Loading...
2001 - Planning Commission - Agendas & Minutes • CITY OF SPRING PARK SPRING PARK,MINNESOTA AGENDA PUBLIC HEARING/PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 10, 2001 7:30 P.M.—CITY HALL 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL OATH OF OFFICE—Anderson, Karpas,Nasset 3. ADOPT AGENDA 4. APPROVE MINUTES—December 13, 2000 5. PLANNING COMMISSION a) Elect Chair& Acting Chair b) Conditional Use Permit Application,Daren Marliula, 4372 West Arm Road • 1. Open Public Hearing 2. Discussion & Comments a) NAC— 12/29/01 b) Background Info on Variance 1. NAC—3/6/00 2. NAC—4/12/00 3. NAC—5/31/00 3. Close Public Hearing 4. Recommendation to Council c) Sign Permit Application, Gentle Dentistry, 4787 Shoreline Drive 6. COMMUNICATIONS a) Council Minutes— 12/18/00 b) Council Minutes— 1/2/01 c) Council Minutes II - 1/2/01 d) Planning Commission&Council List 2001 e) Newsletter Winter 2000 f) Supplement to Ordinance Book(Anderson, Sheridan, Hovelsrud,Nelson) 7. MISCELLANEOUS 8. ADJOURNMENT • • CITY OF SPRING PARK SPRING PARK, MINNESOTA MINUTES PUBLIC HEARING/PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 10, 2001 7:30 P.M.—CITY HALL 1. CALL TO ORDER Acting Chair Anderson called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL Mork Bredeson, Anderson, Nelson, Sheridan, Hovelsrud, Karpas, Nasset and Ex- Officio Stone were present. Staff Present: Secretary Corl. OATH OF OFFICE—Anderson, Karpas,Nasset • Secretary Corl administered the oath of office to Bill Anderson, Gus Karpas and Ann Nasset. 3. ADOPT AGENDA Motion by Nelson seconded by Mork Bredeson to adopt the agenda. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES—December 13, 2000 Motion by Mork Bredeson seconded by Hovelsrud to approve the minutes for the Planning Commission Meeting December 13, 2000. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. 5. PLANNING COMMISSION a) Elect Chair& Acting Chair Acting Chair Anderson opened the nominations for Chair. Nelson nominated Anderson for Chair and Sheridan seconded the nomination. Anderson asked for nominations three times. Having none, he closed the nominations for Chair. Upon roll call Mork Bredeson, Nelson, Sheridan, Hovelsrud, Karpas, Nasset voted aye and Anderson abstained. Anderson was declared Chair Person. • Anderson opened the nominations for Acting Chair. Hovelsrud nominated Mork Bredeson for Acting Chair and Nelson seconded the nomination. Anderson asked Planning Commission— 1/10/01 1 • for nominations three times. Having none, he closed the nominations for Acting Chair. Upon roll call Mork Bredeson, Anderson, Nelson, Sheridan, Hovelsrud, Karpas and Nasset voted aye. Mork Bredeson was declared Acting Chair Person. b) Conditional Use Permit Application, Daren Marhula, 4372 West Arm Road 1. Open Public Hearing Anderson opened the public hearing at 7:35 p.m. Anderson read the following notice published in the newspaper: NOTICE is hereby given that the Planning Commission of the City of Spring Park will hold a public hearing on Wednesday January 10, 2001 at 7:30 p.m. at the Spring Park City Hall, 4349 Warren Avenue, to hear comments on a request for a Conditional Use Permit to allow an accessory building that exceeds 1,000 square feet of floor area and to be used for storage only. Daren Marhula 4372 West Arm Road PID 18-117-23-43-0038 All oral and written comments for and against will be heard at the above time and place. It was noted one written communication was received in favor of the • Conditional Use Permit (CUP) and one oral communication was received against the CUP recommending the top floor be removed because it is against the ordinance and there is no hardship. 2. Discussion& Comments a) NAC— 12/29/00—Noted b) Background Info on Variance—All Noted 1. NAC—3/6/00 2. NAC—4/12/00 3. NAC—5/31/00 Daren Marhula, 4372 West Arm Road, was present. He briefly reviewed his request for a side yard variance. He pointed out this was recommended by the Planning Commission and approved by Council. Marhula stated the City approved his plans and the garage is almost 100 % completed. He said the Administrator called a couple of weeks ago and pointed out the ordinance was overlooked regarding an accessory building cannot be more than 1000 square feet. He said he was told he would have to have a CUP. Marhula added he received a copy of the Planners conditions and said he is content with the recommendations. • Sheridan asked Marhula if he has seen the City Attorney's recommendations and Marhula said he hadn't. Hovelsrud asked Marhula his intentions with the Planning Commission— 1/10/01 2 • garage referring to the windows. Marhula said he wanted it to look good and had his architect give it lines like his house. He added he needed storage space and this was the best way to get the space. Karpas asked the height of garage. Marhula said he didn't readily have the measurement. Karpas said he did not find a height requirement for an accessory structure in the ordinance. Mork Bredeson asked if the structure blocks the view for neighbors. Marhula said he had the support from neighbors because it blocked the view of the garages for the apartments and provides a screen and it does not block their view of the lake. Linda Carlson, 4336 West Arm Road was present. She was asked if she had any concerns with Marhula's garage. She said she was interested in the result of the CUP because she wants a garage just like his because she needs storage. Anderson asked if everyone viewed structure. He said it is a nice looking structure. He read the following recommendations from the Planner's memo dated 12/29/00: "Staff recommends approval of a conditional use permit to allow a two story 1,440 square foot accessory building on the property located at 4372 West Arm Road. This recommendation is based on the findings specified • in this report and subject to the conditions outlined below: 1. This accessory structure shall only be used for storage of domestic vehicles and other items associated with the principal residential use. 2. At no time shall any part of this accessory structure be used for any commercial activity. 3. At no time shall any part of this accessory structure be used for a home occupation or human habitation, either as a guest house or an accessory apartment. 4. The conditions cited in this report shall be recorded against the deed of the subject property." The same memo contained the following findings of fact: "This structure meets the coverage area and building height standards for structures in a residential district. In addition, the applicant was granted a four-foot side yard setback variance. Given these conditions, this structure meets the standards for accessory buildings within the R- 1 District. The applicant has agreed to use this accessory structure only for storage of domestic vehicles and items associated with the residential use of the property. As a result, staff believes this accessory structure should be consistent with the residential character of the neighborhood • and present no unreasonable hazards to the surrounding area and community as a whole. Thus, staff recommends that a condition of Planning Commission — 1/10/01 3 • approval state that this accessory structure shall not be used for either commercial activity or human habitation. Granting the four-foot side yard setback variance overcomes the original locational problems associated with this application. Staff finds that garages are typical accessory uses within all residential districts. Staff also finds this garage helps to screen a predominately low-density residential neighborhood from the adjacent R-3 District. Staff recommends, and the applicant agrees to, use this accessory structure for storage only. At no time shall any part of this accessory structure be used for commercial use or human habitation either as a guesthouse or an accessory apartment. Therefore, staff finds that the proposed use will have no significant negative impact on the peaceful and quiet enjoyment of the surrounding property." Karpas stated he would like to see item #4 of the City Attorney's recommendation added which states "At no time shall the accessory structure be connected to any water utility service or to any sewer or septic system. Marhula said his intent was to put in a laundry and would like to do so. Hovelsrud stated the garage looks aesthetically nice but he is concerned with • granting more to the property. He pointed out Marhula received his variance request, has a second story on his garage and now he wants to put in water and sewer for a laundry. Marhula said the Council was aware it would be one and a half stories and at the time of that discussion, this was not an issue. Hovelsrud said Marhula knew when he bought the house it did not have a garage, storage, etc. Marhula said the main reason for extra storage was for a laundry and the main purpose was to have a garage. He added it makes sense to put the laundry in the garage and said the laundry was discussed several times. He stated future water and sewer plans were on the building plans. Nelson said she did not remember any discussion about a laundry in the garage. Anderson asked Marhula where he does his laundry now and where in the new structure will the laundry be located. Marhula said he has a unit in the kitchen for laundry and will locate the laundry in the lower level of the garage. Sheridan asked if water and sewer are roughed in. Marhula said it is roughed in through the footing. He said if he had known it was an issue he would have changed his plans. He said the garage is built exactly per the submitted plans. Sheridan said he did not think a laundry was that big a deal. Mork Bredeson • said a condition should be that there can never be a bathroom and if the condition is violated according to the City Attorney, the accessory structure Planning Commission— 1/10/01 4 may be removed. Hovelsrud said the City is concerned the garage will not be used as an apartment or living quarters. Marhula said one of the conditions is to attach the conditions to the deed for future owners. He said again he would have changed the plans if he had known this was an issue. Sheridan pointed out item #4 of the Attorney's conditions should be modified if the garage is already roughed in for water and sewer. Sheridan stated item #5 should be changed to read, "shall" instead of"may". Resident Carlson asked if she wants to put a laundry in a garage would she be allowed to have it or in other words, if she did what he is doing can she have it. Sheridan explained Marhula's situation. He said his plan exceeded the square footage for an accessory structure and this is an after the fact situation. He added this is a conditional use permit that does not have to be granted but it is an after the fact permit and that carries more weight. Sheridan said the circumstances are different here and if the square footage were less than 1000 square feet this would not even have to be considered. He said he wanted Carlson to be clear on this. Mork Bredeson suggested Carlson spend time with the staff regarding what she can have. Mork Bredeson said she wanted to be sure there is not a problem with approving Marhula's CUP and that this does not set a precedent. Sheridan • said the use being allowed is an accessory structure over 1000 square feet. He added someone else could ask for this and the answer can be that this was a misunderstanding and somehow in the process it got missed and overlooked. Karpas said it wouldn't be a precedent because a mistake was made in the process somewhere, which makes it a unique situation. Sheridan agreed it is a unique situation. Hovelsrud again pointed out the variance request was approved, the two-story garage is being allowed and now water and sewer may be hooked up. He said the situation is snow balling and can set a precedent. Mork Bredeson said she thought elevations were required on the application for the variance. She said she is not comfortable with the situation. At this time Sheridan had to leave. He said he was in favor of the CUP and recommended changing the word "may" to "shall" in item #5 of the Attorney's recommended conditions. Karpas asked if a plumbing permit was obtained for the water installation. Marhula said it is not installed, just roughed in. 3. Close Public Hearing Motion by Mork Bredeson seconded by Hovelsrud to close the public • hearing at 8:05 p.m. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. Planning Commission— 1/10/01 5 4. Recommendation to Council Motion by Mork Bredeson and seconded by Nasset to recommend to the Council to approve the Conditional Use Permit and include the six conditions recommended by the City Attorney (per her memo dated January 9, 2001) with the following changes: #4 should say at no time should there be allowed a bathroom or a sink; #5 change the word "may" to "shall". All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. c) Sign Permit Application, Gentle Dentistry, 4787 Shoreline Drive Motion by Mork Bredeson seconded by Nasset to approve the sign permit for Gentle Dentistry, 4787 Shoreline Drive. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. 6 COMMUNICATIONS The following communications were noted: a) Council Minutes— 12/18/00 b) Council Minutes— 1/2/01 c) Council Minutes II— 1/2/01 . d) Planning Commission& Council List 2001 Karpas noted his apartment number is #106 not#105. e) Newsletter Winter 2000 f) Supplement to Ordinance Book(Anderson, Sheridan, Hovelsrud,Nelson) 7. MISCELLANEOUS Hovelsrud said the Planning Commission has to start watching what is approved regarding variances and conditional use permits. He added he is not in favor of separate structures, with one being a garage, that is two stories high. Mork Bredeson said Marhula's garage is a large building and feels he has a plan for this storage space. Hovelsrud said when people buy their houses they see what they are getting and it is not the City s fault there is no garage, etc. He added Marhula's building is almost like a house. Anderson said he does not disagree with Hovelsrud's concern. Hovelsrud said he is concerned someone else may do what Marhula did and the City can't approve things because they look nice. Anderson said if it is not detrimental to the neighbors there should not be a big problem. Mork Bredeson referred to the Planner's memo dated 3/6/00, and the second paragraph. She said it was pointed out the lot width is a physical hardship and said most lots in Spring Park are not wide enough. Hovelsrud said a second story on a garage in Spring Park is too much. Stone said the ordinance does not speak to a height for a garage and there are garages in the City with two stories. Karpas said the City might want to look at requiring a height for an Planning Commission— 1/10/01 6 • accessory structure. Hovelsrud said Marhula might not have been accurate with the usage of his garage. In another matter, Mork Bredeson asked if there was any news on the progress of the railroad and the proposed trail. She was told the plans are going forward. 8. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Mork Bredeson seconded by Nelson to adjourn the meeting at 8:26 p.m. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. SHARON CORL SECRETARY • Planning Commission— 1/10/01 7 ...................................................... �,Aaj0 f'lnoaa ` jao0 uoaeuS �asseN uu ULOOZ `t` .... �aenue� lo,Cvp....u4Ol siy;aw alolaq o; uloms puv paq!lasgnS ................................................................................................ ............................. .............................................................................................................................. .............................................................................................................................. .............................................................................................................................. .............................................................................................................................. .............................................................................................................................. . .......... . ... ........................ Loot ` LE A@gwaaaa saatdxa waai -Poo aw dlay oS *X;!lrgv puv;uawgpn! Xtu jo;saq ay; o; `v;osauu!Njo a;v;s puv .....................utClauuaH...joXlunojay; ut..................�aed..6uiads... jo.............� i.�...ay;Jo ...... Jo a",Jo ay;jo sa:;np ay; a$.Ivyaslp Xilnjy;rvj puv `v;osauu!K jo a;v;s iauotsstwiuo� 6uiuuejd ay;jo put)sa;v;s pa;run ay;jo u017n;psu00 ay; uoddns 1pm I;vy; ............................................. hams,Cluwalos op , ............................................................................................. .I �asseN uuy .� .......................................�o ;unoa uI OuuaH 673 osauu o alga � i.�At� S 9ZZB-0_i aieMyog pue swelsAS u040913 0 "3wo,(ma jo tPoo—so'L'ON Countyof.................................... ............of ................................. ................................................ ................................................ ................................................ • Oath of City Officer Filed this ............................day of ................................... . Year...... ................................................ ................................................ �?O,A2� snq J a j 0 a'a 1*,*A*6 o u oi 2 q s ................................ .................................... JoAvp glyl aw alojag of woms puv paq!jisqnS ................................................................................................ ..........I.................. ............I................................................................................................................. .............................................................................................................................. .............................................................................................................................. .............................................................................................................................. .............................................................................................................................. ............................................................................ -Poo aw djay oS puv;uawspnf Xw jo isaq ay; of 'v;osauu!M jo aims puv H...... .................utuauu -jo dclunoj ay7 Ul................... Eby. Jo.............. ,ids... ...........................6.............jo a"l jo ayl jo salinp ayl awivyjsl ,A,3uOlSslwwO3 UIUUPId pcllnjyl!vj puv 'vlosauu!m Jo alvis awopv salvsanu ayo uo?j"pquoqayl uoddn9 mIvyj i p JvamR,Cjuwa7oq op I ............................................................... Tj PY.S flo............... 'I .w ,,''*,O'i'6 0 6 ao.....jo Xju"oj 672josauui]K jo aluls SZ39-0-L ajem4oS Pue SW81SAS UORD913 0 J,"awo AD Jo q180-905 Countyof.................................... ............of ................................. ................................................ ................................................ ................................................ Oath of City Officer Filed this ............................day of ................................... . Year...... ................................................ ................................................ • ... uosaapu� 1110 �,Aaio figndad `065 uo.�eus . ION `t`.......:..fiAenuep '�o,cvp q,�ol siy;aw alojaq of Moms puv pagy3sgnS ................................................................................................ ............................. .............................................................................................................................. .............................................................................................................................. .............................................................................................................................. .............................................................................................................................. .............................................................................................................................. .............................................................................................................................. VooZ iogwaDaa saatdxa waal •po0 aw dpay os of `vjosauu?N fo aiv7s puv id�iivaH...io.C;unog all; u:..................ijaed..6ii lads... �o............4�i j....aw to . a.UO IS s I.Wi of.bu.i uiie j d''�o aa��fo aye�o sa?�np aye a�lvgaslp�Cppn�y�rv�puv `v�osauu:y��o a�v�s aw fo puv gams pad?u!1 ayl jo uo:;nl?gsuoa ayl uoddns Ipm I Ivy; ............................................. hams xluwatos op. ................................................................iios�apiiy..j.T i 8......... .I . . . . . . . . ............ .w .........................uidauu2jj..�o,CI'unoa l 678 osauui o aIs� � .Ii113 S SZZB-q-I alemgoS pue swalsRS uoiloal3 laawo(Ibolo V7°o—soz-ON Countyof.................................... ............of ................................. ................................................ ................................................ ................................................ Oath of City Officer Filed this ............................day of ..................................... Year...... ................................................ ................................................ • PUBLIC HEARING - JANUARY 10, 2001 NAME ADDRESS 40 ; . � ^ 1 Q C 2. LI Z. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. CITY OF SPRING PARK SPRING PARK, MINNESOTA AGENDA COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JANUARY 22, 2001 7:30 P.M.—CITY HALL 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL a) Council b) Planning Commission 3. ADOPT AGENDA 4. DISCUSSION a) Beautification Plan, Sunset Drive b) Ordinance Amendment, Sect. 3, Subd. D, #2 c) City's 50th Anniversary, August 21, 2001 d) Miscellaneous • 5. COUNCIL BUSINESS a) Resolution 01-08—Municipal Recycling Grant b) Additional Water Patrol 6. ADJOUORNMENT • • CITY OF SPRING PARK SPRING PARK, MINNESOTA MINUTES COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JANUARY 22, 2001 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, Scanlon, Widmer and Rockvam were present. b) Planning Commission Nelson, Sheridan, Hovelsrud, Karpas and Nasset were present. Mork Bredeson and Anderson arrived after the roll was taken. Staff present: Administrator Weeks and Secretary Corl. 3. ADOPT AGENDA • Motion by Widmer seconded by Stone to adopt the agenda. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried unanimously. 4. DISCUSSION a) Beautification Plan, Sunset Drive Rockvam stated that one reason the Council meets with the Planning Commission at least once a year is to exchange ideas and opinions. He said it is important that both boards are on the same wave length. He said Shoreline Drive/County Road 15 was done in two phases. The first phase was the rebuilding of the street with sidewalks and the utility lines were buried. He said the second phase was the planting of trees and this was done in three different projects and they were planted to create a boulevard affect. Rockvam stated part of the discussion tonight would be looking at a beautification plan for Sunset Drive/County Road 51. He added the project should serve pedestrians. Rockvam stated Hennepin County has a program to allow cities to design a walkway and get funding for it. He said it would be easier if the path can be placed in the county right-of-way. He noted sidewalks might be too expensive. He referred to the artists rendering of Sunset Drive from George Norling and said that drawing includes a lot of trees. • Scanlon said the path should be on one side of the street. Weeks said previous discussions concluded the path should be on the east side of the street. Rockvam Council/Planning Commission— 1/22/01 1 • said the City should find out the actual amount of land the county owns along the right-of-way. He stated if the lines were going to be buried, street lights would have to be placed on utility poles. Widmer said the path would be safer located on the east side because of the park. Weeks pointed out Lord Fletcher's Restaurant is on the west side. Hovelsrud suggested looking at options for a path such as a defined blacktop path. Nasset pointed out the street narrows at the east end and properties have slope to the street. Nelson said the right-of-way goes into the private properties possibly 10 feet. She said she would rather see a blacktopped path versus a sidewalk and it could be marked down the middle indicating a bikeway and walkway. Stone asked if it would be kept plowed in the winter. Hovelsrud said if it was kept on the roadway it might be more cost effective for plowing. Scanlon asked if there would be a problem with parking and he was told there is no parking allowed on either side. Hoffman said Eden Prairie constructed walkways throughout their city. He said it was less expensive for them to have the path separated from the roadway with three feet of green space. He said property owners were more against than for the project but were receptive to the three feet of green space. He added the walkway increased the property values despite the fact some lost land to the project. Scanlon said it would seem safer to separate the path from the roadway. • Rockvam said the county widened Shadywood/County Road 19 a few years ago and allowed enough room on each side for pedestrians and bicycles and this is plowed when the streets are plowed. He said the City should check to see what there is for land to work with on Sunset for a path. He added the City may not want to acquire land and the course of least resistance should be taken. Stone asked if the county was willing to work with the City. Weeks said they were and if the City has a plan in place, they will gear any planned improvements toward the City's project. Hoffman asked if the plan would be done in phases. He said the Planning Commission discussed that the area in front of the park be done first so residents could see how it would look. Rockvam recommended doing it all at once. He confirmed the consensus was to have the biking/hiking path on the east side of Sunset. He said to check and see if the county has a program to assist with the plan. Weeks said the troublesome areas could be dealt with as they came. He suggested staking the area to get a visual perspective. Rockvam agreed and said maybe the physical aspect or ease of construction would be better on the other side of the street. He said the trees should not be planted until the location of the path is determined. Mork Bredeson said the residents would be pleased with anything that would make Sunset Drive safer. She pointed out the west side would not have as much • excavation because there are less slopes. Rockvam suggested using spray paint instead of stakes to mark the area. Weeks asked the Council if they would be Council/Planning Commission — 1/22/01 2 • willing to spend a small amount of money on the start of a master plan or check the right-of-way first. Rockvam said the county right-of-way should be checked first and see if the City can have an answer by March. He said it would be simpler to have the path on county property. Hovelsrud suggested planting flowers at each end of Sunset and work with business owners to assist. Rockvam said he was not against this but he asked who would maintain the flowers after they are planted. Widmer suggested asking if there might be interested senior citizens at Presbyterian Homes. Weeks said Norling has ideas for the area by the traffic signal at Sunset and Shoreline. Rockvam said to check with Buttenhoff for permission. A brief discussion followed about planting flowers at the other end of Sunset at Shadywood. Anderson pointed out the less than attractive signs and businesses on Spring Street and the fact they are more noticeable from Shoreline since the construction of the parking lot. Rockvam said it is hard to get compliance from the property owners in that area. He said redevelopment of Spring Street would solve the problem but right now it is all private property. Anderson asked about the billboard on Shoreline Drive. He xvas told the lease is up in April and the property owner does not want to renew it. Sheridan asked if the City is willing to participate in condemnation for the area on Spring St. • Rockvam said personally he is not interested, but working with a developer to see what can be done is of interest to him. He said the entire City is included in the TIF District and the City would do what they could to help a developer. Rockvam pointed out the end result of the Balboa Building, now Tonka Ventures, occurred without any input by the City although the City had discussed that building several times. Weeks said the City would not be negative to anyone who would like to discuss the development of Spring Street as a whole package. Sheridan asked if vacating the street was a possibility. Rockvam said this has been previously proposed. He said the businesses on Spring Street rely on the traffic from the street. Rockvam concluded the discussion on a beautification plan for Sunset Drive and said he would like questions answered regarding the county property and right-of-way and a plan presented to the Planning Commission in March. Rockvam asked if there were any questions regarding policies and philosophies. Hovelsrud noted the Council Chambers should be redecorated. He added it looks drab when viewing it on television. Sheridan asked if the Council has concerns with Planning Commission recommendations on variances. Rockvam said the Planning Commission should keep in mind they don't always have to grant variances, and conditions should be unique to the property. He stated the Planner has been asked to do the findings on variances to maintain consistency. Rockvam said the Council has never had any hard feelings with the Planning Commission. • Council/Planning Commission — 1/22/01 3 • He advised the Planning Commission if they need more time to study a request, they should take the time. A brief discussion ensued regarding the variance and conditional use request from the property owner at 4372 West Arm Road. Rockvam pointed out it was an oversight on the City's part that allowed the building permit to be issued. He said the property owner was then requested to submit an application for a conditional use permit. Rockvam said elevations are not required for variances and a second story on the building was never discussed. Also discussed was allowing water and sewer to be in an accessory structure. Hovelsrud suggested reviewing the side yard setback requirement. Rockvam pointed out the town homes on West Arm Drive as an example for discussion. He said they are all ten feet from their property line and there is twenty feet between each building. Rockvam said it would be more congested if it were less than 20 feet. Hovelsrud asked if the City is going to be more restrictive with variances. Mork Bredeson said a policy should definitely be established requiring elevations for variance applications. It was agreed and this will be required on future variance applications. Mork Bredeson noted a past variance and the fact the Planner noted the hardship was the size of the property. She said she found this very alarming and said • almost every property in the City was undersized. She added she was pleased the Planner is involved with variance requests. Rockvam said one has to understand the individual variance to apply the hardship and that same hardship does not necessarily apply to another case. Rockvam verified a policy decision concerning the aesthetic appearance of the outside of businesses and that policy now requires all businesses applying for a building permit for interior or exterior work to include a landscape plan Rockvam asked the Planning Commission if they are interested in a theme for the City. He stated new building permit applications would have to comply with the plan. Sheridan said a new development guideline would be expensive to put in place. Rockvam pointed out the City has spent $65,000 to $70,000 for trees on Shoreline Drive, $20,000 to $25,000 on the fence for screening across the street from City Hall, and $35,000 to $50,000 on improving the front steps, all toward the beautification of the City. Hovelsrud asked what could be done about after the fact sign permits that come before the Planning Commission. Rockvam said the fee should be tripled and if the sign is not right it should be denied. Motion by Rockvam seconded by Scanlon to charge $200 for a sign permit if • the sign has been installed before the Planning Commission has approved it. Council/Planning Commission— 1/22/01 4 • Upon roll call Hoffman and Stone voted no, Scanlon, Widmer and Rockvam voted aye. Motion declared carried. Mork Bredeson said she is concerned with after the fact circumstances where the person is pleading ignorance and not presenting an honest approach to the matter. A discussion ensued as to what defines a permanent sign and what defines a temporary sign. Rockvam said to check with the Planner for a definition of a temporary sign. b) Ordinance Amendment, Sect. 3, Subd. D, #2 ("An accessory building shall be considered an integral part of the principal building if it is connected to the main building by a covered passageway.") Rockvam recommended this be deleted from the ordinance. Karpas said it is a common phrase because it gives people more flexibility. Rockvam asked if a resolution is needed to do this. Weeks said all ordinance amendments need a public hearing. Motion by Stone seconded by Widmer to instruct the Administrator to schedule a public hearing to amend the ordinance deleting the above- mentioned statement. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. c) City's 501h Anniversary, August 21, 2001 . Rockvam said it was a good idea to do something. Weeks said ideas and volunteers are needed to help coordinate the event. Rockvam asked the Council and Planning Commission to think about this. Hovelsrud said Thor Thompson Park could be used. Sheridan suggested placing signs at the entrances to the City. Rockvam said to put this on the next agenda so an appeal can be made to the viewing public. d) Miscellaneous Widmer asked when the railing would be completed for the front steps. Weeks said it would be installed by the end of the month. Rockvam said the color of the stucco has to be changed. Weeks added the landscaping would be done in the spring and the color of the stucco will be changed. Rockvam said the City should design a website. Hoffman said he has designed and maintains three websites. Anderson asked if the name "Spring Park' could be taken off the depot and put on top of the Tonka Building. Rockvam said that is private property. He added if the trail head is located in Spring Park, it is possible the City can request a sign on the end of a new building. Hoffman asked if the City could request the new building be designed like an old depot. Rockvam asked if there was anything else • the Planning Commission would like to discuss. Hoffman suggested the Planner Council/Planning Commission— 1/22/01 5 • attend the next joint meeting. Rockvam concluded the plan for Sunset Drive should get started before summer. 5. COUNCIL BUSINESS a) Resolution 01-08 —Municipal Recycling Grant Motion by Stone municipal grant seconded by Widmer to approve Resolution 01-08, application. Upon roll call Hoffman, Stone, Scanlon, Widmer and Rockvam voted aye. Motion declared carried. b) Additional Water Patrol Rockvam asked the Council if they would like to vote on the issue. He said the previous Council voted against the City participating in funding additional water patrol. Scanlon said he was against it because he felt it was a county issue, not a City issue. Stone stated she was concerned with setting a precedent. Rockvam pointed out the time it takes to process arrests is longer because special deputies can no longer do this. He asked if the Council would like to vote or let the vote by the previous Council stand. Widmer said she would be willing to approve it for one year but not two years if the City felt it would make a difference. Hoffman stated exposure helps but agreed with Scanlon that the county should provide the funding. Stone questioned the county would continue coverage after the two-year problem period. Rockvam said the LMCD should put this in their • budget. Widmer asked if a precedent would be set if the City agreed to the funding. Weeks said if the issue has to do with health and welfare, the City can choose. Rockvam recommended the City Attorney be asked if it is legal for the City to fund the additional water patrol. Weeks will check on this. 6. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Stone seconded by Widmer to adjourn the meeting at 9:45 p.m. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. SHARON CORL SECRETARY ILLIAM D. WEEKS ADMINISTRATOR/CLERK/TREASURER • Council/Planning Commission— 1/22/01 6 • CITY OF SPRING PARK SPRING PARK, MINNESOTA AGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 14, 2001 7:30 P.M.—CITY HALL 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL 3. ADOPT AGENDA 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES—January 10, 2001 5. PLANNING COMMISSION a) Sign Permit Application—Lord Fletcher's Restaurant, 3746 Sunset Drive b) Ordinance Amendment Section#3, Subd. D#2 1. Open Public Hearing 2. Discussion& Comments • a) NAC—3/8/01 3. Close Public Hearing 4. Recommendation to Council 6. COMMUNICATIONS a) Council Minutes—3/5/01 b) Channel 8 Schedule 7. MISCELLANEOUS 8. ADJOURNMENT • Planning Commission 3/14/01 1 • CITY OF SPRING PARK SPRING PARK, MINNESOTA MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 14, 2001 7:30 P.M.—CITY HALL 1. CALL TO ORDER Chair Anderson called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL Anderson, Karpas, Sheridan, Ex-Officio Stone were present; Nasset arrived after the roll was taken,Nelson was excused, and Mork Bredeson and Hovelsrud were absent. Staff present: Secretary Cori. 3. ADOPT AGENDA Motion by Anderson seconded by Karpas to adopt the agenda. All votes were • aye. Motion declared carried. 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES—January 10, 2001 Motion by Sheridan seconded by Karpas to approve the minutes for the Planning Commission Meeting January 10, 2001. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. 5. PLANNING COMMISSION a) Sign Permit Application—Lord Fletcher's Restaurant, 3746 Sunset Drive Anderson and Karpas viewed the site where the sign will be placed. Karpas stated the City's sign ordinance is generous with the height allowance for signs. He asked what colors were going to be used on the sign. The secretary said a representative from the sign company was supposed to be present with a colored copy of the sign. Karpas said he did not have a problem approving the sign. He added the height seems to be the same as the existing sign. Anderson said Lord Fletcher's is a good business neighbor and would not install a sign that was not in compliance. Karpas noted the sign would not be illuminated. Anderson asked if there was any further discussion. Having none the following motion was made. Motion by Karpas seconded by Sheridan to approve the sign permit application for Lord Fletcher's Restaurant, 3746 Sunset Drive. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. Planning Commission —3/14/01 1 • Tom Steinke, Edison Sign Co., arrived late and asked to discuss the proposed sign. He showed the Commissioners a color copy of the sign and said it will be the same size as the existing sign, they will be using the existing pole and the second pole will go toward the building two feet in from the existing pole. He said the theme of the sign will be a"lodge" theme, the letters will be gold painted aluminum outlined in black and lattice work will be built in. He added the sign will be in a stone planter and vines would be planted. He displayed samples of what the letters would look like. Karpas said a color copy of signs should be included with sign applications because it looks better. Sheridan asked how the sign would be lighted. Steinke said a curved goose-neck light would be place on the top of the sign and will not block any visual portion of the sign. He added Naegele wants everything completed by March 29th and the restaurant will officially open April9th b) Ordinance Amendment Section#3, Subd. D#2 1. Open Public Hearing Chair Anderson opened the public hearing at 7:34 p.m. He read the following notice published in the Lakeshore Weekly News: NOTICE is hereby given that the Planning Commission will hold a public hearing at the Spring Park City Hall, 4349 Warren Avenue, on Wednesday • March 14, 2001, at 7:30 p.m: or as soon thereafter as possible to hear comments for or against amending the Zoning Ordinance by eliminating the following in Section 3, Subdivision D, #2 which states "An accessory building shall be considered an integral part of the principal building if it is connected to the main building by a covered passageway". It was noted there were no oral or written communications received by the office. 2. Discussion&Comments a) NAC—3/8/01 Sheridan asked why the proposed amendment is being considered. The Secretary said the property owner that recently built a garage on West Arm Road pointed out he could attach his garage to his house by a covered walkway and his garage would be considered part of his principle structure. It was pointed out the Council did not think this was the intent of the ordinance and this part should be repealed. Karpas said if that property owner could not meet the setbacks he would not have been able to have the covered passageway. Anderson asked if everyone has read the recommendation from the Planner. Sheridan stated he felt this was a poor way to go about dealing with an ordinance. He added if you start dealing with ordinances with cross references like this and start to take parts • of it out and do not analyze the entire affect it has on the overall ordinance Planning Commission—3/14/O1 2 • structure you run into problems. He said the language is there for a reason, it is specific language and not just there because someone decided it should be. Sheridan stated before any decision is made on repealing this, the history should be researched as to why it was put in the ordinance. He said he is not sure what the City is trying to avoid by taking it out of the ordinance. Sheridan pointed out the Planner stated there is no limitation on size for principal structures but this is not correct. He said in an R-1 District there is a lot size minimum, a lot area coverage maximum and also a height restriction. He pointed out if the property owner on West Arm Road wanted to construct a covered passageway he would have to meet hardcover requirements. Sheridan said he did not agree with the Planner's analysis and said the City's legal counsel should look at this. He said this is not the type of reaction that should be taken and he is opposed to it. Sheridan pointed out in the Planner's recommendation the total accumulative floor area does not change anything. He added this is not included in the public notice so he does not think it can be acted upon. Karpas agreed with Sheridan and stated he does not like the language of the recommendation because if an applicant wanted to build a rambler with a breezeway they could not attach a garage. He said if this is a reaction to one incident it is not good planning. He said he does not support this and would • like to see something else besides repealing#2 and adding#3. Anderson asked for a motion. Motion by Karpas seconded by Nasset to table the proposed amendment to the Zoning Ordinance Section 3, Subdivision D #2 until the history of it being in the ordinance is provided and a legal analysis is provided. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. In discussion Nasset agreed with Karpas concerning the language. Karpas asked if the proposed amendment was a problem or a reaction to a specific incident. Sheridan said there are two issues. One of them is the overall necessity for repealing the amendment and include the history as to why it was originally included in the ordinance. He said the other issue is the effect of removing or repealing this on the overall ordinance structure as it exists without having an adverse affect and the City Attorney should definitely provide an analysis. He added if the ordinance is going to be amended with an addition it should be looked at how it integrates into the ordinance structure. He pointed out this amendment refers only to an R-1 District. Sheridan again said what is being added to the ordinance should also be included in the public hearing notice. He agreed with Karpas that it is not a good policy to piecemeal the ordinance and not look at the overall affect it • Planning Commission—3/14/01 3 • will have on the entire ordinance structure. Karpas said it was being reactionary to include it in only one residential district. 3. Close Public Hearing Chair Anderson closed the public hearing at 7:50 p.m. 4. Recommendation to Council - Tabled 6. COMMUNICATIONS The following communications were noted: a) Council Minutes—3/5/01 b) Channel 8 Schedule 7. MISCELLANEOUS Karpas said this was his second meeting and he would like to see more complete information provided on the sign permit applications. The Secretary said the City is looking for a Chairperson to organize the City's 50`1' Anniversary. Nasset volunteered some time but not to chair the event. • 8. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Nasset seconded by Karpas to adjourn the meeting at 8:06 p.m. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. 0 7t,/ SHARON CORL SECRETARY • Planning Commission—3/14/01 4 CITY OF SPRING PARK SPRING PARK,MINNESOTA AGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 9, 2001 7:30 P.M.—CITY HALL 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL 3. ADOPT AGENDA 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES—March 14, 2001 5. PLANNING COMMISSION a) Recommendation To Council Re: Zoning Ordinance Amendment Sect. 3, Subd. D#2 1. Head, Seifert&Vander Weide — 5/4/01 • 6. COMMUNICATIONS a) Board of Review Minutes—4/9/01 b) Council Minutes—4/16/01 c) City Calendar—May 7. MISCELLANEOUS a) Clean Up Parks for City Spring Clean Up b) Anniversary Committee Report 8. ADJOURNMENT . CITY OF SPRING PARK SPRING PARK, MINNESOTA MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 9,2001 7:30 P.M.—CITY HALL 1. CALL TO ORDER Acting Chair Mork Bredeson called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL Mork Bredeson, Nelson, Sheridan, Hovelsrud, Karpas, Nasset and Ex-Officio Stone were present. Anderson was excused. Staff present: Secretary Corl. 3. ADOPT AGENDA Motion by Nasset seconded by Sheridan to adopt the agenda. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. • 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES—March 14, 2001 Motion by Karpas seconded by Hovelsrud to approve the minutes for the Planning Commission Meeting March 14, 2001. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. 5. PLANNING COMMISSION a) Recommendation To Council Re: Zoning Ordinance Amendment Sect. 3, Subd. D#2 Mork Bredeson asked for background and was told the Planning Commission had tabled the ordinance amendment discussion and requested an opinion from the City Attorney. Karpas asked for the exact wording from the Ordinance. Stone read the following from the Zoning Ordinance: "An accessory building shall be considered an integral part of the principle building if it is connected to the main building by a covered passageway". Karpas suggested inserting the word "not" after "shall" instead of rewriting that part of the ordinance. He said this would make it clear that it is an accessory structure. Sheridan asked when the Zoning Ordinance is going to be reviewed. The Secretary said it is on pending project list. Mork Bredeson asked if a covered walkway should be defined. She said it could be an awning or plantings. Sheridan pointed out the Attorney stated that Section 3, Subd. D (2) is ambiguous. He said the problem is because there are terms that are not defined and if the ordinance is going to be Planning Commission —5/9/01 1 changed it should be done by a professional. Sheridan stated he is not comfortable • adding words and sentences. He said an attorney would look for conflict in terms and other law to come up with correct wording. He added it is not up to the Planning Commission to draft language. Nasset agreed a professional should draft the language. Karpas asked if the proposed amendment is a result of a certain situation and was told it probably was. Mork Bredeson asked for a motion. Sheridan said there has to be a motion to take it off the table. Motion by Sheridan seconded by Hovelsrud to have the motion remain on the table and to ask the City Attorney to draft proposed language to clear up the ambiguities. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. 6. COMMUNICATIONS The following communications were noted: a) Board of Review Minutes—4/9/01 b) Council Minutes—4/16/01 c) City Calendar—May 7. MISCELLANEOUS a) Clean Up Parks for City Spring Clean Up Mork Bredeson said she would recruit neighbors to clean up Thor Thompson Park and possibly Wilkes Park. She said if anyone is interested in helping her to call • her. Nasset reminded everyone of Hennepin County's Household Hazardous Waste spring collection. b) Anniversary Committee Report Nasset reported the date for the City's 50th Anniversary is August 19th at Thor Thompson Park. Family participation is going to be promoted and area businesses are being asked to participate. c) Miscellaneous Nelson expressed appreciation for the new flag at Thor Thompson Park. Hovelsrud asked when the landscaping in the front of City Hall would be done. He was told it would be done after the stucco work is redone. Nasset inquired about the Beautification Plan for Sunset Drive. She said her neighbors are all misinformed. Stone said the Planning Commission should be involved or at least be aware of the plans for the project. Karpas asked who in the City would be the person most informed on the proposed plan. Stone said the Administrator would be the one to call. Hovelsrud asked if there was a plan. Stone briefly explained the original thought was the City was to give Norling direction regarding designing a plan on Sunset starting at the Park and going to the railroad tracks. After further discussion they decided against doing this. She • said the county right-of-way has been marked so a better idea of where it is can be Planning Commission —5/9/01 2 seen. She explained Hoffman did a background check on the trail system in Eden • Prairie. Hovelsrud made reference to a letter a resident had sent the Planning Commissioners and said the resident was not entirely wrong with his thinking. He said eventually a pedestrian lane should be established. Mork Bredeson agreed this is a potential safety issue and said direction from the county would be helpful. Karpas asked if residents have been surveyed for their opinion. He also asked how many people want such a plan on Sunset Drive. Mork Bredeson asked if the City is soliciting opinions and was told they will be taken at an appropriate time. 8. ADJOUORNMENT Motion by Hovelsrud seconded by Sheridan to adjourn the meeting at 7:49 p.m. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. • SHARON CORL SECRETARY • Planning Commission —5/9/01 3 CITY OF SPRING PARK • SPRING PARK,MINNESOTA AGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 13,2001 7:30 P.M.—CITY HALL 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL 3. ADOPT AGENDA 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES—May 9, 2001 5. PLANNING COMMISSION a) Sign Permit Application— Shoreline Auto,4500 Shoreline Drive b) Sign Permit Application—Blue Lagoon, 4480 Shoreline Drive c) Recommendation to Council Re: Zoning Ordinance Amendment Sect. 3, Subd. D #2 1. Head, Seifert&Vander Weide • 6. COMMUNICATIONS a) Council Minutes—5/7/01 b) Council Minutes—5/21/01 c) Council Minutes—6/4/01 d) MCWD Re: Spring Park Team, Water Quality&Pollutants— 5/21/01 e) Schoell &Madson Re: Sunset Drive Enhancement—6/4/01 7. MISCELLANEOUS a) 50t'Anniversary Celebration Update 8. ADJOURNMENT • • CITY OF SPRING PARK SPRING PARK,MINNESOTA MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JUNE 13, 2001 7:30 P.M.—CITY HALL 1. CALL TO ORDER Chair Anderson called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL Anderson, Nelson, Sheridan, Hovelsrud, Karpas, Nasset and Ex-Officio Stone were present. Mork Bredeson was excused. Staff present: Secretary Corl. 3. ADOPT AGENDA Motion by Hovelsrud seconded by Karpas to adopt the agenda. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. • 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES—May 9, 2001 Motion by Karpas seconded by Nasset to approve the minutes for the Planning Commission Meeting May 9, 2001. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. 5. PLANNING COMMISSION a) Sign Permit—Spring Park Auto, 4500 Shoreline Drive Application included parking plan and landscape plan. Tom Plantikow from Spring Park Auto was present. Hovelsrud asked Plantikow if he owned or leased the property and was told he recently purchased it. Karpas asked what hours the sign would be lit. Plantikow said the sign would be on from dusk to dawn. Karpas asked what the ordinance said regarding lit signs. Corl said it could be lit but not have flashing lights on it. Motion by Karpas seconded by Nelson to approve the sign permit application for Spring Park Auto,4500 Shoreline Drive as submitted. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. b) Sign Permit—Blue Lagoon,4480 Shoreline Drive Application included parking plan. The Commissioners were told the sign would be moved from Blue Lagoon's • property next door. Hovelsrud asked if a landscape plan was submitted and was Planning Commission Meeting—6/13/01 1 • told it has not been submitted. Anderson said the application could be approved contingent upon submittal of the landscape plan. Nasset pointed out there is no change in the sign they are just upgrading it. Motion by Nasset seconded by Sheridan to approve the sign permit application for Blue Lagoon contingent upon submission and approval of their landscape plan. In discussion Karpas asked who verifies the landscaping and the parking plans. He was told this is done administratively. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. c) Recommendation to Council Re: Zoning Ordinance Amendment Sect. 3, Subd. D #2 1. Head, Seifert& Vander Weide—6/7/01 Nasset asked if the second part is being proposed or if it is already in the ordinance. Sheridan said it is being suggested as an alternative option. Anderson asked if there were any further observations to be discussed. Karpas said he did not have a problem with an enclosed walkway or breezeway connecting to the garage and calling it a structure. • Hovelsrud asked what the Planning Commission is looking for. Sheridan said the Planning Commission requested language recommendation from the City Attorney. Anderson stated a recommendation to the Council has to be made. Hovelsrud pointed out #3 on the Attorney's recommended revision, a covered walkway does not change the status of the accessory building. Nasset said she thinks the Attorney explains it well. Hovelsrud asked if he wanted to put in a garage at the end of his driveway and include a walkway would footings be required for it. He was told that requirement is covered by the state building code. Karpas said a covered walkway is part of the accessory building. Hovelsrud expressed concern if a property owner constructs a walkway and the next owner wants to enclose into living space. Anderson asked if more information should be requested before a recommendation is given to the Council. Karpas said he supports item #'s 1, 2 and 4 but not #3. He added #3 confuses it. Sheridan said if #1 is taken out, #3 has to remain or at least language along the same lines should be added. He said the language on the second page the Council could consider. He stated if they are going to accept #1, there has to be language to address what is being deleted. Karpas said he agreed but not with this language. He stated if the common person couldn't understand the language it is too confusing and it is not a good policy to use it. He said if someone constructs living space in a garage it • should not be considered an accessory structure and the recommendation Planning Commission Meeting—6/13/01 2 needs something less confusing. Hovelsrud said it was confusing. Sheridan isdisagreed and said it was clear and when someone connects an accessory building it still remains an accessory building. He said the last sentence deals only with floor area and page two addresses the floor area if the area is enclosed. Karpas asked if someone connects an existing garage to a house within the ordinance why would it be considered an existing structure. Sheridan said this recommendation is designed to solve extreme situations. He added if something is within reason and want to connect a garage and a house, so be it. He said he has not been in favor of this proposed amendment from the start because it is a reaction from an incident. He said it is bad policy to "knee jerk". Nelson said it makes more sense to leave #2 in the ordinance and she understands it better than the new recommendation. Hovelsrud said he would view the garage on West Arm Road as another house on the property if it would have sewer, water and heat. Anderson asked if this should be tabled. Sheridan said it should be taken off the table and he would recommend not changing the ordinance. Motion by Sheridan seconded by Nasset to take the recommendation to the Council off the table. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. • Motion by Sheridan seconded by Nelson to recommend to the Council that the proposed ordinance amendment Sect. 3, Subd. D #3 not be changed. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. 6. COMMUNICATIONS The following communications were noted: a) Council Minutes—5/7/01 b) Council Minutes—5/21/01 Hovelsrud commented he remembered the last time the milfoil harvesters started the season in Spring Park. He said the process they used for cutting only spread the milfoil all over the bay. Nelson said the milfoil should not be as bad this year because of the past winter and the high water level of the lake. In another matter Karpas said Shorewood was trying to get legislation passed limiting phosphorous use in fertilizers and the effort was turned down this session. c) Council Minutes—6/4/01 d) MCWD Re: Spring Park Team, Water Quality & Pollutants e) Schoell & Madson Re: Sunset Drive Enhancement—6/4/01 Nasset asked if the Sunset Drive enhancement would be implemented this year. Stone said it was doubtful. Nasset asked the status of the railroad corridor • Planning Commission Meeting—6/13/01 3 • becoming a trail system and whom she should ask for information. She was told to start with the City Administrator. Hovelsrud asked if the Council agreed with the Engineer's proposal. Stone said they did and verified that the proposal is a feasibility study. She said the Council would have a joint meeting with the Planning Commission regarding Sunset Drive's enhancement. 7. MISCELLANEOUS a) 50`h Anniversary Celebration Update The committee reported on the proposed activities. 8. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Nelson seconded by Karpas to adjourn the meeting at 8:12 p.m. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. SHARON CORL SECRETARY • Planning Commission Meeting—6/13/O1 4 CITY OF SPRING PARK • SPRING PARK, MINNESOTA AGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 8, 2001 7:30 P.M.—CITY HALL 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL 3. ADOPT AGENDA 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES—June 13, 2001 5. PLANNING COMMISSION a) Sign Permit Application— Shape Up For Women, 4675 Shoreline Drive (Marina Center) 6. COMMUNICATIONS a) Council Minutes—7/18/01 ' b) August Calendar c) Ordinance Amendment 62.10 (Please put in your Zoning Ordinance Book) d) Letter Resignation—Rick Sheridan 7. MISCELLANEOUS 8. ADJOURNMENT • CITY OF SPRING PARK • SPRING PARK,MINNESOTA MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AUGUST 8, 2001 7:30 P.M.—CITY HALL 1. CALL TO ORDER Chair Anderson called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL Mork Bredeson, Anderson, Nelson, Karpas, and Ex-Officio Stone were present, Hovelsrud was absent and Nasset arrived after the roll was taken. 3. ADOPT AGENDA Motion by Karpas seconded by Nelson to adopt the agenda. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. • 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES—June 13, 2001 Motion by Karpas seconded by Mork Bredeson to approve the minutes for the Planning Commission Meeting June 13, 2001. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. 5. PLANNING COMMISSION a) Sign Permit Application, Shape Up For Women, 4675 Shoreline Drive (Marina Center) Motion by Karpas seconded by Mork Bredeson to approve the sign permit application as presented. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. The Secretary explained the nature of the business and that the owners could not attend. 6. COMMUNICATIONS The following communications were noted: a) Council Minutes—7/18/01 b) August Calendar c) Ordinance Amendment 62.10 (Please put in your Zoning Ordinance Book) • d) Letter Resignation—Rick Sheridan Planning Commission—8/8/01 1 • 7. MISCELLANEOUS The Secretary announced that t-shirts with the City logo on them were for sale for $3.00 each. Anderson said the grass is brown around the parking lot on Shoreline and Sunset and something should be done about it. It was explained that is private property. Mork Bredeson asked if there were any issues on the Sunset Drive project. Stone said the City Engineer prepared a preliminary feasibility report. She said the county prefers the street to have 8-foot shoulders. Stone said the focus would be on three options selected from the report. The engineer will have the estimated cost portion of the feasibility study done in two to three months. Mork Bredeson asked if residents have expressed concerns. Stone said they have expressed a problem with foot traffic from Lord Fletcher's Restaurant and some residents don't want the path on their side of the street. 8. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Karpas seconded by Mork Bredeson to adjourn the meeting at 7:42 p.m. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. • SHARON CORL SECRETARY • Planning Commission— 8/8/01 2 CITY OF SPRING PARK • SPRING PARK, MINNESOTA AGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OCTOBER 10, 2001 7:30 P.M.—CITY HALL 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL OATH OF OFFICE—Evalina Klein 3. ADOPT AGENDA 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES—August 8, 2001 5. PLANNING COMMISSION a) Sign Permit Application, Lake Minnetonka Quality Motors, 4642 Shoreline Drive 6. COMMUNICATIONS • a) Council Minutes—9/17/01 b) Special Meeting Minutes— 9/17/01 c) Budget Minutes—9/24/01 d) Council Minutes— 10/1/01 e) October Calendar f) Newsletter Fall 2001 7. MISCELLANEOUS 8. ADJOURNMENT • • CITY OF SPRING PARK SPRING PARK, MINNESOTA MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 10, 2001 7:30 P.M.—CITY HALL 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL Anderson, Hovelsrud, Karpas, Nasset, Klein and Ex-Officio Stone were present. Mork Bredeson and Nelson were excused. Staff present: Sharon Corl, Secretary. OATH OF OFFICE—Evalina Klein Corl gave Klein the oath of office. 3. ADOPT AGENDA • Motion by Nasset seconded by Karpas to adopt the agenda. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES—August 8, 2001 Motion by Karpas seconded by Hovelsrud to approve the minutes for the Planning Commission Meeting August 8, 2001. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. S. PLANNING COMMISSION a) Sign Permit Application, Lake Minnetonka Quality Motors,4642 Shoreline Drive Matthew LaJoy, owner of Lake Minnetonka Quality Motors, was present. Karpas asked if a pylon was located on the property. LaJoy said there is one that has never been used. Nasset asked if he was taking over the entire drive in area for his business. LaJoy said he was using the property east of the east of drive in that the building was located on. Motion by Nasset seconded by Karpas to approve to sign permit application for Lake Minnetonka Quality Motors, 4642 Shoreline Drive. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. 6. COMMUNICATIONS The following communications were noted: • a) Council Minutes—9/17/01 Planning Commission — 10/10/01 1 Nasset referred to the status of the railroad and the trail. This was briefly • discussed. b) Special Meeting Minutes—9/17/01 Nasset asked if anyone has been hired for the Utility Superintendent position. Stone said D.J. Goman, David's son, has been hired. c) Budget Minutes—9/24/01 Stone commented there is going to be more meeting(s) on the budget. d) Council Minutes— 10/1/01 e) October Calendar f) Newsletter Fall 2001 7. MISCELLANEOUS Stone suggested a motion be made to have a joint meeting with the Council on the Sunset Drive proposed project after the feasibility study has been received and before the public hearing. Motion by Nasset seconded by Klein to hold a joint meeting with the Council regarding the feasibility study on the Sunset Drive proposed project before the public hearing. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. In another matter Anderson recommended the Planning Commission meetings begin with the pledge of allegiance. He said he would like to implement this as part of protocol for the meetings. The Commissioners agreed. • Motion by Anderson seconded by Karpas to begin the Planning Commission meetings with the pledge of allegiance. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. 8. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Karpas seconded by Hovelsrud to adjourn the meeting at 7:42 p.m. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. SHARON CORL SECRETARY • Planning Commission— 10/10/01 2 No.206-Oath of City Officer • Election Systems and Software 1-891-8225 State of Minnesota, l County of.....Hennepin.......................... sr. City of Spring Park ................................................... I, ..... Evalina Klein.................................................................... .do solemnly swear ............................................. that I will support the Constitution of the United States and of the State of Minnesota, and faithfully discharge the duties of the office of..P l ann i n.g .......Commi ss i o n e r ................... ofthe.....C.lty...........of .. Spring..Park...................in the County of........Hennepin ................... and State of Minnesota, to the best of my judgment and ability. So help me God. Term expires December 31 , 2002 .............................................................................................................................. .............................................................................................................................. .............................................................................................................................. .............................................................................................................................. .............................................................................................................................. .............................................................................................................................. ............................. ................................................................................................ Subscribed and sworn to before me this 1.0th....day of..October ........year.2001 Sharon Corl.................................. .......EyaIAn.a.Klein. a, ........ . .... . Deputy Clerk ...................................................... Countyof.................................... ............of ................................. ................................................ ................................................ ................................................ • Oath of City Officer Filed this ............................day of ................................... . Year...... ................................................ ................................................ • CITY OF SPRING PARK • SPRING PARK,MINNESOTA AGENDA COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 26, 2001 7:30 P.M.—CITY HALL 1. CALL TO ORDER Pledge of Allegiance 2. ROLL CALL a) Council b) Planning Commission 3. ADOPT AGENDA 4. DISCUSSION a) Preliminary Engineering Report— Sunset Drive 5. MISCELLANEOUS • 6. ADJOURNMENT • CITY OF SPRING PARK • SPRING PARK, MINNESOTA MINUTES COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 26, 2001 7:30 P.M.—CITY HALL 1. CALL TO ORDER Pledge of Allegiance Mayor Rockvam called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. followed by the pledge of allegiance. 2. ROLL CALL a) Council Hoffman, Stone, Scanlon, Widmer and Rockvam were present. b) Planning Commission Anderson, Mork Bredeson, Nelson, Hovelsrud, and Karpas were present. Nasset arrived after the roll was taken. Staff present: Administrator Weeks and Secretary Corl. Ross Fairbrother and Ken Adolf from Schoell & Madson were present. 3. ADOPT AGENDA Motion by Stone seconded by Widmer to adopt the agenda. All votes were all. Motion declared carried. 4. DISCUSSION a) Preliminary Engineering Report—Sunset Drive Rockvam stated the purpose of the meeting is to go over the Engineering report and review the Planning Commissioners opinions. He reviewed the fact that the Council and Planning Commission have a joint meeting once or twice a year. He asked the Planning Commission if there was anything else they want to discuss in addition to Sunset Drive. Anderson said his concern is the depot. Rockvam briefly reviewed the Roadside Enhancement Partnership Program, which outlines the funds available from Hennepin County that can be used to enhance Sunset Drive. He said the Council has been looking for safer passage for pedestrians on Sunset Drive. He stated that five options were narrowed to three options and the City Engineer was authorized to do a feasibility study on the three options. Rockvam said the Council reviewed the cost breakdowns on each proposal from the engineer and pointed out another option is to do nothing. Council & Planning Commission— 11/26/01 1 Anderson said he did not feel the cul de sac idea from resident Ron Keagle, 3829 • Sunset Drive, was a good idea. Rockvam said that opinion was not going to be discussed. Fairbrother displayed on the overhead different streetscape views of Sunset Drive to help generate discussion. The pictures depicted different situations that would have to be dealt with in the different options such as visual clutter, overhead lines and power poles, the need for retaining walls, narrow shoulder areas, example of where a retaining wall will have to be used, overall scope of the street built up on each side, less than desirable shoulder widths, where property owners have adopted portions of right-of-way as their property, cutting into existing hillsides, fill or add new retaining walls, down grade and up grade driveways, utility pole removal. He displayed examples of no shoulder with sidewalk directly behind curb and gutter, a widened shoulder with bituminous curb and bituminous sidewalk, in place of shoulder a concrete sidewalk and a mail carrier mounting the curb to deliver to the mail boxes, green space between the shoulder and sidewalk. Scanlon asked what is more expensive adding to or digging into a hill. Adolf said the cost per square foot for excavating a wall is about the same. He added lower walls holding up an embankment is concerning. Rockvam asked what would the construction of the retaining walls consist of and Fairbrother said it would be something like keystone. Rockvam asked where mailboxes would be placed if concrete sidewalks were used. Fairbrother referred to the picture of the mail truck on the sidewalk. Rockvam said the City has taken the position of not getting involved with a neighborhood street unless residents have made a request. He stated the Council wants a walkway safe for pedestrians. He reviewed the cost of each of the three options. Rockvam said the character of changes on Sunset Drive is dramatic and for example he pointed out a sidewalk on the northwest side of the street would work in some places but in other areas a sidewalk on the opposite side would work better. He stated a concern of the council is cost and maintenance of sidewalks and the widening of the shoulders only sounds appealing to do. Hovelsrud said there are two issues and they are beautification and safety and he thinks burying the utility lines is critical. Mork Bredeson agreed and asked how much will the City be funding. Hovelsrud asked how much the county is funding and both were told we haven't reached that point yet. Fairbrother said the figures on costs from the county are speculative figures and the county will fund up to $300,000 per center line mile and $187,000 for burying utility lines and the condition is to show them the City is encouraging bicycle use. Karpas said Option 1 there is no clear separation of the curb. Fairbrother said that is acceptable to the county. Hovelsrud said there are drainage issues on Sunset Drive. Nelson said if the shoulders have to be 6 to 8 feet minimum we don't need • Council & Planning Commission— 11/26/01 2 sidewalks. Nasset said the cost to residents makes a difference as to what option • she would be in favor of. Rockvam referred to the three paragraphs in the study that discussed what the county would pay. Fairbrother said one option is not burying utilities. Karpas said it has to be either or. Fairbrother pointed out the maximum for burying utility lines is $187,000. Stone pointed out Fairbrother said wider shoulders would qualify for a safety issue for funding. She said street light installation also qualifies. Hoffman said he estimated approximately $220,000 of funding from the county. Fairbrother said a discussion should take place with Bob Byers, from Hennepin County. Adolf said another option is the county may look at Sunset Drive as an improvement in their capital improvement budget without cost to residents or the City and this would get the City part of what we want. He added getting the utilities buried will have to be pursued separately but this approach is a cost effective approach for the City. Adolf said patience has to be exercised because the project has to be put into their capital improvements program, which may require waiting even three to five years. Rockvam said the only thing with Option 1 is there is no curb between the widened shoulder and the ground and no provision for run off water. Adolf said bituminous curbing would have to be installed. Rockvam said bituminous • curbing is fine but it does not have the assurance like concrete, however, this may be a county expense to maintain if they do the proposal. He also pointed out there is no physical barrier between pedestrians and traffic. Hovelsrud said a 6 or 8-foot shoulder to the road would give a feeling of safety but it would not correct all objectives. Scanlon stated there is not a big difference dollar wise in the three options. He said if the shoulder was narrowed from 8 feet to 4 feet and a curb and sidewalk were constructed there would be a barrier between pedestrians and traffic. He added the residents would use the road more. Scanlon said he feels the City should do something even if it is just widening road and the City should not pay for everything, the residents on Sunset Drive should pay for some of the enhancement. Anderson asked whom the safety was for. Scanlon said it was for pedestrians and it would increase safety because the shoulder is wider. Nelson said sidewalks can be for both pedestrians and bicycles in certain areas and those areas should be clearly mark and there can be curb cuts to accommodate the different areas. Scanlon said to save money, he does not think it is necessary to bury the lines. Anderson asked the objective to be restated and asked if the group was to agree with one plan and then proceed with a public hearing. Rockvam said financing is a big issue and we are not ready to hold a public hearing at this point. Adolf said • to arrange a meeting with the county and be patient if we want the county to fund Council & Planning Commission— 11/26/01 3 it all. Anderson said there is concern of a resident that the City was going to • hasten through such a project this season. Anderson asked if the options include tree removal. Rockvam said some trees would have to be removed. Hoffman said they have to vote for what the public wants and cannot only look at it from a financial standpoint. Hovelsrud said we have to look at what is best for the City now and long term and concrete sidewalks and 4 or 6-foot shoulders would be the best even though more people would accept Option 1. Rockvam said if the City does Option 1 now none of the others would ever be done in the future and maybe some residents would not like anything to be done. Anderson asked if the main issue is beautify or safety. Rockvam said safety was the main issue. Scanlon stated if Sunset Drive was done it would encourage more people to use the corridor. Karpas asked if anyone on the Council has an assessment of what they want to see done. He added he feels the assessment per property depends on what option is used. Karpas said he liked the idea of burying power lines and was inclined to choose Option 3, which he thinks, is proactive. He added Option 1 is reactive and if the City waits five years the neighborhood changes and the Council would change. Karpas said he is concerned about an assessment. Scanlon stated it would enhance the City but it would specifically enhance those properties and those property owners should participate in some degree in the expense of the enhancement. • Weeks pointed out a difference hypothetically to Option 3 from Option 1 is an increase of $46 per foot, which is a small amount when looking at it in that prospective. Rockvam stated the City put sidewalks on both sides of Shoreline Drive in 1988 and property owners on Shoreline Drive were assessed. Scanlon said the recommended width of 8 feet is too wide and our theory is not to take property from property owners. Fairbrother referred to the cost of the overhead utilities and without a plan he said it is impossible to get an actual cost. He said he requested some figure so Xcel used a high figure. He stated the chances of the cost being less is greater and that number does not affect the figure Hennepin County is offering. Ross said there is a possibility that cost is being assessed to Spring Park as a whole and not portioned to,Sunset Drive. Adolf pointed out NSP paid for part of the cost on county road 15. He added if looking at widening shoulders and not doing underground utilities, widening the shoulders would involve moving power poles within Xcel's right of way and that would be their cost. He said the City could ask them for credit of that cost when putting in underground utilities. Fairbrother discussed having concrete sidewalks on both sides. He said in his opinion the northwest side is not as good as the southeast side of the street and having both sides increases the cost. He also said more properties are affected on • the northwest side. Scanlon said the side not on the lake is the more practical Council & Planning Commission— 11/26/01 4 side. Rockvam said the idea of sidewalks on both sides makes sense but there is • the expense of snow plowing and storage. Scanlon asked for a time line of the project once started and was told it would take at least a season. Nasset agreed with Karpas that Option 1 is least expensive but the decision should be long range and at least one sidewalk would be beneficial for pedestrian safety and bicycles. Scanlon said this is an opportunity to do something and if it is not done now it will never get done. Hovelsrud said sidewalks always enhance property and retaining wall expenses will be high but it will be necessary to have them. Nelson asked how residents would be assessed if the sidewalk is on one side. Rockvam said that would present a problem. Hoffman said Eden Prairie found it more economical to have sidewalks on one side of the street and the mailboxes were located on the other side. He said they look at trails as a benefit to the entire City and they did not assess property owners on the trail system. Hovelsrud said Sunset Drive is not a trail. Scanlon said the police chief said to keep the sidewalk on one side and not zigzag it. Fairbrother said exploring shifting the centerline of the roadway could be done. Rockvam said a meeting with the county should be arranged to see what they have to say to help narrow down options and look at a more definitive cost. Weeks said to have the City Engineer keep in mind the centerline can be moved at precarious locations. Rockvam said the county should be told the City want to • improve and increase safety on Sunset Drive. Hovelsrud asked what the proposal is to the county. Rockvam said to have a 12- foot wide roadway, 3 to 4 feet shoulders, concrete sidewalks and burying all overheads. He said the Council wanted the Planning Commissioners perception of Sunset Drive and thanked them for their input. 5. MISCELLANEOUS—None 6. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Widmer seconded by Stone to adjourn the meeting at 9:12 p.m. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. SHARON CORL SE U WILLIAM D. WEEKS • ADMINISTRATOR/CLERK/TREASURER Council & Planning Commission— 11/26/01 5 " • CITY OF SPRING PARK SPRING PARK,MINNESOTA AGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 12, 2001 7:30 P.M.—CITY HALL 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL 3. ADOPT AGENDA 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES—October 10, 2001 5. PLANNING COMMISSION a) Sign Permit Application-4032 Shoreline Drive, Shoreline Bait & Tackle 1. Staff Recommendation 6. COMMUNICATIONS a) Council Meeting Minutes— 11/19/01 • b) Budget Meeting Minutes— 11/20/01 c) Joint Meeting Minutes— 11/26/01 d) Council Meeting Minutes— 12/3/01 e) City Calendar f) Revised Preliminary Report—Sunset Drive Dated 12/5/01 g) Memo From Staff— 12/7/01 7. MISCELLANEOUS 8. ADJOURNMENT • • CITY OF SPRING PARK SPRING PARK,MINNESOTA MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 12, 2001 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, and Klein were present. Nasset arrived after the roll was taken and Hovelsrud and Ex-Officio Stone were excused. Staff present: Secretary Corl. 3. ADOPT AGENDA • Motion by Mork Bredeson seconded by Karpas to adopt the agenda. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES—October 10, 2001 Motion by Karpas seconded by Nelson to approve the minutes for the Planning Commission Meeting October 10, 2001. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. 5. PLANNING COMMISSION a) Sign Permit Application—4032 Shoreline Drive, Shoreline Bait& Tackle 1. Staff Recommendation Karpas asked if the sign would be better on wood than on the concrete wall. It was noted there is a sign on the concrete wall for the beauty shop on the other side of the building and it has withstood the test of time. The secretary stated the staff reviewed the application and concluded the east side of the entrance encompassed the storefront in figuring the square footage allowed for the sign. Karpas asked who verifies the sign is within the correct square footage after it has been constructed. He was told the Zoning Administrator would be the person to do this. • Planning Commission — 12/12/01 1 • Motion by Mork Bredeson seconded by Karpas to approve the sign permit application for Shoreline Bait & Tackle at 4032 Shoreline Drive. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. 6. COMMUNICATIONS The following communications were noted: a) Council Meeting Minutes— 11/19/01 b) Budget Meeting Minutes— 11/20/01 c) Joint Meeting Minutes— 11/26/01 d) Council Meeting Minutes— 12/3/01 e) City Calendar f) Revised Preliminary Report—Sunset Drive Dated 12/5/01 Klein asked what the changes were on the report. This will be checked on. g) Memo from Staff— 12/7/01 7. MISCELLANEOUS Anderson said he would like to see the flags back up on Sunset Drive especially due to the world situation. Klein and Bredeson agreed they should go back up. Anderson wished everyone happy holidays. • 8. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Mork Bredeson seconded by Nelson to adjourn the meeting at 7:42 p.m. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. ",Ae� &,4� MARON CORL SECRETARY • Planning Commission — 12/12/01 2