Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/10/05ANLbD Y O F r avE 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. • ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 • (763) 755 -5100 FAX (763) 755 -8923 • WWW.CI.ANDOVER.MN.US Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda May 10, 2005 Andover City Hall Council Chambers 7:00 p.m. 1. Call to Order 2. Approval of Minutes —April 26, 2005. 3. PUBLIC HEARING: Preliminary Plat of a single family urban residential development known as Sophie's South and located south of Crosstown Boulevard and west of the Burlington Northern Railroad 4. PUBLIC HEARING: Preliminary Plat of a single family rural residential development known as Silver Meadows West and located at 16134 Valley Drive NW. 5. PUBLIC HEARING: Residential Sketch Plan for a single family planned unit development known as Kensington Estates 7 Addition and located on Outlot B of Kensington Estates 4 Addition. 6. PUBLIC HEARING: Residential Sketch Plan known as Apel Sketch Plan for a single family planned unit development located at 1781 157 Lane NW. 7. WORK SESS] i. ii. iv. V. vi. [ON: Zoning Ordinance Update City Code 12 -5 -4 Code Text Amendments City Code 12 -5 -10 Public Hearing Process City Code 12 -13 1 B Animals City Code 9 -9 -11 Housing Maintenance City Code 9 -4 -4 Swimming Pools, Spas and Hot Tubs City Code 12- 8 -7B.3 Bulk Fuel (continued) 8. Other Business 9. Adjournment ,* 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W.. ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 • (763) 755 -5100 FAX (763) 755 -8923 • WWW.CI.ANDOVER.MN.US TO: Planning and Zoning Commissioners FROM: Courtney Bednarz, City Planner SUBJECT: Item 2. Approval of Minutes - April 26, 2005 DATE: May 10, 2005 Request The Planning and Zoning Commission is asked to approve the minutes from the April 26, 2005 meeting. 0 0 • NDOVE AT • `M1y9 -f4 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSIONMEETING —APRIL 26, 2005 The Regular Bi- Monthly Meeting of the Andover Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order by Chairperson Daninger on April 26, 2005, 7:00 p.m., at the Andover City Hall, 1685 Crosstown Boulevard NW, Andover, Minnesota. Commissioners present: Chairperson Da Commissioners Tim Kirchoff, Rex Greenwald, Dean Vatne, Jonathan Jasper, Michael Casey and Valerie Holthus. Commissioners absent: There were none. r� Also present: City Planner, Courtney Bednarz Associate Planner, Andy Cross Associate Planner, Chris Vrchota Others APPROVAL OFMINUTES. April 12, 2005 Motion by Kirchoff, seconded by Greenwald, to approve the minutes as presented. Motion carried on a 7 -ayes, 0 -nays, 0- absent vote. PARLANCE (05 -02) TO VAR YFROM THE MAXIMUM LIGHT ALL 0WED TO ENCROACH ON RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES FOR ATHLETIC FIELDS AT PRAIRIE gNOLL PARK LOCATED AT 595146 LANE NW. Mr. Bednarz noted this item continues the discussion of lighting the athletic fields in Prairie Knoll Park. The suggestion from the Planning Commission was researched over the past two weeks. A summary of the results is attached and will now be presented. City Engineer Berkowitz discussed the design issues with the Commission. Commissioner Kirchoff asked if the homeowners to the west were present. There was no response. Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes — April 26, 2005 • Page 3 Commissioner Holthus stated a hardship cannot be proved the west field, they are lighting the east field any way and would be gaining one football field at least. Mr. Berkowitz stated that was correct. Commissioner Holthus thought they may just want to light one field. Mr. Berkowitz stated staff was directed to light both fields. Commissioner Kirchoff stated the homeowners have been talked to and the residents support this according to the letter they received. He stated he would support this because of the safety issue involved. If the homeowners weigh in and say they support this to the City Council that would be an important piece. To move this forward, he would see the safety issue. Commissioner Jasper thought they needed more lighted fields but they have very specific standards for variance and this meets none of them. He stated this was purely an economic consideration. There are other alternatives that would be appropriate. Mr. Berkowitz stated on the option were the poles would be moved into the easement, would reduce the spillage but would still need a variance because it would still spill over. Commissioner Vatne asked if there would be an option to move the southeast pole back into the easement, that correct the north side spillage, but what about the south side . spillage. Mr. O'Brian stated they do not want to move the pole any further back than it is because of aiming angles. He thought the pole should be ten feet closer than where they want to put it now. He thought the only option they could look at that would limit the foot candles down to City ordinance levels at the property line, cuts the lighting down on the field an average of about seventeen foot candles. They are looking at a 12 to 1 maximum/ ratio. Commissioner Vatne stated he was leaning toward it but he would like to hear from the property owner to the north. Commissioner Holthus did not think she would vote for this. Commissioner Casey stated he would vote for this. Motion by Kirchoff, seconded by Casey, to recommend to the City Council approval of Resolution No. , to grant the variance to vary from the maximum light allowed to encroach on residential properties for athletic fields at Prairie Knoll Park Located at 595 146' Lane NW. Commissioner Greenwald stated they tabled this before and already had the public hearing, he wondered if there will be another public hearing at the City Council. Chairperson Daninger did not think there would be another public hearing. Commissioner Kirchoff stated if the homeowner were at the City Council meeting, he thought the City Council would listen to what that person would have to say in regards to this. Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes — April 26, 2005 Page 5 • Chairperson Daninger asked if there was any other sketch plan done on this property. Mr. Vrchota stated the developer has done sketches in the past and there has been other plans done by other people but nothing has been approved. Motion by Greenwald, seconded by Kirchoff, to open the public hearing at 7:30 p.m. Motion carried on a 7 -ayes, 0 -nays, 0- absent vote. There was no public input. Motion by Casey, seconded by Kirchoff, to close the public hearing at 7:31 p.m. Motion carried on a 7 -ayes, 0 -nays, 0- absent vote. Commissioner Vatne stated they discussed earlier about the potential for a cul-de -sac. He wondered if there was a potential to utilize a cul -de -sac and be able to work lots off of that and come up with potentially the same number of lots. Mr. Ron Touchette, Rock Solid Realty, stated they have considered many plans and have had a lot of sketches made up to try to maximize the potential for this property. Due to the amount of wetland and floodplain, this is the only option. The intent is to work with the natural landscape to provide a different kind of high quality lots. Commissioner Kirchoff asked if they ever had any attempt for a higher residential density with one access, possibly a zoning change. Mr. Touchette stated they did look at the possibilities and discussed it with City staff and it was decided it was so much outside of what the City wanted and would not be as desirable in a single family residential setting. He stated from then on, they did not consider the higher density. Commissioner Holthus stated on building site five, the building pad is closer to the street than the others. Mr. Touchette stated the reason for this is because there is wetland there but lot five is a larger lot. He indicated they would move the house back and turn it so the front does not face so close to the road. Commissioner Holthus asked under the wetland section, it says all wetland mitigation will need to be approved by the Coon Creek Watershed District but in another section it notes coordination with other agencies and it mentions the Lower Rum River Watershed District. She wondered if there were two different watershed organizations that need to have approvals. Mr. Vrchota stated it was his mistake and only needed to be approved by the Coon Creek Organization. Commissioner Vatne stated for clarification, the other variance beside the driveway, is relating to the setback in the rear because of the location of the floodway boundary. Mr. Touchette stated there were actually three variances. Two were with the driveway (side yard setback and direct access to collector street) and one was because they did not have front yard setback (buildable lot depth due to front yard wetlands). Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes —April 26, 2005 • Page 7 the front wetlands so much in order to get to the back build -able property. He stated they met a great amount of conflict to touch the wetlands so they decided to work around it. Commissioner Kirchoff asked if there would be any possibility in the future to have a median put in the middle of Andover Boulevard because this would help the driveways with only having a right- in/right -out. Mr. Bednarz stated Andover Boulevard is a City road and he did not think the City had any plans to put a median in. Chairperson Daninger summarized the Commission comments to the developer. Mr. Bednarz stated that this item would be before the Council at the May 3, 2005 City Council meeting. WORK SESSION. ZONING ORDINANCE UPDATE i. 12 -14 -5 Screening Mr. Bednarz indicated the City already had two sections on screening and they would like to pull this together under one section. Commissioner Kirchoff asked if there will be cross referencing in the S Code where needed. Mr. Bednarz stated there will be a number of areas in the code which will send the person to this section. Commissioner Vatne stated there was a couple of references to landscape screening of a minimum height of six feet at plant maturity, does this mean they will need to wait for the plants to grow to the minim height. Mr. Bednarz stated this was correct. Chairperson Daninger stated when they screen using a certain material, what happens when that material deteriorates. Mr. Bednarz stated they have addressed this in the section regarding fences but in regards to shrubs and trees, if it does not already state it in the code, they should probably say that plant material to satisfy screening requirements must be kept in good condition and replaced if needed. Commissioner Jasper stated if a shrub dies, it no longer is screening so it would be in violation of the code and would need to be replaced. He wondered if a ticket would be issued from the City Inspector. Mr. Cross stated they would receive a notice that they are in violation of the code and the City would proceed to work with them on correcting the problem. • Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes —April 26, 2005 • Page 9 Chairperson Daninger did not think they wanted to take it out but lighten this up a little bit. Commissioner Jasper thought any turf areas needed to be irrigated. Commissioner Vatne commended the staff on the comparison between the different cities. Commissioner Jasper stated in Subsection C, it lists tree, shrubs and shrubs for different measurements and he thought this needed to be clarified that all three are required. He stated ground cover in Section I, talks about mulch and rock could be substituted around the parameter of the building, he thought there were several places where they have allowed rock and mulch along planting beds or along sidewalks or street edges and he did not know if it should be limited to just along the parameter of the building. Commissioner Holthus thought this was too controlling and a waste of water. She stated this is contradictory too with the water restrictions put in place. Commissioner Greenwald indicated this would be for churches also. • Commissioner Kirchoff asked if under Section I, where it says "Native plant communities may be reestablished in appropriate portions of the site ", would those areas need to be irrigated, was that the intent. Mr. Bednarz stated this was not the intent although they may need to add words to clarify that. Commissioner Kirchoff agreed with Commissioner Holthus that this would need to be lightened up. Commissioner Greenwald asked if they required irrigation now on commercial property. W. Bednarz stated they do. Mr. Bednarz stated maybe they should have an irrigation put together as suggested and it is flexible in terms of what is irrigated and what is not depending on the need. Commissioner Jasper thought a rule should be established and the rule should be lighter than that which is in there. If there is some reason where someone would want to deviate from that, they could come in for the opportunity to deviate from that. To make it something that is completely ambiguous, makes it something that is not enforceable and becomes way to haphazard. Lightening it up makes sense but they also need to have some standards in the code as opposed to having something very ambiguous makes more sense. Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes —April 26, 2005 • Page 11 Bednarz stated the second one would be a property line. Commissioner Jasper stated this does not make sense to him. Commissioner Greenwald stated a lot of people have a closed barn with one side that is open and that may be the difference in the distances. Mr. Bednarz stated it does say any open or roofed enclosure so that is the shelter that has to be fifty feet from the property line and the animals themselves need to be kept one hundred feet from any residence. Commissioner Jasper asked what the source of the distances was. Mr. Bednarz stated the numbers relate directly to the equine ordinance. Commissioner Jasper stated it seemed to him there should be a reason for a particular distance from a particular monument and he did not see what the rationale was for picking these distances. Commissioner Jasper thought this needed to be clarified. V. 12- 8 -7B.3 Bulk Fuel (continued) Mr. Bednarz stated there is no clear concise definition of what constitutes • bulk liquid storage as regulated by City Code. The Fire Department currently requires a permit before installation, repair, removal or alteration. It should be made clear in this section what is specifically regulated, and that it should be properly permitted by the Fire Department. Our Fire Department needs to have knowledge of special hazards that exist within the community and this Code section will enable that to happen. In discussing the issue of why the 1000 gallon cut off, they . indicated the 1000 gallons is used because most household heating tanks are 1000 gallons or less. Also, the Minnesota State Fire Code Chapter 34 talks about the tanks above and below ground and they use the 1000 gallon as the cut off for exemptions. The proposed change is a new definition is needed, since one does not currently exist. Under Part A, it is recommended that the threshold for what constitutes a liquid storage tank (that is to be regulated) shall be established. This should also be shown as a Conditional Use were appropriate in the uses table. The districts that this will be listed as a Conditional Use are R- 1 (Single Family — Rural Agricultural Uses Only), NB (Neighborhood Business), SC (Shopping Center), GB (General Business), I (Industrial). There should also be a provision added that enables public agencies (school district, city, county, state) regardless of the zoning district they are located in to request a Conditional Use Permit. Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes - April 26, 2005 Page 13 • vi. 12 -14 -22 Visual Standards Mr. Bednarz explained these standards are intended to prohibit certain building materials. A list of materials is provided, yet it seems to apply only to unfinished materials and the next paragraph allows the same with "proper arrangement or combination with other materials ". The proposed change is the update the language, clearly prohibit the items from the existing list unless they are used as accent materials as evaluated by the Andover Review Committee. Commissioner Jasper asked if this just applied to commercial buildings. Mr. Bednarz stated this does not apply itself to any subsets, it only says "prohibited exteriors ". Commissioner Jasper asked if someone would use any type of concrete block, is it supposed to be approved by the Andover Review Committee. Mr. Bednarz stated through the building permit process the building is approved. Commissioner Vatne stated the way he read this; a pole barn cannot be constructed. Mr. Bednarz stated there is a section under accessory structure requirements that allows a person to do that if they have more than three acres. This would indicate a pole barn could not be constructed to operate a business out of. Mr. Bednarz thought it would make sense to adjust the language under B and apply it more specifically of how it is most commonly used, which is non - residential buildings. Chairperson Daninger stated how he saw this, they were trying to make this more user friendly. Commissioner Vatne asked what was meant by accent material. Mr. Bednarz stated it was any material used on the building not including the structural material used to build and support the building. W. Bednarz stated they could clarify what the materials would be. vii. 12 -14 -23 Building Height Mr. Bednarz noted this section allows all structures to exceed the maximum height allowed by City Code 12 -3-4 with a conditional use permit under certain circumstances. A line item needs to be added to the Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes — April 26, 2005 Page 15 • Commissioner Greenwald wondered if there is not a public hearing, would all property owners within a certain distance would have been notified. Mr. Bednarz stated they would still get notification even though there was not a public hearing. Commission consensus was to allow variances to have a public hearing. ix. 12 -15 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Mr. Bednarz stated the City Code should make reference to the Comprehensive Plan as the document that establishes the proper land use (and ultimately zoning) is for a given property in Andover. Currently there is no reference to it at all. The proposed change is to change the wording. Commissioner Greenwald thought this made sense. The Commission liked this. • OTHER BUSINESS Mr. Bednarz updated the Planning Commission on related items. Chairperson Daninger thought everyone has done a great job on the work session. Commissioner Vatne stated the City Council had requested to have a summary of the findings and or results of the Planning Commission available at the time they are going through the agenda He wondered if this was something that has been added. He stated it came down to the timing and when the minutes are published. Mr. Bednarz stated right now they have all of the proposed changes up on the website and they are working on an updated table that would be easy for people to reference. Commissioner Vatne stated he thought the City Council meant they were not receiving the information and decisions from the Planning Commission. Mr. Bednarz stated they update the staff report and put the Planning Commission recommendation right in it and however detailed it needs to be to reflect that and then in the report, they attach the minutes from the minutes. Commissioner Vatne asked if that information was just recently compiled and provided because in reading the minutes, it clearly said they were not getting the feedback in some cases from the Planning Commission. Mr. Bednarz stated the staff report gets updated on • each item on each staff report. Q. It • 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. • ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 • (763) 755 -5100 FAX (763) 755 -8923 • WWW.CI.ANDOVER.MN.US TO: Planning and Zoning Commissioners CC: Courtney Bednarz, City Planner FROM: Chris Vrchota, Associate Planner 0 SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING: Preliminary Plat for Sophie's South on property located southwest of Crosstown Boulevard NW and the Burlington Northern Railroad. DATE: May 10, 2005 INTRODUCTION The Planning Commission is asked to review a preliminary plat containing 85 urban residential lots. The Planning Commission reviewed the sketch plan for this development at the March 8 2005 meeting. The minutes from that meeting are attached. DISCUSSION Conformance with Local Plans The plat conforms to the Urban Residential Land Use Classification and Single Family Urban Residential (R -4) Zoning District. The property is currently zoned R -1- Single Family- Rural. Rezoning of the property to R -4- Single Family -Urban is a condition of approval of the plat. Any grading work done before the property is rezoned will be at the developers' own risk. Exception Property The property at 1140 Crosstown Boulevard is not a part of the plat. The lot and existing single - family dwelling will remain as they are. Access Access will be provided from Crosstown Boulevard NW (County Road 18). Additional right -of- way will be granted to achieve a 60 -foot right -of -way on the south side of Crosstown Boulevard. The primary road leading into the development will be Xeon Street. Xeon Street will be aligned with the access to Sophie's Manor on the north side of Crosstown Boulevard. Because it is designated as a collector street, the right -of -way for this road needs to be 66 feet wide. The 51.7 feet of right -of -way shown on the plat will provide enough space to construct the necessary street improvements. Additional right -of -way will be acquired at the time 1140 Crosstown Boulevard develops to bring the right -of -way up to the standard 66 -foot width. Xeon Street will provide the only access to the development at the present time. As a result, a variance to the maximum cul -de -sac length of 500 feet will be necessary. Xeon Street will be stubbed to the south side of the property towards the east side of the development. Xeon Street is designated as a collector street in the Transportation Plan and is projected to connect Crosstown Boulevard to Andover Boulevard in the future. Park Dedication The Park and Recreation Commission reviewed the sketch plan for this development at their • February 17 meeting. The area that they recommended for parkland dedication is show on the plat. Coordination with other Agencies The developers and/or owners are responsible for obtaining all necessary permits (Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, U.S. Army Corp of Engineers, Coon Creek Watershed Management organization, Anoka County Highway Department, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, LGU, and any other agency that may have an interest in the site). Initial contact shall be made with the City Engineering Department regarding this item. The developer is also required to meet all other applicable ordinances, including: • City Code Title 11, Subdivision Regulations • City Code Title 12, Zoning Regulations • City Code Title 13, Planning and Development • City Code Title 14, Flood Control Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat subject to the attached conditions. Staff recommends approval of the variance for the dead end cul -de -sac exceeding 500 feet in length due to the access restrictions related to County roads and the fact that additional access can be achieved when the adjacent property is developed. • Attachments Location Map Preliminary Plat March 8 2005 Planning Commission Minutes Letter from Anoka County Highway Department ACTION REQUESTED The Planning Commission is asked to recommend approval of the preliminary plat, subject to the conditions in the attached resolution. Respect �mitted, Chris Vrchota Cc: Marty Harstad, 2195 Silver Lake Rd., New Brighton, MN 55112 Todd Ganz, 16015 Central Ave. NE Ste. 101, Ham Lake, MN 55304 0 CITY OF ANDOVER 2. No grading of the site shall be allowed until a grading plan is approved. • 3. The developers shall obtain all necessary permits from the DNR, Corps of Engineers, LGU, MPCA and any other agency that may be interested in the site. 4. Park dedication shall be paid per City Code 11 -3 -7, with credit for dedicated park land. 5. Trail fees shall be paid on a per lot basis for each of the lots in the proposed development. 6 A variance to City Code 11 -3 -6G is granted to allow a street terminating in a cul -de -sac to exceed 500 feet in length. 7. Contingent upon staff review and approval for compliance with City ordinances, policies and guidelines and a development agreement acceptable to the City Attorney. A financial guarantee will be required as a part of this agreement to assure typical subdivision improvements will be completed. 8. The preliminary plat approval is contingent upon the property being rezoned to the R-4 Single Family Urban land use classification. 9. Any grading done on the site prior to rezoning shall be done at the developers' own risk. 10. The failure on the part of the petitioner to obtain final plat approval within one year from the date of this approval shall deem the preliminary approval to be null and void. • Adopted by the City Council of the City of Andover this _ day of , 2005. CITY OF ANDOVER ATTEST: Victoria Volk, City Clerk Michael R. Gamache, Mayor 11 r..uu, sn.uurt -oc' H,- - `r f4v1 tlH 1 u1P! Jl .. ... LH 1Hr1 t 1I.Y y NO1`JT J I I?IlT9 - -` —` -'-' ras./z.DDr; 1 — _ �)� ��•�`���� °' 4j _ _tw \ - -- 1 -- rxs ..-.- r = i \.\ �`. \\ . C / f/ e` /• � . �.. %. T ' _! I - / I � / ~[ { / r .P" < � 4 .... -i I • \ 1� t!� 5 / \ `( / \ J\C INS UP 7F - 0d; \ I :r l CP y I 1 ' - \ tP '� __ � _. < % \ ? q m n, I• I ,N I 1 m � I I . - 'i .i r \tiff '\ � \♦ ' l Y� I' 1'A w ... CV cv Y .m. ♦ / / \ \ r y \ \ Wey),op Ut ig IJ ling: -,•. ..+- . -... -» ; 1`] \\ a \ < r � ♦ i � ', I of w•;\ ._ / \ \ 1 i.. \ � \T \ \ Jr t Ira' W 20M U 4 U J I W 3 CL it a4`° w y� a0 °> Ua n of In w vl O o c -1 W W _° "'% -' VI W w UI.I sr o udo c p d ID CNQaa° fl \ \ ° =-• ° O ° u c O�J ° LU q uo ' K2�W'1 Q u o Z �..i C-5 O 1l I `o m c a n s a W ` ma � Z FU m o o a0 mm s z ?=H Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes — March 8, 2005 • Page 4 and eventually to Yellow Pine Street. This would not create a good traffic pattern as it could potentially add a lot of additional future traffic to the streets of Yellow Pine, 150th and Bluebird and 148" and Winslow Hills and the Oak Bluff Development. Mr. Harold Sullivan, 15300 Prairie Road, asked about the culvert underneath the track. Chairperson Daninger stated there was a letter regarding the culvert. Mr. Vrchota stated there is not sufficient information to address drainage and water concerns; they will be addressed with the preliminary plat. Mr. Mike Jackson, 1367 151 'c Lane NW, stated he favored the cul -de -sac option because at Yellow Pine right now, there is a back up of traffic. He felt the character of the area has changed drastically lately and he would like to see a lot of effort to keep the character in tact. He would like to see the resources saved and to not have all the trees clear cut. Mr. Jackson wondered how close to the road are the houses and is there room in the future for the road to widen. He stated he would also request not allowing fences to go up along the roadway. He wondered if there will be a narrow entrance into the development or will there be improvements to Crosstown Boulevard. He stated he was concerned with the narrowness of the right -of -way. He also questioned the changes to the wetland area. • Chairperson Daninger noted water is not permitted to affect adjoining properties. He noted signage and fencing is part of the preliminary plat and will be discussed at that time. Mr. Bednarz stated there is limited right of way into the development because of the property that is in the exception. He stated there will be three lanes as part of initial construction. In terms of Crosstown Boulevard, the City will be constructing a full intersection improvement this summer. Mr. Bednarz stated beyond the improvements the City will make at the entrance, the County does not have any plans to widen Crosstown. Mr. Bednarz stated that there will be a significant amount of tree removal because the developer has not been allowed to allow water to run off the site and will have to retain all of the water on site. He also stated homeowners can install fences along the Boulevard if they wish. Mr. Sullivan stated he was a pretty good friend of Sophie and he was on the Tree Commission for a few years and her recommendation was to plant as many types of trees as possible. Some believed the first tree preservation ordinance was too strict so they changed it and it was patterned after Lino Lakes but that is a different type of area. Mr. Barry Maim, 1411 152 Lane, stated the character of the area bears future consideration. He stated he liked the cul -de -sac so a lot of the traffic does not come Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes —March 8, 2005 • Page 6 they are sometimes at the Council meetings but the Commission mainly takes in input to give to the Council. Mr. Holasek asked if the County has submitted a letter of opinion regarding this. Mr. Bednarz stated the County has not submitted any formal comment. Mr. Holasek stated the way he heard this was the City Council wanted to treat everyone the same and to be fair. He felt the County needed to be consistent regarding the outlets onto Crosstown Street. He thought all of the residents in Yellow Pine should be notified of these meetings because they will be dealing with additional traffic. Mr. Holasek explained there is also a great concern with Crosstown and traffic. He stated it is pretty hard to get any help from the County Commissioners. He wondered if there was any way Andover would consider taking Crosstown over from the County and then they would have control over the speed limit on that road. Mr. Jeff Madsen, 14965 Avocet, asked if there were any demographic studies regarding saturation points for the City. Chairperson Daninger stated they are looking specifically at the sketch plan and this question could be addressed individually. Commissioner Vatne stated the Comprehensive Plan will address many questions. • Motion by Kirchoff, seconded by Greenwald, to close the public hearing at 8:20 p.m. Motion carried on a 6 -ayes, 0 -nays, I- absent (Jasper) vote. Commissioner Kirchoff stated he liked the cul -de -sac and the way it sits. Commissioner Holthus concurred. Commissioner Vatne stated they have talked over the years many time about five hundred foot cul -de- sac's. He stated one of their guidance's is to keep cul -de -sac's less than five hundred feet, this one is longer than that. Commissioner Greenwald stated they needed to push getting the road connected at Avocet and then he will be fine with the cul -de -sac. Chairperson Daninger stated he was ok with the cul -de -sac. Chairperson Daninger asked if a pond was relevant to the sketch plan. Mr. Bednarz stated the pond in question was located in Winslow Hills and needs to be addressed by the Public Works Department. Chairperson Daninger asked if they could get the street on Avocet added because it would concern their cul -de -sac variance, address the safety issue and they could adjust the lot lines. Commissioner Kirchoff thought if Crosstown was widened, the existing Avocet would be a right in/right out only. 0 Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes — March 8, 2005 • Page 8 Commissioner Kirchoff asked if there will be more than one builder in the developer. Mr. Gans stated there will be three builders. Mr. Bednarz stated that this item would be before the Council at the March 15, 2005 City Council meeting. WORK SESSION: a. Zoning Ordinance Update i. City Code 12 -10 Home Occupations Mr. Cross n ed the revision seeks to bring all the information into a single chapter and simplify its pr entation as much as possible. The changes that should be made include: • • 12- 10 -4 -A & \Beauty expired and should be deleted. The new part A contains a brief summary of tial Home Occupation permits. • 12 -10 -8 will ed. It outlines a complaint procedure specifically for permitted home occupatT City already has a complaintlenforcement policy in place that can be applieme cupations, so this chapter is unnecessary. • 12 -8 -9, which with i home beauty salons, will become the new 12 -10 -8. It deals with In -Beauty ions and makes more sense located with the rest of the Home Occupgulations. Commissioner Vted he liked ho 12 -10 was consolidated in the document. He questioned the win 12 -10 -D beca it seemed a little vague to him. Commissioner Vatne noted on 12- 10- 3(b4), ' ..all vehicles must be screened and kept from being visible." He did not think they wanW to keep all vehicles screened and thought they should change the wording. Mr. Be arz agreed. He indicated they will be getting into more detail on vehicles. Commissioner Vatne thought 12- 10 -6(d) looked like a \wasin ement and should be corrected. Commissioner Kirchoff asked if in the case of divorce, ouse living there take over the permit. Mr. Cross stated this termination clauand to death. ii. City Code 12- 10 -61). Terminating A Condition Use Permit Mr. Cross presented changes to the City Code. iii. City Code 12- 11 -3B. Change of Land Use Mr. Cross noted the wording in this section of the Code will be changed. The sentence will be striken "" lawf se may be _wa_a_a =^'_, N 0 Courtney Bednarz March 14, 2005 Page 2 The location of the proposed local roadway intersection appears to be consistent with the access management plan previously considered by the City of Andover and Anoka County Highway Department during our review of the Sophie's Manor Plat located on the north side of CR 18 east of Chesterton Commons. Our position regarding access at this location has been that roadway improvements including CR 18 left and right turn lanes (both directions), painted channelization, and an adequate transition back to the existing centerline of CR 18 at the BNSF Rail Crossing are be required. As of this date we have neither reviewed nor approved final plans for these improvements. We would be available to meet further with City staff to discuss the design of the required roadway improvements should that become necessary. Additionally, City staff recently advised us that residents in the area would like to see a connection to CR 18 from this plat at the Avocet Street NW alignment, and the City has asked us to evaluate this option. The access spacing between Xeon Street NW and Avocet Street NW do not meet current guidelines. There have been considerable discussions regarding the proposed locations of local roadway intersections along this portion of CR 18 in the recent past, and the County's position has been to allow one full access point onto this section of CR 18. It is our understanding that the City of Andover had previously settled on the Xeon Street NW alignment for the full access to CR 18. The City could revisit the issue and design and build the required roadway improvements at the Avocet Street NW alignment in lieu of having full access at Xeon Street NW, but at this point, the County is not willing to consider or permit access onto CR 18 at both the Xeon Street NW and the Avocet Street NW alignments. We would be available to meet with City staff regarding this issue as well should that be necessary. Pending the outcome of this issue, additional (and/or modified) roadway improvements /turn lane construction may be required on CR 18. • Calculations must be submitted along with a grading and erosion control plan that delineates the drainage areas for this site. The post - developed rate/volume of runoff must not exceed the pre- developed rate /volume of runoff for the 10 -year, critical design storm. Assuming that Xeon Street NW is the alignment for full access onto CR 18 and no connection is made at Avocet Street NW, an engineering plan review fee estimated at $650.00 would apply to this project. The costs for design and construction of the bi- directional CR. 18 LTL and RTL shall be the responsibility of the Developer /City. Contact Andrew Witter, Construction Engineer, for further information and to coordinate the engineering plan review process. Please submit the drainage calculations, grading and erosion control plans, turn lane plans, ACHD Design Requirements Checklist for County Highway Modifications (copy attached) and the applicable engineering plan review fee to Mr. Witter for his review and approval. It should be noted that residential land use adjacent to highways usually results in complaints regarding traffic noise. Traffic noise at this location could exceed Noise Standards established by the US Department of Housing and Urban Development, and the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. Anoka County Policy regarding new developments adjacent to existing county highways prohibits the expenditure of highway funds for noise mitigation measures. The City and/or the Developer should assess the noise situation and take any action deemed necessary to minimize associated impacts at this site from any traffic noise. 0 y C��rrI T Y a F 1NDV • 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. • ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 • (763) 755 -5100 FAX (763) 755 -8923 • WWW.CI.ANDOVER.MN.US TO: Planning and Zoning Commissioners FROM: Courtney Bednarz, City Planner SUBJECT: PUBLIC FEARING: Preliminary Plat of a single family rural residential development known as Silver Meadows West located at 16134 Valley Drive NW. DATE: May 10, 2005 INTRODUCTION The Planning Commission is asked to review a preliminary plat containing 17 rural residential lots. The Commission previously reviewed a sketch plan for this project. The minutes are attached. DISCUSSION Conformance with Local Plans The proposal is consistent with the Rural Residential Land Use Classification and Single Family Rural Residential (R -1) Zoning District that exist on the subject property. Access Access is proposed to be provided from both Valley Drive (CSAH 58) and 165' Avenue NW • (CSAH 158). The Anoka County Highway Department has indicated that no public street access will be allowed onto 7 Avenue NW (CSAH 7). The large wetland at the center of the subject property will prevent the interior streets from being connected. As a result the northern street will extend 900 feet into the project and the southern street will extend 1250 feet into the project before terminating in a cul -de -sac. A street connection to the east will be provided at the north end of the project area to facilitate the future street network illustrated in the ghost sketch of these properties. A variance to the maximum cul -de -sac length of 500 feet is needed for both of the cul -de -sacs. The Fire Department has requested an emergency access be provided to allow access between 7 Avenue and the southern cul -de -sac. This access is shown on the plan set. The Anoka County Highway Department (ACHD) has provided comments on the proposed plat (see attached). Additional right -of -way is proposed to be dedicated for both CSAH 58 (Valley Drive) and CSAH 158 (165' Avenue NW) as shown on the plan set. Wetlands A significant amount of wetland exists in the center of the subject property. As a result there is no way to connect the two proposed streets. A portion of wetland is proposed to be filled at the west end of the southern street to allow access to two lots. The Lower Rum River Watershed District has reviewed the proposed wetland fill area and wetland mitigation plan and determined that this will be allowed. Lots Each of the proposed lots will meet the minimum lot width, depth and area requirements of the R -1 Zoning District. CITY OF ANDOVER COUNTY OF ANOKA STATE OF MINNESOTA RES. NO A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY PLAT OF "SILVER MEADOWS WEST" FOR CHET WIELOCH LOCATED AT 16134 VALLEY DRIVE NW LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS; Tract A, Registered Land Survey No. 69, Anoka County, Minnesota WHEREAS, the Andover Review Committee has reviewed the preliminary plat; and WHEREAS, pursuant to published and mailed notice thereof, the Planning and Zoning Commission has conducted a public hearing on said plat; and WHEREAS, as a result of such public hearing, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommends to the City Council the approval of the plat. WHEREAS, the applicant has petitioned to vary from City Code 11 -3 -3 to allow two streets to terminate in cul -de -sacs that to exceed 500 feet length, and; is WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds the special circumstances for the proposed variance are the topography of the property prevents the cul -de -sacs from being connected, access to the site can only be provided from county roads where access restrictions exist and that an emergency access will be provided to the southern cul -de -sac to preserve two access points. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Andover hereby agrees with the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and approves the preliminary plat with the following conditions: The Preliminary Plat shall conform to the plans revised and stamped received on except so as to be modified as follows: a. As required by the Lower Rum River Watershed Management Organization prior to final plat approval 1. The developer obtains all necessary permits from the DNR, Corps of Engineers, LGU, MPCA and any other agency that may be interested in the site. 2. Park dedication and trail fees shall be paid on a per unit basis for each of the lots in the proposed development. 3. Variances to City Code 11 -3 -6G. are granted to allow two streets to terminate in a cul -de- sac exceeding 500 feet in length. 3 Silver Meadows West M • N E f r�ovE _5�. Project Location Map Layout Name: LOCATION MAP LAYOLTr Project Location: H:% GtSDATA\PLMMING\PROJECTSINEWCASES APR Date Printed: 07/2012004 - 02:58:48 PM c� y I �/ �, � 1 ^ ■L� I \l \ \ \ \1A01�t�� _ - :Vh ...I�/� I � � _ � ! �'\ I '7 I "4 �\ 1 \ ! -' ii� � I , ! I, lr 1 1'•i �{o..:. r ' ii � 1` �� '� ` -1\ \\ti,.-,I -- -� ...I 1 I SRI 1, i■1�' / /.� i`_ '�'�; + i !,i i; - ;,; •..1 , I I LL. :. 1111 ' ` 1M. / 7 7 / � • r' 1 1 6 3 , R SILVER MEADOWS WESTQOE/C�AMgdM7i�C IF.w.wi�npww.■+.. malx m. u■e ®sm, 'wrr4..Fa'. >.rr.y wnx RNOOYt3r, MRAJESUfl1 1 � 1 � 11 M/YNAOR ONIDx FOR Y(( P.�Y MaM{ i.lb Itl �FfvY.lARY,lLL..� A9 MvIIR MEIOOY LIM OEVELOPMEW. LLG \ (fu) urns. m ryW urrm m . O SfrE PIAN, FUTURE DEVELOPMENT r.s,./.se+ � Ar .�. 4.. fQ .� . ■....W ,'.�MN'O.r 60VF}LOLL PRt31■INARY PUT I [ 1 1 1 1 1 � m x 1 €j g l it � I 3 � � ; �p � g � �� ��� Q�� � � I B I � b� i i y o o o � F. 1i � ° • '��►�� �I I'II I�i II Irt� M.II \� SILVER MEADOWS WEST ANDOVER. MINNESOTA POR- jdm0Brw cAmtmhq. �*✓r^r.�Wi.w sr..yrB.l.w •Im°4y arl.i.oyuwsnasea3°\°�imEd wrn r.rrarwaMr.r DpID/1` r rv... sw.rt nr. rn pp ----- - - - - -- - -- — - - - -__- — _ - - - -_— PROTECTION & EROSION coNrRa PLAN _ I 1 � v 1 \FL1 f \ 1 I [ 1 1 1 1 1 � m x 1 €j g l it � I 3 � � ; �p � g � �� ��� Q�� � � I B I � b� i i y o o o � F. 1i � ° • '��►�� �I I'II I�i II Irt� M.II \� SILVER MEADOWS WEST ANDOVER. MINNESOTA POR- jdm0Brw cAmtmhq. �*✓r^r.�Wi.w sr..yrB.l.w •Im°4y arl.i.oyuwsnasea3°\°�imEd wrn r.rrarwaMr.r DpID/1` r rv... sw.rt nr. rn pp Q _y O \ SILVER MEADOWS LANG DEV0.0PMFM, LLC PRELIMINARY GRADING, DRAINAGE TREE rw\pn n .ws rE[f ZI ryw� aar -rar • ru Iawl w. -rsn � ...,u„y..,va,,,, ,..,y,m.,.�.,®„ �""' =� PROTECTION & EROSION coNrRa PLAN I 1 � v 1 \FL1 f \ 1 I [ 1 1 1 1 1 � m x 1 €j g l it � I 3 � � ; �p � g � �� ��� Q�� � � I B I � b� i i y o o o � F. 1i � ° • '��►�� �I I'II I�i II Irt� M.II \� SILVER MEADOWS WEST ANDOVER. MINNESOTA POR- jdm0Brw cAmtmhq. �*✓r^r.�Wi.w sr..yrB.l.w •Im°4y arl.i.oyuwsnasea3°\°�imEd wrn r.rrarwaMr.r DpID/1` r rv... sw.rt nr. rn pp Q _y O \ SILVER MEADOWS LANG DEV0.0PMFM, LLC PRELIMINARY GRADING, DRAINAGE TREE rw\pn n .ws rE[f ZI ryw� aar -rar • ru Iawl w. -rsn � ...,u„y..,va,,,, ,..,y,m.,.�.,®„ �""' =� PROTECTION & EROSION coNrRa PLAN 1• I 1 I � d6 I i 9 ` r�� e ' - ll ill I g t2 it I LLL pp li I I I r I I 9 @ o . __ S2 11 1 1 1 1 4 1 111 11�11 me lilt Big oil r r l a m y I Y Y SILVER MEADOWS WEST �ap IN ANDOVER, MelI00TA nw n+a..rWew ie.rty r.rr�.M'�raerruan[ u+.r..rtiwarwr �� O \ FOR 50.VER MEADOVeS LVA �EVELOPMENT,LLG PRELIMINARY UTRRY PLAN aer n•.,. e..u..n sw .m (eey au nu.eeY Mel eu wa w...M [.ww lnwws Ort ars6 1pxa y I Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes —July 27, 2004 Page 5 • ® PUBLIC HEARING: RESIDENTIAL SKETCH PLAN FOR SILVER MEADOWS WEST, A RURAL RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT LOCATED SOUTHEAST OF 7 7H AVENUE AND 165 VENUE NW. Mr. Bednarz explained that the Planning Commission is asked to review a sketch plan containing 17 rural residential lots. Mr. Bednarz discussed the information with the Commission. Commissioner Jasper asked if there was a reason why they did not have a connection going to the south of the development so this could end up not being a permanent cul -de- sac. Mr. Bednarz stated there is some wetland to the south and the area is already developed with lots fronting on Valley Drive. Commissioner Gamache asked if they would have to grant variances on the lots going along 7 th Avenue because of double frontage. Mr. Bednarz stated they would not. Due to the fact that it is a County arterial road, double frontage lots are permitted in that situation. Motion by Gamache, seconded by Vatne, to open the public hearing at 7:38 p.m. Motion carried on a 6 -ayes, 0 -nays, 1- absent (Kirchoff) vote. • Mr. Jerry Foss, New Brighton, Developer of Property, stated they did considerable background after talking to Mr. Bednarz because he suggested bringing the road out on the south to 7th Avenue and he suggested they talk to Ms. Jane Rose at the Highway Department. He stated they had two discussions with Ms. Rose and for safety reasons, they do not want any roads to come out onto 7th Avenue because of the rise and fall of the road and they were concerned with possible accidents. They were opposed to any roads coming out onto 7 Avenue. Mr. Foss stated they also have a fairly large wetland to the north and it did not make much sense to try to bring a road through there and also wetland and houses to the north. He stated the option they had was to put in a cul -de -sac. He noted the development is about sixty -six acres and could be up to sixteen lots so the density factor would be four acres per lot. On the cul -de -sac, there will actually only be two houses. The other challenge was the property was bordered by three County Roads. He stated there is a possibility of taking back 165 Avenue and making that a City road but that was not official. Mr. Bud Holst, 4276 165 Avenue, stated the discussion of possibly giving 165 Avenue back to the City, he would like to know what the ramifications would be of the property owners on the roadway. He thought there were 17 lots showing on the map and where they are also showing a potential ghost route for a road going through his property to • further land to the east, which are mostly residential at this point so he stated he would be interested to know how this would work and what the ramifications would be. Mr. Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes -July 27, 2004 Page 7 • Commissioner Vatne asked if there is any tree cover in any parts of the proposed development. Mr. Bednarz stated there is some tree cover on the majority of the upland area. He showed an aerial map of the area. Commissioner Greenwood asked why they did not connect the road through the development which would eliminate some of the problems. He remembered reading in the Anoka County report about the possibility of temporary access onto 7` Avenue. If they leave it like it is, is there no way to connect the roads. Mr. Bednarz stated it is not feasible to connect the road from the north to south. Commissioner Vatne stated they would address some type of tree preservation when they review the preliminary plat but he wanted to mention this to the developer. Mr. Bednarz stated they will get more into that as part of the preliminary plat. Mr. Foss stated they developed Silver Meadows off of Verdin Street and there were some trees there and they spent a lot of money placing pine trees around the development. They did take down some of them but they also transplanted some to make it look nice. He stated they will have to take some of the trees down but will save what they can because they know what value the trees have on property and they plan on building expensive executive homes. • Commission Vatne asked if these will be custom homes similar in nature to those at Silver Meadows. Mr. Foss stated they would be. Commissioner Jasper stated they have struggled with the five hundred foot cul-de -sac and his concern was that this was not a temporary one, it is permanent. Chairperson Daninger concurred. Chairperson Daninger summarized the concerns of the Planning Commission in regards to long cul -de -sacs. He stated they would need a definition of an emergency access onto 7 He stated he liked the idea of four plus acres per lot. Another concern was the issue of keeping as many trees as possible. He would like to see the reasons why the cul -de- sac is not a through street, other than costs. Mr. Bednarz stated that this item would be before the Council at the August 4, 2004 City Council meeting. Mr. Bednarz updated the Planning Comm i`�sie�vu� elated items. Mr. Bednarz discussed the construction of the Community Center and • South. • Regular Andover City Council Meeting Minutes — August 4, 2004 Page 8 would require every plat to have two entrances or exits and this one does not Mr. Neumeister stated what the Fire Chief was talking about was the State Fire Code and people who make the fire codes are starting to talk about plats of thirty lots or more would require two ways in and that is something he felt would take a year to two years to get through the code revision process. At this point, it is still speculation that it could happen but they are working towards that. Councilmember Knight asked if they have conferred with the people along 165` . In terms of the large wetlands, this drains directly into the Rum River and given the fact that they have such a small space for septic systems, how will they keep this from affecting the whole drainage system. Mr. Booth stated that is part of the reason the provisions for the code of two five thousand square foot septic areas and that if a system was failing, it is the responsibility of that property owner to repair it Councilmember Knight asked if they have talked to the neighbors regarding this. Mr. Jerry Foss stated the person immediately to the east of this has been talked to. Discussion ensued in regard to the neighboring lot and the entrance that will be along side their property- Councilmember Jacobson asked if the County has been contacted on this. Mr. Berkowitz stated they have commented on the plat. Councilmember Orttel asked if they have already designated any of their cuts and fills yet. Mr. Booths stated they will be trying to preserve as many trees as possible and transplant trees. Mr. Foss stated wherever possible they try to save trees. Councilmember Knight stated he was still concerned with lots 12 and 13. Mr. Bud Holst, 4276 165" Avenue, stated this would be the most ideal thing for them to have a development this size with two and a half acre lots. They were assured the trees would not be taken down. There are wetlands with standing water and a creek on the property. He wanted to express their concern for two entrances and exits. To leave it this way, there has to be some variances granted on the cul -de -sacs. Part of the maximum length on cul-de -sac zoning is for safety but he would rather have longer cul-de -sacs within three quarters of a mile of the Fire Station instead of an entrance and exit. He stated the trees along their south boundary are off their property and he would Eke to see the trees stay. Mr. Holst stated their concern is what the impact would be on the wetlands to put the road across. He stated it looks like there is a road that goes between lot 14 and 17 coming through and bisecting their property. He is not interested in having this built. Mr. Holst stated if the cul-de -sacs were connected through the wetlands, County 158 would be • handed back to the City and might change the lane requirements so they might lose some frontage on the north end of the property, which he would not like. q LNDOVE T Y O F i s 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: Andy Cross, Associate Planner 4 SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING: Sketch Plan and Planned Unit Development Review for Kensington Estates 7th Addition. DATE: May 10, 2005 INTRODUCTION The Planning and Zoning Commission is asked to review a sketch plan with Planned Unit Development (P.U.D.) review for a 6.4 -acre site adjacent to the WDE landfill. The site is unique in its shape and also by the fact that there is a 200 -foot no -build buffer around the adjacent landfill that significantly reduces the usable amount of land for this development. The applicant has proposed a Planned Unit Development to facilitate development on the site. DISCUSSION Kensington Estates was originally platted in 1987. That plan included a sketch plan of the area IS that is now proposed as Kensington Estates 7 Addition. When planned at an R -4 density, the 6.4 acre area could hold 16 lots. This did not take into account, however, the 200 -foot buffer around the landfill. When the no -build buffer is taken into consideration, the number of buildable R -4 lots drops to eight. The developer has now come forward with a Planned Unit Development proposal that incorporates 17 lots on the five acres of buildable area in Kensington Estates 7 Addition. Conformance with Local Plans and Ordinances The property is located in the Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA) and sewer and water are available to the property. 2. The property is currently zoned R -4 Single Family Urban. No rezoning will be required for this project. The proposed project requires Planned Unit Development Review to establish standards unique to this development. The Planning Commission is asked to review the proposed P.U.D. based on new City Code 13 —3, "Planned Unit Development. " Site Design The 17 -unit layout of the sketch plan has been designed to accommodate the unique shape of the is parcel, as well as the restrictions placed upon it by the adjacent WDE landfill. The landfill has a number of easement documents and deed restrictions associated with it and the properties that abut it. The most relevant to this sketch plan is a 200 -foot no- construction buffer around the limits of the landfill that extends very near to the proposed properties. The refuse limit lies PUD Development Specifications The following table illustrates the specifications of the Kensington Estates 7` Addition Planned • Unit Development proposal: City Code 13 -3 -11 identifies Desirable PUD Design Qualities that are sought in any PUD proposal. These qualities are as follows: A. Achieves efficiency in the provision of streets and utilities and preserves area to achieve the elements of design qualities described in this Chapter. B. Provides convenient and safe access for vehicles and pedestrians and all types of activity that are anticipated to be a part of the proposed development. C. Provides a buffer between different uses, adjacent properties, roadways, between backyards of back -to -back lots. • D. Preserves existing stands of trees and/or significant trees. E. Provides considerable landscaping treatments that compliment the overall design and contribute toward an overall landscaping theme. F. Preserves significant usable space on individual lots or through the provision of open space within the development. G. Provides an attractive streetscape through the use of undulating topography, landscaping, decorative street lighting, decorative mailbox groupings, retaining walls, boulders, fencing, area identification signs, etc. H. The proposed structures within the development demonstrate quality architectural design and the use of high quality building materials for unique design and detailing. I. The lasting quality of the development will be ensured by design, maintenance and use guidelines established through an owners association. The applicant's attached narrative addresses these qualities and how his proposal meets them. Homes A sample townhouse design has been submitted by the applicant. Copies are included as attachments to this report. R -4 Standard P.U.D. Request Reason for Re guest Lot Width 80 ft. 52' -82' No specific grounds submitted. Lot Area 11,400 s . ft. 6,780 - 14,567 s . ft. Nospecific grounds submitted. Front Yard Setback 35 ft. 30 ft. Allows for a consistent front yard area to be maintained by an association. Side Yard Setback 6 feet — garages 10 feet — livable space 6 feet for garages and livable space No specific grounds submitted. City Code 13 -3 -11 identifies Desirable PUD Design Qualities that are sought in any PUD proposal. These qualities are as follows: A. Achieves efficiency in the provision of streets and utilities and preserves area to achieve the elements of design qualities described in this Chapter. B. Provides convenient and safe access for vehicles and pedestrians and all types of activity that are anticipated to be a part of the proposed development. C. Provides a buffer between different uses, adjacent properties, roadways, between backyards of back -to -back lots. • D. Preserves existing stands of trees and/or significant trees. E. Provides considerable landscaping treatments that compliment the overall design and contribute toward an overall landscaping theme. F. Preserves significant usable space on individual lots or through the provision of open space within the development. G. Provides an attractive streetscape through the use of undulating topography, landscaping, decorative street lighting, decorative mailbox groupings, retaining walls, boulders, fencing, area identification signs, etc. H. The proposed structures within the development demonstrate quality architectural design and the use of high quality building materials for unique design and detailing. I. The lasting quality of the development will be ensured by design, maintenance and use guidelines established through an owners association. The applicant's attached narrative addresses these qualities and how his proposal meets them. Homes A sample townhouse design has been submitted by the applicant. Copies are included as attachments to this report. Homeowners Association The applicant has indicated that a Homeowners Association will be created to oversee the • maintenance of the common areas in the development. Please see the attached P.U.D. Narrative for more information. Staff Recommendation Staff does not believe the PUD proposal provides enough tangible benefit to the City to be allowed to vary so far from the requirements of the R -4 zoning district. ACTION REQUESTED The Planning Commission is asked to review and determine if an unfavorable recommendation of the Sketch Plan and Planned Unit Development is warranted. Respectfully Submitted, Andy Cross • CC: Jerry Windschitl, 15550 Linnet St NW, Andover, MN 55304 Attachments Resolution Location Map Applicant's Letter - P.U.D. Narrative Description Landfill Easement Documentation w/ Exhibits E -mail from MN Pollution Control Agency Sample Housing Plans Sketch Plan is 5 • The design provides for a large outlot common area intended to preserve as many stands of trees as practical, and double as a buffer between the WDE landfill site and the proposed and existing developments. The common area is located within 300 feet of all proposed homes, allowing for convenient walking accessibility. We feel that the proposed PUD meets the requirements of the City and will be the best use of the land due to the location of the property. The common area allows us to preserve more of the natural beauty and surrounding than otherwise would be possible as a standard R -4 single family development. Sincerely, Jerry Windschitl Kensington, Inc. l.J • 2. . 13 -3 -11 Desirable PUD Design Qualities A. Achieves efficiency in the provision of streets and utilities and preserves area to achieve the elements of design qualities described in the chapter. We feel that the proposed Kensington Estates 7 Addition single family detached Planned Unit Development satisfies and achieves goals and elements of design qualities described in this chapter. B. Provides convenient and safe access for vehicles and pedestrians and all types of activity that are anticipated to be a part to the proposed development. The design utilizes anon complex street system, by simply completing a loop between two temporary cul -de -sacs and forming on 120 foot cul -de -sac. Each Town Home will include a two car attached garage. The utilities have been located as requested by the City. All structures are located outside the WDE 200 foot easement and remote gas probes/sensors will be installed as required. C. Provides a buffer between different uses, adjacent properties, roadways, between backyards of back -to -back lots. The design provides for a large outlot common area intended to preserve as many stands of trees as practical, and double as a buffer between the WDE site and the proposed and existing developments. The common area is located within 300 feet of all proposed homes, allowing for convenient walking accessibility. D. Preserves existing stands of trees and/or significant trees. The Proposed Kensington Estates 7` Addition provides to preserve as many stands of trees as practical which will also create a buffer between the WDE site and the existing developments. E. Provides considerable landscaping treatments that compliment the overall design and contribute toward an overall landscaping theme. The PUD is designed in such a manner at to provide for an attractive and appealing streetscape with great curb appeal and design. Additional detail in section G. F. Preserves significant usable space on individual lots or through the provision of open space within the development. The PUD is designed with a low density of 2.64 lots per acre with a large common area located within convenient walking distance of all proposed homes. 0 0 Will they in any way intcrfere with or impede any other operations or activities of the Commissioner pursuant to his rights under this Agreement or the Act. D. The Windschitls and the Commissioner recognize that the Commissioner has the sole and absolute discretion to take such environmental response actions and related actions he deems necessary to carry out his duties and authorities under the Act. The Windschitis cannot and will not attempt to direct the manner in which the Commissioner implements those duties and authorities. E. The Windschitls and the Commissioner agree that no soils will be mined from the Access Area. F. The Windschitls and the Commissioner acknowledge the Windschids' prior consent to the construction of the permanent road which lies next to the fence within the Access Area. The Commissioner, his employees, agents and contractors shall have the right to continued use and operation of such permanent road for the term of this easement G. When the Commissioner det ermines that the easement provided in this Paragraph 3. is no longer necessary to carry out his duties and authorities under the Act, or to protect human 0 health, welfare, or the environment, the Commissioner will file a release of the easement with the Anoka County reorder or registrar of titles. •► : �O A. The Windschids covenant and agree, to the extent they are legally able, to declare and impose the following use restrictions on the Windschitl Property and the Disputed Property, and said use restrictions shall run with the land and shall be binding upon any and all persons who acquire title or any legal interest in the Windschitl Property or Disputed Property: 5 0 EXH. .4-1 luj a I " s r v d�w amx ll WIS - H -"-- I RE 0 CITY OF ANDOVER "M mmv� 0 n 0 Kennsington Estates 6th Addition Sketch Plan Comments Andy Cross From: Dave Berkowitz Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2005 4:13 PM To: Andy Cross co..r� Subject: FW: Kennsington Estates 6th Addition Sketch Plan Comments - - -- -Original Message---- - From: Tiffany, Peter [mai Ito: Peter.Tiffany@state. mn. us] Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2005 11:11 AM To: Dave Berkowitz Cc: Hanson, Jean Subject: Kennsington Estates 6th Addition Sketch Plan Comments Page 1 of 1 Dave, I have looked over the plan sheet dated 2/10/05 for the above - referenced project you gave me on March 2, 2005. The sketch plan indicates 17 lots to be developed for single family housing. The plan also indicates that all 17 lots are beyond the 200 -foot no -build area associated with the WDE Landfill property. However, all lots appear to be closer than 500 feet, requiring gas monitoring probes and methane detectors to be installed in accordance with City of Andover Ordinance 19P. MPCA will require that the ordinance be followed, though certain dwelling units may be able to share a single gas probe. Details of how the gas probes will be laid out and installed will need to be worked out with the Kennsington Estates developer once the development layout is finalized and approved by the City of Andover. Please e-mail or write me if you have any further questions regarding this development sketch plan in order to document these questions and responses. Peter W. Tiffany, P.E. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Petroleum and Closed Landfill Remediation Section Remediation Division No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Anti - Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.10.4 - Release Date: 4/2712005 No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti -Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.10.4- Release Date: 4/27/2005 4/28/2005 0 0 A LE;j I 77 all . .................. . .. %% ......... lo LU 2 a. --------- - - - --- LU Cl) Tnw eu ---------- i gp 12 00"d ast,:co so-sa--Adv r1 LA L� MANOR 1 . _ ,.�� 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. • ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 • (763) 755 -5100 FAX (763) 755 -8923 • WWW.CI.ANDOVER.MN.US TO: Planning and Zoning Commissioners FROM: Courtney Bednarz, City Planner SUBJECT: Park Commission Recommendation Supplemental - Residential Sketch Plan known as Apel Sketch Plan for a single family planned unit development located at 1781 157"' Lane NW. DATE: May 10, 2005 INTRODUCTION The Park Commission reviewed the sketch plan at their May 5 meeting. The minutes from the meeting are attached DISCUSSION Summary of Park Commission Recommendation The Park Commission felt that the park may need to be moved to the south to allow enough useable area for the following: 1. Half court basketball 2. Tot lot (including one or possibly two play structures) 3. Possibly a picnic shelter The Commission also discussed a trail that would bisect the north -south streets to allow access to the park without walking around the block. ACTION REQUESTED Please consider the Park Commission recommendation when discussing the proposed sketch plan. Attachment Draft Park Commission Minutes Respect Courtncktarz r 1 LJ 1 Regular Andover Park & Recreation Commission Meeting Minutes — May 5, 2005 Page 3 Commissioner Walton asked what is to the right of the development. Mr. Haas noted that the property to the right belongs tolerry Putnam noting that a portion of the property is undeveloped. Commissioner Walton stated that he does not like the proposed location, as it is basically land - locked and the land would not give the ability to do what they are proposing in this area. Chairman Lindahl asked if Commissioner Walton would prefer the location to be further south. Commissioner Walton confirmed, near 107 Lane and the cul -de -sac, as it might provide more area to include as a play area and for basketball. Mr. Haas stated that it would be a bit tight. W. Haas noted that the Parks Commission is looking for a nice setting next to the wetlands. He stated that only a certain number of units could be developed in this area due to the Lift Station noting that the City has to be careful so as to not increase the flow. Commissioner Walton suggested splitting the cul -de -sac and take Lots 7, 8 and 5. D Jesse Wester Developer, stated that he was lead by Staff to believe that the City was interested in the park being located adjacent to and looking out over the wetlands. He asked the Commission to identify the amenities that they want adding that he would go back and put together the drawings of the area based on their needs. Commissioner Walton stated that they want at least two acres that would allow for an area for a tot lot; an area for middle -youth and an area for a basketball court. Byron Westlund, Developer, stated that he understands the need for the park. He stated that there are a lot of issues to address noting that the lots are 50 -feet x 65 -feet each. He stated that the tot lot would have to be installed before the basketball courts and asked what size court do they want. He stated that he would be willing to put together a draft rendition of the area for the Parks Commission to review. Chair Lmdahl stated that they would prefer a half court size, 50 -feet x 70 -feet, with a small playground area. He stated that a nature attraction center would also be a nice amenity. Mr. Westlund suggested recommending approval for the general vicinity adding that he would go back and work with Staff on the recommendations for reconfiguration. Commissioner Walton stated that he is ok with Mr. Westlund's suggestion noting that he would like to see larger pads. \ Chair Lindahl suggested a 10 -foot trail connection/access point across the middle of the horseshoe. Mr. Haas stated that he would review the possibilities. 0 0 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 Planne SUBJECT: Supplemental - Residential Sketch Plan known as Apel Sketch Plan for a single family planned unit development located at 1781 157"' Lane NW. DATE: May 10, 2005 INTRODUCTION The attached letter was submitted by the applicant for Cardinal Ridge, the development to the west of this sketch plan adjacent to nightingale Street NW. DISCUSSION This letter expresses the developer's preferences for road connections and payment for street and utility construction. No decision was made on these items when the Cardinal Ridge sketch plan was reviewed at last Tuesday's Council meeting. ACTION REQUESTED Please consider the attached letter and how the developments in this area of the City will interconnect. Respect bmitte y 0 I C I T Y O F ND 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. • ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 • (763) 755 -5100 FAX (763) 755 -8923 • WWW.CI.ANDOVER.MN.US TO: Planning and Zoning Commiss ers FROM: Courtney Bednarz, City Plann SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING: Residential Sketch Plan known as Apel Sketch Plan for a single family planned unit development located at 1781 157` Lane NW. DATE: May 10, 2005 INTRODUCTION The Planning Commission is asked to review a sketch plan containing 22 traditional single family and 14 smaller building sites for detached single family with a larger common area maintained by an association. Conformance with Local and Regional Plans and Ordinances 1. The proposed site is within the Urban Residential Low Density Land Use District as shown on the Land Use Map of the Comprehensive Plan. No amendments to the Comprehensive Plan are necessary. • 2. The proposed project would require the property to be rezoned from Single Family Rural Residential (R -1) to Single Family Urban Residential (R -4). The Council must agree to allow Planned Unit Development Review to create development standards that are different from the typical R -4 standards for the 14 smaller building sites that do not conform to these requirements. Access Access is limited by wetlands to the north, east and south. Presently the only access is provided by 157 Lane NW. A second east west street connection (north of 157 Lane NW) will be necessary as this area develops. Until then 157 Lane will be the only access into the proposed development and a variance to exceed the maximum cul -de -sac length of 500 feet will be needed. Three private driveways are shown at the east end of the sketch plan. These driveways would provide access between the public street and the proposed smaller lots in this area of the plan. The driveways appear to be 24 feet wide which could accommodate two way traffic but would not allow parking. 157` Lane NW will be required to be upgraded to an urban section with utilities provided as needed to serve developable property. There are three proposed developments that would benefit from the reconstruction of 157 Lane NW. It is anticipated that the developers will petition the . City to build this street as a public improvement project to allow assessments to be allocated to benefiting properties. Intersection improvements to Nightingale Street at the 157 Lane intersection will also be necessary due to the potential development in this area of perhaps 90 lots. Staff recommends the • City Code 13 -3 -11 identifies Desirable PUD Design Qualities that are sought in any PUD proposal. These qualities are listed below. A letter from the applicant addressing these items is attached. A. Achieves efficiency in the provision of streets and utilities and preserves area to achieve the elements of design qualities described in this Chapter. B. Provides convenient and safe access for vehicles and pedestrians and all types of activity that are anticipated to be a part of the proposed development. C. Provides a buffer between different uses, adjacent properties, roadways, between backyards of back -to -back lots. D. Preserves existing stands of trees and/or significant trees. E. Provides considerable landscaping treatments that compliment the overall design and contribute toward an overall landscaping theme. F. Preserves significant usable space on individual lots or through the provision of open space within the development. G. Provides an attractive streetscape through the use of undulating topography, landscaping, decorative street lighting, decorative mailbox groupings, retaining walls, boulders, fencing, area • identification signs, etc. H. The proposed structures within the development demonstrate quality architectural design and the use of high quality building materials for unique design and detailing. The lasting quality of the development will be ensured by design, maintenance and use guidelines established through an owners association. Comparison of Proposal to PUD Design Qualities The sketch plan and attached building elevation do not fully address the items listed above. There is potential for the proposal to address all of these items with the exception of providing significant usable space. Buffering, tree preservation, new landscaping and building architecture are all items that can be explored with the Planning Commission and Council. The developer will be present at the meeting to address the proposal further. Staff Recommendation The traditional single family portion of the development will conform to the City's requirements. The smaller lot portion of the development presents an approach to development on a difficult piece of property. The private driveways and smaller lots limit the amount of wetland fill compared to what would be necessary for typical R -4 lots and city streets. The density is below a typical single family development due to the large amount of wetland. With enough attention to the PUD design qualities, the project can provide a quality project with different housing options. • Ultimately, the Planning Commission and Council will need to determine whether PUD review will be allowed. S z »1 i C Urban Residential Sketch Plan 161 ST AVE e N • W-.�-E S C 1 T Y O F NDOVE Project Location Map Layout Name: LOCATION MAP LAYOUT Project Location: H:\ GI SDATA \PLANNING\PROJECIS\NEWCASES.APR Date Printed: 05/04/2005 - 08:26:39 AM w. H g ■ m a L Q m 1(f1f 1� AOf 1»11 6 g 1dW1 3 W 1»N Yp0 »IO Sill SIH W t»51 1� lu 1»11 wf '� i1M II � p 1 f»f tl 1i A Irzp F F R F S R � IAIf lynf 1ffPl lZ» 1%61 Ll 1YL 19» mlf IIIH S z »1 i C Urban Residential Sketch Plan 161 ST AVE e N • W-.�-E S C 1 T Y O F NDOVE Project Location Map Layout Name: LOCATION MAP LAYOUT Project Location: H:\ GI SDATA \PLANNING\PROJECIS\NEWCASES.APR Date Printed: 05/04/2005 - 08:26:39 AM r 1 y J� L� n • a � w �I I � a I �I Al I I y I\ I LJ � Lm- u 1 J 1 a 0 n 0 3 � a C �I w 2 � 0 w • a � w �I I � a I �I Al I I y I\ I LJ � Lm- u 1 J 7 - C I T Y fl F NDOVE . 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 Planne4 SUBJECT: WORK SESSION: Zoning Ordinance Update DATE: May 10, 2005 INTRODUCTION Please find attached the following proposed code revisions: • City Code 12 -5 -4 Code Text Amendments • City Code 12 -5 -10 Public Hearing Process • City Code 12 -13 1 B Animals • City Code 9 -9 -11 Housing Maintenance • City Code 9 -4 -4 Swimming Pools, Spas and Hot Tubs • City Code 12- 8 -7B.3 Bulk Fuel (continued) • City Code General Discussion Item — Front Porches • City Code General Discussion Item - Dirt Dikes • DISCUSSION Staff will present each item individually to the Planning Commission. ACTION REQUESTED Please discuss and make a recommendation for each item. Attachments City Code 12 -5 -4 Code Text Amendments City Code 12 -5 -10 Public Hearing Process City Code 12 -13 1 B Animals City Code 9 -9 -11 Housing Maintenance City Code 9 -4 -4 Swimming Pools, Spas and Hot Tubs City Code 12- 8 -7B.3 Bulk Fuel (continued) City Code General Discussion Item — Front Porches City Code General Discussion Item - Dirt Dikes /;,. . 12 -15 -4 Code Amendments Background This section of the code describes who may initiate an amendment to the text of the City Code. It presents an opportunity, however, for unreasonable or impractical amendment proposals to be brought before the Planning Commission. Staff has no recourse to decline proposals. In addition, applicants have no recourse to appeal if Staff should administratively decline their proposal before it is heard by the Planning Commission. The City Code should also make reference to the Comprehensive Plan as the document that establishes the proper land use (and ultimately zoning) for a given property in Andover. Currently there is no reference at all Proposed Changes Language will be inserted into the existing code that will allow Staff to perform an administrative review of proposed text amendments to the City Code before they go before the Planning Commission for action. The "Amendments" section is also the ideal location to reference the Comp Plan as the guiding document for land use changes. 12 -15-4: AMENDMENTS: A: In accordance with the provisions of Minnesota statutes, the governing body may, from time to time, adopt amendments. Amendments to the text may be initiated by the city council, planning and zoning commission, property owner, or resident. Staff shall review all proposed amendments and make recommendations to the Plannin Commission. All proposed amendments shall be referred to the planning and zoning commission prior to adoption, and the planning and zoning commission shall hold a public hearing on the proposed amendment. The Public Hearing shall be held in accordance with Chapter 12 -15 -8. Fees shall be charged according to the most current fee schedule. The final decisions regarding amendments shall rest with the City Council. (Amended n -a a 10 21 197-0) B: RELATION TO COMPREHE PLAN: It is the policy of the City of Andover that the enforcement amendment and administration of this Chapter be accomplished consistent with the recommendations contained in the City Comprehensive Plan as developed and amended from time to time by the Planning Commission and City Council The Council recognizes the City Comprehensive Plan as the official policy for the regulation on land use and development in accordance with the policies and purpose herein set forth. In accordance with Minnesota Statutes Chapter 473 the City will not approve any rezoning or other changes in these regulations that are inconsistent with the City Comprehensive Plan. Proposed changes to the Citv Com prehensive Plan shall have a Public Hearing per the process in Chapter 12 -15 -8. • . 12 -15 Public Hearing Process Background Chapter 12 -15 contains the process for a Rezoning, Conditional Use Permit Application, and Variances. Each of these sections contains its own language regarding a the public notice and hearing process. This is needless and redundant because the public hearing and Planning Commission / City Council review is the same for each of these actions. Proposed Change Chapter 12 -15 will contain one subsection that will clearly explain the City's public hearing process including Planning Commission review and City Council approval. The language in the Rezoning, CUP, and Variance sections referring to the Public Hearing process will be deleted. References to the new section describing the City's Public Hearing process will be added to each of these sections, as well as the sections of the Code regarding Sketch Plans and Preliminary Plats, which also require public hearings. This new section regarding Public Hearings will be 12 -15 -8. The former sections 8, 9, and 10 will be renumbered to reflect this. 12 -15-8 Public Hearings 1. Council Actions Requiring a Public Hearing: The following Council Actions shall require a public hearing: a. Variance b. Conditional Use Permit (CUP) c. Rezoning and Text Amendment d. Sketch Plan e. Preliminary Plat £ Comprehensive Plan Amendment 2. Public Hearing a. A public hearing on an application for the Council actions in this chapter shall be held by the Planning Commission in accordance with Minnesota State Statutes. b. A notice of the time, place and purpose of the hearing shall be published in the official newspaper of the city ten (10) days prior to the day of the hearing. Property owners and occupants within three hundred fifty feet (350') of the property in question shall be notified in writing, although failure by any property owner or occupant to receive such notice shall not invalidate the proceedings. Notification shall be by mail c. The hearing may be continued from time to time in the event the planning and zoning commission needs additional information from the applicant or other sources to make its decision. The planning • and zoning commission shall take action on the application within ml 10 .i-kiloiitt low . _ OS Y_ _ - 0 M. • r. I k I a A . _ OS Y_ _ - 0 M. • . _ OS Y_ _ - 0 • b. Existing and anticipated traffic conditions, including parking facilities on adjacent streets and land. c. The effect on values of property and scenic views in the surrounding area, and the effect of the proposed use on the comprehensive plan. 2. If it shall determine by resolution that the proposed use will not be detrimental to the health, safety, morals, or general welfare of the community, nor will cause serious traffic congestion or hazards, nor will seriously depreciate surrounding property values, and that said use is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of this title and the comprehensive plan, the city council may grant such permits. (Amended Ord. 8, 10 -21- 1970) C. Procedure: 1.Request For Conditional Use; Fee: The person applying for a conditional use permit shall fill out and submit to the community development director a request for conditional use permit form together with a fee as set forth by ordinance L35 An additional fee as set forth by ordinance may be required for each meeting in excess of two (2), which is necessary because of incomplete information or changes in the petition. The community development director shall refer the application to the planning and zoning commission. (Amended Ord. 8, 10 -21 -1970; amd. 2003 Code) 40 2. A Public Hearin¢ shall be held in accordance with section 12 -15-8. 2 TT ti T A dj + D- epe ll..,.... rivar.�c —xv zrcrJwccnrx xoPcxr�vr�acru: Pf0pP.Fty - B F bmPfB and 6EFupf.TiAS F i hun&ed fifty fiaet (350') of the propeity in questieft 9hall be nefified at least ten (10) days p r i or - te the e . : � . ..meeting akhough failu of an rr ,, r p r wpe Nefifieatien shall be by mail. The petitioner- shall be requifed te submit a list efthe t r. • review and comment on the sketch plan within ten (10) days of the submittal by the subdivider. 2. Upon ARC review and comment, the sketch plan shall be placed on the next available agenda of the Planning commission, but no sooner than ten (10) days after being reviewed by the ARC. The Planning Commission shall hold a Public Hearing in accordance with Chapter 12 -15-8. ewRer-s v4fliin Offee hundred fifty fiae4 (350') ten (10) days prier to the- meefing ef fihepreeeed* 3. Upon Planning Commission plaBBing and z on review and continent, the sketch plan shall be placed on the next available city council agenda, but no sooner than ten (10) days after being reviewed by the planning and zoning commission. 11- 2- 2 -B -5: PRELIMINARY PLAT: 5. Planning And Zoning Commission Hearing: a. The planning and zoning commission shall hold a public hearing on the preliminary plat within sixty (60) days after said complete preliminary plat and complete application Is are filed with the clerk. The Public Hearing shall be held according to Chapter 12 -15- 8. At said hearing, all persons interested in the plat shall be heard. L. J - - Sm... ; _ . IM-011M PRIMME in OWN P.M FAR ".9 a Ur .WA FAh'W : M L. J 12 -13 -1 B Animals Continuing discussion from the April 12, 2005 Planning Commission Meeting 1. The Commission wanted to see changes to the definitions to ensure an animal could not be confused between definitions. Staff proposes changes to the definitions as shown below. Please note a section from Title Police Regulations that provides a list of prohibited animals has been added to this report. 2. The Commission also wanted to discuss the structure for regulating farm animals. There was some concern about farm animals being limited to 5 acre or larger parcels and limited to a maximum of five farm animals without a conditional use permit. Staffs objective is to prevent farm animals from being kept in 2.5 acre neighborhoods. Staff selected five acres as the threshold because the existing code uses five acres as a threshold for rural agricultural uses. Presently up to five farm animals are allowed per acre in the R -1 Zoning District without a permit. If the Commission would like to adjust the number the proposed changes will need to be changed accordingly. New Issue Raised Through Public Comment Period 3. An Andover resident stopped this past week and educated staff on falconry. The DNR issues permits for falconry (keeping of and hunting with raptors). State Statute permits this activity and provides regulations for permits, sheltering requirements and limits the number of birds to one. Some of the most relevant information from State Statute is attached. Staff proposes to add an exemption for this activity with references to State Statute and DNR regulations. Background — Other areas of concern 4. Urban agricultural uses are permitted in the urban area. The definition of urban agricultural use includes pleasure /recreation animals. Pleasure /recreation animals are defined as `Animals not normally kept in a residence such as horses, ponies, foals, donkeys, burros, mules or others'. This conflicts with City Code 54B which regulates these animals and requires a 2.5 acre minimum lot size and provides additional standards to ensure proper care of these animals. Suggested approach: Eliminate pleasure /recreation animals from the definition of Urban Agricultural Use. Add this use to the matrix for residential properties with at least 2.5 acres in compliance with Title 5. 5. The Definition of Agricultural Use, Rural includes the raising of non - domestic animals. Non - domestic animals are defined as any animal, reptile or fowl, which is not naturally tame or gentle but is of a wild nature or disposition or which, because of its vicious nature or other characteristics, would constitute a danger to human life or property. • Suggested approach: These animals should not be allowed in the City. Eliminate non- domestic animals from this definition. • 6. Proposed changes are not intended to affect the Anoka Independent Grain & Feed farm located on several hundred acres in the northwestern area of the City, which is presently a permitted use. It is the intent of this ordinance amendment to prevent other feedlots from moving into the City. Suggested approach: Provide a definition for feedlots. List feedlots as a prohibited use in the uses table. Provide an exemption for Anoka Independent Grain and Feed. Proposed Changes 12 -2 -2: DEFINITIONS: AGRICULTURAL USE, RURAL: An area of five (5) or more contiguous acres which is used for the production of farm crops such as vegetables, fruit trees, grain and other crops and their storage on the area, „ ' a---_ - -- ..c a, , stie -- At AGRICULTURAL USE, URBAN: An area of less than five (5) contiguous acres which is used for the purpose of growing produce including crops, fruit trees, shrubs, plants and flowers, vegetables, and the like, provided such produce is intended solely for the use of owners on the property or sale away from the property. h -w M"' - '•• a 0 ANIMALS, DOMESTIC: dogs, cats and similar animals that can be purchased at a net store and maintained indoors ANIMALS, FARM: Animals ommonly kept for productive purposes on a farm, such as cattle, hogs, sheep, goats, chickens, and other similar animals. ANIMALS, NONDOMESTIC: Animals - - -`' not defined as domestic or farm animals that are 00PAO but is of a wild nature or disposition or which, because of its vicious nature or other characteristics, would constitute a danger to human life or property including the prohibited animals listed in City Code 5 -1C -2. ANIMALS, PLEASURE/RECREATIONAL: , ..,. a ll y k i side° sue r horses, ponies, foals, donkeys, burros, mules or others. FEEDLOT LIVESTOCK - The place of confined feeding of livestock, poultry, or other animals for food fur, pleasure or resale purposes in yards lots pens buildings or other areas not normally used for pasture or crops and in which substantial amounts of manure or related other wastes may originate because of such feeding of animals. • 12 -13 -1: PERMITTED USES 120: n B. Residential Districts: 0 1. R -1 Single - Family Rural District: 5 -1C -2: PROHIBITED ANIMALS: (as it exists) The following animals are prohibited within the city: A. Any animal or species prohibited by Minnesota or federal law. B. Any nondomesticated animal or species, including, but not limited to, the following: 1. All skunks, whether captured in the wild, domestically raised, de- scented or not de- scented, vaccinated against rabies or not vaccinated against rabies. 2. All large cats of the family Felidae, such as lions, tigers, jaguars, leopards, cougars and ocelots, except commonly accepted domesticated house cats. 3. All members of the family Canidae, such as wolves, foxes, coyotes, dingoes and jackals, except domesticated dogs. • 4. All crossbreeds, such as crossbreeds between dogs and coyotes or dogs and wolves, but does not include crossbreeds between domesticated animals. Within any of the following districts, no structure or land shall be used except for one or more of the uses listed by district: Permitted, Permitted Accessory, and Zoning District Conditional Uses R- R- R- R- R- M- M- G LB N SC G I 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 R B B Keeping of pleasure /recreation animals on properties at least 2.5 acres A A A A in size in compliance with Title 5 Keeping of up to 5 farm animals on P P P ro erties 5 acres or eater — — — Keeping of more than 5 farm animals C C C on properties 5 acres or gTeater — — rAA Keeping of Domestic animals (3-of l ess v e i n?` A A_ A A_ A A in com liance with Title 5 Feedlots, except Anoka Independent Grain and Feed Inc. which is a X X X X X X X X X X X X X_ permitted use that predates the — — — — — adoption of this ordinance. 3 5. All poisonous snakes, such as rattlesnakes, coral snakes, water moccasins, cobras or copperheads. 6. All raccoons. 7. All apes and monkeys. 8. other animals which are not listed explicitly above, but which can be easily defined in this article as a nondomesticated animal including bears, wolverines and badgers. (Ord. 253, 3 -2 -1999) 5 -1C -3: SALES PROHIBITED: No person shall offer for sale, within the city limits, any animal prohibited in sections- IC-1 and 5 -1C -2 of this article. (Ord. 253, 3 -2 -1999) 5-1C-4: EXCEPTIONS: A. Animals Allowed By Permit: 1. Temporary Permit: Any person desiring to keep animals prohibited as described in this article shall obtain a temporary permit from the city council. Such a permit shall be issued for a period not to exceed thirty (30) days and shall specify further conditions under which such animal shall be kept; provided, however, that no such permit shall be required for such prohibited animal brought into the city for entertainment, show or promotional purposes only. (Ord. 253, 3 -2 -1999; amd. 2003 Code) 2. Permanent Permit: A public zoo or other institution engaged in a permanent display of animals may be issued a permanent permit, provided applicable zoning requirements are met. 3 As permitted by State Statute and regulated by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. • rd Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes —April 12, 2005 Page 8 • ii. City Code 12 -13 1B. Animals Several conflicts have been identified in the way that the keeping of animals is regulated in the City Code. Mr. Bednarz summarized the proposed changes. Commissioner Greenwald thought it was getting really popular to have ducks as pets and he would like to add this to the list after chickens. Commissioner Kirchoff asked what types of animals can not be kept. Commissioner Jasper stated some animals fall into all of the above categories so there is a problem with the definitions in the ordinance. They overlap each other. He stated some of the definitions are by example, some are by inclusion and some are by exclusion and they overlap each other. Commissioner Jasper stated they could also have five farm animals on properties that are five acres or greater so if you have four acres, you cannot have any farm animals but if your have five acres, you can have five, if you have a hundred acres, you can have five. He did not think that was a logical place to draw a line. Mr. Bednarz stated regarding definitions, they would need some examples and he did not think deer was that. A deer was not a domestic animal because it is not commonly kept as a pet. He stated they do want to make some progress and there may be some items with the definitions that they can tune up. Commissioner Jasper respectfully disagreed because he believed deer could be considered a farm animal, they are non - domestic animals and they could be recreational animals. He stated there are other animals that fall into each of the categories such as a pig. He stated this was a concern. Commissioner Jasper stated the ordinance permits different types of animals in different zoning districts and prohibits some in some zoning districts. Commissioner Greenwald asked what the solution would be. Commissioner Jasper stated they needed to rework their definitions to try to determine what they were trying to accomplish. He stated they either need to do the table approach or use the definitions that are either inclusive or exclusive. Chairperson Daninger stated the list would always be changing because there are always different animals that become pets. • The consensus of the Commission was to bring this item back with a little more focus on the definitions and farm animals specifically. iii. 12 -14 Performance Standards Minnesota Rule 6238.0200 Minnesota Rules, Table of Chapters is Table of contents for Chapter 6238 6238.0200 FALCONRY PERMIT. Page 1 of 2 A#4#"4LS - FAccor4iof 104 Subpart 1. Permit requirements for residents. Unless a falconry permit has been obtained from the commissioner, a resident of this state may not take, possess, transport, transfer, use, sell, purchase, barter, or offer to sell, purchase, or barter raptors or their eggs. Subp. 2. Permit requirements for nonresidents. Nonresidents who have a valid falconry permit in the country, state, province, or territory of their residence or who are lawfully entitled or permitted to practice falconry may transport, possess, and use raptors for falconry purposes in this state on a temporary basis for periods of up to 30 consecutive days without obtaining written permission from the commissioner. Nonresidents may acquire captive bred raptors or their eggs for falconry purposes in this state. While in this state, nonresidents must comply with all applicable provisions of this chapter. Subp. 3. Permit application. An applicant for a permit must be a resident of this state and must submit a fully completed application form to the commissioner. • Subp. 4. Examination for permit. A permit may not be issued until the applicant has obtained a score of at least 60 percent on a supervised examination provided by the commissioner. An applicant who fails the examination must wait a minimum of two weeks before retaking the examination. Subp. 5. Inspection. Before a falconry permit is issued, the raptor housing facilities and falconry equipment must be inspected and approved by the commissioner. If necessary, an inspection may be conducted prior to permit renewal. Subp. 6. Facility standards. Applicants must possess the minimum facilities in items A and B. A. Indoor facilities (mews) must be large enough to allow easy access for care of the raptors housed in the facility. If more than one raptor is to be kept in the mews, raptors must be tethered or separated by partitions and the area for each bird must be large enough to allow the bird to fully extend its wings. There must be a secure door that can be easily closed, and at least one window, protected on the inside by vertical bars, spaced narrower than the width of the bird's body. The floor of the mews must permit easy cleaning and must' be well drained. Adequate perches must be provided. If tethers are used, they must be at least long enough to allow the birds to reach the floor. • B. Outdoor facilities (weathering area) must be fenced and covered with netting or wire, or roofed to protect the birds from disturbance and attack by predators except that http: / /www.revisor.leg. state .mn.us /arule /6238 /0200.html 5/6/2005 Minnesota Rule 6238.0200 Page 2 of 2 perches more than 6 -1/2 feet high need not be covered or Awem&t3- Akotjtf w4 roofed. The enclosed area must be large enough to ensure the birds cannot strike the fence when flying from the perch. Protection from excessive sun, wind, and inclement weather must be provided for each bird. Adequate perches must.be provided. If tethers are used, they must be at least long enough to allow the birds to reach the ground. Subp. 7. Equipment standards. An applicant must possess the following minimum equipment: A. at least one pair of Alymeri jesses or similar type constructed of pliable, high - quality leather or suitable synthetic material, to be used when any raptor is flown free (traditional one -piece jesses may be used on raptors when not being flown); B. at least one flexible, weather - resistant leash and one strong swivel of acceptable falconry design as specified in information provided by the department; C. at least one suitable drinking and bathing container for each raptor, two to six inches deep and of a width and length each greater than the length of the raptor; D. at least one weathering area perch of an acceptable design, as specified in information provided by the department, for each raptor; and E. a reliable scale or balance suitable for weighing is raptor, graduated to increments of not more than one -half ounce (15 grams). Subp. B. Maintenance. Facilities and equipment must meet the standards provided by this part at all times. STAT RUTH: MS s 97A.401 HIST: 18 SR 83 Current as of 05113197 0 http: / /www.revisor.leg. state .mn.us /arule /6238/0200.html 5/6/2005 • Minnesota Rule 6238.0300 Minnesota Rules. Table of Chapters Table of contents for Chapter 6238 6238.0300 FALCONRY PERMIT CLASSES. Page 1 of 2 Awesn*lS— rA (tow ty 3of-(o Specifications for the three classes of falconry permits are contained in items A to C. A. A Class III (apprentice) permittee: (1) must be at least 14 years old; • (2) must be sponsored during the first two years in which an apprentice permit is held, regardless of the age of the permittee. The sponsor must be the holder of a Class II (general) or Class I (master) falconry permit. A sponsor may not have more than three apprentices at any one time; (3) may not possess more than one raptor and may not obtain more than one raptor for replacement during any 12 -month period; (4) may possess only the following raptors, which must be taken from the wild: an American kestrel (Falco sparverius), or a red - tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis); and (5) may only take an adult or passage kestrel or a passage red - tailed hawk from the wild. B. A Class II (general) permittee: (1) must be at least 18 years old; (2) must have at least two years' experience in the practice of falconry at the Class III level or its equivalent; (3) may not possess more than two raptors and may not obtain more than two raptors for replacement birds during any 12 -month period; and (4) may not take, transport, or possess any owls or any species listed as threatened or endangered under state or federal law. C. A Class I (master) permittee: 0 (1) must have at least five years' experience in the practice of falconry at the Class II level or its equivalent; (2) may not possess more than three raptors and may not obtain more than two raptors taken from the wild for replacement birds during any 12 -month period; (3) may not take any species listed as endangered in state or federal regulations, but may transport or possess http://www.revisor.leg.state.nm.us/arule/6238/0300.html 5/6/2005 Minnesota Rule 623 8.0300 such species in accordance with applicable rules; Page 2 of 2 &44W5- -F41C0J4Y (1#44 • (4) may not take, transport, or possess any golden eagle for falconry purposes unless authorized in writing in accordance with appropriate federal regulations and approved by the commissioner; and (5) may not take in any 12 -month period, as a part of the three bird limitation, more than one raptor listed as threatened in state or federal regulations, and then only in accordance with applicable rules. STAT AUTH: MS s 97A.401 HIST: 18 SR 83 Current as of 05113197 0 0 http: / /www.revisor.leg.state.nm.us /arule /6238/0300.htrnl 5/6/2005 Minnesota Rule 6238.0900 Minnesota Rules Table of Chapters • Table of contents for Chapter 6238 6238.0900 REPORTING REQUIREMENTS. Page 1 of 1 44.,w.cs 46" ssc Subpart 1. Required reporting for each bird. A permittee may not take, purchase, receive, otherwise acquire, buy, sell, barter, transfer, or dispose of any raptor, including death of the raptor, unless the permittee submits, within five working days, Federal Form 3 -186A completed, in accordance with the instructions on the form, for each bird. The blue copy must be submitted to the department regional office where the permit is issued. Subp. 2. Change of address. Changes of address must be reported in writing to the department office where the falconry permit is issued within ten days following the move if the change of address will exceed 30 days. Facilities at the new address must be certified during the 30 -day temporary holding period following a move to a new location. Subp. 3. Reports by permit holders. Holders of permits issued for the taking, transportation, transfer, possession, and use of raptors for falconry purposes must report to the commissioner, as requested, listing: A. all raptors in possession, by species, marker numbers, sex (if known), age (if known), date and where or from whom acquired; B. all raptors possessed or acquired at any time during the specified period, but no longer possessed, by species, marker numbers, sex (if known), age (if known), date and where or from whom acquired, date and to whom given, if applicable, or whether escaped, died, or released, and when the event occurred; and C. all unused markers in possession. STAT AUTH: MS s 97A.401 HIST: 18 SR 83 Current as of 05113197 is http: / /www. revisor. leg. state.mn.us /arule /6238/O900.html 5/6/2005 • Minnesota Rule 623 8. 1000 Minnesota Rules Table of Chapters Table of contents for Chapter 6238 6236.1000 FALCONRY PERMIT DURATION AND RENEWAL. Page 1 of 1 Aq�.4 (. o#-(o Subpart 1. Duration of permits. Falconry permits may not exceed three years in duration and expire on September 30 of the year of expiration. Permits are not transferable. Subp. 2. Renewal of permits. Falconry permits are renewable. Request for renewal must be made at least 30 days prior to the permit expiration date. STAT AUTH: MS s 97A.401 1 8 0 HIST: 18 SR 83 Current as of 05113197 http://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/arule/6238/ 5/6/2005 9 -9 -1: PURPOSE AND INTENT: • A. Purpose: The purpose of this chapter is to protect the public health, safety and the general welfare of the people of the city. These objectives include the following: 1. To protect the character and stability of residential areas within the city. 2. To correct and prevent housing conditions that adversely affect or are likely to adversely affect the life, safety, general welfare and or health of Andover residents 3. To provide minimum standards for heating and sanitary equipment and for light and ventilation necessary to protect the health and safety of occupants of buildings. 4. To prevent the overcrowding of dwellings. 5. To provide minimum standards for the maintenance of existing residential buildings and to thus prevent substandard housing and blight. 6. To preserve the value of land and buildings throughout the city. B. Intent: With respect to disputes between tenants and landlords, and except as otherwise specifically provided by the terms of this chapter, it is not the intention of the City Council to intrude upon the accepted contractual relationship between the tenant and landlord. The City Council does not intend to intervene as an advocate of either party, is nor to act as arbiter, nor to be receptive to complaints from tenant or landlord which are not ordinance related. In the absence of such relevancy with regard to rental disputes, it is intended that the contracting parties exercise such legal sanctions as are available to them without the intervention of city government. In enacting this chapter, it is not the intention of the City Council to interfere or permit interference with legal rights to personal privacy. (Ord. 267, 7 -20 -1999) 9 -9 -2: APPLICATION OF PROVISIONS: This chapter establishes minimum standards for maintaining dwelling units, accessory structures and related premises. This chapter is intended to provide standards for rental housing and to provide standards to allow resolution of complaints regarding owner occupied housing. (Ord. 267, 7 -20 -1999) 9 -9 -3: DEFINITIONS: Whenever the words "dwelling ", "dwelling unit ", "premises ", or "structures" are used in this chapter, they shall be construed as though they were followed by the words "or any part thereof'. The following definitions shall apply in the interpretation and enforcement of this chapter: ACCESSORY USE OR STRUCTURES: A use or structure subordinate to, and serving the principal use or structure on the same lot and customarily incidental thereto which is not used for living or sleeping by human occupants. ANDOVER BUILDING CODE: The Minnesota State Building Code, International • Building Code (IBC), and International Residential Code (IRC"� adopted by the city. BUILDING: Any structure having a roof which may provide shelter or enclosure for persons, animals, or chattels, and when said structure is divided by party walls without openings, each portion of such building so separated shall be deemed a separate building. BUILDING OFFICIAL: The designated agent authorized by the City Council to administer and enforce this chapter. DWELLING: A building or one or more portions thereof occupied or intended to be occupied for residential purposes, but not including rooms in motels, hotels, nursing homes, boarding houses, trailers, tents, cabins or trailer coaches. DWELLING UNIT: A single - family dwelling or unit designed to accommodate one family. FAMILY: A. An individual or two (2) or more persons related by blood, marriage or adoption living together; or B. A group of not more than five (5) persons who need not be related by blood, marriage is or adoption, living together as a single housekeeping unit in a dwelling unit, exclusive of usual servants. FLUS WATER CLOSET: A toilet with a bowl and trap made in one piece, which is connected to the city water and sewer system or other approved water supply and sewer system. GARBAGE: Animal and vegetable waste resulting from the handling, preparation, cooking, marketing or processing of food, or the non - consumed waste resulting from animals or humans consuming food. HABITABLE BUILDING: Any building or part thereof that meets minimum standards for use as a home or place of abode by one or more persons. HABITABLE ROOM: A room with enclosed floor space used or intended to be used for living, sleeping, cooking, or eating purposes, excluding bathrooms, water closet compartments, laundries, furnace rooms, unfinished basements (those without required ventilation, required electric outlets and required exit facilities), pantries, utility rooms of less than fifty (50) square feet of floor space, foyers, communicating corridors, stairways, closets, storage spaces, workshops, and hobby and recreation areas in parts of the structure below ground level or in attics. • HEATED WATER: Water heated to a temperature of not less than one hundred ten degrees Fahrenheit (110 °F), or such lesser temperature required by government authority, measured at faucet outlet. KITCHEN: A space which contains a sink with counter working space, space for installing cooking and refrigeration equipment, and space for the storage of cooking utensils. MAINTENANCE: Upkeep of property and equipment in a safe working condition for which it was installed and/or constructed. MULTIPLE- FAMILY DWELLING: A dwelling or portion thereof containing two (2) or more dwelling units. OCCUPANT: Any person (including owner operator) living, sleeping, cooking and eating in a dwelling unit or living and sleeping in a rooming unit. OPERATE: To charge rent for the use of a unit in a rooming unit. OPERATOR: The owner or his/her agent who has charge, care, control, or management of a building, or part thereof, in which dwelling units or rooming units are let. OWNER: Any person, firm or corporation who, alone, jointly, or severally with others, 41 shall be in actual possession of, have charge of, care of, or control of any dwelling, dwelling unit, or rooming unit within the city as owner, employee or agent of the owner, or as trustee or guardian of the estate or person of the title holder. Any person representing the actual owner shall be bound to comply with the provisions of this chapter to the same extent as the owner. PERMISSIBLE OCCUPANCY: The maximum number of persons permitted to reside in a dwelling unit or rooming unit. PERSON: An individual, firm, partnership, association, corporation, company or joint venture or organization of any kind. PLUMBING: All of the following supplied facilities and equipment in a dwelling: gas pipes, gas burning equipment, water pipes, steam pipes, garbage disposal units, waste pipes, water closets, sinks, installed dishwashers, lavatories, bathtubs, shower baths, installed clothes washing machines, catch basins, drains, vents and any other similar fixtures and the installation thereof, together with all connections to water, sewer and gas lines. PREMISES: A platted lot or part thereof or unplatted parcel of land, and adjacent right of way, either occupied or unoccupied by any dwelling or non - dwelling structure, including such building or accessory structure. 9 . PUBLIC HALL: A hall, corridor or passageway for providing egress from a dwelling unit to a public way and not within the exclusive control of one family. REFUSE: Personal leavings, trash, garbage. RENTAL DWELLING: A dwelling unit for hire. REPAIR: The construction or renewal of any part of an existing building or its utilities, facilities or equipment for the purpose of its maintenance. RODENT HARBORAGE: A place where rodents commonly live, nest, or establish their habitat. ROOMING UNIT: Any room or group of rooms forming a single habitable unit used or intended to be used for living and sleeping, but not for cooking and eating purposes. SAFETY: The condition of being reasonably free from danger and hazards which may cause accidents or diseases. SUBSTANDARD DWELLING: Any dwelling which does not conform to the minimum standards established by city ordinances. SUPPLIED: Paid for, furnished by, provided by, or under the control of the owner, is operator, or agent of a dwelling. (Ord. 267, 7 -20 -1999; amd. 2003 Code) 9 -9 -4: RESPONSIBILITIES OF OWNERS AND OCCUPANTS: No owner or other person shall occupy or let to another person any dwelling, dwelling unit or rooming unit unless it and the premises are fit for human occupancy and comply with all applicable legal requirements of the state and the city, and as set forth specifically in this section: A. Maintenance Of Shared Or Public Areas: Every owner of a dwelling containing two (2) or more dwelling units shall maintain or shall provide for maintenance of the units shared along with all public areas of the dwelling and premises thereof. B. Housekeeping Of Occupied Areas: Every occupant of a dwelling, dwelling unit or rooming unit shall properly housekeep the dwelling unit and premises thereof that he/she occupies and controls. C. Storage And Disposal Of Garbage And Refuse: 1. Every occupant of a dwelling, dwelling unit or rooming unit shall store and dispose of all his/her refuse and garbage and any other organic waste which might provide food for insects and/or rodents in a manner approved by the city. The city requires that refuse and garbage be disposed of by a garbage hauler 65 11 2. Every owner of a multiple - family dwelling shall supply facilities for the storage and/or disposal of refuse and garbage. In the case of single- or two- family dwellings, it shall be the responsibility of the occupant to famish such facilities as prescribed by city ordinance. D. Storm And Screen Doors And Windows: The owner of a rental dwelling unit shall be responsible for providing, maintaining and hanging all screen and storm doors and storm windows whenever the same are required under the provisions of this chapter. E. Pest Extermination: Every occupant of a dwelling containing a single dwelling unit shall be responsible for the extermination of vermin infestations and/or rodents on the premises. Every occupant of a dwelling unit in a dwelling containing more than one dwelling unit shall be responsible for such extermination whenever his/her dwelling unit is the only one infested. Notwithstanding, however, whenever infestation is caused by the failure of the owner to maintain a dwelling in a reasonable rodent -proof condition, extermination shall be the responsibility of the owner. Whenever infestation exists in two (2) or more of the dwelling units in any dwelling or in the shared or public parts of any dwelling containing two (2) or more dwelling units, extermination thereof shall be the responsibility of the owner. F. Rodent Harborages Prohibited: 1. Occupied Areas: No occupant of a dwelling or dwelling unit shall accumulate boxes, firewood, lumber, scrap metal or any other similar materials in such a manner that may provide a rodent harborage in or about any dwelling or dwelling unit. Outside stored materials shall be stacked neatly in piles at least four inches (4 ") above bare soil or ground. 2. Public Areas: No owner of a dwelling containing two (2) or more dwelling units shall accumulate or permit the accumulation of boxes, lumber, scrap metal or any other similar materials in such a manner that may provide a rodent harborage in or about shared or public areas of a dwelling or premises. Materials stored outside by the owner or permitted to be stored by the owner shall be stacked neatly in piles at least four inches (4 ") above bare soil or ground. G. Storage Of Food For Rodent Prevention: No owner or occupant of a dwelling unit shall store, place or allow to accumulate any materials that may serve as food for rodents in a site accessible to rodents. H. Maintenance Of Plumbing Fixtures And Facilities: The owner or occupant of a dwelling unit shall maintain all supplied plumbing fixtures and facilities therein. I. Minimum Heating Capability And Maintenance: In every dwelling unit or rooming unit, when the control of the supplied heat is the responsibility of a person other than the occupant, a temperature of at least sffeaty degFees Fahf aheit "" ^' sush le ° t r re a b + o ♦ au tho r ity sh «� ll b « ed at fle le . he ° ix -ei t the outdoor- temperatwe is v�waty degrees below zero Fahfenheit ( degrees Fahrenheit (68 ° F) on the design heating day. J. Removal Of Snow And Ice: The owner of any rental dwelling shall be responsible for the removal of snow and ice from parking lots and/or driveways, steps and walkways on the premises. Individual snowfalls of three inches (Y) or more or successive snowfall accumulations to a depth of three inches (3") shall be removed from walkways and steps within forty-eight (48) hours after cessation of the snowfall. (Ord. 267, 7 -20 -1999) K. Minimum Exterior Lighting: The owner of rental dwellings shall be responsible for providing and maintaining in good condition lighting fixtures and levels required by state building code for tenants. (Ord. 267, 7 -20 -1999; amd. 2003 Code) L. Maintenance Of Driveway And Parking Areas: The owner of a multiple - family dwelling shall be responsible for providing and maintaining in good condition paved and delineated parking areas and driveways for tenants. (Ord. 267, 7 -20 -1999) 9 -9 -5: MINIMUM STANDARDS FOR BASIC EQUIPMENT AND FACILITIES: No person shall rent or let to another for occupancy any dwelling or dwelling unit for the purposes of living, sleeping, cooking and eating therein which does not comply with the following minimum standards for basic equipment and facilities: A. Kitchen Sink: Provide a kitchen sink in good working condition which is properly S connected to an approved water supply system and which provides at all times an adequate amount of heated and unheated running water under pressure and which is connected to an approved sewer system per city ordinances. B. Cabinets /Shelves, Counter/Table: Provide cabinets and/or shelves for the storage of eating, drinking and cooking equipment and utensils and for food that does not require refrigeration for safekeeping; and a counter or table for food preparation. Said cabinets and/or shelves and counter or table shall be of sound construction and finished with surfaces that are easily cleanable and that will not impart any toxic or deleterious effect to food. (Ord. 267, 7 -20 -1999) C. Cooking And Storage Facilities: Provide a stove or similar device for cooking food and a refrigerator or similar device for the safe storage of food at or below forty degrees Fahrenheit (40 °F), which are properly installed with all necessary connections for safe, sanitary and efficient operation. Such stove, refrigerator or similar devices need not be installed when a dwelling unit is not occupied, but sufficient space and adequate connections for the installation and operation of said stove, refrigerator or similar device must be provided. (Ord. 267, 7 -20 -1999; amd. 2003 Code) D. Toilet Facilities: Within every dwelling unit there shall be a non - habitable room which is equipped with a ask water closet in compliance with the Minnesota state plumbing code. Such room shall have an entrance door which affords privacy. Said ask water closet shall be equipped with easily cleanable surfaces, shall be connected to an approved • water system that at all times provides an adequate amount of running water under pressure to cause the heater- water closet to be operated properly, and all shall be connected to a sewer system in compliance with city ordinances. E. Lavatory Sink: Within every dwelling unit there shall be a lavatory sink. Said lavatory sink may be in the same room as the flush water closet, or if located in another room, the lavatory sink shall be located in close proximity to the door leading directly into the room in which said water closet is located. The lavatory sink shall be in good working condition and shall provide at all times an adequate amount of heated and unheated running water under pressure and shall be connected to an approved sewer system in compliance with city ordinances. F. Bathtub Or Shower: Within every dwelling unit there shall be a non - habitable room which is equipped with a bathtub or shower in good working condition. Such room shall have an entrance door which affords privacy. Said bathtub or shower may be in the same room as the flush water closet, or in another room, and all shall be properly connected to an approved water supply system and shall provide at all times an adequate amount of heated and unheated water under pressure and shall be connected to an approved sewer system in compliance with city ordinances. (Ord. 267, 7 -20 -1999) 9 -9 -6: STAIRWAYS, PORCHES AND BALCONIES: Every stairway, inside or outside of a dwelling, and every porch or balcony shall be kept in safe condition and sound repair. Stairs and handrails shall conform to the Andover Is building code standards 66 . Every porch, balcony or deck which is thirty inches (30 ") or more above grade shall have a guardrail and shall be firmly fastened and maintained in good condition. No flight of stairs shall have settled out of its intended position or have pulled away from the supporting or adjacent structures enough to cause hazard. No flight of stairs shall have rotting, loose or deteriorating supports. Excepting spiral and winding stairways, the treads and risers of every flight of stairs shall be essentially uniform in width and height. Stairways shall be capable of supporting a live load of one hundred (100) pounds per square foot of horizontal projection. (Ord. 267, 7 -20 -1999) 9 -9 -7: ACCESS TO DWELLING UNITS: Access to or egress from each dwelling unit shall be provided without passing through any other dwelling unit. (Ord. 267, 7 -20 -1999) 9 -9 -8: SECURITY FOR RENTAL UNITS: No owner shall let or rent to another for occupancy any dwelling or dwelling unit unless all exterior doors of the dwellings or dwelling units are equipped with safe, functioning locking devices. Rental dwellings shall be furnished with door locks as follows: A. For the purpose of providing a reasonable amount of safety and general welfare for persons occupying multiple - family dwellings with common areas, an approved security system shall be maintained for each multiple - family building to control access. The security system shall consist of locking building entrance or foyer doors, and locked doors leading from hallways into individual dwelling units. Dead latch type door locks shall be provided with releasable lever knobs (or doorknobs) on the inside of building • entrance doors and with key cylinders on the outside of the building entrance doors. Building entrance door latches shall be of a type that are is permanently locked. B. Every door that provides ingress or egress for a dwelling unit within a multiple - family building shall be equipped with an approved lock that has a deadlocking bolt that cannot be retracted by end pressure; provided however, that such door shall be openabi able to be opened from the inside without the use of a key or any special knowledge or effort. C. All multiple - family dwellings in existence prior to April 21, 1992, which were not previously required to have an approved security system, shall not be subject to the requirements of subsection A of this section. (Ord. 267, 7 -20 -1999) 9 -9 -9: MINIMUM STANDARDS FOR LIGHT AND VENTILATION: No person shall occupy as owner or occupant or let to another for occupancy any dwelling or dwelling unit for the purpose of living therein which does not comply with the following minimum standards for light and ventilation: A. Habitable Room Ventilation: Except where there is supplied some other device affording ventilation and approved by the building official, every habitable room shall have at least one window facing directly outdoors which can be opened easily. The minimum total of window area that can be opened in every habitable room shall be a minimum of t e n p e .,.ent ( 1 0 , 0 4 ) eight percent (8 %) of the floor area of the room. • B. Non - habitable Room Ventilation: Every bathroom and water closet compartment, and every laundry and utility room shall be provided with natural ventilation by means of windows, or skylights having an area of not less than fie- p °• - e°�) four percent 4l%Z of the floor area of such rooms; except, that no windows shall be required if such rooms are equipped with a ventilation system which is approved by the building official. (Ord. 267, 7 -20 -1999; amd. 2003 Code) C. Electric Service, Outlets And Fixtures: Every dwelling unit and all public and common areas shall be supplied with electric service, functioning overcurrent protection devices, electric outlets, and electric fixtures which are properly installed, which shall be maintained in a safe working condition, and shall be connected to a source of electric power in a manner prescribed by ordinance, rules and regulations of the city and bylaws of the state. The minimum capacity of such electric service and the minimum number of electric outlets and fixtures shall be as follows: 1. A dwelling containing one or two (2) dwelling units shall have at least the equivalent of 100- ampere, 3 -wire electric service per dwelling unit. 2. Each dwelling unit shall have at least one branch electric circuit for each six hundred (600) square feet of dwelling unit floor area. (Ord. 267, 7 -20 -1999) 3. Every habitable room shall contain one electrical convenience outlet for each twelve re (12) lineal feet, or major fraction thereof, measured horizontally around the room at the baseboard line; provided, that in each room, a ceiling type electric light fixture may be substituted for one of the required electrical convenience outlets. (Ord. 267, 7 -20 -1999; amd. 2003 Code) 4. Every water closet compartment, bathroom, kitchen, laundry room, and furnace room shall contain at least one supplied ceiling type or wall type electric convenience outlet. 5. Every public hall and public stairway in every multiple dwelling shall be adequately lighted to provide at least ten (10) foot - candles of illumination of all parts thereof at all times by means of properly located electric light fixtures; provided, that such electrical lighting may be omitted from sunrise to sunset where there are windows or skylights opening directly to the outside and where the total window or skylight area is at least one- tenth (1 /10) of the combined horizontal area of the floor and stairway of each such public hallway and where such windows or skylight provide adequate natural light to all parts of each public hallway. Every public hall and stairway in dwellings containing two (2) dwelling units shall be supplied with convenient light switches, controlling an adequate lighting system that will provide at least ten (10) foot - candles of illumination on all parts thereof, which may be turned on when needed. 6. A convenient switch or equivalent device for turning on a light in each dwelling unit shall be located near the point of entrance to such unit. (Ord. 267, 7 -20 -1999) 9 -9 -10: MINIMUM STANDARDS FOR HEAT: A. Standards Established: No person shall occupy as owner or occupant or let to another is for occupancy any dwelling or dwelling unit, for the purpose of living therein, which does not have heating facilities which are properly installed and maintained in a safe and working condition and which are capable of safely heating all habitable rooms, bathrooms and water closet compartments in every dwelling unit located therein to a temperature of at l eas t seven d e g rees F . (70 2 F) l. , n hei t (�02 e- rue le ss e r- te inp emt ffe re b y b 4 th 4 { J w. to be .itai .edit flees level when the ....thee« tempemtwe is ..,,e de below zero >i ei +2 @R , si%ty -eight degrees Fahrenheit (68 ° F) on the design heating day. B. Prohibited Heating Methods: 1. Gas or electric appliances designed primarily for cooking or water heating purposes shall not be considered as heating facilities within the meaning of this section. 2. Portable heating equipment employing flame and the use of liquid fuel does not meet the requirement of this section and is prohibited. 3. No owner or occupant shall install, operate or use a space heater employing a flame that is not vented outside the structure in an approved manner. (Ord. 267, 7 -20 -1999) 9 -9 -11: GENERAL MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS: V No person shall occupy, as owner or occupant, or let to another for occupancy, any dwelling or dwelling unit for the purpose of living therein which does not comply with the following requirements: A. Foundations, Exterior Walls And Roofs: The foundation, exterior walls and exterior roof shall be substantially watertight and protected against vermin and rodents and shall be kept in sound condition and repair. The foundation element shall adequately support the building at all points. Every exterior wall shall be free of structural deterioration or any other condition which might admit rain or dampness to the interior portion of the walls or to the interior spaces of the dwelling. The roof shall be tight and have no defects which admit rain and roof drainage and shall be adequate to prevent rainwater from causing dampness in the walls. All exterior surfaces, other than decay resistant materials, shall be protected from the elements and decay by paint or other protective covering or treatment. If approximately twenty five percent (25 1 /6) or more of the total exterior surface is unpainted or lacks protective coating or is determined by the building official to be deteriorated, the surface shall have a protective covering applied. If approximately twenty five percent (25 %) or more of the total exterior surface of any brick, block or stone wall is loose or has fallen out, the surface shall be repaired. (Ord. 267, 7 -20 -1999; amd. 2003 Code) Any shingles, siding or other protective element that has become damaged or deteriorated beyond effectiveness or is missing shall be repaired or replaced in a timely manner. B. Windows And Doors: Every window, exterior door and hatchway shall be substantially tight and shall be kept in good repair. Every window, other than a fixed window or storm window, shall be capable of being easily opened and closed. Every window, door and frame shall be constructed and maintained in such relation to the adjacent wall construction as to completely exclude rain, vermin and rodents from entering the building. C. Floors, Interior Walls And Ceilings: Every floor, interior wall and ceiling shall be protected against the passage and harborage of vermin and rodents and shall be kept in sound condition and good repair. Every floor shall be free of loose, warped, protruding or rotting flooring materials. Every interior wall and ceiling shall be maintained in a tight, waterproof condition. Toxic paints or materials with a lasting toxic effect shall not be used. Every toilet room and bathroom floor surface shall be capable of being easily maintained. D. Rodent Infested Buildings: Buildings found to be rodent infested shall be made rodent resistant. All openings in the exterior walls, foundations, basements, ground or first floors and roofs which have one -half foot (1/2') diameter or larger openings shall be rodent - proofed in an approved manner. Interior floors or basements, cellars and other areas in contact with the soil shall be paved with concrete or other rodent impervious material. E. Fences: All fences s"pke by the e = on the premises and a14 ee4ed by " is materials. Fenees shall be inaLitained in good eenditieft. Materials, ether- dtaft dee shall be pr-etee4ed against deeay by use ef paint or- other- preservati • shall conform to�chapter 12 -7 of this code. F. Accessory Structures: Accessory structures shall be structurally sound and be maintained in good repair. The exterior of such structures shall be made weather resistant through the use of decay resistant materials such as paint or other preservatives. All accessory structures shall conform to chapter 12 -6 of this code. G. Safe Building Elements: Every foundation, roof, floor, exterior and interior wall, ceiling, inside and outside stair, every porch and balcony, and every appurtenance thereto, shall be safe to use and capable of supporting normal structural loads. H. Facilities To Function: All equipment or utilities required under city ordinances and every chimney and flue shall function effectively in a safe and working condition. I. Grading And Drainage: Every yard, court, or passageway on the premises on which a dwelling stands shall be graded and drained so as to be free of standing water that constitutes a detriment to health and safety. J. Yard Maintenance: Every yard of a premises on which a dwelling stands shall be maintained to prevent dust and erosion. (Ord. 267, 7 -20 -1999) 9 -9 -12: CONSTRUCTION REQUIREMENTS: Every dwelling within the city shall conform to the Minnesota State Building Code, International Building Code, and International Residential Code (Ord. 267, 7 -20- 1999; amd. 2003 Code) 9 -9 -13: MAXIMUM DENSITY, MINIMUM SPACE FOR RENTAL UNITS: No person shall permit or let to be occupied any rental dwelling for the purpose of living therein which does not comply with the following requirements: A. Permissible Occupancy Of Dwelling Unit: The maximum permissible occupancy of any rental dwelling unit shall be determined as follows: 1. For the first occupant, one hundred fifty (150) square feet of habitable room floor space and for every additional occupant thereof, at least one hundred (100) square feet of habitable room floor space. 2. In no event shall the total number of occupants exceed two (2) times the number of habitable rooms, less the kitchen, in the dwelling unit. B. One Family Per Dwelling Unit: Not more than one family, except for temporary guests, shall occupy a dwelling unit. (Ord. 267, 7 -20 -1999) 9 -9 -14: ADMINISTRATION AND ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL; INSPECTIONS: re A. The building official shall administer and enforce the provisions of this chapter when reason exists to believe that a violation of the provisions of this chapter has been or is being committed. Inspections shall be conducted during reasonable hours, and the building official shall present evidence of his/her official capacity to the owner or occupant in charge of the dwelling unit. The building official shall keep confidential all evidence, exclusive of the inspection record, which he /she may discover or obtain in the course of an inspection made pursuant to this section, and such evidence shall be considered privileged. B. If any owner, occupant, or other person in charge of a dwelling, dwelling unit, rooming unit, or of a multiple dwelling fails or refuses to permit free access and entry to the structure or premises under his control, or any part thereof, with respect to which an inspection authorized by this chapter is sought to be made, the building official may, upon a showing that probable cause exists for the inspection and for the issuance of an order directing compliance with the inspection requirements of this section with respect to such dwelling, dwelling unit, rooming unit, or multiple dwelling, petition and obtain such order from a court of competent jurisdiction. (Ord. 267, 7 -20 -1999) 9 -9 -15: UNFIT CONDITIONS: A. Unfit For Human Habitation: 1. Any dwelling, dwelling unit or rooming unit or portion thereof which is damaged, decaying, dilapidated, unsanitary, unsafe, vermin or rodent infested or which lacks 41 provision for basic illumination, ventilation or sanitary facilities to the extent that the defects create a hazard to the health, safety or welfare of the occupants or of the public may be declared unfit for human habitation. Whenever any dwelling, dwelling unit or rooming unit has been declared unfit, the building official shall order same vacated within a reasonable time and shall post a placard on same indicating that it is unfit for human habitation, and any operating license previously issued for such dwelling shall be revoked pursuant to law. 2. It shall be unlawful for such dwelling, dwelling unit or rooming unit or portion thereof to be used for human habitation until the defective conditions have been corrected and written approval has been issued by the building official. It shall be unlawful for any person to deface or remove the declaration placard from any such dwelling unit. B. Unfit And Vacant Dwellings To Be Secured: The owner of any dwelling, dwelling unit or rooming unit which has been declared unfit for human habitation or which is otherwise vacant for a period of sixty (60) days or more shall make the same safe and secure so that it is not hazardous to the health, safety and welfare of the public and does not constitute a public nuisance. Any vacant dwelling open at doors, windows, or wall opening, if unguarded, shall be deemed to be a hazard to the health, safety and welfare of the public and is a public nuisance within the meaning of this chapter. C. Hazardous Building Declaration: In the event that a dwelling has been declared unfit is for human habitation and the owner has not remedied the defects within a prescribed . reasonable time, the dwelling may be declared a hazardous building and may be removed, razed or corrected pursuant to the provisions of Minnesota statutes sections 463.15 to 463.261. (Ord. 267, 7 -20 -1999) 9 -9 -16: COMPLIANCE ORDER; APPEALS; PENALTY: A. Issuance; Contents: Whenever the building official determines that any dwelling, dwelling unit or rooming unit or portion thereof is in violation of this chapter or any other ordinance, he /she may issue a compliance order setting forth violations of this chapter or any other ordinance and ordering the owner, occupant, operator or agent to correct such violations. This compliance order shall: 1. Be in writing. 2. Describe the location and nature of the violations of this chapter. 3. Establish a reasonable time frame, not to exceed sixty (60) days, to correct such violation and notify the owner of his appeal recourse. 4. Be served upon the owner, operator and occupant, or any of them; provided, that such notice shall be deemed to be properly served upon such owner, operator, or occupant if a copy thereof is: a. Served to him/her personally; or Is b. Sent by registered mail to his/her last known address; c. Upon failure to effect notice through subsection A4a or A4b of this section, service may be made pursuant to Minnesota statutes section 463.17, subdivision 2, which reads as follows: This order shall be served upon the owner of record, or his agent if in charge of the building, and upon the occupying tenant, if there is one, and upon all lien - holders of record, in the manner provided for service of a summons in a civil action. If the owner cannot be found, the order shall be served upon him by posting it at the main entrance to the building and by four weeks' publication in the official newspaper of the municipality if it has one, otherwise in a legal newspaper in the county. (Ord. 267, 7 -20 -1999; amd. 2003 Code) B. Appeals: 1. When it is alleged by any person to whom a compliance order is directed that such compliance order is based upon erroneous interpretation of this chapter, or upon a misstatement or mistake of fact, such person may appeal the compliance order to the City Council. Such appeal must be accompanied by a filing fee as designated by City Council in cash or cashier's check and must be filed with the building official within five (5) business days after service of the compliance order. The filing of an appeal shall stay all proceedings in furtherance of the action appealed from unless such stay would cause imminent peril to life, health or property. 0 • 2. Upon at least five (5) business days' notice to the appellant of the time and place for hearing the appeal and within thirty (30) days after said appeal is filed, the City Council shall hold a hearing thereon. The City Council shall find that the order be reversed, modified or affirmed in whole or in part. C. Restrictions On Transfer Of Ownership During Pending Compliance Order: It shall be unlawful for the owner of any dwelling, dwelling unit or rooming unit upon whom a pending compliance order has been served to sell, transfer, mortgage or lease or otherwise dispose thereof to another person until the provisions of the compliance order have been complied with, unless such owner shall furnish to grantee, lessee or mortgagee a true copy of any notice of violation or compliance order and shall obtain and possess a receipt of acknowledgment. Anyone securing an interest in the dwelling, dwelling unit or rooming unit who has received notice of the existence of a compliance order shall be bound by same without further service of notice upon him/her and shall be liable to all penalties and procedures provided by this chapter. D. Execution Of Compliance Orders By Public Authority: Upon failure to comply with a compliance order within the time set therein, and no appeal having been taken, or upon failure to comply with a modified compliance order within the time set therein, the criminal penalty established hereunder notwithstanding, the city council, after due notice to the owner, may by resolution cause the cited deficiency to be remedied as set forth in the compliance order. The cost of such remedy shall be a lien against the subject real estate and may be levied and collected as a special assessment in the manner provided by Minnesota statutes chapter 429 for any reasons set forth in section 429.101, subdivision . 1, and specifically for the removal and elimination of public health or safety hazards from private property, but the assessment shall be payable in a single installment. It is the intent of this section to authorize the city to utilize Minnesota statutes section 429.101 to promote the public health, safety and general welfare. E. Violation A Misdemeanor: Any person who fails to comply with a compliance order after a right of appeal has expired and any person who fails to comply with a modified compliance order within the time set therein, upon conviction thereof, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. (Ord. 267, 7 -20 -1999) it . City Code 9 -4-4 Swimming Pools, Spas and Hot Tubs Background A provision of the pool ordinance allows pools in front yards on lots that are at least one acre in size provided the pool is 200 feet from the front property line. Staff believes that a 200 foot setback is too restrictive. Prior to 1983 no pool construction was permitted in front of the house. In 1983, this provision was added to address one rural lot where the home sat several hundred feet back on the lot. Proposed Change Staff suggests reducing 200 feet to 60 feet to match the similar provision for detached accessory buildings shown below: City Code 12- 6 -5F.1. 1. On residential parcels with a lot area of one acre or more, a detached garage or accessory building may be constructed closer to the front lot line than the principal structure; however, the minimum distance it may be from the front lot line is sixty feet (60'). 0 City Code 9-4-4: CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS: A. Location: 1. Swimming pools shall not be located beneath utility lines nor over underground utility lines of any type. 2. No person, firm or corporation shall build, situate or install a swimming pool within ten feet (10') of any side or rear lot line, nor within six feet (6') of any principal structure, nor closer to the front lot line than the principal. structure, except as herein provided. On residential parcels of land of one acre or more, a swimming pool may be constructed closer to the front lot line than the principal structure, however, the minimum distance it may be from the front roe line shall be t�Ne huF;dFed sixty feet (208)- (60'). is • 12 -8-7 Bulk Fuel (continued for the third time) Background Currently, there is no clear concise definition of what constitutes bulk liquid storage as regulated by — City Code. The Fire Department currently requires a permit before installation, repair, removal or alteration. It should be defined what is specifically regulated, and that it should be properly permitted by the Fire Department. Our Fire Department needs to have knowledge of special hazards that exist within the community and this Code section will enable that to happen. Once again, in discussing the issue of why the 1000 gallon cut off, they indicated the 1000 gallons is used because most household heating tanks are 1000 gallons or less and there was an older fire code that is no longer in effect that indicated that was a requirement. The current Minnesota State Fire Code Chapter 34 talks about the tanks above and below ground and they use the 1000 gallon as the cut off for exemptions. Proposed Change A new definition is needed, since one does not currently exist. Under Part A, it is recommended that the threshold for what constitutes a liquid storage tank (that is to be regulated) shall be established. This use will be shown as a Conditional Use where appropriate in the uses table. The districts that this will be listed as a Conditional Use are R -1 (Single Family —Rural Agricultural Uses Only), NB (Neighborhood Business), SC (Shopping Center), GB (General Business), I (Industrial). There should also be a provision added that enables public agencies (school district, city, county, state) regardless of the zoning district they are located in to request a Conditional Use Permit (see attached list of is where tanks are currently located). When a use is not specifically permitted, or only appears as an allowed conditional use, it is interpreted to mean it is prohibited in the other zoning districts. In response to a question raised at the last Planning Commission meeting it is recommended that a provision be added that prohibits liquid storage tanks except for existing home heating fuel tanks in all locations except as regulated by these provisions. The Fire Department has reviewed the wording of this section and is acceptable to them. The code should also have a provision that a permit is required from the Fire Department to install, alter, repair or remove a tank covered under this provision of City Code. Lastly, the section that established a sunset date (B.3.) should be removed from the City Code, since that five year grace period has long since expired (in 1975). 12 -8-7: BIB LIQUID STORAGE TANK Add Definition to 12 -2 -2: LIOUID STORAGE SYSTEM, LIQUID STORAGE TANK or TANK. Any one or a combination of containers including tanks, vessels, enclosures, or structures and underground appurtenances connected to them, that is used to contain or dispense an accumulation of liquid substances deemed by the city to pose a threat to the public's health, safety or welfare. A. Conditional Use Permit Required For Certain Materials: All uses, including pipelines, associated with the bulk storage of oil, gasoline, liquid fertilizer, chemicals and similar liquids shall require a conditional use permit in order that the governing body may have some assurance that fire, explosion or water or soil contamination hazards are not present that would be detrimental to the public health, safety and general welfare. All tanks that could contain hazardous and/or flammable liquids having a capacity in excess of one thousand (1,000) gallons shall be required to obtain a Conditional Use Permit and a permit from the Fire Department prior to installation, exceptions are noted below. All public agencies (includine school districts, city, county and state) shall be entitled to apply for a Conditional Use Permit for a tank regardless of the zoning district that they are located in. B. -2-. The governing body may require the development of diking around said tanks, suitably sealed, to hold a leakage capacity equal to one hundred fifteen percent (115 %) of the tank capacity. C. Prohibitions All liquid storage tanks not listed as a Conditional Use in the Uses table (refer to Section 12 -13) or as an Exception (as noted in Section 12-8 -7 D.) shall he prohibited. • D. Exceptions. The provisions of this subchapter do not apply to: 1. Existing home heating oil tanks including those located in basements, cellars, if the storage tank is located upon or above the surface of the floor; 2. Septic tanks. E. Installation, Alteration, Repair or Removal Permits. 1. The installation, alteration, repair or removal of any liquid storage system governed by this subchapter requires permits issued by the Fire Chief pursuant to the provisions of the Minnesota State Fire Code and any other applicable code, ordinance, statute, rule pr National Fire Prevention Association Standards; 2. Permits and fees. The issuance of permits and the collection of fees shall be in accordance with the fee schedule adopted by the Citv Council in the amount provide by the fee resolution, set forth in this code; 3. The Fire Chief may deny a permit to persons not capable of performing pursuant to ordinance requirements. 40 • City Code General Discussion Item — Front Porches Background Several residents with homes that sit at the front setback line have inquired about adding a front porch to their older home. Some cities encourage investment in older homes by allowing front porches to encroach into the front yard setback area. A staff report from the City of Woodbury and a Star Tribune article are attached to provide additional background. Proposed Change Staff would like to discuss with the Planning Commission the potential for allowing front porches to encroach in the front yard setback area. The appropriate place for this provision would be in the permitted encroachments section. Action Requested The Planning Commission is asked to reach a consensus on whether or not such an amendment should be pursued. If the Commission is interested, any prefrerences from the attached material would also be helpful. i is • • 9 Front porches are making comeback Page 1 of 3 news freetime travel shopping cars homes 'lobs R metrolregion nation /world politics business sports variety opinion fun talk classifieds index north south west faith & values education police /court news lotteries obituaries traffic gas prices photo s live cam news graphics ap news minnesota Wisconsin archive stories corrections reprints rp oiects feedback news advertising general contact info Last update: April 23, 2005 at 1:03 PM Front porches are making comeback State Wire April 23, 2005 0423BC- MN- PORCHPOPU MINNEAPOLIS (AP) - Those days of sitting on the enclosed backyard deck are waning as more and more homeowners want to sit on a front porch, where they can watch the world - or at least their neighbors - go by. And in the interest of making their cities more livable, many A 0 V E R T t S E M F N T city officials are making it easier for homeowners to add on the coveted porch. Cities like Richfield, Bloomington, Woodbury and Arden Hills recently changed or are considering changes to zoning to accommodate such additions. "There's a return in interest in the community, and the porch is very much a symbol of community," said architect Robert Gerloff. "Even if it's just a symbol, it's a powerful symbol." In the past, the porch was a gathering place for family and friends. It was a retreat from the heat, a place in the shade. But eventually television and air conditioning lured people inside. But porches are in demand again, Gerloff said. "One of the most pathetic examples for the need for a front porch is when you see people open the garage door and sit there in lawn chairs to watch people pass by," he said. "People want to know who is walking by and driving by. They want to know who that little cute neighbor girl is dating now." In recent years, porches have become common features in many new housing developments, said Wendy Danks, marketing director for the Builders Association of the Twin Cities. Porches also are popular in remodeling projects in older neighborhoods. But city codes often pose a problem, because porch additions may encroach on the "setback line," or a minimum distance that a home can be from the front property line. http://www.startribune.com/stories/468/5365627.html Story tool! Email thi; @ Print this D Make us homepaq Search More options Mortgage Underwrit Mortgage IT - Norsta Legal Sec Reception Cundy & P Pharmaci! BRANERD AREA Administr, Empi Instructor: Tech Institi Lab - Uniw Minnesota Physicians Reception Billing Cle Kaleidosco Syst Inc Accounts HomeSery America Auto Sale! Roseville C Recruitmer Constructi Homes Orr Thompson Teacher- - Montess Montessori House Marketing Manager - Realty Hon 5/4/2005 L J 0 Front porches are making comeback The 10- foot -wide porch now extending the length of Kapler's house is where family members read a book, watch a summer rainstorm, meet neighbors and drink tea. Ed Kapler's two -story colonial in Woodbury was built up to the front - yard setback line and he needed a variance from the city in order to build a porch. He met with city officials, attended committee meetings and sent fliers around the neighborhood for support. "It was a six -month process," Kapler said. "It's not like we wanted to put a water slide in front of our house. We just wanted a porch." Six months after Kapler finished his project, Woodbury officials tweaked the city's zoning code, allowing homeowners to build porches that extend into the restricted zone, provided other criteria are also met. In Bloomington, a similar proposal is being drafted by planners and likely will be presented to the City Council for approval. "Most of our zoning code hasn't been changed since it was written m 1976, and society has changed a lot in those 30 years," Bloomington planner Londell Pease said. From the city's standpoint, front porches may help unify some neighborhoods. "All of a sudden you're waving to people who live five or six houses down the street. Then you start talking to them and getting to know them," Pease said. "When you know everyone six houses on either side, you're safer. All of a sudden you know that's not John's car in the driveway. You start watching out for one another." Information from: Star Tribune, http: / /www.startribune.com Advertiser Links SunSetter® ScreenRoom Enjoy your deck or patio bug -free, with a SunSetter® Screen Room www.sunsetter.com/ House additions Find a Screened Remodel Expert with Our Free Service. Search Nowl ServiceMagic.com Ads by Google Cabinet Store ! Affordable 2002 Sucer Crew Hair & Hair Care Greni T If$SSi HOC Now open Stri" Hair S rO&. as w Best Quality & Prices on Beauty Supply. 763-862 - More classified ads C ...s ..... ertops . .... pa Kid's Stuff Sale Prime Spaace General NanoSystems Inc Maplewood Community Close to Lakes Area Computers Parts Repairs Center Page 2 of 3 Services Laborato Diamond 'A Center PA Accountin Accountan Micromedic Innovative Social Ser Lifespan Be Hlth Svc Leasin Consultan'. Southwind Mortgage. Closer - W Hegna Printing - L Engineer - Ames Iowa View All Tc Browse ma Classifieds Homes Rentals Shopping Place an ai Return to ton Sta Copyright 2005 Star Tribune. All rights reserved. feedback I terms of use I privacy polio I member center ( company site I company directory contacts http://www.startribune.com/stories/468/5365627.html 5/4/2005 i PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT August 19, 2002 Case Number: 0248 Prepared By: Gary Berg Senior Planner Project Name: City of Woodbury Recommendation: Approval Request: Zoning Text Amendment Site Size: N/A Sec. 24 -3 Definitions, Sec. 24 -266 Permitted Encroachments # Units: N/A Location: N/A # Lots: N/A Zoning District: N/A Building Sq. Ft. N/A Comprehensive Parkland Land Use Plan: N/A Dedication: NIA BACKGROUND • On June 17, 2002 and August 5, 2002 the Planning Commission reviewed issues and potential changes to the Zoning Ordinance dealing with porches as an encroachment in front of the front yard setback. The Commission asked staff to send this proposal to homeowner's associations that have architectural review committees for their input. Staff sent letters to six associations. As of this writing we have not had a response. In addition we were asked to review "New Urbanism" ordinances from a variety of cities. A number of these ordinances had basic setbacks but nothing related to "encroachments." The Commission asked the staff to include a regulations to control the length of overhangs or eaves, wrap around porches and look into the potential of elongated steps, decks or stoops coming off of the structure. Recently the City Council granted a Variance for a front porch, Ed Kapler; Case 01-42, with comments that such a feature would be a welcomed addition to any neighborhood. In addition, the City currently has an active request for a similar Variance for a front porch. Every year staff has had many inquiries for Variances for porch additions. The problem of a Variance is that all five findings of fact are required by Minnesota Statute before the governing body can issue a Variance to a property. These findings are very hard to justify. Several large subdivisions in the first area of growth are implementing "New Urbanism" concepts such as sidewalks, porches and shorter setbacks. The idea is to bring back, through housing design, a neighborhood - friendly feeling by having people sit on front porches and meet and greet neighbors that are out for walks. That concept was part of the approach taken with the Wedgewood Heights 8'" Addition. The objective of an ordinance change is to add provisions for the balance of properties in the City to potentially do the same thing. PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS The ordinance change could be broken down into two parts. First is a definition change and second would be the allowed encroachment regulation. The definition can be compiled around several current definitions: A porch, portico, veranda, or colonnade. Here is the Webster's definition of each. Staff Report August 5, 2002 Page 2 of 3 Porch - A platform usually with a separate roof, at the entrance to a house. A gallery or room attached to the outside of a building. Portico — A porch or covered walk, consisting of a roof supported by columns often at the entrance or across the front of a building; colonnade Colonnade — A series of columns set at regular intervals, usually supporting a roof or series of arches. Veranda — An open porch or portico, usually roofed, along the outside of a building. The definitions all lead how "open" this appendage would be before it is considered a primary part of a home. However, it also leads to a slippery slope. Should these areas be totally opened? Should we allow railings? (For decking/flooring over thirty inches off the ground, railings are required.) Should screening be optional? Bugs in Minnesota? Enough said. While some people would argue that screens should be used for a screen porch in the back yard, sometimes a west - facing porch is too hot in the summer and the east - facing front porch is a more pleasant place to sit in the late afternoon or early evening, but without the bugs. If front yard aesthetics of a screen porch is a problem, ask yourself this. Can a screen porch be added to the front of a house if the structure does not need a Variance? Yes. In determining the encroachment, or the "build forward" or "build to' line, the overall purpose of what is to be achieved should be discussed. A six -foot encroachment would allow a relatively straight row of chairs. An eight - foot dimension would allow a small table and chairs or a circular style chair arrangement. Ten to twelve feet of width becomes a small room. Should windows be included? Once windows are added that space functionally becomes a room. • Pending discussion of this item with the Commission, staff is proposing a maximum eight -foot encroachment with optional screening. Since our "New Urbanism" projects have a twenty-foot house setback we would limit the encroachment to eight feet from the home or within twenty feet of the right -of -way. In addition staff has added the word "stoop" to the permitted encroachment area. Stairs is dependent on the grad of the lot and the fast floor elevation and as a result a determination must be made at the time of the building permit as to violating the spirit or intent of what an encroachment should be. Staff would recommends changing the ordinance as follows: Section 24 -3. Definitions Porch — a portico, veranda or colonnade consisting of a deck, railings and roof supRorted by columns that may be screened at the entrance or across the front of a residential dwelling unit. Stoop — a platform or deck which is the top level of a stairway system that extends from the entrance of a building. Section 24 -266. Permitted encroachments. The following shall be considered as permitted encroachments on setback and height requirements except as provided in this chapter: (1) In any yard, stoops, posts, flues, leaders, sills, pilasters, lintels, cornices, eaves, gutters, awnings, open terraces, open canopies, steps, chimneys, flag poles, ornamental features, open fire escapes, sidewalks and fences, and all other similar devices incidental and appurtenant to the principal structure except as hereinafter amended. (2) Decks are also exempted from the rdar yard setback requirements, except that a deck may not be located closer than fifteen (15) feet from the rear property line. Staff Report August 5, 2002 Page 3 of 3 (3) A porch for a dwelling shall be allowed to encroach up to eight feet in front of the normal front yard setbacks for dwellina units. (a) In no case shall a porch be closer than twenty feet from the front yard property line or ten feet from anY side property line. (b) Windows shall be prohibited in the encroachment area. (c) Roof eaves shall be allowed beyond the encroachment limit for front and side yards but shall be comparable to the existing house. (d) Wrap around porches shall not be located within an easement or within five feet of the side property line. (e) A residential stoop shall only extend four feet away from the front porch and shall only be used as the top level of a stairway system. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the aforementioned City of Woodbury Case No. 02-48 amendments to the zoning ordinance Section 24 -3 Definitions and Section 24 -266 Encroachments. U is A LNND OVE I T Y O F 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, Director of Community Development C. SUBJECT: City Code General Discussion Item — Dirt Bikes DATE: May 10, 2005 INTRODUCTION Once again a request has been received from a resident to develop an ordinance restricting the operation of recreational motorized vehicles on residential property (see attached letter). As you may recall, on September 17, 2002 the Council reviewed a request from an Andover resident that Ordinance #109 (Regulating All Terrain Vehicles and Snowmobiles) be amended to also regulate the use of dirt bikes in the City of Andover. That night, Council directed that this be further investigated and a report on the options that could be proposed be brought back at a future Council meeting. The report was provided and Council directed that the issue of establishing a new dirt bike ordinance be dealt with using the existing noise ordinance. DISCUSSION • Again as you may recall, in the original report it was noted that the resident indicated that numerous times a neighbor has ridden dirt bikes very close to their home and it is very irritating to them. The resident called numerous times to complain about the neighbor to City Council and Staff. City Staff indicated that it is a rural area in which they live and this is typical of what occurs in those areas. The City's Zoning Enforcement Officer researched the Sherburne County Ordinance regarding dirt bikes. Sherburne County had taken action to make dirt bike tracks a conditional use, then after residents' opposition they made them a permitted use with certain conditions. This lead to further problems. Ultimately a county task force was created to review and give recommendations. The Planning Commission and City Council discussed this topic at meetings in the fall of 2002. The Council indicated to staff that they were not interested in creating a special ordinance to regulate dirt bikes. They advised that in the future as dirt bike complaints are reported they should be treated as complaints and regulated by the City's noise ordinance. ACTION REQUESTED The author of the attached letter appeared at a City Council open forum on May 3, 2005 and that night Council directed the staff to bring this issue once again to the Planning Commission to determine whether the City Code should be amended to regulate recreation motorized vehicles on residential property. Please review and advise. Respectfully submitted, Will Neumeister Attachment Letter from property owner March 20, 2005 Andover City Council Andover, MN RE: Proposed Motorized Bike and Ramp Ordinance Dear Council: This letter is in regards to developing an ordinance to restrict the operation of recreation motorized vehicles on residential property. As you are aware, the operation of such vehicles is a nuisance in regards to noise as well as fugitive dust. I have written to you previously on this matter and your response was that you found it difficult to restrict such activity because any restriction may also unwittingly also restrict the activity of motorized vehicles used for yard and home maintenance, specifically lawn tractors. I have taken it upon myself to research city ordinances across the United States to formulate an ordinance that will serve to limit the disturbance associated with motorized bikes /dirt bikes without restricting the operation of lawn tractors. I submit the following for your consideration and hopeful adoption by the council. . MOTORIZED BIKES/DIRT BIKES 1. Motorized bikes /dirt bikes on residential property shall NOT be operated between the hours of 8:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m. with courtesy given to other residents during use hours. 2. Operation of the motorized bikes /dirt bikes shall be limited to within the owner's property within a sufficient setback to not violate the City's noise ordinance at the property line. The property owner is responsible for providing on demand by the City, proof that the noise ordinance is not violated. 3. Operation of the motorized bikes shall NOT generate dust or cause erosion onto neighboring properties. 1 711 al I . No permanent ramps of any size or material (including soil) for use with skates, skateboards, bicycles, motorized bikes (dirt bikes), and snow mobiles shall be permitted in Andover on residential property. 2. Temporary, completely portable, ramps may be used on private property only and shall NOT be used between 8:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m., with courtesy given to other residents during use hours. Temporary ramps shall NOT have a ramp is surface area exceeding 4 feet by 8 feet and shall be stored inside an approved storage area or garage when not in use and between the hours of 8:00 p.m. and . 8:00 a.m. daily. I hope you will consider adopting these ordinances. I feel they allow the use of motorbikes /dirt bikes while not infringing on the rights of others to not be unduly subjected to the noise and fugitive dust. If you have any questions or would like to discuss any of these items with me please call me at either (763) 434 -5975 or (651) 634- 7332. Sincerely, Ann M. Cumow 15336 Cottonwood St. NW Andover, MN 55304 0