HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/09/1983 P&Z Minutes•
Barton - Aschman Associates, Inc.
1610 South Sixth Street Minneapolis, Minnesota 55454 612- 332 -0421
MEMORANDUM TO: Lino Lakes Zoning Ordinance Update Task Force and
Planning Commission
FROM: Bill Short
DATE: March 9, 1983
SUBJECT: AIRPORT ZONING CONSIDERATIONS
Currently, there are two airports operating within the city limits of Lino Lakes; they
include: (1) Surfside Seaplane Base (and landing strip), and (2) Lino Air Park, a private
use airstrip. Both the Metropolitan Council and MnDOT applaud Lino Lakes' interest
in establishing land use safety zones for these airports. However, the individuals that I
talked to in the MnDOT Division of Aeronautics indicate that there is no requirement
for land use safety zones for either of these airports. They informed me that the only
time that the state recommended land use safety zoning for airports are for those
airports which are open to the public, owned by a public agency, and requesting
MnDOT's funds. Since neither Surfside nor Lino Air Park fit these requirements, then
the state will not require any land use safety zoning. However, the state does
recommend that communities do control land use around all airports in an effort to
provide the best land use control and safety around airport facilities.
As the City of Lino Lakes proceeds with some sort of land use safety zoning for
airports, the following should be considered. Surfside Seaplane Base currently offers a
landing strip which does not meet public airport standards. However, Bruce Hanson,
the operator of Surfside, is planning to improve the airstrip so that public use can be
offered. By applying the recommended land use safety zoning to Surf side's landing
strip, it appears that there should be no signigicant land use conflicts. This is because
both approaches to the landing strip are primarily routed over water. Therefore, to
apply the land use safety zoning standards recommended by MnDOT would not appear
to be a hardship to any landowners of affected property.
Lino Air Park, on the other hand, uses approaches which are routed over existing
developed and developable lands owned by others. If the city were to apply MnDOT's
recommended standards for these districts, they may prove to be quite restrictive to
those landowners. For example, land use safety zone A, which restricts uses to
agriculture, outdoor recreation, cemeteries, and other low intensity uses, would
overlay eight lots in Sunset Oaks Subdivision, five lots in Sherwood Green Subdivision,
and four acres of undeveloped land owned by Molin Concrete. Implementation of these
recommended standards would restrict those existing uses to develop no more
intensely than they are today (especially significant for any plans for resubdivision if
•
•
•
Barton - Aschman Associates, Inc.
sewer were to become available), and would allow only outdoor storage use or possibly
parking on that part of Molin Concrete's property over which it would lay. Land use
safety zone B, which is a short extension of land use safety zone A, limits development
to single - family homes on three -acre lots or other less intense uses. Again, this would
appear to be quite restrictive to lands which would propose to develop in the future.
In summary, if the city would like to implement land use safety zoning for airports,
and utilize these standards recommended by MnDOT, then it would appear that there
would be little or no impact on property owners affected by the Surfside Seaplane
airstrip, but will have some restrictive impact on property owners to the east and west
of Lino Air Park. Considering that the recommended standards would only be required
if those airports were to be open to the public, owned and and operated by a public
agency and were requesting money from MnDOT, it appears that the city may never
really have to adopt these standards. However, it is recommended that the city adopt
some standards to control land use around these airports in an effort to minimize or
eliminate any future conflicts between these existing uses and those uses which may
develop near them in the future. Therefore, I would recommend that the city adopt
some level of land use safety zoning and that the standards for those zones be
standards which the city can enforce and live with in the future. Those standards may
be somewhat less than the standards recommended by MnDOT.
•
•
1005.07 AIRPORT ZONING
Subdivision 1. Airspace Obstruction Zoning
(1) AIRSPACE ZONES.
In order to carry out the purpose of this Ordinance as set forth above, the following
airspace zones are hereby established: Primary Zone, Horizontal Zone, Conical
Zone, Approach Zone, and Transitional Zone, and whose locations and dimensions
are as follows:
(2) PRIMARY ZONE: All that land which lies directly under an imaginary
primary surface longitudinally centered on a runway and:
(A) Extending 200 feet beyond each end of the runway. The elevation of any
point on the primary surface is the same as the elevation of the nearest point on
the runway centerline. The width of the primary surface is 250 feet.
(B) HORIZONTAL LINE: All that land which lies directly under an imaginary
horizontal surface 150 feet above the established airport elevation, the perimeter
of which is constructed by swinging arcs of specified radii from the center of each
end of the primary surface of each runway and connecting the adjacent arcs by
lines tangent to those arcs. The radius of each arc is 6,000 feet.
(C) CONICAL ZONE: All that land which lies directly under an imaginary
conical surface extending upward and outward from the periphery of the horizontal
surface at a slope of 20 to 1 for a horizontal distance of 4,000 feet as measured
radially outward from the periphery of the horizontal surface.
(D) APPROACH ZONE: All that land which lies directly under an imaginary
approach surface longitudinally centered on the extended centerline at each end of
a runway. The inner edge of the approach surface is at the same width and
elevation as, and coincides with, the end of the primary surface. The approach
surface inclines upward and outward at a slope of 20:1.
The approach surface expands uniformly to a width of 2,500 feet at a
distance of 10,000 feet to the periphery of the conical surface.
(2) HEIGHT RESTRICTIONS.
Except as otherwise provided in this Ordinance, and except as necessary and
incidental to airport operations, no structure or tree shall be constructed, altered,
maintained, or allowed to grow in any airspace zone so as to project above any of
the imaginary airspace surfaces described in said Subsection (1) hereof. Where an
area is covered by more than one height limitation, the more restrictive limitations
shall prevail.
(3) BOUNDARY LIMITATIONS.
The municipality may regulate the location, size and use of building and the density
of population in that portion of an airport haxard area under the approach zones for
a distance not exceeding two miles from the airport boundary and may regulate
height restriction zoning for a distance not to exceed one and one -half miles
beyond the perimeter of the airport boundary.
Subdivision 2. Land Use Safety Zoning.
(1) SAFETY ZONE BOUNDARIES.
In order to carry out the purpose of this Ordinance, as set forth above and also in
order to restrict those uses which may e hazardous to the operational safety of
aircraft operating to and from the Benson Airport, and furthermore to limit
population and building density in the runway approach areas, thereby creating
sufficient open space so as to protect life and property in case of an accident,
there are herby created and established the following land use safety zones:
(A) SAFETY ZONE A: All land in that portion of the approach zones of a
runway, as defined in Subsection A of Airspace Obstruction Zoning hereof, which
extends outward from the end of primary surface a distance equal to two - thirds of
the planned length of the runway.
(B) SAFETY ZONE B: All land in that portion of the approach zones of a
runway, as defined in Subsection A of Airspace Obstruction Zoning hereof, which
extends out -ward from Safety Zone A a distance equal to one -third of the planned
length of the runway.
(C) SAFETY ZONE C: All that land which is enclosed within the perimeter
of the horizontal zone, as defined in Subsection A of Airspace Obstruction Zoning
hereof, and which is not included in Zone A or Zone B.
(2) USE RESTRICTIONS.
(A) GENERAL: Subject at all times to the height restrictions set forth in
Subsection (2) (Airspace Obstruction Zoning), no use shall be made of any land in
any of the safety zones defined in Subsection (1) (Airspace Obstruction Zoning),
which creates or causes interference with the operations of radio or electoronic
facilities on the airport or with radio ro electoronic communications between
airport and aircraft, makes it difficult for pilots to distinguish between airport
lights and other lights, results in glare in the eyes of pilots using the airport,
impairs visibility in the vicinity of the airport, or otherwise endangers the landing,
taking off, or maneuvering of aircraft.
(B) ZONE A: Subject at all times to the height restrictions set forth in
Subsection (2) of Airspace Obstruction Zoning, and to the general restrictions
contained in Airspace Obstruction Zoning, areas designated as Zone A shall contain
no buildings, temporary structures, exposed transmission lines, or other similar
above - ground land use structural hazards, and shall be restricted to those uses
which will not create, attract, or bring together an assembly of persons thereon.
Permitted uses may include, but are not limited to, such uses as agriculture
(seasonal crops), horticulture, animal husbandry, raising of livestock, wildlife
habitat, light outdoor recreation (nonspectator), cemeteries, and vehicle parking
lots.
3. ZONE B: Subject at all times to the height restrictions set forth in
Subsection (2) of Airspace Obstruction Zoning, areas designated as Zone B shall be
restricted in use as follows:
a. Each use shall be on a site whose area shall not be less than acres.
•
•
•
b. Each use shall not create, attract, or bring together a site population that
would exceed _ persons per acre.
e. The following uses are specifically prohibited in Zone B: Churches,
hospitals, schools, theaters, stadiums, hotels and motels, trailer courts,
campgrounds, and other places of frequent public or semipublic assembly.
4. ZONE C: Zone C is subject only to height restrictions set forth in
Subsection B of Airspace Obstruction Zoning, and to the general restrictions
contained in Subsection B I.
Planning & Zoning
Commission
March 9, 1983
IRhe regular meeting of the Lino Lakes Planning and Zoning Board was called to order by Vice -
Chairman, Mr. McLean at 7:40 P.M. Members present: Doocy, Klaus, McLean, Johnson, Ostlie,
Goldade. Members absent: Prokop. Mr. Bill Short, City Planner, Mr. Bill Hawkins, City
Attorney and Mr. Kluegel, Zoning Offical were also present.
MINUTES Mr. Johnson moved to approve the minutes of February 8, 1983 Planning and Zoning
Board meeting. Mr. Doocy seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously.
INFORMATION - BOB WALLS Mr. Walls explained he had gone to the County Court House during
the lapse of the moratorum in April, 1982 and recorded several lot splits on land he owns
on 62nd Street. When he brought the deeds for the street to the City he was told by Mr.
Hawkins, City Attorney that this was an illegal lot split and he is wondering if he sells
a lot if the City will issue a building permit on the lot.
Mr. Hawkins said the City would never have known of the lot split had Mr. Walls notpresented
the road deeds to the City. He felt it was an illegal lot split since the the split did not
meet Ordinance #56, Section 4.10.
Mr. McLean asked Mr. Hawkins how they shouldproceed on this matter. Mr. Hawkins said Mr.
Wall could redraw the subdivision into 22 acre lots with an easement over two lots to prov-
ide access to the interior,and come to the Planning and Zoning Board for a variance to the
moratorum. This is in essence waiving the moratiorum.
Mr. McLean told Mr. Walls to have his subdivision drawn into 2Z acre lots and record a 60'
Alleasement over two lots for future development of the interior of this parcel. He can then
Illequest a variance to they moratorum for this subdivision.
k ��� i�.t�nf j��i � - ( �t t I -..in,
Mr, - McLean introduced Mr. Hawkins and told him that the Board had questions regarding the
meaning of variance, Special Use Permits and Conditional Use Permits. In the past the Board
operated on the bases that Special Use Permits did not go with the land at the time of a
sale. Now the Board has heard this is not correct.
Mr. Hawkins explained that Special Use Permits and Conditional Use Permits are the same thing.
They should be considered as permanent. This Permit is issued when land is zoned for a part-
icular use and the requested use does not fit into the zoning definition. Conditional Uses
or Special Uses are permitted provided they are listed under that particular zoning as Con-
ditional Uses. The applicant must apply for a Conditional Use Permit and the Council can
issue the Conditional Use Permit and put restrictions on the permit such as a time limit.
This permit is registered with the County so when the land is sold the new buyer will be
aware of the restrictions on, the land. , 7/, o
+► 1 . i t ^�4
If the Board decides to deny a request they should be very careful to list the reasons for
denial. The reasons should be substantial, that is,;for instance, because there are already
three liquor stores at one intersection that is not a valid reason for denying a 4th store.
Variances should be issued when there is a problem or hardship of the land only, for instance,
side yard set backs.
Mrs. Averbeck asked if a Conditional Use Permit would lapse if it was not started within a
Ilkarticular time? Mr. Hawkins said the Council should always have a right to look at a partic-
ar variance, Conditional Use Permit /Special Use Permit and plat if it has not been started
a particular time. It is a reasonable requirement that the landowner take some action by
a particular time.
Mr. McLean said some language to this effect should be in the new zoning ordinance. Mr. Short
said it was and read the section to the Board.
Planning and Zoning Board
March 9, 1983
Page -2-
r. Hawkins said that if a person comes in to request a Conditional Use Permit and that cond-
itional Use is not listed in the Ordinance a Conditional Use Permit cannot be granted. That
particular use is not allowed in that district period. The only other alternative for the
requested use is to rezone that district for the requested use.
Mrs. Klaus asked what if the Board forgot to put a particular use in the Ordinance. Mr.
Hawkins said the Ordinance could be amended to allow for that use.
Mrs. Anderson asked Mr. Hawkins about private easement. Mr. Hawkins explained the two ways
in which the City can acquire a public road easement. One is the dedication of a road ease-
ment in a plat. The other way to acquire an easement is by a grant of an easement by a sep-
arate document such as a deed. Road easements can be accepted without being improved lut
this has not been the policy of this City.
Regarding private easements, Mr. Hawkins said an easement is nothing more than the right of
use. There is a dominent parcel and a subserviant parcel. The dominent parcel is the one
that has the right to pass over the subserviant parcel. The underlying property is still
owned by the property over which the easement runs. He owns the property subject to the
other person passing over the easement.
11
Mr. Jefferson from the audience asked Mr. Hawkins if Mr. Leroux who has a private road ease-
ment over Mr. Ellison's property to provide access to his property has the right to petition
the City for a roadway or do these improvements have to be made and the easement deeded to
the City. Mr. Hawkins said he is not familar with the language in that reservation for
. asement and does not know if the language in the easement is so broad that he has the right
o turn it into a public easement. Basically the City does not have to accept any road-
way easement if it feels it is not beneficial to the City.
Mr. McLean thanked Mr. Hawkins for coming before the Board.
ZONING ORDINANCE
Mr. McLean explained the ordinance and map have been in the process of being drafted for
nearly a year. There have been four quadrant informational meetings and another meeting of
the Task Force to review the input from the public. Now the Planning and Zoning Board must
accept the draft and forward it to the Council for a public hearing.
Mr. Short said he would not go through the ordinance tonight but since the Task Force last
met three members of the Task Force have forwarded their comments or recommendations to him
for further discussion.
Mr. Short had eight items that should be addressed tonight:
1. Non - Comforming Uses - If the structure in a non- conforming use area is damaged beyond a
certain degree these structures cannot be replaced or rebuilt. In the zoning ordinance draft
50% is used as the % by which it is determined if the structure can he rebuilt. The 50%
figure is a real concern to some Task Force Members and he wanted to know if this should be
•
Planning and Zoning Board
March 9, 1983
Page -3-
elchanged. Mr. Short noted that 50% is a standard figure used in other communities.
Mr. McLean asked if there were any comments from the audience about the percentages.
Mr. Spetzman of 8121 Lake Drive - Mr. Spetzman explained his property which was rezoned
Light Industrial so that he could build and operate a transmission repair shop. Now the
proposed zoning is residential. This means he cannot expand or rebuild if there was more
than 50% damage to the shop building. He felt this was not fair and would like the same
consideration as the Pizza Shop and Tire Shop just north of him received.
Mr. Milt Jorgenson of 8221 Lake Drive - Mr. Jorgenson owns approximate nine acres and grows
Christmas trees and cannot see why this area cannot remain as it was, commercial.
Mrs. Roland Ford of 6074 Hodgson Road - Mr. and Mrs. Ford operate a tree removal service
and wish their property to remain commercial.
Mr. Wes Jensen of 6075 Hodgson - Mr. Jensen had all of his property rezoned commercial for
a future shopping center. He wants to keep all his property zoned commercial. Mr. Short
explained that the neighborhood classification for a shopping center would accomodate
the area in red. If something bigger was to come to this area the remainder could be re-
zoned at that time.
Mr. McLean reminded the audience that this Board was only a recommending Board. Only the
Council can make final decisions and the public will have a chance for more input at the
public hearing.
41111r. Jorgenson was told his Christmas tree business will be grandfathered in. Mr. Short
told Mr. Spetzman that the Board will look at his property further.
f 40,9 lam, t -st 64-r"'-
e—referred to kte t--_,. regarding the percentage of damage to non - conforming
property. Mr. Goldade suggested eliminating the percentage entirely. Mr. Karth suggested
60 or 70 %. The concensus was to change the percentage to 75 %.
>3. Residential Design Standards - The proposed ordinance contains definitions for a Manufact-
ured Home District and a Manufactured Home Park District. In setting the design standards
for what types of homes can occur in all other districts of Lino Lakes one of the requirements
established was that no residential stucture shall have a width of less than 20 feet at its
narrowest point. It was agreed to change this to "60% of the residential sturcture shall
have a minimum width of 20 feet." The ordinance cannot say that manufactured housing is not
allowed in the R -1 and R -2 districts. The above statement regarding the 20 foot minimum width
will make it difficult for most manufactured housing to meet this requirement.
% „4. Swimming Pools - In section D of the proposed
equipment shall be at least 50 feet from adjacent
agreed to change this to 35 feet from 50 feet.
5. Exterior Storage - Mr. Short felt the language
a handout to the Board suggesting language dealing
leted since this is covered in another ordinance.
labeled non - residential.
ordinance regarding any noise mechanical
or nearby residential structures. It was
in this area was to "slim ". He presented
with Coats and unoccupied trailers be de-
In section (2) and (3) this should he
Illkt was decided that firewood if stacked would be a permissable item in section (1). Propane
tanks were discussed and it was decided it would be difficult to require screening for this
•
type of item.
Planning and Zoning Board
March 9, 1983
Page -4-
6. Refuse - This item was not included in the proposed ordinance. Mr. Short read a
paragraph he had prepared regarding refuse. This was acceptable to the Board.
,7. Site and Building Plans - It was decided that any plans other than single family homes
and two - family homes will have to go to the Planning and Zoning Board and then to the Council
for final action.
9. Airports - Mr. Short handed out material regarding airport zoning considerations. He had
checked with MAC and MnDot for their regulations regarding non - public air ports and found
that they do not require land use zoning districts. The State does strongly recommend that
communities do provide land control devises for controled use around the airports to pro-
vide the best land use control and safety around airport facilities.
After checking the maps and considerable discussion, Mr. Short was asked to come up with some
stricter standards and send his recommentation to the Planning and Zoning Board Members and
Task Force Members. If these persons have any question or comment regarding the proposed
recommendations, they should reply to Mr. Short.
Regarding the Wes Jensen property on Hodgson Road, it was decided to leave it as proposed.
If a buyer was found for the entire parcel it was the feeling the Council would rezone.
Stegarding Mr. Ford's property on Hodgson Road, it was the concensus to leave the proposed
oning as shown on the proposed zoning map.
Regarding Mr. Spetzman's property on Lake Drive it was discussed and it was decided to leave
t his as proposed on the zoning map.
There will be a special meeting at 7:30 P.M., Wednesday, March 23rd, 1983 for the purpose of
going over the final draft of the zoning ordinance and zoning map: preparatory to approval
and recommendation to Council. The Task Force is also invited to attend this meeting.
Old Business - None
New Business - None
Mr. Doocy moved to adjourn at 10:50 P.M. Mr. Johnson seconded the motion. Aye.
•