Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/13/1996 P&Z MinutesPlanning & Zoning Board November 13, 1996 CITY OF LINO LAKES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MINUTES I. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL: Chair Schaps called the Lino Lakes Planning & Zoning Board meeting to order at 6:32 p.m., November 13, 1996. II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - OCTOBER 9, 1996 Mr. Johnson made a MOTION to approve the minutes of the October 9, 1996 Lino Lakes Planning & Zoning Board meeting, as submitted. He was supported by Dunn. Motion carried, 5 -0. Robinson abstained, as he did not attend the October meeting. III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Chair Schaps announced that the golf range public hearing has been postponed to a later time. A new notice will be published when the matter is to be considered. Chair Schaps stated that the Board anticipates continuing the public hearing for the Twin City Town Homes project on Apollo Drive. An explanation will be given when the matter is considered later in the agenda. There were no other changes. IV. OPEN MIKE Chair Schaps declared the Open Mike portion of the meeting at 6:35 p.m. Mr. Robinson made a MOTION to close the Open Mike portion of the meeting at 6:36 p.m. and was supported by Dahl. Motion carried unanimously, 6 -0. 1 Planning & Zoning Board November 13, 1996 V. ACTION ITEMS • A. 96 -30 PDO, Public Hearing Continuation - Twin Cities Townhomes, Apollo Drive Mr. Brixius reported that staff met with the developer on November 12, 1996, to discuss needed changes to the Twin City Townhomes project. Anoka County has granted additional access from Apollo Drive, and the developer has indicated his willingness to comply with most of the changes proposed by the City. One issue that is not resolved is the suggested density reduction. Staff agreed to reconsider the density issue after the other changes have been made. The developer felt that in order to revise the site plan for an accurate, detailed presentation to the Board, he would not be prepared for this meeting. Chair Schaps requested that the developer make a formal request to the Board for a continued public hearing in Tight of the mandatory 60 -day review period for development applications that is required by state law. Mr. Patrick Simons, Representative of Twin City Townhomes, thanked City staff for the productive meeting the previous day and stated that there will be a quality development on the site. He formally requested the Board to continue the public hearing to the December 11, 1996 Board meeting, when a fully revised site plan will be presented. • Mr. Johnson made a MOTION to approve the continuation of the public hearing and was supported by Robinson. Motion carried unanimously, 6 -0. B. 96 -33 Amended Conditional Use Permit, 6221 Holly Drive, Teleport Minnesota - Public Hearing Ms. Wyland stated that Teleport Minnesota is requesting permission to construct a 10' x 20' equipment shelter with the placement of a 9.3 meter C -Band Satellite Antenna on their site. According to the zoning ordinance, towers higher than 55 feet require a conditional use permit. This request is not for a tower, but the site is under seven other conditional use permit amendments since the original one in 1984. A further change to the site requires an amended conditional use permit. Staff has reviewed the application and recommends approval provided the proper building permits are obtained, and that the conditions stipulated in previous resolutions for the conditional use permit and amendments are adhered to. Mr. Robert Juroszek, Engineering Supervisor, Teleport Minnesota, stated that as a result of increased business, they are seeking to add a 9.3 meter C -Band Satellite Antenna, which is the same type that was added last year. • Mr. Johnson asked how much more development the Teleport site can sustain. Planning & Zoning Board November 13, 1996 Mr. Juroszek responded that within the existing compound there is not much room left, and there is some reconfiguration to fit in this addition. The business has grown more than was envisioned. If another addition is needed in the future, there is high ground to the north. Further expansion, however, would require a lucrative business venture because a road would be needed to access the property to the north as well as a number of permits. Mr. Johnson asked if Teleport Minnesota has other sites in the metropolitan area. Mr. Juroszek stated that there is one other station at the St. Paul Vocational Technical School, but it is only receiver at this time. The Lino Lakes site is the main site with micro hubs throughout the Twin Cities. Mr. Dunn noted that Resolution No. 10 -91, paragraph 3, requires a significant number of plantings on the site to minimize the effects of the installations. He asked if the number of plantings could be increased to shelter the area and give trees time to grow before there is further residential development. Mr. Juroszek stated that 25 to 30 trees are planted along the road and by the gate that faces Holly Drive. Much of the area along the road is wetland and not suitable to plant trees. 411 Mr. Dunn stated that he is more concerned with additional plantings to enhance the other three sides of the installation property to afford more privacy. Mr. Juroszek agreed to work with staff on this issue. Mr. Dunn asked the reason for the huge berm that is on the site. Mr. Juroszek stated that it deflects noise upward from downtown Minneapolis so as not to interfere electronic transmissions. Mr. Dunn asked if the installation generates any signals that interfere with area TV's. Mr. Juroszek explained that the transmissions are directed straight up to the sky. The antennas are grounded, and everything possible is done to eliminate possible interference. There is a TV in the station, and he has not noticed any problems with it, nor has he heard complaints of TV interference. Ms. Dahl asked if the proposed satellite is for TV or radio. Mr. Juroszek stated that it will be used for both radio and TV. Ms. Dahl stated that she lives near the site, and she hardly notices the installation. Teleport Minnesota is an excellent neighbor, and the truck drivers 3 • • Planning & Zoning Board November 13, 1996 are very courteous. The only thing that she does notice is occasional interference with WCCO AM radio station. Mr. Juroszek stated that AM is broadcast from a satellite on an AM tower in Coon Rapids that is not interfered with by this installation. The site is staffed every day from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., and he invited Ms. Dahl or any other Board members or staff to visit at anytime. Chair Schaps suggested that a third condition be added to the approval of this application that would require Teleport Minnesota to work with the City Planner and City Forester to enhance the project site with additional plantings that would more effectively comply with paragraph 3 of Resolution No. 10 -91. Chair Schaps opened the public hearing at 6:54 p.m. Mr. Paul Narog, stated that he had two questions: 1) whether there is any telephone interference from this installation, and 2) whether there are any health hazards from this complex and /or the new antenna. Mr. Juroszek responded that there are telephones on -site, and he has never known any problem of interference. Care is taken to be sure that joints between the wave guide have proper gaskets and that all joints are tight. The energy path is very directional, and a person would have to be in the direct path of the beam for several hours to constitute a health hazard. Mr. Narog asked if the energy transmitted from this station is different from the electromagnetic fields from power lines. Mr. Juroszek explained that it is different in that power lines are much closer to people and are generated in a more circular fashion, making it more accessible to people. Mr. Johnson made a MOTION to close the public hearing at 6:56 p.m. and was supported by Dunn. Motion carried unanimously, 6 -0. Mr. Robinson made a MOTION to approve the conditional use permit with the conditions outlined in the staff report and with the additional condition that the site be enhanced with additional plantings that would more effectively comply with Resolution No. 10 -91, paragraph 3. Mr. Dunn seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously, 6 -0. C. Zoning Ordinance Amendments - Public Hearing Chair Schaps opened the public hearing for the amended City's Zoning • Ordinance at 6:58 p.m. • • • Planning & Zoning Board November 13, 1996 Mr. Brixius stated that a review of the City Zoning Ordinance was initiated in July 1995. The major focus of the draft ordinance being presented is that it has been reformatted in a manner that is more user friendly. Single topics were referenced in several places in the old ordinance, some with conflicting provisions. The new draft maintains the original content as much as possible to avoid conflicts with past City decisions, but it has been rearranged so that information on one topic is all in one place. The new format also has a new page numbering system to facilitate future amendments. Although there are some redundancies from one zoning district to another with different types of uses, the new ordinance attempts to establish each zoning district as a single entity. The draft ordinance contains nine sections, and Mr. Brixius summarized the following changes: Section 1. Title /Application /Rules: This section contains new language that relates to the Comprehensive Municipal Plan. New uses not provided for in the current zoning districts are prohibited until the City has time to respond with proper public hearings. The relationship of zoning to planning is a vital element. Definitions and additional rules are included in Section 1. One significant change is the definition of "Agricultural Farm Building," which is defined as, "An accessory building designed, constructed, used or intended to house farm implements or agriculture areas, as defined by this Ordinance, on an active farm operation of more than twenty (20) acres." The old zoning ordinance stipulated 10 acres. This was a suggestion by the Building Inspector. Agriculture farms do not require a building permit, and it was felt that 20 acres is more appropriate than 10 acres. Section 1 also includes flood plain rules. Mr. Brixius noted the additions of paragraphs G. Authority and H. Comprehensive Revision on page 1 -3. The Municipal Planning Act requires that zoning ordinances and comprehensive plans be consistent. Should there be any inconsistencies between them, the Comprehensive Plan will supersede the zoning ordinance. How the Comprehensive Plan relates to City policy will be the criteria by which zoning changes and conditional use permits are approved or denied. Specific findings will be established for approval and denial. Section 2. Administration: One significant change in this section is the state requirement that all development applications be acted on within 60 days of receipt. Within the first 10 days, the City must determine whether or not the application is complete. The City can extend the 60 -day period but cannot go beyond 120 days without the permission of the applicant. Page 2 -1, under Administration: Amendments and Rezonings, Mr. Brixius noted that within the past year the City approved a text amendment that expanded notification for any zoning change or Municipal Utility Service Area (MUSA) change from 350 feet to 600 feet. Language for that change has been incorporated into this section. • • • Planning & Zoning Board November 13, 1996 On page 2 -2, an attempt has been made to identify criteria for any zoning change that are: 1) consistent with the Comprehensive Plan; 2) compatible with the intent for future land uses of the area; 3) conform to all performance standards in the zoning ordinance; 4) accommodation of existing public services for the proposed use; and 5) traffic generation from the proposed use is within the capability limits of the streets serving the area. These criteria will provide the Board and the Council the opportunity to make specific findings in favor or denial of a zoning change application. Section 3. General Provisions: Under the nonconforming rules most of the existing language was retained with one exception. Previously, the City allowed a nonconforming use to be re- established unless the cost of repair was 75 percent or more of its current fair market value. This provision has been changed to 50 percent with an option for appeal. This change will make it easier for the City to ultimately implement the Comprehensive Plan and bring nonconforming uses into compliance with the zoning ordinance. On page 3 -5, there is a definition of buildable area for minimum lot sizes of less than 10 acres and lots that are 10 acres or more that addresses a previous conflict between the zoning ordinance and subdivision ordinances. In zoning districts where minimum lot size requirements are under 10 acres, the buildable area "...shall be exclusive of floodplains, watercourses, wetlands, water bodies, and street rights -of- way." The buildable area in "...zoning districts with minimum lot sizes of 10 acres or more, up to 80 percent of the minimum lot area may be comprised of areas which are platted as street rights -of -way, below the 100 -year flood elevation, or lie within City watercourses, wetlands or waterbodies as defined by this ordinance." Page 3 -5, paragraphs C.2. and C.3. address the problem of the previous ordinance that allowed multiple principal structures on a single lot. Unless allowed through a Planned Development Overlay (PDO) in a Residential District, only one principal use shall be allowed per lot. Allowing multiple structures through the PDO process would require a public hearing which was not previously required. This change does not apply to commercial and industrial uses. Page 3 -10 incorporates new language for building and pole barn construction. A percentage of the building that can be finished with metal panels is established, and the remainder is to be finished with a masonry facade. This allows flexibility in architectural design and still promotes a high quality development. Page 3 -18 addresses accessory buildings, and new language attempts to simplify the code and give property owners more flexibility in how accessory buildings can be used. Property owners can choose to have one larger or two smaller accessory buildings, as stipulated. Planning & Zoning Board November 13, 1996 Mr. Johnson noted that there has been recent discussion about requiring a building permit for accessory structures less than 120 sq. ft. and asked if that provision is included in the new zoning ordinance. Mr. Brixius responded that a site plan isbeing requested at this time and staff is working on a policy that may require permits for later review. Provisions on pages 3 -25 and 3 -26 cross reference state statutes with regard to pollution and provides the City with a standard and enforcement rules. Page 3 -29: Landscaping provisions have been revised. The previous zoning ordinance provided for screening requirements but did not include mandatory landscaping provisions. Criteria are now defined for location and size of plantings for all new subdivisions. There is also a new provision for buffers to be provided where a subdivision abuts a collector or arterial street. Parking requirements have been incorporated under a general provision, and all site plans must show required parking. Page 3 -39 shows a chart of requirements for 90- degree and angle parking that will give greater developers more flexibility for parking arrangements and conserve more land. The reference to parking by zoning district was eliminated. Page 3 -58 adds a new provision for accessory apartments. It is an attempt to address the need in a manner that prioritizes the protection of the single family character of a residential area and make sure that single family homes with an accessory apartment do not look like two- family homes. There is also a provision that the accessory apartment is not to be considered an independent living unit. Page 3 -61: Earthmoving previously required a permit through a conditional use to deposit more than 50 cubic yards per acre. At the suggestion of the City Engineer, the code now states in excess of 100 cubic yards per acre without first applying for a permit. A conditional use permit would not be needed unless earthmoving is in excess of 5,000 cubic yards. A number of conditions have also been incorporated that were not previously listed that reflect the storm water management plan, adult youth provisions, and distinctions between principal adult uses and accessory adult uses that were recently adopted by the City. Section 4. General Zoning District Provisions: Each district is outlined as a separate entity. Lot performance standards have not changed. However, a new subsection establishes permitted uses, accessory uses, interim uses and conditional uses for each district. The exception is RBR which has no listing. Special districts are listed in the same manner as previously with the exception of RBR where land uses are more restrictive. All land uses that are allowed in a Rural District are now also allowed in RBR. Section 5. Rural Districts: Page 5 -7 states a provision for all commercial sports events and activities to be conducted inside. Mr. Ken Rehbein has raised 7 • • • Planning & Zoning Board November 13, 1996 the question about events and activities at his outdoor sports arena. The Council has previously discussed this question and found Mr. Rehbein's facility to be acceptable. He would recommend eliminating provision 9.a. on page 5 -7, which requires the activity to be within a building. Mr. Robinson made a MOTION to close the public hearing at 7:31 p.m. and was supported by Johnson. Motion carried unanimously, 6 -0. Mr. Gelbmann noted that some communities are creating a special district for cell towers. He asked if the zoning ordinance addresses that issue. Mr. Brixius responded that he is not prepared to give information on this issue at this time. However, the Permanent Communication Services (PCS) has identified the need to set up antennas at every 1- or 2- square mile radius for new technology. An individual cell antenna can be small and attached to the top of a flag pole, water tower or telephone pole. The bigger concern is the need for master towers which are from 50 feet to 150 feet tall. Finding locations for them is an issue. FCC rules prohibit communities from establishing ordinances to prohibit these units. Reasonable accommodation is required under FCC rules. Most communities allow them on public land, parks, water towers or public works areas with less restrictions on commercial and industrial sites. The northwestern communities of Brooklyn Park, Brooklyn Center, Maple Grove and Plymouth are in the process of developing a model ordinance for each of those communities. A second issue to address with regard to utilities is who has the right to use public rights -of -way. Mr. Dunn commended the work group who achieved these comprehensive changes to improve the zoning ordinance. He questioned, however, whether approval of the new zoning ordinance should be delayed until the changes being made to the City's Comprehensive Plan are adopted because once the Comprehensive Plan is approved by the Metropolitan Council, it will take precedence over the zoning ordinance. Mr. Brixius stated that the Land Use Plan and Comprehensive Plan are policy driven, but changes to the zoning ordinance are under local control. The zoning code is specific to planning as an implementation tool, and there is no major change in content. Specific areas were changed to address specific issues. Additional changes will be necessary over time as new issues arise, such as PCS towers and when the new Comprehensive Plan is adopted. However, it is important to adopt the zoning ordinance at this time, so that the new format and provisions are in place. Mr. Dunn stated that he believes a permit system would be appropriate with a nominal charge for all accessory buildings and asked that suitable language be included. Planning & Zoning Board November 13, 1996 Mr. Brixius stated that site plans are required for accessory buildings of multiple residential or commercial /industrial developments. A site plan for an accessory building for a single family home is not required because of the administrative cost. Although there was a recent problem with an accessory building on a single family lot, he believes the City communication vehicles, such as the newsletter, could be used to inform residents about the requirements. He suggested that especially in the spring and fall, when new projects are being done, the City consider publishing code requirements. He would like to see the City use that course of action before adopting a permit system for every accessory building. Mr. Dunn asked for clarification of the swimming pool definition and regulations. Mr. Brixius stated that if the pool is 3.5 feet in depth or more, a building permit is required. Mr. Dunn expressed his concern about a pool that is 24 inches deep, which is just as hazardous to young children. Mr. Brixius agreed to review that section for appropriate protective language. Mr. Dunn asked for clarification on the definition of a farm. Ms. Wyland responded that the county and state definition is real estate consisting of 10 acres or more that is exclusively devoted to agricultural use with a certain percentage of the family income derived from working the farm. Mr. Dunn asked for clarification on outside storage regulations, i.e., whether firewood can be stacked in the front yard, as well as the side yard and back yard. Mr. Brixius stated that outside storage is a concern with urban lots. Mr. Dunn referred Board members to page 5 -1, Subd. 1. R, Rural District and stated that the listed guidelines appear to be inconsistent. On the one hand, open space and land for agricultural use is to be preserved; but item No. 4 refers to amendments to the Comprehensive Plan to control urban sprawl. Mr. Brixius explained that the language in this section has not been redrafted. The rural service and urban areas are established by the Comprehensive Plan and are intended to promote orderly growth patterns. Conserving land, controlling urban sprawl and providing needed utilities is more efficiently done when growth is concentrated; and land areas are specifically designated for development or rural use. Chair Schaps added that the intent of this section is to recognize the sanctity of rural property and also the possibility of eventual urban growth. To the extent that urban growth occurs, it should occur in an orderly manner consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. This type of planning prevents a hodge -podge of 9 Planning & Zoning Board November 13, 1996 urban areas within a rural community. When urban areas are fully developed, further urban growth would not be allowed without amending the Comprehensive Plan and zoning ordinance. Mr. Dunn requested a review of the language under Subd. 1. R, Rural District to be sure it is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Brixius stated that as the Comprehensive Plan is revised to address the overall growth strategy and once urban and rural areas are established in the Comprehensive Plan, it will be a priority to amend the zoning ordinance to be consistent. Mr. Johnson noted that the first two purposes stated are preservationist in nature and could be stated in one sentence. Nos. 3. and 4. are concerned with phases and the nature of change which are confusing and could be further clarified into a single statement describing the City's policy toward change. It may be less confusing to group this listing in this way. Mr. Dunn referred Board members to page 9 -5, Subd. 2. RBR, Rural- Business Reserve District, and noted that there are residents who have expressed concern about Comprehensive Plan revisions because they have built homes in an RBR zoning district and are finding themselves boxed in as to how their property can be sold because the zoning district is going to be enforced as it was originally intended. He asked if there is a way to strengthen paragraph A., so that it is absolutely clear that people need to be aware of what they are doing when they build a residential home in the RBR zoning district. He does not want to leave any room for misinterpretation or misunderstandings. Mr. Brixius stated that the distinct difference between RBR and a Rural District is that the Rural District is intended to be rural until such time as the City determines its ultimate Tong -range use. RBR zoning is a way to forewarn property owners that the area is designated to be economic, commercial development, but property owners are to have full use of their property for rural purposes until that time. The RBR District is the only zoning district with an interim use. Mr. Robinson asked for the definition of the trigger mechanism that would rezone an RBR District. Chair Schaps referred Board members to page 9 -11 where the rezoning trigger mechanism is addressed. Mr. Brixius stated that the language is maintained in its original integrity with the exception that RBR Districts are expanded to allow the same uses as Rural Districts. Mr. Johnson asked how RBR districts are rezoned, whether by property owners or by the City. He believes these districts should be rezoned only by the City. 10 Planning & Zoning Board November 13, 1996 0 Mr. Brixius stated that rezoning can be initiated either by property owners or by the City. Chair Schaps stated that paragraph 1. Rezoning (Trigger Mechanism) should stipulate upon request and demonstration of need, so that rezoning is not just a matter of 25 percent of the buildable area having been developed. Mr. Dunn referred to page 3 -18, paragraph 8.a.3), and asked why the maximum height requirement is not stipulated for accessory buildings in rural districts, when the ordinance is specific in other districts. Mr. Brixius stated that the current ordinance has no maximum height requirement and, therefore, was not changed. This lack of specification is exclusive to rural districts with lots of 20 acres or more because accessory buildings in rural areas could mean silos, barns, windmills, etc. Mr. Dunn expressed his concern that accessory buildings in rural districts could be at a maximum height and be placed 5 feet from the property line. He requested that this provision be reconsidered in the future. Ms. Dahl commended the Planning and Zoning Board for the work that has been done on this ordinance over the past year. As a new Board member, she has had only six days to read and comprehend it and also would like to ask some questions. She referred Board members to page 3 -1, paragraph B.4., regarding nonconforming structures that cannot be re- established if more than 50 percent of the current fair market value is destroyed. She asked how that 50 percent is determined. Mr. Brixius responded that the 50 percent of current fair market value is determined by the County Assessor. Ms. Dahl asked the reason why references to tower or satellite heights were changed either to 10 feet up 10 feet down from what was stipulated in the old ordinance. Mr. Brixius stated that the previous ordinance had two conflicting provisions: a general provision of a 45 -foot height and a conditional use permit for towers and satellites at a height of 55 feet. Previously constructed towers were grandfathered in, but it was decided to require a consistent height of 45 feet across the board in the new ordinance. Ms. Dahl asked if more meetings are scheduled to review this zoning ordinance. IIIMr. Brixius stated that it is being presented at a public hearing at this meeting and if approved, it will be presented to the City Council. 11 • • • Planning & Zoning Board November 13, 1996 Ms. Wyland added that the City Council is anticipating the first reading of the ordinance at the November 25, 1996 Council meeting. Changes discussed at this meeting will be incorporated. Chair Schaps stated that further changes can be made with amendments. This project has taken an ordinance that was a hodge -podge of ordinances and put it into a workable document that is user friendly. Ms. Dahl asked for further explanation as to why adoption of this new zoning ordinance is not delayed until the Comprehensive Plan is revised. Mr. Brixius stated that adoption could be delayed, but then the old ordinance would have to be used until the new one is adopted. The old ordinance is difficult to use because there are interpretation conflicts and it is in a cumbersome format. Also, the revised Comprehensive Plan is not scheduled for completion until 1998, which is two years. Mr. Dunn empathized with Ms. Dahl as a new member in having to comprehend the new ordinance in a short time. However, after discussing several questions with staff and listening to the discussion at this meeting, he is prepared to approve it because the City needs an updated document. Ms. Dahl asked if, when the new ordinance is put into effect, whether current situations are grandfathered in, such as accessory buildings or outside storage that do not comply with the new ordinance. Mr. Brixius responded that the proposed changes will not create many non- conforming uses and will not change the zoning of any property. Landscaping and parking requirements refer to new developments, not existing ones. Exterior storage was the second most talked -about subject at task force meetings. If firewood is currently stored in the front yard but later discontinued, it cannot be re- established. Although he is not sure there is sufficient staff to police exterior storage, in general most people do not store items in the front yard. Mr. Johnson made a MOTION to approve the draft zoning ordinance as presented with the above appropriate comments made by participants at this meeting to be included, and was supported by Robinson. Motion carried unanimously, 6 -0. VI. DISCUSSION ITEMS Chair Schaps noted that the Town Center proposal portion of the Comprehensive Plan will be reviewed within the next couple of weeks. Districts 1 and 2 will be reviewed early January 1997, with a neighborhood meeting to follow. The most populous districts will be decided in the next two months. 12 • • • Planning & Zoning Board November 13, 1996 Mr. Gelbmann asked if Mr. Dorschner's sod has been replaced by Behm's Century Farms. Ms. Wyland responded that she believes the problem is resolved, as she has not heard back from Mr. Dorschner. Ms. Wyland noted the blue flyer distributed to Board members listing future events being sponsored by the Environmental Committee. VII. ADJOURNMENT Mr. Robinson made a MOTION to adjourn the meeting at 8:20 p.m. and was supported by Ms. Dahl. The motion carried unanimously, 6 -0. 13