Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/11/2010Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda May 11, 2010 Andover City Hall Council Chambers 7.Tom. -M. 1. Call to Order 2. Approval of Minutes — April 13, 2010 PUBLIC HEARING (Continued): City Code Amendment to consider changes to City Code 5 -4 Weapons to update hunting regulations. 4. Other Business 5. Adjournment • CF Ky imm ru �y 'lit 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 - April 13, 2010 DATE: May 11, 2010 Request The Planning and Zoning Commission is asked to approve the minutes from the April 13, 2010 meeting. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSIONMEETING — APRIL 13, 2010 The Regular Bi- Monthly Meeting of the Andover Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order by Chairperson Daninger, on April 13, 2010, 7:00 p.m., at the Andover City Hall, 1685 Crosstown Boulevard NW, Andover, Minnesota. Commissioners present: Chairperson Daninger, Commissioners Dennis Cleveland, Valerie Holthus, Michael Casey, Tim Kirchoff, Devon Walton, and Lynae Gudmundson Commissioners absent: None Also present: City Planner, Courtney Bednarz Public Works Director /City Engineer, David Berkowitz Others APPROVAL OFMINUTES February 9, 2010 Motion by Walton, Seconded by Cleveland, to approve the minutes as presented. Motion carried on a 6 -ayes, 0 -nays, 1- present (Casey), vote. PUBLICHEARING: CONDITIONAL USEPERMITIO -06 TOALLOWINCREASEDHEIGHT FOR PROPOSED SALT STORAGE FACILITYAT 1833 CROSSTOWN BLVD NW. Mr. Bednarz reviewed the proposal with the Commission. Mr. Berkowitz presented additional background on the property, the location of the storage facility, details about the construction materials of the facility, and the screening of the facility for the neighboring properties. Commissioner Gudmundson asked how trucks would access the property. Mr. Berkowitz detailed the routes trucks could utilize to access the property at this time and he outlines future potential routes. Commissioner Kirchoff asked what color the canvas would be for the facility and what the bid amount includes. Mr. Berkowitz stated the bid would include the design and construction of the facility. The canvas cover will be a beige color versus a white. This will blend in more with the other nearby Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes —April 13, 2010 Page 2 buildings. In the summer months the facility will be cleaned and used to store mulch and other materials used for summer maintenance projects in the City. Due to the potential for rusting, equipment will not be stored in the facility. Chair Daninger asked if there would be lights in the facility and if the facility would generate noise in the wind based on the type of construction. Mr. Berkowitz explained there would be lights in the facility and these would be used during loading. The noise generated would be from the trucks entering and leaving the facility and loading but the building itself would not generate noise on windy days. Motion by Walton, seconded by Casey, to open the public hearing. Motion carried on a 7 -ayes, 0- nays vote. Mr. Tom Hoopes, 15336 Linnet Street NW, Andover, asked if the temporary cul -de -sac in this neighborhood would remain a cul -de -sac and the temporary status removed. This would make the salt storage facility less visible for this neighborhood, reduce some of the debris blowing into the neighborhood, and reduce the noise generated at the facility. He expressed concerns about the corrosive nature of salt and the salt blowing into the neighborhood. Chair Daninger stated there was a possibility of this street becoming a through street in the future. This would be something that would need to be brought to the City Council. The City Council would be the governing body that would be able to make these changes. At this time the Planning Commission is only considering the height of the building. Mr. Zach Valder, 15325 Linnet Street NW, Andover, asked if the structure would be used for other organic materials when salt was not being stored in the facility. Mr. Berkowitz clarified the corrosiveness of the salts being stored in the facility would not be a problem for neighboring structures as the salt would be contained in the facility. The facility will be cleaned at the end of each season so that other materials can be stored inside during the summer months. Although the facility cannot contain all of the materials a large portion of them will be moved indoors during the summer months. Mr. Berkowitz stated staff is aware of the visual impacts of the facility for the neighbors to the north and would continue working on the berm to minimize these impacts. Motion by Walton, Seconded by Kirchoff to close the public hearing at 7:28 p.m. Motion carried on a 7 ayes, 0 -nays vote. Commissioner Walton asked what the expected return on investment would be for this facility. Mr. Berkowitz stated the expected ROI is about six and a half years. Based on the construction costs and operation costs it may be slightly longer than this. The canvas portion of the structure Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes —April 13, 2010 Page 3 has a life expectancy of twenty to twenty five years. The pavement and footings would have a longer life expectancy and only the canvas would need to be replaced. Chair Daninger restated the signs on Linette that identify this as a temporary cul -de -sac are there so that residents are aware there is a possibility there would be a through road at this location in the future. He suggested the residents of this neighborhood talk to the City Council regarding their concerns. Motion by Walton, Seconded by Casey to approve allowing the increased height for the proposed salt storage facility located at 1833 Crosstown Blvd. NW. The motion carried on 7 -ayes, 0 -nays vote. PUBLICHEARING: CITYCODEAMENDMENT TO CONSIDER CHANGES TO CITYCODE 5 -4 WEAPONS TO UPDATE HUNTING REGULATIONS Mr. Bednarz reviewed the proposal with the Commission. He clarified it was not the intention of the City to prohibit hunting in the City but rather to clarify the regulations. He outlined the points to be discussed: 1. Clarification of the hunting zones — determining a unique name for each zone. 2. Potential for revision of zone boundaries. 3. Updating Definitions 4. Minimum parcel size for hunting with shot guns. 5. Minimum firing distance from residences with a shot gun. 6. Minimum parcel size for bow hunting. 7. Minimum firing distance from residences for bow hunting. 8. The prohibited zone, which does not allow for hunting, except by special permission from the Council. There has been interest in having some type of hunting allowed in this area for wildlife management. 9. City permit requirements for deer hunting. 10. Immediate family restriction for deer hunting. 11. Written permission from 50% of the neighboring properties for deer hunting. 12. The Council exemption and DNR support. Motion by Walton, Seconded by Kirchoff, to open the public hearing. Motion carried on a 7- ayes, 0 -nays vote. Mr. Dave Pearson, 17382 Flintwood Street, Ham Lake, stated he hunts the Fields property currently because this is his immediate family. He goose hunts and bow hunts this area. He stated that last year there were only two people who acquired hunting permits from the City last year but there were more than two people hunting in that area. He indicated that he has not gotten a permit from the City in the past because he does not agree he should have to ask for permission to hunt in an area that it is permitted to hunt. He also stated there has been several incidences of trespassing and people are getting close to homes while they are hunting and it is Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes —April 13, 2010 Page 4 getting to a point where people are not being safe. He clarified that if an area is legal to hunt by the DNR with either a shotgun or rifle then the City should make it legal as well. The only question should be if it is safe to hunt with rifle slugs. Mr. Ray Sowada, 14921 Butternut Street, stated he has 2.5 acres just south of a hunting area. He stated his attitude is that since the residents to the north of him are allowed to bow hunt deer with 2.5 acres he should be able to as well. Mr. Don Wilson, 14920 University Avenue, stated he has 2.8 acres and he is currently spending a lot of money to keep the deer out of his garden. The Council determined the cost to have the DNR count the deer was excessive and he does not agree with having a sharp shooter come and hunt his land. If he cannot hunt it then he does not want someone else hunting it. He suggested the following rules for deer hunting: only hunt from a tree stand that is a minimum of twelve feet, always shoot down not straight across, get permission from property owner to track a deer, only field dress a deer on your own property, only the property owners could hunt the property, and only shoot doe. In the past a property owner could bow hunt deer if you had 2.5 acres and he would like to see this be the case again. Mr. John Wallace, 17564 Ward Lake Drive, stated he has been hunting in Andover for a number of years and he is currently using a muzzleloader. He has not heard of any problems as far as people getting shot or people shooting at homes. He questioned why the City was looking at revising these regulations at this time. He also stated that it would not be cost effective for the City to bring in sharp shooters to control the number of deer but they could allow residents to hunt their own property. Mr. Mark Jones, 2127 167d' Avenue NW, stated the City has a growing turkey population and cutting hunting will affect this as well. He stated those people that are currently hunting their property are careful and hopefully courteous hunters. He stated he did not want to lose a right he currently has. Mr. Tony Howard, 2119 156d' Avenue NW, stated an issue is the distance from the property line. He suggested the minimum distance be measured from the property lines rather than structure. He also suggested hunters ensure projectiles do not leave the property they are hunting. He expressed concerns for those traveling on City streets as well as neighboring property owners. He questions whether ten acres was enough to allow hunting with a shotgun and still maintain public safety. Mr. Steve MacGlover, 14909 University Avenue, Ham Lake, stated his family owns 80 acres in Andover and there is a deer and turkey problem. His family is trying to farm this land but because of the deer they have been unable to make a profit. He stated there is a need for wildlife management within the City. He stated the regulations do need to be reviewed for some changes but he suggested removing the requirement that a property owner get a permit from the City to hunt their own land and also the requirement that a property owner get permission from 50% of the neighboring properties. He does not believe shutting the hunting down is a good idea for the Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes —April 13, 2010 Page 5 City since no one else is controlling the wildlife population. Mr. Harvey Matthies, 2857 172nd Avenue NW, stated he had 2.9 acres but because of the way the properties are laid out there is not enough distance between the homes to allow for hunting. He stated that he had someone hunting near his property illegally. He had called the Sheriff but the Sheriff did not know what the regulations were for distance and nothing was done regarding the individual who was hunting his property illegally. He would like to see the distance requirement changed to be 500 feet from the property line not structure. Mr. Sowada stated two years ago the DNR passed a law that a big game license covered deer hunting with a bow in zone 601, which is the metropolitan area. Mr. Jones reminded the Commission that there is a problem currently with wildlife management and restricting the hunting more will increase this problem. Mr. Howard suggested the city permit be required to have people notify the City where they are hunting to increase the safety. This way also if the Sheriff is dispatched to an area they will know if a person is hunting a piece of property illegally. Motion by Walton, Seconded by Casey, to close the public hearing at 8:14 p.m. Motion carried on a 7 -ayes, 0 -nays vote. Mr. Bednarz summarized the concerns of the residents who spoke. This included concerns about hunters that are violating the current regulations but most of the speakers felt there was not a need for dramatic changes with the ordinance. Commissioner Holthus asked for clarification on what were the lawful hunting zones on the map with the urban developments that was presented. Mr. Bednarz stated there was no legal hunting in the new urban development areas that were encroaching into the hunting zones because of the minimum distance requirements. There was a unique situation with the Woodland Crossing townhomes that were constructed. There is enough acreage in the common area that would allow for bow hunting according to the current regulations. Commissioner Holthus suggested changing this area to a non - hunting zone, or yellow color according to the map. Chair Daninger agreed with Commissioner Holthus and suggested changing the hunting zone boundaries and define these areas as areas where hunting is prohibited. Chair Daninger stated Item 1 referred to renaming the hunting zones in order to differentiate between the two areas. He asked for input. Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes —April 13, 2010 Page 6 Mr. Bednarz stated he had been using restricted zone -north and restricted zone -south during the presentation as a way to differentiate between the two. There was a consensus with the Planning Commission to designate the zones as north and south. Chair Daninger asked for comments regarding the definition for muzzleloader. Mr. Bednarz stated the terms rifle and muzzleloader are interchanged frequently. DNR regulates where you can hunt with a rifle just north of Andover. There are muzzleloaders and shotguns that are used south of this line at this time. The suggestion is to include a muzzleloader in the rifle definition is not recommended because these are two differently regulated items. Commissioner Kirchoff suggested using the DNR regulations as a guideline. Chair Daninger stated the DNR is the guidance for many of the regulations the City has regarding hunting. He clarified the DNR has different definitions for muzzleloader rifle versus shotgun load. Chair Daninger stated a muzzleloader shoots the same distance as a shotgun and the DNR considers the muzzleloader like a shotgun. Mr. Bednarz stated this was correct. Chair Daninger stated he would recommend staying with the DNR regulations and not define a muzzleloader as a rifle. It was the consensus of the Commission to not include muzzleloader in the definition of rifle. Chair Daninger asked for Commission input regarding the minimum parcel size for hunting with a shotgun. The minimum size is currently 10 acres but there was a suggestion to increase this. He also clarified the minimum distance from a residence home is 500 feet. Mr. Bednarz clarified the ordinance states a minimum distance of 500 feet from any residence, DNR regulations are 500 feet from any structure. Chair Daninger stated there had been a suggestion of changing this requirement to a minimum distance of 500 feet from the property line. Mr. Bednarz explained the current ordinance restricts any projectile from leaving the property. The question is if the minimum 10 acre size and 500 feet from a structure allows enough area for shotgun hunting deer and geese. Commissioner Casey stated this could be looked into further. At this time he is in favor of keeping it at 10 acres and a minimum of 500 feet from a structure. Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes —April 13, 2010 Page 7 Commissioner Walton stated it is important to be consistent with the State Statutes. The 10 acres and 500 -foot minimum seems to be consistent with the State. Chair Daninger clarified the State only specifies 500 feet from a structure and the City is adding the 10 acre minimum. He further stated there has not been an issue with the minimums and there are State regulations is place to control the need for a larger minimum area. Commissioner Walton the City needs to draw the line from regulating common sense and courtesy. Commissioner Holthus asked Mr. Bednarz if he had talked to all of the property owners with 10 or more acres and if they all thought the minimum acreage should be increased. Mr. Bednarz stated he talked with most of the property owners that own significant acreage but not a majority of property owners with 10 acres. Large property owners all indicated that 10 acres was too small of an area to allow for hunting with a shotgun. Commissioner Holthus stated she would be in favor of increasing the minimum acres requirement. Commissioner Cleveland agreed with Commissioner Holthus. Chair Daninger polled the Commission. Chair Daninger, Commissioners Casey, Walton, and Kirchoff are in favor of keeping the minimum acre requirement at 10 acres. Commissioners Holthus and Cleveland are in favor of increasing the minimum. Commissioner Gudmundson is unsure at this time. Commissioner Gudmundson stated she would tend to think that 10 acres is too small of an area but there was not a strong argument for or against this. Chair Daninger summarized four members were in favor of leaving the minimum at 10 acres and two and a half would like to see the minimum increase. He clarified if there was a need for a definite answer the Commission could work through this. Commissioner Kirchoff asked if the minimum firing distance of 500 feet was a State regulation. Mr. Bednarz clarified this was in the State regulations. Commissioner Kirchoff stated if this was changed to read a minimum distance of 500 feet from the property line then the minimum width of a property has to be 1000 feet in order for a person to hunt on it. Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes —April 13, 2010 Page 8 Commissioner Walton pointed out there is also a lot of ambiguity when referencing property lines versus a structure that is in place. Chair Daninger agreed with keeping the City regulations consistent with the DNR regulations. It was the consensus of the Commission to keep the minimum distance at 500 feet from a structure. Mr. Bednarz stated there were additional restrictions in the restricted zone - south. These restrictions are a person must be a quarter mile from a development, park or institutional use for hunting deer with a shotgun. Commissioner Walton asked if the restrictions changed for flight animals such as geese or turkeys. Mr. Bednarz showed a map for goose hunting areas. There are larger areas where goose hunting would still be allowed but on the easterly side the hunting would be limited due to the parcel sizes being smaller than 10 acres. He clarified the maps being presented represent the regulations as they are currently written. Chair Daninger expressed concerns with the rifle slug is different than that of a shotgun and he wants to be sure the restrictions that are in place are keeping the residents safe. Commissioner Walton stated if the State was providing guidance on these distances and if the City was following the States regulations then they should be keeping the residents safe. Mr. Bednarz stated the regulations do follow what the State regulations are in the northerly hunting zone. The City is already more restrictive in the southerly hunting zone with the quarter mile firing distance and other regulations. Commissioner Cleveland stated he is okay with leaving the distance requirements as they are at this time. He would not be in favor of lowering these and raising the requirements would shut out hunting in these areas. It was the consensus of the Planning Commission to leave the distance requirements at 500 feet of a structure and a quarter mile in the locations indicated. Chair Daninger clarified the Commission has not discussed turkeys yet and there was a lot of concerns expressed by the residents about bow hunting on 2.5 acres. Commissioner Holthus pointed out there were concerns expressed about the safety of people traveling on Hanson Boulevard. Mr. Bednarz stated the draft ordinance provided by Mr. Howard included a restriction of being Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes —April 13, 2010 Page 9 500 feet from a road for firing a shotgun but the City already has a restriction within the ordinance about projectiles leaving the property. Chair Daninger clarified if a hunter shoots across a road then the projectile would be leaving the property and be in violation of the City's ordinance. Mr. Bednarz stated the minimum acre requirement to bow hunt is 2.5 acres but those properties that are located in the prohibited zone are not allowed to hunt unless they get permission from the City Council. In the restricted hunting zones the minimum size requirement is 2.5 acres and 150 feet from a structure. He also stated there are no similar DNR restrictions for bow hunting. He asked the Commission if 2.5 acres was enough area. Chair Daninger asked what the 150 feet means to the City. He asked if this would restrict those residents with 2.5 acres. He also asked if the gold zones should be changed to allow for bow hunting. Mr. Bednarz stated Staff could provide a map to the Commission that reflects the 150 feet requirement on those properties in question. It was the consensus of the Planning Commission to direct Staff to bring a map to the next meeting outlining the effects of a 150 -foot requirement and this would allow the Commission to determine if 2.5 acres is sufficient. Mr. Bednarz stated the next point of discussion is the City permit requirement for deer hunting in the south restricted zone. He clarified that a person can only apply for the permit if they own the land or are immediate family of the landowner, have permission from 50% of the neighboring properties. He asked the Commission if the permit requirement should be kept and /or should it be expanded to require all hunting in the City to require a permit as suggested by a resident earlier. Commissioner Casey suggested leaving the requirements as they are currently Commissioner Walton asked if the landowner would be able to give permission to someone other than immediate family to hunt on their land. Mr. Bednarz clarified the way the ordinance is written at this time only the landowner or immediate family can apply for and obtain a permit to hunt their land. They are not able to give permission to a third party to hunt on their property. Commissioner Walton stated with the growing issue with deer and growing issue with turkeys he is in favor of expanding who can hunt on the property. If the property owner says it is okay and they get a permit from the City and the property owner signs off on it then it should be allowed. Commissioner Kirchoff stated there are not many properties in these zones. He suggested asking Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes —April 13, 2010 Page 10 the property owners what they would like to see regarding the requirement that only the property owner or immediate family can hunt on the property. Commissioner Walton stated if the Commission did not change this requirement it does not allow for property owners to solve their wildlife issues without having to hunt the property themselves. Commissioner Gudmundson asked what the difference would be if the property owner did the hunting or if they signed off on having someone else do the hunting because there would still be only one person doing the hunting. Commissioner Cleveland stated in this situation there tends to be more than one person hunting then. Commissioner Gudmundson stated the property owner would need to give permission. Chair Daninger stated with or without a permit a person would need permission to hunt on someone's property. He suggested removing the permit requirement completely from the regulations. Commissioner Gudmundson stated the permit requirement was put into place because the southern portion of the City was more urbanized and there was some concern for safety. She stated treating the north and south section differently makes sense. Commissioner Cleveland stated he would be in favor of leaving the permit requirement in the regulations and not allow people outside of the property owner or immediate family to hunt on the property. Commissioner Kirchoff stated he would agree with Chair Daninger and remove the permit requirement and allow the property owner the ability to determine who hunts of the property. Commissioner Walton stated he agreed with Chair Daninger and Commissioner Kirchoff. Commissioner Gudmundson stated she would be in favor of keeping the permit requirement in the regulations but allow the property owner the flexibility to allow others to hunt on the property. Commissioner Casey stated he would favor removing the permit requirement from the ordinance. Commissioner Holthus stated she would favor removing the permit process from the ordinance as well. It was the consensus of the Planning Commission to remove the permit requirement from the ordinance. Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes — April 13, 2010 Page 11 Mr. Bednarz stated the next point for discussion is the requirement of having permission from 50% of the neighboring properties. He stated with all the other regulations in place the question was asked whether it is necessary to include this in the ordinance. Commissioner Kirchoff pointed out if the permit process was eliminated from the ordinance then this would not be a requirement. It was the consensus of the Planning Commission to remove the requirement of having permission from 50% of the neighboring properties in order to hunt on your property. Mr. Bednarz stated the final point of discussion was the Council exemption and this requires the DNR support. The DNR does not want to be involved in the local regulations. If the regulations meet the State laws established by the DNR there answer will be the same every time. He asked if this needed to be included as part of the Council Exemption. Commissioner Kirchoff stated it does not need to be included. Commissioner Walton stated this could be determined by the City Council. Commissioner Cleveland suggested changing the reference to compliance. Mr. Bednarz stated they do want to include a reference that the DNR regulations are followed. Commissioner Cleveland stated this would be sufficient to cover this. Mr. Bednarz encouraged the Planning Commission to reopen the public hearing and continue the item to next month to allow a draft ordinance to be brought forward. Commissioner Cleveland suggested getting input from the Sheriff's Department about the enforcement of this type of thing and the resolution to these calls. Chair Daninger stated the clearer the regulations the easier it will be to enforce. Motion by Cleveland, Seconded by Walton to reopen the public hearing. The motion carried on a 7 -ayes, 0 -nays vote. Motion by Cleveland, Seconded by Kirchoff to continue the public hearing to May 11, 2010. The motion carried on a 7 -ayes, 0 -nays vote. OTHER BUSINESS Mr. Bednarz updated the Planning Commission on related items. Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes —April 13, 2010 Page 12 ADJOURNMENT Motion by Kirchoff, Seconded by Casey, to adjourn. Motion carried on a 7 -ayes, 0 -nays vote. The meeting adjourned at 9:18 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Tina Borg, Recording Secretary i ^ 168; C IOSSTOWN 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 Planneelp SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING (Continued): City Code Amendment to consider changes to City Code 5 -4 Weapons to update hunting regulations. DATE: May 11, 2010 INTRODUCTION This item continues the discussion from the April 13th meeting. DISCUSSION The Commission received a lot of public input and made significant progress in reaching a consensus on the discussion items at the last meeting. A summary of each discussion item is provided below. The Commission wanted to discuss items #4,6 and 8 further before making a recommendation to the Council. A draft ordinance has also been attached for your review. 1. Clarification of Hunting Zones The Commission selected `Restricted Zone North' and `Restricted Zone South' to distinguish between the two zones where hunting is allowed in the city. The Commission agreed that the map and text should be consistent with one another and that all of the text on the map should be included in the text of the code. 2. Revision of Zone Boundaries The Commission agreed that the zone boundaries should be updated to remove recent urban developments from zones where hunting is allowed. A draft map is attached to show the proposed changes. 3. Updating of Definitions The Commission agreed with the suggested addition of `compound' and `crossbow' to the definition of bows. The Commission was not in favor of adding the term `muzzleloader' to the definition of rifle. *4. Minimum Parcel Size for Hunting with Shotguns Currently 10 acres is the minimum parcel size for hunting with shotguns in the northerly restricted zone. Ten acres is also the minimum parcel size for hunting geese with shotguns in the southerly restricted zone. The Commission was divided on whether 10 acres is sufficient in size to safely hunt with a shotgun. Four Commissioners were in favor of no change, two Commissioners thought the minimum parcel size should be increased and one Commissioner was undecided. The Commission is asked to discuss whether ten acres is sufficient in size to safely hunt with a shotgun. r r The following information is available for the Commission to consider: A. The testimony from hunters at the April 13th Public Hearing. The comments indicated that any problems were violations of the existing regulations and increasing the parcel size would not solve that problem (minutes attached). B. Two maps are attached to illustrate the existing regulations for both the northerly and southerly hunting zones. The maps show how the minimum parcel size and minimum firing distances combine to restrict hunting in the city. C. A newspaper article provided by an Andover resident is attached to show maximum range under perfect conditions. The draft ordinance provided by the resident suggests that 40 acres be the minimum parcel size for hunting deer with a shotgun throughout the city. D. It should also be noted that after the last meeting a resident pointed out that staff had spoken with a majority of property owners with large tracts of land. While these owners indicated ten acres seemed too small to hunt with a shotgun, a change in this regulation would not affect them. It would affect those on properties at ten acres or slightly larger properties. E. A letter received sine the last meeting from an Andover resident describing their concerns related to hunting. 5. Minimum Firing Distance from Residences for Shotguns in Both Restricted Zones City Code 5 -4 -1 C. presently requires a minimum firing distance of 500 feet from residences for firearms in all hunting areas. The DNR also requires a minimum firing distance of 500 feet from occupied structures for taking of wild animals unless permission is granted by the property owner. For hunting deer in the southerly restricted zone, City Code 5 -4 -1E. also requires a 1,320 foot (1/4 mile) minimum distance from any urban or rural development, park or institutional use. The Commission was in favor of leaving the minimum firing distances as they presently exist. x6. Minimum Parcel Size for Hunting with Bows in Restricted Zones Currently 2.5 acres is the minimum parcel size for hunting with bows in the restricted zones. The Commission was interested in seeing a map showing how the 150 foot minimum firing distance affected 2.5 acre parcels before making a recommendation on this item. A map is attached. 7. Minimum Firing Distance From Residences for Bows in Both Restricted Zones City Code 5 -4 -1 C. presently requires a minimum firing distance of 150 feet from residences for bows in the restricted zones. The Commission was in favor of leaving the minimum firing distance for hunting with bows in the restricted zones distances as it presently exists. PA x8. Prohibited Zone Some of the input staff has received centers on whether some hunting should be allowed on larger parcels in the prohibited zone for wildlife management. At the last meeting, the Commission also heard from residents in the Bames Rolling Oaks neighborhood (prohibited zone) who wanted to be able to hunt with bows on 2.5 acre lots. Presently hunting within the prohibited zone can only occur with an exemption approved by the Council. The Commission was interested in seeing a map showing how the 150 foot minimum firing distance for bows affected 2.5 acre parcels before making a recommendation on this item. 9. City Permit for Deer Hunting The City Code currently requires a city permit to hunt deer in the southerly restricted zone and limits who can hunt deer to property owners and immediate family members. This requirement was added to the City Code in 2000 in response to the concerns of residents with the number of hunters. Most residents staff spoke with favor a city permit requirement for deer hunting and encouraged it to be expanded to include all areas where deer hunting is allowed in the city. Those in favor of requiring a permit for deer hunting indicate that it allows the city to keep track of who is hunting and ensures each hunter will get a copy of the regulations and map. Those opposed to this requirement felt property owners should know who is hunting on their land and call the sheriff's office if there are trespassers. Since this regulation was established in 2000, the city has issued issues one or two permits each year for the southerly restricted zone. A majority of the Commission was in favor of eliminating the city permit requirement. Two Commissioners were in favor of keeping the permit requirement. 10. Immediate Family Restriction for Deer Hunting with Shotguns in the Southerly Restricted Zone Some input has.been received that this is too restrictive. Please note that bow hunting of deer and hunting of geese in the southern restricted zone does not carry this same restriction. The only type of hunting that is limited to property owners and immediate family members in the southerly restricted zone is deer hunting with a shotgun. The majority of the Commission was in favor of removing this requirement. One Commissioner was in favor of keeping this provision in place. 11. Written Permission from 50% of Surrounding Landowners for Property Owner and Immediate Family Members to Qualify for a City permit in the Southerly Restricted Zone In the Restricted Zone (South) the City Code currently also requires written permission from at least 50% of the surrounding landowners in addition to the limitations on who can hunt, the 40 acre minimum parcel size and the 'A mile firing distance from urban developments, parks and institutional uses. The Commission was in favor of eliminating the requirement for additional permission beyond the area that is being hunted. 3 12. Council Exemption and DNR Support The current ordinance gives the Council the authority to allow special hunts. However, the provision includes a stipulation that these hunts receive support from the DNR. In speaking with the DNR wildlife management office, they indicated that the DNR supports any hunting consistent with state law and would rather not be involved in the enforcement of local ordinances. Staff suggests that the reference to the DNR be changed to simply require compliance with state regulations. The Commission was in favor of adjusting the language to require compliance with DNR regulations. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION Anoka County Sheriffs Office The Sheriff's Office indicated that there have been four complaints related to hunting over the last two years. Two of the complaints involved goose hunting on Round Lake. One citation was issued. A third complaint involved shooting of squirrels immediately north of 157th Avenue NW. No citation was issued. The fourth complaint involved a report of shots fired in the northwest corner of the city in an area of less than 10 acre lots. No one was found in the subsequent search. Department of Natural Resources Staff spoke with two representatives of the wildlife management office that serves Anoka County. As represented at the last meeting, the first contact indicated that the DNR was only concerned that state regulations be followed. Staff subsequently contacted the department head who indicated that they would be interested in working with the city and would follow -up with the appropriate contact. No contact was provided prior to this report being issued. Additionally, the department head expressed concern that the area proposed to be purchased by Anoka County with state funding in the northwestern part of the city remain open to hunting. This could be handled in at least two ways. One would be to write an exception into the City Code for this area. The second would be for the Council to provide a special exemption under the provision that already exists in the City Code. ACTION REQUESTED The Planning Commission continued the public hearing to this meeting and is asked to allow additional public input. The Commission is also asked to discuss the remaining issues and review the draft ordinance amendment. If the Commission is comfortable with the proposed changes, a formal recommendation to the Council can be made. If the Commission would like to have additional discussion, this item can be brought back to another meeting. Attachments City Code 5 -4 Draft Ordinance Amendment Draft Hunting Map Map — Prohibited Discharges Restricted Zone North Map - Prohibited Discharges — Deer Hunting - Restricted Zone South Map - Prohibited Discharges — Goose Hunting - Restricted Zone South Map - Bow Hunting on 2.5 Acres in Barnes Rolling Oaks M Separate Attachment Packet (Flue) Article Provided by Resident Draft Ordinance Provided by Resident Letter Provided by Resident Summary of Other Cities Regulations Resp ct b ' d, Court Bednarz CHAPTER 4 WEAPONS SECTION: 5 -4 -1: Discharge Of Weapons 5 -4 -1: DISCHARGE OF WEAPONS: A. Definitions: The following definitions shall apply in the interpretation and enforcement of this section: BOW: All long bows used for target and hunting purposes as regulated and defined by Minnesota Statutes Chapter 97B. FIREARM: Shotguns and pellet weapons, whether CO2 or pneumatic B. Compliance With Provisions: No person shall discharge at any time a firearm or bow upon or onto any land or property within the city except as provided by this section. C. Prohibited Discharges: 1. No person shall discharge a firearm within five hundred feet (500') of any residence or a bow within one hundred fifty feet (150') of any (o powered. HANDGUN: A hand held weapon with a rifled barrel and discharging a single shot or pellet at a time. IMMEDIATE FAMILY: All persons related to the landowner that shall include the children, grandchildren and their spouses. RIFLE: A shoulder weapon with a long bored barrel or barrels and discharging a single shot or pellet at a time. SHOTGUN: A shoulder weapon with a smooth bored barrel or barrels and normally discharging more than one pellet of a time, except when using a single slug. (Amended Ord. 240, 10 -6- 1998, eff. 1 -1 -1999; amd. 2003 Code) B. Compliance With Provisions: No person shall discharge at any time a firearm or bow upon or onto any land or property within the city except as provided by this section. C. Prohibited Discharges: 1. No person shall discharge a firearm within five hundred feet (500') of any residence or a bow within one hundred fifty feet (150') of any (o residence. 2. No person shall discharge a firearm or bow on public property owned or operated by the city, county, state or school district. 3. The discharge of a rifle or handgun utilizing a solid projectile shall not be allowed within the city. D. Permitted Discharges; Restrictions: 1. Written permission by the property owner shall be given to any person prior to the discharge of a firearm or bow on his /her property. 2. When recreational target shooting is conducted, the projectile shall be directed at a target with a backstop of sufficient strength and density to stop and control the projectile. 3. When discharging a firearm or bow, the projectile shall not carry beyond the property line. (Amended Ord. 240, 10 -6 -1998, eff. 1 -1- 1999) E. Permit To Hunt Deer: 1. Permit Required: An individual annual or seasonal permit is required by the city for the discharge of firearms for the purpose of hunting deer with a shotgun (slug only) in designated areas of the city as shown on the map attached to Ordinance 240 which ordinance is on file in the office of the City Clerk for public use and inspection. Said map and the language contained and stated on the map shall become part of this section. Discharge of firearms in these areas requires a city permit and shall occur no closer than one - quarter (1/4) mile from any urban development, park or institutional use. (Amended Ord. 240, 10 -6 -1998, eff. 1 -1 -1999; amd. 2003 Code) 2. Consent Of Property Owners: A request for such permit shall be accompanied by written permission from fifty percent (50 %) or more of the adjacent landowners. 3. Time Limit On Acquiring Permit: Permits shall be obtained from the city thirty (30) days prior to the opening day of firearm deer season as established by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. 4. Conditions Of Issuance: Such permit shall only be issued under the terms consistent with this section and all applicable state and federal laws and regulations concerning the hunting of deer via firearm. F. Exemptions From Provisions: 1. The provisions of this section shall not apply to the discharge of firearms, rifles or handguns when done in the lawful defense of persons or property. No part of this section is intended to abridge the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. 2. The City Council may approve an exemption to this section to allow the discharge of firearms and bows for the sole purpose of managing and controlling wildlife populations, provided the hunt has received the support from the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. G. Violation; Penalty: Any person who violates any provision of this section shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction thereof, shall be punished according to state law. (Amended Ord. 240, 10 -6 -1998, eff. 1- 1 -1999) 25 CITY OF ANDOVER COUNTY OF ANOKA STATE OF MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CITY CODE TO UPDATE HUNTING REGULATIONS THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANDOVER DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: CITY CODE TITLE 5: POLICE REGULATIONS CHAPTER 4: WEAPONS SECTION: 5 -4 -1: DISCHARGE OF WEAPONS: A. Definitions: The following definitions shall apply in the interpretation and enforcement of this section: BOW: All long, composite or compound bows used for target and hunting purposes as regulated and defined by Minnesota Statutes Chapter 97B. FIREARM: Shotguns and pellet weapons, whether CO2 or pneumatic powered. HANDGUN: A hand held weapon with a rifled barrel and discharging a single shot or pellet at a time. RIFLE: A shoulder weapon with a long bored barrel or barrels and discharging a single shot or pellet at a time. SHOTGUN: A shoulder weapon with a smooth bored barrel or barrels and normally discharging more than one pellet at a time, except when using a single slug. (Amended Ord. 240, 10 -6 -1998, eff. 1 -1 -1999; amd. 2003 Code) B. Compliance With Provisions: No person shall discharge at any time a firearm or bow upon or onto any land or property within the city except as provided by this section. C. Prohibited Discharges: 17 1. No person shall discharge a firearm within five hundred feet (500') of any residence or a bow within one hundred fifty feet (150') of any residence. 2. No person shall discharge a firearm or bow on public property owned or operated by the city, county, state or school district. 3. The discharge of a rifle or handgun utilizing a solid projectile shall not be allowed within the city. D. Permitted Discharges; Restrictions: 1. Written permission by the property owner shall be given to any person prior to the discharge of a firearm or bow on his /her property. 2. When recreational target shooting is conducted, the projectile shall be directed at a target with a backstop of sufficient strength and density to stop and control the projectile. 3. When discharging a firearm or bow, the projectile shall not carry.beyond the property line. (Amended Ord. 240, 10 -6 -1998, eff. 1 -1 -1999) 4. All hunting shall be conducted in compliance with the regulations of the State of Minnesota. E. Hunting Zones Established: The City of Andover Hunting Map attached to Ordinance on file in the office of the City Clerk establishes boundaries for zones where hunting is allowed as well as where hunting is prohibited within the city. 1. Restricted Zone North: a) A minimum Property size of ten acres is required for the discharge of firearms for the purpose of hunting or target shooting. b) A minimum property size of 2.5 acres is required for the discharge of a bow for the purpose of hunting or target shooting. 2. Restricted Zone South a) A minimum property size of forty acres is required for the discharge of firearms for the Purpose of hunting deer. Deer hunting with a firearm in Restricted Zone South shall also be limited as follows: 1) Discharge of firearms shall occur no closer than one - quarter (1/4) mile from any urban development; park or institutional use. /® b) A minimum property size of ten acres is required for the discharge of firearms for the purpose of hunting geese during Early Goose Season and waterfowl during the Regular Waterfowl Season as regulated by the State of Minnesota. c) A minimum property size of 2.5 acres is required for the discharge of a bow for the purpose of hunting or target shooting. 3. Prohibited Zone a) The discharge of firearms and bows are prohibited. III r - - - .. • .. . _ ��• •�• .. -I SALIF M-2 F. Exemptions From Provisions: 1. The provisions of this section shall not apply to the discharge of firearms, rifles or handguns when done in the lawful defense of persons or property. No part of this section is intended to abridge the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. 2. The City Council may approve an exemption to this section to allow the discharge of firearms and bows for the sole purpose of managing and controlling wildlife populations, provided the hunt has ree6ved the suppert frem the Nlkmeseta Departmei4 of Natufal Reseufees complies with state law. fr G. Violation; Penalty: Any person who violates any provision of this section shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction thereof, shall be punished according to state law. (Amended Ord. 240, 10 -6 -1998, eff. 1 -1 -1999) Adopted by the City Council of the City of Andover on this day of , 2010. ATTEST: Michelle Hartner, Deputy City Clerk CITY OF ANDOVER Michael R. Gamache, Mayor iZ O c o ID COD SO COU!S� �i•f O =lD 3 ( Q Q. O Q' 97 > n • A S) m N � N O N C1 a- y SO M o n nEl in O O O r r r r O 0 0 0 f•F _ W W C) 3 Uc5l UUO uu� 0 w x N N � O N O �^ h 0 0 0 N N 0 1J N 0 U � O o y N � - a O N m m � 4 � p bb Y^f yy y � `ol gg o i � Z PROHIBITED DISCHARGES RESTRICTED ZONE NORTH ONCIDA ST. NIP hI NIYA10 ST. NIV A'fA1.'AIIST.NIV IJPAN ST. NIY KIOIVAST NIV ry ✓II'ARO ST. NW INCA ST. NIP I10PIST.NIV hi GUMINI SI: NIV rO.Y.ST. NIV ELDORADOSLNIV DAKOTA Sr NIV CRC'R57:NIV VLICKr00TSI:NIP AMCST, NIP 7W ST.. NIP YUCCAS'T.NW RE'NM ST. NIV WOODIIINC ST. MTV VIMAGE Si: NIP UNDERCUf7'ST NW TUUPV.. NIY SILVRROD ST Nip ROSE ST. NW Ftj QUAYS! NIV POPPYST. NIV ORCIRDST.NIV Q NARC/S1'USST. NIP WARIGOLD.ST. NIY ULYST. NIP' KE'RItYS1: NIP IONQUILM: NW N 'PYIVOODST. NIV IranlER.w.. NIP 71.0101A Sr.. NIP WRA ST, Mr UDEUVrfSSST. NN )ANLG ST. NIP 'ROCUSVI: NW 'I7T=YEET.rf. NW RROIVIICAD ST. NIP IONST.. NIV UKONSf. NIV AVISST. Nip RANST NIV awlm T Nip PLANDER ST. NW IRUSIIST. NW ALLOW ST NW IY£.VST.NIY I /NNST. NW IORIOCEST.. NW wGE ST. NIY 71PfENGALESTA'IY �I IRTINSI:NW WE= NIP` N LDEER ST. NIV 'Si: NIP SST NIP MUINGBIlm ST Nip DOSE ST Nip GMINGOS'T. NW SLE ST NW IKEST NIP INS ST. NIP IERIRDST. NIV ACCT ST. NIP AST NIV GOWPINCST NIP NST. NIY IGRGRL'K.NST. NIP EST. NIP "Y ST NIV 11NCK.ST. NIV MORESI: NW YOODST NW ICE SI: NIV IM: NIP YST. NW y IATST. NIP VOMA ST NW N HST. NIP )UATST. NIP I•�7, 'ER ST. NIP iT. NIP (� Y.SE NIV ENROD ST. NR' IVOODST NIP )REEN ST NIP 'OOD ST. NIP )NIVOODST NIV ]WUTST A'IV ST.NIV R.VTYAV, VYT X fA N O r r =' =• a m e•F ^ YJ Q Q a a m O p Z ��O o n nEl in O O O r r r r O 0 0 0 f•F _ W W C) 3 Uc5l UUO uu� 0 w x N N � O N O �^ h 0 0 0 N N 0 1J N 0 U � O o y N � - a O N m m � 4 � p bb Y^f yy y � `ol gg o i � Z PROHIBITED DISCHARGES RESTRICTED ZONE NORTH ONCIDA ST. NIP hI NIYA10 ST. NIV A'fA1.'AIIST.NIV IJPAN ST. NIY KIOIVAST NIV ry ✓II'ARO ST. NW INCA ST. NIP I10PIST.NIV hi GUMINI SI: NIV rO.Y.ST. NIV ELDORADOSLNIV DAKOTA Sr NIV CRC'R57:NIV VLICKr00TSI:NIP AMCST, NIP 7W ST.. NIP YUCCAS'T.NW RE'NM ST. NIV WOODIIINC ST. MTV VIMAGE Si: NIP UNDERCUf7'ST NW TUUPV.. NIY SILVRROD ST Nip ROSE ST. NW Ftj QUAYS! NIV POPPYST. NIV ORCIRDST.NIV Q NARC/S1'USST. NIP WARIGOLD.ST. NIY ULYST. NIP' KE'RItYS1: NIP IONQUILM: NW N 'PYIVOODST. NIV IranlER.w.. NIP 71.0101A Sr.. NIP WRA ST, Mr UDEUVrfSSST. NN )ANLG ST. NIP 'ROCUSVI: NW 'I7T=YEET.rf. NW RROIVIICAD ST. NIP IONST.. NIV UKONSf. NIV AVISST. Nip RANST NIV awlm T Nip PLANDER ST. NW IRUSIIST. NW ALLOW ST NW IY£.VST.NIY I /NNST. NW IORIOCEST.. NW wGE ST. NIY 71PfENGALESTA'IY �I IRTINSI:NW WE= NIP` N LDEER ST. NIV 'Si: NIP SST NIP MUINGBIlm ST Nip DOSE ST Nip GMINGOS'T. NW SLE ST NW IKEST NIP INS ST. NIP IERIRDST. NIV ACCT ST. NIP AST NIV GOWPINCST NIP NST. NIY IGRGRL'K.NST. NIP EST. NIP "Y ST NIV 11NCK.ST. NIV MORESI: NW YOODST NW ICE SI: NIV IM: NIP YST. NW y IATST. NIP VOMA ST NW N HST. NIP )UATST. NIP I•�7, 'ER ST. NIP iT. NIP (� Y.SE NIV ENROD ST. NR' IVOODST NIP )REEN ST NIP 'OOD ST. NIP )NIVOODST NIV ]WUTST A'IV ST.NIV R.VTYAV, VYT E PRC c a If iLL MAI mom ■ E��� IN I �,� \ins �� Iu�: e.■ ■ ■■ ' IuUq a :7 1111 .....► I � ■,■ ■■ u■- r" \�.� � -_ IIII .::: � iiri tl��� ■III = _ -- ;;� `��O 'nn ■.■■ :p mom- ■, ■, ■�. ■�: • — — — ♦ ■■l, PIN s : ■ ■1111 r , ii m ! ®'f ®■ ■,� �IFr �JS� ,/ r® 1111111 ®■ ■ -- - - _ IF Fri u��,.. -'.i,. •," C- p /IIII ►:7 :: :::,'�'� ■ 1 (/ � 1, , ■ :.RS" B!� RI IR O Im m sl Fr emp, FAWW a �1• Yt V V 3 � ■Y ■P � � b r - ._ x � �' � h�� r.+. �r F � i Kit �' 1■T ■ �liN II ,� `�" i � „i' -� �� mummilm r ■ .■■ ►el■ <1r■uu Mai nF-- . ■ ■■ —I♦.. _ •'� apt_ ; .. w Sri i• 7 Sol .0 1 tr. � I_ a v,�i�,���z i� k � e z n • ' t.. r, t pryi = -Iw- IMEMMEME t�riF S�' f4 ai� • SI ^'-,.:'� � t!i � ,Fj lb1< Y • } fd .' � Y Y �3b ;.1 pAp..m Pi s4 � � � y C” r' r� ■ W1 „ Al Hl J °. � r A `, r_" s r � �d � :�I Y r i .3¢L•A - Dili t If 'e The "safe" slug myth: shotgun slugs are required in some areas, but why? I Guns Magazine I Find... Page 1 of 3 . Find Articles in: . All . Business . Reference . Technology . Lifestyle . Newspaper Collection Sports Publications o Comments The "safe" slug myth: shotgun slugs are required in some areas, but why? Guns Magazine, Nov, 2007 by Holt Sodinson The shotgun slug is less safe and more dangerous in the field than a 150 grain .3o -o6 bullet or a 50- caliber muzzleloading projectile. Does that statement sound improbable? Conventional wisdom would say so. I've just finished digesting a 67-page technical report commissioned by the Pennsylvania Legislative Budget and Finance Committee that blows a hole in conventional wisdom and the increasing establishment of shotgun -slug -only zones by state's game agencies. What prompted the study? A lawsuit involving a hunting accident in which a woman sitting in a car was struck by a stray rifle bullet coupled with increasing sportsmen's opposition to the expansion of shotgun slug and muzzleloading -only zones on the decision of the Pennsylvania Game Commission. When the professional staff of the Game Commission questioned other states with about their slug policies, they found no state had any definitive safety data to support the decision to restrict zones to shotgun slugs. Quoting from the report, "They found in the shotgun -only states, this appears to be an issue driven by emotion and politics rather than sound scientific data." The Army Weighs In The research firm, Mountaintop Technologies, conducted the resulting outside - contracted study. Its prime subcontractor was the US Army Armament Research, Development and Engineering Center at the Picatinny Arsenal. http://Rndarficles.com/p/aiticles/Mi-mOBQY/is-I 1 53 /ai n20512665/ 12/15/2009 The "safe" slug myth: shotgun slugs are required in some areas, but why? I Guns Magazine I Find... Page 2 of 3 [ILLUSTRATION OMITTED] The Picatinny research team used the concept of Surface Danger Zones to compare the relative risk performance of three projectiles: a 15o -grain SP fired from a .30 -06 with a muzzle velocity of 2,910 fps, a 385 - grain, 12- gauge, 50- caliber sabot load with a hollowpoint, semi - spitzer projectile at 1,90o fps and, for the muzzleloaders, a 348 - grain, 50- caliber CVA Powerbelt projectile at 1,595 fps. The March 2007 study looked at the maximum range a projectile would reach at various firing angles of elevation plus the distance the projectile would ricochet after impacting the ground: The data is intriguing. At a maximum firing angle of elevation of 35- degrees, the rifle, shotgun and muzzleloader projectiles travel 13,926',10,378', and 9,197' respectfully. Because of the angle of descent, there are no ricochets. At a firing angle of 10- degrees, the rifle, shotgun and muzzleloader projectiles travel 10,004', 7,163' and 6,247' respectfully plus additional ricochet distances of 702', 949' and 913' respectfully. Ah, but the big surprise comes at o- degrees of elevation which would be more or less a typical shot at a deer on level terrain. Here the rifle, shotgun and muzzleloader projectiles travel 4408', 840', and 686' respectfully plus ricochet distances of 3,427', 4365 %. and 3,812' respectfully. Now the total distances traveled by the projectiles are 4,835 for the rifle, 5,205' for the shotgun and 4498' for the muzzleloader. "The smaller cross sectional area of the .3o- caliber projectile and its shape contributes to a higher loss of energy on impact and, after ricochet, the 3o- caliber projectile tends to tumble in flight with a high drag. Test data confirm that the 50- caliber projectile's larger cross sectional area and its shape contribute to less energy loss on shallow angles of impact and, after ricochet, the projectile exhibits less drag which results in a greater total distance traveled. [ILLUSTRATIONS OMITTED] "It is recommended the Pennsylvania Game Commission address the public perception a shotgun with modern high - velocity ammunition is less risky than centerfire rifles in all circumstances ... Frangible, or reduced ricochet, projectiles for hunting firearms should be investigated as an alternative to the mandatory use of shotguns or muzzleloaders." Far Reaching I think the effect of this study may be far reaching and it's why I have covered it in such detail. State game agencies tend to talk to one another and, indeed, tend to copy each other's regulations. It will be interesting to see what impact this study may have on http://findarticles.com/p/articles/Mi-mO.BQY/is_l 1 53 /ai n20512665/ 12/15/2009 The "safe" slug myth: shotgun slugs are required in some areas, but why? I Guns Magazine I Find... Pa ge 3 of 3 present or future slug -only zones and on shotgun slug design itself. The answer may be in making the shotgun slug more frangible. Slug design is increasingly taking on the structure and composition of a jacketed bullet. Looking at the design of the new xp3 Winchester, the Hornady SST, and Federal Fusion slugs, it's clear we are already there. They're built like jacketed bullets, and they upset and expand like jacketed bullets. They're the finest rifled shotgun slugs we've ever had plus muzzle velocities keep increasing with every passing year. I'm sure