Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/11/2001 P&Z Minutes• • Planning & Zoning Board July 11, 2001 Page 1 CITY OF LINO LAKES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MINUTES DATE TIME STARTED TIME ENDED MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT STAFF PRESENT : July 11, 2001 . 6:32 P.M. : 10:24 P.M. : Corson, Lane, Lyden, Rafferty, Schaps, and Zych : None : City Planner Smyser; City Engineer Powell; Economic Development Director Brian Wessel (part); Community Development Director Michael Grochala (part) I. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL Chair Schaps called the Lino Lakes Planning and Zoning Board meeting to order at 6:32 p.m., July 11, 2001. II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Chair Schaps requested additions or deletions to this evening's agenda. Hearing none, the agenda was approved as submitted., ' III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. CORRECTION OF APRIL 11, 2001 APPROVED MINUTES Mr. Smyser noted on the first page of the April 11, 2001 minutes, Mr. Schilling was shown as present, however, at that time he was no longer a member of the Planning and Zoning Board Additionally, Mr. Rafferty was not listed as present but was present that evening. Mr. Corson made a`MOTION to approve the minutes of the April 11, 2001, meeting of the Lino Lakes Planning and Zoning Board, as corrected above and was supported by Ms. Lane. Motion carried 5 -0. B. JUNE 13, 2001 Mr. Rafferty noted on page 11, fourth paragraph from the bottom, the name "Lee Farmer" should be corrected to "Leaf Palmer." Planning & Zoning Board July 11, 2001 Page 2 Mr. Rafferty asked that it be verified whether he had voted in favor of the motion on page four that was made by Mr. Corson and supported by Mr. Lyden. Ms. Lane made a MOTION to approve the minutes of the June 13, 2001, meeting of the Lino Lakes Planning and Zoning Board, as corrected, and was supported by Mr. Corson. Motion carried 5 -0. IV. INTRODUCE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR The Community Development Director was not yet in attendance and Chair Schaps moved the meeting on to the next agenda item. IV. OPEN MIKE Chair Schaps declared Open Mike open at 6:40 p.m. No one was present for Open Mike. Mr. Lyden made a MOTION to close Open Mike at 6:41 p.m., and was supported by Mr. Corson. Motion carried 5 -0. V. ACTION ITEMS A. Sai S. Lee, 8075 20th Avenue N., Variance Staff presented the application by Sai S. Lee for a variance from the prohibition on building an accessory building closer to the front lot line than the principal building. Staff noted its report is based on a 1999 Certificate of Survey of the property by E. G. Rud & Sons, Inc. and a hand drawing showing the approximate location of the proposed accessory building. Both were receive on June 6, 2001. Staff advised that the City's zoning ordinance states that "No detached accessory structure shall be closer to the front lot line than the principal building or its attached garage," (Section 3 Subd. ;4D.1.c.).` Staff presented its analysis of Mr. Lee's request to build an accessory building near the existing house but closer to the road than the house. The existing house is in the south central part of the property. The septic system is to the southwest, behind the house. The aerial photo indicates` a low - lying, wet area to the north of the house and another, larger wet area to the east: A large area of the western part of the property is in a drainage easement. A larger portion of the western part of the lot is covered by a right of way easement for the electric transmission lines. The transmission easement is 200 feet wide. Staff noted that there may be upland available to build the storage building behind the house. However, creating a driveway to get to it would require impacting the wet areas • • • • Planning & Zoning Board July 11, 2001 Page 3 to the north and east of the house. The drainfield prevents a driveway running on the south of the house. These physical constraints limit the location where a structure could be built. Staff presented the findings that must be addressed in considering all requests for variance and in taking subsequent action. It was noted that the City shall make a finding of fact: 1. That the property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls. 2. That the plight of the landowners is due to physical circumstances unique to his property not created by the land owner. 3. That the hardship is not due to economic considerations alone and when a reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the ordinance. 4. That granting the variance requested will not confer on the applicant any special privilege that would be denied by this ordinance to other lands, structures, or buildings in the same district. 5. That the proposed actions will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance. Staff advsied that the low- lying, wet area to the north of the house limits the location of a driveway to serve the area behind the house where there might be upland to build a storage building on The area behind the house is also limited by the transmission line easement, even if a driveway could be built to serve it. Staff recommended approving the variance application with the following condition: 1. A building permit must be obtained, which will require that the building meets the size and other requirements of the zoniniordinance and building code. 4. T. Chair Schaps asked if staff has been in contact with the adjoining property owners. Mr. Smyser stated staff has not been in Contact with the adjourning property owners and he was not certain whether the applicant has been in contact with them regarding this application. Mr. Lyden asked if there were details regarding the size, etc. of the proposed building. Mr. Smyser stated because this was an application for a variance, not a building permit, specific details regarding the building were not requested. He indicated if the variance is approved, then the applicant will be required to apply for a building permit at which time staff will ensure that the building meets all code requirements. He noted because the property is quite large, the applicant would not be limited to a small structure. Mr. Lyden asked for the size of the parcel. Mr. Smyser stated the parcel is 1,053 feet long by approximately 500 feet wide. Chair Schaps asked the applicant if he would like to make comment. Planning & Zoning Board July 11, 2001 Page 4 Sai S. Lee, 8075 20th Avenue North, applicant, stated he intended to construct a small garage, 20 feet wide by 20 feet long. Mr. Lyden asked Mr. Lee if he has discussed this variance application with his neighbor to the south. Mr. Lee stated he has not discussed this application with his neighbor to the south because there are currently no structures near his southern property line. Mr. Lyden questioned how close the nearest structure is to Mr. Lee's southern property line. Mr. Lee estimated that the nearest structure is 1,000 feet from his southern property line. Mr. Corson made a MOTION to approve the application by Sai S. Lee, 8075 20th Avenue N., for a variance from the prohibition on building an accessory building closer to the front lot line than the principal building, based on the facts of findlings for variances listed in the staff report dated July 11, 2001, with the following condition: 1. A building permit must be obtained, which will require that the building meets the size and other requirements of the zoning ordinance and building code. The motion was supported by Mr. Rafferty. Motion carried 5-0. B. Geri Ramsay, 1168 Ruffed Grouse Court, Variance Staff presented the variance application by Geri Ramsay to allow a pool that does not meet the required 30' setback from the right of way of Ruffed Grouse Road. The Ramsays also want a six -foot fence around the pool. Staff noted that the City's zoning ordinance states that a fence can only be four feet high when it would be along the neighbor's front yard. This is the reason for the second variance request. Staff advised that its report is based on the May 7, 2001 building permit application for the pool, which shows the approximate location of the pool drawn by hand on a 3/29/94 Surveyors Certificate of the property by Hy -Land Surveying. Staff presented its analysis of the request and advised that the Ramsays had applied for a permit in May to build an above- ground pool. The first proposal was to put the pool in the middle of the back yard.; However, this was not allowed because the yard slopes to a "V" in the middle and drains through the middle of the yard. A pool in the originally proposed location would block drainage and water would back up to the house. The Ramsays then proposed to put the pool over on one side of the