The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About06/13/06. • ' .r. 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 June 13, 2006 Andover City Hall Council Chambers 7:00 p.m. 1. Call to Order 2. Approval of Minutes — May 23, 2006. 3. Variance (06 -04) to vary from the driveway setback requirements of City Code 12 -13 -9 to allow a shared driveway for property located at 1947 161 Avenue NW. 4. PUBLIC HEARING: Residential Sketch Plan for a single family urban residential development and planned unit development located south of Bunker Lake Boulevard on several properties between Crooked Lake Boulevard and Gladiola Street NW. 5. PUBLIC HEARING: Residential Sketch Plan for a single family rural residential development located at 17404 Ward Lake Drive. 6. Other Business: 7. Adjournment 0 A �,9L-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 Planner SUBJECT: Item 2. Approval of Minutes - May 23, 2006 DATE: June 13, 2006 Request The Planning and Zoning Commission is asked to approve the minutes from the May 23, 2006 meeting. 0 P • C I T Y O F NDOVE 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. • ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 • (763) 755 -5100 FAX (763) 755 -8923 • WWW.CI.AN DOVER. MN. US PLANNING AND ZONING ColwUSSIONMEETEV'G — MAY 23 2006 The Regular Bi- Monthly Meeting of the Andover Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order by Chairperson Daninger on May 23, 2006, 7:00 p.m., at the Andover City Hall, 1685 Crosstown Boulevard NW, Andover, Minnesota. Commissioners present: Chairperson Daninger, Commissioners Tim Kirchofl Rex Greenwald, Michael Casey, Valerie Holthus and Michael King. Commissioners absent: Devon Walton. Also present: City Planner, Courtney Bednarz Associate Planner, Chris Vrchota Others APPROVAL OF1IIP-TUTES May 9, 2006 Motion by King, seconded by Kirchoff, to approve the minutes as presented. Motion carried on a 6 -ayes, 0 -nays, 1- absent (Walton) vote. PUBLIC HEARING: SIGN ORDINANCEAMENDMENT TO CONSIDER REVISIONS TO CITY CODE 12-16 TO MAKE BALL FIELD AND SCOREBOARD ADVERTISING SIGNS IN CITY PARKS A PERMITTED USE Mr. Vrchota stated the Planning Commission is asked to review two proposed amendments to the sign code. The first amendment would make ball field advertising signs a permitted rather than conditional use. The second amendment would make scoreboard advertising signs a permitted use. Mr. Vrchota reviewed the staff report with the Commission. Commissioner Greenwald wondered if this affected any indoor parks, such as the Community Center. Mr. Vrchota stated City Code only addresses outdoor signs. Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes —April 26, 2005 Page 2 Commissioner Greenwald thought they needed to make the outdoor scoreboard reference more clear. Motion by Greenwald, seconded by Casey, to open the public hearing at 7:05 pm. Motion carried on a 6 -ayes, 0 -nays, 1- absent (Walton) vote. No one wished to address the Commission. Motion by Casey, seconded by King, to close the public hearing at 7:05 p.m. Motion carried on a 6 -ayes, 0 -nays, 1- absent (Walton) vote. Motion by Greenwald, seconded by Kirchof� to recommend to the City Council approval of the proposed changes to the City Code adding the words "Outdoor Scoreboards ". Motion carried on a 6 -ayes, 0 -nays, 1- absent (Walton) vote. Mr. Vrchota stated that this item would be before the Council at the June 6, 2006 City Council meeting. PUBLIC SEARING: ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO CITY CODE 11 -3 -1 TO ADD DISCRETIONARYSTANDARDS TO BUFFER RURAL NEIGHBORHOODS FROM NEW URBAN DEVELOPMENTS. Mr. Bednarz stated the Council has asked for ordinance language to address this item and suggested several options be allowed. The Commission and Council would select the options most appropriate for the specific circumstances of the site at the time that the preliminary plat is reviewed. There would also be an opportunity to give direction to the developer at the sketch plan phase. Commissioner Greenwald stated a lot of times the MUSA boundary is at a road and asked if this be considered a good enough buffer. Mr. Bednarz stated that is correct. This ordinance is written so that only urban plats that adjoin rural properties will trigger this. Commissioner Greenwald asked if a person is in a situation where they are in an existing home and they would want to put a shed in the back, would this ordinance come into effect where they would need to buffer if they are abutting a rural area. Mr. Bednarz stated this would not prevent the homeowner from doing that It is their belief that people would want to keep a buffer if it is provided for them but if they choose not to, it is their property and they can choose to do with the property what they want. Commissioner King asked if this ordinance would make someone replant a buffer if a storm went through. Mr. Bednarz stated it would not • Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes — April 26, 2005 Page 3 Motion by Kirchoff, seconded by Casey, to open the public hearing at 7:10 p.m. Motion carried on a 6 -ayes, 0 -nays, 1- absent (Walton) vote. There was no public input. Motion by Casey, seconded by Holthus, to close the public hearing at 7:10 p.m. Motion carried on a 6 -ayes, 0 -nays, 1- absent (Walton) vote. Motion by Kirchoff, seconded by Casey, to recommend approval of the Ordinance Amendment as presented. Motion carried on a 6 -ayes, 0 -nays, 1- absent (Walton) vote. Mr. Bednarz stated that this item would be before the Council at the June 6, 2006 City Council meeting. OTHER BUSINESS£ Mr. Bednarz updated the Planning Commission on related items. . ADJOURNMENT: Motion by Kirchoff, seconded by Casey, to adjourn the meeting at 7:15 p.m. Motion carried on a 6 -ayes, 0 -nays, 1- absent (Walton) vote. Respectfully Submitted., Sue Osbeck, Recording Secretary TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. • 5 R 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: Chris Vrchota, Associate Planner 9 k SUBJECT: Variance (06 -04) to vary from the driveway setback requirements of City Code 12 -13 -9 to allow a shared driveway for property located at 1947 161 Avenue NW. DATE: June 13, 2006 INTRODUCTION The applicant is requesting a variance to City Code section 12 -13 -9, which requires that driveways be set back 5 feet from the property line to allow a shared driveway access to 161 Avenue NW (County Road 20). DISCUSSION The applicant is interested in splitting the existing 37 -acre parcel into two lots; one containing the existing residence and one that he would sell to his nephew for a new residence. They are pursuing the variance request first to determine if the expense involved in preparing the required lot split materials is warranted. Most of the parcel is covered by wetland, making it unbuildable. The way potential lot split is currently proposed, as shown on the attached survey, the new lot would have the required 300 feet of frontage, but building a driveway to serve the property would be very difficult, as it would have to be built across a large area of wetland. The watershed district would likely not allow this to be done. The variance would allow a new driveway to be built on high ground from the new house to the property line and over to the existing driveway, with the existing curb cut being used to provide access to both properties. In addition to avoiding wetland impacts, the shared access would eliminate the need for a second access onto County Road 20. A cross access agreement would be a condition for any future lot split. Because of the distance between the primary structures and County Road 20, both driveways would need to be brought up to the standard of an "access road" to meet the standards of the City Code and the International Fire Code. An access road must be at least 20 feet wide and be constructed of material that can provide all- weather driving capabilities, such as asphalt or gravel. This requirement will be made a condition of any future lot splits. 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: l 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 Report The applicant has provided the attached letter to describe the findings for the proposed variance. Staff Recommendation Variances are intended to provide relief from hardship with the least possible variation from the applicable zoning requirements. The Planning Commission is asked to recommend approval of the proposed variance if it determines that the strict interpretation of the code creates an undue hardship and that the findings can be made to grant the variance. Attachments Resolution Site Plan Applicant's Letter Location Map ACTION REQUESTED The Planning Commission is asked to recommend approval or denial of the proposed variance. Resp bmitted, C . s Vrchota Cc: Peter A. Leuty; 1947 161 Avenue NW; Andover, MN 55304 CITY OF ANDOVER • COUNTY OF ANOKA STATE OF MINNESOTA