Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/08/2005 P&Z Minutes CITY OF LINO LAKES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MINUTES DATE : June 8, 2005 TIME STARTED : 6:35 P.M. TIME ENDED : 9:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT : Hyden, Laden, Nelson, Pogalz, Rafferty, Root, and Tralle. MEMBERS ABSENT : None. STAFF PRESENT : Jeff Smyser; Pa ul Bengtson; and Michael Grochala I. CALL TO ORDE R AND ROLL CALL Chair Rafferty called the Lino Lakes Planning and Zoning Boar d meeting to order at 6:35 p.m., June 8, 2005. II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Mr. Tralle requested a discussion regarding th e VFW as item VI. D. III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: May 11, 2005 Mr. Tralle made a MOTION to approve the May 11, 2005 Minutes and was supported by Mr. Pogalz. Motion carried 6-0. IV. OPEN MIKE Chair Rafferty declared Open Mike open at 6:37 p.m. There was no one present for Open Mike Mr. Hyden made a MOTION to close Open Mi ke at 6:38 p.m., and was supported by Mr. Laden. Motion carried 6-0. V. ACTION ITEMS A. PUBLIC HEARING to rezone property from SC, Shopping Center to GB, General Business, NE quadrant of 35W and Lake Drive Chair Rafferty opened the pub lic hearing at 6:38 p.m. APPROVED MINUTES Planning & Zoning Board June 8, 2005 Page 2 APPROVED MINUTES Staff stated in February, 2003 the Ci ty Council adopted Ordinance No. 08-03, establishing an updated zoning ordinance text a nd zoning map for the City of Lino Lakes. As part of the updated two business districts, the CB, Central Business district, and SC, Shopping Center District were eliminated. All uses previously allowed within these districts were provided for in the GB, General Business District. Therefore, it was intended to rezone all CB and SC District s to GB, Section 7, Subdivision 4 of the ordinance specifically addressed this change with regard to the CB district, however the SC District was erroneously omitted. He requested the Board correct this error and recommended amendment of Section 7, Subdivision 4 and 5 of Ordinance 08-03. Chair Rafferty invited anyone for or agains t this request to make comment. There were no comments made. Mr. Laden made a MOTION to close the pub lic hearing at 6:41 p.m. and was supported by Mr. Root. Motion carried 6-0. Mr. Laden made a MOTION to recommend approval of amendment of Section 7, Subdivision 4 and 5 of Ordinance 08-03 a nd was supported by Mr. Pogalz. Motion carried 6-0. B. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING for an Amendment to Planned Unit Development, Marketplace Third Addition, located at the NE corner of Lake Drive and Apollo Drive Chair Rafferty reopened the publ ic hearing at 6:42 p.m. Staff stated applicant was proposing to am end the existing Planned Unit Development (Planned Development Overlay) for the Marketplace to amend the building layout and types of buildings used on the site. Originally, the site was approved for five multi-tenant buildings. The applicant is now proposing to have three multi-tenant buildings with two single user buildings along Apollo Drive. He noted this was a change from the request that was previously heard by the Board. This change was brought about due to the co mments made by staff and the Board at the May, 2005 regular meeting. The applicant attempted to redesign the site to hold one back-to-back type multi-tenant building, but the circulation and parking woul d be significantly diminished; and a great deal of utility relocation would need to be undertaken; so staff directed the applicant to abandon the concept. The applicant has settled on a design that is significantly conforming to the original layout of the site. At this point, the only real issues under review are the elevations of the Planning & Zoning Board June 8, 2005 Page 3 APPROVED MINUTES multi-tenant buildings and the designation of th e lots adjacent to Apollo Drive as single- user buildings instead of multi-tenant buildings. Staff presented their analysis and reco mmended approval subject to the following conditions: 1. The architectural design standa rds approved as a part of this application must be supplied to each incoming tenant upon signature of a lease. 2. The development agreement must be execu ted between the developer and the city prior to the issuance of building permits for the site. 3. All lighting fixtures used on the site mu st be in conformance with the design standards. 4. The trash enclosure must be large en ough to house both trash receptacles and recycling receptacles. 5. The trash enclosures must be constructed with the same materials as the proposed building. 6. The decorative lighting for this site a nd all other develope d sites within the Marketplace must be installed prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for any buildings on this site. 7. The cornice for the building must be c onstructed of EIFS, and metal should only be used as flashing to prevent damage of the cornice materials. Mr. Laden inquired how they would gain access to the trash receptacl es if there were no sidewalks proposed. Mr. Bengtson replie d they would need to address this. Mr. Tralle asked how wide the road was betw een the Kohl’s parking lot and the back of buildings C, D, and E. Mr. Bengtson replied he was not sure, but it was one lane in each direction. Mr. Root asked what would happen if one of the businesses going into this development, generated more traffic and should there be pedestrian access across the parking lot from Kohl’s. Mr. Bengtson replied the previous layout that was approved did not have that type of a connection from the Kohl’s parking lot, the previous approved plan also had a larger retail area and to requi re an overflow parking area, staff did not want to impose that on the applicant. Mr. Root stated the concept of a Marketpla ce was that you walked store to store and in the spirit of that, there should be a way for pedestrians to do that without having pedestrians walk all of the way around. Mr . Bengtson replied as staff they could only enforce the ordinance and the zoning ordinance did not support this ty pe of a request, but the Board could add this as a condition if they chose. Planning & Zoning Board June 8, 2005 Page 4 APPROVED MINUTES Mr. Grochala stated one of the issues was th at Kohl’s owned their property, so Ryan did not have the ability to put in a sidewalk in as well as there are maintenance agreements on the property as to the restric tions on Kohl’s parking use. Mr . Root stated he liked this plan, but he still want ed pedestrian access. Mr. Laden asked if they could stripe the ro ad, instead of putting in sidewalks. Mr. Grochala stated if they were going to make an official crossing, this would affect the curb-cut, but it would possibly be feasible to adding a sidewalk to the road from Building D. Mr. Root stated he liked the way the landscap e was laid out except for the east side of Building C and D. He asked if the lands caping could be improved in that area. Mr. Laden stated he liked the buildings, but th e rear was so close to the road and he did not believe there was a lot of opportunity to add landscaping, he suggested they upgrade the rear of the building ar ea with brick, instead of concrete block. Mr. Bengtson responded what was now being proposed was an improvement over what was previously approved on the site, but the Board has the discretion to make this recommendation. Mr. Pogalz stated he did not personally see anything wrong with the elevations and they were breaking this up quite a bit in the b ack with the doors and the different colors. Chair Rafferty invited applicant to make comment. Steve Broyer, Ryan Companies representative, stated with respect to the sidewalk, he agreed with their discussions, but there was an agreement with Kohl’s to not have a sidewalk connection and the prope rty had been sold to Kohl’s. However, with respect to the sidewalk to the trash containers, he agr eed sidewalks should be added, as well as the sidewalks being proposed by Mr. Root and Ryan Companies would investigate this request. He stated the elevations did not represent what was exactly was going in, but staff had been given the information. He stat ed the rear exits to the building were for emergency exits only with a concrete st oop. He indicated they would be adding landscaping there also. Mr. Tralle asked if the deliveries would be ma de to the front of the buildings. Mr. Broyer replied that was correct. Chair Rafferty asked as a recommendation th at they bump out the ends of the two buildings by 3.5 feet on both ends to accent th e corners. Mr. Broyer replied that was a good suggestion and that was some thing they would explore. Chair Rafferty suggested they stay with the i ndentations in the bac k. Mr. Broyer replied that would not change. Chair Rafferty asked them to add lighting to th e middle of the buildings also and consider matching the adjacent brick with the bracket s, but not have painted brackets. He suggested they have these as wrapped pl astic or wrapped metal to make them maintenance free. Planning & Zoning Board June 8, 2005 Page 5 APPROVED MINUTES Mr. Pogalz stated he agreed with Chair Raffert y. He suggested they put lights in the back corners also. He stated he liked the elevati ons and believed this was going to be a nice looking project. He asked how the trash enclos ures would work. He asked if there would be a paved surface to pull the dumpsters down the road. Mr. Broyer responded they would have a paved area up to the sidewalk so tenants would wheel the trash out to the dumpsters. Chair Rafferty stated they needed to have door s on the trash enclosur e and suggested they use a material that could withstand “punishme nt” and was maintenance free. Mr. Broyer agreed with this suggestion. Mr. Tralle stated he liked the buildings and he commended them for their work on this. Mr. Nelson agreed with Mr . Tralle’s statement. Chair Rafferty agreed the backside should probably have additional landscaping. Chair Rafferty asked if they were willing to irrigate all sodded areas as well as the landscaping. Chair Rafferty invited anyone for or agai nst this proposal to make comment. Mr. Nelson made a MOTION to close the pub lic hearing at 7:36 p.m. and was supported by Mr. Hyden. Motion carried 6-0. Mr. Pogalz stated they needed to get in written form the additional items discussed tonight with respect to the condi tions of approval and denial. Chair Rafferty made the following recommendations: 8. Irrigation to include all s odding and planted areas. 9. Indentation of the rear elevations consistent with the floor plan. 10. Bump out both corner pieces in the same fashion as they bumped out the front elevations. 11. Maintenance free door enclosure on the tr ash enclosures, if possible, with complete review of tras h enclosures by staff. 12. Sidewalk extensions between buildings C and D east to west. 13. Painted crosswalks where sidewalk s are divided by the parking lot. Mr. Hyden requested staff look at the location of the trash enclosure and how the garbage haulers would get to the dumpsters. Chair Rafferty suggested the applicant also c onsider adding additional landscaping to the rear of the buildings. Mr. Nelson made a MOTION to recommend ap proval of an Amendment to Planned Unit Development, Marketplace Third Addition, loca ted at the NE corner of Lake Drive and Planning & Zoning Board June 8, 2005 Page 6 APPROVED MINUTES Apollo Drive, subject to the conditions as noted in staff’s June 8, 2005 report and including conditions 8-13 added by the Boar d and was supported by Mr. Tralle. Motion carried 6-0. VI. DISCUSSION ITEMS A. Sign Ordinance Te xt Amendment Request Staff stated the Community Development Dir ector received an application for a Zoning Text Amendment to allow additional wall sign age. This application did not include proposed text, and was therefore determined to be an incomplete application at this time. However, staff has discussed the proposal to allow additional wall signage and has determined that it would potentially support some amendments to th e current allowances in certain situations. Therefore, staff is w illing to work on drafting some text changes to encompass the purpose intended by the submitted application, with the direction of the Planning and Zoning Board. Staff is seeking the direction of the Pl anning and Zoning Board in regards to the following: -Should corner lots be allowed to have a dditional signage to a ddress both street frontages? -Should double fronted lots be allowed to have additional signage to address both street frontages? -Should multi-tenant buildings be allowed to have additional signage when located on a corner or double fronted lot? He noted staff would also l ook to eliminate the SC (Shoppi ng Center) reference within the sign code as well as a coupl e of other non-substantive errors that exist in the current text. Mr. Laden asked if this would include all bu sinesses in the City, including PUDs. Mr. Bengtson replied it would not include PUD’s and those businesses would need to specifically request a separate review. Mr. Laden stated he believed all businesses should be allowed to have signage on both street frontages. Mr. Hyden agreed. The Board agreed it was appropr iate to all double fronted lots to have additional signage to address both street frontages. The Board agreed with respect to multi-ten ant buildings tenants are only allowed to advertise on their ow n leased space. B. AUAR Update Planning & Zoning Board June 8, 2005 Page 7 APPROVED MINUTES Staff updated the Board on the AUAR. C. Temporary Signs Staff stated the P&Z has made some decisions and given di rection for drafting ordinance changes for several types of temporary signage, including banners, portable signs, window signs, pennants, and other miscellaneous temporary signs. Real estate signs are another aspect to the discussion on temporary signage. Last month’s package included parts of ordinances from se veral cities showing how they regulate signs for the sale and development of real estate. Staff presented their analysis. Mr. Laden expressed concern about the word ing on the signs and free speech and he requested staff look into this. Mr. Smyser re plied he would talk to the City Attorney about this. Mr. Pogalz asked if there was a time limit for the signs. Mr. Smyser suggested the signs be removed after the last unit was sold. D. VFW Chair Rafferty asked for an update on the VFW issues brought up at the last meeting. Mr. Grochala stated they have had a discus sion with the City Council regarding this, as well as contact with the neighborhood reside nts. He stated th ey had a temporary certificate of occupancy, which was up June 15 at which time they were suppose to have completed the entire site, including the park ing lot and dumpster site. He stated they were going to talk to them about additional sc reening to block the helicopter. He stated there were a number of buildi ng inspection issues that needed to be resolved and they were going to send a letter to the VFW tomorrow instructing them to complete the project in 15 days or the City would shut them down. He noted they had a change of leadership at the VFW and this new Commander was atte mpting to get up to speed. He indicated this would be an ongoing situation on this and it might reach the point that they would need to cash in a security a nd draw on the letter of credit. With respect to the mechanical stuff, it met the setback requirements and they could not do much about it, but they would request additional screening. Mr. Tralle stated he did not want to give the VFW any l eeway on this. Mr. Grochala stated he would be working with the City Attorney on this, but they still needed to have a discussion with the VFW to hear their side of the story. Mr. Tralle stated there was a lot of debris on site also, including beer bottles, and requested the VFW be informed that bottles ar e not to leave the inside of the building. Chair Rafferty noted this was a nice looking building, but the VFW needed to complete the project. Planning & Zoning Board June 8, 2005 Page 8 APPROVED MINUTES VII. ADJOURNMENT Mr. Hyden made a MOTION to adjourn the m eeting at 9:00 p.m., and was supported by Mr. Nelson. Motion carried 6-0. Respectfully submitted, Kathy Altman, Recording Secretary TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc .