Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/13/070 Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda February 13, 2007 Andover City Hall Council Chambers 7.00 p.m. 1. Call to Order 2. Approval of Minutes — January 23, 2007. 3. PUBLIC HEARING: Conditional Use Permit (07 -03) to allow a tower and antenna for Great River Energy to be constructed at 2980 173 Lane NW. 4. PUBLIC HEARING: City Code Amendment to increase required buildable area for residential lots and to adjust wetland buffer location requirements of City Code Title 11: Subdivision Regulations. 5. PUBLIC HEARING: City Code Amendment to establish farm wineries as a home occupation requiring a conditional use permit in Title 12: Zoning Regulations. 6. PUBLIC HEARING: City Code Amendment to extend public hearing notification distance of City Code 12 -14 -8 from 350 to 700 feet. 7. PUBLIC HEARING: City Code Amendment to establish redevelopment criteria in City Code 13 -3: Planned Unit Development. 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 0 ,l�DV V L' 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 - January 23, 2007 DATE: February 13, 2007 Request The Planning and Zoning Commission is asked to approve the minutes from the January 23, 2007 meeting. L� N VN66NY I • PLANNING AND ZONING C0jIDHSSI0NMEETI7VG — JANUAR P 23, 2007 The Regular Bi- Monthly Meeting of the Andover Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order by Chairperson Daninger on January 23, 2007, 7:00 p.m., at the Andover City Hall, 1685 Crosstown Boulevard NW, Andover, Minnesota- Commissioners present: Chairperson Da Commissioners Michael Casey, Valerie Holthus, Devon Walton, Douglas Falk and Dennis Cleveland. Commissioners absent: Commissioner Tim Kirchoff. Also present: City Planner, Courtney Bednarz Associate Planner, Andy Cross Others • OATH OF OFFICE Commissioners Douglas Falk and Dennis Cleveland read the Oath of Office. APPROVAL OF MINUTES. December 12, 2006 January 9, 2007 Motion by Casey, seconded by Walton, to approve the December 12, 2006 minutes as presented. Motion carried on a 4 -ayes, 0 -nays, 1- absent (Kirchoff), 2- abstain (Cleveland, Falk) vote. Motion by Holthus, seconded by Daninger, to approve the minutes as presented. Motion carried on a 4 -ayes, 0 -nays, 1- absent (Kirchoff), 2- abstain (Cleveland, Falk) vote. PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (07 -02) FOR ON SALE LIQUOR SALES AT 15190 BLUEBIRD STREET N. W. FOR NEW DRAGON II. • Mr. Cross explained New Dragon H is located in Clocktower Commons. In Clocktower Commons' SC - Shopping Center zoning district a liquor license is a conditional use. If Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes -January 23, 2007 Page 2 • the conditional use is approved for New Dragon H, the applicant will be required to obtain Council approval of a liquor license under the terms of City Code 13 -1. Ms. Cross noted the staff report had Clocktower Commons listed as GB — General Business zoning district and should be SC - Shopping Center zoning district. Commissioner Cleveland asked if this was only wine and beer and not spirits. Mr. Cross indicated he thought this was correct. Commissioner Falk asked if there was a yearly review on this. Mr. Cross indicated there would be an annual renewal requirement. Motion by Walton, seconded by Casey, to open the public hearing at 7:05 p.m. Motion carried on a 6 -ayes, 0 -nays, 1- absent (Kirchoff) vote. No one wished to address the Commission. Motion by Walton, seconded by Cleveland, to close the public hearing at 7:05 p.m. Motion carried on a 6 -ayes, 0 -nays, 1- absent (Kirchoff) vote. Commissioner Walton asked if anyone else in the strip mall or the one to the north have a liquor license besides the liquor store. Mr. Cross indicated they did not. Chairperson Daninger asked if there have been any complaints or issues with this business. Mr. Cross indicated there have not. No one has contacted the City. Motion by Casey, seconded by Walton, to recommend to the City Council approval of the Conditional Use Permit request because the use is consistent with the existing retail and restaurants in Clocktower Commons and all distance requirements from schools and churches are met. Motion carved on a 6 -ayes, 0 -nays, 1- absent (Kirchoff) vote. Mr. Cross stated that this item would be before the Council at the February 6, 2007 City Council meeting. PUBLIC HEARING: COMPREHENSIVE PLANAMENDMENT (07-01) TO EXTEND MUNICIPAL URBAN SERVICE AREA EAST OF HANSON BOULEVARD AND SOUTH OF STATION PARKWAYN. W. Mr. Bednarz explained Anoka County is requesting a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to extend the Municipal Urban Service Area (MUSA) boundary to include the subject property. This extension would allow the site to be developed with municipal sewer and water. Mr. Bednarz discussed the staff report with the Commission. • Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes —January 23, 2007 40 Page 3 Motion by Walton, seconded by Casey, to open the public hearing at 7:12 p.m. Motion carried on a 6 -ayes, 0 -nays, 1- absent (Kirchoff) vote. Mr. Mike Hiltner, 1475 132 °d Lane NW, wondered how the County has obtained this alternate site. He wondered why they cannot put the two story building next to the road where the parking lot will be. He stated they will be destroying natural resources by placing the building where they are proposing. He stated they will be tearing down most of the trees. He wondered why they could not move the building along Bunker or closer to the railroad tracks where the trees are clear cut already. He stated he talked to Mr. LeDoux regarding this. He wondered if the County had DNR approval for this already. He stated the County plans on putting the building regardless of the residents. Motion by Falk, seconded by Walton, to close the public hearing at 7:16 p.m. Motion carried on a 6 -ayes, 0 -nays, 1- absent (Kirchoff) vote. Commissioner Casey asked if the City of Andover has talked to the City of Coon Rapids regarding taking over the sewer and he wondered if Coon Rapids had a problem with this. Mr. Bednarz stated they have met with the City of Coon Rapids a few times and they have evaluated their system and determined that capacity to serve the proposed building exists. Commissioner Holthus wondered if the City has other joint power agreements with Coon Rapids. Mr. Bednarz stated they have a blanket jointpower with Coon Rapids. He explained some areas in the southern part of the City discharge sewer through Coon Rapids. Chairperson Daninger asked if this may be advantageous to the City of Andover to expand the sewer. Mr. Bednarz stated the City of Andover will sell water to this site and pay the City of Coon Rapids to take the discharge through the applicant's payment of fees. Commissioner Walton wondered how the boundary to the east was determined. He wondered what lies directly to the east. Mr. Bednarz explained this is County Park Land and an archery range. He stated areas are brought into the MUSA only after they have been evaluated and determined that seer and water systems are able to handle them without adversely affecting other existing or planned uses. Chairperson Daninger asked if they will see this project again for any other reason. Mr. Bednarz indicated they would not. Motion by Walton, seconded by Casey, to recommend approval of the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment. Motion carried on a 6 -ayes, 0 -nays, 1- absent . (Kirchoff) vote. Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes —January 23, 2007 Page 4 • Mr. Bednarz stated that this item would be before the Council at the February 6, 2007 City Council meeting. OTHER BUSINESS. Mr. Bednarz updated the Planning Commission on related items. Mr. Bednarz welcomed the new Planning Commissioners. Chairperson Daninger stated they have not had a joint meeting with the Council in awhile and he wondered if there was any interest in meeting with them. ADJOURNMENT: Motion by Walton, seconded by Casey, to adjourn the meeting at 7.24 p.m. Motion carried on a 6 -ayes, 0 -nays, 1- absent (Kirchoff) vote. Respectfully Submitted, Sue Osbeck, Recording Secretary TimeSaver Of Site Secretarial, Inc. 11 • V T o f D OVE • 1665 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 Plannelt SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING: Conditional Use Permit (07 -03) to allow a tower and antenna for Great River Energy to be constructed at 2980 173` Lane NW. DATE: February 13, 2007 INTRODUCTION Cheat River Energy intends to install a 60 foot tall wood pole for the purpose of mounting an antenna to allow remote monitoring of the substation that is presently located on the subject property. The attached materials submitted by the applicant provide additional information. DISCUSSION City Code 9 -12 regulates antenna and towers and requires a conditional use permit for towers that are taller than 35 feet in height. This section of the City Code also provides location criteria and collocation requirements. The proposed tower and antenna meet the many requirements of City Code 9 -12 with the following exceptions: • The proposed location does not conform to the permitted areas in residential districts • prescribed by City Code 9 -12 -5 A. • The proposed location is less than the 500 feet from adjacent residential structures required by City Code 9 -12 -8 D. The closest residential structures are to the north and northeast. These structures are approximately 330 and 410 feet from the proposed tower and antenna location. • The proposed tower will not be designed to allow collocation of other telecommunications equipment. The applicant is requesting variances to these provisions based on the following findings: 1. The substation presently exists on residentially zoned property and adjacent to a transmission corridor. 2. The City Code does not consider the use of modern technologies like the proposed remote monitoring antenna. 3. The proposed antenna and tower will not adversely affect surrounding residential 4. properties. The proposed antenna and tower will provide increased security for the substation which is a benefit to the surrounding residential properties and the city. 5. The height of the tower is limited to 60 feet. This limited height does not provide a desirable collocation site for telecommunications or other equipment. 6. The limited height will prevent adverse impacts on adjacent residential properties. It is not desirable to require the height of the proposed tower to be increased solely to provide • the opportunity for future collocation of other equipment. A Site Modifications The attached photographs show the site as it presently exists. The proposal would expand the fenced area surrounding the existing substation 15 feet to the east. The 60 foot tall tower will be • located at the southeast comer of the expanded area. Ground mounted equipment will be installed in the existing `meter hut' as labeled on the attached site drawing. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the proposed conditional use permit with variances as discussed above. Attachments Resolution Location Map Project Fact Sheet Similar Tower Photograph Tower Specifications Antenna Specifications Site Drawings Photographs of Existing Site ACTION REQUESTED The Planning Commission is asked to hold a public hearing, discuss the proposed conditional use permit and make a recommendation to the City Council 4 Res ctfully submitted, • 0 Cc: Marsha Parlow Great River Energy 17845 East Highway 10 Elk River, MN 55330 • CITY OF ANDOVER • COUNTY OF ANOKA STATE OF MINNESOTA RES. NO. A RESOLUTION GRANTING THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST OF GREAT RIVER ENERGY TO INSTALL A 60 FOOT TALL TOWER AND ANTENNA ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2980 173' LANE NW LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS: The South 218.00 feet of the Southeast quarter of the Southwest quarter and the South 198.00 feet of the East 240.00 feet of the Southwest quarter of the Southwest quarter, all in Section 4, Township 32, Range 24, Anoka County, Minnesota. WHEREAS, Great River Energy has requested a conditional use permit to install a 60 foot tall tower and antenna on the subject property; and WHEREAS, the applicant is requesting variances to City Code 9 -12 -5 A. to allow the tower to be located on a residential property and to City Code 9 -12 -8 D. to allow the tower to be less than 500 feet from adjacent residential structures and to City Code 9 -12 -6 B. to allow the tower to not provide collocation options; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a pubic hearing and has reviewed the request; and WHEREAS, The Planning Commission recommends approval of the proposed variances based on the following findings: 1. A substation presently exists on residentially zoned subject property and adjacent to a transmission corridor. 2. The City Code does not consider the use of modern technologies like the proposed remote monitoring antenna. 3. The proposed antenna and tower will not adversely affect adjacent residential properties. 4. The proposed antenna and tower will provide increased security for the substation which is a benefit to the surrounding residential properties and the city. 5. The height of the tower is limited to 60 feet. This limited height does not provide a desirable collocation site for telecommunications or other equipment. 6. The limited height will prevent adverse impacts on adjacent residential properties. It is not desirable to require the height of the tower to be increased solely to provide the opportunity for future collocation of other equipment. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds the request would not have a detrimental effect upon the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the City of Andover and recommends to the City Council approval of the conditional use permit as requested. 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 • conditional use permit on said property with the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall obtain a building permit from the City of Andover. 2. The tower, antenna and all other proposed site improvements shall conform to the plans stamped received by the City of Andover January 23, 2007. 3. Variances are granted to City Code 9 -12 -5 A. to allow the tower to be located on a • residential property and to City Code 9 -12 -8 D. to allow the tower to be less than 500 feet from adjacent residential structures and to City Code 9 -12 -6 B. to allow the tower to not provide collocation options. 4. This approval is subject to a sunset clause as defined in City Code 12- 14 -61). Adopted by the City Council of the City of Andover on this of 2007. CITY OF ANDOVER ATTEST: Victoria Volk, City Clerk Michael R. Gamache, Mayor Ll L� c i T r o f NDOVE Conditional Use Permit Incorporated Great River Energy 1974 M on I I m.. Emma pi ll 0 SUBJECT PROPERTY N "EMEW -■ MUSA BOUNDARY LOCation Map Nn 3]20 9168 314 ins 3331 =5 nN Tit Inn 31M 1 WS, ,ion MN MW 101, 'd61 1mn n Iron ,Wn gg 63 ,roa1 D MW N M nn g SUBJECT PROPERTY N "EMEW -■ MUSA BOUNDARY LOCation Map o fns saes x,6 sacra 3zm vie a1n 3130 anaa � r+i x903 wn 364 nW _ 304 w Y � San 3338 3'pl =7 1ne1 3100 XN 3Wi n35 101 "is o teem Sees ins ` F o Z ? 0 R 7f � 33w n6o 3m 314 at,o 3016 ao6s z63a zue aem zrez xn zne 155'N leer ' A 334 3106 3n5 3135 3103 alai AN IDai nN 391f n F >el9 1n1 telw 10661 e es 10113 aaN n1e 3139 ° 314 3110 a]4 aoN 3ma lsee 1s10 3n1 +�° 3810 +n31 +elao lain SUBJECT PROPERTY N "EMEW -■ MUSA BOUNDARY LOCation Map A Touchy &wgy'CoopcTative ltrpaure�6amrne�ccuu GREAT RIVER ENERGY' GREAT RIVER ENERGY 17845 East Hwy 10, P.O. Box 800 Elk River, MN 55330 -0800 763- 441 -0121 www.greatriverenergy.com PROJECT NEED Great River Energy (GRE) is a generation and transmission cooperative that supplies wholesale power to 28 distribution cooperatives in Minnesota and Wisconsin (map of territory on back). To improve electrical system reliability, it is necessary for GRE to upgrade its various aging analog systems to a homogenous communication system that will provide essential remote system control, real -time metering and increased facility security with a secure IP (Internet Protocol) based wireless solution. PROJECT SCOPE GRE intends to install a licensed broadband wireless system that operates at the 700 MHz frequency. A typical electrical substation installation will consist of a wood or steel pole with a five or seven foot yagi antenna mounted at the top. The height of the pole will range from 30 to 92 feet above ground. GRE is working closely with its member cooperatives and other utility owners to receive their approval for the location of the poles that may be installed on their fee -owned property. SCHEDULE Approval of the pole location by the fee owner and permitting activities are currently underway, with a project completion scheduled for the end of 2007. CONTACTS Questions or concerns should be directed to: Michelle Lommel Great River Energy 17845 East Highway 10 Elk River, MN 55330 -0800 (763) 241 -2450 mlommel@grenergy.com 7/26/2006 0 p ��o O� do C W 00: L� ;6 c o SP � a3� N p Iz J W C - z — O_ Ol 50 O ° m W 0 U y �Wy m�jJ6�0 2= 6 O a�pF2pFgqDN0 Wgg °gp m W In 2ON s<WB��W W= WD DW QGGSGLD y 2 66ZJ ~ — DD 6NNrN�U F _ — KI c z W U i �U � o g - 6 p IRE 5 W • • uD 2 W3 �° 9NTW s naves .o -.e - -J ti V<W w y W�< naves w 0 iu I„m � pu ��8ffi8� � &Wm eww m 1 M y n 2Gg HA Y, Y Y -- - - - - -, - ------------- - - - - -' W a i g G o � o D 0 p e"�3 D 3 cw u �p 5 f-J66p UV JJ w w b 22 � 2 p O� •• D � F C 6J YZWZ 2YiV U� p� gW = _� HE O Z��6C O Y V �� 6w CN \OwY& W w S Z nOY � N S 1- 1 = n O I �6 �7 W .!e ND� - � W = d C F _ — KI c z W U i �U � o g - 6 p IRE 5 W • • uD 2 W3 �° 9NTW s naves .o -.e - -J ti V<W w y W�< naves w 0 iu I„m � pu ��8ffi8� � &Wm eww m 1 M y n 2Gg HA Y, Y Y -- - - - - -, - ------------- - - - - -' W a i g G o � o D 0 E 0 4RF0054 -A 710 - 777MHz shrouded yagi VYyll electrical and mechanical specifications Frequency range Input Impedance Retum Loss Frond to Back Ratio hWmum Input Power Polarisation Forward Gain 3 dB BeamwkM 710 - 777MHz 50 Ohms >15d8 20 dB 250 Watts Vertical & Horizontal 11.5dBd E Plane 37 H Plena 41 Connection N socket RadAtor ptfe Printed Circuit Elements. Aluminium Alloy RadlatorFeed Sucoform 141 Antenna Base Sandcast Aluminium Alloy Grade LM25 Radome Fire retardant Polyurethane Moulding Fasteners Stainless Steel Grade A2 -70 Lightning protection► Direct Grounded Mounting Brackets Hot Dip Galvanised Steel to suit 38 - 60mm. dia. Typrcal Weight 6 kg (inc. clamp) Typical Length 1.3 m Typk el Wvd biding Q 45m /s 285N, with 112" radial ice 306N Survival Wind Speed 300km1h with 112" radial ice Operational Temperature Range -50°C to +80°C • Mounting for Horizontal Polarisation Mounting for Vertical Polarisation i '—, St & r -," • cr- LLI uj > 0 > UJ z < W LL 0 cr A pi a III i '—, St & r -," • • cr- LLI uj > 0 > UJ z < W LL 0 cr • rx L R --I I '' � I - - J4 V eo Dj. do A LLJJ LI rx L R --I I '' � I - - J4 V eo Dj. do A LLJJ '„ It i ��.w ■4....; � 3 1 � t� 1 � A • }� ,� .. .e v v' "S -, �p _ _ � _ �-- �.T � �; ; �.tir,. a i ,1 >. _ , � C�F � Fi" N� �� � J K , 1 .�. �� -� �f, �� :• i ,,, �i n AFfv_ ._ �^'Ti L _ ._._ �' .. � �, „ _,1 Z .e "yo'�1 ' _�,�, ._. �. ... r t,.`C � 1 .Y � } .ivy ^ .� C_ P 7 'Z �'�4 1 y� i ll' I :.;. •��. �.: g v +! �;��� �A. �.: g v +! �;��� R • 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: Chris Vrchota, Associate Planner 1 SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING: City Code Amendment to increase required buildable area for residential lots and to adjust wetland buffer location requirements of City Code Title 11: Subdivision Regulations. DATE: February 13, 2007 INTRODUCTION At the December 12'', 2006 meeting, the Planning Commission discussed changes to three sections of the City Code to address problems that have been arising in new developments. The proposed changes were further discussed by the City Council at a workshop meeting on January 23 2007. Some additional changes were made based on input from these meetings and the proposed changes are now being brought forward for a public hearing. • DISCUSSION There are three issues being addressed with these changes: Issue #1: The City Code currently requires 100 feet of buildable area. The City also requires soil correction for the first 100 feet. After factoring in the front yard setback and building a large home on the lot, most, if not all of this buildable area is used, leaving no room for a deck or future addition to the house. The drawing labeled "Exhibit A" and the attached photograph provide an illustration of this problem. To address this problem, an additional 10 feet of buildable space is being proposed. Issue #2: A 16.5 -foot buffer is required abutting all wetlands and storm water ponds. The buffer must be outside the buildable area of the lot. However, the City Code does not clearly specify where the buffer area should start in relation to ponds and wetlands. Code changes are being proposed to clarify these requirements. See the attached "Exhibit B" for an illustration of these requirements. Issue #3: Homeowners may not be aware of how much or little of their back yard is buildable. This becomes an issue when decks are constructed after the home is built and there is little or no usable back yard space. A City Code change is being proposed to require the surveyor to indicate on the survey how much buildable space is available behind the house if there is 20 feet of buildable area or less. The following code amendments are being proposed in order to address the issues mentioned above. J Issue #1 The first proposed change is to City Code 11 -3 -6, which lays out the design standards for • lots served by municipal sanitary sewer. This section would be changed as follows: City Code 11 -3 -6 -B 1. Lots Served By Municipal Sanitary Sewer: Lots served by municipal sanitary sewer shall remove all organic material and replace with granular material with no more than five percent (5 %) organic material by volume for the front one hundred and ten feet JM (100) of depth of the lot at a minimum width of the lot as required for that zoning district by the zoning ordinance. This one hundred and ten feet (110 of buildable space shall be measured from the front Property line and shall not include any area below the 100 -year flood elevation. City Code 11-3-6-M Wetland Buffer: Pursuant to Title 13, Chapter 6 of this code a one rod (16.5 feet or 5 meters) wide area abutting a wetland and/or storm water pond that shall be left undisturbed or in its natural condition during the development, building and landscaping phases. The buffer strip shall not be included within the preceding one hundred and ten foot 1( 10 (100' buildability requirement. (Ord. 273, 9 -2 -2003) City Code 13 -6-4 BUFFER STRIP: A one rod (16.5 feet or 5 meters) wide area abutting a wetland and/or storm water pond that shall be left undisturbed or in its natural condition during the development, building and landscaping phases. The buffer strip shall not • be included within the one hundred and ten foot 110' 000 buildability requirement of Section 11 -1-4 of this code, definition of "buildable lots ". These changes would create an extra 10 feet of buildable space on all urban lots. This space would allow for the easier placement of decks, patios, sheds, and additions on the rear of the house, as well as creating more useable rear yard space. The original proposal reviewed by the Planning Commission in December was for an additional 16.5 feet. After discussion and input from local developers, the City Council decided that an additional 10 feet would be sufficient. Issue #2 The next proposed change is to section 13 -6 -5. This section establishes the requirement for buffer strips and describes where they are to be located. The change is meant to remove any confusion about where buffer strips are measured from in relation to wetlands and storm water ponds: City Code 13 -6 -5: Requirements: Buffer strips shall be established and maintained in accordance with the following requirements: 1. Buffer strips shall be identified within each lot by active protective fencing approved by the city. The developer shall be responsible for the placement of the fencing. A one rod (16.5 feet or 5 meters, measured linear) wide undisturbed buffer • strip shall be maintained abutting all wetlands and/or storm water ponds during the development and building phases. (Ord. 114A, 7 -17 -2001) 2. Buffer strips shall apply to all wetlands and/or storm water ponds. Buffer strips to shall be measured from the delineated wetland boundary around wetlands and from the designated normal water level elevation surrounding storm water, sedimentation and /or rate control ponds, as identified on the grading, drainage, and erosion control plan for all new developments. Issue #3 The final change would require that the survey for a new house include a measurement of the distance between the back of the house and the edge of the buildable rear yard area, if that distance is less than 20 feet. City Code 9 -1 -4: ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN (STRUCTURE): A. Elevations Included In Permit Application: The application for a building permit, in addition to other information required by applicable laws or regulations, shall include exterior elevations of the proposed structure and drawings which will adequately and accurately indicate the height, size, design, and appearance of all elevations of the proposed structure and a description of the construction and materials proposed to be used. When the plans for a house include a sliding door or other access for the addition of a deck and the deck is not to be finished prior to occupancy of the house, and there is less than twe nty feet (20') of buildable space behind the house, the amount of buildable space shall be indicated on the survey submitted with the building permit application. This would give the eventual purchaser of the house a good idea of how much usable space they have in their rear yard for decks, additions, and accessory structures. Attachments Buildability Diagram (Exhibit A) Storm Water Pond Buffer Diagram (Exhibit B) Photographs Letter from Woodland Development 12/12/06 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 01/23/07 City Council Workshop Minutes ACTION REQUESTED The Planning Commission is asked to hold a public hearing and recommend approval or denial of the proposed code changes. Res ctful�mitted, hris Vrchota 0 re ro �xkitoit R N wA=� 0 oJ?l Noy, WA 7-t--r, 0 t'' 1 1 Ae �C Exhibi�}- S V 1 A c u - .` ♦ a• w r 4 , � fit!&. t�.! . � � . _ �• d ' .�nti � ... r t V H ti � _ ♦� �. ' ✓ Tom. .!!+� •• ..,. -. .. tv �•�1i. M _ te r! X . � C i R{1 { LSD... 4 i T / _/ �.� r•! -a- i E F % % Ll v . FYrr i � t- i ' _y 0."i` � ""♦'��.,,i n 1. Y r rr ~, ~ -( ~. ~ 'J, ..,.,. ,t _-:..~.-,,-~?~ I I ! i !t 6 L � i Tv� r ` • ..- - �, a , ' r$ dII? ` .r , P i 1ti i i January 10, 2007 City of Andover City Council and Staff 1685 Crosstown Boulevard N.W. Andover, MN 55304 JkK 1 i 2001 11 9 RECEIVED CITY OF ANDOVER RE: CITY CODE 11 -3 -6 BUILDABILITY — POTENTIAL AMENDMENTS Dear City Council and Staff, Thank you for inviting Woodland Development to the December 12 and January e Work Sessions regarding potential amendments to City Code 11 -3 -6 Buildability. The three issues discussed well presented and explained by city staff. We appreciate being asked our viewpoint on these issues. We provided our viewpoint at the January a meeting and were also offered the opportunity to submit them in writing. Issue #1: Add Additional 16.5 feet of Buildable S ace From a developer's perspective we are not in favor of changes that add costs to improvements in land development resulting in higher costs to builders and home buyers. The current market is very difficult and slow and anything that adds costs makes it even more challenging. Adding an additional 16.5 feet of buildable space will require additional expense for soil correction and could easily reduce the number of lots in a subdivision. We are currently in a campaign meeting with builders to determine their plans for 2007 and what they look for when purchasing lots. The number one item is the cost of the lot and the second is location. Builders are not carrying the inventory they use to and therefore will limit the number of lots they buy. Many other competing cities will not have the additional 16.5 feet of buildable space requirement. Most competing cities require 30 feet front set back versus Andover's 35 feet Both of these items result in a higher lot cost and make it more difficult for developers to sell lots competitively in Andover. The additional "buiidability" issue is also compounded by the fact that in Andover there is less and less quality land to build on. This combination will most likely result in more PUD and variance proposals. and Storm Water Ponds This will be a good clarification. 13632 Van Buren St. NE Ham Lake, Minnesota 55304 (763) 427 -7500 FAX: (763) 427 -0192 R�rw.aroodlanddevelopmentcora. com January 10, 2007 Page 2 of 2 Issue #3: Require Surveyor to Include a "Ghost Drawing° of the Deck on the Survey • This is more of a builder concern than a developer concern. We would suggest instead of a ghost drawing indicating where a deck can be built, simply adding a line signifying decks can not be built beyond a certain point. This way it won't look like the city is dictating the size and exact location of a'deck. Comprom se: As a potential alternative to help builders and developers stay competitive in your city and still increase the potential for larger backyards, maybe the city would consider some form of compromise such as the following: Reduce the front set back to 30 feet from 35 feet and increase the buildability by only 10 feet instead of 16.5 feet This would result in a potential additional IS feet of buildable space for _backyard .purposes yet keep land costs and improvement cosh from escalating much faster than neighboring cities. Again, thank you for the opportunity to give our feedback. Respectfully, i Joe Hauglie Vice President, Land Development and Sales sll 0 • Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes —December 12, 2006 Page 5 • Chairperson Daninger recessed the meeting at 7:40 p.m. to move it to Meeting Rooms A &B. Chairperson Daninger reconvened the meeting at 7:43 p.m. �•� WORK SESSION. a. City Code 11 -3 -6 Buildability Staff has a number of discussions with the City Council on the issue of buildability over the past year. Some amendments to the City Code are being proposed as a result of these discussions. Mr. Vrchota made a presentation to the Commission regarding three issues regarding buildability. Issue 1: Buildability on Urban Lots Commissioner Kirchoff stated when they have the building pad and they go to the 116.5 feet, going back to putting a deck, patio or storage shed, they can put that on anything so • they are not looking at going into a wetland drainage easement, they are just looking at lousy soil. He stated looking at some of the homes that have added a deck he agreed people are not ending up with a backyard after the deck is on the house. Mr. Vrchota stated the City Council was surprised that footings for decks were being put in easements and they wanted this looked at. Mr. Haas stated the only change in Issue 1 is the builder will have to remove the poor soils and build a larger building pad, which may lead to fewer homes in a development. Commissioner Greenwald asked if they were changing some consistency and will there be some inconsistency where people could tell. Chair Daninger did not think there would be because they will be developing an entire neighborhood at a time. Commissioner Greenwald indicated he liked this because it may help the developer from creating neighborhoods with too many lots. Chairperson Daninger stated the developer would have to build larger buildable lots so they would not be able to put as many houses in a development. Commissioner Greenwald indicated they needed to be aware that there will be some lots in the development that may need a variance because they will not meet the requirements. Commissioner Kirchoff stated he liked this and did not see a negative to this. 1] Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes — December 12, 2006 Page 6 Chairperson Daninger indicated if they have more buildability, there maybe more • excavation of trees. Commissioner Walton stated there maybe developments that would be hard to develop because of the wetlands and marshes. Chairperson Daninger indicated this was just a work session and there will be a public hearing where developers and builders will have a say. He wondered how this compared to other cities. Mr. Vrchota stated staff would meet with the builders and developers before a public hearing to get their thoughts and that he would get the Planning Commission information regarding other cities before another meeting regarding this. Commissioner Kirchoff stated even if this did not go forward, the idea with putting on a ghost deck or accessory would be great. Issue #2: Wetland Buffer Commissioner Kirchoff indicated he would support this because it would give the owner more of a backyard. Chairperson Daninger thought this sounded ok with him. Commissioner Holthus wondered if there was a difference between a DNR protected wetland and a regular wetland. Mr. Haas indicated there was not a difference. Commissioner Holthus thought this made sense. Issue #3: Deck Footings Placed within Easements. • Commissioner Kirchoff wondered if the requirement would be to go to the max of what is allowed. Mr. Vrchota indicated they could do this but it would be more of an indication of what the owner would be able to build in the future. Chairperson Daninger thought the concern was when the yard is small and there maybe obstacles. Mr. Vrchota stated they should show the maximum reasonable deck they could put on the house in the plans. Chairperson Daninger wondered who would have to prepare the ghost plan. Mr. Vrchota indicated the surveyor would need to provide it. Commissioner Walton thought they should have a stamp placed on the survey indicating "the survey is the maximum that could be built" so there was not any question about it in the future. Commissioner Casey agreed and thought this way everyone will know what is expected up front and there could not be any question about it later. Chairperson Daninger wondered if the buyer would ever actually see the plat map. Commissioner Kirchoff indicated they would see it if they were to go get a building permit. i Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes — December 12, 2006 Page 7 Commissioner Walton wondered if there was a way they could indicate this at the plat stage. Commissioner Greenwald did not think they should do this at all. He thought the buyer would be able to tell if there was room for a deck or not. Mr. Bednarz thought this was an important point and things may change in the future. Mr. Bednarz indicated they would not really know what kind of house would be built at the plat stage and the buildable area would be larger if issue #1 was implemented. Chairperson Daninger stated this may raise awareness and educate people before they want to build. Commissioner Holthus thought this was a good idea and if in the future things change, this would not be able to change because it is ghost platted on the plan. Mr. Vrchota indicated this would not constitute a building permit; the owner would still need to get a permit. Commissioner Walton stated he liked this idea because it would be informative to everyone. Commissioner Kirchoff wondered where there should be a ghost plat for a deck because some houses the decks wrap around the house and others have more than one deck. • Chairperson Daninger thought they should just go out a certain distance from the home to show how far out a deck could be built but do not indicate where on the house the deck would be. b. End of year conversation Mr. Bednarz indicated this was the last meeting of the year and he wanted to give the ission the opportunity for input on what could be done better. He stated in 2007 they ' be looking at the public hearing notice requirement around the radius of lots to see if the ould increase the distance in rural areas. Chairperson Dani stated he really liked the pictures and comparisons. He also liked it when staff outlined ats. Commissioner Greenwald thoug f should review Council decisions on what the Planning Commission discussed at th of the meeting. Commissioner Walton wondered if they could trend report on if the City Council agrees or disagrees with the Planning Commission ' 'ons and what percent. Mr. Bednarz indicated this could be done verbally if the Co ' ion wanted that. Commissioner Greenwald wondered how they are doing on the re`shV,4Lants by Tanners • and he also wondered if TCF Bank was going to go in. Mr. Bednarz sta there will be information in the next Planning Commission newsletter. Special Andover City Council Workshop Meeting Minutes —January 23, 2007 Page 3 process, but they would need to come up with a hearing process. Councilmember Trude stated there has to be some point where the cost is so large that it becomes a social charge and would get spread around. City Engineer Berkowitz noted this is a nuisance in the City that affects many parcels and they could not look at this as a benefit to the homeowner. Winslow Holasek stated if there were a widespread disease, it would not be possible for a property owner to afford to have it removed. Councilmember Orttel noted this is a "catch 22 ", where the property value would be decreasing because they were losing the trees on the lot as well. He noted the alternate solution is to encourage people to plant disease resistant trees. City Engineer Berkowitz stated staff has met with the DNR and they are starting to limit the amount of funds distributed for diseased trees. He stated the DNR wants to make sure the Cities have an enforcement policy for diseased tree removal. Councilmember Knight expressed concern for the requirement of having the stump 2 inches from the ground. Mr. Kytonen responded it is necessary to have it that low to get rid of the beetle. He indicated this was a DNR suggestion. . Councilmember Jacobson suggested they add some type of wording stating that if the value of removing the trees exceeds ten percent of the property value, then the amount would be added to the property taxes after a hearing. Councilmember Orttel expressed concern about ten percent of the property value. He agreed they need a deferment clause for residents over a certain age. --pp BUILDABILITYREQUIREMENTS Community Development Director Neumeister stated the City Council has discussed the issue of buildability a number of times over the past year. Some amendments to the City Code are being proposed as a result of these discussions. He reviewed the amendment to the City Code. Mr. Berkowitz summarized how the Code was written with respect to buffer strips. Councilmember Trude wanted people to protect the wetlands, but still be able to add on a deck without infringing on the wetlands. Mr. Berkowitz stated they need a clarification in the ordinance as to where the buffers are. He stated they wanted to move the buffer back to where the water level would be, and not the 100 - year flood line. Councilmember Orttel agreed that the proposed Code A is reasonable. • Councilmember Trude asked if there would be an environmental impact. She believes the 4 p Special Andover City Council Workshop Meeting Minutes —January 23, 2007 Page 4 major concern is to prevent erosion. Councilmember Jacobson noted putting in a silt fence is not that expensive. Council agreed to go with the language on the top of page 3. Councilmember Trude recommended they note in the City Code that the buffer area is regulated by the Watershed District and they need to look at the Watershed District rules for this information. Community Development Director Neumeister recommended they round off the 116.5 feet. Councilmember Knight agreed they should drop off the .5 feet. Community Development Director Neumeister noted the developers have asked the City to drop it to 110 feet. Mayor Gamache stated he believes the goal is to not have sliding glass doors leading to nowhere and the home not allowed to have a deck. He is not concerned if someone wants to add on however. Councilmember Jacobson noted the way to address this is to "draw a line" in the sand and only allow the decks to be so large. Mayor Gamache stated the more requirements from the City, the more cost would be added to the home. He questioned if they want to add more buildable space, which would add more cost to the land and homeowners. Councilmember Orttel stated it is not an issue of additional land, it is when people wanted to add on a deck. Councilmember Trude stated she would be willing to take five feet off of the front yard. Councilmember Orttel stated that this is a buyer beware situation. He stated it should be up to the builder to determine that the deck is buildable on good soil and put down good soil for the deck to be built upon. Councilmember Knight said a standard of good soils is needed for a backyard with a deck. Community Development Director Neumeister summarized other city front yard requirements. He recommended they keep the front at 3 5 feet and remove six feet off of the back yard, which • would leave 20 feet in the back yard for a 10 -foot deck. Councilmember Trude noted a 10 -foot deck is small. Councilmember Knight expressed concern that people would not be able to walk around their Special Andover City Council Workshop Meeting Minutes —January 23, 2007 i Page 5 decks without getting their feet wet. Councilmember Orttel requested they check with other cities as to what they require for soil conditions. Councilmember Knight asked if other cities monitor the size of the decks. Councilmember Trude recommended they add the 16.5 feet of buffer for wetlands into the Code. Mr. Neumeister noted this is addressed in the watershed rules and it is up to the watershed to enforce the rules. Councilmember Orttel stated he likes the Blaine code where they have flexibility. Mike Quigley noted they ran into a lot of issues with customer - graded lots and it was tough to meet all of the requirements. Mr. Neumeister noted the opinion of the developers who state with the down market, it is not good to be changing things at this time. Councilmember Orttel believes it is more important to have buildable soil in the back rather than in the front. He asked for a provision be made for a deck, or have the developer put in the footings. He wants to make sure the deck would be able to be built when the time comes. Councilmember Knight stated he would agree to 115 feet, with leaving the front setback of 35 feet the same. Mayor Gamache stated they would eliminate a lot of this problem by reducing the front to 30 feet. Councilmember Jacobson stated he does not want to change the front yard setback. Councilmember Orttel stated typicallythe`only thing that is permanent in the back ofthe home is a deck or storage shed and he believes they are putting too much emphasis on having the entire backyard with buildable soils. Councilmember Orttel stated he would be satisfied with 110' leaving the front setback at 35 feet. Mayor Gamache agreed. Mr. Berkowitz responded if they want the 110', it would address the previous issues of the City. Mr. Neumeister summarized Council wants the 35 feet of front yard setback to remain; 90 feet from the front property line; and a 110 foot total. Mr. Berkowitz asked if Council wants to limit the home to 90 feet from the front property line to the end of the home and that the plan must show where the deck would go at the time of • issuing the building permit. Z> I T Y O F C 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. • ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 • (763) 755 -5100 FAX (763) 755 -8923 • WWW.CI.ANDOVER.MN.US TO: Planning Commissioners FROM: Andy Cross, Associate Planner A , Will Neumeister, Community Development Director (,d- SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING: Code Amendment to establish farm wineries as a home occupation requiring a conditional use permit in Title 12: Zoning Regulations DATE: February 13, 2007 INTRODUCTION At a recent City Council workshop, staff was directed to make modifications to the City Code to allow farm wineries in the R -1 zoning district on 2 '/z acre lots with a Conditional Use Permit (see attached minutes). This report provides the suggested language changes to make that happen. The term "Farm Wineries" does not necessarily constitute a farm scale winery. As we are defining it, they may be operated on small acreage lots (2 '/z acres or larger). It is called a farm winery because that is how it is regulated by the State and Federal Government. At the last Council workshop on January 23, 2007 staff discussed adding farm wineries to the definition of "Agricultural Use, Urban". However "Agricultural Use, Urban" is a permitted use that allows: 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 To regulate farm wineries as a conditional use a different approach is needed. The primary problem is that if we were to make the "Agricultural Use, Urban" a conditional use, then all the bobby farms and gardeners who are in the R -1, R -2 and R -3 zoning district would need to come to the City to do any of these things that they are currently permitted to perform on their property without any special approvals. DISCUSSION To meet the Council direction, the current home occupation section of the Zoning Code would need to have a special section added that addresses this use (and how it may be regulated) as a home occupation through a Conditional Use Permit. The reason this is proposed to be made a conditional use is to take care of any potential nuisances that could arise. If it is found to be a nuisance to the surrounding area, the Conditional Use Permit could be brought before the Council for review and potential revocation. This also would allow some restrictions to be placed on this home occupation such as sales, quantity of wine produced, etc. If the City wants to place more restrictions related to sales on a site of a farm winery, the City Attorney has indicated a state law allows the City to be more restrictive related to alcoholic beverages. See section of state statute below that allows the City to regulate it: 340A.509 LOCAL RESTRICTIONS. A local authority may impose further restrictions and regulations on the sale and possession of alcoholic beverages within its limits. Regulating of Sales The Council indicated at the workshop that the Code changes to allow a farm winery should specifically address these issues related to on -site sales: • The accessory structure where the farm winery conducts its business shall not be operated as a retail store (i.e. no retail displays will be allowed). • The only on -site sales shall be considered as incidental sales, and only six on -site sales per day shall be allowed. All other sales will need to be made by the interrnethelephone and mailed to the buyer via parcel post. Regulating the Quantity of Wine Produced Staff checked with a couple of farm winery operators on how much wine they produce in a year. The volume varied, one said they produce 400 -500 gallons per year while the other said they produce 5,000 gallons. Five thousand gallons of wine equates to about 25,000 bottles of wine. The City should restrict how much is produced annually as a condition of any Conditional Use Permit of this type. To get an idea of the scale of these operations they were located on small farms of 80 acres in size. At the workshop in January, the Council indicated that they would like to set a production limit on a farm winery if located on a 2 %Z acre size lot. Table of Uses Currently the table of uses in the Zoning Code doesn't allow this particular use. To enable the farm winery to be considered in the R -1, R -2 and R -3 zones, the table of uses needs to be amended to show farm winery as a conditional use in those zoning districts. ACTION REQUESTED The Planning Commission is asked to hold a Public Hearing and review the information provided on potential changes to City Code that have been described in this report, and make a recommendation on whether the proposed code changes for farm wineries should be adopted. Res 1 submitted, And Cross Attachments: Proposed Ordinance Change City Council Workshop Minutes Table of Uses Will Neumeister State Statute on Farm Wineries Home Occupation Section of Code Cc: Mark Hedin, 3482 165' Lane NW, Andover, MN 55304 E 0 IZ__ CITY OF ANDOVER • COUNTY OF ANOKA STATE OF MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTIONS 12 -2, 12 -9 AND 12 -12 OF CITY CODE OF THE CITY OF ANDOVER THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANDOVER DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS (strike -outs shall indicate sections to be deleted, underlining shall indicate sections to be added): CITY CODE TITLE 12: ZONING REGULATIONS CHAPTER 2: RULES AND DEFINITIONS SECTION 2: DEFINITIONS Farm Wineries A rural residential propegy that is a minimum of 2 1 /z acres in size, where the owner is engaged in making of table sparkling or fortified wines from grapes grape Juice other fr uit b ases, to conformance with State Statutes and Federal Laws. CHAPTER 9: HOME OCCUPATIONS 12 -9 -12: FARM WINERI The following provisions shall fly to all farm wineries that are considered home occupations under the Conditional Use Permit process: i A. Farm wineries which shall be allowed on 2 '/z acre or larger parcels in the R -1, R -2 and R -3 Zon Districts. B. Farm wineries shall follow the standard building setbacks for the applicable Zoning District. C. Whether conducted in a principal or accessory structure a farm winery shall not be operated as a retail store (i.e. no retail displays will be allowed). D. Farm wineries shall be allowed only six on -site sales per day. All other sales will need to be made by the intemetltelephone and mailed to the buyer via parcel post, E. Farm wineries shall be subject to production limits on the amount of wine produced on -site each year, as specified in the Conditional Use Permit. F. Other Requirements: All provisions of Section 12 -9 -2 of this chapter. G. Termination of Use Upon Sale of Property Upon sale of the premises for which the Conditional U se Permit is granted such permit shall terminate. CHAPTER 12: PERMITTED, CONDITIONAL, AND PROHIBITED USES 0 - -7— Zoning Districts Permitted, Conditional, and Prohibited Uses R -1 R -2 R 3 R -4 R -5 M -1 M -2 GR LB NB SC GB I Farm Wineries C C - - C (subject to City Code 12 -9 -12) - -7— Adopted by the City Council of the City of Andover on this _ day of February, 2007. • CITY OF ANDOVER ATTEST: Vicki Volk, City Clerk Michael R. Gamache, Mayor • _ Zl • N s.. A a Q z O HI A z U A F H Q y rn vl d ' y • L • i i i • w L v i • " o_i r7 'b y O X 'L y O +' C `cl [ `�' `ttl d U O C > .� •O E E E E o E E a c 0 v 'v D o o v E d cd c d H o 0 3 E E E Es E 0 o o 0 E o„ .. WUU V U UUUU U oU wU WUU sUC]LIAO�faLl�ww Wa W s ., `\ UU X X U �.7UU U U C V V V V U UUX U U 0 0.0.0 X X V UUU U U U U iC 0 0.0 n n,a.0 ? ?C � U U U U i N U U U U U U U UUU k k 0 0.V 0 0. 0 0.0 X X O �.UUUU U ?G U U p p.0 0 0.0.0 ? ?G UU ? r"UUUU U X 0 0.0 a a.a.0 X X UUU X 40000 U UUU ? ?C 0 0.0 0 0.0. X X 4 0000 U >< ° °"U " "0.0 UVU > " s s v C C " m °° OD c ° ° � � ° � G G � � 7 7 O � v c cd b W • •C 7 cV � W N N C 3 D O OO 3 p y C o is 0 c ci a a) a a c co U a a 0 0 o'.>^. 3 5. ^ v 0 5 ^ v V y� V m C V t td O OD m m . n � e etl C ow d S : C G M :+ C G C M 7) = • • df m m C C C C D `-' C C C C C � �, �,,, •C V td c c \ \ � s � � c � � ' U .Q '�' . D .�, ` 6 w w E E CC ' E v v v v p A o v v 0 as N N d U U 'fl m m C 'C v a y y _ _ ' C •� H E C C G O C .E C m M y y 'b eC c cd cC cE C bf M O %d m O O O •7 O O v v U U U C 4 s ., `\ CHAPTER HOME OCCUPATIONS SECTION: 12-9-1: Purpose 12 -9- 2: Permitted Home Occupations; Location Restrictions 12 -9- 3: Home Occupations In Accessory structures 12 -9- 4: Nonconforming Home Occupations 12 -9- 5: Conditional Use Permits 12 -9- 6: Special Home Occupation Permits 12 -9- 7: Inspections 12 -9- 8: In -Home Beauty Salons and Barbershops 12 -9- 9: Vested Rights 12 -9 -10: Suspension Or Revocation Of Conditional Use Permit 12 -9 -11: Illegal Home Occupations; Penalty 12 -9 -1: PURPOSE: The purpose of this chapter is to prevent competition with business districts and to provide a means through the establishment of specific standards and procedures by which home occupations can be conducted in residential neighborhoods without jeopardizing the health, safety and general welfare of the surrounding neighborhood. In addition, this chapter is intended to provide a mechanism enabling the distinction between permitted home occupations and nonconforming or customarily more sensitive home occupations, so that nonconforming home occupations may be allowed through an administrative process rather than a legislative hearing process. (Amended Ord. 8, 10 -21 -1970) 12 -9 -2: PERMITTED HOME OCCUPATIONS; LOCATION RESTRICTIONS: All home occupations that conform to all of the following provisions may be conducted entirely within the principal structure. Home occupations shall not be conducted in a garage or accessory building unless the property owner conducting the home occupation has obtained a Conditional Use Permit as stated in Section 12 -9 -3 of this chapter or has obtained a Special Home Occupation Permit as stated.in Section 12 -9-4 of this chapter. A. Permitted Home Occupations Enumerated: Permitted home occupations include, and are limited to: art or photo studio, dressmaking, secretarial services, professional offices, repair services, or teaching services limited to three (3) students at any one time and similar uses. —4— • • • B. Number Of Employees: The number of employees shall be limited to one person on site in addition to family members. (Amended Ord. 8, 10 -21 -1970) C. Amount Of Building Space Used: The area within the principal structure used by the home occupation shall not exceed twenty percent (20 %) of the dwelling's livable floor area. Basements may be included if they meet all State Building Code requirements. (Amended. Ord. 8, 10 -21 -1970; amd. 2003 Code) D. On Site Sales: On site sales shall be prohibited, except those clearly incidental to services provided in the dwelling. E. Dwelling Changes: Any interior or exterior alterations of a dwelling for a home occupation shall be prohibited, except those customarily found in a dwelling. F. Vehicles: Vehicles associated with a home occupation shall be limited to one vehicle on the premises (said vehicle shall not exceed gross capacity weight of 12,000 pounds). • G. Signs: Signs shall be regulated as stated in Section 12 -13 -9 of this title. H. Performance Standards: No home occupation shall produce light glare, noise, odor or vibration that will in any way have an objectionable effect upon adjacent or nearby property. I. Supervision: The home occupation shall be conducted by at least one member of the family who resides in the dwelling unit. J. Building And Safety Requirements: The home occupation shall meet all applicable fire and building codes. (Amended Ord. 8, 10 -21 -1970) 12 -9 -3: HOME OCCUPATIONS IN ACCESSORY STRUCTURES A. Conditional Use Permit Required: A Conditional Use Permit shall be required for the following home occupations that are located in an accessory structure or detached garage and/or require exterior storage: 1. Cabinet making. 2. Woodworking. 3. Repair services. • —7- 4. Similar uses as those stated in Subsections Al through A3 of this section. B. Conditions Of Permit: These home occupations shall be subject to the following conditions: 1. Lot Size: The size of the lot or parcel of land shall be three (3) acres or larger. 2. Area Of Use: The combined square footage of the accessory structure and /or outside storage area utilized by the home occupation shall not exceed eight hundred (800) square feet. 3. Setbacks: Setbacks of the accessory building and outside storage area shall be of a magnitude found necessary by the city, but in no case shall there be less than a one hundred foot (100') front yard setback, thirty foot (30') side yard setback and fifty foot (50') rear yard setback or as required in Section 12 -3-4 of this title. 4. Storage Restrictions: The outside storage area and all commercial vehicles, materials and equipment for the business being stored on site shall be fenced, landscaped and screened in such a manner as to prevent them from being visible at any time of the year from road rights -of -way, public properties and surrounding properties. (Amended Ord. 314 10-4- • 2005) 5. Other Requirements: All provisions in Section 12 -9 -2 of this chapter. (Amended Ord. 8,10-21-1970) 6. Termination of Use Upon Sale of Property: Upon sale of the premises for which the Conditional Use Permit is granted, such permit shall terminate. (Amended Ord. 314 10-4 -2005) 12 -9-4: NONCONFORMING HOME OCCUPATIONS: Properties that had nonconforming home occupations prior to the adoption of this title (May 15, 1990) were given an opportunity to apply for a Special Home Occupation Permit. Those that were granted a permit are on file with the Department of Community Development and may continue to operate. However, they shall not increase in extent, number, volume, or scope from any of the information stated in the permit, or the permit will be subject to revocation. (Amended Ord. 314 10-4 -2005) 12 -9 -5: CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS: Conditional Use Permits granted in Section 12 -9 -3 of this chapter shall follow the criteria established in Section 12- • —r— 14 -6 of this title. These permits shall be valid for one year from the date of issuance (unless otherwise specified in the resolution for approval) and thereafter shall be automatically renewed each year unless objections or complaints are received or the conditions of the permit are not adhered to. (Amended Ord. 8, 10- 21 -1970) 12 -9 -6: SPECIAL HOME OCCUPATION PERMITS: A. Temporary Permits: Special Home Occupation permits granted by Section 12 -9 -4 of this chapter shall be temporary in nature, and shall be granted to a designated person who resides at the address where the home occupation is being conducted. B. Non - transferability Of Permit: These permits shall not run with the land and shall not be transferable. C. Renewal Of Permit: Special Home Occupation Permits shall be automatically renewed each year unless objections or complaints are received, or conditions of the permit are not adhered to. D. Termination Of Permit: If the Special Home Occupation Permit holder . • expires or moves to a new location, the existing permit shall automatically terminate. In the case of death or other separation, the family member(s) remaining at the same address may continue the home occupation if written notice is given to the Department of Community Development and authorization for the continuation of the permit is given with Council approval. (Amended Ord. 314 10-4 -2005) 12 -9 -7: INSPECTIONS: There may be one annual inspection each year made by the City Administrator or Administrator's designee of the property covered by a Conditional Use Permit or Special Home Occupation Permit. In addition, the City Administrator or the Administrator's designee shall, upon reasonable request, enter and inspect the premises covered by said permit for compliance purposes. (Amended Ord. 8, 10 -21 -1970) 12 -9 -8: IN HOME BEAUTY SALONS AND BARBERSHOPS: In home beauty salons /barbershops shall be subject to the following: B. Compliance with Title 3, Chapter 6 of the City Code. C. Drawings Submitted: Drawings detailing the salon /shop shall be submitted at the time of the request for the Conditional Use Permit. D. Compliance With State Requirements: The salon /shop must comply with Il - the State Cosmetology Board and the State Barbers Board requirements. E. Number of Chairs: One chair salon /barber only. F. Hours of Operation: The hours of operation shall be approved by the City Council. G. Parking: Parking requirements shall be as set out in section 12 -13 -10 of this title. H. Non - sewered Areas: In non - sewered areas, the septic system shall be in compliance with Title 10, Chapter 4 of this code. A beauty shop/barber shop shall be considered the equivalent to one bedroom in terms of usage under Title 10, Chapter 4 of this code. I. Occupancy By Owner: The beauty shop /barber shop shall be owner occupied. J. Termination of Use Upon Sale of Property: Upon sale of the premises for which the Conditional Use Permit is granted, such permit shall terminate. (Amended Ord. 8,10-21-1970, Ord. 314 10-4 -2005) 12 -9 -9: VESTED RIGHTS: No home occupation allowed by Conditional . Use Permit or Special Home Occupation Permit shall confer upon any person or to the benefit of any property owner any vested right. Rather, the use shall remain subject to all conditions of the permit as established by the city. The city may find it necessary from time to time to review the conditions of the permit as they relate to the provisions of the general welfare of the community. (Amended Ord. 8, 10 -21 -1970) 12 -9 -10: SUSPENSION OR REVOCATION OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT: When the City Council determines that the public interest so requires, it may revoke or suspend the Conditional Use Permit of a home occupation when it finds, after due investigation and a public hearing, that: A. The permit holder, or any of his or her employees, has concealed the receipt of stolen property or has knowingly received stolen property. B. The permit holder has not complied with the provisions of law applicable to the premises, equipment or operation of the home occupation. C. The permit holder has obtained a permit through fraud or misstatement. . fa D. The home occupation or activity is being conducted in a manner found to be detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare of the public or is a nuisance, or is being operated or carried on in an unlawful manner. E. The home occupation has not been operating or in business for a period of six (6) consecutive months. (Amended Ord. 8, 10- 21 -1970) 12 -9 -11: ILLEGAL HOME OCCUPATIONS; PENALTY: All home occupations that are being conducted in violation of this chapter are illegal. Any person violating any provision of this chapter shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction thereof, shall be subject to punishment as defined by state law. (Amended Ord. 8, 10 -21 -1970) 0 0 E Authors and Status = List versions Printable window Pnrrt halo H.F. No. 3940, 3rd Engrossment - 94th Legislative Session (20Q5 -2006) Posted on May 11, 2DD6 1.1 A bill for an act 1.2 relating to I'Iquor; allowing Minnesota farm wineries to produce fortified wine; 1.3 modifying certain fee provisions; providing for licensing provisions; darifying 1.4 certain sale hours; authorizing various local on -sale licenses; prohibiting alcohol 1.5 without liquid devices;amending Minnesota Statutes 2DD4, sections 340K101, 1.6 subdivision 11, by adding a subdivision; 340A.315, subdivisions 1, 2, 3, 4; 1.7 340A.404, subdivision 5; 340A.414, subdivision 2; 340A.5D4, subdivision 1.8 6; Minnesota Statutes 2DD5 Supplement, sections 340A.301, subdivision 6; 1.9 340A.404, subdivision 2; 340A.412, subdivision 4; proposing coding for new 1.1D law in Minnesota Statutes, chapter 340A. 1.11 BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA: 1.12 Section 1. Minnesota Statutes 2DD4, section 340A101, subdivision 11, is amended to 1.13 read: — 1.CMi nneso Subd. 11. Farm winery. "Farm winery" is a winery operated by the owner of a 1. ta farm and producing table , sparkling, or fortified wines from grapes, grape 1. ce, other fruit bass, or honey with a majority of the ingredients grown or produced 1.Minnesota. 1.18 EFFECTIVE DATE.This section is effective the day following final enactment 1.19 Sec. 2. Minnesota Statutes 2DD4, section 340A.101, is amended by adding a 1.20 subdivision to read: 1.21 Subd. 30. Fortified wine. "Fortified wine" is wine to which brandy, or neutral grape 1.22 spirits, has been added during or after fermentation resulting in a beverage containing 1.23 not less than one -half of one percent nor more than 24 percent alcohol by volume for 1.24 nonindustrial use. _1Z E • KEY: s ==_ckes:i = removed, old language. underscored = added, new language. 0 1.25 EFFECTIVE DATE.This.section is effective the day following final enactment. 2.1 Sec. 3. Minnesota Statutes 20D5 Supplement, section 34DA.301, subdivision S. is 2.2 amended to read: 2.3 Subd. 6. Fees. The annual fees for licenses under this section are as follows: 2.4 Manufacturers (except as provided in clauses 2.5 (a)(b) and (c)) $30,0D0 2.6 Duplicates $3,000 2.7 Manufacturers of wines of not more than 25 2.8 (b)percent alcohol by volume $500 2.9 Brewers who manufacture more than 3,5DD 2.10 (c)baneis of malt liquor in a year $4,DOD 2.11 Brewers who also hold one or more retail 2.12 on -sale licenses and who manufacture fewer 2.13 than 3,500 barrels of malt liquor in a year, 2.14 at any one licensed premises, the entire 2,15 production of which is solely for consumption 2.16 on tap on any licensed premises owned 2.17 by the brewer, or for off -sale from those 2.16 licensed premises as permitted in subdivision 2.19 7. A brewer licensed under this clause must 2.20 obtain a separate license for each licensed 2.21 premises where the brewer brews malt liquor. 2.22 A brewer licensed under this clause may not 2.23 (d)be licensed as an importer under this chapter $5DO 2,24 Wholesalers (except as provided in clauses 2.25 (e)(f), (g), and (h)) $15,000 2.26 Duplicates $3,000 2.27 Wholesalers of wines of not more than 25 2.26 (f)pe rcent alcohol by volume $3,750 2,29 (g)Wholesaiers of intoxicating malt liquor $1,000 2.30 Duplicates $ 2.31 (h)Wholesalers of 3.2 percent malt liquor $10 3.1 Brewers who manufacture fewer than 2,0D0 • 3.2 (i)barrels of malt liquor in a year $150 3.3 Brewers who manufacture 2,DD0 to 3,500 3.4 0)barrels of malt liquor in a year $500 3.5 If a business licensed under this section is destroyed, or damaged to the extent that 3.6 it cannot be carried on, or If it ceases because of the death or illness of the licensee, the 3.7 commissioner may refund the license fee for the balance of the license period to the 3.8 licensee or to the licensee is estate. 3.9 EFFECTIVE DATE.This section is effective the day following final enactment 3.10 Sec. 4. Minnesota Statutes 2004, section 340A.315, subdivision 1, is amended to read: 3.11 Subdivision 1. Licenses. The commissioner may issue a farm winery license to 3.12 the owner or operator of a farm winery located within the state and producing table, 3.13 sparkling, or fortified wines. Licenses may be issued and renewed for an annual fee of 3.14 $50, which is in lieu of all other license fees required by this chapter. 3.15 EFFECTIVE DATE.This section is effective the day following final enactment 3.16 Sec. S. Minnesota Statutes 2DD4, section 340A.315, subdivision 2, is amended to read: 3.17 Subd. 2. Sa les. A license authorizes the sale, on the farm winery premises, 3.18 of table , sparkling, or fortified wines produced by that farm winery at on -sale or 3.19 off -saie, in retail, or wholesale lots in total quantities not in excess of 50,DD0 gallons in 3.20 a calendar year, glassware, wine literature and accessories, cheese and cheese spreads, • 3.21 other wine - elated food items, and the dispensing of free samples of the wines offered 3.22 for sale. Sales at on -saie and off -sale may be made on Sundays between 12:00 noon and 3.23 12:DD midnight Labels for each type or brand produced must be registered with the 324 commissioner, without fee prior to sale. 3.25 EFFECTIVE DATE.This section is effective the day following final enactment 3.26 Sec. 6. Minnesota Statutes 2004, section 340A.315, subdivision 3, is amended to read: 3.27 Subd. 3. Applicability. Except as otherwise specified in this section, all provisions 3.28 of this chapter govern the production, sale, possession, and consumption of table , 3.29 sparkling, or fortified wines produced by a farm winery. 3.30 EFFECTIVE DATE.This section is effective the day following final enactment. 4.1 Sec. 7. Minnesota Statutes 2004, section 340A.315, subdivision 4, is amended to read: 4.2 Subd. 4. Minnesota products. If Minnesota produced or grown grapes, grape juice, 4.3 other.fruh bases, or honey is not available in quantifies sufficient to constitute a majority 4.4 of the table , sparkling, or fortified wine produced by a farm winery, the holder of the 4.5 farm winery license may file an affidavit stating this fact with the commissioner. If the • 4.6 commissioner, after consultation with the commissioner of agriculture, determines this to 4.7 be true, the farm winery may use imported products and shall continue to be govemed by • 4.B the provisions of this section. The affidavit is effective for a period of one year, attar which 4.9 time the farm winery must use the required amount of Minnesota products as provided by 4.10 subdivision 1 unless the faun winery holder files a new affidavit with the comm issionar. 4.11 EFFECTIVE DATE.This section is effective the day following final enactment 4.12 Sec. 8. Minnesota Statutes 2005 Supplement, suction 340A.404, subdivision 2, is 4.13 am dad to read: 4.14 Sub . 2. Special provision; city of Minneapolis. (a) The city of Minneapolis may 4.15 issue an sale intoxicating liquor license to the Guthrie Theater, the Cricket Theatre, the 4.16 Orpheum T atre, the State Theatre, and the Historic Pantages Theatre, notwithstanding 4.17 the limitations law, or io,;al ordinance, or charter provision relating to zoning or school 4.19 or church distan . The licenses authorize sales on all days of the week to holders 4.19 of tickets for perform ces presented by the theaters and to members of the nonprofit 4.20 corporations holding icenses and to their guests. 4.21 (b) The city of Minneapolis ay issue an intoxicating liquor license to 510 4.22 Groveland Associates, a Min sots cooperative, for use by a restaurant on the premises 4.23 owned by 510 Groveland Asso tee, notwithstanding limitations of law, or local . 4.24 ordinance, or charter provision. 4.25 (c) The city of Minneapolis may issue on -sale intoxicating liquor license to 4.26 Zuhrah Shrine Tampie for use on the pre leas owned by Zuhrah Shrine Temple at 2540 4.27 Park Avenue South in Minneapolis, and to American Swedish Institute for use on 4.28 the premises owned by the American Swedish nstltute at 2600 Park Avenue South, 4.29 notwithstanding limitations of law, or local ordina s, or charter provision relating to 4.30 zoning or school or church distances. 4.31 (d) The city of Minneapolis may issue an on -sale intoxr Ling liquor license to 4.32 the American Association of University Women, Minnsap :s branch, for use on the 4.33 premises owned by the American Association of University men, Minneapolis branch, 4.34 at 2115 Stevens Avenue South in Minneapolis, notwithstandin imitations of law, or local 4.35 ordinances, or charter provisions relating to zoning or school or rch distances. 5.1 (e) The city of Minneapolis may issue an on -sale wine license and an n -sale 3.2 5.2 percent malt liquor license to a restaurant located at 5DD0 Penn Avenue outh, and an 5.3 on -sale wine license and an on -sale malt liquor license to a restaurant ID at 1931 5.4 Nicollat Avenue South, notwithstanding any law or local ordinance or charter rovision. 5.5 (f) The city of Minneapolis may issue an on -sale wine license and an on -sale m • 5.6 liquor license to the Brave New Workshop Theatre located at 3D01 Hennepin Ave e 5.7 South, the Theatre de la Jaune Lune, the Illusion Theatre located at 528 Hennepin A m 5.8 South, the Hollywood Theatre located at 2615 Johnson Street Northeast, the Loring -P Special Andover City Council Workshop Meeting • "Draft" Minutes — January 23, 2007 Page 6 1 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 PLAN UPDATE Community DeVelopment Director Neumeister and City Engineer Berkowitz indicated since last updating the Council m tember, staff has began working on preparing a "draft" of the Comprehensive Plan Updatehey.r..xplained where staff is in the process. Councilmember Jacobson noted Council would to more density than was originally agreed upon. The rest of the Council agreed and indica ey would support staff in their discussions with Met Council. Mayor Gamache recessed the workshop at 8:12 p.m. and reconvened the workshop at 8:17 p. FARM WINERY DISCUSSION Community Development Director Neumeister stated the Council previously discussed options that could be explored related to Mark Hedin's farm winery on his property. He presented detailed information on what could potentially be done to modify the City Code to enable some form of a farm winery to be operated by Mr. Hedin on his 2 '/z acre home site. Councilmember Orttel asked why we do not have a separate description in the ordinance for a farm winery with reference to the State statute. Councilmember Jacobson asked how much wine would be produced on a yearly basis. Mr. Hedin responded he does not want to estimate this because he would be limited by physical capacity, but he does not know how much physical capacity he has. He stated what he has is what he has. Councilmember Jacobson asked what would be a reasonable amount. Mr. Hedin responded he did not have that information, but government controls limit him to 50,000 gallons and that there is no way he could produce that much wine. He stated whatever the Council limits him to is what he could comply with. He is limited by his space and he would not try and push it. Councilmember Orttel stated they first need to figure out how they could allow it and be would prefer to have a separate ordinance for a farm winery that complies with State law. Councilmember Trude asked if they need to follow the City's liquor code. Mr. Neumeister stated that is why the City could be more restrictive than the State code. Mr. Hedin stated he would sell his product by internet, word of mouth, and telephone. He • indicated this is not going to be a retail operation. He would not have signs or a store. He noted though that he might sell a single bottle in the hopes that the person would come back for a case. He indicated the amount of visitors would be less than six a day. Special Andover City Council Workshop Meeting "Draft" Minutes —January 23, 2007 Page 7 1 2 Councilmember Knight asked if he became very successful, how he would handle the growth.. 3 Mr. Hedin responded he would move. 4 5 Councilmember Jacobson stated he would be voting on this because of the liquor issue and this 6 being in a residential area. He requested the P&Z have the wordage written by staff and 7 reviewed by the City Attorney. 8 9 Councilmember Knight requested Mr. Hedin determine the amount of wine he believes he could 10 produce and store prior to the P &Z meeting. 11 12 Mr. Hedin asked if the gallonage could be put in the CUP and not in the ordinance. He stated if 13 it is possible to change the gallonage in the future through the CUP at this time he did not have 14 any problem with being limited to 1,000 per year. 15 16 Councilmember Jacobson requested Mr. Hedin talk to his neighbors about his proposal and 17 have them sign a statement prior to the P &Z meeting. 18 . 19 Council agreed to a separate description in the ordinance as a special use permit in urban 20 agricultural for a 2.5 acre farm winery in compliance with the State winery law and to send this 21 to the Planning Commission. The gallonage per year of production will be set by the Council. 22 23 24 C KED LAKE LOT SPLIT DISCUSSION 25 26 Mr. Neume stated Dennis Steinlicht has applied to split his property along Crooked Lake 27 Boulevard into o urban residential lots. The existing house, built in 1946, would be removed 28 and two new house built on the lots. On October 17' the Council expressed interest in 29 discussing two options t needed further research. The review period has been extended to 30 February 19, 2007 to allow Council the opportunity to discuss options available. The two 31 options that needed research we 32 1. Review with the City A ey if there was a hardship that could be used as a 33 finding to grant the variance. 34 2. Determine if there is an ordinanc t could be modified to enable this lot to be 35 approved without a variance. 36 37 The staff and City Attorney could not identify a potenti ardship. On November 21", the 38 Council directed staff to research whether other cities have co t allow lot splits to be done 39 using old development standards in older, built out areas. 40 41 Councilmember Jacobson stated he does not like the idea of setting up a ew A -1 Zoning 42 District. 43 44 Councilmember Orttel suggested they come up with a PUD for redevelopment. Mr. Neum ' A c I T Y O 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 Planne SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING: City Code Amendment to extend public hearing notification distance of City Code 12 -14 -8 from 350 to 700 feet. DATE: February 13, 2007 INTRODUCTION This item continues the discussion regarding public notification distance in the rural area. DISCUSSION The Planning Commission previously discussed this item at the January 9 meeting and was divided between the existing notification distance of 350 feet and a wider distance of 750 feet. The Council discussed this issue at their January 23` Work Session and reached a consensus to double the existing public notification distance from 350 to 700 feet. Proposed Amendment The attached ordinance amendment provides a 700 foot notification area around all properties that are not connected to municipal sewer at the time of the application. This will include rural properties outside the MUSA and rural properties within the MUSA that, in some cases will be adjacent to urban neighborhoods. In the latter scenario, the notification area will include urban lots, which means a larger number of notices will be needed. The attached map titled `MUSA Development Example' compares the 350 and 700 foot notification areas around a rural property near an urban neighborhood. The 700 foot notification area would increase the number of notices from 65 to 128 properties or by 63 notices and $24.57 in postage in this example. Discussion Point If the Planning Commission does not wish to notify 700 feet from sites within the MUSA, the language can be adjusted to use the MUSA Boundary as the threshold between the 350 and 700 foot notification areas. In this manner the 700 foot notification area will not include urban properties, such as described in the above example, except when a subject property lies just outside the MUSA boundary. Other Public Hearing Notification Measures It is important to note that a sign is posted on subject properties a week before the Planning Commission meeting and remains on the property until after the Council meeting. In this manner, anyone who drives by a subject property can be informed that a change is proposed. The sign lists a phone number where a recorded message describing each item can be found. Additionally a public notice is published in the Anoka Union newspaper at least ten days before . the Planning Commission meeting. Additional Change Concerning Variances Please note that the current City Code 12 -14 -8 presently indicates that a public hearing is required for variances. As you may recall, this issue was raised during the more comprehensive update of the zoning regulations. The outcome of that discussion affirmed the city's policy to send a meeting notice for variances but did not require a public hearing for variances. The attached ordinance amendment strikes variances from the list of actions that require a public hearing. S Survey of Other Cities A survey of other communities with rural areas was conducted to compare notification policies. City Standard Notification Distance Exceptions Blaine 350 feet 1,000 feet for hazardous or solid waste facilities Cambridge 350 feet None mentioned East Bethel 350 feet 600 feet for interim use permits for horses and 1/4 mile for private kennel licenses Elk River 350 feet Increased mailing at Council discretion Ham Lake 350 feet None mentioned Oak Grove 1,000 feet None mentioned Ramsey 350 feet 700 feet for significant residential or commercial developments Attachments MUSA Development Example Various Notification Distance Maps Proposed City Code 12 -14 -8 ACTION REQUESTED The Planning Commission is asked to hold a public hearing, discuss the proposed amendment and make a recommendation to the City Council. The Commission may wish to discuss the appropriate distance for rural public notices further and may agree with the Council or recommend a different distance for public notices. Res �t Oearz ' ed, o 0 CITY OF ANDOVER COUNTY OF ANOKA STATE OF MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CITY CODE TO CHANGE THE NOTIFICATION REQUIRMENTS FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANDOVER DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: CITY CODE TITLE 12: ZONING REGULATIONS CHAPTER 14: ADMINISTRATION AND ENFORCEMENT SECTION 12 -14 -8: PUBLIC HEARING PROCESS: A. Council Actions Requiring a Public Hearing: The following Council actions shall require a public hearing: 1. Var-ianee 2. Conditional Use Permit (CUP) 3. Rezoning and Text Amendment 4. Sketch Plan 5. Preliminary Plat 6. Comprehensive Plan Amendment B. Public Hearing 1. A public hearing on an application for tae Council actions in this chapter shall be held by the Planning Commission in accordance with the Minnesota State Statutes. 2. 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. 3. Property owners and occupants within three hundred fifty feet (350') of the subiect propertyies in "estien connected to municipal sewer (based on the City's most current version of Anoka County Property Records) shall be notified in writing aMeugh failufe by any th d TAT t fl a .+ e 1. 11 b «r b �:1 cac�rvvc ° ccnirg��v i cmvurm o ° c .�,........ j' �"».. 4. Property owners and occupants within seven hundred feet (7001 of subiect properties that are not connected to municipal sewer (based on the City's most current version of Anoka County Property Records) shall be notified in writing. 5. Property owner notifications shall be sent by mail. Failure by any property owner or occupant to receive such notice shall not invalidate the proceedings. 36.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. -4-7.The Planning Commission recommendation shall be presented to the City Council. -58.The City Council shall make the final decision on the proposed action. (Amended Ord. 314, 10 -4 -2005) •••■■• --■• MUSA BOUNDARY NOTIFICATION BOUNDARY z 40 N Location Map C I T Y O F ! NDOVE Incorporated MUSA Development Example 0 0 • A NL66W^ Incorporated 1974 350 feet in Rural Area 9 properties selected (Including subject property) SUBJECT PROPERTY Q N Location Map J�IJ ®III, II��ODII�m ®© Ilill• 30��. ®�• ®® ® ® ® � Olaw awl • © ©© ' © © ® ®®©©© ©© © ©® © ® ©® ®®©© © ©® � TilJ3Lh• .© - ®®n • Cffl®®® SUBJECT PROPERTY Q N Location Map NDOVE Incorporated 1974 Various Distances Extremely Remote Parcel 0 s a it r « R SUBJECT PROPERTY Q • N Location Map 0 u 0 C' 1 l' Y p f DOVE Incorporated 1974 350 feet in Urban Area 43 properties selected (Including subject property) �11N 1 46 ce) °' `n r. O 15041 1 N _ 15299 �- N 15292 15293 15295 co t N N N N N N N N �ry �S 2j OD N N LD U) N N N 15031 =RAN'S MEMORIAL BLV N 1 6 g t� > N `' 15284 15285 LO L "! op o 8 M E t9V9 M M M M ��' , 1527 15282 1528115276 15277 15278 w 0 15279 15033 c� 152 N N CV NN ryti � N 's26' M 1527 1526915268 15269 15270 15271 Fr N 15205 �S21p �2�'ss `L �S2 N 15258 1525715260 15261 15262 a 15263 LO L O 15197 N s2 AO N'o - - I .S 1501 V D 1518 � r In r a 15183 `�' "� `�' OO N o O N O V' m e cn W �. O r o ao O r� co CO N Oo M a 1521315221 �''o ti`ti N N N N N N N 0 N N N 0 0 N N 0 0 0 N N N 15172 14995 r n r CO Iq M O O 1� ('7 O N N N N Cn N N N N _ N N r r r N N N N r r N N N O N CO O N 0 O — N N 151 N N N� O 0 ti 0 1497 14981 1 N N 6 g M 1514 rn m to M N N(0 I t N N ti 2354 N 513 N N N N N N N OD c-4 N N N N N N N C D o m 2273 N N 1495 N r w 2169 ce) N N N 11 �,� N N N E N N N N N N M 1494 C 00 7S N o °' N N N N 14939 � r'w �� c N N N N 332��`� 2272 N N N N oo r 1492 N N 2174 N N M 5092 15079 15089 1 07 r` o 14921 LO C , ) N 00 m L v r r' o_ 0') PZ ` v 2035 5074 15071 � N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N 2326 O N N m N rn N a 5056 15053 5 ~ 1505 15pq 15042 N O O 6 N N �OyO �11N 1 46 15041 r N o oo w t N 15040 150 1 5043 15034 15031 N 'Q > N N ° N L "! 5029 , 1 5031 150 15033 N N N 1502 Fr 15026 N 15021 022 N'o m 1501 1501 15021 N r; N Lh a N 1 1 5012 m � w 14995 N 1498 M CO N N CO .— N O <O O N N N� O 0 ti 0 1497 14981 1 N N N N CO N N N r j � t N N 14967 i �M N N N N N N N N 14975 m , W N r N o 1495 14953 N <JN N U) N �,� N N N E 14957 P N ra rn Go M 1494 1493 C o °' N N N N 14939 � r'w �� c N N N 1492 1492 N N M 14921 L N 14911 2326 O N N m N rn N N N N O O 6 N N �OyO o N N N fV N O SUBJECT PROPERTY Q N Location Map C I T Y £7 F DO 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: Chris Vrchota, Associate Planner # SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING: City Code Amendment to establish redevelopment criteria in City Code 13 -3: Planned Unit Development. DATE: February 13, 2007 INTRODUCTION The City Council directed staff to create criteria for "Redevelopment Planned Unit Developments" (PUDs). These criteria, which would apply to lot splits rather than larger developments, would allow for a PUD to be used to create flexibility in the development standards in older sections of the City, where existing housing might not meet current building codes or requirements. This would allow lot splits to occur on properties that cannot meet the existing requirements for a lot split, but have the potential to be split into two properties that come close to meeting City standards and would fit the character of the surrounding neighborhood. This direction stemmed from the Council's discussion of a proposed lot split on 134` Avenue and Crooked Lake Boulevard that would have required two variances to be approved. DISCUSSION Currently, lot splits are allowed if both lots meet two out of three dimensional requirements (lot width, depth, and area) and 90% of the third. There are a handful of lots around the City, such as the one on Crooked Lake Boulevard mentioned above, that could come close to meeting these is requirements, but fall short. The result is rather large single - family lots that cannot be further divided without being combined with other properties. Creating criteria for the use of Redevelopment PUDs on large single - family lots may make it financially feasible for the property owners to redevelop and subdivide these properties, while allowing the City a degree of control to ensure that the resulting properties are in character with the surrounding neighborhood. The proposed changes would be included in City Code13 -3, existing code section that deals with PUDs. The same application and approval processes that are used for PUDs would be applied to the redevelopment PUDs. However, since it is unlikely that the extensive criteria used when considering a PUD on a large development could be achieved on a lot split, new criteria have will be added for redevelopment situations. In order to help you understand how PUDs are considered and how the changes will fit into the existing code, chapter 13 -3 has been included in its entirety, with the new changes being added as 13 -3 -13. There is one additional change being shown. Section 13 -3 -7 -A refers to the Conditional Use Permit process but refers to the wrong section. This error will be corrected. Attachments Proposed Changes ACTION REQUESTED The Planning Commission is asked to hold a public hearing, review the proposed code changes make any additional changes that are needed, and to make a recommendation to the City Council. IN :espe fully Submitted, C ris Vrchota PROPOSED CHANGES CHAPTER 3 PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) SECTION: 13 -3 -1: Purpose 13 -3 -2: Utilization of PUD 13 -3 -3: PUD Concept Review 13 -3 -4: Uses 13 -3 -5: Density 13 -3 -6: zoning And Subdivision Standards And Requirements 13 -3 -7: Approval Process 13 -3 -8: Fees And Costs 13 -3 -9: Findings Required 13 -3 -10: Revisions And Amendments 13 -3 -11: Desirable PUD Design Qualities 13 -3 -12: Approval Of Planned Unit Development El 13 -3 -1: PURPOSE: The purpose of a PUD is to encourage more efficient allocation of density and intensity of land use where such arrangement is desirable and feasible by providing the means for greater creativity and flexibility in environmental design than provided under the strict application of this code. It must be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the City Council that a higher quality development will result than could be otherwise achieved through strict application of this code. (Ord. 298, 8 -4 -2004) 13 -3 -2: UTILIZATION OF PUD: Planned Unit Development (PUD) regulations may be allowed by the City Council to be applied and/or utilized for all developments including the following: townhomes, single- and two- family homes (both urban and rural), apartment projects, multiuse structures, commercial developments, industrial developments, mixed residential and commercial developments and similar projects. (Ord. 298, 8 -4 -2004) 13 -3 -3: PUD CONCEPT REVIEW: Any person or persons who may apply for a PUD may request a concept review with respect to land which may be subject to a PUD. The purpose of a PUD concept review is to afford such persons an opportunity, without incurring substantial expense, to have the general feasibility of a PUD proposal considered. PUD concept reviews shall follow the sketch plan procedures provided in Section 11 -2 -1 of this code. (Ord. 298, 8 -4 -2004) 13 -3 -4: USES: Planned Unit Developments shall be required to conform to the permitted and conditional uses set forth in Title 12 of this code pertaining to the applicable zoning district. (Ord. 298, 8 -4 -2004) 13 -3 -5: DENSITY: The density of residential developments shall be required to conform to the applicable land use district. (Ord. 298, 8 -4 -2004) 13 -3 -6: ZONING AND SUBDIVISION STANDARDS AND REQUIREMENTS: All standards and provisions relating to an original zoning district shall apply, unless otherwise approved as a part of the PUD. All standards may be modified or waived provided the applicant demonstrates harmony with the purpose of the PUD and the findings described in Section 13 -3- 9 of this chapter. (Ord. 298, 8 -4 -2004) 13 -3 -7: APPROVAL PROCESS: An applicant for a PUD shall submit in the application all of the material required by this chapter. Each PUD requested must adhere to the following process: A. Permitted and conditional uses shall follow the Conditional Use Permit procedures provided in Section 12- 414 -6 of this code to establish the development standards for the PUD. These uses shall also complete the commercial site plan process once the Planned Unit Development has been approved. B. Applications involving the subdivision of land shall complete a preliminary and final plat under the procedures provided in Title 11, "Subdivision Regulations ", of this code. (Ord. 298, 8-4 -2004) 13 -3 -8: FEES AND COSTS: Applications for a PUD shall be filed at the office of the City Planner along with a nonrefundable application fee for the approval process specified in Sections 13 -3 -3 and 13 -3 -7 of this chapter in the amount established by the City Council to defray administrative costs. (Ord. 298,8 -4 -2004) 13 -3 -9: FINDINGS REQUIRED: In order for a PUD to be approved, the City shall find that the following are present: A. The proposed development is not in conflict with the goals of the Comprehensive Plan of the city. B. The proposed development is designed in such a manner as to form a desirable and unified environment within its own boundaries. C. The proposed development demonstrates how each modified or waived requirement contributes to achieving the purpose of a PUD. D. The PUD is of composition, and arrangement that its construction, marketing, and operation are feasible as a complete unit without dependence upon any subsequent unit. (Ord. 298, 8 -4 -2004) 13 -3 -10: REVISIONS AND AMENDMENTS: Administrative approval of incidental changes in the PUD may be authorized by the City Planner upon review and approval by ARC. Such administrative approvals shall not substantially alter the • character of the approved PUD and shall be limited to landscaping (not including quantity reduction), color schemes (not including materials), association documents, fencing, entrance monuments and decks. Changes in uses or development/design standards must be submitted for a full public hearing review process. (Amended Ord. 314, 10 -4 -2005) 13 -3 -11: DESIRABLE PUD DESIGN QUALITIES: The following design qualities will be sought in any PUD: 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 complement 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. (Ord. 298, 8 -4- 2004) 13 -3 -12: APPROVAL OF PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT: The developer must demonstrate that the amenities and qualities of the Planned Unit Development are beneficial and in the public interest to allow the development to be approved. A substantial amount of the design qualities identified in Section 13 -3 -11 of this chapter shall be found to be present in order to approve a PUD. The amount of amenities and type of qualities that constitute an acceptable PUD are at the sole discretion of the City Council to determine. (Ord. 298, 8-4 -2004) . 13 -3 -13: Redevelopment PUDs: A property owner may apply for a redevelopment PUD for their property, if the property meets the criteria outlined in this section. Such redevelopment PUDs shall only be used for lot splits. PUDs on all other subdivisions shall follow the normal PUD requirements laid out in this chapter. All provisions of City Code chapter 13 -3 shall apply to redevelopment PUDs except for section 13 -3 -11. A redevelopment PUD may be permitted if the subject pro meets the following standards: A The existing principle structure on the property is at least 30 years old, does not meet current building codes, has a blighting effect on the surrounding neighborhood and will be removed as part of the redevelopment of the property. B. The houses built on the new lots would be similar in size and architectural design to those in the surrounding neighborhood. Architectural plans must be included in the application for a redevelopment PUD and approved by the Council. E 0