HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/10/07Andover Planning and Zoning Commission
Meeting Agenda
April 10, 2007
Andover City Hall
Council Chambers
7.00 a.m.
1. Call to Order
2. Approval of Minutes — March 27, 2007.
3. PUBLIC HEARING Lot Split and Redevelopment Planned Unit
Development for property located at 13423 Crooked Lake Boulevard.
4. Work Session:
a. Consider code amendment regulating bee keeping
0 5. Other Business:
6. Adjournment
I*
1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. • ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 • (763) 755 -5100
FAX (763) 755 -8923 • WWW.CI.ANDOVER.MN.US
•
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 - March 27, 2007
DATE: April 10, 2007
Request
The Planning and Zoning Commission is asked to approve the minutes from the
March 27, 2007 meeting.
0
•
L C I T Y 0 F
NDOVE
PLANNING AND ZONING COIL WSSION MEETING —MARCH 27, 2007
The Regular Bi- Monthly Meeting of the Andover Planning and Zoning Commission was
called to order by Acting Chairperson Kirchoff on March 27, 2007, 7:00 p.m., at the
Andover City Hall, 1685 Crosstown Boulevard NW, Andover, Minnesota
Commissioners present: Commissioners Tim Kirchoff, Michael Casey, Valerie
Holthus, Devon Walton (arrived at 7:04 p.m.), Douglas
Falk and Dennis Cleveland (arrived at 7:24 p.m.).
Commissioners absent: Chairperson Dean Daninger.
Also present: City Planner, Courtney Bednarz
Associate Planner, Andy Cross
Others
APPROVAL OFMINUTES.
February 27, 2007
Motion by Casey, seconded by Falk, to approve the minutes as presented. Motion carried
on a 4 -ayes, 0 -nays, 3- absent (Daninger, Cleveland, Walton) vote.
PUBLICHEARING: PRELIAIEVARYPLAT OFA SINGLE FAMU- YRURAL
RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY TO BE KIVOWNAS THE SMITHADDIT ION
LOCATED AT 17919 TULIP STREET NW.
Mr. Bednarz summarize the staff report.
Commissioner Walton arrived at 7:04 p.m.
Commissioner Holthus wondered what the current land use was for this property and
what zoning district was it in. Mr. Bednarz explained the land use district is Rural
Residential was and the corresponding zoning is R -3, Single Family Suburban. He stated
this was an older zoning district that formerly allowed 20,000 square foot lots. Since
40 1978 the minimum lot size has been 2.5 acres.
t
Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
Minutes —March 27, 2007
Page 2
Commissioner Falk asked on 178 there is an empty lot on the southeast corner and he •
wondered if that was the same thing that happened on the northwest corner. Mr. Bednarz
stated it was. He stated from an old land survey there are a couple of tracts that are
divided but still owned by the same property owner. He stated with the plat they will all
be joined to eliminate the extra properties.
Commissioner Holthus stated when this property is split, will the zoning need to be
changed to R-4 or will it remain R -3 and will that affect how it is developed in the future
if it is subdivided again. Mr. Bednarz stated the R -3 zoning will remain on the property
regardless if it is developed in the future or not
Commissioner Falk asked how far from the MUSA was the property. Mr. Bednarz
explained it was around 2 to 3 miles from the MUSA boundary and the city does not have
capacity to serve the property with sewer and water.
Motion by Casey, seconded by Holthus, to open the public hearing at 7:11 p.m. Motion
carried on a 5 -ayes, 0 -nays, 2- absent (Daninger, Cleveland) vote.
There was no public input.
Motion by Casey, seconded by Falk, to close the public hearing at 7:12 p.m. Motion
carried on a 5 -ayes, 0 -nays, 2- absent (Daninger, Cleveland) vote.
Mr. Kirchoff asked if the commission needed to make findings for the variance.
Mr. Bednarz stated that the additional right -of -way proposed to be dedicated with the plat
creates the hardship and is included as a finding in the resolution.
Motion by Walton, seconded by Casey, to recommend to the City Council approval of
the proposed preliminary plat subject to the conditions of the attached resolution. Motion
carried on a 5 -ayes, 0 -nays, 2- absent (Daninger, Cleveland) vote.
Mr. Bednarz stated that this item would be before the Council at the April 3, 2007 City
Council meeting.
PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (07 -05) TO ALLOWA FARM
WINERY FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3482165 LANE NW.
Mr. Cross explained Mark Hedin has applied for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to run a
farm winery on his property.
Mr. Cross discussed the staff report with the Commission.
i
Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
Minutes —March 27, 2007
Page 3
Motion by Casey, seconded by Holthus, to open the public hearing at 7:16 p.m. Motion
carried on a 5 -ayes, 0 -nays, 2- absent (Daninger, Cleveland) vote.
There was no public input.
Motion by Casey, seconded by Walton, to close the public hearing at 7:17 p.m. Motion
carried on a 5 -ayes, 0 -nays, 2- absent (Daninger, Cleveland) vote.
Commissioner Kirchoff asked if the 1,000 gallon limit was set in their ordinance or only
for this particular CUP. Mr. Cross stated the 1,000 gallon limit is for this application
only and future production limits will be reviewed on a per application basis.
Motion by Walton, seconded by Casey, to recommend to the City Council approval of
the farm winery application for a Conditional Use Permit. Motion carried on a 5 -ayes, 0-
nays, 2- absent (Daninger, Cleveland) vote.
Mr. Cross stated that this item would be before the Council at the April 3, 2007 City
Council meeting.
PUBLIC HEARING: CITY CODE AMENDMENT TO DELETE SECTION 12-14-6 -
A -5 OF THE CITY CODE AND REVISE SECTION 12 -12 "PERMITTED USES' .
Mr. Cross stated this Code revision summarizes the discussion that took place at the
February 27, 2007 Planning Commission Workshop.
Mr. Cross discussed the staff report with the Commission.
Commissioner Holthus indicated she liked this because it was efficient.
Motion by Walton, seconded by Falk, to open the public hearing at 7:21 p.m. Motion
carried on a 5 -ayes, 0 -nays, 2- absent (Daninger, Cleveland) vote.
There was no public input
Motion by Walton, seconded by Casey, to close the public hearing at 7:21 p.m. Motion
carried on a 5 -ayes, 0 -nays, 2- absent (Daninger, Cleveland) vote.
Motion by Walton, seconded by Casey, to recommend to the City Council approval of
the proposed Code Amendment. Motion carried on a 5 -ayes, 0 -nays, 2- absent (Daninger,
Cleveland) vote.
Mr. Cross stated that this item would be before the Council at the April 3, 2007 City
• Council meeting.
Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
Minutes —March 27, 2007
Page 4 •
OTHER BUSINESS
Mr. Bednarz stated the joint City Council/Planning Commission Workshop has been set
for April 24, 2007 at 7:00 p.m.
Mr. Bednarz updated the Planning Commission on related items and items the Council
reviewed and approved.
Commissioner Cleveland arrived at 7:24 p.m.
Commissioner Casey stated the meeting went very fast tonight and he said that was
because the information in the packet was laid out very well and that is one reason the
meetings go so well. He thanked the staff for providing good information to them.
Commissioner Falk reviewed the training workshop he attended with Commissioner
Casey this past weekend. Both Commissioners thought it was a great workshop and
would like to attend more of these workshops.
ADJOURNMENT.
Motion by Falk, seconded by Casey, to adjourn the meeting at 7:26 p.m. Motion carried
on a 6 -ayes, 0- nays, 1- absent (Daninger) vote.
Respectfully Submitted,
Sue Osbeck, Recording Secretary
TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc.
11
N C I T Y 0 F
NDOVE
0 - - �.9 * k
1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. • ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 • (763) 755 -5100
FAX (763) 755 -8923 • WWW.CI.ANDOVER.MN.US
TO: Planning and Zoning Commissioners
CC: Courtney Bednarz, City Planner
FROM: Andy Cross, Associate Planner,"Y!/��
DATE: April 10, 2007
SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING Lot Split and Redevelopment Planned Unit
Development for property located at 13423 Crooked Lake Boulevard.
INTRODUCTION
Dennis Steinlicht has applied to split his property along Crooked Lake Boulevard into two
urban residential lots. The existing house, built in 1946, would be removed and two new
houses built on the lots. The application is being reviewed using the newly - adopted
"Redevelopment PUD" code section 13 -3 -13 (see attached).
DISCUSSION
City Code 13 -3 -9 regulates the findings that are required for a PUD to be approved:
1. The proposed development is not in conflict with the goals of the Comprehensive
Plan of the City.
2. The proposed development is designed in such a manner as to form a desirable and
unified environment within its own boundaries.
3. The proposed development demonstrates how each modified or waived
requirement contributes to achieving the purpose of PUD.
4. The PUD is of composition and arrangement that its construction, marketing, and
operation are feasible as a complete unit without dependence on any subsequent
unit.
City Code Chapter 13 -3 -13 defines criteria that a property must meet to be considered for a
"Redevelopment PUD ":
1) Is the existing home on the property at least 30 years old, or
2) Does the current structure fail to meet building codes?
3) Does the current structure have a blighting effect on the surrounding
neighborhood?
4) Do the submitted architectural plans conform to the existing neighborhood, and are
they acceptable to the council?
E
The existing house was built in 1946, making it 60 years old. The house fails to meet •
current building codes with a 6.5 -foot ceiling in the basement. Seven -foot ceilings are
required for a space to be considered livable.
The architectural plans submitted by the applicant show two floor plans. One is a 1,070
square -foot house, the other 1,220 square feet (see attached). These sizes are in keeping
with the houses in the neighborhood, which range from 884 to 2,822 square feet (see
attached map).
The proposal seeks two lot size requirements to be approved as part of the Redevelopment
PUD. The attached survey illustrates the proposed lot split. Lot details are shown in the
table below:
Lot Dimensions
Parcel A does not meet the standard Code's requirements on two of its dimensions. It is
located on the corner of 134 Avenue and Crooked Lake Boulevard, so it requires a width
of 100 feet. The applicant is proposing a width of 84.92 feet, 15.08 feet short of the
requirement. Additionally, Parcel A is 11,392 square feet, eight square feet short of the
minimum lot size requirement of 11,400 square feet. These design standards are outlined
in the attached resolution. A letter from the applicant is attached supplying his narrative
for the Redevelopment PUD request. Staff recommends approval of the requested
deviations for the lot size requirements for Parcel A.
Parcel B complies with the City Code. Chapter 12 -3 -5 -A states if two lot minim are
met, then the third must have at least 90% of the requirement to comply. Parcel B's width
and depth meet Code and its lot area exceeds 90% of 11,400 square feet.
Easements
Ten -foot drainage and utility easements already exist around the perimeter of the existing
property. Separate easement documents will be necessary to establish the standard five -
foot drainage and utility easements along both sides of the new property line.
Utilities
The existing house is connected to the City sewer and water system. The existing sewer
connection can serve Parcel B, but a new sewer connection will be required to serve Parcel
A. All costs associated with the new sewer connection will be charged to the property .
owner.
— Z-
R -4
Parcel A (corner lot)
Parcel B
Requirements
80 feet / 100 feet
80 feet
Lot Width
(corner lot)
Lot Depth
130 feet
134.90 feet
134.87 feet
Lot Area
11,400 sq. ft.
Room
10,789 sq. ft.
Lot Dimensions
Parcel A does not meet the standard Code's requirements on two of its dimensions. It is
located on the corner of 134 Avenue and Crooked Lake Boulevard, so it requires a width
of 100 feet. The applicant is proposing a width of 84.92 feet, 15.08 feet short of the
requirement. Additionally, Parcel A is 11,392 square feet, eight square feet short of the
minimum lot size requirement of 11,400 square feet. These design standards are outlined
in the attached resolution. A letter from the applicant is attached supplying his narrative
for the Redevelopment PUD request. Staff recommends approval of the requested
deviations for the lot size requirements for Parcel A.
Parcel B complies with the City Code. Chapter 12 -3 -5 -A states if two lot minim are
met, then the third must have at least 90% of the requirement to comply. Parcel B's width
and depth meet Code and its lot area exceeds 90% of 11,400 square feet.
Easements
Ten -foot drainage and utility easements already exist around the perimeter of the existing
property. Separate easement documents will be necessary to establish the standard five -
foot drainage and utility easements along both sides of the new property line.
Utilities
The existing house is connected to the City sewer and water system. The existing sewer
connection can serve Parcel B, but a new sewer connection will be required to serve Parcel
A. All costs associated with the new sewer connection will be charged to the property .
owner.
— Z-
• Both properties will be required to connect to City water at the applicant's expense. A
water stub was built in 1995 on Crooked Lake Boulevard to serve this property. This
existing connection can serve Parcel A, but Parcel B will require a new water connection.
Trail Fee
A Trail fee in the amount of $612 will be required for the new property.
Park Dedication
A Park Dedication fee will be required for the new property in the amount of $2,515.
Access
The access for both proposed lots would be off 134' Avenue NW. The existing driveway
to Crooked Lake Boulevard will be required to be eliminated.
ACTION REQUIRED
The Planning and Zoning Commission is asked to form a recommendation to the City
Council on the lot split and Redevelopment PUD request.
Respectfully submitted,
Andy Cross
Associate Planner
Cc: Dennis Steinlicht, 2766 133 Lane NW, Andover, MN 55304
Attachments
Resolutions
Location Map
Certificate of Survey
Letter from Applicant
City Code 13 -3 "Planned Unit Developments"
Map of Surrounding House Sizes
Architectural Drawings of the Proposed Houses
LJ
_;7—
CITY OF ANDOVER
COUNTY OF ANOKA
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RES. NO.
A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE LOT SPLIT REQUEST FOR DENNIS
STEINLICHT TO SUBDIVIDE INTO TWO PARCELS PROPERTY LOCATED AT
13423 CROOKED LAKE BOULEVARD NW (33- 32 -24 -43 -0047) LEGALLY
DESCRIBED AS:
That part of Lot 1, Block 2, EAST BROOK TERRACE, according to the recorded plat
thereof, Anoka County, Minnesota, lying west of the east 95 feet thereof.
To be divided into properties to be described as;
PARCEL A: That part of Lot 1, Block 2, EAST BROOK TERRACE, according to the
recorded plat thereof, Anoka County, Minnesota, lying west of the east 175.00 feet thereof.
PARCEL B: The west 80.00 feet of the east 175.00 feet of Lot 1, Block 2, EAST BROOK
TERRACE, according to the recorded plat thereof, Anoka County, Minnesota.
•
WHEREAS, Dennis Steir Licht has requested approval of a lot split to subdivide property .
pursuant to City Code Title 13 Chapter 1, located at 13423 Crooked Lake Blvd NW, and;
WHEREAS, the lot split will follow the following Development Standards, as defined in
CUP 07 -07:
1) The lot size for Parcel A will be 11,392 square feet.
2) The lot width for parcel A will be 84.92 feet.
WHEREAS, the City Council is reviewing these standards under City Code 13 -3 -13
Redevelopment PUD, and;
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission has reviewed the request and has
determined that said request meets the criteria of City Code Title 13 Chapter 1, "Planned
Unit Developments ", and;
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission finds the request would not have a
detrimental effect upon the health, safety, morals and general welfare of the City of
Andover, and;
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held pursuant to state statutes, and;
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommends to the City Council
approval of the lot split as requested, and; .
rf
. 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 lot split on said property with the following conditions:
1. Subject to the approval of Redevelopment PUD request CUP 07 -07.
2. Both lots shall be connected to municipal sewer and water. Assessments shall
be paid as calculated by the City Clerk.
3. The applicant shall be required to pay a Trail fee in the amount of $612.
4. The applicant shall be required to pay a Park Dedication fee in the amount of
$2,515.
5. The applicant shall record the lot split with Anoka County.
6. Separate documents shall be submitted establishing 5 -foot drainage and utility
easements on both sides of the new property line between the two lots.
7. The existing driveway on Crooked Lake Boulevard shall be removed and
both new lots shall have driveways on 134 Avenue NW.
8. The new deeds for the property shall contain the legal descriptions included in
this resolution.
9. That the lot split be subject to a sunset clause as defined in City Code Title 13
Chapter 1.
10. The existing house and garage shall be razed prior to the issuance of a
building permit for construction on Parcel A or Parcel B.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Andover on this day of 2007.
CITY OF ANDOVER
ATTEST:
Michael R. Gamache, Mayor
Victoria Volk, City Clerk
•
-S-
CITY OF ANDOVER
COUNTY OF ANOKA
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RES. NO.
A RESOLUTION APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THE
REDEVELOPMENT PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT LOCATED AT 13423
CROOKED LAKE BOULEVARD NW (33- 32 -24 -43 -0047) LEGALLY DESCRIBED
AS:
That part of Lot 1, Block 2 EAST BROOK TERRACE, according to the recorded plat
thereof, Anoka County, Minnesota, lying west of the east 95 feet thereof.
WHEREAS, Dennis Steinlicht has requested approval of a Redevelopment PUD in
conjunction with a lot split pursuant to City Code Title 13 Chapter 3, located at 13423
Crooked Lake Blvd NW, and;
•
WHEREAS, the property has met the following criteria:
1) The existing structure on the property at least 30 years old, or
2) The existing structure fails to meet current building codes.
3) The current structure has a blighting effect on the surrounding neighborhood.
4) The submitted architectural plans for new houses to be built on the newly - created •
lots conform to the existing neighborhood, and;
WHEREAS, the existing structure will be removed as part of the redevelopment of the
property, and;
WHEREAS, the development standards for this Redevelopment Planned Unit
Development shall be as follows:
WHEREAS, the houses built on the new lots shall conform in all ways to the architectural
plans submitted with the Lot Split Application dated March 30, 2007, and;
WHEREAS, all development standards for this project other than those defined in this
Resolution must conform to the City Code, and;
WHEREAS, th Planning Commission has reviewed the request and has determined that
this PUD request meets the criteria of City Code 13 -3 -13 Redevelopment PUD's, and; •
--39—
Parcel A
Parcel B
Lot Width
84.92 feet
80 feet
Lot Depth
134.90 feet
134.87 feet
Lot Area
11,392 sq. ft.
10,800 sq. ft.
WHEREAS, the houses built on the new lots shall conform in all ways to the architectural
plans submitted with the Lot Split Application dated March 30, 2007, and;
WHEREAS, all development standards for this project other than those defined in this
Resolution must conform to the City Code, and;
WHEREAS, th Planning Commission has reviewed the request and has determined that
this PUD request meets the criteria of City Code 13 -3 -13 Redevelopment PUD's, and; •
--39—
• WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds the request would not have a detrimental
effect on the health, safety, and general welfare of the City of Andover, and;
WHEREAS. The Planning Commission recommends to the City Council approval of the
Conditional Use Permit for a Redevelopment PUD, and;
WHEREAS, the Council finds the proposed use will not be detrimental to the health,
safety, morals and general welfare of the occupants of the surrounding lands, and;
WHEREAS, the Council finds the architectural plans acceptable and in keeping with the
surrounding neighborhood, and;
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 for the Redevelopment Planned Unit Development.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Andover on this day of 2007.
CITY OF ANDOVER
ATTEST:
• Victoria Volk, City Clerk
Michael R. Gamache, Mayor
L�
U)
vo
`a
m
>
o2
c
Q m
c
605
c
y co
.5_
UU
M N
Ir
" w
g m
W
C� N
ca
•
O
� N o
>
>�
O
° z�
LLI Z ^
V Q J
UJ
•
�O
; � m
¢ gg � QQ
I - L i
o m
oZ
o
rn ¢
L In
n
m n
r
i
CS
W
i99tb
w 138
W
ET S
O
SZLZ
OEYZ
�'
�^,�
O
cow
Ch
M
m
mul
'"
r
9b17.
L/� O nrn n� c O Q`p c Q i.� n�6
I c v ¢ P d Q v O o v o °c ` M
N e 1 0 ` d d C L d Y a d°
0 0 r, Z o �
a1 Z I-
v z m ° m�w o ° ate r u € Lo a N
~ c c ~ N
J o - °'�� c a - O'�o v CL dwv m
a -oV'� E E ^vU0 E ¢ `Nv° E m'° °Z
7 7 U N W r ° o
0- w O ° W1WO
Ln
L_ w V p Q1 N O `0O - a
o O O O O O C
W W O ° °Qo O r Qo O mm p, c c ° c c o L fA
U , 0W N _ N V)
o w
�/� Z 2 D O �¢ O 0 ° O
`0 'n a 0 oU In
® Z MY88 L >10068 1SV3 'Z 'pore • 1 109 ;o eun u°3 - -,
2 Z
..
Q wn*s -1 °Id
3.L4,LQ005 -�W � m
I I
rn
O °C,: c
° L 3 t O
r1 O V 0 O
c O J
L l a i o0I o p f (� N i m
1i O1 a
W ° v VI ^ c
I ` C O N O O
09 Loin /o m c - n `
I I 7s�M L1 ,S'l eoued i o T�'m `o Z
, 0. W
L9'i£l = w a m m
O ma
VOL
d�A1 s L e°Lod I `„ D .2 v
U-vo moo
z a
11 d
O
S: 0] LL I ii 4 T E' e <
`m m �.
W $ I U O b k u c > O O
U O O
ISM I 1 % I W 3 N E J
C I I I T M W
m I I I = �� �M
<r N a
W W D 1 my -
r W m BUM" 1 L
o n ei
m
41 e I 11 O J
J J o rn o
I °
rl `o wN
j < d'n woo N W w
m �� L0,9Z.00N
z 06 -b£L 101 -�
— (Au dwo0 °TILL -d) 0 4
Lowe 3 Aminn Puo m'Dm
09 I
z =
00' l =4 i Z
M S, 00N
-
�30VIRJ31 VIRJ31 HOOEIB Z X19 'L Ioi to eun Ie°M
r
(aWea711os � u�t0og�7
J n
a
V,
QA 3 >V Q3>f00��
rr
W
W p
LLl �
U 'L-
W g 0
S 0 0 1 '4 - 1 " E 13
cc:
'
�
1
I
I
�
' NO X
I ,
I
�
1
I
I
W
d
I
1
I
dpi
1 '
I
w
�i
o
S 0°1 '41 " E 13
--
- - —r - -_
z
--
_.z
_- _-
— -- --
1 C`l
cal ,
1 01
i
}-
1
tYl
6yI
--1
�
zo
u A
=1
M
IL
1 ,
1
'r
4
----- ---- --
---
- --
- - -
- --
- --------- -
1
o
�
I
�
f
N 0 0 2 5_ 52" u1 134.
I
L _
/a •—
QA 3 >V Q3>f00��
•
2766 133 Lane NW
Andover, MN 55304
September 7, 2006
To Whom It May Concern:
Attached please find an application for a lot split of my property at 13423 Crooked Lake Blvd.,
Andover, MN. As a current resident/property owner in Andover, born and raised in the area, I
have strong ties to the community. I have submitted this proposal only after much research and a
desire to combine my personal goals with the betterment of the community as well.
Proposal Overview
I would like to tear down an existing older home that currently rests on an oversized lot on the
comer of 134 Lane NW and Crooked Lake Blvd., with driveway access on Crooked Lake
Blvd., and replace it with two single family homes which would have lots sized more similar to
the neighborhood and driveway access on 134 Lane NW.
Following, I shall highlight a few of the areas that I hope you will consider as you review my
request.
• 1. Building Safety
My proposal would result in the removal of an older stricture built with dated materials
and less stringent code requirements than its replacement, which would provide a higher
level of safety and better protection from fire and the elements for its occupants and
neighbors as well.
2. Traffic Safety
The current property houses a single family rental property with ingress and egress
directly to Crooked Lake Blvd., a busy arterial road. This would be replaced by driveway
access to the quieter, residential 134` Lane NW, thereby improving the environment for
vehicular and pedestrian traffic.
3. Aesthetics
The immediate area consists of mixed housing stock with some spotty retail/business
locations grandfathered in. It is in transition to a full residential area. The current
building's site lines, layout and design reflect the older zoning and architectural era and
would be replaced by structures more reflective of the areas current direction and the
city's long term goals.
4. Property Values
Since the proposal would result in the removal of an older rental -type housing structure
suffering some structural obsolescence, and replacement by modern single family,
aesthetically appealing structures that would likely be owner occupied, this should help to
increase neighborhood property values.
5. Tax Base •
The proposal would replace one older, smaller home with two larger homes consistent
with the city's long term comprehensive plan as well as the issues mentioned in
Paragraph 4 above. This proposal would well over double the city's current tax base for
the subject property.
I would like to thank all of those involved for their time and efforts and invite you to call me at
612- 850 -4642 with any questions or suggestions.
Sincerely,
Dennis Steinlicht
•
RECEIVED
MAR 3 0 2007 i
CITY OF ANDOVER
—J2 -
t�
K
o �
z
h
CIE
ME Yr
r
a
F-
0
o�
a
�u
to
v w
rc h
ai. -s
AN W
o >
—/3
Ix
N
N
N N
W
�(n
r
II O
L Q
N O
Lu
>�
ZO
r O
y
Q V p Q
O O
�Y
NQ
i f O
a
m
c
m
z
h
CIE
ME Yr
r
a
F-
0
o�
a
�u
to
v w
rc h
ai. -s
AN W
o >
—/3
a:
- - UJ
0 ~ 6
0
w -
~ 0
ill IT) L.i..
() c:: 0
<
ill ::::E ~
a:
()
e
e
-/t,/'--
0
E
E
0
� m
U
L. J a
is-
CC
W
0
Z
Q
O
om
� „I��I' Illlllfllll
��� IINII�IIhINII�
Tj
miwiia
0
� I _
0
m
tIf
H
i
Q
W
�
C,
O
W
N
Q
W
O
X o
M O
C�
r 1 / -
Z
I
CL
LL
00
If
Z _
a
r
Q
W
�
C,
W
m Q
W
O
U
CITY OF ANDOVER
COUNTY OF ANOKA
STATE OF MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO. 341
AN ORDINANCE CREATING STANDARDS FOR REDEVELOPMENT PLANNED
UNIT DEVELOPMENTS IN THE CITY OF ANDOVER.
WHEREAS, standards for redevelopment Planned Unit Developments have been created,
and;
WHEREAS, The proposed changes have been reviewed and recommended for denial by
the Planning Commission.
NOW THEREFOR BE IT RESOLVED, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANDOVER HEREBY ORDAINS (Underlining being newly added language and strike-
outs indicating language to be removed):
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
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) •
MA
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 12-4-514-6 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.
9
-/f -
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.
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)
•
— Za —
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)
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 chanter 13 -3 shall apply to redevelopment
PUDs except for section 13 -3 -11. A redevelopment PUD may be permitted if the
subject Property meets the following standards:
A. The existing principle structure on the Property is at least 30 years old, or does
not meet current building codes, or 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.
• Adopted by the City Council of the City of Andover this 20th day of February 2007.
CITY OF ANDOVER
Attest:
Michael R. Gamache — Mayor
Victoria Volk — City Clerk
s
_Z,
`L
!.Ai L
IL
i i ' .s
• 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. • ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 . (763) 755 -5100
FAX (763) 755 -8923 • WWW.CI.ANDOVER.MN.US
TO: Planning and Zoning Commissioners
FROM: Chris Vrchota, Associate Planner 1
SUBJECT: Work Session: Consider code amendment regulating bee keeping
DATE: April 10, 2007
INTRODUCTION
An Andover resident has requested that the City adopt an ordinance outlining regulations
for bee keeping activities in the City. The City Council directed staff to draft an
ordinance at their March 20, 2007 meeting to allow honey bee - keeping on parcels larger
than 2 acres in size in the rural area.
DISCUSSION
Up to this point, staff had made an interpretation of the City Code to treat bees as an
agricultural animal, meaning 5 acres were needed to keep bees. A resident who wishes to
keep bees on approximately 2 acres has approached the City Council with a model bee-
keeping ordinance. The City Council expressed interest in allowing honey bee keeping
on properties of 2 acres and larger in the rural area.
Staff has reviewed the model ordinance provided by the resident and feels that it is longer
and more specific that what is really needed, in light of the fact that the use of this code
section will be fairly limited. Staff has drafted a code amendment that allows for honey
bee keeping on lots 2 acres and larger in the rural area and puts some requirements in
place to reduce potential nuisance characteristics without being overly long or complex.
Both the model ordinance presented by the resident and the draft ordinance put together
by staff have been attached so that the Planning Commission can compare the two.
Attachments
Proposed Code Amendment
Model Ordinance
ACTION REQUESTED
The Planning Commission is asked to review the proposed changes to the City Code.
This will go to the City Council on April 17 for a public hearing unless the Planning
Commission recommends significant changes and opts to table the item.
ResFe ly submittedC ota
Note: Staff believes that the most logical place to include bee - keeping regulations is in
City Code 5 -1: Animal Control, since this is the section where controls for other animals
(dogs, cats, equines) are located. The Planning Commission may suggest a different
location if they feel it would be more appropriately located elsewhere.
Chapter 1
ANIMAL CONTROL
ARTICLE D. HONEY BEES ( Ai)is Mellifera)
SECTION
5 -1D -1: Minimum Requirements for Keeping of Honey Bees
5 -1 D -2: Required Improvements and Maintenance
5 -1 D -3: Violation; Penalty
5 -1D -1: MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS FOR KEEPING OF BEES:
A. Location: Honey bee keeping shall only be permitted on properties
Residential and are located outside the Municipal Urban Service Area
(MUSA) boundary.
B. Lot Size: Honey bee keeping shall not be permitted on any property
of less than two acres. On lots of 2 -5 acres, a maximum of 8
colonies shall be permitted. On lots larger than 5 acres, there shall
be no restriction on the number of colonies, though all other
requirements of the City Code shall be met.
C.
possible All hives must be set back a minimum of 25 feet from the
property line.
5 -1D -2: REQUIRED IMPROVEMENTS AND MAINTENANCE:
A All hives shall be surrounded by a hedge or other similar barrier to
ensure that the bees assume a vertical flight pattern upon entering or
exiting the hive.
B All hives shall be surrounded by a fence meeting the following
criteria:
1 The fence shall prevent people and animals from getting closer
than 10 feet to any hive.
2 The fence should not provide hand or foot holds that would make
it easily climbable.
•
L�
LJ
3 Gates in the fence shall be equipped with self- closina and self -
latching mechanisms and shall be kept locked when not in use.
• 4 All fences shall conform with City Code 12 -7: Fences and Walls.
B. A convenient source of water shall be provided at all times to avoid
the conareaation of bees at swimming pools, bird baths, or other
water sources where they might come into contact with people or
pets.
D. No wax comb or other such materials are to be left on the arounds of
the property. Upon removal from the hive, all such material shall be
promptly disposed of in a sealed bee -proof container or placed
within a building or other bee -proof enclosure.
5 -1 D -3: VIOLATION: PENALTY: Any person who shall violate
any provision of this article shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon
conviction thereof, shall be punished as defined by state law.
0
go
�� PCtfRt�r}�!�_! "1 7 �'�El eted: MODEL B[EKEEPING
ORDINANCE¶
t prepared by t he
Deleted: MINNESOTA HOBBY
MODEL BEEKEEPING ORDINANCE 13EEKEEPERS ASSOCIATUtMI
prepared by the •
Minnesota Hobby Beekeepers Association
This model ordinance is not intended to he adopted without legal review by counsel representing the
'urisdiction c ortsiderinp it. Likc any proposed ordinance. it must he reconciled with existing ordinances
and may be revised to fit community standards and needs. Our purpose in advancing the model ordinance
is to o ffer a document with the anicultural framework we believe will enabl hobbyist and sideliner
beelccepers to safely and successfully pursue this pleasurable and economica culturally and
agriculturally critical activity in urban and suburban areas.
WHEREAS, honey bees (apis mellifera) are of benefit to mankind, and to Minnesota in
particular, by providing agriculture, fruit and garden pollination services and by
furnishing honey, and other useful products; and
WHEREAS, Minnesota is among the leading states in honey production and agricultural
by products associated with beekeeping throughout the United States; and
WHEREAS, domestic strains of honey bees have been selectively bred fol• desirable
traits, including gentleness, honey production, tendency not to swarm and non - aggressive
behavior, characteristics which are desirable to foster and maintain; and
WHEREAS, gentle strains of honey bees can be maintained within populated areas in
reasonable densities without causing a nuisance if the bees are properly located and
carefully managed;
NOW THEREFORE, be it ordained and enacted by
Section 1. Preamble Adopted. That the findings contained in the preamble of this •
ordinance are hereby adopted as a part of this ordinance.
Section 2. Definitions. As used in this article, the following words and terms shall
have the meanings ascribed in this section unless the context of their usage indicates
another usage.
2.1 "Apiary" means the assembly of one or more colonies of bees at a single
location.
2. 2 "Beekeeper" means a person who owns or has charge of one or more
colonies of bees.
2.3 "Beekeeping equipment" means anything used in the operation of an
apiary, such as hive bodies, supers, frames, top and bottom boards and
extractors.
2.4 "Colony" means an aggregate of bees consisting principally of workers,
but having, when perfect, one queen and at times drones, brood, combs,
and honey.
Pate of
Deleted: I
This model ordinance is not intended to
be adopted without legal review 6y legal
counsel representing the jurisdiction
considering it. Like any proposed
ordinance. it most he reconciled wilh
existing ordinances and nrny be rerised nt
ail womamity standards and needs Our
purpose in adrmtcing the model
ordinance is to after a document with the
apieuhmal framework we hdicre will
enable hobbyist and sideliner beekeepers
to safely and successfidly pursue Ibis
Piw,yxMabli t leaeorable and
economically, culturally and
agriculturally critical activity in urlam
and subtuban areas.
f 1
�J
Model Beekeeping Ordinance _February 22. 2007
4.5 Each beekeeper shall maintain his beekeeping equipment in good
• condition, including keeping the hives painted if they have been painted
bu are peeling or flaking, and securinrg u nused equipment from weather,
potential theft or vandalism and occupancy by swarms It shall not be a
defense to this ordinance that a beekeeper's unused equipment attracted a
swarm and that the beekeeper is not intentionally keeping bees.
Section 5 Colony Density.
u
5.1 Except as otherwise provided in this ordinance4 each instance where a
colony is kept Jess than 25 feet from the property line of the lot upon
which the apiary is located, as measured from the nearest point on the hive
to the property line, the beekeeper shall establish and maintain a flyway
barrierpt leastfi feet in height. The flyway barrier may consist of a,wall,
fence, dense vegetation or a combination there of such that bees will fly
over rather than through the material to reach the colony. if a flyway
barrier of dense vegetation is used, the initial planting may be 4, feet in
height, so long as the vegetation normally reaches 6 feet in height or
Jtigher. The flyway barrier must continue parallel to the apiary lot line for
10 feet in either direction from the hive or contain the hive or hives in an
enclosure at least 6 feet in height A flyway barrier is not required if the
property adjoining the apiary lot line (1) is undeveloped, or (2) is zoned
agricultural, industrial or is outside of the City limits, or (3) is a wildlife
management area or naturalistic park land with no horse or foot trails
located within 25 feet of the apiary lot line.,
�.2 No person is permitted to keep more than the following numbers of
colonies on any lot within the City, based upon the size or configuration of
the apiary lot:
a. One half acre or smaller lob 2 colonies
b. Larger than 1/2 acre but smaller than lucre lot 4 colonies
c. Larger thanaL4 acrc lot but smaller than I acre lot colonies
d. One acre but smaller than 5 acres 8 colonies
e. Larger than 5 acres Rio restriction
5.3 egardless of lot size, so long as all lots within a radius of at least 200 feet
from any hive, measured from any point on the front of the hive, remain
undeveloped, there shall be no limit to the number of colonies. No
grandfathering rights shall accrue under this subsection.
5 4, If the beekeeper serves the community by removing a swarm or swarms of
honey bees from locations where they are not desired, the beekeeper shall
not be considered in violation the portion of this ordinance limiting the
number of colonies if he temporarily houses the swarm on the apiary lot in
compliance with the standards of practice set out in this ordinance for no
more than3 days from the date acquired.
Page 3 of 5
•
W e blic or pri w
Deleted: f I )
Deleted: ;is liwh ns the maxim
fence limit anplic hl; to the ani• n Iol
<'Jrr if theeir, nuninwmlenrr
i limit is 11) fn;t"
or (2) if there is no
h eight m aximum. then _
t_.
Deleted: so
I Deleted: ? J
Deleted: of or
Deleted: 6
Deleted:
Deleted: 16clievc this paragraph
contradicts the Ist paragraph. which
states you tlon - 1 need a n, vay homer if'
your colonv is more Ihan 25' of a public
or private prolwnv line.
Deleted: .
Deleted: less
De leted:..
Delete VI
Deleted: r _
Deleted:
Deleted: J
Deleted:
( Deleted: no li
Deleted :3..
Deleted:4
( Deleted:. - - - -- .�
Deleted: or
l Deleted: I br- tgao.rithio
MM
AV if
M odei Beekee in > Ordinance Fer5ruary 22- 200 1
2.
"Hive" means the receptacle inhabited by a colony that is manufactured
for that purpose.
2.6
"Honey bee" means all life stages of the common domestic honey bee,
•
apis mellifera species.
2.7
"Lot" means a contiguous parcel of land under common ownership.
2.8
"Nucleus colony" means a small quantity of bees with a queen housed in a -
Formatted: Bullets and Numbering
smaller than usual hive box designed for a particular p urpose.
9
"Undeveloped property" means anv idle land that Is not Improved or
"Undevelo Deleted: ed ton.n
r r 1 v
eans any idle land That s not improved
-. m i
actually in the process of being improved with residential, commercial,
t,rwit,all in the process of being
industrial church park school or governmental facilities or other
I
I
imptnyed wad, rosidovial. conomercial.
industrial, church. mark. school or
structures or improvements intended for human occupancy and the
I
uovenunental thcillues orother saaenues
grounds maintained in associations therewith. The term shall be deemed
or improvements intended liar 1umm
occupancy mul the grrnmds maunanuvl in
to include property developed exclusively as a street or h or
associations 11'em v , i,l, 1 nhe tern, shall he
property used for commercial agricultural purposes_
deemed to include properly `Imelop °`I
exclusively as a street ar hiphwnc or
used for commercial agricultural
Section 3.
Purpose of Ordinance.
p" mOSeSj
L
`Deleted: "Nucleus Colon
3.1
The purpose of this ordinance is to establish certain requirements for
beekeeping within the City, to avoid issues which might otherwise be
associated with beekeeping in populated areas.
3.2
Compliance with this ordinance shall not be a defense to a proceeding
alleging that a given colony constitutes a nuisance, but such compliance
may be offered as evidence of the beekeeper's efforts to abate any proven
3.3
nuisance.
Compliance with this ordinance shall not be a defense to a proceeding
alleging that a given colony violates applicable ordinances regarding
health, but such compliance may be offered as evidence of the
public
beekeeper's compliance with acceptable standards of practice among
hobby beekeepers in the State of Minnesota.
Section 4.
Standards of Practice.
4.1
Honey bee colonies shall be kept in hives with removable frames, which
shall be ke t in sound and usable condition.
Deleted: keep "`'" l
4.2
Each beekeeper shall ensure that a convenient source of water is available
to the colony so long as colonies remain active outside of the hive.
4.3
Each beekeeper shall ensure that no wax comb or other material that might
encourage robbing by other bees are left upon the grounds of the apiary
lot. Such materials once removed from the site shall be handled and
stored in sealed containers, or placed within a building or other insect-
—
proof container.
Deleted: 2
4.4
For eachF olon permitted to be maintained under this ordinance, there
Deleted: cohmies
may also be maintained upon the same apiary lot, one nucleus colony in a
j Deleted:. I'nr management ol's,vnnns
hive structure not to exceed one standard 9 -5/8 inch depth 10 -frame hive
T
Deleted: Each such nucicus colony
body with no supers,
shall be disposedolor combined with an
aulhorized colony within 30 days alter
i the date acquired. weather I,ennittint!.!'. _ -,
.Pa 2 of 5
•
Model Beekeeping Ordinance February 22. 2007
• Section 6. Inspection.
A designated City official shall have the right to inspect any apiary for the purpose of
ensuring compliance with this ordinance between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. once annually upon
prior notice to the owner of the apiary property, and more often upon complaint without
prior notice.
Section 7. Presumed Colony /Hive Value.
For the purpose of enforcing City ordinances against destruction of property, each
colony /hive shall be presumed to have a value of $275.
Section S. Compliance.
0
8.1 Upon receipt of credible information that any colony located within the
City is not being kept in compliance with this ordinance, [the designated
City official] shall cause an investigation to be conducted. If the
investigation shows that a violation may exist and will continue, [the
designated City official] shall cause a written notice of hearing to be
issued to the beekeeper, which notice shall set forth:
a. The date, the time and the place that the hearing will be held, which
date shall be not less than 30 days' from the date of the notice;
b. The violation alleged;
c. That the beekeeper may appear in person or through counsel, present
evidence, cross examine witnesses and request a court reporter, and
d. That if [the designated Cih official] finds that they have been kept in
violation of this ordinance and if the violation is not remediated
within the time allowed, the bees may be ordered removed and /or
destroyed,
Notices shall be given by certified US Mail return receipt requested or
personal delivery. However, if the beekeeper cannot be located, then
notice may be given by publication in a legal newspaper for the county in
which the apiary property is located, at least seven days before the
hearing.
8.2 The hearing shall be conducted by [the designated City official]. The
burden shall be on the City to demonstrate by a preponderance of evidence
that the colony or colonies have been kept in violation of this ordinance.
If [the designated City official] finds a violation, then he /she may order
that the bees be removed from the City or such other action as may
address the violation, and that the apiary lot be disqualified for permitting
under this ordinance for a period of 2 years from the date of the order, jhe
apiary lot pwnership changes in which case the prohibition shall
terminate If the order has not been complied with within 20 days of the
order, the City may jemove or jlestroy he bees and charge the beekeeper
with the cost thereof. Upon destruction of bees by the City, all equipment
Page 4 of 5
0
Deleted: tx tenmveJ Ginn the City m'
mnn•A nut of the cite limits n•hcrc rheg
.arc currently loca4eJ if tlhe designntcd
City official] rinds Thal they have been
�I kept in violation of Ibis orJinoncc
� Formatted
Deleted: except Im
Deleted: chun_e iu
Deleted: m1tw,i ,, mer to nuwc
tenu,ve Ihem li'um iilc limits
-- ==- =-- = -= - -- - -- - --
_ Delete d: Ix
^ Deleted. eJ
Deleted: then, -- - -_
7—
Model Beekeeping ordinance February 22.. 2007
shall be returned by the City to the beekeeper, with expenses of
transportation to be paid by the beekeeper. The City's destruction of the
bees shall be by a method that will not damaze or contaminate the
equipment include wax foundation.
83 The decision of the hearing officer may be appealed by the beekeeper as
provided in the City's rules and procedures. If no provision for appeal
exists, then the beekeeper may file a notice of appeal with the City
secretary within 15 days of the date the order is placed in US Mail to the
beekeeper, or 10 days if the decision is announced at the hearing by [the
designated City official]. An appeal shall not stay [the designated City
official]'s decision, and the beekeeper shall be required to comply with
such order pending the outcome of the appeal.
8.4 No hearing and no order shall be required for the destruction of honey
bees not residing in a hive structure that is intended for beekeeping.
Section 9. Savings Clause.
In the event any part of this ordinance or its application to any person or property is held
to be unenforceable for any reason, the unenforceability thereof will not affect the
enforceability and application of the remainder of this ordinance, which will remain in
full force and effect.
Section 10. Effective Date.
This ordinance shall become effective on
20
Deleted: ulxni mquctt ^ ,
•
Deleted: ing
Deleted: e
j Deleted: v
•
Pa 5 of 5
i