Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/10/1996 P&Z PacketCITY OF LINO LAKES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD AGENDA January 10, 1996 6:30 P.M. I. Call to Order and Roll Call: II. Approval of Minutes: November 8, 1995 III. Approva of Agenda - Changes/Additions A C• IV. OPEN MIKE: V. ACTION ITEMS: A. 95-31-Z, CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING, Esther Noren, South of Aqua Lane, West of County Park, Rezone from GB to R3 B. 95-32-Z, PUBLIC HEARING, Roger Hokanson, North of Aqua Lane and East of Lake Drive, Rezone from R4 to GB (request to table) C. 96-1-S, Anoka County Corrections, 7555 4th Avenue, Juvenile Detention Facility, Site Plan Review D. CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING, Metal Building Ordinance (request to cancel hearing) E. CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING, Animal Ordinance (meeting scheduled for Thursday, January 18, 1996) VI. DISCUSSION ITEMS: VII. ADJOURNMENT: PLANNING & ZONING BOARD NOVEMBER 8, 1995 ...................................... TIME>>>START ...................................... ...................................... ...................................... ...................................... TIME>ENDED ...................................... ...................................... ...................................... MBERS PR EMBERS ABS ..................................... CITY OF LINO LAKES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MINUTES ESENT: G:elbmann, Herr, Johnson, Mesich Robinson, Schaps, Sahones arming Coordinator Ayland, Plann..ng isuitant Kirmis, Economic Development +actor iTessel, City Engineer Ahrens.. I. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL: II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Al Robinson made a MOTION to approve the minutes of the October 11, 1995 meeting as submitted and was supported by Ed Schones. Motion carried 5-0-2 (With Commissioners Herr and Mesich abstaining). III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: No changes were made to the agenda. Chair Schaps noted for the audience that items D and E Public Hearings, will be opened and continued to the December meeting of the Planning and Zoning Board. IV. OPEN MIKE: Chair Schaps declared the Open Mike portion of the meeting open at 6:35 p.m. Hearing no public comments at this time, Tom Mesich made a MOTION to close the Open Mike portion of the meeting at 6:36 p.m. and was supported by Al Robinson. All voted aye. Motion carried. V. ACTION ITEMS: A. PUBLIC HEARING - ANIMAL ORDINANCE Chair Schaps Opened the Public Hearing at 6:37 p.m. Planning Coordinator Wyland indicated the Planning and Zoning Board briefly reviewed the Draft Animal Ordinance at their July meeting. Ms. Wyland introduced Officer Kenow to review the proposed animal ordinance. Officer Kenow reviewed the proposed ordinance versus the current ordinance indicating the differences and the updates. Officer Kenow reported the key differences between the proposed ordinance and the current ordinance are: PLANNING & ZONING BOARD NOVEMBER 8, 1995 1) Increase in limit of dogs per household. 2) Private kennels allowed in all zoning districts with a CUP on a one acre parcel. 3) Licensing of cats. 4) Feces disposal. 5) Clear definition and specific nuisance. 6) Dangerous dog/wild animal match state statute definition. Officer Kenow indicated the proposed ordinance was being presented to enable the citizens to generate their input and comments so the ordinance could be updated to fit Lino Lakes. Mr. Herr inquired if the definition of control indicated "and/or" voice. Officer Kenow indicated it would denote "or" voice control due to some trained animals that are able to be controlled by voice. Officer Kenow indicated it has been suggested perhaps licensing could be done at the same time that vaccinations are given. This would simplify the requirements. Officer Kenow also noted in regard to Wild Animals, ferrets are included. Officer Kenow indicated the requirements under the proposed ordinance would be in regard to an adult dog over six months old. Mr. Steve Andre, 494 Ash Street, presented the Planning and Zoning Board with a memo indicating his view of the proposed animal ordinance. Mr. Andre served on the neighborhood committee which reviewed the current ordinance. Mr. Andre suggested the followi-ng: 1) No change to the current ordinance regarding the maximum number of dogs allowed in Private Kennels ( 4 adult dogs maximum ). 2) No change to the current ordinance regarding zoning for Private or Commercial Kennels (no commercial Kennels in "R" and "R -X" zones). 3) No change in the current ordinances regarding minimum acreage requirements for Private Kennels (5 acre minimum). 4) No change to the current ordinance regarding the number of dogs allowed per household. (2 dog limit). 5) Change the proposed ordinance 502.5 Subdivision 5C(4) to: separate housing and runs for dogs shall be a minimum of 350 feet from the 2 PLANNING & ZONING BOARD NOVEMBER 8, 1995 neighboring habitable dwelling and a minimum of 50 feet from the property line. 6) Change the proposed ordinance 502.6 Subdivision 3a (1), (2), and (3) to: To bark, bay, howl, or make any loud noise; 1) between the hours of 8:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m.; or 2) consistently for a period of five minutes or longer between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. Mr. Andre indicated there had been only one call regarding cats in 1994 and only one thus far this year. Mr. Darrell Cooper, a dog business owner indicated there needs to be an updated ordinance. Mr. Cooper suggested mandatory education of the owners with licensing of animals. He felt this would decrease the amount of money the City spends