Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/11/03• 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 March 11, 2003 Andover City Hall Council Chambers 7.00 a.m. 1. Call to Order 2. Approval of Minutes - February 25, 2003 3. PUBLIC HEARING Ordinance Amendment (03 -01) to consider amending Ordinance 10 to incorporate recommendations from the Northwest Associated Consultants Park Study. 4. PUBLIC HEARING Special Use Permit (03 -04) for temporary greenhouse operation at 2218 Bunker Lake Boulevard NW. 5. PUBLIC HEARING Ordinance Amendment (03 -02) to consider amending Ordinance 266 to modify existing rental licensing requirements. 6. Adjournment CITY of ANDOVER • 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. • ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 • (763) 755 -5100 FAX (763) 755 -8923 TO: Planning and Zoning Commissioners FROM: Courtney Bednarz, City Planner SUBJECT: , Item 2. Approval of Minutes - February 25, 2003 DATE: March 11, 2003 Request The Planning and Zoning Commission is asked to approve the minutes from the February 25, 2003 meeting. f • CITY of ANDOVER PLANNINGAND ZONING C0mMISSIONIKEETING - FEBRUARY25, 2003 The Regular Bi- Monthly Meeting of the Andover Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order by Chairperson Daninger on February 25, 2003, 7:00 p.m., at the Andover City Hall, 1685 Crosstown Boulevard NW, Andover, Minnesota. Commissioners present: Chairperson Daninger, Commissioners Tim Kirchoff, Douglas Falls, Tony Gamache, Rex Greenwald, Dean Vatne and Jonathan Jasper (arrived at 7:04 p.m.). Commissioners absent: None. Also present: City Planner, Courtney Bednarz Others APPROVAL OFMINUTES February 11, 2002 Commissioner Vatne indicated in the minutes on page 3, sixth paragraph down, he recalled saying "Commissioner Vatne stated requested clarification from Mr. Bednarz that staff would prefer to review not only the size of the sign, is not theissae but the quality of the sign. Mr. Bednarz concurred. , Motion by Kirchof� seconded by Greenwald, to approve the minutes as amended. Motion carried on a 3- ayes, 0 -nays, 3- present (Daninger, Falk, Gamache), 1- absent (Jasper) vote. PUBLIC RE4 G. LOT SPLIT (03 -01) TO CREATE TWO URBAN RESIDENTIAL PROPER77ESASPREVIOUSLYPLATTED WITH VARIANCE TO LOT DEPTH AT 1415 ANDOVER BOULEVARD NW. Mr. Bednarz explained that the applicant is seeking to re- establish a property line between two previously combined urban residential lots (Lots 5 and 6, Block 4 of Hartfiel's Estates). A house exists toward the south end of the lot. The proposed lot split would allow a second home to be constructed on the northerly portion of the lot. A variance to lot depth is necessary to allow the lot split to occur. 1 Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes — February 25, 2003 Page 2 • Mr. Bednarz discussed the history and staff report with the Commission. Commissioner Gamache asked if they were considering the stubbing of lots 5 and 6 being a mistake. Mr. Bednarz stated he did not, but a decision was made that the potential for a firture split existed. Commissioner Jasper stated there is a question in the applicant's letter in regards to buildability. He asked if lot five could be built on, as it exists. Mr. Bednarz stated lot five does not have the ability to be built on because it has been combined with lot 6 which has already been built on. Commissioner Kirchoff stated the 117 feet was created when they took the fifty feet in 1978. Mr. Bednarz stated it was correct. Commissioner Jasper stated in 1978, was the resolution filed with the County recorder. Mr. Bednarz stated it was. Commissioner Vatne noted the development on the other side of the street the lot size looked comparable. Commissioner Greenwald stated in width they would but not in depth. Commissioner Vatne stated he asked this question for clarification in the relative lot size of the homes in the neighborhood. Motion by Greenwald, seconded by Gamache, to open the public hearing at 7:12 p.m. Motion carried on a 7 -ayes, 0 -nays, 0- absent vote. Mr. Wade Petersen, owner of the property stated when he purchased the property a year and a half ago; he was led to believe the lots were split -able which encouraged him to buy the property. He stated with the City going forward with the variance, it would benefit the City because they already have the hook up there. Commissioner Gamache questioned who owned the acreage to the west and if the person who owned the land still used the buildings. He asked if they could purchase the fifty feet back to make the land split -able. Commissioner Greenwald stated they would need a variance for this because the building is probably too close to the property line. Commissioner Jasper asked Mr. Peterson if the fifty feet is acquirable. Mr. Petersen stated the owner uses the buildings and has a driveway on the fifty feet to access the buildings. He stated the neighbor had an easement to access the building. Mr. Peterson stated he believed the property owner would not want to sell because he is still using the buildings frequently. Chairperson Daninger stated in the letter Mr. Petersen wrote, who led him to believe the lots were split -able. Mr. Petersen stated the realtor said they could be split and they went Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Mimites — February 25, 2003 Page 3 • to the City to find more information and did not find out about it not being split -able until they wanted to split the land. Mrs. Diana Petersen, 331 157 Avenue NW stated before the property was purchased, the land was platted out and they thought they could split the land and if they knew the property was not able to be split, her son would not have purchased the land. Commissioner Gamache asked if the land were split, would the access need to be moved from Andover Boulevard to Bluebird Street. Mr. Bednarz stated he talked to Mr. Petersen in regards to this and it was agreed this would happen. Motion by Kirchoff, seconded by Gamache, to close the public hearing at 7:23 p.m. Motion carried on a 7 -ayes, 0 -nays, 0- absent vote. Commissioner Kirchoff stated there were a combination of things that were done over the years which contributed to the situation and he would like to finally correct the situation and move forward with this. Commissioner Jasper stated he disagreed because he believed the problems were fixed in 1978. He stated in the County records, it indicates the land is not split -able. Commissioner Kirchoff stated in 1994, the City put in the additional stub and he would like to see the City recoup the costs. • Commissioner Vatne stated he thought the minutes in 1978 were inconsistent with each other and opens the door for a potential split. Commissioner Greenwald agreed and in his opinion, part of the hardship was the fact that utilities were roughed in allowing a possibility of a split. Commissioner Gamache stated he believed the City created a hardship by creating this in 1978. Commissioner Falk stated conditions change and he would be in favor of this. Commissioner Greenwald stated this would look similar to the other plats in the area Chairperson Daninger stated there are other things to take into consideration. He stated the City continues to change as it grows and sometimes situations are created over time that need to be corrected. He stated there is a benefit to public safety by moving the existing access onto Bluebird Street. There is also the issue of recouping the investment in utilities. Commissioner Jasper stated the minutes from February 1978 were not reviewed by anyone before the decision to buy the property. He stated the only hardship he could see was monetary which did not seem appropriate. Commissioner Greenwald stated the City may not have read the minutes from 1978 either before roughing this in. C1 Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes — February 25, 2003 Page 4 Motion by Greenwald, seconded by Kircho$ to recommend to the City Council approval • of Resolution No. , approving the lot split. Motion carried on a 6 -ayes, 1 -nays (Jasper), 0- absent vote. Mr. Bednarz stated that this item would be at the March 18, 2003 City Council meeting. PUBLIC HEARING: VARIANCE (03 -03) TO ORDINANCE 8, SECTION 6.02 TO VARY FROM THE 50 FOOT BUILDING SETBACK FROM CO UNTY ROAD WA YS FOR NORTHERN NATURAL GAS AT 4517 VALLEY DRIVE NW (CSAH58). Mr. Bednarz explained that the applicant is requesting a variance to the setback from County Road 58 (Valley Drive) to locate a building within an existing easement on the subject property. The structure would contain an above ground tank used to odorize a branch of the natural gas pipeline that originates on the property. This project is intended to achieve compliance with recently changed federal regulations that require branch lines off of the natural gas system to be odorized. Mr. Bednarz discussed the staff report with the Commission. Co Gamache asked if the building size was comparable to the building at the other site. Mr. Leland Mann, Northern Natural Gas, stated it would be considerably smaller. • Commissioner Vatne requested on page nine, he would like clarification of the landscape plant material. He asked if this was something that staff would get involved with or was it part of the proposal itself. Mr. Bednarz stated in the easement agreement, the landscaping language is by mutual consent between the property owner and Northern Natural Gas. Motion by Greenwald, seconded by Gamache, to recommend to the City Council approval of Resolution No. , approving the variance to the County Road setback requirements and the fencing requirements based on the proposed findings by staff. Commissioner Gamache stated they would need to be careful in locating landscaping because of the busy comer and they would not want anything blocking the view. Commissioner Vatne asked with the addition of the building, would this fit into the area Commissioner Gamache stated it would. Commissioner Falk asked who would do the upkeep on the area Mr. Mann stated it would be Northern Natural Gas responsibility. Mr. Bednarz stated the County would continue to mow the right -of -way. • Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes — February 25, 2003 Page 5 • Mr. Falk asked if the property owner had any concerns. Mr. Bednarz stated Mr. Kvanbeck's concern is by granting a variance for gas, if it would affect future plans for development. He stated he responded to Mr. Kvanbeck that the City considers variances on a case by case basis. Commissioner Jasper asked if the variance is granted, at that point do they have to do a commercial site plan for vegetation and location of the building. Mr. Bednarz stated they would. Motion carried on a 7 -ayes, 0 -nays, 0- absent vote. Mr. Bednarz stated that this item would be at the March 18, 2003 City Council meeting. OTHER BUSINESS Mr. Bednarz updated the Planning Commission on related items. Commissioner Jasper asked when there is a public hearing and when there is not one. Chairperson Daninger stated normally there are public hearings for all items except for variances. Mr. Bednarz stated in the zoning ordinance handed out at the meeting, there is • information regarding public hearings. ADJOURNMENT. Motion by Kirchoff, seconded by Gamache, to adjourn the meeting at 7:50 p.m. Motion carried on a 7 -ayes, 0 -nays, 0- absent vote. Respectfully Submitted, Sue Osbeck, Recording Secretary Timesaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. • 3 :Eel TO: FROM: CITY OF ANDOVER 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. • ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 • (763) 755 -5100 FAX (763) 755 -8923 • WWW.CI.ANDOVER.MN.US Planning & Zoning Commission Todd Haas, Parks Coordinator W` SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING Ordinance Amendment (03 -01) to consider amending Ordinance 10 to incorporate recommendations from the Northwest Associated Consultants Park Study DATE: March 11, 2003 INTRODUCTION This item is in regards to a public hearing to consider amending Ordinance 10 to incorporate recommendations from the Northwest Associated Consultants, Inc. (NAC) regarding Section 9.07 (Parks, Playground, Open Space and Public Use). DISCUSSION Back in June of 2001, the City Council (based on a recommendation from the Park & Recreation Commission) authorized NAC to prepare a Park Comprehensive Study concerning park dedication standards and the ordinance amendments suggested to implement the Park Plan chapter of the Comprehensive Plan. Since June 2001, NAC addressed the future park needs and dedication standards for the current 2020 MUSA and for the two potential rural reserve areas. This study was reviewed by the City Council on January 7, 2003. Based on the discussion by the City Council, a fee was adopted of $2,155 per unit for residential. The 10% market value for industrial/commercial did not change. Although the fees were approved, Ordinance 10, Section 9.07 amendments were recommended to be considered. Attached for your review is a memo dated November 25, 2002 from NAC regarding recommendations to be made to Ordinance 10 and a letter from the City Attorney dated December 2, 2002 regarding the summary of the study. ACTION REQUESTED The Planning & Zoning Commission is requested to review and recommend the approval of the ordinance amendments to the City Council 0 Planning & Zoning Commission March 11, 2003 Page 2 of 2 • Note: This is a public hearing so it will be necessary to open the discussion to the public of the ordinance amendments. Respectfully submitted, ' e w' 01 Todd Haas Attachments: NAC Park Dedication Study Amended Ordinance 10 (Section 9.07) Letter from City Attorney cc: Jim Lindahl, Park & Recreation Commission Chair 4) U R-40 I. Lot Remnants. Lot remnants which are below minimum lot area or dimension must be added to adjacent or surrounding lots rather than be allowed to remain as an unusable outlot or parcel. 9.07 Parks, Playgrounds, Open Space and Public Uses (10A, 9- 13 -74) 9.07.1 Lands of Public Use or Other Provisions. Pursuant to Minnesota Statute, Chapter 462.358, as amended, the City Council of the City of Andover shall require all owners or developers, as a prerequisite to approval of a plat, subdivision or development of land, to convey to the City or dedicate to the public use, for park or playground purposes, a reasonable portion of the area being platted, subdivided or developed as hereinafter specified. Said portion to be approved and acceptable to the City or in lieu thereof, the owners or developers shall, at the option of the City, pay to the City for the use in the acquisition of public parks, open space and playgrounds, development of existing public park and playground sites, and debt retirement in connection with land previously required for public parks and playgrounds. an equivalepA nt in eash based upon the tmdeveleped land vaWe ef dm4 peFtien of said land that would have ethef'A4se b een re" ir - ed to be dedicated Any park cash contributions based on market value are to be calculated and established based on the land value at the time of fin p lat. The form of contribution (cash or land) shall be decided by the City based upon need and conformance with approved City comprehensive plans. 9.07.2 Dedicated Land Requirements. Any land to be dedicated as a requirement of this section shall be reasonably adaptable for use for active park and recreation purposes and shall be at a location convenient to the people to be served. Factors used in evaluating the adequacy of proposed park and recreation areas shall include size, shape, topography, geology, tree cover, access and location. Also land dedication shall be selected based on the park land need defined by the Andover Park System Plan Active park land areas shall be exclusive of wetlands,_ slopes exceeding 12 percent ponding areas or other features unsuitable for active_ park development The City may accept natural open space or passive park containing unique natural environmental features as part of the park land dedication Selection of park land for dedication shall be at the discretion of the City Council based on the policies and recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan and the Comprehensive Park System Plan. 9.07.3 Standards for Determination. The Park and Recreation Commission shall recommend to the City Council adoption of the Comprehensive Park Development Plan for determining what portion of each such development should reasonably be required to be so conveyed or dedicated. Such Comprehensive Park Development Plan may take into consideration the zoning classification assigned to the land to be developed, the particular proposed use for such land, amenities to be provided and factors of density and site development as proposed by the owners or developers. The Park and Recreation Commission shall further recommend changes and amendments to the Comprehensive 3- 20 Park Development Plan to reflect changes in the usage of land which may occur, changes • in zoning classifications and concepts and changes in planning and development concepts that relate to the development and usages to which the land may be put. 9.07.4 Park and Recreation Commission Recommendation. The Park and Recreation Commission shall, in each case, recommend to the City Council the total area and location of such land that the Commission feels should be so conveyed or dedicated within the development for park, playground, open space and public use purposes. 9.07.5 Cash Contribution in Lieu of Lands. In those instances where a cash contribution is to be made by the owners or developers in lieu of a conveyance or dedication of land for park, playground, open space or public use purposes, the Park and Recreation Commission shall recommend to the City Council the amount of cash said Commission feels should be so contributed. Such recommendation shall be based on the market value of the undeveloped land that would otherwise have been conveyed or dedicated. In lieu of land dedication, the City may require from the developer or owner a cash contribution which is based on a fee per lot/unit basis for the development of residential zoned property. In the case of the development of commercial/industrial zoned property, the City may require a cash contribution from the developer or owner which is based on ten (10 %) percent of the market value of the land. These fees are established and adopted by the City Council resolution and are effective for any plat that has not received preliminary plat approval after the date of publication of this ordinance. The fees would also apply to plats that have received preliminary plat approval, but have not received final plat approval by the City Council within twelve months of the publication date of this ordinance. (IOCC, 4- 20 -99) If an extension is requested of the preliminary plat beyond the twelve months the fee that is in effect at the time of the extension is the fee that is to be contributed. Park cash contributions are to be paid to the City prior to the recording of the final plat at the county. The City Council may require the payment at a later time under terms agreed upon in the development agreement. Delayed payment may include interest at a rate set by the City. If the applicant or developer does not believe that the estimates contained in the City fee schedule (pursuant to this park dedication analysis) fairly and accurately represent the effect of the subdivision on the park or trail system of the City, the applicant or developer may request that the City prepare an in -depth study of the effect of the subdivision on the park and trail system and an estimate of that effect in money and /or land. All costs of said study shall be borne by the developer or applicant If the developer or applicant requests the preparation of such a study, no application for development submitted shall be deemed complete until the study has been completed and a determination is made as to the appropriate amount of land or money necessary to offset the effects of the subdivision. • —1 4 - 21 . 9.07.6 Market Value of Lands. "Market Value ", for the purposes of this Ordinance shall be determined as of the time of the final plat without improvements in accordance with the following: A. The Park and Recreation Commission and owners or developers may recommend to the City Council the market value. The City Council after reviewing the Park and Recreation Commission's recommendation, may agree with the owner or the developer as to market value. (1 OBB, 8 -4 -98) B. The owner or the developer may select from a list, one of three accredited appraisers that has been approved by the City to establish the market value. The appraisal shall be at the expense of the owner or the developer. Such appraisal shall be accepted by the City Council and the owner or developer as being an accurate appraisal of "market value ". (IOBB, 8 -4 -98) 9.07.7 Density and Open Space Requirements. Land area so conveyed or dedicated for park, open space and playground purposes may not be use by an owner or developer as an allowance for development as set out in the City Zoning ordinance. The land shall be in addition to, (except for 9.07.8), and not in lieu of, open space requirements for Planned Unit Developments pursuant to the City Zoning Ordinance. 9.07.8 Credit for Private Open Space. Where private open space for park and recreation purposes is provided in a proposed development and such space is to be privately owned and maintained by the owner of that development, such areas may be used for credit at the discretion of the City Council against the requirement of dedication for park and recreation purposes, provided the City Council finds it is in the public interest to do so and that the following standards are met: (1 OZ, 9- 16 -97) A. That yards, court areas, setbacks and open space required to be maintained by City Ordinances shall not be included in the computation of such private open space; B. That the private ownership and maintenance of the open space is adequately provided for by written agreement; C. That the private open space is restricted for park and recreation purpose by recorded covenants which run with the land in favor of the owners of the property within the development and which cannot be eliminated without the consent of the City Council; (10Z, 9- 16 -97) D. That the proposed private open space is reasonably adaptable for use for park and recreational purposes, taking into consideration such factors as size, shape, topography, geology, access and location of the private open space; -- 5 - - 22 E. That facilities proposed for the open space are in substantial accordance • with the provisions of the recreational element of the Comprehensive Plan, and are approved by the City Council and; F. That where such credit is granted, the amount of credit shall not exceed one hundred (100 %) percent for the development of the amount calculated under Section 9.07.10. (1 OZ, 9- 16 -97) 9.07.9 Park and Recreation Commission Administrative Procedures. The Park and Recreation Commission shall establish such administrative procedures as they may deem necessary and required to implement the provisions of this Ordinance. 9.07.10 Dedicated Land, Minimum Area. Developers of land within the City of Andover shall be required to dedicate to the City for park, open space and playground purposes as a minimum that percentage of gross land area as set out below: A. Residential Requirement 10% (10Z, 9- 16 -97) B. Commercial- Industrial 10% 9.07.11 Metes and Bounds Lot Splits. The Park and Recreation Commission may • recommend cash payment in lieu of park land on metes and bounds lot splits less than twenty (20 a.) acres in size. The payment amount shall be determined through the same process outlined in Section 9.07.5. (IOP, 12- 19 -89; IOCC, 4- 20 -99) SECTION 10. CONSTRUCTION OF IMPROVEMENTS. 10.01 General Conditions. Upon receipt of preliminary plat approval by the Council and prior to Council approval of the final plat, the subdivider shall make provision, in the manner hereinafter set forth, for the installation, at the sole expense of the subdivider, of such improvements as shall be required by the City, which improvements may include, but are not limited to, streets, sidewalks, public water systems, sanitary sewer systems, surface and storm drainage systems, and public utility services. The installation of said improvements shall be in conformity with approved construction plans and specifications and all applicable standards and Ordinances. 10.02 Development Contract. Prior to the installation of any required improvements and prior to approval of the final plat, the subdivider shall enter into a contract with the City to construct said improvements at the sole expense of the subdivider and in accordance with approved construction plans and specifications and all applicable standards and Ordinances. Said contract shall provide for the supervision of construction by the Engineer; and said contract shall require that the City be reimbursed for all costs incurred by the City for Engineering and legal fees and other expenses in connection with .4- 23 FtLa eot' NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS, INC. 5775 Wayzata Boulevard, Suite 555, St. Louis Park, MN 55416 Telephone: 952.595.9636 Facsimile: 952.595.9837 planners @nacplanning.com • C c - G}y touatu 1 Torte � iZQ:G GcatnetSf�N MEMORANDUM ' �'r'll tf °u►k.i+l►� Cr ►y A�b r►�ey - �Fi�xtFp rrlrf /cs, TO: Todd Haas / Will Neumeister FROM: Alan Brixius / Deb Garross DATE: November 25, 2002 RE: Andover Park Dedication Study FILE NO: 111.06 On November 14, 2002, the Andover City Council and Park Commission met to discuss the November 11, 2002 Andover Park Dedication Study. At that meeting, a number of issues were raised that required further attention. This memo is intended to provide response to the outstanding issues related to that meeting. The City Council and Park Commission discussed whether it was more appropriate to have a percentage of land value versus a cash per unit or acre dedication. In the discussion, the Council cited the Collis vs City of Bloomington 1976 lawsuit as the rule of thumb for park dedication and believed that the 10 percent dedication in relationship to current land values in Andover would provide adequate funds to cover future park expenses. It is important to note that in that finding, the court indicated that the 10 percent requirement might be arbitrary as a matter of law because it does not consider the relationship between the particular subdivision and the recreational need of the community. Subsequent lawsuits, both Dolan vs Tigard 1994 and Kottschade vs City of Rochester 1995 indicated that the City has the burden of proving the required relationship between property development and the City's need for the land dedication that an essential nexus exists between the land and /or park dedication and the land use and that the distribution of cost is roughly proportionate to benefit received. In this respect, it is imperative that whether the City chooses a percentage of land value or a cash per unit or acre dedication, that we demonstrate a roughly proportional benefit to each land use that contributes to the park system demand. To accomplish this objective, the study took the following steps: 1. We identified the City-wide ultimate park system and assigned a value to allow us to define the system benefit throughout the community. 2. We examined the City's existing and forecasted population, household characteristics. The growth assumptions within the study are reflective of • the City's Comprehensive Plan and the Comprehensive Sewer Plan related to future residential densities and household sizes. These documents provide us with continuity between the City's planning efforts. 3. We examined the proportional distribution of the ultimate park system value between existing development and future growth. This analysis indicates that the park system is currently overbuilt, providing capacity within the existing system for new growth. This is exhibited in Table 8 of the report on page 14. 4. Tables 9, 10, and 11 of the November 11, 2002 study provides estimated park dedication fees per residential unit based on three different growth scenarios and three different park systems scenarios. Based on the aforementioned factors, staff recommended that Table 10 be considered as the most likely development alternative that the City may pursue. This includes build out of the 2020 system with one additional community ballfield complex. The result of this would be a 2020 park dedication fee per residential unit of $2,607. This fee would be reduced if either Rural Service Area 1 or Rural Service Area 2 were added to the 2020 MUSA. At the November 14, 2002 workshop meeting, the City Council and Park Commission suggested that we will maintain the park dedication requirements for commercial/ • industrial land uses in the current position. In making this decision, the recommended cash contribution per residential unit will be reduced with the introduction of additional fees being collected from the commercial/industrial land uses in the future. The attached tables reflect the anticipated commercial/industrial park dedication fees that will be collected from future development and have been applied to the calculation for park dedication fees per unit. The following tables illustrate the impact that commercial/industrial park dedication fees will have on reducing the fees per unit for residential development. _9'_ S 2 �J TABLE 12 COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL PARK DEDICATION FEE FORMULA Average Value Per Acres Park Dedication Per Acres 120,000 / per acre X 10% _ $12,000 Park Dedication Per Acre Remaining C/I Land Eligible Total C/I For Park Dedication Future Park Dedication $12,000 X 125 acres $1,500,000 TABLE 13 E ESTIMATED PARK VALUE AND DEDICATION FEE W/ NO ADDITIONAL COMMUNITY BALLFIELD COMPLEXES Total Estimated C/I Park Residential No. Housing Park Dedication System Value Dedication Share of Park Units Fee /Unit System Residential 2020 $35,178,322 1,500,000 33,678,322 14,516 $2,320 .. MH Area 1 $36,312,502 1,500,000 34,812,502 18,086 $1,925 Area 2 $36,879,592 1,500,000 35,379,592 1 19,042 $1,858 Rural Reserve Area 1 — Two additional Neighborhood Parks needed at total cost of $1,134,180 2 Rural Reserve Area 2 — Three additional Neighborhood Parks needed at total cost of $1,701,270 TABLE 14 PARK VALUE AND DEDICATION FEE W/ 1 ADDITIONAL COMMUNITY BALLFIELD COMPLEX a Total Estimated System Value Dedication Share of Park Units Dedication System Fee /Unit Residential 1 981 0 "Rural Reserve Area 1 and 2 — households per Area added to 2010 Census Data Rural Reserve Area 1 —Two additional Neighborhood Parks needed at a total cost of $1,134,180 2 Rural Reserve Area 2 — Three additional Neighborhood Parks needed at a total cost of $1,701,270 3 One Additional Community Playfield (similar to City Hall Complex) at a total cost of $2,669,091 —1 7- 3 TABLE 15 PARK VALUE AND DEDICATION FEE W/ 2 ADDITIONAL COMMUNITY BALLFIELD COMPLEXES 3 Total Estimated C/I Park Residential No. Park Dedication System Value Dedication Share of Park Housing Fee /Unit system Units Residential 2020 $40,516,504 1,500,000 39,016,504 114,516 1 $2.688 40,150,684 1 40, 717,774 1 "Area 1 ana z — nousenoicis per Area aoaeo to 2010 census Data Rural Reserve Area 1 - Two additional Neighborhood Parks needed at a total cost of $1,134,180 2 Rural Reserve Area 2 - Three additional Neighborhood Parks needed at a total cost of $1,701,270 3 Two Additional Community Playfields ( similar to City Hall Complex) at a total cost of $5,338,182 RECOMMENDATIONS Based on discussions at the November 14, 2002 City Council/Park Commission workshop, the following amended recommendations are offered: • 1. To support the value of proposed cash dedications it is recommended that the City update its Subdivision Ordinance to incorporate the Minnesota Statute language specifying that land value (for the purpose of calculating park dedication) will be . determined based upon the value of the land at the time of final plat The following language is suggested: Park cash contributions are to be calculated and established at the time of final plat approval. The City Council may require the payment at the time of final plat approval or at a later time under terms agreed upon in the development agreement. Delayed payment may include interest at a rate set by the City. 2. The current park system and plan is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Plan and the City Council has determined that the value of this system should be equitably distributed among each of the benefited land uses including residential, commercial, and industrial. The City will maintain its current commercial and industrial park dedication requiring 10 percent of land value. Factoring the commerciaUndustrial dedication into the overall park land dedication fee formulation, we would recommend that the City select the park dedication fee of $2,504 per residential unit to cover build out costs of the City's planned park system and the development of one additional community playfield. This per unit dedication amount may be adjusted per the alternative fee illustrated in Table 14 if the City chooses to expand its 2020 MUSA to include either Rural Reserve Area 1 or 2. A periodic review of land values and facility costs should be done to ensure that the park dedication fee remains current based upon market conditions. Staff recommends -,a- • 4 that the Engineering News Record Cost Index (ENR Cost Index) be utilized as the source to annually update facility values to account for inflationary factors. 3. In the event that the City Council chooses to add 2 additional Community Playfields to the overall system, a residential park dedication fees from Table 15 should be instituted. 4. The Subdivision Ordinance should be amended to provide an alternative to the developer to conduct an individualized study for the subdivision to determine park needs, should there be a question as to the applicability of the residential unit fee. The following language is suggested: If the applicant or developer does not believe that the estimates contained in the City fee schedule (pursuant to this park dedication analysis) fairly and accurately represent the effect of the subdivision on the park or trail system of the City, the applicant or developer may request that the City prepare an in -depth study of the effect of the subdivision on the park and trail system and an estimate of that effect in money and/or land. All costs of said study shall be borne by the developer or applicant. If the developer or applicant requests the preparation of such a study, no application for development submitted shall be deemed complete until the study has been completed and a determination is made as to the appropriate amount of land or money necessary to offset the effects of the subdivision. Based upon the experience of NAC Inc., no developer has requested a special study to determine individual subdivision impacts to a municipal park system to date. In the event that a developer requests a special study, all costs of the study would be paid for by the developer. The study would consist of an analysis of the park system to define the improvements needed to complete the affected facilities. The analysis would include a review of the specific impacts the development project would have on the planned park facilities, current land value, current facility costs and other pertinent information. The resulting costs of the land and facilities needed to provide for the development project would be estimated and assigned accordingly to the development project. The recommended park dedication fees are based on the costs identified in Exhibit D. 5. The City should consider incorporating park redevelopment infrastructure planning as part of the 5 -year Capital Improvements Plan. Minnesota Statutes specify that park dedication fees may not be used for maintenance purposes and therefore it is important for the City to continue to provide a separate budget fund for maintenance. In conferring with the City Attorney, it is possible to use park dedication fees for new or replacement of facilities. However, any park improvements above those identified in Exhibit D will need to be financed outside of the park dedication funds. As the park system ages, there will be an increased need to retrofit existing facilities, as they will have aged beyond their useful life in the older parks. Park dedication fees can be used to replace some facilities and infrastructure however, the City will need 5 to establish other sources to pay for replacement of the park system facilities in full developed neighborhoods or park service areas. 6. The City has accepted a number of Mini and Neighborhood Park areas (65 acres or 12% of the total parkland), in the past which are not developable due to topographic and natural features constraints. These parks, while not providing active park facilities, contribute to the overall park system through the provision of aesthetic natural open spaces and passive recreational areas. Future land dedication shall be done in accordance with the following language: Land dedication shall be selected based on the park land need defined by the Andover Park System Plan. Active park land areas shall be exclusive of wetlands, slopes exceeding 12 percent ponding areas, or other features unsuitable for active park development. The City may accept natural open space or passive park containing unique natural environmental features as part of the park land dedication. Selection of park land for dedication shag be at the discretion of the City Council, based on the policies and recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan and the Comprehensive Park System Plan. CONCLUSION These changes represent the requests from the November 14, 2002 workshop meeting. Please review and contact me if you have any further questions on this material. CJ -,Z - • 6 Law Omas OF William G. Hawkins and Associates 2140 Foum AVENUE Nom Legal Assistant ANOKA, MmNEsam 55303 • WILLIAM G. HAWKINS TAMMI I. UVEGES PHONE (763) 427 -8877 BARRY A. SULLIVAN HoLLY G. Provo Fax (763) 421 -4213 E -MAll. HawkLawl @aol.com December 2, 2002 JU U1 DEC - 3 20 CITY OF ANDOVER Will Neumeister Andover City Hall 1685 Crosstown Blvd. NW Andover, MN 55304 Re: Andover Park Dedication Study Dear Mr. Neumeister: I have had the opportunity to review the Andover park dedication study dated November 25, 2002 and conducted by Alan Brixius and Deb Garross at Northwest Associated Consultants, Inc. (NAC). I wish to take this opportunity to summarize my review of that • study. THE STATUTE. The municipal planning and zoning statutes contained in Minn. Stat. Chapter. 462 specifically authorizes a municipality to adopt regulations which impose park dedication requirements as part of the plat approval process. Specifically, 462.358, Subd. 2b (2000) provides, in relevant part, as follows: the regulations may require that a reasonable portion of any proposed subdivision be dedicated to the public or preserved for conservation purposes or for public use as parks, recreational facilities as defined and outlined in Section 471.191, playgrounds, trails, wetlands, or open space; provided that (a) the municipality may choose to accept an equivalent amount in cash from the applicant for part or all of the portion required to be dedicated to such public uses or purposes based on the fair market value of the land no later than at the time of final approval, (b) any cash payments received shall be placed in a special fund by the municipality used only for the purposes for which the money was obtained, (c) in establishing the reasonable portion to be dedicated, the regulations may consider the open space, park, recreational, or common areas and facilities which the applicant proposes to reserve for the subdivision, and (d) the municipality reasonably determines that it will need to acquire that portion of land for the purposes stated in this paragraph as a • result of approval of the subdivision." — I3— Will Neumeister December 2, 2002 Page -2- • This statute sets forth some important points: 1. The City is authorized to impose park dedication requirements as part of the plat approval process. 2. It must do so pursuant to regulations adopted as part of the plat review process. 3. The dedication amounts must be "reasonable." 4. At the option of the City, the dedication may be accepted in a cash equivalent amount. 5. The amount is to be determined based upon the "fair market value of the land no later than at the time of final approval." 6. A special fund is to be utilized. 7. The regulations should take into account the facilities which the applicant proposes to reserve for the subdivision. 8. The City must make a reasonable determination that the acquisition is necessary as a result of the subdivision. COURT DECISIONS. • The study prepared by NAC effectively summarizes some of the relevant caselaw regarding dedications. It should be remembered that a dedication is in the nature of an exaction, i.e., private property is being acquired by the government without compensation. The U.S. Supreme Court has adopted a two -step analysis that is to be applied when determining whether or not a dedication requirement is lawful. Dolan v. City of Tigard, 114 S.Ct. 2309 (1994). The catch phrases for the two -step analysis adopted by the Supreme Court are "essential nexus" and "rough proportionality." In other words, to what "degree" is there a connection between the development and its impact on the park system. 114 S. Ct. at 2317. In the first or "essential nexus" step, the City must demonstrate that a sufficient relationship exists between the property to be developed and the City's need for the dedication. In other words, the city must be able to demonstrate that it will experience an increase in demand for or burden upon its park system as a direct result of the development. Can the City demonstrate that as a result of the project there will be an increased demand and burden placed upon the park system? In the second or "rough proportionality" step, the focus is not on the need for the dedication, but on the amount of the dedication. The Supreme Court did not indicate that a precise mathematical calculation is required but indicated that "the City must make some • —IAI- Will Neumeister December 2, 2002 Page -3- sort of individualized determination that the required dedication is related both in nature and extent to the impact of the proposed development." 114 S. Ct. at 2319 -20. In other words, the size of the amount of the dedication must be roughly proportionate to the size of the burden placed upon the park system as a result of the development. Minnesota courts have adopted the two -step analysis from Dolan. Kottschade v. City of Rochester, 537 N.W.2d 301 (Minn. Ct. App. 1995). See, also, Middlemist v. City of Plymouth, 387 N.W.2d 190 (Minn. Ct. App. 1986); and Collis v. City of Bloomington, 246 N.W.2d 19 (Minn. 1976). Consequently, the two -step "essential nexus" and "rough proportionality" test is the standard to be applied in Minnesota when determining the legality of platting dedication requirements. CITY OF ANDOVER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND ORDINANCE. The Andover Comprehensive Plan contains a chapter on parks and open spaces. The Comprehensive Plan catalogues existing park facilities and provides goals and standards for expanding the system as the City continues to develop. The NAC study does an excellent job of summarizing the system and detailing the anticipated costs and needs for expansion of the park system in light of the anticipated growth of the City. The study adequately demonstrates the demands that anticipated growth will have upon the park • system and the need for future additional funding to meet these demands. While the two - step Dolan analysis anticipates an "individualized determination," the study, comprehensive plan, and related documents effectively establish the "essential nexus" or first step required showing of a link between development and the need for dedication. The Andover subdivision ordinance sets forth the procedure the City currently follows in determining the park dedication requirements in the plat approval process. The ordinance correctly requires dedications to be reasonable, allows for cash equivalents, defines "market value," and allows for consideration of private open space development plans. The NAC study recommends some amendments to the subdivision ordinance. The recommended amendments are sensible and two recommendations merit further discussion. First, it is recommended that in calculating the amount of cash payments made in lieu of land dedications, the land be valued as of the time of final plat approval rather than as raw undeveloped land as currently contemplated by the ordinance. Minnesota law authorizes municipalities to value land for dedication purposes at the time of final plat approval. Section 462.358, Subd. 2 b (a) (2000) provides: 'The municipality may choose to accept an equivalent amount in cash from the applicant for part or all of the portion required to be dedicated to such public uses or purposes based on the fair market value of the land no later than at the time of final approval...." • ,/S-- Will Neumeister December 2, 2002 Page -4- • In the Collis case, the Supreme Court upheld the determination by the city to value the land as of the date of final plat approval rather than as raw undeveloped land stating: "The ideal point to evaluate the land for recreational purposes... is when the nature of the subdivision, its probable population, lot size, and other relevant factors can be reasonably known." 246 N.W.2d at 28. It is true that evaluating the land at the time of final plat approval will result in a greater dedication dollar amount. Importantly, it is also true that by evaluating the land at the time of final plat approval, the City will be in a better position to comply with the two -step Dolan analysis by making a more precise determination of the impact of the development upon the park system. Second, the NAC study illustrates the legal issue associated with the practice of charging a park dedication fee for commercial/industrial developments. This is because it is more difficult to calculate the impact that commercial/industrial development will have upon the park system and satisfy the two -step Dolan standard. While it may be that the high quality of life offered by the City of Andover, which is in part based upon an excellent park system, is a factor considered by commerciallindustrial developers locating in the City, the connection between the existence of a commerciaUndustrial development and an increased burden on the park system seems less obvious. Can the City articulate to what • degree a particular commercial/industrial development will burden the park system? The law mandates an "individualized determination" which may be challenging for the City to achieve. I have concerns about the ability of the City to sustain dedication requirements for commercial/industrial developments if a challenge is brought. However, I am not aware of any court decisions on this point. In the NAC study, it is recommended that the commercial/industrial property in the City pay a proportionate share of the anticipated future park system costs. The assignment of a portion of the overall cost to the commercialfindust ial property has the effect of decreasing the amount of the residential share. I have two concerns. First, a park dedication requirement for commercial/industrial development will be more difficult to sustain if challenged. Second, should the commercial/industrial dedication requirement be successfully challenged, a shortfall will exist and the City will have to either rework its park dedication policies or provide funding from other sources. The NAC study does an excellent job of calculating the anticipated growth of the City and the concurrent financial needs of the park system. The study is consistent with the requirements of Dolan and demonstrates that the anticipated dedication requirements are roughly proportionate to the distribution of park system costs. I believe that this study, when combined with the comprehensive plan, its related documents, City ordinance, and appropriate meeting minutes and findings will be abundantly adequate to withstand judicial • le- Will Neumeister December 2, 2002 Page -5- U scrutiny in the event an applicant brings a court challenge to the dedication requirements for residential developments. I trust this addresses the issues which you have raised. If you wish to discuss this matter further, please feel free to call. ;cere , f � ^ a wkins rry A. , ullivan /I Is cc: John Erar Todd Haas Alan Brixius 0 • /7— Idl • 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 FROM: Courtney Bednarz, City Plann4 SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING Special Use Permit (03 -04) for temporary greenhouse operation at 2218 Bunker Lake Boulevard NW. DATE: March 11, 2003 INTRODUCTION Linder's Greenhouses is seeking approval of a special use permit to allow a temporary greenhouse to be located in the Festival Foods parking lot from April 15 through July 15�' of each year. Andover Station Design Standards t o Specific design standards above and beyond the Zoning Ordinan ce were adopted by the Economic Development Authority (EDA) to regulate Andover Station. These standards prohibit temporary structures yet exempt some sales events from the standards. The EDA reviews all development proposals for conformance with these standards. It may be determined by the EDA that the design standards prohibit the temporary greenhouse operation. The EDA will also meet on March 11, 2003 to make this determination. DISCUSSION An attached letter from the applicant and photographs provide information about the operation and aesthetics of the "flower marts ". The applicant will also be present to provide background information and to answer questions. Design The structure is assembled with a steel frame and covered by a transparent plastic material. The structure is held in place by a water ballast system. The perimeter is enclosed by a split rail fence with posts supported by concrete blocks. Location The proposed location would be in the first double row of parking stalls along the east side of the Festival Foods parking area. Festival Foods, United Properties, and Linder's Greenhouses are amenable to this location. Several locations for the proposed structure have been discussed. The proposed location was chosen for the following reasons: • 1. Utilizing a double row of parking will allow the operation to be established without encroaching into required drive lanes because the structure is 21 feet wide and a single row of parking stalls are only 18 feet deep. 2. The location conforms to applicable setbacks, including the 50 foot setback from county roads. 3. The location promotes parking along the outer edge of the parking area for greenhouse customers in stalls that are typically not used by customers of the grocery store. 4. The location avoids curb islands, fire hydrants and light fixtures that presently exist. Traffic/Pedestrian Circulation The structure and outdoor sales area will be located within a double row of parking stalls. This will provide sufficient space and prevent encroachment into drive lanes. Four entrances /exits to the outdoor sales area are provided. Entrances are provided at each end of the structure. A minimum of four foot wide aisles will be maintained within and outside the structure. Outdoor Sales Area As the photographs indicate, the outdoor sales area can include plants around the perimeter of the structure and fencing, plants on racking and garden related bagged products on pallets. It is staff's view that the flower marts on pages one and two of the photographs represent what is appropriate for the site. The bagged goods and racking illustrated on pages three and four of the photographs are not desirable. These items detract from the aesthetics of the site and can negatively affect traffic visibility. For these reasons, staff recommends the following: 1. Bagged goods should not be allowed outside the structure. 2. Plant materials displayed outside the structure should not extend more than one foot above the crosspieces of the split rail fence or 40 inches in height, whichever is less. Signage The Sign Ordinance limits signage in the General Business Zoning District to four square feet per front foot of building. The front of the building contains the entrance and is 21 feet wide. This yields a total permitted sign area of 84 square feet. The proposed signage appears on the flower mart drawing on page 11 of this report. Six signs are proposed. Four of the signs are for general identification and contain the Linder's name and logo. Two flags and decorative banding are also proposed as illustrated on the attached drawing. A condition has been included in the attached resolution to limit the amount of signage to 84 square feet and to limit the number of flags to two flags. Review of Special Use Permits Typically, once a special use permit is acted on it will remain in effect until the activity ceases for a period of one year. The Zoning Ordinance allows special use permits to be reviewed periodically or for time limits to be placed on the activity. Special use permits may also be revoked if the terms of the permit are being violated. The Planning Commission may wish to specify a time limit or date to review the permit. At this point, the resolution limits the operation from April 15 through July 15 th of each year. • STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the proposed special use permit subject to the conditions listed in the attached resolution. Attachments Resolution Location Map Applicant's Letter Site graphics Photographs Re�ec ly sub �tted, C� �, e ar Cc: Caio Cella, Linder's Greenhouses 270 West Larpenteur Avenue, St. Paul, MN 55117 r� • 3 . CITY OF ANDOVER COUNTY OF ANOKA STATE OF MINNESOTA RES. NO. R A RESOLUTION APPROVING SPECIAL USE PERMIT 03 -04 FOR TEMPORARY GREENHOUSE OPERATION FOR LINDER' S GREENHOUSES AT 2218 BUNKER LAKE BOULEVARD NW LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS; LOT 1, BLOCK 1, ANDOVER MARKETPLACE, ANOKA COUNTY, MINNESOTA WHEREAS, Linder's Greenhouses has requested a special use permit for temporary greenhouse operation for property located at 2218 Bunker Lake Boulevard, NW and; WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission has reviewed the request and has determined that said request meets the criteria of Ordinance No. 8, and; WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission finds the request would not have a detrimental effect upon the health, safety, and general welfare of the City of Andover, and; WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommends to the City Council approval of the Special Use Permit request; 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 Special Use Permit to permit temporary greenhouse operation on the subject property subject to the following conditions: 1. The temporary greenhouse shall be located in the first double row of parking stalls along the east side of the Festival Foods parking area and limited to the area illustrated in Attachment A. 2. The temporary greenhouse shall only be allowed for the period from April 15 through July 15 of each year. 3. The site shall be restored to the condition that existed prior to the greenhouse operation when the greenhouse is removed. 4. Signage shall be limited to a total 84 square feet. The number of flags shall be limited to two flags. 5. No bagged goods shall be located outside the temporary greenhouse. • 6. Plant materials and racking systems displayed outside the structure shall not extend more than one foot above the crosspieces of the split rail fence or 40 inches in height, whichever is less. 4 • 7. A minimum of four feet of aisle width shall be maintained both inside the temporary structure and in the outdoor sales area at all times. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Andover on this _th day of , 2002. CITY OF ANDOVER ATTEST: Michael R. Gamache, Mayor Victoria Volk, City Clerk 0 • y CORPORATE OFFICES 275 W Wheelock Pkwy. w . St. Paul, MN 55117. ttt (651) 488 -6717 r Fax: (651) 488 -5726 GREENHOUSES, GA CENTER & FLOWER MARTS I RECEIVED February 13, 2003 City of Andover 1685 Crosstown Blvd. N.W. FEB 18 2003 Andover, MN 55304 Attention: Courtney Bednarz Planning Department CITY OF ANDOVER Dear Mr. Courtney,' Please consider this letter with the attached application form, documents, and information, to be our application for a Special Use Permit. The request is being made to be able to operate a Linder's "Flower Mart" at the Festival Foods Store at 2218Bunker Lake Blvd NW. I have attempted to provide enough information for you to complete the process. I hope this is what you need to process and issue the appropriate permit. ABOUT: LINDEWS Linder's is a family business and has been growing and selling high quality flower and vegetable plants for over 90 years. We grow most everything we sell other than nursery stock, some perennials, and specialty items, and have two large growing locations: St. Paul and Lake Elmo. During the last fourteen years we have developed our "Flower Marts" and have placed them throughout the Twin Cities. In 2002 we operated at thirty eight different locations. During our season we sell all types of annuals, perennials; hanging baskets and other products for use in the home garden. Because we are well known as a quality grower, many gardeners seek us out to supply their planting needs. Locating in areas around the cities enables .us to serve our customers better. It is also an opportunity for neighboring business owners to provide their customers with quality flower and'vegetable plants conveniently nearby. Our customers have given us a tremendous welcome and look forward to our returning each spring. We grow quality bedding plants as well as other seasonal products for sale both wholesale and retail. Linder's guarantees all our products and because we are a year -round business, our customers can come to us even after our remote "Flower Marts" have closed for the season: We take great pride in our "Flower Marts" and are proud to display our name on them and carefully sign them to identify ourselves. The photos show our "Flower Marts" at various locations for you to see how we look. We are very proud of our reputation and do everything possible to-be the best in this market. • i THE MARKET: We feel that your location may be an excellent place to locate a Linder's "Flower Mart". This could be an opportunity to serve our customers in your community with a nearby convenient shopping location where they can buy quality plant materials from a local Twin Cities grower. We are experienced in this kind of operation and feel that we are doing an excellent service for our customers and our surrounding communities. LOCATION: The area needed is typically 138 ft by 21 ft. (about 2,898 sq. ft). This size includes the garden center itself and the patio areas connected to the Flower Mart. We will locate in a place that is some distance from the front of the other businesses and out of the main stream of traffic, both pedestrian and vehicular. We want to give the Flower Mart visibility to the public without obstructing the visibility of the other neighboring businesses, and at the same time have good visibility in order to attract customers into the lot. TRAFFIC: With regard for vehicle traffic, the "Flower Mart" is placed in the selected location in order to keep any traffic disruption to a minimum. The Patio areas at the front and back serve to protect the "Flower Mart" from vehicles and let the drivers see around the garden center. The patio fence is about 4 ft high and surrounds the "Flower Mart" on two sides. This design has been used at our "Flower Marts" for several years and we have yet to have had a problem with vehicle movement. We feel that this is a safe way to deal with vehicles. Placed in this manner, vehicles cannot park • adjacent to the "Flower Mart". The circulation of vehicles in th parking lot will not be adversely affected by the "Flower Mart" due to its location in the lot. PARKING: We have designed the "Flower Mart" as we did because we feel that this is the most professional design and uses the available space to its maximum potential. Linder's has operated "Flower Marts" successfully for fourteen years in communities surrounding the Twin Cities. It has been our experience that the traffic and parking in the lots shared by the "Flower Mart" is not affected considerably due to the sharing of customers with our property owner. We bring in many customers but they are easily handled by the size of the lots we occupy. We do not want to create a congestive atmosphere for our customers or neighboring businesses. The "Flower Mart" generates business activity which varies during the business day with the most activity occurring in late afternoon and evening. There is also business activity occurring on the weekends with the most on Saturdays. Having done this type of operation for fourteen years, it would be safe to say that the average amount in the "Flower Mart" at any one time is about five to six customers. The maximum amount of customers may be up to ten. There are certainly times when special sales occur that higher levels of activity may occur, but we have never seen so much that a problem has occurred in relation to the amount of cars or pedestrian traffic. 7 � THE "FLOWER MART ": The typical "Flower Mart" itself is 78 ft long and 21 ft wide and 12 ft high. There are patio /display areas in the front and rear of the "Flower Mart". The entire size is 138 ft by 21 ft with total of 2,898 sq feet. See the attached drawing. The size and configuration can be adjusted somewhat in order to meet the available space. The "Flower Mart" itself is a high quality greenhouse structure which sits on the pavement and is held down with an internal system which uses water for ballast. It is a commercially made it which is manufactured by a Minnesota company (Poly -Tex, located in Castle Rock, MN). very good looking structure which we have used for many years. ADVERTISING: Linder's has established an extensive advertising program, which includes a large presence on television, with commercials and other appearances by our staff. The Linder's name is synonymous with quality, selection, and service. Our two year warranty on most products has established us as a leader in this industry. We also use radio, both major newspapers, local papers, brochures, and other mailings to convey our message. We make extensive efforts to bring in customers so we can be successful as well as all other merchants: SIGNAGE: on the drawing. This is what we believe to be an The signage for a typical Flower Mart is shown excellent signage plan. We have tried to design the appearance and signing of our stores to be not only eye catching but professional looking as well. We are very conscious of how we look and do business. We would comply with the current sign requirements of the City of Andover. UTILITIES: Our only utility requirements are reasonable access to water for the plants and 110 volt electricity (on 24 hours) which runs the cash register and other small items in the "Flower Mart". This power typically comes from a light pole in the lot nearest the "Flower Mart. We have no lighting permanently installed in the "Flower Mart". Linder's takes away all discarded material and unnecessary items. We strive to maintain a clean and professional appearance. Water is the other utility we need. This is needed to care for the plant material at the "Flower Mart ". The source of the water is not specifically identified at this point. Hopefully a source can be located nearby or from the underground watering system. We only need the equivalent of a standard gardening hose to water the plant material. THE SPRING SELLING SEASON: The selling season to be from April 15 thru July 15 (weather dependent). We typicall y begin preparations to set up all of the Linder's "Flower Marts" in the middle of March. We request the necessary time to build the "Flower Mart" before the season begins. We first deliver the necessary equipment to the location and then begin setting -up the "Flower Mart" when the weath permissible. The "Flower- Mart" is taken down an d totally removed on the closing day of the is i season. We totally clean and sweep the location in the parking lot so that once we are gone no evidence of our having been there. OUR HOURS: Our hours. are 8:00 AM unt il PM weekdays and 8:00 AM until 8:00 PM on mosWw�kendssWe We typically have two to three employees during weekdays and three to four during are open seven days a week during the season. The "Flower Mart" is closely supervised by myself and several District Managers who keep it stocked and operating cleanly and efficiently. We make every attempt to employ persons from the community. I have tried to provide all of the information about Linder's to answer your questions. If you have any other questions or concerns you can reach me at any time on my cellular telephone 612 -685 -7993. Sincerely, Caio Cella Flower Mart Division Manager i i A Av-tM e.,...fT-f\- , I';!; -rr. .. III ,., i I illJ: . . . A r ~w~i \ i I: 1 'I i I, 1 \ , ~ . ~ J;; -..-.. ...._-, '_'_n. ! , """._U' 1_ k~'-" ...-... .........~.;I::.::.., X'" . ::- ...~. ... " : I ",~~,...."'~:<~..-""7.."'. , , ,'<:--.=. , i ! ~ ~ 'j~ · .~, :':'1 : I It I II j !' ~ . I , . 'f . 11 , . , ii I · I I t. t I ' . , .... _ .' ill .... I, . ~ '\ , '~ :, ..~ tl:l ~ \ . ..". I ~ g \ I:l"., ! ~~ .,> 1 ~~I~ I i so / lWTfJllW , ~~ : o / I . . t""l! I " ~' / Ii, i / . .. , ... . . - ~ - - ,I f 1, tl:l ~ ! , !; r'i ! '. I : ~'" . '. I .. 'I i ': ',' ."1 ~ ".!,\, I~I, i ,i 1 '.\' ~ . , I. i ' , - . Il ! \ III . II I Q ( I / . 0' tHmHfj,'..."~,'..,,.,' f f !, Iii. . . \' ... , ' ; , , : t ..! ~ .. ; ! ii 0, i . : r I " :! . I' : ":\ ! 'jl~ , , I ',' , : :' i : I' . I' I .. L :.... . :-~; ,0 .,,:.<;,.'...,. .~'-. --~---- "'--'''--- _0"_-"'- -- --'::'lzr:;.- ---.-...----.... 0 • C , \` t 0 L J N n W W � N N II � 0 cD 0 sZ ny ti (G OQ (D �t N � j N 0 to _ N ®h7 CD o � CD w N O I t 0 CL C CD lot CD Y� ^ C 1� I y " ice r l 1 'b l I i $J.! 1 1 . r.. 1 !1 . _. PW d ..y yA ,l rve firms. Cjy 4 st '3 M ys 5 It _- J� �" ib �` -.. _ r I - R � N - sa t • t �s c •` r � TM Y � ' `' � -''mot -?, .. � � _.. -,�,. � •:,: • 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 Commission Members FROM: Will Neumeister, Community Development Director44,..,_. SUBJECT: Amendment to Ordinance 266 (Licensing and Regulation of Rental Housing) DATE: March 11, 2003 INTRODUCTION The Council discussed this issue in October 1, 2002 and directed.staff to provide additional research on potential changes to the Rental Housing Ordinance. The City Council reviewed a draft of the potential changes on February 26, 2003. Council directed staff to bring it forward to a public hearing at the Planning Commission on March 11, 2003. During the preparation of the changes, staff reviewed other cities that have adopted more stringent ordinances. The City of New Brighton was contacted, since they made such changes to their Rental Housing Ordinance in February, 2001. There have been no legal challenges to their ordinance, at this point in time. This is partly due to significant discussions they had with the landlords before they adopted it in 2001. New Brighton's Experience New Brighton's Director of Public Safety, Bob Jacobson, has provided insights into what has transpired since their new ordinance was adopted. He said that they have approximately 2, 900 rental housing units in their City. In one complex with 364 units, they had an average annual call rate of about 120 calls per year, before they changed the ordinance. Since the adoption of the new ordinance, that complex's call rate has dropped to about 30 calls per year. It has required additional time to administer the ordinance for their City Police Department, but it has resulted in less police calls to the units. He said there has been a trade -off in time, but overall it has saved time primarily for the field officers. Reporting Requirements The City has had to provide managers of rental housing complexes with monthly reports. They have also had to put rental complexes on notice when they had exceeded the call rate allowed for a regular license. In those cases the City would send a notice to the landlord that their license would not be renewed by Council. Furthermore, the landlords would be put on notice that to even be considered for a provisional license, they would need to work with City staff to prepare a mitigation plan and have it approved by Council. 1] In situations where there were specific problem units in a given apartment complex, the manager would be sent a 1" notice of disorderly use, then upon a 2 " violation (related to a • specific unit) the manager would receive another warning notice ofpotential suspension or revocation of the license for the entire complex. At the time of a 3` call to the same unit, the City would send a notice indicating that legal actions would be taken to revoke the license and the Council could also take action to suspend or revoke the license to the entire complex based on the calls to that single unit. Mr. Jacobson indicated that they have not yet reached that level, because the landlord has evicted the tenant before they have ever reached the third notice. Administration /Monthly Call Reports Each month the managers and/or owners of complexes would receive a generic report of police or fire calls to all complexes. Also, actual police reports for incidents would be sent to managers of specific complexes if /when there were calls to any of their units. This enabled the owners /managers to be aware of the status of their units and therefore could be proactive in beginning eviction proceedings or putting tenants on notice that the next violation would begin the eviction proceedings. Anoka County Sheriffs Comments In discussing the issue of updating this Ordinance with Andover's law enforcement staff, it was recommended that adjustments be made to require landlords to be proactive in limiting incidents and police calls. Based on this recommendation, it is only prudent that Andover adopt a rental housing ordinance similar to New Brighton's that has tighter licensing controls that will engage landlords to participate in limiting higher levels of police calls in rental housing units. The burden is shifted to landlords to help in the corrective actions needed to lower the call rate. Newest Suggested Revisions Andover Staff has prepared an amendment to Ordinance #266 that takes this into account (attached). ACTION REQUESTED Staff requests the Planning Commission review /comment and take public testimony on the proposed amendments to the Rental Housing Ordinance. This information then will be forwarded to the City Council on April 1, 2003. Redly submitted, Will Neumeister Attachments Ordinance 4266A Minutes of Council Workshop on February 26, 2003 E — 2— Special Andover City Council Meeting ©� Minutes —February 26, 2003 Page 3 Center and that was why they were picked for the committees. Mayor Gamac fated what they came up with at the meeting was a list of om Mr. Dave Assmus that repres different aspects of the community. Counc' ber Trude stated she thought it was good to have ark Commission behind this volved. Councilmember Orttel stated he is a little _ c m ere are people trying to start their own field house in the next few weeks. He asked if ntrary to the City's goals and should they be included or is it a declaration of nons ort. Mayor Ike stated moving forward, it will be up to the different committees' c decide if they want remain a committee. Councilmen de stated she thought it was important to get the Park Co 'ssion involved in the C qp3mlifty Center. Mayor Gamache stated Mr. Blackstad has been in rt of the unity Center for quite a few months along with the majority of the Park COmmi . )� RENTAL HOUSING ORDINANCE - DRAFT ORDINANCE Community Development Director Neumeister noted the last time this issue was discussed was October 1, 2002. Council asked staff to provide additional research on potential changes to the Rental Housing Ordinance. Councilmember Knight asked how they will track the tenants throughout the City. Mr. Herb Blommel, city building inspector and rental housing inspector, stated it is something they would need to set up with the owners of the rental units. Councilmember Trude stated she knew the woman who set up this program in New Brighton and the first step they did was met with landlords and recommended landlords adopt a credit and background check on all the tenants and they shared a mutual database, so the tenants get on a list and rental properties become more stable. Mr. Neumeister stated in Brooklyn Park, a manager's co-op was formed. If the landlords see what is coming, they will want to establish a better tenant base and higher levels of screening upfront. Dave Almgren, building official, stated there is a State Statue that has a list of what is required so the landlord can follow this. Councihnember Orttel asked how many rental units Andover has. Mr. Herb Blommel stated there are fifty -one rental buildings and thirty -six are doubles, there are a total of 131 rental units in Andover. He stated the fee is $75.00 per unit for two years. Councilmember Orttel asked if the violation of this Ordinance is grounds for an eviction under Minnesota law. Mr. Dave Almgren stated under the State Statute, they can evict and this form is only backup for that. Discussion ensued in regard to the process for eviction. , -.3- Special Andover City Council Meeting Minutes —February 26, 2003 Page 4 oRP Ft Captain Dave Jenkins explained from the law enforcement's perspective, this is the vehicle that helps to address some of the problem areas in the community. He stated it is a very important tool to deploy and the City would be heading in the right direction by adopting the Ordinance. He stated it would not be a problem collecting the data for this. Councilmember Jacobson asked if the licenses expire on July 1 or expire on the anniversary date of issuance. Mr. Neumeister stated licenses expire on July 1. Councilmember Jacobson stated in the Ordinance, it talks about a penalty for not applying in time and it equates to 100 percent of the license fee. He thought the fees should equate to some sort of a standard. Mr. Neumeister stated he took this from the New Brighton Ordinance. Mr. Dickinson stated when they are charging fees for service, this is true. When putting in place a fee for a penalty they have flexibility in charging penalties and they want to charge a penalty sufficient enough to get their attention. Councilmember Jacobson asked if 100 percent is an acceptable amount. Councilmember Knight asked if the fee was based on cost. Mr. Erar stated the fee Ordinance already addressed this. He stated the fees will not change. Councilmember Knight asked how subjective the landscaping conditions are and, if there is criteria Councilmember Orttel thought this referred to those existing under Special Use Permits. Mr. Neumeister stated this was true. Councilmember Jacobson asked if this applied to The Farmstead. Mr. Neumeister stated it did. Councilmember Jacobson asked if this place should be exempted because they do get a lot of emergency calls. Discussion continued in regard to eviction and disorderly conduct. Councilmember Orttel stated he believed the Ordinance would help the landlords instead of hinder them. The Council discussed with staff the wording of the Ordinance. Councilmember Jacobson stated on page nine ofthe Ordinance under evidence of disorderly manner, the second line of the paragraph should have "nor" instead of "not" and on the top of page eight, section twelve, which talks about the provisional license where they can get it at the time of the next renewal. He asked if they need to wait until the next renewal or could they get this right away. Mr. Neumeister stated in the New Brighton Ordinance, this was not listed. He read from New Brighton's Ordinance. He stated it was added in their Ordinance because if they go to the third strike, they will lose the license. Councilmember Jacobson asked what would happen if they would get three strikes into the first six months of the license period. Mr. Neumeister stated they would lose it. Mayor Gamache stated he understood it to mean that if they have two strikes, then they can only get a provisional license after the third strike. Councilmember Jacobson stated he would like to have staff revieyv this further along with the Planning and Zoning Commission. 0 • n LJ -4- • Special Andover City Council Meeting Minutes —February 26, 2003 Page 5 oRP Ft Councilmember Jacobson stated on page eight, it talks about all the events and it mentions fire alarms. He asked if false alarms would count against the landlord. Councilmember Trude stated she thought this was excessive. Councilmember Knight asked if a place had legitimate fire alarms, would they be penalized. Mr. Almgren stated this would come to the Council for a decision. Councilmember Orttel stated section eighteen says they cannot evict for all the items if it is legitimate law enforcement activities. Councilmember Trude stated she thought they should pull the fire alarm item. Discussion ensued in regards to the penalty fee. Councilmember Knight stated he would like to have staff strike the fire alarm item because they already have a penalty process for it Councilmember Trude agreed. Motion by Orttel, Seconded by Trude, to have staff recognize the changes to the Ordinance and direct the Housing Rental Ordinance to the Planning Commission for a Public Hearing (with special invitation to the landlordslowners of rental units) and adding loss of license does not eliminate a tenants duty to pay rent. Motion carried unanimously. ATE VERSUS PUBLIC (CONTINUED) Mr. Berk tz discussed the staff report with the Council. He stated either system can work. e majority of o er Municipalities would prefer the Public improvement process. With e City contractor, the 's interests come first. In the end the City will own and have to aintain the improvements. The way to insure quality construction and engineering is to ntrol the purse strings and that is throu ity hired Engineers and City contractors. The City ,including Public Works, recommends no c e in present policy. The staff, based o experience, feel the present policy is the best way to quality construction for the . In any case, full time City inspection should continue by usin or a consultant ' by the City. City payment to developer -hired contractors, through an e w arrangemen ' ll also help the City to retain control over the contractor's work. If the Council ides to ge City policy, staff feels the change should not take place until 2004, as a number ges in procedures, assessment policy and securities will be necessary. Councilmember Knight asked for an e anation of the pre sen roposal in the legislature that affects this. Mr. Dickinson stated the c ulation currently includes evenues related to the general special revenue and capital p ' ct funds. What is included in the g is what they put the levy on every year. The S ' Revenue funds are funds such as the for funds, drainage and mapping funds, and pment funds. Capital Projects funds involve each y if they issue bonds. • Those dollars re ' e in the fund and they spend the dollars out of there to do the rovement. He stated the they are currently structured, they use a fund they call the Permanent rovement Revol ' d where all the construction projects are coming out of right now. The asse ents go bac o the fund and they utilize the assessments to then cash flow improvements through th ext years but yet have to make debt payments. He stated the assessments that are coming in can -S— Proposed Amendment (Feb. 27, 2003 version) (Rental Housing Ordinance #266) is CITY OF ANDOVER COUNTY OF ANOKA STATE OF MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. 266 A An Ordinance repealing Ordinance No. 99 adopted April 21, 1992 and further amended in (date) .2003. AN ORDINANCE LICENSING AND REGULATING RENTAL HOUSING DWELLINGS IN THE CITY OF ANDOVER. (Added sections are shown in bold, deleted sections are shown with strikeouts.) The City Council of the City of Andover hereby ordains as follows: Section 1. Purpose and Intent. It is the purpose of this ordinance to protect the public health, safety and welfare of citizens of the City who have as their place of abode a living unit furnished to them for the payment of a rental charge to another. This ordinance is the initial step in the City's effort to provide a housing maintenance code. It is the intent of this ordinance that uniform standards be established and applicable for all rental dwellings in the City and does not apply to rental housing units that are owner occupied Section 2. Definitions. The following words and terms used in this ordinance are construed and defined as follows: Rental Dwelling any dwelling unit with two (2) or more living units for hire. "Rental dwelling" does not include hotels, motels and hospitals and owner occupied housing units Operate to charge a rental charge for the use of a unit in a rental dwelling. Section 3. License Required. No person, firm or corporation shall allow to be occupied or let to another for occunanc units in a rental dwelling for which a license ha not been granted by the City epemte designee. the Building Offieial or- There shall be two types of licenses: regular and • provisional Aftef- expimfien efan initial lieens4ig peried ef less than twe (2) years e—s detefmined by the Building , Each regular such operating license shall be issued biennially and shall expire on June 30` . License renewals shall _6_ be filed at least sixty (60) days prior to license expiration. A provisional license shall be issued . only upon approval by the City Council and shall expire six (6) months after issuance; reference Section 12 (2)(A) that sets forth criteria as to how a regular license may be re- established. Section 4. License Fees. License fees, as set by City Council resolution, shall be due sixty (60) days prior to the license expiration date. In the case of a new unlicensed dwelling, the license fee shall be due upon issuance of the certificate of occupancy. In the case of licensing periods of less than two (2) years, license fees shall be prorated monthly. A license fee shall be collected for each unit in a multiple dwelling except owner occupied units. (A) Filing Due Date and Penalty If an application is made less than 60 days before the beginning date of the license period applied for then the fee shall be accompanied by an additional amount equa to 100 percent of such license fee The additional amount shall be a penalty for a late application with the exception of the first year of the adoption of this ordinance. (B) Delinquency Penalty A delinquency penalty of five (5 %) percent (simple interest) of the license fee for each day of operation without a valid license shall be charged to the operator of the rental dwelling. Once issued, a license is not transferable and the licensee shall not be entitled to a refund of any license fee upon revocation or suspension; however, the licensee shall be entitled to a license refund, prorated monthly, upon proof of transfer of legal control or ownership. (C) Re- inspection Fee A fee as set by City Council resolution, shall be charged for all re- inspections necessary after the first re- inspection. The re- inspection fee(s) will be payable at the time of license renewal for the property. Section 5. Application for Rental Housing License. Applications for Rental Housing licenses shall be made in writing to the C ity Building Offieial by the owner of the rental units or his/her legally constituted agent. Before any Rental Housing license shall be issued or renewed the owner shall compl an application The following persons shall be authorized to sign and submit the applica A If the owner is a natural person, by the owner thereof. B If the owner is a corporation, by an officer thereof. C If the owner is a partnership, by a partner thereof. The reeistration statement shall be made on forms prescribed by the City and shall include: • A. The name and address of the owner of the rental dwellings B. The name and address of any operator or agent actively managing the rental dwelling. If "off- site" provide further data as to whom it is. C. If the operator or agent is a business entity, the application shall include the names, telephone numbers, and addresses of individuals who will be involved in such management, toeether with a description of the scope of services and manner of deliving these services by the manaeer. A If the registrant is a partnership, the name and address of all partners. E. If the registrant is a corporation, the name and address of all officers. F. If the rental dwelline is being sold on a contract for deed, the name and address of the vendees. G. The legal address of the rental dwelling. H. The number of units within the rental dwelline. Notification by the rental operator shall be given to the City Building Offleial within five (5) business days with any change of information as required and stated in the initial application. Section 6. License Issuance. The City shall issue a rental housing license if the building and the application are found to be in compliance with the provisions of this Ordinance. 0 Section 7. Renewal of License. The license period shall commence on Julv 1. A regular license shall be issued for a period of two years. A provisional license shall be issued only upon approval by the Citv Council pursuant to the requirements of Section 12 of this ordinance for a period of six months; reference Section 12 (2)(Al that sets forth criteria as to how a regular license may be re- established. Section 6- 8. Conformance to Laws. No operating license shall be issued or renewed unless the rental dwelling and its premises conform to the ordinances of the City and the laws of the State of Minnesota. Section -7- 9. Inspee6en Cendifien.-Inspections and Investigations No operating license shall be issued or renewed unless the owner of rental units agrees in his/her application to permit inspections pursuant to this Section. The Building Official and Fire Chief and/ their designated hisfheF representatives are is • hereby authorized to make inspections reasonably necessary to the enforcement of this ordinance. 00 Persons inspecting any rental dwelling as provided herein shall notify the license holder of all • violations, if any, by issuing a written Compliance Order. Said Compliance Order shall direct that compliance be made in no more than fifteen (15) days, unless extended by the Building Official and/or Fire Chief based on good cause. Section 8 10. License Not Transferable. No operating license shall be transferable to another person or to another rental dwelling. Every person holding an operating license shall give notice in writing to the C ity Building Offleial within five (5) business days after having legally transferred or otherwise disposed of the legal control of any licensed rental dwelling. Such notice shall include the name and address of the person succeeding to the ownership or control of such dwelling or dwellings. Section 43 11. Conduct on Licensed Property. (1) It shall be the responsibility of the licensee to see that persons occupying the licensed premises conduct themselves in a manner as not to cause the premises to be disorderly. For the purpose of this Section, a premises is disorderly at which any of the following activities occur: Violation of the City's Noise Ordinance. 2. Violation to State laws relating to the possession of controlled substances. 3. Violation of Disturbing the Peace. 4. The unlawful' sale of liquor. 5. Violation to laws relating to gambling. 6. Violation of State laws relating to acts of prostitution. The unlawful use or possession of a firearm as per State law. 8. Violation of Minnesota Statutes Section 504B (Tennant and landlord rights). 9. Violation of Minnesota Statutes, Section 609 (i.e. Disorderly Conduct; Unlawful Assembly, Riot; Terroristic Threat, Presence at Unlawful Assembly. Enforcement Authority. The City Administrator shall be responsible for enforcement and administration of this Chapter. Authority to take any action authorized by this Chapter may be delegated to the City Administrator's designee. Th B Offie' 1 1. ll be r e.. s ible fe o r-ee.r. 4 d ed f li..A..etie« e f N SeeAiew Notice of Violation Upon determination by the Citv Building O fieial that a licensed premises was used in a disorderly manner, as described in this Section, the City Building-9fsial —7— shall give notice to the licensee of the violation and direct the licensee to take steps to prevent further violations. The disorderly manner shall be as defined in this Section. • Second Instance. If a second anther instance of disorderly use of the licensed premises occurs within three (3) months of an incident for which a notice was given as specified in Section 11 (3) by the Building Offieiffil, the Citv Building Aerial shall notify the licensee to submit a written report of the actions taken, and proposed to be taken, by the licensee to prevent further disorderly use of the premises. This written report shall be submitted to the City Building O€f eial within five (5) days of receipt of the notice of disorderly use of the premises and shall detail all actions taken by the licensee in response to all notices of disorderly use of the premises within the preceding three (3) months. Third Instance. If a third anther instance of disorderly use of the licensed premises occurs within three (3) months after any two (2) previous instances of disorderly use for which notices were given to the licensee pursuant to this Section 11 (4) the rental dwelling license for the premises may be denied, revoked, suspended or not renewed. An action to deny, revoke, suspend, or not renew a license under this Section shall be initiated by the C who shall give to the licensee written notice of a hearing before the City Council to consider such denial, revocation, suspension or nonrenewal. Such written notice shall specify all violations of this Section, and shall state the date, time, place and purpose of the hearing. The hearing shall be held no less than ten (10) days and no more than thirty (30) days after giving such notice. Action of the City Council. Following the hearing, the City Council may deny, revoke, suspend or decline to renew the license for all or any part or parts of the licensed premises or may • grant a license upon such terms and conditions as it deems necessary to accomplish the purposes of this Section. M Instances Defined. For purposes of this Section, instances of disorderly use shall be those which: A. Occur at the same rental unit; or B. Involve tenants at the same rental unit, or C. Involve guests or invitees at the same rental unit; or D. Involve guest or invitees of the same tenant, or E. Involve the same tenant. Eviction Proceedings No adverse license action shall be imposed where the instance of disorderly use of the licensed premises occurs during the pendency of eviction proceedings (unlawful detainer) or within thirty (30) days of notice given by licensee to a tenant to vacate the premises where the disorderly use was related to conduct by that tenant or by other occupants or guests of the tenant's unit. Eviction proceedings shall not be a bar to adverse license action, however, unless they are diligently pursued by the licensee. Further, any action to deny, revoke, suspend, or not renew a license based upon violations of this Section may be postponed or discontinued at any time if it appears that the licensee has taken appropriate measures which will prevent further instances of disorderly use. Evidence ofDisorderly Manner A determination that the licensed premises have been used in a disorderly mariner as described in this Section shall be made upon substantial evidence —/0— to support such determination. It shall not be necessary that criminal charges be brought in order to support a determination of disorderly use, nor shall the fact of dismissal or acquittal of such criminal charge operate as a bar to adverse license action under this Section. • (10) Serving of Notice All notices given by the City under this Section shall be personally served on the licensee, sent by certified mail to licensee's last known address or, if neither method of service effects notice, by posting on a conspicuous place on the licensed premises. Council Action Not Exclusive Enforcement actions provided in this Section shall not be exclusive, and the City Council may take any action with respect to a licensee, a tenant, or the licensed premises as is authorized by this ordinance or State law. Section 12. Provisional License. (1) Police or fire calls. Licensed dwelling units that have generated 2 police calls per dwelling unit over any consecutive twelve month period during the license period shall only be eligible for a provisional license at the time of next renewal, as specified in this Section. (A) Police calls that are counted in determining whether a provisional license is required include the following types of calls or events: (1) Calls or events listed in Sections 11 or 12. (2) Calls or events categorized as part one crimes in the Uniform Crime • Reporting System including homicide, rape, robbery, aggravated assault, burgurlary, theft, auto theft, and arson. (3) Calls or events categorized by the Public Safety Department: miscellaneous iuvenile status crimes; liquor offenses or curfew violations; disturbing the peace or harassing communications; property damage; criminal damage to property or trespass; domestic incidents; public disturbance or disorderly conduct; loud party or noise complaints; disorderly _juveniles; assault in the fifth degree or non - domestic related assaults. The Sheriff shall maintain for public inspection a description of the coding system and a list of the codes and crimes included within each of these categories or calls or events. The Sheriff may determine that multiple incidents shall be counted as a single call in appropriate cases. Calls not counted for purposes of determining wheth a provisional license is required where the victim and suspect are "Family or household members" as defined in the Domestic Abuse Act Minnesota Statutes, Section 518 B.01, Subdivision 2(b) and where there is a report of "Domestic Abuse" as defined in the Domestic Abuse Act, Minnesota Statutes, Section 518 B.01, Subdivision 2(a). (C) The City will provide a report by mail to each licensee for calls described in this Section. 0 (2) Mitigation Plan. Prior consideration of a provisional license, the applicant for a provisional license must submit a mitigation plan to City staff to work out the details of a • mitigation plan and it must be reviewed and approved by the City Council. (A)The mitigation plan shall describe steps proposed by the applicant to reduce the number of police or fire calls described in Section 11. Subsection (A)(1) over the six month period of the provisional license to a level that would entitle the property to qualify for a regular license at the end of the six month provisional license period. (B)The mitigation plan may include such steps as: changes in tenant screening procedures changes in lease terms, security measures, rules and regulations for tenant conduct, and security personnel. (3) Decision of City Council. The application and a proposed mitigation plan will be presented to the City Council together with a disposition recommendation by the City Administrator. After giving the applicant an opportunity to be heard and present evidence, the City Council shall approve. disapprove, or approve with conditions the mitigation plan and the provisional license. If the City Council disapproves an application and mitigation plan or approves a provisional license with conditions, it shall state its reasons for so doing in writing. (4) Monthlv Reports The provisional licensee shall comply with the approved mitigation plan No later than the tenth day of each month, the licensee shall mail or deliver to the City a written report describing all steps taken in furtherance of the mitigation plan during • the preceding month. If the required monthly reports are not submitted in a timely fashion by the property owner, then the City may begin proceedings to revoke the provisional license for all or any part or parts of the licensed premises. Section 440- 13. Maintenance Standards. Every rental unit shall maintain the standards as stated in Ordinance No. 267, the Housing Maintenance Code. Section 44 14. Landscape Condition. Each rental dwelling unit shall be maintained by its owner, occupant, operator or agent so that the yards, open spaces and parking facilities are kept in a safe and attractive condition. Where a conditional use permit has been granted, the landscaping shown on the approved landscaping plan shall be considered as minimal and shall be maintained accordingly. Any deviation to species or material shall be equal to or better than originally approved. In addition, adequate lighting faculties shall be provided and operated between the hours of sunset and sunrise; and snow plowing or snow shoveling shall be regularly accomplished to maintain all sidewalks and parking areas in a safe condition. -tZ- Section 4-2 15. Safety from Fire. is An owner, operator or agent of a rental dwelling shall be responsible to comply with the applicable provisions of the Fire Code of the City, including the keeping of all fire lanes open for emergency purposes. Section IS 16. Revocation or Suspension. Y. A4 suah heafiag before the City Geuneil, the Neense heldeFer- their a4emey may submit —an-d- After- a heming the City Getmeil may suspend or- rvveke the fieense if they deem it neeessuy te 1 (1) Reason for Action. The Council may revoke, suspend, deny or decline to renew any license issued under this Ordinance upon any of the following arounds: A. False statements on anv application or other informati or report required b this Ordinance to be given by the applicant or licensee. B. Failure to pay any application, penalty, reinspection, or reinstatement fee required by this Ordinance and resolution. C. Failure to correct deficiencies noted in notices of violation in the time specified in the notice. D. Failure to comply with the provisions of an appr mitigation plan in the case of provisional licenses. E. Any other violation of this Ordinance. (1) Applicable Sections. Revocation, suspension, and non - renewal may be brought under either this Section or Section 11 (1). (2) Regular License. A regular license may be revoked, if at mid -term. or not renewed, if at the end of a term, upon a findine that the premises are only eligible for a provisional license as provided in Section 11 (1). (3) Written Notice. A decision to revoke, suspend, deny or not renew a license shall be preceded by a written notice to the applicant or licensee of the alleeed erounds therefore /.3 - , the City the laws the- P-4-Ate er- of Y. A4 suah heafiag before the City Geuneil, the Neense heldeFer- their a4emey may submit —an-d- After- a heming the City Getmeil may suspend or- rvveke the fieense if they deem it neeessuy te 1 (1) Reason for Action. The Council may revoke, suspend, deny or decline to renew any license issued under this Ordinance upon any of the following arounds: A. False statements on anv application or other informati or report required b this Ordinance to be given by the applicant or licensee. B. Failure to pay any application, penalty, reinspection, or reinstatement fee required by this Ordinance and resolution. C. Failure to correct deficiencies noted in notices of violation in the time specified in the notice. D. Failure to comply with the provisions of an appr mitigation plan in the case of provisional licenses. E. Any other violation of this Ordinance. (1) Applicable Sections. Revocation, suspension, and non - renewal may be brought under either this Section or Section 11 (1). (2) Regular License. A regular license may be revoked, if at mid -term. or not renewed, if at the end of a term, upon a findine that the premises are only eligible for a provisional license as provided in Section 11 (1). (3) Written Notice. A decision to revoke, suspend, deny or not renew a license shall be preceded by a written notice to the applicant or licensee of the alleeed erounds therefore /.3 - and the applicant or licensee will be given the opportunity for a hearing before the City Council before final action to revoke, suspend, deny, or not renew a license. • (4) Action of City Council. The City Council shall give due regard to the frequency and seriousness of violations, the ease with which such violations could have been cured or avoided and good faith efforts to comply and shall issue a decision to deny, not renew, suspend, or revoke a license only upon written findines. The City Council may suspend or revoke a license or not renew a license for part or all of the facility. (5) Reinstatement ofLicense. Upon a decision to revoke, deny, or not renew a license, no new application for the same facility will be accepted for a period of time specified in a written decision of the City Council, not exceeding one year. Such new applications must be accompanied by a reinstatement fee, as specified by resolution, in addition to all other fees required by this Ordinance. (6) No New Rentals. A written decision to revoke, suspend, deny, or not renew a license or application shall specify the part or parts of the facility to which this applies. Thereafter, and until a license is reissued or reinstated, no rental units becoming vacant in such part or parts of the facility may be relet or occupied. Revocation, suspension, or non - renewal of a license shall not excuse the owner from compliance with all terms of this Ordinance for as lone as any units in the facility are occupied. (7) Failure to Comply, Failure to comply with all terms of this Ordinance during the term of revocation, suspension, or non - renewal is a misdemeanor for extension of the term of such revocation or suspension or continuation of non- renewal, or for a decision not to reinstate the license, notwithstanding any limitations on the period of suspension, revocation, or non - renewal specified in the City Council's written decision or in Section 17, Subdivision (6). Section 17. No Retaliation. No licensee shall evict, threaten to evict, or take any other punitive action against any tenant by reason of good faith calls made by such tenant to law enforcement agencies related to criminal activity, suspected criminal activity, suspicious occurrences, or public safety concerns. This Section shall not prohibit the eviction of tenants from a dwelling unit for unlawful conduct of a tenant or invitee or violation of any rules, reeulations, or lease terms other than a prohibition against contactine law enforcement agencies. Section 4-6 18. Summary Action. When the conduct of any license holder or their agent, representative, employee or lessee or the condition of their dwelling is detrimental to the public health, safety and general welfare as to constitute a nuisance, fire hazard or other unsafe or dangerous condition and thus give rise to an emergency, the City Building Offieial shall have the authority to summarily condemn or close off such area of the rental dwelling. Any person aggrieved by a decision of the City Build to cease business or revoke or suspend the license or permit shall be entitled to appeal to the City Council immediately by filing - /1f"- • U a Notice of Appeal. The City Building Offleiel shall schedule a date for hearing before the City Council and notify the aggrieved person of the date. The hearing shall be conducted in the same manner as if the aggrieved person had not received summary action. The decision of the City Building OffieW shall not he voided by the filing of such appeal. Only after the City Council has held its hearing will the decision of the City "Wing A€fisial be affected. Section 4-7 19. Applicable Laws. Licenses shall be subject to all of the ordinances of the City and laws of the State related to rental dwellings. This ordinance shall not be construed or interpreted to supersede or limit any other such applicable ordinance or law. Section 4.9 20. Severability Clause. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions, of this Ordinance. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Andover on this th day of , 2003. ATTEST: CITY OF ANDOVER Victoria Volk, City Clerk -is- Michael Gamache, Mayor 10