Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/09/2021 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 6:30 p.m. on June 9, 2021. 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 May 12, 2021 meeting minutes. Motion was supported by Mr. Laden. Motion carried 3 – 0. Mr. Evenson abstained. Chair Tralle abstained. V. OPEN MIKE Chair Tralle declared Open Mike at 6:32 p.m. There was no one present for Open Mike. Mr. Laden made a MOTION to close Open Mike at 6:32 p.m. Motion was supported by Mr. Evenson. Motion carried 4 – 0. Chair Tralle abstained. VI. ACTION ITEMS A. PUBLIC HEARING: Conditional Use Permit for Commercial Stables and Variance for Number of Animal Units for 426 Pine Street DATE: June 9, 2021 TIME STARTED: 6:30 P.M. TIME ENDED: 9:05 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Paul Tralle (Chair), Michael Root, Perry Laden, Jeff Reinert, Neil Evenson MEMBERS ABSENT: Isaac Wipperfurth, Nathan Vojtech STAFF PRESENT: Michael Grochala, Katie Larsen, Janele Waterman Planning & Zoning Board June 9, 2021 Page 2 APPROVED MINUTES Ms. Larsen, City Planner, presented the staff report. The applicant and property owner, Christopher Stowe, submitted a Land Use Application for a conditional use permit amendment and variance for the commercial stable operations at 426 Pine Street. The conditional use permit amendment is to amend the previously approved Resolution No. 20-129, No. 20-130 and No. 20-144 and the variance request is to allow for fifty (50) animal units. Board Comments Mr. Root commented that there were very little comments provided by staff regarding the findings of fact. He asked Ms. Larsen if this means staff agreed with the applicant’s findings. Ms. Larsen stated that staff is presenting the applicant’s findings of fact for tonight’s conversation and narrative. Mr. Root asked what the number of animal units is based on. Ms. Larsen stated that the number of animal units is based on the gross acreage of the site. Chair Tralle asked why all three parcels have not been combined. Ms. Larsen stated that staff considered this with the original CUP in 2020. However, the Commercial Stables Ordinance does state that as long as the parcels remain under common ownership, they are allowed to take credit for them. Chair Tralle asked what the Rice Creek Watershed District is requiring of the applicant that is going to take six months to complete. Ms. Larsen stated that Rice Creek is working with the applicant on some wetland and floodplain fill violations. They are trying to work together to come up with a plan to mitigate those issues. Applicant’s Comments Christopher Stowe, 426 Pine Street, Lino Lakes with attorney Jacob Steen, Larkin Hoffman Attorneys, 8300 Norman Center Dr. Bloomington, commented that this property was originally built in 1968 for boarding and showing. Mr. Stowe acquired the property in April of 2018 and began using the property as originally intended. Shortly after this point the City adopted the Commercial Stables Ordinance which Mr. Stowe was not aware of at the time. The 1 horse for every 2 acres recommendation is accurate in the circumstance that the horses are using the pastureland for their feeding purposes. The difference with this property is that all the feeding hay is brought in, and all the excess manure is brought out. The manure Planning & Zoning Board June 9, 2021 Page 3 APPROVED MINUTES is stored on site and removed regularly. Many of these horses are rescues or ill in some way. Most horses are cared for by community and volunteers. There are some groups that utilize this facility for boarding as well. Mr. Stowe is asking for an amended CUP with the variance. He is asking to be allowed to board 50 animals out of a facility with a designed capacity of 120. Mr. Steen raised concerns with 3 of the conditions laid out in the staff report. His first concern is with condition number 2, which refers to the term of the 1968 conditional use permit which he objects to in principle. Mr. Steen’s second concern is with condition number 13 an issue with the Rice Creek Watershed District on the grounds of needing a longer period of time to come into compliance. This condition defers authority to a 3rd party, the Watershed District on a CUP issue. His last concern surrounds the need for a manure management plan. He shares the cities concern on this issue but is not receiving clear direction from the MPCA currently. Board Comments Mr. Laden asked what the nature of the portable shelters are. Mr. Stowe stated that horses need sun protection in the summer and wind protection in the winter. The structures are three sided with an opening near the ground around the perimeter. Mr. Evenson asked how big the stalls are in the arena. Mr. Stowe stated that the stalls vary in size but are larger than the common stall today. Mr. Reinert stated that the main issue he sees is the management of the manure. He asked Mr. Stowe how he is disposing of the manure currently. Mr. Stowe stated that he is using dump trailers. He stated that he purchased this property three years ago. In 1997 the City approved a bike track and a 144-unit parking structure which according to the map would be placed on wetland. Mr. Stowe feels like he was grandfathered in due to purchasing the property before the ordinance change. The 1968 Special Use Permit had no expiration date and he has not been provided any literature on this permit. He stated that the map of his property is misleading on the history of his property as well as the current state. He stated that he would like to have 50 animal units on site, continue with the manure management, and agree to the shelter requirements. Mr. Root stated that he is empathetic to the situation, but the board is constrained by procedures. He stated that he wants to confirm that the property was purchased prior to the Commercial Stables Ordinance being changed. Mr. Root asked Mr. Stowe how many animals there were prior to the ordinance change. Planning & Zoning Board June 9, 2021 Page 4 APPROVED MINUTES Mr. Stowe stated that he moved his animals as soon as he could but could not provide an exact count. Mr. Root reiterated the requirements of granting a variance to Mr. Stowe. Chair Tralle declared the Public Hearing open at 7:27 p.m. Bernie Bogenreif, 455 Andall Street, Lino Lakes, commented that he has concerns that the City is already addressing. He is not in favor of extending the deadline on the Rice Creek Watershed District violations. He is concerned with potential water quality issues. He is not in favor of increased animal units on the property for a variety of reasons. He is concerned with animal health issues surrounding crowding and cleanliness. Mr. Bogenreif also raised the question of where excess animals would go if Mr. Stowe were shut down. Chair Tralle stated his opinion that if Mr. Stowe is shut down then the removal of animals would be the issue of Mr. Stowe or the state. Not an issue of the City. Kerry Bogenreif, 455 Andall Street, Lino Lakes, had an issue with loud machinery operation into the nighttime hours last summer. The manure disposal also adds to the noise of the area. She raised an issue with the accompanying noise impacting her quality of life. Regarding the Watershed District violations, she shared the opinion that it should be taken care of quickly and settling this issue should be a requirement of this variance being granted. Mr. Stowe addressed his neighbors from 455 Andall Street and apologized for previous noise issues. Chair Tralle stated he is opposed to requiring resolution of the Watershed District violations prior to reaching a decision on this variance. Mr. Laden made a MOTION to close the Public Hearing at 7:38 p.m. Motion was supported by Mr. Evenson. Motion carried 4 – 0. Chair Tralle abstained. Board Comments Mr. Reinert asked Ms. Larsen to speak to how many animals were on the site when originally built. Ms. Larsen stated that she was unsure of how many animals were on the site in the 1960’s. Mr. Reinert stated that whomever makes a motion should consider the noise complaints and limit the source of the noise starting at 7 p.m. Planning & Zoning Board June 9, 2021 Page 5 APPROVED MINUTES Mr. Evenson asked Ms. Larsen to reiterate the timeline of the property being purchased and the Commercial Stables Ordinance change. Ms. Larsen stated that Mr. Stowe moved in around April or May 2018 and in July 2018 the City amended and adopted the Commercial Stables Ordinance which allowed for the doubling of the number of animal units. Mr. Laden stated he was struggling with doubling the number of animal units. He asked Ms. Larsen if this variance would be applied to the property. Ms. Larsen stated that the variance would go with the property. Mr. Laden stated that he was concerned about this because although Mr. Stowe is a responsible owner what happens when he sells his property. He also stated that he has concerns regarding approving a variance where the findings of fact were written by the applicant. Mr. Root commented that putting a deadline on resolution with the RCWD or the MPCA is problematic because there is no control over these outside entities but suggested it be brought back for review until these issues are resolved. Mr. Laden wanted to know if the applicant needed to be in compliance with the RCWD within 6 months or if the issue needs to be fully closed with the RCWD within 6 months. Ms. Larsen stated that currently the applicant needs to be in compliance within 6 months. She stated that this language can be changed. Mr. Laden suggested that there be a deadline after there is resolution with these entities. Ms. Larsen suggested that City speak with their attorney and Mr. Stowe’s attorney to come up with some language that both can agree on concerning a timeline. Mr. Reinert made a MOTION to recommend approval of the conditional use permit for commercial stable operations at 426 Pine Street. Motion was supported by Mr. Root. Motion carried 4 – 0. Chair Tralle abstained. Mr. Reinert made a MOTION to recommend approval of the variance for commercial stable operations at 426 Pine Street. Motion failed due to the lack of a second. Mr. Root made a MOTION to recommend denial of the variance for commercial stable operations at 426 Pine Street. Motion was supported by Mr. Evenson. Motion carried 3 – 1. Chair Tralle abstained. Planning & Zoning Board June 9, 2021 Page 6 APPROVED MINUTES B. PUBLIC HEARING: Conditional Use Permit for Open and Outdoor Storage at 2300 Main Street (Glamos Wire, Inc.) Ms. Larsen, City Planner, presented the staff report. The applicant, Steve Tomas of Glamos Wire, Inc., submitted a Land Use Application for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for Open and Outdoor Storage at their facility located at 2300 Main Street. Board Comments Mr. Laden asked why the board would waive the 50% shrub requirement if it is in our ordinance. He asked if the existing greenery counts toward that 50% requirement. Ms. Larsen stated that the existing greenery does count toward that requirement and that is why it would be reasonable to waive it. Mr. Laden asked what would happen if the board waived this requirement and the existing trees were then removed. Ms. Larsen stated that there would be a requirement that the existing trees be maintained or replaced if removed. Mr. Root commented that allowing existing greenery to serve as a screen is acceptable. Chair Tralle concurred with Mr. Root that the existing greenery was adequate as long as the fence is installed. Chair Tralle declared the Public Hearing open at 8:13 p.m. There was no one present for the public hearing. Mr. Laden made a MOTION to close the Public Hearing at 8:14 p.m. Motion was supported by Mr. Evenson. Motion carried 4 – 0. Chair Tralle abstained. Mr. Evenson made a MOTION to recommend approval of the conditional use permit for open and outdoor storage at 2300 Main Street with the removal of the 50% shrub requirement. Motion was supported by Mr. Root. Motion carried 4 – 0. Chair Tralle abstained. VII. DISCUSSION ITEMS A. Zoning Ordinance Update Discussion – General Provisions, Kendra Lindahl, Landform Planning & Zoning Board June 9, 2021 Page 7 APPROVED MINUTES Ms. Kendra Lindahl, Landform, presented a summary of Zoning Ordinance changes to the General Provisions section needed to comply with State Law, eliminate inconsistencies in the document, better reflect City goals and make the ordinance easier to read and understand. This is an initial draft of key concepts. The Planning & Zoning Board should review the draft changes recommended by staff and provide direction on any other desired changes. The direction will be incorporated into the full draft that will be presented later this year. Board Comments Chair Tralle asked if the wind and solar energy sections could be combined. Ms. Lindahl said City likes the idea of an alternate energy zoning section with subsections for solar and wind if the board agrees. Currently the City has been allowing solar projects. Mr. Laden asks how solar and wind could be combined in the zones. He feels solar can go just about anywhere but wind needs to have more restrictive requirements. Ms. Lindahl agrees with Mr. Laden and clarifies wind and solar would be under the same section, subsections would clarify the differences with both. Chair Tralle comments on solar gardens taking land out of taxable property and asks if the same would be true of wind. Ms. Lindahl clarifies that this does not refer to a wind farm but rather refers to a wind accessory to a structure. A single facility not exceeding 5,000 kilowatts. Staff is referring to a home or business. Mr. Root asks what the current standard zoning on solar power arrays are. Ms. Lindahl said that if asked to prepare a solar ordinance for review there are three different solar patterns that would be considered which are building integrated, building mounted, and ground mounted solar arrays. A review would also consider more technical aspects such as reflection proof covers and the panels ability to move. Mr. Root points out that a 5-megawatt wind structure would need a mounting pole of 120ft high and would have a blade diameter of 140ft. Because of this he would like any wind ordinance proposal to have differing standards for different zones. He would also like any zoning proposal to anticipate common issues with wind power such as shadow flickering and noise. Ms. Lindahl stated that they did draft a free standing WECS which cannot exceed 50 ft in height as measured from the grade at the base of the tower to the highest possible extension of the blades. She commented that setbacks were also addressed by saying the tower must be able to fall over and not hit the lot line. Planning & Zoning Board June 9, 2021 Page 8 APPROVED MINUTES Mr. Laden stated that he would like to see something in the ordinance that addresses shadow flickering. Mr. Reinert stated that wind is more of a nuisance than solar. Mr. Laden commented that he would like to see wind allowable only in rural areas. Mr. Root concurred stating that wind is going to be too restrictive to be allowed in most residential areas. Chair Tralle stated that wind generation should only be allowed in rural areas. Ms. Lindahl asked the board for their thoughts on the current solar zoning process. Mr. Grochala stated that solar projects are treated as an accessory structure so a resident can install solar if they meet all the accessory structure requirements. Mr. Root stated that he would like to see examples of a formal code. Ms. Larsen commented that the City has received inquiries about ground mounted solar arrays for private property that they currently have no guidelines for. For ground mounted arrays they have no basis of code and would like direction from the board. Chair Tralle commented that the issue of reflection becomes much more serious with a ground mounted solar array. Mr. Laden commented that he would like to see ground mounted solar arrays treated differently than other accessory structures. Mr. Evenson asked whether a ground mounted solar array took the place of an accessory structure under the current guidelines. Ms. Larsen stated that under the current code the City has no clear answer to that question. Ms. Lindahl asked Mr. Evenson how he feels about adding flexibility to the metal roofing standards. Mr. Evenson stated that he is in favor of more flexibility regarding metal roofing standards. Mr. Root pointed out some changes in the text to increase understanding. Planning & Zoning Board June 9, 2021 Page 9 APPROVED MINUTES Mr. Laden commented that the section regarding sports courts needs to clarify that it is referring to outdoor sports courts. He also questioned why an accessory structure that does not need a building permit needs a zoning permit. Mr. Grochala stated that building code does not apply to anything under 200 sq. ft but anything under that still needs a zoning permit to ensure that they are meeting all setback requirements. Mr. Laden commented that he thought it is unrealistic to expect residents to come in for a zoning permit. Ms. Larsen stated that the building department gets numerous zoning permit applications for accessory structures. Mr. Laden commented on the section regarding car ports. He stated that limiting the size of car ports to 300 sq. ft is restrictive. B. Project Updates Staff provided verbal updates to the Board on current City projects. VIII. ADJOURNMENT Mr. Reinert made a MOTION to adjourn the meeting at 9:05 p.m. Motion was supported by Mr. Evenson. Motion carried 4 – 0. Chair Tralle abstained. Respectfully submitted, Janele Waterman, Community Development Administrative Assistant Jessica Eller, Community Development Intern