Loading...
3/27/2006 - Joint City Council/Planning Commission - Work Session - Minutes CITY OF SPRING PARK • SPRING PARK, MINNESOTA MINUTES OF SPECIAL JOINT MEETING OF THE SPRING PARK CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION HELD MARCH 27, 2006, 7:00 P.M. AT CITY HALL City Council Members in Attendance: Mayor Jerome Rockvam, Gary Hughes, Sarah Reinhardt, Joanna, Widmer, Bruce Williamson Planning Commission Members in Attendance: Bill Anderson, Jean Mork Bredeson, Evalina Klein, Sera Maloney, Mike Mason Planning Commission Members Excused: Doug Sippel Staff in Attendance: Bill Weeks, City Administrator/Clerk/Treasurer D. J. Goman, City Utility Superintendent Dan Petrik,Northwest Associated Consultants, Inc. Ken Adolf, Schoell &Madson Tom Seifert, Head, Seifert &Vander Weide Nancy Beck, Head, Seifert &Vander Weide • Summary On March 27, 2006 at 7:00 p.m., the Spring Park City Council and Planning Commission held a special joint meeting at City Hall with Northwest Associated Consultants, Inc., the City Planner, and Head, Seifert &Vander Weide, the City Attorney. The meeting was conducted in a workshop format. The purpose was to discuss the work done to date with respect to the study of the City's zoning code that the City Council requested the City Planner and City Attorney to conduct pursuant to Resolution 05-39 adopted on December 19, 2005. Construction Standards and Phasing Plan Dan Petrik, from NAC, led the meeting. He suggested that a public hearing could be scheduled for the construction staging plan as soon as the Council and Planning Commission are satisfied with the draft. The construction staging plan will be a separate ordinance. Petrik presented the revised Construction Standards and Phasing Plan. It provides for a multi-stage approach. As an example, Petrik showed the group the draft construction staging plan prepared by the developer of the Providence (Island Harbor)project. The developer will be asked to show a separate graphic plan for each phase of construction. • SPECIAL JOINT MEETING—MARCH 27, 2006 r • Small Properties. The Mayor asked how the construction staging plan will apply to small commercial lots. Petrik stated that the plan gives the zoning administrator authority to waive certain requirements. Insurance. Hughes asked about the insurance requirements for off-site locations used by the contractor. It was stated that one way to deal with this would be to cover it in the development agreement with the developer. There was discussion by Williamson and Seifert regarding the types of insurance the City would require. It was decided that the insurance issue needs to be clarified. This section will be revised and revisited. Idling Vehicles/Equipment. There was discussion regarding the noise associated with idling construction vehicles and equipment. A suggestion was made that vehicles be required to be turned off when not in active operation. However, the point was made that in the winter diesel engines must be kept running. Petrik stated that the City would also need to have someone available to monitor this requirement. Mayor Rockvam asked how much staff time the City wants to devote to this type of thing. It was stated that there needs to be specific standards in the City Code in order for the police cite violations. Mason said that it should be the contractor's responsibility to inform its subcontractors of the rules. Mayor Rockvam questioned the practicality of this...there will be many different drivers for deliveries. It was then suggested that signs prohibiting engine idling be posted on the construction site. Goman asked how the idling of construction trucks • compares to other trucks idling in the City. For example, when Excel Energy is working, their trucks run all day. Hughes stated that the location of the staging area is a way to deal with this issue. The location of the idling trucks is the concern. Petrik asked if the prohibition on truck idling should be tied to residential areas. Williamson stated that it should. Mayor Rockvam said that the City will have some control when it reviews the staging plan. The Mist project can be used as an example. The staging area for that project is located between the two buildings. There is a buffer of the noise. Petrik stated that the City can require that truck/equipment idling may be permitted only in designated areas as shown on the construction staging plan. General. Seifert stated that the City needs flexibility to deal with future problems that weren't-foreseenwhenAhe-,sta lm Wa&approvedsave a"catch-all" royi-sio-n-_at the _- end. Bredeson stated that there should be different rules for large and small projects. However, that would be difficult to do; probably unmanageable. Williamson stated that there are probably more large projects coming in the future,but small projects need to be subject to standards also. Mayor Rockvam stated that the development agreement should contain a provision that the construction staging plan is subject to monthly review by the City to deal with any issues that may arise. SPECIAL JOINT MEETING—MARCH 27, 2006 2 • Seifert added that there should be staff involvement in the contractors' weekly meetings. Petrik said that a provision regarding meetings can be added to the proposed ordinance. Mayor Rockvam asked if Brad Ridgeway will be shown the proposed plan so we can get comments from a contractor regarding the practicality of the plan. It was suggested that the contractor be required to sign an agreement to comply with the construction staging plan. Hughes stated that it should be the contractor's obligation to update the construction staging plan when changes are made. Holidays. Clarification of what constitutes a"holiday" for purposes of the proposed ordinance was discussed. It was determined that holidays should be limited to "major" holidays and the holidays should be listed in the ordinance. Trash/Clean-Up. The contractor should be required to have a designated person responsible for keeping the site clean. It was suggested that a provision be added to the proposed ordinance stating that the City has the right to perform at the developer's expense if there is a violation. Street Sweeping. Petrik stated that Hennepin County will permit the City to sweep county roads. It was suggested that wet sweeping be required to minimize dust. However, this is not practical in the winter. Adolf stated that some cities require the • contractor to set up an account with a street sweeper and give the City the right to order sweeping done. Section 5(a). Seifert stated that"at all times"requires an on-site person during all working hours. Widmer stated that there should be a person to contact after hours also. Section 5(c). Discussion of the escrow provisions. It was decided that the attorney would work with the planner to revise this language. Construction Staging Plan Summary. Mayor Rockvam stated that the attorneys should work with the planner to finalize the construction staging plan. It does not need to be Lighting Standards Mayor Rockvam asked about lighting and the foot candle requirements for streets and other areas. Petrik said that different lighting standards for different areas can be set up. Petrik will work with the City Engineer to create a lighting standard to be incorporated into the performance standards. Site Plan Review Introduction. Petrik stated that the current site plan review standards are weak. The • City's ability to impose requirements is based on a project needing a variance or SPECIAL JOINT MEETING—MARCH 27, 2006 3 • conditional use permit. Petrik suggested making site plan review a requirement for all multi-family, commercial and industrial properties. Mayor Rockvam asked if this issue was on the list of items that are supposed to be dealt with during the moratorium. He doesn't want a review of the entire zoning code. Williamson said that Brixius told the Council that requiring site plan review would be the best way to deal with some of the issues on the moratorium list. Level of Review. Petrik reviewed the list of exceptions to the site plan review requirement. The 15% standard is discretionary; it can be changed. Hughes and Williamson stated that the language "at the discretion of the City Administrator" gives too much discretion to the Administrator. It should require the City Council's discretion instead. Mayor Rockvam asked how much the Council wants to handle. The City needs someone to review the plan. The Council is not set up to make these determinations. Hughes suggested the language: "the City Council or its designee." Petrik asked how the Council feels about the Norling project. Reinhardt said that it should go through site plan review; it is on a main City street. Mayor Rockvam stated that all projects on Shoreline Drive and Sunset Drive should be reviewed by the Council. Widmer asked whether the change in use or occupancy of a building should be reviewed. The City should require notification of changes in occupancy of a building. Williamson said that the Council had this discussion in 2004. It resulted in a request for the creation of a business registry. It has not happened. It would be a good communication tool. • Mayor Rockvam asked Weeks about the Fire Department building. Did they need/get a permit for a change in sprinkler location? Non-Conforming Uses. Petrik stated that the City's current non-conforming use standards are friendly to non-conforming uses. Does the City want to use this process to update buildings? A policy discussion about non-conforming uses would be helpful. Standards can be tied to zoning districts or locations (such as along Shoreline Drive). Mayor Rockvam stated that architectural standards could also be used to achieve this goal. Petrik said that the site plan review process is the mechanism for dealing with architectural standards. Bredeson stated that metal buildings seem industrial and should not be allowed. The point at which the review process should be triggered was discussed. Petrik used a change of 15% as a trigger. Williamson said that he would use 10%rather than 15%. Reinhardt agreed that the percent should be kept low. Petrik said that some cities required all projects to undergo site plan review. Mayor Rockvam said that the City cannot be arbitrary in the application of standards. Petrik asked if the City would like to permit an existing building to expand using existing materials for uniformity of look, or should upgraded materials be required for an expansion? Williamson said that the City must discuss the appropriate trigger for upgrades. Hughes stated that the building code has a requirement that at some point the entire building must be upgraded. Petrik said • SPECIAL JOINT MEETING—MARCH 27, 2006 4 r • that the building code requirement might be a good standard for the City to use. It was decided that the threshold should be reduced to 10%. Overview of Site Plan Review Criteria. Reinhardt noted that on page 2 no notice to adjacent property owners is required and no public hearing is required. Petrik stated that he knows of another City that has added a notice requirement to this section. Hughes suggested adding the same notice requirement as that for variance requests. Petrik said that the information required in this section is the information that staff needs in order to be able to review the site plan. Mayor Rockvam asked whether the Council was comfortable with the language on page 2, section(f)regarding the discretion of the zoning administrator. Hughes said that the Council needs to decide who should handle these matters. Seifert said that the statute refers to a"building official." Mayor Rockvam said that the City is looking at using the City of Orono for zoning review. Spring Park has been using the planner more and more for this work. Seifert stated that the City should retain the ability to make major decisions; it may not want to delegate approvals for large projects to Lyle Oman. Hughes said that the City needs a flow chart of authority. It is confusing since different terms are used throughout the documents. Mayor Rockvam said that the City needs a procedure that works. Bredeson stated that it's a matter of risk...how much control does the Council want to give up? Mayor Rockvam said that last year there were several small residential projects where permits were issued and there were zoning problems; that is • why the City is considering using Orono for more things. Petrik will bring examples of language to the next meeting and ask for input. Reinhardt asked what a sound source control plan referred to on page 4 does. Petrik said that it is for noise control. Maloney asked if a soil report is an example of the"other reports"that would be required under section 5 on page 4. Petrik confirmed this. Mayor Rockvam stated that the City need to rely on the planner for site plan review and intent. The City needs consistency. Petrik said that site plan review will be revisited after review of architectural standards. Escrows &Fees. Petrik said that the City needs to update its fee structure. In general, the City's fees are very low, and there are no escrow provisions. Hughes questioned some of the current fees shown in the report. The current fee structure needs to be checked. This will be reviewed at a later date. Next Meeting Petrik stated that the next meeting will cover trash, lighting and parking. Mayor Rockvam said that the discussion of parking should be limited to guest parking • requirements. Reinhardt said that we need to take the time to do things right. SPECIAL JOINT MEETING—MARCH 27, 2006 5 • Miscellaneous Mayor Rockvam stated that the future discussion of landscaping should be limited to landscaping requirements for property borders. It was asked why there was a report in the packet regarding affordable housing. Mayor Rockvam and Hughes said that issue is not on the moratorium list. Williamson said it is on his list. Reinhardt said she tried to put this on the list under the topic of PUDs. Hughes said that this is an important topic that needs its own forum. Mayor Rockvam stated that the City loaned some of its low income housing to Minnetonka Beach and we need it back. He will ask Brixius to check on this. Meeting adjourned approximately 9:10 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Nancy Beck • • SPECIAL JOINT MEETING—MARCH 27, 2006 6