Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/13/2000 P&Z Minutes• • Planning & Zoning Board December 13, 2000 Page 1 CITY OF LINO LAKES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MINUTES DATE TIME STARTED TIME ENDED MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT STAFF PRESENT : December 13, 2000 6:30 P.M. 9:42 P.M. : Corson, Johnson, Lane, Rafferty (arrived at 6:37 p.m .), S c hilling (arrived at 6:43 p.m! ), Schaps, and Zych : None : City Planner Smyser; City Engineer Powel; Economic Development Director Brian Wessel L CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL Chair Schaps called the Lino Lakes Planni Board meeting to order at 6:30 p.m., December 13, 2000. II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — Page 2, first paragraph: core, Page 6, seventh parag Ms. Lane made a the Lino Lakes Pla Corson. Motion c 2000 neer John Powell's name. hnson concurred with the impact to traffic." approve the minutes of the November 8, 2000, meeting of d Zoning Board as corrected, and was supported by Mr. d 5 -0. III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA The agenda was approved. IV. OPEN MIKE Chair Schaps declared open mike open at 6:33 p.m. No one was present for open mike. • Mr. Corson made a MOTION to close Open Mike at 6:33 p.m., and was supported by Ms. Lane. Motion carried 5 -0. Planning & Zoning Board December 13, 2000 Page 2 V. ACTION ITEMS A. Chris Lyden, 6275 Holly Drive, Variance Staff presented the application by explaining Chris Lyden owns 4.07 acres of property, zoned rural, at 6275 Holly Drive. Since the ordinance requires a minimum of ten acres in the rural zoning district, this property is a pre- existing non - conforming lot of record. Mr. Lyden would like to construct a 34 -foot by 64 -foot pole barn on the property using metal siding and roofing material. The Zoning Ordinance specifically prohibits metal siding and roofing material on properties less than five (5) acres in size. The proposed construction will meet the square footage requirement and setback requirements. Staff reviewed the findings of fact that need to be met for variance consideration and indicated staff does not believe this variance criteria can be met in this case since Mr. Lyden can construct a wood frame building, on footings with •• , q lab, that would have a similar effect to a post frame building although it may be m cos ._. Staff advised it has received numerous requests for such construction a ouraged the variance procedure because in most cases, the reques ,. a = on the additional construction costs. Staff presented its analysis of the request, n• • t icant has described his hardship as follows-: 1. Pole barn type construction is 2. Pole barn type construction, w mid - engine all wood day 3. Pole barn type construct Mr. Rafferty arrived a Mr. Johnson inqui recently tested, or i question but, perhap is property due to questionable soils. ent floor, is necessary to preserve 1958 o moisture factors. reduce threat of loss from grass fires. mg the questionable soil issue and asked if they had been soil was involved. Mr. Smyser stated he is unable to answer that the applicant could provide that information. Mr. Johnson noted a building that conforms to the Code can be constructed without a slab. He asked if that type of building can be constructed on questionable soils. Mr. Smyser stated he does not know. Mr. Corson asked if the concern is the corrugated siding due to the image and desire to have accessory buildings match the appearance of the house. Mr. Smyser stated that is correct as well as an attempt to keep less rural sized lots from being covered with pole barns since they are typically not the most aesthetically pleasing structures. He noted that pole barns are allowed on larger sized rural parcels. Mr. Zych asked if the property behind the applicant's land remains undeveloped so it would not infringe on a neighbor's rights. Mr. Smyser stated the surrounding property is wetland and he doubts a house could be built on it. • • • • • • Planning & Zoning Board December 13, 2000 Page 3 Mr. Rafferty noted the five -acre requirement and criteria of hardship on the owner based on the size of the lot. He stated it clearly appears that beyond the western half of the property, it is not buildable for anything. Directly to the north, it is clearly all wetland. Mr. Rafferty noted the City goes the extra mile to get permissions from the neighbors so they are aware of the request, but the ordinance draws some "lines in the sand" to protect the interests of the City for future development. Mr. Rafferty stated he spoke with the surrounding land owners and one neighbor, who has a large investment, stated he has seen these plans and agrees with the request if the pole barn is located on the southern portion. Mr. Rafferty asked if the front elevation would contain a formal setting such as a concrete apron. Chair Schaps asked the applicant if he would like to make comment. Chris Lyden, applicant, stated it was not his plan to put a slab t of the building but he has been considering some type of apron that the overhe uld come down on. He stated if it is the consent of the Board that a slab sh he would do so. Mr. Rafferty stated his concern that the front elevat passerby. He suggested that a two to three foo Rafferty reviewed the recent request from t costs of the structure with a metal seam r Mr. Schilling arrived at 6:43 p.m. formal appearance to the oul ".rovide that aspect. Mr. Bank and inquired about the Mr. Lyden stated the issue is �k� ••st, but one of providing a quality building for his antique boat. He explrt construction as proposed would be more costly and he believes a wood type s •t a concrete floor, due to its weight, is not appropriate for the site due to the tl : Planning & Zoning Board December 13, 2000 Page 4 Mr. Lyden stated he is aware of those concerns and has taken that information into consideration when designing the pole barn. He stated that cost is not the issue, rather, it is the quality of the building. He noted the added aesthetics resulting from the 5:12 roof pitch of the pole barn to match that of the house, the wainscot style of siding, two foot overhang, and overhead garage style door. Mr. Lyden pointed out the proposed location is right next to his house so he will be constructing a quality structure. Mr. Lyden stated he understands the concern related to aesthetics. However, no one will build within one - quarter mile to the north or within hundreds of acres to the west. To the south, the property owner is buffered by 75 feet of pine trees and has provided his consent. Mr. Lyden stated this proposal will not be a negative impact to the residents or future development of the City. Chair Schaps stated a reading of the ordinance indicates the c s not met. Mr. Lyden stated the siding proposed for the pole barn h'ty than what is on his house. Mr. Rafferty asked if this will be an aluminum t . Lyden stated it is and explained there is a 50 year warranty on th and materials. He advised of the other quality aspects including the wainscmg . ; paint. Mr. Rafferty commented on them he he has experienced with cedar siding on his house and asked if this is mg someone interested in maintenance free siding would consider. Mr. Schilling asked ab indicted he is not awar and maintenance of an EIFS, a plasterboard siding. Mr. Lyden t siding material. Mr. Schilling stated the issues of quality would be met with EIFS. Mr. Lyden stated hi ain concern and reason for the variance request relates to the soils. Ms. Lane noted the front of the structure will be visible from the street and asked if a house -style of siding can be placed on the front elevation of the pole barn so it is more attractive and better matches the house. Mr. Lyden stated that may be a viable option and explained that his plans are to use a clay colored siding and then reside the house next summer so it matches the pole barn. Chair Schaps stated he is unable to vote to support this request tonight for the reasons he stated. He suggested more investigation needs to be done on other siding treatments. He noted that the Ordinance specifically states a prohibition to "corrugated siding and roof." Mr. Lyden stated that term may be up for interpretation and he does not believe it refers to the type of metal he is proposing. Planning & Zoning Board December 13, 2000 Page 5 Mr. Schilling stated that he is also not able to vote in support of the request tonight but believes there are other siding materials that could be considered that may be more acceptable. Mr. Schilling noted there are also different types of footings and systems that could address poor soil types. Mr. Lyden stated he respects everyone's opinion and would like a vote taken tonight. Mr. Corson asked where the septic system is located. Mr. Lyden stated his first pole barn location choice would have been to the north, however, the septic system is on the north side and he wanted to keep his options open in case he needs a new septic system. Mr. Rafferty made a MOTION to recommend approval of the variance request of Chris Lyden, 6275 Holly Drive, to construct a 34 -foot by 64 -foot pole barn on his 4.07 acres at 6275 Holly Drive based on the rationale that the variance criteria are met and conditioned on the following: 1. Providing a minimum four foot concrete apron. The motion was supported by Ms. Lane. Ms. Lane noted her support for the varianc use e large amount of undevelopable wetland that surrounds the 's property. Mr. Corson asked Mr. Lyden to in ption of using EIFS which he believes would improve the aesthetics of Mr. Rafferty stated he has potential for damage. maintenance free mate Rafferty stated h vertical or horizon product in use and does not support its use due to the and the trend for construction in aluminum and does not want to include a requirement for EIFS. Mr. ieve it makes a difference whether the siding stripe is Mr. Schilling stated "" I S is widely used, successfully, in many commercial structures. He pointed out that metal siding will also dent and rust. Mr. Schilling noted there are obvious direct ordinance regulations pertaining to the use of materials and the Board is looking for a way to help Mr. Lyden. He stated he believes EIFS is a viable option so he is unable to vote for the application without the inclusion of that requirement. Mr. Corson asked about the option of using a rock or metal material on the bottom portion of the structure with EIFS on the top portion. Chair Schaps asked Mr. Rafferty if he believes this variance request meets all of the criteria required in the ordinance for a variance consideration. Mr. Rafferty answered affirmatively. Motion failed 3 ayes (Lane, Rafferty, Zych), 3 nays (Corson, Schilling, Chair Schaps), 1 abstain (Johnson since he was not present for a portion of the discussion). Planning & Zoning Board December 13, 2000 Page 6 Mr. Corson stated he voted against the motion since EIFS was not being considered as an alternative. B. Marvin Emly, 590 62°' Street, Variance Staff presented the application by explaining Marvin Emly is requesting permission to construct a 28 -foot by 32 -foot accessory building on his property at 590 62nd Street which is zoned rural and consists of ten acres on the south side of 62nd Street containing his home and four (4) accessory buildings. One of the buildings was damaged in a storm this past summer and must be removed. Mr. Emly would like to replace it with the requested building, however, the Zoning Ordinance allows only three (3) accessory buildings on a parcel of property between ten and 20 acres in size. Staff presented its analysis of the request, noting the need for number of buildings and one from the section of the Ordin nonconforming structures. Staff reviewed the findings of fact that need to be indicated staff does not believe this variance cr not justify a hardship other than financial. buildings and build one larger building th Ordinance. riances, one from the ing to ce consideration and be et in this case since it does ld remove the two accessory e within the requirements of the In response to Mr. Rafferty, M ined the grandfathered provision. Mr. Zych asked if the two stated he is not sure w combined since they ar applicant desire t an be combined to make it acceptable. Mr. Smyser unty would allow these two tax parcels to be ated by 62nd Street. It may also cause a problem should the the parcels. Mr. Zych asked if t : oard can consider both parcels as if they were one parcel. Mr. Smyser noted the ap icant has the right to sell the northern parcel which would leave this structure existing on the southern parcel. Discussion occurred regarding the options to attach the structures, possibly via a covered walkway. Mr. Smyser stated one possibility to avoid increasing the nonconformity is to construct the new structure as attached to Building #2 with the middle building being removed. Then it could be considered as one structure without increasing the nonconformity. Mr. Smyser explained that square footage is not an issue. Chair Schaps asked the applicant if he would like to make comment. Marvin Emly, applicant, stated he can tie Buildings #2 and #4 together into one large building but there is a distance between the two buildings. • • • • • Planning & Zoning Board December 13, 2000 Page 7 Mr. Rafferty asked Mr. Emly if it would meet his needs to combine Building #2 and the structure to be torn down with an addition made to the western edge. He noted that would allow the use of the existing slab. He asked about the distance between the vehicle garage and house. Mr. Emly estimated 16 feet. Mr. Rafferty asked if constructing a covered walkway would meet the ordinance requirements. Mr. Smyser stated he is unable to answer that question but could ask the Building Official about that option. Mr. Rafferty asked Mr. Emly if the option he was suggesting would meet his needs. Mr. Emly answered affirmatively. Mr. Rafferty asked if that option would save money rather than to construct a new structure (estimated at $8,000). Mr. Schilling stated the construction costs may be less integrity due to the load on the roof. Mr. Emly stated contractor who explained how a bearing wall could separate building would look better than one t sues of structure hat question with the ed. He stated he thinks a he ogether. Mr. Rafferty asked if the front faces are . 4 4'ned r. Emly stated they are. Chair Schaps reviewed the ordina indicates that a structure legally same size. Chair Schaps stat reducing the number of b> greater. elating to grandfathered buildings which time of the ordinance may continue at the appropriate to decrease the nonconformity by om four to three even if the net square footage is Mr. Smyser agre t sire to not increase the nonconformity. He stated it may be possible to work o ion without the need for a variance and suggested this application be table the next meeting to allow staff more time to work with Mr. Emly and design a plan tha 'does not violate the ordinance. Mr. Emly stated he will ask the contractor about attaching to the building he had planned to remove. Mr. Rafferty suggested the contractor also be asked about the option of replacing the roof trusses even if it results in having to reshingle the roof. Mr. Corson made a MOTION to table consideration of the variance request of Marvin Emly to construct a 28 -foot by 32 -foot pole barn on his ten acres at 590 62nd Street to allow staff and the applicant to further investigate other options, and was supported by Mr. Johnson. Motion carried 7 -0. IPC. Udor, 375 Apollo Drive, Site Plan Review Staff presented the application by UDOR for an accessory storage building on their site. The principal building approved in 1994 was originally 6,000 square feet and the City Planning & Zoning Board December 13, 2000 Page 8 approved an addition of 2,400 square feet in July of 1999. One of the conditions of approval was that two existing accessory buildings be removed prior to construction of the new addition. However, that did not occur. The accessory building were built without a building permit. Gordy Johnson of UDOR wants to replace one of the accessory buildings with a new one. Staff presented its analysis of the request, noting it has concluded that accessory buildings are not allowed in the GI district under the current zoning ordinance. Under Minnesota Statutes 15.99, if the City denies an application it must state in writing the reasons for the denial at the time that it denies the application. Mr. Smyser stated if the applicant agrees to an extension of the review period, an option is available to apply for an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to allow accessory buildings in the Industrial Zone. Staff recommends the item be tabled if the applicant agrees with an extension so that alternative can be researched ° myser estimated that it may take two to three months to complete such an ordin.. am +ment. Chair Schaps asked the applicant if he would like to Gordy Johnson, applicant, stated that option is . ale t` i Mr. Johnson asked why additional storag . Gordy Johnson reviewed the history of this business, its growth, a o ldings were constructed. Discussion occurred regarding the location an uildings. Mr. Rafferty stated the Boar recent past. He noted this will result in beautific Mr. Smyser revie districts. bout outdoor storage for equipment in the is making an extra effort to construct something that t rather than outdoor fenced storage. discussion related to outdoor storage in other zoning Mr. Rafferty asked i v is business area contains outdoor dumpsters. Gordy Johnson stated dumpsters are everywhere in the Apollo Business Park and he even took pictures of outdoor dumpsters and pallets last summer which he provided to staff. Mr. Rafferty asked if there is a way to allow the applicant to construct an attached addition. Gordy Johnson stated there is a separation due to the sprinkler connection for the Fire Department, however, he may be able to find a way to connect the buildings. Gordy Johnson stated his agreement to an extension of the review period. Mr. Corson made a MOTION to table consideration of the site plan request of UDOR to construct an accessory storage building on the UDOR site at 500 Apollo Drive to allow for a separate application for an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to be processed, and was supported by Mr. Johnson. Motion carried 6 -0 -1 (Schilling due to his absence during a portion of the discussion). • • • • • • Planning & Zoning Board December 13, 2000 Page 9 Discussion occurred regarding options for connecting the structures, exterior building materials, and need to involve the Fire Department to gain their input. Mr. Smyser stated the zoning amendment will be on the January 10, 2000 Planning & Zoning Board meeting agenda. Ms. Lane made a MOTION to recess at 8:03 p.m., and was supported by Mr. Johnson. Motion carried 5 -0. Chair Schaps called the meeting back to order at 8:12 p.m. VI. DISCUSSION ITEMS A. Saddle Club — Revised Concept Plan Staff reviewed the Board's past consideration of the Sa development and indication the plan did not justify t compared to standard R -1 zoning. Staff advised th concept plan that corresponds with standard zo comparison of the two concept drawings Staff identified the location of the zoning change. It was noted staff parcel is no longer split by MU reduced number of lots and e Drive that had been propo Mr. Johnson asked if t Smyser answered no longer be conn ch of a planned ensity on the site per has submitted a new esented a summary of the revised plan. ea of the MUSA boundary and d that be remedied so the single tax . Staff noted the revised concept plan has a road connecting Old Birch Street with Kildeer he previous concept plan. east comer of the subject site would be landlocked. Mr. y and noted the location of existing trailways which would the revised plan. Chair Schaps noted t ere are trails all over Lino Lakes and asked why a trail is not being proposed that is similar to the original concept plan. Mr. Smyser noted the lot boundaries now extend to the edges of the plat so it would be difficult to create trails unless they are located within the private property. Mr. Rafferty noted the lots could be made less deep to accommodate trails. Chair Schaps stated there is a need for open space. Mr. Smyser noted the long length of the dead end street with the new concept plan and need to extend utilities down Old Birch Street to serve this property. He pointed out the location of the 500 -foot high tower on the neighboring property and issue raised with ice loading as a potential danger. Mr. Smyser stated he contacted Shoreview and learned that they require the tower owner to carry additional insurance should ice fall from the tower and cause damage. Planning & Zoning Board December 13, 2000 Page 10 In response to Ms. Lane, Mr. Smyser advised of consideration by the Park Board. Ms. Lane suggested the new concept plan be presented to the Park Board so they can address the open space issue. John Hill, representing Heritage Development, stated they decided to extend the property boundaries to encompass all of the property since a homeowners association was no longer being considered. He stated the lot configuration can be reduced in depth as long as it meets the R -1 depth requirement. Mr. Hill stated they had considered a conservation easement. Chair Schaps stated there will be open space behind the houses and he believes it would be conducive to trails if the lot line boundaries are reduced somewhat. Mr. Hill stated his impression that the extension of the lot lines would not exclude the creation of a trail. With regard to the road connection, Mr. Hill noted that onl our lowould be created on one side of the road so it is not financially feasible to co ruc e 0 foot roadway. He noted that if lots were created on both sides of the ro • etla d would be greatly impacted. Also, he has been unable to reach an un st ith the neighboring property owner to purchase the additional prop o co modate a road connection. Mr. Hill stated he does not think this exclu ction of a bridge for pedestrian traffic or to dedicate park land. Mr. Rafferty stated that he thinks and out. He noted the new conc remains concerned with the 1 concept plan. Mr. Raffert a applicant's property. developed to correct a single entrance in sses the number of lots and lot sizes but he ce the depths have doubled since the previous it is possible to create a road (in and out) on the Mr. Hill stated h d the property owner to the east with two letters and five telephone calls bu , on is not interested in selling any portion of his property at this time, however, ' t option may exist in the future. Mr. Rafferty inquired regarding the impact on the adjoining property owner who has to work with the location of where the road ends. Mr. Powell stated the City would not support having the road dead -end within this project and noted the watermain has to be looped through these lots. He stated that he assumes the easement is contiguous with the Old Birch Street right -of -way. Mr. Hill answered that it is contiguous. Mr. Rafferty suggested that an exit to the east, within this development, would work better or to connect it to Kildeer Drive. Mr. Powell agreed that a connection to Kildeer Drive would work better, however, the applicant does not have control of that property since it is outside of this project. • • • • • Planning & Zoning Board December 13, 2000 Page 11 Mr. Schilling thanked the applicant for addressing the density issue. He noted that at the last meeting, he had suggested using the southern portion of the parcel as lower density and the northern portion as a higher density which may make it financially feasible to construct the road to the northeast corner. Mr. Hill stated they did discuss that option and addressed whether the owners of nicer homes to the south would want to drive through a higher density area, such as townhomes, to get to their house. He stated with that scenario, it would have been closer to financially feasible to construct that roadway connection to the northeast. Mr. Johnson asked about the cost to the City to deal with the Old Birch Street access and quality of pavement. Mr. Powell stated another consideration is the cost for utility services on Old Birch Street. Staff would also have to consider whether the bituminous surface of Old Birch Street can accommodate the additional traffic. Mr. Hill stated they looked at alternatives to loop the street; foi no option due to the location of wetlands. Mr. Corson stated his support for Mr. Schilling's s e" place higher priced homes to the south and the street being connected wit .� ' un facing it He added that trails will be an important feature to includ Mr. Hill stated the issue of trails is no r them. However, the property owner to the east is an issue since additio r ` needed to make the roadway connection. Mr. Powell stated the proper easement is also needed. Mr. Hill stated they wi Schilling. e east needs to be dealt with since a utility at the alternative of blended units as suggested by Mr. Mr. Smyser stated i pears the Board would like to see a compromise between the new concept plan and a bl nded plan. He reviewed the alternatives available to the applicants to submit another concept plan to the Board or to make a formal plat submittal. Mr. Hill stated that due to time constraints, he would like to submit a formal plat as soon as possible. Mr. Rafferty asked Mr. Schilling if he is recommending a reduced lot width to accommodate a blended plan. Mr. Schilling stated he is. Mr. Rafferty stated he would not support that adjustment. Mr. Hall stated the City Council did not look favorably at the smaller sized lots so they • revised the plan to extend the lot boundary lines. Mr. Smyser recommended the developer hold a neighborhood meeting. Mr. Hill stated he will be in contact with staff. Planning & Zoning Board December 13, 2000 Page 12 B. Dellwood LLC, Concept Plan Staff reported it has been working with Dellwood LLC on a proposed retail development in the northeast quadrant of the Lake Drive /I -35W interchange consisting of a Target Superstore and six additional retail buildings. The project is still in the conceptual stage and going through the Preservation Development informal review process. The Environmental Board discussed the project at its last meeting. Staff presented the project layout, noting it follows a standard, suburban retail development model with a "big box" retail anchor (Target Superstore) and a number of "satellite" retail locations. Other than the location of the extended Apollo Drive east of Lake Drive, the project bears little relation to the Town Center design of Calthorpe that has been the focus of discussion for some time. Staff presented its analysis of the concept plan, noting the work with the developer to incorporate desirable archit acknowledging and accepting that the project depart by the Calthorpe design for a traditional neighborh Mr. Wessel reviewed staff's work with Del Rehbein. He advised they have a fairly a neighborhood meeting has been plan a-Et reviewed the anticipated construct to the Planning and Zoning Boa it directed staff to is while rail vision represented ent. ho is purchasing the land from construction schedule and a eneral community input. Mr. Wessel d considerations that will be presented d of the consultants working on this project. John Payton, Parsons Tra city engineer. Mr. Pat with a grocery store co additional uses th shop. n Group introduced himself as a consultant and former that a Target Superstore is like a Target Greatland nt. He reviewed the square footage to be constructed and eli, Crispy Cream Donuts, fast foot restaurant, and coffee Mr. Payton reviewed ` ° eir work to address site enhancements to make it a more pedestrian friendly environment including sidewalk concepts, main street theme, architectural enhancements such as pavers and tree grates, and enhanced site lines. He noted the location of existing trees, ponding areas, roadway alignment, and location of screening opportunities. Mr. Payton addressed the existing sandy soil conditions and how structures will be designed to allow water to permeate. He stated that in order to maintain water runoff rates, a two pond NURP system will be developed to assure water quality and quantity. He pointed out the wetland area that would accommodate the runoff "bounce" prior to discharge. Mr. Payton stated a berm would be constructed to create a water retainage area. Mr. Payton pointed out the location of utilities that would serve this project. He explained how the site would be graded and areas created for screening and berming. Mr. Payton stated they will work with staff to address how to minimize the amount of storm • • • • Planning & Zoning Board December 13, 2000 Page 13 water runoff. Mr. Payton stated they want to work with the Board to address their vision and apply what they would like to see in this project. Mr. Wessel stated the intention tonight is to open discussion on the fundamental issues of this project. He explained how discussion had occurred which resulted in relocating the Target Superstore closer to the freeway to create more of an entry area. He stated the City is negotiating how the character of this project will have a connection with the Village located to the south. Mr. Wessel noted this project will be more automobile oriented when compared to the Village which will remain a mixed use concept and more pedestrian oriented. He stated the development team will explore how to tie the buildings, materials, and exterior elements so it "reads" as one Town Center and create a unique identity. Mr. Wessel stated this is only the beginning of the discussion on this project. Mr. Payton stated their intention to bring in some of the elem building with roof peaks and arched doorways. He noted t provided to the front elevations, pointing out the Arche and Target entrance on the left side. Mr. Payton rev materials and their attempt to address elements on desire to include features the City and commun d h esent on the bank tural relief being ay on the right side osed exterior building scale. He stated their to see. Chair Schaps asked about potential tenan or t• ther retail space. Mr. Paton stated he does not have that information. Mr. Wessel stated the intent wo the entire project committed prior to breaking ground. He sugges q ion be asked at the January meeting. Ms. Lane asked about their location, noting n tape to the next f other Target Superstores. Mr. Paton advised of yet opened for business. He offered to bring a short video e Board's review. Mr. Rafferty raised option of designing an entrance through the center of the parking lot with a tree -lined .''`omenade to create a "grand entrance" feature. Mr. Paton stated they will bring a Target architect to a Board meeting to explain the interior working features and circulation. Mr. Rafferty stated he is suggesting a parking lot entrance, not necessarily a center building entrance. Mr. Payton reviewed the alignment of Apollo Drive and how that suggestion would result in a change of focus from Apollo Drive into the parking lot. He stated it may be possible to incorporate plantings into the southern portion of the parking lot to create a tree lined entrance feature. Chair Schaps asked if other communities have asked for this level of site and building • enhancements. Mr. Payton stated they have not except for the front elevation relief. Planning & Zoning Board December 13, 2000 Page 14 Mr. Schilling asked about the thought process to place the Target building closer to the residential area. Mr. Payton stated there were site issues, screening from the driveway activity, and light fixtures. Ms. Lane asked if it would be a 24 -hour operation. Mr. Payton stated it is not. Ms. Lane asked how large the grocery component would be. Mr. Payton stated it would be 35,000 to 40,000 square feet. Chair Schaps inquired regarding the community response. Mr. Payton stated he has presented this concept plan to the Planning and Zoning Board, City Council, and Environmental Board and they are looking forward to the upcoming community meeting scheduled for Wednesday, December 20, 2000. Mr. Powell explained it will be an open house format between the developer and residents. Mr. Wessel stated the Target Superstore concept has been and the concern has been to maintain the architectural i C. Town Center Update d by the Council e Town Center. Staff noted that the large project in the port t of the Town Center (Target Superstore) was not designed as a traditio :' nei; •orhood development with mixed uses but, rather, is a standard suburban ret • o. •r nt. Staff stated the Town Center vision and design standards will b -, ` . e Council at an upcoming workshop and that information can also be r • e Planning and Zoning Board. Mr. Smyser advised that t grant rather than the re has resulted in the upc ommunities Committee is recommending a $450,000 million grant for implementing the Village Plan. This discussion of the City's goals and vision. Mr. Rafferty stres aff has worked hard to put this product together and the Metropolitan Coun lso stressed an urgency to assure funds are available for this project. He restated at staff did an excellent job and he would support staff's continued work toward those ideas. D. Tree Ordinance Update Chair Schaps offered his assistance with the proposed Tree Ordinance. Mr. Smyser thanked Chair Schaps for that offer and stated he has requested copies of tree ordinances from additional cities and will be study ways to address the issues raised by the Planning and Zoning Board. VII. ADJOURNMENT Ms. Lane stated she will not be present at the January 10, 2001 meeting. • • • Planning & Zoning Board December 13, 2000 Page 15 Mr. Corson made a MOTION to adjourn the meeting at 9:42 p.m., and was supported by Mr. Schilling. Motion carried 7 -0. Respectfully submitted, Carla Wirth, Recording Secretary TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc.