Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/12/09Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda May 12, 2009 Andover City Hall Council Chambers 7.00 P.M. 1. Call to Order 2. Approval of Minutes — April 14, 2009 PUBLIC HEARING Variance (09 -02) to vary from minimum lot width requirements of City Code 12 -3 -5 for future lot split at 17285 Round Lake Boulevard NW. 4. PUBLIC HEARING: Conditional Use Permit (09 -04) to allow a used car dealer at 3149 162 Lane NW. 5. PUBLIC HEARING Revised Planned Unit Development for Andover Clocktower Commons located at the northeast corner of Hanson Boulevard and Crosstown Boulevard NW. 6. PUBLIC HEARING City Code Amendment to consider changes to City Code 4: Public Health and Safety pertaining to the abatement process. PUBLIC HEARING: City Code Amendment to consider changes to City Code Title 9: Building Regulations, Chapter 8: Rental Housing Dwellings to establish regulations for rental licensing of single family dwelling units. 8. Other Business 9. Adjournment 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. • ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 • (763) 755 -5100 FAX (763) 755 -8923 • WWW.CI.ANDOVER.MN.US TO: Planning and Zoning Commissioners FROM: Courtney Bednarz, City Planner SUBJECT: Item 2. Approval of Minutes - April 14, 2009 DATE: May 12, 2009 Request The Planning and Zoning Commission is asked to approve the minutes from the April 14, 2009 meeting. C I T Y 7 0 F � PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING — APRIL 14, 2009 The Regular Bi- Monthly Meeting of the Andover Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order by Chairperson Daninger on April 14, 2009, 7:00 p.m., at the Andover City Hall, 1685 Crosstown Boulevard NW, Andover, Minnesota. Commissioners present: Chairperson Daninger, Commissioners Tim Kirchoff, Michael Casey, Valerie Holthus, Devon Walton, Douglas Falk and Dennis Cleveland. Commissioners absent: There were none. Also present: City Planner, Courtney Bednarz Associate Planner, Angie Perera Others APPROVAL OFMINUTES. March 10, 2009 Motion by Kirchoff, seconded by Casey, to approve the minutes as presented. Motion carried on a 7 -ayes, 0 -nays, 0- present, 0- absent vote. PUBLICHEARING: VARIANCE (09 -01) TO VARYFROM CITY CODE 12 -6 TO ALLOW MORE TITAN THE MAXIMUMACCESSORY STRUCTURE SQUARE FOOTAGE FOR PROPERTYLOCATED AT 3443135' NW. Ms. Perera noted the applicant is seeking approval for a variance to allow an existing shed to exceed the maximum square footage area allowed by 144 square feet for the combination of existing accessory structures. Ms. Perera reviewed the staff report with the Commission. Motion by Walton, seconded by Falk, to open the public hearing. Motion carried on a 7- ayes, 0 -nays, 0- present, 0- absent vote. Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes —April 15, 2009 Page 2 Mr. Tiro Christianson, 3443 135` Avenue NW, stated there is no other avenue for him to get to this point. When he got a permit for the garage he asked if he could get a variance to keep the shed and was told no but he kept the shed until the City came out and gave him a letter. He thought he could shave off part of the shed and rebuilt it to make it conform but he would rather not do that. The yard looks nice with the shed on it and does not seem to bother anyone. He did not see that the shed is detrimental to Andover. Commissioner Holthus asked if the City gave him a reason why lie was not allowed to apply for a variance. Mr. Christianson stated they did not. He stated he did call when he was ready to build the shed to see if he needed a permit. He stated that the City asked if the shed would have a cement slab and he told them it would not and was informed by the city that he did not need a permit. Chairman Daninger asked if Mr. Christianson was notified that the shed needed to be removed when he came in to build the two car garage. Mr. Christianson indicated that he was informed that the shed had to be removed when he applied for the detached garage. Then he found out afterwards that he could file a variance to keep the shed which is what he did. He stated the shed is being used for building materials, lawn supplies and not vehicles. Commissioner Kirchoff asked what the requirements are for needing a building permit. Ms. Perera explained the requirements to the Commission. Mr. Christianson stated he would not object to having the shed inspected and he would change what needed to be corrected, if need be. Motion by Walton, seconded by Cleveland, to close the public hearing. Motion carried on a 7 -ayes, 0 -nays, 0- present, 0- absent vote. Commissioner Cleveland stated many of the homes in the neighborhood have accessory structures similar to this shed and he thought the issue was that there is more garage and shed than house and he thought that was the intent of the City Code. He thought the City's interest was in maintaining the property as a residence and not as a storage area. Chairman Daninger stated part of his concern is that there is a rule in place and has been established. The two car garage could have been 144 square feet less at the time it was built and then both could stay. It was also his understanding that when he received the permit to build the detached garage, the applicant was told that the shed needed to be removed and was agreed to and the shed was never removed, so he did not see a hardship. Commissioner Falk concurred. He stated there are certain rules they have to follow and he cannot find a hardship with this at all. Connnissioner Kirchoff stated he agreed. He stated there is no hardship here and does not fit the criteria for a hardship. It Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting 111finutes- April15, 2009 Page 3 Motion by Walton, seconded by Falk, to recommend to the City Council approval of Resolution No. to deny the variance resulting in either removal of the shed or reduction by 144 square feet so it will comply with the ordinance. Motion carried on a 7- ayes, 0 -nays, 0- absent vote. Ms. Perera stated that this item would be before the Council at the April 21, 2009 City Council meeting. PUSLICHEARING: PRELIMINARYPLAT OF WOODLAND CROSSING 2ND ADDITION TO MODIFY THE WOODLAND CROSSINGS PRELIMINARYPLAT AND PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT TO ALLOW SIX DETACHED TOWNHOUSE LOTS TO REPLACE FIVE SINGLE TAMIL YLOTS. Mr. Bednarz explained the preliminary plat follows from the sketch plan previously reviewed by the Planning Commission and Council. Mr. Bednarz reviewed the information with the Commission. Commissioner Kirchoff stated when they had a sketch plan this was what they agreed to after that process. Mr. Bednarz indicated it was. Chairman Daninger thought the Council added some things also. Motion by Falk, seconded by Casey, to open the public hearing. Motion carried on a 7- ayes, 0 -nays, 0- present, 0- absent vote. There was no public input. Motion by Kirchoff, seconded by Falk, to close the public hearing. Motion carried on a 7 -ayes, 0 -nays, 0- present, 0- absent vote. Motion by Walton, seconded by Falk, to recommend approval of the preliminary plat based on the applicant's proposal. Commissioner Holthus stated on the map, page 6, in the description of the item it was mentioned there would be additional plantings in the backyards of evergreen trees and in the landscaping plan there was no indication of this. She wondered where those fit. Mr. Byron Westlund, Woodland Development, stated that was not added in time for the Planning Commission packets. He showed a new map to the Commission indicating where the trees will be located at in the development. Commissioner Holthus stated she was under the impression the trees were to be added for screening and it did not look enough were added to create a barrier. Mr. Westlund asked Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes — April 15, 2009 Page 4 if she had a number in mind for trees. He stated he would have no problem working with staff on this. Commissioner Holthus stated on page 3, under association documents, she wondered where the current association townhomes are located. Mr. Westlund explained where the townhomes are located and indicated wording will be added to the documents to add the six units to the association. Chairman Daninger stated he was going to vote against this because he voted against it at the sketch plan. He stated he was not in favor of townhomes in that area. Motion carried on a 5 -ayes, 0 -nays, 0- present, 2- absent (Daninger, Holthus) vote. Mr. Bednarz stated that this item would be before the Council at the April 21, 2009 City Council meeting. PUBLICHEARING. CONDITIONAL USEPERMIT (09 -03) TOALLOWPUBLIC UTILITYIMPROVEMENTSAT 15920 7 NWAND 14361 7 NW Mr. Bednarz explained Northern Natural Gas will be installing equipment to allow inline inspection of the integrity of the natural gas pipeline between the two properties as required by the Federal Government. This project is similar to the one that was constructed near Prairie Knoll Park in 2004. The improvements will allow Northern Natural Gas to send equipment between the sites verify the integrity of the natural gas pipeline on an ongoing basis. Commissioner Falk asked how many of these sites are in the City. Mr. Bednarz stated there is a facility on Prairie Road and these two sites. He was not sure if Northern has any other facilities in Andover. Commissioner Falk wondered if the station on Prairie Road could handle the equipment. Mr. Bednarz stated that was already in place. Mr. Bednarz stated he received a voicemail today from a neighbor that lives to the north of the southerly site expressing two concerns. One was noise emanating from the site and the other was the trees around the southerly site have not fared very well. Commissioner Cleveland stated there is also an issue of repainting one of the buildings on the site. Mr. Bednarz stated the applicant is agreeing to do that. Chairperson Daninger stated the way he is seeing this, the fence will be expanded twenty - five feet to the north. Mr. Bednarz indicated on the northerly site it is twenty -five feet Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Cornn2ission Meeting Minutes —April 15, 2009 Page from where the existing fence is to the north. They are also proposing to pave an additional area for access of their vehicles. Chairperson Daninger asked if the Commission could request additional trees be placed for more screening. Mr. Bednarz stated they could add reasonable conditions to mitigate adverse impacts. Cormmissioner Cleveland stated on the northern site as they approach there are some meters on 8x8 poles, a few are on the inside of the fence and one is on the outside, when they change this will it all be contained within the fence. Commissioner Holthus asked if there were any issues with Prairie Knoll since that was installed. Mr. Bednarz stated there have not been any issues. Motion by Casey, seconded by Cleveland, to open the public hearing. Motion carried on a 7 -ayes, 0 -nays, 0- present, 0- absent vote. Mr. Bob Whitcraft, 16002 Valley Drive, stated his interest would be the northern most site. He asked what the buffer around the site meant. Mr. Bednarz stated the buffer was the mailing area for the public hearing. Mr. Whitcraft asked if there would be any additional operational activities being done at this site. Chairperson Daninger thought the applicant could answer this. Mr. Whitcraft asked if there were any City plans or conditions put on the facilities in regards to vandalism or terroristic threats because they are close to residential homes. Mr. Bednarz stated there are not specific plans put on these facilities by the City. The Fire Department does go there periodically on calls. Mr. Mike McNabb, 4320 144` Lane NW, stated his property is adjoining the Northern Gas Company and he is on the edge of the buffer zone. His concern was the cosmetic look of it. He stated the trees that were originally placed on the property, at least fifty percent have died and the others look really bad. The intention was to buffer some of the sound for the neighbors. He stated there is terrible hissing coming from it at all times. He would like them to try to muffle the sound and put up more trees. He also wanted to know how this affects the property because there are some trees in there that are rough looking but did not want them to cut out more trees because it is a sound barrier for them. He stated there is a fence around the structure right now and his recommendation would be to weave some stuff in the fence so it is less noticeable to everyone. He also wanted to know if there will be any additional noise added with the changes. Mr. James McClain, 4360 144 Lane, stated his concern was pretty much the same as Mr. McNabb's. He suggested they plant evergreen trees and screen the fence for noise abatement as well. Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Cornrnission Meeting Minutes — April 15, 2009 Page 6 Nlr. Hal Wilsie, Northern Natural Gas representative, stated he could answer questions for the Commission. Chairperson Daninger asked if the meter on the outside of the fence remain where it is located. Mr. Wilson stated it would. Chairperson Daninger asked if the noise will change. Mr. Wilsie stated the noise should not change at all. He explained how the equipment works and why there is noise at the site and he stated that at the northern end is where they inject the odor into the pipeline. This is not a natural gas leak it is an odorant leak and happens every time it is filled. He stated on the southern end he did not think any trees will need to be cut. He stated due to the volume of gas that moves through the pipeline at certain times there is not anything that can be done about the hissing sound at the site. He stated he visited the site before the meeting and no noise was audible at that time. He stated the launchers and receivers do not make noise. Chairperson Daninger asked if some slats could be placed in the fence so it is screened. Mr. Wilsie stated they could do that. Chairperson Daninger stated trees were requested and would they be opposed to putting more screening there to reduce the noise. Mr. Wilsie asked when the trees were installed that died. Chairperson Daninger indicated he did not know but thought more trees could be added for screening and as an additional sound barrier. Mr. Wilsie stated anything outside of the fence is not owned by Northern Natural Gas, it is owned by Center Pointe Energy and they would have to work with them on that. Mr. Whitcraft stated on the northern site, what is going to change as a result of the additions. Chairperson Daninger stated it is only the safety equipment being inserted into the pipeline. Mr. Whitcraft asked if there will be more traffic onsite or is this a one time deal. Mr. Wilsie stated there will be tests done to begin with and fix any flaws that are discovered and then they will need to inspect at a minimum every three years but could be longer. He stated this is safety equipment being installed which is good. Motion by Falk, seconded by Casey, to close the public hearing. Motion carried on a 7- ayes, 0 -nays, 0- present, 0- absent vote. Commissioner Casey thought it was pretty essential to put an amendment on this to have Center Pointe add landscaping for noise and screening of the site. The applicant stated they would be willing to install slats in the fence. Motion by Casey, seconded by Holthus, to recommend approval of the proposed Conditional Use Permit with two additional amendments to add trees for buffering all around the site and to install slats in the fence that is characteristic of the neighborhood as Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes —April 15, 2009 Page 7 determined by staff for both sites. Motion carried on a 7 -ayes, 0 -nays, 0- present, 0- absent vote. Mr. Bednarz stated that this item would be before the Council at the April 21, 2009 City Council meeting. PUBLIC HEARING: CITY CODE AMENDMENT TO CONSIDER CHANGES TO CITY CODE 12 -2 -2 DEFINITIONS, 12 -8 -6 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR EXTERIOR STORAGE, 12 -12 TABLE OF PERMITTED, CONDITIONAL & PROHIBITED USES, 12-13-3 EXTERIOR STORAGE, AND 12 -13 -5 SCREENING. Ms. Perera explained after discussing enforcement action pertaining to exterior storage on properties with the City Attorney, staff has discovered inadequacies in the ordinance. Staff is recommending the following amendments to the City Code pertaining to exterior storage. The proposed amendments do not change the intent of the current ordinance as they are currently written and are mainly suggested for clarification purposes of when and where exterior storage is allowed as outlined below: Add the following definitions: "Outdoor display, storage, and sales ", "Lumberyard ", and "Building materials" Exclude the Residential District from the option to obtain a CUP for exterior storage. Staff has historically interpreted the ordinance this way. Remove "building materials" from the Table of Permitted, Conditional & Prohibited Uses since it is not needed with the addition of the definition which states where and when it would be allowed. Staff has made suggestions related to screening of exterior storage that may differ from historical practice. Staff has clarified that screening should be visible "at ground level" in relation to exterior storage. The intent being that a property would be considered to be in compliance when the exterior storage is adequately screened from a neighboring property and from a public street both visible at ground level. The City attorney has suggested the need to clarify where screening is visible ( "at ground level ") to be added for practicality purposes and from a safety perspective for code enforcement staff. Ms. Perera discussed the staff report with the Commission. Commissioner Cleveland wondered if it was ok to park vehicles in the front yard that do not run. Ms. Perera stated they cannot and that the property owner would need to store the vehicles either on the driveway if operable with current tabs or in a garage if inoperable or expired tabs. Commissioner Cleveland asked who determines a driveway. Ms. Perera stated there is language in the ordinance pertaining to driveways. Motion by Cleveland, seconded by Falk, to open the public hearing. Motion carried on a 7 -ayes, 0 -nays, 0- present, 0- absent vote. Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Connnission Meeting Minutes —April 15, 2009 Page 8 There was no public input Motion by Casey, seconded by Kirchoff, to close the public hearing. Motion carried on a 7 -ayes, 0 -nays, 0- present, 0- absent vote. Motion by Kirchoff, seconded by Casey, to recommend to the City Council the changes outlined in the staff report as presented. Motion carried on a 7 -ayes, 0 -nays, 0- present, 0- absent vote. Ms. Perera stated that this item would be before the Council at the April 21, 2009 City Council meeting. PUBLIC HEARING: CITY CODE AMENDMENT TO CONSIDER CHANGES TO CITY CODE 4 -2 GARBAGE, RECYCLABLES AND REFUSE, AND CITY CODE 4 -4 WEEDS, GRASSES, AND OTHER HARMFUL VEGETATIONPERTAINING TO THE ABA TEMENT PR OCESS WITHIN EA CH CHAPTER. Ms. Perera stated that staff continues to work with the City Attorney on reviewing the abatement process within Title 4: Public Health and Safety. The City Attorney has communicated that there may be additional edits to other sections within Title 4 that have not been identified in the recent public hearing notice. Due to the additional work and advertisement that is needed, it is recommended that the full draft ordinance amendment be brought up for review at the next Planning and Zoning Commission meeting on May 12, 2009. Ms. Perera explained that the public hearing would need to be opened up and then continued to the next Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. Motion by Falk, seconded by Casey, to open the public hearing. Motion carried on a 7- ayes, 0 -nays, 0- present, 0- absent vote. There was no public input. Motion by Cleveland, seconded by Casey, to continue the public hearing to the May 12, 2009 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. Motion carried on a 7 -ayes, 0 -nays, 0- present, 0- absent vote. OTHER BUSINESS. Mr. Bednarz updated the Planning Commission on related items. s Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Cornrnission Meeting Minutes —April 15, 2009 Page 9 ADJOURNMENT. Motion by Falk, seconded by Casey, to adjourn the meeting at 8:17 p.m. Motion carried on a 7 -ayes, 0 -nays, 0- absent vote. Respectfully Submitted, Sue Osbeck, Recording Secretary ThneSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. -'l 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. • ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 MAIN (763) 755 -5100 FAX (763) 755 -8923 • VVWW.Cf.ANDOVER.MN.US TO: Planning and Zoning Commissioners FROM: Courtney Bednarz, City Plane& SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING Variance (09 -02) to vary from minimum lot width requirements of City Code 12 -3 -5 for future lot split at 17285 Round Lake Boulevard NW. DATE: May 12, 2009 INTRODUCTION The applicant would like to divide their 9.69 acre parcel into two lots at some point in the future. As the attached location map shows, the property is long and narrow and without access to the rear of the lot. DISCUSSION Great River Energy owns a property between the site and 173` Lane NW. The applicant has reached agreement with Great River Energy to purchase a sixty foot wide area of the utility company's property to provide access to the rear of their lot. Prior to purchasing the property, the applicant wants to determine if they will be allowed to use the new land as an access for a second lot. A variance would be needed for the lot width of the second lot due to the fact that the access across the Great River Energy property would be less than the typical 300 feet of lot width as measured at the front yard building setback (40 feet from the front property line). State Statute provides review criteria that are used to determine the merit of variance cases. In all cases the applicant must demonstrate undue hardship. The considerations for undue hardship include: 1. There are circumstances unique to the property that were not created by the landowner. Unique conditions may include the physical characteristics, including topography or water conditions that may exist on the property. 2. The property, if the variance is granted, will not be out of character with other properties in the same neighborhood. 3. The applicant has exhausted all reasonable possibilities for using his/her property or combining a substandard lot due to size, shape or lot line dimensions, with an adjacent vacant lot. 4. Economic considerations may not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use of the property exists with application of the minimum standards of this chapter. The applicant has provided the following findings to substantiate their request. The subject property is 9.69 acres in size which is substantially more than the 2.5 acre minimum lot size. Some reasonable accommodation should be made to allow use of this land. 2. The 300 feet needed to meet the minimum lot width requirement cannot be purchased from Great River Energy because that distance would conflict with their existing driveway and would also cause the lot width of the utility company property to become non - conforming. 3. The area around the site was allowed to develop in a manner that prevents interior street access to nearly 20 acres of developable land on three adjoining properties (17247 and 17285 Round Lake Boulevard and 2980 173` Lane). Staff Review The applicant initially proposed a 33 foot wide access area. Upon staff's request, the applicant worked with Great River to expand the potential access area to 60 feet in width. At this width there may be potential to extend a public street into the area in the future to provide more typical public street access to the developable area of the adjacent properties. A sketch has been prepared to show what this could look like. It should be noted that the sketch uses a street terminating in a cul -de -sac beyond 500 feet in length to reach the remote portions of undeveloped property and that the lot at the outside curve of the potential future roadway is also less than 300 feet in width. If the variance is approved, staff would work with the applicant to ensure that the future lot split and house would not conflict with the potential to extend the street in the future. ACTION REQUESTED The Planning Commission is asked to review the findings and recommend approval or denial of the variance request. Attachments Resolution Location Map Site Drawing Sketch of Potential Future Development Cc: Keith and Suzie Larson 17285 Round Lake Bouelvard CITY OF ANDOVER COUNTY OF ANOKA STATE OF MINNESOTA RES. NO. R A RESOLUTION APPROVING /DENYING A VARIANCE TO THE MINIMUM LOT WIDTH REQUIRMENTS OF CITY CODE 12 -3 -5 FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 17285 ROUND LAKE BOULEVARD NW LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS: The North 1/2 of the North 1/2 of the North 1/2 of the North 1/2 of the Northwest 1/4 of Section 9 Township 32 Range 24, Anoka County, Minnesota, except road, subject to easements of record. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request to vary from the minimum district requirements of City Code 12 -3 -5, and; WHEREAS, after review the Planning Commission finds recommended approval/denial of the request, and; and WHEREAS, the City Council has received the recommendation of the Planning Commission, and; WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the following conditions constitute an undue hardship for the subject property: 1. The subject property is 9.69 acres in size which is substantially more than the 2.5 acre minimum lot size. Some reasonable accommodation should be made to allow use of this land. 2. The 300 feet needed to meet the minimum lot width requirement cannot be purchased from Great River Energy because that distance would conflict with their existing driveway and would also cause the lot width of their property to become non - conforming. 3. The area around the site was allowed to develop in a manner that prevents interior street access to nearly 20 acres of developable land on three adjoining properties. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Andover approves /denies the proposed variance request to the minimum lot width requirement of City Code 12 -3 -5 to allow a lot to be created with 60 feet of lot width. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Andover on this th day of 2008. CITY OF ANDOVER ATTEST: Michael R. Gamache, Mayor Michelle Hartner, Deputy City Clerk T 11 D0)kA Incorporated 1974 . Variance Minimum Lot Width 17285 Round Lake Boulevard 17683 17657 17620 17611 17610 a C l L 17551 N 175TH L 17523 A 3157 3095 CQ w WnBsMh 9271 3239 3207 I 17578 17544 17510 -.177THAVE--j . .... . 17611 -- T 176rH-AVF7 ' 17581 17565 -A 17553 17504 17495 177T:KAVE iSl 2760 11760 17651 zss 2690 P1 2691 LN 3316 3286 z 3156 3092 3388 17441 z 0 77427 17422 17425 w 3155 3129 3103 3028 3055 3023 1 17462 T2039 F25f n 17445 2648 2508 1385 17406 3301 G� 174 09 3213 2876 ry > 3154 3122 I a 17381 32H 3232 3212 3054 17387 2631 5 a 3349 3329 3309 3251 3231 3211 17327 3123 3047 17364 1 357 1316 173F 17303 P���3230 �321 0 3M6 2980 173n 2572 2818 17280 17247 1 1 7214 17225 3045 3OD9 2935 2857 2819 172N VE -- I 2654 ---------- 72ND-AVE- White Oaks 17146 304 2740 17132 17131 2765 2685 F- - f1si 1370A 3370 3325 3235 3157 3096 if 17078 11 2963 2899 17073 2764 17080 17021 17041 3162 3362 - 3320 3298 3244 3174 17026 17023 n 17D25 38 2888 4 i 7 17020 17MO 17011 16983 - 16981 U15 3351 3295 3239 16951 3105 16171 L ,76 16975 2941 169 16970 2695 ❑ 14 3341 3290 3236 3162 3106 Co W F334 3 ............ 2886 2844 7) N 2875 16920 2718 2684 231 3291 3237 16881 3109 ❑ 3C4 2857 2819 16878 16879 2665 2615 1 z Subject Property Location Map N W— E S ! - ; f !I a r y r . � o i _ Y sy ]J P J 1�= ' it ql�.w � ". �� r�•p � _.'1P '4+� I . -- - "ate -'�'� -• � ,�� = �er� . 5. � I i 4 y �z2 a qr 4J. IJ VA WN ^fit .w91 4 It k .. ►lY 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 Conditional Use Permit (09 -04) to allow a used car dealer at 3149 162 Lane NW. DATE: May 12, 2009 INTRODUCTION The City Code requires Council approval of a conditional use permit and a city license for used vehicles sales in the Limited Industrial Zoning District. DISCUSSION The applicant is obtaining a dealer's license from the state. This license requires commercial office space. The applicant proposes to have a small office in the existing building and one display vehicle in the existing parking lot. The applicant's letter (attached) also indicates that he would provide brokering services for clients. Comparison to City Code As with all conditional use permits, the existing site must be compared with existing regulations to determine if there are deficiencies that need to be addressed. A strict comparison of the site to the performance standards of the City Code is provided below. In addition, the Council has adopted interim performance standards for this area of the city to balance required site improvements with the appearance of the existing site and proportionate to any proposed expansion. The Commission and Council will need to apply the interim development standards to determine the level of improvements that will be required for the site. City Code 12 -13 -22 Interim Performance Standards is attached for your review. City Code 12 -13 -9 Off Street Parking Requirements A total of 9 parking stalls for the proposed business are shown on the attached drawing. This meets the requirements outlined in the table below. It is unlikely that the business, as proposed, would need this many parking stalls. Use Parking Stall Requirements Required Stalls Employee Parking: 3 stalls plus 1 per 400 sf beyond the first 1,000 gross floor area 3 Vehicle Customer Parking: 5 stalls plus 5 stalls per acre above the first acre 5 Sales Vehicle Display Parking: (as proposed by applicant) 1 Other (Office) 1 stall per 250 sf 13 TOTAL 22 EXISTING 35/3 Parking Area Performance Standards Item Conforms? Notes: Surface Yes The surface of the parking area is paved. 1 tree /50 feet 1 shrub /20 feet 21 The parking area does not have curb and gutter as would be required for a new parking Curb No 1 shrub /10 feet NA 29 area. Dimensions Yes The parking stalls and drive lane meet the dimensional requirements 10 28 The existing parking lot is 5 feet from the east property line. A 10 foot setback is Setback NO required for new parking areas. Parking areas are required to be screened from public right -of -way to a minimum height Screening No of three feet. This applies to the portions of the parking area directly visible from Round Lake Boulevard and 162 lane NW. an unpaved turnaround has worn away the ground cover to the north of the parking Other No area. This area needs to be restored or paved as part of the parking area City Code 12 -13 -6 Landscaping Requirements City Code 12 -13 -6 Measurement Ratio Required Trees Required Shrubs Area Site Perimeter 1,048 feet 1 tree /50 feet 1 shrub /20 feet 21 52 Building Perimeter 288 feet 1 shrub /10 feet NA 29 Total Required Plant Material 21 81 Total Existing Plant Material 10 28 I Site perimeter does not include northerly area of site that is undeveloped. City Code 3 -8 Vehicle Sales Businesses This section of the code provides additional regulations for vehicle sales businesses. It is attached for review. Previous Application of Interim Performance Standards The interim performance standards have been applied to two sites in this area of the city. A summary of each site is attached. Staff Recommendation The limited scope of the proposed business will have minimal impact on the site. No expansion of the building or parking area is proposed. As a result, any improvements that are required should also be limited. Staff recommends the areas of bare ground on the site be re- vegetated to establish ground cover and that the exterior storage of lumber, block, brick and other miscellaneous items be removed from the property. 2 ACTION REQUESTED The Planning Commission is asked to make a recommendation to the City Council, including the level of site improvements that should be required. Attachments Resolution Location Map Site Drawing Letter from applicant City Code 12 -13 -22 Interim Performance Standards Summary of Previous Application of Interim Performance Standards E -mail from Resident Cc: Frank Sud 15956 Drake St NW Jim Larson 3149 162 Lane NW 3 CITY OF ANDOVER COUNTY OF ANOKA STATE OF MINNESOTA PRMIRILIGNIS A RESOLUTION APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR USED VEHICLE SALES ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3149 162 LANE NW LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOT 1, BLOCK 1 HUGHS INDUSTRIAL PARK, ANOKA COUNTY MINNESOTA, SUBJECT TO EASEMENT OF RECORD WHEREAS, the applicant has requested approval of a conditional use permit for used vehicle sales on the subject property, and; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds the request would not have a detrimental effect upon the health, safety, and general welfare of the City of Andover, and; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recommends to the City Council approval of the conditional use permit request, and; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Andover has received the recommendation of the Planning Commission and approves used vehicle sales on the subject property subject to the following: 1. The applicant shall be required to obtain approval of a vehicle sales business license from the City Council. 2. Vehicle display parking, customer parking and employee parking shall be limited to the number and location described in the May 19, 2009 staff report to the City Council. 3. Tthe areas of bare ground on the subject property shall be re- vegetated to establish ground cover and that the exterior storage of lumber, block, brick and other miscellaneous items shall be removed from the property. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Andover on this th day of , 2009. CITY OF ANDOVER ATTEST: Victoria Volk, City Clerk Michael R. Gamache, Mayor E L c I I Y 0 F NbD 60 V �E Incorporated 1974 Conditional Use Permit Used Vehicle Sales 3149 162nd Lane NW CO CO ---- -- ---- - 1-64TH LN 16437 0 ° 0 (0 0 C�, CO CO CI) CO ' 16425 00 16 4Ty AV 6C6 LO LO 04 CO CO j C� lc/)� C) CO c 16405 2 ) CI) 1-6A, THAV - - — - ------ ----- (0 CO 16382 (0 CI) 3251 C) 3153 (0 N , 0 0 0 -J w CO co CO 0 - %aRD - LN CO (0 < 16340 3105 04 (0 I-- cq 163RD 6NII 3055 ce) M CA z 16351 M CO CY) (0 16315 3126 Cl) 31 aOO CIJ 0 TLc) LO LO Lf) LO Lr) LO m LC) 0 C) 0 LO 0 0 CO OD 0 0 0 M c C7 CY) C\I n C) M c) Ce) M CI) Cq c CO t c T co v n� 3368 16223 U 3240 C) (0 Cf) CD CO 3098 U c CO U CO M 0) 5 U U 16177 C 16157 3231 - 3121 3017 5 16138 16135 5 161 16125 161STAVE 4 60 7 0 16071 3261 T11 �-N L N Cq C, C) M T T Q O T CI) 16020 3260 16011 Subject Property Location Map W E LA -N D... O LT AI, cfl cri iz roles ; LLzW SHRUn Ll 6iTF- FI-AN - LANDSCAPING: -FLAN .h -a'7. LT AI, cfl cri City of Andover 4/20/09 RE: Dealer License I'm in the process of getting my Dealer License. State requires I have an office. I'm leasing existing office and parking space from Jim Larson. This is a small business; I plan to have one car for sale and broker for other clients. Sincerely, Frank Sud Sud Superior Auto Sales Inc 9 CHAPTER 8 VEHICLE SALES BUSINESS 3 -8 -1: Purpose and Intent 3 -8 -2 Definitions 3 -8 -3: License Required 3 -8 -4: Application for License 3 -8 -5: Review of Application; Issuance or Denial 3 -8 -6: License Fees and Term; Renewals 3 -8 -7: Conditions of License 3 -8 -8: Standards 3 -8 -9: Violation Provisions 3 -8 -10: Revocation of License 3 -8 -1: PURPOSE AND INTENT: It is the purpose of this chapter to regulate vehicle sales to establish reasonable and uniform regulations to prevent adverse impacts on the health, safety, morals and general welfare of the citizens of the city. 3 -8 -2: DEFINITIONS: A. Gross Vehicle Weight Rating: The total weight of a fully equipped vehicle and payload including the amount of weight that can be carried and towed. B. Vehicle Sales: the sale of cars and trucks as limited by the City Code, excluding recreational vehicles. 3 -8 -3: LICENSE REQUIRED: No person shall engage in the business of selling, trading or advertising the sale of new or used vehicles within the city without first obtaining a license as provided in this Chapter. For the purposes of this chapter, anyone who, as a part of their livelihood, engages in the regular sale, trade or exchange of vehicles shall be deemed to be doing business as a new or used vehicle dealer. 3 -8 -4: APPLICATION FOR LICENSE: A. Information Required: Any person, partnership or corporation desiring to secure a license shall make application to the City Clerk including the following: 1. Completed city application form 2. Fee as established by City Code. 3. Completed Minnesota Vehicle Dealer License Commercial Location Checklist 3 -8 -5: REVIEW OF APPLICATION; ISSUANCE OR DENIAL: The City Clerk shall submit the application to the City Council for its consideration. The Council, by motion, may grant or refuse to grant the license after consideration of the application. 3 -8 -6: LICENSE FEES AND TERM; RENEWALS: The fee for every such license shall be established by resolution of the City Council. Every such license shall expire on December 31 next after it is issued. 3 -8 -7: CONDITIONS OF LICENSE: A. Transferability: The license shall not be transferable from one person to another, and a new license must be applied for each time a place of business is changed. B. Posting: Every such license shall be kept conspicuously posted in the place for which the license is issued and shall be exhibited to any person upon request. C. Inventory: Vehicles allowed to be sold or stored on site shall be limited to a vehicles that are eligible to be issued a title up to a gross vehicle weight rating of 12,500 pounds. D. Restrictions and Conditions: The Council may impose any conditions or restrictions it deems necessary or advisable in the public interest, including but not limited to the hours of operation, building materials, fencing, landscaping, screening, lighting and signage. E. Review: The Council may review the license at any time for the purpose of adding additional conditions to mitigate adverse impacts on the health, safety, morals and general welfare of the citizens of the city. 3 -8 -8: STANDARDS: The following standards are established for all businesses engaged in the selling, trading or advertising the sale of new or used vehicles within the city: A. Parking areas shall conform to the requirements of City Code 12 -13 -9. The Site Plan shall clearly identify parking for customers and parking for display of vehicles for sale. Parking shall be prohibited in drive lanes, on landscaped areas and any place other than approved on the site plan. B. All businesses engaged in the sales, trade or advertising the sale of new or used vehicles within the City limits shall conduct these activities only on properties for which they have been granted a license under this chapter. This provision shall not apply to promotional events and activities conducted outside the city limits. C. Vehicles that are visibly damaged shall not be visible from public streets and shall not be stored outdoors for more than 48 hours. D. Outdoor storage of vehicle parts or other materials, including but not limited to tires, scrap metal, glass, pallets and refuse shall be prohibited. E. Sales of used vehicle parts shall be prohibited. F. The dismantling or reduction of vehicles shall be prohibited. G. Signage shall conform to City Code 12 -13 -8 and shall be further restricted as follows: 1. All signs posted on vehicles shall be inside the vehicle. 2. No sign posted on vehicles shall contain text font or other information that is larger than three inches in height. H. The estimated value of improvements to the licensed property shall exceed the estimated land value of the licensed property as estimated by Anoka County. 3 -8 -9: VIOLATION PROVISIONS: Any person who shall violate any portion of this chapter shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. 3 -8 -10: REVOCATION OF LICENSE: Every such license may be revoked by the Council after the license has been given reasonable notice and an opportunity to be heard for the violation of any provision of this chapter or for the violation of any conditions or restrictions in the motion granting the license or any motion thereafter passed by the Council. (Amended 4 -4 -06, Ord. 324) Summary of Previous Application of Interim Performance Standards 3118 162 " Lane NW CUP for Outdoor Storage Approved October 2, 2007 What was Required: 1. Painting of the exterior of the building. 2. Paving of the driveway and front parking lot. 3. Striping of the front parking lot. 4. Landscaping in the front of the building, in conformance with an approved landscaping plan. 5. Dust control measures used in the rear storage yard. 6. Construction of a new fence to screen the rear storage yard from 162 " Lane. 7. Removal of the radio tower on the front of the building. 8. All dumpsters stored on the site shall be screened from view from adjacent properties. 9. No dumpster or material shall be stacked above the fence line. 10. A maximum of 13 dumpster shall be allowed on the site. 11. Dumpsters with material in them shall not be stored on the site longer than 3 days. What was not Required: 1. Curb or pavement for parking area/storage yard behind the building and fence 2. Turf establishment or landscaping behind the building and fence 16191 Round Lake Boulevard CUP for Used Vehicle Sales Approved September 5, 2006 Note: this site preceded the interim standards but was the catalyst for their creation What was Required: 1. Pavement and curb for new parking area 2. Storm water .pond for drainage from new parking area 3. Some trees and shrubs What was not Required: 1. Parking area dimensional standards for vehicle display area 2. Parking area screening requirements 3. Appropriate size and number of trees and shrubs 1] Courtney Bednarz From: bndprescott @comcast.net Sent: Saturday, May 02, 2009 12:49 PM To: Courtney Bednarz Subject: Conditional use permit for used car dealership We already have a used car dealership about 100 feet south of the proposed location in the notice we received about the location for 3149 162nd Lane NW. We don't need another dealership 100 feet away. The traffic is already heavy at certain times of the day. Adding more conjestion is impractical. We live in the first house on the northwest corner of Round Lake Blvd and 162nd Lane NW, and we don't need any more hassle getting on to Round Lake Blvd than already exists. I also believe that having the dealership will negatively impact the value of my property. We are definitely not in favor of issuing the-the Conditional Use Permit for this location. Bill and Nance Prescott T TO: Planning and Zoning Commissioners FROM: Courtney Bednarz, City Planner SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING Revised Planned Unit Development for Andover Clocktower Commons located at the northeast corner of Hanson Boulevard and Crosstown Boulevard. DATE: May 12, 2009 INTRODUCTION BDT Holdings, the current owner of Andover Clocktower Commons, is seeking direct access to Crosstown Boulevard NW. This item follows from the sketch plan reviewed by the Planning Commission at the February 10` meeting. DISCUSSION The applicant requested a full movement access to Crosstown Boulevard at that meeting. The Planning Commission recommended a right -in / right -out access only. The Council appeared in favor of a 3 /4 intersection. The Council also discussed the speed limit along Crosstown Boulevard, the potential for development of the Holasek property to the south and staging roadway improvements over time. Current Proposal The attached plan set illustrates the applicant's proposed 3 /4 intersection. It includes a new access to Crosstown Boulevard with a raised median that divides the entrance and exit lanes. Striping is shown on Crosstown Boulevard to define an eastbound left turn lane and bypass lane. Traffic Study The traffic study prepared by the applicant and staff review comments are enclosed in the packet to provide additional background information. Staff Review of Proposed Plan The city has jurisdiction over access to Crosstown Boulevard. If the city chooses to allow access it needs to ensure that appropriate improvements are made to protect public safety. The Engineering Department reviewed the proposed plan and provided the attached comments. Briefly, the significant deficiencies for a 3 /4 intersection design that were identified are as follows A westbound right turn lane /deceleration lane is needed for the approach to the new entrance. 2. A concrete median is needed within Crosstown Boulevard to protect vehicles as they make the various turning movements and to prevent turning movements that are not designed. 3. The median that divides the entrance and exit lanes at the proposed access needs to be extended to prevent left turns out of the proposed access. 4. Additionally, there are several items that will need to be addressed after the level of improvements has been determined. These include redesign of the trail across the proposed access, drainage and storm water mitigation. Staff met with the applicant to discuss the proposed design and the review comments. The applicant indicated that they would work with the city to address many of the comments but would not revise the plan to address the major design items listed above. Staff Recommendation The attached Engineering Memorandum provides a detailed description of the improvements necessary to create a safe 3 /a intersection at the proposed location. ACTION REQUESTED The Planning Commission is asked to hold a public hearing to discuss the proposed access and to make a recommendation to the Council. Attachments Resolution Location Map Applicant's Letter Applicant's Access Plan Engineering Department Memorandum Council Minutes Planning Commission Minutes Traffic Study (Separate Enclosure) i►�Cj�/ / l N a� Cc: Tom Roberts BDT Land, LLC 6484 Pinnacle Drive Eden Prairie, MN 55346 - Darren Lazan Landform 105 South 5"' Avenue, Suite 513 Minneapolis, MN 55401 P CITY OF ANDOVER COUNTY OF ANOKA STATE OF MINNESOTA RES. NO A RESOLUTION AMENDING THE APPROVED PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT OF ANDOVER CLOCKTOWER COMMONS TO ALLOW AN ACCESS TO CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD NW WHEREAS, BDT Land, LLC has requested approval of an amendment to the approved planned unit development to allow direct access to Crosstown Boulevard NW; and WHEREAS, City Code 13 -3 -10 requires a public hearing changes to the approved development and design; and WHEREAS, pursuant to published and mailed notice thereof, the Planning Commission has conducted a public hearing on said amendment; and WHEREAS, as a result of such public hearing, the Planning Commission recommends to the City Council NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Andover has received the recommendation of the Planning Commission and hereby approves /denies the proposed amendment subject to the following conditions /based on the following findings: 1. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Andover this — day of 2009. CITY OF ANDOVER ATTEST: Michelle Harmer, Deputy City Clerk Michael R. Gamache, Mayor t] C L T 1 0 1' NDOVE Incorporated 1974 Revised Planned Unit Development Additional Street Access Andover Clocktower Commons 15400 15355 City Hall k Complex #1 N CO I r r Park 6 is B 1900 14 1`182 r 1481 14950 1685 15476 I h 4 07 ' __ _ 4 6` Z 15 440 i 0 —_ 1n z � 1573 1537 n m rn "'S55rrr t- / / Q 1 ` N N N 'Q 'C 9 yt p 9 15296 15245 1409 15219 y g y rla �"S B 2 'S lq ^ yNq 15 C� � 151a 51y1 1519 1516 1 15 � 15565 �� ��S 189 151d5„�151'3 11y155 7g7S 6� 15 1 15 1 1y 15 , 1 5140 �s� w`�P 151512 1151Og1 10 151 15 13 15118 15 10 15 15 5111 17 g6 150 �� 15093 91512 151p115 11 15107 1 088 15 y 0 y 1510 1506 1 15095 15080 150E 15084 15061 15 15081 15072 1507 lson tso7s �0 15062 15065 15 5063 1506 15067 15064 7506 1 1503 15p3314978 '15035 1503fi 1503 15032 15031 15030 15029 ro 0 m 0 15016 °i �" N 1502 1501 1499 50211502 1502 15017 501 15015 .- 1501 1 1500 W07 1500 1500 15004 14995 500 14997 Q 14 149911502 499 14994 1499 14990 14995 > 1498 1497E 14M 1 97 14981 1497 15 14967 v ^ 00 8j I 14 14 1g9g2 14865 Z o 0o m y in a 14 OyJ pO� 4 �9 ,0 n u N 1487 1455 1423 14853 S 1 ^� 1 833 14844 14841 0 0 1420 1 621 148 14831 1484 1452 M nb �tiy 80 797 14824 148 So v v v 1403 " / Subject Property Location Map / NN W E S W t0 V N o 15476 I h 4 07 ' __ _ 4 6` Z 15 440 i 0 —_ 1n z � 1573 1537 n m rn "'S55rrr t- / / Q 1 ` N N N 'Q 'C 9 yt p 9 15296 15245 1409 15219 y g y rla �"S B 2 'S lq ^ yNq 15 C� � 151a 51y1 1519 1516 1 15 � 15565 �� ��S 189 151d5„�151'3 11y155 7g7S 6� 15 1 15 1 1y 15 , 1 5140 �s� w`�P 151512 1151Og1 10 151 15 13 15118 15 10 15 15 5111 17 g6 150 �� 15093 91512 151p115 11 15107 1 088 15 y 0 y 1510 1506 1 15095 15080 150E 15084 15061 15 15081 15072 1507 lson tso7s �0 15062 15065 15 5063 1506 15067 15064 7506 1 1503 15p3314978 '15035 1503fi 1503 15032 15031 15030 15029 ro 0 m 0 15016 °i �" N 1502 1501 1499 50211502 1502 15017 501 15015 .- 1501 1 1500 W07 1500 1500 15004 14995 500 14997 Q 14 149911502 499 14994 1499 14990 14995 > 1498 1497E 14M 1 97 14981 1497 15 14967 v ^ 00 8j I 14 14 1g9g2 14865 Z o 0o m y in a 14 OyJ pO� 4 �9 ,0 n u N 1487 1455 1423 14853 S 1 ^� 1 833 14844 14841 0 0 1420 1 621 148 14831 1484 1452 M nb �tiy 80 797 14824 148 So v v v 1403 " / Subject Property Location Map / NN W E S • • April 22, 2009 Courtney Bednarz City of Andover 1,685 Crosstown. Boulevard N.W. Andover, Minnesota 55304 RE: Andover Clocktower Commons • L A N D F O R M From Site to Finish • • 800c Butler Square Tel: 612 - 252 -9070 100 North Sixth Street Fax: 612- 252 -9077 Minneapolis, MN 55403 Web: landform.net Dear Mr. Bednarz, BDT Land, LLC, the applicant and owner of Lots 3 and 4, Block 1, Andover Clocktower Commons, respectfully requests approval of the commercial site plan to allow a modification to the approved development plans to allow an additional access to be constructed on- Crosstown Boulevard roughly 700 feet east of the centerline of Hanson Boulevard. The landowner submitted a request for a sketch plan review for consideration of access changes on Crosstown Boulevard in order to preserve the existing businesses and in hopes of contributing new services to the community. The City Council reviewed that sketch plan and supporting materials at their February 17, 2009 meeting. In preparation for that meeting, the landowner prepared a traffic study to examine the impact of a full intersection in this location. While the ultimate, condition of the street is unknown, the proposed hew access would be approximately 70.0 feet from the centerline of Hanson Boulevard and approximately 380 feet from the centerline of Bluebird. A full access at this location would operate at a Level of Service (LOS) A today. A full access would relieve the Bluebird /Crosstown intersection. Sightline, stopping distances and speed limits would meet or exceed the standards at the current City Hall access. We continue to believe that the full access provides numerous benefits including: • Allow direct access to lots 3 and 4 • Allow more immediate access to Hanson Relieves traffic at the Bluebird and Crosstown intersection Providing a temporary solution that lays the groundwork for the future improvements needed when the Holasek property to the south develops. t However, the City Council reviewed the sketch plan request for a full intersection and directed the landowner to prepare a plan for a 3 /4 intersection. Our attached plans show the 3 /4 intersection with striped turn lanes on Crosstown Boulevard and a "pork chop" on the subject .property as directed by the City Council on February 17, 2009. We request approval of the 3 /4 intersection improvement as shown or, alternatively, approval of the full intersection as originally proposed. If the request is approved we would anticipate construction in summer of 2009. As this is a minor amendment to previously approved plans and was anticipated during the original design of the development, we are not including the original hydrology report or soil borings, butthey can be provided if requested. Landform ", SensiMyCraari " and Site to F4sh are service marks of Landfamr Engineering Company. ` 0 0 We request that this commercial site plan be considered at the May 12` Planning Commission meeting and the June 2 "d City Council meeting. If you have any questions, please call me at 612.638.0225 or email me at klindahl @landform.net Sincerely, Principal COPY: Tom Roberts, BDT Land, LLC Courtney Bedna¢ April 22, 2009 2 IDUNDFw M �a ym �� u 22 z a 60 N o � � P m go St H \ € RIM \ A� � x ° uR MI P ` "Fi� 8r b 0 c a m 3�a y.r• O Y :..5 _._ 062 � n W n ° °m D W T 3C 'a � F � i _ ... 22 d a B i. CA � m $jP, g ;o r = - n o m • r N l i tE a 1 F. li C'> P a n m T €B C T Z P 5 li O y Z r \ 3tFo Sn Z o MS M N CO ° r v o ti o / 8 a m 3 a -- ----._... D c N -a \ \ / i i b 0 c a m 3�a y.r• O Y :..5 _._ 062 � n W n ° °m D W T 3C 'a � F � i _ ... 22 d a B i. CA � m $jP, g ;o r = - n o m • r N l i tE a 1 F. li C'> P a n m T €B C T Z P 5 li O y Z r \ 3tFo Sn Z o MS M N CO ° r v o ti o / 8 a m 3 a -- ----._... D c N -a ©unorawa mos \\ * i. . F \ \ \ a Et \ \ qq �€ 9"A"n .1 M A ]p A \ 9 \\ V....i10 U S �q J {l A pup \ a� \ E \ +J v \ o, 0 � b � m m ° 0000 000 N l° N n —+ n 00000 W FE ° 00000 00000 v - \ 'd m a 0000 m z \ \ � � 1 m \ \ \ a g v -1 �rN . \\ Z T11 \ A m \ \ 9g4% \ a \ \ a CD c Z N S / A / o a v .I, • • 3 1 x n o� < �o o . - i . n�. 23 N a ZZ� J O� 5 Y 9• 555 Q � T�Tt ;o §ipAS$ � n o '� m o W X��'' f io Z n1 Q m CA------- ---- ---------- 'A CA TP P . 2 02 89 vc P A i H > �2� - 6> 2 �� 22 1 0 2i � U? a vYN z 0 O Age R Xg T - T R 2 6 1, A io Z n1 Q m CA------- ---- ---------- 'A CA TP P . 2 02 89 vc P A i H > �2� - 6> 2 �� 22 1 0 2i � U? a vYN z 0 O Age R Xg T - T R 2 0 co z Z < cn M ift i r ZE cn > a �z 0 0 > s go z 0 1:9 FL F Y O F 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W, • ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 • (763) 755 -5100 FAX (763) 755 -8923 • WWW,CI.ANDOVER.MN.US i TO: Courtney Bednarz, City Planner FROM: Jason J. Law, Assistant City Engineer ; - 4- j'� David D. Berkowitz, Director of Public s /C ity Engineer DATE: April 30, 2009 REFERENCE: Andover Clocktower Commons /Commercial Site Plan /Revised Access /Review #1 The following comments are in regard to the submitted plans: 1. Need to contact the Coon Creek Watershed District, MPCA and any other agency to determine if a permit is required. A copy of the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) shall be provided to the City before construction begins. 2. All sheets where appropriate. All existing utilities within 100 feet of the proposed site are required to be shown including sanitary sewer, manholes, water mains, hydrants, storm sewer, gas, telephone, electric, cable tv, etc. Please verify that the required information is there and they are all labeled properly. Otherwise make a note in legend that none exist within 100 feet of the site. 3. Verify that the design for vehicle traffic (including fire trucks, delivery trucks and garbage trucks) can navigate through the site. This can be submitted on an 11x17 sheet, which identifies the turning movements for the largest truck that would enter the site. 4. Sheet C2.1, A westbound right turn lane into the site must be provided. 5. Sheet C2.1. All thru lane tapers must be 50:1 (speed: 1). Turn lane tapers may be reduced down to 5:1, but only if that reduction from the standard 15:1 tapers results in improved geometrics (ie stacking, thru lane tapers, etc). All tapers must be labeled on the plans. 6. Sheet C2.1. The concrete "pork chop" median must be extended further west and north to prohibit eastbound turning movements. 7. Sheet C2.1. Concrete medians shall be constructed in Crosstown Boulevard to prohibit south to eastbound turning movements and to provide safety for turn lane traffic. 8. Sheet C2.1. Add 18" wide stop bar on exit. 9. Sheet C2.1. Need to add median delineator signs on the pork chop for snowplows. 10. Sheet G2.1. Need to add appropriate lane use (turn lane signs) on both directions on Crosstown Boulevard. Signs and spacing should be consistent with the MMUTCD Manual. 11. Sheet C2.1. Need to construct concrete curb and gutter on the entrance. This would not be considered a temporary entrance. 12. Sheet C2.1. Need to call out concrete curb and gutter as B612 in the porkchop median. Curb and gutter in Crosstown Boulevard median should match existing curb type. Potential curb along the turn lane should be B418. 13. Sheet 02.1. Need to show intersection with Bluebird Street. The thru lane taper will be extended through this intersection. This intersection needs to be shown and further reviewed by City staff on the next submittal. Label Bluebird Street. 14, Sheet C2.1. Need to label all radii. H: \Engineering%commercial Site Plans \Open Commercial Site PlanslAndover Clocktower Commons\Courtney.doc 15. Sheet C3.1, Need to include typical sections for trail (City Detail 713A) and for Crosstown Boulevard. The pavement sections for the trail shall be 2.5" of bituminous over 4" of Class 5 aggregate base. For Crosstown Boulevard, the pavement section is 2" wear course, 2" base course, 6" of Class 5 aggregate base. 16. Sheet C3.1. Drainage needs to be analyzed in detail. With the right turn lane, drainage will flow from the boulevard onto the roadway. Curb and gutter will need to be installed if a ditch cannot be constructed. This curb and gutter shall wrap around and tie into Bluebird Street. Storm sewer will be needed to handle the runoff. As this is a State Aid route, spread calculations will need to be completed to design the storm sewer spacing, 17. Sheet C3.1, In- slopes from the roadway must be 6:1 or flatter. 18. All sheets. Add signature block and sign final plans. 19. Refer to plan sheets for additional comments. Note: It is a requirement that the developer respond to each of these items in writing when submitting the revised commercial site plan to the City. If you have any questions, feel free to contact Jason Law, Assistant City Engineer at (763) 767 -5130 or David Berkowitz, Director of Public Works /City Engineer at (763) 767 -5133. WEngineering\Commercial Site Plans%Open Commercial Site PianslAndover Ciocktower Commons%Courtney.doc Regular Andover City Council Meeting Minutes — February 17, 2009 Page 5 DISCUS SKETCH PLAN REVISIONS TO PUD FOR CLOCKTOWER COMMONS Community Development Director Neumeister stated BDT Holdings, the current owner of Andover Clocktower Commons, is seeking direct access to Crosstown Boulevard NW. Mr. Berkowitz reviewed the information with the Council. Councilmember Trude stated there is discussion about the traffic report and she wondered if the full access would look like the access at the school and Sunshine Park. Mr. Berkowitz stated it would be but a little bit at a skew. He stated another point is the site lines and the way you maneuver through the intersection is more difficult. Councilmember Trude thought that would be a good reason to try to get an advisory speed change because of the school crossing and other obstacles or else try to straighten it up but they did not own the property. Mr. Berkowitz reviewed with the Council the different speed zones in the area. He stated the curve signs through the intersection of Crosstown Boulevard and Hanson Boulevard have advisory signs below them of 40mph. This is not the posted speed. He also reviewed the different possible intersections with the Council. Councilmember Trude asked if they were granted an access would the trail need to be altered. Mr. Berkowitz stated any access constructed would require trail improvements. Councilmember Jacobson stated whatever they decide to do will involve three different areas that will be affected. He stated it is not as simple as a right- in/right -out. He thought the owners preferred to have a left lane in if possible. He stated if they plan this correctly now, it will save them from problems in the future. The Council discussed how the traffic would affect the current intersections at Bluebird Street/Crosstown Boulevard and HansonBoulevard/Crosstown Boulevard. Mr. Berkowitz stated the lowest cost for the developer would be a full access but with all the safety issues he would not recommend that. The second least costly would be a right- in/right -out and would be safer to do with the way the road is constructed. Councilmember Bukkila stated she would have a problem with the three quarter turn if there is not an adequate distance for people to make the transition from a 50mph zone to make that turn lane.. Mr. Brian Fesik, TKDA, reviewed with the Council the different conflict points for the intersection. Mr. Tom Roberts, BDT Holdings and Darren Lazan, Landform, explained that by putting a curb cut in they could ultimately lower the speed limit in this area. They thought the most important movement to improve the traffic flow is a left turn in and then a right -out, right -in and then a left -out. He agreed the cheapest for them is full access. He stated they would not mind a three quarter if they could use paint instead of a pork chop. They would like to see from a cost standpoint that when Mr. Holasek's property gets developed there will be a study done and the road will be rebuilt. He stated Regular Andover City Council Meeting Minutes — February 17, 2009 Page 6 it not economical for them today to do part of the intersection and then redo it again in a few years. Mr. Roberts reviewed the different possibilities with the Council. Mr. Lazan stated these stores are retail driven and need to have an easier access to the shops in order to survive. Councilmember Knight wondered if a four way stop would make a difference. Mr. Berkowitz stated it would be very dangerous because the potential of traffic backing up to Hanson Boulevard. The roadway is designed to move traffic and a four way stop would make it difficult. Councilmember Bukkila thought the developer was asking the Council to sacrifice safety to same them money. Mr. Lazan stated there is always a risk of safety at every intersection and the road is downgraded so he felt the intersection could be warranted. He stated they build tremendous amounts of road to only rebuild them a few years later so they know Mr. Holasek's property is a game changer and they do not want to spend a lot of money today to see it torn up a couple of years from now. They are not opposed to the pork chop but is very expensive to do. Councilmember Jacobson asked if they are looking at a cost sharing proposal. Mr. Roberts stated they will pay for the improvements now but when the other properties are developed he requested they pay their portion. He wondered if a round -about would be a good solution to the problem. He thought the City will need to make a decision when the time comes to improve the property in the area. Councilmember Trude wondered if staff had a solution for staging the project for complete build out over time since she would like to see as much access as they can get. Mr. Dickinson stated some of the issues are not easy to structure for this since they do not know what will happen in the future. The Council discussed the ramifications of allowing improvements and made suggestions to what the City would like the developer to do. Councilmember Jacobson stated he could be convinced that a pork chop might be appropriate but what kind is the question. He stated another concern would be when the land across Crosstown develops he would want something that would have minimal tear out for access to that development also. Mayor Gamache thought they have discussed all the different options and he still thought the access should be at Bluebird Street with turn lanes and a possibility of a traffic signal there. He thought they needed to find a way to improve the access at Bluebird Street. Councilmember Trude stated there is no place on Crosstown Boulevard where there is a barrier for turn areas. She stated they have not done that a lot on a road like Crosstown Boulevard. Mr. Dickinson summarized the direction of the Council. The Council wanted a safe intersection; the preferred is a three quarter intersection but would allow a right- in/right -out. Some direction is to see if it is possible to stage the development over time. pLANj\%jjNG AND ZONING COVITIISSION MEETING — T-E—B R LIAR x'70, 2009 The Regular Bi- Monthly Meeting of the Andover Plamiing and Zoning Commission was called to order by Chairperson Daninger on February 10, 2009, 7:00 p.m., at the Andover City Hall, 1685 Crosstown Boulevard NW, Andover, Minnesota. Commissioners present: Chairperson Daninger, Commissioners Tim Kirchoff, Michael Casey, Valerie Holthus, Douglas Fallc and Dennis Cleveland. Commissioners absent: Devon Walton Also present: City Planner, Courtney Bednarz Director of Public Works/City Engineer, David Berkowitz Others APPROVAL OFMINUTES. January 27, 2009 Motion by Kirchoff, seconded by Casey, to approve the minutes as presented. Motion carried on a 6 -ayes, 0 -nays, 1- absent (Walton) vote. PUBLIC HEARING. SIfETCH PLAN TO CONSIDER REVISED PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR ANDOVER CLOCICTOWER COMMONS. Mr. Bednarz explained BDT Holdings, the current owner of Andover Clocktower Commons, is seeking direct access to Crosstown Boulevard NW. Mr. Berkowitz reviewed the background information with the Commission. Commissioner Kirchoff stated there was mention of a speed study and he thought this will play into it. Mr. Berkowitz stated there was a speed study requested by the applicant and it was sent onto MNDot and the decision was to leave the speed limit at 50 mph. Commissioner Holthus asked why Crosstown was turned back from a County Road to a City Road. Mr. Berkowitz stated the County can turn back any County Road to the City Regular Andover Planning and Zoning CoTninission Meeting Ildimites — February 10, 2009 Page 2 and they did negotiate with the County and they made several improvements before they turned it back. Commissioner Falk asked if there was any indication a stop light would be placed at the intersection of Crosstown Boulevard and Bluebird Street in the Future. Mr. Berkowitz stated whatever develops to the south of there will dictate a traffic signal. There are needed intersection improvements there. Motion by Casey, seconded by Falk, to open the public hearing. Motion carried on a 6- ayes, 0 -nays, 1- absent (Walton) vote. Mr. Mark Hyvare, 15195 Bluebird St. NW, stated his biggest concern is the back up of vehicles on Crosstown. He noted currently there is a back up with people turning at the intersection and it will only get worse if there is a left turn closer to Hanson Boulevard unless there is a secondary lane installed. Mr. Tom Roberts, 6484 Pinnacle Drive, Eden Prairie, Chief Manager of BDT Holdings and Mr. Darren Lazan made a presentation to the Commission. Motion by Falk, seconded by Casey, to close the public hearing. Motion carried on a 6- ayes, 0 -nays, 1- absent (Walton) vote. Commmissioner Holthus stated Mr. Roberts indicated in his presentation that they wanted a full access intersection but did not want to spend a lot of money right now and she thought a frill access intersection would be the most expensive of all the alternatives to do. Mr. Roberts stated if they design a full access that comes out to the property line, they could put a little turn lane in. If they did a 3 / access it would be a lot of money to do that when it could be changed in a year depending on how the Holasek property develops. Commissioner Holthus asked what the Comp. Plan indicated for this area. Mr. Berkowitz stated they have an extensive layout of Crosstown that shows potential new access points and this access does not show up in the Comp. Plan. He stated they are trying to f gure out a compromise that allows access but provides the most safety at that intersection as possible. The applicant discussed with the Commission the reasons for wanting to install a four way full access intersection. Chairperson Daninger stated some of the applicants concerns were based on cost and the applicant was aware that it will be their cost. Mr. Roberts indicated they were aware and did not want to spend the dollars today if they are not spent wisely. Chairperson Daninger stated there was some input in regards to this from the local businesses in the development and he wondered if they brought this up when they moved in there to begin with. Mr. Lazan stated this was brought up at the original PUD approval Regular Andover Planning and Zoning Cor1znnission Meeting Minutes — February 10, 2009 Page 3 and they razz into a wall at the County. He stated when the road was turned back to the City he has discussions with the City Administrator about getting access. Mr. Roberts stated the first meeting he had with City Staff they pulled out a site plan and it showed a proposed right iii/right out so there was always the thought process to hopefully get access. Mr. Beduarz thought that was «There the discrepancy exists, he was not sure if it was communicated to Mr. Roberts when he purchased the property that the right of access to both Hanson and Crosstown had been dedicated to the County. Mr. Roberts stated he did not disagree with staff. He just hoped there would potentially be access. Commissioner Kirchoff asked if there was not enough land there to make the by -pass lanes. Mr. Berkowitz stated it makes it a challenge and could look at shifting the lanes over to make that work. They have looked into the details. It would be easier for them to do the full intersection if they had the right -of -way but it could be done without it. Mr. Berkowitz reviewed some of the concerns the City has with changes to the access as Crosstown Boulevard and also Bluebird Sheet. Commissioner Holthus asked what is the safest option according to staff. Mr. Bryant Ficek, TKDA Traffic Engineer, stated it would be the right in/right out because that configuration would have the least conflict points. Commissioner Holthus thought there was a lot of pedestrian traffic at the Hanson/Crosstown intersection and she saw a potential danger. Chairperson Daninger wondered if the Commission was in favor of a full intersection as the applicant has proposed. Commissioner Falls stated he is not in favor of a full access. He was leaning towards a right in/right out access. Chairperson Daninger stated he was leaning towards not making any improvements unless the improvements go all the way up to Bluebird Street. Commissioner Cleveland stated he agreed with the comments. He felt they have to deal with this type of thing at many shopping centers and if a person wants to shop there they will no matter where the entrance is located. Chairperson Daninger sensed a right- in/right out was the farthest they would agree to. The Commission agreed. Chairperson Daninger stated the recommendation is the most they want to see is a right in/right out at this tune. Mr. Bednarz stated that this item would be before the Council at the February 17, 2009 City Council meeting. OTHER BUSINESS. ESE Mr. Bednarz updated the Planning Conmzission on related items. Andover Clocktower Commons Traffic Study Attachments: 1. Introduction Letter 2. Traffic Study 3. Staff Review #1 4. Revised Traffic Study 5. Staff Review #2 St PROPERTIES, INC. Mr. James Dickinson City Administrator . City of Andover Re: Andover Clocktower Commons - Drive access Mr. Dickinson, Attached please find a traffic study and concept design information in support of our request.to construct anacress Crosstown Boulevard. from the above project. History: In the fall of 2008 the applicant submitted and received approval for PUD and Final Site.Plan.Approval for tiie 8 acre part!el at the Northeast quadrant of. Hanson and Crosstown Boulevards. As p�ft of this approval we sought an access to Crosstown Boulevard to be located approximately midway.between Hanson and Bluebird. At that time, Crosstown, C.R. 18, was under the.jurisdictioii of Anoka County, who applied certain spacing requirements based on the fact that this was a B- - Minor Azterial.and accordingly would not consider the request for an access. Since that time, Crosstown Boulevard adjacent to this site has been turned back to the City of Andover and reclassified as a collector in the City's comprehensive plan. This change, by definition, recognizes an "equal.importance" of local access and thru traffic.as opposed to the County's previous classification that provided a he emphasis on moving cars through.the city. At the time of our PUD and FSP approvals, staff noted in comments and during the hearings that the County would not allow the access we were seeking. At that time we acknowledged staff's concern, but emphasized that we wanted the City's approval regardless, so we could work with the county in the future.. We acknowledged on the record that we were not seeking the County's approval -at trstonewood@coincas t. net Office (952)934 -1423 6484 Pinnacle Dr. Fax (952) 934.4697 Eden Prairie, MN 55346. 1903 Cell (612) 790 -2766 that tune, but nonetheless wanted this approval as part of the PUD. The approved plans, and the built condition, reflect this outcome. As we look at the Crosstown corridor from Manson to Yellowpine we realize it to be a vital part of the success of not only our project, but the commercial parcel in the Southeast quadrant as well. Since the modifications to Hanson over the last few years, virtually all access to these key commercial corners has been eliminated, leaving the predominant means of access to local streets (Crosstown, Bluebird, and 150 Lane). if we analyze the potential buildout of over 25 acres of commercial uses on that corner, we see that almost all the traffic will be routed through the Crosstown and Bluebird intersection, and all of the SE quadrant traffic through and past existing residential homes. As we anticipated in 2003, and proposed originally, the most logical resolution would be to consider aligned access points midway along the stretch of Crosstown between Hanson and Bluebird. This would significantly relieve the Crosstown/Bluebird intersection, and provide all commercial traffic a means of ingress /egress other than through residential streets. Our current traffic study shows that initially the traffic loads would allow a full access to operate at a Level of Service B or better, but ultimately as traffic increases on Crosstown the City may consider reducing these access points to right- in/right -out only with additional improvements noted on attached concepts. This attached traffic study addresses this LOS configuration, those of the surrounding intersections, as well as safety concerns specifically related to the sightline /stopping distance concerns raised at previous meetings. The location of this proposed drive was designed in consideration of this concern. The proposed location provides adequate stopping distances from both the Bluebird /Crosstown intersection, and the commencement of the 40 MPH caution zone associated with the bend in the road just East of Hanson. The attached exlubit illustrates this configuration at the current 50WH design speed, the condition improves dramatically as we look at 40- 45MPH, potential outcomes of the current speed study. Accordingly, we respectfully request staff approve the proposed access with the followint considerations: 1. That the full access point be approved and constructed by the applicant in the location shown on approved plans. 2. That the applicant will participate in an Crosstown area study when the traffic warrants improvement. We appreciate you attention to this matter and look forward to your response and approval. Sincerely, BDT Holdings, LLC 1 MWA— Tom Roberts r ' T�,ETRAFFIC STUDY COMPANY .. i Wit To: Tom Roberts, BDT Holdings From: Mike Spack, P.E. Date: 1/24/2008 Re: Clocktower Commons Access Traffic Analysis - Andover, MN Per your request, this memorandum analyzes the traffic operation of the proposed access on Crosstown Boulevard for Clocktower Commons. The proposed full movement access would create a new tee intersection located approximately 400 feet west of Bluebird Street, as shown in Figure 1. Clocktower Commons is currently served by two full movement driveways on Bluebird Street on the north side of the site. The proposed access was denied by Anoka County when the first phase of Clocktower Commons was developed because it did not meet the County's access spacing guidelines. Since then, Anoka County has turned back Crosstown Boulevard to the City of Andover and the City is willing to consider the applicant's request for the proposed access. The purpose of this memorandum is to (1) determine the traffic operations of the proposed intersection with the current occupancy of Clocktower Commons, (2) determine the traffic operations of the proposed intersection with full occupancy of Clocktower Commons, and (3) recommend an intersection configuration that will provide safe and efficient traffic operations per traffic engineering standards. Existing Conditions The weekday, evening peak hour is the most intense period for traffic at commercial /retail centers like Clocktower Commons_ Manual turning movement counts were conducted at the site's two driveway intersections on Bluebird Street and at the intersection of Crosstown Boulevard & Bluebird Street from 4:30 to 7:00 p.m. on January 17, 2008. The p.m. peak hour turning movement volume data is shown in Figure 2. The through volumes at the proposed intersection on Crosstown Boulevard were calculated based on the traffic volumes entering and exiting the Crosstown Boulevard /Bluebird Street intersection. Fig.1 — Site Map Clocktower Commons Access Study 2 cf 5 Torn Roberts, BDT Holdings Bluebird St 1 `fit A, /OD 10 1 � 7 0 qb NO t ,. North Fig. 2 — Existing P.M. Peak Hour Volumes An intersection capacity analysis was conducted for the intersections in Figure 2 per the Highway Capacity Manual. Each intersection has a one lane, full movement approach with the side streets being stop sign controlled. The overall intersection as well as each intersection approach is assigned a "Level of Service" letter grade for the peak hour of traffic based on the number of lanes at the intersection, traffic volumes, and traffic control. Level of Service A (LOS A) represents light traffic flow (free flow conditions) while Level of Service F (LOS F) represents heavy traffic flow (over capacity conditions). LOS D is considered acceptable for the overall intersection in urban conditions. LOS F is considered acceptable for individual approaches controlled by stop signs as long as there is not significant stacking. All of the intersections currently operate acceptably at LOS A in the p.m. peak hour with each movement operating at LOS C or better. The three study intersections will operate better if the proposed intersection is built because their traffic volumes will go down. The rest of the analysis in this memorandum focuses on the proposed intersection on Crosstown Boulevard. Proposed Intersection Operation with Current Occupancy The site is currently occupied by a McDonaId's fast food restaurant, gas station, and retail strip center. These uses are oriented to the northern portion of the site near the existing access points from Bluebird Street. The Hanson Boulevard /Bluebird Street intersection on the northwestern comer of the site is currently a % movement intersection (no left turns are allowed from Bluebird Street to Hanson Boulevard and no through movements are allowed back and forth along Bluebird Street). Adding the proposed access on Crosstown Boulevard is not anticipated to alter the traffic patterns going to /from the Hanson Boulevard /Bluebird Street intersection. It will alter the Clocktower Commons traffic pattern going through the Crosstown Boulevard /Bluebird Street intersection on the northeastern corner of the site and the Ciocktower Commons Access Study 3 of 5 Tom Roberts, BDT Holdings Hanson Boulevard /Crosstown Boulevard intersection on the southwestern corner of the site. Based on the existing traffic patterns and the area population centers, it is anticipated: ® 90% of the Clocktower Commons traffic going tolfrom the west and south at the Hanson Boulevard /Crosstown Boulevard intersection would use the proposed intersection versus the Crosstown Boulevard /Bluebird Street intersection. The proposed intersection will provide a more direct route to all of the uses in the site compared with using the Crosstown Boulevard /Bluebird Street intersection. it is possible only 70% to 80% will be rerouted to the proposed intersection, but using 90% is a conservative estimate used to look at the impacts of routing most of the traffic through the proposed intersection. • 20% of the Clocktower Commons traffic going tolfrom the northeast at the Crosstown Boulevard /Bluebird Street intersection would use the proposed intersection versus the Crosstown Boulevard /Bluebird Street intersection. Shifting the existing Clocktower Commons traffic patterns from Figure 2 based on the above percentages results in the p.m. peak hour traffic volumes at the proposed intersection shown in Figure 3. �a � wa '2 North Pig. 3 — P.M. Peak Hour Volumes at Proposed Intersection with Existing Occupancy An intersection capacity analysis was conducted for the intersection volumes in Figure 3 per the Highway Capacity Manual. It is assumed each approach to the intersection will be one full movement lane with the driveway being stop sign controlled and Crosstown Boulevard remaining free flow. The proposed intersection would operate acceptably at LOS A in the p.m. peak hour with each movement operating at LOS B or better. Based on the Highway Capacity Manual methodology, the 95"' percentile queue (the maximum queue happening over 95% of the peak hour, a common design parameter) is anticipated to be one vehicle at each approach. The proposed driveway will operate acceptably with the current Clocktower Commons traffic. No turn lanes are necessary to accommodate the traffic. Clocktower Commons Access Study 4 of 5 Tom Roberts, BDT Holdings Proposed Intersection Operation with Full Occ upancv Approximately 10,000 square feet of the existing 24,000 square foot strip center is vacant. In addition there are plans to build an additional 10,000 square feet of office and 12,000 square feet of sit down restaurants on the site. A trip generation analysis was performed for the additional uses anticipated in Clocktower Commons based on the methods and rates published in the iTE Trip Generation Manual, e Edition. The results are shown in Table 1. Table 1 -- Traffic Generated by Additional Uses i in Vehicles fT� - 750 Office Building 10,000 sq ft r 75 820 Sho in Center 10,000 sq ft 71 932 Restaurants 12,000 s ft 102 Total Change in Traffic 1 205 248 The traffic generated during the p.m. peak hour by the additional uses was added to the proposed intersection per the distribution pattern used to develop the turning movement volumes shown in Figure 3. This traffic was added to the traffic shown in Figure 3 to develop the build -out traffic forecasts shown for the proposed intersection in Figure 4. q 7Sc2 v {' North (� J Fig. 4 — P.M. Peak Hour Volumes at Proposed Intersection with Build -Out Occupancy An intersection capacity analysis was conducted for the intersection volumes in Figure 4 per the Highway Capacity Manual. it is assumed each approach to the intersection will be one full movement lane with the driveway being stop sign controlled and Crosstown Boulevard remaining free flow. The proposed intersection would operate acceptably at LOS A in the p.m. peak hour with each movement operating at LOS B or better. Based on the Highway Capacity Manual methodology, the 95 percentile queue (the maximum queue happening over 95% of the peak hour, a common design parameter) is anticipated to be two vehicles on the southbound approach and one vehicle at each Crosstown Boulevard approach. The proposed driveway will operate acceptably with the build -out Clocktower Commons traffic. No turn lanes are necessary to accommodate the traffic. Clocktower Commons Access Study 5015 Tom Roberts, BDT Holdings Safat The 50 mph speed limit could pose a safety problem for the northeast bound traffic on Crosstown Boulevard if motorists need to stop abruptly behind vehicles waiting to turn left into the proposed driveway. The MnE)OT commissioner has the statutory authority to set speed limits in Minnesota. The City has requested ivinDOT study Crosstown Boulevard to determine if the speed limit should be lowered on Crosstown Boulevard near the site_ Lower traveling speeds mean motorists would have more reaction time to brake for a stopped vehicle waiting to turn left into the site. If the speed limit remains 50 mph, there is a higher probability for rear end crashes at the proposed intersection. A safety problem is not anticipated because the stacking is expected to be minimal at the proposed intersection with the current site occupancy. However, if a safety problem does arise because more vehicle stacking occurs with increased traffic levels, a left turn lane may need to be built to separate the left turning traffic from the through traffic or the intersection may need to be converted to a right -in /right -out. The southwest bound right turning traffic into the site will turn unimpeded into the site. No vehicle stacking is anticipated for this movement, so no safety issues are anticipated. A right turn lane is not needed to separate the turning traffic from the through traffic. The terrain at the proposed intersection is level. MnDOT's Road Design Manual recommends clear sight lines be provided for at least 425 feet in order to provide adequate stopping sight distance on level terrain for a 50 mph mainline speed limit. It appears more than 425 feet of clear sight distance is provided in each mainline direction at the proposed intersection. This should be confirmed when the intersection is designed. Conclusions The proposed driveway intersection on Crosstown Boulevard will operate acceptably at Level of Service A with each approach to the intersection operating at Level of Service B or better. These Levels of Service will be provided at current occupancy levels and at build -out of Clocktower Commons, The City should monitor the traffic volumes and the crashes at the intersection in the future. If traffic volumes rise to the levels where one of the movements operates at Level of Service E or safety concerns arise, two alternate mitigation options are: • build a left turn lane to separate the left turning traffic from the northeast bound,through traffic. • convert the intersection to a right -in /right -out by placing a median on Crosstown Boulevard. The proposed driveway intersection is anticipated to operate acceptably if built. The driveway approach should be controlled with a stop sign and Crosstown Boulevard should remain uncontrolled. Each approach to the intersection should be one shared lane, no exclusive turn lanes are initially needed. The design of the proposed intersection should confirm appropriate sight lines are provided per MnDOT's Road Design Manual. t § §} me :R �( �2 °� � /G, it &G i Q .� w� ,� ( \/ � / R� ~�� 7 \ kit , � /j i ttz \ \ \¢ g . ;, $ & %) /,t § ,)| E " . . 2 w w 1 its RU t 4 o 0 ry 0 co z 3: 0 I— U) U) 0 C� C) Crl STF�—T bo 1 _ '� � W . 0� CL Xi lu t D NO W 0 co Z 0 C/) U) 0 xm � 1+ n LU z O O W4 - t77 W D z 3 . : 0 U) U) 0 [3 1 7 LU F- 3: im y LL N A QS 3. Staff Review #1 TKDA, ENGINEERS ^ ARCHITECTS - FLANNERS To: Copies To: Dave Berkowitz 444 Cedar Street, Suite 1500 Saint Paul, MN 55101 -2140 (651) 292 -4400 (051) 292 -0083 Fax wuvi.tkda.com Reference: City of Andover Project #08 -20 Clocktower Commons Traffic Study Review From: Bryant Ficek Proj. No.: Date: March 4, 2008 Routing: 14066.000 Pursuant to your request, we have reviewed the Clocktower Commons traffic study discussing a proposed access onto Crosstown Boulevard. Our review determined four items that need further examination before reaching a conclusion on the proposed access: • Examine an additional peak period • Include the intersection of Crosstown Boulevard and Hanson Boulevard Include background growth in the review of future traffic Provide a "No Build" analysis of the study intersections in the future without the proposed access Each of these points is discussed separately below. The traffic study examines the weekday p.m. peak hour of the area, which is described as the most intense period of traffic. While agreeing with this statement, other peak periods would also provide value in this analysis. The a.m. peak hour would be expected to have traffic flow opposite of the p.m. peak hour with most traveling southwest on Crosstown Boulevard. A peak hour around noon would be expected to have balanced traffic on Crosstown Boulevard. The existing site has development that would show entering and exiting traffic during the a.m. or noon peak periods. Future development on the site, especially the potential office building, would also increase the traffic to and from the site during either peak period. The overall traffic volumes during the a.m. or noon peak hour would be expected to be lower in comparison to the p.m. peak hour. However, the traffic patterns would also be different. By examining the study intersections under at least one different traffic pattern, the analysis would show whether the proposed access would provide satisfactory traffic operations for various times of an average weekday. The proposed access to Crosstown Boulevard would be located approximately 630 feet from the signalized intersection of Crosstown Boulevard with Hanson Boulevard. This signalized intersection has an effect on traffic operations through the queue of southwest vehicles waiting at a red light or the platoon of northeast vehicles traveling through on a green light. Thus, existing and future traffic operations at the unsignalized intersections of Crosstown Boulevard with Bluebird Street and with the proposed access will be influenced by this existing signal. Given this, the signalized intersection should be included in the analysis. Its inclusion will provide a more realistic assessment of traffic operations through the study area. An Employee Owned Company Promoting Affirmative Action and FqualOpportunfty City of Andover Project #08 -20 Page 2 Clocktower Commons Traffic Study Review March 4, 2008 The review of future operations included only new traffic from full occupancy of the study site. Through traffic on Crosstown Boulevard is also expected to increase due to regional development, which will affect traffic operations at all intersections. The study would benefit from examining future traffic volumes with five years of background growth. Looking at the study intersections in this short term manner would help decide the potential configuration of the proposed access, if found to be justified. The traffic study examines the proposed access intersection with full occupancy of the Clocktower Commons site. However, the study did not examine future volumes without the proposed access. Having a No Build scenario would help determine if the existing access could handle the increased traffic if the site is fully developed without the proposed access. If the existing access shows poor results without the proposed access, then that lends further justification to providing another access. Similarly, if satisfactory results are found without the proposed access, the need for another access becomes more questionable. Based upon this review and the determined areas of further study needed, a technical conclusion on the proposed access cannot be reached at this time. Please contact me at (651) 726 -7944 or bryant.ficek @tkda.com if you have questions or comments regarding this information. 4. Revised Traffic Study C,7! $�7 �. ;11 ' • • To: Tom Roberts, BDT Holdings From: Mike Spack, P.E. Date: 4/112008 Re: Second Clocktower Commons Access Traffic Analysis - Andover, MN We prepared a memorandum dated January 24, 2008 that analyzed the traffic operation of the proposed Clocktower Commons driveway onto Crosstown Boulevard. Per your request, this memorandum provides additional traffic analyses to address the city engineer's concerns. Based on a discussion I had with him, the additional analyses consist of: • Providing an a.m. peak hour traffic analysis to supplement the p.m. peak hour analysis supplied in the January 24 memorandum. • Providing traffic analyses of the Hanson Boulevard /Crosstown Boulevard intersection. • Providing 2030 traffic analyses with and without the proposed driveway. Existing Conditions Figure 1 shows the study intersections with their lane configurations and traffic control. The p.m. peak hour turning movement volume data for the study intersections is shown in Figure 2. Per the city engineer's guidance the p.m. peak hour traffic volumes were reversed to approximate the a.m. peak hour turning movement volume data. The a.m. peak hour turning movement volume data is shown in Figure 3. An intersection capacity analysis was conducted for the study intersections in Figure 1 per the Highway Capacity Manual. The overall intersection as well as each intersection approach is assigned a "Level of Service" letter grade for the peak hour of traffic based on the number of lanes at the intersection, traffic volumes, and traffic control. Level of Service A (LOS A) represents light traffic flow (free flow conditions) while Level of Service F (LOS F) represents heavy traffic flow (over capacity conditions). LOS D is considered acceptable for the overall intersection in urban conditions. Table 1 shows the Level of Service grades for each study intersection. They will all operate acceptably at LOS C or better in both peak hours. C /ocktower Commons Access Study 2 of 5 Table 1 — Existing 2008 Level of Se (LOS) Tom Roberts, BDT WEEKDAY A.M. WEEKDAY P.M. Intersection Peak Hour Peak Hour Hanson Blvd /Crosstown Blvd C C Crosstown Blvd /Bluebird St A A Bluebird St/NE Driveway A A Bluebird St/NW Driveway A A 2030 No Crosstown Boulevard Access Scenario The City of Andover's Transportation Plan lists the current (year 2005) daily traffic volume on Crosstown Boulevard northeast of Hanson Boulevard as 6,500 vehicles per day and forecasts the 2030 traffic volume will be 11,100 vehicles per day. This represents a 2.12% compounded growth rate. The first step in developing the 2030 No Access scenario traffic forecasts is to factor the 2008 traffic volumes to 2030 with this growth rate. The second step in developing the 2030 No Access scenario traffic forecasts is to add the traffic that will be generated by the unoccupied portion of Clocktower Commons. The site is currently occupied by a McDonald's fast food restaurant, gas station, and retail strip center. Approximately 10,000 square feet of the existing 24,000 square foot strip center is vacant. In addition there are approved plans to build an additional 10,000 square feet of office and 12,000 square feet of sit down restaurants on the site. A trip generation analysis was performed for the additional uses anticipated in Clocktower Commons based on the methods and rates published in the ITE Trip Generation Manual, 7 t ' Edition. The results are shown in Table 2. Tah 2 — Traffic Generated by Additional Uses (in Vehicles) ITE'" Code Description A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour In Out In Out 750 Office Building (10,000 sq ft ) 28 3 15 75 820 Shopping Center 10,000 sq ft 20 13 66 71 932 Restaurants 12,000 sq ft 84 78 124 102 Total Change in Traffic 132 94 1 205 248 The traffic generated by the additional uses were distributed according to the distribution pattern shown in Figure 4. The distribution pattern was developed based on a weighted distribution of the existing traffic volumes on Crosstown Boulevard and Hanson Boulevard. The 2030 No Access forecasts developed through this two step process are shown in Figures 5 and 6. An intersection capacity analysis was conducted for the study intersection volumes in Figures 5 and 6 per the Highway Capacity Manual. The LOS results are shown in Table 3. Clocktower Commons Access Study 3 of 5 Tom Roberts, BDT Holdings Table 3 -- 2030 No Access Level of Service (LOS) WEEKDAY A.M. WEEKDAY P.M. Intersection Freak Hour Peak dour Hanson BlvdlCrosstown Blvd Crosstown Blvd /Bluebird St X 72 B Z Bluebird St/NE Driveway A A Bluebird St/NW Driveway A A Can be mitigated acceptably to LOS D or better if Hanson Boulevard is upgraded from a two lane roadway to a four lane roadway. 2 Can be mitigated acceptably to LOS D or better if the intersection is controlled with a traffic signal. The Hanson Boulevard /Crosstown Boulevard will operate unacceptably at LOS E and the Crosstown Boulevard /Bluebird Street intersection will operate unacceptably at LOS F in the 2030 No Access scenario. The Hanson Boulevard /Crosstown Bouelvard intersection can be acceptably mitigated to LOS D or better if Hanson Boulevard is improved from a two lane roadway to a four lane roadway. The Crosstown Boulevard /Bluebird Street intersection can be acceptably mitigated to LOS D or better if the intersection is controlled with a traffic signal. The two access intersections on Bluebird Street will continue to operate acceptably at LOS A in the 2030 No Access scenario. 2030 Crosstown Boulevard Access Scenario The site is currently occupied by a McDonald's fast food restaurant, gas station, and retail strip center. These uses are oriented to the northern portion of the site near the existing access points from Bluebird Street. The Hanson Boulevard /Bluebird Street intersection on the northwestern corner of the site is currently a'/ movement intersection (no left turns are allowed from Bluebird Street to Hanson Boulevard and no through movements are allowed back and forth along Bluebird Street). Adding the proposed access on Crosstown Boulevard is not anticipated to alter the traffic patterns going to /from the Hanson Boulevard /Bluebird Street intersection. It will alter the Clocktower Commons traffic pattern going through the Crosstown Boulevard /Bluebird Street intersection on the northeastern corner of the site and the Hanson Boulevard /Crosstown Boulevard intersection on the southwestern corner of the site. Based on the existing traffic patterns and the area population centers, it is anticipated: • 90% of the Clocktower Commons traffic going to /from the west and south at the Hanson Boulevard /Crosstown Boulevard intersection would use the proposed intersection versus the Crosstown Boulevard /Bluebird Street intersection. The proposed intersection will provide a more direct route to all of the uses in the site compared with using the Crosstown Boulevard /Bluebird Street intersection. It is possible only 70% to 80% will be rerouted to the proposed intersection, but using 90% is a conservative estimate used to look at the impacts of routing most of the traffic through the proposed intersection. • 20% of the Clocktower Commons traffic going to /from the northeast at the Crosstown Boulevard /Bluebird Street intersection would use the proposed intersection versus the Crosstown Boulevard /Bluebird Street intersection. Clocktower Commons Access Study 4 of 5 Torn Roberts, BDT Holdings The Clocktower Commons traffic patterns from Figures 5 and 6 were shifted based on the above percentages to develop the 2030 Access forecasts shown in Figures 7 and 8. An intersection capacity analysis was conducted for the 2030 Access scenario forecasts in Figures 7 and 8 per the Highway Capacity Manual. It is assumed no improvements will be made to the existing study intersections and the proposed access intersection on Crosstown Boulevard will be side street stop sign controlled with each approach having one shared use lane. The LOS results are shown in Table 4. Table 4 — 2030 Access Level of Service (LOS) Intersection WEEKDAY A.M. Peak Hour WEEKDAY P.M. Peak Hour Hanson Blvd /Crosstown Blvd E' E' Crostown Blvd /Bluebird St A E 2 Crosstown Blvd /Proposed Access B B Bluebird St/NE Driveway A A Bluebird St/NW Driveway A A Can be mitigated acceptably to LOS D or better if Hanson Boulevard is upgraded from a two lane roadway to a four lane roadway. 2 Can be mitigated acceptably to LOS D or better if the intersection is controlled with a traffic signal. The Hanson Boulevard /Crosstown Boulevard will operate unacceptably at LOS E and the Crosstown Boulevard /Bluebird Street intersection will operate unacceptably at LOS E in the 2030 Access scenario. The Hanson Boulevard /Crosstown Boulevard intersection can be acceptably mitigated to LOS D or better if Hanson Boulevard is improved from a two lane roadway to a four lane roadway. The Crosstown Boulevard /Bluebird Street intersection can be acceptably mitigated to LOS D or better if the intersection is controlled with a traffic signal. The two access intersections on Bluebird Street will continue to operate acceptably at LOS A in the 2030 Access scenario. The Crosstown Blvd /Proposed Access intersection will operate at LOS B in the 2030 Access scenario. The proposed intersection on Crosstown Boulevard will operate at LOS B in the 2030 Access scenario peak hours. The Level of Service calculations did not account for the interaction between intersections. To account for the interaction of traffic along the Crosstown Boulevard corridor from Hanson Boulevard to Bluebird Street, a more detailed traffic analysis was performed with a SimTraffic micro - simulation model for the 2030 Access scenario peak hours. The intersection traffic control and turn lanes recommended above in the Level of Service analyses were used along with the traffic volumes from Figures 7 and 8. These inputs for the Crosstown Boulevard corridor were transferred from SYNCHRO to SimTraffic The simulation software was seeded with a random number seed of 0, a seeding duration of 3 minutes, and a recording duration of 60 minutes. Then the simulation software was run and recorded five times with random number seeds of 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5; using a seeding duration of 3 minutes and a recording duration of 60 minutes. Clocktower Commons Access Study 5 of 5 Torn Roberts, BD Holdings `s°abs e 5 — Maximurn Vehicle Stacking at Proposed intersection in 2030 A.M. Peak our P.M. Peal: Hour Eastbound 369 feet 345 feet Westbound 210 feet 168 feet Southbound 538 feet 593 feet The 593 foot maximum queue in the 2030 p.m. peak hour represents approximately 24 vehicles. This amount of stacking cannot be accommodated within the parking lot. The 369 foot maximum eastbound queue in the 2030 a.m. peak hour would require an exclusive left turn lane to safely segregate the turning traffic from the through traffic. Conclusions The analysis in our previous memorandum showed the proposed access will work acceptably in the near term p.m. peak hour with full development of the site. All of the analysis contained in this memorandum shows the a.m. peak hour will have the same or better operations than the p.m. peak hour. The conclusion that the proposed driveway intersection is anticipated to operate acceptably if built is still valid for the near term situation. The driveway approach should be controlled with a stop sign and Crosstown Boulevard should remain uncontrolled. Each approach to the intersection should be one shared lane, no exclusive turn lanes are initially needed. The design of the proposed intersection should confirm appropriate sight lines are provided per MnDOT's Road Design Manual. Over the next 22 years, the operation of the proposed intersection will degrade due to the growth in through traffic on Crosstown Boulevard. The proposed intersection should be monitored for excessive congestion. The access should be converted to a right -in /right -out when stacking problems begin. There are discussions of adding a fourth leg to the proposed intersection when the Winslow property south of Clocktower Commons is developed. The traffic conditions along Crosstown Boulevard should be reviewed again when a fourth leg is proposed to be added to the intersection because that is a likely time to convert the intersection to a right - in /right -out. Andover, MN No scale - Existing PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes Clocktower Commons Andover, MN Ficiure 2 North No Scale Crosstown Blvd .4 0 > ALW o 1 L 22 41 L 57 z 40 20 L I 4� 44 4 9 � F 163 w-0 7 7 4j B t L u, r ca Blue St 90 0 k2962 (rosstow (V 9 36 > 87 Tt 262 \76'' 3 13 LU LLI Z z 16 I 6 0 2 Crosstown Blvd .4 0 > I o (U > 41 L r 132 r z LU 140 z 163 w-0 Bluebird > Street ca r 0 L 4w-194 41 L r 132 r rosst( 140 > 163 w-0 a, 32.% P if FiflC >TPD Qa ✓�'rr.'<r Existing AM Peak I CEocktower Commons Andover, MN r�tJ 30 F� 36 C 47 hfirr 20 + ,. *% 40 ►= m > n _ K 0] U C ao O r N � C U = / L 22 4� 14 . 78 lueb, 7J 74 \ 7. z 3. z m 0 w z / N L 32 b r �� 163 � 191 961 OSSTI 64 J a H n 194 m♦ Q M N \10 w i Crosstown Blvd / Bluebird Note: Estimated by reversing p.m. peak traffic flows L 66 ` i �� 262 / 2 Qrosstow 961 Nti r� \\ 186 .. 0, a H n \ � Crosstown Blvd / Bluebird Note: Estimated by reversing p.m. peak traffic flows r >> .t�r1i!' { d: ��r • } t� ,ry `ti � .. I r !,J . A FF is J -4 r s" r` �} r . 'Y { ♦S :may j f 0 .� 3 d ryry `. , �' - �• *y . ` it { r 4. • .T is jl �. �~ rf av'. .�� .,�` 4 - .n Ilk e d r mil. Ir � 1 if"h 'ry i e�411 .GIB 9 y�W 9 J ID at T �Agla 4 ' 1 ^`mr ♦ i+� ,' 'fie` d y �r CD , .9 n. a r, k., "FY[ -F:Adi iC -TUFT CU711r': ;ry Figure 5 2030 AM Peak our Access No Build Traffic Volumes f Ctocktower Commons North Andover, MN No Scale / L L s0 L L 30 ° ° ° L L 130\ N o ° f f� s0 ° ° ° c F F� 180 r r H ♦ ♦� 440 30♦ j j 1 10J j j 1 190 j j 90 �► c c ° 1 100.0+ N N ° °m 3 370 mm* Crosstown Blvd / a 4f i z ° W z a Bluebird > Street m c 0 N C S N N 4j j 4, 120 J 330 --I� \70 -V L so \ 4� 280 330 ° o ° � Q N/ N N 4j j 4, 120 J 330 --I� \70 -V L so \ 4� 280 330 ° o ° � Q N/ T F f r 2030 PM Peak Hour Access N® Build Traffic Volumes Clocktower Commons Andover, MN Figure 6 t North No Scale 1 L10 370 I L 3o 0 0 L 130 " \ 4J I t* 4.. 60 4% 1 L* 4� 120 200 4-370 cc' Bluebird St I ebird St Ivi 20 J - ' 10 10 - > 200 110 -MO > 250--+ 440 .1, ISO 70 w z 30 z Crosstown Blvd o a z LU z Bluebird > Street cn 1 L 20' 370 r o 300 'cross 240 .1 4% 1 280 m-► 50 c C c IL 50 L 20 N ° m n 280 330 Figure 7 2030 AM Peek Hour Access Build Traffic Volumes t Clocktower Commons Crosstown 120 Blvd 330 North Andover, MN No scale L 50 L 30 L 110 4� 50 4 20 O M 1 � FW 100 50 or N rn *j .'. 4� 450 01`osot t t 30 J dh t r 10i ; '1 t r 30 80 W♦ > o a o 110 ` M 70 -O♦ N ° N 50� w 390 10+ z i m z Crosstown Blvd m o > > 3 Z 0 w a z Bluebird > 03 Street c 0 w c �o Z 0 o IL 50 L 20 N ° m n 280 330 480 d= 'Crosstown m � (4410m..+ Crosstown 120 Blvd 330 b Q �6 p' Y F F I I L' C' Y 2030 Pitfll Peak Hour Access Build Traffic Clocktower Commons Andover, MN WIMM F "41 North No Scale 5. Staff Review #2 rim INDA ENGINEERS - ARCHITECTS - PLANNERS To: Copies To: From: Date: Dave Berkowitz Bryant Ficek April 28, 2008 444 Cedar Street, Suite 1500 Saint Paul IUN 55101 -2140 (651)292-4 - ^,00 (651) 292 -0083 Fax aveav,.tkda.Gom Reference: City of Andover Project #08 -20 Proj. No. Routing: Clocktower Commons Traffic Study Review 14066.001 The Clocktower Commons development is proposing a new access to Crosstown Boulevard between the intersections with Hanson Boulevard and Bluebird Street. A traffic study for this proposed access was completed on January 24, 2008, and detailed potential traffic operations at the location. Our March 4, 2008, memorandum discussed additional information desired to better evaluate the merits of the new driveway access. That information was received and incorporated into a second analysis report, dated April 1, 2008. This memorandum examines the second analysis and provides our recommendation in regard to the proposed access. control, with Crosstown Boulevard traffic able to proceed without stopping. Traffic Studies Summary The original traffic study examined the existing traffic conditions of the study area and the potential traffic conditions with the new access. The second traffic analysis expanded the examination of the existing conditions and analyzed future conditions with traffic growth of the development site and sin area. Each study assumed the proposed access would allow all movements and operate under side street stop Currently, adequate traffic operations are provided under the existing access and traffic conditions for both the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. With the addition of a new access on Crosstown Boulevard, the study intersections were shown to maintain adequate traffic operations. The original traffic study also examined full development of the Clocktower Commons site. Again, adequate traffic operations were expected during both peak hours under this scenario. Traffic operations were reexamined in the second analysis under a projected year 2030. Without the proposed access or improvements at the study intersections, the Crosstown Boulevard intersections with Hanson Boulevard and Bluebird Street were expected to have inadequate traffic operations. Potential mitigation identified by the study included upgrading Hanson Boulevard from a two- to a four -lane facility and providing traffic signal control at the Bluebird Street intersection. With those improvements, the intersections would then provide acceptable traffic operations. Under the 2030 scenario with the proposed access, traffic operations would be better than without the access. However, inadequate results remain for the Hanson Boulevard and Bluebird Street intersections with Crosstown Boulevard. The mitigation to improve traffic operations was the same as described above, with an upgrade to a four -lane facility on Hanson Boulevard and a signal at the Crosstown Boulevard and Bluebird Street intersection. An Employee Owned Company Promoting AttirmaSn�e Action and Equal Opportunity Memo Page 2 City of Andover Project #08-20 Clocktower Commons Traffic Study Review April 28, 2008 The traffic studies submitted concluded that the proposed intersection on Crosstown Boulevard is acceptable in the near term. The proposed intersection should then be monitored for stacking issues and converted to a right in /right out only access when problems are identified. The intersection should also be reexamined if development occurs to the south that would add a fourth approach to the proposed intersection. The study also concluded that turn lanes would not be needed for any approaches to the proposed intersection in the near term. If future traffic problems are identified at the proposed intersection in the future, turn lanes could be provided at that time. Finally, the study concluded that sight lines should be examined during the design of the proposed intersection to confirm compliance with the Minnesota Department of Transportation's Road Design Manual. Additional Roadway Information Crosstown Boulevard is listed as a Collector roadway in the City's Transportation Plan. A Collector serves the dual function of land access and traffic mobility. The City's spacing guidelines for a Collector suggest minimum signal spacing of 1/2 mile for rural roadways and 1/4 mile for urban high -speed roadways. A minimum distance of 330 feet between connections (other unsignalized access points) is also recommended. The plan further notes that greater spacing is beneficial in terms of safety and traffic flow on the roadway. The Transportation Plan shows a concept plan for Crosstown Boulevard to accommodate 2030 volumes. For this section of Crosstown Boulevard, the concept plan shows a two -lane roadway with exclusive right- and left -turn lanes at the intersections with Hanson Boulevard and Bluebird Street. The intersection being proposed is not shown in this concept plan. Other intersections along this corridor are being built with turn lanes, being restricted or limited in turning movements, or being closed in accordance with this concept plan. Sight distance is a potential issue given the high speed of Crosstown Boulevard and the curve as it approaches Hanson Boulevard. Left turning vehicles into or out of the proposed access are the movements that would be affected the most by this potential issue. As vehicles approach the proposed intersection from Hanson Boulevard, a rear end crash would be possible if they do not see a vehicle waiting to turn left into the proposed access. Similarly, a vehicle turning out of the proposed access would be in danger of a crash if they do not see the approaching vehicle from Hanson Boulevard or vice versa. Potential Access Options For the proposed intersection, several options are available to pursue. Each of the following options is discussed in more detail in this memorandum: • Full access • 3/4 access • Right in/right out only access • Entrance only access • Exit only access • No access 1 Memo Page 3 City of Andover Project 908 -20 Clocktower Commons Traffic Study Review April 28, 2008 Full access would allow all movements into and out of the proposed access. The traffic studies presented determined acceptable traffic operations at the proposed intersection in the near term. Traffic operations at the Bluebird Street intersection would benefit in the future from the new access. This type of access would be easy to implement, as no special construction would be needed. The fourth leg on the south side of Crosstown Boulevard could be accommodated without difficulty. However, the traffic studies acknowledge that full access would likely be a temporary condition depending upon future conditions, such as the fourth approach to the proposed intersection from development to the south of Crosstown Boulevard. In addition, safety would remain a potential concern with the roadway curve. The exiting left -turn movement onto Crosstown Boulevard would be eliminated with a 3/4 access intersection. This type of left -turn movement is typically the least safe movement, with the highest potential for crashes. Without this movement, the safety of the access would be improved compared to full access. Traffic operations would also be better than full access. The mobility of Crosstown Boulevard would be better protected with this option, as the number of vehicles entering the corridor would be reduced. Proper design of the intersection would be important with this option to physically prevent illegal movements. The design would be potentially more complicated if another approach to the south is considered. Right in/right out access would eliminate all left -turn movements into and out of the proposed access. Other than no access, this option represents the safest option. Illegal movements could be prevented with a "pork chop" island on the access road, although a median on Crosstown Boulevard would be better. Future traffic operations at the Bluebird Street intersection would still improve, although not as much as with full or 3/4 access. Providing similar access to another approach on the south side would be easier than the 3/4 access, as well. An entrance only access would fully protect the mobility of Crosstown Boulevard by not allowing additional vehicles to enter the corridor. All exiting movements would be eliminated. Exiting movements would remain on Bluebird Street, providing additional justification for a potential signal if needed in the future, as suggested by the traffic studies. The proposed access would still provide some benefit to traffic operations at Bluebird Street, although not as much as the other options presented. An exit only access would impact Crosstown Boulevard almost as much as the full access option. Future traffic operations at Bluebird Street would be improved more than the 3/4 access or right in/right out access by providing a second option for all exiting movements. Safety would remain an issue, particularly with exiting left -turn movements. Illegal movements into the access would be another potential issue, as geometric fixes are difficult while maintaining the movements desired. The final option is no access. This would be the safest option and would maintain full mobility on Crosstown Boulevard. However, the traffic studies did demonstrate that traffic operations would be acceptable in the near term. Future traffic operations at the intersection of Crosstown Boulevard and Bluebird Street were also shown to benefit from an additional access at this location. Memo Page 4 City of Andover Project #08 -20 Clocktower Commons Traffic Study Review April 28, 2008 Recommendations Given that the proposed access would satisfy the City's guidelines and acceptable traffic operations are expected, allowing an access is recommended. Safety and maintaining some mobility on Crosstown Boulevard were then used to determine the type of access. In this case, providing either a right in/right out access or an entrance only access is recommended. Both options would eliminate the exiting left -turn movement, which is typically the least safe at an intersection. Mobility would be protected by allowing only a right turn onto Crosstown Boulevard or no exiting movements. The access can be controlled through proper design on the approaching driveway in addition to signing. Either type of access would also provide some benefit to traffic operations at the Bluebird Street intersection by reducing the number of vehicles travelling through that intersection. Selecting one of these options would be a permanent condition. Driver confusion could result from providing full access initially and then restricting the access at some future date. Providing the type of access that will remain into the future would allow motorists to and from the development to establish and maintain their driving patterns. The limited access would also set a precedence for future development to the south of Crosstown Boulevard or other developments of a similar nature within the City. When additional development occurs to the south, the access at this point would be the same without the need for another study to determine the type of access. Other development would expect to receive similar treatment for access as that used in this case. The traffic study showed acceptable traffic operations in the near term without turn lanes. However, turn lanes, both right and left, have been shown to improve the safety of an intersection. For the proposed access, a right -turn lane and a left -turn lane if entrance only access is desired are recommended. The turn lanes are recommended for safety, not capacity. Another safety improvement recommended for this proposed access is not allowing delivery trucks to use the access. These larger trucks with longer braking distances and slower acceleration than passenger vehicles could use the Bluebird Street access. Restricting these trucks would allow for better geometry to control illegal movements. Please contact me at (651) 726 -7944 or bryant.ficek @tkda.com if you have questions or comments regarding this information. V C I T 1` O XNDOVE 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: Angie Perera, Associate Planner SUBJECT: CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: City Code Amendment to consider changes to City Code Title 4: Public Health & Safety pertaining to abatement. DATE: May 12, 2009 INTRODUCTION This item was first introduced at the April 14, 2009 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting where a public hearing was held and is being continued to tonight's meeting. Staff has found some inadequacies with current language in Title 4 of the City Code, mainly pertaining to abatement. With the number of foreclosed and rental properties rising due to current economic conditions, this is a good time to bring forward these amendments. The concept of adding a chapter #5 was previously considered in an attempt to try to streamline an abatement process that could be used for chapters # 1, 2, and 4. The idea was to eliminate duplication within chapters by establishing a standard abatement process for potential violations. In discussions with the City Attorney and it has been determined that it would be better to keep each abatement process separate since there are unique situations in each chapter. The primary amendments being proposed include the following: • Staff authorization to enter onto a property (if necessary) to conduct an inspection in conjunction with an abatement of a violation. • Establish more consistent language in the abatement procedures of each chapter. • Eliminate the hearing examiner step in the code enforcement process. • Establish separate criteria for dealing with code enforcement related to a general abatement versus an emergency abatement in each of the chapters. • Minor adjustments made throughout Title 4 to incorporate language preference and to provide basic clarification. DISCUSSION The draft amendment has been summarized in an outline below. The draft amendment proposes several minor adjustments to incorporate language preference and clarification. Those adjustments are outlined in the draft amendment attached but not specified within this report since they do not change the intent of the current ordinance. CHAPTER # 1, NUISANCES r tC Section 4 -1 -2: PUBLIC NUISANCES ENUMERATED Subsections E, F, and G have been added to include accumulation of debris, junk motor vehicles, and dilapidated structures. r Section 4 -1 -3: HEARING EXAMINER This section is proposed to be removed from the ordinance. A hearing examiner is someone who would essentially review an appeal from a property owner who may be in violation of this chapter of the City Code. In the practice of code enforcement, staff has been flexible with property owners who need deadline extensions for bringing their property into compliance and checks with a department head if a request seems unreasonable. This practice has generally been an informal process that replaces the role of the hearing examiner and replaces the appeal process within the current abatement procedures that is proposed to be amended in another section. The hearing examiner role as currently specified in the City Code, is a more formal practice that may be an unnecessary step in the code enforcement process. Section 4 -1 -3: INSPECTIONS AND INVESTIGATIONS: This language specifically states who has the authority to inspect and enforce this chapter of the City Code. It also provides language that allows staff to enter onto the property to inspect and abate a nuisance violation. Section 4 -1 -5: ABATEMENT PROCEDURES: This section has been removed and renumbered. Section 4 -1 -4: ABATEMENT PROCEDURES: This section separates the abatement process for general and emergency abatement. The purpose for this is to include a detailed process for each. General abatement situations would involved a notification to the property owner with a deadline for compliance. If the violation is not corrected upon sufficient notification, staff may request that the situation be reviewed by the City Council to request that the violation be abated or that the situation proceed with legal action through the district court system. An emergency abatement situation would be a situation that constitutes an imminent danger to the public safety or health. This situation may be summarily abated upon a reasonable attempt to contact the property owner. This section also provides details regarding the costs of abatement, outlining steps that would be taken to try to recover the costs associated with abatement. CHAPTER # 2, GARBAGE, RECYCLABLES AND REFUSE Section 4 -2 -2: DEFINITIONS: Additional definitions for "City Health Inspector" and "Enforcement Officials" are being proposed in this chapter of the City Code for clarification purposes. Section 4 -2 -9 ABATEMENT PROCEDURES: This section separates the abatement process for general and emergency abatement similar to the procedures drafted for Chapter # 1 pertaining to nuisances. The main difference in Chapter # 2 pertaining to garbage, etc ... is that the emergency abatement involves the health inspector and the notice is posted on the actual premises and abated within a shorter deadline (not less than 2 hours and not more than 2 days) with the assumption that the violation presents an immediate hazard to the health or safety of any person. .r / .> Section 4 -2 -9 (C) ABATEMENT BY CITY; COSTS: This section includes similar language from the abatement costs section in Chapter # I pertaining to nuisances. Chapter # 1 pertaining to nuisances may involve a court order to have the violation abated whereas Chapter # 2 pertaining to garbage would most likely be abated without a court order depending on the situation. CHAPTER #4, WEEDS, GRASSES AND OTHER HARMFUL VEGETATION Section 4 -4 -4: PERMITTING A NUISANCE; NOTICE REQUIREMENTS: This section provides a weed inspector authorization to enter onto a property to inspect or abate a violation. It also specifies the notice requirements in more detail. Abatement of weeds, etc. would most likely be abated without a court order depending on the situation. Attachments Draft Amendments to City Code Title 4 ACTION REQUESTED The Planning and Zoning Commission is requested to continue the public hearing and provide staff with feedback on the draft amendment as proposed. Respectfully submitted, Angie rera 4 TITLE 4 PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY Subject Chapter Nuisances .................................. ............................... 1 ^ - ?goy - S 1- Garbage, Recyclables And Refuse ........................... 2 — pctU`- ShadeTrees .............................. ............................... 3 U � � �� Weeds, Grasses And Other Harmful Vegetation ....... 4 — P 9, rr I CHAPTER 1 NUISANCES SECTION: 4 -1 -1: Policy And Purpose 4 -1 -2: Public Nuisances Enumerated 4 1 2. Hearing Exa i ?nr 4 -1 -43: Inspections And Investigations 4 -1 -6 Abatement Procedures 4 -1-65: Interference With Enforcement Officials Prohibited 4 -1 -7-6: Violation; Penalty 4 -1 -1: POLICY AND PURPOSE: The City Council has determined that health, safety, good order, general welfare, and convenience of the public isare threatened by certain public nuisances on property within the city limits. It is declared to be the intention of the Council to abate these nuisances, and this chapter is enacted for that purpose. (Amended Ord. 72, 10 -15 -1985) 4 -1 -2: PUBLIC NUISANCES ENUMERATED: Whoever, by his act or failure to perform a legal duty, intentionally does any of the following, is guilty of maintaining a public nuisance and may be ordered to abate the nuisance as provided herein, charged with a misdemeanor, or both: A. Dangerous Conditions: Maintains or permits a condition which unreasonably annoys, injures, or endangers the safety, health, morals, comfort or repose of any considerable number of members of the public. B. Obstructing Public Ways And Waterways: Interferes with, obstructs, or renders dangerous for passage any public highway or right -of -way, or waters used by the public. C. Interference With Health Officials: Willfully opposes or obstructs a health officer or physician charged with the enforcement of the health laws in performing any legal duties. D. Deposits Of Used Tires: Deposits or allows depositing of used or waste tires upon public or private property which is not a tire recycling, processing or receiving site approved by the city. E. Accumulation of Debris: Maintai or permits the accumulation of discarded or unused machinery, household appliances, automobile bodies lumber, wood trash debris or other material or the rank growth of vegetation among the items so accumulated in a manner conducive to the harboring of rats, mice snakes, mosquitoes or vermin, or in any manner creating fire health or safety hazards. F. Junk Motor Vehicles: Par ks, keeps, stores or accumulates funk motor vehicles upon any private land or premises owned, occupied or controlled by any person or legal entity unless authorized by this code or other ordinance. No person shall park keep or place any such junk vehicle upon land not owned by such person. For purposes of this section, a junk vehicle means any motor vehicle as defined in Minn. Stat. §169.011, subd. 42 part of a motor vehicle, or former motor vehicle stored in the open which is (1) unusable or inoperable because of a lack of or defects in component parts; (2) unusable or inoperable because of damage from collision, deterioration, or otherwise: (3) beyond repair, and, therefore, not intended for future use as a motor vehicle: (4) being retained on the property for possible use of salvageable parts: or (5) is not properly and currently licensed for operation within the State of Minnesota. G. Dilapidated Structures: Mai ntains or permits the existence of an structure or part of any structure which due to fire, wind, other natural disaster, physical deterioration, or any other cause, is no longer habitable as a dwelling or is no longer useful for any other purpose for which it may have been intended. €H. Integrity of Dwelling Unit: All exterior elements of residential dwelling units in the City shall be kept in a clean, sanitary and structurally safe condition and in sound repair, including: 1. Stairways, porches, balconies, or decks; 2. Windows and Doors; 3. Soffit and Facia; 4. Roofs; 5. Siding, bricks, stone or stucco; 6. All other exterior elements not specifically listed. I. Remodeling Projects: All residents undertaking remodeling projects must keep all materials being used in the remodeling project in a neat and orderly appearance and out of view from adjoining property for the duration of the project. a O- All garbage and refuse shall be kept in proper storage containers (bins or dumpsters) and regularly disposed of as set forth in Article 4, Chapter 2, of the Andover City Code (Amended Ord. 371, 5 -20 -2008) HK. Other Conditions: Is guilty of any other act or omission declared by state law or city ordinance to be a public nuisance. (Amended Ord. 72, 10 -15 -1985) 122.W.MRMI �• 4 -1 -43: INSPECTIONS AND INVESTIGATIONS: A. Periodic Inspections; Investigations: The Zoning Administrator, Building Official, or other such officers employees or agents as the City Council or city administrator may designate ( "enforcement officers "), shall enforce the provisions of this ordinance. Such enforcement officers shall have 3 ' power • enter upon and i nspe . • w • ♦ w u . . • r w a • • • ' • • • • • • • rN • • . a a • • . 4 4 -1 -4: ABATEMENT PROCEDURES: A. General Abatement: Whenever an enforcement officer determines that a public nuisance is being maintained or exists on premises in the city, the officer shall notify, in writing, the owner and/or occupant of the premises of such fact and order that such nuisance be immediately terminated and abated. The notice shall be served in person or by mail, and as to an absentee owner, addressed to the last known address of the owner. If the property is unoccupied and the owner is unknown, the notice may be served by posting of the notice on the premises upon which the nuisance is located. The notice shall describe the nuisance and the actions required to abate the nuisance and the time limit within which the nuisance must be abated. Such time limit shall be reasonable under the circumstances, but shall not be less than ten (10) days after service of the notice. If the notice is not complied with within the time specified, the enforcement officer shall report that fact forthwith to the City Council. Thereafter, the City Council, after notice and hearing, may cause or direct such action as is necessary to be taken to abate the nuisance including, but not limited to, authorizing the initiation of district court action to enforcement any abatement orders issued by the City Council. B. Emergency Abatement: When the enforcement officer determines that a public nuisance constitutes a serious and imminent danger to the public safety or health, the officer may summarily abate the nuisance after a reasonable attempt to notify the owner or occupant of the property. The officer shall immediately thereafter notice, in writing, the owner and /or occupant of the premises of the action taken. The notice shall be served in person or by registered or certified mail. C. Costs of Abatement. The owner of the premises shall be personally liable for all costs of a general or emergency abatement by the city, including a twenty percent (20 %) administrative cost. As soon as the abatement work is completed and the costs determined, the enforcement officer shall prepare a written notice to the owner, identifying all the work done and the costs and expenses involved, which shall be served upon the owner of the property in person or by registered or certified mail, addressed to the last known address of the owner. If the property is unoccupied and the owner is unknown the notice may be served by L4 posting of the notice on the premises Such notice shall further provide that if the total amount is not paid to the city within thirty (30) days, the costs, expenses and maximum allowable interest shall be collected as an unpaid special assessment pursuant to Minn Stat 429.101. The city may also seek to recover such costs in an action against the owners occupants or other responsible parties. The sanctions and remedies herein are not exclusive and the city may also proceed by any other legal remedy including injunction declaratont action, criminal penalties or otherwise. �. .. - '� - .. . M IM V• L � . . J .. L � . . J �. mn n .. �. - .. TMW lt� _ TTa:� ►�.T.vif. • 0 - - - - - - W - - - W �'.i o.�I�.v ..� ..•i i.�i�Gi�...i �i:.:i...�a.�a�.: nnou visa ♦ - u G � UP- .- - - ♦. -M zowl .. . . .. . • • . 1 . u • . ! • .. . . . R. 2 i .� '�. C7�IiRiS .1 1�T�iiiiCS.7:LTST p • • - -Ti ■T l •. o t- R M kafiwwim 4 -1 -6 INTERFERENCE WITH ENFORCEMENT OFFICIALS PROHIBITED: No person shall prevent, delay or interfere with the an enforcement officer while they are engaged in the performance of their duties as set forth in this chapter. (Amended Ord. 72, 10 -15 -1985) 4 -1 -7 VIOLATION; PENALTY: Any person violating any provision of this chapter shall be guilty of a misdemeanor as defined by state law and subject to the penalties therefore. Each day in which such violation continues shall constitute a separate offense. (Amended Ord. 72, 10 -15 -1985) CHAPTER 2 GARBAGE, RECYCLABLES AND REFUSE SECTION: 4 -2 -1: Purpose 4 -2 -2: Definitions 4 -2 -3: Accumulation Prohibited; Disposal Required 4 -2 -4: Prohibited Acts And Conditions 4 -2 -5: Composting 4 -2 -6: Refuse Collectors 4 -2 -7: Refuse And Recyclable Collection Requirements 4 -2 -8: Enforcement Officials; Investigations And Inspections 4 -2 -9: Immediate Health Hazards 4 -2 -10: Violation A Misdemeanor 4 -2 -1: PURPOSE: It is the purpose of this chapter to protect the public health, safety and general welfare of the citizens of the city by requiring each residential, commercial or industrial property to properly store and dispose of "garbage ", "recyclables" and "refuse" as defined in this chapter. This chapter will also require that all garbage, recycling and refuse collectors operating within the city be licensed. (Ord. 102, 12 -15 -1992) 4 -2 -2: DEFINITIONS: For the purpose of this chapter, the terms defined in this section shall have the meanings given them as follows: CITY HEALTH INSPECTOR: That person or persons designated by the City Administrator to act on behalf of the city as the city's health inspector. COMPOST: Yard waste and other biodegradable matter that, under proper conditions, will be converted to a soil -like substance used as a soil. ENFORCEMENT OFFICIALS: The City Administrator, or his/her authorized representatives, responsible for the enforcement of the provisions of this chapter. GARBAGE: Animal and vegetable wastes resulting from the handling, preparation, cooking, and consumption of food. RECYCLABLES: Includes newsprint, corrugated cardboard and office paper, plastics, tin cans, aluminum, used motor oil, glass and other metal goods and other items identified as reusable or re- processable materials. REFUSE: Includes garbage and rubbish. RUBBISH: All inorganic solid wastes such as ashes and other non - reusable waste. YARD WASTE: The garden wastes, leaves, lawn cuttings, weeds, and prunings generated at residential, commercial and industrial properties. (Ord. 102, 12 -15 -1992) 4 -2 -3: ACCUMULATION PROHIBITED; DISPOSAL REQUIRED: Every household,, sr-occupant, or owner of any residence, commercial or industrial establishment shall, in a sanitary manner, dispose of refuse and recyclables that may accumulate upon the owner's or occupant's property on a weekly basis through a collection service licensed by the city or by other methods approved by the city. Recyclables shall be collected at a minimum, every two (2) weeks. (Ord. 102, 12 -15 -1992; amd. 2003 Code) 4 -2 -4: PROHIBITED ACTS AND CONDITIONS: A. Prohibited Deposits Of Refuse, Recyclables And Yard Wastes: No person shall place any refuse, recyclables and-or yard wastes in any street or public place, or upon any private property_ except in proper containers for collection, — _and -ne-No person shall throw or deposit refuse, recyclables armor yard waste in any body of water or in such manner as to cause litter or contamination of the environment. B. Burying Refuse: No person shall bury any refuse in the city except in an approved sanitary landfill. (Ord. 102, 12 -15 -1992) 4 -2 -5: COMPOSTING: Composting shall be allowed only on properties where there is a single - family detached dwelling or property operated by the city as an essential service. Composting is permitted on private property if all of the following conditions are met: A. Permitted Materials: Only organic materials, yard wastes and easily biodegradable, nonpoisonous garbage may be composted. B. Dimensions Of Compost Area: Composting shall be placed in a q container or pile not to exceed fifty (50) square feet in area and shall not exceed three feet (3') in height. C. Location: The compost piles or containers shall be located in the rear yard and at least five feet (6) from any property line or twenty feet (20') tG - from a side lot line if adjacent to any public street right -of -way. If a rear yard location is unavailable or impractical, the compost materials may be placed in another location approved by the City Administrator or authorized designee. D. Screening Required: All compost piles and containers shall be fully screened so as not to be visible from adjacent properties and public rights -of -way as viewed from _ground level E. Maintenance Required: Compost containers and compost materials shall be maintained so as not to create odors, rodent harborage, fire hazard af4-or other nuisances. (Ord. 1028, 8 -5 -2002) 4 -2 -6: REFUSE COLLECTORS: A. License Required: It is unlawful to collect, haul or convey refuse from any premises in the city, other than from one's own residence, without a valid license therefore. Each such vehicle so used, except for personal disposal, must also be licensed for such activity: B. Application For License: The applicant for a collector's license or renewal of such license shall provide the following: 1. The name and address of the owner of the collection service who is to be the licensee and all employees who shall be responsible for collecting, hauling or conveying refuse or recyclables on behalf of the licensee 2. A description of each piece of equipment proposed to be used in the collection operation; 3. A schedule of services to be made to the customer including, but not limited to, proposed days of collection and the ,^ �',,, ent areas of the city within which those days of collection shall occur 4. A schedule of varying rates based on the volume or weight of the refuse collected shall be kept on file in the office of the City Clerk indicating the charge for each size container or other schedule of charges to be applied by the licensee (the city may designate the number of categories in regard to the size of the containers); 5. The frequency of service to be rendered; 6. The place to which the refuse is to be hauled; 7. The manner in which the refuse is to be disposed; 8. Proof of insurance as required in Subsection D of this section; and 9. Any other information the city deems necessary. C. Processing Application: Applications for a license hereunder shall be submitted to the city for review and consideration If the Council is satisfied that the public need, convenience and good order will be served thereby, it may grant a license to such applicant. D. Insurance Requirements: No license shall be issued until the applicant files with the city a current copy of the policy of public liability insurance. The public liability insurance shall be in the amount of at least one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000.00) for injuries, including accidental death, to any one person, —L d iRaRaMeUR n ot less thanat least three hundred thousand dollars ($300,000.00) for each accident; and at least fifty thousand dollars ($50,000.00) for loss or damage to property_ i fl the . Every such policy shall provide that it shall not be canceled, terminated or amended for any reason without at least ten (10) days' written notice given to the city. (Ord. 102, 12 -15 -1992) E. Term Of License: License Fee: Licenses shall be issued for a period of one year, expiring on May 31 of each year. The license fee shall be as established by ordinance and may be adj ust F. Suspension Or Revocation Of License: Any license issued hereunder may be revoked or suspended by the City Council if false statements have been made in the application therefore a„may be revaked upon failure of a licensee to comply with any state law or local ordinance +r = -=qui _DTs- =•f ± " - ••,d;,,•,,,�•�� f�- (Ord. 102, 12- 15 -1992) 4 -2 -7: REFUSE AND RECYCLABLE COLLECTION REQUIREMENTS: A. Refuse Collection Required: Each licensee shall provide weekly collection and removal of refuse from its customers' premises in r eside R GeS WiFh'n the city and Gornp G"eGtir)n of all efuse which normally results from day to day use of the " property, except See subsection 1 -7 -3A of this code. furnishings, appliances, construction waste and similar bulky waste for which individuals shall make special collection arrangements. B. Curbside Recycling: Each licensee shall provide curbside recycling to each of its customers residential pFope4" within the city at least every two (2) weeks. Recyclables to be collected shall consist The licensee�r;n;; of at least four (4) broad types (plastic bottle glass bottles, metal cans and newspaper) of r ecyc l a bl e r, ateFialc The licensee shall also provide to the city,, by July 10 and January 10 of each year, a report on the tonnage of recyclable materials collected..(Ord. 102, 12 -15 -1992; amd. 2003 Code) C. Neat And Orderly Collections: 1. The licensee shall assure that reasonable care in traRsfe+transferring the contents of the containers to bis.1her vehicle is used to avoid w+thou spill fk���s ilp lage If any spi occurs, licensee, or its employee then performing the collections services, he/she -shall clean it immediately and completely. 2. Vehicles shall be equipped with brooms and shovels for cleaning any spills associated with collecting or hauling garbage, recyclables or refuse. 3. Collection shall be conducted in such a manner as to not create a nuisance. 4. Upon each collection, the containers shall be completely emptied and replaced with lids in place. D. Hours: Collection in residential zones shall be between the hours of seven o'clock (7:00) A.M. and six o'clock (6:00) P.M. No collection whatsoever shall be permitted in residential districts on Sundays. Violation of these collection conditions shall constitute a misdemeanor. E. Defective Containers: Whenever a container is in poor repair, or otherwise defective so as to permit insects, vermin or rodents to enter, it shall be replaced. Notice shall be given to the owner of the defective container, which shall state that if the deficiency is not corrected, a tag shall be affixed condemning the containerstating UG h ,.GRGIor. Ration It is unlawful for any person to place or deposit refuse in a condemned container. F. Collection Vehicles: k;� 1. Vehicles used by the licensee to collect or transport garbage refuse, or recyclables over any city street shall be properly maintained and operated, and have a fully enclosed metal body capable of completely containing the contents so as operated -to prevent offensive odors escaping therefrom and solids or liquids from leaking, spilling, dropping, or blowing from the vehicle. 4 -2 -8: ENFORCEMENT OFFICIALS; INVESTIGATIONS AND INSPECTIONS: Th FepreseRt. officials shall have the primary responsibility for the enforcement of the provisions of this chapter. The City Health Inspector shah may assist in the enforcement of the provisions of this chapter and, when requested by the City Administrator, shall make inspections or investigations as are necessary to determine whether an immediate health hazard exists as a result of a violation of this chapter. The findings of the City Health Inspector shall then be reported to the City Administrator. The City Health Inspector and enforcement officials may enter upon any land without consent of the owner and without being subject to any action of trespass; provided, however, that should entry into an enclosed building be necessary to perform hin t heir dutiesy, they shall, Health inspeGtGr prior to entry, shall obtain the consent of the owner, occupant, or person in control of such premises to enter the building. If permission cannot be obtained, th e i nSPeG t GF sh ebtaiR a warrant to enter the building may be obtained The City Health Inspector and the# rep rese^ eOenforcement officers shall carry and produce, at the request of any owner, occupant, or person in control of the premises upon which such officials request access in the performance of their duties under this chapter, identification in a form approved by the City Council. (Ord. 102, 12 -15 -1992) 4 -2 -9 ABATEMENT PROCEDURES: A. General Abatement: Whenever an enforce official determines that a violation of the provisions of Section 4 -2 -3 4 -2 -4 or 4 -2 -5 of this chapter is being maintained or exists on premises in the city, the officer shall notify, in writing, the owner, occupant and /or person in control of the premises of such fact and order that such violation be immediately terminated and abated. The notice shall be served in person or by mail and as to an absentee owner, addressed to the last known address of the owner. If the property is unoccupied and the owner is unknown the notice may be served by ostin of the notice on the premises upon which the violation is located. The notice shall describe the violation and �I UP 4 -2 -8: ENFORCEMENT OFFICIALS; INVESTIGATIONS AND INSPECTIONS: Th FepreseRt. officials shall have the primary responsibility for the enforcement of the provisions of this chapter. The City Health Inspector shah may assist in the enforcement of the provisions of this chapter and, when requested by the City Administrator, shall make inspections or investigations as are necessary to determine whether an immediate health hazard exists as a result of a violation of this chapter. The findings of the City Health Inspector shall then be reported to the City Administrator. The City Health Inspector and enforcement officials may enter upon any land without consent of the owner and without being subject to any action of trespass; provided, however, that should entry into an enclosed building be necessary to perform hin t heir dutiesy, they shall, Health inspeGtGr prior to entry, shall obtain the consent of the owner, occupant, or person in control of such premises to enter the building. If permission cannot be obtained, th e i nSPeG t GF sh ebtaiR a warrant to enter the building may be obtained The City Health Inspector and the# rep rese^ eOenforcement officers shall carry and produce, at the request of any owner, occupant, or person in control of the premises upon which such officials request access in the performance of their duties under this chapter, identification in a form approved by the City Council. (Ord. 102, 12 -15 -1992) 4 -2 -9 ABATEMENT PROCEDURES: A. General Abatement: Whenever an enforce official determines that a violation of the provisions of Section 4 -2 -3 4 -2 -4 or 4 -2 -5 of this chapter is being maintained or exists on premises in the city, the officer shall notify, in writing, the owner, occupant and /or person in control of the premises of such fact and order that such violation be immediately terminated and abated. The notice shall be served in person or by mail and as to an absentee owner, addressed to the last known address of the owner. If the property is unoccupied and the owner is unknown the notice may be served by ostin of the notice on the premises upon which the violation is located. The notice shall describe the violation and �I the actions required to abate the violation and the time limit within which the violation must be abated. The notice shall further state that if the violation is not remedied within the time specified, the city will take whatever steps may be necessary to remedy the violation and that the owner, occupant, or person in control of the premises, or all of them, will be billed for the actual costs incurred by the city, including the costs of inspection. B. Emergence Abatement: Should an enforcement official determine that a violation exists on any premises which may pose an immediate health hazard,A . Cl + +'^ (1f \ /inla +ir n: Chrnlrl +ho_ �ifi, Arlminin+ra+nr r r h' +hnr� d r oson +af c fe de-Fmine that a vio of the pmvis inns rn� -.fi ' au the _ _i .�..�.�......... �... ......... ......_ ...�.. � .. _.�_._.. _. ...� ..._.._._.._ f C +" 4 2 4 A 2 A eF A 2 G o f this nhnn exists nn anv nromisys the City Health Inspector, upon receiving a report describing such violation, shall make an immediate inspection or investigation of the premises to determine whether the violation presents an immediate hazard to the health or safety of any person. 1. If such a violation is determined to exist by the City Health Inspector, he /she shall prepare a written notice of the violation outlining the +' hall ntali; t "e following information: a. The street address of the premises where the violation exists. b. The name of the owners of the premises as shown on the records of the County Auditor or Treasurer. c. An itemized list of the conditions that constitute the violation. d. A statement of the actions necessary to remedy the violation. e. The date and time by which such violation must be corrected. Such period for correcting the violation shall be not less than two (2) hours nor more than two (2) days from the time such notice is posted as provided in this section. Ll 2. The notice shall also state that if the violation is not remedied within the period stated, the city will take actions necessary to remedy the violation as set forth in the notice and that —.Tthe owner, occupant, or person in control of the premises, or any and all of them, will be billed for the actual cost incurred by the city, including the costs of inspection. 3. The notice of violation shall be immediately posted on the premises where the violation is located which shall constitute sufficient notice and . premises. if the refurn rer-.ei A , irned, the posting of the RGtiGe OR the promises is sufficient grounds for the city to remedy the violation and charge the costs thereof to the owner, occupant, or person in control of the premises. C. Abatement By City; Costs: If a violation is not remedied within the period stated in the notice provided to the owner, occupant and /or person in control of the premises, the violation has RGt been remeN,ea witnin me e oppr ifier7 ,p +he pe +in the City Health Inspector or enforcement official his au representati ve shall arrange for immediate disposal abatement of the condition creating the violation hazard. As soon as the abatement work is completed and the costs determined the City Health Inspector or enforcement official shall prepare a written notice to the owner, occupant and /or person in control of the premises identifying all the work done and the costs and expenses involved which shall be served upon the owner of the property in person or by registered or certified mail, addressed to the last known address of the owner. If the property is unoccupied and the owner is unknown the notice upon him /her may be served by posting of the notice on the premises Such notice shall further provide that if the total amount is not paid to the city within thirty (30) days, the costs expenses and maximum allowable interest shall be collected An 't d s f the dial +s s hell he prepared hy_the r days, Health lnspeGtGr and fbrwarded to the City Clerk. The Gity GIeFk shall City Clerk will GeFtify SUGh GGStS te the County Auditer as an assessm against the prGpeFty pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Sections 443.31 and 443.29. (Ord. 102, 12 -15 -1992) IS 4 -2 -10: VIOLATION A MISDEMEANOR: Any person, firm, or corporation w v;elatewiolating any of the provisions of this chapter is- shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, as defined bV state law and subject to the penalties therefore. and eEach day in which such violation peFsGR- continues to violate the of this GhapteT shall constitute a separate offense. (Ord. 102, 12 -15 -1992) I� CHAPTER 4 WEEDS, GRASSES AND OTHER HARMFUL VEGETATION SECTION: 4 -4 -1: Findings; Purpose; Nuisance Declared 4 -4 -2: Definitions 4 -4 -3: Maintenance Standards 4 -4 -4: Permitting A Nuisance; Notice Requirements 4 -4 -5: Abatement Costs 4 -4 -6: Interference With City Officials 4 -4 -7: Penalties 4 -4 -1: FINDINGS; PURPOSE; NUISANCE DECLARED: Noxious weeds and other harmful vegetation create a detriment to public health, comfort and convenience of the residents of the city as well as creating a general aesthetic depreciation. The growth of such vegetation is hereby declared to be a nuisance. The purpose of this chapter is to ensure proper maintenance of noxious weeds, vegetation and grasses. The City Council finds that establishing a height limitation for certain vegetation is of-in the best interest of the public health, safety and welfare and is a reasonable maintenance standard. (Ord. 219A, 10 -2- 2001) 4 -4 -2: DEFINITIONS: The following words shall have the meanings as specified: GRASS: Any vegetative ground cover that does not include "noxious weeds" as defined by State Statute or "natural area" as defined by this chapter. HEAVILY FORESTED AREA: Any area that is impractical to maintain due to the density of trees. NATURAL AREA: An area that does not include noxious weeds, that -is purposely left to grow in a natural state, and contains vegetation that can maintain itself in a stable condition. I1 WEED INSPECTOR: The City Administrator or his /her designee. WEEDS: Include all "noxious weeds" as defined by the statutes of the State of Minnesota and all such useless and troublesome plants as are commonly known as weeds to the general public. (Ord. 219A, 10 -2 -2001) 4 -4 -3: MAINTENANCE STANDARDS: A. Removal Of Noxious Weeds: All "noxious weeds ", as defined by State Statute, are required to be removed within ten (10) days of notification from the city. B. Grass Height Requirements: 1. Less Than One Acre: All properties less than one acre in size are required to maintain a uniform grass height of less than eight inches (8 ") with the following exceptions: a. Wetlands. b. Wetland buffer areas. c. Storm water ponds. d. Heavily forested areas. e. Parks and nature preserves. f. Natural area not to exceed one - quarter (1/4) lawn area. g. Slopes greater than three to one (3:1). 2. More Than One Acre: All properties with a lot area greater than one acre are required to maintain a uniform grass height of less than twelve inches (12 ") in the following areas of the property: a. In "public rights -of -way" as defined in Title 8, Chapter 2 of this code. b. An area thirty feet (30') in width adjacent to maintained lawns of neighboring properties. This area need not exceed the minimum front yard setback of the adjacent property. c. All lawn areas within the minimum front yard setback that are located directly in front of the dwelling. This area need not exceed one hundred feet (100') in width. d. On corner lots, all areas within the minimum side yard setback that are adjacent to the side of the principal structure. This area need not exceed fifty feet (50') in width. e. Exceptions to these requirements include: (1) Wetlands. (2) Wetland buffer areas. (3) Storm water ponds. (4) Heavily forested areas. (5) Parks and nature preserves. (6) Agricultural property. (7) Slopes greater than three to one (3:1). (Ord. 219A, 10 -2- 2001) . 4 -4 -4: PERMITTING A NUISANCE; NOTICE REQUIREMENTS: The weed inspector shall have the power to enter upon and inspect all public and private places within the city and take all reasonable precautions to prevent the commission and maintenance of public nuisances under this chapter. Whenever, during an inspection, it is determined an adja . t PF OPeFty GW f GE)RIplaint that such a public nuisance is being maintained or exist an th it hall ' t the prepeFty to determine the valid validity of the GOMplaint. if the GOMplaint is the city shall notify, in writing, the owner /occupant of the premises of such fact and shall order that said nuisance be terminated and abated. The notice shall be served in person or by certified or registered mail addressed to the last known address of the owner If the property is unoccupied and the owner is unknown the notice may be served by posting of the notice on the premises upon which the violation is located. The notice shall specify the steps to be taken to abate the nuisance and the time, not exceeding ten (10) days from the date of said notice within which the nuisance is to be abated. Such notice shall also state that in the event of noncompliance, abatement will be done by the city at the owner's expense. When RG rtwnor mailing OF Gertified mail te the person who is listed Gn the reGGrds of the Gaunty Audite or Geunty Treasurer as th evofneF. SeFViGe Will be GGMP!ete with (Ord. 219A, 10 -2 -2001) �q 4 -4 -5: ABATEMENT COSTS: A. Liability For Costs: If the nuisance is not abated within the period stated in the notice provided to the owner, the weed inspector may arrange for the immediate abatement of the nuisance. The owner of the premises on which such a nuisance has been abated by the weed inspector shall be personally liable for the cost to the city of the abatement, including a twenty percent (20 %) administrative cost. B. Notice Of Costs: As soon as the abatement work is completed and the costs determined, the weed inspector shall prepare a written notice in writing - to the owner — , identifyinQ Tire n ti&G ; sty° the work done and a tabulation of the costs and expenses involved, aR - which shall be served on the owner of eGCUpant of the property in accordance with the individual notice provisions stated in Section 4-4-4 of this chapter. Such notice shall further provide a tabulation of the to tal r•es+ and expenses iwfnh;Pd ;and that if the total amount is not paid to the city within thirty (30) days or hefere the felIGWinr. Gateher 4 Whiehe.rer i later the costs,, and expenses and maximum allowable interest shall be collected as an unpaid special assessment pursuant to Minn. Stat. 429 .101. a lien in fairer of the nit y and maximum alleurahle interest will he added to the ameunt due as of that date with a total GE)6t, expeR6es h'm or h on his er her tax honks as a lien nnen sunh property (Ord. 219A, 10 -2 -2001) 4 -4 -6: INTERFERENCE WITH CITY OFFICIALS: It is a misdemeanor for any person to prevent, delay or interfere with city employees or agents of the city when they are engaged in the performance of duties set forth in this chapter. (Ord. 219A, 10 -2 -2001) 4 -4 -7: PENALTIES: A. Financial Penalty: Upon the first abatement of a nuisance, the property shall be subject only to the costs outlined in Section 4 -4 -5 of this chapter. An additional financial penalty will be imposed on properties that have a second nuisance abated, as defined determined by the City Council. Each successive nuisance abated thereafter shall be subject to a cumulative penalty per occurrence as defined determined by the City Council. B. Misdemeanor Penalty: Any person violating any provision of this chapter shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction thereof, shall be punished in accordance with the provisions as defined by state law. r),� W NiDOVERJ 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: Angie Perera, Associate Planner W SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING: City Code Amendment to consider changes to City Code Chapter 98, Rental Housing Dwellings DATE: May 12, 2009 INTRODUCTION The draft amendment before you this evening incorporates changes to the Rental Housing Dwellings, Chapter 98 of the City Code. The intent of the amendment is to facilitate a single family market value preservation initiative by including rental license requirements for single family dwelling units. The most prominent change proposed in the draft amendment attached, includes the requirement of a rental license for single family dwelling units with the addition of Section 9 -8 -12. The City Code currently only requires rental licenses for multi - family dwelling units. Staff has worked with other departments, the City Attorney, and the City Council on drafting this amendment so that it provides as little change to other sections within Chapter # 8 while keeping all rental ordinances in the same chapter. This item has been discussed by the City Council on a few occasions. It is being brought forward to address the rising number of foreclosures, the need to preserve quality of housing stock in the City of Andover, and to address two City Council 2007 -2008 goals 1. Initiate a program to maintain current housing stock and programs to help revitalize some of the older neighborhoods and businesses. 2. Consider an ordinance regulating all rental property including townhomes and single family residential. Steps to implement the program: 1) Require a rental license application & nominal fee for single family units ($50) 2) Provide a service to the property owner /landlord in exchange for the application and fee. Service consisting of educational materials (home and yard checklist, frequent questions handout) and inspections of the property. 3) Exterior inspection only — very minimal, "drive by" inspections 4) Ordinance amendment accordingly BACKGROUND The details of this program and the administrative process for this initiative include discussions with the City Council to date. The details consist of collaborations of input, feedback, and research based on what neighboring communities require for rental licensing, direction given by the City Council, and internal staff discussions between departments. The Program Staff has drafted the following materials for your review (which have been included as attachments with this report): single family rental dwelling license application, frequently asked questions pertaining to the single family rental housing program, and a home and yard checklist. These materials will be dispersed upon request of an application and made available at city hall and also on the City website. The application fee is proposed to be $50, acknowledging that the fee most likely won't cover the costs to administer the process but that it will allow staff to keep track of the rental properties, have the contact information of the owner and renter, and allow an inspection to the exterior of the property to help maintain and "preserve" the market value of the property and the neighborhood. Providing a service in exchange for requiring an application and fee for the license would most likely entail that the city would issue a "home and yard checklist" and "frequently asked questions" handouts that will serve as educational materials for the property owner and others. These materials are intended to be utilized as tools that provide answers to potential questions that may arise with this program and to provide insight to a potential landlord who is considering having a tenant residing at, and caring for their property. The information includes nuisance and other code related violations that could potentially occur and a "self maintenance" list of items to inspect on the exterior of the building and property. The other part of the service would be tracking the police /disturbance calls with the Sheriff's Department and contacting the owner to inform them of any disturbing the peace calls. Exterior inspections will be provided to the property owner /landlord at the time of the initial application and also at the time of receipt of a complaint. This would be done by Planning Dept. (Code Enforcement) or a joint inspection with the Building Department if necessary. Administrative Process: The process will be similar to what staff already does for the multi - family rental dwellings with the exception of Code Enforcement staff taking the lead in conducting the exterior inspections and tracking code violation complaints associated with single family rental properties. The City is in the process of implementing a demonstration of a Permit Works, Business Module program to more efficiently track rental properties and licenses. City staff will request a list of non- homestead properties from Anoka County and send educational letters to these properties to inform them of the change of the ordinance once it is adopted. The letter will state the requirement of rental licenses for single family dwellings and instruct the property owner to apply for a rental license if they are renting out their property. A single family rental license would be approved after successful completion of an inspection of the property. If any violations are found on a property, the property owner would be notified in writing with instructions on required corrective actions needed to bring their property into compliance by a deadline specified in their notice. If a property owner fails to successfully pass an inspection upon initial or renewal application, then a license may be denied. Renewal applications will be mailed to property owners as they become due. Required inspections for the initial application and renewal application are included with the proposed non - refundable application fee of $50. The property owner would be charged a $50 re- inspection fee if any additional inspections are required upon city staff's receipt of any valid complaint(s). A single family rental license may be revoked, suspended, or become provisional, as specified in the draft ordinance amendment. 2 DISCUSSION As originally conceived, this initiative was to be as least intrusive to property owners and their tenants as possible. A "drive by /windshield" inspection to the exterior of the property would not require entering onto the property. During an inspection of a property, staff would be looking for violations to the exterior portions of the house and violations on the actual property. Due to the nature of the inspections being conducted, staff feels that there are advantages with conducting minimal "drive by /windshield" inspections that seem to outweigh entering onto the property to conduct onsite inspections. The City Council has since expressed a desire to go to have staff go onsite and inspect the rear of the home and yard at their recent workshop on April 28"'. Staff pointed out that if the council wishes to proceed with requiring onsite inspections to the property, this initiative will become much more involved than originally anticipated in that it will consume more of staff s time, require additional staff be present at time of inspections to ensure safety, and possibly the need for additional staffing due to time taken away from staff s other duties. The City Council would like the Planning Commission's recommendation regarding the extent of the inspections (minimal "drive by /windshield" vs. onsite), The rationale or advantages of the "drive by /windshield" inspection that should be considered as follows: • Start with a basic approach to this initiative versus an advanced approach • keep the application fees minimal by conducting minimal inspections • less intrusive versus more intrusive/ "friendly" approach • less staff required for inspections (staff limitations) • less time involved in an inspection • no additional training, protection, or materials needed to ensure safety of staff • violations tend to be readily visible at the street and from neighboring properties versus entering onto the property to view (Those that are not visible, most likely meet the ordinance requirements pertaining to screening. In those cases, there technically is no violation present.) • minimize complaints /calls from neighboring properties (neighbor vs. neighbor) • follow the same policy that the City Council has adopted for dealing with code enforcement (reactive vs. pro- active) • requiring a rental license and minimal inspections already ensures that city staff will be proactively keeping an eye on these properties (basic approach vs. advanced) Staff would like the Planning and Zoning Commission's feedback on the following: the general initiative of requiring a rental license for single family rental dwellings, the program and process as it has been conveyed, the amount of the application fee, and the ordinance amendment as it is currently drafted. ACTION REQUESTED The Planning and Zoning Commission is requested to hold a public hearing and provide staff with feedback on the draft amendment as proposed in order to facilitate single family residential market value preservation. Re,spectfl4lly Submitted, An ie erera Attaehments Application Form, Checklist, Frequently Asked Questions, draft ordinance amendment to City Code C 66W SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING Application RENTAL LICENSE License No. APPLICATION 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. • ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 • (763) 755 -51DO FAX (763) 755 -8923 • WWW.CI.ANDOVER.MN.US A Rental License Application is required to be submitted on a bi- annual basis for single family dwelling units (One application is required per parcel identification number PIN #). By applying for this license you are authorizing permission to City officials to enter onto the property to inspect the exterior portions of the residential dwelling and property upon the City's receipt of an initial application; renewal application; and a complaint pertaining to a possible violation on the property. FEE SCHEDULE A $50 FEE (NON - REFUNDABLE) FOR THE INITIAL & RENEWAL LICENSE APPLICATION MUST BE RECEIVED PRIOR TO: • THE REQUIRED INITIAL INSPECTION OF THE PROPERTY BY STAFF • APPROVAL OF THE LICENSE APPLICATION A $50 RE- INSPECTION FEE SHALL APPLY UPON RECEIPT OF A VALID COMPLAINT ANYTIME AFTER THE INITIAL INSPECTION HAS BEEN CONDUCTED AND LICENSE HAS BEEN APPROVED. DWELLING UNIT INFORMATION Single family dwelling ____ Duplex ____ Twin home ____ OWNER INFORMATION RENTAL ADDRESS ADDRESS: PIN # OWNER INFORMATION NAME: PHONE # EMAIL: ADDRESS: OTHER # STATE: ADDRESS: CITY: STATE: ZIP: AGENT INFORMATION NAME: PHONE # OTHER # EMAIL: ADDRESS: CITY: STATE: ZIP: In applying for this application you are required to be familiar with the following: City of Andover City Code Of Ordinances: • Title 4 Public Health & Safety (Nuisances, garbage, trees, weeds, grass) • Title 5, Chapter # 6, Noise Control • Title 6, Chapter # 5, Abandoned, Disabled Vehicles • Title 9, Chapter # 8, Rental Housing Dwellings • Title 9, Chapter # 9, Housing Maintenance Codes • Title 12 Zoning Regulations • All other applicable sections of the Andover City Code of Ordinance as deemed appropriate with this application Minnesota State Statutes: • As referenced in Title # 9, Chapter #8 of the Andover City Code of Ordinance • MN State Statute 299F.50, carbon monoxide alarms • MN State Statute 299F.51, requirements for carbon monoxide alarms • MN State Statute 299 F.362, smoke alarms • All other applicable MN State Statutes as deemed appropriate with this application The undersigned hereby applies for a single family rental dwelling license and acknowledges receipt of City Code Sections 9 -8 -1 through 9- 8- 19(Rental Housing Dwelling Code); The City of Andover's Home and Yard Checklist: and handout of Frequently Asked Questions of the City of Andover's Single Family Rental Program. The undersigned also acknowledges the applicability of other City of Andover ordinances and Minnesota State Statutes as referenced above; and attests that the subject premises will be operated and maintained according to the requirements contained therein, subject to applicable sanctions and penalties. The undersigned further agrees that the exterior of the subject premises may be inspected by the City's enforcement official as provided in Section 9 -8- 12 for Single Family Rental License. The undersigned hereby certifies that the above information is true and correct to the best of their knowledge: Applicant Signature Date r E ® D W O o T : Y. 0 5 co NY O z } V Q LJJ 0 Z z m a L O L Q O L d ro O) Oak r� a S r� r% o v 'C=U = o ° n N p 3 v-- O d.0 `6 U t 4� X O 0 O CO •� +' (O _ co O C N C C (n 3= :3 > Q N O j 0- O N O 41 u L _ O) L 4-1 O O V1 O) L CD Q (n 4F N _ 4+ p VI f6 L 0 (n O L LA c C C � � N L O >. _ O 4- O O) L O O CL ° O (n (O � C: m 7 a�i hA O dA 4� 00) + C v N U A O O) 6 u C C: L � a r O L (O O a ai L O >� O u O= O c0 > M 0 = L O U 'a O > U l0 •� � � w '6 O C +- a-+ U M O - p O_ ++ o v O -o Q O 41 v_ O a O ' 5; 4 - O p > a) v +� - Fo O O L Z O c0 L+- O u O � N O O u Q ate+ Q L Ln 4,,, O> (6 > (O C +� v E 4- != O iJ Vf U > N O L > a• + ) E 4 4J 4- > J O 4- O� + L "0 U O LO v- u to O Y u I- O c06 v C Q > _c +� v OJ A v 7 +� Q 0 C (n _ +-+ m 4 > (O V >, O L S - >` aj v 4• 0 L 4 41 N 4 � H > L > s p a p C Q O N Q a-•' L O O v 4, Q 0 l0 C O +� OL i � U O) 0 Y CO � CU LL, C � }� GJ V) N >. ai . U � � N N Q (n u t O_ O Q O *= Q. =5 O- N = "O � > O VI L N aA cr O d s O O L -a ' t UA •O O O OD tO to .� > }' N u O V '� M � n 4O O N U N -0 !O .- VI fO VI f0 Ln N co L1 O _ O O • �O >, U O to C O) > O U O U dA c C N 4- C C C ' C O O O O > > C 7 a O C- a � _ O (n L O O) Qj O+ F- = U 7 4- p U O U O u L 4- L v- t- O L u L � m 3 Z a 0 0 M C N Q Ln > Q O W F O O In Ln O W m Z (n Ln z ? n O M � � V (n W O z O u z z 0 N O O [O 2 C7 w z J D Cf _z z I c z C z Q O O O U_ i O ^ W/. i w / i.L W L = f6 > h & 4 � 3 Q 0 ; Q L L � > Q. 4- buo O = 3 O Q t O• H 0 3 Q L 3 O O C L = C U o bA ` c 7 3 0 O Y O = S 4•' 4i 4- _ L E N O � H m = 3 y' a 4a Y :, Z CL 5 W Q L a > Z 0 V Z O Q W N O L Z = F- 0 z (9 W m c On v L c a i a Y L a Q u 3 C O L E c -L L L C C) Y N 0 a) (2) bn (V Y bA C c 0 N o v t a E C Q V Q L O OL 3 a) 3 a V Q a L o m i O Q 3 v C N > O C 04 = Y m L N { O ' a, W 3 Y T U- m @ Y E 3 E ••' N E a1 Y O O O tiff O '' Q a) �- a T U C L 0 O a Q CD N a a L U LU c _ N ai c CL C O = 4 Y 3 O m m O C U O > Z ❑ L , m N N E N N C O C N vi a) a) t W o v r ❑ V } :, Z CL 5 W Q L a > Z 0 V Z O Q W N O L Z = F- 0 z (9 W m L c a vi a) CO V a) m C O m E c -L O O (2) N 0 N L n a v V C Q Y N 4 O u c v O L U_ Q Q u N . ' 3 Y , al N O L 3 c a '� L a o_ � CD N c C CD N a 3 ai U O C O a O - v Q y C Y L N > N L c m N N E N o C O o s N vi a) a) t m o v r a) - O N@ T v m o E Y T O v Y a) i L L O N L 3 v -0 m U 3 N = a) O O O C Cu Co 0 0o 0 v \ tiA m E c m u E v m a O ' CCO Q °) �- 6 o m N L a) Q 0 a) a) aU.+ a) N Y ' m m a O O E Q i 0 O a 3 ,..� E m .� Y ci C E m w m c Y X d N m v Y R 3 0 3 v C v a) do a �' L m a W �a N 0 O- al ' a > L _N 9 E a Y V o Y N N C o O CL v c Q O > ' m L �' O 0 £ N E m `= Q C" O_ m 0 C 0 0_ 3 a z❑ z❑ � 'C U a El 5 0 5 D 5' El 5' El I EL ❑ }❑ El :, Z CL 5 W Q L a > Z 0 V Z O Q W N O L Z = F- 0 z (9 W m L vi a) CO V a) N > C O m E c -L O O (2) N 0 N L n a v V CO Y O d Y N Qj Y N u c v O L C c a) Q u N . ' 3 Y , al L O O O s 3 u �•'� CD N c C CD N a 3 0 0 0 _U U O C O O N 3 O - v Q y a L v •• m EO w a v , Q. m N N E N + C m COL m O L V- L N vi M N a) r o m LO o v r Qm L '6 O a w 0° v m o N 3 L O Y m O v 3 N O O C v c 0 L Y 0 fl a) Q 3 7 0 L 3 v -0 m Y a l a) LO N L E v O C > a) E .m a L ) VI 4� m O C Cu Co L 0 0 0 j, G C 3 v L L o El o z El m u E v m L v oo w v Y o CCO Q °) El o m O N c m a C C O L E N O m • L hA Vl • - 3 a a) ' = a) N pSJ Y 0 U O O - L N N T i 0 '> O Y a) a al N f2 Q N C Q m w m c Y X d N m i R a) a) c N 3 v C v a) do a �' L m a W Q F- 0 O- al ' a) >, E i u V Q O E O Z ❑ O CL v c • a O O O L n° n 3 Q , o s 06 u u Z > z❑ z❑ � 'C U a El 5 0 5 D 5' El >❑ 5' El >- }❑ Ul ; ❑ :, Z CL 5 W Q L a > Z 0 V Z O Q W N O L Z = F- 0 z (9 W m L Y N > C O m E c -L O O (2) N 0 N L n N L L E V a a • '� O C 4 j 3 Qj Y N L aJ Q rLi) C 3 v O L 0 00 v N . ' 3 Y , al L O O m s 3 a v �•'� CD N c C CD L a 3 E N N C O O N 3 O - v Q y a L v _Y O w a v O N VL a Ln Ln a) N "O -0 M N a) r o m LO _ O L '6 O L N Q • f0 N 3 L O Y U C v CL Q> N W H L L m• V N 3 " a) •;-: 0 fl a) Q 3 7 0 L v 0 = a) w Q L 3 al O y Y a l a) LO N L CJ m a + O '> .m a L ) ro 0 o Y o a CL Q ¢ m O O o El o z El a }❑ }❑ :, Z CL 5 W Q L a > Z 0 V Z O Q W N O L Z = F- 0 z (9 W m L L C O m E c -L O O (2) N 0 N L n Y V E 'm Q 3 a) O C 4 j 3 Qj Y N rLi) C 3 vi u a fl N a) Y a) m E L L Co m m N Q a) a) Co c y I U U O =) O O (D m v p m O fO s H 9 U— L -0 E t 'u L m CL L 0 O a C C Y Y a) >. v y 0 O p L m O - v Q y N O C X .� m a u = v Q E 3 o 0 o w a v O O m OL m o- ) i Q T O) c ll� a) a 3 CL -Fo M N a) r o m Y v a _ O L '6 O L N Q • f0 N 3 L O Y U C v CL Q> C T N aI Q U E CL L m• V N 3 " a) •;-: tin a) Q 3 7 0 L v 0 = a) w Q L 3 al O y Y a l a) LO N L 3 al N CL E 0 . p 'a .m a L ) ro 0 o Y o a CL Q ¢ m O O N N a z ❑ O z❑ z❑ i El >' ctl O 0 c > CU >❑ :, Z CL 5 W Q L a > Z 0 V Z O Q W N O L Z = F- 0 z (9 W m C O E c -L v (2) a Y C N 0 N L n L 'm Q a a O - - E m a) o c . m w E m E N aJ L L O > al C N E O Y N O Y �„f L C a Q a ) a) 3 H N n a w N O U O C aj ,0 m 0 O i 0 u ip N a m `= tuD u 3 v+''i c N h0 C 3 L w m oo c o 3 u 3 O E N _ C ON E m c 3 Ca N i o • f0 C Y a) c (V c v o C N L o F N o L y Y a l a) LO N L a, m Q C N O 06 Y a E O O N N a _U L X _T 4) i N Q a >' ctl O 0 c iii CU a) • L hA a) c y' O C U _L m a C + �- w O O C 'O 0 U O O - LL Y O V) cc N f2 Q N C O m m - Y Z Z❑ ❑ > ❑ > ❑ I > n ❑ N ❑ O Z ❑ ❑ z ❑ O Z ❑ ❑ oo b4 Z Z Z � 'C U a El 5 0 5 D 5' El >❑ 5' El >- :, Z CL 5 W Q L a > Z 0 V Z O Q W N O L Z = F- 0 z (9 W m C O E c -L N Y a Y C N 0 N L n L 'm Q O L o0 c O - - E m a) o c . m w E m E f/1 a) u > al C N E O Y N O m i L a) w E v v 0 m 3 H N n a w N v m 3 v m QJ E O w ip N a m `= tuD 3 C 3 u m 3 a •� w m oo c o 3 u 3 do c C C O c '- U V 3 Ca N c m • f0 C Y C i C O C �••� a a) v Y F N Y al C Y a l a) LO N L a c a E a) m lz o2S O 06 m a) w L L N N a N by O m F, o o7J > o2{ \ N a V O U N Q) N al Y aj V V c m c N Y m c` 11 11 E 'p E G a2� Er lL Q LL z❑ z ❑ ❑ Z Z❑ ❑ > ❑ > ❑ I > n ❑ 0 '4 Frequently Asked Questions Page 1 Single Family Rental Housing Program 1. Why is the City requiring single family rental properties to be licensed? Quality housing is a key component of a vital community. Preserving our housing stock, maintaining property values and ensuring our housing is healthy and safe benefits not only individual homeowners, but also the community at large. Each year the City of Andover receives numerous calls from its citizens with property maintenance concerns. In response to these inquiries, we have prepared this informational letter, checklist, and frequently asked questions. This program also supports the following City Council's goals: • To initiate a program to maintain current housing stock to help revitalize some of the older neighborhoods and businesses. • To consider an ordinance regulating all rental property including townhomes and single family residential. 2. How much will it cost to license my property? Bi- Annual Application Fee 50: A renewal application and fee shall be due sixty (60) days prior to the license expiration date. In the case of a new unlicensed rental dwelling, the license fee shall be submitted with the application. A license fee shall be collected for each unit in a rental dwelling, except owner occupied units. There are penalties for renewal applications that are received less than sixty (60) days before the beginning date of the renewal license period applied for. Re- inspection Fee $50: An initial inspection shall be required at time of application to which there will be no separate inspection fee charge above and beyond the license application fee. Re- inspection fees shall only be required after receipt and inspection of a valid complaint. A fee as set by the City Council shall be charged thereafter for all re- inspections necessary upon receipt of any valid complaint(s) of the property. The re- inspection fee(s) will be payable at the time of license renewal for the property. 3. What data sources did the City use to determine whether or not a Property might be a rental Property? Data from a variety of public information sources were used including Anoka County property and tax records, and the State vehicle and driver's license registration information. Anoka County tax records provides information regarding property owner name and address, non - homestead and homestead classifications, and number of units in a structure. Property owners of properties classified as non - homestead were identified as potential single family rental properties. Also, the property was included in the database if there was a discrepancy between the County registered property and licensing /registration information. Another way the data was retrieved was through code violations and complaints and either reported or advertised as rental properties. 4. 1 am not renting my property but for some reason it was included in the City's database. What do I need to do to prove the property is not being rented? You will need to submit written documentation to the City verifying that the property is not being rented. The written documentation submitted will be reviewed and filed in your property address folder and remain on record with the City of Andover. Submitting false information is considered to be a violation of the Andover City Code of Ordinances. 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 Frequently Asked Questions Page 2 Single Family Rental Housing Program 5. l am renting out a townhome unit that I own. Am I required to apply for a license? Yes. The licensing ordinance applies to all dwelling units that are being rented out including detached single family homes, townhomes, duplexes, and apartments. 6. 1 own the property but I am not living there, my daughter is. Currently, I am not charging her rent. Is.this considered a rental property? No. The ordinance defines a "rental dwelling" as: "any dwelling or dwelling unit used for residential occupancy by one or more persons who are not the owner or a member of the owner's immediate family. "Rental dwelling" does not include hotels, motels, and hospitals." 7. 1 own more than one rental property in Andover. Do I need to obtain more than one license? Yes. A license is required for each property that is being rented. This means that each separate parcel identification number (PID) requires a separate license since some addresses include several different PIDs. 8. 1 live out -of- state. Do I need to hire a management company to oversee my rental property? No. However, rental property owners must designate an agent who resides in the area. This agent will be the City's primary contact and is responsible for the maintenance of the dwelling, receipt of compliance orders and all other service associated with the license. A tenant may serve as your agent; however, the City must be notified within five (5) business days of any change in the identification of your agent. 9. After I apply for the license, what does the City review during the licensing process? When an application for a license is received, the City will be reviewing information on file to verify that the property is in compliance with City ordinances and that utility bills have been paid. In addition, police calls will be reviewed to determine if there are any conduct issues occurring on the property. 10. How long is the license issued for? Does the license need to be renewed? The rental housing license is a bi- annual license that is issued every other calendar year. The license will need to be renewed every two years and as specified within the time limit within Article 9, Chapter # 8 of the City Code. The City will send out renewal notices prior to their expiration dates. 11. Does the license need to be kept at the rental property? Yes. The City will mail a license to the owner or residential agent, as applicable. The license must be available upon request. ANLf) Y O F OVE 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. • ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 • (763) 755 -5100 FAX (763) 755 -8923 • WWW.CI.ANDOVER.MN.US ►'0 Frequently Asked Questions Page 3 Single Family Rental Housing Program 12. Are there any penalties if I choose not to license my rental property with the City? Yes. Violation of the City's Ordinance is considered as a misdemeanor punishable by a maximum fine of $1,000 or 90 days in jail or both. Other consequences: That does not include the consequences a property owner may encounter if the property owner fails to get a rental license and deals privately with a tenant that fails to maintain the property. In that situation perhaps numerous compliance orders were mailed to the tenant who chose to ignore notifications by the City and then the property owner ends up in court and may end up having to pay court costs and /or fines associated with violations that the property owner never even created. 13. When will an inspection occur and what is the city staff looking for during the inspection? Inspections: Inspections shall be required at time of receipt of an initial application or renewal application. Inspections conducted anytime after the initial application or renewal application would be done only upon receipt of a complaint regarding the property. Inspection to only the exterior portion of the rental dwelling and property shall be conducted from either a neighboring property or from a public street or right -of -way including such inspections conducted in relation to Chapter 9, "Housing Maintenance Code ". Exceptions include the following: • Inspections may be conducted on the property to include interior and exterior portions of the rental dwelling only in emergency and /or life threatening situations as deemed necessary by the Building Official, Fire Chief, and /or designated representative as specified in Chapter 9 -8 -12 of the Andover City Code of Ordinances. • No permission from the property owner shall be required to enter onto the property if the City abates (corrects) the violation or hires a contractor to abate (correct) the violation(s) on the property as outlined in Title 4 of the City Code, if there are failed attempts at bringing the property into compliance. Violations: Violations may include but not limited to the following: • Integrity of the exterior portions of the dwelling unit are deteriorating • Condition and location of fences, retaining walls and accessory structures (and approved applications if needed) • Exterior storage, parking, and condition of vehicles, trailers, boats, campers, RVs, trash, junk and items not identified as permitted for exterior storage on properties within the residential district. • Weeds /grass exceeding eight (8) inches in height or as specified per Article 4 of the City Code. • Construction equipment, building materials and dumpsters on properties that do not have an active building permit. 14. How do I know if the property passed the inspection? The City staff will mail you a compliance letter to the property that will identify whether or not corrections are needed. If the Property does not pass the inspection, the compliance letter will indicate the corrections needed and the timeframe in which they are to be completed. 15. If my rental property fails the inspection, will my license be revoked? A compliance letter will be written to identify what corrections need to be made. This order will establish a timeframe to correct the violation(s) and a re- inspection date will be scheduled. An initial inspection shall be required at time of application to which there will be no separate inspection fee charge above and beyond the license application fee. C ANIL56W 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W. • ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 • (763) 755 -5100 FAX (763) 755 -8923 • WWW.0 LAN DOVER. MN. US Frequently Asked Questions Single Family Rental Housing Program Page 4 A fee as set by the City Council shall be charged for all re- inspections necessary upon receipt of any valid complaint(s) of the property. The re- inspection fee(s) will be payable at the time of license renewal for the property. If progress is not being made on the corrections needed, the City Council does have the authority to require that a single family rental license become provisional as specified by Section 9 -8 -11 of the City Code. The City Council may also revoke suspend deny, or decline to renew a single family rental license as specified within Section 9 -8 -14 of the City Code The City Council may furthermore, order the property to be abated if it is not brought into compliance or if repeat violations continue to occur on the property. 16. Can the license be transferred? No. No rental dwelling license shall be transferable to another person or to another rental dwelling. Every person holding a rental dwelling license shall give notice in writing to the city within five (5) business days after having legally transferred or otherwise disposed of the legal control of any licensed rental dwelling. Such notice shall include the name and address of the person who has ownership or control of such dwelling or dwellings. 17. Is there anything else I should be aware of or information I should review? You should start by reviewing the City of Andover's Home and Yard Checklist which will include items that city staff will inspect on the property upon receipt of a single family rental license application. Your property is required to be in compliance with all ordinances in the Andover City Code and Minnesota State Statutes so you should become familiar with them! Although the interior portion of the single family rental dwelling will only be inspected upon emergency or life threatening situations, the property owner is required to be familiar with Minnesota State Statues as referenced in Title 9, Chapter 8 of the City Code. Other Minnesota State Statutes you are required to be familiar with include the following: • MN State Statute 299F.50, carbon monoxide alarms • MN State Statute 299F.51, requirements for carbon monoxide alarms • MN State Statute 299F.362, smoke alarms 18. Are there things I should consider prior to renting my property? It would be in your best interest in terms of your personal investment and legal obligations to make sure you do your due diligence in considering all pros and cons prior to renting out your property. • A good piece of advice to start with would be to call your homeowner's insurance company to find out whether or not the terms within your policy allow rental of the property. If so, what are the details involved with the policy. Does anything in the policy change? • What are your legal obligations? • Whose name do you place on the utility bill? Keep in mind that any unpaid utility bills and abatement of nuisances or code violation fees may be assessed to the property owner. • Consider whether or not your property is adequately fit to be a rental property. • Consider doing background checks and screening of your tenants and making sure you have a good contract or agreement in place. • Most importantly, you are the property owner and ultimately responsible for the property and the maintenance of your investment! C A N66W 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W.. ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 • (763) 755 -5100 FAX (763) 755 -8923 • WWW.0 LAN DOVER. MN.US Frequently Asked Questions Page 5 Single Family Rental Housing Program 19. Are there rental licenses other than single family rental license? If so, are there different rules for those other licenses? Yes. There is also a regular and a provisional rental license. All three rental licenses are defined as follows: Single - Family Rental License: A rental license established for any rental dwelling with less than two (2) living units which is subject to only exterior inspections with the exception of interior inspections in emergency or life threatening situations as deemed by the Building Official, Fire Chief, and /or their designated representative. Provisional Rental License: A Multi - Family or Single - Family Rental License that has certain provisions and /or criteria as required by the City Council. Multi - Family Rental License: A rental license established for any rental dwelling with two (2) or more living units which are subject to interior and exterior inspections. 20. If there are any violations found on my property will mV application be denied? Possibly. When the City receives an application (initial or renewal application) an inspection will be conducted soon thereafter. If a violation is found on the property at the time of an inspection, city staff will notify the property owner in writing and list corrective action required to bring the property into compliance. City staff will conduct a second inspection of the property after an instructed deadline has been given, and will verify for compliance of the property. Your rental license application could be denied if you fail to bring the property into compliance or fails to rectify the violations on the property. At the time of the initial application, previous police calls would not constitute a reason to deny an application. 21. If I am a landlord, how do I go about doing a criminal background check on a potential tenant? Please refer to the following website or contact information as listed. Bureau of Criminal Apprehension Minnesota Justice Information Services (MN11S) 1430 Maryland Ave. E. St. Paul, MN 55106 651 - 793 -2400 http:Hwww.bca. state. mn. us /CJIS /documents /CJIS - Intro.html G I 7" Y TT O ��jj P 1685 CROSSTOWN BOULEVARD N.W.. ANDOVER, MINNESOTA 55304 • (763) 755 -5100 FAX (763) 755 -8923 • WWW.CI.ANDOVER.MN.US CHAPTER RENTAL HOUSING DWELLINGS SECTION: 9 -8- 1: Purpose And Intent 9 -8- 2: Definitions 9 -8- 3: o 8 3: LiGeRSe Required; Ter.m.s, Renewals -Types of Licenses Required 9 -8- 4: Application For Rental Dwelling License 9 -8- 5: Fees 9 -8- 6: License Terms And Renewals 9 -8- 7: 9 -8 6 Conditions Of License Issuance 9 9 T Renewal of I inense 9 -8- 8: Inspections, Investigations And Maintenance 9 -8- 9: Non - transferability Of License 9 -8 -10: Conduct On Licensed Property 9 -8 -11: Provisional Rental License 9 -8 -12: Single Family Rental License 9 -8 -13: 9- 8-12: Landscaping; Lighting; Snow Removal 9 -8 -14: 9 8-13: Fire Control Regulations 9 -8 -15: 9- 8-14: License Revocation Or Suspension 9 -8 -16: 9-8-15 No Retaliation 9 -8 -17: 9 8-16: Summary Action 9 -8 -18: 9 -8-17: Appeals 9 -8 -19: 9 8-18: Applicable Laws 9 -8 -1: PURPOSE AND INTENT: A. Purpose: It is the purpose of this chapter to protect the public health, safety and welfare of citizens of the city who have as their place of abode a living unit furnished to them for the payment of a rental fee to another. This chapter is the initial step in the city's effort to provide a housing maintenance code. B. Intent: It is the intent of this chapter that uniform standards be established and applicable for all rental dwellings in the city: (Ord. 266A, 5 -6 -2003) 9 -8 -2: DEFINITIONS: The following words and terms used in this chapter are construed and defined as follows: IMMEDIATE FAMILY: Direct descendants parents grandparents, sibling or any such person of traditional or blended family. OPERATE: To charge a rental fee for the use of a living unit in a rental dwelling. revised on 5.5.09 Page 1 PROVISIONAL RENTAL LICENSE: A Regular or Single Family rental license containing certain provisions and /or criteria as required by the City Council. MULTI- FAMILY RENTAL LICENSE: A rental license established for any rental dwelling with two (2) or more living units which are subiect to interior and exterior inspections. . .. MAW _■ •_ ..- - ... - _. RENTAL DWELLING: Means any dwelling or dwelling unit used for residential occupancy by one or more persons who are not the owner or a member of the owner's immediate family. "Rental dwelling" does not include hotels, motels, and hospitals. SINGLE FAMILY RENTAL LICENSE: A re ntal license established for any rental dwelling with less than two (2) living units which is subject to only exterior inspections only, with the exception of interior inspections in the event of emergency or life threatening situations as determined by the Building Official, Fire Chief, and/or their designated representative. VALID COMPLAINT: A valid complaint is a violation that is visible at the time of inspection. e . . - , . - IMIMPT. MI - - Mao - N - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 9 -8 -3: TYPES OF RENTAL LICENSES REQUIRED: No person firm or corporation shall allow to be occupied or let to another a living unit in a rental dwelling for which a license has not been granted by the city. There shall be three (3) types of licenses: multi - family, single family and provisional. 9 -8 -4: APPLICATION FOR RENTAL DWELLING LICENSE: Applications for rental dwelling licenses shall be made in writing to the city by the owner of the rental dwelling units or his /her legally constituted agent. revised on 5.5.09 Page 2 Before any rental dwelling license shall be issued or renewed, the owner shall complete as rental license application and allow an onsite inspection of the property as necessary Each parcel identification number requires a separate application. The following persons shall be authorized to sign and submit the application: A. If the owner is a natural person, by the owner thereof. B. If the owner is a corporation, by an officer thereof. C. If the owner is a partnership, by a partner thereof. The regis t Fa ti Gn staternen application shall be made on forms prescribed by the city and shall include: A. The name, arm address and telephone numbers of the owner of the rental dwellings. B. The name, and address and telephone numbers of any operator or agent actively managing the rental dwelling. Ef "Gff " provide fu rther data as to who it C. If the operator or agent is a business entity, the application shall include the names, telephone numbers, and addresses of individuals who will be involved in such management, together with a description of the scope of services and manner of delivering these services by the manager. D. If the Fegistrant applicant is a partnership, the name and address of all partners. E. If the r°,.,�,s+� applicant is a corporation, the name and address of all officers. F. If the rental dwelling is being sold on a contract for deed, the name and address of the vendees. G. The legal address of the rental dwelling. H. The number of units within the rental dwelling. Notification by the rental operator shall be given to the city within five (5) business days of with any change of information as required, and stated in the initial application. (Ord. 266A, 5 -6 -2003) 9 -8 -5: FEES1 : revised on 5.5.09 Page 3 A. License Fees: 1. Fees Established- AND Due Date ARd Pro rafinn License fees as set by the City Council shall be due sixty (60) days prior to the license expiration date. In the case of a new unlicensed rental dwelling, the license fee shall be due issl la -_ of the GeFt of QGG Inane submitted with the application fi4 4h G f I' rd i s of loss than twE) (2) years licence foes shall be J 1 nro ratpel rnnnfh6, A license fee shall be collected for each unit in a rental dwelling, except owner occupied units. License fees are non - refundable. 2. Filing Due Date And Penalty: If a-R a renewal application is made less than sixty (60) days before the beginning date of the renewal license period applied for,, then the fee shall be accompanied by an additional amount equal to one hundred percent (100 %) of such license fee. The additional amount shall be a penalty for a late application, with the exception of the first year of the adoption of this chapter. In no case shall there be a lapse in the license period. The late penalty is established for those licensees who have failed to submit an application as specified in this chapter. All new owners must submit an application and obtain a new rental license; the old rental licenses is are not transferable. .. B. Re- inspection Fee: An initial inspection shall be required at the time of application. the cost of which shall be included in the license application fee. A fee, as set by the City Council shall be charged thereafter for all re- inspections neGessan, after the fief r e inspection necessitated by the receipt of any valid complaint(s) of the property The re- inspection fee(s) will be payable at the time of license renewal for the property. 9 -8 -6: LICENSE TERMS AND RENEWALS: A. Multi - Family and Single Family rental licenses: Initial and renewal applications shall be filed at least sixty (60) days prior to license expiration date. Initial and renewal applications shall be issued for a period of two (2) years and shall expire en- dune-W the second year after the date that it was issued. The license period shall commence on duty -1 the date of the approved application. B. Provisional Rental Licenses: revised on 5.5.09 Page 4 Provisional licenses shall be issued only upon approval by the City Council and shall expire six (6) months after issuance A mulit- family or single family rental license may be re- established pursuant to Subsection 9 -8 -11 B1. 9 -8 -7: 8 8-& CONDITIONS OF LICENSE ISSUANCE: A. Compliance With Chapter: The city shall issue a rental dwelling license if the building and the application are found to be in compliance with the provisions of this chapter. B. Conformance To Laws: No rental dwelling license shall be issued or renewed unless the rental dwelling and its premises conform to the rd - inonnes of the cit! Andover City Code of Ordinance ; and the laws of the State of Minnesota ; and all re- inspection fees have been paid (Ord., see subsection 1 -7- 3B of this code. 266A, 5 -6 -2003) . - - - - _ - WA - et LIMMIL MON Mer-MMMWO _ - .. - - ITMIet 9 -8 -8: INSPECTIONS, INVESTIGATIONS AND MAINTENANCE: A. No rental dwelling license shall be issued or renewed unless the owner of the rental units agrees in his /her application to permit inspections pursuant to this section. B. Every rental dwelling unit shall maintain the standards as stated in Chapter 9, "Housing Maintenance Code" and standards established within all other sections of the Andover City Code of Ordinance and Minnesota State Statutes. C. The Building Official, and --Fire Chief, and/or their designated representatives are hereby authorized to make any and all inspections reasonably necessary to the enforcenefthis chapter. D. Persons inspecting any rental dwelling, as provided herein, shall notify the license holder of all violations, if any, by issuing a written compliance order. Said compliance order shall direct that compliance on housing maintenance code violations be made within in no more than seven "` days ten (10) business days from the date of the notice unless extended by the Building Official ard/erjire Chief and /or designated representative based on for good cause. (Ord. 266A, 5- 6 -2003) revised on 5.5.09 Page 5 9 -8 -9: NONTRANSFERABILITY OF LICENSE: No rental dwelling license shall be transferable to another person or to another rental dwelling. Every person holding a rental dwelling license shall give notice in writing to the city within five (5) business days after having legally transferred or otherwise disposed of the legal control of any licensed rental dwelling. Such notice shall include the name and address of the person succeeding to the ownership or control of such dwelling or dwellings. (Ord. 266A, 5 -6 -2003) 9 -8 -10: CONDUCT ON LICENSED PROPERTY: A. Disorderly Premises: It shall be the responsibility of the licensee to see that persons occupying the living units conduct themselves in a manner as not to cause the premises to be disorderly. For the purpose of this section, a premises is disorderly at wbiGh when any of the following activities occur: 1. Violation of the city's noise ordinances. i See title 5, chapter 6 of this code. 2. Violation of state laws relating to the possession or sale of illegal drugs or controlled substances. 3. Violation of disturbing the peace. 4. The unlawful sale of liquor. 5. Violation of laws relating to gambling. 6. Violation of state laws relating to acts of prostitution. 7. The unlawful use or possession of a firearm per state law. 8. Violation of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 609 (i.e., disorderly conduct; unlawful assembly; riot; terroristic threat; presence at unlawful assembly). B. Enforcement Authority: The City Administrator shall be responsible for enforcement and administration of this chapter. Authority to take any action authorized by this chapter may be delegated to the City Administrator's designee. C. Other Rules: Other rules and regulations as stipulated set forth in Minnesota State Statute Chapter 504B .standards established within all other sections of the Andover City Code of Ordinance, and Minnesota State Statutes shall also apply to this chapter. D. Notice Of Violation: Upon determination by the city that a living unit was used in a disorderly manner, as described in this section, the city shall revised on 5.5.09 Page 6 give notice to the licensee of the violation and direct the licensee to take steps to prevent further violations. The disorderly manner shall be as defined in this section. E. Second Instance: If a second instance of disorderly use of the living unit occurs within three (3) months of an incident for which a notice was given as specified in Subsection D of this section, the city shall notify the licensee to submit a written report of the actions taken, and proposed to be taken by the licensee to prevent further disorderly use of the living unit. This written report shall be submitted to the city within five (5) days of receipt of the notice /report of disorderly use of the living unit and shall detail all actions taken by the licensee in response to all notices of disorderly use of the living unit within the preceding three (3) months. F. Third Instance: If a third instance of disorderly use of the living unit occurs within three (3) months after a second instance of disorderly use for which a notice Fe was given to the licensee pursuant to Subsection ^� D a,Rd E of this section, the rental dwelling license for the rental dwelling may be denied, revoked, suspended or not renewed. An action to deny, revoke, suspend, or not renew a license under this section shall be initiated by the city, who shall give is the licensee written notice of a hearing before the City Council to consider such denial, revocation, suspension or non - renewal. Such written notice shall specify all violations of this section, and shall state the date, time, place and purpose of the hearing. The hearing shall be held no less than ten (10) days and no more than thirty (30) days from the date of such notice after giving such notice. G. Action Of The City Council: Following the hearing, the City Council may deny, revoke, suspend or decline to renew the license for all or any part or parts of the rental dwelling or may grant a license upon such terms and conditions as it deems necessary to accomplish the purposes of this section. H. Eviction Proceedings: No adverse license action shall be imposed where the instance of disorderly use of the living unit occurs during the pendency of eviction proceedings (unlawful detainer) or within thirty (30) days of notice given by licensee to a tenant to vacate the premises where the disorderly use was related to conduct by that tenant or by other occupants or guests of the tenant's living unit. Eviction proceedings shall not be a bar to adverse license action, however, unless they are diligently pursued by the licensee. Further, any action to deny, revoke, suspend, or not renew a license based upon violations of this section may be postponed or discontinued at any time if it appears that the licensee has taken appropriate measures wh w to prevent further instances of disorderly use. revised on 5.5.09 Page 7 I. Evidence Of Disorderly Manner: A determination that the rental dwelling unit has been used in a disorderly manner as described in this section shall be made upon substantial evidence to support such determination. It shall not be necessary that criminal charges be brought in order to support a determination of disorderly use, nor shall the fact of dismissal or acquittal of such criminal charge operate as a bar to adverse license action under this section. J. Serving Notice: All notices given by the city under this section shall be personally served on the licensee, sent by certified mail to licensee's last known address or, if neither method of service effects notice, by posting on a conspicuous place on the licensed rental dwelling. K. Council Action Not Exclusive: Enforcement actions provided in this section shall not be exclusive, and the City Council may take any action with respect to a licensee, a tenant, or the licensed rental dwelling as is authorized by this chapter other sections of the Andover City Code of Ordinance, or state law. (Ord. 266A, 5 -6 -2003) 9 -8 -11: PROVISIONAL RENTAL LICENSE: A. Police Or Fire Calls: Licensed dwelling units that have generated two (2) police calls per dwelling unit over any consecutive twelve (12) month period during the license period shall only be eligible for a provisional license at the time of next renewal, as specified in this section. 1. Police calls that are counted in determining whether a provisional license is required include the following types of calls or events: a. Calls or events listed in this section or Section 9 -8 -10 of this chapter. b. Calls or events categorized as part one crimes in the uniform crime reporting system, including homicide, rape, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary, theft, auto theft, and arson. c. Calls or events categorized by the Public Safety Department: miscellaneous juvenile status crimes; liquor offenses or curfew violations; disturbing the peace or harassing communications; property damage; criminal damage to property or trespass; domestic incidents; public disturbance or disorderly conduct; loud party or noise complaints; disorderly juveniles; assault in the fifth degree or non - domestic related assaults. The Sheriff shall maintain for public inspection a description of the coding system and a list of the codes and crimes included within each of these categories or revised on 5.5.09 Page 8 calls or events. The Sheriff may determine that multiple incidents shall be counted as a single call in appropriate cases. 2. Calls not counted for purposes of determining whether a provisional license is required includes calls where the victim and suspect are "family or household members" as defined in the Domestic Abuse Act, Minnesota Statutes, Section 5186.01, Subdivision 2(b) and where there is a report of "domestic abuse" as defined in the Domestic Abuse Act, Minnesota Statutes, Section 51813.01, Subdivision 2(a). 3. The city will provide a report by mail to each licensee for calls described in this section. The violation report will describe the nature and type of call that became an instance that will be counted for purposes of determining whether the license will be denied, revoked, or suspended or not renewed. 4 The City Council may require a Single- Family Rental License become provisional as specified in Section 9 -8 -12 (E) of this chapter. B. Mitigation Plan: Prior to consideration of a provisional license, the applicant for a provisional license must work with the city staff to prepare and submit a mitigation plan to Gity staff te We rk n' -t th.p details ef a mitigation plan and at be reviewed and - approved for approval by the City Council. 1. The mitigation plan shall describe steps proposed by the applicant to reduce the number of police or fire calls described in Subsection Al of this section over the six (6) month period of the provisional license to a level that would entitle the property to qualify for a regular license at the end of the six (6) month provisional license period. 2. The mitigation plan may include such steps as: changes in tenant screening procedures, changes in lease terms, security measures, rules and regulations for tenant conduct, and security personnel. C. Decision Of City Council: The application and a proposed mitigation plan will be presented to the City Council together with a disposition recommendation by the City Administrator. After giving the applicant an opportunity to be heard and present evidence, the City Council shall approve, disapprove, or approve with conditions the mitigation plan and the provisional license. If the City Council disapproves an application and mitigation plan,, or approves a provisional license with conditions, it shall state its the reasons for its decision se doing in writing. D. Monthly Reports: The provisional licensee shall comply with the approved mitigation plan. No later than the tenth day of each month, the licensee shall mail or deliver to the city a written report describing all steps taken in furtherance of the mitigation plan during the preceding revised on 5.5.09 Page 9 month. If the required monthly reports are not submitted in a timely fashion by the property owner, the city may begin proceedings to revoke the provisional license for all or any part or parts of the licensed premises. (Ord. 266A, 5 -6 -2003) 9 -8 -12: SINGLE FAMILY RENTAL LICENSE: A. Inspections: Inspections shall be required at the time of receipt of an initial application or a renewal application and upon receipt of a complaint regarding the property. 1. Inspections may be conducted by the Building Official, Fire Chief, and /or a designated representative. 2. Inspections of the exterior portion of the rental dwelling and property shall be conducted from either a neighboring property or from a public street or right -of- way including such inspections conducted in relation to Chapter 9, "Housing Maintenance Code ", with the following exceptions: a. Inspections may be conducted on the property to include interior and exterior portions of the rental dwelling and without permission from the Property owner in emergency and /or life threatening situations as deemed necessary by the Building Official, Fire Chief, and /or designated representative. b. Abatement may be scheduled for a property as outlined in Title 4 of the City Code, if there are failed attempts at bringing the property into compliance, at which time no permission is needed from the property owner to abate the property. B. Violations: All violations to the exterior portion of the rental dwelling (or property) must be visible at ground level as inspected from either a neighboring property or from a public street or right -of -way in order to be deemed a valid complaint. C. Re- inspection fees: Re- inspection fees shall only be required after receipt and inspection of a valid complaint. Re- inspection fees shall not be incurred for required annual inspections. D. Enforcement: A violation shall be enforced as specified within the established guidelines process of the particular Title within the City Code of Ordinances violated. (ie. A nuisance violation would be enforced through the established process within Title 4 of the City Code of Ordinance.) E. City Council Action: Upon repeat violations, or failure of a property owner to bring the property into compliance, the City Council may do any the following: revised on 5.5.09 Page 10 a. Require a single family rental license to become provisional as specified in Section 9 -8 -11 of this chapter. b. Revoke suspend deny or decline to renew a single family rental license as specified in Section 9 -8 -14 of this chapter. c. Order the property to be abated. 9 -8 -13: 9 8-12: LANDSCAPING; LIGHTING; SNOW REMOVAL: Each rental dwelling shall be maintained by its owner, occupant, operator or agent so that the yards, open spaces and parking facilities are kept in a safe and attractive condition. In addition, adequate lighting facilities shall be provided and operated between the hours of sunset and sunrise; and snow plowing or snow shoveling shall be regularly accomplished to maintain all sidewalks and parking areas in a safe condition. (Ord. 266A, 5 -6 -2003) 9 -8 -14: 9- 8-1-3: FIRE CONTROL REGULATIONS: An owner, operator or agent of a rental dwelling shall be responsible for compliance with the applicable provisions of the fire code of the cityl, including the keeping of all fire lanes open for emergency purposes. (Ord. 266A, 5 -6 -2003) 1 See title 7, chapter 2 of this code. 9 -8 -15: 9- 8-14: LICENSE REVOCATION OR SUSPENSION: A. Reason For Action: The Council may revoke, suspend, deny or decline to renew any license issued under this chapter upon any of the following grounds: 1. False statements on any application or other information or report required by this chapter to be given by the applicant or licensee. 2. Failure to pay any application, penalty, re- inspection, or reinstatement fee required by this chapter or resolution of the City Council 3. Failure to correct deficiencies noted in notices of violation in the time specified in the notice. 4. Failure to comply with the provisions of an approved mitigation plan in the case of provisional licenses. 5. Any other violation of this chapter. B. Applicable Sections: Revocation, suspension, and non - renewal may be brought under either this section or Section 9 -8 -10 of this chapter. C. Reg ula- Multi- FamilV and Single Family License: A Regular Multi- Family or Single Family license may be revoked, if at midterm, or not renewed, if at the end revised on 5.5.09 Page 11 of a term, upon a finding that the premises are only eligible for a provisional license as provided in Section 9 -8 -11 of this chapter. D. Written Notice: A decision to revoke, suspend, deny or not renew a license shall be preceded by a written notice to the applicant or licensee of the alleged grounds therefore, and the applicant or licensee will be given the opportunity for a hearing before the City Council before final action to revoke, suspend, deny, or not renew a license. E. Action Of City Council: The City Council shall give due regard to the frequency and seriousness of violations, the ease with which such violations could have been cured or avoided, and good faith efforts to comply,, and shall issue a decision to deny, not renew, suspend, or revoke a license only upon written findings. The City Council may suspend or revoke a license or not renew a license for part or all of the rental dwelling. F. Reinstatement Of License: Upon a decision to revoke, deny, or not renew a license, no new application for the same facility will be accepted for a period of time specified in a written decision of the City Council, not exceeding one year. Such new applications must be accompanied by a reinstatement fee, as specified by resolution, in addition to all other fees required by this chapter. G. No New Rentals: A written decision to revoke, suspend, deny, or not renew a license or application shall specify the part or parts of the rental dwelling to which this applies. Thereafter, and until a license is reissued or reinstated, no living unit becoming vacant in such part or parts of the rental dwelling may be re -let or occupied. Revocation, suspension, or nonrenewal of a license shall not excuse the owner from compliance with all terms of this chapter for as long as any units in the rental dwelling are occupied. H. Failure To Comply: Failure to comply with this chapter is a misdemeanor. (Ord. 266A, 5 -6 -2003) 9 -8 -16: 9- 8-15: NO RETALIATION: No licensee shall evict, threaten to evict, or take any other punitive action against any tenant by reason of good faith calls made by such tenant to law enforcement agencies related to criminal activity, suspected criminal activity, suspicious occurrences, or public safety concerns. This section shall not prohibit the eviction of tenants from a dwelling unit for unlawful conduct of a tenant or invitee or violation of any rules, regulations, or lease terms other than a prohibition against contacting law enforcement agencies. (Ord. 266A, 5 -6 -2003) revised on 5.5.09 Page 12 9 -8 -17: 9 8 -16: SUMMARY ACTION: When the conduct of any licensee or his /her agent, representative, employee or lessee or the condition of his/her dwelling is detrimental to the public health, safety and general welfare as to constitute a nuisance, fire hazard or other unsafe or dangerous condition, and thus give rise to an emergency, the city shall have the authority to summarily condemn or close off such area of the rental dwelling. (Ord. 266A, 5 -6 -2003) 9 -8 -18: 9-8-1 APPEALS: Any person aggrieved by a decision of the city to cease business or revoke or suspend the license shall be entitled to appeal to the City Council immediately by filing a notice of appeal. The city shall schedule a date for hearing before the City Council and notify the aggrieved person of the date. The hearing shall be conducted in the same manner as if the aggrieved person had not received summary action. The decision of the city shall not be voided by the.filing of such appeal. Only after the City Council has held its hearing will the decision of the city be affected. (Ord. 266A, 5 -6 -2003) 9 -8 -19: 9 8-18 APPLICABLE LAWS: Licensees shall be subject to all of the ordinances of the city and laws of the state related to rental dwellings. This chapter shall not be construed or interpreted to supersede or limit any other such applicable ordinance or law. (Ord. 266A, 5 -6 -2003) revised on 5.5.09 Page 13 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 Plann SUBJECT: Other Business DATE: May 12, 2009 INTRODUCTION Please find the attached City Code update of Title 12 Zoning Regulations. DISCUSSION The recent changes to exterior storage and screening are now included. ACTION REQUESTED Please replace Title 12 in your code book with the new version. Attachment City Code Title 12 Zoning regulations Respectfully submitted, �� 4 y