Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/12/2005 P&Z Minutes CITY OF LINO LAKES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MINUTES DATE : October 12, 2005 TIME STARTED : 6:30 P.M. TIME ENDED : 10:16 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 6:30 p.m., October 12, 2005. II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA The agenda was approved. III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: September 14, 2005 and September 27, 2005 Mr. Root requested the following change: Pa ge 19, third paragraph change congueze to congruent. Mr. Root made a MOTION approve the September 14, 2005 and September 27, 2005 Minutes and was supported by Mr . Nelson. Motion carried 6-0. IV. OPEN MIKE Chair Rafferty declared open mi ke open at 6:43 p.m. There was no one present for Open Mike Mr. Hyden made a MOTION to close Open Mi ke at 6:43 p.m., and was supported by Mr. Laden. Motion carried 6-0. V. ACTION ITEMS APPROVED MINUTES Planning & Zoning Board October 12, 2005 Page 2 APPROVED MINUTES A. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING, to Amen d the Planned Unit Development for Legacy at Woods Edge to include signage criteria Chair Rafferty continued the publ ic hearing at 6:43 p.m. Staff stated staff is working with the de veloper to come up with acceptable signage criteria for the Legacy at Wood’s Edge proj ect. Staff 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 November 9, 2005 Planning and Zoning Board Meeting. Mr. Hyden made a MOTION to recommend continuing the public hearing to the November 9, 2005 Planning and Zoning Board Meting and was supported by Mr. Nelson. Motion carried 6-0. B. CONTINUED: Planned Unit Development Final Plan for Legacy at Woods Edge 1. CONTINUED: Site Plan Review for Legacy Hotel 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). Though a hotel is not currently li sted as a permissible use in Chapter 3 of the Lino Lakes Town Center Design and Development Guide, in cluded in this meting is a staff initiated amendment to the Planned Unit Development to allow a hotel as a permissible use in the commercial and mixed use districts. The Planning and Zoning Board conti nued this item at the September 14 th regular meeting and offered up comments to both st aff and the developer about the proposal. Numerous revisions have been made to th e plans and are addressed throughout this report. Staff presented their analysis and reco mmended approval subject to the following conditions: 1. A site performance agreement between the ci ty and the developer must be completed prior to the issuance of building permits. 2. Issues discussed in the S.E.H. engineeri ng review memo must be addressed to the satisfaction of city staff. 3. Operation and maintenance agre ements for the site, including provisions for stormwater facilities, must be submitted for review by c ity staff prior to the issuance of building permits. Planning & Zoning Board October 12, 2005 Page 3 APPROVED MINUTES 4. The ‘gull wing’ fixture (type EE and EE1 as shown on sheet C4.1) shall be changed to a shoebox fixture. This fixture type will need to be approved by staff and used throughout the rest of the parking area on this bloc k, if not the rest of the project site. 5. A revised lighting plan indicating the above re quired fixture change s, and the relocation of the luminaire near the south entrance drive further west must be submitted prior to the issuance of building permits for the site. 6. The final plat for the project (Village No. 4) must be approved prior to City Council approval of this building. 7. The developer must work with staff to identi fy the most appropriate location for bicycle parking within this block of the development. 8. A minimum 2 inch deep window trim must be provided in accordance with the development standards for the site. 9. All hotel room windows are required to be supplied with uniform internal window treatments that will complement the architecture of the building. 10. The first floor windows shall be accentua ted with additional trim features. 11. The brick base shall be raised to lessen the gap between the cap and the second story windows. 12. The hotel building shall be moved closer to the Town Center Parkway right-of-way, meeting a maximum setback of 15 feet. 13. The developer is encouraged to add an addi tional architectural element to the central portion of the building to further strengthen the presence of the corner. 14. The landscape plan shall be revised to indica te four shrubs per tr ee within the north planter island (adjacent to th e Interstate 35W right-of-way). Mr. Hyden inquired about the trash enclosure. He asked if cars were parked in the parking lot, how would the garbage trucks get to the trash. Mr. Bengtson responded the service vehicle would come in either direction and would n eed to pull the dumpster out into the drive area and load the dumpster there. Mr. Hyden asked if the trash could be kept inside the building. Mr. Bengtson responded they could ask the developer. Mr. Hyden noted the location seemed out of place where it was at. Mr. Root asked why the five-foot maximum se tback was there and should something be changed. Mr. Bengtson responded that the r eason the build-to line was in place was to bring the buildings up to the st reet to create the downtown, main street feel. What was being proposed is almost a residential use of the property and th erefore having windows directly on the sidewalk was not an advantage ous situation. He noted this met the intent and they had worked with the de veloper to address this issue. Mr. Rafferty noted this was a Planned Unit Development that was recommended by the Planning & Zoning Board in 2005 and asked why we are looking at the spirit of it instead of looking at what the guidelines were. He st ated it appeared they were jumping ship and this was the first thing. He noted two months ago, there was no hotel and now they had a hotel and they were being aske d to look at the spirit. Mr. Bengtson responded that these guidelines were approved in 2004, which was a long time ago and a lot of things had Planning & Zoning Board October 12, 2005 Page 4 APPROVED MINUTES changed in those guidelines. They had reco mmended approval of an amendment as a use and at the time it was written, it was not ta ken into account where it was located as well as how it would be implemented in a commercia l area. This directly lead to why it was not meeting the exact letter of the guidelines, but it was meeting the intent. It should also be noted that this would keep the streetscap e balanced with the residential project that would be developed across Town Center Parkway. Mr. Root stated when they did these types of changes, it was precedent setting so they wanted to be clear if they were varying from what the gui delines were saying they had a good reason. He stated it was important to know what the downstream effects were going to be. Mr. Root inquired about the ar chitectural feature on the one corner of the building and asked what would be appropria te there. Mr. Bengtson responded this was one of the comments at the last P&Z meeting. As staff, we feel that the masonry materials, which drew the attention to the center of the build ing, as well as the porch provided a fairly substantial architectural featur e. He stated that they en couraged the developer to do more, as the board’s comments from the September meeting had asked. He stated this was up to the Board to decide, but as staff they felt the proposal met the standards. Mr. Tralle asked why they wanted the front facing the freeway and to have the back door into the City. He noted this was the same th ing they did with Ryan where they wanted to put the strip mall in and the entire back of th e building faced the main part of town and he did not like this. He indicated the front of th e building should be faci ng into the City. He believed this was backwards. Mr. Laden stated it was important to stick to the original inte nt of the project. He asked what was on the east side of the hotel. Mr. Bengtson responded that the property east of this site was within a commercial district and early indications are th at it would be best suited for an office type use. Mr. Laden asked if the office buildings we re within the build-to portion of the development. Mr. Bengtson responded there was a 50 percent build to line required on the property east of the proposed hotel site. Mr. Laden stated he believed he could accept the 15-foot mark, but nothing greater than that, but he was concerned that even t hough it was a commercial use, it was a very residential strip in an area that was intende d to be commercial and stated it made sense that the hotel have commercial on the first floor with hotel on the remainder. He stated this proposal fell short. Chair Rafferty stated he appr eciated the developer going back to the drawing board, but he was looking at this as the fi rst phase of a project trying to be approved. He stated the strength in the idea and concept of what the City was proposing and in a hotel going forward was clearly indicated by the Board. It was was something that should be allowed and that was the reason they gave their re commendation that this move forward to Council. He stated he did not like the shingled roof and the trash enclosure. He stated Planning & Zoning Board October 12, 2005 Page 5 APPROVED MINUTES there was no strength in the porches at the end of the building. He agreed the building was facing backwards. He stated he was not impressed with this development. Mr. Bengtson responded that the way the staff report was laid out so the board would not have to necessarily look at the design standa rds as they were goi ng through the report. He indicated it was not the in tention of staff to calling ou t deficiencies, but rather verbally explain what was what was shown graphically in the plan. Chair Rafferty stated the report and informa tion by staff was excellent and he realized they were not pointing out a deficiency, but th ere were no strengths in the project and in what was being proposed. Mr. Nelson stated he had a con cern regarding the back of the hotel facing the front of the project and the trash enclosure also. Chair Rafferty invited the developer to make comments. Patrick Sarver, Hartford Development Group, stated th ey felt strongly that the architectural feature that th ey had on the building effectiv ely focused attention on the corner of the building. He noted the evolu tion of the building has come a long way in where it was at and what it has to offer th e site currently. He noted there was a significant difference in the architectural featur e and in order to have it provide a strong architectural feature in the center of the build ing, it needed some articulation in the face of the building which provided some jut out a nd have it move forward. What they have done was to add additional arch itectural features along the to p of the feature. In his opinion there was a good job in articulating th e building and in having the opportunity to move the building closer to the street and a dding the porches added to the articulation of the building. He indicated ther e was a serious traffic circulat ion issue as they came to the round-about. He noted if the front door was at the location of the round-about, traffic would be complicated because they would not be able to do a U-turn, or they would be required to have a sign at the round about to in dicate all hotel guests would need to turn right in order not to complicat e the traffic pattern. Chair Ra fferty suggested they put the drive up canopy on the side instead. Chair Rafferty asked why we couldn’t enter with the driver’s side f acing the hotel instead of the passenger side. Mr. Sarver responded they would need to cross traffic if they did that. He noted the site was also of a narro w configuration and the building would need to be moved back far enough that parking be allo wed in the front of the building. He noted if the building would be turned around, the pa rking area would also need to go with it. He noted people going to the hotel were coming by car and they hoped they could get the people out of their car to walking into th e development to other commercial uses. Mr. Root asked if there were some features that could be added to the back so it would look more like the front of the building to make it look more impressive. Mr. Sarver stated they needed a strong architectural f eature to the center of the building and he believed this was a fa ntastic corner. Planning & Zoning Board October 12, 2005 Page 6 APPROVED MINUTES Mr. Root stated his question was for the Boar d and clearly there was a concern from the Board that this was not as strong of a feature as what was facing the freeway. Mr. Tralle stated he would lik e to see some brick to the ri ght to “dress” it up a bit more and maybe add some brick detail in other areas a well. He noted this was going to face the downtown and just the center brick face wa sn’t enough. He stated if they could put some brick on the other end this would help. He noted he was not impressed with the porches either and suggested th ey put more brick on the build ing. He indicated he would not support this as it was being proposed. Chair Rafferty asked if the surfaces were all on the same plane. Mr. Sarver responded that they were not. He indicated there wa s a tremendous amount of articulation in the building. He agreed that the idea of adding brick to the other side was a good one to put some depth into the building. Chair Rafferty asked if there was benefit to us ing a darker band at the top to make it look like there was a cap. He asked if this woul d be too much. Mr. Hyden responded in his option, this would give the bu ilding more of a sport look. Mr. Root noted there was clear definition in the other buildings and he liked Mr. Tralle’s suggestion. Mr. Sarver noted when they had an opportunity to create a focal point, they did their best to create the focal point and if they added additional featur es, it would pull away from the focal point. Chair Rafferty i ndicated he understood their con cern, but he did not believe Mr. Tralle’s suggestion would take away from the focal point. He stated they were not only looking at the focal points, but also at the strength the building had to offer and they wanted a strong statement into the entrance of the complex. He stated they were looking for avenues that would allow them to live with a good development. Mr. Sarver stated that on the street side of the building by adding the brick to the gabled end the building, the gables would not be balanced and by having the brick element centered, this was an asymmetrical form. Wanda Kraemer, representative of GCI Build ers and the ownership group of the hotel, presented the background of the hotel proposal . She noted porches were a part of the Country Inn and Suites attempt to have two fronts to the building and yet work with the streetscape also. She stated they believed this looked good and was what they wanted and she was surprised that they did not want the building positioned this way. She stated they believed they were trying to work with the City and staff to have a development that was what the City wanted. She indicated th ey were open to ideas, but they have been trying to work within the City’s guidelines. Mr. Laden asked if Country Inn & Suites had ev er had a commercial development in their hotels. Ms. Kraemer responded they partne r with TGI Fridays, but the building was attached and it was not a part of the hotel specifically. Planning & Zoning Board October 12, 2005 Page 7 APPROVED MINUTES Mr. Laden asked if that was ruled out for any reason in this project. Ms. Kraemer responded it was not ruled out, but they knew th e City had other restaurants coming in. However, they were open to this suggestion. Mr. Laden noted this was a pedestrian oriented development and if he was staying in the hotel, he would not like to go through the pool area. Ms. Kraemer stated she did not know how many people would go through the pool area of the hotel, and she believed a lot of people would use the side doors. Mr. Laden asked if the hotel had elevat ors. Ms. Kraemer responded it did. Mr. Laden stated it would not sit well with hi m to go through the pool to get to the main part of town. Mr. Tralle stated he did not lik e the shutters that had been pr eviously proposed and he did not care what Country Inn and Suites had to ha ve as a corporate image. He stated the citizens had to look at what was built and they knew what they wanted. He stated they wanted more brick on the building and while he did not like the way the building sits, he was not going to ask them to turn the buildi ng around as long as they were willing to put some changes in, specifically along the gabled in and the porches also. He stated the porches needed some “tweaking”. He stated just because corporate American wanted something, did not mean they had to have it. He stated they were not going to skimp at this point. He stated if they heard what the Board was saying and made the proposed changes, this would go a long way in getting this approved. Ms. Kraem er stated they did hear the recommendations and th ey would take this back and evaluate the suggestions. Chair Rafferty stated he did not like the shingled roof and he wanted a standing seam roof to match the rest of the buildings in the area. Mr. Laden agreed the standing seam roof w ould fit nicely on the bu ilding and while the rest of the building had come up on quality from last month, the roof had not. Mr. Tralle stated the standing seam roof would fit better in the area. Chair Rafferty noted they had looked hard at what was going on in the City and he also wanted the trash enclosure to be attached to the building. He stat ed he would not agree with a trash enclosure sitting in the middle of the parking lot. Mr. Tralle stated he agreed and noted the Betty’s Pies had their trash encl osure inside. Frank Janes, General Counsel Hartford Group, stated a couple of the ideas could be put into the development, specifically adding more brick. However, with respect to the roof and trash enclosure, one of the issues was the design standard as to what was allowed and not allowed. Chair Rafferty noted they have design standa rds that were functioni ng and that he could not see that they would drop th e idea of a standing seam roof . He stated a standing seam roof and the trash enclosure did fall within the design standards. Mr. Janes asked for guidance from the Board as to whether this would get approved with recommendations or give them criteria as to wh at they wanted as part of the project. Planning & Zoning Board October 12, 2005 Page 8 APPROVED MINUTES Chair Rafferty asked if they were able to work with the fourteen recommendations by staff. Mr. Janes responded he believed th ey could and believed these were commonplace recommendations. He noted one of the concer ns was the setback and in order to move the building closer, the porch would have to go away. He asked what other conditions might be added to move forward. Chair Rafferty inquired about landscaping and asked if this was part of the recommendations. Mr. Bengtson stated the la ndscaping would need to be sprinkled and they could add that as a condition of approval. Mr. Laden asked if they would be able to accomplish the 15-foot setback. Mr. Janes stated it was their point that moving the build ing up to the street, the porch had to be removed; otherwise the porch woul d go out into the sidewalk. Mr. Laden stated only a certain percentage ha d to be moved closer to the street and not the entire building. Mr. Bengtson responde d rather than the way it was currently configured, stepping back from the right-a-way ; staff had discussed having it step toward the street frontage, which would come into compliance with the 50 percent build-to line. He noted the builder had indicated they would work with staff on this. He stated it was not their intention that the en tire building be moved forward. Mr. Laden encouraged staff to work with th e developer to bring por tions of the building toward the street. Chair Rafferty stated he did not want to see everything on the same plane however. Mr. Tralle stated since this was a hotel and th e patrons of the hotel did not want to be on street level. Mr. Laden noted the apartments were required to meet the 15 foot build to and he believed this development should also have to meet this too. Mr. Tralle stated when they made some of th e standards, they did not take into account that this would be a hotel at some point and he agreed if this was goi ng to take away from the front being staggered, th at was not appropriate. Chair Rafferty asked if there was something st aff could do to meet the criteria that was set forth by the standards, and if that meant the degree of the building’s angle was to be changed, then to do it. Mr. Bengtson res ponded staff understood this and they also wanted to go more in that direction as well and they would ensure that was done. Mr. Janes indicated they were willing to wo rk with staff to meet those criteria. Chair Rafferty stated as c ondition number 15, all landscaped and sodded areas must be sprinkled. Mr. Janes noted the plans detailed that all la ndscaped areas would be irrigated and they intended to comply with it, but if they wanted this as a recommendation that was fine, but it was in the plans. Planning & Zoning Board October 12, 2005 Page 9 APPROVED MINUTES Mr. Pogalz asked if they were looking to send them away with a list of recommendation tonight, or to bring this b ack at the next meeting. Mr . Bengtson responded staff had worked well with the developer and he did not see any problem with conditions requiring that staff work with the developer prior to this being brought to the City Council. Mr. Pogalz stated in the past the Board had wanted to see things and he asked if they wanted staff to work directly with the deve loper on this without se eing this again, or did they want this brought back for another review. Mr. Nelson stated he wanted a condition for the roof and the trash, and that would be enough for him. Chair Rafferty stated he was a firm believer that he wanted to see things before they were approved, but he had no problem with this going forward if the re mainder of the Board believed staff could work directly with the developer without furthe r review. He noted the plans still had to change before this went to C ouncil. Mr. Bengtson responded staff was comfortable working with the developer with recommendations given by the Board. He noted everything they had asked the deve loper to look at they had addressed. Mr. Laden stated personally he preferred to l ook at this again, but he was willing to move forward on this. However, given what they we re presented last month compared to what they have this month, he believed th ey were working well with staff. Mr. Pogalz asked if they were willing to move the trash enclos ure. Mr. Janes stated they could not make a promise on this at tonight’s meeting, but they would work with staff on this to see if that recommendation could be implemented. He noted the architect and owner needed to look at this to determine how it would change the design of the building and the cost as well. Mr. Pogalz stated that concerned him because if they determined that this was not going to work, the trash enclosure would be left in the parking lot. Mr. Nelson asked if this was a condition, didn’t it have to be met. Mr. Pogalz stated the first time the board would find out it wouldn’t work was when it was built in the parking lot. Mr. Janes noted the City Council would also have to take this into consideration and th at was the process they had to work under. He noted they wanted to work well with the City because of future developments being proposed. Mr. Hyden stated he liked what he saw overa ll and it was a strong change over last time. He stated he did not understa nd why the pool was located where it was at, but he realized he was not the expert and if the hotel deemed this was a good location, he agreed with it. However, he did not like their response to the trash enclosure. He stated in order to get what they wanted, they were required to say no and he did not want to say no to this, but he wanted to know where it would go. Mr . Bengtson stated in tegrating the trash enclosure in the building was not specifically written in any ordinance or guidelines. Mr. Hyden stated overall he was not unhappy with the reco mmendations, but he was not happy with the trash enclosure staying where it was at. Planning & Zoning Board October 12, 2005 Page 10 APPROVED MINUTES Mr. Tralle stated there was no reason they c ould not put a one story trash area on the east end. He noted with the trash enclosure locate d at that point, they would only be using two parking stalls. Chair Rafferty noted this was the closest, easiest route; unless they wanted to put it on the other wing. He noted either way they would have to go down a long corridor and he liked this recommendation. Mr. Tralle stated if they me t the trash enclosure suggestion, he could approve this project with the recommendations. He noted ever yone felt strongly about getting the trash enclosure out of the parking lo t, and that they had to meet that recommendation or this would not get approved and they would have to come back to the Board. He thanked them for taking off the shutters on the build ing and noted it had come a long way from the previous proposal. Mr. Root stated every effort should be made with respect to the trash enclosure, but he did not see anything being so cr itical that they needed to stop action and he believed the developer could work with staff and staff knew what the Board’s feelings were with respect to everything. He stated he was co mfortable letting staff handle the issues. Mr. Nelson stated he was comf ortable that they could move ahead with conditions. He stated if the Board felt strongl y with all of the conditions, th ey needed to add the words must be, or shall be. Chair Rafferty stated th at was a great point and stated he would like to add that wording to the recommendations. Mr. Laden stated they could word the conditi ons as strongly as they wanted, but they were only recommendations and could they be legally enforced. Chair Rafferty stated condition 15 would read: All landscaped and sodded areas must be irrigated. Chair Rafferty stated condition 16 would read: The developer is encouraged to use a standing seam metal roof. Chair Rafferty stated condition 17 would read: Trash enclosure must be enclosed and attached to building. Chair Rafferty stated condition 18 would read: The gable end visible from Town Center Parkway, on the east wing of the building, shall be clad in brick. Mr. Janes stated they understood the conditions as noted by the Board. Ms. Kraemer asked if there was a concern w ith snow coming down the metal roof in the winter. Chair Rafferty indicated there might be some sidewalk issues, but he wanted to leave the condition as noted. Mr. Pogalz noted there were reta il areas in the Cities that had metal roofs and snow was a big problem and he knew there were accessories they could put up that would assist with the snow coming off the roof, but it was a good point because they were talking about Planning & Zoning Board October 12, 2005 Page 11 APPROVED MINUTES pushing this building as close to the sidewalk as possible and the slope of the roof might allow some of the snow to slide off of ont o the sidewalks and he was glad this was brought up. Mr. Nelson stated he was willing to change the condition to work with staff to look at the safety issue. Mr. Pogalz stated they could use another mate rial also and there many options other than metal or shingles, but he di d want an upgraded roof. Mr. Janes noted the townhomes across this proposal would probably have shingled buildings and he did not want to set a precedent that all of the buildings in this area would be metal. Chair Rafferty stated all of the bu ildings currently in the area were metal and metal roofs were everywhere including places where there were sidewalks. He stated he did not know what other alternatives there were . He stated he was hearing a metal roof should be strongly considered and working w ith staff rather than it being a must. Chair Rafferty stated if this needed to be a sh ingled roof to have it a 50-year roof so there was some depth to it. Phil Carlson, stated he had 30 years experi ence in commercial roofing on both flat and pitched and there were metal roofs on buildings and there was a lot of materials that are called snow guards which stopped an avalanche from happening. He stated what they were worried about was a 12 inch snow fall and a snow guard would stop any avalanche that might occur. He stated the snow guards were about $5.00 a piece. Chair Rafferty stated the wording as it sta nds would change from must that the Board wanted “strong” consideration to get a me tal, standing seam roof on the building and define the proper components that would give them safeguards in the winter time. Mr. Bengtson noted they also needed amended condition number 4 in their recommendations to read as follow: All park ing lot lighting fixtures and poles shall be painted to complement the city’s decorative street lighting; shall be mounted to round lighting poles measuring no more than twenty feet in height; shall be mounted to a concrete base no higher than twenty-four in ches above the surroundi ng grade; and shall be located within landscape planter islands. Mr. Root made a MOTION to recommend Site Plan Review for Legacy Hotel subject to the conditions 1 through 14 as noted in sta ff’s October 12, 2005 report, adding conditions 15 through 18, and amending condition 4 a nd was supported by Mr. Hyden. Motion carried 6-0. Chair Rafferty recessed the meeting at 8:33 p.m . and reconvened the meeting at 8:41 p.m. 2. CONTINUED: PUBLIC HEARING for a Conditional Use Permit to allow for outdoor dining, and a Site Plan Review, for Betty’s Pies Restaurant Planning & Zoning Board October 12, 2005 Page 12 APPROVED MINUTES 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 plac e in the new mixed use development. Owners Marti Sieber and Carol Ehlenz run the Two Harbors, Minnesota, destination restaurant and this will be their fi rst expansion into the metro area. The overall area of the building will be 7,935 s quare feet. The majority of the building itself is single story, with th e exception of an office area which is located over the center section of the building. The Planning and Zoning Board conti nued this item at the September 14 th regular meeting, and offered up comments to both sta ff and the developer about the proposal. Numerous revisions have been made to th e plans and are addressed throughout this report. Staff presented their analysis and reco mmended approval subject to the following conditions: 1. A site performance agreement between the City and the developer must be completed prior to the issuance of building permits. 2. Issues discussed in the S.E.H. engineeri ng review memo must be addressed to the satisfaction of City staff. 3. Operation and maintenance agreements for the site, including provisions for stormwater facilities, must be submitted for review by City staff prior to the issuance of building permits. 4. The ‘gull wing’ fixture type shall be cha nged to a shoebox fixture. This fixture type will need to be approved by staff a nd used throughout the rest of the parking area on this block, if not the rest of the project site. 5. The final plat for the project (Village No. 4) must be approved prior to City Council approval of this building. 6. The developer must work with staff to id entify the most appropriate location for bicycle parking within this block of the development. Mr. Pogalz asked if the applicant owned the building and the land, or just the building. Mr. Bengtson responded they w ould be dividing a lot that would encompass the building as well as some of the parking area. The re st of the parking lot and drives would be within an outlot that would be maintained in part by each lot owner. The area of outdoor seating would be owned by Betty’s Pies. Mr. Pogalz noted in this climate, pavers c ould be a maintenance headache and while he liked pavers, he would recommend a colored conc rete or stamped concrete in lieu of the pavers. Planning & Zoning Board October 12, 2005 Page 13 APPROVED MINUTES Mr. Root stated this was a terr ific looking plan. He inquired about the west entry access. He noted it appeared to be close to the stre et radius and he asked if it was possible to move it farther to the west to the end of the lot. Mr. Gr ochala responded the driveway access was already set and the curb and radius had been poured already. He noted there was probably more room there than was indica ting on the plan. He stated it met the line of sight standards. Chair Rafferty inquired about the circular st ructure on the plans. Mr. Pogalz responded that was the decorative pavement band. Chair Rafferty inquired about the fencing on th e trash enclosure area on the west side of the building. He asked the developer to come forward. Patrick Sarver, Hartford Group, responded because of the grade of the driveway it sloped down substantially and because of that they had a delivery access, so that was a graphic illustration of a safety rail. He noted there would be a slight ramp there. Chair Rafferty inquired if the roof structure was flat. Mr. Sarver responded it was, but there were portions that had roof structure. Mr. Sarver presented the color sche me of the building for the Board. Mr. Pogalz noted to pay a little bit more up fr ont for colored concrete , rather than putting in pavers, would be worth the cost in the long run. Chair Rafferty asked the developer if they we re okay with the conditions. Mr. Sarver responded they were in agreement with the conditions. Chair Rafferty opened the pub lic hearing at 9:20 p.m. There were no comments made. Mr. Laden made a MOTION to close the pub lic hearing at 9:21 p.m. and was supported by Mr. Pogalz. Motion carried 6-0. Chair Rafferty inquired about condition numb er 4. Mr. Bengtson responded number 4 should be amended to read as follows: All park ing lot lighting fixtures and poles shall be painted to complement the city’s decorative street lighting; shall be mounted to round lighting poles measuring no more than twenty feet in height; shall be mounted to a concrete base no higher than twenty-four in ches above the surroundi ng grade; and shall be located within landscape planter islands. Mr. Laden made a MOTION to recommend approval of a Conditional Use Permit to allow for outdoor dining and a Site Plan Revi ew, for Betty’s Pies Restaurant subject to the conditions as noted in staff’s October 12, 2005 report and amending condition four as noted and was supported by Mr. Root. Motion carried 6-0. 3. CONTINUED: Site Plan Review for Lakewood Apartments Planning & Zoning Board October 12, 2005 Page 14 APPROVED MINUTES 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 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 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. Those housing covenants include an affordability clause that requires that 20 percent of the housing units built on the development property as a whole must meet affordability requirement. 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 meet s 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 th at 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. The Planning and Zoning Board conti nued this item at the September 14 th regular meeting, and offered up comments to both sta ff and the developer about the proposal. Numerous revisions have been made to th e plans and are addressed throughout this project. Staff presented their analysis and reco mmended approval subject to the following conditions: 1. A site performance agreement between the City and the developer must be completed prior to the issuance of building permits 2. Issues discussed in the S.E.H. engineeri ng review memo must be addressed to the satisfaction of City staff. 3. Operation and maintenance agreements for the site, including provisions for stormwater facilities, must be submitted for review by City staff prior to the issuance of building permits. 4. The ‘gull wing’ fixture shall be changed to a shoebox fixture. This fixture type will need to be approved by staff and used throughout the rest of the parking area on this block, if not the re st of the project site. 5. A revised lighting plan indicating the a bove required fixture changes, and the relocation of the luminaire near the north entrance drive further east to avoid a Planning & Zoning Board October 12, 2005 Page 15 APPROVED MINUTES conflict with the garage opening must be submitted prior to the issuance of the building permits for the site. 6. The final plat for the project (Village No. 4) must be approved prior to City Council approval of this building. 7. The developer must work with staff to id entify the most appropriate location for bicycle parking within this block of the development. 8. A full recycling plan must be submitted fo r staff review prior to this item being heard by the City Council. 9. A minimum 2 inch deep window trim must be provided in accordance with the development standards for the site. 10. The developer is required to add an add itional architecture element to the central portion of the building to further strengthen the presence of the corner. 11. All units within that will complement the architecture of the building. 12. The landscape plan shall be revised to i ndicate four shrubs per tree within the north planter island (adjacent to Interstate 35W right-of-way). Mr. Laden inquired about the enforcement of the residential build-to line. Mr. Bengtson explained the details of the plaza feature or pocket park that allowed the proposed building to meet the spirit and intent of the build-to line requirements. Mr. Pogalz asked about the treatment of the grade change for the plaza. Shawn Knoth, Hartford Group, responded the treatment would be a combin ation of grade and retaining wall. Chair Rafferty inquired about the type of wi ndows being used. Frank Janes, Hartford Group, responded this was the first this had come up when they received the report. He stated because this was going to be a rental project, there would be a standard blind and the rental agreement would st ate that certain types of window treatments would and would not be allowed. Chair Rafferty asked if they had considered th e blinds “sandwiched” between glass. Mr. Knoth responded that was a substantial upgrade. Chair Rafferty noted the Eagl e product was similar to Pella and this would be a good solution to look at. He strongly suggeste d the developers look at that avenue. Mr. Pogalz asked if they were proposing to use Hardy Board around the perimeter of the building. Mr. Knoth responde d that was correct. Mr. Pogalz asked if they had considered ot her type of siding. Mr. Knoth responded they had looked at other materials, but had chosen the Hardy Board as the siding. Mr. Knoth reviewed for the Board all of the materials being proposed to be used on the building. Mr. Tralle asked what the ba lconies would be constructed of. Mr. Knoth responded they were aluminum, but management would not allow grilling on the balconies. Chair Rafferty appreciated what they had done with the balconies with respect to enclosing them as much as possible. He noted this added a lot of character. Planning & Zoning Board October 12, 2005 Page 16 APPROVED MINUTES Chair Rafferty asked what type of air conditioning units would they building have. Mr. Knoth responded there would be a central air conditioning unit and there would be no wall hung units. Chair Rafferty inquired about the elevati ons. Mr. Knoth explained the building elevations for the Board. Mr. Pogalz asked how Hartford would get this building built, i.e. a hard bid environment, through the builder’s excha nge, etc. Mr. Janes res ponded the building was being constructed through tax credits and they were taking it out to bid with a minimum of three contractors. He noted in order to qua lify for the financing; the rent had to be affordable. Mr. Pogalz asked if the contract or list was a select list, or if it was open. Mr. Sarver replied they were not putting it out for a public bid and they were us ing contractors they had used in the past or had been referred to them, but they had to be an approved MHFA contractor. He noted each project would be bid independently also. Mr. Pogalz asked what would happen if they received bids over the an ticipated cost. Mr. Janes responded they would need to revise their plans and come back for approval. Mr. Knoth noted there would probably be mi nor revisions in size, but the interior materials would probably stay the same. He noted with MHFA financing and the financing constraints, this had been thoroughly reviewed. Mr. Pogalz asked how soon they would be looki ng to construct for any of these projects. Mr. Janes responded the hotel gr oup wanted to break dirt imme diately after closing after City Council approval and he anticipated th ey would be starting construction in the beginning of November, as well as Betty’s Pies . With the financing hoops to be jumped through on this project, they hoped to start construction the beginning of the year. Chair Rafferty asked if they agreed with all of the conditions. Mr. Janes responded they agreed with all of the conditions. Chair Rafferty suggested landscaping and sodded areas must be irrigated as a condition. Chair Rafferty inquired about condition numb er 4. Mr. Bengtson responded number 4 should be amended to read as follows: All park ing lot lighting fixtures and poles shall be painted to complement the city’s decorative street lighting; shall be mounted to round lighting poles measuring no more than twenty feet in height; shall be mounted to a concrete base no higher than twenty-four in ches above the surroundi ng grade; and shall be located within landscape planter islands. Mr. Nelson made a MOTION to recommend ap proval of the Site Plan for Lakewood Apartments subject to the conditions as not ed in staff’s report, amending number 4 as stated by staff, and adding condition 13 that all landscaping and s odded areas must be irrigated and was supported by Mr. Hyden. Motion carried 6-0. Planning & Zoning Board October 12, 2005 Page 17 APPROVED MINUTES 4. CONTINUED: Final Plat for Village No. 4 Staff stated Hartford Development, Inc. ha s submitted the 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 (both buildings are a part of the meeting). 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 was recommending approval of the Final Plat, Village No. 4, Hartford Development, Inc. Mr. Hyden made a MOTION to recommend ap proval of the Final Plat, Village No. 4, Hartford Development, Inc. and was suppor ted by Mr. Pogalz. Motion carried 6-0. VI. DISCUSSION ITEMS A. AUAR Update Mr. Grochala stated that th e final AUAR was scheduled to go to the City Council for formal adoption at the October 24 th regular meeting. B. Meeting Rules Postponed to a future meeting. C. Requiring sidewalk s in subdivisions Postponed to a future meeting. VII. ADJOURNMENT Mr. Tralle made a MOTION to adjourn the meeting at 10:16 p.m., and was supported by Mr. Nelson. Motion carried 6-0. Planning & Zoning Board October 12, 2005 Page 18 APPROVED MINUTES Respectfully submitted, Kathy Altman, Recording Secretary TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc .