Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
10-23-01
CITY of ANDOVER 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. • ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 • (763) 755 -5100 FAX (763) 755 -8923 Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda October 23, 2001 Andover City Hall 7 :00 D.M. , _l. Call to Order 2. Approval of Minutes — September 25, 2001 3. Public Hearing: Preliminary Plat for a two lot urban residential project to be — known as `Prairie Acres' located at 732 140 Lane NW — S.W. Wold. Staff Report by Courtney Bednarz, City Planner. • 4. Public Hearing: Residential Sketch Plan for a six lot rural residential development to be known as `North Lake Ridge' located southwest of the intersection of 157' Avenue NW and Round Lake Boulevard and in the northeast. quarter of Section 20 — Fields Development Company. Staff Report by Courtney Bednarz, City Planner. 5. Public Hearing: Discussion of UItralightvehicles. - 6. Other Business 7. Adjournment • CITY OF ANDOVER REQUEST FOR PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION October 23, 2001 DATE CITY of ANDOVER PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING - SEPTEMBER 25, 2001 The Regular Bi- Monthly Meeting of the Andover Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order by Chairperson Jay Squires on September 25; 2001, 7 :04 p.m., at the Andover City Hall, 1685 Crosstown Boulevard NW, Andover, Minnesota. Commissioners present: Chairperson Jay Squires, Commissioners Douglas Falk,' Mark Hedin, Dean Daninger, Lary Dalien, and Rex Greenwald. Commissioners absent:. Commissioner Tim Kirchoff. • Also present: City Planner, Courtney Bednarz Others APPROVAL OF MINUTES August 28, 2001 Motion by Daninger, seconded by Hedin, to approve the minutes as presented. Motion carried'ona 6- ayes, 0 -nays, l- absent (Kirchoff) vote. PUBLIC HEARING. SPECIAL USE PERMIT (01 -08) FORA HOME OCCUPATIONPLUMBING BUSINESS OPERATED FROM ANACCESSORY STRUCTURE FOR PROPER TY LO CA TED, AT 248 7139TH A VENUE NW - TED HURKMAN: City Planner Courtney Bednarz explained that the applicant is seeking approval of a home occupation.to operate a plumbing business out of an existing detached accessory building on the subject property. The structures on the property were constructed many years ago before current regulations. The accessory buildings have previously been used for a home occupation electrical business. This use predated the applicable ordinances described below and was considered a non- conforming use after these provisions were added. This business ceased operations in 1987 or 1988. There have been several inquires since that • time for accessory structure based home occupations on this property. None have been approved. Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - September 25, 2001 Page 2 • Mr. Bednarz stated that the home occupation ordinance provisions that apply to accessory buildings are designed to keep these types of operations in rural areas and limit the impact on surrounding properties. The proposal represents a substantial departure from the intent of this ordinance. Staff recommends denial of this request. Mr. Bednarz stated that the property is zoned Single Family Urban Residential and guided for low- density residential development in the Comprehensive Plan. The detached accessory buildings complicate the subdivision of the property to achieve this result. The square footage of the detached accessory structures significantly exceeds the size of the principal structure. Due to the fact that these structures were constructed prior to the ordinance provision that restricted their size, they are considered legal- nonconforming. This means that the structures are allowed to remain until such time as they are damaged beyond 50% of their value, at which time they will be required to be removed. This property may be subdivided to create addition urban residential lots in the future. While the detached accessory buildings may be utilized for general storage at this time, approving a home occupation at this location would further complicate this transition in the future. Chair Squires questioned how the nature of the proposed use of a plumbing business fits into Section 4.30 (B)(1). Mr. Bednarz stated that the intent of this section is to limit the affect on the neighboring properties. 0 Chair Squires questioned if there isn't more of a list of potential home occupations than what is stated in point #7 of Section 4.30 (B)(1). He questioned how a plumbing operation would fit into the picture. Mr. Bednarz explained that the occupations within the principal structure are not included in the list because they have different requirements. He also noted that the ordinance references `similar uses' which could be applied. Commissioner Daninger questioned Mr. Bednarz if he is aware of any of the inquires since 1988 that haven't been approved. Mr. Bednarz explained that several informational inquiries regarding home occupations for auto repair and other uses have been made in the past, but these requests haven't been pursued on to the level of the Planning and Zoning Commission. Commissioner Greenwald questioned Mr. Bednarz on why he's opposed to the request. Mr. Bednarz explained that home occupations that are operated in an accessory structure are designed to remain in rural areas. He mentioned that some of the other reasons are the number of employees and traffic that are limited by ordinance to keep the neighborhood free from intense commercial activity. Motion by Falk, seconded by Greenwald, to open the public hearing at 7:15 p.m. Motion carried on a 6 -ayes, 0 -nays, 1- absent (Kirchoff) vote. • Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - September 25, 2001 Page 3 Louie Rosenberg, 139th Avenue, stated that he lives right across the road from the property. He stated that the property was formerly used by US West. He stated that the request is a much less obtrusive operation than say cabinet making. He mentioned that west of the property is the fire hall which generates a lot more activity than what this business would generate. He stated that he has no objection to the request. Commissioner Daiien questioned if the accessory structure was used as an electrical building. Mr. Rosenberg stated that that is correct. Commissioner Dalien questioned Mr. Rosenberg on when the operation ceased. Mr. Rosenberg stated that the date provided by staff was the correct date. Commissioner Daiien questioned Mr. Rosenberg on whether the building has been used for any commercial use since. Mr. Rosenberg stated that to his knowledge it hasn't been used since for any commercial use since that time. Bruce Nelson, 2351 139th Avenue, stated that he's concerned if there will be more than one employee working in the operation. He stated that he's also concerned about the increase in traffic it could generate. He mentioned that he did speak with an adjacent property owner who stated that he never liked the idea of the electrical business when it . was in operation. Nathan Hare, 2361 139th Avenue, stated that he's opposed to the request since he and his wife are gone during the day and there could be considerable traffic. He stated that the activity along with not knowing who the employees are concerns him. He mentioned that his property is only 26 feet from the accessory structure, therefore he has concerns regarding the noise and how it may affect the value of his property. Commissioner Greenwald questioned what kind of natural barriers exist that separate the properties. Mr. Hare stated that there is a privacy fence, however the building is much taller and is definitely visible from his house. Chair Squires stated that for the record Mr. Hare and another resident did write a letter to the City stating that he is opposed to the request. Mr. Hare stated that that is correct. Ted Hurkman, 2487 139th Avenue, stated that he has no problems with whatever the Commission decides. He mentioned that he does meet several of the requirements for special use permits. Commissioner Falk questioned Mr. Hurkman on how exactly he would use the accessory structure. Mr. Hurkman stated that he would use the building to store his supplies. Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - September 25, 2001 Page 4 Commissioner Falk questioned if the building would be used for any manufacturing or maintenance purposes. Mr. Hurkman stated he would use the accessory structure for storage of vehicles and some limited business activities. Commissioner Greenwald questioned where Mr. Hurkman is currently running his business. Mr. Hurkman stated that he currently has his business along Hanson BIvd. He stated the location. Commissioner Greenwald questioned if the structure could be used for storage purposes without the special use permit. Mr. Bednarz stated that yes it could be used for storage. Commissioner Greenwald mentioned that even if the Commission doesn't grant the request, Mr. Hurkman would still be able to store his trucks in the building. Mr. Bednarz stated that that is correct. However, if the vehicles came to and from the property on a regular basis this could be determined to be a home occupation. Commissioner Greenwald stated that if that is the case the traffic isn't even an issue, since it probably would happen either way. 0 Mr. Bednarz mentioned that currently the accessory building doesn't meet the current fire and building codes. 0 Commissioner Greenwald mentioned that even if the Commission doesn't grant the special use permit the building may still be used in a way that the neighbors don't approve. Chair Squires stated that in terms of enforcement staff would have to make a judgement call. Mr. Bednarz also mentioned that if there is regular vehicle traffic to and from the site it may become an issue that staff would have to address. There was no further public input. Motion by Daninger, seconded by Hedin, to close the public hearing at 7:29 p.m. Motion carried on a 6-ayes, 0 -nays, i- absent (Kirchoff) vote. ^.ommissioner Daninger stated that it's nice to see residents attending the public hearings ad stating the pros and cons of the request. He mentioned that because of the variances wouldn't be able to recommend approval, however commended Mr. Hurkman for °cking into it as a possibility. Commissioner Dalien agreed. 0 Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - September 25, 2001 • Page 5 Commissioner Falk stated that he would like to give the applicant credit for trying to put the request through. He stated that he has no choice but to vote for denial because of the ordinances. Commissioner Hedin stated that he agrees with the rest of the Commission. He mentioned that at least the applicant can use the structure for storage so the building isn't wasted. Commissioner Greenwald stated that he doesn't agree with the ordinance. He stated that he doesn't feel the ordinance is fair. He mentioned that he is concerned about growth and what would happen if it became an issue. He stated that he wouldn't be able to vote for it because of the ordinances, however commended Mr. Hurkman for bringing it forward. Motion by Daninger, seconded by Greenwald, to recommend to the City Council approval of Resolution No. _, denying the Special Use Permit request of Ted Hurkel for a home occupation plumbing business to be operated out of an accessory structure on property located at 2487 139th Avenue NW. Further Discussion • Chair Squires mentioned that it's important when the Commission recommends denial to support it with findings. Commissioner Daninger stated that his intent was to include the six findings as prepared in the resolution. Commissioner Greenwald agreed. Commissioner Hedin suggested staff look at the possibilities of revising the ordinance. He stated that had the 3 acres been the only variance he would have voted for approval. He also mentioned that there are very nice accessory buildings out there that aren't a 100 feet from the front yard setback. Chair Squires suggested staff take a look at the ordinance. Motion carried on a 6 -ayes, 0 -nays, 1- absent (Kirchoff) vote. Mr. Bednarz stated that this item would be reviewed at the October 16, 2001 City Council meeting. PUBLIC HEARING. SPECIAL USE PERMIT (01 -09) FOR HOME OCCUPATION BEA UTY SALON LOCA TED AT 898 138TH A VENUE - RACHEL BORGEN. Mr. Bednarz explained that the applicant is seeking approval of a special use permit to allow a home occupation beauty salon within the principal structure of the subject property. He stated that if approved all applicable ordinances would be required to be • met. He stated that the in -home beauty salon would be limited to one chair. Adequate parking is available in the driveway. The applicant will comply with all applicable state Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - September 25, 2001 Page 6 • regulations. The hours of operation would be Monday through Saturday 9 a.m. to 8:30 p.m. The property is served by municipal utilities. Commissioner Daninger questioned if the hours comply with the requirements, however they just need to be stated. Mr. Bednarz explained that the hours need to be stated in the resolution. Commissioner Daninger questioned if the hours the applicant is requesting is similar to other in -home beauty salon operations. Mr. Bednarz stated that the closing hours of other in -home beauty salons around the City vary between 5 p.m. and 8 p.m. Chair Squires questioned if there are certain requirements in the ordinance regarding the number of employees allowed to work in the operation. Mr. Bednarz stated that there are no employee limits but the business is limited to one chair which addresses that issue. Chair Squires questioned the sign requirements. Mr. Bednarz stated the requirements for residential properties. Motion by Dalien, seconded by Hedin, to open the public hearing at 7:41 p.m. Motion carried on a 6 -ayes, 0 -nays, 1- absent (Kirchoff) vote. Rachel Borgen, 898 138th Avenue, stated that she would be the only employee working • in the salon. She mentioned that the cosmetology requirements with the state say that only one person can be employed in her salon because of the amount of square feet available. Commissioner Daninger questioned Ms. Borgen if she plans to be open until 8:30 p.m. Ms. Borgen explained that she just wanted to keep her options open. Chair Squires questioned Ms. Borgen if there is enough parking for more than one vehicle. Ms. Borgen stated that she has enough parking for two customers. Chair Squires questioned if there have been any calls with concerns regarding the request. Mr. Bednarz stated that he did have a few calls, however there were no complaints or concerns regarding the request. Ms. Borgen mentioned that she wouldn't be having a sign on her property. There was no further public input. Motion by Hedin, seconded by Daninger, to close the public hearing at 7:44 p.m. Motion carried on a 6 -ayes, 0 -nays, 1- absent (Kirchoff) vote. • 1 Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - September 25, 2001 • Page 7 Chair Squires mentioned that at one time he lived next to an operation such as this and found that there were never any problems. Motion by Falk, seconded by Hedin, to recommend to the City Council approval of Resolution No. _, approving the Special Use Permit request of Rachel Borgen for a home occupation beauty salon for property located at 898 138th Avenue NW, subject to the following conditions: 1. One (1) Chair salon/barber only. 2. The hours of operation shall be Monday through Saturday 9 a.m. to 8:30 p.m. 3. Parking requirements shall be as set out in Ordinance No. 8, Section 8.08. 4. The salon/shop must comply with the State Cosmetology Board and the State Barbers Board requirements. 5. The beauty shop/barber shop shall be owner occupied. 6. Upon sale of the premises for which the Special Use Permit is granted, such Permit shall terminate. The Special Use Perm sh all be subject to review at any time the City Council determines this use of the property becomes detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare of the community. is Motion carried on a 6 -ayes, 0 -nays, 1- absent (Kirchoff) vote. Mr. Bednarz stated that this item would be up for approval at the October 16, 2001 City Council meeting. OTHER BUSINESS Mr. Bednarz updated the Commission on related items that have recently been before the City Council. Commissioner Greenwald questioned if there is an update on the potential sports facility. Commissioner Daninger stated that they recently had a meeting. He stated that a lot of weight will be based on the results of the survey. He mentioned that some are concerned about the survey being conducted so soon after the terrorist attack and how it may affect the results of the survey. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Falk, seconded by Dalien, to adjourn the meeting at 7:55 p.m. Motion carried on a 6 -ayes, 0 -nays, 1- absent (Kirchoff) vote. 40 L Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - September 25, 2001 Page 8 Respectfully submitted, Sara Beck, Recording Secretary Timesaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. • • 40 • CITY OF ANDOVER 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. • ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 • (763) 755 -5100 FAX (763) 755 -8923 • WWW.CI.ANDOVER.MN.US TO: Planning and Zoning Commissioners CC: David Carlberg, Community Development Director FROM: Courtney Bednarz, City Plann# SUBJECT: Public Hearing: Preliminary Plat for a two lot urban residential project to be known as `Prairie Acres' located at 732 140 Lane NW - S.W. Wold. DATE: October 23, 2001 INTRODUCTION The Planning and Zoning Commission is asked - to review a preliminary plat for the above referenced project. The proposed project contains two urban residential lots. Municipal utilities are available to serve both properties. A sketch plan for the proposed project received a favorable review by the Planning and Zoning Commission at the May 22 meeting and the City Council on June 5, 2001. DISCUSSION Background The subject property was created earlier this year. when the property owner received approval of a Lot Split to create a 0.64 acre property for the existing house and a 0.86 acre residual parcel. The residual parcel was conveyed to S.W. Wold who now seeks to divide this parcel into two residential lots. Due to the fact that the Lot Split Ordinance (Ordinance No. 40) allows only one lot split per property per three year period, a plat will have to be processed to allow the property to be subdivided again at this time. Review Process Ordinance 10, Section 7 outlines the requirements for preliminary plat review. The Planning Commission is asked to determine whether the proposed subdivision is in conformity with the Comprehensive Plan and in conformance with the review criteria and design guidelines of the City. 0 • Conformance with local and Regional Plans The proposed project is consistent with the Andover Comprehensive Plan Land Use Plan as the property is designated RU, Residential Urban. The property is located in the Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA). Municipal utilities are available to serve both proposed properties. Conformance with Local Ordinances All lots are required to meet the provisions of Ordinance No. 10, Section 9.06a(1) which relates to lot size and buildability requirements. In addition, the front 100 feet of each lot must be buildable. This standard is used for all lots developed with municipal sewer and water. Note: Dimensions measured from shortest distance This section also requires the lowest floor to be a minimum of three feet above the seasonal high water mark or one foot above the 100 year flood elevation, whichever is greater. Adequate rear yard area must also be provided to maintain useable space for each lot. As the table indicates, the proposed properties would meet or exceed all of these requirements as indicated on the attached plan. Soil borings have been completed and the proposed properties have been determined to be buildable by the Building Official. The lowest floor elevations will be verified when building permit applications for new houses are reviewed. Additional Review Comments There are a few minor items that need to be addressed before the preliminary plat can be approved by the City Council. These items are as follows (see also attached memorandum from the Engineering Department): 1. Proposed minimum lowest floor elevations need to be indicated. 2. Indication that boulevard sod and 4" of topsoil will be provided in disturbed areas. 3. Overflow drainage calculations need to be provided to ensure that overflow into the Cherrywood Estates can be accommodated. 4. Additional calculations to demonstrate that any standing water in this pond will not affect • the proposed lowest floor elevation of Lot 2 of Prairie Acres. fA fr Provided Parcel A 1) Parcel B (Lot 2) (Lot Ifii�%4 Ail' '80 feet 80 feet ;> } ' q 202 feet 202 feet =r` ; �bef, -116 'a�r� k ;r" {Q`f 18,821 feet 18,821 feet - x le a x 202 feet 202 feet E u v�. .,`� Note: Dimensions measured from shortest distance This section also requires the lowest floor to be a minimum of three feet above the seasonal high water mark or one foot above the 100 year flood elevation, whichever is greater. Adequate rear yard area must also be provided to maintain useable space for each lot. As the table indicates, the proposed properties would meet or exceed all of these requirements as indicated on the attached plan. Soil borings have been completed and the proposed properties have been determined to be buildable by the Building Official. The lowest floor elevations will be verified when building permit applications for new houses are reviewed. Additional Review Comments There are a few minor items that need to be addressed before the preliminary plat can be approved by the City Council. These items are as follows (see also attached memorandum from the Engineering Department): 1. Proposed minimum lowest floor elevations need to be indicated. 2. Indication that boulevard sod and 4" of topsoil will be provided in disturbed areas. 