Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/13/2004 P&Z Minutes CITY OF L I NO LAKE S PLANNING & Z O NING BOARD MINUT E S DATE : October 13, 2004 TIME STARTED : 6:38 P.M. TIME ENDED : 10:41 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT : Hyden, Laden, Pogalz, Rafferty, Root (arrived at 6:43 p.m.), and Tralle. MEMBERS ABS E NT : Lane. STAFF PRESENT : Jeff S m yser; Mi chael Grochala; James Stud enski; and Paul Bengtson I. CAL L TO ORDE R AND ROL L CAL L Chair Rafferty called the Lino Lakes Planning and Zoning Boar d m eeting to order at 6:38 p.m ., October 13, 2004. II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA The agenda was approved. III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: September 8, 2 004 Mr. Hyden m a de a MOTION approve the Se ptember 8, 2004 Minutes and was supported by Mr. Pogalz. Motion carried 3-0-1 (Pogalz abstained). IV. OPEN MIKE Chair Rafferty declared open m i ke open at 6:40 p.m . There was no one present for Open Mike Mr. Pogalz m a de a MOTION to close Open Mi ke at 6:41 p.m., and was supported by Mr. Tralle. Motion carried 4-0. V. ACTION I TEMS A. CONTINUED PUBLI C HEARING, for Rez o ning to PUD and a Pre liminary Plat for Fox Den Acres, Royal Oaks Re alty, a 50-acre dev e lopment so uth of Birch Street and east o f Deerw ood Lane, at the east end o f Fox Road APPR OVE D MINUTE S Pl anni ng & Zo ni n g B o ar d Oct o ber 1 3 , 2 0 04 Page 2 APPROVED MINUTES Chair Rafferty opened the pub lic hearing at 6:41 p.m. Staff stated applicant had re quested approval of a single fa mily residential development called Fox Den Acres. The comprehensive plan guides the site for low-density residential use and it is zoned R-1. Th e site is within the existing MUSA. Mr. Root arrived at 6:43 p.m. Staff noted Fox Den Acres project offers a good opportunity to implement the new parks and open space plan through the use of a conservation development. Staff has worked with the Watershed District and Royal Oaks to pursue these goals. The redesign includes such things as filling and m oving lower quality wetlands in or der to preserve and increase higher quality wetlands and upland area. The overall gain in public value will be positive. This conservation development approach, while often discussed in the City, has not previously been pursued to the extent they are doing so here. Staff stated standard zoning requirements often do not accommodate natural features in this way, and this is an example of that shortcoming. Therefore, a planned unit development is being used. A PUD is not allo wed in a single-family zone, so a rezone to PUD would be needed. Staff acknowledges there are a number of details and specifics that normally are resolved by this point in the process. However, sta ff is comfortable that there is ample time for these details to be addressed. Additional de sign parameters will be reached before City Council approval. This project has been and will continue to be a learning process for players in several organizations and agenci es. Though the design is not the normal level of detail, there has been more design communication among the players than on any previous project. He noted they have util ized the review extens ion allowed by law and are facing a deadline of November 19 fo r City Council action on the rezoning and preliminary plat. Therefore, a reco mmendation by the P&Z is necessary. Staff presented their analysis and reco mmended approval of the project including Rezoning to residential planne d unit development and prelim inary plat, subject to the following conditions: 1. Grading and utility plans mu st obtain approval by the City Engineer prior to City Council approval of the final plat. 2. A permit from the Rice Creek Watershed Di strict must be obtained prior to City Council approval of the final plat. 3. The entire project can be final platted in 2005, subject to City Council approval of amendments to Ordinance 01-03. 4. Park dedication shall be cash with credit for construction of trails. 5. A homeowners association shall be creat ed. The association shall maintain a stewardship fund to manage the open sp ace areas of Outlots A, B, and C, Pl anni ng & Zo ni n g B o ar d Oct o ber 1 3 , 2 0 04 Page 3 APPROVED MINUTES according to a stewardship plan to be approved by the City. Association documents shall be reviewed by the City Attorney prior to final plat approval. 6. A conservation easement shall be created ove r all of Outlots A, B, and C to make them permanent open space. 7. A temporary cul-de-sac must be co nstructed on the northern stub street. 8. The project as redesigned must obtain a permit from the Rice Creek Watershed District prior to final approval by the City Council. Chair Rafferty invited applicant to make comment. Mr. Jeff Schoenbauer, Brauer and Associates, summarized the project for the Board. He reiterated the public values they tried to achieve were: preserving more natural open space (through a conservation easement); reducin g the extent of impervious surfaces and size of the development footprint; restore/e nhance ecological systems on the site as part of the development process; protect off-site ecological systems through increased buffering; ensure long-term natural resource stewardship through an endowment program sponsored by the Developer; provide public pa rk and trail opportuni ties consistent with the System Plan; manage stormwater (flow rates and quality) using natural infiltration approaches; preserve the open space aesthetic to which community residences have become accustomed; and to maintain a natural buffer between established and new developments. Mr. Laden asked who would be in charge of the endowment. Mr. Schoenbauer replied the endowment fund would be part of the De velopment Agreement, which would be held by the City, but administered by the homeow ner association. He stated these funds would be to preserve the natural ar eas and were monitored very closely. Mr. Hyden asked what the ramification was if a homeowner did not pay the yearly $100.00 conservation fee. Mr. Schoenbauer repl ied the City could enforce payment by a legal means. Mr. Hyden asked who would maintain the trai l system. Mr. Smyser replied the City would maintain the trail corridor, but not the open space area. Mr. Schoenbauer stated who would own the easement was currently being looked at by the City Attorney. Mr. Laden asked if the City wanted to do impr ovements in the open areas, did they have authority to do that. Mr. Schoenbauer replied as long as the improvements kept with the spirit and intent of the area, the City c ould make improvements. He noted he was comfortable with the amount of money set as ide for natural resource maintenance. Chair Rafferty asked if this was the first tim e that the City would have the burden of being the administrator of the funds. Mr. Schoenbauer replied the developer had the burden and the City was only the watchdog to make sure the procedures were being Pl anni ng & Zo ni n g B o ar d Oct o ber 1 3 , 2 0 04 Page 4 APPROVED MINUTES followed. He noted the only oblig ation the City had was for a staff member to meet with the homeowners association yearly to see wh ere the association intended to spend the money for that year in natural resource maintenance. Chair Rafferty asked once this was turned ove r to the association, who would force the association to administer the funds for the particular areas. Mr. Schoenbauer stated the City would have the legal authority to step in and say they were not using the funds appropriately and the City could take legal action against the association. Mike Black, Royal Oaks Realty, stated this had been a process, which was not easy. He noted they had hoped to have this proposal a pproved by this time. He stated City staff and the consultants were doing a good job and th ey both had the intere sts of the City in mind. He noted this was “new waters” for them and they had to go outside of their shell for this development. He stated the ideas be ing presented were new to them, but they had gone along with the proposals. He believed this development met with the letter and intent of the zoning, including a trail corri dor and significant open space with a large buffer along the west side of the development. He stated once this was done, he believed everyone would be proud of the development. He stated there had be en a lot of give and take on this development and asked the Board to look at the development as an entire package. He stated all of the elements needed to be looked at as a package. He stated he did not want to negotiate with staff and th en find out that the Planning & Zoning Board or Council wanted something diffe rent. He indicated they were asking for a flexibility of a 20-foot rear yard setback and a 25-foot front yard setback, if necessary in order to allow more open space in the back of the homes. Chair Rafferty asked how far the home would be located with a 25-foot front yard setback. Mr. Smyser replied the homes would be 34 feet from the curb. He noted the side yard setback would remain at 5 feet. Mr. Black stated the average width of the lots were 95 feet wide. Chair Rafferty stated he was concerned that the development would look “boxy” if the homes were located too close together. Mr. Root inquired about the st ormwater run off into the existing neighborhoods and the traffic issue which had been c oncerns at the last meeting. Mr. Schoenbauer replied with respect to the stormwater runoff, no water would leave the site and go into the adjoining developments. He stated they would manage all water they could on site and if water left the site, the flow rates would be no more than they were currently and the water quality would the same, if not better, than it was currently. He stated one of the objectives of this devel opment would be to improve the water quality. Mr. Tralle asked if any water from the existi ng neighborhood flow into this development. Mr. Schoenbauer replied if it did, the wate r would be handled by this development. Steve Helmer, TKDA, replied with respect to traffic, the PM peak hour conditions the project impact would equal 3.4 seconds/vehic le added delay for nor thbound approach of Deerwood Lane/Birch Road intersection. He stated the AM peak hour conditions the Pl anni ng & Zo ni n g B o ar d Oct o ber 1 3 , 2 0 04 Page 5 APPROVED MINUTES project impact would be less than 0.5 seconds/vehic le added delay for northbound approach of Deerwood Lane/Birch Road. He noted the project will increase the average daily traffic on Deerwood Lane by 348 vehicles per day north of Fox Road. The project will increase average daily traffic on F ox Road by 188 vehicles per day west of Deerwood Lane. He noted the past studies have suggested that “livab ility” may begin to deteriorate upwards of 1,500 average daily traffic. Mr. Hyden asked if the peak PM was a slig ht increase over the AM peak. Mr. Helmer replied that was correct. Mr. Tralle asked what generated the improve ment of an existing road. Mr. Helmer replied new development, new additional traffic, or deterioration of the road due to existing traffic. Mr. Tralle stated he understood they did not build the road ahead of time, but only after the traffic on the road justified an improvement . Mr. Helmer replied that was a standard practice in the State of Minnesota. Chair Rafferty invited those for or ag ainst the project to make comment. Al Stender, 6379 Deerwood Lane , commended the City Engin eers and the developer for working on this development. He noted the development was much improved from the original proposal. He expressed concern abou t the increase in traffic in this area. He stated he had a seven minute wait today on C ounty Road J and Birch and two minutes to take a left turn from Deerwood onto Birch. He noted all of these new development only added to the traffic. He asked if the traffi c engineer had taken into consideration all of the other developments being added to this area also in his analysis . He requested they think about the infrastructure be fore approving the developments. Rick Kamrath, Deerwood Circle, expressed con cern about traffic and asked if any options had been identified to alleviate some of the neighborhoods concer ns with respect to increase in traffic. Mr. Studenski replied this was an issu e with all of the projects in the City at the present time, and prior to the start of the project they videotaped it to see if there were any additional traffic or deteriora tion due to the construction and if there was, the developer was responsible to repair the road. He stated if necessary, they would have flag people directing traffic in and out of the area. He stated he did not know of any other options other than monitoring the traffic. He stated if there were issues with safety, the residents should call the police. He noted the roadway was desi gned to handle this amount of traffic. Mr. Kamrath asked for additional clarification in regards to the drainage on the site. Mr. Schoenbauer replied the drainage plans were being developed ri ght now and if the neighbors wanted to look at the plans as th ey were completed, he would be willing to discuss this with them. He stated he coul d ensure that the stor mwater drainage would remain on site. Mr. Tralle asked why there were no sidewalks in this development. Mr. Smyser replied in the past the residents did not want sidewalk s in their development, but this was slowly Pl anni ng & Zo ni n g B o ar d Oct o ber 1 3 , 2 0 04 Page 6 APPROVED MINUTES changing. However, in this particular de velopment, they were trying to make the impervious surfaces as small as possible in an effort to preserve as much of the nonpaved area as they could. He indicated they had not considered putting in sidewalks in this development, but noted if they did, the righ t-of-way would need to be widened. He stated a sidewalk would be nice in this de velopment, but there was a tradeoff also in order to preserve the open space. Chair Rafferty stated the developer had done a good job on this development and commended him for that. He stated he liked the idea of a give and take and to work through the process to get this done, but asked why was there 57 homes, instead of 56. Mr. Schoenbauer replied the extra lot came in because the lots along the cul-de-sac were the most expensive lots and when the cul-de -sac was taken out, the developer lost an economic benefit, so therefore he, not the de veloper, recommended this lot be added to make up for those lost dollars a nd to preserve more open space. Mr. Laden asked if the temporary cul-de-sac wo uld be constructed to the standard cul-de- sac requirements. Mr. Studenski replied it would. Mr. Hyden made a MOTION to close the pub lic hearing at 8:06 p.m. and was supported by Mr. Tralle. Motion carried 5-0. Mr. Root noted this was to be approved as a package a nd yet they were approving the Growth Management Policy Ordi nance 01-03 in the next item. Mr. Smyser stated Mr. Root was correct and he proposed this project would be subject to whether the Council approved the am endments to Ordinance 01-03. Chair Rafferty asked if they should have had that discussion first before they had the public hearing. Mr. Rafferty replied that was a possibility. Chair Rafferty asked if the Board wanted to address the Growth Management Plan issue now to help in the decision making process. Mr. Root suggested they table this item and discuss the next item and then come back to this item. Mr. Root made a MOTION to table item 5A until after discussion and recommendation of item 5B and was supported by Mr . Tralle. Motion carried 5-0. B. PUBLIC HEARING for Amending Ordinance No. 01-03, Growth Management Policy to provide residenti al development phasing flexibility for conservation development projects Chair Rafferty opened the pubi c hearing at 8:10 p.m. Staff explained the City adopted Ordinance 01-03 in January 2003. This ordinance lists the specifics of the growth management pol icy, including the annual limits on the number of MUSA acres to be allocated and the numbe r of units/lots to be platted. The policy Pl anni ng & Zo ni n g B o ar d Oct o ber 1 3 , 2 0 04 Page 7 APPROVED MINUTES requires a phasing plan for projects of 50 units or more. He stated they maintained an inventory required in Secti on 2, paragraph 11 using tables tracking the allocation of MUSA and the approval of units/lo ts in preliminary plats. He noted the general approach to amending th e ordinance is to add a section that gives the City Council more discretion in approving housing units in any given year above the stipulated growth limits as defined in S ection 2 – Growth Management Policy. This discretion would only be applied in cases wh ere the developer of property successfully collaborates with the City and submits a cons ervation development proposal that includes public values that exceed those achievable under a conventional development approach. The determination as to whether this threshold is reached will be at the sole discretion of the City Council. He stated in this context, “conventional development” is defined as a development proposal that meets the minimum requirement s of the City’s or dinances regulating subdivision and platting, zoning, street standards, and othe r pertinent requirements. “Conservation development” refers to th e collaborative process in which certain stipulated public values are sought in ex change for greater fl exibility on general development requirements and the grow th limits defined under this policy. He reviewed the options for amending the pol icy and requested the Board open the public hearing, take comments, close the public hearing and make a recommendation on ordinance amendment. Mr. Schoenbauer noted the intent was the get developers to do cons ervation development, while still maintaining the ab ility to do conservation development if a conservation development would not work. Chair Rafferty asked what were the ne gative things they would experience by recommending this. Mr. Schoenbauer replied he did not see a downside because at the end of the day the City held the final deci sion and if a development could not make a conservation development, the developer had no choice but to go back into the conventional approach. Chair Rafferty asked if the City would have to hire consultants each time to analyze the developments as they came in. Mr. Schoenbaue r replied his services were intended to get the City started, but it was the goal to have C ity staff would take ove r the analysis with the objective being to actually decrease the staff’s time. Mr. Grochala stated he believed there would be a savings in time and effort in getting to a final product in going through this process. He noted most developments would not take as much time as the Royal Oaks Development because staff was still learning the process, but once staff has gone though the process, it should not take any more time than a conventional development process. Chair Rafferty stated he was getting the impr ession from the various Boards, it appeared everyone was very much in favor of this c onservative effort to produce developments in this fashion. Pl anni ng & Zo ni n g B o ar d Oct o ber 1 3 , 2 0 04 Page 8 APPROVED MINUTES Mr. Root stated there was also a third option, which was to ke ep things the same, but he believed the City did get some valuable things with this conservation development and he believed they needed to be flexible. He not ed his concern with option 1 was that they would have a land rush with no way to limit the lots. He stated his concern with option 2 was that the developers would wa nt to move the lots ahead a nd there would be no lots left in the near future because th ey shifted everything up. He suggested maybe something in between these two options might be more favorable. Mr. Grochala stated staff had thought of these concerns. He indicated however, if the City was getting what they wa nted and if things were bei ng taken care of at a higher level, there would be no negatives. Howeve r, he believed they needed to develop a couple of these developments to see how they were working. He stated with option 2, they were moving lots ahead on paper and th e developer had to fit into the existing phasing plan as required. Chair Rafferty asked how long for the infrastruc ture and what was the time for the build out. He asked if there was a need for the development if they allowed for the infrastructure to be completed. Mr. Grochala replied he saw getti ng infrastructure in was important, but there was also a cost for the infrastructure. Mr. Root stated the only th ing they could do was to have some sort of say over the number of lots and when the lots could be developed. He stated he could only go on the number of lots available for developmen t. Mr. Grochala noted no matter how many controls they put in place, they could not control the market or economic factors and he agreed they only had contro l of the number of lots. Mr. Root noted as the options were writ ten, there were no limits. Mr. Schoenbauer replied it was the Board’s discretion to use the alternative process and if they did not want to approve anymore, they did not have to. He stated th ey could stick with conventional development when they wanted. Mr. Root stated the whole reason this was taking place was because of the value to the City and therefore it would be hard to tu rn down these developments. Mr. Schoenbauer asked why would the City want to turn down a development if it met the highest standards the City wanted. Mr. Root expressed concern that the City would develop too fast and there would be not lots left for future development. Mr. Schoenbauer suggested they go with the second option, which would give some control and see how the next couple of conservation developments progressed. Mr. Root stated he was more worried about the larger developments. Mr. Schoenbauer replied they might want to consider limiting acreage. Mr. Tralle stated he was in favor of option 1 because he did not believe they should be “handcuffing” themselves. He noted there wa s MUSA and other regulations in place that Pl anni ng & Zo ni n g B o ar d Oct o ber 1 3 , 2 0 04 Page 9 APPROVED MINUTES would control some of this. He stated he did not believe there would be an influx of development proposals. He noted the City did not move that fast. He stated he wanted the ability to use their discretion. Mr. Tralle noted no matter how this was word ed, it would be a give and take and paper shuffle. Mr. Schoenbauer stated these growth controls could be used to the City’s advantage and they needed to trust themselves. He noted they were the decisions makers and they had the option of which way they wanted to progr ess. He stated there was no downside in giving themselves this discretion. Mr. Laden asked what was the main purpose of the 147 figure other than to slow growth. Mr. Grochala replied the 147 number was the midpoint between the slower growth movement and maintain the existing growth movement. Mr. Schoenbauer noted there was no develope r that could force them to do anything and it was up to them as to what type of a development they wanted. Chair Rafferty thanked staff for working hard on this project and noted he was excited to see what was happening at Fox Den. However, he asked if they were possibly being too critical of something that might not happen. He stated he was in favor of option 1. Chair Rafferty invited those for or agai nst this proposal to make comment. There were no comments made. Mr. Root made a MOTION to close the public hearing at 9:05 p.m. and was supported by Mr. Hyden. Motion carried 5-0. Mr. Pogalz made a MOTION to recommend Option 1 exempt conservation development from the growth restrictions. That is, a conservation development would be subject to neither the MUSA allocation limit (36 acres per year) nor the unit restriction (147 per year) and was supported by Mr. Hyden. Motion carried 4-1 (Nay – Root). Chair Rafferty recessed the meeting at 9:06 p.m . and reconvened the meeting at 9:14 p.m. A. CONTINUATION of Rezoning to P UD and a Preliminary Plat for Fox Den Acres, Royal Oaks Realty, a 50-acre deve lopment south of Birch Street and east of Deerwood Lane, at the east end of Fox Road Chair Rafferty noted they were taking item 5A off of the table continue where they left off. Mr. Smyser stated he recomm ended deleting Condition 2 on page 8 of his staff report and inserting the following: “No parking is to be allowed on fox Road between Deerwood Lane and the first intersec tion in this project”. Pl anni ng & Zo ni n g B o ar d Oct o ber 1 3 , 2 0 04 Page 10 APPROVED MINUTES Mr. Smyser stated in Condition 8 he requested the word “plat” be inserted between final and approval. Mr. Smyser noted a sign would be placed on the stub road indicating a road would go through in the future. Mr. Hyden made a MOTION to recommend rezoning to residential planned unit development and was supported by Mr. Laden. Motion carried 5-0. Mr. Tralle made a MOTION to recommend Preliminary Plat s ubject to the conditions as noted in staff’s October 13, 2004 report and with the amended changes made to Conditions number 2 and 8 as requested by staff and was supported by Mr. Hyden. Motion carried 5-0. Chair Rafferty thanked Mr. Black for his cooperation with the City staff on this development and wished him luck. C. Final Plat for Speiser Acres, Jeff a nd Marni Sawyer, the combination and subdivision of three existing lots to result in three lots , 453 Birch Street Staff stated applicants have requested approval of a single-fa mily residential development called Speiser Acres. The property within th e new subdivision consists of three existing lots, one with an existing single-family dwelli ng, and two lots of vaca nt land. The lot for the existing single-family dwelling will be en larged to include the land on which some accessory buildings have been constructed. Another single-family residential lot with frontage onto Birch Street will be created, and the remaining acreage will be combined into one large lot. Staff explained the final plat conforms to the approved preliminary plat layout as approved by the City Council on September 27, 2004. The title commitment for the property has been forwarded to the City A ttorney for review. As required under the conditions of preliminary plat approval, the applicant has submitted a Rice Creek Watershed permit. All other conditions of approval will be met with building permit review of the new home. A development cont ract between the applicant and the City is being developed and will address many of the c onditions of approval at that time. MUSA was allotted to lots 2 and 3 of the proposed fi nal plat as part of the preliminary plat process. Staff recommended the approval of th e final plat for Speiser Acres. Mr. Tralle made a MOTION to recommend approving the final plat for Speiser Acres and was supported by Mr. Pogalz. Motion carried 5-0. D. AUAR Study for the I-35E Corridor, Consideration of Advisory Panel Staff explained the City’s Comprehensive Plan guides the I-35E corridor area for the variety of land uses including low, medium, and high density residential, commercial, industrial and rural land uses. The City council goals, adopted in June, 2004, included Pl anni ng & Zo ni n g B o ar d Oct o ber 1 3 , 2 0 04 Page 11 APPROVED MINUTES the direction to being Master Planning of the I-35E corridor. These goals are also supported by the Economic Development A dvisory Committee (EDAC) Action Plan identifying the need to master plan the corridor. Staff stated they had received a proposal from Dahlgren, Shardlow & Urban, Inc. (DSU), a leading planning and landscape architecture firm in the state, to complete an Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR) for the propose d area along the easterly side of the city encompassing approximately 4,000 acres. The AUAR process give the City the opportunity to assess the impact of potentia l development on the area’s natural resources prior to receiving and consid ering development proposals for approval. By examining multiple development scenarios throughout the AUAR process, the City is able to evaluate how much development can be acco mmodated in an area without significant environmental impacts. An AUAR is a very proactive planning process. Staff noted a key element of the process is the establishment of an Advisory Panel consisting of representatives from the Pl anning & Zoning board, Environmental Board, EDAC, Rice Creek Watershed District, Anoka County, property owners, surrounding communities, and representatives from other identified key groups and agencies. The process is designed to em power the support the City Council in making informed decisions at every key stage of the project. He stated the AUAR process is proposed to be completed within nine months of the authorization to proceed. Staff recommended the Board appoint three members of the P&Z to serve on the AUAR Advisory Panel. Mr. Hyden asked what day and times the meeti ngs would be held. Mr. Grochala replied he did not have this information for tonight ’s meeting, but he suggested they have a special meeting in the next week or so to discuss who would be on the panel. He noted the meetings would probably be on a Tuesday or Thursday evening either at 6:00 p.m. or 6:30 p.m. Mr. Tralle, Mr. Root, and Mr. Laden stated they would be interested in being on the Advisory Panel if the meeti ngs were in the evening. Mr. Grochala noted all Board members were invited to show up at the meeting if they wanted. He stated the meetings would be public meetings. Chair Rafferty recommended appointing Mr. Tralle, Mr. Root, and Mr. Laden to the Advisory Panel and if staff needed further memb ers, they would come back to the Board. VI. DISCUSSION ITEMS Chair Rafferty recommended they discuss item VI.A. last. B. Comprehensive Plan Amendment, David McDonald (Bodyworks Gym property) Pl anni ng & Zo ni n g B o ar d Oct o ber 1 3 , 2 0 04 Page 12 APPROVED MINUTES Staff stated the owner of the property located at 780 Lois Lane, 790 Lois Lane, and the vacant property located adjacent to the southeas t corner of Lois Lane and the Della Lane alignment has approached the City in order to gauge the feasibility of redeveloping the properties with an attach ed residential product. He stated staff had assembled some informati on and sent it to the property owner. Upon receipt of that information the property ow ner retained a professional consultant and since then staff has met with the property ow ner and the consultant to discuss the letter and the potential development of the site. Staff explained considering the expense in proceeding with a Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Rezoning, Site Development Plan Review, and Plat; the property owner has requested City staff to discuss the potentia l of this site with the Planning and Zoning Board and City Council. He noted this is no t a formal submittal, nor does it even include a site plan. Rather, this is an attempt by th e property owner to get some feedback from the Planning and Zoning Board and City Counc il prior to formalizing any arrangements and paying for any working drawings. Mr. Pogalz asked if they had vacant lots adjacen t to their existing lot that they wanted to create townhomes on. Mr. Bengtson replied th at was correct, but they did not have any definite plans. Mr. Tralle asked how wide was the vacant lot. Mr. Bengtson replied he was not sure, but he did not believe it would be sufficient dept h for a lot to be created and it would be necessary to request a variance. Mr. Tralle asked who owned the road. Mr. Bengtson replied that road was an actual platted right-of-way, which led down to the pa rk. He noted he had spoken with Mr. DeGardner, Director of Public Services, about this and he did not have any issues with the road being vacated as long as there was an access to the park. Mr. Bengtson stated they wanted to find out if doing a townhome project in this area would be supported. He stated app licant was hoping to build in 2005. Mr. Pogalz asked what was th e precedent in creating someth ing in Stage 2. Mr. Smyser replied they had not advanced into Stage 2 yet. Mr. Pogalz noted if the City followed their staging plan, applicant would need to come back in 2010. Mr. Tralle stated he did not beli eve townhomes belonged there. Chair Rafferty stated townhomes might not be a good solution or direction at this time because it was a Stage 2 development. Mr. Hyden stated if they started going into Stage 2, this would ope n the doors to more Stage 2 development and he did not believe they should allow this to happen. Pl anni ng & Zo ni n g B o ar d Oct o ber 1 3 , 2 0 04 Page 13 APPROVED MINUTES C. Update on Legacy at Wood Edge Staff updated the Board on the Legacy at Wood Edge project. He stated last night Council took final action on redevelopment and they were moving forward and they anticipated breaking ground in spring, 2005. He stated the YMCA was anticipating ground breaking in mid-summer, 2005. D. Resignation of P&Z Board Member Sharon Lane Staff stated P&Z Board Member Sharon Lane had resigned a nd noted they would have a new board member on the Board in January, 2005. Chair Rafferty thanked Ms. Lane for her wo rk on the Board and wished her and her husband good luck in the future. A. Temporary Signage Update Staff presented the issues to address for temporary signage and the P&Z discussion to date. He noted the ultimate goa l is to prepare amendments to the existing sign ordinance. He indicated they were not proposing a total revamp of the sign ordinance. Mr. Bengtson stated he had broken down si gnage into 10 categories for review by the Board including portable signs, miscellaneous signs, construction signs, real estate advertising signs, subdivision developmen t sale signs, subdivision development directional signs, open house signs, special ev ent signs, garage and yard sale signs, and incidental signs. He asked if his categories covered the signs the Board had seen and if they wanted to add any other types of signs , or take some types of signs off of the discussion. Chair Rafferty stated staff had done a good job, but he had not had time to review the definitions. Mr. Bengtson noted they could adjust the definitions to be more or less inclusive or restrictive as the Board saw fit. Mr. Root thanked staff for their work. He as ked if there would be different standards for each different type of sign, or was the purpose to give them a scope of what temporary signage was. Mr. Bengtson repl ied it was his intention to gi ve the Board a broad look at the different types of temporary signs there were and it would be up to the Board as to what type of standards they wanted to apply. He stated they could take one or two type of signs at the end of each meeting and look at them individually if the Board wanted. Mr. Laden stated he had been doing some re search on sign regulations and free speech and some Cities had been sued on their sign or dinances, which had gone all of the way to the Supreme Court. He stated he understood ci ties could not restrict the content of the sign and if it was a temporary sign, they could re strict size, time, etc ., but they could not restrict content. He suggested they look at all temporary signage as one and restrict them by size, time, etc. and not review each sign type individually. Pl anni ng & Zo ni n g B o ar d Oct o ber 1 3 , 2 0 04 Page 14 APPROVED MINUTES Mr. Hyden stated Mr. Laden’s point was a good one and he believed the simpler the better. Mr. Bengtson stated the Board could go with th is type of restriction, but many Cities had temporary sign ordinances. Mr. Laden stated they could still restrict banners. Mr. Pogalz believed this needed to be more refined and there needed to be a few more layers. He stated he did not believe a te mporary sign was a temporary sign and there were different levels to it which they needed to look at. Mr. Hyden asked how should they approach this. Mr. Tralle noted if they took two signs a m eeting, it would take them 5 months to get through this. Mr. Pogalz indicated the Cities they had looked at previously, appeared to have layers to their sign ordinance. Mr. Bengtson stated a lot of City codes had signage broken down. Mr. Root stated if they broke it down too much, it would be difficult to enforce. Mr. Pogalz believed this would be difficult to enforce anyway. Mr. Tralle asked if City st aff had started enforcing the sign ordinance. Mr. Bengtson replied City staff would be working on this, bu t they were short staffed last month due to vacations. Mr. Tralle noted political signs superceded anything the City put up because the State Statutes regulated them. Mr. Bengtson replie d that was correct and the Board would not need to deal with political signs. Mr. Tralle asked if those Statutes would give them any guidelines for temporary signage. Mr. Bengtson replied the Statutes were not very specific and ther efore would probably not be useful for them to look at. However, he would gather the Statute information for the Board meeting next month for the Boardmembers to review. Chair Rafferty asked if there was one thi ng they could look at tonight and make a determination. Mr. Tralle suggested the look at five signs this month a nd five signs next month. Chair Rafferty stated they needed to find a way to move forward, but he recommended they only go to 10:30 p.m. for this meeting. He also recommended they only discuss the sign issue until 10:30 p.m. for future meetings. Mr. Laden asked if they should make any di stinction between commercial and residential property. Mr. Bengston replied depending on the type of sign, it could be used on either Pl anni ng & Zo ni n g B o ar d Oct o ber 1 3 , 2 0 04 Page 15 APPROVED MINUTES commercial or residential property and the Boar d could make the determination if certain signs should be banned fr om certain properties. Mr. Root asked if there was a reason they could not limit to tal temporary signage to no more than 32 square feet and have a timeline for the sign to be out. Chair Rafferty stated Mr. Root’s sugges tion was fine, except when it came to construction signs. He stated this issue would come up soon with the development by City Hall. Mr. Laden asked how long could a sign be up be fore it was considered a permanent sign. Mr. Pogalz stated at a previous meeting a business had indicated they needed the temporary signage for their profitability and he was concerned if the City cut into the profitability of a busines s, a lawsuit could be the result. Mr. Tralle pointed out staff had not been able to verify that these temporary signs cut into the profitability of a business. Chair Rafferty suggested for next month they take three signs out of this packet and discuss those, starting with the constructi on signs, subdivision signs, and subdivision directional development signs. Mr. Laden stated he believed these three types of signs were the same. Mr. Pogalz stated until it as brought up on this Board, he never paid much attention to the fact that there were so many si gns in the City and he was not sure how to approach this yet. Mr. Hyden stated he wanted to nail down a goal each time so they were moving forward. He stated he did not want to discuss this at every mee ting with no conclusions being reached. Chair Rafferty stated he did not know what was the best dire ction to go, but he would like to get this behind them. He stated he wanted to get to the root of the problem and make this easy to regulate. Mr. Hyden stated he understood what brought this on was the us e of banners in the City and the City was looking for direction on how to enforce us e of banners, but now they needed to look at all temporary signage. Mr. Tralle stated he wanted to tackle the banners and not construction signs because these were already defined. He stated banners and signs on posts were the biggest problems for him. Mr. Root stated he wanted to pick a sign a nd discuss it and take this in small chunks, but he agreed they should begin with a discussion on banner signs first. Chair Rafferty asked if they could agree to discuss banners at the next meeting. Mr. Bengston suggested the Board members look at the sign definitions over the next month and if they were defined and the members ag reed with the definition, then they did not Pl anni ng & Zo ni n g B o ar d Oct o ber 1 3 , 2 0 04 Page 16 APPROVED MINUTES need to discuss that type of signage, which would get those types of signs out of the way and they could then discuss the si gns that were creating problems. The Board agreed to discuss banners at the next meeting and the other signs that had definitions, unless the Board had questions about them, would not be discussed. VII. ADJOURNMENT Mr. Tralle made a MOTION to adjourn the meeting at 10:41 p.m., and was supported by Mr. Root. Motion carried 5-0. Respectfully submitted, Kathy Altman, Recording Secretary TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc .