HomeMy WebLinkAboutWK January 23, 2007
!--
o
1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N,W. . ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 . (763) 755-5100
FAX (763) 755-8923 . WWW.CI.ANDOVER.MN.US
City Council Workshop
Tuesday, January 23, 2007
Conference Rooms A & B
1. Call to Order - 6:00 p.m.
2. Butternut Street NW, 173rd Avenue NW & Flintwood Street NW Paving Discussionl06-33 -
Engineering
3. Crooked Lake Lot Split Discussion - Planning
0 4. (a.) Subdivision Code Update - Planning
(b.) Buildability Requirements - Planning
5. Farm Winery Discussion - Planning
6. Diseased Tree Enforcement Policy - Engineering
7. Comprehensive Plan Update - Planning
8. Other Business
9. Adjournment
o
o
@
1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD NoW. . ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 . (763) 755-5100
FAX (763) 755-8923. WWW.CI.ANDOVER.MN.US
TO:
CC:
FROM:
SUBJECT: Butternut Street NW, 173rd Avenue NW & Flintwood Street NW Paving
Discussionl06-33 - Engineering
DATE: January 23,2007
INTRODUCTION
The City Council is requested to discuss Butternut Street NW, 173rd Avenue NW and Flintwood
Street NW (refer to attached map) which are currently gravel roads that are located north of
Crosstown Boulevard NW inthe northeast quadrant of the City.
o
DISCUSSION
In 2001 the residents of this area petitioned the City to pave the roads listed above. A feasibility
report was presented to the City Council and a public hearing was held for the proposed project. Due
to residents concerns regarding the current speed limit, lack of State Aid funding and the City not
allowing speed bumps the project was terminated after the public hearing. The cost to the residents
at that time was estimated to be $5,430 per unit.
In the summer of 2006 another petition was received by the City from this area. The language in the
petition was vague, stating that the neighborhood would like to meet to discuss the potential cost to
pave the roads. Staff set up a neighborhood informational meeting to discuss the estimated cost
before an official petition was presented to the Council. Because of the vague nature of the petition,
staff felt that it would be important to meet with the neighborhood before time and effort was spent
putting together a feasibility report. At the neighborhood meeting that was held on August 15, 2006
staff presented an estimated cost of $10,377 per unit. As you can see the cost has almost doubled in
5 years. Staff requested that the petition be circulated again explaining the estimated costs to see if
there remains interest. We had not heard from anyone in the neighborhood until December of 2006.
o
In December of 2006 a resident (David Pearson, 152 173rd Avenue NW) contacted me about paving
the road. Mr. Pearson feels that the City should pay for a good portion of the road due to the State
Aid designation. Re also feels the speed limit should be lowered in this area. I explained to him that
at this time the City does not consider this a significant route to use State Aid dollars to fund the
construction and that the statutory speed limit in this rural area is 55 MPR. I encouraged him to
contact his State Representative to support the City's initiative to change the speed limit in City rural
residential areas to 30 MPR.
The neighborhood has since submitted a petition requesting that a speed study be conducted. I spoke
with MnDOT regarding the situation and the comment back was that under the described conditions
the speed limit would most likely be lowered to 40-45 MPR. This still does not lower the limit to
o
Mayor and Council Members
January 23, 2007
Page 2 of2
the desired speed limit of 30 MPH. If and when the roadway is paved a speed study will need to be
conducted again to officially enforce the posted limit. I would anticipate that the speed limit would
be increased at that time if the speed limit statute is not changed. The speed study petition will be
presented to the City Council at the February 6th City Council meeting.
ACTION REOUIRED
The City Council is requested to discuss the current situation related to the roads described.
Respectfully submitted,
David D. Berkowitz
Q~()t
o Attachment: Location Map ,/
o
....0.
alro
~:2
'0....
<=,C
<(0)
-en
00
~'>
66
,
~
w
o
z
w
(.!) 0: ~
UJ~~~
....J~a:a:
o.3~if
~.IllD
i
1
~
-
1
...
~
~
CD
" co
$ 0
co 0
'" ~
r; ~ W
.c 0 '"
o ~ ~
.s ~ ()
~ - 0
iJj ~ ..
~ ~ ~
(/)00
g- g- -m
::;;::;; 0
a::
o
(/)
(/)(/)
_W
(')(/)
a::(/)
w<1;
>~
OZ
O::J
~o
..0
~~
,,0
oZ
(/)<1;
"
.
E
-.
~
"
a.
CIl
::;:
2l
c:
e!
~
Q)
[l:
3A't A1IS~3AINn
z
NTW
t
""'
g
'"
c;
.
~
w
.e
~
.,
~
o
o
N
"
-<'
!
o
-
o
@
1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N,W, . ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 . (763) 755-5100
FAX (763) 755-8923 . WWW,CI.ANDOVER,MN.US
TO: Mayor and Councilmembers
CC: Jim Dickinson, City Administrato
Will Neumeister, Community Deve
FROM: Chris Vrchota, Associate Planner~
SUBJECT: Crooked Lake Lot Split Discussion - Planning
DATE: January 23, 2007
INTRODUCTION
Dennis Steinlicht has applied to split his property along Crooked Lake Boulevard into
two urban residential lots. The existing house, built in 1946, would be removed and two
new houses built on the lots.
On October 1 ih, the Council expressed interest in discussing two options that needed
further research. The review period has been extended to February 19, 2007 to allow the
Council the opportunity to discuss options available. The two options that needed
research were:
1) Review with the City Attorney if there was a hardship that could be used as a
finding to grant the variance.
2) Determine if there is an ordinance that could be modified to enable this lot to be '
approved without a variance.
The staff and City Attorney could not identify a potential hardship. On November 21 st,
the Council directed staff to research whether other cities have codes that allow lot splits
to be done using old development standards in older, built out areas.
DISCUSSION
Staff researched codes from seven near-by communities (Anoka, Blaine, Brooklyn
Center, Brooklyn Park, Coon Rapids, Ramsey, and Robinsdale). None of these cities had
a stipulation in their code that allows for lots to be split under old development standards.
One of the basic principles of zoning is that all properties that have the same zoning
classification are treated equally. As such, using one set of standards for some R-4 lots
while holding other R-4 lots to a higher standard would be of questionable legality.
There are two options that the Council can explore for dealing with this situation and
similar situations. The first option would be to create a new zoning district (R-4A, for
example). This new district could be applied to certain areas of the City to which the
Q
Council feels it would be appropriate to apply different development standards. If the
Council chooses this option, they would need to identify specific areas of the City to
which the new zoning classification would be applied. They could not be applied to
individual lots or small groupings of lots, as this would be considered spot zoning. The
areas would need to have some sort of common element tying them together such as age
of the lots and/or housing units or roads or other physical boundaries. For example, the
area between Crooked Lake and Coon Creek from Bunker Lake Boulevard to 133rd
Avenue could be rezoned to R-4A because of the older nature of this area. The Council
could look at other areas of the City that share similar characteristics to also be rezoned.
The second option would be to further reduce the standards for lot splits. Currently, lot
splits are allowed if two of the three dimensional standards (width, depth, and area) are
met and 90% ofthe third is met. The Council could consider changing it so that only one
of the standards would have to be fully met and allowing 90% for the other two. While
this new standard would have to be applied equally within a zoning district, its use could
be limited to certain zoning districts, such as R -4 but not R -1. This option could provide
Mr. Steinlicht this lot split he is looking for without a variance.
o
ACTION REQUESTED
The Council is asked to discuss the options presented in this report and provide staff
feedback on whether they want to pursue any of them. They are also asked to give
guidance on how they want to address the outstanding lot split application for Mr.
Steinlicht. The lot split needs to come back on February 6th, 2007 for consideration or
Mr. Steinlicht needs to grant another time extension.
Attachments
Letter from Mr. Steinlicht
Map of Potential R-4A Area
~d"ubmitted,
Chiis Vrchota
Cc: Dennis Steinlicht, 2766 133rd Lane NW, Andover, MN 55304
o
-l.. ....
Q
o
o
Dennis Steinlicht
2766 133rd Lane NW.
Andover MN 55304
November 21, 2006
To whomever it may concern,
This letter is to inform you that I am willing to extend whatever time is necessary for
approval of my lot split application regarding my property located at 13423 Crooked Lake
Blvd. However I request notification if the process will take more then 90 days. (z.\'1.07)
Thank you all for your time and efforts. If! can be of any assistance please feel free to call
612-850-4642.
Sincerely,
~~~~
~
/ .
/.
/-
Dennis Steinlicht
-
-3-
~o..
Qlro
E>::2
"0_
C.s:;:
<C.g>
'+-CI)
Ou
~:~
00
<S
i:i
z
w ~
CD a: Ld
w ~ ~ U
-1<((c~
a.. 3: if a.:
~ IIHTIlD
w '"
~ g
N N
<D r-- ffi
II 0 CO
-g ~ 0
.~ r-- t;
o
0::
o
'"
",'"
_UJ
<9'"
0::'"
UJ<>:
>>-
0>-
",z
z=>
<>:0
u
i:j~
eo
"z
~<>:
""
~
'"
a
.
o
u
w
~
~
~
o
o
N
i
go
<.>
-4 ~
o
@
16B5CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. . ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 . (763) 755-5100
FAX (763) 755-B923 . WWW.CI.ANDOVER.MN.US
CC:
Mayo, and Councilmemb"" ~---
Jim Dickinson, City Administrator . J
Will Neumeister, Community Development DirectorC~
Andy Cross, Associate Planner,;lPC.
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Consider Lot Split/13423 Crooked Lake Boulevard (Cont.) - Planning
/"
DATE:
November 21,2006
INTRODUCTION
On October 17th, the Council expressed interest in discussing two options that needed further research.
The review period has been extended by 60 days to allow the Council the opportunity to discuss
options available and will expire on January 1,2007. The two options that needed research were:
I) Review with the City Attorney if there was a hardship that could be used as a finding to grant
the variance.
2) Determine if there is an ordinance that could be modified to enable this lot to be approved
without a variance.
o
The staff and City Attorney could not identify a potential hardship. The second option does not appear
to be a good one without further research and discussion at a future council workshop. The creation of
a special ordinance section dealing with this needs to be very carefully written so as not to allow the
smaller lot sizes on lots throughout the City.
Dennis Steinlicht has applied to split his property along Crooked Lake Boulevard into two urban
residential lots. The existing house, built in 1946, would be removed and two new houses built on the
lots.
DISCUSSION
As proposed, this lot split will require two separate variances to the City Code. The attached survey
illustrates the proposed lot split. Lot details are shown in the table below:
R-4 Parcel A (corner lot) Parcel B
Requirements
Lot Width 80 feet /100 feet 84.92 feet 80 feet
(corner lot)
Lot Depth 13 0 feet 134.90 feet 134.87 feet
Lot Area 11,400 sq. ft. 11,392 sq. ft. 10,800 sq. ft.
o
Lot Dimensions
The variances will be required for Parcel A, which has two deficiencies. It is located on the corner of
134th Avenue and Crooked Lake Boulevard, so it requires a width of 100 feet. The applicant is
proposing a width of 84.92 feet, so a 15.08-foot variance would be required. Parcel ^. is 11,392 square
-s--
o
feet, eight square feet short of the minimum lot size requirement of 11,400 square feet, so an eight-foot
variance would be required for that. A letter from the applicant is attached supplying his proposed
[mdings for the variances.
Parcel B complies with the City Code and would not require any variances. Chapter 12-3-5-A states if
two lot minimum requirements are met, then the third must have at least 90% of the requirement to
comply. Parcel A's width and depth meet Code and its lot area exceeds 90% of 11,400 square feet.
Easements
Ten-foot drainage and utility easements already exist around the perimeter of the existing property.
Separate easement documents will be necessary to establish the standard five-foot drainage and utility
easements along both sides of the new property line.,
Utilities
The existing house is connected to the City sewer and water system. The existing sewer connection
can serve Parcel B, but a new sewer connection will be required to serve Parcel A. All costs associated
with the new sewer connection will be charged to the property owner.
Both properties will be required to connect to City water at the applicant's expense. A water stub was
built in 1995 on Crooked Lake Boulevard to serve this property. It can serve Parcel A, but Parcel B
will require a new water connection.
o
Trail Fee
A Trail fee in the amount of$590 will be required for the new property.
Park Dedication
A Park Dedication fee will be required for the new property in the amount of $2,425.
Access
The access for both proposed lots would be off 134th Avenue NW. The existing driveway to Crooked
Lake Boulevard would be eliminated.
Planning Commission Recommendation
The Planning Commission voted 4-3 not to recommend approval of this lot split. Several of the
planning commissioners felt the hardships presented by the applicant were not sufficient to warrant a
variance from the Code, especially given that one lot only complied with 90% of the required lot size.
o
ACTION REOUIRED
The City Council is asked to approve or deny this lot split based on the variance requests. Resolutions
for either decision have been included with this report. In the event the Council wants to grant
approval, space has been included on that resolution to list the hardship.
Attachments
Resolution of Approval
Resolution of Denial
Location Map
Certificate of Survey
Letter from Applicant
Council Minutes - 10/17/06
Planning Commission Minutes - 10/1 0/06
55304
Respectfully submitted,
~
Andy Cross .
Associate Planner
Cc: Dennis Steinlicht, 2766 133rd Lane NW, Andover, MN
-t-
e. o ....:.. .1. n -..;> I
....
0.
Cf)
0 r-
J
(/) I
u ()
c -
.J
:J Z
0
-
OJ W
~ ~ r-
~s.
\ (/)
(/)
Q) (/)
... -
Q) Z
~ Z
u W
Q) 0
(/)
0
Cl.
0
l-
II
o
0 ~~~~ ~~g ~
~
0; 0; ;; '" '"
0 '.r..~ r-~ " '"
. . .! e: '"
:::::::_:: -S.., ~ ~~~
"'~~ .< ~.5:g B t;!!;? ~
O.EOl g.!2 CO> ,;, g~..: ~ lBlB ~
0"-_ a: "- c os:;: "
ffi 'O.~ S .< 0 S == ~ ...r- !
lJ)v~ "'", . u..
.- <i I- ~ _ '" a; ~ffi~ '" 0=
,.."0 . oJ ,go.
~8'; ..J ",~o .,; ~,..- , ~
"E! <(0--"': ..J f 0.
'" L.IJ ~ 0 0 5 '" . '" !'l
u o~~
",.m 0 . m . U Q.\E5.E 0 ;: .. :I:
~ . " '" ~ . ~ ~ a: " . . Ii
N C'- E < N a> ~~ E < .0 "- E <; ..
" c 0 0.. 0.. :5ffi-g .. . -' E !
~~-Q) -D:S~:
u-~ lv '0 ::i '0 (; ;itg] ~
$2~= ffi.85! ::i _,.."0 !!
Z 2 0 2 0 o en 6 2 o ~ " I&l ,N
0 ...: CJ>;-; c ;:: ...: 0'>50 c ;:: ~<" ~.e~'g :I
0.. ,,"''' e: 0 '"
;:: " ~oo " 0.. o ~ " .E "CI .E. ~
0.. ~OQ) E a: c: a: -NmE E ~~~i ~:
--00- U ..... "'0 () . s 1
a: o~ 0 o~ '" u g-ij:5 g "
-IOOlO m '" ...J 0 of'-. '" '" '"
U ,,~O> 0 '" "",- 0 '" 0 UJ'-UJC ~ 0
'" ogg-m " '" (; go.... 0 '" o.E 0 ~ " . . . . 000>
w c '" tDCC-.s .!~~ :: 12' ~ J
Cl .e '" .e .e 000 0
..... .<( 1:) '" _ .<t: 0 '" ..,,::> 0 0 0 .
C> ~w 0 '" ~UJ " W m- e: . . . 15!l. (~, )!
Ow -: Ou..: "0 '" ceo 0
Z Q..<( 0 Q) "0 0 0...<: 0 a> 0 ~o~~ "0
;:: c~~:5 " 0.. clf~= .!1.. 0.. " <P- I I
Vl :0- 0 .c 0 ll>...J g 5 :0-
x .r:W.c- " a: ..c::W..c::- ~ It: ~_" 0 ~ .
W ,.....1-_0 '" 0.. 1-1-_0 '" 0.. oou Vl I
~
I
I
I~
'"
0>
-l
09
w
'"
<:
'"
'"
I!!
~ <5
0
'"
..
...
~ In ,..N
<:
... ",,,,!
N <..-
"'~
"
0
~ i5
.:
;;
In -'
... '0
.
0
::;
~
0
:z:
I
I
\ ,
'-
09
0
I
.
,
!l
I I
, I
, I
I I
, I
, I
, I
I '
I '
, I
I
,
,
I
I
I
'J:I\fmaL >lOOHB lSV3 1; ~o18 "1 l01 JO aun lBD3 --I
Lr
I
~I
-----" 0'
1\ !
1\ I
1\/
I V
16
I:;;
I
10
IE
:
I~
I~
'5
I
,
,
"
"
\11
,I \
1/ I
r ~
I
1
I 01
---------y
dwo~ arm Jac:l) __-,"- I
:3 ^l!lI1n puo r.qDM --:::.-......... I ~
~nos~
3.L+.~O'DQS-"SbaW
E:
:;~
.:i'"
;;:
o
o
.,;
..
..
'"
,-
....-., 10 I
.S'.~ a:UJiI..:J-j
I
,
o
o
o
"
I
,
I
,
I
I
I
,
I
t
g
..
<>
--r /
.un ~&9M -j,., If
~/
fmNAamlOIl :iCll"I mOOR:)) - I
~Lz /
N
o
.;
..
<C?
...
-'..
W'"
UN
a::ili
<l:::
CL-
~
,., "3:>Y~B!.
~
--1-
w
"
<:
'"
'"
~
"0
E
>-"
.c~
.,
"0"5>
,,"
5'" '"
...>- . c
,,_ 0 0
~,,- :g
"-"0 0
'" "
mo'" '" 0
o ~ 0 " ..J
ll:E.E N C '"
't:c:a '" c
0-- ~
,,--0 ....
~~~ "3
lD
...- c. "0
o-eVl N
.... ~
~6Q) 0 0
E J:: ~ >-
"-c- ~
>.'* '0 0
"0
C
~~ III ~
~" ;: 0
i g-.E lD
"0
.!1:IIICD "
.c_ ..::: "0
-r.>- "0
-~... <
0- "
J::"O "0
- >-~
~E~
~~g,
~~ ~
c ~
>-" "
i...Ul
;o-e
J::"e:
_E.3
o
o
'"
..
;:: ...
. In
N <:
!"....1&l
&? m 8eJ
Q). lIJ..::.::
~ :1:.1.2
_~~m
.Q.,":
..
o ;;
.. -'
::E '0
.
..
-'
:5
,
o
'"
,
,
,
I
,
0
0>
,..
'"
UJ
"-
0 0
'" '"
II.
:I:
u
;;;
0
'"
W
..J
<
r.:>
'"
0
,..
'"
'"
"-
;;;
'"
..J
<
U
'"
bnLt.~tt-90'\OOl.\&.p\ ~t:~-9DDZ\"-o-~1UIDlS\ ~
~'P;Z;
LBS;Z:
L09Z;
,
~~gz.1
o
o
'"
0
0
N
U;
=>
C>
=>
<(
~ '" '" CI)~
0
5 iil 0 0 C3Si
i:i 0 N
~ U N -"'
Z '" $ i 6 <S a; it; ~ OJ'"
><(
W ~ be. ~5 J!! ~ to 08.:::-
ffi ffi ~ 0 '" ~ :.; 0:0:
" ~ .... ":I,, .... ~ ~ <>:=>
..J > ~ II< II .... Ui8
D- 5 ~ ~ " to to
~D~D .. 1i Q C ~ ..
Q. .!!! --"
.E to =>0
to 00:
~':'; Q. U)<(
/
-.-..('
~ os;Sz r 61>9Z i
I ; /
---------"
,
--1
l;Jllli: ~s Z;' \ -:;"--i ,-," /i....:
~! ~: "'. S; \ ps;s;z: ~ 1--.2'....../ i "'; *i
-, ~ , LO;!J! <:::;;/ ~ ~I ~i -;
f~-~*-~:'~c_- ...
: ;~VJ>::" """ "~\
,.~i~ / '" 1>. '. ~~
i ~; ~ J \ ,,;p;' ,,~
"'{Pi.... ""......" \,<'....\. ~"....
~36B'\ co It) ~,f'I)' ,.,.<:', A~" , ~ ".
II " -..: ~ ~! ~, ~" // #.. ' ~"" ~}". ....
~ ' ""1 -I -; ~'" ,'. '{Q 4;l' "'~. .
: "'---!..____~; /. ;..~, ~e!"- J!''-,.
..-. -.t:... E,.
V69"~/~{~i ..... ~~. i\.~~" 09~< "
~ j ll)' ~j to ~..
C'I') ~ i ~~ ~: rr.>,\ ~
i ~ ~ i ; :' i .1 -'"
Brr:f-E~l~-ETST
'"
o
'"
~
~ '.
~~\
~\
.j - ..
_....,.....,......i'
o
'"
'10
N
~."
~
~
iiji
N
0>
'"
'"
O.
OOi
('/'1!
\"");
-'
'"
N
~
...,
~l
rf7;
~ 1 ~l ~ j 1
\.L , rffi8i4M6BBV-
~~';~r~: : r.-.._~.i~ i ;J
. _2 ,...... .
S;U~ ow i-_:J:i: 1:r.Lic ~ $:!
:c i'~ ;;~ ~ .' ::.J
td: \ 1:W;--{"') VW ," 'M' ~'
'm~ ....a1 ~ ~. ~;,
!f.t't'r;~\ ~ i .
! ~ ~ I ; l
. .:.1
ITIl ~~)100g~J '; ~- ~ ~ '.c. ~l ~' : \
C.~5i>1:gtlll N ~ ~- ~ ~! ~ i-i
~ T~: ill s>~ Bfgz ~: '.' 6"~~'. \ .~~~~_~1:g' \
r#73~lLv~ ;,~:r~ L'6~~ ~~ ~_ 8', i
~,il? .~~~~~ l~Ii:~-~mr..i
'...l.;......, .."'......-.....,.... ._\...L
.~.---:.:L-S ~OliO'g1~~
~ ~ tbtlJS ~ ~1 ~\~1
~ a j ~,a ~ . ~\ --! ~ J'
o
w
r---' -- i--r--r-...
So.
3>o!}
,
1a61B'....
S"L<
N
...,
~
N
~I
tf};
--i
Ni
~l
"'.
.....;
",'
t"1;
~~
....\
~
~
~~r:Ji ~
~ ~; l~~
",.
~~
..f 6S9" i
'"
'"
~
'"
'r.LLc.
.99"1
. _ ----.J \36()'
--- -'- -_....-
........--...
;.~~~- --T'
9v9.1
~
N
'"
'"
m1:
9S9Z
'"
'"
'"
N
:_--1
'"
'"
'"
~
'"
N
'"
'"
~~
~ !, ESStt:~
'"
~
i v;o;m1.~-viOla"rl.Srr---:
. trI "
o
'"
'"
0;
,,;
"
o
o
N
~
i
"
o
o
o
2766 133rd Lane NW
Andover, MN 55304
September 7, 2006
To Whom It May Concern:
Attached please find an application for a lot split of my property at 13423 Crooked Lake Blvd.,
Andover, MN. As a current resident/property owner in Andover, born and raised in the area, I
have strong ties to the community. I have submitted this proposal only after much research and a
desire to combine my personal goals with the betterment of the community as well.
Proposal Overview
I would like to tear down an existing older home that currently rests on an oversized lot on the
comer of 134th Lane NW and Crooked Lake Blvd., with driveway access on Crooked Lake
Blvd., and replace it with two single family homes which would have lots sized more similar to
the neighborhood and driveway access on 134th Lane NW.
Following, I shall highlight a few of the areas that I hope you will consider as you review my
request.
1. Building Safety
My proposal would result in the removal of an older structure built with dated materials
and less stringent code requirements than its replacement, which would provide a higher
level of safety and better protection fromfire and the elements for its occupants and
neighbors as well.
2. Traffic Safety
The current property houses a single family rental property with ingress and egress
directly to Crooked Lake Blvd., a busy arterial road. This would be replaced by driveway
access to the quieter, residential134th Lane NW, thereby improving the environment for
vehicular and pedestrian traffic.
3. Aesthetics
The immediate' area consists of mixed housing stock with some spotty retaillbusiness
locations grandfathered in. It is in transition to a full residential area. The current
building's site lines, layout and design reflect the older zoning and architectural era and
would be replaced by structures more reflective of the areas current direction and the
city's long term goals.
4. Property Values
Since the proposal would result in the removal of an older rental-type housing structure
suffering some structural obsolescence, and replacement by modern single family,
aesthetically appealing structures that would likely be owner occupied, this should help to
increase neighborhood property values.
-J-
-'
o
o
o
5. Tax Base
The proposal would replace one older, smaller home with two larger homes consistent
with the city's long term comprehensive plan as well as the issues mentioned in
Paragraph 4 above. This proposal would well over double the .city' s current tax base for
the subject property.
I would like to thank all of those involved for their time and efforts and invite you to call me at
612-850-4642 with any questions or suggestionS.
.~
Smcerely, .' .' <:.-L~
Dennis Steinlicht .
-16 -
o
1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. . ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304
MAIN (763) 755-5100 FAX (763) 755-8923 . WWW.CLANDOVER.MN.US
CC: Jim Dickinson, City Administrator
Will Neumeister, Community Devel
TO: Mayor and Councilmembers
FROM: Andy Cross, Associate Planner Ai7L
SUBJECT: Subdivision Code Update - Planning
DATE: January 23,2007
o
INTRODUCTION
This report summarizes what staff has identified as the biggest issues related to a Subdivision
Ordinance update. Much of the current text of the Code still dates from the 1972 draft of the
City Code. The Subdivision Ordinance in staffs view is in need of updating to reflect current
policies, definitions, and requirements. Before a great deal oftime is spent preparing changes,
staff wanted the City Council to see where the biggest changes may be proposed.
DISCUSSION
Potential changes include the following:
1) Park Dedication
a. The methodology for figuring the cash payment or land contribution should be
reworked. If a cash dedication is required, then the justification for the per-lot fee
must be based on a Park Study instead of 10% of the market value of the land. If
land is to be dedicated, then credit for land needs to be based on value of land at
the time of final plat (Le.lot price minus improvement costs).
o
2) Required Improvements
a. Utilities: The subdivision ordinance should require developers to construct
utilities to the edge of property, or at least into an easement that reaches the end of
the property of the project. Current Code does not require this, so some buildable
tracts are held hostage until others finish developing.
b. Streets: The Code needs justification and a process for collection of funds for on-
and off-site intersection and roadway improvements.
c. Sidewalks and Trails: Language establishing a trail fee is needed for both
regional and local trails. The Code also needs language linking statutory authority
to require sidewalks to the trails map.
d. Lot Splits: The Code needs to provide differentiation between the requirements
for lot splits and subdivisions.
c
3) Time Between Meeting Dates
a. Title 11-2-2-B-6: This section creates processing and legal issues and needs to be
rewritten. Staff currently uses a "Meetings and Applications Deadlines" handout
that tells applicants when their items will move forward.
4) Major & Minor Collector Streets: Definitions based on traffic counts should be crafted
to differentiate the two. As discussed on a number of occasions, minor collectors
potentially would be permitted to have driveway access.
5) Application Requirements: The current subdivision regulations contain pages of
information regarding application requirements. The City Attorney indicated these can be
taken out of the Code and included with the applications and adopted annually similar to
the fee ordinance.
6) Buildability Requirements: This is covered in the attached report.
7) Sodding of County Rights-of-Way: The Subdivision Ordinance regulates the design
and installation of boulevard sod. Staff will be presenting information on double-
frontage lots and will ask the Council if they would like to see these lots sodded to the
rear property line.
o Throughout staffs review of the subdivision ordinance, we have also identified many small
changes that should be made. This includes small word changes in the definitions, updating
references to State Statute, and replacing other outdated or obsolete language.
o
ACTION REQUIRED
The Council is requested to hear a brief presentation on the changes that staff has identified.
Please discuss whether there is agreement on changes in the highlighted sections.
o
1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. . ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 . (763) 755-5100
FAX (763) 755-8923 . WWW.CI.ANDOVER.MN.US
CC:
Mayor and Councilmembers ~.
Jim Dickinson, City Administrat~
Will Neumeister, Community Development Director wd--
Chris Vrchota, Associate Planner P
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
DATE:
Buildability Requirements - Planning
January 23, 2007
INTRODUCTION
The City Council has discussed the issue of buildabilitya number of times over the past
year. Some amendments to the City Code are being proposed as a result of these
discussions.
o
DISCUSSION
There are three issues that need to be discussed:
Issue #1: The City Code requires 100 feet of buildable area. The City also requires soil
correction for the first 100 feet. After factoring in the front yard setback and building a
large home on the lot, most, if not all of this buildable area is used, leaving no room for a
deck or future addition to the house. The drawing labeled "Exhibit A" and the attached
photograph provide an illustration of this problem. To address this problem, an
additional 16.5 feet of buildable space is being proposed.
Issue #2: A 16.5-foot buffer is required abutting all wetlands and storm water ponds. The
buffer must be outside the buildable area of the lot. However, the City Code does not
clearly specify where the buffer area should start in relation to ponds and wetlands. Code
changes are being proposed to clarify these requirements. See the attached "Exhibit B"
for an illustration of these requirements.
Issue #3: Homeowners may not be aware of how much or little of their back yard is
buildable. This becomes an issue when decks are constructed after the home is built. A
City Code change is being proposed to require the surveyor to include a "ghost drawing"
of the deck on the survey showing where it could actually be built. The survey would be
submitted with the original building permit application for the house.
o
The following code amendments are being proposed in order to address the Issues
mentioned above.
Issue #1
The first proposed change is to City Code 11-3-6, which lays out the design standards for
lots served by municipal sanitary sewer. This section would be changed as follows:
-
City Code 11-3-6-B
1. Lots Served By Municipal Sanitary Sewer: Lots served by municipal sanitary
sewer shall remove all organic material and replace with granular material with no
more than five percent (5%) organic material by volume for the front one hundred
sixteen and one-halffeet (116.5) fW9!1 of depth of the lot at a minimum width of the
lot as required for that zoning district by the zoning ordinance. This one hundred
and sixteen and one-half feet (116.5') of buildable soace shall be measured from
the front orooertv line and shall not include any area below the IOO-vear flood
elevation.
City Code 11-3-6-M
Wetland Buffer: Pursuant to Title 13, Chapter 6 of this code a one rod (16.5 feet or 5
meters) wide area abutting a wetland andlor storm water pond that shall be left
undisturbed or in its natural condition during the development, building and
landscaping phases. The buffer strip shall not be included within the preceding one
hundred sixteen and one-half foot (116.5) fW9!1 buildability requirement. (Ord. 273,
9-2-2003)
o
City Code 13-6-4
BUFFER STRIP: A one rod (16.5 feet or 5 meters) wide area abutting a wetland
and/or storm water pond that shall be left undisturbed or in its natural condition
during the development, building and landscaping phases. The buffer strip shall not
be included within the one hundred sixteen and one-half foot (116.5) fW9!1
buildability requirement of Section 11-1-4 of this code, definition of "buildable lots".
These changes would create an extra 16.5 feet of buildable space on all urban lots. This
space would allow for the easier placement of decks, patios, sheds, and additions on the
rear of the house, as well as creating more useable rear yard space.
It should be noted that this change could potentially have an impact on the number of lots
that could be attained in a particular development, especially in areas where there are
large numbers of wetlands or storm pond requirements, such as the rural reserve area.
Issue #2
The next proposed change is to section 13-6-5. This section establishes the requirement
for buffer strips and describes where they are to be located. The change is meant to
remove any confusion about where buffer strips are measured from in relation to
wetlands and storm water ponds:
City Code 13-6-5:
Requirements: Buffer strips shall be established and maintained in accordance with
the following requirements:
-0
1. Buffer strips shall be identified within each lot by active protective fencing
approved by the city. The developer shall be responsible for the placement of the
fencing. A one rod (16.5 feet or 5 meters, measured linear) wide undisturbed buffer
strip shall be maintained abutting all wetlands and/or storm water ponds during the
development and building phases. (Ord. ll4A, 7-17-2001)
-2--
e
2. Buffer strips shall apply to all wetlands andlor storm water ponds. Buffer strips
shall be measured from the delineated wetland boundarv around wetlands and
from the desil!nated normal water level elevation surroundinl! storm water.
sedimentation andlor rate control ponds. as identified on the l!radinl!. drainal!e.
and erosion control plan for all new developments.
3. Buffer strips abuttiag stOfHl ,<,rater ponds shall be measured from the 100 year flood
elevatioE. surroUfidiE.g the stOfHl water pond.
Issue #3
The final change would require that a ghost drawing showing the location and allowable
size of any future deck be included on the survey for the initial building permit when the
deck is not constructed with the house.
o
City Code 9-1-4: ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN (STRUCTURE):
A. Elevations Included In Permit Application: The application for a building permit, in
addition to other information required by applicable laws or regulations, shall include
exterior elevations of the proposed structure and drawings which will adequately and
accurately indicate the height, size, design, and appearance of all elevations of the
proposed structure and a description of the construction and materials proposed to be
used. When the plans for a house include a sliding door or other access for the
addition of a deck. and the deck is not to be finished prior to occupancy of the
house. the survey shall show where the deck can be constructed while remaininl! in
conformance with setback and location requirements.
This would give the eventual purchaser of the house a good idea of where they can build
a deck in the future, as well as how large of a deck they can build.
Developer's Input
A group of local developers was invited into discuss the proposed changes with staff on
January 4th. The developers voiced concern with the added cost that would result from
the additional 16.5 feet of buildable space as well as the potential for reducing the
number of lots that could be created in a development. It was suggested that the goal of
creating additional usable back yard space could be achieved though a combination of
requiring a smaller amount of additional buildable space- perhaps 10 feet- and reducing
the front yard setback from 35 to 30 feet. The developers had no concern with issues
two and three.
Planning Commission Recommendation
These changes were discussed with the Planning Commission at a workshop on
December 12th, 2006. The Planning Commission supported the changes proposed to
address issues one and two. Feedback on issue number three was split, as some felt it
was too much "babysitting' on the part of the City. They did feel that denoting the area
where a deck could be built would be appropriate, but that requiring the actual deck size
and location to be included was unnecessary.
o
-3-
o
Attachments
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Buildability Diagram (Exhibit A)
Storm Water Pond Buffer Diagram (Exhibit B)
Photographs
Letter from Woodland Development
Table- Other Cities' Requirements
ACTION REQUESTED
The City Council is asked to give feedback on the proposed code changes and direct staff
on how to proceed.
Respectfully submitted,
d:l1C-
C~~chota
o
o
-tf~
-
o
o
Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
Minutes - December 12, 2006
Page 5
Chairperson Daninger recessed the meeting at 7:40 p.m. to move it to Meeting Rooms
A&B.
Chairperson Daninger reconvened the meeting at 7:43 p.m.
.-. WORK SESSION:
a. City Code 11-3-6 Buildability
Staff has a number of discussions with the City Council on the issue of buildability over
the past year. Some amendments to the City Code are being proposed as a result of these
discussions.
Mr. Vrchota made a presentation to the Commission regarding three issues regarding
buildability.
Issue 1: Buildability on Urban Lots
Commissioner Kirchoff stated when they have the building pad and they go to the 116.5
feet, going back to putting a deck, patio or storage shed, they can put that on anything so
they are not looking at going into a wetland drainage easement, they are just looking at
lousy soil. He stated looking at some of the homes that have added a deck he agreed
people are not ending up with a backyard after the deck is on the house. Mr. Vrchota
stated the City Council was surprised that footings for decks were being put in easements
and they wanted this looked at. Mr. Haas stated the only change in Issue 1 is the builder
will have to remove the poor soils and build a larger building pad, which may lead to
fewer homes in a development.
Commissioner Greenwald asked if they were changing some consistency and will there
be some inconsistency where people could tell. Chair Daninger did not think there would
be because they will be developing an entire neighborhood at a time. Commissioner
Greenwald indicated he liked this because it may help the developer from creating
neighborhoods with too many lots.
Chairperson Daninger stated the developer would have to build larger buildable lots so
they would not be able to put as many houses in a development.
Commissioner Greenwald indicated they needed to be aware that there will be some lots
in the development that may need a variance because they will not meet the requirements.
Commissioner Kirchoff stated he liked this and did not see a negative to this.
-5"-
o
Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
Minutes - December 12, 2006
Page 6
Chairperson Daninger indicated if they have more buildability, there maybe more
excavation of trees. Commissioner Walton stated there maybe developments that would
be hard to develop because of the wetlands and marshes.
Chairperson Daninger indicated this was just a work session and there will be a public
hearing where developers and builders will have a say. He wondered how this compared
to other cities. Mr. Vrchota stated staff would meet with the builders and developers
before a public hearing to get their thoughts and that he would get the Planning
Commission information regarding other cities before another meeting regarding this.
Commissioner Kirchoff stated even if this did not go forward, the idea with putting on a
ghost deck or accessory would be great.
Issue #2: Wetland Buffer
Commissioner Kirchoff indicated he would support this because it would give the owner
more of a backyard. Chairperson Daninger thought this sounded ok with him.
o
Commissioner Holthus wondered ifthere was a difference between a DNR protected
wetland and a regular wetland. Mr. Haas indicated there was not a difference.
Commissioner Holthus thought this made sense.
Issue #3: Deck Footings Placed within Easements.
Commissioner Kirchoff wondered if the requirement would be to go to the max of what
is allowed. Mr. Vrchota indicated they could do this but it would be more of an
indication of what the owner would be able to build in the future.
Chairperson Daninger thought the concern was when the yard is small and there maybe
obstacles. Mr. Vrchota stated they should show the maximum reasonable deck they
could put on the house in the plans.
Chairperson Daninger wondered who would have to prepare the ghost plan. Mr. Vrchota
indicated the surveyor would need to provide it.
Commissioner Walton thought they should have a stamp placed on the survey indicating
"the survey is the maximum that could be built" so there was not any question about it in
the future. Commissioner Casey agreed and thought this way everyone will know what is
expected up front and there could not be any question about it later.
o
Chairperson Daninger wondered if the buyer would ever actually see the plat map.
Commissioner Kirchoff indicated they would see it if they were to go get a building
permit.
-(.-
o
Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
Minutes - December 12, 2006
Page 7
Commissioner Walton wondered ifthere was a way they could indicate this at the plat
stage. Commissioner Greenwald did not think they should do this at all. He thought the
buyer would be able to tell if there was room for a deck or not. Mr. Bednarz thought this
was an important point and things may change in the future.
Mr. Bednarz indicated they would not really know what kind of house would be built at
the plat stage and the buildable area would be larger if issue #1 was implemented.
Chairperson Daninger stated this may raise awareness and educate people before they
want to build.
Commissioner Holthus thought this was a good idea and if in the future things change,
this would not be able to change because it is ghost platted on the plan. Mr. Vrchota
indicated this would not constitute a building permit; the owner would still need to get a
permit.
Commissioner Walton stated he liked this idea because it would be informative to
everyone.
o
Commissioner Kirchoff wondered where there should be a ghost plat for a deck because
some houses the decks wrap around the house and others have more than one deck.
Chairperson Daninger thought they should just go out a certain distance from the home to
show how far out a deck could be built but do not indicate where on the house the deck
would be.
b. End of year conversation
Mr. Bednarz indicated this was the last meeting of the year and he wanted to give the
mmission the opportunity for input on what could be done better. He stated in 2007
they 'll be looking at the public hearing notice requirement around the radius of lots to
see if the ould increase the distance in rural areas.
Chairperson Danin
it when staff outlined
stated he really liked the pictures and comparisons. He also liked
lats.
Commissioner Greenwald thoug aff should review Council decisions on what the
Planning Commission discussed at the
Commissioner Walton wondered if they could g trend report on if the City Council
agrees or disagrees with the Planning Commission . ions and what percent. Mr.
Bednarz indicated this could be done verbally if the Com . sion wanted that.
o
Commissioner Greenwald wondered how they are doing on the res ants by Tanners
and he also wondered if TCF Bank was going to go in. Mr. Bednarz sta
information in the next Planning Commission newsletter.
-'1-
o
- "1jtI LfIIO~::I
o
o
-$-
f
'i' w -B
~~1
l~-:t ~
- ~ ,,.,,ot!:! i }-- .. 3
~, ;' ;:p .....
11 ' ~.~
-~n ; :l ~ ]
::::::, ~:,.:;.
-: \nul~
1\ :i ~p
\ ~ dlY.;1.{ Q;;j .........
1
~~~u,.., "-
",..
en
.... l:\
~
~~
t uJ~ ~
.. ':t. -'
tJ t-w a
~ 5. -x:. al.
-~ ~ ~ ~
~ll-~<)
OV
~~..J t;!
~ . '::$;:.:.-t
.~$:z ,a
...~~..J.
...(1/......
/;;>';o.<~
o
o
-.
-/0 ,...
o
o
o
-11-
o
o
o
o
RECEIVED
January 10, 2007
JM. 1 i 2007
City of Andover
. City Council and Staff
1685 Crosstown Boulevard N.W.
Andover, MN 55304
CITY OF ANDOVER
RE: CITY CODE 11-3-6 BUILDABILITY - POTENTIAL AMENDMENTS
o
Dear City Council and Staff,
Thank you for inviting Woodland Development to the December 12th and January 4th Work
Sessions regarding potential amendments to City Code 11-3-6 Buildability. The three issues
discussed'were well presented and explained by city staff. We appreciate being asked our
viewpoint on these issues. We provided our viewpoint at the January 4th meeting and were also
?ffered th~ opp'ortunity to submit them in writing.
Issue #1: Add Additional 16.5 feet of Buildable 5Dace
From a developer's perspective we are not in favor of changes that add costs to improvements
in land development resulting in higher costs to builders and home buyers. The current market
is very difficult and slow and anything that adds costs makes it even more challenging. Adding
. an additional 16.5 feet of buildable space will require additional expense for soil correction and
could easily reduce the number of lots in a subdivision. We are currently in a campaign
meeting with builders to determine their plans for 2007 and what they look for when purchasing
lots. The number one item is the cost of the lot and the second is location. Builders are not
carrying the inventory they use to and therefore will limit the number of lots they buy. Many
other competing cities will not have the additional 16.5 feet of buildable space requirement.
Most competing cities require 30 feet front set back versus Andover's 35 feet. Both of these
items result in a higher lot cost and make it more difficult for developers to sell lots
competitively in Andover.
The additional "buildability" issue is also compounded by the fact that in Andover there is less
and less quality land to build on. This combination will most likely result in more PUD and
variance proposals.
o Issue #2:-ClarifyinQ ReQuirements for the 16.5 Foot Buffer AbuttinQ all Wetlands
and Storm Water Ponds
This will be a"good clarification.
13632 Van Buren St. NE
-/3-----
Ham Lake, Minnesota 55304 (763) 427-7500 FAX: (763) 427-0192
www.woodlanddevelopmentcorp.com
January 10, 2007
Page 2 of 2
o
Issue #3: Reauire Surveyor to Include a "Ghost Drawina" of the Deck on the Survey
This is more of a builder concern than a developer concern. We would suggest instead of a
ghost drawing indicating where a deck can be built, simply adding a line signifying decks can
not be built beyond a certain point. This way it won't look like the city is dictating the size and
exact location of a' deck.
Comprom;se: As a potential alternative to help builders and developers stay competitive in
your city and still increase the potential for larger backyards, maybe the city would consider
some form of compromise such as the following: Reduce the front set back to 30 feet from 35
feet and increase the buildability by only 10 feet instead of 16.5 feet. This would result in a
potential additional 15 feet of buildable space for backyardpurpos~s yet keep landcost;s and
improvement costs from escalating much faster than neighboring cities.
Again, thank you for the opportunity to give our feedback.
Respectfully,
/~ 7/d/
O Joe Hauglie
Vice President, Land Development and Sales
sll
o
-/~-
o Setback and Buildable Area Requirements
o
c
City Front Yard Setback Minimum Buildable Area
Andover 35 feet First 100 feet, up to min. width.
Anoka 25 feet NIA
Blaine 30 feet 8,000 square feet above 100 year
Brooklyn Center 35 feet N/A
Brooklyn Park 30 feet NIA
Coon Rapids 35 feet NIA
Ramsey 30 feet. N/A*
*While Ramsey does not have a buildable area requirement, they do have required
setbacks from wetlands, ranging from 15-40 feet.
o
o
o
@
1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. . ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304. (763) 755-5100
FAX (763) 755-8923 . WWW.CI.ANDOVER.MN.US
TO:
Mayor and Council Members "\"
.,....~>....,
"
Jim Dickinson, City Administrator ~ '....'
Will Neumeister, Community Developm~ector~
SUBJECT: Farm Winery Discussion - Planning
CC:
FROM:
DATE:
January 23, 2007
INTRODUCTION
The Council previously discussed options that could be explored related to Mark Hedin's Farm Winery on his
property. This report is to present more detailed information on what could potentially be done to modify the
City Code to enable some form of a farm winery to be operated by Mr. Hedin on his 2 Y, acre home site.
DISCUSSION
First, we need to review the current home occupation section of the Zoning Code for how it may affect the
Hedin property. As the Code is currently written, he is not eligible for a Conditional Use Permit for a Home
Occupation unless he has 3 acres. In order to make this possible the 3-acre requirement would need to be
decreased to 2 Y, acres and the farm winery use would need to be added to the allowed uses. He is not eligible
because his proposed farm winery is not on the list of allowed uses: "Cabinet Making, Woodworking, or Repair
Services, or Similar Uses to those stated". This section of Code would need to be expanded to allow the "Farm
Winery". The case could be made that the uses listed are not the only ones that should be allowed and a farm
winery should be added. If the Council does not feel comfortable with adding it as a permitted use, then making
it a conditional use could take care of potential nuisances that could arise. The case could also be made that this
section of code should have some additional language added that if found to become a nuisance to the
surrounding area, the CUP would be brought before the Council for an annual review process. There could be
some criteria added that these home occupations will be allowed unless they generate noise, dust, traffic, truck
deliveries, outdoor storage, etc Then if they become a detrimental use for a residential area, the Council would
have grounds to revoke the CUP.
Staff has discussed with the City Attorney some potential changes to City Code Section 12-9 (Home
Occupations) to allow the City Council the opportunity to make this happen. The changes would have to
specifically list "farm winery" as ahome occupation and the purpose of the home occupation section language
would need to be modified to allow a home occupation that is not a service to be considered allowable, either as
a permitted or conditional use.
The Attorney advised that a conditional use may not allow the City to require the use to be suspended upon sale
of the property. If the Council wants to prevent that they should consider establishing "Interim Uses" that are
not currently in the Code. This would be more complicated to establish but can be done. In discussion with the
City's legal counsel, the City Attorney has indicated that Conditional Uses don't have a time limit. If the
Council wanted to have the winery operation cease and desist (upon sale of the property) the City Council
would need to issue an "interim use permit" with a limit on when the operation would cease, (i.e. upon sale).
o
Again, if the Council desires a time limit, the City would need to create a new zoning code section for "interim
use permits".
Staff has also reviewed the language related to Agricultural Uses to determine if there is any possibility that a
change in the language could help Mr. Hedin. The code defmition sections that are pertinent are listed below:
AGRICULTURAL USE, RURAL: An area of five (5) or more contiguous acres which is used for the
production of farm crops such as vegetables, fruit trees, grain and other crops and their storage on the area.
(Amd. 4/18/06, Ord. 325A)
AGRICULTURAL USE, URBAN: An area of less than five (5) contiguous acres which is used for the
purpose of growing produce including crops, fruit trees, shrubs, plants and flowers, vegetables, and the like,
provided such produce is intended solely for the use of owners on the property or sale away from the property.
(Amd. 4/18/06, Ord. 325A)
Staff's view is that the first defmition (Agricultural Use, Rural) is not pertinent, because Mr. Hedin doesn't have
5 acres of land, only 2 Y, acres.
The second definition (Agricultural Use, Urban) with some well thought out changes could provide the
opportunity to allow Mr. Hedin his "Farm Winery". How the language would be modified could determine
whether he could do all that he wants (i.e. on-site incidental sales). Another section of the code related to
"Permitted, Conditional and Prohibited Uses" would also need to be modified (see attached). The table of uses
currently doesn't allow this particular use in the R-l zone. To make this happen, the City Council would need
to propose to make it an Interim Use to give the Council full control of how it is operated and be assured that
the farm winery would be stopped upon sale of the property. A new owner would have to reapply to get
o approval.
For general informational purposes, the state statute section that regulates "Farm Winery" has been attached. It
indicates that a farm winery must use a majority of the ingredients grown or produced in Minnesota. The
statute also states that sales (of wine and other items related to wine sales) are allowed on-site, even on Saturday
and Sunday. Again, if the Council wants to place more restrictions, the City Attorney has indicated another
state law allows the City to be more restrictive related to alcoholic beverages. See section of state statute below
that allows the City to regulate it:
340A.509 LOCAL RESTRICTIONS.
A local authority may impose further restrictions and regulations on the sale and possession
of alcoholic beverages within its limits.
In checking with Mr. Hedin, he has indicated that he would produce no more than 1,000 gallons of wine each
year. Staff checked with a couple of farm winery operators on the attached list as to how much wine they
produce in a given year. The volume they produced each year varies. One said they produce 400-500 gallons
per year while the other said they produce 5,000 gallons. Five thousand gallons of wine equates to about 2,000
cases of wine; 1,000 gallons would be 400 cases of wine. With the volumes that could be produced, the
Council should consider how this might impact the surrounding area.
ACTION REQUESTED
Council should consider how this may adversely affect the area and how it may open up other home
occupations beyond those that are specifically listed or closely related to those that are. Please direct staff on
how to proceed to handle this issue.
o
On the following page is information provided by Mr. Hedin. He checked in with other cities and how
they might view his farm winery if it were located in their city.
o
o
o
ANOKA . No acreage minimum
. Retail sales are allowed
. Use of accessory buildings are allowed, if approved by the Planning
Commission and City Council
RAMSAY . 3 acre minimum
. CUP is needed
. No problem With retail sales
. .
OAK GROVE . No minimum lot size
. No problem with use of accessory buildings
. Limited retail sales to what is actually produced on the site
BLAINE . No minimum lot size
. CUP is needed
Attachments:
Home Occupation Section of Code
Table of Uses
State Statute on Farm Wineries
List of Farm Wineries
Original Council Report (Nov. 8,2006)
Respectfully submitted,
Will Neumeister
Cc: Mark Hedin, 3482 165th Lane NW, Andover, MN 55304
o
SECTION:
12-9-1:
12-9- 2:
12-9- 3:
12-9- 4:
12-9- 5:
12-9- 6:
12-9- 7:
12-9- 8:
12-9- 9:
12-9-10:
12-9-11 :
o
CHAPTER 9
HOME OCCUPATIONS
Purpose
Permitted Home Occupations; Location Restrictions
Home Occupations In Accessory structures
Nonconforming Home Occupations
Conditional Use Permits
Special Home Occupation Permits
Inspections
In-Home Beauty Salons and Barbershops
Vested Rights
Suspension Or Revocation Of Conditional Use Permit
Illegal Home Occupations; Penalty
12-9-1 : PURPOSE: The purpose of this chapter is to prevent competition
with business districts and to provide a means through the establishment of
specific standards and procedures by which home occupations can be conducted
in residential neighborhoods without jeopardizing the health, safety and general
welfare of the surrounding neighborhood. In addition, this chapter is intended to
provide a mechanism enabling the distinction between permitted home
occupations and nonconforming or customarily more sensitive home
occupations, so that nonconforming home occupations may be allowed through
an administrative process rather than a legislative hearing process. (Amended
Ord. 8, 10-21-1970)
12-9-2: PERMITTED HOME OCCUPATIONS; LOCATION
RESTRICTIONS: All home occupations that conform to all of the
following provisions may be conducted entirely within the principal structure.
Home occupations shall not be conducted in a garage or accessory building
unless the property owner conducting the home occupation has obtained a
Conditional Use Permit as stated in Section 12-9-3 of this chapter or has
obtained a Special Home Occupation Permit as stated in Section 12-9-4 of this
chapter.
o
A. Permitted Home Occupations Enumerated: Permitted
home occupations include, and are limited to: art or photo
studio, dressmaking, secretarial services, professional
offices, repair services, or teaching services limited to three
(3) students at anyone time and similar uses.
_.~-
o
B. Number Of Employees: The number of employees
shall be limited to one person on site in addition to family
members. (Amended Ord. 8,10-21-1970)
C. Amount Of Building Space Used: The area within the principal structure
used by the home occupation shall not exceed twenty percent (20%) of
the dwelling's livable floor area. Basements may be included if they meet
all State Building Code requirements. (Amended. Ord. 8, 10-21-1970;
amd. 2003 Code)
D. On Site Sales: On site sales shall be prohibited, except those clearly
incidental to services provided in the dwelling.
E. Dwelling Changes: Any interior or exterior alterations of a dwelling for a
home occupation shall be prohibited, except those customarily found in
a dwelling.
F.
Vehicles: Vehicles associated with a home occupation shall be limited to
one vehicle on the premises (said vehicle shall not exceed gross capacity
weight of 12,000 pounds).
o
G. Signs: Signs shall be regulated as stated in Section 12-13-9 ofthis title.
H. Performance Standards: No home occupation shall produce light glare,
noise, odor or vibration that will in any way have an objectionable effect
upon adjacent or nearby property.
I. Supervision: The home occupation shall be conducted by at least one
member of the family who resides in the dwelling unit.
J. Building And Safety Requirements: The home occupation shall meet all
applicable fire and building codes. (Amended Ord. 8, 10-21-1970)
12-9-3:
HOME OCCUPA nONS IN ACCESSORY STRUCTURES
A. Conditional Use Permit Required: A Conditional Use Permit shall be
required for the following home occupations that are located in an
accessory structure or detached garage and/or require exterior storage:
1. Cabinet making.
o .~
2. Woodworking.
<
3. Repair services.
-s-
I
o
4. Similar uses as those stated in Subsections A 1 through A3 of this
section.
B. Conditions Of Permit: These home occupations shall be subject to the
following conditions:
~
1. Lot Size: The size of the lot or parcel of land shall be three (3) acres or ~
larger.
2. Area Of Use: The combined square footage of the accessory structure
and/or outside storage area utilized. by the home occupation shall not
exceed eight hundred (800) square feet.
3. Setbacks: Setbacks of the accessory building and outside storage area .
shall be of a magnitude found necessary by the city, but in no case shall
there be less than a one hundred foot (1 DO') front yard setback, thirty foot
(30') side yard setback and fifty foot (50') rear yard setback or as required
in Section 12-3-4 of this title.
o
4. Storage Restrictions: The outside storage area and all commercial
vehicles, materials and equipment for the business being stored on site
shall be fenced, landscaped and screened in such a manner as to prevent
them from being visible at any time of the year .from road rights-of-way,
public properties and surrounding properties. (Amended Ord. 314 10-4-
2005)
5. Other Requirements: All provisions in Section 12-9-2 of this chapter.
(Amended Ord. 8, 10-21-1970)
6. Termination of Use Upon Sale of Property: Upon sale of the premises
for which the Conditional Use Permit is granted, such permit shall
terminate. (Amended Ord. 31410-4-2005)
12-9-4:
NONCONFORMING HOME OCCUPATIONS:
o
Properties that had nonconforming home occupations prior to the adoption of this
title (May 15, 1990) were given an opportunity to apply for a Special Home
Occupation Permit. Those that were granted a permit are on file with the
Department of Community Development and may continue to operate. However,
they shall not increase in extent, number, volume, or scope from any of the
information stated in the permit, or the permit will be subject to revocation.
(Amended Ord. 314 10-4-2005)
12-9-5: CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS: Conditional Use Permits granted
in Section 12-9-3 of this chapter shall follow the criteria established in Section 12-
-6~
o
14-6 of this title. These permits shall be valid for one year from the date of
issuance (unless otherwise specified in the resolution for approval) and thereafter
shall be automatically renewed each year unless objections or complaints are
received or the conditions of the permit are not adhered to. (Amended Ord. 8, 10-
21-1970)
12-9-6:
SPECIAL HOME OCCUPATION PERMITS:
A. Temporary Permits: Nonconforming Home Occupation permits granted
by Section 12-9-4 of this chapter shall be temporary in nature, and
shall be granted to a designated person who resides at the address
where the home occupation is being conducted. (Amended Ord. 314,
1 0-4-2005)
B. Non-transferability Of Permit: These permits shall not run with the
land and shall not be transferable.
C.
Renewal Of Permit: Special Home Occupation Permits shall be
automatically renewed each year unless objections or complaints are
received, or conditions of the permit are not adhered to.
o
D. Termination Of Permit: If the Special Home Occupation Permit holder
expires or moves to a new location, the existing permit shall automatically
terminate. In the case of death or other separation, the family member(s)
remaining at the same address may continue the home occupation if
written notice is given to the Department of Community Development and
authorization for the continuation of the permit is given with Council
approval. (Amended Ord. 314 10-4-05)
12-9-7: INSPECTIONS: There may be one annual inspection each year
made by the City Administrator or Administrator's designee of the property
covered by a Conditional Use Permit or Special Home Occupation Permit. In
addition, the City Administrator or the Administrator's designee shall, upon
reasonable request, enter and inspect the premises covered by said permit for
compliance purposes. (Amended Ord. 8,10-21-1970)
12-9-8:
IN HOME BEAUTY SALONS AND BARBERSHOPS:
In home beauty salonslbarbershops shall be subjectto the following:
o
A. Compliance with Title 3, Chapter 6 of the City Code.
B. Drawings Submitted: Drawings detailing the salon/shop shall be
submitted at the time of the request for the Conditional Use Permit.
-7--
o
C. Compliance With State Requirements: The salon/shop must comply
with the State Cosmetology Board and the State Barbers Board
requirements.
D. Number of Chairs: One chair salonlbarber only.
E. Hours of Operation: The hours of operation shall be approved by the
City Council.
F. Parking: Parking requirements shall be as set out in section 12-13-10
of this title.
G. Non-sewered Areas: In non-sewered areas, the septic system shall be
in compliance with Title 10, Chapter 4 ofthis code. A beauty
shoplbarber shop shall be considered the equivalent to one bedroom
in terms of usage under Title 10, Chapter 4 of this code.
H. Occupancy By Owner: The beauty shoplbarber shop shall be owner
occupied.
o
1. Termination of Use Upon Sale of Property: Upon sale of the premises
for which the Conditional Use Permit is granted, such permit shall
terminate. (Amended Ord. 8, 10-21-1970, Ord. 314 10-4-2005)
12-9-9: VESTED RIGHTS: No home occupation allowed by Conditional
Use Permit or Special Home Occupation Permit shall confer upon any person or
to the benefit of any property owner any vested right. Rather, the use shall
remain subject to all conditions of the permit as established by the city. The city
may find it necessary from time to time to review the conditions of the permit as
they relate to the provisions of the general welfare of the community. (Amended
Ord. 8,10-21-1970)
12-9-10: SUSPENSION OR REVOCATION OF CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT: When the City Council determines that the public interest
so requires, it may revoke or suspend the Conditional Use Permit of a home
occupation when it finds, after due investigation and a public hearing, that:
A.