controlling animals. Mr. Cooper also suggested the limit for dogs be three, not necessarily a two species limit such as two dogs, one cat per household. He noted there are many families who wish to breed or have hunting dogs that would be in violation if the two dog limit was upheld. Ms. Dorothy Perkins of 1245 Main Street, felt the proposed ordinance was good, but perhaps restricted the private owner too much and encouraged kennels more. Ms. Perkins also indicated she would not like the species restricted, she would prefer to have three cats than two and one dog. Mr. Donald Dunn, indicated the proposed ordinance should be reasonable, fair and enforceable. He felt the ordinance should address nuisance even more restrictively. He felt the non -animal owners should also be protected. Mr. Dunn felt the five acre limit for kennels is working and encouraged the Board to stay with this limit. Ms. Pam Lyons of 6339 Maple, indicated the City needs guidelines to help enforce the ordinance. She did not feel it was in the best interest of the City to reduce the acreage requirement for kennels. Mr. Mesich, who worked on the proposed ordinance, indicated the committee reviewed ordinances used in nearby communities and tried to draft an ordinance that would work for Lino Lakes and be somewhat consistent with the neighboring cities. 3 PLANNING & ZONING BOARD NOVEMBER 8, 1995 Mr. John Sullivan indicated he has dogs for companionship and feels two is plenty. He felt commercial kennel requirements should apply for three dogs and up. Mr. Sullivan also felt it was a good idea to make education a requirement for licensing. Chair Schaps indicated it was his view that the draft was not ready for any action by the Board at this time. He suggested the Public Hearing be continued to the December worksession. Mr. Johnson indicated kennels should be identified as a separate structure and perhaps private kennels identified as a home occupation. Mr. Schones expressed concern that there would not be enough time to discuss the issue at the December worksession, he suggested a separate meeting. Chair Schaps indicated the Board will work with City staff and any interested resident at scheduling a meeting to review a proposed animal ordinance. Al Robinson made a MOTION to continue the Public Hearing regarding the Animal Ordinance until the December meeting of the Planning and Zoning Board and was supported by Bill Johnson. All voted in favor. Motion carried. Chair Schaps called a brief recess at 7:55 p.m. Chair Schaps reconvened the meeting at 8:05 p.m. B. PUBLIC HEARING - 95-29-C, Amended Conditional Use Permit, Teleport (Communication Compound) 6221 Holly Drive Planning Coordinator Wyland briefly presented a staff report regarding a request for an amended conditional use permit to install a 10 x 14 equipment shelter in their communication compound at 6331 Holly Drive. Ms. Wyland indicated two conditions: 1) All conditions contained in the original and subsequent conditional use permits be made part of this permit. 2) A building permit be issued prior to location of the structure on the site. Chair Schaps Opened the Public Hearing at 8:06 p.m. Mr. Bruce Hansen 6980 Lake Drive, inquired about the antennas, Ms. Wyland indicated the antennas are in place. 4 PLANNING & ZONING BOARD NOVEMBER 8, 1995 The applicant indicated their future plans only indicate antennas of five meters or less, the current antennas in place are 10 meters. Hearing no further comments, Al Robinson made a MOTION to Close the Public Hearing at 8:07 p.m. and was supported by Rick Gelbmann. All voted in favor. Motion carried. Mr. Mesich inquired if there are any concerns regarding noise. Ms. Wyland indicated the nearest neighbor would be approximately 700 feet away. Mr. Noren, the closest neighbor, indicated that Teleport has been a good neighbor and he has no concerns for the move. Ed Schones made a MOTION to approve application 95-29-C, Teleport (Communication Compound) Amended Conditional Use Permit with stated conditions and was supported by Al Robinson. All voted in favor. Motion carried. C. PUBLIC HEARING - 95-30-C, Amended Conditional Use Permit, Church of St. Joseph, 171 Elm Street Chair Schaps Opened the Public Hearing at 8:11 p.m. Planning Consultant Kirmis briefly reviewed the staff report regarding the request of St. Joseph Church for a conditional use permit amendment to allow a 35,000 square foot expansion to the existing church facility located east of Sunset Road between interstate 35W and Elm Street. Additionally, a variance from the City's accessory building ordinance to allow a structure larger than 1,100 square feet in an R-1 zoning district. Mr. Kirmis recommended approval of a conditional use permit amendment to allow the expansion of a church within an R-1 zone subject to the following conditions: a. The Anoka County Highway Department and City Engineer provide comment/recommendation in regard to the need for Elm Street improvements necessary to accommodate increased area traffic volumes. b. Consideration is given to the removal of the site's eastern most access point (east of the original church) to further limit access to a high volume roadway and rectify a jogged street intersection condition in the area. c. The site plan is modified to illustrate specific trash handling areas. All waste, refuse or garbage shall be kept in an enclosed building or container designed for such purposes. d. Consideration is given eliminating the row of parking stalls abutting Elm Street and devoting such area to green space. 5 PLANNING & ZONING BOARD NOVEMBER 8, 1995 e. The site plan is modified to illustrate exterior lighting locations. All lighting shall be hooded and directed so as not to infringe on neighboring residential uses and public rights-of-way. f. If any new signage is to be erected, a sign plan is submitted which specifies the location, type and size of all proposed signs. All site signage shall be required to comply with applicable provisions of the City Sign Ordinance. g. The submitted grading and drainage plan is subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. Such review should specifically address the need for drainage easement establishment over the site's ponding area. The applicant shall be required to demonstrate that the proposed development will have no wetland impact. h. The submitted utility plan is subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. Such review should specifically address details relating to septic system removal and well capping. i. The City Engineer and Anoka County Highway Department provide comment in regard to the proposed roadway easement acceptability. j The applicant demonstrate, through the submission of a building elevation(s) that the proposed accessory building complies with R-1 District height requirements (16 feet). k. The proposed accessory building is finished in materials judged by the City Building Inspector to be compatible with the site's principal structure. 1. Comments from other City staff. Mr. Kirmis also noted recommended approval of a variance to allow an accessory storage building within an R-1 zoning district to exceed 1,100 square feet in size subject to the following conditions: a. The City directed staff to pursue an ordinance amendment which addressed the greater accessory building needs of non-residential use (i.e. churches, parks, golf courses, schools, etc.) allowed in residential zoning districts. b. Comments of other City staff. Mr. Mesich expressed concern for allowing a variance, he inquired if the Board is required to establish all the six findings in regard to the variance approval. 6 PLANNING & ZONING BOARD NOVEMBER 8, 1995 Father LaVan, pastor of St. Joseph's, indicated the parish has grown to 1,700 families or approximately 5,000 members. He noted this plan has been on the table for the last 30 years. Chair Schaps inquired if the church would be looking for a new sign. Father LaVan indicated the current sign is more than adequate for their needs. Chair Schaps inquired if there were any regarding the conditions set by staff. Father not foresee any problems. Ms. Wyland noted that staff received a phone Mr. Larry Evans, a neighbor of St. Joseph's who concern for the increase in traffic on Second concerns LaVan did call from expressed Street. Mr. Clarence Schleicher, a member of the church board inquired if it would be permissible to use the well for watering of the grounds. Mr. Robinson noted the requirement for capping of the well would be only if the well is abandoned. Mr. Schleicher inquired as to the addition of green space mentioned by Mr. Kirmis. Mr. Kirmis noted this was only a suggestion if the church wished to reduce their parking. Mr. Robinson indicated this would be at the church's discretion. Mr. Mesich inquired if there were any concerns regarding setbacks. Mr. Kirmis indicated the church meets all setback requirements. Mr. Greg Peterson, architect, showed the Board a model of the project. He also indicated the trash would be screened by a masonry wall. Mr. Schaps inquired if there would be any concerns regarding the set conditions. Mr. Kopischke of Westwood Professionals, indicated they would be reducing the number of accesses from four to three and they do not anticipate any traffic problems. He noted there are no wetlands identified. If there were any concerns, they would be only minor questions that could be worked out with staff. Hearing no further public comments, Al Robinson made a MOTION to Close the Public Hearing at 8:35 p.m. and was supported by Ed Schones. All voted in favor. Motion carried. Mr. -Mesich noted it appeared that there was a trail located along the easement. Ms. Wyland indicated that was correct, there would be a trail along Elm. 7 PLANNING & ZONING BOARD NOVEMBER 8, 1995 Mr. Robinson expressed concern for eliminating access noted in condition "b". He felt this was a well used access during funerals. Mr. Kirmis noted staff felt it was an opportunity to eliminate an access onto a collector street. He noted again this was not a requirement, but a suggestion from staff. Mr. Mesich expressed concern for granting a variance without establishing all six findings of fact. Chair Schaps felt it was not a reasonable use of the property, without the ability to house their maintenance equipment. Mr. Mesich indicated that would be correct, but it was created by the owner of the land. Mr. Johnson felt since this was a church, the condition would be unique to this property. Chair Schaps felt it was not necessary for the Board to establish all six findings of fact. He felt it would be in keeping with the intent of the ordinance in granting the variance for the church in this case. Al Robinson made a MOTION to approve application 95-30-C, Church of St. Joseph, 171 Elm Street, Amended Conditional Use Permit with stated conditions a, c, and e through i as stated by staff and was supported by Guy Herr. All voted in favor. Motion carried. Guy Herr made a MOTION to approve application for Variance, allowing an accessory storage building within an R-1 zoning district to exceed 1,100 square feet in size subject to the stated conditions and was supported by Al Robinson. All voted in favor. Motion carried. D. PUBLIC HEARING - 95-31-Z, Rezoning, Esther Wenzel Noren, South of Aqua Lane, West of County Park, Rezone form GB to R3. Mr. Kirmis presented the staff report outlining the request to rezone +/- 7.0 acres of a 15 acre tract of land located south of Aqua Lane and east of Lake Drive from GB, General Business to R-3, Medium Density