RES. NO. R A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE VARIANCE REQUEST FOR PETER A. LEUTY TO VARY FROM CITY CODE 12 -13 -9 TO REDUCE THE DRIVEWAY SETBACK TO ZERO (0) FEET TO ALLOW A SHARED DRIVEWAY ACCESS FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1947 161 AVENUE NW LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS: The Southwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 15, Township 32, Range 24, Anoka County, Minnesota lying northerly of ANOKA COUNTY RIGHT OF WAY PLAT NO. 20 said Anoka County, Minnesota. WHEREAS, Peter A. Leuty has petitioned to vary from the requirements of City Code 12 -13 -9, and; WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the special circumstances for the subject property are as follows: 1. The property contains large areas of wetland, restricting where a driveway can be constructed. 2. The property fronts on County Road 20, where access is controlled and limited by • Anoka County. 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 -13 -9 to reduce the driveway setback to zero (0) feet for the subject property with the following condition: 1. 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 , 2006. CITY OF ANDOVER ATTEST: Michael R. Gamache, Mayor Victoria Volk, City Clerk • e o,. 0 Z o ��l�i�EElg��lttlllltll 8 dd8 8S s= k 8s= b k .�. Sk 5g e$ii §k° §g ` °$ii fr 5t g g ° F fiBm g 866 S A g g ¢ 5 5 a R SS S "' gr§ e5 b $_ fr �� ' LF'g ° a04 r� E `B'$^ s�fi yyxx�� 5;S 8 Cz6o5E E �- CZi Y "EE $ aiz6 °g g,_ -° i fiSo "oF�g' 5 a N 6i 6s` o °° t L E88,g = Ss5 8s�gs 5 E£ 5s fi �, —a a- u 3 y SE ° La ed'I 1 S [� e i ° f= W 0 ek = 4e6 # ° b � ill SSStall �� ^� =� = � °' ° a ° �a�g�s m n i gg YY qq g- s < Z g-g' s p 6 -„ F - §• °�s ° °`° LL[[ $pp5 s.� a R° ° ° g ` iiY I` r .$Z ' a M ^ % gg 6 z� Sg.� ^3.° g i 5u g yr5 gE [ E o' z aa£ S S!; . 6 1 . 4 z @ i x gg �i FgQaa. a €s °Ls_£' ^ ° g g 8 ^.sE- § ° g¢a 5g fiFfiS os g b$ s55yy 3 53z6 °$��n E ^ SEE fi 6- E ° 0 O 2 �� i 6 B ° 25:,.,..g 6 • ° 65 �: " Y R�g. Ri ifi¢`g °ges•3R Rm ° d ` s s - os ss °g E $ ;H figs. @p a ",� €gE5 R `nt bi "i�n ^b D fry aggpEp°° gr § 5 E�� €B 5�in n.a S° z 8 Ss�' S. ;ved b4�5 g 'aa va ij 55`8F E5 6 °% ° °SS�e9Er• °`o'$SB a l i' l d 1= s' Ls g. 6g 888so rts•5 g' d €:. go, sL66" S9L gg SH 1W s n S3= � Y��ai 5 < i a y s � Su €' S6SppJ;6sb°b g € ° z S`e fifig�°SaSR�g�SF6 d §figd�h � g s $aW� €; € °FS ��HsBSSgYe "6$�Essn� a � �i ak < 6 fie g o� # c 3 € 3aFea n�fiz gg § :a�cdg LEE gigj p �BB ee I I I I I GLi{ M.Bh,LL005 LL"RGU LO ko ci ul- i / % ✓ j �F �� /� CJ I 71 X - - %- C- --- - - - - - -- i �� p t :F I j k I g F y •� �® a l,J I ` -I fi� �E gYY p ° ((¢ °i'1^' 11` r• I �)I ;Sfi �i§ zl lu e' v <I § I v i t ! _ lid, 4 { 6 3y ' I� S 6 i � g y� 1622 ,T p I II ♦ C og �ifi Z VL 3,BC,BC.00N .a w •° wr F 0 0 11 • Peter A. Leuty 161 Avenue Northwest Andover, MN 55304 The City of Andover Planning Commission Andover City Hall 1685 Crosstown Boulevard NW Andover, MN 55304 May 24, 2006 Dear Chairman Daninger and Commissioners, This letter is written in support of my Lot Split Request that is being submitted to the city for approval. As part of the lot split request, I am seeking a variance to the requirement of unique driveways and instead share a partial driveway with the newly created lot. • Andover resident for over 25 years with approximately 40 acres of land. o I would like to split my property and sell the created lot to my nephew and his family. He is an electrical engineer and his wife is a physical therapist. They have 2 young children and desire to raise their family in this community. I • believe they will make a good addition to the community. • Size and location of wetland make it prohibitive for separate driveways. • Due to the size and location of the wetland on my property, independent access for each lot to the public road is environmentally challenging. I have included an aerial photograph of my land to show the wetland size and location. • I propose the driveway would be shared up to the point of closest distance to an old farming road. The entire length of the driveway would be upgraded to city code. The driveway would not be visible from the public road, except for the common access point. As stated in the Andover City Planning Rules & Guidelines, several intents of the city are "Conserving and developing natural resources." and "Conserving the natural and scenic beauty and attractiveness of roadsides." This option clearly minimizes the impact on the surrounding trees and wetland and thus meets the spirit of the City's intent. • An easement would be provided to grant legal access to the shared driveway. • Sharing a common access point to the public road (161 Avenue Northwest — County Highway 20) has additional benefits for the county. • Minimizing access points to this busy roadway will improve safety. • Sharing a common access point would not create any additional maintenance expenses to the county. • The DNR has designated the low land as protected wetland after the land was purchased by property owner. The DNR designation does not allow the property owner to fill the wetland to create a separate driveway. • Based on the hardships presented in this letter, I am hoping to show that this request is the best • for the environment, the best for the scenic beauty from the roadside, and the preferred option from a county viewpoint. I am asking for your support and recommendation for approval of my submitted requests. Sincerely, Peter A. Leuty • • VMs id Z! \�� -5 LU Lil -j D- - EIED- < 13 El VMs r i 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 PlanrIeww SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING: Residential Sketch Plan for a single family urban residential development and planned unit development located south of Bunker Lake Boulevard on several properties between Crooked Lake Boulevard and Gladiola Street NW. DATE: June 13, 2006 INTRODUCTION The Planning Commission is asked to review a sketch plan containing 25 detached townhomes and four existing homes that would remain. The proposal combines several properties and the rear yards of several others into what could be considered an infill project. DISCUSSION Conformance with Local and Regional Plans and Ordinances • The proposed project would conform to the City's Comprehensive Plan, which indicates land use designations of Urban Residential Low Density (up to 4 units per acre) and Transitional Commercial as shown on the attached map. The Transitional Commercial Land Use Designation allows either commercial or residential development. The proposed project contains 3.77 units per acre. The proposed project would not require the property to be rezoned from the current R -4, Single Family Urban Residential designation as this district allows detached single family dwellings. However, the Council will need to agree to allow planned unit development review as the lots are smaller than the typically required in the R -4, Single Family Urban Residential Zoning District. The applicant will need to demonstrate that the proposal will result in a better project than could be achieved under the typical R -4 Zoning District standards. Site Design The plan shows lots ranging from 5,000- 11,508 square feet arranged around two cul -de -sacs that are provided access from new street connections to both Gladiola Street NW and Eidelweiss Street NW. The proposed development would be served by 28 foot wide public streets that would transition to the more narrow existing streets. Typically public streets are required to be 33 feet wide, however, 28 foot wide public streets have been approved for desirable PUD's in the past. Parking would be required to be limited to one side of the street in this scenario. A previous sketch plan proposed street connections to both Crooked Lake Boulevard and Eidelweiss Street NW instead of the two cul -de -sacs. Staff advised the applicant that these street connections would not be permitted because they were below the minimum separation between intersections with an arterial roadway (330 feet). In addition, there is a significant slope near the intersection of Bunker and Crooked Lake Boulevards that would make an intersection near this location more hazardous. It is important to note that the proposal would include a request to vacate the 30 feet of existing right -of -way for a frontage road along the west side of Crooked Lake Boulevard. The Council had previously indicated to the neighborhood that they would be willing to vacate this right -of- 40 way as there is no plan to construct a frontage road in the future. Comparison to Similar Projects The attached table compares the project with other detached townhouse projects that have previously been approved. Unit Style The applicant has indicated that the attached sketch plan shows only conceptual buildings and the actual range of foundation sizes will be between 1,100 and 1,800 square feet. The homes would have an option of either a two or three car garage. The attached drawings indicate the type of structure that is being considered by the developer. Homeowners Association The applicant has indicated that it is their intent to create a homeowners association to maintain the lawn areas and landscaping outside of the building envelope. Repair and replacement of the building exteriors and driveways would be the responsibility of each owner. Planned Unit Development Review City Code 13 -3 provides the requirements for review of planned unit developments. The purpose of PUD is to encourage more efficient allocation of density and intensity of land use where such arrangement is desirable and feasible by providing the means for greater creativity and flexibility • in environmental design than provided under the strict application of the City Code. It must be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the City Council that a higher quality development will result than could be otherwise achieved through strict application of the City Code. 13 -3 -9 Findings Required. The developer making request for a PUD shall provide findings for review by the City Council. The findings necessary for approval of a PUD shall be as follows: A. The proposed development is not in conflict with the goals of the Comprehensive Plan of the City. B. The proposed development is designed in such a manner to form a desirable and unified environment within its own boundaries. C. The proposed development demonstrates how each modified or waived requirement contributes to achieving the purpose of PUD. D. The PUD is of composition, and arrangement that its construction, marketing, and operation are feasible as a complete unit without dependence upon any subsequent unit. 13 -3 -11 Desirable PUD Design Qualities. The following design qualities will be sought in any PUD review: • A. Achieves efficiency in the provision of streets and utilities and preserves area to achieve the elements of design qualities described in this Chapter. B. Provides convenient and safe access for vehicles and pedestrians and all types of activity that • are anticipated to be a part of the proposed development. C. Provides a buffer between different uses, adjacent properties, roadways, between backyards of back -to -back lots. D. Preserves existing stands of trees and/or significant trees. E. Provides considerable landscaping treatments that compliment the overall design and contribute toward an overall landscaping theme. F. Preserves significant usable space on individual lots or through the provision of open space within the development. G. Provides an attractive streetscape through the use of undulating topography, landscaping, decorative street lighting, decorative mailbox groupings, retaining walls, boulders, fencing, area identification signs, etc. H. The proposed structures within the development demonstrate quality architectural design and the use of high quality building materials for unique design and detailing. I. The lasting quality of the development will be ensured by design, maintenance and use guidelines established through an owners association. • Requested PUD standards Based on the attached drawing, the project would require standards to reduce the lot width, depth and area as well as the front, side and (in one case) rear yard setbacks of the R -4 Zoning District. The proposal would also have smaller than typical cul -de -sacs (82 foot diameter versus typical 93 foot diameter) and streets as mentioned previously. The developer has provided the attached project narrative and table to address the planned unit development review criteria shown above. Neighborhood Meeting A neighborhood meeting was held on Thursday June 8 and was attended by approximately 60 people. The majority of the residents indicated that they were opposed to the project and expressed concerns about the project not meeting the standards of the surrounding neighborhood, the density of the project and the impact on the existing roads and a variety of other concerns. Staff Recommendation The applicant is requesting planned unit development standards that vary from many of the requirements of the established zoning district. The proposal does not appear to address many of the desirable planned unit development qualities described above and also does not indicate how each varied standard contributes to achieving a more desirable project than could be achieved if • the R -4 Zoning District requirements were strictly applied. It appears that approximately 16 standard single family lots could be achieved in the project area (excluding the four existing homes that would remain). However, staff believes that a well designed detached townhouse project can work well within the project area. If the Commission and Council are willing to 3 consider planned unit development standards, staff would suggest that the number of units be reduced to allow space for more of the desirable planned unit development qualities to be achieved. ACTION REQUESTED The Planning Commission is asked to make a formal recommendation on this proposal and to suggest any modifications or alternatives that would be recommended by the Commission. Attachments Location Map Portion of Land Use Map Sketch Plan (11 x 17 in packet) Project Narrative /Table Building Elevations Table of Detached Townhouse Projects j I � d ?Fit.: Cc: Merit Development 21471 Ulysses Street NE #2 East Bethel, MN 55011 • CJ 0 NDOVER' Incorporated 1974 rn CO rn N Merit Sketch Plan and Planned Unit Development 1375 13819 2 138 CO LEGEND RR - Rural Residential URL - Urban Residential Low URM - Urban Residential Medium dr URH - Urban Residential High r; TR - Transitional Residential dr LC - Limited Commercial df LC /MD - Limited Commercial /Medium Density NC - Neighborhood Commercial dr GC - General Commercial dr TC - Transitional Commercial LI - Light Industrial dF P - Public RRR - Rural Reserve G OS - Open Space dF AG- Agriculture The iMoimaton represan(Od on MOO map depays Me OJrllents of iM Cily of A w O5oia1 LOW Use Map ThisisoNya9reFhiraldepcion. The Rennin*OSica S Wd Oe referenced for Sp C fc question cwcw W the .N.nl of Iha map ldlld 1150 deeiQn01g11B>a BI1b d b Clage. I'or qU .W11s or comments please contact 1M Clly of AMOVer City of Andover - PlanMrlg Department 1665 Crosstown Blvd. NW Andover, MN 55304 1763) 755 -5100 N • Map Dale. May 2006 n 14,262 1 IMF equals � feel �vnbl LAND USE MAP EXCERPT Incorporated 1974 • • BWKER LAKC BOULEVARD Vu ANUI Cn mrFFPM, t I I 1 � l 41 711 c J I — — — — — -- — — — — — $at T 4 - ` - - - -- - - - -- --- 111!M LANE NW -------- ---------- ---- --------- ---- IM) M 0 m M 0 < m ANDOVER PROPERTY John Oliver A Associates Inc. �1.1 1-1 d—e0ed. i.., ." 1560 ftd A... ,.k i— i ,. "'So — — a ' plan 4 U- under m DESKa4 W.— ,( I .. . aulY ucvnvva Pro,vvv,rvwl DHANTI W: ! . T_ , n , A . 1. RJR 6UVKER LAKE 8DUEVARP J I — — — — — -- — — — — — $at T 4 - ` - - - -- - - - -- --- 111!M LANE NW -------- ---------- ---- --------- ---- IM) M 0 m M 0 < m ANDOVER PROPERTY John Oliver A Associates Inc. �1.1 1-1 d—e0ed. i.., ." 1560 ftd A... ,.k i— i ,. "'So — — a ' plan 4 U- under m DESKa4 W.— ,( I .. . aulY ucvnvva Pro,vvv,rvwl DHANTI W: ! . T_ , n , A . 1. RJR ,• .` _ — — s..' :�, J�-� --"- rte:-=- <•` - -='`- ,m _ -., _- I A. _ i T &S aao,. � eaaa L AKE HOMEV u •• �eLNKER LAKE BaA£V<ERP_ W1. Is i 1 6 < fW I x�ii ` rr .•L ,v I T y m vE —�o ! i �J 1 I 1 y �I I ad a, 1 � l r -( y„ -�5. -. � ,1� .p � � l � ✓.�q,� � � . � � I � . ; ; .: I I ' I _ r -x icy------ .— . - - - - -� It I` I vw'fv�. -� I 1 - -I I •'f� I - - - - - _ j^rtitivti'�✓�� - I _ - - -I I I I •.. I I I I —�.�� - -� i 1 LANE NW jx ________ • I - - - -' I!I II I .o N III I�I 0 m n � o m - z o m \ F—by o c.rlilr %.I IFim plan sp.cil— mm 30 06 � (ATE NSCRIMM R I r r ..............,r.<,,,�<,r.. John OOver & Associstes, Ina �OR^^,1.r`:r: a: ey RE6ICR W Project Narrative This proposed residential subdivision will consist of 25 new single family residential homes and 4 existing homes. The new homes will have high quality building materials such as maintenance free shakes on the gable ends of the home and cultured stone accents. With a differentiation ofbuilding exterior materials and multiple options within the 2,500 square feet ofliving space. The developer will provide anatural screening rnstaidal along Bunker Lake Boulevard consisting afa "green buffer" of 6 foot high spruce trees along the right -of -way with a 6 foot high cedar fence on the house side. This subdivision will revitalize this older axes of Andover, and provide well kept lawns and landscaping. The new homes along $esker Drake Boulevard will be landscaped and provide a well groomed appearance, as well as utilizing the best use of the property along Bunker bake Boulevard. This proposed subdivision will be a strong asset to the conunu pity. OAK VILLAS OF ANDOVER is • R-4 Standard Proposed Sketch Plan Oak Villas of Andover tiof Dianenaba�s - Lot Area 11,400 sf 5,000 - 11,508 sf 6 sf Trot Width 80 feet 50 - 98 feet 50 feet min. Lot Depth 130 feet 100 -144 feet 100 feet min. DdKsity Land Area, (acres) NA 7.7 7.7 # Units NA 29 29 Density (units/acre) Up to 4 with PUD 3.76 3.76 Setbacks Front 35 fed 13 feet to ROW 26.5 feet to street 12.5 feet to ROW 28 feat to street Side Interior 6 feet garage 10 feet living 5 to 22 feet 5 feet Side Corner Lot 35/25 feet for back to back lot 13 to 34 feet 30 feet Rear 30 feet 40 feat to county road ROW 30 to 70 feat 30 feet min. > Desirable• PUD Qualities . Desirable PUD Qualities NA See Attached 111K Q Sup in-914m No•3325 P. 3 0 I 9- loci EN MERIT CUSTOM HOMES �ENRPIF' v 0 m n Response to Proposed Sketch Plan • Location: North side — Bunker Lake Boulevard between Crooked Lake Boulevard and Gladiola Street and 135"' Lane N.W. on the south end. The neighbors gathered at a meeting on June 8, 2006 at City Hall to express their concerns and objections to this project. While recognizing that those who own the land where the proposed 25 detached town homes would be located, have the right to sell their land, there has not been any consideration on the impact this project will have on the streets, the sewer and water, and the neighborhood overall. The developer chose not to appear before the citizens who live in the existing neighborhood. Instead, sent an assistant to represent this proposed development. She was sent unprepared, with drawings and documents that did not reflect the actual structures and plans for these new homes. As an assistant she was asked questions that the developer should have been there to answer. This proposal is asking for several variances to be made and in some instance the lots are not equal to the size of existing homes in the neighborhood. Most of the residents have lived here for over 30 years and take pride in their quiet piece of Andover. The thought of 50 or more vehicles spilling out onto 135 Lane N.W. from two narrow roads — Gladiola and Eidelweiss (which would be 28 ft not 33 ft wide), is simply ridiculous! It states in their proposal that they also want a variance to make the two cul-de -sacs 82 ft diameter vs. the typical 93 ft. The only way out of this development would be onto Gladiola and a right turn on to Bunker Lake • Boulevard (heading East) or onto 135 Lane N.W. and North on Crooked Lake Boulevard to make the turns to go either West or East. Currently there is no Stop Light at that intersection, which with the current traffic, is dangerous enough. It was explained that Bunker Lake Boulevard is a County Road and therefore any traffic changes would be decided by Anoka County not the city of Andover. There was also discussion regarding an emergency route out of the neighborhood and the response was they would have determined that. Let's not be too quick to forget about the storm that took place last September and actually had this neighborhood in a real state of emergency with fallen trees and power lines! The proposal to place 25 detached homes onto six existing lots, says it all when talking about how much you are increasing the population density on this small piece of land. If you do the math, you are putting four plus houses on each lot! That is totally unreasonable and unrealistic. We were told that originally they were talking about three car garages, but went down to two; yet the proposal again states two and three car garages. Which is it? If this developer seriously wants to do a project that would be acceptable to the present neighbors, he needs to scale back the numbers of units and in turn, the number of variances that he is requesting. This proposal is like a wish list of a kid in a candy store. There appears to be almost 10 different variances and exceptions to the city's rules and regulations that would have to be made to make this plan work! Perhaps if profit and greed had not been the driving force in • this project trying to cram in 25 homes versus 10, maybe the current homeowners might have been willing to look at this as a positive thing for the neighborhood. 4 V NL6D Y O F DVVE 1 685 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 PlannelF SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING: Residential Sketch Plan for a single family rural residential development located at 17404 Ward Lake Drive. DATE: June 13, 2006 INTRODUCTION The Planning Commission is asked to review a sketch plan containing five rural lots. DISCUSSION Conformance with Local and Regional Plans and Ordinances The proposed project would conform to both the Rural Residential Land Use Designation and R- 1, Rural Residential Zoning District. No amendment or rezoning will be necessary. Site Design As indicated on the attached sketch plan, the site is nearly surrounded by floodplain. Public Street access would be provided from Ward Lake Drive before terminating in a cul -de -sac. A stub street would be constructed to the north property line where it could be extended to provide a second access in the future (as shown on another attached plan). In the short term, however, the cul -de -sac will be approximately 1,150 feet in length, which exceeds the 500 feet allowed by City Code. A variance to this standard would be necessary in the short term. Staff recommends the variance be granted as the applicant has shown how a second access could be achieved to the north in the future and no other options exist for a second access due to the location of the surrounding floodplain. Each of the lots will exceed the 2.5 acre minimum required by the R -1 Zoning District as well as provide the required lot width and depth. Other Items The applicant will be required to obtain watershed district approval before the preliminary plat can be approved. The Engineering Department has indicated that a proportionate share of future improvements to Ward Lake Drive will be required as a condition of preliminary plat approval. This improvement would be to upgrade the existing section of road to current city standards (33 foot wide back to back street with curb and gutter and storm water ponding as necessary. The amount of payment required as a part of preliminary plat approval will be established based on the potential • development of the area and reduced by the amount of funding that the city will provide toward this improvement. Staff Recommendation • Staff recommends a favorable response to the sketch plan with the understanding that further work is necessary to demonstrate the buildability of each lot. ACTION REQUESTED The Planning Commission is asked to advise the applicant on the likelihood that the proposal would be approved and any modifications that would be recommended by the Commission. Attachments Location Map Sketch Plan (11x17 in packet) Conceptual Drawing with Second Access (11x] 7 in packet) Cc: Kathy O'Connell MFRA 14800 28' Avenue, Suite 140 Plymouth, MN 55447 0 • iDOVER Incorporated 1974 Woodland Hills Sketch Plan 17845 17844 17817 17816 17892 17745 17744 r n 17725 1519 17714 1640 1452 n p N Ib0 d Q r r J m co Z 17695 x 1641 1667 1674 1649 a 17408 17401 0 / 17678 17&14 � o 17841 17816 17617 17745 17744 17745 nt 17715 17714 L 17715 W 17700 176 17245 ^1 � SUBJECT PROPERTY 17350 Location Map 0 Sketch Plan for Woodland.Hills I �y�1 \\ N I - • az \\ I f l �— I I• ,/ I All I �y�1 \\ N I - • az \\ I , t �\ / 1 • i I I 7 , F.tw:�0` PAIN s11s.n . X, , . . ♦ � f I _ 1 t us71 A ! 1 III / 7 � I / /, / i M sIF➢F:MZ UUM ro M EW W W WX n E A vonr aiIM11r LIM 6 W slMrn LIM M EEM..m �W Vi 10 w � 6 W t w" - xvm O PIOOIQ lOI M mIFCIIW NC YOR.'FW Q 06M¢ 9Rg1i1� gum mw M CWIF6IW MW/OI E0:WF1M.1001 wmt M Q Lm Q M Oi11C mm EFFOE 10FO06 am K fAMC00 AE I00%'AZ m IWMO! 011E m IW mozo AL m cwn O MO/W EOWMQACIQ M W t W REWQ L M Mff MW M OMLCM 0101 Wlf E � K M R W FI A WILY I X MM Wli111E W MM M FMMB QIWWWIMFW MO VMHL4M F W COIIFICIW D® W 0RNI1 7E OMI M E1E K Q M M1Ml IOaY W DOEM OO Wf I %K WE. MQf MW F WE ID OE 6 M 0 M9K O/I K FMLL E bhO = rOpIF MT1WK WWII 11E WWFCf G10I011 f o f�'.t. 36 • M - °,,,b�' � - a '� �+. ;, 1 ��qee7' a a �, a : ,; 7 _ i s �� ;0 t �+S f f"F 'L • � — � r ' '~ � �:� F'r° •k'r€:`Y .- .9d,.I �.md� e "�. r r fpn,F: .'� R`� 3 , "�,r•., -a'� rpm {, "1„ p �'(, 4 •'. • xe r°fi a 3 1^ a 1 , ,^l a ,.r - A ,� � ! sr o. d oK a r � •� Ss�':gV� +�' .� ya '�}.p�w��!! a - asp � ' '��"' "�� I �>�Lr..r �....,y��' � �'� � n � q�A�(a�J1�S�►.,v� #�t d � S' �g' � ' t� t �,,._..._..:.,.. yam" ✓dad ` �".`hr y ..lcr l� 1 j ,. J, lz5 �iF ° �r ,4-n1 { .i'Y. 1'S�f >. t-.Y 'w,Cr1'�','�S (��,,.•'ey.�_ 6q! _��" 71 y( y � 1s i 1 �7� � ✓+Nr � +f +° i r e � .! .'}jpy ' t { � � . r M1 �a� _ _ ie� Y �I lT , r ' r �Lh�gq � i � �� r a �:� � g � I.Ht•.+.a'++. e rrs `�' ' v ey - r (1 ,1 � [, yr n t 4 s z y � M a t+ a �ry � f. r+ r s s ' Uri 1: 41,r G AWe y �P r v e4t,��3� t�fM1k T�V - ��7...� Y s r � .�'��li •ti 'W Y'�3r'y/L e�'a� b�' d'^J'� t � ae �I'� 1 ; r I `