The permit holder, or any of his or her employees, has concealed
the receipt of stolen property or has knowingly received stolen
property.
o
B. The permit holder has not complied with the provisions of law
applicable to the premises, equipment or operation of the home
occupation.
~g-
o
C. The permit holder has obtained a permit through fraud or misstatement.
D. The home occupation or activity is being conducted in a manner found to
be detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare .of the public or is
a nuisance, or is being operated or carried on in an unlawful manner.
E. The home occupation has not been operating or in business for
a period of six (6) consecutive months. (Amended Ord. S, 10-
21-1970)
12-9-11: ILLEGAL HOME OCCUPATIONS; PENALTY: All home
occupations that are being <;:e>nducted in violation of this chapter are illegal. Any
person violating any provision of this chapter shall be guilty of a misdemeanor
and, upon conviction thereof, shall be subject to punishment as defined by state
law. (Amended Ord. S, 10-21-1970)
o
o
-1-
o
o
o
CHAPTER 2
RULES AND DEFINITIONS
SECTION:
12-2-1:
12-2-2:
Rules Of Word Construction
Definitions
12-2-1: RULES OF WORD CONSTRUCTION: The language set forth in
the text of this title shall be interpreted in accordance with the following rules of
construction:
A. The singular number includes the plural and the plural the singular.
B. The present tense includes the past and future tenses, and the future the
present.
C. The word "shall" is mandatory, and the word "may" is permissive.
D.
Whenever a word or term defined hereinafter appears in the text of this
title, its meaning shall be construed as set forth in such neuter
genders.
E. The masculine gender includes the feminine and neuter genders.
F. All measured distances expressed in feet shall be to the nearest tenth of
a foot. In event of conflicting provisions, the more restrictive proviSion
shall apply. (Amended Ord. 8, 10-21-1970)
12-2-2: DEFINITIONS: The following words and terms, whenever they
occur in this title, are defined as follows:
ACCESS DRIVE:
A road with a width of at least twenty feet, as required
by Fire Code, constructed of material that can provide
all-weather driving capabilities for emergency
vehicles. (amd. Ord. 314, 10-4-2005)
ACCESSORY USE OR
STRUCTURE:
A use or structure or portion of a structure
subordinate to and serving the principal use or
structure on the same lot and customarily incidental
ereto.
-10-
o
o
(>
used for the production of farm crops such as
vegetables, fruit trees, grain and other crops and their
storage on the area. (Amd. 4/18/06, Ord. 325A)
AGRICULTURAL USE,
URBAN:
An area oUr&~Jhan ~ve 5 cO~M2JJ.e.,!ii~~fG~ ~hich is
used for the purpose d growing produce including
crops, fruit trees, shrubs, plants and flowers,
vegetables, and the like, provided such produce is
intended solei}! for the use of owners on the property
or sale awaylro~th:pro~"'rAmd. 4/18/06, Ord.
'S'l!~~
AIRPORT OR HELIPORT: Any land or structure which is used or intended for
use for the landing and takeoff of aircraft, and any
appurtenant land or structure used or intended for
use for port buildings or other structures or rights of
way.
ALLEY:
A public right-of-way which affords a secondary
means of access to abutting property.
ANIMALS, DOMESTIC:
Dogs, cats and other similar animals that can
be purchased at a retail pet store and
maintained indoors. (Amd. 4/18/06, Ord. 325A).
ANIMALS, FARM:
Animals commonly kept for productive purposes
on a farm, such as cattle, hogs, sheep, goats,
and other similar animals, excluding poultry.
(Amd. 4/18/06, Ord. 325A)
ANIMALS,
NONDOMESTIC:
Animals not defined as domestic, farm or
pleasure/recreational animals that are of a wild
nature or disposition or which, because of its
vicious nature or other characteristics, would
constitute a danger to human life or property
including the prohibited animals listed in City Code
5-1 C-2. (Amended Ord. 325A, 4-18-2006)
ANIMALS,
PLEASURE!
RECREATIONAL:
Horses, ponies, foa!s, donkeys, burros, mules,
alpacas and llamas. (Amended Ord. 325A,4-18-
2006)
-/(-
o
o
o
'"
'"
'"
=
'lII~~.~",,~ '"
~ .= ;e '" c:l a3 [;
"i) ll) g ~ -;: =
~ t;.~ 0 a; .~
o~=.,gucS
~_c:l~~_
:e...e 1$ .:>.= 0:
:f! . ~~ -a ~ ~
=- ~-o- ...,
ll) ~ ~ I
:;Eo;J 'SQ.,o i%(
1~111~
N....==U
:E~..;lZrF.l~ ......... ~
,~ c.?,
....f',.~ '
~ ......~
:J
~!j",
..... '" 1,-,
g-:S 1.0 'U;'
~ 1; .0 :
0--- ~ '"
Q~. 0: ":I
00 to) =
.....~ ~ '"
'::b c:;' ~ !?
c..._ ~5 5 =r
oS ~~ ~ ~ ~ B
1:->, 9-'" : - = '"
i)~' == c... Q,) ;.~ ,,--ft
~"S ;.0 -= - .:;
"':; bll.:: .5 ~ ~ ~
"=0 ~~ .- 0 8 ~
U.,p .9'; e[l.r) 0 to) ::s
~<: "''''=n o~ 0 ...
Q~ ~8~~ - ~ 0
=~ =~~~ = e 0
c:"'" ~"'=t;::< 0: 0 :9
r----=::C oLt:I..Q Q;) ~-:5 e. ='
~_Q _~~> ~~~- ~__n ?
-=' .=..... -:; "' "'..... -
-0 -r;; ttJ 0 ~ Q = ~ - (1)
CD- ~=.'6~ rt}~...9ll)~:.g CD
~8 g~.5~. ~.~~i~ 0 ~
CD~=...~~~ p.....>, > ~
-='"ii"'Q.."'....-:;: .....S'i::2~ ....,-,-
'" ..., ~ ~ '" '" .... ~ rJ:l = . "" -=' ~ '" I~
d=~.~='~o~.5~~5j glU.g rt}
rt}~, c...~~~~~.g~~o ~~~ Q;)
~~~~.~~8~~t~.!~~l~5~ ~
"s:" rn= ttJ --= g_ :.> :< = ~ CD ~ t = C .. 0 t..l...: l1)
..~ =..... ~ Q) 0 :... r:/'J ..... 5 !2.= -; n.;: (1)
= _ _ -=.C =- _ -..:: Q;) Q) ~ d ..... - ~ t'l:l tT.l ...
~ ~ d=_ CD Q., tT.1.= :a >::: 0- S ttJ ~ = 1-":::" ..,::., gj -;
CD:; -='._. ~ ;;! !!l - .:> - - - - ... .- 0:
=rn.:::=-:,):~ ~ ~"'O'..g 000 Q()Q) ~_Ujri)..
=~_ ~_!==~.sell)Q;)dt'l:lBg
-OQ.=~ = --Q,)- =.=->>'"
_.___ =_Q;)OOO..c~~.- ~~=.~
=~~~~o____:....__ttJ~_:"'_~
"":I ~...,. = as 0 =::1 =::1 =:1 ::s == td = d Q)-
<:<:<:<:Q..c<:<:<:<~c:l~~uuuuu
-
:~
I ~
)
~
~
~
~
(
J
I
N
-
..
.9
a-
..==
u~
V1
;J
~
ioil
Eo<
.....
==
53
~
~
~
~
~
;z;
o
.....
t:
~
;z;
o
u
Q
ioil
Eo<
Eo<
~
ioil
~
'"
'"
'"
=
-;; rI:l
= ... '"
~ .B ~
-0 as'~
o u =
.,g bll c:l
... ~-
~'S, t:$
Oo~==
._ ,...c G.> CD
CDE.;O.g
:z I I =
'u=-
e rF.l~"'!"
; ~
~_bll.5
-=~:S;5
_ S ~.J:j"rt;l I
5[fJ=-6~
c:::~rJ:l=:>:I::3
>-..b.b ~-o '"
===:=::e~
5555=0
dd=S=S"'t)Q)
~~~~"'-s..
a.> Q) a.> CD ~ ..-
-;o~~~g.:::
====",.g~
iZiiZiiZiiZi~,.:;E
~~~~.A~~
~~~~~~o
";::
a;
=
g.-o
Q)~
> --
CD -
o E
..0: ~
= -
=:> 0
-=,:Z
9:2 ~
~=:>
6:3-
I _
c::. a
;;;l:3
;...,
'"
'"
=:>
~
'"
[; ~'"
to) tt:I a.>
~~=:3
=:>-=''''-0
"'C~s~
.~ .a :-2 :;
E t "'S..:::
a3c.oE
Q..: I U ~
I-<IJ.
;.;.u~
-j 2- -
- .~-
~
llC
~
:s~
S~
=
-a ...:
~~
...u
<:
c.
UXXu c.U c.
uXXu u c.
~ ~
uXxu u u
~
uXXu u
uxx c. c.
uXx
uxx u uu
uxx u uu
uxx u uu
uXX u uu
uXX u uu
uXx u uu
uXx u u u uu
=
~u
<:
c.
U
rF.l
<:
c.
=
Z
<:
c.
~
<:
c.
~
Ifl
~
.,
"""
~
c.
c.c.
'"
Il>
'"
P
"::l
Il>
-
3
:a
C>
...
;.
"::l
=
III
'"
-='
o
c;,
....
D
-
III
=
C>
...
-
...
"::l
=
=>
U
~
=>
'"
'"
Il>
~
~
-<
"::l
Il>
-
-
.-
=
..
~
;.
~
"::l
Il>
-
==
=
c
OJ
;.
o
.~ll~.~
Leqislature Home I Links to the World I !::!
I Senate I Joint Departments and Commissions I Bill Search and Status I Statute
KEY: otricJ:eR = removed, old language. underscored =
added, new language.
Authors and Status
List versions
Printable window
Print helD
H.F. No. 3940, 3rd Engrossment - 84th Legislative Session (2005-2006) Posted on May 11,
2006 .
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.6
0 1.7
1.8
1.9
1.10
1.11
o
A bill for an act
relating to liquor; allowing Minnesota farm wineries to produce fortified wine;
modifying certain fee provisions; providing for licensing provisions; clarifying
certain sale hours; authorizing various local on-sale licenses; prohibiting alcohol
without liquid devices;amending Minnesota Statutes 2004, sections 340A.1 01,
subdivision 11, by adding a subdivision; 340A.315, subdivisions 1, 2, 3, 4;
340A.404, subdivision 5; 340A.414, subdivision 2; 340A.504, subdivision
6; Minnesota Statutes 2005 Supplement, sections 340A.301, subdivision 6;
340A.404, subdivision 2; 340A.412, subdivision 4; proposing coding for new
law in Minnesota Statutes, chapter 340A.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA:
Section 1. Minnesota Statutes 2004, section 340A.1 01, subdivision 11, is amended to
read:
Subd. 11. Farm winery. "Farm winery" is a winery operated by the owner of a
Minnesota farm and producing table, sparkling, or fortified wines from grapes, grape
juice, other fruit bases, or honey with a majority of the ingredients grown or produced
-
in Minnesota.
EFFECTIVE DATE.This section is effective the day following final enactment.
1.19
1.20
1.21
1.22.
1.23
1.24
Sec. 2. Minnesota Statutes 2004, section 340A.1 01, is amended by adding a
subdivision to read:
Subd. 30. Fortified wine. "Fortified wine" is wine to which brandy, or neutral grape
spirits, has been added during or after fermentation resulting in a beverage containing
not less than one-half of one percent nor more than 24 percent alcohol by volume for
nonindustrial use.
-f;?-
o
1.25 EFFECTIVE DATE.Thissection is effective the day following final enactment.
o
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
2.6
2.7
2.8
2.9
2.10
2.11
2.12
2.13
2.14
2.15
2.16
2.17
2.18
2.19
2.20
2.21
2.22
2.23
2.24
2.25
2.26
2.27
2.28
2.29
2.30
2.31
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
o
Sec. 3. Minnesota Statutes 2005 Supplement, section 340A.301, subdivision 6, is
amended to read:
Subd. 6. Fees. The annual fees for licenses under this section are as follows:
Manufacturers (except as provided in clauses
(a)(b) and (c)) $30,000
Duplicates $3,000
Manufacturers of wines of not more than 25
(b)percent alcohol by volume $500
Brewers who manufacture more than 3,500
(c)barrels of malt liquor in a year $4,000
Brewers who also hold one or more retail
on-sale licenses and who manufacture fewer
than 3,500 barrels of malt liquor in a year,
at anyone licensed premises, the entire
production of which is solely for consumption
on tap on any licensed premises owned
by the brewer, or for off-sale from those
licensed premises as permitted in subdivision
7. A brewer licensed under this clause must
obtain a separate license for each licensed
premises where the brewer brews malt liquor.
A brewer licensed under this clause may not
(d)be licensed as an importer under this chapter
Wholesalers (except as provided in clauses
(e)(f), (g), and (h)) $15,000
Duplicates $3,000
Wholesalers of wines of not more than 25
(f)percent alcohol by volume
(g) Wholesalers of intoxicating malt liquor
Duplicates
(h)Wholesalers of 3.2 percent malt liquor
Brewers who manufacture fewer than 2,000
(i)barrels of malt liquor in a year
Brewers who manufacture 2,000 to 3,500
U)barrels of malt liquor in a year
$500
$3,750
$1,000
$25
$10
$150
$500
-1 f---
o
3.5 If a business licensed under this section is destroyed, ordamaged to the extent that
3.6 it cannot be carried on, or if it ceases because of the death or illness of the licensee, the
3.7 commissioner may refund the license fee for the balance of the license period to the
3.8 licensee or to the licensee's estate.
3.9 EFFECTIVE DATE.This section is effective the day following final enactment.
3.10 Sec. 4. Minnesota Statutes 2004, section 340A.315, subdivision 1, is amended to read:
3.11 Subdivision 1. Licenses. The commissioner may issue a farm winery license to
3.12 the owner or operator of a farm winery located within the state and producing table, .
3.13 sparkling, or fortified wines. Licenses may be issued and renewed for an annual fee of
3.14 $50, which is in lieu of all other license fees required by this chapter.
3.15 EFFECTIVE DA TE.This section is effective the day following final enactment.
o
3.16.
3.17
3.18
3.19
3.20
3.21
3.22
3.23
3.24
3.25
Sec. 5. Minnesota Statutes 2004, section 340A.315, subdivision 2, is amended to read:
Subd. 2. Sales. A license authorizes the sale, on the farm winery premises,
of table, sparkling, or fortified wines produced by that farm winery at on-sale or
off-sale, in retail, or wholesale lots in total quantities not in excess of 50,000 gallons in
a calendar year, glassware, wine literature and accessories, cheese and cheese spreads,
other wine-related food items, and the dispensing of free samples of the wines offered
for sale. Sales at on-sale and off-sale may be made on Sundays between 12:00 noon and
12:00 midnight. Labels for each type or brand produced must be registered with the
commissioner, without fee prior to sale.
EFFECTIVE DATE.This section is effective the day following final enactment.
3.26 Sec. 6. Minnesota Statutes 2004, section 340A.315, subdivision 3, is amended to read:
3.27 Subd. 3. Applicability. Except as otherwise specified in this section, all provisions
3.28 of this chapter govern the production, sale, possession, and consumption of table,
3.29 sparkling, or fortified wines produced by a farm winery.
3.30 EFFECTIVE DATE.This section is effective tbe day following final enactment.
4.1 Sec. 7. Minnesota Statutes 2004, section 340A.315, subdivision 4, is am.ended to read:
4.2 Subd. 4. Minnesota products. If Minnesota produced or grown grapes, grape juice,
4.3 other fruit bases, or honey is not available in quantities sufficient to constitute a majority
4.4 of the table, sparkling, or fortified wine produced by a farm winery, the holder of the
4.5 farm winery license may file an affidavit stating this fact with the commissioner. If the
4.6 commissioner, after consultation with the commissioner of agriculture, determines this to
4.7 be true, the farm winery may use imported products and shall continue to be governed by
o
--1'5-
o
4.8
4.9
4.10
4.11
the provisions of this section. The affidavit is effective for a period of one year, after which
time the farm winery must use the required amount of Minnesota products as provided by
subdivision 1 unless the farm winery holder files a new affidavit with the commissioner.
EFFECTIVE DATE.This section is effective the day following final enactment.
4.12 \ Sec. 8. Minnesota Statutes 2005 Supplement, section 340A.404, subdivision 2, is
4.13 ded to read:
4.14 Sul:i . 2. Special provision; city of Minneapolis. (a) The city of Minneapolis may
4.15 -sale intoxicating liquor license to the Guthrie Theater, the Cricket Theatre, the
4.16 Orpheum T atre, the State The!3tre, and the Historic Pantages Theatre, notwithstanding
4.17 the limitations law, or local ordinance, or charter provision relating to zoning or school
4.18 or church distanc . The licenses authorize sales on all days of the week to holders
4.19 of tickets for perform ces presented by the theaters and to members of the nonprofit
4.20 corporations holding th icenses and to their guests.
4.21 (b) The city of Minneapolis ay issue an intoxicating liquor license to 510
4.22 Groveland Associates, a Min sota cooperative, for use by a restaurant on the premises
4.23 owned by 510 Groveland ASSOCI tes, notwithstanding limitations of law, or local
4.24 ordinance, or charter provision.
4.25 (c) The city of Minneapolis may issue on-sale intoxicating liquor license to
4.26 Zuhrah Shrine Temple for use on the pre ises owned by Zuhrah Shrine Temple at 2540
4.27 Park Avenue South in Minneapolis, and to t American Swedish Institute for use on
4.28 the premises owned by the American Swedish nstitute at 2600 Park Avenue South,
4.29 notwithstanding limitations of law, or local ordina es, or charter provision relating to
4.30 zoning or school or church distances.
4.31 (d) The city of Minneapolis may issue an on-sale intoxi ting liquor license to
4.32 the American Association of University Women, Minneap is' branch, for use on the
4.33 premises owned by the American Association of University " pmen, Minneapolis branch,
4.34 at 2115 Stevens Avenue South in Minneapolis, notwithstandin imitations of law, or local
4.35 ordinances, or charter provisions reiating to zoning or school or c rch distances.
5.1 (e) The city of Minneapolis may issue an on-sale wine license and an n-sale 3.2
5.2 percent malt liquor license to a restaurant located at 5000 Penn Avenue outh, and an
5.3 on-sale wine license and an on-sale malt liquor license to a restaurant loc ed at 1931
5.4 Nicollet Avenue South, notwithstanding any law or local ordinance or charter rovision.
5.5 (f) The city of Minneapolis may issue an on-sale wine license and an on-sale m
5.6 liquor license to the Brave New Workshop Thei3tre located at 3001 Hennepin Aven e
5.7 South, the Theatre de 113 Jeune Lune, the Illusion Theatre located at 528 Hennepin A
5.8 South, the Hollywood Theatre located at 2815 Johnson Street Northeast, the Loring
o
o
-/(-
o
o
o
Minnesota Grape Growers Association :: Vineyards and Wineries
Page 1 of4
VmeyardslWineries
Commercial Wineries
Alexis Bailly Vineyard
htto://www.abvwines.com
18200 Kirby Avenue
Hastings MN 55033
Phone: 651-437-1413
Brush Wolf Winery
http://www.brushwolfwinery.com
1552 Brush Wolf Road SE
Alexandria, Minnesota 56308
Phone: (320) 752-WINE or (855) WINE-LVR
julie(1ilbrushwolfwinery .com
Cannon River Winery
htto: I/www.cannonriverwinery.com
421 Mill Street West
Cannon Falls MN 55009
Phone: 507-253-7400
Carlos Creek Winery
htto: //www.carloscreekwinerv.com
5693 County Road 34 NW
Alexandria, MN 55308
Phone: 320-845-5443, Fax: 320-753-9290
ccwinerv(1ilcarloscreekwinerv .com
Crofut Family Winery & Vineyard
-17-
httn./ /www. mn PTane~.oT2:/vinevardswineries.htrnl
1211/2006
Minnesota Grape Growers Association :: Vineyards and Wineries
o
httD:llwww.crofutwinerv.coml
211 East 240th St.
Jordan, MN 55352
Phone: 952-492-3227
info(lllcrofutwinerv .com
Diamond Ridge Winery
httD: Ilwww.diamondridaewinerv.com/
RR 1 box 36A
Peterson, MN 55352
Phone: 507-875-2626
lea(lllaceorouD.cc
Falconer Vineyards
http://www.FalconerVinevards.com
3572 Old Tyler Road
Red Wing, MN 55066
Phone: 651-388-8849, Fax: 651-267-0440
Wine(lllFalconerVineyards.com
o
Fieldstone Vineyards
http://www.fieldstonevineyards.com
38577 State Hwy. 68
Morgan, MN 56266
Phone: 507-249-WINE (9463)
info(lllfieldstonevineyards.com
Goose Lake Farm and Winery
httD:llwww.aooselakefarm.coml
6760 213th Ave NW
Elk River, MN 55330
Phone: 763-753-9632
Luedke's Winery
http://www.luedkeswinery.com
16234 40th Street
Princeton, MN 55371
Phone: 763-662-2389
ml berrv(lllluedkeswinerv .com
o
Morgan CreekYineyards
httD:llwww.moraancreekvineyards.coml
Route 2, Box 214A
New Ulm, MN 56073
Phone: 507-947-3547
martimcv(lllaol.com
Northern Vineyards
httD:llwww.northernvineyards.com
i~--
http://www .mngrapes.org/vineyardswineries.htrnl
Page 2 of 4
1,"-
12/112006
Minnesota Grape Growers Association :: Vineyards and Wineries
o
223 N. Main Street
Stillwater, MN 55082
Phone: 651-430-1032
northernvineyards(ci)att. net
Post Town Winery (Opening to the public in 2006)
httD://www.posttownwinery.com/
Rochester, MN
Phone: 507-261-5273
steve(ci)oosttownwinery .com
Saint Croix Vineyards
http://www.scvwines.com
6428 Manning Ave.
Stillwater, MN
Phone: 651-430-3310
info(ci)scvwines.com
o
Two Fools Vineyard
http://www.twofoolsvineyard.com
12501 240th Avenue SE
Plummer MN 56748
info(ci)twofoolsvinevard .com
WineHaven Winery
httD://www.winehaven.com
9757 292nd Street
Chisago City, MN 55013
Phone: 651-257-1017
info(ci)winehaven .com
Commercial Vineyards
Bevens Creek Vineyard and Nursery
9350 Foxford Road
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Phone: 952-496-2213 E-Mail: dellsss(ci)yahoo.com
o
Coyote Ridge Vineyards
http://www.CovoteRidgeVinevards.-com
405 South Fifth Street
Raymond, MN 56282
Phone: 612-605-8262/320-220-2235 E-Mail:
rradtke(ci)mvtvwireless.com
Falconer Vineyards &. Nursery
http://www.FalconerVinevards.com
3572 Old Tyler Road
-11-
http://www.mngrapes.org/vineyardswineries.html
Page 3 of 4
121112006
o
o
o
Minnesota Grape Growers Association :: Vineyards and Wineries
Page 4 of 4
Red Wing, MN 55066
Phone: 651-388-8849, Fax: 651-267-0440
grapes(CilFalconerVinevards. com
Great River Vineyard
httD: //www.greatrivervinevard.com
35680 Highway 61 Boulevard
Lake City, MN 55041
Phone: 877-345-3531
araDes(Qlrconnect.com
Martell Vineyards 8< Orchard
http://www.martellvinevards.com
439 208 Avenue
Somerset, WI 54025
Phone: 715-247-3386
tmartell(Cilsomtel.net
Winterhaven Vineyard and Nursery
http://www.winterhavengrapevines.com
18103 628th Avenue
Janesville, MN 56048
Phone: 507-234-5469, .Fax: 507-234-5488
order(CilwinterhavenaraDevines.com
Private Growers
Blue Door Vineyard
http://www.bluedoorvineyard.com
Lake Elmo, MN 55042
don(Cilbluedoorvinevard .com
@ 2006 MGGA. All rights reserved. I Privacv Poiicv
~~
httn. / /u.rww mn Pr:me~.or!Z/vinevardswineries.htrnl
12/112006
Specialty Liquor Licenses
o
raditionally, Minnesota has tighdy
limited access to retail licenses to
sell intoxicating liquor. For exam
pie, the Minnesota Legislature h
consistendy declined to follow
the example of its neighbors,
Wisconsin and Iowa, in allowing
wine sales in grocery stores.
However, the Legislature does appear
to favor expanding the growth of certai
specialty and niche businesses within th
liquor market. As a result, the past sever
years have seen the creation or expan-
sion of several specialty liquor licenses
that accommodate unique liquor busi-
nesses. As discussed below, some of the
specialty liquor licenses are issued by the
local municipality and others are issued
direcdy by the commissioner of the
Department of Public Safety.
Theater on-sale licenses. Created in
2003, this license allows a city to issue
an on-sale intoxicating liquor~ on-sale
wine or on-sale malt liquor license to a
theater. A theater is defined as a build-
ing containing an auditorium where
live, dramatic, music, dance or literary
performances are regularly presented
to ticket holders. The state statute does
not establish threshold seating or size
requirements for a theater licensee,
though the city may choose to establish
its own seating or size requirements. A
license issued to a theater will be valid
for all days of the week when perfor-
mances are held, including Sundays.
Culinary class limited on-sale
licenses. Created in 2006, this license
allows a city to issue an on-sale wine
and! or on-sale malt liquor license to
a business that conducts culinary or
cooking classes. Classes must be offered
either on a fee basis or require some
type of pre-registration for participa-
tion. Only limited amounts of wine
or malt liquor may be served by the
licensee to class participants, as specified
in state statute, for consumption during
and as part of the claSs.
NOVEMBER 2006
By Rachel Carlson
Farm winery licenses. Farm winery
licenses are issued by the commissioner
of Public Safety to Minnesota farms
that produce wine from grapes, fruit
juices or honey that contain a majority
of Minnesota ingredients. The license
authorizes the sale on the farm winery
premises of table, sparkling or fortified
wines produced by the winery. While
farm winery licenses have been avail-
able for over a decade, the Legislature
has acted recendy to improve the appeal
of Minnesota's local farm wineries as
tourist destinations and local attractions.
Farm wineries have been authorized to
sell fortified wines and to sell all man-
ner of wine related food products in
baskets and otherwise. Normally, the
sale of such food items is stricdy pro-
hibited in off. sale intoxicating liquor
establishments.
allows a city to issue a small brewer
or "brew pub" an on-sale intoxicat-
ing liquor license or a 3.2-percent malt
liquor license for a restaurant operat-
ing on the brewer's premises. The license
only allows the retail sale of fewer than
3,500 barrels of brew in a year. A brew
pub on-sale licensee will need an addi-
tional manufacturer's license from the
commissioner of Public Safety.
Brew pub off-sale license. This
license allows a city to issue an off-sale
license to a small brewer that either
holds an on-sale brew pub license as
described above, or who manufactures
fewer than 3,500 barrels of brew in a
year. The license only authorizes the
off-sale of malt liquor produced and
packaged on the licensed premises.
Product must meet specific packaging
and labeling requirements detailed in
state statute. As with the on-sale brew
pub license, the brewer will need an
additional manufacturer's license from
the commissioner of Public Safety.
Finally, the license only allows the
off-sale of no more than 500 barrels at
-2/-
MINNESOTA CITIES
off-sale a year and 3,500 barrels at
n-sale and off-sale combined.
Licenses created by special legis la-
ion. Many cities contain cultural, rec-
eational, and charitable entities with
acilities that do not meet the statu-
ory qualifications to be licensed to sell
. quor. Nonetheless, these entities may
, esire to serve liquor to their patrons
nd to the public attending events or
. erformances. Special legislation is fre-
uendy crafted to grant, with the con-
ent of the city, liquor licenses to these
. nique entities. Museums, art centers,
ultural institutes, and racetracks are
ommon examples of entities that have
een granted liquor licenses through
peciallegislation.
Many of the specialty licenses
described above have additional restric-
tions related to their issuance and avail-
ability. Please consult state statute or
the League's recendy revised "Liquor
Licensing and Regulation" information
memo for further information on each
of the specialty licenses.
Since many of the specialty liquor
licenses described above are new cre-
ations, provisions for the issuance of
these licenses may not exist in your city's
current liquor ordinance. Cities are not
required to modify their ordinance to
offer the new licenses, since local ordi-
nance may be more restrictive than
state law. However, if your city wishes
to take advantage of the opportunities
offered by specialty liquor licenses, the
city ordinance may need to be revised.
Sample licensing language for the new
specialty liquor licenses subject to city
issuance and control can be found in the
League's "Liquor Licensing and Regula-
tion" information memo, available in the
Library section of the LMC web site at:
www.1mnc.org. ...
Rachel Carlson is research attorney with the
League of Minnesota Cities. Phone: (651)
281-1226. E-mail: rcarlson@lmnc.org.
19
1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. . ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304
MAIN (763) 755-5100 FAX (763) 755-8923 ~ WWW.CI.ANDOVER.MN.US
@
o
TO:
Mayor and Councilmembers
SUBJECT:
Jim Dickinson, City Administrator .
Will Neumeister, Community Development DirectouVL
Andy Cross, Associate Planner ~ .
Consider Conditional Use Permit 1 Farm Winery 13482 16S1bLane - Planning
CC:
FROM:
DATE:
November 8, 2006
INTRODUCTION
Mark Hedin has applied to amend his existing Conditional Use Permit to allow a farm winery on his
property.
o
. DISCUSSION
Title 27 of the Code of Federal Regulations permits the production of up to 200 gallons of wine per year
for personal use without any taxation. Under this provision, Mr. Hedin has grown grapes and made
wine on his lot for several years. He has now applied for Federal licensure to be a "bonded wine
premises," which will allow him to produce more than 200 gallons. Detailed records of the wine'
production will be kept and taxes will have to be paid on the sale of his wine. The City Council may
wish to discuss a maximum amount of wine that may be produced under this Conditional Use Permit.
Because the winemaking activity is considered a gainful occupation (the wine is being sold for profit)
and the use is secondary to the residential use of the property, it is considered a Home Occupation. The
applicant received a Conditional Use Permit in 2002 to operate an office in a secondary structure on his
2.S-acre lot. This current proposal will be added as an amendment to the existing C.U.P because the
applicant has indicated that nearly all the winemaking activities will take place inside the accessory
structure on the lot.
Since "Farm Winery" is not listed as 'a land use in the Code, it could be permitted under Code Section
12-9-3-A-4, which allows "similar" uses to those listed.
Planning Commission Recommendation
At the October 24, 2006 meeting, the Planning Commission voted .unanimously to recommend approval
of this request. .
Respectfully submitted,
Andy Cross ~~~
Cc: Mark Hedin, 3482 16Sth Lane NW, Andover, MN SS304
Attachments
Resolution
Location Map
Letter from Applicant
Aerial Photo of Property
Neighborhood Signatures
Planning Commission Minutes
o
ACTION REOUESTED
The Council is asked to approve or deny the C.U.P. Amendment request.
o
o
o
CITY OF ANDOVER
COUNTY OF ANOKA
STATE OF 1v.llNNESOTA
RES. NO.
A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO TIffi CONDmONAL USE PERMIT
(02-03) FOR MARK HEDIN TO OPERATE A FARM WINERY ON HIS PROPERTY LOCATED
AT 3482165TH LANENW, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS: .
Lot 3, Block 4, Timber Meadows Second Addition, Anoka County, Minnesota
WHEREAS, the applicant has an existing Conditional Use Permit for a home office in an accessory
building on his property at 3482 165th Lane NW; and
WHEREAS, the applicant is requesting an amendment to that Permit to allow a farm winery on his
property at 3482 16Sth Lane NW, allowing the on-site production of more than 200 gallons per year;
and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission finds the request would not have a detrimental
effect upon the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the City of Andover; and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommends to the City Council approval of the
Conditional Use ~ermit as requested..
NOW, TIffiREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Andover hereby
approves the amendment to the Conditional Use Permit on said property to add a farm winery,
subject to the following conditions:
1) Applicant must receive Federal certification as a bonded wine premises; and
2) No additional exterior storage of wine making supplies is permitted as part of this
approval.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Andover on this _ day of
,2006.
CITY OF ANDOVER
ATTEST:
Michael R. Gamache, Mayor
Victoria V olk, City Clerk .
f ~:tf~ -Ii /lW; ~ W~ wlc1 ~~
. OPl cxAdut Co-rvdt7f~.",-.
-2..~
o
o
c
~~
Olm
~:a:
"0_
c:.=
<C.Ql
-CI)
0(.)
~.>
00
~
~
i:i
z
~ ~
U{ e5 ~ ~
- :; I ~
[L ~ .. c..
~1i~D
1 e>-
m
a
!'l
co
~
J!!
0>
c::
-II-II!' 1\' 'JI i
m.
!
<?
<S
W
J!!
'"
~
~:gfg
II ~ ~
g~~
;:~=:
~ in ~
~ ~ ~
c. c. .!
co co co
::;!::;!Cl
'"
o
'"
~ffi
c!>'"
",'"
UJ<t
>o~
z
o=>
~o
..0
mot
ei5 ~
sz i
Cl>c( 5
\
o October 3, 2006
Dear Planning and Zoning and City Council members,
Enclosed is my application for a Conditional Use Permit for a licensed Farm Winery, along with photos
of the area.
I currently have on my 2 1/2 acre property two vineyards, totaling around 350 grape vines, 150 feet of
raspberries, five apple trees, and 100 feet of rhubarb under cultivation for winem!lking. I can currently
legally make and give away up to 200 gallons of wine anJ:!.ual1y as a home wine~er, with no need for any
government involvement. I have been doing this on my property for the last 10 years.
Since the number of my friends, neighbors and clients who enjoy my various wines has grown over the
years, it has gotten to the point where I cannot afford to give away all my wine. The Federal and State
government will allow me, with a Farm Winery license, to receive compenSation and pay taxes on the wines
I produce. one step in the process of receiving this license is authorization from the local government (the
city of Andover) to authorize this activity. Having talked with the federal authorities regarding my plans,
they have no reason to believe they would deny my application once this is completed. The State inspector
has visited the site and will recommend approval of the sta:te license.
o
I have no interest in opening a "retail store" in Andover, or of enlarging or adding any buildings on my
property. I do not expect to have any signage, outside storage, nor have any "operating hours". While a
friend may stop over to pick up their annual case or two of wine, I wouldn't expect any traffic or parking
concerns. I expect that activity around my house would continue as it has been for the last ten years. During (
that time I have received no complaints from the farm neighbors to the south and west of us or my other
neighbors on their 2 1/2 acre lots. I've enclosed a copy of their agreement to this licensure.
Almost all winemaking activities are done inside the building, with the exception of crushing and de-
stemming the grapes, which usually takes an afternoon in the fall. The quantity of wine made will be limited
by the capacity of the existing structures.
There are no foul smells, no noise, and nothing unsightly sitting in the yard. While I may give you a tour of
the vineyard if you come by to pick up your case of wine, I can assure you there will be no weddings held or
restaurants built on the premises.
Since the C. U.P. is annually renewable, I understand that if some unforeseen problem should arise, the
City Council may choose not to renew the C. u.P. I see no reason to treat this home-base business any
different than any of the other home-based businesses in Andover, and am willing to work with the city on
any requirements they feel are necessary for approval.
Sincerely,
Mark Hedin
White Rabbit Vineyards & Winery
3482 165th Lane NW
Andover, lv.I:N . 55304
ENC: Aerial photo of area
Neighbor's acceptance petition
-r-
o
(
\.
We have no objections to Mark Hedin operating a licensed Farm Winery
out of the existing buildings at 3482 16Sth Lane NW, Andover, MN.
\j~
Name
- P...
~t,rLQ rtfiL~-L
.J:2n (5Y\~
/"\ ..
i j/
l i \ e..nse-n
U
o
A .
1 ,j
/ . ,) /i ____.
k~_/~" <<..-- .
_.,.,. r v/
./ /"
,'/ /.'
V4{, i/. i", .
. uy~,&,~
I.<
(fT;/
~r'A
/ e4-.r A
, h'.'
./. 1'-- \ ~
" '"
....----..,
r "
/t
vl/ !
.. . / ,
. '~"'. rA.'.-
;",.-" ;, - ,./ ----.- -----
.. ..
\,-1 /
~'
, ,
\ ~ l
. \. lr-'J/! f ! l
.; (;. .....,..,vv'\./\
..J\ !: f
....;r~
.J "\,.1;-t)
. ~! ,.-; '-
.' .'". 'r/ .
; . .-A\<,,4m v. '1..r1LP""1
-:)L/l; ~ ~ I ';./1 - . ~
~ i
- --/: ~ .#.....
-i./" , ll/1
.. .../ "'" --" I' Ci \7
......1...., '''~ ~.._c J
"
o
..~. .'. /1;j' l' /7 ,-
>>' I . f J/-i
~ .............l IV"",.r t.......
II-"'~'''' (-'... .-.~T.....i
.' . / i ... t. _/
'./
Address
.3AJ 3 fR ) ~S-bl ~€. f\}iiJ
. f1.rtd ov Il (' . f') tJ
.r
,
, . 1.......Ji. d..U
a~3 J{P5""O- l..A'
ftry).r>lif I m r--J.
\-.,...'"
. '3 "ld'3
I
tr c:fl4 ! N, .rVN
po..... v'
J'J/'...t i) <vcYt- /tI'.f\/
,. f
. i ~ '57Cc 5: \\...~~d. S+ riJ \.J
~ ~~...~ !'il\~t!
~\~
I' --:1/ ~ I I ~>t. !"'w
I t.e '5 7 \p .,' .. I ;J e......""-'1 -
~~O(/"..,rr- f...j Po<.. fr" .:;:-S J a-{
J~K,I I' r c:- e:t-- / L '; f
,v . b ~ y--<Iltk.e. TV vv
14 0. of Ov:.c,.. fi111 ~::;..3 C'f
. '2 s-Ucf If LJ.&0 1 (f....". Q f\ \/~;
.:; \,... ~--~ """'s
, ~. r,. P' i/\' "-'"-J.. f
thl'\Cl! :IV!!. 1-( f r ) lJ ~'J :;(J'-j
;;$ GS 1 Lt. S- ~t.1( ~ F!fJ
wdJoV€.(' l/ijrJ ss,--:SuLf
;f .
I. ~ ~ r; -......-~ I ,..Ji ,-:::;r..
. . /' "\ L ' ,'r ~ r.,'.V- ,,?:
(~~ . -' ~
/j ...1"..( ~,.,.d.L_ /JA/l .c- <:'"?O 4'
~_!-C7~.....-~ ~ .I,v ~ .F;....... ~, ..... .'
./"t/(~~ -, ;
. G~ 7 (l[~ . :~-f~." ~ .' /() ;; -:-- /-.'. '-'
1"1., '. C. '-.-~:'.",.'''-''; I
1-+ AJ!)t \//7.. 2.... ~ ~t.iL . . ~ ~-- "f-
I
/
(
--6-
o
@
1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. . ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 . (763) 755-5100
FAX (763) 755-8923 . WWW.CI.ANDOVER.MN.US
cc:
City Council '\.... ~
Jim Dickinson, City Administrator ~~
David Berkowitz, City Engineer <::~:s
Kameron Kytonen, Natural Resources Technician
To:
From:
Subject:
Diseased Tree Removal/Sanitation Enforcement Policy - Engineering
Date:
January 23,2007
INTRODUCTION
This is to continue discussion from the November 28, 2006 workshop over a policy for
enforcement of diseased trees in the City.
o
DISCUSSION
Several questions and concerns were raised by the City Council about the draft policy and its
contents. The following is a list of the questionslconcerns along with the answers:
1. Is the City authorized to go onto private property for the sake of identifying and
marking diseased trees?
a. The City is authorized to enter onto private property per Minnesota Statutes
Section 18G.13 and it is also allowed per City Code 4-3.
2. There was concern of property owners cutting trees at the wrong time of the year and
spreading to neighboring properties.
a. The majority of cases are going to require trees to be removed by February 1 st
of the following year of initial diagnosis, which will force property owners to
have them removed in the fall or winter months.
3. What about firewood importation issues?
a. This language is covered in City Code 4-3, specifically under Section 4-3-12,
which states: "it i.s unlawful for any person to transport within the City any
diseased wood that is determined to be hazardous......... without taking the
appropriate precautions."
4. Has the City Attorney reviewed this?
a. Staff has worked closely with the City Attorney's office; the attorney made
comments and staff made necessary changes; the attorney helped pull
information on state statutes relevant to this policy.
5. Are there any State programs available to help property owners with this financially?
a. Yes; for oak wilt, if they abide by the City and State guidelines; recently, the
City received a letter stating the following: "Communities receiving grant
funds for more than three years must have some means in place to
enforce proper sanitation within their control zone(s) to be considered
for future cis funding (usually an effective ordinance)."
o
o
6. Look at the Ham Lake ordinance and compare its program to this policy.
a. Staff spoke with the Forester of Ham Lake and determined it has a similar
means of enforcement in place.
7. How would situations involving properties containing dozens of diseased trees be
handled, when it's determined unfeasible by staffto use the hired City contractor?
a. Staff will handle these situations on a case by case basis; there may be
instances where a large property owner has 50 or more trees that should come
out, and staff will look at other options, including hiring a logger or larger
company who can do the work more efficiently and economically, as they
have the larger equipment and can often effectively utilize the material to sell
for profit.
8. Should their be an exception clause stating that if trees do not affect other properties,
then nothing needs to be done?
a. This is hard to determine, as new overland infections can often occur miles
from the source tree(s). Thus, it's difficult to include any such language.
ACTION REQUESTED
It is requested that the City Council review the draft policy and direct staff on how to proceed
with implementation of the diseased tree enforcement program.
o
Re.pectfully "'~. itted,
~. .
't';eron Kytone
Natural Resources Technician
o
o
o
o
1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. . ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 . (763) 755-5100
FAX (763) 755-8923 . WWW.CI.ANDOVER.MN.US
City of Andover
Diseased Tree Removal/Sanitation Enforcement Policy
Winter 2007
o
Table of Contents
Page
Section I. General Policy Statement "
.J
Section II. Diseased Tree Enforcement Process 4
Section III. Hiring City Contractor 6
Section IV. Procedure for Abatement 7
o
o
2
,
~
o
Diseased Tree Removal/Sanitation Enforcement Policy
Section 1. General Policy Statement
The City of Andover is home to many specimen trees and woodlands of valuable trees
including but not limited to oak, maple, ash and pine. Each year, the future of these
resources is under increased pressure due to factors including development and insect and
disease problems.
The City considers diseased trees to be public nuisances. This policy outlines the
strategies that will be used to ensure that diseased trees will be properly treated. This will
help save more trees in the community and offset the effects of all insect and disease
problems in our urban and community forests.
o
Currently, oak wilt and Dutch elm disease are two diseases that have reaked havoc on
each species of trees respectively. Each year, hundreds of trees die from these aggressive
diseases. Because of the nature of how the diseases spread, proper sanitation of the
diseased trees is an important step in preventing further spread to healthy trees. In
general terms, sanitation refers to removing and properly treating the wood of the trees,
which can be done in one or more of many different ways.
Other insect and disease problems, such as the emerald ash borer (EAB), offer additional
long-term concerns. This particular insect kills all species of ash trees and has killed
millions of ash trees in the Detroit area; it is threatening to move into Wisconsin and
Minnesota. Because of the large populations of ash in Minnesota and the difficulty in
controlling this insect, its arrival in this state could be devastating.
Due to these ever-growing concerns, it is critical that local units of government insert
policies and work with property owners to increase awareness of these current and
potential threats. It is equally important that local units of government take a proactive
approach to ensure that diseased trees are properly treated by established deadlines.
o
3
c
Diseased Tree Removal/Sanitation Enforcement Policy
Section II. Diseased Tree Enforcement Process
Overview:
The following outlines the general process of how the Natural Resources Technician
(NRT) or designee will handle typical situations as a result of a positive diagnosis of
diseased trees on private properties in the City of Andover. These practices are governed
by Minnesota Statutes 18G.13. The specific actions taken are based on tree diseases that
are considered through Andover City Code and State Law to be public nuisances.
o
How Property Inspections of Diseased Trees are Initiated:
There are generally three different scenarios that trigger an initial property inspection.
They are:
1. A property owner (PO) requests the City to perform an inspection on their
own property;
2. A complaint is made from another source that requests the City to perform
an inspection on a given property; and
3. Diseased tree(s) noticed in the field by the City.
General Enforcement Process:
A general process shall be followed based on how the fIrst inspection was initiated.
Under each scenario that triggers the first inspection, a series of steps to be taken by the
City will be listed.
1. PO Requests Inspection on Their Property:
a. NRT or designee shall visit site and evaluate property; will consult with
PO and explain findings;
b. NRT or designee shall send Declaration of Nuisance (see "attachment I")
to PO; and
c. Compliance check done by NRT or designee.
i. If found to be in compliance: no further action taken at this time
ii. If found to be out of compliance: refer to Section IV.
o
2. An Inspection on a Given Property Stemming From Complaint:
a. NRT or designee shall visit site and evaluate property fIrst; will leave
notice (see "attachment 2") or send initial letter (see "attachment 3") to PO
if nuisance( s) detected;
i. Call back (from PO):
1. NRT or designee will consult with PO and explain
fmdings;
4
o
2. NRT or designee shall send Declaration of Nuisance to PO;
and
3. Compliance check done by NRT or designee
a. If found to be in compliance: no further action
taken at this time
b. If found to be out of compliance: refer to Section
IV.
11. No call back (from PO):
1. NRT or designee shall send second letter (see "attachment
4") and Declaration of Nuisance to PO; and
2. Compliance check done by NRT or designee
a. If found to be in compliance: no further action
taken at this time
b. If found to be out of compliance: refer to Section .
IV.
3. Diseased Trees Noticed in Field by the City:
a. NRT or designee shall follow all the same steps as scenario #2 above.
Additional details:
c
· "In compliance" refers to property owners who take all of the
measures listed in "attachment 6;"
. NRT or designee may mark diseased trees with tree marking
paint, ribbons, etc. and/or map them at any time;
. NR T or designee shall promptly notify potentially affected,
adjacent property owners of disease existence in area (see
"attachment 5");
. NRT or designee will provide adequate literature including, but
not limited to, information on the disease(s) present, a list of
licensed Andover tree care companies and a handout on proper
disposal and treatment of diseased wood (see attachment 6");
· NRT or designee will send a reminder letter no later than January
15 to property owners who have diseased trees that are
considered public nuisances, which will indicate intentions to
inspect (perform compliance check);
· If NRT or designee encounters property where there are no
trespassing signs and/or there is resistance from a property
owner, the accompaniment of a sheriff will be requested prior to
inspection;
· Standard compliance checks will begin no earlier than February
1 of each year and will go until all recorded properties have been
addressed;
· Special compliance checks will begin no earlier than the date on
the Declaration of Nuisance for that particular property.
o
5
J
o
Diseased Tree Removal/Sanitation Enforcement Policy
Section III. Hiring City Contractor
Each year, the City shall hire one contractor to perform removals and/or treatments of
trees considered by the City to be public nuisances. This contractor will be utilized by
the City when property owners have failed to meet the deadline set forth in the
Declaration of Nuisance. Additional details on this are as follows:
o
1. The City will set up a bid opening, inviting all Andover licensed tree care
companies to submit sealed bids on removal and proper treatment of diseased
trees;
2. Interested contractors will put down what the charge will be per diameter inch of
tree (as measured 4.5 feet up from ground level) to perform the following:
a. Cutting down the tree and leaving the stump no higher than 2 inches above
the finished grade;
b. Hauling away and properly treating all of the wood and brush
3. The City will formulate a formal contract with the hired contractor, which will
outline all of the pertinent details describing expectations, responsibilities,
tirneframes, penalties, etc.; and
4. The length of the contract will be from February 2 to December 31 of each year.
There may be situations that have special circumstances. A situation involving a property
containing a large volume of diseased trees may be encountered. This may occur on land
of a large property owner, such as a farmer.
In these instances, the NRT or designee will decide whether or not it's feasible to use the
City contractor for the work. These cases may render the need to hire a logger or land-
clearing company to perforin the work.
If this situation occurs, the NRT or designee will have the right to get at least two bids
from contractors of this sort and hire it out.
o
6
J
o
Diseased Tree Removal/Sanitation Enforcement Policy
Section IV. Procedure for Abatement
For those property owners who fail to abate the public nuisance(s) noted on their
property, the City will follow thru by condemning the tree(s) involving the following
steps on a given property:
1.
2.
"
.).
4.
0 5.
o
The NRT or designee will quantify the number and sum up the total diameter of .
all of the trees to be condemned;
The City contractor will be notified to review the property and will submit a
proposal to the City within the timeframe established under the contract;
The NRT or designee will provide written authorization to the City contractor to
perform the work;
Upon completion, the NRT or designee will evaluate the property to ensure
conformance to standards and pay the contractor for services provided; and
The NRT or designee will send a letter to the property owner summarizing the
charges to be paid, and shall report the same to the City Clerk.
a. If the property owner fails to pay the City within the designated time
period, the City Clerk shall list all such charges, along with a City
administrative cost, against each separate lot or parcel by September 1 st of
each year as special assessments under Minnesota Statutes Section
429.101, and other pertinent statutes. These special assessments are to be
collected commencing with the following year's taxes, unless provided for
otherwise by consent and action of the City Council. All assessments
levied for the repayment of tree disease abatement costs shall be payable
in a single installment pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 429.101,
Subd. 2.
7
o
(Attachment 1)
STATE OF MINNESOTA
CiTY OF ANDOVER
Declaration of Nuisance-Notice to Abate
City Code 4-3
THIS DECLARATION OF NUISANCE AND NOTICE TO ABATE is hereby made this_
day of , 2006, pursuant to Andover City Code 4-3.
You are hereby notified that the City of Andover has determined the existence of
(nuisance) at property located at
(address). According to records on file with the
City, you are the property owner. You are hereby ordered to abate the nuisance by
undertaking the following corrective action:
o
Removina the (number of trees) marked tree/s) and leavina the stumo(s)
no hiaher than two inches above the surroundina arade and oroperly treatina the
wood in accordance with the directions set forth in the attached "Prooer
DisoosallTreatment of Diseased Wood" form.
This abatement action must be completed by , 2006
and in conformance through a compliance check by the Natural Resources Technician
or designee. Be advised that any contractors used in the City of Andover must be
licensed by the City.
If you fail to complete the necessary abatement action by the deadline set forth above,
the City may undertake to abate the nuisance directly and may commence legal action
against you to abate the nuisance. Pursuant to city ordinance, any costs incurred by the
City in abating the nuisance will be reported to the City Clerk as a cost to be levied as a
special assessment on the real estate taxes for this property.
Please understand that you have the right to appeal this nuisance declaration with the
City Council by filing a written appeal demand with the City Clerk within ten (10)
business days of the date hereof. Should you fail to do so, the Order will become final.
Please do not disregard this notice. Please contact the Natural Resources Technician at
763-767-5137 if you have any questions.
,
o
Date:
Natural Resources Technician
J
o
(Attachment 2)
City of Andover
1685 Crosstown Blvd. NW
Andover, MN 55304
763-755-5100
www.cLandover.mn.us
Date:
Address:
Inspector:
NOTICE
Upon a recent inspection, the City of Andover
Tree Inspector has observed the presence of one
or more of the following on your property:
o
D
D
D
D
Dutch elm disease (DED)
Oak wilt
Emerald ash borer (EAB)
Other
Under Andover City Code and Minnesota Law, the
disease(s) listed are considered public nuisance(s),
which are required to be treated. Please contact the
City Inspector at 763-767-5137 within 10 days from
the date of this notice to discuss treatment options.
A formal Declaration of Nuisance describing minimum
treatment measures, deadlines, etc. along with
attachments will be sent under separate cover. Your
cooperation is greatly appreciated.
Notes
o
=
~
o
CITY OF
NDOVE
1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. . ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 . (763) 755-5100
FAX (763) 755-8923 . WWW.CI.ANDOVER.MN.US
(Attachment 3)
Date
Owner/Occupant
Address
Andover, MN 55304
Re: Diseased Trees
Dear Property Owner:
o
This letter is to inform you that, based on a recent inspection, there is
(nuisance) located on your property. Under Andover City
Ordinance and Minnesota Law, trees infected with (nuisance) that are
not properly treated are considered a public nuisance, which property owners are
required to remedy. Therefore, steps must be taken to deal with the problem. A
copy of Andover City Code 4-3 is available on request and is also on the City's
website www.cLandover.mn.us
Attached is information on (nuisance), a list of licensed tree care
companies in the City of Andover and a handout on proper. disposal and
treatment of diseased wood. If you contract the work out, the contractors used
must be licensed by the City. Please give me a call at763-767-5137 within ten
days from the date of this letter to discuss treatment options. I would be happy to
offer advice or take questions or concerns you may have.
Please do not ignore this, as a follow up letter is likely. Your cooperation IS
greatly appreciated.
Sincerely,
o
Kameron Kytonen
Natural Resources Technician
KK:rja
Enc!.
~
o
o
o
1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. . ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304. (763) 755-5100
FAX (763) 755-8923 . WWW.CI.ANDOVER.MN.US
(Attachment 4)
Date
OwnerlOccupant
Address
Andover, MN 55304
Re: Diseased Trees
Dear Property Owner:
There has been no record of any contact from you as requested from the first letter
dated (date) regarding the (nuisance) problem
at (address). Under Andover City Ordinance and Minnesota Law,
properties that have trees infected with (nuisance) that don't receive
adequate treatment are considered a public nuisance, which property owners are
required to remedy. Therefore, steps must be taken to deal with the problem. A copy of
Andover City Code 4-3 is available on request and is also on the City's website
www.cLandover.mn.us
Enclosed is a Declaration of Nuisance ordering abatement of the
(nuisance). Please give me a call at 763-767-5137 within ten days from
the date of this letter to discuss the treatment options. Please understand that if I do not
hear from you, your property will be re-inspected to verify adequate treatment of the
(nuisance). Should this inspection indicate that you have failed to
comply with the nuisance declaration, the City may commence legal action to treat the
(nuisance) and assess the cost against your property.
Your cooperation is greatly appreciated.
Sincerely,
Kameron Kytonen
Natural Resources Technician
KK:rja
Enc!.
~
~
I
1
o
(Attachment 5)
City of Andover
1685 Crosstown Blvd. NW
Andover, MN 55304
763-755-5100
www.ci.andover.mn.us
Date:
Address:
Inspector:
NOTICE
This is to make you aware that based upon a recent
inspection in your neighborhood, the City of Andover
Tree Inspector has observed the presence of one
or more of the following:
0 D Oak wilt
D Dutch elm disease (DED)
D Emerald ash borer (EAB)
D Other
There is a threat that the disease may spread to
your property. Under Andover City Code and Minnesota
Law, the disease(s) listed are considered public nuisance(s),
which are required to be treated. Please call the City
Tree inspector at 763-767-5137 for further discussion.
Your cooperation is greatly appreciated.
Notes
o
I
I
~
(Attachment 6)
o
PROPER DISPOSAL/TREATMENT
OF DISEASED WOOD
..
Diseased red oak wood, with bark intact, that is potentially spore-producing (PSPT) and diseased/dead elm or pine or
any elm or pine fIrewood with bark intact shall be properly treated to prevent overland spread of the disease per City
Code and Minnesota Law. This shall be done by one of the following ways:
~
CHIPPING OR GRINDING: the chips are safe to use after for landscaping purposes, as they will not spread
the disease if left out in the open;
DEBARKING: if the wood is debarked, the oak wilt fungus cannot form fungal spore mats and the elm and
pine bark beetles cannot complete their life cycle;
BURNING: this can be done any time of year, as it is an obvious choice for preventing overland spread; if
stored as fIrewood during the growing season, see below information;
PROPERLY COVERING AND SEALING: any wood that is stored with bark intact shall be covered and
sealed with a 4 to 6 mil heavy plastic tarp or sheeting; a black tarp will absorb heat the best, which will aid in
the drying process; the best way to do this is as follows (see diagram below):
a. Dig a 4-inch trench completely around the wood pile;
b. Cover the wood pile with a tarp or sheeting that is large enough to completely cover the pile;
c. Overlap the ends of the tarp or sheeting, so it .extends beyond the trench;
d. Fill the trench with dirt to completely seal the wood pile.
o
If dirt cannot be used or a trench cannot be dug because the ground is frozen, too hard to dig, etc., the ends of
the tarp shall be weighted down completely on all edges.
Other Key Information:
)> The diseased wood does not need to be properly covered and sealed during the months of November thru
March;
)> Branches smaller than 2 inches do not need to be treated;
)> Generally, red oak trees that have died in the summer may be potentially spore-producing the following
spring and summer only; thus, the wood is only a hazard for one growing season;
)> Elms and pines are hazardous until the bark falls off the wood, so their may be one or more growing
seasons wben the wood is a hazard;
}> A hazardous wood pile that is properly covered and sealed may be uncovered and accessed (i.e. to grab a
piece of fIrewood) as long as it is immediately covered back up and sealed to prevent disease spread.
o
Hazardous wood (stacked and seen underneath tarp or sheeting)
'ng
Diagram of cross-section of
Dirt-fllled trench
o
o
o
6)
1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD NW. . ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304. (763) 755-5100
FAX (763) 755-8923 . WWW.CI.ANDOVER.MN.US
TO:
Mayor and Council Members
CC:
Jim Dickinson, City Administrator
Will Neumeister, Community Development Director t.J/d.--
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Comprehensive Plan Update -- Planning
DATE:
January 23, 2007
INTRODUCTION
Since last updating the Council in September, staff has begun working on preparing a "draft" of the
Comprehensive Plan Update. This report will explain where we are at in the process.
DISCUSSION
At the meeting, the City Engineer will explain the details of how he has been working with the City's
consultants to establish costs for their part in providing technical analysis for the Transportation, Sewer and
Water System Plan updates. City Engineering staff are performing the majority of the work on updating the
Sewer Plan. The City Planning and Engineering staff will be working together to update the text of the
Transportation Plan. The consultants have been authorized to prepare and run new models for the
Transportation and Water System Plans. The City Engineer will also provide details of the costs that will be
incurred and what source of funds will pay for the consultant's work. During the preparation of the various
technical sections of the plan, staff will make basic assumptions for computer modeling for water, sewer
lines and roadway volumes. Staff will use a maximum density of 3.0 units per acre (net buildable area) in
the Rural Reserve Area and 2.45 units per acre (net buildable area) in all other areas of the city that already
have sewer lines in place that are within the MUSA boundary.
Staff has been working on the update following the format that has been identified by the Metropolitan
Council and the various mandatory tables of information they require. The Assistant City Engineer has
begun working with the Park Commission to discuss the needed improvements to the City's park system.
This winter they will be discussing what is needed for future parks in the City.
Our goal is to have a "draft" update done by May 2007. After the Council, Parks and Recreation and
Planning Commission have reviewed the "draft", we will prepare modifications and prepare for the needed
Public Hearings and distribution to the various surrounding cities and other jurisdictions (i.e. school district,
watersheds, etc.). The public input and comment portion is anticipated to take 6 to 8 months to complete.
ACTION REQUESTED
The Council is asked to hear a brief presentation on the Comprehensive Plan Update, offer staff comments
and provide direction on how this project is proceeding.