The URL can be used to link to this page

2005 - Planning Commission - Agendas & Minutes • CITY OF SPRING PARK SPRING PARK, MINNESOTA AGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 12, 2005 7:30 P.M.-CITY HALL Acting Chair Anderson and Staff have cancelled the Planning Commission Meeting scheduled for January 12, 2005 due to lack of items for the agenda. The minutes for the meeting held December 8, 2004 will be approved at the next scheduled meeting as well as the swearing in of new Commissioner(s). The following communications were distributed: 1. Council Minutes — 12/6/04 2. Council Minutes — 12/20/04 3. Building & Sign Report—November 4. Building & Sign Report— December • 5. City Council & Planning Commission List 2005 6. January Calendar 7. Channel 8 Schedule - January CITY OF SPRING PARK RECEIVED W _ 7 2005 SPRING PARK, MINNESOTA HEAD, SEIFERT MINUTES &VANDER WEIDE PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 9, 2005 7:30 P.M. —CITY HALL 1. CALL TO ORDER Pledge of Allegiance Acting Chair Anderson called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. followed by the pledge of allegiance. 2. ROLL CALL Anderson, Klein, Aschinger, Sippel, Mason and Ex-Officio Hughes were present, Nelson was excused and Mork Bredeson was absent. Staff present: Deputy Clerk Corl. OATH OF OFFICE • Deputy Clerk Corl gave the oath of office to Sippel and Mason. 3. ADOPT AGENDA Motion by Aschinger seconded by Klein to adopt the agenda. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES —December 8, 2004 Motion by Klein seconded by Aschinger to approve the minutes for the Planning Commission Meeting on December 8, 2004. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. 5. PLANNING COMMISSION a) Elect Chair& Acting Chair Anderson opened nominations to elect a Chair and Acting Chair. Hughes said he found it beneficial (when he was Chair of the Planning Commission) to be at the Council meetings as a representative of the Planning Commission because it kept him informed of the issues, and made the Council aware of the Planning Commission's involvement in City issues. He said the elected Chair should consider this or delegate a Commissioner to attend the Council meetings. Aschinger said we could set up a schedule amongst ourselves if the Chair cannot • Planning Commission—2/9/05 1 • attend. Anderson said the Commissions value to the Council is to present them background information that we have done. Aschinger nominated Anderson for Chair. Sippel asked if the nominated person has to accept the nomination and was told no. Anderson called for nominations for Chair three times and closed the nominations. Upon roll call Anderson, Klein, Aschinger, Sippel and Mason voted aye. Anderson was declared the Chair. Anderson opened the nominations are for Acting Chair. Sippel asked the term for Chair and Acting Chair and was told it is one year. Aschinger nominated Sippel for Acting Chair and Klein nominated Aschinger for Acting Chair. Anderson called for nominations three times and then closed the nominations. A secret ballot was taken. Aschinger received three votes and Sippel received two votes. Aschinger was declared Acting Chair b) Possible Topics for Joint Meeting Hughes stated the Planning Commission has a pending discussion on screening and outdoor sales and storage in a commercial district and there are some issues with the residential district. He pointed out another item for discussion for the Planning Commission is the Council has approved an architect to do a proposal for the remodeling of City Hall. He added there should be a checklist/registry for new business that move into the City that lists requirements they can use as a guideline. Hughes said this came to light with the recent issue with the new owners of the Tonka Grill and thinking they could use the previous owner's beer license. Klein stated whatever is done we have to make sure it is friendly to businesses. Sippel asked how we know when a new business opens in Spring Park. Hughes said the landlord could be the trigger. He pointed out a new resident receives a packet and we should have that same philosophy and have a packet for a new business. He added a new business welcome packet/registry should be on the agenda for the joint meeting. Aschinger said this is a good time for a joint meeting so the Council to bring the Commissioner's up to date on other issues. She noted Cornerstone is increasing the number of units in the Mist development. The Deputy Clerk said there might be a public hearing for this change in March. Hughes asked if there were any other topics the Planning Commission wanted for the joint meeting. Aschinger noted the Planning Commission is responsible for beautification and she wanted to know what the vision was of the Council and look at what else needs to be done for beautification. Hughes pointed out the Planning Commission is the Beautification Board. Aschinger said she wants to understand what the past vision has been. Anderson clarified the Planning Commission is still a recommending board for beautification. Aschinger said if we are the board we Planning Commission—2/9/05 2 need to know the history of what the Council's vision is. Hughes verified an historical review of the beautification program is another topic for the joint meeting. Anderson pointed out the Planning Commission does not have any authority to make decisions. Hughes said they have the authority to approve (or not) sign permit applications. Council Person Reinhardt (in attendance) said the Planning Commission is a valuable body and the many more eyes and ears at a public hearing is valuable to the Council. She added a Council may not always agree with the Planning Commission but nonetheless they are a valuable government body. Klein stated the new Council members need the Planning Commission's support. Anderson said our strength is our ability to review the issues thoroughly. The question was asked as to what night the joint meeting would be held on and it was determined it would be a workshop meeting and held on an off night from the regular Council or Planning Commission Meetings. In conclusion of the discussion the Planning Commission would like the following topics on the agenda for the joint meeting with the Council: 1. Screening and outdoor sales and storage in a Commercial District 2. Welcome packet/registry for businesses 3. Updating of City Hall 4. Historical view of the Beautification Plan & the Planning Commission's role. Motion by Aschinger seconded by Klein to recommend to the Council to hold the joint meeting on a night other than the regular Council or Planning Commission meetings. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. 6. COMMUNICATIONS The following communications were noted: a) Council Minutes— 1/3/05 Sippel asked what LGA and PCA stood for and it was explained. He also inquired about the county not liking the existing egresses/ingresses on Sunset to the Mist property. The county's right to request changes when there is a change of use for a property on a county road was briefly discussed. Klein asked Reinhardt why she requested to change the order of business for a Council meeting. Reinhardt said it seemed to be a logical choice to change it from her observations at Council meetings during the previous months. Klein commented there was no discussion on the matter in the minutes and Reinhardt said the remarks were minor. Planning Commission—2/9/05 3 Aschinger asked when the next training for the Appeal Board of Equalization would be and if she could attend the training. She was told to call the Administrator for this information. b) Council Minutes— l/18/05 Anderson asked if there was an update on the budget for the Gillespie center. Hughes said the Council has had numerous discussions on their finances. Anderson stated the Gillespie Center was over built and is mismanaged and it would not be in the best interest of the City to donate funds. Reinhardt said part of$7000 deficit per month is depreciation on the books. Sippel asked why this is an issue for the Planning Commission. The donation in the budget to the Gillespie Center was explained and that it is a contribution for a service to residents of Spring Park. c) Special Meeting Minutes— 1/27/05 Klein asked if there was a spreadsheet showing expenses and revenues for the City. The Deputy Clerk said there is and it is part of the budget and will have this in the next packet. d) February Calendar e) March Calendar f) Channel 8 &Channel 20 Schedules g) Building & Sign Report January 2005 7. MISCELLANEOUS Klein stated it was good to have four applications for the vacancy on the Planning Commission. She said there should be a requirement that Commissioners have to attend a certain percentage of meetings in order to renew a term and if the requirement were not met they would have to go thru the Council interview process for reappointment. Mason suggested the Commissioners be required to attend a couple of Council meetings. Anderson disagreed with both suggestions. Aschinger pointed out if a Commissioner's term is up, it would give the Council a chance to review the qualifications of the person. A. J. Chouinnard, resident, pointed out it is a privilege to be on the Commission. Aschinger said if there is an issue we should not wait for the end of the term. Motion by Klein seconded by Aschinger to recommend to the Council to consider a requirement that a certain percentage of Planning Commission meetings have to be attended by a Commissioner to continue with a current term or to be renewed when the term is up. Hughes asked if this would be as needed or annually. He stated he thought the intent of this motion is because a number of residents have expressed interest in the Planning Commission and the request is asking the Council to look at the membership and the members that do not regularly attend and at the method of Planning Commission—2/9/05 4 replacement. Aschinger said we should ask the person if they want to continue, if they have a commitment and what is their intent. Anderson said we should police it ourselves and not bring it to the Council. Motion by Anderson seconded by Aschinger to amend the motion that we police the situation ourselves to determine if we want to retain a Commissioner and determine ourselves if they are beneficial to the Commission and then make a recommendation to the Council if someone should be removed from the Commission if they are not fulfilling their commitment. The following discussion occurred on the two motions: Sippel said there are two separate issues in the motions. Hughes said the amendment is changing the intent of the original motion and there are two different ideas. The Commissioners should vote on the original motion and react accordingly. He said to withdraw the amendment because it was so different from first motion. Anderson disagreed with Klein's motion. • Mason verified the original thought is attendance. Sippel agrees with both motions separately. He said attendance is a valid reason but the two motions should be treated separately and we can do the second motion regardless. We can request the Council review attendance when reappointing a commissioner. The Commissioners discussed the first motion and amendment at length and which motion is correct. Hughes asked for someone to move for a division of the question. Motion by Aschinger seconded by Sippel to separate the motion and amendment to two different motions. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. Upon roll call of the first motion Anderson voted no and Klein, Aschinger, Sippel and Mason voted aye. Motion declared carried. Upon roll call of the second motion Anderson, Klein, Aschinger and Mason voted aye and Sippel voted no. Motion declared carried. Planning Commission—2/9/05 5 Hughes pointed out the second motion reaffirms a right the Commissioners already have. In another matter Chouinnard said the pedestrian lights on county road 15, in Spring Park, do not allow enough time to walk across the entire street before the light changes. It was explained that Wayzata has a different style of light that shows a timer and how many seconds the pedestrian has to walk across the street. 8. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Aschinger seconded by Klein to adjourn the meeting at 8:58 p.m. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. SHARON CORL DEPUTY CLERK Planning Commission—2/9/05 6 'CITY OF SPRING PAFX • SPRING PARK, MINNESOTA RECEI MINUTES MAR 2 1 LGOS PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 9, 2005 H�,SEr, & VANDER 7:30 P.M. —CITY HALL �^;..._. 1. CALL TO ORDER Pledge of Allegiance Chair Anderson called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. 2. ROLL CALL Anderson, Klein, Aschinger, Sippel, Mason and Ex-Officio Hughes were present and Nelson was excused. Mork Bredeson arrived after the roll was taken. Staff present: Administrator Weeks and Deputy Clerk Corl. Others present: Alan Brixius, City Planner; Tom Seifert and Nancy Beck, City Attorneys, Ken Adolf, City Engineer. Council present: Mayor Rockvam, Council Persons Williamson, and Reinhardt. • 3. ADOPT AGENDA Motion by Aschinger seconded by Sippel to adopt the agenda. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES -February 9, 2005 Motion by Aschinger seconded by Mason to approve the Planning Commission Minutes for February 9, 2005. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. 5. PLANNING COMMISSION a) Public Hearing—Cornerstone's "Mist Lofts, LLC" Amendment to CUP's 1. Open Public Hearing Anderson read opening statements explaining the Planning Commissions responsibilities regarding a public hearing. He opened the public hearing at 7:33 p.m. a) Notice of Public Hearing Chair Anderson read notice published in the Laker newspaper. 2. Discussion& Comments a) Cornerstone Amendments to Application—2/14/05 • b) NAC Reports (Including Exhibits)—3/3/05 Planning Commission—3/9/05 1 • The above communications were included in the discussion. Brixius stated his report contained the history of the project. He said the project was approved in November and in January he received a request to amend the number of units to 120. Brixius stated Cornerstone had to go through the public hearing process with this request. He explained the maximum density is based on certain criteria; the applicant is not changing the footprint of the building. He said the question is how to make up the indoor guest parking now being used for the increase number of units. He pointed out the ordinance does not have requirements for guest parking; the applicant is suggesting shared parking arrangement with guest and commercial parking as an option. Brixius said the original conditions have to be met if this amendment is approved and if not approved, staff has to be directed to provide findings of fact. Wayne Olson, Colleen Carey, Karen Dubrosky were present from the Cornerstone Group. Noah Bly and Jeff Schoeneck were present from the Cuningham Group. Olson said they are looking for an increase of 14 units for a total of 120 units. He stated he owes the City an apology for what was lack of communication for these changes. He gave a background synopsis of their endeavor to develop the Mist property in Spring Park. He said Cornerstone needed a national institutional investor to accommodate a development of this size. He said the non-negotiable requirements of Prudential lead to the increase in the number of units for the project. Olson said the 106 units did • not fit their requirements for cost per unit and they needed 120 units to make it work out to satisfy Prudential. He added Cornerstone felt it necessary to continue their relationship with them. Olson said it took a couple of weeks to figure how to do 120 units and afford it and work it out with the plans. He said they came to the City in December and met with staff and learned a public hearing is required. The time frame for this took them through January and no meeting time was available in February. He said the only changes in the structure were made in internal walls; they negotiated with the county and the engineer and all agreed to try to work it out in March. Olson noted Cornerstone realizes their deadline is not the City's emergency. He asked for the City's help to complete this project that will be an asset to our community. Noah Bly, Cuningham architect, made his presentation. He summarized the residential parking and said they have 240 parking stalls for 120 units and all are enclosed; the number of commercial parking spaces is unchanged at 54 spaces, some are in the south building and the rest are surface parking; there are 19 shared guest parking stalls available with some located in each building. He also pointed out guest parking is not required in our ordinance. Bly noted that tandem parking was proposed but NAC indicated it would not be an acceptable use. • Planning Commission—3/9/05 2 • Bly said they have options to achieve 12 additional guest parking stalls: shared parking with the retail which means two uses stall could be shared because the retail, most likely, will not be open during the evening hours allowing space for guest parking. He said that would entail 25% to 35% of the retail parking stalls. Brixius confirmed this could be done and included in the CUP if the City feels comfortable with it. Bly said a proposed courtyard could be used for additional parking as another option and the third option would be a proof of parking solution. He explained the developer agrees that if there is proof parking is required, the developer will build it when it is deemed needed. He said this would represent the worst-case scenario of the three options. Mason asked how this would affect green space. Bly said a fountain would be removed and a large amount of green space would be taken away. He also noted the project is above green space requirements in any parking scenario. Aschinger confirmed the first option does not affect green space and the other two options do affect green space. She also referred to NAC's memo dated 1/25/05 and the statement that "tandem parking . . . can considered to be prohibited" and asked if that statement applied to proof of parking. Brixius said if the City feels comfortable two land uses can share parking and not have a negative impact then it could be approved. He said he was concerned tandem parking would not function in regard to property safety and it is not a convenient use for parking. He said we are dealing with 14 more stalls • beyond what the previously approved CUP permits. This was in agreement with the attorney. Bly explained five large penthouses on level five of the north building were subdivided. He said a buyer could combine two units after purchase before construction and the building would end up with fewer units in the end and they would still be satisfying their financial backer. He stated larger units are very popular. Aschinger noted the exterior has changed. Bly said the upper level has filled out more and use of balconies increased with the addition of increased number of smaller units. Mason asked if combining units would result in money taken off the tax roll and was told the reverse would occur. Sippel asked the intended arrangement of the interior parking for the condo units i.e. if residents would buy their spots with their units and also underground guest parking. Carey said the condo association would have to decide how to handle extra spaces. Mason asked for an explanation of the entrance in the north building regarding guest parking. Bly pointed out it is at the south side at the west end. Mason asked if any outside parking adjacent to that is proposed. Bly said it is proposed to be as close as possible and proposed also is public parking behind the existing condos on Shoreline Drive. Planning Commission—3/9/05 3 Aschinger asked who decided type of retail would be solicited. Carey said • Cornerstone would own the retail space long term and they would decide. She added they would select uses compatible with residential use i.e. sandwich shop, coffee shop, a service related to community needs. Aschinger confirmed Cornerstone indicated there would not be businesses that would need a lot of retail parking. Carey pointed out most of the retail would probably not open in the evenings leaving guest parking available. Bly said if parking becomes a need, the third option(proof of parking) would address this concern. Mork Bredeson asked Cornerstone what they are telling prospective buyers regarding retail. Carey said they are being made aware there will be activity on the first floor and buyers want to be where there is activity. She added they have intentions of putting in retail that would not be objectionable and they have not had any issues with this with previous developments. Mork Bredeson asked if there would be an ethics issue from their standpoint. Carey said they are being told the retail would be separate ownership and the intention is to put in uses that are compatible. Aschinger said she is not convinced that no evening retail is going to be the norm. Bly pointed out they have a lot of parking for the retail space, it cannot be a restaurant, it is going to be a small type service, and there is more parking than most businesses have available in the City(5 stalls per 1,000 square feet). • Klein asked how the police would know who parks where. Bly said this is a retail issue and if there were a problem then it would be addressed. Mason stated there would be parking abuses. Olson said a message would be sent once a reputation is built for that area. Mason asked if offices would be considered if retail did not work out. Carey stated they want to create a vibrant streetscape and hope it would not be all office space. Aschinger confirmed our ordinance states 5 spaces per 1,000 square feet for commercial parking. Brixius stated this is not uncommon for retail space and admitted he did not account for weekend boat travel in the summer and the proposed trail. He said to look at just the operation in the area and pointed out there will be some trade offs. He recommended that tandem parking, previously proposed, should be eliminated, and said Cornerstone then came back with other options. Olson said the City ordinance requires 2 parking stalls per unit and they have met the demand of the City ordinance. He said if someone wants to give up a parking stall, so be it. Aschinger said the additional number of units would have an impact on public services and area traffic and she has not seen any report that addresses this. Olson said what they are seeing in buyers are second home owners, snow birds; they recognize concern with traffic but do not anticipate any increase in volume; they cannot do more than hypothetically base this on the percentage • of owners that are second home buyers and snow birds. He added they are Planning Commission —3/9/05 4 hoping the impact to traffic is not significant. Brixius recalled the original • request of 106 units the overall traffic flow would not create a problem and above that number of condos, it would have to be addressed by the Planning Commission and Council in a public forum. Olson recalled the original discussion deemed the traffic would be an improvement over what the businesses on the property created. He added the county was pleased to see the parking change and more controlled access on Shoreline and on Sunset Drives. Mork Bredeson stated she thought 106 units was a lot of new presence and 120 units is more. She said she is interested in what the public has to say. Jan Struck, Northern Avenue, said a lot more traffic speeds down Northern Avenue in the spring, summer and fall creating a problem. He pointed out there are nine children on that street and this is a concern of the residents. Jennifer Mayer, Shoreline Place, said there was concern with traffic from both developments and was told by the Council it was a county problem. She said she could not see the difference between 106 and 120 units. She added Hennepin County did research and said traffic will be virtually the same. Mayer said a stop light at Bayview Place was requested and was told retail would flow better without a light. She emphasized again she does not see a difference between 106 and 120 units. A.J. Chouinnard, Warren Avenue, asked where the school bus was going to • enter into the facility. Mork Bredeson verified the concern was circulation of traffic. Brixius said if the project has a school population there will be a turn around for moving vans, trucks, school bus or they could travel through. Klein asked if option 2 or 3 poses a problem with that. Martha Mayer, Shoreline Place, said she objects to a school bus driving on that road. Brixius stated there has been extensive discussion with the county and the City and the private street meets the City's expectation. Sippel said he did not understand why Cornerstone's investor is saying 120 condo units are needed. Carey explained the following: they have used their own equity in the past but needed more money; they went through the process of selecting an investor and decided on Prudential; Prudential was arbitrary in their request with an average price per unit and 120 units was needed to meet this requirement; Cornerstone would have rather stayed with 106 units and they did not want to come back to the City with this request; they have no other way to get this deal approved by Prudential; Prudential is respectful, not rude but very clear this is not negotiable; there are other reasons they are a good partner; the City is valid that this is not their problem, it is clearly Cornerstone's. Carey said Cornerstone is hoping the City would be open to their position. Mork Bredeson stated the City has to be responsible to the community if 120 is units are approved. Carey said she hopes what they are bringing to the Planning Commission—3/9/05 5 community will be an asset and also hopes the traffic problem is solved. • Mason asked if Cornerstone thinks most of the homeowners will be there in the summer because our traffic problem comes in the summer. Carey hypothetically asked if their site would contribute to that problem or solve it. Anderson pointed out the City has seen a traffic increase largely due to development projects in Mound and traffic is going to increase with or without 120 or 106 units in the Cornerstone development. Roger Swanson, West Arm Drive, pointed out his street has a lot of children visit in the summer and there will be competition for parking spaces on the weekends. Dubrosky stated the original discussion on traffic study indicated the current property users were the heavy users compared to the proposal. Klein said she did not agree with that at that time. Aschinger state the traffic analysis was based on the property users, not on the people that want to be there. Brixius asked the Planning Commission what they want to accomplish at this meeting. He said they should close the public hearing if they are going to act upon the request. 3. Close Public Hearing Motion by Mork Bredeson seconded by Mason to close the public hearing at 9:00 p.m. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. • At this time the Planning Commission recessed for 10 minutes. 4. Recommendation to Council Bredeson asked for clarification regarding the Planning Commissioners actions at this meeting. Brixius said it is clear that Cornerstone is looking for 120 units and there is no latitude for them to go below that amount; it is clear that parking is important and one of the options has to be considered; the Planning Commission must choose an option for parking. It was decided to discuss the density request of 120 units first. Anderson opened the discussion for the Commissioners. Mason asked if there is going to be an informational meeting with Council. Weeks said the notice was posted to satisfy a notice requirement if the Council chooses to convene later. Mason asked if there is any other information from Cornerstone. Hughes said the original intent of a meeting with the Council is because of other issues with Cornerstone. Beck, City Attorney, stated the reason for the notice is if quorum with the Council was present, a notice has to be posted. Mork Bredeson asked the Commissioners if they have enough information to make a decision. It was determined there was no new information at this time but the current information could be reviewed if it would be helpful. • Planning Commission—3/9/05 6 Motion by Mork Bredeson seconded by Sippel to recommend to the • Council to approve the increase to 120 condo units for the Cornerstone proposal on the Mist property. In discussion Sippel clarified that much of the approval is to get past the requirements of Cornerstone's investor and Cornerstone's intent is to be more in line with the original request of 106 units and they would like some units larger. He added 120 units would be the worst-case scenario and to keep in mind there is no guarantee the proposal will remain 120 units. Aschinger said it is important to consider residents of the condos; there is a difference in 106 versus 120 condos and she felt the initial request was too high; it does not matter if 14 or 30 more units are being added. Mork Bredeson said that property has an attractive option compared to what was there before and it is a desirable project; we should keep in mind that it a respectable project and a presentation that is appealing. Sippel stated the proposal is in line with the City's Comprehensive Plan. Aschinger said the project is not in line with any other developments in the lake area; it is much taller and denser than any other of the communities on the lake; when one looks in terms of the lake community, this project is not consistent with any of them regarding height. Klein stated other communities have kept their height requirements at a minimum and it is not appealing because of the height. (The unattractiveness of a steel building on Shoreline • Drive was referred to and Klein clarified the height of this proposal is unattractive, not comparing it to the steel building.) Aschinger said the architecture is very nice. Mason said the increased density is overwhelming. He added he feels it is possible traffic will not make a difference. Anderson said he is not concerned with height, Cornerstone has done an outstanding job, 120 units are not going to increase the traffic, and he understands the other concerns. Sippel pointed out the height has been approved already and that has not changed. Upon roll call Klein,Aschinger, and Mason voted no and Mork Bredeson, Anderson, and Sippel voted aye. Motion declared failed. Brixius asked the Commissioners to give a recommendation to the Council on parking. Motion by Mork Bredeson seconded by Sippel to recommend to the Council to approve the proof of parking option and that it be constructed at the City's sole discretion and that it be disclosed at the time of acquisition by condo owners. In discussion, Sippel stated the recommendation that the City's discretion to • require it and the association pay for it should be added. Brixius said we want Planning Commission—3/9/05 7 to make sure the development contract states that if the City says to build it, a • disclosure to property owners and financial security should be in place. Mason asked how long a period is needed for this evaluation. Brixius said it would be a one or two-year process and security should be held for that long. Mork Bredeson said consideration to retail space should be 2 to 5 years. Sippel asked if we require it, how long do they have to construct it; should it be a condition on the CUP that no unit be allowed to have more than 2 parking spaces to allow for more guest parking. Mork Bredeson asked if boat parking would be allowed in car spaces and was told by Cornerstone reps that only cars would be allowed in parking spaces. Sippel said he would like to see guest parking reclaimed. Carey said they do not expect to see people wanting more than 3 spaces. Upon roll call Mork Bredeson, Anderson, Klein, Sippel and Mason voted aye and Aschinger voted no. Motion declared carried. Mason asked if there would be a small boat parking provision outside and was told no. 6. COMMUNICATIONS The following communications were noted: a) Council Minutes—2/7/05 b) Planning Commission List • Sippel requested an e-mail list of the Planning Commissioners and City Staff. c) Building & Sign Report February d) Channels 8 &20 Schedules e) Letter from Michael Mason Re: Cornerstone—3/2/05 f) 2004 Recap Mound Fire for Spring Park 7. MISCELLANEOUS Hu�hes reported a joint meeting with the Council was suggested for Monday May 23r . 8. ADJOUORNMENT Motion by Sippel seconded by Klein to adjourn the meeting at 9:49 p.m. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. SHARON CORL DEPUTY CLERK • Planning Commission—3/9/05 8 9 • CITY OF SPRING PARK SPRING PARK, MINNESOTA MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 13, 2005 7:30 P.M. —CITY HALL 1. CALL TO ORDER Pledge of Allegiance Chair Anderson called the meeting to order followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. 2. ROLL CALL Mork Bredeson, Anderson, Nelson, Aschinger, Mason and Ex-Officio Hughes were present and Klein and Sippel were excused. Staff present: Deputy Clerk Corl. Others present: Council Person Reinhardt. 3. ADOPT AGENDA Motion by Aschinger seconded by Mork Bredeson to adopt the agenda. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. • 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES —March 9, 2005 Aschinger referred to page 2 regarding guest parking requirement is not in the ordinance. She asked if the Council is going to be addressing this. Hughes said the Planner stated some cities use the ratio of .25 parking spaces per unit for the guest parking formula and he expects the Council to address this some time this year. Motion by Mork Bredeson seconded by Aschinger to approve the minutes for the Planning Commission meeting March 9, 2005. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. 5. PLANNING COMMISSION a) Phil Johnson, City Hall Remodeling Proposal Johnson explained his proposals provide more seating with an expanded area, a display area, update office space, modify storage areas, allow for new technology. He said Administrator Weeks requested he put something together for discussion purposes. Johnson stated he located the existing windows, doors, and existing areas in the building and noted other improvements that could be done. He said the foremost item was to change the Council/Planning Commission table. Johnson referred to drawing #1 that showed a curved Council/Planning table, • elevated camera area, staff table, and potential current technology i.e. use of monitors, cameras, and overheads with a side desk for controls operated by a staff Planning Commission—4/13/05 1 • person, an area to enter the room behind the Council/Planning Commission table, expanded seating area, a public area, existing corridor for a display area. He pointed out an existing storage area becomes increased office area, work room and storage room are changed and there is an added access to the lower level from inside with a raised area in the basement for storage of sensitive documents. Johnson referred to drawing #2. He said he changed the location of the Council/Planning Commission table, offered other options for the staff table and cameras, etc., different accesses to the council room, rest rooms designed to be ADA (American Disabilities Act) compliant, doorway change and ADA ramp outside. He pointed out this plan is different because the public does not go as far into the staff area, Administrator's office is in the same place, additional storage proposed for downstairs. Johnson said the proposal would be easy to build, and the handicap areas would be compliant and it is a quick master plan requested by the Administrator. Johnson stated other ideas could be to raise the ceiling to the original ceilings, etc to bring back original character of the building, modify the hall wall at the Council chamber to glass to allow overflow seating out in the hall and modify the front door. He asked the Commissioners if they had any questions. Anderson asked if a new lower level was planned. Johnson said just a better storage area. Mason asked why a glass wall. Johnson said it would open up the room. Mork Bredeson asked if that wall was a bearing wall and asked why a wall • has to be there. Johnson said a meeting area is needed that can be closed off and is separate from the rest of the office. Mork Bredeson stated there is wasted space in the hall. Johnson indicated a speaker system could be in that space and there is room for 10 to 15 people to sit there if over flow space is needed in the Council chamber. Mason asked if a louvered door would work. Johnson said it would not be practical to do that type of a door for the height. Mork Bredeson asked Johnson to restate the purpose to update City Hall. Johnson said the facility should be in trend with the level of modern development with updated technology, enhance accessibility to the building and there are a few areas that are not in compliance for handicap accessibility. He pointed out the obstruction in the back hall just before the back door and the Council or Planning Commission cannot see each other from one end to the other with ease. Nelson pointed out that in both plans the presenter is in the middle with their back to the audience. Johnson said that placement can be changed and some cities have cameras to display the presentation. Nelson said both plans could have the presenter at the side. Anderson agreed the presenter should be on the side. Johnson said both ways are used effectively but understood if someone in the audience had a question, it would be more polite not to turn a back to the Council. Aschinger agreed the location for the presenter should be on the side; she questions increasing accessibility because we are a small City but the goal to have • Planning Commission—4/13/05 2 • an opportunity for more seating is good; she is not sure if all the technology is needed but it is the direction we need for the planning phase. Johnson said there are all different levels of technology that can be considered and still make it easier for a presenter and not necessarily a burden. Aschinger pointed out there would be additional expenses with technology upgrades. Johnson said technology sometimes has to be concealed, etc. and lighting can be treated however one wants or for different needs. Mork Bredeson said if we do just the minimum, things should be done with the paneling and ceiling. Nelson stated if we do something we should do the entire job and not do just a "piece meal" effort, etc. Aschinger asked what the Council is asking of the Planning Commission at this point. Hughes pointed out the original thought was to eliminate the straight table for the Council and Planning Commission to make it more communicative and also to open it up and that started the process. He said this could be on the agenda for the joint meeting May 23ra Johnson stated the restrictions he was given and they were not to go overboard, maintain current heating system and structure on the inside and outside of the building and try not to alter the building to a completely different building and keep it relatively simple. The question was asked regarding having two doors in and out of the Council room with concern for the flow of traffic during elections. • It was pointed out congestion occurs when there is a large turn out of voters. Mason referred to the glass wall concept. Johnson said the glass would have framing, speakers would be used and he stated an accordion door would be the least expensive compared to glass. Mason asked if the objective is to restore the old look. Johnson said there is not much to restore but to make the interior look original. b) Sign Permit Application—George Norling, 4332 Shoreline Drive The Deputy Clerk explained the sign permit application is for a temporary sign but the applicant wanted it up more than 30 days. She added the proposed sign is within the guidelines in the ordinance, would qualify as a permanent sign, would be professionally done and not detract from the site while it is on the property. Motion by Aschinger seconded by Nelson to approve the sign permit application for George Norling, 4332 Shoreline Drive. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. c) Council Request Re: Attendance Requirements Aschinger gave a brief background of the subject and emphasized the importance of having all of the Planning Commissioners present at the meetings. Mork Bredeson asked the last time a quorum was not met and a meeting had to be cancelled and was told it has been a few years. Aschinger pointed out the benefit • if everyone is present to express comments, ideas, etc. for a broader range of Planning Commission—4/13/05 3 • input. Nelson agreed this was important. She stated she was out of town for four months and offered to resign at the time if this was going to be a problem. Mork Bredeson agreed it is appropriate to have that expectation to expect Commissioners to be in attendance and it should be an entry-level expectation. Mason pointed out the Commissioners are valued as a volunteer and it should be viewed that they are a valued entity to the City. Aschinger said choosing an acceptable percentage requirement for attendance is a good place to start. Mork Bredeson stated if a Commissioner is not here they are not sharing. She added it is an important consideration that a meeting has not been canceled because of lack of a quorum. Nelson pointed out this past year has been an unusual year for the City with the two construction projects and decisions made have never happened before. Hughes said there are a lot of items coming up in the future that need significant input i.e. reviewing the ordinances and City Hall remodeling. He said the workload would continue for a while and the value of the Planning Commission representing the residents is looked upon highly by the Council. He suggested checking to see what other cities have for ground rules for their Planning Commission. Reinhardt said the City of Plymouth requires 75% to 80% attendance record and less than that, the Council can choose to end the term or seriously take this into consideration when the person is up for reappointment. She said they meet twice a month and that is a larger commitment than in Spring • Park. Mork Bredeson volunteered to make phone calls to surrounding cities to see what criteria they have for their Planning Commissions regarding the above discussion. Anderson said if this was a perfect world there would be perfect attendance and no one would ever be absent. He added he would rather have quality members on the Commission than have someone just to fill the void; we have to be careful with the percentage choice and not do ourselves an injustice. He asked if there was an attendance criterion for the Council. Reinhardt said there is a responsibility to the voters whether one is elected or appointed. In conclusion Mork Bredeson will poll other communities requirements for Planning Commission attendance. Aschinger pointed out some communities compensate Planning Commissioners and suggested checking to see if other cities Commissioner's receive a minimal stipend. Mason pointed out this brings serious people to the table. Aschinger suggested each Commissioner come back with what they would like to recommend to include or not to include in the requirements. Mork Bredeson said to keep in mind this is a volunteer position and we like to accomplish good things and there has to be a balance. Mork Bredeson stated she will be out of town for the next meeting but will send her findings. • Planning Commission—4/13/05 4 • d) Logo vs. Smiley Face on Water Tower Roxanne Rockvam, 2437 Black Lake Road, presented a petition to keep the smiley face on the new water tower. She stated there were 234 names on the petition; to keep the smiley face was more for the historical value; we have had it on the tower for 25 to 30 years. Rockvam pointed out a lot of the City's past has gone by the wayside i.e. Spring Park was named for the springs in the area of the boat landing and the pump is no longer there to pump water from the spring; the Mist and the Log Cabin are gone. She said the names on the list are from the area and the smiley face is a landmark in the area. Rockvam proceeded to tell a story of an incident that happened to her in Japan. She stated someone in a restaurant actually new of Spring Park and surrounding area, the mayor and referred to the water tower with the smiley face. Mason asked Rockvam if she would like the logo with the smiley face. Rockvam said that would be too busy to look at but she wouldn't mind the smiley face and the word "Spring Park". Mason said an effort was made to design the logo and a good compromise would be to incorporate the smiley face with the logo and it would not be that busy. Rockvam said that would affect the logo and we should keep what is on the tower simple. Aschinger pointed out the Council approved the logo. Anderson read three letters submitted from Spring Park residents in favor of the logo on the water tower. Mork Bredeson asked how signatures were obtained for the • petition. Rockvam said the petition was available at the Incredible Festival and at the Boat Yards. She stated there was no age restriction for signing the petition. Mork Bredeson noted there were no addresses on the petition and she felt the Commissioners would want to represent just our City. Rockvam said the smiley face has history to it. Mork Bredeson disagreed and stated it is important to say we are from Spring Park and this should be on the tower. Anderson also pointed out addresses are not on that petition and he prefers the Spring Park logo as originally approved Motion by Aschinger seconded by Nelson to recommend to the Council to approve the logo to be on the water tower as previously approved. In discussion Mork Bredeson said it is important to note that there has already been an approved action in favor of the logo on the tower. She told Rockvam she appreciates her hard work that went into the effort to save the smiley face, but she feels it is important to communicate on the water tower that we are in Spring Park; it is important that the word "Spring Park" appears on the tower and most important that we communicate to the area who we are and support our City logo. She said the smiley face is not our heritage. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. • Planning Commission—4/13/05 5 • 6. COMMUNICATIONS The following communications were noted: a) Council Meeting Minutes—3/7/05 b) Council Workshop Minutes—3/16/05 c) Council Meeting Minutes— 3/21/05 d) Council Meeting Minutes— 3/22/05 Aschinger referred to page 2, 3.13 and referred to the water meters and a base charge per unit and asked for an explanation. She was told there would be a separate meter for commercial space and a separate meter for the sprinkler system but no individual meters for each resident,just one meter. It was confirmed they would be charged for all of the water used in the residential units including a base charge per unit and the association would probably pay for the water bill. e) April Calendar 0 Channels 8 & 20 Schedules g) Building & Sign Report—March 7. MISCELLANEOUS Nelson said she does not want the City to forget the potential Sunset Drive project. She said she visualized how much better the street would look without the overhead wires. Reinhardt mentioned a CIP would solve that and we would put everything on the list. • Mason suggested changing the meeting time for the Planning Commission to 7:00 p.m. Hughes said this could be explored. Anderson pointed out a group he meets with that changed the starting time to a half hour earlier and this increased the membership. It was noted the Council passes a resolution at the beginning of every year stating the times of City meetings. It was also noted two Commissioners are absent but those present are in agreement with the proposed change. This will be put on the agenda for the meeting in May. Aschinger referred to page 3 of the Spring Newsletter, Council and Planning Commission News and asked for a retraction regarding the Planning Commission approving the increased number of units. It was noted it should have read the split vote declared the motion failed. This will be noted in the next Newsletter 8. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Nelson seconded by Aschinger to adjourn the meeting at 8:55 p.m. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. SHARON CORL • DEPUTY CLERK Planning Commission—4/13/05 6 CITY OF SPRING PARK RECEIVED • SPRING PARK, MINNESOTA MINUTES MAY 18 20(5 PLANNING COMMISSION HEAD, SEIFERT MAY 11, 2005 do VANDER WEIDE 7:00 P.M. —CITY HALL 1. CALL TO ORDER Pledge of Alliance Chair Anderson called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. followed by the pledge of allegiance. 2. ROLL CALL Anderson, Nelson, Klein, Aschinger, Sippel, Mason and Ex-Officio Hughes were present and Mork Bredeson was excused. Staff present: Deputy Clerk Corl. Others present: Council Person Reinhardt. 3. ADOPT AGENDA Motion by Nelson seconded by Aschinger to adopt the agenda. All votes were • aye. Motion declared carried. 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES —April 13, 2005 Motion by Sippel seconded by Nelson to approve the minutes for the Planning Commission Meeting April 12, 2005. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. Klein noted Aschinger said there was an incorrect statement in the Newsletter and asked who wrote the Newsletter and who proofed it. She suggested another person proof it. Anderson said this should have been stated under "Miscellaneous" on the agenda. 5. PLANNING COMMISSION a) George Norling, Proposal for Thor Thompson Norling stated he was requested to make a recommendation for Thor Thompson Park of which he displayed the site on the board. He said the site of the park is of a lower elevation which takes away from a drive-by appeal and an enhancement would be to elevate the flag, signage and landscaping. He added the park is known to flood and his proposal would elevate the area approximately 30 inches to make for a more pleasant view. He said his proposal is a clean and elegant presentation and would be a compliment to the City. • Planning Commission—5/11/05 1 Norling pointed out the park does not accommodate a lot of choices for location • so he chose where the small sign is now. He said the sign would be illuminated with a hood over it to preserve it. Anderson asked if the hood would be lit. Norling said it would be lit and the flag gives immediate recognition that the park is a government facility. He recognized it is important to illuminate the flag. Norling said the pole would be 25' with a 4' x 6' flag; the elevating would be done in modular block and concrete or exposed aggregate could be used for durability; or in lieu of that stairs or a ramp to the flag would reduce costs. Aschinger noted the exposed aggregate in front of City Hall needs repair and she questioned its durability. Norling said an abrasive chemical that eats into the concrete was used to deice the sidewalk and he noted he gave the City a non- abrasive product to use. Anderson thought the original plan included heated steps. Norling said the budget did not allow for that. Aschinger asked how far off the street the proposed area is and how would it be impacted regarding a salt issue. Norling pointed out the speed limit is only 30 mph and it would be far enough off the street to be okay. Mason asked how many feet from the road this would be and was told about 40' to 45'. Nelson inquired about a walking path. Norling pointed out he could propose a path. Klein agreed it needs a path and a park bench. Hughes asked Anderson what size flag was given to the City and was told it was 4' by 6'. Norling pointed out the plants and trees would stay somewhat compact in the area • with a year round balance with greenery and flowering bushes and plants accented with color. He pointed out there is currently a chain link fence for the ball field. He said he would propose that it be removed and install a black vinyl fence in its place. Mason asked the durability and cost of a black vinyl fence. Norling said it would last at least 30 years; it is a nice looking fence, and would be a great investment. Norling asked if the Commission would like him to obtain pricing for the fence. Anderson said he would like to wait for the overall plan to be done when Sunset Drive is reviewed but it is paramount to illuminate the flag. Klein recommended Norling phase the plan and price out the basics. Norling said it is not that big of a plan and it could be done in one phase. Aschinger asked the approximate cost of just illuminating the flag versus the cost of the entire project. Norling said to add illumination the cost could be from $800 to $1,200, to replace the flagpole and add illumination about $4,000, and the entire project could be $12,000 to $13,000. Anderson said the costs would have to be budgeted ahead. Mason asked if there was discussion of moving the flagpole prior to the proposal. Norling said no, but after he evaluated the park he decided this is the best location that would not interfere with the ball field, define it as a park, give it recognition as a focal point and would be a compliment to the City. Klein said we should explore the Beautification Funds and time frame. Aschinger • said we should look at the entire scope of beautification to see what can be done. Planning Commission—5/11/05 2 • Anderson stated we should know the total cost of a particular project. Sippel said Norling has given us an estimate. Mason asked how much maintenance the proposal would require. Norling said if rock was used the shrubbery would require trimming once a year and this could be done when the City's welcome signs are done. Nelson asked if annuals would be planted. Norling said this was optional and annuals are labor intensive. Klein verified the approximate cost of $1,000 to light the flag at its current location and $4,000 for a new flag and pole, illuminating it and moving it to the new location. Norling asked if the Commissioners are asking him to move the flagpole versus buying a new one. Nelson said it should be a new pole. Hughes pointed out the Council is looking for a recommendation. Sippel said this fits into the Sunset Drive improvement project. Anderson said the original request made was to have the existing flag illuminated to be in compliance with flag etiquette. He asked for a recommendation to the Council. Motion by Sippel seconded by Klein to recommend to the Council a short- term plan to illuminate the existing pole and incorporated a long-term plan into the Beautification Plan for Sunset Drive. In discussion Aschinger questioned if it was desirable to invest $1,000 to light it and then move it. She said the first decision should be deciding the location and • then to light it where we want it for the long tern. Mason asked if the landscaping has to be raised and if this was the highest point in the park. Norling said there are no other options without interfering with the ball field. Hughes asked what happens to the existing tree. Norling said it would be moved to another location in the park. Anderson said the immediate concern should be illuminating the flag. He said he would rather spend the $4,000 now. There were five no votes and Sippel voted aye. Motion declared failed. Motion by Aschinger seconded by Nelson to recommend to the Council to light the flag in its permanent location proposed by Norling. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. In discussion there was confusion regarding using the old flagpole. Aschinger said we should use the old pole if possible. Anderson suggested using whatever pole is appropriate. Hughes said the intent of the motion is the Planning Commission is recommending to the Council that the existing pole location be changed to the location in the plans and to spend money to illuminate flag in the new permanent location and the plan is to implement the rest of the plan over time and so the flag would not have to be moved again. Anderson stated the flag has to be illuminated regardless. Planning Commission—5/11/05 3 • Klein said she would like Norling to look at solar lighting and make a recommendation to the Council. b) Attendance Requirements For Commissioners Anderson pointed out Mork Bredeson did an outstanding job on the survey. Klein suggested attendance should be 70% and if less the Council should review the status and interest of the Commissioner. Sippel said missing three meetings a year is 75% and four is 66%. Aschinger said she is uncomfortable making a recommendation without a full Commission present. Sippel said there has never been full attendance since he has been on the Planning Commission. Mason suggested tabling this to the next meeting and if a commissioner is going to be absent, they should send a letter with their recommendation. Hughes cautioned the Commissioners to enter into this decision cautiously and thoughtfully and make a recommendation that includes a percentage rather than a particular hard fast number. Anderson stated the question was asked at a previous meeting regarding a Planning Commission meeting called because a quorum was not met and this did not seem to be a problem. Nelson pointed out when she first came on the Commission, several meetings.were cancelled because there was not a quorum or there was nothing for an agenda. Hughes suggested they define what comprises an excused absence. Sippel added they should set up a guideline. Anderson recommended- the Commissioners write down their suggestion and bring it to the next meeting. • c) 7:00 Meeting Start Time Motion by Klein seconded by Mason to change the Planning Commission Meeting start time from 7:30 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. effective the next Planning Commission Meeting. In discussion Sippel asked if the Council has to approve this. Hughes read the resolution regarding City meetings approved at the beginning of the year by the Council and it does not specify time for the Council and Planning Commission Meeting. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. 6. COMMUNICATIONS The following communications were noted: a) Council Meeting Minutes—April 4, 2005 Aschinger referred to page 4 and the amending resolutions approved by the Council for the Mist Lofts project. She asked what they were for. Hughes said it was approving the increase in the number of units. He pointed out the details were put in order at a previous meeting and the following Council meeting those changes are put in resolution form. Klein asked Reinhardt if she saw the is correction referring to the number of parking spaces for combined units and was Planning Commission—5/11/05 4 • told no. Aschinger asked if it is known what new businesses are going to occupy the commercial space. Hughes said the high number came from the commercial marketing person for Cornerstone and it was realistically changed to a lower number. b) Board of Review—April 11, 2005 c) Council Meeting Minutes—April 18, 2005 d) Reconvened Board of Review—April 25, 2005 Aschinger referred to the resident requesting the developer to clean out the holding pond on West Arm Drive and asked if there was any further mention of this going to be done. Hughes said he would find out. Sippel asked how the developer was going to prevent run off from going into the storm sewer. Mason said a basket is being placed in the storm sewer to catch the grit. e) Council Meeting Minutes—May 2, 2005 Sippel referred to Widmer asking if there was a building permit issued for Norling for redoing the side of the building and asked where this building was. Hughes said it was the former car wash abutting City Hall property. Sippel asked if the entire logo would be on the smiley face. Hughes said it would not include "on Lake Minnetonka". Klein stated she considered resigning because the Planning Commission recommendation was ignored. Aschinger pointed out the Council felt it was inappropriate to go back on a prior Council decision regarding the change in the number of units for the Mist Lofts project but they did for the smiley face. Klein said she would like the increased costs of adding the logo and the smiley face. Sippel said the position of the graphics is critical and agreed the • graphics should be offset 45% from the direction of County Road 15. f) Building & Sign Report April g) Channels 8 & 20 Schedules h) May Calendar Aschinger asked if it was possible to start the joint meeting at 7:00 p.m. with a two-hour limit to 9:00 p.m. Hughes said he could request it. Mason said there should be a limit on the time one speaks. Motion by Mason seconded by Aschinger to recommend to the Council to start the joint meeting at 7:00 p.m. with a 2 hour limit with the expectation this be an open discussion between the Planning Commission and the Council. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. In discussion Hughes said the language of the motion should state to encourage a full and open discussion for the Planning Commission and Council, show respect for everyone's opinion and watch the clock. i) Memo From Staff Re: Pictures &Website—5/6/05 Sippel stated if the minutes are on the website they should be kept up to date. 7. MISCELLANEOUS Mason stated Spring Street does not look wide enough at the west end and Klein agreed with questioning what we note is going on with that construction. Hughes • referred to the comment made at a Council Meeting in referring to the width of the Planning Commission—5/11/05 5 road at the curve on the south side of Spring Street. He said the City owns only 6 • inches and a retaining wall at that location would make it difficult for a car to open a car door. He said it had to do with the height of the road in relation to Tonka Ventures property. Aschinger said a resident contacted her and is concerned that a residential property has front-end loaders and a bobcat in their yard. She asked what the procedure is to address this. The Deputy Clerk stated a concerned resident also called City Hall regarding this and was told to write a letter of complaint. 8. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Aschinger seconded by Mason to adjourn the meeting at 9:00 p.m. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. LC SHARON CORL DEPUTY CLERK • Planning Commission—5111105 6 CITY OF SPRING PARK • SPRING PARK, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 8, 2005 7:00 P.M. —CITY HALL 1. CALL TO ORDER Chair Anderson called the meeting to.order at 7:30 p.m. followed by the pledge of allegiance. 2. ROLL CALL Mork Bredeson, Anderson, Klein, Sippel, Mason and Ex-Officio Hughes were present and Aschinger arrived after the roll was taken. Staff present: Deputy Clerk Corl. Others present: Council Person Williamson. 3. ADOPT AGENDA Motion by Mork Bredeson seconded by Klein to adopt the agenda. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. • 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES—May 11, 2005 Motion by Klein seconded by Mason to approve the minutes for the Planning Commission Meeting May 11, 2005. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. 5. PLANNING COMMISSION a) Recommendation on Guidelines for Attendance Anderson stated the Commissioners were asked to come up with a recommendation for reviewing attendance. Klein suggested this discussion take place when Aschinger arrives and all were in agreement. b) Possible Recommendation for PUD (Planned Unit Development) 1. Sample Ordinance From New Hope Hughes stated it was thought it would have been easier if a PUD were in place when the two developments were done. He said the planner stated the same thing was accomplished with the CUP's as a PUD. He said we could ask basic questions i.e. should we have one and what should it contain. Hughes asked Aschinger if she new if there were basic guidelines from the state. He recommended the Commissioners look at a basic outline he had of a PUD and suggested reviewing if we need one or want one in place. Mork Bredeson asked the difference with a CUP and PUD. Hughes pointed • out with a PUD there are not individual variances, etc. and one set of findings. 1 Mason asked if the state guidelines are easy to follow. Hughes said it was a • starting point. He said he called the City of Maple Grove regarding a comparison of the two and the person he spoke with said the work effort on the part of the City was the same for a PUD as for a CUP except with a PUD there is more control over the developer. Mason said Maple Grove has the staff and a PUD process is more functional for a larger City than for a smaller city. Klein said the staff is the same only ours is contracted. Hughes pointed out the Council does not want to spend a lot of money on developing a PUD at this time. Klein said it does not look difficult to customize the PUD ordinance for New Hope to fit Spring Park. Mork Bredeson pointed out Maple Grove is a developing community and our community is developed; we could leave it as a CUP and talk through the issues; and we are not in a position for a project that would need one at this time. Klein stated a PUD is putting all the variances, cups, etc. into a package and discuss it as one general concept plan. She pointed out the general concept plans for the new development's in Spring Park were not presented to the public until it was to the Council's liking. Mason suggested holding an informal open house before a pubic hearing, pool ideas and get an idea of where the public is coming from. Klein said the New Hope ordinance is a general concept plan and she liked the way was it was worded. She said there • was considerable discussion at the joint meeting and could can see where it would benefit us if redevelopment occurred; the sample ordinance could be customized for us and if not this year, next year. Mason asked if a PUD could be applied at various times or does it have to be in place. Sippel said a developer has to request a PUD and the Council has to go back and put one in place. Klein suggested each one mark what they like and note it, or recommend if we should pursue this. Hughes again stated the City Council is not interested in spending money until after the first of the year. Klein said it would take three to six months to put an ordinance together. Sippel said we should first decide if we want a PUD; it is a tool for a commercial project or development; it is more appropriate for a potential residential development in an area for revitalization; there are no commercial areas in town that would qualify for consolidation like there is for residential. Anderson said to weigh the advantages of having a PUD versus not having a PUD. Sippel said there is really not a disadvantage and it could be used as a tool for each new development. Klein said the City has to make sure each development is handled consistently. Aschinger asked if there was an historical reason why the City does not have a PUD. Corl explained that when the Council finished working on the zoning ordinance, the planner • recommended including a PUD but the Council had just finished completing all pure districts and did not want to change that. Hughes suggested studying 2 it for awhile. Mason said they have six months to consider it. Klein asked • why it was even brought up. Hughes said from a finance point of view it can be put in the budget. Aschinger stated that maybe they could look at the pure districts and see if there is something to explore. Hughes said a PUD could be used for open space for i.e. a pond or attached to a particular piece of property and if we have a PUD it could be a shell that we could customize for a particular piece of property. Williamson stated it is correct to have a shell and tweak it to an individual piece of property. Motion by Aschinger to recommend to the Council that the Planning Commission is going to research further where a PUD fits into the City's Comprehensive Plan. Sippel said the motion is a non-action motion. Mork Bredeson stated the point is we are not making a decision right now. Motion was withdrawn Klein stated she would like an electronic version of the New Hope ordinance. Hughes will check into this. a) Recommendation on Guidelines for Attendance • Sippel pointed out the position of Planning Commissioner is a volunteer position, if we want the City Council to review the attendance of someone, the Planning Commission should so initiate it and he recommended only four absentees allowed per year. He said if someone is not in attendance they are not contributing. Mason asked if this included meetings not held. Mork Bredeson said in most communities she included in her survey, the role of Planning Commissioner is a volunteer position. She stated there should be consistency in the commitment and the 3/4ths rule is appropriate. She also agreed the Commission should manage it first before it goes to the Council. Mork Bredeson said not a single community she surveyed felt they had a situation where they had to remove someone from the Planning Commission. Sippel pointed out when he was appointed to the Planning Commission he asked why the Commission even exists because every decision goes to the Council and he questioned the value of the Commission and maybe they should cease to exist. He said he was told it is required by state to have a Planning Commission. He added he was being the devils advocate. Aschinger stated she prefers their decision to be a guideline rather than a rule and would like to see people open to input outside of a meeting. She said they have never tried to gather that input from someone that is missing a meeting and ask • for that person's input in a non-formal sense. Mork Bredeson pointed out a 3 person may not always be available for that but she is open to some • communication outside of the meeting. Mason said it was a good example when Mork Bredeson and Sippel were absent from a meeting they provided us with input. Anderson agreed and said he would rather have good input from someone that cannot attend regularly than have someone attend all the time that does not contribute. He added the Chair should be responsible for obtaining input from someone that is absent. Mason said you cannot always get a hold of somebody and the Deputy Clerk should be the one that is notified. Sippel suggested notifying the chair first. Klein said what was suggested were all good ideas and what was accomplished with the discussion was what she intended when she brought it up for discussion. She said this should be discussed when the Council interviews a potential candidate and they should be told what is expected of them for attendance. Motion by Sippel seconded by Aschinger to recommend to the Council to communicate to potential applicants for the Planning Commission the expectation that they are expected to participate in at least 3/4's of the meetings per year. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. 6. COMMUNICATIONS a) Council Minutes—5/16/05 Klein referred to page 9, #4 (re: cost of smiley face). She asked what were those • costs and how could this b? approved without the costs known. Hughes stated he did not know the figure but he can check on it. Williamson said the stencil cost $6,500 and the painting was $5,000, the engineer thought both could be done for $5,000 but the actual cost was slightly above $4,000 for graphics and painting. Klein asked if that figure includes the time for the engineer, staff, and other associated costs. Aschinger asked for confirmation the Council approved the smiley face that is the size of the existing face. Hughes said they had drawings to look at and there were two decisions, one was the size of the smiley face and the other decision was the direction the logo and the smiley face would face. He said the Council approved the smaller face of the two choices and that one is larger than the existing face. Aschinger pointed out the minutes stated the face approved is smaller. Anderson stated if the Council is not going to listen what the Planning Commission recommended twice then they should not ask us to make a recommendation. Williamson said when it is a unanimous recommendation, he considers that as a mandate, but that is his personal political opinion. He said the vote went differently on the Council and the next opportunity to bring up the vote was not a unanimous vote. Mork Bredeson thanked Williamson for defending the Planning Commission and saying such at the Council Meeting. Hughes shared the same sentiments. The • Commissioners briefly discussed the situation and procedure taken and the fact 4 they were caught off guard when the matter was brought back up. Hughes said • the more we all talk to one another before the vote the better off we are. Hughes stated at the Council Meeting there seems to be divided opinions and he. would like affirmation of the Planning Commissions motion on the new flagpole.' He said they recommended a new one and light the flag and asked if that is still.a:* firm feeling on the Commissioners part. Klein stated the Council asked for a;, recommendation and we gave them one. Hughes said he wanted to make sure of'. their decision and would "champion" it. Sippel said he was in favor of the:: decision; Mork Bredeson said she was neutral; Aschinger said the money should be spent on the final location of the flag pole; Anderson said he thought a new flag pole was going to be installed in the new location; Mason said he would like to see a new pole in the old location; Klein said it is the City's central park, people have died for that flag, and it should be glorified. b) Council &Planning Comm. Minutes & Council Only Minutes—5/23/05 c) June Calendar At this time (8:10 p.m.) Chair Anderson had to leave the meeting and turned it over to Acting Chair Aschinger. 7. MISCELLANEOUS Aschinger referred to the May 2nd communications to Hennepin County • Environmental Services and the MN Dept. of Employ. &Econ. Devel. From the City regarding the grant request by Cornerstone for The Mist Lofts. She requested that our attorney draft new letters that would update and correct those communications. She pointed out the Administrator was stating, in the letters, that we are going to have the likes of a restaurant (i.e. Macaroni Grill) and we clearly said no restaurant. She said she would like to formally complain that our Administrator misrepresented the Council and Planning Commission. Hughes also expressed concerned and said there are plans to rectify this. Hughes noted the meeting on the trail being hosted by Three Rivers Park District Thursday June 9ch at the Freshwater facility. Mason asked if there were any applicants for the Planning Commission opening and was told two of the previous applicants are interested. Mason said he was in favor of the idea to continue the education process that Hughes recommended when he was on the Planning Commission. Mason suggested that at the end of each meeting and when there is nothing for an agenda, a discussion could be held on a specific subject of interest to the Planning Commission. Some of Mason's ideas are: annually reviewing the by laws; on joint meetings are we thinking alike with the Council and are we clear about what we want for our City; strengths and weaknesses; creating a big board so people can put their ideas on that • board for everyone to see; open house before a public hearing to create more of a causal atmosphere. Klein said she would like the public hearing to be the first 5 discussion. Hughes clarified the open house suggestion may be one half hour prior • to the public hearing, everyone would be all on level and opinions could be expressed casually, more people would be interested in coming and not worried about the formality of things. Mason added to his list having a clear vision for the community and make better projections for our City for the future; trying to create where our City is going and be able to communicate that; in a course of time create ideas how to conduct a joint meeting so it does not turn out to be a Council meeting; discussion on why we are here and it is important to specify what our job is as a Planning Commission. He commented on Hughes statements made before the start of public hearings and how it set the stage for all public hearings. Mason added there should be a form for a conflict of interest and that person with the conflict should actually leave the room during the discussion. He said this applies to the Council and Planning Commission. Aschinger agreed it is a good idea to have a form to fill out for conflicts of interest because it would give a person time to think about it and it would keep everything appropriate. She stated she also considers this position a continuing education and wants to learn as much as possible by taking a few minutes at the end of the agenda to discuss something. Motion by Mason seconded by Sippel to allow time at the end of each agenda for a topic for discussion for an educational issue pertaining to the Planning Commission and add the same to a Planning Commission meeting when there • are no items for an agenda. Aschinger added a friendly amendment contingent on time allowed and not in the summer. She pointed out some of our meeting agendas are full, summer is too short in Minnesota so if there are no items for the agenda, call the meeting but the winter is different. Klein said some discussions do not move forward unless they are Council requests. Mason pointed out the motion was to add something educational to the meeting. The maker and the person that seconded the motion agreed to the amendment. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. 8. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Sippel seconded by Klein to adjourn the meeting at 8:28 p.m. All votes were aye. i j SHARON CORL • DEPUTY CLERK 6 RECEIVED • CITY OF SPRING PARK JUL 18 2005 SPRING PARK, MINNESOTA HEAD, SEIFERT MINUTES &VANDER WEIDE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JULY 13, 2005 7:00 P.M. —CITY HALL 1. CALL TO ORDER Pledge of Allegiance Chair Anderson called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. 2. ROLL CALL Anderson, Klein, Aschinger, Mason, Maloney and Ex-Officio Hughes were present, Sippel was excused and Mork Bredeson arrived after the roll was taken. Staff present: Deputy Clerk Corl. Others present: Council Person Reinhardt. OATH OF OFFICE—Sera Maloney Deputy Clerk Corl administered the Oath of Office to Sera Maloney, 4710 West Arm Road. • 3. ADOPT AGENDA Motion by Aschinger seconded by Mason to adopt the agenda. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES —June 8, 2005 Motion by Aschinger seconded by Maloney to approve the minutes for the Planning Commission Meeting June 8, 2005. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. 5. PLANNING COMMISSION a) Norling's Recommendation Re: Perennial Beds—6/14/05 Hughes explained Norling's recommendation. He pointed out the location of the beds are yet to be determined and this proposal is a result of comments from the Mayor that he liked what Norling is doing and wanted more recommendations. He added the yellow lilies are in place now and survive the salt. Hughes also added the proposal is not in the current budget. Aschinger asked if the beds would be put in this season and Hughes said if so deemed. Aschinger asked if the proposal is for one or two beds because the cost states bed, and does the cost include maintenance. She said she would assume a current bed(s) would be made wider and the Black Eyed Susan's added because they bloom after the lilies. • Planning Commission Meeting—7/13/05 1 • Klein asked which two beds would be done. Hughes said as best as he can determine there would be two new beds. Anderson stated it is difficult to make a decision when Norling is not here to answer questions. Hughes reviewed the questions are: is the price is per bed, and is the maintenance included. Klein said we should save the money for the flagpole. Aschinger said they should decide if the Planning Commission is in favor of supporting the concept or have other priorities. Maloney said she would support it if it were known if it was one bed or more than one. Klein asked how this would affect flag situation and Hughes said it does not affect it. He said the Council moved to have the existing flagpole painted and lit and that motion failed and the second motion was to install a new flagpole near the sign and light it and that motion passed. Reinhardt pointed out this was the Planning Commission's recommendation. Klein suggested putting flowers by the new flagpole. Hughes said the proposal is talking about Shoreline Drive and introducing another color(red). Aschinger said the recommendation would extend the blooming time of the flowers. Anderson pointed out Norling wants it to be successful and his recommendation is something that will work for the City. Mason asked if Norling is coming to the meeting. Hughes said he was not because he submits a lot of proposals to the City that are not acted upon. • Aschinger asked how this fits in with the Beautification Plan in general and commented this is a perennial we will benefit from it next spring. Klein asked if Norling would guarantee the new planting. Mason requested verification there would be contrasting colors. Maloney said the letter referred to complementary flowers. Mason suggested different parts of the City have different themes. Maloney stated it helps to coordinate everything. Anderson asked when the illumination of the flag is going to take place. Hughes said this was left up to Goman (Utility Superintendent). Anderson asked what else is included in Norling's proposal. Hughes said it would be best to have Norling choose the best location for the beds. Klein said she requested Norling look into solar lighting for the flag. Hughes said that job was taken away from Norling and put into Goman's hands. Klein said she would write Goman a letter. Anderson pointed out a recommendation on Norling's proposal is not necessary at this time. Hughes stated the reason for no action is this is incomplete in terms of stating a location, one or two beds and does the pricing include maintenance. 6. COMMUNICATIONS The following communications were noted: a) Council Minutes—6/6/05 • b) Council Minutes—6/20/05 Planning Commission Meeting—7/13/05 2 • c) July Calendar d) Building & Sign Report—May&June e) Channels 8 &20 Schedules 0 Additional Costs for Smiley Face g) Henn. Co. Transportation Re: Closure of CSAH 15 h) Henn. Co. Transportation Re: 2004 Traffic Flow Map i) Council &Planning Commission Updated List j) Newsletter— Summer 2005 Mork Bredeson stated she recently received three calls on the Newsletter and the callers said it is informational, appreciated, and they look forward to receiving it. Aschinger referred to the Mayor's article and his statement about the increase in the City's market value that will benefit the taxpayers. She said this statement plants the seed of expectation that taxes will decrease. She added the article implies we will have lower taxes and this should be kept in mind when discussing new water/sewer rates. 7. MISCELLANEOUS Anderson verified the Planning Commission meetings are going to start at 7:00 pm all year. Hughes referred to Aschinger's statement regarding to the mention of market value in the Newsletter. He said those figures would relate only to properties in that same • classification (condos). He added he was amazed what influences taxes more is the sale price of like properties. Reinhardt referred to Norling's proposal for Beautification. She said she did research on the Beautification Plan and found outdated information from the late 70's in the files in the office. She asked the Commissioners if they have any expectations for a Beautification Plan. She said she wants feedback on how they see the Planning Commission's role in the plan. Mork Bredeson said the Commission decided on community colors and that suggestion is made when a sign application comes before them. She said the Planning Commission could revisit the old Beautification Plans, even though the target has changed. She added it is a great opportunity for us to think about what we want and what is available. Maloney said it would be nice to have something that would spell out what our direction is supposed to be. Anderson asked if there is a budget for beautification. Mork Bredeson said the money could be spent in different ways and not necessarily for plantings, etc. but also for updating the outdoor storage ordinance, etc. Maloney said they could also look at other streets besides the main streets in the City and see what could be done. Deputy Clerk Corl will put the old Beautification Plans in the packet for the next Planning Commission meeting. Hughes said the trailhead is in the works and that is another thing to look at. Klein • asked if this is part of the beautification budget and Hughes said it was not, the Planning Commission Meeting—7/13/05 3 • county is paying for that area. Hughes said the Commissioners could ask for available funds. Mason asked if Norling is the only landscaper we have to use. Reinhardt said the total costs are getting close to having to advertise for bids. Anderson said it is a good idea to obtain different costs. Anderson asked the status of the request for a crosswalk from Phil Schrader (from the past Council meeting). Hughes said it was referred to the county and the police department. 8. ADJOUORNMENT Motion by Mork Bredeson seconded by Klein to adjourn the meeting at 7:48 p.m. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. SHARON CORL DEPUTY CLERK • • Planning Commission Meeting—7/13/05 4 • CITY OF SPRING PARK SPRING PARK, MINNESOTA MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 10, 2005 7:00 P.M. - CITY HALL 1. CALL TO ORDER Pledge Of Allegiance Acting Chair Aschinger called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. followed by the pledge of allegiance. 2. ROLL CALL Mork Bredeson, Klein, Maloney, Aschinger, Mason, and Ex-Officio Hughes were present. Sippel and Anderson arrived after the roll was taken. Staff present: Deputy Clerk Corl. Others present: Council Person Reinhardt and Angela Darst, Recorder. 3. ADOPT AGENDA • Motion by Klein seconded by Mork Bredeson to adopt the agenda. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES—July 13, 2005 Mork Bredeson wants to amend the minutes to show she arrived before roll was taken. Motion by Mork Bredeson seconded by Maloney to approve the amended minutes for the Planning Commission Meeting July 13, 2005. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. 5. PLANNING COMMISSION a) Sign Permit Application -Presby. Homes, 4527 Shoreline Drive Klein asked if the small sign was the existing sign and the large sign the new sign. Deputy Corl said that is correct. The Commissioners said they thought the sign looked very nice. Motion by Klein seconded by Mork Bredeson to approve the Sign Permit Application for Presbyterian Homes. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. b) Possible Recommendation to Council Re: Outdoor Storage/Sales • 1 NAC Re: Outdoor Storage/Sales—7/25/05 Planning Commission—8/10/05 1 • 2. Suggested Ordinance Amendment Klein referred to adequate parking in the proposed ordinance on page 3, item 21. She asked the definition of adequate parking. Hughes stated that they take parking to be adequate based on the current ordinance. If they want to put up a sales area in their existing parking lot and it took up half the parking lot, it would not meet the existing parking requirements. It would depend on how many parking spaces they need based on the ordinance. No matter what they used for outdoor storage it could not reduce their amount of required parking. Aschinger stated she was glad to see storage areas shall have a paved surface. (Pages 4 & 5 & Page 1.6.d). Mork Bredeson referred to Section 4.2.b. and stated she was happy to see that if a business sells something, they are allowed to sell something else related to the business. Klein asked if anyone knew the definition of an accessory to a principal use. Hughes stated that the zoning book has the definitions. The principal use is the main use of land or buildings as distinguished from subordinate or accessory uses. Accessible use may be either permitted or conditional. An accessory use is a subordinate building or use that is located upon the same lot on which the main building or uses are situated and which is recently necessary and incidental to the conduct of the primary use of such main buildings or use. Aschinger asked about the existing language in section 2, item 6.a. The • ordinance states that sales are limited to not more than 14 consecutive days. Hughes stated that this is for a conditional use. A conditional use permit can get renewed every year. Klein asked if the temporary use permit is new to this ordinance. Aschinger said she did not know if it was new but that it had existing language. Klein asked how this was enforced. Aschinger stated it was enforced by the dates on the permit. Klein asked what the difference was between the permits and that it is cheaper to get the temporary permit. The conditional use permit cost $150.00 and the temporary use permit costs $15.00. Reinhardt stated that only Ace Hardware gets the conditional use permit every year. Klein asked what kind of permit Minnetonka Drive-in has. Aschinger asked if they have a special permit. Anderson asked if it is necessary for a business to have a permit. Klein stated what is the point of the ordinance is they are not enforcing it. Klein also stated that she thought this proposed ordinance amendment was restrictive. Aschinger stated the City could not enforce an ordinance on a selective basis. She stated this ordinance is not intended for convenience and that the power from the City needs to be consistent. Mork Bredeson stated that this proposed ordinance amendment could be called upon to be enforced when there is an issue. • Planning Commission—8/10/05 2 f • Klein asked how it would affect current businesses. Maloney stated that it would not be fair to just enforce this ordinance with new businesses. Mason stated that the City would need to be reasonable. Maloney stated they could review how the proposed ordinance amendment is worded. Aschinger suggested reviewing language to see if it needs more flexibility before it is applied. Aschinger also stated that she is not prepared to make a recommendation. Sippel suggested going back to the Planner with what we want clarified. Aschinger said we could request that maybe the City Planner could attend the next meeting. Anderson stated the current language is not bad. Aschinger stated the conclusion is for our review and editing. She said they could compile some questions and forward it back to NAC. Mork Bredeson stated that if a condition did exist, then the permit could be enforced. Sippel said that if they passed the proposed ordinance amendment they could enforce it at any time. He added this subject has been discussed for years and if we have something in front of us that clarifies intent we should do something with it. He said he did not see any enforcement mechanism in the proposed amendment. Hughes referred to Section 10 in the current zoning ordinance that enforcement and penalties are enforced by the Zoning Administrator and are a • misdemeanor. Sippel stated that before a motion is made they should clarify the terminology. He stated that maybe a temporary outdoor sale could have no permit, a sale of more than 100% use of the building would be eligible for approval, and that a sale out of those bounds would require approval from the Council. Mork Bredeson stated a motion could be made that deviations of conditions would require a permit. Maloney asked how many businesses have obtained a continual use permit. Corl stated that there are about twelve. Ace Hardware does have a CUP that is reviewed annually. Klein asked what the Council wanted the Planning Commission to do with this. Corl stated that the Council has not seen this proposed ordinance amendment and that they would receive it when a recommendation was made for them to consider. Aschinger stated that she would support a motion bringing the ordinance to the Council to review for editing at a joint meeting. Hughes stated that there was no plan from the Council to present this at a public hearing for approval. Aschinger recommended that the Council edit and finalize this proposed ordinance amendment for a public hearing. Motion by Sippel seconded by Mork Bredeson to table this discussion and that all those who wanted to edit or make changes they can do so and bring their edits to the next meeting. All votes were aye. Motion • declared carried. Planning Commission—8/10/05 3 • 6. COMMUNICATIONS The following communications were noted: a) Beautification Information 1. Schoell &Madson's Beautification Plan (Circa 1987) Anderson stated that he has looked through this beautification plan and he thought it looked good. Klein stated that she thought it was very thorough. Aschinger liked how it was broken down into areas to organize the progress. Mork Bredeson asked when the date was. Reinhardt stated that it was from 1983, not 1987 and was included in the minutes from a 1983 meeting. Mork Bredeson states that she liked how it entertained things about downtown Spring Park and noticed the volume of vehicles on Sunset Drive. The plan stated that it had 3,100 vehicles traveling on the road per day. Hughes stated currently it has around 22,000 vehicles traveling on it per day. In another matter, Hughes stated that the gambling contributions go into the Beautification Fund and that last year it was around $8,400.00. Aschinger asked where the money goes. Hughes stated if donors give us a check there is no way to show this in the budget and there must be a definite income and outgoing statement. Mork Bredeson stated that there appears to be no verification of the funds and where they are spent. Hughes stated that there is not a separate fund for the • gambling contributions. Maloney asked how the Council was able to verify the funds. Klein asked how that could not be required. Maloney stated that they should call out what the contributions are spent on. Mork Bredeson asked how much is in the Beautification Fund to spend and are the funds based on merit. She added they would like to know how the Council prioritized the funds. Hughes stated that he would come back with more information. Mork Bredeson stated that she would be curious to learn more and to understand why there hasn't been any tracking of this. Anderson stated that in the minutes, part of Goman's salary is in the Beautification Fund. Reinhardt stated that his salary has been spread out into maintenance items for projects and categorized that way. She stated that maybe this was not the appropriate way to label it. Mork Bredeson said that it might be appropriate to label it under that, but not up to half of his salary. Corl explained, as an example of salary placement in the budget, part of her salary is in the water department because she does the billing. Motion by Mork Bredeson seconded by Klein to table the Beautification Discussion to the next meeting to know how it is funded and what remaining funds there are to spend on a project. Sippel stated this was a communication item and not an action item. • Planning Commission —8/10/05 4 • All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. 2. Jim Robin's Beautification Plan - 1989 3. Excerpt from Joint Meeting— 1/30/95 Klein referred to the recognition for Nelson and asked if she was doing well. Corl stated that she would look into that. 4. Norling's Landscape Recommendations - 6/5/95 5. Excerpt from Council Minutes—9/16/96 b) Council Minutes - 7/5/05 Aschinger referred to Page 6, g. and asked what and how much the refund was for. Hughes stated Frostad was not charged enough at the time he asked what all of the fees for his project would be. He said the amount was $97,000.00 short, the money was paid and then a refund was requested. It is currently in the hands the insurance trust. Aschinger referred to the lighting discussion on Page 9, and asked if these were new or existing needs that we have not gotten around to installing. Hughes stated that at the last Council Meeting there were several motions asking for a total site plan of the entire area of the placement of lights to light up the area. He said the developer is being asked to pay for those. Hughes stated that the residents would not be paying for the lights. • c) Council Minutes—7/18/05 Aschinger asked for clarification on page 4, about the parking signs. She stated that what was said was not true regarding 'no parking' on all City streets. Aschinger stated that on her street parking is allowed on the east side and this was verified by a call to the City office. Hughes said that there was discussion at the meeting on this and that more research is being done. Reinhardt stated that it would be good to have clarification of where it is okay to park. A.J. Chouinard, resident, commented the City should be more welcoming to people and allow parking on the streets. Anderson stated that this was a good comment and asked how often `no parking' signs on the streets are reviewed. Corl said they are reviewed case by case when there are problems. Hughes stated that there are inconsistencies in the parking. Maloney asked if the citizens have to complain to get these cases reviewed. Hughes stated yes. d) Special Meeting—7/26/05 Aschinger referred to Page 4 and the comment of making the water bills a revenue-generating source for the City. She said she does not believe we have to do this, we have other means to raise money, the water bills should not be a money making venture and she is opposed to this. She stated that the city has enough revenue and that it does not need to raise the rates. Mason said that he agreed, but he thinks that the idea was to generate more revenue for the City. Aschinger stated that she thought that would be fine if it was raised because of • expenses opposed to revenue. Mason stated that we should wait to see what Planning Commission—8/10/05 5 • happens when the new projects are on line before rates are raised. Aschinger said that she would support that. Hughes asked the Commissioners if they would like to receive the list from a recent Council packet of other cities rates. Aschinger said she only cares what our rates are. e) Gambling Contributions—7/18/05 Anderson stated that this was already discussed. He stated that someone should be able to ask for specified use. Sippel suggested a thank you card sent to the organizations and to state where the money was spent would be appropriate. f) August Calendar 2005 g) LMCC Open House on August 16, 2005 7. MISCELLANEOUS Anderson submitted a price of$1,256.29 for the flagpole and said the Mound VFW would cut a check for it. Klein stated that she noticed the Mist Lofts has a lot of signs on their fence and asked if sign permits were issued. She was told the sign ordinance states construction signs • could be posted without a permit. Chouinard said the City should ask the contractor to hang the arm of the crane over their site at the end of the day and not over the street. Sippel stated the logo on the water tower looked fantastic. 8. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Mork Bredeson seconded by Aschinger to adjourn the meeting at 8:40 p.m. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. ANGELA DARST RECORDER • Planning Commission—8/10/05 6 • CITY OF SPRING PARK RECEIVED SPRING PARK, MINNESOTA SEP 19 =5 PLANNING COMMISSION HEAD, SEIFERT SEPTEMBER 14, 2005 &VANDER WEIDE 7:00 P.M. - CITY HALL 1. CALL TO ORDER Pledge Of Allegiance Chair Anderson called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. followed by the pledge of allegiance. 2. ROLL CALL Mork Bredeson, Anderson, Klein, Aschinger, Sippel, Mason, Maloney, and Ex- Officio Hughes were present; Staff present: Deputy Clerk Corl and Recorder Angela Darst. 3. ADOPT AGENDA Motion by Mason seconded by Mork-Bredeson to adopt the agenda. All votes • were aye. Motion declared carried. 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES—August 10, 2005 Motion by Anderson seconded by Aschinger to approve the minutes for the Planning Commission Meeting August 10, 2005. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. 5. PLANNING COMMISSION a) Public Hearing—Variance Request, Paul & Wendy Lewin, 3880 Sunset Drive 1. Open Public Hearing Chair Anderson opened the public hearing at 7:02 p.m. and read the notice published in the Laker Newspaper. 2. Discussion and Comments The following communications were noted in the discussion: a)NAC Re: Variance Request—8/18/05 b) Portion of Council Minutes— 8/l/05 c) Head, Seifert & Vander Weide—7/29/05 • Planning Commission—9/14/05 1 • Wendy Lewin, 3880 Sunset Drive, was present for the meeting and gave the following timeline. Lewin stated their home was built in 1985 and they were the second owners of the house. She said the previous owner had received a variance to build the existing deck. Lewin said they have been living at 3880 Sunset Drive for the past ten years and they started planning their addition in 2002. She said they had a survey done, had an architect draw up plans and then submitted the application in September 2004. She pointed out that the City approved the addition,but they did not pick up the permit until December 2004. Lewin said they began construction of the addition in May 2005. On July 25, 2005, the project was red flagged by the Building Inspector. Lewin said the City stated the permit was approved in error and they have to go through the variance process. She stated that her husband, Paul, and herself had gone in front of the Council on August 1, 2005. Lewin said the project was 95% completed at the time of the red flag and the Council had allowed them to continue with the construction of the conforming portion of the addition. Lewin stated they were nervous about continuing with the addition because their lawyer had pointed out the variance was not guaranteed and if they failed to get the variance they would have to tear off the finished work. Lewin pointed out that without the roof over the deck, the addition would be missing a main part of the design. • Sippel asked Lewin if they had a copy of the approved construction plan. Lewin stated that she did not have it with her. She pointed out that it had already been presented at the Council meeting. Sippel asked if the addition was exactly like the approved plan. Lewin said what they had done was part of the approved plan. Sippel asked why part of the construction was red tagged. Lewin said that she thought Mayor Rockvam had gone by the residence by boat and had noticed the non-conforming structure. Maloney asked if the deck extension was included on the approved plan. Lewin said yes, and the plan approved actually showed more space than was used. Maloney asked if the plan included more than the deck, such as screening the deck in at a later point. Lewin stated they were not planning to do so. She said they were only planning to have a roof over the deck. Sippel asked if the deck was 10 feet or 12 feet. Lewin stated that the addition was 10 feet. She said the deck did not extend to the lake. Sippel asked what fee was paid. Corl stated the variance fee was waived. Klein asked if they were using new wood. Lewin stated the wood was used wood and prior to the addition there was a deck where the addition was placed. • Planning Commission—9/14/05 2 • Klein asked how the neighbor to the east felt about this addition because it seems to be partially blocking their view. Lewin said that a renter occupied the property next door and the owner in Minneapolis had been sent the letter for the hearing and not the renter. Anderson stated the owner is the one who has the right to say something about the addition, not a renter. Anderson asked if there were any public comments. (Present were Sunset Drive residents: Carl & Joanna Widmer, Dale Seeley, Gene Meyer and Jeff Hovelsrud.) Widmer stated she is the neighbor on the south side and has no problem with the addition. She said the addition looked very nice. Mork Bredeson stated she had also looked at the addition and that it looked very attractive. She also noted that the addition looked very close to the lake. Mork Bredeson pondered how the problem got so far without getting addressed. Maloney asked if there was a deck on the house prior to this addition and was told yes. Aschinger stated the project is already built and it is to late to change that. Dale Seeley said he is the neighbor on the north side of the property and he has no problem with the addition. He pointed out it does not obstruct the view. Seeley also stated the addition looked very nice because of the deck itself. Anderson asked if the addition would not look as nice without the deck. Seeley stated he believed it would not. • Anderson stated he had already read over everything and the decision of the Planning Commission to the Council is to recommend or deny the variance request. Mork Bredeson stated the City did not notice the error and the hardship has been on the owner. Maloney stated she would consider the variance request if it included the condition set forth by NAC, in their recommendation, regarding the deck not be altered to include screens, windows, doors or walls to enclose it as a living space and this condition recorded with the property. Klein said there are rules to follow for granting a variance; the hardship cannot be financial, aesthetic nor caused by the applicant and that two of the rules are not being met presenting a curious situation. Maloney asked Lewin if they were surprised that the plan was approved without a variance. Lewin stated they were surprised the City did not come back with other requests regarding the plans and the everything was approved as submitted. Anderson said he had read the NAC request and there wasn't anything specific that he felt needed further discussion. Mason stated the City had adequate time to pick up on the issue, there were many opportunities to discover this and because of the inconvenience to the property owner we should take this issue kindly. • Planning Commission—9/14/05 3 t • 3. Close Public Hearing Anderson asked if there was any further public comment. He closed the public hearing at 7:27 p.m. 4. Recommendation to Council Motion by Sippel seconded by Mork Bredeson to recommend to the Council to approve the variance request for 3880 Sunset Drive for a roof over a legal non-conforming deck (within the 50 foot setback lakeside), the encroachment of the roof on the side yard setback (3'4" from lot line) and the extension of the non-conforming deck (25 inches) and include the recommendation from NAC that the deck not be altered to include screens, windows, doors or walls to enclose it as a living space and this condition recorded with the property. Upon roll call Mork Bredeson, Anderson, Aschinger, Sippel, Mason and Maloney voted aye and Klein voted no. Motion declared carried. Lewin stated that this was an unfortunate situation but she stated through out the entire process they were treated very well. She stated how much she appreciated how things were done. • 6. COMMUNICATIONS The following communications were noted: a) Council Minutes— 8/1/05 Aschinger referred to page 7 #6.b) and asked if this assistance was general or specific. Hughes said the specifics would relate to other cities if they were called upon. b) Council Minutes—8/15/05 Anderson asked if there were any complaints about the earlier construction start times. Hughes stated there were none. c) Special Council Meeting— 8/18/05 Aschinger asked about the second paragraph on page 4. She stated the Mayor talked about seeing the benefits of the new water tower. Aschinger asked what the reason was for the existing tower to be replaced. Corl stated there was a capacity issue with the old one. Mason pointed out originally the Council looked at repainting the old tower and the costs were a few thousand dollars short of the cost of a new larger tower. Mork-Bredeson stated the equipment is more modern and more efficient making it more cost effective. Klein stated that she had read in the minutes about one of the new developments had pressure problems and needed booster pumps for the fire sprinkler. Hughes • Planning Commission—9/14/05 4 • stated that this was done because it was a matter of pressure in the building and not related to the old water tower. Aschinger referred to page five, paragraph one. She asked why they wanted to raise the rates now rather than later. Hughes stated the Council is still discussing the rates. d) Special Council Meeting— 8/29/05 e) September Calendar f) Channels 8 &20 Schedules g) Building and Sign Report - August h) List of Conditional Use Permits (1993-2004) 7. MISCELLANEOUS Re: Outdoor Storage & Sales. Sippel had submitted his ideas for ordinance changes. He stated this could be tabled until the next meeting. Corl stated she will put this on another agenda and comprise a pending project list for the Planning Commission. Hughes said that he will discuss the budget process at a later time. Aschinger stated the flagpole looked very nice. Mason asked about the remodeling of City Hall. Hughes stated he would strongly suspect that with the next budget there would be a Capital Improvement Plan(CIP) and that would be on that list. • 8. ADJOURNMENT Motion made by Mork Bredeson seconded by Aschinger to adjourn the meeting at 8:00 p.m. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. ANGELA DARST RECORDER SHARON CORL DEPUTY CLERK • Planning Commission —9/14/05 5 • CITY OF SPRING PARK SPRING PARK, MINNESOTA MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 12, 2005 7:00 P.M.—CITY HALL 1. CALL TO ORDER Pledge of Allegiance Chair Anderson called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. followed by the pledge of allegiance to the flag. 2. ROLL CALL Anderson, Klein, Sippel, Mason, Maloney and Ex-Officio Hughes were present. Mork Bredeson and Aschinger were excused; Others present: Deputy Clerk Corl; Angela Darst, Recorder; Dan Petrik, Planner; Council Person Reinhardt. 3. ADOPT AGENDA Motion by Klein seconded by Maloney to adopt the agenda. All votes were aye. • Motion declared carried. 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES —9/14/05 Motion by Klein seconded by Sippel to approve the minutes for the Planning Commission Meeting September 14, 2005. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. 5. PLANNING COMMISSION a) CUP Request, George Norling,4316 &4332 Shoreline Drive 1. Open Public Hearing Anderson opened the public hearing at 7:02 P.M. He read the notice from the Laker Newspaper published September 24, 2005 and one oral communication received from Commissioner Aschinger. 2. Discussion & Comments a) NAC Re: CUP 4316 &4332 Shoreline Drive— 10/4/05 b) Schoell &Madson Re: CUP 4326 &4332 Shoreline Drive - 10/7/05 The above communications were noted in the discussion. Petrik explained a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) is required in a C-1 District if the facility is being used for outdoor storage and/or sales. George Norling was present for the meeting. He stated he was moving his business to 4316/4332 Shoreline is Drive from Sunset Drive and it would be on a lot adjacent to the City Planning Commission— 10/12/05 1 • property. Norling presented a display showing the proposed site, grading and draining system and the planting plan. He explained the elements to be used in developing property would be fencing, wrought iron gate, and a retention pond/rain garden that is going to be landscaped. Plantings were displayed in his photos. Norling stated on the west end of the property there would be a black vinyl chain link fence; on the east side of the property there would be a wood privacy fence; material storage would be screened and not be visible from Shoreline Drive or Warren Avenue. Klein asked if he was planning to have outdoor sales. Norling stated he was not planning to do so however if a client would come in and ask to buy merchandise, he would sell it. He stated this was more of a facility to operate his business from. He said the landscaping on Shoreline Drive would be an attractive exhibit to attract clients. Mason asked if they were going to save the trees currently on the lot. Norling stated there was a group of one hundred year old maples that would remain untouched. He also stated there were several trees scattered around the property they were planning to leave. Mason asked if he was going to save any of the trees on the east side of the lot. Norling said they would like to save as many trees as they could and not remove trees unless it is necessary. He stated any trees they remove would be replaced with more desirable trees. • Mason asked how large the rain garden would be. Norling stated it was going to be 1,800 cubic feet and the infiltration system will be 3,000 square feet. He said his plans exceed the MCWD requirements. He said he would be using gravel pave because the soil is a granular material and allows water to work its way into it. Sippel asked what he would have around the painted aluminum fence. Norling stated he was going to plant arborvitae and shrub roses. Sippel stated the Council is in the process of revisiting the ordinance regarding outdoor storage and he asked if that would be a problem. Norling stated the planting is at a higher elevation to ensure that the area is not visible. Sippel asked if Norling had a copy of the engineer's report and asked if he had any comments regarding the need for two entrances. Norling stated they needed two entrances. He said the engineers concern is the rain garden overflowing onto Warren Avenue in the event of a 100-year storm. He stated they had talked about expanding the garden but his plan is already in compliance. Maloney pointed out two entrances would eliminate some traffic in and out on Shoreline Drive. Maloney pointed out the plan referred to an aluminum fence on the other side of the property. Norling stated the west side is aluminum and the east side is wood. Klein stated that she is concerned about having three different kinds of fences. Norling stated the fencing also displays product and different • treatments used in landscaping and the fences are very nice. He pointed out Planning Commission— 10/12/05 2 the wood fence would be used for screening out the property to the east. • Maloney stated Norling should correct what the plan says about the placement of the types of fencing because the plan conflicts with what he stated. Norling clarified the painted aluminum fence would be on Warren Avenue; the wood fence would be on the east side of the property. Klein questioned the aesthetics of the three difference types of fencing. Petrik stated the project is in compliance and meets parking requirements using the two lots. He stated if Norling sold one of the lots at a later date he would have to make sure there was access to the other lot. He also pointed out that four of the required parking spots were on the other lot. Petrik stated that on NAC's recommendations, #8 referring to the use of brick on the front elevation of the shop building was made before Norling submitted his building design that contains brick. He stated that recommendation should be taken out of the list of recommendations. Petrik noted the fence was a requirement in a C-1 District. He stated he had made a list of conditions subject to approval of the engineer. He wanted to commend Norling on the water gardens and the use of gravel pave. He said Norling is using a more pervious surface, it is more expensive and it manages stormwater in an ecological way. Petrik stated one other issue was the fact the City is interested in taking part in • storm water practices in that area and this would be an opportunity to have our engineer look into this. He stated staff recommends approval of this project to the Council with the removal of#8 on the list of recommendations. Mason inquired about fire protection. Norling stated that he would be meeting with the Fire Marshall to review regulations from the fire department. Mason asked what materials would be used for constructing the building. Norling stated it would be made of brick, steel and wood. Maloney asked if it would look similar to the Dock & Lift building. Norling said it would be more attractive. Mason asked how similar in size this building was to the one located on his previous site. Norling stated they are close in size in fact the new buildings were less square footage. Mason asked what assurance the City has that Norling will do what he says with the existing trees. Norling stated that he could tag the trees that would remain. He added they are taking some out but are replacing them with longer living trees. Anderson stated it would be a good idea to tag the trees he is planning to keep. Anderson stated he thought the fences were a dynamite plan. Mason asked how he was going to prevent a mosquito problem with the standing water. Norling stated with the infiltration plan, there should not be standing water. Maloney said if the soils are good they absorb the water. Norling stated he plans to have a fountain. Anderson asked if there were any more questions or • comments. Having none Anderson closed the public hearing. Planning Commission— 10/12/05 3 • 3. Close Public Hearing Motion by Klein seconded by Mason to close the public hearing at 7:32 p.m. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. 4. Recommendation to Council Motion made by Sippel seconded by Maloney to recommend to the Council to approve the CUP request for 4316/4332 Shoreline Drive including the following recommendations from NAC: Review and approval of all vehicle access points by the City Engineer; Plant material placed at least three feet from all property lines; A fence permit is secured for all fences; Review and approval of the stormwater, grading, and utility plan by the City Engineer; Review and approval of the stormwater and grading plan by the MCWD; Submission of a lighting plan for review and approval of the City Engineer. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried unanimously. b) Dan Petrik, NAC 1. Christensen & Laue PA Re: 4494 West Arm Road 2. NAC's Response to Christensen&Laue—9/29/05 3. NAC—Tandem Lots &Driveways— 10/6/05 • The above communications were noted in the following discussion. Petrik stated he wanted to bring the City's attention to an inquiry they received from a property owner regarding driveway easements on tandem lots. He said he had drafted a memo recommending potential action that was an oversight when the ordinance was drafted regarding tandem lots. He said the City has a number of tandem lot situations and he thought it was important to address what could become an issue. Petrik pointed out the recommendations submitted by NAC to amend the text in the ordinance. He stated if the City wanted to make changes in the ordinance it would require a public hearing at a later date. Anderson asked why he was addressing this issue. Petrik stated he wanted the City to be aware of the issue. Maloney asked how the recommendation would affect an easement not being used. Petrik stated the use of the easement would be allowed without a variance, the easement is still there and we allowed this in the past. Klein asked if the particular easement in question was documented. Petrik stated it was on the survey. Klein asked the difference between a legitimate easement and just permissible uses between property owners. Petrik stated an informal access allowed might become a conflict with a sale of the property. Mason verified a permit is needed to install a driveway but not necessarily a • variance. Reinhardt asked if a variance would be needed if the driveway Planning Commission—10/12/05 4 increased the impervious surface and was told yes. Klein verified when land • is sold the easement goes with it and shows up on the survey. Petrik said easements are usually filed with the deed. He said the property owner could create a conflict if the easement is not technically recorded Anderson asked why lots could no longer be tandem divided. Petrik sited density and potential access to property. Mason verified this information is just for just discussion. Maloney verified that using this lot as an example, it would be allowed if we changed the ordinance. John Lonsbury, 4494 West Arm Road, was present. The potential remodeling/rebuilding of his house precipitated this inquiry by his neighbor. Lonsbury stated when they purchased their property there was an easement in existence for access to his tandem divided lot, but they used another easement on the east side for their driveway. He said he has no plans drawn at this time. Anderson asked if there were any other comment or concerns. Maloney stated that she did not want to make any changes right now because it may directly affect a possible project in progress. She stated the Council could consider modifications. 6. COMMUNICATIONS The following communications were noted: a) Council Meeting—9/6/05 • b) Special Council Meeting—9/13/05 c) Council Meeting—9/19/05 Klein stated she had some concern about the new water and sewer rates. Anderson stated from reading the meeting minutes, the rate increase sounded like it was needed. Hughes stated he was not initially for increasing the rates but after the discussion and further information, he thought it was necessary. Klein asked if the increase would go down when the reserve needs were met. Hughes stated the Council would have to review the rates and then decide. Mason stated the surcharge might also be able to be taken off. Klein asked how the fund was losing money. Reinhardt explained with the expenses going up and no rate increase in the past ten years the fund has not been meeting operating expenses. Klein asked if that might change with the population growth. Reinhardt stated the Council would again look at the rates and the fund next year. Hughes said he wanted to compliment Reinhardt on the way she dealt with an e- mail sent from a resident. He stated she had given the resident correct information and explained why the Council had made their decision. Hughes pointed out with the budget process and the establishment of a CIP (Capital Improvement Plan), the Council would not get blind-sided with unexpected expenses. d) Building & Sign Report- September • e) October Calendar Planning Commission— 10/12/05 5 • CITY OF SPRING PARK SPRING PARK, MINNESOTA AGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 9,2005 7:00 P.M.—CITY HALL 1. CALL TO ORDER Pledge of Allegiance 2. ROLL CALL 3. ADOPT AGENDA 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES—October 12, 2005 5. PLANNING COMMISSION a) Sign Permit Application - Patrick O'Flanagan, 4388 Shoreline Drive b) Review of Zoning Book (Bring your Zoning Ordinance Book) • 6. COMMUNICATIONS a) Council Minutes— 10/3/05 b) Council Minutes— 10/17/05 c) Council Budget Minutes— 10/24/05 d) Council Budget Minutes— 10/25/05 e) November Calendar f) December Calendar g) Building & Sign Report - October 7. MISCELLANEOUS 8. ADJOURNMENT • • CITY OF SPRING PARK SPRING PARK, MINNESOTA MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 9, 20051 7:00 P.M. — CITY HALL The Planning Commission Meeting was cancelled because there was not a quorum. The minutes for the meeting on October 12, 2005 will be approved at the next Planning Commission Meeting in December. Mason, Maloney and alternate Ex-officio Reinhardt were present. • f) Channels 8 &20 Schedules g) Updated Variance List Anderson stated that it was very nice to get this information from the staff. 7. MISCELLANEOUS- None 8. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Sippel seconded by Klein to adjourn the Planning Commission Meeting at 8:03 P.M. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. ANGELA DARST RECORDER SHARON CORL DEPUTY CLERK • Planning Commission— 10/12/05 6