yard. This was an appropriate location for drainage purposes. It was noted that engineering and building inspections approved the permit and the Ramsays built the pool. The pool is approximately 20 feet from the right of way. Belatedly, inspections staff recognized that the pool didn't meet the required setback from a road, which is 30 feet for all structures. (Pool shall not be located within any • • • Planning & Zoning Board July 11, 2001 Page 5 • required front or side yard setback. Sec. 3 Subd. 4.D.3.3.) Staff is processing this variance at no charge to the Ramsays because of the oversight. • Staff advised that the second variance involves a proposed fence around the back yard and pool. The Ramsay's lot fronts on Ruffed Grouse Court. Their rear lot line is the side lot line of their neighbors' house, which fronts on Ruffed Grouse Road. The zoning ordinance addresses fences in such a situation, which is common with corner lots: Should the rear lot line of a lot be common with the side lot line of an abutting lot, that portion of the rear lot line equate to the required front yard of the abutting lot shall not be fenced to a height of more than four (4) feet. (Section 3 Subd. 4.T.b.) Staff noted that the ordinance is verbally clumsy: substitute "equal" for "equate ". In addition, our interpretation has always been that the intent is: "that portion of the rear yard equal to the required front yard of the abutting lot shall not be fenced to height more than four feet." The intent is to prevent a front yard from being closed in by a neighbor's six -foot fence along that neighbor's back and side yards. It is instructive that a later passage states: Fences in residential districts may be located in any yard to a height of four (4) feet, except that a fence up to six (6) feet in height may be erected from the front facade of the principal building to the side and/or rear lot line. (Section 3 Subd. 4.T.4.) Staff suggested that clearly the intent is to keep front yards visually open, free from six - foot fences. The fence along the side lot lines can go, up to six feet beginning at the building front and going back from there— except when the lot abuts another where the taller fence would fence in the abutting lot's front yard. Staff advised that the ordinance regarding pools requires only a four -foot fence if a fence is the safeguard to prevent children from gaining uncontrolled access. In fact, because the ladder to the pool can beretracted, the ordinance does not actually require a fence. The Ramsays are concerned about children climbing a four -foot fence and gaining unsupervised access to the pool. Staff was unable to contact the neighbors on the abutting lot due to their phone number being unlisted. Staff explained that the Ramsays have said they are amenable to constructing the six -foot fence as far back from the road as possible while still enclosing the pool. Staff presented the findings that must be addressed in considering all requests for variance and in taking subsequent action, the City shall make a finding of fact: • 1. That the property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls. Planning & Zoning Board July 11, 2001 Page 6 2. That the plight of the landowners is due to physical circumstances unique to his property not created by the land owner. 3. That the hardship is not due to economic considerations alone and when a reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the ordinance. 4. That granting the variance requested will not confer on the applicant any special privilege that would be denied by this ordinance to other lands, structures, or buildings in the same district. 5. That the proposed actions will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance. In consideration of this application, staff suggested the following: • The grading of the lot created a physical constraint on the location of the pool. Based on City approval of a building permit for the pool, the home owners built the pool in a location that does not meet the required setback. Staff supports the setback variance. • The variance for the taller fence is less supportable. It is not clear that a four -foot fence would provide an inadequate security safeguard. Under the ordinance, four feet is enough. The ordinance clearly intends to prevent a tall fence around a back or side yard from closing in the front yard of a neighbor's abutting lot. Staff pointed out that corner lots have inherent constraints which should be recognized by the owner. While the grading of a lot may be out of a prospective buyer's control, the use of the lot once the house is constructed must recognize the physical surroundings as well as the internal aspects of the lot. A rear yard abutting a neighboring front yard must be considered when planning the use of the lot, Staff recommended that the Planning Commission approve the setback variance based on physical constraint described in the report and deny the variance for the taller fence in the area equal to the front yard of the abutting lot. Chair Schaps asked if the adjacent neighbors have commented on this request. Mr. Smyser suggested that the neighbors be given an opporutniyt to speak for themselves. Chair Schaps noted the issues regarding a variance for the pool and a variance for a fence were sepearate. Mr. Corson requested an explanation about why the pool had been constructed in its current lccation. He acknowledged that the rear yard contains a drainage easement and asked whether it would be posible to direct the drainage around the pool. Mr. Powell stated in the center of the rear yard the applicant has custom landscaping in a "V" shape. He stated if the pool had been constructed in the middle of this area it would back up the drainage toward the house. • • • • Planning & Zoning Board July 11, 2001 Page 7 Chair Schap asked if the pool is above or below ground. Mr. Smyser stated the pool is a four feet deep above ground pool with a removable ladder. Because there is a removable ladder the applicant is not required to construct a fence around the pool. However, if the pool did not include a removable ladder, City ordinance would require a four -foot high fence. Mr. Zych requested the location of the adjacent neighbor's driveway and questioned whether a six -foot high fence as requested would create sight line issues from the driveway. Mr. Smyser showed the location of the adjancent neighbor's house, garage and driveway. He stated that at this time an application for the construction of a fence has not been submitted, therefore, he believed the exact location of the fence was flexible. Ms. Lane questioned why the pool was not proposed to be constructed in the opposite corner of the lot. Mr. Smyser was not certain and noted that the pool has already been cosntructed. Chair Schaps asked the applicant if she would like to make comment. Geri Ramsay, 1168 Ruffed Grouse Court, applicant, stated when she first applied for a permit to construct the pool she had not been provided with specific guidelines on setbacks and, because she was granted the permit, she had assumed that the pool met all code requirements. Ms. Ramsay stated that because of the drainage of the lot there had been limited locations for the pool. However, she was not certain why her husband had chosen the specific site Chair Schaps asked Ms. Ramsay if she was aware of any neighborhood concerns regarding the pool. Ms. Ramsay stated she was not aware of any concerns. She indicated that many of her neighbors hope that a six -foot high fence will be constructed since there are approximately 72 small children in this development. She stated because Ruffed Grouse Court is not a through street, the local children play freely in the neighborhood and she did not feel that a four -foot high fence was sensible to prevent children from climbing the fence and gaining access to the pool. Ms. Ramsay stated she has children involved in sports which requires her to be gone from her home a great deal in the early evenings. She expressed concern for the safety of the children and her liability if a six -foot high fence is not allowed. She stated that she was willing to construct the fence as far as 22 feet from the roadway in order to eliminate concerns about visibility for her adjacent neighbor. Chair Schaps asked Ms. Ramsay if she had investigated the limitations of a fence when she had been considering the construction of her pool. Ms. Ramsay stated she had not. She indicated that she recently moved to Minnesota from the East Coast where six -foot high fences are the law. Therefore, she had assumed that this would be the same requirement in Lino Lakes. Planning & Zoning Board July 11, 2001 Page 8 Chair Schaps asked if there were insurance issues requiring a six -foot high fence, or if a six -foot high fence