3. Overflow drainage calculations need to be provided to ensure that overflow into the Cherrywood Estates can be accommodated. 4. Additional calculations to demonstrate that any standing water in this pond will not affect • the proposed lowest floor elevation of Lot 2 of Prairie Acres. • The developer is also required to meet the following City Ordinances and all other applicable ordinances: Ordinance No. 8, the Zoning Ordinance Ordinance No. 10, the Platting and Subdivision Ordinance Ordinance No. 107, Shoreland Management Ordinance Ordinance No. 108, Flood Plain Management Ordinance Ordinance No. 114, Wetland Buffer Ordinance Ordinance No. 214, Diseased Shade Tree Ord. & Tree Preservation Policy Coordination with other Agencies The developer and /or owner is responsible to obtain all necessary permits (Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, U.S. Army Corp of Engineers, Coon Creek Watershed District, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, LGU and any other agency that may have an interest in the site). Initial contact shall be made with the City Engineering Department regarding this item. Park and Recreation Commission Comments The Park and Recreation Commission reviewed this item at their June 7, 2001 meeting and indicated that a park dedication payment for the two proposed properties would be required. • Ordinance No. 205, Section 4B The Building Official reviews all building permit applications to determine whether the exterior architectural design, appearance, or functional plan will vary from any structures within 300' of the proposed structure. Attachments Resolution Attachment A Location Map Attachment B Preliminary Plat Attachment C Engineering Comments ACTION REQUIRED Recommend approval or denial of the preliminary plat for Prairie Acres. Respectfully submitted, Courtn y edn Cc: S.W. Wold Construction, Inc., 901 West Highway 10, Suite 107 Anoka, MN 55303 • • CITY OF ANDOVER COUNTY OF ANOKA STATE OF MINNESOTA A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY PLAT OF "PRAIRIE ACRES" BY S.W. WOLD CONSTRUCTION, INC. LOCATED AT 732 140"' AVENUE NW IN SECTION 36, TOWNSHIP 32, RANGE 24, ANOKA COUNTY, MINNESOTA, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: The east 160 feet of the west 277.70 feet of the south 235.21 feet of the north 453.21 feet of Government Lot 1, Section 36, Township 32, Range 24 subject to 140 Lane N.W. over the north 33.00 feet thereof. WHEREAS, the Andover Review Committee has reviewed the preliminary plat; and WHEREAS, pursuant to published and mailed notice thereof, the Planning and Zoning Commission has conducted a public hearing on said plat; and WHEREAS, as a result of such public hearing, the Planning and Zoning Commission • recommends to the City Council the approval of the plat. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Andover hereby. agrees with the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approves the preliminary plat with the following conditions: 1. Proposed minimum lowest floor elevations need to be indicated. 2. Indication that boulevard sod and 4" of topsoil will be provided in disturbed areas. 3. Overflow drainage calculations need to be provided to ensure that overflow into the Cherrywood Estates can be accommodated. 4. Additional calculations to demonstrate that any standing water in this pond will not affect the proposed lowest floor elevation of Lot 2 of Prairie Acres. 5. The developer obtains all necessary permits from the Coon Creek Watershed District, DNR, Corps of Engineers, LGU, MPCA and any other agency that may be interested in the site. • 6. Contingent upon staff review and approval for compliance with City ordinances, policies and guidelines. 7. Such plat approval is contingent upon a development agreement acceptable to the City Attorney. 0 Adopted by the City Council of the City of Andover this day of , 2001. CITY OF ANDOVER F. Victoria Volk, City Clerk Michael R. Gamache, Mayor • A..�.,..4,m ant Q c s � Z N 00 O i 0 O_++ cc E € 1 V z _ N C Zia •L � • L � J h W Q m m g N N � �`1 T IL C g U N w m Z 0 w m w KaUz d a w O II ry N �° E 0) 0 W d U d Q� ai V) U) a w Ci a�i o ` 0 d c > f0 wu mmI t CL 0 m m � -v d C W N I O_V U = N O L N CD CLM C 0 N z `ma y/ I t a CD — ` N CD N 0 v o 7 m E I t N n R o O c . F 2 �- -WEST UNE OF GOVERNMENT LOT I. SEC. 36. TWP. 32, R. 24, AND THE WEST LINE OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER SEC. 36 ! / THE EAST LINE OF HILLS OF BUNKER LAKE 5TH ADDITION. / -- 453.30 NO°01'33'E -- S� - — — — — - -- 235.26 - -- — — — — - o I { I I 1 I I I I i I I c; I J 1 ,p 1' r � m J I -- 218.04 -- - 1 ' I 1 } j 33 I { 2m I I i { I I 1 , I I I =I 1 � I j> I r l m s- Y I � � I ,) r n 1 I 1{ I � HY —LAND SURVEYING, P. A. LAND SURVEYORS 8700 JEFFERSON HIGHWAY OSSEO, MINNESOTA 55369 PHONE: 483 -5761 FAX: 493 -5781 ,SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATION 1 �riy sIKY nol br. b M s ,aar nY Ysl nyaNY� ab�l m a YY MyW�1 lab s.rp waa a Nw a a riaN a la+wota MM 5 JOB NUIfBER 22,055 ELD BOOK NUM LEG& DESCRIPTION: o - Danot" Iron Monument DRAWN BY: M.JA 0 m Z 0 n 2 II � N 0 m Cn m m a m1 H o tj b eb o ro o � � b ob z ~' O (Q +Z Z Iq OO m zo Z ( <mD 1 mmf y O .ZINy ;� ZOY� C] = tzm za rr-- 1 f F pO g 10 1 10 -4 m 11 I I Ila? r > j e Z i Qi m IoL_ Io E E 25 y y y z z z Oo So J A Gl GCCi ° ° y y 2 y U ° I 0 0 Z 2 0 O p�� ° (mn] =� 0 ° § y m W HNm y u A n > > o m yym 2 m o 2 I O y N A M m m Al m A m O HY —LAND SURVEYING, P. A. LAND SURVEYORS 8700 JEFFERSON HIGHWAY OSSEO, MINNESOTA 55369 PHONE: 483 -5761 FAX: 493 -5781 ,SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATION 1 �riy sIKY nol br. b M s ,aar nY Ysl nyaNY� ab�l m a YY MyW�1 lab s.rp waa a Nw a a riaN a la+wota MM 5 JOB NUIfBER 22,055 ELD BOOK NUM LEG& DESCRIPTION: o - Danot" Iron Monument DRAWN BY: M.JA 0 m Z 0 n 2 II � N 0 m Cn m m a m1 H o tj b eb o ro o � � b ob z ~' O (Q +Z Z Iq "T • CITY OF ANDOVER 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. • ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 • (763) 755 -5100 FAX (763) 755 -8923 • VAMCLANDOVER.MMUS TO: Planning and Zoning Commissioners CC: David Carlberg, Community Development Director FROM: Courtney Bednarz, City Plann r, SUBJECT: Public Hearing: Residential Sketch Plan for a six lot rural residential development to be known as `North Lake Ridge' located southwest of the intersection of 157 Avenue NW and Round Lake Boulevard. DATE: October 23, 2001 INTRODUCTION The Planning and Zoning Commission is asked to review a residential sketch plan for the above • referenced project. Review Criteria Ordinance 10, Section 6 outlines the requirements for sketch plan review. The Planning Commission is asked to informally advise the subdivider of the extent to which the plan conforms to the Comprehensive Plan, design standards of city, county, state and federal agencies and possible modification necessary to secure approval of the plan. Submission of a sketch plan does not constitute formal filing of a plat. DISCUSSION Conformance with Local and Regional Plans The proposed sketch plan is consistent with the Andover Comprehensive Plan Land Use Plan as the property is designated RR, Rural Residential. The property is located outside the Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA). Private utilities will need to be established to serve proposed properties. Conformance with Local Ordinances All lots are required to meet the provisions of Ordinance No. 10, Section 9.06a(1) which relates to lot size and buildability requirements. • • Buildability requirements of Ordinance No. 10 Section 9.06a(1) This section also requires the lowest floor to be a minimum of three feet above the seasonal high water mark or one foot above the 100 year flood elevation, whichever is greater. As the table indicates, the majority of proposed lots do not meet the minimum lot width requirement. While existing features such as the wetland and trees and the odd shape of the property provide development constraints, the substantial departure from the minimum lot • width requirement can not be justified. The project must be redesigned with consideration given to the zoning district requirements. Access The minimal infrastructure proposed contributes to the difficulty in providing the proposed lots with the required lot width. The sketch plan proposes to extend 156 Avenue NW approximately 500 feet to provide access to four of the six lots. The remaining two lots would both have access to Round Lake Boulevard. Ordinance 10 Section 9.02 C. prohibits direct access onto county roads. While one access exists for the farm operation, a second access onto Round Lake Boulevard is not desirable. The proposed extension of 156 Avenue, combined with the existing segment to the west would result in a cul -de -sac length of approximately 780 feet. Ordinance 10 Section 9.03 G. limits the length of streets ending in a cul -de -sac to 500 feet. As proposed, a variance to this requirement would be necessary. Surrounding properties The sketch plan does not incorporate undeveloped property to the northeast. A revised sketch plan is being prepared to illustrate how adjacent property can be incorporated into the plat. • Revised Sketch Plan The applicant is preparing a revised sketch plan that will be presented to the Planning and Zoning Commission at the October 23 ` meeting. This sketch will extend 156 Avenue NW Provided Block 1 Block 2 Lot 1 Lot 2 Lot 1 Lot 2 Lot 3 Lot 4 'o',3�� �, 243 feet 256 feet 300 feet 209 feet 205 feet 204 feet If 0ef 500 feet 460 feet 470 feet 340 feet 535 feet 870 feet 2.74 1 2.70 3.75 3.15 2.52 3.96 )1� zlb' fi F Soil Borings Needed k �e�l��pa Soil Borings Needed This section also requires the lowest floor to be a minimum of three feet above the seasonal high water mark or one foot above the 100 year flood elevation, whichever is greater. As the table indicates, the majority of proposed lots do not meet the minimum lot width requirement. While existing features such as the wetland and trees and the odd shape of the property provide development constraints, the substantial departure from the minimum lot • width requirement can not be justified. The project must be redesigned with consideration given to the zoning district requirements. Access The minimal infrastructure proposed contributes to the difficulty in providing the proposed lots with the required lot width. The sketch plan proposes to extend 156 Avenue NW approximately 500 feet to provide access to four of the six lots. The remaining two lots would both have access to Round Lake Boulevard. Ordinance 10 Section 9.02 C. prohibits direct access onto county roads. While one access exists for the farm operation, a second access onto Round Lake Boulevard is not desirable. The proposed extension of 156 Avenue, combined with the existing segment to the west would result in a cul -de -sac length of approximately 780 feet. Ordinance 10 Section 9.03 G. limits the length of streets ending in a cul -de -sac to 500 feet. As proposed, a variance to this requirement would be necessary. Surrounding properties The sketch plan does not incorporate undeveloped property to the northeast. A revised sketch plan is being prepared to illustrate how adjacent property can be incorporated into the plat. • Revised Sketch Plan The applicant is preparing a revised sketch plan that will be presented to the Planning and Zoning Commission at the October 23 ` meeting. This sketch will extend 156 Avenue NW • to Round Lake Boulevard. The level of detail should include lot dimensions and sizes to determine what variances are being requested. The applicant must provide findings to justify any proposed variances. Increasing lot depth and area may be a mitigating factor when considering variances to lot width, but the commission should be cautious so as not to create a precedent that could be followed my a wide range of rural properties across the city. In staff s view, variances may be necessary to accommodate the incorporation of surrounding properties with existing houses. Variances to increase the number of lots on a vacant piece of property is a different situation that will require different findings. An aerial photograph is attached to indicate a sketch prepared by staff. The intent of the sketch is to extend 156 Avenue NW to Round Lake Boulevard and to utilize all of the undeveloped property in the area to create the maximum number of lots with the least number of variances. This is one of many approaches to arrange lots around the extension of 156 Avenue NW. Other Ordinances The developer is also required to meet the following City Ordinances and all other applicable ordinances: Ordinance No. 8, the Zoning Ordinance • Ordinance No. 10, the Platting and Subdivision Ordinance Ordinance No. 107, Shoreland Management Ordinance Ordinance No. 108, Flood Plain Management Ordinance Ordinance No. 114, Wetland Buffer Ordinance Ordinance No. 214, Diseased Shade Tree Ord. & Tree Preservation Policy Coordination with other Agencies The developer and /or owner is responsible to obtain all necessary permits (Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, U.S. Army Corp of Engineers, Coon Creek Watershed District, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, LGU and any other agency that may have an interest in the site). Initial contact shall be made with the City Engineering Department regarding this item. Park and Recreation Commission Comments The Park and Recreation Commission will review this item at an upcoming meeting. Ordinance No. 205, Section 4B The Building Official reviews all building permit applications to determine whether the exterior architectural design, appearance, or functional plan will vary from any structures within 300' of the proposed structure. • ACTION REQUIRED Advise the applicant on changes that will be necessary to secure a favorable recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission. • Attachments Location Map Sketch Plan (full size plan in packet) Staff Sketch Plan IZ 1 Cc: Fields Development Co., 15421 Round Lake Blvd C� North Lake Ridge ,593, 15830 3465 f 15909 15941 \ 3353 15940 ,5907 75808 3518 15921 f N 15890 j 15885 3470 9430 15874 3988 3340 15835 I ,5820 3537 1 3339 I 3301 r +s 3676 no 15610 15841 15640 15641 8340 3302 15642 N 15620 15600 m O 15601 a 15591 15600 15554 Q 0 1581HAVE + m 3848 15520 111 Y 15521 5520 3420 155TH LN O 15x0 Z 15440 15441 Q 11 U4 � � � 77a i 33m / -� 15410 3201 15730 W� / - T / 15401 154TH LN 3621 � V J � \� + 3520 \ 15400 \ `� -- � 15331 3700 3540 \ 100 15731 3401 ��� 7631 15730 I� \ + 3341 \ 3541 3511 3251 3680 163RD AVFF�� 2630 i j � A /3,201 WO 753RD AVE 30 /�� \ 3420 w 3360 70 y \ 15288 0 / 3540 3510 3450 �U 7240 � J � o rL 15266 3401 `O 3421 15221 3200 9829 3541 3511 3451 3301 ND � 3241 +' 3207 I 3400 I \ 3fida 7420 � 7370 3540 3510 3450 Project Location Map N W4 E City of Andover Planning Departmeni . 4 S 2 •n� 1�, r i 4 -` ♦ r -ti e r r 'ija rT 44 r ..?Ya + r r �,� • )'p ... t -t! ' ' ?�tL �tAne 1` } ��w�S `.+59.+,�il >''� j ✓ li= 4 , x a v car• �' .P� � � * - r[ u.����Pt ! ,}p '- t �3 '" P *' : k ; '�1 v '.. .. �f- '•a �is f+ ^ rµ9}aRe¢.`M. -N a1�s•- . ,r .A �'n, raw,y., :..t r.�F �....- .`^ "3S -� s _w.- _ _ z — S,} - .F� . T_•,_'�r +«+`.s- 4^3°.. ��."� -� " ^t.. ° ^^ !-�,' Ir.wr�.�ircyF.....: i- «.- .++. -.. `R- u n � s �� +�u ai e � a„ _. -•.. .. ., .L �° y , ern+ ' -Tr .,a.. "'� 9 "'§,.. a �. 7'eu$.. � -E, •�. �'u "u°a° -.n` " i�r'x tir.� a x4e � r" C•7 t X � � r � . K � R r f L t?" - £'" v ,., s , s # I ° � � $6' `7 �,�f• r ` �-•3' v Y S . � 15+� 'f J _� Y V ~^ p 'Fi .x .r yp1, • a Ti ' �y� ^.` 7 - r S. � t- •. xa 'r � 4 p � �' � _ _ i J � v r 4 t A t s$ '' .`� �".. •., 1 _ nd �� .,#;- 4 � � '. Ts � ry . � � te a,•; �� - T t ,, ;� ..,� .. j _ 9'4 Y �yG t .�t.: µ�•' '� i� ! K.... r i - � y � t /,.. 1 tT• 1 "�,.�," �'% { r v J ?ifs,;" 4_',o r SM1 r �f4. .�.. 21 ` yl �` �}. * `3 tea. 'Se'h 3 � � ^ I .,a T.: Z ns� itf'k' •-s-�r .G °M ..Tt�d+."%.,T +GS' i ,� FFF tax tr h u N lye k�J i � .. � *�ry - �'�x*t � •.sF � � � �- C r ; a r .°wSa't<"".. ;� 3` r T �Y 4k; L Yt I Z x .,w... I. � t« ♦ .th .5t�",.t i: e �� .. ) ,.� Y +ad,� d; _, {1 5� : 1� F �' � _. '"" K✓ 1 - '"'r�'r'��' -� ��1 i�a7t. YY�i L°? . � - 1!t i� _ 4 � , x A" ` �i L4-_ ( a-tt! tE i .•rr vw _� r pp !r1 :'rev. r 4 :. �.E �� -'�; � - ' .° rFt x" r �` � ' .fz.. 4` yY"�'> 'a 1® l,i �" _ • _, p d ' moo. _ )+� ' "e '7 � T ` t r" •' a '- f r`x �'' ",. > fi k ?:: , ♦ ' , - r�' E � � �. ,. v £� e x '�' � `� .. °i .x � R _M'>'1 .T E AtYYKta" .• .�J��IR: Y � S�V" •"Ft .M1 .�7. 1� � S � � . !R t , `� :-'�: 'wf �' k� aiYl^' f..: a I,w:C±S, Jy..� _ � � �" i •:C °�..� ,�.ibt fik `:: `k __y. : a s }� �..� � Rk I 0 .. 1 • 4 �� T_ h r rsi r a. x y • CITY OF ANDOVER 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. • ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 • (763) 755 -5100 FAX (763) 755 -8923 • WWW.CLANDOVER.MN.US TO: Planning and Zoning Commissioners CC: David Carlberg, Community Development Director FROM: Courtney Bednarz, City Planner SUBJECT: Public Hearing: Ultralight Vehicles DATE: October 23, 2001 INTRODUCTION The City Council has asked the Planning and Zoning Commission to evaluate Ultralight activity, research regulations and recommend whether a local ordinance is necessary to regulate this activity. If a local ordinance is determined to be necessary, the Planning and Zoning Commission is also asked to recommend language for this ordinance. DISCUSSION Ultralight Activity A rural property also used as an airfield is located to the northeast of Prairie Road and Andover Boulevard. There has been an increase in the number and frequency of aircraft taking off and landing at this site this year. On several occasions there were at least four aircraft using the site on the same day. There have been reports of low flying in residential neighborhoods. The FAA, Anoka County Sheriff s Office and City Staff have all received complaints. These complaints generally include the following statements: The pilots fly the Ultralights too low over neighborhoods and the noise disturbs the enjoyment of residential properties. • This activity threatens the safety of families and properties. The airfield is used as a training facility for takeoffs and landings. This level of activity is far beyond what should be allowed in a residential neighborhood. Staff contacted and met with the property owner to discuss these issues. The property owner indicated the level of activity rarely reached reported levels and would be reduced by restricting the number of pilots with permission to use his property. He stated that the site was used for recreational purposes and was not a commercial business. He also said that pilots respect the surrounding residential neighborhood and climb to higher altitudes above the sod fields before s • passing over neighborhoods as required by the FAA. Noise is not an issue at these altitudes. He also commented that it takes less than five minutes for an ultralight to takeoff or land, that all FAA guidelines are followed and that similar activity takes place in other communities, such as Ham Lake. Existing Regulations Federal Aviation Administration Ultralight vehicles are regulated by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). Title 14, Chapter103 of the Federal Code provides the specific regulations for ultralight vehicles (Attachment B). No pilot or aircraft license is required by the FAA for thus type of activity. However, this chapter discusses operations in prohibited or restricted areas as well as operations over congested areas. Prohibited and restricted areas refer specifically to airspace and are typically associated with air bases or established flight zones. The statement for congested areas is as follows: "No person may operate an ultralight vehicle over any congested area of a city, town, or settlement, or over any open air assembly of persons." The regulations provide no specific definition for congested areas, yet the FAA does consider • suburban residential neighborhoods to be congested areas. The FAA recently conducted site visits and, although they did not witness illegal activity, they related to the City concerns about low flying over residential neighborhoods. If this activity is occurring and can be documented By an independent source such as City Staff or the Anoka County Sheriff s Office, the FAA will provide enforcement measures. League of Minnesota Cities The League had no model ordinance for this type of activity. They directed staff to consult the Cities of Lake Elmo, Ham Lake, Minnetonka and Bloomington. These cities have addressed similar issues. Lake Elmo In 1989, Lake Elmo had the same discussion Andover is having today. Ultralight activity, and specifically low flying and noise levels, had become a concern for residents. A petition was brought to the council. After a public hearing, a compromise was reached whereby no fly zones were established on maps distributed to pilots and a "mug shot" book containing photographs of all the ultralights using the airfield was created. This allowed residents to identify aircraft that violated FAA standards. This issue has since subsided in Lake Elmo and there is no current ultralight activity that the planning department is aware of. Also of note, there are no local . ordinances in Lake Elmo that regulate ultralights. Please refer to Attachment C for further information. • Ham Lake Ham Lake regulates landing and takeoffs of all aircraft that require licensing by the FAA or Minnesota Department of Aeronautics. Ultralights are not required to be licensed by these agencies. The area of the City in which regulated aircraft activity is allowed is restricted to specific zoning districts. A conditional use permit is also required to mitigate potential impacts on surrounding properties. This ordinance was created to address a local issue concerning one helicopter and pilot. Please refer to Attachment C for a copy of this ordinance. Minnetonka Minnetonka does not prohibit ultralights, but does require all aircraft to comply with federal and state regulations and obtain permission from property owners prior to landing within the city. A conditional use permit is required specifically for heliports but not for ultralights. Specific conditions include hours of operation and separation from residential areas. Please refer to Attachment D for a copy of this ordinance. Bloomington Bloomington requires a permit issued by the City Council for any aircraft, including ultralights, that take off or land within the city with four exceptions. Review criteria include safety of . surrounding properties, location of activity in relation to adjacent structures and land uses, prevention of nuisances, including noise, compliance with FAA licensing regulations, proof of liability insurance and permission of the property owner. Bloomington's Senior Planner commented that the ordinance was created years ago before Bloomington was fully developed and has not bee used since that time due to the lack of any flight activity. Please refer to Attachment E for a copy of this ordinance. In summary, few communities have found it necessary to enact local ordinances to regulate ultralights. Lake Elmo had the most similar experience. Their approach resolved the two primary issues that residents had with this type of activity in a proactive manner. The process of identifying aircraft that violate FAA standards was simplified, which aided the FAA in the enforcement of their regulations. Andover Ordinances The noise ordinance (Ordinance 230) provides for the measurement of sound for a continuous period of both ten and fifty percent of one hour. The level of sound constituting a violation is 65 decibels between the hours of lam and l Opm. As stated earlier, a typical ultralight takeoff or landing takes less than five minutes. It is possible that continuous takeoffs or landings could constitute a violation of this ordinance. Noise monitoring while the airfield is operating at peak levels would be necessary to determine if the noise standards are being violated. • Section 8.19 Other Nuisance Characteristics provides restrictions on odors, vibration, smoke, air pollution, and animals but does not provide specific language that can be applied to ultralight vehicles. • If the City wishes to regulate landing areas as a special use, or eliminate landing areas from Andover entirely, Ordinance 8 will need to be amended to provide the appropriate language. Prohibiting Ultralights Airfields can be regulated by local ordinance. Many locations can be eliminated by such an ordinance based on reasonable distances from congested areas, such as neighborhoods, and other criteria designed to prevent detrimental effects on the public health, safety and welfare. All ordinances require justification. A city wide prohibition against airfields may be difficult to justify if it can be demonstrated that aircraft activity is in compliance with all FAA standards and flight activity is limited to undeveloped areas of the city and does not impact residential neighborhoods. Whether or not the City decides to enact a local ordinance to restrict airfields, the city can not control traffic through its air space. This service is provided by the FAA. Even if all airfields are eliminated from Andover, a landing area is located nearby in Ham Lake. Staff Recommendation Regulation of flight activity is a service that is provided by the FAA. This agency is funded by the taxpayers for the express purpose of maintaining and enforcing regulations related to all . aircraft activity. It appears that enforcement of the FAA regulation requiring a minimum altitude of 1,000 feet over congested areas would alleviate the low flying issue and contribute significantly to a reduction in noise pollution. In staffs view, the problems associated with low flying and noise are likely a result of a small number of aircraft operators that do not observe established standards. The City can facilitate enforcement of FAA standards by keeping a record of aircraft that use the facility. Residents can alert City Staff, the Anoka County Sheriffs Office or document violations on there own with photography, for example, to assist the FAA in the execution of their responsibilities. ACTION REQUIRED The Planning and Zoning Commission is asked to choose from the following options: Determine that regulation of ultralight activity is the responsibility of the FAA and facilitate enforcement of existing regulations through education and communication with the FAA, the neighborhood and the pilots. 2. Determine that local regulation is necessary and review the attached draft ordinance for efficient and effective treatment of the issue. 3. Take other actions as formulated by the Planning and Zoning Commission and City • Council. • Attachments Attachment A Location Map Attachment B FAA Regulations Attachment C Lake Elmo Article Attachment D Ham Lake Attachment E Minnetonka Attachment F Bloomington Attachment G Draft Ordinance Attachment H City Council Minutes Attachment I Resident Petition Respectfully submitted, Courtney Bednarz Cc: Dean Clossey Adam and Christine Winanzyk Wayne and Jan Margotto • . I ~ iil-: ' Lo"tioo M'p' ,!!l ,,~ ' - " , G(i) , U ~ i.~ 'I lij , I ... _ L' > , Q . ~ - ! . . < . 0 . ~ - ~ . ~ . e . " _ = < . . ." . - - ' .. r _. .0' .. ~"ll'" .. 01- ~ a. E'" _ '" __h' Z " C 0--0 · "0 _ _ < e < 0 .- r ." ~ < · " .< . .. . o. N~ 0 u:5 ...Ie I I ~J ~ ." ,- N <"II >- 0 .,1 "..,z i ' :EI ; i I ;...li ~ ffi':8 II ====== .. 0 II -rl 11 u ill co ~ " ' ~ O' ~" "T 8.. go ~ I' I T ,-," ':: ~ ~ ., I I I I LL.j~~1 ~ .., .; IL ' \1 ,"' ~,g,,' " .., , ' fi /\ ' I 'B ---' .g iil = I ,,,,v - ,,_I "' _, _~_ /1 'If l' :. c-- r----I 'I' ~,h :-m ,I' /Ifl. 1I1 ,,~~ n I je -{:t:c H fli? ~,? : ~ '" Ii I I T :I~~ ,it!!! 'Jlf1 II '" ~lT T ~i Q I I=J'i1'1 ,IT ~,' I ,; ~ I! l~f-J I l · I'~ > · I ' "y .' ,," I ' !8 I r ", 'Ii' I ,,'" ,'-0' j_ I Tn' ~~"" ' I I 111-; " ",,[-j 1-" ~, I ~-1A T~~,-I '-I, w""'/ 'I~' ~II I ' I 1/ l I~~ I' ~ ~ ~ I K"'M'\\ lEj'-'1~' ' ~I ~ ~ IL " ,,1 '" ~B 4' ~, Ili1r;:;.; _' I ~,? ~p.JJ' ~, 11'~c.iHmK~'" I ~I rJ' ee, - ..~ , ",I" ' 1'- ~ I .. ~jil i,~,:o,ggt<~~ ~~~IJ~''-~'' =ilmll~ i'Jl::J.l \ 1- :ll:5 J'I' e' ,~ '" -=W~ '" , !?IillC' " , ~ 'lJff~Jl - \ '0 al lTI ,_,T?~' j' , I," 'li!"-' ,',) y , ~~ 'f!j I~ y ~ \ ,al ~ I _ ,/, u>: 1'1" \\C]lB iN: I ~ - ",I i' ,-iI~ I ~ "l' , \'t- '11' ru _ - ,~"'" 1 ,1; I 'l.!fill I'~ ',"' I 'lfll r ,-" , ~ I I _~~!"",~I I, I -c,' ~,~/#f;.' ,I ~. I~f---J-- r d II I I ~ ~b Ti =:LW~I g.g II' l-T,J ~ 9 ." I c:j! ",' /If T ' ~ "r, T ' ,~ ,_'lL II I irl ["';jf, ~ f=1! 1"".' #' ' f--Iml. 7P,8'15 '" ,,, I ,- \ /., ., e! _I / { " ill ", n <=,' 1 ~ = ,- -, · · I~. 1(5~~'JmTl"~~tnrotlr-t~ 1- - --I P I~~I r' c- ny" .' 'IT ,,J I < "'~ n E- I \" C ,~- eo IT " " I;fl ',I T 1--'- 111 ' "~- hi;; ,~. " t- ""' ' ,A' j -.. 1:1"'"'' lli h" -t-ll ,_ g Ii:J ~~' I "'Ii /J ~! ~ C '1 L:1:'" -t:'!- iJ1itift\j ""I (( ~ ~ I ' - ~', c' '" ':Ii I L- " , , c'V~' "iuillJl' o- r \1" '" r ~' <' ""I" , 1 --;-1::J " ,""d/ _,~NJ ~IH , _ I ---+- ~t.' 'I '-'" y /' r-i)5~fl , ~ . '_ 'I I' iJl 'iArFE...~ ]c _ .JL iil I ~R~"-'---' ~ , _ %" R~~ " L-' '" '91 .i!i -~~ AOPA Online Members Only -- Federal Aviation Regulations -- Part 103 -- Ultralight Veh.. Page 1 of 5 Attachment B FAA Regulations • 14 CFR Aeronautics and Space CHAPTER I FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (Continued) SUBCHAPTER F -- AIR TRAFFIC AND GENERAL OPERATING RULES PART 103 -- ULTRALIGHT VEHICLES Subpart A -- General Sec. 10')_1 Applicability. 103..3 Inspection requirements. 103.5 Waivers. J Certification and registration. • Subpart B -- Operating Rules .1,03 .9 Hazardous operations. 103.11 Daylight operations. 103.1 3 Operation near aircraft; right -of -way rules. 103,15 Operations over congested areas. 103 17 Operations in certain airspace. 1 03.19 Operations in prohibited or restricted areas. 103._20 Flight restrictions in the proximity of certain areas designated by notice to airmen. 103.21 Visual reference with the surface. ... .. _ ... ... ........ 101.23 Flight visibility and cloud clearance requirements. Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103 - 40104, 40113, 44701. Source: Docket No. 21631, 47 FR 38776, Sept. 2, 1982, unless otherwise noted. Subpart A -- General D O_ P1 §103.1 Applicability. This part prescribes rules governing the operation of ultralight vehicles in the United States. For the purposes of this part, an ultralight vehicle is a vehicle that: http: / /www.aopa.org /members /files /fars /far- 103.htm1 9/6/01 AOPA Online Members Only -- Federal Aviation Regulations -- Part 103 -- Ultralight Veh.. Page 2 of 5 • (a) Is used or intended to be used for manned operation in the air by a single occupant; (b) Is used or intended to be used for recreation or sport purposes only; (c) Does not have any U.S. or foreign airworthiness certificate; and (d) If unpowered, weighs less than 155 pounds; or (e) If powered: (1) Weighs less than 254 pounds empty weight, excluding floats and safety devices which are intended for deployment in a potentially catastrophic situation; (2) Has a fuel capacity not exceeding 5 U.S. gallons; (3) Is not capable of more than 55 knots calibrated airspeed at full power in level flight; and (4) Has a power -off stall speed which does not exceed 24 knots calibrated airspeed. ITIM §103.3 Inspection requirements. • (a) Any person operating an ultralight vehicle under this part shall, upon request, allow the Administrator, or his designee, to inspect the vehicle to determine the applicability of this part. (b) The pilot or operator of an ultralight vehicle must, upon request of the Administrator, furnish satisfactory evidence that the vehicle is subject only to the provisions of this part. f OPI §103.5 Waivers. No person may conduct operations that require a deviation from this part except under a written waiver issued by the Administrator. [TOP]. §103.7 Certification and registration. (a) Notwithstanding any other section pertaining to certification of aircraft or their parts or equipment, ultralight vehicles and their component parts and equipment are not required to meet the airworthiness certification standards specified for aircraft or to have certificates of airworthiness. • (b) Notwithstanding any other section pertaining to airman certification, operators of ultralight vehicles are not required to meet any aeronautical knowledge, age, or experience requirements to operate those vehicles or to have airman or medical certificates. http://www.aopa.org /members /files /fars /far- 103.htm1 9/6/01 AOPA Online Members Only -- Federal Aviation Regulations -- Part 103 -- Ultralight Veh.. Page 3 of 5 . (c) Notwithstanding any other section pertaining to registration and marking of aircraft, ultralight vehicles are not required to be registered or to bear markings of any type. Subpart B -- Operating Rules [TOP] §103.9 Hazardous operations. (a) No person may operate any ultralight vehicle in a manner that creates a hazard to other persons or property. (b) No person may allow an object to be dropped from an ultralight vehicle if such action creates a hazard to other persons or property. [T...011 §103.11 Daylight operations. (a) No person may operate an ultralight vehicle except between the hours of sunrise and sunset. . (b) Notwithstanding paragraph (a) of this section, ultralight vehicles may be operated during the twilight periods 30 minutes before official sunrise and 30 minutes after official sunset or, in Alaska, during the period of civil twilight as defined in the Air Almanac, if: (1) The vehicle is equipped with an operating anticollision light visible for at least 3 statute miles; and (2) All operations are conducted in uncontrolled airspace. §103.13 Operation near aircraft; right -of -way rules. (a) Each person operating an ultralight vehicle shall maintain vigilance so as to see and avoid aircraft and shall yield the right -of -way to all aircraft. (b) No person may operate an ultralight vehicle in a manner that creates a collision hazard with respect to any aircraft. (c) Powered ultralights shall yield the right -of -way to unpowered ultralights. MOM §103.15 Operations over congested areas. No person may operate an ultralight vehicle over any congested area of a city, town, or settlement, or http: / /www.aopa.org/members /files /fars /far- 103.htmi 9/6/01 AOPA Online Members Only -- Federal Aviation Regulations -- Part 103 -- Uttralight Veh.. Page 4 of 5 over any open air assembly of persons. is ITOPJ §103.17 Operations in certain airspace. No person may operate an ultralight vehicle within Class A, Class B, Class C, or, Class D airspace or within the lateral boundaries of the surface area of Class E airspace designated for an airport unless that person has prior authorization from the ATC facility having jurisdiction over that airspace. [Arndt. 103-17,56 FR 65662, Dec. 17, 1991] I QVI §10119 Operations in prohibited or restricted areas. No person may operate an ultralight vehicle in prohibited or restricted areas unless that person has permission from the using or controlling agency, as appropriate. [TOP]. §103.20 Flight restrictions in the proximity of certain areas designated by notice to airmen. No person may operate an ultralight vehicle in areas designated in a Notice to Airmen under §91.143 or §91.141 of this chapter, unless authorized by ATC. [Doc. No. 24454, 50 FR 4969, Feb. 5, 1985, as amended by Amdt. 103 -3, 54 FR 34331, Aug. 18, 1989] ITOP1 §103.21 Visual reference with the surface. No person may operate an ultralight vehicle except by visual reference with the surface. ITOP1 §103.23 Flight visibility and cloud clearance requirements. No person may operate an ultralight vehicle when the flight visibility or distance from clouds is less than that in the table found below. All operations in Class A, Class B, Class C, and Class D airspace or Class E airspace designated for an airport must receive prior ATC authorization as required in § 103.17 of this part. 40 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Distance from Airspace Flight visibility clouds ------------------------------------------------------------ ------ - - - - -- Class A ......................... Not applicable.... Not Applicable. http: / /www.aopa.org/members /files /fars /far- 103.html 9/6/01 - AOPA Online Members Only -- Federal Aviation Regulations -- Part 103 -- Ultralight Veh.. Page 5 of 5 0 9 0 Class B ......................... 3 statute miles... Class C ......................... 3 statute miles... Class D ......................... 3 statute miles... Class E: Less than 10,000 feet MSL..... 3 statute miles.. At or above 10,000 feet MSL... 5 statute miles... Class G: 1,200 feet or less above the surface (regardless of MSL altitude). More than 1,200 feet above the surface but less than 10,000 feet MSL. Clear of Clouds. 500 feet below. 1,000 feet above. 2,000 feet horizontal. 500 feet below. 1,000 feet above. 2,000 feet horizontal. 500 feet below. 1,000 feet above. 2,000 feet horizontal. 1,000 feet below. 1,000 feet above. 1 statute mile horizontal. 1 statute mile.... Clear of clouds. 1 statute mile.... More than 1,200 feet above the 5 statute miles... surface and at or above 10,000 feet MSL. [Arndt. 103 -17, 56 FR 65662, Dec. 17, 1991] http://www.aopa.org/members/files/fars/far- 1 03.html 500 feet below. 1,000 feet above. 2,000 feet horizontal. 1,000 feet below. 1,000 feet above. 1 statute mile horizontal. ----------- - - - - -- 9/6/01 0 0 i MNA� CLIPPING SERVICE ST. CROIX VALLEY Attachment C Lake Elmo Article !t FREE PEACH —WHITE BEAR LAKE Ramsey C A Y ;j Aircraft, lap owners com-p by Jan Rosenthal _ 7 Press Correspondent l Lake Elmo residents con- cerned with noise levels in their community asked the city last week to ban ultralight aircraft from the skies over their homes, but a compromise was reached ! among the property owners and the ultralight pilots that seemed to make everyone satisfied. A petition with 19 property owners' signatures was present- ed to the city as part of a forma] complaint about the noise levels and low flight patterns of the aircraft over 10th Street, 15th Street and the Regional Park Reserve. Many of the craft takt off from and land at the North. ern Sun Air Park in the south• west part of the city. "It took a total of an hour• and -a -half to get the signa Cures," according to Ron Smith, kvho was the only resident repre- sented at the council meeting. "That probably tells you some- thing. (The signers) could proba- bly give you a lot of stories." After the meeting a compro- mise was reached between the two groups. Area ultralight pil- ots will be given maps marked With "red zones" to show them :areas they should avoid. "The .only time:we would be in these .areas would be in cases of ,extreme ema:bPncies," explained Robert Landberg, president of the Minnesota Ultralight Association. "We're also going to maintain 500 feet over the area north of 10th Street." The association is also going t, to formulate a "mug shot" book of all the ultralights in the - area so when a resident complains of an infraction, the association will be able to identify the craft and contact the owner. While the lightweight air. craft are motorized, "It's not the motor that creates the noise," explained Landberg. "It's the propeller. " According to City Adminis. trator Pat Morrison, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has few regulations regarding the aircraft. They must main. ; Lain an altitude of 1,000 feet over congested areas and 500 feet over unoccupied land. "When you can read the .j numbers (on the ultralights),'! when you`re standing on .the - ground, that's. a Tittle low; " . � commented Mayor SuaanDunn.y The city is sending a letter Containing the petition to thee. local office of ' the la AA. "rend berg said he talked to the iocai FAA representative, who' said I he; thought the situation ad been handled to his satisfaction. I Classification S� i • Municil. Attachment D H am Lake Date — Of Research and Information Service City of Ham `Lake ORDINANCE NO 0• 0 0 An Ordinance relating to (he operation of cer- .tain aircraft within the airspace over the. City of Ham. Lake, Minnesota, amending Article 9 of the Ham Lake City Code; j BE IT ORDAINED BY, THE .CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HAM LAKE, ANOKA COUNTY, MINNESOTA, AS FOLLOWS: - There is hereby added to the Ham Lake City Code an addition to the Definitions section of Article 9, to be labeled as Article 9- 130.34: _ '9- 130.34 Regulated Aircraft. - Regulated Aircraft include all aircraft which are regulated by the 'Federal Aviation Admin- istration or the Minnesota Department of Aefofiaut(cs,'and which'regWre en'oprator licensed by one of those two bodies in order to legally operate in the airspace in the State of Minnesota... There is hereby added.to the Ham, Lake City Code an Article 9 -470 to. read as follows 9-470 Operation of Regulated Aircraft It shall be unlawful for any. person aperat- T -ing a Regulated Aircraft to take off from or land upon any land in the City of Ham Lake except as provided herein. 9 -470.1 R -1; R -M; R -2; ML POD;'PUD; RS -1 and RS -2 Zoning Districts Regulated Aircraft ar$ prohibited from landing or taking off in the R -1 R -2, R -M, ML -PUD, PUD, RS -1, and R5 -2 zoning dis- tricts, and such lands are not eligible to allow such activity by conditional use permit, provided, that if such activity is' proposed in a portion of a POD or ML -PU.D. zoning district which is. located on a con- tiguous parcel of land of twenty or more acres in size, the usage -may occur by condi- tional use permit or temporary conditional' use permit under the same conditions as are imposed by Article 9. 470.3. 9 -470.2 R -A and C -A Zoning Districts Regulated Aircraft may land or take off in the R -A and C -A Zoning Districts only if the following conditions are met a) The'operator has the permission of the landowner, b) At no time may any'Regulated Aircraft pass: either in flight or while taxiing, within 500 feet of any occupied build- } ing, excepting a single building used exclusively for storage of the Regulated { c) The Regulated Aircraft at-all times maintains compliance with the noise standards as found in the Ham Lake City Code, and at all times maintains compliance with the rules and regula- tions of any other agency having juds- dictio'n over the activities of the aircraft or the operator, d) The Regulatded Aircraft is used for per- sonal usage only, and not regularly used for landing and takeoffs for business purposes; e) The usage is limited to a maximum.of twelve landings and twelve takeoffs per calendaryear. f) The operation has received (and at all times maintains good standing under) a favorable determination letter from 'the Federal Aviation Administration issued, under.Part 157 of'Federal Aviation Regulations. 9 =470.3 All Other Zoning Districts Regulated Aircraft may land or take 'off O rum lands zoned other than as described f r a Artid'4 9470.1 and 9.470.2 upon the obtaining o. a;;Conditional.Use'Permit or Temporary Conditional Use Permit, and subject to any conditions imposed by such permit, .provided,.that one of the' condi- tions shall'be that the operation has received and at all times maintains good standing Under a favorable determination letter from the Federal Aviation Admin- Istration issued "under Part'157 of Federal Aviation. Regulations. 9 -470.4 Exemptions The provisions of Article 9 -470 shall not apply to any regulated aircraft which wai being used on or before March 1 2000, If the location from which landings and takeoffs `occurred had been approved under a favorable determination letter dated prior to March 1, 2000, issued by the Federal Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, pursuant to Federal Aviation Regulations Part ' 157, or any other pertinent regulation, after clue notice and review: by said agency, Presented to the Ham Lake. City Co ouncil'on F eeb b rruary 7, 2000 and adopted on February 22, Gary Kirketde, Mayor,_ t � Doris A. Nivala Aclmmrstrator(Clerk(Treasu re ir abcdefghijklmnoPgrstuvwxyz �� ,PUbhsheclli Anok2.00UnIOn • •'4.v K YT t4n%I n ae 1t. , February 25; 2000 UCI. J. 2001 10:24AM CITY-OF MINNETONKA _ N0. 359 P. 2 945.005 Attachment E Minnetonka. Public Safety SECTION 945. AIRCRAFT. 945.005. Definition. For the purpose of this chapter, "aircraft" has the same meaning as specified in Minn, Scat, § 360.013, subd. 3. 945.010. Prnhibition. A person must not land an aircraft within the city watess in compliance with federal and state Iaw and unless he /she has the permission of the owner or occupant of the property where the landing takes place. This prohibition does not apply to emergency landings or to aircraft operated under the direction of public safety personnel. 0 9 -56 Minnetonka City Code �J OCT 03 2001 10:34 OCT, 3.2001 10:25AM CITY-Or MINNETONKA NO. 359 P. 5 Zoning Regulations 300.21 5) hours of operation shall be limited to 8:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. d) Storage, assembly or servicing incidental to the principal use: 1) shall not require any exterior modifications to the structure. e) Hospitals and medical clinics: 1) shall not be adjacent to low density residential areas; 2) site shall have direct access to collector or arterial street as defined in the comprehensive plan; and 3) emergency vehicle access shall not be adjacent to or located across a street from any residential use. f) Minor manufacturing or assembly incidental -to the principal use: i 1) shall be no outside storage of materials or trucks; �—" 2) truck deliveries shall only be permitted when it is evident that they will not detract from the site or adjoining residential areas; and 3) shall not exceed 25 percent of the gross floor area. g) Heliports: 1) shall conform to all applicable federal aviation administration regulations; 2) shall establish and utilize approach and departure routes over non - residential areas to the maximum extent possible; 3) hours of operation limited to 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 pan., inclusive, excluding emergencies; 4) shall not be located within 500 feet of residential areas; and 5) shall be provided with a dust free landing pad. Minnetonka City Code 3 -115 M c t - 1. 20 01 12:59P BLOOMINGTON PD No,6237 P- 2 f BLOOMINGTON CITY CODE Attaclunent F Bloomington (4) No weapon described in this Section using a solid shot shall be discharged within the City, except as provided in Section 12.42 of this Code hereof. (5) Alternative Deer Control Program participants under eighteen (18) years of age must be accompanied by an adult who has been selected to participate in the deer control program. (6) Persons selected to participate in an Altemative Deer Control Program must complete the orientation program provided by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. (7) Participants must possess appropriate licenses and pertnits issued from the DNR and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in order to discharge weapons described in this Section for purposes of an Alternative Deer Control Program. (Code, 1958 S 164.03; Ord. No. 66 -13, 2- 21 -66; Deleted and added by Ord. No. 94 -49, 9- 19 -94; Ord. No. 95 -29, 12- 18 -95; Recodified by Ord. No. 95-53,11-16-98) SEC. 12.41. PENALTY. Violation of any provision of this Division shall be a misdemeanor, (Code, 1958 S 164.04; Ord. No. 66 -13, 2- 21-66; Deleted and added by Ord. No. 94-49, 9- 19 -94; Ord. No. 94 -59, 10- 17 -94; Ord, No. 95-29,12-18-95; Recodified by Ord. No. 98-53,11-16-98) SEC. 12.42. EXCEPTIONS. (a) The provisions of this Division shall not apply tot (1) Any police or - peace officer, sheriff, or any officer of the United States or the State of Minnesota or any of its counties who may discharge a firearm or gun in the City in the course and scope of his or her duties. (2) Wildlife conservation or animal control officers, or other authorized representatives of the city, county, state or federal government who in the course of their duties or pursuant to a permit may use a firearm or weapon to restrain the free movement of any animal, wildlife, or birds for humane or other authorized purposes. (Code, 1958 S 164,05; Ord. No. 66 -13, 2- 21-66; Deleted and added by Ord. No. 94-49, 9- 19 -94; Ord, No. 95 -29, 12- 18 -95; Recodified by Ord. No. 98 -53, 11- 16 -98) Division I. Parachuting and Aircraft Landings and Takeoffs — Recodified by Ord. No. 96 -53, 11 -16 -96 SEC. 12.43. SCOPE. This Division is intended to apply only to single events or occasions involving parachute landings and aircraft landings or takeoffs. When it is intended that such occurrences shall take place on a repeated basis, they shall be allowed only in conformance with the provisions of the City Zoning Code. (Code, 1958 S 164.06; Ord. No. 66 -13, 2- 21 -55; Deleted and added by Ord, No. 94-49, 9- 19 -94; Ord. No. 95 -29, 12- 18 -95; Recodified by Ord. No. 98 -53, 11- 16-98) SEC, 12.44. DEFINITIONS. Aircraft - any vehicle designed to fly, glide, float, or sail in the air while carrying one or more persons, including but not limited to airplanes, helicopters, hot - air - balloons, gliders, hang - gliders, and powered gliders. Emergency Landing - an unplanned and unanticipated landing of an aircraft or parachutist made to prevent personal injury or loss of life. (Code, 1958 S 164.07; Ord. No. 66 -13, 2- 21-66; Deleted and added by Ord. No. 94-49, 9- 19 -94; Recodified by Ord. No. 98 -53, 11- 16 -98) SEC. 12.45. GENERAL RULE. Except as provided below, no person shall do the following within the City of Bloomington without a permit (1) Make a parachute landing, or (2) Take off or land an aircraft. (Code, 1958 S 164.08; Ord. No. 65 -13, 2- 21 -66; Deleted and added by Ord. No. 94-49, 9- 19 -94; Recodified Ord. No. 98 -53, 11- 16 -98) OCT 01 2001 12:41 '17- vct. I. 4UU1 I :UUFM SEC. 12.46. EXCEPTIONS. sLUUMINGTON PD HLUUMINGTON CITY CODE No.6237 P. 3 A permit shall not be required for the following: (1) Helicopter landings and takeoffs occurring at a heliport authorized under the City Zoning Code; (2) Emergency landings; (3) Landings or takeoffs of an aircraft of a governmental agency operating in its official capacity; or (4) Landings or takeoffs which the City is pre - empted from regulating. (Code, 1958 S 168.01; Recodified by Ord. No, 98 -53, 11- 16 -98) SEC. 12.47. PERMITS, (a) Permits shall be issued by the City Council. (b) A permit may be issued if the City Council makes the following findings: (1) That persons or property will not be endangered as a result of the landing or takeoffs. Among the factors to be considered are the Location and size of the proposed landing /takeoff site, surrounding land uses and structures (such as buildings, power poles, signs or fences), existing terrain and foliage, numbers of persons expected to be at or about the site, and flight paths to or from the site; (2) That excessive noise or other nuisance factors will not be created; (3) That the aircraft operator or parachutist has adequate training and experience and is licensed to the extent required by the FAA and other governmental agencies; (4) That the aircraft operator has in effect a liability insurance policy in the following minimum amounts: (A) for personal injury, $ and (B) for property damage, s1,00o,000.00. (5) That the permittee has the written permission of the owner of the site to land or takeoff; for lands owned by the City; the permission of the City Council shall be required. AKect When issued, a permit shall state the name of the permittee, the date, time, and location for which it i ive, and the conditions under which it IS granted (if any), No permittee shall violate the conditions of a rmit, s (d) Each permit application shall be accompanied by a $25.00 fee. (Code, 1958 S 168.02; Recodified by Ord. No. 98 -53, 11- 16 -98) Division J. Gambling Recodified by Ord. No. 98-53,11-15-.98 SEC. 12.48, LAWFUL GAMBLING PERMITTED. Lawful gambling is the operation, conduct or sale of bingo, raffles, paddlewheels, tipboards and pull -tabs. Lawful gambling conducted pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 349 is authorized within the City and shall be operated in accordance with the terms and conditions specified in this Division, other applicable the City Code and state and federal laws and regulations. provisions of (Code, 1958 S 168.03; Recodified by Ord. No. 98 -53, 11- 16-98) SEC. 12.49. AUTHORIZED ORGANIZATIONS. Only nonprofit organizations which have been licensed by the state Gambling Control Board and which have a membership of at least fifteen (15) members may conduct lawful gambling at authorized locations, (Code, 1958 S 168.04; Recodified by Ord. No. 98-53,11-16.98) SEC. 12,50. AUTHORIZED LOCATIONS. awful gambling authorized by the state Gambling Control Board may be conducted only at the following ons: (1) In establishments holding an on -sale intoxicating liquor license, 3,2 percent malt liquor license, wine license or on -sale club intoxicating liquor license. (2) In the licensed organization's hall where it has its regular meetings. 73 OCT 01 2001 12:41 Attachment G Draft Ordinance CITY OF ANDOVER COUNTY OF ANOKA STATE OF MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE REGULATING PRIVATE AIRFIELDS AND ULTRALIGHT ACTIVITY IN THE CITY OF ANDOVER THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANDOVER DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Findings and Intent. The City finds it necessary to regulate private airfields and ultralight activity to protect the safety and general welfare of residential neighborhoods. It is the intent of this ordinance to establish standards for the operation of airfields and ultralight aircraft. Section 2. Purpose and Implementation. Through the adoption and enforcement of this ordinance, the City shall protect the general health, safety, and welfare of its residents by providing standards that balance the need to preserve the health safety and general welfare of residential neighborhoods with the rights of private property owners. Section 3. Definitions. A. Ultralight vehicle is a recreational aircraft defined by Title Fourteen of the Federal Code of Regulations. B. Private airfield is any property within the city that is used, or intended to be used, for the landing and takeoff of aircraft, and includes its buildings and facilities, if any. C. Aircraft operator is any person involved in flight activity from a private airfield in the city. 4) Section 4. Licensing Requirements A. Private Airrield. It shall be unlawful for any person to directly or indirectly operate a private airfield within the City of Andover without obtaining a Special Use Permit as defined by Ordinance 8 Section 5.03. A person who operates a private airfield without a valid permit issued by the City Council shall be guilty of a misdemeanor offense. B. Aircraft Operators Aircraft operators shall conform to all applicable Federal Aviation Administration regulations and the requirements of this ordinance. Additionally, all aircraft operators must have written permission from the property owner. Each aircraft operator, prior to engaging in any flight activity, shall provide to the city the following information: 1. Copy of the permission letter 2. Aircraft operators name, address and phone number 3. Number of flights per year. 4. Photograph of aircraft The city shall maintain an approved aircraft operator list. The total number of flights indicated in this list shall not exceed the total number of flights indicated in the applicant's Letter of Intent. If any aircraft operator fails to comply with city ordinances the city may impose penalties or discipline for noncompliance, which may include removal from the approved aircraft operator list. A person that operates an aircraft from any private airfield within the city without being listed on the approved aircraft operator list shall be guilty of a misdemeanor offense. Section 5. Private Airfield Application Submittal Requirements A. Requirements of Ordinance 8 Section 5.03 B. A site plan drawn to scale indicating the following information: 1. Location of property lines 2. Location of landing strip 3. Location of structures 0 C. An Approach /Departure Route Plan illustrating aircraft traffic routes that are at least 500 feet from all structures on adjacent properties. Flight activity shall be limited to the areas defined within the Approach /Departure Route Plan. D. A letter of intent including the following information 1. Name, address and phone number of the property owner 2. Summary of the level of activity proposed, including a. Hours and days of operation b. Maximum number of flights per year C. Maximum number of active aircraft on site at one time. Section 6. General Requirements A. All private airfields must be at least thirty (30) acres in size. B. landing and take off area must be designated and clearly marked on the site. No portion of any landing or take off area shall be within 500 feet of any occupied building on adjoining properties. Once a landing and take off area has been designated, no other areas of the site shall be used for this purpose unless approved by the City Council with an amended special use permit. C. At no time shall any aircraft pass, either in flight or while taxiing, within 500 feet of any occupied building on surrounding properties. D. Private airfields shall be used for recreation purposes only and shall not be used as a commercial business. E. Continuous takeoff and landing by one or more aircraft shall not be permitted. F. The hours of operation shall be set by City Council. G. The city may require additional landscaping or screening to screen and buffer incompatible off -site impacts of the proposed use on adjacent property and the surrounding neighborhood. H. The Planning and Zoning Commission may recommend and the City Council may impose conditions to the approval of a Special Use Permit. I. Holders of a Special Use Permit may propose amendments to the approved permit at any time, subject to the procedures of Ordinance 8 Section 5.03. No significant changes in the circumstances or scope of the use may be undertaken without the approval of those amendments by the City Council. Significant changes include, but are not limited to, hours of operation, number of aircraft, expansion of landing and take off area, and other operation modifications resulting in increased activities and traffic, and the like. The City Administrator or duly appointed designee must determine what constitutes significant change. The City Council may approve significant changes and modifications to Special Use Permits, including the application of new or revised conditions. J. Upon request by the City Administrator or duly appointed designee, the holder of a Special Use Permit shall be required to certify that the use, building, and site are in conformance with the Special Use Permit and city codes. K. If the holder of the permit fails to comply with any of the terms imposed by the Special Use Permit, the city may impose penalties or discipline for noncompliance, which may include revocation of the permit. L. Upon action by the City Council, any Special Use Permit any Airfield within the City of Andover may be reviewed, amended, or revoked. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Andover on this day of 20 CITY OF ANDOVER ATTEST: Vicki Volk, City Clerk Michael R. Gamache, Mayor 0 Attachment H City Council Minutes Regular Andover City Council Meeting Minutes —September 4, 2001 Page 12 MAFOR/COUNCIL INPUT Used cars in boulevards- Councilmember Jacobson pointed out there have been a number of cars that are for sale being put out in the boulevards and in the Downtown shopping center parking lot. He asked Staff to remind the Sheriff's Office to handle that item. Ultra -light aircraft - Councilmember Jacobson reported he received a call from a resident in the vicinity of 146 Lane and Prairie Road regarding a number of people apparently using the sod field to fly their ultra -light aircraft. The residents are complaining about the noise. Apparently the machines are not controlled or licensed by the FAA and there are no criteria to operate them. He didn't know what could be done but asked that the Staff look into it and report back to the Council. Potential executive session for personnel issues — Councilmember Jacobson suggested an item be added to the Agenda for the special meeting on September 11 to hold an executive session for personnel issues. Entrance signs - Mr. Carlberg stated Staff is allocating money in the Capital Improvements Plan for six entrance signs to the City. Ball fields at the high school — Mayor Gamache stated the Ball Field Task Force met earlier this evening. The school board has refused to pay to run the electricity to the fields. The estimated cost to do so is $6,900. The Task Force discussed some options, hoping to hold the costs down. They should know more within a couple days. The Task Force recommendation and the final documents will need to be approved by the City Council September 22 goal - setting session — Mr. Erar stated the goal- setting session scheduled for September 22 will need to be changed. The Council suggested it be rescheduled for October 27. Mr. Erar stated he will discuss this date with the Staff and get back to the Council. Chamber of Commerce - Mayor Gamache noted the Chamber of Commerce is holding a large show on October 9 and the Ramada Inn in Brooklyn Park. Andover will have a booth there. APPROVAL OF CLAIMS Motion by Trude, Seconded by Knight, approval of the Claims. Motion carried on a 4 -Yes, 1- Absent (Orttel) vote. Motion by Trude, Seconded by Knight, to adjourn.. Motion carried on a 4 -Yes, I- Absent (Orttel) vote. The meeting adjourned at 10:03 p.m. 0 Respectfully submitted, Marcella A. Peach, Recording Secretary 1.J Attachment I Resident Petition To: Courtney Bednarz City of Andover Planning and Zoning Commission From: Residents of the City of Andover RE: Petition to prohibit aircraft take off and landing in the City of Andover Date: September 30, 2001 Attached please find a petition from Andover residents requesting that the City Council pass an ordinance prohibiting take off and landing of aircraft, including ultralights, in the City of Andover. cc: Mayor Mike Gamache Council Member Don Jacobson Council Member Mike Knight Council Member Ken Ortell Council Member Julie Trude City Attorney Barry Sullivan Community Development Director Dave Carlberg City Administrator John Erar C d r Qq y C A ro ro � -a Er O CD ro ro C r n o ro eD eD rA rA C n� R3 SU 'CS y r .n O. O tD C ^Y,• lY R * ft O O e I� by � d v �� CIO _Z: 1 o UN � 1 J ma y; R r� C d r Qq y C A ro ro � -a Er O CD ro ro C r n o ro eD eD rA rA C n� R3 SU 'CS y r .n O. O tD C ^Y,• lY R * ft O O e I� by cn CA 0 ell 49 'INA cn CA 0 0 0 QQ O eD CD M -1 L w EA O rf M rL CD CL 4-S E=-S 31 QQ O eD CD M -1 L w EA O rf M rL CD CL 0 oa rA P-9. 'c rA r(Ao eD CD rA AD ft rA C. CA 0 *3 OTID m ro CD m J. QQ it tv m rt A fD Z7 S f e o � ft W rA r. Zli CA I iz rl f *3 OTID m ro CD m J. QQ it tv m rt A fD Z7 S f e o � ft W rA r. Zli CA 00 CD O fb CL CD to tv rA fD rA CL fD K rA rA rA CD M rA rA CD fD rA m m -1 rA CD et CD Jlz� e-N N r\j 00 CD O fb CL CD to tv rA fD rA CL fD K rA rA rA CD M rA rA CD fD rA m m -1 rA CD et CD 0 0 0 E /r ta Q � 2 A 2 ) w ■ n o & t.0 / «\\tea o n m n ■ 2 = 2 » £ / rA 2 � Q # n Za § / q k ) g k ° - � k r 7 9 $ \ k « � � � � � � � � U � � .$ � c % \ ( � .� � � ° O G � ~ 7 � � � 3 .. � . \ � E /r ta Q � 2 A 2 ) w ■ n o & t.0 / «\\tea o n m n ■ 2 = 2 » £ / rA 2 � Q # n Za § / q k ) g k ° - � k r 7 9 $ \ k « � � � � � � � � Ul. i - GJ - GGg1 ID-44 t)NH 1 L LHKt bI.MUUL SNAIL LAKE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 350 W. Hwy 96 • St. Paul MN 55126 -1923 Phone No. (651) 483 -6725 bile 4�1.5 b•(2"D r. 0 1 Fax No. (651) 639 -6163 TO 1)aue. FROM a% 14Io.1r%.n DATE '01Z3 /Q I Number of sheets including cover 2 C OMMENTS a"I ic read 4W • OCT 23 2001 14:38 612 483 6725 PAGE.01 • V�. i GJ Gvul 1J' G"'1 JI`Irll<_ L.nnC DL_rluwL Ole- "OJ O (CJ r. chJ 0 Andover Planning and Zoning To: Dave Carlberg Re: Ultralight Vehicles 10/23/01 I support the right of the Ultralight owners /operators to continue flying. At this time, I don't see the need for regulations. However, they have set the standard already if regulations need to be established. They fly at reasonable times. They take off and land from the Prairie Road location, but once they're in the air they aren't flying back and forth over our homes, they fly to different areas. They fly high in the sky except when they're landing and taking off. There are usually only 1 -4 Ultralights in the sky at a time. Our family enjoys watching them. Please consider allowing them to 0 continue. 7 Cindy Heilman 720 148th Ln NW Andover, MN 55304 0 OCT 23 2001-14:39 TOTAL P.02 612 483 6725 PAGE.02 fWh c cro.�" a3 z oo/ 0 0-69L&Aak J2 1.1k J 4- �Id 3 • ,Q.� aa-P� �.s , o z , �.0 ( lza.�•� - fit . e . D,2,6..e L4e� cdi. -�� Oi►-i L�J- te..�wr -��Gn. �e �-e ILO �- u.�C.t . `�'`� y( -°.fin^ �wca � . a •�7Q�a '�/�! U . �'.c'r. -' • 4" Q,�;yrl.�,� �-.._ � �J►.e.a.�+.,Z`a.�.C.cy. „ � . za..�c. , a� - tL ,u� �`, 6.A y a,,, 4r- yac-e-t sue, av u_) • MN SS-3© Courtney Bednarz rom: Granander, June [June.Granander @pudtansvc.com] ent: Tuesday, October 23, 2001 6:41 AM o: C Bednarz (E -mail) Subject: Ordinance re:Ultralight City Planner - Andover I have a work commitment this evening and can not attend the Planning & Zoning meeting. Here are my comments. I own 2 1/2 acres at 14800 Butternut St NW and have lived there almost 7 years. I moved there because of the woods, deer, birds, chipmunks and squirrels. I have loved Andover. I work in downtown St Paul and have very hectic days. I enjoy quiet evenings on the deck listening to the birds. This past late summer has been awful for entertaining and just enjoying nature, we have been subject to the noise of ultra lights right over our pool and deck area. It hasn't been just one pass, instead it has been circling of the same aircrafts and an increasing number of aircraft. It has been very irritating. It is much noisier and disruptive than mini bikes or snowmobiles. We are totally against allowing this kind of noise in our quiet neighborhoods. Please listen to the residents of the neighborhood and disallow this kind of activity. We vote N0. Thank you for the opportunity for retaining the beauty of Andover. Thanks June Granander K 800 Butternut St NW dover, MN 55304 763 -434 -5943 0