Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/13/02 ApprovalofMll1utes -July 23, 2002 4. Variance (02-09) Variance tbOrdinance 8, Section6;D2 to vlfi'Y from. the.relir ' yard building'setbackforadditionat2815134thAvenueNW, " ,.', , PUBLlCHEARIN'G: LotSpJit (02-08) to create.two indUstriallotsfrotn ' pr<lperty located at 13530 Hanson Boulevard NWfor Beberg Landscaping. PUBLIC HEARING:' Consider amendment to Ordinance 214, Section 4.21 Tree Preservation to reduce the size of required trees from 2.5 inch caliper to L7Sinch caliper. ,7. Other Business 8. Adjqurnment ~._---- Courtney Bednarz, City Plariner ------ o pb t (z) CITY of ANDOVER PLANNINGAND ZONING COMMISSIONMEETING - .Iu[y 23, 2002 MINUTES The Regular Bi- Monthly Meeting of the Andover Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order by Vice Chairperson Dean Daninger on July 23, 2002, 7:01 p.m., at the Andover City Hall, 1685 Crosstown Boulevard NW, Andover, Minnesota Commissioners present: Vice Chairperson, Dean Daninger; Commissioners, Tim Kirchoff, Mark Hedin, and Tony Gamache. Commissioners absent: Chairperson, Jay Squires, Commissioners Douglas Falk and Rex Greenwald. Also present: City Planner, Courtney Bednarz, Planning Intern, Jon Sevald, and others. APPROVAL OF MINUTES July 9, 2002 Motion by Gamache, seconded by Hedin, to approve the minutes as presented. Motion carried on a 4- ayes, 0- nays, 3- absent (Squires, Greenwald and Falk) vote. July 23, 2002 PUBLIC HEARING.-SPECIAL USE PERMIT (02 -10) FOR HOME OCCUPATION NAIL SALON FOR TRACEYEDWARDS AT 14824 EAGLE STREET NW. Mr. Bednarz summarized the staff report, and stated that the only question that remains is the hours of operation'. Commissioner Kirchoff questioned if the driveway faces Eagle St. or Hanson Blvd. Mr. Bednarz responded that the driveway faces Eagle St. Motion by Gamache, seconded by Kirchoff to open the public hearing. Motion carried - on 'a 4 -ayes, 0- nayes, 3- absent (Squires, Greenwald, and Falk) vote. Commissioner Daninger questioned if the suggested hours of operation of 8 :00 am to 9:00 pm seven days -a week would be adequate. The applicant Tracey Edwards said it would be. L Commissioner Daninger questioned if the salon would be open earlier or past those • hours. The applicant Tracey Edwards responded no. Commissioner Gamache questioned if the salon would be by appointment only. The applicant Tracey Edwards responded yes. Motion by Kirchoff second by Gamache to close the public hearing. Motion carried 4- ayes, 0- nayes, 3- absent (Squires, Greenwald, and Falk) vote. Motion by Hedin, second by Gamache to recommend to the City Council approval of Resolution No. R — , Approval of the Special Use Permit of Tracey Edwards to operate a home occupation nail salon for the property located at 14824 Eagle Street NW. Commissioner Kirchoff questioned if a state board required an inspection. The Applicant Tracey Edwards responded yes. Once she receives her cosmetology license, she will be inspected once a year, or every other year. Motion carried on a 4 -ayes, 0- nayes, 3- absent (Squires, Greenwald, and Falk) vote. Mr. Bednarz stated this item will go to the City Council for approval on August 20, 2002. • PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDER AMENDMENT TO ORDINANCE S, SECTION Z 04 PROHIBITED USES TO ADD COMPOST FACILITIES AS A PROHIBITED LAND USE IN ALL ZONING DISTRICTS. Mr. Bednarz summarized the staff report. The object of the amendment is to put regulation in place to limit the location of a potential composting facility within the City of Andover. Commissioner Gamache questioned that by passing this, would there be any chance of locating such a facility in Andover? Mr. Bednarz stated that if the ordinance is passed as is, there would be no chance of locating such a facility in Andover without some other consideration. Commissioner Kirchoff questioned if a variance could be considered. Mr. Bednarz stated that a variance to a land use could not be approved, although an ordinance could be amended allowing such a facility to exist if a suitable location was agreed upon. • Commissioner Daninger questioned if this amendment more clearly defines what is and is not allowed in the city. Mr. Bednarz stated that was correct, and that there has been an effort not to restrict individual residents from composting on their property, along with city services or in the event of a natural disaster where a site would be needed to collect debris. Commissioner Daninger questioned if this amendment would limit nurseries from having their own composting facilities for their own use. Mr. Bednarz stated that this ordinance would limit any commercial, industrial, or institutional facility where material is collected from elsewhere and stored on site. This is typically not part of a commercial or retail operation. Commissioner Hedin questioned if there are any such facilities at this time. Mr. Bednarz responded that besides the Public Works facility, there were none to his knowledge. Composting on residential property is covered under a different ordinance. Motion by Hedin, seconded by Gamache to open the public hearing. Motion carried on a 4 -ayes, 0- nayes, 3- absent (Squires, Greenwald, and Falk) vote. There was no public input. • Motion by Hedin, seconded by Gamache to close the public hearing. Motion carried on a 4 -ayes, 0- nayes, 3- absent (Squires, Greenwald, and Falk) vote. Commissioner Kirchoff stated that he supports the proposed amendment, acknowledging the facility's associated smell. Commissioner Hedin stated that he supports the proposed amendment, sighting this would further tighten the city's regulatory control. Commissioner Gamache questioned if there would be a reason to relocate the present county facility because of homes being built near by. Mr. Bednarz stated that to his understanding, there is pressure from surrounding developments. The area could be serviced by utilities. Commissioner Daninger stated that he supports the proposed amendment, stating that sometimes you have to change ordinances as you grow, and this is an example of that. Commissioner Gamache stated that he supports the proposed amendment, agreeing with Commissioner Daninger, and stating that it's better to be proactive now than to have residents fighting against it later. • L Motion by Gamache, second by Hedin to recommend to the City Council approval of • Resolution No. R,, Approval of the amendment to Ordinance 8, Section 7,04 Prohibited Uses to add compost facilities as a prohibited land use in all zoning districts. Motion carried on a 4 -ayes, 0- nayes, 3- absent (Squires, Greenwald, and Falk) vote. Mr. Bednarz stated this item will go to the City Council for approval on August 5, 2002. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDER AMENDMENT TO ORDINANCE 8, SECTION 4.21 FENCES AND WALLS TO ALLOW DECORATIVE FENCES TALLER THAN FOUR FEET IN HEIGHT WITHIN THE FRONT YARD SETBACK OF RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES IN THE R -1 AND R -2 ZONING DISTRICTS. Mr. Bednarz summarized the staff report. Commissioner Kirchoff questioned if this amendment would require a fence permit. Mr. Bednarz responded that it did not. If the commission wishes to go forward with requiring fence permits, the ordinance would require adjustments. Commissioner Daninger stated that a person could receive guidance from staff members, but it is their responsibility to follow the ordinance. Mr. Bednarz stated that information regarding the fence ordinance is provided in the • spring newsletter, the city's website, in handouts, and over the phone. Commissioner Daninger questioned if a person would be allowed to grow vines on a six - foot fence with the vines protruding higher than six feet, possibly creating a sight obstruction. Mr. Bednarz responded that would not be allowed as the ordinance is written. Commissioner Hedin suggested that four inches between pickets may be too far, and that three inches may be better. Mr. Bednarz stated that the four -inch minimum was an attempt to keep in mind if the homeowner had a pool and the fence was intended to be apart of the containment of that pool. There is a four -inch maximum between those pickets. Commissioner Hedin questioned if other cities have different minimum and maximum widths. Mr. Bednarz stated that this is a compilation of different manufactures definitions and that he was unable to find another example of an ordinance ornamental fence definition