was simply a desire. Ms. Ramsay stated she wished to construct a six -foot high fence for the safety of the children in her neighborhood, but her homeowner's insurance did not require a fence of this height. She simply did not want something tragic to happen to a neighborhood child. Chair Schaps asked Ms. Ramsay if any of her adjacent neighbors were opposed to a six - foot high fence. Ms. Ramsay was not certain. She stated she would be willing to obtain signatures from her neighbors in support of the fence and noted her neighbors across the street want the fence to be constructed. Chair Schaps asked if there was currently a fence in the proposed location. Ms. Ramsay stated she currently has a split rail fence. Mr. Corson noted many communities allow a 20 -foot setback for corner lots and asked if the City of Lino Lakes has looked into this. Mr. Smyser stated that the current ordinance had been adopted in 1997 and he jointed the City in 1998 and was therefore unaware of the discussions that took place regarding setbacks. Mr. Brixius stated the City had not considered reducing the setback requirements because it was felt that the side of a property abutting a public street would be considered a front yard. Mr. Lyden acknowledged that a mistake had occurred in approving the location of the pool. He asked, if Ms. Ramsay was required to move the pool because the City had provided her with bad information, would the City be responsible for the cost to relocate the pool. Mr. Smyser stated it was his understanding that because the City approved the building permit, the applicant has the right to leave the pool in its current location. He did not believe the City would have the right to rescind the building permit and require the pool to be moved. Mr. Lyden asked why a variance was being requested for a pool that has already been constructed. He also asked if the location of the pool would devalue the adjacent property and whether the City would be responsible for this devaluation. Chair Schaps stated the requested variance was simply a matter of formalities since the pool was allowed to be constructed less than the setback requirement. He stated he was not certain whether the location of the pool would devalue the adjacent property. Mr. Smyser indicated that the adjacent property owner was in attendance this evening. Chair Schaps invited the applicant's adjacent property owner to make comment. Bob Ranallo, 6643 Ruffed Grouse Court, stated he has lived at this address since January • • • Planning & Zoning Board July 11, 2001 Page 9 1994. He stated he had been informed that the issue to be discussed this evening was regarding a variance for the height of a fence, not the location of the pool. Mr. Ranallo stated when the pool was under construction he had contacted the Building Inspector and had been informed that the pool had originally been approved to be located in the middle of the rear lot. He stated he had requested confirmation that the location in the northeast corner of the lot had been approved but he had not received a response from the City. He stated he was opposed to the current location of the pool. Mr. Ranallo stated in speaking with three different appraisers he was informed that an above ground pool located adjacent to his front yard does devalue his property. Mr. Ranallo noted Ms. Ramsay currently has a nice split rail fence located 10 feet from the street. He stated if a six -foot fence is constructed in that same location it will obstruct his view down the street. He noted Ms. Ramsay had offered to construct the fence with a 22 -foot setback and he did not see how this would be possible since the pool is currently located 20 feet from the right -of -way line. Chair Schaps asked if there are currently any other pools in the immediate area. Mr. Ranallo stated there are not Chair Schaps asked Mr. Ranallo if he had discussed his concerns with the applicant. Mr. Ranallo stated he has not Chair Schaps asked Mr. Ranallo if he would not be opposed to the location of the pool had it not required a variance. Mr. Ranallo stated that he would not have opposed the originally planned location of the pool. Chair Schaps asked Mr. Ranallo if he acknowledged his neighbor's right to have a pool. Mr. Ranallo responded affirmatively. Chair Schaps asked Mr. Ranallo if he understood that the applicant could construct a four -foot high fence. Mr. Ranallo responded affirmatively. Mr. Corson requested the location of the existing fence. Mr. Smyser stated the existing fence is located on the eastern property line and runs around the corner approximately 10 feet from the street.. Mr. Corson requested confirmation that a four -foot high fence could be constructed up to the 30 -foot setback line and could then be increased to a six -foot high fence. Mr. Smyser stated this was correct. Chair Schaps stated that, through no fault of Ms. Ramsay, the pool had been constructed in the wrong location. He stated Mr. Ranallo had some valid issues and he felt that no matter how tall a fence is, children could climb over it. Planning & Zoning Board July 11, 2001 Page 10 Chair Schaps felt the City Council and City Attorney should be made aware of this situation and perhaps an investigation should be done to determine how much it would cost to relocate the pool to eliminate the need for a variance. He did not feel that the applicant should be responsible for paying the cost to relocate the pool. He noted that even if a suitable location is found, there may still be an issue with the applicant wanting a six -foot high fence. He stated he wished to encourage the neighbors to get along and he felt in order to rectify a problem that should not have happened, it would be worth while investigating the option of relocating the pool. Chair Schaps asked Ms. Ramsay if she was willing to continue this request for a period of time in order to find out from her contractor whether it would be possible to relocate the pool. Ms. Ramsay stated that this would be acceptable providing she would not have to pay for the relocation of the pool. Chair Schaps asked Mr. Ranallo if he would agree to this option. Mr. Ranallo responded affirmatively. Ms. Ramsay noted with the current layout of the houses in her neighborhood, her pool would still be visible even if moved. Chair Schaps stated the visibility of the pool was not the issue, rather the issue was locating the pool where a setback variance would not be needed. Ms. Ramsay questioned why eight -foot tall evergreen trees would be allowed for screening but a six -foot tall fence is prohibited. Chair Schaps was not certain. Mr. Rafferty suggested that a wrought iron fence could be constructed in order to allow visibility through the fence. He recommended that the applicant work with her neighbor to come to an agreement on the fencing. He acknowledged that a wrought iron fence may be more costly, but he felt it may be worth the extra cost to maintain good relations between the neighbors. Mr. Corson made a MOTION to table the request for a setback variance by Geri Ramsay, 1168 Ruffed Grouse Court, in order to allow an investigation to be done to determine whether the City could pay for the relocation of the pool to an appropriate location in the rear yard in order to avoid the need for a setback variance, incorporating the comments made this evening by the Planning and Zoning Board, staff, the applicant, and the adjacent property owner, and was supported by Mr. Lyden. Motion carried 5 -0. Chair Schaps requested that this issue be added to the August Planning and Zoning Board meeting agenda. All Board Members agreed. Mr. Smyser stated per State Law, Ms. Ramsay will be receiving a letter from the City indicating that because the City is required to take action within a certain amount of time, the review period will automatically be extended for 60 days. He stated staff will attempt to resolve the issue sooner than the 60 -day extension deadline. • • • Planning & Zoning Board July 11, 2001 Page 11 • Mr. Smyser stated staff does not hold the applicant responsible for the error in the setback and he expressed his appreciation to Ms. Ramsay for being so accommodating. • Ms. Ramsay noted she currently has $400 worth of landscaping in her rear yard. Chair Schaps suggested that Ms. Ramsay discuss this issue with her contractor. IV. INTRODUCE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR Mr. Smyser introduced Michael Grochala, the City's new Community Development Director. Mr. Grochala stated he is very happy and excited to be working for the City of Lino Lakes. Chair Schaps asked Mr. Grochala where he was working prior to accepting this new position. Mr. Grochala stated he previously held the position of Community Development Director for the City of Cambridge. Chair Schaps welcomed Mr. Grochala to the City of Lino Lakes. C. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING, Ryan Companies US, Inc. (Target), Lake Drive i. Rezone to PDO ii. Site and Building Plan Review iii. Preliminary Plat Chair Schaps reopened the public hearing at 7:37 p.m. Mr. Grochala advised that revised plans were received on Friday, June 29, 2001. A review of the plans, based upon the issues and concerns that were raised in the June 7, 2001 report to the Planning and Zoning Board, as well as the memo dated June 18, 2001, has been completed. He presented staffs analysis of their review of the revised plans with the earlier comments as an outline and with the earlier reports presented to the Board. Mr. Grochala noted on page four of the letter from TKDA, under paragraph seven, the date in the last sentance should be changed to July 25, 2001. With regard to the completion of the EAW process, Mr. Grochala advised that this is underway but will not be completed prior to Planning and Zoning Board review. The EAW comment period ends on July 11, 2001. Staff will be addressing those comments and forwarding the EAW to the Environmental Board for review on July 18, 2001. • Mr. Grochala stated the wetland fill and mitigation plans have not yet been approved by Rice Creek. They are in the process of addressing remaining issues related to wetland Planning & Zoning Board July 11, 2001 Page 12 mitigation. Mr. Grochala advised that the overall internal circulation pattern has been improved. However, the secondary access into the site, located between Apollo Drive and 77th Street, and first intersection internal to the site is wide, off -set, and at an odd angle. Based on the users identified, this will be a high traffic location. The entrance and intersection should be redesigned to eliminate the offset and angle to improve site circulation and reduce vehicle conflicts and confusion. Chair Schaps asked what the speed limit will be on the internal streets. Mr. Grochala stated the speed limit will be set at 15 miles per hour for the Apollo Drive Extension. Mr. Grochala indicated a desire to reduce the number of drive aisle conflicts within the access drives. The Kohl's parking has been modified so that each drive aisle is forced out to the main drive. Staff is recommending that only two access points to the extension of Apollo Drive from the Kohl's parking lot be allowed. At a minimum the easternmost and westernmost drive aisles shall be eliminated due to their proximity to the adjacent intersections. Mr. Grochala explained that, generally, the number of parking stalls is adequate based on the ordinance. The Kohl's lot is designed with their standards, which is a 9.5 foot wide stall with 20 foot deep parking spaces and 25 foot drive aisles. Any parking lost to the limitation of access to Apollo Drive could be partially replaced by reducing the stall width to the standard 9 feet. The balance of the site has stalls 9 feet by 19 feet, with 25 foot two -way drive aisles. The main drive areas are 30, feet in width. Mr. Grochala noted that the handicap parking on the Kohl's lot needs to be shifted southerly to allow for a landscaped island at the end of the parking rows. The proposed layout forces handicap unloading to take place immediately adjacent to the main drive in front of Kohl's. Staff has requested that the remnant parcel located between Apollo Drive and Lots 3 and 4 of the development be integrated into the proposed development. At a minimum a cross access and ingress /egress easement should be provided for this parcel. Mr. Grochala reported that the traffic analysis has been completed for improvements the City anticipates. Because Lake Drive is a County road, the County ultimately has to approve access and schedule improvements. Dedication of access control to Anoka County should be shown on the plat along Lots 1, 2, 3, and Outlot C adjacent to Lake Drive. The opening width for the secondary access will need to be determined by Anoka County. Mr. Grochala pointed out that screening is proposed to consist of landscaping materials. There is not adequate space to provide a berm in the area behind the stores. While the landscape materials will provide visual relief, it will not screen the site or drive aisles. We believe the critical points of screening are where vehicles will be directing headlights • • • • Planning & Zoning Board July 11, 2001 Page 13 towards the adjacent residential uses primarily in the northeast and northwest corners of the Target Parcel. Landscaping treatment within these areas should provide year round screening from adjacent residential areas. Coniferous plantings other than the White Pine currently shown and/or fencing should be applied to these areas. Mr. Grochala noted that lighting details have been provided. The applicant is proposing to use a decorative fixture similar to City campus lighting. The layout and spacing of the fixtures does not provide the effect intended. Staff recommends that decorative lighting fixtures be spaced at 75 to 100 foot intervals and staggered on opposite sides of each main drive aisle and along the fronts of buildings. The parking lot fixtures are shoe box style with downcast lighting which is desirable to control spill -over lighting. Lighting levels meet the ordinance, except along the rear of Kohl's. The ordinance requires 0.4 foot candles at the property line where adjacent to residential. This lighting level will need to be reduced. Mr. Grochala noted the City Engineer's comments in a letter dated July 6, 2001 and he asked that the City Enigneer address those comments. Mr. Powell stated the majority of the Egineering comments related to the details of the draiange plan, storm sewer computations and erosion control. He stated the grading plan includes the proposed storm sewer. To aid the City with this review, additional information must be provided for the storm sewer, including the size, length, and slope of the pipe. Additionally, included in the storm calcualtions that were received in the previous sumbittal was the use of a broad crested weir. The location of the weir is still not shown on the grading plan. Mr. Powell noted to date the Rice Creek Watershed District has tabled the review of this project. They have not granted a TWAAFA nor have the approved the wetland replacement. He indicated that included in the agenda packet was a copy of the fax from the Rice Creek Watershed District, which lists in detail the informaiton that is missing. Mr. Powell stated a detailed transportation impact study was completed by Steve Elmer of TKDA for this project. At the request of the developer, a second signalized intersection was included in the study as an option. The Anoka County Highway Department has stated that they will not permit a second signalized intersection for this site The second intersection must be a right -in right -out situation. The developer has stated that the second signalized intersection is absolutely necessary for this site and this matter still needs to be resolved. Mr. Powell stated copies of the approvals from the necessary review and regulatory agencies, including the Rice Creek Watershed District, Minnesota Department of Transportation, and Anoka County Highway Department, must be submitted. Mr. Powell stated TKDA has reviewed these plans a number of times and did not anticipate any additional changes. Planning & Zoning Board July 11, 2001 Page 14 Mr. Grochala explained that signage has been addressed in the project narrative and sign submittal for the monument signs. The Sign Ordinance does not specifically address a development such as this, which is designed as a multiple tenant site, but all of the buildings are detached. The Sign Ordinance speaks to single tenant buildings and multiple tenant buildings. Under the ordinance, each lot or building would be allowed one wall sign and one freestanding or pylon sign. Mr. Grochala noted that instead of having multiple freestanding or pylon signs, the applicant is proposing to limit freestanding signs to two adjacent to the freeway; one at Apollo Drive; two at the second entrance; and one off of Apollo Drive. The sign faces of the freestanding signs are within the area allowed by ordinance and the height requested is consistent with the ordinance. Staff is concerned about the size of the non -sign portion of the monuments and the height of signs along Lake Drive. The structures are 18 feet in length and are proposed at the access which could cause sight — distance concerns. Staff recommends that free - standing signs be allowed as follows: A. Freestanding signage along I -35 be limited to one Joint Identification Sign. B. One Joint Identification sign be allowed along Lake Drive with a maximum height of 20 feet. C. Three individual user signs in the locations shown with a maximum structure and sign size of 9' in width and 12' in height. Mr. Grochala presented a revised colored drawing of the proposed signage showing the requested reduction in sizes. He stated the changes were consistent with the above requirements, however, staff has not received a response from the developer regarding the limitation of only one Joint Identification Sign along I -35W. Mr. Lyden asked if the highway sign for Target would be lit. Mr. Grochala responded affirmatively. Mr. Lyden stated the flat top of the proposed highway sign was uninspiring. He suggested that an arch be added to the top of the sign including the Lino Lakes City logo. Mr. Grochala stated this could be considered. Mr. Grochala stated on the smaller retail buildings, wall signs will be individually internally lit letters, 36 inches in height, and located within a stucco sign band. The building elevations indicate signs on both front and back of the buildings. Signage on the rear of buildings shall be limited to a uniform low profile identity sign. The sign face shall have a maximum dimension of 2' x 8'. In considering the good of the City, Mr. Lyden questioned the inclusion of a convenience store with gas pumps and a bank in this PDO when both services are already located nearby. He expressed concern that the PDO did not include any sit down restaraunts or • • • • Planning & Zoning Board July 11, 2001 Page 15 other services needed by the residents of the City. He did not feel that the services being proposed would be a positive asset to the city. Mr. Lyden asked for the status of the remnant parcel. Mr. Grochala stated a condemnation process to acquire the land is currently being considered. He stated the City Council reviewed the feasiblity of this process at thier July meeting but did not want to invest money in the acquisition of the property until the proposed PDO is moving toward a point of approval. Mr. Grochala noted the proposed uses are permitted in this Zoning District. He noted there are other options available within the list of permitted uses and suggested the applicant be asked what potential uses they anticipated for the other buildings. Mr. Grochala noted that building design guidelines have been included in the project narrative. These requirements should be incorporated into the development agreement and/or declaration of covenants for the property. The building materials have not changed. They intend to use a common theme and common materials throughout the development. No additional treatment has been added to the rear The architectural design of Kohl's, Target and Buildings A, C, and D have been submitted and included for approval as part of the PDO. The Convenience Store (Lot 1), Fast Food (Lot 2), Bank (Lot 8), and Buildings B and E shall require Site Plan Review approval in accordance with Section 2, Subd. 5 of the Lino Lakes Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Grochala invited Mr. Wessel to address the building design and materials. Mr. Wessel stated the City Council had, made it clear early in the process that with this project they wanted a significant amount of quality materials to be used to allow continuity with the Town Center. He indicated there has been negotiations occurring regarding the building materials and design and he felt significant progress has been made. He invited Bill Wittrock, representing RSP Architects, to present the proposed building elevations. Mr. Wittrock stated the Board had previously reviewed colored elevations and material samples for the Target Store, in -line stores and the stand alone buildings and black and white elevations of the Kohl's - building. Since that time a written narrative of the out buildings and the overall development has been created. Mr. Wittrock stated the proposed architecture for this development will follow the Town Center guidelines. He stated the buildings would be composed of a base, middle and top with similar materials and details being used through out the project. Mr. Wittrock presented colored elevations of the in -line stores (Buildings C and D) which showed a colonial style design including gabled ends and a metal roof. He indicated the buildings would be predominately brick with stucco sign bands at the top and a burnished concrete block being used for the base. He stated the store fronts would utilize a great Planning & Zoning Board July 11, 2001 Page 16 deal of glass to make them inviting. Mr. Wittrock presented colored elevations of the Target Store and noted that the building would include a good quantity of the specified building materials. Mr. Wittrock noted at last month's Board meeting the Board had questions regarding the appearance of the Kohl's building and at that time only black and white elevations were available. He stated KKE Architects had been invited to attend this evening's meeting to present colored elevations of the Kohl's building. Don Kerwick, KKE Architects, presented colored elevations of the proposed Kohl's building. He stated the intent of the prototype Kohl's building was for a department store image. He stated the Kohl's building would follow the guidelines of a base, middle and top. He stated Kohl's prefers a conservative image and chooses to use all brick on the front of their buildings. He stated all the brick materials are the same brick used throughout the development to fit within the center. Mr. Kerwick presented a sample board of the materials to be used on the Kohl's building. He stated the entryway would be articulated with a cover to give a timeless look. He noted the proposed landscaping plan which included a large planting bed across the entire front of the building and a raised planting bed that customers could sit on Mr. Kerwick presented elevations of the rear and sides of the building. He indicated split face rock would be used and painted the same color as the bricks. He stated the rear and sides would not include accent stripes. He stated all roof top units would be screened and all outside equipment and bollards would be painted to match the building. Mr. Wittrock indicated the two major buildings within this development had made significant concessions from their prototypes in order to comply with the requirements of the City. He noted during last month's meeting the Board had discussed certain elements that were not shown on the Kohl's building, such as gabled end forms, and it was felt that this would not be appropriate for this type of building due to the scale and proportions. He felt Kohl's had made significant concessions and would set the tone for all the other buildings within the development. Mr. Lyden asked how the side wall lighting on the Target store would shine. Mr. Wittrock stated the lights would be down cast the same as the pole mounted lights. Mr. Lyden felt that decorative lighting adds interest to a building and questioned whether this same lighting could be included on the Kohl's building. Mr. Wittrock stated the decorative lighting on the Target Store had not been included on the Kohl's building. He stated the development has a desire to allow the retailer to maintain their franchise image and he was not certain the lighting would fit with Kohl's conservative image. Mr. Kerwick stated Kohl's lights their buildings very much like a department store would. He stated the entryway would include soffit lighting, which are the strongest lit • • • Planning & Zoning Board July 11, 2001 Page 17 • element of the building. He stated ground lighting would be included in the planting beds, which would wash the face of the building. • • Mr. Lyden noted the intent of this development was to create a sense of a special place and he felt part of this image was the lighting. He was concerned that the Kohl's building would appear out of place. Mr. Wittrock stated the Kohl's building would use the pole mounted lights being used throughout the development to blend with the rest of the development. Mr. Rafferty questioned whether the roof line over the entries of the Kohl's store could be raised to make the appearance of the entries more interesting. Mr. Kerwick stated he would not be comfortable with this change. He stated the entries would be highlighted by stepping out the stucco forms so there would not be a flat facade. He was concerned that raising the roof line as proposed would dwarf the entryways and appear messy. He stated in other developments Kohl's had been required to make this adjustment and he felt a raised roof line did not look good and he did not feel anything would be gained by making such an adjustment. Mr. Grochala advised that the plans have been revised to incorporate pedestrian linkages between the smaller shops and Target/Kohls. The sidewalk has been extended in the northwest corner of the Target site to link the site with the northern residential area A bituminous trail will be provided adjacent to Lake Drive in conjunction with future improvements. The developer will be responsible for the cost of the segment adjacent to this property. Mr. Grochala recommended that modifications to the plan should include: 1. A concrete pavement treatment for crosswalks on major drive lanes. 2. Extension of sidewalk on Lot 8 (Bank) to the southerly property line (Apollo Drive). Mr. Grochala pointed out that the revised plans have addressed the majority of issues previously identified. The remaining concerns can generally be addressed through design changes. Staff is recommending approval of the PDO and preliminary plat subject to the following conditions: No formal approval of the application shall be in effect until the EAW process is complete. No formal approval of the application shall be in effect until Rice Creek Watershed District has completed their review and issued appropriate permits for the development. Mr. Grochala indicated the next City Council meeting will be held on July 23, 2001 but the Rice Creek Watershed meeting will be held on July 25, 2001. He indicated the development could be approved by the City Council conditioned on the recommendations Planning & Zoning Board July 11, 2001 Page 18 of the Rice Creek Watershed District, however, if significant changes are required of the site plan, then final approval would not be granted in August and the project would be brought back to the Board to begin the review process over. 3. All required on and off-site improvements shall be subject to the review and approval of the City Engineer and County Engineer, as appropriate. 4. Landscaping treatments along residentially zoned property shall provide for year round screening. Suitable coniferous plantings and/or fencing shall be applied in these areas to minimize the impact of vehicular lighting from said properties. 5. The lighting plan shall be modified to provide decorative lighting at 75 to 100 feet spacing staggered along the primary drive aisles. The lighting plan shall be modified to limit lighting to 0.4 foot candles at the boundary line. 6. All information /modifications requested by the City Engineer pre the July 7, 2001 Engineering Review shall be provided prior to PDO approval. 7. Wall signage on the rear of Buildings C and D shall be limited to a low profile identity sign. The sign face shall have a maximum dimension of 2' by 8'. All other buildings shall be subject to the wall signage requirements of the Lino Lakes Sign Ordinance. 8. Freestanding signs shall be limited as follows: A. One Joint Identification Sign along I -35W. B. One Joint Identification Sign along Lake Drive with a maximum height of 20 feet. C. Three individual user '° signs in the locations shown with a maximum structure and sign size of 9' wide by 12' high. 9. Refrigeration units on delivery vehicles shall not operate between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. Loading and unloading of delivery vehicles shall be limited to the same hours. 10. All trash containers shall be fully contained within the building footprints. 11. The Convenience Store (Lot 1), Fast Food (Lot 2), Bank (Lot 8), and Buildings A (Lot 3), B (Lot 4) and E (Lot 5) shall require Site Plan Review approval in accordance with Section 2, Subd. 5 of the Lino Lakes Zoning Ordinance. 12. The secondary access and intersection located adjacent to Lots 1, 2, 4, and 5 shall be redesigned to eliminate the proposed offset and angle to improve site circulation and reduce vehicle conflicts and confusion. 13. The. Kohl's parking lot shall be modified to minimize access points to the Apollo Drive Extension and to include landscaping islands adjacent to the proposed handicap stalls. 14. All required plan changes shall be completed prior to the final plan review by the City Council and shall be submitted to the City no later than 4:30 p.m. on Thursday, July 26, 2001. • • • • • • Planning & Zoning Board July 11, 2001 Page 19 15. Dedication of access control to Anoka County should be shown on the plat along Lots 1, 2, 3 and Outlot C adjacent to Lake Drive. The opening width for the secondary access will need to be determined by Anoka County. 16. The development agreement shall incorporate a cross access and ingress /egress easement should be provided for the remnant parcel located between Apollo Drive and Lots 3 and 4. 17. The sidewalk shall be extended on Lot 8 to the southerly property line. 18. A concrete pavement treatment shall be used for crosswalks on major drive lanes. Tom Palmquist, representing Ryan Companies, stated he was present with John Payton, the Project Engineer. Regarding condition number two, Mr. Palmquist stated the plans have been submitted to the Rice Creek Watershed District and he hoped to have approval from them by July 25, 2001. He stated Anoka County has agreed to the mitigation of wetlands on their property. Regarding condition number six, Mr. Palmquist provided the City Engineer with a packet of the requested information and apologized for the late submittal of these items. Regarding condition number 12, Mr. Palmquist stated he was hoping that the County Traffic Engineer will grant approval of the access as proposed. He indicated without this access alignment the development will not move forward. Regarding condition number 13, Mr. Palmquist stated Kohl's Project Engineer had indicated that it would be acceptable to eliminate the eastern and western most access points to the Apollo Drive Extension, however, the middle four access points must remain. He stated Kohl's was agreeable to the landscaping islands adjacent to the proposed handicap stalls. Mr. Palmquist stated with regard to the planting beds in front of the Kohl's store, there is a conflict with some of the tree grades. He stated that he would like to work with staff to eliminate the tree grades and add more plantings. Mr. Palmquist stated Kohl's requires a 9 1/2 foot parking stall width. He stated he was in agreement with conditions 4 and 15. He stated the requirements for lighting found in condition number five were acceptable, however, he was concerned about the cost of the additional light fixtures. He stated he would like to work with staff to find a similar but less costly fixture. Mr. Grochala indicated the original suggestion was that the development use the same light fixture chosen for the Town Center. He indicated the Town Center light fixtures have not yet been installed and staff was willing to work with the developer to find a similar less costly fixture that could be used in the Town Center as well. Planning & Zoning Board July 11, 2001 Page 20 Rafferty expressed concern that the developer not dictate the light fixture style. Mr. Grochala indicated staff will make the decision on the light fixture style. Mr. Palmquist stated that the concern was not with the style of the light fixture but with their cost. With regard to condition number eight, Mr. Palmquist stated the Joint Identification Sign along Lake Drive and the monument sign had been redesigned per the recommendations of staff. He asked that flexibility be allowed for the Joint Identification Signs along I- 35W. He stated Kohl's was concerned about the scaling down of their logo to fit on one sign with the Target store logo. He stated both Target and Kohl's were insisting they be allowed individual signs along the highway. He stated that both signs would comply with City ordinance. Mr. Palmquist stated he did not oppose the requirements for the rear wall signs on Buildings C and D, however, if a larger tenant comes in, he would prefer that they be allowed a larger sign. Chair Schaps called for a recess at 9:13 p.m. The meeting was reconvened at 9:27 p.m. Mr. Palmquist stated during the recess the signage issue had been discussed. He stated the primary concern was that the signage for the rears of Buildings C and D be proportionate to the sizes of the buildings. With regard to the uses of the various buildings, Mr. Palmquist stated that the anticipated uses will be known as the marketing of the development continues. He anticipated that some restaurants will be included. Mr. Rafferty expressed concern that the proposed restrictions on the hours for delivery vehicles with refrigeration units may not be sufficient. He noted the homes to the north behind Target are older homes and many do not have air conditioning systems and he felt it likely that their windows will be open at night during the summer months. He felt deliveries should not be allowed between 8:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m. Mr. Payton stated during the EAW process noise air modeling tests had been performed, including the refrigeration ,units. He stated that the noise levels met the MPCA guidelines. Mr. Palmquist stated Target prefers that the delivery hours be restricted only from 11:00 p.m. until 6 :00 a.m. He stated this issue had been discussed and Target agreed to the restricted hours of 10:00 p.m. until 7:00 a.m. and he did not believe they would agree to changing these hours to 8:00 p.m. until 8:00 a.m. He indicated trucks generally do not make deliveries after 8:00 p.m. but Target would like the flexibility in the off chance a later delivery must be made. For these reasons, he respectfully asked that the non- delivery hours remain 10:00 p.m. until 7:00 p.m. • • • • Planning & Zoning Board July 11, 2001 Page 21 Mr. Palmquist stated that the intent of marketing would be to attract restaurants and other smaller retail users such as a coffee shop, a Great Clips, Pro -ex, etc. Mr. Palmquist stated the issues regarding condition number 12 had been discussed during the recess and he felt comfortable with the result of these discussions. With regard to condition number 14, Mr. Palmquist stated comments will likely be received from the Rice Creek Watershed District on July 25, 2001 and there may be some design issues that he did not feel could be completed by the proposed deadline of 4:30 p.m. on July 26, 2001. He asked if it would be possible to add a couple of days to the deadline. Mr. Powell stated it would be acceptable to extend the deadline to July 27, 2001 at 4:30 p.m. Mr. Palmquist stated he was comfortable with the requirements of condition number 16. Chair Schaps asked what the intentions are for the remnant parcel. Mr. Palmquist stated they would like to incorporate the remnant parcel into the development. Mr. Wessel stated in order to obtain the remnant parcel, the Courts would require the City to go through an eminent domain process. He indicated that the parcel of land is worthless to the City and he believed there may be some value integrating the parcel into this project. He stated that included in the development agreement will be a negotiation to sell the parcel of land to Ryan Companies. Mr. Palmquist stated he was comfortable with the requirement of condition number 17. With regard to condition number 18, he stated the original plan had showed concrete pads being used for crosswalks and in the plaza area in order to be consistent with the Town Center guidelines. However, these elements had been removed from the plans due to cost and maintenance considerations. He indicated concrete can be stained by vehicle tires and there are potential heaving problems when concrete is installed directly adjacent to bituminous. For these reasons, he would prefer to not be held to condition number 18. Chair Schaps asked Mr. Palmquist if he could propose an alternative to using concrete pads for the crosswalks, other than painting stripes. Mr. Palmquist did not have an alternative to suggest. Chair Schaps felt that some middle ground could be reached on this issue. He felt that the requirement of condition number 18 was reasonable for aesthetic concerns. Mr. Payton noted some developments have used pavers to delineate crosswalks but the pavers often turn black from the vehicle tires and become dirty looking. He felt that a continuous surface would appear more uniform and be easier to maintain. Chair Schaps suggested that this issue be left for further discussion. Planning & Zoning Board July 11, 2001 Page 22 Chair Schaps invited the audience to address the Board. No one was present at this time to address the Board. Mr. Corson made a MOTION to close the public hearing at 9:57 p.m., and was supported by Ms. Lane. Motion carried 5 -0. Mr. Powell stated he shared Mr. Palmquist concerns regarding the requirements of condition number 18. Chair Schaps suggested staff work with the applicant on this issue. Mr. Lyden stated when he makes a purchase he determines first whether it is the right time, the right product and the right price. With regard to this development he felt that the timing was right, that Target and Kohl's were absolutely the right products, but that a convenience store and bank were not the right products. With regard to price he noted this development would partially be funded through tax abatement. He indicated that the School District and Anoka County both turned this project down. Mr. Lyden stated he could understand providing tax abatement for Target and Kohl's but he was concerned about providing assistance to a convenience store and a bank when there are both of these types of services across the street that did not receive assistance. Mr. Wessel stated Ryan Companies made a request for subsidy to the City Council in May 2000. He stated the City Council was discussing this issue this evening and one concern they have was providing subsidy to competitors of existing businesses. He indicated the Council was considering the possibility of removing that portion from the subsidy request. He stated the tax abatement issue was very complicated at this time due to the recent reduction in commercial tax rates. He anticipated that the decision regarding tax abatement for this project will be made by the Council at their July 23, 2001 meeting. Mr. Lyden stated he was not certain that a convenience store and bank were the right products for this development or that the price was acceptable. He noted there were other issues pending, such as Rice Creek Watershed District approval, which may have a large impact on the proposed development. Chair Schaps stated he understood Mr. Lyden's concerns but noted the request this evening was to approve the site plans for the Target and Kohl's stores and this approval would not be a' commitment to any specific convenience store or bank. Mr. Grochala agreed that the approval this evening would only be for the PDO development, but he assumed that the proposed uses, i.e. a convenience store and bank, will be pushed forward. Mr. Lyden felt the market would dictate what will be in the best interest of Lino Lakes and he did not feel the proposed uses were in the best interest of the City. Chair Schaps asked if approval of this PDO by the City Council will obligate the • • • • Planning & Zoning Board July 11, 2001 Page 23 development to include the proposed convenience store and bank. Mr. Grochala stated this was not the case. He indicated each of the lots within the PDO will be subject to site plan approval and it was possible that the developer will propose other types of uses. Mr. Grochala noted, however, that the uses permitted in this district could not be denied for this development and convenience stores and banks are permitted uses. He understood the concern regarding providing assistance for competing businesses but he indicated the issues of assistance was outside the jurisdiction of the Planning and Zoning Board. He noted the City Council was currently discussing the issue of providing subsidy assistance for like businesses. Mr. Smyser stated under the City's PDO ordinance, uses permitted in the underlying zoning district are allowed in a PDO development. He stated in the commercial district banks are permitted uses and convenience stores are conditionally permitted. Mr. Rafferty expressed concern that approving the proposed preliminary plat would essentially be approving the inclusion of a bank and convenience store. Mr. Lyden asked if it was possible to change the proposed uses. Mr. Brixius stated the process must follow the rules established by City ordinance. He stated the preliminary plat was simply a platting of the land and did not dictate the specific users.'` He noted the lots within this development will be back before the Board for site plan approval and it may be possible that the uses will change. Mr. Lyden requested confirmation that the applicant could dictate what businesses will be included in the development, which could result in businesses that the City does not need. Mr. Brixius believed the primary concern was with how the requested subsidy may be applied, not the actual land use. Mr. Corson stated in comparing the plans presented this evening to those presented last month, he felt the applicant did a good job of breaking up the parking lot and he appreciated how the architectural details tie in with the Town Center concept. He acknowledged that the plans attempted to address the issue of pedestrian access and he believed that a good buffer to the north will be appreciated by the adjacent residents. Mr. Corson stated he was concerned that a 40 -foot high freeway sign may be excessively tall. Chair Schaps expressed his appreciation to staff for their months of work on this project. He felt tremendous positive changes had been made to the plans to make for a more attractive development for the community. He believed that this addition to the community will be seen as a significant change. He noted the development will not only have an economic impact for the City by creating new job opportunities, but will also make quality of life changes being a good place for young people to hang out. Planning & Zoning Board July 11, 2001 Page 24 Chair Schaps stated he was not overly concerned about a new bank being included as part of this development with an existing bank nearby. He felt that competition is a good thing and he felt the competition will allow for cleaner and safer businesses. He felt the benefit of the two new retail giants in the community was a far more important consideration than the designation of a bank and convenience store. Chair Schaps expressed his appreciation to the Ryan Companies and noted there was still work for them to comply with the 18 conditions recommended by staff. He agreed that 40 -foot tall signs along the freeway would be too high and he hoped the developer could convince the businesses to reduce the height of their signs. Chair Schaps asked if one or two motions were required for these applications. Mr. Smyser stated two motions should be made, one to approve the rezoning of the property to PDO and another to approve the site and building plans and the preliminary plat. Mr. Lyden agreed that competition can be a good thing, but he felt fair competition is better. He asked that the City Council take this into consideration when making a decision regarding financial assistance for this project. Mr. Zych made a MOTION to approve the application submitted by Ryan Companies US, Inc., to rezone the property located on Lake Drive to PDO, and was supported by Ms. Lane. Motion carried 5 -0. Mr. Lyden made a MOTION to approve the application submitted by Ryan Companies US, Inc., (Target), Lake Drive for site and building plan review and preliminary plat subject to the following conditions: 1. No formal approval of the application shall be in effect until the EAW process is complete. 2. No formal approval of the application shall be in effect until Rice Creek Watershed has completed their review and issued appropriate permits for the development. 3. All required on and off -site improvements shall be subject to the review and approval of the City Engineer and County Engineer, as appropriate. 4. Landscaping treatments along residentially zoned property shall provide for year round screening. Suitable coniferous plantings and/or fencing shall be applied in these areas to minimize the impact of vehicular lighting from said properties. The lighting plan shall be modified to provide decorative lighting at 75 to 100 feet spacing staggered along the primary drive aisles. The lighting plan shall be modified to limit lighting to 0.4 foot candles at the boundary line. 6. All information/modifications requested by the City Engineer per the July 7, 2001 Engineering Review shall be provided prior to PDO approval. 7. Wall signage on the rear of Buildings, A, C and D shall be limited to a low profile identity sign. The sign face shall have a maximum dimension of 2' • • • • • Planning & Zoning Board July 11, 2001 Page 25 x 8'. All other buildings shall be subject to the wall signage requirements of the Lino Lakes Sign Ordinance. 8. Freestanding signs shall be limited as follows: A. One Joint Identification Sign along I -35 W. B. One Joint Identification sign along Lake Drive with a maximum height of 20 feet. C. Three individual user signs in the locations shown with a maximum structure and sign size of 9' in width by 12' in height. 9. Refrigeration units on delivery vehicles shall not operate between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. Loading and unloading of delivery vehicles shall be limited to the same hours. 10. All trash containers shall be fully contained within the building footprints. 11. The Convenience Store (Lot 1), Fast Food (Lot 2), Bank (Lot 8), and Buildings B (Lot 4) and E (Lot 5) shall require Site Plan Review approval in accordance with Section 2, Subd. 5 of the Lino Lakes Zoning Ordinance. 12. The secondary access and intersection located adjacent to Lots 1, 2, 4, and 5 shall be redesigned to eliminate the proposed offset and angle to improve site circulation and reduce vehicle conflicts and confusion. 13. The Kohl's parking lot shall be modified to minimize access points to the Apollo Drive Extension and to include landscaping islands 'adjacent to the proposed handicap stalls. 14. All required plan changes shall be completed prior to the final plan review by the City Council and shall be submitted to the City no later than 4:30 1 p.m. on Friday, July 27, 200 15. Dedication of access control to Anoka County should be shown on the plat along Lots 1, 2, 3 and Outlot C adjacent to Lake Drive. The opening width for the secondary access will need to be determined by Anoka County. 16. The development., agreement shall incorporate a cross access and ingress /egress, easeinent should be provided for the remnant parcel located between Apollo Drive .and Lots 3 and 4. 17. The sidewalk shall, be extended on Lot 8 to the southerly property line. 18. A concrete pavement treatment shall be used for crosswalks on major drive lanes. Mr. Corson asked that condition number 8B be amended to allow the highway signs a maximum height of30 feet. Mr. Lyden agreed. Mr. Brixius asked whether condition number 8B would be amended to allow two highway signs. Mr. Corson stated whether one sign or two signs is allowed, the maximum height allowed should be 30 feet. The motion was supported by Mr. Corson. Motion carried 5 -0. Planning & Zoning Board July 11, 2001 Page 26 VI. DISCUSSION ITEMS A. Recommendation from Environmental Board for Moratorium on New Development Ms. Grochala stated the Environmental Board requested, at its July 27, 2001 meeting, that a recommendation to establish a moratorium (interim ordinance) on all residential development and possibly all development for a period of one year be forwarded to the Planning and Zoning Board. Mr. Grochala stated in response to the recent approval of the Comprehensive Plan by the City Council, the Environmental Board adopted a recommendation to allow time for the development of official controls to implement the goals and policies of the plan. Mr. Grochala stated staff was not recommending the adoption of such an ordinance at this time. He felt while an interim ordinance is an effective tool granted to municipalities for the purpose of protecting the planning process, the implications of such an ordinance needed to be fully identified. He indicated an all- encompassing prohibition of development, as proposed, could generate many unintended consequences. Mr. Grochala indicated several steps should ' ' consideration " an interim ordinance, which included: a. Metropolitan Council review and approval of the Comprehensive Plan. b. Identification of "official control" modifications and timeline for development of such. , c. Inventory of existing/proposed development and available MUSA. d. Identification of the potential impact on Economic Development activities. Mr. Grochala indicated by addressing the, above items, the City would be able to better ascertain the need for an interim" orinance and, if warranted, the appropriate scope it should have. Mr. Lyden asked staff if, given the late hour, it would be appropriate to discuss this item at the next Planning and Zoning Board meeting. Mr. Grochala stated this item could be continued to next month's Board meeting. Mr. Lyden asked how soon staff anticipated approval of the Comprehensive Plan by the Metropolitan Council. Mr. Brixious stated, proving the application for approval is complete zthe Metropolitan Council is allowed a 90 day review period prior to making a decision. Y: Mr. Lyden made a MOTION to table consideration of the recommendation of the Environmental Board to establish a moratorium (interim ordinance) on all residential development and possibly all development for a period of one year to the August 2001 Planning and Zoning Board meeting, and was supported by Mr. Zych. Motion carried 5- • • • • • • Planning & Zoning Board July 11, 2001 Page 27 0. B. Environmental Board Goals Mr. Grochala stated the City Council will be reviewing the proposed goals with the Environmental Board at an upcoming joint meeting. They will also use the meeting as an opportunity to review the ordinance establishing the Board, the expectations of the City Council and the Environmental Board and the relationship of the Environmental Board to other City Boards. Mr. Rafferty asked that a discussion on the delivery of agenda packets be added to next month's Planning and Zoning Board meeting agenda. VII. ADJOURNMENT Mr. Lyden made a MOTION to adjourn the meeting at 10:24 p.m., and was supported by Mr. Corson. Motion carried 5 -0. Respectfully submitted, Lori Rolfson, Recording Secretary TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc.