Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/08/2001 P&Z Packet• AGENDA CITY OF LINO LAKES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD Wednesday, August 8, 2001 6:30 p.m. I. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: July 11, 2001 IV. OPEN MIKE V. ACTION ITEMS A. Jon Crenshaw, 7080 Sunset Ave., Minor Subdivision, Variance, Jeff Smyser B. Gerald Ramsay, 1168 Ruffed Grouse Court, Variance, Jeff Smyser (tabled on 7/11/01) • VI. DISCUSSION ITEMS A. September meeting date change B. Recommendation from Environmental Board for moratorium on new development C. Packet delivery, Rob Rafferty VII. ADJOURN • • Planning & Zoning Board July 11, 2001 Page 1 CITY OF LINO LAKES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MINUTES I. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL Chair Schaps called the Lino Lakes Planning an `. "iing Board meeting to order at 6:32 p.m., July 11, 2001. II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Chair Schaps requested additions to this evening's agenda. Hearing none, the agenda was approved a III. APPROVAL OF MINU A. CORRECTION OF • RIL 11, 2001 APPROVED MINUTES Mr. Smyser noted on the first page of the April 11, 2001 minutes, Mr. Schilling was shown as present, however, at that time he was no longer a member of the Planning and Zoning Board. Additionally, Mr. Rafferty was not listed as present but was present that evening. Mr. Corson made a MOTION to approve the minutes of the April 11, 2001, meeting of the Lino Lakes Planning and Zoning Board, as corrected above and was supported by Ms. Lane. Motion carried 5 -0. B. JUNE 13, 2001 Mr. Rafferty noted on page 11, fourth paragraph from the bottom, the name "Lee Fanner" should be corrected to "Leaf Palmer." • Planning & Zoning Board July 11, 2001 Page 2 Mr. Rafferty asked that it be verified whether he had voted in favor of the motion on page four that was made by Mr. Corson and supported by Mr. Lyden. Ms. Lane made a MOTION to approve the minutes of the June 13, 2001, meeting of the Lino Lakes Planning and Zoning Board, as corrected, and was supported by Mr. Corson. Motion carried 5 -0. IV. INTRODUCE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR The Community Development Director was not yet in attendance and Chair Schaps moved the meeting on to the next agenda item. IV. OPEN MIKE Chair Schaps declared Open Mike open at 6:40 p.m. No one was present for Open Mike. Mr. Lyden made a MOTION to close Open Mik Corson. Motion carried 5 -0. V. ACTION ITEMS A. Sai S. Lee, 8075 20th Aven ., _ Manche d was supported by Mr. Staff presented the application by - W ` for a variance from the prohibition on building an accessory bud. a ��.:.� e front lot line than the principal building. Staff noted its report is - :,; d on a :9 Certificate of Survey of the property by E. G. Rud & Sons, Inc. and a han g= aw g showing the approximate location of the proposed accessory building. Both wer ceive on June 6, 2001. Staff advised that the City's zoning ordinance states that "No detached accessory structure shall be closer to the front lot line than the principal building or its attached garage," (Section 3 Subd. 4.D.1.c.). Staff presented its analysis of Mr. Lee's request to build an accessory building near the existing house but closer to the road than the house. The existing house is in the south central part of the property. The septic system is to the southwest, behind the house. The aerial photo indicates a low- lying, wet area to the north of the house and another, larger wet area to the east. A large area of the western part of the property is in a drainage easement. A larger portion of the western part of the lot is covered by a right of way easement for the electric transmission lines. The transmission easement is 200 feet wide. • Staff noted that there may be upland available to build the storage building behind the house. However, creating a driveway to get to it would require impacting the wet areas • • Planning & Zoning Board July 11, 2001 Page 3 to the north and east of the house. The drainfield prevents a driveway running on the south of the house. These physical constraints limit the location where a structure could be built. Staff presented the findings that must be addressed in considering all requests for variance and in taking subsequent action. It was noted that the City shall make a finding of fact: 1. That the property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls. 2. That the plight of the landowners is due to physical circumstances unique to his property not created by the land owner. 3. That the hardship is not due to economic considerations alone and when a reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the ordinance. 4. That granting the variance requested will not confer on the applicant any special privilege that would be denied by this ordinance to other lands, structures, or buildings in the same district. 5. That the proposed actions will be in keeping w the spirit and intent of the ordinance. Staff advsied that the low- lying, wet area to th driveway to serve the area behind the house where storage building on. The area behind the k - is als easement, even if a driveway could be built Staff recommended approving the lfouse limits the location of a re might be upland to build a mited by the transmission line 1. A building permi size and other r ication with the following condition: d, which will require that the building meets the f e zoning ordinance and building code. Chair Schaps asked if staff h. "' °' en in contact with the adjoining property owners. Mr. Smyser stated staff has not been in contact with the adjourning property owners and he was not certain whether the applicant has been in contact with them regarding this application. Mr. Lyden asked if there were details regarding the size, etc. of the proposed building. Mr. Smyser stated because this was an application for a variance, not a building permit, specific details regarding the building were not requested. He indicated if the variance is approved, then the applicant will be required to apply for a building permit at which time staff will ensure that the building meets all code requirements. He noted because the property is quite large, the applicant would not be limited to a small structure. Mr. Lyden asked for the size of the parcel. Mr. Smyser stated the parcel is 1,053 feet long by approximately 500 feet wide. Chair Schaps asked the applicant if he would like to make comment. s Planning & Zoning Board July 11, 2001 Page 4 Sai S. Lee, 8075 20th Avenue North, applicant, stated he intended to construct a small garage, 20 feet wide by 20 feet long. Mr. Lyden asked Mr. Lee if he has discussed this variance application with his neighbor to the south. Mr. Lee stated he has not discussed this application with his neighbor to the south because there are currently no structures near his southern property line. Mr. Lyden questioned how close the nearest structure is to Mr. Lee's southern property line. Mr. Lee estimated that the nearest structure is 1,000 feet from his southern property line. Mr. Corson made a MOTION to approve the application by Sai S. Lee, 8075 20th Avenue N., for a variance from the prohibition on building an accessory building closer to the front lot line than the principal building, based _on.the facts of findlings for variances listed in the staff report dated July 11, 2001, with the following condition: 1. A building permit must be obtained, which wi y- quire that the building meets the size and other requirements of the zoning or an4 g d building code. The motion was supported by Mr. Rafferty. d " -0. Geri Ramsa 1168 Ruffed Gro s urt ` 'ance Staff presented the variance applic meet the required 30' setback fr Ramsays also want a six -foot fenc ordinance states that a fen neighbor's front yard. T by t` ri Ramsay to allow a pool that does not ht . > way of Ruffed Grouse Road. The e pool. Staff noted that the City's zoning our feet high when it would be along the on for the second variance request. Staff advised that its report is ed on the May 7, 2001 building permit application for the pool, which shows the approximate location of the pool drawn by hand on a 3/29/94 Surveyors Certificate of the property by Hy -Land Surveying. Staff presented its analysis of the request and advised that the Ramsays had applied for a permit in May to build an above - ground pool. The first proposal was to put the pool in the middle of the back yard. However, this was not allowed because the yard slopes to a "V" in the middle and drains through the middle of the yard. A pool in the originally proposed location would block drainage and water would back up to the house. The Ramsays then proposed to put the pool over on one side of the yard. This was an appropriate location for drainage purposes. It was noted that engineering and building inspections approved the permit and the Ramsays built the pool. The pool is approximately 20 feet from the right of way. Belatedly, inspections staff recognized that the pool didn't meet the required setback from a road, which is 30 feet for all structures. (Pool shall not be located within any • • Planning & Zoning Board July 11, 2001 Page 5 required front or side yard setback. Sec. 3 Subd. 4.D.3.3.) Staff is processing this variance at no charge to the Ramsays because of the oversight. Staff advised that the second variance involves a proposed fence around the back yard and pool. The Ramsay's lot fronts on Ruffed Grouse Court. Their rear lot line is the side lot line of their neighbors' house, which fronts on Ruffed Grouse Road. The zoning ordinance addresses fences in such a situation, which is common with corner lots: Should the rear lot line of a lot be common with the side lot line of an abutting lot, that portion of the rear lot line equate to the required front yard of the abutting lot shall not be fenced to a height of more than four (4) feet. (Section 3 Subd. 4.T.b.) Staff noted that the ordinance is verbally clumsy: substitute "equal" for "equate ". In addition, our interpretation has always been that the intent is: "that portion of the rear yard equal to the required front yard of the abutting lot shall not be fenced to height more than four feet." The intent is to prevent a front yard from being closed in by a neighbor's six -foot fence along that neighbor's back and ,.• a yards. It is instructive that a later passage states: Fences in residential districts may be located in _ y. d to =•'ght of four (4) feet, except that a fence up to six (6) feet in height ► ; b cted om the front facade of the principal building to the side and/or rear lot line. (Sec s: Subs .T.4.) Staff suggested that clearly the int foot fences. The fence along th building front and going back fro taller fence would fence i front yards visually open, free from six - an go up to six feet beginning at the xcept when the lot abuts another where the is front yard. Staff advised that the ordin arding pools requires only a four -foot fence if a fence is the safeguard to prevent c "P` en from gaining uncontrolled access. In fact, because the ladder to the pool can beretracted, the ordinance does not actually require a fence. The Ramsays are concerned about children climbing a four -foot fence and gaining unsupervised access to the pool. Staff was unable to contact the neighbors on the abutting lot due to their phone number being unlisted. Staff explained that the Ramsays have said they are amenable to constructing the six -foot fence as far back from the road as possible while still enclosing the pool. Staff presented the findings that must be addressed in considering all requests for variance and in taking subsequent action, the City shall make a finding of fact: 1. That the property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls. • • • Planning & Zoning Board July 11, 2001 Page 6 2. That the plight of the landowners is due to physical circumstances unique to his property not created by the land owner. 3. That the hardship is not due to economic considerations alone and when a reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the ordinance. 4. That granting the variance requested will not confer on the applicant any special privilege that would be denied by this ordinance to other lands, structures, or buildings in the same district. 5. That the proposed actions will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance. In consideration of this application, staff suggested the following: • The grading of the lot created a physical constraint on the location of the pool. Based on City approval of a building permit for the pool, the home owners built the pool in a location that does not meet the required setback. Staff supports the setback variance. • The variance for the taller fence is less support fence would provide an inadequate security feet is enough. The ordinance clearly int or side yard from closing in the front y Staff pointed out that corner lots have inh the owner. While the grading of a lot may of the lot once the house is cons must as the internal aspects of the lot considered when planning the use It is not clear that a four -foot . Under the ordinance, four a tall fence around a back h.r's abutting lot. is which should be recognized by prospective buyer's control, the use ecognize the physical surroundings as well utting a neighboring front yard must be Staff recommended tha physical constraint describe area equal to the front yard of g ommis'sion approve the setback variance based on report and deny the variance for the taller fence in the abutting lot. Chair Schaps asked if the adjacent neighbors have commented on this request. Mr. Smyser suggested that the neighbors be given an opporutniyt to speak for themselves. Chair Schaps noted the issues regarding a variance for the pool and a variance for a fence were sepearate. Mr. Corson requested an explanation about why the pool had been constructed in its current icoation. He acknowledged that the rear yard contains a drainage easement and asked whether it would be posible to direct the drainage around the pool. Mr. Powell stated in the center of the rear yard the applicant has custom landscaping in a "V" shape. He stated if the pool had been constructed in the middle of this area it would back up the drainage toward the house. • • • Planning & Zoning Board July 11, 2001 Page 7 Chair Schap asked if the pool is above or below ground. Mr. Smyser stated the pool is a four feet deep above ground pool with a removable ladder. Because there is a removable ladder the applicant is not required to construct a fence around the pool. However, if the pool did not include a removable ladder, City ordinance would require a four -foot high fence. Mr. Zych requested the location of the adjacent neighbor's driveway and questioned whether a six -foot high fence as requested would create sight line issues from the driveway. Mr. Smyser showed the location of the adjancent neighbor's house, garage and driveway. He stated that at this time an application for the construction of a fence has not been submitted, therefore, he believed the exact location of the fence was flexible. Ms. Lane questioned why the pool was not proposed to be constructed in the opposite corner of the lot. Mr. Smyser was not certain and noted that the pool has already been cosntructed. Chair S chaps asked the applicant if she would like to . e comment. Geri Ramsay, 1168 Ruffed Grouse Court, applic permit to construct the pool she had not been setbacks and, because she was granted the permit, code requirements. she first applied for a ith • ecific guidelines on had assumed that the pool met all Ms. Ramsay stated that because of • ain e of lot there had been limited locations for the pool. However, she was ain w her husband had chosen the specific site Chair Schaps asked Ms. regarding the pool. Ms that many of her neighbors are approximately 72 small c aware of any neighborhood concerns e• she was not aware of any concerns. She indicated t a six -foot high fence will be constructed since there en in this development. She stated because Ruffed Grouse Court is not a through street, the local children play freely in the neighborhood and she did not feel that a four -foot high fence was sensible to prevent children from climbing the fence and gaining access to the pool. Ms. Ramsay stated she has children involved in sports which requires her to be gone from her home a great deal in the early evenings. She expressed concern for the safety of the children and her liability if a six -foot high fence is not allowed. She stated that she was willing to construct the fence as far as 22 feet from the roadway in order to eliminate concerns about visibility for her adjacent neighbor. Chair Schaps asked Ms. Ramsay if she had investigated the limitations of a fence when she had been considering the construction of her pool. Ms. Ramsay stated she had not. She indicated that she recently moved to Minnesota from the East Coast where six -foot high fences are the law. Therefore, she had assumed that this would be the same requirement in Lino Lakes. r • Planning & Zoning Board July 11, 2001 Page 8 Chair Schaps asked if there were insurance issues requiring a six -foot high fence, or if a six-foot high fence was simply a desire. Ms. Ramsay stated she wished to construct a six -foot high fence for the safety of the children in her neighborhood, but her homeowner's insurance did not require a fence of this height. She simply did not want something tragic to happen to a neighborhood child. Chair Schaps asked Ms. Ramsay if any of her adjacent neighbors were opposed to a six - foot high fence. Ms. Ramsay was not certain. She stated she would be willing to obtain signatures from her neighbors in support of the fence and noted her neighbors across the street want the fence to be constructed. Chair Schaps asked if there was currently a fence in the proposed location. Ms. Ramsay stated she currently has a split rail fence. Mr. Corson noted many communities allow a 20 -foot setback for corner lots and asked if the City of Lino Lakes has looked into this. Mr. Smyser ted that the current ordinance had been adopted in 1997 and he jointed the City in 19 and was therefore unaware of the discussions that took place regarding setbacks. Mr. Brixius stated the City had not considered it was felt that the side of a property abutting a pu yard. Mr. Lyden acknowledged that a pool. He asked, if Ms. Ramsay provided her with bad information, the pool. the setback requirements because street would be considered a front had ccurred in approving the location of the uired move the pool because the City had e City be responsible for the cost to relocate Mr. Smyser stated it was hi :'F , de tanding that because the City approved the building permit, the applicant has the n "«` ' to leave the pool in its current location. He did not believe the City would have the right to rescind the building permit and require the pool to be moved. Mr. Lyden asked why a variance was being requested for a pool that has already been constructed. He also asked if the location of the pool would devalue the adjacent property and whether the City would be responsible for this devaluation. Chair Schaps stated the requested variance was simply a matter of formalities since the pool was allowed to be constructed less than the setback requirement. He stated he was not certain whether the location of the pool would devalue the adjacent property. Mr. Smyser indicated that the adjacent property owner was in attendance this evening. Chair Schaps invited the applicant's adjacent property owner to make comment. Bob Ranallo, 6643 Ruffed Grouse Court, stated he has lived at this address since January Planning & Zoning Board July 11, 2001 Page 9 1994. He stated he had been informed that the issue to be discussed this evening was regarding a variance for the height of a fence, not the location of the pool. Mr. Ranallo stated when the pool was under construction he had contacted the Building Inspector and had been informed that the pool had originally been approved to be located in the middle of the rear lot. He stated he had requested confirmation that the location in the northeast corner of the lot had been approved but he had not received a response from the City. He stated he was opposed to the current location of the pool. Mr. Ranallo stated in speaking with three different appraisers he was informed that an above ground pool located adjacent to his front yard does devalue his property. Mr. Ranallo noted Ms. Ramsay currently has a nice split rail fence located 10 feet from the street. He stated if a six -foot fence is constructed in that same location it will obstruct his view down the street. He noted Ms. Ramsay had offered to construct the fence with a 22 -foot setback and he did not see how this would be possible since the pool is currently located 20 feet from the right -of -way line. Chair Schaps asked if there are currently any other is he immediate area. Mr. Ranallo stated there are not. Chair Schaps asked Mr. Ranallo if he had discuss is concerns with the applicant. Mr. Ranallo stated he has not. Chair Schaps asked Mr. Ranallo if had it not required a variance. originally planned location of the Chair Schaps asked Mr Mr. Ranallo responded aff ouldot be opposed to the location of the pool ed that he would not have opposed the e . cknowledged his neighbor's right to have a pool. y. Chair Schaps asked Mr. Ranallo if he understood that the applicant could construct a four -foot high fence. Mr. Ranallo responded affirmatively. Mr. Corson requested the location of the existing fence. Mr. Smyser stated the existing fence is located on the eastern property line and runs around the corner approximately 10 feet from the street. Mr. Corson requested confirmation that a four -foot high fence could be constructed up to the 30 -foot setback line and could then be increased to a six -foot high fence. Mr. Smyser stated this was correct. Chair Schaps stated that, through no fault of Ms. Ramsay, the pool had been constructed in the wrong location. He stated Mr. Ranallo had some valid issues and he felt that no matter how tall a fence is, children could climb over it. • • • Planning & Zoning Board July 11, 2001 Page 10 Chair Schaps felt the City Council and City Attorney should be made aware of this situation and perhaps an investigation should be done to determine how much it would cost to relocate the pool to eliminate the need for a variance. He did not feel that the applicant should be responsible for paying the cost to relocate the pool. He noted that even if a suitable location is found, there may still be an issue with the applicant wanting a six -foot high fence. He stated he wished to encourage the neighbors to get along and he felt in order to rectify a problem that should not have happened, it would be worth while investigating the option of relocating the pool. Chair Schaps asked Ms. Ramsay if she was willing to continue this request for a period of time in order to find out from her contractor whether it would be possible to relocate the pool. Ms. Ramsay stated that this would be acceptable providing she would not have to pay for the relocation of the pool. Chair Schaps asked Mr. Ranallo if he would agree to this option. Mr. Ranallo responded affirmatively. Ms. Ramsay noted with the current layout of the house, would still be visible even if moved. Chair Schaps not the issue, rather the issue was locating the po be needed. her neighborhood, her pool visibility of the pool was ck variance would not Ms. Ramsay questioned why eight -foot t. ` ee ees would be allowed for screening but a six -foot tall fence is prohibi Schaps was not certain. Mr. Rafferty suggested that a w visibility through the fence. He re to come to an agreement may be more costly, bu between the neighbors. fe a` e could be constructed in order to allow ed that the applicant work with her neighbor e acknowledged that a wrought iron fence y . e worth the extra cost to maintain good relations Mr. Corson made a MOTION to table the request for a setback variance by Geri Ramsay, 1168 Ruffed Grouse Court, in order to allow an investigation to be done to determine whether the City could pay for the relocation of the pool to an appropriate location in the rear yard in order to avoid the need for a setback variance, incorporating the comments made this evening by the Planning and Zoning Board, staff, the applicant, and the adjacent property owner, and was supported by Mr. Lyden. Motion carried 5 -0. Chair Schaps requested that this issue be added to the August Planning and Zoning Board meeting agenda. All Board Members agreed. Mr. Smyser stated per State Law, Ms. Ramsay will be receiving a letter from the City indicating that because the City is required to take action within a certain amount of time, the review period will automatically be extended for 60 days. He stated staff will attempt to resolve the issue sooner than the 60 -day extension deadline. • Planning & Zoning Board July 11, 2001 Page 11 Mr. Smyser stated staff does not hold the applicant responsible for the error in the setback and he expressed his appreciation to Ms. Ramsay for being so accommodating. Ms. Ramsay noted she currently has $400 worth of landscaping in her rear yard. Chair Schaps suggested that Ms. Ramsay discuss this issue with her contractor. IV. INTRODUCE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR Mr. Smyser introduced Michael Grochala, the City's new Community Development Director. Mr. Grochala stated he is very happy and excited to be working for the City of Lino Lakes. Chair Schaps asked Mr. Grochala where he was working prior to accepting this new position. Mr. Grochala stated he previously held the position of Community Development Director for the City of Cambridge. Chair Schaps welcomed Mr. Grochala to the City o ff, m es. C. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING, Lake Drive i. Rezone to PDO ii. Site and Building Rev w iii. Preliminary P1 Chair Schaps reopened th at 7:37 p.m. ies US, Inc. (Target), Mr. Grochala advised that `' P plans were received on Friday, June 29, 2001. A review of the plans, based up r the issues and concerns that were raised in the June 7, 2001 report to the Planning and Zoning Board, as well as the memo dated June 18, 2001, has been completed. He presented staffs analysis of their review of the revised plans with the earlier comments as an outline and with the earlier reports presented to the Board. Mr. Grochala noted on page four of the letter from TKDA, under paragraph seven, the date in the last sentance should be changed to July 25, 2001. With regard to the completion of the EAW process, Mr. Grochala advised that this is underway but will not be completed prior to Planning and Zoning Board review. The EAW comment period ends on July 11, 2001. Staff will be addressing those comments and forwarding the EAW to the Environmental Board for review on July 18, 2001. Mr. Grochala stated the wetland fill and mitigation plans have not yet been approved by • Rice Creek. They are in the process of addressing remaining issues related to wetland • Planning & Zoning Board July 11, 2001 Page 12 mitigation. Mr. Grochala advised that the overall internal circulation pattern has been improved. However, the secondary access into the site, located between Apollo Drive and 77th Street, and first intersection internal to the site is wide, off -set, and at an odd angle. Based on the users identified, this will be a high traffic location. The entrance and intersection should be redesigned to eliminate the offset and angle to improve site circulation and reduce vehicle conflicts and confusion. Chair Schaps asked what the speed limit will be on the internal streets. Mr. Grochala stated the speed limit will be set at 15 miles per hour for the Apollo Drive Extension. Mr. Grochala indicated a desire to reduce the number of drive aisle conflicts within the access drives. The Kohl's parking has been modified so that each drive aisle is forced out to the main drive. Staff is recommending that only two access points to the extension of Apollo Drive from the Kohl's parking lot be allowed. At a minimum the easternmost and westernmost drive aisles shall be eliminated due to eir proximity to the adjacent intersections. Mr. Grochala explained that, generally, the num the ordinance. The Kohl's lot is designed wi stall with 20 foot deep parking spaces and 25 fo limitation of access to Apollo Drive co width to the standard 9 feet. The balance foot two -way drive aisles. The m •;q ve as are talls is adequate based on and • '• s, which is a 9.5 foot wide ve aisles. Any parking lost to the y replaced by reducing the stall has stalls 9 feet by 19 feet, with 25 30 feet in width. Mr. Grochala noted that the han : ng on the Kohl's lot needs to be shifted southerly to allow for a 1 • •'sc : era i = Y • at the end of the parking rows. The proposed layout forces handicap e place immediately adjacent to the main drive in front of Kohl's. Staff has requested that the remnant parcel located between Apollo Drive and Lots 3 and 4 of the development be integrated into the proposed development. At a minimum a cross access and ingress /egress easement should be provided for this parcel. Mr. Grochala reported that the traffic analysis has been completed for improvements the City anticipates. Because Lake Drive is a County road, the County ultimately has to approve access and schedule improvements. Dedication of access control to Anoka County should be shown on the plat along Lots 1, 2, 3, and Outlot C adjacent to Lake Drive. The opening width for the secondary access will need to be determined by Anoka County. Mr. Grochala pointed out that screening is proposed to consist of landscaping materials. There is not adequate space to provide a berm in the area behind the stores. While the landscape materials will provide visual relief, it will not screen the site or drive aisles. We believe the critical points of screening are where vehicles will be directing headlights • • • Planning & Zoning Board July 11, 2001 Page 13 towards the adjacent residential uses primarily in the northeast and northwest corners of the Target Parcel. Landscaping treatment within these areas should provide year round screening from adjacent residential areas. Coniferous plantings other than the White Pine currently shown and/or fencing should be applied to these areas. Mr. Grochala noted that lighting details have been provided. The applicant is proposing to use a decorative fixture similar to City campus lighting. The layout and spacing of the fixtures does not provide the effect intended. Staff recommends that decorative lighting fixtures be spaced at 75 to 100 foot intervals and staggered on opposite sides of each main drive aisle and along the fronts of buildings. The parking lot fixtures are shoe box style with downcast lighting which is desirable to control spill -over lighting. Lighting levels meet the ordinance, except along the rear of Kohl's. The ordinance requires 0.4 foot candles at the property line where adjacent to residential. This lighting level will need to be reduced. Mr. Grochala noted the City Engineer's comments in a letter dated July 6, 2001 and he asked that the City Enigneer address those comments. Mr. Powell stated the majority of the Egineering c draiange plan, storm sewer computations and er.. o includes the proposed storm sewer. To information must be provided for the storm sewer, the pipe. Additionally, included in the previous sumbittal was the use of a broad not shown on the grading plan. s related to the details of the e stated the grading plan ity ith this review, additional luding the size, length, and slope of tions that were received in the eir. The location of the weir is still Mr. Powell noted to date the Rice project. They have no replacement. He indica the Rice Creek Watershed tershed District has tabled the review of this AAFA nor have the approved the wetland d in the agenda packet was a copy of the fax from which lists in detail the informaiton that is missing. Mr. Powell stated a detailed transportation impact study was completed by Steve Elmer of TKDA for this project. At the request of the developer, a second signalized intersection was included in the study as an option. The Anoka County Highway Department has stated that they will not permit a second signalized intersection for this site. The second intersection must be a right -in right -out situation. The developer has stated that the second signalized intersection is absolutely necessary for this site and this matter still needs to be resolved. Mr. Powell stated copies of the approvals from the necessary review and regulatory agencies, including the Rice Creek Watershed District, Minnesota Department of Transportation, and Anoka County Highway Department, must be submitted. Mr. Powell stated TKDA has reviewed these plans a number of times and did not anticipate any additional changes. • • Planning & Zoning Board July 11, 2001 Page 14 Mr. Grochala explained that signage has been addressed in the project narrative and sign submittal for the monument signs. The Sign Ordinance does not specifically address a development such as this, which is designed as a multiple tenant site, but all of the buildings are detached. The Sign Ordinance speaks to single tenant buildings and multiple tenant buildings. Under the ordinance, each lot or building would be allowed one wall sign and one freestanding or pylon sign. Mr. Grochala noted that instead of having multiple freestanding or pylon signs, the applicant is proposing to limit freestanding signs to two adjacent to the freeway; one at Apollo Drive; two at the second entrance; and one off of Apollo Drive. The sign faces of the freestanding signs are within the area allowed by ordinance and the height requested is consistent with the ordinance. Staff is concerned about the size of the non -sign portion of the monuments and the height of signs along Lake Drive. The structures are 18 feet in length and are proposed at the access which could cause sight — distance concerns. Staff recommends that free - standing signs be allowed as follows: A. Freestanding signage along I -35 b to one Joint Identification Sign. B. One Joint Identification si maximum height of 20 feet. C. Three individual user si structure and sign size of 9' wed along Lake Drive with a Mr. Grochala presented a revis requested reduction in sizes. requirements, however, s the limitation of only o ations shown with a maximum d 12' in height. ing of the proposed signage showing the e changes were consistent with the above eived a response from the developer regarding ti cation Sign along I -35W. Mr. Lyden asked if the high sign for Target would be lit. Mr. Grochala responded affirmatively. Mr. Lyden stated the flat top of the proposed highway sign was uninspiring. He suggested that an arch be added to the top of the sign including the Lino Lakes City logo. Mr. Grochala stated this could be considered. Mr. Grochala stated on the smaller retail buildings, wall signs will be individually internally lit letters, 36 inches in height, and located within a stucco sign band. The building elevations indicate signs on both front and back of the buildings. Signage on the rear of buildings shall be limited to a uniform low profile identity sign. The sign face shall have a maximum dimension of 2' x 8'. In considering the good of the City, Mr. Lyden questioned the inclusion of a convenience store with gas pumps and a bank in this PDO when both services are already located nearby. He expressed concern that the PDO did not include any sit down restaraunts or • • • Planning & Zoning Board July 11, 2001 Page 15 other services needed by the residents of the City. He did not feel that the services being proposed would be a positive asset to the city. Mr. Lyden asked for the status of the remnant parcel. Mr. Grochala stated a condemnation process to acquire the land is currently being considered. He stated the City Council reviewed the feasiblity of this process at thier July meeting but did not want to invest money in the acquisition of the property until the proposed PDO is moving toward a point of approval. Mr. Grochala noted the proposed uses are permitted in this Zoning District. He noted there are other options available within the list of permitted uses and suggested the applicant be asked what potential uses they anticipated for the other buildings. Mr. Grochala noted that building design guidelines have been included in the project narrative. These requirements should be incorporated into the development agreement and/or declaration of covenants for the property. The building materials have not changed. They intend to use a common theme and co ►, on materials throughout the development. No additional treatment has been added the rear The architectural design of Kohl's, Target submitted and included for approval as part of Fast Food (Lot 2), Bank (Lot 8), and Buildings approval in accordance with Section 2, Su Mr. Grochala invited Mr. Wessel t , C, and D have been Th Convenience Store (Lot 1), d E shall require Site Plan Review o Lakes Zoning Ordinance. e building design and materials. Mr. Wessel stated the City Counc project they wanted a s continuity with the To regarding the building ma made. He invited Bill Wittr building elevations. de it clear early in the process that with this nt of quality materials to be used to allow e indicated there has been negotiations occurring d design and he felt significant progress has been representing RSP Architects, to present the proposed Mr. Wittrock stated the Board had previously reviewed colored elevations and material samples for the Target Store, in -line stores and the stand alone buildings and black and white elevations of the Kohl's building. Since that time a written narrative of the out buildings and the overall development has been created. Mr. Wittrock stated the proposed architecture for this development will follow the Town Center guidelines. He stated the buildings would be composed of a base, middle and top with similar materials and details being used through out the project. Mr. Wittrock presented colored elevations of the in -line stores (Buildings C and D) which showed a colonial style design including gabled ends and a metal roof. He indicated the buildings would be predominately brick with stucco sign bands at the top and a burnished concrete block being used for the base. He stated the store fronts would utilize a great • • Planning & Zoning Board July 11, 2001 Page 16 deal of glass to make them inviting. Mr. Wittrock presented colored elevations of the Target Store and noted that the building would include a good quantity of the specified building materials. Mr. Wittrock noted at last month's Board meeting the Board had questions regarding the appearance of the Kohl's building and at that time only black and white elevations were available. He stated KKE Architects had been invited to attend this evening's meeting to present colored elevations of the Kohl's building. Don Kerwick, KKE Architects, presented colored elevations of the proposed Kohl's building. He stated the intent of the prototype Kohl's building was for a department store image. He stated the Kohl's building would follow the guidelines of a base, middle and top. He stated Kohl's prefers a conservative image and chooses to use all brick on the front of their buildings. He stated all the brick materials are the same brick used throughout the development to fit within the center. Mr. Kerwick presented a sample board of the material_. He stated the entryway would be articulated with noted the proposed landscaping plan which inclu front of the building and a raised planting bed Mr. Kerwick presented elevations of the r face rock would be used and painted the s sides would not include accent stri <; He all outside equipment and boll be used on the Kohl's building. to give a timeless look. He large ting bed across the entire mers could sit on. Mr. Wittrock indicated significant concessions the City. He noted during that were not shown on the Ko f the building. He indicated split as the bricks. He stated the rear and ed all roof top units would be screened and nted to match the building. buildings within this development had made o otypes in order to comply with the requirements of th's meeting the Board had discussed certain elements s building, such as gabled end forms, and it was felt that this would not be appropriate for this type of building due to the scale and proportions. He felt Kohl's had made significant concessions and would set the tone for all the other buildings within the development. Mr. Lyden asked how the side wall lighting on the Target store would shine. Mr. Wittrock stated the lights would be down cast the same as the pole mounted lights. Mr. Lyden felt that decorative lighting adds interest to a building and questioned whether this same lighting could be included on the Kohl's building. Mr. Wittrock stated the decorative lighting on the Target Store had not been included on the Kohl's building. He stated the development has a desire to allow the retailer to maintain their franchise image and he was not certain the lighting would fit with Kohl's conservative image. Mr. Kerwick stated Kohl's lights their buildings very much like a department store would. He stated the entryway would include soffit lighting, which are the strongest lit • • Planning & Zoning Board July 11, 2001 Page 17 element of the building. He stated ground lighting would be included in the planting beds, which would wash the face of the building. Mr. Lyden noted the intent of this development was to create a sense of a special place and he felt part of this image was the lighting. He was concerned that the Kohl's building would appear out of place. Mr. Wittrock stated the Kohl's building would use the pole mounted lights being used throughout the development to blend with the rest of the development. Mr. Rafferty questioned whether the roof line over the entries of the Kohl's store could be raised to make the appearance of the entries more interesting. Mr. Kerwick stated he would not be comfortable with this change. He stated the entries would be highlighted by stepping out the stucco forms so there would not be a flat facade. He was concerned that raising the roof line as proposed would dwarf the entryways and appear messy. He stated in other developments Kohl's had been required to make this adjustment and he felt a raised roof line did not look good and he did not feenything would be gained by making such an adjustment. Mr. Grochala advised that the plans have been r between the smaller shops and Target/Kohls northwest corner of the Target site to link the sit bituminous trail will be provided adjac�;m_ improvements. The developer will be resp this property. to i orate pedestrian linkages ew has been extended in the ith the northern residential area. A ak o rive in conjunction with future r the cost of the segment adjacent to Mr. Grochala recommended that +ns to the plan should include: 1. A concr .. veme' x treatment for crosswalks on major drive lanes. 2. Extension o ` 'de ,'alk on Lot 8 (Bank) to the southerly property line (Apollo Drive). Mr. Grochala pointed out that the revised plans have addressed the majority of issues previously identified. The remaining concerns can generally be addressed through design changes. Staff is recommending approval of the PDO and preliminary plat subject to the following conditions: 1. No formal approval of the application shall be in effect until the EAW process is complete. 2. No formal approval of the application shall be in effect until Rice Creek Watershed District has completed their review and issued appropriate permits for the development. Mr. Grochala indicated the next City Council meeting will be held on July 23, 2001 but the Rice Creek Watershed meeting will be held on July 25, 2001. He indicated the development could be approved by the City Council conditioned on the recommendations • • • Planning & Zoning Board July 11, 2001 Page 18 of the Rice Creek Watershed District, however, if significant changes are required of the site plan, then final approval would not be granted in August and the project would be brought back to the Board to begin the review process over. 3. All required on and off -site improvements shall be subject to the review and approval of the City Engineer and County Engineer, as appropriate. 4. Landscaping treatments along residentially zoned property shall provide for year round screening. Suitable coniferous plantings and/or fencing shall be applied in these areas to minimize the impact of vehicular lighting from said properties. 5. The lighting plan shall be modified to provide decorative lighting at 75 to 100 feet spacing staggered along the primary drive aisles. The lighting plan shall be modified to limit lighting to 0.4 foot candles at the boundary line. 6. All information /modifications requested by the City Engineer pre the July 7, 2001 Engineering Review shall be provided prior to PDO approval. 7. Wall signage on the rear of Buildings C D shall be limited to a low profile identity sign. The sign face sh. # ave a maximum dimension of 2' by 8'. All other buildings sh. be � bject to the wall signage requirements of the Lino Lakes S. rdin 8. Freestanding signs shall be li ows. A. B. C. One Joint Identifica One Joint Identifica height of 20 Three i maximu 9. Refriger hours of 10. vehicles shall b g 1 -35W. along Lake Drive with a maximum signs in the locations shown with a sign size of 9' wide by 12' high. n delivery vehicles shall not operate between the and 7:00 a.m. Loading and unloading of delivery imited to the same hours. 10. All trash containers shall be fully contained within the building footprints. 11. The Convenience Store (Lot 1), Fast Food (Lot 2), Bank (Lot 8), and Buildings A (Lot 3), B (Lot 4) and E (Lot 5) shall require Site Plan Review approval in accordance with Section 2, Subd. 5 of the Lino Lakes Zoning Ordinance. 12. The secondary access and intersection located adjacent to Lots 1, 2, 4, and 5 shall be redesigned to eliminate the proposed offset and angle to improve site circulation and reduce vehicle conflicts and confusion. 13. The Kohl's parking lot shall be modified to minimize access points to the Apollo Drive Extension and to include landscaping islands adjacent to the proposed handicap stalls. 14. All required plan changes shall be completed prior to the final plan review by the City Council and shall be submitted to the City no later than 4:30 p.m. on Thursday, July 26, 2001. • • Planning & Zoning Board July 11, 2001 Page 19 15. Dedication of access control to Anoka County should be shown on the plat along Lots 1, 2, 3 and Outlot C adjacent to Lake Drive. The opening width for the secondary access will need to be determined by Anoka County. 16. The development agreement shall incorporate a cross access and ingress /egress easement should be provided for the remnant parcel located between Apollo Drive and Lots 3 and 4. 17. The sidewalk shall be extended on Lot 8 to the southerly property line. 18. A concrete pavement treatment shall be used for crosswalks on major drive lanes. Tom Palmquist, representing Ryan Companies, stated he was present with John Payton, the Project Engineer. Regarding condition number two, Mr. Palmquist stated the plans have been submitted to the Rice Creek Watershed District and he hoped to have approval from them by July 25, 2001. He stated Anoka County has agreed to the igation of wetlands on their property. Regarding condition number six, Mr. Palmquist ., ov ded 'ty Engineer with a packet of the requested information and apologized f• = sub ttal of these items. Regarding condition number 12, Mr. P. 'st sta he was hoping that the County Traffic Engineer will grant approval of the proposed. He indicated without this access alignment the development of ='ve forward. Regarding condition number indicated that it would b points to the Apollo remain. He stated Kohl' proposed handicap stalls. 13, quist stated Kohl's Project Engineer had eliminate the eastern and western most access ion, however, the middle four access points must greeable to the landscaping islands adjacent to the Mr. Palmquist stated with regard to the planting beds in front of the Kohl's store, there is a conflict with some of the tree grades. He stated that he would like to work with staff to eliminate the tree grades and add more plantings. Mr. Palmquist stated Kohl's requires a 9 1/2 foot parking stall width. He stated he was in agreement with conditions 4 and 15. He stated the requirements for lighting found in condition number five were acceptable, however, he was concerned about the cost of the additional light fixtures. He stated he would like to work with staff to find a similar but less costly fixture. Mr. Grochala indicated the original suggestion was that the development use the same light fixture chosen for the Town Center. He indicated the Town Center light fixtures have not yet been installed and staff was willing to work with the developer to find a similar less costly fixture that could be used in the Town Center as well. • • • Planning & Zoning Board July 11, 2001 Page 20 Rafferty expressed concern that the developer not dictate the light fixture style. Mr. Grochala indicated staff will make the decision on the light fixture style. Mr. Palmquist stated that the concern was not with the style of the light fixture but with their cost. With regard to condition number eight, Mr. Palmquist stated the Joint Identification Sign along Lake Drive and the monument sign had been redesigned per the recommendations of staff. He asked that flexibility be allowed for the Joint Identification Signs along I- 35W. He stated Kohl's was concerned about the scaling down of their logo to fit on one sign with the Target store logo. He stated both Target and Kohl's were insisting they be allowed individual signs along the highway. He stated that both signs would comply with City ordinance. Mr. Palmquist stated he did not oppose the requirements for the rear wall signs on Buildings C and D, however, if a larger tenant comes in, he would prefer that they be allowed a larger sign. Chair Schaps called for a recess at 9:13 p.m. The meeting was reconvened at 9:27 p.m. Mr. Palmquist stated during the recess the signa sue had been discussed. He stated the primary concern was that the sign or the ` ears of Buildings C and D be proportionate to the sizes of the buildings. With regard to the uses of the v uses will be known as the marke some restaurants will be i , Mr. Palmquist stated that the anticipated development continues. He anticipated that Mr. Rafferty expressed co at the proposed restrictions on the hours for delivery vehicles with refrigeration uni may not be sufficient. He noted the homes to the north behind Target are older homes and many do not have air conditioning systems and he felt it likely that their windows will be open at night during the summer months. He felt deliveries should not be allowed between 8:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m. Mr. Payton stated during the EAW process noise air modeling tests had been performed, including the refrigeration units. He stated that the noise levels met the MPCA guidelines. Mr. Palmquist stated Target prefers that the delivery hours be restricted only from 11:00 p.m. until 6:00 a.m. He stated this issue had been discussed and Target agreed to the restricted hours of 10:00 p.m. until 7:00 a.m. and he did not believe they would agree to changing these hours to 8:00 p.m. until 8:00 a.m. He indicated trucks generally do not make deliveries after 8:00 p.m. but Target would like the flexibility in the off chance a later delivery must be made. For these reasons, he respectfully asked that the non- delivery hours remain 10:00 p.m. until 7:00 p.m. • • • Planning & Zoning Board July 11, 2001 Page 21 Mr. Palmquist stated that the intent of marketing would be to attract restaurants and other smaller retail users such as a coffee shop, a Great Clips, Pro -ex, etc. Mr. Palmquist stated the issues regarding condition number 12 had been discussed during the recess and he felt comfortable with the result of these discussions. With regard to condition number 14, Mr. Palmquist stated comments will likely be received from the Rice Creek Watershed District on July 25, 2001 and there may be some design issues that he did not feel could be completed by the proposed deadline of 4:30 p.m. on July 26, 2001. He asked if it would be possible to add a couple of days to the deadline. Mr. Powell stated it would be acceptable to extend the deadline to July 27, 2001 at 4:30 p.m. Mr. Palmquist stated he was comfortable with the requirements of condition number 16. Chair Schaps asked what the intentions are for the reran. parcel. Mr. Palmquist stated they would like to incorporate the remnant parcel into .a development. Mr. Wessel stated in order to obtain the remnant to go through an eminent domain process. worthless to the City and he believed there may b this project. He stated that included in th ,finelop to sell the parcel of land to Ryan Companie 1, the " &p; s would require the City cate• that the parcel of land is me value integrating the parcel into t agreement will be a negotiation Mr. Palmquist stated he was c With regard to condition number being used for crosswalk Center guidelines. Ho and maintenance considera and there are potential heavin wi the requirement of condition number 17. d the original plan had showed concrete pads a area in order to be consistent with the Town lements had been removed from the plans due to cost e indicated concrete can be stained by vehicle tires roblems when concrete is installed directly adjacent to bituminous. For these reasons, he would prefer to not be held to condition number 18. Chair Schaps asked Mr. Palmquist if he could propose an alternative to using concrete pads for the crosswalks, other than painting stripes. Mr. Palmquist did not have an alternative to suggest. Chair Schaps felt that some middle ground could be reached on this issue. He felt that the requirement of condition number 18 was reasonable for aesthetic concerns. Mr. Payton noted some developments have used pavers to delineate crosswalks but the pavers often turn black from the vehicle tires and become dirty looking. He felt that a continuous surface would appear more uniform and be easier to maintain. Chair Schaps suggested that this issue be left for further discussion. Planning & Zoning Board July 11, 2001 Page 22 4111 Chair Schaps invited the audience to address the Board. No one was present at this time to address the Board. Mr. Corson made a MOTION to close the public hearing at 9:57 p.m., and was supported by Ms. Lane. Motion carried 5 -0. Mr. Powell stated he shared Mr. Palmquist concerns regarding the requirements of condition number 18. Chair S chaps suggested staff work with the applicant on this issue. Mr. Lyden stated when he makes a purchase he determines first whether it is the right time, the right product and the right price. With regard to this development he felt that the timing was right, that Target and Kohl's were absolutely the right products, but that a convenience store and bank were not the right products. With regard to price he noted this development would partially be funded through tax abatement. He indicated that the School District and Anoka County both turned this project down. Mr. Lyden stated he could understand providing tax abatea' ent for Target and Kohl's but he was concerned about providing assistance to a cony ;. ence store and a bank when there are both of these types of services across the s °e et did not receive assistance. Mr. Wessel stated Ryan Companies made a re :f' t ubsi y to the City Council in May 2000. He stated the City Council was discus this issue this evening and one concern they have was providing subsidy of existing businesses. He indicated the Council was considering the . .' of removing that portion from the subsidy request. He stated the tax ..¢ ;-men :,ssue was very complicated at this time due to the recent reduction in co rate ' He anticipated that the decision regarding tax abatement for this .. . e made by the Council at their July 23, 2001 meeting. Mr. Lyden stated he was no : that a convenience store and bank were the right products for this development ` that the price was acceptable. He noted there were other issues pending, such as Rice Creek Watershed District approval, which may have a large impact on the proposed development. Chair Schaps stated he understood Mr. Lyden's concerns but noted the request this evening was to approve the site plans for the Target and Kohl's stores and this approval would not be a commitment to any specific convenience store or bank. Mr. Grochala agreed that the approval this evening would only be for the PDO development, but he assumed that the proposed uses, i.e. a convenience store and bank, will be pushed forward. Mr. Lyden felt the market would dictate what will be in the best interest of Lino Lakes and he did not feel the proposed uses were in the best interest of the City. Chair Schaps asked if approval of this PDO by the City Council will obligate the • • • Planning & Zoning Board July 11, 2001 Page 23 development to include the proposed convenience store and bank. Mr. Grochala stated this was not the case. He indicated each of the lots within the PDO will be subject to site plan approval and it was possible that the developer will propose other types of uses. Mr. Grochala noted, however, that the uses permitted in this district could not be denied for this development and convenience stores and banks are permitted uses. He understood the concern regarding providing assistance for competing businesses but he indicated the issues of assistance was outside the jurisdiction of the Planning and Zoning Board. He noted the City Council was currently discussing the issue of providing subsidy assistance for like businesses. Mr. Smyser stated under the City's PDO ordinance, uses permitted in the underlying zoning district are allowed in a PDO development. He stated in the commercial district banks are permitted uses and convenience stores are conditionally permitted. Mr. Rafferty expressed concern that approving the proposed preliminary plat would essentially be approving the inclusion of a bank and cony= A'ence store. Mr. Lyden asked if it was possible to change the pr process must follow the rules established by City plat was simply a platting of the land and did lots within this development will be back before may be possible that the uses will change. Mr. Lyden requested confirmation included in the development, w es. Mr. Brixius stated the ance: ;, stated the preliminary the ecific users. He noted the oard for site plan approval and it the a «.licant could dictate what businesses will be ld res t in businesses that the City does not need. Mr. Brixius believed the ;'.•n was with how the requested subsidy may be applied, not the actual 1 Mr. Corson stated in comparin e plans presented this evening to those presented last month, he felt the applicant did a good job of breaking up the parking lot and he appreciated how the architectural details tie in with the Town Center concept. He acknowledged that the plans attempted to address the issue of pedestrian access and he believed that a good buffer to the north will be appreciated by the adjacent residents. Mr. Corson stated he was concerned that a 40 -foot high freeway sign may be excessively tall. Chair Schaps expressed his appreciation to staff for their months of work on this project. He felt tremendous positive changes had been made to the plans to make for a more attractive development for the community. He believed that this addition to the community will be seen as a significant change. He noted the development will not only have an economic impact for the City by creating new job opportunities, but will also make quality of life changes being a good place for young people to hang out. • • Planning & Zoning Board July 11, 2001 Page 24 Chair Schaps stated he was not overly concerned about a new bank being included as part of this development with an existing bank nearby. He felt that competition is a good thing and he felt the competition will allow for cleaner and safer businesses. He felt the benefit of the two new retail giants in the community was a far more important consideration than the designation of a bank and convenience store. Chair Schaps expressed his appreciation to the Ryan Companies and noted there was still work for them to comply with the 18 conditions recommended by staff. He agreed that 40 -foot tall signs along the freeway would be too high and he hoped the developer could convince the businesses to reduce the height of their signs. Chair Schaps asked if one or two motions were required for these applications. Mr. Smyser stated two motions should be made, one to approve the rezoning of the property to PDO and another to approve the site and building plans and the preliminary plat. Mr. Lyden agreed that competition can be a good thing, but he felt fair competition is better. He asked that the City Council take this into cons ration when making a decision regarding financial assistance for this project. Mr. Zych made a MOTION to approve the appli US, Inc., to rezone the property located on L Ms. Lane. Motion carried 5 -0. Mr. Lyden made a MOTION to approve th US, Inc., (Target), Lake Drive for d b `filding plan review and preliminary plat subject to the following conditi sub d by Ryan Companies PD , and was supported by on submitted by Ryan Companies 1. No formal process 2. No formal a Watershed has the development. e application shall be in effect until the EAW of the application shall be in effect until Rice Creek mpleted their review and issued appropriate permits for 3. All required on and off -site improvements shall be subject to the review and approval of the City Engineer and County Engineer, as appropriate. 4. Landscaping treatments along residentially zoned property shall provide for year round screening. Suitable coniferous plantings and/or fencing shall be applied in these areas to minimize the impact of vehicular lighting from said properties. 5. The lighting plan shall be modified to provide decorative lighting at 75 to 100 feet spacing staggered along the primary drive aisles. The lighting plan shall be modified to limit lighting to 0.4 foot candles at the boundary line. 6. All information/modifications requested by the City Engineer per the July 7, 2001 Engineering Review shall be provided prior to PDO approval. 7. Wall signage on the rear of Buildings, A, C and D shall be limited to a low profile identity sign. The sign face shall have a maximum dimension of 2' Planning & Zoning Board July 11, 2001 Page 25 x 8'. All other buildings shall be subject to the wall signage requirements of the Lino Lakes Sign Ordinance. 8. Freestanding signs shall be limited as follows: A. One Joint Identification Sign along I -35W. B. One Joint Identification sign along Lake Drive with a maximum height of 20 feet. C. Three individual user signs in the locations shown with a maximum structure and sign size of 9' in width by 12' in height. 9. Refrigeration units on delivery vehicles shall not operate between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. Loading and unloading of delivery vehicles shall be limited to the same hours. 10. All trash containers shall be fully contained within the building footprints. 11. The Convenience Store (Lot 1), Fast Food (Lot 2), Bank (Lot 8), and Buildings B (Lot 4) and E (Lot 5) shall require Site Plan Review approval in accordance with Section 2, Subd. 5 of the Lino Lakes Zoning Ordinance. 12. The secondary access and intersection loc d adjacent to Lots 1, 2, 4, and 5 shall be redesigned to eliminate t proposed offset and angle to improve site circulation and reduce v nflicts and confusion. 13. The Kohl's parking lot shall be �: ed to '��.��mize access points to the Apollo Drive Extension and to '. . ds ping islands adjacent to the proposed handicap stalls. 14. All required plan changes s . e co'` eted prior to the final plan review by the City Council and sh R tted to the City no later than 4:30 p.m. on Friday, Jul 2001 15. Dedication of ac . trol t• oka County should be shown on the plat along Lots 1, 2 3 • • of C adjacent to Lake Drive. The opening width for :" • access will need to be determined by Anoka County. 16. The develo agreement shall incorporate a cross access and ingress /egress -" 'wement should be provided for the remnant parcel located between Apollo Drive and Lots 3 and 4. 17. The sidewalk shall be extended on Lot 8 to the southerly property line. 18. A concrete pavement treatment shall be used for crosswalks on major drive lanes. Mr. Corson asked that condition number 8B be amended to allow the highway signs a maximum height of 30 feet. Mr. Lyden agreed. Mr. Brixius asked whether condition number 8B would be amended to allow two highway signs. Mr. Corson stated whether one sign or two signs is allowed, the maximum height allowed should be 30 feet. The motion was supported by Mr. Corson. Motion carried 5 -0. • • • • Planning & Zoning Board July 11, 2001 Page 26 VI. DISCUSSION ITEMS A. Recommendation from Environmental Board for Moratorium on New Development Ms. Grochala stated the Environmental Board requested, at its July 27, 2001 meeting, that a recommendation to establish a moratorium (interim ordinance) on all residential development and possibly all development for a period of one year be forwarded to the Planning and Zoning Board. Mr. Grochala stated in response to the recent approval of the Comprehensive Plan by the City Council, the Environmental Board adopted a recommendation to allow time for the development of official controls to implement the goals and policies of the plan. Mr. Grochala stated staff was not recommending the adoption of such an ordinance at this time. He felt while an interim ordinance is an effective tool granted to municipalities for the purpose of protecting the planning process, the im• =,'cations of such an ordinance needed to be fully identified. He indicated an all- encoAassing prohibition of development, as proposed, could generate many uni ne r consequences. Mr. Grochala indicated several steps should b interim ordinance, which included: en p or to consideration of an a. Metropolitan Council revie b. Identification of "o development of c. Inventory of existin d. Identificati oval of the Comprehensive Plan. ol" modifications and timeline for Mr. Grochala indicated by ascertain the need for an inte should have. d development and available MUSA. 'al impact on Economic Development activities. g the above items, the City would be able to better ordinance and, if warranted, the appropriate scope it Mr. Lyden asked staff if, given the late hour, it would be appropriate to discuss this item at the next Planning and Zoning Board meeting. Mr. Grochala stated this item could be continued to next month's Board meeting. Mr. Lyden asked how soon staff anticipated approval of the Comprehensive Plan by the Metropolitan Council. Mr. Brixious stated, proving the application for approval is complete, the Metropolitan Council is allowed a 90 day review period prior to making a decision. Mr. Lyden made a MOTION to table consideration of the recommendation of the Environmental Board to establish a moratorium (interim ordinance) on all residential development and possibly all development for a period of one year to the August 2001 Planning and Zoning Board meeting, and was supported by Mr. Zych. Motion carried 5- • • • Planning & Zoning Board July 11, 2001 Page 27 0. B. Environmental Board Goals Mr. Grochala stated the City Council will be reviewing the proposed goals with the Environmental Board at an upcoming joint meeting. They will also use the meeting as an opportunity to review the ordinance establishing the Board, the expectations of the City Council and the Environmental Board and the relationship of the Environmental Board to other City Boards. Mr. Rafferty asked that a discussion on the delivery of agenda packets be added to next month's Planning and Zoning Board meeting agenda. VII. ADJOURNMENT Mr. Lyden made a MOTION to adjourn the meeting at 10:24 p.m., and was supported by Mr. Corson. Motion carried 5 -0. Respectfully submitted, Lori Rolfson, Recording Secretary TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. • • AGENDA ITEM V . A STAFF ORIGINATOR: Jeff Smyser P & Z MEETING DATE: August 8, 2001 TOPIC: -Minor Subdivision - Variance From Minimum Lot Depth Joel Voelker Builder, Inc. regarding 7080 Sunset Road BACKGROUND Mr. Voelker has submitted an application for a minor subdivision to split of the eastern portion of the property at 7080 Sunset Road. The property is owned by the current resident, Jon Crenshaw. Mr. Voelker's intent is to create a new single family lot. A variance would be required because the proposed new lot does not comply with the minimum lot depth of 135 feet. ANALYSIS Lino Lakes has sewer and water two blocks to the east in Sunrise Drive. Lots along Sunrise Drive can connect. Utilities are not available to the rest of the neighborhood to the west of those lots. However, Blaine utilities are available to the lots on Sunset Road, and several are connected to the Blaine utilities. The subject property at 7080 Sunset is one of them. Utility service for the proposed new lot would need to connect to the Blaine system. The property is zoned R -1. Lot requirements are: minimum proposed lot size (area) 10,800 sf 13,213 sf lot width 80 ft 105.02 ft lot depth 135 ft 125.81 ft The new lot would not meet the minimum lot depth requirement. A variance would be necessary. Findings for Variance In considering all requests for variance and in taking subsequent action, the City shall 4110 make a finding of fact: • • • 1. That the property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls. 2. That the plight of the landowners is due to physical circumstances unique to his property not created by the land owner. 3. That the hardship is not due to economic considerations alone and when a reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the ordinance. 4. That granting the variance requested will not confer on the applicant any special privilege that would be denied by this ordinance to other lands, structures, or buildings in the same district. 5. That the proposed actions will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance. The existing use of the lot as a single family residence is not threatened by the status quo. There are no unique physical circumstances. The sole purpose of the variance is to allow an additional lot to be created to provide economic gain. Granting an unjustified variance would be conferring a special privilege and would not be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance. Whether it is advisable to allow for the creation of additional lots in this neighborhood by splitting the existing lots is a policy question that may merit consideration by the City. However, the application under consideration would create a lot that does not meet current requirements and there is no justification for the requested variance. Without the variance, the minor subdivision cannot occur. OPTIONS 1. Approve the minor subdivision and variance as requested by applicant. 2. Deny the variance based on lack of justification as described above in this report. 3. Deny the minor subdivision because the lot doesn't meet the minimum lot depth. 4. Return to staff with direction. RECOMMENDATION Options 2 and 3 LINO LAKES REHABILITATION CENTER y QL s �ry � tg � �OPy �I�, atl Car 5 2 M IF 4 EU IMP MARSHAN ,:i.aaoaoQOao i QUM EWES om dm 1E1E1 om a� am KIM WIEN 1i1�I'tsmes MUv Mali WEIS IV agarclipor.49 'J®�n °: 000 ©e iCICRI ooe4¢ ov oeEc i� Q a 6 0000000riam its mzEzzom as o hmdc� Laninfaaata FemmRo El MU on Woo ;lo v o pa ° o Ell KW. op .' MI it risiinounlizu Arum ES maso .En gnarl= II= acrioli ow N t �a.nr 0o a ■s a MEI= 17■11r kl*Spi, % 1110111111:11MINICE Er NIP k> o.mR�� 4 m.o. i 614;: ko O BALDW I N ne ri a m m® o ec, m /�10 p Qwam I Aft : off.,,, A[si16Ao-ra--b�'''- �iija,.- /off ��EB ��e©©ou a© iiriti eldeli Q( �; E lr G�� ®=� © �` PINER/b6E �40�, ©meeoomeeml6o�oS p,�``= LAK r,i Imo1 iifi,,.,11 ri o ®o �u app C19� a e� ,� I °moo °ao�ooaa� °oo Qo nq$ m�� aoPOom� ��. 2 !G t�3 n 74 ^1— N. LID OE 4 --- Li 00 OFLINO LAKES 0 lOjtl ts" 1dR ro 14 tt {12 It 2 1 � 7 "�g - {•1 AWtVIKW:♦t 2it It 1A1ES RICE 1 J (11NO SUBDIVISION FOR: -B6 -18 concrete curb & gutter Joel Voelker 73 Stagecoach Trail Lino Lakes MN, 55014 Work: (651) 785 -0907 R/W to O - -- 49.7 - - - -;- • • 40 20 GRAPHIC SCALE 40 r so 14°9 PP ' -Edge of Bituminous (act Of 0 904 F6iT 4j N88 °37'39 "E 174.48 FAIRMOUNT DRIVE YDseK 9Q4 CpR o .3a NAS v 4 I---- - - -RIW 90A-6 <n O G 0 NO lz 1 eFnd 1/2" l.P. b) O O .c yr t ® 2.4 904.62 W \ E oo HsECGR o 33.1 90 ock N. North line of Lot OROiz 1 9o4ROpR Existing - Shed 9SkE9O "c'O 5x\ PARCEL A 21,964 sq. ft. 0.50 acres N88'39 , 40"E Gt‘ROdR Existing Garage 1 L_ \.. (279.21 -plat) 279.50 ui N N' 0 ., w O 105.02 105.00 • • PARCEL B 13,213 sq. ft. 0.31 acres 105.00 105.42 r1 -'1 r'\ ' -/ 2 9.8 -South line of Lot 1 I I I L _ \ / , LEGEND: x 912.3 Denotes Existing Elevation Ph w Denotes Overhead Wire Denotes Utility Pole • Denotes Iron Monument Found O Denotes Iron Monument Set < j_ Y ) V • U co� L_ I I 1 � r o �>r O \Q • lry k a� FHa7 p�6 ( ( W �n o Ia INO � Fnd 1/2" I.P. R. L. S. #5332 t A r- 160 ( IN FEET ) 1 inch = 40 ft. NORTH EXISTING PROPERTY DESCRIPTION Lot 1, Block 3, LEXINGTON PARK LAKEVIEW, Anoka County, Minnesota. PROPOSED PROPERTY DESCRIPTIONS PARCEL A That part of Lot 1, Block 3, LEXINGTON PARK LAKEVIEW, Anoka County, Minnesota, lying westerly of the east 105.00 feet thereof. Subject to any easements or valid restrictions of record. PARCEL B The east 105.00 feet of Lot 1, Block 3, LEXINGTON PARK LAKEVIEW, Anoka County, Minnesota. Subject to any easements or valid restrictions of record. NOTES: — N.G. V.D. Vertical Datum — Bearing's shown are on assumed datum. — Lot Area = 35,177± sq. ft. (0.81t Acres) — Building dimensions are approximate only. — No title work furnished to the surveyor. JUN 1 1 2001 CITY OF LINO LAKES DON BY: ERV G K BY: JER JOB NO: 01 -327 DATE: 06 -11 -01 DWG NO:01327LS.dwg SHEET: 1 of 1 1 .3 Nf7 r).4 TF fFC('R!GTWIN P7 I hereby certify that this survey, plan or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Registered Land Surveyor under the laws of the State of Minnesota. Ernest G. Rud Date: dune /1/ 200/ Reg. No. 9808 IA. MD 4 G0N8, NC. LAW 8i.1R1/lyOR6 9180 LEXINGTON AYE. NE CIRGLE PINES, MN 65014 TIL f'163) !3515b, L 111,a) 111116. M0?11 • STAFF ORIGINATOR: P & Z MEETING DATE: TOPIC: BACKGROUND AGENDA ITEM V . B Jeff Smyser August 8, 2001 - Variance From Road Setback - Variance To Allow 6' Fence Along Rear Yard Abutting Front Yard of Neighbor Gerald & Geraldine Ramsay 1168 Ruffed Grouse Court This item involves two variances: a pool setback from a road and the height of a fence along a neighbor's front yard. At the July meeting, P & Z tabled the item and directed staff to communicate with the Ramsays to determine the potential to move the pool and have the City bear the cost. To provide a brief summary as a reminder of the facts: Setback Variance: The Ramsays applied for a permit in May to build an above- ground pool. A pool in the originally proposed location would block drainage and water would back up to the house. The Ramsays then proposed to put the pool over on one side of the yard. Building inspections approved the permit and the Ramsays built the pool. The pool is approximately 20 feet from the right of way. Belatedly, City staff recognized that the pool didn't meet the required setback from a road, which is 30 feet for all structures. Staff is processing this variance at no charge to the Ramsays because of the oversight. Fence Variance: The second variance involves a proposed fence around the back yard and pool. The Ramsay's lot fronts on Ruffed Grouse Court. Their rear lot line is the side lot line of their neighbors' house, which fronts on Ruffed Grouse Road. The zoning ordinance addresses fences in such a situation, which is common with corner lots. The intent is to prevent a front yard from being closed in by a neighbor's six -foot fence along that neighbor's back and side yards. ANALYSIS City staff and the Ramsays have been in communication about the costs of the suggested action. Mr. Ramsay has sent a draft of proposed costs. The City received the attached • • • • draft letter via e -mail. The total cost estimate is at $9154. This is a draft estimate and is subject to change. The largest single line item is the pool itself. Mr. Ramsay states that disassembling the pool voids the lifetime warranty, so a complete new pool is necessary if it is to be moved. Staff will need to confirm the cost estimates. We also would like to know if anything can be re -used without affecting the warranty. For example, we don't know if the pump, filter, and other items may be unaffected structurally by disassembly or if these items are included in the cost estimate. In addition to the pool itself, there are other costs such as earthmoving and landscaping that will have to be considered and compared. Note that the last paragraph in the draft letter from Mr. Ramsay refers to an "attached list of residents." The Ramsays plan to submit a petition with neighbor signatures supporting a six -foot fence. We have not yet received the petition as of August 3. RECOMMENDATION We received the draft letter with costs via e -mail at 2:20 pm on Thursday, August 2. No analysis has been conducted to include in this report, which must be sent to P & Z members August 3. Staff will discuss the costs further at the August 8 meeting. The intent is to have a recommendation for the August 8 meeting. • • • August 1, 2001 - DRAFT - To: Jeff Smyser — Lino Lakes Planning and Zoning Board Re: 1168 Ruffed Grouse Court — Zoning Variance Follow -up Dear Jeff: In response to the Planning and Zoning Board meeting that took place on July 11, 2001 at the Lino Lakes City Hall, the following is an itemized list of the expenses that would be incurred to essentially relocate the above ground pool at 1168 Ruffed Grouse Court. The remainder of this memo provides some commentary regarding the location of the pool as well as the request for the six -foot fence. Unfortunately, the take down and rebuilding of an existing above ground pool is something that is rarely done and puts the existing pool structure at risk. As such, all lifetime warranties that were included in the purchase price of the existing pool would become null and void. Consequently, in order to serve justice to the existing pool owners, the only recourse would be a complete pool replacement. The following itemized list attempts to cover the cost of this replacement that we would assume would be covered by the City. The original pool and related items, if they survive the dismantling, could be donated to the City if deemed beneficial. Item Estimated Cost Take Down and Removal of Old Pool Structure Labor to drain and take down and remove existing pool $ 900.00 Remove landscaping — river rock/edging /plastic Remove landscaping — 30 foot one to four block high retaining wall $ 200.00 Remove excess sand from original pool floor $ 300.00 Fill original pool floor hole with black dirt & sod $ 500.00 Subtotal: $ 1900.00 Install New Pool Additional pool permit $ 162.50 Purchase new pool $ 3800.00 Bobcat excavation of new pool location $ 900.00 Sand $ 150.00 Dirt/old sod removal from new pool location $ 300.00 Fill pool with water (13,500 gallons) $ 400.00 Sprinkler system repair Landscaping — edging /river rock/plastic $ 300.00 Landscaping — retaining wall $ 625.00 Electric (note: this would be homeowner expense since it isn't run yet) $ 617.00 Subtotal: $ 7,254.50 Estimated Total: $ 9,154.50 • • • Overall, we are very disappointed that, up to this point in time, we have been unable to complete the landscaping and deck that are required in order for us and others in the community to enjoy the full value of our pool. The landscaping around the pool, which is three /fourths of the way complete, has been put on hold pending the City's decision on the location of the pool. We cannot complete the landscaping around the remaining portion of the pool until we have the posts to support the deck installed. We cannot finalize plans, secure the necessary permit and engage the contractor to build the deck until this matter is settled. It could be argued that our time and aggravation associated with this issue are costs that should be included in this recap. The pool was erected in a location that was approved by the City. It currently exists thirty -one feet eight inches from the street, well clear of the right of way. Although our original choice for the location of the pool was denied by the city, for reasons that we fully understand and can appreciate, we would most likely pursue locating the pool in that area if the City decides the existing location is unacceptable. With respect to the six -foot fence: To reiterate, the primary purpose of the six -foot fence is designed to protect the safety of neighborhood children, of which there are presently seventy -two in our forty -five home development. Unauthorized entry to the pool by an individual of any age will potentially result in injury and quite possibly death. The pool has a solar cover on it to retain heat and prevent water evaporation. If someone were to enter the pool when the homeowners are unaware, drowning and loss of life are an increased possibility due to the presence of the solar cover. The financial security of the current residents is also at risk should unauthorized entry, subsequent injury and litigation occur. A recent article appearing in the Star Tribune, Home & Garden Home Improvement section (page HG13 of the Thursday, July 12, 2001 paper) had the following to say regarding "The Safety Fence ". "In our community, for example, the fence around the pool must be 6 feet tall and all gates must be locked from the inside. Be sure that you have a safety fence (with locking gates) between the back of your home and your pool area. Just as the building department will want you to protect your neighbor's children, you will want to protect your family." Four -foot fences are inadequate in terms of safety and protection. A six -foot fence, proposed to be constructed twenty -five feet from the road, would successfully deter teenagers or older, allegedly more mature individuals that may or may not be in complete control of themselves from gaining access to the potentially life - threatening situation. There have been instances in our neighborhood in the past where individuals were intoxicated and out of control to the point where 911 had to be called. A six -foot fence would prevent these types of individuals from harming themselves where a four -foot fence may not. A six -foot fence would prevent individuals from recognizing that a pool exists and would therefore further reduce the potential for unauthorized access, potential injury or damage to the pool. • Perhaps the funding and resources of the city and taxpayers would better serve the Quail Ridge residents by building a bike path along the quarter mile stretch between Wild Turkey Trail and Black Duck. The Quail Ridge neighborhood is isolated from the bike trails that are such a wonderful part of the Lino Lakes community. The speed limit on Birch Street (County 10) is fifty and fifty -five miles per hour. These speed limits seem quite excessive in light of the volume of residential units, traffic and pedestrians that routinely utilize the road and shoulders. The increase in traffic accidents should be a clue that speed limits should be reduced. The Quail Ridge residents that try to enjoy the bike paths to go to Rice Lake School or Pheasant Hills put their lives at risk when they travel on the shoulder or in the turning lanes from Wild Turkey to Black Duck or Pheasant Hills. One final note of consideration: In order to prevent future situations from arising, it would be beneficial if relevant ordinances were researched and disclosed by the city in writing to the permit applicant before any permits are approved. This will allow the homeowner the opportunity to review and understand relevant ordinances and will also help them to appreciate some of the benefits related to the permit fees. The attached list of residents of the Quail Ridge Community agree that a six -foot fence would better serve the neighborhood. These same individuals and their children would benefit from the creation of a bike path to adjoin the Quail Ridge development to the Black Duck path and the Pheasant Hills community. I am trusting that the Planning and Zoning Board will consider the needs and well being of the entire community when making their final recommendation. Sincerely, Jerry Ramsay 1168 Ruffed Grouse Court Lino Lakes, MN 55014 651- 483 -7954 (work) LAKE 2. 4 PRES 3 V401.F ic 5 9TI 6 4 9 4 PRES EIRANDrWDOD ESTATES 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 "AS MEN/ 1 BUCKTHORN 3j4 IO RAND e 51 WHITE 8 10 7 9 8 7 6 3 4),d% M I m 1 N Is • • p46 )) 04 m O 04 (46) PARK / .) 0 "£ N89 *Q6.2.1 ,16.00 12.29 , 29 No Iai s 'r 98 'sa."s 27) 0 ?8= 10 6 "w .61 m 1 s "w 29) m 2 18 ".W (0) 13 15 "W 9 00 v5 ••12.3' 122 +80 X 0 z m 0 F p t z 0 v n S u F O 90,80 (40) J F 1-1,11111 5' a /0 _1 ° POs l0 D 0 0 04 1' 44.15 = -19.51 N 11.90 ;t_ 2�6 e� (24).44 N. Bdd rya' 'sa 7 ry� ea° �:•4? 6(28) E p8 228.33 124.41 3.83 (27) 1)N P 5 m 26)Nw 2 - 47;"-*T R d63• /g'6 Re el- \1 6 ° t\gy.4a ci • 17.4 6 , f "_Vb i/!/i /:w to A 1- 236.2? N89 °05 21"E 118 4-40 (48) PARK 3 1 cocoa's!" R• 11,319.15 +L•427.25- Ch•427.25 N s a 9 • 21) id /A ;�' (181 6 6 9 �ePF �0s. o g0. F 0..0,r'0 wb 26 b P�'�,p aF T2 ,P 0y. 416. (16) ?�e'.\(17) �! 4 �� 6600 �di oa e> „ : b. d3 �+ 0 03 F a 3 (I6) 0 889° I. 15"E 138.75 m 5 56" w 0 ie 2(14) m 713. , NN 149.38 YN !In - N S 589°21'15 "E ,' 1O sb ss-• _ -. w A 113) m 6 1 a P 75.7-r,133 .19 a: scr •-1441.755 RESURVEY se* ' ae 1. •Pd s 2,e 2de f3. 3•'• >d1 p' a, 3 a T°sd 3 tore; 3 1 , a m 15 88 3b 2 24 E / 1° m 4 4 60$ 210.69. �`y 00 O �, °��r � Z el : - 660.32 5 8 9 4 2 1 _ -`51 64- [ 2) - = 1 - - - 88-.19 p N89°211'818_W- - 1 -- 989.31 N894 21'15"W-0 1 1 1 97_ 1.00 N67•11' 24''W 1 1 A I 8 1 115+ 4.147.84 !Y -oo"r, 8119421.15"E 886 °16'23 "E, / (6) to 04 158 30 F� --- aao' - -- (4) 1.56 Ae. O /-1 0 BIRCH STREET 659.37 N8942I'15 'W 0 N N ti a r M w E //4 CORNS SEC. 28 tI ;r4 50.00 NO°05'67 "E f• 1 j90.00 NO 443'19 "E 1.1 A•2 °05'51" R° 11,519.15 L ■451.75 (1).451.72 COUNTY SURVEYOR ANOKA COUNTY, MINNESOTA REDRAWN T/30/93 RN IY —LAND SURVEYING INVOICE NO. 4017 F. B. N0. 139J22 LAND SURVEYORS SCALE I" _ 21i 897.3 Proposed Top of Block 0 Denotes Iron Monument 0 Denotes Wood Hub Set 81 (0.8 Proposed Garage Floor 7845 Brooklyn Blvd. Brooklyn Park, Minnesota 55445 For Excavation Only 84.3 Proposed Lowest Floor 560 -1984 x000.0 Denotes Existing Elevation Type of Building - 1 \ O Denotes Proposed Elevation �v `\ (3,sew.e,.�t- (v2c J tgani OI ..or• Denotes Surface broinage Tc.' A ") 1.67 873.1 SWIFT CONSTRUCTION //. g RUFFED CINCRE CURB GROUSE TC 2.o7 COURT 892.2 5" L72.1 - -37 7(, _ 0 0 692.7y 893.2 10 7o.. oy -15.00 -- 89 4.5 874.inw.°" 894.5 • ID: o' 22-0' L9so .-I3 op-. T 7GPON 613.11 r 875.3 695.1 4'rO • d,•, 7 t:u 5: , l 2:,...)2%, F00 SED RE S 19.4 A94 1 to tot: 0E141 0 DRn1NAGE 893.1 673.7 LOT 7, BLOCK 2, QUAIL RIDGE The only easements shown ars from plats of record or Infonnatlon provided by el .nL 1 hereby certify that this survey was prepared by me or under my direct supervision, and that 1 am a duly Reatetered Land Surveyor under the laws of the State of Minnesota. Surveyed by us thIa 29TH' "day of MARCH 19 94 Hyland. . No. 2 Milton E. Mi Reg. 20262 • • • AGENDA ITEM VI. A Memorandum TO: Planning and Zoning Board FROM: Dawn Bugge, Community Development Secretary DATE: August 3, 2001 RE: September P &Z Board Meeting date change The date of the September Planning and Zoning Board Meeting has been changed from Wednesday, September 12 to Tuesday, September 11, 2001. Various staff members will be attending annual conferences that week and will be unable to attend a Wednesday meeting, therefore the need for a change. Staff will be available for a meeting on Tuesday, September 11. The meeting date change will be posted on the front door of City Hall, in the Quad Community Press and on local government cable channel 16. • • AGENDA ITEMS VI. B & C Memorandum TO: Planning and Zoning Board FROM: Michael Grochala, Community Development Director DATE: August 3, 2001 RE: Discussion Items — Environmental Board The Environmental Board requested, at its July 27th, 2001 meeting, that the following items be forwarded to the Planning and Zoning Board. They are as follows: A. Recommendation to establish a moratorium (interim ordinance) on all residential development and possibly all development for a period of one year: In response to the recent approval of the Comprehensive Plan by the City Council, the Environmental Board adopted the attached recommendation to allow time for the development of official controls to implement the goals and policies of the plan. Staff is not recommending the adoption of such an ordinance at this time. While an interim ordinance is an effective tool granted to municipalities for the purpose of protecting the planning process, the implications of such an ordinance need to be fully identified. An all- encompassing prohibition of development, as proposed, could generate many unintended consequences. Several steps should be undertaken prior to consideration of an interim ordinance, which include: a. Metropolitan Council review and approval of the Comprehensive Plan. b. Identification of "official control" modifications and timeline for development of such. c. Inventory of existing /proposed development and available MUSA. d. Identification of the potential impact on Economic Development activities. • • • By addressing the above items the City would be able to better ascertain the need for an interim ordinance and, if warranted, the appropriate scope it should have. B. 2001 Environmental Board Goals: The City Council will be reviewing the proposed goals with the Environmental Board at an upcoming joint meeting. They will also use the meeting as an opportunity to review the ordinance establishing the board, the expectations of the City Council and the Environmental Board and the relationship of the Environmental Board to other City boards. These items do not require any action by the Planning & Zoning Board. Attachments 1. EB moratorium recommendation 2. EB goals On June 27, 2001, the City of Lino Lakes Environmental Board approved a • resolution to forward the following recommendation to City Council: • As you know, the environmental board has determined that our present ordinances, policies and practices are not such as to adequately provide for appropriate environmental protection in proposed development projects. We have for many months advocated a review of all aspects of community development to help insure the highest quality community possible. We have made clear that there is a need to put into practice the principles and guidance of the handbook for conservation development (and the reasoning behind this need is well stated therein). To date we have found insufficient resources in our city to address these needs. In light of the recent adoption of the proposed comprehensive plan and the obvious increase in development activity to follow, the need to allocate resources to address these needs is increased dramatically. Beyond that, it seems ill- advised to attempt to undertake the processes required to bring about the necessary changes while at the same time burdening ourselves with an increase in development activity brought on by the addition (or anticipation) of 359 acres of MUSA bank. The City of Lino Lakes Environmental Board hereby recommends that the City of Lino Lakes immediately institute a moratorium on all residential development, and possibly on all development, for the period of-one year. This will allow the city to redirect resources now engaged in development projects toward developing the official controls and policies we need to be able to effectively manage new development proposals in our city. The handbook for conservation development outlines a process we must go through as a community, and it would be best to begin immediately. The state statute passage which provides for this is 462.355 Subd. 4., included below. S.S. 462.355 Preparation, adoption, and amendment of comprehensive municipal plan. Subd. 4. Interim ordinance. If a municipality is conducting studies or has authorized a study to be conducted or has held or has scheduled a hearing for the purpose of considering adoption or amendment of a comprehensive plan or official controls as defined in section 462.352, subdivision 15, or if new territory for which plans or controls have not been adopted is annexed to a municipality, the governing body of the municipality may adopt an interim ordinance applicable to all or part of its jurisdiction for the purpose of protecting the planning process and the health, safety and welfare of its citizens. The interim ordinance may regulate, restrict or prohibit any use, development, or subdivision within the jurisdiction or a portion thereof for a_ ie t tgexceesi one year from the date it is effective, and may be extended for such additional periods as the municipality may deem appropriate, not exceeding a total additional period of 18 months. No interim ordinance may halt, delay, or impede a subdivision which has been given preliminary approval prior to the effective date of the interim ordinance. HIST: 1965 c 670 s 5; 1976 c 127 s 21; 1977 c 347 s 68; 1980 c 566 s 24; 1983 c 216 art 1 s 67; 1985 c 62 s 1,2; 1995 c 176 s 4 Copyright 2000 by the Office of Revisor of Statutes, State of Minnesota. • Recommendations of the June 27, 2001 Environmental Board 8075 20th Ave North The Environmental Board reviewed a plan for a variance to build a garage at 8075 20th to give feed back on environmental considerations of this site. At he time of review, the Environmental Board recommended that the applicant check with Rice Creek Watershed District to ensure that no wetlands are impacted; and if the building size would exceed the allowable fill (no building size was available at the time of the meeting) than they work with the watershed to develop a plan. The Environmental Board would like this plan to include a simple method of maintaining additional impervious runoff on the site since it is in a designated lake protection area adjacent to Hardwood Creek. Since the meeting a site visit has indicated that the proposed area of the garage construction is devoid of wetlands, and that any water running from this site seems to be directed to a natural depression between the creek and the building site, with a good distance of reed canary grass between the depressional area and the creek. Target Ryan • The Environmental Board voted to forward the following recommendation: • The draft EAW states on page 19, second -to- last - paragraph, that it is not known what "impact will result from the increased volume of runoff into the wetlands in the regional park reserve and George Watch Lake" The last paragraph on that page also states that phosphorous runoff loads will increase from the current 22 lbs per year to 60 lbs per year after the development is completed, all of it going to "the wetlands in the regional park reserve and George Watch Lake" An analysis should be done to fully determine these impacts to the Rice Creek Chain of Lakes Preserve, wetlands and lakes. If the Rice Creek Watershed is unable to provide this, it may be appropriate for the applicant to provide this analysis. The analysis should utilize computer modeling. Draft Comprehensive Plan That an emergency building moratorium ordinance be enacted for all residential development and consideration for all development. (see letter and memo) Environmental Board Goals Should be forwarded to the Planning and Zoning Board for their information. (attached) • Environmental Board Goals 2001 GOAL #1. Educate developers about the benefits of including prairie gardens in their landscape designs. Potential Activity – Provide developers with the opportunity to see examples of blooming prairie gardens and to talk with the people who "maintain" them. GOAL #2. Increase citizen understanding and appreciation Lino Lakes' unique environmental qualities. Potential Activities — create a web site Pilot Restoration Project Update Environmental Board Packet Encourage landscaping companies to advertise in city Investigate possibility of using the "City Wagon" Work with Homeowners Associations to educate and implement sound conservation practices. GOAL #3. Identify and pursue preservation of, unique environmental assets of the city. Potential Activity -- Promote the preservation of the property located on the north side of Lino Lakes Elementary. GOAL #4. Restructure monthly meetings to preserve 50% (one hour) of the meeting to advance our proactive goals. Potential Activity— assign responsibilities (e.g., tree preservation, buffers) to individual board members GOAL #5. Increase communication with analogous units in other metro -area cities to avoid "re- inventing the wheel" and to look for collaborative opportunities. Potential Activity — develop a fist of cities that have groups focused on the environment Host a social event that brings these groups together to share ideas, goals, and experiences. GOAL #6. Investigate and promote the possibility of developing a conservation development ordinance for the city. Potential Activity —get examples of such ordinances from other cities. GOAL #7. Develop and implement a strategy to obtain more resources (staff and financial) to enable the city to establish itself as the leader in the metro area in terms of development that is both economically and environmentally intelligent. • GOAL #8. Communicate more regularly, and more directly, with City Council. GOAL #9 Assist the City Council with the Comp Plan • • • Planning & Zoning Board June 13, 2001 Page 1 PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MINUTES I. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL Chair Schaps called the Lino Lakes P1 • p.m., June 13, 2001. II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES t • 2001 Ms. Lane made a MOTI Lino Lakes Planning carried 4 -0. oning Board meeting to order at 6:35 pro `s =;.a e minutes of the May 9, 2001 meeting of the Board, and was supported by Mr. Lyden. Motion III. APPROVAL !AG The agenda was ,pro red as presented. IV. OPEN MIKE Chair Schaps declared open mike open at 6:36 p.m. Teresa O'Connell and Connie Grundhofer of the Environmental Board summarized their goals of the Environmental Board and offered to answer questions the Planning and Zoning Board may have regarding their goals. Mr. Lyden and Ms. Lane asked for a copy of the written goals. Mr. Corson made a MOTION to close Open Mike at 6:40 p.m., and was supported by • Mr. Lyden. Motion carried 4 -0. • Planning & Zoning Board June 13, 2001 Page 2 VI. ACTION ITEMS A. Glenn Valentine, 64th Street and 20th Avenue, Variance Staff presented the application by explaining applicant had applied for a variance from the required setback from a collector road. The site lies between I -35E and 20th Avenue (Co. Rd. 54). Most of the site was wetland. Only a small portion of the site was upland: the area along the 20th Avenue. Variances from required road setbacks would be needed if a house and driveway were to be built. Some wetland fill would be required. Staff presented its analysis of its request by explaining in the R -X Rural Executive zoning district, the City's zoning ordinance required a 40' building setback from a collector road such as 20th Ave. This site had only a small area of upland. Some wetland fill would be required if a home was to be built. The greater the road setback, the more wetland f .- °•¢ . d occur. The request was to allow the structure to be 10 feet from the right of way y 20`h .z nue. Staff stated the driveway must be at least 30 feet from the inter of the property (Sec. 3 Subd. 5.C.8.f of the zoning ordinanc additional wetland fill for the driveway. Therefore, a van .r t e w driveway as shown on the submitted survey was 10 fe om he in With respect to future right -of -way, staff explai • foresaw the need for an additional five feet of occurred, the garage and driveway would b- o undesirable situation, it was a trade -off wetland. The City could not simply Staff stated the site was located Management Organization WLAWMO was pending. needed. The plan showed jus Increasing the road se , wou ed from the corner t s would require d for this as well. The section. a County had informed the City that it on each side of the road. If this from the ROW. While this was an oser to the road and filling more erty owner from using the land. e ju diction of the Vadnais Lake Area Watershed . Because of the wetland impact, a review by atio "• f the house would determine the amount of wetland fill er 1000 sf of fill, as noted on the attached VLAWMO notice. increase the wetland fill. The VLAWO staff reco ° endation was to approve the plan. With respect to a septic system, staff explained any new home on well and septic must have an alternate drain field site designated. This was to ensure that a new drain field could be constructed if the first one failed. Staff reviewed the five findings for variance, as stated in the zoning ordinance that the City shall make in considering all requests for variance in taking subsequent action. Staff pointed out that the site was extremely restricted because of the wetlands. Without variance from setback requirements, the property could not be used. The physical circumstances were not created by the landowner. The hardship was not due to economic considerations. No special privilege was being granted. This type of hardship was the reason for the variance. Staff recommended approval of both variances to allow structure to be 10 feet from the collector road and approve variance to allow the driveway to be 10 feet from the intersection. • • Planning & Zoning Board June 13, 2001 Page 3 Chair Schaps invited applicant to make comment. Ms. Lane stated some lots were not build able lots and indicated this lot appeared to be one of these lots. She asked what was the City's responsibility. Mr. Smyser replied the Courts had stated the landowner must be allowed reasonable use of the property. He indicated this property was very difficult to deal with. He stated they could not prevent somebody to reasonable use of the property. Mr. Rafferty asked for clarification of Anoka County's right -of -way. Mr. Smyser stated the right of way would bring it to within 5 feet of the garage. Mr. Rafferty asked how long had applicant owned this piece of property. Mr. Valentine responded he was not the owner of the property, he was the builder an been working on it for 6 months to get something build able on it The property was ed on ay 20, 2001. Mr. Rafferty stated there were certain guidelines that had been `'y p1. e . _; 3 believed those guidelines were such to protect the people who were being T ' ere n. However, he stated they were speculating on the use of a property on guidelines at . w" n in place. He stated he was leery of this request because the buyer should hav en ware the condition of the property prior to purchase, and this would not fit into a gr thering clause. Mr. Valentine replied the previous owner had regardless of the owner of the property, th recently purchased the property did not reasonable use to the property. He sta and the Ordinances had changed never occur under today's Ordin Mr. Corson inquired abou wetland was being im acted b system did not impact ' y tl Ham Lake and Hugo h is lot pl ed in 1978. Mr. Smyser replied would exist. The fact that somebody that whoever owned the property had ere that the lots had existed for some time of time. He stated this type of platting would tic s em and secondary system and expressed concern the e septic system. He asked if they could ensure the septic an . He asked if it was possible to look at a septic system, such as ked that this be considered. Mr. Smyser stated a properly designed, built and main ned septic system, treated wastewater better than a treatment plant. He stated the septic syste would not have any impact on the wetland if it properly built. He indicated the systems Mr. Corson was referring to were considered experimental, and at this point, there were no regulations by the City, which required this type of a septic system. Mr. Powell stated he was familiar with these types of systems, and encouraged the applicant to consider a design of a wetland treatment system. Mr. Lyden asked about the status of the watershed. Mr. Smyser replied the Board would make a decision on this tomorrow morning. He stated he had received a copy of the text for this project and the Board was recommending approval of the wetland mitigation plan. • Mr. Lyden asked if staff had had any concerns. Mr. Smyser replied they had been working with applicant and had worked out all of the concerns. • Planning & Zoning Board June 13, 2001 Page 4 Mr. Lyden stated he concurred with Ms. Lane regarding dealing with applicants in a fair and reasonable manner. Chair Schaps inquired if other plans had been considered. Mr. Valentine stated other plans had been considered and explained why this floor plan was chosen. Tom Carlson, owner, stated he understood that if the variance was granted he waived his right to complaining about any noise from the traffic on the road. Chair Schaps requested applicant consider design of a wetland treatment system. Mr. Corson made a MOTION to approve the variance to allow structures to be 10 feet from the collector road and approve variance to allow the driveway to be 10 feet from the intersection, with applicant considering design of a wetland treatment system, and w : "�� �.orted by Mr. Lyden. Motion carried 3 -1 (Lane). Rafferty voted aye. B. Brian Iverson, 20th Avenue, Minor Subdivisi Staff presented the application by explaining applicant was re ortion of land from one parcel and attach it to the adjacent parcel. The action d 'rove t lot line ten feet. The existing property line followed the 1/4 1/4 section line. The ation was to move that property line ten feet to the east. The reason was to incre ze of t e western parcel to make it a full 20- acres. The applicant had a buyer for th . arcel ;f cel B) who wanted a full 20 acres. Staff explained the action would combi 35E, which currently was a separate tax ownership. Staff indicated currently, a private easements, not Cit public roadway, that would ha that location and there did not obligate the Cit m parcel a narrow strip of land along I- of the land involved was under the same y easement and the proposed access easement were If t applicant intended the new easement to be a future o be analyzed in the future. The City had no plans for a road in t to convey a road to the City at this time. The new easement Staff stated though the C''y's subdivision regulations required all lots to have full frontage on a public street, the existing parcel did not have frontage now. The proposed minor subdivision would not alter this situation, it simply increased the size of the driveway access easements. Any future subdivisions that create new lots would be required to have the full frontage on a public street. Staff explained the area was guided for long -term rural use. The City had no plan to extend utilities to this area. Any platting would have to be a maximum density of one lot per 10 acres. No plat approve was being requested. The applicant involved a very minor change in parcel sizes and posed no concern for public health, safety, or welfare. Staff recommended approval. Chair Schaps invited applicant to make comment. Mr. William Walton, stated he was the person who was attempting to purchase Parcel B. He explained there was an 8 -foot wide easement when they signed the purchase agreement. He was • • Planning & Zoning Board June 13, 2001 Page 5 informed that the City was requiring the 65 -foot roadway easement. He asked when the purchase agreement was signed the agreement stated if the roadway was ever to be used as a dedicated public road, then they would give up the 65 -foot easement, but until that time, it would remain as it was. He stated Mr. Iverson had agreed to that and had signed the purchase agreement. He indicated now Mr. Iverson was asking for a 66 -foot easement. He stated if this did not get resolved, the property might be not closed on. Chair Schaps stated it appeared Mr. Walton and Mr. Iverson did not see eye to eye and the Planning and Zoning Board had no authority to enter into this type of a dispute. Mr. Walton replied he understood that and he requested the 66 -foot easement be struck from the recommendation to the City. Mr. Brian Iverson stated he had not figured anything out yet, but whatever the City wanted to do was fine with him. Mr. Powell noted that if Mr. Iverson wanted to develop it in the fyre, ght >f- -way easement would be required. Ms. Lane made a MOTION to approve the minor subdivisid , wi u y additional easement other than what was already platted, and was supporte M Lyd. Motion carried 4 -0. C. Item Deleted D. Lino Lakes Family Dentis �s�llo D. °ive, Site Plan Review Staff presented the application by construction of a 5,067 square fo The subject site was approximat future commercial develop Business District. Medic Development of a co erci by Section 2, subd. 5 t had submitted site and building plans for e building on property located on Apollo Drive. s • are feet in size. The property was guided for mprehensive Plan and was zoned GB, General ere allowed within this District as a permitted use. was subject to site and building plan review as provided for Ordinance. Staff presented its analy of the request by explaining the only issue was that the drive aisle on the west side of the buil • g was set on the property line and not back 10 feet as required. This driveway was within a parking easement established over the common lot line with the property to the west and was indicated to be temporary. Staff indicated the footprint was approximately 4,792 sq. ft. The building was a single story structure with a pitched roof and a height measured to be 19' high. Staff stated the elevations featured cultured stone on the forward part of the south elevation and a lap siding of "cement board" on the remaining portion of the south elevation, as well as the sides and rear of the building. Additional cultured stone accents were provided at the comers of the • building. The peaks of the pitched roof also used the plank material. Section 3, Subd. 4.B allowed for use of decorative concrete panels for commercial uses. Provided that the "cement boards" were consistent with this classification of material the exterior of the building would conform to the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. Planning & Zoning Board June 13, 2001 Page 6 The site plan included a trash and recycling area at the northwest corner of the property. The trash enclosure was 6 feet in height and constructed out of hardy planks, which would complement the principal building design. With respect to the landscape plan, staff explained it proposed a mixture of trees, shrubs and bushes on the front and sides of the building. The materials included within the landscaping plan were consistent with the types and sizes required for commercial uses. No landscaping had been provided for the portion of the property designated for future development. This area should be seeded to control erosion. The utility plan indicated a sprinkler system was to be provided that would serve the front portion of the lot. The system should be expanded to serve more of the property or additional measures made available for watering plantings. The landscape plan was subject to further review for compliance with CPTED standards. Staff explained the site had one access to Apollo Drive, which overlay providing for a shared driveway with the abutting property. Access to approval of the City and Anoka County under a Joint Power A e est lot line rive was subject Staff stated in addition to the shared access, the site plan pr the property line on the west side of the building, which acc storage area. As noted above, this drive aisle was wit property line to provide for shared access and was inten therefore requesting that this section of drivewa the temporary allowance of the asphalt curb sh drive aisle abutting h enclosure and interior eme overlaying the west temporary. The applicant was ed asphalt curb. The parameters for cified as part of the site plan approval. Staff indicated circulation around the si 12 -foot access aisles (24 foot two -wa Backing out of the north stalls in shallow. If possible, the parkin backup lane to improve acc with a 26 -foot wide driveway leading to ng areas and rear trash/storage area. a might be difficult because the backup lane was oul e shifted south to increase the depth of the Staff explained the to al requir= nt was 26 parking spaces based on the gross floor area of the building. If the calcul ' clu "° d the storage area, 22 spaces were required. The plan showed 23 spaces, of which thr os': need to be removed to provide an extension of the driveway to allow development of the east side of the property. With the potential full use of the property in mind, accommodation should be made for 26 parking stalls on the site plan outside of the area necessary to extend the driveway. The site plan should also be revised to provide sufficient surface width such that the disability accessible stalls are van accessible. Staff stated the signage was governed by the City's sign ordinance and permits were required for all signs. The site plan indicated the location of a monument type business sign measured 40 square feet. The sign was located to the south of the parking area approximately one foot from the lot line. Freestanding signs were required to be at least five feet from the lot line, so the site plan must be revised. fa With respect to lighting, staff indicated the site plan did not identify exterior light fixtures. Any light fixtures to be installed must be shown on the site plan and accompanied by a photometric plan. Planning & Zoning Board June 13, 2001 Page 7 Staff stated the proposed site was to be served by sanitary sewer and water services located within the Apollo Drive right -of -way. Service to the future development of the eastern portion of the subject site would have access to the planned connection lines. The submitted plans included a grading and drainage plans for review regarding runoff control and water quality. All utility and grading plans were subject to review and approval of the City Engineer. Staff indicated park dedication requirements for medical offices were $200.00 per 1000 sf of commercial building. Based on a 4,792 square foot building, the park dedication requirement would be $958.40. Staff stated the proposed site plan for Family Dentistry was generally consistent with the performance standards outlined in the Zoning Ordinance. Minor changes to the site plan were required to provide required parking stalls, improve parking lot circulation and comply with setbacks for the west driveway. Staff stated provided these issues were addressed, staff recommerdg ov of the application with the following conditions: a. The site plan is revised such that all drivewa l�aifig areas Mr. Lyden read the Environmental Board's concerns Powell noted this site was served by a regional system was routed to this pond. Chair Schaps invited applicant to make Mr. Scott Maurer, Progressive Ar represented the owners of the pr building was a rural design. were trying to respond to He asked there be no curb or had understood that • r n ad water flow from the site. Mr. he connection to the storm sewer E. Fourth Street, Suite 530, St. Paul, stated he He give a brief history of the property. He stated this r clarification regarding the easement. He stated they go' ' _ to be developed on the west side of the development. on that side; that it be flat asphalt. Chair Schaps replied he ote of it. Mr. Maurer pointed out Y here the lighting would be located. He asked about the irrigation of the lot to the east. He asked this would be irrigated. Mr. Brixius stated they were not looking for irrigation to the site to the east. Chair Schaps asked for clarification on the parking stalls. Mr. Maurer replied right now they were just building the clinic portion of the building and not the storage area, and they had adequate parking spaces available with just the clinic. He stated they wanted to leave options open for any developments to the east and west. He asked it be approved with the stipulation that the additional stalls would be required once development occurred. Mr. Brixius stated one of the things they could look at was the rear of the property providing some additional stalls. Mr. Smyser stated on the western side of the property staff was comfortable with the driveway back there, but it was normal to have a full curb and they needed to find a reason why this would not be required for this development. • • Planning & Zoning Board June 13, 2001 Page 8 Mr. Powell stated at many times, the concrete curb was replaced in past developments once further development occurred. He stated the reason they required this was for a finished look. He recommended there be a concrete curb placed in the area. Mr. Smyser indicated the standard lighting was to require a photometric plan with a shoebox type fixture with lighting directed downward. Mr. Maier replied they had no problem with this requirement. Mr. Smyser stated the future development area could not remain dirt and weeds. With respect to the parking, the City had to plan for parking for the entire building. He stated this had to be handled now. The parking could not be addressed in the future. He stated the area used as storage needed to be included in the parking requirements at this time. However, the Board could recommend a variance from that. Mr. Maier stated if the trash could be relocated, they may have e spaces in the back. Mr. Smyser expressed concern about par in and out. He recommended the variance of the three stall more parking ith trucks coming Mr. Lyden asked for Mr. Brixius' recommendations. ; Bri ;;'us relied the standard parking arrangement for professional offices, and staff realized so _,sfessional offices required more parking and some less. He stated granting a v '3" ce uld not be detrimental to this site, but any change of occupancy would require them t : , eet th' -;. arking standards. He stated if parking needed to be accommodated into the futur-, u at b- ccomplished because there was sufficient room for additional parking. Mr. Corson asked the storage be ses to the north. Mr. Brixius replied this had a very residential feel and with ad and aping, there would not be a problem with this. Mr. Corson asked about t of `- pond. Mr. Powell replied when the pond was designed, it was desi ed for r,�,_ for future accommodation. Ms. Lane made a MO • ' =pprove the site and building plans as outlined in staff's report for Lino Lakes Family Den =, try, except item F would allow a variance to allow for 23 off street parking stalls as opposed o 26 parking stalls, and was supported by Mr. Lyden. After further discussion regarding the parking requirements, Ms. Lane withdrew her motion and Mr. Lyden withdrew his second. Ms. Lane made a MOTION to approve the site and building plans as outlined in staff's report for Lino Lakes Family Dentistry subject to staff's recommendations with exception of item F which required 26 parking stalls, and was supported by Mr. Lyden. Motion carried 4 -0. Mr. Rafferty made a MOTION for a variance of 23 parking stalls instead of 26 parking stalls • referred to in Item F of staff's report, and in the future, if there were any changes to the property, all City codes shall be applicable, and was supported by Mr. Corson. Motion carried 4 -0. Planning & Zoning Board June 13, 2001 Page 9 E. PUBLIC HEARING, Centennial School District, Birch St. Site, Rezone Chair Schaps declared the public hearing for both Item E and Item F opened at 8:00 p.m. Staff presented the application by explaining that ISD 12 requested to locate a new elementary school next to the Centennial Middle School, the School District also hoped to sell its existing vacant property along Birch Street. In this regard, the School District had requested that their 38.29 -acre site be rezoned from PSP, Public /Semi -Public District to R -1X, Single Family Executive District. Staff presented its analysis of the request, noting the following: Staff explained ISD 12, in evaluating its elementary school needs, determined that a new facility adjoining the existing middle school would best serve its current and., ollment population. The Birch Street site was seen as a duplicate site for Ri entary School and Centerville Elementary School. Staff stated the 38.29 acre site was zoned PSP, Public /Se district was limited in the range of uses that were allowed. range of use was very limiting and in some cases the with the adjoining residential properties (i.e., clinicsrrnursi • Staff explained the applicant was proposing to Executive District. This was a low- densit b Staff indicated in consideration of re amendment should be considered Commission's judgment of the re factors: istrict. This zoning e property for sale, this conducive or compatible es, public buildings, hospitals). property to R -1X, Single Family ial district. , the possible adverse effects of the aking, the City Council and Planning sho ``d be based upon, but not limited to, the following 1. The proposed . ction's i tency with the specific policies and provision of the official City Compreh 2. The proposed us compatibility with present and future land uses of the area. 3. The proposed use's conformity with all performance standards contained herein (i.e., parking, loading, noise, etc.). 4. The proposed use's impact upon existing public services and facilities including parks, schools, streets, and utilities, and its potential to overburden the City's service capacity. 5. Traffic generation of the proposed use in relation to capabilities of streets serving the property. Staff stated while zoned PSP, the 1990 Land Use Plan guides the subject site for single family residential and includes the area in the existing MUSA. The Proposed 2020 Land Use Plan showed the property as public /semi- public, reflecting the public ownership and current zoning. The 2020 plan also included the site in the MUSA and Phase 1 growth area. • • • Planning & Zoning Board June 13, 2001 Page 10 Staff outlined the Comprehensive Plan policies that were applicable to the zoning request, and stated the zoning change would be compatible with the current 1990 Land Use Plan and would be consistent with the aforementioned Comprehensive Plan policies. Staff stated to determine the appropriateness of the proposed use it was beneficial to examine the adjoining land use and zoning. Staff explained the proposed zoning from PSP to R -1X would be consistent with the R -1X zoning of the Pheasant Hills subdivision that adjoined the site on the north and east. The property laid within the existing MUSA and Phase 1 growth area presents a logical extension of the existing sewered single - family neighborhoods. Staff indicated the rezoning application was not accompanied by a a ion request. Any future development must be compliant with the City zoning and bdivis regulations. A survey delineating wetland in the subject site had been submitte •. on calculation, the site contained approximately 10± acres of wetland, leaving 28 xe �; • f b �x `'able acres scattered through the site The amount and configuration of the a.l: res would limit the development of the site. Staff stated the site lies within the City's existin residential development of the site should be w area. d Phase 1 growth area. The capacity of existing utilities serving the Staff indicated access to any future de `, • • ent '. d be reliant on access from Birch Street and local streets in adjoining subdivi Street was a County road. The County Highway Department must co t' :• capacity of Birch Street and its ability to accommodate residential develo • om ` e 28 developable acres within the 38.28 -acre total site. Mr. Corson asked with staff i Brixius stated anythin Applicant tonight was .° p were comfortable for a decision to be made tonight. Mr. come in would still be contingent on a site plan review. to see what the thoughts were of the City at this time. Mr. Corson stated there ould be more bus traffic through the Middle School and asked if that was an issue. Mr. Brixius stated there would be more traffic, but he believed this was a good land -use fit. Chair Schaps pointed out the traffic would be at different times. Elementary Schools started later than the Middle School. John Christensen, Superintendent Centennial School District, clarified the schools had staggered start and stop times and there were buses running in that area now. He pointed out an elementary school in this area would be a good fit to serve the western part of the District. He stated they would be conscientious about starting times, ending times, and event times. Mr. Lyden asked how many other PSP sites they had available. Mr. Christensen stated they had none. • • • Planning & Zoning Board June 13, 2001 Page 11 Mr. Christensen stated the particular site became part of the District in 1959 and it had not been deemed as an appropriate site when Rice Lake Elementary School was built. Mr. Lyden asked if this would be the last elementary school the school district would build. Mr. Christensen stated it depended upon the density in the next few years. Mr. Lyden asked if this would come on line in the 2010 growth zone or in the 2020 growth zone. Mr. Brixius replied this land was in the MUSA and was in the 2010 growth zone. Chair Schaps asked about consideration of a Kindergarten center. Mr. Christensen stated the public sentiment was not positive and this project was proposed to be K -5. Mr. Lyden asked how closely these two items related with respect to action items for the school district. Mr. Christensen stated if this was not approved, there were no *•tions for property at this time and they needed the additional space. Mr. Christensen s d they ould be budget considerations regarding this. Mr. Rafferty asked if there was a net gain in money based o d `th as trying to be rezoned. Mr. Christensen replied there was a potential net Mr. Rafferty asked why there was only a possibih of a . Mr. Christensen replied the difference was that light industrial zoned prope t in a ifferent price structure. Light industrial property was more valuable than rest� ntial p. erty. Mr. Rafferty stated he had a concern w •rod - "'ecause in May, 2000, it was the proposal to take 7.5 acres and trade it for 3.5 a e ditch, and at the time he struggled with that decision because it did not make 3 se e stated his problem was that they took light industrial land that would never • ' and as traded for L -1 and now they were trying to get it changed again and they wer • ;;go t. have to pay a premium price for something that was already there. He did not • e at w fair to the taxpayers. Mr. Christensen stated he was not a part of those discussions he could not comment on what was requested in the past. Leaf Palmer asked in ea ey were trying to rezone where would the access to the development be. Chair haps replied there was not any site proposal prepared yet at this time. Mr. Palmer stated he lived one lot away from the development and expressed concern about the traffic increasing in front of his house. He stated Birch Street was a busy road and if the access was off of Birch Street, this would greatly impact him. Chair Schaps stated this could happen, but there was no proposal now. Mr. Powell stated that was a dead -end street with a temporary cul -de -sac. He stated they were concerned about accesses on Birch Street. He stated they needed to consider the bus traffic that might be coming down into this area to pick up children and take them somewhere else. Paul Seiferts stated his property backed up to the present school property. He expressed concern about the taxpayers having to purchase more property for schools. He asked if this would be rezoned, could there be a covenant regarding adding parkland dedication. He stated he had paid a premium from his property and parkland would be much appreciated. Chair Schaps suggested he attend Park Board meetings first and express his concern about parks in his area. • • • Planning & Zoning Board June 13, 2001 Page 12 Mr. Smyser stated with the re- zoning request, they could not ensure a park in that area. However, if a plan came in the future, the Park Board would compare the proposal to the existing Park and Trail plan. He stated the Park Board made the recommendations as to where the parks should be located, which then came to the Planning and Zoning Board and then went to the City Council for consideration. Gary Trettel stated his concern on the proposed plan was the sharing of facilities with the middle school. He stated there were wetland mitigation issues, as well as elementary school children sharing facilities with older children. Also, he would also like a park in the area. Branden Curtis stated he was not opposed to the development, but his concern was a safety factor. He stated the traffic on Birch Street needed to be addressed and slowed down. If a school was proposed to be added, they had to look even more closely a ffic issues. Ken Wagner stated he had also paid a premium for his lot and sta selling the land at this time. He asked the School District wait knew what they needed in the future. Mr. Christensen gave some of the advantages of shari larger events that were too large for one facility could be inconveniencing anyone. see the value of e land until they iliti - He stated some of the the other facility without Mr. Lyden made a MOTION to close the . • lic r;' n Items E and F at 8:46 p.m., and was supported by Ms. Lane. Motion curie Ms. Lane made a MOTION to de m PSP to R -1X, and was supported by Mr. Rafferty. Motion carried 4 -0. F. PUBLIC ` G, f ntennial School District, New Elementary School Site, ' ezone, g _s r Subdivision Staff presented the app ' o` y explaining ISD 12 had a letter of intent to purchase 15+ acres of industrial zoned land ated at the northeast corner of the existing Centennial Middle School site for the purpose of bu ding a new elementary school. The site was currently zoned L -I, Light Industrial and would require a change in zoning to PSP, Public /Semi -Public District to accommodate the elementary school. The School District had requested consideration of the following development applications to facilitate a new elementary school at this location: 1. Rezoning from L -1, Limited Industrial Zoning District to PSP, Public /Semi - Public Zoning District. 2. Subdivision to create a parcel to be conveyed to the School District. Staff presented its analysis of the request stating upon investigation of the needed elementary school, the School District had selected the proposed site next to the Centennial Middle School for the following reasons: Planning & Zoning Board June 13, 2001 Page 13 • 1. In review of the School District's enrollment distribution and forecasts, approximately 60 percent of the present and future enrollment population lived west of Lake Drive and County Road 49. The proposed site provided a centralized location to best serve the School District's population. • • 2. The current vacant Birch Street location laid in close proximity to the existing Rice Lake Elementary and Centerville Elementary. Construction of another school along Birch Street was seen as a duplication of facilities. 3. The proposed site's proximity to the Centennial Middle School allowed the elementary school to share facilities with the middle school (i.e., play equipment, play fields). This allowed the elementary school to be located on a smaller site thus reducing the School District's investment in land acquisition and development of on -site recreational facilities. Staff stated the 15 acre site was zoned L -I, Limited Industrial Dis d as part of the Lake Business Park subdivision. The L -I Zoning District did al aw e tary schools as an allowed use therefore mandating the rezoning request. The , d sit ; es within the Lake Business Park preliminary plat, which was approved in 19'1' Th,' +eing considered by the School District was isolated on the far west end of the a sine :' ark preliminary plat by an existing wetland. This end of the preliminary plat was in to gain access to Lake Drive via E a 1,150 feet long cul -de -sac. The rezoning and _� . • •n wo d significantly reduce the needed cul -de -sac length for the industrial park Staff indicated he requested zoning for acr cel was PSP, Public /Semi- Public District. The purpose of this district was descri This district was designee :# � tend :° to aid in guiding development towards fulfillment of the Co lan and to serve the following functions: 1. To provide the yam unity with properly located schools, colleges, and health ons 2. To provi• the community and properly located public services, and utilities. 3. To provide the community with properly located open green space, parks, playgrounds and recreational facilities. 4. To relate public and semi- public locations with thoroughfare system. Staff stated the PSP Zoning District allowed for public and private schools by conditional use permit. At this time, only the zoning and subdivision requests were being considered. The conditional use permit would be processed as a separate application with the site plan details. Staff explained in consideration of rezoning requests, the possible adverse effects of the amendment should be considered. Generally speaking, the City Council and Planning Commission's judgment of the rezoning should be based upon, but not limited to, the following factors: • Planning & Zoning Board June 13, 2001 Page 14 1. The proposed action's consistency with the specific policies and provision of the official City Comprehensive Plan. 2. The proposed use's compatibility with present and future land uses of the area. 3. The proposed use's conformity with all performance standards contained herein (i.e., parking, loading, noise, etc.). 4. The proposed use's impact upon existing public services and facilities including parks, schools, streets, and utilities, and its potential to overburden the City's service capacity. 5. Traffic generation of the proposed use in relation to capabilities of streets serving the property. Staff stated due to the limited application of the PSP Zoning Dis Use Plan seldom applies this land use category except where t public ownership of the property. Recognizing this conditi Proposed 2020 Land Use Plan guides this site for industri City Council must therefore determine the appropriat applicable policies of the 1987 Comprehensive plan and policies that relate to the rezoning request. Staff explained the School District's intere campus did economize an existing inve and was located in a manner that best proposed land use and zoning ch Staff indicated within the 2 the following recommend ma %'` : ehensive Land r where there was d Use Plan and the ng Commission and ing change on the osed 2020 Comprehensive Plan shared elementary and middle school a greater utilization of existing facilities, ool District's residents. In this regard, the nt with the Comprehensive plan policies. omprehensive Plan under Staged Growth Area Rules, "In considerin ad the City will discourage the exchange of developable commercial or 1 • zoned land for a proposed residential development" Staff stated while the rez`ning of the industrial land would not directly accommodate residential growth, the School District, in a related application, was requesting that the existing Birch Street parcel be rezoned from PSP to R -1X, Single Family Residential. The City must determine if this requested zoning change was inconsistent with this recommendation. It should be noted that this was a unique request in that it was driven by the facility needs of the School District rather than private development. Staff indicated industrial zoning would adjoin the site on the east and southeast. This area was preliminary platted in 1998 under the name of Lake Business Park. This preliminary plat revealed that storm water drainage ponds and a wetland physically separated the proposed site from most of the industrial area. The Lake Business Park preliminary plat relied on a 1,150 -foot long cul -de -sac to provide access to the westernmost lot. Long cul -de -sacs provide poor street access for industrial traffic and site access. Planning & Zoning Board June 13, 2001 Page 15 • Staff stated the School District would need to submit an application for conditional use permit to allow a school in the PSP District per Section 9.I.1 of the Lino Lakes Zoning Ordinance. • • Staff stated applicant had submitted a survey and concept plan with the subdivision request. In review of this information, staff offered the following comment/suggestions: 1. The site exceeds the lot area for a PSP lot. 2. The site fails to provide for adequate lot width, frontage on a public street, or setback from the south and west property lines. 3. A wetland delineation is necessary for site development based on information submitted with the Lake Business Park preliminary plat. The eastern portion of the site had wetland constraints that must be addressed in the site design. Any wet' ng would require a wetland replacement plan. 4. The survey indicated that only the eastern half of 4 A ue •een vacated. To accommodate the proposed development, the bal through the site must be vacated. 5. A utility easement following the 4th Street align ust be established and recorded. The subdivision should also show ten -f + _ • ge an utility easements along the side and rear property lines. Staff indicated to avoid the need for lot creation of a new lot, staff recomme middle school site to create a sin to utilize middle school land to ing setback variances associated with the roposed site be combined with the existing bining the lots will allow the elementary school performance standards. Staff stated Section 3.C.3 ino k`. es Zoning Ordinance allowed more than one principal building on PSP lots provide ...t all the performance standards of the Zoning Ordinance were met. Staff indicated the site s within the existing MUSA. The proposed site and school was not anticipated to overburde existing in -place utilities or municipal services. With respect to transportation, staff explained the elementary school would gain its site access via shared driveways with the middle school accessing Elm Street. The combined campus would allow the middle school and elementary school to share bus service. The elementary school would be designed to accommodate between 750 and 1,000 students, resulting in staffing of approximately 75 people. Bus traffic, staff and visitor traffic would be the anticipated traffic generation. This traffic was not anticipated to overburden existing streets serving the site. Mr. Lyden made a MOTION to recommend approval of the requested rezoning from L -I to PSP based on the following findings: 1. The elementary school site is combined with the middle school site to create a single lot. Planning & Zoning Board June 13, 2001 Page 16 • 2. The applicant pursue a conditional use permit and submit detailed development plans for the site. The site plan should illustrate how the plan will be integrated with the middle school. • 3. Wetland replacement plans will be required and subject to the review and approval of Rice Creek Watershed. 4. Vacation of the west half of 4th Street through the proposed site will be required. 5. Appropriate easements must be established over all existing utilities and along side and rear lot lines. and was supported by Mr. Corson. Motion carried 3 -1 (Rafferty). Mr. Corson made a MOTION for the minor subdivision, as outlined • staff's #_n port and was supported by Mr. Lyden. Motion carried 3 -1 (Rafferty). Chair Schaps called for a recess at 8:50 p.m. Chair Schaps reconvened at 9:00 p.m. G. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEA Preliminary Plat Chair Schaps reopened the public heari Staff presented the application by preliminary plat entitled Highl Main Street and west of L and was zoned R -1/PDO n • hlan Meadows West 3rd Addition., The proposed prelirni an additional 25 acres single family and townh The present application i licant had submitted an application for a ows ' ' Addition. The subject site was located south of e property was planned for low- density residential uses ts. a re -plat of Highland Meadows 2nd Addition and incorporated the project. The Highland Meadows 2nd Addition included both se dwelling units in a subdivision based on coving design principals. ludes only single - family residential lots. Staff presented its analysis of the request explaining the subject site was guided for single - family residential used by the current and draft Comprehensive Plan (1 -3 du/ac.) and it was included within the current MUSA. Consistent with the land use plan, the subject site was zoned PDO/R- 1 and R -1 District. The PDO Zoning was applied to the site to facilitate a previous subdivision concept based on coving design principals with flexibility on front yard setback standards. No such flexibility was being processed as part of this subdivision design. Single - family lots and uses were a permitted use of these Districts. Staff stated access to the subdivision is provided via Marilyn Drive from the south and Arlo Lane from the west. Traffic from this neighborhood must use these routes to reach collector or arterial streets due to access limitations onto Main Street to the north. • Planning & Zoning Board June 13, 2001 Page 17 Staff indicated local streets within the preliminary plat have been designed with a 60 -foot right - of -way, consistent with the Subdivision Ordinance. There are three cul -de -sacs within the project, necessitated by existing development and wetlands. The cul -de -sacs have a 60 -foot radius as required. Staff explained the only issue with the street design was the 105 offset of Street A and Street D. The Subdivision Ordinance discourages offsets less than 125 feet. The potential to align Street A and Street D should be given further consideration. Staff indicated the subdivision included 70 single - family lots with an average size of 16,150 square feet within five blocks. The subdivision Ordinance limits block length to not more than 1,500 feet. The lengths of Blocks 1 and 2 exceed 1,500 feet, due to existing development, wetland and drainage areas, and limitations on access to Main Street. Staff explained the R -1 District minimum lot size was 10,800 squar lots listed below did not meet the minimum lot area requirement. revised such that all lots have at least 10,800 square feet of are wetlands, water bodies, parks, easements, rights -of -way an Block 1: Lot 7 and Lot 14. Block 2: Lots 5,10, 11, 14, 15, 16, 19, and 20. Block 3: Lots 3, 4, and 5. Staff stated lots within the R -1 District mu corner lots) and minimum depth of 135 meet or exceed these provisions. State stated there were four exis submitted plans did not ide proposed subdivision desi individual lot within required Lots 2 and 3, Block 1 right -of -way. d able land. The plat must be drainage ways, 'nimum width of 80 feet (100 feet for or double frontage lots). All of the lots le -f y dwellings within the project area. The a are to remain or those that may be removed. The een ' d out such that each dwelling would be located on an acks. There was a detached accessory building in the area of b '`removed as it overlayed lot lines and encroaches into the Staff explained the subje ' site included several large stands of trees throughout the property. A tree preservation plan had been submitted that indicates trees to be protected and those to be removed as part of the development. Trees to be preserved were a large stand in the southwest comer, a stand in the northeast corner and a small stand in the northwest corner of the property. All other significant trees were to be removed from the central areas of the property as part of the grading plan and development of the site. Staff indicated the existing conditions sheet and grading plan identify a 0.74 -acre wetland in the center of Block 2. This wetland area was not to be disturbed as part of development of this project. The wetland would be included within a drainage and utility easement that also covered drainage ponds adjacent to the wetland. Staff stated the applicant had submitted grading and drainage plans for the proposed subdivision. The grading plan was subject to the review and approval of the City Engineer. • • • Planning & Zoning Board June 13, 2001 Page 18 Staff indicated Outlots A and D were proposed to be dedicated as partial satisfaction of park land requirements. Outlot A provided a desired trail corridor from Main Street to the neighborhood. Connections to the park abutting the southwest corner of this parcel would be provided over the local streets. Outlot D was land dedicated to add to the existing park. Staff explained the amount of the land required to be dedicated was 10 percent of the gross area of the plat or 3.37 acres. An additional amount of land must also be dedicated to offset the loss of existing parkland caused by the extension of Arlo Lane to serve the plat. The area of Outlots A and D were 0.72 acres, from which the replacement park land must be subtracted. The balance of required park dedication would be required to be satisfied in the form of a cash fee in lieu of land based upon the formula outlined in the Subdivision Ordinance. Staff stated the preliminary plat included Outlots B and C, in addition to those being provided for park dedication purposes. Staff explained Outlot B was a parcel of land fronting Street A th access to a land locked parcel to the south east. This land loc have frontage to 79th Street via a reserve strip that was to b need to follow up on resolution of this matter. to provide so intended to e City. Staff would Staff explained Outlot C was a 0.07 -acre parcel of land was being conveyed to the abutting property to lot and the parkland. s the expanded park. The Outlot order to create a buffer between that Staff stated water and sanitary sewer w ..b pr: '"d to be provided to serve the single - family uses. Sanitary sewer and wat shown within the rights -of -way. Storm sewer facilities were also shown o asements had been provided at the perimeter of each lot and over all drainage fa All ity plans were subject to review and approval of the City Engineer. Staff stated comments from th vironmental Board had not been received. Chair Schaps asked if . "' ehensive Plan had addressed this area with respect to parkland. Mr. Brixius stated this Auld se an extension to the park area already in existence. Mr. Lyden asked if it was too late to make this R -1X. Mr. Brixius stated there was no application before them for R -1X zoning. Chair Schaps invited applicant to make comment. Ms. Gail Judd, 670 Arlen Lane, stated she was the person who Outlot C was being dedicated to. She asked if this was on meeting in a series of meetings, or if this was being approved tonight. Chair Schaps replied this would go to Council for their decision eventually. Ms. Judd asked if Outlot D was parkland because they were purchasing Outlot C. She requested it be residential. Mr. Smyser replied her purchasing Outlot C, did not have any effect on the decision to make Outlot D a.park. • • • Planning & Zoning Board June 13, 2001 Page 19 Ms. Judd stated she did not want a park next to her. She stated she had expressed this concern since the beginning. Chair Schaps replied the Planning and Zoning Board knew about her concerns, but there many people who did want a park. Chair Schaps asked why she was opposed to the park. Ms. Judd replied she did not have children and wanted the peace and quiet she had now. She felt very strongly about not having a park next to her property. Mr. Smyser stated usually a park was not drawn up until they had obtained the neighborhood's opinions. Ms. Judd asked how much did her opinion carry and what where her rights. Chair Schaps stated she needed to go to Council with her concerns, but the Planning and Zoning Board did realize and acknowledge her concerns, but they did not make the final opinion Ms. Judd requested the Board not approve this until Outlot D bec Mr. Lyden stated there were other substandard lots, and it take Ms. Judd's concerns into consideration. Steve Schmitt, developer, stated there was no discussion for the proposed plat. He stated they originally was upon the Park Board's recommendation th some issues with Outlot D being made par to be grading and redesign of the land. e to continue this and ng the park not being big enough cept of Outlot D being residential, but it made a park. He stated there were d if it was integrated into a park, it had ificant grade change. Mr. Rafferty asked how large w -ntly. The developer replied the park was five acres and Outlot D would be in •. to th Outlot D would make an appropriate sized residential lot, approximate Teresa O'Connell and Connie ndhofer, Environmental Board, stated Outlot D did not have oak trees on it so they of ' " concerned about that. They did have concerns about the water level however. o 1 corrected an error made at the Environmental Board meeting regarding water levels. = e stated the ground water level varied from year to year and that the City required the lowest '`oor 4 feet above groundwater, not 6 feet. Ms. O'Connell asked how open was the Board to having the streets narrower to accommodate more green space. Mr. Powell replied in the past the City had allowed the streets to be narrowed to 28 feet and the City could "live" with a 28 -foot street. However, if they wanted to go further than that, this would have to come under much more consideration. Mr. Lyden asked why the City did not have a tree Ordinance and when was one expected. Chair Schaps replied they were unable to resolve many issues involved with the tree ordinance and there was no set timeframe for when this was expected. Mr. Lyden requested the tree ordinance be brought back soon. • • Planning & Zoning Board June 13, 2001 Page 20 Ms. Lane asked if the Park Board had seen this. She stated she had no objection to Outlot D being a residential lot. Mr. Smyser stated the Park Board had made a recommendation for a park, even though it was not specifically noted in the staff report. Ms. Lane stated if this was not part of the park, it would increase the developer's donation. Mr. Lyden made a MOTION to close the public hearing at 9:35 p.m. and was supported by Mr. Rafferty. Motion carried 4 -0. Mr. Corson asked about the 28 -foot streets with respect to parking. Mr. Powell replied staff was comfortable with 28 -foot streets. It would not pose any maintenance or parking problems. Mr. Powell indicated the right -of -way did not change. The right -of -way would stay at 60 feet. The pavement would be narrower. They were not proposing to reduce t -of -way, only the paved surface. The developer stated he did not object to the 28 -foot streets. Mr. Smyser asked what the anticipated home price range w. , ld b developer stated it would be similar to the first addition. He estimated it „r ld $18 ,000.00 to $219, 000.00. With respect to the substandard lots in size, he stated he • • H =; believe the lots were substandard in size, but there still had to be some issues wor • o garding those lots. He stated this was a preliminary plat and these issues would be wor d out r -.r to any decisions. Chair Schaps stated they still wanted to see it ahead of ti Mr. Lyden made a MOTION to table eeting the Preliminary Plat of Highland Meadows 3rd Addition. Motion f ! r ` _ . f a second. Mr. Rafferty asked what t • • ` ti • were they imposing upon the developer by delaying this He asked if the 13 lo ` stio ere enough to delay the process. The developer asked that the Board take action on t onight. Mr. Lyden asked if Ms. '• • ' ''`' oncerns could be addressed. The developer stated he had no problem having Outlot being a residential area. This was a decision of the City. It made no difference to him either y. He was willing to have more discussions with Mr. Degardner regarding making this a lot versus parkland. Mr. Smyser stated he would speak with Mr. Degardner about this and raise these issues with him. Ms. Lane made a MOTION to approve the Preliminary Plat of Highland Meadows 3'd Addition subject to the following conditions: a. The preliminary plat is revised to align Street A and Street D, subject to review and approval of the City Engineer. b. The preliminary plat is revised such that all lots have 10,800 square feet of build able area, as defined by the Zoning Ordinance. c. Any existing structure not located on a proposed lot within required setbacks is to be removed at the time of fmal plat approval. • • • Planning & Zoning Board June 13, 2001 Page 21 d. All grading, drainage and utility plans are subject to review and approval of the City Engineer. e. Outlots A and D, minus the area of land necessary to replace existing park land lost with extension of Arlo Lane, are dedicated in partial satisfaction of park dedication requirements. The balance of required parkland dedication will be provided in the form of cash fee in lieu of land as prescribed by the Subdivision Ordinance. f. Outlots B and C are conveyed to the appropriate landowners for access and a buffer strip, respectively. and was supported by Mr. Corson. Motion carried 3 -1 (Lyden). Mr. Zych arrived at 9:50 p.m. The developer stated if this did stay parkland, he would plant additi• pine wGes between the Judd property and the park. AMENDMENT to the first motion as seconded and approv width within the subdivision as opposed to the 32 -foot wi (Zych). d a 28 -foot street ed 3 -1 (Lyden) -1 H. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEA ' an Companies UD, Inc. (Target), Lake Drive Chair Schaps reopened the public heari Staff presented the application Inc. on a proposed retail devel Interchange. The Planning of 2000 and opened the initial hearing. f had been working with Ryan Companies, US ocat in the northeast quadrant of Lake Drive/I -35 W. and reviewed the concept plan for the site in December on February 13, 2001 with periodic updates since the Staff stated the main is re=ed by staff, and discussed by the City Council and Planning and Zoning Board at the cone:- •t stage related to the site layout and design and the departure from the Town Center vision. Staff indicated the direction provided through the concept process was to incorporate special pedestrian- oriented design features, as well as some special architectural elements into the proposal with the goal being an "above average shopping center ". Staff stated the submittal that was reviewed in February 2001 had been modified; this review was based on plan submittals stamped received by the City on May 18, 2001. Staff indicated many outstanding issues remain related to the site. • • Planning & Zoning Board June 13, 2001 Page 22 Staff stated the property was currently zoned SC, Shopping Center District. This designation anticipated the development of a single center generally under one ownership. There was no provision in the SC ordinance to allow zero lot line setbacks for parking or lots without frontage as proposed. Staff indicated in order to accommodate the development as proposed, it was necessary to process the application under the PDO, Planned Development Overlay District. Section 3, Subd. 3 of the Zoning Ordinance required a PDO to allow subdivision of lots for a single building and for the private roads proposed. This process allowed greater flexibility and consequently a more creative and imaginative design. It allowed flexibility in the internal setbacks, lot sizes, and in parking for combined uses and was the appropriate means for review of a development of this size and scope. Staff explained access to the site was proposed via an extension of was located on an adjacent parcel and would require acq condemnation. An additional access was proposed to Lake Dri of the Apollo access. All accesses with Lake Drive (Cou approval of Anoka County. A petition for public improve pursue some of the design solutions regarding access. rive. This access the owner or ly 520 feet north ere subject to the submitted in order to Staff stated the City Engineer was in the process of con • ;, . traffic study that would identify the traffic impact of the development. Improv o -_ ay include, but are not limited to turn lanes, by -pass lanes and signalization. Staff stated earlier plans proposed a � tion '° " 77a' Street. This connection had been eliminated. It is staff's opinion that circula line up, spacing of interse Target lot forces circula back into primary dri e aisle was poor. It appeared • me si was poor in that the internal intersections did not rsection jogs may create conflict and confusion, the the ain drive aisle, some parking was designed to directly and generally the access to the smaller retail/ restaurant sites odification this concern could be addressed. Staff stated the site desi did not include any coordination of pedestrian access between uses, to the public roads or to the `'esidential uses to the north. Staff indicated while it was not intended that the design incorporate all elements of the Village concept it was staff opinion that pedestrian circulation could be better addressed and encouraged both within the site and around the edge of the development. At a minimum pedestrian access should tie into the proposed path proposed along Lake Drive. This would include sidewalks along the extension of Apollo Dr. with extensions north to the storefronts of the major stores and an access out to the northerly access that also ties into the sidewalks in front of the major stores. In addition, an access should be incorporated to the north on the east side of the development adjacent to the ponding. Some consideration should be given to internal access within the smaller retail area. The design as it currently existed was geared toward vehicle access and was unfriendly and truly discourages pedestrian use. Staff stated detailed plans had been submitted for sanitary sewer, water and storm water management. The City Engineer had reviewed the information submitted and a copy of his Planning & Zoning Board June 13, 2001 Page 23 memo was attached for reference. The issues raised by the Engineer were based on the plans and information provided. Revised plans or additional information may result in additional comments. Staff indicated there were two wetlands located on the eastern portion of the site and one was proposed to be impacted which required approval of the Rice Creek Watershed. There were 752 trees on the site and 566 of these were significant based on their size and species. The grading proposed on the site would result in the removal of 437 significant trees and a total of 458 trees. Most of the trees on the property were concentrated in around the wetland or on the southwest portion of the site. Staff indicated wetland delineations had been completed but had not been confirmed. There were two areas of wetland identified on the property. One area was approximately 3.63 in size and the other 1.24 acres in size. The larger wetland was proposed to replaced with a storm water treatment and retention basin. Spec been submitted for the site however, all mitigation was proposed t ly eliminated and on plans had not ff site. Staff stated the ability to fill and replace wetland area coul sign r ant impact on the site design therefore any final action by the City would be pre atur the wetland issues were addressed through Rice Creek. Staff stated green space on the site was con surrounding ponding and wetland areas. The 1 lots along drive aisles and surrounding th- te. variety of plantings. Some plantings indicated that they would not allow an Staff indicated the critical porti site, which was adjacent t visual break but it would fully screening point where proposed. In some in °� fe around the perimeter of the site and plan calls for plantings within parking rail plan was well done and provides a n MnDOT right -of -way, MnDOT had their right -of -way. lan cape proposed was along the northern edge of the ential uses. The plan as proposed would provide a ide complete screen. Particular attention should be paid to dlights would create issues and where loading docks were ng may be the most appropriate screen. Staff stated no exterior • tails had been provided for the small retail buildings or other freestanding uses. The a'.licant had indicated that they would commit to a certain design concept as previously presented. Staff had not received specific language that addresses this issue. Previous discussions were that exteriors of the buildings were proposed to be a combination of masonry materials including brick and rockface block with EIFS (stucco) sign bands and accenting. The decorative roof elements include standing seam metal that complement the roof designs in existing Town Square buildings. Awnings were proposed over the storefront areas. Staff indicated because of the site layout all buildings should be designed with all sides finished with equal quality and attention to detail. Staff stated the Target Superstore used a combination of brick and stucco on the front which transitions to stucco and rock face block on the sides. The rear elevation was proposed to be painted CMU (concrete masonry unit). With the surrounding land uses, more attention needs to be paid to the architecture on the rear of the building. It would be very visible from 77th Street. Planning & Zoning Board June 13, 2001 Page 24 There was a screen wall shown on the rear of the building, to be constructed of split face modular block. The wall did not appear to be of adequate height to screen either the loading dock doors or the trucks that were often parked in the dock area. The screen wall should be of sufficient height to substantially screen the dock area. Staff stated trash enclosures had not been identified on the site plan. The narrative states that all trash dumpsters should be within the building footprints and that a trash compactor for Target was within the loading dock area and was screened. Staff indicated Target often used sidewalk space in front of the stores for cart storage. A full screen wall should be provided if the intent was to store carts in the front of the store. No outside storage was permitted without proper screening. Staff stated Kohl's was proposed to be constructed of maso;rials that include predominantly brick on the front with a stucco accent pattern at the :' e sides and rear of the building transitions to block. As stated with the proposed n, the rear of the building was very visible to the area to the north and more att do ho ` d;, e paid to the design and materials used. Staff indicated the applicant had indicated that decor the development. No details have been provided. Cons same fixtures throughout the Town Center ar restriction which is 1.0 foot candle reading a adjacent residential property. li _' ting as intended to be utilized in on should be given to utilize the lighting shall meet the lighting level street and 0.4 foot candle reading on Staff stated park dedication would be ca in effect at the time of the final pl Staff stated a total sign p freestanding signs. The consistent. The signs were su the PDO staff would total package. No si residential area. eu of land and should be provided at the rate been proposed that includes wall signage as well as e a r' the example submitted for the pylon signs are not t to a separate review and sign permit through the City. Under ibility in the allowable signage as long as it is submitted as a d be allowed on the rear of any businesses facing the adjacent Staff indicated the application included a preliminary plat for the site. The plat as submitted proposes nine lots plus four outlots. The lots are created to provide individual lots for each proposed user. Several of the lots do not have frontage on a public road so appropriate easements regarding access, parking and circulation will have to be provided. The minimum lot size in the SC zoning district was 3 acres. Under the PDO this provision would be waived. Staff stated based on the size of the proposed project, an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) was mandatory. This process was designed to identify significant environmental effects that may require a more detailed environmental impact statement. Staff stated based upon Chapter 4410.3100 of the administrative rules governing environmental review, a project may not be started and a final governmental decision may not be made to grant a permit, approve a project or begin a project until a negative declaration on the need for an EIS was made. While a draft EAW document has been submitted, the document had not been • • Planning & Zoning Board June 13, 2001 Page 25 processed through the City or Environmental Quality Board. There was a comment period currently in effect that runs until July 11, 2001. Until the process was complete and the City had determined that an EIS was not necessary the City should not take final action to approve the project. Chair Schaps asked what the staff's recommendation was regarding traffic flow on Lake Drive. Mr. Powell replied staff's recommendation would have been to have one access on Apollo Drive, but the developer has requested a second access. He stated the County still had to approve the access and as far as he knew, applicant had not submitted this request. With respect to the traffic flow, he had received a new site plan late last week, but had not had a chance to review it. Chair Schaps stated this was a major issue that the County had not acted on this yet. Mr. Wessel stated this was a key issue. He indicated right from the beginning applicant had been made aware this was an essential element. He stated this was normally dow but it would need to be acted on soon. He stated Target still intende completed by July, 2002 and if this was to be accomplished, this their July meeting. of things to do, the project ty Council at Chair Schaps asked if staff would support this second acces, Mr. + .�` 1 replied from an engineering standpoint, a second signalized was a bas a. stat °s his recommendation would have been that applicant made this request to Ano ty some time ago. He stated applicant should pay for all costs of access, incl •ln�' " °�.;., sign. Mr. Rafferty asked about the design issues s t w ohl' u • uilding. He strongly recommended getting design criteria from Kohls. He •` ha •eing proposed now was not acceptable. The bituminous pavement was not acce ted to see green space. He suggested Kohl's follow the Target design o ot. He stated he was against the idea of another bank in the development. His c i as gr n space within the parking lot, design criteria for the Kohl's building and fin • • a . • eal with all of the other small developments to make them comparable with oth = °t dev ° opments. Mr. Wessel replied K e adjustments per the City's suggestions and they were meeting with Kohls in ture to see what their new proposals were going to be Mr. Rafferty stated he w.a`'ted to see heavily landscaped, treed facilities all of the way through the parking lots. He strongly recommended bringing trees into these areas. Mr. Lyden agreed with Mr. Rafferty regarding the issue of the bank. Aesthetically, he stated he had no issues with Kohls or Target. He stated the issue of green space in a commercial center was not a huge issue for him. His major concern was the traffic layout within the system and outside the system. He had suggested a two -lane in and a two -lane out which would serve the front business along Lake Drive versus bringing traffic all of the way in and then back through. He stated he expected to hear feedback from staff at some point regarding his suggestion. • Mr. Corson suggested tying in the theme from The Village. He stated how the project looked from Lake Drive was important. He suggested having pedestrian access to the area. • • • Planning & Zoning Board June 13, 2001 Page 26 Mr. Lyden stated he did not see this as a pedestrian friendly plan and had no issues with the site plan, other than the traffic and the specifics of the bank within the plan. Mr. Corson replied they needed to make the determination as to how they were going to integrate it with The Village. Mr. Rafferty reiterated his concern regarding having more trees within the development. He asked staff what they would like to see. Mr. Wessel replied this was a commercial center and heavy landscaping was not envisioned for it. Mr. Rafferty again strongly recommended heavy landscaping, especially trees. He believed trees could do a good job for masking the large parking lots. Chair Schaps agreed with Mr. Rafferty with respect to green space in the parking lot. However, he could live with a mixed concept. He also agreed it should be visually congruent with The Village. Mr. Wessel replied staff was very aware of making this devel., connect with The Village. Ms. Lane disagreed with Mr. Rafferty's suggestion about the 1 .� dsc .. m _ „ e stated if they did a good job with landscaping along the outside businesses, t ould not need excessive landscaping. She did not have a problem with al p area Mr. Lyden suggested breaking up the parking area and pu ��f,ome retail in the middle. Terry O'Connell asked if it was possible to hav which would leave more open space. Mr. contemplated for this project. There w Mr. Corson made a MOTION to supported by Mr. Lyden. Motio ' `d 5 -0 L CONT Prelimina ramp as part of the Kohl's parking, a parking structure was never ace parking available. lic hearing to the July, 2001 meeting, and was ARING, Land Holding Group, 12th &Holly, Chair Schaps reopened c hearing at 10:22 p.m. Staff presented the appli ,ion by explaining applicant had submitted a preliminary plat for the northwest corner of 12th Ave. and Holly Drive. The Planning and Zoning Board reviewed a concept plan of the plat on January 10, 2001. The Planning and Zoning Board first reviewed the preliminary plat on February 13, 2001 and the item was tabled pending the TWAFFA, tree preservation plan and grading submittals. The additional information had now been provided. Staff presented its analysis of the request, noting the site was zoned for residential development. The site was within the existing MUSA. • Planning & Zoning Board June 13, 2001 Page 27 Staff stated the R -1X minimum lot size was 12,825 sf of upland. All of the lots met or exceed this minimum lot size. The proposed lot widths were compliant with the minimum standard of a width of 90 feet for interior lots and 115 feet for corner lots. The minimum lot depth was 135 feet. All the lots except Lot 8 comply with this standard. Lot 8 had a depth of 127 feet, which required a variance. Staff indicated the ordinance stated that in considering requests for variance the City shall make a finding of fact that: 1. That the property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use of used under conditions allowed by the official controls. 2. That the plight of the landowners was due to physical circumstance unique to his property not created by the landowner. 3. That the hardship was not due to economic considers salon d when a reasonable use for the property exists under the to o i e or•=' ance. 4. That granting the variance requested would not • of on �a sn .` •plicant any special privilege that would be denied by thi •a <` ce t; • they lands, structures, or buildings in the same district. 5. That the proposed actions would be in ingwith ` "e spirit and intent of the ordinance. Staff stated the Planning and Zoning Board ma and it was located at the intersection of tw. ;.Toll basis for granting the variance. that the site was impacted by wetlands s thereby limiting design options as a Staff indicated the applicant had s •'ng information that was subject to the review and approval of the City Engine Staff stated an existing sh • : ,• ole b ding were located within the new street right -of -way and must be removed. Staff indicated utilities te: "m both 12th and Holly, and an extension of utilities down the proposed cul -de -sac was .roposed. The water main needs to be looped to 12`h Street. The utilities plan was subject o City Engineer review and approval. Holly and 12th were both major collector roads. The purpose of major collectors was to channel traffic, and direct access from lots was discouraged. The number of lots fronting on 12th Avenue had been reduced from five lots in the concept plan to one lot in the preliminary plat. The number of lots fronting on Holly Drive had increased from zero to one. The rest of the lots were proposed to front on a new cul- de -sac street. Based on modifications to the plan which reduced the number of accesses staff supported the layout. Staff stated a trail was envisioned along Holly Drive, but had not been designed yet. It had not been decided whether the trail would be on the north or south side of Holly. It would be within the road right -of -way. A trail existed on the east side of 12th Ave. as part of Peregrine Pass. Park dedication for this new development would be cash. Staff stated wetlands exist in the north central and southeast portions of the site. Although the boundaries of wetlands are shown on the preliminary plat, a wetland delineation report had been Planning & Zoning Board June 13, 2001 Page 28 • submitted. Rice Creek Watershed District has granted a TWAFAA (tabled with approval for administrative action) for the development. • Staff indicated the site was a former pine tree plantation. A plan for tree preservation has been submitted. The Environmental Board had suggested that some of the trees might be moved. Staff stated because the site was located at the intersection of two collector roads staff would work with the applicants to develop a landscaping plan to provide a buffer between the right -of- way and the homes to be constructed. Staff indicated the Environmental Board reviewed the project on January 3, 2001. The Environmental Specialist's memo included the Board's comments. Chair Schaps asked if the developer had been asked about eliminating opposed to a variance. Mr. Smyser replied there were a couple previous designs • ;his pr• x ct the developer had discussed with staff including a number of accesses onto the d >. irked out with them to remove most of them. If they make the access on Lot go II tot � _: 1 -de -sac, then only Lot 8 and 1 would access the roads themselves. All of the e �.� wo • meet the requirements. There were wetland issues to be addressed al B ;m of the safety issues that were addressed with this design, staff was supportive a 'anc ='' han the other designs that would require more accesses onto the roadways. He indi is had been negotiated with the developer. Mr. Lyden expressed concern that Lot 1, 2 suggested Lot 8 be made part of Lots 7 cul -de -sac. This would make a neigh Mr. Lyden asked about the Ge prior to any approval of this a part of the neighborhood. He orate Lot 1 and 2 and face Lot 2 to the issue and stated that issue needed to be done Jeff Roos, developer' represe "4 = ive, replied they were requesting they proceed with the variance request. He ey '' • mbined lots, they would end up with crooked lot lines and this was not desirable e ith respect to Gemini Estates, he had no information regarding this. Ms. Lane stated while she also believed in developing neighborhoods, she believed Lots 8 and Lots 1 would become part of the neighborhoods along side of them and may not specifically be a part of this neighborhood. Mr. Zych agreed that Lots 1 and 2 should be combined because of their size, but had no opinion about Lot 8. Mr. Corson agreed that Lots 1 and 2 should be combined due to safety issues. Mr. Ruus stated lot designs did not create neighborhoods. He stated the plat met every ordinance, except one dimension. He stated they could do some lot line manipulation that would meet their criteria, but believed this plat was the solution. He indicated they might have misunderstood what the City wanted. Planning & Zoning Board June 13, 2001 Page 29 • Mr. Lyden asked if the cul -de -sac could be brought the opposite way. Mr. Ruus stated that had not been looked at and he was not sure if the previous designer had looked at those options or not. He stated they were limited however by wetlands and topography. He also indicated that by doing that, he did not believe it would eliminate access off of 12th and Holly. • Mr. Corson made a MOTION to closed the public hearing at 10:45 p.m. and was supported by Mr. Lyden. Motion carried 5 -0. Mr. Rafferty stated he would like to see the lot lines realigned to create a better neighborhood. He would strongly support that effort so it would all come off of the same cul -de -sac. Mr. Ruus stated he understood the Board's concerns, but Lot 8 could be the problem. He stated Lot 1 was more workable. Chair Schaps also agreed in combining Lots 1 and 2 and splitting Lot 8 uus stated if that was the direction, they would need to start all over He indicated th ononu 'mpact would affect them and they would need to redesign this area Mr. Raffe e ssed 's concern about them starting over again because of the loss of two lots. He st d tls w ry close to being a very acceptable plan without redesigning the whole area. Mr. Ruus stated it was his understanding this was wh Ms. Lane stated she did not have concern about access on 12th and Holly and would not suppo Mr. Lyden made a MOTION to deny Lane. Motion carried 5 -0. Chair Schaps stated the reasons d 8, but did have concerns about the se of that. at application, and was supported by Ms. w - : "e as follows: 1. There was a re x :raw• . F= use 3 the property in question. 2. There was no pligh A the landowner due to physical circumstances unique to this property. 3. There is an consideration. 4. Not applicab 5. The Ordinanc ' did allow for reasonable use and there was also a question of access and safety. With respect to the preliminary plat, the reason for denial was because of access and safety issues; no neighborhood consistency; and not all driveways being located on the cul -de -sac. J. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING, Pinnacle Towers, 870 Birch Streets Rezone, Amended C.U.P., Amend Zoning Ordinance This item was withdrawn by applicant. • Chair Schaps reopened the hearing at 11:00 p.m. There being no comments made, the public hearing was closed. • Planning & Zoning Board June 13, 2001 Page 30 Mr. Corson made a MOTION to close the Public hearing closed at 11:00 p.m. and was supported by Mr. Rafferty. Motion carried 5 -0. K. North American Composites, Amend Condition of Approval for Site Plan Staff presented the application by explaining the City Council approved a minor subdivision and site and building plan for North American Composites on November 13, 2000. One of the conditions of approval was: 4. The precise concrete panels will be Fabcon Wide Rack 3/8" grooves at 3" O.C. with smooth concrete cattails design, or similar design. Decorative concrete block on the office portion of the building shall be either smooth burnished concrete block or rock -face block. Staff stated this originated in a request by the Planning & Zoning Boar elevation along the freeway. Because this was a very visible locatio additional attention to aesthetics. In response, the applicant then elevation that included a custom "cattail" pattern in the concre not see the new pattern, the revision was included in the pr was specified in the condition of approval listed above. 'sit the building asked for some ised south gh the P & Z did e City Council and Staff indicated North American Compsites had asked tha the cost of the custom design. Instead, they had stripe across the top of the precast concrete pan original submittal. In addition, the design office portion exterior would still be de metal roof on both portions of the buil proposed design had a flat roof fo but the east elevation incorporat ndition be deleted because of a design that included a four -foot blue els had a raked finish, just like the th -ildin had been reviewed somewhat. The e block. However, the standing seam ged in the new design. Instead, the new e portion. The office portion also had a flat roof, Cade. Staff stated the footprint o de "_ increased the footprint by about 500 sf, about a 2% change. Staff considered this atively minor change. Staff indicated because ca design was a condition of approval, it would require action by the City Council to chan _`._ it. Staff discussed the request with the City Council at the June 6 worksession. Council s cted staff to bring the request to the P & Z for a recommendation. It would then to go the City Council at its June 25 meeting. Staff recommended approving the new building design and revising the condition of approval to delete the sentence regarding the cattail design. Condition number four would thus read: 4. The warehouse portion will be precast concrete panels and the office portion of the building shall be decorative concrete rock -face block as indicated on the exterior elevations by Stiglich Construction, Inc., dated 5/1/01. • Chair Schaps invited applicant to make comment. Ivan Levy, presented a history of the project and thanked the Board and staff for all of their efforts. • Planning & Zoning Board June 13, 2001 Page 31 Mr. Zych made a Motion to approve the new building design and the revision of the condition of approval, and was supported by Ms. Lane. Motion carried 5 -0. Mr. Rafferty applauded applicant's efforts. VI. DISCUSSION ITEMS Mr. Smyser stated the draft Comprehensive Plan was available for review and copying. VII. ADJOURNMENT Mr. Zych made a MOTION to adjourn the meeting at 11:12 p.m., and was supported by Mr. Corson. Motion carried 5 -0. Respectfully submitted, • • Kathleen Altman, Recording Secretary TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc.