Loading...
2004 - Planning Commission - Agendas & Minutes • CITY OF SPRING PARK SPRING PARK, MINNESOTA AGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 14, 2004 7:30 P.M. — CITY HALL Chair Anderson and Staff have canceled the Planning Commission Meeting for January 14, 2004 due to lack of items for the agenda. The minutes for the meeting held on November 12, 2003 will be approved at the next scheduled meeting and the new Planning Commissioner, Doug Sippel, will be sworn in at the next scheduled meeting. The following items were distributed: 1. Council Meeting Minutes December 15, 2003 2. Council Meeting Minutes January 5, 2004 • 3. Budget 2004 4. Letter From Henn. Co. Atty. Re: Notice of Abandonment — 11/25/03 & City's Response— 12/15/03 5. Building & Sign Report— December 2003 6. Appointments 2004 7. Fee Schedule 2004 8. January Calendar 9. Channel 8 Schedule • CITY OF SPRING PARK SPRING PARK, MINNESOTA AGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 11, 2004 7:30 P.M. — CITY HALL Chair Anderson and Staff have canceled the Planning Commission Meeting for February 11, 2004 due to lack of items for the agenda. The minutes for the meeting held on November 12, 2003 will be approved at the next scheduled meeting and the new Planning Commissioner, Doug Sippel, will be sworn in at the next scheduled meeting. The following items were distributed: 1. Council Meeting Minutes January 20, 2004 2. Council Meeting Minutes February 2, 2004 3. Cost Analysis of Variances — 1/15/04 4. Building & Sign Report — January 2004 5. Council & Planning Commission List 2004 6. February Calendar 2004 7. March Calendar 8. Brochure - Filing for Office in MN 2004 9. Brochure - MN Precinct Caucuses 3/2/04 • CITY OF SPRING PARK SPRING PARK,MINNESOTA AGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 10, 2004 7:30 P.M.—CITY HALL 1. CALL TO ORDER Pledge of Allegiance 2. ROLL CALL OATH OF OFFICE—Doug Sippel 3. ADOPT AGENDA 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES—November 12, 2003 5. PLANNING COMMISSION a) Elect Chair&Acting Chair • b) Swings—Thor Thompson Park 6. COMMUNICATIONS a) Article on Jeff Hovelsrud (Spring Park Resident&Former Planning Commissioner) b) Zoning Issues(From City Attorney)—8/30/99 c) Council Minutes—3/l/04 7. MISCELLANEOUS 8. ADJOURNMENT • • CITY OF SPRING PARK SPRING PARK,MINNESOTA MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 10, 2004 7:30 P.M.—CITY HALL 1. CALL TO ORDER Pledge of Allegiance Chair Anderson called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. 2. ROLL CALL Anderson, Klein, Hughes, Sippel and ex-officio Stone were present and Mork Bredeson,Nelson and Aschinger were excused. Staff present: Deputy Clerk Corl. 3. ADOPT AGENDA • Motion by Hughes seconded by Klein to adopt the agenda. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES—November 12, 2003 Motion by Klein seconded by Hughes to approve the minutes with typographical errors noted. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. 5. PLANNING COMMISSION a) Elect Chair&Acting Chair Anderson recommended postponing this election until there are more than four Commissioners present. Motion by Klein seconded by Hughes to table the election of Chair and Acting Chair until there are more Commissioners present. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. b) Swings—Thor Thompson Park The Planning Commissioners were informed the swings at Thor Thompson Park are not OSHA approved and need to be replaced. They have already been ordered • to take advantage of 2003 pricing but a color has to be chosen. Planning Commission 1 • Motion by Klein seconded by Sippel to approve blue for the color of the posts for the swings. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. 6. COMMUNICATIONS The following communications were noted: a) Article on Jeff Hovelsrud (Spring Park Resident & Former Planning Commissioner) b) Zoning Issues (From City Attorney)—8/30/99 The Commissioners will review this and refer it to the next meeting for discussion. Hughes referred to the "60 Day Rule" and was told it is in the presentation. Klein inquired if there was a seminar scheduled for new Commissioners. Hughes and Sippel expressed interest. The Deputy Clerk will look into the matter. c) Council Minutes—3/l/04 Hughes referred to page 4 item 4 (Date for Annual MS4 Permit Public Meeting) and asked what this is. Stone said it is related to storm water and the City's Storm Water Plan. She added it is more bureaucracy and a Federal mandate and we will • have to document what the City is doing towards cleaning up storm water run off. 7. MISCELLANEOUS Hughes asked the status of the report from the Planner regarding outdoor storage. Stone said she was first told it needs fine-tuning. The Administrator reported today that is has been put on the "back burner" because of proposed new developments in the City that has taken priority of the Planner's time. The Deputy Clerk reported on the proposed building projects, residential and commercial, in the City. She said the developer for the proposed Spring Street redevelopment will make a presentation at the Council Meeting March 15 `. Klein stated she was having trouble with BFI not picking up her garbage for five weeks. She obtained information of other licensed haulers in the City. Hughes said he was very appreciative of the Administrator for calling this meeting to update the Commissioners on proposed building activities in the City especially when there was nothing for an agenda. Anderson asked what happened to our banners and what are we getting from the merchants for advertising in our City. He said he does not think the new banners are doing anything for the community or the individual businesses. He asked who puts • them up and why are we allowing this public use for a private business's gain. Planning Commission 2 • Hughes agreed he thought taxpayer's money was being used for private enterprise. Stone said the City puts them up because we would have spent the money putting our own banners up. Anderson said the businesses should pay for the installation and this should be looked into. Klein said she would like to see the City's banner's back UP. Hughes asked if the City would be getting any more planters. He was told Norling would be presenting an annual proposal to the Council at a future Council Meeting. 8. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Hughes seconded by Klein to adjourn the meeting at 8:23 p.m. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. • ca�YCJ C� SHARON CORL DEPUTY CLERK • Planning Commission 3 CITY OF SPRING PARK SPRING PARK,MINNESOTA AGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 14, 2004 7:30 P.M.—CITY HALL 1. CALL TO ORDER Pledge of Allegiance 2. ROLL CALL 3. ADOPT AGENDA 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES—March 10, 2004 5. PETITIONS, REQUESTS &APPLICATIONS a) Elect Chair&Acting Chair b) Sign Permit Application—H H Meats, Deli & Catering, 4125 Sunset Drive c) Sign Permit Application—JetBoyz, 4534 Shoreline Drive • d) Discussion Re: "Zoning Issues"and Planning Commission Info 6. COMMUNICATIONS a) Council Minutes—3/15/04 b) Memo Re: SWPPP Meeting 4/19/04 c) Spring Park Natural Resource Inventory d) April Calendar e) Channel 8 Schedule f) LMCC Newsletter—Winter 2004 7. MISCELLANEOUS 8. ADJOURNMENT • • CITY OF SPRING PARK SPRING PARK,MINNESOTA MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 14,2004 7:30 P.M.—CITY HALL 1. CALL TO ORDER Pledge of Allegiance Chair Anderson called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. 2. ROLL CALL Anderson, Hughes, Aschinger, Sippel and Ex-Officio Stone were present, Nelson was excused and Klein was absent. Mork Bredeson arrived after the roll was taken. Staff present: Deputy Clerk Corl. 3. ADOPT AGENDA • Motion by Hughes seconded by Aschinger to adopt the agenda. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES—March 10, 2004 Motion by Aschinger seconded by Sippel to approval the minutes for the Planning Commission Meeting March 10, 2004. 5. PETITIONS, REQUESTS &APPLICATIONS a) Elect Chair&Acting Chair It was agreed to do this later in the meeting because two more Commissioners would be in attendance. b) Sign Permit Application—H H Meats, Deli & Catering, 4125 Sunset The Deputy Clerk stated the sign was in compliance with the ordinance and the application is in order. Motion by Hughes seconded by Aschinger to approve the sign permit application for H H Meats, Deli & Catering, 4125 Sunset Drive. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. • Planning Commission—4/14/04 1 • c) Sign Permit Application—JetBoyz,4534 Shoreline Drive Ray Serna, owner of the business was present. He said the business is located in the former Dock and Lift building. He stated he would be doing repairs on personal watercraft and on snowmobiles in the winter. Motion by Aschinger seconded by Hughes to approve the sign permit application for JetBoyz, 4534 Shoreline Drive. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. d) Discussion Re: "Zoning Issues"and Planning Commission Info This information is provided to new Planning Commissioners and the current Commissioners wanted to review and discuss the information for educational purposes. Aschinger stated she was not familiar with the formal procedures of what the Planning Commission does nor how to discuss and what to focus on for variance requests, etc. She asked to review the procedures and discuss what would make the Planning Commission more effective as a whole. Anderson referred to Page 1, I.A.4. and thought the statement should be removed. It was pointed out this was required because it was in the state statute (which was quoted at the top of the page). Hughes said he was familiar with the variance process because he went through it. He feels there is a need for an orientation by • someone that can address the Comprehensive Plan of the City with the Planning Commission. He said the Comprehensive Plan is one item the Planning Commission needs to review. The Deputy Clerk will provide copies to the Commissioners. Aschinger pointed out the Planning Commission and Council are not in sync when it comes to approving and denying variance applications. Hughes stated the Council has more history. Stone added they have to have more accountability also. Hughes referred to items in the ordinance book and think some things are at odds with the Comp Plan, variances being one. Anderson said one reason the Council overrules the Planning Commission on variances is because the Planning Commission does not do their homework. He said they should do their studying and know as much or more than the Council and the Commission can be as strong as they want it to be. Hughes said part of their downfall is that they do not meet every month(if there is nothing for an agenda). He recommended they meet every month and if there is nothing for an agenda they should use the time for discussion and education. He suggested each Commissioner make a list of what they would like to discuss. Hughes asked what role the Planning Commission will have in the upcoming • proposed building projects. He said he hopes they will receive direction from the Council. Anderson agreed they have to educate themselves. Aschinger said if Planning Commission—4/14/04 2 • they approve a variance and the Council denies it, they are not preparing the resident. Sippel said if the Council decision is different from the Planning Commission's decision we need to know the basis of their decision so we know what we should be looking at. Aschinger stated there needs to be more understanding to better serve the public. Anderson said there is an interesting comparison between the Planning Commissions in Mound and Spring Park. He said the decision of the Mound Planning Commission is almost the final decision because they do their homework. Aschinger said it was a good point that we do not meet every month because we do not have continuity and that could be one reason. Hughes suggested next month each Commissioner come with a list because we need more information on what would make us more effective. Hughes wanted to know what steps (all the hoops) a new construction project (i.e. Spring Street) goes through. It was suggested they go to other cities meetings and observe. It was noted other cities have their planner and attorney attend meetings regularly, a luxury Spring Park does not have. The Commissioners will start to receive the Administrative Committee Minutes and will be notified if there are any seminars for "planning" available. Hughes asked if there was a guideline used by the Planner for the findings of fact. • Motion by Hughes seconded by Aschinger to propose the Planning Commission meet every month and if there is nothing for an agenda an item will be chosen by the Chair and/or Staff that would help to educate the Commissioners on protocol and what they should do/know to be more prepared to make better decisions and better serve the public. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. 6. COMMUNICATIONS The following communications were noted: a) Council Minutes—3/15/04 Stone referred to the discussion on the banners in the Planning Commission Minutes of 3/10/04. She read the letter from the City to Signage stating the Council decided the City would no longer be using Signage's banners on Shoreline Drive b) Memo Re: SWPPP Meeting 4/19/04 Stone reported a person would be coming in to lead the public hearing. She noted the public hearing and program is a federal mandate and the City will be required to submit a written report every year. She said the program is to help minimize the run off to the lake and a lot of the measures taken to accomplish this is in the City's Stormwater Management Plan. Stone added this plan would apply to new construction projects also. • Planning Commission—4/14/04 3 • Hughes pointed out we sweep the streets to minimize pollutants going into the lake. Stone said we now are required to document what we do to clean up the run off going into the lake. c) Spring Park Natural Resource Inventory d) April Calendar e) Channel 8 Schedule f) LMCC Newsletter—Winter 2004 7. MISCELLANEOUS Hughes asked if information in the Planning Commission packets could be sent out earlier than the Friday before a meeting. He was told some material for applications requiring a public hearing could but other information usually is not available ahead of time. Anderson asked the status on Sunset Drive. Stone said we are waiting for information to come back to the City. 5. a) Elect Chair&Acting Chair Anderson nominated Hughes. Mork Bredeson nominated Anderson. Anderson called for nominations three times and having none closed the nominations. At that time he then refused to accept the nomination for himself. All were in favor of approving Hughes as the Chair. • Anderson called for nominations for Acting Chair. Mork Bredeson nominated Anderson. All were in favor of approving Anderson for Acting Chair. The discussion from earlier in the meeting was briefly reviewed for Mork Bredeson and it was explained that at the next meeting each Commissioner would come up with a list as what they want to know more about regarding the role of a Planning Commissioner. Mork Bredeson suggested going over the list of past variances and review what the Council has approved and denied. The Deputy Clerk will provide the list of variance applications and decisions. Mork Bredeson said they should review this list to see if they are providing the right leadership, etc. She added that at one point in time in the past the Planning Commission requested the Council to provide a three-sentence evaluation when their decision on a variance differed from the Planning Commissions. She said each board provides leadership for the other. Sippel said we could read the minutes, which reflects the discussion but not necessarily the real basis for the Council's decision. He said it would be helpful to both boards if they know why the Council does not vote the same way then the Planning Commission knows what they did not do. The Spring Street proposal was briefly discussed. Mork Bredeson said that is an • ugly area and the proposal is an opportunity to clean it up and something better will be a result. The benefit of having residential above commercial was briefly Planning Commission—4/14/04 4 discussed. Mork Bredeson commented on the high-density situation and said we also have to think of aesthetics. She added we have to be cautious and if the developments are done well it will be a big boost for our City. The Planning Commission briefly discussed the importance of local businesses surviving for a sense of community. 8. ADJOUORNMENT Motion by Mork Bredeson seconded by Aschinger to adjourn the meeting at 8:47 p.m. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. SHARON CORL DEPUTY CORL Planning Commission—4/14/04 5 • CITY OF SPRING PARK SPRING PARK, MINNESOTA AGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 12, 2004 7:30 P.M.—CITY HALL 1. CALL TO ORDER Pledge of Allegiance 2. ROLL CALL 3. ADOPT AGENDA 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES—April 14, 2004 5. PLANNING COMMISSION a) Sign Age Re: Banners b) Logo on New Water Tower • 6. COMMUNICATIONS a) Council Minutes—4/5/04 b) Board of Review Minutes—4/12/04 c) Council Minutes—4/19/04 d) Administrative Committee Minutes—4/7/04 e) Administrative Committee Minutes— 5/5/04 f) Council Minutes—5/3/04 g) Census 2002 Fact Sheet h) Met Council Housing Profile i) May Calendar j) Channel 8 Schedule k) List of Variances— 1992 to Present 1) Building& Sign Report-April 7. MISCELLANEOUS 8. ADJOURNMENT • • CITY OF SPRING PARK SPRING PARK, MINNESOTA MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 12, 2004 7:30 P.M.—CITY HALL 1. CALL TO ORDER Pledge of Allegiance Chair Hughes called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. 2. ROLL CALL Anderson, Klein, Hughes and Ex-Officio Stone were present and Nelson, Aschinger and Sippel were excused and Mork Bredeson was absent. Staff present: Deputy Clerk Corl. 3. ADOPT AGENDA • Motion by Anderson seconded by Klein to adopt the agenda. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES—April 14, 2004 Motion by Anderson seconded by Klein to approve the minutes for the Planning Commission Meeting April 14, 2004. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. 5. PLANNING COMMISSION a) Sign Age Re: Banners Alisa Rashid and Chris Butler from Sign Age were present. Hughes stated the banner issue was given to the Planning Commission by the Council to review and make a recommendation back to the Council. Hughes distributed an outline to follow for the discussion. Rashid stated her letter summarizes the situation with the banners. She added she has researched a few points since the recent Council Meeting. She said the City of Mound is continuing the banner program since they wrote the letter saying they were discontinuing it, and Sign Age has picked up all the banners from the cities and reinforced the stitching on them. Rashid noted the summer banners did not have one tear, pointing out the elements are different in the winter than in the summer. • Planning Commission—5/12/04 1 • Klein asked if other communities experience this situation with their banners. Rashid said Wayzata and Chaska do have vinyl banners and do not have any problems with them. She said she does Chaska's banners. Anderson noted our banners are the largest. Rashid said Mound and Spring Park have big banners and she thinks size is part of the problem. Hughes asked for a comparison in the size. Rashid said Navarre's banners are 2' x 6' and Spring Park and Mounds are 30" by 84". Anderson stated it was nice to have the businesses participating in the program. He said his concern is the verbal agreement that this is a 3-year program. Butler said Bill Weeks (Administrator) recommended they approach the Council with the idea and Weeks stated he did not recall the "three year commitment" statement from Sign Age. Rashid said Weeks gave Sign Age the approval to proceed with the program. Anderson verified Sign Age has a verbal agreement with the businesses and the price of the banner was based on a three-year program. Anderson said he objects to the City's cost of putting up and taking down the banners. Stone said that cost was not incurred because we were swapping out our banners for Sign Age's banners. Anderson said the businesses in our community are using the taxpayer's money to cover the extra expenses. Stone stated it was the Council's concern that the City incurs no extra cost. Hughes said it should be • stated that any other banner program the City enters into should not cost any additional money to the taxpayers. Klein asked what the added costs are for the Sign Age banners. Rashid said the banners did not cost the City anything. Hughes pointed out Goman (Utility Superintendent) was asked to research the added costs and question if we should wait with the recommendation until we know the costs. He said we do not want to go into a banner program that will cost any significant money or incur added expense to the City. Rashid said Sign Age has taken care of damaged banners. Hughes noted the City might behave liability with Sign Age repairing banners themselves in the City. Anderson asked who approved the design on the banners. Butler said the Administrators of each City gave their approval. He said it is Sign Age's intention to come to the cities in the spring with new designs. Hughes asked, looking at the banner program in total, what kind of requirements are there for new businesses and where does our sign ordinance come into play with the businesses name on the banners. He also asked if standards for material and construction should be in place. Anderson said we would want the best material to eliminate repair costs. He added these costs should be passed on to the businesses. • Hughes asked Rashid what the ideal agreement would be. Rashid said first of all an agreement would have to be in place and include a time frame, program outline, signatures, city and council in agreement, maintenance program. Klein Planning Commission—5/12/04 2 • said it seems like Sign Age sold the banners to the businesses first and then to the City. Butler said the banners were sold to Navarre first and then they had approval from Weeks. He said they understood Sign Age would do the maintenance and the City would be responsible for changing them out. Butler stated that maybe the banners should not be up during certain times in the spring and winter when there are winds. Hughes asked if the banners added or subtracted from the City's beautification program. Klein said she would like to poll the Council and Planning Commission with that question. Anderson said he thought they added to the beautification of the City. Rashid suggested adding $30 to the cost of the next round of banners to help with the cost of maintenance. Hughes said the banner program needs more formal structure and asked what responsibility does the City have to the businesses regarding the banners. Klein said the sign ordinance should be checked and the obligation to the businesses is Sign Age's responsibility. Anderson said a standard of criteria is needed. Klein wanted to know why Mound reversed their opinion. Anderson said banners are great and the design is important, but he would like to know where each city starts and ends. Rashid said the background color for each city could be changed and this would define each city. Klein said she was not in favor of banners because they detract from the view of the lake. Hughes said he • noticed the welcome signs more than the banners. Hughes stated they all seem to agree that individuality, changes, corrections and documentation are needed for the banner program. Anderson requested an agreement written by Sign Age. Hughes asked each Commissioner to sum up what they would recommend to the Council. This was formulated into the following motion and Hughes requested that each name making the recommendation be included: Motion by Hughes seconded by Klein that the following recommendations be considered by the Council regarding the banner program with Sign Age: Anderson would like an agreement, establish a color different from Mound and Navarre, and the City approve the design; Klein would like to see the added costs, check into the City's liability when Sign Age does repairs to the banners, a signed contract, feels some obligation to do a third year; Hughes recommended the banner program have an interim agreement to formalize what has been done so far, any future program include have standards for materials and maintenance, review the sign ordinance relating to this, review the effect the banners have on the overall beautification. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. In discussion it was suggested that Sign Age recommend when the banners should • go up and come down. Hughes said an interim agreement is critical. He said Sign Age should be proactive instead of reactive in this matter. Rashid said she Planning Commission—5/12/04 3 . had no choice because she was not aware of problems before the letter was received from the City. b) Logo on New Water Tower Hughes stated that if we keep the smiley face (exhibit 1) it should be the same exact one that is currently on the tower. Anderson said he was in favor of the third choice. Klein asked what colors will be used and how often it would have to be redone. It was determined it would not have to be redone often. Stone pointed out the engineer said darker colors will fade and the more colors and complexity involved will increase the cost. Hughes said his concern is we are designing something but do not know the exact proportion and how it would exactly look and it is difficult to make a decision because of this. He said he prefers the third exhibit that contains the City's logo and Klein agreed. Motion by Anderson seconded by Klein to recommend to the Council to approve the third exhibit, the City's logo (SP with setting sun, trees, bird and wavy line underneath), for the new water tower. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. 6. COMMUNICATIONS The following communications were noted and some comments were made: • a) Council Minutes—4/5/04 Hughes noted with the proposed new developments we should direct some beautification efforts to the developers. b) Board of Review Minutes—4/12/04 c) Council Minutes—4/19/04 d) Administrative Committee Minutes—4/7/04 e) Administrative Committee Minutes—5/5/04 f) Council Minutes 5/3/04 Hughes commented he is concerned with the communication and decision process between businesses and the City and the Council. He stated there does not seem to be a clear process. g) Census 2002 Fact Sheet Note comment below. h) Met Council Housing Profile Hughes requested this and the previous item be reviewed at the next Planning Commission Meeting. i) May Calendar j) Channel 8 Schedule k) List of Variances— 1992 to Present 1) Building & Sign Report—April • Planning Commission — 5/12/04 4 7. MISCELLANEOUS It was noted that Hughes and Anderson would be attending a seminar (Your Role as a Planning Commissioner) on June 2nd from 8:30 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. in St. Paul. The Deputy Clerk reported the status of the Sunset Drive proposal. She said costs have been received from Mediacom, Quest, and Xcel and the City is waiting for costs from Xcel for underground service to individual residents. Klein verified there would be a public meeting regarding Sunset Drive before anything is done. Hughes said he has read the City's Comp Plan and pointed out the Planning Commission needs to read it to understand how it affects any future decisions they have to make. 8. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Klein seconded by Hughes to adjourn the meeting at 8:47 p.m. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. SHARON CORL DEPUTY CLERK Planning Commission—5/12/04 5 • CITY OF SPRING PARK SPRING PARK,MINNESOTA AGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 9, 2004 7:30 P.M.—CITY HALL 1. CALL TO ORDER Pledge of Allegiance 2. ROLL CALL 3. ADOPT AGENDA 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - May 12, 2004 5. PLANNING COMMISSION a) Sign Permit Application—Sr. Community Services, 4144 Shoreline Drive b) Discussion of Sign Ordinance (Please review before the meeting Article IV Page CD10:6) c) Report on Seminar Re: Planning Commissioner Role by Hughes & Anderson • d) Design of Proposed Park Area on Warren Avenue - Kathy Olson, former Planning Commissioner 6. COMMUNICATIONS a) Council Minutes—May 17, 2004 b) Channel 8 Schedule June c) June Calendar d) Building& Sign Report May 2004 e) Letter from Administrator to Commissioners—6/4/04 f) NAC 1. Spring Street Redevelopment Schedule of Procedures—6/1/04 2. Project Review Schedule—6/2/04 7. MISCELLANEOUS 8. ADJOURNMENT • • CITY OF SPRING PARK SPRING PARK, MINNESOTA MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 9, 2003 7:30 P.M.—CITY HALL 1. CALL TO ORDER Pledge of Allegiance Chair Hughes called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. 2. ROLL CALL Anderson, Nelson, Klein, Hughes, Aschinger, Sippel and Ex-Officio Stone were present and Mork Bredeson was absent. Staff present: Administrator Weeks. 3. ADOPT AGENDA • Motion by Anderson seconded by Klein to adopt the agenda. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES—May 12, 2004 Motion by Klein seconded by Nelson to approve the minutes for the Planning Commission Meeting May 12, 2004. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. 5. PLANNING COMMISSION a) Sign Permit Application—Sr. Community Services, 4144 Shoreline Drive Sippel asked what role the Planning Commission should have on sign permit applications already meeting the sign ordinance. He asked if it merely delays the applicant. This will be discussed later in the agenda. Motion by Anderson seconded by Aschinger to approve the sign permit application for Sr. Community Services, 4144 Shoreline Drive. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. c) Report on Seminar Re: Planning Commissioner Role from Hughes &Anderson Hughes and Anderson reviewed, for the Planning Commission, the recent half- day seminar they attended. They were very impressed and satisfied overall, and • thought it was yM worthwhile. They encouraged the City to continue to budget for this type of training and for staff to continue to suggest to Planning Planning Commission—6/9/04 1 • Commission and Council Members opportunities like this. Hughes pointed out several suggestions their teacher, John Sharlow, had suggested regarding purpose statements, introductions, etc. at public hearings, restrictions that can be imposed on variance approvals, etc. Weeks indicated we are fortunate to have the LMC and the Government Training Service relatively close for this type of training opportunity and that we could customize a training session in our area if there would be enough participants. d) Design of Proposed Park Area on Warren Avenue — Kathy Olson, former Planning Commissioner In discussion of Kathy Olson's submitted design for a proposed park area on Warren Avenue, the Planning Commission concluded that the City has existing, and potentially existing projects with higher priority. They advised that the City should not take on new projects without concluding others. For example, future plans for Sunset Drive improvements, any updates or improvements at existing parks, potential new trail enhancements (coincidently next to this location), possible landscaping or other City improvements surrounding the two new redevelopments. Planning Commission agreed that this area could look better (especially where Warren meets the rail crossing) but doubted that the City needs another new park at this time. All conveyed their appreciation for Kathy's efforts and asked staff to notify her accordingly. • b) Discussion of Sign Ordinance In further review of the Sign Ordinance, sign applications and banners, the Planning Commission questioned the technical compliance of Sign Age Banners (with private business advertising) on public light poles and on public right-of- way. After this current banner cycle is over, they would like to be involved before another banner cycle is proposed. Planning Commission concerns include liability, cost, quantity and clutter. Hughes indicated that the Council, on Monday night, asked Goman to keep track of actual costs for installation, removal of all banners separating our own banners from Sign Age banners. In further discussion of standard sign permit applications, it was not clear why the Planning Commission receives all applications and if the application meets City criteria if could not be denied anyway. The Planning Commission is wondering why the Council set it up this way, and in order not to delay a sign applicant to the next month, staff could approve all applications that clearly meet City criteria. Hughes asked Sippel to amend the motion to include: Motion by Sippel seconded by Nelson that the Planning Commission recommend to the Council only sign applications not meeting the exact existing ordinance be presented to the Planning Commission for approval. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. 6. COMMUNICATIONS The following communications were noted: Planning Commission—6/9/04 2 • a) Council Minutes—May 17, 2004 b) Channel 8 Schedule June c) June Calendar d) Building & Sign Report May 2004 e) Letter from Administrator to Commissioners—6/4/04 f) NAC 1. Spring Street Redevelopment Schedule of Procedures—6/l/04 2. Project Review Schedule—6/2/04 Weeks gave an update on the Spring Street project to the Planning Commission. Especially noted was the upcoming schedule per the NAC memo dated 6/2/04. If the developer stays on schedule as indicated, the Planning Commission would be holding the public hearing on July 14, 2004. The Council would be relying on the minutes and recommendations from the Planning Commission for their subsequent meeting (probably August 2, 2004). During the public hearing it is important to hear, clarify and record all concerns and comments of the public and the commissioners regarding any aspect of the project or the procedures. Staff will try to get all necessary materials to the Planning Commission as far in advance as possible. Staff will also notify Commissioners is any pertinent deadlines are missed or meetings are delayed. • 7. MISCELLANEOUS —None 8. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Anderson seconded by Klein to adjourn the meeting at 9:10 p.m. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. ILLIAM D. WEEKS ADMINISTRATOR/CLERK/TREASURER • Planning Commission—6/9/04 3 • CITY OF SPRING PARK SPRING PARK, MINNESOTA AGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 14, 2004 7:30 P.M.—CITY HALL 1. CALL TO ORDER Pledge of Allegiance 2. ROLL CALL 3. ADOPT AGENDA 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES—June 9, 2004 5. PLANNING COMMISSION a) Notice of Postponement of Public Hearing b) Discussion of CUP &Variance Scenarios 1. NAC 6/24/04 • 6. COMMUNICATIONS a) Council Minutes—6/7/04 b) Council Minutes—6/21/04 c) Special Meeting—6/24/04 d) Building & Sign Report June e) July Calendar f) August Calendar 7. MISCELLANEOUS 8. ADJOURNMENT • • CITY OF SPRING PARK SPRING PARK, MINNESOTA MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 14, 2004 7:30 P.M.—CITY HALL 1. CALL TO ORDER Pledge of Allegiance Chair Hughes called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. 2. ROLL CALL Mork Bredeson, Anderson, Nelson, Klein, Hughes, Sippel and Ex-Officio Stone were present. Staff present: Deputy Clerk Corl. Aschinger arrived after the roll was taken 3. ADOPT AGENDA • Motion by Anderson seconded by Mork Bredeson to adopt the agenda. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES —June 9, 2004 Motion by Anderson seconded by Klein to approve the minutes for Planning Commission June 9, 2004. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. 5. PLANNING COMMISSION a) Notice of Postponement of Public Hearing Hughes read the notice of postponement of the public hearing for the requests pertaining to "Lakeview Lofts"to be located on Spring Street. The public hearing is postponed until further notice. b) Discussion of CUP &Variance Scenarios 1. NAC 6/24/04 The worksheet being used for discussion are the variance and CUP requests for "Lakeview Lofts" that were on the postponed public hearing. Chair Hughes stated this is a good opportunity to review CUP's as they relate to the zoning ordinance, i.e. height, lot coverage, setback requirements and parking. (Todd Frostad, developer for Spring Street, was present.) The following are the requests/scenarios used for discussion: Planning Commission—7/14/04 1 • 1. Conditional use permit for residential/non residential use within one principal structure per Section 1, Subd. D.1 of the Spring Park Zoning Ordinance. (Proposal is for 7,354 square feet of commercial use and 39 condominiums.) Hughes noted a CUP goes with the property once approved by the City Council after it is filed with the county. He pointed out the existing property uses on Spring Street are grandfathered in. Nelson said she had no problem with residential and nonresidential use within one structure, but she is concerned with the density of the project. 2. Conditional use permit for a building greater than three stories or 40 feet per Section 15, Subd. E.3 of the Spring Park Zoning Ordinance. (Proposal is for a four-story 57-foot high building.) Hughes said this proposal is for more than three stories and refers to density. Aschinger asked if the DNR has responded to the proposal. Frostad said not in writing but they have stated they have do not have an issue with the proposal because it is not near the water. Mork Bredeson pointed out there was an issue when the Yacht Club was built regarding it blocking some view for Edgewater Apartments. Aschinger asked if a formula, per City Ordinance, was used to determine the • number of units for the property. Frostad said there was and added it is not economically feasible to build without the proposed height. He said a 3-story project would not be an economically feasible project. Nelson questioned the traffic that would be added to the area. Klein referred to the comment made by the Planner that the traffic was acceptable. She said she did not understand that this would not be a problem. Aschinger said it probably meant there is a sufficient number of streets to handle the capacity. Nelson said her concern is adding approximately 80 more cars to that area. She referred to the Sunset Drive project and the traffic was a concern to the residents. Hughes said it would be interesting to know what the current traffic count is for the current businesses and what would be created by new businesses. Hughes said a checklist is needed for a project like this. He was told one was made at a previous meeting with the developer, City Attorney, City Planner, staff and Council. Anderson asked if this project has already been approved and was told no. Hughes explained that at a public hearing hardships will have to be discussed. Anderson said he does not think height is an issue and feels it adds a positive image to Spring Park. Hughes asked which outside government agency has to approve the height and was told it is the MN DNR. 3. Conditional use permit to allow lot coverage in excess of 75 percent per Section 15, Subd. EA.0 of the Spring Park Zoning Ordinance. (Proposal is for • 94% lot coverage.) Planning Commission—7/14/04 2 • Hughes pointed out the MC" has to address the stormwater issue. Frostad said the DNR, MC" and engineers will address this and state if they accept or do not accept the percentage requested. Aschinger said some residents are concerned with the TIF financing and how it affects the project. Frostad said Presbyterian Homes is the only other property in the City that has used TIF funds. He explained it is a financial comp for the property and has to meet certain conditions such as blight, etc to qualify for TIF financing. He stated that also considered is the cost of the land, condition of the building and cost impact to the City with new use of the property. He said it will put more money in the City coffers and the use of the funds has to be paid back by the developer. Nelson asked Frostad what would happen if he goes bankrupt. Frostad said it is a "pay as you go" and he does not get the money up front and it is not coming out of City funds. He said the money comes from the half of the property taxes from the project. Hughes said he would like to know more about TIF as a resident. Frostad said Springsted, the firm the City uses, would determine if using TIF is right for the City. Aschinger noted the hardcover is contingent on the results of the reports from other entities. She said it is a concern of hers and it needs to be looked at closely. Frostad said the ground above the underground garage is considered hardcover. Hughes asked the dimensions of the footprint of the building. Frostad said it is • 17,000 square feet, he is leasing 25,000 square feet from the county and not all of that is impervious surface. He pointed out there will be landscaping on top of the underground parking and because of that it will not look like 94% impervious surface. Aschinger inquired about soil contaminated. Frostad said he has done Phase I and will have state certified excavators removing the soil where there are two underground tanks and all soil will go to a disposal sight. Sippel asked if there is a plan for a loading area for commercial in the back of the building. Frostad said there will be a 12' x 50' space on site for loading and unloading per City ordinance and said the final plan will show all parking spaces and loading zones. 4. Conditional use permit to allow off-site parking per Section 3, Subd. G.12 of the Spring Park Zoning Ordinance. 6. Parking variance from the required number of parking stalls per Section 3, Subd. G.11. (Proposal is for a reduction of 11 parking stalls.) Hughes stated #4 and #6 are parking concerns. He said he is concerned with the parking and does not feel the parking can be reduced especially with a community room. Klein asked if the businesses would object to a parking problem. Frostad said if he reduced the retail space from 7,000 square feet to 5,000, his project • would be 100% compliant with the parking. He added he would have enough parking if the parking spaces on Spring Street can be considered in the parking Planning Commission—7/14/04 3 • count for his proposed commercial space. Frostad said there are currently 27 parking spaces on the east/west portion of Spring Street and 13 spaces on the north/south portion. He said the 27 would be reduced to 21 spaces. Hughes said the ordinance regarding Spring Street could be rescinded. Stone stated the Council wants the parking problem to be resolved. Frostad said it could be if he reduces the square feet of retail space and the City will allow the parking on Spring Street to be used in his count of parking spaces. Klein expressed concern with parking on City streets i.e. Northern Avenue that may be a result of not enough parking for the development. Aschinger asked if any variances have been approved for reduced parking in the City and was told no. She also inquired who was paying for the relocation of utilities and Frostad said he was. 5. Setback variance from the 10 foot setback from the right-of-way from any local or county street and setback variance to allow the building to extend over a lot line to the north within the C-1 Zoning District. (Proposal is for 0 foot setback.) Hughes said this issue has to be agreeable with the county. Frostad said it no longer is an issue because it has been cleared with the county. He added the 0 foot setback is on the property line underground. Klein asked if there was going to be a walkway along side the building. Frostad said there is room for a • sidewalk. Sippel said a CUP seems easier to get around versus variance requests because with a variance a hardship has to be demonstrated. He said there are ways to mitigate a CUP but not for variances because conditions can be placed on a CUP. Mork Bredeson said any issue can be a critical issue, this proposed development will be a precedent, and the City has to be cautious with it's decisions. Aschinger asked if there were terms of agreement for giving part of Spring Street and if a cost was involved. Frostad said his request is a partial vacation and the City is agreeing to it if he can demonstrate the traffic flow will be maintained and there is no fee. Hughes asked who would maintain it and Frostad said it is still a City street. Klein asked how maintaining the traffic flow is demonstrated. Frostad said a diagram would show this. 6. COMMUNICATIONS The following communications were noted: a) Council Minutes—6/7/04 Klein referred to the last sentence on page 3, ".. the traffic is the county's problem, not the developer's problem". She asked how could an approval of a variance and a CUP for a development be made without an official traffic study being done prior to a Planning Commission's recommendation. She would like to request an official study be done prior to the public hearing for Spring Street. • Sippel asked her why she would allow that to adversely affect a development in Spring Park when a development in Mound can adversely affect our traffic more. Planning Commission—7/14/04 4 Klein asked what the impact is going to be at that intersection. Nelson said a function of the Planning Commission is to consider impact to the City and the residents. Hughes pointed out the letter from 5th Street Ventures (abutting property owner to the Spring Street Development)brings up additional issues. Anderson said if we go to the county and ask them for a traffic study and base judgment on the development because of a possible traffic problem, we would not have the development. He said we have to be careful what we ask for. Mork Bredeson said if we go to the county we would not have results for six months. She said we could make a request of the developer to do a preliminary study on the traffic, and it might not be appropriate to request a study from the county. She added the type of residents (retirees and snowbirds) make a difference in the traffic. Klein said if the traffic impact is great enough, maybe this is not the right development. Hughes said it would be helpful to have this information before the public hearing. b) Council Minutes—6/21/04 c) Special Meeting Minutes—6/24/04 d) Building& Sign Report June e) July Calendar • f) August Calendar g) Letter R.A. Putnam & Assoc. Re: Redevelopment of Spring Park Downtown — 7/9/04 h) 51h Street Ventures Re: Lakeview Lofts Development—7/14/04 7. MISCELLANEOUS "Opening Statements By The Chair" Hughes explained he received this handout from a seminar he recently attended. He said he would like the Planning Commissioners to read it and he would like to add another statement to it. That statement would be "motions are made in the affirmative so a positive motion is on the table. He asked the Commissioners if they had any other comments. Sippel said it should be stated to the public that the Planning Commission will listen to all comments but will only consider comments that are findings of fact in relation to the ordinances. Anderson asked the Commissioners how they feel about the project. Sippel said he is supportive of the concept, it will be an asset to our downtown area and we can mitigate the CUP requests but variance requests will require a hardship. Mork Bredeson said it has high potential and high density is the best way to develop those properties to make it economical to the developer. Aschinger said she likes a small town feel and the two developments are concerning. She added the improvement of land needs to happen and the City will have to make • some concessions. Hughes stated he is in favor of redevelopment and has an issue with parking and height. Nelson said she likes a small town effect. She said it Planning Commission—7/14/04 5 • should not be the City's problem when developers state what they propose is the only way they can make the project worthwhile financially. Mork Bredeson said that was not the question and asked if it is better to find someone to develop the area with something less. Anderson said he is in favor of the project and it is a chance to get rid of the blighted areas and is a chance to clean up our City. He said the density does not bother him and asked what our other option is if we do not support this. He said the Commissioners have an opportunity to work as a cohesive group and show we are positive in reviewing this development. Klein said it is exciting that this is happening to Spring Park and she does have an issue with the parking especially when it may be an impact on the surrounding residents. Hughes asked the Commissioners if the discussion at this meeting was helpful and the consensus was it was helpful. 8. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Aschinger seconded by Mork Bredeson to adjourn the Planning Commission Meeting at 9:18 p.m. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. • L SHARON CORL DEPUTY CLERK • Planning Commission — 7/14/04 6 • CITY OF SPRING PARK SPRING PARK,MINNESOTA AGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 11, 2004 7:30 P.M.—CITY HALL 1. CALL TO ORDER Pledge of Allegiance 2. ROLL CALL 3. ADOPT AGENDA 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES—July 14, 2004 5. PLANNING COMMISSION a) Discussion on Requests for Spring Street Development 1. 5th Street Ventures Re: Lakeview Lofts—7/14/04 • 6. COMMUNICATIONS a) Council Minutes—7/6/04 b) Council Minutes—7/19/04 c) Special Meeting—7/22/04 d) Special Meeting—7/29/04 e) Shoreline Place Association Re: Traffic Analysis— 6/28/04 f) August Calendar g) Channel 8 Schedule—August h) OPD News Release i) Building & Sign Report—July 7. MISCELLANEOUS 8. ADJOURNMENT • • CITY OF SPRING PARK SPRING PARK,MINNESOTA MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 11,2004 7:30 P.M.—CITY HALL 1. CALL TO ORDER Pledge of Allegiance Chair Hughes called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. followed by the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag. 2. ROLL CALL Anderson, Nelson, Hughes, Aschinger, Sippel and Ex-Officio Stone were present and Bredeson and Klein were excused. Staff present: Deputy Clerk Corl. Others present: Todd Frostad and Brian Dusek, Frostad Development Co. 3. ADOPT AGENDA Motion by Nelson seconded by Sippel to adopt the agenda. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES —July 14, 2004 Motion by Anderson seconded by Aschinger to approve the Planning Commission minutes on July 14, 2004. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. 5. PLANNING COMMISSION a) Discussion on Requests for Spring Street Development 1. 51h Street Ventures Re: Lakeview Lofts—7/14/04 -Noted Hughes stated there have been several work sessions regarding the Spring Street Development. He asked Frostad to update the Commissioners with what he has changed with the development. Frostad said the primary area of focus was the site plan and parking. He said they retained 6 parking spaces on Spring Street, more green space has been added and the island has been expanded for a better traffic pattern. He added the loading zone has been moved to the front of the property, there will be a full sidewalk along the front and along the county road. Frostad pointed a precedent was set on with Shoreline Place several years ago with most of the same issues with his development i.e. setback from county right- of-way, and side and rear set backs. Dusek pointed out the 7 parking spaces currently on Spring Street are probably not in compliant regarding size. Frostad Planning Commission—8/11/04 1 • said there are 19 parking spaces located in the interior parking area and only 16 spaces are needed for retail. Hughes verified the "c's" on the drawings are intended for compact cars. Hughes asked if storage units are being located beyond the residential entryway. Frostad said that is still being reviewed because there would not be enough storage units for all 39 condos. Hughes asked if the intent is to use the back of the building for delivery, loading, and unloading. Frostad said the HCRRA is not giving him written permission but at the same time they are not going to tell him not to use the area. He said he was told the only surface rights for the development are for an emergency. Nelson asked if the parking spaces allotted to residents would be long enough for items such as bicycles in front of the vehicle. Frostad said they would be and there will also be an overhead storage cage for each parking stall. Nelson commented that if most of the residents were snowbirds they would probably like a grand entry in that area versus storage units. Sippel commented that this is not an issue for the Planning Commission. Hughes asked if the intent is to continue the sidewalk past the railroad line. Frostad said it would go to the tracks. He said the City and county would have to agree and allow landscaping along that area. Hughes asked how may trees are • going to be removed. Frostad said proposed planters will replace the 9 trees on Spring Street and bushes are being proposed along the west. He added there would be an escrow account with the county for landscaping on the north. Aschinger suggested relocating the trees if possible. Frostad said he would if the City can coordinate it. Anderson asked the mission of this meeting. Hughes said it was to consider answers to questions for the public hearing. Frostad added it was to address specific criteria to this project pertaining to the variance and CUP requests of which he listed, and he pointed out the parking problem has been eliminated. He stated the ordinance calls for contiguous property for off site parking and is waiting for the City Attorney's final answer on the matter. Sippel asked if they will vote at the public hearing on each request separately and wanted to know if the variances would be treated as one. Hughes said we could make each request a separate vote. Hughes pointed out his concern for the zero setback on the corner at Spring Street by the garage doors. Frostad said he is committed to installing a motion controlled camera for displaying traffic outside from the inside and the person in a vehicle would be able to see any traffic while waiting for the overhead door to open. Sippel asked if the two garage doors proposed are for aesthetic or structural reasons. Frostad said they were for traffic control and keeping it a two-way passageway. • Planning Commission—8/11/04 2 • Frostad said he made a change in the distribution of the lighting per a request from the City Planner. He pointed out another change is the parking bays are closed in the rear and a service entrance is provided. Frostad briefly discussed the exterior color aesthetics. Anderson said everybody has an opinion and for the Planning Commission to make a recommendation would be impossible. Hughes said it is within the Planning Commission's authority to recommend exterior finish and color. Aschinger clarified the lower level is still brick. Hughes referred to the requests of the developer and said they could go through the list. He added precedent has been set with Shoreline Place except for the height. Hughes said the DNR has to approve the height, the MCWD has submitted their approval and those comments along with the City Planners will be distributed to the Planning Commission for the public hearing. At this time Hughes noted the public hearing for the requests for this development is going to be September 1st Motion by Hughes seconded by Sippel to substitute the public hearing on September 1st for the regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting on September 81h. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. Hughes explained the procedure for the public hearing on September 1st. He • stated he would ask Frostad to make a full presentation on the project followed by comments and questions from the public and wait until all questions are in before answering them. He suggested the City Attorney, City Planner and the developer could answer most of the questions. Frostad said the TIF (Tax Increment Financing) Report articulates the positive for this development and how it will benefit the community. It was noted the public hearing for the TIF will be 9/7/04 and any questions from the public regarding this will be referred to that public hearing. Frostad noted the Planner would provide justification for hardships for the variance requests. Frostad said he would be bringing his architect and engineer to the public hearing. Anderson said the Planning Commission's responsibility is to fulfill their obligation to the best of their ability and make this a positive procedure. Sippel noted the public has traffic concerns and he was told the Council voted down a traffic study proposal. Sippel speculated there is more concern with traffic backing up on Shoreline Drive and noted this is not a concern for the public hearing. Aschinger anticipated public parking would be a concern. Sippel stated the public comments to be considered have to pertain to the CUP and variance requests and that is the point of the public hearing. In a non-related item he asked Frostad if building code dictated the number of restrooms for his • proposed common area. Frostad said this was a residential restroom and the code Planning Commission—8/11/04 3 differs from commercial regarding this. He said most architects' design according to the building code. 6. COMMUNICATIONS The following communications were noted: a) Council Minutes—7/6/04 b) Council Minutes—7/19/04 Anderson stated he would prefer the City use an asphalt rolling curb when the situation would arise. Motion by Anderson seconded by Aschinger to recommend to the Council to consider using a rolling asphalt curb when improvements are made to any of the City streets. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. c) Special Meeting—7/22/04 d) Special Meeting—7/29/04 e) Shoreline Place Association Re: Traffic Analysis—6/28/04 f) August Calendar g) Channel 8 Schedule—August h) OPD News Release i) Building & Sign Report -July • 7. MISCELLANEOUS—None 8. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Anderson seconded by Aschinger to adjourn the meeting at 8:41 p.m. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. SHARON CORL DEPUTY CLERK • Planning Commission—8/11/04 4 • CITY OF SPRING PARK SPRING PARK, MINNESOTA AGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 1, 2004 7:30 P.M.—CITY HALL 1. CALL TO ORDER Pledge of Allegiance 2. ROLL CALL 3. ADOPT AGENDA 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES—August 11, 2004 5. PLANNING COMMISSION a) Public Hearing, Lakeview Lofts, Spring Street 1. Open Public Hearing • 2. Discussion &Comments 3. Close Public Hearing 4. Recommendation to Council a) NAC Re: Lakeview Lofts Planning Report with Exhibits b) Head, Seifert &Vander Weide Re: Findings of Fact for Variance Request c) Head, Seifert &Vander Weide Re: Findings of Fact for Conditional Use Permit d) Resident Request for Dedicated Park Funds—9/1/04 e) Springsted Memo &Resolution 04-19 Re: TIF 6. COMMUNICATIONS a) Council Minutes— 8/2/04 b) Special Meeting Minutes—8/12/04 c) Council Minutes— 8/16/04 d) Hennepin County News Re: Smoking Ban— 8/17/04 e) September Calendar f) Channel 8 Schedule September g) Memo Re: Meeting on Lakeview Lofts 8/30/04 7. MISCELLANEOUS 8. ADJOURNMENT • • CITY OF SPRING PARK SPRING PARK, MINNESOTA MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 1, 2004 7:30 P.M.—CITY HALL 1. CALL TO ORDER Pledge of Allegiance Chair Hughes called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. followed by the pledge of allegiance. 2. ROLL CALL Mork Bredeson, Anderson, Klein, Hughes, Aschinger, Sippel and Ex-Officio Stone were present and Nelson was excused. Staff present: Administrator Weeks and Deputy Clerk Corl. Others present: City Attorney's Tom Seifert, Nancy Beck; City Planner Alan Brixius; City Engineer Ken Adolf. • 3. ADOPT AGENDA Motion by Aschinger seconded by Mork Bredeson to adopt the agenda. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES—August 11, 2004 Motion by Sippel seconded by Aschinger to approve the minutes for the Planning Commission Meeting August 11, 2004. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. 5. PLANNING COMMISSION a) Public Hearing, Lakeview Lofts, Spring Street 1. Open Public Hearing Hughes explained the protocol and the process that would be used for the public hearing. Motion by Anderson seconded by Klein to open the public hearing at 7:35 p.m. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. Todd Frostad and Brian Dusek, Frostad Development Co., were present. Frostad was asked to present his proposal. He stated he wanted to develop • something appropriate and within the guidelines for the City. He explained the status of the Spring Street property before he entered into an agreement to Planning Commission —9/1/04 1 • develop the area and how the City was actively soliciting a developer to develop the properties on Spring Street. He stated he was told the City was looking for a larger scale project because those particular properties would cost more to obtain. Frostad said he was told early on that the parking requirements must be met and no variances for parking would be granted. He said he knew the City was willing to consider Conditional Use Permits (CUP's) and other things to allow the project. He stated his original plan was for 42 residential units and 7,600 square feet for commercial space. A predevelopment agreement was established and Frostad then learned he needed to address rights of access, utilities, etc and the City could not vacate all of Spring Street. He said he then designed a smaller footprint to allow the existing roadway to remain the same size as it is today. The number of units and commercial space was reduced. The underground parking for the residential units required an underground easement from Hennepin County. He noted the structure fits within confines of the City's parking requirements in the ordinance. He pointed out his requests: to vacate part of a City roadway; setbacks from Spring Street and the county right-of-way, he said the building is at the roadway; a CUP is needed to change the use of the sight for occupancy of residents on the site (mixed use), he pointed out most of the properties • currently on the site have residential occupancy. He also pointed out almost every existing building is already over their property lines. Frostad pointed out the site is 60 feet wide. He state he looked at how to facilitate easy access in and out of building and changed the plans to facilitate a safer exit from the underground garage by putting in a side window, a motion control camera and a monitor that would show activity outside on roadway. He said a condition for the easement on the back of the property is to put an additional $13,000 in escrow for future enhancement of the HCRRA (Hennepin County Regional Railroad Authority) property. He stated he is creating a sidewalk from Sunset down to the HCRRA property and trying to create beautification not only within the property but also surrounding the property Frostad said he worked on how to create a run off system. He said there will be a 14' x 14' x 40' long, concrete holding pond underground that would dispense water into the catch basin for better control of run off water in that area. He pointed out the City has to approve the underground parking on the HCRRA property because the parking ordinance states the parking for the site has to be contiguous on the site. Frostad pointed out the 12' x 50' loading zone is located in front of the building instead of in back and it will look like the rest of the sidewalk so it will be aesthetically not look like a loading zone. • Planning Commission—9/1/04 2 • into one for a total of 22,000 square feet of land. He said the City will have to look at a partial vacation of Spring Street; an easement has to be in place; a clear title of all the Spring Street property has to be obtained; there is concern with maintaining the public street access and current right-of-way. Brixius said the project does eliminate some landscaping but maintains the turning radius for large trucks at the Tonka Ventures Building to the west of the project. He said the street is being done at the developer's expense. He stated the site plan is in a C-1, Commercial and a CUP is a use that is allowed in that area. He said the reason it is allowed is because when the Zoning Ordinance was updated in 1991, we were looking at our future and protecting our interests and if we do anything with commercial and manufacturing, we have to have flexibility. Brixius said there is a variance request for encroachments along Sunset Drive. He said when we look at variances we have to look at hardship within the property. In order to create a buildable site the lots have to be combined and the developer has to provide underground parking because of the 60-foot wide lot. He said the question should be asked if this is the minimum variance. Brixius pointed out concern was raised with the exit from the garage and Frostad was told a condition of the variance if approved would be the City wants a large window on the west side and one on Spring Street and a video • monitoring system. He noted there is not much room for landscaping and recommended fruitless crab trees for low maintenance. He also noted the loading area is needed and a tree has to be moved at that location as well as to make room for a window for the garage exit. In exchange for this the developer has agreed to landscape the islands. Brixius said part of the development contract should state the escrow and the schedule for the landscaping. He said it was made clear the City will not give a variance for parking and establish that precedent. Brixius pointed out Frostad has 79 parking spaces for residential and he only needs 78; he has 18 parking spaces for retail (3750 square feet) and the ordinance requires 17; he has 6 public parking spaces on Spring Street for guest parking which is not required by City ordinance. He said the developer has complied with the ordinance regarding parking requirements. Brixius stated the short term parking spaces should be marked as such; some kind of drainage is need so water does not go back into the garage; the loading area is designed so that it will look like a plaza (anticipating smaller delivery trucks) so it will not look unsightly and will accommodate a 55' truck; the sidewalk will be construction at the developers expense and also crosswalks to • assure safe pedestrian circulation. He concluded by asking recommendation for approval of this proposal based on the listed conditions. Planning Commission—9/1/04 4 Brixius said the building height is 59 feet and the measurement is the average at the gable. He thinks the site is capable of handling the proposed use; it will be primarily residential traffic and not intensive; County Roads 15 and 51 can handle the traffic; the utilities will be available on Spring Street and the proposal fits in the redevelopment objective of the City's Comprehensive Plan. He said there was concern with integrating the building with the lakeshore so staff recommendations are the use of softer colors, and the use of more brick. Brixius stated the proposed project is commercial and residential use in the same building and that mixed use is allowed as a conditional use; the narrowness of building on the west end along with the window placement and triple glass windows, he feels this is consistent with the Comp Plan; parking is segregated from residential and commercial and the applicant has satisfied the requirements for this CUP. He said the City is trying to recognize the realities on the site with the impervious surface and front-loading area; the site is an opportunity for a storm water retention and treatment plan including Spring Street that is not there currently where water would be released at a controllable rate. • In conclusion Brixius said the City looks at this as an opportunity, the 33 feet being vacated is no longer needed for pubic use and we can maintain the current traffic pattern. The final plat is required with a development contract which will bind the contractor to completing the project as planned with conditions on the CUP'S and the project is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. On last condition is in regards to snow removal on Spring Street; in exchange for approval it will be the responsibility of the association to pay to remove the snow in that area and satellite dishes must be roof mounted and screened from view. At this time Hughes asked for comments from the public. A. J. Chouanard, Warren Avenue, asked if a canopy would be in front of building over the entry. Frostad said it was considered but it would be in the way of trucks delivering. Chouanard said he was concerned with school bus safety and said a drop off area for students can serve that purpose. He asked if the public parking is 24 hours and said 6 spaces is not enough for guest parking. Frostad said there are 19 total public parking spaces on the street. Bob Olsen, West Arm Drive, said he objected to an almost 60-foot building and would like to see it scaled back. Several residents on West Arm Drive also objected with Olsen. • Planning Commission—9/1/04 5 • Roger Swanson, West Arm Drive, applauded this opportunity and said he is the closest neighbor to the property. He pointed out the grade level of the project is higher than their homes and is concerned the building is 40% higher than standards. He also has an objection to the height of the building and he stated guest parking of 6 cars is not enough. He distributed pictures from Frostad's web site of the views of the site. Aschinger clarified they were taken from approximately a third floor. In response to the height, Frostad said he is trying to develop something within the land acquisition costs and if it were financially viable to develop the area without variances and CUP's it would be a lot easier. Kathy Stewart, West Arm Drive, asked what the back of the building would look like. Frostad said it would look the same as the front except for the retail windows; the aesthetics will be the same. Shay Long, Sunset Drive, stated her objection is the height. She asked what landscaping will be in the back and Frostad said he was limited to black dirt and sod. Mike Mason, Del Otero, asked what would be done on the 2"d story above the retail. Frostad said there are three stories of residential units and storage lockers will be within the lobby area of the residential access. • Seifert asked Frostad to state the size and cost of the residential units. They will range from 800 square feet to 1,700 square feet and the cost range would be $225,000 to $700,000. It was noted the retail business will not be open all the time and those parking spaces can be used for guest parking in the evening for more flexibility. Brixius stated that premise could be considered. One resident asked about restaurant potential with regard to parking. Seifert pointed out there is a separate requirement for restaurant parking and it would be difficult to have a restaurant on the sight. Joe Sullivan, Excelsior and part owner of 5th Street Ventures and Marina Center, stated they are the largest taxpayer in the City and are opposed to the project because it is over reaching, the size, density, height and precedent it would set. He added as taxpayers they are opposed to the request for public subsidy. He proceeded to read his letter to the editor in the local paper. Sullivan said the Commissioners are viewed as representatives of the community and have to look at consequences of this proposal. He stated 5th Street Ventures requests an awareness of the manufacturing next to the proposed project. He added they will someday develop their lot to the maximum and stated again their opposition is strong to this project. • Hughes noted, thus far he has heard zero comments on the color proposed for the building. Planning Commission—9/1/04 6 Seifert said this is our downtown and whatever gets built will be here for a long time and he cannot over emphasize the importance of the color and appearance and we have the ability to request what we want to see. Marilyn Christensen, West Arm Drive, said she is concerned that this development compliments the development on the Mtka. Mist property and it is important to work with that developer to make the City more beautiful. David Stewart, West Arm Drive, stated he is concerned with the height. He pointed out they have to maintain their private street and if the sunlight is blocked in the winter, they will have more ice to deal with. He said he is also concerned with the 94% of lot coverage, the water movement system for project and who will be maintaining it on a regular basis, and run offs when there are large rainfalls, etc and prevent the water from coming onto their property. He wanted to know what assurances could be given. Ken Adolf stated the City staff and the MCWD each with the developer reviewed the drainage plans and each would have to approve the plans. He said the primary feature is to control and retain water after a storm, discharge it over a period of time, provide rate control and treatment of run off and offer sedimentation treatment. He pointed out the proposed plan is better than what currently exists on the site. Hughes asked what standard is used to build the system. Adolf said the criteria are from the watershed, which uses the 100-year storm criteria. Stewart asked who approved first, the City or the watershed. Adolf said the City recommends to the watershed. Dusek stated the application has been submitted and the City is waiting for final comment. A representative from Schoell & Madson said the watershed is in general favor of the plan and was waiting for comments from the City before going forward. Frostad's architect said the site today is 100% impervious with 0 retention and this project is a vast improvement over what is there today. Frostad said there have been several analysis's to determine impervious surface. Stewart was told the City has to approve the plans before the developer can proceed. Hughes said approvals can be made contingent upon all favorable reports are received by the City. Seifert said if the Planning Commission recommends approval to the Council and it is approved by the Council, a series of conditions have to be completed to the City's satisfied or nothing can go forward with developer and it takes time to work through it all. Stewart inquired about refuse removal and storage for the proposal. Frostad said two dumpsters are behind closed doors, one for residential and one for • commercial and all are concealed. Mason asked who monitors the holding water for plugs. Adolf said that issue has not been defined, but the Planning Commission—9/1/04 7 • responsibility is either the City or the condo association. Frostad said he is placing money in the condo budget to have that service inspect that. Janet Adams, Minneapolis, asked how the parking area across the street fit into the long-term plan. Brixius pointed out Tonka Ventures owns the property and there is a possibility of building on it in the future. He noted any building would be evaluated on its own merit. He said the City approached Tonka Ventures and they rejected the idea. Sullivan said the economics did not work for them and the properties were priced too high. Carrie Johnson, a potential resident of Spring Park, thought the project would be an asset to the City. Adams asked the zoning of the parking lot. Brixius said the lot was zoned C-1 and the building to the west was zoned Manufacturing. Klein asked if anyone sees any traffic issues. Sullivan asked if a traffic study was required. Ex-officio Stone said the Council denied having a study done. Seifert pointed out the traffic generated by the restaurant that was on Spring Street and said there will be less traffic generated with this development. He added with the Cornerstone proposal more traffic might be created at the intersection on Sunset Drive. Stone pointed out the current construction in Mound probably sends more traffic through Spring Park. Mason said • approximately 275 people will be added to Spring Park and the potential for a traffic issue is there. Frostad said the Council does not have the ability to do anything about traffic on the county roads and traffic issues would point to the intersection and not to the development. Chouanard asked if making Spring Street a one-way was considered. Brixius said the City needed to preserve the traffic and access to the Tonka Ventures Building. Brixius said a subdivision on a county road is subject to county review and Hennepin County said this proposed building was a non-issue for them. Mason asked if the title on Spring Street was settled. Frostad said a title insurance company is willing to carry the insurance until it is cleared. Hughes asked a quiet title process would be done. Seifert said part of the process is a Torrens registration to determine who owns the street. 3. Close Public Hearing Motion by Mork Bredeson seconded by Aschinger to close the public hearing at 9:32 p.m. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. 4. Recommendation to Council The following reports were referred to during the meeting: a) NAC Re: Lakeview Lofts Planning Report with Exhibits • b) Head, Seifert &Vander Weide Re: Findings of Fact for Variance Request c) Head, Seifert &Vander Weide Re: Findings of Fact for Conditional Use Planning Commission—9/1/04 8 • Permit d) Resident Request for Dedicated Park Funds—9/1/04 e) Springsted Memo &Resolution 04-19 Re: TIF f) Head, Seifert & Vander Weide Re: Findings of Fact for Partial Vacation of Spring Street g) Head, Seifert & Vander Weide Re: Finding of Fact for Proposed Preliminary Plat Anderson said he has the same concerns as residents with the height and that it is too high and would shade West Arm Drive. Hughes asked what is the process to go through to make a recommendation to review this concern. Brixius said there is a formula to figure the solar impact. Brixius did not feel there was an impact. He also pointed out the tower on the Tonka Building is taller and does not block the sun. Hughes said he was in favor of a condition that the height does not impair the driveways of residents of West Arm Drive. Aschinger said her driveway in on the north side of her house and considers it part of living in the neighborhood. Anderson said their concern is his concern. Mork Bredeson said she could ask the developer if the project is viable if it is one story less but we already know the soil is contaminated, and we already know there are underground fuel tanks that are a health concern, and it will be • a huge expense to clean up this property. She said we have to take into account all things that have to be considered and the expenses may start to be recovered at the 3rd story level and an enormous amount of money is being put into our City. Frostad stated it would not be economically viable to reduce the height of the building and he would lose money if de did. Mork Bredeson pointed out if there was no project there would be no run off control, and contaminated soil would not be taken care of, etc. Klein agreed there was a trade off. Sippel said he was not originally concerned with the height but would like to make the sure sun does not block the above- mentioned driveways. Hughes said he was happy to see the building located in the middle of the two bays and not closer to the water. He also feels that as the trail is built, etc. that will start to be a buffer zone. He also feels figures should be provided regarding solar access on the driveways before the Council acts on the recommendation. Aschinger said she did not want to see a tunnel effect in the City. She stated concern with hardcover even though it is currently 100% and there is an opportunity for improvements. She asked if it was possible to make an exchange for something else in the City be it a monetary amount or preserving space. Brixius said the reason this issue is a CUP rather than a variance is we • do not have areas we can open up and the land area defined lots are small, the commercial areas are paved and we did not want to take land away from Planning Commission—9/1/04 9 existing areas. He reiterated we will have retention we did not have before and it is a marked improvement. Frostad again said he is putting $13,000 in escrow for landscaping. Hughes asked if there were any other questions regarding the CUP for the height of the building. Sippel asked if a condition was going to be put on it. Hughes said we can so note conditions and the recommendation is based on but the motion has to stand by itself. Sippel stated he would like to put a condition on the motion. Hughes asked how many Commissioners are in favor of obtaining figures on the sunlight impairment of the driveways and most said they were in favor or a study. Sippel requested the Council have that information for their next meeting and it was agreed not to add this to the motion. Brixius referred to pages 13 — 15 on his report and suggested the Commissioners act on one request at a time and note recommendations and he will list the conditions in a report. Mork Bredeson asked if they were voting on the entire project. Brixius noted his conditions on each request in the summary of his report. He said the variance should be voted on separately. Mork Bredeson asked for clarification if they were going to pass or decline the project. Hughes asked Stone how this should go to the Council and she said to vote on each request. • Brixius pointed out he had recommendations on the variances for Sunset Drive and Spring Street, on the preliminary plat. He said the CUP's had similar criteria and they could add criteria i.e. shadow on the driveways. He suggested taking action in order with conditions outlined. Beck stated if they approve or disapprove they are required to make findings of fact and to make it easier they can say they want to approve each or all at once and refer to Brixius' report by reference and if they disapprove they can say the facts do not support it. Hughes said they would start with the CUPS at this time. Motion by Mork Bredeson seconded by Anderson to recommend to the Council to approve the following requests on page 2 on the Planner's Report dated August 25, 2004 and include his recommendations and conditions found in the report: #4 CUP to allow residential and non- residential uses within the same principal structure; #5 CUP to allow a proposed building to exceed three stories or 40 feet in height and add an additional request for a solar access impact study related to shadow to West Arm Townhomes be submitted to City Council; #7 CUP to allow off-site parking to meet the parking demands of the mixed use development; #8 CUP to allow a loading zone in the front of the building. • Upon roll call Mork Bredeson, Anderson, Hughes, Aschinger and Sippel voted aye and Klein voted no. Motion declared carried. Planning Commission—9/1/04 10 • Hughes asked if the 94% hardcover includes the underground parking. Dusek said it does not include the easement. Hughes said he had no problem with this because it is actually improving the run off and Klein agreed. Motion by Aschinger seconded by Anderson to recommend to the Council to approve request#6 on page 2 of the Planner's Report dated August 25, 2004 and include his recommendations and conditions found in the report: a CUP to allow lot coverage of the proposed building to exceed 75% impervious surface. Upon roll call Mork Bredeson, Anderson, Klein, Hughes,Aschinger and Sippel voted aye. Motion declared carried. Hughes read the conditions of the variance request recommended in the Planners Report on page 14 dated August 25, 2004. Brixius confirmed the City Attorney provided findings of fact. Beck stated the findings of fact follow variance requirements. Hughes said to include the condition there be a run off grate at the garage entrance. Aschinger said to include the short-term parking spaces across the street to be marked as such. Brixius recommended the City spots be marked; definitely the 6 spots and the City would have to decide. Frostad noted a sound system in a residential area might not be appropriate. Siefert said to include "require cameras and monitors". Beck said to make a reference to that particular wording. It was decided to refer to • the undated findings of fact, from the attorney, by their agenda item number in the Planning Commission packet. Motion by Mork Bredeson to recommend to the Council to approve request #3 on page 2 of the Planner's Report dated August 25, 2004 and include his recommendations and conditions found in the report and include in the wording on page 14) 4. b. "require cameras and a monitoring system other than an alarm system": a variance from 10 foot setback requirements from public right-of-way along Spring Street and CSAH 51 defined in the finding of fact agenda item 5.a) 4.b) Sippel made a friendly amendment to vote on the setback recommendation separately seconded by Hughes. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. Motion by Mork Bredeson seconded by Aschinger to recommend to the Council to approve the variance request defined in the finding of fact agenda item 5.a)4.b). for a 10 foot setback requirement from the public right-of-way along Spring Street (part of request #3 on page 2 of the Planner's Report dated August 25, 2004 and include his recommendations and conditions found in the report and include "require cameras and a monitoring system other than an alarm system" • and the addition of a drainage grate on Spring Street. Upon roll call Planning Commission—9/l/04 11 • Mork Bredeson, Anderson, Klein, Hughes, Aschinger and Sippel voted aye. Motion declared carried. Motion by Sippel seconded by Mork Bredeson to recommend to the Council to approve the variance request defined in the finding of fact agenda item 5.a)4.b) for a 10 foot setback requirement from the public right-of-way along CSAH 51 (part of request #3 on page 2 of the Planner's Report dated August 25, 2004 and include his recommendations and conditions found in the report. Upon roll Mork Bredeson, Anderson, Hughes, Aschinger voted aye, Klein voted no and Sippel abstained. Motion declared carried. In discussion Sippel stated he has concerns with the building located up to the county right-of-way not knowing any future plans by county to widen the road. He added he is concerned with the building creating a tunnel affect. He added if the set back were met this could be an alternate location for the loading area. Frostad said the county did not have an issue with the location of the building; they just wanted sufficient space for the sidewalk. He pointed out the Mtka Mist is closer to the county road than this proposal. Sippel pointed out that precedent was set with Shoreline Place Condos. Mork Bredeson said every project is based on its own merit and she pointed out the current Laundromat is just as close as the proposed building will be. • Brixius point out it is important, as part of the discussion on the preliminary plat, to have a discussion on snow storage from Spring Street. Seifert said the City will plow the snow on the street, but would like to have the ability to bill the association for removal of the snow. He said it is important that we have assurance to send a bill and get paid. Aschinger said an association can vote everything thing out after the developer if done with the project. Seifert said it is important something permanent is in place allowing the City to bill the homeowners for the cost of removing snow on Spring Street. He added the City has an obligation to Tonka Ventures and the residents. Aschinger said the tenant agreement say they pay for removing the snow so they know they are responsible. Motion by Klein seconded by Mork Bredeson to recommend to the Council to approve request #1 on page 2 of the Planner's Report dated August 25, 2004 and include his recommendations and conditions found in the report and defined in the finding of fact agenda item 5.a)4.f): the partial vacation of the north half of the east/west arm of Spring Street from CSAH 51 to Tonka Ventures property; The north/south arm of Spring Street running to CSAH to remain unchanged; and an additional condition the snow removable cost associated to it is billed to the condo owners. Upon roll call Mork Bredeson, Anderson, Hughes, Aschinger • and Sippel voted aye and Klein abstained. Motion declared carried. Planning Commission—9/1/04 12 • Aschinger amended the motion to include the recommendation for the preliminary plat but withdrew her amendment. Motion by Aschinger seconded by Mork Bredeson to recommend to the Council to approve request #2 on page 2 of the Planner's Report dated August 25, 2004 and include his recommendations and conditions found in the report and defined in the finding of fact agenda item 5.a)4.g): Subject to the vacation of Spring Street, approval of a preliminary plat to combine the existing parcels into a single lot and an additional condition the snow removable cost associated to it is billed to the condo owners. Upon roll call Mork Bredeson, Anderson, Klein, Hughes, Aschinger and Sippel voted aye. Motion declared carried. At this time Hughes referred agenda item 5.a)4.e) Springsted Memo & Resolution 04-19. Hughes recommended the Planning Commission table this because they do not understand it. He said he expressed his dismay to the author of the memo because they did not receive this information prior to this meeting. Brixius said the resolution states that there is a finding that the use of TIF funds is with the Comp Plan. Hughes questioned it was in the Comp Plan and Brixius pointed to the reference. Aschinger asked what the resolution was referencing. Brixius said it was to the full plan, valuation and distribution of the TIF funds. • Motion by Aschinger seconded by Mork Bredeson to table Resolution 04- 19 regarding TIF. Upon roll call Mork Bredeson, Anderson, Klein, Hughes,Aschinger and Sippel voted aye. Motion declared carried. In discussion Anderson asked if approving the resolution would this expedite what we are trying to accomplish with the requests on the agenda. Seifert said there is no point in taking a vote on it if they do not have the information. Hughes said he was told the Planning Commission would not have a part in the TIF until today when he was given this resolution. In another matter Hughes was notified there is a request from the Cornerstone Group to have the Planning Commission hold a public hearing for their request on September 29, 2004 instead of their regularly scheduled meeting in October. Brixius said Cornerstone would like to go to Council earlier than it would have been scheduled. He also indicated he needs three to four weeks to study their requests and plans. Klein stated she cannot take off work for workshop meetings during the day and more information is needed on the project before a pubic hearing is held for it. Brixius will relay this to the developer. Mork Bredeson recommended a work session be held prior to the public hearing and all of the • Commissioners agreed. Planning Commission—9/1/04 13 • Hughes referred to agenda #5.a)4.d) A resident request for dedicated park funds from developers. Hughes pointed out the money escrowed with the county from Frostad for landscaping might apply to this request. He said the request could be given to the Council as a recommendation for future developments. Motion by Aschinger seconded by Klein to recommend to the Council to approve dedication funds is required from all developments. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. 6. COMMUNICATIONS The following communications were noted: a) Council Minutes—8/2/04 b) Special Meeting Minutes— 8/12/04 c) Council Minutes— 8/16/04 d) Hennepin County News Re: Smoking Ban—8/17/04 e) September Calendar f) Channel 8 Schedule—September g) Memo Re: Meeting on Lakeview Lofts 8/30/04 7. MISCELLANEOUS • It was noted the next meeting Planning Commission Meeting October 131" could be a work session with the Cornerstone Group. Klein requested the information be distributed at least a week prior to the meeting. 8. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Mork Bredeson seconded by Aschinger to adjourn the meeting at 11:21 p.m. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. SHARON CORL DEPUTY CLERK Planning Commission —9/1/04 14 • PLEASE SIGN IN Public Hearing - September 1, 2004 NAME ADDRESS rICOrAyl Nr Pc. LJ caul R \C, V% bvsq-1e- T c� �F v os-fir,d V''f C Z-7 q l� /3T- • /-w Off., kill r t 617—IT-t-D, N COA ql,� K--)f--S - C C� 7L S��vSo Z G 0 ,ram i hop v (I - t- k-Ur .N eV d6&,-- Lwyr 4-tif-, . • AME ADDRESS -V 1 �(\west SS fcA � , - e a4 0 7 tA,) 3/ 2 CITY OF SPRING PARK SPRING PARK, MINNESOTA AGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 13,2004 7:30 P.M.—CITY HALL 1. CALL TO ORDER Pledge of Allegiance 2. ROLL CALL 3. ADOPT AGENDA 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES—September 1, 2004 5. PLANNING COMMISSION a) Cornerstone Group Development(Mtka. Mist Property) 1. Open Public Hearing • a) Letter from Michael Erickson, 3934 Del Otero 2. Discussion&Comments a) NAC Findings Report Re: Cornerstone Group Development— 10/6/04 b) Schoell &Madson— 10/6/04 3. Close Public Hearing 4. Recommendation to Council b) Floodplain Ordinance—Head, Seifert&Vander Weide— 10/5/04 1. Open Public Hearing 2. Discussion & Comments 3. Close Public Hearing 4. Recommendation to Council c) Sign Permit Application—Bayside Floral, 4310 Shoreline Drive & Staff Memo 6. COMMUNICATIONS a) Special Meeting Minutes— 8/26/04 b) Special Staff Meeting Minutes—8/30/04 c) Council Minutes—9/7/04 d) Special Meeting Minutes—9/16/04 e) Special Meeting Minutes—9/17/04 f) Council Minutes—9/20/04 g) Special Meeting Minutes—9/29/04 h) Building & Sign Report—August 2004 i) Building & Sign Report—September 2004 • Planning Commission — 10/13/04 1 j) City Calendar October k) Channel 8 Schedule October 1) Council Minutes— 10/4/04 7. MISCELLANEOUS 8. ADJOURNMENT Planning Commission — 10/13/04 • CITY OF SPRING PARK SPRING PARK, MINNESOTA MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 13, 2004 7:30 P.M.—CITY HALL 1. CALL TO ORDER Pledge of Allegiance Chair Hughes called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. followed by the pledge of allegiance. 2. ROLL CALL Anderson, Nelson, Klein, Hughes, Aschinger, Sippel and Ex-Officio Stone were present, and Mork Bredeson was excused. Staff Present: Administrator Weeks and Deputy Clerk Corl; Others present: Alan Brixius and Dan Petrik, City Planners; Tom Seifert, City Attorney; Ken Adolf, City Engineer; Cornerstone Group and Cunningham Group. • 3. ADOPT THE AGENDA Motion by Klein seconded by Aschinger to adopt the agenda. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES— September 1, 2004 Motion by Sippel seconded by Aschinger to approve the minutes for the Planning Commission Meeting September 1, 2004. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. 5. PLANNING COMMISSION a) Cornerstone Group Development(Mtka. Mist Property) Hughes explained the Planning Commissioners are appointed by the City Council; their decisions are advisory; they are responsible for making decisions on requests before them based on the laws and City code; the purpose of the public hearing is to make sure everyone has the opportunity to speak. He said the following process will be used: he will read the published notice; the developer and architect will make their presentation; the City Planner and City Attorney will make their presentation; those in attendance could ask questions. 1. Open Public Hearing • a) Letter from Michael Erickson, 3934 Del Otero -Noted Planning Commission— 10/13/04 1 • Hughes opened the public hearing at 7:37 p.m. He read the public hearing notice published in the Laker Newspaper September 25, 2004. 2. Discussion & Comments a) NAC Findings Report Re: Cornerstone Group Development— 10/6/04 b) Schoell &Madson— 10/6/04 The above reports were noted. Brixius stated he was here to review the requests from the Cornerstone Group's proposed development. Brixius' presentation included the following: Two buildings are proposed with each containing residential and commercial uses. The larger north building will contain 94 living units and 1,247 square feet of commercial space. The south building will have 12 living units in addition to 10,374 square feet of commercial space. Both building are in excess of height allowed in the ordinance. The redevelopment consists of eight parcels producing 2.99 acres. The site is zoned C-1, General Commercial District and Conditional Use Permits (CUP's) have to be considered for building height in excess of three stories and mixed use in one building, vacation of portion of Del Otero, and Preliminary plat for combination of existing parcels. • The commercial objectives must include the following standards: All buildings should be professionally designed with standards expected of high quality development; Provide area wide parking and pedestrian circulation system and a high level of business interchange between existing and new commercial development; Commercial loading area and outside storage be adequately screened; Rooftop equipment be screened; Lighting and landscape plans be considered to reduce the amount of impervious surface; Development must have on-site drainage and stormwater management to regulate the quality of water going into the lake. All setbacks have been complied with according to code. Some retaining walls are 3 feet from the property line but they enhance the area. The landscape plan identifies species, size, and location, and all plant sizes meet City expectation. The City is recommending a change with the proposed fence on the east side of the south building so it does not obstruct the site line. The proposed development will reduce the impervious surface from 90% to 65%. There are stormwater issues where the property abuts the HCRRA property because of depressions and the drainage from the rooftop on the north building to the drainage site needs to be addressed. On site parking exceeds the ordinance requirements. The north building has a • total of 214 parking spaces underground in two tiers (197 residential, 17 guest) along eastern portion of the building. The south building will have 26 Planning Commission — 10/13/04 2 • parking spaces for residential underground. There will be 43 surface parking spaces and 11 retail spaces underground in the south building. There are issues with access on Del Otero. The City is asking for a utility easement that will go across the property starting where Del Otero ends and extend to Sunset Drive. Del Otero will need reconstruction after the installation of water and sewer utilities for the property. This cost will be the developer's and would be reasonable compensation for the partial vacation of Del Otero. An analysis of trips generated by the current and proposed land use was conducted to evaluate the project's impact on traffic. The analysis indicated the traffic for the proposed development would be less than the current land use. The loading area for the north building is located on the east side of the building adjacent to property line. Adequate screening will be provided for that loading area. There is a small commercial space of 1,247 square feet on the west end of the north building. The only access to this space is from the surface parking lot. The demands for loading for this space should be minimal and could be managed around peak hour use for the parking lot. Noting this the Council could waive the requirement for loading space at this • area. Both buildings exceed the maximum height allowed by code. The south building was reduced from a 4-story to a 3-story building with an average height of 45 feet. The building has been tiered back to reduce the vertical image. The north building is a 5-story building and is 69 feet high from average grade to the flat part of the roof. A solar access study was conducted to assess the impact of Lakeview Lofts on residential areas to the north. A similar study should be conducted to determine if there would be any solar impact to the surrounding area. Accommodations should be made for the placement of accessory equipment i.e. satellite dishes so they are not viewable by pedestrians or on the ground level. Project lighting should not intrude on neighboring uses. All lighting fixtures should be coordinated with Lakeview Lofts so it is consistent across Sunset Drive and along Shoreline Drive. The following design standards were agreed to regarding streetscape design and circulation. Street widths on Sunset are to accommodate 6-foot bike lanes on each side of the street. Sidewalks shall be at least 6 feet wide, 8 feet where possible. Boulevard trees are to be placed on the parcel side of the sidewalks. Decorative street lighting and pedestrian lighting are to replace the existing • lighting. Crosswalks shall be stamped or colored concrete at grade with existing asphalt. Retaining walls contribute to visual feeling and will be build Planning Commission— 10/13/04 3 • to seating height to provide public seating making public space more available to the public and stairways will be built wider and more frequent, It is important that the docks currently used for temporary and transient uses remain and that the docks are not used for permanent (overnight) docking. Part of this approval is the docks will be limited to transient docks only and dock rights to new condo residents are waived as not to intrude upon Del Otero property owners. Colleen Carey, President of Cornerstone Group asked for questions and concerns. She said they received Brixius' report and felt he did an excellent job of explaining the project. Hughes referred to the rendition of the overall project and asked if Spring Street has changed their color scheme. He was told the color of that project was muted to show their project more readily. Brixius stated the Planning Commission should consider the colors and the stucco. He said it is important to express this. Hughes asked the residents to comment on this. Seifert gave a brief history of the dock situation. He said the LMCD issued a special density license in 1980's and then deemed it to be improperly issued. Those docks were grandfathered in and consisted of 40 transient docks and 25 permanent docks. He said the document does not show how 25 permanent • docks are assigned. He added 30 to 31 people have dock rights and they have a system as to who uses the docks what year. Seifert stated it was a concern of Council Person Williamson that new residents will want to use the docks. Seifert said it would make sense that the Cornerstone Group simply state they are waiving rights to use permanent docks. He said it should be left to the developer as to how they use transient docks. Aschinger asked if the developer waives rights does that prevent future residents to waive their rights. Seifert said the developer owns the rights and they would be waiving the rights. He said there is no way to fix this forever and the dock usage is controlled by the LMCD. He added it is up to them to grandfather in any more docks and it is not something the Council regulates. Former LMCD Rep, Nelson, was asked to review the situation when the twin homes were built on Del Otero. Nelson said the LMCD does not want transient docks to be made into permanent docks and they have concern for adding more boats to the lake. He said there was a previous petition to change transient docks to permanent docks and it was rejected. Hughes asked if there was a designated marker to show where the line is to separate the 40 transient docks from the 25 permanent docks. He was told there is a public record of the location of the docks. Brixius said, as a recommendation, it should be included that the developer must maintain the • current dock status as the Mtka. Mist did and there should be a clear understanding at the time of sales there are no dock rights for residents. Planning Commission— 10/13/04 4 • Klein asked if transient means anybody can use the docks. Seifert said it means no overnight boat parking. Hughes asked if the residents have concerns or comments. Mike Mason, Del Otero, clarified the count is 40 spaces, not docks and there is a limit on how many docks can be built and how long they can be. Anderson requested the discussion on docks cease because nothing can be done about it. Mason asked the Cornerstone Group if they were able to obtain from the county the requested document pertaining to the docks. Olson (Cornerstone Group) said it still has to go thru the documentation process at the county. Mason requested a copy. Aschinger asked if this is consistent with what is in the planners report. Olson pointed out the county never recorded the easement that goes with the property across the street that was owned by the Mtka. Mist. He said when they purchase the land, they will get the rights to the docks and easement to use the land to get to the docks. Nelson clarified the language with docks and slips, and length, etc. Seifert said the dock slips are boat storage units (bsu's). "40 transient and 25 permanent"refers to bsu's. Hughes referred to the plantings on the backside of the north building and asked the distance of the patios to the property line. Stahl (Cunningham Group) said that distance was 8 to 10 feet. Hughes asked if that area was needed for an emergency fire exit and has to be plowed, what impact would • this have on the plantings. Hughes asked if we have received the Stormwater Management Plan and was told the details have not been received. Hughes asked if there were any drastic changes. Brixius stated the roof drainage from the north building has to drain into the subterranean retention pond. Hughes expressed concern with the water pressure on the top floor of the north building. Adolf said this was addressed in his report. He stated the upper floor in the north building is one of the highest points in the City. He said the new water tower under construction (same height as neighboring tanks elevation) would be increased from 50,000 gallons to 200,000 gallons. The water tank manages the water pressure and pressure varies with the water level in the tank. He said during peak use periods the tank will make up the difference in the level and the water pressure. Adolf said the water pressure in the upper floor would be marginal and the plumbing system in the building should have a booster pump to pump the water up. He said this should be included in the plumbing design for the building. Adolf stated the existing Lift Station #3 is in the county right-of-way and would have to be relocated. He said it is the presumption that this will be the developer's expense. Olson confirmed the development would bear the cost of the public improvements that will be located on the property. • Planning Commission— 10/13/04 5 • Anderson said Mason expressed concern with the trees on the east end of the property by the north building. Mason asked if it was possible to maintain some of the tall trees to create some kind of a buffer at the property line. Olson said they would to maintain appropriate vegetation that is in scale with the rest of the property. Hughes asked if any residents had any questions. Sarah Reinhardt, West Arm Road, asked what type of commercial business is allowed and what is anticipated. Brixius said this is a C-1 District which allows for a full range of uses and they want something that would fit into the character of the area. Olson said they have looked at what is compatible with the residential area and hope to replace what is there now. He added they would like "Class A" type tenants because it is prime retail. Sippel spoke as a resident regarding the color and stated he prefers the current shade of yellow (tan) shown on the building tonight. Mason asked how many balconies will be located on the east side of the north building and was told 20. Aschinger asked how many additional stairways will be in front of the south building and was told there would be one at each end and two more in- between. Klein asked the hours that would be designated for unloading. Brixius said • they would be off hours for businesses. He stated the retail spaces are small and will not have a lot of deliveries. Aschinger asked if the driveway is at grade or will drop down to the parking. Brixius said there is an 11% drop in the grade. 3. Close Public Hearing Motion by Anderson seconded by Klein to close the public hearing at 9:10 p.m. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. 4. Recommendation to Council Brixius said the applicant has requested a preliminary plat that will combine the eight properties, the vacated portion of Del Otero Avenue and a portion of the county right-of-way into a single lot. The findings are the site is properly zoned for the uses proposed by the applicant and the proposed plat meets zoning standards for lot combination in a C-1 District. The "Conditions of Approval" are found on page 10 of the City Planner's report prepared by Northwest Associated Consultants dated October 7, 2004, conditions #1 thru #7 with an addition to #6 that would include in the purchase agreement for a condo that ownership of permanent docks is not • included in the ownership of a condo. Klein asked if the development has to Planning Commission — 10/13/04 6 keep Del Otero open. Brixius said there would be an easement that makes it available for public traffic. Motion by Klein seconded by Anderson that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council that the application for the Cornerstone Group for a preliminary plat and lot combination be approved subject to the provisions and conditions contained in the City Planner's report dated October 7, 2004 prepared by Northwest Associated Consultants, Inc. regarding the Spring Park Condominium project including the above mentioned amendment(s). Upon roll call Anderson, Nelson, Klein, Hughes,Aschinger and Sippel voted aye. Motion declared carried. Brixius stated the applicant has applied for a CUP for Residential and Non- Residential uses in the same principal structure (mixed use). Brixius referred to page 11 and 12 of the above-mentioned report, and the recommendations listed in items #1 thru#5. He noted the Findings of Fact are on page 12, items #1 thru #5 in the same report, and the Conditions of Approval on page 12 and 13, items #1 thru#9. Sippel stated it makes sense to have parking stalls in the north building for large trucks so they do not obstruct businesses. Brixius said this could be part of a lease agreement. Brixius said Conditions #3 would also include a detailed stormwater calculation and redirect the drainage from the roof of the north building to the retention basins. He added to delete the • "engineer from#4 (lighting plan). Aschinger added her concern with accessory equipment on the roof being seen from the lake (item #7 on page 13). Hughes noted the developer stated at a previous work session one satellite dish was going to be used for the entire building. The Cornerstone Group assured this would be done. Brixius said item # 7 would add "lake view". He added the expense of the relocation of the lift station would be borne by the developer. Hughes expressed concern with the site lines coming out of the south building access with the location of the fence. The fence will be set back further (adding item#10). Motion by Anderson seconded by Aschinger that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council that the application of the Cornerstone Group for a conditional use permit to allow residential and nonresidential uses in the same principal structure be approved subject to the provisions and conditions contained in the City Planner's report dated October 7, 2004 prepared by Northwest Associated Consultants, Inc. regarding the Spring Park Condominium project including the above mentioned amendment(s). Upon roll call Anderson, Nelson, Klein, Hughes,Aschinger and Sippel voted aye. Motion declared carried. Brixius stated the applicant has applied for a CUP for excess height per the • City ordinance for both buildings. He noted the recommendations listed on page #14, the Findings of Fact are on page 15, items #1 thru #5, and the Planning Commission— 10/13/04 7 • Conditions of Approval on page 15 of the above-mentioned report. Brixius recommended including to item #3 in the Findings of Fact "setback from the lake" and add the building and site plan be reviewed by the fire marshal. Motion by Klein seconded by Nelson that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council that the application of the Cornerstone Group for a conditional use permit to allow both the south and the north buildings to exceed three stories or 40 feet in height be approved subject to the provisions and conditions contained in the City Planner's report dated October 7, 2004 prepared by Northwest Associated Consultants, Inc. regarding the Spring Park Condominium project including the above mentioned amendments. Upon roll call Anderson, Nelson, Klein, Hughes, Sippel voted aye and Aschinger voted no. At this point Klein asked to change her vote. Hughes asked for a second roll call as he had not declared a pass or fail condition. Upon the second roll call Anderson, Nelson, Hughes and Sippel voted aye and Klein and Aschinger voted no. Motion declared carried. Brixius stated the applicant has applied for a vacation of a portion of Del Otero Avenue. He noted the Findings of Fact and Conditions of Approval on • page 16 of the above-mentioned report. Hughes asked if this is where the language regarding snow removal, etc. should be placed. Sippel pointed out this is private property whereas Spring Street is public property. Motion by Aschinger seconded by Nelson that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council that the application of the Cornerstone Group for the vacation of a portion of Del Otero Avenue as shown on the plans and specifications be approved subject to the provisions and conditions contained in the City Planner's report dated October 7, 2004 prepared by Northwest Associated Consultants, Inc. regarding the Spring Park Condominium project. Upon roll call Anderson, Nelson, Klein, Hughes,Aschinger and Sippel voted aye. Motion declared carried. b) Floodplain Ordinance—Head, Seifert& Vander Weide— 10/5/04 1. Open Public Hearing Chair Hughes opened the public hearing at 9:27 p.m. He read the notice published in the Laker Newspaper September 25, 2004. And summary 2. Discussion& Comments Seifert stated FEMA runs the floodplain insurance program and they required the state to change their ordinances. It was decided to adopt a model ordinance the DNR created per the Federal program. This amendment makes • it consistent with the Spring Park ordinance, has been reviewed by the DNR Planning Commission — 10/13/04 8 • and approved by FEMA and adoption of the amendment maintains the City's eligibility for floodplain insurance. Hughes asked what part of the City does this cover. Siefert said all or most of Spring Park is covered. Weeks said map numbers are available and they incorporate low lying properties especially part of Budd Lane, Marina Center, and Island Drive, etc. and language fits into any homeowners insurance that we are covered. Sippel referred to the top of page five, Floodway District and Flood Fringe district. He asked at what point does this ordinance not apply. Weeks said there are not many properties to which it does not apply. He added the flood fringe is not clearly defined by measurement. Sippel asked how this is enforced if lines are not defined and lines no longer apply. Aschinger asked if this amendment changes the current floodplain requirement in the City. Weeks pointed out the new house construction on Budd Lane did have to comply. Sippel asked what mechanism triggers a compliance check. Weeks said it could be the DNR or Building Inspector. Hughes expressed concern with receiving material on short notice and expected to make a recommendation to the Council. He asked if this was available in September, why is the Planning Commission just receiving it. Weeks said the City has been working on this for a couple of months and • there are only some small "housekeeping' changes. Hughes stated he does not have a problem with the ordinance, just the process. Seifert said any amendment not initiated by the Planning Commission it has to go before the Planning Commission in a public hearing. Hughes read the summary of the proposed amendment prepared by head, Seifert& Vander Weide dated October 5, 2004. 3. Close Public Hearing Motion by Aschinger seconded by Anderson to close the public hearing at 9:46 p.m. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. 4. Recommendation to Council Motion by Aschinger seconded by Anderson to recommend to the City Council the adoption of the proposed Amendment and Restatement of Ordinance 51, the Floodplain Management Ordinance. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. c) Sign Permit Application—Bayside Floral, 4310 Shoreline Drive & Staff Memo • Planning Commission— 10/13/04 9 • Motion by Klein seconded by Aschinger to approve the sign permit application for Bayside Floral, 4310 Shoreline Drive. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. 6. NEW BUSINESS & COMMUNICATIONS The following communications were noted: a) Special Meeting Minutes—8/26/04 b) Special Staff Meeting Minutes—8/30/04 c) Council Minutes—9/17/04 d) Special Meeting Minutes—9/16/04 e) Special Meeting Minutes—9/17/04 f) Council Minutes—9/20/04 g) Special Meeting Minutes—9/29/04 h) Building & Sign Report—August 2004 i) Building & Sign Report—September 2004 j) City Calendar October k) Channel 8 Schedule October 1) Council Minutes— 10/4/04 7. MISCELLANEOUS Klein inquired about Lakeview Lofts request for TIF funds. Hughes said there was some change in the language that allowed the Council to address it. Klein said the • Planning Commission was not needed for the TIF request but are needed for sign permit applications. Hughes pointed out sign permits are one thing the Planning Commission can approve. In another matter Hughes pointed out City Hall needs some interior renovation and as a Planning Commission we can start thinking about what plans we would want to see. Weeks said he could get proposals from architects to the Planning Commission to review. Hughes said they would like to become a part of the process. In still another matter Hughes requested, and submitted in writing, a request for an Opticom Control System on the traffic lights for emergency vehicles to be a budget item. He clarified this would be the City's expense and not the county's. He said such system will be installed at County Road's 15 and 19. 8. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Aschinger seconded by Klein to djourn the meeting at 9:55 p.m. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried IL AM D. WEEKS SHARON CORL • ADMINISTRATOR/CLERK/TREASURER DEPUTY CLERK Planning Commission— 10/13/04 10 • PLEASE SIGN IN Public Hearing — October 13, 2004 NAME ADD RE S S /1 C_u CU - Ca- rl (N �2 • CITY OF SPRING PARK SPRING PARK, MINNESOTA AGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 10, 2004 7:30 P.M.—CITY HALL 1. CALL TO ORDER Pledge of Allegiance 2. ROLL CALL 3. ADOPT AGENDA 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES —October 13, 2004 5. PLANNING COMMISSION a) Sign Permit Application—Design & Layout Services, 4144 Shoreline Drive (Tonka Ventures Bldg.) b) Sign Permit Application—Snap Fitness, 4144 Shoreline Drive (Tonka Ventures • Bldg.) c) Roll Call Order 6. COMMUNICATIONS a) Council Minutes— 10/18/04 b) Council/Budget Minutes— 10/25/04 c) November Calendar d) LMCC Fall Newsletter e) MCWD Newsletter f) Channel 8 Schedule g) Resolution 04-29—Review &Declaration of Canvass Board h) Election Stats 7. MISCELLANEOUS 8. ADJOURNMENT • • CITY OF SPRING PARK SPRING PARK, MINNESOTA MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 10,2004 7:30 P.M.—CITY HALL 1. CALL TO ORDER Pledge of Allegiance Chair Hughes called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. followed by the pledge of allegiance. 2. ROLL CALL Mork Bredeson, Anderson,Nelson, Klein, Hughes, Sippel and Ex-officio Stone were present and Aschinger was absent. Staff present: Deputy Clerk Corl. 3. ADOPT AGENDA • Motion by Nelson seconded by Mork Bredeson to adopt the agenda. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES —October 13, 2004 Motion by Klein seconded by Nelson to approve the minutes for the Planning Commission Meeting October 13, 2004. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. 5. PLANNING COMMISSION a) Sign Permit Application—Design & Layout Services, 4144 Shoreline Drive (Tonka Ventures Building) The discussion was on the location on the building this sign is going to be placed. Motion by Mork Bredeson seconded by Sippel to approve the sign permit application for Design & Layout Services, 4144 Shoreline Drive. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried unanimously. b) Sign Permit Application — Snap Fitness, 4144 Shoreline Drive (Tonka Ventures Bldg.) Hughes said there are issues with this sign permit application. He said he • personally inspected this sign closely. Hughes is recommending the following: The sign is an after the fact sign; It violates requirements of the sign ordinance in Planning Commission— 11/10/04 1 • that the applicant did not obtain Planning Commission approval prior to installation of the sign; For that reason the Planning Commission is requesting the City Building Inspector to inspect the sign in accordance with MN building code and recommend a letter be written to the business owner and copy the property owner regarding the inappropriate procedure for approval of the sign prior to the installation. Mork Bredeson asked if there were any concerns with the sign itself and what the problems were with the construction. Hughes if the electrical was not installed properly it could create a fire hazard and a concern for safety. He said in reading the ordinance it alludes to the fact that permits should have been pulled plus there is the issue of the arrogance of not going thru the proper channels. Hughes said we have to review the sign to see if it meets the ordinance and his concern is the fact it was installed prior to approval. It was noted the City does not require a building permit for most signs; the sign meets the ordinance but the City has to inform the business and the owner the process was not followed. Mork Bredeson asked if it is within our means to send the Building Inspector to inspect the sign to see if there is a safety issue. She said a letter should be written to the tenant. It was clarified the sign company expressed the arrogance not the tenant. Hughes said the issues are to approve the sign, how to communicate with the tenant/owner and incorporate the building inspector into this. • Motion by Klein seconded by Mork Bredeson to approve the sign permit application for Snap Fitness, 4144 Shoreline Drive. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried unanimously. Motion by Mork Bredeson seconded by Hughes to draft a communication with the owner/tenant at the above mentioned address. In discussion Sippel said he was against sending such a letter because the owner went through the process, and it was the sign company that did not. He added a letter would show that the City is not business friendly. Hughes said he just understood the sign company expressed the arrogance with not going through the permit process. Sippel pointed out this same thing happened when H & H Meats applied for a sign permit and used their permanent sign as their temporary sign also because they did not want to wait for the Planning Commission to review it. Hughes said the issue now is the sign should be inspected. Mork Bredeson withdrew the motion and Hughes agreed. Motion by Mork Bredeson seconded by Hughes to recommend the Building Inspector inspect the sign and review the installation. Upon roll call Mork Bredeson, Anderson, Nelson, Klein, Hughes, and Sippel voted aye. Motion declared carried unanimously. • Planning Commission — I l/10/04 • Anderson asked if the $200 fine is being assessed. Hughes requested the minutes reflect the City has a policy that all permanent signs installed prior to approval are subject to a $200 fine. He also requested the staff review this to see if the fine is appropriate for this case. c) Roll Call Order Hughes requested this be put on the agenda based on some of the votes the Planning Commission has had in the past. The Deputy Clerk said the roll call order is in seniority order and subject to change. Hughes asked this to be open for discussion. Anderson said he did not think anybody here is influenced by anyone else's vote. Hughes asked if the order makes a difference with the Commissioners. Klein said she did not mind changing the order. Hughes said the intent is to put it on the table for discussion for the future. Mork Bredeson said each Commissioner acts as an individual and not influenced by another's vote and she does not have a problem with the way it is or with changing it. Anderson said he did not have a problem with the order. 6. COMMUNICATONS The following communications were noted: a) Council Minutes— 10/18/04 Klein referred to the issue of the dock rights and asked why it is such an issue and if it was out of the City's hands. Stone said the LMCD is in charge of the docks. • Klein said she has not seen any effort on behalf of the City regarding the issue and she would like to see the paper work that was referenced. Nelson said the rights are in the deeds of the property owners. Klein stated she wanted to see something in writing from the LMCD stating that only 27 docks are allowed. Hughes asked what document the City Attorney was requesting. Stone said it was a copy of an easement that county property can be crossed to get to the docks. Klein would like to see a document from the LMCD. The Deputy Clerk will get a copy of the easement from the county for the Planning Commission. Sippel asked if the Developer's Agreement has been signed with Lakeview Lofts and was told it has been. b) Council/Budget Minutes— 10/25/04 c) November Calendar d) LMCC Fall Newsletter e) MCWD Newsletter f) Channel 8 Schedule g) Resolution 04-29—Review& Declaration of Canvass Board h) Election Stats 7. MISCELLANEOUS Hughes referred back several months when the Council requested the Planning Commission to make a recommendation on outdoor storage, etc. He pointed out a resident sent a letter of complaint for the last Council meeting about the mud and dirt • sliding down to the sidewalk on Shoreline Drive (from 4388 Shoreline Drive). He added Alan Brixius, the City Planner, had pointed out storage should not be on green Planning Commission— 11/10/04 3 • space and no action has been taken. Hughes also pointed out the property owner has a temporary sign that may be illegal. Mork Bredeson said it is not necessarily no action,just no developments have happened and suggested the Deputy Clerk review the Planning Commissions recommendation back then. The ordinance for outside storage and lack of was briefly discussed. Hughes said he was not looking for formal action,just to get this subject back on the table. In another miscellaneous matter Hughes pointed out when a new business comes into the City there is no type of an occupancy process for them to follow. He said there should be a list for a new business so they know what the City requires. Mork Bredeson said the City's objective should be to find out what type of business it is, etc. Klein asked what other cities do regarding new businesses. Mork Bredeson has a business in Long Lake and said she was asked what types of materials she would be handling and trash disposal but that was all. Hughes stated the City should be concerned with occupancy, violations in the building, different uses. He said there should be a list. Stone said the Council talked about the fire marshal inspecting new businesses. Klein asked for an update on the painting of the water tower and asked if the City logo is going to be on it. She said there is a campaign to save the smiley face. Stone said the Council voted on the logo to be on the tower but has heard it would be brought up again. • Hughes formerly welcomed Councilperson Elect Reinhardt in attendance at the meeting. 8. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Mork Bredeson seconded by Klein to adjourn the meeting at 8:24 p.m. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. C -- SHARON CORL DEPUTY CLERK • Planning Commission— 11/10/04 4 • CITY OF SPRING PARK SPRING PARK, MINNESOTA AGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 8, 2004 7:30 P.M.—CITY HALL 1. CALL TO ORDER Pledge of Allegiance 2. ROLL CALL 3. ADOPT AGENDA 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES—November 10, 2004 5. PLANNING COMMISSION a) Landscaping/Screening, Outdoor Sales, Storage in Commercial District 1. Info From Previous Meetings 6. COMMUNICATIONS • a) Council Meeting Minutes— 11/4/04 b) Council Meeting Minutes— 11/15/04 c) Budget Meeting Minutes— 11/16/04 d) Special Meeting Minutes— 11/23/04 e) Building & Sign Report—October f) December Calendar g) Channel 8 Schedule h) Copy of Deed for Dock Rights on Henn. Co. Property on Shoreline Drive (6/24/47) 7. MISCELLANEOUS 8. ADJOURNMENT • • CITY OF SPRING PARK SPRING PARK, MINNESOTA MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 8, 2004 7:30 P.M.—CITY HALL 1. CALL TO ORDER Acting Chair Anderson called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. 2. ROLL CALL Anderson, Nelson, Klein, Aschinger, Sippel and Ex-Officio Stone were present and Hughes was excuse and Mork Bredeson was absent. Staff present: Deputy Clerk Corl. Anderson duly noted a moment of silence for Gary Hughes son-in-law. 3. ADOPT AGENDA • Motion by Klein seconded by Aschinger to adopt the agenda. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES —November 10, 2004 Motion by Sippel seconded by Aschinger to approve the minutes for the Planning Commission Meeting November 10, 2004. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. 5. PLANNING COMMISSION a) Landscaping/Screening, Outdoor Sales, Storage in a Commercial District 1. Info From Previous Meetings Anderson stated we could discuss this now or move to table it for a joint meeting. Motion by Klein seconded Nelson to table the discussion on Landscaping/Screening, Outdoor Sales, and Storage in a Commercial District and refer it to a joint meeting with the Council. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. Sippel referred to the information provided in the packet and said he finds it • easier to edit rather than to compose and would like to see a proposed suggestion or objective. It was suggested to just review the two Planning Commission — 12/8/04 1 • recommendations from NAC. It was also noted the information provided was also showing the timeline history of discussions on the subject. Klein suggested each Commissioner go through the material and pick out pertinent information for discussion at a later date. Anderson agrees and a work session with the Council on this subject would be worthwhile. 6. COMMUNICATIONS The following communications were noted: a) Council Meeting Minutes— 11/4/04 Klein referred to page 4, item 3 and verified the solar study was for the Mist property. She referred to the critical time in December when the shadow extended over to Northern Avenue and asked if this meant all winter long. Stone said the winter solstice is the worst-case scenario and the shadow did not go across Northern just a part of it. She said actually there are three or four days that are the worst days. It was noted the Utility Superintendent would review the street conditions at that time of year to see if sanding would be needed. Beth verified the county document for the docks is just for information. Klein said she requested a copy. Klein noted the Council questions Norling's bills frequently. Stone said at one • time we were not getting monthly bills so when they did come an explanation was needed. She said the bills are now going to be done on a monthly basis and the Council is also receiving an itemized explanation of the bill. Stone added Goman is reviewing the bills before they are paid because he is out and about and can see what work is being done. b) Council Meeting Minutes - 11/15/04 Aschinger referred to the force main crossing at Sunset Drive into the middle of the road and asked if they going to have road closings. Stone said no and explained it made sense to do this when everything was dug up. She added after the project had started contamination was discovered and work had to be halted. Stone said the county said if the City is going into their right of way it has to be blacktopped, this is the end of the season and blacktop plants are closing. She said there is no contamination in that portion of the project. She demonstrated on the board the current angle and proposed angle of the force main showing the change made sense to move it. Aschinger said she thought they knew about the contaminated soil. Stone said they did not do soil borings in the street and the contamination seems to be on the south side. c) Budget Meeting Minutes— 11/16/04 d) Special Meeting Minutes— 11/23/04 • Aschinger noted there are many different fund sources for money. She added there seemed to be no estimates of new revenues mentioned in the minutes. She Planning Commission — 12/8/04 2 asked if there was a balance sheet, etc. Stone said the reason for the meeting was to discuss the financing the water tower and to also looking at the expense of Lift Station 6. She noted Williamson was insistent the situation is reviewed after the tower is constructed before any choice is made to increase fees. Aschinger referred to the missing TIF money and as a taxpayer she was interested and concerned and confident the Council had a greater understanding of the different funds and the City's financial situation than the minutes indicated. Anderson pointed out that unless a person is at the meeting you do not always get the full information and full meaning of what occurred. He added it is good to ask the questions being asked. Sippel asked why the meeting was on 11/23/04 to decide on paying for the water tower after construction started. He said he did not understand purchasing something and then decide how to pay for it. Stone said the Council was confident the City had the funds to pay for it; it was a matter of which terms would be used. She said they were waiting to see what the interest rates would be and their decision to wait was on the advise of the City's financial planner. 7. MISCELLANEOUS Stone noted this was her last Planning Commission Meeting and said she enjoyed working with the Commissioners. Likewise sentiments were expressed from the . Commissioners. 8. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Klein seconded by Aschinger to adjourn the meeting at 8:03 p.m. All votes were aye. Motion declared carried. SHARON CORL DEPUTY CLERK Planning Commission— 12/8/04 3