HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/13/2010Andover Planning and Zoning Commission
Meeting Agenda
April 13, 2010
Andover City Hall
Council Chambers
7.00 p.m.
1. Call to Order
2. Approval of Minutes —February 9, 2010
3. PUBLIC HEARING: Conditional Use Permit (10 -06) to allow increased height
for proposed salt storage facility at 1833 Crosstown Blvd NW.
4. PUBLIC HEARING: City Code Amendment to consider changes to City Code
5 -4 Weapons to update hunting regulations.
5. Other Business
6. Adj ournment
y
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 - February 9, 2010
DATE: April 13, 2010
Request
The Planning and Zoning Commission is asked to approve the minutes from the
February 9, 2010 meeting.
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSIONMEETING — FEBRUARY 9, 2010
The Regular Bi- Monthly Meeting of the Andover Planning and Zoning Commission was
called to order by Chairperson Daninger on February 9, 2010, 7:00 p.m., at the Andover
City Hall, 1685 Crosstown Boulevard NW, Andover, Minnesota.
Commissioners present: Chairperson Daninger, Commissioners Michael Casey,
Valerie Holthus, Devon Walton (arrived at 7:05 p.m.),
Lynae Gudmundson and Dennis Cleveland.
Commissioners absent: Tim Kirchoff.
Also present: City Planner, Courtney Bednarz
Associate Planner, Angie Perera
Others
OATH OF OFFICE
Commissioners Cleveland and Gudmundson read the Oath of Office.
APPROVAL OFMINUTES.
January 12, 2010
Motion by Casey, seconded by Holthus, to approve the minutes as presented. Motion
carried on a 4 -ayes, 0 -nays, 1- present ( Gudmundson), 2- absent (Kirchoff, Walton) vote.
PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 10 -02 TO CONSIDER
TELECOMMUNICATIONS TOWER FOR CLEAR WIRELESS, LLCINANDOVER
LIONS PARK LOCATED AT 13960 PALM STREET NW.
Mr. Bednarz noted Clear Wireless, LLC is seeking to locate a 120 foot tall tower and
wireless internet antenna array within Andover Lions Park. A conditional use permit is
required to locate antenna above 35 feet in height.
Mr. Bednarz reviewed the proposed Conditional Use Permit with the Commission.
Commissioner Walton arrived at 7:05 p.m.
Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
Minutes — February 9, 2010
Page 2
Chairperson Daninger asked for clarification of where the tower will be located in the
park. Mr. Bednarz showed the plan to the Commission with the location marked on it.
Motion by Casey, seconded by Walton, to open the public hearing. Motion carried on a
6 -ayes, 0 -nays, 1- absent (Kirchoff) vote.
Mr. Jason Kunzie, 13881 Sycamore Street, stated he found himself in a strange situation
because he works for an engineering firm that sometimes helps companies build these
towers and now he is on the other side of the coin arguing against the point, the reason
being mainly aesthetics. He stated he thought this was an ill fit for this neighborhood.
The biggest thing is the topography. The train tracks are elevated through this area and
this is high ground and is going to be a beacon for the rest of the neighborhood to look at
on both sides of the tracks. The utilities that go through here are at or below grade and
having a 120 foot tower that is nearly three feet in diameter is completely out of place in
the neighborhood. He stated to call this area a park is a little misleading because it is
really a trail corridor. This is more of a bike and walking path and in people's yards. It is
not near a large open space to buffer it. He thought because of that the size is
disproportionate to the area.
Mr. Kunzie stated another concern he had was that other utilities will be piggybacked on
top of the tower once it is constructed. He stated this could turn into a very large
obtrusive piece of equipment. He wondered if this technology is really necessary. It
seems pretty big and based on the size being proposed if they could install something
smaller but more quantity could substitute for this. He also thought this will decrease
their property values. He asked that they consider placement south of Bunker Lake
Boulevard where other utilities are located.
Mr. Chuck Rowley, 996 140th Lane, stated he had some objections to this project. One of
the primary reasons he bought his lot was because of the park and the cul -de -sac and it
would be free from this kind of thing. He stated from his deck he will see the pole on the
hill sticking up over the trees. His concern was the size of it and the possibility of
hanging other utilities from it in the future. He was concerned with the drop in property
value of his home if this were installed where proposed. He thought all options should be
considered.
Mr. Gary Johnson, 931 140t" Lane, asked who Clear Wireless is and what are they going
to use the tower for. He stated it would be great to get better reception in their
neighborhood. He also wondered what benefit Andover gets from this installation. He
also wondered if any alternate builds have been discussed.
Chairperson Daninger stated one benefit of this is that the City generates revenue from it
and the park the tower is in will benefit by the revenue being used in the park for
maintenance and improvements.
Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
Minutes — February 9, 2010
Page 3
Mr. Matt Larson, 987 139 "' Avenue NW, stated this tower is literally in his back yard.
He wondered what other locations were considered because this is very close to the
property lines where it is being proposed. He did not think having this tower placed back
there made sense. He wondered why this was the ideal location for the tower.
Mr. David Hagen, Consultant for Clear Wireless, LLC, explained that Clear Wireless is a
wireless internet provider. He stated Andover will benefit by having wireless internet
throughout the southern part of the City. The service will be more than twice as fast as
any competitor in the area and at half the price. They believed there is a market for this
service in the area. He stated Clear Wireless has looked at alternate sites. He explained
the reason why they needed to place the towers where they are proposed in the City. He
reviewed with the Commission the areas they looked at for placement of the towers.
Chairperson Daninger asked Mr. Hagen if Clear Wireless explored any other type of pole
to construct besides a mono -pole. Mr. Hagen stated as part of their process they had
discussions with City Staff and other Commissions and felt that a stealth mono -pole
structure as proposed with the antennas hidden within the tower itself would be a better
solution to this area than would a camouflaged type of structure.
Commissioner Casey asked if Clear Wireless was in any other municipality. Mr. Hagen
stated they are currently going through other cities to launch this service in the metro
area. They do have services in Duluth and in St. Cloud. They have service also in thirty
or forty metropolitan areas of one size or another.
