Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/13/2001 P&Z Minutes• • • Planning & Zoning Board February 13, 2001 Page 1 CITY OF LINO LAKES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MINUTES DATE TIME STARTED TIME ENDED MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT STAFF PRESENT February 13, 2001 6:30 P.M. 8:15 P.M. Corson, Lane, Rafferty, Schilling, and Schaps Lyden and Zych City Planner Smyser; City Engineer Powell; Planning Coordinator Wyland; Economic Development Director Wessel; Planning Consultant Sherman (NAC) I. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL Chair Schaps called the Lino Lakes Planning and Zoning Board meeting to order at 6:30 p.m., February 13, 2001. II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — JANUARY= 10, 2001 `. Mr. Schilling made a MOTION to approve the minutes of the January 10, 2001, meeting of the Lino Lakes Planning and Zoning Board, and was supported by Mr. Rafferty. Motion carried 4 -0 -1 (Lane). III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Chair Schaps stated item VI.A.had been withdrawn by the applicant, but he would allow limited time for the public to express comments. He stated there would be no public hearing this evening. The agenda was approved. IV. OPEN MIKE Chair Schaps declared open mike open at 6:36 p.m. No one was present for open mike. Mr. Corson made a MOTION to close Open Mike at 6:37 p.m., and was supported by Ms. Lane. Motion carried 5 -0. Planning & Zoning Board February 13, 2001 Page 2 VI. ACTION ITEMS A. PUBLIC HEARING, Molin Concrete 415 Lilac Amended Conditional Use Permit. Chair Schaps stated the applicant had withdrawn this item. Douglas Miller, 7780 Lois Lane, stated he had received a phone call this afternoon from Ms. Wyland informing him this issue was not on the agenda tonight due to the fact that the applicant had been out of town and had not had time to prepare for the meeting. He stated he believed this was an excuse by applicant and applicant had sufficient time to prepare for the meeting. He stated this was a very serious issue for the citizens and wanted the City address these concerns and not just the business issues. Ed Schenck ( ?sp), stated he was also very concerned about the same issues. He indicated he lived a block and a half away from the business and was getting woken up early each morning. He stated this had been a problem in the past and he believed this was a sneaky way for the applicant to play with the zoning Ordinance. Faith , stated she had been woken up early every morning because of the noise. She was concerned about the morning and nighttime voices that were very loud and could be heard inside her home. Sherry Schenck ( ?sp), 7859 Notingham Lane, stated her concern was that she had no control over this and the noise from applicant occurred very early in the morning. She stated the noise could be heard through her closed windows, and there was nothing they could do about it. She indicated they could not shut the noise off; it was there continuously. B. PUBLIC HEARING, Ryan Companies US, Inc. (Target) Lake Drive, PDO Rezone, Preliminary Plat, Conditional Use & Site Plan Review. Chair Schaps declared the public hearing opened at 6:44 p.m. Staff presented the application by explaining staff had been working with Ryan Companies, US Inc. on a proposed retail development located in the northeast quadrant of Lake Drive /I -35W Interchange. The main issue raised by staff and discussed by the City Council and Planning and Zoning Board related to the site layout and design and the departure from the Town Center vision. 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 presented its analysis of the request, noting the site 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 buildings and parking as proposed. In order to accommodate the • • • Planning & Zoning Board February 13, 2001 Page 3 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. This process allowed greater flexibility and consequently a more creative and imaginative design. It allowed flexibility in the internal setbacks and in parking for combined uses and was the appropriate means for review of a development of this size and scope. Access to the site was proposed via an extension of Apollo Drive from Lake Drive through the site to 77th Street. An additional access was proposed to Lake Drive approximately 520 feet north of the Apollo access. All accesses with Lake Drive (County Road 23) were subject to the approval of Anoka County. The City Engineer was in the process of conducting a traffic study that would identify which improvements were necessary to accommodate the development. Improvements may include, but were not limited to turn lanes, by -pass lanes and signalization. Design alternatives to deter traffic from using Carole Drive needed to be examined and implemented if necessary. Staff explained detailed plans had been submitted for sanitary sewer, water and storm water management. The City Engineer had reviewed the information submitted. With respect to natural features, there was a large wetland located on the eastern portion of the site that was proposed to be impacted. There were 752 trees on the site and 566 of those were significant based on their size and species. The grading proposed on the site would result in the removal of 437 significant trees for 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 The site design had incorporated a sidewalk layout along Apollo Drive and throughout the site along the storefronts. There were sidewalk connections shown at both accesses proposed with Lake Drive. Additionally, different pavement treatments were proposed at significant crossing points within the development. Green space on the site was concentrated around the perimeter of the site and surrounding ponding and wetland areas. The landscaping plan called for plantings within parking lots along drive aisles and surrounding the site. The overall plan was well done and provided a variety of plantings. Some plantings were shown within MnDOT right -of -way, which would require cooperation from MnDOT. The critical portion of the landscaping proposed was along the northern edge of the site, which was adjacent to existing residential lines. The plan as proposed would provide a visual break, but it would not provide a complete screen. Staff explained the exterior 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 rock elements included standing seam metal that complemented the roof designs in existing Town Square buildings. Awnings were proposed over the storefront areas. The Target Superstore used a combination of brick and stucco on the front which transitions to stucco and rockface block on the sides. The rear elevation was proposed to be painted CMU (concrete masonry unit). With the surrounding land uses, more attention needed to be paid to the architecture on the rear of the building. It would be very visible from 77th Street. There was a screen wall shown on the rear of the building, but materials to be used were not identified. This should be constructed of materials to match the building and should be of sufficient height to screen the dock area. Trash enclosures had not been identified on the site plan. Planning & Zoning Board February 13, 2001 Page 4 The applicant had proposed the City accept outlots that included ponding and right -of- way in lieu of park dedication. This would not be consistent with City Ordinance or policy. Cash fees in lieu of land dedication should be provided at the rate in effect at the time of the final plat. Based on the size of the proposed project, an Environmental Assessment Worksheet was mandatory. This process was designed to identify significant environmental effects that may require a more detailed environmental impact statement. The sign Ordinance allowed one pylon sign per street frontage, up to 200 square feet, with 25% of the sign designated for the Center name. The applicants were proposing two pylon signs with a sign face of 285 square feet plus the center name, which was approximately 35 square feet in area. On the retail buildings, wall signs were proposed over each tenant space and on the rear of the buildings. Staff did not support signs on the rear of the building unless it was incorporated into some enhanced design. The Target facility proposed a number of signs on three sides of the building. There was no signage proposed on the rear of Target. The total square footages allowed were based on the wall area; up to 20% of the wall area or 100 square feet, whichever was less. In this case, the wall areas were very large and 100 square feet was not adequate area for signage. The front of the building was approximately 9836 sq. ft. in area, which allowed up to 1967 sq. ft. of signage. Target was proposed to have a total of 1320 square feet of signage on the front elevation, which was within the 20% allowed. Staff recommended the Planning and Zoning Board discuss the site plan, building design and signs proposed, provide direction to the applicant and then continue the public hearing until such time as the EAW process was completed and wetland fill and mitigation plans were approved by Rice Creek. Staff stated the retail, other than the Target Store, would probably be downsized and the plans would be resubmitted once they were changed. Chair Schaps asked about the timeline for the closing of the public hearing. Mr. Smyser responded they expected this item to be back next month. Because of the size of the project, an Environmental Assessment Work would need to be done and that had to be completed before the City could approve the project. Mr. Corson asked if the EAW application had been made, or if that be applied for in the final process. Ms. Sherman replied the EAW had not been submitted or completed yet. Steve Baker, 77th & Carroll Drive, stated his concern was that 77th Street was going to be cut in half. Mr. Powell responded the City vacated 30 feet of right -of -way and had given it back to the property owners on the north side. Mr. Powell indicated the City was very concerned about the traffic patterns and Apollo Drive would not connect to 77th Street. Mr. Baker stated he had moved to this area to have quiet and now there was going to be a store in his neighborhood with bright lights. He also asked if there would be enough economic support for a Target Store in this area. Mr. Smyser replied with respect to the lighting, it was a very important concern and they were aware of the potential effects this • • • • Planning & Zoning Board February 13, 2001 Page 5 project would have on the resident's near -by. He stated the lighting would only be on in the parking lot when the store was open. He stated this project was a huge investment on the part of Target Corporation. It would be a Target Superstore and that kind of an investment would not have been made lightly without a lot of market research. He stated Target Corporation would not invest that kind of money if they did not believe it would survive in this area. Resident, 874 Oak Lane, was concerned about the traffic issues. He asked what was going to be done about the traffic. Mr. Powell responded they were taking this development and assigning traffic generation to that use. He stated Lake Drive in its current state was not the future. He indicated there would be signals added, and they were in the evaluation process to determine what would be needed for this project. Sue Miller, 7780 Lois Lane, stated she came to this area for peace and quiet. She asked why they needed a Target Store in this area when there was one 10 miles down the road. She stated it did not fit with the City's concept. Tom Vacca, 77th and Lake Drive, asked if the City agreed with the Anoka County's findings on traffic with respect to Apollo Drive being the only entrance. Mr. Powell stated Target Corporation had proposed another connection to Lake Drive and that would be evaluated and discussed with the County. They had not received any answers from Anoka County. However, Anoka County had indicated Apollo Drive would be the main entrance, but Target Corporation wanted another connection, which the City would need to evaluate. Dave Moss ( ?sp), 7785 Lois Lane, stated Target Corporation tried to build a Superstore in the City of Blaine, and the City of Blaine did not let them build in that City because of the grocery store. Mr. Moss stated he had a vested interest in this because he worked at Festival Foods and was in the union. He saw Target Corporation simply going up the freeway to build their store. He stated most stores stock their stores at night and asked that a curfew being put on the noise and activities at night. Mr. Smyser replied a curfew would be taken into consideration. John Herman, 7859 Lois Lane, stated another Target Store was not needed in the area. He stated he moved up here to get out of the City and get peace and quiet. He indicated he did not want this to become another Woodbury where there were stoplights at every corner. He stated he hoped the City would look at the traffic concerns the citizens had on Lake Drive. He indicated he did not want to see the City keep developing without looking at the traffic impacts that would be made. He stated the roads were not there to support this project, and he wanted to see improvements to the road before any construction would be started. He indicated Tanger Mall was a very similar situation, and they had only one entrance and did not have a problem with having one entrance. Wendy , 849 77th Street, expressed her concern regarding Apollo Drive. She stated she did not think people on Apollo Drive realized they had a stop sign to get on to Lake Drive. She stated this area was a disaster waiting to happen. She realized that something was going to eventually be put on the land that Target Corporation proposed to Planning & Zoning Board February 13, 2001 Page 6 put their store on. However, she was concerned about the access off of 77th Street to the Target Store. She stated Target Corporation had indicated the City wanted the access. She indicated she did not want access off of 77th Street into Target. Mr. Powell responded the City wanted some sort of a connection from 77th Street to Target Store; not from Target Store to 77th Street. He stated they originally had discussions for an access for emergency vehicles only, not for traffic to go from Apollo Drive to 77th Street. He stated the way the development was proposed, they were looking at Target Corporation's proposal for another access, but the Target Corporation was still revising their plans and nothing had been decided on. Mr. Corson made a MOTION to continue the public hearing until such time as the EAW process was completed and wetland fill and mitigation plans were approved by Rice Creek, and was supported by Ms. Lane. Motion carried 5 -0. C. PUBLIC HEARING, Land Holding Group, 12th & Holly, Preliminary Plat Chair Schaps declared the public hearing opened at 7:14 p.m. Staff presented the application by Land Hold Group for a preliminary plat for the northwest corner of 12th Avenue and Holly Drive. Staff presented its analysis of the request, noting the site was zoned for residential development. The site was within the existing MUSA, and all of the lots met or exceeded the 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 of the lots, except Lot 8, complied with this standard. Lot 8 had a depth of 127 feet, which required a variance. The Planning Commission could consider the site was impacted by wetlands and it was located at the intersection of two collector roads thereby limiting design options as a basis for granting the variance. Staff stated applicant had not submitted information about what house styles were being considered. The grading of the site must accommodate the housing styles. Staff indicated an existing shed and pole building were located within the new street right -of- way and must be removed. Utilities existed on both 12th and Holly, and an extension of utilities down the proposed cul -de -sac was proposed. The water main needed to be looped to 12th Street. The utilities plan was subject to City Engineer review and approval. The number of lots fronting 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 a new cul -de -sac street. Based on modifications to the plan, which reduced the number of accesses, staff approved the layout. Staff indicated 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. Park dedication for this new development would be cash. Although boundaries of wetlands were shown on the preliminary plat, a wetland delineation report would need to be submitted. Wetland review should determine if the filling of the created pond that was proposed to be built in the southwest portion of the • • • • • Planning & Zoning Board February 13, 2001 Page 7 site, was subject to the Wetland Conservation Act. If so, additional mitigation might be required. Parts of both the north central and southeast wetland were proposed to be filled. If the Rice Creek Watershed District did not approve the filing, Lots 1 and 13 would not be buildable and must be eliminated. It was Staffs policy to require preliminary approval from the Rice Creek Watershed District before City staff recommended approval by the Planning and Zoning Board. A tree preservation plan needed to be submitted. The Environmental Board suggested that some of the trees might be moved. Staff recommended the application be tabled to allow time for the Rice Creek Watershed District to review the project and to allow applicant time to submit additional information with regard to tree preservation, wetlands, grading and house elevations. Ms. Lane made a MOTION to continue to public hearing to March, 2001 to allow time for additional information as outlined in the planning report to be submitted and reviewed, and was supported by Mr. Schilling. Motion carried 5 -0. D. PUBLIC HEARING, Heritage Development, Saddle Club, Old Birch Street, Preliminary Plat CONTINUED TO 3/14/01. Mr. Schilling made a MOTION to continue the public hearing to March 14, 2001, to allow the City Council time to amend the land use map to include the entire parcel in the future Phase 1 growth area, and was supported by Mr. Corson. Motion carried 5 -0. E. Circle Lex VFW, Apollo Drive, Minor Subdivision. Staff presented the application by explaining applicant owned approximately 7.48 acres of land west of the Community National Bank and Fast Break 66 Station. The property was split in two by Apollo Drive and Zone GB, General Business. It was guided for commercial development in both the current and draft Land Use Plan. The VFW had recently sold a portion of the property to Lino Lakes Dentistry and would like to split the north side of the site into two parcels containing 1.5 acres for the dentists and 1.47 acres for future development. Staff anticipated submittal of a site plan review for an office building on this site some time in the near future. The VFW, however, was anxious to close on the property prior to this site plan review, thus the minor subdivision request. Staff explained access to the parcel would be provided from Apollo Drive. The City had a Joint Powers Agreement with Anoka County that limited direct access of Apollo Drive to "not more than one (1) access on each side of the roadway in each 600 feet of length... ". This agreement mandated one (1) access on the north side of the VFW property along with a shared driveway agreement with the parcel to the west. Staff recommended approval with the following conditions: 1. 2. A revised survey document was provided indicating a shared access drive with the parcel to the west. A shared driveway agreement was provided for the access drive. Planning & Zoning Board February 13, 2001 Page 8 The City approved a site plan/conditional use permit for the VFW on their site at 7868 Lake Drive. To facilitate that development, the VFW asked for and received approval of the MUSA Land Exchange authorizing the transfer of 2.25 acres of MUSA from this site on Apollo Drive to 7868 Lake Drive. This transfer had not taken place yet. The transfer location should be determined before additional development activity occurred. To assure this, the following condition should be attached to the subdivision approval: Before City Council approval of this minor subdivision, the specific location from which the MUSA acres are to be taken from must be determined to complete the MUSA land exchange. Chair Schaps asked how the shared land exchange would work. Ms. Wyland replied that all along Apollo Drive they had shared driveways and this would look and work similar to all of the other shared driveways in that area. Chair Schaps asked applicant if he wanted to comment. Mr. Johnson asked when the Comprehensive Plan would be completed. Chair Schaps replied the Comprehensive Plan had been with the City Council since 1998 and he could not answer that question. Mr. Corson made a MOTION to recommend approval of the Minor Subdivision, with the conditions of: (1) a revised survey document be provided indicating a shared access drive with the parcel to the west. (2) A shared driveway agreement was provided for the access drive. (3) attaching the following to the subdivision approval: Before City Council approve of this minor subdivision, the specific location from which the MUSA acres are to be taken from must be determined to complete the MUSA land exchange, and was supported by Mr. Schilling. Motion carried 4 -0 -1 (Rafferty). F. Rockey Goertz, 325 Birch Street (Apitz), Minor Subdivision. Staff presented the application for a Minor Subdivision to subdivide a 39.67 -acre parcel of property located at the north/east corner of Hodson Road and Birch Street. The minor subdivide would create two parcels — Parcel A being a 3.98 net acres /3.51 upland acres and Parcel B being 35.69 net acres /26.85 upland acres. Staff explained Mr. Grubbs would retain ownership of the 3.98 parcel for future commercial development and Mr. Goertz would retain the 35.69 -acre parcel for development similar to the sketch for Spirit Hills. Staff presented it analysis by explaining the property was currently zoned R -1 Single Family Residential and located within the existing MUSA line. The property immediately south containing Apitz Garage and the small corner house was zoned GB, General Business. Utilities could be extended to serve the property. The Draft Comprehensive Plan guided this area for a mix of commercial, low- density residential and medium density residential. The current comprehensive Plan guided the area for • • • • • Planning & Zoning Board February 13, 2001 Page 9 single family residential. Staff explained Mr. Grubbs also owned the adjoining Apitz Garage and was the potential owner of the adjoining City/County owned property at the corner of Hodgson Road and Birch Street. The City/County and Mr. Grubbs were currently working on an agreement that would include right -of -way dedication along Hodson Road and transfer of the remaining parcel to Mr. Grubbs. The property owner had agreed to dedicate an additional 27' to 29' of right -of -way on the east side of Hodson Road in this location that was acceptable to the County. Staff had reviewed this minor subdivision request and commented the applicant had demonstrated that a future street layout was possible to serve the plat and minimize access on to Birch Street. The applicant had met with Anoka County regarding right -of- way needs for Hodson Road and was willing to dedicate the additional right -of -way along the west property line and had revised his sketch accordingly. The proposed new lots met the minimum lot dimensions and other requirements under the current zoning. Staff recommended approval of this minor subdivision with the following conditions: 1. Dedication of 27 — 29.73' of right -of -way is dedicated along the west property line of both Parcel A and B and required by Anoka County. 2. Approval of this minor subdivision does not guarantee, nor imply approval of any subsequent development plans for the property. Chair Schaps asked if the property on the corner was acquired by foreclosure. Ms. Wyland replied it had been confiscated by the County and then purchased from the County by the City. Chair Schaps asked if Mr. Grubbs had indicated any desire for an expansion of the business onto that property. Ms. Wyland replied Mr. Grubbs may want to expand his business into this area. Chair Schaps asked if applicant wanted to make comment. Rockey Goertz, applicant, presented a color diagram indicating what they proposed. He stated he and Mr. Grubbs had not decided what they were going to do with the corner piece. Mr. Rafferty asked how the entrance on Hwy 49 was going to work. Mr. Powell responded they intended on an entrance off of Birch Street, which they would attempt to line up with Ware Road to create a cross intersection. That would eliminate Mr. Grubbs access onto Birch Street. The Hwy 49 access would be a right -in, right -out access only. Mr. Corson inquired about the impact this would make to the lake and asked this be considered. • Ms. Lane made a MOTION to approve the Minor Subdivision, with the conditions outlined by staff, and was supported by Mr. Corson. Motion carried 4 -0 -1 (Rafferty). Planning & Zoning Board February 13, 2001 Page 10 G. Ryan Companies, Summit Fire Protection, 2XX Apollo Drive, Minor Subdivision and Site Plan Review. Staff presented the application for Ryan Companies on behalf of Summit Fire Protection, which was requesting a minor subdivision and plat approval to allow the construction of a 30,076 square foot office /warehouse facility on the property located in the 200 block of Apollo Drive. The site plan also illustrated 22,800 square foot future expansion and parking for this expansion. Staff presented its analysis by explaining the site's L -1, Light Industrial zoning classification was consistent with this land use designation. The lot, parking and building met all of the performance standards in the L -I, Light Industrial District. Staff stated applicant was proposing to construct a 30,076 square foot office /warehouse facility. The building was considered one story; however, the office and warehouse portions would have different heights. All heights conformed to the 45 -foot future expansion along with future parking. The building exterior materials conformed to the City Code. The plan's indicted all trash and recycling containers would be stored inside the principal structure. With respect to lighting, the plans did not include a detailed photometric plan. The site plan showed shoebox light fixtures both on the building and in the parking area. Staff recommended a condition of approval required the applicant to submit a detailed photometric plan prior to City Council review. Staff stated signage was governed by the City's sign Ordinance and separate permits were required for all signs. The landscape plan presented a variety mix of landscaping. Most notably, the applicant's plan called for a native mix of prairie grasses and wild flowers throughout the site. The applicant must submit a maintenance plan for the native prairie grasses. The applicant should add screening along the western side of the site to screen the loading areas of the adjacent residential use. In addition, should applicant decide to construct parking stalls in the future along the western side of the site, they would need to add landscaping to screen it from the adjacent residential use. Utilities would come from the existing sewer and water mains constructed as part of the Marmon/Keystone site to the east. Water access would be stubbed across Apollo Court and split to serve both Summit Fire Protection site and the parcel to the north. Storm water runoff from the subject property would be stored and treated on site. The applicant's parking plans called for 48 stalls and another 27 future stalls. If the proposed addition were constructed, it would need 10 additional stalls. Together, the proposed and future parking exceeded the total number of off - street parking stalls required by the Ordinance. Mr. Corson asked if applicant wanted to make comment. Frank Zelle, Ryan Companies Project Manager, presented color diagrams showing the project. He stated with the 32 -foot wide drive, it would make it easier for service vehicles to get in and out. He stated this was a cul -de -sac and it would not interfere with anything by having a wider driveway. Chair Schaps inquired about the native prairie grass. Mr. Zelle replied the front and side of the building would be sod, with the rest of the area native prairie grass. • • • • • • Planning & Zoning Board February 13, 2001 Page 11 Mr. Corson asked about sprinkling and burning of the native prairie grass. Mr. Zelle replied the sod would be sprinkled and they would take precautions if the native prairie grass would need to be burned. John Johnson stated they were looking into finding a prairie grass that would not require burning, and hopefully they would find some native prairie grass that would not need to be burned. Mr. Schilling asked if exterior storage would become an issue in the future. Mr. Zelley, Summit Fire Protection, replied they did not intend to have any outside storage. They were building the building large enough that they would not need additional storage. There would be no forklifts or other equipment on the outside of the building. Mr. Smyser suggested the following amendments: On number 9, it read: City Engineer's comments in the January 23, 2001 TKDA memo must be addressed to the City Engineer's satisfaction by March 2, 2001, and add a number 10 to state: If possible, find a type of prairie grass that would not require burning. Mr. Schilling suggested getting input from the Fire Department regarding the burning of the native prairie grass. Mr. Smyser replied he would contact the Fire Department and present their information to Council. Mr. Corson made a MOTION to approve the Minor Subdivision and site plan to allow the construction of a 30,076 square foot office /warehouse building based on the findings outlined in the February 13, 2001 planning report and subject to the conditions outlined by staff and the two amendments suggested by Mr. Smyser, and was supported by Ms. Lane. Motion carried 4 -0 -1 (Rafferty). H. PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUATION, Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment to allow Accessory Buildings in Industrial and Commercial Districts. Chair Schaps continued the public hearing at 7:55 p.m. Staff explained they had prepared an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance pertaining to accessory buildings in the commercial and industrial zoning districts based on discussion at the January Planning and Zoning Board Meeting. The draft would allow only one (1) accessory building a maximum of 400 square feet in area. Roof height would be limited to 12' and district setbacks would apply. No site plan review would be required, but standard building permits may be required per the Uniform Building Code. Roof and exterior color materials was to be compatible with the existing building. Metal buildings and pole barns were unacceptable excepting those used for bus storage. Staff recommended adopting the Ordinance amendment as presented. Chair Schaps asked for staffs comments regarding this amendment. Mr. Powell responded he had no response. Planning & Zoning Board February 13, 2001 Page 12 Chair Schaps stated the only comment he had was with respect to language being changed with respect to the accessory building being taken down if the business expanded. Mr. Corson responded he would like to give applicant the option if they still needed the accessory building. Mr. Smyser stated this would leave some arbitrariness as to whether the storage was necessary. He stated this would be something staff would need to look at. Chair Schaps suggested adding after the comma in Item I - "the accessory building shall be removed if the intended need no longer exists ". Chair Schaps closed the public hearing at 8:00 p.m. Mr. Corson made a MOTION to the Ordinance amendment as presented subject to Chair Schaps' suggestion, and was supported by Ms. Lane. Motion carried 5 -0. I. Central Suburban, 416 Lilac, CUP Tabled from January meeting. Staff explained applicant had submitted an application to amend its existing conditional use permit (CUP) to allow storage of recreational vehicles on the site. At the January Planning and Zoning Board Meeting, the Board opened and closed the public meeting, then tabled the item to allow applicant to work with staff on unresolved issues. Since that time, the recreational vehicle firm that wanted to utilize the site decided to locate in another city. Central Suburban then submitted a letter withdrawing the application for amending the CUP. Staff recommended the Planning and Zoning Board Meeting remove this item from the table and acknowledge the withdrawal of the application. The Planning and Zoning Board acknowledged the withdrawal of the CUP application 5- 0. J. PUBLIC HEARING, Tree Preservation Ordinance, Continue to 3/14/01. Mr. Schilling made a MOTION to continue this item to March 14, 2001, and was supported by Mr. Rafferty. Motion carried 5 -0. VI. DISCUSSION ITEMS A. Mini Storage, Al Robinson Chair Schaps indicated Mr. Robinson was unable to attend tonight's meeting and tabled this item. B. Appointment of P & Z Liaison to EDAC Staff noted the previous liaison to the City's Economic Development Advisory Commission (EDAC) was Bill Johnson. As Mr. Johnson was not reappointed to the Planning & Zoning Board, there needed to be new liaison appointed. Staff stated the • • • Planning & Zoning Board February 13, 2001 Page 13 • EDAC generally met on the first Thursday of the month at 7:00 a.m. to discuss various economic development concerns within the community. • Mr. Schilling made a MOTION to nominate Mr. Rafferty as the Economic Development Advisory Commission's (EDAC) liaison with Ms. Lane as the alternate, and was supported by Mr. Corson. Motion carried 5 -0. C. Discussion — EIFS Chair Schaps indicated Mr. Lyden was not in attendance this evening and tabled this item. VII. ADJOURNMENT Mr. Corson made a MOTION to adjourn the meeting at 8:15 p.m., and was supported by Ms. Lane. Motion carried 5 -0. Respectfully submitted, Kathleen Altman, Recording Secretary TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc.