Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/13/2005 P&Z Minutes CITY OF L I NO LAKE S PLANNING & Z O NING BOARD MINUT E S APPR OVE D MINUTE S 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 6:35 p.m ., April 13, 2005. II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA The agenda was approved. III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: March 9, 2005 Mr. Pogalz m a de a MOTION approve the March 9, 2005 Minutes and was supported by Mr. Laden. Motion carried 6-0. IV. OPEN MIKE Chair Rafferty declared open m i ke open at 6:36 p.m . There was no one present for Open Mike Mr. Hyden m a de a MOTION to close Open Mi ke at 6:37 p.m., and was supported by Mr. Tralle. Motion carried 6-0. V. ACTION I TEMS A. CONTINUED PUBLI C HEARING, for a Rezone to GB – General Business, Conditional Use Permit for Planned Un it Development, D e velopment Stage Plan/Preliminary Plat, and Allocation of Commercial MUSA for a five-lot DATE : April 13, 2005 TIME STARTED : 6:35 P.M. TIME ENDED : 1:12 A.M. MEMBERS PRESENT : Hyden, Laden, Nelson, Pogal z , Rafferty, Root, and Tralle. MEMBERS ABS E NT : None. STAFF PRESENT : Jeff S m yser; Jam es Studenski; and Paul Be ngtson Pl anni ng & Zo ni n g B o ar d A p r il 13 , 200 5 Page 2 APPROVED MINUTES commercial development named Apollo Landing, Equinox Development LLP, 540 Lilac Street Chair Rafferty turned the chair over to Mr. Tr alle and excused himself from this item. Staff stated applicant was proposing a 5 lot commercial subdivision on property located at 540 Lilac Drive. The application subm itted includes a Rezoning to GB (General Business), a Conditional Use Permit to allow a Planned Unit Development, a Development Stage/Preliminary Plat, and a llocation of commercial MUSA reserve. The main occupant of the site will be an 80-room hotel proposed for Lot 1 of the Plat. The development also includes a restaurant pa d on lot 5, and retail/commercial pads on lots 2, 3, and 4. At the March 9, 2005 meeting the Planning and Zoning board voted to continue this item so staff could work with the appl icant to address outstanding issues. Staff presented their analysis and reco mmend approval subject to the following conditions: 1. By-Laws for the developments association must be submitted for review and approval by City staff prior to the final pl at being reviewed by the City Council. These By-Laws must include a joint acces s/shared parking agreement for the entire site. 2. The architectural design sta ndards approved as part of this application must be supplied to each incoming tenant upon signature of a lease. 3. The architectural design sta ndards required to be approve d by the City Council as part of any Planned Unit Development cannot be modified unless reviewed and approved by the City Council. 4. A development agreement must be execute d between the devel oper and the City prior to the execution of a final plat for the site. 5. Appropriate drainage and utility easeme nts must be shown on the final plat. 6. The proposed development is subject to Anoka County Highway Department requirements, review, and approval. 7. Prior to the issuance of building permits for each building City staff must review and approve a photometric lighting plan of the entire site including all previous construction on the site. 8. Prior to the issuance of building permits for each building, City staff must review and approve a landscaping plan of the entire site including all previous construction on the site. Mr. Laden asked how many parking spots there were. Mr. Smyser replied the site plan drawing listed 100 spaces for the hotel, 186 for the retail office/commercial and another 54 for the restaurant. However, they are considering 17 spaces of the 54 by borrowing from the retail for a total of 323 parking spots on the site. Mr. Laden asked if there was a possibility of getting the parking number down further. He asked if they could consider part of the development be made as future parking to be Pl anni ng & Zo ni n g B o ar d A p r il 13 , 200 5 Page 3 APPROVED MINUTES developed at a later date if needed. Mr. Bengtson replied if th ey put in the number required at this time and this developed out, it would be reaching its capacity and if they then figured in a couple more restaurants, th at would increase the parking requirements to the point where they might not be able to meet that demand. He stated there was also the issue of tying this into the other parcels on the west and the possibility of losing some parking spots there as well. He noted mini mal parking might not be a good idea at this time not knowing who the tenants were going to be and what the usage was going to be. He noted, however, the Board could make minimal parking as a recommendation. Mr. Laden asked why a future secondary access was not marked on the plat. Mr. Bengtson replied the properties to the we st were not designated as commercial development and to show some kind of a c onnection would be planning for the future that this would be commercial and staff did not have that authority. He indicated this was not something they wanted to insinuate. Mr. Laden stated he believed they should show a secondary access beca use of the size of the development and they should plan for a second access now. Mr. Bengtson replied that could be explored and added in the future. Mr. Laden asked if it was not shown on the plat, could it be on the Development Agreement. Mr. Bengtson replied they c ould do that or put it on the site design standards. Mr. Smyser pointed out that Anoka County would have to approve any access points also. Mr. Root asked if the pylon sign was accurate . Mr. Bengtson replied the sign was what they were proposing to do. Mr. Root asked if the landscape lighting wa s downcast lighting. Mr. Bengtson replied the applicant was proposing some upward lands cape lighting, which has been allowed in the past, but there would not be upward lighting on the building. Mr. Root asked how bright th e lights would be. Mr. Bengt son responded the lights would not be that bright. Mr. Root asked if the building itself was 45 feet with architect ural features of 10 feet. Mr. Smyser suggested they put aside design questions right now and he would give a presentation of the design features. Mr. Root agreed with Mr. Laden that they needed to have an additional access to this property. Mr. Pogalz asked if the treated wood fence was a requirement, or was it the developer’s suggestions. Mr. Bengtson replied the City re quired screening eith er through landscaping with 80 percent opacity, or a 6-foot solid fen ce. He indicated the applicant requested the solid fence, which met the zoning requirements. Pl anni ng & Zo ni n g B o ar d A p r il 13 , 200 5 Page 4 APPROVED MINUTES Mr. Pogalz stated he was not in favor of a continuous wood fe nce along the entire property, and if there were a fence, he woul d like to see it broken up with landscaping or have a maintenance free fence installed. With respect to access to the site on the west, whoever developed that property, he assume d Anoka County would grant some type of access. Mr. Bengtson replied that was corr ect and he believed Anoka County would allow some sort of an access. Mr. Pogalz stated he did not believe they needed to specifically design an additional access, but suggested they add wording that when the property to the west developed, they had to connect. Mr. Smyser gave a summary of the desi gn characteristics of the development. Mr. Hyden asked at what point would they see the actual plans. Mr. Smyser replied they would not see the plans. The site plan revi ews would be approved administratively. This was done as a way to make things more e fficient and as long as all of the City’s Ordinances and standards were met, the approval would be done administratively. Mr. Hyden requested they not end up with just a plain brick bu ilding and asked that something be added to the building to make it attractive and architecturally appealing. Mr. Smyser replied there were design standards that took care of thos e types of issues. Mr. Laden asked why flat roofs were required on buildings over two stories or more. Mr. Smyser replied applicant had suggested that so there was consistency in the development. He noted this would fit into the othe r developments within the City. Vice Chair Tralle requested the parking lot is lands and planters have better landscaping than the Target development. Mr. Smys er replied the Target development was experimental and probably would have worked if the proper maintenance had been done. Mr. Smyser replied the landscaping would be more groomed in this development, but there would be natural landscaping down by the pond. Vice Chair Tralle re-opened th e public hearing at 7:18 p.m. Vice Chair Tralle invited applicant to make comment. Craig Piette, 425 Arrowhead Drive, repres enting Equinox Development, stated with respect to parking, they were not opposed to minimize the parking and what they did to bring in more landscaping was to put the plan ter islands into the parking lot. He noted the parking lots would be built as they were used. Mr. Laden asked because this was a PUD, we re they allowed to reduce the amount of parking. He noted he did not want to see em pty parking lots. Mr. Smyser replied they could do that, but it was difficult to determin e what parking spaces should not be built. He stated they could put the pa rking into the design agreement to indicate if possible, the parking would be reduced. Pl anni ng & Zo ni n g B o ar d A p r il 13 , 200 5 Page 5 APPROVED MINUTES Mr. Laden stated his concern was when w ould they know how much parking would be necessary. Mr. Smyser replied they would know when the building site plan came in and the parking needs were determined. Vice Chair Tralle asked if they were proposi ng putting in sidewalks from the hotel to the restaurant, or would the pedest rians need to walk through th e parking lot. Mr. Piette replied along the main road there would be a si dewalk and a natural pedestrian path in the front and back of the site, as well as a public area in the front of the site. Mr. Laden noted the sidewalk was a good addi tion, but suggested there also be more pedestrian connections from the buildings. Mr. Piette replied th ey were open to all possibilities, including bridges and benches. He stated they wanted this to be a nice development. Mr. Laden encouraged him to have his landscap e designers make this pedestrian friendly. Mr. Piette stated with respect to the fence, they would be putting in clusters of vegetation that would break up the fence line. He stat ed there would be a maximum of 40 feet of fence with landscaping features. Mr. Pogalz asked if the screeni ng had to be six feet when plan ted or did it have to reach the height of six feet when mature. Mr. Piette noted they intended to add the landsc aping to the inside of the fence and not in between the fence sections. Mr. Smyser responded it was up to the City to determine if the landscaping should be six feet when put in or six feet when mature. He noted it was difficult to put in a solid six- foot height of landscaping because it would grow. Vice Chair Tralle invited anyone for or ag ainst this application to make comment. Rob Rafferty, 1573 Merganser Court, stated he was on the P&Z Board, but he was speaking as a resident and not as a Board member. He thanked the Board for their work on this development and agreed with Mr. P ogalz comments regardi ng the screening, but expressed concern that although this was in written form, th ere were no visual plans and the Board really needed to address it vi sually and not leav e it to the unknown. Rick Partridge, 540 77 th Street, stated they had set their home back from the road and into the woods for privacy when they built and he be lieved that all of the lots were the same depth as his, but realized when the saw the survey stake that they were not as deep, so the development would be almost in his back ya rd. He expressed concern about the noise, lighting, and loss of privacy. Lynn Partridge, 540 77 th Street, pointed out where their home was located on the plan. Pl anni ng & Zo ni n g B o ar d A p r il 13 , 200 5 Page 6 APPROVED MINUTES Mr. Nelson noted their property was quite a wa ys away from the hotel. Mr. Partridge agreed it was going to be under 700 feet, but ex pressed concern about the lighting and the removal of trees. Mr. Nelson asked if the tallest building was the hotel and if there were any security lights on the building. Mr. Root asked if Mr. Partridge had any opi nion regarding the fenc ing. Mr. Partridge replied he would prefer a continuous fen ce so people could not easily access the residential area. Vice Chair Tralle stated he believed the fen ce behind and on the sides of the hotel should probably be a continuous fence for security as well as containing the pedestrian traffic to the site and not into the residential area. Vice Chair Tralle suggested the association documents should define how the fence would be maintained. Vice Chair Tralle stated the li ghting standards were that th ey could not encroach on the residential area. Ms. Partridge expressed concern about ope n spaces on the fence and she wanted a continuous solid fence. She expressed concer n about lighting. She stated she could see the stake from her kitchen window, which ta ke was approximately 30 feet away. She expressed concern a bout the noise. Mr. Piette stated he understood Mr. and Mrs. Partridge’s concern and they would meet all City standards with respect to lighting and the lighting would not encroach upon their property. He noted there would be 20 feet from the property line before the building began and there would be no parking along their side. Mr. Root made a MOTION to close the public hearing at 7:53 p.m. and was supported by Mr. Laden. Motion carried 5-0. Mr. Laden asked what the timeline was for act ing on this. Mr. Bengtson replied this had a preliminary plat attached, so it was 120 days from submission, but he was not certain of the exact date of completion, but he would guess it would be 120 days from January 10. He indicated some action needed to be ta ken on this at tonigh t’s meeting, unless the applicant agreed to a continuation. Mr. Pogalz asked if staff wa s comfortable going forward with this. Mr. Bengtson replied staff has worked well with the developer and th e developer has been willing to work with staff. He recommended they add the followi ng conditions: 9. Examine the potential for future access to the property to the southwes t along Lilac Street and if possible, include provision for access between the two properties. 10. City is willing to allow for a reduction in the number of parking stalls wi th the goal being to having the appropriate amount of parking. 11. Pedestrian access in addition to the sidewalk depicted along the entry drive would be added to the site. 12. The fence must be maintained by the Pl anni ng & Zo ni n g B o ar d A p r il 13 , 200 5 Page 7 APPROVED MINUTES association. 13. The maximum building height of 45 feet will be added to the design standards. 14. City staff to continue to work with the developer on the treatment on the perimeter of the property. Mr. Pogalz stated he did not have a problem with the fence being continuous as long as it was maintained, it was maintenance free and not wood, and there was landscaping to both the front and back of the fence. Mr. Bengts on suggested that the sc reening wall along the residential properties be solid and beyond the re sidential properties, they could entertain breaks in between. Vice Chair Tralle stated the ne ighbors wanted a solid fence in their area and they had to live with this and he believed they needed to accommodate what th e neighbors wanted. Mr. Hyden stated for security reasons, a so lid fence was a prudent thing to do along the residential area. He agreed that the fe nce should be broken up beyond the residential properties with landscaping. Mr. Pogalz stated he wanted to see the materials of the fence upgraded with landscaping on both sides. Mr. Laden asked if the fence was on the pr operty line or was it on a 10-foot setback. Mr. Nelson suggested they have an aesthetic pleasing fence, so it was not a solid wall with no architectural features. Mr. Laden asked if the fence was a part of the design standard. Mr. Bengtson replied it was mentioned, but it was not a design standard. Mr. Laden suggested staff work with the deve loper on the fence and add it to the design standards. He expressed concern ab out a long fence along Apollo Drive. Mr. Bengtson stated he was c oncerned about the maintenanc e of the landscaping on the backside of the fence because this could be a burden to the applicant to get onto residential property to ma intain the landscaping. Vice Chair Tralle asked if the developer w ould be willing to wo rk with the neighbors about concerns regarding the fencing and come up with a solution that both parties could live with. Mr. Piette replied he would be willing to do this. Mr. Laden asked how they should address not seeing the buildings. He suggested that one or more Board members look at this with staff. He asked if the design standards were good enough. Mr. Rafferty approached the podium and stat ed the only thing he saw as a burden was because this was a review process, he saw no reason that each pad as it was developed should not come back to the Board for review. Pl anni ng & Zo ni n g B o ar d A p r il 13 , 200 5 Page 8 APPROVED MINUTES Mr. Laden asked if they could require that. Mr. Bengtson replied because this was PUD, they could include an approval process which would require them to come back to the Board for approval. He asked if they wanted this to be only Board approval or if it should also go to the Council. Mr. Laden stated he liked this idea. Mr. Root agreed. Mr. Hyden asked if each piece then had to go through the process and if so, how much would this delay the development of this site. He expressed concern that they were going to greatly delay the site development by maki ng it go through each step of the process. Mr. Bengtson stated even admini strative reviews were still held to the 60-day rule, so the timeline was not that different. He noted there might be some timesavings by doing this administratively. Mr. Hyden stated if the time line was similar, then he would agree to this, but he did not want to “handcuff” the developer either. Mr. Pogalz noted when the buildings came up for review, they should only discuss the buildings and not the pedestrian access, landscaping, fence, parking, etc. Mr. Root stated landscaping along the perimeter he would ag ree with, but he wanted to discuss the landscaping along the buildings if necessary. Mr. Laden noted the landscaping would need to m eet the design requirements. Mr. Bengtson replied staff would need to examine everything and a full application would be required, so they would be able to see everything and if the approval has already been in place for the fence, pedestri an access, etc. there would be no need to discuss these. Vice Chair Tralle stated he was in agreem ent with both Mr. Pogalz and Mr. Root. Mr. Piette stated they have spent many, many hours to meet the design standards required by the City and it would not pass City staff inspection if they did not meet the design standards. He stated they had done this because there was not a picture of the development. With respect to the hotel, th ere were prototypes, but he could not show them because it was proprietary information at this time. He stated the hotel building would be a beautiful building and would meet all of the design standards. He indicated all other buildings built would also have to meet the desi gn standards and there was “no wiggle” room in the design standards. He not ed there were alrea dy conditions added and they were willing to fulfill numbers one th rough eight of staff’s recommendations. He expressed concern that there was a timeline and they could not build something that would not meet the stringent desi gn standards. He indicated he was very dedicated to this development and they were willing to work with the City and the neighbors, but adding time to the development process was redundant and that was why they had taken the extra time and effort to work with the design standards and with sta ff. He stated the development would be top notch and felt it would work out with staff. Pl anni ng & Zo ni n g B o ar d A p r il 13 , 200 5 Page 9 APPROVED MINUTES Vice Chair Tralle asked if they were in ag reement with conditions 9 through 14 as added by staff. Mr. Piette replied they agreed to all of the conditions, except condition number 9 where they were being required to obtaining an easement. He noted this was designed as a PUD and it would work together. He stat ed if it made sense to have an access in the future, an access would be added. Mr. Bengt son replied the only thing they could show on the plat was an easement, but on the site plan it could be shown as a future access, which held less weight in the long-term, but if the property to the southwest wanted access, they would need to go through a review process and be required to work with the current property owner to obtain an access, but the only way to guarantee an access would be to have an easement. He indicat ed an access would need to be part of a Development Agreement. Mr. Piette noted an easement would cut into the green space. Mr. Laden stated he would like to see an easement. Vice Chair Tralle stated he agreed with the developer because the developer did not own the land and he was developing this piece of la nd. He stated this was different than a residential area because this was zoned i ndustrial and asked how could they hold him responsible to an unknown. Mr. Root noted they were not forcing the developer to do anything, only reserving the space for a future access. Mr. Nelson agreed. Mr. Hyden understood the developer was frustr ated, but hoped he understood that as a Board they wanted to see what was going in to know that this development would be something the City could be proud of and part of the reason this had gone on like this was because the Board was detailed oriented. Ho wever, he did believe that this developer was truly interested in working with staff and that was a nice thing to see and that gave him confidence that this development woul d be a good development and he was excited about this type of a development in the City because the City had for a long time discouraged business and he was happy to see business come into this community and he wanted to see a nice development like this in the City. Mr. Pogalz stated he was comfortable with the recommendations as long as condition 9 indicated examine future access. Mr. Bengtson asked if the Board was comfortabl e with staff reviewing the site plans for each lot as they came in and if so, a condition should be added stating that, but if not, and this is to come back to the P&Z Board a nd City Council then the Board should add this type of a condition. Mr. Nelson suggested the Board wa nted to review this to ensure that new developments continue to meet the previous ly stated requirements. Pl anni ng & Zo ni n g B o ar d A p r il 13 , 200 5 Page 10 APPROVED MINUTES Mr. Laden stated he did not like this wording and as plan ning members he wanted the opportunity to review the elevations. Mr. Piette stated the whole idea was that it was impossible to do this process half way and he believed this would delay the devel opment and he encourag ed the Board to let them work with the staff on this and not have it come back to the P&Z Board and Council. Mr. Laden stated if these were nice building, it would only take a short time to review and approve it. Mr. Piette stated he woul d agree with whatever the P&Z Board required, but noted this could delay the de velopment of the site. He re iterated they would meet all of the design standards required whether th e Board reviewed each building or not. He noted they had taken into consideration ever ything that had and will go on within the City and wanted to work with the City to make this a nice development. Mr. Piette stated he would be willing to have one or more Board members be on a committee with staff to work with them on the development as a compromise. Vice Chair Tralle asked if Mr. Laden would be willing to be on this committee. Mr. Laden stated he would but strongly recomm ended there be two or three members. Vice Chair Tralle asked if the Board would re view it or should City staff. Mr. Hyden replied at some point the Board needed to le t go and trust City staff will make the right decisions. Mr. Laden asked did staff have the authority to reject the development if it met all of the standards, but it was an “ugl y” building. Mr. Bengtson replied if it did not meet the design standards, it could be denied for not meeting those requirements in which case the applicant could go throu gh an appeal process. Mr. Laden stated even if it met the minimum st andards, it could not be denied by staff. Mr. Bengtson replied that was correct and if it was not in the standards, they could not enforce something that was not written. Mr. Laden stated he would be open to going either way, either as a Board or as a committee. Vice Chair Tralle noted a comm ittee would not have any more authority than staff. Mr. Laden hoped the developer would be open to suggestions and was willing to work with the City. Mr. Laden suggested this would come before the P&Z Board, but not before City Council and this be done within the timeframe. Vice Chair Tralle noted there have been buildin gs in the City that have been approved by staff and they were beautiful buildings and asked why this development was different. He indicated he did not believe staff would allow an “ugly” building. Pl anni ng & Zo ni n g B o ar d A p r il 13 , 200 5 Page 11 APPROVED MINUTES Mr. Smyser stated legally if an applicant me t all of the City’s requirements, it must be approved. He noted this appl ied to staff, the P&Z Board and the City Council. He strongly recommended agains t a recommendation that a committee be set up due to administrative issues. Mr. Laden suggested the developer invite memb ers of the P&Z Board to the architectural committee. Mr. Smyser replied this could be done, but he was not sure this was the City’s authority and legally, he believed they were “wal king on thin ice” with this suggestion and he was not co mfortable recommending this. Mr. Smyser stated they needed to decide if th ey wanted staff to review this, or if the P&Z Board and the City Council review this. He stated it was not a good idea to only have the P&Z Board review this because they we re only a recommending body and the City Council had the authority to approve or deny it. Mr. Laden stated if this was an either or decision, then he trus ted the staff to review it. Mr. Bengtson added the following condition: 15. Each building site plan and elevation shall be reviewed administratively by staff. Mr. Hyden made a MOTION to recommend approval of a Conditi onal Use Permit for Planned Unit Development, Development Stag e Plan/Preliminary Plat, and Allocation of Commercial MUSA for a five-lot commerc ial development named Apollo Landings, Equinox Development LLP, 540 Lilac Street, su bject to the 8 conditions as noted in staff’s April 13, 2005 report a nd the 7 conditions added at tonight’s meeting and was supported by Mr. Pogalz. Motion carried 5-0. Vice Chair Tralle recessed the meeting at 8:54 p.m. Vice Chair Tralle turned the meeting over to Chair Rafferty. Chair Rafferty reconvened the meeting at 9:07 p.m. B. PUBLIC HEARING, for a Conditional Use Permit amendment to allow for an awning at Rehbein Transit, 6298 Hodgson Road Chair Rafferty opened the pub lic hearing at 9:07 p.m. Staff stated applicant had reque sted an 8-foot x 100-foot awni ng addition to the north side of the existing facilities at 6298 Hodgson Roa d. The Rehbein property is covered by a conditional use permit for the existing bus tran sit center. Building additions such as those proposed in the application require an amendment to the Conditional Use Permit. Construction of the addition was begun prior to the issuance of the appropriate building permits or this application and was st opped by the City of Lino Lakes Building Department. No further construction has taken place after the first warning was issued by a building inspector. Pl anni ng & Zo ni n g B o ar d A p r il 13 , 200 5 Page 12 APPROVED MINUTES Under the new zoning ordinance, the site plan review is done administratively. However, a Conditional Use Permit amendment is necessary, and a site plan review is part of the CUP review. Because this application invol ves the CUP amendment, it is also appropriate to review the conditions placed on the site thro ugh the last CUP amendment in 1999. Staff was recommending approval subj ect to the following conditions: 1. Construction must comply with the requirements of the Centennial Fire Department, including the connection of th e existing buildings to municipal water for fire sprinkling. 2. A performance agreement between the City and the developer must be executed prior to the issuance of any building permits for the subject site. 3. A lighting plan in conformance with the zoning code must be submitted for review and approval by staff prior to the issuance of building permits. 4. The proposed addition is subject to double permit fees as construction was begun to the issuance of any building permits. Mr. Laden asked if there was an existing awni ng. Mr. Bengtson repl ied there was not an awning, but there might have been an overhang at some point in the past. Mr. Nelson stated he lived in this neighbor hood and he has had several people speak to him about the lighting. He asked if they could review the lighting for the entire site under this PUD. He expressed c oncern that this was not up to lighting code. Mr. Bengtson replied the application before them was fo r the awning, but they could recommend that staff investigate the lighting on site to ensu re it is in compliance with the previous approvals, but to change what was approved in the past, was probably not something they wanted to undertake with this request. Mr. Nelson stated he understood the business ha d been in existence for a long time and in many cases, before the housing was there, but he believed the lighti ng did not meet Code and it should be looked at. Mr. Laden asked what was the use of the awni ng. Mr. Bengtson replied he was not sure what the awning use was for, but it might be to cover the fuel tank. Chair Rafferty asked if this was for storage, wa s that an appropriate area for storage. He asked if this was a negative to the neighbors to the north. Mr. Bengtson replied storage would be more imposing than what was there now. Mr. Laden stated he believed the Comprehens ive Plan addressed th is site as possibly relocating. He asked if this was accurate a nd had there been any action on this. Mr. Bengtson replied he was not familiar with that part of the Comprehensive Plan, but because this was in a residentia l area, that was a possibility. Pl anni ng & Zo ni n g B o ar d A p r il 13 , 200 5 Page 13 APPROVED MINUTES Mr. Smyser replied this was mentioned in the Comprehensive Plan as a possible relocation in the future, but indicated the C ity did not actively do re development such as this. Mr. Laden noted if this was in the Comprehens ive Plan, shouldn’t the City be looking at this. Mr. Smyser replied this was a polic y question the City Council would have to decide. Mr. Pogalz stated he assumed this would be used for storage and e xpressed concern that at some point it would be enclosed, which would not meet Code. He asked what the Building Code said with respect to this type of a structure. Mr. Bengtson replied the City Building Inspector has looked at this and they had not raised any issues with respect to the awning being attached to the building. Mr. Nelson asked what else co uld be done about the spotlights on the top of the building and not have them facing into the neighborhood. He asked what leverage did they have with respect to this. Chair Rafferty asked how long has this busin ess been at this location. Mr. Smyser replied he was not sure when it was first established, but it ha s been a long time. Mr. Nelson asked when were the lights direct ed toward the neighborhood. He suggested they be faced east instead. He stated he was not inclined to approve this without the lighting issue being addressed. Mr. Bengtson replied he had spoken with the applicant who indicated he would possibly be putting in parking lot lights in the future. He suggested this be continued until applicant could be present to answer some of the Board’s concerns. Chair Rafferty stated as far as the neighbor hood directly to the south, he was concerned that the business was there before the resi dents and the residents knew the business was there and this could be an issue with attempti ng to force the applicant to do anything. He agreed they should table this until applicant could be in attendance. He also expressed concern that this would be used as storage. Mr. Hyden agreed this should be continue d until applicant to be in attendance. Mr. Tralle made a MOTION to continue the public hearing to a time when applicant could be in attendance and was suppor ted by Mr. Nelson. Motion carried 6-0. C. PUBLIC HEARING for a Conditional Use P ermit for Planned Unit Development, Development Stage Plan/Preliminary Plat, a nd Final Plat for expansion of Fairview Lino Lakes Clinic, 7455 Village Drive Staff stated applicant had requested a 10,455 s quare foot addition to their existing 9,610 square foot clinic building located at 7455 Village Drive. The application submitted includes a Conditional Use Permit to allow a Planned Unit Development, a Development Stage Plan/Preliminary Plat, and Final Plat. Pl anni ng & Zo ni n g B o ar d A p r il 13 , 200 5 Page 14 APPROVED MINUTES The Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Unit Development is being requested to allow the clinic to locate a portion of the addition closer to th e right-of-way than would be allowed in the Limited Business zoning district . This will be more in keeping with the spirit and intent of the development standard s for the Legacy at Wood’s Edge project that will be constructed on the other side of th e street from the subject property. The City of Lino Lakes has worked out an ag reement to sell a portion of the property to the north to the applicant to allow this expans ion. The rest of that City owned parcel (Outlot A) will then be used as right-of-way for the realignment of the on-ramp of northbound Interstate 35W. Therefore, the City is acting as a co-applicant on the preliminary and final plat portions of the project. Staff was recommending approval subj ect to the following conditions: 1. Conformance with the requirement s of the S.E.H. memorandum. 2. The landscape plan shall be revised to depict irrigation in all seeded areas; red maples in place of the sugar maples proposed along Lake Drive; and two woodbine plants at the base of all th ree trellises shown on the architectural elevation. 3. Additional handicapped parking must be pr ovided along the southwest side of the building just west of the main entry of the clinic. 4. All sidewalks directly ab utting parking stalls within the new construction portion of the project shall be increased to a minimum of six feet in width. 5. At least one connection betw een the clinics internal sidewalk system and the City trail planned for the Lake Drive frontage should be included. 6. Prior to the issuance of building permits for the site, the applicant must submit a photometric lighting plan for staff review and approval. 7. Prior to the issuance of building permits for the site the applicant must submit a revised site plan depicti ng 24-foot wide drive aisles in the new construction portion of the parking lot a nd a realignment of the drive aisle at the northwest corner of the building to staff’s satisf action. The number of parking spaces provided shall at no time drop below the requirements of the Zoning Code. 8. A development agreement between the City and the developer must be executed prior to the execution of th e final plat by the City. 9. The brick used for new construction must match that of the existing building, if staff feels the difference is significant enough the Lake Drive elevation must have an architectural feature or embellishment to hide the transition from new brick to old brick as much as possible. 10. The applicant shall dedicate a 10-foot wide trail easement parallel to Lake Drive. 11. The proposed addition is subject to MnDOT and Anoka County Highway Department requirements, review, and approval. 12. Prior to the issuance of building permits for the site and applicant must submit a full revised set of drawi ngs depicting conformance with all of the above requirements. Mr. Root asked what the impervious surface cover was. Mr. Bengtson replied it was 75 percent, which was in keeping w ith the intent of Woods Edge. Pl anni ng & Zo ni n g B o ar d A p r il 13 , 200 5 Page 15 APPROVED MINUTES Chair Rafferty opened the pub lic hearing at 9:42 p.m. Chair Rafferty invited the applicant to make comment. Jim Bermel, 400 Stinson Boulevard, NE, Minn eapolis 55413, Fairview Health Services, Corporate Real Estate Department, introdu ced himself and asked if they had any questions. Chair Rafferty asked for the architect to come forward. John Harris, Principal Harris Architects , 331 Second Avenue North, Minneapolis, architect. Chair Rafferty asked if he did the first plan. Mr. Harris replied he had not. Chair Rafferty expressed concern that this was a large building a nd there was not enough architectural design element to this. Mr. Ha rris responded Fairview wanted this to blend into the existing building as much as possible. He stated they were adding a trellis, a bay window and well as other elements, and he did not feel this would look like a plain brick box. He stated they had worked with City st aff on this and staff appeared satisfied they were doing the appropriate thing. Chair Rafferty asked if Mr. Harris believed this was a good plan architecturally. Mr. Harris replied he would not have put his name on this if he did not believe this was not a good project. Chair Rafferty asked if Mr. Harris believed mo re architectural elements should be added. Mr. Harris replied he believed the elements they added were appropriate and they had worked with City staff on this. Chair Rafferty stated he belie ved this proposal was “extremel y boring” and he did not see any strong elements in the design, except the trellises, but expressed concern that the trellises were too few and too small. Mr. Tralle agreed there were insufficient archite ctural design elements in this proposal. Mr. Harris replied he believed this existing building was a strong statement and he believed the new addition would maintain and enhance the original expression. Mr. Tralle asked if they could add another gable end on the east side to give it some symmetry. He expressed concern that this was a long building with no break. Mr. Harris noted the original design concept of the build ing was an austere building with a strong gable element that ran the length of the build ing. The gable was intended to be the one major design element of the building and it was their intention of keep ing this as a strong element and not repeating it just to repeat it. Mr. Laden noted by making the building longer, the proportions did not match up and now the gable was no longer a major design el ement, but he did not think they should simply add another gable either . Mr. Harris stated they had worked with staff and did the Pl anni ng & Zo ni n g B o ar d A p r il 13 , 200 5 Page 16 APPROVED MINUTES things they believed were approp riate and the reality was that they needed to stay within a budget. He stated they matched all of the existing details and added architectural elements and believed this was the right thing to do. Mr. Pogalz asked would new m echanical structures be added to the roof on the new addition. Mr. Harris replied the mechanical structures would stay on the existing building. Mr. Pogalz stated he understood why they did not want to add anot her gable due to the cost, but he believed the gabl e should be the focal point of the building. Mr. Harris indicated clinics were extremely expensive to build, so they needed to keep the existing space renovation to a minimum, if possible. Mr. Pogalz stated he would like to see more architectural designs, but he understood it was cost prohibitive and he believed becau se they were putting in an entire brick building, this was a very nice and expense pr oposal and in his opinion he believed they could work with this. Mr. Nelson stated on the existing building th e gable was one-third of the building and now it would be one-sixth of the building and he did not believe it made the strong statement it once did. Chair Rafferty pointed out that the strongest things designed could be the simplest. He stated he did not believe the simplicity had b een pulled off properly in this proposal. He stated he was not in favor of this project going forward until he saw something visually friendly. Mr. Tralle suggested on the east side adding an additional trellises and larger windows. Mr. Harris noted they could do this and he would not be opposed to this, but noted the reason there were smaller windows was because of privacy issues for the exam rooms, but because this area was the training room, larger windows could be added. Mr. Tralle believed this would break up the long wall if they adde d larger windows where the training area was located. Mr. Harris stated he would need to redesign this end of the building. Mr. Nelson asked if there was anything they coul d to with the roofline to break it up. Mr. Harris replied changing the roofline would probably be more distracting rather than beneficial, but he did like the suggestion. Mr. Pogalz suggested they go perpendicular with some type of steel design outline similar to the gable to tie ever ything in, which would not cost as much as another gable. Mr. Harris noted they had to determine if a steel structure would fit into the character of the area. Mr. Laden asked if Mr. Pogalz suggestion w ould compete with the existing gable. Mr. Harris responded a perpendicular gable over 100 feet long was extraordinarily expensive. Pl anni ng & Zo ni n g B o ar d A p r il 13 , 200 5 Page 17 APPROVED MINUTES Mr. Laden noted they went though the expens e on the original building. Mr. Harris acknowledged this was true, but at that time they were hiding the mechanical structures and this was the first building in this area so they wanted to go above and beyond what was expected. Mr. Laden noted it was difficult to add onto so meone else’s design. Mr. Harris stated he believed this was a high quality development a nd the materials were of very high quality and he did not believe this would be an eyesore, but acknowledged it might be understated. He believed they s hould look at the elevation and attempt to work within the parameters established, even if they were simple. Mr. Harris stated he was against adding anot her gable, but if they were going to add another gable, they should replicate what was there, which was very expensive. He asked if they could come to a total agreemen t with respect to the design elements. Mr. Bengtson stated the issue staff had was th e limitations of the existing building as well as the transition from an older style of arch itecture to what the architecture was going to be for The Woods Edge project. He indicated staff was concerned about adding a gable or false roofs because the building across the street was going to be a multi-story building, which would mean thos e residents would be looking down at the false roof. He indicated the original plan did show an “L” shaped building with an additional gable and a metal roof, but staff requested the buildi ng be changed in order to eliminate false facades along the roofline to meet the spirit and intent of The Woods Edge project. Mr. Harris noted they were intending on addi ng additional landscaping. Mr. Tralle asked if the landscaping on the east side of the building would be sodded and treed. Mr. Harris responded it would have sod, trees, and be irrigated. Chair Rafferty asked if they could make a bay window in the training ar ea with a trellis. Mr. Harris replied they could do that. Mr. Laden stated he liked the simplicity of the brick, windows along the exam rooms, and trellis, but he did not like the long, flat roof. He noted he was even more concerned about a flat roof with people looking down on the roof . He asked him if he would be willing to look at other design possibilities with respect to the roof. Mr. Harris replied he looked at a design element in terms of a lot of different things and if there was unlimited funds, he could do a lot with this, but there was not un limited funds. He indicated he would be willing to look at different things as well as the other suggestions made, but he was not sure if he would be able to do much. Mr. Pogalz stated there would be a definite line on the brick as to what is new and existing brick. He asked what they could do to disguise the connec tion if the brick did not match of exactly. Mr. Harris replied it w ould be difficult, but he believed the most appropriate thing would be to add an additional trellis to co ver up the joint. He noted because this was in the exam area, larg er windows were probably not an option. Chair Rafferty invited anyone for or agains t this application to make comment. Pl anni ng & Zo ni n g B o ar d A p r il 13 , 200 5 Page 18 APPROVED MINUTES Dan Cooke, 7290 Stagecoach Trail, suggested th ey put a pergola along the north and west side, which would break up the building. He stated the wheelchair access on the north side of the building was insufficient and it s hould be moved to the front of the building where the doors were wide enough for wheelchai rs. Mr. Harris stated they could add pergolas, but they would need to remove tr ees to do this. He agreed to move the wheelchair access to the fr ont of the building. Mr. Bengtson replied there was a condition to add handicapped parking to the south side of the building. Mr. Tralle asked if there would be a drive through canopy to drop off patients so they did not get wet in inclement weather. Mr. Harri s replied there was a drive-up canopy, but not a drive-through canopy and the only way to do a drive-through canopy was to have an access off of Village Drive. Mr. Tralle recommended in the future as they designed clinics they ta ke this into account for patients who were wheelchair bound. Mr. Tralle made a MOTION to close the pub ic hearing at 10:45 p.m. and was supported by Mr. Pogalz. Motion carried 6-0. Mr. Bengtson asked if they wanted a conditi on with respect to the window suggestion as a part of the approval. Chair Rafferty suggest ed this be added to the recommendations. Mr. Pogalz believed applicant had heard thei r concerns and believed they would take their recommendations seriously. Mr. Nelson suggested applicant work w ith staff on the window issue. Mr. Tralle made a MOTION to recommend approval of a Conditional Use Permit for Planned Unit Development for expansion of Fairview Lino Lakes Clinic, 7455 Village Drive, subject to the conditions as noted in staff’s April 13, 2005 report and adding a recommendation that they look into the feasibility of ch anging the windows and adding trellises and was supported by Mr. Nelson. Motion carried 6-0. Mr. Tralle made a MOTI ON to recommend approval of a Development Stage Plan/Preliminary Plat for expansion of Fair view Lino Lakes Clinic, 7455 Village Drive, and was supported by Mr. Nelson. Motion carried 6-0. Mr. Tralle made a MOTION to recommend approval of a Fi nal Plat for expansion of Fairview Lino Lakes Clinic, 7455 Village Drive, and was supported by Mr. Nelson. Motion carried 6-0. D. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING, for a Prelim inary Plat for an 18-lot single- family residential development named Marshan Meadows, 7364 Lake Drive, Bruggeman Properties Pl anni ng & Zo ni n g B o ar d A p r il 13 , 200 5 Page 19 APPROVED MINUTES Staff stated applicant had re quested approval of a prelimin ary plat for a residential development called Marshan Meadows. The site is north of the Gethesemene Church, between Lake Drive and Marshan Lake. The proposal includes a creation of 20 single- family lots. The proposal is consistent w ith the comprehensive plan and the zoning for the site. Review of the submittal has resulted in the need for a va riance for the dimension of one lot. Design of this plat is completed by the lo cation of an existing road, location of an existing road easement, and the shoreland requi rements for larger lot sizes along the lake and a large setback from the lake. Staff presented their analysis and reco mmended approval subject to the following conditions: 1. A variance for the lot depth of Lot 2, Block 1 is approved. 2. The existing well must be properly capped and the existing septic system must be properly abandoned per all ap plicable requirements. 3. The new plan revised April 2005 must rece ive a permit from RWCD prior to City Council approval of a final plat. 4. Park dedication shall be cash in the am ount of $41,500 shall be paid (20 lots @ $2075). 5. Issues discussed in the March 28, 2005 TKDA memo must be addressed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 6. The Stage Coach Trail and the water line shall be constructed to the south property line as shown in the April 4, 2005 plans. 7. A temporary cul-de-sac shall be constr ucted on the north e nd of the property. 8. Lot line easements shall be shown on the final plat. 9. Right of entry along Lake Drive shall be dedicated to Anoka County on the final plat. 10. Anoka County permit requirements shall be met for the new road access to Lake Drive, including improvements to Lake Drive. 11. A conservation easement shall be grante d over the drainage and utility easement along the wetlands bordering the lake. Ea sement restrictions shall be defined prior to City Council appr oval of the final plat. 12. The entry monument sign must comply with the sign ordinance. The developer must submit information regarding owne rship and maintena nce respons ibilities for the monument sign. This must be provi ded prior to City C ouncil review of the final plat. 13. Reexamine the tree species near the ponds to ensure viable species are planted. Chair Rafferty continued the public hearing at 11:04 p.m. Chair Rafferty invited anyone for or agains t this application to make comment. J.P. Houchins, 7284 Stagecoach Trail, asked what would happen to the trail around the lake. Mr. Smyser replied there was a tr ail running through the existing neighborhood. He stated the trail plan for the City has th e trail going along the shoulder of the roadway, but the trail would not be requi red to go along the lakeshore. Pl anni ng & Zo ni n g B o ar d A p r il 13 , 200 5 Page 20 APPROVED MINUTES Dan Cookee, 7290 Stagecoach Trail, asked if the trail had been abandoned by the City. Mr. Smyser replied there never was an easement. Mr. Houchins responded there was an exiting City easement. Mr. Cooke stated it was his unde rstanding the trail was behind their home was the City’s and some had put down Class 5. He asked if the City had an easement behind their property. Mr. Smyser replied documents showed that the City had chosen not to run the trail there, but he was unsure if the City had an easement behind his property, but he would look into that possibility. Mr. Cooke asked if he could remove the Cla ss 5. Mr. Smyser replied he did not realize there was Class 5 there and he would need to look into this. Mr. Cooke noted this Class 5 wa s put in at the same time as the asphalt path was put in behind Lots 3 and 4. He stated he was on Lo t 1 and Mr. Houchins was on Lot 2 and the Class 5 ran behind Lots 1 and 2. Mr. Cooke stated he hoped the trail would go through and it made sense for the trail to continue around the lake. He proposed the tr ail continue through this development, and an easement be put in place as properties were sold, so the easement could be continued completely around the lake. He stated it was not his intent to take land away from the existing homeowners, but when the homes were sold, the City should take an easement at that time. Mr. Laden asked if Mr. Cooke was in agreement to having a trail in his backyard. Mr. Cooke replied it was his understanding that the City had an easement for this trail because they were the ones who surveyed it and put in the Class 5, so he was not objecting to having the trail in his backyard, as long as the tr ail continued en tirely around the lake at some point in the future. Mr. Cooke believed this development was bei ng rushed through until the Church sold its property and if they waited, they would have a nicer development. Mr. Houchins stated he also had the tra il running through his backyard and it was his preference the City maintain the vision of havi ng the trail go around th e lake rather than running along the street. Mr. Tr alle noted this was a very generous offer and most people did not want a trail in their backyard. Chair Rafferty asked what did the resident on Lot 3 think about the tr ail. Mr. Houchins replied he was not sure, but he did not believ e it bothered him either . He indicated they had lived with this for 12 years and it did not bother him. Chair Rafferty asked if they had a concer n about people going on the private dock and boardwalk. Mr. Houchins responded he was c oncerned about liability issues and when he saw someone on the dock, he informed them it was a private dock. Pl anni ng & Zo ni n g B o ar d A p r il 13 , 200 5 Page 21 APPROVED MINUTES Chair Rafferty invited applicant to make comment. Greg Schlink, applicant, 3564 Rollingview Roa d, White Bear Lake, stated they had met with the neighbors and some of them expre ssed concern about cont inuing the trail, but from the developers standpoint , they had found a lot of homeo wners did not like trails in their backyard. He noted the plan for the City showed the tra il along Stagecoach Lane and they supported the City’s plan. Mr. Pogalz stated he agreed they might want to wait for the Church to sell their property and asked for an update on those negotiations. Mr. Schlink replied they had made an offer to purchase the property, but the offer was rejected. He indicated they had also made an offer to realign Stagecoach, but the Chur ch did not like that proposal either. He stated after working with the Church for many months, they had not made any progress and he wanted to continue with this process and not wait for the Church. Chair Rafferty asked if the Church wanted to sell. Mr. Schlink stated the Church was not looking to sell their property, but th ey had looked at his proposal. Chair Rafferty believed the Church was moving in this direction. Mr. Schlink stated he knew the Church was looking at an expansion of their facility, but he did not want to speak for the Church. Mr. Laden asked if there was any discussion about doing this projec t as a conservation development. Mr. Smyser responded every development possibility that came in was looked at as a possible conserva tion development. He noted th e part to be conserved was along the lakeshore with much of that area bein g wetland. He indicated much of that area was already being required to be conserve d. He noted the cons ervation area was not public land and the conversation easement th e City took on a conservation development was only to ensure the area was cons erved, but it was not public land. Mr. Nelson asked if the City would need to get permission from all of the properties north to put in a trail. Mr. Smyser responded he did not have the sp ecifics as to why the City had decided to abandon the trail, but the plan now was to have the trail run along the road. Mr. Houchins stated at the time the Comp rehensive Plan was discussed there was a concept of the trail runni ng along the lake, but the homeo wners north of the property were opposed to this, so they were going to run the trail where it wa s and then connect it to Lake Drive. Mr. Nelson asked if the road could be replatte d to where it should be for when the Church sold its property. Mr. Smyser replied ther e was nothing to connect to, so they did not know if the road would ever go through and the road easemen t they had now was already owned by the City and unless something changed they had to plan where the existing easement was. He indicated they could not require this developer to replat property they had no control over. Pl anni ng & Zo ni n g B o ar d A p r il 13 , 200 5 Page 22 APPROVED MINUTES Mr. Pogalz made a MOTION to close the pub lic hearing at 11:33 p.m. and was supported by Mr. Hyden. Motion carried 6-0. Mr. Laden asked for further clarification on th e easement being requested. He stated he was not sure they met all of the conditions fo r a variance. Mr. Smyser replied this was a difficult question to answer. He stated they could not use economic c onsiderations as the sole reason, but they could consider this as a factor. He noted the number of lots on this property could be significantly higher so the existing physical constraints merited a small variance. Mr. Pogalz noted this was a huge storm sewer system. Mr. Smyser replied the drainage had to be taken care of up on Lake Drive in orde r to have the lots fit along the lakeshore. Chair Rafferty asked if there would be a ny additional paths along Lake Drive. Mr. Smyser replied the long-range trail plan would include a trail along Lake Drive. Mr. Tralle asked as a developer what happened to sidewalks. Mr. Schlink replied he did not know what happened to sidewalks, but it was the City standard to not have sidewalks, with the trail serving as this function. Chair Rafferty asked if the City was attempti ng to bring sidewalks back by the trail being along the street. Mr. Smyser replied it was pos sible an asphalt trail could be constructed outside of the paved street if that was what th ey wanted to do and the City did not have a policy either way as to whether sidewalks s hould be on or off road. He suggested they talk with the developer and see if one would f it in there. He noted if sidewalks were put in, the applicant would be credited for park dedication. He stated the issue with sidewalks was suburbs, which were built for cars and cul-de-sac. He noted nothing connected and there was nowhere for sidewalk s to go, so sidewalks were not necessary, but now that they were lear ning these concepts caused se rious traffic and congestion problems things were changing again. Mr. Laden asked if the trail was on Stagecoach Trail. Mr. Smyser replied the trail was intended to run along the shoulder of Stag ecoach Trail and it was a good idea to think about putting a trail outside of the roadway in this development. Mr. Laden asked if the applicant had any objec tion to this. Mr. Schlink replied he would discuss this with staff. Mr. Nelson made a MOTION to recommend approval of the Pr eliminary Plat for an 18- lot single-family residential development named Mars han Meadows, 7364 Lake Drive, subject to the 12 conditions as noted in st aff’s April 13, 2005 report adding condition 13 as noted by staff at tonight’s meeting a nd adding a condition 14 to read: Examine the possibility of constructing a trail in the ri ght-of-way outside of the paved road and was supported by Mr. Tralle. Motion carried 6-0. Chair Rafferty recessed the meeting at 11:54 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 12:01 a.m., April 14, 2005. Pl anni ng & Zo ni n g B o ar d A p r il 13 , 200 5 Page 23 APPROVED MINUTES VI. DISCUSSION ITEMS A. AUAR Update Item skipped due to the lateness of the hour. B. Temporary Signs Mr. Smyser stated a number of business owners attended the March 9 meeting and expressed concerns regarding the regulati on of signage. The P & Z asked that the business owners get together and present thei r preferences for the regulation of temporary signs. He noted they had received two sets of pr oposals. The P & Z had reached agreement on requirements for banners and portable signs. The two proposals rece ived from separate business owners differ from these requiremen ts. The P & Z will need to decide if it wants to reconsider the requireme nts for banners a nd portable signs. The P & Z agreed to recommend no regulati on of window signs. There are other forms of temporary signage to address. Thes e include pennants and the miscellaneous inexpensive cardboard and plasti c signs often seen at retail businesses in the City. With respect to signs in County right-of-wa y, staff contacted the Anoka County Highway Department to discuss the possi bility of metal sign advertising several businesses, like the ones seen on freeways. Anoka County does not have such a sign program. The topic has come up and the County specifically decided no t to pursue such a pr ogram. Even if the City were to request this t ype of signs, it is the County’s policy not to allow them in County rights of way. The County does allow signs for public uses such as parks and public buildings, but not for advert ising for private businesses. The only exception has been when access to a business is cut off by a County road project. Then, a sign might be put up gi ving directions to the new access such as a frontage road. Chair Rafferty requested the discu ssion be contained to banners only. Mr. Laden stated having reviewed the two di fferent proposals, he believed the first one dealt strictly with banners, he was in favor of keeping what they had set already decided for banners. Mr. Hyden replied he was in agreement with that. Mr. Nelson stated he believed this was too re strictive. He noted he was more aware of banners in other Cities since he was made aware of this issue. He asked if there were any other policies they had looked at from other Cities. Mr. Hyden replied staff had prepared such an analysis and the Board had reviewed those policies. He reviewed some of other City policies. Pl anni ng & Zo ni n g B o ar d A p r il 13 , 200 5 Page 24 APPROVED MINUTES Mr. Pogalz stated he had read through th e proposals and basically the first one they wanted unlimited banners for a year with a fee. With respect to the second proposal, it did not address banners direc tly, but rather a recommendation for several different types of signage. He stated a one-year permit wa s not temporary signage and the whole idea behind this was to limit signage. He aske d why they could not come up with one proposal. Katie Allen, 6511 Ware Road, stated the re ason the second proposal was sent in was because her needs were different than the ot her proposal. She noted she did not put up banners and she was asking the City to get be hind some of the new businesses to succeed for one year and once the year was up, the bus inesses were on their own, but they needed help for one year. She indicated she needed temporary signage to advertise her business. She noted the other businesses had been established for a long time and she was struggling trying to make her business work. Chad Wagner, 7630 Appaloosa Lane, 818 Lois Lane, Millers on Main – Lake Drive, stated the business owners had worked together and had a pr oposal and he did not realize there was a second proposal, but agreed that Ms. Allen’s needs were different. He stated the one-time fee was mentioned to reduce admini strative work for the City staff and that was the only reason that was put that way. He stated he understood the policies of other Cities, but he believed Lino Lakes should not fo llow other City policies. He stated the bottom line was that this would hur t the small business owner. Mr. Nelson asked if it was three banners simulta neously, or would they be three different banners at different times. Mr. Wagner rep lied they wanted 2 or 3 banners per month. He noted he did not have the option of a dding a nice sign like Trappers had because he had a nonconforming business and he was alread y in the right-of-way and therefore he had no options for advertising his specials. He stated he could not afford extensive media advertising. Chair Rafferty asked if Mr. Wagner could have a permanent sign, even because he had a nonconforming building. Mr. Smyser replied he could have a wall si gn that advertised his specials and a non-conformi ng building was not an issue. Mr. Wagner stated it seemed like any issue he had, the non-conforming building was an issue. He stated he also understood that b ecause he had an awning with the name on it, that would be his one sign and he would not be allowed another sign. Ms. Allen noted Bank of the West had thre e signs and asked what was the difference between her business and the bank. She noted other businesses also had more than one sign in the City. She indicated she was told she could only have one sign on the front of her building. Mr. Bengtson repl ied the sign plan for Spirit Hills set out which buildings could have more than one sign on them. Mr. Smyser stated Spirit Hills had a sign pl an that was prepared and approved by the City. Pl anni ng & Zo ni n g B o ar d A p r il 13 , 200 5 Page 25 APPROVED MINUTES Ms. Allen asked why was this allowed if it did not follow the Ordinance. Mr. Smyser replied the buildings not governed by the mu lti-tenant development, had to follow the sign ordinance, but for this multi-tenant development, a separate sign plan was submitted. He noted this plan was prepared by the deve loper and approved by th e City and this was why this area was different. Mr. Hyden asked if permanent signage should be addressed first becaus e this affected the businesses directly. Mr. Smyser replied this was a long process, which would be at least a two-year process. Chair Rafferty stated they were trying to fi nd a way and means to contain things so the City was not so cluttered. Ms. Allen stat ed that was the reason she had a different proposal for new businesses in the City. Sh e noted there was a time crunch to some of this because her business was struggling. She st ated if she had to continually get permits, she would do that, but it was not convenient fo r her. She noted what the City would end up with was corporate business who could affo rd to not make a profit for a couple of years until they were established, but the sma ll business owner could not stay in business if they could not advertise. Mr. Nelson stated he had a difficult time di fferentiating new and old businesses because he believed signage was important for all bus inesses. He stated they cared about the issue and they wanted to resolve this. Mr. Root asked why was temporary signage a nd banners so important as an advertising medium in the City. Ms. Allen stated adve rtising through the newspapers in Lino Lakes for some reason did not work. She noted in order to keep her prices affordable, she needed volume and she needed to adve rtise in order to get the volume. Mr. Wagner stated as far as the other Cities, they did not enforced their Ordinances and there were banners in those C ities. He indicated without be ing allowed to have banners, he could not advertise. Mr. Hyden asked if he could put a nice sign outside of his business or affixed to his building to advertise his special s, would he need banners. Mr. Wagner replied he had not researched these type of signs , but it was an option he coul d look at depending on cost. He noted if he knew the future of his build ing, he might be willing to put more money into a sign, but if his building was going to get torn down in a couple of years to widen the road, he could not affo rd to put in a nice sign. Mr. Nelson stated he had seen one establishmen t that had six temporary signs in the City and they needed to do something that would have a happy balance. He noted there was always someone who would abuse the system . Mr. Wagner noted businesses usually ran monthly business specials and he thought the Board had talked about allowing the businesses to advertise their specials. Jim Szyplinski, Mansetti’s, 6511 Ware Road, st ated for different businesses, different signs worked. In his mall, they faced backwards and cannot advertise by permanent signage, so one of the proposals was to put out professional, tem porary signage. He Pl anni ng & Zo ni n g B o ar d A p r il 13 , 200 5 Page 26 APPROVED MINUTES indicated he was losing business by not facing the road. He noted he was not a fan of banners, but they were necessary for businesse s. He stated if de velopers could have numerous signs, so why couldn’t he have one temporary sign, which was taken down at the end of the day that ad vertised his specials. Chair Rafferty asked Mr. Szyplinski where his advertising dollars we nt. Mr. Szyplinski replied he advertised on TV and the newspapers, as well as paying an advertising fee through his franchise. Chair Rafferty stated businesses could advert ise in moderation at the right time. Mr. Szyplinski asked if they could put a permanen t sign on private property if they have the private property owner’s permission. He asked how could they get help from the City. Chair Rafferty asked the businesses look into what a sign like Community National Bank had cost. Mr. Tralle asked if City C ouncil directed the P&Z Board to look at this, or should the business owners go directly to the C ouncil to express th eir concerns. Mr. Hyden noted they kept getting off of t opic and all signage would eventually come before them. He asked if they should move on with banners or address permanent signs. He noted they were only a recommendi ng body anyway and had no approval power. Chair Rafferty asked if this would go to C ouncil as an entire package once everything had been decided. Mr. Smyser responded it would and this all started because a couple of times a year the building official picked up temporary signage and wrote letters. He indicated a group of people received the lett ers and contacted the City upset about receiving the letters a nd their signs being taken down. St aff directed them to the Council and Council directed P&Z come up with a recommendation. Mr. Wagner stated if they did not allow banne rs and did not get to permanent signage for two or three years, he would be unable to advertise for two or three years. Mr. Smyser suggested they take this informati on and look at banners next month. Mr. Nelson stated if they made a decision on banners tonight, would it go into effect tonight. Mr. Hyden replied this did not take effect until th e entire package went to the City Council. Chair Rafferty asked if they were ready to make a recommendation on banners. Mr. Nelson stated he was not. Mr. Pogalz stated he could go either way. Mr. Laden stated they had already reached as a group a banner decision and they needed to move on. Pl anni ng & Zo ni n g B o ar d A p r il 13 , 200 5 Page 27 APPROVED MINUTES Mr. Hyden stated they were not addressing portable signs an d only banners. Mr. Root asked what decision did they need to make. Chair Rafferty stated they needed to make a recommendation to continue forward and accept what they had previously disc ussed with respect to banners. A consensus was reached to accept what they had previously decided with respect to banners. The Board decided to discuss developer and builder signs at the next meeting. Mr. Wagner requested the business owners be notified when they discuss temporary signage. VII. ADJOURNMENT Mr. Tralle made a MOTION to adjourn the meeting at 1:12 a.m., April 14, 2005 and was supported by Mr. Pogalz. Motion carried 6-0. Respectfully submitted, Kathy Altman, Recording Secretary TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc .