Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/11/2001 P&Z Minutes• • • Planning & Zoning Board April 11, 2001 Page 1 PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MINUTES DATE : April 11, 2001 TIME STARTED : 6:30 P.M. TIME ENDED : 8:23 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT : Corson, Lyden, Schaps, Rafferty and Zych MEMBERS ABSENT : Lane STAFF PRESENT : City Engineer Powell; City Planner Smyser; Cindy Sherman (NAC) I. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL Chair Schaps called the Lino Lakes Planning and Zoning Board meeting to order at 6:31 p.m., April 11, 2001. II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — March 14, 2001,. Mr. Rafferty made a MOTION to approve the-minutes of the March 14, 2001, meeting of the Lino Lakes Planning and Zoning Board, and was supported by Mr. Lyden. Motion carried 4 -0 -1 (Rafferty). III. APPROVAL OF AGENDAvi The agenda was approve IV. OPEN MIKE Chair Schaps declared open mike open at 6:33 p.m. No comments were made. Mr. Corson made -a MOTION to close Open Mike at 6:35 p.m., and was supported by Mr. Lyden. Motion carried 5 -0. Planning & Zoning Board April 11, 2001 Page 2 V. ACTION ITEMS A. Steve Dahlstrom, 6641 East Shadow Lake Drive, Variance. Staff presented the application by explaining applicant had submitted an application for a variance from the side yard setback requirement in an R -1 zoning district. Applicant wanted to construct a large addition to his existing house. The setback requirement for a garage differed from the setback for the house. Mr. Dahlstrom's addition included garage space on the main level with additional bedrooms over the garage. This living space must meet the larger setback, which was the reason a variance was needed. Staff presented its analysis of the request by explaining, the property was in an R -1 Single Family zoning district. The side yard setbacks were 10 feet for the principal building, 5 feet for an accessory building. A garage, even an attached garage, was considered an accessory building. Therefore, a garage wall must be 5 feet from the side property line. The house itself must be 10 feet. Adding garage space would need to meet the 5' setback. Living space must meet the 10' setback. Since the proposed new living space would be 5' from the property line, a variance was needed. Staff noted that the letter from Mr. Dahlstrom was written before the survey was prepared, so the distances in his letter were estimated. As shown on the submitted survey, the front corner of the existing garage wall was 4.19 feet from the side lot line. (It is unknown why this was not built at the 5 ft. setback.) The rear corner of the existing garage was approximately 7 'A' from the side lot line. (This was a scaled measurement of the submitted survey, it was not shown on the survey.) Therefore, at its closest point, the new addition would be about 7 %2' from the property line. This was 2 %2' less than the required 10' setback, or about 25% less. The proposed addition would be 23' 8" high at the peak of the roof. The house next door at 6634 East Shadow Lake Drive was 16.01 feet from the property line. A submitted letter indicates that the neighbors, the Sandstroms, had no objection to the project. The existing home had approximately 1000 sf of living space, with some additional space in the lower level. This was just over the minimum 980 sf required in the zoning ordinance for a split level. The house had two bedrooms, ,5 Mr. Dahlstrom's_ plans included adding 20 feet onto the entire rear of the house as well as the new garage space with bedrooms above. As stated in the zoning ordinance, 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 could not be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls. 2. That the plight of the landowners was due to physical circumstances unique to his property not created by the land owner. • • • • • • Planning & Zoning Board April 11, 2001 Page 3 3. That the hardship was 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 would 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 would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance. The size of the existing home met minimum standards, but an addition to a two - bedroom house was not unusual, nor was putting bedrooms over garage space. The design incorporated the existing structure layout to maximize use of the existing structure. Current housing space demands typically require more than 1000 sf, and it seemed unreasonable to require the second story to step back from the lower level wall. Pie - shaped lots on cul -de -sacs present special challenges, though they were not unique. For some reason, this house was built closer to the road than current standards allow. If the house were further back, the variance need would be reduced. As it stands, the variance was needed only for the front 13± feet of the new addition. That is, the new addition would meet the 10 ft. setback at a point 13± feet to the rear of the existing garage corner. It was not a situation where the variance application was an attempt to avoid extra costs. Economic considerations were not at issue here. Staff recommended approving the variance request. Chair Schaps invited applicant to make comment. Applicant stated he had no comments to make. Mr. Rafferty asked if there was an indication if the neighbor to the east was also falling inside the setbacks on the front side. He asked if there any indication this was a previous zoning issue. Mr. Smyser replied he had checked in the ylat files as well as the address file and there was no indication as to why it was done this way. Mr. Rafferty asked with respect to cul-de-sacs could this be an ongoing problem in the future. Mr. Smyser responded if the home would have been built now it would not be allowed to be built where it was located, but he did not believe this would be an ongoing issue. Mr. Corson asked if applicant had spoken with the Minnesota Fire Marshall with respect to a fire wall. He stated that needed to be clarified with the City before proceeding. Mr. Smyser replied that would be something that would be reviewed by the Building Inspector prior to building approval. Mr. Lyden asked if the roof line was consistent. Mr. Smyser stated it was. Mr. Smyser stated this would go to the City Council for approval on April 23, 2001. Mr. Corson made a MOTION to approve the application for a variance from the side yard setback requirement, and was supported by Mr. Rafferty. Motion carried 5 -0. Planning & Zoning Board April 11, 2001 Page 4 B. PUBLIC HEARING, Rockey Goertz/Spirit Hills, Inc., Rezone to Planned Development Overlay and Preliminary Plat. Staff presented the application by explaining has submitted an application for Comprehensive Plan amendment, rezoning, and a preliminary plat for a development to be know as Spirit Hills. The site is located on the northeast corner of State Highway 49 and Birch Street, between Rice Lake and Shenandoah Addition. This review is based on plans received by the City on March 13, 2001. Staff presented is analysis of the request, noting the following: Project Data: Density: Site Total 35.69 acres Wetlands 8.84 acres Upland (residential) 29.02 acres Right -of -Way 5.00 acres Number of Single Family Lots 31 lots Number of Townhomes 49 Commercial Area 1.67 acres Density Gross Net Total Site 2.24 units /acre 2.9 units /acre Townhomes 3.8 units /acre 4.8 units /acre Single Family 1.91 units /acre, 3.31 units /acre Land Use and Zoning: The current Land Use Plan designates the property as single family residential. The draft Land Use Plan designates the site for low density and low density /medium density residential "that promotes the intermixing; of low to medium density residential and commercial land uses in an integrated and cohesive design. The City would pursue quality architecture, pedestrian interaction between land uses, and a neighborhood focal point." The land use comparison between the draft land use and the application was as follows: * Land areas are approximate so totals do not match. The proposed development was consistent with the proposed land use but was not consistent with the anticipated areas allocated to each use. • • Acres on Draft Land Use Plan Application Low Density Sewered 24 16 Medium Density Residential 2.5 13 Commercial 15.5 7 Right -of -Way 5 TOTAL 42* 41* * Land areas are approximate so totals do not match. The proposed development was consistent with the proposed land use but was not consistent with the anticipated areas allocated to each use. • • • • Planning & Zoning Board April 11, 2001 Page 5 Surrounding Land Uses: Shoreland Management Overlay District: All areas within 1,000 feet of the ordinary high water level (OHWL) were subject to the Shoreland Management Regulations. Nearly all of this development falls within the Shoreland Overlay, as determined by the OHW of Rice Lake, a Natural Environment Lake. Because there was public land between the proposed lots and the OHW, none of the lots are considered abutting and thus, the regulations were not as restrictive. However, there was a 150 foot setback requirement from the OHW for all, structures. This creates an issue for Lots 12 -16 and Lots 25 and 26. There was not adequate space to meet the setbacks and accommodate a reasonable house pad. An analysis of density as it related to the Shoreland Ordinance needed to be provided by the applicant. This exercise identified the density as it related to the suitable land area and was required under the PDO. Greenway: The draft Comprehensive Plan identifies areas for greenways. The greenway areas adjacent to this property were currently public land and thus were already protected. In addition, the wetland areas would be encumbered by a drainage and utility easement. Environmental Board Review: The Environmental Board reviewed the application and their comments were attached. The comments submitted by the Board related to curbing are in conflict with the Zoning and Subdivision Regulations. The creation of an overall homeowners association was advisable. Language regarding property maintenance and demarcation of the wetland edge could be included in the documents so that the association was responsible for the maintenance and therefore, it would not become a City expense. Lot Size and Layout: All of the gross lot areas meet or exceed the shoreland standard of 10,800 square feet. The applicant needed to provide an analysis of individual lot areas excluding wetlands. • The base lot calculation for the townhomes required 5,000 square feet per unit and the project as designed was at approximately 9,600 square feet per unit. Comprehensive Plan Existing Comprehensive Plan Proposed Existing Zoning Site Single- Family Low /Medium Density and Commercial R -1 North Public open space Public open space Public East Urban residential Low /medium density R -1 South Multiple family Commercial R -3 West Public open space Public open space Public Shoreland Management Overlay District: All areas within 1,000 feet of the ordinary high water level (OHWL) were subject to the Shoreland Management Regulations. Nearly all of this development falls within the Shoreland Overlay, as determined by the OHW of Rice Lake, a Natural Environment Lake. Because there was public land between the proposed lots and the OHW, none of the lots are considered abutting and thus, the regulations were not as restrictive. However, there was a 150 foot setback requirement from the OHW for all, structures. This creates an issue for Lots 12 -16 and Lots 25 and 26. There was not adequate space to meet the setbacks and accommodate a reasonable house pad. An analysis of density as it related to the Shoreland Ordinance needed to be provided by the applicant. This exercise identified the density as it related to the suitable land area and was required under the PDO. Greenway: The draft Comprehensive Plan identifies areas for greenways. The greenway areas adjacent to this property were currently public land and thus were already protected. In addition, the wetland areas would be encumbered by a drainage and utility easement. Environmental Board Review: The Environmental Board reviewed the application and their comments were attached. The comments submitted by the Board related to curbing are in conflict with the Zoning and Subdivision Regulations. The creation of an overall homeowners association was advisable. Language regarding property maintenance and demarcation of the wetland edge could be included in the documents so that the association was responsible for the maintenance and therefore, it would not become a City expense. Lot Size and Layout: All of the gross lot areas meet or exceed the shoreland standard of 10,800 square feet. The applicant needed to provide an analysis of individual lot areas excluding wetlands. • The base lot calculation for the townhomes required 5,000 square feet per unit and the project as designed was at approximately 9,600 square feet per unit. Planning & Zoning Board April 11, 2001 Page 6 Generally speaking, NAC believed a better site design could be created to address transition to existing and future land uses and to respect the natural features on the site. Utilities /Grading and Drainage: The office of the City Engineer had reviewed the application and comments were attached related to these items. Transportation: There were two accesses proposed, both onto County roads. The location and design of the intersections were under County jurisdiction. No comments had been received to date. County permits would be required. She stated Ware Road would be realigned at some point in the future so it would line up. Parks and Trails: This site was adjacent to the County park. No additional land dedication was required. Park dedication would be cash fees in lieu of land and would be paid in the amount in effect at the time of final plat. Staff stated the Park Board had reviewed this and suggested cash. There was historically a trail proposed by the County in the vicinity of this plan. However, that trail had been eliminated from the County's plan and therefore, no connection was necessary through this area. Site Plan: The area proposed for townhomes required a full submittal regarding site layout, parking unit design, unit exteriors, landscaping, etc. Because of the number and location of the units, NAC believes all details related to the proposal should be part of this review. Wetlands: There were 8.84 acres of wetlands on the property. Some were proposed to be filled to accommodate road crossings. The wetland delineation and related plans were subject to the review and permitting of Rice Creek Watershed District (RCWD), which oversaw the Wetland Conservation Act (WCA). It was the City staff s policy to require preliminary approval from RCWD before City staff recommends final action by the Planning and Zoning Board. Staff recommended continuing the public hearing to allow time for additional information as outlined in the planning report. Mr. Lyden stated he would like to see a trail around the lake, and wanted the ability to add a trail in the future considered for this proposed development. Chair Schaps opened the, public hearing at 7 :07 p.m. Mr. Corson asked about the boundary south of Ware Road and if the remaining land was part of this plat development. Ms. Sherman replied it was part of the open space of Lot 3. Mr. Corson asked if the neighborhood commercial area was changed from the previous plan and was any buffer proposed to the existing area to the east of the site. Ms. Sherman replied there was an existing tree line, which might or might not stay in total. She stated they had not seen any plans with respect to landscaping, but when it was received, it would be thoroughly reviewed and this would be taken into consideration. Colleen Bruster ( ?sp), 6591 Hokah Drive, indicated she had a number of concerns about this plan. She stated she was concerned about the traffic and stated with this development that would • • • • Planning & Zoning Board April 11, 2001 Page 7 drastically add to the number of vehicles in the area. She stated she was concerned about the density of the development. She indicated there were no townhomes in the area and she would like to see it remain a single - family development. She also expressed concern about there being no park or playground for the children in the area and would like to see one added. Bruce Pruitt, 6517 Hokah Drive, stated he was concerned about the townhomes bordering the existing neighbor's backyards and infringing upon their property. He stated he was concerned about the possibility of increased crime because of the density. He stated he did not want a business added to the development also. He indicated they did not need a convenience store in this area, when there was one not too far away. He expressed concern about the additional traffic added to the neighborhood. He was also concerned about the additional noise added to the neighborhood. He stated most of the area was wetland area and it was not flat land and it would be difficult to build on it. He stated there was a large drainage area on that property. He indicated there was not a lot of buildable land and he believed this area actually needed lower density, not higher density. Darren Gould, 6533 Hokah Drive, stated his concern was the proposed buffer. He stated he would like to see the area stay single- family density. He expressed concern regarding the density and the additional children being added to the already overcrowded school district. Katie Politiske, 6509 Hokah Drive, expressed concern regarding a business in the area She stated if a business was allowed, she wanted an additional buffer added. She also expressed concern regarding additional traffic being added to the area. Ron Thill, 6681 Hokah Drive, asked why the City planned on changing the zoning in this area He stated he wanted to see a single - family development in the area Mr. Smyser stated the first thing that would prompt the City's consideration of townhomes would be the draft comprehensive plan did look to provide some townhome; development in the City. There was a huge market for it and a need for townhomes. He also stated there was a commercial business there now, which the developer was proposing to expand, and there would be a buffer between the businesses and the residential area He stated the areas that had busy roads, made the most sense for commercial businesses. He stated the developer also asked the City to consider it While this may not be reason to approve it, the City was required to consider all requests. Mr. Thill stated he had concerns regarding the density of the development. He expressed concern regarding the 30 foot available land that was being proposed to have a home placed on it He expressed concern regarding a sewer system being added to the area He suggested closing off Hokah Drive around the development so it was not used by construction traffic. Mr. Powell stated there was no plans at this time to reconstruct Hokah Drive, but if it was done in the future, the City would consider adding utilities but only if the residents requested it Mr. Thill stated he would like to see the trail continued and not end where it was proposed to end. Mr. Powell replied the trail on Hodgson Road was proposed all of the way to and across the bridge at Rice Creek. The improvements of the County Road were an ongoing discussion between the County and the City at this time. The City and County were actively attempting to reduce the speed limits along that road. He stated if the construction proceeded, it would be next year and it would include traffic signals at Birch Street, but he would not give any guarantees because this was still under discussion with the City and County. Planning & Zoning Board April 11, 2001 Page 8 Mr. Thill asked if one builder would be used for the development or if there would be various builders. Mr. Smyser replied that would be up to the developer. The City would not be involved in the choice of builders, but the builders would be licensed by the State. Mr. Smyser stated the reason they were considering a townhome development was because the current aging population wanted homes that required less maintenance, as well as the younger population not being able to afford single- family homes. Beverly Morris, 6640 Hokah Drive, stated they do welcome new neighbors, but encouraged the Board members to walk the area. She encouraged the City to keep the wetlands. She expressed concern about traffic. She stated she wanted to see the area remain as single family homes. Conine Schultz, 6641 Hokah Drive, stated her concern was were Ware Road and Hokah Drive met. She asked this area be looked at regarding traffic concerns. Sharon Peterson, 6501 Hokah Drive, stated she was concerned about the convenience store noise, lighting, garbage issues, and the buffer area. She was concerned about the increased traffic and asked if there was some way to reduce traffic on Birch Street. She expressed concern about safety issues. Jay Bruster, 6591 Hokah Drive, stated Apitz Garage had been there a long time and it was in place before the neighborhoods. He stated Apitz Garage was a good neighbor, but that did not mean they should put more businesses in that area He expressed concern about the increase in traffic. He stated there would need to have additional lighting added to the area also and he believed that was counterproductive to what the City wanted. Mr. Smyser stated he had received an e -mail from Mary and Deniel Nissen, 6541 Hokah Drive, who expressed much of the same concerns as had been addressed tonight. Chair Schaps invited applicant to make comment. Mr. Goertz presented to the Board his proposal. He stated on page 2 of the staff report, he had a concern regarding the draft land use plan.; He stated that was not the same as the plan he had seen last fall. With respect to the 150 -foot setback, he stated the concern was lot 26, which was 30 -foot at one point. He stated that had been taken into consideration and it was possible to put a relatively large home on that lot. With respect to the easement along the back of the lot, they were willing to do whatever they had to do. He stated they were in favor of a trail, but he understood the Park Board did not want a trail, but they are willing to give an easement for one if they needed to.' With respect to the Site Plan, he understood they were not required to prepare one right away because, it was very expensive, but they were willing to do a Site Plan in the future. He stated he'believed the townhome development was a plus for the City. He stated there would be less traffic generated with the townhomes, rather than if they added single family homes. Chair Schaps asked if Mr. Goetz eliminated the townhomes, how many single- family homes would there be. Mr. Goertz replied there would be approximately 32 homes, but the existing lots would be changed. • • • • • Planning & Zoning Board April 11, 2001 Page 9 Chair Schaps asked if Mr. Goertz had any problem with adding a trail. Mr. Goertz replied they did not have any problem giving an easement for a future trail. Mr. Zych stated he did not believe it was appropriate to add townhomes into existing single - family homes. He asked why they did not place the townhomes near the lake. Mr. Goertz stated the townhomes were proposed to be placed by the commercial area and not have the single - family homes near the commercial area. Mr. Zych stated it appeared they were going from single- family to townhomes to single - family. He did not see where the commercial area was involved. Mr. Goertz stated that was correct in some areas and it was typical to put townhomes next to single - family homes. Mr. Goertz indicated the townhomes were approximately $250,000.00 homes. Mr. Zych stated the townhomes would be larger than most of the homes in the area. Mr. Goertz stated it would be difficult to match the neighborhood's existing homes. Mr. Zych stated he believed the townhomes would be better served along the lake. Mr. Goertz stated that was not possible because of the density issues. Mr. Lyden stated in his opinion the Board's first duty was to the existing neighborhood and he agreed with many of the concerns brought up tonight by the residents. He stated this needed to be looked at as not whether the market could support the development, but if it was good for the City and the residents. He shared the concerns of the residents regarding the commercial development. He stated he would not support the PDO, the R -2, R -3 homes. He stated if Mr. Goertz wanted to build a neighborhood, build it single- family. Mr. Rafferty stated he appreciated Mr. Goertz' proposal. He stated he was in support of continuing the public hearing, but he did not believe the townhomes were the right answer for this development. Chair Schaps stated they need to know what the comprehensive plan was going to be for the property. He stated he agreed with most of the residential comments. He stated he was in support of townhomes, but unfortunately, the perception of townhomes were not a good perception. He indicated he would like to see single-family homes in the development. He stated he was in support of continuing the public hearing to allow staff additional time to obtain further information. Mr. Corson asked if applicant had any specific plans for the neighborhood business area. Mr. Goertz stated they wanted to keep the convenience store and have neighborhood shops. He stated they were not intending on putting in a gas station type of a building. He stated nothing had been finalized though. Mr. Corson requested if a late night business was proposed, it be put at the end of the building away from the residential areas. Mr. Lyden requested an R -1X criteria, even without a PDO and he would like to see a small area for a park and a trail, even if the Park Board had not agreed with it. Mr. Goertz indicated he would take all of that into consideration. Planning & Zoning Board April 11, 2001 Page 10 Mr. Lyden made a MOTION to continue to public hearing to May 9, 2001 to allow time for additional information to be submitted and reviewed, and was supported by Mr. Rafferty. Motion carried 5 -0. C. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING, Heritage Development, Saddle Club Site, Old Birch Street, Comprehensive Plan Amendment for MUSA, Rezoning, Preliminary Plat. Staff stated the design issues had not been resolved and recommended the public hearing be continued to May 9, 2001. John Hill, Heritage Development, stated they had submitted the new plans on Monday and they would be presented at the May meeting. Mr. Corson made a MOTION to continue to public hearing to May 9, 2001 to allow time for additional information to be submitted and reviewed, and was supported by Mr. Rafferty. Motion carried 5 -0. D. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING, Ryan Companies US, Inc. (Target), Lake Drive. Mr. Smyser stated the design issues had not been resolved and recommended the public hearing be continued to May 9, 2001. They had received the plans this week and this would be presented at the May meeting. He stated Target would still be there, but instead of the smaller sites, this was proposed for a Kohl's store. He indicated he had received positive feedback with the proposed Kohl's store. Mr. Rafferty made a MOTION to continue the public hearing to May 9, 2001, to allow time for additional information to be submitted, and was supported by Mr. Lyden. Motion carried 5 -0. E. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING, Land Hold Group, 12th & Holly, Preliminary Plat. Staff stated the design issues had not been resolved and recommended the public hearing be continued to May 9, 2001. Mr. Rafferty made a MOTION to continue the public hearing to May 9, 2001, to allow time for additional information to be submitted, and was supported by Mr. Corson. Motion carried 5 -0. F. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING, Tree Preservation Ordinance. Staff stated at the February meeting, the discussion and public hearing was continued to the April meeting. It was discovered that the unresolved issues for a new tree preservation Ordinance would require significant time and effort. Staff could not predict when they will be able to address the issues. Therefore, staff recommended closing the public hearing. Mr. Lyden asked why the public hearing was being closed. Mr. Schaps replied it was not ready to go forward and this would be brought forward again at a future date and a public hearing would be held at that time. • • • Planning & Zoning Board April 11, 2001 Page 11 Mr. Corson made a MOTION to close the public hearing, and was supported by Mr. Lyden. Motion carried 5 -0. G. Comprehensive Plan: Recommendation for City Council. Mr. Lyden stated there were a number of items he personally needed to look at to make a rational decision and requested they obtain information from all of the Boards, which they had not been able to do. He suggested receiving the information he needed by next week and having a special meeting regarding this Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Smyser stated the process would be to have a public hearing in the future, but right now the City Council was asking for comments from the P &Z Board at this time. The Council had requested to receive comments by the end of this week. The Board continued this discussion to Thursday, April 19, 2001 at 7:00 p.m. VI. DISCUSSION ITEMS A. Mini Storage, Al Robinson, Tabled from March 13, 2001 Meeting • Staff stated their research indicated that industrially -zoned land was most suitable for mini - storage. Land that was zoned for commercial uses was a possibility, but this land would be better suited for higher value uses. Mini - storage was no usually allowed in agricultural or rural residential zoning districts. The rational behind this was as follows: 1. The purpose of the rural districts was to preserve agricultural land and provide some residential use at rural densities. Mini - storage was no consistent with that purpose. 2. The rural districts cover a very large geographic area Therefore, allowing mini - storage in rural districts would have a far- reaching impact on the City and contained the potential for many land use conflicts. 3. If mini - storage was built, it could interfere with future land use planning in areas that were not specifically earmarked for commercial or industrial growth. In light of the previous discussion, it would appear that mini - storage was most suitable in industrial districts and potentially the R -BR district. In Lino Lakes, the R -BR, Rural- Business Reserve District, was a district that could potentially contain mini - storage as an interim use until the land was rezoned, or the mini - storage could remain if the land was rezoned to an industrial district. A disadvantage of allowing mini - storage in the R -BR District was the possibility that it could hinder the extension of utilities in the future. Issues to be considered for mini- storage included green space, landscaping, building coverage, paving, security systems, and building appearance. Building appearance may include regulation of exterior building materials and requiring that the garage doors be oriented to the interior of the property. Requiring a high - quality appearance would go a long way toward improving the value of theproperty. Performance standards should not be compromised. The City had few to no existing mini - storage uses and now was the time to set a high - quality standard that could be maintained in the future. • The Board stated they wanted to wait until Mr. Robinson was present to discuss this further. Planning & Zoning Board April 11, 2001 Page 12 VII. ADJOURNMENT Mr. Lyden made a MOTION to adjourn the meeting at 8:23 p.m., and was supported by Mr. Rafferty. Motion carried 5 -0. Respectfully submitted, Kathleen Altman, Recording Secretary TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. • •