Loading...
2010 - Planning Commission - Agendas & Minutes CITY OF SPRING PARK SPRING PARK, MINNESOTA • AGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION January 13, 2010 7:00 P.M. - CITY HALL 1. CALL TO ORDER Pledge of Allegiance Swear In for new members 2. ROLL CALL 3. ADOPT AGENDA 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — December 9, 2009 5. PLANNING COMMISSION a) Demonstration — Dynamic Signs (Demonstration will be outside so dress for the weather) b) Application for Sign Permit — Bayside Floral — 4310 Shoreline Drive c) Plan Commission Training Session — January 30, 2010 — SouthShore Community Center • d) Amend Sign Ordinance — Discussion e) Amend Fence Ordinance - Discussion f) Future Items Commercial Storage Expansion of Non-conforming Uses 6. COMMUNICATIONS a) Council Meeting Minutes — December 7, 2009 b) Council Meeting Minutes — December 21, 2009 c) Council Meeting Minutes — January 4, 2010 d) Calendar 7. MISCELLANEOUS a) Parliamentary Procedures and Local Government in Minnesota b) Historical listing of variances and CUP's c) PC attendance, 2009 8. ADJOURNMENT Planning Commission Agenda — January 13, 2010 1 CITY OF SPRING PARK • SPRING PARK, MINNESOTA MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION January 13, 2010 7:00 P.M. - CITY HALL 1. CALL TO ORDER — Chair Hughes called the meeting to order at 7:OOPM Pledge of Allegiance 2. ROLL CALL — Struck, Hughes, Hoffman, Mason, Erickson, Ericson, (Neve excused), Council member Widmer, Mayor Reinhardt, Council member Sippel, Administrator Brimeyer, Planner Brixus. Administrator Brimeyer administers Oath of Office to Erickson and Ericson. 3. ADOPT AGENDA — Mason makes a motion and Hoffman seconds to adopt the agenda. All votes ayes, motion carries. 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — November 12, 2009 —Hoffman makes a motion and Struck seconds to approve the minutes. All votes in favor, motion carries. PLANNING COMMISSION a) Dynamic Signs b) Hughes introduces Adam Skare from Daktronics (report from Daktronics attached to minutes) Audience members include Denise Young, John Booth and Mark Pleghaar. Saari provides information on dynamic, digital signs and advises that this type of sign can help businesses advertise and grow without being a nuisance. He said in the electronics area, this type of sign has red, blue and green as basic colors and uses LED, Light Emitting Diodes, to display the message. The clarity of the signs is dependent on the number of pixels from a width and height perspective. He said the signs are very energy efficient because of how they cluster the lighting. The brightness can be controlled as well as the length and color of the message and the community can set the limits. Saari said there are three methods of dimming, photo cell, timed and manual. He said they use foot candle as a measure and not to exceed .3 foot candles. Many cities in the area are rewriting their sign codes and have a preference to regulating brightness by how much additional lighting is being emitted. Saari further explained some of the concerns are flashing, animation, esthetics, impact on safety, i. e., traffic. He said definitions of Activity on the signs include: Animation — creates a scene Video — same as animation, but appears to be live Motion — quick changing of frames Hughes asked about industry standards and Saari said there are standards among the major nufacturers. Saari suggests any code language should deal with signs in residential areas, sigh travel corridors and high travel areas. He said dimming requirements are tied to the .3 foot candle limit Plan. Comm. Minutes — January 13, 2010 1 Saari said the community can benefit from an increase in the tax base, increased competitive advantage for local businesses, reduced liability, public service announcements, less clutter— fewer• number of signs. He said dynamic signs have a longer life span. Response to a question — cost is 20K and higher All installations are computer driven in operations Ericson inquiry— Minnetonka signs change every 20 minutes Hughes inquiry— operating costs vs interior lighted sign are 15-20 time cheaper for dynamic signs. The newer signs are reaching higher degrees of clarity at almost double the older signs. Ericson inquiry — not currently possible to upgrade an existing sign and the life cycle is about 15 years. Commissioners recessed to the parking lot for a sign demo — very helpful and bright, at times...... Inquiry — smallest is 1' X 5'; largest in Texas stadium 80' X 130' Planner Brixius referred to LMC info and guidelines, SRF findings on traffic impact and emphasized the need for ease of enforcement. Suggested they be treated as pylon, not wall, signs and the maximum of the allowed 200 sq ft should be reduced. Further suggested that height and location would be the same as allowed currently, auto dimming, with a foot candle measurement at the property line, is recommended and they should be done in relationship to the city's streetscape plans. Hughes inquiry — major manufacturers (3) have auto dimming. Animation and video are discouraged. Mason inquiry— would be an amendment to the existing code, not a total revision of the sign code. Issue to be discussed at the February meeting. Struck indicated her lack of enthusiasm for dynamic signs and said any changes should comply with the sign ordinance and the Statement of Purpose. New signs should fit the standards defined by the• Comprehensive Plan and fit with Spring Park as a "quaint lake community". She encouraged all commission members to determine in their minds how this type of sign would fit with the Comp Plan. Ericson inquiry - if someone applies at this time, the moratorium is in effect. The current city code has no provision for architectural standards for signs, or anything else, for that matter. Hoffman indicated the commission needs to look to the future and how these signs would fit with the community. Mason indicated a need to regulate the colors preferred and to do something that is business friendly. Sign application from Bayside Floral Denise Young suggested she may be interested in modifying her request to ask for only one main sign and delay the application for the other signs. Hughes suggested that she could get a permit for two signs at the present time and ask for a variance for a third sign at a later time. He also suggested she could ask to postpone action until she could redesign the entire sign and bring it back to a future meeting. The property is allowed a maximum of two signs under the existing ordinance. Mason suggested a redesign that incorporates all three messages into one sign. Brixius offered that this could be a viable option. Hoffman moved and Mason seconded to table this request to the Plan Commission meeting in February for further consideration. Passed unanimously. Other discussion • Commissioners requested that photos be required in all future applications. Plan. Comm. Minutes — January 13, 2010 2 Iers of multi-tenant buildings should be required to submit a "master plan" for all signs on their erty. Staff to provide Planner's report on dynamic signs to all commissioners Staff to provide "variance history" to all commissioners. Adjourned at 9:04:20 James Brimeyer i Plan. Comm. Minutes — January 13, 2010 3 CITY OF SPRING PARK • SPRING PARK, MINNESOTA AGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION February 10, 2010 7:00 P.M. - CITY HALL 1. CALL TO ORDER Pledge of Allegiance 2. ROLL CALL 3. ADOPT AGENDA 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — January 13, 2010 5. PLANNING COMMISSION a) Application for Sign Permit (amended) — Bayside Floral —4310 Shoreline Drive b) Application for Sign Permit — Tonka Auto and Marine —4636 Shoreline Drive • c) Application for Extension of CUP — Linders Gardens at Marine Shopping Center d) Non-resident Plan Commission members — Discussion (See Study Session minutes of Jan 25, 2010) e) Amendments to the Sign Ordinance — Discussion and Recommendations f) Future Items Commercial Storage Expansion of Non-conforming Uses 6. COMMUNICATIONS a) Council Meeting Minutes — January 19, 2010 b) Council Meeting Study Session Minutes — January 25, 2010 c) Council Meeting Minutes — February 1, 2010 (potentially not prepared and therefore not included) 7. MISCELLANEOUS a) Historical listing of variances and CUP's b) PC Roster - 2010 c) Thank you Letter to Dynamic Sign Presenter d) March Calendar ADJOURNMENT Planning Commission Agenda — February 10, 2010 1 CITY OF SPRING PARK SPRING PARK, MINNESOTA ' MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION February 10, 2010 7:00 P.M. - CITY HALL 1. CALL TO ORDER Hughes calls the meeting to order at 7:06 p.m. Pledge of Allegiance 2. ROLL CALL Ericson, Hughes, Hoffman, Mason, Struck, Council Ex-officio Alternate Sippel, Planner Brixius, Clerk Lewin, sign applicants Denise Young and Kelli Gillespie. Steve Erickson excused, Neve excused. 3. ADOPT AGENDA Ericson makes a motion and Mason seconds to adopt the agenda. All votes ayes, motion carries. 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — January 13, 2010 Mason makes a motion and Struck seconds to approve the minutes. All votes ayes, motion carries. 5. PLANNING COMMISSION a) Application for Sign Permit (amended) — Bayside Floral —4310 Shoreline Drive �hes looking for a motion to bring this item back from being tabled at the January meeting. Hoffman makes a motion and Mason seconds to revisit the tabled application. All votes ayes, motion carries. Hughes said they are back to the original application for discussion. Brixius stated Bayside Floral is asking for signage at 4310 Shoreline Drive. Brixius said the configuration of the building is a three sided facade. He said the larger sign is being proposed for over the door and two smaller signs would parallel. Brixius said the proposed size of the signage is consistent with the terms set out in the C-1 district. Brixius said a variance was requested for the three signs after it was recommended to deny the three sign application. Brixius said the applicant is claiming a unique layout that is not typical with other signage in the area. Brixius stated alternative ways were identified without a variance; one being a hinged signed wrapped and counted as one signage. Brixius said the PC will have to make a determination if the criteria fits for variance. He said recognition of the building configuration is a consideration and the orientation to the intersection. Brixius is concerned that other buildings may attempt to duplicate the three sided facade in order to get signage. Hughes said he doesn't feel they are dealing with a variance tonight. He said the variance would go directly to the city council versus the PC making any variance decisions. Hughes said the PC should decide on the sign application and if the applicant wants to pursue this, it would have to go to the city council for their review. Hughes said past practice is other buildings within the city have three signs. Brixius feels the PC can make a decision on the application but they should explain why they are varying from the ordinance. Brixius said the application is for three signs and that is not allowed according to the ordinance. Hughes states he is concerned with the inconsistency of the code interpretation because of other businesses having only one frontage and having signs on three sides. Ohes said the PC could approve two signs and, if the applicant still wished to pursue the third sign, applicant would have to appeal to the city council. Ericson asked how much more square footage are they looking at to accomplish a combined sign. Brixius thought about double. Brixius said he Planning Commission Minutes — February 10, 2010 1 understands the material being proposed is precut and he understands the desire of the applicant but the ordinance states two signs are allowed. Hughes asked the applicant (Young) if she wants the hree signs and Young stated yes. Mason asked about previous signage. Young said it was two 4x8 feet across. She said there was a seam and it never looked very good. Young said that sign was existing when she purchased the business. Hughes asked about the Teleflora sign and Young said it's a special occasion type sign. Mason asked about the proposed two signs that are more messages than signs and he wonders why she wouldn't put those in the windows. Young said it's the visibility. She said they've rebranded the Just Because... and she said feedback has been that customers don't know where they are. Struck said she would be in favor of the three signs because of the situation on the property. She referred to Certified Auto and the shape of their building and they had a third sign grandfathered in because of the uniqueness of the building. She thinks the same applies here. Struck said she believes Young is improving the look. She said she thought the signage was informative and a positive message. Struck understands the displays in the windows are very nice and it wouldn't be good to cover up the windows with more signs. Struck referred to Brixius's memo and feels there is a unique circumstance. Brixius said he is impressed with the amount of sign requests that have come before the PC recently. He said it just points to how the sign ordinance needs to be reviewed and if the PC thinks something like this application would be allowed in the future, it makes sense to approve it now. Mason asked about the two messages and wonders if they are big enough to read. Young states the sign designer assures her it will be readable. Struck makes a motion and Ericson seconds to recommend approval of the three signs due to the uniqueness of the building and the fact that other businesses have been allowed more than two signs. Hughes states if they're approving all three 0ns, it's said and done. If they don't approve all three, Young has the option to pursue the variance process and appeal to the city council. Roll call vote is unanimous yes. Brixius suggests the motion include the reason for the approval is based on uniqueness of the site, the setbacks and visibility. Motion carries. b) Application for Sign Permit — Tonka Auto and Marine — 4636 Shoreline Drive Brixius said a sign was approved at the front of the building and there is a second sign installed without a permit. Brixius stated the city allows a directional sign but this present sign exceeded the size allowable. Brimeyer directed the sign be removed or reduced in size. Brixius stated this sign is located on the side of the building where the actual service is being provided. Brixius said the sign is within the allowable limits compared to the silhouette. Brixius said the report states it had limited visibility but it is more visible now. Brixius said the previous sign on the front was based upon the frontage of the building. Applicant Gillespie explained the sign was put in place without her knowledge. She said it was placed below grade and they are looking to move the sign up. Brixius said the circumstances are if this had gone through the process it would be questionable based upon the location. Gillespie said she thought they were allowed two signs. Brixius reads from the ordinance stating two signs are allowed but they need to be placed on different frontage. Brixius said since they only have one frontage both signs would need to be placed on the same frontage. Brixius said he would really like the Planning Commission to review this and address the number of signs and what's allowable. Struck asked Gillespie if customers go in the back of the building. Gillespie said the problem is 10stomers don't understand they are capable of providing the type of service they provide because le building looks small. Struck said she thinks this looks like three small signs put together. Gillespie said the sign was purchased from Craig's List and it was one long sign but they cut it into Planning Commission Minutes — February 10, 2010 2 three parts and stacked them together. Mason asked about a pylon sign. Gillespie said they are ex loring a pylon sign but it's not affordable right now. Struck asked how long the sign has been in and wonders if it's helped. Gillespie said it's been up since January and she thinks it's helped. son said he thinks it would be nice to have a more permanent plan for signage. Gillespie said they are working towards that goal. Hughes said he thinks the sign violates graphical layout. It's not centered, it's not justified, it's just pasted up on the wall. He said he thinks the sign looks junky. He said if we're looking for the City to look nice, he thinks this sign is unattractive. Brixius said he wonders if this shouldn't be postponed and have Gillespie show how it can be improved. Ericson asked if they are within the square footage allowable and Brixius confirmed. Brixius asked the applicant to present a more complete application with proposed changes illustrated. Brixius said this is a permit after-the-fact. He said the PC can recommend approval or denial or it can be continued until next month and show an updated illustration. Hoffman makes a motion to table the application until the next meeting. Ericson seconds. Struck said she is not in favor of this. She said when it comes up next month she probably still won't be in favor of this. Brixius said they are looking for how the sign will fit on the building. Struck wants to make this clear that they are not saying okay to this sign if they come back with a redesigned sign. All votes ayes, motion carries. Hughes said this is a perfect example of a new business coming into town and what is the sign plan as they grow and what is the goal. Brixius said the PC needs to look closely at C1 and C2 and he said he can see how there are misinterpretations of the code right now. He said it needs to be cleaned up. He said the second thing that is needed in the code is multi-tenant and the landlord should come in with a sign plan. Brixius states the lease signer then knows the guidelines before they sign the lease. c) Application for Extension of CUP — Linders Gardens at Marine Shopping Center ius said last year a conditional use permit was approved. He said generally a CUP runs for one y ar and Linder's would like to reestablish. He said rather than going through a public hearing and preprocessing everything, since they are reapplying within the twelve month time frame they felt the PC should be able to review this request. Struck said when this went in, she was surprised how close it ended up being to Shoreline Drive. She wondered if someone ever checked on where this structure was placed. Hughes said it was checked. Hughes said there was a lot of thought that went into the placement of the structure to not inhibit parking flow. Hughes said the only difference is they are looking for gate placement on the north side and Hughes states he would prefer the gate is kept in the same location as it was last year. He said they really want to avoid a loading zone on the north side because of the fear of congestion immediately off County Road 15. Hughes refers to the suggestion of looking at a seasonal CUP so that a new CUP does not have to be reprocessed every year. Hughes recommends approval except for the request for the gate on the north side. Hoffman feels it's safer to have the gate remain on the western side. Hoffman said they were worried about blocking traffic from Shoreline Drive. Hughes wonders if they should be allowed to try this and see what works. Brixius said he thinks this could create a problem by parking congestion on the north side. Mason believes it's better to have the entrance gate further from Shoreline Drive because drivers tend to pull in hard and fast. Hughes said last year the CUP process was followed. Brixius said we don't have a temporary seasonal sales permit. He said if the permit has been approved and it's not been utilized for a year, it expires. He said as long as this hasn't lapsed and nothing changes, they are just asking the PC to continue the CUP. Hughes asked if a CUP was granted previously to the hardware store on a yearly basis. Brixius said he can't remember Wthat application was processed. Brixius said under the conditions, everything was appropriate. said the CUP does not lapse unless it expires. Ericson wants to see a certificate of insurance provided each year. Struck asked about sale signage. Brixius stated there was a sign plan from last year. Hughes said as part of the sign, we should request a sign schedule. Hughes would like to vote Planning Commission Minutes — February 10, 2010 3 conceptually to conform to all of last year's standards. Hoffman makes a motion to approve the application for Linder's based upon last year's application. Struck seconds. This will be recommended to the council. All votes ayes, motion carries. •Non-resident Plan Commission members — Discussion (See Study Session minutes of Jan 25, 2010) Ericson thinks it should be a resident of the community. He thinks even a business owner shouldn't be allowed to serve as their interests might be strictly business related and not have the best interest of the residents. Hughes said when the comprehensive plan was under review a few business owners offered valuable input. Struck said she thinks they can provide valuable insight but she doesn't think a non resident should be part of a decision making process. She wonders if we're having difficulty finding members, thought should be given to reducing the number of commissioners. Hughes thinks it would be difficult to find someone who would be willing to sit on the PC and not have a voting voice. Struck said she is not in favor of a non voting advisory person. She said everyone has a different communication style and she is concerned about an outside person influencing the vote. Hughes recommends maintaining the status quo. e) Amendments to the Sign Ordinance — Discussion and Recommendations Hughes wonders if the PC would be interested in holding a work session where there is an agenda and discuss the signs in order to get this thing moving. Hughes thinks a consensus needs to be reached about dynamic signs and then to move forward from there. Hughes would like a full commission present. Ericson will be gone in March and maybe April. Ericson said he doesn't have a problem with dynamic signage and he doesn't have a problem with a reader board but he does have a problem with a constant flipping of words. He said the shopping center and the Yacht Club are tastefully done and he's okay with that. Hughes said to be discussed is do we want to allow dynamic signs, if so, where can they be and what are the operational standards. Hughes said he would like to ow them but to be very restrictive. Struck feels there has been a lot of discussion on the dynamic igns but she feels the entire ordinance needs to be examined and she feels it should be driven by the comprehensive plan. Struck would like to move this forward. Brixius said one thing he thinks the PC has over staff versus council is if they find something unattractive, they can say it. Hughes wants to re-examine temporary signage as it's gotten out-of-hand. Hughes is looking to set a date. February 24th, 7 p.m. Lewin will send out a reminder letter to all commissioners. f) Future Items Commercial Storage Expansion of Non-conforming Uses Hughes said fences got dropped and should be re-added. Hughes would like to have an in-depth discussion with the council at a work shop before the fence or commercial storage is taken on. He wants direction from the council and what they see as the problems. Brixius thinks it's a good idea to go to the council for their thoughts on this subject. 6. COMMUNICATIONS a) Council Meeting Minutes — January 19, 2010 b) Council Meeting Study Session Minutes — January 25, 2010 c) Council Meeting Minutes — February 1, 2010 (potentially not prepared and therefore not included) 7. MISCELLANEOUS � a) Historical listing of variances and CUP's ghes said this was what was requested previously and it's good history to review. b) PC Roster - 2010 Planning Commission Minutes — February 10, 2010 4 c) Thank you Letter to Dynamic Sign Presenter �d) March Calendar Mason said when discussing signs they can bring up parking and landscaping as well. He said these things can be asked of the applicant. He said it's an opportunity that should be used. Brixius said it can be discussed but it can't be a condition of approval. Brixius said a condition cannot be tied to the request. 8. ADJOURNMENT Mason makes a motion and Struck seconds to adjourn at 8:59 p.m. All votes ayes, motion carries. Wendy Lewin, City Clerk • Planning Commission Minutes — February 10, 2010 5 CITY OF SPRING PARK SPRING PARK, MINNESOTA • MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION February 24, 2010 7:00 P.M. - CITY HALL 1. Call to Order— Hughes calls the meeting to order 2. Roll Call — Hughes, Erickson, Mason, Hoffman, Struck, Sippel, Brixius, Lewin. Neve absent and Ericson excused. 3. Adopt Agenda — Erickson/Hoffman *** 4. Planning Commission — Hughes said he's going to defer to Brixius to conduct the meeting tonight. Brixius suggests we go through the slide show of Spring Park signs. Brixius thanks Hughes for the sign inventory in Spring Park in order to identify what we are looking for. a. Dynamic Signs, computerized, automatic or message board is considered dynamic. Anything that doesn't require manual changes of the lettering. Brixius said there is an analysis that needs to be considered and also includes League's language. He also attached a model ordinance from the City of Delano that was recently adopted. Brixius said he prepared a check list for dynamic signage. Hughes said he's in favor of dynamic signs with restrictions. Mason said he's also in favor but in a limited form. Erickson said he thinks they Ore okay but size needs to be restricted. Hoffman states he is also in favor of them. Struck said she's not in favor unless the gas station sign counts. Brixius said a distinction can be made from flashing signs. Sippel said he was opposed to them prior to the presentation. He said if it can reduce clutter and minimize the temporary signs and outright ban the portable changeable signs, he is for them. He thinks monochromatic versus full color needs to be discussed. He thinks muted signage is more appropriate. Struck said she might feel better about this signage as things re worked out, especially when it comes to design standards. She feels the sign project feels disconnected from the comprehensive plan and she feels dynamic signs wouldn't correspond with a quaint lake community. Brixius said most ordinances don't have design elements for signs. He said they talk about number, size, location and type but they don't get specific about materials and design features. He said he will continue to research this. Signs are difficult because there is First Amendment protection. Hoffman really likes the idea of minimizing the number of temporary signs if they use dynamic signs only. Most are in agreement for dynamic signs in C districts. Struck doesn't like the idea of dynamic signs being allowed in parks however. Brixius said it could be spelled out that city hall could be exempt and allowed dynamic signage. Number of signs for dynamic signs would be one per property. Different PID numbers are treated as different properties. Hoffman thinks it should be regulated to a building or a business. Brixius asks if dynamic signs should be allowed in the R-3 district. Erickson said he thinks R-3's are okay but very restrictive in size. Brixius said it could be where they are tested in the c-districts and go from there. Most PC's are in favor of both wall and free standing dynamic signs. They would also like to see them limited to 50 square feet in size. Planning Commission Agenda — February 10, 2010 1 Hoffman wonders if a 50 sf sign would be big enough for the shopping center. Brixius said on multi tenant buildings, ten or greater such as, there can be more flexibility stated. It's decided 5 sf sign is large enough and 50 sf is too big. Brixius said the current language for sign eight can be kept. City will require message to change from static to static and hold times to be five minutes and automatic dimming. Sippel is only in favor of monochromatic as opposed to multi-colored. Brixius asked about window dynamic signs. Brixius thinks they should be prohibited. b. Temporary Signs — requires permit, how long, how many, size and location? Lord Fletcher's Restaurant is one business that has multiple temporary signs throughout the year and depends on the signage. There needs to be a compliment between temporary signage and business promotion. Struck thinks the framework should be developed for temporary signs but keep LF in mind while developing it. Sippel is in favor of policy goals without getting specific. Brixius says for PC'ers to look over the drafted language for temp signs and discuss changes they would like to see to this ordinance. Brixius suggests this language be sent to LF for their input. Tell them it's a rough ordinance and these are discussion items and we seek his thoughts on this. Hughes wants to encourage them to get a permanent changeable sign cabinet instead of hanging banners on fences. Businesses should be invited but to a work session, not a regular meeting. Meeting adjourned at 9:15 p.m. c. Other Sign Issues (Discuss Ordinance — District Sign Standards, Multi Tenant Building Sign Standards, Sign Ordinance Aesthetics) i Planning Commission Agenda — February 10, 2010 2 CITY OF SPRING PARK • SPRING PARK, MINNESOTA AGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION March 10, 2010 7:00 P.M. - CITY HALL 1 . CALL TO ORDER Pledge of Allegiance 2. ROLL CALL 3. ADOPT AGENDA 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — February 10, 2010 APPROVAL OF MINUTES — February 24, 2010 5. PLANNING COMMISSION a) Application for Sign Permit —Tonka Auto and Marine — 4636 Shoreline Drive • (continued from 2/10/10 meeting) b) Amendments to the Sign Ordinance — Discussion and Recommendations a. Dynamic Signs — Report and Ordinance attached b. Sign Ordinance considerations (Bring information from 2/24 Session) f) Future Items Fences Commercial Storage Expansion of Non-conforming Uses 6. COMMUNICATIONS a) Council Meeting Minutes — February 1, 2010 b) Council Meeting Minutes — March 1, 2010 c) Resolution — Bayside Floral 7. MISCELLANEOUS 8. ADJOURNMENT 0 Planning Commission Agenda — February 10, 2010 1 CITY OF SPRING PARK SPRING PARK, MN MINUTES • PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 10, 2010 7 PM — CITY HALL 1. CALL TO ORDER Hughes calls the meeting to order at 7 p.m. Pledge of Allegiance 2. ROLL CALL Erickson, Hughes, Hoffman, Mason, Neve, Struck, Council Ex-officio Widmer, Planner Brixius, Clerk Lewin, Administrator Brimeyer, sign applicant Kelli Gillespie. John Ericson excused. 3. ADOPT AGENDA - Erickson makes a motion and Mason seconds to adopt the agenda. All votes ayes, motion carries. 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — February 10, 2010 - Mason makes a motion and Struck seconds to approve the minutes. All votes ayes, motion carries. APPROVAL OF WORK SESSION MINUTES — February 24, 2010 - Hoffman makes a motion and Erickson seconds to approve the minutes. All votes ayes, motion carries. 5. PLANNING COMMISSION a) Application for Sign Permit — Tonka Auto and Marine — 4636 Shoreline Drive (continued from 2/10/10 meeting) offman makes a motion to bring back Tonka Auto and Marine's previously tabled sign equest. Mason seconds. All votes ayes, motion carries. Brixius explained this is being brought back in order to determine if the sign request should be considered. Brixius explained that Gillespie feels the description of the word frontage can be interpreted as meaning frontage is anything facing outwardly. Brixius read the definition of frontage and feels it is more specific. He said the term frontage has always been consistent with the zoning ordinance and the same interpretation would apply to signs. He said with that respect, the sign as presented would require a variance. Brixius said when looking at Bayside Floral's application it was determined that because of the unique three sided frontage, a variance would be necessary. Gillespie said she knows of two other businesses in the city that have signs on other frontages. Brixius said he doesn't have any history on these signs so he can't comment on those. He said they are legal non-conforming and he is unaware when those signs were granted. Brimeyer said Certified Auto has grandfathered signage. Hoffman asked about the variance process. Brixius explained a variance application can be filed and it comes to the PC and they make a recommendation to the council. Hoffman asked if a variance can be acted upon tonight. Brixius said it can be brought up tonight but it's merely as a recommendation to the council. Brimeyer said Gillespie argues the east side is frontage and the city argues it isn't. Brimeyer said the sign could be considered informational but then the size of the proposed sign is too large. Brimeyer thinks the variance should speak to asking for a change in the size of the informational signage. trixius explained this sign was originally installed without a permit. He stated he thought it was a usiness sign because of the location and size of the sign installed. Brimeyer said if they change this to an informational sign, it still requires a variance no matter what. Struck asked if a smaller sign MINUTES — PLANNING COMMISSION — MARCH 10, 2010 1 could be considered that would be less than the cost of a variance and Gillespie said no. Neve asked why they didn't place the sign all the way up and Gillespie said it's too high. She said it would be very risky to hang that sign. rimeyer said when the sign went up some trees were trimmed and a couple of sections of fence were removed in order to view the signs. Neve asked about projecting the signs off the side of the building. Brixius said this has become an unfortunate situation as the sign was put up without the applicant's knowledge and now it's difficult to try and straighten this out. Erickson said so this is almost like a business sign because Gillespie said they have found customers have trouble finding them. Erickson wants to make it clear that an informational sign is only allowed to be 10 square feet and this request is substantially larger than that, therefore requiring a variance. Hughes looks for a positive motion. Mason makes a motion to approve the sign. Hoffman seconds. Struck said if this is agreed to there is a precedent being set. She said reasons in the past have been reasonable. She said if there are always exceptions being made, it is then an ordinance issue. Struck said she sympathizes with the fact that the building is difficult to see. She said if this hadn't been put up, she could see the sympathetic need for this signage but she is concerned about the way it was placed without a permit and she feels the sign is unattractive. Mason thinks this was shoved at the PC and they didn't have an opportunity to help this person along in the process. Rollcall vote is Erickson, no; Neve, yes; Struck, yes; Hughes, no; Hoffman, yes, Mason, yes. The Planner asked the commission for their thoughts on the hardship issue in order for him to prepare a resolution for the Council to consider. Neve thinks the property is unique and it is difficult to see the building, especially with all the trees. He thinks signage helps identify a property. Neve said he knows these business owners are trying. He doesn't agree on setting a precedent. Given the fact that the Blue Lagoon and other businesses mWave similar situations and signage on other frontages, he thinks this is fair. Brixius said he thinks eve has well put these arguments for granting the variance. Hoffman said he doesn't feel they are extending any rights beyond what other businesses in the area are already granted. Struck said she wasn't planning on voting for this but after driving by the building, she is more sensitive to the need for the signage. Struck thinks this business needs the same opportunities as others are allowed and we should be sensitive to the economic times. Hughes said he likes the newly proposed layout better than before. Mason said most businesses have exposure to what they do such as the Blue Lagoon has boats and Dock and Lift has lifts. Mason said to Gillespie that previously discussed items for sale should be set back further from the road. Brixius recites what will be presented to the council for variance pur oses in the form of hardship. Brimeyer said this has to go to the council, it won't make it to March 15t council meeting so it will have to go to April 5th council meeting and that nothing further should happen on this sign until after that meeting. Brimeyer clarified that he doesn't want to see this sign lighted in the future. b) Amendments to the Sign Ordinance — Discussion and Recommendations a. Dynamic Signs — Report and Ordinance attached b. Sign Ordinance considerations (Bring information from 2/24 Session) Dynamic Signs — Brixius walks the PC through the proposed language. Brixius has concerns about multiple tenant buildings. He is proposing one sign for all multiple tenant buildings. Hughes said if this is passed, a letter should be sent to property owners who have multiple tenants informing them only one dynamic sign will be allowed. Oughes questions definitions and wants "scrolling" added. Under Dynamic sign definition he thinks remodeling the sign really requires a new sign application. Struck wonders about deleting the MINUTES — PLANNING COMMISSION — MARCH 10, 2010 2 language "sign structure itself' and say something like sign display. Brimeyer said the definition needs to be taken as a whole not in parts. Brixius wants to keep the definition broad versus narrow. Struck wonders if it should be stated the sign is electronic. eneral Provisions — Hughes said we use the terms pylon, monument and free standing and he inks it needs to be described. Al said he'll add that. Hoffman wonders about the argument for a wall sign. Brixius said when there are multiple tenants it can limit the sign to one business. He said if it's free standing there is likely to be more input and sharing of the sign. It's decided that wall signs should not be allowed for the time being. There is a question about businesses being divided by a road when limiting one dynamic sign per property, such as Rockvam Boatyards. Struck asked about temporary dynamic signs. Brixius said off-premise signs are not allowed other than benches and dynamic temporary signs would not be allowed. Brixius asked about working through temporary signs and wondered about a study session in the future. Mason said he thinks when it comes to temporary signs, there should be a sign plan designated for multiple tenant property and he thinks a business directory is important. He thinks if there is an annual requirement for businesses to report to the city and present a sign plan to the city of temporary signage. c) Future Items Fences Commercial Storage Expansion of Non-conforming Uses Future Items — Brixius said these items stay on the agenda so it doesn't get forgotten. When time allows, the hope is to work on these. �. COMMUNICATIONS a) Council Meeting Minutes — February 1, 2010 b) Council Meeting Minutes — March 1, 2010 c) Resolution — Bayside Floral Hughes thinks if there is nothing on April's agenda, the April meeting could be used as a work shop. Struck said she would be in favor of a work shop in May. 7. MISCELLANEOUS 8. ADJOURNMENT — Hoffman makes a motion and Neve seconds to adjourn at 8:55 p.m. All votes ayes, motion carries. Wendy Lewin, City Clerk Jim Brimeyer, Administrator 0 MINUTES — PLANNING COMMISSION — MARCH 10, 2010 3 CITY OF SPRING PARK SPRING PARK, MINNESOTA • AGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION April 14, 2010 7:00 P.M. - CITY HALL 1. CALL TO ORDER Pledge of Allegiance 2. ROLL CALL 3. ADOPT AGENDA 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — March 10, 2010 5. PLANNING COMMISSION a) Public Hearing — Dynamic Signs Close Public Hearing b) Amendments to the Sign Ordinance — Discussion and Recommendations 1. Sign Code Changes i. Temp Signs ii. Square Footage • iii. Other items from 2/24 Meeting c) Comp Plan Zoning Changes d) Landscape Plan for 2010 e) Amendment to ordinance relating to Plan Commission e) Future Items Fences Commercial Storage Expansion of Non-conforming Uses 6. COMMUNICATIONS a) Council Meeting Minutes — March 15, 2010 b) Council Study Session Meeting Minutes — March 22, 2010 c) Council Meeting Minutes — April 5, 2010 7. MISCELLANEOUS a) Update — Tonka Auto and Marine b) Emerald Ash Borer • 8. ADJOURNMENT Planning Commission Agenda — April 14, 2010 1 CITY OF SPRING PARK SPRING PARK, MINNESOTA MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION • April 14, 2010 7:00 P.M. - CITY HALL 1. CALL TO ORDER Pledge of Allegiance 2. ROLL CALL — Ericson, Neve, Hughes, Hoffman, Mason, Struck. Erickson excused. Administrator Brimeyer, Clerk Lewin, Ex Officio Widmer and Planner Brixius. No one from the public in attendance for the public hearing. 3. ADOPT AGENDA — Hoffman makes a motion and Mason seconds to adopt the agenda. All votes ayes, motion carries. 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — March 10, 2010 — Mason makes a motion and Hoffman seconds to adopt the agenda. All votes ayes, motion carries. 5. PLANNING COMMISSION a) Public Hearing — Dynamic Signs — Hughes opened the public hearing at 7.02 p.m. — Lewin said one business owner came to City Hall during the day to ask about the hearing. She said it was explained to Bill Townsend of the BP station that the city was looking at allowing dynamic signs but controlling the signs in terms of brightness and timing. Hughes asked about the lottery sign currently displayed in the BP station's window. Brixius • stated it's difficult to regulate as it's in the window and the lottery changes routinely. Hughes talked about a flashing "open" sign he observed in Orono. Brixius said we shouldn't get into regulating content and we already have an ordinance that doesn't allow flashing signs so this type of sign wouldn't be allowed in our city. Brimeyer said he got an e-mail from the Mayor raising some questions. She wondered about the square footage allowed and Brixius said there is currently a cap in the P (Public) district for 24 square feet and it is stated in the proposed ordinance that it depends on the district. Hughes said he had a council member call him after he read the ordinance and there was a concern about exempting city government. What if - in five years from now there was a potential for a community bulletin board sign at CR's15 and 51 . Brixius said there is ordinance language regarding community billboards and it would have to be modified somewhat. He said they can always add other language to address other needs. Ericson said he's wondering about real estate signs in a residential district. Brixius said the only thing being talked about right now is dynamic signs and the PC can address that later. Brixius said dynamic signs would not be allowed in a residential district. Struck said she would like further discussion on Section 3. Brixius said this is a separate zoning district and this is for the P district so that section is different. Struck asked about the accessory sign. Brixius said dynamic signs should only be on site with principal buildings to prevent signs showing up at parks. Close Public Hearing Hoffman makes a motion to close the public hearing at 7:15 p.m. and Struck seconds. All votes ayes, motion carries. Hughes directs the PC to discuss adopting the ordinance draft dated • March 3, 2010 and refer it on to the City Council for their review. Struck refers to Section 2, 8 about malfunctioning signs. Struck said she was thinking about the person that doesn't comply with what Planning Commission Minutes — April 14, 2010 1 has been set forth. She wonders about enforcement. Brixius said he wouldn't mind adding `if it malfunctions or is operating in violation of this code, it would be considered a nuisance and stipulate sanctions for that'. Struck said if someone violates or doesn't comply she wonders what the sanction would be. Brimeyer said it takes a while because of due process. Brixius said maybe something should be stated that if it's deemed a nuisance, a fine is rendered and the sign is shut off immediately. Mason asked about escrowing funds at sign application for sign abuses. Hughes said he thinks a notification is necessary and giving the owner a chance to correct the malfunction first. Struck said it's been discussed previously that there isn't a way to enforce. She wondered about Mnspect conducting inspections and she doesn't want this enforcement process lost. Brixius said zoning is established by state statute and can be considered a misdemeanor crime. He said it's time- consuming and a headache. He said a number of cities have gone to administrative fines but they should be classified as nuisances in order to enforce. Brixius said administrative fines for zoning issues can be difficult because it's governed by state statute. Struck asked about section 2, wall signs and frontage. Brixius said that is current language. Hoffman makes a motion to recommend to the council approval of the dynamic sign ordinance including the amendment to #8 adding that continued operating in violation of code being declared a nuisance. Ericson seconds. All votes ayes, motion carries unanimously. b) Amendments to the Sign Ordinance — Discussion and Recommendations 1. Sign Code Changes i. Temp Signs Brixius liked working off the suggested checklist. Brixius said he put together a draft ordinance and he said the current ordinance reads that a temporary sign can run for 30 days and there can be as many as they want. He said a permit is still necessary but location, size, number and duration needs to be listed and identified, including a start date and end date. He said it was discussed that multiple • events such as Lord Fletcher's could be applied for on a one-time basis. Brixius said there should be a time frame of 10 days ahead of the event and there should be an appropriate fee charged. As far as location, Brixius said bus benches are the only off site signs allowed. As far as setbacks, Brixius said in the past, temp signs have been attached to fences, walls and trees. Brixius asks about limits to temporary signage and the number of signs allowed. Hoffman objects to vinyl temporary signs and wheeled signs and he thinks they are unattractive. He thinks temporary signs should be a means to a permanent sign. Struck said temporary should mean temporary. Brixius said the number of temporary signs is not restricted per property. Hoffman wonders about a temporary sign until a permanent sign is put in place and Brimeyer said not everyone wants a permanent sign for everything. Discussion about the amount of signs allowed in a year and perhaps four signs per year for a total of 90 days is suggested. Property owners that have multiple tenants need to inform their tenants about the temporary nature and limitations to signs. Hoffman asked for clarification of duration of temporary signs of three 30 days with a 90 day maximum per year or six 15 day signs could be allowed. Hoffman thinks one sign per permit should be allowed and Struck agrees. Number of signs per property will be dictated by multi tenant. Brimeyer thinks one per property at any given time. ii. Square Footage Brixius asked about maximum size. He suggests 32 square feet. Hughes is for making them small. Struck thinks 25 square feet is a maximum. Brixius is talking about the total size of the sign, not just the lettering. It's agreed that 24 square feet is reasonable. Neve wondered about maximum height and width. He said setbacks for ingress and egress will have to be observed for site lines. Brixius asked about portable signage with changeable lettering on wheels and the general agreement is they • should be prohibited. Hughes wonders if there should be a higher charge for the wheeled signage. Brixius said the fee needs to be related to administrative charges. Planning Commission Minutes — April 14, 2010 2 Brixius asked about non profit or charitable events. He said they'd have to demonstrate they were non profit, have permission from the property owner and be limited. He said it isn't counted against the permanent tenant's allowance for signage. Widmer suggested if it's a charitable event at Lord Fletchers, the organization could pull the permit versus Fletcher's. Struck suggested a sign manufacturer come talk to the PC to explain signage and what could be done for specific situations. c) Comp Plan Zoning Changes Brixius points to the large zoning map on the council chambers wall. Brixius explained there has been a recommendation to rezone some properties along Sunset Drive from R-2 to R-1 as suggested in the comprehensive plan update. He also talked about Presbyterian Homes property to be rezoned entirely to C-3, Health Care. He said there are some areas still zoned C-1 and some parcels zoned R-2 and R-3. He is concerned about leaving the park area owned by Presbyterian Homes as a C1. Brixius said it is necessary to have Presbyterian Homes clean up clouds on the title and now is the time to do this. Brixius said if the PC is in agreement, he will set up a public hearing process for the rezone. Brixius said there have been a number of variance requests for lot size and side yard setbacks. He said in the future there should be discussion about expansion of legal non-conforming structures . Hughes said the term variance needs to be changed when it relates to a sign and he's concerned with the terminology. Brixius said he'll look at it. d) Landscape Plan for 2010 Brimeyer said it's the same as last year. Hughes thinks more time should be spent on the condition of the sidewalks. e) Amendment to ordinance relating to Plan Commission • Discussion was held about allowing non residents on the PC and it's time to clean up some items. Brimeyer said the Council saw the amendment and asked that it be run by the PC once again. Hughes said on page two where it says the city council may provide astaff member to take minutes and it should say "shall provide" a member. Struck said she needs to read it more thoroughly. Mason asked about attendance. Mason said there were conditions spelled out and it seems like this new suggestion is totally different. Hughes said there was a time when there weren't meetings because there wasn't anything to do. Hughes says under Sec 24-35 he's concerned about the council getting unapproved minutes. Ericson makes a motion to accept the ordinance as it relates to Planning Commissioners with the change about shall provide a staff member to take minutes. Hoffman seconds. All votes ayes, motion carries. e) Future Items Fences Commercial Storage Expansion of Non-conforming Uses 6. COMMUNICATIONS a) Council Meeting Minutes — March 15, 2010 b) Council Study Session Meeting Minutes — March 22, 2010 c) Council Meeting Minutes —April 5, 2010 07. MISCELLANEOUS a) Update —Tonka Auto and Marine Planning Commission Minutes — April 14, 2010 3 Brimeyer said the council denied the variance. He drafted a letter telling them they have 30 days. He explained the issues currently going on and was asked about their temporary signage that has expired. Lewin said she'd send them a letter. b) Emerald Ash Borer— Brimeyer said an inventory should be done of the ash trees in Spring Park and they should be categorized. Hughes asked if this means private property too. Brimeyer said he's not sure about that. 8. ADJOURNMENT — Ericson makes a motion and Neve seconds to adjourn at 9:24 p.m. All votes ayes, motion carries. Wendy Lewin, City Clerk Jim Brimeyer, Administrator Planning Commission Minutes — April 14, 2010 4 CITY OF SPRING PARK SPRING PARK, MINNESOTA • AGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION May 12, 2010 7:00 P.M. - CITY HALL 1. CALL TO ORDER Pledge of Allegiance 2. ROLL CALL 3. ADOPT AGENDA 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES —April 14, 2010 5. PLANNING COMMISSION a) Public Hearing — Rezoning the following properties from R-2, Medium Density to R-1, Single family and Two Family Residential 3920, 3930, 3940, 3950, 3960, 3980, 3990, 4000, 4010, 4014, 4018, 4022 Sunset Drive. Close Public Hearing b) Sign Permit — Lord Fletchers, 3746 Sunset Drive • c) Sign Permit — ReMax Realty, 4154 Shoreline Drive, Ste 200 d) Sign Permit —Wheels to Waves, 3646 Shoreline Drive e) Amendments to the Sign Ordinance — Discussion and Recommendations 1. Sign Code Changes — Temp Signs Draft Ord f) Future Items Fences Commercial Storage Expansion of Non-conforming Uses 6. COMMUNICATIONS a) Council Meeting Minutes — April 19, 2010 b) Council Study Session Meeting Minutes —April 26, 2010 c) Newsletter— Lake Minnetonka Association 7. MISCELLANEOUS 8. ADJOURNMENT • Planning Commission Agenda — May 12, 2010 1 CITY OF SPRING PARK SPRING PARK, MINNESOTA MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION • May 12, 2010 7:00 P.M. - CITY HALL 1. CALL TO ORDER - Chairman Hughes called the meeting to order at 7 p.m. Pledge of Allegiance 2. ROLL CALL — Ericson, Neve, Erickson, Hughes, Hoffman, Mason, Struck. 3. ADOPT AGENDA Erickson makes a motion and Hoffman seconds to adopt the agenda. All votes ayes, motion carries. 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES —April 14, 2010 — Mason makes a motion and Hoffman seconds to approve the minutes. All votes ayes, motion carries. 5. PLANNING COMMISSION a) Public Hearing — Rezoning the following properties from R-2, Medium Density to R-1, Single family and Two Family Residential 3920, 3930, 3940, 3950, 3960, 3980, 3990, 4000, 4010, 4014, 4018, 4022 Sunset Drive. Hughes reads the notice of public hearing out loud. Hughes acknowledges one written response received from Maynard Johnson owner of property located at 3950 Sunset Drive and is recognized as a part of the minutes. Hughes opens the public hearing at 7:04 p.m. Brixius said in the 2030 comp plan long range land • uses were identified. He explained the location on the zoning map as it pertains to properties this evening. He said currently there are twelve lots and a recommendation was considered last year. He said there was a recommendation to leave it medium density and the vote from the council failed. He said the comp plan did not change. Brixius said there are some properties that would be deemed legal non conforming and they would continue their status. Brixius reads from his memo generated for this public hearing. Brixius explains any change is a council action. Miles Schneider represents Don Driggs at 3990 Sunset Drive. Schneider said he's concerned about the economic impact on the current owners of the property. He stated evidence either supports the change or is in conflict to the change. He said if the change affects the property owner's economic use of the property, regulatory taking can occur. He said they look at what's the economical impact on the owner. He said the status quo is more important than making a change during an economic downturn. Schneider asks before a change takes place they look at an economic impact to the property owners. Don Driggs, 3990 Sunset Drive said this is personal to his property but he said he's not sure if there are studies done before these changes are proposed. Driggs said he bought the property because it is zoned the way it is. He plans on developing the property at some point. He has owned the property since 1995 and he tries to maintain it. Driggs said he owns ten properties and he likes this one the best. He thinks it was part of the original Deering landing and associated with Deering Island. He said there is historical value to the area. He owns Deering Island and thinks the properties could some day be associated once again. Driggs doesn't like the fire lane that is located next to his property. He doesn't think anyone will build their dream house on his lot however because of the fire lane location. Driggs is concerned about this blanket rezoning and he feels it will • be detrimental to his situation. Planning Commission Minutes — May 12, 2010 1 Hughes asked Brixius if he wants to speak to the comments. Brixius said they look at the financial impact. He said a concern is if redevelopment occurs, what happens to the other properties. There is also a question about what can the properties support. He said there's an issue of compatibility and function of the property. Schneider said he agrees but for the other side. He said there's a lot of • whats and hows and ifs. He said what can and should be done is an economic impact study to see if it will perform as expected. Hughes asked Brixius if the city were to change the zoning to R1 and someone wanted to develop it to something else, what is the process. Brixius said anyone can petition to change the zoning of a property. Schneider asked if it's a variance or a conditional use and Brixius said no, it's considered a rezoning. Brixius isn't sure what they would base an economic development study. He wonders what uses they would look at. Driggs said there are several investment properties in that area. He disagrees with the concept that just because there are single family properties doesn't mean they're detrimental to the neighborhood. He said he thinks Lord Fletcher's and Rockvam Boatyards co-exist very nicely in this area. Driggs feels options are being taken away from him. He understands the difficulties of redeveloping his property. He's come close several times to developing it. Close Public Hearing Ericson makes a motion and Erickson seconds to close the public hearing at 7:35 p.m. All votes ayes, motion carries. Erickson asked about the R-2 and if it's twelve units per acre. Brixius said there is not a lot area per unit scale. He said density is based on setback, impervious surface and parking. Brixius said there is a square footage requirement for the density. Ericson said it becomes a problem when it comes to parking accommodations for small lots. Hughes said when this was voted on by the council there wasn't a majority vote to change it. Hughes said the city has requested this and Hughes said he can't find where this was requested. Brixius said the comprehensive plan went through committee and recommendations for approval and these rezoning changes were recommended as part of the comprehensive plan. Brixius said the original • recommendation was to change from R-2 to R-1 but the vote failed. Erickson asked about two properties that wouldn't qualify unless they combine. He said what about if something existing burns down, he wonders if they can rebuild and Brixius said as long as it's re-established on the same footprint. Mason thinks Driggs future plans would be difficult to accomplish because of the setback requirements. Ericson said no matter how it's zoned, he can't see ten to twelve units going in there. Erickson said a developer could come along and buy three parcels. Hughes said there are two choices. He said there is another rezoning project with Presbyterian Homes that will come up in July. He said this could be postponed and perhaps it could be discussed in a work session. Erickson said he would like some more time to spend on this. The consensus of the PC is to postpone the public hearing in order to study this proposal. Brixius asks if there is any additional information the PC would be looking for. Brixius said they could look at Driggs' property and show what could be done. Struck said she would be interested in seeing the impact on the neighborhood in terms of traffic for maximum development. Schneider said the developers of the large project such as the Mist, already had a plan in place. Schneider said the city is talking about changing the nature of property that is already owned. Hughes makes a motion to table the rezoning of the properties for such time as when Presbyterian Homes rezoning takes place. Brixius suggests next month would be enough time. Brimeyer said a traffic impact study and density study could be done using an unrealistic exercise that the entire R2 area is bought by a developer and an impact study could be based on that. Hughes amends his motion to say to the next meeting. Hughes tables the motion to the next PC • meeting, Erickson seconded. All votes ayes, Neve votes no on a rollcall vote. Planning Commission Minutes — May 12, 2010 2 b)Sign Permit— Lord Fletchers, 3746 Sunset Drive — Brixius said this is a unique request. He said LF is a frequent user of temporary signs for special events. Brixius reads from his memo to the Planning Commission. A banner cabinet or changeable reader board is being proposed. This concept was shared with LF who made application for a banner cabinet. Brixius said the ordinance does not • currently allow this but, what's being suggested is, third free standing sign and Brixius illustrates the location and describes the proposed sign. Brixius said a variance for a third sign would be required to accommodate this request. Brixius said they've provided some criteria justifying the variance. Brixius said LF's operates on the north and south of Sunset Drive. He said they currently have two free- standing signs. Hughes asked about the approximation of the sign size. Brixius said he calculated measurements and concluded the total would exceed 100 square feet. The Planning commission is considering an ordinance to reduce total signage from 200 square feet to 100 square feet. Brixius is suggesting the variance be approved due to the uniqueness of the property subject to cumulative area of three pylon signs not exceed 100 square feet, that no pylon signs be erected on the parking parcel and that all temporary signage would be displayed in the banner cabinet. Ericson asked if it's approved would it take away from the signs on the fence and Emer confirms. Ericson asked about the County and if it blocks anything and Brimeyer said it doesn't; that's why it's being suggested to be placed in the spot it's being placed. Hughes would like to recommend knowing full well that this could be over 100 square feet and it is close and he doesn't want to quibble over a couple of square feet. Hoffman asked if the width of the banners have to be reduced by a few feet would that have an impact and Emer said if it's only a couple of feet it won't be a big deal. Brimeyer said the variance would be for just the number of signs, not the size. Ericson makes a motion to approve Lord Fletcher's sign request for a variance and is recommending approval to the council. Mason seconds. All votes ayes on roll call. Motion carries. c)Sign Permit— ReMax Realty, 4154 Shoreline Drive, Ste 200 — Erickson said he has a conflict as he's a ReMax agent so he will abstain. Brixius said there is an application for a sign to be applied at • the Tonka Ventures building. He said the city limits each business to two wall signs. He said earlier two signs were approved but they would be willing to swap out one of the signs for the new proposal. He said the sign size is within the size requirements. Brixius said the sign location needs to be discussed. Brixius said this sign is illuminated and this is a concern. Brixius said he has spoke with the building owner and they are in support of the proposed sign. Brixius said one of his concerns is, other businesses could potentially ask for the same thing. He thinks continuity needs to be preserved. Robin Pinegar of ReMax said Buttenhoff prefers the sign go on the tower versus the building. Pinegar said Buttenhoff said if someone wanted the tower portion they'd ask ReMax to relocate. Brixius said Buttenhoff has done a good job with the signage and he thinks he'll be respectful. Pinegar said this sign has already been in the city as it used to be on the Yacht Club, across the street. Hoffman feels the proposed location won't be as visible and suggests they put the new sign where the old silver sign is presently located. Neve is curious about signs located in the middle of the building. Neve said when driving around the area he sees lighted signs located at the top of the buildings. Hughes said he has concerns about the size of the sign to the building. Hughes thinks the representation of the lighted sign as being three feet is not representative of the size of the actual sign. Ericson wondered if this will be the highest sign in town besides the water tower and Brixius said yes. Struck said if the sign is approved and it goes up and they want to move it and the new sign ordinance addresses wall height, Brixius said if they want to change the location then they'd have to comply with code. Hoffman makes a motion to approve the sign application for ReMax. Mason seconds. Hoffman said he agrees with Brixius regarding Buttenhoff and he's always been respectful and it's the best location for the sign. All votes yes, Neve votes no and Erickson abstains due to conflict of interest. Hoffman suggests a to-scale drawing be submitted for the • elevation of the sign. Planning Commission Minutes — May 12, 2010 3 d)Sign Permit —Wheels to Waves, 3646 Shoreline Drive — Brixius said the application is for 4636 Shoreline Drive. He said a third tenant sign is being requested. Brixius said Dock Service and Tonka Auto and Marine is already in place. Brixius reads from his memo regarding the sign application. Hughes moves to approve the sign for Wheels to Waves and the color photograph becomes a matter of record. Hoffman seconds. Mason said there's been some parking space issues. Mason said there are two parking stalls agreed upon and he wonders how this will be resolved. Applicant said most of his business is conducted mobile. He can park below to free up parking space. Widmer asked regarding the submitted photograph and there is a circle with the name. She asked about more text on the sign. Widmer thinks it might be difficult to read when someone is driving by and the applicant said it probably will be. He's hoping to take advantage of walking traffic and the classic car night at the Drive-In. Applicant says parking issues are being resolved with the business owner. All votes ayes, motion carries. e)Amendments to the Sign Ordinance — Discussion and Recommendations a. Sign Code Changes —Temp Signs Draft Ord Brixius said there is a discussion item for temp signs. He said language has been drafted. He said there is specific language including exemptions to private property signs placed interiorly and permanent changeable message boards. He said permits require application for temporary signs and fees set by ordinance. He said the requirement is to submit their application ten days before the event. He said temp signs need to be located at the site. Duration is stipulation for 15 or 30 day consecutive periods and shopping center or multiple tenants are considered one property. There is a number of signs allowed per year. Struck thought it was agreed to 24 square feet. Struck thinks 32 square feet is too large. Hughes thinks 24 square feet is big enough too. Hoffman thinks an option should be added that if someone is requesting a free standing sign, front and back, that would count as two signs. They would then be only allowed one other wall sign for a total of three signs. Brixius thinks this should be tabled and break down the districts per business and take some photos of the signage on the streets and distinguish business by business. Brixius said he's concerned the temp stuff will be done but he's concerned he'll lose something when describing the signage related to districts. He said there might be something regarding lot size and frontage. Hughes wondered if there should be a distinction regarding back lit signs or electronic signs. Brixius said this will be defined in the definitions. Struck said on page two, item 2a, portable signs or banners and she wondered if it should be ten working days. Struck thinks something about sign heights should be incorporated into the sign ordinance. Hughes said the next meeting will be the rezoning and hopefully a work session for finishing the sign ordinance. Ericson wants to talk about the rezoning issue and feels if multiple housing is allowed it will allow for more congestion in an already congested crowded area. Brixius agrees and thinks at the next meeting a scenario should be crafted that assumes the worst and what kind of impact it will have. f) Future Items Fences Commercial Storage Expansion of Non-conforming Uses 6. COMMUNICATIONS a) Council Meeting Minutes — April 19, 2010 b) Council Study Session Meeting Minutes —April 26, 2010 • c) Newsletter— Lake Minnetonka Association Planning Commission Minutes — May 12, 2010 4 7. MISCELLANEOUS 8. ADJOURNMENT — Hoffman makes a motion and Struck seconds to adjourn at 9:40 p.m. All votes ayes, motion carries. Wendy Lewin, City Clerk Jim Brimeyer, Administrator w • Planning Commission Minutes — May 12, 2010 5 CITY OF SPRING PARK SPRING PARK, MINNESOTA is AGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION June 9 , 2010 7:00 P.M. - CITY HALL 1. CALL TO ORDER Pledge of Allegiance 2. ROLL CALL 3. ADOPT AGENDA 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — May 12, 2010 5. PLANNING COMMISSION a) Public Hearing Continued — Rezoning the following properties from R-2, Medium Density to R-1, Single family and Two Family Residential 3920, 3930, 3940, 3950, 3960, 3980, 3990, 4000, 4010, 4014, 4018, 4022 Sunset Drive. Close Public Hearing b) Sign Permit— NAPA Auto Parts 49 c) Amendments to the Sign Ordinance — Discussion and Recommendations 1 . Sign Code Changes —Temp Signs Draft Ord d) Discussion Items 1. Sign Code District outline 2. Sign Permit Submission Requirements f) Future Items Fences Commercial Storage Expansion of Non-conforming Uses 6. COMMUNICATIONS a) Council Meeting Minutes — May 17, 2010 b) Council Study Session Meeting Minutes — May 24, 2010 7. MISCELLANEOUS a) Update on Thor Thompson Park 8. ADJOURNMENT • Planning Commission Agenda — June 9, 2010 1 CITY OF SPRING PARK SPRING PARK, MINNESOTA AGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION • June 9, 2010 7:00 P.M. - CITY HALL 1. CALL TO ORDER — Chair Hughes calls the meeting to order at 7 p.m. Pledge of Allegiance 2. ROLL CALL — Ericson, Struck, Hughes, Hoffman, Mason, Erickson. Neve is excused. Council members Widmer and Williamson, Planner Brixius. 3. ADOPT AGENDA— Hoffman makes a motion and Mason seconds to adopt the agenda except for item number four, approval of the minutes, as they were not included in the packet. All votes ayes, motion carries. 4. APPROVAL OF nniw TES __ May!2,�o 5. PLANNING COMMISSION a) Public Hearing Continued — Rezoning the following properties from R-2, Medium Density to R-1, Single family and Two Family Residential 3920, 3930, 3940, 3950, 3960, 3980, 3990, 4000, 4010, 4014, 4018, 4022 Sunset Drive. Close Public Hearing Hughes explained the public hearing had been closed at the previous meeting. Brixius said a public hearing was held last month to consider a rezoning of twelve lots on Sunset Drive to an R-1. He said • it's based upon the already approved Comprehensive Plan to establish low density. He said 3920 and 3990 (3960 has been subdivided into two lots) are the only two lots that exceed 12,000 square feet. He said that's an important number due to the requirements for square footage for building if it is not currently a lot of record. He said 3920 is a single family house, its value is $750,000 and that lot could support a twin home. He said rezoning would not affect that lot. 3990 Sunset Drive is 17,000 plus square feet and in the R-2 district this allows for more than a twin home provided it meets certain criteria. Brixius said 2.25 spaces per unit are required for parking accommodations. He said applying the R-2 of twelve units per acre, this property could handle four housing units. He said they also looked at potential development. One would be a town home development and one an apartment. He said they estimated 17 total town home units. He said 24 units could be supported for apartments. Brixius said the total value of the twelve lots is about 6.9 million dollars. It doesn't include the prep work. He said it doesn't seem practical that a redevelopment would occur when looking at The Mist and Lakeview Lofts. Brixius said the findings are only two lots could support twin homes or a larger unit. Hughes said regarding the larger lot that might support four units, if considering the 50 and 30 foot setbacks and sideyard ten foot setbacks, 5,740 square feet is left for the building pad. Brixius said that building pad could be entirely devoted to the structure. Hughes asked about parking. Brixius said they would be required to have nine stalls. He said a developer would have to show proper requirements. Ericson said regarding 3990 Sunset Drive, if all standards required of the city were applied, there is 5,000 development area. Ericson asked for clarity on the parking and Brixius said driveways could be included in the setback area. Erickson asked about hardcover and Brixius said there have been • allowances made if stormwater management is addressed during the development. Brixius said in converting this to an R-1, it would take two units away. Brixius said if a use of the property has been Planning Commission Minutes —June 9, 2010 1 previously established, MN Statutes allows it to maintain and replace existing. Erickson is concerned that one property is holding up this rezone. Struck said at the public hearing, the only opinions heard were Don Driggs and his attorney. She wondered what it would do to property values in the area. • Brixius said he's reluctant to declare the impact on property values. He said if a development is nicely done, it could be better than what was there. He said his concern is more related to density on the property site. Struck asked about upholding the comprehensive plan. Brixius said the comprehensive plan is the superior document. Ericson makes a motion to recommend the rezoning from R-2 to R-1 district. Mason seconds. Struck said this is a recommendation to the city council. Brixius said it should be based on the May and June 2"d planning report as they specify the findings. He said the proposed use meets the provision of the zoning ordinance. He said the proposed zoning doesn't present an unreasonable hazard, it's compatible with future and present and there is no impact on the peace of surrounding properties. He would like to see that included in the record. Both motion makers are in agreement. Hughes said he still questions minutes from a prior council meeting where this was voted on and now it's come back again. Brixius said the comprehensive plan was formally adopted but now the plan needs to be implemented. All votes yes on rollcall except for Steve Erickson votes no. b) Sign Permit— NAPA Auto Parts Brixius said Napa is proposing to open a store in a manufacturing zone but the proposed use is permitted. Brixius said parking is sufficient to accommodate the retail use. Brixius said signage cannot exceed 20% of the silhouette and the application submitted represents only 3.6% of the wall area. Brixius said if the PC finds this an acceptable use he suggests approving the sign permit application. Hughes asked if it will be illuminated and the applicant responded yes. Hughes asked if this is a new sign and the applicant said yes. Hoffman makes a motion and Ericson seconds to approve the sign application for Napa Auto Parts. All votes ayes, motion carries. Napa plans • on opening July Vt. c) Amendments to the Sign Ordinance — Discussion and Recommendations 1. Sign Code Changes —Temp Signs Draft Ordinance Brixius said he's incorporated the changes from the last meeting. Hughes asked about allowing changeable letter reader boards. Brixius said this unfortunately got left out. He said we allow sandwich boards, we allow other temporary signs and he wonders if they should be limited to banner signs only. Hoffman said he's against the trailer signs on wheels. Hughes recommends finding out what a typical size is for interchangeable signage. Struck asked about a height restriction. Brixius said an important component will be administrative fines for enforcement purposes. Williamson asked about setback requirements for right-of-way and Brixius said there is some language but he will add obstructing vision/site lines. Hoffman makes a motion to recommend the sign ordinance per the draft dated 6-2-10 with the additional comments regarding site lines. Ericson seconds. All votes ayes, motion carries. Discussion Items 2.Sign Code District outline — Brixius said a couple of things to consider is sign requirements should be broken down even further by district. He said there isn't anything for R-1 and R-2 district and he wonders if there is a need or purpose for that besides address identifying signs. He said there are new rules on non-political/free speech signs. Brixius wonders if the C-2 district should be treated differently. He said there is only one shopping center in the city so it might be okay to have different standards for the center. High density residential needs size and location restrictions. Brixius asked if there should be a limit placed on the height of wall signs such as the Remax sign being placed high • up on the tower. Brixius also thinks consideration needs to given towards multi-tenant buildings. Planning Commission Minutes —June 9, 2010 2 Hoffman said if Blue Lagoon is used as an example he also doesn't have a problem with Bayside Floral having three sings. Brixius said Blue Lagoon is a legal non-conforming use and they are exempt from the present rules. Bayside floral had variance findings drafted to support the rationale �used to allow it. Brixius said Bayside Floral is also a multi-tenant building. He thinks wall signs held to two is a good standard. Brixius said when there are more than two tenants, the onus should be on the building owner to come up with requirements for signage on their building. Hoffman thinks Tonka Auto and Marine should be afforded the same as other businesses that are currently allowed signage on other sides of the building. Brixius said he prefers knowing what the PC doesn't like. He said it's easier to craft an ordinance around what isn't acceptable. He suggests in the C1, C2, that they be handled differently. One is a large shopping center and the other can be small lots. 3.Sign Permit Submission Requirements — It is suggested a photo or a to-scale drawing needs to be submitted with the permit application. Brixius said he also wants to know existing signs and location of those signs. He feels it shouldn't be necessary that staff has to go out to see what's in existence. Hoffman makes a motion to adopt the checklist with the addition of a scaled dimension requirements and the ten day submission requirements. Mason seconds. All votes ayes, motion carries. f) Future Items Fences Commercial Storage Expansion of Non-conforming Uses 6. COMMUNICATIONS a) Council Meeting Minutes — May 17, 2010 b) Council Study Session Meeting Minutes — May 24, 2010 7. MISCELLANEOUS a) Update on Thor Thompson Park Mason wants to make a recommendation to the council for the Minnetonka Drive-In to have a resolution to honor the 50th anniversary and what they've done for the community. Hughes likes the idea and thinks in the recognition it could be a Bennyhoff Day. A proclamation could be drafted. Mason makes that motion and Hughes seconds. All votes ayes, motion carries. Brixius asks the PC for their opinion regarding a previous variance granted (4341 Channel Road) and the property owner wants to bump out slightly for the fireplace allowance. It is discussed and agreed that the property owner was already granted a variance and now he is asking for something further for bookshelves. Brixius said he'll respond to the question. 8. ADJOURNMENT - Hoffman makes a motion and Mason seconds to adjourn at 9:23 p.m. All votes ayes, motion carries. Wendy Lewin, City Clerk Absent Jim Brimeyer, Administrator • Planning Commission Minutes — June 9, 2010 3 CITY OF SPRING PARK SPRING PARK, MINNESOTA AGENDA is PLANNING COMMISSION July 14 , 2010 7:00 P.M. - CITY HALL 1 . CALL TO ORDER Pledge of Allegiance 2. ROLL CALL 3. ADOPT AGENDA 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — May 12, 2010 & June 9. 2010 5. PLANNING COMMISSION a) Public Hearing — Amendment to the Sign Ordinance related to Temporary Signs b) Amendments to the Sign Ordinance — Discussion and Recommendations 1 . Sign Code Changes c) Discussion Items • 1. Trail Signs 2. Beautification — Entrance Signs 3. Capital Improvement Plan for 2011-2020 f) Future Items Fences Commercial Storage Expansion of Non-conforming Uses 6. COMMUNICATIONS a) Council Meeting Minutes — June 7, 2010 b) Council Meeting Minutes — June 21, 2010 b) Council Study Session Meeting Minutes — June 28, 2010 7. MISCELLANEOUS a) Update on Thor Thompson Park b) Revised Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) 8. ADJOURNMENT • Planning Commission Agenda — July 14, 2010 1 CITY OF SPRING PARK SPRING PARK, MINNESOTA • MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION ? �, July 14 , 2010 7:00 P.M. - CITY HALL 1. CALL TO ORDER — Hughes calls the meeting to order at 7 p.m. Pledge of Allegiance 2. ROLL CALL — Ericson, Erickson, Hughes, Mason present. Neve, Hoffman and Struck excused. Also in attendance, Administrator Brimeyer, Clerk Lewin and Council advisor Widmer. Representatives of Tonka Auto and Marine present for the public hearing. 3. ADOPT AGENDA — Ericson makes a motion and Erickson seconds to adopt the agenda. All votes ayes, motion carries. 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — Ericson makes a motion and Erickson seconds to approve the May 12, 2010 minutes. All votes ayes, motion carries. Mason makes a motion and Erickson seconds to approve the June 9, 2010 minutes. All votes ayes, motion carries. 5. PLANNING COMMISSION a) Public Hearing —Amendment to the Sign Ordinance related to Temporary Signs Erickson makes a motion to open the public hearing Mason seconds. Hughes confirmed with Lewin there was no written communication received. Brimeyer stated a business owner telephoned and asked if the fee could be lowered on temporary signs and if the length of time for display could be lengthened. Ericson wonders if the caller is looking to extend the number of times she could have a permit if she lowered the length of time. Brixius thinks they could tie two events in one time frame would be another way of looking at it. Brixius asked commissioners to reference the ordinance as he's made two minor changes and wants them to be aware of them. b) Amendments to the Sign Ordinance — Discussion and Recommendations 1. Sign Code Changes Brixius Explains to the public the drafted ordinance for temporary signage: Brixius said certain signs are prohibited except under temporary signage. He said current code does not the regulate number of signs, length of time and type of construction for temporary signs. Brixius said at the next meeting administrative fines, enforcement measures and the appeal process will be brought forward as it's being drafted by City Attorney Beck. Hughes asked about the phone call taken from one business about changing the time frame. Brixius said it's necessary to look at enforcement measures as this could be difficult always sending out someone to monitor short-term allowances. Hughes questions if a dynamic signs are acceptable as wall signs and Brixius said no but a changeable message sign on the side of the building is allowed. A member of the audience asked if multi-tenant building can be 0 further discussed as she has a question. She asked about three businesses in one building and if each business gets their own sign allowances. Brixius said the permits are granted based on the property. He said three 15 day stretches can be granted and the other Planning Commission Minutes — July 14, 2010 1 businesses can now share the other three 15 days of signs remaining. Audience member states she doesn't feel this is fair as it penalizes multi-tenant businesses. Brixius said the point is to encourage changeable message boards versus the temporary signs always displayed. Same person has a question about the time and temperature displayed and Brixius explained this is considered to be dynamic signage. Brixius said the next exercise of this sign change has been temporary signage and dynamic signs. Erickson asked about the Tonka Grille and thinks he recalls they are individual condos. He wonders how they would be treated. Brixius said if they are all under the same ownership, they would be treated as one property. There are no more questions from the floor. Ericson makes a motion and Mason seconds to close the public hearing at 7:32 p.m. All votes ayes, motion carries. (It is realized at the close of the meeting direction was not received in regards to the temporary sign ordinance, therefore Erickson makes a motion and Mason seconds to reopen the meeting. All votes ayes, motion carries. Ericson makes a motion and Erickson seconds to approve the ordinance and forward it to the council for their review. All votes ayes, motion carries. Ericson makes a motion and Erickson seconds to adjourn the meeting once again at 8:31 p.m. All votes ayes, motion carries.) c) Discussion Items 1. Trail Signs — Brimeyer said there is some discussion about allowing businesses facing the trail to have signage. He said it came up at the business forum. Brimeyer said if the Planning Commission is interested in pursuing this, perhaps a specific district could be set up for those businesses that have trail frontage. Hughes thinks Mound already has something like this in place and Widmer said she thinks it wasn't passed. Brixius thinks the trail use needs to be thought about too. What is the trail supposed to represent and is it a . commercial district or is it meant for recreation. Brimeyer said he can do some more research on this and talk to other communities. 2. Beautification — Entrance Signs. Brimeyer said it's been discussed but he's not sure if there is much excitement about it. Mason thinks the entrance signs don't look bad. He said they have that weathered look. Brimeyer passes out a handout showing the signs and some suggestions for new entrance signs. Hughes said Lord Fletcher's restaurant has nice signage on the building. Hughes wondered about some dynamic signage at the entrance to the city with changeable messages. He would like this option explored for pricing and acceptability if the city decides to pursue this. Erickson thinks the signs that are currently in place are fine. He thinks they can be repaired and repainted and they'll be good for another few years. Ericson thinks the planter base can be repaired as it's deteriorating. Mason said he agrees with Ericson. Brimeyer asked if other materials other than wood could be used for the base. The PC is agreeable with that as long as it's not blocks. Hughes asked about a business registry being enacted as previously discussed at the business forum. Brimeyer said he thinks it will be part of the budget process and it also will be incorporated into the e-newsletter. Widmer suggests notification could be inserted in the utility bill to building owners to notify their tenants that the registry is now being enacted. 3. Capital Improvement Plan for 2011-2020 — Brimeyer said a copy of the CIP waS . included in the packet. It's the same one that they were given last fall. He suggests the August meeting be a chance to discuss this further. Mason said his theory about Planning Commission Minutes —July 14, 2010 2 city hall is everything is being done around city hall maybe something should be done at city hall. Hughes said the driveway and landscaping is in 2011 and it's being done now. Brimeyer said it isn't everything. He lumped street projects together. Hughes would like to see a better job of seal coating and he is concerned about the lot lines on most streets and thinks it can be a nightmare. Hughes said it seems as though the streets are dug up anyway and he wonders about the sense in redoing streets when they are continually dug up. Ericson thinks construction prices are way down now so it might be something to consider. Hughes said when looking towards solid surface as opposed to pervious pavers he suggests Mark Kinter, a resident on Black Lake Road, talk to the PC as he is an authority on these surfaces. f) Future Items Hughes asked what the Council wants done with this. Brimeyer said these items just continue to come up so they don't get forgotten. Fences Commercial Storage Expansion of Non-conforming Uses Brixius said there needs to be a height restriction put on accessory buildings. Widmer thinks there's a height restriction that it can't be higher than the principal structure. 6. COMMUNICATIONS a) Council Meeting Minutes — June 7, 2010 b) Council Meeting Minutes — June 21, 2010 b) Council Study Session Meeting Minutes — June 28, 2010 • MISCELLANEOUS a) Update on Thor Thompson Park — Brimeyer said the bids just came in tonight so he's still working on them. He said he hopes to have something to the council for Monday night's meeting. b) Revised Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) — Brimeyer said it's the same as last year and it's important for the PC to review this. Hughes asked about the police contract and the City of Long Lake and he wondered what is going on. Brimeyer said he thinks it's a big mistake and he hopes Orono PD makes it clear if Long Lake chooses to go with the County, Orono will not respond unless it's a life emergency. Brimeyer said there was a mix up in not putting the minutes in the packet and he is said it is not a conspiracy that was suggested. Erickson thinks something should be addressed about the ability to leave up old, unattached garages to be used for future storage space when in fact a new garage is being built. Brixius said there cannot be conditions placed upon a property owner to make changes just because the city wants the changes made. Hughes asked about the trail usage. He said he heard it's the fourth highest and then he heard it's even higher than that, maybe second. 10 Mason said in the June 21St minutes on page two Williamson made a comment about how the PC conducted their meeting and it was complimentary and Mason wanted to point this out. Planning Commission Minutes — July 14, 2010 3 8. ADJOURNMENT — Ericson makes a motion and Erickson seconds to adjourn the meeting at 8:30 p.m. All votes ayes, motion carries. Wendy Lewin, City Clerk Jim Brimeyer, Administrator • Planning Commission Minutes — July 14, 2010 4 CITY OF SPRING PARK SPRING PARK, MINNESOTA AGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION August 11 , 2010 7:00 P.M. - CITY HALL 1. CALL TO ORDER Pledge of Allegiance 2. ROLL CALL 3. ADOPT AGENDA 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — July 14, 2010 5. PLANNING COMMISSION a) Sign Request — Katie Lien School of Dance —4146 Shoreline Drive b) Amendments to the Sign Ordinance — Discussion and Recommendations • c) Discussion Item 1. Pres Homes Rezoning 2. Height of Accessory Buildings 3. Proposed Administrative Fine Ordinance 4. Legal Update — Standards for granting variances 5. Capital Improvement Plan for 2011-2020 f) Future Items Fences Commercial Storage Expansion of Non-conforming Uses 6. COMMUNICATIONS a) Council Meeting Minutes - July 19, 2010 b) Council Study Session Meeting Minutes — July 26, 2010 c) Council Meeting Minutes —August 2, 2010 7. MISCELLANEOUS a) Update on Thor Thompson Park b) Articles from The Past • 8. ADJOURNMENT Planning Commission Agenda — August 11, 2010 1 �(v,_L&.4 e G, r: wk,CC�,e✓ CITY OF SPRING PARK SPRING PARK, MINNESOTA • MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION August 11, 2010 7:00 P.M. - CITY HALL 1 . CALL TO ORDER — Hughes calls the meeting to order at 7 p.m. Pledge of Allegiance 2. ROLL CALL — Ericson, Erickson, Hughes, Mason, Hoffman,,,Struck arrives at 7:05 Administrator Brimeyer and Planner Brixius. 3. ADOPT AGENDA Hughes moves to clarify the agenda: The address for the sign request is 4148 Shoreline, not 4146. Items C.1 and C.2 (Pres Homes and Accessory Buildings) will move up on the agenda. Agenda approved — Mason, Hoffman 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — July 14, 2010 Ericson/Erickson —Approved with the additional word "pervious" on page 3. 5. PLANNING COMMISSION • a) Sign application — Katie Lien School of Dance — 3138 Shoreline Drive Katie Lien is present and advises she has a dance studio in Grand Forks, ND and would like to open a similar studio in this area. She further indicates that the letters will be metallic silver in color. Planner Brixius advises that the request complies with city code and recommends approval. Hoffman, S Erickson makes a motion to approve the sign request for Katie Lien School of DanceEricson - Unanimous c.1) Pres Homes rezoning Brixius refers to memo dated July 29, 2010 regarding this issue. The purpose of the rezoning is to make sure the zoning code is in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. The proposal is to rezone the Pres Homes property from C-1, R-2 and R-3 to C-3, Medical Facilities, which allows nursing homes, clinics and elderly housing. Pam Belz from Pres Homes was present and indicated that Pres Homes does not object to the proposed rezoning. Brixius advised that the two properties owned by others would be rezoned from R-2 and R-3 to R-1 which allows a single or two family residence. There was some discussion on the ownership of the vacated Lafayette Lane. Belz advised that Pres Homes has title validation of their ownership of the one-half of the vacated street. S Erickson, J Erickson to set a public hearing for September 8, 2010. Staff will place the public hearing notice and notify the surrounding property owners. is Planning Commission Minutes — August 11, 2010 1 • c.2) Height of Accessory buildings Brixius referred to memo dated July 29, 2010 regarding limiting the height of accessory buildings, including garages to something less than the current code (35') allows and was suggesting a height limitation of 16'. Questions related to defining finished grade, sheds for boat storage, size of lots in the city and the need to expand vertically vs laterally. Determination was made to not change the code at this time. b) Amendments to the Sign Ordinance — Discussion and Recommendations Brixius referred to memo dated August 4, 2010 and attached proposed ordinance. Planner and Commissioners reviewed the proposed ordinance section by section and made changes and suggestions. Planner will incorporate changes into the final proposed ordinance. Discussion was suspended, due to time limitations, when the members began discussion the changes under the Zoning District provisions. Discussion will resume at the September 8, 2010 meeting. • c) Discussion Items 3. Administrative Fine Ordinance Some discussion on the merits of this approach and how often it would be necessary to use this provision. Administrator advised it would not be frequent, but it is much better than the current option of having to go through the court system. No further discussion. 4. Legal Updates — Standards for granting a variance Staff shared with the members a memo, dated August 3, 2010, from the City Attorney related to a recent Supreme Court ruling and the granting of a variance. 5. Capital Improvement Plan for 2011-2020 — Brimeyer said a copy of the CIP has been revised to include current information to reflect the recent bond issue and some revised numbers for the proposed projects. To be discussed again at the September meeting. f) Future Items Fences — Commercial Storage Expansion of Non-conforming Uses • Planning Commission Minutes — August 11, 2010 2 06. COMMUNICATIONS a) Council Meeting Minutes — July 19, 2010 b) Council Study Session Meeting Minutes — July 26, 2010 c) Council Meeting Minutes —August 2, 2010 7. MISCELLANEOUS a) Update on Thor Thompson Park Administrator advised bids have been awarded for the drainage, grading, fence and sodding components of the project. The concrete and equipment contracts are expected to be awarded at the next Council meeting. Drainage contractor has started work and the grading will begin the week of August 16tn b) Hughes inquired about installing a "practice board" at the tennis court and checking the condition of the surface. Administrator will review the situation. c) Mason made reference to the NAPA sign and whether the discussion was about using the existing sign or installing a new one. Recollection was varied, but the consensus among the members was that NAPA represented that a new sign would be installed. (A review of the June 9, 2010 minutes clearly states that a new sign would be installed) 8. ADJOURNMENT — 9.45. Ericson/Erickson. Planning Commission Minutes — August 11, 2010 3 CITY OF SPRING PARK SPRING PARK, MINNESOTA • AGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION September 8 , 2010 7:00 P.M. - CITY HALL 1. CALL TO ORDER Pledge of Allegiance 2. ROLL CALL 3. ADOPT AGENDA 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES —August 11, 2010 5. PLANNING COMMISSION a) Public Hearing — Rezoning — Pres Homes, et al Action: Recommend Approval; Deny i. NAC Memo ii. Ordinance Amending Zoning Map b) Amendments to the Sign Ordinance — Discussion and Recommendations (continued) Action: Complete Discussion; • Set date for public hearing c) Discussion Item 1. Capital Improvement Plan for 2011-2020 Action: Final review; Forward to City Council f) Future Items Fences Commercial Storage Expansion of Non-conforming Uses 6. COMMUNICATIONS a) Council Meeting Minutes - August 16, 2010 b) Council Study Session Meeting Minutes —August 23, 2010 7. MISCELLANEOUS a) Update on Thor Thompson Park • 8. ADJOURNMENT Planning Commission Agenda — September 8, 2010 1 CITY OF SPRING PARK SPRING PARK, MINNESOTA AGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION • September 8, 2010 7:00 P.M. - CITY HALL 1. CALL TO ORDER — Chair Hughes called the meeting to order at 7 p.m. Pledge of Allegiance 2. ROLL CALL — Ericson, Neve, Erickson, Hughes, Hoffman, Mason, Council Rep Widmer, Administrator Brimeyer, Clerk Lewin, Struck Absent. Planner Brixius absent. 3. ADOPT AGENDA— Erickson makes a motion and Mason seconds to adopt the agenda. All votes ayes, motion carries. 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES —August 11, 2010 — Ericson makes a motion and Hoffman seconds to approve the minutes. All votes ayes, motion carries. 5. PLANNING COMMISSION a) Public Hearing — Rezoning — Pres Homes, et al i. NAC Memo ii. Ordinance Amending Zoning Map Mason makes a motion and Hoffman seconds to open the public hearing at 7:06 p.m. Hughes reads the notice out loud. Brimeyer said the city received one letter from Pamela Belz of Senior Housing Partners to be entered into the record. He said they support the proposed rezoning of the property. • Don Sorenson, 4429 Lafayette Lane, representing his mother and wants to protect her vacant lot on the north side in order to be able to build a garage. Brimeyer said this rezoning does not affect this. He said the question that could come up is can a garage be put on a separate lot that doesn't have a principal dwelling. Hoffman states they could combine the lots into one PID and then they could build a garage. Brimeyer said there is a letter dated August, 1992, in the file. It is suggested this letter be reviewed by the city attorney for clarification and maybe recorded with the title. Hughes said there are three items. Presbyterian Homes is one entity and then he wants to look at the two lots affected. He wants to split those so the recommendation to the council is clear. Hughes questions the reference to the comprehensive plan and where this fits it. Hoffman makes a motion to approve the rezoning for all the properties for Presbyterian Homes. Hoffman withdraws the motion because the public hearing is still open. Erickson said these properties jut right into the Presbyterian Homes property. Sorenson said there used to be a garage on his mother's property but it was removed. Hoffman makes a motion to to close the public hearing. Mason seconds. Erickson's biggest concern for the Sorenson's is they should be allowed to use their property the way it was promised. Brimeyer said they should sit down and figure this out and get it memorialized. Ericson makes a motion to rezone from R-2 to R-1, Erickson seconds. All votes ayes, motion carries on roll call. Regarding the R-3 to R-1, Brimeyer explained this property is a retention basin but it's not pertinent to this rezoning. Mason makes a motion and Hoffman seconds to approve. All votes ayes, motion carries. Regarding Presbyterian Homes, Brimeyer said they (Pres Homes) is fine with this and the street has been • vacated. Hoffman makes a motion to approve the rezoning for PH for all the property ID's listed on Exhibit C. Mason seconds. All votes ayes, motion carries. Planning Commission Minutes — September 8, 2010 1 b) Amendments to the Sign Ordinance — Discussion and Recommendations (continued) Brimeyer said due to the absence of the planner, the date could be set for the public hearing but he's not prepared to walk through this as there were changes made. Ericson makes a motion and Mason seconds to set the date for the public hearing for October 13 at 8 p.m. All votes ayes, motion carries. Brimeyer said any further discussion on the changes will take place at 7 p.m. c) Discussion Item 1. Capital Improvement Plan for 2011-2020 Brimeyer said going to the council is street light replacement. He said this has been moved to a higher priority due to a street light that fell into Shoreline Drive two days ago due to the high winds. Brimeyer said when The Mist was approved they made them put in more decorative lighting and it might be an idea for Shoreline Drive. Ericson said the bases can be redone and it should be part of the costing research. Brimeyer said that's the only item on the CIP that might be moved up. Brimeyer said it's necessary that the Planning Commission review the CIP. Hughes said the commissioners don't have the latest version of the budget. Brimeyer said they do have the latest version of the CIP which is dated 8-15. f) Future Items — Hughes requests that at one of the council work sessions it be decided what the commissioners need to know where the council is coming from and what they are looking for. Fences Commercial Storage Expansion of Non-conforming Uses 6. COMMUNICATIONS • a) Council Meeting Minutes - August 16, 2010 b) Council Study Session Meeting Minutes —August 23, 2010 7. MISCELLANEOUS a) Update on Thor Thompson Park Brimeyer said this was going well until it started to rain. He said a lot of things have been accomplished according to plan including ag-lime, rough grading, top soil grading. Now there is a problem discovered with one of the dugout footings being placed on top of a storm sewer. Brimeyer said everything is hinged on the weather and he's concerned about the sod taking root. Hoffman asked about the open ditch and Brimeyer said it's been filled. He said it's working very well. The trouble is the final grading isn't finished so there are puddles and it doesn't look like it's draining but it will. Brimeyer said the irrigation person needs three days but he has to be able to get in and work. Hughes said at the council meeting last night included in the proposed budget there is new equipment budgeted and miscellaneous dollars. Hughes said he thinks as they go forth and look at the park, what other things can be fixed, improved and replaced as there is money to do it. Hughes said Goman is getting prices on practice boards for the tennis courts. Hughes would like to use these dollars instead of having it be overflow fund for budget items. Brimeyer said some suggestions could be brought to the PC for the next meeting for things to get done for budget purposes. Hughes said with the new park, there could be some improvements made. Ericson asked about the ongoing discussion with Three Rivers parking. Brimeyer said he met with them and now the Watershed District has been approached for putting in pervious pavers for the parking pad. • The Watershed came back with taking out the existing parking area and making application to a Cynthia Krieg Foundation. The thought is to take out the parking lot, put in pervious pavers and, at the same time, Planning Commission Minutes — September 8, 2010 2 filter the run-off, direct it and perhaps a flower garden on the hill and tie it to a rain garden and ravine. Brimeyer said this project has been moved from this fall to next spring and plans are being put together. Brimeyer told them the city doesn't want to pay for this. Widmer asked about the runoff into the lake being filtered. She wondered about the ditch that runs by Lord Fletcher's Apartments. Brimeyer said this isn't part of this proposal. Hughes likes the idea of pervious paver blocks but not pervious asphalt pavement. Hughes asked about the resolution and ordinance establishing an administrative fine put before them. Brimeyer said the council wanted the commissioners' thoughts. Brimeyer said it's been tabled to the study session. Hughes encourages the commissioners to review this and get the feedback to the council. Mason asked about an update for Presbyterian Homes. Brimeyer said public utilities were done about three weeks ago. The foundations are in and the block is going in for the Town Center. He said there's a water line that services the remaining apartment building and the private residence and that is going to be routed. He said they are about a week to ten days behind. A different utility foreman had to be found and the rain has set them back. Ericson asks about progress with Certified Auto and the fire. Brimeyer explained a couple of the bays need to be removed. Brimeyer said Pleghaar came to the city and asked for permission to have a dynamic sign for a couple of days over the Labor Day weekend. He said permission was granted with the assurance that the sign would be gone and, it was removed. Erickson asked if the holding pond on Lafayette was cleaned out and he wondered whose expense that was. Brimeyer said it was the city's expense because it's owned by the city. Brimeyer said the pond was put in around 1987 and, at the time, the developer Ortenblat was to give the city and easement and it never happened. When it rained heavy in July the water draining into Lake Minnetonka was brown and the neighbor called the city. Brimeyer said the pond was investigated and the silt was filled to the top of the pond. Brimeyer said he spoke to Rockvam about this easement. It was decided it should have occurred around the time Ortenblat passed away. An easement was recently requested from Presbyterian Homes for an easement for this property and they agreed. It's been acquired by adverse condemnation. The city doesn't own the land but they own the pond and have the right to clean out the pond when necessary. Brimeyer said the city has a volunteer appreciation dinner and a date needs to be decided. September 30th looks like the most favorable date. 8. ADJOURNMENT Hoffman makes a motion and Mason seconds to adjourn at 8:15 p.m. All votes ayes, motion carries. Wendy Lewin, City Clerk Jim Brimeyer, Administrator • Planning Commission Minutes — September 8, 2010 3 • CITY OF SPRING PARK SPRING PARK, MINNESOTA AGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION October 13 , 2010 7:00 P.M. - CITY HALL 1 . CALL TO ORDER Pledge of Allegiance 2. ROLL CALL 3. ADOPT AGENDA 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — September 8, 2010 5. PLANNING COMMISSION a) Review of Sign Ordinance Changes Action: Discuss amendments b) Public Hearing — Sign Ordinance - 8:00 PM Action: Recommend to City Council i. NAC Memo and Ordinance • of August 4, 2010 ii. NAC Memo and Sign Ordinance of October 5, 2010. c) Site and Building Plan Review Certified Auto Action: Review/Change; Recommend Approval/Denial to Council d) Discussion Item 1. Capital Improvement Plan for 2011-2020 Action: Final Review; a) Park Improvements Forward to City Council b) Street Improvements c) Other improvements e) Future Items Fences Commercial Storage Setbacks Expansion of Non-conforming Uses • Planning Commission Agenda — October 13, 2010 1 0 6. COMMUNICATIONS a) Council Meeting Minutes — September 7, 2010, b) Council Meeting Minutes — September 20, 2010 c) Council Study Session Meeting Minutes — September 27, 2010 d) Council Meeting Minutes — October 4, 2010 7. MISCELLANEOUS a) Update on Thor Thompson Park 8. ADJOURNMENT • • Planning Commission Agenda — October 13, 2010 2 CITY OF SPRING PARK SPRING PARK, MINNESOTA MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION • October 13 , 2010 7:00 P.M. - CITY HALL 1. CALL TO ORDER — Chair Hughes called the meeting to order at 7 p.m. Pledge of Allegiance 2. ROLL CALL — John Ericson, Steve Erickson, Hoffman, Mason, Hughes, Struck, Neve 3. ADOPT AGENDA 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — September 8, 2010 — Ericson makes a motion and Hoffman seconds to approve the minutes. All votes ayes, motion carries. 5. PLANNING COMMISSION a) Review of Sign Ordinance Changes Action: Discuss amendments b) Public Hearing — Sign Ordinance - 8:00 PM Action: Recommend to City Council i. NAC Memo and Ordinance of August 4, 2010 ii. NAC Memo and Sign Ordinance of October 5, 2010. • Mason makes a motion to open the public hearing at 8.03 p.m. and Hoffman seconds. Hughes reads the public hearing notice out loud. Hughes asked Lewin if anything had been received in writing to enter into the record. Planner Brixius presents an overview of the proposed ordinance. Gillespie of 4636 Shoreline Drive asked how this is different now than from before. She asked if the sign ordinance changes, will existing signs that were legally established still remain. Brixius said the sign ordinance has been more liberalized versus more restrictive. There was discussion regarding freestanding signs being limited to 100 square feet of area per face and perhaps there could be flexibility if there are multiple occupancy buildings. Neve said he thinks multiple signs are cluttered and Mason agrees that the goal should be to clean it up. Ericson thinks this could be handled on a case-by-case basis. Under 10-176, enforcement and Penalty, Hughes doesn't like the word "nuisance." Under 10-134 Brixius said he will firm up the language for the districts. Gillespie said when there is no documentation about signs and she doesn't understand how this will be allowed. Gillespie asked how this interest is being disseminated to the businesses and Brimeyer said once the ordinance is adopted points of emphasis could be sent to the businesses. Brixius said a summary ordinance could be published and it could be put on the city's website. Erickson makes a motion and Ericson seconds to close the public hearing at 8:07 p.m. Brimeyer asked if the commission is ready to recommend this to the council or is there more study needed. Struck thinks the window signage needs to be revisited. Hughes agrees. Struck said she is concerned that the straw vote for window signage stands as a formal recommendation. Brixius said if the commission permits, he can take the language out and write a memo referencing the discussion and concern • about window signs. Struck feels there has been a lot of work put into this but she doesn't feel it should be blown off either in order to move this along. Erickson thinks it needs more clarification too. Planning Commission Minutes — October 13, 2010 1 He said there's a difference between a small window and large windows in terms of coverage. Ericson makes a motion and Erickson seconds to forward this to the city council for their consideration and approval. Roll call vote unanimously approves. • c) Site and Building Plan Review Certified Auto Action: Review/Change; Recommend Approval/Denial to Council John Ericson said he lives behind the area being discussed and is concerned about the clutter that the building presents. Ericson said he thought the fence was put in to screen the vehicles and it's not being screened. Pfleghaar said he is restricted by insurance on what he can do. Hughes said a letter was e-mailed to the city from a resident, Mark Melby. Hughes reads the letter as part of the record. Hughes asked Pfleghaar when he expects the project to be finished and Pfleghaar said he can't answer that question. Hughes asked when the fire related items can be removed from the property. Pfleghaar said the items can't be removed because it is evidence. He's been working 16 hours per day trying to inventory the destroyed items and his insurance company will not allow him to remove it. A member from the audience questioned the insurance company saying he was in the business and this sounds odd. Phil Tulbane asked Brixius about a height requirement or limit for a building on Shoreline Drive and whether the proposed structure is compliant. Brixius said yes, it is within the height restrictions of 40 feet for the district. Gene Miller, 4760 West Arm Road is concerned about the ongoing clutter and he wonders what can be done to enforce compliance with maintaining the property. Brixius said the process being addressed tonight of a building and site plan review is new and it goes through the PC and the council. Brixius said if violations are found, administrative fines can be levied. Brimeyer said the ultimate enforcement tool is the certificate of occupancy so the requirements need to be followed. • Mason asked about parking stalls and who they are for. Pfleghaar said the parking requirements according to ordinance have been complied with. Mason asked if there would be boat storage. Pfleghaar said he'd like to keep that option open. Mason asked about the Railroad property and wondered how close it gets. Pfleghaar said anywhere from 13 feet to 40 feet. Erickson said the current plan for the upper floor is for storage and he wonders about rental of office space. Pfleghaar said no, he won't be renting space. Erickson also asked if the building is required to be sprinkled. Pfleghaar said it isn't required because it's under a certain square footage but certain building materials will have to be part of the construction. Ericson asked when this would start if approval would be granted. Pfleghaar said it's dependent on the weather so he doesn't know. Neve asked if the insurance company has give their approval. Pfleghaar said yes. He said the building is not an issue but the contents are. Mason asked about a survey. Pfleghaar said they'd be working off a 2006 survey. Hughes said he likes the added architectural elements being proposed but he would look for color chips. Pfleghaar said he has no preference to color. Hoffman said there is nothing in an ordinance saying what color a building has to be painted and he doesn't want to waste any more time on this. Hoffman said government doesn't need to be interfering with something as insignificant as a color choice. Neve said there are material standards and there might be some requirements to present to the council in that regard. Brixius said the color suggestion was to make it look a little more uniform. Ericson asked if the neighborhood in attendance has any more questions. Ericson thinks a timeline should be put on the completion of this reconstruction. He said there has been some mention of lack • of funds in order to finish certain things and Ericson thinks this is a concern that some of these finishing items may not be completed without a timeline in place. Brixius said he agrees and he Planning Commission Minutes — October 13, 2010 2 thinks a number should be added stating a temporary CO can be issued when building requirements are met but there should be an end date for the completion of the building. A two year timeline is suggested for total completion. Hughes said he likes an end date for the new things. He said having lived through a fire there might be an undue hardship presented. Pfleghaar said he doesn't think this • will go much longer because he needs to get this finished in order to get insurance compensation. Neve asked Pfleghaar when the blacktop could be completed and Pfleghaar said probably not for three years. Ericson makes a motion for one year for completion to a CO. Brimeyer said it can't happen because of the weather and the growing season for the landscaping items. Motion dies due to lack of a second. Ericson said he thinks 15 months then is more than adequate. Neve asked Brixius what the completion date is allowed for commercial projects. Brixius said he's not certain but he thinks it might be 18 months. Hughes said they'd be making a recommendation to the council so they are looking for a reasonable timeline. Ericson said they want to give Pfleghaar a generous timeline but Neve said it's important to set guidelines for any others that come forward. Hoffman makes a motion to approve the site building and plan as presented with the addition of item 12 that the project be completed in 18 months for issuance of the CO. Struck seconds. Neve asked Brixius if it's 18 months for a commercial permit. Brixius said the statute was recently amended and he thinks 18 months is the minimum. Brimeyer said this could be researched before it goes to council and the correct limitation could be inserted in the motion. Brixius said he's pretty confident to establish end dates on projects and he thinks the minimum is 18 months. All votes ayes, motion carries. Pfleghaar said he apologizes for being stressed out because he's been working 18 hour days in order to recover from this fire. d) Discussion Item 1. Capital Improvement Plan for 2011-2020 Action: Final Review; ia) Park Improvements - Forward to City Council Brimeyer said there was some previous discussion on park improvement projects that the council would consider and perhaps some street projects in the next couple of years. Brimeyer said there is something in 2012 for Wilkes Park to upgrade the play equipment. Mason asked about a proposed rain garden at Thor Thompson Park. Brimeyer said there isn't one, the area that is still bare needs to be seeded. b) Street Improvements — Hughes said there are two reasons to do a street; either the residents ask for it or the infrastructure is in need of replacement. Struck asked about street costs and does it include taking up the road and replacing items and Brimeyer said yes, they would replace the infrastructure at the same time. c) Other improvements Hughes makes a motion that the PC is conceptually in concurrence and to move this to the council. Struck seconds. Roll call vote, all ayes, motion carries. e) Future Items Fences Commercial Storage • Setbacks Expansion of Non-conforming Uses Planning Commission Minutes — October 13, 2010 3 6. COMMUNICATIONS a) Council Meeting Minutes — September 7, 2010, b) Council Meeting Minutes— September 20, 2010 c) Council Study Session Meeting Minutes— September 27, 2010 d) Council Meeting Minutes — October 4, 2010 7. MISCELLANEOUS a) Update on Thor Thompson Park — Brimeyer said things are going well. The sod is taking and clean-up has been done. Hughes said he will be gone for the next meeting and Hoffman will be chairing that meeting. Neve asked about the new garage being constructed on Lafayette Lane and wondered about the setback from the road. Brixius explained it was averaged with the other structures along the road and they are set back 30 feet from the road. 8. ADJOURNMENT Ericson makes a motion and Hoffman seconds to adjourn at 9:37 p.m. All votes ayes, motion carries. Wendy Lewin, City Clerk • Jim Brimeyer, Administrator • Planning Commission Minutes — October 13, 2010 4 CITY OF SPRING PARK • SPRING PARK, MINNESOTA AGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION November 10 , 2010 7:00 P.M. - CITY HALL 1 . CALL TO ORDER Pledge of Allegiance 2. ROLL CALL 3. ADOPT AGENDA 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — October 13, 2010 5. PLANNING COMMISSION a) Review of Sign Ordinance re: Window Signs Action: Discuss options b) Discussion — Meeting with City Council on November 29, 2010 • Framework for Discussion with City Council c) Future Items Fences Commercial Storage Setbacks Expansion of Non-conforming Uses Height of Accessory Structures Noise Standards Landscaping Requirements 6. COMMUNICATIONS a) Council Meeting Minutes — October 18, 2010 b) Council Study Session Meeting Minutes — October 25, 2010 c) Council Meeting Minutes — November 3, 2010 7. MISCELLANEOUS • 8. ADJOURNMENT Planning Commission Agenda — November 10, 2010 1 CITY OF SPRING PARK SPRING PARK, MINNESOTA • AGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION November 10, 2010 7:00 P.M. - CITY HALL 1. CALL TO ORDER —Vice-Chair Hoffman called the meeting to order at 7 p.m. Pledge of Allegiance 2. ROLL CALL — J Ericson, Neve, S Erickson, Hoffman, Mason, Struck, Council Rep Widmer, Administrator Brimeyer, Office Assistant Farniok, Hughes absent 3. ADOPT AGENDA — Hoffman makes a motion and J Ericson seconds to adopt the agenda. All votes ayes, motion carries. 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — October 13, 2010 —J Ericson makes a motion and Neve seconds to approve the minutes. All votes ayes, motion carries. Struck questions that if she agrees to adopt the minutes, does that mean she agrees with everything in the minutes and the correctness of the minutes. Hoffman replies that approval indicates that the minutes are an accurate reflection of what happened at the meeting. 5. PLANNING COMMISSION a. Review of Sign Ordinance and Window Signs. • Hoffman prefers to discuss this item when Chair Hughes is able to be present. S Erickson suggested having a maximum of a certain size window before signs would be allowed. Brimeyer will survey other cities to see what is common practice. Brimeyer also raised the question if there is a problem with window signs. Suggested that a survey of businesses might be done to get their feelings on this issue. b. Discussion with City Council at the November 29th Study Session on the following suggested topics: Fences Commercial Storage Setbacks Expansion of non-conforming uses Height of accessory structures Noise standards Landscape requirements Using the following framework - What is the problem? - Describe the problem - Are we the ones that should be addressing it? Planning Commission Minutes — November 10, 2010 1 If so and we did something, what would be the desired end result? • What are some of the positive impacts on the community? - What are some of the negative impacts?And, who is most affected? What are some strategies to consider for implementation? Who would be responsible to implement the strategies? 6. COMMUNICATIONS a) Council Meeting Minutes — October 18, 2010 b) Council Study Session Meeting Minutes — October 25 2010 Struck raises some questions on traffic speeds on Northern Ave. Brimeyer advised the police have monitored the situation on over a dozen locations and have not issued any speeding violations. Brimeyer advised the city can petition the Commissioner of Public Safety to reduce speed limits, but that request would not likely be successful unless the request applied to all the streets in the city. One option to consider is temporary speed bumps, but not in the winter season. The issue of parking at Thor Thompson was discussed. Users can use the parking lot across the street and the parking lot at the tennis courts. • c) Council Meeting Minutes — November 3, 2010 7. MISCELLANEOUS Brimeyer shared some proposals for replacing the entrance signs in the city. The first that needs replacing is the sign at the west entrance to the city. Funding for the project could come from the General fund under beautification projects or the PIR fund. J Ericson indicates he will be absent Jan, Feb and March of 2011. Mason asked that the terms of office for the Commission members be made available for the November 29th Study Session. Brimeyer advised the Commission that the city has completed a complete inventory of all the trees in the city and this information will be useful in assessing the plan to deal with Emerald Ash Borer. 8. ADJOURNMENT Hoffman makes a motion and Mason seconds to adjourn at 7:40p.m. All votes ayes, motion carries. • Planning Commission Minutes — November 10, 2010 2 Wendy Lewin, City Clerk Jim Brimeyer, Administrator Planning Commission Minutes — November 10, 2010 3 CITY OF SPRING PARK • SPRING PARK, MINNESOTA AGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION December 8 , 2010 7:00 P.M. - CITY HALL 1. CALL TO ORDER Pledge of Allegiance 2. ROLL CALL 3. ADOPT AGENDA 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — November 10, 2010 5. PLANNING COMMISSION a) Application for Sign Permit — Advantage Boat Club — 4148 Shoreline Drive Action — Approve/Deny • b) Application for Sign Permit — Renovocom — 4290 Shoreline Drive Action — Approve/Deny c) Review of Sign Ordinance re: Window Signs See attached summary Action: Discuss options �) Future Items — See attached summary Non-Conforming Uses Setbacks Fences Outdoor Storage Height of Accessory Structures Noise Standards Landscape Requirements • Planning Commission Agenda — December 8, 2010 1 �. COMMUNICATIONS a) Council Meeting Minutes — November 15, 2010 b) Council Study Session Meeting Minutes — November 29, 2010 7. MISCELLANEOUS a) Election of Officers — January, 2011 8. ADJOURNMENT Planning Commission Agenda — December 8, 2010 2 CITY OF SPRING PARK SPRING PARK, MINNESOTA MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION December 8 , 2010 7:00 P.M. - CITY HALL 1 . CALL TO ORDER — Chair Hughes calls the meeting to order at 7 p.m. Pledge of Allegiance 2. ROLL CALL — Hughes, Neve, Hoffman, Mason. Ericson gone until March. Struck and Erickson sent e-mails stating they were unable to make the meeting. 3. ADOPT AGENDA — Hoffman makes a motion and Neve seconds to adopt the agend. All votes ayes, motion carries. 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — November 10, 2010 — Neve makes a motion and Mason seconds to approve the minutes. All votes ayes, motion carries. 5. PLANNING COMMISSION a) Application for Sign Permit — Advantage Boat Club — 4148 Shoreline Drive Hughes asked which address they are going to use. Kienzle said he's renting the space next to the Katie Lein Dance Studio. He said the sign might not go up until spring and he also might relocate to the west end of the building. Brimeyer wondered if he should delay the sign application. Kienzle said the sign install is due to the cold temperatures. Kienzle said he's also leased space at the Yacht Club because they are going to be renting two boat slips from them. He explained upon reservation of the boat, clients will go to the Yacht Club to get access to the boat however the boats will be stored in the Tonka Ventures building. Mason asked how many boats they have and Kienzle said five, so far. Hoffman makes a motion to approve the sign permit for Advantage Boat Club. Neve seconds. The approval is with the understanding it won't go up until spring. All votes ayes, motion passes. Action — Approve/Deny b) Application for Sign Permit — Renovocom — 4290 Shoreline Drive Applicant explained that they buy and sell computer equipment. He said they break them down and part them out and what they can't use or sell, they recycle. Mason asked if they take computers. The applicant said they can and part of their program is education about electronics ending up as landfill waste. Mason asked how many employees and applicant said they have six. Neve asked if they are local and applicant said he lives local but they have several other sites. Hughes makes a motion to approve and Neve seconds. All votes ayes on roll call. Motion passes. Action — Approve/Deny c) Review of Sign Ordinance re: Window Signs See attached summary ason asked if Brimeyer has spoken to anyone about window signs. Brimeyer said there's a cluster n the western edge of town but other than that, there aren't a lot of them. He said Certified Auto is looking for brand advertising and he's been told to present a sign plan. Hughes said this is his last meeting for the Planning Commission. He said he doesn't see any rush on this but product Planning Commission Minutes — December 8, 2010 1 advertising probably should be addressed if the ordinance doesn't allow it. Hoffman said once again it's an enforcement issue. He said he's observed some dynamic signs even hanging in windows (in other cities). Hoffman makes a motion to table this until January or February. Hughes seconds the motion but adds until the PC is a full roster. Hoffman accepts the amendment to the motion. Mason said Ericson is gone until spring so it could be a while. All votes ayes, motion carries. Action: Discuss options d) Future Items — See attached summary Brimeyer synopsized what was discussed at the joint meeting about the following items. Non-Conforming Uses Setbacks Fences Outdoor Storage — Brimeyer added this is very close to being done. Hughes thinks commercial and residential needs to be defined. Height of Accessory Structures Noise Standards Landscape Requirements 6. COMMUNICATIONS a) Council Meeting Minutes — November 15, 2010 b) Council Study Session Meeting Minutes — November 29, 2010 7. MISCELLANEOUS — Mason said the City of Orono has a resident that is interested in alternative energy, particularly wind energy. Mason thinks it might be something to look at for the future. a) Election of Officers — January, 2011 Hughes said the process has been fairly loose. He said it goes more on who is interested. Hughes said as the chair person he always asked for the agenda early so he could review it. He said many times there were changes made to the agenda. He also added the chairperson of the PC would sit in on the interviews for the PC. He said on occasion, if there's a big packet, the chair should probably review the packet ahead of time. 8. ADJOURNMENT - Hoffman makes a motion and Neve seconds to adjourn at 7:45 p.m. All votes ayes, motion carries. Wendy Lewin, City Clerk Jim Brimeyer, Administrator Planning Commission Minutes — December 8, 2010 2