Loading...
2006 - Planning Commission - Agendas & Minutes CITY OF SPRING PARK • SPRING PARK, MINNESOTA AGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 11, 2006 7:00 P.M.—CITY HALL 1. CALL TO ORDER Pledge of Allegiance 2. ROLL CALL 3. ADOPT AGENDA 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES—October 12, 2005 5. PLANNING COMMISSION a) Preview Presentation by K Hovnanian(Park Hill/Park Island Site) 6. COMMUNICATIONS a) Council Meeting— 12/5/05 • b) Special Council Meeting- 12/7/05 c) Special Council Meeting— 12/12/05 d) Council Meeting— 12/19/05 e) Special Council Meeting— 12/21/05 f) LMCD Re: Milfoil Demo Project Public Meeting— 12/14/05 (Mailed) g) Building & Sign Report December h) Channels 8 &20 Schedules January i) January Calendar j) Budget 2006 k) Appointments 2006 1) 2005 Year End EMV Property Type Table—(Payable 2006) 7. MISCELLANEOUS 8. ADJOURNMENT • • CITY OF SPRING PARK SPRING PARK, MINNESOTA MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 11, 2006 7:00 P.M.—CITY HALL 1. CALL TO ORDER Pledge of Allegiance Chair Anderson called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. followed by the pledge of allegiance. 2. ROLL CALL Anderson, Klein, Mason, Maloney and Ex-officio Hughes were present and Mork Bredeson and Sippel were excused. Staff present: Deputy Clerk Corl, Office Assistant Farness, and Alan Brixius, City Planner. 3. ADOPT AGENDA • Motion by Maloney seconded by Klein to adopt the agenda. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES—October 12, 2005 Motion by Klein seconded by Mason to approve the minutes for the Planning Commission Meeting October 12, 2005. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. 5. PLANNING COMMISSION a) Preview Presentation by K Hovnanian (Park Hill/Park Island Site) Steve Mangold, K Hovnanian, John Harriss, Harriss Architect, and Tom Goodrum, Schoell & Madson were present for the presentation. Brixius explained this was going to be a preliminary presentation; the City received the application for the preliminary plat just a few days before the public hearing for the moratorium. He said the presentation is to secure any issues the Planning Commission may have. He pointed out the Council does not want a long list of items that are not completed when the public hearing takes place. Brixius said the redevelopment site involves Park Island/Park Hill apartments on Island Drive, a private street. He displayed and aerial view of the property; the concept plan presented proposes 150 units, underground garages, larger floor area • in the units; there would be less units than currently exists. Brixius stated a few problems have to been identified and have to be ironed out so variances do not Planning Commission— 1/11/06 1 • have to be obtained. He referred to the letter he distributed dated January 1 Oth and referred to it as a 15.99 letter, meaning it referred to MN Statute Section 15.99 stating the City has 60 days to develop the zoning application submitted by the applicant and the City can extend this time to 120 days. The letter states the 60 day extension is being applied to the application by the City to make sure the process contains a complete application and information is received prior to the public hearing. Brixius pointed the site circulation is going to be difficult due too the long narrow property; the existing road goes off the plat onto Marina Shopping Center property to the east and has to be changed or an easement obtained. He said the street should be at least 24 feet wide so fire vehicles can turn around, etc and accommodate aerial fire trucks; traffic circulation for day to day activities have to be accommodated i.e. garbage and trash haulers, moving vans, etc. Anderson verified the existing conditions do not accommodate this. Brixius also pointed out building setbacks have to be addressed especially along the county road; site lines do not work on one of the current driveways proposed; ponding areas have to be reviewed; minimizing the narrowness of the lot and softening the appearance of the height of the building on the east property line will be addressed. He said one of the moratorium items is building design, exterior, color, etc. and this has to be specifically defined; the exterior is proposed • to be predominately brick and glass, with a flat roof. He said it is zoned R-3 (High Density Residential) and the height requirement is 40 feet or three stories. He said some of the proposed heights show 42 an 48 feet heights; the goal is to make the heights fit within the zoning requirements. Brixius said a grading plan, landscape plan, illumination plan, etc. have to be in place before the public hearing. He referred to page 2 the above mentioned letter and read the requirements (attached to minutes). Brixius pointed out the fire official suggested an unencumbered route in back of buildings on the east side (an emergency access); this has to be considered when landscape materials for that are being considered; he suggested workshops to discuss items of concern before the public hearing. Brixius also noted the City has had extraordinary projects in the last couple of years. Klein questioned Brixius' opinion of the exterior colors for Lakeview Lofts. Brixius stated his direction to this applicant was to mute the colors down. Klein thought the look was dull. Brixius stated he did not think the City would be prepared for a public hearing in February and a Predevelopment Agreement has to be in place. Mangold asked for questions. Mason verified with Mangold there would be two purchase agreements. Mason asked the likeliness of the project actually • happening. Mangold said he had hopes the project is something the City will embrace. Mason said he spoke with someone that has an 18 month lease and Planning Commission— 1/11/06 2 • asked how this would be handled. Mangold said tenants would be given a 60 day notification and it should be clear to the tenants soon that something is going on with the property. Maloney asked the current tenant occupancy and Mangold did not have an answer because he does not hold the leases. Maloney thought the notification time seemed like a short amount of time. Klein asked if there was a state law that an owner has to notify tenants that a building has been sold and this was unknown. She thought the owner should give the tenants a heads up. Mangold pointed out the owner wants to keep the vacancy at a minimum and protect his situation if he does not close on the sale. He added it is a balancing act on everyone's part. Brixius stated the Predevelopment Agreement is a good indicator the project would go forward. A resident of the apartment complex was present. He stated he has lived there for 15 years. He said he sent note with his rent asking the owner what is going on and was told not to worry about his place to live. The resident said he would like to take a trip for two months this winter and wonders if he should be looking for a place to live instead and would need time to find an appropriate place, does not have a lot of money to do this, and would appreciate as long a time as possible. Maloney asked when Mangold expected to take possession of the property. Mangold pointed out other permits have to be obtained i.e. from the DNR, MCW, • LMCD, etc. and preliminary plat approval has to be given. He thought the earliest closing on the property would take place in June with a 60 day notice to tenants going out in April. The resident asked if there are wetland consequences. Mangold said they have to work around the boundaries of the wetlands. Mason asked if they are going to do the project all at once. Mangold said they would prepare the full lot all at once and there are a lot of things to consider at the same time. He pointed out two lake buildings and one road building might be done first followed by the other lake and road buildings. Harriss said they are committed to having the best built project in the City and the top of their list is to be stewards of the land; they are using low impact development techniques; the final elevations will be more detailed; they are using a lot of texture on the buildings; all exterior materials are permanent; there is variation in height and plane; they plan to have a boardwalk thru the wetlands. Mason asked if the would be changing the grading of the land. Goodrum said the elevations would be much the same and they are building according to the lay of the land they currently have to work with. Harriss said the first floor elevations are close to ground level, underground parking will have two spaces per unit; they hope to minimize surface parking; the • parking is equally distributed in each building; there would be a green roof area to make sure they meet the impervious requirement. Goodrum said there would be a Planning Commission— 1/11/06 3 significant change in grade with Island Drive. He said it would be flatter than it currently is now. Maloney asked if the building would be a wood frame building. Mangold said yes and the walls would be reinforced concrete and floors would be pre-cast concrete. Maloney verified all units would be owner occupied versus rental units. Mason asked if there would be an entity on the property for affordable housing and was told no. Evalina pointed out the City is losing 157 affordable housing units. Mason asked if there was any way to accommodate tenants that have lived there a long time. Mangold said this issue is with the owner. Klein verified there would be no closing on the property until the City approves the final plat and Predevelopment Agreement is in place. Mason asked if there would be a road around the lake. Brixius said the concept plan shows trails and there has to be fire access points and the unencumbered areas have to accommodate the necessary length to drag an attached fire hose. Fire access elements were briefly discussed. Mason referred to the water pressure in Lakeview Lofts and asked if there would be a problem with these buildings. Brixius said the fire inspector did not have access to all of the information and is reviewing all of the fire protection elements. Mason asked the status of the existing sewer line on the property. Goodrum said • they are reviewing the sewer lines and changes in a lift station would not be involved. Brixius said they are planning on looping the 6 inch water main with a new 8 inch water main. Maloney verified the plans do not meet City building height requirements. Harriss pointed out this is not something they cannot overcome and they want to stay within the ordinance requirements. Mason asked if they could use survey numbers for the median. Brixius said he could show those to Mason. He added the starting points for the surveys should be on the site rather than off the site. Brixius said he would illustrate a cross section. Klein asked if there would be a problem with a wider road. Harriss said they possibly would have to adjust the location of the buildings to the east. Brixius said this is another issue to work thru. Mason pointed out amenities were pointed out at the recent Council Meeting and asked if they would be for the entire property. Harriss said the concept is a whole community and shared by all residents; each building will have a community and exercise rooms and trails would go around the shoreline; there would be a pool area with whirlpool, barbeque area for all to use. He said that 70% of the shoreline has to remain undeveloped. Mason asked if they would maintain any ownership. Mangold said ongoing ownership would occur until the last sale takes place and then it would be turned over to the Homeowner's Association. Mason asked if there would be any on land boat storage and was told no. • Planning Commission — 1/11/06 4 6. PLANNING COMMISSION The following communications were noted: a) Council Meeting— 12/5/05 Klein noted the public hearing for the (Truth in Taxation) TNT was not published in the Laker. She was told it does not have to be published,just posted at the post office, Wells Fargo in Spring Park and at City Hall. b) Special Council Meeting- 12/7/05 c) Special Council Meeting— 12/12/05 d) Council Meeting— 12/19/05 Mason noted his named was excluded in the list of those present. e) Special Council Meeting— 12/21/05 f) LMCD Re: Milfoil Demo Project Public Meeting— 12/14/05 (Mailed) g) Building & Sign Report December h) Channels 8 & 20 Schedules January i) January Calendar j) Budget 2006 k) Appointments 2006 1) 2005 Year End EMV Property Type Table—(Payable 2006) j) Council meetings on video LMCC Hughes noted Council Person Williamson wm lobbied hard for this and Spring Park is the first City in this program. • 7. MISCELLANEOUS Anderson noted a Chair and Acting Chair has to be chosen and recommended postponing this until the next meeting when there is a full Commission and the Commissioners agreed. 8. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Mason seconded by Anderson to adjourn the meeting at 8:23 p.m. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. SHARON CORL DEPUTY CLERK It Planning Commission— 1/11/06 5 • 4800 Olson Memorial Highway, Suite 202, Golden Valley, MN 55422 Telephone: 763.231.2555 Facsimile: 763.231 .2561 planners@nacplanning.com January 10, 2006 Steve Mangold K. Hovnanian Homes 8519 Eagle Point Blvd. Suite 190 Lake Elmo, MN 55042 Re: Spring Park— Providence on Lake Minnetonka NAC File: 175.01 05.14 Dear Mr. Mangold: Spring Park staff met this week to conduct a preliminary review of your proposal for the Park Hill and Island site in Spring Park. The following is a list of issues that should be addressed prior to our comprehensive review of your proposal and preparation of a • report for the Planning Commission (public hearing) and City Council. Our intent is to resolve as many of these issues as possible prior to our comprehensive review so that the planning report will contain very few conditions of approval per expectations expressed by the Council and Planning Commission. In considering the size and scope of this project and the level of attention needed to be given to this project by City staff, the City is extending its review period by 60 days pursuant to Minnesota Statute Section 15.99, Subd. 3(f). The application was received by the City on December 27, 2006. With the 60 day extension, the Spring Park City Council will make a determination on your application by April 26, 2006. Issues to be resolves prior to Public Hearing 1. Preliminary plat must be revised to show: a. Permanent road and utility easements through adjacent property. These easements must be obtained before the project can go forward. b. A ten (approx.) foot utility/road easement along Shoreline Drive. Actual size to be finalized after comments are received from the County. c. All wetland areas and those areas not associated with individual buildings platted as Outlots. d. 100 foot frontage of each building lot on the road. 2. Submission of building material samples for all materials to be used including the . manufacturers specifications for such materials. All color samples must be on sample boards not less than four feet by four feet in size. • 3. Revision of building height to show compliance with the maximum 40 foot height requirement. Height is measured from the mean ground elevation to the roof line of a flat roof. Entrance areas to underground parking garages are not included in the calculation. Please note that if this requirement is not met, an application for a variance for building height will be needed. 4. Elevations showing the height of the buildings with respect to the ordinary high water level. 5. Revision of the Site Plan to show: a. All roads to be a minimum 24 foot width to support emergency vehicle access. If a hydrant is located on a road, then the road must be 26 feet in width per fire code requirements. b. Provision of road an access/staging area for fire aerial trucks for each building per fire code requirements. A minimum turning radius on all access roads as approved by the fire inspector for emergency vehicle access per fire code requirements. c. A dry hydrant system for boat/dock fire protection. d. Revision of the approximate 13 foot high retaining wall along the eastern edge of the property (between Buildings C & D) with multiple landscaped terraces to mitigate the scale of the wall. e. Loading areas. (Note that no parking/loading will be permitted along access roads; provision for loading must be made in parking areas or in other locations not on the access road). • f. Waste management/trash enclosure areas. g. Location of all trails and raised walkways through wetlands. h. Pedestrian access/entrance to Building D from north guest parking lot. i. Safe and visible ingress and egress from underground garage of Building D. The current combination of slope, angle and length of ramp is not acceptable. j. Pedestrian trail connection to the adjacent shopping center with responsibility for maintenance in homeowners' association documentation. It is recognized that this requires cooperation from adjacent landowner. 6. Revision of Grading Plan to show elimination of wall along Shoreline Drive. 7. Submission of Landscape Plan that: a. Shows an "approved" fire access route around all buildings; the fire code requires a maximum distance of 150 — 200 feet from staging area. b. Reduces visibility of buildings as viewed from public waters (through use of landscaping, earth-tone building colors, etc.). c. Shows details for rainwater gardens with elevations demonstrating capacity to treat and filter runoff above high water level. d. Shows design intent for entire site (species, size, quantity, and location of plantings). 8. Submission of a lighting plan including photometrics, and proposed pole and fixture types. 9. Submission of a title report. 2 10. Response to items listed in letters from the City Engineer dated January 9 and January 10, 2006 (attached). 11. Execution of the application by the current property owner as well as the proposed developer. 12.Execution of a Predevelopment Agreement by the City, the proposed developer and the current property owner. 13. Temporary construction easements as necessary to provide adequate construction storage and staging areas for the project. Additionally, the following issues will need to be addressed at some point in the development process. • An escrow for future public streetscape improvements along Shoreline Drive will be needed. This amount has yet to be determined but will contribute to municipal improvements being planned along Shoreline Drive. • Homeowner Association documents must include acceptable language taking responsibility for road, sidewalk and pedestrian trail maintenance and funding. • The vacation of old utility easements will require a public hearing in front of the City Council. We look forward to working with your development team to address these issues. Please note that additional issues may arise during our comprehensive review of your revised plans. We will schedule a public hearing to present the preliminary plat and site plan review to the Spring Park Planning Commission after all issues have been substantially addressed. Sincerely, Al Brixius cc: Spring Park City Council Spring Park Planning Commission Head, Seifert & Vander Weide, City Attorney Schoell & Madson, City Engineer • 3 • CITY OF SPRING PARK SPRING PARK, MINNESOTA MINUTES OF SPECIAL JOINT MEETING OF THE SPRING PARK CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION HELD JANUARY 30,2006, 7:00 P.M. AT CITY HALL City Council Members in Attendance: Mayor Jerome Rockvam, Gary Hughes, Sarah Reinhardt, Joanna, Widmer, Bruce Williamson Planning Commission Members in Attendance: Bill Anderson, Jean Mork Bredeson, Evalina Klein, Sera Maloney, Mike Mason, Doug Sippel Staff in Attendance: Bill Weeks, City Administrator/Clerk/Treasurer D.J. Goman, City Utility Superintendent Alan Brixius,Northwest Associated Consultants, Inc. Dan Petrik, Northwest Associated Consultants, Inc. Ken Adolf, Schoell &Madson Tom Seifert, Head, Seifert &Vander Weide Nancy Beck, Head, Seifert&Vander Weide • Summary On January 30, 2006 at 7:00 p.m., the Spring Park City Council and Planning Commission held a special joint meeting at City Hall with Northwest Associated Consultants, Inc., the City Planner, and Head, Seifert&Vander Weide, the City Attorney. The meeting was conducted in a workshop format. The purpose was to discuss the work done to date with respect to the study of the City's zoning code that the City Council requested the City Planner and City Attorney to conduct pursuant to Resolution 05-39 adopted on December 19, 2005. Providence on Lake Minnetonka. Dan Petrik first gave a brief review of the status of the Providence on Lake Minnetonka project. The Planner has had two staff meetings with the redevelopment group so far. The intent of the Planner is to work with the redevelopment group in advance so that any issues with the project can be handled prior to bringing the project to the Planning Commission and Council for approval. The issues being discussed now are the tightness between the buildings and the east property line, garage access, and access from the buildings to the lake. The determination of whether the project will be ready for public hearing on March 8th will be determined at the Planner's next meeting with the redevelopment group to be held on February 81h SPECIAL JOINT MEETING— 1/30/06 • Mayor Rockvam stressed the importance of notifying the current tenants of the property. The developer has a provision in its purchase agreement with the property owner, Mike Gorra, that the developer cannot notify the tenants without Gorra's consent. Gorra must be advised that if he does not notify the tenants about the project, the City will do it. Construction Standards and Phasing Plan Alan Brixius, the City Planner, led this portion of the meeting. He presented a draft Construction Standards and Phasing Plan and asked for input from the Council and Planning Commission regarding what they did and did not like about the Plan. He said that the next workshop meeting will address landscaping, setbacks, and architectural standards. Brixius stated that the first step taken was to review the current ordinance. It doesn't go far enough, especially for large construction projects. Brixius also stated that municipal nuisance ordinances generally are not extensive enough to cover the possible issues that may arise during a large scale construction project. The proposals contained in the draft Plan include more effective enforcement methods regarding construction operations. We are looking for enforcement mechanisms that will avoid the necessity of a court process. Construction Staging Standards Summary • Parkin It should be a required part of the construction plans to delineate employee parking. This is required for enforcement. The developer will have to determine the maximum number of employees that will be at the project site at any time and provide for adequate on-site or off-site parking. Williamson suggested that this provision be clarified. Mayor Rockvam stated that under certain circumstances employees could park off-site and be shuttled in. Brixius stated that the Council may want to retain some discretion regarding off-site parking. The issue of"public access" as used on page 1, section (2)(ii) of the Plan was discussed. Brixius stated that it addressed safe access to public streets. Goman raised the issue of sales office and parade of homes situations. The ordinance needs to deal with parking and access regarding these issues. Williamson added that the developer should include this as a part of the staging plan. Brixius stated that it would be good to add something about this to the ordinance since it will cause the developer to think about the issue which it otherwise may not be thinking about at this stage of the process. Brixius will add a provision in this regard to the Plan. On-street parking was also discussed. Signage should be required at the developer's expense. • SPECIAL JOINT MEETING— 1/30/06 2 2 • Public access. Hughes raised the issue of utilities construction blocking public streets. He asked if this issue could be dealt with here. Brixius stated that traffic control may be necessary; flagman, etc. Public access will be interrupted during utility work because the work is done in the public right-of-way. There is also blockage of streets when materials are being delivered to the project site. The developer should have a plan in place regarding minimizing blockage of public streets. Brixius will cover this under the loading and staging portion of the Plan. The issue of employee parking was raised again. It was asked if requiring one space per employee is excessive? The response was that is seems like most construction workers drive large vehicles like pick up trucks and that they don't seem to car-pool much. We should look at this conservatively. The question was also raised regarding what constitutes "employment"triggering the parking requirement. Are deliveries included here. Mayor Rockvam stated that the City will have to rely on the developer to give the number of employees. Exhaust and Emissions. Brixius gave a summary of the exhaust and emissions provisions. No method of measuring exhaust and emissions is included in the Plan; it is too hard to quantify. The • developer will be required to have a plan to mitigate emissions. For example, erosion control, watering, wind-breaks (e.g. temporary staking of plastic tarps), and restrictions on equipment location. It was suggested that language could be added to the Plan stating that equipment should be turned off when not in use. Brixius stated that the Plan is written to give the City discretion,but the lack of measuring devices may make it difficult to legally enforce. Adolf suggested using MPCA standards for enforcement. Brixius stated that he does not want to use the MPCA standards. He wants the City to have discretion both to allow more noise (during permitted hours of operation) and to prohibit noises that are lower than the MPCA standards after the permitted hours of operation. Also, the staff does not have the ability to measure emissions. Enforcement. The next issue discussed was enforcement of the ordinance. Stop work orders can be used for violations. Williamson asked how this would work if the stop order causes the developer to lose money. Is there a potential for liability for the City? For large projects, the development agreement will include construction operations standards so they can be enforced contractually. Enforcement can be done by the City Administrator, the Utility Superintendent and the building inspector. The planner or attorney can provide a form letter to be used. Also, these provisions can be added to the City Code as well as the Zoning Ordinance so the police can enforce them as well. Brixius raised the option of instituting an administrative fine system. The purpose to this • system is to avoid the time and expense of prosecuting misdemeanors as a means of SPECIAL JOINT MEETING— 1/30/06 3 3 • enforcement of the zoning code. Brixius uses this method for Otsego. The city attorney will have to review the legality of this option. Williamson suggested that these fines could be deducted from the developer's escrow. Williamson also suggested that a confession of judgment could be added to the development agreement for this purpose; this method is used by the cable companies and telephone companies. Williamson liked the idea of different levels of enforcement. Mayor Rockvam stated that many problems are short term and many problems are with subcontractors who have a"wild west" mentality. Fencin . The next topic discussed was fencing. Williamson stated that the term"hazard" should be defined in the ordinance. Goman stated that requiring a chain link fence is extreme for some situations; construction netting or a snow fence is acceptable and appropriate for some situations. Williamson stated that it is important to keep kids out of the construction area. Mayor Rockvam stated that fencing should be required to secure the construction site from start to finish. If the entire perimeter of the construction site is required to be fenced, then the ordinance does not need to deal with individual holes on the site. In order to prevent trespass, something taller and more secure than a snow fence is needed. The site boundaries should be secured with a fence,not the property line. Hours of Operation. • The current hours of permitted operation are 7 am to 8 pm on weekdays and 8 am to 8 pm on weekends and holidays. The issue of how to define"holidays"was discussed. The City may wish to give a 15 minute leeway for parking. Mayor Rockvam stated that rational sense is needed here; the City cannot deal with every complaint. The difference between a construction project bringing in a crew of workers at one time and individual fishermen parking in the morning was discussed. Hughes stated that it should be ok for construction workers to sit in their trucks and drink coffee before the permitted hours of construction operation. Mayor Rockvam stated that enforceability and practicality must be a consideration here. Brixius said that a distinction can be made here. Brixius also stated that the parking reference here should be deleted. Seifert suggested giving the Council the right to waive the hours requirements if the situation warrants it. Hughes brought up the issue of equipment repair crews working late at night. Brixius stated that the broad time frame give flexibility. Mason suggested putting signs on the fence at the entrance points listing the permitted hours of operation so that the construction crews know the hours. Williamson added that this will notify the subcontractors of the hours. Weeks asked if we should get input from the contractors. Brixius said that for most issues, the City does not need the contractors' input. A suggestion was made that the hours of operation be limited to work outdoors. • SPECIAL JOINT MEETING— 1/30/06 4 4 • Litter. A question was raised about the requirement that all dumpsters have lids. Brixius stated that lids are important to keep trash inside the containers. Seifert asked about roll-off boxes; these do not come with lids. Brixius said that he will revise this section regarding lids. Mayor Rockvam stated that the developer should be required to assign a person to be responsible for daily trash pick-up. Loading and Staging. Hughes said that off-site loading and staging should be permitted. Brixius stated that he thought that the City wanted to keep everything on-site; he will revise this section. Signage for deliveries was suggested; Brixius will add this requirement. Goman stated that as the project evolves, the staging areas may change. Brixius stated that for phased developments, the developer will need to provide a staging plan for each phase. Goman raised the issue of moving dumpsters. Does the Council want to approve every • change in dumpster location? Can the City Administrator give this approval? Hughes stated that changes are okay so long as they don't generate complaints. Brixius added that the staging plan can be narrative in form rather than graphic, this gives the developer the option of explaining how the dumpsters will move during the construction process rather than just showing them graphically in certain locations. Brixius said that the contractors need to be given reasonable latitude in which to operate. Noise. Williamson asked to delete the word "would" from before the word "generate." The issue of how to handle only one person making numerous noise complaints when no one else makes complaints was discussed. Brixius will revise this section to state that the City will investigate noise complaints for noises which occur outside of the permitted hours of operation. Streets and Roadways. Whether the City should hire street cleaning and charge the developers was discussed. Mayor Rockvam asked that the word "may"be changed to the word "must." There will be traffic problems with the Providence project because there is only one • entrance/exit to the site. What control does the City have regarding County 15? Brixius SPECIAL JOINT MEETING— 1/30/06 5 5 • will talk to the County, but believes that it will say that traffic control is the City's responsibility. The issue of road maintenance before repaving of the road is required was discussed. This is a current problem with West Arm Road. Brixius will check the City's right-of- way ordinance. Brixius can add a requirement for street interruption permits, flagman requirements, etc. Enforcement. Brixius will create a list of options for enforcement; enforcement should not be limited to stop orders. Seifert stated that the development contract paragraph should be made a separate provision and an escrow provision should be added. Notice should be written and provision for hand delivery should be added. Hughes asked who the contact person is for enforcement. Williamson said that a responsible person and an alternate should be required. There has been a problem with the issue of responsibility at the Lakeview project. The developer and the general • contractor divide responsibility. Brixius stated that he will include a paragraph requiring the developer to identify the responsible party. Note that for the Providence project, Weiss, the Lakeview contractor, will be the general contractor. Williamson stated that all contractors should be given a copy of all construction rules and they should be required to acknowledge receipt of the rules. Mayor Rockvam stated that the City should meet with the general contractor right at the beginning of the project so both sides know what is expected. Seifert stated that the stop order is a very important enforcement tool. Mayor Rockvam stated that it is important to keep in mind that the first two projects were difficult because the City had no experience with projects of this size. The City was lucky that both projects had developers who had enough money to finish the projects. Summary Brixius summarized the changes that were to be made to the draft. He will redraft the provisions and request contractor and developer reaction. The meeting was adjourned at approximately 9:10 p.m. • Respectfully submitted by Nancy Beck SPECIAL JOINT MEETING— 1/30/06 6 6 . CITY OF SPRING PARK SPRING PARK, MINNESOTA MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 8, 2006 7:00 P.M.—CITY HALL 1. CALL TO ORDER Pledge of Allegiance Chair Anderson called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. 2. ROLL CALL a) Planning Commission Mork Bredeson, Anderson, Klein, Sippel, Mason, Maloney were present. b) Council Hughes, Reinhardt, Widmer were present and Williamson and Rockvam were excused. Staff Present: Deputy Clerk Corl. 3. ADOPT AGENDA • Motion by Mork Bredeson and seconded by Klein to adopt the agenda. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES—January 11, 2006 Motion by Maloney and seconded by Mason to approve the minutes for the Planning Commission Meeting January 11, 2006. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. 5. PLANNING COMMISSION a) Elect Chair&Acting Chair Mork Bredeson nominated Anderson for Chair. Mason nominated Maloney for Chair. Anderson called for nominations three more times and having none, nominations for Chair was closed. Mason asked if they were going to elect a Chair and Acting Chair separately. Mork Bredeson suggested the person with the most votes would be Chair and the other person would be Acting Chair. The Commissioners agreed. Maloney received four votes and Anderson received two votes on written ballots. Maloney was declared Chair and Anderson Acting Chair. • b) Sign Permit Application—Certified Auto Repair Planning Commission —2/8/06 1 • Mark Pfleghaar, owner Certified Auto Repair, 4700 Shoreline Drive, was present. Maloney verified there would be signs on the side of the building. Klein asked if they would be the same size as the signs for the previous business. Pfleghaar said the sign would be about the same size. Mork Bredeson asked staff if the application was in order and was told it was, including an approved parking plan by NAC. Motion by Sippel and seconded by Mork Bredeson to approve the sign permit application for Certified Auto Repair, 4700 Shoreline Drive. In discussion Mason asked Pfleghaar if he owned the entire property and leased the car wash. Pfleghaar said he owns the property and operates the car wash himself. Mason asked if he has plans to improve the property. Pfleghaar pointed out the City's lift station contractor tore up his property and he has hope they will make the necessary repairs. He also stated he has to stay within the hardcover requirements and has to have a parking plan. Mason pointed out the City is always interested in landscaping, etc. Pfleghaar said he has been meeting with the Administrator on this and he wants to fix everything. Klein asked if he is going to keep four car wash stalls and was told yes. Mason asked what upgrades Pfleghaar is contemplating. Pfleghaar said he has to sandblast the soap scum off the walls and that would be expensive to do. • All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. 6. Communications The following communications were noted: a) February Calendar b) March Calendar c) Building Report—January d) Special Council Meeting Minutes— 1/3/06 e) Council Meeting Minutes— 1/3/06 f) Council Meeting Minutes— 1/17/06 (to be approved at Council Meeting 2/6/06) g) Moratorium Workshop Homework 7. MISCELLANEOUS Mason requested a walk thru tour at the Mist Lofts sometime in March for the Planning Commissioners around 4 p.m. on a Wednesday or when convenient. Staff will make the arrangements. Mason asked if the cameras were available to take pictures around town for the moratorium meetings. He said he and Council Person Williamson would each like one. Hughes said he searched on the web and found information for wordology on architectural design standards. Brixius said he would have a clearer picture of objectives if he sees pictures. • Planning Commission —2/8/06 2 • Mork Bredeson stated she appreciates her reappointment to the Planning Commission and she apologized for any inconvenience her absences may have caused. She pointed out her record overall for the last 12 years has been good and she would continue to be conscious of her attendance. Anderson stated Mork Bredeson makes a great contribution when she is here. 8. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Klein and seconded by Mork Bredeson to adjourn the meeting at 7:19 p.m. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. -7--L SHARON CORL DEPUTY CLERK • • Planning Commission—2/8/06 3 • CITY OF SPRING PARK SPRING PARK, MINNESOTA WORKSHOP PROVIDENCE ON LAKE MINNETONKA FEBRUARY 8, 2006 The Workshop followed the regular Planning Commission Meeting. The roll remained the same for the Council and Planning Commission. Others present were Tom Seifert & Nancy Beck, City Attorney's; Alan Brixius, City Planner. Present on behalf of the development were: Steve Mangold, K Hovnanian; John Harriss and Matthew Anderson, Harriss Architect; Tom Goodrum and Kevin Teppen, Schoell & Madson. Brixius noted the proposed schedule review for Providence on Lake Minnetonka. He also noted the City has a 60 day timeline to process the application and this could be and has been extended another 60 days with permission of the applicant but not beyond 120 days. He said the public hearing would be held on March 8, 2006. He said the deadline for Council action per the state statute is April 26, 2006. Brixius pointed out the draft easement agreement between the development and the property owner on the west side of the property for driveway purposes. He said the signed easement has not yet been received and we should not go into the public hearing without it. He said we are going ahead with the publication so we meet the deadline requirement. Brixius said one major concern is traffic circulation and overall appearance. He pointed out the east property line elevation at Presbyterian Homes is a concern; the property is zoned for multiple family; and they have reduced density to 147 units. Brixius pointed out pre-workshop meetings would identify issues before the public hearing occurs and he would be issuing a technical review before that meeting also. Goodrum stated they have addressed most items on the punch list; they have met with the Mound Fire Chief and addressed issues with the fire department; they have also met with Hennepin County and discussed street issues. He said they are proposing five buildings; there would be access to all parts of the property for utilities and emergencies. Goodrum pointed out there is no current sediment control; they are capturing all the run off water on the site; it is going to a storm pond for treatment and thru rain gardens that are natural looking to remove sediments before entering the lake; they would be doing it decoratively and it would be environmentally sensitive. Goodrum stated they are meeting all fire code requirements; the access drive is 26 feet wide and also into the parking lots; there are cut out lanes and a dry hydrant is available for hard to reach concerned areas; there are no site lines conflicting with vehicles leaving Workshop - 2/8/06 1 • the area; a 13' wall on the east property line is now tiered with boulder walls and evergreen trees for screening to make a natural setting for the entire site. He added the lake area would be a natural environmental rain garden, boulder walls and buffered with landscaping. It would be all natural looking in aesthetics. Mason verified the 26 foot wide road is for a fire hydrant and room enough for emergency vehicles to maneuver and there is no conflict with a 20 foot wide road down by lake. Mason asked who would do the maintenance on the landscaping and the rain gardens. Goodrum said the homeowners association would be responsible. He said the City could require a schedule for the cleaning of the ponds. Harriss pointed out revisions to the turn radius by the lake. He said the building exteriors would be of natural materials i.e. brick and stone and primarily glass for views of the lake. He added there would be a courtyard with fountains by the lake with an additional courtyard by the road and a pool. Sippel referred to the foot print of building C. Harriss said it was changed on the east side and is less one unit and the height is reduced to 37 feet. Sippel asked if the roadways are curbed. Goodrum said the curb is directed to the rain gardens. Harriss said all units have underground parking with two stalls per unit; the north building is 10 feet higher than the south building so the upper units have a view of the lake from the road and the docks shown on the elevations are not the final configuration. Seifert asked how many guest parking spaces and was told .25 per unit. Beach areas • were noted. Mason asked if there would be underground parking for guests and was told the underground parking is strictly for residents. Brixius pointed out the parking spaces have to be sold with the units. Harriss pointed out the bridge between the two buildings by the road; the colors of the exteriors would be all natural and subdued earth tones. Mason asked if they were tampering with the vegetation along the lake. Harriss said if they do, they would bring back the natural feel of the lake. Reinhardt said there was no area available for beaches. Harriss said they would bring in that element. Reinhardt pointed out the shoreline would then be disturbed. Harriss said most residents would most likely use the pool. He said they are trying to create amenities and a central courtyard. Mason asked if they have given any thought to adding commercial space. He was told no and it is hopeful the Marina Center will enjoy renewed life as a result of the development. The walls around the pool are tiered toward the lake and will have growth on them. Mason asked if there would be grassy areas. Harriss said they are cutting down on manicured areas. Mork Bredeson asked if there would be pilings for the new buildings and was told the soil borings show no need for them. Brixius asked the lower parking garage elevation in relation to the lake. Goodrum said it is about four feet above the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) and they are pleased the grading would be much the same as it is now and they will not have to do a lot of site work prior to erecting the buildings. Mason asked how the proposed garage elevation • compared to the current elevation and was told it was similar. Mason asked if there was any known history of water in the garages. Goodrum said they are not aware of any. Workshop - 2/8/06 2 • Brixius asked when they could furnish building material samples and requested they would be available for the public hearing on March 8`h. Harriss said they could give as close a depiction as possible and the only problem would be with unforeseen pricing of materials. He said the size of the units range from 1,300 to 2,000 square feet. Sippel asked if the floor plans are identical. Harriss said generally the design is the same or similar; they all have generous outdoor decks, ceiling heights are 9 feet and the top floors are 10 feet; all the buildings are wood frame except the lower level. Hughes asked about the color scheme and how compatible are the two depictions. Harriss said the elevations are not as close as the depictions. Hughes asked if all the buildings will have the same look. Harriss said they will try to incorporate variation but stay within the same palate. He said they want it to blend in especially on the lake. Hughes asked for a confirmed more accurate sample of materials and colors. Harriss said he would have three dimensional images on March 8th. Mork Bredeson asked if they are using low maintenance materials. Harriss said they are using no maintenance materials. Mason asked if there would be a community aspect within the buildings. Harriss said they are in the process of determining what and where for community rooms and exercise rooms. Mason asked if there would be connecting buildings. Harriss said that is not a practical cost consideration. Mangold pointed out how to get to the pool from Building 3. There is a separate lobby in • the parking garage and to get to the docks they created a stone stairway to the docks by the parking garage. Mason asked if there was a handicapped access or a ramp walkway at Building 3. Harriss said that would disturb the natural appearance and it would take up the entire hillside. Goodrum pointed out there is a longer way for a handicapped person to get to the docks. Reinhardt asked if the docks would be owned or rented. Mangold said that has not yet been determined. He said if a dock came with a unit, it would add to the cost. Reinhardt asked how many slips they have. She was told they currently have 52 and the current property owner is applying for the docks. Sippel asked if trailers would be allowed in the garages. Mangold said if there was room. Brixius recommended checking with the City to see if this is allowed and if there is enough parking. Brixius said the trash is all going to be located inside the buildings in the garages and there would be no exterior trash. Harris said there would be compactors in some buildings and chutes for the trash. Hughes asked if there would be a provision for a playground. Harriss said not at this point. The question was asked if there would be elevated air compressors and air conditioners. Harriss said no one would see any mechanical equipment on the roof. Mason asked what happened to the green roofs and was told the idea proposed too many questions. Mason asked if they were using any new technology on the mechanicals. Harriss said they intend to provide the highest indoor air quality possible. Maloney asked if they were going to use in floor heat. Harriss said there is a cost factor with that. He said the prices for the units would be just under • $400,000 to $900,000. Workshop - 2/8/06 3 • Hughes asked the cost of the association fees. Mangold said the norm is $.25 per square foot. Mason asked if the utilities would be included in the association fees and was told they would. Brixius asked Harriss to describe the streetscape along the county road. Harriss said there would be a new sidewalk, light poles to match the ones at the Mist Lofts, plantings and trees and a short boulder retaining wall. Mason asked if the footprint of the proposed building on Shoreline is the same as the current building. Harriss said it would be in about the same spot. Hughes inquired about the light poles. Teppen said the pole height is the measurement from the light fixture and they are providing a pedestrian feel and reducing the glare. Mork Bredeson asked the order of their building plan and what they plan to do first. Mangold said those logistics are being considered. Seifert asked where their construction employees are going to park. Mangold said they hopefully could work with the owner of the shopping center. He said he is meeting with the owner regarding the driveway easement and he feels this project should be a benefit to both parties. Hughes asked if they would be keeping all of the construction equipment on site. Brixius suggested a staging plan be drawn up. Sippel asked if the signing of the easement is the biggest issue on this list. Brixius said without the easement they do not control all the land for the development and between • now and the public hearing we hope to have everything in place. Sippel asked if there will be clarification of approving the subdivision and the site plan at the public hearing. Brixius said he would have those details for the public hearing and his technical review completed. Hughes requested it before the Friday packet. Brixius said he would have it done by March I"for the Planning Commissioner's review and hopefully have comments from the county, fire department, the MCWD and DNR. Mangold said he would download all of the drawings on CD's for the Commissioner's convenience. Brixius said the objective is to address every issue including the establishment of a beach; accessibility issue, roof top equipment, playground equipment, etc. Mason referred to the predeveloper's agreement and asked where those issues are addressed i.e. TIF. Seifert said there is not TIF with this development. Beck said the purpose of the predevelopment agreement is the developer agrees they are paying the City's expenses and both City and developer will enter into a development agreement and issues will be in the development agreement not the predevelopment agreement. Brixius asked if there are any concerns with the progression or schedule. Mason requested the Commissioners notified if there is a change in any aspect of the development. Mork Bredeson said her concern is the construction phase i.e. equipment, circulation, etc. Seifert noted there would not be any concrete trucks because it is a wood framed building. Mork Bredeson said there is a lot of material handling with wood. Brixius suggested working something out with the Marina Center. Mork Bredeson said • disruption to the public should be kept at a minimum. Workshop - 2/8/06 4 • Hughes referred to the construction phase and concern with early morning noise that would pose a problem for Presbyterian Homes. Harriss said the project is 60 feet from the property line on the east side. Hughes recommended discussing their schedules with Presbyterian Homes before construction starts. Mangold said he would do this before the public hearing. Brixius asked if all the buildings would be torn down first and was told yes. Mangold anticipated one building on the island and one by the road for would be constructed first. He said they are bringing in a sales office and the location for that has not yet been determined. Sippel asked if they were phasing the construction. Harriss said they would be staggering phases and the total length of time for construction would be 2 %Z and 3 years. Hughes asked if there would be occupants and construction at the same time. This was not known at this time. Mork Bredeson asked who was funding the project. Mangold said it was being funded internally by K. Hovnanian, which is a publicly held company. Hughes asked if they had plans for the wet land area. Mangold said they are anticipating a walkway. Brixius said the DNR and the MCWD would have to review that concept. Mork Bredeson asked how many units would be in the complex. Mangold said there would be 147 compared to the 156 apartments currently. Klein said she is concerned this area is becoming more inaccessible to affordable housing and that is a loss to the community. Someone stated the lake is dictating what is being built. Brixius said Council Person Williamson raised similar issues. Mason asked if there would be any way they would build less expensive units on the Shoreline Drive buildings to be more affordable. Mangold said affordable is relative and Spring Park's figure is higher because of the lake. Brixius pointed out it might be affordable the first time but the next seller will raise the price. Reinhardt said every community should have a balance. Briefly discussed was affordable housing, taxes and lake property and building heights in relation to property valuation. In conclusion Hughes asked if there were any other issues. Seifert stated the City wants to see samples of the exterior materials and the colors. Mangold said they would be available for the public hearing on March 8th. Brixius said he would have the necessary technical reports completed. Mangold will make the plans available on a compact disc. The workshop concluded at 9:20 p.m. 6 L SHARON CORL DEPUTY CLERK • Workshop - 2/8/06 5 CITY OF SPRING PARK • SPRING PARK, MINNESOTA AGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 8, 2006 7:00 P.M.—CITY HALL 1. CALL TO ORDER Pledge of Allegiance 2. ROLL CALL 3. ADOPT AGENDA 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES —February 8, 2006 5. PLANNING COMMISSION a) Sign Permit Application—Ted Storlie, 4032 Shoreline Drive b) Variance Application—Brandis Meyer, 2406 Black Lake Road 1. Open Public Hearing a) Notice of Public Hearing 2. Discussion& Comments • a) E-mail from Bev Crawford, 4317 Rose Hill Lane 3. Close Public Hearing 4. Recommendation to Council a) NAC—3/1/06 c) Site Plan Review& Application for Preliminary Plat, K. Hovnanian for(Island Drive) 1. Open Public Hearing a) Notice of Public Hearing 2. Discussion& Comments 3. Close Public Hearing 4. Recommendation to Council a) NAC —3/l/06 6. COMMUNICATIONS a) Council Minutes—2/6/06 b) Workshop (Providence on Lake Mtka.)—2/8/06 c) Council Minutes—2/21/06 d) Channels 8 & 20 Schedules March 2006 e) Building Report February f) Sign Report February g) Memo Re: CD's Requested (Mailed)—2/13/06 • 7. MISCELLANEOUS 8. ADJOURNMENT • CITY OF SPRING PARK SPRING PARK, MINNESOTA MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 8, 2006 7:00 P.M.—CITY HALL 1. CALL TO ORDER Pledge of Allegiance Chair Maloney called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. followed by the pledge of allegiance. 2. ROLL CALL Klein, Mason and Maloney and Ex-Officio Hughes were present and Anderson, Mork Bredeson and Sippel were excused. Staff present: Administrator Weeks, Deputy Clerk Corl; Alan Brixius, City Planner; Nancy Beck and Tom Seifert, City Attorney's; Mayor Rockvam and Council Person Reinhardt. 3. ADOPT AGENDA Motion by Mason and seconded by Klein to adopt the agenda. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES—February 8, 2006 Motion by Klein and seconded by Mason to approve the minutes for the Planning Commission Meeting February 8, 2006. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. Chair Maloney introduced the Planning Commissioners and Staff to the public. 5. PLANNING COMMISSION a) Sign Permit Application—Ted Storlie, 4032 Shoreline Drive Storlie was not present but he submitted three choices of color combinations for the Commissioners to choose from. Motion by Mason and seconded by Klein to approve the sign permit application for 4032 Shoreline Drive and the color choice of blue background with gray lettering. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. b) Variance Application—Brandis Meyer, 2406 Black Lake Road Present for this public hearing: Brandis Meyer and Paris Alves, property owners, • and Jim Clark,builder. Planning Commission —3/8/06 1 • Maloney read the responsibilities of the Planning Commission at a public hearing. 1. Open public a) Notice of Public Hearing Chair Maloney read the notice published in the Laker Newspaper and opened the public hearing at 7:08 a.m. 2. Discussion and Comments a) E-mail from Bev Crawford, 4317 Rose Hill Lane Meyer stated they are proposing a house that needs six variances; the one big issue is the public right-of-way on the north side of the property and four of the six variance requests are because of this right-of-way: the public right-of- way makes the lot a corner lot; the side yard setback abutting the right-of-way on the north side is 18 %Z foot and 30 feet is required; lot area and width are a result of the same set back requirements; the setback on the south is because of the right-of-way on the north side. Meyer stated the hardship is the utility easement and the small lot area. She said the impervious surface requirement is due to the non conforming setbacks caused by the easement and public right-of-way. She said the height is 33 feet and that is 2 feet lower than the ordinance requirement but the basement level is counted as a full story because it is above grade more than 6 feet. She said is she is willing to be creative on some of these issues. Klein asked how long the public right-of-way has been in effect. Maloney explained the public right-of-way is on the north side of the lot. Brixius stated it was established when the section was first created on the plat map. He said in addition to that there is an 18.5 foot setback into the lot from the right-of- way. He said an existing lot of record is buildable if it can meet the required set backs and has water and sewer access. He said this lot is constrained by both the right-of-way and the 18 foot wide easement and without some variance the lot would not be buildable. He said they are requesting lot area, lot width and impervious surface and those conditions would be allowed if they meet the required setbacks and the hardship is the lot being a corner lot. He pointed out they are proposing the building right up to the 18 foot right-of-way which is still more than 10 feet off the north property line; also they are asking for a seven foot easement off the south property line and there is justification for variance consideration. Meyer pointed out any other idea to meet the south setback would be to go into the easement on the north side and they could dig the home deeper to alleviate the height variance. Mason asked if they were aware of the easement and was told there is a 10 foot set back on each side. She said their biggest • concern with the easement is it is larger than first anticipated. Mason asked if they considered other configurations for the house. Meyer said they could Planning Commission —3/8/06 2 • push the house from the south toward the north easement. Klein verified the proposed footprint would be 1,260 square feet when finished. Clark stated he had no problem with adjusting the height and he was not aware of the 30' right-of-way on the north; he could move the house in the ten foot setback to south and move the garage door by creatively clipping the door so it does not go into the water/sewer easement. Mason asked if there were any other configurations. Meyer pointed out they meet the 10 foot requirement on the back of the lot. Clark said the house could be redesigned to meet most of the requests except the 30' right-of-way. He said he was surprised a water main was placed thru a lot. Maloney explained it was a logical choice at the time because the right-of-way lines up with Rose Hill Lane. Meyer asked for a definition of public right-of-way. Brixius said it appears the platted right-of-way is an unimproved road and he had to do research to see if the road actually existed. He explained there is an 18 foot wide easement and a right-of-way. Brixius said from his prospective, a 30 foot set back is needed from a public right-of-way. He noted this made the lot a corner lot and if the roadway did not exist, no variances would be necessary. Clark asked if a vacation of the right-of-way could be done by the City. Brixius said he does not know what purpose or use it is to the City but the • City engineer could answer that question. Klein asked who would pay for repairs if the City has to fix main breaks. Brixius said the City would do some restoration but we do not allow a structure on a utility easement. Chair Maloney asked if there was anyone present from the public that wished to speak in favor of the variance requests. Letters were received from Commissioners Mork Bredeson and Sippel (who could not attend the meeting) in favor of recommending the variance requests to the Council. Chris Snow, 2421 Black Lake Road, said he was in favor of the proposal and urged its approval from the City. He said the lot has not been used and the house would improve the aesthetics of the neighborhood. Beth Aschinger, 2452 Black Lake Road, asked for clarification of the location of the water main on the property. Brixius pointed out there are water and sewer lines in that location and the water line is in the center of the 18 foot easement. Maloney asked if there was anyone present that would like to speak in opposition to the variance requests. Aschinger asked how much space is needed for the easement. Maloney said usually the width is based on the depth of the utilities to allow adequate room to make repairs. Aschinger asked how far into the easement the house could be placed. She was told it cannot • go into the easement at all. Planning Commission—3/8/06 3 • Maloney read two letters received that were opposed to the variance requests, one was from L. Schussler, 2425 Black Lake Road, and from B. Crawford, 4317 Rose Hill Lane. Meyer pointed out a house at one time did fit with the set back requirements. Graham Neve, 2413 Black Lake Road, asked how the catch basin at that location would be affected. Clark said it would have to be protected during construction. Maloney pointed out this may have to be regarded with particular attention. 3. Close Public Hearing Having no further questions, Chair Maloney closed the public hearing at 7:34 p.m. 4. Recommendation to Council a) NAC—3/l/06 Mason asked if the variances would be voted on one at a time. Klein stated the lot is odd shaped and the structure could be rearranged to fit on it. She said it is too big of a house for that lot, there is not a lot of green space on either side and creativity should be used to decrease the number of variances. Motion by Maloney to recommend to the Council to approve the variance requests with the exception of the south side yard set back. • In discussion she said most of the variance requests were because of the public right-of-way. Clark verified the motion meant the variance for the 30 foot right-of-way set back was being allowed if all other requests were met. Klein verified the height request was being approved with this motion. She said it sounds like they could rearrange the structure to meet the other requirements. Clark added except the right-of-way set back. The motion died for lack of a second. Mason asked if they would pursue possible vacation of the right-of-way and was told no. Clark asked if the City would consider a vacation. Hughes said this would have to be deferred to the City engineer. Brixius said it would require a public hearing and the City would have to decide the right-of-way no longer served the City. Mason said they could reduce the height, but there is more to it besides the height. Motion by Maloney and seconded by Mason to recommend to the Council to approve the side yard set back abutting the right-of-way on the north side only. Upon roll call Klein, Mason and Maloney voted aye. Motion declared carried. Clark verified a new plan would remove the height issue and other setback • issues. Seifert said he would have to redesign the site plan to accommodate the motion. Brixius stated this does not eliminate the fact the lot is smaller Planning Commission —3/8/06 4 • than standard and the width is smaller than standard and while they meet the impervious surface requirements and by approving that, you are stating this lot is buildable because all of the other requirements are met. He said you have to be on record with a recommendation on the lot area and impervious surface area also. Motion by Maloney to recommend to the Council to approve lot area, lot width and impervious surface requirements. Motion failed due to lack of a second. Klein stated that no matter how the structure is redesigned the impervious surface would not be met and they may have to use gravel for a driveway. Brixius pointed out compacted gravel will not allow water to penetrate and it would become compacted. He again pointed out the presence of the right-of- way creates the hardship for the entire property and everything else would be compliant is this did not exist. Mason verified the right-of-way on the north is the mitigating factor. Motion by Maloney and seconded by Klein to recommend to the Council to approve lot area, lot width and impervious surface requirements. Upon roll call Klein and Maloney voted aye and Mason voted no. Motion declared carried. • Hughes said he would like the City Attorney to comment on the motions to make sure all of the issues have been covered. Beck said she has not had time to review the issues and referred this to Brixius. He said the setback on the south side and the height has not been covered. Motion by Klein and seconded by Mason recommend to the Council to deny the height and south side yard variance requests. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. Seifert clarified the plan has to be redesigned to eliminate the height variance and the south side set back variance. c) Site Plan Review & Application for Preliminary Plat, K. Hovnanian (for Island Drive) Present for this public hearing: Mike Reger, K. Hovnanian; John Harriss & Matt Anderson, Harriss Architect; Tom Goodrum &Kevin Teppen, Schoell &Madson; Brian Manrick. 1. Open Public Hearing a) Notice of Public Hearing Maloney opened the public hearing at 7:49 p.m. and read the notice published in the Laker Newspaper. is 2. Discussion&Comments Planning Commission —3/8/06 5 • Brixius requested the Planning Commission to continue the public hearing because we do not have the predevelopment agreement signed by the developer. He said we are asking the applicant to extend the review period and the applicant verbally agreed to do this. Brixius said the issues are being worked out this week. He said K. Hovnanian is applying for preliminary plat approval and site plan review. He showed the location of the existing buildings and stated the application in hand is proposing removing the existing buildings and build four other buildings (two are attached); all of the buildings will have underground parking and surface parking for guests; sidewalks, ponds, and pools; the property is zoned for R-3, high density residential. Brixius said they are asking for the preliminary plat to split into four lots; they all would be compliant including the lot widths,building heights and setbacks. He said the issues with the plat are to secure an easement for the driveway (of which has been secured); they need an additional two feet of county right-of- way. Brixius stated there are 157 existing units and 147 condo units are being proposed; the height of all the buildings is 3 stories and the City is not going to grant any variances. He noted some areas of the buildings will look larger because the height is measured from the finished grade to the top. It was emphasized to the applicant to use soft muted earth tones and natural • materials such as stone for the exterior. Brixius stated there would be two underground parking stalls per unit. He said there is an issue with the site design and proper traffic visibility on Island Drive (which is a private street). He stated there should be 110 unobstructed feet in both directions. Another concern was the grade going into the individual driveways. One parking requirement of the Mist Lofts was to 1/4 stall per unit for guest parking. Brixius said this is addressed over the entire site for opportunities to provide more and they are only two stalls short; trash enclosures are located inside the building; the drive from county road 15 is 26 feet wide and narrows to 20 feet and then vegetation is added for storm water run off, the entrance at county road 15 is designed to be wider for right and left turn lanes; Hennepin County requires an access permit and wants a 12 foot right of way versus a 10 foot right-of-way. Brixius said the island has access lanes into underground parking and have turning radiuses for emergency equipment; there are pull off locations for large truck deliveries; the setback from the shoreline is 50 feet; they are keeping a lot of green space in a natural state; there is going to be rain gardens, retaining walls, with connections to all areas for pedestrians; they are • going to continue to work with the Marina Center to provide access from the project to the center. Planning Commission—3/8/06 6 • Brixius further stated the impervious surface will increase from 43% to 44%; the Stormwater Management Plan provides ponds for filtration and a sediment trap and the run off will go thru the rain garden before released to the lake; there will be native vegetation along the road and erosion control practiced during construction. He said the island would have an established sedimentation basin; water will be directed from the roof and parking lot to the rain gardens before entering the lake. He said the MCWD waits for action from the City before they will review the plans; there is going to be significant change in the grade on the east side because there is a 13-foot grade separation and a boulder retaining wall along with ornamental trees and shrubs. He added there will be bridge between the two buildings on Shoreline Drive. Brixius added boulder retaining walls are being used for a more natural appearance; circulation includes access to docks, pools, lake, etc.; light locations are along the parking lot and drives and some lighting is suggested along the isthmus between the island and the drive to the upper buildings; a detailed plan has been submitted for the landscaping elements, rain gardens, shoreland impact areas, boulder walls, in conjunction with the island. Brixius pointed out a big issue is we want the quantity and species identified so the plan can be verified at the end on the project. He added the construction plan is not complete; they added parking and storage areas and have to address the • staging of the demolition. Tom Goodrum (engineer)pointed out currently there are no issues or conflicts and no variances applied for; Hennepin County is working with them regarding the 12 foot right-of-way dedication; there would be an expansion of a turn lane; they are open to placing light along the isthmus. Goodrum pointed out the site currently has no storm water plan and they have adopted a storm water treatment plan with retention ponds. He said they would be using Construction Management Plan, Scenario #1 and that is demo and construct the buildings on the island first and wait with the two northern buildings until the island is constructed. Goodrum said the construction area will be fenced in and they will have everything on site where they working. He said another option they are looking at is to lease or access the area behind the shopping center for construction storage. Klein asked when they would know if they could use the Marina Center and this is unknown. Seifert asked if traffic studies have been made to address residents dealing with construction traffic and none have been done. Seifert asked if they could be done. Goodrum said he can provide the information. Brixius said the construction of Island Drive will be done during the 1"phase. Mason asked what provision they have made if they are not able to use the back lot at the Marina Center. Goodrum said they would definitely build • building "A" first and `B" second. He indicated they would not have stock piles at this site because there is not a lot of grading required. Planning Commission—3/8/06 7 • Klein asked if the employees would park in the underground garage when building "A" is finished and was told no. Maloney asked where they are going to put employee parking during construction. Goodrum pointed out there are about 60 stalls in the middle of buildings "A" & `B" and he added both buildings on the island would be removed at the same time. Linda Lampman, resident of Park Hill/Island, inquired about disturbing the wildlife habitat. Goodrum said it would be left for wild life. She asked the number of the boat slips on the site. Goodrum stated it would be the same amount as now with no additional impact. Manrick said he is working with the LMCD to see if another dock configuration would work better than the current one. Mike Gorra, owner of Park Hill/Island Apartments said the two buildings on the island, during the original construction, had no problem with storing construction equipment between the buildings. Klein verified they meet all the requirements for the fire inspection. Mason asked who would be monitoring the wetlands during construction. Goodrum said the MCWD reviews construction sites, City staff can check it, and the honor system is used. Harriss said he makes regular visits to sites to deal with issues. Goodrum reminded the group this is a high profile project in a sensitive area. Brixius said all requirements and recommendations would be • on a plan for approval and the burden of compliance is with the City to make sure they are doing it right. Neve asked the price range of the units. Reger said they have not determined the market value yet and to determine this they have focus groups do phone surveys, etc. to determine this. Mason asked why they changed the staging of the construction. Reger said they are working with the seller and other issues came into account i.e. displacing people; if they can keep available some space for a longer period of time it would be helpful for some of the residents. He added they will do everything they can in their power to do it right and take the time needed. Mason asked if they are staggering the purchase of the buildings. Reger said they are and this will give Gorra an opportunity to continue renting as long as possible. Mason asked if they would be utilizing the docks during construction and he was told no. Maloney asked if they have submitted a grading plan and was told they are working on it. Reger said they are working on five easements and stated the negotiations are going well. Maloney verified the plan submitted for the road includes the easement for the driveway. Seifert said the easement is signed for the road. Goodrum pointed out the permanent easement is for the two feet from the county road. • Maloney said they have to know which site plan they are supposed to approve. Brixius stated the City has asked the developer to extend the 120 day review Planning Commission —3/8/06 8 • period in writing to 30 or 60 days so the issues such as construction phasing can be worked out. Linda Lampman stated the proposed development was having an impact on lower income residents and displacing affordable housing. Mason said the Council and Planning Commission have discussed this at workshops and they do have an interest in that. Hughes pointed out the Met Council says the City has to have a certain percentage of affordable housing. Weeks said we exceed that percentage now. Klein recommended that information be made available for the next meeting. Reger stated there would be a wide variety of units on the property with various price ranges and they provide a high quality product, it is a low impact development and it impacts the environment in a positive way. Hughes suggested Reger do a search on affordable housing in our previous minutes because it would behoove him to catch up what has been discussed. Mason asked what type of landscape will be between Shoreline Drive and the buildings and this will be in the landscape plan. He asked when the construction is going to start for the first phase. Reger said it depends on the approval process. He said the development meets or exceeds all of the zoning standards. He thought the time frame would be after October 15th or early 2007. • Teppen (landscape architect) said they are going to increase the amount of the canopy of trees along the driveway. They are providing a lot of vegetation and softening it with rain gardens. He added they will continue with the boulevard trees along Shoreline Drive. Harriss stated he was requested to assemble samples of the exterior materials for the buildings. He said they want stone, brick and metal for permanence and low maintenance and a lot of glass to maximize the views. He pointed out all brick is accented with another color; the metals have been toned down so they are not so bright on the corners and on top; the small portions of insets are hardy board and the window frames are dark bronze. Maloney asked if there were any more questions or comments at this time. Brixius said the summary of his recommendations are on pages 10 and 11 on his report. He said the recommendation to the Council should be to continue this public hearing until the Planning Commission meeting in April. He added the presentation tonight waives the need for a total presentation again. 4. Recommendation to Council a) NAC—3/1/06 • Planning Commission—3/8/06 9 Motion by Mason and seconded by Klein to continue the public hearing to the next Planning Commission meeting April 12, 2006. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. 6. COMMUNICATONS The following communications were noted: a) Council Minutes—2/6/06 b) Workshop (Providence on Lake Mtka.)—2/8/06 c) Council Minutes—2/21/06 d) Channels 8 &20 Schedules March 2006 e) Building Report February f) Sign Report February g) Memo Re: CD's Requested(Mailed)—2/13/06 7. MISCELLANEOUS Hughes reminded the Commissioners of the Moratorium Workshop on March 27th and & complimented the chair on her conduct of the meeting. 8. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Mason and seconded by Klein to adjourn the meeting at 9:20 p.m. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. SHARON CORL DEPUTY CLERK IL LAM D. WEEKS- ADMINISTRATOR/CLERK/TREASURER. Planning Commission —3/8/06 10 PLEASE SIGN IN Public Hearing —March 8, 2006 — 7:00 p.m. NAME ADDRESS i� C"V ��I U U - I e� �1 Al C 3 ACA r z__ dCz �4 /lam 046 Cm,402� e(._e3 /v, LI e-7 x • CITY OF SPRING PARK SPRING PARK, MINNESOTA AGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 12, 2006 7:00 P.M.—CITY HALL 1. CALL TO ORDER Pledge of Allegiance 2. ROLL CALL Oath of Office—Bill Tyler 3. ADOPT AGENDA 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES—March 8, 2006 5. PLANNING COMMISSION a) Sign Permit Application, 4282 Shoreline Drive (Tonka Ventures Bldg), IT BONA b) Sign Permit Application, 4142 Shoreline Drive Ste D (Tonka Ventures Bldg), • Pagel USA c) Variance Application—Steve Bedell, 4600 West Arm Road 1. Open Public Hearing a) Public Hearing Notice 2. Discussion& Comments a) NAC—3/5/06 b) Communication—G. Shavlik, 4608 West Arm Road 3. Close Public Hearing 4. Recommendation to Council d) Continued Public Hearing—Providence on Lake Minnetonka 1. Discussion& Comments a) NAC—4/3/06 b) Landscape Plan(L1, L2, L3) c) Construction Staging Plan d) Preliminary Grading Plan 2. Close Public Hearing 3. Recommendation to Council 6. COMMUNICATIONS a) Joint Meeting Minutes— 1/30/06 b) Council Minutes—3/6/06 c) Council Minutes—3/14/06 d) Council Minutes—3/20/06 • e) Closed Executive Session—3/20/06 Planning Commission —4WO6 1 • g) Letter to B. Aschinger—3/2/06 h) April Calendar i) Building& Sign Report—March j) Channels 8 & 20 Schedules k) Council, Planning Commission& Staff Updated List 1) Letter from Dan Pinault, 4360 Channel Road Re: Wilkes Park—4/6/06 7. MISCELLANEOUS S. ADJOURNMENT • • Planning Commission —4/12/06 2 • CITY OF SPRING PARK SPRING PARK,MINNESOTA MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 12,2006 7:00 P.M.—CITY HALL 1. CALL TO ORDER Pledge of Allegiance Chair Maloney called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. followed by the pledge of allegiance. 2. ROLL CALL Mork Bredeson, Klein, Mason, Maloney, Tyler and Ex-Officio Hughes were present. Anderson and Sippel were excused. Staff present: Deputy Clerk Corl, Office Assistant Lewin; Alan Brixius, Planner;Nancy Beck, Attorney. Oath of Office—Bill Tyler Deputy Clerk Corl administered the oath of office to Tyler. 3. ADOPT AGENDA • Motion by Maloney and seconded by Klein to adopt the agenda. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES—March 8, 2006 Mork Bredeson requested the word"absent"be changed to "excused"for herself and Sippel. Mason said Mayor Rockvam and Council Person Reinhardt should be added to those present. Motion by Mason and seconded by Klein to approve the Planning Commission minutes for the meeting March 8, 2006 with the corrections. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. 5. PLANNING COMMISSION a) Sign Permit Application, 4282 Shoreline Drive (Tonka Ventures Bldg), IT BONA Berndt Ruttkowski was present for both sign permit applications. Klein verified the proposed signs were in conformance with the ordinance. She commented favorably on the choice of colors for the signs. Mork Bredeson pointed out to the applicant the City has recommended colors for signs on Shoreline Drive and they are the chosen colors of this sign. • Planning Commission—4/12/06 1 • Motion by Mork Bredeson and seconded by Mason to approve the sign permit application for IT BONA, 4282 Shoreline Drive. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. b) Sign Permit Application, 4142 Shoreline Drive Ste D (Tonka Ventures Bldg), Pagel USA Maloney verified the sign was similar to the current signs on the Tonka Ventures Building. Motion by Mork Bredeson and seconded by Klein to approve the sign permit application for Pagel USA, 4142 Shoreline Drive. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. c) Variance Application—Steve Bedell, 4600 West Arm Road 1) Open Public Hearing a) Public Hearing Notice Chair Maloney read the notice published in the Laker Newspaper and opened the public hearing at 7:06 p.m. 2) Discussion& Comments a) NAC—3/5/06 b) Communication—G. Shavlik, 4608 West Arm Road Steve Bedell was present for the public hearing. He distributed a picture of the house • he is proposing to build on West Arm Road. He pointed out that particular house fits on a 50 foot wide lot in Mound. Bedell said he revised his revised plan to maintain a 10 foot side yard setback on the west side to satisfy that neighbor; he is asking for a 5 foot setback variance on the east side; he said that neighbor does not object to this. Bedell said he is willing to work with the City to make his building proposal work. He pointed out the proposed house would be more conforming than the previous house he demolished. Maloney asked if Bedell received the letter from NAC and was told he did. He said he is willing to compromise and redraft new plans for a narrower house. Klein asked the height of the house. Bedell said it was within the ordinance requirements. Mason asked if the first level was 50% into the ground. Bedell said the picture is of a two story house and if height becomes an issue he will address it. Mason asked how much grade would be changed and was told none. Bedell said there were concerns with blocking the neighbor's views; he said his proposed structure would not be blocking views. Mason pointed out the view would be blocked on the west side. He asked how the soil would be retained. Bedell said the main problem is from the street and up to the neighbor's retailing wall. Mason asked the future status of the current retaining wall. Bedell said it would come down and be replaced with lime stone blocks. is about asked the measurement of the overhang on the east. Bedell said it would be about 1 %2 feet. Maloney pointed out that is a standard width. Mason stated there is a Planning Commission—4/12/06 2 • safety issue with fire equipment on that side of the house. Bedell said he may have to address the retaining wall regarding safety. Mason asked the location of the retaining wall on the survey and was told it is close to the property line. Maloney asked if the driveway worked the same way as the one in the picture and Bedell said the proposed house would be reversed. Klein asked if they should reserve a recommendation at this time. Bedell said he would have to do new sketches. Maloney said it would be difficult to look at a side yard request without accurate hardcover calculations. Bedell noted he thought he was purchasing a 55 foot wide lot and he would recalculate the hardcover. Mork Bredeson pointed out it would be better to get away from the 5 foot variance request because there is an issue with safety and the fire department. She suggested having the fire department give an opinion on this request. She also noted there is no hardship for that property. Bedell confirmed if he stayed within the ordinance he would just need a building permit. Maloney read the comments from Hoelting's letter, neighbors on the east side of the property, who were in favor of the proposal and Shavlik's letter, neighbor on the west side, opposing the proposal. She asked if anyone from the public would like to make a comment. Bob Rich, 4626 West Arm Road, was in favor of the proposal. Mason pointed out the 50 foot lot is not a hardship. Klein said if there is not hardship, the • Planning Commission could not recommend approval of the variance request. She said they are bound by the requirements of the ordinance. Bedell said he could have added onto the existing house instead of tearing it down. Mason told him he should have come to the City before tearing down the house. Klein stated recommending approval would be setting a precedent and it has to be justifiable. Bedell pointed out each case should be treated individually. Brixius suggested the Planning Commission continue the public hearing so it would not have to be published again and he offered to assist Bedell with his variance request. 3. Close Public Hearing Motion by Mason and seconded by Mork Bredeson to continue the public hearing to the next Planning Commission meeting. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. 4. Recommendation to Council Hughes pointed out that before any final approval from the Council, Bedell's drawings have to be accurate. d) Continued Public Hearing—Providence on Lake Minnetonka 1. Discussion& Comments • a) NAC —4/6/06 Planning Commission —4/12/06 • b) Landscape Plan(L1, L2, L3) c) Construction Staging Plan d) Preliminary Grading Plan Present: Mike Reger, K. Hovnanian; John Harriss, architect; Kevin Teppen and Matt Anderson, landscaping; Tom Goodrum, engineer; Paul Neuman, Weis (builder); Mike Gorra, apartment owner. The above items were referred to in the discussion. Brixius pointed out at the previous Planning Commission meeting a public hearing was opened for Providence on Lake Minnetonka for the site plan and preliminary plat review. He stated the developer is proposing to demolish four apartment buildings containing 157 units and replace them with 147 condo units in four buildings. He said the formal presentation was given at the previous meeting. Brixius added at that time the recommendation was to continue the public hearing pending the developer signing the predevelopment agreement, submitting a landscape plan, grading plan and construction staging plan. He pointed out those issues have been addressed and plans have been submitted. Brixius reviewed the high points of the project. He said the preliminary plat shows four individual lots because the ordinance prevents more than one principal building on a lot; access to all lots have to be on a City approved street; their access is a private street, Island Drive; there was concern with fire safety, turning radiuses; a primary concern was the need for an easement from another property owner for the drive into the property. • Brixius said the applicant has secured that easement and it was signed by both property owners; the grading plan showed grading beyond the property; this can be done but a temporary construction easement is needed. Brixius said the concept plan has been changed a couple of times; their concerns were traffic patterns; each unit will have two underground parking stalls; the design of the traffic pattern accommodates moving vans, large trucks, emergency vehicles; there is a 20 foot roadway to the island; the units meet all the required setbacks; the development has achieved a stormwater treatment plan; He pointed out the retaining wall on the east side will have a 13 foot drop; they did not want a cave affect so those buildings were reduced somewhat; guest parking has been provided; Brixius said another major concern in the original process was the building height; they have satisfied the height requirements; the average elevation is just over 35 feet and the maximum allowed is 40 feet. He noted the buildings would be visible from the lake; the developer is working on the landscape plan to break up the look of just buildings. Brixius pointed out the displayed color rendition of exterior materials consisting of brick, stone, lap siding; each building will have a significant amount of glass for views of the lake. He said a dramatic element is significant site grading necessary to provide stormwater management and treatment elements; they have provided treatment areas and rain gardens and the end result will be better over all than the existing treatment. He • pointed out they are reducing parking surfaces for ponding and green space; open space will include trails, ponds, landscaped yards along entire island; the treatment along the Planning Commission —4/12/06 4 • top of the wall will be conifer plantings and tiered with another row of hardwoods and shrubs; the lower wall will be a boulder wall leading into the ponding area. There will be pedestrian access around and between the buildings and to the island and the pools; another major issue is the lighting; a photo metric plan has been submitted. Tyler asked what the east side of the wall looked like. Brixius said it would be at grade and the 13 foot drop is inside the complex. Maloney verified there would be required fencing on the wall. Brixius pointed out there was concern where the access points to the garage come out into the driveway areas and those concerns have been satisfied; he noted the City has received a revised grading plan showing the construction of the driveway can occur entirely on the property; he said his review of the original grading plan offers a better design and both are acceptable and he recommends approving both plans. Brixius pointed out a revised landscape plan has been submitted that includes the individual species, quantity and sizes. He said most trees are ornamental and would be 25 to 30 feet in height to preserve views to the lake. Mork Bredeson stated the road has to be lit and a post light would be less obtrusive. Brixius said 15 foot lights would be seen from the lake and the edge of the road has to be defined; bollard lights were suggested; no landscaping would be planted to shield the lights from the lake. Brixius stated there was concern with the original construction staging plan because it would involve a lot of employees, cars, equipment, etc. He said they will have fencing • around the entire construction site; the new plan provides for about 70 employees plus trucks and deliveries. He stated other elements of concern are operational i.e. street cleaning; the 2nd phase is more complicated because it is a tighter area. He added the underground parking for residents could be used for employees temporarily. He said the plan speaks to traffic control, litter, etc. and noted there will be some disruptions. Tyler asked if the island buildings would be completed before the other units are started. Reger said they expect to have the island buildings completed and sold no later than 24 months based on how the project is perceived by the market; they will then proceed to do the other buildings; Mason asked the proposed start time and was told this fall. Mork Bredeson asked if 24 months is the projected shortest or longest time and verified there would be two years between the phase 1 and 2. Mason asked if the start time of phase 2 would be pending complete sales of the island units. Reger said the development would be according to the plan not the market and delivering the product to the consumer according to a schedule. Mason asked if the development was still a concept. Brixius stated it was a plan, they have submitted a site plan and preliminary plat for the Planning Commission to take action on at this meeting. It will be reviewed by the Council and actual building drawings are submitted with the building permit application. Klein asked if the developer will own all four building at once and if it was possible the second phase would not occur. Brixius said it has been discussed how much would occur and what has to be completed • if the entire development did not occur. He stated the following must be completed: all of Island Drive; grading on the slope; the proposed work at county road 15. Brixius said Planning Commission —4/12/06 5 �. the City has to state what we want done in the first phase development, dictate how each section is going to be developed and state what has to be done in its entirety regarding grading, the island, etc. Klein expressed concern there have been a lot of revisions and they get new documentation at every meeting. She was told they are trying to be responsive to changes requested by the City dictated to them. Brixius pointed out the site plan and preliminary plat has not changed and the developer has addressed our concerns in the general operation during the construction. Maloney verified the Planning Commission is being asked to approve the elements that have remained the same. Hughes said it was raised at the last meeting by the residents if they could still get to the lake and use their boats. He asked if the docks are going to be available during construction and what contingency plan is there for people that have docks. Tyler asked if the boat slips there now are owned by the apartments and the users are apartment dwellers. He was told the docks belong to the apartments and most of them are used by residents of the units. Reger said at the time of closing on the property, the boat slips on the island will not be available, but some will be available at the hill site and there will be access to them. Hughes said his concern is there is not a plan in place for the boat slips. Gorra said there is a plan in place and it has been worked out with the developers; most slips are used by the people that live in the complex. . Tyler asked if they are changing the number of docks available. Reger said they are working with the LMCD. Tyler asked if the hill project would also take two years and at what point is the hill project started. Reger stated the hill project would start when they are contractually required to obtain the hill property. He pointed out this is hard to determine exactly as construction is weather driven and the best case scenario is 4 years for the entire project. Mason asked when the landscaping and wall on the hill would be constructed. Brixius said there is no reason to grade there prior to that construction; the only thing going to be done on the hill is the road. Norma Babatz, resident, said she is concerned with the traffic. Reger said they are reducing the number of units on the entire site thus reducing the traffic. Maloney pointed out it is up to the county to assess the traffic because that is a country road. Babatz asked if the City Council ever considered traffic concerns and was told traffic studies were done. Klein verified Hennepin County does not have issues with the development. Goodrum said they worked with the county and were asked to provide a wider entrance for a better flow of traffic. He said vehicles entering are entering right only and exiting right only during peak times (right in and right out); the rest of the day left and right turns would be allowed. He said the only real traffic problem should occur with the demolition of the first buildings; there would be a low impact of traffic once the first few weeks are done removing debris. • Planning Commission—4/12/06 6 10 Mason asked if the only grading is going to be done on the road. Goodrum said there would be minimal grading on the island; the road coming in will be changed but they have to maintain the existing access; it is going to be widened up to 26 feet with utility improvements. Mason asked what is going to be done with the road bed to control the dust. Goodrum said they have to get the utilities in and the road would be watered down during that time. Maloney referred to the landscape plan and stated there are a lot of smaller ornamental trees. Goodrum said there would be a tiering affect with the trees from the lake; they do not want them growing above the roof tops but blend in with the buildings; it is important to protect the views of the lake. Maloney said it would be nice to see a few larger trees for a visual affect in areas that are not going to obstruct the view. Teppen said there are going to be large canopy trees along Shoreline Drive and accent trees are along the lakeshore. He said along the island are all canopy trees for buffering and interest specifically on the park hill side; the building is back from the lake and allows the opportunity to put in large canopy trees and also along the building face. Teppen said they would like to keep a naturalistic look and make the landscaping fit with the character of the development. Klein asked what kind of trees are proposed along Island Drive and was told they are going to be birches which grow to 50 to 60 feet tall. Mason asked the height difference from existing to new and was told they would grow 12 to 15 feet taller. • A Mound resident commented she was pleased they are in support of keeping the development more residential versus a commercial feel to it; sensitive to not over lighting it; she liked the idea of bollard lighting. Mork Bredeson asked where there would be pole lights and where there would be bollard lights. Goodrum said pole lights would be on the hill and bollard lights would be along the peninsula area. Mork Bredeson asked how many light poles are proposed. Goodrum referred her to the light plan in the packet. It was noted the light poles will be identical to the ones being used at the Mist Lofts. Hughes asked if the poles would hang over the roadway or inside the sidewalks. Goodrum said they would make sure trucks could not hit the lights and they will place them where the City wants them. Brixius said the light poles would be located behind the sidewalk and the photometric plan is compliant with our requirements. He added the lighting between the island and the county road was a concern. He asked the Planning Commission to make lighting required from the island to County Road 15 as a condition in their approval. Mason asked if the trees along the roadway to the island would keep the light from illuminating the lake. Brixius said the bollard lighting would be directional. Harriss stated bollard lighting is typically used for walkways. Maloney asked if we should require a minimum of pole lighting. Harriss said we have to study it to obtain a balance. Maloney asked if there would be another opportunity to discuss lighting. Brixius said the Council and staff could discuss that. Mason asked if they have an easement for staging at the Marina Center. Goodrum said everything can be handled on site. Mason asked if that • included a sales trailer. Reger said that can be worked out at a later date. Planning Commission —4/12/06 7 • Mason noted they changed the name of the project to Island Harbor. He pointed out we would like to be informed of any changes. Hughes asked if trucks are making right turns and residents making left turns, will they have 3 lanes to accommodate this. Goodrum said that would be addressed if there is a need for it. Tyler asked the size and price of the units. Reger said they will range in size from 1,000 to 3,000 square feet and will have a broad spectrum of pricing. Mason briefly mentioned affordable housing. Reger pointed out the market would determine the price. Mason noted the representation of Schoell and Madson on behalf of the City and the developer. Goodrum said it was the engineer's position to protect the City's interest. He pointed out the engineers are two different people with two different functions. Maloney asked the Commissions part in this. Hughes deferred that to attorney Beck. He said we made sure no approvals were being made by the same consultants for the development and the City. Beck said this issue was raised by the Council and she drafted a conflict of interest policy; that policy was not in affect when this project started; Schoell and Madson received approval to represent K. Hovnanian. Klein asked if the conflict of interest policy states this situation could not happen. Beck said the City Council has to decide unanimously to allow the situation. 2. Close Public Hearing Chair Maloney closed the public hearing at 8:54 p.m. . 3. Recommendation to Council Brixius pointed out the Planning Commission is being asked for their approval on the preliminary plat and site and building plan review. He would like to add approval of both grading plans, the original and revised; a resolution of lighting along the narrow portion of the road; approval of the construction staging plan; and an amendment that would accommodate a left turn allowed for residents during construction. Goodrum asked for clarification with allowing the left turn i.e. thru a flag man. Brixius said he would give options. Motion by Mork Bredeson seconded by Klein to recommend to the Council to approve the application from K. Hovnanian Homes for a preliminary plat and site and building plan review for property located at 2380, 2450, 2470 Island Drive and 4601 Shoreline Drive consisting of the following plans: Preliminary Plat Dated 12/08/05,Revised 02/03/06 Architectural Drawings Dated 02/03/06 Engineering Drawing Dated 12/28/05, Revised 01/20/06 Subject to the conditions and modifications outlined in: Mound Fire Department Letter Dated 2/27/06 Hennepin County Highway Department Letter Dated 2/21/06 • City Engineer John Karwacki Letter Dated 1/9/06 Planning Commission—4/12/06 8 • City Engineer Ken Adolf Letter Dated 2/24/06 NAC Planning Report Dated 2/27/06 And the following: 1. The City approves both the original grading plan for Island Drive and the revised grading plan for Island Drive with a retaining wall. 2. Subject to City Council approval of lighting along Island Drive between Island and Hill portion of the site. 3. Approval of the revised Landscape Plan dated 3/23/2006. 4. Approval of the construction staging plan submitted 4/12/06 with the provision that the applicant provide for a resident left hand turn onto County Road 15 during construction. If traffic congestion at the entrance becomes an issue, the applicant shall provide a flag person to direct traffic. Upon roll call Mork Bredeson, Klein, Mason, Maloney and Tyler said aye. Motion declared carried. 6. COMMUNICATIONS . The following communications were noted: a) Joint Meeting Minutes— 1/30/06 b) Council Minutes—3/6/06 c) Council Minutes—3/14/06 d) Council Minutes—3/20/06 e) Closed Executive Session—3/20/06 f) Special Council Minutes—3/27/06 g) Letter to B. Aschinger—3/2/06 h) April Calendar i) Building & Sign Report—March j) Channels 8 & 20 Schedules k) Council,Planning Commission& Staff Updated List 1) Letter from Dan Pinault,4360 Channel Rd Re: Wilkes Park—4/6/06 7. MISCLLANEOUS —None 8. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Mork Bredeson and seconded by Klein to adjourn the Planning Commission meeting at 9:15 p.m. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. SHARON CORL • DEPUTY CLERK Planning Commission—4/12/06 9 • CITY OF SPRING PARK SPRING PARK, MINNESOTA AGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 10,2006 7:00 P.M.—CITY HALL 1. CALL TO ORDER Pledge of Allegiance 2. ROLL CALL 3. ADOPT AGENDA 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES—April 12, 2006 5. PLANNING COMMISSION a) Sign Permit Application 06-08 —Minnetonka Realty, 4154 Shoreline Drive b) Sign Permit Application 06-07 - Tyconn, LLP, 4032 Shoreline Drive 6. COMMUNICATIONS • a) Letter from Steve Bedell Re: Tabling Variance Request— 5/4/06 b) Joint Meeting—3/27/06 c) Special Council Meeting—4/3/06 d) Council Minutes—4/3/06 e) Special Meeting—4/6/06 f) Council Minutes—4/17/06 g) Board of Review Minutes—4/24/06 h) Ordinance Amendment Re: Musical Concerts (Please add to your ordinance book) i) Ordinance Addition Re: Conflict of Interest Policy (Please add to your ordinance book) j) LMCC Newsletter Winter 2006 k) May Calendar 1) Channels 8 & 20 Schedules m)Upper Tonka Little League Agreement 2006 n) Moratorium & Ordinances—5/5/06 7. MISCELLANEOUS 8. ADJOURNMENT • CITY OF SPRING PARK • SPRING PARK, MINNESOTA AGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 10, 2006 7:00 P.M.—CITY HALL 1. CALL TO ORDER Pledge of Allegiance Chair Maloney called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m. followed by the pledge of allegiance. 2. ROLL CALL Klein,Mason, Maloney, Tyler, Ex-Officio Hughes and Council Person Reinhardt were present. Mork Bredeson, Anderson and Sippel were excused. Staff present: Administrator Friesen, Deputy Clerk Corl; Office Assistant Lewin. 3. ADOPT AGENDA Motion by Klein and seconded by Mason to adopt the agenda. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. • 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES—April 12, 2006 Motion by Mason and seconded by Klein to approve the minutes for the Planning Commission meeting April 12,2006. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. 5. PLANNING COMMISSION a) Sign Permit Application 06-08 —Minnetonka Realty, 4154 Shoreline Drive Hughes verified each light bar is an inch and a quarter. Klein asked about the difference in the two drawings contained in the packet. She was told the 8' light bar was included in error. Klein verified the sign meets all the requirements. Maloney asks for a motion. Motion by Maloney and seconded by Mason to approve the sign permit application for 4154 Shoreline Drive, Minnetonka Realty, for a 16 foot light bar under the name on the east and south face. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. b) Sign Permit Application 06-07 -Tyconn, LLP, 4032 Shoreline Drive Discussion: Maloney wondered what type of material the sign will be made of. Hughes raised concerns about the parking diagram submitted with the application regarding issues about the number of parking spots. • Friesen met with the applicant today and the applicant says he'll remove some pylons; there's probably four parking spots on the back of the lot, and five on the west side, next Planning Commission—5/10/06 1 to the building, and another seven on the east side making a total of 16 on the lower • level. She said he probably could get five more stalls on the lot west of the building when the Mist construction is complete. Friesen stated on the upper level, it's difficult to tell because the applicant didn't have a measurement. There are issues with power poles, a fire hydrant and trash receptacles but they could maybe have 10 spots; there is the potential to have a total of 31 parking spots. Friesen says the current diagram, the way it's drawn, is probably not acceptable. It was requested the applicant supply more adequate drawings. Friesen says a conditional approval could be granted, therefore he wouldn't have to wait a month but, if it's tabled, he would lose a month. Tyler wants to know what the connection with a sign permit application has to do with parking. Friesen talks about the parking being part of the zoning ordinance. Friesen states the applicant could argue they are two separate ordinances,however, the City could argue it is still a health and safety issue and we want some control. She added the City wants to make sure there is conformity. Klein asked if the applicant knows the diagram is inadequate. Klein also wondered if the applicant is receptive to the City's concerns. Maloney asked if parking will be a concern with regard to the applicant's business. Friesen said there isn't anticipation of parking issues with the present business occupying the building; the 30-31 parking spaces should • be more than adequate for the current business. Maloney stated she feels the sign application is not complete. Klein said the colors are vague on the application. Hughes wondered if the color scheme will be like the sign posted in the window. Maloney, Klein and Mason feel the application and diagram should be more complete; it's inadequate at this time. Mason said it would be desirable to receive clean, clear copies of what is being proposed. Klein suggested the applicant also attend the meeting. Maloney thinks so many things are coming to the Planning Commission that are incomplete and she suggests tabling this until the next meeting. Tyler asked about the mini-storage part of the business. Friesen described it as being in the basement of the former bait shop. Friesen said the mini-storage has plywood walls and is approximately 8x10 or 12x12 per storage unit. It reminded her of storage lockers allotted to apartments dwellers. Klein requested more information, doesn't want to delay this but feels there isn't enough information. Mason asked about the temporary sign. Hughes noted the applicant has a temporary sign permit for the one on the sidewalk. Tyler stated he assumes there are ordinances regarding what's stored in those storage units. Hughes said he questioned the fact a building permit was not needed for adding the mini storage. Hughes thinks it's a little odd. Planning Commission—5/10/06 2 Tyler wanted to know what keeps someone from storing ten gallons of gasoline there. • Hughes thinks it's probably covered in the agreement with the owner. Klein said there might be state regulations or insurance regulations controlling what is allowed to be stored. Whether it's spelled out or not is another thing. Tyler wondered if there is any control over these storage issues. Friesen thinks probably not. She added City staff relies upon the inspector's advice and if the inspector says a building permit is not necessary (triggering an inspection), the City needs to rely upon the expert's advice. Motion by Mason and seconded by Tyler to table the decision regarding the sign permit application for Tyconn,LLP,4032 Shoreline Drive to the next Planning Commission meeting. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. 6. COMMUNICATIONS The following communications were noted a) Letter from Steve Bedell Re: Tabling Variance Request—5/4/06 b) Joint Meeting—3/27/06 c) Special Council Meeting—4/3/06—no discussion d) Council Minutes—4/3/06—no discussion e) Special Meeting—4/6/06—no discussion f) Council Minutes—4/17/06—no discussion g) Board of Review Minutes—4/24/06—no discussion h) Ordinance Amendment Re: Musical Concerts (Please add to your ordinance book) When given copies of ordinance changes, Corl said to add these to their ordinance book. • Tyler wondered when law enforcement would be notified about traffic or noise infractions regarding the muscical concerts. Corl said they respond to complaints. Tyler states so it's reactive rather than proactive. Reinhardt gave a background as to how this evolved and the relationship to the Boogie Wonderland concert at Fletchers last summer. Hughes said that event brought to light fire code violations and other issues that have since been rectified. i) Ordinance Addition Re: Conflict of Interest Policy(Please add to your ordinance book) j) LMCC Newsletter Winter 2006 k) May 2006 Calendar Maloney says they all received the Moratorium date change. 1) Channels 8 &20 Schedules m)Upper Tonka Little League Agreement 2006 Reinhardt said there will be T-ball games at Thor Thompson park. Reinhardt suggested keeping eyes open for parking problems in the area because parking is limited. Historically there were only practices held at the park. Recently there have been games scheduled and there were problems with littering, etc. Therefore the decision was made to ask for annual agreements thereby monitoring the activities. Mason asked if the sodding was finished and was told yes. He wondered about the • dugout that is always wet in the area. There is a house being torn down that Mason knows about and wondered if the City is interested in acquiring the picnic table for the park. This was noted. Planning Commission—5/10/06 3 n) Moratorium & Ordinances—5/5/06 Corl said there will be a public hearing 6/14 at the Planning Commission meeting for everything that is ready to go so far regarding the moratorium. 7. MISCELLANEOUS Mason noted regarding the city beautification plan, in front of the Yacht Club there are some flowering crabs that might need replacement. Maloney also said between the Dock and Lift and the Drive-In on Shoreline a tree needs to be replaced as well. Mason said on Edgewater's east side there is a lot of erosion going on where there aren't landscape timbers. Mason said something could be done to contain the soil better. Maloney noted O'Flannagan's property has a lot of run-off and she wondered if anything is going to be done about the erosion. Maloney suggested a fiber blanket be used. Klein said the rocks placed in the alley behind Mapleton made a huge difference and she would like to compliment Goman for that work. Maloney asked about West Arm lift station. Corl said Adolf will have an update at the Council meeting on May 15`h. Hughes said there's been communications between Bollander and the City to complete the project and the completion date is supposed to be June 1" Mason wondered if the carwash got red tagged. Friesen said the Watershed was going to red tag the project but Pfleghaar stated his engineer is the one that dropped the ball. Pfleghaar is working to get it straightened out. The City didn't red tag the project because the Watershed District decided to be more lenient. The Watershed is going to allow Pfleghaar to continue building the block wall. Pfleghaar is supposed to be coming in at the end of this week with better drawings. If Pfleghaar doesn't get the drawings in by Friday the Council will take a strong position on red tagging this project. Maloney expressed her concern about so many incomplete permits and applications. She stated if applications are going to be coming to the Planning Commission then things shouldn't be incomplete. Maloney thinks we are very lenient anyway and things like this wouldn't pass in other cities. 8. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Klein and seconded by Mason to adjourn the Planning Commission meeting at 7:41 p.m. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. h P 'Wendy Lewin Office Assistant Planning Commission— 5/10/06 4 CITY OF SPRING PARK • SPRING PARK, MINNESOTA MINUTES OF SPECIAL JOINT MEETING OF THE SPRING PARK CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION HELD MAY 25, 2006, 7:00 P.M. AT CITY HALL City Council Members in Attendance: Mayor Jerome Rockvam, Gary Hughes, Sarah Reinhardt, Joanna Widmer, Bruce Williamson Planning Commission Members in Attendance: Jean Mork Bredeson (arrived at 7:55), Evalina Klein, Mike Mason, Bill Tyler Planning Commission Members Absent: Bill Anderson, Sera Maloney, Doug Sippel Staff in Attendance: Sarah Friesen, City Administrator/Clerk/Treasurer D.J. Goman, City Utility Superintendent Alan Brixius, Northwest Associated Consultants, Inc. Dan Petrik,Northwest Associated Consultants, Inc. Ken Adolf, Schoell &Madson Tom Seifert, Head, Seifert &Vander Weide Nancy Beck, Head, Seifert &Vander Weide • Summary On May 25, 2006 at 7:00 p.m., the Spring Park City Council and Planning Commission held a special joint meeting at City Hall with the City Planners, City Attorneys, and City Engineer. The meeting was conducted in a workshop format with Al Brixius leading. The purpose was to review and discuss the following proposed amendments to the zoning code; construction staging, site plan review, trash enclosures, parking requirements, escrow and fees, and lighting. Introduction Copies of the revised ordinances were previously distributed. Al Brixius stated that the purpose of the meeting was to make sure everyone was comfortable with the language and that now was the time to edit, to change and to review. Next he reviewed the timetable. The public hearing to consider the adoption of the proposed amendments is scheduled on June 14 during the regular monthly meeting of the Planning Commission. Next, the amendments will be placed on the council agenda to consider and approve. Reinhart suggested a press release be written and that the proposed ordinances be placed on the website. Construction Staging Suggestions made included; add Labor Day (Sect. 3, Subd. N. 4. e.), add a reference to the approval process in Section 5 (Sect. 3, Subd. N. 5.). • 5c. (escrow)was discussed. The language needs to be worked out and the percentage • needs to be determined. 5e. (developer meetings with council)was discussed. It was requested to change the language. Site Plan Review Ordinance Al Brixius stated that site plan approval and building permit approval are separate and different. After approval the planner will take this ordinance and develop a checklist for the city. Suggestions made included; strike out two-family residential (Sec. 5 (c) (1)), change 15 to 10 percent (Sec. 5 (c) (2)), add notify adjacent property owners within 350 feet, correct numbering error(Sec. 5 (f) (2)), delete the words "major" and "as defined by the zoning administrator" (Sec. 5 (h)). Surveys were discussed. Al Brixius stated they should be mandatory. It was questioned what is a recent survey. Not over five years old will be added. Trash Enclosures Al Brixius stated that single and two family homes were exempt from the requirements. Suggestions made included; strike out the word fence (2d.), increase the wall height or • change the wording to two feet above height of receptacle (2d.). Parking Requirements Al Brixius stated that if the requirement was increased you would have impervious surface issues. The language will remain as is. Escrow/Fees Al Brixius stated that development will pay for development as a pass thru. Two different levels for escrow are needed(single family and the larger projects). He wants to look at the fees collected the last few years and then he will bring back further suggestions and revisions. He also pointed out that some cities bill for one application, one variance and one escrow fee no matter how many variances are needed. The escrow fee is to cover billable contracted time, not staff time. Mayor Rockvam stated he opposed having a Wetland Mitigation Permit; that mitigating wetlands had no value to Spring Park. Al Brixius responded that it should be put in the City Code that we do not mitigate wetlands. Lighting Dan Petrick collaborated with a lighting contractor to develop this ordinance. It was requested the Administrator contact the lighting consultant to make a presentation before the public hearing is scheduled. Also, a copy of the Lightening Report will be obtained. • Table C-8-1 was reviewed. Neighborhood Shopping Center is to be deleted from the Low Use Areas. Announcements and Adjournment A public hearing to consider the amendments to the Spring Park Zoning Ordinance is scheduled on Wednesday, June 14, 2006 at 7:00 p.m. during the regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting. The workshop adjourned at approximately 9:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Sarah Friesen • CITY OF SPRING PARK SPRING PARK, MINNESOTA AGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 14,2006 7:00 P.M. - CITY HALL 1. CALL TO ORDER Pledge of Allegiance 2. ROLL CALL 3. ADOPT AGENDA 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES —May 10, 2006 5. PLANNING COMMISSION a) Public Hearing Re: Amendments for Zoning Ordinance 1. Open Public Hearing 2. Discussion& Comments • a) NAC—6/7/06 1. Ordinance 62.11 —Construction Staging b) NAC —6/7/06 1. Ordinance 62.12—Lighting c) NAC —6/7/06 1. Ordinance 62.13 —Parking for Townhomes &Multiple Family Dwellings d) NAC—5/3/06 1. Ordinance 62.14—Plan Review e) NAC—5/3/06 1. Ordinance 62.15 —Trash Enclosures 3. Close Public Hearing 4. Recommendation to Council b) Sign Permit Application, Tyconn, LLP,4032 Shoreline Drive (Ted Storlie) c) Variance Request, 4600 West Arm Road 1. Continue Public Hearing 2. Close Public Hearing 3. Recommendation to Council d) Sign Permit Application, Innovative Marketing, 4284 Shoreline Drive 1) Staff Memo 6. COMMUNICATIONS • a) July Calendar b) Channels 8 & 20 Schedules Plan. Comm. Agenda —6/14/06 1 • c) Joint Meeting Minutes—4/27/06 d) Council Meeting—5/1/06 e) Council Meeting—5/15/06 fl Council Workshop—5/25/06 g) Joint Meeting—5/25/06 h) Closed Council Meeting—6/1/06 7. MISCELLANEOUS 8. ADJOURNMENT • • Plan. Comm. Agenda—6/14/06 2 "f CITY OF SPRING PARK SPRING PARK,MINNESOTA • MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 14,2006 7:00 P.M. - CITY HALL 1. CALL TO ORDER Pledge of Allegiance Chair Maloney called the meeting to order at 7:04 followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. 2. ROLL CALL Klein,Mason, Maloney, Tyler, Ex-Officio Hughes present. Mork-Bredeson was absent and Anderson and Sippel were excused. Staff present, Administrator Friesen; Office Assistant Lewin; Al Brixius, Planner, and Tom Seifert, Attorney. 3. ADOPT AGENDA Motion made by Mason to add on as part of the agenda number 5e a sign request for Amtech Lighting with Tyler seconding. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES —May 10, 2006 • Maloney noted the heading of last month's May 10, 2006 Minutes was incorrectly labeled"Agenda." Maloney was told this error had been corrected. Motion by Mason and seconded by Tyler to approve the Planning Commission Minutes for May 10, 2006. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. 5. PLANNING COMMISSION a) Public Hearing Re: Amendments for Zoning Ordinance 1. Open Public Hearing The Public Hearing was opened at 7:07. 2. Discussion and Comments a) NAC—6/7/06 1. Ordinance 62.11 —Construction Staging Maloney read the proposed construction staging and construction-related nuisance ordinance revision. Brixius asks how much presentation the commissioners would like. It was asked that Brixius condense it. Brixius stated it is the intent to define the purpose as well as growing concerns with the public welfare adjoining construction zones, exhaust,noise, loading, etc. Brixius said it is their intent to require with site and plan reviews a construction staging plan submission. He stated it would be • handled as an administrative review. Brixius continued to say requirements to be submitted will be plans for employee parking, signage, identifying construction trailers, efforts to mitigate Planning Commission Minutes—June 14, 2006 1 exhaust, fuel smells, dust and the prohibition of idling vehicles. Residential adjoining properties will be given utmost importance. Also, debris clean up, identifying trash receptacles and daily • inspections will be required for litter and clean up. Brixius stated accesses are limited so staging of goods,parking and receiving are addressed. He said concerns for noise and street conditions are addressed and development contracts might be required. These development contracts would identify the plan and require securities to insure the plan is implemented. Regarding enforcement Brixius stated corrective measures will be taken in a timely fashion otherwise a stop-work order will be administered. Failure to comply will be consistent with other zoning regulations. Maloney asked if there has been opposition from the public. Brixius said because of the Mist Lofts and the Lakeview Lofts, they are going to require Providence to do this. Klein said she likes that it protects surrounding property owners and it allows the City enforcement options if there are problems. Mason asked about hours of operation on Saturday. From his personal experience he feels a more 8 a.m.-5 p.m. timeline would be appropriate. He stated most people are off on weekends and they want to enjoy peace and quiet. Brixius said this is still a draft and they welcome recommendations. Klein said she doesn't have a problem with it. Tyler wondered if 8 a.m. is too early on the • weekend. However, Klein thinks 8 a.m. is acceptable but not 6:30 a.m. Brixius said these weekend hours will be an opportunity for catch-up work and may not necessarily be an every weekend thing. Hughes asked about submission requirements on page 1, number three, regarding Administrative Plan Review of this ordinance. Brixius said plan review is through the Planning Commission and the Council. Seifert wanted to point out that this doesn't govern single family homes. He said some people doing work at night might be a homeowner. Brixius said there was discussion about twin homes. Originally the site and building plan excluded twin homes because they were in RI but it was changed and it now has application to twin homes. Hughes wanted to know if we should define a duplex. Brixius said they can specifically spell it out. b) NAC—6/7/06 1. Ordinance 62.12—Lighting Brixius referred to sections of the ordinance being amended, the definitions, and the fact that lighting with larger projects has a concern with too much glare. He said it was desired to keep lighting softer and not impede on the lake and adjoining properties. • Planning Commission Minutes—June 14, 2006 2 Brixius says the first section outlines the exemptions such as aviation and holiday lighting. The glare component was the standard but it's been enhanced for residential. He said Page 2, f. 1) refers • to the residential standards and pole height is outlined. Brixius stated a multiple family dwelling is more restrictive. He said there are some exceptions for architectural and/or historical applications. Brixius addressed security lighting and restrictions on flashing lights and anything that resembles traffic control lighting. Tyler asked if maximum lighting has been addressed. Brixius said there hasn't been a maximum established. Brixius says it a ratio and a formula. On site they will allow for a range, a minimum and the maximum. Klein asked how this affects persons having a neighbor with flood lights. Brixius said it depends if it's bare bulb and directional. Brixius said he would be cautious about nuisance issues. He said if there are complaints we have a basis for addressing it. Brixius said this is easier than noise ordinances because it can be measured with a light meter. Maloney wondered what would the enforcement process be.Hughes said the City would have to invest in a light meter and a City official would be the person to enforce it. Hughes asked about the numbers used and how they arrived at the lighting plan. Brixius said he contacted the lighting person and he shared the formulas. Hughes referred to the middle light on Spring Street and stated there is a new internal globe without a baffle. He said there's a lot more light coming out of that light than the others. Hughes said Goman was asked to follow up with the Mist Lofts and none of the Mist Lofts lighting has baffles. Hughes speculates there's going to be more light at that location because of no baffles. Brixius said if we had approved them we could get it corrected. Hughes said the City is willing to pay to take new readings. Brixius asked if the lights are on the street. It may be a private property issue. He said if we have public safety concern,we can look at it. Hughes said there is a dramatic difference in lighting intensity on Spring • Street. Seifert asked if we want the east and west lights to be up lighting. Brixius said he thinks we need the lighting study and take new readings. Klein wondered about the estimated costs. Brixius said he's sure the person will quote us a price. He said we should ask him to review it. We can still go forward and make a recommendation. Hughes said Ridgeway of JE Dunn said none of their lights will have baffles. Brixius says lighting closest to the building will be bright and, as it goes to the property line, it dissipates so there isn't aggravating glare. Tyler said he used to live next door to an apartment building and the lighting was too tall. He said it was obnoxious, everyone could see the luminary and the glare extended a long way. c) NAC—6/7/06 1. Ordinance 62.13 —Parking for Townhomes &Multiple Family Dwellings Brixius said it's changing to 2 '/a parking spaces per unit and it has to be signed and visible for guest parking. d) NAC— 5/3/06 • 1. Ordinance 62.14—Plan Review Planning Commission Minutes—June 14, 2006 3 Brixius said currently the ordinance allows for site and building plans and it is then determined if they are compliant. He said this leaves the Planning Commision and Council vulnerable because • there might not have been a review. Brixius joked that planners don't mind if it's approved because they want someone to share the blame. He said for multiple family, commercial and industrial land uses they will be required to submit site and building plans, building elevations and floor plans. He said site plans will have to show set backs,parking, landscape plans, grading, site drainage,ponding and utility plans as to how area will be serviced. Brixius went on to say exceptions would be new construction of single family and accessory structures. These can still can be handled by staff. He said modification will also be allowed if it doesn't exceed 10%. Klein asked about a single family dwelling and Brixius said that is always exempt. He said we don't want to be burdensome. Seifert said he is concerned about the wordage"new." He wonders if this means is it totally new or is it just a new window. Brixius said they reviewed criteria for review of long-range plans and site planning elements asking for attractive, functional designs including colors and textures. Brixius said they look for energy conservation and compatibility with adjoining property owners. Brixius also said new surveys are going to be required if they are older than five years. Klein wondered if there will be any"wiggle room"on surveys. Brixius said no. He said they don't even have certainty that five years is adequate. Mason asked about older surveys and if they're done by a certified surveyor, why it wouldn't be accurate. Brixius said because we don't require site and building plan reviews for single family dwellings, someone could have put up a shed and encroached on the property line. He said, in other words, things happen on the site. Maloney said about the five-year benchmark stating five years seems to be short. . Hughes said if he submitted to the City a registered survey and his neighbor also had a registered survey and, if it was all the same, he wondered how that would change. Maloney said a certificate of survey is just a piece of paper. It might not be staked. Brixius said if you look at properties along Shoreline Drive you can't determine where property lines are at. He said we might see more and more lot combinations so platting will be important. Brixius said regarding site plans, grading and drainage has been described. On site plans they will ask for property identifications, setbacks, locations and sidewalks. Brixius said they want them to also locate heating and air conditioning units. It's become a big issue as of late. Hughes asked about how it would apply to Xcel Energy. Brixius said it's an essential service so they have a right to use our right-a-ways. Brixius said sometimes it's a matter of where can they put the units. There might be only certain places it can fit. He said he thinks they can expand it to state reasonable placement of public utilities. Seifert said in regards to the Lakeview Lofts problem it was so difficult to get in touch with a contact person at Excel. He stated it can be added to the plan requirements but, as far as a preference about where utilities are placed, it's the response that's difficult. Brixius said he can put something in number 19 and Seifert said we can request it on the site • proposal. Planning Commission Minutes—June 14, 2006 4 Mason said that at least it's suggested and not overlooked. Brixius said grading and drainage elements are required. He also said landscape requirements will be worked out more at the next workshop. He said they are going to be asking for planting schedules, hardiness,planting details, fences or retaining walls, and elevations. Mason suggested something about root-ball size specification. He said certain trees require more land for planting. He thinks they should put in specifications about how big the root ball is. Maloney said that should be covered in the planting details. That's where sizes are addressed. Brixius said they are looking to set up standards for landscape requirements Hughes said Providence should have been asked about existing trees and what the plan was for those. He said Providence had renderings but he wanted to see existing trees rather than an indication of a clear cut. Hughes said the landscape plans should be more detailed with elevation renderings and comparisons with existing showing the old and the new. Seifert asked if the landscape plan for Providence has been approved. Brixius stated yes, a revised plan has been submitted and everything was done with the last approval. Seifert thought the Council approved the preliminary plat but not the landscape plan. e) NAC—5/3/06 1. Ordinance 62.15 —Trash Enclosures Brixius said the changes are they want the enclosures to be walls with gates. He said as technology changes they want it tall enough to service all. Brixius said this only applies to commercial, industrial, industrial or multiple family(more than four). Hughes said in other cities, four plexes can generate a lot of trash. Brixius said they can change it to read four or more. Seifert asked about an apartment building and if they're doing remodeling they're probably going to have a dumpster. Seifert said there's nothing stated about temporary. Brixius said it's in the construction staging plan ordinance but he said he can put something in the language about construction dumpsters. Mason said Shoreline Place a few years ago were required to fence in their recycling and they did that. Brixius said it's been addressed. Maloney referred to Sippel's typed comments and said he asked about construction staging plans required signage heading and he thinks it's a good idea and should be incorporated. Sippel also recommended waiving the fine for Innovative Marketing, agenda item 5.d. Brixius suggested a review of amendments to the ordinances before motions were made. Seifert had a concern on letter h of Ordinance 62.11, Construction Staging. Noise activities can be done according to what's written. He further stated there is a tension because there is going to be noise associated and the ordinance says you can make noise but it then goes on to say it can't be • unreasonable. Planning Commission Minutes—June 14, 2006 5 Brixius asked if he was comfortable with the second sentence and he suggested the first sentence could be taken out and just go with the second sentence. Maloney recommended not to take out the first sentence. Tyler thinks the first sentence should stay in also but it could state loud or excessive noise. Hughes stated regarding the lighting amendment, there is not much recommendations to change but everything should be contingent on whether the numbers work. Maloney referred to the multiple family dwelling ordinance stating there were no changes. Brixius said regarding the site plan review there are suggested changes on page three under 19, Utility Plans, to use language that would illustrate plans for electric, cable, telephone, internet, utility switching stations and satellites. Hughes wondered if along with#19 we want to add the stacks at the Mist Lofts, that rise over the roofline. Brixius said they're referred to as "roof details."Hughes said on the Mist Lofts those turbine roof details were supposed to be flush and they're not. Klein said there weren't in the drawings. Hughes said the Landscape plans should provide an overview and elevations of old and new in the building plans; roofline details should contain language about anything extending above the rooflines. Friesen said it talks about that on page 3,number 13 and asks if that language would cover those • stacks. Brixius said redundancy sometimes is good. Hughes said he had a question on page 5, number 7. He said it looks as though there is a typo in alphabetical arrangement. Brixius said trash enclosure changes will be instead of more than four it will read four units or more and on Construction Staging the changes will be from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. on Saturdays. Maloney asked for other comments. There were no other comments. 3. Close public hearing. Maloney closed the Public Hearing at 8:29 p.m. 4. Recommendation to Council. Brixius requested that motions be made on an individual basis. Motion made by Klein and seconded by Mason to recommend to the Council to approve the amendment to Ordinance 62.11, Construction Staging,with the exception of changing the hours to 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. on Saturdays and adding the signage requirements as well as on Page 4, letter h, in the first sentence under noise, take out the word loud in that sentence. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. Motion made by Klein and seconded by Mason to recommend to the Council to approve the amendment to Ordinance 62.12,Lighting,with the contingency that the formula numbers be verified through the lighting specs and the numbers be clarified and reviewed. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. Planning Commission Minutes—June 14, 2006 6 Motion made by Klein and seconded by Mason to recommend to the Council to approve the amendment to Ordinance 62.13, Parking for Multiple Family Dwellings. All votes were aye. • Motion declared carried. Motion made by Mason and seconded by Tyler to recommend to the Council to approve the amendment to Ordinance 62.14, Plan Review,with the following changes: under Section 1, Sec. 5, (c), (1) remove the word new; adding a number 19 to Section 1, Sec. 5.,f, 2, f, to read utility plans such as cable t.v., internet and satellites; under (3) Landscape plan,the addition of language regarding landscape elevations and old and new comparisons of the landscape plans, including trees; under(6),Building Plans, specify roofline details extending above any facility/structure above the roofline; and, re-letter the typos on number (7). All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. Motion made by Klein and seconded by Mason to recommend to the Council to approve the amended Ordinance 62.15,Trash Enclosures, with the exception of"...instead of more than four units" it will say"... four or more." All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. b) Sign Permit Application, Tyconn, LLP, 4032 Shoreline Drive(Ted Storlie) Maloney said the revised completed application was in the packets for review. Friesen had more information to distribute and said she was able to locate a survey in the file so she and Lewin went and measured the parking area. Klein said she doesn't understand it. Friesen said originally Tyconn claimed more parking on the north side but the survey indicates it's • not his property. Mason asked if the building itself is the property line. Maloney asked what are the required number of spaces. Friesen said using the calculations of the exterior dimensions, times two floors, minus 10% and square footage divided by 200, he would need 24 spaces. Tyconn does meet the requirements and would in fact conform. Klein asked if there is any issue about him meeting the sign ordinance. Friesen stated he hasn't been real clear about which post he is planning on putting the sign on. Tyconn indicated the middle post and mentioned existing brackets but it's not real clear. Maloney wondered if it really matters. She said we can approve. Mason said he thinks it should be a requirement for a sign applicant to be present or the request should be denied. Klein said she thinks it's sometimes too difficult to require applicants to appear when there is only one meeting per month. Hughes made a recommendation that the parking be passed but it be reviewed with the owner for approval. He also thinks it needs to be reviewed by the Council as the owner is having trouble finding the property boundaries. Friesen said he might be present. • Tyler asked about colors for the proposed sign. Friesen said he is willing to go with the recommended colors. Planning Commission Minutes—June 14, 2006 7 Mason said if the applicant was present, questions could be asked in regards to parking, colors and landscaping. • Friesen said Tyconn came in prior to address some of the importance of these issues. Mason said there should be a checklist and Maloney suggested maybe the application itself could be revised. Motion made by Klein that we approve the sign permit application for mini storage. Tyler asked about Hughes' suggestions for approval. Hughes said he would like to see the parking and landscape plan be forwarded to Council for review, especially this one because the property owner is not aware of the boundaries of his property. Hughes referred to the sign permit for the car wash and the fact the Council has spent hours on this. Friesen said we shouldn't put up barriers to new businesses, however Marina Car Wash is an example about how it is a balancing act. Klein modified the motion with the contingency that the Council review the parking plan with the applicant. Mason seconded. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. c) Variance Request, 4600 West Arm Road 1. Continue Public Hearing • Maloney read the language and the timeline. Klein thinks it should be denied as she doesn't see a hardship. 2. Close public hearing at 8:55 p.m. 3. Recommendation to Council Tyler wondered if there was a reason why he's withdrawing. Hughes stated there really was no hardship. Bedell could come in and redesign the house and not require a variance. Mason thought Bedell might have been testing the waters to see if he could get something. Motion by Klein and seconded by Mason to recommend to the Council to approve the variance request for 4600 West Arm Road. Upon roll call: Klein, Mason, Maloney and Tyler voted no. Motion declared failed. d) Sign Permit Application, Innovative Marketing, 4284 Shoreline Drive 1) Staff Memo Klein asked how this sign application transpired. Lewin explained that City staff noticed there was a recent sign on the Tonka Ventures building and wondered if a permit had been applied for. Lewin placed a call to Innovative Marketing and informed business owner it was required by • ordinance that all business signs within the city be applied for and go through the process. Lewin Planning Commission Minutes—June 14, 2006 8 also informed the business owner that he was now subject to a$200 fine because of the"after-the- fact" application. • Friesen suggested we write a letter and possibly waive the fine. Klein thinks we need to enforce the ordinance with the renter rather than the building owner. Tyler said the owner is responsible for the building and he doesn't believe it's the tenants' responsibility. Friesen agreed it should be to the owner of the building. Klein said the Council would have to review the sign ordinance. Mason said because it's a huge building and tenants change all the time, the owner should know the ordinances. Maloney asked if there were any concerns about the sign itself. Klein said other than the size of the sign she no concerns. Mason said he thinks we should make a recommendation to the Council. Hughes said it's really the responsibility of Planning Commission to approve or disapprove the sign. Motion by Mason and seconded by Maloney to approve the sign for Innovative Marketing, 4284 Shoreline Drive. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. Hughes said it is his recommendation that staff research the ordinance and bring to the Council the • findings on who a fine should be levied in this case. Tyler is in favor of the building owner. Motion by Mason and seconded by Tyler that a fine be levied against the building owner for the after-the-fact application for the sign. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. e) Sign Permit application, Amtech Lighting, 4311 Shoreline Drive. Maloney states this is a nice, clean application that addresses all of the requirements. Motion by Tyler and seconded by Klein to approve the sign application for multiple signs approved for 4311 Shoreline Drive. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. 6. COMMUNICATIONS The Following communications were noted: a) July Calendar Friesen said Hennepin County received a grant to do a study regarding the new trail. There will be a comprehensive plan for five years and 10 years out. On June 27`h, the representatives are coming to the City at 7 p.m. to do a presentation. Invitations will be sent out. Therefore, Friesen is not sure about how the moratorium will work. She said if building permits slow down, the July meeting of the Planning Commission could maybe be a moratorium workshop. Planning Commission Minutes—June 14, 2006 9 b) Channels 8 &20 Schedules c) Joint Meeting Minutes—4/27/06 d) Council Meeting—5/1/06 • e) Council Meeting—5/15/06 f) Council Workshop—5/25/06 g) Joint Meeting—5/25/06 h) Closed Council Meeting—6/1/06 7. MISCELLANEOUS Mason wants to make a motion that a letter be sent out about Planning Commission attendance. He said six months would be a fair time to evaluate attendance and send appropriate letters to individuals who are not in compliance and find out their intentions. Klein wondered if we have back-ups or alternates that could be called. Friesen said not according to ordinance as the ordinance does not address attendance. Hughes said he thought a guideline was 70-75%. Klein said she thinks if attendance is below that, a letter should be sent. Maloney said Sippel has apologized for his absence and thinks he will be attending in the future. Maloney said Sippel does send opinions and comments on materials. Klein thinks since there's been a lot of applicants recently that want to be on the Planning Commission, we should address this. 0 Mason said the Council always has a full attendance. Maloney said she thinks it's up to us to decide. Hughes said as part of the analysis of the overall participation we should also include the moratorium, workshops, workshops on various developments. Maloney said she thinks maybe a letter would prompt a renewed interest or a decision about whether to step down. Hughes wondered if what they're asking is staff to go through minutes and tally full participation attendance. Mason and Maloney both stated just the Planning Commission meetings. Friesen asked for a motion. Klein asked if the criteria should be reviewed and then send a letter. Hughes said we should look at the criteria set up by Planning Commission in regards to attendance and then send a letter out asking their intentions. The guideline was 75% and he thought it was set sometime in January or February of 2005. Motion by Mason and seconded by Klein seconded that a letter be sent to the Planning Commissioners not in attendance at tonight's meeting and calculate if they have met the attendance criteria set. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. • Planning Commission Minutes—June 14, 2006 10 8. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Klein and seconded by Mason to adjourn at 9:26 p.m. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. Wendy Lewin, ce Assistant Sarah Friesen, Administrator • • Planning Commission Minutes—June 14, 2006 11 CITY OF SPRING PARK SPRING PARK, MINNESOTA 7:00 P.M. - CITY HALL AGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION August 9, 2006 1. CALL TO ORDER Pledge of Allegiance 2. ROLL CALL 3. ADOPT AGENDA 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES —June 14, 2006 5. PLANNING COMMISSION a) Sign Permit Application, Yanik Companies, 4400 Shoreline Drive (Chester Yanik) Note: Regretfully, Mr. Yanik is unable to attend P.C. meeting due to conflict commitment. 6. COMMUNICATIONS a) August Calendar b) September Calendar c) Channels 8 &20 Schedules d) Council Meeting Minutes—July 10, 2006 e) Council Meeting Agenda—August 7, 2006 f)Building and Sign Report, July 2006 g) Set date selected by Council for next moratorium workshop 7. MISCELLANEOUS 8. ADJOURNMENT Plan. Comm. Agenda—08/09/06 1 r ' CITY OF SPRING PARK SPRING PARK, MINNESOTA • 7:00 P.M. - CITY HALL MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 9, 2006 1. CALL TO ORDER Pledge of Allegiance Chair Maloney called the meeting to order at 7:03 followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. 2. ROLL CALL Mason, Maloney, Tyler, Anderson, Mork-Bredeson, ExOfficio Hughes, Council Person Reinhardt present. Staff present, Administrator Friesen; Office Assistant Lewin. Excused: Klein and Sippel 3. ADOPT AGENDA Motion by Anderson and seconded by Mason to adopt the agenda. • 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES—June 14, 2006 Motion by Anderson and seconded by Tyler to approve the Planning Commission Minutes of June 14, 2006. 5. PLANNING COMMISSION a) Sign Permit Application, Yanik Companies, 4400 Shoreline Drive (Chester Yanik) Maloney said this is a complete application. Anderson asked about the necessity for sign permit applications to come to the Planning Commission. Hughes said administratively a temp sign can be decided upon but a sign permit application also comes to Planning Commission so other questions can asked in regards to landscaping and parking requirements. Mason added by the applicant coming to the Planning Commission meeting it gives the City an opportunity to meet the applicant and ask questions regarding intentional use, etc. Hughes asked Friesen to comment on what was learned about the after-the-fact sign. Friesen said when it has come to the attention of the City that a sign has gone up without a permit, a letter is sent to the business owner about the possibility of a fine. If the applicant doesn't respond to the communication about the request for a sign application, a fine can be levied at • that time. Friesen stated ordinance presides over policy. (Mr. Yanik arrives at the meeting.) Plan. Comm. Minutes—08/09/06 1 Mason asked if Yanik had any additional landscaping plans. Yanik responded yes and said the sprinkler system has just been turned on in the last few days. He • stated because of drought conditions, additional plantings would take place in the spring. He said there are plans for more flowers and shrubbery off the entrance. Yanik said he likes the boulevard but wants to make sure it's weed free. Yanik went on to say the back side of the property has a terrace and it will have shrubbery and perhaps a picnic bench for employees. He said he has been in the Navarre area for 12 years and has lived in the Lake Mtka area for 26 years and it is his intent to keep things nice. Maloney asked about the ATM machine and Yanik said there is a five year agreement with Wells Fargo for it to stay. Tyler asked Yanik what his business is. Yanik said they are developers and project managers and designers of medical facilities around the United States. He just came from a ground breaking ceremony at St. James, Minnesota for the their new community hospital. Tyler asked about how many employees they had and Yanik responded nine and he hopes to add more. Yanik said he has been working for seven years for the City of St. Peter and has designed and built a new hospital there. Mork Bredeson asked if the primary use of the building will be planning, drawing, and construction management. Yanik said yes, for now. • Mason asked if he's finished the remodeling project. Yanik stated no, they're still painting, cleaning up and remodeling. Yanik said they want to do nice things with the building as they plan on being there a long time. Anderson asked whether Yanik was involved in the Gillespie Center and the Ridgeview Medical partnership. Yanik stated they weren't involved in the latest venture however they did build the Gillepsie Center and donated $45,000 towards it. Hughes asked if there was a percentage for remodeling versus new construction. Yanik said 80% is new and the balance is remodeling. Yanik asked if the Commission was familiar with the Lakeview Clinic in Waconia. They recently did a 40,000 square foot remodel and 27,000 square foot addition. They've worked at Children's Hospital as well. Mason asked if he's considered to be a developer or an architect. Yanik stated they do not do architectural drawings. Yanik is an architect however at the present time they contract their design services. Yanik stated they do all the financing of all of their projects. He said they want to be good citizens and neighbors and they want to set an example. They consider themselves to be long- term investors. All of his children have attended Mound Schools and he thinks • it's a great community. Plan. Comm. Minutes—08/09/06 2 Friesen said that we also want to be a good neighbor and Friesen wants him to feel free to come to the City regarding any concerns about his neighbors as well. • Mason commented that Yanik has a major advantage in not having outside storage. Yanik stated there will not be construction trailers or large vehicles parked at the building. He said in time they perhaps have plans for expansion. He would maybe some day tear down the present bank building and build a new building that would house his property and other office space. Maybe they would look to acquiring the storage facility behind and doing something with that. Yanik said they would like to perhaps be a gateway to the City and hopes they will be seen as an enhancement to the City. Mason asked if Yanik's planning on building any condos. Yanik said no. Friesen asked about the tenant in the lower level and Yanik stated he inherited the lease of Danberry and they are planning on staying. Maloney asked if there were any further concerns or questions regarding the application for this sign permit. Mork-Bredeson makes a motion and Anderson seconded to accept the application for a sign permit to be located at 4400 Shoreline Drive. 6. COMMUNICATIONS • a) August Calendar b) September Calendar c) Channels 8 &20 Schedules d) Council Meeting Minutes—July 10, 2006 Anderson asked about the Planning Commission examining the attendance of Planning Commission members. Maloney responded it wasn't mentioned in the Council Minutes, it was in the Planning Commission Minutes. e) Council Meeting Agenda—August 7, 2006 f) Building and Sign Report, July 2006 Friesen stated the Council has requested some additional information to be listed on the report so there will be more information on subsequent building and sign reports. g) Set date selected by Council for next moratorium workshop Friesen said it didn't get decided at the Council meeting so a date wasn't set. Friesen said she has some dates Brixius is available. Tuesday the 29th sounded good for the architectural landscaping,permits and fees. The 3 1" is close to a holiday weekend so that won't work. Maloney thought Thursday the 24th would work. Reinhardt can't make the 241h because of the State Fair. Friesen said Tuesday the 29th sounds like it will work for Planning Commission members and she'll pass that on. • Mason asked about the August dinner in regards to the City appreciation. Friesen said she thinks it might be in September because of everything that's going on. Plan. Comm. Minutes—08/09/06 3 MISCELLANEOUS • Hughes said a lot of the moratorium resolutions have been published and are now in force. Mason said Hughes always mentions the Planning Commission to the Council and keeps the Planning Commission alive in their eyes. Mason said Hughes carried the ball on the Storlie building in regards to the parking and has made sure it is correct. Tyler said he wanted to address the Commission on an idea for consideration. Tyler said his daughter was recently a recipient of a"Christmas in May" gift of a house makeover. Fifty volunteers donated their time as well as materials,paint, tools and lunches. There was an extreme makeover done of her two story home in which they painted it, cut down trees and did some landscaping. They started around 8 a.m. and finished at 5 p.m. An electrician changed the electrical system to a circuit breaker system. Tyler stated this group has done about 20 homes in Chaska and they do about two a year. Volunteers felt good about it and it was a nice event. Tyler wondered if anything like that has ever been done in Spring Park. Mork-Bredeson said she thought it was an excellent idea and brought up the effort to paint the old depot. Mork-Bredeson thought there was some definite property in Spring Park that would benefit from this sort of volunteer effort. She remembers when the City went through a process looking for donations and materials. She will call Jackie Stone and ask her about where the effort broke down. Tyler added he thinks the process should start small. Hughes thought maybe a yard cleanup for an • older couple or to clean a garage. Anderson said he thinks something like this should be beneficial to the community, perhaps something to dress up Thor Thompson Park. Anderson said from his experience it's tough to get volunteers. He said we could possibly team up with Mound. Mason suggested Presbyterian Homes has been involved in volunteering in the past, maybe they could contribute in some way. Maloney said she thinks it's worth pursuing. Tyler said he will get the information from Chaska. Hughes wanted to discuss a variance potential for the next meeting. He said it's going to go to the planner first for their opinion. Hughes said it's a variance to add a garage to a small lot as well as a deck. Mason asked where it's located. Mason was told since they have applied for the variance it's public information. The residence is on Black Lake Road. Hughes thinks it would be appropriate when it does come in the packet, that the application and minutes from the previous Planning Commission and Council meetings about rebuilding should be included for background information. Mason suggested a drive by at 2406 Black Lake Road to just look at what's being built. Hughes commented from his experience sitting on the Council and Planning Commission, going back and visiting projects and what has been voted on and what it ends up looking like,whether it's parking, landscaping or building, it's interesting to look back on motions and decisions. Hughes said if you look at various variances that come through, for instance Chris Snow, Hughes said it's beneficial to go back • afterwards to see the outcome. Plan. Comm. Minutes—08/09/06 4 Mason thought there were about six or eight variances for 2406 Black Lake Road. Mason refers to a utility easement. Hughes stated in the end it was only one • variance, the setback from the utility easement. Friesen said it's important to keep in mind this construction is still in the early stages. Mason said it's his personal feelings but these things get built, people live in them a few years and then they leave. He believes there are many however who want to stay in Spring Park and invest in the community. 8. ADJOURNMENT Anderson made the motion, Mork-Bredenson seconded it, meeting adjourned. 7:52 n Wendy Lewin Office Assistanf- Sdrah Friesen Administrator/Clerk/Treasurer • • Plan. Comm. Minutes—08/09/06 5 CITY OF SPRING PARK SPRING PARK, MINNESOTA • AGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION September 13, 2006 7:00 P.M. - CITY HALL 1. CALL TO ORDER Pledge of Allegiance 2. ROLL CALL 3. ADOPT AGENDA 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES—August 9, 2006 5. PLANNING COMMISSION a) Variance Application— Graham Neve, 2401 Black Lake Road 1. Open Public Hearing 7 p.m. a) Notice of Public Hearing 2. Discussion& Comments a) Application for Variance 3. Close Public Hearing 4. Recommendation to Council • a)NAC Memo—August 28, 2006 i) Site Plan/Survey ii) Council Minutes, April 7, 2003 iii) Planning Commission Minutes, March 26, 2003 iv) Resolution 03-10 b) Sign Permit App Permanent—Scott Sternitzke, 4420/4400 Shoreline Drive c) Sign Permit App Temp—Mark Tipler, one day event August 18th 6. COMMUNICATIONS a) Training Opportunities, Memo from Sarah Friesen, 9-7-06 b) Memo from Wendy, 9-8-06 c) October Calendar d) Channels 8 & 20 Schedules e) Building and Sign Report, August 2006 f) Council Minutes—August 7, 2006 g) Council Minutes—August 21, 2006 h) Special Meeting Council—August 21, 2006 i) Special Meeting Council—August 29, 2006 j) Special Joint Meeting—August 29, 2006 7. MISCELLANEOUS 8. ADJOURNMENT Plan. Comm. Agenda—9-13-06 1 CITY OF SPRING PARK SPRING PARK,MINNESOTA • MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING September 13,2006 7:00 P.M.-CITY HALL 1. CALL TO ORDER Chair Maloney called the meeting to order at 7:00 followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. 2. ROLL CALL, Anderson, Klein, Mason, Maloney and Bill Tyler present. Excused, Sippel. Staff present, Administrator Friesen, Office Assistant Lewin, Ex-Officio Hughes,Advisor Reinhardt. Mork-Bredeson, absent. 3. ADOPT AGENDA Motion by Anderson and seconded by Mason to adopt the agenda. Friesen said there will be additions to the Miscellaneous part of the agenda regarding Planning Commission attendance, the upcoming volunteer appreciation dinner and a beautification letter to be added to the agenda. 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES—August 9, 2006 Motion by Mason and seconded by Klein to approve the Planning Commission • Minutes of August 9,2006. 5. PLANNING COMMISSION a) Variance Application—Graham Neve, 2401 Black Lake Road 1. Open Public Hearing 7 p.m. a) Notice of Public Hearing 2. Discussion&Comments a) Application for Variance The public hearing was opened at 7:05 p.m. Graham Neve approached the podium and said his proposal is to put a detached garage and an attached deck at 2401 Black Lake Road. Neve passed out a full set of plans and explained the first page was a full survey. He said this survey was done in '03 when house was built. He further explained the next page shows a partial survey and there is a proposed deck and proposed garage footprint. He said the garage proposal is 20 x 24,the smallest two car garage he could get on the property. Neve admits he wants to get something on the property due to harsh Minnesota winters. He said the next page is the deck layout and the proposed garage. He said it shows it from each lot line. He said the best he could do was 45 feet from the lake and a 12 feet from the road. He said compared to the average houses on Black Lake Road,he is pretty close. He said ten feet was approved because of existing footprint. Neve said in some cases there are homes less than 10 feet from the road. He said 20 feet is the minimum so,if going 20 feet back it gets him 45 feet from the shoreline.Neve said he was able to decrease the existing hardcover from 30%to 27%. He said what's important is the new garage would improve water and sediment runoff. Neve said right • now everything is going from the road to the lake. Neve said basically what is needed is 20 x 24 for the garage and that's the smallest he can go and all he could figure out. If there is something else someone can suggest he is willing to listen. Plan. Comm. Minutes—9-13-06 1 Neve showed a pamphlet put together by his realtor which states comparable sale prices • are about$663,000. He said without a garage they'd be loosing about$63,000 on the sale. He said the house has been on the market for 136 days and there hasn't been a lot of interest and the lack of a garage is the deterrent. He said he started at$699,000. He said even a one car garage would help. He said one of the reasons why they didn't build the garage when the house was rebuilt in 2003 is there was 1860 square feet and if a one car garage had been planned they would have lost about 600 square feet and they felt they didn't have that to lose. Neve said some people have asked him why they didn't go up a level and Neve said he didn't believe it would fit in the neighborhood. Anderson asked Neve if he built the house to sell and Neve responded that he built the house to be on the lake. He said he built the house with another guy and they've each gotten married and now they need to sell this house. Klein asked if Neve lived nearby and he said he lives next door. He currently rents the house but hopes to buy it but it's dependent on this house selling. Maloney asked Neve how he thinks a garage will improve water and sediment runoff. Neve said right now it runs down the driveway and right into the lake. Neve said with the new garage they would lift it up and create a barrier from the lake. He further explained there would be a type of swale below the garage. He said right now there's nothing stopping it. Neve said he's aware that the drainage is not good now and going right into the channel. Mason asked if he was concerned about environmental issues. Neve said he's concerned about selling it. Mason said he looked at the property and at the shoreline and said it has never been rip rapped. Maloney asked if the original • submittal had the storm sewer illustrated.Neve said he would be interested in working on getting the drainage changed. Tyler asked where the water would go. He wondered how a garage would help it. Neve said the water isn't the problem, it's the sediment that they could deter. Mason said he noticed the surrounding garages are mostly attached garages. Mason referred back to when they originally built the house in 2003 and Neve didn't want to build the garage at that time. Maloney said she doesn't see the easement line on the plan. Neve said the ten foot dimension is the property line. He said the drainage goes between the 10 foot mark. Hughes asked that Neve put the drawing up and point out the markings. He points out the south property line and points out the drainage going into the lake. He said there's about five feet in between. Neve wondered if there were any recommendations on this property line. Maloney said it's a really important point because building within the easement would be critical. Friesen said the planner's report came back and now there's something different being proposed. Maloney suggested that the planner hasn't seen the correct plan. Neve said he hasn't had enough notice. He said he was told he'd get calls back from the engineer. He said he hasn't had a returned phone call. Maloney said she feels the planner needs to review the new plan. Maloney said what will be needed is the utility easement dimensions. Maloney said the public hearing can be tabled until the next meeting. Hughes stated hardship will have to be proven and there is specific language as to proving hardship. Klein thinks she heard $63,000 but said it can't be financial. Friesen read the language regarding the hardship. Friesen read the recommendation of • the planner regarding changing the location of the garage. Mason said Neve's hardship is economic and Neve responded saying it's more than that; it's the Minnesota winters. Maloney read a letter from Steven and Pauline Erickson,neighbors. Hughes said Plan. Comm.Minutes—9-13-06 2 regarding previous requests there have been car ports that have been denied. Mason referred back to the Planning Commission minutes in 2003 where it was suggested then • that they put a deck on. Neve said at the time they were more worried about getting the house built rather than getting a garage. Klein asked about when they first bought the property and was he aware that this was a difficult lot. Tyler asked why when the first variance request came forward it was deemed an unbuildable lot. Friesen stated it was because the lot was undersized. However there was an existing house on the property. Mason asked how many variances it took to build the house and Neve thought three or four. Klein asked what if he got the deck but not the garage,would it change the deck. Neve stated it would stay about four feet from the corner of the deck. Klein asked why it would stop short and Neve said because that's where the header was. Friesen asked if they'd do anything below the deck and Neve stated wood chips. Friesen wondered if they would consider a one stall garage and they'd be away from the storm sewer. Neve said they've considered it but didn't think they'd gain a lot. Friesen said we could let Neve know about the storm sewer. Hughes said it could be ten feet on either side. The NAC letter doesn't spell out the correct material as the plan was changed. Friesen asked with the garage proposal here, was a basement underneath it. Neve said it is a built in storage shed. An audience member asked how close to the street would they be with parking in front of the garage. Klein wondered if parking would be worse if the garage was allowed. Neve said yes, it would. Klein said she is concerned that the house is for sale. Maloney said to approve variance,hardship has to be proven. Neve said he's looked at every option and he wanted to keep it as far away from the lake as possible and 45 feet was the best he could do. Hughes said he thinks the sewer is further in on the property than Neve thinks it is. Mason wonders about the rip rapping of the lakeshore and runoff. Hughes said the City is looking at updating the drain as soon as the Meyer • property has determined the driveway location. Hughes said there will be a clean out installed. Mason wondered about screening and a silt fence. Maloney asks for other comments from the public. Neve wants to say if it was considered there could be a provision stating the shoreline could be rip rapped. Maloney doesn't know that it's relevant. 3. Close Public Hearing Maloney closes the public hearing at 7:49 p.m. 4. Recommendation to Council a)NAC Memo—August 28, 2006 i) Site Plan/Survey ii) Council Minutes, April 7, 2003 iii) Planning Commission Minutes, March 26, 2003 iv) Resolution 03-10 Hughes said there needs to be a recommendation to the Council whether to deny the request or approve. Friesen said there could be two motions, one approving the deck and a recommendation to approve the garage. Tyler said it's a different plan presented tonight. Hughes said they could recommend for approval on a redesign of the deck. Anderson makes a motion and Maloney seconds to approve the deck in the second drawing subject to the dimensions to the Council. Hughes thinks it needs to be redesigned as a stand alone. Mason said we could approve a deck pending a redesign. Friesen says to put a condition on the deck so it's 6.7 x 19.9. Mason asks how different the second deck is to the submitted proposal. Neve said it's similar. 9' x 19.9 feet. • Tyler said looking at the diagram,there is a door that leads from the house to the deck. Neve said yes. Maloney wonders what variance the deck would require. Friesen said Plan. Comm. Minutes—9-13-06 3 it's the 50' setback. 38.5 feet from the lake is the shortest distance. The deck requires a variance. Anderson withdraws his motion. • Klein said she is inclined to table the variance request it. Friesen stated she believes the City can suspend it and give the applicant notice in writing. Maloney said it gives another month to work with the planner and hardship will still have to be proven. Tyler said in fairness to the resident there isn't much that can convince him that the garage is warranted. Tyler thinks the deck is workable but it bothers him that he still will need a variance. Tyler said as far as the garage is concerned it just isn't going to work. He feels there's nothing that can be done. Tyler said the garage proposal would need to be built up. Tyler's recommendation be that the garage be denied and work with the planner before Monday so there isn't a variance request for the deck. Tyler makes a motion and Anderson seconds to recommend approval to the Council for the variance on the garage. Roll call,Tyler no,Maloney no,Anderson, no Mason, no Klein no. Motion failed. Klein said regarding the deck it is suggested Neve work with the planner to minimize or eliminate the need for any variance requirement. Hughes said on page 44,paragraph 6 and 7 there is language where if there is(using irrelevant numbers)two to three structures 25 feet from the high water mark and the middle property is further back, there is language that there can be a variance granted. Klein recommends approval of the deck pending NAC's approval based on discussions here tonight. Mason seconds, all votes ayes. Motion carries. Hughes suggested the deck be redesigned and brought to the City in order to get it in the Council packet for Friday. Friesen asked if Neve can get us the material to get to the planner by Friday and Neve said yes. • b) Sign Permit App Permanent—Scott Sternitzke, 4420/4400 Shoreline Drive Mr. Sternitzke currently rents office space from Chester Yanik and Yanik informed him that he would need a sign permit in order to display a sign. Scott read in the application that there is a recommended color scheme but his signs have been the same color scheme as his business cards. Mason asked where the sign would go and Sternitzke said Yanik doesn't want it too close to his sign. Sternitzke said the position was marked on the attached illustration of approximately where the sign would be placed. Mason asked about a sign board and Sternitzke said he didn't believe so because Yanik recently had a stand alone sign made. Klein asked if the sign application meets the City's perimeters. Maloney asked if he's considered sharing Danberry's post. Maloney said they don't want it to look temporary. She said keeping in the professionalism of building companies it might look better to tie them all together. Sternitzke said he didn't believe there'd be anyone else going in the building. Mason said Yanik indicated there wouldn't be construction trailers and he wondered who the trailers belonged to. Sternitzke said they belong to Danberry. Klein asked about parking and Mason asked how many vehicles they planned on parking. Scott said two. Friesen asked how the sign will be attached. Scott said he illustrated it on the application consisting of 2 pieces with a 4x4, post in the center, it will y out. Maloney asked about the temporary stakes like Danberry. Maloney said the concern is for things to look nice. Sternitzke said it's his intent too. Mason wonders if the posts can be sided in order to make them look nicer. Sternitzke said he thinks that would make it more difficult to maintain. Klein said it seems to meet the requirements. Friesen said she's reading the code. Friesen said the amount of signs have exceeded the amount according to code if you consider the Yanik • sign on the side of the building. Maloney thought the one sign on the building is more of a logo type sign. Maloney thinks the City would be very happy if he got together with Danberry and to think about a combination sign. Maloney thinks a flashier nice Plan. Comm.Minutes—9-13-06 4 sign may make his business more noticeable as well. Friesen said if the sign on the side of the building is considered a logo, then it can be approved. Tyler said he liked the way • the material was described and it wasn't described that way on the application. He said the application said it was plywood but Tyler likes the idea that it was described in more detail at the meeting. Stemitzke was asked to describe the proposed sign one more time for the minutes. Sternitzke said it will consist of three treated 4 x 4 posts,painted white, two 4 x 4 sheets of sign board. Sign board being a special type of marine plywood and it won't delaminate and warp. The lettering will be vinyl in the indicated colors. Mason said he would still like things combined. Tyler thinks it's a professional center and a combination sign might be nice in the future. Mason makes a motion and Tyler seconds it to approve the sign as stated in the minutes. All in favor. Yes. c) Sign Permit App Temp—Mark Tipler, one day event August 181h Approved noting this is an event that already took place and it was addressed for informational purposes only. 6. COMMUNICATIONS a) Training Opportunities, Memo from Sarah Friesen, 9-7-06 Klein wondered when a response would be needed. Friesen said it fills up fast so, for the Mound training, a head count tonight would be helpful. Maloney said she'd like to attend. Friesen reminded everyone it was on a Saturday. Klein asked if the City pays and wondered if it was similar to the one held in Tonka Bay a few years ago. Friesen said this is a part two so it's not quite the same. Mason wondered about the city paying. Hughes said the issue is the City would pay but there were situations where the City paid and then some didn't show up. Hughes thought it might have been an overreaction and . Hughes said the City should pay for it. Reinhardt said she remembers there was a discussion about it but no motion was made. Anderson wants to go, Bill Tyler and Mason will go. Klein said she'll check her calendar and get back. Klein decided she wants to go now. b) Memo from Wendy, 9-8-06 Christmas in May. Maloney and Klein thinks it would be great to have Mary from the City of Chaska come speak to the November Planning Commission meeting and asked they be contacted. c) October Calendar d) Channels 8 &20 Schedules e) Building and Sign Report, August 2006 Maloney asked about Bedell needing a variance and it was noted a variance wasn't needed. They redesigned the building to fit the perimeters and requirements without needing a variance. f) Council Minutes—August 7, 2006 g) Council Minutes—August 21, 2006 h) Special Meeting Council—August 21, 2006 i) Special Meeting Council—August 29, 2006 j) Special Joint Meeting—August 29, 2006 Maloney said she got the packet one day before the meeting. Maloney asking for a notification of the date or at least a phone call in order to give more notice. 7. MISCELLANEOUS • Commissioner attendance. Volunteer appreciation dinner September 28`h Plan. Comm. Minutes—9-13-06 5 Beautification letter from Reinhardt. Reinhardt said the Council is in the process of setting the budget. In the past, the budget money has mostly been used for maintenance of existing. is the said there's always room for improvement and since the Planning Commission is the beautification committee and she feels they've been left out of decision making. She said the group has great ideas and they should have input. She said the Planning Commission did weigh in on the flag pole at Thor Thompson park and it looks so nice. Reinhardt thinks it might be nice to put together a list over the winter months to present a solid plan for the budgeting cycle. Reinhardt thinks they could make a small recommendation for 2007 as it may not be too late. Klein said if she understands it right a budget is approved and then the Planning Commission gets the figures and they put together a plan. Reinhardt said she is suggesting the Planning Commission come up with a plan and then this plan should be put before the Council and they can ask for the dollars rather than taking what the City assigns them for a beautification budget. Tyler wonders if some of those dollars could be earmarked towards the Christmas in May project. He said some of the things are donated but maybe the City could earmark some money towards that. Reinhardt said the City may be limited when it comes to charitable contributions and there would need to be a legal document for services rendered. She's not sure this can be done. Hughes wanted to bring up term of office and asked Friesen to put together a list about notifying present members it they are interested in continuing. He said if a term is up, a letter of intent should be drafted. Klein wanted to thank the city for fixing the pot hole in front of her house. She said it is so nice and she was so appreciative of the work. Anderson wondered if Norling ever tagged the • trees that he was going to cut down. Maloney saw tags around the ones he was going to keep. Hughes said when Norling approached the Planning Commission and the Council that he would make every effort to save the trees. He had lots of conversations with the former administrator and he had to change some things to save a tree and keep the tree alive. Maloney said the bulk of the trees taken down were not quality trees. 8. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at Motion by Klein, Anderson seconds. 8:49 p.m. Wendy Lewin Office Assistant Safah Friesen Administrator/Clerk/Treasurer • Plan. Comm. Minutes—9-13-06 6 PLEASE SIGN IN Public Hearing - September 13, 2006 NAME ADDRESS I 1'7: 11L 1lK l� *1*1 r `J �J [ Z �� C%/� 3 9 g i �l� Cci A-1 S� • NAME ADDRESS I CITY OF SPRING PARK SPRING PARK,MINNESOTA AGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION • October 11,2006 7:00 P.M.-CITY HALL 1. CALL TO ORDER Pledge of Allegiance 2. ROLL CALL 3. ADOPT AGENDA 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES—September 13, 2006 5. PLANNING COMMISSION a) Code Revision on Escrow and Fees 1. Open Public Hearing 7:00 p.m. a) Notice of Public Hearing 2. Discussion&Comments 3. Close Public Hearing 4. Recommendation to Council b) Lighting Ordinance 1. Open Public Hearing 7:00 p.m. a) Notice of Public Hearing 2. Discussion&Comments • 3. Close Public Hearing 4. Recommendation to Council c) Variance Application—Graham Neve, 2401 Black Lake Road 1. Open Public Hearing 7:30 p.m. a) Notice of Public Hearing 2. Discussion&Comments a)NAC Memo—September 18, 2006 i) Site Plan/Survey ii)Planning Commission Minutes 9-13-2006 (refer to#4 in agenda packet) iii) Council Minutes 9-18-06 iv) Erickson letter 3. Close Public Hearing 4. Recommendation to Council 6. COMMUNICATIONS a) Note: October Calendar addition,Moratorium Meeting 10-30-06 7-9 PM b) Mound training workshop flier,October 14`h c) November Calendar d) Channels 8 &20 Schedules e) Building and Sign Report, September 2006 f) Terms of office g) Council Minutes—September 18, 2006 • 7. MISCELLANEOUS 8. ADJOURNMENT Plan. Comm. Agenda— 10-11-06 1 CITY OF SPRING PARK SPRING PARK, MINNESOTA MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 11, 2006 7:00 P.M. —CITY HALL 1. CALL TO ORDER Pledge of Allegiance Chair Maloney called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. followed by the pledge of allegiance. 2. ROLL CALL Klein, Mason, Maloney, Tyler and Ex-Officio Hughes were present and Mork Bredeson, Anderson and Sippel were excused. Staff present: Administrator Friesen, Deputy Clerk Corl and Office Assistant Lewin. Others present: Dan Petrik, City Planner. 3. ADOPT AGENDA Maloney noted a discussion on beautification was supposed to be on the agenda. Motion by Klein and seconded by Mason to adopt the agenda. All votes were aye. • Motion declared carried. 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — September 13, 2006 Klein noted a correction on page 5, #6.e) "perimeters" should be "perameters". Motion by Klein and seconded by Mason to approve the minutes for the Planning Commission meeting for September 13, 2006. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. 5. PLANNING COMMISSION a) Code Revision on Escrow and Fees 1. Open Public Hearing 7:00 p.m. Chair Maloney opened the public hearing at 7:03 p.m. a) Notice of Public Hearing 2. Discussion& Comments Petrik noted the fees are broken into two categories, single family and two family lots and other uses. It pointed out the fees are lower for single family and higher for other projects. He explained the fee is usually taken from an application for administrative items, etc. to obtain information toward the application. Petrik said escrow is collected and pays for the services for the engineer, planning and plan review costs. He said unused escrow is a refundable fee. He referred to the last paragraph that • states if costs were higher the applicant would have to pay more than what is in escrow. Petrik said the Development Application is for a variety of applications. Klein verified this would bring the City in line with surrounding communities. She asked 1 why the other application templates were not attached. Petrik pointed out this is an • all purpose application including residential. Friesen asked when we should be considering using this application versus our variance application, etc. Petrik pointed out this form is a master cover page for residential and other applications and it is signed by the property owner if the applicant is not the property owner. He said the master list is to cover the fee structure. Maloney stated some information on our other applications could be redundant. Klein asked when this is going to be used. Petrik said it would be used for the items on the request list on the application. Friesen stated this form is not replacing the applications we now use and this form is being recommended by NAC. Hughes said with a variance application more specific language is used and this is the cover sheet for the other applications. He said we need a definition regarding multiple variance requests on one application. Petrik said it does not take that much more time if there are multiple variance requests on one single family application. Hughes would still like to see clarification with the definition. They briefly discussed how to cover costs when extra work is done by the City to review an application. Petrik said these costs would be covered with escrow funds. He said he could add clarification regarding multiple variance requests. Klein suggested to change the variance application to be more specific i.e. variances numbered. Mason pointed out the variances on the agenda tonight are not numbered. Petrik pointed out the escrow component protects the City. Tyler suggested this • application be re-titled Variance and Development Application. Petrik pointed out the Mist review costs were very high; big projects cost a lot of money and a lot of contract staff time. Hughes suggested clearly defining residential and commercial on the fee schedule and Maloney agreed. Friesen stated this is just a work sheet. Dan said he would make the format clear. Tyler asked if our expenses are less than what is escrowed does the applicant receive a refund and was told yes. Tyler said this was not shown on the application. Maloney said "escrow" implies the fund is there as a back up. Briefly discussed was making separate accounts for each escrow. Friesen said we have to keep track of the interest. Petrik said he could add a statement the money would be refunded to the applicant if there was any left over. 3. Close Public Hearing Chair Maloney closed the public hearing at 7:25 p.m. 4. Recommendation to Council Hughes said the Commissioners could make a recommendation to approve the ordinance amendment with the addition on the application regarding multiple variances and a modification on the form to indicate the applicant would receive a refund of unused monies and column one would be clarified and the title changed to • General Land Use Application. 2 Motion by Klein and seconded by Tyler to recommend to the Council to approve • the ordinance amendment on fees and escrows and expenses based on the above mentioned additions. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. b) Lighting Ordinance 1. Open Public Hearing Chair Maloney opened the public hearing at 7:27 p.m. a) Notice of Public Hearing 2. Discussion& Comments Petrik said there are two key parts in the ordinance amendment, one is the nuisance light trespass issue and the other is light for safety and welfare. He pointed out lighting concerns started with the Mist and Lakeview Lofts' projects. The other portion is lighting standards for residential and commercial. Petrik referred to Sec 3. Subd. C — Exterior Lighting. He pointed out he created exceptions and used current language for non conforming uses. He referred to the light trespass performance standards and the method of measuring light intensity and performance standards. Petrik said the performance standard is a flexible standard; addresses shielding in a residential area and it holds a commercial area to a higher standard. Petrik read the list on page 3, public institutional. He said this category is limiting locations of lights, keeping light fixtures away from adjacent properties, limiting • hours in commercial establishments. Hughes said the way this is worded most of the signs in the City are illegally illuminated i.e. the new BP sign on Shoreline Drive. He said this portion this still needs some work or we would have to tell businesses to turn off their lights at night. Friesen said it would be difficult to have every business turn off their lights on Shoreline Drive. Hughes asked if we want their lights on. Mason said we do in a commercial area. Hughes said this ordinance amendment says to turn them off. He referred to page 3, f. 2. and said we need clarification. Tyler stated when we approve signs, we need to approve the lighting. Friesen said that kind of lighting has never been in the ordinance before and we need to address it when approving a sign. She said we should have lights on Shoreline Drive. She said future applications for lit signs have to be addressed. Klein said this is light pollution. Petrik said we could write to grandfather in existing lights. Hughes objects to the general concept because it discourages commerce. Petrik said we could keep, modify or delete the wording. He referred to outdoor recreation and said this section prohibits flashing lights. He said the purpose of the minimum lighting requirements for parking lots and pedestrian areas is to create safe movement and enhance security. He said the idea is to create a range the eye can see and this is referred to as a maximum to minimum range. He is suggesting changing the `average' to `minimum to maximum'. He said the minimum average light is .2 candles in Spring Park. • Petrik referred to his memo of 9/6. He suggested the minimum lighting requirements be replaced with the table on page 5. He pointed out foot candle readings depend on height of the poles and the wattage; the max to min is 23.5 to 1 ratio and that is higher 3 than the recommendation. He said a .2 foot candle is recommended for safety. Tyler • said a 20 to 1 ratio seems a lot brighter. Maloney said that is recommended for a minimum standard. Petrik referred to the diagrams with cutoff classifications for light standards. He said the cost would be lower with lower cut off heights; spacing poles out further would have an effect on costs. He added it is important to know the difference and the costs. Hughes asked how bollard lighting compares to this. Petrik said they do no provide broad illumination and it is an entirely different approach. Maloney asked if, for example, the shopping center would they be able to light their parking lot how we require. Petrik said they would require more poles and this would also drive up costs. Petrik said he is suggesting two changes in the ordinance amendment; replacing the minimum lighting requirements on page 2 of his memo dated 9/6 with the matrix on page 5. Hughes said the Planning Commission and the Council have dealt with this chart and tried to understand it and he is concerned there are less numbers and less clarity with the recommended change. Maloney stated the understanding of this falls on the city engineer. Hughes said his concern is the Council will say we are starting over. Maloney stated we rely on outside sources to do our reviews. Petrik said he has consulted with a lighting consultant since he did the light charts for the Council. Hughes suggested using both charts. Petrik said he is trying to establish a minimum for a low volume commercial area and make it safe. Hughes said he • agrees with the recommendation. Petrik also recommended adding the definitions in the ordinance amendment. Friesen referred to page 4 of the amendment regarding the prohibition of search lights. She stated she would prohibit them and asked if we need them. Klein said they could fall under special use. Petrik explain the exceptions he listed. Friesen said the City might want to prohibit them entirely and they do affect neighboring areas. Mason asked why they were put in. Petrik pointed out it was for guidance if it should be needed. Hughes suggested the Commissioners make a recommendation to the Council and Petrik will address the questions and concerns expressed in the discussion. 3. Close Public Hearing Chair Maloney closed the public hearing at 8:12 p.m. 4. Recommendation to Council Petrik reviewed concerns are the hours of lighting and the value of lighting in the commercial corridor; setting up the standards for lighting; and not allow search lights or just further limit their use. Maloney said to also keep the full cut off classification of light versus other cut offs. Motion by Maloney and seconded by Klein to recommend to approve the • lighting ordinance amendment as written with the exceptions that uniformity lighting include the new description and make change to include the full cut off as an acceptable standard and keep hours and searchlights as stated. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. 4 • Tyler would like the lighting issue with signs put on another Planning Commission agenda. c) Variance Application—Graham Neve, 2401 Black Lake Road Present: Graham Neve & Paul Fadell, property owners. 1. Open Public Hearing a) Notice of Public Hearing Chair Maloney opened the public hearing at 8:15 p.m. and read the notice regarding the public hearing that was published in the Laker Newspaper. 2. Discussion& Comments a) NAC Memo—September 18, 2006 i) Site Plan Survey ii) Planning Commission Minutes 9-13-2006 (refer to 44 in agenda packet) iii) Council Minutes 9-18-06 iv) Erickson Letter Maloney read this letter into the minutes during the meeting. Neve stated he addressed the issue with the catch basin. He said the proposed garage is 16' by 22' wide and the deck is going off the south side of the house. He said the garage is 35 feet from the lake; it is 18 feet from the street to the corner of the garage and is in the average setback range. Neve said this was changed from 12 feet. He pointed out NAC was concerned with the flare in the south driveway curb cut. Neve • said he can easily eliminate this if the variance request is approved. He read portions of the ordinance that applied to his request on pages 44, 45 and 76. He added the special conditions exist on this property. Maloney asked if any bituminous areas would be changed. Neve said he would be reducing the hardcover from 30% to 27%. Mason asked what the hardship is. Neve said it is the shape of the property. Mason noted Neve had pointed out at an earlier date that many houses on Black Lake Road do not have garages and that is not true. Neve said he was referring to attached garages. Hughes asked if the hydrant was on this property. Neve thought it was on 2413 Black Lake Road. Petrik asked where the elevation point is from the street level. Neve said it was a difference of 5 to 6 feet. Petrik verified it is lower than the main level of the house. Maloney asked Neve how he is going to deal with water drainage. Neve said now everything drains to the house. Maloney stated is going to be difficult to get run off not to go into the garage. Hughes pointed out the garage floor would be 2 feet lower than the house. Maloney asked Neve to consider raising the garage. Petrik said that would improve the site line. Petrik said Neve is asking for a front yard set back from the street. He referred to the ordinance and stated the proposed garage is within the 15% of the shoreline and within the ordinance. It was pointed out the hardship is in the slope of the lot and this • proposal is reducing the hardcover. Mason said the hardship was created when the house was built. Neve pointed out the height of the house is close to what is required and if a garage was added when the house was built it would have increased that and he wanted it to blend in with the surrounding area but things change. 5 • Klein stated she is concerned the hardship was created and the garage would increase the density on the lake and there is overbuilding in that neighborhood. Hughes asked Petrik if Neve would need a variance to make a flat landing for cars and was told no. It was verified the easement is there but it was not recorded. Petrik said the property owner has to record the easement at his expense if the variance is approved. Mason expressed concern with problems of home owners passed on to the City referring to a swale. Maloney asked the average set back on that street and was told it is 18 feet. 3. Close Public Hearing Chair Maloney closed the public hearing at 8:43 p.m. 4. Recommendation to Council Hughes asked how Neve is going to address the run off on the driveway and off the roof on the north side. Neve said with proper irrigation and proper drainage of the land around it. Petrik recommended installing a rain garden and that would also provide an improved situation for water quality. He added he encourages property owners to use water gardens for such solutions especially when water is flowing off of a public street. Mason pointed out additional rip rap on the shoreline would help improve erosion. Maloney said she does not see how that relates to the garage. Mason stated everything is open for discussion. Petrik said that depends where the erosion is coming from. Hughes asked if the property owners are going to construct the garage or obtain a variance for a future owner. Neve pointed out if approved he • has a year to start a building after a permit is approved. Motion by Maloney and seconded by Mason to recommend to the Council to approve an 18 foot variance from the street for a garage for 2401 Black Lake Road. Upon roll call Klein, Mason and Tyler voted no and Maloney voted aye. Motion declared failed. 6. COMMUNICATIONS The following communications were noted: a) Note: October Calendar addition, Moratorium Meeting 10-30-06, 7-9 pm b) Mound training workshop flier, October 141h Maloney expressed apologies for not being able to attend. c) November Calendar d) Channels 8 & 20 Schedules e) Terms of office Klein asked if there was non conforming hardcover for Tony Pollock's property at 3916 Northern Avenue. Friesen pointed out he has a driveway next to the boundary and the question to Petrik was if this was conforming. Petrik said a driveway must meet the 10 foot side yard setbacks. Friesen said this was not possible because it would have to include the 30 foot setback from the street also. It was noted Pollock also has hardcover on the side of his garage to store his boat. Klein asked if his storage and hardcover have been addressed. Friesen said his addition to his garage meets ordinance requirements and • he never came to the City for his additional hardcover when it was done but it meets setback requirements on his current application. Hughes asked if Pollock's hardcover has created water to run off onto the neighbor's property. 6 Klein asked if his driveway is conforming or nonconforming. Tyler asked if there is any • recourse if this was done without going thru proper channels. Friesen said the ordinance is too vague regarding driveways. Petrik said the objective would be to try to keep paved surfaces away from property lines. It was noted the driveway was constructed three years ago and it is hard to go back and have the property owner tear up his driveway. The Commissioners briefly discussed where things are stored on properties at property lines. Maloney said this could be discussed further at the next meeting during the beautification discussion. Maloney noted Sippel is resigning from the Planning Commission. Hughes noted the Commissioners with terms expiring in 2006 are to send a letter on intent to be reappointed. g) Council Minutes—September 18, 006 It was noted there were revisions. 7. MISCELLANEOUS Klein asked how much the arbitration with Lakeview Lofts is costing the City and she requested that figure. Klein said she thought the colors were just fine. Hughes said Frostad, developer of Lakeview Lofts, wanted to arbitrate the issue is his because the building owners and association inherit the problem. Mason asked how much the variance for 2401 Black Lake Road cost the City. Petrik stated his fee is more than the fee for the variance application and Goman also spent time on this request. Mason asked Petrik if he thought • the garage proposal was acceptable. Petrik said it fit within the context of what is there now. Mason said it would increase the build up in the area. Hughes stated at the last Council meeting, it is fair to say the Council wants to involve the Planning Commission more. He said there are issues on the condition of Wilkes Park. He pointed out there are some timbers in worse shape in Thor Thompson Park. Hughes added the Planning Commission should review the safety issues and look at what need to be done from a budget standpoint. 8. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Klein and seconded by Tyler to adjourn the meeting at 9:19 p.m. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. SHARON CORL DEPUTY CLERK SARAH FRIESEN ADMINISTRATOR/CLERK/TREASURER • 7 t_ • NAME ADDRESS z • CITY OF SPRING PARK SPRING PARK, MINNESOTA AGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION November 8, 2006 7:00 P.M. - CITY HALL 1. CALL TO ORDER Pledge of Allegiance 2. ROLL CALL 3. ADOPT AGENDA 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES—October 11, 2006 5. PLANNING COMMISSION a. Sign Permit Application, The Mist Lofts Jon Muscoplat, Imaginality • b. "Christmas in May"Presentation Mary Monteith, City of Chaska 6. COMMUNICATIONS a) Note: November Calendar addition, Moratorium Meeting 11-27-06, 7-9 p.m. b) December Calendar c) Channel 8 & 20 Schedules: see http://www.Imcc-tv.org d) Council Meeting Minutes—October 16, 2006 e)Building and Sign Report, October 7. MISCELLANEOUS 8. ADJOURNMENT • to � CITY OF SPRING PARK • SPRING PARK, MINNESOTA AGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 8,2006 7:00 P.M.—CITY HALL 1. CALL TO ORDER Pledge of Allegiance Chair Maloney called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. 2. ROLL CALL Anderson, Klein, Mason, Maloney, Tyler and Ex-Officio Hughes were present and Mork Bredeson was excused. Staff present: Administrator Friesen, Office Assistant Lewin, and Recorder Corl. 3. ADOPT AGENDA Motion by Anderson and seconded by Mason to adopt the agenda. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. • 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES —October 11, 2006 Motion by Anderson and seconded by Mason to approve the minutes for the Planning Commission Meeting October 11, 2006. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. 5. PLANNING COMMISSION a) Sign Permit Application, The Mist Lofts Jon Muscoplat, Imaginality Present: Jon Muscoplat and another rep from Imaginality. Maloney stated the sign permit application seems to be complete and verified there were no concerns from the staff. Muscoplat said his company designs, manufactures and installs signs. He said their application is for three signs. They want to start identifying the Mist property before people get to it. One sign is next to the planter box and runs perpendicular to Shoreline Drive. The illumination is up to the sign and the sign replicates the building. The second sign is on the planter wall and the third sign is a wall sign at the entrance on Sunset Drive and it is also lit with an internal subtle light. Tyler verified the wall sign can be read from the north and south. It is mounted projecting out from the wall two and a half feet with clearance to walk under it. Mason verified the materials are aluminum. Muscoplat said they will match the building. Mason verified two are illuminated and one is not illuminated. Hughes asked how high • the sign is at the corner entrance. He was told seven feet and it is in the planter box next to the building. Mason said the application states two signs are not illuminated and one is. He verified this is incorrect. Muscoplat said the letters are illuminated, they will be Planning Commission Minutes— 11/8/06 1 black during the day and white at night. The planter sign will have landscape lighting • and the one on the wall is not illuminated and hopefully landscape lighting will light it up. The signs are understated but recognizable. Friesen asked the reason the one is so large in the planter box. The rep said they had to change it because there were too many utilities at the original location and they had to move it closer to the corner but it is scaled proportionate for the location. Hughes asked when they would install the signs. Muscoplat said there is a four week lead time after approval. Tyler referred to the wall sign and the statement made earlier that hopefully there would be landscaping light. He asked if this is a preliminary design and was told no. Maloney felt the sign in the planter would not interfere with traffic. Klein asked if the planter sign replaces the tree and was told, "Yes for now". Tyler verified the sign at the corner was seven feet tall and asked how wide it is. He was told it is offset at four feet and the footprint is approximately six feet. Klein verified it is 11" thick. Tyler asked if the diagrams are intended to be to scale and was told yes. He said it looks big. The rep said they will cut it down a foot. Klein said it should be dropped two feet. Muscoplat pointed out the top of sign is above the railing and the railing should not take precedence over the sign. He said they can lower it so the height is equal to the railing. Hughes pointed out the Council discussed at length the landscape plan for the Mist and they do not wish to see the tree removed. Maloney asked if there were other options to • consider with the corner sign. Muscoplat said they need a surface for the letters but not a lot of area. Maloney also expressed concern with removing the tree. Muscoplat said that tree will grow and go above the sign. He asked if putting back a taller tree would work. Mason said he would like to retain rather than take away. Muscoplat said they could lower the sign by a foot or two but they need the height of the letters for visibility when driving by. Tyler asked if they need that sign. The rep said they need to identify the property and that is important when trying to get to a destination. Maloney asked if there would be room for additional business names on that sign. The rep said there would not because shadows get created with additional signs. Anderson asked the potential for retail units in that location. Muscoplat said there is room for three or four businesses. Anderson asked where those signs would go. Muscoplat said they would go on the building. Hughes noted the character of the tree is more of a bush tree and it probably would not grow tall. He added it is in the ordinance that a sign cannot be placed in an easement. He asked how far that easement goes into that location. It was noted there is a water easement on the corner. Muscoplat said he was told by the county there was a zero setback and the location of the sign was out of the easement. He said they would work thru landscaping and the signage for a balance and reposition the sign lower than the tree. Maloney asked the color of the illumination and was told it would match the building. Tyler said he realized signage is • important, we are trying to keep it environmental friendly along Shoreline Drive, the condos stand out and it is known they are there, and he does not see a sign on the corner as necessary. Planning Commission Minutes— 11/8/06 2 • Klein pointed out Lakeview Lofts does not have signage. Reinhardt pointed out the `4100' address is used twice, Spring Street and Shoreline Drive. Muscoplat said they have plans for placing the address on entries but it is important to have identification on the corner. Friesen asked if they are doing any signage on the north building and was told no. Muscoplat said there was no place to put a sign because of utilities. Mason said it is unfortunate signage was not put into the plans during the development stage to see how it would tie in. Anderson asked if a motion would be for all of the signs or individually. Friesen said individually because of the landscaping issue and the Council should have a say in the matter. Motion by Mason and seconded by Klein to approve the hanging wall sign on Sunset Drive for the Mist Lofts. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. Motion by Klein and seconded by Mason to approve the sign on the south facing wall of the south building on Shoreline Drive. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. Motion by Klein and seconded by Mason to have the Council review the illuminated sign on the corner in the planter. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. Muscoplat will provide new modified drawings for the Council meeting November 201h Hughes recommended the new drawings have as much detail as possible. Muscoplat said • he will do views with options and he verified the other two signs are approved. b. "Christmas in May' Presentation Present: Mary Monteith, City of Chaska, Bob Roepke Monteith explained"Christmas in May" is a non profit group that works with Sr. citizens, disabled, low to moderate income people that need assistance with home repairs, yard work, etc. She said it is completely a volunteer organization. They solicit funds from other organizations in the community; have 250 volunteers and average doing work for six to seven homes a year in Chaska. She further explained the structure of the organization and their game plan. Monteith stated she works for the HRA and with home owners that do not have more than $25,000 in assets. Maloney asked how long Chaska has been doing this and was told this was their IOtn year. Roepke said they saw this program in Shakopee first and the City of Chaska wanted a sense of community feel and this program defines a caring community. He said it is a "feel good" project and has really expanded from the first year. Roepke stated they consistently raise about $20,000 and this program has been established as a community oriented program; it runs itself and they can afford the insurance for the one day they work on a house. Monteith said they typically start working on a different house once a month. They have a skilled house captain per house to work out the details and the project adds to the • community effort. She said the fire department also assists with providing the batteries for smoke detectors. Anderson asked what Monteith is looking for from the Planning Commission. Monteith said this is just a presentation and she was asked to come and Planning Commission Minutes— 11/8/06 3 present it. Tyler asked how we would do on a project like this in Spring Park. He said • when 50 people arrived at his daughter's place it was awesome. Roepke said they found the Rotary in Glencoe to help that city recruit people and people responded. Monteith said we could start out small to see what works. Klein asked if they do the fund raising first and then find a house and was told yes. Monteith said they have to review applications to see if they can handle projects needed to be done in one day. Churches are a great place to find volunteers and applicants. Maloney verified most supplies are purchased with funds. Monteith said they get them at cost from a local merchant and Home Depot. She said they also feed the volunteers all day. She suggested someone from the City join them on the day in May to see how it works and they are willing to share information. She was thanked for the presentation. Tyler asked what they should do with what they just heard. Maloney said to bring ideas to the next meeting. Lewin said she would obtain sample letters and information, etc. from Monteith. Klein said we should keep the project in Spring Park. c. Trailhead Concept Plans—NAC Present: Dan Petrik,NAC Petrik said NAC has been directed to create preliminary trailhead concept plans. He said the ultimate goal is to look at various options and make a recommendation to the Council. He gave an overview of the sight. He said the corridor is 100 feet wide and standard throughout the corridor. The bike trail will be on the former railroad bed reserving room • for transit rail in the future. He said the HCRRA's goal is six parking spaces but they will give us about 17 spaces. Hughes verified the parking would be on top of Lakeview Lofts underground parking. Petrik said the sight is flat and the high point is where the trail crosses Sunset Drive. Option two contains 46 parking spaces with limited green space. Maloney asked where 100 parking spaces originated. Petrik said that is what the Council requested. Mason verified this proposal is in the shadow of the Lakeview Lofts building. Tyler verified the parking lot would be over the Lakeview Lofts underground ramp. Hughes pointed out Lakeview Lofts is required to keep gravel areas as fire exits. Option three has 29 parking spaces and more green space. Significant landscaping can be done and amenities i.e. bathrooms. The parking would go right up to Lakeview Lofts. The residents on the second floor and above would be looking out beyond the parking lot and at the green space. One issue to be considered is the access at the same point from Sunset Drive. Petrik said there is the possibility of an easement for access on the west end of the property onto Spring Street. Tyler asked if consideration can be given to a line of trees along the bike trail. Petrik said there is not enough space. He pointed out it would be hard to plant trees on top of the underground parking ramp at Lakeview Lofts but planting smaller shrubs is an option. Reinhardt asked if the county and Three Rivers Park are set on putting the trail exactly on • the railroad bed. Petrik said they are set on the location to save costs. Mason said the parking is different from previous discussions. Reinhardt said they do not feel the area supports a large trailhead. Tyler asked why the Council asked for 100 parking spaces and Planning Commission Minutes— 11/8/06 4 was told they asked for the maximum. Petrik said also for overflow parking for • businesses in the area. He asked if we want extra parking at what level is the City going to go to. Option one has 50 spaces, a single drive aisle and allows for more green space than option two and less than option three. It has one point of access and a plaza area and a row of a few trees. Mason asked what is going to be done at the west end by the engine house and this was not known. Tyler pointed out the residents of Lakeview Lofts will have public parking to look at. Petrik said the realtors are telling buyers what is adjacent to the back of the building. Anderson verified there are no ground level units in that building. Tyler asked where in the City is there public parking right outside a building like Lakeview Lofts. He added people from all over are going to be coming to park there. Maloney asked how to prevent people from the condo projects from parking in that lot. Petrik said there would have to be stipulations, etc. no long term parking. Mason asked why parking has to be right at Sunset Drive and not down by the Tonka Venture building where no one would see it. Petrik said that area is only 100 feet wide instead of 150 feet wide at Sunset Drive. Maloney asked who is going to park there except users of the trail or Lakeview Lofts. Klein asked where the closest trailheads would be. Reinhart said Wayzata and St. Boni, and a possible park and ride in Mound. Petrik pointed out parking could spur • commercial activity. Hughes said if a business would go into Lakeview Lofts and there is no parking available on Spring Street he said he would go around to the back. Petrik said he did look at a possible pass thru the Lofts building. Roger Swanson, West Arm Town homes, said when Lakeview Lofts was planned some did not think the parking was adequate and this looks like the City did not plan enough parking for the Lofts. Tyler said this does not feel good to him to have public parking adjacent to a residential area. Friesen asked if the underground easement was to include green space on top. Petrik said their easement is underground. Mason said it is too bad we cannot landscape next to the building and screen the cars. Maloney thought option 2 would work the best. Petrik pointed out the residents of Lakeview Lofts would be looking out over the parking lot and at the trees not at the parked cars and an attractive parking lot could be created. Tyler asked if there were doors on the north side of Lakeview Lofts. Petrik said there were three fire access doors. Maloney stated people would have to walk around the building to get to Lakeview Lofts. Klein said she would not want to make it a walk thru because it would look like Lakeview Lofts parking. Hughes pointed out maybe the north corridor being reserved for future transportation could be used for parking. Mason asked how receptive the county was to restrooms. Petrik said they are looking at benches but that is about all because of underground utilities in the area. Reinhardt said they did not want a trailhead at all and have come a long way. Mason • asked if this is realistic. Friesen asked if it was possible for the City to recommend phases. Hughes said, from a safety point of view, to make a "y" at the curb cut and use some of the space being reserved for the transportation corridor to expand the safety area. Planning Commission Minutes— 11/8/06 5 They briefly discussed one way in and one way out and angle parking. Swanson said • West Arm town homes have concerns with security and screening at the location. He said 100 parking spaces are not what they want in that location and they do not want a park and ride. Lighting is also a concern. Maloney said we want to make sure the plan we have can accommodate the growth and option 3 does not accommodate this. Petrik said option 3 is the ls` phase for option 1. Mason said a right in and right out would create a horseshoe and it forces people to go around to the same entrance. Hughes said option two with angle parking would dictate traffic flow. Petrik asked if this is being thought of as a parking lot or an amenity. Klein said an amenity. Friesen said we have the west end to work with later. Closing comments were they liked the idea of a phased approach, consensus of parking immediately adjacent to the building; put screening between the parking and the bike trail. Mason asked what the county is paying for. Petrik said a 17 space parking lot, trail, kiosk, and benches. 6. COMMUNICATONS The following communications were noted: a) Note: November Calendar addition—Moratorium Meeting 11-27-06, 7-9 p.m. Klein asked when packets would be available and was told they would be ready three days before the meeting. b) December Calendar c) Channel 8 & 20 Schedules: see http://www.Imcc-tv.org d) Council Meeting Minutes—October 16, 2006 • e) Building & Sign Report, October 7. MISCELLANEOUS Klein asked for feedback on the cost of the arbitration with Lakeview Lofts. Friesen said the cost is coming from Lakeview Lofts escrow account. Maloney noted the Planning Commission was going to discuss beautification ideas. This will be on the next agenda. 8. ADJOUORNMENT Motion by Klein and seconded by Tyler to adjourn the meeting at 9:20 p.m. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. SARAH FRIESEN SHARON CORL ADMINISTRATOR/CLERK/TREASURER RECORDER is Planning Commission Minutes— 11/8/06 6 CITY OF SPRING PARK SPRING PARK,MINNESOTA AGENDA • PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 13,2006 7:00 P.M.-CITY HALL 1. CALL TO ORDER Pledge of Allegiance 2. ROLL CALL 3. ADOPT AGENDA 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES—Planning Commission November 8, 2006 5. PLANNING COMMISSION a) 7:00 p.m. Public Hearing Re: Revised Application for Preliminary Plat by Michael Gorra and Clearwater Development Group 1. Open Public Hearing 2. Discussion&Comments 3. Close Public Hearing 4. Recommendation to Council b) 7:30 p.m. Public Hearing Re: To consider amendments to the Spring Park Zoning Ordinance for Section 3, Subd B.6; Subd D.10; Subd E.7; Subd G.6.b.; Subd. G.7.e.(8). 1. Open Public Hearing 2. Discussion&Comments • 3. Close Public Hearing 4. Recommendation to Council c) 7:45 p.m. Public Hearing Re: To consider amendments to the Spring Park Comprehensive Plan 1. Open Public Hearing 2. Discussion &Comments 3. Close Public Hearing 4. Recommendation to Council 6. COMMUNICATIONS a) January Calendar b) Building and Sign Report,November 2006 c) Channels 8 &20 Schedules d) Moratorium Workshop Minutes—October 30,2006 e) Council Meeting Minutes—November 20, 2006 f) Moratorium Workshop Minutes—November 27, 2006 g) Special Informational Meeting Minutes—November 28, 2006 h) Joint Special Meeting—November 28, 2006 7. MISCELLANEOUS Discussion regarding changing future Planning Commission Meeting day to Tuesday from Wednesday. 8. ADJOURNMENT 0- Plan. Comm. Agenda— 12-13-06 1 • CITY OF SPRING PARK SPRING PARK, MINNESOTA MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 13, 2006 7:00 P.M.—CITY HALL 1. CALL TO ORDER Acting Chair Anderson called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. followed by the pledge of allegiance. 2. ROLL CALL Anderson, Klein, Mason, Tyler and Ex-Officio Hughes were present. Mork Bredeson and Maloney were excused. Staff present: Administrator Friesen, Deputy Clerk Lewin, Recorder Corl. Others present: Engineer Scott Harri, Attorney Nancy Beck, Planner Dan Petrik. 3. ADOPT AGENDA Tyler stated the "Christmas in May" topic from last meeting was supposed to be on this agenda. Lewin said she wrote a letter to Mary Monteith to provide us with more information and Monteith has not yet responded. It will be on the next agenda. • Motion by Mason and seconded by Tyler to adopt the agenda. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES —Planning Commission November 8, 2006 Motion by Mason and seconded by Tyler to approve the Planning Commission Minutes for November 8, 2006. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. 5. PLANNING COMMISSION a) 7:00 p.m. Public Hearing Re: Revised Application for Preliminary Plat by Michael Gorra and Clearwater Development Group 1. Open Public Hearing Acting Chair Anderson opened the public hearing at 7:04 p.m. 2. Discussion& Comments Present: Scott Schmidt, Jason Thomas, Clearwater Development, John Harriss, Harriss Architect, Joel Cooper, James R. Hill Engineering. Schmidt stated Mike Gorra is the original applicant and Clearwater has reached an agreement with Gorra to proceed with the development where K. Hovnanian left off. He gave a brief history of Clearwater and said it was formed in 2002. Schmidt stated they wanted to stay as close as possible to K Hovnanian's plan and changes are to the . inside of the building to accommodate the present market. They hope to close on the Planning Commission Meeting— 12/13/06 1 • property in late February after giving the tenants a 60 day notice. Completion of the project is a three year time frame being the worst case scenario. Tyler asked for a list of cities where Clearwater has projects. The list included Chanhassen, Waconia, Woodbury, Brooklyn Park, Grand Rapids, Norwood Young America, and Blaine plus several more. Mason requested the name of a project they could physically view and was told "Wildwood" in Chanhassen on Highway 5 and also 72 acres on the west side of Waconia will be 110 single family homes, 66 town homes, senior housing, retail building, a bank, and a quik trip gas station. They also redeveloped the former grocery store in downtown Waconia and a two story office building. Harriss stated they repositioned the project to meet the current market. He pointed out the current projects in the City have sold the best units and are left with the lesser units. He said they have cut the density of the proposed project by 35%. The foot print is intact, all of the utilities are intact and all units will have a view of the lake. There is a reduction in the number of units. The units will range from 1,700 to 2,500 square feet with two parking spaces per unit. They have also increased the ratio of surface parking. He said the largest change is to parcel D which used to be building D on Shoreline Drive. He said it is the most problematic building on the site. They are going to leave the existing building for tenants to live and hold it open for future development. Clearwater would come to the City if/when they develop that parcel. • Clearwater will be using all of the same materials stated previously with K. Hovnanian. They have added decks and are making larger units. Anderson asked what a lesser unit was and was told one with no view of the water. Tyler asked if they are going to keep the current docks. Harriss said the LMCD issues permits for the docks, the current docks are renewable, there are 50 docks available and they would be in the same location. Mason asked how they would decide who gets a dock and was told they would be allocated per building. Mason verified the buildings would be the same size as the previous project but was told the interiors are going to be different. Harriss said their approach was to keep in tack the good things and not reinvent the wheel. They saved a few more trees and the project has a better feeling on the site. Tyler asked how these would be better units than other projects in the City. Harriss stated the amenities offered promote a better life style with two different pools and docks at the site. Schmidt said this site is going to have a residential feel rather than an urban feel and more pedestrian friendly. They are over the requirement for green space at 40%versus 75%. Beth Aschinger, resident, asked if they have taken affordable living space into consideration in Spring Park. Thomas said they are providing apartment style living in one building. Aschinger asked the considered price for the units and was told $700,000 to 1 million dollars. Klein asked how many units are currently on the site and was told 154 and the plans reflect a reduction to 116 units. Hughes asked when • all is said and done how many units will the City lose and was told 38 units. He said he was thinking of the loss of revenue from water and sewer with those units gone. Planning Commission Meeting— 12/13/06 2 • Harriss introduced Joel Cooper with James R. Hill, the new engineer on the project. Cooper stated he was president of the company which has been in business for 30 years. He pointed out they have done projects all over the metro area. Petrik stated this application is just like the previous application only better. It is a superior design and the main issue has to do with the grading at the higher elevation at the road. He said they are putting in a retaining wall and water will run into a pond. Island Drive has a 10% slope and NAC is recommending moving a small parking lot more into the site so it will not be as problematic. He said another issue has to do with the landscaping. NAC would like to see the landscaping integrate the existing building and the rest of the project. A third issue is the lighting along Island Drive. Petrik pointed out the City has a new lighting ordinance that calls for different light levels and two proposed areas are at issue. He said a low light level at the lake is being encouraged and some light is needed for safety along Island Drive. He said the established new standards for lighting minimums would affect the project and some lights affected fall within the easement. He added the light levels could be corrected. Hughes asked how tall the poles are and was told 14 to 15 feet. Hughes pointed out an incident with Shoreline Place where the poles were too high and the light imposed on the condos. He asked if these lights are going to interfere with any units. Harriss • said they would not and each patio will have its own lighting. He said they would like to keep the lighting levels as low as possible and have no desire to have bright lighting. Anderson asked the purpose of the lighting. Petrik said the purpose is to maintain consistent lighting for safety. There are two different types of lighting in this project. Aschinger asked if there are existing non conforming lights on the site and was told the ones that are, are not significant that they cannot be corrected. Petrik noted there is a commercial parking lot next to the property. Hughes asked if shielding the lights is part of the plan and was told not at this point. Harriss stated they would do the lights to conform to the ordinance. Petrik said seven trees are preserved over the previous plan but they do not know the quality of those trees. Mason said he heard trees have been cut down the past couple of years. Hughes asked how many trees are proposed to be cut down within the Shoreland impact area. Petrik noted maybe one would be cut. Harriss said there is going to be a net gain of trees from the previous proposal. Aschinger asked the process of removing trees within the 25 foot setback from the lake. Petrik said the City does not have any procedure. Aschinger pointed out the DNR has a priority and a procedure. Thomas said this would be discussed later on. It was noted there would be no beach because of the surrounding wetlands but there would be a lakefront park area. Petrik pointed out on the previous plan the right hand turn lane is longer than on this • plan. He pointed out a list of conditions on page 6 of NAC's report that are still relevant and yet to be addressed. He particularly referred to the section on Grading Planning Commission Meeting— 12/13/06 3 #3 and #5, the additional lighting on page 7 and the landscaping section is added. • Hughes verified the City Engineer has reviewed this. Mason inquired about the improvements to the old building. Schmidt said that is another matter and would involve only maintenance issues and updating the exterior. Hughes recommended on page 6, Utilities, the Utility Superintendent should be included in the review and approval process. He asked what permit shall be obtained from Hennepin County. It was noted a permit is needed to make Island Drive wider in the county right-of-way. Mason asked if there was a plan for dust control during this construction. Thomas said dust abatement would take place during construction. Mason asked if they would retain the asphalt road until last minute. This was the plan. Mason asked if the `right in and right out' for construction traffic control would be used. Tom Goodrum, Schoell & Madson, said this was suggested for construction traffic control during peak traffic times in the morning and afternoon in the first plan. During the off peak times it would not take place but either way this process would not be used unless traffic proves to be a problem. Aschinger asked the hours and days for construction. Petrik said Monday thru Friday the hours are 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. and Saturday 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. She pointed out noise travels across the lake. It was noted noise is a separate issue and there is a noise ordinance. Mason asked if they would be staging at the Marina Center. Thomas said it is not immediately foreseeable. Klein verified the conditions on page six and seven are carried over from the first proposed project. • Mason asked the percentage that this project is likely to proceed and Schmidt said at least 90%. Hughes asked when the apartment buildings were built. Gorra said in 1969 and the island building were built in 1974 and 1977. Hughes was concerned there were hazardous materials in the buildings. Mason recommended the developer keep the City informed of progress with the project. 3. Close Public Hearing Acting Chair Anderson closed the public hearing at 8:07 p.m. 4. Recommendation to Council Motion by Mason and seconded by Tyler to recommend to the Council to approve the application for preliminary plat submitted by Michael Gorra and Clearwater Development Group with the conditions and amendments proposed by NAC with additions discussed on lighting, grading and including the review and approval of the Utility Superintendent for the utilities. Upon roll call Anderson, Mason and Tyler voted aye and Klein voted no. Motion declared carried. b) 7:30 p.m. Public Hearing Re: To consider amendments to the Spring Park Zoning Ordinance for Section 3, Subd B.6; Subd D.10; Subd E.7; Subd G.7.e.(8). • 1. Open Public Hearing Planning Commission Meeting— 12/13/06 4 • Acting Chair Anderson noted this was published in the Laker newspaper and he opened the public hearing at 8:15 p.m. 2. Discussion& Comments Subd b.6 (Re: Miscellaneous Zoning Code Issues, NAC 11/29/06, File 175.01 — 05.16 Non-Conforming Buildings, Structures and Uses (Sect. 3, Subd B) Petrik pointed out the following miscellaneous issues are items that have been brought to the attention of the City. He referred to his memo dated 11/29/06. He stated the current language in the ordinance regarding non conforming structures removed for reasons other than associated with remodeling shall be restored so that the non conforming portion will conform to the ordinance. He pointed out taking down a house is a separate issue than a casualty and the proposed change clarifies the ordinance. Klein referred to a recent seminar she attended and said a state law has changed that lawful non conforming structures can be torn down and rebuilt on the same footprint and no variance is required. Petrik said we are not allowed to make someone conform and tear down a rental unit as a condition of a building permit. Beck said this may be a court decision versus state law. Mason recommended this be investigated. Petrik asked if the Commissioners would like to table this and they all agreed to table it. • Aschinger asked what is a condition where the City would require a variance for this. Petrik pointed out houses in the City are too close to property lines and this would give property owners the opportunity to have a structure brought into conformance. Legal staff will research Klein's reference. Average Shore land Setback (Sect. 3, Subd. E7) Petrik would like to change the language to suggest that the minimum setback from the ordinary high water mark (OHWM) is 50 feet except where structures on adjoining lots exist at a setback of less than 50 feet. If that is the case the setback may be the average of adjacent structures. He said this would allow more flexibility. In no case shall the setback be reduced to locate a structure within a Shoreland impact zone. The current ordinance language states structures that exist on adjoining lots of a proposed building, the minimum setbacks from the OHWM for the proposed structure shall be the average of the setbacks of the adjacent structures. Mark Kinter, resident, pointed out the structure on the middle lot would have a nicer view and the two on each side would have a lesser view. Aschinger said the public should have more input on this amendment. Friesen stated we should see how many lots this would affect in the City. Different lot scenarios in the City were discussed. Hughes pointed out the existing ordinance allows a 50 foot setback and another paragraph allows averaging the setback. He added the averaging came into play when homes closer than 50 feet were involved. Klein said the amendment sounds like it is clarifying the Planning Commission Meeting— 12/13/06 5 language and make the ordinance more flexible. Mason said we should find out the • original intent of ordinance. Klein verified none of this is from moratorium meetings. Petrik said they are items that have come up repeatedly. Aschinger asked if there are a large number of situations regarding the averaging. The most recent is on Black Lake Road. Tyler asked for an explanation of middle lot. Petrik pointed out a structure on a middle lot would affect the views of each house on either side. Gene Meyer, resident, stated averaging makes his front lot unbuildable. Aschinger said this ordinance helps people that are developing the property but not going to live there. Petrik pointed out an amendment would allow lots to be more conforming. Klein suggested eliminating averaging and just keep the set back at 50 feet. Kinter asked if there was an estimate of which houses are more likely to be torn down and rebuilt. He added we should deal with what exists now and estimate what will happen in the future. He said the change would have a negative effect on the existing people. Friesen asked what we want Spring Park to look like in the future. Hughes said averaging was for nonconforming lots and the 50 foot setback was for conforming lots. He recommended tabling this until a study is done on the impact of this on the City. Kinter asked the percentage of properties in the City that have lakeshore and reviewing this would change the issue. DrivewaysSect. 3 Subd G.6.b.) • Hughes read the current ordinance and pointed out the only change is the 50 foot setback. Bill Turner, resident, asked if side yard setbacks are being eliminated and what the status would be with pre-existing issues. He described the issue he has with a neighbor. Petrik said the ordinance was originally intended to prevent driveways within the OHWM but it did not get written that way. It included the side yard set back and the language was not clear. Hughes said it would be impossible to enforce the location of driveways along property boundary lines because we have an abundance of boundary line driveways in the City. He said we do not want to see an ordinance written that is unenforceable. Turner asked why we would approve an ordinance that would make things worse. Hughes said this is another issue that the average citizen in the City does not know what is before us. Aschinger said the consistency of the City's approach is from different directions and asked what we are trying to achieve. Turner said the City should be going forward and there are other options. Klein said it is not clear if other options are available. Kinter said it is not the surface of the driveways that is an issue but what is on the surfaces. Klein said this should be a workshop discussion. Anderson said we cannot reach a conclusion and this should be tabled. Parking Lot surfacing (Sect 3 Subd G 7 e.(8) Petrik said the amendment is to clarify all areas shall have surfacing other than residential and this could be achieved when redevelopment occurs. He said this • would create parking lots that are surfaced to look like parking lots. There are a lot of gravel parking lots in the City and that appearance is a concern of the City. Planning Commission Meeting— 12/13/06 6 Anderson asked how far the City goes on this. Mason said this is an effort to try to • clean up the City and we not trying to impact the existing businesses but have something in place when a new business comes in. Anderson asked where this has not been done. Hughes referred to Marina Car Wash. Anderson asked if this looks bad. Hughes said we can achieve this in predevelopment agreements but it is the smaller ones that are difficult to accomplish what we want. He said we should be able to require more consistent requirements. Tyler pointed out this amendment is fairly simple; we can get this done and move on. Mason verified this is related to businesses. Klein said this should have been discussed at the moratorium workshops. Landscaping Ordinance (Sect. 3, Subd. D 10.) Petrik said this was included in the moratorium discussions. He said the City ordinance did not have much clarity and this amendment would add strength and quality to the landscaping requirements. It is for non residential usage except for a screening requirement for businesses abutting residential areas, planting strips are required. He proceeded to review the changes in the landscaping requirements and pointed out the proposed changes in the NAC memo dated 11/29/06. The following changes included: required screening preferred over screen fences, multi-family developments screen parking lots from single family neighborhoods; establishing a landscaping standard and quantity standard with trees and shrubs in developments; include language for types of trees and prohibited trees and include landscaping of stormwater management ponds; minimum setbacks for plantings, fences and walls; expand landscape design criteria; outlines time frame for landscape installation; maintenance standards and financial security to ensure proper installation per approved plans. Petrik noted the changes are underlined on the pages. He distributed a list of invasive species of trees and said we should not allow the trees on this list. Petrik referred to pond management and said when new developments come in, this is clear as to what plantings go into ponds, etc. and it encourages pond development. Mason asked who monitors this. Petrik said the City would hold escrow and do inspections periodically. Anderson asked if this is general information. Petrik said this is part of the moratorium work list. All of these recommendations are intended to improve the quality of new development in the City with strength to carry this out. Hughes verified this will be reviewed by the City Attorney and then approved by the Council. 3. Close Public Hearing Acting Chair Anderson closed the public hearing 9:34 p.m. 4. Recommendation to Council Ordinance amending non-conforming buildings, structures and uses Motion by Klein and seconded by Mason to table this so legal staff can review the questions. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. Planning Commission Meeting— 12/13/06 7 • Ordinance amending required fencing, screening and landscaping Motion by Klein and seconded by Mason to recommend to the Council to approve the ordinance amending required fencing, screening and landscaping with the addition of the list of prohibited tress and reviewing of the amendment by the City Attorney. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. Ordinance amending the shore land setback requirements Motion by Klein and seconded by Tyler to table this as discussed which included review of the percentage of lakeshore property in the City and research the original intent of the ordinance. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. Ordinance amending the placement of roads, driveways and parking area setbacks Motion by Tyler and seconded by Mason to table this for further review. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. It was noted: the larger impact is the issue of surfaces and keeping space clear and free; within the ten foot side yard is an issue; a workshop should be held on the three items tabled; hold a more publicized public hearing. Petrik will have the tabled items on the next Planning Commission agenda. • Ordinance amending parking lot surfacing standards Motion by Tyler and seconded by Klein to recommend to the Council to approve the ordinance amending parking lot surfacing standards. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. c) 7:45 p.m. Public Hearing Re: To consider amendments to the Spring Park Comprehensive Plan 1. Open Public Hearing Acting Chair Anderson opened the public hearing at 9:43 p.m. 2. Discussion & Comments Motion by Klein and seconded by Mason to table this to the next Planning Commission meeting. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. Tyler pointed out this subject is one that we should try to reach a broader audience, and it is important to get the word out to the public maybe via the Newsletter. He asked if this is time sensitive. Hughes said we have to update it next year. Acting Chair Anderson continue the public hearing to the next Planning Commission meeting January 10, 2007. • Planning Commission Meeting— 12/13/06 8 The following communications were noted: • a) January Calendar b) Building & Sign Report,November 2006 Klein asked if Lord Fletcher's Restaurant obtained a sign permit for the banner on their fence and was told no. She pointed out they do this often and should be told there is a process for putting up a sign or banner. Klein stated they should be fined the $200 for not obtaining the permit before putting up the sign. c) Channels 8 & 20 Schedules It was noted we could generate public interest if we televised our Planning Commission meetings. Staff will follow up on this. d) Moratorium Workshop Minutes—October 30, 2006 e) Council Meeting Minutes—November 20, 2006 f) Moratorium Workshop Minutes—November 27, 2006 g) Special Information Meeting Minutes—November 28, 2006 h) Joint Special Meeting—November 28, 2006 7. MISCELLANEOUS Discussion regarding changing future Planning Commission Meeting day to Tuesday from Wednesday Hughes stated the Planning Commission has met on the second Wednesday night of every month and that is historically a church night. He said if we look at having more time between the Planning Commission meeting and Council meeting it would give staff more time to get materials ready for Council packets. He noted the Council agreed it is up to the • Planning Commission to change their meeting day. It was noted there are five applicants for the openings on the Planning Commission. In another matter, Klein suggested sending a letter to Commissioner Mork Bredeson regarding her attendance record. Hughes said this came up before the Planning Commission a year ago and the intent was the Planning Commission was to address this before giving it to the Council. Hughes suggested directing the Administrator write a letter. Klein said we should address this matter. Friesen said the Council would be interviewing the applicants in January. The attendance matter will be discussed at the next meeting Planning Commission meeting. 8. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Klein and seconded by Tyler to adjourn the meeting at 9:59 p.m. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. l SHARON CORL RECORDER • SARAH FRIESEN Planning Commission Meeting— 12/13/06 9 �Li9/��• L'o�-Yi�l-i /�/�3/O!o NAME ADDRESS Z 7b kao M,11 S �&4 /_i�7y- �L�vh1� hll Z� �1�►l ��� :���