the major ammunition companies are studying this groundbreaking report from Pennsylvania with keen interest. Knowing them as I do, they will have a solution to slug ricochet problem within months so stay tuned. COPYRIGHT 2007 Publishers' Development Corporation COPYRIGHT 2008 Gale, Cengage Learning 3 http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi—mOBOY/is-I 1531ai n20512665/ 12/15/2009 rf OIZ%>h .,WCe rttp nom 8y �T t • Tony Howard's proposed changes (in Red) CHAPTER 4 WEAPONS SECTION: 5 -4 -1: Discharge of Weapons 54-1: DISCHARGE OF WEAPONS: A. Definitions: The followiing definitions shall apply in the interpretation and enforcement of this section: BOW: All long., Compound or Crossbow bows. used for target and hunting purposes as regulated and defined by Minnesota Statutes Chapter 9713. FIREARM: Shotguns and (pellet weapons, whether CO2 or pneumatic powered. HANDGUN: A hand held weapon with a rifled barrel and discharging a single shot or pellet at a time. IMMEDIATE FAMILY: All (persons related to the landowner that shall include the children, grandchildren and their spouses. RIFLE or Muzzleloader. A. shoulder weapon with a long bored barrel er-baFrels and, discharges ing a single shat or pellet at a time. SHOTGUN: A shoulder we=apon with a smooth bored barrel or barrels and nomr"s dly diimihi Tgss t y m *on one pellet at a time. except when using a single Aug. (Amended Ord.. 240,10-6- 1998, eff. 1 -1 -1999; amd. 2003 Code) B. Compliance With Provisions: No person shall discharge at any time a firearm or bow upon or onto any land for property within the city except as provided by this section. C. Prohibited Discharges:: 1. No person shall discharge a firearm within five hundred feet (500') of any residence or a bow within one hundred fifty feet (150') of any residence. 2. No person shall discharge a pelleted firearm within five hundred feet (50(3') of any roa�y. 3. too person shall discharge a petleted firearm within one thousand feet (100W) of any institutional use. property line. 4. No pemm shalll drachaW a pellletadl firearim within one thousand feet (1000') of any urban developmenfs property line. I S. No person shall discharge a pelleted firearnn within five hundred (500) of any rural development's property line-. 6. No person shall discharge.a firearm or bow on public property owned or operated by the city, county, state or scihool district. 7. The discharge of a weapon Fif.19 GF handgun utilizing a solid projectile shall not be allowed within the city eate$pt in permitted areas. D. Permitted Discharges; Restrictions: 1. Written permission by the property owner shall be given to any person prior to the discharge of a firearm or bow on his /her property. 2. When recreational target shooting is conducted, the projectile shall be directed at a target with a backstop of srufficient strength and density to stop and control the projectile. 3. When discharging a firearm or bow, the projectile shall not carry beyond the property line. (Amended Ord. 240, 110 -6 -1998, eff. 1 -1 -1999) E. Permit to Hunt Deer With fir'ea'rms: 1. Permit Required: An indlividual areal or seasonal permit is required by the city for the discharge of firearms fior the purpose of hunting deer with a shotgun (slug only) -in. A map of designated permitted areas,of the cityas ShOlAfflon the ap "*ached to ordinanne 240 which erdenanee is on file in the office of the City Clerk for public use and inspection. Said map and the language-Gentained and stated on the map-shafl-�e E. ResVicti ns: a) Hunting deer shall only occur on parcells greater then forty (40) acres in size. b) Hunting shall only be allowed for landomners or immediate farnity members. c) Hunting shall occur no closer than (1/4) mile from any urban or rural development, park or institutional use. A d) Consent of Property Owners; A request for such permit shall be accompanied by written permission frorrr fifty percent (50%) or more of the adjacent landowners. Land owner written perrrlssion must include parcel designation. e) Time Limit on Acquiiring Permit: Permits shall be obtained from the city thirty (30) days prior to the opening day of firearm deer season as established by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. f) Conditions of Issuance: Such permit shall only be issued under the terms consistent with this section and all applicable state and federal laws and regulations ooncerniing the hunting of deer via firearm. (Amended Ord. 240, 10 -6- 1998, eff. 1 -11 -199% amd. 2003 Code) F. Exemptions from Provisions: 1. The provisions of this section shall not apply to the discharge of firearms, rifles or handguns when done in tune lawful defense of persons or property. No part of this section is intended to abridge the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. 2. The City Council may approve an exemption to this section to allow the discharge of firearms and bows for the stole purpose of managing and controlling wildlife populations, provided the hunt has received the support from the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. G. Violation; Penalty: Any person who violates any provision of this section shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction thereof, shall be punished according to state law. (Amended Ord. 240, 10 -6 -1998, eff. 1 -1 -1999) 6 To: Planning and Zoning Commission of Andover May 4, 2010 From: Laura Wade 15608 University Ave NW, Andover Re: City Code Amendment under consideration, 5 -4 weapons hunting regulations I am requesting no changes in the current City Code 5 -4, discharge weapons for multiple reasons. As a city resident for over 25 years my husband and I have experienced many issues with several of our neighbors hunting in Andover and Ham Lake, which is across the street from our property. I first remember the goose hunting on the back bordering part of our property, shooting day and night through our wood. Many times the buck shot bouncing off the trees and I'd hit the dirt while taking my evening walk with our two dogs. When trying to confront the hunters they would always disappear and hunting would cease, I think they let who ever wanted to hunt, hunt on their property. No one cared about the discharge of weapons over any border. Since then the property has sold and no more hunting on our back border. Several years ago we needed to replace our roof due to hail damage. With the tear off of the 15 year roof, we discovered that we had rifle slugs embedded in the roof that faced the Ham Lake side of University Ave. We talked to the neighbors across the street that hunt and let others hunt on their property and no claims that they are shooting in our direction or with a rifle. What can anyone due in this situation, knowing that letting anyone hunt on their property that there is no responsibility to the property owner or your neighbor unless you catch them in the act. Is anyone going to respect your property or your neighbors other than the owner themselves, I don't believe so especially when there hunting and the adrenaline is running. I called City Hall last fall and talked to Will after the first weekend of shot gun season. I had many questions about deer hunting within the city limits. What some of the ordinances were and who could hunt here. I was appalled to hear that two of my neighbors were approached to let hunters on their property to ti k film a live deer kill. So when a neighbor had hunters arriving after five in the morning last year, my concerns really started to mount. I discovered that many city ordinances were violated and the city was going to do nothing. Will told me to call the sheriff's office with concerns and to investigate. But this was already after the hunting weekend of concern. Some of the violations to the current city ordinance were; not immediate family hunting, discharge of firearms needing at least forty acres, no discharge of weapons over the property lines, not fifty percent of neighbors gave permission, deer stands out of DNR regulation, wearing camouflage, not orange for shot gun opener and no city permits issued in this area of Andover at all. Still not sure how legal the deer decoy with fur and all was, and really don't like them hunting seventy five feet off my side border. It is five hundred feet from a building, but myself and family, including two dogs, are not going to hide out because they choose to hunt on our border within the city limits as far as I am concerned. We have already discovered how careful hunters are about discharge of weapons across property lines and have also found a broad head spears from bow hunter in the middle of our ten acre lot which in only three hundred forty some feet wide. They too must travel a couple hundred feet from a bow, I'm guessing. Very curious if there is a report listed with the city from my concerns last year? Also what is the follow up with the sheriff's reports listed in and around Andover during the hunting season? I don't believe these ten and fifteen acre plots in Andover and Ham Lake are big enough to hunt on with all the development and safety concerns. I am looking for protection and safety on my own property during all these hunting seasons against unsafe, none compliant, unregulated hunting practices in the City of Andover. The current regulations are the only safety net that we have to enforce noncompliant hunting practices, do not change or take them away; we . still need them for conformity and safety. 7A other Cities Hunting Regulations Ramsey Sec. 34 -21. - Weapons. (a) Discharge prohibited. Except as hereinafter provided, no person shall fire or discharge any gun, pistol or firearm of any description within the limits of the city. (b) Protection of home and family. Nothing in this section shall be construed to embrace the possession of a firearm within the home or the discharge of the same when done in the lawful defense of person, family or property. (c) Discharge off rearms. The owner or tenant or persons having written authorization of such owner or tenant may, upon the land of the owner or the owner's tenant, discharge firearms in hunting wild game in accordance with the laws of the state. However, discharge of firearms shall not be permitted within 1,500 feet of any residential dwelling or other structure, park or playground. In addition, shotguns using no larger than size 6 shot and non -lead shall be the only type of firearm permitted to be discharged in any area of the city. (d) Permit to hunt. A permit to hunt wild game with a firearm as an exception to this section may be issued by the police chief. The police chief shall be granted the authority to administer the permit process. (e) Use of bows and arrows. The use of a bow and arrow for hunting purposes shall be permitted in the city in hunting wild game in accordance with the laws of the state. However, bow and arrow hunting shall not be permitted within 500 feet of any residential dwelling or other structure, park or playground and said hunting shall not be permitted within 500 feet of any trunk highway. (fl Permits for bow and arrow hunting. A permit for bow and arrow hunting shall be required prior to such hunting in the city. Applicants for a bow and arrow hunting permit shall apply to the city police chief or his designated representative. The police chief shall be granted the authority to administer the permit. Permits shall be issued only for the period of the state bow and arrow annual deer hunting season. (Code 1978, § 5.07; Ord. No. 73 -10, 8 -20 -1973; Ord. No. 73 -14; Ord. No. 83 -15; Ord. No. 05 -26, 11 -14 -2005; Ord. No. 08 -06, § 2, 2 -12 -2008) Oak Grove The City of Oak Grove has no local hunting regulations and defers to the standards created by the DNR. q Other Cities Hunting Regulations Blaine The City of Blaine has only allowed bow hunting for many years. The information is shown below and the most recent hunting map is attached. Blaine Sets New Boundaries for 2009 Bow and Arrow Deer Hunting Area The City of Blaine has set the below boundaries for the 2009 bow and arrow deer hunting season. The State of Minnesota has established the dates for the hunting season as running from September 19, 2009 through December 31, 2009. Persons wishing to hunt must contact a landowner within the designated hunting areas. There is no hunting allowed on park property or city -owned property. Property owners within the designated hunting areas who wish to allow hunting on their land are required to give written permission to the hunter. Persons hunting on designated property must have in "their immediate possession ", the written permission of the property owner allowing them to hunt and identification. Persons found hunting in the areas without a written note from the landowner are subject to fines up to $750 and/or 90 days in jail, as well as confiscation of their equipment. Hunters would still need to obtain all the required State of Minnesota, Department of Natural Resources Hunting Licenses and follow all of the State laws, rules and regulations regarding bow and arrow hunting for deer. Those wishing further information may contact the Blaine Police Department at 763 - 785 -6132. A map of the designated approved hunting area is available upon request and a copy is posted on the "Legal Notices" board in the Blaine City Hall. Ham Lake You cannot discharge a firearm within the City of Ham Lake on, onto or across any property unless you own the property or have written permission from the owner and are a minimum of 500 feet from any dwelling. If you have further questions, please contact City Hall at (763) 434- 9555 or read the complete ordinance regarding the discharge of firearms. Source: Article 3, 3 -200 3 -200 Discharge of Firearms (1) Except as permitted in subsection (2) below, no person shall discharge a firearm upon, onto, or across any "Prohibited Areas" within the City of Ham Lake. No person shall discharge an arrow from a bow upon, onto, or across any Prohibited Area within the City of Ham Lake. "Prohibited Area" shall include the following: a) The outside perimeter of all platted subdivisions, including auditor's plats; b) The outside perimeter of all areas of residential concentration in which lots have been created by metes and bounds, and which have been identified by the Zoning Administrator as the equivalent of platted areas; c) All schools and churches, measured from the lot lines of the parcel upon which the school or church is situated; d) The outside perimeter of all City or County parks; 10 other Cities Hunting Regulations e) The traveled portion of any public road. (2) Notwithstanding the foregoing, firearms and bows and arrows may be discharged upon, onto or across Prohibited Areas described in Article 3- 200(1)(a) and (b), under the following conditions: a) The person is the owner or lessor of, or has the written permission of the landowner who owns the land upon which the firearm or bow and arrow is discharged, the land upon which the projectile comes to rest, or the land over which the projectile passes; b) The person discharging the firearm or bow and arrow is in actual possession of the written permission documents at the time of discharging the device, and c) The discharge of the firearm or bow and arrow does not occur within 500 feet of any residential dwelling, unless the permission documentation referred to in item 2(a) above specifically permits discharge within 500 feet of the dwelling. (3) In areas which are not Prohibited Areas, persons may discharge firearms or bows and arrows, but only under the same conditions as are listed in Article 3- 200(2)(a), (b) and (c). (4) The provisions of paragraphs (1), (2) and (3) of this section do not apply to the discharge of firearm by law enforcement officers while performing their duties. (5) The term "firearm" as used in this section includes pistols, rifles, revolvers, shotguns as well as all pellet guns, whether gas explosive or spring powered, BB guns and all other devices or weapons which propel a projectile of any sort. (6) The Zoning Administrator of the City shall cause the preparation of a map of the City, at a scale of one inch = 500 feet, which displays the locations of the Prohibited Areas identified in Article 3 -200 (1)(a)(b)(c) and (d), and which also bears the following Legend: NOTICE: SUBJECT TO CERTAIN EXCEPTIONS DETAILED IN THE HAM LAKE CITY CODE, THE DISCHARGER OF FIREARMS AND BOWS AND ARROWS IS PROHIBITED UPON, ONTO OR ACROSS THE AREAS IDENTIFIED AS "PROHIBITED AREAS" ON THIS DISPLAY, AND SUCH DISCHARGES ARE FURTHER PROHIBITED WITHIN 500 FEET OF ANY DWELLING WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE DWELLING OWNER. PERMISSION OF THE LANDOWNER TO DISCHARGE FIREARMS OR BOWS AND ARROWS IS REQUIRED AT ALL TIMES. The map so prepared, as periodically updated, shall be available for inspection at City Hall during normal business hours, and shall also be posted in three conspicuous places within the City between September 1 and December 1 of each II other Cities Hunting Regulations year. 7) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsections 1 through 6, inclusive, of Article 3- 200, it shall be unlawful for any person to discharge a gun, pistol, shotgun or rifle for the purpose of target practice, including the terms clay pigeon shooting, skeet shooting, trap shooting, gun- sighting or other recreational shooting not aimed at actual game, except under the following conditions: a) The activity is carried out on premises which have a conditional use permit for the activity; or b) The activity is carried out on premises and under conditions which meet the criteria outlined in Article 3 -200 (2) of this Code, and i) The activity is limited to no more than two sessions every thirty days; and ii) The activity takes place between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m., and iii) The activity introduces no lead shot onto any wetland which has been so designated by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. /Z &41ar, MOVP I Z; a 44 ..... ..... orth C i r n! 1z FTI ,KK . ....... . .... .. ... . .... . . ...... T7 . . .... . .... . .... --1 *0 12MI 4, L� jib LLI 112M1 "A f7t, 41 0? PA41K . —ji gii m . .. .... y, Road 14 - - 125th Avenue I.Maln Street Jj- lCount J. —:�F# . ...... ...... . ... Qh, J m E, 419 1 �,6 .:I "EJEJ ill . . . A-A 0 Nil K, 0 ............ . .... L ^M3 I . . .............. . ..... .. . . ... .... .... . ....... ..... ........... — - ------- li Ac 05 N, .... -! . -4640 ftc fio�J"`a. d D 4p ,p -0 1.11, 1 f, —2,MM W I 11.3 0 -1, 5 7 mift"A[I ... .... . ... 1 77—T -71 4 T MK F. A1, LbCUNESS PARK �4 A, jL i it iAd r-_j 12 109th Avenue I County Road 51 Legend it Ditch �,� 70,1 City Owned Property ;Park Property Line . . ... .. J Sections .... . ..... . I Hunting Area L Hunting Allowed RT 7 Q No Hunting Allowed 0.25 0,!1 2009 BOW AND ARROW DEER HUNTING BOUNDARIES L wE