Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/14/2020 P&Z Minutes APPROVED MINUTES CITY OF LINO LAKES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MINUTES I. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL: Chair Tralle called the Lino Lakes Planning and Zoning Board meeting to order at 6:31 p.m. on October 14, 2020. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA The Agenda was approved as presented. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Mr. Reinert made a MOTION to approve the September 9, 2020 Meeting Minutes. Motion was supported by Ms. Peacock. Motion carried 6 - 0. Chair Tralle abstained. V. OPEN MIKE Chair Tralle declared Open Mike at 6:34 p.m. There was no one present for Open Mike. Mr. Evenson made a MOTION to close Open Mike at 6:35 p.m. Motion was supported by Ms. Peacock. Motion carried 6 - 0. Chair Tralle abstained. DATE: October 14, 2020 TIME STARTED: 6:31 P.M. TIME ENDED: 8:26 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Paul Tralle (Chair), Neil Evenson, Michael Root Perry Laden, Sue Peacock, Jeff Reinert, Nathan Vojtech STAFF PRESENT: Michael Grochala, Katie Larsen, Diane Hankee, Janele Waterman, Jessica Eller Planning & Zoning Board October 14, 2020 Page 2 APPROVED MINUTES VI. ACTION ITEMS A. PUBLIC HEARING: Conditional Use Permit for Commercial Stables at 426 Pine Street Ms. Larsen, City Planner, presented the staff report. The applicant, Christopher Stowe, submitted a Land Use Application for a conditional use permit for Commercial Stables at 426 Pine Street to operate a horse riding club and increase the number of allowed animal units on site. Staff offered the following three (3) options to the board: 1. Approve a Conditional Use Permit for Commercial Stables to allow for a maximum of 12.5 animal units 2. Approve a Conditional Use Permit for Commercial Stables to allow for a maximum of 25 animal units with a MPCA approved facility management and waste handling plan 3. Deny a Conditional Use Permit for Commercial Stables Board Comments Mr. Laden questioned what the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) plan would look like. He asked if the MPCA would assist the applicant with creating a personalized plan. Ms. Larsen shared, an example of a manure management plan was given to Mr. Stowe to aide him in creating his management plan. She clarified the MPCA would be happy to assist him in drafting his management plan. She specified the manure management plan would address where the applicant can store the manure, how much he can store, and if the manure needs to be removed off site, it would include a written agreement detailing the frequency of the removal of manure from the site. Mr. Laden inquired if the City ordinance, regarding the number of animal units, stipulates wetlands or upland. Ms. Larsen stated the City ordinance does not specify wetlands or upland. It only refers to animal units per acre of land. She further explained, the ordinance does not address gross or net acreage. Mr. Vojtech referenced the MN State rules requirement that there be a minimum setback of 300 ft. from the wetlands or a 50 ft. wide vegetated buffer from the wetlands and asked if there is 50 ft. from the wetlands on each of the manure storage sites. Planning & Zoning Board October 14, 2020 Page 3 APPROVED MINUTES Ms. Larsen said the 50 ft. butter would not get Mr. Stowe out of the floodplain and he would have to meet that requirement. Chair Tralle declared the Public Hearing open at 7:00 p.m. Applicant’s Comments Chair Tralle asked Mr. Stowe to share with the board what his intentions are. Mr. Stowe explained he has been operating his commercial stables for a few years and he did not know he needed approval to do so. He commented when he purchased the property, he thought he could use it as an arena since that was the original design and intent of the property. He stated the arena has 35 horse stalls, a 4 inch well, and its own public bathrooms. He clarified the well for the arena is separate from the well and septic for his home. The building south of the arena is a 100 ft. long hay barn. He said there used to be, at times, up to 100 horses on the property and the previous owner owned 35 horses. Mr. Stowe questioned the accuracy of the map which identifies the wetlands on his property. He explained water problems have occurred on his property due to the City of Columbus lowering culverts coming onto his property. He stated he would work on the manure management plan. He concluded by informing the board, he would be happy to address any of their questions. Chair Tralle asked Mr. Stowe if he would be willing to work with the MPCA in order to receive approval for 25 animal units. Mr. Stowe said yes, he would be willing to work with the MPCA to draft a manure management plan. Chair Tralle stated this is a public hearing and he asked if anyone else would like to address this topic. Ms. Larsen informed the board she received an email from Mr. Stowe’s neighbors, Rick and Rebecca Glewwe, 490 Pine Street, in support of the commercial stables at 426 Pine Street. The Glewwe’s stated Mr. Stowe has done a great job restoring the arena and as long as a manure management plan is approved, Mr. Stowe should be granted a conditional use permit for commercial stables. Ms. Peacock made a MOTION to close the Public Hearing at 7:13 p.m. Motion was supported by Mr. Laden. Motion carried 6 - 0. Chair Tralle abstained. Board Discussion Mr. Root acknowledged Mr. Stowe’s concern of the wetland map and questioned if the 25 animal units permitted could be subject to change if the property was delineated and it is determined there are less wetlands than what is currently Planning & Zoning Board October 14, 2020 Page 4 APPROVED MINUTES depicted. He stated he was in favor of maximizing the number of animal units on Mr. Stowe’s property. Ms. Larsen explained the acreage was determined by utilizing Anoka County’s GIS website. She clarified the City did not require Mr. Stowe to have a survey completed nor a wetland delineation. If the City would have made such requirements, the board would have definitive figures to review regarding acreage. She said the City ordinance does not address gross or net acreage; thus, the City always utilizes the gross amount. In this circumstance, the City determined Mr. Stowe owns approximately 25 acres in total for his three (3) parcels. Ms. Larsen explained Mr. Stowe can have 12.5 animal units now. However, with a conditional use permit for commercial stables, Mr. Stowe could have a riding club and 12.5 animals units without a waste management plan. Furthermore, with a conditional use permit for commercial stables, Mr. Stowe could have 25 animal units if he is in compliance with the MPCA floodplain rules and if he completes a waste management plan. Mr. Reinert asked if Mr. Stowe can prove he can handle the management of more manure, could he be allowed to have more horses. Ms. Larsen explained the current commercial ordinance only allows for the doubling of animal units with a manure management plan. For Mr. Stowe, he would only be allowed 25 animal units at max. Mr. Laden made a MOTION to recommend approval of the Conditional Use Permit for Commercial Stables to allow for a maximum of 25 animal units with a MPCA approved facility management and waste handling plan. Motion was supported by Mr. Root. Motion carried 6 - 0. Chair Tralle abstained. B. PUBLIC HEARING: Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment – Roofing Materials Ms. Larsen, City Planner, presented the staff report. At the September 9, 2020 Planning & Zoning Board meeting, the Board directed staff to draft a zoning ordinance text amendment regarding metals roofs. Staff requested the board’s input regarding the proposed zoning ordinance text amendment regarding metal roofs. Board Comments Mr. Evenson asked Ms. Larsen if the City specifies what type of shingles residents can use on single family homes. Ms. Larsen said the City does not specify the type of shingle. Planning & Zoning Board October 14, 2020 Page 5 APPROVED MINUTES Mr. Laden stated the City ordinance regarding standing seam metal roofs is too restrictive. He explained metal roofs should either be allowed or not allowed. He continued, if the type of roofing and siding is not specified within the City ordinance, the type of metal roofing should not be specified either. He clarified as long as the product is viable and it meets code, it should be allowed within the City. Mr. Root commented there is a lot more to this topic than aesthetics. He acknowledged one of the big differences between the standing seam and exposed fastener is the cost. Furthermore, he remarked to replace one’s roof with a metal standing seam roof is not a do-it yourself project. He stated he would approve of utilizing exposed fastener roofing in residential and other areas of the City, if the roof meets code. Mr. Root suggested the City require an underlayment, specifically a rubber washer along with a sealant, for the exposed fastener roofing. He also recommended having a minimum gauge on the metal for both the standing seam and exposed fastener. He concluded by stating he would support amending the zoning ordinance to allow for metal roofs with exposed fasteners if the fasteners are color- matched to the panels. Mr. Evenson proposed adding language to the ordinance to ensure the material is installed per the manufacturer’s specifications. Chair Tralle stated the ordinance could be adjusted to say the roofing materials need to meet the industry norm. Mr. Reinert commented on the aesthetics of each type of metal roofing. He said exposed fastener roofing has a rural look while standing seam is more appropriate for neighborhoods. He remarked it is acceptable to have particular standards within a City. He conjectured if a home resides on several acres, exposed fastener roofing maybe more accepted since sightline and aesthetics would not be of significant concern as it would in residential areas. Mr. Evenson commented exposed fastener roofing is suitable for small homes in older neighborhoods. He referenced a video which stated standing seam metal roofs are typically applied to larger homes since the length of exposed fastener metal roofing is limited. He mentioned exposed fastener metal roofs are becoming more common in high-end developments. Chair Tralle recommended including language in the ordinance to require the screws to be color-matched to the panel. He remarked the cost difference between standing seam and exposed fastener metal roofing is considerable. Mr. Laden said the board will likely not come to an agreement on the topic of aesthetics; nevertheless, he stated many individuals move to Lino Lakes because of its rural atmosphere. He explained there are many neighborhoods throughout the City which have restrictive covenants that do not allow metal roofing, therefore to limit exposed fastener metal roofing City-wide would not be appropriate. Planning & Zoning Board October 14, 2020 Page 6 APPROVED MINUTES Chair Tralle declared the Public Hearing open at 7:44 p.m. There were no public comments. Mr. Evenson made a MOTION to close the Public Hearing at 7:45 p.m. Motion was supported by Mr. Root. Motion carried 6 - 0. Chair Tralle abstained. Mr. Evenson made a MOTION to recommend amending the zoning ordinance to allow for metal roofs on single family homes with either hidden fasteners (i.e. standing seam) or exposed fasteners, but not permitting corrugated, galvanized roofs in residential areas. Motion was supported by Mr. Root. Motion carried 4 - 3. C. 842 Lois Lane – Deck Setback Variance Ms. Larsen, City Planner, presented the staff report. The applicant, Brian A. Rydlund, submitted a Land Use Application for setback variance for the purpose of constructing a deck at his property located at 842 Lois Lane. A 2.7 foot variance to reduce the side yard setback from 5 feet to 2.3 feet is requested. Staff recommended denial of the 2.7 foot variance to reduce the side yard setback from 5 feet to 2.3 feet at 842 Lois Lane. Board Comments Mr. Evenson, upon viewing the City website, questioned, if any changes are made to a structure, is it a requirement to pull a permit. Ms. Larsen explained it depends on the circumstance, but altering the size of a deck would require a permit. She recommended, if anyone questions whether a permit is required for a specific project to call the building department. Mr. Evenson asked if a permit would be required for free standing decks under 30 inches. Ms. Larsen clarified the conversation then changes to a discussion of the differences between a concrete patio and a deck and height becomes a factor. She said regardless of whether a deck or a concrete patio is constructed, they both need to meet the 5 ft. setback. Ms. Peacock expressed concern with placing the deck within a few feet of the lot line. She stated, although the current neighbor may have no issue with the placement of the deck, there may arise issues in the future with new ownership. She proposed changing the configuration of the deck to extend it out on the backside of Planning & Zoning Board October 14, 2020 Page 7 APPROVED MINUTES the house. She concluded she would accept the deck being close to the lot line if the deck was further down the lot and not adjacent to the house next door. Applicant’s Comments Mr. Rydlund explained when he and his wife purchased the house, they were unaware the original owner did not pull permits for either deck. Now, the decks are failing and they need to be replaced. The Rydlund’s intent was to retain the current depth dimensions of the small deck on the side of the home, extend it out the backside of the home, and connect it to the backyard deck. He explicated the 5 ft. setback would not allow them to place their grill on the side deck which would give them easy access from the dining room. Mr. Rydlund hoped the board would consider his request to reduce the side yard setback and he thanked the board for their time. Mr. Root made a MOTION to recommend denial of the 2.7 foot variance to reduce the side yard setback from 5 feet to 2.3 feet at 842 Lois Lane. Motion was supported by Mr. Laden. Motion carried 5 - 0. Chair Tralle and Mr. Evenson abstained. VII. DISCUSSION ITEMS A. Next Planning & Zoning Board Meeting: Tuesday, November 10, 2020 B. Livable Communities Act Reenrollment Mr. Grochala, Community Development Director, presented the staff report. In 1995, the Minnesota Legislature adopted the Livable Communities Act (LCA). This program, which is administered by the Metropolitan Council, provides funding for communities to invest in local economic revitalization, work force housing initiatives, and development or redevelopment which connects different land uses and transportation. The program assists communities with growth, redevelopment, and addresses affordable and lifecycle housing needs. In order to participate in the program, the City must agree to long-term affordable and lifecycle housing goals, draft a Housing Action Plan, and adopt its 2040 Comprehensive Plan Update. If the City would like an opportunity to apply for particular grant opportunities from the Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development, participation in the Livable Communities program is required. The City of Lino Lakes has participated in the program since 1996 and has received $1,645,000 in grants to fund previous projects. Staff sought the Planning and Zoning Board’s recommendation to pursue reenrollment in the Livable Communities Program from 2021 through 2030. The Planning and Zoning Board recommended the City pursue reenrollment in the Livable Communities Program. Planning & Zoning Board October 14, 2020 Page 8 APPROVED MINUTES C. Project Updates Staff provided verbal updates to the Board on current City projects. VIII. ADJOURNMENT Mr. Evenson made a MOTION to adjourn the meeting at 8:26 p.m. Motion was supported by Mr. Vojtech. Motion carried 6 - 0. Chair Tralle abstained. Respectfully submitted, Janele Waterman, Administrative Assistant