used by another city. 0 • Commissioner Dan inger questioned if we are creating a hazard if a child's head can fit through the four -inch minimum space between pickets. Commissioner Gamache clarified the four -inch maximum space allowed as it pertains to decks, where there is a difference in elevation stating that with a fence, there is not a danger of a child getting through a fence. Commissioner Hedin stated that the reasoning behind that is so that things can't pass through that shouldn't be passed through. Commissioner Gamache stated that an ornamental fence isn't designed to contain an animal, but to be an ornamental fence. Commissioner Hedin stated that he did not see anything wrong with allowing a three -inch minimum space between pickets, saying that you could still see through it, and it may prevent pets from climbing through the fence. Commissioner Daninger stated that he is more concerned with safety and wasn't sure if it would be better to have a space wider so that a child could fit all the way through it, or small enough so that they wouldn't be able to get anything stuck between the pickets at all. Mr. Bednarz commented that there are competing interests between trying to maintain • visibility through the fence and minimizing the space between individual pickets. Commissioner Gamache expressed concern that the whole ordinance would have to be reworded. Commissioner Hedin clarified that he would only like to change "four inches" to "three inches" as a minimum space between pickets. Motion by Gamache, seconded by Hedin to open the public hearing. Motion carried on a 4 -ayes, 0- nayes, 3- absent (Squires, Greenwald, and Falk) vote. John Dalos, 15672 Kiowa St., expressed concern about the four -inch minimum, stating that Chanhassen's pool fence ordinance is such that a four -inch sphere could not pass through its pickets. Most fences in brochures that he has obtained have a maximum width of four - inches. Be strongly recommends that a three -inch minimum and four inch maximum space between pickets be considered for safety purposes so that a child could not get their head stuck in the fence. Motion by Hedin, seconded by Kirchoff to close the public hearing. Motion carried on a 4 -ayes, 0- nayes, 3- absent (Squires, Greenwald, and Falk) vote. Commissioner Kirchoff stated that this is an ornamental fence, not a security fence. L J V Commissioner Hedin questioned if it could serve a dual purpose. • Commissioner Kirchoff responded that it can, and that he could live with a lower minimum width between pickets. Commissioner Gamache stated that a three -inch minimum would be keeping within the character of an ornamental fence. Commissioner Daninger stated that safety issues must be considered with Commissioner Hedin's comments. Motion by Hedin, second by Gamache to recommend to the City Council approval of Resolution No. R_, amendment to Ordinance 8, Section 4.21 Fences and walls to allow decorative fences taller than four feet in height within the front yard setback of residential properties in the R- I and R -2 Zoning Districts (with a change in the width between pickets to be a minimum of three- inches apart). Motion carried on a 4 -ayes, 0- nayes, 3- absent (Squires, Greenwald, and Falk) vote. Mr. Bednarz stated this item will go to the City Council for approval on August 20, 2002. OTHER BUSdNES.y Mr. Bednarz recognized Commissioner Hedin's service on the Planning & Zoning • Commission, as this is his last meeting. Commissioner Hedin will be recognized by the City Council at a future Council meeting. Commissioner Hedin thanked staff and the commission. Motion by Kirchoff, seconded by Gamache to adjourn. Motion carried on a 4 -ayes, 0- nayes, 3- absent (Squires, Greenwald, and Falk) vote. Respectfully Submitted, Jon Sevald, Planning Intern N '*( Z) TO: FROM Planning and Zoning Commissioners D. Tyler Mckay, Associate Planner V/y SUBJECT: Public Hearing: Variance (02 -08) for reduction to front setback at 17340 Roanoke St. NW for Ernest England and Gwen Blossom. DATE: August 13 2002 INTRODUCTION Mr. England and Ms. Blossom are requesting a variance to the 40 foot front yard setback to 24 feet. This would allow for an addition. They also wish to reconstruct a front