approximately four acres (P.I.D.27- 32 -24 -33 -0072) legally described as: Outlot A, Kensington Estates 3rd Addition, Anoka County, Minnesota 2) Times and conditions have changed due to the recommendations of the Neighborhood Business Study which provided detailed analysis of the site. Additionally, the M -1 Zoning District is the most conducive to achieving the land use recommendations of the Neighborhood Business Study. 3) All other sections of the Zoning Ordinance shall remain as written and adopted by the City Council of the City of Andover. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Andover on this _ day of 2004. CITY OF ANDOVER ATTEST: Victoria Volk, City Clerk Michael R. Gamache, Mayor —2— • M W -0 Project Location Map Ardover `PWrinins - 3- Northeast Corner of 141 st Lane NW and Crosstown Boulevard I C A 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 FROM: Courtney Bednarz, City Plann* SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING: Conditional Use Permit (04 -01) for Planned Unit Development Review of Crosstown Meadows, a twinhouse project containing 16 units located at the northeast corner of Crosstown Boulevard and 141 Lane NW. DATE: January 13, 2004 INTRODUCTION This application continues the review process started with the Crosstown Meadows Sketch Plan. The development consists of 16 attached townhouse units on approximately four acres. Approval of the Conditional Use Permit will allow the development to be constructed according to alternative standards that are designed to maximize the quality of the development. Planned Unit Development Review focuses on the following elements of the project: • Development Standards (lot size, dimensions and setbacks) • Design Standards (Overall design and exterior materials of the structures) • Landscaping Plan • Association Documents DISCUSSION Associated Approvals All of the following items must be approved to allow the development to be constructed. A Rezoning from R -4, Single Family Urban Residential to M -1, Multiple Dwelling Low Density is needed to allow attached structures. A Preliminary and Final Plat for the proposed project will also need to be approved. Rationale for Use of Planned Unit Development Review City Code 13 -3 regulates Planned Unit Developments and seeks to achieve the following: 1. Attaining a higher standard of site design and development that cannot be accomplished under strict adherence to development ordinance provisions. 2. The preservation and enhancement of desirable site characteristics such as natural topography, woodlands, geologic features and the prevention of soil erosion; 3. A more efficient use of land resulting in smaller networks of utilities and streets thereby lowering the development costs and public investments; 4. A development pattern in harmony with Andover Comprehensive Plan. (PUD is not a . means to vary applicable planning and zoning principles.) 4 The size and shape of the property conflict with the arrangement of standard single family residential lots. If the property were developed under the R -4 Zoning District standards a • frontage road or a road adjacent to the existing residential properties would need to be created to avoid direct access to Crosstown Boulevard. Neither of these scenarios is desirable. Additionally, lots could only be achieved on one side of the new road, which may prevent the project from being economically viable. The proposed twinhouse development will allow a typical street to be located in the center of the property where it can be aligned with existing 142" Lane NW. Lot sizes and setbacks are adjusted to fit the remaining property. Lots are located on either side of the street with ample room behind the units for buffering the development from the existing homes to the east as well as Crosstown Boulevard. Adjacent Residential Properties At the neighborhood meeting and sketch plan public hearing the neighborhood to the east expressed a desire to maximize the distance between their homes and the proposed units as well as the need for berming and landscaping to provide a buffer between the two developments. The reduced front yard setback and landscaping plan address these concerns. The neighbor on 141 Lane NW directly across from the proposed street expressed concern about headlights shining in his windows. The southbound lane of the proposed street was adjusted to align with the garage of the property across the street. DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS A table is included in the attachments to illustrate the design standards of other attached townhouse developments in Andover. Lots Individual lots are proposed for each unit. The proposed lots are compared to the dimensional and requirements of the R -4 and M -1 Zoning Districts in the table below. Lot Width As the table illustrates, lot width for the majority of properties is below the R -4 and M -1 Zoning District standards. The proposed lot width is equal to or greater than that of previously approved townhouse developments. A minimum of 22 feet of space will be provided between the structures, which exceeds typical single family developments. It is also important to note that the 150 foot minimum lot width and depth requirements for the M -1 Zoning District are intended for twinhouses on a single lot. These standards are outdated and need to be addressed as a part of the Zoning Ordinance Update. Lot Depth Locating a public street and accompanying 60 feet of right -of -way limits the depth of properties in the proposed development. The proposed lot depth is in line with previously approved :WA= R -4 M -1 Proposed Lot Width 1 80 feet 150 feet 67 -93 feet Lot Depth 130 feet 150 feet 86 -140 feet Lot Area 11,400 sf 6,000 sf 6,964 to 14,014 s.f. Lot Width As the table illustrates, lot width for the majority of properties is below the R -4 and M -1 Zoning District standards. The proposed lot width is equal to or greater than that of previously approved townhouse developments. A minimum of 22 feet of space will be provided between the structures, which exceeds typical single family developments. It is also important to note that the 150 foot minimum lot width and depth requirements for the M -1 Zoning District are intended for twinhouses on a single lot. These standards are outdated and need to be addressed as a part of the Zoning Ordinance Update. Lot Depth Locating a public street and accompanying 60 feet of right -of -way limits the depth of properties in the proposed development. The proposed lot depth is in line with previously approved :WA= • townhouse developments. Additionally, a reduced front yard setback will increase both useable rear yard space and buffering from existing homes to the east and Crosstown Boulevard. Lot Area The proposed lot area is below the R -4 standard but exceeds the M -1 requirement. The proposed lot depth exceeds all of the previously approved townhouse developments on the majority of lots. Setbacks R -4 Requirement M -1 Re uirement proposed Front Yard 35 30 16.5 feet to property line 30 feet to curb Rear Yard 30 30 30 -90 feet House Side Yard 10 20 11 -14 feet Garage Side Yard 6 10 Attached Corner Side Yard 35/25 30 20 -37 feet to property line 35 — 52 feet to curb Any yard from County Road 40 50 70 -90 feet Front Yard Setback The front yard setback is reduced to maximize the distance from the existing development to the east as well as from Crosstown Boulevard. Thirty feet from the front of the homes to the curb is ample room and will help maximize the area for buffering and useable rear yard space. Corner Side Yard Setback The corner side yard setbacks fall below the typical R -4 and M -1 requirements on Lots 1 and 8 of Block 2. This situation is caused by the angle of the north property line, which reduces the width of the east side of the parcel by approximately 50 feet. The structures will be closer to the street than the adjacent residential structures to the east. Buildability Requirements City Code 11 -3 -6 requires a minimum buildable area depth of 100 feet for urban lots and 116.5 feet for urban lots that adjoin wetlands. Lots 1 and 2 of Block 1 and Lot 8, Block 2 fall below this requirement. This situation is created by aligning the street with existing 142 Lane NW and the required stormwater pond. As you know, this requirement is intended to preserve useable rear yard space. With in -line garages and reduced front yard setbacks, useable rear yard space can be achieved. This issue is addressed in the attached resolution. DESIGN STANDARDS House Style The development will contain look out style homes with two different rear elevations as illustrated in the attached drawings. The full lookout style will be located on the west side of the proposed street and the window well style will be located on the east side of the proposed street. Is Each home will have 1,404 square feet of main floor living space excluding a full basement, which adds an additional 1,404 square feet. Additional options are illustrated in the floor plans. —7— Exterior of the Townhouses • The exterior finishing materials of the townhouses will include earth toned maintenance free siding with slightly different tones assigned to each structure. A minimum of two different shades of roof shingles is proposed for the development to complement the building exterior. The front elevations will alternate between brick and stone wainscoting and will include cement based shakes above the grage and entryway, as well as decorative lighting fixtures and pillars to frame the main entrance. The thematic differences between the homes will improve the quality of the development and will be required as illustrated in the attached resolution. However, and as with previously approved townhouse developments, the differences will not be sufficient to comply with City Code 9 -1 -4 which requires more significant architectural differences between adjacent structures. This issue is addressed as a variance that is recommended in the attached resolution. LANDSCAPING PLAN The landscaping plan combines front yard ornamentation and rear yard berming and screening as illustrated in the attached drawing. Rear yard trees and shrubs are placed as close as is advisable, but as with all screening efforts, the plantings will take some time to mature into dense screening. Some adjustments to the plan are needed as indicated below: 1. The proposed pair of evergreen trees spaced 15 to 18 feet on center along Crosstown Boulevard on each lot is not sufficient. At this distance, a third tree is needs to be offset behind them to fill the ten foot wide gap that will exist. • 2. Plant material needs to be added on Lot 2, Block 1 to bridge the gap across the swale to prevent direct views into backyards from southbound traffic on Crosstown Boulevard. 3. Plant locations along the east side of the development should tighten to block window to window views across backyards and can relax where this situation does not exist. This can be coordinated at the time the trees are planted. 4. The front yard foundation plantings will be required to be contained within appropriate edging and mulch material. ASSOCIATION DOCUMENTS The Articles of Incorporation, By -laws and Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions regulating the properties and maintenance of common areas need to be submitted and reviewed by staff and the City Attorney. The street will be maintained by the City and utilities will be located within the right -of -way. Attachments Resolution Resolution - Exhibit A — Crosstown Meadows Development Standards Location Map Exterior Elevations and Floor Plans (11x17 in packet) Landscaping Plan (11x17 in packet) Townhouse Comparison Chart W= • ACTION REQUESTED The Planning Commission is asked to recommend approval of the proposed Conditional Use Permit subject to the conditions in the attached resolution. Respec fully submitted, 4 ed Cc: Kodiak Homes, Inc. 8512 124' Lane Champlin, MN 55316 `J 0 CITY OF ANDOVER COUNTY OF ANOKA STATE OF MINNESOTA RES. NO. R -04 A RESOLUTION GRANTING THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST OF KODIAK HOMES FOR A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT TO DEVELOP AN ATTACHED TOWNHOUSE DEVELOPMENT CONSISTING OF SIXTEEN (16) UNITS TO BE KNOWN AS THE SUBDIVISION OF "CROSSTOWN MEADOWS" AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF 141 LANE NW AND CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD. (P.I.D. 27- 32 -24 -33 -0072) ON PROPERTY LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS; Outlot A, Kensington Estates 3` Addition, Anoka County, Minnesota LJ WHEREAS, Kodiak Homes has requested a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Unit Development to establish development standards specific to the proposed Crosstown Meadows development pursuant to City Code 13 -3, and; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds the request meets the criteria City Code 13 -3, and; WHEREAS, public hearings were held before the Planning Commission and the development was modified to address the concerns of the adjacent neighborhood, and; 0 WHEREAS the applicant has requested a variance to the requirements of City Code 11 -3 -6 to allow to be below the 100 and 116.5 foot minimum buildability depth requirements, and; WHEREAS the applicant has requested a variance to City Code 9 -1 -4 to allow the structures to be similar in architecture, and; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds the request would not have a detrimental effect on the surrounding neighborhood, and; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recommends to the City Council approval of the Conditional Use Permit for Planned Unit Development Review of Crosstown Meadows, and; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Andover hereby agrees with the recommendation of the Planning Commission and permits Kodiak Homes to develop a Planned Unit Development on said property with the following conditions: 1. The lots shall conform to the Preliminary Plat drawing revised December 15, 2003 and stamped as received by the City of Andover December 18, 2003. 2. The building setbacks within the development shall conform to Exhibit A. 3. The exterior elevations shall be as illustrated in the attached drawings and the exterior • materials shall conform to Exhibit A. —9— . • 4. The landscaping plan shall conform to the drawing dated December 16, 2003 and stamped as received by the City of Andover December 18, 2003 except as follows: a. The proposed pair of evergreen trees spaced 15 to 18 feet on center along Crosstown Boulevard on each lot is not sufficient. At this distance, a third tree is needs to be offset behind them to fill the ten foot wide gap that will exist. b. Plant material needs to be added on Lot 2, Block 1 to bridge the gap across the swale to prevent direct views into backyards from southbound traffic on Crosstown Boulevard. c. Plant locations along the east side of the development should tighten to block window to window views across backyards and can relax where this situation does not exist. This can be coordinated at the time the trees are planted. d. The front yard foundation plantings will be required to be contained within appropriate edging and mulch material. 5. A variance is granted to City Code 11 -3 -6 to allow Lots 1 and 2 of Block 1 and Lot 8, Block 2 to be developed as shown on the Preliminary Plat drawing revised December 15, 2003 and stamped as received by the City of Andover December 18, 2003. 6. A variance is granted to City Code 9 -1 -4 to allow the townhouse structures to be similar in architectural design subject to the exterior materials of the townhouse units described in Exhibit A. 7. The Conditional Use Permit for Planned Unit Development Review shall be contingent upon the approval of the rezoning, preliminary and final plat of Crosstown Meadows. If any one of these applications fails to be approved, this Conditional Use Permit shall be considered null and void. 8. A homeowners association shall be created with the following documents provided to the City for review and approval prior to being recorded with the final plat in accordance with City Code 13 -3: a. Articles of Incorporation b. By -laws of the association c. Declaration of covenants, conditions and restrictions regulating the properties, maintenance of the common areas. 9. The Conditional Use Permit shall be subject to a sunset clause as defined in City Code 12- 15 -6. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Andover on this _ day ,2004. • ATTEST CITY OF ANDOVER Victoria Volk, City Clerk Michael R. Gaache, Mayor Gain —7— Exhibit A Crosstown Meadows Development Standards Exterior Materials of the Townhouse Units A variety of earth tones of maintenance free siding shall be used and the color shall not be duplicated on adjacent structures. A minimum of two roof colors shall be provided within the development. The front elevations shall provide wainscoting to consist of both brick and stone within the development. The exterior elevations shall otherwise conform to the attached building elevations stamped as received by the City of Andover on January 6, 2004. Building Setbacks f� am 16.5 feet to property line Front Yard 30 feet to curb) Rear Yard 30 -90 feet House Side Yard 11 -14 feet Garage Side Yard Attached 20 -37 feet to property line Corner Side Yard 35 — 52 feet to curb Any yard from County Road 70 -90 feet f� am [ .� 0 D W S > W U W \ cc cc: w � O O 2 Q LL O � � ) �« �\ � » � \, ■ 7 \ \{ j 77 \ i )| k � —Cl — /q \ /\ / \[ �{ : y i )| k � —Cl — ------'l- ..:.:r"'.::::-:.:~Jt-"15=~~~':::':'~~;' -;.;..",,;; ~.'l'';;''~.~-:.:= 1'-' -- '=~H'1'~~ "''[ ~~ . -, ".~-_.,...,.-,_..__..",--, ,..""'"""'~ 3::>~3'O>;:lNI~O ~ '_._"~! __JO.....__.......tJl_...~"~~,~~,_ .....- .... -----~-iimlo 9:,1--ISi11ro::>WWV'd~;;; --------..------.' .._-.,-_._-----~.,_.. -- --.-."--" -----...-.-----....- -..--. , i cr: W 0 > e cg 0 W @ 0 > Z - <0 W <( () = u.. W <t: 0 -:> a: ~ I ~ I () I I ~ r e "I, ~ U. ~ , I I I I I I I I , I I e I -/(1.- L11 -- - - - - - - - - kDxe f . w cr t . Z .q. -A o� LL It LLJ • .... .... .. > Q Ld > W O I ri W cr- A-A ib (L =I ,,,, E$a� 1 Iql $�� I I j j g� i l l 41 � pp IML LN 0 • �2 0 w > W w rr i cD — __ -------- - LL !oEi b A T --- -l3 tip Za (L U l 0- _j LL m F I I'Ikl -Ii 4 „ 1 tr x. _-Ala ii A b A T --- -l3 tip Za (L U l 0- _j LL cc O LL 0 • • LLI Cl > 0 W C=) > LU z < llf U- 0 cc O LL 0 • • • 0 1 1 p Rij Z F- (-) w w IS) -Is-- Phil. 1 0 1 1 p Rij Z F- (-) w w IS) -Is-- F --- - _ - I - 1 M'N_ 3Nv (7 A O U) U) O Z I x C r 1m �D l� £I9AIE r W g J r�N =G Imo a= �o n x S ! Z o, � oA n n m f3 n Z S �w� XF r u 1e 9 ? a F. �Q g� pY E RR 9 X T i 9 D x S ` y6 :wow: i "'f f {1f J w 0 City Of Andover Attached Townhouse Projects Nature's Red Pine Shawdow- TH of Devonshire Sunridge Woodlan d Aztec Run Fields brook Creek Estates 0 • Avg Lot 3,550 sf 2,550 sf 6,000 sf 9,856 sf 3,850 sf 1,728 or 2,560 sf 2,867 sf Area 20 feet min. to Front 20 feet 30 feet row 25 feet Avg Lot 47 feet 41 feet 57 feet 63 feet 55 feet 27 or 40 feet 47 feet width min. to street Avg Lot 74 feet 61 feet 100 feet min. 130 feet 70 feet 64 feet min. 61 feet Denth min. min. Side 30 feet or 12 feet Land Area 13.94 36.86 47.2 7.8 4.82 1.21 26.62 (acres) # Units 54 101 118 35 19 8 47 Density 3.9 2.7 2.5 4.5 3.9 6.6 1.8 (units /acre) .AVI4Vl.J ��Y4u��Yu -•/6 3 feet min. to NA - interior 20 feet min. to Front 20 feet 30 feet row 25 feet 35 feet 25 feet facing row 35 min. to min. to street street Attached or Attached Attached Attached or 27 Attached or 30 Attached or 15 Side 30 feet or 12 feet 10 feet min. or 10 feet or 40 feet or 40 feet feet min. 30 feet, 50 Rear feet to 40 feet 25 feet min. 30 feet 55 feet 34 feet/50 feet 30 feet min. min. to Crosstown Dr Hanson .AVI4Vl.J ��Y4u��Yu -•/6 e k N C I T Y O F DOVE • 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. • ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 • (763) 755 -5100 