Loading...
2003 - Planning Commission - Agendas & Minutes • CITY OF SPRING PARK SPRING PARK, MINNESOTA AGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 8, 2003 7:30 P.M. - CITY HALL 1. CALL TO ORDER Pledge of Allegiance 2. ROLL CALL OATH OF OFFICE - Anderson, Nelson, Klein 3. ADOPT AGENDA 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - December 11, 2002 5. PLANNING COMMISSION a) Elect Chair &Acting Chair • b) Outdoor Storage & Screening Discussion 1. Copies of Ordinances From: Apple Valley, Chisholm, Long Lake, Plymouth, St. Louis Park, Shorewood, Wayzata 6. COMMUNICATIONS a) City Council List 2003 b) Planning Commission List 2003 c) Building & Sign Report -Nov. &Dec. d) Council Minutes - 12/16/02 e) City Calendar - January 7. MISCELLANEOUS 8. ADJOURNMENT • • CITY OF SPRING PARK SPRING PARK, MINNESOTA MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 8, 2003 7:30 P.M.—CITY HALL 1. CALL TO ORDER Pledge of Allegiance Chair Anderson called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. 2. ROLL CALL Mork Bredeson, Anderson,Nelson,Karpas,Nasset, Klein and Ex-Officio Stone were present. OATH OF OFFICE—Anderson,Nelson&Klein • Deputy Clerk Corl administered the oath of office to Anderson,Nelson and Klein. 3. ADOPT AGENDA Motion by Mork Bredeson seconded by Nelson to adopt the agenda. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES —December 12, 2002 Motion by Karpas seconded by Mork Bredeson to approve the minutes for the Planning Commission Meeting December 12, 2002. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. 5. PLANNING COMMISSION a) Elect Chair&Acting Chair Chair Anderson asked for nominations for Chair. Mork Bredeson nominated Anderson. Klein nominated Karpas. Anderson called for nominations a total of three times before closing the nominations. After a secret ballot was taken there was a tie. Mork Bredeson suggested each nominee comment in 20 words or less what they can contribute to the position. It was agreed by the Commissioners that the one in • second place would be Acting Chair. Anderson stated he brings his past experience as chair and Karpas stated he brings his experience from his job. After Planning Commission— l/8/03 1 • a secret ballot was taken Karpas was voted Chair and Anderson will be Acting Chair. b) Outdoor Storage & Screening Discussion 1. Copies of Ordinances From: Apple Valley, Chisholm, Long Lake, Plymouth, St. Louis Park, Shorewood, Wayzata Klein said she would like to further examine the ideas presented and address it at a later meeting. She said she is not prepared for a recommendation to the Council. Karpas stated no one is asking for an answer right now, existing businesses are grandfathered in and new changes would take place as new businesses come in. He pointed out a lot of the ideas he obtained from other cities refer to highway businesses, something that does not apply to Spring Park. Mork Bredeson asked what problem is trying to be solved. She said this appears to be a result of a couple of businesses that are offenders of the ordinance. Anderson said we realize we don't want to have our main street look like a junkyard but we should consider each business as it comes. Mork Bredeson stated when speaking to the appearance of a property we should speak to what not only what is visible from the street but also what is visible from the back of the property. • Nelson said we should have guidelines and an ordinance in place. Anderson said if we have an ordinance than there will be variance requests. He agreed there is a mess along the railroad tracks but we don't see it in the summer. He added we don't want to get too restrictive. Klein said the ordinance could be worded so there are perimeters with leeway. Mork Bredeson asked Karpas if one sample was more appropriate for Spring Park. Karpas said we have to decide, for example, if the ordinance would apply to a new business if one sold, and/or if there would be some restrictions that would apply to "leaf on" situations. He added we could adopt conditions such as a site plan approval from the Planning Commission and Council. He agreed the Planning Commission needs more time to review the sample ordinances and what can apply to Spring Park. Mork Bredeson asked if we should be thinking about the circumstance of the few offenders in the City and speak to aesthetics. Karpas said yes, speak to outdoor storage. Anderson asked if we could come up with something better than what we have. Mork Bredeson said we should look at what is a real and practical situation and what we want to avoid. Motion by Mork Bredeson seconded by Karpas to have the Planning Commissioners review the sample ordinances provided and see what • exactly applies to Spring Park for discussion at the next meeting. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. Planning Commission— 1/8/03 2 • 6. COMMUNICATIONS The following communications were noted: a) City Council List—2003 b) Planning Commission List 2003 c) Building& Sign Report—Nov. &Dec. d) Council Minutes— 12/16/02 e) City Calendar—January 7. MISCELLANEOUS The Deputy Clerk thanked Karpas for obtaining the sample ordinances. She also announced a Papa Murphy's will be going into the Marina Center. Nasset announced she sold her house and this would be her last meeting. Mork Bredeson thanked Anderson for his years of serving as Chair. 8. AJOURNMENT Motion by Mork Bredeson seconded by Karpas to adjourn the meeting at 7:59 p.m. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. • SHARON CORL DEPUTY CLERK • Planning Commission — 1/8/03 3 r Cam' � ............... .........I............................ UOSPN �44@9 1,A@ Lo k;ndaa ' LjoD uojpqs .. .... . .... ... ............................ ..... ................ �7 C 0 6 Z 6X[� * .......4',A'e n u'P'p...JO A up...q';,8 site aui aiojaq of ujo(ns puv paqyjsqnS ..........................................I..................................................... ............................. ....................................................................... ...................................................... .........................................................................I.................................................... .............................................................................................................................. ............................................I................................................................................. ............................................................I......................................................... 9 00 Z I E A a q wa D @ a S 0 A L d x a w j aj -Poo aw djay oS *,Cl!l!qv puv;uawgp-nf Xui jo Isaq ayi ol 'viosauu!N jo alvis puv ...................6,f'd a b* Xjunoj ayl u!................�je.d...6-U- L-u-d-§... Jo-......4...C j.......ayl Jo ...U.0..L.S.S.L.WW.6.j...6 u.L.6.6 .....10 a.7!jjo ayl jo sa.iinp ayl aWivqjs!p Xllnjy;!vj puv 'viosauu!N jo aiviS ay;10 PUD ga7V;S Paj!UJ2 ay;jo Uol;nl!ISUoa ay; uoddns Ilyn I I-Dyl ............................................ .1vams Xluzua7os op . ...........................................................u.0-s-L N...k-4-4- ............. I.AQd .......U,L*d,D,u u *H.....jo X,unoj lulosauuil]x jo alTals aj(yjf ssou!sne laoujo Kra J-ql-o--WZ-ON Countyof.................................... ............of ................................. ................................................ ................................................ . Oath of City Officer Filed this ............................day of ..................................... . 19...... ................................................ ................................................ • .........�.Xof k.l.n d 0.0...I I Y 0.0...0 C,).P.q.5 U0S.A@pUV WQLMM E 0 ..... u*u,p jo XDP.....I...... 0� q 4 8 8.1ill am ajojaq ol ujoms pu-D paq?jasqno ................................................................................................ ............................. .........................................................................................I.................................... .............................................................................................................................. ..................................... ........................................................................................ ..................................... ........................................................................................ ............I................................................................................I................................ .............................................................................................................................. qooZ ITC A@qwaDaG S@,ALdxa wA@i -Poo aw djay og ,(;?I?qD puD juawDpnf Xzu jo;saq ay; ol v;osauu?,W jo a;'D;S puv ....................u-L.d.0.u.u.a H...10 X;unoj ayl u!.....*.......... d U.L ..s... jo.........K ......ay;jo UOLSSLW W o 6 ULUU12Ld .10 aazfjo ayl jo saRnp ayl affivyisT Xllnjyl?-vj puv 'vlosauu?,W jo amjS ay;jo PuD samS papull ayl jo uo.qn;!;suoj ayl uoddns Ipm I Ivyl ............................................ . . . . .. . . . . .ivams Xluzua7os op I ..........................................................U-0-S--A-0-p-U V...W-P-L-L-L- M....... �,A)2d 6*u**L,*A'd­'­'*'­'*"­)* jo �) L,d,-6 ....Jo Xjunoj ............. U . 0 U@H llBjos;auul.1]x jo aluls woo 'ON ,W ssau!sne • A-Ujo Klu Jo qlg o--Wz Countyof.................................... ............of ................................. ................................................ ................................................ Oath of City Officer Filed this ............................day of ..................................... . 19...... ................................................ ................................................ • ........ U L LN PU LQA3 ....................... ........................ ........... E o 0'�­ . . .......k*�A' 6-n.u p p jo Xvp.... 4 8... 9.1yj aw aiojaq of woms puv paqyjsqnS ...................................................................................... ............................. ...........................................................................................I.................................. .............................................................................................................................. ..................................... ........................................................................................ ............I................................................................................................................. .............................................................................................................................. ........................................................................................ ..................................... 90OZ I IC Aaqwooaa SaA Ldxa wAal -Poo aw djazi oS *X)!I!qD PUT)JUaUlWPnf XUI JO 18aq ayl 01 "DJOSaUU?N Jo 31DIS PUD ...................u. L.d. u ua ....10 XjUnoj ayl U.1........................ ......d..... jo.......... aill Jo H IJ Q d b U L�A S 3 ,A a U.0 Y 1u.L6.6 6 6 c u 6 e d jo aj!jjo aw jo sallnp ayl agivyisip Xllnjyl!z)j puz) 'vjosauu!N jo aivIS ayl 10 PUD SaIDIS Papun ayl jo uoljnpjsUoj ayl uoddns Ilan I Ivyl ............................................ .ivams,Cluuia7os op • ............................................................................................. 'I ULE) D PULL12A3 J,P,d...6'U'L'j d'S'' 3'' U,L*d,0*u,u H*,,oC,unoj lulosauui[]K Jo 041RIS ajoff ssouisno Aw)Jo 4180-907, Countyof.................................... ............of ................................. ................................................ ................................................ ................................................ • Oath of City Officer Filed this ............................day of ..................................... . 19...... ................................................ ................................................ • • CITY OF SPRING PARK SPRING PARK,MINNESOTA AGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 12, 2003 7:30 P.M.—CITY HALL 1. CALL TO ORDER Pledge of Allegiance 2. ROLL CALL 3. ADOPT AGENDA 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES—January 8, 2003 5. PLANNING COMMISSION a) Sign Permit Application—4677 Shoreline Drive, Papa Murphy's b) Outdoor Storage and Screening Discussion • 6. COMMUNICATIONS a) Council Meeting Minutes— 1/6/03 b) Council Meeting Minutes— 1/21/03 c) Council Meeting Minutes—2/3/03 d) City Calendar—February e) City Calendar—March f) Newsletter—Winter 2002/2003 7. MISCELLANEOUS 8. ADJOURNMENT • • CITY OF SPRING PARK SPRING PARK, MINNESOTA MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 12, 2003 7:30 P.M.—CITY HALL 1. CALL TO ORDER Pledge of Allegiance Chair Karpas called the meeting to order followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. 2. ROLL CALL Anderson, Karpas, Klein and Ex-Officio Stone were present, Nelson was excused and Mork Bredeson was absent. Staff present: Deputy Clerk Corl. 3. ADOPT AGENDA Motion by Anderson seconded by Klein to adopt the agenda. All votes were • aye. Motion declared carried. 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES—January 8, 2003 Motion by Anderson seconded by Klein to approve the minutes for the Planning Commission meeting January 8, 2003. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. 5. PETITIONS,REQUESTS &APPLICATIONS a) Sign Permit Application -4677 Shoreline Drive, Papa Murphy's Staff indicated the application is within the City's sign ordinance. Motion by Klein seconded by Anderson to approve the sign permit application for Papa Murphy's, 4677 Shoreline Drive. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. b) Outdoor Storage and Screening Discussion Karpas stated it is hard to use parts of ordinances from other cities and apply them to Spring Park businesses. He suggested requiring a site review plan by the Planning Commission and Council for all commercial building permit applications. Klein asked if this applied to just businesses on the Shoreline Drive. This point was not discussed because Karpas suggested this be discussed further • when there is a full commission. He added at that time the Commissioners should take the initiative and make a recommendation to the Council. Planning Commission —2/12/03 1 • Motion by Anderson seconded by Karpas to table this discussion for the next meeting. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. 6. COMMUNICATIONS The following communications were noted: a) Council Meeting Minutes— 1/6/03 b) Council Meeting Minutes— 1/21/03 c) Council Meeting Minutes—2/3/03 d) City Calendar—February e) City Calendar—March f) Newsletter—Winter 2002/2003 g) Building & Sign Report—January 7. MISCELLANEOUS Anderson stated it has been observed that the flag at Thor Thompson Park is not illuminated at night and this is not proper flag etiquette. He said the Planning Commission should request the flag be illuminated or taken down at night. He said if a cost were obtained to have the flag illuminated and submitted to him, he would recommend payment of this cost by the VFW. Motion by Anderson seconded by Karpas to recommend to the Council to obtain the cost of illuminating the flag at Thor Thompson Park. Anderson will • submit the cost to the VFW and recommend payment. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. 8. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Anderson seconded by Klein to adjourn the meeting at 7:43 p.m. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. SHARON CORL DEPUTY CLERK • Planning Commission —2/12/03 2 • CITY OF SPRING PARK SPRING PARK, MINNESOTA AGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 12, 2003 7:30 P.M.—CITY HALL 1. CALL TO ORDER Pledge of Allegiance 2. ROLL CALL 3. ADOPT AGENDA 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES—February 12, 2003 5. PLANNING COMMISSION a) Sign Permit Application—Dock&Lift,4550 Shoreline Drive b) Variance Request—Graham Neve, 2401 Black Lake Road 1. Open Public Hearing • 2. Discussion& Comments a. NAC—3/7/03 3. Close Public Hearing 4. Recommendation to Council c) Variance Request—Doug Sippel, 2241 Hazeldell Avenue 1. Open Public Hearing 2. Discussion& Comments 3. Close Public Hearing 4. Recommendation to Council d) Norling's Lake Minnetonka Landscapes Re: Beautification(Planters on Shoreline) e) Discussion of Storage & Screening 6. COMMUNICATIONS a) Council Minutes—3/3/03 b) Building & Sign Report—February c) Planning Commission Info Folder d) Memo to Council Re: Governor's Proposed Cuts to Cities—3/3/03 e) Memo from Staff 7. MISCELLANEOUS • 8. ADJOURNMENT V� - � c� �a�5�� �►�-d( 1�,--e S� 1:►4-e(d 55423 -7OOG G --S-z(S-7,J-�z • • ...................................................... saqbnH 4JP9 1,A@LD 4qndoa LJOD uOaPqS ....................... ....JOAVV 9�iyj aw ajojaq ol Moms puv paqyasqnS ................................................................................................ ............................. .............................................................................................................................. .............................................................................................................................. .............................................................................................................................. .............................................................................................................................. ..................................................... ........................................................................ ................................................................................966Yff/ff­S*a:i In .a5.C4.�0......... -pooawdiatioS *,C;!I!qvpuvivawNpnf,Cuijolsaq au; ollv;osauu!mjoalv;spu,v .................. . . . . ......jo'clunoo ail; ul...............�Ye.d..6.6.L.ja.§ jo.........X....... ..L........avljo 4.D ..............S.......... W ULUUP[d joao ay y.7 jjosaqnpay; aNjv9i Cjjnjy;!vjpuv 'vjo9auu!Njoa7v7s ,A@UOLSLWWOD o ay;jo Puv samig papuj2 ay;jo uoi;n;!Ieuoj ayluoddns Ipm I 1,Dyl ............................................ JIDaM9,Clutualos op I ..............................................................s.aq n.H .4,.A.129............... .I I,-A,P d**6*U LA*a*S**1'0* 1*0 ''JoClunoq 67310sauul]K Jo apals gZZ009-t 9jemiloS PUB SwelsAS U0143913 J"3wo Ama Jo tvao—gog-ON Countyof.................................... ............of ................................. ................................................ ................................................ ................................................ • Oath of City Officer Filed this ............................day of ........I.......................... . Year...... ................................................ ................................................ • UPL,APV L@L:)qDLW ............. L.j--4hd@d L: Oj...6 0-,A e-q S.... ............ .......... ................. c uo 7 jo icvp' 9�iyj aw aiojaq ol woos puv paqyj9qnS .....................................................I.......................................... ............................. ...............................................................I.....................I........................................ ..................................................................................I.,......................................... ................................................................................................I.................I........... .............................................................................................................................. .............................................................................................................................. .............................................................................................................................. Soot/JC/Zj SO-lLdx3 ODLI;o 'POO aw djay oS ,C;!I!qv puv juawspnf cw jo paq ay; o; Iviosauu!N jo aiv;S pu') .....................UL.d.0.uu @H....10 X;Uno&9 ay; 6*U L ul......................... jo......................ay;Jo ***jd'*S'**** fiq�o ........................... qai;np ay;agivyisl J @ U 0 L S S L W W 0 U* f U-U'LY L*d,...10 ao!JJO ay;Jo P Cllnjy;!'Vj puv 'VIOSOUU!N jo a;,V;s ............................................ ay;jo puv ga;vlg papuj7 ay;jo uoi;n;!;suog ayl ;jodd*ns Ilyn I;DY; .ivamo,Cluwalog op ......up [nq�.cw.................. I VLDd bULAdS Jo k�L'3* Ui UU@H tialoisouUTIN jo allals SZeE&R-1 0JUM40S PUL SWOISAS U0110013 0 J"*W0 qlao-SOVOR Countyof.................................... ............of................................. ................................................ ....................................I........... ................................................ • Oath of City Officer Filed this ............................day of ....................I.............. . Year...... ................................................ ................................................ • • CITY OF SPRING PARK SPRING PARK,MINNESOTA MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 12, 2003 7:30 P.M.—CITY HALL Present: Karpas, Klein and Ex-Officio Stone. Staff Present: Deputy Clerk Corl. Chair Karpas determined there was not a quorum present to hold the public hearings and the regular business of the Planning Commission. The Deputy Clerk will research procedure and notify those present when the public hearings will be rescheduled. • SHARON CORL DEPUTY CLERK • • CITY OF SPRING PARK SPRING PARK,MINNESOTA AGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 26, 2003 7:30 P.M.—CITY HALL 1. CALL TO ORDER Pledge of Allegiance 2. ROLL CALL OATH OF OFFICE—Gary Hughes, Mike Adrian 3. ADOPT AGENDA 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES —February 12, 2003 5. PLANNING COMMISSION a) Variance Request—Graham Neve, 2401 Black Lake Road . 1. Open Public Hearing 2. Discussion&Comments a. NAC—3/7/03 3. Close Public Hearing 4. Recommendation to Council b) Variance Request—Doug Sippel, 2241 Hazeldell Avenue 1. Open Public Hearing 2. Discussion& Comments 3. Close Public Hearing 4. Recommendation to Council c) Discussion of Storage& Screening 1. Recommendation to Council 6. COMMUNICATIONS a) Planning Commission Meeting—3/12/03 b) Discussion March 12, 2003 7. MISCELLANEOUS 8. ADJOURNMENT • • CITY OF SPRING PARK SPRING PARK, MINNESOTA MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 26,2003 7:30 P.M.—CITY HALL 1. CALL TO ORDER Pledge of Allegiance Chair Karpas called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. 2. ROLL CALL Mork Bredeson, Anderson, Karpas, Klein, Hughes, Adrian and Ex-Officio Stone were present and Nelson was excused. Staff present: Deputy Clerk Corl. • OATH OF OFFICE Deputy Clerk gave the oath of office to Gary Hughes, and Mike Adrian. 3. ADOPT AGENDA Motion by Mork Bredeson seconded by Klein to adopt the agenda. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES—February 12, 2003 Motion by Anderson seconded by Klein to approve the minutes for the Planning Commission Meeting February 12, 2003. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. 5. PLANNING COMMISSION a) Variance Request—Graham Neve, 2401 Black Lake Road 1. Open Public Hearing Karpas opened the public hearing at 7:30 p.m. and read the following notice published in the Laker Newspaper March 1, 2003: NOTICE hereby given that the Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on Wednesday March 12, 2003, at 7:30 p.m. or as soon thereafter as Planning Commission—3/26/03 1 • possible at the Spring Park City Hall, 4349 Warren Avenue, to hear comments on a request to demolish a nonconforming house and rebuild on the same foundation. Graham Neve 2401 Black Lake Road PID 18-117-23-43-0185 All oral and written comments for and against will be heard at the above time and place. It was noted at the meeting March 1, 2003 the rescheduled public hearing would be March 26, 2003, at 7:30 p.m. at City Hall. 2. Discussion & Comments a) NAC—3/7/03 Paul Fadell was present representing Graham Neve because Neve is out of town. Karpas asked the exact variances from the street and the water. Hughes said they are approximately 18 feet from Black Lake Road and approximately 15 feet from the ordinary high water mark. Karpas pointed out the lot is an unusually shaped lot. It was noted the variance request is to tear down the existing structure and build a new structure on the footprint. • Adrian asked if it would be built on a concrete slab and was told it will be. Fadell commented it is possible some walls may be reused if they are salvageable. Karpas read the recommendation from Planner and gave an overview of the proposed variance request. It was noted the Planner stated the lot is not a buildable lot. Klein asked if there were plans to build a deck. Fadell said not at this time because there is no place to go without a variance. Klein asked the square footage of the structure and was told 880 square feet. Hughes asked if there was a reason his name is not on the application. Fadell said Neve has done most of the work so far. Klein noted the application states the previous owner was told by an engineer that the existing structure is not safe to build on and this was known when the house was purchased. William Bartell, 2398 Black Lake Road asked what Fadell was going to do with the existing well on the property because it should be capped. Adrian asked if anything was going to be done by the retaining wall. Fadell said they hope to put in some landscaping but right now posts are placed there by the City. Klein asked how much higher the structure will be and she was told approximately 5 feet. Hughes asked if there was going to be a bedroom upstairs. Fadell said there • would be a loft bedroom. Adrian referred to the garage door and asked if a Planning Commission—3/26/03 2 • garage is there and will it be used. Fadell said there will be no garage and the current garage door will be refinished for character. Adrian also asked where the parking would be. Fadell said there is room in the driveway for two cars. Anderson verified the structure would go on the same footprint. Klein asked if a walkout is being considered and was told yes. Having no further discussion the public hearing was closed. 3. Close Public Hearing Motion by Karpas seconded by Adrian to close the public hearing at 7:47 p.m. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. 4. Recommendation to Council Karpas said he is in support this variance request because of the planner's statements and feels the best plan for this structure is the one presented. Klein asked what the neighbors think and Fadell said they support it. Hughes said he is concerned with the time frame because he has looked at the unkempt property for 4 years. Fadell said they hope to have it finished by August. Hughes referred to the Zoning Ordinance Section 7, page 80, Subd C, 7. • "Notifications to the Department of Resources". He said if the Planning Commission recommends approval of the variance request to the Council he would like this segment of the ordinance researched before any Council approval. Motion by Anderson seconded by Mork Bredeson to recommend to the Council approval of the variance request for Graham Neve, 2401 Black Lake Road, to demolish the house and rebuild on the same footprint with the above-mentioned condition. In discussion Karpas noted the variance: will not impair light and air for adjoining properties; it will not unreasonably increase traffic congestion; it will not increase fire hazard or cause safety problems; will not unreasonably diminish property values in the vicinity; will not be contrary to the intent of the ordinance; will not violate the intent of the Comprehensive Plan. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. b) Variance Request—Doug Sippel, 2241 Hazeldell Avenue 1. Open Public Hearing Chair Karpas opened the public hearing at 7:55 p.m. and read the following notice published in the Laker Newspaper March 1, 2003: • Planning Commission—3/26/03 3 • NOTICE is hereby given that the Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on Wednesday, March 12, 2003, at 7:30 p.m. or as soon thereafter as possible at the Spring Park City Hall, 4349 Warren Avenue, to hear comments on a request for a 7.4 foot street side variance to construct a 28 foot by 28 foot garage. Doug Sippel 2241 Hazeldell Avenue PID 17-117-23-33-0139 All oral and written comments for and against will be heard at the above time and place. It was noted at the meeting March 12, 2003 that the rescheduled public hearing would be on March 26, 2003 at 7:30 p.m. at City Hall. 2. Discussion & Comments Klein asked if the planner made a recommendation on this variance request and was told no because the lot was surrounded by three streets. Sippel explained the 28-foot width is in keeping the roofline the same as the existing structure. Klein asked Sippel if he would have two full garages and was told yes. Adrian asked if he was going to keep the existing garage. Sippel said it was for the renter he has in the lower level. Klein pointed out he could put a • garage on the other side without a variance. Sippel said there are trees on that side, more hardcover would be used, and there is no reasonable access to the house on the other side because of the location of the bedrooms and baths. Klein asked why he needs three garages and what is the hardship. Sippel said he was originally going to have one but he needs the room for storage. Hughes asked if Sippel cut back the size of the garage would he still need a variance. Sippel said most of the garage would be within the set back requirements. Adrian commented it would be an improvement. Klein stated she thought the proposed garage would increase the density in the area and lose the character of the neighborhood. Klein asked Sippel if he resides in the entire structure. Sippel said he has a renter in part of it. He added he hopes to replace windows and some siding. Mork Bredeson said if the garage is scaled back to 24 feet the roof lines will not meet however he could have a different design without the gable. She added she is sensitive to variances in that area and would be supportive of a 24 foot versus a 28-foot garage. She also pointed out there is no hardship. Klein added the hardship could not be the roofline. Karpas agreed the garage should be cut back to 24 feet, which would still require a variance, but not as much and it would be a reasonable use of the • Planning Commission—3/26/03 4 • property. Anderson said he prefers to see items stored in a garage versus on the property and decisions like this should be based on common sense. Adrian asked if the garage were to be 24 x 24 and no gable would there be a room above the garage. Sippel said he would not have a room above the garage if it would have to be smaller. He added the room makes sense when matching the rooflines. Adrian said he would consider approval if there was no room above and the garage would be 24 foot x 24 foot and Klein agreed. Karpas verified the two things being considered are cutting back the garage to 24 x 24 feet and with no room above; the aesthetics with the roofline will fit the neighborhood. 3. Close Public Hearing Chair Karpas closed the public hearing at 8:15 p.m. 4. Recommendation to Council Karpas pointed out there is concern with density and the setback of 22' from the street. He said the proposed addition would be more than most have in the neighborhood. He asked the overall height and Sippel was not sure. Hughes asked where the property line is in relation to the street. Sippel said it does not go to the road. • Karpas asked Klein if she was in favor of a 24-foot garage with no hardship. Klein suggested Sippel maybe not have an attached garage. She added it would be an overall improvement to the property value but did not agree with three garages for one house. Hughes asked how high the garage ceiling would be. Sippel said 8 '/2 feet so his boat can be stored in it. Anderson pointed out the neighbors did not seem to object, it might enhance the neighborhood, he has a big lot, and he was in favor of granting the variance. Klein said she would have been more encouraged if neighbors were here in favor of the proposal. Motion by Mork Bredeson seconded by Anderson to recommend to the Council approval for the variance request for Doug Sippel, 2241 Hazeldell, to approve a 7.4 foot street side variance request to construct a 28-foot by 28-foot garage. Upon roll call Mork Bredeson, Karpas, Klein, and Adrian voted no and Anderson and Hughes voted aye. Motion declared failed. Karpas noted no hardship has been demonstrated. Hughes said a variance is still needed if the size of the garage is decreased and looking at the design and height, it does not go against the ordinance c) Discussion of Storage & Screening • 1. Recommendation to Council Planning Commission—3/26/03 5 • Karpas explained this would pertain to commercial and business areas. He said because there are new members on the Commission he recommended this discussion be tabled to the next meeting and this was in agreement. 7. MISCELLANEOUS Hughes asked Stone to give a brief comment on what the Council discussed about the planters. Stone said they did not care much for the logo and there were concerns with maintenance. It was suggested that 9 more planters be placed in the medians over a three year period and they are not interested in placing planters on the inside of the sidewalk. She said they would be meeting with Norling to discuss costs for a scaled down project. Klein said she would like to know when the meeting is and she would like to ask the City to get two more quotes for the planters. Motion by Klein seconded by Adrian to recommend to the Council to obtain two more quotes for the planters. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. Mork Bredeson commented the original City logo did not have the bird or trees on it. She explained the logo contest that was held and wanted it noted just for the record • that the current logo is not the official logo. Mork Bredeson thanked Karpas for his time and contributions while on the Commission and wished him good luck. 8. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Hughes seconded by Klein to adjourn the meeting at 8:38 p.m. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. SHARON CORL DEPUTY CLERK • Planning Commission—3/26/03 6 • CITY OF SPRING PARK SPRING PARK, MINNESOTA ADENDA PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 9, 2003 7:30 P.M.—CITY HALL 1. CALL TO ORDER Pledge of Allegiance OATH OF OFFICE—Beth Aschinger 2. ROLL CALL 3. ADOPT AGENDA 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES—March 26, 2003 5. PLANNING COMMISSION a) Variance Request—Clark Oltman, 3924 Shoreline Drive b) Sign Permit Application—Power House Systems,4280 Shoreline Drive • c) Storage & Screening Discussion 6. COMMUNICATIONS a) Council Meeting Minutes—3/24/03 b) Council Special Meeting Minutes—4/l/03 c) Building& Sign Report—March d) List of Planning Commissioners &Council 2003 7. MISCELLANEOUS a) Elect Acting Chair 8. ADJOURNMENT • • CITY OF SPRING PARK SPRING PARK,MINNESOTA MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 9, 2003 7:30 P.M.—CITY HALL 1. CALL TO ORDER Pledge of Allegiance Chair Anderson called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. OATH OF OFFICE—Beth Aschinger Deputy Clerk Corl gave the oath of office to Beth Aschinger 2. ROLL CALL • Mork Bredeson, Anderson, Nelson, Hughes, Adrian, Aschinger and Ex-Officio Stone were present and Klein was excused. Staff present: Deputy Clerk Corl. 3. ADOPT AGENDA Motion by Nelson seconded by Hughes to adopt the agenda. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES—March 26, 2003 Motion by Mork Bredeson seconded by Adrian to approve the minutes for the Planning Commission Meeting March 26, 2003. All votes were aye. 5. PLANNING COMMISSION a) Variance Request—Clark Oltman, 3924 Shoreline Drive 1. Open Public Hearing Motion by Nelson seconded by Hughes to open the public hearing at 7:30 p.m. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. 2. Discussion& Comments • Planning Commission —4/9/03 1 • Clark Oltman was present. He explained he wants a three-car garage because he needs room for storage and a workshop. He said he does not have a basement in his house. Oltman referred to the City Planner's opinion regarding traffic on Del Otero. He said there is no traffic on Del Otero. He pointed out a 40' maple tree is in the way of moving the garage forward. He added if he did this, the sidewalk would have to be moved and it would add to the hardcover. Oltman said if the garage were to be moved forward it would be just 11 feet from the back door. He commented the neighbors on north side of Del Otero were concerned with their view of the lake. He told them the garage would not obstruct their view. Hughes asked where the garage doors are going to be located. Oltman said they would face Del Otero. Hughes asked if there would be enough room to drive into the third stall with the location of the existing culvert. Oltman said the end of the driveway would be widened slightly. He said he could go closer to the sidewalk to the west to lessen the effect on the culvert. Hughes said the culvert is not on the survey. Oltman pointed out his property line is approximately 25 feet from the road because there is a ditch between his property and the road. Aschinger confirmed with Oltman the garage cannot be shifted because of the tree. • Adrian verified the corner of the proposed garage is where the tree is located. Oltman said the tree is where the arrow is pointing to the existing garage on the survey. Adrian said Oltman could have a garage without a variance if he would locate it ten to eleven feet from the house. Oltman said placing it there would also add to the hardcover. Aschinger said the proposed new garage would increase the hardcover. Nelson pointed out Oltman would have to keep cars in the garage because there would be no room to park cars in front of the garage. Oltman said his cars do not sit out anyway. Adrian pointed out that his visitors would not have a place to park. Hughes asked if Oltman planned to keep the area under his boat for off street parking and was told he would keep it as it is now. Mork Bredeson asked Oltman if he would consider attaching the garage to the house. Oltman said the house is not conducive to that because it is an added on cabin, the land shifts in the winter, and the driveway would have to be increased. Anderson asked if he would completely tear down with old garage and was told yes. Oltman said he would like to drive straight into the garage and it would cost more to jack up and turn the garage than to build a new one. He said there was also a setback issue if the garage was turned. Anderson verified the garage could be rebuilt on same location but the tree is • in the way. Oltman said the tree is in the way if he tries to meet the setback Planning Commission—4/9/03 2 • from Del Otero. Anderson verified the current driveway would remain on the west side. Nelson said if the culvert is not on his property, he probably is not allowed to do anything. Oltman said the City would have to do something with it. Adrian suggested calling the City Engineer regarding the culvert. Nelson pointed out if the garage doors were not facing the street, parking would be available and if Oltman doesn't park outside okay, but the next owner may need more parking. Oltman asked what design changes he could do. Aschinger asked where the workshop stall would be. Oltman said it would be at the west side of the garage. Nelson verified the distance from the new garage to the street is 5 feet. Adrian recommended this be tabled until the next meeting to determine the status of the culvert from engineer. Stone said the engineer's services are obtained through the City staff and not through a resident. Anderson asked the downside in approving this variance. Mork Bredeson said there is no hardship involved and we would establish a precedent if this was recommended for approved. She added a 25-foot variance is a large variance and we should make a recommendation to the Council. Hughes said he is in favor of improvements and asked for clarification "right-of-way" in the first paragraph of the Planner's analysis. He was told that line is where the • property line ends and the street starts. Hughes said the provision in the ordinance states the setback from Del Otero has to be 30 feet. Oltman said the setback from the road is almost the same as the distance from his property to the road. 3. Close Public Hearing Motion by Mork Bredeson seconded by Adrian to close the public hearing at 8:02 p.m. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. 4. Recommendation To Council Motion by Mork Bredeson seconded by Aschinger to recommend to the Council to approve the street side variance request of 24.9 feet to build a garage at 3924 Shoreline Drive. Upon roll call Mork Bredeson, Nelson, Hughes, Adrian and Aschinger voted no and Anderson voted yes. Motion declared failed. b) Sign Permit Application—Power House Systems, 4280 Shoreline Drive Motion by Hughes seconded by Mork Bredeson to approve the sign permit application for Power Systems, 4280 Shoreline Drive. All votes were aye. • Motion declared carried. Planning Commission—4/9/03 3 • In discussion Mork Bredeson verified all sign applications are accompanied by the list of recommended colors. Aschinger verified the square footage of the front of the building was adequate for the signs on it. c) Storage & Screening Discussion Anderson said he is all for screening if it is appropriate and screening itself should not be offensive. He added that outside storage could be offensive. Nelson verified the discussion is about storage in a commercial zone. She said Dock and Lift has a lot of lifts outside. She asked if this was something that should be screened. She also noted there is a trailer with a sign on it parked in the parking lot at the corner of Shoreline and Sunset and she feels that is obtrusive. Adrian asked if the discussion is about screening in the front, back, or side. Anderson said any or all of it, whatever is decided to recommend to the Council. Hughes asked if Bayview Apartments parking lot is in a commercial zone because they have a lot of storage in their parking lot on Shoreline Drive. He also said he was surprised the City does not require an occupancy permit when a new or different business is opened. Aschinger commented on the outside storage in the summer at Ace Hardware in the Marina Center. She said the salt bags get broken and salt is all over. It was • noted Minnetonka Drive-In has trees in the winter for sale, Dock and Lift extensively display their product, and the car dealer has far less junk on their lot than the previous dry cleaning business. Mork Bredeson noted that Performance Marine (now M & M Marine) has less junk out than they have in the past. She said now is the time to change the ordinance or accept it as it is. Hughes said there is a difference if a business has a product for sale versus the storage of materials that are not for sale. Mork Bredeson said there is a difference between an assembled product and an unassembled state of a product. Adrian further pointed out there is a difference when products are in crates from the factory versus the product out of the crate. Anderson said he did not think the large trailer in the parking lot was offensive but the sign on it was. Mork Bredeson said we have to distinguish how we want things stored. Aschinger said other cities issue conditional use permits for outside storage. Mork Bredeson said the idea of requiring a conditional use permit is a good because it gives the City a chance to impose conditions to insure some recourse if conditions are not met. Hughes pointed out a concern from a screening prospective is that more screening could invite vandalism because it masks off an area. Aschinger asked what is done now to enforce storage problems. Mork Bredeson said the City writes letters • Planning Commission—4/9/03 4 • and hopes for compliance. Aschinger said an incentive would be a conditional use. Nelson said a good place to start is with requiring an occupancy permit for a new business. Mork Bredeson said this could also include a fire inspection. She added a delegate could be sent to the Council to discuss what the Planning Commission recommends and one of those recommendations is that a conditional use permit be required for outside storage in a commercial use area and make it renewable for a lesser charge. Nelson recommended an occupancy permit be required for a new business. Motion by Mork Bredeson seconded by Adrian to recommended to the Council the following addressing outside storage: Require a conditional use permit for any business that has outside storage (in a commercial district) for merchandise at the cost of $200 per year renewed annually at the cost of $100; Require an occupancy permit from the City for new businesses defining procedure. In discussion Hughes stated the intent of the occupancy is to foster good communications regarding outside storage. • Amendment by Adrian seconded by Hughes to reduce the renewal fee from $100 to $50. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. Hughes asked the downside of the motion and does it apply to existing businesses. Adrian suggested waiving the fee for non-profit ventures. Anderson pointed out when businesses have other sales it draws people into the community. Aschinger asked if everyone is comfortable with the level of bureaucracy with the recommendations and there was no disagreement. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. 6. COMMUNICATIONS The following communications were noted: a) Council Meeting Minutes—3/24/03p b) Council Special Meeting Minutes—4/1/0 Stone gave an overview of the discussion on the planters. c) Building & Sign Report—March d) List of Planning Commissioners & Council 7. MISCELLANEOUS a) Elect Acting Chair • Planning Commission—4/9/03 5 • Motion by Anderson seconded by Mork Bredeson to approve Gary Hughes as the Acting Chair. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. In another matter Nelson recommended a book on Crane Island on Lake Minnetonka by Margaret Meyer Douglas. 8. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Mork Bredeson seconded by Aschinger to adjourn the meeting at 8:50 p.m. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. • SHARON CORL DEPUTY CLERK • Planning Commission—4/9/03 6 ...................................................... ,ADBULq:)SV q4Dq 1,ADLO fiqndaa ' tAoo uoAl?qs .................... ................... . ................. A COOZ61 .... ..L. �A'a V jo Xvp-- ........... ..... .......... 9.1yj aui ajojaq of woms puv paqyjsqnS .............................................................................................. ............................. .............................................................................................................................. .............................................................................................................................. ..................................................................................... ........................................ .....................................................................I........................................................ ................................................................................ ............................................. to OZ j E i Zj S DJ Ld X3 aoLjS0 -Poo aw djay oS *Xl!l!qv puv;uauigpnf Xzu jo isaq ay; of vjosauu!M jo a;DIS puv ....................................10 Xjun0j ayl ul...................................... jo......................a III Jo ULd@uu@H BU LAdS 4,4 L3 .........................................jo aoillo ayl jo sa.iinp ay; puz) 'v7osaUu!N jo d;'DIS ,A@U0LSSLWW03 BULUUPLd aY7 10 puv samis pa pull ayl jo uoijn;!j9uoj ayl uoddns 1pm I Iz)yl ............................................ ...........A. 6UL..--� .0�;�..... 'I .1vams xluwa7os OP ....... 6 Ad U 6'-(s-d S­�b-W�'( W . ..... UL @uu H jo Xjun0j 11340sauu-1]K JO allgis 0103 Sp,wu!sne 1"3wo Ara J0 qlvo--WZ SON Countyof.................................... ............of ...............I................. ................................................ ................................................ ................................................ Oath of City Officer Filed this ............................day of ..................................... . 19...... ............................I................... ................................................ • CITY OF SPRING PARK • SPRING PARK, MINNESOTA AGENDA COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 19, 2003 7:30 P.M.—CITY HALL 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL a) Council b) Planning Commission 3. ADOPT AGENDA 4. DISCUSSION a) Outdoor Storage/Screening in Commercial District 1. N A C—7/2/01 2. Joint Meeting Minutes— 11/25/02 5. MISCELLANEOUS • 6. ADJOURNMENT • • CITY OF SPRING PARK SPRING PARK, MINNESOTA COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 19, 2003 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 a) Council Hoffman, Stone, Rockvam were present, Williamson arrived after the roll was taken and Widmer was excused. b) Planning Commission Klein, Hughes, Aschinger were present and Anderson, Nelson and Adrian were excused and Mork Bredeson arrived later in the meeting. Staff present: Administrator Weeks, Deputy Clerk Corl, and City Planner Alan Brixius. • 3. ADOPT AGENDA Motion by Stone seconded by Hoffman to adopt the agenda. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. 4. DISCUSSION a) Outdoor Storage/Screening in Commercial District 1. N A C—7/2/01 2. Joint Meeting Minutes— 11/15/02 Rockvam noted the opinion from NAC regarding outdoor sales and storage (7/2/01) and the joint meeting minutes (11/25/02). He stated one reason this meeting was recommended with the City Planner was because some members of the Planning Commission and Council were concerned with the look of Shoreline Drive and outside storage at some of the businesses. He pointed out that outside storage is a concern. He distributed pictures he took on Shoreline Drive and noted there is commercial on both sides of the street. Rockvam said the ordinance speaks about screening. He stated the Council reviewed this a few years ago and adopted a policy that requires a landscaping plan in a commercial zone with all building permit applications. He added the Council would • like to see something in the ordinance that could be phased in over a period of time to help eliminate exterior visible storage. Council/Planning Commission—6/19/03 1 • Rockvam pointed out two of the Conditional Use Permits (CUP) in effect now and stated the City has a difficult time getting compliance from these two property owners (4388 Shoreline Drive, Mtka. Motor Sports and 4144 Shoreline Drive, M & M Marine). He said the violations are civil versus criminal in nature and it is hard to get compliance if the property owner does not want to comply Klein asked for a definition of outside storage versus outside sales. Stone asked what the City could do to enforce the ordinance. Brixius said enforcement becomes the biggest issue and if the City does not enforce it, they will not get the needed respect and the property owner will not pay attention to the problem. He said the City code does not have good "black and white" performance standards and some change is appropriate. He said one problem is not defining the geographic site allowed for storage on a property. He stated this feature becomes a critical element for enforcement. He referred to 4388 Shoreline Drive and said he did not recall approving any outdoor sales for that property when the building was constructed. Brixius noted that in Spring Park each business site is fairly small for its use and every inch of area will have an affect on the business. He said the Council should look at changes in the ordinance in conjunction with the current types of business uses. He added the nature of some of the businesses overwhelm their site. Brixius said changes should be as simple as possible i.e., storage allowed only in the back of the building and define the area where sales is to take place without increasing the • impervious surface. Rockvam asked what Brixius thought about requiring a CUP for anything stored outside. Brixius said it would be appropriate but a public hearing should be held. Rockvam explained the Council has set perimeters on one particular CUP but the problem is the property owner does not comply and the CUP has not worked. He added he thinks the costs of enforcing the CUP should be charged back to the property owner. Rockvam also said the City staff is small and they have only so much time. Aschinger asked what the citation consists of. Brixius said it is a zoning violation misdemeanor with a fine. He stated it consists of court action and prosecution is required. He said the City Attorney does the enforcing actions and the CUP conditions should be recorded with the property and the deed. Brixius stated this gives the City more strength with enforcement and we should not avoid the prosecution issue. Stone said we have to decide if it is worth our time, etc. Williamson noted other cities are doing a better job with these issues. Brixius said other cities have the same problem. Williamson said it is burdensome and frustrating to go through the enforcement but the City should make it a public action and make other borderline properties aware of the actions the City is taking. • Council/Planning Commission—6/19/03 2 Brixius said when the Council reviews the ordinance they should consider the • businesses already existing. He added the City has to be business friendly and be somewhat accommodating and still achieve the desired goals. Aschinger asked what time is involved if a CUP is issued for every business. Rockvam said the staff has certain guidelines, the Council reviews it and sets perimeters, etc. Brixius said occupancy could be held back for new businesses until a CUP is in place for that business. He said a time limit could be placed on the conditions on a CUP before it is approved and a cash escrow of 100% to 150% of the work can be required. Rockvam asked how long the money could be in escrow and Brixius said the Council could put a time limit on the project. Brixius said to take pictures of the projects and have precise conditions and regulations. Williamson asked what if the CUP is misused or misapplied after approval, how is enforcement obtained for this problem. Brixius said this is a violation. He said it should be looked at what was approved in the beginning and if there is no record of a CUP, it is a violation of code and the business can be cited. He suggested the Council make a direct prohibition of storage on grass or a landscape area. Rockvam referred to the business at 4388 Shoreline Drive and said the City specifically stated that stored items had to be screened with a fence with a gate. Brixius said the City could also limit storage as to what can be screened. Hughes pointed out one way to distinguish between storage and sales is storage is an • area where only employees are allowed and sales is an area the public can be. Brixius said a lot of cities would allow some outdoor sales based on the size of the principal building. He said the Council should look at what is practical for the uses we have and circulate the determinations to businesses for their reaction. Rockvam asked if we could do something with existing business. Brixius said if the use is legal nonconforming nothing can be done, but if the violation is in the code, something can be done. He said we have to be reasonable to get compliance and we should define what we want to accomplish and write the ordinance accordingly. Rockvam referred to the parking lot on Shoreline Drive for the apartments at 2400 Interlachen Road. He said the parking spaces are being used to store boats and trailers instead of cars and questioned if this is an appropriate use of the parking lot. He said is has to be used for cars to meet the parking requirements. Brixius said this is a zoning issue for land use and the City should look at the design of the parking lot. Aschinger clarified the idea is to clean up the parking lot. Williamson said in other words to clean up or hide what is happening. He added if they screened the parking lot, we would feel differently about what is in the lot. Brixius said they appear to be in violation and the City can enforce the ordinance, but he will have to review the ordinance before he can say for sure. Williamson said the Council has to look at the areas that are the most disturbing in • appearance such as 4388 Shoreline Drive, the parking lot previously mentioned and Council/Planning Commission—6/19/03 3 the parking lot at Sunset Drive and Shoreline Drive and see what means can be used • to improve situations. Brixius asked the Council if they want to accommodate some front yard sales in a commercial are. He was told it should be limited. He said the only way to limit this is delineate and identify the sales lot area. Brixius said the ordinance needs to state that sales lots cannot be on landscaped or grassy areas and also establish sales lots can only be 5% of the property, for example. He added the City should not get into the management of businesses but at the same time put a prohibition on junk, etc. He said he would tour the properties to review the problems for the ordinance changes. Brixius said the Council should look at what they think is possible and not be obtrusive. Brixius reviewed what the Council wants to achieve: revisit the code and see if it can be more site specific; get rid of the grass element for storage or sales. He recommended having a business meeting with the property owners and asking them what will work and how they can make their business look better. Williamson referred to the CUP for Frattallone's, 4695 Shoreline Drive, and stated the annual renewal of their CUP helps to get compliance from them. Brixius said that should be an Interim Use Permit (IUP) rather than a CUP because and IUP can have a sunset clause in it. He added it identifies some uses as not being there for a long time, if it is not the desired final principal use Williamson asked if the ordinance contained anything on temporary signage and the number of signs allowed on a property, referring to the many signs at the Marina Center. Brixius said real estate signs are allowed without a permit and the amount of temporary signs can be limited. It was noted that the sign advertising boat slips should be removed if the boat slips are full. Brixius stated an ordinance should be drafted that will not require a lot of variances. Hughes asked if there was a drawing outlining the parking spaces for Bayview Apartments. He said if the City is decides fencing or screening is needed to solve their problem, we have to consider snow removal and if screening will go into some of the parking spaces. He also noted that the Spur station has outdoor storage and outdoor sales. Brixius pointed out this is an example of outdoor sales and here is where it will setback. He said gas stations are notorious for selling everything and the industry (gas station) says it has to have outdoor sales. He again pointed out the Council has to look at what they want to achieve and look at the businesses and asked if this can be achieved and at the same time have the right-of-way attractive. Hughes asked if there was anything in place (policy or ordinance) for a new business starting in the City. Brixius said any new business would have to comply with the • ordinance adopted. He explained a CUP gives control above and beyond permitted Council/Planning Commission—6/19/03 4 use and the City can ask for cash escrows. He said the City's biggest issue is not having a space specifically defined for storage and for sales. Brixius said he would meet with the Administrator and review commercial properties in the City and look at what can be done and what can be done for enforcement with the CUP(s) not complying. Rockvam pointed out the City has budget restraints but we need something in place as a goal for the future. Stone verified an IUP might be more controlled. Brixius said temporary sales are managed on a temporary basis and a CUP is found to be acceptable and it goes with the land. He added any change of use in the business it is revoked from the owner. He said one difference between a CUP and an IUP is the IUP can have a sunset clause on the use and it expires when the time is up. Brixius said Spring Park is not land rich and the values of properties will escalate with redevelopment. He stated the zoning uses are very broad in Spring Park and new uses need to be established. Williamson said there are exceptions to rules and asked if any action needs to be taken towards the variance process. Brixius said the variance process is in place based on hardship. Williamson asked if there is recourse for unforeseen consequences and Brixius said it exists. Rockvam asked if a moratorium could be imposed on outdoor storage for six months. • Motion by Williamson to impose a moratorium on outdoor storage for six months. Rockvam suggested waiting for a full Council before acting on this. Brixius said no one applies for permits for outdoor storage so why have a moratorium meaning it is hard to impose a moratorium on something we do not have. Williamson withdrew the motion. He asked if we need to update the penalty code and Weeks said a violation is a misdemeanor and we can issue daily citations. Brixius will make an appointment with the Administrator to review the commercial area in the City. 5. MSCELLANEOUS—None 6. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Stone seconded by Hoffman to adjourn the meeting at 9:06 p.m. All votes were aye. Motion d arried. 7,, • WILLIAM D. WEEKS SHARON CORL ADMINISTRATOR/CLERK/TREASURER DEPUTY CLERK Council/Planning Commission—6/19/03 5 • CITY OF SPRING PARK SPRING PARK,MINNESOTA AGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 13,2003 7:30 P.M.—CITY HALL 1. CALL TO ORDER Pledge of Allegiance 2. ROLL CALL 3. ADOPT AGENDA 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES—April 9, 2003 5. PLANNING COMMISSION a) Variance Request—Chris &Paige Olson,4022 Sunset Drive for a Carport 1. Open Public Hearing 2. Discussion& Comments a) Application Information • b) Recommendation from NAC (City Planner)—8/5/03 c) Information from a Previous Variance Request for Carport d) Excerpt from Presentation by City Attorney 3. Close Public Hearing 4. Recommendation to Council 6. COMMUNICATIONS a) Council Meeting—7/7/03 b) Special Council Meeting—7/8/03 c) Council Meeting—7/21/03 d) Council Meeting—8/5/03 e) Building & Sign Report—July 7. MISCELLANEOUS a) Appreciation Dinner 8. ADJOURNMENT • • CITY OF SPRING PARK SPRING PARK, MINNESOTA MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 13, 2003 7:30 P.M.—CITY HALL 1. CALL TO ORDER Pledge of Allegiance Chair Anderson called the meeting to order at 7:30 pm. followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. 2. ROLL CALL Anderson,Nelson, Klein, Hughes, Adrian, Aschinger and Ex-Officio Stone were present and Mork Bredeson was excused. Staff present: Deputy Clerk Corl. 3. ADOPT AGENDA Motion by Klein seconded by Adrian to adopt the agenda. All votes were aye. • Motion declared carried. 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES—April 9, 2003 Motion by Klein seconded by Hughes to approve the minutes for the Planning Commission Meeting April 9, 2003. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. 5. PLANNING COMMISSION a) Variance Request—Chris & Paige Olson, 4022 Sunset Drive for a Carport 1) Open Public Hearing Anderson opened the public hearing at 7:31 p.m. 2) Discussion& Comments a) Application Information -Noted b) Recommendation from NAC (City Planner)—8/5/03 -Noted c) Information from a Previous Variance Request for Carport -Noted d) Excerpt from Presentation by City Attorney-Noted Chris Olson, 4022 Sunset Drive was present. His variance request if for a 7-foot side yard variance and a 20-foot street side variance to construct a carport. It was explained the proposed carport would not have the storage in the back as shown on the picture. Klein asked how many posts would support the carport and was told probably four. Hughes inquired about the • shrubs on the proposed location and Olson said they would be removed. Klein asked if any neighbors have commented. Olson said they were • in favor of the carport. Hughes asked Olson if the sheds were his. Olson said they were and were needed for storing tools, etc. Klein asked if the carport would be connected to the house. Olson said it would not and pointed out they would be gaining approximately three and a half feet to park cars because they would be closer to the house. He added they would not be taking out the two windows in the house looking into the proposed carport. Hughes asked about the increase in the blacktop. Olson said it would be approximately 220 square feet or about four to five more feet. Aschinger noted the hard cover and asked if it was an issue. She was told the current hardcover is grandfathered in. Hughes asked if this would allow more vehicles in the drive. Olson stated the cars will be closer to the house than where they are now and it will allow them more room for turning and getting on to Sunset Drive. Adrian asked how the snow is stored in the winter. Olson said they have their drive plowed early in the morning and the cars have to be moved and they will continue to have the snow plowed in the future. Anderson confirmed the Planning Commission read the report from the City Planner. Anderson read the following and the Planning Commissioners agreed that: • The variance will not impair light and air for adjoining properties; The variance will not unreasonably increase traffic congestion; The variance will not increase fire hazard or cause safety problems; The variance will not unreasonably diminish property values in the vicinity; The variance will not be contrary to the intent of the ordinance; The variance will not violate the intent of the Comprehensive Plan. 3. Close Public Hearing Motion by Nelson seconded by Klein to close the public hearing at 7:43 p.m. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. 4. Recommendation to Council Motion by Hughes seconded by Aschinger to recommend to the Council to approve the 7-foot side yard variance and a 20-foot street side variance to construct a carport for 4022 Sunset Drive. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. 6. COMMUNICATIONS The following communications were noted: • a) Council Meeting—7/7/03 The 2:00 a.m. bar closing was briefly discussed. • b) Special Council Meeting—7/8/03 c) Council Meeting—7/21/03 d) Council Meeting— 8/5/03 e) Building& Sign Report—July f) September Calendar 7. MISCELLANEOUS Hughes asked the status of the results of the joint meeting on screening, outdoor sales and storage. He was told the City Planner is still working on the requests from the meeting. Klein asked if the lake access on Sunset is public and City property and was told it is. She said it is in need of upgrading. Motion by Klein seconded by Adrian to request the Council to upgrade the lake access on Sunset Drive. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. Nelson reported (as an FYI item)they had a check stolen from their mailbox several weeks ago that was from incoming mail. She cautioned the board on the matter. Adrian noted he had his identity stolen and issued a"fraud alert"on all of his accounts and credit cards. . 8. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Adrian seconded by Hughes to adjourn the meeting at 8:15 p.m. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. SHARON CORL DEPUTY CLERK s • CITY OF SPRING PARK SPRING PARK, MINNESOTA AGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 10, 2003 7:30 P.M.—CITY HALL 1. CALL TO ORDER Pledge of Allegiance 2. ROLL CALL 3. ADOPT AGENDA 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES—August 13, 2003 5. PLANNING COMMISSION a) Variance Request—John& Susann Martin—3826 Budd Lane 1. Open Public Hearing a) Letter From Lord Fletcher's Restaurant—8/28/03 • 2. Discussion& Comments a) NAC Findings— 8/26/03 3. Close Public Hearing 4. Recommendation To Council b) Variance Request—Harlyn & Lisa Dill—3811 Togo Road 1. Open Public Hearing 2. Discussion& Comments a) NAC Findings— 8/25/03 3. Close Public Hearing 4. Recommendation To Council c) Sign Permit Applications 03-12 & 03-13 —MGM Wine & Spirits, 4659 Shoreline Drive 6. COMMUNICATIONS a) Council Minutes— 8/18/03 b) Council Minutes—9/2/03 c) Building & Sign Report August 2003 d) October Calendar 7. MISCELLANEOUS 8. ADJOURNMENT • CITY OF SPRING PARK • SPRING PARK, MINNESOTA MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 10, 2003 7:30 P.M.—CITY HALL 1. CALL TO ORDER Pledge of Allegiance Chair Anderson called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. 2. ROLL CALL Anderson, Nelson, Klein, Hughes, and ex-officio Stone were present, Mork Bredeson was absent and Adrian and Aschinger were excused. Staff present: Deputy Clerk Corl. 3. ADOPT AGENDA • Motion by Hughes seconded by Klein to adopt the agenda. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - August 13, 2003 Motion by Klein seconded by Nelson to approve the minutes for the Planning Commission Meeting August 13, 2003. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. 5. PLANNING COMMISSION a) Variance Request—John & Susann Martin—3826 Budd Lane 1. Open Public Hearing Chair Anderson opened the public hearing at 7:34 p.m. and read the following notice published in the Laker Newspaper: NOTICE is hereby given that the Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on Wednesday September 10, 2003 at 7:30 p.m., or as soon as possible thereafter, at the Spring Park City Hall, 4349 Warren Avenue, to hear comments on the following variance requests to re-construct an existing house on the existing "foot print": From the required 50' set back from the ordinary high water mark 1. 28.3 feet on the west • 2. 23.0 feet on the south 3. 27.3 feet on the north Planning Commission—9/10/03 1 • From the required 30' street side set back 1. 23.83 feet on Budd Lane From the required 30%maximum hardcover 1. To 40.7% hardcover John& Susann Martin 3826 Budd Lane PID 17-117-23-33-0030 All oral and written comments for and against will be heard at the above time and place. a) Letter from Lord Fletcher's Restaurant— 8/28/03 Written communication in favor of the variance request was noted. 2. Discussion & Comments a) NAC Findings— 8/26/03 John and Susann Martin, 3026 Budd Lane, were present. Klein asked Martin if he had any comments on the Planner's report. Martin stated the Planner should have said the structure is unhealthy not "un-inhabitable". He said when he purchased the home it was empty and the interior was not in good condition. Klein asked Martin if he agreed with the Planner's conclusion. Martin said he could tear down the two garages but he does • not intend to add to the cost of the proposed project. Klein asked if there was a basement. Martin said the house has been modified several times and there is a sump room versus a basement. He added about one-third of the house has masonry foundation walls and there is an earthen crawl space that acquires moisture in the spring when the water is high. He said their concept is to pour a concrete slab in that area and turn it into a concrete floor crawl space. Martin pointed out that part of the house is 18"below grade. Nelson asked if they had an inspector look at this house and the problems before purchasing it. Hughes asked if Martin's intent is to rebuild the house on the same foundation with the same lines. Martin said he will essentially be building the same size and shape except he will be modifying the lines of the roof. Klein told Martin he should have known the setbacks when he purchased the house. Martin said he did not think about it at that time. Klein noted the Planner's report states Martin could reposition the house to be conforming. Martin again noted he did not intend to tear down the garages and rebuild the entire project. Klein pointed out the project has to meet state statute for elevation. Nelson told Martin it is an unfortunate • situation but the Planners report makes sense and is probably saving Martin from disaster. She asked if an expert has stated this plan is going Planning Commission—9/10/03 2 • to work pointing out some things do not work when you think they will work. Martin said the reason it will work is the floor will be above the normal high water mark. He added a portion of the existing structure goes below grade and his request will put the framing above the grade. Hughes asked how far below the normal high water mark is the one part of the basement level and Martin said it was a couple of feet. Hughes pointed out the Planner's report said the lowest floor must be 3 feet above what the state statue requires. He questioned the proposed concrete slab would meet those requirements. Hughes also noted that 8 inch block was used for the foundation and questioned if Martin could obtain a building permit because the block was not 12 inch. Martin made the comment when he purchased the property he did not think he could not rebuild the house. Martin said the Building Inspector said the concept to fill in those lower areas with concrete was a good plan so upon that comment he submitted a building permit application and was then told he needed a variance. He said he is proposing to rebuild the house in the same shape and configuration except the roofline that he would like to update. He understood from the building inspector he could rebuild on the same foundation. • Klein referred to a recent similar variance on Black Lake Road that the Council approved. She said that lot was deemed unbuildable and the property owner had no other options. Martin said it is his desire to renovate the house to a point that it is more desirable to live in and (now understanding the Planner does not accept his submitted proposal) he would like help from the City to tell him how/what he can do to achieve this within the required guidelines. Hughes stated the ordinance states the structure must meet the elevation requirement and there is room on the lot to rebuild the structure without a variance and there is no hardship for a variance request. Martin said if he has to demolish the house and the garages it would add to his cost. Nelson said she feels the City Planner is trying to save the Martins from future grief and she understands their frustration. Martin said he wants to understand what is workable. Hughes pointed out cost is not a hardship and again pointed out there is enough room to rebuild a nice house and meet the setbacks. Martin stated the structure modification could not exceed 50% of the market value of the structure without meeting the standards of the ordinance. He asked for an explanation of what alterations qualified in the 50%. Hughes said to make a "laundry list" of what he would like to alter i.e. windows, sheet rock, • roof, etc. everything that is part of the cost to remodel. Planning Commission—9/10/03 3 • Hughes said they have to look at a hardship for this request. Susann asked what comprises a hardship. Klein said a hardship is when there is no other option. Staff added a hardship has to be in the lay of the land and cannot be economic. S. Martin asked if they have to downsize their structure to fit on the same lot. Klein said according to the Planner you could build on the lot and meet the setbacks. Hughes noted there would be some downsizing. Martin said they have no intention of building a new home and they would like to know what can be done to the structure (within the ordinance) to update and modernize it and make it a livable structure. Klein said he would have to evaluate the costs. Hughes stated on the assumption Martin would want to analyze what it acceptable according to the language of the ordinance, insight could come from the building inspector. Hughes added the Planning Commission has to act on this request and there is no hardship. Martin said he did not want to rebuild but invest a certain amount into the existing structure. 3. Close Public Hearing Chair Anderson closed the public hearing at 8:17 p.m. 4. Recommendation To Council • Motion by Nelson seconded by Hughes to recommend to the Council to approve the variance request for 3826 Budd Lane (from 50' set back from the OHWM — 28.3 feet on the west, 23.0 feet on the south, 27.3 feet on the north; 23.83 feet from Budd Lane; hardcover to exceed 30% to 40.7%) to reconstruct en existing house on the existing "foot print". Upon roll call Anderson voted aye, Nelson, Klein and Hughes voted no citing there was not a hardship. Motion declared failed. b) Variance Request—Harlyn & Lisa Dill—3811 Togo Road 1. Open Public Hearing Chair Anderson opened the public hearing at 8:26 p.m. and read the following notice that was published in the Laker Newspaper: NOTICE is hereby given that the Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on Wednesday September 10, 2003 at 7:30 p.m. or as soon as possible thereafter at the Spring Park City Hall 4349 Warren Avenue, to hear comments on a 4.25 foot side yard variance for an addition to a house. Harlyn & Lisa Dill 3811 Togo Road PID 17-117-23-32-0058 isAll oral and written comments for and against will be heard at the above time and place. Planning Commission—9/10/03 4 • Written communications in favor of the variance request were noted from property owners at 3800 Park Lane, 3813 Togo Road, 3801 Togo Road, and 3812 Park Lane. 2. Discussion& Comments a) NAC Findings—8/25/03 Harlyn and Lisa Dill, 3811 Togo Road, were present. Their variance request is for an addition to a house. Dill said he would remove the shed when the new storage space is built. Hughes verified Dill's would not have a driveway or a garage. He also noted trees would have to be trimmed on one side. Klein verified they were building up and asked the width of the lot. Dill responded saying it was 25 feet wide at one end and 34 feet wide at the other end. Anderson read the conclusion by the City Planner and the narrowness of the lot presents a physical hardship that limits the physical ability to expand, the proposed variance will not increase the nonconformity and maintains the character of the existing neighborhood. Anderson noted the variance will not impair light and air for adjoining properties; variance will not increase fire hazard or cause safety problems; variance will not reasonably diminish property values in the vicinity; • variance will not be contrary to the intent of the ordinance; variance will not violate the intent of the Comprehensive Plan. 3. Close Public Hearing Chair Anderson closed the public hearing at 8:37 p.m. 4. Recommendation to Council Hughes verified the trees are not on the abutting property. He pointed out there is not an increase in the nonconformity and verified the workshop is not going to be a garage. Motion by Hughes seconded by Nelson to recommend to the Council to approve the variance request for 3811 Park Lane for a 4.25' side yard variance for an addition to the house. Upon roll call Anderson, Nelson, Klein and Hughes voted aye. Motion declared carried. c) Sign Permit Applications 03-12 & 03-13 - MGM Wine & Spirits, 4659 Shoreline Drive Staff noted the sign application submitted for MGM Wine & Spirits met the ordinance requirements. Motion by Hughes seconded by Klein to approve the sign application for • MGM Wine & Spirits, 4659 Shoreline Drive. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. Planning Commission—9/10/03 5 • 6. COMMUNICATIONS The following communications were noted: a) Council Minutes— 8/18/03 Klein noted the improvement in the access on Sunset Drive. b) Council Minutes—9/2/03 Hughes stated his surprise with the denial of the variance request for a carport at 3022 Sunset Drive. Stone explained it was compared to 3806 Sunset Drive but the Council felt it differed from that because it was not going to be attached to the house and there was concern for parking behind cars in the carport. She also noted there was a small increase to the hardcover. 7. MISCELLANEOUS Staff noted there is an opening on the Planning Commission due to someone moving. The announcement will be put in the City Newsletter. 8. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Nelson seconded by Hughes to adjourn the meeting at 8:46 p.m. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. 6-�,L SHARON CORL DEPUTY CLERK • Planning Commission—9/10/03 6 • CITY OF SPRING PARK SPRING PARK, MINNESOTA AGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 8, 2003 7:30 P.M.—CITY HALL 1. CALL TO ORDER Pledge of Allegiance 2. ROLL CALL 3. ADOPT AGENDA 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES—September 10, 2003 5. PLANNING COMMISSION a) Variance Request—Alisa Rashid, 3853 Sunset Drive 1. Open Public Hearing 2. Discussion& Comments • 3. Close Public Hearing 4. Recommendation To Council 6. COMMUNICATIONS a) Council Minutes 9/15/03 b) Budget Minutes 9/29/03 c) Building & Sign Report- September 7. MISCELLANEOUS 8. ADJOURNMENT • • CITY OF SPRING PARK SPRING PARK, MINNESOTA MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 15, 2003 7:30 P.M.—CITY HALL This special meeting was called because there was not a quorum for the regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting October 8, 2003. 1. CALL TO ORDER Chair Anderson called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. 2. ROLL CALL Anderson, Nelson, Klein, Hughes, Aschinger and Ex-Officio Stone were present and Mork Bredeson was excused. Staff present: Deputy Clerk Corl. • 3. ADOPT AGENDA Motion by Hughes seconded by Nelson to adopt the agenda (October 8, 2003). All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES—September 10, 2003 Motion by Aschinger seconded by Klein to approve the minutes for the Planning Commission Meeting September 10, 2003. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. 5. PLANNING COMMISSION a) Variance Request—Alisa Rashid, 3853 Sunset Drive 1. Open Public Hearing Anderson opened the public hearing at 7:32 p.m. and read the notice of the public hearing that was published in the Laker Newspaper September 20, 2003. One written communication and one oral communication was received both in favor of the proposed variance request. 2. Discussion& Comments • Present were Alisa Rashid and Chris Butler from 3853 Sunset Drive. Rashid stated her request is for 7.3 foot side yard variance to construct a garage 24' x Planning Commission — 10/15/03 1 • 42.5'. She said the lot is narrow and there is no off street parking available. She added this is the only logical way to build the garage on the lot. Rashid said if the garage were placed on the back of the lot, the hardcover would increase with the addition of more driveway area. Butler commented the original garage was 14' x 22' and 8 more feet had been added to the back to make the current garage 14' x 30'. Hughes verified he was interpreting the proposed garage will have two single garage doors. Aschinger noted the current hardcover is 21.9% and the proposed hardcover should be calculated for the Council. Rashid referred to the drawings and said the second phase will include remodeling the house to aesthetically match the garage. Hughes pointed out the proposed garage will be placed 10' back from the original garage. Aschinger pointed out the ordinance states not to increase the non-conformity and this proposal is not going any closer to the lot line than the existing garage is. Anderson said we should know the proposed amount of hardcover. Butler figured it to be less than 25% overall which is under the maximum allowed of 30%. Klein stated there is a hardship with no off-street parking and the proposed garage is a reasonable way to solve that situation and also the immediate neighbor affected by the proposal does not object. • Butler pointed out by pushing the garage back it makes it easier to use the garage. Aschinger stated the width of the lot is the hardship. She said the depth of the lot allows for a garage and asked the applicants if they would consider this. Butler said that would increase the hardcover with a driveway that is longer. Klein suggested sketching out for the Council the increase in the hardcover if the garage is moved without a variance. 3. Close Public Hearing Motion by Nelson seconded by Aschinger to close the public hearing at 7:50 p.m. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. 4. Recommendation To Council Aschinger pointed out the hardship may be the most questioned issue but the variance request will not impair light and air for adjoining properties, will not unreasonably increase traffic congestion, will not increase fire hazard or cause safety issues, will not unreasonably diminish property values, will not be contrary to the intent of the ordinance and will not violate the intent of the Comprehensive Plan. Hughes said the garage could be moved inside the lot without requiring a variance but if the applicant were to attempt to do that, a variance for hardcover might be needed to accommodate a longer driveway. • Aschinger said environmentally she would rather see the lot line variance versus more driveway. Planning Commission — 10/15/03 2 • Motion by Hughes seconded by Klein to recommend to the Council to approve the variance request for 3853 Sunset Drive for a side yard variance of 7.3 feet to construct a garage. Upon roll call Anderson, Nelson, Klein, Hughes and Aschinger voted aye. Motion declared carried. 6. COMMUNICATIONS The following communications were noted: a) Council Minutes—9/15/03 Stone noted the presentation from Super America at the Council Meeting 9/15/03 and informed the Planning Commission a letter was given to the Council 10/14/03 informing the City that SA has decided not to locate a facility at the Marina Center. b) Budget Minutes—9/29/03 c) Building & Sign Report—September 7. MISCELLANEOUS Hughes asked if the Planner has responded from the joint meeting a few months ago on outside storage and sales. This will be checked on. • Updates were asked for on the following: Budd Lane variance request; Railroad/Trail; and Minnetonka Beach and the trail. 8. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Hughes seconded by Nelson to adjourn the meeting at 8:12 p.m. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. SHARON CORL DEPUTY CLERK • Planning Commission— 10/15/03 3 • September 15, 2003 To: Spring Park Planning Commission q From: Michael Adrian As of September 29, 2003, I will no longer be a residence of Spring Park and will resign from the Spring Park Planning Commission. Thank you, W"j 4� Michael Adrian • • • CITY OF SPRING PARK SPRING PARK,MINNESOTA AGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 12, 2003 7:30 P.M.—CITY HALL 1. CALL TO ORDER Pledge of Allegiance 2. ROLL CALL 3. ADOPT AGENDA 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES—October 15, 2003 5. PLANNING COMMISSION a) Variance Request—Harlyn&Lisa Dill, 3 811 Togo Road 1. NAC— 10/31/03 a) Open Public Hearing b) Discussion&Comments. c) Close Public Hearing d) Recommendation to Council b) Variance Request—Chris &Paige Olson, 4022 Sunset Drive 1. NAC—10/30/03 a) Open Pubic Hearing b) Discussion&Comments c) Close Public Hearing d) Recommendation to Council c) Sign Permit Application—Asian Bistro, 4669 Shoreline Drive 6. COMMUNICATIONS a) Budget Minutes— 10/14/03 b) Council Minutes— 10/20/03 c) Council Minutes— 11/3/03 d) November Calendar e) Building& Sign Report October 7. MISCELLANEOUS 8. ADJOURNMENT • Planning Commission — 11/12/03 1 . CITY OF SPRING PARK SPRING PARK, MINNESOTA MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 12, 2003 7:30 P.M.—CITY HALL 1. CALL TO ORDER Pledge of Allegiance Chair Anderson called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. 2. ROLL CALL Anderson, Nelson, Klein, Hughes, Aschinger and Ex-Officio Stone were present and Mork Bredeson was absent. Staff present: Deputy Clerk Corl. 3. ADOPT AGENDA • Motion by Aschinger seconded by Klein to adopt the agenda. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES—October 15, 2003 Motion by Klein seconded by Aschinger to approve the minutes for the Planning Commission Meeting on October 15, 2003. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. 5. PLANNING COMMISSION b) Variance Request—Chris &Paige Olson, 4022 Sunset Drive (This variance request was heard first because the applicant for the first request arrived late.) 1. NAC— 10/30/03 a) Open Public Hearing Chair Anderson opened the public hearing at 7:35 p.m. He read the following notice published in the Laker Newspaper: NOTICE is hereby given that the Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on Wednesday November 12, 2003, at 7:30 p.m., or as soon thereafter as possible, at the Spring Park City Hall, 4349 Warren Avenue, to hear comments on a request for a 7-foot side yard variance, a 13 foot • Planning Commission — 11/12/03 1 street side variance, and a hardcover variance to construct a 20 foot by 20• foot attached garage. Paige & Chris Olson 4022 Sunset Drive PID 17-117-23-33-0028 All oral and written comments for and against will be heard at the above time and place. It was noted that no comments have been received at this time. b) Discussion& Comments Chris Olson, Mike Stulberg, Marie Everson were present. Olson pointed out his previous request for a carport that was denied was closer to the road than this request for a garage. He said the Council expressed what they would like to see and that it would be preferable to attach the carport. He said they would attach the garage to the house and bring it back from the street and designate a no parking area in front of the garage. He said the hardcover issue is increased slightly more than with the carport proposal. Olson said the survey shows where the garage will be attached to the house. • Aschinger asked if the neighbor with the garage and the one without the garage is okay with Olson's proposal. Clinton Gjellstad, 4018 Sunset (the neighbor to the north without the garage), stated there is a garage down the street (presumably 4026 Sunset) that blocks his view of traffic more than this proposal would. Klein asked Olson why he would go from a carport to a garage proposal. Olson said it was based on what the Council said regarding a structure being closer to the house. Klein stated the Council spoke to an attached carport. Hughes asked if the average setback of the existing garages on that street is known. Stulberg said some detached garages are not quite as close as the one a few houses away and there are some that are set back from the street further down the street. Klein said the Council had a problem with backing out onto Sunset Drive and also parking in front of the carport. Stulberg said the situation is better with the garage than with the carport. Klein said there are a lot of dangerous driveway situations on Sunset. Klein said the issue she has is walls versus no walls. Hughes said he disagrees with idea of a problem with backing out because they can back into their proposed garage and drive out forward. Nelson pointed out there are places in the neighborhood for guests to park i.e. Thor Thompson Park. Hughes asked Olson what he perceives to be the most objectionable • Planning Commission — 11/12/03 2 • part of his variance request. Olson said the set back from the street is the biggest problem. Aschinger asked if a garage was considered when the house was built. Olson said it was but it would have involved more money and it would have taken up living space and their priority was living space versus a garage. Klein asked if the Planning Commission could make a condition that the garage be built before the sale of the house. Hughes pointed out the variance goes with the property. Stulberg added the variance has a year to be acted on. Aschinger pointed out there will be more hardcover after the proposed garage is built and asked Olson if he thought about run off. Olson said he would address the situations. Anderson asked the Commissioners what the downside of approving the variance would be. Klein affirmed it would be setting a precedent for other requests. Anderson stated if we are granting too many variances, the ordinance should be changed. Stulberg referred to precedence and said most of the neighbors have garages. Klein asked the comparison of Olson's proposed carport to the one further down Sunset Drive. Stone said there was a difference with the angle of the house and placement of the carport on the lot and hardcover was not an issue. Klein said the openness of the carport was more favorable to her. • Olson said the Council did not like the idea. Stulberg again stated this proposal is further from the street than the carport proposal. Klein verified to Olson the reason for the garage proposal is the recommendation of the Council. Olson pointed out they would be giving up windows on the house and green space for a garage. Nelson commented that in Minnesota having a garage is more practical. Gjellstad said a garage would improve his view because it would be closer to the house. Klein verified the proposed garage would be one story. Aschinger pointed out the increase in hardcover makes it over 50% and Olson's made the decision to build the house bigger. Stulberg said if they had built a tuck under garage it would have taken out two bedrooms. Anderson asked if hardcover is really an issue. Stone pointed out the hardcover should be 30% and it is already increased to 47% without a garage or carport. Anderson stated the neighbors do not oppose the proposal. Hughes said he did not see a negative for the proposal in the report from NAC and it overwhelmingly fulfilled the comprehensive plan, except the main objective is the hardcover issue. He added NAC did a nice job of outlining the proposal. Anderson read the following: "The variance will not impair light and air • for adjoining properties; The variance will not unreasonably increase Planning Commission— 11/12/03 3 • traffic congestion; The variance will not increase fire hazard or cause safety problems; The variance will not unreasonably diminish property values in the vicinity; The variance will not be contrary to the intent of the ordinance; The variance will not violate intent of the Comprehensive Plan". Aschinger said she felt the variance would impair light and air for the adjoining property even though the property owner does not object. c) Close Public Hearing Chair Anderson closed the public hearing at 8:04 p.m. d) Recommendation to Council Motion by Hughes seconded by Nelson to recommend to the Council approval of the variance request for a 7 foot side yard variance, a 13 foot street side variance and a hardcover variance of 23.5% to construct a 20 foot by 20 foot attached garage. In discussion Hughes also referred to the impairing of light and said another issue is the hardcover and that can be viewed as somewhat of a value judgment. He said the setback is further from the street and that • increases safety but at the cost of additional hardcover. Anderson said the Council approved and paved a parking lot at Thor Thompson Park and subsequently increased the hardcover in the City. He added it looks nice but nonetheless it added to the hardcover unnecessarily. Rock driveways versus bituminous driveways and the fact that both are considered impervious surface was briefly discussed. Upon roll call Anderson, Nelson, and Hughes voted aye and Klein and Aschinger voted no. Motion declared carried. a) Variance Request—Harlyn & Lisa Dill, 3811 Togo Road 1. NAC— 10/31/03 a) Open Public Hearing Chair Anderson opened the public hearing at 8:11 p.m. and read the following notice published in the Laker Newspaper: NOTICE is hereby given that the Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on Wednesday November 12, 2003 at 7:30 p.m., or as soon as possible thereafter, at the Spring Park City Hall, 4349 Warren Avenue, to hear comments on a 9 foot side yard variance on the west side to replace foundation to support new 2nd story addition to house and a 7% hardcover variance for a driveway. • Planning Commission— 11/12/03 4 • Harlyn& Lisa Dill 3811 Togo Road PID 17-117-23-32-0058 All oral and written comments for and against will be heard at the above time and place. It was noted that no comments have been received at this time. b) Discussion& Comments Lisa Dill was present and Harlyn Dill arrived later. Klein asked the applicant why the change. L. Dill said this request was supposed to be on the original variance and the City missed the request. Aschinger pointed out that one issue is the driveway coming up to the shop door and asked it this was the original intent. L. Dill said yes but it was overlooked. Paul Oare, 3813 Togo Road, (neighbor on Dill's west side) stated Dill's explained to him that the proposed addition would be on the east side of the house and no mention was made to the west side and now a section on the west side is torn down. He said he would have objected to the proposal of a second story on the west but it was not mentioned the first time. Oare pointed out it a second story on the west side would decrease the light into his house. • Klein stated the section on the west was torn down without a permit. Nelson stated the first variance request was to fill in corner on the east side with a workroom below and no garage and no driveway. L. Dill said the second floor was on the original plan and it was missed. Klein verified that Oare did not have an issue with the first variance request. Klein asked Dill's why the corner on the west side was torn down. H. Dill said they thought they could tear it down while they waited for the building permit. Anderson asked what Oare's objection was and Oare said there was no mention of a second story on his side of Dill's house and if they are allowed to add on the west side it would block the light from his house and also it would be too close to the lot line. He added what he was told is different from what was done. Klein asked Oare if he would object to them replacing what they tore down. Oare said there is no foundation to rebuild on because they removed it. Aschinger pointed out the plan is a walkout with a room above. Hughes referred to the state statute that was used for the project on Budd Lane and it was explained that applied to the elevation of the structure in a floodplain. He stated the existing area is torn down and the homeowner has removed his footprint. The commissioners discussed this scenario at • Planning Commission— 11/12/03 5 • length. Anderson read the concluding paragraph from the Planner's report. Klein stated this request would have an impact on a neighboring property. Anderson said there are two variance requests to consider. He asked if someone has to have a permit to tear something down and was told yes. Klein said Dill knew he needed a permit for the other variance and asked why he did not think he would need a variance for the other side. H. Dill said he brought what he was doing to the attention of the staff. Nelson asked why he didn't bring it up at the previous public hearing. Dill said he thought a variance was needed when breaking new ground and the west side was on the existing foundation. Nelson said the Planner stated if the structure was put back on the same original footprint Dill can build if the variance is granted. Anderson said he cannot undo what has been done and wants to rebuild and needs a variance to do it and the only objection is from the neighbor on the west side. Nelson verified Oare objects to the 2°d story. Hughes recommended separate motions, one for the hardcover and one for the variance. Klein pointed out there is no hardship. Dill said if he had an 8-foot driveway, he would not go over the hardcover requirement. Nelson • asked about taking away the parking in front of the house all together and Dill said that was a possibility. Aschinger said there are options with the hardcover but no hardship for recommending approval. Anderson suggested Dill withdraw his hardcover request. Hughes said there is a request before them and the appropriate way is to act on this request by denying or recommending approval. He added Dill has the option with the Council to withdraw if he so chooses, but this should not take place at the Planning Commission level. Hughes asked if the Commission wants to accept the definition of existing footprint as it was before it was removed or as it is now. Aschinger said she would define that term "footprint" as where the foundation used to sit unless the property owner changed it and that is what she would be voting on and Nelson agreed. Dill was asked if the footprint has changed and said the dimensions are the same as before it was removed. Hughes said he just wanted to make sure the Council knows what our interpretation of footprint is and a clear definition of how we are approaching this. Aschinger asked if it would be possible to build the addition narrower than proposed to reduce the amount of the setback request. Dill said that would be too narrow because the house is only 26' wide. Klein said there is an• issue with the second story and the fact that part of the structure was torn Planning Commission— 11/12/03 6 torn down before approval. Dill explained how he could have put in a new foundation without tearing it down and needing a variance. He said he did intend to do this but the City did not realize he was tearing it down. He added it was lack of communication. Hughes said it was not pointed out at the first variance request there was going to be two stories on the one side. The Commissioners briefly discussed what was discussed at the first variance request. Anderson read from the Planner's report on page two, part of the third paragraph. "In the past, the City has allowed lawful nonconforming lots to include structural alterations that add to the structure vertically". Anderson read the following: "The variance will not impair light and air for adjoining properties; The variance will not unreasonably increase traffic congestion; The variance will not increase fire hazard or cause safety problems; The variance will not unreasonably diminish property values in the vicinity; The variance will not be contrary to the intent of the ordinance; The variance will not violate intent of the Comprehensive Plan". c) Close Public Hearing Chair Anderson closed the public hearing at 8:56 p.m. • d) Recommendation to the Council Motion by Hughes to make two recommendations to the Council and separate the hardcover request from the side yard request. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. Motion by Hughes seconded by Aschinger recommend to the Council to approve a 7% increase in hardcover for a driveway for 3811 Togo Road. Upon roll call Anderson voted yes, Nelson, Klein, Hughes and Aschinger voted no. Motion declared failed. Motion by Klein seconded by Aschinger to recommend to the Council to approve a 9-foot side yard variance to replace foundation to support new 2"d story addition to house for 3811 Togo Road. Upon Roll Anderson, Nelson, Klein, Hughes and Aschinger voted no. Motion declared failed. c) Sign Permit Application—Asian Bistro, 4669 Shoreline Drive It was noted this was an after the fact sign permit application. Klein stated there should have been a $200 fine per policy. Anderson verified the application met • the ordinance code. Planning Commission— 11/12/03 7 wMotion by Nelson seconded by Hughes to approve the sign permit application for Asian Bistro, 4669 Shoreline Drive. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. 6. COMMUNICATIONS The following communications were noted: a) Budget Minutes— 10/14/03 The Commissioners expressed interest in a copy of the 2004 budget. Stone said the public hearing for the budget is in December. b) Council Minutes— 10/20/03 Klein said the Council's denial on the variance request for 3853 Sunset surprised her. Stone said there was no hardship. Klein also inquired how long the 2:00 am bar closing is going to be discussed before a decision is made. Stone said the cost for police service is being evaluating by the police department and the Council is waiting to see how the scenario really works out. The extra cost and the validity of the amount of the cost were briefly discussed. c) Council Minutes— 11/3/03 d) November Calendar e) Building& Sign Report October 7. MISCELLANEOUS Hughes asked if the Planner has the results of the joint meeting on outside sales and • storage. This will be checked on. Hughes also asked the cost to have the Planner prepare the variance reports. He said the reports serve as an excellent reference and they not only cover legal points but also areas we may overlook. Aschinger asked if we need the planner for each variance. Nelson said you never know if it is going to be a"no brainer" and agreed with Hughes. The Deputy Clerk will obtain a cost. 8. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Hughes seconded by Klein to adjourn the meeting at 9:14 p.m. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. SHARON CORL DEPUTY CLERK • Planning Commission— 11/12/03 8 • • 4` v �/ �eoO 7�CJ