Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/12/2002 P&Z MinutesAPPROVED MINUTES CITY OF LINO LAKES PLANNING & ZONI NG BOARD MINUTES I.CALL TO ORDE R AND ROLL CALL Chair Rafferty called the Lino Lakes Planning and Zoning Board meeting to order at 6:40 p.m., June 12, 2002. II.APPROVAL OF AGENDA The agenda was approved. III.APPROVAL OF MINUTES – May 8, 2002 Ms. Lane made a MOTION to approve the minutes of the May 8, 2002, meeting of the Lino Lakes Planning and Zoning Board, a nd was supported by Mr. Corson. Motion carried 4-0. IV.OPEN MIKE Chair Rafferty declared open mike open at 6:41 p.m. No one was present for open mike. Mr. Lyden made a MOTION to close Open Mike at 6:41 p.m., and was supported by Ms. Lane. Motion carried 4-0. V.ACTION ITEMS A. Emergency Apparatus Maintenance, 7512 – 4 th Avenue, Site Plan Review DATE: June 12, 2002 TIME STARTED: 6:40 P.M. TIME ENDED: 8:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Corson, Hyde n, Lane, Lyden, and Rafferty. MEMBERS ABSENT: Schaps and Zych. STAFF PRESENT: Jeff Smyser; Tanda Gretz Planning & Zoning Board June 12, 2002 Page 2 APPROVED MINUTES Staff explained Emergency Apparatu s Maintenance, located at 7512-4 th Avenue, is a company that repairs and customizes equipm ent used by fire departments. The current 5,600 sq. ft. building was approved in 1996 with plans which indicated an area for future expansion. The company would now like to expand into the area indicated in the 1996 plans, and has submitted an application for a Site Plan Review Staff presented its analysis by explaining the site was a 1.12 acre triangular piece of property located to the east of 4 th Avenue within the Lino Industrial Park. Superior Masonry & Concrete abuts the s ite to the north, with Nol-Tec located to the south. Staff stated the existing building measured 5,273 sq.ft. The proposed addition would be located to the east of the current building and measure 5,450 sq.ft. The expanded area would be used exclusively as repair bays. Staff indicated the build ing elevations showed the proposed addition matched the existing bui lding in terms of color and materials, which was rock face concrete block. Staff st ated the building height was similar as well. Staff reviewed the proposed setbacks for the site. With respect to parking, staff indicated a new 30’ wide access drive was proposed onto 4 th Avenue. Staff stated parking for the orig inal building was calcula ted at one stall for each employee (6), with nine stalls actually constructed. There are now ten employees, with proposed plans showing a total of 19 stalls to actually be constructed. Staff stated City Ordinance required light manufactur ing areas to provide “one space for each employee or one space for each 2,000 feet of gro ss floor area, whichever is greater.” A minimum of ten parking stalls were thus re quired for the site, calc ulating one stall for each employee. With respect to grading/drainage/utility, staff indicated the applicant had submitted a preliminary Grading, Erosion Control and Drainage plan, although some information remained incomplete, per City Engineer Jim Studenski. The memo dated June 6, 2002 from Mr. Studenski to Michael Grochala deta iled these issues. Staff stated all grading, drainage, and utility issues must be resolved to the satisfaction of th e City Engineer prior to any City Council review. Staff indicated Rice Creek Watershed had issued a TWAFAA for the proposed project pending receipt of several administrative items, including: 1.) Incorporation of infiltration practices. 2.) Existing versus proposed swale capacity narrative. 3.) Revegetation specifications for incorpor ated infiltration BMP’s (best management practices). With respect to lighting, Staff indicated subm itted plans showed wall pack style fixtures, which did not comply with City Ordinance lighting standards. The applicant had been directed to use shoebox style, no-spill fixtures which will deliver meter readings within City standards (<1 foot candle on public streets). With respect to landscaping, Staff stated City Ordinance allowed impervious surface coverage up to 90% in a General Industria l Zone. No landscaping was proposed, and staff was not recommending any, as the additi on was located behind the original structure and was surrounded by similar industrial uses. Planning & Zoning Board June 12, 2002 Page 3 APPROVED MINUTES Staff indicated the trash dumpster servicing th e original building was located in the area planned for expansion and, as a result, would have to be moved to a new location. Staff stated original plans approved a dumpster without an enclosure; instead four pine trees at the rear of the lot were installed. Sta ff indicated since the pine trees were only approximately three feet high and offered no real screening of an otherwise exposed dumpster, and since the previous trash arrangements were made under a previous Ordinance, staff would require that the dumps ter be enclosed as required under Section 3, subd. 4.G.2.c of the current ordinance. Staff stated the building was required to be sprinkled. Review of the fire suppression system would be handled as a building inspection issue. In conclusion, staff indicated plans for th e original EAM building, approved in 1996, identified an area to the east of the building to be used fo r future expansion. The current application described a 5,450-sq.ft addition to match the original building, for use as repair bays. Staff would recommend approva l of the application, with the following conditions: 1.) Proper building permits be obtai ned prior to any construction. 2.) The City Engineer shall review and ap prove all necessary grading, utility, and drainage plans: incomplete grading, utility, and drainage issues identified in the memo dated June 6, 2002 from City Engineer Jim Studenski are to be resolved to his satisfaction prior to any City Council review. 3.) Permits be obtained by Rice Creek Watershe d prior to any site work or issuance of building permits. 4.) Cut sheets showing a lighting fixture c hoice meeting City Ordinance (shoebox style, no-spill), as well as a revised photometric lighting plan which reflects the new choice of fixture style, must be submitted prior to City Council review. 5.) Trash/dumpsters must be enclosed within a six-foot high fence or wall. Elevation plans of the enclosure must be s ubmitted prior to C ity Council review. Staff recommended approval of the Site Plan Review application with the conditions as outlined. Chair Rafferty invited applicant to make comment. Jeff Anderson, General Manager, stated they agreed with the conditions as outlined by staff. Chair Rafferty inquired about the number of st alls. Mr. Anderson replied the requirement was 10 stalls and they were proposing installing 18 stalls. Mr. Lyden asked why condition number 6 was omitted. Ms. Gretz replied she was not sure if this condition would be taken off or not at this time, but this would be resolved by the time it went to the Council. Planning & Zoning Board June 12, 2002 Page 4 APPROVED MINUTES Mr. Corson inquired about the c oncrete slab. Mr. Anderson re plied it was a concrete slab that was proposed to extend th e entire parking lot. He stat ed they might do concrete on the whole parking lot and not asphalt. Ms. Lane made a MOTION to recommend approval of the proposed Site Plan Review with the five conditions as outlined in staff’s report. The motion was supported by Mr. Hyden. Motion carried 4-0. B.Russian Baptist Church, Ash St./Baldwin Lk. Rd., Site Plan Re view and Conditional Use Permit Staff presented the application by Russian Ba ptist Church for a Site Plan Review and Conditional Use Permit. Staff reviewed the background of the lot by ex plaining the proposed site was in the far southwestern corner of the Ci ty, west of Baldwin Lake Road and north of Ash Street. The property, which is 4.6 acres in size, is zone d Rural. Since churches are listed as a Conditional Use in a Rural Zone , a Conditional Use Permit has also been applied for. Staff indicated the Church cu rrently had approximately 180 members. The church was now renting space in Spring Lake Park for their meetings and parrish needs, and had applied for a Site Plan Review and Conditiona l Use Permit in order to construct a church of their own. Staff presented its analysis by explaining th e site was a 4.6-acre lo t fronting Ash Street (County Road J). The northern half of th e property was wooded, w ith a wetland in the northwest quarter. The Southern half of the property was largely open grassland. The west border of the property abut s the rear lot lines of residential homes along Indian Hills Drive in Circle Pines. The northern border abuts the back half of a property located on Baldwin Lake Road in Lino Lakes. The eas t border of the propert y abuts the rear lot lines of three homes also along Baldwin La ke Road, as well as a neighboring home on Ash Street. To the south, across Ash Stre et in Shoreview, are residential homes. Staff indicated the Site was zoned Rural. Churches were listed as a Conditional Use in such a district with the following provisions: 1. Side yard setbacks shall not be less than fifty (50) feet. 2. Adequate screening from abutting reside ntial uses and landscaping is provided in compliance with the landscape and screen ing regulations of Section 3 of the Zoning Ordinance. 3. Adequate off-street parking and access is provided on the site…and such parking is adequately screened and landscaped from surrounding and abutting residential uses in compliance with Section 3, subd. 4.S of the Zoning Ordinance. 4. Adequate off-street loading and servi ce entrances are provided and regulated where applicable by Section 3, subd. 6 of this ordinance. Planning & Zoning Board June 12, 2002 Page 5 APPROVED MINUTES Staff noted, additionally, under Section 2, subd. 2.B.7 of the City Zoning Ordinance, any issued Conditional Use Permits mu st meet the following standards: 1. Will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort, convenience or general welfare of the neighborhood of the City. 2. Will be harmonious with the general and applicable specific plans and policies of the comprehensive plan of the City and this ordinance. 3. Will be designed, constructed, operated, and maintained so as to be harmonious and appropriate in appearance with the ex isting and/or intended character of the general vicinity and will not change the essential charac ter of that area. 4. Will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services, including streets, police and fire prot ection, drainage structures, refuse disposal, water and sewer systems, and schools; or will be se rved adequately by such facilities and services provided by the persons or agen cies responsible for the establishment of the proposed use. 5. Will not create excessive additional requirements at public cost for public facilities and services and will not be de trimental to the economic welfare of the community. 6. Will not involve uses, activities, proce sses, 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. 7. Will have vehicular approaches to the property, which are so designed as not to create traffic congestion or an inte rference with tra ffic on surrounding public thoroughfares. 8. Will not result in the destruction, loss, or damage of a natural, scenic or historic feature of major importance. 9. Will conform to specific standards of this ordinance applicable to the particular use. Staff stated the proposed site and use app eared to comply with the above-described provisions and standards. Staff indicated proposed cons truction included 15,920 total squa re feet of building over three levels: • Main Level: 7,438 square feet (s anctuary and related uses) • Lower Level: 7,438 square feet (classrooms, fellowship area and kitchen facilities) • Upper Level: 1,044 square feet (s torage and child/parent room) Plans also showed a 60’ X 50’ footprint to the nort h of the proposed church, to be used as a future expansion area. Any future e xpansion will require a Conditional Use Permit Amendment and Site Plan Review. Planning & Zoning Board June 12, 2002 Page 6 APPROVED MINUTES The exterior of the building would include a brick facing/apron a nd vinyl siding, with a proposed 45-foot steeple. No bells are propos ed at this time. Asphalt shingles would cover the roof. Staff noted there was neither water nor sewer available for the site. Plans indicated a proposed drain field north of the church, with adequate room for a secondary drain field site. Soils tests confirm that the site c ould adequately support a septic system. As building code requires a spri nkler system for this build ing, and the site had no public water available, a holding tank for fire s uppression purposes would be required. Design of the sprinkler system would be reviewed as part of the building permit application, but design specifications would be requ ired prior to C ity Council review. Staff stated the site was located in a Ph ase 1 Growth Area. Although there were no immediate plans for City sewe r and water services to be installed, it was possible that they would be available by 2010. City servic es may also be available via the City of Shoreview or the city of Circle Pines, howev er the church had informed staff that they had no plans to pursue util ities through e ither city. Staff noted City Ordinance required one pa rking space for each four seats in a church. There are 360 seats show in the main assembly hall, which would then require 90 parking stalls. Plans for the church show 99 parking stalls. Staff noted although there were additional cl assrooms and fellowship areas in the lower level of the church, these area s were not expected to be us ed by adults concurrently with the main assembly hall. As a result, the parking stall estimates generated from the number of seats in the main assembly hall appear to be adequate for church needs. Staff stated plans indicated an area to the nort heast of the proposed church to be used for additional parking should the church choos e to expand. This area would contain 33 additional stalls. The Environmental Boar d had recommended use of green parking in future parking expansion areas, as well as an increase in the use of infiltration and storm water practices around parking areas in general. Staff noted access is off Ash St reet, a County road. As a result, plans had been submitted to the Anoka County Highway department fo r review. Plans show a two-lane, 24-foot wide driveway entrance to the site off Ash Street. Staff indicated there had been no traffic generation study conducted. With respect to lighting, staff noted a photometric plan had been submitted, along with fixture details. Lighting woul d be no-spill, with meter read ings within City requirements (< 1 foot candle for streets; < 0.4 foot candle for abutting residential property). With respect to landscaping, staff stated the proposed church would exist as a conditional use within a Rural zone. City Ordinance directed that such conditional uses provide “adequate screening from abutting resident ial uses and landscaping…in compliance with Sec. 3.subd.4.S.” City Ordinance specifically directs buffering/screening in the form of “either a fence or green belt planting strip.” Planning & Zoning Board June 12, 2002 Page 7 APPROVED MINUTES Staff noted the applicant had elected to cons truct a fence for screening purposes, and City Ordinance required “such a fence shall provide a solid screening effect six feet in height.” Staff recommended a condition requiring that such a fence be extended to the north to screen all proposed and future parking expans ion areas, as current plans do not show the proposed fence extending along the entire area of parking. In addition, Staff stated the applicant had provided some additional landscapi ng in an attempt to soften the effect of the fence, as City Ordinance directed “e xposed fences shall run a maximum length of fifty feet between landscapi ng areas or clusters” (Sec. 3.s ubd. 4.S.5.e.2.b). At this time plans showed the fence located on the lot line, with landscaping located on the church side of the fence. Staff indicated the current la ndscape plan showed some trees within ponding and drain field areas and the Environmental Board had recommended such trees be moved to appropriate areas. The Board also recomme nded consideration of alternate tree species choices, which were described in the me mo from Environmental Specialist Marty Asleson. In addition, the Board had reco mmended that a tree inventory and tree preservation plan be submitted for the site. Staff noted plans showed a 13’ X 10’ trash en closure located at the northern end of the parking area. The enclosure was 6’-8” high a nd constructed of conc rete block painted to match the principle building color. With respect to signage, staff stated no signage plans had yet been submitted. The Lino Lakes Sign Ordinance limits institutional signage in the Rural zone in the following ways: maximum of 32-square feet of signage area; a maximum of 8 feet high; no closer than 10 feet to any property line. Staff noted there would be no park dedicati on fee required. There are no trails planned for the north side of Ash Street. Staff stated there are a number of engin eering issues that remain incomplete or unresolved, per City Engineer Jim Studens ki; the memo dated June 7, 2002, detailed these concerns. All engineering issues are to be resolved to the satisfaction of the City Engineer prior to a ny City Council review. Staff indicated Rice Creek Watershed District had issued a TWAFFA for this project, pending completion of five administrative items. Staff noted the Environmental Board review ed this application at their May 29, 2002, meeting and recommended approval with some changes; the Memo from Marty Asleson dated June 6, 2002, detailed these changes. In general, recommended changes center around the following: 1.) Submit a tree inventory a nd tree preservation plan. 2.) Increase infiltration and storm water pr actices, particularly around parking areas. 3.) Alter tree choices, and move some tr ees out of water infiltration areas. 4.) Use of green parking in futu re parking expansion areas. Planning & Zoning Board June 12, 2002 Page 8 APPROVED MINUTES Staff recommended approval of the app lication, with the following conditions: 1.) Proper building permits be obtai ned prior to any construction. 2.) Permits be obtained by Rice Creek Watershed prior to any site work or building permit issuance. 3.) Fencing shall extend to the north to buffer all proposed and future parking expansion areas. 4.) Any signage must comply with the City’s Sign Ordinance. 5.) Any future expansion shall require Si te Plan Review and a Conditional Use Permit Amendment. 6.) A tree inventory, tree pres ervation plan, and revised landscape plan are to be reviewed by the City’s Environmental Sp ecialist. All trees shown placed in ponding or drain field areas are to be moved to more suitable areas. 7.) The City Engineer shall review and ap prove all necessary grading, utility, and drainage plans: issues identified in the memo dated May 1, 2002, from City Engineer Jim Studenski are to be resolved to his satisfaction prior to City Council review. 8.) Design specifications for the fire suppressi on system will be required prior to City Council review. 9.) A performance agreement shall be prepar ed, including financial securities, and executed prior to Ci ty Council review. 10.)Utility connection through the City of Circle Pines should be more fully investigated prior to City Council review. Mr. Corson asked if the City was willing to l ook at putting utilities in this area. Ms. Gretz replied there were no plans at this time to make connections. She stated there was a connection in Circle Pines on Indian Hi lls Drive, approximately 200 feet away. Alternatively there was a conne ction available in Shoreview, but they would need to go under a County Road. Mr. Corson inquired about the fire suppression system. Mr. Smyser replied it would require a large tank to pump the water, as well as a generator to pump the water. He stated a well would not provid e enough water to put out a fire . He indicated it was not unusual to have this type of a facility. He stated they would prefer them investigating hooking up to Circle Pines, and they would find out if this will be possible before this went to the City Council. He stated it was e xpensive to put this type of a fire suppression facility on site. Mr. Corson asked if the Church would be requi red to hook up to the ut ilities, if they came in the area. Mr. Smyser replied the City di d not force people to hook up to the utilities when they were in the area. Chair Rafferty opened the Public Hearing at 7:05 p.m. Michael Kula, 6 Indian Hills Drive, Circle Pines, stated he observed that the matter before the Planning Commission seemed premat ure. He indicated there were a number of issues that needed to be resolved. Chair Rafferty replied this stage would be a Planning & Zoning Board June 12, 2002 Page 9 APPROVED MINUTES recommendation for or against the project a nd would go before the City Council at the first July meeting. Mr. Kula asked if the recommendations woul d be modified prior to the City Council meeting. Chair Rafferty replied they could be. Mr. Kula expressed concerns re garding the nature of the use of the property. He asked if there would be a school on the property. He as ked if they had any intent of expanding in the future. Ms. Gretz replied services woul d be held on Sunday. She stated was not sure how many services they would be holding on Sunday. She noted there would probably be Wednesday evening classes or meetings of some type, and also possibly Friday meetings. Mr. Kula asked if there would be a repres entative of the Church at the City Council meeting. Mr. Rafferty replied he assumed there would be. Mr. Kula expressed concern a bout the drainage on the prop erty. He stated he was concerned about water run-o ff unto his property. Ms. Gret z replied all run-off would flow across the parking lot to the east side of the property, then run-off to the drainage pond. Mr. Kula stated the drainage issue was one of his main concerns. He expressed concern about a septic system being used. He urge d the applicants to hook up to Circle Pines utilities. He expressed concern about the fi re suppression system. He asked what would happen if the electricity went out and there was a fire. He asked about landscaping and the watering of that landscape. He stated he was not interested in seeing a wooden fence. He asked if they could instead have landscaping with additional berming. He expressed concern about lighting. He asked there not be lighting spillage onto his and his neighbors yards. He stated County Road J was an ex tremely busy road. He asked how much more traffic was going to be incurred with this deve lopment. He asked if there was going to be a traffic study, or a reduction in the speed at this location. Steve Waldhauser, 4 Indian Hills Drive, Ci rcle Pines, expresse d concern about the drainage onto his property. He indicated hi s property could not handle any more water. He expressed concern about th e lighting. He stated he would also like to see more landscaping and no fencing. Dave Rieger, 10 Indian Hills Drive, Circle Pi nes, stated he had the same concerns about the issues already mentioned. He indica ted County Road J was extremely busy and expressed concern about the incr ease in traffic. He expre ssed concern about the drainage. He expressed concern about the septic syst em. He expressed concern for the wetland. He asked how high the lights were going to be . Ms. Gretz replied the Ordinance did not state the height of lights, but it di d indicate how bright they could be. Mr. Rieger asked how much of the 4.6 acres was wetlands. Ms. Gretz replied she did not have the information. Planning & Zoning Board June 12, 2002 Page 10 APPROVED MINUTES Mr. Rieger asked how they woul d get utilities from Circle Pi nes. Ms. Gretz replied that was under investigation. It might involve a Joint Powers Agreem ent between the two cities. Mr. Rieger replied everyone on Indian Hills Drive had underground utilities. He asked if those services if extended would be underg round also. Ms. Gretz replied she assumed they would be underground. Ms. Lane made a MOTION to close the public hearing at 7:20 p.m. The motion was supported by Mr. Corson. Motion carried 4-0. Mr. Lyden inquired about the drainage. Ms. Gretz replied the site would be draining to the east to the retention ponds. Mr. Lyden stated all of the run-off would go eas t and then to the nort h. Ms. Gretz replied it was her understanding that wa s where the flowage would be. Mr. Lyden asked where the Rice Creek Watershe d was with this. Ms. Gretz replied all of the paperwork had been completed, with TWAFAA approval given. Mr. Lyden asked about the fencing versus la ndscaping. Ms. Gretz stated the fencing was put in because the Ordinance required some screening. However, she stated if the neighbors wanted landscaping, they could put landscaping in instead of fencing. She stated landscaping, rather than fenci ng, would work well for this site. Mr. Lyden asked about the lighting. Ms. Gr etz replied the lighting would be aimed downward and it would not be bright lighting. She stated if ther e was a problem with lighting, the applicant c ould put blinders on the lights. She stated she did not think this would be a problem, and they could work it out. Mr. Lyden inquired about the traffic. Ms. Gretz replied this was a County Road. She pointed out that this congregation was 180 peopl e and they did not an ticipate this would increase traffic dramatically. She stated the Board could recommend a condition saying that approval by Anoka County Highway Department was necessary before any development was approved. She stated they would need to rely on Anoka County’s recommendation regarding traffic. Mr. Corson inquired about the utilities. Ms. Gretz replied they were currently working on the utility issue. She stated it was her unde rstanding that if util ities were available, they would urge applicant to hook up to those utilities. Mr. Corson inquired about the parking lot en trance surface. Ms. Gr etz replied the plans showed a gravel driveway at the entran ce, but she was not sure why. Mr. Corson expressed concern about a gravel driveway. Ms. Gretz replied that might be one of the conditions the Board wanted to add. She st ated they could require a paved driveway. Planning & Zoning Board June 12, 2002 Page 11 APPROVED MINUTES Mr. Corson asked if any thought had been gi ven to having the full lighting when people were there at the Church, a nd partial lighting around the bui lding for security purposes when there was no one present. Ms. Gretz stated she was not familiar with a project that had done that. She stated lighting was also a matter of security and crime prevention. Mr. Smyser replied they would look into this because of the close proximity of residential homes. Ms. Lane stated she was not comfortable w ith this. She stated there were too many unresolved issues. Ms. Lane made a MOTI ON to table this for further information regarding drainage, traffic, lighting, utilities, landscaping, as well as other issues brought up at this meeting. The motion was supported by Mr. Corson. Mr. Hyden stated he was disappointed the applicant was not at this meeting. Mr. Rafferty expressed concern about the many i ssues that remained to be answered. He stated traffic and drainage were enormous issues that needed to be resolved. Gerald Clausen, 6109 Baldwin Lake Road, stated he did not think the Church would add to the traffic concerns expressed. He stated most of the traffic generated by the church would be on Sundays, when there was lighter traffic anyway. He indicated rush hour traffic was much worse. Mr. Kula stated when traffic was comi ng over the hill you could not see down County Road J. He stated this was a public safety issue. Motion carried 4-0. Dick Keiser, 12 Indian Hills Drive, Circle Pine s, stated he was at the original meeting the Church had. He recommended the Church schedule one more meeting with the neighbors so they could see the pl ans and possibly address concerns. Mr. Kula recommended that the public hear ing be reopened so the residents could continue to comment. Mr. Smyser replie d they would renotice the public hearing and reopen it. C.William Walton, 8140 – 20 th Avenue, Conditional Use Permit Staff stated Bill and Jean Walton had been operating a Petting Zoo, “Walton’s Hollow,” for over ten years. The Waltons had traditionally trailered their animals to various locations around the Twin Cities (nursing homes, senior centers, etc.). The Waltons, who had moved with their animals from White B ear Lake to Lino Lakes in the past year, would now also like to provide on-site visits to their farm on 20 th Avenue and so are asking for a Conditional Use Permit to allow such a use. Planning & Zoning Board June 12, 2002 Page 12 APPROVED MINUTES Staff presented its analysis by explaining th e site was zoned Rural and guided as Rural Land Use under the proposed 2001 Comprehensive Plan. All surrounding uses are similarly zoned and guided. Staff indicated Lino Lakes City Ordinance did not specifically addre ss any use such as a “petting zoo” or “farm visit.” As a resu lt, staff was recommending using Section 5, subd. 1.H.3, which applied to conditional uses in a Rural zone described as follows: “Commercial riding stables, horse boarding stables, horse arenas, dog kennels, animal hospitals with overnight care and similar uses.” Staff would argue that the above-described uses were basically similar in nature to that of a petting zoo in the following ways: 1.) Animals are kept on site. 2.) People come to interact with animals. 3.) There is a recreational as well as a commercial component to such uses. Staff stated as a result, it was appropriate that a Conditi onal Use Permit be applied for prior to allowing a use such as a petting zoo to occur on the site. Staff noted the subject site was a 20-acre parcel located on the east side of 20 th Avenue, north of 80 th Street. The northern ar ea of the site was open hayf ield; the southern area of the site contains fenced pasture areas; the cen ter of the site contains a driveway leading off 20 th Avenue to the house, parking area, and pole barn. The 90’ X 96’ pole barn contained a 60’ X 72’ central arena area, which was surrounded by approximately 15 stalls of various sizes, in addition to some storage areas. There was a hay storage/loft area over the st alls. Five separate fenced pasture areas of various sizes surround the barn. Staff noted in addition, there was a 20’ X 96’ area on the north side of the barn, separated from the rest of the barn by a wall, which will contain restroom facilities. Staff stated parking areas were to the west a nd northwest of the barn. Further west of the parking area was an outdoor area to be used for outside exhibition of, and interaction with, animals. Staff stated the site was serviced by a septic system. Building officials confirm that the system was oversized and capable of handli ng the extra restroom facilities proposed by the applicant. Staff noted Fire Chief Bennett had advised th at any use of the barn area would require that the entire barn be equi pped with a sprinkler system, the price of which appeared at this time to be prohibitive for the applicant. Chief Bennett had also advised that even use of the room on the north side of the barn for gathering/assembly purposes would require that the entire barn area be sprinkled because the area could not structurally be adequately Planning & Zoning Board June 12, 2002 Page 13 APPROVED MINUTES separated from the rest of the barn area. Use of the area for restroom purposes, however, could be allowed under fire code according to Chief Bennett. Staff stated as a result of the above, the a pplicant would plan to exhibit animals out of doors as they do when trailering animals to various sites, and possibly constructing a smaller building in the future for assembly/shelter purposes. Staff noted the applicant did not foresee ge neral, open hours of ope ration for the public at large. Rather, scheduled groups of set numbers would visit. Group sizes might vary, but would be known ahead of time. In this wa y, parking issues could be planned for. Staff indicated the main parking area was to the west of the barn and measured roughly 100’ X 100’. A second parking area, measuri ng roughly 100’ X 50’, was situated across the driveway to the north from the main pa rking area. The driveway itself was currently 17 feet wide, and the applicant planned to widen it to 24 feet to better accommodate vehicles. Staff stated access to the site was off 20 th Avenue, which was a County road. As a result, plans had been forwarded to the Anoka C ounty Highway department for review and comments. Staff noted the applicant had carried a licen se to operate a petting zoo for a number of years under the U.S. Department of Agricultu re’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS). As a requirement for such a license, their site - or any site they exhibit at – was subject to annual, unscheduled in spections by USDA/APHIS officials. Such an inspection was successfully conducte d this spring at the site on 20 th Avenue. Staff indicated City Ordinance Section 2, subd. 2.B.7 stated that 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 that such use at the proposed location: a.) Will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort, convenience or general welfare of th e neighborhood or the City. Visitors to the site would be confined to the site, with no parking taking place on 20 th Avenue. b.) Will be harmonious with the general and applicable specific plans and policies of the comprehensive plan of the City and this Ordinance. The site was zoned and guided Rural. Th e proposed use was in keeping with this designation. c.) Will be designed, constructed, operated, and maintained so as to be harmonious and appropriate in appearance with the existin g and/or intended character of the general vicinity and will not change the essential character of that area. The use maintains the site as a farm, a traditional rural use. Planning & Zoning Board June 12, 2002 Page 14 APPROVED MINUTES d.) Will be served adequately by essential public facilities and servic es, including streets, police and fire protection, dr ainage structures, refuse disposal, water and sewer systems, and schools; or will be served adequately by such f acilities and services provided by the persons or agencies respons ible for the establis hment of the proposed use. The site was serviced by a septic syst em capable of handling the additional numbers of site visitors. Access to the site was off a County road, and onto a prepared, confined parking area. e.) Will not create excessive additional requirem ents at public cost for public facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. Public cost should not be impacted, as the petting zoo will be confined to the site. Additional use of roadway for access to the site is not foreseen to be appreciable. f.) Will not involve uses, activities, processe s, materials, equipment and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons, property, or the general welfare because of excessive production of traffi c, noise, smoke, fumes, glare, or odors. Visitors to the site are not foreseen to be in numbers great enough to cause excessive noise or access issues. All parking would be confined to the site. g.) Will have vehicular approaches to the propert y, which are so designed as not to create traffic congestion or an interference w ith traffic on surroundi ng public thoroughfares. Visitors to the site are not foreseen to be of numbers great enough to cause excessive traffic issues. All parking woul d be confined to the site. h.) Will not result in the destruction, loss, or damage of a natural, scenic or historic feature of major importance. The site will continue as a rural farm site. i.) Will conform to specific standards of this ordinance applicable to the particular use. City Ordinance states that “t he applicable provisions of Section 500 of the City Code relating to the keeping of animals are dete rmined to be satisfied.” Animals and the conditions in which they are kept will conf orm to City Ordinance. In addition, the Walton animals are routin ely (annually) inspected byUSDA/APHIS, as licensing requirements for a petting zoo are th e same as those for any other zoo. Planning & Zoning Board June 12, 2002 Page 15 APPROVED MINUTES Staff noted use of the site for a petting zoo/farm visit site appeared to conform to the general guidelines outlined for a Conditional Use for a Rural zone under the Lino Lakes City Ordinance, and staff would recomm end approval of the Conditional Use Permit, with conditions. As various fire and building code issues co me into play depending on how the site was used, staff would recommend the following conditions: 1.) All parking must be contained on site. The driveway should be widened to 24 feet to better accommodate visitor traffic. Parking surfaces should be rocked; any paved/impervious parking surfaces will require submission and approval of a grading plan to the City Engineer. 2.) Any indoor assembly areas must conform to applicable fire and building code; if visitors to the site enter the barn area, with the exception of restroom facility use, it will have to be sprinkled, per re view of the Lino Lakes Fire Chief. Staff recommended approval of the Conditiona l Use Permit, with conditions as noted. Mr. Corson asked what type of animals the a pplicant had. Ms. Gretz replied they did not have exotic animals, but rather typical an imals found in petting zoos (goats, bunnies, miniature donkeys). Chair Rafferty opened the publ ic hearing at 7:48 p.m. Ms. Gretz read a letter from Jennifer & Alex Hamernick, 8196 20 th Avenue North, neighbors to the applicants, indicating th ey had no objection to the petting zoo. Neighbor of the Waltons, 8129 20 th Avenue, stated he did not have a problem with a petting zoo on the property. Chair Rafferty closed the public hearing at 7:51 p.m. Mr. Hyden inquired about the appoint ments only clause. Bill Walton, 8140 20 th Avenue, applicant, replied groups would call in for a visit to the farm. He stated it would not be open to the general public. Chair Rafferty asked if there was a group size limit. Mr. Walton replied they were looking at a maximum of 100, but because this was a new concept for them, they were not sure how many people they could accommodate. Mr. Hyden asked if they advertised. Mr . Walton replied they had a web site and advertised in the yellow pages. He stated most of their work was word of mouth and repeat business. Ms. Lane asked what buildings were curren tly on the property. Mr. Walton replied they had a home and pole barn. He stated they might want an additional building at some point in the future. Planning & Zoning Board June 12, 2002 Page 16 APPROVED MINUTES Chair Rafferty asked how many animals they had. Mr. Walton replied they had all farm animals, nothing exotic. Mr. Corson made a MOTION to recommend approval of the Site Plan Review and Conditional Use Permit, with conditions as outlined in staff’s report. The motion was supported by Mr. Lyden. Motion carried 4-0. VI. DISCUSSION ITEMS None. VII.ADJOURNMENT Ms. Lane made a MOTION to adjourn the meeting at 8:00 p.m., and was supported by Mr. Lyden. Motion carried 4-0. Respectfully submitted, Kathy Altman, Recording Secretary TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc .