Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/10/2005 P&Z Minutes CITY OF LINO LAKES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MINUTES DATE : August 10, 2005 TIME STARTED : 6:32 P.M. TIME ENDED : 10:18 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT : Hyden (arrived at 6:50 p.m.), Laden, Nelson, Pogalz, Rafferty, Root, and Tralle. MEMBERS ABSENT : None. STAFF PRESENT : Jeff Smyser; Mi chael Grochala; James Studenski; and Paul Bengtson I. CALL TO ORDE R AND ROLL CALL Chair Rafferty called the Lino Lakes Planning and Zoning Boar d meeting to order at 6:32 p.m., August 10, 2005. II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA The agenda was approved. III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: July 13, 2005 Mr. Tralle made a MOTION approve the Ju ly 13, 2005 Minutes and was supported by Mr. Nelson. Motion carried 5-0. IV. OPEN MIKE Chair Rafferty declared open mi ke open at 6:64 p.m. There was no one present for Open Mike Mr. Laden made a MOTION to close Open Mi ke at 6:35 p.m., and was supported by Mr. Tralle. Motion carried 5-0. V. ACTION ITEMS A. PUBLIC HEARING for Preliminary Plat, Final Plat, E.G. Rud & Sons, Inc., 6776 Lake Drive APPROVED MINUTES Planning & Zoning Board August 10, 2005 Page 2 APPROVED MINUTES Staff stated applicant had reque sted approval of a Preliminary and Final Plat for property located adjacent to the north east corner of Lake Drive and Hodgson Road. The applicant has already obtained Site and Building Plan Review approval administratively on July 18, 2005; executed a performance agreement for the site; and has pulled building permits for construction of a 25,000 square foot multi-tenant building on the site. The applicant is now pursuing a Preliminary and Final Plat to clean up the le gal descriptions and easement documentation on the subject property. The subj ect site was purchased from the City of Lino Lakes earlier this year. Staff presented their analysis and reco mmended approval subject to the following conditions: 1. The proposed addition is subject to Anoka County Highway Department requirements, review, and approval. Mr. Pogalz asked how many stores was the building. Mr. Bengston replied it was two stories with a drive out garage on the back side of the building. Chair Rafferty opened the public hearing at 6:37p.m. Chair Rafferty invited applicant to make comment. Jason Rud, President of E.G. Rud & Sons, asked if there were any questions. The Commissioners had no questions. Chair Rafferty invited anyone for or agai nst this proposal to make comment. There were no comments made. Mr. Nelson made a MOTION to close the pub lic hearing at 6:37 p.m. and was supported by Mr. Pogalz. Motion carried 5-0. Mr. Pogalz made a MOTION to recommend approval of the Pr eliminary Plat, Final Plat, E.G. Rud & Sons, Inc., 6776 Lake Drive, s ubject to the condition as noted in staff’s August 10, 2005 report and was supported by Mr. Tralle. Motion carried 5-0. B. Variance to rear setback from Ordinary High Water Level to build an addition to existing house, Benton Er ickson, 6868 W. Shadow Lake Drive Staff stated the Shoreland Ordinance for the City of Lino Lakes requires a 100-foot setback from the Ordinary High Water Line for any structure that is Unsewered. The applicant is proposing an addition to the existing single family dwelling at 6868 West Shadow Lake Drive that if approved w ould reduce that setback to 50.6 feet. Staff presented their analysis and re commended denial of the variance. Mr. Tralle asked if W. Shadow Lake Drive was scheduled for City sewer and water at some point in the future. Mr. Bengston responded there was a referendum that would Planning & Zoning Board August 10, 2005 Page 3 APPROVED MINUTES cause the redevelopment of the street and th e possibility of utilitie s being put in on W. Shadow Lake Drive, but it woul d not affect this applicati on and Mr. Erickson would still need to obtain the variance as they would be encroaching closer than the neighboring properties. Mr. Hyden arrived at 6:50 p.m. Chair Rafferty invited applicant to make comment. Brad Erickson, 6868 W. Shadow Lake Drive, stat ed they were upset with the City staff and summarized the process they had followed for this variance. He indicated they were over 100-feet from the lake. He noted they ha d worked closely with staff on this and had spent a lot of money for this variance and moved ahead with their plans. He stated he believed they had followed everything th e City staff had directed and he was disappointed the staff was reco mmending denial. He indica ted they had spent several thousand dollars on this, which they would not have done if they believed this would not be approved. He indicated he wanted to be treated the same as everyone else in the neighborhood. He stated he has lived in th e neighborhood for 25 years and has never had any problems with flooding or wa ter sitting in his yard. Chair Rafferty stated he belie ved staff was trying to help him through this variance, but unfortunately, the DNR was saying there were other ways of doing this. Mr. Erickson asked why was their neighbor allo wed to build a porch. He stated he did not believe his project would affect the lake quality. He noted the City and DNR until recently did not have any interest in the lake and if anything the residents had tried to improve the quality of the lake. He noted most of the main structure was set closer to the lake than he was. Chair Rafferty stated he had l ooked at his site and the guidelin es in place were to keep standardization and reducing a 100-foot setback to 50-feet, was pushing it. Mr. Erickson noted there were a lot of houses on the lake sitting on the setback and most of those houses were put in before setbacks were in place. Chair Rafferty noted the elevation for the 100-year flood was farther up in his yard. Mr. Erickson responded his neighbors had brought in f ill years ago to build up their yards, but he had no need to do that because he did not have flooding issues. Mr. Hyden asked if the 100-f oot setback would change if W. Shadow Lake Drive went on City sewer and water. Mr. Bengston replie d it would be reduced to 75-feet, but this property would still need a variance. Mr. Hyden asked if the neighboring house ha d gone through a similar process. Mr. Bengston replied staff had looked at this and there had been homes closer than 100 feet, but they had met the shoreline ordinance. He noted there were a couple of homes that were almost on top of the ordinary high water line that had been there for quite awhile. Planning & Zoning Board August 10, 2005 Page 4 APPROVED MINUTES Mr. Nelson inquired about the other lots ha d been filled and the high water lot having been moved. Mr. Bengston replied the DNR ha d not received any permits to bring in any fill for these other properties and if this had been done the DNR would investigate as to how this was permitted. Chair Rafferty inquired about the decks on the other two adjoining lo ts. He asked how were these structures able to be built. Mr. Bengston responded uncovered decks and porches were allowed to encroach into se tback areas and in this case the shoreline ordinance might not have been in effect when the decks/porches were built. Mr. Laden asked what the side yard set back was. Mr. Bengston repl ied it was ten feet. Mr. Laden asked if there was any reason why th e addition could not be built to the south. Mr. Bengston replied according to setback standa rds, it did not appear there would be any reason why the addition could not be built there, but there might be a drainage field on that side. He indicated they would need to talk to the applicant about this. Mr. Tralle made a MOTION to recommend denial of the Va riance to rear setback from Ordinary High Water Level to build an addi tion to existing house, Benton Erickson, 6868 W. Shadow Lake Drive based on the Findings of Fact as noted in staff’s July 14, 2005 report and was supported by Mr. Root. Mr. Root noted this was a tough decision and he understood everything the applicant said and applicant’s concerns, but they had to follow the rules. Mr. Nelson asked if applicant would have the opportunity to go back to the DNR because he believed applicant did have a hardship in this situation. Mr. Bengston responded applicant could contact the DNR, but noted the 1 00-foot setback was a City requirement. Mr. Nelson asked if the high water line could be moved to be more e quitable to the other lots. Mr. Bengston replied the only way for the line to change was if the DNR would change it by lowering the lake or allowing fill to be brought in, but he was not sure if the DNR would allow this. Mr. Nelson suggested the applicant pursue this with the DNR. Motion carried 6-0. C. Final Plat for Foxborough, Royal Oaks Realty, a 50-acre development south of Birch Street and east of Deerwood Lane, at the east end of Fox Road Staff stated the developer has changed the na me of this project from Fox Den Acres to Foxborough. The City Council approved the pr eliminary plat for the Fox Den Acres planned unit development on January 10, 2005 w ith Resolution 04-196. This project is the first to implement the new parks and open space plan through the use of a conservation development. The conservation development approach, while often discussed in Lino Lakes in the past, has not previously been pursued to the extent being seen on this project. Planning & Zoning Board August 10, 2005 Page 5 APPROVED MINUTES Staff noted the total site is 50 acres and th e permanent open space will include 28 acres, about 56%. The preservation of open space on this site will be an important step in the implementation of the community’s greenway vision. An overall conservation plan will lay out what actions must occur to conserve and restore specified na tural features of the site. The homeowners association will prepar e an annual implementation plan. The City will review each annual implementa tion plan to make sure it is consistent with the overall conservation plan. The City then will releas e funds for the activities described in the annual plan. Staff presented their analysis and recommended approval. Chair Rafferty invited applicant to make comment. Mike Black, Royal Oaks Realty, thanked staff for their work on this. He summarized the development for the Board. Chair Rafferty asked if there would be a homeo wners association. Mr. Black replied that was correct. Mr. Laden, made a MOTION to recommend ap proval of the Final Plat for Foxborough, Royal Oaks Realty, a 50-acre development south of Birch St reet and east of Deerwood Lane, at the east end of Fox Road and wa s supported by Mr. Nelson. Motion carried 6-0. D. PUBLIC HEARING for a Rezone to R-1 and GB, Preliminary Plat and MUSA Allocation, Pine Glen, 7930 Lake Drive Staff stated applicant has re quested approval of a 78-lot si ngle-family residential and 2 lot commercial subdivision entitled Pine Glen. The subject property is located on the east side of Lake Drive approximately 900 feet south of Main Street. The comprehensive plan guides the site for low density sewered re sidential use and it is currently zoned R-1X (Single Family Executive), R (Rural), and GB (General Business). Staff indicated the applicant’s request in cludes a Rezoning to R-1 (Single Family Residential) and GB (Gen eral Business); 44.78 acres of MUSA allocation; and a preliminary plat for the 78 reside ntial and 2 commercial lots. The applicant held a neighborhood meeting on Thursday, July 28 th , giving notice to neighbors using mailing labels supplied by the City of Lino Lakes Community Development Department. Staff presented their analysis and reco mmended approval subject to the following conditions: 1. Phase 1 of the project including 42 residen tial lots cannot be final platted until 2006. The final plat for phase 2 of the project including 38 residential lots cannot be final platted until 2007. Planning & Zoning Board August 10, 2005 Page 6 APPROVED MINUTES 2. A sign must be provided at the northern terminus of Street C and the southern terminus of Street B that indicate that the road is intended to continue in the future. 3. Homeowner’s Association documentation must be submitted with the final plat application. 4. Park dedication fees must be paid in accordance with the city fee schedule. 5. A site and building plan review must be completed for both of the commercial lots prior to any commercial activities on those sites. 6. All existing structures must be removed prio r to the approval of a final plat for any portion of Phase 1. 7. 4.08 acres of commercial MUSA is hereby a llocated to the commerc ial portion of the site. 8. 20.7 acres of residential MUSA for the year 2006, and 20 acres of residential MUSA for the year 2007 are hereby allocated to the residential por tion of the site. 9. City native seed mix must be used in a ll drainage ponds and we t areas and a 3-year management plan must be established with a reputable management company. 10. Right-of-way for Lake Drive shall be dedicated as 60 feet from centerline. 11. A 15-foot wide trail easement along Lake Driv e will need to be de dicated to the City prior to the City Council approving any fina l plat for the project. This easement will need to be outside the ultimate right-of-way width for Lake Drive. 12. A sidewalk or trail connecti ng the private trail system to the commercial site and ultimately to the Lake Drive trail must be built as part of the first phase of this development. 13. The project is subject to Rice Creek Watershed review and approval. 14. The project is subject to Anoka County Highway Department review and approval. 15. A temporary cul-de-sac must be provided at the southern terminus of Street C. 16. Plans depicting the integration of Street A into Lois Lane must be submitted and approved by the City Engineer. 17. The upland area of all lots must be c onfirmed to meet the 10,800 square foot requirement prior to the preliminary pl at being reviewed by the City Council. Mr. Root asked if a wood chip trail was acceptable. Mr. Be ngston replied because this was not a required trail, the deve loper could propose any type of trail material he wanted. Planning & Zoning Board August 10, 2005 Page 7 APPROVED MINUTES He noted the trail was meant to be used by th e residents of the development and the type of material they were intending on using w ould not impede drainage in the area. Mr. Root asked if the trail was underneath the utility lines. Mr. Bengs ton replied the trail would be 40-feet north of the utility lines. Mr. Root asked why the road could not go to the north and inquired about the spacing of the intersections. Mr. Stude nski responded Anoka County’s requirement was ¼ mile for any intersections for spacing. He noted staff tried to line things up for future intersections. Mr. Root asked if these distan ces were within ¼ mile. Mr. Studenski replied that was correct. He indicated they were waiting for Anoka County comments at this time. Mr. Tralle stated he had an issue with Stre et C going up to an existing home. He asked what are the chances of that ever getting ex tended over to James Street. Mr. Bengston responded the intention of staff was to provi de another access to potentially alleviate some of the traffic in this area, particularly the Lake Drive and Main Street extension. He stated if that would every happen, it would be up to the property owner who owned that home to sell the land for the street and he believed the developer has spoken with that property owner, but he did not know the result s of that discussion. He indicated they wanted to leave this open as a possibility in the future. Mr. Laden asked if the Street A would connect to Lois Lane. Mr. Bengston acknowledged it would connect to Lois Lane. Mr. Tralle asked what was on the back of Lo t 32. Mr. Bengston replied the back end was a drainage retention pond and the developer would make sure the residents knew the purpose of those ponds. Mr. Hyden asked if Vicky Lane would be cl osed off. Mr. Bengston responded their intention was to realign Vicky Lane. Chair Rafferty opened the pub lic hearing at 7:55 p.m. Chair Rafferty invited anyone for or agai nst this proposal to make comment. Mark Westling, 947 Lois Lane, stated the back of his property was on the other side of this proposed development. He asked if there had been a traffic analysis for the connection to Lois Lane and asked what type of a traffic increase they could expect on Lois Lane. He stated Lois Lane had no sidewalks and asked if they were increasing the amount of traffic, would sidewalks be added. He asked if there was a specific length for a cul-de-sac and why was one of the cul-de-s acs exceeding that length. He asked if the proposed trail was going to be on the develope r’s property, or would it be in the easement of the power line. He asked how set where they on the density. He noted they were proposing a higher density along the back of hi s property and asked if the lots could be increased to 100-feet wide. He asked if it would be possible to request the City vacate the Dupont easement, which would allow him to regain the 15-feet that was left on the Planning & Zoning Board August 10, 2005 Page 8 APPROVED MINUTES backside of his property line. He expressed concern about increasing the size of the road and asked why there were no sidewalks within the development. He noted it was difficult to go south on Lake Drive, especially on Fr idays and expressed c oncern about this new development adding to that problem. He asked for a list of the builders from the developer, which the developer had indicated he would provide. Chair Rafferty asked everyone to keep th eir comments to two minutes or less. Ken Dufresne, 940 James Street, stated the area was heavily wooded and strongly recommended the City require the builder to ut ilize as much of the existing vegetation as possible. He indicated if they utilized this property, it would be less impact on the existing neighborhoods. He asked the builder to use some restraint as to how they cleared land. He noted this would st and very well with the neighborhood. Joann Lahlum, 931 Lois Lane, expressed concer n with respect to traffic and the proposed semi-fore being put in at Lois Lane. She asked how would people access the four businesses and Public Park without doing a “U” turn or going down Lois Lane. John Humenansky, 989 Lois Lane, requested they deny the rezoning change and wait for a suitable development that incorporated the R-1 designation. He stated future plans for Lake Drive were currently unknown and traffic coming from the north would either have to make a “U” turn or go through the nei ghborhoods to get to the businesses, which would change the character of the neighborhood. He stated a major flaw in this plan was that there was no exit to the north. He di d not believe there had been enough study on the traffic flow and they did not have en ough information to pass this tonight. Brenda Talley, 963 Lois Lane, stated on Lois Lane the traffic was slow, but it was “hilly” and it was difficult to see. She expressed conc ern for the safety of the children in the neighborhood with these types of site lines. She expressed concern about accessing Lake Drive and the increase in traffic. She noted with additional stoplight s and stop signs this increased her commute time and she was require d to get to her employment within 30 minutes after she was called. She expre ssed concern about the density of the development. She expressed concern about the trail location and the possibility of increase in crime. She requested there be a nother option for the traffic. She stated she felt like they were getting squeezed out. She expressed concern about medians being put in Lake Drive. She asked if there was the possibility to shift the school zoning district because right now she had to send he r children to Forest Lake. Betsy Friesen, 975 James Street, expressed conc ern about the traffic. She stated they needed to consider the infrastructure first a nd not last. She noted Street A would be an uncontrolled intersection until Vicky Lane had been addressed. She stated it was very difficult to get out onto Lake Drive, especia lly on Friday nights. She noted the City needed to get a handle on the traffic and plan for the future, instead of planning backwards. Kevin Kuznia, 1018 Lois Lane, proposed to keep the Lois Lane neighborhood the way it was. He noted right now traffic was minimal. He stated if people knew they could go down Lois Lane to get to another connection, it would increase traffic and safety issues. Planning & Zoning Board August 10, 2005 Page 9 APPROVED MINUTES Trish Yotter, 874 Lois Lane, asked if ther e had been any consideration about the economic impact on th e existing neighborhoods. Chair Rafferty requested staff address the questions asked so far. Mr. Bengston stated it was up to Anoka Count y as to what was going to happen with Lake Drive and the City or developer had no cont rol over this. With respect to the traffic analysis on Lois Lane, there was not a study done on this because traffic was designed to go to the main entrance and exit point and tr aveling through Lois La ne was a longer route for the people to take. He stated it was not studied how many people would go through Lois Lane and this would be scientifically im possible to determine. With respect to the cul-de-sac, it was required to be no more than 500-feet. The trail was on the developer’s property, even though there was an easement in place. He stated the trail was within the tree and brush trimming area beyond the easement. With respect to the density level, this was guided by the Comprehensive Plan and th is property was well below the allowable level. With respect to vacating Dupont Av enue, this was a possibility and staff would need to look at this to determ ine if this was the best course of action, but if there was an application made, they would look at this. He noted no sidewalks were being proposed or required for this development. With re spect to the existing trees on the site, the developer had indicated they would try and pr eserve as many trees as possible as this would increase the properties values, but it mi ght not be possible to save all of the trees they would like to because of grading issues . He noted until they staked the properties, they would not know how many trees they would be able to preserve. With respect to the density, this was a low density residential a nd they were within and below those density levels. With respect to the north exit, Street C was set up to connect in the future, but as the developer did not own the property to the north, it was impossible to require the developer to provide this access. He stated it was their intent to provide as many access points as possible due to emerge ncy services being able to ac cess the area. He noted the Lois Lane access would provide a secondary a ccess into the area, as well as providing another access onto Lois Lane. Chair Rafferty invited applicant to make comment. Larry Olson, LSJ Engineering, stated they woul d put a list of builder s together that they would provide to staff. He noted this would probably not be a final list as the list of builders was usually not prepared as a part of the preliminary plat pr ocess, but this list would give a good representation of what they were proposing. He noted this plan had gone before staff for some time and initially this was going to be townhomes. He noted they had some size constraints, which did not allow them to be very creative. Mr. Laden asked if they would be open to th e possibility of provi ding a sidewalk through Street A. Mr. Olson replied he would br ing this up to the de veloper (23 LLC) for consideration. Mr. Tralle asked if there were any other developments 23 LLC has done anywhere else. Mr. Olson responded this was the first devel opment for 23 LLC, but some of the partners in 23 LLC were also the pa rtners for Clearwater Creek. Planning & Zoning Board August 10, 2005 Page 10 APPROVED MINUTES Chair Rafferty stated it would have been nice if they would have presented options at the neighborhood meeting. Mr. Ols on stated he was not at th e neighborhood meeting, so he did not know what was presented. Quinn Bergman, 990 Lois Lane, he asked the Boar d to addressed the fact that there were no plans to improve Lake Drive and to take into consider th e amount of traffic increase. He stated it was an inconvenience for him to get into his neighborhood at this time and did not believe people would not use Lois Lane as an access. He asked the Board to not approve this until a decision was made about Lake Drive. He indicated this was already a high density area with respect to traffic. Tom Weirns, 1015 Lois Lane, stated he had bought his land 22 years ago and he lived there because he wanted to not because he had to. He realized this had to be developed and requested this be developed properly with nice size home and lots and to leave Lois Lane the way it was and to not connect Lois La ne to this development. He stated he wanted to preserve what he had. He asked them to keep the two neighborhoods completely separate. Ray Radtke, 860 James Street, st ated James Street also had a lot of traffic going down it on a Friday night. Mr. Hyden made a MOTION to close the pub lic hearing at 8:48 p.m. and was supported by Mr. Pogalz. Motion carried 6-0. Mr. Hyden asked if this was currently zoned R1X. Mr. Smyser explained the zoning in this area, noting it was zoned RX and Rural. Mr. Root stated he believed there were some open issues including traffic. He requested an analysis at both Lois Lane the way it sits now and with the proposed Street A. He asked for the traffic counts at peak time. He stated until they understood better what Anoka County was going to do with the inters ection and Lake Drive, he was not sure he could vote on this tonight. He noted the de veloper was also not in attendance and he had some questions for the developer such as ha ving all of the properties complying with the R1X zoning. He stated he also wanted to know if the develope r would be willing to install sidewalks. He indicated because of these open issues, he wanted to see these answered first prior to voting. Mr. Bengston stated they had done a traffic st udy and he would provide this to the Board members. He noted there was no scientif ic basis for determining how many people would use Lois Lane as an access. He noted the traffic study had been reviewed by the City Engineer and they had approved this. Mr. Root stated he wanted to see the details of the traffic counts, the peak times, and the Lois Lane traffic also, as well as James Stre et and Vicky Street. Mr. Bengston responded he would get them copies to review. Planning & Zoning Board August 10, 2005 Page 11 APPROVED MINUTES Chair Rafferty stated he believed it would be inappropriate to approve this tonight until he had a better understanding as to what was going on with Lake Drive. Mr. Tralle noted he lived on the north side of the City and he knew about the traffic problems in this area. He indicated every Fr iday night he fights the traffic and the only way they were going to alleviate this probl em was for the residents to “bug” Anoka County about putting in a stop light at Lake Drive and Main St reet. He stated connecting Lois Lane and Street A was important to keep traffic flowing and allow emergency access and as P & Z members, they needed to make sure they did not create pockets where there was insufficient access. He stated he could not approve this tonight because of the unanswered questions. Mr. Nelson agreed with Mr. Tr alle to not dead end Lois Lane. He recommended Lois Lane be connected to Street A. He reque sted staff follow up with Anoka County as to their plans for Lake Drive and would they line up Vicky Lane as a part of this development. He stated he did not k now how requiring sidewalks in this new development would improve the traffic or pedestrian traffi c on Lois Lane. Mr. Pogalz stated he also agreed with the previous comments made. He noted traffic studies were difficult to unders tand and did not always make sense. He indicated these studies were not the perfect an swer, but to not connect Street A to Lois Lane would be a huge mistake and they needed to have this access. He stated he understood their concerns about the additional traffic and the safety of their children, but the developer had the right to develop his property. He noted the proposed density was pretty good considering they were originally going to propos e a townhouse development. He agreed this development had a ways to go from his point and they we re doing the best th ey could with their options. He stated they were not going to vot e for this tonight and the developer had to show up to answer their questions. He stat ed the Board would do everything they could for the existing neighborhood. Mr. Hyden stated he would like to see this development be more harmonious with the existing neighborhood, which meant having bigger lots and fewer homes. He noted development was inevitable, but they needed to plan a good development. He indicated there were things about this development that were very good, but they had a ways to go. He stated infrastructure w ould not happen until it got bad. He believed Anoka County did not have any plans until they saw that things were really bad and it would take a lot of public pressure on the County Commissioners to get anything done. He noted this was unfortunate, but that was the way the system worked. Mr. Pogalz asked what was the timeline on th is application. Mr. Bengston replied the application came in July, 2005 and they had 120-da ys to make a decision, so tabling this would not be an issue. Mr. Laden made a MOTION to table the Rezo ne to R-1 and GB, Preliminary Plat and MUSA Allocation, Pine Glen, 7930 Lake Dr ive and was supported by Mr. Tralle. Motion carried 6-0. Chair Rafferty recessed the meeting at 9:13 p.m . and reconvened the meeting at 9:22 p.m. Planning & Zoning Board August 10, 2005 Page 12 APPROVED MINUTES E. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING to Amend Sign Ordinance text to address temporary signage and additional wall signs Chair Rafferty continued the publ ic hearing at 9:23 p.m. Staff stated the Planning & Zoning opened the public hearing fo r the sign ordinance amendments at the July 13 meeting. The disc ussion raised a number of questions. Staff has reviewed the draft ordina nce and made revisions. The Boardmembers reviewed the revisions a nd made various comments and suggestions. Chair Rafferty invited anyone for or agai nst this proposal to make comment. There were no comments made. Mr. Pogalz made a MOTION to close the pub lic hearing at 9:46 p.m. and was supported by Mr. Tralle. Motion carried 6-0. Mr. Hyden made a MOTION to recommend ap proving the amended Sign Ordinance text to address temporary signage and additional walls signs with the changes made and forward this onto City Council and was s upported by Mr. Pogalz. Motion carried 6-0. F. PUBLIC HEARING to Amend the Zoning Or dinance to address metal panels on commercial buildings Chair Rafferty opened the pub lic hearing at 9:49 p.m. Staff stated the zoning ordinance includes re quirements for exterior building material. The existing text imposes only minimal restri ctions on building materials for commercial, industrial, and institutional bui ldings. The community standa rds regarding the quality of buildings have changed over time. Specifica lly, metal-skinned buildings that are or resemble pole barns no longer are acceptable. Th is type of construction is appropriate for agricultural uses or storage in rural areas. It is not acceptable for new commercial, industrial, or institut ional structures. Staff recommended approving the proposed amendments to the zoning ordinance. Mr. Root stated he believed this was too re strictive in an indust rial park area. Chair Rafferty asked if the metal was not structural, but it was allowable to add metal to the outside of an existing wall. Mr. Smyser replied that was correct. Mr. Root asked if two pieces of metal would be allowed. Mr. Smyser stated if it looked like a pole barn, it would not be allowed, even if they put something “pretty” on the outside. Chair Rafferty invited anyone for or agai nst this proposal to make comment. Planning & Zoning Board August 10, 2005 Page 13 APPROVED MINUTES There were no public comments made. Mr. Hyden made a MOTION to close the public hearing at 10:00 p.m. and was supported by Mr. Pogalz. Motion carried 6-0. Mr. Root stated he agreed with having no me tal pole barns, but he believed they were being too restrictive, which would discourage businesses from coming into the City and he would be voting against this. Mr. Laden asked if this was eliminating pol e barns throughout the City. Mr. Smyser replied this would only eliminate pole barns in industrial, commercial, and institutional buildings. He indicate d private residences would still be allowed to construct pole barns as long as they followed the current ordinances. Chair Rafferty stated he did not believe the City had enough la nd left to worry about this, but he appreciated staff was trying to address this. Mr. Laden asked if decorative metal panels we re allowed. Mr. Smyser replied they were. Mr. Pogalz made a MOTION to recommend amending the Zoning Ordinance to address metal panels on commercial buildings and was supported by Mr. Hyden. Motion carried 5-1 (Mr. Root opposed). VI. DISCUSSION ITEMS A. VILLAGE OF HARDWOOD CREEK DEVELOPMENT UPDATE (I-35E CORRIDOR) & SCHEDULE SPECIAL MEETING DATE Staff stated it is likely they will receive an application to amend the comprehensive plan to provide for the development of 360 acres in the I-35E corridor. Th is project will be large and somewhat complex. Staff anticipates it will be necessary to hold an additional, special P&Z meeting devoted excl usively to this project. The application likely will be considered at the normal September 14 meeting. Staff is requesting the P&Z members consider a special meeting on Tuesday, September 27. Mr. Laden stated he could not make the September 27 meeting, but he would be in attendance at the regular meeting. B. REQUIRING SIDEWALKS IN SUBDIVISIONS Mr. Root suggested they postpone this to a future meeting. C. AUAR UPDATE Mr. Smyser gave an AUAR update to the Board. Planning & Zoning Board August 10, 2005 Page 14 APPROVED MINUTES D. MEETING RULES Staff stated at the last mee ting, the question arose regardi ng adopting rules of conduct for public hearing. Staff contacted the City of Hugo and receiv ed information. These rules are presented as information for consideration only. VII. ADJOURNMENT Mr. Tralle made a MOTION to adjourn the meeting at 10:18 p.m., and was supported by Mr. Root. Motion carried 6-0. Respectfully submitted, Kathy Altman, Recording Secretary TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc .