Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/08/2002 P&Z MinutesAPPROVED MINUTES CITY OF LINO LAKES PLANNING & ZONI NG BOARD MINUTES I.CALL TO ORDE R AND ROLL CALL Chair Schaps called the Lino Lakes Planning and Zoning Board meeting to order at 6:37 p.m., May 8, 2002. II.APPROVAL OF AGENDA The agenda was approved. III.APPROVAL OF MINUTES – April 10, 2002 Chair Schaps requested the following correctio n: Page 5, third paragraph change Open Mike to the Public Hearing. Ms. Lane made a MOTION to approve the minutes of the April 10, 2002, meeting of the Lino Lakes Planning and Zoning Board as am ended, and was supported by Mr. Corson. Motion carried 3-0. IV.OPEN MIKE Chair Schaps declared open mike open at 6:39 p.m. There was no one present for open mike. Ms. Lane made a MOTION to close Open Mike at 6:39 p.m., and was supported by Mr. Hyden. Motion carried 3-0. DATE: May 8, 2002 TIME STARTED: 6:37 P.M. TIME ENDED: 7:53 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Corson, Hyden, Lane, Rafferty (Arrived at 6:42 p.m.), and Schaps. MEMBERS ABSENT: Lyden and Zych. STAFF PRESENT: City Planner, Jeff Smyser; City Engineer, James Studenski; Associate Planner, Tanda Gretz; Bob Kirmis (NAC) Planning & Zoning Board May 8, 2002 Page 2 APPROVED MINUTES V.ACTION ITEMS A. Nadeau, 20 th Ave., Site Plan Review Staff presented the application by Pete and Norma Nadeau and stated applicants had applied for a Site Plan Review for the relocation of their existing home. The home, constructed in 1976, was currently located at 6644-20 th Avenue on a 9.27 acre parcel which was zoned Rural and guided for Low Density/Medium Density Residential under the 2001 proposed Comprehensive Plan. She st ated the Nadeaus’ had recently sold the land on which the house was sited, and wished to move the house across 20 th Avenue to a 13.5 acre parcel they own, which was zone d Rural and guided Low Density, Sewered Residential. Staff reviewed the background by explaining Section 3, subd. 7 of the Lino Lakes Zoning Ordinance required a Site Plan Review for any structure moved onto a vacant lot, in order to determine “whether the structure will be compatible with other development in the area, and conform to all City Code and Ordinances.” Staff reviewed the land use compatibility and setbacks for the home. Staff noted moving the house onto the proposed site would require an access drive off 20 th Avenue, which was a County Road. An existing access drive with culvert, formerly used for farm vehicle access onto fields, existe d on the site. Plans had been forwarded to Anoka County for approval to use this existing drive. Staff stated although the site was located in a Phase 1 Growth Area, with City sewer expected to be available by 2010, sanitary sewer was not yet av ailable to the site. As a result, the Nadeaus had submitted plans for a septic system. Primary and secondary drain field sites had been delineated along with soils and septic design specifications. City water was availabl e on the east side of 20 th Avenue. To connect to City water would require tunneling under 20 th Avenue, and this would requir e County approval. The water service would be performed as a City projec t. The fee to the Nadeaus would follow the City’s public improvement financing policy. Staff explained plans had been submitted for a mound system septic design. Plans delineate both a primary and secondary site, so ils, and design specifications. The system had been reviewed and approve d by City building officials. Staff stated the home was constructed in 1976, and was a 1,600 square foot single-story rambler-style. The home contained a full ba sement foundation and attached garage (470 sq.ft.), and met the Rural District minimum building dimensions. City building officials had inspected the home and found it to be st ructurally sound, with plumbing, electrical, and mechanicals meeting local ordinances. Staff indicated a detached 30’ X 24’ (720 sq.ft.) garage was al so planned for the new site. City Ordinance allowed a maximum of 5,000 square feet of accessory building space, limited in number to one attached garage a nd two detached accessory structures, for a Planning & Zoning Board May 8, 2002 Page 3 APPROVED MINUTES property of this size and zoning district. The proposed garages fell well within these limits. Staff stated the proposed relocation of the above described home appeared to meet all building code and zoning dist rict requirements. Staff recommended approval of the proposed Site Plan Review w ith the following conditions: Approval from Anoka County for an access drive onto County Highway No. 54 (20 th Avenue); Application of all necessary building pe rmits for the relocation of the home and construction of the detached garage; Mr. Rafferty arrived at 6:42 p.m. Mr. Corson asked when the home was moved w ould internal changes be necessary. Ms. Gretz replied all City Codes would need to be met. Bill Nadeau, 6644 – 20 th Avenue, stated he spoke with the building inspector and the building inspector had stated the home and existing structure was adequate the way it was, but anything new added additions, such as the basement would need to be up to Code. Pete Nadeau, 6644 – 20 th Avenue, stated he was under the impression that Lino Lakes was in favor of City water. He stated he did not believe the requirements were reasonable. Chair Schaps replied they were not the regulatory board and they did not get involved in the estimate of costs. Mr. Nadeau stated he had never received a c opy of any regulations. Chair Schaps stated hooking up to City water was his decision and that decision had no bearing on the decision the Board would make tonight. Ms. Lane made a MOTION to recommend approval of the proposed Site Plan Review with the conditions as outlined in staff’s report. The motion was supported by Mr. Corson. Motion carried 4-0. B.Thorp, Oak Lane, Minor Subdivision and Variance Staff presented the application by Mr. and Mrs. Thorp by explaini ng Mr. Jeff Joyer was the real estate agent for Mr . & Mrs. Thorp, who owned pr operty at 901 Oak Lane. The property, zoned Rural-Executiv e (R-X), consisted of Lot 28 and Lot 29, Block 2, Lake View Woodlands, combined under one Propert y Identification Numb er (PIN). The Thorps would like to subdiv ide their property in to two 100’ X 423’ lots, and sell the resulting lot to a prospectiv e buyer, Mr. Willam Neeck. Soil tests had confirmed that the proposed lot could support a septic system, wh ich would be necessary for this location. Planning & Zoning Board May 8, 2002 Page 4 APPROVED MINUTES However, Section 5, subdiv. 2.B.1 of th e Lino Lakes Zoning Ordinance required a minimum lot size of 10 acres for property locat ed in an R-X Zone, which would preclude such a subdivision. Staff explained property was defined by its legal descrip tion. Every property had a Parcel Identification Number. The County w ould not allow the property to be subdivided unless the City had approved the subdivisi on. The City used the PIN and legal description to determine what the parcel was. Since the property in question has one PIN and the legal description included all the prope rty, it was considered one parcel. Division of any parcel must comply with C ity requirements, including lot size. Staff stated Mr. Joyer and the Thorps were questioning when and how the two lots became combined under one PIN. It was their contention that the two lots were purchased separately and should never have been combined under one PIN. Were this the case, Lot 28 would exist as a legal non-c onformity and could be sold to Mr. Neeck. Staff noted what was known, is that in 1983 Anoka County records show that Lots 28, 29, & 30 were owned by the Thorps under one PIN (09-31-22-24-0030). In 1998 the Thorps sold Lot 30, leaving the resulting Lots 28 & 29 combined as they are at this time. In reviewing such a transac tion, the separate sale of Lo t 30 in 1998 clearly should not have taken place or been allowed according to City Ordinance, for the same reasons that preclude the sale of Lot 28 at this time. However, an administrative oversight seems to have taken place, as records showed that the Lino Lakes City Clerk certified the subdivision of the parcel to break off Lot 30 without City Council approval. Staff presented its analysis by explaining C ity Ordinance required property zoned R-X to be a minimum of 10 acres in size. The Thor ps’ property currently existed as a legal non- conformity, as did most all of the lots in the Lake View Woodlands subdivision. Further subdivision, however, would increase, or exace rbate, the non-conformity of the property, violating City Zoning Ordinance. For this reason, it was the recommendation of staff to deny the request for a Variance from the mini mum lot size for property located in an R-X Zone as well as the Minor Subdivision. Chair Schaps asked how much under the 10 acres was the lot. Ms. Gretz replied it was approximately 2 acres, consisting of lots 28 & 29, each of which is about an acre. Mr. Corson asked if staff had spoken with the County with respect to their records. Ms. Gretz replied that staff did not know what happened before 1983, and what they had found out was outlined in staff’s report. Jeff Joyer, 8174 Lake Drive, on behalf of the applicants, stated they had an unresolved mystery pertaining to this lot. He stated in 1963, one property was bought, Lot 29 and 30. Two years in 1965 later they bought Lot 28. He stated this was all part of Lakeview Woodlands, which was approximately 70 one-acre lots. He stated a ll of the lots were built out, with the exception of Thorp’s lo t. He stated in 1983, all three lots were combined by the County under one PIN. He stated the Thorp’s had always intended on selling this lot for retirement and now with health issues, they need the money for Planning & Zoning Board May 8, 2002 Page 5 APPROVED MINUTES medical bills. He stated the Thorps’ neve r thought anything of the lots being put under one PIN and they were surpri sed this was an issue now. Chair Schaps stated if they had a pla tted subdivision in the 1960’s, how could they become combined by the County. Mr. Smys er replied the land was platted in 1947, which predated the City. Why the three lots were combined into one tax parcel in 1983 was unexplained. He stated they had no idea why they were combined. He stated the City applied the rule that if it was one lega l description and one PIN, it was one lot. He stated when Lot 30 was broken off, normal ch annels were not followed and this probably should not have occurred. He stated for this division, normal channels were being followed. Mr. Corson replied that by combining all th ree lots, the County may have saved the applicant’s money because they could claim a ll of the property as homestead. Mr. Joyer replied adjacent lots to a homestead could also be homesteaded. Chair Schaps stated that all the applicants were asking for was to have the lots as they were in 1947 when the plat was originally ap proved. Mr. Joyer repl ied that was correct. Ms. Lane stated the lot being purchased had an existing garage that was not being moved. Mr. Joyer replied that was correct. Mr. Corson asked if existing home had a septic system. Mr. Joyer replied the Thorps’ septic system was replaced a couple of years ago. Mr. Corson asked if there was room for a s econdary septic site on Lot 29. Mr. Joyer stated they had plenty of depth for a secondary site. Mr. Corson stated asked if both sites would have a primary and secondary septic site. Mr. Joyer replied that was correct. Mr. Joyner stated the Thorps had held onto th is lot for 40 years as their retirement nest egg and wished to sell the lot at this time. Mr. Corson stated there were two existing lo ts originally and he recommended approval of the request. Ms. Lane stated she did not see any probl em with the existing garage on the lot. Ms. Lane made a MOTION to approve the Minor Subdivision. The motion was supported by Mr. Rafferty. Motion carried 4-0. C.NEECK, OAK LANE, VARIANCE Staff presented the application by explaining that approval of this lot as a separate piece of property depended on City Council approv al of the Variance and Minor Subdivision Planning & Zoning Board May 8, 2002 Page 6 APPROVED MINUTES addressed in the previous agenda item (T horp). Should this approval occur, then consideration of this request for a Variance is in order. Staff stated the subject site was zoned Ru ral Executive (R-X) and measures 100’ X 423’ (42,300 sq. ft.). The property was surrounded to the north, east and west by similarly zoned property, and to the south by property zoned Rural. The property contained a 1200-foot detached garage. Mr. William Neeck was the prospective buyer of the property and planned to construct a 1,125 square foot home with a 630 square foot attached garage. Staff presented its analysis by explaining A ccessory square footage was limited to 1,120 square feet for a parcel of this size and zoning classifica tion according to the Lino Lakes Zoning Ordinance (Section 3, subd. 4.D.8.g). Since the pre-existing garage alone measured 1200 square feet, under City Ordinance, a variance was needed. Staff explained City Ordinance required an attached garage as a building requirement for the Rural Executive Zone (Section 5, subdivi sion 2.C.3). As a result, Mr. Neeck was asking for a Variance from the maximum allo wable accessory square footage cited under City Ordinance, in order that he be allo wed to construct a 630-square foot attached garage. Staff noted square footage of the existing detached garage and the proposed attached garage would bring total accessory square footage on the property to 1,830 sq. ft. This was 710 sq. ft. over what was allowed under City Ordinance. The applicant had been apprised, in light of so much resulting accessory building square footage, of City Ordinance as it related to exterior stor age issues (Section 3, subd. 4.R.1.a.) and home occupations (Section 3, subd. 8.D). Staff reviewed the five findings for a variance. Staff stated as a result of the above Findings of Fact, staff recommended approval of the Variance, with the following condition: the lot size Variance and Minor Subdivision discussed in agenda item 5B (Thorp) mu st obtain City Council approval before this Variance was effective. Chair Schaps asked if any residents had object ed to this request. Ms. Gretz replied staff had received no comments from the neighbors. William Neeck, 990 Main Street, stated the ga rage was built in 1975, and he had received no objection from the neighbors to that size of garage because it wa s an already existing structure. Mr. Rafferty asked if there was anyway the existing structure could be changed so it would match the new facility. Mr. Neeck replied that was his intent. He stated he intended on painting the garage, as well as reroofing it so it would match the home. He stated at some point in the future, he intended on making it maintenance free which was what the home would be. He stated the pa inting and reroofing may not get done right Planning & Zoning Board May 8, 2002 Page 7 APPROVED MINUTES away, but it would get done as soon as possibl e because he wanted the garage to match the home also. Ms. Lane made a MOTION to recommend approval of the variance with the conditions as noted in staff’s May 8, 2002 report. The motion was supported by Mr. Hyden. Mr. Rafferty asked if there was something th at could be added to the recommendations that the structures would match. Chair Schaps replied it was in the record and therefore it would not be necessary to make this a part of the motion. Motion carried 4-0. D.Raske Building Systems, Apollo Busine ss Park, Minor Subdivision and Site Plan Review Staff presented the application by Raske Bu ilding Systems by explaining Raske Building Systems Inc. had requested site and building plan approval to allow the construction of a 25,568 square foot office/warehouse facility on the property located south of Apollo Road and east of Jon Avenue. Staff stated the building would be occupied by Hillyard Inc., a manufacturer of cleaning supplies. Staff noted in conjunction with the request for site and building plan approval, the applicants had also requested approval of a minor subdivision to allow the subdivision of a 6.6-acre parcel of land (prese ntly described as Parcel E, Apollo Business Park) into 4.5 and 2.1-acre parcels. The proposed office /warehouse building w ould occupy the 2.1-acre parcel. Staff explained this application was originally submitted in the Fall of last year but was withdrawn prior to considerati on by the Planning and Zoning Board. Staff presented its analysis by explaining th e City’s Comprehensive Plan guides the subject property for industrial use. The si te’s present L-I, Light Industrial zoning classification was consistent w ith this land use designation. Staff stated the lot and build ing performance standards for properties in the L-I, Light Industrial District were outlin ed in the table below. Planning & Zoning Board May 8, 2002 Page 8 APPROVED MINUTES Staff indicated the applicant was pr oposing to construct a 25,568 square foot office/warehouse building on the eastern one half of proposed Parcel F. Such building placement would allow for a shared access wi th a future building upon adjacent Parcel G to the west. Based on the building size and placement upon the lot, future building expansion was not anticipated. Staff noted the office/warehouse building measur ed 34 feet in height and conformed with the maximum 45-foot height requirement imposed in the L-I District. Staff stated the building was to be finish ed in pre-cast concrete wall panels which conformed to the standards in Section 3, Subdivi sion 4.B of the City Code. At this point, the applicant was unsure of whether or not th e building will be pain ted. If the building was to be painted however, the applicant ha d indicated it would most likely be gray in color. Staff noted while the proposed building had b een found to meet the material requirements of the Code, the appearance of the building was considered somewhat stark and could potentially be improved. To improve the appearance of the building, the following modifications should be considered: • Recess or project building entrances • Provide an entrance canopy or canopies • Introduce foundation plantings to accentuate building entrances • Integrate varied but complementary colors or materials at building entry points • Paint of all or part of the buildi ng (i.e. the building’s horizontal band). Staff explained the site plan di d not illustrate an exterior trash handling area. According to Section 3, Subd. 4.G of the Ordinance, a ll refuse and recyclable materials must be stored within the principal building or within an accessory structure (within a side or rear yard) that was totally screen ed from eye level view fr om neighboring uses and public rights of way. Staff stated if trash and recyclable material s were to be stored outdoors, they must be located within a side or rear yard and scr eened by a fence or wall at least six feet in height with a minimum opaqueness of 80 percent. Staff noted if trash was to be stored out doors, the site plan should be modified to illustrate the proposed trash handling area a nd elevations of the enclosures should be submitted prior to City Council c onsideration of the application. Staff explained neither the site plan nor building elevations illustrated any signage. Signage was governed by the City’s sign ordi nance and separate permits and required a separate permit. All signs w ould be reviewed with the si gn permit applications and must satisfy applicable requirements of the Ordinance in regard to sign type size and location. Planning & Zoning Board May 8, 2002 Page 9 APPROVED MINUTES Staff noted as shown on the landscape plan, a variety of trees were proposed on site. Specifically, a mixture of Ash, Maple, Cr ab and Spruce trees had been proposed. Staff noted that three trees had been propos ed within the site’s stormwater pond. To ensure the trees survival, they should not be planted in an area of the site intended for ponding. Staff explained to visually enhance the site , it was suggested that additional planting be provided in the following areas on the site: • Along the off-street parking areas betw een sidewalks and the building foundation • At the south end of the row of parking stalls that abut the west side of the building (to screen loading activities from Apollo Road) • Within the off-street parking island west of the building (to visually break up an expanse of parking area) Staff stated the Environmental Board had r ecommended that Oak species (a mixture of Burr, Red, and Swamp White) rather than ev ergreens be provided along the freeway and that existing cedars on the site be reloca ted and re-used in a screening location. Staff noted the standards for calculating the o ff-street parking requirements for office and warehouse uses are outlined in Section 3, S ubdivision 5 of the C ity Code. For the purposes of calculating parking spaces, the ordinance requirement was to use 90% of the gross building area. Staff stated a total of 37 off-street parking st alls were required for the proposed use. The applicant’s plan called for 51 stalls and si gnificantly exceeded the minimum off-street parking supply requirement. Likewise, th ree handicap parking stalls had been proposed in satisfaction of applic able State requirements. Staff explained the applicant had indicated th at the additional park ing stalls (beyond that required by Ordinance) were necessary as occa sional training sessions were to be held on site which would escalate parking demand. Staff noted the standards for access and traffi c circulation were outlined in Section 3, Subdivision 5 of the City Code and illustrate d in the table below. The subject property met all of the requirements of this section wi th the exception of the curb cut opening. It should be note that a property might exceed the curb cut opening standard with the approval of the City Engineer. Staff stated as required, a li ghting plan identifying illumina tion levels on the subject site as well as fixture type detail s had been provided and had b een found to be acceptable. Staff noted according to the Ordinance, the source of lights should be hooded and controlled so as not to illuminate adjacen t properties or public rights-of-way. The Environmental Board had specifically reco mmended that downward directed, no spill lighting be used on site. Planning & Zoning Board May 8, 2002 Page 10 APPROVED MINUTES Staff explained according to th e applicant, there would be no outdoor storage on-site. If outdoor storage was proposed at some future point, the processing of an interim use permit would be necessary. Staff stated while the Ordinance did not speci fically define “outdoor storage”, it was the opinion of staff that continuous overnight parking of company vehicles constitutes “outdoor storage” and was not allowe d except via an interim use permit. Staff stated as a condition of site and build ing plan approval, the conditions of the City Engineer’s memo (dated 5/2/02) related to grading, drainage and utilities should be satisfied. Staff noted as submitted “Sketch and Description” illustrates a drainage easement over a ponding area in the western portion of Parcel G. Additionally, drainage and utility easements were shown along the northern and southern boundaries of Parcel F. The acceptability of such easements should be subject to comment and recommendation by the City Engineer. Staff explained as part of the previous pl atting of the property, park dedication was not received. As a result, the proposed mi nor subdivision would be subject to park dedication requirements. For industrial deve lopment, a park dedication requirement of $2,175 per acre was required. With proposed Parcels F and G comprising 3.8 acres of upland area (exclusive of ponding), a park de dication of $8,265 would be required prior to the City certifying the proposed minor subdivision. Staff noted the Environmental Board revi ewed the proposed development on April 24, 2002. Staff stated this application was brought be fore the Rice Creek Watershed District on April 24, 2002. The Watershed District appr oved the tabling with authorization for administrative action (TWAFAA). Staff noted as a condition of site and bu ilding plan approval the Watershed District Permit must be received prior to City building permit issuance. Staff explained prior to the commencement of any site work, the applicant would be required to enter into a development agreem ent with the City a nd post all the necessary securities required by it. Staff stated they were recommending the following: A.Approval of the minor subdivision to a llow the subdivision of a 6.6-acre parcel of land (presently described as Parcel E, Apollo Business Park) into 4.5 and 2.1-acre parcels subject to the following conditions: 1.The applicable conditions of the Ci ty Engineer’s memo dated 5/2/02 were satisfactorily met. Planning & Zoning Board May 8, 2002 Page 11 APPROVED MINUTES 2.Based on 3.8 acres of upland, a park dedication of $8,265 (for Parcels F and G) is received prior to th e City certifying the proposed minor subdivision. 3.Deeds conveying the easements to the City shall be submitted prior to City certification of the subdivision. B.Site and Building Plan approval to a llow the construction of a 25,568 square foot office/warehouse facility Square foot office/warehouse facility on the property located south of Apollo Road and east of Jon Avenue subject to the following conditions: 1.The proposed 55-foot curb cut width was approved by the City Engineer. 2.To improve the appearance of the building, the following modification should be considered: • Recess or project building entrances • Provide an entrance canopy or canopies • Introduce foundation plantings to accentuate building entrances • Integrate varied but complementary colors or materials at building entry points • Paint of all or part of the bui lding (i.e. the Building’s horizontal band). 3.All refuse and recyclable materials shall be stored within the principal building or within an accessory structur e (within a side or rear yard) that is totally screened from eye level vi ew from neighboring uses and public rights of way. If trash is to be st ored outdoors, the site plan shall be modified to illustrate the proposed trash handling area and elevations of enclosure shall be submitted prior to consideration by the City Council. 4.All signs shall be reviewed with the sign permit applications and shall meet the applicable requirements of the Ordinance. 5.To ensure survival, no trees shall be pl aced in an area of the site intended for ponding. 6.To visually enhance the site, addi tional plantings be provided in the following areas on the site: • Along the off-street parking ar eas between sidewalks and the building foundation (to enhance the visual appearance of the site) • At the south end of the row of park ing stalls that abut the west side of the building (to screen loadi ng activities from Apollo Road) Planning & Zoning Board May 8, 2002 Page 12 APPROVED MINUTES • Within the off-street parking island west of the building (to visually break up an expanse of parking area) 7.A revised landscaping plan shall be submitted prior to consideration by the City Council, which incorporates the following: • The additional plantings listed in condition #6 above. • Oak species (a mixture of Burr, Red, and Swamp White) rather than evergreens along the freeway. • The relocation of existing cedars on the site in a screening location. • The use of native materials in drainage and swale areas. • Ground cover which utilizes City schedules. 8.A contract is submitted to ensure that native landscape materials are installed by a company specializing in native landscape construction. 9.Outdoor storage (which includes the overnight parking of company vehicles) shall not be allowed. 10.Downward directed, no spill lighting as submitted shall be used on site. 11.Revisions stated in the City E ngineer’s memo dated 5/2/02 shall be addressed to the City Engi neer’s satisfaction prior to the application being considered by the City Council. 12.A Watershed District Permit is to be received prior to City building permit issuance. 13.Prior to the commencement of any s ite work, the applicant enter into a development agreement with the City and post all necessary securities required by it. Mr. Corson asked about the swell and the drai nage to Apollo Drive. Mr. Studenski replied they were still looki ng at this, but there was no incr ease of runoff on this site. Chair Schaps invited appl icant to make comment. Chair Schaps asked if there was going to be any chemicals in the plant. Andy Larson, Raske Building Systems, replied it would be storing cleaning supplies used in schools, hospitals, etc. He indicated there would be no manufacturing of chemicals. He stated all of it would be contained inside the building, but a dumpster for normal trash would be outside. He stated the remainder of the building would be office space. Chair Schaps asked if they could make th e building more aesthetically pleasing. Mr. Larson replied gray was the color theme for the company, but they may put on some type Planning & Zoning Board May 8, 2002 Page 13 APPROVED MINUTES of a banner, or a vestibule or some type of a decorative entrance co ming into the building. Chair Schaps asked about the additional f oundation plantings. Mr. Larson replied they had not looked at this issue yet, but they would do what they could to dress up the plantings. Chair Schaps asked where applicants we re in business now. Mr. Larson replied applicants were currently located in Brooklyn Park and they were relocating because they had outgrown their existing facilities. Mr. Corson expressed concern if there was a leakage on the site, they would want to make sure it could be contained on the site. He requested this be researched by the City Engineer. Mr. Rafferty asked what applicant’s timelin e was. Mr. Larson replied they hoped they could start digging in early July and have it done by the first week in January, 2003. Mr. Rafferty stated the building lacked the aesth etic value that was needed. He indicated he would like to see something done with the building to make it more aesthetically pleasing. He stated there were a lot of things that could be done and he would like to see that happen before they moved forward. Mr. Hayden asked if the trucks would go off-site during the day. Mr. Larson replied 98 percent of the time, the trucks were gone and the parking lot was empty. Ms. Lane stated she did not see how addi ng a color band would dress up the building. Chair Schaps replied they c ould add additional plantings. Chair Schaps asked if recommendation number 8 would have a 3-year maintenance agreement. Mr. Smyser replied they woul d clarify this by the time it went to City Council for their review. Mr. Corson stated he wanted to see the chemicals retained on site as a condition. Mr. Rafferty stated he wanted a condition th at would add some aesthetic value to the building. He indicated he wanted a conditi on addressing outside storage and screening of the dumpsters. He stated he would like to see some color schemes. Mr. Raske agreed to look at changing the front entrance. Chair Schaps recommended they add additiona l plantings to the fr ont of the building. Mr. Corson requested the following Recomm endation No. 14: Staff will investigate means to ensure all spills are to be contained onsite to en sure they do not get into the septic and drainage system. Planning & Zoning Board May 8, 2002 Page 14 APPROVED MINUTES Chair Schaps requested the following Recomm endation No. 15: Applicants will add a different building entrance and/or add canopies and accentuate the entrances with landscaping. Mr. Corson made a MOTION to approve a mi nor subdivision to allow the subdivision of a 6.6 acre parcel of land (presently described as Parcel E, Apollo Business Park) into 4.5 and 2.1 acre parcels subject to the conditions as outlined in staff’s May 8, 2002 report. The motion was supported by Ms. Lane. Motion carried 4-0. Mr. Corson made a MOTION to approve the Site and Building Plan Review subject to the 15 conditions as outlined in staff’s Ma y 8, 2002 report and as requested by Board members at tonight’s meeting. The motion was supported by Mr. Rafferty. Motion carried 4-0. E.PUBLIC HEARING – Glenn Rehbein, Village Hills, NW corner of Birch St. and Ware Rd., Rezone to PDO and Site Plan Review Chair Schaps opened the public hearing at 7:45 p.m. Staff explained Glenn Rehbein Companies had submitted an application for Site and Building Plan Review and Rezoning to allow the development of a neighborhood business center at the northwest co rner of Ware Rd. and Birch St. Staff noted the project was scheduled for a public hearing at the May 8, 2002 Planning and Zoning Board Meeting. However, due to recent modifications to the site, the developer had requested the review of th e proposed development be postponed until the June 12, 2002 Planning and Zoning Board Meeting. Staff stated no action was necessary at this time. However, public hearing notices were previously distributed. Staff noted that a letter had been received w ith comments and was to be entered into the record. Brian and Katie Politiske, 6509 Hokah Drive, by letter dated May 1, 2002, indicated they were opposed to the rezoning of this property for the reason that they did not believe there was enough room to squeeze a strip mall into a residential area where it would negatively impact their quality of life and property values. They expressed concern about the lights in the parking lot, increased traffic, noi se, and the view from their property. Chair Schaps asked if anyone from the public wished to speak. Nobody responded. Planning & Zoning Board May 8, 2002 Page 15 APPROVED MINUTES Ms. Lane made a MOTION to continue th e Public Hearing to June, 2002 Planning & Zoning Board meeting and was supported by Mr. Corson. Motion carried 4-0. Ms. Lane asked if this project was consiste nt with the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Smyser replied it was consistent with the Plan. VI. DISCUSSION ITEMS Ordinance Revision Update Mr. Smyser updated the Board on the Ordinan ce Revision. He stated the next meeting was scheduled for May 23, 2002. VII.ADJOURNMENT Ms. Lane made a MOTION to adjourn the meeting at 7:53 p.m., and was supported by Mr. Hayden. Motion carried 4-0. Respectfully submitted, Kathy Altman, Recording Secretary TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc .