HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/12/1995 P&Z PacketCITY OF LINO LAKES
PLANNING & ZONING BOARD
AGENDA
July 12, 1995
6:30 P.M.
SCANNED
I. Call to Order and Roll Call:
II. Approval of Minutes:
June 14, 1995
III. Approval of Agenda - Changes/Additions
IV. OPEN MIKE:
V. ACTION ITEMS:
VI. DISCUSSION ITEMS:
A. Proposed Dog Ordinance
B. Review/Update of Zoning Ordinance
VII. ADJOURNMENT:
AGENDA ITEM V A
STAFF ORIGINATOR Mary Kay Wyland
DATE July 12, 1995
TOPIC Variance for Wenzel Farms Townhomes
BACKGROUND
............................................
.............................................
The Wenzel Farms Townhome Development was approved by the City in
April of 1991. The preliminary plat showed 75 townhome units along
a private roadway adjacent to T.H. 49/Lake Drive. This preliminary
plat indicated a setback of 40' for the townhome units from the
state highway right-of-way as required by the City's Zoning
Ordinance in all zoning districts.
Earlier this Summer, Goldstar Builders received a building permit
to construct five (5) townhomes on Lots 7,8,9, and 10. The survey
document submitted with the permit application indicated the
property line and building location but did not indicate the
location of the highway right-of-way. Because these townhomes are
within a Planned Unit Development, rear yard setbacks to the
property line do not apply. Following installation of the block
work it was discovered that the buildings were located within the
required 40' setback from the street right-of-way. An "as -built"
survey revealed the following setbacks:
Lot 11 11.9' from T.H.49 ROW
Lot 10 20.5' from T.H.49 ROW
Lot 9 29.5' from T.H.49 ROW
Lot 8 38.6' from T.H.49 ROW
Lot 7 47.7' from T.H.49 ROW
The Builder was contacted and a red tag placed on the job to
stopped further construction. The Builder was advised that his
options included the following:
1. Remove the encroaching townhome units, thus eliminating
four of the five buildings.
2. Apply for an Amended PUD that would allow construction
elsewhere on the site if space available.
3. Apply for a variance.
A Variance Application has been submitted. The Builder has
redesigned the townhome units providing for a setback of 29.5 feet
for Lots 11, 10. The requested variances would be for 11.5' on
Lots 11, 10 and 9, and 1.4' on Lot 8.. No variance is necessary for
Lot 7.
A letter has been received from the Area Right of Way Manager at
MnDOT indicating that the State leaves all set -back regulations to
the local governmental units.
According to the City Zoning Code, "variances from the literal
provisions of the ordinance may be granted in instances where their
strict enforcement would cause undo hardship because of
circumstances unique to the individual property under
consideration." The City must make findings of fact that:
A. That the property in question cannot be put to a reasonable
use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls.
The townhome units could be further redesigned to meet the
setback requirements, most likely eliminating 2 or 3 units.
B. That the plight of the landowners is due to circumstances
unique to his property not created by the land owner. The
change which occurred between preliminary plat and final plat
was created by the land owner. Most likely at the time final
surveying was done for the plat.
C. That the hardship is not due to economic consideration
alone and when a reasonable use for the property exists under
the terms of the ordinance. A reasonable use of the property
does exist.
D. That granting the variance requested will not confer on the
applicant any special privilege that would be denied by this
ordinance to other lands, structures, or buildings in the same
district. A setback variance could have been incorporated
into the original PUD which does allow for "greater
flexibility ...than generally possible under conventional
zoning regulations". Thereby allowing the same privilege to
other potential PUD applicants with similar circumstances.
E. That the proposed actions will not unreasonably diminish or
impair established property values within the neighborhood.
Property values would not be adversely affected with the
granting of this variance.
F. That the proposed actions will be in keeping with the
spirit and intent of the ordinance. The purpose and intent of
the ordinance is to maintain a safe setback from collector and
arterial roadways. T.H. 49 is a principal arterial roadway.
OPTIONS
1. Deny requested variance.
2. Approve variance as requested.
RECOMMENDATION
1. Deny variance request.
SURVEY FOR: GaLDST4P. I-DR.S•
X98
Lo
1
1
38803oE
100-00
• Denotes Iron Monumems I-ouna
O Denotes Iron Monuments Set
Scale.1 Inch equals 20 feet
.
Book_ 2 Z ge 54-
Invoice No
O
0,1
09
""
o
o
,o
tttt
7G,
AV.5'
910-r
2Z
'7
/
tio
N
rl
40-6-7
Q
40 33
crj of
0, Q
_
__ `+-5._�
a
N
2z N1
91 S
76,
O
m
N
c
9I0
ZZ
9
Ln
0
I I
p
Q )
4o-2,3
19
ti
rJi
40,6-7
0
0
N
r!
rn
Q- \
O
P'
N
M
-
..,29S
0
o
N
N
2Z 01
91�
�
o
CC
40-67
tp
/1
7%
4 c -
frf
0C.
v
Za_
‘.11oa
`Y'
m
11.9
nJ
own
c.1
(
ZZ �1
9-t
5'88' "30'E 9171 I
I hereby certify that this is a true and correct representation of
a survey of the boundaries of:
Lot 7 thru 11, Block 1, WENZEL FARMS 5TH ADDITION, Anoka County,
Minnesota.
N 01°30'00-W
497.15--
z
190.07
LOW LAND
0 ins
`tNsei4'cO U
o G�E & UTILITY ASEMEN T\�,
—
DRAINA
`TT -y N 01°30'00"E— — —'i-- — — 1 — --- 172.00——
38.00 2. a0 32.00 32.00 O— 38.000
(
D
0
S 01* 0'00"w
30.00 38.00
475.43 4.19 i
so300O .11'
OUTLOT
N 01 °30'00"E :
UDUTY EASEMENT
u
O' ` v
8
N
co
O
0
rn
32.00 32.00 4 32.00 38.00 O17. 1
172.000 S 01°30'00"W
4.00
1.0
N 01°30'00"E
28.88 4 ------24030,00. 26 .70
3.6
�
2 6°
On,
So• 0o
QJ90
e
.9ci"Is,
fA�u Tiory
EASEMENT
r 8
Z
TJ
.
,•14,19 143.74
172.00 N 01°30'00"E
/-38.00
131.3.
' 14.4
S
L 9908
u 0
0
•
0
m
0
0
1? 0333
58'00.14,
AGENDA ITEM VI A
STAFF ORIGINATOR Mary Kay Wyland
DATE July 6, 1995
TOPIC Dog Ordinance
BACEGROI
Attached for review is a comprehensive animal control ordinance
drafted by a committee of staff and residents. A Public Hearing is
anticipated, although not scheduled, for some time in the near
future (August, September). A representative from the Police
Department will be available on Wednesday to join in our discussion
of the proposed ordinance.
I have enclosed copies of our existing ordinance and the proposed
draft. The notes indicated on the draft were prepared by a
concerned residence.
PTIONS
1. Set Public Hearing to review proposed ordinance.
2. Continue discussion to future meeting.
RECOMME
Option 1 or 2
502. Dogs
502.01 Definitions.
Subdivision 1. Dogs. "Dog" means any animal of the
canine species.
Subd. 2. Owner. "Owner" means any person owning,
harboring, or keeping a dog; and shall include any person who keeps
for more than 10 days a dog of which the owner is unknown, and any
person keeping or caring for a dog owned by another.
Subd. 3. At Large. A dog on premises owned or leased by
its owner shall be deemed to be at large unless it is either:
(1) Under the immediate control of the owner;
(2) In the immediate presence of the owner;
(3)
On a leash, cord, or chain of adequate strength to
adequately confine the dog;
(4) Inside a fence of such height and material as to
adequately confine the dog; or
(5) In a building.
A dog shall also be deemed to be at large if he is upon
a street, road, or other public property or upon private property
not owned or leased by its owner, unless the dog is either:
(1) Under the immediate control of the owner;
H _
(2) In the immediate presence of the owner; or
(3) On a leash, cord or chain not exceeding eight feet
in length which is firmly attached to the dog and
which is in the hand of or attached to the owner.
502.02 Nuisances. The following dogs are declared to be
nuisances and no person shall keep such a dog or dogs in the city:
(1) Any dog running at large, except as allowed by
502.03.
(2) Any dog that commits damage to the person or
property of anyone other than the owner, except as
shall be committed in the defense of the owner or
his family or property.
(3) Any female dog which is in heat and off the
premises of the owner, unless confined and in the
process of being transported to or from the
owner's premises.
(4) Any female dog in heat that is not kept in a
building or secure enclosure where said female dog
cannot come in contact with male dogs except for
planned breeding.
Any dog that snarls at persons or bites persons or
other animals, or exhibits vicious tendencies, or
habitually or loudly barks, howls, cries, yelps or
causes noise, disturbance or annoyance to persons
residing in the vicinity thereof.
(5)
(6) Any dog which frequents school grounds, public
beaches, or other public lands.
Any dog which charges vehicles or interferes with
pedestrians, or with the driving of automobiles,
bicycles, motorcycles, motorbikes, snowmobiles, or
other vehicles on public grounds, streets, or
highways.
502.03 Agricultural Uses. The council may issue an annual
permit to an owner to allow a dog to run at large on lands owned or
leased by its owner only if such is necessary for agricultural
pursuits and to protect a minimum of five domestic'animals. The
permit shall state the area where the animal shall be permitted to
run at large, and may contain such other reasonable conditions and
restrictions as the council may require. Violation of such
conditions and restrictions shall be grounds for revocation of the
permit after a hearing.
(7)
502.04 Licenses.
Subdivision 1. Required. No person shall own, keep, or
harbor a dog over the age of six months within the city, whether in
a building or outside a building, without first securing a license
'for the dog from the clerk -treasurer; provided that a person may
have in his possession a dog owned by someone else, which dog shall
have a valid current license issued by another governmental unit,
but such possession shall not exceed a three week period except
with written permission from the city dog catcher.
Subd. 2. Records. The clerk -treasurer shall keep an
accurate written record of each license issued, the date thereof,
the name and address and telephone number of the person to whom
issued, and the name and a brief description of the dog for which
the license is issued.
Subd. 3. Term and Fees. All licenses shall expire on
January 1 of each year. The annual fee shall be $2.00 for a male
or spayed female, and $5.00 for an unspayed female. The fee shall
not be prorated, and there shall be no refund of any license fee.
The fee for a duplicate to replace a lost license shall be $1.00.
If a license has not been obtained within thirty days after the dog
has been newly purchased; or within thirty days after the dog
89
attains the age of six months; or by March 1 for renewal licenses,
the license fee shall be $10.00.
Subd. 4. Rabies Vaccination. No license shall be issued
or renewed unless the applicant shall file with the clerk -treasurer
a statement adequately identifying the dog, signed by a licensed
veterinarian certifying that the dog has been vaccinated with anti-
rabies vaccine, and the date of vaccination, which shall be not
more than 24 months prior to the date of issuance or renewal of the
license; provided that a new certificate need be filed only in
every alternate year after the initial issuance of the license.
Subd. 5. Tags. The license tag shall be kept at all
times firmly affixed to the dog for which it was issued, and shall
be non-transferrable to another dog.
502.05 Impounding.
Subdivision 1. Authorization. Any dog in violation of
this chapter may be impounded by a police officer, dog catcher, or
other properly designated officer of the city.
Subd. 2. Redemption. Any impounded dog may be redeemed
within five days of the date of impoundment by paying an impounding
fee of $30.00 for the first offense; $50.00for the second offense;
$100.00 for the third offense; and $200.00 for the fourth and
subsequent offenses. In addition, a boarding fee of$9.00 per day
shall be paid. (Amended by Ordinance 11-87, passed August 10,
1987.)
Subd. 3. Disposal. Any dog remaining unclaimed for five
days following its impoundment may be sold to a licensed education
or scientific institution purstant to M.S. §35.71, or may be sold
to any other person. Any dog not redeemed or sold shall be
.humanely killed and its carcass disposed of.
502.06 Penalties. In any case, upon conviction of violation
of this chapter, the minimum fine shall be $10.00 for the first
offense; $20.00 for the second offense; $40.00 for the third
offense; and $80.00 for the fourth and subsequent offenses.
90
607. Kennels
607.01 Definitions.
L-WM
yAr vc-Q_NN-„As‹._s-
\)A\TC3)
Subdivision 1. Dog. For purposes of 607.01 through
607.06, "dog" shall include all dogs over the age of six (6)
months.
Subd. 2. Private Kennels. The keeping of three -or more
dogs on the same premises, whether such dogs are owned by the same
person or not, shall constitute maintenance of a dog kennel. A
private kennel shall be limited to a maximum of four-dogsat all
times.
Subd. 3. Commercial Kennels. All kennels where the
owner(s) boards, raises, breeds, sells or otherwise cares for a
dog(s) for a consideration.
607.02 Licenses.
Subdivision 1. License Required. No person shall
maintain a kennel without having obtained a kennel license.
Subd. 2. Dog License. Dogs kept in a licensed kennel
shall not be required to be individually licensed pursuant to this
code.
607.03 Requirements.
Subdivision 1. Private Kennels. Private kennels shall
be allowed only in the "S -R", "R" and "R -X", and heavy and light
industrial districts after issuance of a conditional use permit by
the city.
Subd.' 2. Commercial Kennels.Commerciallkennels/shall,
be only allowed in heavy and 'light industrial districts after
issuance of a conditional use permit by;the`city_
Subd. 3. Health, Safety and Welfare. No kennel license
shall be issued or renewed if the council finds that maintenance of
the kennel at the subject location would be injurious to the public
health, safety or welfare.
Subd. 4.- Land Requirements. a Five acres' of lana required
for private kennels `in' the .!'S R".-`< "R", .''and -_"R -X" -.:districts:=
Subd. 5. Notification. Notification of public hearing
for conditional use permit to operate a kennel must be sent to all
property owners within 1,000 feet of a proposed kennel.
607.04 Conditions.
Subdivision 1. Sanitation. Every dog kennel shall be
kept in a sanitary and healthful condition.
Subd. 2. Inspection. Every dog kennel shall be open to
complete inspection by any properly designated officer or employee
of the city, at any reasonable time.
Subd. 3. Running at Large. No dog kept in a kennel
shall be allowed to run at large at any time, either on the
streets, alleys or other public grounds or on private property of
others within the city.
Subd. 4. Noise. No person maintaining a kennel shall
permit the dogs kept there to make noise from any cause whatsoever,
sufficient to constitute a public nuisance.
607.05 Nuisance.
Subdivision 1. Any kennel kept in violation of any
provision of this code shall be deemed a public nuisance and may be
abated as such. -This shall be in addition to all other remedies
provided for violation of this chapter.
607.06 Grandfather Clause.
Subdivision 1. All kennels which are validly located
within the city prior to the adoption of this ordinance may
continue to exist as to size and present location, provided the
kennel does not violate any provisions of the code in force on the
date this ordinance is passed and adopted.
(Chapter 607 amended by Ordinance 13-84, passed December 27, 1984.)
120
Northwest Associated Consultants, Inc.
COMMUNITY PLANNING • DESIGN • MARKETRESEARCH
MEMORANDUM
TO: Lino Lakes Planning Commission
FROM: Alan Brixius
DATE: 12 July 1995
RE: Lino Lakes - Zoning Ordinance
FILE NO: 194.02 - 95.11
Development requests over the past two years have identified a number of flaws and shortcomings
in the Lino Lakes Zoning Ordinance and subdivision regulations. Staff has been directed to
examine these development regulations and make revisions that will correct detected flaws,
improve the clarity of the Ordinances, and improve its format for ease of use and reference.
In review of the Zoning Ordinance, we have prepared review comments for the following
sections:
1. Title
2. Intent and Purpose
3. Rules and Definitions
4. General Provisions
5. Parking Requirements
Our review of the zoning regulations reveals a confusing format that complicates its use and easy
reference. Additionally, we are suggesting changes that clarify and provide greater detail for
specific performance standards.
Subsequent action addressing administrative and zoning districts will be addressed at the next
meeting.
5775 Wayzata Blvd. • Suite 555 • St. Louis Park, MN 55416 • (612) 595-9636•Fax. 595-9837
The attached memo serves as a starting point to inform the Planning Commission and City Council
of suggested changes. We would encourage the Planning Commission to also review the
ordinance and raise additional questions or issues that you wish to have discussed and considered.
If this direction is acceptable, we would suggest staff prepare a draft Ordinance to be reviewed
as a workshop session with Planning Commission before proceeding to a regular meeting and
consequently a public hearing. We would address the Ordinance by sections to keep the project
from becoming overwhelming.
pc: Randy Schumacher
Mary Kay Wyland
2
Northwest Associated Consultants, Inc.
COMMUNITY PLANNING
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
FILE NO:
• DESIGN • MARKET RESEARCH
Mary Kay Wyland
Bob Kirmis/Alan Brixius
12 July 1995
Lino Lakes - Zoning Ordinance Amendments
194.02 - 95.11
At your request, we have conducted a review of the City's Zoning Ordinance in an attempt to
identify various sections/areas which should be revised, expanded or added as part of an
Ordinance update.
SECTION 1 AND 2 - TITLE/INTENT AND PURPOSE
The existing language of this section is considered adequate.
SECTION 3 - RULES AND DEFINITIONS
The existing Zoning Ordinance is lacking numerous definitions which should be included within
an Ordinance update. Specific definitions which should likely be added include the following:
A Abutting
Animal Kennel
Automobile Repair/Service Station
Automobile Salvage or Junk Yard
B Buffer
Buffer Yard
Building Line
Business
C Church
City Council
Club or Lodge
Commercial Recreation
Convenience Food Establishment
Cooperative
5775 Wayzata Blvd. • Suite 555 • St. Louis Park, MN 55416 • (612) 595-9636•Fax. 595-9837
D Day Care Facility
District
Dwelling, Single Family Residential
E Elderly Senior Citizen Housing
Efficiency Apartment
Essential Services
Extractive Use
F Farm - Hobby
Farming
Fence
Filling
G Garage
Grade
Guest Room
H Hardship
Hazardous Waste
Impervious Surface
Industrial
L Land Reclamation
Lodging House
Lot, Base
Lot, Corner
Lot, Frontage
Lot, Interior
Lot, Line
Lot Line, Front
Lot Line, Rear
Lot Line, Side
Lot, Triangular
Lot, Through
Lot, Unit
2
M Medical and Dental Clinic
Model Home
Motor Freight Terminal
O Off -Street Loading Space
Open Sales Lot
Out Patient Care
P Person
Q Quadraminium
R Recyclable Material
Roof Line
S Satellite, Dish
Satellite Dish Height
Sewage Treatment System
Sewer System
Shopping Center
Solid Waste
S Street Frontage
Structure
T Townhouse
U Use
Usable Open Space
✓ Vegetation
Vertex
Veterinary Clinic
W Waste
Waste Facility
Wind Energy Conversion System
Y Yard, Required
SECTION 4 - GENERAL PROVISIONS
Subd. 1. Application of this Ordinance
1. Relation to Comprehensive Plan. Comprehensive Plan relates to land use policy.
Ordinance should be administered with due consideration of the plan.
2. Uses Not Provided for Within Zoning Districts. The Zoning Ordinance should include a
provision which specifies how the handling of uses not specifically listed as permitted or
denied are to be handled.
3. Authority. A reference should be included in the Ordinance of the State Statute granting
the City zoning authority (Municipal Planning Act).
4. Repeal. As part of the Ordinance update, a statement repealing the existing Ordinance
should be included.
Subd. 3. Non -Conforming Uses and Structures
This section of the existing Zoning Ordinance is relatively complete. There are, however, a
number of text additions which should be incorporated as indicated below:
1. The section should include a statement of purpose.
2. The City may wish to consider the allowance of non -conforming single family dwelling
unit expansion via conditional use permit.
3. The existing Ordinance specifies that a non -conforming structure damaged less than 75
percent of its market value may be reconstructed in its previous non -conforming state. In
comparison to other municipalities, the 75 percent threshold is considered relatively high.
This issue should be subject to discussion.
4. The Ordinance update should include a provision that states something to the effect that
if a non -conforming use is discontinued for a specified time period (i.e., six months), the
use may only be re-established in conformance with current Ordinance standards.
Subd. 4. Home Occupations
As part of an Ordinance update, this section should be expanded to address the following:
•
•
•
Statement of Purpose
Define Permitted Home Occupations
Permit Processing Procedures
3
• Permit Lapse, Renewal
• Inspection
• Additional Performance Standards
• Rural Districts Review
Subd. 5. Lot Provisions
This section stipulates that minimum lot area requirements shall exclude street rights-of-way and
areas below the 100 year flood protection elevation. The interpretation of this section has been
the subject of substantial debate in past years and should come to a resolution as part of the
Ordinance update. This provision should be made consistent with the subdivision regulations.
Rural lots must have 80 percent of lot area above 100 year flood elevation. Some additional
flexibility may be considered for this provision.
This section also makes an allowance for multiple structures upon lots within certain zoning
districts. This provisions is unique to Lino Lakes and is generally not considered desirable. Any
multiple structure development in residential zoning districts should be by PDO.
Subd. 7. Accessory Buildings and Structures
The existing Ordinance provision 2 states that a building used for any use, other than a home
occupation, shall be considered an accessory building. To exempt an accessory building simply
because it is used for home occupation activities raises concern and should be addressed as part
of the Ordinance update.
Subd. 8. Required Yards and Open Space
The Planning Commission should examine provision 3 to determine whether the 65 percent lot
coverage provision is appropriate in residential areas. What defines landscaped area?
Subd. 9. Height
This section states that the height of multiple family residential structures within residential
districts may extend to 45 feet. In contrast, R-3 District provisions specifically state that no
multiple family dwelling in the district may exceed 36 feet. This inconsistency must be addressed
as part of the Ordinance update.
The height standards should establish a list of height exceptions, including but not limited to:
1. Farm structures in rural areas.
2. Belfries.
3. Chimneys.
4
4. Elevator Penthouse.
5. Cooling Towers.
6. Flag Poles.
7. Utility poles for essential services.
8. Radio, television antenna and satellite dishes.
9. Wind energy conversion devices.
10. Church steeples and spires.
Subd. 10 - 14. Setbacks and Permitted Encroachment
These sections of the existing Ordinance should be a sub -section of the City's Section 8, yard
Requirements.
Subd. 11. Zero Lot Lines
Side and rear setbacks are confusing in its process and application.
1. This requirement doubles the perimeter setback requirements along adjacent lots. This
increased setback is questionable in that the use of zero lot line setback design by the
increased setback.
2. The use of zero lot line is only allowed as part of a larger planned development. Is the
City requiring a PDO for such a development? The provision does on to say that the zero
lot line is only permitted through the issuance of a CUP. This is confusing in the required
application.
Subd. 12. Setback Adjacent to Residential Areas
We question the purpose of the provision when the zoning district defines the setbacks.
Subd. 13. Setbacks Along Thoroughfares
This section establishes specific setback requirements from certain street classifications. The 100
foot required setback from centerline is not cited in the specific zoning districts.
Subd. 14. Permitted Encroachment
The structure and format of Subd. 14, Permitted Encroachments, is confusing in the way it
addresses various unrelated topics and its presentation of information. We offer the following
comments:
Provision 1. We should examine how we would like to accommodate the encroachment of
parking stalls in required yards. Some setback would be appropriate.
5
Provision 2 also allows covered porches to extend up to ten feet of the rear property line. Three
or four season porches are basically an extension of the principal building. We question whether
this is the desire of the City.
Provision 3. Generally, traffic sight line protections for corner lots are addressed by traffic
visibility triangles extending 30 feet down the lot line, beginning at the lot corner then diagonally
connecting the two points. Within this area, structures and landscape heights are restricted.
Provision 4. Uses listed in Provision 4 are reiterated in Provision 2 and 6.
Provision 5. Height exemption should be addressed in Subd. 9 of the Zoning Ordinance and not
included in Subd. 14, Permitted Encroachments.
Subd. 15. Vacated Streets
We would suggest that this subdivision should be located in Section 6 of the Zoning Ordinance
which describes the zoning districts.
Subd. 18. Quasi Public Structures
We question whether any type structure that is not publicly owned should be allowed to encroach
into a public right-of-way. This may present'livability problems for the City.
Subd. 21. Parking and Storage of Motor Home or Travel Trailer
We believe that this and other permitted outdoor storage should be combined under one section.
In light of the popularity of recreational vehicles in Lino Lakes, we should examine the setback
restrictions that are imposed on those vehicles. The current regulation prohibits storing any
recreational vehicle on a driveway in front of a home, if the home complies with minimum front
yard setbacks.
Subd. 22. Temporary Parking of Recreational Vehicles
This subdivision should specify as to whether this requires the temporary storage on a developed
lot.
Subd. 24. Exterior Storage
This section is relatively complete, however, a reference to recreational vehicle storage
requirements may be appropriate.
6
Subd. 26. Screening
This section should be expanded to provide a greater level of detail. Specific items which should
be addressed include:
1. More specific design standards related to type, height, and opaqueness.
2. Screening provisions along major collectors and arterials:
a. Additional lot depth.
b. Buffer yard performance standards.
3. Timing and responsibility for maintenance and warranty.
Subd. 27. Landscaping
This section should be expanded to include:
1. Require submission of landscape plans for commercial, industrial, multiple family
developments and for single family subdivision.
2. Ordinance should identify where landscape details are required:
a. Building perimeter.
b. Periphery of subdivision.
c. Screening areas.
3. Performance standards for landscaping:
a. Desired species.
b. Size.
c. Location.
d. Warranty.
e. Irrigation.
4. Tree Preservation.
5. Timing, responsibility for maintenance.
7
Subd. 28. Access Drives and Access
These requirements should be included with the off-street parking requirements for ease of
reference and similar regulation. Planning Commission should discuss access provisions
regarding:
1. Number of curb cuts per property.
2. Access setbacks from intersection.
3. Curb cut widths.
4. Setbacks between driveways.
Subd. 29. Fences and Walls
With recent revisions to the Zoning Ordinance regarding fences only few changes are suggested
as follows:
1. The fence regulations should be divided into sub -sections, residential fences, and
commercial/industrial fences.
2. The fence regulation should cross reference the traffic visibility setback for corner lots.
3. The City may allow solid wall fences in excess of 42 inches provided they meet all
building setbacks.
Subd. 31. Swimming Pools
The fencing requirements should be required for private pools of less than 3.5 feet in depth and
all commercial pools unless enclosed by a building court yard that would restrict access.
Subd. 32. Drainage
1. Grading and drainage plans should be required for all commercial industrial, multiple
family developments as well as single family subdivisions.
2. Top of building foundation should be required to be 18 inches above the crown of street.
3. As a condition of issuance of occupancy, the builder or property owner, should verify that
its construction complies with the approved site or subdivision grading plan.
4. Drainage plans should comply with guidelines set out in the Lino Lakes Water
Management Plan.
8
5. Ground cover must be established on disturbed portions of the construction site within six
months of issuance of the building permit.
Subd. 33. Land Reclamation and Grading
This subdivision should exempt soil excavation for basements for home construction.
Subd. 35. Metes and Bounds Conveyance
This subdivision should be addressed in the Subdivision Ordinance.
Other General Provisions Topics to be Considered
1. Glare
2. Smoke, Dust and Particulated Matter
3. Odors
4. Noise
5. Junked Vehicles
6. Sewage Disposal
7. Waste
8. Bulk Storage Liquids
SECTION 8 - PARKING
The parking requirements should be included or closely follow the general provisions of the
Zoning Ordinance for ease of application. The following additions should be considered:
1. Purpose for the section.
2. Required site plan for parking areas.
3. Combine access and driveway standards with parking.
4. Provision that allows for shared curb cuts.
5. Parking deferment.
6. Use restriction in parking areas.
7. Parking space requirements should not be listed by zoning district. Uses like churches and
schools are allowed in various zoning districts.
Subd. 6. Off -Street Loading
Provision 2, minimum loading berth size, does not accommodate the typical semi -truck or trailer.
9
Subd. 7. Traffic Control
This addresses traffic control. The paragraph would an excellent purpose statement addressing
site access, parking and loading under a single topic.
This section also describes the traffic visibility setback as being 15 feet away from the corner of
intersecting rights-of-way.
10
CITY OF LINO LAKES
PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MINUTES
DATE : June 14, 19
TIME STARTED
TIMEENDED
MEMBERS PRESENT:
MEMBERS ABSENT;:
ALSO PRESENT :
6:33 P.2-
9:15 p.m.
Herr, ;;Johnson, i; MesiCh, ';Robinson, Schones
Gelbmann, Schaps
Planning Coordinator Wyland, Planning
Consultant Brixius, Economic Development
Assistant Mary LaForest, Consulting City
Engineer Powell.
I.
II.
Iv.
CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL: Commissioners Gelbmann and
Schaps were absent at roll call.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Ed Schones made a MOTION to approve
the minutes of the May 10, 1995 meeting as submitted and
was supported by Guy Herr. All voted aye. Motion
carried.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Planning Coordinator Wyland requested
item V. H be addressed after item V. B. The agenda was
accepted as amended.
OPEN MIRE: Chair Pro -Tem Robinson declared the Open Mike
portion of the meeting OPEN at 6:34 p.m.
Ms. Kim Sullivan from 20/20 Vision indicated there will
be a "dress rehearsal" meeting of the 20/20 Vision
Community Planning Project on June 27, 1995 at City Hall,
with a final forum on July 8, 1995 at Rice Lake School at
8:45 p.m.
Ms. Sullivan indicated throughout the meeting of the
residents involved in the 20/20 Program, they have kept
in mind there is no right or wrong answers to issues.
Ms. Sullivan encouraged members of the Planning and
Zoning Board and the City Council to consider and involve
the comments of the residents.
Ms. Sullivan indicated there have been approximately 50
individuals involved in the 20/20 Program and the ideas
expressed by them are representative of the citizens and
not of experts. Ms. Sullivan pointed out absence
reflects consent, so she encouraged those who wish to
know the opinions of the group to attend the last forums.
Ms. Sullivan indicated it was suggested to do an overall
survey of the community, but at the cost of between
1
PLANNING & ZONING BOARD
JUNE 14, 1995
$50,000 and $60,000, the Committee did not feel this to
be a wise expenditure.
Ms. Sullivan introduced Ms. Janice Stemig from the Growth
Planning Advisory Group. She stated that rather than
provide specific recommendations the committee has
decided to provide overall concepts for the community.
Ms. Stemig indicated citizens must be willing to speak
out for their beliefs and be willing to work towards them
in regards to the planning and development goals of the
City.
Ms. Stemig noted all projects will take careful planning
and review in regards to quality and benefit to the whole
community. The City should promote a sense of identity
that captures the unique attributes that Lino Lakes has
to offer within the City.
Ms. Stemig indicated the City should promote a sense of
community by encouraging communications between citizens,
city government, and citizen groups throughout the City.
She suggested review and revision of City planning
documents so they benefit the whole of the community and
address a healthy mix of residential/commercial and
industrial development. This would also create a
balanced tax base.
Ms. Stemig indicated the City should establish and
monitor quality architectural standards for development.
Ms. Stemig indicated Lino Lakes should encourage creative
use of zoning options and design of residential
neighborhoods so as to utilize and preserve the natural
environment in the most advantageous way, including the
,creation of "green space".
Mr. Schones indicated all the suggestions are reasonable,
but they could have been laid out during the first forum.
He asked if there were any more specific recommendations
from the group.
Ms. Stemig indicated the committee could not predict the
future economy, so specific numbers regarding development
were avoided.
Mr. Schones inquired as to what is meant by balance. Ms.
Stemig indicated with the help of the Planning and Zoning
Board, City Council and the experts this can be more
specifically defined.
Chair Pro -Tem Robinson indicated the dilemma is how are
the goals achieved. The Planning and Zoning Board rely
upon the recommendations of the experts.
Hearing no further public comment, Chair Pro -Tem Robinson
CLOSED the Open Mike Portion of the meeting at 6:43
PLANNING & ZONING BOARD
JUNE 14, 1995
V. PLANNING ITEMS:
A. 95-20-P, Mag -Con Inc., XXX Apollo Drive, Minor
Subdivision.
Planning Coordinator Wyland briefly reviewed the request
for a minor subdivision.
Ms. Wyland indicated no park dedication will be required
as it was collected when the Lino Industrial Park was
platted.
Ms. Wyland noted there will be a site plan review for
Mag -Con following this minor subdivision request.
Ms. Wyland indicated staff would recommend approval of
the minor subdivision as proposed.
Ms. Mary LaForest, Economic Development Assistant,
introduced the applicants Dick and Joyce Butler and
architect Mike Schraad.
Chair Pro -Tem Robinson inquired as to what type of
business this will be. Mr. Butler indicated his business
is engaged in design and building of transformers.
Mr. Butler indicated his business currently is in a
building of 12,000 square feet and they are in desperate
need of additional space.
Mr. Butler indicated he has an excellent management staff
with. 10 years minimum experience with the company.
Mr. Butler indicated he had worked with Mr. Brian Wessel,
Economic Development Director for the City, and was very
impressed with the cooperation the City has given them
during the application process.
Mr. Butler believed his business would compliment the
Industrial Park. He noted his business would staff 40
employees. He indicated through a survey, he realized a
majority of the staff live in the Lino Lakes area.
Ed Schones made a MOTION to approve application 95-20-P,
Mag -Con Inc., XXX Apollo Drive, Minor Subdivision and was
supported by Guy Herr. All voted aye. Motion carried.
B. 95-21-S, Mag -Con Inc., XXX Apollo Drive, Site Plan
Review.
Planning Coordinator Wyland briefly reviewed the request
for site plan review for a 15,000 square foot production
and office building to be located in the Apollo Business
Park, with a 5,000 square foot expansion area.
PLANNING & ZONING BOARD
JUNE 14, 1995
Ms. Wyland indicated Brian Wessel, the City's Economic
Development Director has been working with Mag -Con Inc.
on this project for several months and would recommend
approval of the submitted site plan.
Ms. Wyland indicated staff would agree with the EDAB and
recommend approval of the Site Plan as submitted with the
following conditions:
1. The applicant shall sign a development
agreement and post financial guarantees as
specified by City Staff prior to issuance of any
building permits.
2. The City Engineer shall review and approve
utility, drainage and grading plans.
3. Proper sign permits shall be obtained prior to
installation of signage.
4. The Site Plan dated 6/2/95 and the Landscape
Plan dated 6/8/95 shall be made a part of this
approval and shall incorporate all landscaping,
parking, building location, trash handling, loading
docks, etc. The Landscaping Plan shall be reviewed
and approved by the City Engineer.
5. The parking area shall be provided with a hard
surface with concrete curb surrounding all access
drives and parking areas.
6. Handicapped parking shall be provided according
to ADA Rules and Regulations.
7. Roof top heating and ventilating units shall be
properly screened.
Chair Pro -Tem Robinson asked who is the current City
Forester. Ms. Wyland indicated Mr. Marty Asleson.
Mr. Johnson asked in reference to the shared driveway,
how is the construction of the shared driveway arrived
at. Ms. Wyland indicated the current developer will
construct the shared driveway.
Ms. Wyland indicated the reason for the shared driveway
is due to the limitations of accesses set forth by the
County.
Mr. Mesich inquired if the building would contain a
sprinkler system. Mr. Butler indicated this would be
correct.
4
PLANNING & ZONING BOARD
JUNE 14, 1995
Mr. Mesich inquired if there would be any hazardous waste
involved in the business. Mr. Butler indicated there
would be no hazardous chemicals or waste.
Chair Pro -Tem Robinson asked in regards to the street,
will Apollo Drive be constructed to hold the heavier
weights from industrial use. City Engineer Powell
indicated the road has been constructed of a nine to ten
ton design.
Bill Johnson made a MOTION to approve application 95-21-
S, Mag -Con Inc., XXX Apollo Drive, Site Plan Review
subject to the conditions outlined by staff. All voted
aye. Motion carried.
H. Resolution Pertaining to Economic Development
District #3 (Clearwater Creek).
Economic Development Assistant, Mary LaForest briefly
reviewed the resolution regarding the establishment of
Economic Development District No. 3
Ms. LaForest indicated the Economic Development Authority
has authorized preparation of a Development District
Program to establish a new Economic Development District
No. 3 and a Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax
Increment Financing District No. 3-1.
Ms. LaForest indicated it has been determined that
establishing this new TIF District within the Clearwater
Creek Development Center is of benefit to the City in
anticipation of development on the I-35E/County Road 14
interchange.
Ms. LaForest noted this will allow the city to provide
TIF assistance to facilitate new development within an
area of the City that has been designated for
commercial/industrial development.
Ms. LaForest indicated the Public Hearing on the new TIF
District has been scheduled for June 29, 1995 at 5:15
p.m. State statute requires Planning & Zoning Board
review when a new Economic Development District is
established within a City, to see if the land use is
consistent with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan.
Chair Pro -Tem Robinson inquired if there is a cap or
limit to the TIF. Ms. LaForest indicated there is a
limit in terms of time, and a limit in regards to the tax
revenue generated that can be used to provide TIF
assistance.
Mr. Mesich asked if there is a cost to the City in
regards to establishing a TIF District. Ms. LaForest
5
PLANNING & ZONING BOARD
JUNE 14, 1995
indicated there are nominal administrative costs from the
County and the cost of counsel.
Planning Consultant Brixius indicated up to 10% of the
project can be recovered by the City to cover
administrative fees, etc.
Mr. Brixius indicated TIF is one of the only tools
available to the City in assisting new business who come
to Lino Lakes.
Mr. Johnson commented that the City still has choices as
to how generous they would want to be in any given
project. He noted as recommended in the 20/20 Vision
statement, the City should be as conservative as possible
with TIF.
Mr. Mesich inquired if TIF was used in the previous item
on the agenda. Ms. LaForest indicated yes, TIF was used
in the Mag -Con Inc. project.
Ms. LaForest indicated the City has been very
conservative in regards to TIF. There was some
discussion regarding the dollar figures. Ms. LaForest
indicated the pay off date would be within 3-4 years of
the increment.
Mr. Brixius indicated he could attest to the conservative
approach as compared to the rest of the State. He
indicated the revenue received will exceed the TIF and
will help subsequent projects.
Ms. LaForest indicated Lino Lake is competing with other
communities for these businesses and this gives an
incentive for the businesses to locate in the City.
Bill Johnson made a MOTION to adopt a Resolution
regarding the establishment of Economic Development
District No. 3 and was supported by Guy Herr. All voted
aye. Motion carried.
Ms. Wyland requested item V.D. be addressed at this time.
D. 95-16-S, Marshan Condominiums, Lake Drive/Aqua Lane,
Site Plan Review.
Planning Consultant Brixius briefly reviewed the staff
report regarding the request for Site Plan Review. He
indicated in previous consideration, The Planning and
Zoning Board chose to table the Marshan Lake Townhome
request pending the submission of an ultimate development
plan for the property.
Mr. Brixius indicated a revised development plan has been
submitted by the applicant for review. He indicated the
6
PLANNING & ZONING BOARD
JUNE 14, 1995
revised plans proposes a total of 139 units are now being
proposed upon the subject property in two phases. Of the
total 139 units, 110 would be constructed in the
developments' first phase and the remaining 29 units in
the second phase.
Mr. Brixius reviewed the site plan, explaining the
repositioning of the structures using overhead
transparencies and diagrams.
Mr. Brixius indicated all revisions comply with the DNR
Shoreland Ordinance and the Lino Lakes Shoreland
Ordinance.
Mr. Brixius indicated staff would recommend approval of
the Marshan Townhomes Phase I subject to the following
conditions:
1. The developer is to either expand the amount of
residential land or reduce the number of housing
units in Phase 2 prior to proceeding with Phase 2
development.
2. A parking setback variance to allow guest
parking within five feet of the project internal
loop street. Parking areas must be shown to comply
with the five foot setback. These parking spaces
must be landscaped to reduce the visual intrusion
into the front yard areas.
3. The site plan must show handicapped parking
stalls. No parking will be allowed in the 28 foot
wide private drive lanes.
4. A detailed landscape plan must be submitted for
City approval which identifies location, species,
and size of plantings. Landscape plans should
specifically address areas along Highway 49,
landscaping around the building perimeters, and
landscaping around guest parking areas.
5. Conditions addressing use and design of the
proposed lake access will be incorporated into the
development agreements and homeowners association
deed covenants.
6. Developer enter into a development agreement
with the City for the Phase 1 development which
provides assurance that all proposed improvements
and performance standards are completed in
accordance with the approved plan.
7. Comments from other City staff.
7
PLANNING & ZONING BOARD
JUNE 14, 1995
Mr. Brixius indicated the developer has agreed
to all the stipulations imposed.
Chair Pro -Tem Robinson inquired as to why the applicant
would want a dock. Mr. Kirk Corsan, representing the
applicant, indicated the developer felt the dock would be
an amenity they would like to provide to the townhome
owners.
Chair Pro -Tem Robinson inquired if the DNR had any
concerns regarding the dock. Mr. Corsan indicated he had
spoken with the DNR and they indicated no concerns.
Mr. Corsan reviewed the changes made to the site plan.
He noted the developer would be grading the proposed park
area. The site would exceed the requirements for open
space. The site would be within the requirement
regarding density.
Mr. Corsan indicated the requested commercial site in
Phase 2 has been reduced from 1.7 acres to 1.5 acres.
Mr. Corsan provided the Board with photographs of similar
projects completed by the developer.
Mr. Corsan indicated the developer has met with the
neighborhood residents and addressed their concerns.
Mr. Johnson inquired as to the placement of mail boxes.
Mr. Corsan indicated the boxes would be constructed in
clusters.
Mr. Mesich asked what the addresses will be to the
townhomes. Mr. Corsan indicated each unit will be
numbered individually, in regards to the name of the
street, the City would be in charge of that. Mr. Powell
indicated there would be one name for the looped street.
Mr. Johnson inquired if the developer will be acquiring
the small portion of land near the development. Mr.
Corsan indicated the developer has spoken with the land
owner, but no formal agreements have been made.
Chair Pro -Tem Robinson inquired as to the small area
requested for commercial use. Mr. Brixius indicated the
developer has reserved the area, but rezoning would have
to occur and it would be during the Phase 2 review.
Mr. Johnson inquired if only Phase 1 was under review.
Mr. Brixius indicated that was correct.
Mr. Corsan indicated the only interested party thus far
regarding the commercial area, is a daycare.
8
PLANNING & ZONING BOARD
JUNE 14, 1995
Mr. Johnson inquired about the park, would there be
sufficient parking. Mr. Brixius indicated there is no
specific design or layout. Chair Pro -Tem Robinson
pointed out there is a City park just north of this
proposed park.
Ms. Wyland indicated when the developer is close to
completing the project, there will be a neighborhood
meeting to discuss the design of the park.
Mr. Herr inquired if Phase 1 meets all the DNR standards.
Mr. Brixius indicated that was correct, in Phase 2 there
will need to be an adjustment of .3 acres to meet the
Shoreland requirements.
Mr. Corsan indicated it was his understanding that a
Conditional Use Permit would be required for Phase 2.
Mr. Brixius indicated that was correct.
Mr. Mesich inquired if the park would be graded and
seeded. Mr. Corsan indicated the area proposed as the
park would be graded and seeded. Mr. Mesich expressed
his concern that there would be no ground cover.
Chair Pro -Tem Robinson indicated the development
agreement specifies the requirement of seeding any graded
undeveloped portion of the site. Mr. Corsan added it is
easier to grade the entire site at the same time, rather
than waiting.
Mr. Powell indicated the main concern of the City would
be that turf is re-established.
Mr. Herr inquired if the developer would be developing
the park. Mr. Brixius indicated once the land is
dedicated to the City, it is the City's responsibility.
Mr. Herr indicated he was pleased with the revised site
plan. Mr. Robinson concurred. Mr. Johnson indicated the
site will be a good location.
Ms. Karen Hoppe inquired as to the construction of the
cul-de-sac on Stagecoach. Mr. Powell indicated the City
would construct that at the same time as the construction
of the looped road in this project.
Mr. Mesich inquired as to assessments for this cul-de-
sac. Mr. Powell indicated the residents to the north
would be assessed, but the new development would not
because it does not benefit their property.
Bill Johnson made a MOTION to approve application 95-16-
S, Marshan Condominiums, Lake Drive/Aqua Lane, Site Plan
Review and was supported by Tom Mesich. All voted aye.
Motion carried.
9
PLANNING & ZONING BOARD
JUNE 14, 1995
Chair Pro -Tem Robinson called a brief recess at 8:00 p.m.
Chair Pro -Tem Robinson reconvened the meeting at 8:08
p.m.
C. 95-19-P, Harvey Meredith, 8301 20th Avenue, Minor
Subdivision.
Planning Coordinator Wyland presented a brief staff
report regarding the request for a minor subdivision.
Ms. Wyland indicated Mr. Meredith owns approximately 30
(29 +/-) acres he wishes to subdivide into three building
sites. She noted the property is zoned rural and would
require 10 acres minimum lot size. Mr. Meredith is,
therefore, requesting a variance for .6 acres in lot area
for one parcel.
Ms. Wyland reviewed the findings the City must make in
order to grant a variance.
Ms. Wyland indicated staff would recommend the denial of
a subdivision into three parcels, but approval of a split
of the property into one 10 acre parcel and one 19.4 acre
parcel. She noted the Park Dedication fees shall be
required for the newly created lots to be collected at
the time the deed is signed by the City for recording
with the County, this amount would be $500 per lot.
Chair Pro -Tem Robinson inquired if there was a home
located on the small five acre site next to this
property. Ms. Wyland believed there is a home on that
property and NSP services, but there is no home on the
proposed property.
Mr. Schones inquired as to how long the requirement of 10
acres has been in effect. Mr. Brixius indicated the
ordinance was adopted in 1992, as required by the state.
Mr. Schones inquired as to why Columbus Township does not
have the same requirement regarding lot size. Ms. Wyland
indicated it was due to the fact that it is a Township.
Mr. Powell indicated Columbus Township is not required to
comply because it is not part of the Metropolitan Urban
Service Area.
Mr. Schones inquired if any entity not a township is
required to comply. Mr. Powell indicated even more
important is when MUSA land is involved or Met Council
requirements.
Mr. Schones expressed concern the City may be limiting
themselves with requiring the 10 acre lot size.
10
PLANNING & ZONING BOARD
JUNE 14, 1995
Mr. Mesich indicated he would prefer to see three sites
than two. Mr. Mesich indicated there was a small loss of
land due to the construction of Highway 35.
Mr. Johnson inquired if there are any protected wetlands
on the property. Some wetland area may be present on the
western portion of the lots, near the freeway and
adjacent to the creek/ditch.
Mr. Brixius encouraged the Planning Board to approach the
variance request with caution. He noted the Planning
Board must justify the variance based on findings. He
indicated perhaps rationale for the variance could be the
reduction in land due to the freeway construction.
Ms. Wyland indicated she was unsure if the current owner,
owned the land during the time of construction of the
freeway.
Chair Pro -Tem believed the Board should stay within the
10 acre requirements.
Ms. Wyland indicated staff does not encourage variances.
Mr. Herr inquired if there has been other variance
requests in the past regarding the 10 acre lot size,
where a variance has been granted. Ms. Wyland indicated
not to her knowledge has any variance request regarding
this been approved.
Ed Schones made a MOTION to deny subdivision of property
into three parcels. Approving a split of the property
into one 10 acre parcel and one 19.4 acre parcel. Two
Park Dedication fees to be collected at the time the deed
is signed by the City for recording with the County, $500
per lot and was supported by Bill Johnson. All voted
aye. Motion carried.
E. 95-18 P/Z, Willow Ponds, Elm Street, Preliminary Plat
& Rezoning - PUBLIC HEARING.
Chair Pro -Tem OPENED the Public Hearing at 8:29 p.m.
Planning Consultant Brixius presented a brief staff
report regarding the request for Rezoning and Preliminary
Plat approval.
Mr. Brixius indicated Cottage Homesteads of America
received site plan approval at the May Planning and
Zoning Board and City Council meetings for a 47 unit
senior rental project.
Mr. Brixius indicated staff would recommend approval of
the requested rezoning from R-4/PDO to R-1, Single Family
11
PLANNING & ZONING BOARD
JUNE 14, 1995
Residential for the western single family portion of the
proposed subdivision subject to the following condition:
A. City approval of the Willows Ponds Subdivision.
Mr. Brixius indicated staff would recommend approval of
the request of the Willow Ponds Preliminary Plat subject
to the following conditions:
A. All access points from County Road 12 are
subject to approval by the Anoka County Highway
Department.
B. The submitted grading plan is subject to review
and approval of the City Engineer.
C. The submitted utility plan is subject to review
and approval of the City Engineer.
D. The Fire Chief proved recommendation in regard
to preferable fire hydrant locations.
E. Comments from other City staff.
Mr. Mesich expressed concern with driveway accesses onto
Elm Street.
Mr. Herr inquired if Elm Street will be upgraded. Mr.
Powell indicated until the turnover from the County is
complete, it is the County's decision. He indicated
there is a potential site of a middle school north of Elm
Street.
Mr. Powell indicated the City Council has authorized a
traffic study and a feasibility study to review the
impact of the proposed school. Mr. Powell indicated
recommended accesses from the school are oriented toward
Lake Drive.
Mr. Johnson inquired if there is a walking trail on the
site. Mr. Powell indicated there is a trail on the north
side of Elm Street in front of the townhomes and single
family homes.
Mr. Mesich inquired if there would be an alternative if
the rezoning was not approved. Mr. Brixius indicated it
is his opinion the R-1 use is more compatible, although
there would be options under the PDO.
Mr. Brixius reviewed the requirements of rezoning, he
indicated this application meets the criteria
established.
12
PLANNING & ZONING BOARD
JUNE 14, 1995
Mr. John Johnson representative of Cottage Homesteads,
indicated the senior housing proposed is a very
compatible use of the land.
Mr. John Johnson indicated there will be only five
driveways, or accesses onto Elm Street. The driveways
will be shared driveways for 10 homes.
Guy Herr made a MOTION to CLOSE the Public Hearing and
was supported by Ed Schones. All voted aye. Motion
carried. Public Hearing was CLOSED at 8:40 p.m.
Ed Schones made a MOTION to approve application 95-18-
P/Z, Willow Ponds, Preliminary Plat and Rezoning from R4
to R1 Single Family Residential, subject to stated
conditions and was supported by Bill Johnson. All voted
aye. Motion carried.
F. CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING, Flood Plain
Management Ordinance.
Chair Pro -Tem Robinson CONTINUED the Public Hearing at
8:45 p.m.
Planning Consultant Brixius indicated the Minnesota State
Legislature has mandated that local government units
adopt regulations to minimize flood loses by updating or
adopting floodplain regulations.
Mr. Brixius reviewed briefly the revised draft ordinance
dated June 6, 1995. He noted this Ordinance remains very
similar to the DNR model with few modifications.
Mr. Mesich noted a typographical error on page 14, under
paragraph A., fourth line, " ...shaft..." should be
"...shall..". Mr. Brixius indicated that would be
corrected.
Mr. Johnson questioned on page 21, the fourth line, the
notation: "L@". Ms. Wyland indicated that she would
investigate the notation.
Mr. Mesich inquired as to how many areas in Lino Lakes
fall under the category of Shoreland. Mr. Brixius
indicated this area is extensive.
Ms. Wyland indicated the map the City received, is very
hard to read, staff will overlay this map onto a current
City street map, so areas could be reviewed.
Mr. Herr inquired as to the difference of the Lino Lakes
Floodplain Ordinance and the DNR Floodplain Model
Ordinance. Mr. Brixius indicated there were very few
modifications, noting most changes occurred when the City
already had a similar ordinance, and this was made to be
13
PLANNING & ZONING BOARD
JUNE 14, 1995
consistent with the City. Mr. Brixius added all
modifications were done with DNR permission.
Guy Herr made a MOTION to CLOSE the Public Hearing and
was supported by Tom Mesich. All voted aye. Motion
carried.
Tom Mesich made a MOTION to approve the Flood Plain
Management Ordinance and was supported by Ed Schones.
All voted aye. Motion carried.
G. Sign Ordinance
Planning Consultant indicated the City Attorney has
discovered an inconsistency in the Amended Sign Ordinance
and original Sign Ordinance contained in the City Code.
Mr. Brixius indicated the discrepancy relates to the
numbering of certain sections and subdivisions of the
ordinance, not the content. He noted the recently
amended ordinance must be formatted to be consistent with
the ordinance in the City code.
Mr. Brixius indicated staff recommends approval of the
Sign Ordinance as amended.
Tom Mesich made a MOTION to approve the Revised Ordinance
Amending the Sign Ordinance and was supported by Ed
Schones. All voted aye. Motion carried.
VI. DISCUSSION: Planning Coordinator Wyland indicated there
will be a Joint Meeting with the City Council on June 21,
1995, 5:00 p.m. - League of Cities presentation. She
indicated she would try to have the meeting recorded on
video for those not able to attend.
Chair Pro -Tem Robinson requested a Board member to
replace him on Economic Development Advisory Board during
the summer months, due to the difficulty in attending.
Mr. Schones suggested members rotate.
Mr. Herr indicated he would be able to attend the June
meeting of the EDAB; Mr. Johnson indicated he would
attend the July meeting; and Mr. Schones indicated he
would attend the August meeting.
VII. ADJOURNMENT: Bill Johnson made a MOTION to adjourn and
was supported by Tom Mesich. All voted aye. Motion
carried. Meeting was adjourned at 9:15 p.m.
14
irAc
Northwest Associated Consultants, Inc.
COMMUNITY PLANNING • DESIGN • MARKET RESEARCH
MEMORANDUM
TO: Lino Lakes Planning Commission
FROM: Alan Brixius
DATE: 12 July 1995
RE: Lino Lakes - Zoning Ordinance
FILE NO: 194.02 - 95.11
Development requests over the past two years have identified a number of flaws and shortcomings
in the Lino Lakes Zoning Ordinance and subdivision regulations. Staff has been directed to
examine these development regulations and make revisions that will correct detected flaws,
improve the clarity of the Ordinances, and improve its format for ease of use and reference.
In review of the Zoning Ordinance, we have prepared review comments for the following
sections:
1. Title
2. Intent and Purpose
3. Rules and Definitions
4. General Provisions
5. Parking Requirements
Our review of the zoning regulations reveals a confusing format that complicates its use and easy
reference. Additionally, we are suggesting changes that clarify and provide greater detail for
specific performance standards.
Subsequent action addressing administrative and zoning districts will be addressed at the next
meeting.
5775 Wayzata Blvd. • Suite 555 • St. Louis Park, MN 55416 • (612) 595-9636•Fax. 595-9837
The attached memo serves as a starting point to inform the Planning Commission and City Council
of suggested changes. We would encourage the Planning Commission to also review the
ordinance and raise additional questions or issues that you wish to have discussed and considered.
If this direction is acceptable, we would suggest staff prepare a draft Ordinance to be reviewed
as a workshop session with Planning Commission before proceeding to a regular meeting and
consequently a public hearing. We would address the Ordinance by sections to keep the project
from becoming overwhelming.
pc: Randy Schumacher
Mary Kay Wyland
2
Northwest Associated Consultants, Inc.
COMMUNITY PLANNING • DESIGN • MARKET RESEARCH
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
FILE NO:
Mary Kay Wyland
Bob Kirmis/Alan Brixius
12 July 1995
Lino Lakes - Zoning Ordinance Amendments
194.02 - 95.11
At your request, we have conducted a review of the City's Zoning Ordinance in an attempt to
identify various sections/areas which should be revised, expanded or added as part of an
Ordinance update.
SECTION 1 AND 2 - TITLE/INTENT AND PURPOSE
The existing language of this section is considered adequate.
SECTION 3 - RULES AND DEFINITIONS
The existing Zoning Ordinance is lacking numerous defmitions which should be included within
an Ordinance update. Specific definitions which should likely be added include the following:
A Abutting
Animal Kennel
Automobile Repair/Service Station
Automobile Salvage or Junk Yard
B Buffer
Buffer Yard
Building Line
Business
C Church
City Council
Club or Lodge
Commercial Recreation
Convenience Food Establishment
Cooperative
5775 Wayzata Blvd. • Suite 555 • St. Louis Park, MN 55416 • (612) 595-9636•Fax. 595-9837
D Day Care Facility
District
Dwelling, Single Family Residential
E Elderly Senior Citizen Housing
Efficiency Apartment
Essential Services
Extractive Use
F Farm - Hobby
Farming
Fence
Filling
G Garage
Grade
Guest Room
H Hardship
Hazardous Waste
Impervious Surface
Industrial
L Land Reclamation
Lodging House
Lot, Base
Lot, Corner
Lot, Frontage
Lot, Interior
Lot, Line
Lot Line, Front
Lot Line, Rear
Lot Line, Side
Lot, Triangular
Lot, Through
Lot, Unit
M Medical and Dental Clinic
Model Home
Motor Freight Terminal
0 Off -Street Loading Space
Open Sales Lot
Out Patient Care
P Person
Q Quadraminium
R Recyclable Material
Roof Line
S Satellite, Dish
Satellite Dish Height
Sewage Treatment System
Sewer System
Shopping Center
Solid Waste
S Street Frontage
Structure
T Townhouse
U Use
Usable Open Space
✓ Vegetation
Vertex
Veterinary Clinic
W Waste
Waste Facility
Wind Energy Conversion System
Yard, Required
SECTION 4 - GENERAL PROVISIONS
Subd. 1. Application of this Ordinance
1. Relation to Comprehensive Plan. Comprehensive Plan relates to land use policy.
Ordinance should be administered with due consideration of the plan.
Uses Not Provided for Within Zoning Districts. The Zoning Ordinance should include a
provision which specifies how the handling of uses not specifically listed as permitted or
denied are to be handled.
3. Authority. A reference should be included in the Ordinance of the State Statute granting
the City zoning authority (Municipal Planning Act).
4. Repeal. As part of the Ordinance update, a statement repealing the existing Ordinance
should be included.
Subd. 3. Non -Conforming Uses and Structures
This section of the existing Zoning Ordinance is relatively complete. There are, however, a
number of text additions which should be incorporated as indicated below:
1. The section should include a statement of purpose.
2. The City may wish to consider the allowance of non -conforming single family dwelling
unit expansion via conditional use permit.
3. The existing Ordinance specifies that a non -conforming structure damaged less than 75
percent of its market value may be reconstructed in its previous non -conforming state. In
comparison to other municipalities, the 75 percent threshold is considered relatively high.
This issue should be subject to discussion.
4. The Ordinance update should include a provision that states something to the effect that
if a non -conforming use is discontinued for a specified time period (i.e., six months), the
use may only be re-established in conformance with current Ordinance standards.
Subd. 4. Home Occupations
As part of an Ordinance update, this section should be expanded to address the following:
•
•
•
Statement of Purpose
Define Permitted Home Occupations
Permit Processing Procedures
3
• Permit Lapse, Renewal
• Inspection
• Additional Performance Standards
• Rural Districts Review
Subd. 5. Lot Provisions
This section stipulates that minimum lot area requirements shall exclude street rights-of-way and
areas below the 100 year flood protection elevation. The interpretation of this section has been
the subject of substantial debate in past years and should come to a resolution as part of the
Ordinance update. This provision should be made consistent with the subdivision regulations.
Rural lots must have 80 percent of lot area above 100 year flood elevation. Some additional
flexibility may be considered for this provision.
This section also makes an allowance for multiple structures upon lots within certain zoning
districts. This provisions is unique to Lino Lakes and is generally not considered desirable. Any
multiple structure development in residential zoning districts should be by PDO.
Subd. 7. Accessory Buildings and Structures
The existing Ordinance provision 2 states that a building used for any use, other than a home
occupation, shall be considered an accessory building. To exempt an accessory building simply
because it is used for home occupation activities raises concem and should be addressed as part
of the Ordinance update.
Subd. 8. Required Yards and Open Space
The Planning Commission should examine provision 3 to determine whether the 65 percent lot
coverage provision is appropriate in residential areas. What defines landscaped area?
Subd. 9. Height
This section states that the height of multiple family residential structures within residential
districts may extend to 45 feet. In contrast, R-3 District provisions specifically state that no
multiple family dwelling in the district may exceed 36 feet. This inconsistency must be addressed
as part of the Ordinance update.
The height standards should establish a list of height exceptions, including but not limited to:
1. Farm structures in rural areas.
2. Belfries.
3. Chimneys.
4
4. Elevator Penthouse.
5. Cooling Towers.
6. Flag Poles.
7. Utility poles for essential services.
8. Radio, television antenna and satellite dishes.
9. Wind energy conversion devices.
10. Church steeples and spires.
Subd. 10 - 14. Setbacks and Permitted Encroachment
These sections of the existing Ordinance should be a sub -section of the City's Section 8, yard
Requirements.
Subd. 11. Zero Lot Lines
Side and rear setbacks are confusing in its process and application.
1. This requirement doubles the perimeter setback requirements along adjacent lots. This
increased setback is questionable in that' the use of zero lot line setback design by the
increased setback.
2. The use of zero lot line is only allowed as part of a larger planned development. Is the
City requiring a PDO for such a development? The provision does on to say that the zero
lot line is only permitted through the issuance of a CUP. This is confusing in the required
application.
Subd. 12. Setback Adjacent to Residential Areas
We question the purpose of the provision when the zoning district defines the setbacks.
Subd. 13. Setbacks Along Thoroughfares
This section establishes specific setback requirements from certain street classifications. The 100
foot required setback from centerline is not cited in the specific zoning districts.
Subd. 14. Permitted Encroachment
The structure and format of Subd. 14, Permitted Encroachments, is confusing in the way it
addresses various unrelated topics and its presentation of information. We offer the following
comments:
Provision 1. We should examine how we would like to accommodate the encroachment of
parking stalls in required yards. Some setback would be appropriate.
5
Provision 2 also allows covered porches to extend up to ten feet of the rear property line. Three
or four season porches are basically an extension of the principal building. We question whether
this is the desire of the City.
Provision 3. Generally, traffic sight line protections for corner lots are addressed by traffic
visibility triangles extending 30 feet down the lot line, beginning at the lot corner then diagonally
connecting the two points. Within this area, structures and landscape heights are restricted.
Provision 4. Uses listed in Provision 4 are reiterated in Provision 2 and 6.
Provision 5. Height exemption should be addressed in Subd. 9 of the Zoning Ordinance and not
included in Subd. 14, Permitted Encroachments.
Subd. 15. Vacated Streets
We would suggest that this subdivision should be located in Section 6 of the Zoning Ordinance
which describes the zoning districts.
Subd. 18. Quasi Public Structures
We question whether any type structure that is not publicly owned should be allowed to encroach
into a public right-of-way. This may present livability problems for the City.
1 t,
Subd. 21. Parking and Storage of Motor Home or Travel Trailer
We believe that this and other permitted outdoor storage should be combined under one section.
In light of the popularity of recreational vehicles in Lino Lakes, we should examine the setback
restrictions that are imposed on those vehicles. The current regulation prohibits storing any
recreational vehicle on a driveway in front of a home, if the home complies with minimum front
yard setbacks.
Subd. 22. Temporary Parking of Recreational Vehicles
This subdivision should specify as to whether this requires the temporary storage on a developed
lot.
Subd. 24. Exterior Storage
This section is relatively complete, however, a reference to recreational vehicle storage
requirements may be appropriate.
6
Subd. 26. Screening
This section should be expanded to provide a greater level of detail. Specific items which should
be addressed include:
1. More specific design standards related to type, height, and opaqueness.
2. Screening provisions along major collectors and arterials:
a. Additional lot depth.
b. Buffer yard performance standards.
3. Timing and responsibility for maintenance and warranty.
Subd. 27. Landscaping
This section should be expanded to include:
1. Require submission of landscape plans for commercial, industrial, multiple family
developments and for single family subdivision.
2. Ordinance should identify where landscape details are required:
a. Building perimeter.
b. Periphery of subdivision.
c. Screening areas.
3. Performance standards for landscaping:
a. Desired species.
b. Size.
c. Location.
d. Warranty.
e. Irrigation.
4. Tree Preservation.
5. Timing, responsibility for maintenance.
7
Subd. 28. Access Drives and Access
These requirements should be included with the off-street parking requirements for ease of
reference and similar regulation. Planning Commission should discuss access provisions
regarding:
1. Number of curb cuts per property.
2. Access setbacks from intersection.
3. Curb cut widths.
4. Setbacks between driveways.
Subd. 29. Fences and Walls
With recent revisions to the Zoning Ordinance regarding fences only few changes are suggested
as follows:
1. The fence regulations should be divided into sub -sections, residential fences, and
commercial/industrial fences.
2. The fence regulation should cross reference the traffic visibility setback for comer lots.
3. The City may allow solid wall fences in excess of 42 inches provided they meet all
building setbacks.
Subd. 31. Swimming Pools
The fencing requirements should be required for private pools of less than 3.5 feet in depth and
all commercial pools unless enclosed by a building court yard that would restrict access.
Subd. 32. Drainage
1. Grading and drainage plans should be required for all commercial industrial, multiple
family developments as well as single family subdivisions.
2. Top of building foundation should be required to be 18 inches above the crown of street.
3. As a condition of issuance of occupancy, the builder or property owner, should verify that
its construction complies with the approved site or subdivision grading plan.
4. Drainage plans should comply with guidelines set out in the Lino Lakes Water
Management Plan.
8
5. Ground cover must be established on disturbed portions of the construction site within six
months of issuance of the building permit.
Subd. 33. Land Reclamation and Grading
This subdivision should exempt soil excavation for basements for home construction.
Subd. 35. Metes and Bounds Conveyance
This subdivision should be addressed in the Subdivision Ordinance.
Other General Provisions Topics to be Considered
1. Glare
2. Smoke, Dust and Particulated Matter
3. Odors
4. Noise
5. Junked Vehicles
6. Sewage Disposal
7. Waste
8. Bulk Storage Liquids
SECTION 8 - PARKING
The parking requirements should be included or closely follow the general provisions of the
Zoning Ordinance for ease of application. The following additions should be considered:
1. Purpose for the section.
2. Required site plan for parking areas.
3. Combine access and driveway standards with parking.
4. Provision that allows for shared curb cuts.
5. Parking deferment.
6. Use restriction in parking areas.
7. Parking space requirements should not be listed by zoning district. Uses like churches and
schools are allowed in various zoning districts.
Subd. 6. Off -Street Loading
Provision 2, minimum loading berth size, does not accommodate the typical semi -truck or trailer.
9
Subd. 7. Traffic Control
This addresses traffic control. The paragraph would an excellent purpose statement addressing
site access, parking and loading under a single topic.
This section also describes the traffic visibility setback as being 15 feet away from the corner of
intersecting rights-of-way.
10