HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/10/2004 P&Z Minutes
CITY OF L I NO LAKE S
PLANNING & Z O NING BOARD MINUT E S
DATE : November 10, 2004
TIME STARTED : 6:34 P.M.
TIME ENDED : 9:40 P.M.
MEMBERS PRES ENT : Hyden, La den, Rafferty, Root, and Tralle
MEMBERS ABSENT : Pogalz
STAFF PRESENT : Paul Be ngtson and James Studenski
I. CAL L TO ORDE R AND ROL L CAL L
Chair Rafferty called the Lino Lakes Planning and Zoning Boar d m eeting to order at 6:34
p.m ., Nove mber 10, 2004.
II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Chair Rafferty stated one additional item would be added to the agenda, item VI.B.,
regarding 2005 m eeting dates. The am ended age nda was approved.
III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: October 13, 2004
Mr. Root requested that th e October 13, 2004 m i nutes be am ended on page 16 to reflect
that Mr. Tralle m a de a motion to adjourn the m e eting at 10:41 p.m ., and was supported
by Mr. Root .
Mr. Root made a MOTION to approve th e October 13, 2004 Minutes , as am ended, and
was supported by Mr. Hyden. Motion carried 5-0.
IV. OPEN MIKE
Chair Rafferty declared Open Mike open at 6:36 p.m .
There was no one present for Open Mike.
Mr. Tralle m a de a MOTION to close Open Mi ke at 6:36 p.m., and was supported by Mr.
Laden. Motion carried 5-0.
V. ACTION I TEMS
A. Variance Request for Lot Area, Lot Widt h, and Road Fr ontage for St. Paul
Regional Water Services, Anoka County Regional Park
APPR OVE D MINUTE S
Pl anni ng & Zo ni n g B o ar d
No vem b er 10 , 20 0 4
Page 2
Staff stated applicant has re quested approval of variances for required road frontage,
m i ni m u m lot area, and m i ni m u m lot width to al low the division of the subject sites by an
adm i nistrative m i nor subdivision. The com p re hensive plan guides both sites for Public/
Se m i -Public uses and is zoned PSP (Public/S em i-Public). The C ity granted sim ilar
variances for parcel 20 in April of this year.
Staff explained that Parcel 3 is located on the west side of Lake Pe ltier, running parallel
but not adjacent to Main Stre et. This parcel has approxim a tely 2,650 feet of lake
frontage, but does not have any road frontage. Th e proposed s ubdivisio n will result in the
creation of two new parcels, Parcel A will be 3.70 2 acres and Parcel B will be .614 acres.
Parcel A will be sold to Anoka County for parkland and Parcel B will be offered to
adjacen t private prop erty owners. Parcel 21 is located on th e west side of Centerville
Lake and has approxim a tely 1,850 feet of la ke frontage, but does not have any road
frontage. Th is proposed subdivis i on will result in the creation of two new parcels, Parcel
A will be 10 .014 acres and Parcel B will be 1.20 6 acres. Parcel A will be sold to Ano k a
County for inclusion into the regional park and Parcel B will be sold to Anoka County for
roadway purposes.
Staff noted the m i ni m u m requirem e nts with in the PSP zoning district are 10 acres
m i ni m u m lot area (unsewered) and 150 f eet m i nim u m lot width. In addition, the
subdivision ordinance requires that “all lots shall have frontage on an im proved public
street that provides the requi red lot width at the m i nim u m front yard setback.” The
proposed m i nor subdivis i on will d i vide both lo ts into two, of which neith er will m e et
these requirem e nts.
Staff indicated that in co nsidering all request s for varian ce, th e City shall m a ke a findi ng
of f act that:
a. both sites are alm o st completely surrounded by the lake and the regional park reserve,
and would not be able to be developed as usable parcels due to the lack of road
frontage;
b. the physical shape, location, and isolated nature of the par cels prevent use for
anything other than park reserve or privat e lake access for adja cent property owners;
c. econom ic considerations is not a m a jor f actor in this proposal , the intent is to
m i ni m i ze the applicant’s lakeshore holdings for the future;
d. there are very few other s ituations th at can be co mpar ed to this one. Land-locked
parcels owned and operated alm o st exclusiv ely for public purposes would receive the
sam e consideration; and
e. the proposed m i nor subdivision s an d va rian ces provide add i tional public open space
by adding land to the park reserve.
APPR OVE D MINUTE S
Pl anni ng & Zo ni n g B o ar d
No vem b er 10 , 20 0 4
Page 3
Staff recomm ended approval of the project including a variance to the minim u m roa d
frontage req u irem ents, a varian ce to the m i ni m u m lot size requirem e nts, and a m i nor
subdivision, subject to the c ondition that when ownership of these properties changes
hands, the n e w owner(s) is requ ired to com b ine them with adjacen t parcels to avoid
creating a new parcel.
Mr. Tralle asked if it is the intent of St. Pa ul Reg i onal W a ter Services to s e ll the 10 ac re
parcel for future construction of homes and re qu e s ted c l ar if ic ation re garding Parcel 21.
Chair Rafferty invited applicant to m a ke comm ent.
Bill Tsch ida , St. Paul Re gional W a ter Servic es, s t ated Pa rce l 21 is cur r ently being
operated within the park system and a Purc hase Agreem ent has been executed whereby
the County will now purchase th is parcel. He s t ated both splits are being d r iven by wh at
the County wants to buy a nd operate as a park.
Mr. Tschida added that Parcel B of Parcel 3 is directly in front of private property and
represents a sim ilar strip of land surrounding Centerville Lake and would be m a de
available for purchase to the adjacent private pr op erty owners. He stated h e has had so m e
conversations with Mr. S m yser about how to do future lot splits al l around the lake and
indicated they would prefer to obtain blanket approval.
Staf f indicated if it is the inten tion to f u rther div i d e the prop erty in the f u tu re and to s e ll it
to individual property ow ners, it could be addressed in the Board’s action so the
individual property owners do not ha ve to com e back for a v a rian ce.
Mr. Tschida stated he intended the blanket appr oval would be in anticipation of property
owners wanting to subdivide in the future.
Chair Rafferty stated th at because Mr. Sm ys er is not in attend ance th is ev ening, the
Planning & Zoning Board should approve the variance based on staff’s recomm endation.
Staff noted the m i nor subdivision w ould be acco mplished ad m i nistrativ ely.
Mr. Root made a MOTION to recommend Option 1 to approve the project, including a
varian ce to the m i ni m u m road frontage requirements, a variance to th e minim u m lot size
requirem e nts, and a variance for m i nim u m lot width to allow the division of the subject
sites by an adm i nistrativ e m i nor subdivisi on, sub j ect to the condition that when
ownership of these properties change hands , the new owner(s) are requ ir ed to com b ine
them with adjacen t parcels to avoid crea ting a new parcel, an d was supported by Mr.
Hyden. Motion carried 5-0.
B. PUBLI C HEARI NG for a Preliminary Plat for a 5-lot Residential
Development named Vaughan Addition , Michael Vaughan, 600 Birch Street
Chair Rafferty opened the pub lic hearing at 7:55 p.m .
APPR OVE D MINUTE S
Pl anni ng & Zo ni n g B o ar d
No vem b er 10 , 20 0 4
Page 4
Staff explained the app l icant h a s req u ested app r o v al of a f i ve lot sing le f a m ily residen tia l
subdivision entitled Vaughan A ddition located on the south side of Birch Street
approxim a tely 2,180 feet east of W a r e Road. Th e com p rehensive plan guides the site f o r
low density sewered re sidentia l use a nd it is zone d R-1. The site is a l so within th e
existing MUSA boundary. The approxim ate area of the site is 2.99 acres, with 2.91 acres
of upland area, and a net density of 1 .72 un its/acre. The propo sed subdivis i on will con s ist
of five lots ranging in size from 11,654 squa re feet to 19,665 square feet; the upland lot
area of all five lots exceed 11,654 square f eet and therefore conf or m to ordinance.
Staff stated that 165 lots have been a pproved for year 2005, leaving no more than 11
more lots for year 2005 to bring the total to 176, which includes the 20% discretionary
flexibility. Fox Den Ac res is scheduled for consideration by the City Council, and the
pending growth m a nagem e nt policy regardi ng Conservation Developm ents m a kes the
availability of the last 1 1 discretionary lots unknown.
Staff explained that access from Birch Street is proposed in th e form of a cul-de-sac, with
an offset bulb. Staff is concerned with access to n o t only th is site, bu t the adjacen t site to
the west.
Staff stated that city water and sanitary sewe r will connect to e x is ting facilities already on
site; both are adequate to serve the project. The City Engineer ha s com p leted a thorough
review of th e subm itted plans and th e appli cant will be required to sa tisf y all of the
comments m a de by the City Engineer prior to approval of any building perm its for the
site. The proposal does not include any land de dication for park land; a cash dedication of
$1,665 per residential unit will be required.
Staff noted the Environm ental Board review ed the project on October 27, 2004. One of
their m a jor concerns was an alternative acces s to elim inate traffic concern s on Birch
Street. The m a jority of comments can be addressed by the developm ent agreem ent
between the applicant and the City; others will be include d as conditions of approval
when this project is acted upon by the Planning & Zoning Board.
Staff is reco mmending that th is item be continu e d to a future m eeting so the acces s iss u es
can be furth e r exam ined and because of th e questions surroun ding the av ailab ility of
discretionary lots for 2005 pursuant to the growth m a nagem e nt policy.
Mr. Root th anked staff for addres sin g the Birc h Street acces s issues and encouraged staff
to rev i ew all future access points su rroundi ng this area in orde r to gain a b e tter
understanding of where other possible acce ss points m a y i m pact future projects.
Chair Raf f e rty sta t ed it will be im portan t to de ter m ine what the proper t y owner to the
west of the proposed developm ent intends to do and address access in conjunction with
that. He added the goal would be to elim inat e the need for another street off of Birch
Street.
Jodi Hystead, 593 Chippewa Tra il, expressed concern about the drainage easem ent that
runs behind their property and also expresse d concern about the rem oval of trees on the
APPR OVE D MINUTE S
Pl anni ng & Zo ni n g B o ar d
No vem b er 10 , 20 0 4
Page 5
south end of the developm ent. She stated that she is concerned about increased traffic in
the area.
Wade Olson, 593 Chippewa Trail, stated thei r property is not curre ntly served by city
sewer and water and expressed concern a bout contam ination or pollution from the
proposed developm ent.
Mr. Studenski stated the propos ed project will be serviced by city sewer and water with
ponds intended to deal with drai nage run-off; as a result, th is should not affect any wells
in the area.
Mr. Olson expressed concern about increased traffic on Birch Street , and asked about the
planned square footage of the proposed hom es.
Dave Boyce, 616 Prairie Flower Road, stated th ere is a sm all strip of land to the east of
the proposed development that is not buildab le and asked if that property could be
preserved so that no building occurs on that property.
Mr. Bengtson replied staff is currently attem p ting to contact the property owner
m e ntioned by Mr. Boyce to determ ine what th eir intention is for that property and to
potentially s ee if that will help p r ovid e an access point to the east.
Mr. Boyce stated that none of the adjoining property owners thought there would ever be
an access po int nex t to an environm ental pond an d this represents a b i g co ncern to h i m.
Chair Rafferty invited applicant to m a ke comm ent.
John Donovan, Loucks Associates, stated they are the engineer of the project. He
indica ted it is their in tention to a ttem p t to sav e as m a ny trees as po ssible. He added the
project calls for all cus t o m bu ilt homes with full basem e nt wa lkouts. He stated the reason
they put access off of Birch Stre et is that there is already a ro ad there, which m i ni m i zes
tree rem oval.
Chair Rafferty stated the intent of a public hear in g is to add r e ss issue s tha t are im portant
to the pub lic and encouraged the developer to hold a m eeting with the ad jacent p r operty
owners to address som e of their concerns. He stated this type of m e eting could prove very
beneficial to both the developer and the adjacent property ow ners.
Mr. Donovan stated they have received staff’s comments and agree with the m a jority of
them . He indicated the k e y issue app ears to b e ac cess to the s i te and th ey a r e willing to
look at all availab l e options that m i ght be m o re acceptab l e to the adjacent property
owners.
Mike Vaughan, 600 Birch Street, stated he pl ans to build homes with an approxim a te
square footage of 3,000 square feet, ranging in price from $350,000-$400,000. He added
that s a ving a s m a ny trees as possib l e w ill add to the value to the proper t y.
APPR OVE D MINUTE S
Pl anni ng & Zo ni n g B o ar d
No vem b er 10 , 20 0 4
Page 6
Chair Rafferty requested Mr. Vaughan work with staff to address all outstanding issues
and reiterated his request to hold a m eeting wi th the adjacent property ow ners to address
their conce r ns. He state d this m a tter will th en co m e back to the Planning & Zoning Board
in Decem ber for action.
Chair Rafferty closed the public hearing at 7:23 p.m.
Mr. Hyden m a de a MOTION to continue item 5B to a f u ture m eeting so that a c cess
issues can b e exam ined and because of th e questions surroun ding the av ailab ility of
discretionary lots for 2005 pursuant to the growth m a nagem e nt policy, and was supported
by Mr. Tralle. Motion carried 5-0.
C. PUBLI C HEARI NG for a Conditional Use Permit and Site Plan Review for
Construction of a Church, Kingdom Hall of Jehovah’s Witnesses, 69XX
Lak e Drive
Chair Rafferty opened the pub lic hearing at 7:24 p.m .
Staff explained the New Brighton C ongregati on of the Jehovah’s W itnesses has requested
approval of a conditional use perm it to allo w a church on a 4.07 acr e lot located on the
east side of Lake Drive. The com p re hens ive p l an guides th e s ite f o r low-d e nsity
unsewered residential use and is zoned R-1 (Sin g l e Fam ily Residen tia l). Site plan rev i ew
will be com p leted adm i nistr a tively.
He stated the site is lo cated within the existing MU SA boundary even though public
water and sanitary sewer are not available wi thin approxim a tely 700 feet of the site. The
proposed building clearly m eet s all of the m i ni mum setback requirem e nts for the R-1
zoning district. The parking lot standards ha ve been taken from the comm er cial design
guidelines since the R-1 zoning di s t rict does no t s p ecifically a ddress parking lot setbacks.
He stated th e build ing materials are b r ick ven eer with brick e x ter i or with brick so ldie r
course at a 3’ height, with a com posite shingle roof. A m i ni m a l a m ount of façade
articulation is proposed and th e only entrances consist of th e m a in door on the south side
and a serv ice entrance o n the north s i de. All p r op osed m a terials are in accordance with
the zoning ordinance. In addition, the build ing height com p lies with the ordinance.
Staff explained the screening requirem ents of the zoning ordina nce required along the
boundary of the residen t ial property adjacen t to th is institution a l use, no tin g that either a
green belt w ith 80% opacity, six feet in height must be provided, or alternatively a solid
screen ing f e nce six f eet in height. He stated the p l ans as subm itted dep i ct a f our f oot
fence and landscaping does not provide the n eeded opacity beyond the four feet. Staff has
advised the applicant to speak with the nei ghbors about the screening to determ ine which
option they m i ght prefer. He i ndica te d the poten tial re loca tion of the septic system on the
site will req u ire som e changes to the lands caping plan. Staff and the Environm ental
Board have expressed concern that the lake side of the propert y be effectively screened to
m i ni m i ze the visual im pact of the building.
APPR OVE D MINUTE S
Pl anni ng & Zo ni n g B o ar d
No vem b er 10 , 20 0 4
Page 7
Staff stated the plans cu rrently show th e property at approxim ately 18% impervious
surface coverage; the R-1 zoning dis t rict requi res that im pervious surface coverage no t
exceed 65%. He stated that access to the site is via an entry/exit driveway directly fro m
Lake Drive and approval for this access m u st be obtained from A noka County. He stated
staff review of the access and circula t ion will d e p e nd grea tly on the comm ents from
Anoka County; those comments have not yet be en received. He indi cated that a m i nimum
of 57 parking spaces will need to b e m a intain ed and the app l icant is prop osing 59 parking
spaces. The plans show a m i ni m a l amount of si dewalk running from the parking lot to the
f r ont entry. An addition a l poin t of entry on th e r ear of the bu ilding do es not have a
sidewalk and a condition has been added re quiring the provision of such a walkway. The
applicant is proposing shoebox style lighting with downcast, in conform a nce to City
standards. All signage w ould be subject to perm it and approval based on the City’s sign
ordinanc e. The location of trash equ i pm ent is not shown on the subm itted plans and the
applic ant will be require d to indicate how tras h will be s t ore d and scre en ed on site. The
m echanical plans show multiple con f iguratio n s f o r the a i r co ndition i ng u n its on th e n o rth
side of the b u ilding, m a king them visible to th e s t reet. A con d ition will b e includ ed that
requires effective screening of these units.
Staff explained that water and sanitary sewe r service are not imm e diately available an d
the subm itte d plans dep i ct a well and septic syste m . Staf f and the Environ m ental Board
have asked the applicant to exam ine the feasib ility of m oving the se p tic s y stem f r om the
rear of the property to the front of the property to m a xim i ze the separation from the
shoreline. T h e City Engineer has reviewed the utility p l an and the grad ing and drain a g e
plan; s e vera l issues will need to be a ddre ssed by the applican t. In add itio n, the grad in g
and drainage plan is subject to review and approval fr om the Rice Creek Watershed
District.
Staff advised the Environm ental Board revi ewed the project on October 27, 2004 and
their recom m e ndations include seve ral lim itatio ns which will be incorporated into site
plan rev i ew and will be conditioned or a dded to the develop m ent agreem ent when
appropriate.
Staff recomm ended continuing the p ublic he arin g f o r the pro j ect to allow the applican t to
address the comments of the City Engineer, to a llow rec e ipt of comm ents f r om Anoka
County with respect to access and circulation, an d to allow th e applicant to subm it a
revised landscaping plan.
Chair Rafferty reques t ed clarification of the comment by the E nvironm ental Board for
“adequate screening of s horeland an d adjacen t residences.” Mr. Bengtso n stated he felt
their intention was to re quire app lic ant to p r ovide som e sort of visual barrier from the
building to the actual shore, to m i nim i ze the impact th at th e build ing would have on the
visual experience on the lake.
Chair Raf f e rty asked if a split ra il f e n ce could be utilized by the applicant. Staf f replie d
the type of fence is left up to the de veloper, as long as it m eets all screening
requirem e nts.
APPR OVE D MINUTE S
Pl anni ng & Zo ni n g B o ar d
No vem b er 10 , 20 0 4
Page 8
Mr. Root stated this is an other s ituation where traffic is a con cern and req u ested
inf o rm ation f r om the applican t with r e spect to church schedule, service tim es, when
vehicles will be acces sin g the prope rty, how ofte n the building will be us ed , etc. in o r de r
to obtain a better understanding of expected tra ffic patterns in and out of the property. He
added Lake Drive is a busy road and tra ffic is traveling at a high rate of speed.
Mr. Laden s t ated the calculation with respec t to im pervious surface is intended to dea l
with run-off from the site and requested clarif ication of this calcula tion. Staff agreed to
confirm the calculation.
Mr. Tralle m e ntioned when Eaglebrook Church went through, they were required to hook
up sanitary sewer and water and asked if the Jehovah’s W itnesses will be required to do
the sam e . Mr. Bengtson replied the E nvironm enta l Board expressed its desire to see this
project hooked up when sanitary sew e r and wate r is run to that part of the street and
stated this is at the discretion of the P &Z Board. Mr. Studenski adde d the overall plan is
to have sanitary sewer and water in th is area, but nothing is scheduled yet.
Bob and Carol Stanek, 6970 Lake Drive, stated approxim a tely 40% of this land is
watershed land, which means only 500’ off of Lake Drive is actually developable land,
and asked about the squ a re footage of the bu ilding and whether it will b e a single lev e l
structure. C h air Rafferty provi ded Mr. and Mrs. Stanek with a copy of the proposed site
plan for their review. Mr. Stanek als o asked if th e property would be surv eyed becaus e
the property lines are no t cl ea r. Chair Rafferty re plie d the pro j ect will req u ire a
certificate of survey that m eets City standards.
Mr. Stanek requested inform ation regarding the proposed fence along their property line.
He stated this area is open land and they would prefer an open picket-type fence;
however, if there will be large volumes of people at the church, a solid screening fence
would be more desirable. He also expre ssed concern about the parking lot size and
traf f i c. Mr. Stanek aske d how this d e velopm ent will im pact property tax e s and res a le of
their property. He also asked about the light level from the shoebox lights and if the
property would be lit 24 hours/day, and asked about the proposed signage.
Mrs. Stanek question e d the placem ent of a c hurch in the m i ddle of a residential area
when there appears to be property available 400 feet further down the road that would be
more suitable for a church.
Mr. Stanek asked about sanitary sew e r and water for their property. Mr. Studenski
replied the current C ity policy states if your septic system fails and sanitary sewer and
water is available, then y ou cannot replace you r septic system or well and must connect
to city sewer and water.
Mr. Tralle asked Mr. and Mrs. Stanek what they would consider “adequate screening of
shoreland an d adjacen t residences,” as noted by the Environ m ental Board. Mr. Stan ek
replied the lake is prim arily used by seaplane s an d there is little m o torized boat traffic on
the lak e .
APPR OVE D MINUTE S
Pl anni ng & Zo ni n g B o ar d
No vem b er 10 , 20 0 4
Page 9
Chair Rafferty stated sev e ral v a lid co ncer ns hav e been raised by adjacen t property
owners that should be addr essed by the applicant.
Rob Storberg, 6978 Lake Drive, stated he is appearing on behalf of his parents and they
have expressed concerns regarding the outsi de lighting at the church and increased
traffic. He added his parents are concerned abou t isolating th is lot with a church whe n
the res t of th e area consis ts of single f a m ily hom e s, and as ked how this lot can be zoned
for a church that surrounds a residential area. He questioned the value that this type of
building brings to the community.
Chair Rafferty stated th at the applican t desire s to purchase the subj ec t prop erty f o r th e
purpose of developing a new worship site, a nd they have an opportunity to do that
through a C ondition a l U s e Perm it. He indicated there are restrictions in th e comm ercial
zoning dis t rict that m a y not allow church activit y . He stated that becau se severa l concerns
have been raised, in cluding traffic, site li ghting, and signage, it w ill b e app r opriate to
continue this public h earing. In add i tion, th e com m e nts from Anoka County will n eed to
be reviewed and addressed.
Staff confirm e d a church is a conditional use allowed within the R-1 district and they are
not perm itte d in the com m e rcial distr i ct.
Chair Rafferty invited applicant to m a ke comm ent.
Rodney Gordon, 3552 Brookdale Drive, Brooklyn Park, appeared representing the
engineer of the project.
Chair Rafferty stated that it would be adva ntageous to both the church and adjacent
property ow ners if they m e t to discuss th e concerns raised this evening and would
provide the church with an opportunity to talk to the adjacent prope rty ow ners about their
plans for the property.
Mr. Gordon agreed that such a m eeting would be beneficial. He stat ed that they have
previous ly b u ilt a Kingd om Hall on 694 and Silv er Lake Road in New Brighton and the
neighbors w e re happy to see the church com e into their neighborhood. He indicated they
plan to install a 6 ’ fence to screen the park ing lot area. M r . Gordon stated the church will
typically hold m eetings two nights per week. During the re m a inder of the week, people
will be com i ng into and leaving th e c hurch at d i f f e rent tim es. He stated th e parking lot
will rarely b e full. He ad ded the services on Sundays are h e ld between 9:3 0 a.m . and
10:00 a.m . a nd services are fi nished at 12:00 noon. He stated the shoebox lights will be lit
only when there is a m e eting being held at the church.
Chair Rafferty asked staff what the City requires for lighting at this type of facility. Mr.
Studenski replied there are no specific requi rem e nts for lighting and from the City’s
perspective, lighting should be m i nim i zed to reduce light glare.
Mr. Gordon stated their building on Silver Lake Road is sim ila r to the proposed structure,
and showed pictu r es of the Silve r La ke Road site . He stated the signage will be b r ick with
APPR OVE D MINUTE S
Pl anni ng & Zo ni n g B o ar d
No vem b er 10 , 20 0 4
Page 10
letter ing ins i de the br ick and will be approxi m a tely 4’ high an d 10’ wide; the sign m a y be
lit at nigh t.
Chair Rafferty asked for inform ation regard i ng the church’s desire to pur c h ase th is
particula r lo t in th e m i ddle of a res i d e ntia l area, particularly give n the traffic concerns
and other iss u es raised b y staff and adjacen t prop erty owners.
Dave Knutson, 38 W e st Golden Lake Road, Circle Pines, appeared representing the
Kingdom Hall of Jehovah’s W itnesses. He stated they have been looking for property to
build a chu r ch for awhile and this parcel wa s attractiv e becau se the price was reasonable.
Chair Rafferty asked Mr. Knutson how he feel s about putting a church in the m i ddle of a
residential area. Mr. Knutson replied one of th e things they were looking for is a traffic
flow, and Lake Drive provides that. He recognized there has been a lot of concern
expressed about increased tra ffic on Lake Drive, but felt the traffic generated by the
church would be spread out evenly and thei r congregations are typically less than 100
people.
Mr. Laden asked if the building would have windows. Mr. Knutson replied the Kingdom
Hall has five standard designs to choose from and the plan provided to staff represents a
stripped down plan and they intend to add windows.
Mr. Tralle asked if a double front door a nd a single service door provided sufficient
egress in cas e of f i re. Mr. Bengtson stated this is sue will b e a ddressed by the building
departm e nt to ensure compliance with city code.
Chair Rafferty reiterated his suggestion to the ap plican t to m eet with the adjacen t
property ow ners.
Mr. Knutson agreed to meet with the neighbor s before the next P&Z m e e ting. He stated
that all other issues noted in the plans are being worked on.
Mr. Root requested that staff consider an access lane off of Lake Drive as a way of
addressing som e of the traffic and safety concerns raised.
Chair Rafferty sta t ed th e access issue will be revie w ed once co mments are rece ived fro m
Anoka County. He asked if the applicant has received approval from Ric e Creek
W a tershed District. M r . Knutson re plied they h a ve subm itte d their plans to the
Watershed District and a m eeting is scheduled for Novem b er 22.
Chair Rafferty closed the public hearing at 8:26 p.m.
Mr. Root made a MOTION to continue the public hearing for the project, and was
supported by Mr. Laden. Motion carried 5-0.
Chair Rafferty recessed the m eeting at 8:27 p.m . and reconvened the m eeting at 8:32 p.m.
APPR OVE D MINUTE S
Pl anni ng & Zo ni n g B o ar d
No vem b er 10 , 20 0 4
Page 11
VI. DISCUSSI ON ITEMS
A. Temporary Signage Update
Staff presented its analys is and recomm enda tions regarding temporary signage, banners,
and portable signs. He reviewed the suggested def i nitions for tem porary signage, banner,
and portable sign, and noted that staff is s uggesting that banners and portable signs be
distinct subcategories of te m porary signage. He stated that banners and other flim sy,
cardboard, and plastic signage are m o st comm on and are the cause of m o st concern. He
added that signage regulation should be cont ent neutral.
Mr. Root co mmended staf f f o r their work on the sign ordin a n ce. He sta t e d he f e lt it will
be im portant to build enf o rcem ent into the co st of the perm its and there should be a fine
associated w ith violating the sign ordinance. He s t ated that an othe r consideration should
be signs with changeable m e ssages and outli ning what the tim e li m it requirem e nts are
with these types of signs.
Mr. Tralle f e lt that when a perm it is take n out for 15 days, the perm it holder should be
allowed to change the m e ssage on the sign any tim e they want, but after the 15 days, they
would be required to remove the sign.
Chair Rafferty stated that part of the problem with signage regulations is going to be
enforcem ent. He suggested a perm it cost of $25, the perm it would be issued on a Friday,
and the perm it would be valid for 17 days (rath er than 15), which allow s the sign to be
displayed for three entire weekends, and th en the signage would be required to be
rem oved the following Monday (after the thir d weekend). He felt this would m a ke it
easier for staff to enforce the ord i nan ce. He added a perm it could not be taken out on a
continuous basis.
Mr. Tralle a s ked who will enf o rce th e ordinan ce. Mr. Bengts on replied it will be a joint
effort between the building departm e nt and community developm ent departm e nt.
Mr. Tralle asked if staff is currently enforci ng the regulations with respect to banners and
enforcem ent of signage in right-of-way. Mr . Bengtson replied he did not know where the
process cu rrently s t ands. Chair Rafferty ask e d staff to follow up on this and report to the
Board.
Mr. Hyden stated he agreed with Chair Ra fferty’s suggestion of having 17 day perm its
and asked about m a xi mum num b er of tim es per year.
Chair Rafferty suggested that a m i nimum of 17 days between perm its would be
appropriate.
Mr. Laden asked if there is a problem with renting portable signs for an extended period
and/or having portable signs on a consecutive basis.
APPR OVE D MINUTE S
Pl anni ng & Zo ni n g B o ar d
No vem b er 10 , 20 0 4
Page 12
Chair Rafferty stated he is l ooking for an avenue that will allow City staff to easily
enforce the regulations and felt the best way to a ccom p lish that is to not allow perm its to
be issued on a consecutive basis.
Mr. Tralle suggested allowing perm its no m o re than once a quarter for 17 days duration.
Chair Rafferty asked about perm it fees and fines.
Mr. Laden suggested a perm it fee of $25 and a fine of double the fee, or $50.
Mr. Hyden asked about the appropriate m ean s of communicating the ordinance changes
to residents and business owners. Chair Ra fferty suggested publishing som e thing that
highlights “rule changes for 2005” in the city newspaper and city newsletter. In addition,
the city has the ability to send notice to all business owners.
Chair Rafferty stated th ere should be som e li m itations placed on the size o f a portable
sign and agreed to research this further.
It was the consensus of the Planning & Zoni ng Board that the definition of tem porary
signage as “any sign not perm anently m ounted or affixed to a building or to a perm anent
sign” is acceptable.
It was the consensus of the Planning & Zoni ng Board that a perm it is required for a
tem porary sign and the fee will b e $25, with a fine of $50 for not obtaining a perm it, and
if the sign is not rem oved at expiration of the perm it, there will be a fine of $50 plus
expenses to reim burse the City for removal of the sign (the City shall have the option of
taking the sign down).
It was the consensus of the Planning & Zoni ng Board that a perm it m a y be taken out once
every quarter, for a period of 17 days. The perm it period cannot be consecutive.
It was the consensus of the Planning & Zoning Board that the regula tions shall s t a t e n o
tem porary signs are allowe d in road right-of-way.
The P&Z Board discussed whether the regula tions should state signage is lim ited to
special events or prom otions. The Planni ng & Zoning Board voted 3-2 to delete the
language “lim ited to special events or prom otions.”
Mr. Laden asked about setback requirem e nts. Mr. Bengtson stated the standard setback
for signs is 5’ and is consistent with other city regulations.
It was the consensus of the Planning & Zoni ng Board to add language to the regulations
stating signs shall be setback five feet from the property line.
Mr. Root stated the regulation of banners will be sim ilar to po rtable signs. He asked if the
regulations should state that a banner m u st be attached to a building. Chair Rafferty felt
they should be required to be attached to a building.
APPR OVE D MINUTE S
Pl anni ng & Zo ni n g B o ar d
No vem b er 10 , 20 0 4
Page 13
Mr. Tralle asked if consideration should be given to not allow i ng banners of any type in
the city. Chair Rafferty concurred.
The Planning & Zoning Board voted 3-2 to provide for regulation of banners.
It was the consensus of the Planning & Zoning Board to require banners to be attached on
all four corner s to a building.
It was the consensus of the Planning & Zoni ng Board to allow one banner, to allow a
m a xi m u m size of 32 square feet, to require a perm it for a banner, to require a perm it fee
of $25, with a fine of $50 for not obtaining a pe rmit, and if the sign is not rem oved prior
to expiration of the permit, th ere will be a fine of $50 plus ex penses to reimburse the City
for rem oval of the sign (the City shall have the option of taking the sign down). The
regulations do not need to refe ren ce the road righ t-of-way because the b a n n er will be
attached to a building.
It was the consensus of the Planning & Zoni ng Board that a perm it m a y be taken out once
every quarter, for a period of 17 days. The perm it period cannot be consecutive.
Mr. Laden asked if the regulations w ould allo w a perm it to be taken out for a banner and
a perm it to be taken out for a portable sign at the sam e ti m e .
Mr. Hyden stated it should be either/or, not both.
Chair Rafferty asked if the Board m e mbers w ould prefer to wait until January’s m eeting
to discuss temporary signage and skip this item at the Decem ber m eeting. It was the
consensus of the Planning & Zoning Board to skip the discussion regarding signage at the
Decem ber m eeting and to discuss construc tion signs at the January 200 5 m eeting.
B. 2005 Meeting Dates
Staff presented a proposed sc hedule of 2005 m eeting dates.
Mr. Laden m a de a MOTION to approve the 2005 Schedule of Meeting Dates, and was
supported by Mr. Hyden. Motion carried 5-0.
VII. ADJOURNMENT
Mr. Tralle m a de a MOTION to adjourn the m eeting at 9:40 p.m ., and was supported by
Mr. Hyden. Motion carried 5-0.
Respectf u lly subm itted,
Barbara Hu ghes, Recording Secretary
TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc .
APPR OVE D MINUTE S