Commissioner Casey asked if was possible to put an antenna on a power pole such as
Minneapolis has done. Mr. Hagen stated it is possible to do this but have not been able to
reach an agreement with Xcel Energy to attach antennas on their poles. There is also
concern with respect to that especially with putting them on poles high enough to serve
their needs.
Commissioner Holthus stated since it is on a hill could they use a shorter pole. Mr.
Hagen stated they look at the elevation as part of their study and they chose this site
because it is high and this is actually a shorter tower than if they were in a lower lying
area.
Commissioner Holthus asked if this location for the pole improve the wireless service for
the residents that live in that neighborhood. Mr. Hagen stated it definitely would.
Commissioner Walton asked how long this technology has been around. Mr. Hagen
stated the use of the internet has been growing and they are providing high speed wireless
internet service at a very reasonable price.
Commissioner Walton asked if there were boosters for the signal to allow it to travel
farther than currently available. Mr. Hagen stated there was not.
Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
Minutes —February 9, 2010
Page 4
Commissioner Walton asked what will happen if this site is not approved or does not go
up. Mr. Hagen stated this will affect sites around it and if there is not a site built in this
area a fairly significant part of the urbanized part of Andover would not have coverage of
this-service.
Commissioner Holthus asked if the location of the tower was closer to the corner of
Bunker and the railroad tracks would that be out of range and if not, how would the pole
need to be modified to be closer to that corner. Mr. Hagen stated he could not answer the
second question nor could he say that would be a site that would work. Commissioner
Holthus thought it would look less obtrusive if it was placed in that corner of the park.
She thought that might be a better spot if in range.
Commissioner Gudmundson asked how many of these towers did Clear Wireless plan to
put in Andover. Mr. Hagen stated they have a total of five sites, three being approved
already including two on water towers, one in Hidden Creels North Park, and the two
being proposed at this meeting.
Commissioner Gudmundson asked if the towers installed in Duluth and St. Cloud placed
in parks. Mr. Hagen indicated some were placed in parks.
Chairperson Daninger asked how Clear Wireless proposed accessing this site if approved.
Mr. Hagen indicated they would access it from the Bunker Lake Boulevard side to get in.
Chairperson Daninger asked if there will be a shadow effect from this. Mr. Hagen did
not think it would affect the reception for the surrounding homes.
Chairperson Daninger asked if all the transmitters the same power at all these sites. Mr.
Hagen stated they are all similar.
Motion by Walton, seconded by Casey, to close the public hearing. Motion carried on a
6 -ayes, 0 -nays, 1- absent (Kirchoff) vote.
Chairperson Daninger indicated he received a letter from Gina & Scott Wills opposing
the placement of the tower in the park. Mr. Bednarz stated he also received three emails
from people opposing the proposal.
Commissioner Gudmundson asked what other benefits there were for Andover besides
the wireless internet. Mr. Bednarz explained the benefits.
The Commission discussed the pros and cons for placement of the tower in the proposed
location.
Commissioner Walton stated a location in a park is acceptable to him but the location of
this particular tower bothers him. The location of the tower is of concern for
Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
Minutes —February 9, 2010
Page 5
maintenance and service. He thought moving it closer to Bunker Lake Boulevard seemed
like a more acceptable possibility to get it out of the natural area.
Chairperson Daninger asked if any of the Commissioners were in favor of this location.
Commissioner Holthus indicated she was in favor of it being at Lions Park but she did
not like the location. She thought the Park Commission needed to decide where in the
park the tower should be placed. Commissioner Cleveland stated he would be more
comfortable with the tower placed elsewhere in the park. Commissioner Casey agreed
and stated it would be less obtrusive and disruptive to the neighborhood.
Mr. Bednarz explained to the Commission the options they had for recommendation of
this item.
The Commission reviewed the park layout and discussed possible alternate sites for the
tower.
The majority of the Commission was ok with using the park for the tower but would like
to have Clear Wireless, LLC find an alternate location for the tower.
Mr. Hagen indicated they would be willing to look at alternate locations within the park.
Motion by Walton, seconded by Casey, to recommend to the City Council approval of
the tower in Lions Park but at a different location deferring either to the Parks
Commission or the City Council for the exact location.
Chairperson Daninger stated he was going to vote against this because he was not sure
about the technology and even if they move this to the corner there are more houses over
the train tracks.
Motion carried on a 5 -ayes, 1 -nays ( Daninger), 1- absent (Kirchoff) vote.
Mr. Bednarz stated that this item would be before the Park Commission at the February
18, 2010 Park Commission meeting and March 2, 2010 Council meeting.
PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 10 -03 TO CONSIDER
TELECOMMUNICATIONS TOWER FOR CLEAR WIRELESS, LLC IN
SHADOWBROOK EAST PARK LOCATED AT 13789 B UTTERNUT STREET NWW,
Mr. Bednarz noted Clear Wireless, LLC is seeking to locate a 118 foot tall tower and
wireless internet antenna array within Shadowbrook East Park. A conditional use permit
is required to locate antenna above 35 feet in height.
Mr. Bednarz reviewed the proposed Conditional Use Permit with the Commission
Commissioner Walton left the meeting.
Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
Minutes — February 9, 2010
Page 6
Motion by Casey, seconded by Cleveland, to open the public hearing. Motion carried on
a 5 -ayes, 0 -nays, 1- present (Walton) vote, 1- absent (Kirchoff) vote.
Mr. Jason Kunzie, 13881 Sycamore Street, thought this proposed construction of the
towers seemed a bit counter to the City's effort in working with the Trust for Public Land
for preserving open space. He stated they have open space and they are building on it
and allowing commerce to build on it for a service that he did not think was needed.
Mr. Bednarz reviewed the open space bond referendum with the residents and where
towers are allowed in public areas of the City.
Commissioner Walton returned to the meeting.
Mr. Larson, 987 139th Avenue, asked what Clear Wireless' market in Andover is and do
they really need the service. He wondered what will happen if this service does not pan
out and he also wondered who will be able to access this service and would they have to
subscribe to the service to use it.
Mr. Dave Hagen explained they are providing a service that will compete with other
internet providers and at about half the cost with superior service. He understood there
were a large number of home businesses located in Andover that would utilize this
service. He reviewed with the Commission who were the owners of Clear Wireless,
LLC. He stated that if the towers are not used he thought they would be taken down.
Commissioner Cleveland asked how many other antenna arrays could be placed on a
tower of that size. Mr. Hagen stated up to three additional antenna arrays could be
placed.
The Commission reviewed with Mr. Hagen alternative sites for this tower.
Chairperson Daninger asked if Clear Wireless has approached Anoka County regarding
their tower in the area for placement of an antenna. Mr. Hagen stated they have
approached them and it was submitted as a possibility to their radio frequency engineers
and it was outside of the search area.
Mr. Hagen discussed with the Commission other possible sites he had submitted for
consideration.
Motion by Casey, seconded by Walton, to close the public hearing. Motion carried on a
6 -ayes, 0 -nays, 1- absent (Kirchoff) vote.
Commissioner Walton asked if there is anything in the contract regarding removal of the
tower if it is not being used or goes out of business. Mr. Bednarz stated he was not sure
Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
Minutes —February 9, 2010
Page 7
if there was a clause in the contract regarding removal and who would pay for the
removal.
The Commission agreed they would like the Park Commission to review this item and
make a recommendation for placement of the tower.
Motion by Walton, seconded by Casey, to recommend the tower in Shadowbrook but
leave the location determination up to the Park Commission. Motion carried on a 4 -ayes,
2 -nays (Daninger, Goodmanson), 1- absent (Kirchoff) vote.
Mr. Bednarz stated that this item would be before the Park Commission at the February
18, 2010 Park Commission and March 2, 2010 City Council meeting.
PUBLIC HEARING. CITY CODE AMENDMENT TO CONSIDER CHANGES TO
CITY CODE FOR EXTERIOR STORAGE OF COMMERCIAL VEHICLES AND
STORAGE ITEMS.
Ms. Perera noted the City Council directed staff to prepare two draft amendments to the
City Code pertaining to vehicles and exterior storage. The direction given was to allow
up to one commercial vehicle such as a truck, suburban, or a van other than a "cube van"
or "moving truck" to be parked on a residential driveway. They also directed that staff
prepare an amendment to allow an increased length of up to forty (40) feet for adequately
screened recreational vehicles such as motor homes, campers, travel trailers that are
located in the rear yards of rural lots which are two and a half (2.5) acres plus in size.
The Planning Commission held a public hearing on January 12, 2010 and continued the
public hearing to the meeting tonight in order to review and consider a draft amendment
as discussed.
Ms. Perera reviewed the staff report with the Commission.
The public hearing was continued from the last meeting.
There was no public input.
Ms. Perera asked the Commission what they felt would be appropriate for the maximum
allowable Gross Vehicle Weight. The Commission was ok with the Gross Vehicle
Weight of 12,000 pounds as proposed.
Ms. Perera asked the Commission what would be the maximum number of commercial
vehicles allowed to be parked in a driveway. The Commission discussed what they
thought would be adequate and decided one in the driveway and one in the garage would
be fine and it would be ok to have two vehicles in the driveway during the day but not
overnight or on the weekend.
Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
Minutes — February 9, 2010
Page 8
Ms. Perera asked the Commission what types of commercial vehicles would be
appropriate to allow. The Commission reviewed Ms. Perera's sample exhibit of the
different styles and decided vehicles numbered one and two would not be allowed with
the three criteria proposed in the draft code amendment but vehicles numbered as three
and four would be allowed.
Commissioner Cleveland stated he had a problem with the style of the vehicle numbered
one because there are similar styles of small, foreign trucks that are out there and should
not be excluded. Ms. Perera thought the Council wanted the cube van to be prohibited.
Commissioner Walton thought the nine feet and 12,000 pounds limit was what should be
used as criteria for commercial vehicles allowed. He wondered if they were going to go
by shape and aesthetics or by commercial vehicles.
Chairperson Daninger noted that based on the criteria, vehicles numbered as one, two and
six would be prohibited. He thought they needed to keep all three criteria as proposed in
the draft code amendment, otherwise they will be allowing in all sorts of commercial
vehicles to be stored at a residence.
Commissioner Walton stated as long as they allow two vehicles, he would be fine with
leaving criteria three in as proposed.
Chairperson Daninger indicated that he was fine with vehicles numbered as three and
four in the exhibit presented by Ms. Perera for vehicles to be allowed. He would
recommend that the other vehicles numbered in the exhibit not be allowed.
The Commission discussed screening of recreational vehicles. The majority of the
Commission felt there should not be any screening because it would be difficult to
require with the large recreational vehicles and there would not be a realistic way to
regulate it.
The Commission reviewed the types of vehicles they should allow to be stored in a
driveway. Commissioner Holthus indicated she did not like any of the numbered
vehicles presented in the exhibit.
Commissioner Casey thought they should prohibit vehicle numbered as five and six along
with numbers one and two. He thought vehicle number seven will become more popular
in the future. Commissioner Cleveland, Gudmundson, and Walton agreed with
Commissioner Casey. Chairperson Daninger agreed to allow vehicles numbered as three,
four and seven because he thought this was the right fit. He thought these were smaller
or the same size as the van and he did not want to go beyond that right now as a
recommendation.
Commission consensus was to include vehicles numbered as three, four and seven.
Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
Minutes — February 9, 2010
Page 9
Ms. Perera stated staff will work with the City Attorney on language for the ordinance to
accommodate those types of vehicles.
Chairperson Daninger stated it was his understanding that all three criteria would remain
in place along with the vehicles that were indicated.
Motion by Walton, seconded by Casey, to recommend approval of the City Code
amendment regarding exterior storage of commercial vehicles with the provisions given
to them by City Staff and as discussed. Motion carried on a 6 -ayes, 0 -nays, 1- absent
(Kirchoff) vote.
Mr. Bednarz stated that this item would be before the Council at the March 2, 2010 City
Council meeting.
OTHER B USINESS.
Mr. Bednarz updated the Planning Commission on related items.
ADJOURNMENT.
Motion by Gudmundson, seconded by Casey, to adjourn the meeting at 9:18 p.m.
Motion carried on a 6 -ayes, 0 -nays, 1- absent (Kirchoff) vote.
Respectfully Submitted,
Sue Osbeck, Recording Secretary
TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc.
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 Plannek
SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING: Conditional Use Permit (10 -06) to allow increased height
for proposed salt storage facility at 1833 Crosstown Blvd NW.
DATE: April 13, 2010
INTRODUCTION
The city is seeking to construct a salt storage facility to provide cost savings on winter road
maintenance. The attached letter from the Public Works Director /City Engineer summarizes the
need for this project.
DISCUSSION
Code 12 -3 -4 provides a maximum height allowance of 35 feet. The roof peak of the building
will be a maximum of 43 feet in height. The height of the structure is important to allow trucks
to empty salt inside the structure. The attachments show the proposed location and design of the
building.
City Code 12 -3 -5 B. allows a Conditional Use Permit to be issued to increase the allowable
height of a structure under the criteria as shown below.
City Code 12 -3 -5: MINIMUM DISTRICT REQUIREMENTS:
B. Maximum Height:
1. Principal Structure Height: .A Conditional Use Permit may be granted to allow principal
buildings to exceed the height limits imposed by provisions of this title provided it is determined
that:
a. Adequate fire protection and other safety features are provided.
b. The. height and bulk of the building will not destroy a scenic or appropriate view, will
not shut off light and air from surrounding properties, or otherwise be detrimental to the
public.
c. In no event, however, shall any building occupy more than the permitted percentage of
lot area as provided in this title. (Amended Ord. 314, 10 -4 -05)
Fire Protection
The building will be constructed in compliance with the International Fire and Building Codes.
s
Scenic /Appropriate View
The structure will be located near the center of the public works complex to maximize the
distance from adjacent residential neighborhoods and public streets. Screening will be provided
by trees to be planted along the north and west sides of the property. The distance and screening
will mitigate views of the taller structure.
Lot Area Coverage
The structure will be approximately 8,100 square feet in size. The combined area of the two lots
that have been combined to remove the property line from under the proposed site are
approximately 14.4 acres in size. The building will cover 1.3 percent of the lot or significantly
less than the 20% allowed by City Code 12 -3 -4.
Staff Recommendation
The height of the building is important to allow trucks to deliver and empty salt inside the
building. The criteria for allowing an increase in the height of the structure can be met. Staff
recommends approval of the Conditional Use Permit.
ACTION REQUESTED
The Planning Commission is asked to hold a public hearing and make a recommendation to the
City Council on the Conditional Use Permit request.
r
Attachments
Resolution
Location Map
Letter
Site Plan
Photograph
Cc: Dave Berkowitz
CITY OF ANDOVER
COUNTY OF ANOKA
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RES. NO.
A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST FOR AN
INCREASE OF THE ALLOWABLE HEIGHT FOR A STRUCTURE FROM 35 FEET TO 43
FEET FOR THE CITY OF ANDOVER SALT STORAGE BUILDING LOCATED ON
PROPERTY LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS
THAT PRT OF W 285 FT OF E 640 FT OF NWl /4 OF SE1 /4 OF SEC 22 TWP 32 RGE 24
LYG NLY OF S 330 FT THEREOF, SUBJ TO EASE OF REC
AND
THAT PRT OF E 355 FT OF NW1 /4 OF SE1 /4 OF SEC 22 TWP 32 RGE 24 LYG NLY OF S
330 FT THEREOF SUBJ TO EASE OF REC
WHEREAS, the City of Andover has requested a conditional use permit to increase the allowable
height to allow construction of a salt storage building; and
WHEREAS, City Code 12 -3 -5 allows a conditional use permit for increased building height
under the following conditions:
a. Adequate fire protection and other safety features are provided.
b. The height and bulk of the building will not destroy a scenic or appropriate view, will
not shut off light and air from surrounding properties, or otherwise be detrimental to the
public.
c. In no event, however, shall any building occupy more than the permitted percentage of
lot area as provided in this title. (Amended Ord. 314, 10 -4 -05)
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a Public Hearing pursuant to the requirements of City Code
12 -14 -8, and;
WHEREAS, after review the Planning Commission finds that the proposed project meets the
conditions of City Code 12 -3 -5 and recommends approval of the request, and;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Andover has
received the recommendation of the Planning Commission and approves the proposed
conditional use permit to increase the allowable height from 35 feet to 43 feet for the
construction of a salt storage building on the subject property subject to the following conditions:
1) The location of the structure shall be as shown on the site plan dated April 5, 2010.
2) Screening shall be provided between the structure and residential neighborhoods to
the north and west.
3) The Conditional Use Permit shall be subject to a sunset clause as defined in City
Code 12 -14 -6.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Andover on this -th day of , 2010
CITY OF ANDOVER
ATTEST:
Michelle Hartner, Deputy City Clerk
Michael R. Gamache, Mayor
C 1'rY OI
NDOVER
Incorporated
1974
15318
15260
1115271
Salt Storage Facility
Location Map
t 11537
rn
rn
m 7
10% 's
15302 Oa
°
CO
CO
�
N
M
cc,
14970
15211
°
N
°
CV
°
N
°
N
14970
r
h
M
I
N
N
N
N
^Z
UJ
Z
D
M
15029
15026
�Q
V
15015
14970
14995
14981
14967
fO
14970
15355
Proposed building location
Peak of roof at 43 feet in height
City
ark Complex #
M
CD CO CO I CD
rn CD CO CD CO
1900
U
1685
/ANA
W- AE
s
R__ M__0
1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. • ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 • (763) 755 -5100
FAX (763) 755 -8923 • WWW.CI.ANDOVER.MN.US
March 5, 2010
Courtney Bednarz, Andover City Planner
1685 Crosstown Blvd. NW
Andover, MN 55304
Re: Conditional Use Permit request for Public Works Salt Storage Facility
Mr. Bednarz,
Andover Public Works Division is requesting a Conditional Use Permit for the
construction of a salt storage facility that would be located within the existing Public
Works site. Please refer to the attached site layout. The height of the proposed
structure exceeds the limits that are allowed by City Code for an R -1 zoning district
(Maximum Height, Title 12- 3 -513).
The conditional use would allow the structure to be a maximum height of 40 to 43 feet at
the peak of the structure. Please refer to the attached picture. The height is needed to
load and unload end dump trucks to store and transport road salt for the snow and ice
removal process. Up to this point the City has partnered with the Anoka County Highway
Department for road salt use which the cost has become non - beneficial to the City.
If you have any questions regarding this request, please contact me at 763- 767 -5133.
Sincerely,
f✓...n .
David D. Berkowitz, P.E.
Director of Public Works /City Engineer
H: \Engineering \City Projects \Open City ProjWs\10 -12 PW Salt Storage Facilrrty\DmRing \Salt Stomge2.dwg, 4/5/201092223 AM
0
a
l
tN
M
"
i
x
L
i
l
JW
IV
I '
A C I T Y O F
ND OVE
1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. • ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 • (763) 755 -5100
FAX (763) 755 -8923 • WWW.CI.ANDOVER.MN.US
TO: Planning and Zoning Commissioners
FROM: Courtney Bednarz, City Plannet
SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING: Discuss changes to City Code 5 -4 Weapons to consider
changes to hunting regulations.
DATE: April 13, 2010
INTRODUCTION
Several issues with the current hunting regulations were identified during the 2009 hunting
season. Since that time staff has also discussed the ordinance with property owners and hunters.
Together these discussions generated the list of discussion items in this report. The Council has
asked the Planning Commission to hold a public hearing to receive additional input as well as to
discuss the issues and make recommendations.
DISCUSSION
The current ordinance and map are attached. Currently city regulations divide the city into three
hunting zones. The attached map shows the boundaries of these areas and shows the minimum
parcel size where hunting is permitted. The items that have been identified for discussion are as
follows:
1. Clarification of Hunting Zones
Currently the City Code has two identically named `Restricted Zones'. No clarification is
provided in the text of the ordinance yet the map contains different regulations for each of these
zones. Staff suggests that a distinct name be given to each zone and that the text of the City Code
reinforce the map with the same regulations.
2. Revision of Zone Boundaries
The boundaries have been adjusted several times since the first hand drawn map was introduced
in 1982. In 2000, the restricted zone was divided into two parts to provide the additional
restrictions for the southerly area that exist today.
As the city has developed, several urban developments have again encroached into the hunting
zones (see attached map). While parcel size and distance regulations prohibit hunting on smaller
parcels, the city should also- periodically update the zone boundaries. The Commission is asked
to discuss whether the boundaries should be adjusted at this time.
3. Updating of Definitions
An Andover resident provided the attached draft ordinance to be of assistance in this process.
The first suggestions (shown in red) come in the definitions section where modern forms of bows
are added to the definition of bow and muzzleloader is added to the definition of rifle.
The additions to the definition of bow add modern references that hunters will be familiar with.
There is no issue with this addition. The second suggestion is more difficult. Muzzleloaders are
not rifles. The state establishes a boundary below which rifle hunting is not permitted. Hunting
with muzzleloaders is permitted below this line. The ordinance provides several opportunities to
regulate the use of shotguns. The definitions section is not the place to prohibit this type of
hunting by adding language that conflicts with state regulations.
PARCEL SIZE. DISTANCE FROM HOMES AND OTHER LAND USES
This section covers the various ways that hunting with shotguns and bows are regulated in
relation to other features. Please note as you review them that they are interrelated.
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 shotgus in the
southerly restricted zone.
With the encroachment of residential developments the space between homes is less than it used
to be when ten, twenty and forty acre parcels dominated the established hunting areas of the city.
The question that has been raised is whether 10 acres remains sufficient in size to safely hunt
with a shotgun.
Most property owners that staff has discussed this issue with have indicated that they think this is
too small. To illustrate, maps of both restricted zones are attached with a legend that shows what
40, 20, 10 and 2.5 acre parcels look like. With the map the Commission can see how the various
parcel sizes are distributed throughout the city.
Additionally, 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.
The Commission is asked to discuss whether ten acres is sufficient in size to safely hunt deer or
geese with a shotgun.
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. While the range conditions described in the attached article are
unlikely to be achieved in the field, 500 feet may not be a safe distance for hunting with
shotguns, especially when yards may extend- closer and be used by a family for any number of
activities.
For 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 draft ordinance amendment submitted by an Andover resident suggests this 1/4 mile
regulation apply to deer hunting in all hunting areas. It also suggests a minimum of 1,000 feet
from an urban development or institutional use and 500 feet from any roadway for goose hunting
with shotguns.
Staff suggests one distance from each of the features be consistent throughout the ordinance.
6. 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. No
hunting with bows is allowed in the prohibited zone. The Commission is asked to discuss
whether a 2.5 acre minimum parcel size is sufficient for safe hunting with bows.
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. While arrows can travel significantly further than this distance, this type of hunting is
usually done from an elevated position with discharges directed toward the ground.
Additionally, few hunters would attempt to fire at a target more than 40 yards away. The
Commission is asked to discuss if 150 feet is sufficient distance from residences for safely
hunting with bows.
8. Prohibited Zone
Some of the input staff has received centers on whether some hunting should be allowed on
larger parcels in the prohibited zone. In one case a farm has issues with geese and some
management of their population is needed. In looking at the rest of the prohibited zone on the
map, there are few other areas that qualify under existing city regulations when Bunker Hills
Regional Park, Andover Station North, the closed landfill, schools, Woodland Creek Golf Course
and Kelsey Round Lake Park are removed. Staff suggests that hunting in the prohibited zone be
allowed only under the exemption allowed by approval of the Council under City Code 5 -4 F. 2.
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 an issue discussed in the attached August 15,
2000 minutes. 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.
The Commission is asked to discuss whether a permit to hunt deer should continue within the
southerly restricted zone, be expanded to include all of the areas where deer hunting is allowed
in the city or be eliminated altogether.
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 Commission is asked to discuss
whether this restriction should be maintained.
I
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 limitiations on who can hunt, the 40
acre minimum parcel size and the 1/4 mile firing distance from urban developments, parks and
institutional uses. The Commission is asked to discuss whether a property owner or relative
should be required to obtain permission from their neighbors to hunt their own land.
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.
OTHER ISSUES
The Commission is asked to seek public input and to discuss any items that are raised through
the discussion.
Attachments
Hunting Map
Urban Developments in Hunting Zones
Prohibited Discharge Map — Restricted Zone North
Prohibited Discharge Map — Deer Hunting in Restricted Zone South
Prohibited Discharge Map — Goose Hunting in Restricted Zone South
August 15, 2000 Minutes
Article Provided by Resident
Draft Ordinance Provided by Resident
Summary of Other Cities Regulations
City Code 5 -4
ACTION REQUESTED
The Planning Commission is asked to hold a public hearing and discuss the issues listed above
and any others that arise through the discussion. Additionally, the Commission is asked to
continue the public hearing to allow a draft ordinance amendment to be brought back to the
Planning Commission for additional public input before being forwarded to the Council.
A
i�
_I
-
I
♦ ,i/ ► eI � v
ms °eve leaf all
mme �elnf�ly
meat ,
t V®iBSL -tq
®� ®ism
* x � AO'
IMEW
Li L
B
®®®® sae _; I
OR I
mom MRIG
WAIR
Ea
- ii
f„
O®
.t -- ®® lenlllln - �`.
®I ® ®9 ®9111 eu n® _ L-
OWN III ® ��-�
MUM
o I'llMM muri ip L
-
°�
Ullman
pig IBM
Mao
®® - -
MI
kown ow
®tea ® SIR ®® ®®
ao
r
I,e
to _
-I
I
Regular,4ndover City Council Meeting
Minutes -August 15, 2000
Page 3
CO UNT Y SHER IFF MONTHL Y R EPOR T
Serge Dave Seevert reported the Sheriff's Department has responded to 6,856 calls year -to -date,
1,092 of in July. The number of calls in July was higher than in June. In response to questions
from the Co I, he stated the thefts generally go in streaks. It seems to move around; but when
they hit, they t t an area. He wasn't personally aware of the problems surrounding the new
Precision Tune, but will pass that on to the Department.
PUBLIC HEARING: ADOPNS`SESSMENT ROLLIIP98- IIIJAY STREET NW
Motion by Jacobson, Seconded by ORNL to open the public hearing. Motion carried on a 4 -Yes,
1- Absent (Knight) vote. 7:16 p.m.
Mayor McKelvey noted a letter was received the Kottke Bus Company objecting to the
purposed assessments. There was no public testimon
Motion by Jacobson, Seconded by Johnson, to close the publt Baring. Motion carried on a 4 -Yes,
I- Absent (Knight) vote.
Councilmember Jacobson asked if the letter of objection needs to be m 'oned in the Resolution.
Attorney Sullivan stated no, as it is noted in the Minutes and is in the pa ork: He assumed
another objection will be received once the Council adopts the resolution.
Motion by Orttel, Seconded by Jacobson, the Resolution as written with the assess is to be
payable on or before the first Monday in January, 2001. (Resolution R175 -00 adop the
assessment roll for the improvement of sanitary sewer, watermain, street and storm sewer, IP9 1,
Jay Street NW) Motion carried on a 4 -Yes, 1- Absent (Knight) vote.
MEND ORDINANCE N0.240, FIREARMBOW DISCIURGE
Mr. Carlberg reviewed the proposed amendment to Ordinance No. 240 - An Ordinance Regulating
the Discharge of Firearms and Bows. The amendment basically sets 161st Avenue NW as the
boundary prohibiting the discharge of firearms and bows south of it except in restricted areas. He
reviewed the map indicating where firearms would be permitted south of 161 st Avenue on parcels
of land ten acres or more solely to shoot geese during the early Goose Season and waterfowl during
the Waterfowl Season. Bow hunting would be permitted on parcels 2.5 acres or larger. The
Commission was concerned with the overlap of the waterfowl season interfering with deer season.
Some Commissioners felt a line should be drawn between the seasons. Those voting no were
concerned with the shotguns used for waterfowl in the same area when deer bunting season is open.
Waterfowl hunters wear camouflage; deer hunters wear blaze orange. The hunting seasons are
established by the DNR and are not mentioned in the ordinance. Councilmember Orttel noted that
Regular Andover City Council Meeting
Minutes -August 15, 2000
Page 4
(Amend Ordinance No. 240, Firearm/Bow Discharge, Continued)
issue has existed in the past. The reason for looking at the issue was not for the safety of the hunters
but for the concerns of the neighbors and the fear of safety from bullets while in their yards.
IVIr. Carlberg noted the proposed amendment was discussed with the Sheriff's Department. It was
felt the enforcement will be better with a clearly defined boundary. The DNR has to approve the
change, though they reviewed this and are in agreement with its enforceability. Councilmember
Orttel stated the zones are being set up for the honest people. There are still jagged boundary lines,
so he questioned the ease of enforcement. The only thing this does is limit deer hunting. The
problem is in isolated properties and in areas adjacent to housing areas. The proposal makes it
impossible for someone with 40 to 80 acres south of 161 st to hunt. He proposed establishing a
system where those on 40 or more acres could get a permit from the City to hunt deer with guns if
certain criteria is met. Only the landowner and/or his immediately family could hunt and permission
would be needed from half of the neighbors. The police would be given maps showing where
permits have been issued, thinking it wouldn't make it any harder to enforce. The City is rapidly
approaching an overpopulation of deer, and the proposed amendment would not make a dent in that
population.
Larissa Amtz, 2381 155th - stated the petition has the support of three to four neighborhoods that
border the farm area. The problem they are having is controlling people that are hunting. It is the
poaching and hunters chasing wounded deer onto their private properties. She understood the idea
of permits, but stated the City is growing. There is hunting where the new school is going in. A
gentleman in Woodland Estates was hit while on his roof. Someone in Woodland Estates made the
statement that looking out the bedroom window, they saw hunters coming from everywhere. She
didn't understand how there could be hunting bordering those homes.
Chris Hines 15260 Nightingale - worked on the farms for about 10 years and can see both sides.
He agrees to some extent with the shot gun and slugs because they carry quite a distance. He agrees
with the waterfowl hunting and agrees with Councilmember Orttel's suggestion for permits for large
land owners to be able to hunt. He doesn't hunt geese any more because there are too many people.
�there is a lot of agricultural damage caused by deer, so there is a need to keep them in check.
Tony Howard, 2119 156th - stated the biggest thing is safety. He called Federal Cartridge today.
The ordinance says 500 feet away from any structure. He'd like to see it changed. A three -inch slug
will only fall two feet in 200 yards. He'd like to see it outlawed. He's okay with bow and arrow
hunting to cut down the deer herd, because it is not as much of a safety issue. He was told if a slug
is shot, it can travel 1,600 feet. A lot of the property is 100 to 200 feet to the back yards, so 500 feet
in the ordinance isn't enough. He hoped the Council will not allow slug hunting, because nothing
will stop it unless it hits a tree. He'd like to see the ordinance say to the property line, not to a
structure. With the high school coming in, he'd hate to see an accident that could be prevented. He
also learned that the shot for geese will travel 980 feet, so 500 feet from a structure for geese isn't
enough either.
Regular Andover City Council Meeting
Minutes - August 15, 2000
Page 5
(Amend Ordinance No. 240, Firearm/Bow Discharge, Continued)
Lee packer. 3074 161 st Avenue - preferred that either the 80 acres on the comer of Round Lake
Boulevard and 161st be excluded or that some kind of permit be allowed. He is outside of the
MUSA through the year 2020, and there are no plans to develop near his home. If that happens, he
is open to restricting hunting on his land. Now he is surrounded by 80 acres east and peat to the
south. He hunts only on his land and does not allow anyone else to hunt there because he doesn't
feel safe with other hunters there. He'd be willing to ask anyone who signed the petition if he could
hunt. He hunts on a stand and shoots toward the ground. The shells never leave his property line.
The land has been in his family for many years. He realizes at some point he will not be able to hunt
there, but that is not the case today. He requested the boundary be changed to allow him to hunt on
his land or come up with a permitting process on 80 acres or more.
Steve McGlover. 14909 University - has 80 acres in Andover and 110 acres in Ham Lake. They
don't allow anyone else to hunt on their land. They do have a deer problem in there. More deer are
killed in Anoka County by cars than by deer hunters. Last year they could shoot 5 deer per permit
because of the overpopulation. They feel they should be able to help control the deer population.
He never saw the petition. All of the concerns seem to be coming from the Round Lake area or west
of there. He should be able to hunt on his land. He agrees with Councilmember Orttel's suggestion
to get a permit. Goose hunters fire more shots than deer hunters, at least in his area.
Don Bower. 14570 Jonquil - represented the goose hunters. They can hunt right across from where
he lives. When hunting, they get permission and try to keep their shooting to the east. The emphasis
is on safety first because they don't want anyone to get hurt. They get permission from Ken Slyzuk,
which provides an opportunity to keep the geese population down. Regarding the overlapping
season, waterfowl hunters are required to wear orange until they get to the blind, then they can take
it off. The lake is generally frozen over and the geese gone when deer hunting season starts. He
suggested a cheap $2 permit to know who is hunting out there. He hoped they will get the
opportunity to keep hunting here.
Mr. Carlberg stated there is nothing in place for the City to issue permits for hunters. Staff would
have to do some investigation. He didn't think it would be an extensive process. Then the Sheriff's
Department would have a record of those permits as well. Councilmember Jacobson was concerned
with the suggestion of allowing deer hunting by permits below 161st Avenue, thinking it will create
problems with enforcement. The ordinance amendment is for the safety of the people living in the
houses nearby. The City is growing, and he felt what was presented by the Planning Commission
is reasonable. He preferred the amendment as written,
Councilmember Orttel reiterated his proposal to allow guns for deer hunting on the larger parcels,
noting the safety concerns are both real and perceived. There are problems with both types of
hunting. Goose hunting is perceived to be less dangerous, but both are dangerous. He also predicted
there will still be people hunting whether its legal or not. They trespass. He liked the idea of permits
for deer hunting only for landowners because that creates responsibility on their part of what happens
Regular Andover City Council Meeting
Minutes - August 15, 2000
Page 6
(Amend Ordinance No. 240, Firearm/Bow Discharge, Continued)
out there. It is also a property rights issue. Plus, the proposed boundary between the hunting and no
hunting areas is not straight. Adding the large parcels should not create any more confusion. Mayor
McKelvey liked the idea of permitting the hunting of deer on the larger parcels, noting the problems
with the large deer population in the City.
Motion by Orttel, Seconded by Johnson, introducing the ordinance as prepared with the following
amendment, that the City consider permitting deer hunting with shot gun slugs in the restricted goose
hunting zones providing the following: on parcels over 40 acres in size; parcels whose borders are
at least one - fourth mile from any urban type development, that being R -2, R -3 and R -4 or any
multiple zones, and any governmental, institutional or educational buildings or churches; and that
the hunting be limited to the owner and the owner's family; and that the owners would get a permit
at least 30 days prior to the start of hunting and they would state who would be hunting and an exact
description of the property and would be accompanied by signed permission from over 50 percent
of the property owners adjacent to the subject property. DISCUSSION: Mr. Carlberg stated they will
do some research on fees and permits and come back to the Council. Mr. Fursman didn't think there
would be that many permits. Councilmember Orttel thought maybe the permit should be for the land
itself so it is more enforceable. Councihnember Johnson suggested the possibility of issuing permits
for goose hunting on 10 acres of more as well. Mr. Carlberg stated the season starts September 2,
so that would have to be considered for next year.
Motion carried on a 3 -Yes, I -No (Jacobson, thinking the permit makes it over complicated,
preferring the original proposal instead as it is more easily understandable), I- Absent (Knight) vote.
APPROVE VARIANCE ([TAR 00- 16)IFRONTAGE ON ROAD/LOT WIDTHISECTION
121WOJCIECHOWSIU
Mr. Carlberg reviewed the request of Peter and Marian Wajciechowski to vary from the lot frontage
requirement for a buildable lot and from the lot width at the front setback on property located in the
NE 114 of the NW 114 of Section 12. The Planning Commission discussed ways to avoid the
variance but determined the applicant is not able to acquire adjacent land, that the applicant did not
become aware that the lot was not legally buildable until about six months ago, that the Iand has been
valued as a landlocked parcel created in 1980 and has been taxed at a reduced rate, that future
development of adjacent land may create access but that there are no development plans in the
foreseeable future; that a stub to this parcel was not provided when the property to the southwest was
developed in the early 1999s; that prohibiting development of a 40 -acre buildable parcel appears to
be a severe restriction and that a similar variance was granted in 1997 for a lot along the Rum River.
The Commission recommended the driveway standards be required, including a Class V surface and
minimum 16 -foot clear zone with adequate drainage ditches to provide adequate ingress and egress
for emergency vehicles. There was a question that a portion of the present access easement may be
subject to wetland regulations, but the applicant has indicated the easement could be reconfigured
to avoid the wetland. The Planning Commission generally agreed with the variances but left it open
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
ow 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 Bodinson
The shotgun slug is less safe and more dangerous in the field than a 150 grain .30 -06
bullet or a 507caliber 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.
hq://findaideles.com/p/ardeles/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 .3o -o6 with a
muzzle velocity of 2,910 fps, a 385 - grain, 12- gauge, 50- caliber sabot load with a
hollowpoint, semi - spitzer projectile at 1,9oo 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 1,4o8', 840', and 686' respectfully plus ricochet distances of 3,427',
4,365, and 3,812' respectfully. Now the total distances traveled by the projectiles are
4,835 for the rifle, 5,205' for the shotgun and 4,498' 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-1 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 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
_ tf _,
http: / /findarticles.com/p /articles /mi mOBQY /is ll_53 /ai n20512665/ 12/15/2009
• Tony Howard's proposed changes (in Red)
CHAPTER4
WEAPONS
SECTION:
5 -4 -1: Discharge Of Weapons
5 -4 -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 Muzzlefoader. A. shoulder weapon with a long bored barrel er- barrels and
discharges irg a single shot or pellet at a time.
SHOTGUN: A shoulder weapon wilh a smooth bored barrel or barrels and nommily
diisccfh+ Tyesjk& mom #ban 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 Witlh Provdisions: 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 residence.
2. No person shall discharge a pelteied firearm within five hundred feet (500') of any
roadway.
3. No person shall discharge a pelleted firearm within one thousand feet (1000') of any
institutional use property line.
4. No Pamm, slhialil dl"i r a pelWhad firearmm within one thousand feet (1000') of any
urban development's property line.
5. No person shall discharge a pelleted firearnn within five hundred (500') of any rural
developments property line.
6. No person shall discharge a firearm or bow on public property owned or operated by
the city, county, state or sc.lhool district.
7. The discharge of a weapon Fifle OF handgUrt utilizing a solid projectile shall not be
allowed within the city excerpt 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 siufficient 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 firearms:
1. Permit Required: An indlividual aarmal eF seasonal permit is required by the city for
the discharge of firearms fbr the purpose of hunting deer with a shotgun (slug only)4n A
map of designated permitted areas of the city a -131 --- AFR on the map attaGhe
OrdinaMe 249 which erdiinance is on file in the office of the City Clerk for public use and
inspection. Said map and tthe langua"ntained and stated on the rnap-shall-beGGFne
F. Restrictions:
a) Hunting deer shall only occur on parcells greater than forty (40) acres in size.
b) Hunting shall only be allowed for landowners or immediate family members.
c) Hunting shall occur no closer than (114;;) mile from any urban or rural
development, park or institutional use.
d) Consent of Property Owners; A reques4t for such permit shall be accompanied by
written permission from fifty percent (50%) or more of the adjacent landowners.
Land owner written permission must include parcel designation.
e) Time Limit on Acquiinng 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 concerning the hunting of deer via firearm. (Amended Ord. 240, 10 -6-
1998, eff. 1- ,I- 1999';; amd. 2003 Code)
F. Exemptions from Prowlsions:
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 reedived the support from the Minnesota Department of Natural
Resources.
G. Violation; Penalty: Any/ person who violates any provision
guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction thereof, shall b e
state law. (Amended Ord. 240, 10 -6 -1998, eff. 1 -1 -1999)
of this section shall be
punished according to
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 of firearms. 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.
M 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.
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 huntiniz 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;
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
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.
1.110
Nor h lCit, y Limits
... ...... .. ....
........ ........ ....
......... . .....
hp
...... ... . .....
Hj
.. ........ . ..... . ..... .. .........
------- ---- ------- . .......
ij
FA...... . ...... - . ... ..... ......... .. - - — - --------
.. .......... ......
. ..... . ........... .. . . ........ . . ............
......... ... .
...... . .. . . ......... ........ ...
........ ... .......... ... . . ..
PA
i,u 6z ..... . ...... ........ . ®. rzrtnv
P 1:ii I
125th A)ienu6 I main Street
,ter
T
.... . ......
... ...... .
.. ......... .
............. ..Ni roue
R
1,0
0
. ........ .
x
.. ............... . . ...
VV
................ . .. .....
........... . . ..
....... . .... ..... . .... ......
.......... .. . ......... ... ....
Y", I.—
�Q
j.
....... ......
. . ....... LOCILNESS
z,� PARK
V11,
... . ........... . Jf
..... ..... . . ........ ....... . . . ........ ....... . .
. .. . .... .. moo
Q.i ... ... . . .....
N
J
2009 BOW AND ARROW DEER HUNTING BOUNDARIES
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
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 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:
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)
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)