Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/14/2005 P&Z Minutes CITY OF LINO LAKES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MINUTES DATE : September 14, 2005 TIME STARTED : 6:38 P.M. TIME ENDED : 11:45 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT : Hyden, Laden, Nelson, Pogalz, Rafferty, Root, and Tralle. MEMBERS ABSENT : None. STAFF PRESENT : Jeff Smyser; Michael Grochala; and James Studenski; 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 6:38 p.m., September 14, 2005. Chair Rafferty stated on behalf of the Planning & Zoning Board he expressed the Board’s sympathy for the family of Officer Silver a and requested a moment of silence in remembrance. II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA The agenda was approved. III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: AUGUST 10, 2005 Mr. Tralle made a MOTION approve the August 10, 2005 Minutes and was supported by Mr. Hyden. Motion carried 6-0. IV. OPEN MIKE Chair Rafferty declared open mi ke open at 6:40 p.m. There was no one present for Open Mike Mr. Hyden made a MOTION to close Open Mi ke at 6:41 p.m., and was supported by Mr. Pogalz. Motion carried 6-0. V. ACTION ITEMS APPROVED MINUTES Planning & Zoning Board September 14, 2005 Page 2 APPROVED MINUTES A. Planned Unit Development Final Pl an for Apollo Landing, Equinox Development LLP, 540 Lilac Street Staff stated Equinox Development was previo usly approved by the City Council (in the form of a Development Stage Plan) for a 5 lot commercial su bdivision on property located at 540 Lilac Drive. The applica tion included a Rezoning to GB (General Business), a Conditional Use Permit to allow a Planned Unit Development, a Development Stage Plan/Preliminary Plat, and allocation of commerci al MUSA reserve. The developer has now applied for a final plan for the hotel and is proposed for lot 1 of the plat. The final plat app lication includes the final buildi ng plans for the hotel as well as the final plat for the site. The developer will also include a restaurant pad on lot 5, a nd retail/commercial pads on Lots 2, 3, and 4. Those lots will be designated as outlots on the final plat and will be required to come back for final plan when building plans are prepared. Staff presented their analysis and recommended approval of the final plan for the hotel at Apollo Landing subject to the following conditions: 1. The first three feet of the ba se of the hotel must be c onstructed using belden brick, jewel blend as is called out currently as an alternate on the elevation. 2. The vinyl fence for the project must be a minimum of 80% opaque. 3. 20 additional parking spaces will need to be built within the subdivision to provide the minimum number of parking spaces for the proposed use. 4. Infiltration ponds must include city native seed mix, suppl emented with potted plants. 5. A three-year management contract with and experienced native plant establishment and maintenance company must be established. 6. All sodded areas must be irrigated. 7. Mulch for landscape areas must be wood chip mulch rater than rock mulch. 8. Substitute Red or Autumn Blaze maples for all Norway maples on the landscape plan. 9. A revised landscape plan depicting all of th e required changes in landscaping must be approved by city staff prior to the is suance of building permits for the site. Mr. Tralle stated having only three feet of base was not a tall e nough base and believed this would look out of propor tion. Mr. Bengston responded it was not the applicant’s intention the base would be brick and the archit ectural design standa rds did not require masonry materials for the base, but sta ff was recommending a three-foot base. Planning & Zoning Board September 14, 2005 Page 3 APPROVED MINUTES Chair Rafferty agreed this did not look right and believed it would be better to have all brick for the same portion being shown, or try an d identify another type of material that would be acceptable. Mr. Bengston stated the Design Standards talked about the base, but it did not specify what type of base, how ever the applicant was trying to meet the design standard by using a textured base. He noted at a minimum masonry was what they would like to see on this structure. Mr. Nelson asked if the rest of the coloring would be the same. Mr. Bengston replied the developer would need to answer this question. Mr. Laden asked if they could still require the base be higher than three feet. Mr. Bengston replied the Board could reco mmend a specific condition to meet the requirements. Mr. Laden asked if the three feet was a ma ndatory requirement. Mr. Bengston replied it was not a mandatory requirement because this was being worked on before the requirements were approved. Mr. Pogalz asked if this woul d be the tallest building in Li no Lakes if it was constructed as proposed. Mr. Smyser responded he did not k now of any other buildi ngs that were this tall, but it would not be unus ual for new buildings around a C ity Hall to be this tall. Mr. Pogalz asked if the Fire Department coul d reach the fourth story with the equipment they currently had. Mr. Bengston stated th e Fire Department received all of the applications and if they had a concern, they would have the opport unity to express their concern. Chair Rafferty stated he belie ved Eaglebrook Church was about this height also. Mr. Smyser replied that Church was very cl ose in height to this proposed hotel. Mr. Laden asked if they had any examples of the color renderings being proposed. Mr. Bengston replied they had and he show ed the proposed color renderings. Mr. Laden asked if the base material was da rk as depicted on the color rendering. Mr. Bengston replied it was similar to a brick color. Mr. Laden stated he believed the color differentiation as well as texture differentiation achieved the goal of the architectural standard s rather than the 3-foot high proposal. Mr. Laden asked if the cap was different iated