Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/09/2005 P&Z Minutes CITY OF L I NO LAKE S PLANNING & Z O NING BOARD MINUT E S DATE : March 9, 2005 TIME STARTED : 6:33 P.M. TIME ENDED : 10:47 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT : Hyden, Laden, Nelson; Pogalz , Rafferty, R oot, and Tralle. MEMBERS ABS E NT : None. STAFF PRESENT : Jeff S m yser; Jam es Studenski; and Paul Be ngtson 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 6:33 p.m ., March 9, 2005. Mayor Bergeson swore in Comm issione rs Robert Nelson and Perry Laden. II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA The agenda was approved. III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: February 9, 2005 Mr. Pogalz m a de a MOTION to approve the February 9, 2005 Minutes and was supported by Mr. Tralle. Motion carried 6-0. IV. OPEN MIKE Chair Rafferty declared Open Mike open at 6:38 p.m . There was no one present for Open Mike Mr. Hyden m a de a MOTION to close Open Mi ke at 6:39 p.m., and was supported by Mr. Laden. Motion carried 6-0. V. ACTION I TEMS A. CONTINUED PUBLI C HEARING, for a Preliminary Plat for Marshan Lakeview , James Funkhouser, 595 Marshan Lane APPR OVE D MINUTE S Pl anni ng & Zo ni n g B o ar d Mar c h 9 , 200 5 Page 2 APPROVED MINUTES Staff stated applicant had re quested approval of a single-fa mily residential development entitled Marshan Lakeview. The subject propert y is made up of two lots located at the end of Marshan Lane and is currently deve loped with one single-family dwelling. The applicant is proposing to divide the 121,374 square foot lot in to four lots of 35,088 square feet, 11,784 square feet, 15,419 square feet a nd approximately 42,000 square feet. The existing single-family dwelling will remain on the largest lot. Also depicted on the preliminary plat are a couple of outlots that were created as part of the Marshan Estates plat. These outlots will combine into the adjacent properties as part of this proposed plat. At the February 9, 2005 meeting the applicant requested that this proposal be continued to a future meeting so that he could thor oughly review the plans and determine if an alternative existed that could potentially save more of the significant trees on the site. Since that time, the applicant has decided that this is the best feasible layout and wishes to proceed with the applicati on. Staff has met with the app licant to define a couple of possibilities that would potent ially save some significant tr ees or allow for a greater buffer between the new lots and main drive fo r the City’s Legacy project which will be a significant traffic generator. Staff feels ve ry comfortable continuing to work with the applicant to clearly define the location of th e cul-de-sac bulb and drainage for the lots prior to the City Council reviewing the application. He presented staff’s analysis and reco mmended approval subject to the following conditions: 1. All lots created by the plat shall connect to City sanitary sewer and water; assessments will be recorded with the final plat. 2. Issues discussed in the C ity Engineer review memo must be addressed to his satisfaction. 3. Park dedication shall be paid in accordance with City policies. 4. The southern portion of Lot 1, Block 2 s hould be separated into another lot for donation to the County. Said lot must be subsequently combined with the adjacent County parcel. 5. The applicant shall continue to work with City staff to determine the best possible location for the cul-de-sac within the righ t of way, and the optimal drainage for the rear of Lots 2 and 3 of Block 1. Mr. Laden asked if the emergency access would remain where it was. Mr. Bengtson replied it would remain, but probably not in the exact alignment where it was now. Mr. Laden expressed concern that residents would use the emergency access road as a pedestrian access. Mr. Bengtson replied that was not something they had discussed and the intention was only for emergency access a nd not a public access, but it may serve as that at this time just because it was out there. Mr. Laden asked if they should look at a trail or path in th is area to access the Legacy Woods. Mr. Bengtson replied staff would look at that. Pl anni ng & Zo ni n g B o ar d Mar c h 9 , 200 5 Page 3 APPROVED MINUTES Mr. Smyser noted there was a path in existen ce and a trail would be put in piece by piece down Lake Drive. Chair Rafferty reopened the publ ic hearing at 6:53 p.m. Chair Rafferty invited applicant to make comment. Mr. Funkhouser stated he did not intend to dona te the wetland property to the County as stated in staff’s report. He indicated there were many f ees involved and he could not donate this. Mr. Bengtson replied they would need to work with the County on this prior to the approval of the plat. Chair Rafferty asked if they should move forw ard with this and make sure things are taken care of with the County prior to the Council meeting. Mr. Bengtson replied they were not saying he had to give this to the County and that was only a recommendation, but this would be a good use of that propert y. However, he acknowledged there would be an expense involved in doing that. He stated the Commission could approve this removing that condition. Chair Rafferty asked if Mr. Funkhouser was in ag reement with all of the conditions, with the exception of Condition 4. Mr. Funkhous er replied he was in agreement. Chair Rafferty noted Mr. Funkhouser had brought up a very good concern and he asked if he would be open to allowing this to be con tinued for another month in an attempt to get this worked out. Mr. Funkhouser replied he would not oppose continuing this. Mr. Smyser stated the plat as it was presen ted was acceptable and an applicant could not be required to give land away to the County, but they encouraged him to look at this. He recommended they approve this tonight and let staff work on the land issue. He noted the land issue would not make any difference to this plat. Chair Rafferty invited anyone for or agai nst this application to come forward. There were no further comments. Mr. Tralle made a MOTION to close the pub lic hearing at 7:08 p.m. and was supported by Mr. Hyden. Motion carried 6-0. Mr. Hyden made a MOTION to recommend Pr eliminary Plat for Marshan Lakeview, James Funkhouser, 595 Marshan Lane subject to the conditions as noted in staff’s March 9, 2005 report with amending Condition 4 that applicant and staff would look into the disposition of the wetland portion of Lot 1, Block 2 of this and was supported by Mr. Laden. Motion carried 6-0. B. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING, for Circle Pines Registered Land Survey for Lots 11 and 12, Block 8, and Lots 9-14, Block 10, Lexington Park Lakeview Chair Rafferty reopened the publ ic hearing at 7:12 p.m. Pl anni ng & Zo ni n g B o ar d Mar c h 9 , 200 5 Page 4 APPROVED MINUTES Staff stated the City of Circle Pines wishes to acquire a small area of land on the south side of North Road. This area is covered by co unty road easement for Lake Drive. Over time, the easements in this area became co mplex. Circle Pines wants to clear up the easement definitions to facilitate their prope rty acquisition efforts. A Registered Land Survey (RLS) is a common means of accomplish ing this. The RLS is similar to a plat and must be processed like a plat. The enti re area proposed for the RLS is within Lino Lakes, so Lino Lakes must review it. He noted the P&Z opened the public hearing at the February 9 meeting and continued it to allow for the gathering of additional information to address some unresolved issues. Staff presented their analysis and recomm ended approval of the proposed Registered Land Survey. Chair Rafferty invited anyone for or ag ainst this proposal to come forward. There were no comments made. Mr. Root made a MOTION to close the public hearing at 7:25 p.m. and was supported by Mr. Tralle. Motion carried 6-0. Mr. Laden made a MOTION to recommend Circle Pines Regi stered Land Survey for Lots 11 and 12, Block 8, and Lots 9-14, Block 10, Lexington Park Lakeview subject to the conditions as noted in staff’s March 9, 2005 report and was supported by Mr. Hyden. Motion carried 6-0. C. PUBLIC HEARING, for a Rezone to GB – General Business, Conditional Use Permit for Planned Unit Development, Development Stage Plan/Preliminary Plat, and Allocation of Commercia l MUSA for a five-lot commercial development named Apollo Landing, Equinox Development LLP, 540 Lilac Street Chair Rafferty excused himself from this item and passed the chair to Mr. Tralle. Staff stated applicant is proposing a five-lot commerci al subdivision on property currently adressed as 540 Lilac Drive. The application submitted includes a Rezoning to GB (General Business), a Conditional Use Pe rmit to allow a Planned Unit Development, a Development Stage Plan/Preliminary Plat , and allocation of MUSA reserve. He noted the main occupant of the site will be an 80 room hotel proposed for Lot 1 of the Plat. The development also includes a rest aurant pad on Lot 5, and retail/commercial pads on Lots 2, 3, and 4. Staff presented their analysis and re commended continuing the public hearing. Pl anni ng & Zo ni n g B o ar d Mar c h 9 , 200 5 Page 5 APPROVED MINUTES Mr. Root noted it appeared the only item th at was not met in the General Business Zone was the multiple lots. Mr. Bengtson replied that was the only standard at this point they were not meeting. Mr. Root asked if there would be additional landscaping added. Mr. Bengtson replied the General Business Zoning did have specific requirement regarding screening. But beyond that, the requirements at this point listed out the types of trees, but it was not specific about the placement of the landscaping materials on the site. With a PUD, the intent was to have the entire site well landscaped and designed and through the design standards they could address a lot of the landscaping i ssues. But until the applicant came in and designed the building, it would be difficult to design the landscap ing next to the building. Mr. Root asked why they couldn’t have a la ndscaping plan because this was in the General Business Zoning. He noted they w ould want additional landscaping along the residential side. He stated there were ma ny unanswered questions, but he would like to see a more definitive landscaping plan. Mr. Laden asked if they would be working w ith the standards in the surveying company’s letter. Mr. Bengtson replied they had r eceived another submittal today with more specific design standards, but staff had not had th e opportunity to review it yet. He stated staff would continue to wo rk on the design standards. Mr. Laden asked if it would be typical to ha ve a staff member and/or P&Z member on the Architectural Control Design Committee. Mr . Smyser replied typi cally the City would not be a part of the design boards, but it was a possibility. He noted what had been done in the past was to establish what the require ments are and if applicant wanted to have a review board, that was fine, but the City w ould review and approve things on its own. Mr. Laden inquired about the ULI numbers for the parking. He asked if it was considered that a certain percentage of the re staurant would also be patrons of the hotel and therefore did not need two parking spots. Mr. Laden asked if there were standards that would look at the shared development as a whole, wh ich could reduce parking. Mr. Smyser replied that’s the point of the shared parking analysis. L ooking at the individual uses, during certain times of the day, it had been determined how much of the maximum parking would be needed. Mr. Laden inquired about the elevation. He asked if it was 55’ or 45’. Mr. Bengtson replied the maximum standard was 45 feet a nd the majority of the building would be conforming to that. They were proposing a 10 foot embellishment on the building, which would need to be approved or denied by the P&Z Board. Vice Chair Tralle opened the public hearing at 7:53 p.m. Vice Chair Tralle invited applicant to come forward. Craig Piette, 425 Arrowhead Drive, thanked Mr . Rafferty for excusing himself. He asked if the Board had any questions. Pl anni ng & Zo ni n g B o ar d Mar c h 9 , 200 5 Page 6 APPROVED MINUTES Mr. Laden asked if the number of parking on the current plan was reflective of the maximum parking required or the reduced park ing number. Mr. Piet te replied they had an excess of 16 or 17 parking spaces at the present time. He noted when possible, they would convert those to pervious su rface when they had extra parking. Mr. Laden asked if they were in favor of re ducing parking. Mr. Piet te replied they were planning on reducing the parking and they were willing to work with staff on this. Mr. Pogalz asked what was their timeline for securing a flag for the hotel. Mr. Piette replied the proprietary information with respect to the hotel flags would remain proprietary until the rezoning was approved. He noted there were four well known flags that were interested and immediately upon rezoni ng they would have a flag for the hotel. He stated this would be a four story hote l to accommodate an 80 room hotel, which was their target. He stated they were very clos e to almost everything and City staff needed the time to review this. Mr. Hayden asked if they had held any neighbor hood meetings. Mr. Piette replied he had personally distributed small packets to the residents and businesses showing the preliminary plat, narrative, and a brief summary of what they were going to do. He noted they had received only one call. Mr. Hayden asked if they had held a neighbor hood meeting. Mr. Piette replied they had not held a meeting, but they were being proactive by distributing the packets. Vice Chair Tralle asked if the restaurant woul d be a chain restaurant . Mr. Piette replied they were intending to have an upscale, sit-down restaurant with perhaps a lounge. He indicated they would not put in a fast food rest aurant. He stated he was a member of this community and he wanted to have a good deve lopment that the City could be proud of for years to come. Vice Chair Tralle invited anyone for or against this proposal to come forward. Dave Swanson, 501 Lilac, stated his back yard would back up to where the hotel would be. He indicated he was in favor of the de velopment and noted he was going to sell his property, but asked that everythi ng be tied together if his prop erty sold. He noted this would be an advantage to the City to have this as one development. He indicated he wanted to leave more options open for them when his land sold. He asked them to consider the building of a road access for the future so his land is not landlocked. Mr. Nelson asked if he had any contact with the developer. Mr. Swanson stated he had spoken with them, but he had not met with them. He noted they knew his land was for sale. Mr. Piette stated in speaking with City staff it was in fact discussed that perhaps at some point in the future there would perhaps be a need for Mr. Swanson’s lot. However, currently those lots were gui ded in the Comprehensive Plan for industrial use. Pl anni ng & Zo ni n g B o ar d Mar c h 9 , 200 5 Page 7 APPROVED MINUTES Mr. Root asked if they were in agreement to language in the PUD if this was acceptable to be in the General Business District, would they agree to a drive access. Mr. Piette replied it would not be much of a problem to guide this property to General Business District, but to answer his question, he did not have an answer, but they would be in agreement to such a drive access. Mr. Tralle asked what would happen with th e silo. Mr. Piette replied the silo was dangerously close to collapsing, but they coul d take portions of it and put a smaller scale of it somewhere if the City wanted to retain some of the rural feel. He noted the lid was completely rotted through and the mortar was no good. He indicated he would not recommend anyone going into it. Mr. Pogalz made a MOTION to continue th e public hearing and was supported by Mr. Hyden. Motion carried 5-0. Vice Chair Tralle turned the mee ting back over to Chair Rafferty. D. Final Plat for Vaughan Addition Staff stated applicant had re quested approval of a five lo t single-family residential subdivision entitled Vaughan Addition. The subj ect property is located on the south side of Birch Street approximately 2,180 feet east of Ware Road. Staff indicated the final plat conforms to the approved preliminary plat layout as approved by the City council on January 10, 2005. The title commitment for the property and final plat have been forwarded to the C ity Attorney for review. As required under the conditions of preliminary plat approva l, the applicant has submitted a Rice Creek Watershed permit. Another condition of approva l requires that right of access be granted to Anoka County. This is not currently show n on the final plat; but will be required prior to the item being scheduled for the City Counc il. All other conditions of approval will be met with building permit review of the subdivision or through the development contract between the applicant and the City that is still being developed. Staff recommended approval of th e final plat for Vaughan Addition. Mr. Laden asked if there were a lot of engineerin g issues for this to be going to final plat. Mr. Smyser noted at this point of the process, they usually did not put in the engineering review and they were getting down to a level of detail that usually the P&Z did not deal with. He noted it was not unusual to have these types of engineering comments. Mr. Nelson made a MOTION to recommend approval of the Final Plat for Vaughan Addition and was supported by Mr. Tralle. Motion carried 5-1 (Mr. Laden opposed). E. Final Plat for West Shadow Ponds 2 nd Addition Staff stated applicant was requesting appr oval of a two single-family residential subdivision entitled West Shadow Ponds 2 nd Addition. The subject property is located adjacent to the northwest corner of 62 nd Street and West Shadow Lake Drive. Pl anni ng & Zo ni n g B o ar d Mar c h 9 , 200 5 Page 8 APPROVED MINUTES Staff noted the final plat conforms to the a pproved preliminary plat layout as approved by the City Council on October 11, 2004. The title commitment for the property and final plat have been forwarded to the City Attorney for review. All c onditions of approval will be met with building permit review of the subdivision or through the development contract between the applicant and the City that is still being developed. Staff recommended approval of the Fi nal Plat for West Shadow Ponds 2 nd Addition. Mr. Tralle made a MOTION to recommend approval of the Fi nal Plat for West Shadow Ponds 2 nd Addition and was supported by Mr . Pogalz. Motion carried 6-0. VI. DISCUSSION ITEMS A. AUAR Update – Development Scenarios Mr. Smyser updated the Board on the AUAR development scenarios. Chair Rafferty recessed the meeting at 8:53 p.m . and reconvened the meeting at 9:02 p.m. B. Temporary Signs Mr. Smyser stated the P&Z had been discus sing the issue of te mporary signage since January 2003. The purpose is to prepare an amendment to the sign ordinance to clearly address the issues involve d. Progress has been made agreeing on how to regulate portable signs and banners. Se veral other temporary signage i ssues still remain before an ordinance amendment is prepared. Mr. Smyser asked if the Board wanted to al low pennants/stringers, or should they be subject to a permit. Mr. Nelson stated he was torn about this and he could s ee this from both sides. Mr. Laden stated he believed they should be defined as a temporary sign and meet the rules for a temporary sign. Mr. Root stated he believed they should not be banned all together because they were meant to attract attention for a special event. He believed they s hould be looked at as temporary signage. Chair Rafferty invited the pub lic to make comment. Chad Wagner, 7630 Appaloosa Lane, 818 Lois Lane, Millers on Main - Lake Drive, stated he had come before the Board previously to discuss this issue and in discussing the banners, some of the ideas that were brought up was that the banners would be allowed as long as they were attached to the building and be maintained and not be up for more than 30 days at a time. He indicated he had a conc ern that as a small business, banners were a major part of their advertisi ng and he was requesting a compro mise. He stated taking the Pl anni ng & Zo ni n g B o ar d Mar c h 9 , 200 5 Page 9 APPROVED MINUTES banners away would hurt the small businesses significantly. He felt the banners they put up were professional banners and each banner cost a couple hundred dollars and he did not believe they were an eyesore to the co mmunity. He noted with a 30 day limit, the banners would not get torn or dirty. Chair Rafferty asked if he had received anyt hing from a building official regarding an existing sign ordinance. Mr. Wagner replied he had. Jason Anderson, 6872 Sunrise, US Bank - 7984 La ke Drive, stated they had a unique situation with their branch in that the back part of their building faced Lake Drive. He stated there was a brick wall that he had in stalled hooks on where th ey advertised their special promotions. He noted they had trie d newspaper advertising and they received very little response to that and the only advertising that worked was their temporary signage and banners on their building. He stated he had put one of those signs out and he had received a letter indica ting they had to purchase a pe rmit for the sign and when he went in to get the permit, he was informed he could not get one because he was not having a special event and the permits were fo r special events only and he was asked to remove the sign. He stated he tried to be in compliance but was told he could not get a permit and this was frustrating for him. He asked the Board to take his concerns into consideration. Bill Mayhe, 6810 Lake Drive, Trappers Grill, stated they previously had banners up which they took down when they received a le tter from the City. He noted when they took down their banners, he noticed a decrease in phone calls regardi ng his specials. He indicated they also had a marquee, but it wa s important that they were allowed to use banners in addition to the marquee. Katie Allen, 3890 88 th Court NE, stated she opened up a new business in Spirit Hills Mall 8 months ago. She indicated she worked 13 hours a day and did not draw a salary. She noted temporary signage was very important for a small business. She indicated when she had banners up, her business increased, bu t when she did not have the signs up, her business paid the price for it and she could not af ford this. She stated she would be out of business soon if she was not allowed to put up temporary signage. She noted signage was important to keep the business in the eyes of the citizens. She stated her business was Allure Salon. She noted th e temporary signs made a huge difference to her business. She stated she had not received any letters from the City with respect to her signage. She noted Spirit Hills was a new mall and they ha d the same problem with being backward onto Birch Street. She stated they had no wa y to let people know who was in that mall without being able to be allowed temporary signage. She indicated she had previously put out signage, but the signs disappeared. She was not sure who took the signs. She stated if all of the big busi nesses, builders, and realtors were allowed to have signs up, but the small businesses were not, she was not in favor of this. She asked why the City was not supporting the smaller business owne r. She noted one sign permit for $25.00 for 17 days was not sufficient. She indicated when a new business came into a community, people did not know the business was there without signage. She indicated a small business could not survive in Lino Lakes wit hout signage. She asked the Board to help the small business owner. Chair Rafferty not ed these ordinances would be coming up also. Pl anni ng & Zo ni n g B o ar d Mar c h 9 , 200 5 Page 10 APPROVED MINUTES Carmen Schmidt, 3895 86 th Lane, Circle Pines, Taco Pa lace Restaurant – 730 Apollo Drive, stated her restaurant was not within the site lines of Lake Drive and therefore people did not know her business was there. She noted she had placed temporary signage along Lake Drive, which had been taken dow n by the City. She noted the signs were home made because she could not afford pr ofessional signage. She indicated she had been in business for 18 months and was not ta king a salary. She noted she had advertised in the Quad with no success. She noted wh en she had banners out, her business increased significantly. She understood the City’s conc erns about maintaining the banners. She stated she did not mind paying $25.00 for a permit for a banner, but 17 days per quarter was not sufficient. She noted there were ma ny holidays grouped together that they would have specials for and they could not advert ise those specials, except once a quarter. She stated the maintenance department continuously checked banners and signs all of the time in the City. She understood the City’s conc ern about having clutte ring with the signage, but if the small business was not allowed the temporary signage , they could not survive. She noted she could not afford to go to Anoka County and pay $350.00 to get the names of residents, as well as paying for a flyer a nd mailing the notices. She stated the simplest way for her to advertise was with banners. She indicated she did not mind paying the $25.00 with a time limit, as long as the time lim it was reasonable. She indicated if people did not see the signage, they for got the business was there. Jim Gemlo, 1750 Wood Meadow Lane, representi ng the Legacy Dry Cleaning opening in Spirit Hills next week, stated they are the first new drycleaner in the metro area that did cleaning onsite. He indicated a streamer wit hout words might not say anything, but it did say to look here. He noted if the streamer s got someone’s attention even for a short period of time, it was to businesses advantage. He asked for some reasonableness that would be a benefit to the business owners and not detract from the beauty of the City. He asked why was it okay for people to put up For Sale signs and garage sale signs for free while charging the businesses $25.00 for a sign. He asked why was it not required that the realtors and garage sale si gns also be charged. He noted signage was a vital piece of their business and he requested they work together and be reas onable on signage. He asked the City also not determine what was a sp ecial event at his business. He stated he should just be able to get a perm it without having to run a special. Jim Szyplinski, Mansetti’s, 6511 Ware Road, stated he agreed the signage problems are a disaster, but the signs do matter to the survival of the businesses. He asked why couldn’t they have permanent signage on the road that indicated where Spirit Hills Mall was. He stated the issue was not just banners, but it was signage in general. He noted Spirit Hills Mall was facing backwards to Birch and if he would have realized th is at the time, he would not have built there. He indica ted he spent approximately $7,000 per month on advertising, but people still did not know they existed. He asked without banners how are they suppose to let the residents know wh ere the small businesses in the City were located. He indicated flyers, newspaper, and television advertising were not working. He suggested they have some st reet signage and he was willing to pay for it. He stated he was open to suggestions, but the small busine ss owner needed help from the City. He stated he was willing to put up City approved si gns and pay a permit fee, but he needed to advertise his business. He asked where else should they be advertising. He noted he also had not received a salary sin ce he opened. He stated the smaller businesses generated Pl anni ng & Zo ni n g B o ar d Mar c h 9 , 200 5 Page 11 APPROVED MINUTES taxes and they were looking for help with this issue. He agreed th e banners looked bad if they were not properly maintained and asked they come up with a solution for the small business being allowed to advertise. He st ated he did not agree that builders were allowed to put out signs, but the small busin ess owner was not allowe d to put out signs. He acknowledged this was a tough issue. He stat ed he had not received a letter from the City. Dave Bauer, 566 Aqua Circle , President of Lino Lake J unior Chamber of Commerce, asked they also consider not-for-profit groups in this discussion. He noted they did not have their own property, but a business might limit their willingness to host an event for them if they were not allowed to advertise the event. He stated to pay a $25.00 permit fee would also hurt their income. Joelle Roberts, 6624 Ruffed Grouse Road, noted she did not own a business, but was a member of the community. She stated she c ould not believe this was an issue and that the small business owner should be allowed to put up signs and banners. She noted she did not have time to go through all of the fl yers and newspapers she received and she relied on the banners to show where the businesses are. She stated she worked for a sign company and she understood that the City want ed the signage to be professional looking. Steve Bergman, Eagle Liquor and Tobacco, st ated the signs helped his business to promote a beer of the month and having signs out made a huge difference for his business. He stated he had received a lett er from the City regarding his signage. Tim Goertz, Spirit Hills Wine and Liquor, stated he was in agreemen t with the previous comments made. He stated whatever was de cided needed to be enforced equally. Katie Allen asked how many of the small busin esses had gone under in the past couple of years because banner and tempor ary signage was not allowed. Mr. Pogalz stated he was glad the busine ss owners showed up to this meeting. He indicated they were going to work with the business owners. Chair Rafferty stated part of the reason they were having this discussion tonight was to come to some conclusions that they could give to the Council as recommendations. He noted they had been dealing with this issu e for two plus years and it had been very frustrating to not have business input. However, he acknowledged many of the businesses in attendance tonight were not in business two years ago. He noted the reason they were looking at this was because the signage was a problem as an eye sore. Mr. Tralle stated they had two meetings where 32 busine sses were invited and only two small business owners showed up as well as a couple of realtors. He stated they had discussed many different types of signage. He noted they finally had the businesses attention. He indicated they were not anti-bus iness, but it was frus trating that it took two years to get the businesses attention to the signage problems they were having. He noted now was the time to start working on this with the businesses. He stated they did not know what the businesses needs were because nobody came and told them. He indicated he now understood how important banners were , which he did not understand before this Pl anni ng & Zo ni n g B o ar d Mar c h 9 , 200 5 Page 12 APPROVED MINUTES meeting. He stated he was willing to work w ith the business owners and he was glad to see so many business owners finally show up at a meeting. Mr. Nelson asked if they had discussed the “A ” frame signs. He asked if the businesses wanted to use those types of signs. One of the business owners noted those types of signs fell over easily and they were expensive. Joelle Roberts showed a sample of a metal si gn as a possible solution. She stated it was important that temporary signa ge be allowed on corners. Mr. Hyden asked how would they regulate whose signage was up on what corner. He expresse d concern about too many signs on corners. He asked how would they limit where the businesses could place signs. Katie Allen stated there were other issues such as putting a billboard type of a sign on private property where the owner had agreed to rent the space, but they have been told by the City that was not allowed. Chair Rafferty asked if they had a monument sign. Katie Allen acknowledged they did, but noted the problem with the monument sign was that it was only seen from Birch Street and not Lake Drive. She stated a sign on Lake Drive would let people know where they were located. She stated they were wil ling to build any type of sign the City would allow them to build. Chair Rafferty noted it was up to the business ow ners to come up with a sign they wanted to propose to the City and their discussion toni ght was to deal with banners and streamers only. Katie Allen stated they needed to change the law that said they could not rent permanent signage from an individual owne r. She noted they did not know how to change the law. Jim Szyplinski, Mansetti’s, stated he wanted flat, metal signs along the roadway and get rid of the banner signage. He stated he woul d want a sign at the intersection of Birch and Lake Drive and he was willing to pay for this type of signage. Chad Wagner, Millers on Main, stated the types of signs on the freeways they were talking about were $1,500 and th en $400 per quarter. He believed there was a lack of communication and procedure in notifying th e businesses about the sign meetings. He noted he had not been contacted or seen anyt hing about this issue from the last time he was at one of these meetings. He stated if there was better communication, there might have been better turnout. He indicated he personally wanted to keep banners on his building and on his site. He noted he had contacted many of the business owners in attendance tonight personally to inform them of this meeting and the impact it would have on their businesses. He stated he ha d not received any notices of the meetings, except by an email which he received this past Monday. Chair Rafferty noted one of the biggest dilemmas they faced was that they were trying to find a medium to control the signage and yet make both the businesses and the City happy. He noted there had to be some controls put in place and the controls had to be Pl anni ng & Zo ni n g B o ar d Mar c h 9 , 200 5 Page 13 APPROVED MINUTES equitable. He stated staff di d not have the resources to be dealing with sign enforcement. He stated they were trying to find a way to put checks and balances in place. He noted the reason they chose a Friday with 17 days was to allow banners for three weekends in a row. He stated they were not intending on hurting the businesses, but they needed to put some sound solutions on the signage problems and make a recommendation to Council. Mr. Wagner indicated it would make more sense to have th e permits be issued for one month. He noted these Ordinances might scare away some of the small businesses because they were not allowed to advertise. He appreciated the time the Board put into this. Mr. Tralle stated the businesses needed to get together and have a meeting to come up with what was absolutely needed with respec t to signage. He noted the Board had done a lot of work and now they needed the businesse s to do some work on their part. He stated he did not like the trashy looks of signs and it was inexcusable to have the banners looking bad, but he now understood that the banners were a vital part of the small business. He asked the business owners to ge t them organized and come back with some suggestions. He stated he was willing to work with the businesses and he had changed his opinion about banners with the comments made tonight as long as the banners were maintained. Mr. Pogalz agreed with Mr. Tralle’s comments. Chair Rafferty asked what were they doing tonight. Mr. Tralle stated he did not want to talk any further about the banners and st ringers until the business owners had the opportunity to come back with their suggestions. Mr. Pogalz concurred. He noted they now had the busin ess owners’ attention and it would be misguided to not address their concerns. The remainder of the Board concurred. Chair Rafferty noted he was not interested in looking at ba nners again, but he believed the rest of the Board wanted review them agai n. He noted they had worked very hard on trying to make some steps and move forward and to address banners again was a step in the wrong direction. Mr. Laden agreed, but noted that banners were brought up as a major topic and he wanted to share with the business owners where the Board was with banners. Jim Gemlo asked how many businesses were in the City two years ago versus how many businesses were in the City now. He stated to not go back was jumping the gun considering how many more businesses were now in the City and he asked them to reconsider this. Mr. Tralle stated he was willing to go back and re-look at this because of what he heard tonight, but if the business owne rs were not willing to meet and help the Board with this, he would not be willing to look at this again. He indicated he has been one of the biggest opponents of banners, but he wanted to see the businesses succeed. Pl anni ng & Zo ni n g B o ar d Mar c h 9 , 200 5 Page 14 APPROVED MINUTES Katie Allen asked how did they want this pres ented to the Board as a group. She stated they were willing to do this. Mr. Tralle st ated they needed come up with ideas of how they wanted to display their banners, regulations they coul d live with as to where they could be placed, etc. Katie Allen asked how did they want this pr esented to them. Mr. Smyser stated the business owners needed to get together and get him a list of what would and would not work for their businesses. He indicated billboards were probably a steep uphill battle for them in this community and the City was not open to billboard advertising. He stated the City Council ultimately had the power to ch ange this, but it was something that would need to be worked through the process. With respect to the permanent road signage, MnDOT owned the freeways and if MnDOT wa nted to sell sign space in their right-of- way they could do that. However, the roads they were talking about were Anoka County roads and the City could not give them permission to put signs on the Anoka County roads. Katie Allen asked how come the City took dow n their signs on Anoka County roads. Mr. Smyser replied the City did not allow this type of advertising. Mr. Tralle stated he proposed the businesses come back to them with what they needed for portable signs and banners and they would revisit it. He noted if this was not done, the Board would stick with what they had. Chair Rafferty asked when they should come back. Jim Szyplinski, Mansettis, proposed in two weeks they would get something to Mr. Smyser and the business owners would elect a person who would be their spokespers on. He indicated they would come back as a group at a time that was convenient for the Board. Mr. Pogalz recommended they get as many businesses involved as they could. C. GTS Training Mr. Smyser summarized the GTS Training a nd noted if any of the Board members wanted to attend any of the workshops to let Dawn know. He recommended the new Boardmembers attend the basic courses for the fundamentals if they were interested. VII. ADJOURNMENT Mr. Tralle made a MOTION to adjourn the meeting at 10:47 p.m., and was supported by Mr. Pogalz. Motion carried 6-0. Respectfully submitted, Kathy Altman, Recording Secretary TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc .