Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/14/2018 P&Z Packet CITY OF LINO LAKES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MEETING Wednesday, November 14, 2018 6:30 p.m. Council Chambers Please be courteous and turn off all electronic devices during the meeting. AGENDA 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: October 10, 2018 4. OPEN MIKE 5. ACTION ITEMS A. PUBLIC HEARING: West Shadow Lake Drive Rezoning B. PUBLIC HEARING: 1288 Main Street and 1325 Main Street-Conditional Use Permit for Commercial Stables C. 111 Robinson Drive-Variance for Curb Cut/Driveway Width D. 47 Gladstone Drive-Variance for Roofing Materials 6. DISCUSSION ITEMS A. 2040 Comprehensive Plan Update Discussion: Proposed Mixed Use and Density Changes B. All Seasons Rental Project Update C. Project Updates 7. ADJOURN Meeting guidelines on reverse side. City of Lino Lakes Planning & Zoning Board MEETING GUIDELINES Open Mike – The purpose of a Board Meeting is to accomplish the business of the city. When presenting at a meeting please remember to be respectful, and follow these guidelines: • Please address the meeting chair. • State your name and address for the record. • Please observe a 4-minute limit. • The topic must relate to city business. • Open Mike is for items not on the agenda. • A spokesperson must represent a group of five or more – groups will have 8 minutes. • The Presiding Officer may limit duplicative presentations. • Remember, the meeting is to discuss city business only. Public Hearing - Held as a separate item of business on the agenda. The public hearing segment is your opportunity to tell the Board how you feel about issues scheduled to be heard. Typically, a hearing follows these steps: • The Presiding Officer (Chair or Vice-Chair) will announce the proposal to be reviewed and ask for the staff report. The presiding Officer shall maintain strict order and etiquette at all meetings. • Staff will present their report on the proposal. • Board members will then ask City Staff questions about the proposal. • The Presiding Officer will then open up the public hearing for anyone present who wishes to comment on the proposal. This is the time for the public to make comments or ask questions about the proposal. Comments should be limited to four (4) minutes unless further time is granted by the Presiding Officer. All comments should be directed to the Board as a body and not to any individual Board Member or City Staff Member unless permission is granted by the Presiding Officer. No person shall be permitted to enter into any discussion, either directly or through a member of the Board without the permission of the Presiding Officer. • After everyone in the audience wishing to speak has given his/her comments, the Presiding Officer shall close the public hearing. • The Board will then discuss the proposal. No further public comments are allowed. • The Board will then make a recommendation(s) and/or a decision. When you are called upon for your comments, please step to the microphone at the podium and state your name and address for the record. Occasionally, the Board may continue a hearing to another meeting before taking action. Meeting Etiquette The Planning & Zoning Board must preserve order and decorum while the meeting is in session. A resident shall not, by conversation or otherwise, delay or interrupt the proceedings or the business of the Board, nor disturb any resident or Board Member while speaking or refuse to obey the orders of the Board. DRAFT MINUTES CITY OF LINO LAKES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MINUTES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MEETING I. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL: Chair Tralle called the Lino Lakes Planning and Zoning Board meeting to order at 6:30 P.M. on October 10, 2018. II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA The Agenda was approved as presented. III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Mr. Laden made a MOTION to approve the September 12, 2018 Meeting Minutes with changes. Motion was supported by Mr. Stimpson. Motion carried 6 - 0. IV. OPEN MIKE Chair Tralle declared Open Mike at 6:32 P.M. There was no one present for Open Mike. Mr. Evenson made a MOTION to close Open Mike at 6:33 P.M. Motion was supported by Mr. Laden. Motion carried 5 - 0. V. ACTION ITEMS DATE : October 10, 2018 TIME STARTED : 6:30 P.M. TIME ENDED : 8:33 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT : Perry Laden, Neil Evenson, Michael Root, Jeremy Stimpson, Michael Ruhland, Paul Tralle, Sue Peacock STAFF PRESENT : Katie Larsen, Michael Grochala, Mara Strand, Ryan Saltis Planning & Zoning Board October 10, 2018 Page 2 DRAFT MINUTES A. PUBLIC HEARING: I-35E Corridor Comprehensive Plan Amendment Kendra Lindahl, Landform, presented the staff report and described the proposed changes. • Three changes from the 2030 Land Use Plan: o 599.23 acres will be reclassified from Urban Reserve to Business Campus, Commercial and Industrial on the 2030 Future Land Use Map o 278.1 acres will be reclassified from Commercial, Industrial and Medium Density Residential to Business Campus on the Full Build Out Future Land Use Map o A new Business Campus Land Use category will be created • Two changes to the 2030 Staging Plan: o 226.53 acres will be changed from Stage 2A Planned Service Area to Stage 1B Planned 3 Service Area on the Utility Staging Map o 599.23 acres will be changed from Stage 3 Planned Service Area to Stage 1B Planned Service Area on the Utility Staging Map Mr. Evenson asked for clarification between the new business category and commercial industrial. Staff explained that industrial is manufacturing and commercial is office and retail. Business park designation is high quality, higher level design, intended to be employment centers and technology centers. The intent is transitional. Chair Tralle opened the public hearing at 6:41 P.M. There was no public comment. Mr. Laden made a MOTION to close the Public Hearing. Motion was supported by Mr. Evenson. Motion carried 6-0. Mr. Stimpson made a MOTION to recommend approval of the I-35E Corridor Comprehensive Plan Amendments. Motion was supported by Ms. Peacock. Motion carried 6-0. Mr. John Houle, 7643 Edgewood, Mounds View, MN who owns land on 80th and 35E (PIN 01-31-22-43-0002) approached the board after the hearing was closed and requested an opportunity to speak regarding the Comprehensive Plan amendment. Mr. Houle, questioned what impact this change would have on his property taxes and whether he could put up a billboard on the property. Mr. Grochala stated that this will not have an impact on property taxes. The property is currently zoned rural business reserve, and the land use change will not effect this. Mr. Grochala also noted that off-premise signs such as a billboard are not allowed in the city. B. Watermark PUD Final Plan/Final Plat Planning & Zoning Board October 10, 2018 Page 3 DRAFT MINUTES Katie Larsen, City Planner, presented the staff report. Mr. Stimpson asked if there was concern around Lennar’s financial standpoint. Ms. Larsen explained that similar comments have been echoed at Council level. The master development agreement is being developed and will lay out all responsible parts for the parties involved. The city is looking for commitments on park land and plan on establishing easements for open space. Mr. Ruhland asked for clarification on the berm length during phase 1. Staff stated that there is a fence and berm required by the town homes and a berm is required along the east side. Mr. Laden asked for clarification regarding the trail connections. The trail will be connected to the Park and Ride. Paul Tabone, Entitlement Manager with Lennar, 16305 36th Ave N, Plymouth, MN addressed the board. He stated that Lennar is intending to expand the grading operations and be in a position to take down additional land from Mattamy in the Spring of 2019. Chair Tralle stated there is some apprehension from the Boards regarding how this project will continue moving. Mr. Tabone stated he understands the apprehension and wants to be successful. Board members had questions about future phasing and housing price points. Mr. Tabone explained that they haven’t determined the extent of future phases but to intend to build out the site in conformance with preliminary plat. He stated townhomes will start mid to high $200,000 and single family homes will start low to mid $300,000. Mr. Root made a MOTION to recommend approval of the Watermark PUD Final Plan/Final Plat. Motion was supported by Mr. Evenson. Motion carried 6-0. VI. DISCUSSION ITEMS A. 2040 Comprehensive Plan Update: Proposed Mixed Use and Density Changes Michael Grochala, Community Development Director, presented the staff report and reviewed the proposed changes. The board was in agreement with changing the Lake Drive and Vicky Lane Mixed Use area to Medium Density Residential. Mr. Grochala explained that five new land use districts are being proposed with the intent to differentiate existing mixed use areas. Planning & Zoning Board October 10, 2018 Page 4 DRAFT MINUTES Low Density Mixed Residential District. Mr. Grochala presented an overview of the district provisions. Mr. Root asked if the land use designations fit into the zoning densities and if we will put ourselves into a position of issuing more PUDs. Mr. Grochala explained that we guide the area then zone consistent with the guiding noting that each zoning district is tied to a specific density. He identified districts to go with Low Density Mixed Residential including the R-2 and R-3 districts which allows for twins, townhomes as well as the PUD option. Mr. Laden asked if Mixed Residential could be a combination of R-1 and R-3. Mr. Grochala stated it could as long as the overall density within the 3.0 to 4.0 range. The Board was in agreement with the proposed Low Density Mixed Residential District and designation of the Watermark site. Planned Residential/Commercial District. Mr. Grochala presented an overview of the district provisions. Board members had several comments related to the Robinson Farm location. Mr. Laden suggested this area to be a Signature Gateway primarily to trigger the need for a master plan study. Mr. Grochala suggested that development of a master plan for this corridor be included as an implementation item within the planning district chapter. Chair Tralle asked about the adjacent development in Blaine and how this area would be served by sanitary sewer. Mr. Grochala stated that Blaine was served by a separate sewer line and there is not currently sewer in Main Street. He explained that the Robinson area will be served by a trunk line from the Century Farm North development. The board discussed the percentage of land proposed for residential and commercial uses within the Robinson Area. Mr. Laden stated he would like the 75 residential/25 commercial percentages to be flexible but still require some commercial. The board suggested a sliding scale that set both a minimum and maximum of either commercial or residential. Ms. Peacock asked for an example of commercial and suggested keeping commercial to the north or south side rather than east or west noting that Main Street will be a barrier for pedestrians. Mr. Grochala stated that proposed percentages were used as a planning tool to provide Met Council housing estimates. He noted that the district, as proposed would allow for both residential and commercial uses by right. The consensus of the board was that they wanted to ensure a commercial minimum in the area but did not want to Planning & Zoning Board October 10, 2018 Page 5 DRAFT MINUTES impose a specific location. Mr. Grochala stated that staff would work with Landform to address this. Mr. Laden asked for clarification on the commercial split in the Waldoch area noting that the staff report stated commercial was not required. Mr. Grochala explained that given the existing nursery staff had intended that the balance of the site would not require commercial uses. The board concurred. Mr. Grochala reviewed the remainder of the Planned Residential/Commercial sites. No changes where proposed for 80th Street or 77th/Lake Drive which is already developed. Mr. Evenson stated that he does not feel as strongly about the percentages at the Birch/Centerville location. The board concurred that a minimum commercial component would not be required at that location. Signature Gateway District Mr. Grochala presented an overview of the district provisions and the 3 proposed locations. The board concurred that there would not be a minimum commercial requirement for the Lake and Main location noting the existence of existing commercial development. No other changes where proposed and the board concurred with the proposed district. Town Center District Mr. Grochala presented an overview of the district provisions noting that the Woods Edge development already had an existing master plan and approved PUD. The board concurred with the proposed district. Office/Medium Density Residential District Mr. Grochala presented an overview of the district provisions based in part on the concept plan presented by the property owner. The board concurred with the proposed district. Mr. Grochala also reviewed the proposed residential density adjustments and proposed implementation language for reviewing planned unit development requirements. The board concurred with the proposed density changes. Mr. Root felt that there already was guidance for PUD’s within the zoning ordinance. Chair Tralle stated he does not want to see the PUD being dictated by us but rather the job of the advisory board members to dictate to the PUD. Planning & Zoning Board October 10, 2018 Page 6 DRAFT MINUTES Mr. Grochala suggested a review of the PUD process and requirements concurrently with the Comp Plan adjacent jurisdiction review. B. Project Updates • Watermark is grading underway. • LaMotte construction is having difficulty with weather. • Trail being construction on top of Lake Drive trunk utilities (Marshan to Park Court). • Love to Grow On is to break ground shortly. • All Seasons Rental is hoping to begin this fall. • Ordering plans and specs for Peltier Lake outlet. • Lyngblomsten submitted an application today. Applicant is in discussion about the corner property. • Verbal yes from the County to see if City can figure out how to use the first house in Lino Lakes for well #7. • Authorizing plans and specs for Water tower #3. The determined location is at the Rec Complex. • Natures Refuge is working through Army Core issues. • Saddle Club 4th Addition is grading. • Lakes Liquor is remodeling and will become a E-Cig shop. VII. ADJOURNMENT Mr. Laden made a MOTION to adjourn the meeting at 8:33 P.M. Motion was supported by Mr. Evenson. Motion carried 6 - 0. Respectfully submitted, Mara Strand and Ryan Saltis 1 PLANNING & ZONING BOARD AGENDA ITEM 5A STAFF ORIGINATOR: Katie Larsen, City Planner P & Z MEETING DATE: November 14, 2018 REQUEST: PUBLIC HEARING to consider rezoning certain properties along West Shadow Lake Drive from R, Rural to R-1X, Single Family Executive Residential and PSP, Public and Semi-Public CASE NUMBER: RZ 2018-004 APPLICANT: City Initiated REVIEW DEADLINE: Complete Application Date: NA 60-Day Review Deadline: NA 120-Day Review Deadline: NA Environmental Board Meeting: NA Park Board Meeting: NA Planning & Zoning Board Meeting: November 14, 2018 City Council Work Session: October 1, 2018 City Council 1st Reading: November 26, 2018 City Council 2nd Reading: December 10, 2018 Ordinance Effective: January 10, 2019 BACKGROUND The City is considering rezoning certain parcels along West Shadow Lake Drive from R, Rural to R-1X, Single Family Executive Residential and PSP, Public and Semi-Public. The rezoning is in conjunction with the current street and utility reconstruction project. ANALYSIS As discussed at the July 2, 2018 Council Work Session, with the extension of public utilities along West Shadow Lake Drive, larger lots (approximately 8-10) may be able to subdivide subject to City Zoning and Shoreland Ordinance regulations. Several residents have inquired about the subdivision process. 2 The first step is to rezone certain parcels from R, Rural to R-1X, Single Family Executive Residential District and PSP, Public and Semi-Public. There are approximately 85 parcels that would be rezoned. These parcels are currently zoned R, Rural and are legal non- conforming because they do not meet the minimum 10 acre rural lot size requirement. Rezoning will make these parcels more conforming and consistent with other single family home lots served by municipal water and sanitary sewer. The following summarizes the Zoning and Shoreland District requirements for non- riparian and riparian lots: R-1X, Single Family Executive Zoning • For those non-riparian lots on the west side of West Shadow Lake Drive that do not directly abut Reshanau Lake: R-1X Requirements Min. Lot Size1 12,825 sf Min. Lot Width Interior Lot = 90 ft Corner Lot = 115 ft Min. Lot Depth 135 ft Building Setback (feet) -From Local Streets 30 ft -Rear Yard --Principal 30 ft -Accessory 5 ft -Side Yard --Principal 10 ft --Accessory 5 ft Impervious Surface2 30% 1Net area required as defined as contiguous buildable land 2Per Shoreland Management Overlay District Shoreland Management Overlay District (Chapter 1102) • Reshanau Lake is classified as a Recreational Development Lake per the MNDNR. • The Ordinary High Water Level (OHWL) is 883.5. 3 • For those riparian lots on the east side of West Shadow Lake Road that directly abut Reshanau Lake: R-1X Requirements Min. Lot Size1 20,000 sf Min. Lot Width2 90 ft Min. Lot Depth 135 ft Building Setback (feet) -From Local Streets 30 ft -From OHWL3 --Principal 75 ft -Accessory 75 ft -Side Yard --Principal 10 ft --Accessory 5 ft Impervious Surface4 30% 1Only land above the OHWL can be used to meet the lot area standards 2Lot width standards must be met at both the OHWL and the building setback line 3One water-oriented accessory structure may be setback 10 feet from the OHWL 4Per Shoreland Management Overlay District Any proposed variances will be reviewed by the Planning & Zoning Board and City Council on a case by case basis as property owners goes through the subdivision process. There are two (2) undeveloped outlots, Outlot A and Outlot B, Reshanau Shores, that will remain zoned R, Rural. These parcels are wetlands and likely undevelopable. There is also 1 parcel (PID #29-31-22-13-0001) owned by John McClellan that will remain zoned R, Rural. Sanitary sewer is not being extended to serve these 3 parcels. Any development of these parcels will require rezoning, platting and utility extension. There are also two (2) parcels off of Sandpiper Drive that are owned by Anoka County and are part of Chomonix Golf Course. These parcels will be rezoned to PSP, Public and Semi-Public which is consistent with the current land use of the golf course and Rice Creek Chain of Lakes Park Reserve. 4 Zoning and Land Use Current Zoning R, Rural Current Land Use Single Family Residential & County Park and Recreation Future Land Use per CP Low Density Sewered Residential & Park Utility Staging Area 1A: 2018-2015 Surrounding Zoning and Land Use Direction Zoning Current Land Use Future Land Use North PSP County Park and Recreation Park and Open Space South R-1 City Park & Recreation; Vacant Rural Residential Park and Open Space; Low Density East Reshanau Lake Reshanau Lake Reshanau Lake West PSP County Park and Recreation Park and Open Space Rezoning The Planning and Zoning Board shall hold a public hearing and judgment of the rezoning shall be based upon the following factors: 1. The proposed action has been considered in relation to the specific policies and provisions of and has been found to be consistent with the official City Comprehensive Plan. The proposed action of rezoning parcels from R, Rural to R-1X, Single Family Executive is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The parcels are guided low density sewered residential and the R-1X zoning district is consistent with this type of land use. The current land use is single family residential. The R-1X zoning district is intended for development of single family detached homes on lots served with public sewer and water. Public sewer and water are currently being installed along this stretch of West Shadow Lake Drive. The proposed action of rezoning the two (2) Anoka County parcels from R, Rural to PSP, Public and Semi-Public is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The parcels are 5 guided park and are currently part of the Chomonix Golf Course. The PSP district allows for public parks and golf courses as a permitted use. 2. The proposed use is or will be compatible with present and future land uses of the area. There are no proposed use changes. Present land uses are single family residential homes and County Park and recreation (golf course). Future land uses in the area are guided low density sewered residential and park. 3. The proposed use conforms with all performance standards contained herein. There are no proposed use changes. Present land uses are single family residential homes and County Park and recreation (golf course). Any future development shall be required to meet performance standards. 4. The proposed use can be accommodated with existing public services and will not overburden the City’s service capacity. Per the City’s Comprehensive Plan, the parcels are within the 1A: 2008-2015 utility staging area. The watermain and sanitary sewer systems have capacity to accommodate the existing homes along this section of West Shadow Lake Drive. 5. Traffic generation by the proposed use is within capabilities of streets serving the property. There are no proposed use changes and no anticipated traffic impacts. Current and future land uses along West Shadow Lake Drive are single family residential homes. The golf course does not ingress or egress on West Shadow Lake Drive and therefore; does not impact traffic on West Shadow Lake Drive. Shoreland District, Wetlands and Floodplain The parcels are located within the Shoreland District of Reshanau Lake. Wetlands exist on some of the parcels although no formal delineations have been completed. The 2015 FEMA Flood Insurance Rating Map (FIRM) indicates a Zone AE flood plain district on some of the parcels as well. Any future subdivision or development of these parcels will require proper mitigation and compliance with these regulations. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the rezoning certain parcels from R, Rural to R-1X, Single Family Executive Residential and PSP, Public and Semi-Public based on the findings noted above. 6 ATTACHMENTS 1. Existing Zoning Map 2. Proposed Zoning Map """ !( !( !( Reshanau Lake Rice Lake WShadowLakeDrSandpiper Dr Hickory Pl Birch St C o u n tr y L a k e s D r Shadow Ct Shadow Lake CtFawn LaWhite Birch CtBeaver Tr AquaLaBlack DuckDr D e e r w ood La F St Old Birch StProject Location !(Sanitary Manhole "Proposed Sanitary Sewer (Trunk) Proposed Watermain Proposed Sanitary Forcemain Existing Zoning R Rural R-1 Single Family Residential R-1X Single Family Executive R-4 High Density Residential PSP Public Semi-Public PUD 0 825Feet¯Existing Zoning MapWest Shadow Lake Drive & Utility ProjectLino Lakes, MN Document Path: K:\02988-450\GIS\Maps\WestShadowExistingZoning.mxd Date Saved: 10/25/2018 3:27:45 PM1 inch = 825 feetOctober 2018 """ !( !( !( Reshanau Lake Rice Lake Rezone to R-1X:- Lakes Addition No.1- Lakes Addition No. 4- Lakes Addition No. 5- Reshanau Shores (except OL A and OL B) Rezone to PSP:- L3 and L4, B3 Lakes Addition No.1 WShadowLakeDrSandpiper Dr Hickory Pl Birch St C o u n tr y L a k e s D r Shadow Ct Shadow Lake CtFawn LaWhite Birch CtBeaver Tr Black DuckDr D e e r w ood La F St Old Birch StProject Location !(Sanitary Manhole "Proposed Sanitary Sewer (Trunk) Proposed Watermain Proposed Sanitary Forcemain Proposed Zoning Area Changes Proposed Zoning R Rural R-1 Single Family Residential R-1X Single Family Executive R-4 High Density Residential PSP Public Semi-Public PUD 0 825Feet¯Proposed Zoning MapWest Shadow Lake Drive & Utility ProjectLino Lakes, MN Document Path: K:\02988-450\GIS\Maps\WestShadowProposedZoning.mxd Date Saved: 10/26/2018 7:18:49 AM1 inch = 825 feetOctober 2018 1 PLANNING & ZONING BOARD AGENDA ITEM 5B STAFF ORIGINATOR: Katie Larsen, City Planner Ryan Saltis, Community Development Intern P & Z MEETING DATE: November 14, 2018 REQUEST: PUBLIC HEARING Conditional Use Permit for Commercial Stables at 1288 Main Street & 1325 Main Street CASE NUMBER: CU2018-005 APPLICANTS: Sandy Nordstrom and Ken Schienbein 1288 Main Street Lino Lakes, MN 55038 OWNERS: Same REVIEW DEADLINE: Complete Application Date: September 26, 2018 60-Day Review Deadline: November 25, 2018 120-Day Review Deadline: January 24, 2018 Environmental Board Meeting: NA Park Board Meeting: NA Planning & Zoning Board Meeting: November 14, 2018 City Council Work Session: December 3, 2018 City Council Meeting: December 10, 2018 BACKGROUND The applicants, Sandy Nordstrom and Ken Schienbein, submitted a Land Use Application for a conditional use permit for Commercial Stables at 1288 Main Street and 1325 Main Street. They operate Rocking S Horse Company, a company that trains, buys and sells horses. The number of animals on the properties varies depending on the season but typically ranges from 20-35 horses/cows. 2 In July 2018, the City Council approved Ordinance No. 10-18, amending City Code Chapter 1007 related to Commercial Stable Performance Standards. The applicant is seeking a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to ensure their operation of a commercial stable is compliant with these performance standards. ANALYSIS History Commercial stables have been operating for more than 20 years at 1288 Main Street and several improvements to the business and property have been made over the duration. The property located at 1288 Main Street is 8.3 acres and has been the principal site for their operation, leasing an additional 17 acres from their neighbors for the pasturing of the horses. The company constructed a small indoor riding arena on the property helping them prosper and grow. In 2017, the applicants purchased 1325 Main Street which is approximately 27 acres. Improvements have been made to the parcel including new fencing and large hay/equipment storage shed. Zoning and Land Use The subject sites (1288 & 1325 Main Street) consists of 2 parcels (PIN# 10-31-22-22- 0009 and 10-31-22-23-0003). These parcels are zoned R-Rural and allow for Commercial Stables with a conditional use permit. The area of the combined parcels is approximately 35 acres. Current Zoning R, Rural Current Land Use Rural Residential Future Land Use per CP Urban Reserve Utility Staging Area Post 2030 Surrounding Zoning and Land Use Direction Zoning Current Land Use Future Land Use North R, Rural Open Space/Conservation Permanent Rural East R, Rural Open Space/Conservation Permanent Rural South Public Semi-Public County Park and Recreation Park & Open Space West R, Rural Rural Residential Urban Reserve 3 Site Plan Review Site Plan The applicants own both parcels at 1288 Main Street and 1325 Main Street. Main Street is also CSAH 14 which is a principal arterial road. They submitted an aerial map indicating the locations of the existing house and accessory structures. The commercial stables business operates out of accessory structures on the site. The applicant proposes to install more accessory structures for livestock in the future. See Attachment #3 for applicant’s full narrative. It should be noted there is a 2 acre parcel surrounded by these parcels owned by Anoka County Highway Department. The County was contacted to see if they were interested in selling the parcel and they indicated they are not. Animal Units Allowed For parcels zoned R, Rural, Section 1007.080(5)(f) states, “Keeping of farm animals of up to three hundred (300) animal units in conformance with Chapter 503. No more than one (1) animal unit per two (2) acres.” Section 1007.001(2) defines Animal Unit as follows: ANIMAL UNIT. A unit of measure used to compare differences in the production of animal manure that employs as a standard the amount of manure produced on a regular basis by a slaughter steer or heifer for an animal feedlot or a manure storage area, calculated by multiplying the number of animals of each type by the respective multiplication factor and summing the resulting values for the total number of animal units. For purposes of this chapter, the following multiplication factors shall apply. For animals not listed, the number of animal units is the average weight of the animal in pounds divided by 1,000 pounds. Animal Animal Unit Dairy Cattle Mature Cow (1,000 pounds or over) 1.4 Mature Cow (Under 1,000 pounds) 1.0 Heifer .7 Calf .2 Beef Cattle Slaughter Steer or Stock Cow 1.0 Feeder Cattle or Heifer .7 Cow and Calf Pair 1.2 Calf .2 4 Swine Over 300 pounds 0.4 Between 55 and 300 pounds 0.3 Under 55 pounds 0.05 Horse 1.0 Sheep or Lamb .1 Chicken (Liquid Manure System) .0333 Chicken (Dry Manure System) 5 pounds or over .005 Less than 5 pounds .003 Turkey 5 pounds or over .018 Less than 5 pounds .005 Duck .01 Parcel Acres Rounded Whole Acres # Animal Units Allowed (2 units per 1 acre) 1288 Main Street 8.01 8 4 1325 Main Street 26.8 27 14 TOTAL 34.81 35 18 Section 1007.058(3)(d) allows up to double the animal unit density with an approved facility management and waste handling plan. This would allow for a maximum of 36 animal units (18 x 2) on the two parcels combined. The applicant states in their narrative the number of animals on site ranges from 20-35 horses and cows during the busiest spring months. The applicant shall submit an acceptable waste management plan. Resident concerns have been expressed regarding horseback riding in the CSAH 14 (Main Street) right-of-way and on the trail. The commercial stable operations shall be contained within the parcels to the greatest extent possible. Horseback riding in the right- of-way of CSAH 14(Main Street) and along the regional trail shall be kept to a minimum. Animal waste deposited along the right-of-way or on trails shall be removed immediately. The commercial stables are subject to Chapter 503, Animal Control Regulations and shall be in compliance at all times. Grading Plan and Stormwater Management Although a grading plan and stormwater management plan is not specifically required for the conditional use permit application, all efforts shall be made to prevent manure solids and runoff from draining into ditches and wetlands. The applicant is currently working with the MPCA on their feedlot compliance. 5 Public Utilities The site is served by private well and septic system. The septic system shall be designed and sized to accommodate any future building renovations. Landscaping and Tree Preservation Plan Landscaping and tree preservation is not required for the commercial stables operation. Wetlands Wetlands are located on portions of the parcels. The applicants have been working with Rice Creek Watershed District (RCWD) and Anoka Conservation District regarding the restoration of the wetlands on the site that were previously filled. This matter does not impact the existing house or accessory structures on the site. Floodplain There is no floodplain on 1288 Main Street. The 2015 DFIRM indicates Zone A floodplain on 1325 Main Street. In August 15, 2016 a Letter of Map Amendment (LOMA) was received. The base flood elevation was established at 883.94. The site’s low elevation is generally at 884. The lowest adjacent grade elevation of the existing house is at 891. The existing house and accessory structures are not within the floodplain. Accessory Structures Currently, 1288 Main Street is 8 acres and is allowed by ordinance 1 attached garage and 3 detached accessory structures not to exceed 5,000 sf combined. This parcel currently has 1 attached garage and 5 detached accessory structures that exceed 5,000 sf combined. It should be noted it appears proper building permits were applied for the larger structures and they appear to be legal non-conforming. No additional accessory structures would be allowed under the current ordinance. The applicant has requested the option to add 3 portable animal shelters at 1288 Main Street to provide temporary shelter for the animals. See Attachment #4 for an example. These portable shelters are generally 8 feet wide by 18 feet deep by 7 feet high and can shelter 3 to 4 horses. Currently, there is 1 portable shelter on the parcel. This would bring to total to 4 portable shelters. 1325 Main Street is 26.8 acres and per ordinance there is no limit to the number or size of accessory structures allowed on site. Currently, there are 3 existing portable shelters on the parcel. The applicant has requested the option to add 3 more portable animal shelters at 1325 Main Street for a total of 6. 6 Staff recommends limiting the number of these portable temporary shelters to four (4) on 1288 Main Street and six (6) on 1325 Main Street as part of the conditional use permit. The shelters are specific accessory structures associated with the operation of a commercial stable. A zoning or building permit is required for any accessory structure construction. All structures shall meet setback requirements and shall not be located in the front yards of either parcel. Signage Per Chapter 1010: Signs, one sign with a maximum size of 6 square feet placed at least 10 feet from the property line is allowed without a permit. Site Improvement Performance Agreement A Site Improvement Performance Agreement is not required. Conditional Use Permit-Findings of Fact The property is zoned R, Rural and allows for Commercial Stables with a conditional use permit. Per Section 1007.016(2)(g): The Planning and Zoning Board shall recommend a conditional use permit and the Council shall order the issuance of such permit only if it finds the following criteria have been met: 1. The proposed development application has been found to be consistent with the policies and recommendations of the Lino Lakes Comprehensive Plan including: a. Land Use Plan. The parcels of 1288 Main Street and 1325 Main Street are guided Urban Reserve and zoned R, Rural. Commercial Stables are allowed with a conditional use permit and are consistent with rural land uses. b. Transportation Plan. CSAH 14 (Main Street) is a principal arterial road. The existing road has structural design and capacity to accommodate traffic proposed by the commercial stables operation. c. Utility (Sewer and Water) Plans. 7 The parcel is served by private well and septic system. The City’s utility plans are not impacted. d. Local Water Management Plan. The City’s Local Surface Water Management Plan (LSWMP) is incorporated into Chapter 2: Resource Management System Plan of the City’s Comprehensive Plan. The goal of the LSWMP is to improve of the quality of surface waters by delivering good quality stormwater runoff to lakes and wetlands. The subject sites shall be compliant with their required facility management and waste handling plan and feedlot regulations. Regulations of Chapter 1011: Stormwater, Erosion and Sediment Control shall be met to ensure runoff will not increase and surface water (wetlands) will not be impacted. The subject sites shall be in compliance with all City and other regulatory agencies requirements. e. Capital Improvement Plan. There will be no changes to the City’s Capital Improvement Plan related to the commercial stables operation. f. Policy Plan. The commercial stables operation is consistent with the comprehensive plan (i.e. Policy Plan) in regards to land use, transportation, utilities, local water management and capital improvements. g. Natural Environment Plan. The City’s Natural Environment Plan is incorporated into Chapter 2: Resource Management System Plan of the City’s Comprehensive Plan. One goal of the Plan is to identify, protect and preserve the desirable natural areas and ecological and aquatic resources of the community. The City’s greenway corridor exists on the parcels. The subject sites shall be in compliance with all City and other regulatory agencies requirements. 2. The proposed development application is compatible with present and future land uses of the area. The commercial stables are compatible with present and future land uses. The surrounding land uses are rural residential, county park/recreation, open space/conservation, and public/semi-public. 8 3. The proposed development application conforms to performance standards herein and other applicable City Codes. The commercial stables conform to the performance standards of the City Code. 4. Traffic generated by a proposed development application is within the capabilities of the City when: a. If the existing level of service (LOS) outside of the proposed subdivision is A or B, traffic generated by a proposed subdivision will not degrade the level of service more than one grade. b. If the existing LOS outside of the proposed subdivision is C, traffic generated by a proposed subdivision will not degrade the level of service below C. c. If the existing LOS outside of the proposed subdivision is D, traffic generated by a proposed subdivision will not degrade the level of service below D. d. The existing LOS must be D or better for all streets and intersections providing access to the subdivision. If the existing level of service is E or F, the subdivision developer must provide, as part of the proposed project, improvements needed to ensure a level of service D or better. e. Existing roads and intersections providing access to the subdivision must have the structural capacity to accommodate projected traffic from the proposed subdivision or the developer will pay to correct any structural deficiencies. f. The traffic generated from a proposed subdivision shall not require City street improvements that are inconsistent with the Lino Lakes Capital Improvement Plan. However, the City may, at its discretion, consider developer-financed improvements to correct any street deficiencies. g. The LOS requirements in paragraphs a. to d. above do not apply to the I- 35W/Lake Drive or I-35E/Main St. interchanges. At City discretion, interchange impacts must be evaluated in conjunction with Anoka County and the Minnesota Dept. of Transportation, and a plan must be prepared to determine improvements needed to resolve deficiencies. This plan must determine traffic generated by the subdivision project, how this traffic contributes to the total traffic, and the time frame of the improvements. The plan also must examine financing options, including project contribution and cost sharing among other jurisdictions and other properties that contribute to traffic at the interchange. h. The City does not relinquish any rights of local determination. 9 CSAH 14 (Main Street) is a principal arterial road. The existing road has structural design and capacity to accommodate traffic proposed by the commercial stables. No substantial increase in traffic is proposed. The commercial stables have been operating on site for 20+ years. 5. The proposed development shall be served with adequate and safe water supply. The site is served by a private well that can serve the commercial stables operation. 6. The proposed development shall be served with an adequate and safe sanitary sewer system. The site is currently served by a private septic system. The septic system shall be designed and sized to accommodate any future building modifications. 7. The proposed development shall not result in the premature expenditures of City funds on capital improvements necessary to accommodate the proposed development. There will be no premature expenditures of City funds. 8. The proposed development will not involve uses, activities, processes, materials, equipment and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons, property, or the general welfare because of excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare, or odors. The commercial stables do not involve uses and activities detrimental to persons or property. The subject sites shall be in compliance with all City and other regulatory agencies requirements. A waste management plan shall be implemented at all times. 9. The proposed development will not result in the destruction, loss, or damage of a natural, scenic or historic feature of major importance. The natural features (wetlands) will not be impacted. There are no other known natural, scenic or historic features on the existing site. Specific Conditional Use Permit (CUP) Requirements In addition to the administrative requirements of a conditional use permit, the following specific performance standards of Section 1007.058(3) must also be met: § 1007.058 COMMERCIAL STABLES (3) General Standards. The following standards shall apply to all commercial stables: 10 (a) Commercial stables offering services to the public, and having the facilities to maintain or care for ten (10) or more horses, must have their principal entrance located on a state highway, county road, or city collector street. The principal entrance for the commercial stables is located on CSAH 14 (Main Street) which is a principal arterial road. (b) Commercial stables that offer boarding, training, or other services to the public shall provide sanitary facilities for the public’s use. The sanitary facilities must be constructed in accordance with the state building code, and connected to an individual sewage treatment system or the municipal sanitary sewer system. The commercial stables offer a restroom for the public’s use that is connected to a private septic system. (c) Adjacent parcels of land under common ownership may be used to determine the maximum number of animal units allowed, if the parcels are operated as a single enterprise. a. In instances where a parcel of land consists of a fraction of an acre, the property size shall be rounded to the nearest whole number to determine the number of animal units allowed. 1288 Main Street is 8 acres and 1325 Main Street is 27 acres for a combined total of 35 acres. Ordinance 1007.080(5)(f), allows for no more than 1 animal unit per 2 acres. For this specific instance, the parcels would be able to keep 18 animal units. b. Adjacent parcels of land shall not be separated by public right-of-way. 1288 Main Street and 1325 Main Street are not separated by public right of way. (d) Up to double the animal unit density may be allowed subject to an approved facility management and waste handling plan. The current number of animal units allowed on these combined parcels is 18. With double this current animal unit density, the applicants would be permitted 36 animal units. A proper waste management plan will have to be submitted before the applicants adopt this allowed number of animal units. (e) Buildings housing domestic livestock, including barns, stables, sheds, and similar facilities shall be located no nearer than 100 feet from any inhabited, neighboring dwelling. 