enough. Mr. Bengston replied staff believed it was not quite as bold as it could be , but it did cap off the top of the building. Mr. Nelson stated he did not be lieve there was enough of a contra st in the color scheme. Mr. Root asked if there was a large surface, w ould the color contrast be more apparent. Mr. Laden noted the color differential would be different at various times during the day also. He stated the color scheme did not bother him. Planning & Zoning Board September 14, 2005 Page 4 APPROVED MINUTES Mr. Pogalz stated he believed they would see the color differential once it was on the large building. Mr. Nelson stated he would support the opinion of the professional architect. Mr. Tralle asked if the color on the top corn ice was different than the columns. Mr. Bengston replied he believed that was a sha dowing technique on the rendering and it was intended to be the same color as the columns. Mr. Tralle noted he liked the effect. Chair Rafferty invited the applicant to make comment. Craig Piette, 425 Arrowhead Drive, Lino Lakes, stated size and distance will give the proposed colors definition. Mr. Pogalz stated he understood why they we re not putting brick on the bottom, but he would like to see brick on the base. He not ed a brick base would not get damaged with lawn care and snow removal. He indicated it was better main tenance to have brick and it would keep the building looking good. Mr. Piette believed they were a step above any “shoddy” construction techniques. He stated the quality of the building was top not ch, with different colors and textures. He noted their position was that they trusted the manufacturer that the base is a solid construction technique and they had used the product many times in the past. Mr. Pogalz stated stucco looked great in many colors, but he still would prefer brick. He stated if they were not willing to go more th an three feet on the base, he would prefer the base was not put in at all because he be lieved the landscaping would cover up the base eventually anyway. He recommended they put more money into the landscaping. Mr. Piette stated he would also like to ha ve brick on the building, but in reality, he did not believe the numbers would come in fa vorable to putting brick on the building. Chair Rafferty stated the signal the Board wa s sending was that they did not want three feet in the base size. He believed the ba se product should include a thick skin as a protector, which would be a stronger produc t. He asked them to look into this suggestion. Mr. Tralle asked if they had met with Mr. a nd Mrs. Partridge regard ing the fencing. Mr. Piette stated they had met with them and he went out on the propert y to show them where the fence would be located. He noted the Partridge’s kitchen window was over 120 feet from the proposed fence. He stated they were still talking with them about this and it was an ongoing discussion. He indicate d he was willing to work with them to get their issues resolved. Chair Rafferty stated he did not understand where the extra 20 parking stalls would be put in. Mr. Piette replied they we re working with staff on this. Planning & Zoning Board September 14, 2005 Page 5 APPROVED MINUTES Chair Rafferty stated he believe d they could add an additional four or five trees along the road on the entrance. Mr. Piette responded they had considered all of this, but when they took into consideration the width of the entry area, as well as allowing room for pedestrians, as the trees mature, he belie ved the landscaping would be perfect. He indicated the distance would not be that much, especially with the ground cover around it. Chair Rafferty stated he would like to see trees closer than 50 feet and he asked staff to work on this. Chair Rafferty asked if they had specific colo rs for trim. Mr. Piette replied it would be bronze. Mr. Pogalz asked if the wi ndows would be tinted. Mr. Piette responded he was not familiar with the window treatments. Mr. Tralle stated he did not see why they wanted to put in 20 parking spaces right now and he did not think in the first year they would need the extra 20 parking spaces. He believed this was a moot point because there was not a call for the parking spaces at this time. Mr. Bengston stated they were trying to obtain the minimum parking required on the site, even though the parking stalls might not be used until some time in the future. Mr. Piette asked for clarification on staff r ecommendation number 1. He noted all of the environmental issues they had worked on and agreed to. He stated with respect to condition number 7, wood mulch, this was not the understanding they came away with after their meeting. He stated they were intending on using river washed rock around the perimeter in the nonplanted areas. The wood mulc h would be used in th e planted areas. Chair Rafferty asked if they could do wood mu lch. Mr. Piette responded they would not object to this, but it would be a mess. However, he noted it would be cheaper for them to put in mulch rather than rock. Chair Rafferty stated they would still need to maintain the mulch by replacing it every couple of years, if not annually. He asked if the landscaping would be irrigated. He expressed concern the landscaping would not be maintained sufficiently. Mr. Bengston stated they could reword the condition to include all sodded and landscaped areas must be irrigated. Mr. Laden stated in his opi nion you used mulch in plante d areas, but areas without plantings, he did not believe they should requ ire mulch and he would not object to rock in those areas. Mr. Bengston stated with respect to Condition 1, he would recommend the Board strike the proposed language and add the following lan guage: The Board encourages the use of brick for the entire base of the hotel. Planning & Zoning Board September 14, 2005 Page 6 APPROVED MINUTES Mr. Laden asked if they should require the en tire 11 feet as shown on the elevation. Mr. Piette stated it was their t hought that as long as the produc t was approved by the City, it was their position they could use it. Mr. Root stated a three-foot brick face did very little and from a distance it would not enhance the site. He stated it was proportionate to have the 11-foot contrast on the front and it did not matter if it was brick or stucco. He stated in his opi nion either one of the materials worked fine, but he would like to s ee the contrast with whatever material they used. Mr. Laden agreed and believed the face needed to be differentiated. He stated if the ordinance was written that th ere was a required three-foot base, then he believed staff needed to look at this, especia lly since they were looking at taller buildings in the City. Mr. Bengston stated this was being proposed as one of the Ordinances, but Council had the discretion to require a larger ba nd of material as the base. Mr. Tralle asked about signage . He asked if the only si gnage on the building was out front. Mr. Piette stated he c ould not quote the sign plan. Mr. Bengston stated the sign standards were in the signage requirements and they would need to meet the standards. He noted they would be required to request a sign permit for any proposed signage. Chair Rafferty stated Condition number 1 w ould be changed to: The developer is encouraged to use the alternate brick material for the entire base of the building. He indicated staff was going to work with applicant on the fence issue. He stated they would also work on the 20 additional parking spaces . He noted condition number 6 would read: All sodded and landscaped areas must be irrigated. Mr. Tralle made a MOTION to recommend approval of the fi nal plat for the hotel at Apollo Landing subject to the conditions as noted in staff’s September 14, 2005 report and as revised at tonight’s meeting was supported by Mr. Nelson. Motion carried 6-0. B. Rezone to R-1 and GB, Preliminary Plat and MUSA Allocation, Pine Glen, 7930 Lake Drive Staff stated the Planning and Zoning Board held the public hearing for 23, LLC’s request for a 78-lot single-family residential and 2 lot commercial subdivisi on entitled Pine Glen at the August 10, 2005 regular meeting. The publ ic hearing was closed, some direction was given to staff and the developer in regard s to the concerns of both the public and the Board, and the item was tabled. This item is now being brought forth with some revisions and a dditional information. The request has been modified to include R ezoning to R-1X (Single Family Executive) and GB (General Business); 63.81 acres of MUSA allocation; and a preliminary plat for 72 residential and 2 commercial lots. Planning & Zoning Board September 14, 2005 Page 7 APPROVED MINUTES 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 residential use and it is currently zoned R-X (Rural Executive), R (Rural), and GB (General Business). The applicant held a neighborhood meeting on Thursday, July 28, giving notice to neighbors using mailing labels supplied by the City of Lino Lakes Community Development Department. Staff presented their analysis and recommende d approval of the rezoning to R-1X (Single Family Executive) and GB (General Busine ss); Pine Glen Preliminary Plat; and MUSA allocation, subject to the following conditions: 1. Phase 1 of the project including 40 residentia l lots can not be final platted until 2006. The final plat for phase 2 of the project in cluding 32 residential lots can not be final platted until 2007. 2. A sign must be provided at the northern terminus of Street C and the southern terminus of Street B that include that the ro ad is intended to continue in to 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. 20.49 acres of residential MU SA for the year 2006, and 24.29 acres of residential MUSA for the year 2007 are he reby allocated to the residential portion 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 of the ultimate right-of-way width for Lake Drive. Planning & Zoning Board September 14, 2005 Page 8 APPROVED MINUTES 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 outlots shown on the plat must be turn ed over to the City, but shall in no way reduce the park dedication fees required for the project. 18. Lot 23 of Block 3 and Lot 13 of Block 2 must be increased in area to meet the 12,825 square foot minimum lot area of the R-1X (Single Family Executive) zoning district. 19. Full engineering plans must be submitted for City staff review prior to this item being scheduled for the City Council. Mr. Hyden asked where the screening would be located. Mr. Bengston replied there was no specific requirement for screening between two residential uses. He indicated there was not additional screening being proposed. Mr. Hyden believed the trip generation estimat es appeared low and he requested staff review the numbers. Mr. Pogalz asked if the street widths were something they needed to add as a condition. Mr. Bengston stated that should be added as an additional condition. Mr. Pogalz stated number 20 would read: Streets to be 32 feet from back of curb to back of curb. Mr. Pogalz asked for clarification on condi tion 17. Mr. Bengston replied the outlots would be turned over to th e City for City ownership. Mr. Rafferty asked if the trail on the outlot would be the City’s responsibility or the developer. Mr. Bengston replied the greenwa y area would be turned over. He amended condition 17 to read: The green way Outlot, instead of the Outlo ts. He noted the path as shown should be a private path used by th e development, which would be a woodchip trail and the Park Commission would determine if there was a need for a fully developed City trail for a portion of this site to link this development to the park along Lake Drive. Mr. Tralle stated he wanted the trail to be installed to the City standard. Mr. Bengston replied this trail would not serve the en tire City and therefore staff was not recommending it be installed to the City standard. Planning & Zoning Board September 14, 2005 Page 9 APPROVED MINUTES Mr. Tralle stated he believed the trail would be used by resi dents other than the 72 people in this development. He believed people on Lo is Lane would also use this trail. He stated if they did not install this trail pr operly, it would never get installed properly. He indicated he wanted this to be made a public paved trail. Mr. Laden stated if the developer was willing to do the trail to City standards, would this then be a private trail. Mr. Tralle stated he did not want this tr ail exclusive to this development and he wanted it to be a public trail to be used by everyone. Chair Rafferty noted just because the trail wa s constructed, did not mean the City had the means to take care of it, but he agreed the pa th should be a City owned path. He believed the residents from Lois Lane would use the path and it would not be used exclusively by this development only. He stated the questi on was how they could require the developer to do this because he was alrea dy paying a fee for the parks. Mr. Tralle replied they could determine the cost of the trail and then deduct that amount from the park dedication fee. Mr. Bengston replied this trail was not on the parks and trails plan the City was looking to pursue in the future and staff believed this would be a minimal impact on the trail layout for the Ci ty and would not be used by all of the residents. Mr. Tralle stated now was the time to start laying out trail for the north end of the City and if it took money out of the park funds, this should still be done. Mr. Laden stated just because this was not on the parks and trails plan, did not mean they should not put in a trail when the opportunity arose. Mr. Nelson stated he believed the reason they were giving the City an Outlot was to eventually tie in the trail system. Mr. Hyden asked how residents who wanted to would bike to The Le gacy at Woods Edge development get there. Mr. Bengston replie d staff believed there was sufficient road connections for the residents to use to get to that development. Chair Rafferty requested they add a Condition 21 to read: The Boardmembers feel very strongly this should be a City paved trail w ith the appropriate funds being deducted from the park dedication fees. Mr. Root asked if the greenway Outlot woul d only be Outlot C. Mr. Bengston responded that was correct. He believed a woodchip was not an appropriate trail for serving a neighborhood such as this, even if it was a privat e trail. He stated he also believed this should be a public trail. Mr. Laden asked why did the traffic study us e traffic generation numbers of 2005 and not 2007 when the project would be completed. Mr. Studenski replied when the traffic analysis is done, they prepare it at the time the project is proposed and they do not extend it out to when it was completed. He noted this was the standard practic e. He stated there was no guarantee that the timefra me would be 2007 either. He stated it was difficult to determine the timeframe. Planning & Zoning Board September 14, 2005 Page 10 APPROVED MINUTES Mr. Pogalz asked if this was an industry standard. Mr. Studen ski replied that was correct. Chair Rafferty invited the developer to make comment. Mike Quigley, 23 LLC, apologized for not being ab le to attend last month’s meeting. He noted he had a family medical emergency that evening. He stated hi s plans depicted the R-1X standard. He stated this was a differe nce of 6 lots from the R-1 standard. To address the trail, he was looking for some dir ection on the trail and it was their intent the greenway system to cover Outlots A, B, and C to be turned over to the City and have the trail as a public trail. He stated he woul d be willing to pave the trail, if there was consideration given on the park dedication fee. With respect to traffic, the figures were the same standard used on all traffic studies. Mr. Pogalz asked if they were still seeking the 78 lots. Mr. Quigley stated he wanted to know from the Board which direction they s hould go. He stated he was presenting what they provided as an alternative. Mr. Hyden noted they wanted to see a bl end between the current neighborhood and the new development. Chair Rafferty believed R-1X was the directi on they were looking at. He stated while this was not perfect, they want ed to make the blend as be st as possible and while he would like the number to be smaller, the rule is what it is. Mr. Hyden agreed with Chair Rafferty. Mr. Laden asked if there was a possibility of a sidewalk on Street A. Mr. Quigley stated in his mind, it was either a trail or a sidewalk, but not both. Mr. Laden stated he would agree to forego th e sidewalk, as long as the trail was paved. Mr. Quigley stated they did not want a private trail and they were willing to pave the trail as long as there was considera tion on the park dedication fees involved. He stated there was sufficient right-of-way for the wider stre et also. He indicated the previous plan showing the narrower street was in error. Mr. Root stated he also wanted a paved tr ail and hoped it would be a public trail. He suggested they make this recommendation to th e City Council. With respect to the R-1X, he believed this was appropriate. Chair Rafferty asked if anyone in the audience wanted to make comments. Jolie Lahlum, 931 Lois Lane, stated she was excited about the tra il being made public. She asked if they put a stop light on Street A, how would the access to the retail and park area work. She noted the VFW and the park were busy on the weeke nds and if the only way for them to have access to those areas were through Lois Lane, there should be another conduit or service road in order fo r them to access the retail areas. She noted there was an opportunity to do this in the power line easement. Planning & Zoning Board September 14, 2005 Page 11 APPROVED MINUTES Mr. Hyden made a MOTION to recomme nd Rezoning to R-1X (Single Family Executive) and GB (General Business) and was supported by Mr. Nelson. Motion carried 6-0. Mr. Lyden asked if it was appropriate to appr ove the sketch plan. Mr. Bengston stated it was appropriate, but recommende d adding Condition 22: The preliminary plat be revised to meet all R-1X standards. Mr. Quigley stated he was okay with the conditio ns as discussed. He stated he would like Condition 3 struck as there would not be a Homeowner’s Association. Mr. Bengston replied this Condition could be struck because the Outlots were going to be deeded to the City. However, if there were outlots to be maintained, then this condition would still apply. Mr. Bengston revised Condition 17 to read: All outlots shown on the plat shall be turned over to the City, but shall in no way reduce the park dedication fees required for the project. Mr. Quigley stated one of the goals they were trying to accomplish in the trail was for consideration to the people to the south and he felt there was more value than just the trail and there is a value to the land also which they should receive consideration for. He stated the upland the path is on had a value. Mr. Bengston stated th is would be reviewed by the Park Board and it would be up to th em to come up with a recommendation for the park dedication fees. He believed the Board’s recommendations were okay at this point and let Council look at both the P&Z a nd the Park Board’s recommendations and determine which the appropriate way to go was. Mr. Tralle suggested they leave this as written and let this go to the Park Board and City Council for their decision. He noted whether the path went in or not, there where the three Outlots going to go to the City. Mr. Qu igley stated there was never a determination to have a Homeowner’s Association and th is was meant to be a public area. Mr. Bengston stated the conditions as written were the staff’s recommendation and the Board did not necessarily have to have an agreement with the developer. Chair Rafferty stated he would like to leave Condition 17 as it was. Mr. Quigley stated he would like to m ove forward and obtain the Park Board’s recommendation. Mr. Root stated he was prepared to vote on the conditions as agreed upon. He noted this discussion was not pr ogressing forward. Mr. Tralle made a MOTION to recommend approval of Pine Glen Preliminary Plat subject to the conditions as noted in st aff’s September 14, 2005 re port striking Condition No. 3, leaving Condition 17 as it was written in staff’s report, and adding Conditions 20, Planning & Zoning Board September 14, 2005 Page 12 APPROVED MINUTES 21, and 22 as discussed at tonight’s meeting and reco mmending approval of MUSA allocation and was supported by Mr . Root. Motion carried 6-0. Chair Rafferty recessed the meeting at 9:25 p.m . and reconvened the meeting at 9:40 p.m. C. PUBLIC HEARING, to Amend the Planne d Unit Development for Legacy at Woods Edge to include a hotel as a permitted use Chair Rafferty opened the pub lic hearing at 9:40 p.m. Staff stated Hartford Group has requested plans for a hotel wi thin the Legacy at Wood’s Edge project. The previously adopted Li no Lakes Town Center Design & Development Guide did not include a hotel as one of the permissible uses in Chapter 3.1. A hotel would be a positive addition to the proj ect as it would offer a diversity of uses and additional users for the businesses loca ted within the project. A hotel is an appropriate mix with retail and office, and is considered a permissible use within the GB (General Business) zoning district by the zoni ng ordinance. GB (G eneral Business) is a standard commercial zoning cl assification for the City a nd allows commercial uses similar to what would be allowed within the commercial districts of the Legacy project. Staff feels that this omission was not meant to prohibit the use within the Commercial and Mixed Use districts, but ra ther was just an oversight at the time. In fact the guidelines contain a parking standard for a hot el, which would indicate it was a use that was anticipated within the development. Sta ff has had discussions regarding hotels in the Legacy project as far back as when Calthorpe was still involved in the project. Staff has even had discussions with the City Council at work session were the use was proposed and met no specific objections at the time. Staff recommended approval of the amendmen t of the Lino Lakes Town Center Design and Development Guide to add Hotel as a permissible use within the Commercial Districts. 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 9:42 p.m. and was supported by Mr. Root. Motion carried 6-0. Mr. Hyden asked if a hotel would fit in this area. Mr. Bengston replied staff felt it would be an appropriate mix and use within this deve lopment. He noted th is has been discussed with the City Council at a Worksession also. Mr. Hyden stated it seemed to him to be out of place, but on the ot her hand it was a retail area, so it might not be out of place. He i ndicated it belonged, but it didn’t belong either. He stated he did not object to another hotel in the City, but he was not sure it would be supported. Planning & Zoning Board September 14, 2005 Page 13 APPROVED MINUTES Mr. Lyden stated the whole concept for this ar ea was for mixed uses and he believed this was an appropriate use for this area. He as ked if staff was certain they should strike mixed use districts. Mr. Bengston replied it was staff’s recommendation to limit the hotel to Commercial Districts. Mr. Tralle stated he was surprised this had come up because he had always thought it was a part of the or iginal plan. Mr. Pogalz stated he was also surprised and stated if they were going to have a hotel, what was submitted had a long ways to go befo re approval and stated the guidelines had to be followed. Bob Moberg, SEH Engineering, clarified what was being pr oposed and the mixed use areas. Mr. Laden made a MOTION to recomme nd approval of the PUD Amendment – Permissible Uses Hartford Development, Inc. and was supported by Mr. Root. Motion carried 6-0. D. PUBLIC HEARING, to Amend the Planne d Unit Development for Legacy at Woods Edge to include signage criteria Staff stated they are working with the developer to come up with an acceptable signage criteria for the Legacy at Wood’s Edge proj ect. They had intended on presenting a draft at this meeting, however it has proven to be more difficult and time consuming than originally anticipated. At this time a draf t is not ready for review by the Planning and Zoning Board. Staff is recommending that the Public Hearing be continued to the October 12, 2005 Planning and Zoning Board meeting. Chair Rafferty opened the pub lic hearing at 9:50 p.m. There were no comments made. The Board continued the public hearing to the October 12, 2005 Planning and Zoning Board meeting. E. Planned Unit Development Final Plan for Legacy of Woods Edge 1. Site Plan Review Staff stated the Hartford Group has applied for a Planned Unit Development final plan for a hotel within the Legacy at Wood’s Edge project located on the southeast quadrant of Interstate 35W and Lake Drive. The final plan consists of the building plans for the hotel as well as the final plat for the lot (Village No. 4). Staff presented their analysis and recomme nded continuing this item to the October 12, 2005 meeting. Planning & Zoning Board September 14, 2005 Page 14 APPROVED MINUTES Mr. Pogalz indicated there needed to be some level of detail given to the backside of the building due to the placement of it on the lot. Mr. Root asked if the architectural feature on the corner of the lot was going to be included in this plan or was it separate with the site plan. Mr. Bengston responded there was an architectural feature where the road curves to the east that was something not shown on the plans. He stated they have rede signed the lots in this area to enlarge the area for the hotel and it was sta ff’s intention to have more em phasis put on the street side entry. Mr. Tralle asked if the shutters were in the approved standards. Mr. Bengston stated staff has had a lot of debate about the shutters and depending upon the types of materials used, shutters could meet the standards, but if they cannot meet the materials required, they would not be allowed to use the shutters. Chair Rafferty stated he was confused as how this hotel’s design would fit into The Legacy at Woods Edge development. He indi cated this needed to be looked at very strongly. He stated this hotel design was colonial and he was not sure it fit into this area. He asked staff to look at this. Mr. Laden stated he agreed with the comments and it did not seem to fit into what else was in The Legacy at Woods Edge development. Mr. Grochala stated they had al ways considered this building lot site for a hotel and while they would love to have the Country Inn Suites, the building style had to fit into the style of the development and the colonial style di d not fit into what they wanted for the development. He stated the shutters were a concern and staff would like to see them removed in their entirety. He stated if they had some specific questions for the developer, Patrick was in a ttendance at tonight’s meeting. Mr. Tralle asked if Country Suites could not have their shutters, was the hotel gone. Patrick Sarver, stated he c ould not speak for the architect , but Country Inn Suites did have some very specific guidelines for the l ook and style of their bu ilding. He noted their architect was in the process of looking at the footprint of th e building upon staff’s suggestion. He stated this was a unique building and there was an architecturally significant feature on the back of the building, which was a fu ll cultured stone façade. He stated the gable bends on both sides and the exterior treatm ent feature was upgraded. He believed they would be pleased with what wa s going to come back to them at the next meeting. Mr. Nelson stated by having a di stinct base might go a long way in breaking up the three layers of shutters. He stated thr ee layers of shutters were too much. The Board continued the Final United Deve lopment Final Plan for Legacy of Woods Edge to the October 12, 2005 Pla nning and Zoning Board meeting. 2. PUBLIC HEARING, for a Conditional Us e Permit to allow outdoor dining, and a Site Plan Review, for Betty’s Pies Restaurant Planning & Zoning Board September 14, 2005 Page 15 APPROVED MINUTES Chair Rafferty opened the public hearing at 10:10 p.m. Staff stated the Hartford Group has applied for a Planned Unit Development final plan for a single tenant restaurant w ithin the Legacy at Wood’s Edge project located on the southeast quadrant of Interstate 35W and Lake Drive. The final plan consists of the building plans for the restaurant building as well as the final plat fo r the lot (Village No. 4). Betty’s pies is a full service restaurant that meets the intent of the City’s vision for a family-oriented, neighborhood gathering place in the new mixed use downtown. Owners, Marti Sierber and Carl Ehlenz, run the Two Harbors, Minnesota, destination restaurant and this will be their first expansion into the metro area. Staff reviewed their analysis and recommende d this be continued to the October 12, 2005 regular Planning and Zoning Board meeting. Mr. Nelson asked if there was any concern with outdoor dining. Mr. Bengston replied the City encouraged outdoor dining when it wa s appropriate so it created more of an urban feel, with a vibrant lifestyle for the ar ea. He stated it was a matter of determining that all of the conditions could be met on the site. Mr. Pogalz asked where the outdoor furniture would be stored duri ng the off-season. He asked if they did not have room to store th e moveable outdoor furniture would they be required to move it offsite to st ore it, or store it inside th e building. Mr. Bengston replied they would be required to store it inside the building, or offsite at a storage facility. Mr. Tralle asked if there would be sunken tanks for drainage in the parking lots. Mr. Bengston responded that was still in cluded as a part of the plan. Mr. Grochala noted there was a different product out now and in this parking lot they will install a different system using some different drainage techniques. He noted the YMCA parking lot would still have the sunken tanks for drainage in the parking lot. The Board continued the public hearing to th e October 12 regular Planning and Zoning Board meeting. Chair Rafferty asked for public comments. Mr. Hyden made a MOTION to continue th e Public Hearing to the October 12, 2005 Planning and Zoning Board meeting and was supported by Mr. Pogalz. Motion carried 6- 0. 3. Site Plan Review for Lakewood Apartments Staff stated the Hartford Group has applied for a Planned Unit Development final plan for an apartment building with first floor multi-tenant retail within the Legacy of Wood’s Edge project located on the southeast quadrant of Interstate 35W and Lake Drive. The Planning & Zoning Board September 14, 2005 Page 16 APPROVED MINUTES final plan consists of the building plan for th e apartment building as well as the final plat for the lot (Village No. 4). One of the goals of the mixed use downtown is to provide a variet y of housing types and costs to meet life cycle housing needs that ar e not currently available in Lino Lakes. The development agreement between the Lino Lakes Economic Development Authority (EDA) and Hartford Group, the developer of the workforce housing, includes housing covenants. The housing covenant s include an affordability cl ause that requires that 20 percent of the housing units built on the development property as a whole must beet affordability requirements. Of that 20 percent, 67 percent must be rental units that meet the income and rent requirements for federal low-income tax credits. This 60-unit workforce rental housing meeti ngs the 67 percent requirement. In addition, affordable rental housing must meet the following requirements: 1. The developer must retain an experi enced, professional property manager, approved in writing by the EDA. 2. The management agreement must require that the manager will use resident selection criteria that include evidence that tenants have income to support their rental rate, rental history showing timely payment of rent, and criminal background checks. 3. The management agreement must include a plan for long-term maintenance and repair of the property. Staff presented their analysis and recomme nded continuing this item to the October 12, 2005 meeting. Mr. Pogalz stated between the hotel and apar tment building these were two very different building types and asked how this would look. Chair Rafferty stated he wanted to see some variety. He did not want it too busy and suggested they have a larger variation in the roofs. He cautioned them to not experiment with too many different products. Mr. Laden asked how much commercial th ey were giving up by allowing ground floor residential. Mr. Bengston responded the north portion of the build ing was being taken up by residential, which was over 9,000 square feet. Mr. Laden expressed concern they might be losing too much commercial space. Mr. Bengston noted across the street would be tow nhomes, so it would blend in with that area and that was the reason staff was recommendi ng first floor residential in this area. Patrick Sarver, stated one of the reasons w hy they deleted some of the retail along the north portion was by putting residential on that end they could do some architectural tricks to the elevation of that building. The Board continued the Planned Unit Devel opment Final Plan – Lakewood Apartments to the October 12, 2005 Planning and Zoning Board meeting. Planning & Zoning Board September 14, 2005 Page 17 APPROVED MINUTES 4. Final Plat for Village No. 4 Staff stated Hartford Development has submitted a final plat for Village No. 4, which encompasses Outlots A, and E of Village No. 3. The submitted plat depicts 7 lots and three outlots. Block 1 will consist of four lots. Lot 1 is intended for the apar tment/retail building, and Lot 4 is intended for the hotel. Lot 2 and 3 (and Outlot A) are intended for future buildings. Block 2 will consist of three lots. Lot 1 is intended for the shared parking area, Lot 2 is intended for Betty’s Pies, and Lot 3 is inte nded for a future user. Two outlots are included that will also be for future uses. The title commitment for the property and fi nal plat has been forwarded to the City Attorney for review. Staff recommended continuing the Final Pl at, Village No. 4 to the October 12, 2005 Planning and Zoning Board meeting. The Board continued Final Plat, Village No. 4 to the October 12, 2005 Planning and Zoning Board Meeting. F. PUBLIC HEARING, for Comprehensive Plan Amendment for Village of Hardwood Creek Chair Rafferty opened the public hearing at 10:42 p.m. Staff stated they have received an applic ation from Village of Hardwood Creek, LLC, to amend the comprehensive plan. A public hear ing is required for a comprehensive plan amendment. A comprehensive plan amendmen t requires a formal vote. The application also includes a general concep t plan for a planned unit deve lopment. The concept plan review is informal and does not require a vote. The amendment to the comprehensive plan w ould involve a number of elements. The growth management policy, laid out in Ordi nance No. 24-04 was prepared to implement the intent of the comprehensive plan. Th e growth management policy requires that several issues be addressed if the City is to accommodate this application. This project application is the first one that requires an amendment to the comprehensive plan as directed by the growth management ordinance. Review of the relevant parts of the comprehensive plan resulted in recommenda tions to add or change several passages. This application does not include a planned uni t development or preliminary plat. It does not include the detailed information normally pa rt of such application. Because of this, staff cannot analyze the projec t to see if it would qualify for the exemptions to certain growth management limits as a conservation development. In addition, there are some limits from which staff cannot grant exemp tions. Therefore, a comprehensive plan Planning & Zoning Board September 14, 2005 Page 18 APPROVED MINUTES amendment is needed to address growth issues as well as changing the land use designation for the site. Staff anticipates this application will re quire additional consideration beyond this meeting, so a special meeting of the P&Z ha s been arranged for September 27 for further discussion. Staff reviewed their analysis and recomme nded the Board open the public hearing, take comments, and continue the public heari ng to the special meeting on September 27. Mr. Laden asked what was the City gaini ng by allowing this. Mr. Smyser replied on page 7 of his report addressed this item. Mr. Laden stated he was concer ned that the language of the text stated it “may include, but not limited to”. He asked if this was opening the door to o wide. Mr. Smyser responded that was a good point and the language might need to be revised. Mr. Nelson believed the intent was to leave it somewhat open and leave it to the City’s discretion and he believed they met the criteria. Mr. Laden stated he was not argu ing that this project did not meet the criteria, but he was concerned how this might affect ot her potential developments as well. Mr. Laden stated he was in favor of what he saw and amending the Comprehensive Plan and moving forward with this. He noted he would not be in attend ance at the September 27 Special Meeting. Chair Rafferty stated he would like to hear from the audience members and indicated due to the lateness of the hour, he would like to continue staff’s comments to the special meeting. Chair Rafferty invited the pub lic to make comment. Greg Hayes, developer, showed the Board wh at was changing in the zoning. He asked the Board if they had any questions. He noted they would come back to the Board with the specific site details in the future. He indicated the Board would see a lot more modifications and changes as time progresses. Mr. Nelson asked if they owned the land to the south of the development. Mr. Hayes replied they did not own the land, but they had permission to put in th e road and this fit road fit into Centerville ’s long-range plans. Chair Rafferty stated in the commercial park way area it talked about a roadway as being 24 feet. He asked what the typical parkway type roadway was. He asked if this fell in line with City standards. Mr. Smyser re sponded how these streets would be laid out would be examined as part of the PUD and pl at application, which they were not looking at yet. He indicated they would have to see what happened and the developer was simply Planning & Zoning Board September 14, 2005 Page 19 APPROVED MINUTES showing some options at this time and was not asking for any type of approval on the roads. Mr. Hayes stated the Board would approve thes e types of things in the planning process and they were simply showing this inform ation to assist the Board in seeing what something like this would look like. Mr. Laden stated in looking at the Carriage Homes, he would be looking more for a theme as presented in the center picture. Mr. Root stated this looked very nice, but how congruent was it that a couple of big box stores would come into this development. Mr. Hayes stated the theme they wanted to start with was like the Blaine Village and expand from there. Mr. Root stated The Village di d not have a residential component. Mr. Hayes stated he realized that and they tried to buffer the re sidential area with a lot of green space. He stated this again was a detail plan decision and they had done this in other projects, which had been well received. Mr. Nelson asked if they were planning the wa terway and the bridge as a transition area between the residential areas and the commercial areas. Mr. Hayes replied that was the intent to create a transition in the project bo th functionally and visually. He noted they were looking forward on working on the details of this project. Chair Rafferty asked if they were going to go into an in dept h study at the Special meeting. Mr. Hayes replied the purpose of the meeting was to go in depth on the language and determine if it met a ch ange to the Comprehensive Plan. Chair Rafferty believed it woul d be more appropriate to cont inue this discussion to the September 27 special meeting due to the latene ss of the hour. He requested if possible the special meeting be televised. Mr. Smys er replied he would check with the video technician’s availability. Mr. Smyser asked the Board to concentrate only on the Comprehensive Plan amendment issues at the special meeting. The Board continued the public hearing for Comprehensive Plan Amendment for Village of Hardwood Creek to the Special Planni ng and Zoning Board Meeting on September 27, 2005. Mr. Tralle made a MOTION to continue the Comprehensive Plan Amendment to the September 27, 2005 Special Planning and Zoni ng Board meeting and was supported by Mr. Pogalz. Motion carried 6-0. VI. DISCUSSION ITEMS 1. Requiring Sidewalks in subdivisions Planning & Zoning Board September 14, 2005 Page 20 APPROVED MINUTES Due to the lateness of the hour, the Board c ontinued this item to a future meeting. 2. AUAR Update Due to the lateness of the hour, the Board continued this item to a future meeting. 3. Meeting Rules Due to the lateness of the hour, the Board continued to a future meeting. VII. ADJOURNMENT Mr. Nelson made a MOTION to adjourn the m eeting at 11:45 p.m., and was supported by Mr. Hyden. Motion carried 6-0. Respectfully submitted, Kathy Altman, Recording Secretary TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc .