4/3/2006 - 5-01-2006 - City Council - Special - Regular - Joint - Minutes CITY OF SPRING PARK
• SPRING PARK, MINNESOTA RECEIVED
MINUTES OF SPECIAL MEETING OF THE APR 17 2006
SPRING PARK CITY COUNCIL
HELD APRIL 3, 2006,3:30 P.M.AT CITY HALL HEAD, S'EIFERT
& VANDER WEIDE
City Council Members in Attendance: All Members Were Present
Staff in Attendance: Tom Seifert of Head, Seifert&Vander Weide
Also present: James Brimeyer
This was a special meeting of the Council for the purpose of interviewing two candidates
for employment with the City as City Administrator/Clerk/Treasurer.
The two candidates, Sarah Friezen and Matthew Jaunich,were separately interviewed
and were asked a series of questions by Council members. The questions included why they
wanted the Spring Park job,why they are available for the Spring Park job, what size budget
they had experience with, what computer softwear they had experience with, their experience
running elections, where they intended to live if they got the Spring Park job, their experience
managing municipal investments, their certification as a city clerk, and their experience with
• zoning enforcement.
Following the interviews, the Council unanimously decided to authorize Mr. Brimeyer to
offer the position to Ms. Friezen.
Mr. Brimeyer was asked to proceed with the negotiations.
The meeting adjourned at approximately 6:30 p.m.
Thomas V. Seifert, City Attorney
•
#35422 04/13/2006 SPECIAL MEETING—4/7/06
CITY OF SPRING PARK RECEIVED
SPRING PARK,NIINNESOTA
APR 1 7 2006
MINUTES OF SPECIAL MEETING OF THE
SPRING PARK CITY COUNCIL HEAD, SEIFERT
HELD APRIL 6,2006, 3:30 P.M.AT CITY HALL& VANDER WEIDE
City Council Members in Attendance: All Members Were Present
Staff in Attendance: Tom Seifert of Head, Seifert&Vander Weide
Also present: James Brimeyer
This was an emergency meeting of the Council for the purpose of discussing with Mr.
Brimeyer the negotiations with Sara Friesen concerning her employment as City
Administrator/Clerk/Treasurer.
Mr. Brimeyer advised the Council as to the specific items that he had proposed to Ms.
Friesen as well as the items she had proposed in response.
The ensuing discussion included memberships in various organizations, health insurance,
salary, severance pay, and a start date.
Mr. Brimeyer was asked to proceed with the negotiations.
The meeting adjourned at approximately 4:30 p.m.
Thomas V. Seifert, City Attorney
•
#i35421 SPECIAL MEETING—4/7/06
• CITY OF SPRING PARK
SPRING PARK, MINNESOTA
MINUTES
COUNCIL MEETING
APRIL 17,2006
7:30 P.M. —CITY HALL
1. CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Rockvam called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
2. ROLL CALL
Hughes, Williamson, Widmer and Rockvam were present and Reinhardt was excused. Staff
present: Administrator Weeks, Utility Superintendent Goman, Deputy Clerk Corl, Office
Assistant Lewin; Ken Adolf, Engineer; Tom Seifert and Nancy Beck, Attorney's; Planning
Commissioner Mason.
3. ADOPT AGENDA
Motion by Williamson and seconded by Widmer to adopt the agenda. All votes were
aye. Motion declared carried.
• 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
a) Council Minutes—April 3, 2006
Motion by Williamson and seconded by Widmer to approve the minutes for the
Council Meeting for April 3, 2006. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried
unanimously.
b) Special Council Meeting—April 3, 2006
Motion by Williamson and seconded by Widmer to approve the minutes for the
Special Council Meeting April 3, 2006. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried
unanimously.
c) Special Council Meeting—April 6,2006
Motion by Widmer and seconded by Williamson to approve the minutes for the
Special Council Meeting April 6, 2006. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried
unanimously.
Mayor Rockvam introduced the Council and Staff to the viewing public.
PUBLIC FORUM—No one present.
•
Council Meeting—4/17/06
1
• 5. PETITIONS, REQUESTS & APPLICATIONS
a) Variance Request—2406 Black Lake Road
Present: Brandis Meyer, Paris Alves, property owners and Jim Clark, contractor.
Rockvam reviewed the status of the variance request. He pointed out the survey looks
like the same survey as the one received at the Council Meeting March 20th. He said the
Council wanted to make sure the structure was going to be located seven feet from the
water main. He verified the applicant has completed the soil borings. Rockvam pointed
out it is hard to read the survey. He asked the location of the water main in relation to the
structure. Goman said it is located at seven feet. He stated the water main was relocated
and the house runs parallel with the water main.
Rockvam asked where footings for the structure would be located and if they would
encroach into the easement. Goman said he is assuming the spread for the footings is
approximately two feet. Clark said they would encroach over the line by 4". Goman
asked the width of the overhang and was told it is two feet. Briefly discussed was the
location of the footing and it was determined the footing could be located on the
easement line. Rockvam said there were several variance requests at the Planning
Commission and it was noted the house would be redesigned. He pointed out the
Planning Commission had no problem with the variance requests if the only variance was
at the right-of-way on the north side. Clark said that is the only variance request.
• Hughes asked how deep the water main is toward the back of the house. Goman said it
was 15 to 16 feet. Hughes asked what the norm is for space needed for excavating.
Goman said a 4 to 1 slope is needed. Rockvam asked Adolf to comment on the soil
borings. Adolf pointed out there are two boring stakes on the north east corners and there
is reasonably good soil on the site. He pointed out the original discussion at a previous
meeting regarding the depth of mains; typically the water main depth is seven feet and
the sewer varies because it has to follow gravity and the distance between the two lines is
ten feet; he said the soil boring does not indicate fill has been placed on the property. He
asked if the house would have a basement. Clark said it would and the basement footing
would be closer to 5 1/2 feet.
Adolf noted the footing is proposed to be higher than the water line; the east end the
footing is 9%2 feet below the water line and as it goes west it is less feet down. Rockvam
said in any case the entire structure is going to be potentially affected and if we do have a
problem, who is going to pay for the repairs/damage. Adolf stated water main repairs are
made by the City but if a structure is in the way it makes it more difficult to repair.
Rockvam pointed out repairs like this can crack or break a foundation and crack walls
and then we would have a major claim by the property owner. Adolf stated it probably
would be more cost effective to install a new water main.
Rockvam said the last time the City had a variance with this situation we required the
property owner to have a hold harmless agreement with the City. Widmer pointed out
that particular one the water main was further from the structure. Rockvam asked if we
• received an affidavit on that deed. Beck pointed out whenever the City grants a variance,
Council Meeting—4/17/06
2
• the variance is supposed to be recorded on the deed. Rockvam said it may be a good idea
to put a new main in at a higher elevation.
Goman stated rerouting water main costs are close to $20,000. Widmer pointed out a
leak could occur and it may not be known until damage has occurred. Hughes asked if a
hold harmless agreement has been drafted. Seifert said when it is done it would be
burdensome to the property owner. Williamson asked if a subsequent owner experiences
dire circumstances, could they make a claim with the filing of the deed and is there case
law pertaining to this. Seifert said there always a risk with interpretation and there is not
always 100% certainty. Williamson asked what would be the practically of moving this
main to avoid all of this. Adolf said when this was previously discussed, he indicated the
best insurance is to install a new water main with ductile iron instead of old cast iron and
his best guess for cost is $10,000 and he recommends replacing the line along the entire
lot line. He was asked if it would be brought up to a seven foot depth and stated the
health department standard is 10 feet separation from sewer.
Hughes asked if the property to their back yard trails down to the level at Black Lake
Road. Goman pointed out the grade is higher going to the east and the garage at the east
end on the abutting property is higher. Hughes asked if we would replace the water main
under that garage. Goman said the water main goes to the north of the garage but the
garage is on the easement. Seifert asked Adolf if the entire line is going to be moved or
just where the house is located. Adolf said do the entire distance across the property line.
• He added there is no reason for the main to be 15 feet deep at that point.
Rockvam stated it does not make a lot of sense from the City standpoint to move the line
so they can build a house for that kind of money. Hughes said he is looking more at that
catch basin and to clean it up and he would be in favor of approving the variance and
make it a condition versus hold harmless agreement. Weeks pointed out one element in
the first `resolved' item in the resolution does say the City is held harmless. Williamson
pointed out this resolution lists four variances. Weeks said the language has to be
changed. Hughes referred to the fifth `whereas' and questioned the 30 foot side yard
setback from the right of way. He said he would like to add to the resolution the building
plans be reviewed by the Utility Superintendent.
Motion by Hughes and seconded by Widmer to approve Resolution 06-12, regarding
variance requests for 2406 Black Lake Road with the addition stating the building
plans are reviewed by the Utility Superintendent.
Rockvam pointed out to Meyer that a 4/5`h vote from the Council is needed for the
resolution to pass and if it fails they could not reapply for another variance for 6 months.
Meyer asked for a straw vote from the Council. Williamson said this not an appropriate
way to proceed. He asked the property owner if she was willing to absorb the cost of
relocating the water main and was told no. Rockvam asked Meyer if she wanted the
Council to vote on this with one Council person missing. Alves verified if it was tabled it
would be to the next regular Council meeting and the reason would be for everyone to
• have prudent information available and Williamson said yes.
Council Meeting—4/17/06
3
• Rockvam said the City located the distance of the main from the house. Goman said
there are water services available he can use to get an approximate depth of the main.
Rockvam pointed out it really does make a difference if the main breaks. Meyer said she
would like a better understanding of what she is supposed to do. She asked how far the
house should be from the water main. Williamson said where the engineer says there
would not be a problem. Rockvam asked if normally the water main would be further
away from the house. Goman stated easements are 20 feet wide.
Rockvam pointed out the proposed building would be next to the easement. Meyer said
if 8 more feet were added to the distance from the easement to the structure, it would
make the house a 20 foot wide house. Rockvam pointed out a lot of record is considered
buildable. Mason pointed out his house is 20 feet wide. Seifert said it would be less
expensive to move the water line when they are excavating the foundation. Seifert added
a request to have the applicant provide a larger survey and color the lines one color and
the house in another color, etc. so it is easier to read and the Council knows the exact
plan.
Motion by Hughes and seconded by Williamson to table the resolution to the next
meeting.
Rockvam verified Hughes added another `whereas' and pointed out the hold harmless
clause is in the resolution. He added he agreed with Seifert's request regarding the
• survey.
All votes were aye. Motion declared carried.
b) Greg Pederson, Mound Fire Chief
Also present was Kevin Sipprell, Medical Director. Pederson stated the Mound Fire
Department contracts to five communities each having a three year fire contract with the
department. He said it is being recommended to change that to a five year contract and a
cancellation notification from one year to two years. He said the department has been
working under the same cost sharing formula for 25 to 30 years; recently Minnetonka
Beach requested to review the formula. He said fire service under the new formula for
the City of Mound is 3% more than for the contract cities. The proposal overview
consisted of. implementing a new cost sharing formula; change the fire service contract
term length; change the fire service contract cancellation clause; establish standard
response protocols for all cities; approve and implement the new contract and formula for
2007; perform an annual review of contract formula and financial results.
Williamson asked if the calculation of the final numbers the same formula applied to the
new building costs or if they are separated out. Pederson stated the building costs are
determined using the same formula.
Sipprell said the department is looking for consistency and efficiency. He stated they are
• proposing when dispatch receives information they automatically start the fire department
Council Meeting—4/17/06
4
• for consistency. He pointed out there is limited information given from the 911 call;
certain instances warrant care given from the fire department. Williamson asked how
that was different from what happens now. Sipprell said to start the fire department is
currently at the discretion of the police officer on duty in Spring Park. Rockvam pointed
out it started to get expensive in the early years when the fire department was
automatically started for all calls. Williamson said all police officers are trained as first
responders and asked if we were being charged for every call regardless if the fire
department is needed. He said case in point is Presbyterian Homes calls 911 for DNR
patients and the fire department was responding and it was not necessary. Pederson
pointed out that of the 33 EMS (Emergency Medical Services) events; there are 10 that
would be an automatic response from the fire department. Sipprell said the point is there
would not be a lot of time when the call is made and fire responses can be critical for the
patient.
Rockvam noted the date on the memo is March 23`d and he said he has to review this
further. He said he thinks the City of Mound should pay a larger share than the rest of the
cities because they are the stakeholders of the building and equipment; it should be a
capital expenditure in their budget. Hughes asked if another City should opt out, would it
increase our cost and he added we should have a percentage cap; he does not want Spring
Park to pick up that cost. Pederson said it is in the contract that we have a stake in the
capital equipment. Rockvam said the Fire Commission voted that we have a part in the
bond payments. He said he personally does not like a 5 year contract.
• Pederson explained the delay in the date and the Council receiving the information was
he made the presentation to the City's of Mound and then to Minnetonka Beach. He said
the consensus was this was a good formula. He pointed out the City of Mound did not
specify the five year contract, the fire department did. Rockvam pointed out the City has
two new condo projects. He said what was on those properties prior to the condos were
run down buildings and the current exposure to possible fire is less now than when the
other buildings were on those properties. He asked why there are being asked to pay
more for fire service to those properties. Pederson said if the Council does not like some
of the proposals, they have the opportunity to discuss changes. He said the fire service is
a real good value for the money.
Hughes referred to a situation such as Presbyterian Homes and said it should be assumed
they know who a DNR individual is and they actively do not call for the fire department
in those situations. Sipprell said those documents are on a state approved form; it does
not state do not all 911 and the fire department will go until they are not needed; people's
minds change and a nursing home should know what to do. He said they do not bill
patients for those services.
Williamson stated we ought to discuss this with the police. He noted we have had no
complaints with the fire department about the quickness of the response or the adequacy
of the response. Rockvam said the police will have the same scrutiny as the fire
department and we have to look at the investment we have in the City. He again stated
•
Council Meeting—4/17/06
5
• the new large condos should not put our assessed valuation up for fire service.
Williamson stated the condos do not create income for the City but the levy will be less.
Pederson said the mission for the fire department has changed through the years from fire
calls to medical calls. Rockvam asked the percentage of those calls and was told they are
about 50/50. Pederson said they want consistent protocol for every contract City. He
added if the City meets with the police department he would like to be present. Rockvam
said the Council could make it a workshop.
c) Lord Fletchers' Restaurant
1. Outdoor Summer Music concerts—4/13/06
2. Head, Seifert& Vander Weide—4/8/06
Present: Tom Emer, Peter Peyerl, Thomas Pivec.
Pederson reported as of April 14`h Lord Fletcher's Restaurant has successfully completed
all of the issues identified by the fire department that needed to be corrected. He said
they need to do work on forming an emergency response team; they reconfigured the
occupancy to 832 from 780 to 790. Rockvam asked if the fire department did a mock
drill with their staff. Pederson said this was discussed and they need a plan as to how to
communicate with staff when an emergency occurs.
Seifert asked if the rating of the deck takes into account on how to get to a person that has
an emergency. Emer said it does and they train their employees to keep walkways open.
Pederson said the measure for occupancy is 15 square feet is allowed per person.
• Rockvam pointed out boats, alcohol, and gas present serious situations.
Rockvam said the Council reviewed the outdoor concert situation last year. He said
Fletcher's has had concerts for 20 years with no problem. He referred to Beck's report
on concerts and Lord Fletcher's request to continue outdoor summer live music. He
asked where the figure of$1,620 for a total annual permit came from. Beck said she used
the fee of$45 for a music concert permit times 36 events Lord Fletcher's plans to have
and that equals the proposed fee.
Williamson asked if they would have an employable security staff nightly and how many.
Emer said about 9 or 10 plus off duty police officers. Hughes asked if they would hire a
firm or have bouncers. Emer said college age students would wear identifiable t-shirts.
Rockvam asked if they are still going to have a dinner dance license and was told yes.
Williamson said Lord Fletcher's has exhibited a high degree of interest to correct their
issues and he commended them. He added he has no objection to the request but would
like them to report back to the Council once a month to maintain communication or
something similar if we grant a seasonal approval.
Emer pointed out they have the entertainment scheduled at times when it is not busy to
pick up more business during the day. Rockvam stated the hours in the agreement are not
in the ordinance and are not allowed. He asked how the noise is going to be monitored.
Widmer was told by a neighbor of Lord Fletcher's they do not have a problem except
they do not want anything going on after 10:00 p.m. Williamson said he would rather
Council Meeting—4/17/06
6
• have music to 6:00 p.m. than up to midnight. Rockvam pointed out the City has another
restaurant/bar operation that has music from 8:00 p.m. to midnight.
Williamson recommended the City attorney have an ordinance change for a public
hearing for the next meeting. Rockvam asked how the noise would be monitored. Beck
said an officer with a decibel meter could monitor it. Williamson pointed out that
procedure in Beck's memo. Hughes asked Emer what he is doing with contracts with the
bands. Emer said they all aren't bands; there are some trios, solos, etc. and he has never
had a complaint on those groups and they do not want another bad situation. Beck said
the ordinance has two different ways to measure noise and it gives the City guidelines to
measure that. Rockvam asked Beck to have an ordinance change ready for the next
meeting. Beck said the Council has to decide the hours of operation and the fee. Hughes
said if Lord Fletcher's is expanding the summer license, they have to abide by the
temporary sign ordinance and obtain the necessary permits. He added they did not do
this last year.
Motion by Hughes and seconded by Widmer to instruct the attorney to proceed with
an ordinance change regarding hours and fee for outdoor music for a public
hearing. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried.
d) Miscellaneous
Mark Pfleghaar, Certified Auto Repair, 4700 Shoreline Drive
• Rockvam stated Pfleghaar is proposing an expansion on the building and is in the process
of doing that now. Weeks said the permit has been issued with the necessary
requirements completed. Hughes asked where the expansion is going. Pfleghaar pointed
out hash marks by the building on his plan. Hughes asked if the access to the car wash
bays is on the east end is where the road is `u' shaped. Pfleghaar said the road in front of
the building is most often used for the car wash.
Rockvam said when there is a change in the use of a business the City requires a
landscape plan, off street parking plan, screening and storm water run off plan. He asked
if all of this has been done for this business. Weeks said the parking and grading plans
are done, and the screening and landscaping are left to do. Pfleghaar said he asked the
City for guidance on his project and the remaining plans will be done before the project
is.
Rockvam said the residents on West Arm Road are concerned that the green space is now
used for parking cars. Pfleghaar said he moved the cars to that area so the sun could
shine on the ground to help the frost to thaw for his construction. Rockvam stated the
City spent a lot of money on beautification. He said the use was changed for this
property when the repair shop was put in. Pfleghaar said he has had compliance with
everything he has done. He added if he is going to work on cars, he is going to have cars
on the property. Rockvam said what is there now has to be screened. Pfleghaar said the
cars on the green space would have been in their approved parking spaces if he was not
going to add on to the building. He pointed out he has two parking places per bay for
•
Council Meeting—4/17/06
7
• cars plus for employees, etc. Rockvam said if he is going to put cars to work on in those
parking spaces,those spaces are to be screened.
Weeks referred the Council to the planner's report. Pfleghaar quoted the parking
requirements in the ordinance for a motor repair service and said he is in compliance.
Hughes asked why a landscape and screening plan has not been submitted. Pfleghaar
said the planner and Weeks are going to meet with him and make recommendations.
Hughes said another issue is picking up litter and policing the area. He said there has
been some material alongside the building for an inordinate amount of time. Rockvam
said the screening and landscaping plan should be brought to the next Council meeting.
Rockvam said there should be an interpretation of parking spaces for cars being worked
on to be screened. Pfleghaar said the temporary parking spaces will be moved when the
building is finished. He said the contractor for the lift station abused his property and
destroyed part of his grass and has not returned his phone calls. Hughes asked if a record
has been made of the phone calls and was told no. Goman said Bolander, the contractor,
understood he would restore Pfleghaar's property. Pfleghaar said it is going to be
difficult to restore his property during his construction. Goman said he would get
Bolander's commitment in writing.
Pfleghaar said the planner said the parking spots in the back are not necessary. Adolf
pointed out they are blocking some of the garage door entrances. Pfleghaar said those
• entrances are at his discretion. He said he has had problems with vandalism when the
cars are parked in back. Rockvam said the physical condition of the property as it is now
is not acceptable. Rockvam said he would like to see the landscaping plan, etc. before
the packets are delivered for the next Council meeting.
6. ORDINANCES &RESOLUTIONS
a) Resolution 06-12 — Variance Requests for 2407 Black Lake Road — Tabled earlier in the
meeting.
b) Resolution 06-14 — Approving City's Execution of Subordination Agreement Requested
by Judith Petron
1. Head, Seifert& Vander Weide—4/5/06 (to City Council)
2. Head, Seifert& Vander Weide—4/5/06 (from Mortgage Broker)
3. Valuation of 3836 Togo Road
Present: Ron Ruud, mortgage broker and Judith Petron, 3836 Togo Road.
Rockvam said the Council had questions at the last Council meeting one being what is
the money being used for. Ruud described the changes made with the property. He said
Petron needed to refinance and she was not done with project so they would not give her
a fixed rate. He said she is done with the majority of the project and can now get a fixed
rate. It was noted the project was started with a grant from Hennepin County and Petron
needed to put money back into the house. She said her first contractor scammed her and
left her in a mess.
Seifert asked what has changed. Petron said the house has been gutted, beams replaced
• in the living room and everything inside is new; she did it for the investment and was told
Council Meeting—4/17/06
8
• the grant would wear itself out. Beck said it terminates after 30 years if she remains in
the house. Petron said she upgraded the house to make the property valuable. Rockvam
asked why the City should take second position on that mortgage; why not pay it off and
eliminate the City. Ruud said the low interest loan is on an adjustable loan and now it is
going to a 30 year fixed rate. Beck said the reason the City is considered being
subordinate as long as the value of the property covers the City mortgage and the first
mortgage. Rockvam said if it is such a great deal why not pay off our portion. Seifert
said the City is now in second position and the source of the money would not refinance
unless they are in first.
Ruud said the value of the house has increased $30,000. Rockvam asked the worst case
scenario i.e. if she lost the house what would be the position of the City. Beck said the
worst would be the value is not what was stated. Williamson pointed out we are an
administrative conduit and with no obligation to the county. Beck said there has been no
new money from the county and Petron is refinancing with terms that are better for her.
Seifert asked when she would be done with refinancing. Ruud said the present monthly
payment is $1,513 and the new payment is going to be $1,156. Rockvam verified the
City is in a better position even if Petron does default. Ruud pointed out there is enough
equity in the house to pay off the City. Williamson said the real clarity is to make sure
taxpayers are not `on the line' and he was comfortable hearing the explanation. He
pointed out Petron maybe exposed to an increase in property taxes. Mason asked if
mortgage insurance would take care of this and was told no. Rockvam stated if there was
no obligation on the part of the City there did not seem to be a point in the matter.
Williamson said it was just an administrative procedure and we are stuck with it.
Motion by Williamson and seconded by Hughes to approve Resolution 06-14,
approving the City's execution of the subordination agreement requested by Judith
Petron,3836 Togo Road. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried unanimously.
7. REPORTS OF OFFICERS & COMMITTEES
a) Mayor
Rockvam reported Orono police officer McNichols stopped a car in the City for expired
plates, checked the drivers license, and the driver's record revealed there was a warrant
out on him for first degree murder. He said this was something serious to think about.
He wanted the Council and viewing public to know police officers really are public
relation ambassadors; it was interesting to know something like this is so close to our
City. He expressed appreciation for what the officers do.
Rockvam said he would like to get a copy of the ordinance book to point out when a
business changes and the use changes, it states a landscape plan, etc. is required. He
commented it is a good thing to see a number of people concerned with how the City
looks.
b) Council—Hughes,Reinhardt, Williamson, Widmer
Hughes referred to the Black Lake Road variance and the storm water drain in that area.
• He asked Goman to see what the cost would be to upgrade it and the tennis courts.
Council Meeting—4/17/06
9
• In another matter Rockvam said the West Arm Townhome residents would be sending a
bill to the City for cleaning out the sand in the French drain on their street. He said they
do not sand their street but still have to clean the sand from City streets that rain into that
basin.
Hughes asked when the streets would be swept. Goman said sometime the week of April
241h. Rockvam asked who is going to do it and was told Pearson Bros. Hughes asked
when the county would be sweeping sand and was told they already have numerous
times.
Williamson referred to a letter sent to the Planning Commission at their last meeting
regarding the playground equipment and safety issues at Wilkes Park. Goman said he
reviewed the issues and there is no safety issue at this point. He pointed out the league
insurance company reviewed the equipment; it is starting to show age; we may want to
upgrade the original equipment. Williamson suggested the staff ask the Planning
Commission to consider this. He also noted a comment from a resident that has noticed
an increased amount of dog feces on streets and in parks, etc. He suggested a public
education note in the newsletter.
Williamson commented the Council recently adopted a resolution on City policy on
conflict of interest. He is concerned it could be brought up by any Council at any time
• and changed by future councils, etc. and recommended approving it as an ordinance at a
public hearing. Rockvam suggested waiting until there is a full Council.
Motion by Williamson and seconded by Hughes to approve authorizing the City
Attorney to prepare an ordinance for the conflict of interest policy. All votes were
aye. Motion declared carried.
Williamson referred to the Mist Lofts development and their street sweeping. He asked
if they have been sweeping every day and if the quality of the sweeping has been
reviewed. Rockvam said he sees the sweeper out there every day sweeping all the time
and it is a big improvement over what it was. Mason said they pick up litter on Fridays
and do not sweep with water and that creates dust. Rockvam said we will have to tell
them to use water. Williamson noted they have loose materials stored in open areas and
his concern is that unsecured material would fly out in the wind. Goman stated they have
an OSHA inspector come out once a week and review the site. Mason stated he is
concerned with the dust now that it is dry out. After a brief discussion on some of the
problems with the site, Goman said to call him during the day with concerns and he can
get them resolved so time is not wasted at a Council meeting when nothing can be done
at that time.
Rockvam noted the new Administrator has signed a contract and projected start date is
May 1 st. Hughes said to inform her of the Police Commission Meeting. Seifert pointed
out that is not appropriate when she is not working for the City yet.
•
Council Meeting—4/17/06
10
• c) Engineer
1. Schoell & Madson Re: Mist Lofts Lighting Plan
Adolf said the letter identifies the issues discussed that the City agreed upon.
2. Schoell & Madson Re: Open House 50'' Anniversary—4/13/06
Adolf noted the City of Spring Park is the longest term client the company has and
expressed his appreciation.
3. Schoell & Madson Re: Lift Station#6 Extra Costs
Adolf said there has been some discussion on this; it is for the Council's information;
he will review it in more detail and come back with a recommendation for the steps to
be taken at the next meeting. He said some figures appear to be inflated. Rockvam
wondered if we should talk legal strategies in a closed meeting with the city attorney
4. Schoell & Madson Re: Sunset Drive Upgrade Addition of Bayview Place—4/14/06
In another matter Adolf referred to the City asking the contractor for Cornerstone to
repave Bayview Place because the damage was from construction traffic. They
reviewed it last week and determined there is usual heavy truck traffic and additional
traffic from Tonka Grill and the road did experienced storm sewer damage. Goman
said the curb line to the east is deteriorating and the contractor said they did not use
the road excessively during construction.
Weeks said Adolf presented pricing for adding the resurfacing and east curb on
Bayview Place to the Sunset Drive upgrade at the cost of$3,180 to get the design and
the bids. Rockvam said we have to do this regardless of who pays for it.
• Motion by Williamson and seconded by rove Hughes to a adding the above
g PP g
mentioned project to the alternate bid for the Sunset Drive upgrade regarding
the developments. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried.
Adolf stated he would be having discussions with the HCRRA in the near future
regarding Sunset Drive and will report on that at the next meeting.
d) Utility Superintendent
Goman referred to prior discussions on resurfacing the tennis courts; he said the
discussion has come up regarding the inconsistency in the pavement and redoing the
blacktop versus resurface it. He said he could get a proposal to take out the existing
black top, resurface, and recoat and extend the life a few more years. He said it was
resurfaced in 1997. Rockvam said the resurfacing and re-striping could be placed on the
CIP. Hughes said one section the striping has shifted; last years bid was $6,500 and this
year's would be about $7,000 and rest is a capital item and could be charged accordingly.
He pointed out we would not be spending more than budgeted. Williamson said he
would like to put this on the CIP and choose the time when do it. Goman reported the
nets are up.
Goman referred to the City Hall driveway reconstruction and said the original
engineering proposal was about $10,000. He said he asked Adolf to revise it
• (engineering costs not construction costs) to include up to the retaining wall, include the
Council Meeting—4/17/06
11
• driveway, concrete curb and gutter and landscaping plan from Warren Avenue up the
drive to the turn to the back of City Hall and that cost is $7,120. Williamson stated this
deserves discussion if some of this is for the water tower and some for City Hall
maintenance. Weeks said the drive was dug up when the new water main was put in last
fall.
Hughes asked if there would be a new roof. Goman said the new roof is going on the
water plant after. Rockvam asked if we could hire Modern Roadways to come in and do
the concrete curb and gutter and engineer it. Goman said we would have our engineer do
it to have it flow correctly. Williamson said we want to avoid a seam or interruption in
the asphalt and should look at the overall pavement issue at this time. Goman said we
should decide what to do with City Hall improvements before making that decision.
Hughes noted we have asked for prices from the architect. Goman said he is just
concerned with the driveway before redoing behind City Hall. Rockvam suggested
walking around it before the next meeting. Hughes suggested everyone come 15 minutes
early. Adolf said he could come early before a Council meeting to answer questions.
They briefly discussed wrapping the curb all around to Warren Avenue to the east and
propose Norling put curb on Warren Avenue along his property. Rockvam said he was in
favor of curb and gutter on each side and topography on each side of the drive. They all
agreed to meet at 7:00 p.m. before the next Council Meeting.
e) Administrator
• 1. May Calendar
Weeks announced the moratorium workshop is Thursday April 27th from 7:00 p.m. to
9:00 p.m. at City Hall; the Board of Review is Monday April 24° the Police
Commission meeting is tomorrow (4/18) and the Administrative Committee meeting
is April 26th with the Orono Administrator and Building Inspector.
2. Expenditure Guideline YTD
3. Fund Balances YTD
4. Cash& Investment Summary
Rockvam asked what happened to the requested figures on the water fund. Weeks
said Mark Kammer is reviewing the preliminary part and will get it to the Council.
Hughes said they want to know what the excess is for 2005. Rockvam said they want
the actual figures.
8. CLAIMS FOR PAYMENT
Motion by Hughes and seconded by Williamson to approve the claims for payment for
April 17,2006. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried.
Rockvam asked if Norling's bill, discussed at a previous meeting, is #23 and what fund is it
coming out of. Weeks said it is coming out of the public improvement revolving fund.
Rockvam asked where that money came from. Weeks said it was an accumulation of
several things i.e. canceling old savings accounts. Rockvam stated we were not going to
isspend money from those funds. Williamson said the motion was to take the money for that
Council Meeting—4/17/06
12
• bill out of those funds. Rockvam stated he thought the City costs for 4550 Shoreline Drive
were excessive and the property owner should have contributed more money.
9. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
10. NEW BUSINESS & COMMUNICATIONS
The following communications were noted:
a) MDH Re: Consumer Confidence Report—4/4/06
b) LMCD Executive Director Newsletter—4/4/06
c) Email from Chief Good Re: Council Requests—4/4/06
d) Fire &Rescue Calls March 2006
e) LMCD Re: Public Hearing Multiple Dock License Presby. Hms. —4/6/06
f) Head, Seifert & Vander Weide Re: Providence on Lake Minnetonka Status Report—
4/14/06
g) Head, Seifert& Vander Weide Re: Lakeview Lofts Status Report—4/14/06
h) Head, Seifert& Vander Weide Re: Mist Lofts Status Report—4/14/06
i) LMCC Newsletter Winter 2006
11. MISCELLANEOUS
Hughes asked the status of the plaque on the water tower. Goman will place it on the tower
soon.
• 12. ADJOURNMENT
Motion by Williamson and seconded by Hughes to adjourn the meeting at 11:07 a.m.
All votes were aye. Motion declared carried.
SHARON CORL
DEPUTY CLERK
W LYWD. WEEKS
ADMINISTRATOR/CLERK/TREASURER
•
Council Meeting—4/17/06
13
• CITY OF SPRING PARK
SPRING PARK, MINNESOTA
MINUTES
BOARD OF REVIEW
APRIL 24,2006
7:30 P.M.—CITY HALL
1. CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Rockvam called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
2. ROLL CALL
Hughes, Reinhardt, Williamson, Widmer and Rockvam were present. Staff present:
Administrator Weeks, Deputy Clerk Corl, Office Assistant Lewin; Bill Davy, Hennepin
County Assessor.
3. ADOPT AGENDA
Motion by Hughes and seconded by Reinhardt to adopt the agenda. All votes were aye.
Motion declared carried.
4. HEAR APPEALS
• a) Open Public Hearing
Rockvam opened the public hearing at 7:31 p.m. and read the following notice posted
April 7, 2006 at Wells Fargo Bank, Spring Park Post Office and the Spring Park City
Hall:
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Board of Review of the City of Spring Park in
Hennepin County, Minnesota will meet at the office of the City Clerk in said City of
Spring Park, 4349 Warren Avenue at 7:30 p.m. on Monday, the 24th day of April, 2006
for the purpose of reviewing and correcting the assessment of said City of Spring Park for
the year 2006. All persons considering themselves aggrieved by said assessment or who
wish to complain that the property of another is assessed too low are hereby notified to
appear at said meeting and show cause for having such assessment corrected. No
complaint that another person is assessed too low will be acted upon until the person so
assessed, or his agent, shall have been notified of such complaint.
b) Recent Sales Booklets—2005 Sales & 2006 Assessments—Noted
c) John Samuelson& Marilyn Ronnkvist, 4484 West Arm Road
Weeks stated Ronnkvist requested to be removed. The following resident requested to be
heard:
Chris Snow, 2421 Black Lake Road—PID 19-117-23-12-0015
2005 EMV - $415,000; land- $180,000; building - $235,000
2006 EMV - $467,000; land - $225,000; building - $242,000
Board of Review—4/24/06
1
• Rockvam asked Davy if he has communicated with Snow. Davy said he physically
reviewed the house when improvements of$130,000 were done in 2004. Snow stated the
EW is too high. Rockvam asked Davy if he has inspected the property since 2004 and
was told no. Snow asked if comparable properties are used to determine the market
values. Davy said a mass appraisal system is used by using sales that occur. Snow said
that system is in arrears as a valuating system; the housing market is saturated and
increases in property values are high; he said his increase is 15%.
Hughes pointed out sales on Black Lake Road and Lafayette Road. Davy said because of
those sales the county had to do adjustments for the properties on Black Lake Road.
Widmer asked if all the properties on Black Lake Road were increased the same
percentage. Davy said they were increased by dollar amount per the amount of lake
shore on the property. Snow pointed out articles that suggest a 6.6% increase in a 13
county area. Rockvam asked Snow what he thinks his property increase should be.
Snow replied he expects to pay 2 to 5%.
Rockvam requested Davy to make an inspection. Davy said he would review the file.
Rockvam pointed out the negative standpoint; the street is crowded and congested and
the lakeshore is not desirable. Hughes pointed out Lafayette Lane has better lakeshore
and better access. Davy said that is all taken into consideration. Reinhardt asked Snow's
lake frontage. Snow said it was 50 feet and further into the cove. He said two years in a
• row he has had large increases.
Rockvam asked Snow if he would contact a realtor for an appraisal. Snow pointed out
one house down the road is selling for $650,000 and has been on the market for a while.
Hughes asked how much 2413 Black Lake Road has increase over a couple of years.
Davy said in 2004 it was $350,000, no garage, and located in the cove. Reinhardt asked
Snow how big his house is. Snow said the livable space is 2,400 square feet and built in
2003. Davy said the original house was built in the 1920's and rebuilt. Rockvam pointed
out the increase of the value of the house is $7,000 and the lot increased $4,500. Hughes
asked how the county arrived at a $4,500 land increase. Davy said there is a flat value for
the cove area; an adjustment to the site by 10% due to depth; the first 50 feet is $6,000;
and the cove, lack of view and other factors are considered.
Widmer referred to the summary in the booklet of the 2006 assessment and that
residential lakeshore is up the average of 8.6%. Davy said West Arm Road did not
increase as much. Widmer stated the West Arm Townhomes have the largest affect on
West Arm Bay. The Council briefly discussed sales on Sunset Drive and West Arm
Road. Hughes asked the justification or rationale on how the county came up with
$45,000 increase per foot on Snow's property. Davy stated when property sales are at
75% of what they sold for tells us we have to make adjustments accordingly and the state
statute allows an increase of 100% of a market value.
Davy noted a large inventory of houses is for sale and sometimes it may take 8 months to
• a year before a buyer is found. Hughes stated that should not influence the property
Board of Review—4/24/06
2
• values. Davy said market values are defined by the highest price. Hughes commented
eventually the average person will be taxed out of Spring Park. Rockvam agreed and
stated the values are going up so much it affects everything but noted hopefully is has
leveled out even if it is a small amount.
In conclusion Rockvam suggested Snow has a couple of realtor's evaluate his property;
Davy will physically review the property before the reconvened Board of Review May 1,
2006. Snow stated supply and demand should be considered when a valuation is made.
Davy reminded Snow he has to look at what properties have sold for.
d) Close Public Hearing
The public hearing was recessed at 8:08 p.m. to May 1, 2006.
Rockvam stepped to the podium as a resident. He referred to his eleven commercial
properties and stated there was a 70% increase and wanted it on record that he has filed a
challenge appealing the market values.
Davy noted the lakeshore on West Arm Bay on Sunset Drive the first 50 feet is $9,000
per foot, the next 50 feet is $8,000 per foot and over 100 feet is $6,000 per foot. Widmer
said that area went up 1% last year. Davy said properties are not adjusted by percentages,
but dollar amounts per foot depending on the amount of lakeshore. Widmer asked
hypothetically what the increase would be if all of the lots were 50 feet and nothing was
• done for improvements. Davy said all of the land values would have increased the same.
Hughes pointed out last year the base for properties on the cove in Black Lake was
$200,000. Davy pointed out that area was significantly increased this year including the
house on the corner of Black Lake Road and Shoreline and the twin homes. He pointed
out there was a plus or minus site adjustment depending on the site.
Williamson stated properties off the lake were noted to be up 3.9% and stated his went up
about 15%. Davy said the median ended up at 3.9% and all properties went up to up to
20%. He said when the figure starts at the lower end of the dollar amount, percentage
wise it comes to a larger percentage.
Reinhardt asked if there is part of a building permit that does not count as an
improvement for assessment purposes i.e. windows. Davy yes there is and some
windows count. Reinhardt asked if they rate the structure. Davy said there is a quality
and size rating system and he personally reviews the house, not the decorating.
5. MISCELLANEOUS
Hughes suggested Council Persons that request a review on their property should go directly
to the next level for appeal so there is no conflict of interest. Davy said everyone is required
to start at their local Board before they can go on to the next level. The City of Excelsior
was referred to and briefly discussed. Hughes stated he was looking for a manner that
elected official could be dealt with differently. Rockvam pointed out his challenge was
•
Board of Review—4/24/06
3
. because it is all commercial property. Widmer asked the price per foot on Sunset Drive last
year. Davy will have that information available for the next meeting.
In another matter Rockvam pointed out the vast amount of spider webs on the front of the
building.
6. ADJOURNMENT
Motion by Williamson and seconded by Reinhardt to reconvene the Board of Review at
the Council Meeting May 1,2005 at 7:30 p.m. ending this meeting at 8:24 p.m.
SHARON CORL
DEPUTY CLERK
• 4I4LLIAM D. WEEKS
ADMINISTRATOR/CLERK/TREASURER
Board of Review—4/24/06
4
CITY OF SPRING PARK
• SPRING PARK, MINNESOTA
MINUTES OF SPECIAL JOINT MEETING OF THE
SPRING PARK CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION
HELD APRIL 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 Bredesen
(arrived at 8:15), Mike Mason, Doug Sippel (arrived at 8:05)
Planning commission Members Excused: Evalina Klein, Sera Maloney, Bill Tyler
Staff in Attendance: Bill Weeks, City Administrator/Clerk/Treasurer
D.J. Goman, City Utility Superintendent
Alan Brixius,Northwest Associated Consultants, Inc.
Dan Petrik,Northwest Associated Consultants, Inc.
Ken Adolf, Schoell &Madson
Tom Seifert, Head, Seifert&Vander Weide
Nancy Beck, Head, Seifert&Vander Weide
•
Summary
On April 27, 2006 at 7:00 p.m., the Spring Park City Council and Planning Commission
held a special joint meeting at City Hall with staff and Northwest Associated Consultants,
Inc., the City Planner, Schoell &Madson, the City Engineer, 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.
Parking Requirements
Alan Brixius, the City Planner, led the meeting.
Mayor Rockvam stated that he only wants to address guest parking. Reinhardt stated that
guest parking impacts the other parking requirements.
Brixius said that the current parking requirements for multi-family buildings is two
parking stalls per unit. The current ordinance does not have a guest parking requirement.
The Mist Lofts was asked to provide %4 parking stall per unit in addition to the two
• required parking stalls to provide guest parking. Some buildings in the City are currently
SPECIAL JOINT MEETING—4/27/06
non-conforming; Bayview Apartments was grandfathered in at 1 %parking stalls per
• unit. The point was made that underground parking is generally not readily accessible for
guest parking.
Brixius suggested two options for guest parking: (1)Require 2 1/4 parking stalls per living
unit(he recommends this option), or(2) Require underground parking. Brixius does not
want to create non-conforming conditions for existing buildings.
Seifert asked if a set number of parking spaces is necessary; can it be looked at on a case
by case basis? Williamson said that the City has flexibility now and needs to set
standards. Brixius stated that 2 %4 stalls is an appropriate requirement. Projects can be as
big as the site will accommodate so long as the required parking, setbacks, and height
standards are met. He feels strongly that with this system, a set number of parking spaces
is needed.
Reinhardt asked about the effect of creating non-conforming properties. Brixius said that
the reduction of a non-conformity is allowed without requiring that the property be
brought into conformity.
Widmer asked about combining units and the effect on parking requirements. Brixius
said that increasing volume or the number of unites would require conformity with the
new parking standards.
• Reinhardt stated her concern with the zero setback for parking lots. For example, the car
wash on the main street—there would be no ability to make it look nice if the Code has
zero set backs for parking lots. Brixius said that he would look into this.
Paving, striping and curb requirements for parking lots were also discussed. They are not
currently required by the ordinance. These issues are not part of the issues to be studied
during the moratorium; however, Brixius has sample language that the City can consider
in the future.
Mayor Rockvam stated he believes that when the use of a property changes,the City can
impose conditions. Brixius said that the conditions must be contained in the ordinance in
order to be applied. He reminded the group of Spring Park's unique situation; efficient
use of land is critical; the standards that work in suburban or rural cities will not work
here. Mayor Rockvam cited as an example of this the 10 foot set back requirement for
the Firestone building. The 10 foot area was not used on one side of the building and
unsightly brush grew there. That space could have been used on the other side of the
building to improve the parking situation for the building. Williamson added that the
City may want to impose higher standards in the future; some lots may be too small and
may not be able to be redeveloped under the new standards. The City may not want to
keep non-conforming situations.
Williamson stated that the '/4 guest parking requirement has general approval of the
• group; there is consensus on this issue.
SPECIAL JOINT MEETING—4/27/06 2
Brixius will provide some parking design standards for the City to consider.
• Business Use Discussion
The Marina Car Wash situation was discussed. Brixius stated that as time goes by,
expectations change. The Mayor stated that screening is needed. Williamson said that
the ordinance should define the difference between the parking and storage of vehicles.
Car repairs that take a day or two are okay,but how much time is too much? Brixius
stated that conditional use permits could be required for this type of thing; vehicle storage
could be permitted only if adequate screening is provided. Seifert said that it sounds like
the City wants to require conditional use permits for car/boat repair. Williamson said that
the City should consider requiring use permits for all businesses; the City could review
everything and approve a plan for each business. Brixius stated that the ordinance
currently requires a conditional use permit for outdoor storage. He does not recommend
this for all business uses because of the public hearing requirement. The City can
consider use, site and building plan review for commercial, industrial, and multi-family
projects. NAC is preparing documents for the Council to review in this regard and they
will be discussed later in the meeting.
The Mayor asked if the City can incorporate a certificate of occupancy requirement for
commercial businesses. Brixius said that is a building permit requirement, not part of the
zoning ordinance. However, the ordinance tries to tie the certificate of occupancy to the
zoning requirements by stating that a certificate of occupancy cannot be issued until all
zoning ordinance requirements have been complied with. Tenant changes in a building,
0 such as the Marina Shopping Center, are usually a building code issue also. Leasehold
improvements will require a building permit—this will not be subject to City review
under the revised zoning ordinance. The City can also advise the building inspector the if
the use of building changes significantly and effects something like parking requirements,
then it should be reviewed by the City.
Williamson stated that new construction is well covered by a development agreement,but
asked how the standards apply to smaller projects.
Widmer asked what authority the City has to require new businesses to notify the City.
Brixius said that cities can required business permits for businesses to deal with this
issue. The Mayor stated that the sign permit requirements address this issue. Brixius
said that the zoning ordinance must contain conditions for enforcement; a use change
does not automatically allow the City to review the site plan.
The Mayor said that there seems to be consensus that the City needs a formal process for
notification of the City when new business uses of property come in to town. Reinhardt
said that she is intrigued by the business license idea. Brixius said that there are three
ways to handle this issue:
1. Conditional use permits: use is acceptable in a district if it can meet
• certain conditions. The CUP must run with the property.
SPECIAL JOINT MEETING—4/27/06 3
2. Interim use permit: a new type of permit recently permitted by statute
• which can sunset at a certain time or when a certain event happens.
3. Seasonal sales permit: this would be renewable annually. The City
would need a separate ordinance for this.
Trash Enclosures
There is currently nothing in the zoning ordinance regarding trash enclosures.
NAC proposal:
1. Trash containers cannot be forward of the building.
2. A screened enclosure is required for dumpsters.
3. Six foot masonry construction for enclosures; no fences.
4. Gates for enclosures must be well-designed(durability, accessibility, etc.).
5. Placement standards; circulation is required.
Williamson asked what Brixius recommends regarding trash enclosures for single family
properties; suggested leaving item(A) off for now and the City can deal with this later.
Hughes agreed that the single family question should be dealt with later because front
yard storage is a bigger issue.
Lighting
• Brixius stated that the purpose of the proposed language is to deal with the issue of the
exterior lighting on buildings and how lighting is directed to neighborhoods and to the
lake. He has two recommendations:
1. Require cut off lights which direct light down.
2. Regulate pole height—he suggests 20 foot poles and screening
requirement.
The group discussed foot candle requirements. Illumination standards are needed for
traffic and safety. Limit spillage. Have foot candle limits at property line. The Mayor
stated that there should be lighting standards for everything, e.g. streets,parking lots, etc.
Petrik stated that the proposal is a nuisance lighting provision. NAC can add lighting
requirements also. Reinhardt stated that minimum lighting standards should be added.
Mayor Rockvam stated that reasonable lighting levels should be set for streets, sidewalks,
and parking lots. Brixius said that he will address lighting standards in the proposal.
Mason asked when the City can hold a public hearing. Mayor Rockvam asked if the
proposals will be done in segments or as a whole. Brixius said the public hearing will be
at the planning commission's June meeting(June 14t'). Each proposal will be separate,
but several proposals will be dealt with at the public hearing. Brixius said that everything
that has been discussed at the joint workshop meetings so far will be discussed at the
public hearing. Petrik said they will try to get revised drafts to the planning commission
at the May meeting so they can review them in advance of the public hearing.
SPECIAL JOINT MEETING—4/27/06 4
Site Plan Review
• New construction, expansion and redevelopment projects will require site plan review by
the planning commission and city council approval rather than being handled
administratively as is now being done.
Increases in the volume of a building,changes in the building footprint, or changes from
a single tenant to multi-tenants in a building should be reviewed and approved by the
council. Reinhardt noted the change in the 15%trigger in the previous draft. Brixius
said that he has changed his recommendation; he'd rather have the council review these
changes instead of handling them administratively. However, it's the City's decision.
A discussion of the Nordling project followed. What went wrong? The Mayor stated
that when people come to City Hall they should be given specific instructions regarding
the requirements for their projects. Hughes said that this is a big issue that should be
discussed later. Brixius stated that this is what the site plan requirements are intended to
do.
Architectural Requirements
The original question was "what is lakeshore architecture?" We need to revisit why we
want to do this.
• The Comprehensive Plan takes precedence over the Zoning Ordinance. The Comp Plan
is up for review in 2008.
Pictures of current City buildings, old and new,were distributed. Brixius asked what the
City's expectations are. He would like to get some sense of the scope of the project.
Petrik stated that there can be style requirements and/or material requirements. He
pointed out the different building styles in the pictures and asked for reactions from the
group. Is it the style of the building or the type of material that matters more?
Williamson said he is looking for compatibility without requiring uniformity.
Brixius asked if the City is achieving what it wants with what it has in place now or are
changes necessary?
Bredesen asked for an explanation of the Wayzata standards. Petrik showed the Wayzata
book of design standards. Wayzata has 3-4 different districts with different design
standards. Brixius stated that Wayzata defined what in their community they wanted to
emulate and then adjusted that for commercial uses. Height was a major issue because
the Wayzata design standards are expense to comply with so more building volume
(height)is necessary for projects to be economically feasible. Petrik said that Wayzata
was very concerned with providing a human scale for its buildings. Examples of this
• include limiting the height of the first story and the second story and requiring that the
SPECIAL JOINT MEETING—4/27/06 5
second floor be set back. Wayzata doesn't limit style; it controls scale and materials.
• Williamson noted that there are many different building styles in Wayzata,but it works;
the buildings are compatible.
Brixius strongly suggested that the City have guidelines rather than ordinance
requirements; it gives the City more flexibility and limits variance requests. Williamson
asked what the enforcement capabilities would be for guidelines. Brixius said that the
development contract will specify required materials, etc.
Mayor Rockvam said there is a real world problem with this. Todd Frostad changed the
brick and the color of the building from the development contract requirements. Brixius
suggested having the building inspector check materials on an on-going basis or red-
tagging the project. Seifert said that the City did not want to red-tag the Frostad project
because they didn't want to open up the City to a law suit.
Petrik suggested adding design guidelines to the Comprehensive Plan. Both graphic and
text format will be used in the guidelines.
Brixius asked the group how it wants the City to look in 20 years. He would like a broad
wish list,then he can prepare something for the City to review. He asked what the group
thought of the Mist buildings. The Mayor said that the City did not like the original plans
and the developer changed them. Mason said he would like to see things look individual,
e.g. different roof types. Anderson said that everyone likes the Yacht Club look. The
• Mayor said that the"turn of the century look"is coming back and that is a"lake look."
Williamson said that there is a certain sameness to new buildings; new buildings don't
have the decorative features and materials that were used at the turn of the century.
Hughes said that in 20 years he'd like to see storefronts on Shoreline Drive with parking
in the back. Brixius stated that buildings can be pushed forward on the lots with
minimum set back requirements to allow for parking in the back. However,then there is
an issue with sidewalks and green space.
Hughes asked to see the zoning map. Brixius explained that the zoning map is a reality
check on what the City can do;physical limitations. The Mayor said that the developers
will dictate what will work on the property.
Bredesen said that guidelines are more important for smaller buildings because the
developers of big projects are usually up to date on current styles, etc.
Reinhardt would like to see a residential feel for small commercial businesses. Brixius
said he represents one city that tried this and then did not like it because the building did
not look commercial and no one could tell that it was a business.
Mayor Rockvam said that small commercial businesses are a problem in Spring Park
because most people are commuters who drive by. Brixius said that the City should then
review whether commercial use is the best use of the property along Shoreline Drive.
•
SPECIAL JOINT MEETING—4/27/06 6
Brixius summarized the architectural standards discussion. The main points were:
• • Building scale
• Lot size
• Smaller projects are a bigger concern than larger projects.
• Avoid a"valley" look
• Control height
• Bring buildings closer to County Road 15
• Use guidelines rather than an ordinance
• Apply standards to redevelopment to avoid creating non-conforming buildings
• Use a variety of materials
• Roof undulation
• Second story set-backs.
The meeting was adjourned at approximately 9:15 p.m.
Respectfully submitted by Nancy Beck
•
•
SPECIAL JOINT MEETING—4/27/06 7
0
1
CITY OF SPRING PARK
• SPRING PARK,MINNESOTA
MINUTES
COUNCIL MEETING
MAY 1,2006
7:30 P.M.—CITY HALL
1. CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Rockvam called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
2. ROLL CALL
Hughes, Reinhardt, Williamson, Widmer and Rockvam were present. Staff present:
Administrator Friesen, Weeks, Utility Superintendent Goman, Deputy Clerk Corl, Office
Assistant Lewin; Ken Adolf, Engineer, Tom Seifert & Nancy Beck, Attorney's, Dan Petrik,
Planner, and Planning Commissioner Mason.
3. ADOPT AGENDA
Motion by Williamson and seconded by Hughes to adopt the agenda.
Reinhardt requested the resolutions be addressed where the subject matter appears on the
agenda.
• All votes were aye to approve the agenda as amended. Motion declared carried.
4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
a) Moratorium Minutes—March 27, 2006
Motion by Widmer and seconded by Williamson to approve the Moratorium
Minutes on March 27,2006.
Rockvam referred to page 4, paragraph 4 and asked the two sentences that comprise the
paragraph to be deleted because they did not make sense and were not pertinent to the
discussion.
All votes were aye to approve the minutes as amended. Motion declared carried.
b) Council Minutes—April 17, 2006
Motion by Williamson and seconded by Widmer to approve the Council Minutes for
the meeting on April 17, 2006. Four votes were aye and Reinhardt abstained
because she was excused from that meeting. Motion declared carried.
c) Board of Review Minutes—April 24, 2006
•
Council Meeting 5/1/06
1
Motion by Reinhardt and seconded by Hughes to approve the minutes for the Board
• of Review on April 24,2006.
Rockvam noted the percentage on page 3, 2nd paragraph under d) should be 74%.
All votes were aye with the amendment. Motion declared carried unanimously.
PUBLIC FORUM—No one present.
Mayor Rockvam introduced the Council and Staff to the viewing public and welcomed the
new Administrator, Sarah Friesen.
5. PETITIONS, REQUESTS & APPLICATIONS
a) Reconvened Board of Review
Present from Hennepin County: Earl Zent and Nate Stulc.
1. Assessor's Determination's
Chris Snow, 2421 Black Lake Road
The assessor's determination was no change for this property. Snow was here last
week to challenge his 2007 assessment. He was asked at that meeting to get a couple
of estimates from realtors. He felt a fairer way to present his argument was to
reference an article in the "Key to Managing Chaos." He said the current assessment
process is in arrears and based upon previously sold properties. Snow thinks it's like
trying to drive a car using the rear view mirror. Snow felt the fairest way for the
• evaluation was to go to 2006 county tax records. He distributed a chart and said he
used an average for land and total market for the properties on the lake side of Black
Lake Road. This comparison is how Snow's property is assessed in accordance with
his neighbors rather than someone in Minnetonka Beach or elsewhere.
Last year, when Snow rebuilt, he sustained a 72% increase in property taxes. Snow
says he has already sustained an increase. If he gets another 15% increase, Snow
feels it will be further unfair to him. Snow said that although his data isn't real estate
comps, he feels his comparison is better. He didn't want to deal with realtors
thinking he was going to sell. Rockvam thinks it would have been best to get a
realtor's appraisal as that is what the tax assessor uses to come up with their figures.
Williamson says it's the deviation that occurs to property because of improvement
and calculated increase. Rockvam said whatever you put into the building is simple
to figure out. What Snow is challenging is the land value. Snow asked where the
$250,000 base value came from. He said his land value is $180,000. Rockvam asked
Snow what he thought the value should be. Snow said it should not be increased.
Williamson thinks Snow's research is interesting and worthwhile; location does
matter and specifics of being on the lake matter; those factors ignore a county wide
average.
Snow stated the market is saturated; with supply and demand, people are not selling
• as fast and adjusting downward. Homeowners on the lake have a higher percentage
Council Meeting 5/1/06
2
of increase. He pointed out Black Lake Road is a negative and comps from the
• county assessor do not apply. Comparisons would be more akin to a canal with
access to Black Lake. Rockvam said the road is not the greatest but that's the
choosing of the residents because they don't want to change it. He added an
evaluation was done a few years ago and residents want to leave it that way. He
stated the lake access is subjective but has a value with Lake Minnetonka.
Hughes asked at the last meeting the justification of the $52,000 for the increase. The
assessor was also supposed to send something on taxed commercial property
regarding fiscal disparity and other information that Hughes asked for. Stulc said it's
dictated by sales; in Mr. Snow's case it was the house on Lafayette Lane to the north
of him. Those were the comps used. The increases were directly market related.
Hughes said Lafayette Lane isn't a comparable property. Zent answered it is still in
the Black Lake area; statistics are looked at and sales are based by jurisdiction and
various bays. He pointed out in Spring Park, three lakeshore sales showed a growth
rate of 17% on average; within the property types various amenities are considered.
He said our community has seen double digit changes and in arrears is the way the
system works. Zent stated if values go down and they can measure it they will reflect
it and assessors can't predict a downward trend. He said ultimately what we're
talking about is lakeshore as a limited quantity; there is no lake lot here available for
$225,000 and Snow's could be a lot higher on another bay.
• The assessor asked if the property is financed would the appraisal support a $467,000
value. Snow said of course he'd want to get the most for his property but he still
thinks the area doesn't support the valuation. Rockvam said there is a desire to be in
the area. He stated the Council has to make a recommendation and move on. Hughes
asked Snow what would be acceptable. Snow said 8-10% would be fair. He doesn't
think it should be double digit increases.
Hughes asked Snow if he is going to challenge this further. Snow said he would if
anything for the experience.
Hughes said his question hasn't been answered yet regarding the $52,000. Widmer
asks how much per foot it increased pointing out it is now $6,000. Snow said there
was a minimum of$250,000. Hughes pointed out there is a 10% reduction for the
depth of the channel.
Rockvam thinks the confusion is the footage runs back from the lakeshore. Stulc said
the measurement is the lake frontage, the first 50 feet is the first 50 feet of lakeshore
and the second 50 feet is less. Williamson asked about lots smaller than 50 feet and
was told the minimum is 50 feet. Hughes pointed out he only has 40 feet and they
applied the full amount.
Zent stated the change is in market value; it's the overall appreciation and if there was
no other change in the real estate the change in the appreciation is greater in this area.
He pointed out this property owner paid $248,000 and he took the house to the
Council Meeting 5/1/06
3
foundation and rebuilt it; in essence it could be stated it was a land sale. He asked if
. it would it sell for a minimum of $225,000 and said the issue is if it's worth over
$450,000. He said he made evaluations on the non availability of lakeshore and
valuation is based upon lakeshore sales versus non lakeshore sales.
Motion by Hughes and seconded by Rockvam to lower the value for 2421 Black
Lake Road by 10%.
Rockvam asked if we asking for 10% over all or for the land. He said we should be
talking about dollars. He said the increase was $52,000 and asked if we are talking
about reducing that by 10%. Snow said to reduce the taxable market value.
Upon roll call Hughes, Williamson and Rockvam voted aye and Reinhardt and
Widmer voted no. Motion declared carried.
Williamson asked if the percentage would apply to the land and the building. Zent
said it would probably come off the building.
Roxanne Rockvam, 2437 Black Lake Road
Rockvam said the assessor refused to review her property. Reinhardt stated this
wasn't discussed at the first meeting and asked why there was a recommendation for
a change. Stulc said Rockvam has only 27 feet of lakeshore not the 40 feet that was
stated when she purchased the property.
The assessor stated there is a recommendation for change because they had it listed
for 40 feet. She presented a survey stating it is 27 feet. That's where adjustment is
coming from. Data at the county was valued wrong. Rockvam asked what the
formula is that is being used to evaluate her property. Zent said what is being used is
the mass evaluation of lakeshore for mass appraisal. He said it might not be scientific
but it works well. He pointed out they were valuing 40 linear feet of Rockvam's
property and since it was a change in land criteria, they took it off the land component
assuming there's been no appreciation to the property. It was noted the property
valuation hasn't been increased from the 2003 benchmark of the sale.
This is a pie shaped lot and they took the value down effectively rather than moving it
down to it's actual. Rockvam said the property at the street is not useable because of
setback requirements. Stulc stated they take into account pie shaped lots. The
building pad can be a lot bigger if there is 500 feet at the street and 50 feet on the lake
as opposed to 50 feet on the street and 50 feet on the lake. Williamson asks what the
mathematical computation is for determining this. Stulc stated its part science, part
art and all dictated by sales. Hughes said if a person has a larger lot and they put on a
larger house you can tax the larger house.
Stulc pointed out it comes down to $322,500 and that is what it sold for in 2003.
Rockvam said there are roof problems with $70,000 in damage. She said the
• appraisal was reversed to $210,000 because she thought she was getting 40 feet and
Council Meeting 5/1/06
4
instead only 28 feet. Rockvam stated she went through arbitration and the settlement
for her was zero.
Hughes asked Rockvam what she suggests to be done and was told to bring the land
down to the price for 27 feet or $162,000 from $240,000. Widmer verified it was 27
feet, not 28 feet.
Motion by Hughes and seconded by Widmer to lower the valuation for the land
for 2437 Black Lake road to $162,000.
Reinhardt stated she definitely sees the plight with this and is comfortable with
$325,000. She said all other properties are rated on effective frontage and it shouldn't
be a different standard of measure. Hughes stated the assessors are not giving us
clear answers. Reinhardt disagrees and thinks they are doing a fair job, all properties
are getting double digit increases, and the market value is lower than what lakeshore
owners can get for their house.
Upon roll call Hughes, Williamson, and Widmer voted aye, Reinhardt voted no,
and Rockvam abstained. Motion declared carried.
Rockvam Boat Yards Inc.
Mayor Rockvam said there was no action on his and he'll pursue it further. Hughes
requested Zent to discuss the impact of fiscal disparities on commercial property.
• Zent stated he is not prepared to discuss it at this time and added its statute driven
criteria. Stulc verified the change for R. Rockvam's property is for the land.
2. Council's Recommendations—Previously discussed
3. Adjourn Board of Review
Motion by Williamson and seconded by Reinhardt to adjourn the Board of
Review at 8:26 p.m. All voted were aye. Motion declared carried.
b) Construction Update—Mist Lofts
Present: Brad Ridgeway, JE Dunn, and Heidi Kurtz, Cornerstone.
Ridgeway reported the following for the north building: the building brick is 95%
complete; stucco is 75% complete; roofing and metal panel work continues on both
buildings; elevator will be completed the end of June; electrical, mechanical and fire
systems are on schedule; interior framing continues on level four and five, drywall is
being finished on level three, levels one and two are receiving finishing touches, sales
models are open.
He reported the following for the south building and site work: exterior walls are being
completed, masonry and stucco work are continuing; level one storefront has been
installed; framing and rough in for the units are complete and drywall continues on level
three, balcony rails will begin installation the end of May. Site work: stoop wall brick
and planter walls are complete; the retaining wall on the east property line is complete;
Council Meeting 5/1/06
5
landscaping and hardscape work will commence this spring; work continues for the new
lift station; broom sweeping is done on the street during the day and wet sweeping is
done as need arises and on Friday.
Ridgeway noted item 7. c) 1. Schoell & Madson Re: Waterman Relocation—4/28/06 and
asked if there are any questions for J E Dunn. Rockvam asked Adolf if there is a
recommendation. Adolf said the settlement was negotiated subject to Council approval.
Rockvam said the problem happened in the fall of 2004 when they did the jacking under
the street from Lakeview Lofts on Spring Street to Sunset Drive. Rockvam stated the
contention there was an onsite field decision to run the line at that time to where the fire
hydrant was going to be and the line ended up being under the footings for the Mist Lofts
building.
Goman said the original intent was to recreate that loop. Rockvam stated when the line
was installed in 2004, the transaction had not taken place between Hennepin County and
Cornerstone and the line was still in the Hennepin County right-of-way. He added at that
time there was no conflict with the footprint of the building because we did not have
approved plans for the building. Rockvam said it was later the county traded off that land
with Cornerstone. He stated we put the line in where we thought it should go and the
City should not have to pay anything.
Adolf said at the time the line was done we were not aware of the retaining wall and
footing on the west end of the property for the Mist Lofts. He said the retaining wall
• footing is in conflict to the water main. Rockvam asked if the plans and the footing were
a reality and a known fact when water main was installed. Adolf said it was not readily
know when a decision in the field was made. He said the line was discovered when the
excavating was started. Williamson stated all plans and actions in connection with this
were in good faith with the information available and when the excavation began is when
it was discovered there were utilities in the ground they hadn't anticipated.
Seifert said his memory is the City was aware there was a proposal to do land exchanging
but exact locations hadn't been decided. Rockvam asked when Cornerstone purchased
the property if we knew they were going to exchange some land. Adolf said Lift Station
3 was going to be relocated from the old Hennepin County right-of-way. The vacation of
the right-of-way was shown with the initial concept plan and it wasn't a surprise.
Rockvam stated we installed the line for the hydrant. Adolf said that took the line part of
the way south; the south portion of the water main was constructed last fall and extended
the 2004 stub that was too far east and continued the problem in a conflicting location.
He said the basis for the proposed settlement is the City has some responsibility for the
north 45 feet but not the conflicting location by JE Dunn that had to be relocated. The
proposed settlement included the total length of 100 feet; the City's portion is 45 feet so it
works out 45/55.
Rockvam verified engineers made the decision as to where that line was going to go.
• Goman said it was a field decision by himself and Lynn Patton from Schoell & Madsen.
Council Meeting 5/1/06
6
Williamson asked who did the work for Cornerstone. Adolf said if was Schoell &
• Madsen and the as built wasn't reflected on the Cornerstone plan to show the line was six
feet east. Williamson asked who would normally do that. Goman said when it's a field
change either himself or a field inspector, and field modifications had been made and not
transferred onto the plans. Williamson asked if it would show up on the plans upon
completion and was told yes. Reinhardt asked how far the line was changed. Goman
said it varies from four to five feet from its original location.
Rockvam said the difference is $11,000 and in essence the engineer is saying the City
made a mistake where the line is. Goman said it was a decision made at the time and it is
not a mistake. Adolf sketched the line on the board and explained the scenario.
Rockvam asked how one can say the City put the line in the wrong place because there
were no plans for the building available at that time. Adolf said it is a conflict about
when they were on the plans and there are differences of opinion.
Williamson commented there were several months of artist's concepts but there were no
formally presented materials much less engineering detail wherein someone could have
been forewarned. He added the City acted with the information it had available and the
staff operated in good faith; Cornerstone created highly detailed plans and the problem
should have been detected; however it wasn't until excavation to put in footings for that
section began when it was discovered and then it became Cornerstone's problem.
Ridgeway asked what they should have done. Williamson said they should have called
• the City for verification of the location of the line; experience has shown a lot of those
lines tend to deviate and Cornerstone should have determined what was in the ground.
Hughes asked when we put the water line in, what was the time span with the water line
and Cornerstone getting the official exchange of property. Williamson responded the
spring of 2005 and the process and hearings occurred about the first week of November.
Hughes verified this was six to eight months.
Rockvam asked the rationale with the staff and developer coming to the conclusion the
City should be responsible for $10,932. Ridgeway says his perspective is that
Cornerstone was sold a plot and given information where the water line was originally
and no updates that it had been changed. He doesn't see how the contractor or designer
could know it was in conflict.
Heidi, from JE Dunn, stated they specifically hired Schoell and Madson because they
were the City's engineers and they feel there is mutual responsibility because the lines
were not shown correctly on the plan; if they knew, they might have changed their
plans; the total bill is about $28,000 with overhead and fees; Cornerstone has agreed to
bear the majority of costs for this effort. Rockvam asked if Schoell and Madson
representing the City or Cornerstone prepared those plans. Adolf said both plans show
the water main to be six feet east of the curb line and it was installed at 12 feet; staff in
his office hadn't been told by the field people a change had been made.
Council Meeting 5/1/06
7
Seifert asked who the contractor was and was told it was Weis Builders and they knew
• where they installed it. Rockvam reiterated this is not the City's fault because the
engineering drawings were not totally accurate. Adolf stated the City needs to act on a
settlement issue with Cornerstone and Schoell and Madson will have to have a discussion
on how to split it up. Hughes said he thinks Schoell and Madson should step up.
Motion by Williamson and seconded by Hughes to reject the request for payment of
the City's portion for the relocation of the water main.
In discussion Reinhardt suggested to lay this over and review it at the next Council
meeting. She stated Schoell &Madson does act on behalf of the City and is like a City
employee.
Motion by Reinhardt and seconded by Widmer to lay this over to the next Council
meeting. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried.
Kurtze reported on additional unit sales; six units have been combined into three units
bringing the total to 116 from 120; retail leasing is going along nicely with the spa and
wine shop and leases are expected to be signed soon. Total sales are now at 50 units.
Rockvam asked if they are working with Mason on the landscaping. Kurtze said they are
waiting for the landscaper to come to the site at the end of the month.
c) Upper Tonka Little League Agreement
Rockvam verified the agreement was the same as previous years.
Motion by Williamson and seconded by Reinhardt to approve the Upper Tonka
Little League Agreement for 2006. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried.
d) Variance Request—Brandis Meyer, 2406 Black Lake Road
1. Schoell & Madson Re: Soil Borings -4/28/06
Motion by Hughes and seconded by Williamson to approve Resolution 06-12,
approving the variance request for 2406 Black Lake Road.
Hughes verified the request was per the plan received at this meeting. He verified we
have a plan that shows where the building is located. Widmer asked how deep the water
main is and Goman said it was 7 %feet.
Upon roll call Hughes, Reinhardt, Widmer and Rockvam voted aye. Motion
declared carried.
Williamson was not in the Council room when the vote was taken. He expressed he was
in favor of the motion when he returned.
e) Public Hearing—Amendment to Ordinance Re: Musical Concerts &Permit Application
Present: Tom Emer, Peter Peyerl, and Thomas Pivec from Lord Fletcher's Restaurant.
Council Meeting 5/1/06
8
1. Open Public Hearing
• Rockvam opened the public hearing at 9:10 p.m.
2. Discussion& Comments
a) Proposed Ordinance Change
Rockvam asked if there were any questions and having none he stated he did not like
the hours stated in the proposed ordinance stating 9:00 a.m. start because afternoon
hours were requested. Emer confirmed they would like the hours changed to noon to
nine p.m.
3. Close Public Hearing
Motion by Williamson and seconded by Widmer to close the public hearing at
9:15 p.m. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried.
4. Recommendation
Motion by Williamson and seconded by Hughes to approve Resolution 06-17,
amendment to the ordinance regarding musical concerts and the permit
application.
Reinhardt asked if we are going to change the hours. Rockvam pointed out the
applicant requesting this will no doubt monitor and control his situation. He noted
this change applies to anyone but there are additional conditions. He said he would
like to impose an additional condition that Lord Fletcher's report monthly to the
Council and give an update. Williamson pointed out the last paragraph allows for
additional conditions to be added. Widmer noted the drive-in has music once a year
and 9:00 p.m. may be too early.
Hughes amended the motion to change the hours to noon to 9:00 p.m. and maker
of the motion agreed. Upon roll Hughes, Reinhardt, Williamson, Widmer and
Rockvam voted aye. Motion declared carried.
Rockvam stated this would become effective when it is published. Emer said they
have a musical event scheduled for Wednesday. It was noted the publication would
not be printed until Saturday. Seifert said the Council could make a motion for the
concert on Wednesday.
Motion by Rockvam and seconded by Reinhardt to approve the concert at Lord
Fletcher's Restaurant for Wednesday May 3, 2006 as long as they comply with
the ordinance. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried.
Beck said a motion is needed to approve the new application and fee for a seasonal
permit. Rockvam asked what if someone wants a musical concert permit for every
night of the week. Beck pointed out the concept is similar to the dinner dance permit.
She stated she set the figure she thinks is reasonable for the seasonal permit; that is a
reason we have conditions in the ordinance; right now we need some sort of seasonal
•
Council Meeting 5/1/06
9
fee. Beck said we could issue a permit on per event but this is not economical or
• practical.
Briefly discussed was how the fee for the seasonal permit was derived. Rockvam
said the Council was scrutinized by a bar owner that the dinner dance fee was
excessive and he wanted a solid basis for the decision. Williamson said the fee is
$1600 for now and we can adjust that by resolution at a later date if needed.
Rockvam said 36 concerts are what they want. Williamson stated we ought to charge
Lord Fletcher's Restaurant for attorney's fees incurred to do this ordinance change.
Motion by Williamson and seconded by Hughes to charge $2,000 for the seasonal
music concert permit.
Reinhardt asked what the attorney's fees might be for this ordinance. Beck said they
would be under $2,000. Widmer asked if $1,600 would cover the costs and Beck
thought it would. Emer said he would like the fee to remain at $1,600. Reinhardt
pointed out the dinner dance fee is good for the entire year and added $1,600 is
substantial for the limited number of months that are available for outdoor music.
Motion by Reinhardt and seconded by Widmer to amend the amount in the
motion to $1,600.
It was clarified where a dinner dance could take place. Beck said the ordinance states
it has to be in a room.
Upon roll call Hughes, Reinhardt, Widmer and Rockvam voted aye and
Williamson voted no. Motion declared carried.
Upon roll call for the main motion as amended. Hughes, Reinhardt, Williamson,
Widmer and Rockvam voted aye. Motion declared carried.
f) Public Hearing—Conflict of Interest Proposed Ordinance
1. Open Public Hearing
Mayor Rockvam opened the public hearing at 9:35 p.m.
2. Discussion& Comments
a) Proposed Ordinance
Rockvam asked if any oral or written communications have been received and was
told no. Hughes stated it is an ordinance and it says `policy'. Rockvam said it is a
policy and it is being converted to an ordinance. Reinhardt asked if existing
situations are grandfathered in. Williamson said it would apply to anything going
forward. Beck pointed out Providence started before the policy was adopted. Seifert
stated if there is a conflict it becomes effective it right now. Beck added if there is a
contract in place, this does not invalidate it. Seifert said the Council could choose to
waive the conflict of interest with a unanimous vote.
Council Meeting 5/1/06
10
3. Close Public Hearing
• Motion by Reinhardt and seconded by Widmer to close the public hearing at
P g
9:41 p.m. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried.
4. Recommendation
Motion by Williamson and seconded by Widmer to approve resolution 06-16,
adopting an ordinance establishing a conflict of interest policy. Upon roll call
Hughes, Reinhardt, Williamson, Widmer and Rockvam voted aye. Motion
declared carried.
g) Planning Commission Minutes—April 12, 2006
1. Recommendation—Island Harbor Site Plan and Preliminary Plat
a) Public Hearing Notice
b) Construction Staging Plans
c) Grading Plan
d) Landscape Plan
e) NAC - 4/6/06
The above communications were noted. Reinhardt asked Petrik if everything is in order.
Petrik said there has been ample time to review everything; there is a listing of
outstanding issues,they are all minor and not significant.
Motion by Williamson and seconded by Hughes to approve Resolution 06-15,
approving site plan, preliminary plat and building plans for K. Hovnanian.
Williamson noted issues remain to be resolved i.e. enter into a development agreement
and address managing traffic in and out of the site and our sewer and water funds. He
pointed out that once the units are demolished we will cease to receive funds for sewer
and water and he wants the City to receive replacement funds for those taken away.
Hughes stated the resolution included the construction staging plan and employee
parking. He also thought there was a typo referring to `A' and `C' buildings and thought
it should be `13' instead of `C'. He was told there was no typo. He also clarified the
county road is 15, not 19.
Reinhardt noted #10 on page 3 required the approval of the Council and asked if all of
those mentioned Council approval would be put in the developer's agreement. Petrik
said yes and the Council can explore that later and we want to avoid problems that
occurred with previous developers. Rockvam verified this is low density lighting.
Upon roll call Hughes, Reinhardt, Williamson, Widmer and Rockvam voted aye.
Motion declared carried.
Rockvam verified staff would be starting work on the developer's agreement.
•
Council Meeting 5/1/06
11
h) Certified Auto Repair& Car Wash,Mark Pfleghaar, 4700 Shoreline Drive
• Rockvam stated when this application was submitted we had some concerns and he
reviewed the project over the week end. Petrik pointed out the submitted landscape plan
is a conceptual plan. He agreed it is insufficient screening for the sight; we need to
receive Pfleghaar's packet that was sent to the Watershed to see the stormwater plan; we
have to review the impervious surface on the property.
Rockvam pointed out the requirements for Norling's building project on the property next
to City Hall and the fact he was required to put in a retention pond, etc. Petrik said the
proposed storage area on Pfleghaar's plan is proposed stormwater area. Rockvam asked
if we treat people differently; when Norling submitted his permit he needed a CUP for
storage; Pfleghaar was given a permit immediately, changed the use and made a mess of
what was a property with nice green space. Petrik said he would make sure his project
has proper drawings and Pfleghaar is in compliance with impervious surface and the
Certificate of Occupancy (CO) would be held back until requirements are met.
Reinhardt inquired about the outside storage. Petrik said the cars are not considered
outside storage. Rockvam said where the cars are parked the Council would like a
detailed storage plan. Hughes asked how a building permit was issued before the
requirements were completed. Seifert said we should make sure he is not building
something that cannot comply and maybe issue a stop work order. Rockvam asked why a
permit was issued in the first place. Petrik said the property owner was trying to obtain
lower costs before road restrictions were enforced.
Reinhardt pointed out this project may have qualified under the moratorium restriction
dollar wise. Rockvam said all commercial developments should come before the
Council. Williamson pointed out the necessity that such plans be accurate and complete
and be prepared by someone that has professional credentials i.e. the planner. Widmer
asked when we require a survey. Weeks said a survey is required for all new
construction. Petrik stated the car wash had a survey. Seifert said we should red tag the
project by Friday if Pfleghaar has not provided us all of the required documents.
Rockvam said whatever we do is bad but we have to stop and review everything. Seifert
said we should blow the whistle now and get any problem fixed if needed assuming he is
getting approvals from the Watershed, etc. Petrik said we were flexible to help him and it
is not out of place to request the necessary documents by Friday.
Rockvam stated being arbitrary is the worst thing a Council could do and Norling could
point out to the City we are not treating everyone the same; commercial applications have
to come before the Council. Hughes verified we want drawings, Watershed approval,
etc. by Friday. Williamson said we cannot ask him to do the impossible. Seifert stated
we have to have him satisfy our standards and if the Watershed does not want to approve
his plan he can sue them but not sue us.
Petrik pointed out Norling did not provide construction documents until a couple of
weeks ago. Rockvam said it is frustrating to work out what the City will look like in the
• future and we continue to have this type of a `snafu' come up over and over. It was
Council Meeting 5/1/06
12
verified the issue is getting specific directions on this matter and those documents have to
• be completed by Friday May 5t' or we will red tag the project.
Motion by Hughes and seconded by Reinhardt to require all appropriate drawings
and information regarding the various permits delivered to the City by noon this
Friday and if they are not received, the project will be red tagged. Rockvam
amended the motion to have the City Attorney notify the property owner. All votes
were aye. Motion declared carried.
Seifert asked if the Council wants to hold a special meeting to review the plans.
Rockvam said he would like to see what the outside of the building will look like,
screening, etc. Reinhardt asked if our ordinance allows us to review the plans. Petrik
requested the Council to trust his judgment. He said the screening will require substantial
materials.
i) Miscellaneous -None
6. ORDINANCES & RESOLUTIONS
The following resolutions and communications were previously noted, discussed, or voted
upon.
a) Resolution 06-12—Approving Variance Request—2406 Black Lake Road
b) Resolution 06-15 —Approving Site Plan, Preliminary Plat& Building Plans for K.
Hovnanian & Head, Seifert& Vander Weide—4/28/06
. c) Resolution 06-16—Adopting an Ordinance Establishing Conflict of Interest Policy
1. Proposed Conflict of Interest Ordinance
d) Resolution 06-17—Adopting Ordinance Replacing Section on Regarding Musical
Concerts
1. Head, Seifert& Vander Weide—4/28/06
2. Proposed Ordinance Amending & Replacing Code on Musical Concerts
7. REPORTS OF OFFICERS & COMMITTEES
a) Mayor
1. Police Commission Reports & Minutes—4/18/06
Hughes reminded the Council the Fire Chief would like to have a joint meeting with
the police department regarding the auto starts. Williamson said the proposition is for
a 3 year contract and the police are doing a good job. He said the chief is out on
leave until the end of May and would like to defer this until she returns to work.
2. Administrative Committee Minutes—4/26/06
Reinhardt asked if the next step was the Council makes a recommendation after the
meeting with Moorse and Oman, from the City of Orono, regarding zoning reviews.
Hughes would like to defer this to another meeting so the new Administrator has a
chance to review this. Williamson asked if this is a simple purchase of service or if it
requires a contract. Rockvam said it would be an amendment to the contract. Hughes
said we should decide at the next Council meeting.
•
Council Meeting 5/1/06
13
In another matter Rockvam asked Seifert the status of the arborvitaes for Shoreline
• Place. He said they should be planted in large planters. Seifert said he would get to
the matter.
Rockvam said the new Administrator would be attending a clerk's certification
training session July 1 Oth thru July 14th, for her final year of a three year requirement.
He said it is being recommended that the Office Assistant also attend to start her first
year of three.
Motion by Hughes and seconded by Reinhardt to approve the Administrator
and Office Assistant to attend clerk's training the week of July loth thru the 10.
All votes were aye. Motion declared carried.
b) Council—Hughes,Reinhart,Williamson, Widmer
Hughes reported there is a new microphone for the audience. He said we have not
received pricing on remodeling the Council chambers and we do not want to lose track of
this. He asked the status of the arbitration with Frostad on the color the Lakeview Lofts
building. Seifert said it is on the list. Hughes asked for pricing on the Council chambers.
Weeks said the architect is reluctant to come up with costs. He thought he could have a
contractor review preliminary plans and maybe give an estimate or range of costs.
Hughes suggested meeting during the day to discuss and talk about what we want to see
potentially happen. Weeks thought obtaining costs should take place before placing it on
the CIP.
• Reinhardt recommended before the Planning Commission holds a public hearing g on
ordinance changes regarding the moratorium, we should do a press release on this.
Rockvam said we should make sure we have everything in place before it is on the June
Planning Commission meeting. Petrik said he could provide a paragraph. Rockvam
stated the entire group should agree with the proposal before the public hearing. Seifert
said the Council needs to discuss exactly what they want to do. Rockvam said we do not
have a final draft and we agree on guest parking and lighting. Reinhardt stated part of the
public hearing process is to get public input. Seifert said if we put out a press release, we
should have a draft. Reinhardt stated the planner said we would have a draft for the May
moratorium meeting to review for the June meeting. Rockvam verified the planner will
communicate with the attorney on the draft. Rockvam asked if we have a workshop
scheduled for May. Weeks said the 41h Monday in May (5/22) is being considered.
Seifert said we should have ordinance drafts for the next Council meeting.
Widmer reported the ditch by the fishing area at Coffee Bridge is full of dead branches,
etc. Goman said that is the county's responsibility and he would check on this. Widmer
asked if anyone is working on the ball field at Thor Thompson and was told yes.
c. Engineer
1. Schoell & Madson Re: Water Main Relocation—4/28/06 -Previously Discussed
•
Council Meeting 5/1/06
14
Rockvam referred to Lift Station 46 and said the building looks like a huge fish house.
• He said there was a request from Bolander to stretch out the restoration 6 to 8 weeks
later. Adolf said June I"is the completion date and they have been asked to proceed with
the restoration. He added Marina Car Wash had damage on their property from Bolander
and they indicated they would do the grading of their parking lot and stormwater grading.
Rockvam said that does not look good and the restoration is not a big project and should
not tie in with the car wash. Reinhardt asked what Bolander is going to do. Adolf said
they would be planting trees, shrubs, sod, etc. and it would be finished to look completed.
He said they would like to do the car wash property at the same time
Goman said they have a construction schedule and have subcontractors. Adolf said
Bolander does not have a lot of ability to make things happen immediately. He said the
site restoration completion will assist in their claim being resolved. Rockvam said we
should do a treatment on the exterior of the lift station. Goman said we have a complete
plan for a brick exterior and due to costs those amenities went by the wayside. He said
he could pull those plans back out for review. Reinhardt noted the landscaping will hide
the building. Hughes told Goman to bring the plans to the next Council meeting.
Adolf referred to the claim for the soil borings for Lift Station #6. He said he was
meeting with Bolander (the contractor) and anticipated negotiations. He stated he would
update the Council at the next meeting.
• d) Utility Superintendent
1. Update on Water Plant
Goman said he received a third proposal on the roof for $18,000 and the roof should be
completed in the next few weeks
2. Pavers—Tonka Grill
Goman reported Cornerstone would be doing the new sidewalk on Shoreline and
installing lights in front of Tonka Grill and could extend the pavers to Bayview Place.
Goman said he could obtain a price if the Council wants to have this additional paver
work done. He stated the sidewalk is part of the agreement with Cornerstone. He asked
if the City wanted to put pavers in front of Tonka Grill. Seifert verified the price would
be the extra cost on just the pavers. Rockvam said to obtain a price. Mason said the
sidewalk is not level at that point.
e) Administrator
1. Channels 8 & 20 Schedules -Noted
2. Building & Sign Report April -Noted
3. Miscellaneous -None
8. CLAIMS FOR PAYMENT
Motion by Hughes and seconded by Williamson to approve the claims for payment for
May 1,2006. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried.
•
Council Meeting 5/1/06
15
Widmer asked if#1, for Biff's, is for the parks and told it is and for the entire summer.
• Widmer asked where #7, from Norling's, main break occurred. Goman said it was at 4492,
4494 West Arm Road and it occurred in March and the landscape repair was for City Hall.
Widmer verified that cost would not be taken from the beautification fund.
9. UNFINISHED BUSINESS -None
10. NEW BUSINESS & COMMUNICATIONS
The following communications were noted:
a) Orono Police Department Press Release—"Click it or Ticket it: - 4/21/06
b) Orono Scanner April 2006
c) Newsletter Spring 2006
d) 2005 Audit Pages 22, 23, 24
Reinhardt noted the water fund lost $71,000. Rockvam noted the income was $16,500
and it was from water sold to the City of Orono. Hughes said this is not complete
information; he wanted information on all of the various departments. Rockvam said the
entire audit would not be available until June. They briefly discussed the water rates.
Reinhardt asked the status of the public hearing and said we need to schedule a meeting
on this.
e) T.C. Field & Co. Re: Premium Breakdown, Comparison, & Renewal Binder—4/25/06
f) Head, Seifert& Vander Weide Re: Status Report & Escrow Summary - Island Harbor
(Providence)—4/27/06
g) Mound Volunteer Fire Dept. Re: Lord Fletcher's Restaurant, 3746 Sunset Drive—
• 4/24/06
h) Head, Seifert& Vander Weide Re: Status Report & Escrow Summary—Lakeview Lofts
i) Head, Seifert& Vander Weide Re: Status Report & Escrow Summary—Mist Lofts
j) Head, Seifert & Vander Weide Re: Request#15 for Reimbursement of Costs
11. MISCELLANEOUS —None
12. ADJOURNMENT
Motion by Williamson and seconded by Reinhardt to adjourn the meeting at 11:22
p.m. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried.
SHARON CORL
DEPUTY CLERK
SAkAH FRIESEN
ADMINIS TRATOR/CLERK/TEASURER
•
Council Meeting 5/1/06
16