Residential. Chair Schaps momentarily relinquished the chair to Vice Chair Robinson at 8:50 p.m. Mr. Kirmis indicated City policy tends to discourage the proposed use. He would recommend this issue be tabled until the December meeting. Vice Chair Robinson relinquished the chair to Chair Schaps at 8:55 p.m. Chair Schaps Opened the Public Hearing at 8:56 p.m. 8 PLANNING & ZONING BOARD NOVEMBER 8, 1995 Mr. Kirk Corsan, representing the applicant indicated the applicant feels the proposed use would be a better use of the property and a good transition for the nearby area. Mr. Wessel expressed concern for rezoning and requested an opportunity for the Economic Development Advisory Board to review and forward comments to the Planning and Zoning Board. Mr. J.P. Houchins, member of the 20/20 Vision Community Group indicated the rezoning would reflect the opposite of the recommendations of the 20/20 Group. He expressed concern for the additional multiple family development. Ms. Wyland indicated she had received a phone call from the owner of land which Bastines leases who is opposed to the rezoning of this property. She also received a phone call from a resident on Lake Drive opposed to the rezoning. Al Robinson made a MOTION to continue the Public Hearing for application 95-31-Z, Rezoning, Esther Wenzel Noren, South of Aqua Lane, West of County Park, Rezone from GB to R3 until the December meeting and was supported by Tom Mesich. All voted in favor. Motion carried. E. PUBLIC HEARING - Metal Building Ordinance Economic Development Director Wessel requested that this item be tabled until further information could be provided to the Planning and Zoning Board. Chair Schaps Opened the Public Hearing at 9:05 p.m. Bill Johnson made a MOTION to continue the Public Hearing for Metal Building Ordinance until the December meeting and was supported by Rick Gelbmann. All voted in favor. Motion carried. F. 95-32-P, UDOR USA, 500 Apollo Drive, Minor Subdivision Planning Coordinator Wyland presented a staff report outlining the request for a minor subdivision. Ms. Wyland indicated staff would recommend approval of this minor subdivision with the condition that five feet be added to the existing 10 foot drainage and utility easement provided along the entire length of this 10 foot strip of property. Ed Schones made a MOTION to approve application 95-32-P, UDOR USA, 500 Apollo Drive, Minor Subdivision with the 9 PLANNING & ZONING BOARD NOVEMBER 8, 1995 stated condition and was supported by Tom Mesich. All voted in favor. Motion carried. G. 95-33-P, Fogerty/Custom Remodelers, 475 Apollo Drive, Minor Subdivision Planning Coordinator Wyland presented a staff report indicating the request of Fogerty Investment and Custom Remodelers for a minor subdivision to create a three acre parcel in the Apollo Business Park to allow the construction of an office/warehousing building. Ms. Wyland indicated staff recommends approval of the minor subdivision with a 5' utility and drainage easements on the side property lines. Al Robinson made a MOTION to approve application 95-33-P, Fogerty/Custom Remodelers, 475 Apollo drive, Minor Subdivision with the stated condition and was supported by Tom Mesich. All voted in favor. Motion carried. VI. DISCUSSION: Ms. Wyland indicated the Board received a letter from Ms. Janice Stemig that the 20/20 Advisory Group will have another meeting on November 20th if any of the Commissioners are interested in attending. The letter also provided an explanation for the concerns expressed by Mr. Schones at the previous P & Z meeting. VII. ADJOURNMENT: Tom Mesich made a MOTION to adjourn the meeting at 9:15 p.m. and was supported by Guy Herr. All voted in favor. Motion carried. 10 wTAFF ORIGINAL DATE TOPIC AGENDA ITEM V A Alan Brxius, NAC Decent 995 95-31-Z, Esther Noren, Rezone, Aqua CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING At its 8 November 1995 meeting, the Planning Commission tabh rezoning request pending the outcome of the following events: Cort dation by ED tan the request. Processing of the adjacent commercial zoning ap +ticat Staff investigation of any applicable FAA rest ns subject property. ne on tt a Noren nay apply to the EDAB Comments: At its 7 December meeting, EDAB recommended denial of the requested rezoning from a GB, General Business to an R-3, Medium Densty Residential designation. !t was generally concluded by EDAB that such rezoning without a specific Development request would be premature. Adjacent Zoning Application: The adjacent commercial rezoning application is scheduled for Planning Commission consideration on 13 December. It was originally re c ammended that the rezoning of the adjacent residentially zoned; l nd to a commercial zoning designation be considered as an equitable exchange for the down zoning of the Noren property. EDAB's recommendation of rezoning denial suggests that a rezoning of the adjacent property from a residential to commercial designation does not constitute a desirable condition. 5775 Wayzata Blvd.- Suite 555 • St. Louis Park. MN 55416 • (612) 595-9636•Fax. 595-9837 FAA Restrictions: While the Surfside Seaplane Base, which lies adjacent to the subject property, has been licensed with the State. Aeronautics Department for many years, the associated landing strip has not been formally licensed. According to Ken Patz of the Aeronautics Department, an inspection of the landing strip will be conducted in forthcoming days to determine whether the strip meets applicable FAA/State performance standards. When available, these findings will be forwarded to the City. In regard to future development adjacent to the private landing strip, the FAA imposes the following setback related requirements: 125 foot setback from runway centerline 200 foot setback from runway ends 20 to 1 approach may not be obstructed While the FAA does regulate !And use for "public" landing strips (i.e., prohibition of residential uses within certain proximity), such regulation is not imposed upon private strips. CONCLUSION In consideration of EDAB's recommendation on this matter, approval of the requested rezoning cannot at this time be recommended. As such, either denial of the request or a withdrawal of the request by the applicant would be in order. pc: Randy Schumacher 2 /di•A\,, NORTH IMMIIMiimiim=1•NNMERNI 1 MILE CITY OF LINO LAKES MINNESOTA AININIIMINIMIMMINninninInMUMNRIN EXHIBIT A - SITE LOCATION - - - - REHABIUTATIO GEORGE ,3• RESHANAU LAKE wp ' .r •• !- gm' MEM •Lses 1 mow ENEM 0 ;ALDW IN LAKE I Will 147412KIPCItn a EcstrA 4giv'+' i6t2:,,,, DS:,j.:' um env�� Si043. 14307 41013.g E P• SE • NONNI 4014 EXHIBIT B - DETAILED SITE LOCATION 3 TRIAL ••••=.8--. r 3p f 3 8 4 A. 4 D 3—. • - 1_ / 1 3 5 1 1 1 3 4 3. 7 IL 9 10 r 3 4 5 t ► St o:4 (. ciI N • J • • rum- 1 Lirt .1 1 • f.. YIEV • • .4r4 ]4Y( rr RESHANI EXHIBIT C - LAND USE PLAN 89°29 0 THERE ARE TWO .'UT BUILDINGS FROM 'IIE FARM THAT FALL (VER THIS LINE. 11 N 73°001 Actual Corner Falls in Old Wood Shed. NORTH LINE SOUTII 60.00 FEET GOVT LOT 2 SEC.20, T3IN-R22W. N 89°20125"W 1144.62 DEED = EAST -S89°20'257 1130.00 - - - DEED c l — N89°0e'19"W ? I o NLa tom:.. 3 :4-Q !, OO .J co 6 - CT) o i 1 LANE 2 .589°20'25"E 852.35` NORTH LINE GOVT LOT 3 (SOUTH LINE GOVT LOT 2) SEC. 20, T3IN - R22W. "3 to. co 1 0 rj 0 417.76 S89°46'02"W ¥ 2,0.00 S89°46'02°W Anoka Co. C.I.M. at East 1/9 Co,. Sec. 19, T31N-R22W (SW Cor. Grv't Lot 3 Sec. 20,T31N—R22W) \�. LOT •-- EXHIBIT 0 - CONCEPT PLAN AGENDA 'TEN V B STAFF ORIGINATOR DATE TOPIC Mary Kay Wyland January 10, 1996 95-32-Z, Roger Hokanson, Rezo Lake Drive, PUBLIC HEARING Mr. Hokanson has requested a rezone from R4 to GB for the property located on the north/east corner of Lake Drive and Aqua Lane. However, following a negative recommendation from the City's EDAB Board, Mr. Hokanson has asked that the item be tabled to allow him some time to develop a site plan• for the parcel of property and discuss the proposal with the adjoining property owners. For P & Z information our Planning Consultant's report is attached for your information. Staff would recommend that this item be continued to a later date following receipt of a site plan for the property and further review by EDAB. We would also advise the P & Z that the item will be republished at that time and notification sent to adjoining property owners as required by Ordinance. 1. Open and Close Public Hearing and republish at a later da 2. Continue Public Hearing to February P & Z Meeting. Close Public Hearing and republish upon submittal of site plan. /1.-?-// 315 CITY OF e0,0.7 'W a-1 14, 7 .C/a 4Ie/ -i ,tee / 77/C 7 / -' •4/ A'QI e a S U /l� / 4P 7// t ei/'U 7 %' 6' A.., /ey /'G -`e G, / U -7 f G i> / (%--, 47.7,--aG' f er f Pc 7 / �J� `;- r`_„f TUB'-� �I >L-/--0 L�/-c 1189 MAIN STREET, LINO LAKES, MINNESOTA 55014 612-464-5562 FAX: 612-464-4568 /7/9j -- Z h4 vc 74u w5.,K. (;vi, 04" v7 V t U � X40 r Y' GI c- A - A es,-, 6-, 4 — /3kJ,kcSJ. c& -w, ?earl 6/y YcJ �%ufilteJf / 4 w1/ lek � '"ejT� / -lc� n .r42. c ARfty 0n,e -S -e5/067/1- '1".04 ej7G6t r 'Kim 1 £(..(l'a'y J ; 't_ /� ,0t 9 /lb VCee,eS1�( ((b( yLt�t��14, '- 7/ 0 ••[G.St Yr a7 / 5 V Xe- i(GGlf/Jn /7 ` is oXv.(1 e ^lwc%. e -c J r, et -,k4 Jig Cr'`J J (2yy Fkc Northwest Associated Consultants, Inc. COMMUNITY PLANNING • DESIGN • MARKET RESEARCH PLANNING REPORT TO: Mary Kay Wyland FROM: Bob Kirmis/Alan Brixius DATE: 7 December 1995 RE: Lino Lakes - Hokanson Rezoning FILE NO: 194.01 - 95.06 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Background Mr. Roger Hokanson has submitted a request to rezone a ± 1.6 acre tract of land located north of Aqua Lane and e'astof Lake Drive from an R-4, High Density Residential to a GB, General Business District zoning designation. The subject property lies directly southwest of the recently approved Marshan Townhomes project. Attached for reference: Exhibit A - Site Location Exhibit B - Detailed Site Location Exhibit C - Land Use Plan Exhibit D - Marshan Townhome Development Plan Recommendation A change in zoning is considered a matter of City policy to be determined by City officials. While the possible expansion of the City's tax base is considered consistent with Comprehensive Plan policy, the fact that the actual use of the property is unknown at this time raises potential compatibility concerns with neighboring residential uses. In this regard, type and intensity of the anticipated commercial use bears heavily on the land use decision. If commercial land use is seen as appropriate for the site, the following processing options may be considered: 5775 Wayzata Blvd. • Suite 555 • St. Louis Park, MN 55416 • (612) 595-9636•Fax. 595-9837 A. Rezone the property to a commercial designation which holds less potential for adverse impact on adjacent properties (Le., NB, Neighborhood Business or LB, Limited Business). Such rezoning should be contingent upon an amendment to the City's Comprehensive Plan_ (Land Use Plan). B. Withhold action on the requested GB, General Business zoning designation until such time as a specific use is proposed for the property. Such action would allow the City to ensure land use compatibility. ISSUES ANALYSIS Existing Zoning. The subject property is currently zoned R-4, High Density Residential. The purpose of the R-4 District is to: Provide settings for multiple family housing in areas that have good thoroughfare access, have proper relationship to other uses and are accessible to major activity centers, recreation areas and shopping areas. As referenced in previous consideration of the Marshan Townhomes project, it is the applicant's intent to establish commercial uses upon the subject site. Because the existing R-4 zoning of the property does not accommodate such commercial uses, a GB, General Business zoning of the property has been requested. GB, General Business Zoning District. As noted previously, the applicant has requested a rezoning of the subject property to a GB, General Business designation. The purpose of the GB District is to provide a wide variety of business uses including retail, service, and semi -industrial uses which may serve other businesses and industries, as well as those catering to shoppers needs. The rezoning request has been made independent of an actual physical development application. As such, actual future use of the site is unknown and is limited to the permitted and conditional uses in the district. Considering that the subject site is (or will be) bounded on three sides by residential uses, the possible location of an auto repair, car wash, motor fuel station, etc. or similar intensity use raises genuine compatibility concerns. In recognition of this concern, the following processing options should be given consideration if commercial land use is deemed appropriate for the property: 1. Zoning of the property to a lower intensity commercial designation to provide a greater assurance of use compatibility. Specifically, an NB, Neighborhood Business or LB, Limited Business District designation should be considered. 2 2. Consider the rezoning of the property only at such time when a specific use has been proposed. Rezoning Evaluation Criteria. In consideration of rezoning requests, the possible adverse effects of the amendment should be considered. Generally speaking, the City Council and Planning Commission's judgement of the rezoning should be based upon, but not limited to, the following factors: 1. The proposed action's consistency with the specific policies and provisions of the official City Comprehensive Plan. 2. The proposed use's compatibility with present and future land uses of the area. 3. The proposed use's conformity with all performance standards contained herein (i.e., parking, loading, noise, etc.). 4. The proposed use's effect upon the area in which it is proposed. 5. The proposed use's impact upon property values of the area in which it is proposed. 6. Traffic generation of the proposed use in relation to capabilities of streets serving the property. 7 The proposed use's impact upon existing public services and facilities including parks, schools, streets, and utilities, and its potential to overburden the City's service capacity. Comprehensive Plan. As shown on attached Exhibit C, the proposed commercial use of the subject property is not consistent with the City's Land Use Plan which suggests multiple family residential use of the site. While the proposed commercial use is inconsistent with the City's Land Use Plan, several policies outlined in the plan would tend to support the proposed use as outlined below: • • Future community development shall take into account social, economic, and environmental opportunities and constraints in an effort to provide an optimal arrangement of future land use activities. Moderately intense development (residential, commercial and industrial) shall be encouraged to locate within Lino Lakes. The location of such land uses will be consistent with the availability of public facilities, thoroughfare accessibility and conformance with established adjacent land uses. 3 Where possible, land uses will be grouped together, according to similarity of their characteristics, in order to minimize potential negative impacts. Where conflicting land uses must be located adjacent to one another, steps will be taken to minimize the potential negative impacts. Urban development will be encouraged to locate within the areas of the community where public investments (streets, utilities, police and fire protection, parks, etc.) have already been provided to meet the needs of existing development. This policy will be promoted in an effort to maximize benefit from existing public investments. • Encourage integrated community or neighborhood based commercial centers to develop as service nodes and discourage strip development. While the preceding policies would tend to support the proposed land use, a change to the City's Land Use Plan would be necessary to justify such zone change. Compatibility. To determine the compatibility of the proposed use, it is further considered beneficial to examine existing and anticipated land uses which surround the subject property. The following is a listing of land uses and zoning designations which lie adjacent to the subject property: Direction Land Use Zoning North Multiple Family R-4 South Commercial GB East Multiple Family R-4 West Multiple Family R-3 As shown above, the subject site is bounded on the north, east, and west by multiple family residential development. Considering that actual use of the subject site is unknown at this time, some concern exists in regard to land use compatibility. Of particular concern is the array of uses allowed in the GB Zoning District which potentially could locate on the subject site. It must be realized that approval of the requested zone change essentially establishes that all permitted and conditional uses in the GB District would be acceptable upon the subject property including automobile repair and service stations type uses. 4 In recognition of these concerns, consideration should be given to either applying a less intensive commercial zoning designation to the property (i.e., NB, Neighborhood Business or LB, Limited Business) or postponing consideration until such time as a specific use is proposed. Performance Standards. As part of future processing and future development upon the subject site, all applicable City performance standards must be met. Property Values. Considering that commercial land uses typically generate a greater property tax return than multiple family residential uses, the proposed use is not expected to lower area property values. Traffic. Traffic generated by future commercial use of the subject site is believed to be within the capabilities of County Road 49 and Aqua Lane which serve the property. Public Services. As part of the rezoning consideration, findings should be made that the proposed use will not overburden the City's public service capacity. The subject site lies within the Metropolitan Urban Service Area. Commercial use of the subject property is not expected to overburden the City's service capacity. This item will be subject to review and recommendation by the City Engineer. CONCLUSION Decisions relating to land use appropriateness are considered matters of City policy to be determined by City officials. While a possible expansion of the City's tax base is generally consistent with Comprehensive Plan policy, the fact that the future use of the subject property is unknown at this time raises potential compatibility concerns. In recognition of such issues, consideration should be given to the processing options identified in the Executive Summary of this report. pc: Randy Schumacher 5 N O R T H 1 MILE CITY OF LINO LAKES MINNESOTA EXHIBIT A - SITE LOCATION EXHIBIT B - DETAILED SITE LOCATION t —4 owl. •••••• ONO IOW ...Mt. '0z 4 • NGLE r • z IZJ 4 5 IF ...•...•. ...... • . • . 4 RESN EXHIBIT C - LAND USE PLA, 7. 1 / gi . 1/4 p • / T. 11 // / 3.0 ACRE PARK . 1' • • coo.. 'wt„ pr) LEr I / / r • ;--, CW11.4 .4,404 L • -1 /11 s !/ SUBJECT SITE 'tw -- 111. • -• CIAO • 0.1i10. 08•C•Kt . . - A LAN.' BTA t ` ORIGINAT1 DATE TOPIC Mary Kay Wyland January 5, 1994 o NNA 96-1-S & V, Anoka County Corrections, 7555 4th -' Avenue, Site Plan Review and Variance 9 o tqA1 Lt i RR c` . Pi Anoka County would like to construct a 36 bed Juvenile Detention Center, approximately 10,664 square feet in area, on its property at 7555 4th Avenue (south/west corner of Lilac and 4th Avenue). The building will be used to secure and hold violent juvenile offenders. The site currently contains two (2) juvenile detention cottages, a juvenile shelter, and a 60 bed medium secure facility for adult county prisoners (workhouse). The new County Project Description is as follows: The new building will be west of the existing shelter. A secure connection to the shelter will allow dual use of She existing gym. The Juvenile Shelter will get food ervice from the State prison, just s the County Juvenile Center does now. Visitors to the building will park south of the building along with the staff. Sanitary sewer and water will connect to nearby utilities. Storm water will be directed to an existing pond which Will be enhanced. Perimeter walls will be built of solid reinforced concrete masonry. The exterior of the building will have earth tone colors that will complement the existing adjacent cottages and match the Juvenile Center, and have a heavy landscape tree buffer to the north (much of it is existing). Each entrance will be secured by remote controlled doors and sally ports. The required outdoor recreation areas will have tight -meshed chain link material with a sloped top so as to be unclimbable. No "razor ribbon" will be used. The facility will be licensed by the State Department of Corrections and meet their standards for security. The center is part of a state-wide expansion of juvenile detention beds funded by the State of Minnesota. The City's Police Department has several concerns regarding security and use of the facility. They will be meeting with County Corrections staff in the immediate future to discuss these concerns. County Corrections staff will also be present at the P & Z meeting to answer any questions concerning the proposed use. The pkoperty is Zoned PSP, Public/Semi-Public, and the Zoning Ordinance provides that "all public buildings for county and state government" are permitted uses. The site is approximately ten (10) acres in size and owned by Anoka County. The State of Minnesota owns the balance of this quarter section or roughly 150 acres. In addition to a site plan review, the Planning & Zoning Board is being asked to approve a 5' side yard variance. Our Zoning Ordinance requires a 10' setback. According to Beutow and Associates, architects for the County, the proposed building must be located as shown on the site plan, 5' from the side property line for the following reasons: 1. A secure connection must be provided between the proposed building and the adjacent juvenile center to allow access to the gymnasium. The buildings must remain separate buildings with spacing determined by the Uniform Building Code. Therefore, the buildings can not be moved closer together or located elsewhere on the site. 2. The building size is the smallest possible that meets State Department of Corrections approval and State of Minnesota Building Codes Division approvals. 3. Acquisition of additional property from the State of Minnesota was suggested, however, any purchase would require legislation action which cannot be facilitated in a timely manner. 4. The Department of Corrections, who approve work at the State Prison and County Campus, has agreed to the 5' setback and variance and additionally indicated that they would never construct a facility within 40' of the new juvenile building. 5. The State Building Code Division has also given their approval to the 5' setback based on the noncombustible construction type of the proposed structure. According to the County's Architect, the hardship involved in this variance request is due to the tight site, special operational requirements, cost containment, and the fast track of the construction schedule. For Planning & Zoning Board information, the following findings of fact must be considered in the review of a variance request: a) That the property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls. b) That the plight of the landowners is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the land owner. c) That the hardship is not due to economic considerations alone and when a reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the ordinance. 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. e) That the proposed actions will not unreasonably diminish or impair established property values within the neighborhood. f) That the proposed actions will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance. The Planning & Zoning Board, and City Council must determine if it is reasonable to request that the County acquire an additional 5' of property from the State. This would eliminate the need for a variance which may not meet the requirements stipulated by our Zoning Ordinance and State Statute as outlined above. In regard to the site plan review: Setbacks: The proposed building meets the front and rear setback requirements as outlined by the Zoning Ordinance. A 5' variance is required on the side setback. Building Height: A maximum height of 45' is allowed according to the Zoning Ordinance. The proposed structure will be within that requirement Green Area: Adequate green area has been provided, the Ordinance provides for 35%. Landscaping/Buffering: A landscape plan has been provided which indicates plantings at the entrance to the building. A large grove of evergreen trees will screen the building from Lilac Road. The County has indicated, to the State, that if any trees are removed during construction they will be replaced by a 4" diameter tree. In addition, the County will be installing an 8' high wood fence to separate the County Juvenile site from the State Adult Facility, at the request of the State. Aesthetic Compatibility: The proposed structure will be constructed of face brick and stucco to match the existing shelter with brown tinted glass. The building will be substantially screened from the east by the existing juvenile shelter. Off -Street Parking: 18 Parking Stalls, including two handicapped spaces, shall be provided south of the proposed new construction. Additional parking is also provided elsewhere on the site and via contract with the State Correctional Facility. Circulation and Access: Access to the site will be provided from 4th Avenue through the State Correctional Facility entrances. Loading and Trash: A trash enclosure will be provided south of the proposed structure. Lighting: A lighting schedule has been provided which illustrates the area surrounding the proposed building. However, staff has expressed concern regarding area lighting on adjacent City Streets/County Roads - 4th Avenue, Lilac and Apollo Drive. As a condition of approval, staff would suggest the County be required to install street lights on 4th Avenue, Lilac and Apollo Drive to adequate light the vicinity in response to the use of the proposed and existing structures and to enhance the safety of the surrounding neighborhoods. Signs: Signage locations have been indicated on the site plan. We would advise the application that sign permits will be required for any signage. Utilities, grading and drainage: Plans relating to utilities, grading and drainage shall be subject to the review and approval of the City Engineer. City sewer and water are available to serve this site from 4th Avenue. In summary, staff would recommend approval of the site plan with the following conditions: 1. Proper building permits this building permit shall by the City Engineer. 2. Proper sign permits sh installation. 3. Final utility, drainage and grading plans shall be approved by the City Engineer. 4. The parking area shall be provided with a hard surface with concrete curb and gutter surrounding all access drives and parking areas. 5. Existing Screening shall be maintained along Lilac Drive. 6. The County shall provide additional street lighting on 4th Avenue, Lilac Drive and Apollo Drive as determined by the City Engineer in conjunction with the Police Chief. be obtained prior to construction, include utility fees as calculated all be obtained prior to any sign OPTIONS 1. Approve site plan review with conditions outlined above and approve 5' variance. 2. Approve site plan review with conditions outlined above and deny 5' variance. 3. Other COMMENDATION ............................................. .............................................. 1 or 2 January ., 1996 /Pi/4' Matal Building Crdanbe - C3►1TINUATION �/ UBLIC` H RIN t i K Economic Development Director has r ested that this items be ici o crated into a general review of the Zoning d ha 'update. He. has been advised that this review should be Mete the end of February with a Public Hearing scheduled for Mire ordinance in February or March. Mr. Wessel will der the P & Z Board at an miming work session when the sue an �revir section of the ordinance is considered for review. Staff would,therefore/ recommend that the Public Hearing on the Metal Building Ordinance be closed.` Aa ITi V E Mary Kay d, January 5, .: 19 9 & Animan Cts + 2'I TI t3AT OF PUBLIC HEARING int ►November 19 5 meeting of the Planning & Zt ii Board, it was deer fined that a comm t ee c interested citizens would meet to discuss the proposed ord ance. Thin meeting bas tentatively been scheduled for Thursday, January 1 , 199 �, at 6:00 P.M. Staff would r amend that the Public Hearin' 0 the Animal Ordinance be ed to the February meeting of the P &` Z to allow the itee ties to report back to the Board.