Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/10/1999 P&Z Minutes• • • Planning & Zoning Board November 10, 1999 Page 1 CITY OF LINO LAKES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MINUTES DATE TIME STARTED TIME ENDED MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT STAFF PRESENT : November 10, 1999 6.30 P.M. : 10 :38 P.M. : Johnson (6:39), Corson, Dunn, Schaps, Carlson, and Lane (6:34) : Schilling : Planning Coordinator, Wyland; City Planner, Smyser; City Engineer, Powell; Planning Consultant, Sherman I. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL Chair Schaps called the Lino Lakes P1anni� : ni "a: oard meeting to order at 6:30 p.m., November 10, 1999. II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - 0 •,_" 1999 Ms. Carlson made a MOTI meeting of the Lino Lak Motion carried 4 -0. pro = the presented minutes of the October 13, 1999, g & Zoning Board, and was supported by Mr. Dunn. III. APPROVAL 0 The agenda was app ed as presented. V. OPEN MIKE Chair Schaps declared open mike open at 6:35. Mr. Dave Bombeck, 626 Main Street, expressed concern regarding the speed limit on Main Street and at Lake Drive and Main Street. He stated that area is highly residential and the speed used on that road is excessive. He also noted that there are no turn lanes on Main Street. Mr. Bombeck asked how to get the speed limit reduced or add a pedestrian walkway. Planning & Zoning Board November 10, 1999 Page 2 The City Engineer advised both Main Street and Lake Drive are County roads. A petition was received from area residents and businesses that was forwarded to the County. He advised that the City can pass along the residents concerns to the County but the County has the final decision. He also suggested that residents contact the County themselves. Ms. Carlson added that Mr. Powell did testify at a State hearing regarding the speed limit when schools are in session. The proposal did not pass. She suggested residents also contact the State Senators and Legislatures. Mr. Corson moved to close open mike at 6:41 p.m., and was supported by Ms. Carlson. Motion carried 6 -0. VI ACTION ITEMS B. PUBLIC HEARING (CONTINUED), Bluebill Pon gain Street Preliminary Plat Staff requested this item be continued to the Decem • -• 9 meeting. Chair Schaps declared the public hearing open Ms. Lane made a MOTION to continue t ite a the December 8, 1999, Planning and Zoning Board meeting, and was supp. • M�unn. Motion carried 6 -0. D. PUBLIC HEARING, 1 Barn and Arena eet, Conditional Use Permit for Horse Staff requested this ite Ran d to the December 8, 1999, meeting. Chair Schaps dec lic hearing open at 6:42 p.m. Mr. Johnson made ) °i OTION to continue this item to the December 8, 1999, Planning and Zoning Board m=e=ting, and was supported by Ms. Lane. Motion carried 6 -0. A. PUBLIC HEARING (CONTINUED), Majestic Pines Community Church, XXX Centerville Road, Site Plan Review & Conditional Use Permit Ms. Cindy Sherman, Northwest Associated Consultants, advised the City has received an application for site plan review and conditional use permit from Majestic Pines Community Church. The site is located on the East side of Centerville Road just north of Lake Amelia. This application first came to the Planning and Zoning Board on August 11, 1999. Staff did not prepare a report because the project required extensive revision due to relocation of the ordinary high water level on the site plan. However, the Board opened the public • • p • • Planning & Zoning Board November 10, 1999 Page 3 hearing and heard comments. A number of citizens expressed concerns regarding the project. Several objected to the nature of the size and nature of the project. Other concerns included traffic, impact on the lake, and compatibility with the area. The public hearing was continued. On the advice of the Board, the applicant held a neighborhood meeting several weeks later. Ms. Sherman reviewed the site plan review and analysis in detail. She advised the site plan meets all of the ordinance regulations for the R -X District and the Shoreland Area. The criteria outlined for Conditional Use are designed to assure that a proposed use is appropriate in a specific location. If the Board finds the criteria/standards are satisfied then a recommendation to grant the conditional use would be appropriate in conjunction with approval of the site plan. Ms. Sherman noted she will recommend several conditions if the conditional use permit is granted. Chair Schaps declared the public hearing open at 6:45 p.m. Chair Schaps asked if the applicant will provide a pave will dedicate a trail easement to the City. The churc will remain a wood chip trail until the City has the City cannot require park dedication because th Chair Schaps asked for staff to comment indicated the proposed building is ve building and it is very large. It is area. The proposed athletic co the area and should weigh in Mr. Johnson asked if t the County has asked Mr. Johnson expr be a lot of pedestria having a trail develo dvised the church the trail. The trail ve it. Staff noted the of being subdivided. le and intensity of the project. Staff the appearance of an industrial cture with 216 parking spaces in a rural ediate north, will change the flavor of ovision for a trail on Centerville Road. Staff advised tonal right -of -way but there are not plans for a trail. ern regarding safety on Centerville Road because there will affic. Staff advised the Park Board did not express any interest in d there. Mr. Johnson referred to the list of conditions. He asked if any of the conditions will result in a significant change in the size of the building. Staff advised the applicant has already made good progress on the listed conditions. None of the conditions are a major issue and the applicant has indicated compliance. Mr. Dunn expressed concern about Phase II of the project, traffic patterns, and the environmental impact of the project. He asked if Phase II was considered in this plan or if that application will stand alone. Ms. Sherman stated staff did review Phase II in general but not in detail. The City will be able to consider additional conditions for the plan when the applicant asked for approval for Phase II. Planning & Zoning Board November 10, 1999 Page 4 Mr. Dunn asked about the nature of Phase II. Ms. Sherman stated Phase 11 involves the construction of a building addition with a new sanctuary. Mr. Dunn asked staff to directly comment on the conditional use criteria/standards relating to the adequacy of this proposal. Ms. Sherman advised the report does not directly address all criteria/standards set for conditional use permits. The question the Board must determine is the compatibility of the project in this area. Staff advised the report addresses most of the criteria/standards relating to conditional use permits. However, some of the criteria/standards are subjective. Churches are listed as acceptable conditional uses. The question is if the design fits into the area. The proposal could fit into the area but doesn't clearly fit. Staff noted the City does not have architectural standards for this area. Mr. Dunn asked about the applicant's position regarding the and if they will adhere to the suggestions relating to the Pla and the proposed Comprehensive Plan guide the area a getting a greenway around Lake Amelia. Mr. Dunn asked what the park dedication woul advised the park dedication requirement is approximately one acre. If a cash dedicat opportunity to obtain a trail corridor. Mr. Dunn asked about the Envir Staff advised the City has as Green parking is a good i omprehensive Plan vised the old plan the first step in is re a subdivision. Staff pable land which would be ade the City would lose the Mr. Dunn expressed co will monitor that. until staff feels co d's comments relating to green parking. cant's look into the possibility of green parking. ory but it hasn't been proven yet to be effective. regarding adherence to all conditions and asked how staff d the project will not be put on the City Council's agenda that most of the conditions are met. Mr. Dunn asked abo the unofficial guidance received from the VLAWMO and what will be impacted by their recommendations. Staff advised the VLAWMO would like to see a buffer around the wetlands, natural plantings, buffer easement, and the opportunity to work with the applicant on wetland mitigation and trail placement. Mr. Dunn asked if the open issues can be taken care of within the next month. Staff advised the VLAWMO is meeting on Monday to review the project. Staff noted it is not unusual to approve a project with the condition of having to meet their recommendations. The changes the VLAWMO will ask for will be minor and staff feels comfortable with proceeding. Mr. Dunn indicated he is uncomfortable with the several issues that have not yet been addressed. • • • Planning & Zoning Board November 10, 1999 Page 5 Mr. Corson asked where the tank will be placed for the fire sprinkler system. Staff advised the location is still unknown. The applicant is aware that a sprinkler system is required before the building permit is issued. Mr. Corson stated the applicant needs to be aware of the expense of putting the tank under ground. He stated he believes adding columns to the building to break it up would be a huge improvement. Ms. Lane stated she attended the neighborhood meeting. There were some neighbors who were strongly opposed to the project and some that just had questions. A representative from the church was present and indicated they want to be a good neighbor. One of the reasons for the size of the building is the need within the community. Several neighbors were in opposition to the roof top. Many preferred a gable or barn type roof. Ms. Lane continued stating she has trouble with the co relating to the City's ordinance. She stated that the a to a certain extent. She stated that the Environme her concerns relating to the septic system, prox compatibility to the area, and water quality athletic complex. Ms. Carlson stated her biggest con concern regarding the condition support the project so she is riteria/standards x does change the area d comments that support e, size of the project, e project will be dwarfed by the of the building. She also expressed te standards. She indicated that she cannot 'th her vote. Ms. Carlson made a M ose the public hearing at 7:43 p.m., and was supported by Mr. Corson. Motio ed 6 -0. Chair Schaps aske plicant has any difficulty with the conditions recommended by staff. Mr. Gary Nordness, representing the developer for Majestic Pines Church, stated they have no problem with the recommended conditions excepting for one. They would prefer to maintain 15' of parking setback rather than 20'. Chair Schaps asked if the applicant will consider a trail easement on Centerville Road. Mr. Nordness indicated he does not have an issue with identifying a bike lane through the parking lot. He stated the main issue at the neighborhood meeting was the water quality and run off which has been addressed. The lighting issues have also been addressed. He noted that most events will be completed by 9:00 p.m. The neighbor to the east of the project has been promised a fence. Traffic is also an issue but most traffic will be at off peak hours and will not have an impact on Centerville Road. The size of the building has Planning & Zoning Board November 10, 1999 Page 6 been an issue. The height is 27' and the ordinance does allow for 36'. The square footage is 46,000 but the footprint is 21,000. The upper level of the church will not be finished for quite some time. The color is a tan beige with a stone rock face. There is a definitive break in the building between the two floors. The canopy also helps to break up the building. Mr. Johnson stated a darker color would reduce the visual impact of the building. Mr. Nordness stated the applicant has no problem with changing the color. He noted the site is a very tough site to work with and the church is a good use for the property. Mr. Dunn asked about the design concept. Mr. Nordness stated the concept is functionality of the Church more so than the exterior. Also, the design concept works into the 2nd Phase of the building. Ms. Carlson asked about the number of families in the churc e name of a similar church. Pastor Valentine, Majestic Pines Community Church; h m`'`are approximately 50- 75 young families within the church. A similar ch Ms. Carlson asked why the parking plan w stated the plan originally showed parking parking is needed because of the over e Living Waters. paces to 216. Mr. Nordness both phases. He noted that extra Ms. Carlson stated the size and o building is a concern for residents. Pastor Valentine stated the buildin_ use they hope to grow into it The size is justified with their overall a t growth and use Ms. Carlson stated she regional headqu The plan is to gro the building will not be used for another use such as Valentine stated the church does not have a hidden agenda. service to the community. Chair Schaps suggest d conditions of approval regarding lighting, handicapped parking, sprinkling, the exterior color, and a delineated trail be added to the conditions already listed. Mr. Dunn stated he still has concern regarding the protection of the environment. Chair Schaps noted the DNR is satisfied with the proposal and reviewed the concerns of the Environmental Board, advising that they have been addressed. Chair Schaps indicated the decision is a subjective call. The size of the building is less of a problem with the proposed athletic complex. • • • Planning & Zoning Board November 10, 1999 Page 7 Mr. Dunn stated the complex may not become a reality if the citizens don't approve the referendum. He stated he does not have anything against the church. He indicated he would feel more comfortable if there were less terms and conditions of approval. Mr. Johnson made a MOTION approving the Majestic Pines Community Church, XXX Centerville Road, Site Plan Review and Conditional Use Permit based on the following: 1. Parking adjacent to Centerville Road shall be setback at least 20'. 2. Berming or landscaping shall be added around the entire site to provide a better screen from the pubic road and public waters. The City Environmental Specialist shall approve the landscaping plan. 3. Parking lot lighting shall be adjusted so that light levels as measured at the property line do not exceed .4 foot - candles. 4. Lighting of the parking lot shall only be on an as ne parking lot and on the building shall not shine up or shall be reviewed with the building permit. ghting in the ex' o fighting on the building 5. Any and all conditions required by the V °;s k rea Water Management Organization shall be complied with. 6. All signs shall meet the ordina ems° t. Sign permits are required for all signage. 7. The plan is subject to t and approval of Anoka County and proper permits shall be obtained prior 8. The permit an ment of construction. bject to the review and approval of the City Engineer. 9. Vertical plantin_ all be added next to the building to help break up the massiveness. 10. The site must be able to support a septic system that meets state, county, and city requirements. 11. The separate lots shall be combined to be one tax parcel. 12. Rooftop equipment shall be screened and the screening plan shall be subject to City staff review and approval. 13. This approval and the conditions do not imply approval of Phase II. Phase II building and parking requires an amendment to the conditional use permit. Planning & Zoning Board November 10, 1999 Page 8 14. Limit hours of lighting as recommended by staff. 15. Addition of handicapped parking to be shown on plan. 16. Sprinkling of building with tank location identified. 17. Exterior color will blend with vegetation. 18. A clearly delineated trail along Centerville Road separate from the roadway will be added. The MOTION was supported by Mr. Corson. Ms. Lane noted there are many conditions of approval due to the environmental concerns. Ms. Carlson stated the site plan is great. She cannot suppo believes it does not meet all the criteria/standards for a Motion carried 5 -1 with Ms. Carlson voting no. because she e permit. This item will go before the City Council tuber 13, 1999, 6:30 p.m. C. PUBLIC HEARING, Revise eadows Preliminary Plat & Rezone Ms. Sherman advised TSM Dev t, . has requested approval of a 129 unit, mixed density residential dev ., nq, be know as Highland Meadows. This property was subject to a similar as li in 1997. The application included a comprehensive plan amendment and r �. homes), Planned Development Overlay and Subdivision. The appl at that time included 106 single - family lots and 52 townhomes on 5 esT,. density of 2.83 units per acres. The City approved it but construction of th id not proceed due to utility unavailability issues and wetland issues. A new deve per is proposing to develop the property with some modifications from the 1997 plan. The new development plan calls for the construction of 72 single family homes and 52 townhouse units (13 quadraminium structures) on 50.85 acres for an overall gross density of 2.44 units per acre. This application has significantly reduced the number of single family lots from 106 approved in the previous approval to 72. The single family area is at 1.72 units per gross acre and 1.76 units per net acre. The multi family area is at 5.6 units per gross acre and 6 units per net acre. The site is located west of Lake Drive, between Main Street and Barbara Avenue. Ms. Sherman reviewed the proposal in detail. She noted the City previously took action in 1997 approving the preliminary plat and the placement of medium density residential use within the subdivision. The rezoning of the property and Comprehensive Plan • • • • • • Planning & Zoning Board November 10, 1999 Page 9 amendment were approved. The Board could delay action on the item pending resolution to some outstanding issues or if the Board wish to take action on the application several conditions would be recommended. Chair Schaps declared the public hearing open at 8:30 p.m. Chair Schaps asked if the applicant is in agreement to all conditions and if a neighborhood meeting was held. Staff advised the applicant will comply to all conditions. A neighborhood meeting was not held based on the new submittal. Mr. Dunn stated a matrix of what has changed between the two plans would have been helpful. He expressed concern regarding the number of open items and the loss of the park plan. It has been suggested the City purchase additional park land which would depend on funding. Ms. Gail Judd, 670 79th Street, expressed concern regardin being next to a park. She stated she is interested in pur indicated she would prefer something between her p c she hopes approval for additional homes does not h and her property on of Outlot D. She t e park. She added that t area. Mr. Dave Bombeck, 626 Main Street, aske• s.. d to divide public park property and private property with a fence. Chair Schaps advised the develope •nom" provides a fence for a property owner. It is not typical to have a fence .• park. Mr. Bombeck stated he is . s. erned abut the road accesses and if they are adequate and how a connection to Wood Duck Drive. Staff advised thr study was done in Marilyn, and 0 -5% e adequate for emergency access. He stated that a traffic indicated traffic use of 75% on 79th Street, 20 -25% on ois Lane. Mr. Bombeck stated that staffing for emergency services needs to be considered with the amount of growth and expansion within the City. Chair Schaps noted staffing is a Council issue. Ms. Melissa Blackledge, 7830 Country Lane, stated she is very concerned about saving the grove of trees in her backyard. Ms. Sherman referred to a map and pointed out the trees that will be saved. • Ms. Blackridge continued stating she likes the idea of a park in the area. She stated that traffic is already a problem and will become worse with new development. She stated Planning & Zoning Board November 10, 1999 Page 10 she has initiated letters regarding the speed limit on Lake Drive. She asked what she can specifically do to reduce the speed limit and what can the City do to help her. Staff advised she can contact Mr. Jon Olson, County Engineer, Ms. Jane Pemble, Traffic Engineer, or Ms. Margaret Langfield, County Commissioner. Mr. Barry Przybylski, 7870 Country Lane, came forward and stated Lot 1 is completely within a grove of trees. Staff advised that Lot 1 is an area of concern because the project will have an impact on those trees. The revision of the plan includes a tree buffer area and fewer trees lost. The setback has been moved to save more trees than the original plan. Mr. Tracey Lohmen, 595 Lois Lane, came forward and stated she has lived on his property for 17 years. He indicated he likes living on a dead e expressed concern regarding traffic off of 4th Ave. to Lois Lane. He asked w ;ois e must go through and if it is possible to put a cul -de -sac there. He also ex rn about his property value with a park on two sides of his property. Staff advised that at a neighborhood meeting y d resi`ents on the north side of Lois Lane in Mar Don Acres have indicated the ._ a � o go through behind their property as part of another development. .`: d is developed the proposed park to the north may be eliminated. Chair Schaps stated that in most next to it. Ms. Tammy Madison, excess of 200 families compatible with t y value is increased when a park is located Lois Lane, stated she is concerned about putting in a small area. She stated larger lots would be more ffic is also a major issue. Chair Schaps noted revised plan includes a 25% reduction in lots. Mr. Corson advised that when lots are using City sewer they are smaller because of the expense to put in City utilities. He added that the City is under pressure to provide affordable housing. Ms. Madison stated that if people want to live in the area they will pay the costs to do so. Mr. Dunn stated the Board would have no problem with one acre lots if they met all City requirements. Ms. Carlson expressed concern regarding the lot depth due to the facts that home design alternatives and future home expansion capabilities are severely restricted and useable rear yards are eliminated.. She asked if the PDO that was granted in 1997 is still in effect. • • • Planning & Zoning Board November 10, 1999 Page 11 • Staff advised the PDO is still in effect. He stated it is possible to move things away from the easement to provide larger lot depths. • Ms. Carlson stated the plan is not ready to approve yet because of too many open issues relating to setbacks, townhomes, and the site plan. Mr. Dunn indicated he will support a continuation of this item. Mr. Tim Rehbein, 636 Main Street, asked if the property north of the proposed Elizabeth Lane is included in this plan. He added that he is in litigation with that property. Staff advised that property is not included in this proposal. Ms. Judd suggested Lot 1 and Lot 2 be made into one lot. She stated the development is already destroying too many trees. She stated it is very important to keep the trees that are on Lot 1. She stated her property is in the middle of the . she would like to be kept up to date on any changes in the plan. Mr. Bombeck stated he does not believe the plan env' t its within the area. Mr. Chris Call, Engineer for the project, came m `' ated TSM bought the property last summer and have been revisin P lan. The plan that was approved in 1997 did not take into consid dopy environmental issues. He referred to a map and pointed out the ponding that will be saved. He noted the number of lots have been reduced o al plan. He stated that it is possible to sell Outlot D to the adjoining pr •. ° and the City for additional park land. Multi - family housing was a. ��' i97. Mr. Call continued sta oper will be grading a portion of the park land. The park will not be an acti until the City has funding and a neighborhood meeting is held to determine is ` • ed. He stated the concern regarding accesses has been addressed and as as possible will be saved. Traffic and excessive speed are a matter of enforcem for the City. He stated the City has a code regarding cul -de -sac length and it makes s='nse to connect Lois Lane. It is cost prohibitive to develop the lots as one acre lots. Chair Schaps asked if all recommendations can be addressed within the next month. Mr. Call indicated all issues can be addressed. He stated he does object to continuing this issue to December, 1999. Mr. Dunn stated that quite often things are missed if a project moves forward too fast. He again expressed concern regarding the loss of park land. Mr. Call stated there is a power line easement through the lots. The lot pads are 50 feet deep and 50 -60 feet wide. There are only a few lots that are restrained by depth. Planning & Zoning Board November 10, 1999 Page 12 Chair Schaps stated unusable back yards are unacceptable in Lino Lakes. Mr. Call noted that the Environmental Specialist has indicated that some tree loss of invasive species is acceptable. Mr. Dunn asked about the price of the homes. Mr. Malcome Allen, representative for TSM Development, stated TSM will not be building the homes. The lots will be sold. He stated the approximate price of the single family homes will be $150,00 - $210,000. The approximate price of the townhomes will be $120,000. He advised the developer has agreed to the conditions recommended by staff. He indicated he would like approval this evening. He noted that pushing Lois Lane to the north would give the developer flexibility to move the lots that would increase their depth. Ms. Carlson stated the Board does not see the Final Plat. S tatee e plan is not ready yet. Chair Schaps asked if the Board can continue an ite Staff advised the Board may continue the issue Chair Schaps stated it would be better to an to deny the project. Mr. Allen stated he believes a vote en tonight. bjection of the developer. Mr. Dunn made a MOTION e public hearing and table Revised Highland Meadows Preliminary Pia one to the December 8, 1999, Planning and Zoning meeting, and was supp. . Carlson. Mr. Dunn sugges e oper provide samples of good homes that have been built on small lots to sta 4 h Board to review. He stated he likes the idea of coving. Ms. Lane stated that y plan with unusable rear yards is terrible. MOTION carried 6 -0. E. PUBLIC HEARING, 3XX Apollo Drive, H & L Mesabi, Site Plan Review & Conditional Use Permit for Exterior Storage Staff advised H & L Mesabi is requesting a Site Plan Review, Conditional Use Permit for outside storage and a Minor Subdivision to allow the construction of a 15,000 square foot office, warehouse and distribution facility at 3XX Apollo Drive. Staff reviewed the minor subdivision and site plan review in detail. Staff recommended approval of the minor subdivision, site plan review, and conditional use permit with conditions. • • • Planning & Zoning Board November 10, 1999 Page 13 Chair Schaps declared the public hearing open at 10:08 p.m. Mr. Tom Inman, representative from Northco, stated the use of outside storage is very important because of the nature of the business. Extremely heavy equipment is brought in and circulation is critical. A bituminous surface is too easily torn up by the heavy equipment and is high maintenance. He indicated they are open to expanding the paved area and leaving a strip open in the back. He stated they are proposing an 8' fence and the outside storage would be screened. Allowing the storage on the west side of the building will help with their internal circulation Mr. Bernie Carie, owner of H & L Mesabi, distributed a list of components they deal with. He stated all equipment will go to the back of the lot except for smaller equipment that will be screened in the front. He noted the Blaine warehouse is too small for their needs. Some of the equipment will be stored inside and the larger equipment will be stored outside. Staff advised they are willing to be flexible regarding t work with the applicant and also discuss any roadwa equipment. This type of business may justify varyi Mr. Johnson asked if there is justification f a natural buffer. The adjoining neighbor separates the two properties further b Staff indicated support for movi Ms. Lane asked about a fu expanding the buildin future. f indicated they will e to the heavy al City standards. ning. Mr. Inman stated there is of moving the curb island that sion. Mr. Inman advised they have no plans for oes show an alignment for approval to expand in the Ms. Carlson expre ern regarding hazardous materials entering the City's water system. Staff advis some monitoring of the site will be necessary to ensure there are no problems. Mr. Dunn asked about the possibility of scaring off other potential development because of the outside storage. Mr. Carie advised the site will not look like a storage site. The equipment is very expensive, valuable, and has a high resale value. He stated they want to take care of it properly. Staff advised they approve of the outside storage because the property abuts the prison. It is one of the few sites in the business park where outside storage would be acceptable. However, the outside storage should be contained behind the building. Planning & Zoning Board November 10, 1999 Page 14 Mr. Corson asked if the City of Blaine has them do anything special because of the weight on the streets. Mr. Carie advised the equipment is not on the streets. It is moved with forklifts. They are strictly a distribution center. Mr. Johnson made a MOTION to close the public hearing at 10:37 p.m., and was supported by Ms. Carlson. Motion carried 6 -0. Mr. Johnson made a MOTION to approve Minor Subdivision based on the following conditions: 1. A certificate of survey is provide including the following detail: a. Drainage and utility easement subject to the review and approval of the City Engineer. b. Shared driveway easement on the south/eastern portion of the site. c. Dedication of remaining right of access to Anoka 2. Park dedication is provided as required by City Ordicen °on square footage of proposed construction). The MOTION was supported by Mr. Dunn. M ie Staff noted condition #1 relating to the vision has been completed. Ms. Lane made a MOTION to app: ' eview and Conditional Use Permit based on the following conditio 1. Proper building permit .� fined and include a 1% escrow deposit to insure completion of site imp 2. Permits are o.;.. fr¢=the Rice Creek Watershed District. 3. Final grading, dr age and utility plans are to be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer. 4. The storage and parking areas are to be paved with a bituminous material per the City Engineer's recommendation. 5. Drainage easements must be recorded for ponding areas and conveyance through neighboring site. Proof of recording must be submitted prior to issuance of any grading or building permits. 6. Right of Access is granted to Anoka County excluding driveway easement area. 7. The Environmental Coordinator shall review and approve landscaping and lighting plans. • Planning & Zoning Board November 10, 1999 Page 15 III8. City staff shall review and approve fencing detail and screening of trash handling area. • 9. Rooftop heating and ventilating units must be screened or visually blended with the building coloring. 10. The site plan shall maintain 10% green area upon full development. 11. Exterior storage shall be limited to the rear portion of the site and on the western side of the building and proposed expansion are. 12. The following conditions shall be met prior to review by the City Council: Condition #1 pertaining to the minor subdivision. The MOTION was supported by Mr. Corson. Motion carrie VI. DISCUSSION ITEMS VII. ADJOURNMENT Ms. Lane made a MOTION to adjourn the Mr. Johnson. Motion carried 6 -0. Respectfully Submitted, Kim Points, Recording Se TimeSaver Off Site Sec S :38 p.m., and was supported by