FAX (763) 755 -8923 • WWW.CLAN DOVER. MN.US TO: Planning and Zoning Commissioners FROM: Courtney Bednarz, City Planneq SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING: Preliminary Plat of Crosstown Meadows, a twinhouse project containing 16 units located at the northeast corner of Crosstown Boulevard and 141 Lane NW. DATE: January 13, 2004 INTRODUCTION The Planning Commission is asked to review a preliminary plat for the subject property. Conformance with local and Regional Plans The proposed plat contains 16 townhouse units on approximately four acres. The proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan as the property is designated Urban Residential Low Density (URL) which allows up to four units per acre with planned unit development review. The property is located in the Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA). Municipal utilities can be extended to serve the development. A rezoning to Multiple Dwelling Low Density (M -1) is necessary to allow the proposed twinhouse style (attached) buildings. Access A through street with a standard 60 foot right -of -way width and standard street width of 33 feet is proposed. The new intersection with 142 " Avenue NW would align with existing 142 " Lane NW. The intersection with 141 Lane NW would be across from an existing residential property. The neighbor on 141" Lane NW directly across from the proposed street expressed concern about headlights shining in his windows. The southbound lane of the proposed street was adjusted to align with the garage of the property across the street. Staff is recommending that the developer construct sidewalks from the proposed street to the right -of -way for Crosstown Boulevard along the south side of 142 " Avenue NW and along the north side of 141 Lane NW. These sidewalk segments will be connected to a future trail along Crosstown Boulevard. These sidewalk segments can be required under the City's assessment policy and do not qualify for credit to trail fees. The existing access to Crosstown Boulevard located roughly midway along the west side of the property will be eliminated as a part of the proposal. Lots The proposed project is seeking Planned Unit Development review as a part of the Conditional Use Permit request. This permit would allow different development standards from the typical M -1 requirements as discussed in that report. Stormwater Drainage Storm water from the development will be routed to a new stormwater pond that will be created at the northwest corner of the project. • Easements Drainage and utility easements are a minimum of ten feet in width at the perimeter of each property. The easements expand at the north edge of the project and in rear yard areas that are needed for stormwater drainage. Park Dedication Park dedication was previously satisfied when the property was created as a part of Kensington Estates Third Addition. Trail Fee A trail fee will be collected for each lot at the rate in effect at the time of preliminary plat approval. 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 Management Organization, 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. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the proposed preliminary plat subject to the conditions of the attached resolution. Other The developer is also required to meet the following City Ordinances and all other applicable ordinances: City Code Title 11, Subdivision Regulations City Code Title 12, Zoning Regulations City Code Title 13, Planning and Development City Code Title 14, Flood Control ACTION REQUESTED The Planning Commission is asked to approve the proposed preliminary plat subject to the conditions of the attached resolution. Attachments Resolution Location Map Preliminary Plat (full size in packet) Grading Plan (11x17 in packet) Sketch Plan Minutes C mitt , y ednarz Cc: Kodiak Homes, Inc. 8512 124` Lane Champlin, MN 55316 • -2- CITY OF ANDOVER COUNTY OF ANOKA • STATE OF MINNESOTA RES. NO -04 A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY PLAT OF "CROSSTOWN MEADOWS" FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF 141" LANE NW AN CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS (P.I.D 27- 32 -24- 33 -0072; Outlot A, Kensington Estates 3` addition, Anoka County, Minnesota WHEREAS, the Andover Review Committee has reviewed the preliminary plat; and WHEREAS, a public hearing was held before the Planning Commission, and; WHEREAS, the applicant has requested Planned Unit Development Review of the proposed plat, and; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and has determined that said request meets all other criteria of Ordinance of the City Code, and; WHEREAS, as a result of such public hearing, the Planning Commission recommends to the City Council the approval of the plat, 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 lands; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Andover hereby agrees with the recommendation of the Planning Commission and approves the preliminary plat with the following conditions: 1. Approval of the preliminary plat is contingent upon approval of a Rezoning and Conditional Use Permit for Planned Unit Development Review. If any one of these applications fails to be approved, the preliminary plat shall be considered null and void. 2. The Conditional Use Permit for Planned Unit Development review shall regulate the lot size, setbacks, design and materials of the units, landscaping plan, and association documents for the proposed development. 3. The lots shall conform to the Preliminary Plat drawing revised December 15, 2003 and stamped as received by the City of Andover December 18, 2003. 4. The developer obtains all necessary permits from the Coon Creek Watershed District, DNR, Corps of Engineers, LGU, MPCA and any other agency that may be interested in the site. 5. Park dedication has been previously satisfied. Trail fees shall be required to be paid on a per unit basis at the rate in effect at the time of preliminary plat approval. —3— 6. Contingent upon staff review and approval for compliance with City ordinances, policies and guidelines. • 7. Such plat approval is contingent upon a development agreement that shall include a cash escrow or letter of credit to guarantee the installation of all proposed improvements and landscaping. Such agreement shall also be reviewed and modified as recommended by the City Attorney. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Andover this day of , 2004. CITY OF ANDOVER ATTEST: Victoria Volk, City Clerk Michael R. Gamache, Mayor is • _g- r1 11 Project Location Map M yy�E Andover Planning -S- Northeast Corner of 141 st Lane NW and Crosstown Boulevard !j '� 1 ,fx is •� `• ':`.' �' �''-�� \ `1 ��`•./,•'�� ' n �}. ail �'\ � .�., `'•✓ ,/ I .\ 1 } ,�. � /� 1 i - -- ---- - - - -.. �• r f . i ------------- ---- - - - -- I R IF - F 1 - - - - -_, I sill F l i it I ili it I i� a_ rP� ®nr.�or�: �� e•Il l ....�rps A ....... f I 1 1 1 111 1 lie 1 f r 23 ' ( A p u O N 70 4 092s I rn i t a 0 5 x gill sit• ti 9 g A • 0 R N41, 0, is It k m �� r' ; 1 I {_� j } $ p ; I ll c,) 111 k 5 i5 C�j Ii ' x u - I 1 _ �rl I PJ A It 1. I L A� I A l i " 1 14 Z Op ; A m 0 0 V) v ............. ....... F i R. 1 1 4 ! IS K z,O 2 x z� 14 IS �. L;g iA 0 ��ee p u• ° °Q A 3 m w. fl � v D : z NENEEZE r s� N H ai S, "i ,:• ® ° m D E9l6Ei L;g ��ee p u• ° °Q < p w. D r NENEEZE N H ai S, "i ,:• E9� 6 66 @66�� YY !YN� # ii F ! O �0 s T y m I 0 z v N ! E 9� C 1 � f a 1 � a 8 ii , ° tat 11 14 .�... r 8 _ g t t v 0 D Z 0 O m 0 D z 0 O m I F �g 3 o � A N s ° ]I f^l F aa 4l J 18 w �I gS a ogi5 Ff +? 0 L;g j p u• r < p w. D r It N H ai S, "i ,:• .YIE OI WMI16 1M! R OI xs .M usr ..• u• r w r w. It H ai S, "i ,:• 1M! R OI xs A Y t x .. /, � •9 � � -I -1 - r f • t r p g f # i t it } lj � F� { tlt� ` �r J t r �� Efi i f i� qj � F t i I t, , ta xtt ill 4 x ;1 1. 1 t , ,; tt t _( iF 3t €a = t 1� t •1 FttiE t ! °• :° i 11 T i ,t • t �F � ° :i 0 u• r r ai S, "i ,:• A Y t x .. /, � •9 � � -I -1 - r f • t r p g f # i t it } lj � F� { tlt� ` �r J t r �� Efi i f i� qj � F t i I t, , ta xtt ill 4 x ;1 1. 1 t , ,; tt t _( iF 3t €a = t 1� t •1 FttiE t ! °• :° i 11 T i ,t • t �F � ° :i 0 Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes —September 23, 2003 Page 7 • M on by Greenwald, seconded by Gamache, to open the public hearing at 7:30 p.m. Motion ed on a 6 -ayes, 0 -nays, 1- absent vote. Discussion was giv�i Item 4. Motion by Gamache, seconde Greenwald, to close the public hearing at 8:00 p.m. Motion carried on a 6 -ayes, 0 -nays, 1- ent vote. Motion by Vatne, seconded by Gamache, to reco nd to the City Council approval of Resolution No. , approving the special use permit s ct to the conditions of the attached resolution. Motion carried on a 6 -ayes, 0 -nays, 1 -abs vote. Mr. Bednarz stated that this item would be before the Council at the Octo 2003 City Council meeting. g PUBLIC HEARING: RESIDENTIAL SKETCHPLANFOR TOWNHOUSE DEVELOPMENT PROPOSED BYKODIAKHOMES FOR PROPERTYLOCA TED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF 141 LANE NWAND CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD NW. Mr. Bednarz explained the Planning Commission is asked to review a sketch plan for a housing development containing 16 twinhome units. Mr. Bednarz discussed the information with the Commission. Acting Chairperson Kirchoff asked if they reviewed a different sketch plan regarding this before. Mr. Bednarz stated they did. Commissioner Jasper asked if this was the site where approval was vacated recently for a gas station. Mr. Bednarz said it is. Motion by Greenwald, seconded by Casey, to open the public hearing at 8:22 p.m. Motion carried on a 6 -ayes, 0 -nays, 1- absent vote. Mr. Neil Johnson, 2256 141 Lane, stated one of his issues is that the road that will be going in is going to be right across the road from his front windows and he does not understand why there needs to be a thru street instead of a cul -de -sac. He also noted that the intersection on 142 "d is a mess and will eventually require a stop light because of the traffic. He stated he did not see where this proposal is any better than what was proposed before. Commissioner Gamache asked what Mr. Johnson would propose for this property. Mr. Johnson stated he did not know the entire history of this but he thought this was zoned only for housing. 11 Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes — September 23, 2003 Page 8 Mr. Johnson stated what he does not understand is why the property has sat vacant for so • long because the houses surrounding this have been around for years. Acting Chairperson Kirchoff stated this was zoned commercial and actually worth more as commercial than as residential and he thought there was an agreement between the owner, developer and City to recognize that the character of the property would be better suited as residential. Commissioner Jasper asked if there was any plan to put in a stop light at 142 and Crosstown. Mr. Bednarz stated he was not sure and could check on this. Ms. Becky Joyner, 14194 Quinn Street stated her concern is the way the proposed road curves and the distance between her home and the townhomes. She stated this is downsized quite a bit from before and back when they did the study on the property, they thought that this property stay low density residential and on the low end of that. She stated she would like to hear from the builder regarding what the townhomes will look like. She explained that there is a lot of traffic going through the neighborhood already and she wondered what kind of buffers would be used. Mr. Bruce Carlson, Kodiak Homes, stated when he first started this project, he went to the County to find out what the proper access would be and he was told that there could not be any access to Crosstown Boulevard. He stated this is a twinhome development with an Association that will take care of maintenance. These will be all one level units • with basements and maintenance free exteriors. He stated the price would be $225,000- $240,000. He stated the reason they are trying to get the maximum density is because of the cost of putting trees along the boundaries to buffer their development from the existing homes and road. He stated they have plenty of depth for the homes except for one of the end units. He stated they want to work with the neighborhood and are open to any suggestions. Commissioner Gamache asked if there was any consideration for single family detached homes for the property. Mr. Carlson stated they looked at that but this would involve a little more cost and a higher price for the homes than exists in the surrounding neighborhood. Commissioner Greenwald asked what the median price of the homes in the neighborhood were. Mr. Johnson stated the value is between $200,000 to $240,000. Commissioner Greenwald asked if these twinhomes should not decrease the value of the properties, it should increase the value of the properties surrounding the development. Mr. Carlson stated they should be in the same price range, depending on the unit options. He stated the homes would be for people mainly over fifty years old and not for people with children. 0 7— Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes —September 23, 2003 Page 9 • Commissioner Vatne stated there was mention of trees put in along Crosstown. Mr. Carlson stated they will be putting in some evergreen trees for a buffer along the road and the houses behind the development. Ms. Joyner asked if there was any way they could change the way the street curves. Mr. Carlson stated Anoka County wants the intersections to meet. Mr. Bednarz stated they may be able to shift the street and get the road to line up. Discussion ensued in regards to the road shift and right of way with the Commission, Mr. Carlson and Ms. Joyner. Motion by Greenwald, seconded by Gamache, to close the public hearing at 8:50 p.m. Motion carried on a 6 -ayes, 0 -nays, 1- absent vote. Commissioner Greenwald stated he thought the builder has some recommendations regarding this and he thought this was a better proposal than before. Commissioner Jasper stated he had several thoughts about the development and he wondered if the street could be moved a few feet so the angle of lights will not affect the homeowner at the end of the roadway. Mr. Carlson stated they could work with the road to get it out of the homeowners view. Commissioner Jasper stated that as he looked at this, his first reaction to the drawing was that there was not any sliding doors and he would also like to see more variations to the front of the homes. Mr. Carlson stated they could do that. BUSINESS. Mr. Bedna troduced the new Associate Planner, Mr. Andy Cross. Mr. Cross discussed his ba round with the Commission. ADJOURNMENT. Motion by Greenwald, seconded by Va to adjourn the meeting at 8:55 p.m. Motion carried on a 6 -ayes, 0 -nays, 1- absent vote. Respectfully Submitted, Sue Osbeck, Recording Secretary • TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. _8— Regular Andover City Council Meeting Minutes — October 7, 2003 Page 10 D RESIDENTIAL SKETCH PLAN/TOWNHOME DEVELOPMENT/KODL4K HOMES 1141 LANE NW AND CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD NW Community Development Director Neumeister stated the Council is asked to review a sketch plan for a housing development containing 16 twinhome units. Mr. Neumeister discussed the information with the City Council Councilmember Trude stated she thought this was a vast improvement over what they have previously seen. Mayor Gamache asked if there was discussion regarding the access to 141 "Lane off of 142 Lane so it would not line up with the home across from there. Mr. Neumeister stated there was discussion between the developer and current homeowner. Mr. Bruce Carlson, Kodiak Homes, stated they have adjusted the street so the headlights will shine ninety percent into the property owners' garage and entryway instead of the living room. He stated the County would not allow them to move the other end of the road to accommodate the existing homeowners in the back of the development. They are changing colors and alternating brick and stone to make them look more appealing and to differentiate them from one another. Councilmember Jacobson asked if the County has requested that they install any turn lanes. Mr. Carlson stated they never requested that. Mr. Dickinson stated they have not received comment back from the County on that issue. Councilmember Knight asked if they have met with the neighborhood. Mr. Carlson stated he has met with some of the residents. Councilmember Jacobson asked in block 2, lots 1 and 2, what did the developer plan on doing to screen the development from the property behind them. Mr. Carlson stated he planned on putting in evergreen trees thirty feet apart. Councilmember Jacobson suggested Mr. Carlson extend the berming along the entire edge of the development adjoining current property owners. Mr. Carlson stated there is already a berm along the entire property and if there is not any now, there will be. Councilmember Jacobson asked if there will be screening along Crosstown Boulevard. Mr. Carlson stated the City suggested putting trees in instead of a fence which is what he wanted to do. Councilmember Jacobson asked if there is a trail there. Mr. Carlson stated there is a proposed trail. Mr. Berkowitz stated at this point, money is collected through the trail fund and it will be constructed at a later date. Mayor Gamache asked if Mr. Carlson would consider sidewalks along 142 Lane. Mr. Carlson -17- . Regular Andover City Council Meeting Minutes — October 7, 2003 Page 11 stated he would be taking away from the lawn of the homes if he did this and he thought it would not look good. Councilmember Jacobson asked if the holding pond would be a dry pond. Mr. Carlson stated it would be primarily dry. Councilmember Knight asked if parking would be allowed on 142 "d Lane. Mr. Carlson stated it would be up to the City but he thought it would be allowed. Ms. Becky Joyner, 14194 Quinn Street, stated this plan looks better than the previous ones but she still had one concern. Her concern was where 142 Lane comes out which does not leave a lot of room behind her lot. She wondered if they could take off the end unit and move the three units out a little bit to provide more lawn and do some landscaping on each side of the ends of the roads. Mayor Gamache stated he would be open to moving the end units closer to the road if it meets the approval of the Council. Discussion ensued in regard to moving the units closer to the road. Councilmember Trude stated the setback issue on the front unit was reduced because they are trying to align streets and because of the County setback issues. She explained she does not want this to be a new standard in the City. TE FLOODPLAIN ISSUES NORTH OF 161" AVENUE NW City Engine erkowitz stated developers are currently working on a sketch plan approval and potential develop nt north of 161" Avenue between Hanson Boulevard and the Railroad tracks. Now that developmen ' moving north of 161 Avenue NW and on the headwaters of County Ditch 6, a detailed floodway stu d a conditional use permit are required per City Code and the Lower Rum River Watershed Organiz 'on to determine the 100 year flood boundary and 100 year flood elevation so that low floor elevation an be established for each of the future developments. Councilmember Trude asked if this is the kin thing the City could request some help in CDBG funding for. City Finance Director Dickinson state is can be applied for but the chance of getting this approved is slim and it would also delay the proces Mr. Berkowitz showed a map of the area and discussed where ood plain is located. • Discussion was brought up regarding what happens with the study and after study is submitted to FEMA and how the flood plain is determined. Consensus of the Council was to allow a study to be done of the floodplain area. --16 —