porch, which is a non - conforming structure due an existing 24 foot setback in an R -1 zone which has 40 foot front yard setbacks. • DISCUSSION Applicable Ordinances Ordinance 8 section 6.02 Rear Yard Setback. Ordinance 8 Section 5.04 regulates Variances and Appeals. Criteria for granting of a variance: 1. Where there are practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships in any way of carrying out the strict letter of the provisions of this Ordinance, an appeal may be made and a variance granted. The hardships or difficulties must have to do with the characteristics of the land and not the property owner, 2. If it will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of this Ordinance and if it finds that strict enforcement of this Ordinance will cause undue hardships because of circumstances unique to the individual property under consideration. Economic considerations shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use of the property exists under the terms of the Ordinance. Evaluation CITY OF ANDOVER 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. *ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 a (763) 755 -5100 FAX (763) 755 -8923 a WWW.CLANDOVER.MN.US • The applicant has submitted a letter summarizing the details of the proposed variance. Hardships and difficulties are due to characteristics of the land, which are unique to the individual property under consideration. This home was originally built in 1919, long before the minimum setbacks were established. Since that time, there have been a number of right of way expansions, which • have reduced the setback from the road. This has effectively made this home a non - conforming structure. This variance would allow a home improvement which will have positive effects upon the aesthetic neighborhood qualities, local property values, as well as allowing this family to make greater use of their home and preserve a piece of Andover's heritage. This variance would be limited to the life of the home. If the home were ever destroyed, it would have to be rebuilt at the current minimum setback levels. Attachments Resolution Location Map Sketch Letter from Applicant Public Notice RECOMMENDEDATION It is recommend that the Variance (02 -08) be approved on the basis this home preceeded the zoning ordinance and this property has unique characteristics which would cause an undue hardship if the zoning ordinance were strictly enforced in this instance. Respectfully submitted, MMckay Cc: Ernest England and Gwen Blossom, 17340 Roanoke St. NW • 2 • CITY OF ANDOVER COUNTY OF ANOKA STATE OF MINNESOTA li'm=191" A RESOLUTION APPROVING VARIANCE REQUEST OF ERNEST ENGLAND & GWEN BLOSSOM TO ALLOW REDUCTION OF THE REAR YARD SETBACK FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 17340 ROANOKE ST. NW. WHEREAS, Ernest England and Gwen Blossom has requested a reduction of the rear yard setback for property located at 17340 Roanoke St. NW, and; WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the request and has determined that said request does meet the criteria of Ordinance No. 8 Section 5.04, and; WHEREAS, the City Council finds the request does not have a detrimental effect upon the health, traffic safety, and general welfare of the City of Andover. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Andover hereby approves the variance for reduction of the rear yard setback based on the following findings: 1. This home was originally built in 1919, long before the minimum setbacks were established. Since that time, there have been a number of right of way expansions, which have reduced the setback from the road. 2. This variance would allow a home improvement which will have positive effects upon the aesthetic neighborhood qualities, local property values, as well as allowing this family to make a greater use of their home and preserve a piece of Andover's heritage. 3. This variance would be limited to the life of the home. If the home were ever destroyed, it would have to be rebuilt at the current minimum setback levels. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Andover on this_day of 1 2002. CITY OF ANDOVER ATTEST: Victoria Volk, City Clerk • Michael R. Gamache, Mayor 3 Variance to Front Yard Setback Project Location Map N W E 5 rf Andover Planning 17340 Roanoke Street NW (CSAH 7) 0 q I 0 il v eye r C)c � 'C'LP-6 C, • • 0 0 Rn. ". -1,q2 51 p r1DY\- COn-�OLVA%nq U �s An2c£ S"t�'acg4-LA-" 1 - 13 gD l2oQ ._ nok� �St N ,1 AnDb0-Lv hA k) 553a� - t)�,,c U aon- C0n44:vinmy U&CS O.Vnck. Si kA 1, r L,s U 2 o:n o-o ct-,: Cre_ - tes u.Aq UA d ui Ka2 P s ll P TK6 zan;n� �)roo,731n.-, v�l� b�'ts RuasoeiQlAL use e OF AlxrC*lk3lN fi lbw 0.x7 2. n CaCL(�;+, Ct ►�t o �n ES of #Pva�Y*4. J rojp" Acts SOA �twR., 6JC C a of ` LU Ck "O:S . [h;s has OJI -�" P (a_ a -I✓ Consir- +.t.cf-io n txr_ 7 � - - pr o f ux . n R dL Qc- dlvy� Si2 A L- c-6, reu w a a pu- rt o f 5tla c u o.9 elItVY►. iv �o rw, - Pa ra J y ► i� a E cQc� + i'� n _ _ I Ak Vofikpmv vt es op, RuS o..f-p- c iiv_ V1.©rnQ- . V la h s w Q Su to AA. -Co fLw .ems :Lo Il o i n a y, � y r , w al " bro a.c.d, ►n-� t 4n-k_- 4 re-1 e ° b a ck of +tv wg' l ( no-t a f4e r Cc..LyveA+ on l y Ac d&tL Iy nk",r --- ---- ------------- , .. " T4e Planning and Zoning Commission oillie City of Andover will holdapublic ' he8!ingat 7 :00 p.rn;, or as soon thereafterascanb~ heard,oil,Tuesday,i}ugust13, , 2002 at Andover City Ha11,1685 Crosstown.Blvd NW,'Andover,Minnesotat,o consider a Variance to varyfromfrorityardsetbackfor existing structure located at ' ' , 17340RoanokeStreetNW (CSAR7). ' rLT CURRENT RESIDENT 07 ROANOKE ST DOVER, MN 55304 063224330020 CURRENT RESIDENT 17340 ROANOKE ST ANDOVER, MN 55304 013225440006 • • CURRENT RESIDENT 17308 ROANOKE ST ANDOVER, MN 55304 013225440002 CURRENT RESIDENT 17349 ROANOKE ST ANDOVER, MN 55304 063224330005 CURRENT RESIDENT 17337 ROANOKE ST ANDOVER, MN 55304 063224330016 CURRENT RESIDENT 17387 ROANOKE ST ANDOVER, MN 55304 063224330015 I P TO FROM: CITY OF ANDOVER 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. a ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 a (763) 755 -5100 FAX (763) 755 -8923 a WWW.CI.ANDOVER.MN.US Planning and Zoning Commissioners Courtney Bednarz, City Planne SUBJECT: Variance (02 -09) Variance to Ordinance 8, Section 6.02 to vary from the rear yard building setback for addition at 2815 134' Avenue NW. DATE: August 13, 2002 INTRODUCTION The applicant is requesting a variance to reduce the rear yard setback from 30 feet to 22 feet to allow an addition to the home to be constructed. DISCUSSION The subject property is a corner lot. The house faces the side of the lot, which results in a narrow • buildable area when front and rear yard setbacks are deducted. As indicated on the attached survey, approximately 8 feet exists between the rear wall of the house and the 30 foot rear yard setback line. The proposed addition is 16 feet deep and would encroach approximately 8 feet into the rear yard setback. Similar Cases Staff identified several similar cases in which variances were granted in the past as follows: Variance (99 -06) 13364 Marigold Court West Reduce rear yard setback to 21 feet for porch Variance (87 -09) 2814 134 Ave NW Reduce rear yard setback to 14.4 feet for deck Variance 89 -03) 14081 Aztec Street NW Reduce rear yard setback to 20 feet for deck Variance (00 -06) 4472 149 Ave NW Reduce Rear Yard Setback for ex. Deck (to 17 feet ) and new porch (to 27 feet) The findings for these cases were similar in that they included the location of a doorway close to the rear yard setback and had limited lot depth. Without a variance an addition to the rear of the structures would not be possible. An attachment has been included to illustrate the orientation of the house on the lot as compared to the surrounding neighborhood. Staff Recommendation Staff has identified similar variances that have been granted in the past. It is recommended that the proposed variance be granted based on similar findings as presented in the attached resolution. • ACTION REQUIRED The Planning Commission is asked to recommend approval or denial of the variance. Attachments Resolution Location Map Property Survey Neighborhood Graphic Respectfully submitted, i o4ey � Btdn z Cc: Mike Gamache, 2815 134"' Avenue NW 0 .A . CITY OF ANDOVER COUNTY OF ANOKA STATE OF MINNESOTA RES. NO. A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE VARIANCE REQUEST FOR MICHAEL GAMACHE TO REDUCE THE REAR YARD SETBACK FROM 30 FEET TO 22 FEET ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2815 134' AVENUE NW. WHEREAS, Michael Gamache has petitioned to vary from the rear yard setback requirement as described in Ordinance 8, Section 6.02 for property located at 2815 134` Avenue NW legally described as follows: Lot 2, Block 1, Lundgren Oakridge Addition, Anoka County, Minnesota. WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the limited lot depth in relation to the orientation of the house would preclude the proposed addition from being constructed without a variance, and; WHEREAS, an existing doorway at the rear of the structure is located in close proximity to the rear yard setback, and; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Andover approves the proposed variance request to allow a rear yard setback of 22 feet. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Andover on this day of 2002. CITY OF ANDOVER ATTEST: Michael R. Gamache, Mayor Victoria Volk, City Clerk • Variance to Rear Yard Setback 0 Project Location Map _•I, - N W� E 5 Andover Planning 2815 134th Avenue NW )--40 L4qKt FWP. LOOS - - - -- - 00*001, — 7310N 324S S JI'Veld 63d SV IN3V43SV3 Ol - — — — — — — — — — — — — — Lq ix C: ❑ 0 0- C) > C: Z LL L- L 0 < CDA 0 0 00 0 : 0 A I J 00 00 L CN ' U.0 z LLJ Lj-O- Z C: 0 CN % Ln� x (3) O 'D L- - a 00. LLJ CLI, CL < CY) 9 P6 LO Go fl: iN3h3S 3 A-L u n 'R 3!DVNlV8C] 9 00 4 00 L nn f�l nnKI i ILI 0 0 0 do OOP CD 0) z c. I z ,�V ■ s TO: 40 F - I :6u CITY OF ANDOVER 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. • ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 • (763) 755 -5100 FAX (763) 755 -8923 • WWW.CI.ANDOVER.MN.US Planning and Zoning Commissioners Courtney Bednarz, City Plann& SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING: Lot Split (02 -08) to create two industrial lots from property located at 13530 Hanson Boulevard NW for Beberg Landscaping. DATE: August 13, 2002 INTRODUCTION Beberg Landscaping, on behalf of Roger Streich of Roger's Auto Body, is requesting to split the existing industrial lot into two industrial lots. The property owner has given consent for Beberg Landscaping to pursue this application. No variances are requested. DISCUSSION Beberg Landscaping has reached agreement with Roger's Auto Body to purchase of a portion of the existing property. As outlined in the applicant's letter, it is their intention to make substantial improvements to the property once they obtain ownership. Comparison to Applicable Ordinances The proposed lots conform with the lot width, depth and area requirements of Ordinance 8, Section 6.02 as indicated in the table. Dimension Required Parcel A Parcel B Lot Width 100 feet 190 feet 138.55 feet Lot Depth 150 feet 343.18 feet 569.47 feet Lot Area 24,000 square feet 65,204.2 square feet 135,723.02 square feet Anoka County Highway Department review The Anoka County Highway Department has indicated that sufficient right -of -way exists for the future expansion of Hanson Boulevard (150 feet). They also indicated that in the event additional right -of -way became necessary in the future, it would likely be taken from the east side of the roadway to aid in the alignment of the intersection with Bunker Lake Boulevard. Sewer and Water The applicant will be required to connect to municipal sewer and water service as a part of the proposed expansion. A private well will continue to provide water for irrigation of the plant material. 4C. • Easements Standard ten foot wide drainage and utility easements will be required to be established around the perimeter of both properties. This will provide sufficient easement area to allow Roger's Auto Body to be served with sewer and water service in the future. Park Dedication Park dedication will be required as described in Ordinance 10, Section 9.07.6. This section requires the Park and Recreation Commission to recommend a preference for land or cash. This item will be discussed at an upcoming Park and Recreation Commission meeting. Trail Fee The City Council adopted Resolution 270 -99 making developers responsible for 100% of the cost of trails adjacent to their property as proposed in the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan indicates a trail along the west side of Hanson Boulevard throughout the City. Due to the fact that Anoka County will be widening Hanson Boulevard to four lanes at this location within a couple of years, the applicant will be required to make a escrow payment of $20 per lineal foot to cover the cost of future construction. The property has 328.59 feet of frontage on Hanson Boulevard. The Trail escrow will be $6571. In the event that the project is constructed for less than the full escrow amount, the remainder will be refunded to the applicant. Access It is the applicant's intention to establish an access to the property from Grouse Street NW. The applicant will continue to utilize the existing shared access to Hanson Boulevard with Roger's Auto Body. No additional access from Hanson Boulevard will be needed. Existing Structures A temporary garden structure is located where a new property line is proposed to be established. This structure is typically removed by late August each year and will be removed by the time the lot split is recorded with Anoka County. The structure will be relocated to the new property in the future. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the lot split with the conditions outlined in the attached resolution. ACTION REQUIRED The Planning Commission is asked to recommend approval or denial of the proposed lot split. Attachments Resolution Location Map Applicant's Letter Property Survey wV10 1 I Cc: Beberg Landscaping c/o Chris Beberg, 13530 Hanson Boulevard NW _2- • CITY OF ANDOVER COUNTY OF ANOKA STATE OF MINNESOTA RES. NO. A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE LOT SPLIT REQUEST FOR ROGER STREICH TO SUBDIVIDE AN INDUSTRIAL PROPERTY INTO TWO INDUSTRIAL PROPERTIES FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 13530 HANSON BOULEVARD NW LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: THE EAST HALF OF LOT 13 WATTS GARDEN ACRES, ANOKA COUNTY, MINNESOTA EXCEPT THAT PART TAKEN FOR CSAH 78 AND THAT PART TAKEN FOR COMMERCIAL BOULEVARD IN CITY OF ANDOVER RIGHT -OF -WAY PLAT NO. 1, ANOKA COUNTY, MINNESOTA AND SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS OF RECORD WHEREAS, Roger Streich has requested approval of a lot split to subdivide an industrial property pursuant to Ordinance No. 40, located at 13530 Hanson Boulevard NW; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission has reviewed the request and has determined that said request meets the criteria of Ordinance No. 8 and 40; and • WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission finds the request would not have a detrimental effect upon the health, safety, morals and general welfare of the City of Andover; and WHEREAS, a public hearing was held pursuant to state statutes; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommends to the City Council approval of the lot split as requested. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Andover hereby agrees with the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approves the lot split on said property with the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall provide a separate easement document to establish ten foot wide drainage and utility easements around the perimeter of both properties. 2. The temporary garden structure shall be removed prior to the lot split being recorded with Anoka County. 3. The applicant shall pay park dedication in the amount determined by the City Council. 4. The applicant shall pay a trail escrow in the amount of $6,571. In the event that the • project is constructed for less than the full escrow amount, the remainder will be refunded to the applicant. :Wz 5. That the lot split be subject to a sunset clause as defined in Ordinance No. 40, Section • III(E). Adopted by the City Council of the City of Andover on this day of 2002. CITY OF ANDOVER ATTEST: Victoria Volk, City Clerk • • Mike Gamache, Mayor _.I/_ i Lot Split to Create two Industrial Lots from . 13530 Hanson Boulevard NW z� O. w z 1351 ms 1�� 13m t� 1FJ6 �Q wez 13308 i 1s wo I= Project Location Map N W� E � 5 Andover Planning ,ns 1� n1e ,�,j,eso I nsso lxzs 139za ur J M z 3a� w 34� O w w s_ U) w71 YEI 1UB1 I]Im 'MR wN a,m �} 1 �Q wez 13308 i 1s wo I= Project Location Map N W� E � 5 Andover Planning www.beberglandscape.com 13540 Hanson Blvd. Rndover, MN 55304 763 -754 -9491 July 25, 2002 City of Andover p F- }'�.s.z'�` -''=i` 1685 Crosstown II1vd.:NW r " Andover,. VVM 553Q4 # Dear Staff and Co�_ yy J City of Andover v s . 1685 Crosstown II1vd.:NW r " Andover,. VVM 553Q4 Dear Staff and Co�_ Thank ou for,co y �S�P � �h�eguest 5 acre parcel curreiitl "(i °caned by Roger Streicb o; Split Request Form and ac co pariymg'suxvey: Tt Co. to purchase a significant portion of tleparcel is agreed upon and we are prepared for immediate _granting of the Lot Split, Beberg Lund °scape Nursery Co. is currently prepat Plan �pplication!to be filed vvith.the City of Ando contracted with the` survey firm of N.C.' Holum ari - Architects, and the engineering�firm 6f ?towe Eng an attractive asset 'to the� City°of W Andover. e haN on a new. y constructed -&W facility located on th Creative efforts. are - being made to'- design. an appe , elabo'rato� der- feafiires and fi niM riric anti lanrlac: Flu viuc Ml % nraachnc `}iF of plan to support a Commercial.Site ,xt 1 to 2 months,We.have .14 Milli 01"Ji QdPllJCrt', .. i a facility that is flan that - canters" GrouseStreet. attractive fencing, our busineis and a E3 &f tree al F} a sto gage .. . house, Strir'�t to r • 0 �N 'W V � Q . zs Qa I N ' ,` I r � 0 Y 3 a o I I I � r , cr. Va. Wlro� = sra"- . - I f � a o e TO: FROM: CC: Planning and Zoning Commissioners Jon Sevald, Planning Intern Courtney Bednarz, City Planner SUBJECT: Consider amendment to Ordinance 214, Section 4.21 Tree Preservation to reduce the size of required trees from 2.5 inch caliper to 1.75 inch DATE: August 13, 2002 INTRODUCTION Based upon discussions with a number of developers, staff is recommending changing the required tree plantings from (2'/z) inches to (1 %) inches in caliper. DISCUSSION The rationale for this change is that developers have had difficulty in locating trees with a caliper of at least 2'h inches from nurseries. Local nurseries have confirmed this and have stated that the smaller trees have an easier time establishing a root system after being transplanted, encouraging them to grow faster and healthier than the larger trees. ACTION REQUIRED Staff requests the Commission recommend approval of this amendment. Respectfully submitted, �, � . Jjcl Jon Sevald CITY OF ANDOVER 1685 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 NO. 214 C An ordinance repealing Ordinance No. 29, adopted August 11, 1975; Ordinance No. 29A, adopted November 6, 1979; Ordinance No. 29B, adopted February 7, 1989; and Ordinance No. 29C, adopted July 7, 1992. AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO THE PRESERVATION OF SHADE TREES AND THE PREVENTION OF EPIDEMIC DISEASES ASSOCIATED WITH SHADE TREES WITHIN THE CITY OF ANDOVER. SECTION 13. REQUIRED TREE PLANTINGS. For lots of record created after the adoption of this ordinance, it shall be the responsibility of the developer of said lot to plant a minimum of two (2) live trees or 1 tree per 50 feet of lot width at the boulevard in the front yard, whichever is greater up to a maximum of four required trees. Said trees shall be at least one and three fourths (1 3 /4) two an d one half 2 'A ` inches in diameter and six feet in height as measured at ground level after the trees are planted. Said tree shall be planted between the months of May and October and its species and/or type shall be on • the list approved by the City. The developer is required to escrow 150% of the cost of tree installation with a performance bond or irrevocable letter of credit. Landscaping improvements may not be deemed complete until the city has verified survivability of all required plantings through one winter season, which is defined for the purpose of this chapter as the period 21 October through 31 May. The requirements in this section shall not apply to a developer if the minimum number of trees prescribed by this section are preserved in the front yard of the property and the trees meet the requirements listed above. (Amendment 214B, 07/17/01) Adopted by the City Council of the City of Andover this _ day of 2002. CITY OF ANDOVER ATTEST: Victoria Volk, City Clerk Michael R. Gamache, Mayor 0