Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/27/04ANLb Y O F 6� • 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 July 27, 2004 Andover City Hall Council Chambers 7.00 p.m. 1. Call to Order 2. Approval of Minutes — July 13, 2004 3. Variance 04 -04 to vary from rear yard setback requirements for porch addition at 13542 Poppy Street NW. 4. PUBLIC HEARING: Residential Sketch Plan for Kimberly Oaks, a rural residential development located east of Verdin Street at 165` Avenue NW. • 5. PUBLIC HEARING: Residential Sketch Plan for Silver Meadows West, a rural residential development located southeast of 7 Avenue and 165 Avenue NW. 6. Other Business 7. Adjournment 0 • 9x ,ANDOVE 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 - July 13, 2004 DATE: July 27, 2004 Request The Planning and Zoning Commission is asked to approve the minutes from the July 13, 2004 meeting. • L� C I T Y O F NDOVE • PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING — JULY 13, 2004 The Regular Bi- Monthly Meeting of the Andover Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order by Chairperson Daninger on July 13, 2004, 7:00 p.m., at the Andover City Hall, 1685 Crosstown Boulevard NW, Andover, Minnesota. Commissioners present: Chairperson Daninger, Commissioners Tim Kirchoff, Tony Gamache, Rex Greenwald, Dean Vatne, Jonathan Jasper and Michael Casey. Commissioners absent: There were none. Also present: City Planner, Courtney Bednarz Planning Intern, Chris Vrchota Others APPROVAL OF MINUTES. June 22, 2004 Motion by Gamache, seconded by Kirchoff, to approve the minutes as presented. Motion carried on a 5 -ayes, 0 -nays, 2- present (Jasper, Vatne), 0- absent vote. PUBLIC HEARING: REZONING (04 -08) TO CHANGE THE ZONING CLASSIFICA TION FROM SINGLE FAMILYRURAL RESIDENTL41, (R -I) TO SINGLE FAMILY URBAN RESIDENTMI, (R-4) FOR PROPER TY LOCA TED AT 1386148 LANE NW. Mr. Vrchota explained the Planning Commission is asked to review the proposed rezoning to allow the lot split on the property to move forward. Mr. Vrchota discussed the staff report with the Planning Commission. Commissioner Gamache stated Mr. Vrchota stated that when this was originally platted there was discussion that this could and should be rezoned. He wondered if there were • any minutes showing those discussions were actually there. Mr. Vrchota stated they do Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes — July 13, 2004 Page 3 • Motion by Gamache, seconded by Casey, to close the public hearing at 7:24 p.m. Motion carried on a 7 -ayes, 0 -nays, 0- absent vote. Commissioner Jasper stated it was his understanding that under their motion, if the road has to be ripped up and replaced and the cost of installing sewer and water would be born by Lot B that has not been hooked up by the utilities. If they do not follow through, then the approval would sunset out. Mr. Bednarz stated that is correct. If the project is completed, the cost will be assessed to Parcel B. If the applicant makes an agreement with the purchaser of the property to pass the costs along, that is the applicant's decision. Commissioner Kirchoff asked if there was a one year sunset. Mr. Bednarz stated that was correct. Commissioner Jasper asked if in paragraph 2 of the motion should be changed because it states both lots would be connected to sewer and water and assessments shall be paid but Lot A is already connected so it would be Lot B that would be assessed the fees. Mr. Bednarz stated that was correct. Commissioner Jasper stated this should be changed in the report. Commissioner Jasper asked at what point during this process the street reconstruction is designed. Mr. Bednarz stated when the utility project is designed; they will also have a street construction detail that will address the storm water that is in the street now. Commissioner Jasper asked if the street reconstruction be specifically listed as one of the conditions. Mr. Bednarz stated this could be added to item 2 if the Commission wished. Commissioner Jasper thought the motion should be changed to reflect Lot B to be the one to pay all the fees associated with the connection of the utilities because Lot A has already paid them. Commissioner Gamache stated Lot A is still the property owner and that is the property owner that will be assessed. Commissioner Jasper stated it was his understanding that they do not assess an owner, they assess a lot. Lot A is already connected so if they are going to assess a lot, it needs to be Lot B. Mr. Bednarz stated this was correct. Motion by Gamache, seconded by Kirchoff, to recommend to the City Council approval of Resolution No. , approving the rezoning request based on the fact that times and conditions have changed. Commissioner Jasper asked if the lot split sunsets, does the rezoning sunset as well or is there any ramification for it not sunsetting. Mr. Bednarz stated the rezoning, if approved by the Council, would take effect. They would not have the ability to split the lot until the lot split is approved. Commissioner Jasper asked if there was any negative affect the property owner of the rezoning if the lot split does not happen. Mr. Bednarz stated the lot split still needs to be approved before anything can be done with the additional lot. 1 Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes — July 13, 2004 Page 5 • assessments for that connection and any necessary street improvements shall be paid by the applicant as calculated by the City Clerk ". Mr. Bednarz stated once the petition comes into the City to build that improvement project, there will be a contract between the property owner and the City that will provide financial security to make sure the project is completed to the Cities requirements. Motion carried on a 7 -ayes, 0 -nays, 0- absent vote. Mr. Bednarz stated that this item would be before the Council at the July 20, 2004 City Council meeting. VARIANCE (04 -03) TO VARYFROMREAR YARD SETBACKREQUIREMENT FOR PORCHADDITION ONPROPERTYLOCA TED AT 13943 WINTERGREEN STREET NW. Mr. Bednarz explained the applicant is requesting a 5 -foot variance to the rear yard setback requirement to allow the construction of a 14x14 sun porch, which would replace an existing deck. The 14x 14 size was based on the survey that was on file. The property pins were located as a condition of the building permit review, and it was determined that • the survey on file is not accurate. The rear of the home is actually 5 feet closer to the rear property line than reflected on the survey. Mr. Bednarz discussed the staff report with the Commission. Commissioner Greenwald thought the applicant really did their homework on this to warrant the variance. Commissioner Kirchoff asked if the neighbors were notified of the variance. Mr. Bednarz stated they were and he did not receive any correspondence. Commissioner Jasper thought the porch would fit into the neighborhood but he did not see any hardship at all. Commissioner Gamache thought the hardship was that the builder or whoever surveyed the lot surveyed it wrong. The survey that was on file showed there was room for a porch but when it was resurveyed, the house was found to be placed in the wrong spot. Commissioner Jasper stated it was his understanding that when it was bought, there was not an intention to put a porch on the house. Commissioner Gamache thought the hardship was with the discovery of a mistake in surveying. Commissioner Kirchoff thought the builder made a mistake without the owners' knowledge and it was never checked until this came up. • The Commission discussed the possible hardship. Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes — July 13, 2004 Page 7 • ADJOURNMENT. Motion by Kirchoff, seconded by Gamache, to adjourn the meeting at 8:05 p.m. Motion carried on a 7 -ayes, 0 -nays, 0- absent vote. Respectfully Submitted, Sue Osbeck, Recording Secretary Timesaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. • C I T Y O F ND OVE • 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: Chris Vrchota, Planning Intern Courtney Bednarz, City PlanncW SUBJECT: Variance (04 -04) to vary from the rear yard setback requirements for a proposed porch addition at 13542 Poppy St. NW DATE: July 27, 2004 INTRODUCTION The applicants are requesting a 6 -foot variance to the rear yard setback requirement to allow the construction of a 12x12 sun porch. DISCUSSION There are several factors that contribute to the hardship for this property. The first is that the house is on a comer lot and faces the side of the lot, meaning there is limited buildable space in the front and rear yard setbacks. The second is the fact that the house is part of a duplex, thus eliminating one side of the house as a placement option for the porch. The third is the proximity to Terrace Park, which generates traffic and on- street parking on both Poppy St. and 135` Lane. Finally, there is a problem with blowing dust from the gravel parking area at the park. The addition of basketball courts to the park will likely magnify these issues. The combination of these factors make the rear of the house the only suitable location for the porch. There is only 6 feet of space for the porch before reaching the 30 -foot rear yard setback. The applicants have provided letters from neighbors in support of the addition. • 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. R -4 Re uirement Subject Propert Rear Yard setback 30 feet 36 feet • 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. CITY OF ANDOVER • COUNTY OF ANOKA STATE OF MINNESOTA RES. NO. R A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE VARIANCE REQUEST FOR KEN AND CONNIE EVANS TO VARY FROM CITY CODE 12 -3 -4 TO REDUCE THE REAR YARD SETBACK TO 24 FEET ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 13542 POPPY ST. NW LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS: LOT 5, BLOCK 1, CHAPMANS FIFTH ADDITION, ANOKA COUNTY, MN. WHEREAS, Ken and Connie Evans 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. That the house faces the side of the lot, limiting available building space. 2. That there are limited choices for the placement of the porch due to the fact that the house is part of a duplex. 3. That Terrace Park generates traffic and parking on Poppy St. NW and 135' Lane. 4. That there is a problem with blowing dust from a gravel parking area at Terrace Park. 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 rear yard setback for a new sun porch to 24 feet for the subject property with the following condition: 1. That the variance shall be subject to a sunset clause whereas if the improvements are not initiated within twelve (12) months, the variance will be null and void. 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 • 'i To: Andover, MN 55304 FROM: Ken & Connie Evans 13542 Poppy Street NW Andover, MN 55304 DATE: July 6, 2004 RE: Proposed Addition We are currently in the process of applying for permits to add a 12 x 12,pnroom to the rear of our home. The Andover City code requires a 30 foot set back from the lot line. If we build on to our home, we would only be 24 feet from the property line. At this time the City has said it cannot be built as a 12 x 12 room. If we go by the existing code, wd`woukl have to redesign it to a 6 x 12 room, thus making it not very economical. We would like to apply for a variance with the City so we could build a 12 x 12 room. This is the reason for the letter. If you have any objections or concerns with this project or the 24 foot setback in lieu of the 30 foot setback, would you please let us know. Please state your comments or concerns on the bottom of this page. We appreciate your time. COMMENTSICONCERNS: ON ' 1 err � TO: 2 3 - 45 Andover, MN 55st FROM: Ken & Connie Evans 13542 Poppy Street NW Andover, MN 55304 DATE: July 6, 2004 RE: Proposed Addition We are currently in the process of applying for permits to add a 12 x 12 sunroom to the rear of our home. The Andover City code requires a 30 foot - set back from the lot line. If we build on to our home, we would only be 24 feet from the property line. At this time the City has said it cannot be built as a 12 x 12 room. If we go by the existing code, we would have to redesign it to a 6 x 12 room, thus making it not very economical. We would like to apply for a variance with the City so we could build a 12 x 12 room. This is the reason for the letter. if you have any objections or concerns with this project or the 24 foot setback in lieu of the 30 foot setback, would you please let us know. Please state your comments or concerns on the bottom of this page. We appreciate your time. COMMENTSICONCERNS: 1. TO: 135 [.� Poppy Street NW Andover, MN 55304 FROM: Ken & Connie Evans 13542 Poppy Street NW Andover, MN 55304 DATE: July 6, 2004 RE: Proposed Addition C�rn��►�� '1�3- �Ia� -�7�3 We are currently in the process of applying for permits to add a 12 x 12 sunroom to the rear of our home. The Andover City code requires a 30 foot back from the lot line. If we build on to our home, we would only be 24 feet from the property line. At this time the City has said it cannot be built as a 12 x 12 room. If we go by the eAsting code, we would have to redesign it to a 6 x 12 room, thus making it not very economical. We would like to apply for a variance with the City so we could build a 12 x 12 room. This is the reason for the letter. If you have any objections or concerns with this project or the 24 foot setback in lieu of the 30 foot setback, would you please let us know. Please state your comments or concerns on the bottom of this page. We appreciate your time. COMMENTS/CONCERNS: �v - luz e b his art ood I rn a ra vemeITL -10 d. 0 %� r No ; zG N I J . } g - tp 1 L1 6 s JUN 2 5 2004 9 9 3 NIT � 3 •1 S d1 O� 9 $ CZ "N s� 3 F paoO In hva X N sa J x R v\ V C I T Y 0 F V r 4 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 Plannjv SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING: Residential Sketch Plan for Kimberly Oaks, a rural residential development located east of Verdin Street at 165 Avenue NW. DATE: July 27, 2004 INTRODUCTION The Planning Commission is asked to review a sketch plan containing ten rural residential lots. DISCUSSION Conformance with Local Plans The proposal is consistent with the Rural Residential Land Use Classification and Single Family Rural Residential (R -1) Zoning District that exist on the subject property. Access Access is proposed to be provided from Verdin Street NW (CSAH 59) in alignment with 163` Lane NW. This will be the only access to the site permitted by the Anoka County Highway Department (ACRD). The street would extend approximately 1,500 feet into the site before terminating in a temporary cul -de -sac at the north property line. The street could be extended in the future to provide a secondary access when the property to the north develops further. A second interior street is also proposed to branch off to the east and would extend approximately 1,000 feet from the entrance to the development before terminating in a cul -de -sac. A variance to the maximum cul -de -sac length of 500 feet is needed for both of the cul -de -sacs. The Fire Department has requested that a temporary cul -de -sac be provided at the north end of the project to allow emergency vehicles to turn around in the short term. The Fire Department will ask for the street to connect to the north as a part of any future development proposal. The ACHD has provided comments on the proposed sketch plan (see attached). The developer already indicates that additional right -of -way will be dedicated to satisfy the typical 60 foot half right -of -way for the east half of CSAH 59. Sixty feet of right -of -way was established for the west half of CSAH 59 though the Silver Meadows plat. The attached sketch plan is designed to prevent future private driveway accesses onto CSAH 59 as mentioned in the attached ACHD memorandum. The developer will be asked to work with the ACHD to clearly define the area of vegetation that needs to be cleared to address their sight distance concerns. This information will be reflected on the preliminary plat. Construction of a northbound right turn lane into the development will be a condition of preliminary plat approval. I • Agency, LGU, and any other agency that may have an interest in the site). Initial contact shall be made with the City Engineering Department regarding this item. The developer is also required to meet all other applicable ordinances, including: • 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 Attachments Resolution Location Map Sketch Plan ACHD Comments ACTION REQUESTED The Planning Commission is asked to review the sketch plan and to suggest any modifications it feels necessary. Res ctfu s 'tte , e e arz Cc: Dale Howard 16178 Raven Street NW K - •.�•.^• •••� Nv - Id wnJd3ONOO \� x j s �J YlOS3NNWY'a3AOONV =� roJ sNVOAia3ewlH J �sv�•��a1NnaAf a s °I\ I —: ma WITT 41 1 ` �'' �� \ � ' �., .�� it J \" � ft •� -- �– 0 , J j I I i I , I I 1 I I I I � f I I I , I ! I � 1 I / \ I \ I i +1 I I – I- - - — JI !m. -nn I I : 1 i —S— lk Courtney Bednarz RE: Sketch Plan - Kimberly Oaks July 15, 2004 Page 2 There are severe sight distance deficiencies for the Intersection Sight Corner requirements at the proposed 163` Lane NW intersection with CR 59. The obstructions are primarily trees and existing structures. The City and the Developer shall ensure that clearing and/or grading is completed to satisfy the Sight Corner requirements to the fullest extent possible at this intersection. The construction of a NB CR59 right turn lane is warranted for this development and will be required to be completed by the City and /or the Developer as part of this development (see enclosed concept plan). If the City is concerned about other turning maneuvers at this intersection (SB CR 59 left and right turns; NB CR 59 left turns), we would be supportive of additional turn lane construction at this intersection should the City require it in conjunction with this development. It should be noted that residential land use adjacent to highways usually results in complaints regarding traffic noise. Traffic noise at this location could exceed noise standards established by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. Anoka County policy regarding new developments adjacent to existing county highways prohibits the expenditure of highway funds for noise mitigation measures. The City and/or the Developer should assess the noise situation and take any action deemed necessary to minimize associated impacts at this site from any traffic noise. • Drainage calculations must be submitted along with a grading and erosion control plan that delineates the drainage areas for this site. The post - developed rate of runoff must not exceed the pre- developed rate runoff for the 10 -year, critical design storm. An engineering plan review fee estimated at $350.00 will apply to this project. Contact Andrew Witter, Construction Engineer, for further information and to coordinate the engineering plan review process. Please submit the drainage calculations, grading and erosion control plans, right turn lane plan, the ACHD Design Requirements Checklist for County Highway Modifications (copy attached) and the applicable engineering plan review fee to Mr. Witter for his review and approval. An access permit and a permit for work within County right of way is required and must be obtained prior to the commencement of any construction (access permit for 163` Lane NW= $150.00; permit to work within R/W= $110.00). Contact Roger Butler, Traffic Engineering Coordinator, or Terri Klein, Permit Technician, for further information regarding the permit process. Installation and maintenance of any necessary permanent traffic control devices within the county right of way will be coordinated by Anoka County in conjunction with the permit process. (Please note that the Developer will be required to make any necessary pavement marking removals for the implementation of the turn lane plan as part of the permit process). E "'7-- C I T Y O F NDOVE 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. • ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 • (763) 755 -5100 FAX (763) 755 -8923 • WWW.CI.ANDOVER.MN.US TO: Planning and Zoning Commissioners FROM: Courtney Bednarz, City Planneiv SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING: Residential Sketch Plan for Silver Meadows West, a rural residential development located southeast of 7 Avenue and 165' Avenue NW. DATE: July 27, 2004 INTRODUCTION The Planning Commission is asked to review a sketch plan containing 17 rural residential lots. DISCUSSION Conformance with Local Plans • The proposal is consistent with the Rural Residential Land Use Classification and Single Family Rural Residential (R -1) Zoning District that exist on the subject property. Access Access is proposed to be provided from both Valley Drive (CSAH 58) and 165 Avenue NW (CSAH 158). The Anoka County Highway Department has indicated that no public street access will be allowed onto 7'' Avenue NW (CSAH 7). The large wetland at the center of the subject property will prevent the interior streets from being connected. As a result the northern street will extend 900 feet into the project and the southern street will extend 1250 feet into the project before terminating in a cul -de -sac. A street connection to the east will be provided at the north end of the project area to facilitate the future street network illustrated in the ghost sketch of these properties. A variance to the maximum cul -de -sac length of 500 feet is needed for both of the cul -de -sacs. The Anoka County Highway Department (ACHD) has provided comments on the proposed sketch plan (see attached). Additional right -of -way is proposed to be dedicated for CSAH 58 (Valley Drive) as shown on the sketch plan. An additional 27 feet of right -of -way needs to be added for CSAH 158 (165 Avenue NW). The Fire Department will need to determine if an emergency access into the development from CSDAH 7 will be needed. Staff will work with the applicant and the Anoka County Highway Department to determine the appropriate improvements at the intersection of Genie Drive and Valley Drive. The developer will be asked to work with the ACHD to clearly define the area of vegetation that needs to be cleared to address their sight distance concerns. This information will be reflected on the preliminary plat. 4 • ACTION REQUESTED The Planning Commission is asked to review the sketch plan and to suggest any modifications it feels necessary. Respectfully submitted, Ae Be z Cc: Chet Wieloch 4201 93r Avenue N Brooklyn Park, MN 55443 Jerry Foss, Counselor Realty 951 Hillwind Road Fridley, MN 55432 L� L� 3 V t � I 1 { { I f I { ry I �"�• / / - n >Ye ' ( % k., / 1 / ®_� �' r 1 / I � __ sl I� 1 � Ys � te, '. 'gy�^�'$"d. � "%��'. t�4 -' � / /.. I � A �� s "� /'i iy '• 1�,1� �f 4 i ��'�� � `tl 1 _mss \Vt.\ �V / i'�'� � � b .` ♦ � ))) - � 7 4i t^�'':_#�'�+rsw .ti.+n tl \) ' \\ •� \� I n,� 'I' Q § w i t : f �� � n � � zPW t i � � A\ • ��6an Courtney Bednarz • RE: Sketch Plan - Silver Meadows West July 19, 2004 Page 2 (As the city is aware, this section of CSAH 7 has already been forced to accommodate an increase in the number of direct access point due to lot splits on the west side of CSAH 7 in the area south of 165' Ave. NW because there was no alternative means of access). Additionally, connecting these two proposed local roadways would result in a through route for snow removal and emergency vehicles. If the city has concerns and/or requires an emergency vehicle access point along CSAH 7, we may be willing to consider allowing a gated (break -away style) emergency vehicle entrance to this plat. If the City deems this is necessary, plans for such an entrance should be submitted for our review. The right of access along CSAH 7 is to be dedicated to Anoka County. The extension of Genie drive to the west from CR 58 as proposed to provide access to this development is desirable from an access managementlintersection spacing point of view. However, it appears that there are non - correctable Intersection Sight Distance deficiencies present at the intersection. Some type of CR 58 turn lane construction is needed at this intersection. To appropriately address the sight distance issues and all turning movements that could be made at the intersection, NB and SB left and right turn lanes should be built on CR 58 at Genie Drive. Presently, this development contains 15 lots, 9 of which will gain access via Genie Drive NW. Provided that the applicable intersection sight distance criteria are met, our usual threshold for bi- directional left and right turn lane construction on the county . highway system in conjunction with new development projects has been developments containing 30 lots or more are required to build left and right turn lanes at new City street intersections. The size of this development is significantly less than the 30 -lot threshold, but the sight distance issues at the intersection are significant and impact intersection safety regardless of the development size. As this plat is in the sketch plan phase, it is difficult to address this issue definitively, and I suggest that City and County staff meet to discuss the issue and look at the available options for this development. Defining the extent of clearing and grading that can be accomplished at Genie Drive may aid us in determining the turn lanes to be constructed on CR 58 at this intersection. It appears that there are severe deficiencies for the Sight Corners for the proposed intersection on CR 158. The sight distance deficiencies are caused by trees and brush, and they are located outside of the county right of way, as well as outside of the boundaries of this plat, in the SW quadrant of this proposed intersection. Consequently, these deficiencies are considered non- correctable. If a jurisdictional transfer of this route to the City of Andover was completed, City standards could be exercised in regards to this local street connection. If the route is to remain on the county highway system, an EB CR 158 right turn lane should be built in conjunction with this development. It should be noted that residential land use adjacent to highways usually results in complaints regarding traffic noise. Traffic noise at this location could exceed noise standards established by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. Anoka County policy regarding new developments adjacent to existing county highways prohibits the expenditure of highway funds for noise mitigation measures. . The City and /or the Developer should assess the noise situation and take any action deemed necessary to minimize associated impacts at this site from any traffic noise.