HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/09/1994 P&Z PacketCITY OF LINO LAKES
PLANNING & ZONING BOARD
AGENDA
November 9, 1994
6:30 P.M.
Sexikketo
I. Call to Order and Roll Call:
II. Approval of Minutes:
June 8, 1994
III. Approval of Agenda - Changes/Additions
IV. OPEN MIKE:
V. ACTION ITEMS:
A. 94-27-S, Hardwood Creek Farm, 2306 80th Street,
Site Plan Review
B. 94-28-P, Kevin McLevish, 6880 Rustic Lane,
Subdivision
C. CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING: Clearwater
Creek, Otter Lake Road and Cedar Street, Rezoning
and Preliminary Plat
VI. DISCUSSION ITEMS:
,A. Non -conforming Use Ordinance Revision
C Two Principal Uses on one lot
VII. ADJOURNMENT:
STAPP ORIGINATOR
DATE
TOPIC
Mary Kay Wyland
November 4, 1994
CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING
Clearwater Creek - Preliminary Plat and
Rezoning
Please efer to Staff
Zoning $Ieetng.
For your information I
packet.;
Report from September 14, 1994 Planning and
have included the following material in your
1. Phasing Plan and Letter of John Powell regarding Phasing.
2. Site Plan of Phase I and II
3. Letter from the Superintendent of the White Bear School
District.
4. Letter from adjoining property owner indicating support for
the proposed development.
5. Resolution No. 94-04 from the City's Economic Development
Advisory Board supporting the proposed development.
NOV-03-44 'THU " 05:31 ' PM
'412,1A411T
ON MOW
TONY EMM N,R i CH HOMES -~----
November 3. 1994
City of Lino Lakes
1189 Main Street
Lino Lakes, MN 55014
A`rTN: John Powell
We have reviewed our plans for Clearwater Creek and it appears
that we would be able to provide a corridor for truck sewer and
water needs to the industrial area to north of Clearwater Creek
through Phase 111 of our sketch plan.
have included a phasing plan based oo tudays best estimate on
how we would propose to proceed. Our phasing plan is for
reference but we need the latitude to bring phases on line iri a
different sequence if economic conditions should dictate. We
would like Phase I to have 86 lots on line in early 1995 and
would expect permits to be pulled on between 40 and 50 lots in
the calendar year 1995. we would hope to see approximately 75
permits on a average year and we would proceed to our next phase
when approximately 60 % of our lots were sold in. each phase_
1 hope this clarifies some questions that were raised.
S` c rely,
Ant 4,--7,;;;,7;;;-
Enciosed
is a chart furnished to the park commission to address
park needs.
2619 Coon Rapids Blvd., Suite 201, Goon Rapids, MN 55433
'®3
CLEARWATER CREEK
PHASING
TOTAL UPLAND PARK
PHASE LOTS AREA AREA DENSITY UPLAND WETLAND
(acres) (acres) (units/ac) (acres) (acres)
1 86 92.8 49.4 0.9 4.3 39.1
2 67 27.8 27.8 2.4 0.3 0
3 46 24 21 1.9 1.9 1.1
4 80 57.6 32.3 1.4 24.5 0.8
5 71 51 34 1.4 6.6 10.4
6 69 47 31.6 1.5 3.0 12.4
TOTALS 423 300.2 195.8 1.4 40.6 63.8
FUTURE LOTS = + 114
PHASES 3 THROUGH 6 ARE FROM THE SITE SKETCH PLAN AND ARE
APPROXIMATE IN SIZE AND LOCATION.
624 WHITE BEAR LAKE
1' AREA PUBLIC SCHOOLS Independent School District No. 624
THEODORE S. BLAESING, PH.D.
Superintendent
October 25, 1994
Ms. Mary Kay Wyland
Planning Coordinator
City of Lino Lakes
1189 Main Street
Lino Lakes, MN 55014
Dear Ms. Wyland:
I am in receipt of your letter dated October 13, 1994, in which you describe a proposed
development within the City of Lino Lakes and within the White Bear Lake School
District No. 624. We are very appreciative of your informing us of this proposed
development as we constantly attempt to monitor proposed housing growth
patterns within our school district. Our district, as a matter of policy, does not
support or oppose development issues within the various municipalities whose
boundaries are within District 624's boundary. We have anticipated that at some
point growth would occur in the north part of the school district. Though we have
no definite plans at this time, we have discussed the need for a potential school site
or multiple school sites in the north part of the school district if development were
to occur in this area.
Please contact my office if we can provide additional information concerning this
development or other planned developments in the future.
Sincerely yours,
heodore S. Blaen
Superintendent
3554 White Bear Avenue North • White Bear Lake, Minnesota 55110-5418 • (612) 773-6101 • Fax (612) 773-6017
To: The Lino Lakes City Council
From: Mark and Darla Lowell
9-6-94
111 WWI UMW=
It has come to our attention that the Council will be
considering a purposed development for Tony Emmerick of Semler
Homes located southeast of 35 involving our property and the
easement that borders our property.
As many of you know, we are very familiar with our property's
potential and the adjoining properties as we were involved a
few years back in trying to subdivide. At that time we had
feasibility studies done and went through a lengthy and costly
process that ended in frustration and hard feelings with
neighbors. That a side, we knew that someday the property
would be a good area for development being it falls into
the White Bear School district and is naturally hilly and
wooded.
We wanted to go on record that we would support Mr.
Emmericks project and work with him as needed. As the
Council reviews the project you will see that we own a key
piece to it's access and the feasibility study we had done
shows a need because of wetlands to reroute the existing easement
onto our property. We wanted you to know we are aware of this
and would be cooperative in trying to satisfy and compromise
until everyone involved needs are met.
If you have any questions or concerns please feel free
to contact us at 429-3339. We feel we have been informed
appropriately and are very knowledgeable about the properties
involved.
6559 24th .Ave.
White Bear Lake, MN. 55110
Sincerely,
Mark E. Lowell
Darla T. Lowell
Chairman of the Economic Development Authority Advisory Board Brian Wessel
introduced the following resolution. Board member //f,'z/,_,tf,",,Jmoved its adoption:
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ADVISORY BOARD
RESOLUTION NO. 94-04
RESOLUTION FROM THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ADVISORY
BOARD SUPPORTING RESIDENTIAL HOUSING GROWTH EAST OF I -35E AS AN
ESSENTIAL COMPONENT TO THE ECONOMIC HEALTH OF THE CLEARWATER
CREEK DEVELOPMENT CENTER
WHEREAS, The City of Lino Lakes has made a commitment to economic development
in the eastern portion of the City known as the Clearwater Creek Development Center;
WHEREAS, The Economic Development Authority Advisory Board recognizes that
residential housing opportunities are an economic catalyst to the growth of
commercial and industrial development in the Clearwater Creek Development Center;
WHEREAS, the development of residential properties to the south of the designated
Economic Development District will provide an impetus for much needed utility
extensions and road improvements to the Light Industrial and General Business zoned
area,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY ADVISORY BOARD OF LINO LAKES, MINNESOTA:
1. The Economic Development Authority Advisory Board supports the housing
development known as the Emmerich Development east of I -35E and south of Cedar
Street.
Adopted by the Economic Development Authority Advisory Board on this , j day
of ----A,'.. z.,, , 1994.
J
Mary LaFor'est, Assistant
1ltM W&we1
Brian Wessel, Chairman
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Board
Member and upon vote being taken, thereon, the following voted
against same:
Whereupon said resolution was declared passed and adopted.
STAFF ORIGINATOR Al Brixius/Mary Kay Wyland
DATE November 4, 1994
TOPIC Non -Conforming Use Ordinance Revision
Two Principal Uses on One Lot
Attached please find a memo from Al Brixius concerning a Non-
Conforming Use Ordinance Revision.
The Economic Development Advisory Board has reviewed the item and
would comment that an expansion of something less than 50% would
seem more appropriate. They also agreed with a "one-time only"
expansion limitation as suggested by staff.
I have also enclosed a copy of a portion of the Zoning Ordinance,
Subd. 5 Lot Provisions. (2) "More than one principal structure per
lot...." Staff is recommending that nor more than one principal
use be allowed in any zoning district except with a PDO. Mr.
Brixius will be prepared to discuss this matter with the Planning
and Zoning Board.
The EDAB also discussed this item and concurred that an ordinance
revision would seem appripriate for all residential areas.
Regarding commercial areas, the preliminary planning process has
been adequate to handle any multiple use concerns and they did not
recommend that commercial properties be included in this ordinance
revision.
and/or effect causes a disturbance to the
neighborhood, such as noise, parking, traffic,
etc.
(iv) Home Occupations which create a need for more
than three(3) parking spaces at any given time
in addition to the parking spaces required by
the occupants shall not be permitted.
(2) Rural Districts:
(A) Home occupations carried on in the R and R -X
Districts and on lots which are ten (10) acres in
size or larger may be allowed to operate within the
principal structure or permitted accessory
structure.
(B) Permitted agricultural uses in the R and R1X
Districts (and when found to be in conformance with
all other provisions of this Ordinance) need not
meet the provisions of this subdivision.
Subd. 5. Lot Provisions.
(1) Any lot of record existing at the effective date of this
ordinance may be used for the erection of a structure if
it conforms with the use regulations of the district in
which it is located provided it satisfies all other
appropriate provisions of this Ordinance and has frontage
on a public right-of-way.
(2) More than one principal structure per lot may be allowed
in planned developments, and any zoning district except
R-1, R -1X, R-2, R-7 and NB zones provided that all
performance standards and appropriate provisions of this
ordinance are met for the designated land use zoning
district.
(3)
The minimum lot area and width requirements established
in this ordinance shall be as follows:
A. For zoning districts with a minimum lot size
requirement of less than 10 acres.
"X" square feet. This minimum lot area requirement
excludes all areas within the lot which are platted
as street right-of-way or is below the 100 year
flood elevation".
B. For zoning districts with a minimum lot size
City of Lino Lakes Zoning Ordinance
ADOPTED 7/13/92
25
STAFF ORIGINATOR
DATE
TOPIC
G
.......RO...........
..................
AGENDA ITEM VI A & B
Al Brixius/Mary Kay Wyland
November 4, 1994
Non -Conforming Use Ordinance Revision
Two Principal Uses on One Lot
Attached please find a memo from Al Brixius concerning a/Non-
Conforming Use Ordinance Revision.
The Economic Development Advisory Board has reviewed the i m and
would comment that an expansion of something less than 50 would
seem more appropriate. They also agreed with a "one-tim only"
expansion limitation as suggested by staff.
I have also enclosed a copy of a portion of the Zoning Ordinance,
Subd. 5 Lot Provisions. (2) "More than one principal structure per
lot...." Staff is recommending that nor more than one principal
use be allowed in any zoning district except with a PDO. Mr.
Brixius will be prepared to discuss this matter with the Planning
and Zoning Board.
The EDAB also discussed this item and concurred that an ordinance
revision would seem appripriate for all residential areas.
Regarding commercial areas, the preliminary planning process has
been adequate to handle any multiple use concerns and they did not
recommend that commercial properties be included in this ordinance
revision.
f) -J
Northwest Associated Consultants, Inc.
URBAN PLANNING • DESIGN • MARKET RESEARCH
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mary Kay Wyland
FROM: Bob Kirmis/Alan Brixius
DATE: 1 November 1994
RE: Lino Lakes - Zoning Ordinance:
Non -Conforming Uses
FILE NO: 194.02 - 94.17
BACKGROUND
At the last meeting of the Planning and Zoning Board, Ms. Michelle Whitney spoke under "open
mike" regarding a potential variance request. Specifically, Ms. Whitney is considering a
variance to allow a 500 square foot expansion to her garage located north of I -35E and west of
Lake Drive. The variance is necessary to allow the expansion of a non -conforming use (single
family dwelling) in an NB, Neighborhood Business Zoning District.
The Planning and Zoning Board was not favorable to giving a variance of this type, without a
demonstration of a clear, unique hardship due to concern for establishing an undesirable
precedent. Recognizing that Ms. Whitney's situation was unique within the City, the Planning
and Zoning Board was willing to consider a zoning text amendment to allow some expansion of
non -conforming single family homes.
Attached for reference:
Exhibit A - Site Location
Exhibit B - Draft Zoning Ordinance Amendment
Exhibit C - Michelle Whitney Letter
5775 Wayzata Blvd. • Suite 555 • St. Louis Park, MN 55416 • (612) 595-9636•Fax. 595-9837
ISSUES ANALYSIS
Zoning. The subject property is zoned NB, Neighborhood Business which is intended to
provide for the establishment of local businesses which deal directly with the daily requirements
of the immediate neighborhood. Because the district does not make an allowance for single
family residential dwellings, Ms. Whitney's home is considered a legal non -conforming use.
As a legal non -conforming use, the single family residential land use can continue to exist on
the site in the same size and manner as it existed at the time the property was zoned NB,
Neighborhood Business.
Of initial consideration in Ms. Whitney's request is the appropriateness of the existing NB
zoning classification and whether such zoning is consistent with the City's long term planning
objectives for the area. It should be noted that the NB zoning of the property is consistent with
the City's Land Use Plan which suggests commercial use of the property in question.
If the City believes the existing commercial zoning of the property is inappropriate, change in
the City's Land Use Plan and a rezoning of the property to a residential designation would likely
resolve this issue.
If on the other hand, the City determines that the commercial zoning of the property is based
on sound planning principles and reflects the City's desired long range use of the property, the
City's non -conforming use provisions must be considered valid and should be enforced.
Non -Conforming Use. The intent and purpose of Section 4, Subd. 3, Non -Conforming Uses
and Structures of the Lino Lakes Zoning Ordinance is to phase out non -conforming land use and
facilitate their redevelopment to implement the City's ultimate land use goals. With this
objective in mind, the non -conforming use zoning standard prevents use expansion or substantial
investment in non -conforming properties to assist with their development.
According to Section 4, Subd. 3.(a) of the Zoning Ordinance, alterations may be made to a
structure containing non -conforming residential units when they will improve the livability
thereof, provided they will not increase the number of dwelling units or expand the existing
build of structure. While it is believed this provision includes a grammatical error, it is
understood to mean that the degree of non -conformity cannot be expanded.
This performance standard allows for some alteration of a non -conforming structure, such as a
building in the proper zoning district that does not conform to required setbacks. This section
would not accommodate Ms. Whitney's request. Because the proposed garage addition would
represent an expansion of the residential use (non -conformity), such expansion is not currently
allowed by Ordinance. The obvious intent of this provision is to perpetuate the phasing out of
the residential use of the property.
2
Ordinance Amendment. If the City wishes to accommodate Ms. Whitney's request, an
alternative to the processing of a variance request would be to amend the non -conforming use
section of the Zoning Ordinance to allow the limited expansion of a non -conforming single
family residential use.
For discussion purposes, a draft amendment to the Zoning Ordinance has been prepared which
would make an allowance for the expansion of a non -conforming single family use (see exhibit
B). In review of the draft amendment (attached), please note that such an allowance would be
allowed via conditional use permit subject to a number of conditions.
CONCLUSION
First and foremost, the City must determine whether the existing NB, Neighborhood Business
zoning classification of the Whitney property is appropriate and reflects the City's long term land
use goals for the area.
If the existing zoning is found to be appropriate, the City must decide whether it wishes to make
an allowance for the expansion of non -conforming single family residential use in commercial
or industrial zoning districts, thus perpetuating their continued use.
The attached draft amendment would allow the expansion of a non -conforming single family use
as a conditional use permit subject to the satisfaction of a number of conditions. The
amendment is preliminary in nature and may be discussed in greater detail at the forthcoming
meeting of the Planning and Zoning Board.
pc: Randy Schumacher
Bill Hawkins
Pete Kluge'
3
IAMEMEMBIENN
manti
al!
S T•i•/
ESTA7tS• t •
•;; VIEW !+i
!,
4
2
GEORGE
MARSHAN LAKE
t-
EXHIBIT A - SITE LOCATION
DRAFT - DRAFT - DRAFT
CITY OF LINO LAKES
COUNTY OF ANOKA
STATE OF MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO.
AN AMENDMENT TO THE LINO LAKES ZONING ORDINANCE TO ALLOW LIMITED
EXPANSION OF LAWFUL, NON -CONFORMING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
STRUCTURES.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LINO LAKES ORDAINS:
Section 1. Section 4, Subd. 3 (Non -Conforming Uses and Structures) of the Zoning
Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
Subd. 3. Non -Conforming Uses and Structures.
(1) Any structure or use lawfully existing upon the effective date of this Ordinance
may be continued at the size and in a manner of operation existing upon such date
except as hereinafter specified.
(2) No structural alterations shall be made, except as allowed tinder Section 4, Su c _
(,} and (9) of this Ordinance.:
G$
(lb�
When any lawful non -conforming use of any structure or land in any district has
been changed to a conforming use, it shall not thereafter be changed to any non-
conforming use.
(3)
(4) Whenever a non -conforming structure shall have been damaged by fire, flood,
explosion, earthquake, war, riot, or act of God, it may be reconstructed and used
as before if it be reconstructed within twelve (12) months after such calamity,
unless the damage to the structure is seventy-five percent (75 %) or more of its
fair market value (as estimated by City Council or its representatives), in which
case the reconstruction shall be for a use in accordance with the provisions of this
Ordinance.
(5)
Whenever a lawful, non -conforming use of a building or structure or land is
discontinued for a period of one (1) year, any future use of said building or
structure or land shall be in conformity with the provisions of this Ordinance.
(6) Any non -conforming use of open land, that is use of land without buildings,
lawfully existing upon the effective date of this Ordinance may be continued for
EXHIBIT B - DRAFT ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT
(7)
a period of three (3) years after the effective date of this Ordinance, whereupon
such non -conforming use shall cease.
Normal maintenance of a building or other structure containing or related to a
non -conforming use is permitted, including necessary repairs and incidental
alterations which do not extend or intensify the non -conforming use.
(8) A lawful non -conforming use may be changed only to a use that decreases its
non -conformity.
(9)
Alterations may be made to a structure containing non -conforming residential
units when they will improve the livability thereof, provided they will not
.;:rmi yof estin
increase the number of dwellingunits oro: g.�°<struet
•noii confpnniri6. single fam y resiccentIat ,
ty: zhe eof as a. conditional. use•provic ed;tha
On rave t ......
_. 'he proposed �xpan ion does not increase the size of the non-conforr g
amore pian fifty )percent .tee sten
r ctwe : mprovemeht•be itni c
scent of ma•
rket�alue of the prop
County Assessflr
)erformance standards applicable t
rovisions of ection 5, Subd
satisfactt� y n]et.::
of>tbis•Ordinance ate consi
.:171CtWO.
..............
ATI
Section 3. This Ordinance shall take effect upon its passage and publication according
to the City Charter.
PASSED this day of
ATTEST:
1994.
Vernon F. Reinert, Mayor
Marilyn G. Anderson, City Clerk
2
tYr
NOTE: Michelle Whitney is requesting to speak under Open Mike.
Her property is located in a Neighborhood Business Zoning
District and is considered a pre-existing non -conforming
use. No structural alterations are allowed. She would
like to construct an addition to her garage for a total
of 960 square feet. The existing garage is 460 square
feet.
I have discussed this item with Ms. Whitney and advised
her that a variance request would receive a negative
staff report. She has contacted the Mayor and a few
Council people who encouraged her to come before the P &
Z under Open Mike to see if the P & Z may be receptive to
her request. She would like some input before deciding
whether or not to go ahead and request the variance or
abandon the project.
The property in question is approximately two lots north
of a possible realignment of Apollo Drive (Lilac) at Lake
Drive.
EXHIBIT C - MICHELLE WHITNEY LETTER
0
190 g4'
f\Actiir\or4,
0-Y\-12-. roof'
Trovct-
\ (pt(
I\ev) dcovs