Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/13/1996 P&Z Minutes• • • PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MARCH 13, 1996 CITY OF LINO LAKES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MINUTES DATE ! : March 13, 1996 TIME STARTED : 6 :32 p.m. TIME ENDED : 10:37 p. m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Gelbmann, Herr, Johnson, Mesich, Robinson MEMBERS ABSENT : Schaps, Schones ALSO PRESENT Planning Coordinator Wyland, Planning Consultant Kirmis, Economic Development Director Wessel, City Engineer Ahrens. 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL: 11. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Guy Herr made a MOTION to approve the minutes of the February 14, 1996 meeting as submitted and was supported by Rick Gelbmann. Motion carried 4 -0 -1. (Al Robinson abstained as he was not present at the February 14, 1996 meeting). III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Acting Chair Johnson noted for the audience that Item VD., Public Hearing was removed from the agenda per request of the applicant. He then suggested changing the order of the agenda action items to B., C., A. and E. IV. OPEN MIKE: Acting Chair Johnson declared the Open Mike portion of the meeting open at 6:36 p.m. Hearing no public comments at this time, Al Robinson made a MOTION to close the Open Mike portion of the meeting at 6:37 p.m. and was supported by Thomas Mesich. All voted aye. Motion carried. V. ACTION ITEMS: B. Site Plan Review, Metropolitan Council Environmental Services, Ware Road Planning Coordinator Wyland briefly reviewed the staff report regarding the request to construct a building resembling a single family home on Outlots A and B of the Pine Ridge 3rd Addition that will house a MCES Sanitary Sewer Lift Station. • • PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MARCH 13, 1996 Ms. Wyland recommended approval of the site plan review subject to the following conditions: 1 . Proper building permits be obtained prior to construction. 2. The landscaping plan shall be reviewed and approved by the City Forester. Outlot A and B shall be maintained as a single family residence at all times with a well trimmed and maintained yard area. 3. Site drainage plans shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer. 4. Trash generated from the site shall be stored in an enclosed container located in the garage area of the structure. 5. Noise levels generated from the use of the building shall be within required MPCA Standards for a residential area. Mr. Robinson asked if this would be located adjacent to the ponding area and noted his concern with erosion control. Ms. Wyland stated there are ponding areas behind the proposal to the north and south. She noted the lots are quite large. Acting Chair Johnson noted the plan included silver maple trees on the northeast end of the property. He stated he felt there should be more of a buffer on that edge of the property. Planning Coordinator Wyland stated the forester had not yet approved the landscape plan. Mr. Herr noted there was a stipulation for the noise level generated. He asked if there was equipment in the building which would generate a significant amount of noise. Mr. Bill Johnson from MCES stated the building houses a standby generator which will run the pumps in case of electrical failure. This generator will be quite noisy when it runs. He noted maintenance crews come by weekly and make sure the generator is operational. He stated he could not speculate the decibel level on the outside of the building. 2 • • • PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MARCH 13, 1996 He noted the building will be cavity wall construction and face brick which will be sound deadening. The exhaust louver for the generator faces to the north and there are no homes close in that direction. Mr. Herr asked if the City had any restrictions in place for maximum decibel levels. Ms. Wyland stated the City uses the MPCA standards which go into great detail regarding decibels. She stated the MCES is required to obtain a permit from the MPCA. Mr. Johnson from MCES stated this lift station will replace the lift station currently located northeast of Laurene Avenue. That generator has been in place for twenty years and is mounted on a trailer. That station will be conveyed to the City and the portable generator will be removed on completion of the proposed lift station. Mr. Gelbmann asked if the older lift station will remain in operation. City Engineer Ahrens stated it would remain in operation. Mr. Mesich asked if the tanks housed in the building contained hazardous chemicals. Mr. Johnson stated the tank in the building injected chemicals to protect against erosion and provide odor control. Some possible chemicals included ferrous chloride and dioxin. He did not know if the chemicals were hazardous but he knew they were not flammable. He noted there will be a diesel fuel storage tank in the building which is flammable. Mr. Mesich asked if the building would be sprinklered. Mr. Johnson stated his initial interpretation was that it would not be necessary. Ms. Wyland noted the Building Inspector has not yet performed the inspection for issuance of the building permit. If it is found that the State Building code requires sprinklers, the City will require it. Mr. Gelbmann asked how frequently the chemicals in the tank are replenished. 3 • • • PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MARCH 13, 1996 Mr. Johnson stated he thought the tanks only required filling once per month. He stated an option being considered was to eliminate the chemicals and add them later if odor complaints were received from residents or if corrosion was noticed. Al Robinson made a MOTION to approve the site plan review for the Metropolitan Council Environmental Services, 6290 Ware Road subject to the 5 stated conditions and was supported by Guy Herr. All voted in favor. Motion carried. C. Site Plan Review / Minor Subdivision Progressive Engineering, 450 Apollo Drive Economic Development Director Brian Wessel explained this was the first of five projects which would be discussed at the next three meetings. He briefly outlined Progressive Engineering's background. He recommended approval of the proposed site plan and minor subdivision. Planning Coordinator Wyland briefly reviewed the staff report regarding a request to construct a 16,000 square foot office /manufacturing facility in the Apollo Business Park on a parcel of property approximately 2.5 acres in size. Ms. Wyland recommended approval of the Site Plan Review and Minor Subdivision with the following conditions: 1. Proper building permits be obtained prior to any construction. 2. The applicant shall sign a development agreement and post financial guarantees as specified by the City prior to issuance of the building permit. The development agreement shall include provisions for a shared driveway. 3. The City Engineer shall review and approve the grading, utility and drainage plans. 4. Proper sign permits shall be obtained prior to installation of any signage. 5. The City Forester shall review and approve the landscape plan. 4 • • • PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MARCH 13, 1996 6. Roof top heating and ventilating units shall be screened and /or blended with the design coloring of the building. 7. The parking area shall be constructed according to City Standards including concrete curb, gutter, bituminous paving and handicapped spaces as required by the ADA Rules and Regulations. Mr. Robinson asked if the project was being funded by TIF assistance. Mr. Wessel stated all light industrial in the Apollo District was provided TIF assistance. The provided amount was to cover land and assessments at 10,000 square feet /per acre. The building proposed is approximately 16,000 square feet which would result in approximately 1.7 acres of incremental assistance. They would finance the remaining .6 acres themselves. The proposed expansion purchase would not include TIF assistance. Mr. Wessel explained this was a new TIF district in 1995. Mr. Mesich asked if hazardous chemicals were used in the manufacturing process. Harry Chappell, owner of Progressive Engineering, stated the company uses a small amount of chemicals. The cutting oil used in the machining process is bio- degradable and the machine lubricant is an oil -based substance which is recycled. Mr. Mesich asked how the bio- degradable substance is disposed of. Mr. Chappell explained they use an evaporator to reduce the waste . He stated they have had the equipment for a couple of years and still have not filled one barrel. Acting Chair Johnson stated he liked the design and was glad to see the diversity in the industrial buildings. Mr. Chappell explained the exterior of the building would be an aggregate brown color with off -set treatments. The front entrance will be constructed of glass and colored metal to match the trim on the windows and doors. • • • PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MARCH 13, 1996 Mr. Robinson asked if there would be a sign located on the back side of the building facing Highway 35W. Mr. Chappell stated the building in Blaine had a sign which was one foot high with the name of the company. He felt it may be appropriate to place this same type of sign on the back side of the building. Mr. Herr stated he felt a lighting plan should be required and included as a condition. Guy Herr made a MOTION to approve the site plan review for Progressive Engineering, 450 Apollo Drive with the 7 stated conditions and an additional condition 8; A lighting plan shall be provided to be approved by staff, and was supported by Al Robinson. All voted in favor. Motion carried. Al Robinson made a MOTION to approve the minor subdivision for Progressive Engineering, 450 Apollo Drive and was supported by Thomas Mesich. All voted in favor. Motion carried. C. CONTINUATION OF A PUBLIC HEARING - 96 -1, Rezoning,Minor Subdivision, Site Plan Review, Centennial School District, Elm Street City Engineer Ahrens explained the Planning and Zoning Board had continued this item at the previous meeting and directed the Engineering Consultant, City staff and School District to meet with the residents and present the options available for this project. This joint meeting was held on February 22, 1996 and approximately 75 residents were in attendance. On March 4, 1996, an open house meeting was held and 31 comment cards were received from residents in attendance. Mr. Ahrens reported the School District was requesting action on the site plan this evening as the site plan will not change depending on which road plan is approved. Acting Chair Johnson opened the public hearing 7:14 p.m. Planning Consultant Kirmis briefly reviewed the staff report regarding concerns which were addressed at the February 14, 1996 Planning and Zoning Board meeting. 6 • • w PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MARCH 13, 1996 Mr. Kirmis recommended approval of the Rezoning from Light Industrial, LI and Single Family Residential, R1 to PSP, Public Semi - Public subject to the following conditions: A. Amend Land Use Plan to reflect the proposed use. B. Subject to Final Plat Approval Mr. Kirmis recommended approval of the Subdivision creating two parcels, one parcel for the school site and one parcel for the light industrial site with the condition that a preliminary and final plat be submitted to the City Council for approval which includes all the necessary drainage and utility easements as recommended by the City Engineer. Mr. Kirmis briefly reviewed the issues and discussions involved with the site plan review. Mr. Kirmis recommended Site Plan approval subject to the following conditions: 1. On site traffic control signage must identify entry, exits, one - ways, no parking along fire hydrants, etc. 2. The site plan dated 3/7/96 be made part of the permit approval. 3. Signs for the proposed site are in compliance with the Sign Ordinance. 4. The tree preservation plan and landscape /fencing plan dated 3/7/96 be made a part of this permit and reviewed and approved by the City Forester. 5. Grading, drainage and utility plans shall be submitted to the City Engineer for his review and approval. 6. A comprehensive lighting plan shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer - there shall be no lighting, except the hockey rink, of any athletic fields. 7. Proper building permits be obtained prior to construction. 7 • • • PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MARCH 13, 1996 8. The City Council adopt a roadway alignment to serve the middle school facility which would not alter the submitted site plan. 9. The City finds no adverse environmental impact and there is no need for an EIS as related to the EAW. Mr. Kirmis recommended approval of a conditional use permit to allow construction of a middle school in a PSP Zoning District and subject to all conditions of the site plan review. Acting Chair Johnson noted the road alignment is the decision of the City Council not the Planning and Zoning Board. David Mitchell, OSM Engineering presented four alternatives for the road alignment, two of which he found acceptable from an engineering standpoint. He stated he felt from the public safety standpoint it was imperative that a signal light be installed on Lake Drive. Mr. Mitchell explained Option A would provide realignment of Elm Street to the north along the east side of the school site back to Highway 49. This would eliminate Elm Street as it exists between 4th Avenue and Highway 49. This option would guarantee installation of a stop light. Mr. Mitchell explained Option B is similar to Option A except that it would provide a one -way portion of Elm Street between 4th Avenue and Lake Drive. This would provide access for individual property owners who wished to access Highway 49 from the area south of Elm Street. This option would also warrant a stop light. Mr. Mitchell explained Option C is similar except it will maintain Elm Street as it exists and provide access from Elm Street to 4th Avenue to the north. There would be no access to Highway 49 coming south out of the school site. All eastbound traffic on Elm Street will access the school site on 4th Avenue. Mr. Mitchell explained Option D provides total separation of traffic. It leaves Elm Street as it is and provides no connection to the school site from Elm Street. A cul -de -sac would be installed to terminate 4th Avenue at the southern most access to the school site. Mr. Mitchell noted Options C and D would not warrant a stop light. 8 • • PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MARCH 13, 1996 Troy Weigold, Cinnamon Teal Court, distributed a graph illustrating data he and other neighbors had collected from a survey of residents in the Wenzel Farm area. Almost all of the residents preferred option D. Mr. Weigold felt OSM Engineering had failed to work with the residents in reducing the number of design options and coming to an agreement on the design. Mr. Weigold noted OSM had presented an option 5 or C1. Some of the residents were in favor of this option. He stated he felt OSM is not addressing the citizens concerns but only the concerns of the Superintendent. He stated OSM has not presented data of the impact of any of the designs on the intersection of 2nd Avenue and Elm Street. He expressed his concern with the trees on site. He questioned if the trees removed could be sold for firewood to help fund the road project. He felt there was not enough specific information being provided to make an informed decision. Kim Sullivan, 7132 Whippoorwill Lane, stated she agreed with much of what Mr. Weigold had expressed. She felt an easier solution would have been obtained if the City would have discussed this project with the citizens in the earlier planning stages. She stated she believed Option C1 had been developed with the input of the citizens. 100% of the citizens are not in favor of option C1 but it will produce the minimal impact to the most people. She stated the citizens are not fighting placement of a signal Tight on Highway 49. Citizens are concerned with the safety issue. She was concerned that a pedestrian survey had not been completed. She felt this was necessary and believed the City would have full resident support. She advocated a flashing yellow light at the intersection of Elm Street and Highway 49 to mark the crosswalk. She stated the citizens did not want a lot of traffic on EIm Street and EIm Street was not in condition to support a lot of additional traffic. She asked that a condition be included for no parking on EIm Street. Ms. Sullivan stated she was concerned with the balance of residential, commercial and industrial properties in the overall development plan of the area. She asked that the Tree Preservation Plan be reviewed carefully before approval. She was concerned that a buffer be provided between the school and the citizens. She noted the Minnesota Department of Education Facilities had submitted their Planning Design Guidelines of a comparison for the proposed athletic fields. She suggested this be taken into consideration but the City look at the site individually and make the best decision based on what would fit in this space and design. 9 • PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MARCH 13, 1996 Steve Wurscher, 7132 Gray Heron Drive, stated he had been asked to represent the citizens at the joint meeting. He felt the proposed plan was making a road more dangerous to rationalize a stop Tight. He did not believe MnDOT would feel this was a good idea. The residents do not want Elm Street closed. He asked that the Planning and Zoning Board consider the neighbors as well as the School District. He noted the property owners in the area were concerned with the decrease in property values. Angela Weigold, Cinnamon Teal Court, stated she felt if there was enough money available to turn Elm Street into a four lane road, there should be enough money available to create a cul -de -sac and not intermingle the school, residential and Tight industrial traffic. Dave Radik, 7184 Cinnamon Teal Court, stated last night he saw the new plan which created a "freeway" on Elm Street. He expressed concern for the children in the area. He felt the cul -de -sac was the best option and would keep the citizens in the area happy. Angela Weigold noted OSM has indicated there will be difficulties with stacking of the buses and cars. She suggested the designers be more creative and find a way to design the site so the neighborhood would not have to have the impact of the increased traffic. She felt it was not fair to force Cinnamon Teal Court and Gray Heron Drive to withstand the full impact of the increased traffic. Daryl Mullens, 7199 Cinnamon Teal Court, stated he had been one of the persons out obtaining the survey information. He stated the residents he had talked to were concerned about the extra cost incurred with the cul -de -sac option but were also concerned with the traffic flow. He felt the City and School District needed to work together to determine the best possible solution. Donald Dunn, 6885 Black Duck Drive, stated he did not understand the purpose of creating a right- turn -only onto Elm Street. He felt it would not be long before traffic would be using 2nd Avenue as a cut - through. He asked if the impact to 2nd Avenue had been considered. He stated he was non - impacted because he did not live in the neighborhood but was impacted as a citizen of Lino Lakes who would like to see things done right. He encouraged the Planning and Zoning Board to send a strong message to the City Council. 10 • • PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MARCH 13, 1996 Hearing no further comments, Al Robinson made a MOTION to Close the Public Hearing at 8:06 p.m. and was supported by Thomas Mesich. All voted in favor. Motion carried. Mr. Mesich noted EIm Street was currently substandard and stated his disappointment that none of the plans included upgrading of that street. He suggested traffic be brought into the school site from Elm Street, the cul -de -sac installed, and the business park install it's own road if necessary. A signal Tight could then be installed on Elm Street. Mr. Ahrens explained a pedestrian study is planned to assist the school staff and police staff to determine a plan to meet the pedestrian traffic in the area. This pedestrian study will not be performed until a specific roadway plan for the area is determined. He noted there is intent to ask the City Council to consider EIm Street as a state roadway. At that time, it would be possible to consider reconstruction of the road with State Aid. Mr. Ahrens noted Elm Street is narrow and a trail is proposed for the south side of Elm Street. He stated the City Council would be asked to install regulatory signing assuming the roadway approved is inadequate for parking. Mr. Mitchell stated he was confident the pedestrian issue would be addressed. He noted the signal Tight is a major issue in this proposal. EIm Street currently carries 1000 trips per day. It is estimated the school will generate 1500 to 2000 trips per day. Options A and B will triple the amount of traffic on Elm Street. Option C decreases the amount of traffic and Option D eliminates the traffic on Elm Street. He noted the proposal is making a more dangerous intersection to provide for a safer intersection with installation of a signal light. OSM feels this is a better option than having two mediocre intersections. Option C does not allow for a signal light and Option C1 which will leave Elm Street open does not provide for a signal light. He noted if southbound traffic on 4th Avenue is forced to go to Elm Street and wanted to access Highway 49, their best opportunity would be to use 2nd Avenue. This would impact 2nd Avenue. He noted, however, all options would impact 2nd Avenue. Mr. Mitchell noted the option presented by Mr. Mesich had been considered but was not feasible as it would not provide ample storage for the signal. He stated from a professional standpoint, he could not support either Option C or D. 11 • • PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MARCH 13, 1996 Police Chief, Pecchia, stated the Police Department had requested a pedestrian survey be performed. He noted it would be easy for middle school age children to ride their bikes to the school and there is concern of how they would cross Lake Drive. He stated the pedestrian survey was not an issue which should be addressed by the Police Department or the School District as they did not have the necessary expertise. Acting Chair Johnson asked if the Police Department would be able to monitor the intersection during crossing times if it was not possible to have a signal light installed. The Police Chief noted there currently is not the staff available to do so. The School District would have to hire someone to perform the monitoring. Mr. Wessel noted the industrial park and school site were two separate issues. There was no relationship between the two sites. Mr. Mesich asked if the school site could be shifted over on the property to allow stacking for busses and other traffic on EIm Street. Mr. Mitchell stated this would be a much more palliative situation. He explained the difficulty with this option was a row of houses and also it would only provide for one access to the school. He noted the original site plan did provide access to EIm Street for the sole purpose of parent drop off or pick up of the children. He indicated residents were against that proposal. Mr. Robinson asked if Mr Rehbein was a party to the funding of the road being built to Lake Drive and if so, which option he preferred. Mr. Ahrens noted Mr. Rehbein was a party in the funding. He stated at the last meeting held in January of 1996, all parties involved had agreed to Option B which included realignment of EIm Street. Mr. Wurscher stated he felt if there was an option to negotiate with Mr. Rehbien for more support it should be explored. Mr. Weigold stated it was obvious to him, after hearing the conversation, that there were still too many questions involved to make a decision. 12 • • • PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MARCH 13, 1996 Mr. Mesich stated his biggest fear was the intersection at Elm Street and Highway 49. He questioned who regulated installation of crosswalks. Mr. Ahrens stated any activity on a State right -of -way required State approval. He noted installation of crosswalks had to be approved by MnDOT. Mr. Mitchell explained crosswalks required the same warrants be met as signal lights. Acting Chair Johnson noted the actions before the Board tonight included rezoning, minor sub - divisions, site plan review and conditional use permit. Guy Herr made a MOTION to approve the Rezoning from Light Industrial, LI and Single Family Residential, R -1 to PSP, Public Semi - Public for Centennial School District, Elm Street, subject to conditions A and B stated by staff and was supported by Al Robinson. All voted in favor. Motion carried. Al Robinson made a MOTION to approve the Subdivision creating two parcels, one parcel for the school site and one parcel for the light industrial site for Centennial School District, Elm Street, with the conditions stated by staff and was supported by Rick Gelbmann. All voted in favor. Motion carried. Al Robinson made a MOTION to approve the Site Plan for Centennial School District, Elm Street, with the nine conditions stated by staff and was supported by Rick Gelbmann. Mr. Mesich stated he felt in order to approve a site plan for a school, the site plan needed to fit the school and amenities into the area and should also address the study of safety. He stated he did not believe the pedestrian safety issue was being addressed at all in this plan. He suggested if the site was not able to be made safe, then possibly this was not the correct site for a school. He noted the townhouses that were being built and suggested there would be many more children in the area. He noted the City park and asked how children would cross to access the park. 13 • • PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MARCH 13, 1996 Acting Chair Johnson acknowledged these concerns but noted these were not issues for the Planning and Zoning Board to address. He stated they could be referred to when the Board members stated their preference of road plan. Mr. Herr stated he would like to be ensured a pedestrian study would be conducted and a correct decision be made based on results of that study. Acting Chair Johnson suggested that could be included as a condition of approval. Mr. Herr suggested amending the MOTION to include condition 10; That a pedestrian study be conducted and propose the necessary safety measures to solve the pedestrian traffic. Mr. Robinson amended his motion and Mr. Gelbmann concurred. Voting on the motion: 4 -1 (Mr. Mesich voted naye). Motion carried. Mr. Herr made a MOTION to approve the Conditional Use Permit to allow construction of a middle school in a PSP Zoning District for Centennial School District, Elm Street, subject to all conditions of the site plan review. Voting on the motion: 4 -1 (Mr. Mesich voted naye). The motion carried. Mr. Robinson stated he preferred roadway Options D and C1. He stated he was concerned with closing Elm Street. He stated he could not imagine the State not installing a signal light in an area with this magnitude of traffic. He asked if the City could install a signal light on their own. Mr. Mitchell stated the City would not be allowed to install a stop light without State approval. Traffic from the school alone would not warrant placement of a stoplight. Mr. Robinson suggested a stop sign instead. Mr. Mitchell stated there were similar warrants required for installation of a stop sign. It was not likely that the State would install a stop sign on this type of roadway. Mr. Mitchell expressed his concern with the 14 • • PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MARCH 13, 1996 legalities of either Option C or D and suggested this be discussed with the City Attorney. Mr. Gelbmann stated he preferred Option C. He stated he understood the concerns of the neighborhood and the desire to keep the traffic off Elm Street. He felt it was in the City's best interest to justify a signal light at tfzte -ir rs rr'f 11 fie expressed concern that the students rn would-not use the light at 4t -.• • -ma, way. Mr. Herr stated he preferred Option C -1 because of the added potential of pedestrian traffic. Mr. Mesich stated he preferred Option C -1 due to the combination of trips per day and pedestrians. Acting Chair Johnson stated he would prefer either Option B or C -1. He emphasized the concern for pedestrians crossing at Elm Street and felt this needed to be addressed. Mr. Herr noted the concerns of the Church had not been addressed tonight. He stated the Church had been present at the last meeting and had expressed concern about the closing of Elm Street. Angela Weigold stated she felt Option C -1 was not appropriate as it still called for the stoplight to be placed at 4th Avenue and Highway 49 and Elm Street to be widened. Paul Snyder, Project Architect, stated he wished Superintendent McClellan was present at this meeting tonight. The School District is struggling to make the site and the whole area safe. The 1880 students are their responsibility and Mr. McClellan feels strongly that a Tight should be installed to make the site safe for students and residents. Mr. Snyder noted it is his responsibility to make sure the building and whole project are under budget. He asked the Planning and Zoning Board to make their recommendations by considering total build -out. All parts of the project may not be completed at once, it may have to be done in phases. Randy Schumacher, City Administrator, noted the pedestrian study had not yet been completed due to the engineer's recommendation to wait until the road design had been determined. The City and School District 15 • • PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MARCH 13, 1996 have agreed to perform the pedestrian survey. He noted a previous instance on Birch Street where the City and School District worked together to fund an underpass for pedestrians. He noted the Police Department is only being asked for input as a department. Acting Chair Johnson called a brief recess at 9:07 p.m. Acting Chair Johnson reconvened the meeting at 9:16 p.m. E. PUBLIC HEARING - Animal Ordinance Planning Coordinator Wyland reviewed the changes to the Animal Ordinance. She noted a letter which was received from Sharon J. Lane, a member of the committee who worked on the ordinance, who was unable to attend this evening. Ms. Lane expressed her approval of the ordinance but asked that a collar not be required for animals which are strictly confined to the indoors. Ms. Wyland recommended Planning and Zoning Board approval of the ordinance as submitted and that it be forwarded to the City Council for adoption. Acting Chair Johnson opened the Public Hearing at 9:22 p.m. Steve Andre, 495 Ash Street, stated he had been present at every meeting regarding the ordinance. He explained the ordinance had originally become a concern for a majority of the citizens when their quality of life and value of their homes was affected by a kennel being placed 50 feet from their home. He expressed concerns that the proposed ordinance did not state a maximum allowable number of dogs in a private kennel and allowed a kennel to be placed on 1 acre rather than the previously required 5 acres. He felt the proposed ordinance was too permissive and did not protect the rights of the adjacent property owners. He noted the ordinance did not include violation guidelines for revocation of a kennel permit. He recommended the ordinance not be approved as it was not in the best interest of the majority of the community and the detrimental impact to the quality of life in Lino Lakes it would produce. Donald Dunn, 6585 Black Duck Drive, stated he had also attended the meetings and had no grudge against dogs. His concern was with the owners of the animals and the abuse of the privilege of licenses. He 16 • • PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MARCH 13, 1996 objected to animals running loose in the City and depositing feces in other property owners yards. He felt the ordinance needed to be more clearly defined and more restrictive to protect the rights of people who do not have dogs. He stated there had not been a consensus reached at the last two meetings regarding this ordinance. He stated the ease with which a private kennel could go from 2 to 5 to 10 dogs bothered him. He felt the minimum amount of land required for a private dog kennel in residential areas should be maintained at 5 acres. He expressed concern that the maximum number of dogs allowed in a private kennel should be clearly stated in the ordinance. He felt the limit of one litter in a 12 month period per kennel license would allow too many litters. Mr. Gelbmann explained this restricted the owner to "one" litter per kennel license, not per dog. Mr. Robinson explained the input from neighbors was always considered at the public hearing when issuing a kennel license and is included in the conditions of issuance of the permit. If the conditions are not adhered to, the permit will be revoked. Mr. Dunn stated he was concerned that if the requirement for a private kennel was reduced from 5 to 1 acre there would be a flood of people requesting permits. Mr. Robinson noted there had only been 2 applications for a private kennel license in the City in the past 9 years. Police Officer Jeanie Kenow noted some items specific to cats and pot belly pigs. A resident at 6250 Red Maple Lane, felt the ordinance needed to be restrictive in order to prevent nuisances from occurring rather than allowing them to happen and having to resolve the issues after the fact. John Sullivan, commended Mr. Mesich and Mr. Schones for their work on the ordinance and stated it had been a pleasure to work with them. He felt the group who worked on this ordinance had diverse input and had made an attempt to work towards the center. He noted it had been stated there was not a consensus in the group but he felt there was. He felt the group had toughened up the ordinance. He stated by allowing 17 • • PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MARCH 13, 1996 the number of dogs, etc. to be determined by the Conditional Use Permit process, situations could be evaluated individually. He felt the Planning and Zoning Board would make decisions in the best interest of the residents of the City of Lino Lakes. Mark Kinney, 6425 Rice Court, stated he did not think this ordinance would be acceptable to the residents of Lino Lakes. He felt the restrictions for a private kennel should be left as they were in the previous ordinance or this ordinance should be sent back for further consideration. Mr. Sullivan questioned why the people who were against this ordinance did not get involved with the planning process. He stated the committee had worked together to try to determine an ordinance which would work for the entire City. He felt individual circumstances could be handled by the Conditional Use Permit process and the Planning and Zoning Board would not allow a private kennel in an area which was not good for the whole community. Al Robinson made a MOTION to close the Public Hearing at 10:00 p.m. and was supported by Tom Mesich. All voted in favor. Motion carried. Mr. Mesich explained the committee had tried to establish a set of guidelines as they worked through the ordinance. The committee felt putting an artificial number on the number of dogs allowed was not putting faith in the Conditional Use Permit process. He noted there was a $350.00 fee for a Conditional Use Permit and he did not feel people would apply if they were not serious. The kennel license application requires submittal of a site plan illustrating where the kennel will be placed, where the neighboring houses located, how it will be kept clean., etc. Neighbors within 1000 feet are notified and a public hearing is held. He noted this ordinance is more restrictive than many other City's animal ordinances. Mr. Gelbmann asked under what circumstances an owner would want more than six dogs in a private kennel. Mr. Mesich stated there may be special cases which would apply to smaller dogs such as poodles, etc. This can be addressed with the Conditional Use Permit process. 18 • • PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MARCH 13, 1996 Mr. Gelbmann expressed concern that owners of a private kennel would breed one dog every year and keep the litters. Mr. Mesich stated this was not an option. The Conditional Use Permit would limit the number of animals allowed. Mr. Gelbmann stated he would like to see a limit on the number of animals allowed included in the ordinance. Mr. Mesich noted there were other restrictions stated in the ordinance which would result in violation such as the kennel being kept properly. Ms. Wyland noted the Conditional Use Permit also included an annual review process. Other items have been included in previous Conditional Use Permits such as restrictions that when one dog expired, it could not be replaced with another. Mr. Herr stated he saw a problem with an unspecified number of dogs being allowed in a private kennel. Mr. Gelbmann noted there could be situations where a resident would want to have more dogs, such as raising dogs for dog sledding. But he agreed that he would like to see a maximum number of dogs allowed with flexibility for persons with special circumstances. Mr. Mesich stated he felt the problem in Lino Lakes was not with people with more than one dog but was with people who owned one dog and were not responsible. Mr. Herr stated he would like to see six dogs specified as the maximum unless there was a reason for exception. Ms. Wyland stated the reason the number had been eliminated was that the Committee could not agree on a certain number. They then decided the Conditional Use Permit was appropriate to determine the number allowable. Officer Kenow stated she felt the proposed ordinance would allow for better enforcement in the field. 19 • PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MARCH 13, 1996 Mr. Herr stated he felt a maximum number of dogs allowed should be 4 and private kennels should only be allowed on lots 5 acres and above. Mr. Mesich suggested verbiage be included in the ordinance that if a resident with a Conditional Use Permit receives more than three violations the Conditional Use Permit will be revoked. Mr. Gelbmann made a MOTION to approve the Lino Lakes Animal Ordinance with three modifications; 1. Property of greater than one acre and less than five acres be allowed 6 dogs in a private kennel. Properties of 5 acres and above are allowed an unspecified amount of dogs to be kept in the kennel which will be specified at the time of the issuance of the Conditional Use Permit. 2. Three or more violations in one calendar year are grounds for revocation of the Conditional Use Permit. 3. No leash is required for cats or fish which are kept indoors at all times and was supported by Al Robinson. All voted in favor. Motion carried. VI. DISCUSSION: Ms. Wyland stated due to scheduling difficulties, she • would contact the Planning and Zoning Board members to schedule the upcoming work session. • Mr. Mesich announced this would be his last Lino Lakes Planning and Zoning Board meeting as he was moving to Elk River. He thanked the City and stated this had been a great learning experience. Members of the Board thanked Mr. Mesich for his service. VII. ADJOURNMENT: Thomas Mesich made a MOTION to adjourn the meeting at 10:37 p.m. and was supported by Guy Herr. All voted in favor. Motion carried. 20