11 Barns, stables and sheds on the property are located more than 100 feet away from the inhabited neighboring dwelling. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the Commercial Stables Conditional Use Permit at 1288 Main Street and 1325 Main Street with the following conditions: 1. The subject sites shall be in compliance with all City and other regulatory agencies requirements. 2. A combined total of 18 animal units are allowed between the 2 parcels without a facility management and waste handling plan. 3. A combined total of 36 animal units are allowed between the 2 parcels with a compliant facility management and waste handling plan. 4. The number of portable animal shelters shall be limited to four (4) on 1288 Main Street. 5. The number of portable animal shelters shall be limited to six (6) on 1325 Main Street. 6. The commercial stable operations shall be contained within the parcels to the greatest extent possible. a. Horseback riding in the right-of-way of CSAH 14(Main Street) and along the regional trail shall be kept to a minimum. b. Animal waste deposited along the right-of-way or on trails shall be removed immediately. 7. The commercial stables are subject to Chapter 503, Animal Control Regulations and shall be in compliance at all times. 8. Violations of the conditional use permit or other city, state or regional ordinances may result in revocation of the conditional use permit. Approval is also subject to the following items: 1. A building permit or zoning permit is required for all future building construction. 2. A detailed facility management and waste handling plan as acceptable by the MPCA shall be submitted to the City. ATTACHMENTS 1. Site Location Map 2. Aerial Map with Identified Features 3. Applicant Narrative 4. Portable Animal Shelter Example 0 1,000 2,000500Feet §¨¦I-35W MAIN STMAIN ST OAK LNOAK LNJANE AVEJANE AVEWAYNE CTWAYNE CTJAMES STJAMES ST MAIN STMAIN STKKEELLLLYY SS TTEELLBBEESSTT LOIS LNLOIS LN 81ST ST81ST ST KNOLL DRKNOLL DRRONDEAU LAKE RD WRONDEAU LAKE RD WCOUNTY PARKWAY GCOUNTY PARKWAY G W O O D LA N D D R W O O D LA N D D RRONDEAU LA K E R D E R O N D E A U LA K E R D E CCOOUUNNTTYYPPAARRKKWWAAYYHHGEORGEWATCH LAKE100-yr 886.1 PELTIER LAKEOHWL 884.7100-yr 887.0 RONDEAULAKE 100-yr888.1 Site Location Map µ 1325 Main Street 1288 Main Street 1 PLANNING & ZONING BOARD AGENDA ITEM 5C STAFF ORIGINATOR: Katie Larsen, City Planner P & Z MEETING DATE: November 14, 2018 REQUEST: 111 Robinson Drive Variance for Curb Cut/Driveway Width CASE NUMBER: VR2018-004 APPLICANT: Aaron and Shannon Kne 111 Robinson Drive Lino Lakes, MN 55014 OWNER: Same REVIEW SCHEDULE: Complete Application Date: October 25, 2018 60-Day Review Deadline: December 24, 2018 120-Day Review Deadline: February 22, 2019 Environmental Board Meeting: NA Park Board Meeting: NA Planning & Zoning Board Meeting: November 14, 2018 Tentative City Council Work Session: November 26, 2018 Tentative City Council Meeting: November 26, 2018 BACKGROUND The property owners of 111 Robinson Drive, Aaron and Shannon Kne, submitted a Land Use Application for a curb cut/driveway width variance. They are requesting a curb cut width of 26’ 8” be allowed. City ordinance allows for a maximum 26 foot curb cut/driveway width. ANALYSIS Capstone Homes, Inc. pulled a building permit in November 2017 to construct a new home at 111 Robinson Drive in the Century Farms North subdivision. The certificate of survey submitted with the building permit indicated a curb cut width of 16.1 feet. 2 The property owners purchased their home in March 2018. Due to winter conditions, the driveway was installed in July 2018 by C&S Blacktopping, a Capstone Homes, Inc. sub- contractor. The property owners negotiated with C&S Blacktopping to have the driveway widened from16.1 to 26 feet. Unfortunately, the Grading As-built survey and field verification confirmed the curb cut was 26.7 feet. This is 8 inches wider than allowed. Per Section 1007.044(3)(h): 7. Curb Cut/Driveway Width. No curb cut shall exceed twenty-six (26) feet in width within a residential zoning district, or thirty-six (36) feet in width if the property is in a commercial, industrial, or public/semi-public zoning district, as measured at the street right-of-way line unless approved by the City Engineer. The driveway associated with such curb cut may increase in width at an angle not greater than forty-five (45) degrees. Attachment 5 is a Driveway Exhibit depicting a 26 foot wide curb cut and 45 degree angle. Capstone Homes, Inc. agreed to cut 8 inches from the driveway at no charge to the property owner. The property owner does not want the driveway cut and is requesting a variance. It should be noted in the applicant’s narrative (see Attachment 2) they state they paid an additional $1,000 to have the driveway widened. This additional cost represents the difference between the 16 feet and 26 feet, not just the additional 8 inches. The property is zoned PUD, Planned Unit Development and is located in an urban residential subdivision. The City Engineer does not approve widening of the curb cut. The property owners would be required to cut out an 8 inch wide section of the driveway. They are requesting a variance instead of having to cut out a section of the driveway. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS OF FACT No variance shall be granted unless it meets all the criteria in paragraphs 1. through 7. below. The City shall make findings regarding compliance with these criteria. 1. The variance shall be in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the ordinance. The general purpose and intent of the ordinance is to alleviate or prevent congestion of the public right-of-way and to promote the safety and general welfare of the public, by establishing minimum requirements for off-street parking of motor vehicles upon various parcels of land or structures. The variance to allow for a 26.7 foot curb cut/ driveway width is harmonious with the general purposes and intent of the ordinance. 2. The variance shall be consistent with the comprehensive plan. Per the Comprehensive Plan, the property is guided for Low Density Residential land use. 3 The variance request is consistent with the comprehensive plan. The applicant’s property is intended for single family dwellings with houses, garages and driveways. 3. There shall be practical difficulties in complying with the ordinance. “Practical difficulties,” as used in connection with the granting of a variance, means that the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the ordinance. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. Practical difficulties include, but are not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner; however, there is no practical difficulty in complying with the required 26 foot curb cut/driveway width. 4. The plight of the landowner shall be due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner. The plight of the landowner was created by the sub-contractor installing a 26.7 foot wide driveway. There are no unique circumstances to the property causing them to not be able to comply with the ordinance. 5. The variance shall not alter the essential character of the locality. The variance will not alter the essential character of the locality which is a single family residential neighborhood with houses, garages and driveways. 6. A variance shall not be granted for any use that is not allowed under the ordinance for property in the zoning district where the subject site is located. The variance will not be granted for any use that is not allowed under the ordinance for property in the zoning district. The property is zoned PUD, Planned Unit Development for a residential subdivision and driveways are consistent with residential uses. 7. In accordance with MN Stat. 462.357, Subp. 6, variances shall be granted for earth sheltered construction as defined in MN Stat. 216C.06, Subd. 14, when in harmony with the zoning ordinance. Not applicable. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends denial of the variance to allow for a 26.7 foot curb cut/driveway width at 111 Robinson Drive. ATTACHMENTS 1. Site Location & Aerial Map 2. Applicant’s Narrative 4 3. Proposed Certificate of Survey 4. Grading As-Built Survey 5. Driveway Exhibit 6. Driveway Photos 111 Robinson Drive Legend Address Labels November 5, 2018 Map Powered by DataLink from WSB & Associates 1 in = 100 ft ± 111 Robinson Drive Lino Lakes, MN 55014 October 28, 2018 Members of the Planning and Zoning Board City of Lino Lakes 600 Town Center Parkway Lino Lakes, MN 55014 Dear Planning and Zoning Board Members, We are writing to share with you an issue that came to our attention regarding our driveway at 111 Robinson Drive, and to express our desire to obtain a variance. We purchased our home, built by Capstone Homes of Ramsey, MN, on March 23, 2018. Due to our home being built over the winter season, our driveway was installed by Capstone’s subcontractor, C&S Blacktopping of Rogers, MN, on July 10, 2018. Subsequent to moving in last March, but prior to the driveway being installed in July, one of Capstone’s repairmen mentioned to us at our home that if we desired to have our driveway installed from the third stall straight down to the street (rather than at an angle as standard), we could contact C&S Blacktopping directly to get a price and have the change made when they came through to complete that work for Capstone. We had chosen to forego this during the purchase process during the fall of 2017, as we were expecting our first child in addition to the expenses of our upcoming move. However, when Capstone mentioned this was still an option after we had moved in, and we realized we could afford to do so, we contacted C&S Blacktopping and agreed to pay an extra $1,000 for the driveway to extend straight down the East side of the driveway from our third stall, which was how it was installed in July. On October 10, we received a brief email from Capstone informing us that the driveway had been installed incorrectly per city code, and that they would be coming through that same week to cut away the excess and replace it with sod in order to comply with the code. While not the fault of the city, this notice was both confusing and unapologetic, while also giving us little to no opportunity to respond timewise. Our driveway measures approximately 27’ wide, while we have come to understand that the maximum per city code is 26’. It was extremely disappointing for us to find out the approximately 1’ of the width of our driveway, for approximately 15’ deep, would be required to be trimmed away per this code. Although a small cut, it feels like a waste of $1,000 we spent, at Capstone’s suggestion, to have a driveway at a uniform width with straight edges. Apparently we erred in trusting that our builder Capstone and their subcontractor were fully aware of and complying with city code. We felt pressured by Capstone by indicating that they were coming to cut our driveway that same week; additionally, when we reached out to the city, we did not feel encouraged by the variance process due both to the cost (up to $950) and the fact that staff would not recommend the variance to the Planning & Zoning Board or the City Council. Therefore, we wrote the Mayor, City Administrator, and City Council, informing them of our issue. We spoke at the open forum at the October 22 meeting, and were pleased when Mayor Reinert expressed support for a variance for our driveway. Subsequent email conversations with other council members have left us reasonably confident that our variance will be passed by the council if it reaches them for a vote. Given the circumstances of how this occurred, while we appreciate how the code is written, we hope that the Planning and Zoning Board can understand our position and support our variance request. We cannot understand how an approximately 1’ by 15’ area of a driveway (or less depending on the angle) has any significant impact on safety, drainage, aesthetics, or anything else in the interest of the city or our neighbors. We only see this as possibly compromising the long-term stability of our driveway, impacting the coverage provided by the sprinkler system Capstone or their subcontractor already installed on our property, and leaving us with a driveway that looks unappealing. If you would like any other information regarding our variance request, please let us know and we will do our best to provide it. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Aaron & Shannon Kne DRIVEWAY EXHIBIT LINO LAKES, MINNESOTA STREET A 26' RIGHT OF WAY LINE PROPERTY LINEDRIVEWAYPROPERTY LINECURB CURB CUT WIDTH AT RIGHT OF WAY LINE: 26 FT. MAXIMUM IF RESIDENTIAL 36 FT. MAXIMUM IF COMMERCIAL DRIVEWAY MAY INCREASE AT AN ANGLE NOT GREATER THAN 45°. Nov. 2018 1 PLANNING & ZONING BOARD AGENDA ITEM 5D STAFF ORIGINATOR: Katie Larsen, City Planner P & Z MEETING DATE: November 14, 2018 REQUEST: 47 Gladstone Drive Variance for Roofing Materials CASE NUMBER: VR2018-005 APPLICANT: Chris Pomorin 47 Gladstone Drive Lino Lakes, MN 55014 OWNER: Same REVIEW SCHEDULE: Complete Application Date: October 29, 2018 60-Day Review Deadline: December 28, 2018 120-Day Review Deadline: February 26, 2019 Environmental Board Meeting: NA Park Board Meeting: NA Planning & Zoning Board Meeting: November 14, 2018 City Council Work Session: November 26, 2018 City Council Meeting: November 26, 2018 BACKGROUND The property owner of 47 Gladstone Drive, Chris Pomorin, submitted a Land Use Application for a roofing material variance. He is requesting a metal roof with exposed fasteners be allowed. City ordinance allows for metal roofs with standing seam (i.e. hidden fasteners). ANALYSIS During the summer of 2018, the property owner replaced the roof on his house and detached garage without a building permit. When the proper building permits were submitted, the owner included a Menards specification sheet detailing the roofing materials as Ocean Blue Premium Pro-Rob Steel Panel with an exposed fastener panel system. City ordinance does allow for metal roofs; however, they must be standing seam (i.e. hidden fasteners). 2 Per Section 1007.043(2)(a): 3. Single family dwellings shall have at least a four/twelve (4/12) roof pitch and shall be covered with shingles or tiles or a standing seam metal roof. Per Section 1007.043(4)(i)4.g., this criteria applies to both single family dwellings and accessory buildings. g. Roof and exterior color and material compatible with home (except manufactured tool shed). Building department staff inspected the roofing materials and installation and determined the roof was structurally adequate. The issue now is the aesthetic value of the exposed fasteners. The intent of requiring standing seam metal roofs is so the fasteners (i.e. screws) are not visible. If the variance request is denied, the owner will have to replace the roof on both the single family dwelling and detached garage. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS OF FACT No variance shall be granted unless it meets all the criteria in paragraphs 1. through 7. below. The City shall make findings regarding compliance with these criteria. 1. The variance shall be in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the ordinance. The general purpose and intent of the General Provisions section of the Zoning Ordinance is to establish general development performance standards. These standards are intended and designed to assure compatibility of uses; to prevent urban blight, deterioration and decay; and to enhance the health, safety and general welfare of the residents of the community The variance to allow a metal roof with exposed fasteners is not harmonious with the general purposes and intent of the ordinance regarding the enhancement of the general welfare of the community. 2. The variance shall be consistent with the comprehensive plan. The variance request is consistent with the comprehensive plan. Per the Comprehensive Plan, the property is guided for Low Density Residential land use. The existing land use is single family residential with a single family dwelling unit and detached garage. 3. There shall be practical difficulties in complying with the ordinance. “Practical difficulties,” as used in connection with the granting of a variance, means that the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the ordinance. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. Practical difficulties include, but are not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. 3 The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner; however, there is no practical difficulty in complying with the required standing seam metal roof. 4. The plight of the landowner shall be due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner. The plight of the landowner was created by the owner installing a metal roof with exposed fasteners without a building permit. There are no unique circumstances to the property causing them to not be able to comply with the ordinance. 5. The variance shall not alter the essential character of the locality. The variance will not alter the essential character of the locality which is a single family residential neighborhood with houses and garages. 6. A variance shall not be granted for any use that is not allowed under the ordinance for property in the zoning district where the subject site is located. The variance will not be granted for any use that is not allowed under the ordinance for property in the zoning district. The property is zoned R-1, Single Family Residential and single family detached homes and garages are permitted and accessory uses. 7. In accordance with MN Stat. 462.357, Subp. 6, variances shall be granted for earth sheltered construction as defined in MN Stat. 216C.06, Subd. 14, when in harmony with the zoning ordinance. Not applicable. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends denial of the variance to allow for a metal roof with exposed fasteners at 47 Gladstone Drive. ATTACHMENTS 1. Site Location Map 2. Before and After Photos-47 Gladstone Drive 3. Roofing Material Specifications 4. Metal Roof with Exposed Fasteners vs Metal Roof with Standing Seam (Hidden Fastener) 0 1,000 2,000500Feet §¨¦I-35W LAKE DRLAKE DRGRAY HERON DRGRAY HERON DRIIVVYYRRIIDDGGEECC TTLLEEAA CCTT ANTELOPE DRANTELOPE DRPOST RDPOST RD PARKVIEW DRPARKVIEW DRMEADOW CTMEADOW CTRED CLOVER LNRED CLOVER LN SMOKETREE LNSMOKETREE LN RI CE LAKE CTRI CE LAKE CTFAIRMONT DRFAIRMONT DR GLADSTONE DRGLADSTONE DR GLENVIEW DRGLENVIEW DR 2ND AVE2ND AVERR UU SSTTIICCLLNNGLENVIEW LNGLENVIEW LNGREEN BRIAR DRGREEN BRIAR DR ULMER DRULMER DR ELM STELM ST 4TH AVE4TH AVEAAQQUUAACCIIRRWWIILLLL OO WW PP OONNDD TTRRLLLAKEVIEW DRLAKEVIEW DRWHIPPOORWILL LNWHIPPOORWILL LNSUNRISE DRSUNRISE DRSNOW OWL LNSNOW OWL LNIIVVYYRRIIDDGGEELLNNRICE LAKE DRRICE LAKE DRRRIICCEELLAAKKEELLNNAQUA LNAQUA LNSUNSET AVESUNSET AVERICE LAKEOHWL 883.1100-yr 886.0 MARSHAN LAKEOHWL 883.3100-yr 886.1 Site Location Map µ 47 Gladstone Drive 1 PLANNING & ZONING BOARD AGENDA ITEM 6A STAFF ORIGINATOR: Michael Grochala, Community Development Director P & Z MEETING DATE: November 14, 2018 REQUEST: 2040 Comprehensive Plan Update Discussion: Proposed Mixed Use and Density Changes CASE NUMBER: N/A APPLICANTS: City of Lino Lakes. REVIEW SCHEDULE: N/A BACKGROUND Following completion of the draft 2040 Comprehensive Plan in March of 2018 the City Council directed staff to revisit the Mixed Use land use designation; Mixed Use development parameters and the use of the PUD process. Over the past 3 months the Planning and Zoning Board has reviewed options to differentiate and reclassify these areas while still meeting density requirements and affordable housing goals. Based on these discussions the following items have been addressed. 1. The Mixed Use Area at Vicky Lane and Lake Drive will be changed to Medium Density Residential. 2. Five new land use districts will be created to replace the existing Mixed Use classification. They are: a. Low Density Mixed Residential b. Planned Residential/Commercial c. Signature Gateway d. Town Center e. Office/Medium Density Residential 3. The Comp Plan Implementation sections will be amended to include a “to do” list that includes: a. Evaluate the intent and purpose of the Planned Unit Development Process. b. Review PUD minimum requirements and amend as necessary. i. Consider minimums for lot area and garage size. c. Consider the establishment of “allowed” flexibilities. i. Lot width and depth, ROW/street width, setbacks 2 4. The residential densities allowed within land use districts will be as follows: Land Use Category 2030 Plan Units Per Acre Proposed 2040 Units Per Acre Low Density Residential 1.6 to 3.9 1.6 to 3.0 Low Density Mixed Residential N/A 3.0 to 4.0 Medium Density Residential 4.0 to 5.9 4.0 to 6.0 High Density Residential 6.0 to 10 6.0 to 8.0 Planned Residential/Commercial N/A 8.0 to 10 Signature Gateway N/A 8.0 to 10; max 15 Mixed Use 8-15; 10-24 N/A Office- Medium Density Residential N/A 4.0 to 6.0 Town Center N/A 10-24 Based on discussion at the October 10, 2018 Planning and Zoning board, additional clarification was requested regarding the development parameters on the Robinson, Waldoch, and Birch/Centerville sites. The City Council reviewed the proposed changes at the November 6, 2018 work session. The council was receptive to the proposed changes, but requested that the Birch/Centerville Planned Residential/Commercial area be decreased in area and the balance of the site be guided medium density residential. Accordingly staff has prepared some additional changes for consideration by the Board. Proposed Changes Add a general statement regarding the projected mix of uses within each district: The Planned Residential/Commercial and Signature Gateway Districts incorporate planning parameters estimating the ratio of the residential and commercial mix. These ranges are flexible and may change based on a specific development proposal. Planned Residential/Commercial District. 1. Robinson Farm/Main Street a. An 80/20 residential to commercial area ratio is used for planning purposes. b. While allowed in all areas, commercial development will be required in at least one quadrant. To ensure implementation the City may choose to rezone land to a compatible neighborhood commercial zoning district upon completion of a corridor plan. c. Include Planning District recommendation to prepare Master Plan for Main Street Corridor between Sunset Avenue and 4th Avenue. Include as action step in implementation section. 2. Waldoch Farms. 3 a. An 80/20 residential to commercial area ratio is used for planning purposes b. The existing nursey and retail business is expected to remain as a long term use. Commercial development, while allowed, is not required on balance of property. 3. Birch/Centerville Road a. An 80/20 residential to commercial area ratio is used for planning purposes b. Commercial development, while allowed, is not required. c. Council provided direction to reduce the amount of PRC and replace with medium density residential. The PRC has been reduced to approximately 20 gross acres RECOMMENDATION Discussion item only. ATTACHMENTS 1. Proposed Land Use Change – Birch/Centerville Planned Residential/Commercial Districts Birch/Centerville Road •80/20 Residential/Com Split •Across from future rec center •No commercial required Proposed Birch/Centerville Road •North half medium density •South half Planned Res/Com 1 PLANNING & ZONING BOARD AGENDA ITEM 6B STAFF ORIGINATOR: Katie Larsen, City Planner P & Z MEETING DATE: November 14, 2018 REQUEST: All Seasons Rental Project Update APPLICANT: Scott & Shelly Carlson 7932 Lake Drive Lino Lakes, MN 55014 BACKGROUND In August 2017, the City Council approved a conditional use permit and site plan for All Seasons Rental to allow for the construction a new 7,740 sf commercial building at 7932 Lake Drive. Since that time, the owners have been securing financing for the new construction. Financial realities have resulted in changes to the exterior materials and overall look of the building. The original building proposed a 2 story design with lower level display and warehouse area and an upper level office and conference room area. The building footprint was 7,740 sf. Exterior materials included brick, pre-colored concrete block, precast concrete stone, EFIS and glass. Colors were red brick and tan earth tones. The owners have submitted revised building plans for a 1 story facility. The building footprint remains 7,740 sf. Exterior materials include shake siding, struktuoc wall panels with stucco finish, versetta stone and glass. Colors are brown and tan earth tones. The exterior materials and percentages meet ordinance performance standards. Staff wanted to make the Board aware of the building changes. Staff is currently working with the owners on possible changes to the fencing along Lake Drive. The original proposal was decorative, wrought iron fencing. All fencing will meet ordinance performance standards. There are no other changes to the site plan. RECOMMENDATION None. Information only. ATTACHMENTS 1. Original Building Elevation 2. Proposed Building Elevation